Am I the only one who thinks that the promise of Four-Thirds has gone unrealized?

<p>Hi All-<br>

I was really excited when I read about the introduction of Four-Thirds format. It seemed to promise the following advantages over "legacy" systems:</p>

<ol>

<li>Designed for digital from the ground up;</li>

<li>Smaller than APS-C, but still "big enough" sensor for high image quality;</li>

<li>more compact lenses and bodies;</li>

<li>lower pricing than comparable "full-frame" and APS-C equipment;</li>

<li>"Open standard" would ensure wide range of third-party lenses.</li>

</ol>

<p>Instead, the state of Four-Thirds appears to be:</p>

<ol>

<li>Olympus is the only manufacturer committed to the format, and even it has only one current SLR model, leaving the format's future viability in question;</li>

<li>Bodies and lenses have no significant advantage in size and weight vs. competing APS-C equipment;</li>

<li>Bodies and lenses have no significant advantage in price over competing APS-C equipment (on the contrary, Olympus stuff often costs more);</li>

<li>Limited selection of glass available;</li>

<li>No clear technical advantages over APS-C equipment.</li>

</ol>

<p>I'm not heavily invested in the format; I just have an E-1 and 14-54. But in view of the above, I'm thinking of switching to a different system before getting more heavily invested in Four-Thirds.<br>

<br>

Anyone else been down this road? Thoughts?</p>

 

<p>I thought about 4/3 when introduced but decided to wait. Now it looks like micro 4/3 has eaten 4/3's lunch.</p>

<p>I have two bodies (both pretty old) and four lenses. I shall not abandon them until they collapse and die. Nor will I buy more equipment in the system, except perhaps to replace something that has failed. I knew what I was getting into and my modest expectations have been met. My view is that a system pitted against APS-C, but with a slightly smaller sensor, could not have gone much farther.</p>

<p>Mirrorless with APS-C stole the show. Nex3,Nex5,Nex7, and Fuji line...<br>

However, the technology advances, and cameras like Nikon N1,V1 make strides.<br>

It is getting interesting to see where it will settle? if ever.</p>

<p>For DSLR's, 4/3 offered no advantage over APS and became a evolutionary dead end. Micro 4/3, on the other hand, has delivered on big performance in a small, light package.</p>

<p>As an optical path, TTL viewing system I think the 38.67mm flange distance hobbled the system. Wide angle and standard angle lenses had to use complicated retrofocus designs to clear that distance. Read big, heavy, and expensive if you wanted fast glass in primes or zooms. I have an E-410 that is basic, plastic, small and not too heavy with the stinky slow kit 14~42 zoom. But to achieve that small size the lens starts out at a 'blistering' f3.5! I suppose I could handle that speed for a 28mm angle of view on the short end, but, at f5.6 at the 84mm angle of view on the long end? Well now, that is at least a 2 or 3 stop penalty over a conventional 85mm portrait lens on a 35mm SLR.</p>

<p>The 14~35mm f2 answers the need for a fast lens covering the wide-normal-short telephoto range, but at 2 pounds, almost 5 inch's long, a 77mm filter size and $2300.....well you get the picture. </p>

<p>I have used my Zuiko OM mount legacy lenses on the E-410 but the results are mixed at best with accurate manual focus problematic.</p>

<p>I also think any future for the fourthirds sensor will have to rest with the micro 4:3 platform.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think Olympus themselves abandoned the format. I bought into it a few years ago and really enjoyed using the equipment. Even with its faults. But when they started leaving behind the 4/3rds for the m4/3rds, the writing on the wall started to become very clear and I did jump ship. The glass is good though. But yes, it can be more expensive than most</p>

<p>On the other hand: I bought in because of the lens quality, the dust reduction, build quality, and weather sealing and the freshness of design in 2004. I still plan to stick with my E cameras and HG lenses. As long as they work for me, for as long as the company supports its product in the market, I will not look to the competition and let buyers' remorse get me down. Where is it written that APS-C is the better format? It is though just a camera after all. It works, it makes images, they are good color and suit me.There are more 4/3 lenses out than I need or can afford but they are out there if I needed them. <br /> I also have a micro four thirds camera, which suits me for its own values. Every system is a compromise of some kind and Olympus makes its compromises to suit my style. When the company says it is abandoning ship, then I will seek bargains on the closeout lenses....each to her own as they say. aloha, gs</p>

<p>A size comparison of the Nikon D300, Olympus E-5, Canon 7D<br>

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE5/images/comparedtoD300S7D.jpg<br>

Why should I buy Olympus when Nikon and Canon have tons of lenses and we all know they are committed to the format?</p>

<p>4/3 never took off. I'll give you $1 if Olympus ever releases another 4/3 body or lens. Micro 4/3 on the other hand is what 4/3 should have been all along. </p>

<p>The dSLR based 4/3 was just an evolutionary phase. A necessary step but ultimately the dSLR paradigm was destined to become obsolete. The dSLR APS and full frame paradigm is barely even relevant to some photographers now.</p>

<p>My only disappointment in the Micro 4/3 phase of evolution is that I'd rather see more fixed lens Micro 4/3 models. While I appreciate the versatility of the interchangeable lens models it doesn't interest me personally. I'm still looking for that perfect snapshot digital camera, but the few existing models need more competition to break out of the niche category and into mainstream appeal.</p>

<p>Perhaps Olympus and Panasonic appreciate that 4/3 was a mis-step, or half step, and M4/3 is the better option to compete with the APS-C camera. As far as cheapness is concerned surely one pays for the tool that one thinks is best suited to one's needs rather than which is the cheapest. I don't mind paying far more than a DSLR for the tool which suits my needs.<br>

As a step forward from the bridge camera which I considered the true digital camera M4/3 with a long zoom is not really what I wanted but the best that is made currently until they bring out a large sensor bridge camera with constant zoom instead of this pandering to the miniaturisation fad which has lenses loosing two stops as they zoom ... no better than most DSLR lenses.<br>

Panasonic had it right with the FZ20 and have been slipping backwards ever since. I guess not enough people appreciated that camera to keep Pany on the true path.</p>

<p>"Build one to throw away."</p>

<p>Maybe 4/3 isn't the ultimate platform, but I would argue that it's a step in the right direction. As is M4/3. As are the Fuji X100 and X-1 Pro.</p>

<p>I bought an X100 as soon as I could. I haven't regretted that.</p>

<p>I'm still waiting on a small system. At some point, I imagine I'll sell off my Canon system and buy into something else. That will either be when I no longer use my long glass or the new system performs better than Canon's current state of the art.</p>

<p>In my mind, if I'm using a sensor that's a quarter the size of full frame, then I should have bodies and lenses that are the quarter the size and weight of their full frame counterparts. Would be nice to see a cost savings there, too.</p>

<p>I think we're on a good path. New models of DSLRs only offer incremental improvements over the past ones. Not so with the newest mirrorless cameras. In a few years, I think we're going to have a small, modular system that makes the DSLRs of today as popular as medium format cameras are right now.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“I was really excited when I read about the introduction of Four-Thirds format. It seemed to promise the following advantages over "legacy" systems:”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When the four-thirds format was introduced, I saw no advantage over the “legacy” systems. However, when the micro four-thirds system was introduced, I saw many advantages of being able to use this compact system with my legacy systems.</p>

<p><a href=" </div>

<p>Micro 4/3 sorta stole the thunder from the standard 4/3 concept. But I recently bought a used Olympus dSLR and I've started using it quite a bit. Because of my infatuation with the m4/3 cameras, I had bought a couple of used Olympus 4/3 lenses and I was using them with adapters on my E-Pen bodies. I was astonished at the optical quality and impressed by the build although AF was very slow on the m4/3 cameras (the lenses I'm speaking of are the 11-22/2.8-3.5 and 14-54/2.8-3.5). Once attached to an Olympus 4/3 body, the AF speed is not an issue. And, truthfully, I still prefer an optical viewfinder to the electronic viewfinders for the micro 4/3 bodies. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>They got it wrong with 4/3 but then got it right in m4/3. That meets just about all the specs you mentioned and compared with all other small mirrorless cameras, it is the only true system with a wide range of bodies, lenses and other accessories. And all in reasonable size to comply with the whole idea of small camera and large enough sensor for most normal uses.</p>

<p>When Panasonic came out with the first 4/3 camera I couldn't understand the advantage - the size was too close to an APS camera. M4/3 definately does have an advantage in this regard and with the improving sensor technology as shown in the E5 things are looking up. Now if they could just do something with the lens sizes...</p>

<p>What do you mean by lens sizes? M4/3 lenses are the smallest there are and are much smaller than 4/3 lenses and smaller than just about anything available for APS size, apart from some rare exceptions like the 40mm pancake for Pentax (and who wants a 60mm normal?). They also have a few collapsible zooms that really provide full miniature advantage to the system that no other manufacturer has (Olympus 9-18 and 14-42 and the new Panasonic 14-42). Even the super zooms are small for their range, the Olympus 14-150 is 78mm long and weighs 280g. Just look at the Nikon 10-100 which covers similar range on the smaller format but the lens is 95mm long with a whopping 72mm filter and weighs 515g.</p>

<p>I know m4/3 lenses are smallER. But are they small enough.</p>

<p>The indication from the postings are that the 4/3 was built for the evolution of the m4/3. Granted, that may be the case. However, what about the photographers that dumped thousands into the 4/3 system? </p>

<p>Once disillusioned with average resolution and noise issues of the 4/3, I saw fit to change to a APS-C system such as the Canon 7D. It was the best for my situation, shooting weddings and portraits. The E-3 and E-30 simply could not meet the standards of my customers. Once the Canon system was implemented, the quality improved dramatically.</p>

<p>The only way I would go the m4/3 route is primarily for convenience, such as international travel. I would find converters for the 4/3 lenses and legacy OM lenses. But the cost of going into another system (m4/3) would not be beneficial. Something tells me that the Canon (APS-C) system would do just fine.</p>

 

<p>Yes, Olympus surely stumbled with 4/3. The Pentax K5 is very close in size to what I think could have been expected, yet it has a larger sensor. Olympus forgot their roots. I have an m4/3 for casual use, and while the IQ is better than the E-3, I would prefer a larger body than the OM-5.<br>

I progressed from E-1 to E-3 which was promoted as the fastest focus camera, their advertising showed elephant herds being photographed at speed, except they did not tell us that only the 12-60 would do it. Not the most suitable lens for wildlife.<br>

So I passed on the E-5 which is only an incremental move forward, barely catching up to the opposition who were still improving. I bought a Canon1D3 and a couple of L lenses, because I do some action work. The difference was immediate, not only in focus speed, but surprisingly for any subject. The images are beautiful and creamy, with gentle gradation. Those big fat pixels and 1/3 crop sensor do the job. I recall sitting outside testing as twilight turned to dark. The 1D and 70-200mmF4IS swiftly and silently nailed every shot. The E-3 and 150mmF2 sea-sawed and just could not lock onto anything. I have got used to the extra size now. Though larger, it is lighter than the Olympus combination I most use (above).<br>

I have hoped up until now for an E-7 with better focus, and the ability to get the best out of my investment in SHG lenses, but I'm starting to doubt it will happen. Olympus must be bleeding a lot of customers because they have given no real indication of what they intend or time frame for 4/3.<br>

Don</p>

<p>I have the Olympus E620 and 6 lenses. I am satisfied with the performance of the system and the versatility that I have for the money invested. There are limitations in extremely low light situations with noise using the 4/3 sensor. If you are prudent in your technique and skilled with Photoshop, excellent images are the norm. I could have spent a lot more money without every taking a better picture.<br>

I hope that Olympus will intoduce a more advance version of the 4/3rds sensor in their DLSR line.</p>

<p>A couple of observations. First, yes, I invested in the 4/3rd and I found that the OM E-3, for its time, was a great camera. I also bought a number of lenses. However, recently (March of this year), I sold ALL of my OM gear - both 4/3 and micro 4/3. Why? Several reasons. First, the 4/3 line of development is essentially dead. I cannot see Olympus putting any money into this line. Compared with the Canon and Nikon lines, it will be almost impossible for Olympus to compete. How do you justify the price of an E-5 (I know that it is low <$1600) when for < $3000 I can get the D800 with 36.3 megapixels? Second, Olympus is paying the price for being a first mover and investing in a sensor that is essentially limited. I cannot see any significant improvements in resolution and in low level performance unless the sensor gets bigger. Third, there are concerns about Olympus itself and how it will survive the recent scandal.<br>

Right now, I am down to two systems - Nikon and Leica. These work well for me.</p>

<p>I don't know Steven. When I use DPReview's comparision widget for dynamic range and higher ISO (including RAW) up to maybe 3200 the new OM-d E5 looks very competitive against cameras with larger sensors such as the Nikon D800 and the Sony Nex-7. It seems to me that Olympus has pulled off some sort of miracle with this sensor and I only wonder what would happen if the technology was applied to APS or full frame.</p>

<p>I've just sold my E-30, 12-60 and 50-200 to purchase Nikon primes and a D-800e. Olympus served me very well for 30 years - first an OM-1 then OM-4s - they were wonderful cameras and superb lenses. I was hesitant to go to 4/3s and rather annoyed at Olympus for creating a digital system that would not take their wonderful SLR lenses seamlessly. However, since I could get two zooms that covered from 28mm to 400 at 2.8-3.5, and I was travelling a lot at the time, it seemed a perfect fit - and believe me it was.<br>

Fast forward 8 years to 2012. 4/3s is longer being pursued seriously by Olympus - Micro 4/3s is all the rage. If I want cutting edge sensor technology, I would need to invest in a M4/3s body; should I want seamless versatility, new M4/3s lenses as well. Rather than being bitten yet again by Olympus and knowing that 4/3s is almost at the end of it's IQ rope and being one from the medium large format camp of the 1980s and 90s, the Nikon D800e seemed to be the way to go.<br>

Why invest yet another $1200 in a body (and sensor and lenses) that simply cannot keep up with the advances of APS and full-frame DSLRs?<br>

Believe me, it was a sad day when my Zuiko Digital lenses went, but Olympus has let me down twice now. I think the end is near...</p>

<p>It is silly to compare m4/3 system, which is built from the gound up to be as small as possible, and a full frame system on image quality. In the old days of film there was small format (24x36mm, today's full frame, ie. large format), and medium format (6x6 etc), and large format (4x5 and 8x10). One used the smallest size that gave enough image quality for the portability and speed required by the assignment. Nothing has changed. If you want a small camera, you get m4/3 or something similar. If you need maximum shooting and focus speed, you get an advanced APS DSLR. If you want better low light performance, you need to get a bigger sensor. If you need very big prints, you need either a full frame or medium format digital. There are no shortcuts. It is strange how people start to think that they can get everything in one package with no compromises, and then somebody complains that it is not as good as something totally different and two classes above it in size or price or usually both. Yes, 4/3 has become a bit of a dead end to Olympus. But m4/3 is the total opposite, it is the most accomplished and capable small system there is. To give up on m4/3 just because 4/3 did not live up to its promise is in my opinion equally silly.</p>