Wishes for 10 years on from the birth of mirrorless

[jonpais]

@kye The micro four thirds system, jointly developed by Olympus and Panasonic, had little to do with image quality and everything to do with smaller bodies and shorter flange distances allowing for smaller lenses.

Yet body sizes have continued to grow and prices have risen astronomically as the compact system market has shrunk and manufacturers have had to move factories to Thailand, Vietnam and China to remain competitive. 

Ironically, flagship APSC and FF sensor cameras promising better lowlight performance, greater dynamic range and higher resolution are now more compact and substantially less expensive than flagship MFT models.

Fuji already sells eminently pocketable primes for its X-mount lineup and it is hoped that Sony follows suit. As sensor technology has progressed, there is no longer a pressing need for mammoth FF f/1.4 glass, for video anyhow. For otherwise excellent cinema cameras that struggle in low light, there is an assortment of T1.5 primes to choose from.

On the other hand, since I almost exclusively use primes, I don’t share the same feeling that even faster m43 zooms are the answer. 

And as I’ve said before, it took me a couple of days to round out my Fuji and Sony kits, whereas it has taken me years of research and selecting among an assorted ragtag of lenses for the much more mature Panasonic system. 

I’d have to agree that Panasonic’s got to explore s35mm.

 

[Robert Collins]

Seems to me Panasonic are treading increasingly precariously on shaky ground. A lot of their decision making seems to be dubious to me. One example is their tepid follow up to the LX100 (described by DPR has 'possibly the best compact camera ever made'). Another would be the GH5s which took away Panasonic's class leadiing ibis and didnt resolve their video af problems. Once you take away ibis and admit that Panasonic's cant really video af you might as well buy a BMPCC 4k with its fatter codecs and bitrates at a lower price. So Panasonic ends up being squeezed by Sony at the 'techy' end of video that the likes of Black Magic at the 'Cinema' end of video. 

[jonpais]

@kye I could also play the devil's advocate and point out that micro four thirds is in fact only one full stop behind if instead of relying on FF as our benchmark, we take the more common s35mm (APSC) sensor as our gold standard. 

[sanveer]

9 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

I always think that when M43 users see the need for extremely fast, large, heavy and expensive lenses, they are missing the point. BTW, the Zuiko 35-100 f2 weighs 1.65kg which is more than the Sony 70-200 2.8 GM. You see what you are really asking for is a bigger sensor....

https://camerasize.com/compact/#482.460,777.639,ha,t

Only specialised zooms. I still believe there is a need for very fast zooms. And a lot of Olympus lenses are larger than their Panasonic counterparts. Even then, there is a need for zoomm, that makes up for the smaller sensor.  

[BTM_Pix]

6 hours ago, kye said:

Is this an argument? I thought it was a debate  

Absolutely, I was just clarifying in case any unintended tone might have been coming across in my replies.

6 hours ago, kye said:

I was assuming that adapting lenses was something that the pros weren't that into, but maybe that's not the case.  I know that the photography youtubers all went to Sony and adapted their Canon glass and then abandoned it, and I thought the GH5 adoptees also adapted and then abandoned them too, but these might all be AF related.

It was the availability of adapters that allowed a lot of people to dip their toe in the water with Sony in the first place though as they already had Canon glass which meant they didn't have to throw the baby out with the bath water and could also use Canon glass to fill the gaps in the Sony lens lineup which are still not completely filled even today.

There are also still plenty of Sony A7 cameras of various models with M mount adapters permanently attached to them to enable people to use them as a (much) lower cost alternative to Leica M and latterly SL cameras.

As far as the GH5 is concerned, I'd venture that for every youtuber posting "hey guys, whats happening, lets check out the face detect AF as I am sashaying towards the camera and appearing from below frame" videos, there are probably at least 3 other people using it with adapted (probably vintage) glass on it who would probably struggle to tell you where the AF settings where in the menu because that is the heritage of the GH line.

I will also venture to say that the adapter as weakness rather than opportunity issue will suddenly be put on the back burner by a lot of people when the BM Pocket 4K finally appears....

If you don't mind, I'm going to clip together a few lines from your posts because I'm getting a bit confused about your position over it so thought I'd clarify mine against those.

14 hours ago, kye said:

I think it's the lenses on MFT that are the biggest limitation.

6 hours ago, kye said:

I think that m43 has no fundamental limitations to its potential.

6 hours ago, kye said:

The only fundamental thing that m43 has against it is that a smaller sensor gathers less light.

6 hours ago, kye said:

I'm not saying that the lens lineup stops the current users from using it, I'm saying it's a limitation of the format taking over the entire industry.

I'm reading that as you saying that

1. The lenses are the limitation of MFT
2. That there are no fundamental limitations of MFT
3. That the sensor is a fundamental limitation of MFT
4. That the lenses are the limitation of MFT.

