The purpose of Micro Four Thirds in 2021 and future?

What I ♡ about M43 in 2013 is the M43 advantage were CLEAR & OBVIOUS

• $1399 Olympus EM1 enjoy fast 10fps, 5 Axis IBIS, great 1080p video for a stunning price with excellent battery that can go toe-to-toe against any Canon or Nikon FF DSLR
• $2000 Nikon d610 can only do 6fps, horrible video, horrible Live View that cannot do WYSIWYG,
• $3300 Nikon D800 can shoot @barely 4fps!

When you compare Price vs Performance vs Size vs Weight, m43 wins every round easily on 2013

• But today in 2021, Panasonic own FF S5 is just $2000 with a free FF 20~60mm kit lens. That makes FF S5 not only cheaper than the just announced Gh5II, but also managed to be physically smaller than either Gh5 or G9 body with a huge FF sensor that is 4x the size。
• Nikon excellent FF Z5 body has drop to near $1000 price tag, has excellent IBIS, great Eye Tracking, great EVF

I don't camera because it's FF. I buy camea that offer the Best Performance for Money. Like or Hate FF, you cannot deny their superior Value / Performance.

If M43 is to continue, it's Size/Weight /Prices advantage must be obvious. Panasonic Gh5ii with kit lens is far more expensive than FF S5 with kit lens and heavier. Panasonic still focused G9 is an excellent value (but) Nikoj Z5 has better EVF, better focus, better DR, superior high ISO for nearly the same price.

The FF competitor has caught up and surpass m43 in most measurement even weight / size。I wish Panasonic would go back and leverage m43 Size advance with a new GM7, and an updated G150 with IBIS, and a smaller cheaper mini~G9 to better compete against Fuji XS10 and Sony A6400.

Interceptor121 said:

however people here read it negatively because doesn’t match what they want

Click to expand...

Now that is very much a presumption and has that tone of elitism…..

BrownieVet said:

While Oly and Lumix join forces (with Kodak) in 2008,

Click to expand...

Kodak was effectively out of FT by then, having been supplanted by Panasonic as the format's sensor supplier. Sure, there was a brief comeback after the collapse of Kodak with a Kodak branded mFT camera (JK Electronics or something like that), but that didn't last so long.

gary0319 said:

bobn2 said:

Daft Punk said:

bobn2 said:

Glen Barrington said:

bobn2 said:

ProDude said:

I would agree with Glen on this one for sure. AI is Mft's only hope of truly moving the bar up and forward.

Click to expand...

The problem with this is that the AI techniques are just as available to all the other manufacturers, maybe more so. You think that Sony, with its corporate culture deep in video gaming, doesn't have access to at least as good AI as OMDS or Panasonic? And whilst AI techniques might make mFT more than 'good enough' the bar for 'good enough' moves continually. It's quite simple really. If a punter compares camera A and camera B, and camera B is 'better' he's going to choose camera B, even if camera A might be 'good enough'. There's a long history on these forums of technologies that will save FT or mFT, they come and they go, and as always they apply to every format equally, and mFT gets no advantage by using them. The key is to look at the market sectors where the different compromises brought about by the smaller sensor are an advantage, not looking for a new tech on a white horse that will suddenly make mFT just the same as all the other formats.

Click to expand...

Nothing I wrote guarantees m43s success or even survival. All I did is point a path towards continued survival and relevance. It is a trend that I think m43s is uniquely positioned to take advantage of (at this time). One that others will eventually see and try to duplicate.

Click to expand...

I don't see any reason why mFT is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this trend

Click to expand...

Correct. But that’s not the point. We know already that phones have killed compact cameras. Sensor size did not matter.

Small sensors WILL take over from large sensors for most photography. This will happen once small sensors can produce high ISO, hi resolution images good enough for the majority of uses. They bring advantages in smaller size and smaller lenses that will be more important.

Yes, the same tech will available for FF sensors but it would be of little mainstream use when a small sensor can provide noise free images in the dark and hi res when needed, all with smaller lenses. If the IQ in stills and video is acceptable in all reasonable scenarios, convenience will win.

Click to expand...

