Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
  

Archive 2010 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?

  
 
mh2000
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


totally agree on cost... and I even have a few nice LTM lenses to put on one...

since I don't shoot superteles and do like RF cameras... I would be perfect canidate for using a M43... but $1000 for just the starter E-P2? dunno... but they are nice looking little cameras and probably could do nearly anything I need a camera to do...

timpdx wrote:
I have finally seen the Panasonic 20 for sale again, but I hesitate at putting any more money into my E-P1 system. I have the kit lens and the pany 45-200. But the E-P1 is just a car camera for me (or a second travel camera). I'm not going to sell it but I am not going to invest any more in the M43 format, either. Prices must come down. Its is just silly that this little pancake should cost $400. $400 is an S90 or two thirds the price of a 17-40L. M43 really is too expensive right now,
...Show more



Feb 24, 2010 at 12:09 AM
JohnJ80
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


A.Y. wrote:
Huge players like Canon and Nikon are just carefully studying the market trend while perfecting their APS-C EVIL/MILC cameras, and both won't be dumb enough to pass on this emerging market with enormous potential, especially when Sony's APS-C EVIL/MILC products will become available later this year!

BTW, Apple waited quite a long time, in electronic industry timeline of course, before introducing the iPhone which quickly dominates the smart-phone market. It's not when a company gets into a market, what really matter is how good the products will be that will ultimately make the biggest difference.

There are simply too many
...Show more

For what it's worth, the Apple example is notable for it's singularity. By far, and confirmed by study after study, it's far better to be first into a market and extend your product capabilities than it is to be best and late. Apple is one of the few companies that is able to dominate markets so completely by being last but best. In point of fact, they have developed an expertise to do that that is pretty much singular.

IEEE did a study on that a long time ago and determined that being late to market by even as little as 10% can cost you 50% or more of your product revenues over it's life.

J.



Feb 24, 2010 at 12:10 AM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


Tom_W wrote:
What is an "EVIL/MILC camera? You mean a mirrorless camera with interchangeable lenses?


Exactly. EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) is the old and the inaccurate acronym. MILC (Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Compact) is the new and the more accurate one.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.




Feb 24, 2010 at 04:31 AM
Mike V
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


The sensor size of Micro Four Thirds is too small.
End of story.
It's not electronics holding this back, it's physics.

Maybe when Sony release their version with an APS-C sized sensor, then this type of camera will make sense.
Full frame would be better again.

Canon and Nikon will jump on this if and when people are buying this stuff in volume and not a moment sooner.

I'd be interested to see the sales figures of these cameras, I bet it is pretty low.




Feb 24, 2010 at 04:41 AM
Dudewithoutape
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


I'm in college and I'll share what I've noticed. Here's the breakdown of my friends, what I've seen around campus (i.e. people walking by), and facebook friends.

Nikon
D40
D90 x 3
D5000 x 2

Canon
XT x 2
40D
T1i x 4
XSi
XS
5D
30D

Pentax
K20D

Panasonic
G1

There you have it. I have one friend about to buy an XSi and another wanting a Nikon body, she hasn't decided yet. Hey, maybe its just UCSD or SoCal, but I don't see a whole lot of Olympus or Panasonic. No offense, they are great from what I've read. This is just an observation, no more, no less.

Personally, I'd love for a GH1 or even GF1, but comparing price to my T1i set-up, I end up thinking it costs too much. The GF1 body ($600 Amazon) alone costs as much as my T1i + 18-55m + 55-250mm. I'm very happy for what I paid. If I had the money, I may very well get a nice Panasonic or Nikon system, but as a budget minded college student, Canon's got my back for now.



Feb 24, 2010 at 04:57 AM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


Did we really expect first gen µ-4/3 cameras to be bargains. Give it a few more generations and some APS-C competition and I'm sure it'll be much more affordable. Early adopters always pay through the nose.


Feb 24, 2010 at 06:11 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


Pixel Perfect wrote:
... Early adopters always pay through the nose.




True. OTOH, it's probably the best way to learn - by experience.



Feb 24, 2010 at 06:34 AM
Dudewithoutape
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


I agree that early adopters pay the most (got a iPod Nano 1st Gen soon after they came out) and that the Oly and Pannys aren't about bargain. I was just making a point about myself, as a consumer now. Other shooters (the D90, 40D, 5D, K20D owners) could very well have afforded it. However, in light of what I've seen, I don't see the whole "Micro 4/3rds raining on Canon's parade". I skimmed the article and was really confused by what he was really trying to argue. He makes all these David and Goliath analogies (and look at that intro pic), only to fall back and say they (µ4/3rds) don't really compete, not even with the nicer APS-C cameras. He seems so wishy-washy ultimately. He also used a XSi in his comparison instead of a T1i, but whatever. I do agree with PixelPerfect that as technology improves, costs should come down. Just the same, APS-C cameras should (hopefully) be competitive in features and pricing.


Feb 24, 2010 at 06:54 AM
JohnJ80
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


What I think would make the most sense (and what I've been looking for), is something on the order of size of the Leica rangefinders, as durable, APS-C sensor and interchangeable lenses. Most of the EVIL cameras (I like that mnemonic) seem to me to be too large and not enough functionality to replace dSLRs.

It's either going to have to have more functionality and performance at the same size of a dSLR or its got to have the same or close functionality/performance in a compact package. I do see the functionality/performance thing eating into the dSLR market in a few years with some technology gains.

The ones out there don't seem to make it for me.

J.



Feb 24, 2010 at 08:52 AM
Access
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


Mike V wrote:
The sensor size of Micro Four Thirds is too small.
End of story.
It's not electronics holding this back, it's physics.

...

I'd be interested to see the sales figures of these cameras, I bet it is pretty low.

No, it's not too small b'cos 12MP (4000x3000 or so) is really all that market segment needs. Micro four thirds is supposed to be something of a compromise between a compact digicam and a DSLR.

I don't know what the volume of sales is, but with the supply shortages it seems like at least the GF1 and the 20mm pancake lenses exceeded panasonic's expectations.

And the events I've been at, lots of people with cameras; I haven't seen a single person with a micro four thirds camera. But then I haven't seen a single person with a LX3 either (a lot more of the canon S series).



Feb 25, 2010 at 01:04 AM
jam51
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


In my case, I wouldn't say m3/4rds is completely raining on Canon's parade. I intend to part with Canon's crop cameras for a high quality full frame kit (5D II) and a portable kit (m4/3). So for me, m4/3 is cutting into Canon's lower-end, but I am stepping up to its higher end.

I own both a G1 and a GF1. These are fun to use, particularly with manual focus lenses, and I really appreciate the system's portability. I take these to work, on trips and around town whereas my XTi or 40D would have stayed home.

I originally got a G1 as "digital back' for my FD system. At ~$525 including the kit lens used, this was an incredibly cheap way to revive my bag full of high quality but underused FD lenses. I have since added a GF1+20+45-200.

As a standalone, I agree the entry level cost is high. But in the context of reviving my FD system, it was definitely worthwhile to me. I managed to get the GF-1+20 at a considerable discount which contained some of the cost and made the decision to expand into the system easier.

I don't intend to expand into their higher end lenses as my 5DII handles the situations where I would use these lenses better, and as noted in other posts, the pricing is ridiculous.




Feb 25, 2010 at 09:57 AM
JohnJ80
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


It's not - by a long shot - simply megapixels. When he says it's the physics that refers to the signal to noise ratio issues if the pixel size on the sensor gets too small. Semiconductor noise causes a lot of the "noise" issues in low light conditions. That problem is exacerbated by a small pixel size. Semiconductor noise is the physics problem. That is the problem with 4/3s "being too small."

J.




Feb 25, 2010 at 11:06 AM
deepbluejh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


This reminds me of the video company "Red" a year or two ago claiming they were about to take Canon out with cameras and technology that would take the industry by storm and embarrass anything Canon or Nikon could ever dream of.

Now look where that has gone. All I can really say about that is "lol Red".


Not to say these people are biased or anything, but this is a M4/3 website. They tend to frame the argument through the context of their own interests while largely ignoring other factions. They say "Rah rah, go team!" and try their best to rally the troops. Just look at this picture:

http://zone-10.com/UserFiles/File/Micro%20FourThirds%20on%20Canon/Image%2011.jpg

If its not painfully obvious they have a bias and an agenda, it should be.


My personal opinion is that these cameras will make inroads into the low end DSLR market, but won't be able to touch the mid and high end DSLR market. Their tiny sensors will ultimately be the death knell for serious applications.



Feb 25, 2010 at 11:47 AM
JohnJ80
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


deepbluejh wrote:
Their tiny sensors will ultimately be the death knell for serious applications.


Exactly.

Now if they can get a larger sensor into a small body with a high performance EVF - no mirror or shutter - with replaceable lenses; a 21st century rangefinder sort of product.

J.



Feb 25, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Access
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


JohnJ80 wrote:
It's not - by a long shot - simply megapixels. When he says it's the physics that refers to the signal to noise ratio issues if the pixel size on the sensor gets too small. Semiconductor noise causes a lot of the "noise" issues in low light conditions. That problem is exacerbated by a small pixel size. Semiconductor noise is the physics problem. That is the problem with 4/3s "being too small."

To me this paragraph seems contradictory, it is simply megapixels. In that, a smaller sensor with less megapixels can have the same pixel size/pitch as a larger sensor with more megapixels. As an example I could have a 10-12MP four thirds camera or a 18MP APS-C rebel and pixel pitch might be similar? Not sure about the exact specifics of these sensor sizes, but that's the point I was trying to make. The two may have already crossed and if not, if Canon keeps upping the number of megapixels on it's APS-C cameras while micro-four thirds users are content with 12MP and no more, then sooner or later the two are going to be equal in terms of pixel size.

In engineering terms consider that the use of APS-C sensors in SLR bodies was not very size optimized from the beginning. We went from film SLRs ('full frame') to APS-C rebels, ie. the '300D' digital rebel, with no real change in size. And today if you compare the difference between a 5D i/ii (full frame digital) body and a rebel (APS-C) body, again, no significant size difference. So the cropped frame DSLRs that 95%+ of the DSLR market uses are not size-optimized. This is the same reason four thirds generally failed to get any significant amount of the DSLR market. The cameras just weren't that much smaller as compared to the other DSLRs out there.

The micro four thirds GF1 (or some of its competitors from olympus) are the first real attempts at a truly size-optimized interchangeable lens systems. You can't say that for a DSLR you can fit it, a normal range zoom, and a normal fast prime into a small pouch designed for those diminuitive 'ultra zoom' consumer vidcams.



Feb 25, 2010 at 02:17 PM
scalesusa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


Yakim Peled wrote:
Take your time. It's not a short article. But I think it's well worth reading.

http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=486&Itemid=1

My personal guess is that within 10-15 years there will be no cameras with mirrors and shutters.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.




The original purpose and benefit of a SLR was the "Thru the Lens" viewfinder as opposed to a rangefinder. It allowed the photographer a view of the actual focus and framing of his image.

I used my old Argus C3 Rangefinder for several years before my First Real DSLR, a Canon FT. It was a huge improvement, but also more difficult to use.

Now, we can have thru the lens viewing with a mirrorless camera and a electronic viewfinder. Contrast detect focusing is improving, but still not quite there, however, all the necessary pieces are there and only need someone to integrate them into a professional level camera. I'm sure that phase detect focusing can also be worked out on a mirrorless camera, I've seen many concepts that should work.

However, if photographers who lay out big bucks do not want mirrorless or EVF, then it won't happen. It will have to be demonstrated and successful on the entry level cameras before it can be sold on pro level cameras.



Feb 25, 2010 at 02:36 PM
JohnJ80
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


Well, that's not apples to apples at all. For a given MP count, and a given die size, the higher MP count sensor will have the worst noise. Equivalently, the same pixel count on the larger sensor will yield better noise characteristics. Different pixel counts, and probably even different pixel pitches on different sized die/sensors is not a simple thing to infer. Either way, a smaller pixel will be worse than a larger one.

The initial reasons for choosing APS-C over full frame are strictly related to the cost of an economic size of a semiconductor die to manufacture. There is no inherent (photographically speaking) advantage to APS-C over full frame. In fact back in the day, if a full frame sensor had been the same price to make as the APS-C, I'd posit that APS-C would never have been created.

There is, however, a massive cost advantage in the semiconductor world for APS-C over Full Frame. Colleagues who have designed camera sensors tell me that the rule of thumb still apparently remains true that the cost of the sensor represents roughly 55% of the cost of goods sold in a camera. That actually explains quite a lot.


J.



Feb 25, 2010 at 02:44 PM
JohnJ80
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


scalesusa wrote:
The original purpose and benefit of a SLR was the "Thru the Lens" viewfinder as opposed to a rangefinder. It allowed the photographer a view of the actual focus and framing of his image.

I used my old Argus C3 Rangefinder for several years before my First Real DSLR, a Canon FT. It was a huge improvement, but also more difficult to use.

Now, we can have thru the lens viewing with a mirrorless camera and a electronic viewfinder. Contrast detect focusing is improving, but still not quite there, however, all the necessary pieces are there and only need someone to integrate
...Show more

I agree. The only thing is that the technology in EVF and LCD is not quite there yet. We do need some incremental improvements in the base technologies. It's definitely on the horizon though.

J.



Feb 25, 2010 at 02:46 PM
RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


The ability to hold it close to your face means nothing to the next generation of user that has grown up on p&shooters or cell phones and has never used a real viewfinder in their life.

However, the ergonomics of following movement with a lens of narrow view become exceedingly more difficult if there is not a firm physical link between the eye and the camera.



Feb 25, 2010 at 03:11 PM
mh2000
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?


Based on what? If you get full page magazine images from ISO 400 and under I would say the sensor would be usable for "serious applicaations." Serious application doesn't always mean huge prints.

If the E-P1 body was $500 new I would already own one... and I would be producing gallery images from it...



JohnJ80 wrote:
Exactly.

Now if they can get a larger sensor into a small body with a high performance EVF - no mirror or shutter - with replaceable lenses; a 21st century rangefinder sort of product.

J.




Feb 25, 2010 at 07:17 PM
1       2      
3
       4       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.