WRONG WAY - GO BACK !!!

[jwilliams]

Just because 4/3rds isn’t around doesn’t mean it failed at all. It’s just a line that has been superseded. Just like fashion and cars, marketers have to watch trends and adjust lineups accordingly. With cars, I see it like their power plants. V8s once dominated US autos. These days high powered 6s and 4s rule and soon it’ll be hybrids, electrics or hydrogen power. Eventually, there’ll be no V8s but if a maker held on to outdated engines and ignored the trends, then they would fail. Is the V8 a failure. No way, but is it’s time numbered, too right.

--
Cheers,
John
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9739982393/albums

The difference is John that those V8's made money , FT lost money from start to finish though it is only in the last 18 months that m43 has made any profit for them .

--
Jim Stirling

car analogies so I'll jump in here. Like Jim said the V8s selling today are highly profitable segments of the market. Probably the most profitable actually (high perfromance cars and trucks).

The analogy I like is that m43 is a 4 cylinder and APSC a 6 cylinder and FF a V8. Now each can be made to perform at various levels. You can add turbos, superchargers, electric motors etc to each one and get a range of power.

There is however a range of power where each makes the most sense and the 8 cylinder is always going to have higher power potential than the 4 or 6.

If you think of the camera with a basic lens as the base version of each type of motor then you can add on stuff to increase performance. The stuff with cameras is basically limited to the lenses.

So take a 4 cylinder (m43) add a turbo, supercharger and electric motors to it. You now have something with base V8 (FF) power. It is overly complex, expensive and isn't even lighter anymore due to all the stuff you had to add to get to the base V8 power level. This is exactly the same as adding the big f1.2 lenses to a m43 camera. Expensive, heavy and no more (and often less) IQ than a FF camera with basic lens.

Of course you can add the turbo, supercharger and electric motors to the V8. This is just shelling out the big bucks for a high $ lens.

Me personally, I like doing things the simple way, so if I want to go fast, I'll just get the base V8, save money over the complex 4 and have less maintenance issues.

Right tool for the job. Easy really.

--
Jonathan

 

[samtheman2014]

...I am still relatively new to photography and it will be a long time before I outgrow my current gear, if ever.

You might be surprised, I said that just a couple of years ago, but there are limits I've run into - mainly around post processing latitude in my case. As long as I'm happy with the shot as taken, it's fine (the same was true when I had a Nikon V1), but try and raise the shadows too much, or tweak the colours too much, and MFT files can be quite difficult. Not drastically, but enough that I sometimes miss even the Samsung APS-C files, never mind those from a larger sensor.

I agree with you Jonathan , the poor shadow performance of m43 when pushed even at base ISO is the only real disadvantage of the system. The sensor size disadvantage is compounded by us being stuck with a 200 base ISO . My ideal m43 camera would have more MP and a base ISO of 50

No issues with MFT between 24 and 200 EFL. Beyond that, I feel the marginal returns of putting money into the system are diminishing faster than for other systems.

exactly that - diminishing marginal returns.

 

[Sergey Borachev]

Ya know, there is a Buy/Sell board here where you can give away your Olympus and Panasonic gear. Would help your time management too because you won't have to post endlessly about how Olympus is dead because Sony released yet another new camera that uses bits and parts of the one they released 3 releases ago, or the 2 and 3 year old ones.

--
Dale

Does it matter whether the new Sony camera is made from 3 releases or 3 year old parts, if it can give you 15 stops of DR, much better DOF control, higher ISO performance, superior PDAF+CDAF, video features ... .... ... for about the same size, weight and price as your E-M1 II?

It doesn't give you 15 stops of DR. How exactly does the camera give you better DOF control? How does higher ISO performance mean anything if one doesn't need to shoot in complete darkness? Superior AF? Yeah, it is superior, by fractions, but your beloved Sony can't AF track as good as a Nikon, so why don't you talk about that? Video? I buy cameras. Who cares about 8K except people like you who don't actually use the cameras, they just get a rush about a feature list and buy the next greatest thing because sooner of later there is going to be a Sony (no doubt) that actually takes the picture for you while it is still on the shelf at home.

--
Dale

Seems like I have to explain the DOF control advantage of the larger sensor cameras. (Another poster asked the same question earlier, and I thought most people on these forums should understand such basics.)

If everything is the same, e.g. using a lens with the same speed, say f/1.4, on the FF and the M43 camera, and focusing at something at the same distance away, the FF camera will have thinner DOF at max aperture and also a wider range of DOF to select by changing to smaller apertures (from.very thin DOF and increasing gradually to infinity) The M43 camera will have more DOF at max and the DOF songbirds to increase with smaller apertures, which means it will have less range of DOF to select from. So the FF has more control over DOF. Makes sense now?

 

[Okapi001]

It lost money from start to finish and

Of course you have reliable financial data to back that up, don't you?

 

[CliffWales]

 

[paul cool]

Only on certain lenses does this factor how about a sony 400mm f2.8 v panasonic 200mm f2.8 same fov and aperture much different weight and cost to be honest so m43 will be a samurai v sumo wrestler .you eat eat us much as you can and get fat ill be faster and more nimble .with savings .

The wider you go for fast primes the m43 struggles to compete especially on dof but those oly primes are very impressive and set new bench marks

Maybe one day i will get the ff sony it looks very nice.

 

[jwilliams]

It only really matters if you give a %&$# about not having the very best spec list and price point.

Sorry but I'm laughing my a$$ off at that one. Who wants the best features at the lowest price? Count me in!

I see people lining up now saying 'give me a camera with lower specs and a higher price'.

I agree with you, but, thinking about it, people buy Hasselbad and Leica ;-)

Yes, but at least H & L do have higher performance than the mass market. H thru larger senor and both thru better glass. I wouldn't buy either, but at least I see some logic behind those that do.

Actually, that's pretty much it, there are two ways of selling cameras. One is pitch the "lifestyle" angle, have professional dealers who take the time to engage with the customers, professional service and after sales care, and a genuine focus on listening to the customer. Do this, and you can get away with not chasing features. Actually if I had the money for digital Medium Format, I'd consider Hasselblad, for example over Fuji, even though Fuji has better features - they have actual dealers I can speak to in person and I feel they actually listen to their customers (even if they can't always deliver).

No doubt most Leicas are sold to people who can't take photos worth a damn. Kind of like most Porsches are sold to those who have money but can't drive worth a damn.

The other way is to "pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap" or stuff electronics retailers with endless waves of disposable consumer products, and forget any customer engagement or after sales service. To do this, you need a constant flow of new models with new features and you need to be constantly innovating. Of the camera manufacturers, the only ones who really seem to get this is Sony. Sony can churn out camera models that are designed like smartphones, iterated like smartphones, built like smartphones, and discarded like smartphones. They successfully create consumer buzz around the latest must have camera then get everyone to forget it a year later when the new model comes out. (How many people now raving about the A7III previously raved about the A7II and the A7I, I wonder?) Panasonic try to do the same, but the problem is that if you try to live by the spec sheet, you die by the spec sheet too - when the latest model doesn't measure up, customers have no reason to be loyal and will desert you in droves.

You need both specs and products that are reliable.

Unfortunately it's the way of the world nowadays, I don't replace my phone every year, but when I do replace it I damn well expect more capabilities. If I don't get that, I go to a different brand. Now I'm conditioned to think of cameras the same way - where's my new sensor, dammit?

(People use lenses as an argument for lock in, but actually lenses are getting to be disposable electronic goods too - ever tried to get out of warranty service on a lens? How many of these $1,700 lenses will last more than 5 years, I cannot help but wonder....)

I've been lucky. Have many old Canon L lenses and have never had a problem. You do have a point, as some of the really old L lenses aren't worth repairing anymore. Lenses have a much longer lifespan than cameras, but in the modern world they definitely have an expiration date. Eventually either the mount is no longer used or repair costs get too prohibitive.

 

[JCoolowski]

M43 should concentrate on where they can beat the competition: small (yet usable) cameras and fast yet small primes (f1.8 is enough).

I agree, but sadly, when they make that kind of camera, like the GX9, people are whining that it's not enough

I think people complained because the GX9 is not a top spec camera - But a lot of M43 users want a compact high end body. If GX9 had 4k60p, 6k photo mode, 180p slowmo, 6.5 stop IS from G9, weathersealing, and a current gen 4:3 EVF - a lot of people would have been happy and gladly paid a lot more for the camera.

 

[samtheman2014]

Ya know, there is a Buy/Sell board here where you can give away your Olympus and Panasonic gear. Would help your time management too because you won't have to post endlessly about how Olympus is dead because Sony released yet another new camera that uses bits and parts of the one they released 3 releases ago, or the 2 and 3 year old ones.

--
Dale

Does it matter whether the new Sony camera is made from 3 releases or 3 year old parts, if it can give you 15 stops of DR, much better DOF control, higher ISO performance, superior PDAF+CDAF, video features ... .... ... for about the same size, weight and price as your E-M1 II?

It doesn't give you 15 stops of DR. How exactly does the camera give you better DOF control?

The lenses you mount on it perhaps the fastest AF lenses in the system the very pricey and large F/1.2 models give the same DOF control as F/2.4 on FF . Take a look at the price and size comparison when you actually compare like to like , you can get better DOF in a smaller lighter and cheaper FF lenses

The Sony lenses that are either faster in equivalent terms or close are excellent performers . Sony 35mm F/2.8 , half a stop out of being equivalent to the 17mm F/1.2 , Sony 55mm F/1.8 just under a stop faster in equivalent terms and the Sony 85mm F/1.8 just under a stop faster in equivalent terms.

How does higher ISO performance mean anything if one doesn't need to shoot in complete darkness? Superior AF? Yeah, it is superior, by fractions, but your beloved Sony can't AF track as good as a Nikon, so why don't you talk about that? Video? I buy cameras. Who cares about 8K except people like you who don't actually use the cameras, they just get a rush about a feature list and buy the next greatest thing because

sooner of later there is going to be a Sony (no doubt) that actually takes the picture for you while it is still on the shelf at home.

I am hoping for one that I can strap to the dog and send him out to take the photos for me , those mountains are either getting higher or my knees are getting older

--
Dale

--
Jim Stirling

 

[samtheman2014]

Random opinions spouted by minuscule youtube channels are not necessarily gospel truth for everyone some of the fan boys in this forum claim ridiculous things about m43 which alas do not measure up in reality.

A case in point every Olympus camera since the E-M5 mk 1 there is someone claiming that each is a stop better at high ISO than the previous which should put the latest cameras about 3 stops ahead of the Sony A7s or Nikon D5

 

[Pixnat2]

M43 should concentrate on where they can beat the competition: small (yet usable) cameras and fast yet small primes (f1.8 is enough).

I agree, but sadly, when they make that kind of camera, like the GX9, people are whining that it's not enough

I think people complained because the GX9 is not a top spec camera - But a lot of M43 users want a compact high end body. If GX9 had 4k60p, 6k photo mode, 180p slowmo, 6.5 stop IS from G9, weathersealing, and a current gen 4:3 EVF - a lot of people would have been happy and gladly paid a lot more for the camera.

Well, talk is cheap, and it's easy to say "if they had add X or Y feature, I would have bought it".

But I can bet with you that if the GX9 would have been like this, many of them would have cryied : "too expensive"!

Being satisfied is so old fashion today ;-)

 

[Eric Nepean]

Perhaps an overly dramatic post to say that you think Olympus should update the E-M5 and focus more on smaller models like PEN F.

But would you, personally, actually buy a PEN F or an E-M5 markIII?

What M43 camera are you now using, btw?

 

[samtheman2014]

It lost money from start to finish and

Of course you have reliable financial data to back that up, don't you?

Seriously you fan types are too wrapped up in your love of brand to look at things logically. They published numbers every single year of course they also massively and fraudulently altered accounts to cover up losses { or was that just a misunderstanding and that Michael Woodford was just being mean } so who knows what really went on but the imaging division has lost money for a long time and even with m43 it is only in the last 18 months that even a small profit has been made.So you could be right as we only have Olympus's word to say they were losing money , though shutting down a highly profitable business seems unlikely don't you think

The companies that jumped into mirrorless were those who had largely unsuccessful DSLR business with either poor market share and/or low or no profits with nothing to really lose by jumping ship this includes Sony , Olympus and Fuji . Despite the marked decline in DSLR sales the reason why Canon and Nikon have not rushed into FF mirrorless is that they continue to make money . As far as I am concerned the end of FT and the start of m43 was a great thing , we now have smaller lighter far more capable cameras and a huge choice of smaller lighter lenses . m43 is everything that FT should have been . I am not knocking FT some of their kit was very good and the SHG lenses are excellent but too heavy too large and to pricey compared to the competition with larger sensors , better AF and so on.

 

[Androole]

Not sure why this is such a sensitive topic regarding sensor size vs. price. Perhaps it's the assertion that the EM1ii is overpriced; which i believe it is.

When a camera body costs $2K and the lenses are in excess of $1K to overcome the MFT sensor size limitations, there are simply other alternatives to consider as the fundamental limitation will always be sensor size driving IQ.

In any event, it appears that Olympus has to push 1.2 lenses to overcome the inherent low light issues and smaller sensor size of the MFT format.

Sensor size speaks for itself.

Sensor size does indeed speak for itself.

If you want a FF sensor to match the same specs as the E-M1 II or G9, you have to pay $4500 for an A9.

Sensor aside, how is the A7 III materially different from a G85? The E-M5 III is a long time coming, but when it does arrive soon, it will have 4K and be in the same category as well.

 

[Androole]

I'll repeat it again: The E-M1 II is what made me buy the E-M5 II. Size and price were the deciding factors.

If that's the case, Olympus still won, didn't they?

Your argument would hold water if you said that the E-M1 II is what made you buy an A7 II, or an A6500, or an X-T2...

 

[CliffWales]

I know - but I couldn't resist

check this one out - its amazing how accurate this is LOL

 

[samtheman2014]

M43 should concentrate on where they can beat the competition: small (yet usable) cameras and fast yet small primes (f1.8 is enough).

I agree, but sadly, when they make that kind of camera, like the GX9, people are whining that it's not enough

I think people complained because the GX9 is not a top spec camera - But a lot of M43 users want a compact high end body. If GX9 had 4k60p, 6k photo mode, 180p slowmo, 6.5 stop IS from G9, weathersealing, and a current gen 4:3 EVF - a lot of people would have been happy and gladly paid a lot more for the camera.

Well, talk is cheap, and it's easy to say "if they had add X or Y feature, I would have bought it".

But I can bet with you that if the GX9 would have been like this, many of them would have cryied : "too expensive"!

Being satisfied is so old fashion today ;-)

 

[jonathanj]

...I am still relatively new to photography and it will be a long time before I outgrow my current gear, if ever.

You might be surprised, I said that just a couple of years ago, but there are limits I've run into - mainly around post processing latitude in my case. As long as I'm happy with the shot as taken, it's fine (the same was true when I had a Nikon V1), but try and raise the shadows too much, or tweak the colours too much, and MFT files can be quite difficult. Not drastically, but enough that I sometimes miss even the Samsung APS-C files, never mind those from a larger sensor.

I agree with you Jonathan , the poor shadow performance of m43 when pushed even at base ISO is the only real disadvantage of the system.

... and then I use the GM5, which drops to the electronic shutter when the shutter speed goes over 1/500, which means a drop in DR and shadows that are almost unrecoverable without turning into a blotchy purple mess..... :-(

The sensor size disadvantage is compounded by us being stuck with a 200 base ISO . My ideal m43 camera would have more MP and a base ISO of 50

Yes. I don't want to exaggerate the issue, I've got plenty of great photos from MFT cameras (especially the GM5), and I've learnt to work around the limitation, but this is the kind of challenge I expect to be fixed in a new generation. Not an even faster burst mode that comes with a 20% increase in weight and a 50% increase in price

 

[Okapi001]

It lost money from start to finish and

Of course you have reliable financial data to back that up, don't you?

So you could be right as we only have Olympus's word to say they were losing money , though shutting down a highly profitable business seems unlikely don't you think

They didn't shut it down, they just evolved the system. What would be the point of having two systems with the same sensor? Olympus just saw the mirrorless future soon enough. Sony is just about to end its DSLR line, and Canon, Nikon and Pentax will do so in the next 10-15 years at the latest.

 

[Pixnat2]

M43 should concentrate on where they can beat the competition: small (yet usable) cameras and fast yet small primes (f1.8 is enough).

I agree, but sadly, when they make that kind of camera, like the GX9, people are whining that it's not enough

I think people complained because the GX9 is not a top spec camera - But a lot of M43 users want a compact high end body. If GX9 had 4k60p, 6k photo mode, 180p slowmo, 6.5 stop IS from G9, weathersealing, and a current gen 4:3 EVF - a lot of people would have been happy and gladly paid a lot more for the camera.

Well, talk is cheap, and it's easy to say "if they had add X or Y feature, I would have bought it".

But I can bet with you that if the GX9 would have been like this, many of them would have cryied : "too expensive"!

Being satisfied is so old fashion today ;-)