The Micro Four Thirds system will dramatically change with the new Panasonic-Fuji vs Olympus Sony partnerships. It’s too early to see what exactly will change. Some of you believe this is bad news because Olympus-Sony and Panasonic-Fuji will collaborate more in their own systems (X and E-mount). Some of you believe that Fuji or Sony may be involved in the MFT system. I “believe” that at least in the short and mid term nothing will change in Panasonic and Olympus strategy. They will focus on the MFT system. Panasonic will use Fuji knowledge to create MFT cameras with organic sensor and Olympus will get the latest sensor tech from Sony.
Anyway, I ask you…
[poll id=”194″]
—
P.S.: Almost sodl out: GX1 for 199 Euro in Germany: dealsrunner.com.
68 Responses
Competition is always good. Not only because monopoly brings stillness, but also because we, as customers, can choose which system works better for our needs.
Having said so, I think it’s still too early to see this new tech from Panasonic Fuji.
And we don’t know almost anything about it.
What monopoly?
“Competition is always good.”
Not always. Sometimes collaboration is better. In that case, collaboration between Panasonic and Fujii IS better than competition between Panasonic and Fujii.
Competition can be bad too : the megapixel war led to production of P&S cameras with tiny sensors cramped with Megapixels that were worse than their predecessors.
One must take care with shortcuts like this.
Exactly. Collaboration is always good, albeit against human nature. Competition? sometimes, sometimes not.
Cooperation can be bad too. When it becomes collusion, and cartels form to control prices, wages, etc. Anti-trust regulations and laws aren’t limited to single company monopolies.
An example: when nations are fighting a war technology advances faster than during times of peace. I know I’m exagerating now, but that’s what I mean by “competition”.
I’m not saying that there must be hate between the two groups, but obviously each group will try to develop the best thing.
This didn’t happened for example when Oly had to use Pana sensors on early m43 bodies.
By “monopoly” I mean that if there would be just a single sensor producer, people would have no choice. And I think that in that case new tech development would be much slower.
No problem. It’s just that the word “always” must be taken with care.
“Competition is always good” is a typical slogan that big companies try to put in our brains. One must be aware.
In a competition, there are winners and loosers. In a collaboration, there could be only winners (or loosers of course ;-)).
Competition is good when it’s done in a postive way, when the rules are clear, and when each players accept and respect the rules.
In this case (sensor developpement), I think it could be a good and positive thing that there’s some competiton. But given the current sate of sensors, which are all more than excellent enough for pro and amateur photography, I’m afraid that the industry begins the same scam than with Megapixel War, and that we will enter in a time of diminishing returns.
“Competition can be bad too : the megapixel war led to production of P&S cameras with tiny sensors cramped with Megapixels that were worse than their predecessors.”
That wasn’t a result of competition; it was a result of uneducated consumers. Consumers were simply getting what they *thought* they wanted.
Yes companies are always right, competition means more choice, money laundering is just another way to get rich…
The trouble with you peabrained of a certain culture is that your set phrases are so predictable…
Dude, are you Racist? Do you hate people outside your own race?
“The trouble with you peabrained of a certain culture is that your set phrases are so predictable…”
Who are you talking about?? WHO?? What Culture? I thought we were talking about cameras here??
You constantly trying to be sly, hating on some “group” of people… Who??
I can see why you’re Banned from other sites/blogs… You spew hatred. You should be banned here as well.
LOL you don’t even have the balls to get a proper name. Are you a moslem fundamentalist or a CIA analyst?
Seen from outside it doesn’t make that much difference.
Here, close your eyes and open your mouth, show the tongue to auntie , and I will put a nice candy on it 🙂
Amalric, your comments are the only thing worse than the pictures you take. You are embarrassing.
I don’t think Pany and Oly have ever really been that “friendly” throughout this relationship… This is great news from Fuji/Pany with the new sensor. Just wondering if it will ever come to market, and if so – when? If so, then that is more choice of sensors for the format, and more companies developing for it too. U43 is the leading mirrorless standard, and the more support from other manufacturer’s the better, keep it coming!
The more the merrier. Micro 4/3 is all about collaboration and the addition of new contributors, even if indirectly, will help develop the system faster. M4/3 is here to stay.
I think that it’s good but… Aptina state that their 14MP 1″ sensor has DR of 79dB, just to add perspective, and given the small improvement in sensitivity the only proper bonus with this tech is for UWA lenses. Figures from labs are always hugely different to those derived from real world testing, no change here.
Any help for Panasonic is welcome though now that they’ve lost Oly! Speaking of which, with Sony and Aptina sharing technical bumph, it’s Oly that are looking in the best position.
More companies with different technologies in one system – it is good news for micro43. Better situation for system (and users) is to have Olympus-Sony with one technology of sensors, Panasonic-Fuji with different technologiy, Blackmagic with third supplier of sensors (CMOSIS) then one technology for example in Canon’s system.
If there will be possibility to talk Sigma into doing micro43 body with Foevon technology, it could be dream for micro43 users. Wide range of sensors for choice, wide range of lenses.
Maybe some producers of industry equipment which join to micro43 recently will bring next technology of sensors for micro43.
Now I have Oly body with sensor from Sony, yesterday I can buy Pansonic body with organic sensor, or to add Blackmagic body for movies…
“…, yesterday I can buy Pansonic body with organic sensor, or to add Blackmagic body for movies…”
Back to the future? 😉
These partnerships that you talk about are not partnerships!!!
Pana/Fuji have collaborated on very specific research that’s it! It is not general technology sharing or general research collaboration! It is project specific eg the ‘Organic sensor’ patent, which was probably due to the cross technology required and the need to avoid the Samsumg/Apple style legal disputes.
Olympus was in financial trouble so Sony made a commercial transaction with Olympus. Sony BAUGHT:
1. a share of the company
2. Technology lisencing
3. Technology services (Design)
4. legally binding contract that prevents Olympus from sourcing sensors and other technology elsewhere. Which they previously had the freedom to do.
5. And more etc.
In return Olympus recieved a very much needed and not insignificant cash injection! Olympus got nothing else! It was a cash transaction where Olympus was the seller and Sony was the buyer, it should not be confused as anything else. Sony has no obligation to share new technology with olympus!
Can you blame Olympus for running to Sony, considering sensor ghetto they were consigned to by Panasonic?
They started buying Sony sensors before Sony baught them into a binding agreement and when they had the freedom to leave the ghetto and look around. Now what can Olympus do if Sony decides to lock them in the ghettos with old tech and they have no freedom to go elsewhere?
Excellent point Andy. There has been far too much misinformation bandied about regarding these collaborations.
Ever thought that Olympus, cutting costs WANTED TO USE those sensors from Panasonic? Everyone is quick to blame Panasonic, when Olympus put those sensors into their cameras.
Blame the crooks and cost cutting yakuza execs at Olympus.
But being a shareholder, Sony has a rather good reason for not doing things that make their share lose value, so while you may be technically right, what you say is properly called fear mongering.
Also, can you point us at the exact paragraphs of the contract that prohibit Olympus from using sensors not made by Sony?
It’s really very simple: a common lens mount with competing sensors will give us µ4/3 users even more choice. And in the process we will have overcome the only valid criticism other users had against us: the poor performance of our sensors in low light.
i have no idea…
Best post ever! 🙂
Don’t know what to think yet.
I need sleep on comment this. 😉
Can’t wait for the GH5 with new sensor tech! 😉
Panasonic + Fuji vs. Sony + Olympus and…. vs. Nikon + Canon 🙂 ha ha ha (in mirrorless cam market)
In a world dominated by APS it is hard to know what this will mean. The 4/3 sensor may wind up in a very narrow niche between APS (mirrorless and DSLRs) and 1-inch (high end compacts and mirrorless. If that happens Olympus and Panasonic better have some highly compelling cameras in development.
It would certainly be easier to partners to share the same sensor size. We will have to see how it works out.
I believe there needs to be more coherence within MFT itself. To a large extend it has been in the past but putting Pany and Oly in two camps may not be beneficial for the long run.
What will happen? Panasonic and Fuji will jointly develop their organic CCTV sensors, Olympus and Sony will develop IBIS and lenses together, while Sony sensor division will supply all m4/3 body producers with up to date sensors. Panasonic will stop digital camera sensor production.
As for mount or lens types, everything will stay as it is now, no major shifts. OBS indeed, collaborations all round. Happens all the time in high tech industries.
i would like to see Fuji X camera with Panasonic video tech and fast af (eventhou they are improving with the latest X100s) and Panasonic to have Fuji Jpeg engine and possibily some lens tech as well.
Also, Pansonic or Olympus, please make a waterproof camera with larger sensor, 1/1.7 or even 1″
+1
Yes, a 1″ or 4/3 sensor in a rugged water-sealed camera with a hotshoe mount and full manual controls.
Dave
+1,000,000
A Tough-style body with a fast 12-60mm zoom would be great.
Even better, I’d love to see a M4/3 Nikonos type of camera and a few lenses that could also be used with standard M4/3 bodies. Something like a 7-14mm, 20mm, some sort of macro lens and a 12-60mm would do it. That would slick! Or should it be sick… in today’s parlance? 😉
MORE IS BETTER!!!!!
All partnership for sensor development cannot change more activity in the optical deployment. What is urgently needed is more good (prime) lenses. Cheap lenses are already enough available in a usable quality in the market. I’m sure, to success also for selling more expensive (prime) lenses , if they really guarantee very good optical and mechanical properties. There are enough photographers, are realy too “hot” to refuse to buy prime lenses … for this it is necessary that Sigma, Zeis, as well as tailor or Voigtlander increase their participation and enter with more investment in the mft-market. For smaller, inovative companies in the optic branche this would be a good (additional) business too. The range of camera bodies is growing faster than the selection of high-quality lenses. So, missing a good variety of high-level lenses, this is certainly mainly still the biggest obstacle for connecting passengers from the Cannon / Nikon camp!
You’re right! We need way more primes! We only have the 7.5mm, 8mm, 12mm (f/2 and f1.6), 14mm, 15mm, 17mm (pancake, f1.8, and f0.95), 19mm, 20mm, 25mm (f1.4 and 2 f0.95s), 30mm, 45mm (f1.8 and macro), 60mm (f2.8 and macro), 75mm, and 300mm! Granted, we also have two more announced from Panasonic, one more from Voigtlander, and three from Schneider, but still we desperately lack for prime lens options and desperately need Zeiss to save us.
seems to me to the end of Olympus and Panasonic cameras for consumers. Olympus is doing well with its medical scope equipment
sometimes the translator goes to imaginative words … “tailor” insteat SCHNEIDER … 🙂 sorry for SCHNEIDER, he is my mft-lenses favorite!
I was already thinking, what the hell did you mean with Tailor?? lol
Unless I have missed some further news stories, I think it is too early to assume that the joint announcement will lead to a 4/3 size sensor anytime soon (or at all) – though I hope it does. There are many possible technical and manufacturing reasons why this might have a more narrow application than we all hope.
Until yesterday, everyone was debating whether the MCS sensor patent would show up in the next G camera – today it’s the organic sensor. This is a little over the top vs. probable reality – as is the widespread belief that Panasonic sensors are miles behind Sony and Fuji already. “Ghetto” sensors vs. the shining sensor on the hill.
this is join develop and they(Both) have advantage from experimental of this sensor(in detail fuji give organic layer and panni build to silicon substrate )
yeah fuji suppose on X image sensor they speedy up to build in X camera,but panni they have many bossiness of image sensor new sensor is not mean they fill in new Lumix cameras ,organic sensor will outperform to Fuji but incoming GX7
nobody know about detail 18mpx sensor WHY???
may panni sent the gun to fuji for against APS/FF war and mean to Sony,
later panni will sent AF tech or MCS to Fuji competition to FF war.
From what I’ve read so far, the Fuji-Pani relationship is concentrating on organic censor tech that will increase DR, Sensitivity and High ISO significantly over similar sized censors…. given that Fuji is locked into APS-C for its X series (by the diameter of the X mount) and Pani is locked into M43 by all of the great Oly and Pani lenses… the enhancement of censor tech that this particular relationship is based on seems like WIN-Win for both of them….and for those of us with an investment in their respective glass….
It isn’t clear how m43 is going to change so hard to have an opinion on it. All anyone seems to want these days is DR, DR, DR. So if that happens why change m43 at all?
Won’t ever happen, but still can dream about it. When all those companies who make sensors put their patents, stored knowledge and laboratories together to finally make huge leap forward. What would be even better, same thing, but for lens makers 😀
And about oly/sony vs pana/fuji, imo short term oly will lead for sure, long term who knows, hope they can actually mass produce those sensors. Currently pana bodies are not so exiting, g6 is rather expensive, only about 10.000yen less expensive than e-m5 and 20.000yen more expensive than e-pl5. At least it sits really well in hand, that’s probably the only benefit.
Panasonic is entering the APS race along with Fuji/Sony with the GX7!
Yeah, and throw away all the lenses they have and piss off their existing userbase, sounds like a really good idea!
You can of cource hope for whatever you want, but asking for something that is obviously totally ridiculous and voicing that just makes you look totally ….
Just saying, I wouldn’t mind if Panasonic did a larger sized camera with a better sensor and Aperture ring like the L1.
Who said they couldn’t design outside of MFT? They could do a ff DSLR if they really wanted to.
What, Olympus can try and keep Four Thirds around, yet Panasonic is forced to design for MFT?
Don’t think so…
There is absolutely no value in having both aps-c and 4/3″ formats, they are wsy too close, hence suggesting that panasonic produces an aps-c ilc implicitly means dropping the 4/3″ format and many of their lenses, even if they’d retain the m4/3 mount. Like so many totally uninformed loudmouthed nitwits you are stuck in the bigger is better idea without realizing the difference is too small to be anywhere significant, and real improvements will come from improved technology instead.
And no, your whining about how ‘olympus is allowed to produce dslrs’ is wrong and just demonstrates how uninformed you really are.
– lenses for 4/3 already exist.
– 4/3 uses the exact same format with a different mount
– providing continuity of that system for some longer is the exact opposite of the kind of thing you suggest
– providing 2 systems that can share technology but do not overlap much functionally is something entirely different from having 2 systems that can’t share core technology (such as the sensor) and have almost 100% functional overlap.
Go buy a nex if you care that much about an irrelevant increase in sensor size instead of suggesting panasonic to commit suicide.
Admittedly I clicked “yes”, but isn’t kind of extremely too early to rush to this kind of unsophisticated guessing? Can we really assume at all that this new sensor tech will be used for m43 sensors? We know very little about its benefits and we don’t know anything about it’s drawbacks and costs. It might be that it’s only suitable for small sensors (due to extreme manufacturing costs or high energy consumption), or only for video (due to slow data rates preventing fast shutter, or due to low pixel density)… We don’t even know when it’s going to enter actual production.
Both main m43 companies tying up with APS companies. Sounds like could Ho in a very wrong direction to me.
Only near sighted people could believe this is a bad thing. M43 is a profitable system, and no one is going to drop, something that makes money. This just means more development of the format we all use.
I feel Panasonic and Fuji will have an edge (my two favorite brands 🙂 )
The Fuji sensors edge out the Sony sensors (when pixel peeping at 12800ISO, especially the X-E1 is of the charts), the Fuji colors are inexplicably superb and vivid and the Panasonic ergonomics and build quality are top notch.
When we mash these two together something good ought to happen.
“When we mash these two together something good to happen”
mash and mash,…. we can not use blender here. 🙁
I think APS will probably be squeezed out by full-frame cameras as the later fall in price. I don’t think 1″ sensor-based cameras can compete on image quality with m43. I think m43 is the sweet spot in terms of quality and lens size. All IMHO
Competition and standards are bed fellows. SD cards are now the standard storage format and companies compete to produce the fastest (or ones with added functionality).
Sensors still have a lot of development in front of them so a standard sensor isn’t near but one day the economics will favour a standard over competition.
@Carl I have always viewed APS as a dead end. Simply because the makers who promote it, cripple their own lines in lieu of their flagship models. Want the best Canikon? Throw out your APS bodies and lenses and buy the real thing …
mFT gives control to the end user. Cheapest body or most expensive, All work with the same lens system. Across brands. A different philosophy altogether. A philosophy that goes back to the days of Camera makers, not giant electronic corporates. Some of the best benefits in Camera history were shared lens mount over many brands. Exclusive mounts was a much later trend designed to corral the buyer into one turnkey system.
—
Technology advancements will simply be applied to the winning systems. All this talk about Fuji-Panasonic seems to be driven by compact/cellphone tech? Assigning to mFT or larger sensors at this point seems wishful thinking so early on. The Sony-Olympus sensor tech appears a lot more immediate and directly related to mFT, APS, FF etc.
IMO, these alliances may drive Olympus and Panasonic in a more obvious rival status. But whatever they help “enemies of enemies”, mFT still facing the physical limit of increasing pixel of sensitivity in the development.
Despite of the sensor technology, it is also another battle field under the skin. Fujifilm used to be the Fujinon video lens maker whereas Panasonic needs high quality lenses to strengthen the power of video production. On the other hands, Olympus is also helping Sony to implant IBIS and lenses technology that Sony is also good at video technology. You may find Panasonic and Sony might be the real competitors in this game. The direction of the battle might change according to how successful the video market gonna grow.
I am not familiar with video, so I’ll leave it to you. A year or so ago, an analyst predicted that the real battle in the sensor wars will be between Sony, Fuji and Canon. They are the only ones to have the resources to fight to the end, and that will ultimately give predominance on the camera market.
IMHO what is happening in m4/3 is a proxy war, and it is interesting that it is happening both in m4/3, and in mirrorless. It confirms that m4/3 is the central format in it, and mirrorless tells that ultimately it could be a lever to dislodge Canon from monopoly (Nikon has Sony sensors?).
I don’t think that lenses’ development are as important, optics can only go that far, while progress in sensors is far from achieved.
By a stretch of imagination I could even conceive of a camera with a liquid adaptive fisheye, while the sensor selects a focal and magnifies it without loss of resolution. That will probably happen first in phones, but since it’s akin to the biological eye, it might overflow in ‘proper’ cameras too.
I wonder if Panny has really the resources to fight Sony and Fuji. Not that everybody is losing money at the moment except Fuji 🙂
And out of nowhere there is Toshiba…
Fuji has a Sony sensor in X-Trans bodies. The total X-Trans package is designed by Fuji but the actual sensor is made by Sony. Fuji is getting rid of most P&S cameras which use their own sensor. This leaves Fuji as a small player in sensors. Which it has been always if we look at the big picture. Camera sensors are just a small segment among all Imaging sensors.
Nikon has both Aptina and Sony sensors. Aptina and Sony are separate companies but they have lately signed an agreement to open patent portfolios between each other. This makes Sony-Aptina as the most capable source for camera sensors today.
Canon needs to revamp it’s sensor technology for still photography. Obviously the present technology is more suitable for video which has been Canon’s focus lately.
I have a slightly different perspective to what has been posted above … to me, micro-4/3 is not simply about the size of the sensor, but rather about the whole technology behind it. Once Olympus and Panasonic have ironed out all the little creases and bumps in the system, e.g. fast AF, EVF with high refresh rate, etc., the system will be fully scalable to any sensor size (with corresponding lenses). Both Sony and Fuji know this.
Alas, Nikon has nothing to offer in return and Canon wants to go at it alone … but with dire consequences: Just compare the Canon EOS-M with the Olympus PEN or Panasonic GF series. Or the fact that the Canon EOS 100D should have been a mirrorless camera similar to the Panasonic G series. Canon is obviously very much behind in “mirrorless” technology.
Sorry about the “Anonymous” post above … forgot to log in.
Sella, a system (which m4/3 is) is defined by the ability to have interchangeable accessories such as lenses, flashes etcetera. For a camera ‘system’ at the very least lenses must be interchangeable. For lenses to be interchangeable between cameras in the same system, those cameras must use a sensor that fits within the defined minimum image circle of the lenses in that same system or you’ll get significant vignetting.
For that reason sensor size and camera system are very directly related in the sense that a system by definition puts an upper limit to the size of the sensor that can be used in it, and in case of m4/3, it actually defines the diagonal of the active area of a sensor.
You are completely right with regards to the technology, what Olympus and Lumix managed so far with the m4/3 system is of interest to any producer of mirrorless ILCs, but, unless those others adapt both the mount AND the sensor size, they will not be creating a camera compatible with the m4/3 system, and hence one that is not part of that system.
This is all not very interesting to people who buy and then later resell a camera + lens as a kit, and seldom if ever consider buying additional lenses.
Most serious photographers however will invest a lot more in lenses then in the camera body, and to them this matters a lot, since it means they can upgrade camera bodies, get newer technology (sensors etc), while not having to replace their lenses every 2 or so years (and no, unlike manual focus lenses from decades ago, those new lenses won’t last for 25 years, but they will last a lot longer then 2 years).
Hallo bart. Yes, you are correct regarding micro-4/3 as a system. My point was more that micro-4/3 is also about technology and once that technology is perfected, any manufacturer can adapt it to any sensor size and lens mount, even “full frame” Canon EF, Nikon F or Pentax K. You are also absolutely correct regarding the lenses, which is why both Fuji and Sony are after the micro-4/3 technology for their own distinct mounts. Good cameras draw buyers, good lenses keep them in the brand. (I myself am heavily “stuck” with Canon due to my lenses.)
Agree, the technology is most certainly interesting for manufacturers of other systems.