Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Micro Four Third is a dead end format  (Read 8986 times)

fredjeang

  • Guest
Micro Four Third is a dead end format
« on: February 18, 2010, 02:07:16 pm »

     

Back years ago, I became fan of LU-LA after reading some posts about the Olympus Four-Third system. At that time, I was the happy owner of an E1, but something was telling me that this format, and all the system built arrownd was in trouble. Michael Reichmann and Sean Reid's posts about the E1 impressed me by their accuracy and seriousness. They described with such precision a tool that I knew so well that I understood that this was a serious reliable website. But Michael also pointed something that I was starting to feel: That the Four Third format was a dead end, a "mistake" because professional gear will go full frame and also because four-third did not demonstrate being smaller tools. History told us Michael was absolutely right. Only one pro four-third camera went out, the E3, with very little if not any success among the pros. The other four-third cameras were not more portable and had more issues than benefits.

Then, they came with Micro-Four-Third. This time, it made sense, they were the first and they brought a kind of revolution in photo industry. Now, it is the most enjoyable team (Oly-Pana) of these years.

But... what would have happened if Leica, instead of the X1 would have released an X with mount at 2000 euros?  
Soon or later, Canon, Nikon will enter the game and they will do it with much bigger sensors and an overall superior IQ.
I also think that the time will see a FF "micro-four-third style" camera is not too far ahead. What will happen to MFT then?
So my point is: What Michael predicted years ago with four-third will soon be true for micro-four-third.

Or...could it be that the industry is sharing the lands, exactely like powerfull countries share their conquests and influence zones?
Olympus to Canon: "Don't come in my MFT land..."
Canon to Olympus: "Don't worry, we won't do it as far as you stay out of our FF game..."
Panasonic to Olympus: "it is my turn to make fashion for the lady!"
Oly to Pana: "Ok, the pink is for you, but next time I'll get the pro black style first."


I have the feeling that history repeats...don't you?

Fred.



Logged

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
Micro Four Third is a dead end format
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2010, 03:57:13 pm »

No
Logged

Jeremy Payne

  • Guest
Micro Four Third is a dead end format
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2010, 04:13:48 pm »

Make that a double.
Logged

fredjeang

  • Guest
Micro Four Third is a dead end format
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2010, 04:27:37 pm »

...Because of optic size?
Logged

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Micro Four Third is a dead end format
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2010, 04:45:03 pm »

I'll bite against my better judgment.

Quote from: fredjeang
But... what would have happened if Leica, instead of the X1 would have released an X with mount at 2000 euros?

Moot point, they didn't and they won't.

Quote
Soon or later, Canon, Nikon will enter the game and they will do it with much bigger sensors and an overall superior IQ.

Don't see what compels you to make such speculation. I've compared DXOmark between MFT and crop-frame Canons, and the differences are not large. And Canon would have to make sacrifices in IQ just like Olympus does if they go down in sensor size.

Quote
I also think that the time will see a FF "micro-four-third style" camera is not too far ahead. What will happen to MFT then?

I'm no camera designer, but I understand there are several laws of physics which get in the way of making such a camera. Leica had to go to extreme lengths to get their semi-compact rangefinder to work with the lenses with some pretty ugly hacks - probably the same case for any FF MFT-type setup, if even physically possible.

If you're referring to the much-rumored EVIL (crop or FF) camera from Canikon, that's a whole another beast, subject to the caveat above regards to size. Even without the mirror box such a camera would be significantly larger than any MFT camera out today, and the lenses will still be honking huge.

I'm looking forward to the next generation of MFT prosumer/pro cameras, and am seriously considering getting rid of my dSLR if they make significant strides in IQ - I won't miss the weight and size.

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Micro Four Third is a dead end format
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2010, 10:48:22 pm »

Hi,

My view is that getting rid of the mirror has major advantages. The camera gets simpler. If sensor itself is used for focusing optimal focusing can be achieved, while on a SLR design the focusing is done on an optical path different from what the sensor sees. The removal of the mirror also give more degrees of freedom in optical design. An EVIL system can be optimized for digital from scratch, so the problems that Leica fought with can be avoided by optimizing lens designs.

In terms of quantum efficiency todays sensor are nearly optimal, so I don't expect great strides regarding image quality. That said, the new Nikons 3DX and 3Ds seem to stand out, so significant improvements, specially at high ISO, seem possible.

One area which I think is problematic with EVF/Mirror Less designs is focusing/viewing in night. Early EVIL camera didn't work well in darkness and I presume that this may still be a problem.

I have always seen the DSLR approach as an anachronism on digital cameras, but only recently did the EVIL concept evolve into something really usable and still has some limitations.

Regarding image quality, there have always been some advantages to larger formats and some to smaller formats. There is no way around the fact that bigger sensors collect more light, but other factors can compensate for that in part. Small sensors work well when there is plenty of light. It's easier to build a large aperture lens for a smaller sensor and small sensor cameras use larger apertures. Small sensors need shorter lenses for the same FOV as larger sensor and this achieves larger DOF in many situations so larger apertures can be used for equivalent DOF. Diffraction limitation also favors larger apertures.

One of the issues is of course that the need of larger apertures makes the lenses larger and also more expensive.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: feppe
I'll bite against my better judgment.



Moot point, they didn't and they won't.



Don't see what compels you to make such speculation. I've compared DXOmark between MFT and crop-frame Canons, and the differences are not large. And Canon would have to make sacrifices in IQ just like Olympus does if they go down in sensor size.



I'm no camera designer, but I understand there are several laws of physics which get in the way of making such a camera. Leica had to go to extreme lengths to get their semi-compact rangefinder to work with the lenses with some pretty ugly hacks - probably the same case for any FF MFT-type setup, if even physically possible.

If you're referring to the much-rumored EVIL (crop or FF) camera from Canikon, that's a whole another beast, subject to the caveat above regards to size. Even without the mirror box such a camera would be significantly larger than any MFT camera out today, and the lenses will still be honking huge.

I'm looking forward to the next generation of MFT prosumer/pro cameras, and am seriously considering getting rid of my dSLR if they make significant strides in IQ - I won't miss the weight and size.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

fredjeang

  • Guest
Micro Four Third is a dead end format
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2010, 05:19:25 am »

Maybe my OP has been perceived as a criticism towards MFT, but it wasn't at all.
I do see all the advantages that you point and I think this is one of the best thing that have happened in photography recently.
But in term of camera design, I pointed the Leica X(?) knowing that they won't do an X with mount (and that would have been really
a bomb into MFT potential buyers...), but they could acheived a very reduced size body with a bigger sensor and an overall IQ superior.
The M lines shows us that it is possible to build a small FF body. With the progress of technology, specially in EV,
miniaturisation etc...I don't find so impossible that camera makers will soon be able to acheive very small bodies with big sensors and
reduced lens size. If the market is there they will come soon or later and it will put MFT in delicate situation that reminds me what happened before
with FT.
In that context, I do not see why Michael's predictions years ago about Four-third will not likely to repeat again with Micro-Four-Third very soon.
You seem to be very shure that it won't happen, that MFT is a long-term investment, you maybe right, just that I do not have the same certitude
and I expressed them in my OP.

Regards,

Fred.


Logged

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Micro Four Third is a dead end format
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2010, 04:27:34 am »

Quote from: fredjeang
But in term of camera design, I pointed the Leica X(?) knowing that they won't do an X with mount (and that would have been really
a bomb into MFT potential buyers...), but they could acheived a very reduced size body with a bigger sensor and an overall IQ superior.
The M lines shows us that it is possible to build a small FF body. With the progress of technology, specially in EV,
miniaturisation etc...I don't find so impossible that camera makers will soon be able to acheive very small bodies with big sensors and
reduced lens size. If the market is there they will come soon or later and it will put MFT in delicate situation that reminds me what happened before
with FT.
In that context, I do not see why Michael's predictions years ago about Four-third will not likely to repeat again with Micro-Four-Third very soon.
You seem to be very shure that it won't happen, that MFT is a long-term investment, you maybe right, just that I do not have the same certitude
and I expressed them in my OP.

Regards,

Fred.

Again, Leica didn't release such a contraption so no point in beating that dead horse. Besides, even if they did (sorry Silver) it wouldn't compete in the same market segment due to pricing.

EVIL "dSLR" is a sure thing and I'm positive almost every new dSLR sold will be of EVIL design within a few years - and it will allow for significantly smaller form factor, and hopefully finally shed the legacy designs. Even then, Leica M9 is significantly larger the the E-P1 so there's no reason to think that a dSLR-like design will rival MFT in size and weight - and again, lenses will remain big and heavy.

I just wish Canikon have the balls to make actual strides in camera design unlike Leica S2 which was presumably built without the burden of legacy design but still looks and acts like any other dSLR out there.

I'm not sure about anything in this market, but your conclusions are spurious and make strange leaps of faith not supported by logic. For example, when there are leaps in miniaturisation of electronics, they will equally apply to MFT and dSLR design, thus making both smaller.

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
Micro Four Third is a dead end format
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2010, 12:34:07 pm »

So one of the remaining players is heading in.  Sony is showing a mock up of an aps interchangeable lens camera at PMA today.  Check dpreview.

I believe Thom Hogan said Nikon has one floating out there.  No word on Canon.
Logged

fredjeang

  • Guest
Micro Four Third is a dead end format
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2010, 08:41:35 am »

Well, I do not want to ad more wood in the chimney but: http://k-rumors.com/k3-samsung-ready-to-dr...ed-in-december/.

Of course, it could be an hoax. But the presure is there, they are all coming: Nikon, Sony, now Samsung and probably later Canon...maybe even Leica if they wake-up.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Micro Four Third is a dead end format
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2010, 10:39:42 am »

Quote from: fredjeang
Well, I do not want to ad more wood in the chimney but: http://k-rumors.com/k3-samsung-ready-to-dr...ed-in-december/.

Of course, it could be an hoax. But the presure is there, they are all coming: Nikon, Sony, now Samsung and probably later Canon...maybe even Leica if they wake-up.

No question about it. The pressure's there and the technology's almost there.

It's not a question of Leica "waking up." They're between a rock and a hard place. If you read the Leica User's Forum you'll find that almost all Leica's M camera customers insist that the M keep looking and working the way it's always looked and worked since the M3. If Leica tries to take advantage of the technical advantages other manufacturers are adopting they'll have to change the look and feel of the M. If they do that they're not going to be able to sell the follow-on product -- a product that doesn't look and feel right to the old M lovers. But they're not going to be able to sell a rangefinder camera to the rest of the market. Their whole approach simply is too far behind for them to abandon the M and compete in the real world. They're a small company and a niche company, and that's not going to change. Unless they can find a new approach, eventually they'll go under. In the meantime, companies that take the Olympus E-P1 approach and make it possible to use Leica lenses on their cameras are going to keep the used Leica lens market going indefinitely. Those lenses are very fine, and real treasures, but not enough people are going to be willing to pay the prices Leica has to get for those lenses to make it worth their while to continue manufacturing them.

All this breaks my heart. I loved my Leicas back in the sixties -- especially my M4. But the world has moved on and Leica hasn't.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.
Pages: [1]   Go Up