WRONG WAY - GO BACK !!!

[rsf3127]

Not if you have large hands , I liked the look and size of the GM5 but the handling for me was a no go . The GX8 which some moan is too big is for me the right size

 

[jwilliams]

The OMD EM1 II will be good enough for most photographic needs and I have a hard time imagining a situation where you would need a A7 III instead.

Pixel count 20MP -> 24MP? Hmmm

Super-high ISO of the Sony -> black cat in a tunnel photos anyone?

Super-shallow DOF - left eye in focus, right eye out of focus?

So the advantage brought by the A7 III is only important in very specific scenarios...

Additionally, the "good enough limit" will stay, but thechnology will move on, so MFT will cover even more scenarios in the future.

the EM1 II is good enough, why aren't the f1.8 lenses good enough?

For most people the f1.8 lenses are absolutely good enough. A number of professionals and enthusiasts that happen to use M4/3 clearly wanted a bit more, and were willing to pay for them, so that's what they get. The f1.8 lenses didn't disappear when the f1.2 lenses were released.

Yes. It is just that I see the 'it is enough' argument here constantly. No need for a bigger sensor, but we need huge lenses to compensate. Makes no sense to me.

No, the new lenses didn't make anything disappear. What they did do is take resources that could have been used to fill in 2 big gaps in m43. Still no good affordable UWA zoom or tele zoom. I'm talking good quality, medium priced lenses for the masses, not $3K lenses for doctors and lawyers.

It seems like almost all the arguments on this forum are purely hypotheticals by people who will never touch gear - from any company - of anywhere near the caliber that they are arguing over.

I'm not a pro, but I do have a FF canon setup I have gradually acquired over many years of Canon usage. I do see what I can do with that gear vs m43. I use both. I understand the desire to keep just one system (hoping to get there myself eventually), but at some point you are trying to do something that just doesn't make sense any more.

Kind of like hopping up your Honda Civic trying to beat a Ferarri.

Everyone's got $1000 budgets and $5000 opinions.

Do doubt!

Are we all offended that we can't afford the best of the best at everything, and get it with no compromises?

Yes, people want a Rolex at a Timex price. I'm probably guilty of that to some degree.

--
Jonathan

 

[Androole]

The OMD EM1 II will be good enough for most photographic needs and I have a hard time imagining a situation where you would need a A7 III instead.

Pixel count 20MP -> 24MP? Hmmm

Super-high ISO of the Sony -> black cat in a tunnel photos anyone?

Super-shallow DOF - left eye in focus, right eye out of focus?

So the advantage brought by the A7 III is only important in very specific scenarios...

Additionally, the "good enough limit" will stay, but thechnology will move on, so MFT will cover even more scenarios in the future.

the EM1 II is good enough, why aren't the f1.8 lenses good enough?

For most people the f1.8 lenses are absolutely good enough. A number of professionals and enthusiasts that happen to use M4/3 clearly wanted a bit more, and were willing to pay for them, so that's what they get. The f1.8 lenses didn't disappear when the f1.2 lenses were released.

Yes. It is just that I see the 'it is enough' argument here constantly. No need for a bigger sensor, but we need huge lenses to compensate. Makes no sense to me.

To be honest, I don't think that this is the mainstream opinion here. As with all things, I think there is a vocal minority. Most M4/3 users seem to appreciate their small, high quality lenses, and were not screaming for f1.2 primes.

I must confess, I caved in and bought the Mitakon 25mm/0.95 when it went on sale for $270 as a way to fill my shallow DoF fix. But that lens is almost cartoonishly small. 43mm filter diameter and 1.75" long...

No, the new lenses didn't make anything disappear. What they did do is take resources that could have been used to fill in 2 big gaps in m43. Still no good affordable UWA zoom or tele zoom. I'm talking good quality, medium priced lenses for the masses, not $3K lenses for doctors and lawyers.

It seems like almost all the arguments on this forum are purely hypotheticals by people who will never touch gear - from any company - of anywhere near the caliber that they are arguing over.

I'm not a pro, but I do have a FF canon setup I have gradually acquired over many years of Canon usage. I do see what I can do with that gear vs m43. I use both. I understand the desire to keep just one system (hoping to get there myself eventually), but at some point you are trying to do something that just doesn't make sense any more.

Kind of like hopping up your Honda Civic trying to beat a Ferarri.

Everyone's got $1000 budgets and $5000 opinions.

Do doubt!

Are we all offended that we can't afford the best of the best at everything, and get it with no compromises?

Yes, people want a Rolex at a Timex price. I'm probably guilty of that to some degree.

--
Jonathan

 

[paul cool]

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.

 

[jwilliams]

To be honest, I don't think that this is the mainstream opinion here. As with all things, I think there is a vocal minority. Most M4/3 users seem to appreciate their small, high quality lenses, and were not screaming for f1.2 primes.

