The purpose of Micro Four Thirds in 2021 and future?

[Interceptor121]

In 2008 Panasonic introduced the G1 the first Micro Four Thirds camera the benefit as described on the website (now removed) were

1. Radical reduction in thickness, size and weight
2. An interchangeable lens system designed to handle video in the future
3. Continued use of four thirds lenses

Benefit number 1 was due to the lack of the mirror box and the sensor size allowing for smaller lenses.

However increasing demand for higher image quality together with efforts to mitigate lack of low light performance has meant faster aperture lenses have been introduced that negate for most the size benefit.

Panasonic launched the Nocticron a lens over 400 grams vs the 150 of the Lumix G 42.5 and later on Olympus pro line meant the 40-150mm weight over 700 grams and the whole family of prime exceed 400 grams.

With the arrival of Sony mirrorless full frame system that also lacked a mirror the size benefit vs micro four thirds has greatly been reduced and today is practically zero. The A7 was the same size of the Olympus OMD EM1.

So if we exclude the smaller bodies and slower lenses it is fair to say that MFT no longer has a size benefit and needs to differentiate on other features.

Those features today are:

1. Mobility / agility

2. Video capabilities

By mobility agility I mean all the additional features connected to MFT higher readout speeds that allow for things not possible on other formats: high speed burst, focus stacking, 4k/6k photo, pre-burst

And of course MFT is still a system of choice for those who need depth of field in video and don't have time to manage precise focus pulling.

This is why Sony is developing a 120 fps readout sensor and why Panasonic confirmed their investment on MFT as a platform for high mobility.

The fact that also future sensor ADC is only 12 bit means they have given up on still image image quality to prioritise speed. Today MFT sensor have more than 12 stops of dynamic range however gradation is inferior to other format with 14 bits depth and this ultimately is a compromise they seem to have decided to take.

This direction of travel may upset the majority of early adopters that chose MFT coming from DSLR however it is a fact and you can see not just PhotoJoseph doing a lot of video but also Peter Fosgard moving to video and Jimmy Chen going back to it as well as Robin Wong. A bunch of hardcore Olympus photographers and ambassadors that now that have been set free from OMD they understand themselves they need to move on.

Bandwidth is becoming cheap and Instragram videos and TikTok are the norm MFT is well aligned to be there and be relevant though most people in this forum do not like the idea. The GH5M2 is exactly targeted to those audiences that shoot video and photo and need to do it effectively and efficiently at good but not outstanding quality. It will be interested to see how this is going to be received.

OMD early statements on video capability and the release of ProRes RAW for Ninja V are signs they also see the direction of travel and will try to align to it.

 

[Tom Axford]

Who is compelling you to buy large and heavy lenses?

I don't have any large lenses and I have no wish to get any.

 

[cba_melbourne]

Who is compelling you to buy large and heavy lenses?

I don't have any large lenses and I have no wish to get any.

Same can be said for cameras. I would never buy an EM1X or a G9 because they are too big and heavy for my needs.

Both these cameras, as well as some of the heavy glass, were designed in a period when m43 was desperately trying to compete with larger formats on their own turf. It was not a good idea, we have seen what happened to Olympus which was pushing this up-sizing to the extreme.

If m43 still has a future (and I think it has), then it is in a return to the old core values: Smaller, lighter, and cheaper than FF.

 

[Harold66]

In 2008 Panasonic introduced the G1 the first Micro Four Thirds camera the benefit as described on the website (now removed) were

1. Radical reduction in thickness, size and weight
2. An interchangeable lens system designed to handle video in the future
3. Continued use of four thirds lenses

Benefit number 1 was due to the lack of the mirror box and the sensor size allowing for smaller lenses.

so ? it was the differentiating factors back then. Trying to use this THIRTEEN year old argument for your agenda is disingenuous at best :-x

Do you know ANY consumer electronics industry where things do not change over a decade ?

However increasing demand for higher image quality together with efforts to mitigate lack of low light performance has meant faster aperture lenses have been introduced that negate for most the size benefit.

NO. you are wrong . Such lenses have been developed to offer a REAL choice between entry level and pro bodies

Panasonic launched the Nocticron a lens over 400 grams vs the 150 of the Lumix G 42.5 and later on Olympus pro line meant the 40-150mm weight over 700 grams and the whole family of prime exceed 400 grams.

so again what is your point ? Having a choice is ALWAYS better

With the arrival of Sony mirrorless full frame system that also lacked a mirror the size benefit vs micro four thirds has greatly been reduced and today is practically zero.

an opinion not a fact

The A7 was the same size of the Olympus OMD EM1.

