As long as we're writing open letters and all, cf. the previous post I'd just like to put it out there that I think at least one of the bigs should join the Micro 4/3 consortium. Canon or Nikon. (Sony's already out.)
Think they ever will?
I don't. But I think they should.
Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Kalli: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. I respect Nikon and Canon for making good cameras. But mostly they just bore me to tears. And what would us Micro 4/3 users get out of this, considering the mirrorless cameras and lenses Canon and Nikon have made and then considering the Micro 4/3 cameras and lenses Olympus and Panasonic have made? Sure, if one or the other giant would go all in and not just build mirrorless system cameras with the primary goal of avoiding cannibalizing their DSLR markets. But why worry, this is never going to happen. And as long as Micro 4/3 thrives…meh."
A second comment from Kalli: "And then the thought struck me: what if Ricoh/Pentax were to join Micro 4/3? Now that does get the old ticker beating a bit more enthusiastically."
Doug: "I'd be surprised if either Nikon or Canon were allowed to participate in Micro 4/3. I'm pretty sure there's a reason why membership in the 'club' is restricted."
ginsbu: "It's Samsung that really should have joined Micro 4/3. They've done some nice things with their NX system (including making some nice lenses), but it's never gained any traction, and their new NX mini (1" sensor) system doesn't hold much size advantage over the Panasonic GM1. Joining Micro 4/3 would have allowed them to build their credibility with photographers and to use the same mount for their more compact line."
JohnMFlores: "Joining Micro 4/3 would legitimize a format that is a long-term threat to their APS-C DSLR business."
Jim: "Is that hearty laugh I hear coming from Thom Hogan?"
Mike replies: Let's see....
Thom Hogan: "[The answer to your question is] no. Doing so would be an admission of making a mistake and would ratify Olympus. First, neither Canon nor Nikon is going to admit a mistake. Second, I'm not sure it was a mistake not to do Micro 4/3.
"Then there's the aspect ratio. Moving from their established one of 3:2 to 4:3 would cause a lot of complaint. Personally, I don't like the squarer aspect ratio and tend to shoot in a wider one (I prefer 16:9 over 4:3 if I'm going to change). I know I'm not alone on this.
"Next, we have lenses. If you thought that legacy lenses were your stability point, why would you enter into an area with no lenses to compete with someone who has plenty? This is Sony's perpetual problem, by the way: they keep changing lens mounts and starting over. Doesn't give you traction.
"Finally, we have one simple truth: if they hadn't screwed up DX and EF-S, no one would be asking this question. A simpler answer is 'just fix DX and EF-S.'"
Edwin (partial comment): "Fujifilm proved that starting off with a completely new proprietary mount is feasible (profitable?) with their X-mount. They could have joined Micro 4/3 and lost their identity. They chose to have their own line of X-mount lenses and, in a couple of years, grew it into quite a complete line. The X-mount lenses are quite different, and is good enough to entice new customers to lock in to the brand. Whether there are enough customers to be profitable, time will tell. The mount is a camera maker's most treasured asset."