Micro Four Thirds

[boBQuincy]

Someone had a thread on this but it must be buried so far back I couldn't find it. DPReview looked at a sample of the Panasonic G1, the first of these cameras, and the results are very interesting. The size and weight are less than any SLR but that is not the most interesting part since it is only 100g less than a Rebel Xs.

No, what is interesting is the legacy stuff they did not use. The electronic viewfinder can show stopped down depth of field at full brightness! It can also show real-time shutter speed blur, a preview of what we would get at the selected shutter speed. Of course the verdict wil come later as to whether or not this EVF is anywhere near as good as an optical viewfinder but so far DPReview is impressed, and that says a lot!

SLR form and function have changed little since the 70's but the big time camera manufacturers may just have something to worry about this time.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Here's the thread you mentioned.

 

[Groucho]

I dunno. I'm not convinced yet that this is going to be a successful direction for cameras to go. Unless the world is clamoring for a red DSLR. (Forgetting everything else - that's got to take the cake for the ugliest DSLR ever! Gack! Memo to Panasonic - black is beautiful!)

But seriously... right off the bat, there are some problems. This is obviously meant to give DSLR image quality for PnS users. But no movie mode? The LCD is lower quality (half the pixels) than most 3" LCDs being put on DSLRs nowadays? Speaking of the LCD - they're obviously a slave to what's available out there, so they're forced to put a 3:2 LCD on a 4:3 camera? And no sensor-based IS? That means that you need to buy micro-4/3rds lenses in order to get any IS? And naturally, that means an extremely limited selection of lenses, unless you want to pay extra for an adapter and use regular 4/3rds lenses, but without IS? And apparently not all 4/3rds lenses are compatible with contrast AF, so they'll require manual focusing (which IIRC is "by wire", not actually moving the gears yourself)? (The DPReview shows AF with only six lenses at this point.) And is it really a good idea to up the resolution to 12mp? Even the 10mp E3 struggles a little at 1600 ISO compared to just about any other DSLR.

So, a PnS buyer looking at this will see a camera that offers superior image quality but probably reasonably expensive and with very little zoom, relatively speaking. Comparable PnS cameras will go from around 36-430mm in 35mm equivalency while this one goes 28-90mm with the included lens. You also give up some features, like movie mode.

Meanwhile, a DSLR buyer will see a lack of lenses, the extra cost of a 4/3rds adapter, and the pretty limited and expensive selection of 4/3rds lenses (excellent though they may be) and the need to manual focus the vast majority of them. It's too early to say how well the 12mp sensor will work (which may be fine, other manufacturers have bumped up the pixels and improved low-light at the same time, but it's far from guaranteed especially with their smaller sensor), but that may be an issue - and will the design of the lens, which focuses the light in a tighter pattern, be an issue? And is the 4/3rds adapter just a piece of metal or is there glass in there, which would degrade the image? To say nothing of the lack of an optical viewfinder, which is right off the bat a dealbreaker for many DSLR shooters. And, of course, if you start mounting full-size 4/3rds lenses, you lose a lot of the size advantage that the micro 4/3rds system is supposed to provide. The exposure sensor also seems much more likely to pick up dust than on normal DSLRs.

Basically, it seems to me like you give up a lot just to gain a small decrease in overall size and weight, when you're still unavoidably ending up with a camera too big to easily fit in a pocket or small purse. If I were talking to a potential buyer of an Olympus/Panasonic system, I'd have to recommend going with an E420 if they really need a small DSLR, or preferably an E520 for IS, if they can handle going slightly larger.

IMHO, I think they'd do better to just forget the whole interchangable-lens thing and build a decent big-zoom lens (like their upcoming 14-140mm lens) and have it permanently attached. Market it as something above a bridge camera, and make sure it has all the features of a comparable PnS (that means movie mode!) Then you'd have a camera that could fulfill the promise that the Sigma DP1 made and, IMHO, failed to deliver on. It also will not be an issue then that there's no sensor-based IS, few lenses AF, etc.

There was a story in the foreign press recently that Samsung has been working on a comparable mirrorless camera using their 14.6mp sensor (as used in the K20D), we'll see if Photokina has any interesting announcements in this field...?

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Could someone please link the article?

 

[oogieboogieman]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091202panasonic_DMC_G1.asp

 

[bob100]

Could someone please link the article?

just search panasonic G1 or www.dpreview.com

interesting maybe because I've never understood the reason for the pentagon prism and system of mirrors device in a digital world. maybe this means a superzoom camera with telephoto, macro, video, bigger sensor, etc.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

OK, here it is for others who want to read about it.

Hmm, the red is an interesting color, isn't it?

 

[oogieboogieman]

It claims that I can use my existing lenses with the use of an adapter. Some of my lenses would defeat the purpose of this whole idea( my 70-300mm as an example). These lenses are not really small. Maybe I've bought into the wrong system. I hate the idea of the limited amount of lenses that currently out there. While I don't need alot some other choices would sure be nice.

 

[Abby's Dad]

There are those who frequent these parts that have already left the 4/3 system for a more conventional system - you may want to ask their opinion of the 4/3.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

deleted

 

[webshark3]

just search panasonic G1 or www.dpreview.com

interesting maybe because I've never understood the reason for the pentagon prism and system of mirrors device in a digital world.

There are distinct advantages to the mirror system and looking through your lens. I know SLR users have some complaints about m4/3.

I like the direction, but am not convinced by the G1. It's not significantly smaller than a e-420 or pocketable (enough). I'd like to see what Olympus has in store.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

From Photokina, the Panasonic G1.

 

[webshark3]

Right now, the G1 is not that much smaller than the e-420. m4/3 is very interesting, but I'm with Groucho. I'll keep watching closely, but I'll wait for a genration or two.