I really don't think that's the case. What is happening right now is that the photography market is returning to something like it was before the digital boom, but with the snapshot/single use kind of cameras being replaced by phones. If you look at the market in those days, there were loads of Instamatics, 110s, 35mm compacts and single use cameras sold. That market has gone. If you look at the more specialist market there was a variety of cameras and formats, form Minoxes, to half-frames, to 35mm RF and SLR, MF TLRs, SLRs and RF cameras, and large format cameras in a few varieties. All of those sold, some in low volumes, but there was a market to sustain them. The more specialist digital photography market will continue to be similarly differentiated, with a variety of different cameras, some selling in low volumes. Modern manufacturing technologies make that easier. The idea of single format domination is just wrong. Sure, some formats will be more popular than others, but there is space in the market for them all, as long as they offer something distinctive that photographers want.

Click to expand...

But, at least on this forum, there seems to be a preponderance of either/or, winner take all thinking........everything must be like a sporting event with a winner and a loser. I hope you are correct that the whole thing shakes out with there being a plethora of specialty formats and cameras..., but that seems way too cosmopolitan for this bunch.

Click to expand...

I think you can see that as a positive from the spin-off of OMDS. Most of the camera companies (except Nikon) started off as pretty small business, servicing their own niches. There is no reason a small business has to have a huge market to be profitable, all it needs is a market big enough to sustain its own operations. By and large big corporations don't think that way, though some of the Japanese companies are an exception, having a history of running a staggering variety of product lines, some in really small volumes, and accounting them individually. Hopefully Panasonic is in that category, and Ricoh seems to be happy with its Pentax operation, which is a minor player in the photographic markets and looks set to cover the 'still want an SLR' niche. Nikon seems to be successfully restructuring itself into a smaller, leaner specialist player also. Olympus didn't seem to be able to get that mindset, which is maybe why OMDS will be better on its own.

You made your assumption exactly that way

the thread itself is a testament to the number of saddos that read anything negatively perhaps because it doesn’t fit their agenda

007peter said:

What I ♡ about M43 in 2013 is the M43 advantage were CLEAR & OBVIOUS

• $1399 Olympus EM1 enjoy fast 10fps, 5 Axis IBIS, great 1080p video for a stunning price with excellent battery that can go toe-to-toe against any Canon or Nikon FF DSLR
• $2000 Nikon d610 can only do 6fps, horrible video, horrible Live View that cannot do WYSIWYG,
• $3300 Nikon D800 can shoot @barely 4fps!

Click to expand...

SO ? Despite all the bold accents, i fail to see the relevance of your post . Your point of reference was EIGHT years ago, so of course the market has evolved since. In every consumer market, things evolve and competition becomes more fierce

the fact that other brands have caught up on SOME of the m4/3 advances does not make mft obsolete, quite the contrary

007peter said:

When you compare Price vs Performance vs Size vs Weight, m43 wins every round easily on 2013
y. Like or Hate FF, you cannot deny their superior Value / Performance.

Click to expand...

SURE , you can . You are confusing your opinion with facts

007peter said:

If M43 is to continue, it's Size/Weight /Prices advantage must be obvious.

Click to expand...

so the king has spoken. Stop speaking on behalf of other people or on behalf of the manufacturers

007peter said:

Panasonic Gh5ii with kit lens is far more expensive than FF S5 with kit lens and heavier. Panasonic still focused G9 is an excellent value (but) Nikoj Z5 has better EVF, better focus, better DR, superior high ISO for nearly the same price.

The FF competitor has caught up and surpass m43 in most measurement even weight / size。I wish Panasonic would go back and leverage m43 Size advance with a new GM7, and an updated G150 with IBIS, and a smaller cheaper mini~G9 to better compete against Fuji XS10 and Sony A6400.

Click to expand...

The problem is that you think everyone should buy into a system based on a spec lists and which camera has the most updated list

fortunately , lots of photographers do not operate this way

You surely can choose your camera on whatever rocks your boat..does not mean we all want to be on the same boat

As for me , and many others , m43 still offers several advantages over the other systems

Gnine said:

John McMillin said:

The Olympus 300/4 is 8.9" x 3.6" and it weighs 3.25 lbs. It costs $2750. The Pentax DA* 300/4 is 7.2" x 3.3", weighing 2.35 lbs. It sells for $997. Smaller, lighter, cheaper. Yes, this lens only reaches to 450-eq on an APS-C camera, but is that really so different from 600mm eq? The Pentax lens also works on full frame as a 300mm, which has advantages of its own.

I own some MFT gear, and I appreciate their compact lenses. When it gets into the longer "pro" lenses, I fail to see the advantages.

