<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>
Am I the only one who thinks that the promise of Four-Thirds has gone unrealized?
in Olympus
Posted
<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>