Is micro 4/3 dead?

The idea that say F4 and ISO 100 would be used by the same photographer on cameras of different formats to take the same picture is just wrong because those settings will produce different images.

If the photographer selected F4 on full-frame, they would have selected F2 on Four-Thirds because they would be aware of the depth-of-field that setting gives.

ISO 100 may not even be an option on Four-Thirds, so likely the photographer has to have a much shorter exposure on Four-Thirds unless they have an ND filter. But they might choose to take a bunch of photos for an equal total exposure time which would effectively reduce the ISO to 25. Some Four-Thirds cameras do something similar automatically and even shift the sensor for each frame resulting in much higher resolution.



Edited by QuietOC - 02 November 2018 at 03:10

BearairCactus wrote: addy landzaat wrote: Jonas A-R wrote: Four thirds is the aspect ratio. It is more the sensor size then - which includes the aspect ratio, but not every four thirds aspect ratio is four thirds. Anyway, here is a curious observation by Thom Hogan. I think he is spot on, m43 needs to find its USP and that is size. There are other advantages to a smaller sensor, not least of which is in body stabilisation, the less mass the easier to move, stop and move again. Ironically I would still be using MFT if they made a body big enough for me, not everyone wants small bodies! I would of loved an E30 sized Olympus MFT. Well I would of until I discovered Sony A Mount!

it's not just the size of the sensor or size of the camera. My wife gave up her A57 for an OM-D EM-5 for better out of the box JPEG's to go with a smaller lighter camera. For me, i never warmed up to my OM-D EM-1. I got it to still be able to use my 4:3 lenses but find myself going back to my E-5 for the sheer joy of it. If Olympus had released the 16MP E-7 DSLR i would have been quite happy.

   

QuietOC wrote: Jonas A-R wrote: BearairCactus wrote: 1. MFT is not a sensor size, tony is simply wrong with what he says about sensors being cheaper originally. Four Thirds was introduced specifically with digital photography by Olympus with the E-1! Four Thirds is the sensor size not MFT which is the mount. Four thirds is the aspect ratio. The size of the sensor was nearly identical to 110 film. Kodak likely thought it made sense to continue with that format in digital. mFT is simply a FT mount positioned closer to the sensor because it was repurposed for mirrorless. Olympus clerverly marketed it (the original FT) as “made for digital” Four-Thirds is a size. It is a vacuum tube size. Same with One Inch. "Four Thirds is a reference to the size of the image sensor. The image sensor for Four Thirds cameras is what is commonly referred to as a 4/3 type or 4/3 type sensor. These describe the type of sensor not the actual size of the light sensitive area, which is normally much smaller The sensor measures approximately 22.3mm diagonally, not four-thirds of an inch, which would be about 33.87mm. Traditionally, the nominal size of image-sensing devices has been based on a method of calculation that was introduced when vacuum image-sensing tubes were first invented. At the time, the outer diameter of these early 'vidicon' tubes was used to indicate their size. Unfortunately, this convention has remained despite the many advances in imaging technology that have since been made, and so the designation, "a four-thirds-inch sensor," can be a source of confusion. For this reason, many people now prefer to use the word "type" instead of "inch" when discussing the size of digital image sensors."

You are correct, although I still think the reference to the Kodak 110 film format might have some merit in why they chose this particular size

I have used 1", MFT, APS-C and FF sensor cameras, and every single one of them produced an image that was "perfect" for what I use the majority of my images - Social Media, Club Competitions and the occasional large canvas or A4 print. I don't think I am unique.

The single biggest MFT drawcard for me (at my stage in life) is its size, because the better MFT cameras out there are more than capable of producing excellent images. I spent a week with an OM-D E-M1 Mark II & 12-40 zoom and I was extremely impressed with the quality of body, lens and images. The downside IMHO, is that the better MFT bodies and lenses are not necessarily good value for money, although compared to a top of the range FF camera and pro lens, they are still better priced.

I for one, sincerely hope Olympus sticks around, because I love their well built, well speced bodies and lenses. I agree that Olympus, for instance, needs to capitalize on their USP which I believe, like others, is the size of their bodies and lenses.

Unfortunately I think they have an uphill battle because the technical "babble" could drown out their well earned capabilities.

Edited by ABDurbs - 02 November 2018 at 10:27

addy landzaat wrote: That why I think the equivalence discussion is not that relevant for most photographers.

+1

I think equivalence arguments and discussions have their merit in trying to figure out the strength and weakness of the different sensor formats.

However the strenth and weakness of camera systems go very far beyond only the sensors, so in my opinion in the discussion if micro 4/3 is "dead" it's only a minor aspect (or even off-topic).

I don't think MFT is "dead", it might lose some market share to FF due to the fact these cameras are getting cheaper, however the size advantage as well as the sheer quality of many MFT offerings make them far from obsolete.

It is not so much hate for equivalence - it is hate for the never ending discussion clogging up potentially interesting threats like this while not offering any insight in the question at hand. By all means, start a seperate thread to discuss equivalence.

Back to m34: Panasonic made a good decision to go full frame and skip APS-C, that makes their m43 cameras still relevant in this market. There is a USP for m43, I saw several mentioned in this thread!