So if we exclude the smaller bodies and slower lenses it is fair to say that MFT no longer has a size benefit and needs to differentiate on other features.

`no it is not fair .

Those features today are:

1. Mobility / agility

2. Video capabilities

By mobility agility I mean all the additional features connected to MFT higher readout speeds that allow for things not possible on other formats: high speed burst, focus stacking, 4k/6k photo, pre-burst

And of course MFT is still a system of choice for those who need depth of field in video and don't have time to manage precise focus pulling.

so all of a sudden larger DOF is only needed for video ??? how ignorant is this statement
For your information , in most cases having larger DOF at a given aperture/speed combination is an advantage

Harold

 

[Gnine]

Who is compelling you to buy large and heavy lenses?

I don't have any large lenses and I have no wish to get any.

Same can be said for cameras. I would never buy an EM1X or a G9 because they are too big and heavy for my needs.

Both these cameras, as well as some of the heavy glass, were designed in a period when m43 was desperately trying to compete with larger formats on their own turf. It was not a good idea, we have seen what happened to Olympus which was pushing this up-sizing to the extreme.

If m43 still has a future (and I think it has), then it is in a return to the old core values: Smaller, lighter, and cheaper than FF.

Lenses already are. Bodies -there's a certain size that normal people find comfortable to actually use. And that's where we are now. That's why the GM series disappeared. Phones have seen to small, cheap & tiny, It's looking like m4/3 is heading in a more premium direction. There will still be budget, entry level products, but not the volume there is now. That's not where survival of the format lies. Which will no doubt upset the collectors who feel they need 8 different bodies of various sizes. Quality, not quantity.

 

[Harold66]

Who is compelling you to buy large and heavy lenses?

I don't have any large lenses and I have no wish to get any.

Same can be said for cameras. I would never buy an EM1X or a G9 because they are too big and heavy for my needs.

it is amazing how people always assume that their personal needs to what the market needs

I would never buy an Em1x but for birds photographers it may be a good choice . M4/3 needs to aim large

Both these cameras, as well as some of the heavy glass, were designed in a period when m43 was desperately trying to compete with larger formats on their own turf.

No , not necessarily . You cannot have in your catalog professional lenses like some of the long tele and expect people willing to invest in expansive glass be content with an em5 or a GX

It was not a good idea, we have seen what happened to Olympus which was pushing this up-sizing to the extreme.

You do not know what caused that demise

If m43 still has a future (and I think it has), then it is in a return to the old core values: Smaller, lighter, and cheaper than FF.

NO , it has to be able to offer both

Harold

 

[Hmm1000]

mft offer remarkably flexible generalist cameras. (Nikon) APS-C offer nothing like the small set of f1.8 primes. APS-C and FF don't get near 300mm f4 (and I guess 150-400mm) for convenience and cost. Olympus weather sealing seems accepted as unmatched. Few cameras rival the speed of moving data / what is done with that data. Procapture. HHHR. Particularly flexible bracketing / focus stacking. Remarkable stabilization. But, like any generalist tool, there's almost always a better tool for a specific need. That tends to be why mft doesn't look so good in dpr's reviews; plus they tend not to have a practical 'can you get the photo' assessment.

 

[Daft Punk]

Traditional camera companies are going All In to get people to switch to larger sensors and buy expensive bodies. Its working. But it won't work for ever.

This is because, basically, its a bit of a con.

The irony is that people are drinking the "FF is better" koolaid ( encouraged by the media ) even though they are buying resolution that few people actually need. People dont print anymore.

No-one seems to realise the absurdity of spending $10k on an EOS R5 body and lenses, only to spend their time looking at pictures on their iPad.

This is not sustainable, because while an ever shrinking "hobby" market is buying FF, most of the kids are more interested in their iPhone 12.

The challenge for iPhone is telephoto. It's hard to do. Physics is against you.

So, IMO, there will be a resurgence in small sensor cameras. They will all have:

1. User interface and touch screen as good an iPhone. Complete seamless integration with your iPhone as easy as using your AirPods. Instant connectivity.

2. A.I technologies like hand held high res and image stacking, exploiting the faster read out from a small sensor. Using these technologies they will produce low noise, high resolution images as good as current FF offerings.

3. Small but powerful zoom lenses. 400mm reach in the palm of your hand.

M43 is one format that could evolve in this way. Maybe this is what OMDS has in mind.

 

[red pencil]

Most smartphone users don’t give a toss about long telephoto lenses

 

[StefanSC]

Really, they are great screens and they will show if your images are subpar...

 

[red pencil]

Really, they are great screens and they will show if your images are subpar...

What’s subpar?

 

[StefanSC]

Realistically, in this day and age, there is no purpose for the dedicated camera market.

Usage of images has changed so drastically in the past 20 years that the upcoming generations have no use for a dedicated camera.

And as long as the camera makers keep pandering to the same diminishing market category of agining (or retire), kaki (or camo) wearing white men that are as boring as sliced bread, the dedicated camera makers have no future except becoming small niche manufacturers catering to a smaller and smaller market.

There is an oportunity these days for camera makers and especially m43. But it's less technical and more related to expanding the audience by the correct messaging...

But these are Japanese companies, where Not Invented Here rules supreme and the capabilities of groundbreaking inovation are low.

 

[Sranang Boi]

My GX80 plus Panasonic G Vario12-32mm lens fits in my trouser pocket.

 

[Tom Axford]

Realistically, in this day and age, there is no purpose for the dedicated camera market.
Usage of images has changed so drastically in the past 20 years that the upcoming generations have no use for a dedicated camera.
And as long as the camera makers keep pandering to the same diminishing market category of agining (or retire), kaki (or camo) wearing white men that are as boring as sliced bread, the dedicated camera makers have no future except becoming small niche manufacturers catering to a smaller and smaller market.
There is an oportunity these days for camera makers and especially m43. But it's less technical and more related to expanding the audience by the correct messaging...

But these are Japanese companies, where Not Invented Here rules supreme and the capabilities of groundbreaking inovation are low.

Feeling better now?

 

[Timmi]

In 2008 Panasonic introduced the G1 the first Micro Four Thirds camera the benefit as described on the website (now removed) were

1. Radical reduction in thickness, size and weight
2. An interchangeable lens system designed to handle video in the future
3. Continued use of four thirds lenses

Benefit number 1 was due to the lack of the mirror box and the sensor size allowing for smaller lenses.

With the arrival of Sony mirrorless full frame system that also lacked a mirror the size benefit vs micro four thirds has greatly been reduced and today is practically zero. The A7 was the same size of the Olympus OMD EM1.

So if we exclude the smaller bodies and slower lenses it is fair to say that MFT no longer has a size benefit and needs to differentiate on other features.

Those features today are:

1. Mobility / agility

2. Video capabilities

By mobility agility I mean all the additional features connected to MFT higher readout speeds that allow for things not possible on other formats: high speed burst, focus stacking, 4k/6k photo, pre-burst

And of course MFT is still a system of choice for those who need depth of field in video and don't have time to manage precise focus pulling.

This is why Sony is developing a 120 fps readout sensor and why Panasonic confirmed their investment on MFT as a platform for high mobility.

The fact that also future sensor ADC is only 12 bit means they have given up on still image image quality to prioritise speed. Today MFT sensor have more than 12 stops of dynamic range however gradation is inferior to other format with 14 bits depth and this ultimately is a compromise they seem to have decided to take.

OMD early statements on video capability and the release of ProRes RAW for Ninja V are signs they also see the direction of travel and will try to align to

Well, horses for courses.

But the things why I’m with Oly since 4/3 are the same but now Olympus is in a far better Position und the new 20MP BSI Stacked is the final missing part.

My argument pro Olympus

1) Weather Proof and Toughness

2) Pro Optics (not just by glass but speed & built) that are considerable smaller then there Pro Counter Parts considering Speed and VoF (DoF is enough for me) and far more reasonable priced and are based on practical requirements.

3) Ergonomics. The E1 was awesome, same is the EM1X. Also the EM1 III

4) SSWF. As a Leica M owner this is very underrated.

5) Software Feature like Procapture, HH HRS, LiveND

So, and with Olympus goal to finally cater for the Outdoor, Adventure & Wildlife marked and having the 150-400 F4.5 for me it’s looking very very good!!!

B

 

[Daft Punk]

Most smartphone users don’t give a toss about long telephoto lenses

They DO care about “bringing things closer”.

It’s a recurring theme and one of the major factors behind people asking if they should have a “proper camera”.

 

[cba_melbourne]

Who is compelling you to buy large and heavy lenses?

I don't have any large lenses and I have no wish to get any.

