From Sigma's perspective, they have to decide whether they want to try to find opportunities to make money with a format that is incredibly mature and has an incredibly wide range of options all the way from Panasonic and OM Systems' incredible (and relatively reasonably-priced) offerings to countless smaller manufacturers making both AF and MF lenses, or do they concentrate on completely new mounts that have limited options? As a Product Manager, I know what I'd do!
Sigma is making the right call here, but I don't think it says anything about the long-term viability of MFT as a format.From Sigma's perspective, they have to decide whether they want to try to find opportunities to make money with a format that is incredibly mature and has an incredibly wide range of options all the way from Panasonic and OM Systems' incredible (and relatively reasonably-priced) offerings to countless smaller manufacturers making both AF and MF lenses, or do they concentrate on completely new mounts that have limited options? As a Product Manager, I know what I'd do!
While it's arguable whether MFT is "dying", it is pretty obvious it's not growing at the rate that the handful of relatively new FF formats are.
In the meanwhile OMDS opens a new production technology center. If it's going to fail as in forums is continuously refrained, how is this possible?True, but people are missing the point.From Sigma's perspective, they have to decide whether they want to try to find opportunities to make money with a format that is incredibly mature and has an incredibly wide range of options all the way from Panasonic and OM Systems' incredible (and relatively reasonably-priced) offerings to countless smaller manufacturers making both AF and MF lenses, or do they concentrate on completely new mounts that have limited options? As a Product Manager, I know what I'd do!
While it's arguable whether MFT is "dying", it is pretty obvious it's not growing at the rate that the handful of relatively new FF formats are.
Sigma is the first that I know of to publicly leave MFT. yes, there are plenty of lenses for MFT, but that’s also not the point.
Many times, announcements like this are a jumping off point for others.
It is a tough time for MFT even though this has all been said before. Olympus no longer being Olympus is the big thing.
What JIP does with the company in the next year or so will be very important to the format.
Panasonic will probably keep making MFT gear, but if JIP doesn’t care about growing MFT and is only in it for the short profit, then Panasonic will no longer have completion and that’s not good.
You don’t have to be touchy, I was only saying the next year or so it will be very telling. The new technology center, whatever scale it is, is a good thing obviously.In the meanwhile OMDS opens a new production technology center. If it's going to fail as in forums is continuously refrained, how is this possible?True, but people are missing the point.From Sigma's perspective, they have to decide whether they want to try to find opportunities to make money with a format that is incredibly mature and has an incredibly wide range of options all the way from Panasonic and OM Systems' incredible (and relatively reasonably-priced) offerings to countless smaller manufacturers making both AF and MF lenses, or do they concentrate on completely new mounts that have limited options? As a Product Manager, I know what I'd do!
While it's arguable whether MFT is "dying", it is pretty obvious it's not growing at the rate that the handful of relatively new FF formats are.
Sigma is the first that I know of to publicly leave MFT. yes, there are plenty of lenses for MFT, but that’s also not the point.
Many times, announcements like this are a jumping off point for others.
It is a tough time for MFT even though this has all been said before. Olympus no longer being Olympus is the big thing.
What JIP does with the company in the next year or so will be very important to the format.
Panasonic will probably keep making MFT gear, but if JIP doesn’t care about growing MFT and is only in it for the short profit, then Panasonic will no longer have completion and that’s not good.
They're not "leaving" MFT. As the article says, they're just not developing new lenses for it.True, but people are missing the point.From Sigma's perspective, they have to decide whether they want to try to find opportunities to make money with a format that is incredibly mature and has an incredibly wide range of options all the way from Panasonic and OM Systems' incredible (and relatively reasonably-priced) offerings to countless smaller manufacturers making both AF and MF lenses, or do they concentrate on completely new mounts that have limited options? As a Product Manager, I know what I'd do!
While it's arguable whether MFT is "dying", it is pretty obvious it's not growing at the rate that the handful of relatively new FF formats are.
Sigma is the first that I know of to publicly leave MFT. yes, there are plenty of lenses for MFT, but that’s also not the point.
Why? Canon's system is completely closed - they don't have any "competition" within the system. OM System doesn't need Panasonic - they're competing most directly against Fuji, Canon and Nikon's APS-C offerings.
Semantics. No longer developing essentially means they have an exit strategy. That would be like Sony saying they are no longer developing MFT sensors, that would essentially be Sony leaving MFT.They're not "leaving" MFT. As the article says, they're just not developing new lenses for it.True, but people are missing the point.From Sigma's perspective, they have to decide whether they want to try to find opportunities to make money with a format that is incredibly mature and has an incredibly wide range of options all the way from Panasonic and OM Systems' incredible (and relatively reasonably-priced) offerings to countless smaller manufacturers making both AF and MF lenses, or do they concentrate on completely new mounts that have limited options? As a Product Manager, I know what I'd do!
While it's arguable whether MFT is "dying", it is pretty obvious it's not growing at the rate that the handful of relatively new FF formats are.
Sigma is the first that I know of to publicly leave MFT. yes, there are plenty of lenses for MFT, but that’s also not the point.
Why? Canon's system is completely closed - they don't have any "competition" within the system. OM System doesn't need Panasonic - they're competing most directly against Fuji, Canon and Nikon's APS-C offerings.
Just to mention that the OM1 is based on a generally available Sony MFT sensor. Apart from the A7Siii and phones, it's the only Sony Quad Bayer fast readout stacked sensor on the market. The A7Siii doesn't make so much use of the fast readout. The OM1 only uses two of the four readout modes, so that could be interesting for the future.Semantics. No longer developing essentially means they have an exit strategy. That would be like Sony saying they are no longer developing MFT sensors, that would essentially be Sony leaving MFT.They're not "leaving" MFT. As the article says, they're just not developing new lenses for it.True, but people are missing the point.From Sigma's perspective, they have to decide whether they want to try to find opportunities to make money with a format that is incredibly mature and has an incredibly wide range of options all the way from Panasonic and OM Systems' incredible (and relatively reasonably-priced) offerings to countless smaller manufacturers making both AF and MF lenses, or do they concentrate on completely new mounts that have limited options? As a Product Manager, I know what I'd do!
While it's arguable whether MFT is "dying", it is pretty obvious it's not growing at the rate that the handful of relatively new FF formats are.
Sigma is the first that I know of to publicly leave MFT. yes, there are plenty of lenses for MFT, but that’s also not the point.
Why? Canon's system is completely closed - they don't have any "competition" within the system. OM System doesn't need Panasonic - they're competing most directly against Fuji, Canon and Nikon's APS-C offerings.
Comparing this to Canon is definitely not the same thing. Third-party lens manufacturers would love to start making lenses for the Canon mount. Just like they’ve been trying to get into the Nikon Z mount for years.
What we have here is arguably the best third-party lens manufacture in the world not seeing opportunity in the MFT format. Huge difference.
Just to mention that the OM1 is based on a generally available Sony MFT sensor. Apart from the A7Siii and phones, it's the only Sony Quad Bayer fast readout stacked sensor on the market. The A7Siii doesn't make so much use of the fast readout. The OM1 only uses two of the four readout modes, so that could be interesting for the future.Semantics. No longer developing essentially means they have an exit strategy. That would be like Sony saying they are no longer developing MFT sensors, that would essentially be Sony leaving MFT.They're not "leaving" MFT. As the article says, they're just not developing new lenses for it.True, but people are missing the point.From Sigma's perspective, they have to decide whether they want to try to find opportunities to make money with a format that is incredibly mature and has an incredibly wide range of options all the way from Panasonic and OM Systems' incredible (and relatively reasonably-priced) offerings to countless smaller manufacturers making both AF and MF lenses, or do they concentrate on completely new mounts that have limited options? As a Product Manager, I know what I'd do!
While it's arguable whether MFT is "dying", it is pretty obvious it's not growing at the rate that the handful of relatively new FF formats are.
Sigma is the first that I know of to publicly leave MFT. yes, there are plenty of lenses for MFT, but that’s also not the point.
Why? Canon's system is completely closed - they don't have any "competition" within the system. OM System doesn't need Panasonic - they're competing most directly against Fuji, Canon and Nikon's APS-C offerings.
Comparing this to Canon is definitely not the same thing. Third-party lens manufacturers would love to start making lenses for the Canon mount. Just like they’ve been trying to get into the Nikon Z mount for years.
What we have here is arguably the best third-party lens manufacture in the world not seeing opportunity in the MFT format. Huge difference.
While OMDS may have had to place a large first order to get the unit price they needed, Sony carried the upfront sensor design and manufacturing validation costs. There must be reasons why Sony chose to do that. It was Sony who decided on 20Mpix.
OMDS have stated that the OM1 attracted enough new users that the additional high end lens sales were attractive in terms of additional profit (and presumably free cash flow).
In my view Olympus made a real mess of their product strategy, including the MFT lens standards. Compare that to Sony, who adopted a variant of the EF standard for E mount and license the standard to 3rd party lens manufacturers, reserving only TCs and the highest speed AF protocols for their own lenses. If you have a Metabones adapter, you get Dual IS on a Sony body with any modern EF lens, just like that.
MFT is a small enough and mature enough market without the added burden of two different approaches to Dual IS, AF, weather sealing at the mount, and TC compatibility. Since Olympus controlled the standard, we can surely blame them.
OMDS clearly have some challenges in terms of managing with limited resources, the hit they took in home market share on the transition from Olympus, and cash management expectations from JIP.
So far, they have a more robust business "feel" to me than Olympus did. Shame that marketing seem to have carried on the Olympus tendency to talk rubbish, but maybe we are now past that.
I've spent a lot more money on MFT kit over the last two years than the ten before that. No camera purchase decision is risk free, but I'm mostly liking what I see.
Andrew
If they had at least said they're going to stop producing the lenses they've already developed, I might agree but they haven't said that.Semantics. No longer developing essentially means they have an exit strategy.They're not "leaving" MFT. As the article says, they're just not developing new lenses for it.True, but people are missing the point.From Sigma's perspective, they have to decide whether they want to try to find opportunities to make money with a format that is incredibly mature and has an incredibly wide range of options all the way from Panasonic and OM Systems' incredible (and relatively reasonably-priced) offerings to countless smaller manufacturers making both AF and MF lenses, or do they concentrate on completely new mounts that have limited options? As a Product Manager, I know what I'd do!
While it's arguable whether MFT is "dying", it is pretty obvious it's not growing at the rate that the handful of relatively new FF formats are.
Sigma is the first that I know of to publicly leave MFT. yes, there are plenty of lenses for MFT, but that’s also not the point.
Why? Canon's system is completely closed - they don't have any "competition" within the system. OM System doesn't need Panasonic - they're competing most directly against Fuji, Canon and Nikon's APS-C offerings.
No, it wouldn't be the same. Sony are a much more key partner to camera manufacturers - Sigma is not critical to the success of MFT. Even before this announcement, they had developed a new lens for MFT in 4 years. They've never really been able to figure out how they "fit" in the system, so this move is hardly surprising.
You're missing the point. You said...
You haven't explain why Panasonic (or presumably OM System) need each other to have "competition".
Fair enough, but OM System's cameras are the ones generating the bulk of that volume, apparently.
If they had at least said they're going to stop producing the lenses they've already developed, I might agree but they haven't said that.Semantics. No longer developing essentially means they have an exit strategy.They're not "leaving" MFT. As the article says, they're just not developing new lenses for it.True, but people are missing the point.From Sigma's perspective, they have to decide whether they want to try to find opportunities to make money with a format that is incredibly mature and has an incredibly wide range of options all the way from Panasonic and OM Systems' incredible (and relatively reasonably-priced) offerings to countless smaller manufacturers making both AF and MF lenses, or do they concentrate on completely new mounts that have limited options? As a Product Manager, I know what I'd do!
While it's arguable whether MFT is "dying", it is pretty obvious it's not growing at the rate that the handful of relatively new FF formats are.
Sigma is the first that I know of to publicly leave MFT. yes, there are plenty of lenses for MFT, but that’s also not the point.
Why? Canon's system is completely closed - they don't have any "competition" within the system. OM System doesn't need Panasonic - they're competing most directly against Fuji, Canon and Nikon's APS-C offerings.
No, it wouldn't be the same. Sony are a much more key partner to camera manufacturers - Sigma is not critical to the success of MFT. Even before this announcement, they had developed a new lens for MFT in 4 years. They've never really been able to figure out how they "fit" in the system, so this move is hardly surprising.
You're missing the point. You said...
You haven't explain why Panasonic (or presumably OM System) need each other to have "competition".
Fair enough, but OM System's cameras are the ones generating the bulk of that volume, apparently.
Hi Andrew, and sorry for the tardy reply - but have at last had a look back!I'm really taken with my 10/2, bought a few months ago. The only issue is veiling glare. Do you find yours shows that?
It's quite acceptable in this shot, but you can see the tops of the pillars are washed out a bit against the sky. In back lit landscapes, it can be very distracting.
You can make a feature of it, for example light "flowing" around windows and ceiling openings etc.
Sun stars can be really nice or a bit misshaped.
Overall, I'm very pleased with it, especially across the frame consistency and the effect of blade shape on rendering.
For the price, it's a mini Voigtlaender or Loxia. Can't expect too much. Also very well made and small. Makes a great 2 lens kit with a PL25/1.4 on an EM1.1 (or three with a plastic fantastic or 35-100 kit lens).
Andrew
Thanks for taking the time.Hi Andrew, and sorry for the tardy reply - but have at last had a look back!I'm really taken with my 10/2, bought a few months ago. The only issue is veiling glare. Do you find yours shows that?
It's quite acceptable in this shot, but you can see the tops of the pillars are washed out a bit against the sky. In back lit landscapes, it can be very distracting.
You can make a feature of it, for example light "flowing" around windows and ceiling openings etc.
Sun stars can be really nice or a bit misshaped.
Overall, I'm very pleased with it, especially across the frame consistency and the effect of blade shape on rendering.
For the price, it's a mini Voigtlaender or Loxia. Can't expect too much. Also very well made and small. Makes a great 2 lens kit with a PL25/1.4 on an EM1.1 (or three with a plastic fantastic or 35-100 kit lens).
Andrew
On the big trip on which I took the 10mm last summer it performed pretty well, with the main failures being operator error - poor technique in using manual focus after all the years with AF.
My old M1 rarely gets out these days - and instead I was using it on the E-M10 MkIV.
Not too many resembled your example... Think I was generally luckier with the light direction, but perhaps some of these are suffering from more than just overexposure in the highlights?
That said, some of them could easily have been worse, so I wonder whether Oly's developments over the years may have reduced susceptibility to such problems?
Baddish up in the dome
A bit poor but catching the bird was unintentional
Could easily have been worse
Similarly not too bad in the sky
Only taken for reference, but capable of rescue!
Not sure what to do with the 10mm (whose early firmware version, only up-datable back at Laowa, I gather, makes it unsuitable for Lumix cameras), but I've subsequently bought the Panasonic 9mm f1.7, whose AF solves my main issue!
But it's clear to me that, when used well, both lenses can take remarkably good pictures - putting most of what I've shot with the Olympus 9-18 zoom to shame.
Apologies once again,
Peter
It's a different 'Sony'. The sensor business is Sony Semiconductor Solutions. It's still part of the Sony Group but a functionally separate and independent company. They don't have to give Sony Imaging special treatment, except as a large and regular customer. In fact, Sony Imaging's still camera business is a small part of the business they do with Sony SS. Their broadcast and cinema camera businesses are huge and generally use specialist sensors sourced for Sony.
Your comment made me smile.
Having owned expensive heavy Sigma aps-c lenses in the past, which quite frankly were not stellar performers. I would never by one for m43.
And why would I need to when we have such excellent optics from both olympus and Panasonic!
It might have something to do with their fairly close relationship with Panasonic in the L-mount sphere. Maybe Panasonic suggested that they make a few M4/3 mount lenses and this announcement was their answer?Not disagreed with you. As said, those Sigma lenses are very good indeed.
My point of view is if Sigma made the 12, 25, 42.5 or zoom lenses available from Panny or Olympus, or some exotic lenses like it does for CaNikon, I shall be very happy to use them. Mostly my thank you to its support to the M43 system. But just remount a few of its existing lenses is just looking like I want your money, but I don't wish to serve you. Now when the demand is not good, they just said I won't do more. As said when they ever really committed to M43? If never, why would they say QUIT?
