Why I Love Micro Four-Thirds

By Christopher Lane

I’ll begin by admitting that I am a dyed-in-the-wool Nikon guy, and Leica wannabe. I love my D700. I have strayed to Canon and Pentax, but when the chips were down I always returned to the Nikon fold.

I've also owned several Leicas, but always wound up selling them. Most of the problems that plagued my M8 have been solved, but these days it’s hard for me to justify spending $4,000 on a camera...especially with a college-bound daughter. So, no Leica for moi at the moment.

Now, don’t misunderstand me—the D700 is perhaps the best DSLR available. But it’s big and heavy, and, for the most part, F-mount lenses are too. It would be wonderful to be able to throw a small, light camera over my shoulder, slip a second lens into my pocket, and go.

Even so, when Micro 4/3 was announced, I paid no attention to it. I was settled on Nikon and Leica, after all. It wasn’t until a friend kept talking it up that I discovered that it was indeed a very exciting development. I've been paying attention ever since.

'One Camera, Our Lenses'
At first I was drawn to Micro 4/3 because it had the potential to be my "Poor Man’s Leica" or the elusive DMD. While possibly true, this was a very narrow-minded view of the new format. Like many of you, I have a tendency to seize on one idea or get lost in technical specifications or reviews. Sometimes I simply fail to see the forest for the trees. It wasn’t until just recently that I realized that Micro 4/3 is not just exciting: it is revolutionary.

Here’s why. One Nikon DSLR is pretty much like another. Some Nikon DSLRs are full frame and most are not. Some are bigger and some are smaller. Some are expensive and some are cheap. Some are faster and some are slower. The company makes a digital single lens reflex camera. the bells and whistles vary, but at its essence each Nikon DSLR is pretty much just a variation on the same theme. The same goes for Canon, Pentax and Sony. A Leica M has looked pretty much the same since the dawn of 35mm photography, almost to the point of absurdity (witness the location of the M8’s SD card slot).

Only when one starts considering lenses does that picture change. The variety of glass available to the modern photographer is awe-inspiring, from super-tele behemoths to jewel-like pancakes. Unfortunately, each manufacturer has taken a slightly different approach to lens design and construction. For its consumer grade lenses, Canon favors ƒ/4 while Nikon uses ƒ/3.5–ƒ/5.6. Pentax has a wide selection of pancake primes, while Nikon has none. Panasonic and Olympus have lenses in focal lengths tailored to 4/3. And then there are those wonderful lenses from Leica. Each manufacturer has developed its own proprietary lens mount, further limiting your choices. F mount, K mount, M mount, R mount, 4/3 mount.

I call this the "One Camera, Our Lenses" approach. Nearly every market player uses it. They make one basic camera type and give you a choice of the lenses they think you want.

This is where Micro 4/3 is truly revolutionary. As Micro 4/3 is developed, it will take a "Many Cameras, Many Lenses" approach not tied to any specific lensmaker or camera design. So far, Micro 4/3 has given us the DSLR-like Panasonic Lumix G cameras and the Leica-sized Olympus E-P1, and now Panasonic's GF1 has been announced. That’s just the beginning. Doubtless there are many other designs possible, some of them likely to hit the market in the next few years.

Therefore, investing in a Micro 4/3 system does not mean tying yourself to one specific camera body type from one specific manufacturer. You can mount the same Micro 4/3 lens on an SLR-like EVF camera one day and a compact the next.

As the English say, "simply brilliant."

Micro 4/3 and more and more
Then there is the true implication of the "Many Lenses" part. I have long held that, in the digital age, your first and biggest investment should be your lenses. To a certain extent a digital camera's shelf life is limited, but the shelf life of a good lens is not. As I write, there are Micro 4/3 adapters available from reputable manufacturers for lenses in the following mounts: Four Thirds, Leica/Zeiss/Voigtländer M, Leica R, Nikon F, and Pentax K, and probably some others that I’m not aware of. There are sure to be others to come, but that’s already quite enough for me and my pocketbook. So now I can mount any lens from any manufacturer I like. How much I want to spend is the only limiting factor.

I remains to be seen if other manufacturers will take the "Many Cameras, Many Lenses" approach. Neither Canon nor Nikon seem inclined to innovate in this area. Even if they do, Panasonic and Olympus have a big lead, and each year there will be more of the Micro 4/3 "Many Cameras" and "Many Lenses." If they can partner with others to develop lenses for the Micro 4/3 mount, so much the better. Leica has clearly stated that they have no intention of developing a Micro 4/3 camera, but it will produce lenses with the Micro 4/3 mount, the first one being the newly announced 45mm Macro.

So hooray for two of the smaller players, Panasonic and Olympus, for breaking the "One camera, Our Lenses" mold. As I see it, that's a real breath of fresh air and a truly revolutionary approach to camera design and development. I’m excited to see what’s around the next corner.

Chris

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Andrew: "My favorite lens on my E-P1 is the Zeiss C Sonnar 50/1.5."

Comments

[erlik]

Just a couple of things...

You can put any ordinary 4/3 lens on any ordinary 4/3 camera, too. It will work. Admittedly, Olympus lenses won't have stabilisation on Panasonic cameras, but Panasonic O.I.S. will work on Olympus cameras. Worse than on Panasonic cameras, but it will work. Everything else, absolutely the same.

And you've got a Pen adapter for m4/3.

Now if only Voigtlander entered the lens party...

Zeiss, I really don't know what to think. They've been producing lenses for Pentax which has a smaller market share than Olympus. So why not 4/3 Zeiss lenses?

BTW, there's also the mystery of Fuji. A member of the original 4/3 consortium, but absolutely nothing visible from them, ever. Do they help Panasonic develop the sensors? What do they do?

[cw]

Buying adapters to use Brand X lenses on Brand Y cameras has been around a long time, yet there are so many compromises imposed by these set-ups that their use is, at best, frustrating to the point of annoyance. Agree with the premise but doubt these same camera companies would last long if they had to compete in such an atmosphere. Why on earth would you want a choice between 3-4 300f2.8 super-teles? Or tilt-shift lenses? I think the killer deal would be for one of these outfits to make a really decent M mount camera. God knows what the M9 is going to cost. I guess we find out Wednesday? Or maybe Leica enters into the 4/3 market segment with retooled lenses? Or Nikon comes out with an M mount D700? Who knows? The point is we are confronted with all these choices of really amazing gear - with new stuff being added all the time. Surely it couldn't really be better than it is right now? Could it?

[ericsfraga.wordpress.com]

For the record, you can also mount Canon FD lenses on m43. One key reason for buying my G1 (the other was the viewfinder).

[Ernest Theisen]

OK, here is a dumb question. What does 4/3 mean. 4/3rds of what? E

[Trevor]

Nice piece, but there's a leap of logic here that I'm not getting. What is it about the Micro 4/3 design that allows you to use the lenses of other manufacturers? That's not clear to me. Is it just the fact that people are making adapters? Or is it something else?

[Mike Johnston]

"What does 4/3 mean?"

Ernest,
4/3 or Four-Thirds is the name of the standard. It's a semi-open standard available to companies. It denotes a sensor size of 18x13.5 mm (22.5 mm diagonal), with an imaging area of 17.3x13.0 mm (21.63 mm diagonal), and an aspect ratio of 4:3. The origin of the name is confusing and might now be considered esoteric; it comes from 4/3", a size of the imaging area on a type of video camera tube that is now obsolete. (Source: Wikipedia)

Mike

[Mike Johnston]

"What is it about the Micro 4/3 design that allows you to use the lenses of other manufacturers?"

Trevor,
The fact that the flange distance is so much shorter because there's no mirror that you have to leave clearance for. (The flange distance is the distance between the lens flange--think the pair of flat rings where lens and camera meet--and the object plane, meaning the film or sensor on which the light rays focus.) This leaves room for the physical bulk of the adapter without compromising focus distance range.

Because there is no mirror, any Micro 4/3 camera will necessarily have to offer a way for any lens to be focused--either by way of a viewing screen or EVF (electronic viewfinder).

Mike

[Dave Karp]

The one camera - many lenses idea is really a "back to the future" idea. I have an early 20th Century Improved Seneca view and a couple of other view cameras. The lenses that I use on them come from Rodenstock, Fuji, Schneider, and Nikon. We view camera users have the ability to choose the "best" lens in each focal length. It is a nice luxury.

I am very hopeful regarding the GF1. The fact that dedicated micro 4/3 lenses from two manufacturers will work with it is a definite plus. As you say, as market share for these cameras grows, the incentive for other manufacturers to dedicate lenses for this mount will grow as well. Perhaps some Fujinon micro 4/3 lenses someday?

[Robert Noble]

The statement "In the digital age, your first and biggest investment should be your lenses"

pretty much explains why

"Neither Canon nor Nikon seem inclined to innovate in this ["One camera, your lenses"] area."

Nobody's going to deliberately make a camera that takes everyone else's lenses, because lenses, not cameras, are where these companies make money. (That's why Leica's going to make 4/3 lenses but not 4/3 cameras.)

The camera companies who knew they couldn't beat Canikon in the professional sphere had little to lose by committing to a new camera format (4/3), and we as consumers are fortunate that their smaller-flange-focal-distance cameras accept many lenses. But I doubt the 4/3 consortium ever sat down and decided to build cameras that would encourage users to buy their lenses from unaffiliated companies.

[Dwig]

"Now if only Voigtlander entered the lens party..."

for erlik

check out Cameraquest for a list of Voigtlander lenses adaptable to m4/3:
http://www.cameraquest.com/inventor.htm

Most are M39 (aka LTM) so you need both the M-to-m4/3 adapter and an M39-to-M adapter.

[Player]

I still feel that these are cameras for girls. I mean they're not pocketable, and they're not that much smaller than a DSLR, so you might as well just take along your Nikon or Canon or Sony DSLR and reap all the benefits and advantages of the larger formats.

There are some great truly pocketable cameras available like the Ricoh GRD series, but with smaller sensors by necessity, and comparable to the 35mm film format versus medium format. The 4/3 format cameras seem to be lost in never never land by not being small enough to slip in your pocket, and by not being good enough to compete with DSLRs, sort of the worst of both worlds.

[Martin Doonan]

and an aspect ratio of 4:3
Mike, a commonly held misconception, probably made popular by Wikipedia.
The spec actually is for image diagonal:
"The Four Thirds System refers to an interchangeable-lens type photography system based on an imaging sensor with a diagonal length of 21.63 mm," From the micro 4/3 whitepaper.

[Oronet Commander]

It denotes a sensor size of 18x13.5 mm (22.5 mm diagonal), with an imaging area of 17.3x13.0 mm (21.63 mm diagonal), and an aspect ratio of 4:3

I've seen many times discussed that 4/3 standard only fixes the diagonal size of the sensor (diameter of the image circle of the lens) and different aspect ratios such as 3:2 are legally posible. In the summary of the specification as seen here

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/whitepaper.html

only this is mentioned:

(1) Size of the 4/3-type Sensor
The standard diagonal length of the sensor is 21.63 mm. It is half that of 35-mm film format (36 mm x 24 mm) and suitable format for professional use in digital age. The image circle of the interchangeable lens is specified based on this diagonal length.
The focal length is about a half that of a 135 film camera lens assuming the same angle of view.

[Wilhelm]

HAH! Let me know when it's possible to compose an image on an LCD in bright daylight.
(Incidentally, there's no such thing as a "cheap" Nikon.)

[Christopher Lane]

"What is it about the Micro 4/3 design that allows you to use the lenses of other manufacturers?"

Thanks. Mike. Exactly the point. For example, I have a F-mount Zeiss 35mm that I love. I cannot use this lens on any other body style other than my Nikon DSLR. Or can I? Thanks to Mr. Gandy and CameraQuest, I can get a Voigtländer F adapter to mount this lens on my new Panasonic GF1 (heh, heh).

"Surely it couldn't really be better than it is right now? Could it?"

No.

[Richard Kevern]

Micro Four-thirds stands for "Hope for the best". Perhaps when we have Micro APS and Micro Full Frame it will become known as "Do you remember..."

[Mike Johnston]

"The one camera - many lenses idea is really a "back to the future" idea. I have an early 20th Century Improved Seneca view and a couple of other view cameras. The lenses that I use on them come from Rodenstock, Fuji, Schneider, and Nikon. We view camera users have the ability to choose the "best" lens in each focal length. It is a nice luxury."

Dave,
Yes indeed, and M39 screwmount also had the same "cross-platform interchangeability," although they wouldn't have used those words for it then. A lot of the Korean War photographers who discovered Nippon Kogaku lenses simply screwed them on to their Leicas etc.

Mike

[Mike Johnston]

"and by not being good enough to compete with DSLRs"

Player,
??!!!

What are all those Olympuses if not DSLRs?

As I keep saying till I'm blue in the face, you can't tell the difference in a print of reasonable size between a 4/3 shot and an APS-C shot, unless you make very careful controlled comparisons. It's more useful to think of them as being roughly equivalent than as being obviously different.

Mike

[hugh crawford]

I'm tempted to get a Micro 4/3 camera just to try the Angenieux and Switar C mount Lenses sitting in the drawer here, and maybe some of those whacky super wide f/.9 cctv lenses.

[Mike Johnston]

Martin,
Lord knows I'm not much with math, but by my arithmetic 24x36mm is a 2:3 ratio and 17.5 x 13mm is a 4:3 ratio, or close enough.

Mike

[Curtis Clegg]

Christopher you make very good points about the 4/3 system. I think the new system is off to a very good start.

I cannot help but wonder if the old film-based APS system would have succeeded if the various camera manufacturers had adopted a common and open standard like the digital 4/3 and Micro 4/3 standards. Today's photographers seem willing to accept the limitations of smaller sensors in exchange for smaller body and lens combinations, and the open standard between manufacturers seems to be the factor that will propel the new system.

[Player]

"What are all those Olympuses if not DSLRs?"

Mike, I meant real DSLRs, not Olympuses ;-).

Seriously, the differences between DSLRs and 4/3 cameras, as you know, is more than just sensor size (with the exception of Olympus). A much wider selection of lenses and assessories as well as a real viewfinder (necessary for serious photography).

[Silvio]

"As I keep saying till I'm blue in the face, you can't tell the difference in a print of reasonable size between a 4/3 shot and an APS-C shot, unless you make very careful controlled comparisons."

Up to what ISO, Mike? At ISO 800 and up I can see definite differences (as you can if you look for controlled shots in reviews all over the web, as well) between the G1/EP-1 and the D90/500D. Yes, a 5x7 or a 6x8 at ISO 400 will look pretty much the same regardless of DSLR (and most snappers would be perfectly happy), but not if you shoot in lower light or print bigger. And if you shoot in that lower light you might miss the focus with the contrast-detect micro 4/3 cameras (the Oly especially).

[Oronet Commander]

Lord knows I'm not much with math, but by my arithmetic 24x36mm is a 2:3 ratio and 17.5 x 13mm is a 4:3 ratio, or close enough.

Yes, but the fourthirds specification does not oblige you to use a 17.5 x 13 sensor; you could use even an square one provided that its diagonal is 21.63 mm

[Mike Johnston]

Oronet Commander,
Who has a 1:1 ratio 4/3 camera? Who makes anything but a 4:3 ratio 4/3 camera? Until they do, it seems to me that naming the typical aspect ratio is a perfectly sensible way of describing the format, whether it's in the letter of the standard or not.

Oh, and nobody I know has actually seen the standard. It's not actually "open." It's proprietary, is available only to participating companies, and even requires signing an NDA to see.

But let's not argue. It's too nice a day, and there's tennis on TV.

Mike

[Ned]

Player - Define pocket? Today a group of us went on a photo walk in the San Francisco Mission district. Everyone had Canon and Nikon DSLR's. I had my EP-1 in my pocket. My light walk around jacket pocket which most people will have in SF in the summer time. I didn't have to worry about all the nice people in that area eye balling my camera. So,ah yes it does fit in your pocket... Oh, and I'm a man, and my camera is white.

Wilhelm - I'm letting you know...I do it everyday.

If m4/3 is not for you then good, use what you have. But it's not a useless format.

[David Long]

With adapted lenses for most mounts, you often manually open up the lens for focusing and then stop down the lens to meter and shoot. Micro-4/3 cameras have a slight advantage in that the viewfinder/LCD can gain up when the lens is stopped down, so you don't get a very dark finder. They also offer easy magnified focusing. So with an adapted lens, you usually just work with the lens at your desired shooting aperture.

[dkreithen]

Well, Panasonic makes a micro-4/3 camera that is capable of not only 4:3 aspect ratio, but also 16:9 and 3:2 (and they're not cropped either, check the specs). This is similar to what they did with the LX3. For standard 4/3, you're correct, the aspect ratio was part of the standard, I believe: but not micro-4/3 as it was conceived of as both a photo and video standard.

[juze]

Up to what ISO, Mike? At ISO 800 and up I can see definite differences (as you can if you look for controlled shots in reviews all over the web, as well) between the G1/EP-1 and the D90/500D.

Oh yes, THOSE shots. The money I make with selling prints of controlled shots alone must have bought my house twice over.

Look, I have a few A3 (roughly 12x16 inch) prints made with the E-1, just about the noisest DSLR ever made, at ISO 800 or 1600, I forget. People like them. They're not technically perfect, but they're good enough as photographs that people don't care. And I do sell quite a few of my technically hopeless prints to people who have no taste and therefore don't examine them under a loupe.

As to the current crop (oh dear, now that is an awful pun) of cameras, I just looked at Rob Galbraith's preview of the Canon 7D, the concert shots, which are pretty much the only realistic high ISO shots available from the 7D at the moment. At ISO 3200, it has maybe half a stop advantage compared to the E-3. And that's with pixel peeping. Go up from there and the Canon's image quality falls apart at the same rapid rate as the E-3's, which is a positively ancient camera in comparison.

What those highly esteemed controlled shots don't tell you is how the camera behaves in real life, when you're not taking pictures of test charts.

[John Taylor]

"For the record, you can also mount Canon FD lenses on m43. One key reason for buying my G1 (the other was the viewfinder)."
Ooo – now i'm lusting after the G1 even more!

[John Krill]

Maybe TOP could post some photos from various aspect ratios. 4:3, 3:2, Full Frame. That might help. Just wondering.

[Timprov]

It seems to me that the major advantage of micro-4/3, body size, is more or less negated by using adapted lenses extensively. If the body + adapter has to be as deep as a mainline DSLR, you might as well carry one.

[Mike Johnston]

"It seems to me that the major advantage of micro-4/3, body size, is more or less negated by using adapted lenses extensively. If the body + adapter has to be as deep as a mainline DSLR, you might as well carry one."

But then you can't use your adapted lenses!

You get one or the other, not both...(generally speaking).

The whole point with Micro 4/3 and adapters is that the reduced flange distance allows you to use a wide variety of adapters and adapted lenses. You have much more limited choices with the standard flange distances of most mainstream DSLRs.

Personally I wouldn't use an adapted lens with a Micro 4/3 camera--I'd just stick to the lenses that are made for the format, whomever makes them--but I see no harm in people having fun with adapters if that's what they want to do.

Mike

[Leigh Youdale]

You know, I wrestle with all this. I'm as interested in the technical aspects as most photographers (but not some for whom the technicalities are more important than the pictures).
I have an excellent Nikon SLR system that hardly gets looked at because of weight and bulk. I currently use a Bessa RF with some good CV lenses. A pretty basic camera, really.

I too, have been waiting for the "ONE" - the camera that ticks every box on my wish list - and you know what? I don't think it's going to happen. M4/3 looked like the answer, but the resultant cameras, even the EP-1 and the GF-1 are really no smaller, lighter or pocketable than my Voigtlanders. And the design constraints probably mean they never will be. The only extra non-digital step I currently have to go through is to get my (full frame) negatives scanned at a local lab. I'm not going to buy another camera just to avoid that.

So what do I now want from a digital camera? To be honest, if Leica brought out a new D-Lux (X1?) next week with an EVF I'd probably go for it. Absolutely pocketable, quite versatile and yes, the sensor is smaller than I'd like, but the user and test reports tell me that until I go past an A3 print size or try street photography at night the quality of the image isn't going to worry me. Will it do everything? No, but it will be a very useable camera for probably 80% of my type of photography. As for all the other excellent cameras around - well, whatever they offer some degree of compromise is involved for most.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1613315233]

"This is where Micro 4/3 is truly revolutionary. As Micro 4/3 is developed, it will take a "Many Cameras, Many Lenses" approach not tied to any specific lensmaker or camera design."

"... and M39 screwmount also had the same "cross-platform interchangeability," although they wouldn't have used those words for it then."

And K mount, though developed by Pentax was used by Chinon and Ricoh (although Ricoh did some proprietary mods to the mount), and a good chunk of the Cosina manufactured vanity SLRs popular during the pre-AF film SLR days. So a cross platform mount isn't really a new idea. And you really don't care about locking people into your mount when you're not the market leader; your hurdle isn't stopping people from switching, it's getting people already invested in something else (i.e. the majority of the market) to consider an alternative platform or an additional one.

As things sit, I'm really thinking about pulling the trigger on a GF1, and one huge factor is the fact that I can leverage my K mount investment.

[Lynn_B]

I like the idea of being able to use a small range of quality lenses with both film and digital bodies. And not having a large camera bag that weighs a ton. A micro 4/3 body and something like a Bessa R4 body, with a few primes that will work on both, sounds very promising. The poor man's M6+M8 or M9 setup.

[Carl Mosher]

I'm with Chris. I love the lens possibilities for 4/3ds. I'm a kit lens photographer; I use an E-520. It's highly unlikely I'll ever have the money for a image stabilized Nikkor 210mm f/2.5, but my 105mm telephoto can turn into one thanks to the crop factor. It's not a great comparison, since there are no non-AF VR lenses, but you get the idea. Those Series E lenses that won't meter at all on most modern Nikon bodies, are twice as useful with an adapter. And by most Nikon bodies, of course I mean the ones I can afford.

I haven't ordered my adapter yet (money, you know?), but when I do, I'll look forward to using those small, light lenses. Having a 100mm-equivalent fixed lens that goes down to f/1.8, be it ever so soft wide open, is going to be awesome. I'll even try crazy stuff, like putting a TC-201 2x teleconverter on the cheap* 300mm zoom, for an ultra-dim, manual focus, image stabilized, 1200mm-equivalent telephoto!

For me, 4/3'ds lets me take pictures I never could have taken before, and gives me access to lenses I never could have considered before. That's real progress.

*Sears brand. No kidding.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

dkreithen: I've never figured out what people mean when they crow about the LX3 various aspect ratios not being cropped. Of course they're cropped; they don't use all the pixels on the sensor (except maybe in one of them, if the math cooperated). (I have an LX3, and even use the various aspect ratios.)

The dpreview.com review of the LX3, for example, says "The LX3 does away with its predecessor's unusual 16:9 aspect ratio sensor, instead using a more conventional 3:2 sensor but then using only a crop from it, depending on aspect ratio."

[Dave Karp]

". . . M39 screwmount also had the same "cross-platform interchangeability . . . ."

And the same for the Pentax/Praktica screwmount from the Spotmatic era. If I recall, you could use lenses from Pentax, Pentacon, Fuji, Yashica, Mamiya, and several others. I had forgotten about this. Almost makes me want to talk my neighbor into selling me her old Spotmatic. I'll bet I could pick up a bunch of great old screwmount lenses really cheap. (Wouldn't that make my wife happy?)

And I don't think these smaller micro 4/3 cameras are for girls only (although I am sure my wife, who is a talented photographer, would be able to make some wonderful photos with one). I want a quality camera with good lenses that is easy to carry around and can deliver the goods when I come across a good photo opportunity. I don't want to carry around one of those gigantic DSLRs. We had a name for this kind of camera when I was a kid: Rangefinder.

I think a lot of us just want something that is an analog of our old rangefinder, whether Canonet, Konica, Nikon, or whatever.

[Timprov]

Mike: "But then you can't use your adapted lenses! "

The only major mount micro-4/3 can take which 4/3 can't is Leica M, and the only others EOS won't take are Minolta, 4/3, and FD. My current kit is a 5Dii with 3 EF lenses, an OM, and two M42. Hopefully around Christmastime I'll be adding a Nikon G. I have no trouble using adapted lenses.

[YS]

Damn system needs some wide-angle primes. No, the Olympus 17mm doesn't count. 10mm, pretty please?

[JoeVC]

Only girls use digital SLRs; real men use Speed Graphic 4x5 press cameras. :)

I'm an early adapter to u4/3rd's, having purchased a G1 in 2008. I recently acquired a Minolta MD to u4/3 adapter; I now have the equivalent of a 100mm angle of view at f/1.7 lens that's actually shorter than the Lumix kit 14-45 lens; and this Minolta 50/1.7 lens has distance and DOF markings, too (which the new digital lenses lack, since they have no infinity hard stop). And my Tokina 80-200 @ f/2.8 is now the equivalent of a 160-400@f/2.8; I can't imagine another camera system that returns this much value to me, while extending a new lease on life of my legacy lenses.

I like the G1 in its flexibility; it works as a candid street or documentary camera, and also as a more sophisticated landscape camera. I have little doubt that the future of photography will be interchangeable lenses and electronic viewfinders; but they'll still be talking fondly about the old G1, a very high mark to surpass.

~Joe

[Silver Bromide]

Actually, there are many M-mount adapters as well, although I have no idea what's the point in them if you cannot RF focus (example - a Zeiss Ikon + 200mm Nikkor!).
It's not cross-platform, that has been around for decades,- it's the usability of it!

>>"The only major mount micro-4/3 can take which 4/3 can't is Leica M, and the only others EOS won't take are Minolta, 4/3, and FD."
To Timprov - You can also use C-mount stuff, some of which is wonderful!

>>"Damn system needs some wide-angle primes. No, the Olympus 17mm doesn't count. 10mm, pretty please?"
To YS - Panasonic 7-14 f/4 WA-zoom,adapted C-mount >1" WA lenses, adapted 12mm f/5.6 Voigtlander... Splendid...

[Iñaki]

That was the M42 mount, if I´m not mistaken.

However, it is not the first time a universal mount is proposed. Indeed, there is another universal mount in the market, that being the K mount.

As far as I remember -and I can not quote now out of my brain where did I read it- the K mount was firstly developed by Pentax and Zeiss, the latter jumping off the wagon later.

Which is the reason why most of OEM and lesser known brands -mainly, russian Zenith´s and japanese Chinon- used it, as it is suppossed to be a "open source" mount. So in principle, you could use a SMC on a Chinon or Ricoh body, and it is the reason why you can use a Ricoh lens -albeit with some sanding involved- on current Pentax models.

It was, as well, the only camera maker that propossed a vertical compatibility system, apart from the horizontal one.

But this "smartass" comment not withstanding, I have my doubts about this many-many approach will survive. Makers have a specific interest in making us buy as much as we can, and tightening us to a system. This m4/3 system is actually a smart move in that direction: if Oly or Panasonic do not have a lens, you´ll still buy from them an adapter.

[latent_image]

For those who think aspect ratios can only be changed by cropping down from the primary aspect ratio, please look at the first page of dpreview's in-depth review of the Panasonic GH1. For the GH1 Panasonic made a sensor that was slightly larger than needed for 4:3. With the slightly oversize sensor, Panasonic made it possible to use 3:2 and 16:9 aspect ratios that have the same diagonal as the 4:3 aspect ratio. There is no cropping down!

I think this is very elegant solution. Instead of the sensor dimensions being the limiting factor, it's the minimum image circle of lenses designed for Micro 4/3.

[Eolake Stobblehouse]

"The only extra non-digital step I currently have to go through is to get my (full frame) negatives scanned at a local lab. I'm not going to buy another camera just to avoid that."

Me, I would buy *ten* cameras to avoid that (and I pretty much have). So different we all are. :-)

Don't you have to get the film developed too (or do it yourself)?
Getting both done at once and have *all* frames scanned would surely be very expensive (although my data on this are old).

[John F. Opie]

Hi -

The critics really don't understand the simplicity that the 4/3 system offers: while standard Zuiko digital lenses are great, especially the 12-60, there are times when you want specialized lenses or simply already have these.

I use the following on my E510 and E30: Zuiko 50mm f1.4 (100mm f1.4 equivalent); Zuiko 180mm f2.8 (360mm f2.8 equivalent); Nikon 85mm f2 (170mm f2 equivalent); Leica Telyt-R APO 180mm f3.4 (360mm f3.4 equivalent); Leica Macro Elmar 100mm f4 lens on bellows for macro work (200mm f4 equivalent).

You simply can't get modern glass that comes anywhere near those equivalents. Sure, there are limitations and disadvantages, but if you are on a budget (i.e. it's a hobby and you don't have a client subsidizing your hardware fetishes) then the 4/3 system is very, very hard to beat.

I use the 85mm f2 and the 50mm f1.4 as portrait lens and for available light work; the 180mm f2.8 is a great theater lens (my daughter is a member of a theater group, I got the lens for that reason and it has given me great results: other than that, it's not the greatest lens!); the 100m f4 is obviously for macro work; the APO lens is dedicated for panorama work with the Gigapan Epic 100 robotic panorama tripod head and the E510.

All those lenses together were less than what I paid for the 12-60 that resides on my E30. And I didn't pay list for that lens.

That is what makes this system so hard to beat: I'd have to spend probably 20 times more money to give me the same tools that would get the job done only marginally better. If that.

[Christopher Lane]

"My favorite lens on my E-P1 is the Zeiss C Sonnar 50/1.5."

I rest my case. Enjoy (as they say in the restaurant biz).

Chris

[Johannes Huss]

I tried some Leica M lenses on my E-P1 using a Novoflex adapter. Result: very disappointing. Suboptimal image quality with blurry corners, accurate focussing barely possible on such a small display. Not recommendable, except for the tinkerers under us.

@Chris:
Maybe you like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/eigenes_brot/3859665246/ :-)

[Spiny Norman]

"Micro Four-thirds stands for "Hope for the best". Perhaps when we have Micro APS and Micro Full Frame it will become known as "Do you remember..."

Yeah, there's a huuuuge difference between APS-C (especially Canon) and four thirds. Except, you, know, that there's not.

[Spiny Norman]

"With the slightly oversize sensor, Panasonic made it possible to use 3:2 and 16:9 aspect ratios that have the same diagonal as the 4:3 aspect ratio. There is no cropping down!"

I do not think that that word, "cropping," means what you think it means.

[YS]

Silver: 7-14 is not a prime. I believe I said:

"Damn system needs some wide angle primes."

I love my ultra-wides, hence, 10/2.8. Panasonic has a 14/2.8 pancake in the works. I weep.

[Robert Roaldi]

I have an E-1, E-500, E-510, 14-42, 14-45, 14-54, both versions of the 40-150 and a 70-300. Only the 14-54 and 70-300 were bought new and that's only because of a xmas 2007 rebate deal. I am covered (more than once) from 28 to 600 (equiv) and I spent a total of $2000 Cdn for all of it. I have never in my life printed bigger than 12 x 16. Most people I know only ever show their pics on web sites.

Yes, my sensor is smaller than yours. So ok, you win.

Why all the angst?

[justcorbly]

I've got a DSLR and lenses sitting in a closet while I use an M3 and a Bessa. The bag I bought for the DSLR weighs more empty than either the M3 or the Bessa. I will buy a 4/3 camera as soon as someone puts a viewfinder on it that is as bright as thse ones on my M3 and Bessa.

As for improved print quality from full frame versus APS or 4/3: Not many people care. One big reason people buy digital cameras is to be able to distribute photos online. Sure, a well-crafted wet print looks better than a 72-dpi image in a browser, but that an $5.00 will get you a cup of coffee.

[Andrew Korlaki - Melbourne, Australia]

this debate reminds me of the old film/developer combination. Brand A + B was better than A + C..

How many people commenting have used a 4/3 or Micro 4/3 camera?

I can only speak from results - on a A4 print people can't pick the difference between a full frame SLR and a Micro 4/3 shot at 800ISO...

And so what if you get a little nosie at higher ISO - we used to accept grain as a fact of life - so why not noise??

[WeeDram]

Player: Are you a sexist or just non-mindful?

[Jeffrey Goggin]

I find it interesting that, out of all the comments above, not one contributor has identified the reasons why I have taken to the 4/3 and subsequently micro 4/3 formats with considerable enthusiasm: 1) I really, really dislike the 3:2 format that's used by nearly all other digital cameras (for me, 4:3 is full frame!); 2) With my choice of subject matter, I rarely want less DoF and frequently need as much DoF as I can get; and 3) The sensor that makes Nos. 1 and 2 possible is large enough and good enough that I don't have to make any excuses for it. (Oh, and the cameras are relatively inexpensive, as these things go. In fact, the G1 I've been using for the past five months cost me less than any other digitial camera I've used over the past five years.)

[JF]

Hello,

With a big clearance, theorically it will be possible to use optical designs like Biogon on the WA side. But if camera makers use adapters rings to be compliant with micro 4/3 format, is there still any clearance to make UWA lenses for those camera without the backfocus design ?

Regards