M4/3 is "doomed" unless ....

[Cagey75]

As much as I cannot stand the guy, Thom Hogan's latest thoughts on the M43 system do make sense!

https://www.sansmirror.com/newsview...ecember-2018-newsv/a-curious-observation.html

They should never have gone large with M43 bodies, certainly not come out with larger £2000 range bodies and then massive, pricey f1.2 primes, ignoring the consumer end for too long. Pany have their FF incoming, if they are to run both, they need to stop thinking so BIG for their M43 line up. Sure, there's a juicy wide angle 10-25 f/1.7 on the way - guess what? It's HUGE! and will no doubt be expensive. What's needed for M43 to stay alive is more neat, tidy but very capable bodies, and more cheap and cheerful zooms and primes aimed at the hobbiest, not the pro.

 

[Jake]

I feel the opposite. I feel like what they're doing is good. They're offering more "professional" options for those who are already invested in the format.

Imo it already has an extremely healthy lens line up, it primarily consisting of lightweight, neat and tidy hobbyist style lenses. Those which produce excellent shots, and are cheap to buy and easy to carry around.

But what if I want the best? What if I want a stupidly wide aperture for gooey bokeh? Without these pro primes they have I would have to either change systems or invest in a second one.

I admit, I haven't read the link, but I'm on the phone en route to work. I'll check it later. My thoughts are purely based off your wordings here

I don't think the format is doomed either. Well at least not going anywhere for a good while!

Panasonic have reiterated they're not dropping it and intend to run it side by side with their full frame offerings and Olympus is still releasing lenses and has that new body coming next year.

 

[Brazo]

I don’t think it wouldn’t make sense run a ff mirrorless alongside a 4/3 camera if they are identical sizes, one with a tiny sensor and one with an even tinier sensor

I agree that smaller lighter lenses are what is required. As for pro use? I know pros use 4/3rds but it’s not commonplace and the market for pro lenses has to be small given the compromises one must accept.

As for 4/3rds mirrorless video well whilst it’s not very good I suspect Canon will corner the market with their latest eos mirrorless camera.

 

[Cagey75]

I feel the opposite. I feel like what they're doing is good. They're offering more "professional" options for those who are already invested in the format.

Imo it already has an extremely healthy lens line up, it primarily consisting of lightweight, neat and tidy hobbyist style lenses. Those which produce excellent shots, and are cheap to buy and easy to carry around.

But what if I want the best? What if I want a stupidly wide aperture for gooey bokeh? Without these pro primes they have I would have to either change systems or invest in a second one.

I admit, I haven't read the link, but I'm on the phone en route to work. I'll check it later. My thoughts are purely based off your wordings here

I don't think the format is doomed either. Well at least not going anywhere for a good while!

Panasonic have reiterated they're not dropping it and intend to run it side by side with their full frame offerings and Olympus is still releasing lenses and has that new body coming next year.

I personally don't see it as doomed, as I just stated last night in another thread. But, I don't think going large is the right way, M43 was intended to be "micro" - it was always about portability, weight saving, and ideal for travel while maintaining decent quality gear and results. I know how capable the system is, I love that it's not trying to be FF, it's got it's own advantages - some people actually want greater DOF at smaller apertures! I don't know anyone who doesn't want excellent IBIS either.

The 1.2 lenses are fine, so long as that isn't all they concentrate on, the vast majority of M43 users won't buy these pro primes, if they wanted huge expensive lenses they'd more likely switch up to FF ML now, so it's in Panasonic and Olympus's best interest to go back to what made the system attractive to begin with. And that was not bigger bodies and lenses. One of my main issues with the system is, where does someone who loves their old em10 and tiny primes go next? The leap to the likes of the EM1 mkII or GH5 is too pricey for some, they are too big for the light-weight traveler, and also where the system used to be all about photography, it's now more so aimed at the videography market.

Saying it's fine won't help, if they think that's what we want they'll continue to push away the little man, the soccer mom, the family shooter etc IMO and it will face doomage

 

[Cagey75]

I don’t think it wouldn’t make sense run a ff mirrorless alongside a 4/3 camera if they are identical sizes, one with a tiny sensor and one with an even tinier sensor

I agree that smaller lighter lenses are what is required. As for pro use? I know pros use 4/3rds but it’s not commonplace and the market for pro lenses has to be small given the compromises one must accept.

So do I, I'm not talking about pro use though, just what they label 'pro' lenses. Pro M43 shooters aren't as interested in the 1.2 primes as Pana-Oly would like to imagine - because many of them are travel r photo-journalist photographers. I've already seen a bunch of vids where pros said they sold off the 1.2 primes and went back to the 2.8 zooms and smaller, lighter 1.8/1.7 primes. The 2.8 pro zooms are excellent, they can stand up to the equiv's for FF easily, but they're half the size - or used to be!

They can make the FF bodies big as they like, it'll be a different market. Look across any M43 forums and you won't see too many over excited to 'upgrade' - they want to know where the future is at for what they have, and when the true upgrades for M43 are coming. If they force the hand of the average lower budget M43 user, they'll get a smack in the face. Many would just head over to other systems.

 

[swanseamale47]

Ok my 2p worth. For me the idea of these cameras is to get decent quality with compact size and weight, if the cameras are nearly the same size and weight as a FF I don't see the point of buying a "micro M43". Especially as the price seems to be going up too.

 

[mikew]

M4/3 need to develop all singing all dancing bodies for those who want them, so long as they dont forget the cheaper/smaller buy into the system gear, the size factor that will keep me in M4/3 is with the lenses not the bodies, i have a grip on my EM1MK11 to make it larger but the lens size makes it viable for me.
I am only in M4/3 because Nikon stuffed us with the 1 series.

 

[the black fox]

At the moment all I can see is a upsurge in the sale of used canon and Nikon gear . There is no such upsurge in used MFT gear . Changing brands is a pricey game as we all know and with the current state of canon and Nikon FF mirrorless at the birth stage there’s no need to rush into changing . If they introduced those bodies at around the £500 area then it would induce me to think about it . I have already been down the EOS .M route and the main bugbear is the fact you still have to use heavy lenses especially for wildlife . The weight or lack of it was the main attraction of MFT to me . So if mr hogans words induce people to sell there g9 or Olympus omd1-mkii bodies at give away prices then I’ll find the money from somewhere till then I’ll use what I have

 

[nandbytes]

While I don't like Thom I kinda agree.

As said above one might as well buy FF (in some cases for less money) when looking at their higher end gear.
My main issue is that their best sensor in only available in the flagship bodies that are huge. They need to provide their best sensor in a smaller body.

On the other hand loving my LX100
M43 works extremely well here.

 

[Cagey75]

Ok my 2p worth. For me the idea of these cameras is to get decent quality with compact size and weight, if the cameras are nearly the same size and weight as a FF I don't see the point of buying a "micro M43". Especially as the price seems to be going up too.

Precisely. Also the gap between the lower end models and the higher widened a fair bit. Where do I go from a G80 if I want to upgrade? The G9? A fair bit bulkier [I personally don't mind this once the lenses are neat] - better IBIS is nice, but there's not a whole lot more improvements over the G80 for my liking, so I'm at a stalemate. There's nothing in between to bridge the gap, because if they made anything better than the G80 in between, they'd not sell anymore G9

 

[Riz_Guru]

I had a play with the Olympus OMD EM-1 Mark II the other day, I can still see a market for M4/3, its the lenses where your gaining the biggest advantage.... greater focal lengths, smaller and lighter lenses and a fraction of the cost compared to FF lenses.
The M4/3 sensor technology needs a good boost for better ISO/DR though.... perhaps BSI RS from Sony.
I think Olympus will hit back with their EM-1 Mark III early 2019. I think it will be a M4/3 version of the Sony A9 with Eye-AF etc.
I am kind of interested in M4/3, I should be getting a call from Olympus soon to arrange a loan unit with Pro lenses

 

[Cagey75]

While I don't like Thom I kinda agree.

As said above one might as well buy FF (in some cases for less money) when looking at their higher end gear.
My main issue is that their best sensor in only available in the flagship bodies that are huge. They need to provide their best sensor in a smaller body.

On the other hand loving my LX100
M43 works extremely well here.

The sensor of the G9 was put into the GX9 too, which is what an M43 should be really. But, it's not cheap, and doesn't suit the likes of me who prefer the evf centred - not a fan of RF styles. I know they can't suit everyone, but they at least need to try suit their loyal customers. A G80 with the latest sensor and better IBIS would get my money, but they'll never do it, be too close to a G9 but tidier, the body itself is actually perfectly sized - no bigger than an XT2 but has better ergonomics [not so much looks]

 

[mark.roper]

I recently bought the Olly EM1.2 + 12 - 40mm f/2.8 + 40 - 150mm f/2.8. With the addition of the TC1.4 I have a pro sports camera with a FF equivalent 400mm f/4 that's half the size, weight and cost of FF. If I could afford it I'd grab the 300mm f/4 as well and get a FF equivalent 600mm f/4 (840mm f/5.6 with the TC) again for half the size and weight, and at a fraction of the cost of FF (Olly 300mm f/4 is ~ £2k, Nikon 600mm f/4 is £10k+).

So in terms of delivering size / weight / cost advantages compared to FF m4/3 absolutely scores on those points, and indeed it seems to actually score bigger at the bigger end of the scale.

 

[Brazo]

I don’t think it’s ‘that’ long until ff mirrorless cameras are given away in crackers.

As 35mm film cameras became commonplace the same will happen to ff mirrorless and they will become the norm and able to be produced cheaply. Sony has shown you can have a very small ff cam with a small lens if you’ll accept a 2.8 ‘pancake’

Of course 2.8 on ff is ‘equivalent’ in dof to 1.4 on m4/3rds and is cheaper as even cheap glass will perform well on a larger sensor whereas at one quarter of the size of ff the 4/3rds glass has to be better just to level peg.

 

[Cagey75]

I had a play with the Olympus OMD EM-1 Mark II the other day, I can still see a market for M4/3, its the lenses where your gaining the biggest advantage.... greater focal lengths, smaller and lighter lenses and a fraction of the cost compared to FF lenses.
The M4/3 sensor technology needs a good boost for better ISO/DR though.... perhaps BSI RS from Sony.
I think Olympus will hit back with their EM-1 Mark III early 2019. I think it will be a M4/3 version of the Sony A9 with Eye-AF etc.
I am kind of interested in M4/3, I should be getting a call from Olympus soon to arrange a loan unit with Pro lenses

You'd be surprised how decent the sensors are maybe, they stand up

pretty well against APSC, which is all they should be compared to not FF, ever. I pondered on a Canon 80D for a bit, but after research thought better on it. The G80 is just as good in low light/ISO performance and has more going for it with IBIS, 4K and the excellent evf - don't think I would like to go back to OVF now.

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the Oly, a stunning camera, Just about the limit in size of what a flagship M43 should be. The 1.2 lenses though ... like I say, wouldn't mind them so much if they also looked after the mid range user.

I recently bought the Olly EM1.2 + 12 - 40mm f/2.8 + 40 - 150mm f/2.8. With the addition of the TC1.4 I have a pro sports camera with a FF equivalent 400mm f/4 that's half the size, weight and cost of FF. If I could afford it I'd grab the 300mm f/4 as well and get a FF equivalent 600mm f/4 (840mm f/5.6 with the TC) again for half the size and weight, and at a fraction of the cost of FF (Olly 300mm f/4 is ~ £2k, Nikon 600mm f/4 is £10k+).

So in terms of delivering size / weight / cost advantages compared to FF m4/3 absolutely scores on those points, and indeed it seems to actually score bigger at the bigger end of the scale.

Why compare to FF? I don't know why anyone does this. Compare instead to an APSC system, not a whole heap of difference in weight and size then.

 

[Cagey75]

I don’t think it’s ‘that’ long until ff mirrorless cameras are given away in crackers.

As 35mm film cameras became commonplace the same will happen to ff mirrorless and they will become the norm and able to be produced cheaply. Sony has shown you can have a very small ff cam with a small lens if you’ll accept a 2.8 ‘pancake’

Of course 2.8 on ff is ‘equivalent’ in dof to 1.4 on m4/3rds and is cheaper as even cheap glass will perform well on a larger sensor whereas at one quarter of the size of ff the 4/3rds glass has to be better just to level peg.

The old equivalent thing rearing it's ugly head again :/ I said earlier, some shooters want that deeper DOF, and it is not the same thing, M43 2.8 lenses are not designed for FF sensors so should never be compared. I did hope this wouldn't turn into a FF thread, but it's TP ... I do get what you're saying though. But I'm much more about light gathering when it comes to lens aperture, shallow DOF can be achieved with just about any lens, I could get better 'bokeh' with a 100-300 lens over a 1.8 short prime. Bokeh is over-rated.

 

[Brazo]

The old equivalent thing rearing it's ugly head again :/ I said earlier, some shooters want that deeper DOF, and it is not the same thing, M43 2.8 lenses are not designed for FF sensors so should never be compared. I did hope this wouldn't turn into a FF thread, but it's TP ...

Sorry to be clear I was comparing a 2.8 ff lens such as the Sony 35 to a 4/3 lens such as a 17 1.4 (if one exists)

 

[Cagey75]

Sorry to be clear I was comparing a 2.8 ff lens such as the Sony 35 to a 4/3 lens such as a 17 1.4 (if one exists)

There's a 17 1.8, and it'll take in more light than the Sony 35 2.8, because it's designed to light a smaller sensor. Of course FF will always be better - in some ways, but it's not for everyone. Many wildlife shooters for example prefer to have that extra reach without post cropping, and they prefer sharpness at wider apertures, where they are getting the same light - equivalent or not.

For many of us, the only time these equivalents pop up, is on these forums. Chances are, when you log out of here, you won't hear anyone compare sensor sizes or even know the difference, until you log back on here or any other similar photo forum. Unless you're in a camera club It is only photographers who care,

 

[mark.roper]

Why compare to FF? I don't know why anyone does this. Compare instead to an APSC system, not a whole heap of difference in weight and size then.

I hear you, but it seems the way doesn't it, FF is touted as the "standard" and everything else is "in comparison to" ... you yourself mentioned FF a few posts before mine ... besides you can only really compare APS-C when comparing bodies, the f/2.8 pro lenses I have don't have APS-C equivalents, my 40 -150mm f/2.8 for example is "equivalent to" the 70 -200mm f/2.8, which is made for FF (can be used on crop but is made for FF and is, almost literally, twice the size and weight), the Olly 300mm f/4 can only be compared to a FF 600mm f/4 because there isn't a 600mm f/4 for crop sensor, etc.

If there were a full range of pro / long wide aperture lenses for crop sensor I might have stuck with my APS-C Nikon, but there aren't. My options were go big (FF) or go small (m4/3), I chose the latter as I'm old and weak.

 

[jakeblu]

As much as I cannot stand the guy, Thom Hogan's latest thoughts on the M43 system do make sense!

https://www.sansmirror.com/newsview...ecember-2018-newsv/a-curious-observation.html

They should never have gone large with M43 bodies, certainly not come out with larger £2000 range bodies and then massive, pricey f1.2 primes, ignoring the consumer end for too long. Pany have their FF incoming, if they are to run both, they need to stop thinking so BIG for their M43 line up. Sure, there's a juicy wide angle 10-25 f/1.7 on the way - guess what? It's HUGE! and will no doubt be expensive. What's needed for M43 to stay alive is more neat, tidy but very capable bodies, and more cheap and cheerful zooms and primes aimed at the hobbiest, not the pro.

Do Olympus make a large bodied M43 camera? I know the EM1 MKII is larger than my tiny EM5 MKII but that hardly makes it big. I only own the one pro lens, the 12-40 and a cracking lens it is too, so cant comment on the others, but, if I compare my setup to my last DSLR Canon 5D classic and 24-105 f4 then its considerable smaller and lighter.

 

[Cagey75]

I hear you, but it seems the way doesn't it, FF is touted as the "standard" and everything else is "in comparison to" ... you yourself mentioned FF a few posts before mine ... besides you can only really compare APS-C when comparing bodies, the f/2.8 pro lenses I have don't have APS-C equivalents, my 40 -150mm f/2.8 for example is "equivalent to" the 70 -200mm f/2.8, which is only available in FF (can be used on crop but is made for FF and is, almost literally, twice the size and weight), the Olly 300mm f/4 can only be compared to a FF 600mm f/4 because there isn't a 600mm f/4 for crop sensor, etc.

If there were a full range of pro / long wide aperture lenses for crop sensor I might have stuck with my APS-C Nikon, but there aren't.

I only mentioned FF regarding Panasonic, and where their plans are centred - as this does concern M43 users, not the equivalency or they'd just switch to cheap FF anyway. And I agree, with the pro zooms it's a fantastic system. But those 'Pro' primes ... they're huge, may as well be FF primes. From what I've heard the end quality isn't exactly justified over the 1.4 or even 1.8 primes, because those are way smaller and still excellent quality, they're just not built so big and tankish

 

[Cagey75]

Do Olympus make a large bodied M43 camera? I know the EM1 MKII is larger than my tiny EM5 MKII but that hardly makes it big. I only own the one pro lens, the 12-40 and a cracking lens it is too, so cant comment on the others, but, if I compare my setup to my last DSLR Canon 5D classic and 24-105 f4 then its considerable smaller and lighter.

View attachment 136747

The EM1 mkII is a lot bigger than the Em5, check the Canon compared to the Panasonic G9, and add in a GM1 with a 17mm 1.8, then add an Olympus 17mm f/1.2 and put a 35mm 1.4 on the Canon, it become more clear.

Very possibly buying a 12-40 2.8 myself very soon, but again, it's nt the pro zooms that I mentioned to begin with. I took aim at the 1.2 primes that the average M43 user doesn't even want.

Here's the Pany G9 with the 12-40, not much between it and a 5DmkIV + 24-70 "equiv"

 

[jakeblu]

Its smaller than the sony FF, and lighter.

 

[Cagey75]

Its smaller than the sony FF, and lighter.

View attachment 136749

That is one Pugly lens! wow .. It's also a bit of an extreme example, and STILL it's FF. This doesn't make the M43 any smaller, and it's still not one of the larger bodies the thread started about. There's no point you doing comparisons unless you use the bodies the thread is actually about, the Em5 mkII is the last bite-sized camera Oly have made. It's more aimed at Panasonic bodies and Olympus primes, the last things they have done. The Em5 has been out donkey's years

 

[Cagey75]

Canon 5DmkIV with a 50mm f/1.2 Vs Panasonic G9 with a 25mm f/1.2

 

[Cagey75]

One thing I will say though, M43 is winning the looks side of it

 

[simonbarker]

Its smaller than the sony FF, and lighter.

You're comparing it to the f/2.8 GM because?

 

[Cagey75]

The point of the thread anyway, was that M43 may be heading downhill fast IF the major players, Panasonic and Olympus, neglect to cater for the very people who helped make the system what it is - The customers. Many of whom jumped on board for the compact nature of the system as a whole, the ones who weren't asking for f/1.2 primes or big bulky bodies. The ones who have been begging for an em5 mkIII, an update on the GM line, more neat little primes, updates to the likes of the Pany 40-150 and 14-150, the Pen users who want more pancakes etc ... If you visit any of the M43 specific forums, and there's a bunch that are still very active - You'll find most on there love their little GM5 and tiny primes, or em10 and cheap little zooms

I'm not with the system very long, what attracted me was the IBIS, the light weight and the range of budget friendly primes and zooms. I was never hoping they would come out with bigger and more expensive gear, if I wanted that I'd have stayed where I was.

We can be precious and try defend our beloved gear, but it's not making the manufacturers come up with the goods. They're not hearing that we prefer it lighter and smaller, they seem to have fallen into some 'bigger = better' trap

 

[nandbytes]

I don't think it should be compared to FF.

But compared to current APS-C offering from Fuji and Sony, I don't see much point in buying m43. What exactly does one gain from going with m43 over these?

 

[Cagey75]

I don't think it should be compared to FF.

But compared to current APS-C offering from Fuji and Sony, I don't see much point in buying m43. What exactly does one gain from going with m43 over these?

Much better IBIS for one, access to some very decent primes and zooms at cheaper prices, better 4K than either of those can muster, if you're into video - combined with the IBIS is attractive to many, plus you get that flippy flappy LCD you get more for your money in general. The G80 I own beats the pants off an A6500 in so many ways, in fact the only thing the Sony has over it IMO, is slightly better ISO performance. At least the Fuji cams have some character about them, they're lovely to use, I still miss my old X-T1 at times but again it's got nothing over the better M43 cameras. The XT3 is about the first APSC really worth looking to for video, but no IBIS, it's more expensive atm than any mid-range M43 body and the lenses are more expensive. The Fuji 16-55 2.8 is twice the price of an Olympus 12-40 2.8, and I guarantee it's no better IQ wise

 

[woof woof]

I hope MFT isn't doomed but if it is the same is probably true of the APS-C and FF cameras as we know them today in the longer term as cameras will surely change as they become more digital and more convergent with video. Who knows what tech may come in the next 10 years and beyond? I doubt that the Sony A9 which is arguably the cutting edge these days will be the benchmark in 10 years time.

For me the RF style MFT bodies and reasonably compact lenses make the most sense. They're incredibly fast and responsive cameras and offer image quality that would have been state of the art for anything just a few years ago up to and including FF and that's good enough for a lot of people a lot of the time.

I disagree with nandy about the best sensors only being in the larger bodies as the 20mp chip is in the Pen and GX9 which are both compact RF style cameras and also the latest 16mp chip isn't bad either. I can see no significant (or indeed if any) difference between the later 16mp and 20mp chip image quality other than the 20mp chip giving more mp's.

I also disagree with those who think that the larger and more expensive bodies and lenses are the wrong way to go as they just give us more choice and the smaller bodies and lenses are still available with little if any gaps in the lens line up. What's missing from the cheap and cheerful and small and light MFT lens line up? It's not as if the small and light kit has disappeared and we MFT owners now have to use the biggest SLR style bodies and Oly f1.2 lenses. Choice is good.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

the M4/3 sensor certainly has a place for those that want small high quality general purpose cameras and lenses.
There is no doubt a market for a few larger extreme aperture lenses, but not I would suggest much larger bodies.

To some extent the sensor size does dictate the minimum body size. and those looking for smaller bodies must expect smaller sensors in a majority of cases
however some cameras seem to have body sizes out of step with their sensor size, which seems very hard to justify, when a higher image quality could have been obtained with in the same body space, but using a larger sensor.

My favourite take everywhere camera is the Fuji X30 which for its small 2/3 inch sensor size, has a larger than expected body. But at the same time it is as small as I would like to go for handleability. however it enables the fitting of a very small lens covering the range 28-112mm (equivalent) with maximum apertures of f2 - f2.8 (wide-tele). This will never achieve the "Best" quality images availabe. but with in its limitations, produces excellent results up to around A4 and good enough A3.

The larger 4/3 sensor chosen by Olympus can compete with much larger cameras in all but the largest image sizes and ISO settings. and have carved out a respected place as light go anywhere cameras. They are in no danger of relinquishing this position.

 

[Cagey75]

. What's missing from the cheap and cheerful and small and light MFT lens line up? It's not as if the small and light kit has disappeared and we MFT owners now have to use the biggest SLR style bodies and Oly f1.2 lenses. Choice is good.

Updates! Like the 40-150 Pany and 14-140 I mentioned earlier, people have been crying out for updates to them for years, many of the other original M43 lenses have had updates - like the 100-300, the old kit lenses, the pancake primes - updates = faster AF, power OIS over the older Mega OIS, better coatings etc. Also the range isn't as varied as you'd think - it took Sigma to break the chain of the usual 12, 20, 25, 45 primes, with 30 and 60mm offerings. A more budget friendly 200mm prime would be lovely too, that 200 2.8 Panasonic isn't selling bucket loads I'd imagine, not at £2K+, a much cheaper F4 offering would be sweet.

Older FF bodies haven't disappeared either, so why buy the later ones?

 

[Cagey75]

The larger 4/3 sensor chosen by Olympus can compete with much larger cameras in all but the largest image sizes and ISO settings. and have carved out a respected place as light go anywhere cameras. They are in no danger of relinquishing this position.

Sadly they are, unless they come out with some news on updates to the lower end bodies and lenses soon. I don't want it to be doomed, I just fear it eventually will be if they continue to solely focus on the higher end

I've pretty much made up my mind to stick with it for now, I had urges to switch back to Fuji, but my gear didn't sell, nobody is buying up M43 used gear like they used to - unless it's the bigger, newer gear. I don't feel stuck as such, I'm happy enough with what I got and plan to buy that 12-40 2.8 and get my ass back out shooting more again, which is what it's all about in the end. I also love adapting old lenses like many M43 users, another plus for the system - you get IBIS with lenses from the 60's! it's amazing

I just wish they'd put M43 users more at ease, they have said they're not neglecting it, but one lens at photokina? after celebrating their 10th anniversary of the system? not really good enough is it

 

[woof woof]

Updates! Like the 40-150 Pany and 14-140 I mentioned earlier, people have been crying out for updates to them for years, many of the other original M43 lenses have had updates - like the 100-300, the old kit lenses, the pancake primes - updates = faster AF, power OIS over the older Mega OIS, better coatings etc. Also the range isn't as varied as you'd think - it took Sigma to break the chain of the usual 12, 20, 25, 45 primes, with 30 and 60mm offerings. A more budget friendly 200mm prime would be lovely too, that 200 2.8 Panasonic isn't selling bucket loads I'd imagine, not at £2K+, a much cheaper F4 offering would be sweet.

Older FF bodies haven't disappeared either, so why buy the later ones?

The later FF bodies have moved the IQ on a bit, which may not matter too much, but they've also significantly improved the performance and features stuff like faster AF, better tracking, eye detect and silent shooting. These are significant improvements for many people. The same can probably be said in MFT land too. there's usually a reason or two to buy the new model or if not there's always the model after that as skipping an update may give and even bigger update.

 

[Willo]

Olympus has been suspiciously quiet this year. I think they are taking stock of the market and will respond, rumours are that they will have a new camera beginning of 2019.

Many people complain that bodies are too big but it’s a balancing act between size and ergonomics, also the size and weight of the lens plays a big part. For me the G80 and E-M1 are the perfect size, and yes I think there will be a G90.

I think M43 will be fine as long as they can play to their strengths, not everyone will switch to FF as price is a big barrier.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Sadly they are, unless they come out with some news on updates to the lower end bodies and lenses soon. I don't want it to be doomed, I just fear it eventually will be if they continue to solely focus on the higher end

We can expect cameras and lenses to continue to "improve" and this is reflected in the price.
Cameras are no more expensive today then they have ever been. in relative terms they are more affordable by a greater part of the population than any time since the WW2.

The Olympus range of OM film cameras, was differentiated by single and double digits. and by lenses of wider than normal apertures. nevertheless they remained mix and match between them.
The range of Digital lenses available and the new offerings will always be informed by the sales of existing types. Perhaps, apart from kit lenses, the main interest by actual buyers is in the more costly high spec lenses. If that is the case then one can expect Olympus and Panasonic to concentrate on those developments.
This can be hard on those photographers with a limited budget, but historically that sector has been best served by the second hand market place.

A few years ago the second hand digital market was a joke and hardly existed. Today, now that there is a plethora of superb second hand offerings, that market is once again taking its rightful place, and lower level offerings, are being supplanted by the re-sale of higher specification used instruments.
This is as one might expect in a mature market.

 

[the black fox]

O.k put it in context , I shoot wildlife I used to lug around camera,lens ,bag,tripod and gimbal around 15kg in weight , the g80 plus 100-400 weighs 1.5 kg all up . Image quality certainly up there with my previous gear or slightly better . Even if I take a bag with a few bits and bobs the whole lot is less than 3 kg . Under most circumstances I dont need the tripod and gimbal due to in body ibis .
The 2x crop turns my lens into a effective against full frame 800mm giving me the same or slightly better reach than my previous 150-600 . Yes I see better photos than I take from other peeps , but there usually shooting with a good few thousand pounds worth more of equipment , . I’ll stick with what I have

 

[Cagey75]

The later FF bodies have moved the IQ on a bit, which may not matter too much, but they've also significantly improved the performance and features stuff like faster AF, better tracking, eye detect and silent shooting. These are significant improvements for many people. The same can probably be said in MFT land too. there's usually a reason or two to buy the new model or if not there's always the model after that as skipping an update may give and even bigger update.

That's true I guess, the MFT sensor updates have been few and far between. The old 16mp one is doing just fine for me, the sensor has never been an issue for my needs. Though I would expect the 20mp sensor in an update to the G80, if there ever is to be one. There's updates I would like to see for the mid range bodies though besides. We know they can improve the IBIS, they can improve on 4K video controls and settings, and they can improve on AF for both stills and video - better face/eye detection, phase detect AF, more detection points etc. I'd rather see them really put the work into those areas rather than increase body size for future models.

 

[the black fox]

The other thing I have found with MFT is how well it performs with legacy glass . I have yet to take a badly exposed image with a legacy lens , and the nikkor 50mm f1.4 is a total dream to use , once you get over using manual focus