Micro four thirds isn't going away then?

[Keith]

When the first camera that piqued my interst in micro four thirds came along, the OM-D, I realised how little I know about the format and it's origins!

Up until recently I've dismissed it totally as an image format that doesn't fit anywhere for me. I kept comparing it to the conventional 35mm format which seems so familiar and comfortable which is crazy because it's not that much different to my favourite MF film format ... 6x7!

I could dig back through numerous RFF threads discussing the pros and cons, or venture off to a dedicated micro four thirds forum to gain a better understanding, but I'd rather hear some current information and opinions from the wise heads here.

[Bob Michaels]

Keith: I am not one of those "wise heads" but I have owned and used a m4/3 camera. I would still be using it if it had not been stolen.

99% of the people can make really good photos with hem 99% of the time. And they are relatively small and relatively low cost. I only had prime lenses but prints up to 12x15" really looked really good. I could not fault anything about the m4/3 system other than it was digital which I struggle with.

The only thing wrong with m4/3 in some people's eyes is that it is "soooooo 2010".

[PatrickCheung]

I would too, to be honest. My dad's bought me most of my cameras (save the film ones) and now that his camera is broken I'm looking to get him one for a father's day present! He seems to be interested in M4/3 cameras because they're so flexible and can mount so many types of lenses! Looking forward to the posts in this thread :P

[gavinlg]

The big advantage of m4/3 is that the aspect ratio and overall size of the sensor allows them to build lenses that are telecentric, or close to telecentric. Read that as little to no vignetting, no corner softness even wide open, very little CA in photos. Even the cheap kit zooms have these characteristics. The lenses themselves are also quite small - for instance this photo shows the panasonic 7-14mm f4 with the full frame nikkor 14-24mm f4 - both being about the same optical quality: http://www.flickr.com/photos/1888413...n/photostream/

The disadvantages are that you are getting about twice the amount of DOF for an equivalent view - for instance the zuiko 12mm f2 is equivalent in 'look' to a 24mm f4 on a full frame camera. This used to be annoying when the system had very little fast lens options, but now lenses like the 12mm f2, summilux 25mm f1.4, nokton 17.5mm f.95, nokton 25mm f.95 and 45mm f1.8 have negated this disadvantage considerably.
Noise performance and dynamic range used to be a problem until the e-m5/om-d which is now on a level where it isn't an issue.

For what it's worth Keith, I had a play with the e-m5 in-store with some Olympus reps, and came out super impressed. With the grip attached it's honestly one of the nicest feeling digital cameras I've used, and a fast prime kit with that camera could go a LONG way.

[gavinlg]

And to spur on your desire, have a play with all the lens combinations on the e-m5 here:
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/special/matching.html

[darya150]

The OMD has great color, and it is a really compact, well built camera with many features. I am curious what others think, but many of the shots of people have a kind of 'poured plastic' look to them. I do mainly documentary work and am wondering if others have noticed this. Darya

[cosmonaut]

I have had several Pens. I didn't like any of them the built quality was more like a toy, I am convinced the image stabiliztion is not good as the E5/3. The NEX 7 evf has twice the resolution.
I have an E-M5 preordered- if the image quality doesn't match or is better than he NEX 7 I a to sell it or trade it.

[jky]

I enjoy the m43 format and find it suitable for my type of photography (snaps, street). the omd, imo, is the best m43 camera to date... fast, nice evf, good ergo, compact (w/ the pancakes), and that quiet shutter is extremely nice.

...on a side note, I'm wondering what Panasonic will do to top this...

[Keith]

I am a bit of a self confessed limited depth of field junky and that has always been one of the issues I have with smaller sensors ... though the faster primes below f2 will address a fair bit of that I would imagine!

I was looking at a link to some image samples on our bartender's site taken with the manual focus CV 0.95 ... the guy described it as being rather hard to focus but I liked the look of his results.

A hell of a lot will depend on how good the EVF is on the Oly ... I have no issues with EVFs because they have little do do with your final outcome aside from framing and focus. As long as they react quickly how they actually appear to the eye is not so important IMO.

[lynnb]

Keith, I started with an OM-1 as my first "serious" camera and always had a soft spot for Olympus. Like Konica, they were a smaller manufacturer with a deserved high reputation for quality optics. When they started a new, open-standard mount (original 4/3 mount) the idea was to create an open standard that allowed other manufacturers to produce bodies and lenses independently, complying with the open 4/3 standard. Panasonic was the only other manufacturer to take up the opportunity. Later on, CV started making lenses.

The promise of four-thirds was significantly smaller bodies and lenses than APS-C and full frame, while still delivering on IQ. Some loss of DOF was the price. The first Oly DSLR to earn a reputation with the new mount was the E-1 in 2003. It was fully weatherproofed and became much loved by nature photographers as it also had Oly's patented SSWF dust reduction. There were a few quality, read premium priced, lenses to match. However it wasn't a particularly compact camera, and the lenses weren't all that much smaller. Improvements in APS-C cameras and lenses brought out by competitors who had shorter product cycles left Oly sales languishing to the dedicated few. Oly's sensors were not able to compete with the "more megapixels are always better" mantra in the marketplace, even though their in-camera colour processing and jpg quality were always superb.

More trouble for the four-thirds format was the continuing shrinkage of APS-C dslrs, which from memory were physically no bigger and offered newer, higher resolution sensors with better high iso performance and wider lense choice, even if they weren't built to the quality of Oly's offerings. Four-thirds cameras started losing the battle for shelf space in camera stores, despite excellent cameras like the E620.

The only solution was to redesign the four-thirds mount to reduce the flange distance, enabling the design of more compact lenses and bodies while retaining the same sensor dimensions, allowing use of existing four-thirds lenses using an adaptor. Unlike four-thirds, micro four-thirds is not an open standard, but from what I can tell that hasn't made any difference.

There is big demand for small cameras with quality, compact interchangeable lenses that deliver on IQ - just like the original Barnacks and Ms. Micro four-thirds sales started taking off when Olympus and Panasonic started delivering on this promise - a promise that included a lens roadmap that featured fast primes in the most popular equivalent focal lengths. CV started making primes for micro four-thirds, followed by Zeiss. Relationships with Leica ensured continuing quality in the lens line-up. Panny's quality compact 40mm at an affordable price probably helped strengthen the format.

Panasonic also realised that micro four-thirds also allowed cinema quality video and shallow dof effects compared to existing camcorders. A new market in video emerged for the micro four-thirds mount. Why buy a RED when you can get great quality out of a hacked GH3. Things started to look good.

Other manufacturers saw the booming sales in micro four-thirds and quickly developed their own compact interchangeable lense cameras. Sony released the NEX cameras with APS-C sensors and very small form factors - apart from the lenses! But the crop factor for M-mount users was only 1.5 for the NEX compared to 2x for micro four-thirds. And Sony upped the ante with their EVF.

Olympus' response seems to have one-upped everyone with their new, very fast autofocus. That, and a new generation sensor that has excellent DR and high iso performance in the OM-D, along with a good EVF has put them back in the running. I sincerely hope they succeed after their corporate fiasco. With quality OEM and third party lenses, competitive bodies and IQ I think the format is here to stay. The wider lense choices are what gives the mount an advantage over Fuji.

If I've missed some stuff in this potted history, maybe others can fill in the gaps!

Some links:
http://www.olympus-global.com/en/cor.../index.html#04
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_system

[Keith]

Originally Posted by lynnb

Keith, I started with an OM-1 as my first "serious" camera and always had a soft spot for Olympus. Like Konica, they were a smaller manufacturer with a deserved high reputation for quality optics. When they started a new, open-standard mount (original 4/3 mount) the idea was to create an open standard that allowed other manufacturers to produce bodies and lenses independently, complying with the open 4/3 standard. Panasonic was the only other manufacturer to take up the opportunity. Later on, CV started making lenses.

The promise of four-thirds was significantly smaller bodies and lenses than APS-C and full frame, while still delivering on IQ. Some loss of DOF was the price. The first Oly DSLR to earn a reputation with the new mount was the E-1 in 2003. It was fully weatherproofed and became much loved by nature photographers as it also had Oly's patented SSWF dust reduction. There were a few quality, read premium priced, lenses to match. However it wasn't a particularly compact camera, and the lenses weren't all that much smaller. Improvements in APS-C cameras and lenses brought out by competitors who had shorter product cycles left Oly sales languishing to the dedicated few. Oly's sensors were not able to compete with the "more megapixels are always better" mantra in the marketplace, even though their in-camera colour processing and jpg quality were always superb.

More trouble for the four-thirds format was the continuing shrinkage of APS-C dslrs, which from memory were physically no bigger and offered newer, higher resolution sensors with better high iso performance and wider lense choice, even if they weren't built to the quality of Oly's offerings. Four-thirds cameras started losing the battle for shelf space in camera stores, despite excellent cameras like the E620.

The only solution was to redesign the four-thirds mount to reduce the flange distance, enabling the design of more compact lenses and bodies while retaining the same sensor dimensions, allowing use of existing four-thirds lenses using an adaptor. Unlike four-thirds, micro four-thirds is not an open standard, but from what I can tell that hasn't made any difference.

There is big demand for small cameras with quality, compact interchangeable lenses that deliver on IQ - just like the original Barnacks and Ms. Micro four-thirds sales started taking off when Olympus and Panasonic started delivering on this promise - a promise that included a lens roadmap that featured fast primes in the most popular equivalent focal lengths. CV started making primes for micro four-thirds, followed by Zeiss. Relationships with Leica ensured continuing quality in the lens line-up. Panny's quality compact 40mm at an affordable price probably helped strengthen the format.

Panasonic also realised that micro four-thirds also allowed cinema quality video and shallow dof effects compared to existing camcorders. A new market in video emerged for the micro four-thirds mount. Why buy a RED when you can get great quality out of a hacked GH3. Things started to look good.

Other manufacturers saw the booming sales in micro four-thirds and quickly developed their own compact interchangeable lense cameras. Sony released the NEX cameras with APS-C sensors and very small form factors - apart from the lenses! But the crop factor for M-mount users was only 1.5 for the NEX compared to 2x for micro four-thirds. And Sony upped the ante with their EVF.

Olympus' response seems to have one-upped everyone with their new, very fast autofocus. That, and a new generation sensor that has excellent DR and high iso performance in the OM-D, along with a good EVF has put them back in the running. I sincerely hope they succeed after their corporate fiasco. With quality OEM and third party lenses, competitive bodies and IQ I think the format is here to stay. The wider lense choices are what gives the mount an advantage over Fuji.

If I've missed some stuff in this potted history, maybe others can fill in the gaps!

Some links:
http://www.olympus-global.com/en/cor.../index.html#04
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_system

Thanks Lynn ... That's pretty much what I needed to know, where micro four thirds has come from and where it's going!

I just hope that the OM-D isn't going to be the only decent offering in the market. If the camera sells it's butt off who's to say Canon or Nikon won't join the party and offer a Micro Four Thirds F-D or an AE-1D somewhere down the line. For those who say they wouldn't go there ... who would have predicted Fuji's latest moves?

Did you have a look through the EVF of the OM-D when you were checking it out recently?

[lynnb]

I'll just add, that with cell phones cannibalising point-and-shoot digicams, micro four-thirds (and the Nikon 1 series, and perhaps even the little Pentax) are well placed as the logical upgrade path for cell-snappers to get into cameras that offer some degree of manual control and lens choice. Trevor Thom writes about the evolution of the camera market from time to time - see the interesting graphic on this page http://www.bythom.com/design2010.htm

cheers,

[lynnb]

Yes Keith, I had a quick look but it was in a small Paxton's store in an indoor shopping mall - but it was large, and the resolution looked quite acceptable. I didn't detect any smearing, but I didn't have it long enough to say for sure that doesn't happen.
I liked it. When you keep in mind it has a tilting hig-res LCD, that's even better - allows street shooting TLR-style.

edit: Canon expected to announce mirrorless camera in June, alongside the 650D.
http://www.canonrumors.com/?s=mirrorless

[Keith]

Oh yes ... I meant to add:

Go the Maroons!!! ... not a huge NRL fan but I do like the origin series!

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

When you keep in mind it has a tilting hig-res LCD, that's even better - allows street shooting TLR-style

In my opinion, only Nikon and Sony have got this right. Nikon's original Coolpix series and the short lived S4/S10 are excellent for candid shooting, though the latter 2 are nothing like as good in either the lens or sensor departments. Sony's R1 has a superb lens and the top mounted LCD gives me much the same viewing as my Hasselblad, though it's pretty much as bulky.

An OM-D with a Sony style LCD? Just tell me where to send the money!

[BobYIL]

Other than the pro-bodies, which camera has these features?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqgXiEyJByQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mABW0fsatE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlnzP...feature=relmfu

especially:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-WLvEvqMZE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr-wfkpDut4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gFJsfin35g

[thegman]

I think the OM-D is very pretty, and it's price, while still far too high, is very competitive with the new breed of mirrorless cameras like XPro-1, and NEX 7. My problem with m43 is based on experience with my brothers GF-1, and my own Lumix G1. The user interface is just horrific. I found it complex and borderline unusable. The NEX, on the other hand I found fairly simple and pleasant.

If a m43 camera appeared with controls like maybe the Leica X1, Canon G12, etc. then I think that could be very compelling.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by thegman

I think the OM-D is very pretty, and it's price, while still far too high, is very competitive with the new breed of mirrorless cameras like XPro-1, and NEX 7. My problem with m43 is based on experience with my brothers GF-1, and my own Lumix G1. The user interface is just horrific. I found it complex and borderline unusable. The NEX, on the other hand I found fairly simple and pleasant.

Here it's the other way round. I just got my wife a G3 with the 14-42 and 20/f1.7, and the interface is newbie-friendly enough while powerful enough that she gets along well with it.

[Rick Waldroup]

I sold all my Nikon gear several years back and moved to the 4/3 system. I wanted to get much smaller and lighter. I shoot mostly street and documentary type stuff.

Then, a couple of years ago I moved to the m4/3 system. It has it's limitations but it is a great system for the type of shooting I do.

I would never go back to the days of big, heavy DSLR's.

[sevo]

I'm prepared to bet a Leica M9M that it will not be there any more in twenty years...

FWIW, it will presumably be gone even faster - and so will most competing EVIL mount standards. Going by the fate of four-thirds (and just about every camera mount past the dawn of AF), and given that every marketing student learns that forced expiration must happen before competition from the own used products strikes, it will probably be supplanted by something only half compatible within five years.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by sevo

I'm prepared to bet a Leica M9M that it will not be there any more in twenty years...

And where were you planning on getting on M9M from in twenty years?

[sevo]

Originally Posted by Keith

And where were you planning on getting on M9M from in twenty years?

Landfill...

[kuzano]

Originally Posted by sevo

I'm prepared to bet a Leica M9M that it will not be there any more in twenty years...

FWIW, it will presumably be gone even faster - and so will most competing EVIL mount standards. Going by the fate of four-thirds (and just about every camera mount past the dawn of AF), and given that every marketing student learns that forced expiration must happen before competition from the own used products strikes, it will probably be supplanted by something only half compatible within five years.

I don't know what you said.... but I didn't like the way it sounded, so I am betting you are totally wrong on this post!!

[Speedfreak]

Originally Posted by Keith

but I'd rather hear some current information and opinions from the wise heads here.

If you buy an EM5 plus grip plus a set of 12/2 and 45/1.8 Zuikos - or - the 0.95 Voigtlanders you will be paying dearly.

And that for a system that hardly allows utilizing selective depth of field.

If you want a digital back to use your manual lenses, SONY NEX is far better suited (NEX 3 / 5 bodies are dirt cheap now, still dynamic range and resolution is better than on the EP3. Dont know about the 1000$+ EM5).

[k__43]

I really like my EP1 paired with the panny 14mm f/2.5 (compact, light and fast) .. only the lens could be a bit better (less distortion and sharper), also the V1 14-42mm Olympus sucks - my Summicron-C 40mm outperformed it at f/2.8 even when the zoom was stopped down to f/8 (at the same focal length).

I'd love to try the Panny 20mm and the more expensive non-zoomz from Leica or Olympus.

Quality-wise I'd rather take a Sony NEX, but the lens line-up is poor and the user interface is incredibly unintuitive (except the NEX7 maybe).