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

Messages
6,896
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
Did it take you all night to come up with that math Ray? :D
You mean the same math I said over 6 hours ago ?

That is the exact point i am making.

So it is not truly equivalent, i don't know if its just me, but when someone say the same, I take it as EXACTLY the same and produces results that is indistinguishable.

It is that simple really, I am not upset about it. It's like i am not upset that 1+1 = 2.
You losing your memory after a few beers? :p
 
Messages
22,918
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
He's talking about ISO, not aperture which is what we've been discussing. TN doesn't mention any such thing because he doesn't even understand what he's saying, he simply makes blanket statements such as "2.8 would be 5.6 on FF" he doesn't back it up with any reasoning. A it like Ray, who simply heard this on youtube and went with it because it suits him to think it. He's not right, what you're pointing me to isn't even what we're talking about, and I don't know why you still care tbh
They're two sides of the same coin. You should understand that; TN does.

It's this simple, if I'm using a 2.8 lens on my M43 camera, it is 2.8 on that camera ... I don't need to know it's equivalent unless I plan to use that lens on a FF camera, which is impossible.
With equivalence, that's not the whole story. As above, and as I've explained earlier.

Read page 2 also

While there certainly was some snobbery about the size of 35mm film vs a large format or medium format film, the size differences there are many times what we are talking about between full frame and smaller format interchangeable lens cameras of today. The ‘normal’ lens on 645 medium format camera is 75mm. On 35mm it’s 50mm, on APS-C it’s 30-35mm, and on 4/3 it’s 25mm. Why don’t we make 645 medium format the ‘reference’. Then ‘full frame’ would have a crop factor too? The whole point is, the use of 35mm as the ‘master format’ is arbitrary, and the use of crop factors to denote equivalent lenses is a modern invention that has little use except to help jog the memories of those used to one format and transitioning to another.

FF is actually also a crop format when it's compared to proper large formats, it's funny when you think that for some, FF is the be-all end all and constantly have to push this whole comparison thing - not even using the E word anymore
Pre digital, things were simple. There were basically three formats - 35mm, medium format, and large format - and there was no overlap and no interchangeablity between them. With digital, it's very different with numerous sensor formats, all quite similar relatively speaking, and with a lot of overlap and interchangeability between lenses. The first DSLRs were APS-C, but had to use existing FF lenses so we needed a way to compare them to a fixed reference that everyone could relate to - obviously full-frame 35mm. That's how the crop-factor was born.

Another interesting snippet from the article

While a full frame sensor of the same sensor technology will still generally have a little better dynamic range, this has much more to do with the individual sensor than the size any more. For instance, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 has better dynamic range than ANY Canon DSLR ever made, while the APS-C Nikon D5200 is within 1/3 stop of matching the dynamic range of the Nikon D600.

This I am very surprised by if true. And before anyone gets too excited either way, this article is from 2013, but still surprising
Yes, that's from 2013 but as the author also says, comparisons are "dependent on sensor technology being identical" which of course they aren't. You can't exactly compare Olympus to Canon, and manufacturers are constantly leap-frogging eachother with every new generation. If you could compare them exactly then the two stops advantage of FF over M4/3 would prevail (and in real world like-for-like comparisons it gets pretty close). There's no inherent reason why smaller formats would relatively outperform larger sensors (despite what the author claims). There's 4x more light hitting a FF sensor - that's not a small difference.
 
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
11,953
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
They're two sides of the same coin. You should understand that; TN does.



With equivalence, that's not the whole story. As above, and as I've explained earlier.



Pre digital, things were simple. There were basically three formats - 35mm, medium format, and large format - and there was no overlap and no interchangeablity between them. With digital, it's very different with numerous sensor formats, all quite similar relatively speaking, and with a lot of overlap and interchangeability between lenses. The first DSLRs were APS-C, but had to use existing FF lenses so we needed a way to compare them to a fixed reference that everyone could relate to - obviously full-frame 35mm. That's how the crop-factor was born.



Yes, that's from 2013 but as the author also says, comparisons are "dependent on sensor technology being identical" which of course they aren't. You can't exactly compare Olympus to Canon, and manufacturers are constantly leap-frogging eachother with every new generation. If you could compare them exactly then the two stops advantage of FF over M4/3 would prevail (and in real world like-for-like comparisons it gets pretty close). There's no inherent reason why smaller formats would relatively outperform larger sensors (despite what the author claims). There's 4x more light hitting a FF sensor - that's not a small difference.
4x more lighting to cover 4 times the area ... the smaller sensor simply doesn't require as much light, hence why the lenses can be much smaller at the same aperture. Anyway, there's also the whole why should anyone using smaller sensors care if they never plan to use FF? side of it. Then the whole comparing thing is just uninteresting and unimportant. As I said earlier, I'm happy enough knowing my 1.4 or 2.8 lens designed for this sensor, get plenty enough light to keep my ISO low, with IBIS to boot for my stills, FF doesn't really hold anything beneficial for me personally.

I will say this, TP has got nothing on the other popular forums when it comes to these debates. It gets very aggressive on the likes of 'diaper review' as Ken Wheeler calls it :D For real popcorn stuff, even I daren't get involved

What I do see every-time I check in there though, is more people posting that they have ditched all of their Canickon gear and went full M43, seems to be a few of these each time I check the M43 section. They certainly don't think the system is dead. I've seen D850 owners pack FF in, they just realised they don't need all that power. People are still buying, people still have faith in the system, this is why I find it so puzzling every time I see these 'M43 is doomed' posts or videos.
 
Last edited:
Messages
22,918
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
4x more lighting to cover 4 times the area ... the smaller sensor simply doesn't require as much light, hence why the lenses can be much smaller at the same aperture. Anyway, there's also the whole why should anyone using smaller sensors care if they never plan to use FF? side of it. Then the whole comparing thing is just uninteresting and unimportant. As I said earlier, I'm happy enough knowing my 1.4 or 2.8 lens designed for this sensor, get plenty enough light to keep my ISO low, with IBIS to boot for my stills, FF doesn't really hold anything beneficial for me personally.
Noise, high ISO and dynamic range are all directly related to one thing - how much total light falls on the sensor. Photons are the raw material of photography, and the more you can get the better. That's the physics of it and this is fixed by the total sensor area. What the camera then does with those photons is the ever-shifting technological side - micro-lenses, gapless micro-lenses, off-set micro-lenses, back-illuminated sensors and so on etc etc, not forgetting the basic efficiency of the processing engine (image signal amplifier).

All these things seem to be on an ever-upward path, but broadly speaking whatever improvements are made apply equally to all sensor formats so the relative performance advantage of larger sensors remains.

I will say this, TP has got nothing on the other popular forums when it comes to these debates. It gets very aggressive on the likes of 'diaper review' as Ken Wheeler calls it :D For real popcorn stuff, even I daren't get involved

What I do see every-time I check in there though, is more people posting that they have ditched all of their Canickon gear and went full M43, seems to be a few of these each time I check the M43 section. They certainly don't think the system is dead. I've seen D850 owners pack FF in, they just realised they don't need all that power. People are still buying, people still have faith in the system, this is why I find it so puzzling every time I see these 'M43 is doomed' posts or videos.
Good article on where M4/3 sits in the market and where it's heading, from Thom Hogan published in May. It's less emotive than Northrup's video, but says much the same thing.
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews...18-newsviews/is-m43-still-a-viable-choic.html
 
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
11,953
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I really don't get the whole smart-phone thing. I have yet to see examples from any phone that can directly compete even with M43 in terms of general IQ, let alone DR/ISO performance/DOF ... they're p*** poor, even the best of the best in anything but excellent lighting. I've seen people post up iPhone X samples, and hailing the performance - you check a little closer and see the shots were at ISO 200, in what appears to be reasonable lighting and they are a smudgey mess up close. They look as if they were put through LR and the NR was maxed. This of course is not to say they aren't a threat, clearly they are. But that's across the masses who don't care about the kind of things we do. The general public do not care about shallow DOF, I posted this already on here somewhere but for anyone who didn't see it:


His survey is enlightening, your average non-photographer doesn't seem to care whether your background is blurred or not, if anything they generally tend to prefer more detail in the backdrop no matter the image.
 
Messages
146
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Not surprising. If you look at something, your eyes are also looking at the background, jumping from point to point as well as looking at the main subject. The brain remembers and fills in the gap. If you make the background of a picture too blurry it is going to go beyond the normal low resolution memory that someone normally has. As if the observer had been staring intently at a subject and forgotten everything else. This is not normal unless the subject is fascinating, demands detailed attention or the observer is in love/drunk.
 
Messages
295
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I also told my Olly EM1.2 it was doomed last night, punched me right in the balls, which wouldn't have been so bad except the little bugger can do 18 punches a second, my nuts look like ripe pomegranates this morning! :D

Actually watched the Tony Northrup video last night, and can't say I disagree on much, and in particular I think it's very worrying, for m4/3, if Panasonic go all in on FF and leave Olympus as the only company occupying the m4/3 space.

The equivalency thing however, whilst arguably being technically correct, is a red herring in my opinion. When I take a shot on my m4/3 at f/2.8 and ISO200 I get an image that has the DOF of f/2.8 and the noise of ISO200. The fact it would've been f/5.6 / ISO800 on (one of) the systems I don't have is irrelevant. The only benefit of equivalency, as far as I can see, is for someone used to one system shooting on another. I'm not, so it's meaningless.

Even the argument that FF could go wider on the aperture / lower on the ISO, by comparison, is irrelevant in my reality, I have a car that can do twice the national speed limit, I could buy a more expensive car that could go even faster, but my car is fast enough.
 
Messages
20,449
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Noise, high ISO and dynamic range are all directly related to one thing - how much total light falls on the sensor.
This is something that I just don't understand and with respect I've never seen a convincing argument that explains this and convinces me it's true.

Take a FF camera and take a shot. Now take another identical shot and either crop it in camera by using the crop mode if it has one or crop it post capture. Yes, you'll end up with different fields of view but if you want back up to restore the FoV and reshoot. All you should see when comparing the FF and crop shots be they MFT or APS-C are the differences caused by the smaller image being magnified more to obtain the same final picture size. Greater differences than those due to magnification will appear when comparing tech that isn't the same such as if I were to directly compare shots from my 24mp FF Sony A7 and 20mp MFT Panasonic GX9.

Unless I'm missing something I just don't get this total light argument as the number of photons or intensity or whatever it is is the same in the crop part of the image in both the cropped and uncropped pictures.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,167
Edit My Images
No
I really don't get the whole smart-phone thing. I have yet to see examples from any phone that can directly compete even with M43 in terms of general IQ, let alone DR/ISO performance/DOF ... they're p*** poor, even the best of the best in anything but excellent lighting.
They're stopping people from looking elsewhere as they have gotten quite good even if it's only a limited number of areas and while still not great outside of ideal conditions they're definitely improving; everyone has to have a phone and not everyone has to have a camera, so that's a lot of potential dedicated camera sales lost.

Doesn't really change much for someone who wants to do stuff like sports or wildlife but they're the minority.

I've seen people post up iPhone X samples, and hailing the performance - you check a little closer and see the shots were at ISO 200, in what appears to be reasonable lighting and they are a smudgey mess up close. They look as if they were put through LR and the NR was maxed. This of course is not to say they aren't a threat, clearly they are. But that's across the masses who don't care about the kind of things we do. The general public do not care about shallow DOF, I posted this already on here somewhere but for anyone who didn't see it:
Which would be a problem if they were printing it out or pixel peeping but they're not, they're looking at it on their phones, websites, social media etc where convenience is king.

His survey is enlightening, your average non-photographer doesn't seem to care whether your background is blurred or not, if anything they generally tend to prefer more detail in the backdrop no matter the image.
I'm not sure how much value there is in asking someone who isn't a photographer what photographs should look like.
 
Messages
1,196
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
I think we get too hung up on FF v MFT and the IQ when compared to each other , when I got my OMD MKII I did not expect it to be close to my 1DX MKII How could it be as you can get 4 omd sensors on a FF so I did a test 600 f4 mkII on my 1dx mkII V omd mkII and 300 F4 pro Same settings and ISO 400

to my eyes It was impossible to say one was better than the other the biggest variable was AF over a series of shots both were spot on and also both were not .

Im not trying to convince anyone here there just was not a clear winner to me at the above settings .

Rob.
 
Messages
20,449
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Which would be a problem if they were printing it out or pixel peeping but they're not, they're looking at it on their phones, websites, social media etc where convenience is king.
Mrs WW is the social media one, I'm not, and a lot of the pictures she receives from friends and family look absolutely lovely on her phone and tablet and it's really only when I look at them closely on my pc that I begin to find issue with them. I can see how many people are perfectly happy taking pictures and looking at then on their phones and tablets.
 
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
11,953
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I'm not sure how much value there is in asking someone who isn't a photographer what photographs should look like.
Unless you only ever take pictures to impress other photographers then of course it matters what they think nice photos should look like. This is why the phone cam is a threat too, the general Bob is perfectly satisfied by the quality from them. Also if you ever do want to shoot for monies, it's not going to be a photographer that hires you, they'll do it themselves (unless it's their own wedding)

I get much more compliments on my images from these non photographer types than I ever will from my peers that is for sure.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
11,953
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I think we get too hung up on FF v MFT and the IQ when compared to each other , when I got my OMD MKII I did not expect it to be close to my 1DX MKII How could it be as you can get 4 omd sensors on a FF so I did a test 600 f4 mkII on my 1dx mkII V omd mkII and 300 F4 pro Same settings and ISO 400

to my eyes It was impossible to say one was better than the other the biggest variable was AF over a series of shots both were spot on and also both were not .

Im not trying to convince anyone here there just was not a clear winner to me at the above settings .

Rob.
This is what I'm trying to get across to the equivilancy pushers, same aperture same settings same exposure. Yet we're supposed to accept that F4 on m43 would only gather the light of F8 on FF. Posts like yours are proof otherwise.
 
Messages
2,167
Edit My Images
No
Unless you only ever take pictures to impress other photographers then of course it matters what they think nice photos should look like. This is why the phone cam is a threat too, the general Bob is perfectly satisfied by the quality from them. Also if you ever do want to shoot for monies, it's not going to be a photographer that hires you, they'll do it themselves (unless it's their own wedding)
That sounds like you're making a different point though, I responded to your original quote of "The general public do not care about shallow DOF" which I disagree with, on a technical level you're probably correct but in practical terms I think the average person doesn't critically think about what they like about photographs and that's really the job of the photographer. They do stumble towards things they like even if they don't understand why, just look at all those pretty grim studio modes on the latest phones lopping off ears and hair to achieve the kind of look they're accustomed to from dedicated camera systems.

The latest iPhone was producing portraits that were destroying a lot of skin detail, I took two things from that: Firstly (and less importantly) if there wasn't any competition then they probably wouldn't have realised they were doing such a bad job until the comparisons started popping up and secondly it leaves me with the impression they don't have a photographer signing off on the results as it was a pretty big red flag.

Of course they have to respect what the majority of their customers want (plastic skin is hardly new) but that doesn't mean the best outcome is achieved by catering to the lowest standard and how that relates to my original point, if my Aunt doesn't care about shallow DOF that doesn't make a jot of difference to me if I think that's how I want to isolate my subject because she probably won't care either way but if her ignorance is the standard then we may as well all throw away our cameras.
 
Messages
22,918
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
The tenacity displayed by the M4/3 advocates is admirable but depressing. Just because you don't want to believe it or don't understand it, that doesn't mean it isn't true and it doesn't stop us driving our cars, using computers or popping a ready-meal into the microwave. So... we've just read here how smartphone images don't stand up to close scrutiny on the PC. Nobody argues with that, but why is it so? Bearing in mind that smartphone sensors are even smaller than your little finger nail, maybe that has something to do with it.

And it's because of that fundamental disadvantage that smartphone manufacturers are pouring huge sums into 'computational photography' in search of innovative solutions - and they're finding answers. Smartphones and computational photography are currently squeezing M4/3, but it actually threatens all cameras. From Thom Hogan's article (linked above) Olympus' camera sales have plateaued at around 500k units, compared to Apple's 210m iPhone sales last year at a higher average price. So Apple has over 400x more cash and resources to invest in R&D. That's a pretty one-sided contest but I can't see any reason why the same basic computational principles shouldn't also be applied just as well to enthusiast cameras. And with correspondingly better results (sensor size again). It's already happening with things like in-camera HDR, in-camera panoramas and pixel-shift technologies. Who knows where that will take us.

The camera market is going through a turbulent time of major change, and things like M4/3 vs full-frame or mirrorless vs DSLR are just minor sideshows.
 
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
11,953
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
The tenacity displayed by the M4/3 advocates is admirable but depressing. Just because you don't want to believe it or don't understand it, that doesn't mean it isn't true and it doesn't stop us driving our cars, using computers or popping a ready-meal into the microwave. So... we've just read here how smartphone images don't stand up to close scrutiny on the PC. Nobody argues with that, but why is it so? Bearing in mind that smartphone sensors are even smaller than your little finger nail, maybe that has something to do with it.

And it's because of that fundamental disadvantage that smartphone manufacturers are pouring huge sums into 'computational photography' in search of innovative solutions - and they're finding answers. Smartphones and computational photography are currently squeezing M4/3, but it actually threatens all cameras. From Thom Hogan's article (linked above) Olympus' camera sales have plateaued at around 500k units, compared to Apple's 210m iPhone sales last year at a higher average price. So Apple has over 400x more cash and resources to invest in R&D. That's a pretty one-sided contest but I can't see any reason why the same basic computational principles shouldn't also be applied just as well to enthusiast cameras. And with correspondingly better results (sensor size again). It's already happening with things like in-camera HDR, in-camera panoramas and pixel-shift technologies. Who knows where that will take us.

The camera market is going through a turbulent time of major change, and things like M4/3 vs full-frame or mirrorless vs DSLR are just minor sideshows.
What tenacity? We don't believe it because it's not fact, and we're not 'yessir' types that believe everything spouted out by youtubers. And we only get irritable when the FF crew jump in with their 'ours is bigger than yours' BS. You won't find us doing the equivalence first. I have no idea why FF even got mentioned to begin with in this thread.

Someone's just posted their real time experience above, why can't YOU accept that the light gathering aspect of equivalence is BS? We KNOW that we can get the same light per aperture because we're actually using the gear. I don't know why you think we're just being stubborn for the sake of it. I actually went and read the article you linked, hence why I side tracked about phones, it wasn't anything to do with the equivalency debate. Just in general. Since a good portion of the article was about smart phones.
 
Last edited:
Messages
699
Edit My Images
Yes
And it's because of that fundamental disadvantage that smartphone manufacturers are pouring huge sums into 'computational photography' in search of innovative solutions - and they're finding answers. Smartphones and computational photography are currently squeezing M4/3, but it actually threatens all cameras. From Thom Hogan's article (linked above) Olympus' camera sales have plateaued at around 500k units, compared to Apple's 210m iPhone sales last year at a higher average price. So Apple has over 400x more cash and resources to invest in R&D. That's a pretty one-sided contest but I can't see any reason why the same basic computational principles shouldn't also be applied just as well to enthusiast cameras. And with correspondingly better results (sensor size again). It's already happening with things like in-camera HDR, in-camera panoramas and pixel-shift technologies. Who knows where that will take us.
I agree, computational photography is where it’s heading. Apple’s camera division has over 1000 people, Google probably has more. They also have vastly bigger pockets and software knowhow to do it.

As to why camera companies don’t look to add it into their cameras? Most flagship phones have as much computing power as laptops so it can crunch the data quicker and more efficiently. If you were to add it too cameras the cost goes up, that’s just hardware. Software is also push the cost up.
 
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
11,953
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
That sounds like you're making a different point though, I responded to your original quote of "The general public do not care about shallow DOF" which I disagree with, on a technical level you're probably correct but in practical terms I think the average person doesn't critically think about what they like about photographs and that's really the job of the photographer. They do stumble towards things they like even if they don't understand why, just look at all those pretty grim studio modes on the latest phones lopping off ears and hair to achieve the kind of look they're accustomed to from dedicated camera systems.

The latest iPhone was producing portraits that were destroying a lot of skin detail, I took two things from that: Firstly (and less importantly) if there wasn't any competition then they probably wouldn't have realised they were doing such a bad job until the comparisons started popping up and secondly it leaves me with the impression they don't have a photographer signing off on the results as it was a pretty big red flag.

Of course they have to respect what the majority of their customers want (plastic skin is hardly new) but that doesn't mean the best outcome is achieved by catering to the lowest standard and how that relates to my original point, if my Aunt doesn't care about shallow DOF that doesn't make a jot of difference to me if I think that's how I want to isolate my subject because she probably won't care either way but if her ignorance is the standard then we may as well all throw away our cameras.
Who are we shooting for? besides our own pleasure? You want your family or friends to admire your images right? They might know nothing about the tech side of photography, doesn't mean they don't have a say in what they find a pleasant image. They don't care as much about 'bokeh' as many on here would, because they don't watch youtube videos or tutorials that tell them it's some kind of necessity. Don't get me wrong, I like a bit of bokeh myself, I just don't need or want it in every single image I shoot. Sometimes I want everything in focus. The people who view my images never comment on that 'lovely creamy background' - they almost always go straight to the main subject and will more likely say something like 'oooh, that's very sharp' - ok, it might then be closely followed by 'your camera must be really expensive/good' or whatever :D but his findings in that video are similar to what I experience when showing my images offline.

As for the phones, I see it as 'good enough is now easier than ever' pretty much. The general non photograher type just wants clear images, they don't care about finer detail or bokeh or sensor size. They want decent enough for FB images. Not long ago they might have been uploading 50 images from a party where a good chunk of them were OOF, blurry, had rabbit-in-headlight flashed faces etc ... now they can literally point and click and get a very usable image. I get that, everyone I know uses a smartphone, I use one too, but very rarely for taking pictures.
 
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
11,953
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I agree, computational photography is where it’s heading. Apple’s camera division has over 1000 people, Google probably has more. They also have vastly bigger pockets and software knowhow to do it.

As to why camera companies don’t look to add it into their cameras? Most flagship phones have as much computing power as laptops so it can crunch the data quicker and more efficiently. If you were to add it too cameras the cost goes up, that’s just hardware. Software is also push the cost up.
I agree on the power of the modern phone, in every other way bar for photography. I can do pretty much anything on my phone that I can do on my laptop, my phone actually has a better screen for watching movies! but I think the camera sucks on it, it's fiddly at best to use properly, has very limited controls and the end results are never very satisfying, to me at least. For all else, I think phones nowadays are great. You don't even have to go high end for a decent one, a ready-to-go £100 jobby is plenty enough for most.
 
Messages
699
Edit My Images
Yes
I agree on the power of the modern phone, in every other way bar for photography. I can do pretty much anything on my phone that I can do on my laptop, my phone actually has a better screen for watching movies! but I think the camera sucks on it, it's fiddly at best to use properly, has very limited controls and the end results are never very satisfying, to me at least. For all else, I think phones nowadays are great. You don't even have to go high end for a decent one, a ready-to-go £100 jobby is plenty enough for most.
My theory is 97% of people don’t care about dedicated cameras. They may have brought one and used it with a kit lens, but since then it’s been banished to the back of the wardrobe until a special occasion arrises. For them a camera phone is good enough and that’s all they will need.

Camera phones have pretty killed the compact camera market and it looks like they are doing the same to entry level cameras which is why you are seeing most manufacturers go highend like Olympus and their 1.2 pro lenses. Problem is once you go highend the market starts getting even smaller and you really have to justify the price. I think there will be casualties in the next few years (Pentax being the most obvious), if m43 plays it right they should be okay, just at the moment I don’t think strategy is working.
 
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
11,953
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
My theory is 97% of people don’t care about dedicated cameras. They may have brought one and used it with a kit lens, but since then it’s been banished to the back of the wardrobe until a special occasion arrises. For them a camera phone is good enough and that’s all they will need.

Camera phones have pretty killed the compact camera market and it looks like they are doing the same to entry level cameras which is why you are seeing most manufacturers go highend like Olympus and their 1.2 pro lenses. Problem is once you go highend the market starts getting even smaller and you really have to justify the price. I think there will be casualties in the next few years (Pentax being the most obvious), if m43 plays it right they should be okay, just at the moment I don’t think strategy is working.

This was one of the things I stated when I started the thread first, I don't like Olympus concentrating mostly on these 'pro' expensive lenses, it's not what the bulk of M43 users want. If they're going to fork out £1500 for a body, and £1000 or so on hefty glass, then they may as well go FF ML. I wish they'd continue looking after the people who made M43 what it is, the amateur enthusiast on a tight budget, looking for capable but neat and tidy. I did see an interview with one of Olympus' spokesmen recently, where he states adamantly that they are not straying from M43, and they have some good things in store. Cannot for the life of me find it now though.
 
Messages
1,196
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
There is a massive difference in size and weight Keith my test above was £15,000 v £4,000 and 5471gr v 1844gr so for people who shoot wild life and want/need the best FF would not be an option for many people although £4,000 is still a lot of money it's a closer buy than the Canon setup .

I keep both because Im often near the car and will have both set up I don't really have a preference which I use but if its an Owl flying towards me OMD every time for it's silent shutter.
Rob.
 
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
11,953
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
There is a massive difference in size and weight Keith my test above was £15,000 v £4,000 and 5471gr v 1844gr so for people who shoot wild life and want/need the best FF would not be an option for many people although £4,000 is still a lot of money it's a closer buy than the Canon setup .

I keep both because Im often near the car and will have both set up I don't really have a preference which I use but if its an Owl flying towards me OMD every time for it's silent shutter.
Rob.

In Northrup's video he shows his 600mm Nikon lens and compares it to the Olympus, he says he's happy to pay the £13K for the huge Nikon for the better quality, which is all good - that's personal choice. But he adds that he often found the Olympus wanting, his expectations might be too high perhaps, as I've seen some stunning images produced using the Oly 300 F4, like this guy here: http://www.sulasula.com/en/olympus-for-wildlife-photography-one-month-in-the-rainforest/

I'm not sure he could get much better using heftier FF gear


I would love one myself.
 
Messages
295
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Completely agree with everyone saying phones are eating into the bottom end of the camera market, but there's still 2 distinct use cases here, "point and click" devices and "proper" cameras with knobs you can twist to change stuff and inter-changeable lenses. I believe until phones acquire knobs and lenses there's a market for what we around here would call "proper" cameras. The question then is what type of proper camera?

Phones have proven that small sensors can take good enough images, m4/3 has proven you can get 600mm+ equivalent reach for £1,000's rather than 10's of £1,000's, perhaps it's the FF users who should be looking over their shoulders? :D
 
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
11,953
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Completely agree with everyone saying phones are eating into the bottom end of the camera market, but there's still 2 distinct use cases here, "point and click" devices and "proper" cameras with knobs you can twist to change stuff and inter-changeable lenses. I believe until phones acquire knobs and lenses there's a market for what we around here would call "proper" cameras. The question then is what type of proper camera?

Phones have proven that small sensors can take good enough images, m4/3 has proven you can get 600mm+ equivalent reach for £1,000's rather than 10's of £1,000's, perhaps it's the FF users who should be looking over their shoulders? :D
That's what I meant about phones being too fiddly for my liking, they're slippery and awkward to hold when composing a shot. They need tilt screens too for low to ground macro before I'd be interested - I wonder when they'll start adding that plus more on-phone physical controls? :D You can already get external lens add-ons for macro - but then for it to be considered a serious macro option phones will need the ability to fire off cam flash. With all of that it's getting as pricey and bulky as more compact ML cams.
 
Messages
22,918
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
I agree, computational photography is where it’s heading. Apple’s camera division has over 1000 people, Google probably has more. They also have vastly bigger pockets and software knowhow to do it.

As to why camera companies don’t look to add it into their cameras? Most flagship phones have as much computing power as laptops so it can crunch the data quicker and more efficiently. If you were to add it too cameras the cost goes up, that’s just hardware. Software is also push the cost up.
I'm sure camera manufacturers will add computational image processing features in future, as they're beginning to do already, but that isn't what's really driving smartphone sales and it won't save our real cameras.

The advantage of smartphones is a) supreme portability and always to hand, b) extremely easy to use, and c) connectivity. A standalone camera just can't compete with that. My daughter takes better photos (and video clips) of our granddaughter than I do because her iPhone is always to hand and at the press of a button they're immediately shared with family and friends anywhere on the planet, then stored in the cloud. All before I've even found my camera bag. She has no technical knowledge whatsoever but has a good eye for a picture, knows good light, understands composition, and chooses the moment well. As Kodak used to say, it's about Making Memories and that's all most people ever want.

It's not a bright outlook for us though :(
 
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
11,953
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
There's a lot of truth in that it is only us photographer types that really care about image quality, I often feel the only reason to have better gear than I actually need would be to impress my peers on forums like this. And that is not what I shoot for. It's more a therapy for me than anything else :)
 
Messages
22,918
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
There's a lot of truth in that it is only us photographer types that really care about image quality, I often feel the only reason to have better gear than I actually need would be to impress my peers on forums like this. And that is not what I shoot for. It's more a therapy for me than anything else :)
There are lots of reasons why we chose and use the equipment we do, and I think they're all entirely legitimate. Whatever floats your boat is fine by me and it's certainly not 'all about the image' as the old mantra goes. It never has been IMHO, but now that technology has called our bluff on that, we just need to get a bit more honest about it, and get used to higher prices for the niche, specialist gear we enjoy owning and using.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
11,953
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
There are lots of reasons why we chose and use the equipment we do, and I think they're all entirely legitimate. Whatever floats your boat is fine by me and it's certainly not 'all about the image' as the old mantra goes. It never has been IMHO, but now that technology has called our bluff on that, we just need to get a bit more honest about it, and get used to higher prices for the niche, specialist gear we enjoy owning and using.
I can only speak for me, that's all you can do too. Of course I'm aware of the advantages besides, but end of the day I just want sharp contrasty images, I don't care much for numbers in general
 
Top