Is micro four thirds on its way out?

Started Sep 21, 2017 | Discussions
tt321
tt321 Forum Pro • Posts: 13,519
Re: Is micro four thirds on its way out?
3

George1958 wrote:

What makes you think you will get a robust answer from a forum. There are fan boys, haters, fence sitters and a core of sensible and moderate people with a great deal of wisdom who will have a view. How do you pick from that?

Also there are those who are also predicting the end of DSLRs, APSC cameras, the death of NIkon and Ricoh , according to many Canon are trying to flogg us all yesterdays tech, to others were are all blind for not buying Sony.

there is no objective evidence that m4/3 is going any time soon so what's the point in speculating?

The point, of course, is explained in this:

http://newcameranews.com/2014/06/02/trolling-for-dummies/

dennis tennis Veteran Member • Posts: 3,783
Re: MFT is just fine
1

samtheman2014 wrote:

GodSpeaks wrote:

Even when (not if) Nikon and Canon get serious about mirrorless, it will be quite some time before they can match what MFT offers today, and by then MFT will have advanced further.

There are rumours suggesting Nikon will use an F-mount which would instantly give access to a massive selection of native lenses. The size advantge in FF mirrorless is mainly down to the body, beyond a couple of mainly UWA lens examples , the lenses do not vary much in size you simply cannot beat physics. Assuming Nikon can get the best AF performance etc .

Same story with Canon given the huge selection of lenses already available both native and from Tamron, Sigma , et al using an EF mount on a future FF mirrorless system would make good business sense.Now whether Nikon or Canon act logically is a different matter

Jim Stirling

Canon M5 and M6 APS-C Mirrorless have access to the full range of EF lenses.  The adapater is to me a non-issue because dual pixel AF on the Canon latest sensor makes DSLR lenses operate just as well on mirrorless as on DSLR.  Even more, because the entire sensor is now PDAF enabled, more complex scene recognition is possible on mirrorless.  Yes, eventually on sensor PDAF will be superior to DSLR PDAF and I would argue that Canon is ahead of everyone.

In one move, Canon mirrorless can use DSLR lenses as if they were native.  My SHG and HG FT lenses from Olympus are just OK when paired with the latest and greatest Olympus mFT bodies.  There is no upgrade "pains" nor any transition pains when moving back and forth for Canon users.  Yes, Canon has been slow rolling but they have shown that they don't lack the capability.  They don't want to bring them to market "just yet".

Given recent Nikon announcement, it seems like both Canon and Nikon decide to wait until the mirrorless market "matures" and then they jump in fully.  Nikon tried going bottom up with 1 system and failed so now they're going to go top down with their mirrorless strategy.  It seems like Canon will stick with their bottom up strategy.  The M5 is equivalent to a slightly crippled 80D.  I expect their next major model will be equivalent to a 7Dmk3 but slightly less.

-- hide signature --

refugee from the Nikon Df dial and grip police

Ab Latchin Senior Member • Posts: 1,613
Re: MFT is just fine
4

One interesting point is that while all the lenses work reasonably well, the purpose of putting a larger DSLR lens on a smaller body defeats the purpose of downsizing. In other words what real benefit is there if the body is the only element that gets smaller?

Within the m43rds ecosystem we have a wide variety of lenses and bodies from very small to relatively small.

Allan Brown Senior Member • Posts: 2,700
Re: Is micro four thirds on its way out?

Messier Object wrote:

Allan Brown wrote:

Mark9473 wrote:

Mikespirito wrote:

is micro 4/3 on its way out. Seeing as Crop sensor Mirrorless is on the rise

m43 is a crop sensor mirrorless. Your question makes no sense at all.

Wrong!

A crop sensor is one that still uses the lenses from the "original" sized sensor I.E. DX is a crop from FX.

M4/3 is not a crop as the lenses were designed for that size. Same with 1" sensors.

So, the m4/3 sensor with the native lenses is actually full frame.

This just shows the silliness of those that think full frame is something wonderful when all it means is the lenses were designed for the sensor size. It is marketing nonsense.

BTW, medium format is also full frame as is 8X10".

So, I take the above comment of "Crop sensor Mirrorless" to mean DX (APS-C) format.

Allan

So If I put an EF lens on my 7D2 then it's a crop sensor camera.
But If I put an EF-S lens on my 7D2 it's a full frame camera

If I put my EF300mm f/2.8 on my E-M1II it's a 2x crop camera, but if I put my Olympus 300mm F/2.8 on the E-M1 II it's full frame ???

