EosHD (Click here) published an Interview with Yoshiyuki Inoue, Senior Engineering Planner for the Panasonic GH3. Some info:
– still difficult to make global shutter
– Now the priority is primes.
– About the AG-Af100: “ that camera once was popular, but at this time not as popular.”
– Full Frame: “I think it is possible with our technology, but we have to have MANY discussions on how to sell a mirrorless full frame camera.”
Onfoto (Click here) posted an Interview with Toshiyuki Terada, Product Planning, Olympus Imaging Corporation. Some info:
– With the OMD series there is the possibiliy to creat both a lower and higher than E-M5 model.
– When asked if there will be a MFT version of the [shoplink 23681 ebay]12-60mm FT lens[/shoplink] he said nothing specific at the moment.”
– “we need m43 teleconverters for sure“.
– “we will have new EVFs that should satisfy even the most critical photographers.
Editor’s note: Panasonic stated many times during Photokina that they want to be competitive in the PRO market. But I doubt they will go FF any time soon! About Olympus EVF. I told you weeks ago that there is some strange rumor about a new kind of EVF. I hope to get some more details soon. But this secret product should arrive relatively soon…with the end fo the year!
—
Panasonic and Olympus Preorder Links with specs and price:
Special GH3 page at Amazon (Click here) and a full Olympus presentation page at Amazon (Click here).
GH3 at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here) and in Europe at Wexphotographic UK (horrible price in UK!).
35-100mm X lens at Amazon (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here).
E-PL5 at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here). In EU at Amazon Germany, Amazon UK, Amazon France,
E-PM2 at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here). In EU at Amazon Germany, Amazon UK, Amazon France,
XZ-2 at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here).
60mm macro at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here).
12mm Black prime lens at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here).
15mm cap-lens at Adorama (Click here).
74 Responses
Would be interesting to see a mirrorless FF from Panasonic but the lenses are an important issue.
The EOSHD interview was fantastic. He asked some really great questions and showed a great understanding of what is important in the GH3. That was a great interview unlike some of the other GH3 interviews that I have seen.
If Panasonic goes FF, it won’t be m4/3 and would require an entirely different lens line-up. Yes, it’s possible but it won’t happen anytime soon. They’ll pretty much have to collaborate with Leica and just use the M-mount line-up if they don’t want to start from scratch.
+1 for the M mount, like Ricoh did.
Another vote for the Leica M mount!
I really don’t see it, though.
so… still no news about this damn nice whatevercamera that would better handle our beloved top-pro 4/3 lenses?
no new converter either?
the next priority is new teleconverters for m43 system…???? and who on earth would use them right now? we don’t seem to have plenty of FAST lenses right now, am i wrong?!
or maybe we should use a 2x tc on the new 35-100? to get what a weathersealed 60-200? wouldnät it be much cheaper to buy a 50-200? which would be even faster at 50-60mm end… or maybe with 100-300 to have a 200-600 f8-12..? :S
i don’t need any tc, nor 1,4x neither 2x. i don’t have the same urge i had with 4/3 system.
i’d love longer focal, that’s for sure. but now i’d be satisfied with being able to use my beloved 50-500 and 300 f2,8!
My note: Cannot see the connection between PRO and FF.
If we talk by 3-5 year, is maybe Pro43 VS ProFF true same IQ. 😀
FF will always be better than the same generation of tech in a smaller sensor common sense . Now ,mFT may be “good enough” for the purpose you have in mind but that’s not the same. The major advantage of mFT to me is portability size and weight , as the products move up through the quality grades , I think we will inevitably see larger heavier products. The Panasonic 12-35 is a good example of how many compromises you need to make to keep a lens small and fastish it uses quite a bit of software correction.
Maybe. 35mmFF will be better on paper pure tech sheet talk, but in practice. Maybe if you need über big prints, but for normal poster size m43 is not any less.
So the “much” better of 35mmFF might be irrelevant.
Today’s use of Medium format and FullFrame are also very niche area.
35mmFF will prob not go away.
To be a bit more serious: a system is PRO due to its high quality, bright lenses, rather than sensor size.
Technology now available gives better IQ on bigger sensors. It is very simple truth. People usually do not realize that a sharper lens on a smaller sensor can resolve the same than a less sharp lens on a larger sensor.
> resolve the same than a less sharp lens on a larger sensor.
That lens still needs to be bigger because of having longer focal length and need to have bigger image circle.
A bigger sensor can use its larger surface area in a number of ways to get a higher quality image then a smaller sensor based on the same level of technology, that will essentially always be true.
However, as technology progresses, the practical value of that quality difference will be come ever smaller because the situations in which the difference is actually useful will become more extreme and rare.
Consequently, there will always be some size above which the improvement in quality will be irrelevant unless you also happen to have something like the keck telescope around.
And that size will decrease as technology progresses.
Add that smaller components, sensors included, are more economical to produce and operate, and its unlikely ‘full frame’ is where we are heading on the longer term.
Basic physics is against you I am afraid. People, stop talking rubbish and learn the basics. Hint: depth of field. Hint: magnification ratio.
Negative!
Hint: a faster lens with a smaller sensor has the same IQ the a slower lens on a bigger sensor.
Actually, the same absolute diameter of the aperture (in millimeters, NOT F-stops!) the same IQ, regardless of the sensor size.
Obviously a given absoulte aperture diameter means bigger F-stop on smaller sensor and viceversa.
> depth of field.
Even APS-C can have problems with too thin DOF.
> magnification ratio.
And that makes also 35mm useless. After all it was only small film format!
Smallest one in which analog tech could perform well enough in image resolution and sensitivity…
@ab your post is typical fanboy BS the only area where FF lenses can be considered at an disadvantge are at DOF levels where mFT cannot even go. Complaining about the extreme corners of a FF image at F1.4 is rather moot when there are no F0.7 lenses for mFT.
As an ownwer of both mFT {O-MD/GH2 } and FF { D4/D800} your claims about the O-MD being as good as the D3/D3s are inane.Too much time listening to fellow fanboys on DPreview. If you are going to shoot in controlled situations { which carrying 4 flashguns suggests} you could just as get away with using the likes of the Sony R100.FF is a niche item and it is at the extremes it earns its keep.Speaking as a professional cameras and any other gear justify their costs many times over.
If you shoot in anything approaching poor light mFT is not for you, If you shoot moving subjects mFT is not for you, if you want high resolution mFT isn’t for you, if you want to control DOF mFT isn’t for you. If you want best DR , best noise performance , best resolution, best tonality MFT isn’t for you. Now if you want a lighter system with poorer image quality you got it mFT is for you.
The “ONLY” advantage of mFT is its small size and once you start carrying two bodies half a dozen lenses , a box of flashes etc you need a case anyway , I am extravagant and splashed out on a case with wheels . You can whine all you want but that is the truth of it sure you can have smaller { thanks in part to a selection of slow { both relitivly and actually} ,software corrected lenses
You are so right. I am glad somebody with actual experience posts here, it’s time to piss off the marketing sods and regain our role as consumers.
Thank you
Just as there is no need for m4/3 fanboyism, there is no need for ‘full frame’ fanboyism, and you are totally guilty of the later.
First of all ‘full frame’ is a marketing name, suggesting that anything else somehow isn’t ‘full’. Well, in reality ‘full frame’ was the smallest acceptable film format, was NEVER EVER about the best quality, but was always about the best compromise between size and quality. If you want to get rid of the marketing bullshit, there is your first and most important target.
There are bigger formats that can give better DOF control, resolution and dynamic range, so even today it is not ‘the best DR’ or ‘the best resolution’, it is a compromise.
m4/3 provides decent DOF control, but less good then what 135 format can provide. It provides pretty decent low-light performance tho also less good then 135 format can provide. Thats all relative, and neither format is the best or the worst system available in those aspects, rather, both are slightly different compromises.
Your way of thinking and talking in absolutes is moronic and showing you are just as big a fanboy as those whom you are talking to.
“we will have new EVF technology”
And so will everyone else.
But , the Olympus EVF will be epoch making lol which apparently in the E-M5 meant we will have the exact same Epson EVF as everyone else but a better refresh rate
I don’t see the Global Shutter as such an emergent priority.
Electronic shutter is already doing a good service. It already enables silent shooting with ZERO vibration.
The only advantage that I can think of from a global shutter would be in video for those crazy pan freaks.
Global shutter would allow synching strobe at any shutter speed, which would be a major benefit. Electronic shutter eliminates shutter shock, but doesn’t allow strobe use.
Global shutter, like electronic shutter, eliminates mechanical shutter failure.
I dont see this happening any time soon.
Maybe they will eventualy do a FF high res camera that uses a fixed 24mm f2 lens and rest of the range is done via smart digital zoom and computer generated DOF control.
Well maybe them will make 35mm Pro video camera like Sony, but them can use old 43 mount, if M43 mount is too small. 😉
The new evf of Epson could be integrated in a smaller body, soon. I think we´ll see it in an E-P5. The P3 isn´t selling very well and there´s a lack of 600 euros between the M5 and PL5 kits.
And the Sony NEX6 is a strong competitor. Oly has to close the gap!
Admin, any new hints about integrated evf in the PEN range ? are the EPM2 AND EPL5 our only options if the EM5 doesn’t attract us ?
Working on it. As soon as I can I will post something!
Huh. If only they come out with detachable hi-res state-of-the-art VF for current PENs! For reasonable money though 🙂
Enough with the detachable EVFs, we need an integrated EVF like in the NEX6 and XE-1.
I would like to see an external hybrid OVF/EVF.
It could have an info overly for the OVF like the Fuji viewfinders but the OVF would only be practical for shorter focal lengths.
Personally, I find the Fuji hybrid VF an interesting concept, but unusable in practice.
What will adriaantie’s reaction be to an 24mm x 36mm Panasonic digital camera I wonder? Will he be the first in line to purchase one?
People are so hung up on sensor size it’s ridiculous. I am completely happy with m4/3.. If there’s any increase at all in the future I hope it’s to Super 35mm not 35mm FF.. For me as someone who is more interested in video the FF sensor has nowhere near the benefit to justify what the cost would be.. You’re snapshots are still going to look like snapshots people.. If you’re not taking snapshots and it’s for serious work go buy a DSLR, if you’re wanting to use a small compact camera for professional work then.. lol. There is no reason to need a FF sensor in a compact body.
>inb4 a list of “improvements” a FF sensor offers over a 4/3 sensor
>inb4 people talk as if the outstanding results you could get from the LST generation of cameras isn’t good enough and they desperately need FF
FF sensor? No thx.
Your sentiment resonates with me somewhat, but at the end of the day, I think professionals in the narrative world will gravitate towards the larger sensor just because it gives them more flexibility under a lot more conditions. I’ve worked on projects that started out being shot on an AF101 for the pilot / sizzle reel, but when it came to actually shooting the season, moved up to something a bit “more professional”.
Then there is Sony… they’ve done it in the form of the RX1 for a fixed frame camera and the VG900 in handycam format, there’s no question in my mind between m43 or Sony, that I’d go with the Sony even though it is about triple the price. Super35… that would be a good reason to change my mind for video certainly, I’ve always liked the half frame size of that format and think it makes a lot of sense for video work, especially if it retains an economic competitiveness with Sony’s full frame lineup.
+1 : I do not need bigger sensor …
– Keep the lenses small and light : that is one great strength
– Continue gently increasing the body size lineup with…
– small bodies for mummies and…
– bigger DSLR bodies for semi-pros and…
– medium rangefinder like bodies for people like me !
Why are Panasonic talking about FF? What a bunch of twaddle.
Great news! MFT cameras are ALREADY “full frame.”!! They use sensors that are the FULL Four Thirds frame size!!! Just think how much better your pictures will be, how much more money you’ll make, and how much more popular you’ll be with your preferred sex now that you know that your camera’s sensor is FULL of FULL-FRAME FULLNESS!!!
Meanwhile, though, the Olympus remark about better EVFs is genuinely promising. The E-M 5 has been my primary camera for months. I’ve adjusted to most of its idiosyncracies — except the EVF. It’s only borderline acceptable at best. It doesn’t offer enough detail for sure manual focusing (unless you use the magnifier), and the blackout time between shots is too long for confident action photography.
So far there haven’t been a lot of alternatives. The sequential EVF in the Panasonic GH2 has better detail and shorter blackout, but many people don’t like the “tearing” effect sometimes seen on moving objects. (I notice the GH3 has switched to an OLED.) And while lots of people have praised the brightness and detail of the OLED on the Sony NEX-7, some of us feel it doesn’t have enough eye relief for eyeglasses wearers.
So if Olympus really has some big secret improvement in the pipeline, that’s very good news… and possibly a very good reason to stay with Micro Four Thirds rather than jumping ship to a competing mirrorless format.
> while lots of people have praised the brightness and detail of the OLED on the Sony NEX-7, some of us feel it doesn’t have enough eye relief for eyeglasses wearers.
Try SLT-A77 which has exactly same OLED display component.
Question is about NEX-7’s viewfinder having been crammed into too small space. That forces small size of viewfinder’s optics, leading to small eye relief/image size forcing cramming eye close to it.
What I can draw from this interview is a lot of inconsistencies both from panasonic and olympus….on panasonic side the discontinuation of AG-AF-100 show us how the panasonic commitment to create pro and semi-pro camera is very doubtful. On Olympus side the unclear plan of creating the lower or higher line over EM-5 showing that Olympus still playing wait and see….for me they still don’t have plan wether making Pro OM-D or keeping the E-Px line alive.
I find this whole thing with the lack of a E-P5, and the possibility of a “secret new EVF product by end of this year”, very frustrating.
The PL5 can be seen as a pretty lazy effort. They added a new sensor, but kept a lot of old tech.
One of the nice things about the E-M5 was that you were buying something where everything on it felt up to date. With the PEN line, we are still buying a camera that is half built out of outdated technology.
And it feels like they did this on purpose, so they could leave a lot of room between the E-PL5 and the E-M5.
Now it could be that they left the gap between the PL5 and the EM5 because they want to slot in a top-end E-P5 when they get the inbuilt viewfinder working (the new tech from Epson), which would be consistent with Admin’s “strange rumor about a new kind of EVF. …secret product should arrive …end fo the year!
This leaves some of us contemplating buying a product (the PL5) that doesn’t really fulfil their desires (no control wheels, no EVF, low res screen) and wondering if there’s a chance the camera they do want (PL5 with inbuilt viewfinder) will be released in a few short months.
Put it this way. If a E-P5 were released in less than 6 months, it would be a pretty shabby way of treating loyal customers. There’s a lot of nice alternatives popping up in the landscape.
“About Olympus EVF. I told you weeks ago that there is some strange rumor about a new kind of EVF. I hope to get some more details soon. But this secret product should arrive relatively soon…[by] the end [of] the year!”
I like the sound of that — sounds like the Oly pro camera!
no 12-60 is a mistake, there is no high quality olympus m43 zoom to go with E-M5 !! the 12-50 f3.5-6.3 is slow and not very good. the 43 12-60 is too big with adaptor and doesn’t focus well. However, I’m happy to have taken the decision not to wait for a good 12-60 (or 12-50) f2.8-4 and to have bought the pana 12-35 f2.8.
“I think it is possible with our technology, but we have to have MANY discussions on how to sell a mirrorless full frame camera.”
In other words…our technology is not as advanced as Sony’s. If Sony can do it, why cannot Panasonic?
I’m really looking forward to HQ Oly zooms. Its high time Oly started focussing on that.
Man, you must be very unoccupied to spend your time trolling on a website for gear you don’t care about and you don’t like… Forget m43, go out and take some pictures !
This sounds like a warning. Better not buy anymore M4/3 stuff, as Panasonic is likely to just drop the whole deal and move off in yet another direction, leaving it’s customers holding another bag of obsolete lenses. This is what happens when you deal with scatterbrains, with no memory of who puts the rice on their table.
Don’t be so pessimistic. There’s still 2-3 years before Panoly invent Nano 4/3 and move there. I’m quite confident we’ll have lovely microscopic f/7.1-16 zooms for that format!
You are right this is the way to go. They may eventually invent the system for mobile phones that will also support 4/3 SHG lenses 😉
I don’t see any reason in principle why Panasonic (or anybody else) could not launch a FF mirrorless. History tends to suggest that if something can be made in Europe, it can probably be made somewhere else at a lower price.
If they got the flange back distance slightly shorter than that of the Leica M system, they could make provision to use a new mount with AF, while adpators would enable the use of M mount lenses (and possibly Contax G system lenses) with their full intended angle of view.
Personally I would find such a camera (presuming it could be made for about £2000) a rather more tempting proposition than a FF dslr. This price is key of course, but I suspect that an EVF based camera would be cheaper to make than one with the combination of the rangefinder and bright line viewfinders in the Leica M9. I also suspect that if the Leica M9 was made by anybody else, it would be rather less expensive.
“we need m43 teleconverters for sure”
It is necessary, expecially x2 teleconventer.
With 75/1.8 it will give 150/3.5, only 0,5EV slower then planned Panasonic 150/2.8. Smaller, cheaper, if teleconventer will be with high quality, image shold be good.
And also with 60/2.8 macro teleconventer x2 will be very useful for macro.
“we need m43 teleconverters for sure”
It is necessary, expecially x2 teleconventer.
With 75/1.8 it will give 150/3.5, only 0,5EV slower then planned Panasonic 150/2.8. Smaller, cheaper, if teleconventer will be with high quality, image shold be good.
And also with 60/2.8 macro teleconventer x2 will be very useful for macro.
I’m surprised that you ever said “hallo m43”.
Good comment 🙂 😉
Time for Oly to bring out the E-R1 considering the competition from RX-1 and X-E1.
If Leica would bring out a digital CLE, Oly might be the one that does the EVF or even build the thing all together instead of Pana.
The Leica branded Oly VF-2 is $300 more for the same thing.
Hmm.. interesting idea.. Leica releasing a digital CLE, built by Olympus.. and Olympus releasing a digital CL… which will be similar, compatible, and technologically about a decade or 2 ahead of the Leica, yet much cheaper?
One can dream!
EOSHD: Is it a Panasonic sensor? So it is not a Sony sensor?
Inoue: Ah no comment!
EOSHD: Because I noticed this is a standard four thirds sensor, because the GH2 had a multi-aspect ratio sensor. The GH3, does that have multi-aspect ratio sensor?
Inoue: This is a priority for imaging quality, our big priority is keeping that image sensor quality.
Such a no answer to a simple question?
Clearly GH3 has a Sony sensor. Otherwise there would be no such quibbling
If the GH3 does have a Sony sensor it would seem that Panasonic have finaly accepted they do not have the technology to make a sensor that is acceptable to the serious photographer.
Good god you guys are as dumb as dirt . let me guess Olympus users right lol . Panasonic would never use Sony sensors
I’ve said it before. m43’s future is decidedly cloudy. It’s very good now, but if other players decide that they can finally take marketshare by making a FF mirrorless, the momentum will shift pretty fast. To beat Canikon, you gotta make an exciting product with a large sensor. I bet in 2 years, we will see Sony and Fuji with FF mirrorless. That will force Canon’s and Nikon’s hand, and they’ll likely have to cannibalize their DSLR and make a FF mirrorless. No, you don’t want to put a big long tele zoom on a camera like that, but Leica M do fine without those types of lenses. 100mm and below are good for CSC cameras. Above that, DSLRs will still be around.
The problems with using longer lenses has been a very significant issue for Leica M, and is one of the relevant factors in why rangefinders have been replaced as the primary type of camera for many uses (the issue is not specific to the M mount cameras). It resulted in various attempts to address the issue, and is part of what forced Leica into the SLR market.
That there is a niche market for $7000 cameras that are very nice for the applications that they are really good at doesn’t at all change that.
There is no reason for DSLRs to stay around once a few remaining technical issues are resolved, specifically continuous focus. Flapping mirrors are shake-introducing mechanical devices that are both expensive to make well, and prone to failure.
Not all mirrorless cameras will be compact, and the advantages of not having a mirror aren’t about size only.
Deal with it, DSLRs will go the way of the TLR, some will use them for specific applications, but they’ll become a curiosity mostly in due time.
@BART You are one of the most biased posters here. The facts are that 99.9% of the worlds professional photographers do not and never will use mFT gear. There is little doubt that mirrorless is the future but just as with current tech any future tech will retain the same advantage of performance to FF and size to MFT. Not everyone cares about size, much as I appreciate the smaller kit sizes of mFT gear and I use it for travel and social photography. I am glad that the GH3 appears a little larger as I appreciate the improved ergonomics. As Sony have demonstrated both APS and now FF can be implemented in a mirrorless system.
The reasons why Canon and Nikon dominate the high end pro market are many one of the major being a true worldwide support network for its users. Olympus is closing repair centres left right and centre and I have never heard of a Panasonic pro support set up. I think that high end niche products such as FF will remain as they offer an excellent balance of price,quality and size/weight compared to the very limited MF systems . I feel that as the system develops the one inch sensor as used by Nikon and now Sony could well be at the forefront of replacing all low end mFT ,Nex and DSLR gear. The first gen Nikon, already delivered quality that matches the12mp mFT sensor along with the best AF solution in any mirrorless, now with Sony entering the one inch sensor market this could eveolve to be a very capable system with the potential for much smaller lenses.
I would not rule out a possible future where FF replaces MF for most areas, and a smaller system like the one inch range could dominate the lower end. Imagine a second or third gen Sony sensor in a Nikon body with 3rd gen tech . That 2.7x multiplier could be a real winner for nature photographers , the 85mm F1.4G lens which I have used on a V1 { not mine } with very good results works in effect as an 230mm a 135mm becomes a 364mm and a 200mm becomes a 540mm , heck even a humble 50mm becomes a 135mm
And you aren’t biased and distorting?
35mm wasn’t any magical full frame in film era and neither it is now nothing but crop frame compared to medium format.
So how about using correct name: 35mm or 135
> The first gen Nikon, already delivered quality that matches the12mp mFT sensor
Distortive sampling to compare to four years old sensor with low performance already when new.
So let’s compare Nikon D60 to Olympus E-M5. Well, Dpreview’s comparison tool doesn’t have such antique in its database so we have to settle for newer D300s being beaten.
So looks like also APS-C is dead format, bummer!
After all that’s not unfair comparison of formats…
Transition from analog film to digital has definitely moved formats upwards in use compared to size: APS-C has taken place as de facto standard used by huge majority and pushed 35mm to minority medium formats were in film SLRs, with medium format’s share shrinking further.
Sure there can be smaller formats replacing digicompacts but their performance will be below 4/3 for same tech. (+where’s shallower DOF being better now?)
With digital tech 4/3’s resolution and especially sensitivity is well above 35mm film. So actually mirrorless 4/3 has good chance for becoming reasonably big market share system with bodies from simple compacts to high end controls and ergonomics bodies.
That kind competition is surely something what Canikon doesn’t want when their main systems are film era legacy based.
Maybe that’s why you and many others are hostile for 4/3?
Huh? It was never ever in doubt that it was possible to put a ‘full frame’ sensor in a mirrorless body.
Beyond that, you simply sound just like all the ‘pros’ from the film era who were proclaiming how 135 format (you know, the size you are wrongly calling by its marketing bullshit name ‘full frame’) was an amateur format and couldn’t be taken seriously.
Yes, there will always be a niche for larger formats, but for general purpose photography, professional or otherwise, the need for ‘full frame’ will disappear. That is a simple matter of technological development and economics, and there is the entire history of photography to prove the point, the most economic format that can provide the required quality will be what gets used most, professional or otherwise.
That can indeed be 1″, or 4/3″ or..
There are technical reasons, both relating to optics and electronics that make 1″ at the brink of being too small, and 135 format needlessly large, for most general purpose photography while 4/3″ and APS-C are both close to an ideal compromise when it comes to image quality and control that is technically possible. Make things much smaller and diffraction becomes a very serious enemy.
Make a poll:
1) I would you buy Panasonic FF (given short flange focal distance allowing mounting any FF lens via adapter on it)
2) I wouldnt buy Panasonic FF
I know my answer, and when first mirrorless FF (reasonably priced, eg. not Leica “M” level) hit market, Im going to buy it. And dont care much who will make it. If it will be Panasonic, good. But I wont cry if it will be Sony or Olympus (or anyone else).
2. no desire to ever carry around full frame lenses.
No better mFT zooms from Olympus until next summer and I will sell my Oly equipment and buy a Fuji.
I love all this talk of FF mirrorless cameras 🙂
The only area where a bigger sensor changes anything is with fast optics and for DoF effects.
However to gain that benefit you use primes, or expensive zooms.
The 2 stop sensor size difference was more than made up for with me by the better performance across the frame when shooting wide open. My Sony a850 and 50mm f1.4 was barely usable outside the central third wide open, giving no real IQ benefit over a m43rds Camera.
This can be said for a lot of FF optics knocking around. So, one might argue you can stop it down and achieve the name noise and DoF of 43rds… So….. I have just made a $3000 body perform like a sub $1000 body…
Why does this matter? Well as a working photographer, and owner of a design studio, a lot of my work is used commercially. If I am on location shooting for a clients brochure, or catalogue in ambient light, I dont want to have to worry about things being framed off center! I need space in my image frame for text, or headings… so often my subject isn’t central and succumbs to bad off centre lens performance.
