DXO: m4/3 vs. FF -- we have it good!

Started Sep 4, 2019 | Discussions thread
Marty4650 Forum Pro • Posts: 15,683
Re: Amen, and +1000

Doug Janis wrote:

Marty4650 wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

Making a big body at similar prices is not the way to go for m43rds.

Ricardo, I think your statement is 100% true. When M4/3 "goes big" it cancels out all of the advantages of having a small sensor and still cannot match the performance of a much larger sensor. It pretty much is a fool's errand.

There is no doubt that bigger sensors are "better." This is simple physics.

The real questions become:

  • How much better?
  • Do I need it?
  • What will it cost to get it?

I'm pretty certain that some folks want a big M4/3 camera, so I am glad Olympus and Panasonic make a few big heavy beasts. These are probably people with very large hands, or people who want to use very large lenses, or who are so heavily invested in the system that they will pay a huge premium for ANY improvement, no matter how slight. But it would be a huge blunder if all M4/3 cameras were big heavy beasts.

As long as there are people who want things like smaller size, lower weight, better value, great features, and having an outstanding lens selection, then M4/3 will have a customer base.

If M4/3 goes big, heavy and expensive, then it really has no good reason to exist.

Other systems just do big, heavy and expensive better.

History agrees.

43 Olympus DSLRs were wiped from the market by APS-C/H and eventually FF.

Olympus tried to "pro" their 43 offerings, charged high prices, made excellent glass, focused on "wildlife" shooters, weather sealed the bodies, made bodies bigger for all-around ergonomics....and got crushed.

I agree. Clearly, M4/3 has no advantage when their cameras and lenses cost as much and are just as big and heavy as APSC and FF systems that perform better. Even if that performance is just slightly better, why would ANYONE spend more to get less?

12 years ago, as the digital photography phenomenon was taking off for good, Olympus was a financial basket case as a result of trying to upscale and upset their small sensor.

Here I disagree. 12 years ago Olympus was NOT a financial basket case.  In 2007 Olympus made more profits than they did in the fiscal year ending 3/31/2019.

If you meant to say "8 years ago" in 2011 when Olympus had their financial scandal, then please be aware that their problems had absolutely nothing to do with cameras, lenses, or the four thirds sensor. All their financial problems were the direct result of bad investments and the CEO and Board trying to cover them up.

In fact, Olympus hasn't been a "camera company" for quite some time now. Back in 2004, Imaging represented 48% of their revenue. Not a majority, but still a very big piece. Last year, their income from imaging was down to 6.1% of total revenue.

This means that results in this division, no matter how good or how bad, cannot have a huge impact on the corporation. They get diluted by the other 93.9% of their activity.

There "micro" part of m43 was what saved the company. The EM1.2/EM1X, "pro" 1.2 primes larger and costlier than FF mirrorless 1.8 primes, are all exactly how Olympus nearly existed the camera marker a dozen years ago.

If all Olympus made were PRO lenses and the EM1X, then you would be correct.  But fortunately they still make other products that can take full advantage of a smaller sensor.

I agree, that "going big, heavy and expensive" is a formula for failure. Hopefully, this will simply be a portion of their product portfolio and not their entire product portfolio.

Same. Failed. Strategy.

 Marty4650's gear list:Marty4650's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +16 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow