The future of Micro Four Thirds - has it stagnated?

bl0at3r

bl0at3r

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,883
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm fully supportive of the Micro Four Thirds standard - yes I've had some deviations, but I have had a fair selection of the various bodies and lenses from both Panasonic and Olympus right from the first Lumi - the G1 and GF1.

The original M43 bodies were 12MP and noise was starting to creep in at ISO1600, next came the newer 16MP sensors, the improvements with noise and finally the OM-D and its newer pretty impressive 16MP sensor - again improved noise handling plus a bunch of other features like 9fps.

There have also been improvements in the AF speed too - although still lagging behind the more expensive DSLRs for moving subject tracking IMHO.

So what's next? I was somewhat disappointed in the recent GF6 and G6 announcements/rumours as neither these nor the new Oly bodies seem to bring anything new - just an evolution and fine tuning of the existing feature set and performance.

Are we only going to get slight improvements and MP bumps like we do with DSLRs now or is there something more radical looming on the horizon?

What about lenses? Any ideas on new or replacements for existing?

Sure there will always be haters, those not suited to all that M43 can offer and those that need to self-justify their multi thousand pound DSLRs but let's agree to disagree on that and focus on what mirrorless has brought and may bring :thumbs:

Discuss...
 
Hi
Slowed down a little maybe but I think there'll always be a market for it. Horses for courses and all that.......
I have a Panny GX1 with the 'pancake' 14mm attached and think it's a wonderful camera, really sharp and almost pocketable. Churns out great files and very discreet to carry although I haven't used it (along with my DSLR) as much as I'd like to. I have the viewfinder (VF2) but really prefer to use it without where possible.
JohnyT
 
One way of looking at it is what has it brought to the final image. It is irrelevant what camera was used, are the images better than a DSLR? The goal for m4/3 seems to be to match DSLR IQ and match the performance aspects of the hardware (i.e. AF speed) where is it going to exceed it?
 
Last edited:
bl0at3r said:
The original M43 bodies were 12MP and noise was starting to creep in at ISO1600, next came the newer 16MP sensors, the improvements with noise and finally the OM-D and its newer pretty impressive 16MP sensor - again improved noise handling plus a bunch of other features like 9fps.
Click to expand...
OK...

bl0at3r said:
There have also been improvements in the AF speed too - although still lagging behind the more expensive DSLRs for moving subject tracking IMHO.
Click to expand...
The latest Panasonic body(ies?)/pro lenses seem to have all but caught up. Take a look here: http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/lumix-gh3-review-part-6-sportaction.html

bl0at3r said:
So what's next? I was somewhat disappointed in the recent GF6 and G6 announcements/rumours as neither these nor the new
Click to expand...
Well, they are priced at quite low prices, not sure what you are expecting... And we have to wait to see what the G6 is (I will be disappointed if it doesn't have the GH3 sensor in it).

bl0at3r said:
Are we only going to get slight improvements and MP bumps like we do with DSLRs now or is there something more radical looming on the horizon?
Click to expand...
We're down to sensor technology really now. Everyone has that (although I get the feeling Canon are lagging here).

bl0at3r said:
What about lenses? Any ideas on new or replacements for existing?
Click to expand...
What's missing - or are you after new for news sake? We have Panasonics Pro zooms, O75, couple of great macros, pro 42.5 f1.2 & 150 2.8 coming... metabones speed booster, a number of f0.95 manual primes... At the moment, I think the quality lenses are competing with the FF equivalents. What are you after (other than a 600 f2.8 that costs £200 ;))?

bl0at3r said:
Sure there will always be haters, those not suited to all that M43 can offer and those that need to self-justify their multi thousand pound DSLRs but let's agree to disagree on that and focus on what mirrorless has brought and may bring :thumbs:

Discuss...
Click to expand...
The advantages to me of mirrorless are:
  • Smaller body size as there is no mirror
  • Smaller lens size if you produce quality lenses for a smaller maximum sized sensor (assuming you limit yourself to u4/3 or APS-C although APS-C needs a much bigger image circle as the sensor is less square in aspect ratio)
  • More accurate focussing as you avoid any errors in the off-chip focusing chain)
  • Less weight

Cost isn't the issue to me. I have "almost" as much invested in micro 4/3rds as FF. I don't see the pursuit of excellence in mechanics and optics as being a cheap hobby....
 
Camera technology in general isn't going in the direction I'd like it to. I do like buying kit but there's been nothing I've wanted for quite some time now from Canon or any CSC manufacturer.

If the rumours are to be believed about the next Panny G body it seems to me that Olympus is pulling ahead and Panasonic are rehashing technology that's a generation behind. I wanted two options from Panasonic, a compact GF camera with VF and the latest (Sony?) chip... and that looks unlikely to come, ever, and a compact SLR styled camera with an articulated screen and the (Sony?) chip. It now looks likely that these will not appear this year, if ever, so I'm about to give up on Panny.

Besides the lack of bodies to tempt me I'm irritated by the FBW lenses and the issues I'm having with my G1's EVF also irritate me so I think I've decided that my gear lust must end. I'll use my 5D and existing lenses (although I may thin my lens collection out a little) for occasions when I want the best image quality and for shooting in low light and I'll use my G1 and existing lenses (mostly manual) for casual and day out shooting in good light.

I did hope to replace my 5D and lenses but it doesn't seem that's going to be possible in the foreseeable future. The only RF style camera that would get half way to suiting me would be the Nex 6/7 as the Fuji's don't have the ability to shoot RAW at ISO 100 but to be honest I'm worried by the EVF performance of the Nex 6 I tried in a Sony centre and I think therefore I'll just stick with my current kit until something dies.
 
Although not actually micro 4/3, any future of mirrorless technology for me lies with Fujifilm. I love their X-series cameras!!!
 
bl0at3r said:
What about lenses? Any ideas on new or replacements for existing?

Discuss...
Click to expand...

I've always found the M4/3 crowd incredibly helpful and down to earth, but the constant demand for new glass does surprise me some what. The rate that ridiculously good lenses are being churned out is hugely impressive from Olympus and Panasonic, I would guess far beyond anything that Nikon or Canon have managed in a similar time frame (there is already far more first party M4/3 glass than Nikon DX glass), I really can't see how they can go any quicker.

Perhaps a fast telephoto prime aside, there is a fully fleshed system at every price point already.

As for the system as a whole, the G5 was a big upgrade from the G3 in terms of handling and performance (I say that as a motorsport shooter who used AFC an awful lot), the GH3 is mighty impressive, and clearly the OM-D is a huge hit. They are moving forward far quicker than many would appreciate in my opinion when you consider the time frames involved, it's easy to forget Panasonic went from the G1 to the G5 in less than 4 years.
 
I couldn't think I could deal with an EVF. Until I tried an XE1 . Now I own one, and love it
 
I think they have a real size advantage and the lens selection is very wide and they have some great sharp lenses making a very good smaller system.

Whilst the sensors have improved massively they will always lag behind crop sensors for dynamic range/colour or noise handling and shallow(er) depth of field.

I'm not saying they can't do any of the above, they clearly can, but obvious sensor size limitations cut in.

I think their future is bright but like any camera system it has limitations and one has to decide whether those limitations affect your own shooting styles.
 
ukaskew said:
I've always found the M4/3 crowd incredibly helpful and down to earth, but the constant demand for new glass does surprise me some what. The rate that ridiculously good lenses are being churned out is hugely impressive from Olympus and Panasonic, I would guess far beyond anything that Nikon or Canon have managed in a similar time frame (there is already far more first party M4/3 glass than Nikon DX glass), I really can't see how they can go any quicker.

Perhaps a fast telephoto prime aside, there is a fully fleshed system at every price point already.

As for the system as a whole, the G5 was a big upgrade from the G3 in terms of handling and performance (I say that as a motorsport shooter who used AFC an awful lot), the GH3 is mighty impressive, and clearly the OM-D is a huge hit. They are moving forward far quicker than many would appreciate in my opinion when you consider the time frames involved, it's easy to forget Panasonic went from the G1 to the G5 in less than 4 years.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, the lenses have been fantastic, in system that is 4 or so years old.

Think Panasonic bodies are a little boring, rehashing the same tech. Still loving m43 format as a whole :)
 
If the G6 has built-in Wi-Fi and GPS, continued improvements to the sensor and G2/G5 handling it will sell by the lorry load. I reintroduced myself to m43 recently with a GX1 after an 18 month absence - my last m43 camera being a G2. The system, on a price/performance/weight ratio, is surely difficult to beat.

I expect only minor technological enhancements over time.
 
I don't want to appear snobbish, but I don't see the point in 4/3. Can anyone enlighten me?

I see the size advantages to a compact, although I rarely use my canon s95 as it will never match my dslr. Would a 4/3,system not be similar to a d3200 with kit lens and maybe a 50mm? Is iq really up to a dslr?
 
cambsno said:
I don't want to appear snobbish, but I don't see the point in 4/3. Can anyone enlighten me?

I see the size advantages to a compact, although I rarely use my canon s95 as it will never match my dslr. Would a 4/3,system not be similar to a d3200 with kit lens and maybe a 50mm? Is iq really up to a dslr?
Click to expand...

The difference in size between the D3200 and 50mm and something like the OM-D and 20mm 1.7 is very significant. The differences are even more apparent with lenses.

I have a pretty small Crumpler shoulder bag, it now holds a Sony a77 and 16-50, with just enough room for a 70-300. When I had Micro 4/3 gear it held an OM-D with grip, a GF1, 14mm 2.5, 45mm 1.8, 75mm 1.8 and 100-300.
 
cambsno said:
I don't want to appear snobbish, but I don't see the point in 4/3. Can anyone enlighten me?

I see the size advantages to a compact, although I rarely use my canon s95 as it will never match my dslr. Would a 4/3,system not be similar to a d3200 with kit lens and maybe a 50mm? Is iq really up to a dslr?
Click to expand...

What I've always wanted from digital is a direct replacement for my 35mm SLR and also for my quality 35mm compacts and RF's. To date there is still no direct replacement for either (although the Nikon D700 comers the closest in the DSLR world) but CSC and MFT probably comes the closest for me.

My problem with DSLR's is that when combined with a modern lens they're big, fat and heavy. A MFT camera plus a lens offers a much more compact and much lighter alternative but I'm having problems living with no marking FBW lenses and the EVF shining a torch in my eye, those are the biggest issues for me and if they could be solved I'd probably ditch my 5D because...

If you know what you're doing a MFT camera can produce images that after processing can easily get lost in a pile of 5D images and people will not be able to pick them out any better than by chance, I know this because I've tried it :D

And then there's video. It's not for me but as far as I know MFT and specifically Panasonic lead the way in still camera/vid camera.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. At times I can see the benefit of a camera smaller than the d700, yet (and its an unfair comparison) the iq and speed of my s95 doesn't cut it IMO. Have been tempted by a x100 or x20, curious to know if something like a 4/3 would be good, or if I would have same frustration I have with s95
 
cambsno said:
Interesting. At times I can see the benefit of a camera smaller than the d700, yet (and its an unfair comparison) the iq and speed of my s95 doesn't cut it IMO. Have been tempted by a x100 or x20, curious to know if something like a 4/3 would be good, or if I would have same frustration I have with s95
Click to expand...

You should try m43 if you can, the s95 is completely different and nowhere near m43 (I used to have one). I moved from a Canon 5D2 (like others) to m43 and don't regret it for my kind of photography and most of all photography become even more enjoyable for me as a result :)
 
cambsno said:
Interesting. At times I can see the benefit of a camera smaller than the d700, yet (and its an unfair comparison) the iq and speed of my s95 doesn't cut it IMO. Have been tempted by a x100 or x20, curious to know if something like a 4/3 would be good, or if I would have same frustration I have with s95
Click to expand...

I'd also say try it, buy used, if its not for you sell it. I couldn't achieve what I do with my d7/800 with a m4/3 and I tried a few with good lenses BUT I liked the fact it delivered great quality images and was loads smaller and lighter. IME something like a gx1 with 20mm is definitely close to a cheaper dslr in performance and delivers very nice image quality, IMO much better than any compact and I tried the rx100 which is the best available.
 
I'm sure this will have been asked on other threads but as I'm reading this one: The main reason I keep my DSLR is for taking photos of my kids. Is there a mirrorless option that realistically can capture pics of kids due to the AF systems or are they just fast on static objects and in good light?
 
Phall82 said:
I'm sure this will have been asked on other threads but as I'm reading this one: The main reason I keep my DSLR is for taking photos of my kids. Is there a mirrorless option that realistically can capture pics of kids due to the AF systems or are they just fast on static objects and in good light?
Click to expand...

This is my main criteria. I need a dslr setup for weddings/portraits and other paid work, but also most of my personal pics are of the kids. Shutter lag and af are critical.
 
Take a look at the nikon 1 system.
It's autofocus is blazingly quick
There are a few cameras j1,2&3 and the v1&2
There are also 2 prime lenses (10mm f2.8 & 18.5mm f1.8 ) for the system which make it a very light and affordable option
 
jamin100 said:
Take a look at the nikon 1 system.
It's autofocus is blazingly quick
There are a few cameras j1,2&3 and the v1&2
There are also 2 prime lenses (10mm f2.8 & 18.5mm f1.8 ) for the system which make it a very light and affordable option
Click to expand...

The Nikon mirrorless don't do anything for me really. I love the look and handling of the fujis and like the look of the Olympus e-m5.

Is the Olympus focussing any good for moving objects (kids) and in low light? The Fujis aren't anywhere near yet in my opinion,which I'm gutted about.
 
Phall82 said:
The Fujis aren't anywhere near yet in my opinion,which I'm gutted about.
Click to expand...

This is whats holding me back in investing, if they can at least match the newer gen M4/3 Id be more than happy to cough up. Shame.
 
I'm often a bit surprised by people's expectations.

Those of you wanting to take freeze shots of quickly moving children in low light, what camera and lens do you think will cope and live up to your expectations? There are some fast bodies and some wide aperture lenses but there are also slower cameras and wide aperture lenses that aren't exactly lightening fast to focus, plus at wide aperture you're DoF could be an issue.

Image size is also an issue that few seem to want to talk about. I'd imagine that many people only produce relatively small prints or in fact don't actually print most of their images. Image size and viewing is important here as if the image is relatively small and viewed normally slightly missed focus or motion blur or a not smack in the middle of the DoF subject could be effectively hidden.

I'm just curious as to what people are judging MFT and APS-C CSC's against.
 
My own expectations shouldnt be surprising if you are referring to my comment as a lot of people complain about the very good Fuji IQ but the rubbish AF, if Panoly can make cameras that focus well enough in mixed/dim light surely Fuji can do the same.

I buy fast aperture lenses because I want to use them wide open, not at F5.6. Dof (missed focus) is not generally an issue and I use a D800 with 50mm 1.4 wide open.

Ideal (for now) - XE-1, 35mm 1.4 BUT focus as fast as my GX-1 was.
 
Last edited:
I'm asking as I'm interested what equipment people think will do the job and match their expectations.

If you own a FF camera and a 50mm f1.4, as do I, you'll know that at relatively close distance (it's a 50mm on a FF) your DoF will be thin enough at the best of times and can you name a 50mm f1.4 that's lightening fast to focus?

This is one area in which smaller systems can have an adavantage as for the same exposure and shutter speed you could be using a wider lens and get deeper DoF and more chance of capturing a keeper.
 
woof woof said:
I'm asking as I'm interested what equipment people think will do the job and match their expectations.

If you own a FF camera and a 50mm f1.4, as do I, you'll know that at relatively close distance (it's a 50mm on a FF) your DoF will be thin enough at the best of times and can you name a 50mm f1.4 that's lightening fast to focus?

This is one area in which smaller systems can have an adavantage as for the same exposure and shutter speed you could be using a wider lens and get deeper DoF and more chance of capturing a keeper.
Click to expand...

Lightning fast isn't exactly what I'm looking for my 5DII and 300Ds with any of my lenses is quick enough for me. Have you used a Fuji X series by any chance? If you have you'll know there's a vast difference and it's virtually impossible to take a photo of a moving child with the X100. They don't have to be running at you full speed, just moving in general.

My expectations for mirrorless for the future would be auto focus speed as quick as the very cheapest DSLR for moving objects or in low (ish) light.
 
Note how all the samples are taken in optimal conditions. Not general UK weather.
 
arad85 said:
I posted this elsewhere today: http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/lumix-gh3-review-part-6-sportaction.html
Click to expand...

Better than many reviewers realise just about sums it up for me...and I say that having spent about 100 hours shooting motorsport with various M4/3 bodies including the G3, G5 and OM-D, including tracking Porsches etc during the middle of the night at a 24hr race in places where I couldn't even see my own feet.

Can it keep up with kids indoors? I have no idea (I don't have kids), did continuous AF ever let me down even in very demanding conditions? No, surprisingly to many, it didn't.

twist said:
Note how all the samples are taken in optimal conditions. Not general UK weather.
Click to expand...

Page 3 and 4 of this gallery were in, erm, challenging conditions...http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/Motorsport/Rallyday-2011 (using a nearly two generations old M4/3 body and a very long slow zoom lens). Also, it was a bit dark here...http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/Motorsport/Britcar-24hr-2011
 
Last edited:
Phall82 said:
In all honesty, I got lost in what it was on about. Am I right in thinking the conclusion says that for sports photography the camera in question is as good as a high end DSLR for a speed? Is that true from anybody else's experience because from mine M43 is not in the same league.
Click to expand...
But which micro 4/3rds camera do you have?

The conclusion (as I read it) is that with fast focusing lenses and a good body (GH3 in that case), it's as good as you'll get with a DSLR - and to a certain extent better as you are focusing off the sensor, not via an approximation. Certainly my experience with my G5 (which is slower than the GH3) and the pro lenses I have is that focusing is generally instantaneous.

twist said:
Note how all the samples are taken in optimal conditions. Not general UK weather.
Click to expand...
Some people are never satisfied ;)

The point is, the focusing systems are getting there on micro 4/3rds - at least on the higher spec lenses and bodies.
 
arad85 said:
But which micro 4/3rds camera do you have?
Click to expand...

Well, that's my current problem. I have the Fuji X100 which I love. I'd buy the Fuji X Pro1 as my main camera if it focused quicker and better but I know they are slower than other mirrorless.

When I've tested Panasonics in the shop I wasn't overly impressed but I was only used to a DSLR at that point.

I want a camera with the charm of the Fuji or even the Olympus to a lesser extent with all the technology they have but quicker focussing. The optical viewfinder and build of the X Pro1 with its old fashioned looks are a huge thing for me, but I understand those who don't care about that.
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
Some people are never satisfied ;)

The point is, the focusing systems are getting there on micro 4/3rds - at least on the higher spec lenses and bodies.
Click to expand...

I like my cake and I like to eat it :) mmm cake.

I know they are, most of my posts say that Id be happy with a Fuji with M4/3 focusing ;)
 
Phall82 said:
When I've tested Panasonics in the shop I wasn't overly impressed but I was only used to a DSLR at that point.
Click to expand...

No matter what the spec says the ultimate test is is it good enough for you, and that's why I was interested in what people with high expectations are using.

You also have to remember to compare like for like. For example if you are using a DSLR and a fast (that's fast to focus) lens then you should compare it to other cameras with fast to focus lenses.

One thing I have seen on this site (naming no names and providing no links to threads... :D) is people complaining about CSC with slow kit lenses being slow and producing noisy files when compared with DSLR's and f1.4 primes :D

I only have two MFT AF lenses, 20mm f1.7 and 14-42mm, and without attempting to measure focus performance with a stop watch both seem to be applicable to DSLR FF lenses in performance in normal real world use.

And no, I've never tried a Fuji. I'd love to but they just don't seem to sell them where I live.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top