Is micro four thirds on its way out?

Started Sep 21, 2017 | Discussions
Roger Engelken
Roger Engelken Veteran Member • Posts: 5,429
Re: gazing into my crystal ball

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.

I just wish my old crystal balls would at least function as bowling balls.

Right now they are paperweights that have this bad habit of rolling around.  Perhaps I need a Ouija board...with raised edges.

 Roger Engelken's gear list:Roger Engelken's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Olympus E-M1 II +10 more
wolfie
wolfie Veteran Member • Posts: 3,866
No

Really, no!

-- hide signature --

Shoot the Light fantastic
https://aucklandswoffer.wordpress.com

 wolfie's gear list:wolfie's gear list
Canon G7 X II Nikon 1 AW1 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 +1 more
Jefftan Veteran Member • Posts: 3,110
Re: We're in too deep now

tt321 wrote:

I extensively tried the A6000, and came off unimpressed for many reasons, and compared to my A6000 clone like GX80, even. I would not advise people to go for that.

On the other hand, I might advise people to go for a compact EOS M.

Sensors are not the only thing. For most applications in the current technological environment, sensor performance should be given a very low priority when comparing systems.

I agree with u EOS M is better for most than 16MP MFT camera.  Dual pixel AF seriously good and with native adapter EF/EF-S/EF-M lens can be used, huge lens selection

but I disagree sensor not important. As a landscape photographer even A6500 dynamic range not enough sometimes (the more the better)

also in dark cloudy days and I go hiking in a forest, want to maintain a high shutter speed I have to go ISO 3200 even in daytimes

Sensor still very important.  Asking me to accept the lower dynamic range of Canon EOS-M sensor still a turn off although I am interested in it more than MFT now

Jefftan Veteran Member • Posts: 3,110
Re: No size advantage?

GodSpeaks wrote:

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?

What about E-M1 II/GH5  heavier than A6500? size advantage?

avalvo Contributing Member • Posts: 982
Re: Brighter Days Ahead
1

I think you will find that M43 is one of the few growth segments in the space.  Its image quality already surpasses the needs of most photographers.  It remains the best system for a high image quality with reasonable size and weight.  The selection of lenses is vast, and the higher end of the space is built to very high standards.  It's one weakness of noise and DR was much improved with the last round of cameras.  The next wave of tech will bring things like global shutter, and BSI sensor tech with a resolution increase to maybe 25-30mp.  At that point, the system is extremely flexible and it's wider adoption will continue to push costs down.  Yes, tech will improve across all segments. But there is a point where the ability to print to say 4 ft by 5 ft wide has limited practical application.  So, folks are likely to gravitate to and stay with a system that is a flexible tool with reasonable weight and high optical quality.

I recently took the image below and blew it up to 18-24 inches.  It made a lovely print. Even when looked at up close is stunning.  This was done on the E-m1 II and the 12-40MM lens - if I recall correctly.  The system is easily capable of publishable work and has been adopted by more than a few pros. Some of the work I've seen here is nothing short of amazing.

vallecano Contributing Member • Posts: 673
Re: Is micro four thirds on its way out? YES!!
1

The day after it was born, it was on the way out: we just don't know when.

 vallecano's gear list:vallecano's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +1 more
GodSpeaks
GodSpeaks Forum Pro • Posts: 13,809
Re: No size advantage?
1

Jefftan wrote:

GodSpeaks wrote:

No size advantage?

Really?

What about E-M1 II/GH5 heavier than A6500? size advantage?

How about substituting a GM5 for your EM1/GH5?  Now who wins?

Another example:

On the left we have a Nikon D800E with 24-120mm f4 mounted.

On the right is a Panasonic GX85 with 12-60mm f3.5-5.6 mounted (24-120mm Eq.).

-- 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
samtheman2014
samtheman2014 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,571
Re: No size advantage?

GodSpeaks wrote:

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?

I think Dennis means within the same sensor size . A m43 sensor compared to a FF sensor is not dissimilar to comparing the compact 2/3" sensor to m43 .

In fact if you look at the best 1" sensor camera compared to the best m43 sensor m43 looks huge in comparison and the Sony 1" sensor is much much closer to m43 than m43 is to the best FF

The smallest 20mp m43 camera with the smallest fast standard zoom, the Sony rx100 IV lens is equivalent to a m43 12-35mm F/2.4-3.8, of course for many here physics does not exist and  for them the Sony is an F/1.8-2.8

-- 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
sbu Regular Member • Posts: 216
Re: We're in too deep now

It's a classic. These guys overly concerned with sensor size has usually no samples to actually backup their claims. Only some nice charts on DxoMark to get awed by.

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

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

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.

So as you do not need to buy every camera on the market , sites such as our beloved DPreview kindly test every camera talking controlled RAW sample images .You can clearly see that the DR thanks to smaller sensor and annoyingly high base ISO pales compared to the best APS let alone FF .

Tests taken at their respective base ISO settings , shooting lower than base ISO typically gives a slightly cleaner image at the expense of DR.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d500/8

-- 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
sbu Regular Member • Posts: 216
Re: We're in too deep now
  1. samtheman2014 wrote:

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

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.

So as you do not need to buy every camera on the market , sites such as our beloved DPreview kindly test every camera talking controlled RAW sample images .You can clearly see that the DR thanks to smaller sensor and annoyingly high base ISO pales compared to the best APS let alone FF .

Tests taken at their respective base ISO settings , shooting lower than base ISO typically gives a slightly cleaner image at the expense of DR.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d500/8

Bla bla bla, bla bla bla. Let's now see some real world landscapes side by side. EM1.2 vs A6500.

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

sbu wrote:

  1. samtheman2014 wrote:

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

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.

So as you do not need to buy every camera on the market , sites such as our beloved DPreview kindly test every camera talking controlled RAW sample images .You can clearly see that the DR thanks to smaller sensor and annoyingly high base ISO pales compared to the best APS let alone FF .

Tests taken at their respective base ISO settings , shooting lower than base ISO typically gives a slightly cleaner image at the expense of DR.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d500/8

Bla bla bla, bla bla bla. Let's now see some real world landscapes side by side. EM1.2 vs A6500.

You may be surprised to hear it but controlled RAW files are exactly as good as it gets , the DR and shadow noise even at base ISO of m43 is a real weakness for landscape shooting, my main interest . I shoot m43 and have done so since 2009 but though many here think it possible the fact is you cannot beat physics . I have not shot with an APS for years but as mentioned there are literally hundreds if not thousands of controlled RAW test shots available online .

Anyway thank you for your babyish response , I really appreciate it when the rampant fanboys id themselves so quickly for the old ignore list 

-- 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
junk1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,486
Re: We're in too deep now

M43 is 60% as large as APSC so there is not much difference if everything else is the same (if both have BSI etc).  M43 will always have size advantage. Some generations in sensors such as when the 16mp m43 Sony sensor first came out, m43 will be very competitive. Other times it will lag more than the size difference would suggest.

Glen Barrington
Glen Barrington Forum Pro • Posts: 20,022
Ironically . . .
1

Mikespirito wrote:

I bought a Panasonic GX8 for the video capabilities. From a camera standpoint the takes pretty good stills. But before I invest in more lenses, is micro 4/3 on its way out. Seeing as Crop sensor Mirrorless is on the rise

There is a thread in the Open forum asking if Canon is dying.  Why do people obsess about this nonsense?

 Glen Barrington's gear list:Glen Barrington's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 +12 more
String
String Senior Member • Posts: 2,066
Re: Is micro four thirds on its way out?
1

Jefftan wrote:

yes for still photography

Funny how quite a few are now either dumping DSLRs for the lighter system weight of m43

may live on for video shooter (just may)

now MFT camera heavy and expensive

Compared to what? Two bodies come out for m43 that are heavier/expensive so now all m43 is heavy and expensive?

low resolution, more noise, less dynamic range. much lower IQ than APS-C but sometimes heavier weight and more expensive

There is just so much wrong with this "statement". The biggest problem with APS-C, be it from Canon/Nikon or Sony is the staggering lack of native glass. Sure a GH5/EM1 is heavier than a Rebel if you want to cherry pick.

much heavier than 1 inch with similar IQ

LOL, yeah sure.

make sense for telephoto like BIF but how may percentage of photographer are really into telephoto to support MFT?

I doubt MFT long term prospect for photography. If u don't believe me, be patient

things move fast, just 3 years later see if I am correct

APS-C is the problem child. Why bother with it when you are forced to use FF glass? Just shoot with a same size FF body.

 String's gear list:String's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +4 more
Steady Rolling New Member • Posts: 21
Re: Is micro four thirds on its way out?

Allan Brown wrote:

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.

Is Fuji X-mount "full-frame" by this definition?

 Steady Rolling's gear list:Steady Rolling's gear list
Panasonic LX100 II Nikon D850 Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm F4G ED VR +2 more
samtheman2014
samtheman2014 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,571
Re: Is micro four thirds on its way out?

Steady Rolling wrote:

Allan Brown wrote:

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.

Is Fuji X-mount "full-frame" by this definition?

Yep , and presumably the 1" cx system from Nikon while it lasts at least

-- 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
puttin
puttin Veteran Member • Posts: 7,536
Re: Is micro four thirds on its way out?

Steady Rolling wrote:

Allan Brown wrote:

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.

Is Fuji X-mount "full-frame" by this definition?

Gee it makes me feel good knowing all my Fujis are full frame. No need for me to buy the Nikon D5 now

 puttin's gear list:puttin's gear list
Fujifilm XF1 Nikon Coolpix A Canon G3 X Canon G9 X II Pentax K-5 IIs +18 more
MisterMistet Regular Member • Posts: 159
Re: Sure it is
1

You are right. Iphone it is. People just snapping away. Don't get me wrong, it is fine by me, but what is annoying that some people really think the iPhone is a serious camera. The other day I got the question if I could make something of a family group picture of a friend. It needed a lot of work and never got close to a good photo.

STOP making important photographs with the @$*&# iPhone!

 MisterMistet's gear list:MisterMistet's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Sony a7 III Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS +3 more
samtheman2014
samtheman2014 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,571
Re: We're in too deep now

junk1 wrote:

M43 is 60% as large as APSC so there is not much difference if everything else is the same (if both have BSI etc). M43 will always have size advantage. Some generations in sensors such as when the 16mp m43 Sony sensor first came out, m43 will be very competitive. Other times it will lag more than the size difference would suggest.

Again from my perspective as a typically base ISO shooter where DR and shadow noise really matters take a look at the DPreview RAW DR tests to see just how big a difference there is. I think this is why despite their technical skills { framing , composition, focus etc} for example BIF shots really suffer with m43,  thanks to the inherent shadow noise which rears its ugly head when you need to push shadows. There are simply some scenarios where you need to push shadows ie that damn bird against a much brighter sky, wide DR landscapes and so on. Plus you do not to buy anywhere near top end APS to get much better DR for example last gen or even the gen before that Nikon APS cameras like the £400 D5300 will give markedly better DR and shadow noise results at low ISO than any m43 camera including the most expensive £1849 E-M1 II { which obviously has a far far better feature set }

It could be easily fixed  by simply giving us a m43 sensor with a lower true base ISO of say 50, if it came with a few more MP all the better Which sadly seems to be rather unlikely

-- 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads