m4/3: reports of my death are greatly exagerated.

<p>I read a comment in another thread where someone believes that m4/3 is dead. Then I read this thread from DP Review showing how m4/3 is the best selling lens mount in Japan. Take it with a grain of salt; it's an Olympus presentation. But I do believe m4/3, simply due to a large and growing lens selection, will be a viable option for a long time.</p>

<p>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=40557521</p>

<p>The only people reporting it's death either don't understand it, or don't understand photography outside of their general subset. The system has benefits others don't, but also has troubles that others don't. Just like anything, it's all about the compromise.</p>

<p>Yeah, I saw that same presentation at CES when I was meeting with Olympus.Even if you dropped down the market share some number of percentage points to account for exaggeration, it still shows that m4/3 is doing fine.</p>

<p>There's always someone somewhere that says something or other is "dead".</p>

Well, those charts also show that m4/3 market share is under 10% in the US and most of Europe, with UK being highest at around 20%. Moreover if Sony hadn't had the Thailand flood disaster, they would have sold more NEX.

 

I do like the 4:3 aspect ratio because it prints well on 8.5x11 paper, but with computer monitors mostly going to widescreen, 3:2 aspect ratio may become popular again. Then there is the question of whether Olympus' camera business will survive the financial scandal.

<p>It's the Internet, people say crazy things all the time. Are you sure they said Micro 4/3 and not 4/3? The original 4/3 SLR mount seems pretty dead to me in respect to new products. Micro 4/3 on the other hand has new products released on a fairly consistent basis. Also, just because something is popular in Japan doesn't mean it is going to catch on in Europe or the US and vice versa. </p>

<p>Zach said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The system has benefits others don't, but also has troubles that others don't. Just like anything, it's all about the compromise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It seems to me as I could say pretty much the same about 620, 127, 126, 110, disc cameras, or APS film (just to name a few that come to mind very quickly).</p>

<p>That's not to try to say that mFTS is dead -- only that the statement above says little (if anything) about its health.</p>

<p>I do think we'd need to know quite bit more background before we'd have any clue what those numbers really meant (if anything). Just for example, they show a percentage of the SLR market, but don't define what that includes (e.g., are they counting Sony's SLT models as "SLR" or not?)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It seems to me as I could say pretty much the same about 620, 127, 126, 110, disc cameras, or APS film (just to name a few that come to mind very quickly).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>First, you are taking the lone statement out of context. Second, it can be said of EVERY format out there for photography. My point was that the detractors I have heard spouting off about how horrible it is, or that it should stop it's existence don't realize that it, like any other system, has it's pluses and minuses. While it does not speak to the health of the system (all I have seen is a bunch of people using them and those same Japan sales figures) it was a statement into the psyche of the people claiming it's "death".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I read a comment in another thread where someone believes that m4/3 is dead.<br>

[...]<br>

My point was that the detractors I have heard spouting off about how horrible it is, or that it should stop it's existence<br>

[...]<br>

it was a statement into the psyche of the people claiming it's "death".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Uh... Based on all of this shouldn't you post your Olympus presentation link in the thread you mention or wherever these detractors instead of starting a new thread where we can't see any of the history?</p>

<p>Walt, you just quoted me and the OP (<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=495176">David Manzi</a>). Who was this aimed at?</p>

<p>And the charts are in the link in the first post from David Manzi.</p>

<p>I'm so confused.....</p>

<p>4/3 might be going but m4/3 is alive and well.</p>

<p>Agreed on "regular" 4/3; it never took off. m4/3 has been pretty successful, though. Also, I think those charts were created just before the introduction of the Nikon 1 series, which might have affected them a little. Besides, I've done everything I can to help m4/3. :-)</p>

<p>If only Nikon had adopted M4/3 instead of striking off on their own to save their DSLR sales :-)<br>

Where they reluctant to pay royalties or whatever to PanOly? Shame really not having one of the two great Japanese makers in the M4/3 game.</p>

That's the rule of the game. Without involving big names, like Nikon, Canon or Sony, M4/3 has no future.

<p>Peter, there was a time when nobody thought Panasonic would be a "big name" in cameras.</p>

<p>Nikon avoided the 4/3 sensor size for a very simple reason: to protect their SLR lines. In the long run, this will be stupid. They need to shift their attention to the new reality of mirrorless cameras and produce something decent. The 1 series is OK, but strictly for the P&S crowd, which was their intent. More of us are looking to the smaller cameras as an alternative or adjunct to big heavy SLRs. But Nikon didn't want to canibalize their SLR sales. I guess Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus will do that for them.</p>

<p>And you really believe a system that sells as well as m4/3 has no future? Really?</p>

<p>I don't think comparing 4/3 or m4/3 to obsolete film sizes is really a valid comparison. With, say, APS film, if you chose an APS camera you were choosing to be restricted to a smaller choice in emulsions and more expensive processing, and your ability to use the camera at all depended on continued availability of APS film. Such issues do not matter if a camera does not use film in the first place.<br>

Regarding the 4:3 aspect ratio in general, it predates digital by many years. It is the same aspect ratio produced by medium format 6x4.5 cameras. More choice in aspect ratios is IMO a good thing.</p>

Thom Hogan on Olympus financials at sansmirror.com : http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/february-2012/olympus-financials-us-camer.html

<p>I think Sony's recent cameras have definitely put more pressure on m4/3, they're stolen a sizable chunk of sales. And currently the well regarded a6000 is on sale for less than the new m4/3 body that I want. But Sony doesn't have the lenses to carry the E Mount yet and M4/3 has been around long enough good 3rd party lenses are coming out.<br /><br />If Sony sticks with it and gets more lens options I can see them becoming a bigger threat in 2-3 years but right now there is no issue. But I do hope Panasonic and Olympus step up the game on their sensors to compete.</p>