Direction of micro-4/3, and intended audience

RovingEyePhoto

On subject of micro-4/3, seems mfgrs are straining to sell these kits to P&S/compact users, undoubtedly a huge audience, but I would think not all that many looking to triple their cost; vs. selling them as secondary cameras to serious SLR shooters, certainly a smaller audience, but I would think much more likely to spend the comparatively lesser cost. Also, seems to me the former group generally is very happy with P&S/compact results, whereas the latter never will be. Even with top compacts like the G11, sensor area still is only about 1/20 of FF (vs. about 1/8 for 4/3, think I have math right), so not all that different from P&S users where cost and tote-load absolutely rule. The result of this apparently misguided focus seems to be that instead of mfgr's putting R&D and production cost into more usable/faster glass (maybe a constant f/2 high quality 12-35mm zoom, or constant f/2.8 50-120mm zoom, yummy!), they're jumping into video capture and stressing live shooting, which IMHO are not what serious SLR users are primarily interested in. The Oly pancake 17mm 2.8 is nice, but given reduced mount diameter and distance from sensor plane, and effects of those on image circle and glass size, shouldn't mfgr's be aiming higher, couldn't we get some pretty astounding lenses in the process? True, these wouldn't balance as well as the pancake on small micro 4/3 bodies, but I wouldn't think much worse than many fast FF lenses on APS-C bodies, and lots of those around. Who ever thought we'd be holding SLR's at arms length in front of us, yet I see it everyday? We get advances we want, we'll adjust.

Anyway, just voicing frustration. Was so excited about micro-4/3 introductions, and now back on sidelines for a vacation/family-affair rig to go for. At lease Pen-2 has an EVF, haven't personally used it, but gotta be a big step over shooting live, and a blessing to battery life. Maybe next Pen will build EVF built into body, like Pana, seems a natural evolution. And I know there are those dead set against EVF, but losing the cost and mechanical complexities and shooting delays and size and weight of mirrors and pentaprisms seems to me a relatively small price to pay for us out-of-studio types, and OMG, think of all that potential smaller/faster glass!!!

Am I nuts? Thoughts?

jonboy61

What to say... I just bought an EP-2 for a number of reasons.
I have Canon DSLR bodies and lenses, and a Contax G2 set and a Pentax 645n and stuff and PnSs that serve to do what I want with that equipment. I had a Pen Ft setup that I bought new back in the day that was really fun to use.
The micro 4/3 standard looked to me to be a way to have a functional interchangable lens digital camera in a really small package, and, it was a throw-back, for me, to the Pen that I used to own.
I think your observation that the chances of someone moving from a $150 Kodak Easy Share to the EP-2 are remote is right on. The chance to get a capable, small interchangable lens camera would seem to me to be attractive to anybody packing a bigger and heavier setup.

Grainbelt

I agree with the OP to some extent, as I'm not sure I understand it. I like the direction they are taking, providing they grow the lens lineup.

My brother is a perfect candidate. He has a Canon film camera, but doesn't want a DSLR. I showed him the GF1 yesterday and he was very excited, until he saw the pricetag and the fact that the 20mm 1.7 isn't available right now. He may end up going with an LX3 instead, for about half the cost.

Mav

I've only just got in to photography and have been using a D90 for 8 months or so. For me, I am very tempted by the M4/3 cameras like the GF1 and Pen. But, compared to D90, it really isn't 'that' much smaller. If I can carry that kind of body, I can probably carry my D90. And for a camera to carry around everywhere - they're still too big. Even with the pancake lens fitted, you need pretty big pockets. Something like a Lumix seems a better alternative.

So as much as I can appreciate them - they're not as good as a DSLR and not as compact as, well, a compact

tenoverthenose

I was very tempted by the idea of a mini-dslr, but I ultimately couldn't swallow the cost. I knew that if I started with a new interchangeable lens system, I would want more than just one. So I bought the Sigma DP2 and couldn't be happier. Great images in a portable package.

ReeRay

jonboy61 wrote:

What to say... I just bought an EP-2 for a number of reasons.
I have Canon DSLR bodies and lenses, and a Contax G2 set and a Pentax 645n and stuff and PnSs that serve to do what I want with that equipment. I had a Pen Ft setup that I bought new back in the day that was really fun to use.
The micro 4/3 standard looked to me to be a way to have a functional interchangable lens digital camera in a really small package, and, it was a throw-back, for me, to the Pen that I used to own.
I think your observation that the chances of someone moving from a $150 Kodak Easy Share to the EP-2 are remote is right on. The chance to get a capable, small interchangable lens camera would seem to me to be attractive to anybody packing a bigger and heavier setup.

I guess you already know about the new adaptors that enable Contax G lenses on MFT's?

I've just ordered a GF1, 20mm pancake and such an adaptor to utilise my Zeiss G lenses and having seen examples of the IQ I can't wait!

And talking about "weight" that's the benefit of MFT to me. I have a range of MF gear and DSLR's and they are just so heavy.

I won't abort my 5D, Rollei 6002 or Hasselblad 500 kits but because I can carry it around a lot more easily I just know I'll be shooting a lot more with MFT and that's what it's all about really.

Mr Eddy

RovingEyePhoto wrote:

... Even with top compacts like the G11, sensor area still is only about 1/20 of FF (vs. about 1/8 for 4/3, think I have math right), so not all that different from P&S users where cost and tote-load absolutely rule.

Don't think the maths are correct there. The 4/3 sensor has a 2x crop factor so it's 1/4 FF size, not 1/8. I didn't notice any substantial difference moving from an APS-C SLR to 4/3.

RovingEyePhoto wrote:

The Oly pancake 17mm 2.8 is nice, but given reduced mount diameter and distance from sensor plane, and effects of those on image circle and glass size, shouldn't mfgr's be aiming higher, couldn't we get some pretty astounding lenses in the process? True, these wouldn't balance as well as the pancake on small micro 4/3 bodies, but I wouldn't think much worse than many fast FF lenses on APS-C bodies, and lots of those around.

... which immediately negates one of the main benefits if m4/3, being portability. If you want those sort of lenses, get the 4/3 adapter and fit some of the higher end Oly glass, which all works with the E-P1. They look a little ridiculous, but work.

I think higher end lenses will come, it's still a pretty young system. Starting with big expensive lenses would have been a mistake I think. The pana 7-14 and 20mm are both pretty good lenses although there seem to be a few people who can't get around the idea of software corrections. I don't really care personally but I understand the objection. (I'm very aware that the limiting factor in my photography is me, not my equipment. )

For me the primary benefit, and the reason I bought into m4/3 was portability, especially to take with me on (business) trips. The other was the opportunity to try lots of different legacy lenses. The G1 EVF makes manual focus very easy and I've had lots of fun with FD and Leica M mount lenses.

RovingEyePhoto wrote:

Who ever thought we'd be holding SLR's at arms length in front of us, yet I see it everyday? We get advances we want, we'll adjust.

I'm not a big fan of that expression. I don't hold a camera with an LCD viewfinder at arms length. I doubt you do. I know what you mean though. I love the GF1's portability but I still prefer the G1 because of the viewfinder.

The one thing I do really notice is how anonymous the GF1 makes you. Nobody really notices someone shooting using the LCD, compared to a large DSLR and lens.

I have no regrets about moving to m4/3 as my only system. It suits me perfectly.

RovingEyePhoto

Mr Eddy wrote:

Don't think the maths are correct there. The 4/3 sensor has a 2x crop factor so it's 1/4 FF size, not 1/8. I didn't notice any substantial difference moving from an APS-C SLR to 4/3.


... which immediately negates one of the main benefits if m4/3, being portability. If you want those sort of lenses, get the 4/3 adapter and fit some of the higher end Oly glass, which all works with the E-P1. They look a little ridiculous, but work.

I think higher end lenses will come, it's still a pretty young system. Starting with big expensive lenses would have been a mistake I think. The pana 7-14 and 20mm are both pretty good lenses although there seem to be a few people who can't get around the idea of software corrections. I don't really care personally but I understand the objection. (I'm very aware that the limiting factor in my photography is me, not my equipment. )

I think we're really very much together on this, just different speculations.

I'm happy with my 4/3, in my case an Oly E-3. For the modeled-street genre I shoot, it works beautifully. Not that the E-3 size/weight is that much less than selected FF/APS-C for the high-end mid-wide/short-tele zoom I generally employ, roughly 24-70mm equiv, but I get IS, and this is something Canon/Nikon can't match (closest is Canon's EF-S f/2.8 18-55 IS, but 30mm equiv just doesn't do it on the wide end). For the hand-held on-the-fly style I employ, IS isn't just a nicety, IT'S ESSENTIAL, so 4/3 is my home.

When I talk about micro-4/3 high-end speculation, I'm talking about something like Zuiko's dreamy but huge f/2 14-35 (28-70 equiv) spec'd to something like f/2.8 12-35 (24-70 equiv) in micro-4/3 format. What size might that be? Certainly smaller than mounting an EP-1 with 4/3 lenses and adaptor, but how small? THAT'S THE SPECULATION. And that's what triggered my starting this thread. Oly and Pana don't seem to be heading in a direction where serious photographers will be served fully by micro-4/3. Sure, the pancake gives us a non-zoom portable beauty, far preferable to P&S/compact unless has to be pocketable/low-priced, but seriously limited without quality/fast zoom choices, better EVF solution, etc.

You're right on the math, 4/3 being 1/4 the area of FF, not 1/8. Makes the case even stronger for 4/3 being an advanced shooter format, pretty close to APS-C, which in turn is pretty close to FF in terms of reasonably sized finished product. So again begs the question, why aren't the micro-4/3 mfgrs going after advanced shooters by designing faster/zoom glass for a secondary camera, rather than trying to pull P&S/compact shooters up to hugely higher prices? Taking full advantage of smaller image circle and shorter distance mount-to-sensor certainly offers opportunities, but what are they? Sure, faster/zoom lens choices won't be as portable as EP-1/pancake, but a hell of a lot more portable than present fast/high-end 4/3 and APS-C kits. Hey, a person wants pocketable, get a P&S, but for serious sensor size, give me a couple micro-4/3 fast zooms of a size the format hopefully can make possible (not a physicist, but has to be room for hope), and I've got a perfectly portable secondary kit.

As for video in SLR's, guess it's here to stay, but I can't see ever needing it. Don't post much on U-Tube or FaceBook, etc; don't shoot weddings, etc; and family vids already are sharper than blazes on TV screen, so what's the purpose? Could it be that removing video from more serious versions of micro-4/3 would make room for a better EVF and possibly fill-flash, and more importantly break free R&D money for developing faster/smaller zooms the format may make plssible. And wouldn't that be a dream, a fixed f/2.8 (or 2.8-3.5, something like that) series of zooms MAXIMALLY SIZED for micro 4/3? Longer zooms for 4/3 are a third lighter and smaller and 2 stops faster than FF, what might be possible in micro 4/3 format, aybe even something in mid-wide/short-tele zooms? Canon/Nikon don't seem to be heading toward in-body IS/VR any time soon, so you'd think Oly and Pana would be chomping at the bit to develop micro-4/3 in the secondary serious photographer direction. BTW, I know Sony's already there with in-body IS for FF and crops, to my way of thinking way ahead of the pack, but for long-term, seems hard to shy away from Canon/Nikon if looking at FF/APS-C gear. I could be way off base on that, we'll see.

One final note, I know you can't make a tog out of a sewer cover just by buying good gear, but don't think that the limiting factor always is WITHIN US. I'm not being argumentive, just seems sensible that existing talent can be improved given the capabilities of incrementally better gear. Can't imagine you wouldn't agree.

Thanks for comments back to my original post. That's why we're here at Dgrin, to sort out the world's shortcomings.

Mr Eddy

RovingEyePhoto wrote:

One final note, I know you can't make a tog out of a sewer cover just by buying good gear, but don't think that the limiting factor always is WITHIN US. I'm not being argumentive, just seems sensible that existing talent can be improved given the capabilities of incrementally better gear. Can't imagine you wouldn't agree.

I do of course agree with you. To be honest my statement was a bit out of place in that it's more of an observation about myself than anything else. I think I need practice more than better lenses. Doesn't stop me from going shopping though. Sigh.

RovingEyePhoto wrote:

...
When I talk about micro-4/3 high-end speculation, I'm talking about something like Zuiko's dreamy but huge f/2 14-35 (28-70 equiv) spec'd to something like f/2.8 12-35 (24-70 equiv) in micro-4/3 format. What size might that be? Certainly smaller than mounting an EP-1 with 4/3 lenses and adaptor, but how small? THAT'S THE SPECULATION. And that's what triggered my starting this thread. Oly and Pana don't seem to be heading in a direction where serious photographers will be served fully by micro-4/3. Sure, the pancake gives us a non-zoom portable beauty, far preferable to P&S/compact unless has to be pocketable/low-priced, but seriously limited without quality/fast zoom choices, better EVF solution, etc.

Okay. I understand much better where you're coming from now. I pretty much agree 100% with all of that. Olympus in particular (at least so far) seem to have drawn somewhat of a 'line in the sand' between micro and full 4/3 as far as serious lenses go. I think the difference between Pana and Oly is that Panasonic seem to have put all their eggs in the micro 4/3 basket and they seem to be prepared to offer higher priced lenses (45mm macro, 7-14mm). The Olympus lenses on the other hand appear to have size prioritized over image quality if you compare to their regular 4/3 range.

RovingEyePhoto wrote:

So again begs the question, why aren't the micro-4/3 mfgrs going after advanced shooters by designing faster/zoom glass for a secondary camera, rather than trying to pull P&S/compact shooters up to hugely higher prices?

There's room for both of course, although none of the lenses announced for next year sound like the kind of thing you describe. As an aside I also wonder if m4/3 is successful enough to tempt Sigma etc to produce lenses. It will be interesting to see what competitors appear in this space in the next twelve months in addition to Samsung. Sony perhaps?

RovingEyePhoto wrote:

As for video in SLR's, guess it's here to stay, but I can't see ever needing it. Don't post much on U-Tube or FaceBook, etc; don't shoot weddings, etc; and family vids already are sharper than blazes on TV screen, so what's the purpose? Could it be that removing video from more serious versions of micro-4/3 would make room for a better EVF and possibly fill-flash, and more importantly break free R&D money for developing faster/smaller zooms the format may make plssible.

Can't see that happening. Panasonic in particular seem to have staked a claim for the convergence vid/still camera with the GH1. I'm not particularly interesting in video either but it seems to be the latest must-have feature and I can't see too many cameras being released without at least a token gesture in that direction.

RovingEyePhoto wrote:

And wouldn't that be a dream, a fixed f/2.8 (or 2.8-3.5, something like that) series of zooms MAXIMALLY SIZED for micro 4/3? Longer zooms for 4/3 are a third lighter and smaller and 2 stops faster than FF, what might be possible in micro 4/3 format, maybe even something in mid-wide/short-tele zooms?

I'd certainly be in the queue...

NikonsandVstroms

Micro 4/3 will be great for 2 reasons:

1) Its size but others will be in this mirrorless market soon, they do have a year or 2 on the competition though which helps with the number of lenses out.

2) And this is the big one, you can have 1 set of lenses and all sorts of bodies. If you want great video pick up a Panasonic, a great all around camera with IS and colors Olympus, and dynamic range has Fuji coming in soon. There could be others and if we have multiple sensor types it could be great. Just like that other camera system recently announced but you would not be buying 1 sensor per lens, you could have a few amazing lenses and go from body to body.

In a generation or 2 when the prices come down I will buy one for sure.

RovingEyePhoto

Now we're all talking. Micro-4/3 does in fact introduce exciting possibilities for smaller-size advanced glass coupled with smaller-size bodies. If optic physics doesn't limit what mfgrs can do with the closer mount/sensor measure, then I'd think the demand will be there, and full steam ahead. Remains to be seen whether P&S enthusiasts will pay hugely more for 1/4 of FF sensor area as compared with their roughly 1/35, or compact shooters with their roughly 1/19. But seems clear to me that FF and APS-x shooters will shell out a goodly amount of relatively reasonable bucks for an easily-toted fast-zoom secondary (with or without a second lens in pocket/purse, not a given). Although interchangeable lenses are a juicy plus, maybe the real plus of micro 4/3 is portability for advanced users otherwise connected at the hip to very weighty rigs. Just have to create glass to match advance shoot needs. And I'm not talking serious shoot needs, but rather a family/vacation/field rig that fits the family/vacation/field environment.

Internaut

I think Olympus and Panasonic telegraph one intention while heading entirely in another direction with m43. Yes, they say they're after the P&S user who wants the IQ but does not want a DSLR. In reality, they are after the advanced amateur and professional photographer who wants a smaller, second system for nature/street/travel type photography.

The only kind of P&S user they're realistically after is the same user who is looking at the Sigma DPX or the Cannon G11. The actual intention and direction of m43 is IMO revealed in the price of the product (the GF1 and E-P2 are both more expensive than entry level DSLRs) and some of the lenses; especially Panasonic's efforts (7-14, 20mm in particular) thus far.

RovingEyePhoto

Internaut wrote:

I think Olympus and Panasonic telegraph one intention while heading entirely in another direction with m43. Yes, they say they're after the P&S user who wants the IQ but does not want a DSLR. In reality, they are after the advanced amateur and professional photographer who wants a smaller, second system for nature/street/travel type photography.

The only kind of P&S user they're realistically after is the same user who is looking at the Sigma DPX or the Cannon G11. The actual intention and direction of m43 is IMO revealed in the price of the product (the GF1 and E-P2 are both more expensive than entry level DSLRs) and some of the lenses; especially Panasonic's efforts (7-14, 20mm in particular) thus far.

Only contradiction I see in your G11/DP thinking is price point. Advanced/pro dSLR shooters have maybe $2,500 and up/up/up invested in their gear. I'm not talking lower-end dSLR kits, not demeaning them, they do wonderful things, but "advanced/pro" to me means D300, 50D, E-3, etc. To these type shooters, putting maybe $1,500+ into a reasonably fast-glass quality mid-zoom m4/3 to serve as an easily totable family/vacation/field secondary seems kind of a slam dunk. The G11 has only about 1/19 the sensor area of FF, so hardly qualifies as a competitor, and both the G11 and DP go for roughly $500, so very big deal for shooters in that range to step-up to the $1,500+ arena, especially when at that price there are some pretty damn good APS-x and 4/3 dSLRs and glass to choose from should they truly want advanced dSLR capability.

Again, if mfgrs would get rid of video (or not), and put R&D/production costs toward good quality reasonably fast mid-zoom m4/3 glass, maybe they'd reach volume sales in the advanced/pro markets probably (IMHO) unobtainable in the direction they're apparently headed.

NikonsandVstroms

RovingEyePhoto wrote:

Only contradiction I see in your G11/DP thinking is price point. Advanced/pro dSLR shooters have maybe $2,500 and up/up/up invested in their gear. I'm not talking lower-end dSLR kits, not demeaning them, they do wonderful things, but "advanced/pro" to me means D300, 50D, E-3, etc. To these type shooters, putting maybe $1,500+ into a reasonably fast-glass quality mid-zoom m4/3 to serve as an easily totable family/vacation/field secondary seems kind of a slam dunk. The G11 has only about 1/19 the sensor area of FF, so hardly qualifies as a competitor, and both the G11 and DP go for roughly $500, so very big deal for shooters in that range to step-up to the $1,500+ arena, especially when at that price there are some pretty damn good APS-x and 4/3 dSLRs and glass to choose from should they truly want advanced dSLR capability.

Again, if mfgrs would get rid of video (or not), and put R&D/production costs toward good quality reasonably fast mid-zoom m4/3 glass, maybe they'd reach volume sales in the advanced/pro markets probably (IMHO) unobtainable in the direction they're apparently headed.

The GH1 was built as a still AND video camera not an add on feature and has a lens to do this. This was not an after the fact add on.

Other than that 1 lens all are for still work, the lenses will come give it time. Olympus still only had tiny bodies so wait for them to come out with a G1 size camera, and Fuji could produce glass for the cameras as well if/when they join in. Panasonic will make some nice glass I bet but it will also have a big premium.

RovingEyePhoto

NikonsandVstroms wrote:

The GH1 was built as a still AND video camera not an add on feature and has a lens to do this. This was not an after the fact add on.

Other than that 1 lens all are for still work, the lenses will come give it time. Olympus still only had tiny bodies so wait for them to come out with a G1 size camera, and Fuji could produce glass for the cameras as well if/when they join in. Panasonic will make some nice glass I bet but it will also have a big premium.

Ah, you give hope! And yes, I agree, it'll be at a premium, but doesn't all advanced/pro gear come at a premium? Since dealing with a secondary family/vacation/field rig here, not the principal money maker, I'm thinking maybe competition will have more to say about that than what we're otherwise used to. We'll see.

I didn't mean to infer, BTW, that vid was an add-on or second-thought for either Pana or Oly. The fact they expended R&D and production capability on vid, however, takes away from what they could have spent on developing m4/3 glass of the kind this thread is about. It's a sum-zero deal, the marketing people chose the former. They undoubtedly feel that the more immediate payback is in G11/DP shooters moving up, rather than advanced/pro shooters doubling-up. Will be interesting to see if they're right. I just don't see it.

Internaut

Small lenses for small cameras
I think this sort of fits in with this thread........ It's the dpreview team's thoughts on what lenses they'd like to see coming for these new mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras:

http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2010/01/on-lenses-for-small-cameras.html

Not surprisingly, like a lot of pro and amateur photogs, they want to see mainly small, fixed focal length lenses.

Mr Eddy

Internaut wrote:

I think this sort of fits in with this thread........ It's the dpreview team's thoughts on what lenses they'd like to see coming for these new mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras:

http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2010/01/on-lenses-for-small-cameras.html

Not surprisingly, like a lot of pro and amateur photogs, they want to see mainly small, fixed focal length lenses.

The editorial's pretty spot on in my opinion. If Oly/Pan haven't picked up on the incredibly enthusiastic response to the 20mm/f1.7 and used it to plan their lens roadmap then they're beyond help. Fast/small/wide please. 12mm/F2.

A m4/3 autofocus version of the Leica 90mm f/2.0 or f/2.8 would be nice too...

Have to say that the 8mm fisheye that's on the roadmap for this year looks interesting, but I'd put other things in the pipeline first. The 14mm f/2.8 makes no sense really. m4/3 already has three lenses that cover 14mm.

NikonsandVstroms

Mr Eddy wrote:

The editorial's pretty spot on in my opinion. If Oly/Pan haven't picked up on the incredibly enthusiastic response to the 20mm/f1.7 and used it to plan their lens roadmap then they're beyond help. Fast/small/wide please. 12mm/F2.

A m4/3 autofocus version of the Leica 90mm f/2.0 or f/2.8 would be nice too...

Have to say that the 8mm fisheye that's on the roadmap for this year looks interesting, but I'd put other things in the pipeline first. The 14mm f/2.8 makes no sense really. m4/3 already has three lenses that cover 14mm.

I am fine with either a 14 or 12mm, but I wish they would make one for 4/3 as well

Internaut

IMO, a couple of fixed lens m4/3 cameras from Panasonic and Olympus would also be quite welcome (I remain tempted by the Sigmas and a little thing called cost puts the Lieca X1 out of reach ).

RovingEyePhoto

Lots of hope! Editorial in fact says about the same as has been knocked around in this thread. Picture this, though, in the family/vacation scenario: the f/2 45mm equiv on-body, and the f/2.8 24mm equiv and f/1.8 85mm equiv in-pocket (or small bag). It works, but if body/lens size is a drawback and intimidating to subjects, so is "hold on a minute, gotta change lenses". Both Canon and Nikon make f/2.8 28-70 FF zooms, why not some mfgr do the same equiv for m4/3? Maybe physics dictates not small as the measures indicated, but maybe small enough. I for one would still want the small/fast primes described, but for family/vacation scenarios, not sure they'd really do the job. Again comes down to who's the market, and what's the purpose?