Maybe so. Often the minority sounds louder than the actual majority.

I must confess, I caved in and bought the Mitakon 25mm/0.95 when it went on sale for $270 as a way to fill my shallow DoF fix. But that lens is almost cartoonishly small. 43mm filter diameter and 1.75" long...

Now that is a fast lens that makes sense. For that $ I would be tempted too. Also it is waaay smaller than the Oly 1.2 lens.

I know the Oly 1.2 lenses are well designed. I would argue they are actually over designed. Probably could have been made half the size if they were willing to maybe have a tad of corner softness that probably would never be noticed in the real world.

 

[markymark101]

Like many of us I switched from my big heavy DSLR and lenses to m43 to shed the weight, but still maintain acceptable IQ.

I have no interest in the heavy cameras and lenses, If I did, I'd be shooting with something else.

Sure Olympus and Panasonic both still offer a good supply of small, it's still there. But I think the disappointment is to get the new 20mp sensor you have to buy a big honking camera. It really made no sense to me that the em10 iii came out with a 16mp sensor, in fact that seemed to be a dumb decision to me. The older G85 came out with the 16mp sensor as well when there was already a 20mp sensor available. The Gx9 didn't really replace the Gx8, but rather the gx85 - another dumb marketing decision - it they had called it the Gx95 there probably would have been a lot less consternation.

I was disappointed that I will not be upgrading my em1 to the em1 ii due to the size increase. I'm hoping the em5 iii will stay true to my idea of what m43 is about. I still want a highly capable, enthusiast level camera that's small and light weight.

But others seem to really want big heavy stuff regardless of sensor size. I'm assuming these items are selling, so who am I to say it's wrong, even it it makes no sense to me.

On a side note, having no engineering knowledge at all, I do wonder if the larger size bodies aren't also to facilitate heat dissipation for video.

I'll keep shooting my em1 for now, it still takes some nice pictures from time to time.

 

[jakelindsay]

Unfortunately, especially for Olympus, it's going the wrong way.

The high-$ strategy is clearly not working. The E-M1 II had its moments, but it had to compete with the cheaper D500 and the G9, and then with X-H1, and now the super-spec'ed A7 III. Unlike Panasonic, it cannot rely on superior video to justify its high price. So, it tries to do that with superior lenses like the f/1.2 lenses, but there is a basic problem. These super fine lenses are great for collectors, those who want to own rare, expensive products that make one feel good and proud, but do they actually produce better images compared to other products costing and weighing as much, with a M43 sensor? The X-H1 and the A7 III clearly shows how silly the high-price strategy is, for a smaller format system. This is starting to smell like the same problem contributing to 43's failure, bigger and bigger lenses and cameras at higher and higher costs, in pursuit of the very best optical and mechanical quality (but using a small sensor that put a restricting upper bound on its IQ). It's like a boxer only 5 feet tall aiming to fight for the heavyweight title by perfecting every imaginable martial skills, bulking up, wearing gimmicky shorts, hair style...

How much can the next $2000 E-M1 III improve, and will it be able to compete with the A7 IV?

The EM1 II was the camera (and the expensive lenses that launched with it) that brought Olympus back to profitability. I'm not buying the claim the high price strategy is not working. And as more competitors come out, it's trivial for them to price drop (as they are doing). However, by launching at a higher price, they take advantage of the profits they can generate while the competitors are not there yet.

And most of your post seems to be assuming people will always opt for a larger sensor when prices of the camera body is similar, but that ignores that fact that there is a lot more to a camera than just the sensor size. Weather sealing and stabilization for example being strong points for Olympus. Sony's weather sealing is a joke by comparison (Fuji is better, but still not up to Olympus standards), and Sony stabilization is not up to Panasonic standards yet (while Fuji is just getting started with stabilization).

Having shot Sony, Fuji, and my EM1ii for over a year now, you'd be hard pressed to convince me to purchase an EM1ii over an A7iii. I get that people value different things in cameras and I'm not saying that Olympus doesn't beat the A7iii in some areas but Sony undeservedly gets a bad rap for a few things. I've had both my A9 and A7rii in crappy and cold weather (thank you Idaho) for extended periods (5+ hours) and never had any issues. Obviously they wouldn't hold up like the EM1ii if I took a sprinkler and drenched them but in real world practice they do fine. Sony also gets hammered on ergonomics and while the A7rii had some annoyances, the A9/A7r3/A73 are actually really good. They don't feel like toys and they have a good amount of customizable buttons/dials that are big and tactile.

Bottom line is it would be hard for me to recommend an EM1ii over an A7iii. It would almost make more sense to recommend an EM5ii/iii over an A7iii.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

Loving my PEN F and the EM-5 I used to own but it might be my last Olympus. I will wait to see what Nikon brings us when they come out with their FF mirrorless camera. Might as well get a FF sensor if I am going to buy a big expensive camera.

 

[jakelindsay]

I swear everyone is like Dory on Finding Nemo and they forget every other product available in m4/3 mount when they see a new lens or camera for sale.

Sure, the 50-200 is expensive and big. As is the G9 and E-M1 II. And yeah, the 25mm f1.2 is big and probably overpriced. Fine.

But just last week they were selling small/light GX85's with a 12-32 pancake, a really small telephoto and a free $100 giftcard for $599. And they had the 25mm f1.7, which is also very small and light, on sale for $150, so $50 with your giftcard. Now for $650, you got a nice small camera body with great image quality, DFD focus, 4K video, a sharp pancake standard zoom, a fast normal prime, and a decent telephoto. If you wanted to add a portrait prime, the Sigma 60mm is only $200 brand new. Still well under $900 for pretty much a full kit for an amateur.

There are 3-4 camera models from each brand under $1000 and at least 2 dozen AF lenses under $500. (and probably another 2 dozen native mount manual lenses)

You don't have to buy the expensive stuff if it isn't right for you! All the other cheap and small products still exist!

100%

It's easy to get drawn into a system for all of the reasons and evidence you stated and then start to be drawn to the highest end models and fastest glass and before you know it you've entered full frame pricing, size, and weight - likely the very reasons you were drawn to M43.

I was initially upset with Panasonic and the GX9 for shredding nearly everything from the GX8 but maybe they were thinking, "we've just released 3 large/heavy cameras - let's do something vintage M43 style."

Fingers crossed the the EM5iii stays small (with a slightly bigger grip, lol).

 

[Androole]

Bottom line is it would be hard for me to recommend an EM1ii over an A7iii. It would almost make more sense to recommend an EM5ii/iii over an A7iii.

I don't think that's a weird notion at all. For the vast, vast majority of people, the E-M1 II or the G9 are too much camera. The A7 III is also too much camera. The E-M5 II and G85 are sensible, practical bargains that do just about everything any typical photographer needs.

The problem is that at this specific stage, the sensor improvements in M4/3 haven't been democratized in this generation. The GX9 is the first example of the better sensor trickling downmarket (~$799 body only price point?)

It seems like most people are buying the top-end bodies because they want a sensor upgrade over their existing 2-3 year old cameras. That's fine and good, but that's clearly not where Panasonic and Olympus have been putting their efforts. The E-M1 II and G9 are clearly designed as speed demons to compete with the fastest sports cameras on the market, and even exceed them in some respects. The GH5 is there to be the best video camera under $5000.

Hopefully when Olympus comes out with a $1200-1300 E-M5 III with a good sensor, and Panasonic comes out with an $1100 G95 with 20MP, the natural order of things will be restored and people will go back to buying cameras with the appropriate feature set for their needs, and some of the particularly high-pitched vocalizations in this forum can settle down a bit...

 

[Auf Reisen]

Everyone's got $1000 budgets and $5000 opinions.

Are we all offended that we can't afford the best of the best at everything, and get it with no compromises?

I think the point is that both Oly and Panasonic are focusing on the $5000 market at the moment, with nothing exciting to be seen for the, ahem, budget impaired photographers. Camera body prices have gone up, the EM10 III was an afterthought not really worth upgrading to, and the last lenses made with the "small, affordable, good enough" mantra in mind were the Laowa 7.5 and the Oly 14-150 II.

Given that Oly is now turning a profit, it was clearly the right move for them, but that doesn't change things for the budget photographer.

It's like the VW consortium focusing exclusively on Porsche and ditching Golf development.

 

[Tommi K1]

4/3rds failed as Olympus did try to go big. E-3/E-5 and the F2.0 big zoom lenses.

"Did try to go big"....

You only see a effect, not the cause.

 

[Tommi K1]

gimmicks like HiRes, and holding back on sensor

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about...

 

[Diacyclops81]

One of the more recent comments noted that larger bodies might act as heat sinks for videos and processing requirements. Correct, simply read about the GH5 or the X-H1, or see Sony over-heating issues. Gets the H.I.E. Award for noting that necessity. If you want a hybrid, video and stills camera, it has some physical constraints. Someone else observed the human hand has a certain size. Correct. Many note the ergonomic designs that best support larger, heavier, faster lenses. Get an adapter, put a FF 70-200 f2.8 on a Pen F. Next, someone made the incorrect observation that large ultra expensive bodies were the only way to access 20mp sensors in m4/3. Please read about the Pen F. Many have compared the Oly EM-1ii to the A7Riii. That is a flawed comparison, better to compare the Oly EM-1ii to the A7Rii, or the Oly EM-1, not the new Sony, since the Oly was released in 2016. Better to rag on the G9, but at least the G9 has better EVF, LCD, higher burst rates, a relatively small 100-400 native zoom, better IBIS, lower price, etc., than the new Sony. Of course the A7Riii is packed with features and has a great price point, and is the best mirrorless FF buy offered right now, according to me. However, production copies are not available to the vast public, so to tout its virtues or foibles right now is a purely hypothetical exercise. Despite that, I am absolutely sure I am correct in all my opinions, being expert, having stayed, you know, at the Holiday Inn Express once.

