[jms698]

Before Pentax could do a "micro 4/3" imitation product they would need to create a decent live-view mechanism with contrast detecting autofocus. The way live view is on the K20d, a micro-K mount just won't work well enough.

So, maybe next year?
(if the actually will, that's another story...)

[take]

If you read the release you will see that Olympus will offer an adapter for current lenses, so they will be compatible with micro 4/3.

This is one of the best things about their plan, IMO. One set of lenses, two different body designs.

I'm just trying to share an idea of not using any external adapter.

[falconeye]

1. floating viewfinder framing

removes the viewfinder and top LCD in place of a live view image on a screen that can be tilted? No reason not to if the mirror is gone.

I expected future DSLRs to be like mFT (i.e., w/o the R/reflex) since a while. However, I see a key technology been required (and the mFT announcement leaves this question in the dark). Namely:

A decent electronic VF (EVF), which would have to be like an optical viewfinder with the focus screen replaced by an internal 2+ Mpixel OLED screen. As soon as these arrive will the mirror box be gone.

[falconeye]

I'm just trying to share an idea of not using any external adapter.

@take, your "adapting lens" would have to be a zoom lens as different lenses would require different refraction powers. This is not feasible w/o deteorating IQ. Nice idea. Won't work.

Besides, the mFT w/o "adapting lens" allows for a new generation of wide angle lenses outperforming normal SLR wide angle lenses and bring them on par with rangefinder lenses. Esp. small sensors (i.e. FT and APS-C) need them because they have smaller pixels.

[take]

@take, your "adapting lens" would have to be a zoom lens as different lenses would require different refraction powers. This is not feasible w/o deteorating IQ. Nice idea. Won't work.

Thanks for the clarification.

So, do u mean that m4/3 + adapter is the best solution for using existing lenses?

[vinzer]

I'll just chirp in on this one.

Firstly, there's a huge market that wants DSLR qualities, but in a lighter package and cheaper, hence the success of the D40. Olympus might have gotten a good share of that market if only they marketed their cameras better and kept their prices honest in other countries.

Anyway, good to see them innovating once again. I actually smiled upon seeing the news bit for the first time. It's like they're saying FU to other manufacturers going full-frame.

Of course, one can take a negative reading and say that Olympus put itself in a dead-end with 4/3. That may be true, but in a sense, they're making lemonade out of lemons in this scenario and at the same time not alienating their current user base and seeing the promise of 4/3 to the end.

Trust me, once they release a decent model, people will buy. I know I would. It would be a great everyday camera. Sure, it won't make them beat the rest to the top of the market, but it would deliver solid profits to them... until the others try to muscle in on the action. Hahaha.

As with others, my main concern would be the EVF. I hope they would consider an optical VF accessory. Olympus/Panasonic could be on to something, a decent-priced rangefinder for the masses.

[TaoMaas]

I'm in the group who would like to have a small, pocketable back-up to my DSLR so I'm going to be curious to see how Micro 4/3's works out for Olympus. I think the primary market for this camera is going to be folks who are fairly serious about their photography because I just don't think the advantages of this camera over a good p&s will be that appealing to the general public. If Olympus can prove the marketability of a camera like this, then that increases the chances that Pentax will try to develop something similar, IMO.

[Art Vandelay II]

I'm in the group who would like to have a small, pocketable back-up to my DSLR so I'm going to be curious to see how Micro 4/3's works out for Olympus. I think the primary market for this camera is going to be folks who are fairly serious about their photography because I just don't think the advantages of this camera over a good p&s will be that appealing to the general public. If Olympus can prove the marketability of a camera like this, then that increases the chances that Pentax will try to develop something similar, IMO.

I may be wrong here, but my prediction is that the micro sized point and shoots such as the Optio S10 will get engulfed by cell phone cameras. I was shocked just this weekend to see how many people are already using cell phones to take "important" pics when hiking up grandfather mountain. For the most part, people that buy those things know nothing about photography and just want to be able to press a button and get a picture. As quality of cell phone cameras increases eventually that market will see no need to buy a separate camera.

That leaves super zooms, bridge cameras and SLR's. SLR's will always be around for the pro's and purists, but I could see this new "digital rangefinder" type of camera totally wiping out the super zooms and small sensor bridge cameras once people see an IQ comparison between a M43's and something like Canon S5 IS.

I do think the APS-C SLR's will go the way of the Dodo though. These small rangefinders will eat into sales of entry level SLR's, and the people that don't mind the bulk of an SLR will want the ultimate in IQ...which as of now is FF. I just don't see where APS-C SLR's will fit in.

[ogl]

I think that we will see the body smaller and thiner than E-420 and micro double kit - slow and the same of 4/3 - 14-42/3.5-5.6 and 40-150/4-5.6. It will be for a long time. No any miracle and fast lenses.^)

[GaryM]

I do think the APS-C SLR's will go the way of the Dodo though. These small rangefinders will eat into sales of entry level SLR's, and the people that don't mind the bulk of an SLR will want the ultimate in IQ...which as of now is FF. I just don't see where APS-C SLR's will fit in.

I like APS-C, it's a nice balance between portability and IQ. Users who didn't mind bulk back in the days of film used medium format (or larger), but 35mm still thrived. There's no doubt, however, that a lot of people are using DSLRs that are not really suited for them. So the market will evolve, and there will be a wide range of choices between large cameras with big sensors, battery grips and big, fast lenses to go with them, and small pocketable formats. The only problem is that lenses for one format are not going to be very useful for the other. Who would put a big lens like the Oly 12-60 on a Micro 4/3rds body? Some will own a FF system from one make, and a small system for another. But since most people are on a limited budget (especially in a declining world economy), many of us will stick with one system that strikes a nice compromise. And for me that's going to be APS-C for the forseeable future.

[Art Vandelay II]

Who would put a big lens like the Oly 12-60 on a Micro 4/3rds body?

They should theoretically be able to create much smaller lenses now with the shorter back focus distance and smaller diameter lens mount. So hopefully they'll design some ultra compact zooms to go with it. IMO Olympus already has the most interesting range of SLR zooms from any manufacturer (they have a constant f/2 zoom for god sake), so hopefully they'll focus all their attention on the M43's system now. I don't see how they'll be able to make a zoom small enough to fit in a pocket, so I imagine pancake primes will be needed for that. That's fine by me; you could then mount a new version of that 12-60mm on it and throw it in a back pack when hiking and still have plenty of room for other stuff. As it is now my Flipside 200 pack is totally full, but with this system I could actually put a snack or a bottle of water in the slot currently occupied by my Tamron 70-300mm.

Imaging Resource has the best write up on the M43 I've found so far. Instead of just pasting the press release like everyone else they actually dove into and explained the potential this system has and speculated on where it will go:

NEWS! - Micro Four Thirds System - Dave's Analysis

[rparmar]

Art: thanks for that link.

It seems to me that the two disadvantages of the system the author mentioned rather depends on the target market.

1. Electronic instead of optical viewfinder (eg: live view on an LCD) . This will not be seen as a disadvantage to those coming from point'n'shoot cameras where they have nothing else. DSLR users will miss a proper viewfinder, unless there are serious advances in EVF systems.

2. AF via contrast detection and not phase detection. Same as above, really.

However, consider someone looking for a rangefinder replacement for street shooting, or a portable landscape kit you can haul up a mountain. They wouldn't care about these limitations at all. Simply manual focus to the hyperfocal distance and you're done.

Olympus should include a built-in hyperfocal focus mechanism. For that matter Pentax should too, in their next camera. Can you imagine a body that automatically keeps as much of the image in focus as possible? There is no reason why it cannot be done with existing technology.

Just a lack of photographic imagination, IMO.

[Pål Jensen]

However, consider someone looking for a rangefinder replacement for street shooting, or a portable landscape kit you can haul up a mountain. They wouldn't care about these limitations at all. Simply manual focus to the hyperfocal distance and you're done.

Olympus should include a built-in hyperfocal focus mechanism. For that matter Pentax should too, in their next camera. Can you imagine a body that automatically keeps as much of the image in focus as possible? There is no reason why it cannot be done with existing technology.

Just a lack of photographic imagination, IMO.

1. Mirror box and optical finder isn't that big. Look at a Pentax ME or an Olympus e410. Good enough for compact landscape kit! It only make sense if you want something strictly pocketable. An electronic viewfinder, is a answer to a problem that doesn't exist. Optical viewfinder will be here for all eternity bacuse it is the obvious and best solution there is with small size/weight penalty.
2. Built in hyperfocal distance auto doesn't work as the hyperfocal point depends of the size of the end results. Thas why only Canon have done it (and abandoning it I think).

[Art Vandelay II]

It only make sense if you want something strictly pocketable. An electronic viewfinder..

Pocketability is pretty much the whole point to this; at least for me. That's why I think the E-420's, Rebel's, and D60's of the world are silly. If I have to carry a bag no matter what I might as well get something that actually fits my hand instead of an uncomfortable camera that still requires a bag. I sold my K100D and upgraded to the K10D after only three months. Unless you have small hands I see no advantages in a "small" SLR. Also, most fast zooms and telephoto lenses don't balance on them.

[Pål Jensen]

Unless you have small hands I see no advantages in a "small" SLR. Also, most fast zooms and telephoto lenses don't balance on them.

The advantage is that it takes up less space, and in almost all cases, weight less. If you carry your stuff over long distances, it may be important.
I've never understood the balancing issue. I don't balance cameras. I photograph with them. But most of the time they are dead weight I carry around while finding something to shoot...