Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Take your time. It's not a short article. But I think it's well worth reading.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

<p dir="ltr"> <br>

<a href="http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=486&Itemid=1">http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=486&Itemid=1</a><br>

 

 

 

<p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

<br>

My personal guess is that within 10-15 years there will be no cameras with mirrors and shutters. <br /><br /><br>

Happy shooting,<br />Yakim. <br /><br /></p>

<p>In the last 2 months Nikon execs have publically talked about a "surprise" coming later this year. Almost everyone thinks it willl be a compact mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. Sony is showing a mockup of theirs at PMA right now. Sigma execs also talked about doing the same. Ricoh has their sliding lens/sensor combo system. Samsung just released their NX system. There are rumors of Fuji releasing a Micro 4/3 camera. I haven't read anything about Canon getting into this market but basically by the end of the year virtually every camera company will be there. Olympus and Panasonic deserve credit for pioneering the market but we'll see if they can maintain it.</p>

<p>As for mirrors and shutters I think they will disappear even quicker at the low end. Maybe they'll be gone in 5 years. Contrast AF is still much slower than phase detect AF and phase detect isn't standing still. You also have the slow EVF refresh times but I think in 15 years both of those will be solved.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I haven't read anything about Canon getting into this market</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Look at my last post in <a href="00VnCW">this thread</a>.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p>To me, nothing compares to looking through the optical finder of an SLR. I had a G1 and I'm seriously considering an E-PL1. I'd like something smaller to carry around, with good IQ. But I'm not replacing my Canon 5d. There seem to be enough people out there that will continue to buy the higher end, larger SLR cameras.</p>

<p>Micro 4/3 is cutting into the lower end SLR sales, but Canon keeps dropping their prices on the Rebels. So that's where the bargains are.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>My personal guess is that within 10-15 years there will be no cameras with mirrors and shutters. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's very optimistic, Yakim.<br>

While I do agree that sensors will get bigger in compact cameras, I reckon there is still a good room for mirror and shutter by the next 10 years or so. People love thin DOF from big aperture holes, which means lenses (and camera) will be still bulky. </p>

<p>It's a 100-years-old technology and I don't see it's completely gone in the near future. Some things don't seem to change. Footballers still expect rain and mud on the pitch for many years to come, as well as photographers will have mirrors in their camera.</p>

<p>My random thought.</p>

 

 

<p>I fail to see the relevance between this...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>While I do agree that sensors will get bigger in compact cameras, I reckon there is still a good room for mirror and shutter by the next 10 years or so.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...and this.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>People love thin DOF from big aperture holes, which means lenses (and camera) will be still bulky.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p>Canon can just create a new mirrorless camera based on APS-C sensor and EF-S mount. It won't be as small as the 4/3 format but has bigger sensor. In the meantime if they can just make the Rebel as small as the Olympus 450/430, meaning SLR without that giant grip. I'd jump on it now and ditch the G10.</p>

<p>Momma, don't take my SLR away.</p>

<p>I guess I could get on the boat if someone (not Leica...too expensive) were to introduce a digital rangefinder system. Auto-focus: sometimes convenient. Live View: kind of a cool gimmick. Digital sensor: I'm getting used to it. TTL Composition: preferred. Optical viewfinder: absolutely essential.</p>

<p>I think 4/3 is just another avenue to take in photography. I don't believe it's the 2nd coming though. Will we see more of a foothold? Sure. And will all the big players eventually be in this arena? Probably true also. But the idea of 4/3 taking the world by storm and eliminating all players in a few short years or ever I seriously doubt it. It will find it's niche and go from there and the size of that niche may grow or shrink depending on the whim of markets but it will not be the only player. </p>

<p>Michael Reichmann has just posted an interesting evaluation of the E-P2 on Luminous Landscape. There's evidently potential in this sort of design, but no-one seems to have put all the bits together properly as yet, whether Olympus or Panasonic. Having an EVF that blocks up the accessory shoe and may not stay too firmly in place is clearly not a clever piece of design.</p>

<p>I can't say I found the article linked to by Yakim particularly impressive, although I was glad to be pointed towards it (thanks, Yakim). It used an awful lot of words to say not all that much. My own view is that EVF will have a big impact in the quite near future, although there is still a lot of development work to happen to it, and also to contrast-detect AF, for it to become a complete replacement for a reflex system. There may well be some applications for which a reflex system will continue to be advantageous for a very long time. I am sure we shall very soon see DSLRs with an output to drive an accessory EVF (we are almost at that point already, except that the "EVF" has to be a PC running EOS Utility), and bodies with a built-in EVF and no reflex system, but there's no logical connection between those developments and using the 4/3 sensor size. Although image quality continues to improve at each sensor size, it may well be that the Law of Diminishig Returns is setting in with regard to pixel count, and the relative advantage of the larger sensors has certainly been maintained at higher ISO settings up to now. My best guess is that we shall see an APS-C EVF body from Canon, with EF-S and EF lenses usable with an adapter, within twelve months.</p>

<p>Who is the target market?</p>

 

<p>For the overwhelming majority of camera owners, shutterless, mirrorless cameras are the

standard. Sure, there’s a lot of room for quality improvement…but they’re

already plenty “good enough”</p>

 

<p>For us gearheads? Well, there’s a continuum to be considered. For many, small and

pocketable is still a very desirable thing. But those who haul around half their own weight in gear

aren’t going to care very much about something with a sensor the size of a fingernail.</p>

 

<p>I’m personally looking forward not to a future of microscopic shutterless cameras, but

one of affordable large format systems. In less than 10-15 years, medium format digital should be in

the price range of today’s 135 digital and large format digital should be in the price range of today’s

medium format. There’s good reason to hope that, in 15 years, you’ll be able to buy a

large format digital camera for under $10K. Now <em>that’s</em> something to get excited

about!</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>My G9 died a few days ago after some research I decided to get it repaired until the next time it dies, then it is a 4/3rds, to use my fd lens with, they (fd lens) are so nice and small and great optics. Thanks for the link</p>

<p>You can only "rain on someone's parade" with a consumer product if consumers actually buy the product. The article completely ignores this and offers the usual technoid camera argument in place of anything that shows a real understanding of market dynamics. I remember when RISC processors were going to kill off Intel...</p>

<p>I have never seen a 4/3 camera and I'm out all the time.</p>

<p>Micro four-thirds is just another format, like Nikon's 1.5x crop, Canon's 1.6x crop, and 35 mm fullframe. Now, smaller sensor formats require smaller, cheaper, and more compact lenses. So, all things being equal, you could design a system around a smaller sensor more cheaply. But the difference between micro four-thirds and 1.6x crop isn't that big.</p>

<p>I think it's very likely we'll see Canon introduce very cheap EVIL bodies with an EF-S lens mount. Think Rebel 100000D.</p>

<p>So, fast-forward a few years into the future. I'm a consumer looking for a camera. Do I pick the micro four-thirds system, or for a few bucks more do I get the Canon, where I can use the same lenses on a prosumer body with a pentaprism (7D mark 8, hehehe).</p>

<p>To me it comes down to image quality vs convenience. With todays small pocket size digital camera you can take some nice photographs within certain limitations (speed rate of shots, noise, print size). Most people are satisfied with their results from these small cameras. As a photographer I'm looking at the best image I can capture as to have nice artwork to place on the wall. As I see it you can't get past certain laws of physics - the smaller the sensor, the larger the enlargement factor for a given size print. Yes software can add sharpening or noise reduction, but it impacts the quality of the pixels. Years ago with film technology nobody would argue the merits of sheetfilm or medium format over smaller 35mm, APS or 110 size film. To put it in perspective listed below are todays popular sensor sizes.</p>

<p>Full frame 36x24mm 864 sq mm<br>

Canon APS H 28x19mm 548 sq mm<br>

Nikon APS C 24x16mm 370 sq mm<br>

Canon APS C 22x15mm 329 sq mm<br>

Four Thirds 17x13mm 225 sq mm<br>

1/1.8" pocket 8x5mm 38 sq mm </p>

<p>This is very interesting. I have a 5D2 and while its a great camera there are times I would like something smaller for travel or casual use. Micro FourThirds, Pani LX3, G11, S90 etc all sound good but I cannot make up my mind so I buy nothing and end up either using my 5d2 with a small prime or taking my cheapy Pentax underwater P/S. <br>

I agree that something will change but probably more on the consumer end, I cannot see any of the above matching a full frame DSLR. </p>

 

<p>I have been using an E-P1 almost exclusively for several months now. The only downsides I have found are the lack of fast primes and the omission of a simple optical viewfinder, which I find to be a major disadvantage.</p>

<p>Olympus Pen half-frame cameras didn't replace 35mm because really they weren't small enough to warrant a changeover and the quality was noticeably worse. This was especially true when cameras like the Rollei 35's, the Minox 35's etc came out. Here was a camera smaller than the pen with BETTER image quality. Similarly we already have cameras like the Sigma DP-1/2 and the Leica X1 which show that in time we'll get those larger sensors in bodies almost as small as the half-frame micro-4/3 body -- not to mention the Leica M8 and M9. And good enough is the enemy of the good. So a camera with a larger sensor which is nearly as small as the micro 4/3rds will keep them from getting traction in the market.</p>

<p>And remember APS cameras didn't succeed either, because small 35mm cameras were small enough -- just remember the APS SLRs next to a Canon Rebel or an Olympus OM-1. If size really matters to you (as it does to me) buy a Leica M8 used. My M8 and a few lenses fit into a small, lightweight bag and give me all the benefits of a system camera with equivalent quality (the M8 has an APS-H sized sensor and the M9 is full frame). Of course Leica won't start a trend either because of what it costs but it shows that it is possible to make a small camera with a big sensor. I like the Micro 4/3rds cameras but I doubt Canon is worried. </p>

<p>The entire article is based on the premise that smaller is, of course, better and it will win. It evens ends with OM-1 in 1972.<br>

I fell safe in saying Canon and Nikon always outsold Olympus by a wide margin. They had the pro stuff and the wannabes wanted to emulate them.<br>

Small size can be an advantage but it's not universal. As long as men have testosterone. We will want a "pro one"and bigger cameras will sell.<br>

Seriously, for advanced amateurs and wannabees, i believe small size is not that important.<br>

P.S. I have owned 4 OM-1s and OM2s through the years. I now shoot with a Nikon D300 because, among other things, I like it's weight in my hand.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have never seen a 4/3 camera and I'm out all the time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I had never seen one until I went to Yellowstone last September. I think I saw about 10 Panasonic G1's every day. I think everyone that had one was European or Japanese. I don't think any of the American tourists had them.</p>

<p>According to Thom Hogan's numbers Olympus and Panasonic combined have 11.5% of the Japanese market in interchangeable lens cameras.</p>

<p>http://www.bythom.com/2009%20Nikon%20News.htm</p>

<p>I have read some comments that say due to the bad exchange rates Panasonic and Olympus were targeting Japan and Europe and limiting shipments to the US. Because of the limited supply the sites dedicated to 4/3 cameras are full of "this item is in stock here" and the next day they are out of stock.</p>

<p>Sure, I'd love to lose the mirror and shutter, so long as the electronic viewfinder is decent, and the AF is reliable. We're not there yet -- not even close. However, imagine a camera in which dust specks no longer plague us! Imagine the end of mirror slap! Imagine a camera in which almost any flimsy tripod will do fine! Sure, I'm game!</p>

<p>What I don't see happening is the disappearance of larger formats. The evolution of digital formats has been towards larger, not smaller, as evolution in our manufacturing capabilities brings costs down. People prefer larger formats because they yield lower noise and greater latitude in aperture/DoF. A friend of mine just bought his first DSLR for these benefits. We can't easily compare to the evolution in film formats from larger to smaller. After all, smaller film formats meant more frames between reloadings, and I suspect that was a major factor behind the success of the 35mm format. There is not any similar consideration in digital photography. I'm not saying everyone will want a full frame sensor. That's not even the case right now. However, I think there will continue to be a divergence between the needs of the serious photographer and the casual one.</p>

<p>I especially don't see large cameras disappearing from the landscape of professional gear. Big has always been impressive. I think that's half of the reason people mount vertical grips on their cameras. The smaller consumer cameras get, the more the uninformed consumer will be unduely impressed by a big camera. As it is, the thing that impresses most people about my camera/lens is that it's so big, and it's so heavy. (Therefore it must be good.) Nobody really cares about the optics or the sensor. I think the name on the camera is important, and my cameras would be even more impressive if they said "Nikon." Interestingly, my 40D is more impressive than my 5D. Although both are approximately the same size, my 40D has a bigger number. Although professionals don't select their gear by these criteria, I think they certainly don't mind having big, noisy cameras, at least while they're on the job.</p>

<p>If the mirror and shutter ever go, I can see how it will be possible to adapt between the old EF mount to the new compact mount. I pray that Canon will have the decency to manufacture such an adapter and to keep the electronics backwards-compatible. I think they will lose their professional devotees if they do not. There are so many full-frame EF lenses in the gear collections of professionals that I don't see the abandonment of this format (that offers important benefits to the photographer). If anything, we would go larger into the MF realm, but I don't see that either. Our lens investments are simply too vast. So I think the upper-end photographers will remain entrenched in the 24x36mm format, which will be improved with whatever technical advances the coming years give us.</p>

<p>Sarah - You qualify those who may be disappointed without a backwards-compatible system as the professionals using Canon today, and I am sure that would be true about that group. However, as a dedicated amateur with a limited recreational budget the impact would be HUGE is Canon did not take us into consideration in any future systems. We have built up our systems one expensive accessory (read "this year's discretionary toy money" here) and I'm sure that the market represented by amateurs is by far the largest group Canon would need to consider. <br>

I am sure that just like the film vs digital and nikon vs canon arguments that we will have some new format opinions and raging debates emerge here. What I hope is that my plan to continue to build a lens system, and to use that for years to come, will not be derailed. I suspect there are others would would concur.</p>

<p>I'm not disparaging the amateurs, David! I'm just speaking from my own perspective. I can see how a break in compatability would be devastating to amateur photographers too! It's very plain from this list that many, many amateurs are often just as serious as the pros, and I think what I say probably applies to them too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My personal guess is that within 10-15 years there will be no cameras with mirrors and shutters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>DOF, DOF, DOF... Where it will be gone?! My 35mm on a APC has too much DOF compared to the 50mm on full format.</p>

<p>And, also, who wants a video picture when you can have the real one?. The mirror is the reason everybody and his dog have a reflex and not a rangefinder. I am sure that people will keep wanting the "real thing".</p>

<p>I don't think these cameras will ever fully replace DSLRs. Currently the only way to focus without a mirror is to use a contrast detection system. While this works it doesn't tell the camera if the object is fare away or if it is close. So the camera has to guess which way to turn the focus motor. DSLRs use phase detect which can in many situations tell the camera which way to focus even if the image is out of focus. This advantage means phase detect will probably always be faster then contrast detection. So for sports or action photography, DSLRs will be prefered. </p>

<p>Also when the m4/3 cameras take a picture there is a period of time right after exposure in which electric view finders will not update due to the cameras downloading the image data from the sensor and processing it. Once that is done the shutter is opened and then the system can restart the viewfinder updates and refocus the lens. DSLRs only blank out the view finder for the period when the shutter is open. The mirror returns to normal position and then the system downloads and processes the data. While the sensor download is in progress the other half of the camera can focus and adjust exposure. So for a DSLR the blank out time is very short. So if you are trying to follow rapidly moving action and taking pictures as fast as you can a DSLR can take pictures much faster (frames per second) than any electronic viewfinder can. </p>

<p>Some have mention that large cameras have an advantage of being able to generate images with very narrow depth of field. This is true. However many consumers arn't interested in depth of field. They just want the entire family in focus. This gives the m4/3 cameras an advantage over full frame and to a lesser extent over APS-C sensors. The m4/3 crop factor of two means your lens focal lenght is shorter and your depth of field is larger. A m 4/3 cameras should have an easier time getting the entire family in focus.</p>

<p>Also there are a lot of serious photographers that find it inconvienent or impractical to carry the DSLR everywhere due to its size and weight. A cecond small cameras with small lenss addresses the need. I fit in this group and I think the m4/3 is slightly better suited for that need then an electric view finder camera with APS-C sensor. </p>

<p>So for the forseeable future I think we will continue to see electronic viewfinder cameras as well as DSLRs. large and medium formate were not exterminated by 35mm and people still use 35mm film even though digital dominates the market. likewise Electronic view finders will not elliminate DSLRs. The market will just get more fragmented.</p>