I don't know the Canon system well enough to comment but doesn't the 7D2 have an APS-C sensor?

Anyway, Nikon makes FX lenses and DX (APS-C) lenses. What happens when you mount a DX lens on the D5 (FX body) vs the same lens on a D7200 (DX body)?

One could argue that mounting the DX lens on a DX body is full frame as they are made for each other.

I am saying that the FF term that so many like is wrong. It is a term that was started by the marketing people at either Canon or Nikon to suggest that a 24x36mm sensor is better. Better than medium format? Why isn't medium format called full frame?

This nonsense is just like what happened with Japanese cars in the US back in the 80's.

To try and slow down the sale of smaller cars, the big three started to call their cars Full Size cars. Most Japanese cars were classified as sub-compacts. Marketing crap.

That logic seems flawed. 300mm is 300mm, regardless of the image circles, the field of view is the same. The E-M1 II is either a crop or a full frame.

Peter

The logic is Not flawed. What is flawed is the notion that the 24x36mm sensor size is full frame.

My point is - this lead to the misunderstanding of the original post by some who responded. See the quoted text above.

Allan

dennis tennis Veteran Member • Posts: 3,783
Re: MFT is just fine

Ab Latchin wrote:

One interesting point is that while all the lenses work reasonably well, the purpose of putting a larger DSLR lens on a smaller body defeats the purpose of downsizing. In other words what real benefit is there if the body is the only element that gets smaller?

Within the m43rds ecosystem we have a wide variety of lenses and bodies from very small to relatively small.

DSLR lenses are not larger than mirrorless lenses if they are the same focal length, aperture and quality.  Sony FF constant f2.8 zooms E mount are the same as their A mounts and are the same as Canon and Nikons.

It is a fallacy to think that just because you do mirrorless, the ONLY reason you went mirrorless is because you want small.  This is the marketing brain washing that Oly and Pany had to do to create a separation between DSLR and their mFT.  You want small lenses?  Get slower lenses and/or smaller sensor.

when people say the "advantage" of mirrorless is that it is smaller, I know they drank the Kool-Aid.   Mirrorless removes the mirror.  Everything else is physics and technology and nobody is beating physics and nobody is making innovation that the other brands are equalling or have access to.  I would argue that what saved mFT (I bought EP1 and G1 fro the get go) is Sony.  With Sony sensor, without PDAF on sensor, mFT would be lagging.

And for Canon lenses, they don't work reasonably well, they work just as well, and for Video even better on Canon mirrorless than on Canon DSLR.  Something, neither Oly or Pany has been able to achieve with their compatibility with their "legacy" DSLR lenses (of which I have many)

-- hide signature --

refugee from the Nikon Df dial and grip police

Astrotripper Veteran Member • Posts: 6,720
Re: MFT is just fine

Ab Latchin wrote:

One interesting point is that while all the lenses work reasonably well, the purpose of putting a larger DSLR lens on a smaller body defeats the purpose of downsizing. In other words what real benefit is there if the body is the only element that gets smaller?

That is not entirely true. At the tele end, there is not much penalty for adapting a lens. I mean, a 70-300mm zoom will be in the same size and weight ballpark, regardless whether it is designed for 1", 4/3, APS-C of 35mm format sensor.

Within the m43rds ecosystem we have a wide variety of lenses and bodies from very small to relatively small.

Yep. That's what's really great about Micro 4/3, I think.

I can have a GM5 that fits in my pocket with a range of lenses, and I can have an E-M1 Mark II for comfortable use of those much larger lenses, like super teles. With most other systems you usually have a choice of roughly one size, sometimes with a heavier or lighter option. And there is no other system that has cameras come in such great variety of shapes and sizes.

 Astrotripper's gear list:Astrotripper's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M1 II +17 more
WookieLala Junior Member • Posts: 49
Re: Tom have you read this?
1

tt321 wrote:

http://newcameranews.com/2014/06/02/trolling-for-dummies/

All moderators should read this and treat obviously-fitting thread starters accordingly.

It's not as if some ID with a grand history of several posts cannot suffer a mistaken ban.

Food for thoughts. Over 100 responses in 24 hours, with the OP not participating in the discussion. Hmmm....

samtheman2014
samtheman2014 Senior Member • Posts: 4,571
Re: We're in too deep now
1

JaKing wrote:

You patently don't know what you are talking about. EVEN DxO report the E-1 as having quite exceptional DR ...

Now, if you want to talk about the 'rotten' JPEG DR of E-510 or D700 files, that's a different kettle of fish! But both are still better than almost all colour films ...

IOW, stop talking as if 0.5 of a stop was the end of the world ...

-- hide signature --

br, john, from you know where
My gear list and sordid past are here: https://www.dpreview.com/members/1558378718/overview
Gallery: https://www.canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/page/gallery/

DXO does not seem to have the 14yr old E-1 camera listed amongst its tested cameras, the oldest listed is the E-3

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare

As for the jpeg DR if you are interested enough in DR then you are far more likely to be using RAW , where the the D700 blows the E-510 out of the water in every single category . 2.2 stops better DR, 2.3 stops better colour depth and 2.3 stops better high ISO. I hope you are not basing your jpeg DR claim on the comically bad DPreview DR  test of old which was abandoned

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling

 samtheman2014's gear list:samtheman2014's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Sony a7R II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +10 more
gary0319
gary0319 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,256
Re: MFT is just fine
1

dennis tennis wrote:

Ab Latchin wrote:

One interesting point is that while all the lenses work reasonably well, the purpose of putting a larger DSLR lens on a smaller body defeats the purpose of downsizing. In other words what real benefit is there if the body is the only element that gets smaller?

Within the m43rds ecosystem we have a wide variety of lenses and bodies from very small to relatively small.

It is a fallacy to think that just because you do mirrorless, the ONLY reason you went mirrorless is because you want small. This is the marketing brain washing that Oly and Pany had to do to create a separation between DSLR and their mFT. You want small lenses? Get slower lenses and/or smaller sensor.

when people say the "advantage" of mirrorless is that it is smaller, I know they drank the Kool-Aid. Mirrorless removes the mirror. Everything else is physics and technology and nobody is beating physics and nobody is making innovation that the other brands are equalling or have access to.

I'm one of those that originally drank the kool-aide a couple of years ago, forsaking my Canon DSLR for a Panny GX7. But after a number of M43 bodies and a lot of lenses I concur that the idea that mirrorless saves a lot of weight is not necessarily so. A mirrorless FF camera with an equal lens weighs almost as much as the mirrored counterpart. Same goes for APSC, where, at least with Canon, the better L lenses are sized for the FF camera.

I've come to the realization that the real benefit to mirrorless has less to do with the weight savings (only accomplished with a smaller sensor and smaller lenses), and more to do with the shooting differences inherent with mirrorless cameras. The ability to modify the image via live view through the EVF before the shot is taken cannot be overestimated. When my DSLR shooting friends ask me advice on going mirrorless, they almost always cite the weight savings as the main benefit they are looking for. I just hand them my Olympus camera ask them to put it up to their eye and spin the exposure comp dial........nothing else needs be done.

 gary0319's gear list:gary0319's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +8 more
samtheman2014
samtheman2014 Senior Member • Posts: 4,571
Re: MFT is just fine

Astrotripper wrote:

Ab Latchin wrote:

One interesting point is that while all the lenses work reasonably well, the purpose of putting a larger DSLR lens on a smaller body defeats the purpose of downsizing. In other words what real benefit is there if the body is the only element that gets smaller?

That is not entirely true. At the tele end, there is not much penalty for adapting a lens. I mean, a 70-300mm zoom will be in the same size and weight ballpark, regardless whether it is designed for 1", 4/3, APS-C of 35mm format sensor.

I would say that it is not just tele end anything away from UWA  any size differences are minimal  assuming same format. There is also the far from lossless and sometimes massive software corrections used in many mirrorless lenses

Within the m43rds ecosystem we have a wide variety of lenses and bodies from very small to relatively small.

Yep. That's what's really great about Micro 4/3, I think.

I can have a GM5 that fits in my pocket with a range of lenses, and I can have an E-M1 Mark II for comfortable use of those much larger lenses, like super teles. With most other systems you usually have a choice of roughly one size, sometimes with a heavier or lighter option. And there is no other system that has cameras come in such great variety of shapes and sizes.

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling

 samtheman2014's gear list:samtheman2014's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Sony a7R II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +10 more
mjc1 Regular Member • Posts: 369
Re: Is micro four thirds on its way out?

I am always confused by this thinking. The size difference between a typical APS (330-370 mm^2) and MFT (225mm^2) (ie the APS-C is 60% larger overall) is actually less then the size difference between a 1-inch (116mm^2) and the MFT (MFT is about 95% larger), yet there is a ""much lower" image quality difference between APS and MFT and "similar" image quality between MFT and 1-inch. Someone is going to need to explain the physics behind that too me.  Not saying one system is better then the other, just trying to following the logic train.

sbu Regular Member • Posts: 164
Re: We're in too deep now
1

Jefftan wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

JaKing wrote:

Sorry, but that's just rubbish.

Even my 2003 E-1 will take superb photos with its measly 5 MPx sensor.

I agree, but some around here are just having heart attacks because the new E-M10 III still has a 16mpx sensor.

i suppose u are not doing landscape

even my most advance APS-C sensor A6500 got challenge in dynamic range sometimes

2003 E-1 or E-M10 III 16MP MFT sensor is a joke for landscape

I know what I am talking about. I own both GM1 and GM5 and just buy A6500

I can assure u color/dynamic range/detail/low light noise between GM and A6500 is not even close

There is no comparison in IQ. I don't know why someone keep saying 16MP MFT is enough

if they are sincere they are not doing landscape, even my A6500 don't have enough dynamic range sometimes

Could you please post some side by side raw comparisons? I would like to check that assertion.

 sbu's gear list:sbu's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 ASPH
3dwag
3dwag Veteran Member • Posts: 3,987
Re: We're in too deep now
1

sbu wrote:

Jefftan wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

JaKing wrote:

Sorry, but that's just rubbish.

Even my 2003 E-1 will take superb photos with its measly 5 MPx sensor.

I agree, but some around here are just having heart attacks because the new E-M10 III still has a 16mpx sensor.

i suppose u are not doing landscape

even my most advance APS-C sensor A6500 got challenge in dynamic range sometimes

2003 E-1 or E-M10 III 16MP MFT sensor is a joke for landscape

I know what I am talking about. I own both GM1 and GM5 and just buy A6500

At what shutter speeds for GM1 and GM5?  They switch to electronic shutter and 10-bit RAW files at faster than 1/500 second.

As sbu has suggested, please post example RAW files to demonstrate your claims.

I can assure u color/dynamic range/detail/low light noise between GM and A6500 is not even close

There is no comparison in IQ. I don't know why someone keep saying 16MP MFT is enough

if they are sincere they are not doing landscape, even my A6500 don't have enough dynamic range sometimes

Could you please post some side by side raw comparisons? I would like to check that assertion.

-- hide signature --
 3dwag's gear list:3dwag's gear list
Apple iPhone 6s Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS50 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M5 II +23 more
TheEye
TheEye Veteran Member • Posts: 4,738
Yes, it's on its way out...

...the door so I can take some pictures in a while.

Photo Pete Veteran Member • Posts: 4,580
gazing into my crystal ball
6

gazing into my crystal ball I can definitively say no... or maybe yes... damn that crystal ball... the chromatic abberations are so strong it just reduces the clarity of everything it shows me.

Does anyone have any advice on which crystal ball I should upgrade to from the kit ball which came with the tarot card pack? I've heard that the Leica zoom version is good at the 5 year end, but tends to lose resolution when zoomed all the way out to the 10 year end. Should I go for a fixed focal length version instead... and if so, should I go for the 5 or 10 year focal length?

I want to predict mainly lottery numbers and the future of camera formats but occasionally predict world events for exhibition purposes.

-- hide signature --

Have Fun
Photo Pete

Ab Latchin Senior Member • Posts: 1,613
Re: MFT is just fine
2

dennis tennis wrote:

Ab Latchin wrote:

One interesting point is that while all the lenses work reasonably well, the purpose of putting a larger DSLR lens on a smaller body defeats the purpose of downsizing. In other words what real benefit is there if the body is the only element that gets smaller?

Within the m43rds ecosystem we have a wide variety of lenses and bodies from very small to relatively small.

DSLR lenses are not larger than mirrorless lenses if they are the same focal length, aperture and quality. Sony FF constant f2.8 zooms E mount are the same as their A mounts and are the same as Canon and Nikons.

That is my point. M43rds offers a real advantage in terms of system size because they are not FF or APSC options. So while a Sony 70-200 f4 allows for a 1 stop advantage over the 40-150, it is heavier, has a significantly shorter range (on FE bodies) and one could argue maintains only1 stop of the potential sensor size advantage. Of course thise size advantage opens up further with Panasonics 35-100 f2.8

It is a fallacy to think that just because you do mirrorless, the ONLY reason you went mirrorless is because you want small. This is the marketing brain washing that Oly and Pany had to do to create a separation between DSLR and their mFT. You want small lenses? Get slower lenses and/or smaller sensor.

No, you might want mirrorless because it CAN be small. This is nohing to do with marketing. When I travel I bring the 9-18, 40-150 (variable olympus lenses) the 25mm f1.4 and 15mm f1.7 along with my un-gripped EM5.2. The massive size and weight saving is real because in the real world there is almost nothing that competes.

when people say the "advantage" of mirrorless is that it is smaller, I know they drank the Kool-Aid. Mirrorless removes the mirror. Everything else is physics and technology and nobody is beating physics and nobody is making innovation that the other brands are equalling or have access to. I would argue that what saved mFT (I bought EP1 and G1 fro the get go) is Sony. With Sony sensor, without PDAF on sensor, mFT would be lagging.

And for Canon lenses, they don't work reasonably well, they work just as well, and for Video even better on Canon mirrorless than on Canon DSLR. Something, neither Oly or Pany has been able to achieve with their compatibility with their "legacy" DSLR lenses (of which I have many)

Again, if you want to buy a small mirorless body and use your Canon lenses, go right ahead. No matter their performance, they are a stop gap because you don't buy the small Canon mirrorless body only to bring your Canon f2.8 zooms with you.

-- hide signature --

refugee from the Nikon Df dial and grip police

Peter 1745 Senior Member • Posts: 1,384
Re: gazing into my crystal ball
2

Photo Pete wrote:

gazing into my crystal ball I can definitively say no... or maybe yes... damn that crystal ball... the chromatic abberations are so strong it just reduces the clarity of everything it shows me.

Does anyone have any advice on which crystal ball I should upgrade to from the kit ball which came with the tarot card pack? I've heard that the Leica zoom version is good at the 5 year end, but tends to lose resolution when zoomed all the way out to the 10 year end. Should I go for a fixed focal length version instead... and if so, should I go for the 5 or 10 year focal length?

I want to predict mainly lottery numbers and the future of camera formats but occasionally predict world events for exhibition purposes.

Are you letting the crystal ball process the images or are you using external software to process the RAW data?

I have heard that you can get time compression artefacts if you let the crystal ball do it and sometimes the images are more golden than they should be.

Using external software allows you to reveal the details of the darkness which can't be seen in the ball itself.

What external software are you using and have you sold your soul to the devil on a subscription basis to pay for it? I use Adobe CrossRoads CC.

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Peter
'Keep taking the photos'

tt321
tt321 Forum Pro • Posts: 13,519
Re: Tom have you read this?

WookieLala wrote:

tt321 wrote:

http://newcameranews.com/2014/06/02/trolling-for-dummies/

All moderators should read this and treat obviously-fitting thread starters accordingly.

It's not as if some ID with a grand history of several posts cannot suffer a mistaken ban.

Food for thoughts. Over 100 responses in 24 hours, with the OP not participating in the discussion. Hmmm....

To be fair forum traffic is rarely about the OP's anyway. It's about the discussion participants

junk1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,451
Re: Micro eyes?

And Nikon IQ was poor unless later bodies finally improved. Sort of odd that Sony doesn't make m43 or smaller ILC. Hopefully Nikon will come out with APSC mirrorless but they said it will be FF.

GodSpeaks
GodSpeaks Forum Pro • Posts: 13,766
No size advantage?
2

dennis tennis wrote:

DSLR lenses are not larger than mirrorless lenses if they are the same focal length, aperture and quality. Sony FF constant f2.8 zooms E mount are the same as their A mounts and are the same as Canon and Nikons.

It is a fallacy to think that just because you do mirrorless, the ONLY reason you went mirrorless is because you want small. This is the marketing brain washing that Oly and Pany had to do to create a separation between DSLR and their mFT. You want small lenses? Get slower lenses and/or smaller sensor.

when people say the "advantage" of mirrorless is that it is smaller, I know they drank the Kool-Aid. Mirrorless removes the mirror. Everything else is physics and technology and nobody is beating physics and nobody is making innovation that the other brands are equalling or have access to. I would argue that what saved mFT (I bought EP1 and G1 fro the get go) is Sony. With Sony sensor, without PDAF on sensor, mFT would be lagging.

And for Canon lenses, they don't work reasonably well, they work just as well, and for Video even better on Canon mirrorless than on Canon DSLR. Something, neither Oly or Pany has been able to achieve with their compatibility with their "legacy" DSLR lenses (of which I have many)

No size advantage?

Really?

-- hide signature --

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
- Rayna Butler

 GodSpeaks's gear list:GodSpeaks's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS5 Panasonic FZ1000 Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Nikon D800E Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 +49 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads