Where can M4/3 go?

<p>"Why does Micro-FourThirds have to "<em><strong>go</strong> </em><em><strong>anywhere</strong> </em>?,"</p>

<p>Because brands that do not evolve and keep innovating die. That's why.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Alan</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Because brands that do not evolve and keep innovating die. That's why.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just got to comment on that, Alan. It is a canard statement even if the thought is well intentioned. Examples, please?</p>

<p>I give you a for instance format example,Alan. Sony Minidisc. It went nowwhere, we all know a bust by commercial measures. Yet here is Ian in UK using it 14 yrs later. And not only Ian. See link to recent thread below. I think the critical question for me is will the mfr support the format or the unit?. xD not so much. micro 4/3 I don't see dying, true, course maybe dying has to be defined more closely. Not enough lenses, no third party lens makers, etc etc?. Me, Got No Worries. I am a senior senior citizen and about time:-) ... ( Kodachrome is officially dead, but long live Kodachrome too somewhere in some cryosleep....)<br>

http://www.photo.net/off-topic-forum/00W0Cg </p>

<p> </p>

<p>To paraphrase James Carville, "It's the lenses, stupid." In other words, the ONLY advantage to an interchangeable lens camera over a fixed-lens camera is the quality and range of lenses available. Just look at the Olympus Pen F and Olympus OM systems... these were both released with a FULL SYSTEM available for professional users including advanced lighting, macro and micro setups and a wide lens range. </p>

<p>I honestly think Olympus and Panasonic have been slow to produce in this regard, but what they lacked in dedicated lenses they gained in adapters. Especially the 4/3 - M4/3 adapters open up a whole range of AF lenses across a very wide price and specification spectrum to users. Olympus also intelligently offer a (overpriced) OM - M4/3 adapter.</p>

<p>I'm actually really surprised that Leica dropped out of 4/3's when they did. That seems like an amazingly bad business decision... to produce a fixed-lens pocket camera that's basically the same size as an M4/3 camera, when they could have produced the world's first "luxury" dedicated M - M4/3's camera that could shoot Leica rangerfinder lenses just as easily as M4/3's and 4/3's digital lenses. Lieca is the ONLY camera company in the world that currently produces miniature lenses that could be easily mounted to an M4/3s camera and as such, they are the ONLY camera company in the world that has anything to offer the world in a compact interchangeable lens camera. I think Lieca being part of the project would have been good for all three companies. Oh well.</p>

<p>What do Sony and Samsung have to offer? Non-existent lines of lenses? I'm pretty sure the Minolta-Sony mount cannot be adapted to a pocket-camera because of the mechanical AF. So unless they are making a HUGE investment in lenses, people are basically just going to be buying into those systems hoping to adapt manual focus lenses and that's it. And as someone else mentioned, the Samsung camera is not going to be nearly as adaptable as the M4/3's machines.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am wondering when someones going to produce one of these with an APS-H size sensor. NOW that would be nice and I'm sure the Leica users would love it too.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>that's a good question. According to my understanding noone is even making an APS-C camera as the APS Classic was 25.1 × 16.7 mm and the Canon sensors are typically 22.3 x 14.9 mm.</p>

<p>Perhaps it would be of little real utility as we already have full frame for those who would like the benefits of a larger format (such as depth of field and other related issues). The electronics seems such that there is really not much between them than that. Leica has finally shown that full frame can work with mirror-less designs too</p>

<p>"Because brands that do not evolve and keep innovating die. That's why.</p>

 

<p>I just got to comment on that, Alan. It is a canard statement even if the thought is well intentioned. Examples, please?"</p>

<p>Early 35mm cameras were rangefinders. In the 50s and 60s rangefinders were used by many professional photographers. All manufacturers who were in the game were making rangefinder cameras. Canon and Nikon moved on to SLRs and prospered. Photographers moved onto SLRs. Leica stayed largely with rangefinders and hung on by the skin of their teeth as a niche manufacturer. Other makes disappeared without trace.<br>

"I think the critical question for me is will the mfr support the format or the unit?. "<br>

Yes, this is definitely true, but manufacturers will only support something that makes money. And things will only make money if they are relevant to the photographers of the time and compete in the marketplace.<br>

<br />Cheers</p>

<p>Alan</p>

 

<p>I see your point now Alan.</p>

<p>Hello Gerry, Alan, Yoshio and all the others. I have read all your comments and find that you are all wrong. I was happy with my Canon and its FD lenses, I was flabbergasted with my EOS system, never liked the M-Leicas and I am overly enthusiastic about my D700 and D300, but I'll never forget my Contax G1 and its 2 lenses, 45 and 90. So now I have purchased an adapter for m4/3 for those two lenses not knowing which camera may land in my lap yet. I always look for the best affordable equipment on the market that I also like and can be able to do my job with under the very different circumstances and as I am getting older, who aren't and hopefully wiser, can please first of all myself when photographing and pleasing the general public with the outcome. I thought that was the essencial thing. I happened to appear at a wedding with my Contax G1 and was not taken seriously till I pulled out my huge "Canon". If we all could have a digital slr camera size m4/3, a lens approx., 17 - 500mm/2,0 attached and no heavier than 500 gram as well as the capabillities of D3s, then I guess we "all" would go for it. Let's wait and see, eh? Take care everybody and happy Easter.</p>

<p>Greetings, fellow photographers! Many fine points have been made in this forum...permit me to offer my point of view. Having been a photographer for about 30 years, and using everything from polaroid to large format, I think I can appreciate "Image Quality" when I see it. I am very interested in the 4/3 and/or m4/3 systems, and thus far, have been pleased with the reported tests and image quality of that format, particularly the Panny GF1. The upcoming Panny G2, with its new Venus HD II Engine, should theoretically eek out even more resolution from existing lenses than the engine in the GF1...that's why I am most anxious to read formal testing of that system. IMHO, if tests are positive, then the G2 with an assortment of m4/3 (or 4/3 with adapter) lenses would be quite satisfactory for travel, stock, nature, and even product photography! Happy Shooting!</p>

 

<p>To my very humble opinion the question is in place. The former SLRs have <strong>evolved </strong>to AE and AF, and compactness. The DSLRs themselves are <strong>evolved</strong> SLRs. Whatever does not <strong>evolve</strong> - dies.<br>

The M4/3 cannot and will not ever have better sensors than beast DSLRs, but can improve their actual sensors and whatever affects image quality, in comparizon to their up to day capabilities.<br>

But the M4/3 <strong>today and in the future </strong>can give the hell of a fight to DSLRs on versatility and compactness. And price too.<br>

The G series electronic viewfinder is already a tech more <strong>evolved</strong> version than the traditional mirror, and its potential capabilities are unpredictable, including night vision for example. The mirror on the other hand had ended its path.</p>