m43's is a system, not a camera

Jeff wrote:

The purpose of this post is simply to remind folks that m43's is a *system*, not a single camera body.

Yes, and 4/3" is the format, the sensor.

That requires reminding for people who doesn't know what m4/3 is.

Tommi K1 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

The purpose of this post is simply to remind folks that m43's is a *system*, not a single camera body.

Yes, and 4/3" is the format, the sensor.

That requires reminding for people who doesn't know what m4/3 is.

I thought 4/3 was the ratio... not the area in square inches (your symbol " indicates inches ?) One square inch would be 25.4mm x 25.4mm, 4/3" even more, and m43 is 23x17mm I think.

Kevin Barrett wrote:

We need to see more M43 development in the low-to-mid-range of the line. Small, fun-to-use, affordable and yet highly capable cameras.

You have a point Kevin but affordable and highly capable have a bit of a problem existing together in the one camera body no matter what its size.

People will pay more for larger camera bodies stuffed to the gills with “features”.

”Feature-challenged” smaller cameras have to be cheap or they are neglected.

Feature challenged compact non-systems cameras have already been killed off by mobile phone cameras.

The GM series tried to be highly capable tiny camera bodies for M4/3 but when they were introduced they did not sell well at the first RRP.  I become a GM-nutter but admit that this happened only after the price came down.  Others nit picked the compromises that the GM series had to make to allow it to be made the size it was - and did not buy.

Furthermore as I have multiple GM bodies I could only afford to buy multiple bodies if the price was less.  This is the true benefit of highly capable tiny camera bodies - but most see them as “pocketable” or “backup” camera bodies.

I would argue that affordable-fun and small would leave the market underwhelmed at the lack of performance and M4/3 would be labelled a cheap and lacklustre system.

If these cameras were made to a high standard and with a good performance then they would not be cheap enough to sell well and certainly too expensive to own several so that they could be used as “multiple cameras” to save lens changing in the field.

In either case we would get another round of feature nit picking whist we digested - lack of articulated lcd, “tiny sub-standard” evf, mechanical shutter limitations, video limitations, no grip, no IBIS, etc - in other words “pretty useless” and still overpriced.

For some reason I am very happy with my GeMs to this day and will continue to be so for some time to come.

I am so lucky that I had the presence of mind to by a few GM bodies and have hung on to them

gary0319 wrote:

glassoholic wrote:

Tommi K1 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

The purpose of this post is simply to remind folks that m43's is a *system*, not a single camera body.

Yes, and 4/3" is the format, the sensor.

That requires reminding for people who doesn't know what m4/3 is.

I thought 4/3 was the ratio... not the area in square inches (your symbol " indicates inches ?) One square inch would be 25.4mm x 25.4mm, 4/3" even more, and m43 is 23x17mm I think.

I always thought that 4/3 was not only the ratio, but the actual size of the sensor, on the diagonal...4/3 inch. Is this wrong?

https://youtu.be/m072i-jDSg4

4:3 is the ratio of the format.

4/3" is the sensor size (format).

m4/3 is the mount from older 4/3 mount for DSLR, both using same OM mount but each is smaller than previous and digital.

The m4/3 is as well complete system, defining protocols for lenses, flashes, batteries, software etc.

The m stands for MICRO, because it allows to make small ILC that 4/3 didn't. Like GM1 or Z Cam E1.

Felice62 wrote:

The sensor size limit will in the not so far future kill the system.

Lack of PDAF or its presence only in olympus flagship models is another reason.

People want more from a camera system than, at least its entry and mid range models, mft has to offer today.

The whole camera market isn''t doing great. There a simply too many models in the lineup. This is a cost and it's not helping global mft sales, IMO.

That said I love my system but just can't see a bright future along the road..

Less people feel that they need to upgrade and keep their gear longer will naturally slow down sales of any system.  That does not mean that a system has died.

There is a huge choice of lenses and a sufficient choice in body styles and sizes to keep M4/3 fresh.  The 16mp was about a sweet spot in 4/3 sensor size and the 20mp sensor was a bonus.  Every 4mp jump in sensor pixel density only adds a reducing percentage to the previous one - a jump to a 24mp sensor will only add 20% more pixels - if this continues larger jumps in resolution size will be necessary as the 4mp extras will become increasing irrelevant.  I don’t see this as the digital as we know it.

Consider the situation with dslr owners these days - with their manufacturers on the cusp of abandoning them and new mount systems proliferating with promises (only) of a raft of new lenses for these new mounts to attract the increasingly scarce camera gear investment money.

And we worry about the future of such an already well established and fleshed out mirrorless mount system?

Keeping what we have and enjoying it seems a great idea.  M4/3 can survive nicely on steady sales of the lenses that are already on offer.  But nothing excites like a new lens being on offer - even though we cannot hope to ever buy them all.

Felice62 wrote:

JaKing wrote:

Felice, SSRIs are your friend if it's worrying you (and others ... ) as much as it appears to be ...

Not worrying me, at all. I won't sell my MFT bodies because of their 16MP sensor. But in the fairly short range (2-3 years) this will likely outweight any minor improvement hte industry will bring to system.

I suspect that M4/3 will continue to prosper and that, maybe just, that they are working on their own sensors.

Unless MFT Oems can live on current customer base, which is fine with me.

I think that they can.  It is dslr oem manufacturers who have the biggest problem as the death of the dslr as a system has already been announced.