The RX1 seems nice, but it is $2700, so, put a mount on that baby, and you have your FF mirrorless concept for $2700 (or a bit more). Compared to my OMD, I could get the OMD, 17mm f0.95, 25mm and 45mm for around that price… Why would I want to?
I think too many “professionals” say they need far too much… and too many people online listen to them.
I would prefer to buy the 25mm f0.95, or the 17mm f0.95 if i needed specific wide or normal limited DoF, rather than buy a 5Dm111/a99/d800 and their nifty 50s. Why?
Firstly, that is a one time cost (the lens), the FF bodies continue to be more than a thousand dollars more than the OMD
Secondly, 43rds and m43rds offers some stunning options for lenses and bodies. Both for video and for stills.
Thirdly, a size range. I love that the GH3 is a bit bigger, if i thouht a client needed to see a big black body, I can bring that, if I am travelling light for a shoot, with a backpack and a messenger camera bag I can carry 2 bodies, 6 lenses, 3 FL50rs, 1 FL36r, 2 stands, 2 gorrila pods, reflectors, gels, triggers, meter, batteries, chargers etc. The messenger bag carries my cameras, and everything else going in/on the backpack. That backpack used to just carry my FF gear.
The OMD (and most likely the GH3) represent IQ on level with the D3 (and slightly behind the D3s and D4) while being smaller lighter and cheaper. Do you know how revolutionary those cameras were and how much they cost? People replaced a D3 with a D4 spent a total of $10,000 or more… while I have had the E-3 + EPL2 + OMD for $3300… I could have gotten an E-5 and still would be half the price of the nikon bodies…
I will concede there are some areas (sports, BIF, windowless churches at night) where it may not be best, but again they represent an area of improvement in the last bodies, and in a year or two I imagine they will continue to improve.
So if you need perfect CAF for now m43rds isnt for you, if you need 36mp, m43rds isnt for you. Beyond that I dont see the problem… No tilt and Shift? Focus stack and process, more DR, bracket and process, less noise? stack or selectively do NR… Its not perfect but it is pretty darn good for its price, and its convenience BOTH for amateurs and professionals.
Ab
“No better mFT zooms from Olympus until next summer and I will sell my Oly equipment and buy a Fuji.”
Just do it now. Fuji has a single zoom lens, buy it and see how you go.
Fuji have zoom f/2.8-4, therefore such is necessary in micro43.
Expensive Panasonic 12-35/2.8 is not direct competition – expensive, and not so much good quality.
Micro42 needs something like 4/3 combo: 14-54/2.8-3.5 and 50-200/2.8-3.5, but smaller version, suitable for micro-body. Maybe 13-40/2.8-3.5 and 70-200/4? For users of such zooms will be still place for 45/1.8 and 75/1.8.
Old 14-54/2.8-3.5 was good and not expensive, and fast.
New should be colapsable, but have quality similar.
Fuji have zoom f/2.8-4, therefore such is necessary in micro43.
Expensive Panasonic 12-35/2.8 is not direct competition – expensive, and not so much good quality.
Micro42 needs something like 4/3 combo: 14-54/2.8-3.5 and 50-200/2.8-3.5, but smaller version, suitable for micro-body. Maybe 13-40/2.8-3.5 and 70-200/4? For users of such zooms will be still place for 45/1.8 and 75/1.8.
Old 14-54/2.8-3.5 was good and not expensive, and fast.
New should be colapsable, but have quality similar.
For portability there M43 which is good enough for most uses. If ultimate image quality is needed where size and weight are no issue then why not go for bigger than FF sensor, something in the vein of Pentax 645D or Leica S? It will be hard for Panny and Oly go it alone. IMO it will be beneficial for both Oly and Panny to strike a deal with Leica to use the Leica S mount for their larger sensor cameras. Sharing the S mount means that they do not have to start anew and will have a larger user base than is possible if they were to go it alone. For Leica this leads to greater user acceptance for the S mount. This can only be a win-win situation for all three of them. Aside from this, I hope Leica will reconsider filling the gap between FF and compact with M43 offerings.
HAHAHAHAHA,I’ll be Full frame alraight, 43 fullframe. LOL