Same can be said for cameras. I would never buy an EM1X or a G9 because they are too big and heavy for my needs.

Both these cameras, as well as some of the heavy glass, were designed in a period when m43 was desperately trying to compete with larger formats on their own turf. It was not a good idea, we have seen what happened to Olympus which was pushing this up-sizing to the extreme.

If m43 still has a future (and I think it has), then it is in a return to the old core values: Smaller, lighter, and cheaper than FF.

Lenses already are. Bodies -there's a certain size that normal people find comfortable to actually use. And that's where we are now. That's why the GM series disappeared. Phones have seen to small, cheap & tiny, It's looking like m4/3 is heading in a more premium direction. There will still be budget, entry level products, but not the volume there is now. That's not where survival of the format lies. Which will no doubt upset the collectors who feel they need 8 different bodies of various sizes. Quality, not quantity.

quantity as in bulk and weight? No thanks!

 

[bluehighwayman]

The point of your otherwise useful comment is obfuscated by the derogatory racial remark. I'm a person of color and can assure you the camera industry is trying to remain relevant without regard to racial groups.

It is true that the dedicated camera market may be a dinosaur and will have to reinvent itself to survive. Cellphones have made huge advancements in photography and with the advent of AI will perhaps seal the fate of dedicated cameras. In the next five years more of the major camera companies will suffer the fate of Olympus and Kodak. I will continue to enjoy my Olympus M1 MKII and the very high quality lenses until they no longer function. However my kids and grandchildren take all their photos and videos with cellphones and have absolutely no interest in any other type of cameras.

 

[red pencil]

Most smartphone users don’t give a toss about long telephoto lenses

They DO care about “bringing things closer”.

It’s a recurring theme and one of the major factors behind people asking if they should have a “proper camera”.

very few do most use it as a communication tool whether it be oral, visual and written etc and even fewer bother about your proper camera idea

 

[shinndigg]

In 2008 Panasonic introduced the G1 the first Micro Four Thirds camera the benefit as described on the website (now removed) were

1. Radical reduction in thickness, size and weight
2. An interchangeable lens system designed to handle video in the future
3. Continued use of four thirds lenses

Benefit number 1 was due to the lack of the mirror box and the sensor size allowing for smaller lenses.

However increasing demand for higher image quality together with efforts to mitigate lack of low light performance has meant faster aperture lenses have been introduced that negate for most the size benefit.

Panasonic launched the Nocticron a lens over 400 grams vs the 150 of the Lumix G 42.5 and later on Olympus pro line meant the 40-150mm weight over 700 grams and the whole family of prime exceed 400 grams.

With the arrival of Sony mirrorless full frame system that also lacked a mirror the size benefit vs micro four thirds has greatly been reduced and today is practically zero. The A7 was the same size of the Olympus OMD EM1.

So if we exclude the smaller bodies and slower lenses it is fair to say that MFT no longer has a size benefit and needs to differentiate on other features.

This is where your argument turns silly and loses all credibility

Those features today are:

1. Mobility / agility

2. Video capabilities

By mobility agility I mean all the additional features connected to MFT higher readout speeds that allow for things not possible on other formats: high speed burst, focus stacking, 4k/6k photo, pre-burst

And of course MFT is still a system of choice for those who need depth of field in video and don't have time to manage precise focus pulling.

This is why Sony is developing a 120 fps readout sensor and why Panasonic confirmed their investment on MFT as a platform for high mobility.

The fact that also future sensor ADC is only 12 bit means they have given up on still image image quality to prioritise speed. Today MFT sensor have more than 12 stops of dynamic range however gradation is inferior to other format with 14 bits depth and this ultimately is a compromise they seem to have decided to take.

This direction of travel may upset the majority of early adopters that chose MFT coming from DSLR however it is a fact and you can see not just PhotoJoseph doing a lot of video but also Peter Fosgard moving to video and Jimmy Chen going back to it as well as Robin Wong. A bunch of hardcore Olympus photographers and ambassadors that now that have been set free from OMD they understand themselves they need to move on.

Bandwidth is becoming cheap and Instragram videos and TikTok are the norm MFT is well aligned to be there and be relevant though most people in this forum do not like the idea. The GH5M2 is exactly targeted to those audiences that shoot video and photo and need to do it effectively and efficiently at good but not outstanding quality. It will be interested to see how this is going to be received.

OMD early statements on video capability and the release of ProRes RAW for Ninja V are signs they also see the direction of travel and will try to align to it.