Evidently, I did not make my point clearly enough in the previous post. Such mistakes are usually the writer's fault, so mea culpa. What I'm saying is that if the camera market were purely rational, Micro 4/3 would be the dominant format now. Instead of Olympus selling its camera division and Panasonic putting all its R&D into full frame mirrorless, Nikon and Canon would be making Micro 4/3 cameras just to compete and Micro 4/3 would be dominating sales of non-phone picturetaking devices. It's the format that makes the most all-around sense for the largest segment of the general market in my opinion.
Sorry for not being more clear.
Mike
P.S. This is the first post I typed with my new keyboard in Dvorak! I moderated all the comments last night and this morning with it too. I'm definitely not ready to switch over yet.
Gear o' the Week:
If I could shoot with any 50mm focal-length-equivalent lens, it would not be unobtanium: it would be the relatively modest, relatively older HD Pentax 35mm ƒ/2.8 DA Macro Limited on APS-C (it has recently been revised with new coatings). I don't know how it measures and couldn't care less. If you care first and foremost about pictures, especially prints, it is one beautiful lens. Luverly. As a normal too. This link is a portal to Amazon, through which most anything you purchase will be credited to TOP. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
B&H Photo also has the Magic Macro, naturally.
Original contents copyright 2021 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:
Robert Roaldi: "In a rational world, a non-Micro-4/3 user would not even pay attention to what Olympus/Panasonic are doing. (And by the way, Panasonic is getting set to release several Micro 4/3 products, so they haven't abandoned the format.) And yet, when the E-M1X was released, many non-Micro-4/3 online experts lost their minds. Why? If they wanted a smaller Micro 4/3 body, there were several to choose from already, so why were they bothered? They complained about the size, but it is about the size of my 1st gen E-M1+grip, which it not that large. Compare it to a D3, why don't they, and not to a Rebel.
"I think I know the real reason. They were jealous. A reasonably sized fully professional body, with many available pro lenses whose weight would not dislocate their shoulders, for less than half the price of the Canikon flagship models. It must be starting to bother them by now that they have to spend $8,000 on a body alone and carry around 50 lbs. of gear just to produce down-rezzed JPEGs for the web. In a rational world, Micro 4/3 should be the preferred system for pro sports shooters and birders; why they still cling to last-century technology is a mystery. And I don't buy the argument that it's because they are heavily invested in lenses. Reading online forums, all they seem to do is to perennially trade in their Canon system for Nikon and then trade in that for Sony. Investment in lenses never stopped them from doing that. Boys just want big toys. (Just having some fun.)"
Kenneth Tanaka: "Your sense of what is 'rational' is anchored in the era when photography was in the artsy-craftsy world. Of course that’s long over. Cameras have long ago become part of the gigantic consumer electronics world where survival requires growth, and growth requires relentless 'improvement.' It’s hard to argue that Micro 4/3 established a sweet spot nexus of size/price/performance. It was more than good enough for nearly all amateur needs, and affordable. But it boxed itself into a corner and consequently stagnated. Very unimaginative, uninspired business management and leadership. And that, in the consumer electronics world, is not rational."
John Camp: "I would like to know where people are getting information that Panasonic is about to release new Micro 4/3 products—I've seen this a couple times here in the last two or three days. My GX8s are getting a little long in the tooth—I've had them for five years now—and I would be overjoyed to see a follow-up.
"Something about rationality—I think it's extremely hard to see in the present. It's mostly afterwards that the rationality seems to sort itself. To go back to the tulip craze, it apparently seemed to some Netherlanders that the very best tulips were worth more than their houses, what they thought was a rational judgment. It wasn't. In retrospect, that is quite clear, and the market made it clear even to the final fool who spent his last buck on the most expensive tulip bulb. To sort out a rational decision in a controversial subject (like camera futures) in the present is quite difficult—not even the camera companies seem to be able to do it."
Ronny A Nilsen: Micro 4/3 might be rational for printing up to some size, but printing is not how people look at images any more. In a few years many (most?) will have large 8k TVs in their homes, and then full frame or bigger with 45+ MP will actually be useful or even needed. I show my images to my family and friends on my 4k 65" TV, and even that 'small' you need good lenses, because the magnification from the 24x36 sensor is so large. But the images really look great on a big screen. For looking at images on a phone, even Micro 4/3 is overkill. :-) "
Benjamin Marks: "I have never found consumer markets rational. How could they be? They aim to create desire for things you don't need and then to fulfill those desires. On the contrary: this is the height of irrationality. What markets are is reasonably efficient at fulfilling those desires. Hence the declining cost of the megapixel (not quite Moore's law, but something adjacent).
"I am in NYC for a week caring for an Aged Parent. The only cameras I brought with me? An Olympus Pen FT and an E-M1 Mk III. Perfect walking cameras, IQ that has never held me back. Light, good images, acceptable high ISO, etc. etc. What's not to love? That last shouldn't be rhetorical. I tried some of the Panasonic Micro 4/3 cameras and just never bonded with them. But I find the Oly's perfect."
Cecelia: "I just cashed in my entire Micro 4/3 kit after five years of using it exclusively. The reason? There were basically three:
- 20 MP was not enough for some of my uses.
- The low-light performance of Micro 4/3 is poor compared to larger sensor alternatives, which was a problem when shooting moving subjects in natural interior light.
- Full frame mirrorless alternatives are excellent.
"The files from my Z7 are joy to behold and much more pleasant to edit, especially when cropping. The 50mm ƒ/1.8 S lens is spectacular—like having a small and affordable Otus. The stabilization, focusing, and general ease of use is quite good, and using the 24–200mm makes for a very similar situation to my Oly setup with the 12–100mm. The Z bodies are not that much bigger than the Oly E-M1 bodies, and the files are much better. The 24–200mm kit weight is 1,135 g for Oly and 1,245 g for Nikon and the 50mm prime kit weight is 984 g for Oly and 1,090 g for Nikon(ƒ/1.2 pro on Oly and ƒ/1.8 S on Nikon). The only things I miss are the closer focusing of the Oly zoom and the really tiny ƒ/1.8 primes.
"In other words, my phone is excellent for most web, snapshot, and notetaking uses, and when I need better than that, I want much better. No regrets so far. (I am drooling over the Fujifilm GFX 100s now....)"
I think your point was pretty clear the first time. But right now a lot of m43rds owners are feeling very threatened and insecure.
Which in the end is a bit funny when you think we are supposed to be doing photography, and see these as tools to do so, but sports team dynamics enter in play.
Posted by: Ricardo Hernandez | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 09:16 AM
Mike, the problem is defining best for what. You can't be rational without defining the problem. Your comments relative to micro 4/3 make no sense to others who have different styles, subjects, etc.
Your rationality makes no sense to others who don't know what you are optimising for.
[Oh dear. Much misunderstanding.
I've been working with and for the camera-buying public since 1988. Before that I was a photography teacher and before that I was a photography student. I know a thing or two about this market. I was basing my statement generally on my perception of the market as a whole. Naturally this does not mean what I say will apply uniformly to every specific individual. --Mike]
Posted by: John Holmes | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 09:27 AM
Nothing is ever rational. Will Durant said "Man is an emotional animal, occasionally rational; and through his feelings he can be deceived to his heart's content."
Posted by: c.d.embrey | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 10:04 AM
It's not out of the realm of possibility that a M4/3 or 1" sensor finds it way into smartphone, so you may end up being correct in the end.
I'm happy with 3 small primes at about 24/35/75 f/2 using an APS-C camera. Probably not long until an iPhone will cover this range for me.
Posted by: SteveW | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 10:18 AM
A bit of controversy can be interesting (as long we stay polite and civilized) and I know for a fact that you are, Mike, a strong and early supporter of the Micro Four Third sensor format. Please apologize if my intro was a little bit too strong!
Warm salutations from Montreal!
[No hard feelings in the slightest! All the best. --Mike]
Posted by: Daniel M | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 10:28 AM
Charles Kettering said: The key to economic prosperity is the organized creation of dissatisfaction.
The simplest way to assure sales is to keep changing the product the market for new things is indefinitely elastic. One of the fundamental purposes of advertising, styling, and research is to foster a healthy dissatisfaction.
Industry prospers when it offers people articles which they want more than they want anything they now have. The fact is that people never buy what they need. They buy what they want.
The camera market is regulated by paid gurus and fake click-bait sites. What does rationality have to do with it—absolutely nothing?
[And did I not say that in yesterday's post? I don't get the objection. --Mike]
Posted by: c.d.embrey | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 10:29 AM
Sorry for my french! I would rather say that please apologize myself for the stiff intro!
Posted by: Daniel M | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 10:32 AM
Mike - I've switched back and forth a few times between full frame (Canon 5D, now Sony A7RIV) and m43 for the last 12-14 years. I now have two Sony A7RIVs and a bevy of lenses as my main camera, but a few months ago picked up an Olympus EM1 Mark III and the 12-100mm IS zoom as my beach camera for my weekly long walks/hikes with my dog by the beach. What I've realized is just how good the m43 system can be, and how much more practical it often is. The Oly 12-100mmm lens along with the EM1 Mark III has the most amazing image stabilization. Absolutely no need for a tripod, ever, except for very specialized purposes. There's also nothing like that lens in Sony or any other full frame system as far as I can tell at its size and weight that gives you that range, 24-200mm, in one zoom with very high quality throughout. . . . There's no question that the quality of images from the sensor in this camera is better than the quality of images from the sensor from my original Canon 5D, better dynamic range, less noise, better color fidelity, more resolution. . . . For prints larger than 24" and for being able to crop significantly, full frame is still better, and the dynamic range, noise and color fidelity is quite a bit better, and certainly if you want shallow depth of field (not my main thing), but m43, even with a sensor that apparently has not changed much since 2016, stands up surprisingly well and offers many advantages to full frame.
Posted by: Howard | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 11:01 AM
I left a comment yesterday but would simplify that comment to: the m4/3 manufacturers are making cameras that are in many ways behind what the APS-C makers are making. If they had competitive bodies, they might be more popular.
Posted by: jseliger | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 11:06 AM
>> I've been working with and for the camera-buying public since 1988. Before that I was a photography teacher and before that I was a photography student. I know a thing or two about this market.
This gives you excellent credentials for chronicling the vagaries of the market in a retrospective or as-it-happens commentary sense.
In a forward-looking sense of where the market is going and drivers of behavior, it may not mean as much, and may even be a liability, depending upon the function you serve.
Posted by: DB | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 11:14 AM
Looking on the bright side I was hoping that Olympus sale of their camera division would start a panic sell off and I could pick up some bargains. Alas, it actually seems used prices have gone up slightly, maybe 5%. So that didn’t work out. What is this world coming to?
Posted by: John Robison | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 01:03 PM
If the first digital cameras had big sensors and shallow depth of field that made it difficult to make photos that looked like what people see, then everyone would be falling all over themselves to get small format deep focus cameras, with 4/3 being the Goldilocks format.
Instead the market has become bimodal. The “just take realistic pictures that serve as documentation of my life” market has been served very well by phone cameras. The “I have the technical chops, time, and money to take photos that look like I have the technical chops, time, and money” market is predominantly served by the biggest most expensive cameras that the consumer can afford.
Goldilocks is left with great hair but no actual gold.
Posted by: hugh crawford | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 02:33 PM
Format popularity and prevalence is probably a quirk of which brands decide to pursue which formats, and with what types of products. Plus the consumer psychology angle. If Canon had produced an m43 mirrorless 1D-style camera (and a matching set of lenses) a decade ago, the camera landscape might look quite different today.
Posted by: AN | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 02:35 PM
At least one of the comments in the previous thread alluded to the idea that the market can only be as rational as both consumers and producers allow it to be, and that perhaps rationality is in the eye of the beholder. I think that comment cited Olympus's clinging to a difficult menu design. I suggest looking also at Panasonic's fear of "cannibalizing" their pro and semi-pro video markets (where m4/3 is clearly the rational choice). Both decisions probably seem quite rational from inside the respective companies, but from outside, they only distort the rationality of the market.
I won't defend the typical irrational and underinformed consumer, but producers are susceptible to similar failings.
Posted by: robert e | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 03:21 PM
In response to Kenneth's comment :
"Very unimaginative, uninspired business management and leadership."
I think we imagine wrongly that manufacturers have so much margin of maneuver to distinguish themselves but how could they in this sony sensor monopoly. Most mfr cannot derive from the sensor & interface they're provided, it seems. Still, Olympus had a long track record of original ideas or novel implementations and I loved them for that but it appeared less and less possible. The Nikon Z9 for that matter, doesn't appear it's going to do much more than a sony A1? hell, even lenses don't seem to render things differently anymore. There is surely hope in the yet untapped "computational" paradigm as a differentiator...
Posted by: Sylvain G. | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 04:34 PM
I have both micro 4/3 and full frame cameras. Olympus and Panasonic in 4/3 and Panasonic in FF. I use the 4/3 more often as I print no larger than 11x17 and that, rarely. Actually I don't much like very large prints. My favored way of looking at photography is prints from 5x7 to 11x14.. Books are a great way to look at photos and 4/3 would be a star at book size printing. The increased dynamic range of the SR1 is very nice, but I do 90% of my photography in bright light, so don't really need it.
For this, and I emphasize, this, photographer, I hope that micro 4/3 has a long and happy life.
Posted by: James Weekes | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 04:42 PM
Despite what "YouTubers" say, what most customers want is a camera with an APS-C sized sensor. When you look at the sales data over the last decade, I'd estimate that at least 80% of ILC sales, mirrorless or not, were cameras with APS-C sensors. The data is the data.
And I agree with Ken that M4/3 might be the format that customers wanted when photography was in the artsy-craftsy world.
But what digital cameras really did was to take photography out of the artsy-craftsy world and democratize it in a really significant way. The result is that most photographers are not (fine) art photographers; most are hobbyists (much like audiophiles), some are gear geeks (these are 99% men, many of whom like to fight with each other in photography forums), and some are working professionals who have to deliver "product."
As for the Olympus OM-D E-M1X....I know a lot of folks have slagged this camera, primarily with the premise, "Olympus, what were you thinking?" All I can tell you is, that I've shot with one for motorsports, and it was AMAZING. Oly's judgement might be questionable for why they chose to build a Canon 1D-like mirrorless camera body, but don't blame the tool itself. For motor racing, the E-M1X had it goin' on.
Don't blame the katana for why the swordmaker made it.
Posted by: Stephen Scharf | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 05:14 PM
One possible problem is that the Sony sensor used in Olympus cameras is a generation behind their apsc and full frame units. Sony don't seem to be interested in making 4/3 sensors. Panasonic may be able to come to the rescue but unless that happens or Sony decide to make a new sensor the future is bleak.
Posted by: Bob Johnston | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 05:18 PM
I was amazed to read this from one of your readers, "Yet it is frustrating to work with its raw files which are more than a stop behind contemporaneous Nikon D5500 consumer-grade APS-C files". I find this fascinating because I find my Oly OMID mkII RAW files superior in a number of ways to my Canon 5DIV files. The increased depth of field of m43 makes everything near and far in much better focus and this adds impact to most of the kind of photographs that I take. As to what possible real life difference 1 stop extra of dynamic range makes is most definitely open to debate. This is something that just does not factor into my choice of equipment, as it has virtually had no impact on my photography and I have been a professional photographer for the last 25 years. I also happen to greatly prefer the 4 x 3 format that makes 2:3 format look way to long and thin or tall and skinny. However, I think that this is one of the reasons that m43 can be less impressive on the average monitor as they are better suited to presenting a 2:3 image, which will appear at a greater magnification. An additional point is that I rarely ever shoot above ISO 400 with m43 because with the increased depth of field you have two extra stops of depth of field at your fingertips. Since much of the time with FF cameras is spent stopping a lens down to ensure you have sufficient depth of field, the fabled 2-stop difference in noise is largely negated in real life.
Obviously there is a difference in resolution, and I note another reader who mentioned they had bought a high res camera for no reason other than they can, not because they ever print at a size requiring it. There is the effect of marketing for you.
As to whether it has stagnated, we shall see but, as others have pointed out, Panasonic are still in the game, and I'm not sure their FF system is really gaining traction, and m43 has a long life ahead of it drones at the very least. Oly's plans for the future are sensible too. The menus are ghastly, but once learned are no problem. Coming to any new system is an intellectual challenge, and one hears the same complaints about Sony, for example.
Posted by: Chris | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 06:11 PM
That was perfectly clear to me.
Eolake
Posted by: Eolake Stobblehouse | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 09:08 PM
Camera companies pump out ever bigger, heavier, more expensive product, now capable of images scalable to 30 feet by 40 feet when their real competition is any pocket pet capable of generating a recognizable image right here, right now. Today's cellphone pix are what the 4"x6" drugstore prints used to be, except about a thousand times better in case that matters, and for the 98.7% of the population who thought that drugstore prints were OK, it doesn't anyway.
Industries fail from the bottom up. First the newcomers are laughably bad but cheap, then not-so-bad and still too cheap and profitless to bother competing against, and then suddenly they own the market and it's over.
Meanwhile, the big guys are mimicking the famous Concentric Bird (oozlum bird, floogie bird, weejy weejy bird, et al), which flies in ever smaller circles until at last it finds refuge by disappearing up its own rectum. Wait for the distinctive sound, any day now.
I did like M43 but my 1", with a built-in 25mm-250mm Barnack-Equivalent-Unit lens is about as good and so much less fuss. As soon as slab phones can be held by anyone who does not have suckers on their fingers, I may finally get sweet on them and just switch off my brain entirely. Could be.
Posted by: Dave Sailer | Friday, 12 March 2021 at 10:06 PM
Regardless of the dour prognostications I'll stick to my PanasonicG9. I switched from a Nikon D300 to the then new Sony range of full frames and then realised the body might be smaller but I was still carrying bag full of big lenses. I find the G9 a good size fit and my small camera bag able to carry all the lenses I want
Posted by: Thomas Mc Cann | Saturday, 13 March 2021 at 02:50 AM
Passing through 3 decades of 20+ camera bodies and connected lenses, I bought a Panasonic GX7.
I actually wanted a 12-32 Pana zoom failed to get it then) for its size benefit, GX7 happens then because of Pana 20mmf1.7. I was looking for better DOF and a compact system.
1 year down the line, I have a 12-32 and a 35-100 to put on with GX7.
I hardly takes my Sony A7R2 with 28mmf2 out any more.
I will take it out on my landscape shoots.
Bottom line, I should have tried M4/3 decades back, for the whole decade.
Posted by: Sumanta Mukherjee | Saturday, 13 March 2021 at 03:39 AM
As far as resolution goes, Adobe's new Super Resolution feature might help level the playing field for anyone wanting to make large prints with M4/3 https://petapixel.com/2021/03/13/adobe-photoshops-super-resolution-made-my-jaw-hit-the-floor/.
Not that large (A3+) prints aren't possible with existing M4/3 - I have one of Ctein's prints that compares very well with larger formats printed the same size.
Posted by: Lynn | Saturday, 13 March 2021 at 08:02 PM
I've had it with Olympus. Three times they've let me down by abandoning the field (no AF for many years) and now giving up.
I had a fairly extensive OM film system but when AF became not only feasible but excellent, Olympus was nowhere to be found for quite some years.
Then when they brought in 4/3 and AF, I was wary and didn't buy in. Lucky, because then they changed the mount again for micro4/3. But they made it such that they severely restricted the sensor size. That may not matter now, but it was quite a few years before m4/3 could compete with APS-C.
I finally weakened and bought an OM-D E-M1 and a couple of E-PLs with five lenses. I agree with whoever wrote that it has the worst menu system ever devised. I admit I still haven't worked some of it out, nor the switch on the back.
Now they've dropped out again. It may be that the new company will continue to produce things, but thrice bitten, too late for me. I'm out. I'll go back to my other system, Pentax. You have to hand it to Pentax, the most consistent long-term compatibility maker on the planet.
Posted by: Peter Croft | Sunday, 14 March 2021 at 01:34 AM
I'd very much like to see Micro 4/3 continue. It's a near ideal format for much wildlife photography, because of the smaller lenses. At present, it suffers from the Olympus sale and from older sensors. But here's an example of why I find it appealing. I took this photo of a red-shouldered hawk on utility lines with an older M43 body (GH4) and not the sharpest or fastest 800mm equivalent lens (PanaLeica 100-400). They both, along with a couple of other lenses, spare batteries, etc. fit into a camera bag about the size of my daughter's chemistry textbook - maybe a little thicker. I had them with me. Handheld. The image here is about 1/3 of the area of the original frame. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VmsQLpdi-rdWJ9rDrFueAqApfywgh6Pb/view?usp=sharing
Posted by: Bill Tyler | Tuesday, 16 March 2021 at 03:14 PM
For me personally APS-C seems to be the sweet spot, but that might be because that is all I've known for the last 8 years...
There are a ton of great options with APS-C at a great, practical weight and size. That is probably why it has been so popular, I honestly think some of the more portable M4/3 cameras are too small for my hands...
Posted by: Chris | Thursday, 18 March 2021 at 05:47 PM