Why m4/3rds is declining in the US.

Started Apr 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
bosjohn21 Forum Pro • Posts: 20,073
Re: Why m4/3rds is declining in the US.

igoriginal wrote:

One thing that seems to have been missed in this discussion is the highly useful flexibility of full-time live view (not just "locking up the mirror" on a traditional mirror-based DSLR), but as a direct image path from the lens to the sensor, full-time ... which means WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) ... through the mirrorless camera's comfortable EVF, and not fumbling to compose a 'fake" (mirror-locked-up) live-view shot on a mirror-based DSLR's lcd screen (especially in bright sunlight).

This is why the hybridization of DSLR-like capabilities of CHANGING lenses (interchangeable) melded with a highly-useful, full-time, live-view EVF system ... is essentially "the best of both worlds", so to speak.

This, of course, is not to say that the micro 4/3 system is the ONLY [exclusive] sensor format that will ever make use of a full-time, EVF-based, mirrorless live-view ... as we can now see that many other sensor formats are now seeing a push to the "mirrorless movement", which is the next evolution in digital, and will eventually phase out the mirror altogether, going the way of the dinosaur ... as EVF's become so sharp, that a mirrorless system is superior to a mirrored imaging system in every single way).

However, we can't deny that the micro 4/3 system (pioneered by Olympus and Panasonic) was responsible for SPARKING the mirrorless movement of the interchangeable lens camera.

I agree that declining sales in micro 4/3, versus traditional Canon / Nikon systems systems is not necessarily reflective of a "smart consumer", as many consumers look for price first.

But, all too well, we know that old adage: "You get what you pay for." And traditional, mirror-based systems are simply cheaper to make, versus a sophisticated, full-time live-view EVF system (all other technologies remaining equal).

So, if there IS a true decline in micro 4/3 systems, it is only because many consumers do not truly grasp the ADVANTAGES of a mirrorless, live-view system, over a traditional, swinging mirror-based system.

Truly, we can't say that the decline is based on sensor size, since these same under-educated (in photography) consumers also probably buy up crappy Point & Shoots, too.

I can't tell you how many people I personally know (not enthusiast photographers), that have told me: "I bought an interchangeable lens system, because it looks cool, and makes me look like a pro."
So, naturally, when under-educated consumers want to look cool with interchangeable lenses (a step up from Point & Shoots), their logic is to choose the CHEAPEST interchangeable lens system ... and that, of course, would be a MIRROR-based system over a MIRROR-LESS system ... the lack of knowledge of the advantages of the latter, be damned.

But, in another 5 years or so, this will probably all be moot ... as I see nearly ALL (of not most) of the sensor formats (yes, even APS-C and FF sensor formats) all pushing for mirrorless systems.

In any regard, kiss the swinging mirror box goodbye (regardless of sensor format). It's an antiquated and clumsy system, and it is time to give it the proper and overdue burial it deserves.

the only real advantage of mirrorless at this point in time that matters significantly is mirrorless is much cheaper to manufacture. The camera companies will be very happy to ween us away from optical mirror box cameras. I dont know the exact figure but I would speculate that the mirrorless elctronic finder cost about a third to manufacuter as the mirror and pentiprism finder

-- hide signature --

John aka bosjohn21

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
MOD Biggs23
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow