Originally posted by Aristophanes I just invented a new "standard" in soap called "Sudsy Kitty". It's a standard because I say so. It's marketing.
The differences between m43 and your "Sudsy Kitty" (SK) are:
* m43 is supported by (or in the process of being supported by) five large global companies and some other smaller Chinese manufacturers of which two support it fully, and a subset of others manufacture lenses for it. SK is supported by just you, and you don't even make any soap.
* m43 has a defined (although not publicly available) specification and test methods for compliance, while SK has none of these.
* A huge number of different sources, both related and unrelated to the companies supported it refer to m43 as a standard. Only you call SK a standard.
etc.
Quote: It's only a standard because the m43 owners of the patent market it as such.
And also the other things listed above.
Overall, it appears, there aren't really that many people besides you who do not consider it a standard.
Quote: EOS (EF) as a lens mount or Nikkor (F)as a lens mount is as "standard" as m43.
Actually, not really. EF- and F-mounts are each supported by a single company which doesn't even provide the option of licensing the mounts for other vendors. That would indeed make them less of a standard than m43.
Quote: Where does m43 stand on the continuum? Much closer to Sudsy Kitty than to ISO.
Well, I think here is where we will have to disagree.
To me the continuum goes approximately like this:
ISO 518:2006 (flash hotshoe) ->- 4/3 -->-- m43 ----->----- F-mount -------->--------- GXR ------------------ --------------------- > --------------------- ----------------- Sudsy Kitty
Quote: ISO is both a de facto and de jure standard because it is referenced in statutes (though not uniformly or ubiquitously).
You appear to value ISO and similar standards very highly. Do you have your house wired in
IEC 60906-1?
In any case, no matter how much we'd like to take a purist approach on open standards (such as using IEC 60906-1 in our homes), it is not always feasible. Or to put it more bluntly, in reality de facto standards actually used are more important than ISO standards which aren't.
In case of m43 it is the closest to a widely used 'de facto' mirrorless standard, although NEX could catch up to it in that regard.
To claim it's not a standard because it is not sufficiently open, while admirable from the perspective of promoting open standards, is still quite inaccurate.
Quote: ISO is both a de facto and de jure standard because it is referenced in statutes (though not uniformly or ubiquitously).
For the second time, ISO is an organization, and not a standard. I presume you are being imprecise and are actually referring to ISO 12232:2006. By my interpretation of DxOMarks results it appears that if Olympus and Panasonic would follow the m43 standard with the same accuracy as different camera manufacturers interpret that standard, the lenses would not be compatible
. So much for international standards.
Also, how familiar are you with ISO/IEC 29500?
P.S. Why did you ask me this:
Quote: Are you sure you're a photographer?
Just a random personal attack unconnected to the discussion, or would you like to elaborate?