I disagree with 1, 2 and 4. In the case of 4, primarily because 3 trumps everything and also because I don't even think Panasonic and Olympus in their wildest dreams ever thought it had a shot of taking over the entire industry.  

As per my example with the PL lenses, it is everything behind the lens that would negate their use so I agree with 3 for that specific context and quite a few others but it still does have its place.

I'm more than happy to agree to disagree and leave it there though mate  

[Shirozina]

13 hours ago, jonpais said:

I merely said that his assertion was unsupported by the facts - meaning that he hasn’t brought any evidence to the table to back up his claims.

That is a perfectly reasonable argument to make.

I did not say he isn’t entitled to his own opinion.

However, when he says that one codec has significantly (demonstrably, vastly, substantially, etc.) nicer tonal transitions than another, that implies that the difference should be readily discernible by a casual observer.

I dispute his claim. 

Click on image to enlarge.

The GH5 internal codec is technically superior to the the Sony one as it has more bit depth, more chroma subsampling and a higher bitrate which gives the end user substantially more room for tonal and colour changes in post production and makes capture with a LOG or HLG gamma profile a practical proposition with non of the problems this has with the Sony internal one. I don't care about your sample image (which demonstrates what exactly?) and am only concerned how my footage looks and having shot quite a lot with both codecs I know what I prefer. The Sony sensor has advantages ( DR and high ISO for eg) and in stills ( RAW) the Sony is better but it's held back in video by it's poor internal codec which is also evidenced by how much better it behaves when you use an external recorder and can improve the bitrate and chroma subsampling. 

[sanveer]

12 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

I'm reading that as you saying that

1. The lenses are the limitation of MFT
2. That there are no fundamental limitations of MFT
3. That the sensor is a fundamental limitation of MFT
4. That the lenses are the limitation of MFT.

?????????

[BTM_Pix]

39 minutes ago, sanveer said:

Even then, there is a need for a zoo, that makes up for the smaller sensor.  

Maybe this one is more to scale

[sanveer]

Just now, BTM_Pix said:

Maybe this one is more to scale

Hahaha. My autocorrect is Chinese or something. This is still decent. In social media chats it indulges in all sorts of innuendos. I think they will arrest me soon for obscene language, very soon. 

[IronFilm]

44 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

I disagree with 1, 2 and 4. In the case of 4, primarily because 3 trumps everything and also because I don't even think Panasonic and Olympus in their wildest dreams ever thought it had a shot of taking over the entire industry.  

Good point about #3!

Panasonic and Olympus probably thought their best chance at not just survival but to thrive, would be to target a niche and dominate it: thus the birth of Micro Four Thirds!

But if they'd ever thought they could be The #1 Player in the camera industry, then they might have tried to have left the door open for full frame or at least have made the lenses suitable for APS-C.

[jonpais]

31 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

The GH5 internal codec is technically superior to the the Sony one as it has more bit depth, more chroma subsampling and a higher bitrate which gives the end user substantially more room for tonal and colour changes in post production and makes capture with a LOG or HLG gamma profile a practical proposition with non of the problems this has with the Sony internal one. I don't care about your sample image (which demonstrates what exactly?) and am only concerned how my footage looks and having shot quite a lot with both codecs I know what I prefer. The Sony sensor has advantages ( DR and high ISO for eg) and in stills ( RAW) the Sony is better but it's held back in video by it's poor internal codec which is also evidenced by how much better it behaves when you use an external recorder and can improve the bitrate and chroma subsampling. 

The screen grab I shared illustrates that Sony's 8-bit XAVC does not have inferior tonal transitions. Quite the opposite in fact.

I'm not disputing the rest of your argument - however Matthew Scott has amply demonstrated that 10-bit is not in and of itself an iron-clad guarantee that it will hold up any better to grading than 8-bit. There are many variables involved.

Talk is cheap. Show me the money.

[nigelbb]

22 hours ago, kye said:

Does anyone make a ILC with a 1" sensor?  I can't think of any, but I'm not a database

That would be the ill fated Nikon 1 line of cameras & lenses.

However lenses on the Sony 1" bridge cameras are quite exceptional. The only lack is extreme wide angle greater than 24mm FF equivalent. Amazing HFR. Apart from RX0 they all have 100Mbps 4K video. They have the same UI as the Sony FF models

RX0 F/4.0 24mm Waterproof Shockproof action camera

RX100 VA F/1.8-2.8 24-70mm Pocket camera

RX100 VI F/2.8-4.5 24-200mm Pocket camera

RX10 II F/2.8 24-70mm Small "DSLR" form factor

RX10 III & IV F/2.4-4.0 24-600mm Larger  "DSLR" form factor

 

[BTM_Pix]

3 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Good point about #3!

Panasonic and Olympus probably thought their best chance at not just survival but to thrive, would be to target a niche and dominate it: thus the birth of Micro Four Thirds!

But if they'd ever thought they could be The #1 Player in the camera industry, then they might have tried to have left the door open for full frame or at least have made the lenses suitable for APS-C.

I think the adoption of it by BM has taken it in a direction they probably never envisaged.

When they look at what their intentions probably were in terms of it being an interchangeable bridge camera and then saw people hanging PL lenses off it and demanding 4K RAW I imagine they must be doing this 

 

[IronFilm]

8 minutes ago, nigelbb said:

However lenses on the Sony 1" bridge cameras are quite exceptional. The only lack is extreme wide angle greater than 24mm FF equivalent.

If only Nikon had released their Nikon DL18-50!

Wish they had. Was really looking forward to it. 

8 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

I think the adoption of it by BM has taken it in a direction they probably never envisaged.

When they look at what their intentions probably were in terms of it being an interchangeable bridge camera and then saw people hanging PL lenses off it and demanding 4K RAW I imagine they must be doing this 

 

I don't think BMD can take all the credit for that. 

People were rigging up and putting PL lenses on MFT cameras even back when the old Panasonic GH2 was popular. 

 

[Shirozina]

14 minutes ago, jonpais said:

The screen grab I shared illustrates that Sony's 8-bit XAVC does not have inferior tonal transitions. Quite the opposite in fact.

I'm not disputing the rest of your argument - however Matthew Scott has amply demonstrated that 10-bit is not in and of itself an iron-clad guarantee that it will hold up any better to grading than 8-bit. There are many variables involved.

Talk is cheap. Show me the money.

The screen grab tells me nothing other than Sony cameras have OK image quality which no one is disputing. I didn't say 10bit was the only factor - have you read my post?

What 'money' do you need to see exactly?

[jonpais]

Just now, Shirozina said:

The screen grab tells me nothing other than Sony cameras have OK image quality which no one is disputing. I didn't say 10bit was the only factor - have you read my post?

What 'money' do you need to see exactly?

A screen grab demonstrating the superiority of Panasonic's tonal transitions.

That's what we were talking about, weren't we? 

[Robert Collins]

18 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Good point about #3!

Panasonic and Olympus probably thought their best chance at not just survival but to thrive, would be to target a niche and dominate it: thus the birth of Micro Four Thirds!

But if they'd ever thought they could be The #1 Player in the camera industry, then they might have tried to have left the door open for full frame or at least have made lenses for APS-C.

The M43 sensor dates back further than M43. Olympus had the 43 system which rather encompassed the 'small sensor, big camera' notion which compared to 'big sensor, small camera notion sounds pretty silly although some manufacturers still try it. Their arguments included that the 4:3 ratio made more efficient use of the lens image circle (I have to give them that) and that light from the lens image circle would be more perpendicular from a short flange distance resulting in sharper and brighter corners in the image (again some sense here.)

In my view they made two miscalculations. One rather obvious. 1) They probably didnt think that the cost of sensor silicon would fall as fast. It seems pretty clear though that sensor costs would fall (and there is only one in a camera) while lens costs (a variable) would remain pretty flat. 2) The other problem was near impossible to predict (I would have thought). That the emergence and dominance of even smaller sensor, smaller, cheaper (?) smartphone cameras would undercut them from below.

So in effect M43 has been squeezed by FF at the top and smartphones at the bottom. The fact that M43 is regressed to a small sensor, big camera approach rather indicates exactly how badly they have been undermined by smartphones. If you buy a really small M43 camera and put a really small (but slightly slow) zoom lens on it (which in terms of size and cost has an enormous advantage over FF) what you find is the image equality isnt much better than a smartphone.

[BTM_Pix]

27 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

I don't think BMD can take all the credit for that. 

People were rigging up and putting PL lenses on MFT cameras even back when the old Panasonic GH2 was popular. 

Agreed but it was RAW on the Pocket and now 4K RAW on the Pocket II that has thrown the focus back on Panasonic and Olympus most sharply in terms of expectation of the camera when used for video. 

JVC threw in the curve ball about having a Super35 sensor sat behind it of course  

[Shirozina]

47 minutes ago, jonpais said:

A screen grab demonstrating the superiority of Panasonic's tonal transitions.

That's what we were talking about, weren't we? 

By definition a 'screen grab' is likley to be a poor method of demonstrating this even if I had side by side shots of the same subject which I don't. I also don't need to do such comparisons to get a general impression of how good a camera is as this comes from working with multiple clips of different subjects over time. 

[Simon Young]

If the the GH5S would have had in body image stabilisation it would have been the perfect m4/3 camera with regards to video and I would without hesitation have sold my a7riii for it. The color science and malleability of the files seem truly exceptional. There is just something about the magenta and the greens in the Sony skin tones that even the stellar af or the full frame look can’t compensate for.