Micro 4/3 camera systems future !!! Are they going down or not ???
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 07. 2024
- Hello CZcamsrs
Let`s talk about micro 4/3 systems and their future in this colorful and over saturated photography industry. With cameras like the Sony A6500 and some of the offerings from Fuji, where a relatively large APS-C sensor is jammed into a small body, many are question the future of Micro Four Thirds camera systems. Sporting the smallest sensor size of the mirrorless camera world, the most noise and an ever present crop sensor match equation, is there really an upside to the M4/3 system anymore or not at all? I think that micro 4/3 is a very versatile and good system with some obvious disadvantages but with some distinct advantages as well .
Micro Four Thirds sensors, and other compact systems get a lot of abuse thrown at them by full frame users for being a bit on the small side. But if you look past the snobbery, can they compete with full frame cameras? Or are small and lightweight cameras and lenses just too good to be true. I are to believe that something mysterious called 'equivalence' means small sensors often aren't as bad as people think in low light . But there is a lot of prejudice in us when we talk about smaller sensors and especially micro 4/3 . Because of it`s size many times photographers will just say huhhh that`s only a toy camera. But is it really??? So let`s talk a little bit about this topic.
If you are interested in photography and in videography well then enjoy this video and if you like it please like and subscribe and share my videos . If you want to add something constructive to this video , feel free and leave a comment down below. Other than that I wish you a great day and I`ll see you in the next one .
My work .
www.zonerama.com/BlueSkyPhoto... www.flickr.com/photos/1406555...
year 2020, m43 still going strong
I currently enjoy shooting stills on my gx80, have a BMPCC 4K on backorder, still shoot on my BMPCC from 2013. Not going to be worried about the format for quite some time. With all the new releases happening lately, there are plenty of naysayers and predictions of imminent demise concerning certain formats, yet, the only real concern going forward is: will I continue to improve my imagery? If we listen to these people and their predictions, what will we do? Go sell all our exsisting tools and buy others? No thanks, I'd spare the effort and get on doing the photography.
About a year ago, I looked around and saw that I had far too many cameras, and multiple systems. I wasn't using any of it enough to get really used to any of them. So I took a hard look at my needs/desires and the kinds of photos I take these days, as opposed to when I was much younger.
I saw that most of my uses nowadays were taking photos for my own enjoyment, to hang on my wall, to post on social media, and some for photographic illustrations for my work. For all of these things, my Olympus OM-D EM-1 (Mark 1) was perfectly fine, and I got it second hand for $400 and added the 12-40 2.8 PRO lens, again used, for another $400. This camera fills probably 90% of my photographic needs, and is satisfyingly small and light. It is what I grab to take with me on outings that have picture potential, but where the purpose of the trip is not primarily to take photos. So the OM-D "earns its keep". At this time I simply cannot justify the money for the EM-1 Mark II.
But I also like to make portraits at times, and really do see a difference in the "look" of my Olympus versus my old full-frame Nikon D700. The Oly is very good, but in a portrait I do like a more shallow depth of field. And once in a while, I go with a friend who has a band and get asked to take pictures in dark clubs lit mostly by stage lights. I find the full-frame camera superior there as well. So my trusty old D700 gets used for those two things, which are maybe 10% of my photography. If I got asked to shoot some sort of low-level sporting event, as sometimes happens, I'd probably use the Nikon as well. I have some good lenses for it, lots of strobes and other gear, so I decided to keep it.
This left me with what to do with my APS-C cameras. I could not think of a use case where I personally would choose my D7200 over one of the other two, although I did find the dual card slots reassuring, and if I were shooting professionally would insist on them, but I'm not. So the D7200 and the DX lenses got sold. I haven't really missed them.
For me I think there are two ways to go, one was articulated in a previous comment by Scott Williams Photography. If you plan on doing it all with one camera system, APS-C would be the "split the difference" choice, doing most things well. I chose another route and use the smaller, lighter camera whenever I can. The D700 spends most of its time on a tripod these days. As I get older, when the D700 finally wears out, I probably won't look for a replacement because by then I probably will be too old to need it.
As for the future of Micro 4/3rds, I think camera companies who stray too far from the original mission of "small, light, and less expensive" than full frame are going to lose money on that choice. Like many others, if my M 4/3 camera is going to be as large as a full-sized, full frame camera, why would I want it?
What is already dead is dslr apsc market
Maybe.... Not so sure though.
Nonsense, if that would happen Canon and Nikon would go bankrupt (Rebels and D3xxx / D5xxx)
The larger DOF can also be an advantage! For example with group shoots and can still keep the ISO low due to fast glas.
Or when taking pics in concert photography where F1.2 can be difficult on full frame to get enough DOF.
M43 will stay.
I not saying that because I am a M43 fan boy: I just bought a Fuji XT2 because it offers a better package in the mid focal lengthy from full frame 35 to 85mm meaning it is cheaper and lighter than an EM1.2 with the pro primes.
But I still keep M43 for the ultra wide and Tele focal lenght. In that range M43 is easier to take and work with than the other system the get very heavy and expensive.
Using the right tool for the job is key 💪🏾✌🏾😁
eXaviar sanTos I agree with you definitely. In some situations it is a very good advantage. But in my case for portraiture I like APS-C better. But that's only me. 😁😁😁
Blue Sky Photography as I said: just bought a Fuji XT2 for the same reason as u
eXaviar sanTos 👍👍👍
You need to keep the ISO down. With same DoF the noise is same in different sensor sizes.
eXaviar sanTos I’ve commented many times about this issue, on various videos, and have always tried to point out that it’s always been about the right tools for the job.
My question is how come you seem to be the only other person out there who can see this.
As I’m always saying using their logic, in the days of film we would have only used medium and large format , and ditched our 35mm film cameras.
It was comforting to read you comments, there is some logic out there , Thanks !!
As phone cameras have reduced the sale of digital cameras, and are here to stay, so MFT will remain here. But both Olympus and Panasonic will do well to reduce their price, and pack low-cost cameras with max. features to stay in business. APS-H has the problem that they will have to redesign all their lenses.
ds.techie I have the feeling that the existing lens line-up will cover the APS-H sensor with vignetting . Maybe not the wide angle ones but the 50mm and longer would do. Look the example of Pentax . Although Pentax says they do not recommend, many people including myself tried them and many of them will cover the full frame sensor with vignetting . But yes obviously they should start investing and designing new lenses as well .
I vote for M43 sticking around for a long time. Obviously, manufacturers are going to emphasize FF because that is where the bucks are. I am extremely happy with my two Olympus M43 cameras. I find that the results are great up to ISO 6400 or even 8000 and acceptable up to ISO 12,800. I agree with his assessment of Olympus build quality. My Olympus Pen feels like holding a Leica. I believe we have not even begun to realize the potential of M43 sensors and they will continue to get better and better. As far as depth of field is concerned, I get great results with my 50mm f 1.4 Nikkor (with an adapter) when I want shallow depth of field; this lens is really 100mm on M43. I agree with your main point that the importance of sensor size is relatively unimportant. Price, size, and weight considerations will keep M43 viable for many years to come and quality can only get better.
I agree with you 100 % but I'm really curious about the new Panasonic Full Frame camera announcement as well. 😂😂😂
I love my Olympus Pen F. with the lenses the total kit is so small great for travel. The image quality is fantastic. However when Nikon comes out with their FF mirrorless soon I will look into buying it next year sometime. A small couple of primes will be good for me and still have small kit for travel.
terry breedlove hopefully they will come up with something good. I'm not very optimistic though. 😂😂😂
People talk Micro 43 will die, yet even smaller sensor cameras (RX100) are still produced. The only thing that will die are cheap point-and-shoots (they kind of already are dead), but that's about it. Nothing else will die, it will just be produced in slightly smaller quantities.
To me the problem with Panasonic, and I guess Olympus, is not so much the format but their sensors. The sensor size is not important for depth of field as so many seem to believe. But I do believe that now with the APS-C cam, especially the Fuji being the same size as MFT, I don't see the point to buy a MFT cam anymore, even a G9. If you are mainly interested in photos, why would you buy a G9 over a Fuji XT 30? The sensor in the Fuji is vastly superior in many ways,.
Use a film lens like a 55mm 1.4 with focal reducer adapter...then you get bubble bokeh and very shallow DOF.
That's what I do now with my FujiFilm gear. It is brilliant.
I believe both micro 4/3 and APS-C will decrease in market share. Ten years from now it won't make sense to buy either format. The reason is the price gap between micro 4/3 and APS-C vs Full Frame is closing. The FF body size is shrinking in size and weight as the DSLR market shifts to mirrorless as well. The only thing that will differentiate the smaller sensor cameras is lens size. I think the main reason for wanting a small body and lens is for non-professional travel where most photographers pack a small lens for their FF camera. So I think the market will be mostly mirrorless FF in 10 years. The interchangeable lens camera market has been shrinking over the past few years. That will continue and some of the smaller players will drop out. My first guess would be Olympus will go first. Fuji and Panasonic will battle for 4th place behind Canon, Nikon, and Sony. Just my opinion based on broad observations.
I'd like to have the Lumix L100 mark II sensor, in a well built, beautiful Olympus M43 body. I think, that is the future of the M43 system.
I don't think that's going to happen, but hey we can always dream. 🤣🤣🤣
The biggest issue moving forward for M43 is what will happen once 8K video becomes a reality? I accept it's still a long way off but in order to support such a video resolution you will need a sensor resolution around 33MP or more. Now for APSC and Full Frame that's not going to be especially difficult but cramming that many pixels onto a M43 sensor is going to leave it with many potential compromises. Of course processing will improve and allow cleaner images at ever increasing ISO's but there comes a point where pixel pitch matters. The irony of this is that Panasonic are really pushing the video capability of their M43 system but are likely to hit a brick wall bringing 8K to their cameras. Even from a stills perspective the MP race still keeps going, expect to see 30+MP next gen APSC and 50+MP FF cameras being the norm. That said M43 has many benefits not only in terms of size and weight but their usage in macro photography, that 2 X crop factor can be a great help 😊
dunnymonster yes I agree. In certain cases they are really good to have. For wild life and sport photography as well. The 2x crop factor and pixel density is a good thing to have. At the end of the day it depends on the job you want to do with it.
dunnymonster iii, has,.
I think that a key issue that’s being ignored in this discussion is that the computational capabilities that are being developed for the high end smartphones, can be adopted by advanced interchangeable lens cameras like the Micro 4/3 system. I would expect that these computational capabilities would make the M 4/3 image quality even higher than it is today, closing the gap in low light with their full frame peers. As we approach the limits of optical quality and the point of diminishing returns, micro 4/3 will keep its clear advantage of lens size over full frame.
The size and weight advantage is absolutely true and it will be always. The only slight disadvantage I see is the depth of field for portraiture.
Well, you should think about this: if the iPhone with its tiny sensor can create nicely blurred backgrounds with software, a M4/3 camera should be capable of creating way better results in terms of depth of field.
It seemed many photographers wanted less bulk - and moved over to MFT. Are we going back to carrying tons of gear again?
Don't have M4/3 therefore no opinion about it. But I think it is a bit pricey compared to full frame cameras. For example, now in China brand new D750 (not grey market or refurbished) can be found for 1000USD or less , and we have option of buying 3rd party glass so full frame system is not really expensive. But every system has it's own place in the market.
Milorad Karavidin yes it is true , especially Nikon and Canon full frames are reduced now . Look at the Canon 6D ii is only about 1300$ as well . The D750 is a good deal now.
They will be on the market, even 1 inch sensor will be still on the market. For me portrait with tons of blurred backgrounds looks crap On FF I'm always Get this down to F2. 8 sometimes even more
Kamil Lisowski if that's what you want to achieve??? I like background blur and separation in my portraits but that's only me. But I also have a video about how you can shoot great portraits with an 1" sensor camera. So it's all about preference and necessity.
I’ve been with mft from the very beginning and I’m happy with the system. Nevertheless, I’m afraid the mft is doomed to die in the next ten years. The killer will be the smartphone market: in will divide the Customers into “normal” hobby/occasional photographers and professionals. The smartphones are getting better and better and in one-two generations they will overperform the mft cameras of today. That means, users like me will be satisfied with the photo and video quality out of smartphones and even if the mft system will be improved in the time as well, I don’t think most of Buyers would vote with their money for the system... For my kind of photography I don’t need the FF system and when the smartphones are good enough I would rather switch to them than to a FF camera!
Attila I have thought for a while now that as any equipment becomes more electronic and less mechanical in design it becomes cheaper to manufacture. The a73 is an example of that and because of the more complex mirror mechanism a d750 or a 6d2 is probably 30-40 % more expensive to make. That price difference is one of the reasons people are drawn to the m4/3 system but as the difference shrinks with more FF mirrorless cameras m4/3 starts to lose its cost advantage. The other factor is sony and panasonic both have 1" cameras like the rx10 that rival and in some cases exceed m4/3 performance
Absolute rubbish.
Longrider yes it`s true . Those cameras (Panasonic FZ2500 and RX10 IV ) are some great piece of gear. I love them but they have some very bad disadvantage over the Micro 4/3 sensors and larger sensors in general. That is that you have no possibility to compensate the small sensor with fast glass. That is a reason why I sold my FZ2000 and I bought a second Fuji camera because for my type of video work it made more sense to have a better photo camera with ok video capabilities. Maybe this is the time for Panasonic and Olympus to recalculate their prices????
Longrider I can not follow your statement: Where is a 1" sensor camera exceeding a M43 of the same generation? Please enlighten me
I think if the there are great glasses like the f/1,2 Pro series primes. The m43 system would pose a threat. Meanwhile they complement the full frame systems as of today....
Zack Choy yes they have excellent glass but the point is that they are pretty expensive. I mean it is the same price like the lenses for larger sensor some times even more expensive. So is it worth to invest a lot of money in a system which is a micro 4/3 system, when you can invest in a larger sensor system let's say APS-C or even Full Frame. ( full frame is getting cheaper day by day)
So true....the Olympus 25mm F1.2 at a price of $1000.00 has a light transmission equal to a 50mm F2.4 full frame lens. But for example a Nikon 50mm F1.8G lens sells for $200.00. So you are paying 5 times more and getting less. @@BlueSkyPhotography
@@tonytfuntek3262 Just remember there is a difference between total light and light intensity. A F1.2 lens on MFT and a F1.2 lens on FF would actually have similar light intensities on their respective sensors. The only real difference is that a FF sensor has the same intensity of light focused on a sensor that is approximately 4 times the area. For low light ISO capabilities between FF and MFT the difference is in their pixel density and sensor technology, not the lenses. Furthermore, if there was a FF camera with 4 times the resolution of a MFT camera and both had similar sensor technology the low light ISO capabilities would be roughly the same, if using equivalent glass.
Other things to consider when comparing IQ between different camera formats:
--> ISO performance is not a linear measure of image quality, often a more important aspect of image quality is sharpness. MFT lenses require less glass and engineering to create equivalently sharp lenses with the same aperture. This also explains why an F1.2 lens for MFT is typically less expensive when compared to an F1.2 lens for FF.
--> Image stabilization for MFT cameras are typically superior to FF, allowing for sharper images to be taken at slower shutter speeds while hand holding a camera. Meaning, if your subject is static it is much easier to capture a sharp photo in low light conditions, when not using a tripod.
--> Sensor technology is continually improving for all formats and the perceivable difference in image quality between these formats will lessen with time.
Olympus is going to have a hard time hanging on to their share of the pro market, but I don't think that's been their biggest target market historically. There is an argument to be made that the amateur market is moving to phone photography, draining off business from crop sensor manufacturers, but not everybody wants to shoot pictures with their phone. There is still a thriving enthusiast market, and this market may be the savior of the crop sensor. It looks like Canon and Nikon may be abandoning the enthusiast market in favor of the pro market, which may leave a bigger field for Olympus, in the middle between expensive pro equipment and amateur phone cameras.
Make sense. It is kind of hard to predict. Hopefully they will be able to stay on.
I’ve been listening that m4/3 will go down for the last 7 years. But it looks like EF mount will go down instead!
forgewire actually that might happen if they don't do something soon.. 😂😂😂
Sigma make an aps-h camera, the Quattro SD-H, which also has fovean sensor. Excellent IQ apparently.
Saurat yes I know but unfortunately the image processing and auto focus (or else everything else than IQ) is horrible. I was thinking about that but then the lens selection is a problem as well.
Micro 4/3 is doing well. However I wouldn't buy one because Sony's 1" sensor RX100 VI is doing amazing things. This is the route for me if I need something compact while keeping image quality.
Soso Melodies I heard so many good things about that camera that you made me curious now. I will have to try it out. 🤔🤔🤔 I have the Panasonic FZ 2000 is it better than that in your opinion???
The FZ 2000 goes head to head with the Sony RX10 IV which I'm also interested in. However it's on the big side. Won't fit in my pocket or allow me to be discreet. The RX100 VI is packed with features. I will sell three of my dslr's to get it. LOL
Soso Melodies sorry I got confused with the Rx10. I know now. I'm sure it will be a great camera, but watch out because the RX100 cameras have severe overheating problems in 4k recording. Maybe not the newest one but the older versions they do. I would try before you buy.
Blue Sky Photography Yes they seem to over heat still. I'll keep that in mind.
Soso Melodies 👍👍👍
m43 lenses for zooms should be a lot faster than F2.8 Its crazy that apsc have availability of "fast" zooms with the 18-35 F1.8 and 50-100 F1.8 while panasonic, Olympus, and even Fuji are advertising their F2.8 as "pro". A Panasonic 35-100 F2.8 will only give you a quarter of the light and half of the depth of field of a 70-200 F2.8 on full frame. If Sigma can make F1.8 zooms for a much bigger sensor, its a shame panasonic and Olympus and even Fuji do not make a zoom under F2.8. Their F2.8 glass in my opinion is a ripoff.
Too Shmart absolutely correct. I think that they don't want to make intentionally. They could but they don't want to.
These lenses would be so huge they would negate the small form factor of M43 cameras
Thanks to Olympus M43 is certainly dying due to poor quality control and non-sense price tag on Pro Lenses.
for wedding video i will not use micro 4/3 low light is not good .
dhardjono did you ever try them out? I'm asking because the GH5 looks pretty good. Obviously it is not a Sony a7s but it is good enough. I did shoot a concert which is even worse than a wedding but it was OK. I did if for myself though.
White In Revery makes some of the nicest wedding video on youtube shooting Gh5
I see no advantage to m43 cameras except maybe for video. They are just as expensive or more expensive in some cases than APSC or even some full frame cameras. APSC camera lenses are just as cheap if not cheaper. Smaller sensors require more light and shallow DOF requires more expensive lenses. Though a smaller sensor is easier to stabilise for lower light you will still have the noise. For me APSC is the sweet spot between performance and price. I think the video features of some m43 cameras will keep them going but apart from that they will probably become more and more of a niche market.
Over the next few years even APSC will fade. Full frame will replace APSC as medium format cameras become cheaper and replace full frame.
Scott Williams Photography it looks like that in Fuji world anyway. But there are a good few years till than I suppose. But in my opinion Micro 4/3 will stay as well because of the advantages in video. We'll see I suppose.
The biggest disadvantage of full frame will always be the size of the lenses. I love the IQ of today's full frame cameras, but it's no fun packing all that gear around. There is no way around that, at least with today's technology. I find MFT to be a great compromise but I do miss the low light ability of full frame sometimes.
Full frame is not a reasonable option for an amateur photographer, like me. A mirrorless APS-C & M43 far better in IQ than any mobil device camera. The prices are affordable , if you lokk for the in the consumer lineup, of course the pro level is higher, but its not my goal. Maybe full frame is better for wedding, maybe they can shoot 8k video soon ( where can i store it? ), but i shoot travel, nature, macro pics, in low light i use flashlight, so i don't need any advantage, what a full frame camera can offer. So for me M43 is the better choice, it's compact, well built, and simply more better in IQ, than i needed, for the shoots, what i usually take. I think, that's the reason, why will M43 stay alive, so as Aps-c. Not the "pros", the amateurs, like me. Many youtubers talked about that you need full frame camera for the shallow dof, for low light, for noise free images, ect... but it's just tech talk bullshit for me, and for the most of the amateurs.
Tomorrow I pick receive my Leica 100-400 and I would love to laugh at myself running around with a FF 800mm lens setup haha