Limited MFT manufacturers

[Mark Ransom]

There seems to have been several possible outcomes from this kind of discussion:

i) Panasonic wants to extend FT to mFT, Olympus refuses -> Panasonic goes and develops its own mount system.

ii) Panasonic wants to extend FT to mFT, proposes extensions. Either (a) Olympus accepts the extensions as Panasonic IP and is now in a position of shared IP for the system as a whole or (b) Olympus accepts the extensions so long as the IP is assigned to it (or it is given a licence allowing it to onward licence as it would for its own IP), so it keeps control or (c) Olympus accepts the idea of extension but insists on its own extensions rather than Panasonic's.

iii) There is a genuine standards consortium. Panasonic issues an RFC proposing extension to mirrorless. The partners go through a process of discussion and agree how it should be done, An IP possessed by any partner necessary to licence the agreed solution is put into the IP pool (which again, doesn't necessarily mean assignment, simply a use agreement allowing the standards consortium to onward licence as though it was their IP)

Clearly, what happened was a variant of (ii) or (iii), but we don't know which one. I think in the case of (b) it would probably still have been in Panasonic's interests to allow Olympus sufficient control of any IP it had. In the case of (iii) it would be allowing use of its IP in just the same way.

So in the end, Panasonic's IP contribution isn't an indicator of whether or not this really is an 'open standard', or even how much influence Olympus has.

I think quite telling is the adoption by Panasonic and Sigma, both 'consortium' members, of the Leica L mount. Given that the whole L mount was developed in close collaboration with Panasonic, and that Leica is at least a former claimed member of the 'consortium', the obvious route for all three companies would have been another extension of the mFT mount, with FF mount dimensions but using the MFT protocol. With a slightly longer register, this would have allowed use of mFT (maxi FT) lenses on mFT (micro FT) cameras with a very cheap and simple adapter, which would seem to be a win all round. Yet it didn't happen.

Do you know for a fact that the L mount isn't already an extension of mFT?

 

[JaKing]

IF such a thing were to happen, it would come under the ruling in Dec (?) vs. Microsoft in the Supreme Court of the USA.

Given its highly profitable medical business, Olympus is highly unlikely to go broke.

 

[OkeZen]

Been shooting with mine [Kodak PixPro S-1] and it's a very good camera and the lenses are excellent too. No complaints. Some images with the S-1 in the link below

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jimmccarthy/albums/72157648784061280

I have both of the one-off oddball cameras, the Kodak PixPro S-1 and the YI M1. Both have their place within mFT.

The Kodak S-1, in my opinion, is currently the best deal at the entry level. $300 (on B&H) for a 2-lens kit and a camera that arguably has the most logically menus of any mFT body. Also, the Kodak film-sims give it a Fuji-like vibe. It's a more complete camera then the YI M1. Plus spare batteries run $10, and you can pick up the odd 400mm field scope lens for just $100. So, it's value all around with the S-1.

YI M1 (now on firmware 3.2) is barebones, but captures perfectly fine imagines (especially in RAW) off its 20mp sensor. Focus can be finicky on it at times, which is its biggest flaw, so I tend to either use the kit lenses or go with manual glass. It's one of the few cameras that can be used while charging, which means you can cord up a large external battery in a pair of cargo shorts and shoot all day without changing batteries. For a first attempt, XIAOYI got a lot right, especially after they workout out the firmware kinks.

The Kodak compares well to the E-PL and GF-series and would make a great starter body for someone that wants to dip a toe in the mFT waters without being overwhelmed. The YI makes a great experimental or second/co-body to try out out the 20mp sensor "on the cheap".

Is either camera as good as the offerings from Olympus and Panasonic? Likely not, but they also cost less then the traditional options.

In short, there is room for other mFT makes besides Olympus and Panasonic (one just has to keep an open mind).

 

[iano]

...the market is only so large. So other camera makers need to think hard about whether they can compete against cameras made by Olympus and Panasonic.

Unless they are planning a one off alternative budge priced entry level camera, like Kodak did in 2012 and YI did in 2016, there really isn't much market potential for them.

Lens makers, on the other hand, rarely design lenses specifically for the Four Thirds sensor. Instead, they simply modify lenses designed for APSC or Full Frame by adding a M4/3 lens mount. And this costs them very little, and opens up an additional market for them.

This could explain why only two other camera makers (Kodak and YI) have made M4/3 camera bodies, and both have had very limited success with them.... but over a dozen lens makers have sold lenses with M4/3 lens mounts. With more joining the group every day.

According to the Dpreview product database, there have been 55 M4/3 camera bodies:

• 30 from Panasonic
• 23 from Olympus
• 1 from Kodak
• 1 from YI

.. and 117 M4/3 lenses

• 37 from Panasonic
• 31 from Olympus
• 11 from Samyang
• 11 from Rokinon (probably the same lenses as Samyang)
• 8 from Sigma
• 5 from Voigtlander
• 3 from Hartblei
• 3 from 7artisans
• 2 from Kamlan
• 2 from Lensbaby
• 2 from Venus Optics
• 1 from Tamron
• 1 from Tokina

plus dozens more Cine lenses that were modified with a M4/3 lens mount, that Dpreview doesn't put into their database. These are very high end lenses that are primarily aimed at Panasonic GH users who are videographers.

There just isn't much potential in competing against Olympus and Panasonic for camera bodies, but there is plenty of opportunity to sell M4/3 lenses that are faster, cheaper, or some focal length or type not yet offered by Panasonic or Olympus.

You make a good point about lenses vs bodies........ but I observe a strange thing.

There seem to be no AF lenses by 3rd parties, yet there are AF bodies from 3rd parties using the m43 mount

If you can understand the electonics of the mount for a body, then how much harder can it be to understand the electronics from a lens perspective.

So why the lack of 3rd party AF lenses?

But there are AF lenses from 3rd parties. There are 8 lenses from Sigma, and 1 more from Tamron.

Then the other problem is that there are also very few true m43 3rd party lenses, as opposed to lenses designed for APS-C and then given a m43 mount... with the result that the lens supports a larger image circle so is larger than ideal for m43 and is somewhat like using a lens with an adaptor.

There might be "very few true M4/3 third party lenses" because Olympus and Panasonic provide so many of them. According to DPreview.... 46 at the latest count. The entire system is a niche within a niche, so there isn't all that much market potential for someone to design a new lens for a four thirds sensor. On the other hand, it is pretty easy to modify an APSC or Full Frame lens that already exists to M4/3.

Ask yourself.... what does the number or percentage of third party lenses really mean?

It can mean one of two things, and sometimes both things:

1. The system isn't being supported by the OEM with enough lenses
2. The sales potential is too small to attract third party lens makers

Here's what the Dpreview lens database tells us:



The systems with the highest percentage of third party lenses are those that sell well enough but aren't supported enough by their makers. This creates a market opportunity for third party lens makers.

The systems with the lowest percentage are either defunct, or have a very small market share for one reason or another. And that reason is usually "extremely high cost and very limited market."

M4/3 lies somewhere in the middle of the pack.

And if you think in terms of toal OEM lenses, then M4/3 ranks fourth in terms of the number of total lenses, and fifth in terms of OEM lenses out of 22 systems.

Which isn't bad for a system with a 4% or 5% market share.

Hmmm.... there are many good points in your post has a wealth of data, so thanks.

But in tone, the answer seems to be defending m43 as if it was being attacked, which it was not. I did say 'there seem to be no 3rd party AF lenses'... and then 'why the lack of rd party AF lenses' was a question, not an attack.

I look at the response being defensive, and can only assume it is because in this forum there are just so many posts vigorously attacking things that it becomes the assumption the points in the post being replied to are attacking things. The well reasoned answer you provide suggests this defensiveness is not you, but only arises from responding to what is sadly becoming the normal in posts. It is clearly because the tone of debate in this forum has become adversarial, which given it is the forum of m43 (not in theory the 'forum for those attacking m43') suggests a problem, not in any way with your post, but with the forum tone.

Please, do not take any questions on your response as something needing defending, but rather questions to considering in the spirit of putting information together for answers. These questions are not raised with any thought of being a challenge to m43... but rather as a 'i wonder why'.

1) The very thorough stats you quote seem to say 8 AF 3rd party lenses, from 69 in total. This does seem strange. Given that as you say there are so many m43 lenses it does not in any way create a sparsity of choice, but it does seem strange for 3rd parties to compete so hotly with a market of so many MF lenses.

2) You quote 37 lenses from Panasonic, and 31 from Olympus, which sounds about right to me, but then the table you quote says 46 OEM lenes and 69 3rd party lenses. Something amiss there it seems. The data could be old so both figures would be low, or one column borrowing from the other? What are your thoughts?

 

[bobn2]

I think quite telling is the adoption by Panasonic and Sigma, both 'consortium' members, of the Leica L mount. Given that the whole L mount was developed in close collaboration with Panasonic, and that Leica is at least a former claimed member of the 'consortium', the obvious route for all three companies would have been another extension of the mFT mount, with FF mount dimensions but using the MFT protocol. With a slightly longer register, this would have allowed use of mFT (maxi FT) lenses on mFT (micro FT) cameras with a very cheap and simple adapter, which would seem to be a win all round. Yet it didn't happen.

Do you know for a fact that the L mount isn't already an extension of mFT?

Well, there was a statement someone here posted from a Panasonic spokesman saying that Leica owned the IP, plus, had it been an extension of the mFT 'standard', do you not think it would have been announced as such? I would have though having an electrically and protocol compatible mount would have been a big plus point for both L mount purchasers and current mFT owners. I know as far as I'm concerned, it would have been. So, I'm saying that had this been the case, they would have made a big noise about it.

So, whilst I cannot point you to any document or source that will say for a 'fact' that it isn't, the chances of it being so are vanishingly slim.

 

[Marty4650]

Hmmm.... there are many good points in your post has a wealth of data, so thanks.

But in tone, the answer seems to be defending m43 as if it was being attacked, which it was not. I did say 'there seem to be no 3rd party AF lenses'... and then 'why the lack of rd party AF lenses' was a question, not an attack.

I look at the response being defensive, and can only assume it is because in this forum there are just so many posts vigorously attacking things that it becomes the assumption the points in the post being replied to are attacking things. The well reasoned answer you provide suggests this defensiveness is not you, but only arises from responding to what is sadly becoming the normal in posts. It is clearly because the tone of debate in this forum has become adversarial, which given it is the forum of m43 (not in theory the 'forum for those attacking m43') suggests a problem, not in any way with your post, but with the forum tone.

Please, do not take any questions on your response as something needing defending, but rather questions to considering in the spirit of putting information together for answers. These questions are not raised with any thought of being a challenge to m43... but rather as a 'i wonder why'.

I apologize if my response came off as defensive. That was not my intent. I simply was responding to your question as to why there were no third party AF lenses for M4/3 by pointing out that they did exist.

I suppose it is my fault you perceived my response that way, because I really am a bit of M4/3 zealot, and I need to suppress that at times.

1) The very thorough stats you quote seem to say 8 AF 3rd party lenses, from 69 in total. This does seem strange. Given that as you say there are so many m43 lenses it does not in any way create a sparsity of choice, but it does seem strange for 3rd parties to compete so hotly with a market of so many MF lenses.

Third parties create M4/3 lenses because it is easy to do so. And by doing so, they exand the potential market for products they already have.

Very few (if any) of those third party lenses for M4/3 were designed specifically for the Four Thirds sensor. Those Sigma AF lenses were designed for Sony E cameras (APSC) then shipped with M4/3 lens mounts instead of Sony E lens mounts. And all those MF lenses from various manufacturers were either designed for APSC or Full Frame cameras and retrofitted with M4/3 lens mounts.

2) You quote 37 lenses from Panasonic, and 31 from Olympus, which sounds about right to me, but then the table you quote says 46 OEM lenes and 69 3rd party lenses. Something amiss there it seems. The data could be old so both figures would be low, or one column borrowing from the other? What are your thoughts?

All of the data in my chart came from the Dpreview Lens feature search . This is a quick and easy way to get broad numbers about lens availablity by brand, sensor size and mount.

Unfortunately, while the data is generally very good it is sometimes incomplete. Many brands that make lenses aren't in the database (brands like SLR Magic, Mitakon, Kipon, Meike, Meyer-Optik, Jakar, Yashahura, and others).

Sometimes the totals don't add up right because some lens types are mis-classified. But they are generally very good, and the only alternative would be to create your own list. Like this one that lists every AF, MF, and Cine lens the author could find for both Four Third and M4/3.

 

[JakeJY]

Does Olympus and Panasonic have the exclusive rights to manufacture MFT cameras? If Panasonic is about to enter the full frame market, how come other camera manufacturers aren’t entering MFT?

MFT is an open club, anybody can join. But Olympus and Panasonic have done such a good job, it would be tough for anybody else to find a hole where they could make a difference. Besides, every other manufacturer already has their own formats to support.

It’s a a patented and trademarked standard jointly owned by Panasonic and Olympus. Is not an “open club”.