 

[Tommi K1]

And you can use FT lenses with impaired AF compared to native lenses on the E-M1I/II or with very impaired AF on every other m43 camera, Canon lenses on metabones adapters work just as well.

First of all. There was no such thing as metabones adapter for Canon lenses when Olympus updated 4/3 mount to m4/3 mount.

The reason why you can still buy lenses for a system that died years ago is because they were sitting on shelves and will be doing so for a few years to come due to low demand.

Again you are totally wrong. Olympus was manufacturing those lenses as there was a demand! They only stopped manufacturing last year and sold rest out with the special sales.

You clearly have no idea how great those Olympus DIgital Zuiko lenses are and how people were ready to pay for them!

The folk with SHG lenses are folk who already had them when they used FT or former FT shooters who lusted after them but could not justify the original prices.

LOL

With same reason it can be said that there is no justification to buy Canon, Nikon or Sony what so ever... Actually there is more reasoning in that, than your claim.

the problem for most as it really goes against the main reason why folk buy into m43.

Oh and what is that? A system that you can use to build your setup to be tiny or to be excellent but larger and heavier than the tiny setup?

The problem is people like you, not understanding what you are even talking about 4/3 and m4/3 system as you can't understand the context!

 

[jakelindsay]

Ha! That guy is hilarious. He has more GAS than most members here including myself which is saying a lot. Pretty sure he'll have an A7iii in a month or so, lol.

If you're point is M43 is great and can give most people almost everything they want most of the time, I agree. James' channel that you linked to in your other reply is much better and more interesting. That guy is pretty interesting and fun.

 

[Tommi K1]

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.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about because you only claim that last 18 months has been profitable.

And again, you are only talking Olympus as it is only a camera manufacturing company, rejecting that it is far more than that and understanding that companies actually even keep some of their divisions in negative as they can be more profitable and operational that way!

 

[Gary from Seattle]

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?

If everything is the same, e.g. using a lens with the same speed, say 1.4, on the FF and m4/3 camera, focusing at something at the same distance away, the FF camera will have a thinner DOF at max aperture .........so in landscape m4/3 will give better results.....more DOF.

 

[Felice62]

Unfortunately, especially for Olympus, it's going the wrong way.

The high-$ strategy is clearly not working. The E-M1 II had its moments, but it had to compete with the cheaper D500 and the G9, and then with X-H1, and now the super-spec'ed A7 III. Unlike Panasonic, it cannot rely on superior video to justify its high price. So, it tries to do that with superior lenses like the f/1.2 lenses, but there is a basic problem. These super fine lenses are great for collectors, those who want to own rare, expensive products that make one feel good and proud, but do they actually produce better images compared to other products costing and weighing as much, with a M43 sensor? The X-H1 and the A7 III clearly shows how silly the high-price strategy is, for a smaller format system. This is starting to smell like the same problem contributing to 43's failure, bigger and bigger lenses and cameras at higher and higher costs, in pursuit of the very best optical and mechanical quality (but using a small sensor that put a restricting upper bound on its IQ). It's like a boxer only 5 feet tall aiming to fight for the heavyweight title by perfecting every imaginable martial skills, bulking up, wearing gimmicky shorts, hair style...

How much can the next $2000 E-M1 III improve, and will it be able to compete with the A7 IV?

I think you pretty much nailed it. Maybe Sony didn't have a clear strategy when they first launched the A7, based on the quite successful line of previous APS-C NEX and alpha models. Now they master it and the helpless battle to add features (not all of them well implemented) and raising price tag is not going to pay off.

--
----------------------------------
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

 

[Tommi K1]

it didn't evolve because m4/3rds is a completely different lens mount and system, 4/3rds is dead.

Next time learn the history and technology before you claim such.

Protocols, mount, format etc all are compatible.

Olympus kept the mount (and as a info tip, 4/3 mount based to OM mount, and m4/3 mount is 4/3 mount with two extra pins but otherwise just slightly smaller size, the original pins are still used with same protocols) and it kept the same flash protocols, and same format (sensor size) etc etc.

Olympus simply designed the system to be a smaller by eliminating the mirror and optical viewfinder and Panasonic added video functions to the m4/3 system protocol and standard.

What "completely different lens mount and system" means is when you compare Canon current mount and Leica mount. They are totally different mounts and systems.