Where can M4/3 go?

 

 

<p >Just taking a first look at the G1. Shooting a Canon XSi now.<br>

Love the swivel screen on the G1, the small size, great lenses and what I am seeing is very solid IQ.<br>

But I wonder, how much better can the sensor get when increasing size is not an option?<br>

I would surmise that if the concept of the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (EVIL) really takes off, Canon and Nikon, others too, would dominate with larger sensors in smaller bodies.</p>

<p >So, will the M4/3 be able to maintain it's edge when the other follow the EVIL path?<br /> Or will it be Betamax?<br /> Bob</p>

 

 

<p>Good question! Time will tell I guess!</p>

<p>The main reason for the failure of Betamax was the fact that Sony was too protective in terms of licensing the format, which has been well discussed.</p>

<p>OTOH, m4/3 is an open format in which any manufacturers can join. Also, you should bare in mind that EVIL is THE FIRST format that is PURELY designed for digital still camera system. DSLR and the rangefinder system like Leica M8/9 are nothing but the temporary design concept to bridge between the legacy film cameras and the digital cameras smoothly by utilizing the technology the manufacturers already have.</p>

<p>I don't know about the future of m4/3 system, but at least I think m4/3 is a very powerful and appealing approach that TRULY direct the future of digital camera with interchangeable lens system, although there are remaining weak points like the continuous shooting mode, delay in the processing of the live view image, etc.</p>

<p>I hope my HIT camera will someday get a digital back and I can adapt C mount, 4/3's or iZone lenses to it.</p>

<p>Bob</p>

<p>how much more do you need?</p>

<p>If you use a G1 with an adapted lens, you will notice that it requires that the lens be stood off from the camrea to make it work, it needs to be held the same distance from the sensor it was on the mirrored camera. This tends to reduce how compact the camera is unless you continually take off the lens for storage.</p>

<p>As Canon has a large commitment in lenses designed for the longer flange mount it would need to develop some lenses which would therefore be locked onto only that mythical EVIL camera. Panasonic and Olympus so far have few. So what I'm saying is don't hold your breath on the others following. We shall see if the advantages of the optical pathway are usurped by the EVIL methodology.</p>

<p>As to sensor size, there are two views to this, one is that the amount of pixels per mm is about the same now between the two with Canon leading on cameras such as the 7D and 550D, having around 228 pixels per mm on the sensor (with the micro 4/3 cameras having 222 pixels / mm). Now the APS-C sensor is about 23x15mm and the 4/3 is 18x13.5mm making the APS-C only 4mm wider and barely 2mm higher, however as you can see in the figure below while the dimensions are similar but the area is about 1.4 times more.</p>

<p>IF Canon had kept the same number of pixels as the micro 4/3 they could perhaps capitalize on this advantage with lower noise created by better access to light, however they have also increased the pixel count to 18MP which is about 1.4 times the 12MP of the micro 4/3.</p>

<p>The fact that the 550D seems to exhibit better high ISO noise suggests that they are doing something more cunning in signal processing. I will be interested to see how the G2 responds to this.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Akira-san</p>

<p>at least in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_4/3"><strong>English language wikipedia</strong> </a> it suggests that the micro 4/3 is not an open standard.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In late 2008, <a title="Panasonic" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panasonic" title="Panasonic" >Panasonic</a> announced a Micro Four Thirds camera and lenses, the <a title="Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-G1" title="Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1">Lumix G1</a> <sup id="cite_ref-G1Announce_1-0" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_4/3#cite_note-G1Announce-1">[ 2] </a> </sup> . <a title="Olympus Corporation" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_Corporation" title="Olympus Corporation">Olympus</a> also announced the development of a camera based on the Micro Four Thirds systems known as the <a title="Olympus PEN E-P1" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_PEN_E-P1" title="Olympus PEN E-P1">Olympus PEN E-P1</a> Camera on June 16, 2009. Unlike its predecessor, the Micro Four Thirds system is not promoted as an <a title="Open standard" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard" title="Open standard">open standard</a> .<sup id="cite_ref-2" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_4/3#cite_note-2">[ 3] </a> </sup></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>well as a spanner in the works the new Samsung NX-10 is also a short registration distance interchangable lens mirrorless camera BUT it uses the APS-C size sensor.<br>

I'm keeping an eye on it as I am still looking for an option for the 38 Canon FD lenses I have.</p>

<p>The NX10 mount register is deeper than Micro-FourThirds so it will not be adaptable to as many lenses, particularly RF and C-mount. Canon FD should be adaptable, but it's a bit tight compared to Micro-FourThirds. </p>

<p>Sensors have been getting better continously since the first digital cameras were launched more than 10 years ago, and there is no reason to think that the quality improvement will suddenly will stop. So, the 4/3 sensors of the future will be better than the ones we have today, just the same as the APS and FF sensor will be getting better. Is a bigger sensor better? Yes, mostly, but next year, the 4/3 sensors may be as good as the APS sensors of today.</p>

<p>m4/3 is a great system, that is much more important than miniscule differences in sensor quality.</p>

<p>Yoshio,<br>

Oddly, my Holy Grail of 'how much do you need' is based on my quest for a fine quality 16X20 print.<br /> Although I do pixel peep, my true test is a 16X20 print that exhibits no jagged details. I've made such prints from my film-based medium format camera and have zero tolerance for the oversharpened look that passes for sharpness on today images.<br /> I know that 10+ MP APS sensors get there now. So waiting to see if G1 or others are there yet also.<br /> I shoot from tripod often so noise is really no problem - long exposures at ISO 100.<br>

Thanks, Bob</p>

<p>Dear Bob</p>

<p>If your criteria is as you say, I would say that the G1 fullfils it. Send me an email and I will happily send you a JPG straight from my camera which you can print and examine</p>

<p>By the end of the year almost every camera company will have a mirrorless/EVIL/semi-compact camera. Panasonic and Olympus pioneered Micro 4/3. Samsung has the NX now. Sony showed a mockup of their EVIL camera at PMA last month. Ricoh has their GXR sliding sensor+lens combo units. There are rumors that Fuji is joining Micro 4/3. Nikon execs keep talking about a "surprise" which everyone thinks is an EVIL type camera. Leica and Sigma already have large sensor compacts although with fixed lenses.</p>

<p>The only major companies that I can think of that I left out are Pentax and Canon.</p>

<p>I doubt they'll take over the market but I can easily see them take 30% of the interchangeable lens camera market.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm keeping an eye on it as I am still looking for an option for the 38 Canon FD lenses I have.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are Canon FD to Micro 4/3 adapters for sale right now. cameraquest sells them among others.</p>

 

<p>Yoshio-san,</p>

<p>According to the official Four Thirds/Micro Four Thirds website, the m4/3 is "an extension of the 4/3 system specification":<br /> http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/whitepaper.html</p>

<p>If the 4/3 system is an open standard, the extension should be open, too. In addition, I haven't seen any camera system that offers such a detailed story of a format through the dedicated website to promote the camera standard, which suggests that the 4/3 format including m4/3 is an open standard.</p>

<p>Equipment selection has always been a trade off.</p>

<p>Size and weight, size and weight. What do I feel like today? Should I just slip a mints tin size camera in a shirt pocket and enjoy the freedom it offers but suffer it's IQ limitations? Or.....should I just lug the whole kit; a DSLR with a couple of overlapping zooms, a macro and a tripod plus an extra battery?</p>

<p>I suppose each must answer the question for themselves but I am happy that with the intro of the m4:3 and and with other EVIL cameras coming soon that a middle ground seems to be expanding fast.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Walt</p>

<p>I think he was after FD adaptors for the Samsung ... Novoflex currently is the only maker I know of for that.</p>

<p>Akira-san</p>

<p>thanks for that link ... nothing like a little light reading in the evening. ^-^</p>

<p>I notice that (again on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_thirds"><strong>wikipedia</strong> </a> ) that the four thirds standard is also not entirely open (I am thinking Open Source when I think "Open Standard")</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is claimed to be an <a title="Open standard" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard" title="Open standard">open standard</a> ; it is however only accessible to companies and under a non-disclosure agreement.<sup id="cite_ref-1" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_thirds#cite_note-1">[ 2] </a> </sup></p>

</blockquote>

<p>so I confess I have no real certain idea if it is open, or no more or less open than the EOS standard that Canon allows others to use parts of ...</p>

<p>1- Neither FourThirds nor Micro-FourThirds are "<em><strong>open</strong></em>" standards. They are licensable standards to which manufacturers can subscribe, on approval of the consortium of other licensee participants. What is different about FourThirds from other camera manufacturers' mount designs is that it was marketed to other manufacturers for collaborative use. Micro-FourThirds has not been marketed in the same way or to the same degree. </p>

<p>2- Why does Micro-FourThirds have to "<em><strong>go</strong></em> <em><strong>anywhere</strong></em>"? Did 35mm film ever go anywhere? Did medium format film ever go anywhere? Did 4x5 ever go anywhere? Micro-FourThirds defines a particular format .. a size, a mount design, and a lens-to-body control protocol. The coupling of field of view and depth of field is defined by these factors. The imaging qualities are constrained by these definitions, and by the technology of sensors and lenses fitted within it. </p>

<p>The real question for a photographer to ask is not whether this format has anywhere to go but whether it is a successful format to produce the photographs she/he wants to make. The real question for the deliverers of Micro-FourThirds ...that is, Olympus and Panasonic ... is whether Micro-FourThirds will be a profitable endeavor to develop a range of cameras and lenses for: will its versatility and the expectations of the photographers buying into it be satisfied adequately to keep it profitable in the face of competitive alternative technologies and systems? </p>

<p>To consider that every system can be, or ought to be, all things to all photographers, above and beyond any other system, is absurd. To consider that a system is <em>doomed</em> if it isn't is equally absurd. </p>

<p>Given that Micro-FourThirds has seemingly been well received with excellent sales for both Panasonic and Olympus, that 13 good dedicated lenses are available or announced for the format (and a wide range of others available through adaptation, both auto-capable and manual), that there are now eight bodies built in the format, and that more equipment seems to be coming on a regular basis ...</p>

<p>Where can Micro-FourThirds go?<br>

Into your hands to produce the photographs you want to make. Where else? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why does Micro-FourThirds have to "<em><strong>go</strong> </em> <em><strong>anywhere</strong> </em> "? Did 35mm film ever go anywhere? Did medium format film ever go anywhere? Did 4x5 ever go anywhere?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Remember Kodak disc film? Some products like 110 and APS aren't dead but only resting... For some formats like 620 you can no longer buy film but you can respool 120 to 620. With enough determination any format is still usable but most people value convenience.<br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format</p>

<p>Let's say that 2 years from now Nikon, Canon, and Sony all have large sensor compact cameras and none are compatible with M4/3. Will Olympus and Panasonic still be successful against that competition? The camera industry is full of companies that either went out of business or no longer make cameras. I wish Olympus and Panasonic the best but Micro 4/3 could be a huge success or "go" the way of the dodo.</p>

<p>@ Walt: </p>

<p>You pose a question that is Olympus' or Panasonic's concern. Not mine. I don't care whether they are successful in the future. I care whether what they are selling does the job I want. While it is nice if they're successful in the future ... meaning that what I bought today I can buy more of in the future and continue using ... if they're not, and what I have already purchased does the job I want, then it doesn't matter that they "go the way of the dodo". If they're not and what I have already purchased does NOT doe the job I want, I buy something else. </p>

<p>The question of where Micro-FourThirds is going is irrelevant. Where it is is what is important. </p>

<p>"so I confess I have no real certain idea if it is open, or no more or less open than the EOS standard that Canon allows others to use parts of ..."---Yoshio Tanaka</p>

<p>" What is different about FourThirds from other camera manufacturers' mount designs is that it was marketed to other manufacturers for collaborative use."---Godfrey DiGiorgi</p>

<p>Yoshio, thankfully, Godfrey nailed it! I love the copy&paste function of my PC! (lol)</p>

<p>To Godfrey,</p>

<p>RE: Adaptors for Samsung NX10 ..... There are several on the way, Novoflex are launching quite a few to say the least ( launch date .. end April ) , take a look at their site www.novoflex.com</p>

<p>I have been considering a G1 to use with my many and wonderful Leica R optics ( I'm not keen on Canon's and I don't want to replace the mount ie for use with Nikon etc ) however I am now waiting to see some 'real world" tests of the Samsung as its bigger sensor will provide a smaller crop factor and better "shallow DOF" than the m4/3 options.<br>

IMO give it a year at most and all major brands will have at least one mirrorless interchangeable lens camera option within their line up. If there's a market for it, which I believe there is, they will not want to miss out.</p>

<p>Kind regards Simon</p>

<p>To Godfrey,</p>

<p>RE: Adaptors for Samsung NX10 ..... There are several on the way, Novoflex are launching quite a few to say the least ( launch date .. end April ) , take a look at their site www.novoflex.com</p>

<p>I have been considering a G1 to use with my many and wonderful Leica R optics ( I'm not keen on Canon's and I don't want to replace the mount ie for use with Nikon etc ) however I am now waiting to see some 'real world" tests of the Samsung as its bigger sensor will provide a smaller crop factor and better "shallow DOF" than the m4/3 options.<br>

IMO give it a year at most and all major brands will have at least one mirrorless interchangeable lens camera option within their line up. If there's a market for it, which I believe there is, they will not want to miss out.</p>

<p>Kind regards Simon</p>

<p>@ Simon:<br>

That's all well and good, I applaud the intrepidity of Novoflex (if not their prices ...!). Doesn't change the fact that the NX10's mount register makes fewer adaptation options possible. Note that all of the announced adapters ... see http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022306novoflexnx.asp ... are for SLR lens mounts. Since your Leica lens collection is Leica R it may well be advantageous to you. </p>

<p>I have a great deal of experience in the difference between so-called "APS-C" (really 16x24mm) format and FourThirds format as I worked exclusively with Canon 1.6x and then Pentax 1.5x DSLRs for several years before FourThirds format cameras supplanted them in my kit. The differences in noise characteristics, dynamic range and depth of field are generally much over-stated, IMO based on my direct experience. And particularly for my intended output images, which tend to be much closer to the 3:4 and 1:1 format proportion than the 2:3 proportion format sensors. I can use more of the pixels with FourThirds cameras more of the time, and that counts for greater quality and usability in my work. </p>

<p>I don't intend to disparage Samsung's NX10 however ... I hope it is a successful camera for those who buy it. However I dislike all the armchair industy punditry that questions like <em>"Where can M4/3 go?"</em> imply. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>The intriguing part of this kind of question is the way that these changes took so many by suprise. What do I mean. Alright, in 2003 Olympus makes a long delayed entry into the digital world of interchangeable lens standards. Not long earlier, Konica Minolta drops its camera line and Sony swoops up the mount standard and, in effect, the legacy of that pretty good lineup of product. Olympus decides that they want to go with a smaller, in square mm, size sensor which they get from Kodak, part of the new contrary direction world order. Samsung, as I recall, picks up the option on Pentax mounts to dip into SLRs.. Just think of the dash and bravery of starting this 4/3 slash micro 4/ new thing..<br>

Then, what happened with Olympus marketers. They do it by introducing, in the teeth of Canon and Nikon dominance. a pro level waterproof built of kryptonite camera that sells at about $2000.00. The usual suspects, meaning our friend Michael Reichman declares a self suicide on Oly company part, or maye with damnation-by half- praise. Some of the old crones and fence sitters here say, 'ah, you Olynuts ought to get a life, 'words to that effect. I got hit more than once and not politelt with a statement that my photo's colors are like a bad case of diaper rash...true, some will remember. The OM folk declare in a huff they are not going to buy any Digital Olympus 4/3 because the company deserted them because of this an that and whatall.</p>

<p>See where I am heading because I have an answer to Bob and history leads me to it-----.<br>

In the teeth of the quibblers and naysayers, with sales of the E-1 merely mediocre, Oly introduces a flock of lenses which everybody raves about, even the pros. The 50mm gets to be pout of stock at B and H. The critique continues as contrique will do. " I just can't live with only 5.1 megapixels, my editor says no good. " blah blah and a more blah. " I am jumping ship and want a full frame with a massive pentaprism" purists and oldtimers who just happen to have ten grand in EOS and NIkkor glass...<br>

When Panasonic, a giant of electronics ,comes out with the L-1 and signs on for the team, ah then, people are a little less damn awful positive that 4/3 is doomed. The denigration softens."<br>

Next. I am not buying another lens until the E-1 gets replaced."... da dum da dum.. <br>

It does get replaced and with many assets. Then on dpreview the comparators begin their chorus ( Oly vs the giants, measure every increment of the E-3 against the Nikon D 300. Like what is important, the badge or the job that gets done by the badge?<br>

Now,during all this time, some of us buy the product and like it and even use it...and some of the non kit lenses..(at first the kit lens for me was a 500 dollar 14-5 mm)<br>

Some things won't change. Micro four thirds is a radical departure in a sense. Something with a new lens mount. One that is only compatible with all 4/3 lenses in a kind of loosy goosy way.<br>

To ask whether micro 4/3 will go anywhere, I answer this way.<br>

I ordered a G-1 on Monday because my wife said when, last she saw one at Ritz and played with it. "Gee it is so light and I love the way the eye focus switches on when you put your eye up there. It is one cool camera" It will replace her Camedia 4000 with that lousy SM card...<br>

Soooo, go ask my missus if micro 4/3 will go anywhere and she will let you know in 3 months of her casual use.... She doesn't care about anti alias filters, super sonic drives and using FD an my other older lenses and setting the settings to A or whatever one jiggles with . </p>

<p>Bottom line: This is a <strong>hot</strong> development, Bob, as was the larger 4/3 model which use a different type autofocus. And cost the company so much more they had to charge a bunch. We here might wonder about market share and all that jazz, but as photographers, and I see where some of us are happily pragmatists in that regard, it is not a prssing issue or even a wonderment issue. <br>

Yes, I would like to see a little of this and a little of that hence. The people that buy the red and blue colored cameras and the brushed satin know something more than me is my conclusion. <br>

Phew, glad I go that off my chest ;-) a long week here...and tiring...</p>