You must have some insider info? How else would you know the full-frame is being financed with the m4/3 funds? What if it is financed with pro-video funds?
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
I think a Panasonic FF makes perfect sense... not the death of m43!
- Thread starter Kevin Barrett
- Start date
Yannis1976
Veteran Member
Many times in modern marketing Pricing has nothing to do with actual cost of product. It is much more connected to the value perceived by the consumer. A bright example is the Apple iphone which costs tens of $ to manufacture but has a price of 100 of $...High-class watches are mostly priced based on the movement with things like gold and diamonds obviously extra.
We can safely assume a GH5S isn't made of gold. And its movement, i.e. its sensor, is an inferior one to the FF guys'. So, using the watch pricing strategy, it should be much cheaper.
The difference in the pricing of 1 kg of coarse, crappy wool vs the nicest vicuna is enormous. Again, m43 suffers; vicuna it ain't. Different metrics, same result.
keepfocused
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 350
- Reaction score
- 134
I have an 8 year old laptop which has been great for what I do (little limiting now) I beefed it up as much as I could but there would have been little point if I knew I never really needed it (would be far cheaper too). If oly have squeezed what they can from the CPU's that's great, sounds good too having dual quad core it bought me in ;-)
Kent Ekasak
Leading Member
- Messages
- 819
- Reaction score
- 990
FF with m43 adapter will be very useful especially with telephoto lens like 35-100 or 50-200 or 100-400.. Nothing really compare from other systems..
.
Some People may forget that Panny's last 2 lens are all telephoto, perhaps 2 of the most difficult lens to make, and one of which, as per Panny engineer, is their best lens ever made.. And they just launched last than 12 months ago, so notion that Panny suddenly abandon m43 seems non-sense to me..
.
Rather, I am certain they have plan at least 2-3 year ahead with clear roadmap of what to do, and the lens/FF launching sequence is part of the plan.. Note that they bidded millions to be official Tokyo Olympic sponsorship, so less-than-perfect or less-competitive products are very embrassing, especially in Asian culture..
.
Some People may forget that Panny's last 2 lens are all telephoto, perhaps 2 of the most difficult lens to make, and one of which, as per Panny engineer, is their best lens ever made.. And they just launched last than 12 months ago, so notion that Panny suddenly abandon m43 seems non-sense to me..
.
Rather, I am certain they have plan at least 2-3 year ahead with clear roadmap of what to do, and the lens/FF launching sequence is part of the plan.. Note that they bidded millions to be official Tokyo Olympic sponsorship, so less-than-perfect or less-competitive products are very embrassing, especially in Asian culture..
I agree, its good to have FF and m43 for Panasonic (and Olympus too). They need to do this for the coming mirrorless competition. Mft could be what apsc is for canon and nikon. It will give them a bigger market penetration. However they should not ignore the current mft user and both Panasonic and Olympus should be clear on the strategy for the coming period. You can see how much unrest it gives in this forum. If they wait to long people will walk. Too much shouting that mft is dead and it will be dead. The value of our gear just took a big drop. But lets all remember that it still takes pictures and you can still have fun with it tomorrow. Lets see what it is first before we jump to conclusions.
Greetings and have a nice weekend with great light
Bhima78
Senior Member
Honestly, the only things Oly and Panny could do for m43's that would have any real impact on us, the customers of those products is;
1) More accurate AF
2) Better sensor
The Oly EM1ii and the Panny G9/GH5 are just about as good as it gets with this mount. Panny could easily focus on FF while trickling any new sensor tech and AF tech from that venture into its m43's gear.
We are really not left wanting for lenses at this point. I'd like to see Oly make a Canon 100-400mm F4-5.6 equivalent zoom at some point, but really, we have so many options. MUCH more options than any other APS-C mount--even Fuji which actually has a good line up.
1) More accurate AF
2) Better sensor
The Oly EM1ii and the Panny G9/GH5 are just about as good as it gets with this mount. Panny could easily focus on FF while trickling any new sensor tech and AF tech from that venture into its m43's gear.
We are really not left wanting for lenses at this point. I'd like to see Oly make a Canon 100-400mm F4-5.6 equivalent zoom at some point, but really, we have so many options. MUCH more options than any other APS-C mount--even Fuji which actually has a good line up.
Virginia, in the USA. You?
I'm not clown. I am an Electrical Engineer actually.
The Panny FF is going to take up resources that would have otherwise been used on m43. Who knows about Oly, but a similar thing could be taking place.
The history of photography is littered with formats that didn't make it. Really in the last 50 years or so it has been almost entirely 35mm format with APSC managing to stay alive in the digital age because initially the sensors were significantly cheaper to manufacture than FF. 43 came later and in SLRs it basically failed, but has managed to make a nice place for itself in the mirrorless world, where initially it had no competitors. Competition has increased dramatically lately to the point where one (maybe two?) of the founders has chosen to expand beyond the format.
In the digital Age we already have seen the 1" format go by the wayside for ILCs. To think it cannot happen to m43 or others is silly. We may have m43 cameras 10 years from now. I wouldn't be terribly surprised, but the future of the format does not look as good as it did a few years ago or even a few weeks ago.