 

[boBQuincy]

From what information I can gather the micro 4/3 camera is only about 100 grams lighter than a Rebel Xs. That much weight difference is not really significant but giving up the optical viewfinder may be. Can the EVF show the subtleties of rotating a polarizer? Can a new format get much market acceptance against an existing system with 50 available lenses?

I really like small & light but introducing a new format is risky for both the seller and the buyer. I hope it works but I will wait for awhile before buying in.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I have no burning desire to get one anytime soon, but as a 4/3 user already, it's definitely something I'm keeping my eye on. Who knows. Size has always been an important consideration for me. It seems there's a lot of advancements in technology right now that'll be interesting to watch over the next few years.

 

[Groucho]

I touched on this in another thread, but I recently had an experience that colors my perception of what should be possible with this.

We have to go back in history a little. Way back when (1972), Kodak came up with a new film standard, the 110, in order to produce smaller cameras. The 110 is actually pretty similar to today's 4/3rds sensor. A 110 negative is 17x13mm and 4/3rds is 18x13.5mm (the actual imaging area is 17.3x13mm). So, in terms of film vs sensor, they are virtually identical.

Now, the 4/3rds DSLRs out there really aren't all that much smaller than the small competing APS-C DSLRs like the XS, D60, and K2000. The theory is because you still need a decent-size lens and mount for this sensor size. Micro 4/3rds is supposed to help shrink this by getting rid of the big mirror you need.

Well, guess what - all that is just plain wrong! 110 proved that you can build a full-featured SLR, mirror and all, that uses that size film/sensor, and is incredibly, incredibly small.

Most 110 cameras were very cheap PnS models, but one company made a true SLR for it. (Yes, it was Pentax. ) This camera, the Auto 110, had all the features of an SLR of the era, including aperture priority, full mirror box, proper lens selection (w/hoods even), filters, teleconverter, motor drive, flash, etc, and it was all done with high build quality and high optical quality.

I'd seen pictures but only last week got to actually see and play with one in person. Photos don't do it justice - it is tiny. The lens caps are the size of a nickel. It's almost impossibly small. Yes, the viewfinder was small, but manual focusing was almost trivial due to a very nice split-focus focusing screen.

Here's a shot I found of one next to a modern DSLR (from this page.)

Here's a shot of the 24mm F2.8 lens next to a Canadian nickel. (The aperture is actually inside the camera body, so every lens is an F2.8.)

If they could make a proper SLR with mirror this tiny over 30 years ago - why in the world can't a full DSLR with a 4/3rds-size sensor be similarly small? OK, grow it a little to fit AF motors and whatnot - but regardless, a DSLR of a similar size would be almost revolutionary. It would truly be a pocket DSLR and a full selection of lenses could fit in your other pocket.

 

[webshark3]

Hey Groucho,

The main argument is that digital is not film. Light has to fall on digitial sensors just right, hence, we can't have bodies like film. Even within digital, sensors differ. I know my Foveon needs more room so that light hits the sensor straight on.... more room than 4/3.... and 4/3 and Canon etc, need more room than film ever did.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Groucho, have you seen this - interview with Pentax’s Sales & Marketing Director of Imaging Systems, Mr. Toshiaki Iue:

http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/pentax_and_samsung_partnership_not_perfect/

The new Micro Four Thirds standard is seen as both a potential problem but also a potential opportunity. Panasonic’s Lumix DMC-G1 is seen as a direct challenge to Pentax’s entry-level DSLRs, undercutting the new Pentax K-m in size if not price. On the other hand, Mr Iue believes that “the G1 could open up a new market which will help Pentax and the industry as a whole”, a sentiment which has also been echoed by Olympus and Sony in our Photokina meetings. Mr Iue went on to comment that Pentax are very open-minded about the possibility of joining the Micro Four Thirds system, with the company free to join any system that they like at the present time.

 

[Groucho]

webshark3, I'm not sure if that convinces me in any way, after all, all the non-4/3rds DSLRs happily take film lenses and put the image on a sensor that's in the same location as film is in a film camera.

Pea-n-me, I've seen that quote though not the rest of the article. I don't think I would consider the Panasonic to be a competitor of the K2000 (aka K-m in non-US locations), it's more competing with the Canon XS, Nikon D60, and Olympus E420. The Panasonic is IMHO more like a PnS with swappable lenses than a traditional DSLR. (Are DSLRs old enough to be traditional yet? )

I would venture to guess that the chances of Pentax producing micro-4/3rds lenses are somewhere between slim and none, probably a lot closer to none. I can't imagine any possible reason why they'd want to do such a thing. That would be like Canon producing lenses in the Nikon mount. They'd have to release their own micro 4/3rds camera, and I'd quite sure that it would go over very poorly in the Pentax community if they spent any time whatsoever working on a such a project.

I have heard rumors that Samsung is working on a comparable camera using the K20D's 14.6 mp sensor. I don't know if it's true or not - but with nothing available yet, the market for such cameras is wide open, and I would think that if they were able to make it a comparable size and weight and price, it would have a very good chance at success, with the larger sensor.

For me, I'm just not interested in a little shrinking here and a little shrinking there. The difference in size between the smallest DSLRs now is fairly slight. Come up with a new design that is really, really, really small, and maybe you'll get my attention - but I still want a real viewfinder, not a digital one. IMHO, the micro 4/3rds setup would be better served by making it with a single fixed lens, as small as possible - a PnS with a DSLR sensor.

 

[webshark3]

I'll find the articles. Light hits film differnt from sensors. Sensors require the light to ocme in straight, si the bodies are bigger, allowing for more distance. The lens isn't the issue....