Click to expand...

Why MUST it have advantages? Is it not enough for someone to enjoy shooting particular gear? Why can't people accept that it's all swings and roundabouts? Gain some here, lose some there. m4/3 has a HUGE range of product to choose from, from small & compact, to not so small. Cheap to expensive. Pick the eye's out of it to suit your purposes. Do you change gear/systems every time another product has a slight advantage over your current gear? I use a single body, and pick & choose from my selection of primes & zooms, to suit the occasion.

Click to expand...

Precisely also other than olympus pro lenses that are on the large size Panasonic has kept weight in check except Nocticron that is a special lens majority are below 350 grams

the 50-200mm is 665 much lighter than four thirds format even the 100-400 is 985 grams

I have had a gx7 was a great street camera what made it great was the onboard flash and the tilting evf weight wasn’t really a consideration to be frank it was more ergonomics

the g9 doesn’t take miniflash that’s bad the GH5 does the EM1 series do so happy days



The only lenses I have that I consider bulky are the Nocticron the Oly pro 17mm the others are nearlt for what they do. Rather have better quality at 300 grams than 150 of plastic at all costs

Interceptor121 said:

Gnine said:

John McMillin said:

The Olympus 300/4 is 8.9" x 3.6" and it weighs 3.25 lbs. It costs $2750. The Pentax DA* 300/4 is 7.2" x 3.3", weighing 2.35 lbs. It sells for $997. Smaller, lighter, cheaper. Yes, this lens only reaches to 450-eq on an APS-C camera, but is that really so different from 600mm eq? The Pentax lens also works on full frame as a 300mm, which has advantages of its own.

I own some MFT gear, and I appreciate their compact lenses. When it gets into the longer "pro" lenses, I fail to see the advantages.

Click to expand...

Why MUST it have advantages? Is it not enough for someone to enjoy shooting particular gear? Why can't people accept that it's all swings and roundabouts? Gain some here, lose some there. m4/3 has a HUGE range of product to choose from, from small & compact, to not so small. Cheap to expensive. Pick the eye's out of it to suit your purposes. Do you change gear/systems every time another product has a slight advantage over your current gear? I use a single body, and pick & choose from my selection of primes & zooms, to suit the occasion.

Click to expand...

Precisely also other than olympus pro lenses that are on the large size Panasonic has kept weight in check except Nocticron that is a special lens majority are below 350 grams

the 50-200mm is 665 much lighter than four thirds format even the 100-400 is 985 grams

I have had a gx7 was a great street camera what made it great was the onboard flash and the tilting evf weight wasn’t really a consideration to be frank it was more ergonomics

the g9 doesn’t take miniflash that’s bad the GH5 does the EM1 series do so happy days

The only lenses I have that I consider bulky are the Nocticron the Oly pro 17mm the others are nearlt for what they do. Rather have better quality at 300 grams than 150 of plastic at all costs

Click to expand...

I just thought it a bit ironic, coming from someone with a Pentax K1? listed in their gear list. Compromises anyone?

Try mate, instead of finding excuses. Or are you too embarrassed to admit that you are wrong? The technology has been in use by NASA for decades.

cba_melbourne said:

Tom Axford said:

Who is compelling you to buy large and heavy lenses?

I don't have any large lenses and I have no wish to get any.

Click to expand...

Same can be said for cameras. I would never buy an EM1X or a G9 because they are too big and heavy for my needs.

Both these cameras, as well as some of the heavy glass, were designed in a period when m43 was desperately trying to compete with larger formats on their own turf. It was not a good idea, we have seen what happened to Olympus which was pushing this up-sizing to the extreme.

If m43 still has a future (and I think it has), then it is in a return to the old core values: Smaller, lighter, and cheaper than FF.

Click to expand...

There are plenty current production model small m43 cameras and lenses available... only the pancake Oly 17mm f2.8 has been discontinued and not replaced. I have a full set of big and a full set of small gear ready to go to suit what I want to do. Just because I shoot m43, doesn't mean I shouldn't sometimes choose to use fast aperture lenses or big and high performance bodies (best AF and frame rate and balance on big lenses). Sometimes in my photography, I am goofing around for my own pleasure with small gear and sometimes getting paid to be serious with larger gear. Sometimes I simply feel like goofing around with the larger gear anyways.

The earliest release of large m43 glass started about 7 years ago, and has steadily developed and filled out in range and choice... if the big and expensive stuff was such a failure and unwanted by the consumer, manufacturers would have realised via sales flops and shied away a few years ago and ceased development of lenses that have since been released in the last few years.

If I theoretically was only allowed to keep either the full set of smaller or the full set of larger gear, I would keep the smaller, and then buy a mid range FF body and two F4 zoom lenses to get the similar bump in IQ I get from using my fastest m43 lenses... why would I ever do that except in the theoretical "one or other" choice above. To get a really noticable jump in IQ, I would need to buy top end high MP FF bodies and large fast FF lenses (f2.8 zooms and f1.4 primes)... money, weight and size means that that is never going to be a choice for me.

M43 gives me "nice" IQ/ results with the smallest lenses and bodies and "great" IQ/ results with the larger, faster lenses. "Amazing" IQ/ results from the best FF cameras and fastest FF lenses is not something I need enough to pay a premium for or bother carrying around either.

Full time pro shooters in genres that can exploit the advantages of top end FF gear, and are getting paid handsomely for being creators at the top of their game, do need the very best, and need to put up with lugging it around (or as they often do, pay someone to do that for them).

I now feel like taking my GX9 and 12-32 for a walk... hang on, actually I think I am in the mood for my EM1X and PL 10-25... choices, choices.

bobn2 said:

gary0319 said:

bobn2 said:

Daft Punk said:

bobn2 said:

Glen Barrington said:

bobn2 said:

ProDude said:

I would agree with Glen on this one for sure. AI is Mft's only hope of truly moving the bar up and forward.

Click to expand...

The problem with this is that the AI techniques are just as available to all the other manufacturers, maybe more so. You think that Sony, with its corporate culture deep in video gaming, doesn't have access to at least as good AI as OMDS or Panasonic? And whilst AI techniques might make mFT more than 'good enough' the bar for 'good enough' moves continually. It's quite simple really. If a punter compares camera A and camera B, and camera B is 'better' he's going to choose camera B, even if camera A might be 'good enough'. There's a long history on these forums of technologies that will save FT or mFT, they come and they go, and as always they apply to every format equally, and mFT gets no advantage by using them. The key is to look at the market sectors where the different compromises brought about by the smaller sensor are an advantage, not looking for a new tech on a white horse that will suddenly make mFT just the same as all the other formats.

Click to expand...

Nothing I wrote guarantees m43s success or even survival. All I did is point a path towards continued survival and relevance. It is a trend that I think m43s is uniquely positioned to take advantage of (at this time). One that others will eventually see and try to duplicate.

Click to expand...

I don't see any reason why mFT is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this trend

Click to expand...

Correct. But that’s not the point. We know already that phones have killed compact cameras. Sensor size did not matter.

Small sensors WILL take over from large sensors for most photography. This will happen once small sensors can produce high ISO, hi resolution images good enough for the majority of uses. They bring advantages in smaller size and smaller lenses that will be more important.

Yes, the same tech will available for FF sensors but it would be of little mainstream use when a small sensor can provide noise free images in the dark and hi res when needed, all with smaller lenses. If the IQ in stills and video is acceptable in all reasonable scenarios, convenience will win.

Click to expand...

I really don't think that's the case. What is happening right now is that the photography market is returning to something like it was before the digital boom, but with the snapshot/single use kind of cameras being replaced by phones. If you look at the market in those days, there were loads of Instamatics, 110s, 35mm compacts and single use cameras sold. That market has gone. If you look at the more specialist market there was a variety of cameras and formats, form Minoxes, to half-frames, to 35mm RF and SLR, MF TLRs, SLRs and RF cameras, and large format cameras in a few varieties. All of those sold, some in low volumes, but there was a market to sustain them. The more specialist digital photography market will continue to be similarly differentiated, with a variety of different cameras, some selling in low volumes. Modern manufacturing technologies make that easier. The idea of single format domination is just wrong. Sure, some formats will be more popular than others, but there is space in the market for them all, as long as they offer something distinctive that photographers want.

Click to expand...

But, at least on this forum, there seems to be a preponderance of either/or, winner take all thinking........everything must be like a sporting event with a winner and a loser. I hope you are correct that the whole thing shakes out with there being a plethora of specialty formats and cameras..., but that seems way too cosmopolitan for this bunch.

Click to expand...

I think you can see that as a positive from the spin-off of OMDS. Most of the camera companies (except Nikon) started off as pretty small business, servicing their own niches. There is no reason a small business has to have a huge market to be profitable, all it needs is a market big enough to sustain its own operations. By and large big corporations don't think that way, though some of the Japanese companies are an exception, having a history of running a staggering variety of product lines, some in really small volumes, and accounting them individually. Hopefully Panasonic is in that category, and Ricoh seems to be happy with its Pentax operation, which is a minor player in the photographic markets and looks set to cover the 'still want an SLR' niche. Nikon seems to be successfully restructuring itself into a smaller, leaner specialist player also. Olympus didn't seem to be able to get that mindset, which is maybe why OMDS will be better on its own.

Click to expand...

Well, I would like to think you are right...

Many years ago, my wife and I started a small company and after the initial struggles of any new venture we were doing OK. A good friend of ours who was a venture capitalist came to us and suggested we franchise the operation. He said we could make a lot of money and in the end cash out for even more money and retire....and than maybe just start a small fun company to play with in our dotage. Seemed to us to be kind of a circular idea leading to where we already were (minus the big bag of cash, maybe). We took a pass.

So for the next 30 or so years we stayed our small boutique operation and just enjoyed ourselves and our select set of customers. We are now retired and never have a regret about that decision. Not every Olympus or Pentax has to become (or overcome) a Canon or a Nikon to be successful..... Niche can be Nice.

Sranang Boi said:

Try mate, instead of finding excuses.

Click to expand...

I'm not making excuses. I'm saying that you're talking though the wrong orifice.

There is no resampling technology that can invent information that is not there, and anything that can be done to an mFT image can also be done to a FF image. There is no magic tach that somehow always makes FT images better, whether you upsample or downsample, apparently, but doesn't do the same for FF images.

Sranang Boi said:

Or are you too embarrassed to admit that you are wrong?

Click to expand...

I'm not wrong.

Sranang Boi said:

The technology has been in use by NASA for decades.

Click to expand...

Which technology are you talking about?

Instead of the blather, why not do the demonstration yourself, then you might convince someone?

You've even been called by Don B, the master of the bogus demo.

Daft Punk said:

Traditional camera companies are going All In to get people to switch to larger sensors and buy expensive bodies. Its working. But it won't work for ever.

This is because, basically, its a bit of a con.

The irony is that people are drinking the "FF is better" koolaid ( encouraged by the media ) even though they are buying resolution that few people actually need. People dont print anymore.

No-one seems to realise the absurdity of spending $10k on an EOS R5 body and lenses, only to spend their time looking at pictures on their iPad.

This is not sustainable, because while an ever shrinking "hobby" market is buying FF, most of the kids are more interested in their iPhone 12.

The challenge for iPhone is telephoto. It's hard to do. Physics is against you.

So, IMO, there will be a resurgence in small sensor cameras. They will all have:

1. User interface and touch screen as good an iPhone. Complete seamless integration with your iPhone as easy as using your AirPods. Instant connectivity.

Click to expand...

This can be done on FF bodies

Daft Punk said:

2. A.I technologies like hand held high res and image stacking, exploiting the faster read out from a small sensor. Using these technologies they will produce low noise, high resolution images as good as current FF offerings.

Click to expand...

This can be done on FF bodies, maintaining the gap

Daft Punk said:

3. Small but powerful zoom lenses. 400mm reach in the palm of your hand.

Click to expand...

There are already superzooms for this. Just as FF loses to M43, M43 loses to 1" etc.

Daft Punk said:

M43 is one format that could evolve in this way. Maybe this is what OMDS has in mind.

Click to expand...

This is just wishful thinking on your part, honestly. No ILC will compete with a phone. They will never be as convenient. So M43 has to develop a value proposition for enthusiasts willing to carry a separate camera around. Outside of quasi niche stuff like video and wildlife they seem to be struggling and IMO will continue to.

sportyaccordy said:

Daft Punk said:

Traditional camera companies are going All In to get people to switch to larger sensors and buy expensive bodies. Its working. But it won't work for ever.

This is because, basically, its a bit of a con.

The irony is that people are drinking the "FF is better" koolaid ( encouraged by the media ) even though they are buying resolution that few people actually need. People dont print anymore.

No-one seems to realise the absurdity of spending $10k on an EOS R5 body and lenses, only to spend their time looking at pictures on their iPad.

This is not sustainable, because while an ever shrinking "hobby" market is buying FF, most of the kids are more interested in their iPhone 12.

The challenge for iPhone is telephoto. It's hard to do. Physics is against you.

So, IMO, there will be a resurgence in small sensor cameras. They will all have:

1. User interface and touch screen as good an iPhone. Complete seamless integration with your iPhone as easy as using your AirPods. Instant connectivity.

Click to expand...

This can be done on FF bodies

sportyaccordy said:

2. A.I technologies like hand held high res and image stacking, exploiting the faster read out from a small sensor. Using these technologies they will produce low noise, high resolution images as good as current FF offerings.

Click to expand...

This can be done on FF bodies, maintaining the gap.

Click to expand...

Well they did say "current FF offerings". Which don't have that. Personally I don't think it will get that close, maybe closer to apsc.

However if it was actually possible for MFT to match current FF offerings IQ wise, I imagine that there would be less of a reason to go with larger sensors, even if the "gap" could be maintained. But again I don't think this would ever happen.

sportyaccordy said:

sportyaccordy said:

3. Small but powerful zoom lenses. 400mm reach in the palm of your hand.

Click to expand...

There are already superzooms for this. Just as FF loses to M43, M43 loses to 1" etc.

Click to expand...

Right but the reason ILC's still exist is because there is still a large enough audience who do not want to be limited to 1 lens.

There was a smart phone a while ago with the whole back side covered in lenses. This is very impractical solution, which is why it never took off.

sportyaccordy said:

sportyaccordy said:

M43 is one format that could evolve in this way. Maybe this is what OMDS has in mind.

Click to expand...

This is just wishful thinking on your part, honestly. No ILC will compete with a phone. They will never be as convenient. So M43 has to develop a value proposition for enthusiasts willing to carry a separate camera around. Outside of quasi niche stuff like video and wildlife they seem to be struggling and IMO will continue to.

Click to expand...

Probably.

sportyaccordy said:

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

Click to expand...

victorav said:

victorav said:

This can be done on FF bodies, maintaining the gap.

Click to expand...

Well they did say "current FF offerings". Which don't have that. Personally I don't think it will get that close, maybe closer to apsc.

However if it was actually possible for MFT to match current FF offerings IQ wise, I imagine that there would be less of a reason to go with larger sensors, even if the "gap" could be maintained. But again I don't think this would ever happen.

Click to expand...

Only if those methods are satisfactory and convincing. Plus even if M43 can match not everyone is eager to take huge losses on switching systems to have the same IQ

victorav said:

victorav said:

victorav said:

3. Small but powerful zoom lenses. 400mm reach in the palm of your hand.

Click to expand...

There are already superzooms for this. Just as FF loses to M43, M43 loses to 1" etc.

Click to expand...

Right but the reason ILC's still exist is because there is still a large enough audience who do not want to be limited to 1 lens.

There was a smart phone a while ago with the whole back side covered in lenses. This is very impractical solution, which is why it never took off.

Click to expand...

Smartphone shooters don't need a million specialized lenses. An UWA, WA and telephoto are enough for most people. Smartphones give people all that without the hassles of an ILC system

victorav said:

victorav said:

victorav said:

M43 is one format that could evolve in this way. Maybe this is what OMDS has in mind.

Click to expand...

This is just wishful thinking on your part, honestly. No ILC will compete with a phone. They will never be as convenient. So M43 has to develop a value proposition for enthusiasts willing to carry a separate camera around. Outside of quasi niche stuff like video and wildlife they seem to be struggling and IMO will continue to.

Click to expand...

Probably.

Click to expand...

Time will tell, right now there is some truth in different positions. My gut is smaller sensors will prevail ,not necessarily as the dominant format , but continue to be part of the market.
I don’t have objective facts to back this but I do have a lot of personal experience.

I have owned two canon and one Sony FF in the past, along with some very nice fast lenses. It was a good experience to have but ultimately the benefits were all too marginal to matter enough. Taking the point that the most common view is an iPad etc.

Not planning to retire actually just change what i do to avoid the risk of getting a bitter oap

StefanSC said:

Realistically, in this day and age, there is no purpose for the dedicated camera market.
Usage of images has changed so drastically in the past 20 years that the upcoming generations have no use for a dedicated camera.

Click to expand...

"No use" is too broad a term. You could have said "less use" and been more precise. If there is no use for a dedicated camera, then there also must be no use for horses, sailboats, or vinyl records, yet these things still exist.

StefanSC said:

And as long as the camera makers keep pandering to the same diminishing market category of agining (or retire), kaki (or camo) wearing white men that are as boring as sliced bread, the dedicated camera makers have no future except becoming small niche manufacturers catering to a smaller and smaller market.

Click to expand...

Like Leica does. And is still very successful and profitable.

StefanSC said:

There is an oportunity these days for camera makers and especially m43. But it's less technical and more related to expanding the audience by the correct messaging...

But these are Japanese companies, where Not Invented Here rules supreme and the capabilities of groundbreaking inovation are low.

Click to expand...

According to this report Japan seems to be doing pretty well in terms of invention and innovation.







--
Marty
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/

victorav said:

sportyaccordy said:

Daft Punk said:

Traditional camera companies are going All In to get people to switch to larger sensors and buy expensive bodies. Its working. But it won't work for ever.

This is because, basically, its a bit of a con.

The irony is that people are drinking the "FF is better" koolaid ( encouraged by the media ) even though they are buying resolution that few people actually need. People dont print anymore.

No-one seems to realise the absurdity of spending $10k on an EOS R5 body and lenses, only to spend their time looking at pictures on their iPad.

This is not sustainable, because while an ever shrinking "hobby" market is buying FF, most of the kids are more interested in their iPhone 12.

The challenge for iPhone is telephoto. It's hard to do. Physics is against you.

So, IMO, there will be a resurgence in small sensor cameras. They will all have:

1. User interface and touch screen as good an iPhone. Complete seamless integration with your iPhone as easy as using your AirPods. Instant connectivity.

Click to expand...

This can be done on FF bodies

victorav said:

2. A.I technologies like hand held high res and image stacking, exploiting the faster read out from a small sensor. Using these technologies they will produce low noise, high resolution images as good as current FF offerings.

Click to expand...

This can be done on FF bodies, maintaining the gap.

Click to expand...

Well they did say "current FF offerings". Which don't have that. Personally I don't think it will get that close, maybe closer to apsc.

However if it was actually possible for MFT to match current FF offerings IQ wise, I imagine that there would be less of a reason to go with larger sensors, even if the "gap" could be maintained. But again I don't think this would ever happen.

victorav said:

victorav said:

3. Small but powerful zoom lenses. 400mm reach in the palm of your hand.

Click to expand...

There are already superzooms for this. Just as FF loses to M43, M43 loses to 1" etc.

Click to expand...

Right but the reason ILC's still exist is because there is still a large enough audience who do not want to be limited to 1 lens.

There was a smart phone a while ago with the whole back side covered in lenses. This is very impractical solution, which is why it never took off.

victorav said:

victorav said:

M43 is one format that could evolve in this way. Maybe this is what OMDS has in mind.

Click to expand...

This is just wishful thinking on your part, honestly. No ILC will compete with a phone. They will never be as convenient. So M43 has to develop a value proposition for enthusiasts willing to carry a separate camera around. Outside of quasi niche stuff like video and wildlife they seem to be struggling and IMO will continue to.

Click to expand...

Probably.

victorav said:

-

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You miss the point completely. Of course FF sensors can use the same tech but there will come a time when the difference are meaningless. If you can have a noise free telephoto image that is perfect for 99% of users from a small sensor and a small device then there will be zero reason for the larger lenses required for a larger sensor.

mostlyboringphotog said:

Tom Axford said:

Who is compelling you to buy large and heavy lenses?

I don't have any large lenses and I have no wish to get any.

Click to expand...

Well, I wanted 300mm f/4 lens and was surprised to find out how heavy and expensive Zuiko 300mm f/4 is. And Zuiko 100-400mm is no better in term of weight than Sigma 100-400mm FF. Someone said that both are practically the same lens.

Click to expand...

Somehow you are not believable. "I was surprised how expensive the 300F4 is". Bull, you would know that immediately. As to size, the 300 F4 is large for m4/3 but not even close compared to other systems. And yes, you are right, the 300 F4 gives the same FOV as 600mm on FF.

mostlyboringphotog said:

And yes, you are getting 200-800mm with 4/3rd - you do get 20M , relative to FF FOV.

Click to expand...