--
Jonathan
Last edited:
Trevor Carpenter
Forum Pro
So what about all those people who bought m4/3 for the compactness and lightweight system rather than the high ISO?
I use my cameras at base ISO 99% of the time and I have no intention of ever being swayed by ISO 12500 or whatever. I am very conscious of the size and weight (which is why I love the 35-100 pancake for example and have no interest in the high end m4/3 lenses).
There is nothing wrong with 35mm format or the larger full frame + formats but they are not ever going to provide telezooms that are 2 inches long and weight 200g are they?
--Thank God for wise people in Panasonic management team. Unlike the hardcore M43 fanboys (fighting against the FF reality), its refreshing seeing a company management proving its own fanboys wrong.
Going FF address the Fundamental Issues against M43:
A fullframe Panasonic would have effectively have low to Weakness:
- Poor High ISO Still
- Poor High ISO Video
- Lack of Bokeh Control
Unlike still photography, you can't rely on
- Panasonic already have IBIS
- Panasonic already have good AF
- Panasonic already have the best 4K Video without overheating
- Panasonic already have good battery life (FF might shorten it somewhat)
FLASHwhen shooting continuous stream of video. If lighting is POOR, then you will just have to take the noisy video or upgrade to a Sony A7(S) for lowlight shooting.
I've seen many of my Ex-Panasonic Gh2/Gh4 friends forcing to upgrade to Sony for its lowlight filming superiority. They hate sony, they hate sony menu, they hate sony contro, but you can't deny the superiority of Sony lowlight video.
A FF Panasonic would address this major weakness. Bravo Panasonic for recognizing the need to stay competitive. Now Panasonic can charge beyond $2000 without making excuses for it IQ problem with smaller sensor anymore.
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/ (old)
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)
Well our m43 gear wont just magically stop working. Just means development and new models will slow even further. It is not realistic to expect panny to fully aupport 2 formats with their modest market share.
cameron2
Senior Member
I can think of a few other things:
1) A collection of decent T&S lenses
2) Software driven features, like AI-driven multi-frame DR interpolation (it's coming)
3) More advanced focus algorithms (again, probably AI-driven)
4) Like you, I would like to see a few more lenses at the tele end of the spectrum, which is an area that m43 has some natural advantages
5) Global shutter
6) Better integration with phones/tablets/computers
7) Some significant improvements to the flash system (not just settling for a recycled one from SLRs from the 1980s)
cameron2
Senior Member
Almost all of the cameras that Canon and Nikon sell today are APSC.
The 4/3 DSLRs were 99% as big as APSC DSLRs, and their lenses were 101% as big as APSC lenses, and they were 200% the price of APCS DSLRs, and the 4/3 sensors gave up a full stop compared to APSC sensors, so of course 4/3 failed. Bigger, heavier, more expensive, worse IQ: Pick any four.
The m43 cameras are smaller, lighter, more expensive (doh!), and give up a full stop compared to APSC sensors. So at least they got two (very important) things right, and those two are important enough that lots of people have bought these cameras. (On the cost side, there are still some inexpensive m43 offerings, but I would argue that it's pretty much impossible to beat the Nikon and Canon APSC line-ups on price for consumer grade gear.)
That was one company (Nikon), making one system (Nikon 1), and they didn't bother to see it through. It was actually a good system.
Samsung gave up on APSC, and they had a good system. (Too big for me, but technically good.)
Fuji is still making APSC mirrorless, and doing well. Sony is still making APSC mirrorless, and doing well (although, being Sony, they pretty much ignore any product of theirs that isn't their latest and greatest whoozymajiggit.)
Of course it can happen to m43. But m43 is doing well, and has a reason to exist, and is (and can be) profitable. Why would manufacturers give up on a winning system?
8) Macro: 120mm, 15mm, auto bellows ... m4/3 sensor is also very good for macro, due to it's high linear resolution, so the system should support advanced macro capabilities.
Something like this, with electric contacts, would be a valuable addition to the system.
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
It captures less detail per frame, which after stopping the lens down and losing a good chunk of the information to the diffraction (on any system) is the only thing that counts. Tighter packed pixels do neither save nor bring back any of it.
Yup, once upon a time, Olympus was the king in macro photography.
--
- sergey
Last edited:
We have already established in other threads that you don't understand why higher linear resolution of the sensor is advantageous in situations where magnification is important.
jrsforums
Senior Member
expensive, small market, easily performed in post processing.
sort of interesting, but useless to many unless output it RAW/DNG. OK for point and shoot user. Either way, it needs to be transparent to user. So far, most in camera routines need a lot of work.
For the algorithms to work, they need sensors with much faster cycle and read out times...whether PDAF or CDAF. The reason DSLR AF works so well are the specialized hardware.
What do you feel is missing? ...and that will have a market until AF and low light can support them (and FF will always be ~2 stops better in low light).
Goes hand in hand with solving AF, but also needed for video and high FPS stills.
?
?
T
Tommi K1
Guest
What they need to do?
I choose one system that has multiple manufacturers for cameras as for lenses, when I can get same lenses used as on drones, on cars, on submerged vehicles, to video cameras to stills cameras to special cameras etc.
I can swap all differently without thinking that what is where and how like on other systems.
Similar threads
- User review
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum