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

[don_baldwinson]

<p>Well the thread was about 4/3, not m4/3. Noone could argue that the m4/3 OM-D is not a success in its class.<br />4/3 from the E-1 on, Olympus promoted as a professional line. The lenses certainly were, but the body and its contents lagged behind in important areas. And with a grip, very near as large as a full frame pro body. I think in retrospect that was silly, proven by the less than enthusiastic acceptance by the pros.<br />Cheers,<br />Don</p>

[lee_shively]

<p>The 4/3 sensor is not THAT much smaller than an APS-C sensor, especially if you happen to crop your images to 4:3 format as I often do. (Yeah, I know. Somebody will come up with the "real estate" comparison between APS-C and 4/3 but I'm speaking in practical terms not mathematics.) Advances in technology that has improved the APS-C performance should also improve the 4/3 sensors. Sure, high ISO performance improves with sensor size but the fact is this means little if you make most of your photos during the daylight hours or you use lower ISO settings to maximize image quality. When you see how well a micro 4/3 camera like the OMD performs in comparison to APS-C when reviewed, you gotta wonder why the standard 4/3 format shouldn't receive the same benefits.</p>

<p>The main problem with 4/3, as I see it, is that the technology is not being applied to 4/3 like it is being applied to the micro 4/3. That and the fact that the 4/3 camera bodies are a bit too large. But camera makers build what the public wants and, right now, micro 4/3 is a hotter ticket. </p>

[don_baldwinson]

<p>True Lee.<br>

So the loyal owners heavily invested Olympus shg lenses using the 'pro' body, wait for how long for their equipment to equal m4/3, or sell up and go elsewhere and take the financial hit I guess.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Don</p>

[ken_max__parks]

<p>Lee, the mathematics of APS-C vs. 4/3 is irrelevant as I agree with your statement. The proof is in the pudding. The first time that I went on assignment with the Canon 7D was a night shoot on Beale St, Memphis, TN. I boosted the ISO to 6400 and thought I would get a lot of digital noise... far from the issues of the E03 and E-30. The resolution and low noise was fantastic.</p>

<p>I agree that the E-3 and E-30, both with the battery grips was almost the same weight as the Canon 7D with a battery grip. I see little difference in size and weight. For nearly 2 years, I have been getting rave reviews and comments over my wedding shoots in using the 7D. The Olympus E-3 and E-30 are kept as a backup to my backup, Canon 40D, and I have not had to use them; no Canon failure.</p>

<p>I had always hoped that Olympus would develop the 4/3 into a competitive dSLR system/models, but the resolution and noise issues became problematic; I had to doctor up the photos in Photoshop and this became very time-consuming. When the E-5 was introduced, I had previously taken the leap of faith toward Canon, and after the fact there remains no regrets.</p>

<p>Granted, the E-5 is a fine camera, but it doesn't seem to cut the mustard for my needs. Consequently, I'm disillusioned in the direction that Olympus has taken. I still have more than $3,200 used value of the Olympus system, including bodies, lenses, flash units and other accessories. Which reminds me to set up an account on Amazon. </p>

 

[terry_mccollough]

<p>I bought into the 4/3 format in 2009. I am thinking that the promise has been unrealized. I think that for whatever reason, whether it be perceived/actual performance limitations of the format compared to other sensor size formats, the perceived lack of direction/commitment of the company from the standpoint of slower release cycle of bodies compared to other companies essentially shot Olympus in the foot. </p>

<p>Also, I do not believe that 4/3rds was an evolutionary path to m4/3rds - at least not at any conscious level. This notion of evolutionary step status of the 4/3rds format, I believe, is/was a marketing ploy by Olympus as they could not get a decent market share in the dslr sector and so attempted to create a new market; and it remains to be seen whether or not they will be able to compete for the long term as other companies have now turned their attention in getting market share in this new camera class.</p>

<p>The idea that smaller is better is an unfortunate one in the realm of electronics. Just because it is technologically possible to make something smaller does not necessarily make it better - the example of cellphones showed us that as manufacturers had to revise up cellphone sizes as the smaller they went, the less useful they became from an ergonomic standpoint. Personally, I see no benefit in the m4/3rds format as the form factor is too small. </p>

<p>What would have been more interesting, I think, would have been to drive down weight while maintaining an ergonomically realistic form factor size, to continue to advance sensor technology and to push the performance bounds of zoom lenses.</p>

<p>All this being said, I will continue to use my Olympus camera as it works perfectly well for my purposes and will sell off my lenses once the camera dies.</p>

[luxborealis]

<p>I think that if you are serious about photography for the long-term and want a system that you can update/upgrade in the future, it would be better to sell-off your Olympus equipment now, whilst it still has some value. It is for this very reason (and the release of the D800e) that I decided to move to Nikon at this point in time. The only bit I've been unable to sell so far is the FL-50r flash which indicates to me that the market is already starting to dry up for selling used Olympus equipment for a respectable price.</p>