[Aristophanes]

Aristophanes, you are simply spreading FUD here. You've not owned a m43 or even a mirrorless camera, and are obviously defensive about the whole idea. People who have (of which quite a few have posted in this thread) see the value and the trade-offs quite clearly, and for many the trade-offs come out positive on the whole.

I've owned an original PEN. It was crap, frankly. I got it used from a friend who also thought it was crap. I'm an old Olympus fan from the days gone by, but the M4/3 sensor is simply old tech with enough flaws that it will hit the proverbial wall vis-a-vis IQ. I got it so I could try my large legacy MD Minolta lenses on it (not worth the effort).

Mirrorless will come in smaller than M4/3 (for price on a smaller sensor and real compactness) and APS-C (Sony, Samsung).

Pixel density is relative to sensor size. No one argues that (think Nikon D700). But more pixels and larger pixels are definite functions of IQ measured quantitatively, able to be accommodated if one starts with more real estate than with less. M4/3 starts with less than APS-C as APS-C starts with less than FF. Eventually the economics comes into it and sensor design will hit diminishing returns on density, ISO, etc. At that point (as falklumo has often pointed out) the edge goes to size alone. Consequently the only things that will matter are who can make the cheapest fab and who has the lens legacy and installed based to maximize this trend. This is why Canon and Nikon aren't "frantic". They will have the glass and invested consumers to leverage it. Small sensor mirrorless offerings will have their niche, but they will not replace the DSLR being more of complementary sales than replacement market share. Even as M4/3 chewed some market share from Canikon, guess what? Canikon still massively increased their volumes on 5 year-old designs merely tweaked with sunk costs and at profit margins Oly can only dream of. That's pure market muscle and economic efficiency.

[juu]

I've owned an original PEN. It was crap, frankly. I got it used from a friend who also thought it was crap. I'm an old Olympus fan from the days gone by, but the M4/3 sensor is simply old tech with enough flaws that it will hit the proverbial wall vis-a-vis IQ.

You seem to be confusing limitations of sensor size (not that relevant) and limitations of the old EP1 sensor (yes, it's not that good, as it's quite old).

Yes, the EP1 sensor isn't stellar. EP1 was the first m43 camera and came out 2 years ago, what do you expect?

Try the GH2 and then comment on what you think of the IQ.

Mirrorless will come in smaller than M4/3 (for price on a smaller sensor and real compactness) and APS-C (Sony, Samsung).

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man...

Someone might as well argue that m43 is the sweet spot between compactness and IQ. In fact, one of my friends is a big proponent of that opinion.

Canikon still massively increased their volumes on 5 year-old designs merely tweaked with sunk costs and at profit margins Oly can only dream of. That's pure market muscle and economic efficiency.

Are you arguing Canikon massively increased their volumes last year?

Also, I agree Canikon is leveraging their sunk costs and old sensor designs. But Panasonic and Oly are just about starting to do that now about m43 too so their margins should only improve year after year (while Canikon might have hit that particular wall already).

[Art Vandelay II]

I really don't understand how anyone makes a case against m4/3's based on image quality at this point. I can only think of three exceptions:

1. You are a landscape photographer making HUGE prints. In that case then you should probably buy something like a Pentax 645D.
2. You are a sports photographer that needs super clean ISO3200 so you can use faster shutter speeds to get crisp images. You should probably buy a Nikon D3s.
3. You are a bokeh junkie and you like to use ultra thin DOF. Unless they make a range of f/1 glass 4/3's could be an issue for you.

For virtually everyone else if 4/3's IQ isn't high enough then I want to know why and I'd like to see examples. Because I just don't buy it anymore. m4/3's is like sports car that tops out at 180mph. Sure there are some cars that can do 200+, but how many people actually need one?

Just look at all the wonderful images captured with 4/3's cameras over the last few years:
www.fluidr.com/groups/olympusesystem

www.fluidr.com/groups/micro4thirds

And this is the worst the image quality will ever be.

[RonHendriks1966]

m43 = 225 mm^2
APSC = 370 mm^2, or 65% more than m43
FF = 864 mm^2 or 135% more than APSC

The only thing I don't understand that when we are talking about joining M43 that everyone assumes talking about the sensors that Oly is using.

I'm in favor of joining a system. That could be Nex, since it going to be an open system also, but to me m43 is very good also. With more teams joining the system you can make a nice camera with a lot of choice for consumers.

Give it a stellar quality sensor, like K-5, that means just under 10 megapixel with that surface. Join the system with al advantage. Make it a quick and snappy camera (Prime II at least). Choose to be the image quality choise in m43 system.

[johnmflores]

Most camera-happy soccer Moms I see (and I coach junior soccer) wield good ole fashioned DSLR's with big honking lenses. The whole portability factor is a non-factor for the minivan set. They've got a 3,500 sq.ft. house with plenty of wall space for quality family photos blown up big and IQ matters to them. I speak to them regularly about cameras and this is foot soldier basic market analysis.

Next time you see them, ask them if they even knew that a smaller option (M43) even existed. I'd hazard a guess that many walked into a box store and said, "I need something better/faster than a point-and-shoot for my child's soccer games" and the salesperson - probably with some sales incentive from Canon or Nikon - steered them right into a D40/D3000 or Rebel with a kit lens. Until very recently, M43 was known only to those visiting photography websites. Oly and Panny have channel issues for sure.

Oh, and next time I visit my brother in his McMansion, I'll be sure to take down the photos I took of his children down from his wall. Most were taken, after all, with a now-lousy 6Mp Nikon D70, with DxO marks well below current M43 sensors, which we know to be insufficient.

[Art Vandelay II]

Next time you see them, ask them if they even knew that a smaller option (M43) even existed. I'd hazard a guess that many walked into a box store and said, "I need something better/faster than a point-and-shoot for my child's soccer games" and the salesperson - probably with some sales incentive from Canon or Nikon - steered them right into a D40/D3000 or Rebel with a kit lens. Until very recently, M43 was known only to those visiting photography websites. Oly and Panny have channel issues for sure.

That is my assumption as well. My mother is one of those budget DSLR owners with kit lens. I showed her my E-P1 the first week I got it. After using it for 5 mins she decided she will never own a DSLR again.

Also, I don't know how it is in other country's, but in America people pretty much only know Canon and Nikon. I blame Best Buy for this. I once asked a clerk about Pentax and he had never even heard of them. These are the people selling most of america cameras. I venture to guess as soon as Nikon or Canon release an EVIL at a competitive price they will both shoot to the top of the sales charts. Just look how well Panasonic has done. I've never even seen a Panasonic DSLR out in the wild, but look at their sales numbers on m4/3's.

[juu]

The only thing I don't understand that when we are talking about joining M43 that everyone assumes talking about the sensors that Oly is using.

That is a good point - they could use a larger multi-aspect sensor like GH1/GH2 are using which would effectively reduce the size disadvantage even less.

I'm in favor of joining a system. That could be Nex, since it going to be an open system also, but to me m43 is very good also. With more teams joining the system you can make a nice camera with a lot of choice for consumers.

Actually, neither m43 nor NEX is open (yet). NEX have agreed to share "basic specifications" but whether that involves AF protocols is unclear.

Give it a stellar quality sensor, like K-5, that means just under 10 megapixel with that surface. Join the system with al advantage. Make it a quick and snappy camera (Prime II at least). Choose to be the image quality choise in m43 system.

Yes, with the right sensor they could easily make an excellent smaller camera, even with a somewhat smaller sensor than APSC.

[Art Vandelay II]

I'm in favor of joining a system. That could be Nex

I 100% agree with you on this. I really don't know how Pentax could make a mirrorless mount any more ideal then the E-Mount. You can adapt virtually any lens on the planet to it and Sony supposedly designed it with a possible full frame EVIL in mind.

A body the size of the NEX-3 could be used when you need a small camera along with a pancake prime or a small zoom like their 18-55mm. Then those same primes could be used on a larger body the size of a Voigtlander Bessa R2A for times when ergonomics matter more than small size.

[uccemebug]

Just look at all the wonderful images captured with 4/3's cameras over the last few years:
Fluidr / photos and videos in the "Olympus E-System Community" group

Fluidr / photos and videos in the "Micro Four Thirds Community" group

Um .. unacceptable.

A body the size of the NEX-3

With Pentax ergonomics to run rings around the Sony products.

This is why Canon and Nikon aren't "frantic".... That's pure market muscle and economic efficiency.

Based on APS-C DSLR sales. Are you suggesting that current sales of APS-C DSLR's will set the direction for the market? I seem to recall some members of this forum, just prior to the release of the K-5, being quite adamant that the APS-C DSLR was going away ASAP due to the economic efficiency of FF cameras.

[dnas]

That's a good point. For every APSC user attacking m43 on the basis of the size, consider that:
m43 = 225 mm^2
APSC = 370 mm^2, or 65% more than m43
FF = 864 mm^2 or 135% more than APSC

The difference in sensor area between FF and APSC is significantly larger than between APSC and m43!

Exactly!!!!

To say that micro 4/3 & 4/3 are "small" sensors is showing ignorance at best or deliberately misleading at worst.

And in fact, if you take the Panasonic GH2, the difference is even less:

m43 = 273 mm^2 (Pany GH2)
APSC = 355 mm^2, or 30% more than m43 (Nikon D7000)
FF = 864 mm^2 or 143% more than APSC


m43 = 273 mm^2 (Pany GH2)
APSC = 332 mm^2, or 22% more than m43 (Canon 600D)
FF = 864 mm^2 or 160% more than APSC




(and to compare to the orignal G1)

m43 = 224 mm^2 (Pany G1)
APSC = 355 mm^2, or 58% more than m43 (Nikon D7000)
FF = 864 mm^2 or 143% more than APSC


m43 = 224 mm^2 (Pany G1)
APSC = 332 mm^2, or 48% more than m43 (Canon 600D)
FF = 864 mm^2 or 160% more than APSC

[wjjstu]

That's a good point. For every APSC user attacking m43 on the basis of the size, consider that:
m43 = 225 mm^2
APSC = 370 mm^2, or 65% more than m43
FF = 864 mm^2 or 135% more than APSC

The difference in sensor area between FF and APSC is significantly larger than between APSC and m43!

zomg think about when APSC walks into its IQ wall!!!!1

And still with all that K-5 appears to play ball with current FF cameras in IQ - so it seems like sensor technology plays a very comparable role to sensor size in all this.

The difference is that Sony makes APS-C sensors and Panasonic makes m43 sensors and Panasonic is behind and is not really showing any signs of catching up.

[thibs]

Yep but this is a tech difference, not linked to the sensor format.

[Art Vandelay II]

I don't know if this is all that relevant to this thread, but it looks like Olympus is working on a major upgrade to their m4/3's lenses. This is drool worthy:



www.dpreview.com/news/1102/11020905olympuszuikomockup.asp

Pentax really has their work cut out for them. Assuming that is a normal prime I'll be pre-ordering that along with Olympus' upcoming high-end body the first day they're available. I've waited years for a digital camera system like that. We might finally be on the verge of a digital Contax G2!

[thibs]

Sound very nice marketing but I'm sorry to say that based on what I read, there's nothing of interest but a promise of a high end lens.
Fine but ... And then?

[dnas]

I don't know if this is all that relevant to this thread, but it looks like Olympus is working on a major upgrade to their m4/3's lenses. This is drool worthy:



www.dpreview.com/news/1102/11020905olympuszuikomockup.asp

Pentax really has their work cut out for them. Assuming that is a normal prime I'll be pre-ordering that along with Olympus' upcoming high-end body the first day they're available. I've waited years for a digital camera system like that. We might finally be on the verge of a digital Contax G2!

I saw this today at CP+ in Yokohama.

They said it was going to be a high end prime lens, but couldn't say what it would be. Also I asked them about the "modular" 4/3 / Micro 4/3 camera, and they said that wasn't going to happen.
I asked about a "Pro" micro 4/3 camera, and again no info.


I didn't see anything at the Pentax stand that would indicate a mirrorless ICL camera, nor at Nikon.