From the Four Thirds web site:

Four Thirds and Four Thirds Logo marks are trademarks or registered trademarks of Olympus Imaging Corp., in Japan, the United States, the European Union and other countries.

Micro Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds Logo marks are trademarks or registered trademarks of Olympus Imaging Corp., in Japan, the United States, the European Union and other countries.

https://www.four-thirds.org/en/policy/index.html

Doesn’t sound like an open club, right?

There is more on that page which tells you how it is:

The Four Thirds website (hereafter “the present website”) is run jointly by the three manufactures engaged in manufacturing and marketing of Four Thirds products including Olympus Imaging Corp., Sigma Corporation and Panasonic Corporation (hereinafter “Four Thirds product manufacturer companies”). Please read the following site policy before using this website.

* As of September 1, 2006, the present website is being managed by Olympus Imaging Corp. under entrustment by the Four Thirds product manufacturer companies.

Notice what the three manufacturers are engaged in: 'manufacturing and marketing of Four Thirds products'. There is no mentioning there of licensing, developing or administering the 'standard'. They just manufacture and market.

They haven’t been investing hundreds of millions of shareholders cash in marketing a wide open standard. Clearly there is a club here and it’s pay to play.

But let's be fair, their licensing policy is much wider than anyone else's (apart from maybe Leica), which is good. It's just not anything that anyone familiar with open standards would call an open standard, or even any kind of 'standard'. I'm, not sure that running a standards organisation need be that expensive when the members number as few as there are for FT. Running USB, yes, that's likely expensive, but their member companies number in the thousands.

It's run similar to Android / Open Handset Alliance. Google owns practically all the IP and runs the show there (all the websites and trademarks are under Google, just like it is for Olympus here), but it's very much a standard.

"Open" depends on what definition you use (there are many).

 

[bobn2]

Does Olympus and Panasonic have the exclusive rights to manufacture MFT cameras? If Panasonic is about to enter the full frame market, how come other camera manufacturers aren’t entering MFT?

MFT is an open club, anybody can join. But Olympus and Panasonic have done such a good job, it would be tough for anybody else to find a hole where they could make a difference. Besides, every other manufacturer already has their own formats to support.

It’s a a patented and trademarked standard jointly owned by Panasonic and Olympus. Is not an “open club”.

From the Four Thirds web site:

Four Thirds and Four Thirds Logo marks are trademarks or registered trademarks of Olympus Imaging Corp., in Japan, the United States, the European Union and other countries.

Micro Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds Logo marks are trademarks or registered trademarks of Olympus Imaging Corp., in Japan, the United States, the European Union and other countries.

https://www.four-thirds.org/en/policy/index.html

Doesn’t sound like an open club, right?

There is more on that page which tells you how it is:

The Four Thirds website (hereafter “the present website”) is run jointly by the three manufactures engaged in manufacturing and marketing of Four Thirds products including Olympus Imaging Corp., Sigma Corporation and Panasonic Corporation (hereinafter “Four Thirds product manufacturer companies”). Please read the following site policy before using this website.

* As of September 1, 2006, the present website is being managed by Olympus Imaging Corp. under entrustment by the Four Thirds product manufacturer companies.

Notice what the three manufacturers are engaged in: 'manufacturing and marketing of Four Thirds products'. There is no mentioning there of licensing, developing or administering the 'standard'. They just manufacture and market.

They haven’t been investing hundreds of millions of shareholders cash in marketing a wide open standard. Clearly there is a club here and it’s pay to play.

But let's be fair, their licensing policy is much wider than anyone else's (apart from maybe Leica), which is good. It's just not anything that anyone familiar with open standards would call an open standard, or even any kind of 'standard'. I'm, not sure that running a standards organisation need be that expensive when the members number as few as there are for FT. Running USB, yes, that's likely expensive, but their member companies number in the thousands.

It's run similar to Android / Open Handset Alliance. Google owns practically all the IP and runs the show there (all the websites and trademarks are under Google, just like it is for Olympus here), but it's very much a standard.

Android is not in any sense a 'standard'. It's popular, and certain rights to use it are free, but that doesn't make it a standard.

But, yes, the two situations sound quite similar, except that Android licenses are very quick and simple to obtain (you can do it in a few seconds), most of the technology is opens-sourced. Neither of those things are true of mFT.

"Open" depends on what definition you use (there are many).

Yes, but not many fit with people being so tied up in NDAs that they are not even free to answer simple questions about how it all operates.

--
Ride easy, William.
Bob