Where can M4/3 go?

[larry_kincaid2]

<p>Wrong word. You don't want the G1 or M4/3 camera to go anywhere. You want it to stay or stick around. I now have two G1 lenses and adaptors to use my Leica lenses, old Nikon lenses, and now "old" Contax G1/2 45mm and 90mm lenses. So, you might say that the Contax G1/G2 film camera didn't stick around, but the lenses did. They're being snapped up for use on M4/3 digital cameras. The lenses last. Digital cameras in particular don't seem to last, or rather demand getting replaced every 2 years or so. So, what we want is for the next generation of the Panasonic G1 to have the same sized sensor but vastly improved so that the "old" high resolution lenses work even better. I also expect the EVF to improve greatly as well. I guess you could also say "keep going." Just keep giving us a reasonably priced "new" digital G2 m4/3 camera to use with our new "old" lenses. I don't want it all discontinued. </p>

[wmc718]

<p>"Why does Micro-FourThirds have to "<em><strong>go</strong> </em> <em><strong>anywhere</strong> </em> ?," and "You don't want the G1 or M4/3 camera to go anywhere. You want it to stay or stick around." <br>

Excellent points Godfrey and Larry! I love my G1, as do many others, and it has definitely made it's own niche, and possibly has started a revolution! </p>

[rdm]

<blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

~ Simon</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You all know that Sony is coming out with one too, right?<br>

<img src="http://cdn1.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Sony-EVIL-camera.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[godfrey]

<p>Of course.</p>

<p>I expect that in not-so-many-years, the all-electronic interchangeable lens camera like these, sans mirrors, will be the most common camera carried by photo enthusiasts and professionals. Moving reflex mirrors are so <em>last century</em>. ;-)</p>

[bob_estremera]

<p>Please let's not over-read my initial question.<br /> "Where can M4/3 go" is certainly not, in any way, armchair punditry.<br>

It was a simple question, asked to presumably knowledgeable photographers, about what where the advances and improvement to this interesting format might lead.<br /> The question is legitimate in light of the general digital evolutions from P&S, larger P&S sensors, APS sensors, FF sensors and now MF sensors.<br /> I was not suggesting that if this format doesn't "go somewhere" than it is crap.<br /> Just curious about what this forum might say about future trends, sensor advances, etc.<br /> Thanks for the opinions.<br /> Bob</p>

 

[andrew robertson]

Akira, you said - "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."

 

I hear this all the time, but it is difficult to argue with the larger sensor at this point in time. While 4/3rds cameras struggle with ISO

3200 and higher, 24x36 full frame cameras are now moving into the ISO 25600+ range with excellent results.

 

Additionally, micro 4/3rds lenses need to be much, MUCH faster to achieve an equivalent depth of field if your intention is to isolate

subjects with a narrow DOF.

 

One point which is not well appreciated by some people, but is essential to others - nature photography and sports / action

photography both involve watching the viewfinder intently waiting for the precise "decisive moment" to capture the action. It gets

tiring rather quickly, to watch a somewhat laggy and (in low light) intensely grainy LCD screen for more than a few moments at a

time, let alone for several hours. If you want to really try your patience with micro 4/3rds, attempt some astrophotography with one.

Your night vision will be utterly destroyed before you can even say nebula.

 

I believe that micro 4/3rds has a future in several categories - travel photographers often favor very lightweight kits and are used to

making compromises to slim down their gear bag. Additionally, people who are not into the more technical types of photography but

desire interchangeable lenses will (and are) jumping on board. I also believe these cameras can be useful for street photography

depending on your style.

 

However they will never, NEVER displace traditional SLRs because they are simply much too tiring to stare at for any prolonged

length of time, and ruin your night vision. In the future, they may cure the choppiness and poor quality of the screen display in low

light, but they will never be able to eliminate the discomfort of staring at the screen nor will they be able to stop ruining your night

vision.

[godfrey]

<p>If you're staring through a viewfinder all the time, I don't know why. That's certainly not what I do. I look and watch for my subjects, for the scene I want. When the moment arrive, I look through a viewfinder and make my exposure.</p>

<p>Staring into a viewfinder, on any camera, is a great way to never <strong><em>see</em></strong> anything IMO. </p>

<p>I also have no particular need for ISO 1062000. I do fine with ISO 100 most of the time. 400 is high, 800 is for the extremes. </p>

[andrew robertson]

"If you're staring through a viewfinder all the time, I don't know why."

 

Perhaps it's because you don't engage in photography where split second response to action is important.

 

It is impossible to catch things if you are not already looking at them, focusing on them, etc.

 

Like I said, micro 4/3rds is great for people who do not engage in action or technical photography. It is unsuitable for those that do.

[akira]

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>unfortunately, I have to say you don't get my point. The biggest advantage of digital camera is that "you can monitor the very image you are taking", which has been totally impossible or unthinkable with the film cameras and is much more revolutionary than the ability of instant playback of the taken image. Although the live view mode has started to be incorporated into many DSLRs, m4/3 IS the first and currently the only camera system with interchangeable lenses that is designed for this advantage from ground up.</p>

<p>As for the advantage of larger format, I don't oppose to your opinion because it has been obvious since the film days in terms of shallower DOF and noise/grain. For this matter, I would like a live-view-only version of Nikon D700 without pentaprism and mirror.</p>

<p>The "essential technique" you mentioned are mostly developed to use the conventional cameras as photographic "tools". Of course, I respect the people who honed the technique and made great pictures. But when the tool changes, the required technique should change accordingly. The technique to ride a horse is completely different from that to drive a car even though the purpose is the same (going from point A to point B). There have already been essential changes in the history of cameras way before m4/3 or even digital cameras emerged: SLR system, integrated light meter, automatic exposure, motor drive, auto focus, etc....all have changed the way the cameras was handled.</p>

<p>As for the night scene, I can see it way better with my Panasonic G1 than with any optical viewfinders (SLR or rangefinder). I've had various Nikons from FM2 to F90 to F2 to F3, and Leica M2, 3, 4P, so I'm sure of it. FWIW, my friend pro-photog uses a Canon DSLR in live view mode to shoot landscapes at night and star trails in Hawaii.</p>

[akira]

<p>To capture the decisive moment in Henri-Cartier Bresson style, you would pre-focus using zone focus technique and you look into the viewfinder the moment you shoot. You don't keep looking at the viewfinder for a long time. For wildlife or sports photography, I think most people nowadays utilize the continuous shooting mode and start shooting prior to what seems to be the decisive moment and look for the frame that captured the moment instead of responding to the moment and shoot a frame. Continuous shooting mode is Achilles heel of m4/3 cameras at this moment for sure, but I think there will be some breakthrough, or the improvement in the quality of the images extracted from the movie files will solve the problem.</p>

[godfrey]

<p>@ andrew:<br /> <em>.."Perhaps it's because you don't engage in photography where split second response to action is important.</em><br /> <em>It is impossible to catch things if you are not already looking at them, focusing on them, etc.</em><br /> <em>Like I said, micro 4/3rds is great for people who do not engage in action or technical photography. It is unsuitable for those that do." ..</em><br /> <br /> I've been shooting motor racing, basketball, fencing and other sports since 1968. Also do quite a bit of macro, photo restoration copy work, tabletop, etc.</p>

<p>How long have <strong>YOU</strong> been shooting sports? and doing technical photography?</p>

<p>];-)</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>I have no problem with a good pentaprism finder and I can't see any compelling reason why it has to be an obsolete technology. I remain ready to be convinced however. I may even get to borrow my wife's red G-1 when it gets here the end of the month and maybe I too will see the future ahead.</p>

[andrew robertson]

Well I wasn't born until 1977.

 

However my point remains.

[andrew robertson]

Akira, I do indeed understand your point. I just don't necessarily agree with it.

 

The mechanism of the SLR was invented when film was the sensitive medium of choice, enabling one to see the image that would

be formed on the film. Contrary to your claim that this is unthinkable or impossible with film cameras, this is simply how SLRs work.

I suppose we could get into a discussion about the nature of image - is the image the flow of photons, reflected or generated by

the subject, or is it the electronic impulses (or chemical transformation of silver halides) which result?

 

Either way, from a sense of ergonomics, it is more comfortable to stare into a viewfinder than a screen. And while I'm sure you can

see the screen at night, I also think that you are likely not concerned with ruining your night vision if you are looking at it. I can

stare into a finder for a good long while without tiring, and I am seeing the scene as it would appear on the sensor or film, without

lag or blotchiness.

 

I can not understand why you would want a live-view-only version of an SLR camera. I can understand, perhaps, desiring live

view as an option on an SLR camera, to increase its flexibility. In my mind, asking for live view only is like asking for an automobile

that can only turn to the left. Sure, left is useful, but sometimes right is what you need to take you where you want to go. One

other problem I have with live view is that in order to see the screen, you hold the camera out some distance from your body. An

SLR allows you to hold the camera in close, pressed up against your face with your arms tucked in, creating a more stable

platform. This is perhaps of dubious utility when you have image stabilization as a ubiquitous technology, but it helps a lot if you

are not fortunate to have a stabilized camera (or lens). A useful analogy would be shooting a handgun versus a rifle - the rifle, by

virtue of being braced, allows greater accuracy.

 

Camera technology has been evolving for a century and a half, give or take a decade or two. It seems to me that in the short

history of this discipline, every decade or two an advance is made which is hailed as the new standard - first celluloid instead of

glass plates, then hand cameras, then rangefinders, then SLRs, autoexposure, autofocus, and now digital sensors. Despite this,

people still enjoy working with technology which may seem quite antiquated by some people's standards. This is because, just as

in other arts and technical disciplines, there is no one size fit all remedy.

 

I don't contend that micro 4/3rds is useless. I do not make the assertion that live view is worthless as a tool. I'm sure exceptions

exist for each of the general difficulties I point out - after all people engage in macro photography with Leica rangefinders! To me

that must be a macro photographer's version of hell - using a DR Summicron. However, I do not think that this will be the first

photographic revolution to completely shake down all the previous ones.

[godfrey]

<p>@ Andrew:</p>

<p>Your point remains ... what? I do this stuff and it works fine. The G1 works fine for sports and action work ... It does it better than a lot of the cameras I've used do. Some cameras do it better, sure.</p>

<p>Locking your eye to a viewfinder is to me a very poor and limiting way to do photography. </p>

[andrew robertson]

I would contend that almost every SLR can do action photography better. My point, which is that micro 4/3rds is not a one size fit

all remedy, because it has some technical shortcomings, is what remains.

 

While you contend that locking your eye to a finder is limiting and poor, I would contend that holding your arms straight out for

what might be hours on end is limiting and poor.

 

You clearly don't like what I have to say, but you haven't attempted to address any of it. You do your shooting at ISO 100-400,

maybe 800. I often shoot at the maximum allowable ISO, and people are thrilled with ISO 25600. It's the difference between

going home and shooting for another hour, between shooting wide open and stopping down a bit. In my view, it's much poorer

and more limiting to pack up the gear and go home because you can no longer shoot, than continuing to shoot.

 

Here's another problem with micro 4/3rds, and 4/3rds: when the technology was new, it was said by both the manufacturers and

the new fans of the formats that we would see smaller, cheaper lenses. Where are they?

[GerrySiegel]

<p>When I used a Century Graphic I found myself using the wire frame sports finder a lot. Did that count as "live view?" It is possible to view the prism finder with one eye open as well I add. <br>

As to the smaller cheaper lenses part, I can't argue. But define cheaper. Define smaller- in terms of comparative focal length I mean. ED glass and sealed O rings with mechanical manual focus are costly to implement with a smaller volume output of sales vis a vis C and N. <br>

I am not quibbling with criticism of the system on any grounds, which is well taken, and well documented in forumland, as I can't personally afford the 4/3 top tier glass myself no matter how good it is. I am happy that the mid tier 4/3 is good and of" reasonable" heft. Reasonable to me means= no heavier than my Bronica SQA 150 mm MF lens I used to lug to jobs. A low bar that one:-) The 12-60 mm HG is a relief and a marvelous optic to boot. Worth the cost,but only if one plans to keep it for a long time and use it with the E-3.<br>

I do agree that micro four thirds is likely not the road to some promised land. Clever. Possibilites abound. Not fully mature at this point yet. An even smaller and sharper eye level LCD make make an impact and I read that is in the works by some Japan fab plant. For a combo of still and video it seems <em>very</em> promising indeed. Why not have an all in one. If it is about fun, I mean.</p>

[akira]

<p>Andrew, I think the image is the flow of photons, which is the die-hard fact physically and cannot be changed by the camera system, film or digital. All in all, the camera is nothing but a tool to capture that.</p>

<p>One thing I haven't liked about the pentaprism viewfinder is that I, as glass-wearer, have always feel uncomfortable to see the entire frame and to manual-focus on the matte part of the screen. I have used Nikon and Leica cameras mentioned above as well as Fuji GW680 and Hasselblad 500C/M with 80/2.8, and none of them can surpass the live view in virtually all lighting situations. (I loved the rangefinders of both Leica and Fuji, and Hasselblad worked great but only in the good lighting conditions.) High-eyepoint finder of F3 was good, but it was not comfortable to manual focus with fast standard lenses on the matte. Live-view-only D700 without prism and mirror would work great for landscape work using tilt/shift lenses and macro work that require various camera angles/positions, which has been a pain to me with conventional optical viewfinder.</p>

<p>I don't require you to agree with me. I just want to choose tools based on the way I want to capture the image. I just don't think about capturing the image based on the tools and I don't want to think that my imagination is limited by the way the conventional tools work.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>I got wondering what the E-3 could do in low room light , so I spot metered the table at EV 5. ISO 400. 1/25 at F 4.0. Out of camera JPEG..just sized down. I got no problem with the shot . a little soft but I only did one take and not that carefully.. No ice skaters around or I would try to catch them and goose the ISO higher, tho never shot above 400, so I don't sweat that stuff. I want this to count as my 4/3 photo of next week. gents.<br /> I been diddling with some old slides. A tedious process, some odd sizes, but I prefer now not to have the work down outside my home. I did not set the WB to custom btw. And did not engage IS function.</p><div></div>

[godfrey]

<p>@ Andrew: <br>

Fine. Hold your opinons and buy something else. I see no point in debating opinion with someone who's mind is locked tight as a drum. </p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p> I knew a successful businessman who had a mind " sharp as a steel trap," Perpetually closed it was. I see no lack of technodebate on dpreview and,--- to offer my own reaction to the murky issues if we can dignify them that way ---, it is not a happy day for PN when the Olympus forum becomes a platform to diss the system and bicker about stuff that does not help anyone who likes to enter these hallowed precincts. That is my last comment on this thread. Night all and sleep well...gs</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>It's the inherently superior viewfinder image of the SLR that will ensure the SLR's survival.</p>

<p>And yes, some of us do prefer "locking our eyes to the viewfinder." We're called <em>photographers.</em></p>

[andrew robertson]

I'm not really "dissing" the system by pointing out what are, in my eyes, obvious compromises.

 

Besides, bickering is a great deal of fun!

[andrew robertson]

I'm not really "dissing" the system by pointing out what are, in my eyes, obvious compromises.

 

Besides, bickering is a great deal of fun!

[yoshio]

<p>Andrew</p>

<p>when I bought my Nikon Coolpix 950 I paid as much for it as my Panasonic G1. In some ways the 950 exceeds the G1 as it has a superior macro and folds flat to fit in the side of my day pack. In just about every other way the G1 exceeds the 950 however, mainly because it is an interchangeable lens camera.</p>

<p>My EOS film system with its USM ring motor lenses was never threatened by my Coolpix, nor did I expect the two to overlap significantly (although they naturally do).</p>

<p>My wife has a late model IXUS camera which is hardly more compact than a GF-1 is yet there is no doubt that the GF-1 produces far superior images. Yet still there is a place for the little IXUS in our house. I still use the EOS system too.</p>

<p>The fact that one camera does not do all is no more of a mystery than my Ducati motorcycle not doing the same as my honda 250cc step through. If I have to ride to work through the traffic in the drizzel I will be on the honda.</p>

<p>if you take my oblique point</p>