Panasonic Abandoning M43

[jonpais]

If there is any need to clear up any bs about me being a Sony fanboy, I still have my GH5 and still shoot with it. But the size/weight/cost thing can mean all things to all people. My GM1 is super small and lovely. You can buy either a gargantuan Sony universal zoom for untold amounts of cash or pick up the Tamron. Numbers can be juggled to have them say whatever anyone likes them to say. 

[Emanuel]

Nicely put. I am a MFT fanboy too : -D without losing my sight of such lovely FF tools we have : -)

[leeys]

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah but you can buy the original A7 for 750 bucks new at times. Used for less than 600. If you are just doing photos, occasional video are you going to buy a m4/3 over it??

I'm looking to upgrade to the G9, a camera that's 3/4 the price of the A7III new. So the answer to that is yes. The spec sheet doesn't tell you everything; the system and how well I like using my tools matter.

[nigelbb]

4 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

It's inevitable that Panasonic will phase out MFT eventually, at least in its current form. I don't think it'll happen in the near future though, at least not until full frame development is able to catch up to MFT. We're only now, almost 2 years after release, seeing cameras getting closer to achieving what the GH5 can do and even then there's nothing out there that can do all of it. 

While the death of the MFT mount is inevitable, the MFT sensor I think will continue for a long, long time. I think you'll see more bridge / point and shoot cameras, drones, camcorders, etc. use it. As long as there's a need for smaller sensors, MFT could be a real good option. 

There is no need for MFT for bridge cameras, P&S, drones & camcorder as 1" sensors have that market sewn up. The image quality is easily good enough.

The whole raison d'etre of MFT to be a smaller lighter cheaper interchangeable lens camera has gone now FF & APS-C mirrorless are barely larger than MFT cameras & the best MFT cameras (G9 & OM-D EM-1 II) are the size weight & price of FF /APS-C. Larger sensors always have an advantage in quality but MFT scores only when the trade-off is worthwhile i.e. smaller, lighter, cheaper etc

[jonpais]

What people don't seem to realize is that for the most part, m43 is saddled with relatively slow variable aperture zooms or slow telephoto lenses - so whatever savings there are in size and weight are offset by worse image quality.

Even a lens as superb as the Leica DG Elmarit 200mm f/2.8, - which sets the benchmark for image quality in the m43 system (in a word - sensational!) - costs some $2,500 and is little lighter than say Sony's 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6  - and costs just as much.

You could argue that the DG Elmarit is $10,000.00 cheaper than Sony's 400mm f/2.8; a hundred times smaller and lighter; and gathers the same amount of light - but viewers could care less about all that.

Ultimately what viewers are seeing is the much shallower depth of field and more pleasing bokeh of the FF lens - not how much money you saved or the shutter speed or ISO you shot at.

We could also throw video AF into the mix, as shooting with such long lenses at wide apertures requires dead nuts focusing accuracy.

And m43 drops the ball there too.

I'd also be willing to wager that no forum members even own the DG Elmarit.

[Andrew Reid]

21 minutes ago, jonpais said:

What people don't seem to realize is that for the most part, m43 is saddled with relatively slow variable aperture zooms or slow telephoto lenses - so whatever savings there are in size and weight are offset by worse image quality.

It's like the Speed Booster never existed isn't it? Sigma 18-35mm F1.8? F2.8 full frame zoom on Speed Booster? And now there is the upcoming F1.7 Panasonic zoom!

21 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Even a lens as superb as the Leica DG Elmarit 200mm f/2.8, - which sets the benchmark for image quality in the m43 system (in a word - sensational!) - costs some $2,500 and is little lighter than say Sony's 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6  - and costs just as much.

I'd also be willing to wager that no forum members even own the DG Elmarit.

Hang on is that the sensational fast aperture telephoto for Micro Four Thirds?!?! I thought Micro Four Thirds was just saddled with slow telephoto lenses!

[webrunner5]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's like the Speed Booster never existed isn't it? Sigma 18-35mm F1.8? F2.8 full frame zoom on Speed Booster? And now there is the upcoming F1.7 Panasonic zoom!

 

You make a very good point, but then you are getting away from native lenses, and particularly Panasonic can't focus it own native lenses worth crap, let alone a Nikon or Canon lens on a SB. Sure MF works fine and that is a plus. But then there are plenty of cheaper Cine lenses that are already fast and wide with a MFT mount.

But the draw of a small, light camera has gone out the door since the Sony A7 came out. Most good Panasonic bodies for video are as big as DSLR's anymore. Even the G9 is a Moose. I can take my A7s and put my 55mm f2.0 Super-Takumar on it and be as small as nearly any m4/3 camera. And I can set it to say f5.6 at infinity and never have to touch it focus wise unless I am taking shots of really close stuff.

But yeah the new Olympus EM10 mk III does seem like a good option for the money I can't argue about that camera. I am not saying m4/3 is useless at all. It is I am just not going to buy any new ones or lenses anymore. I would go the Fuji X-T3 route now over m4/3. I personally don't see the advantage they have now, the GH5, GH5s is an exception on the video side, unless you are into birding, sports. Then something like the Oly 300mm, or the Panny 100-400mm on a EM1 mk II makes a lot of sense, at least to me.

[thebrothersthre3]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

You make a very good point, but then you are getting away from native lenses, and particularly Panasonic can't focus it own native lenses worth crap, let alone a Nikon or Canon lens on a SB. Sure MF works fine and that is a plus. But then there are plenty of cheaper Cine lenses that are already fast and wide with a MFT mount.

But the draw of a small, light camera has gone out the door since the Sony A7 came out. Most good Panasonic bodies for video are as big as DSLR's anymore. Even the G9 is a Moose. I can take my A7s and put my 55mm f2.0 Super-Takumar on it and be as small as nearly any m4/3 camera. And I can set it to say f5.6 at infinity and never have to touch it focus wise unless I am taking shots of really close stuff.

But yeah the new Olympus EM10 mk III does seem like a good option for the money I can't argue about that camera. I am not saying m4/3 is useless at all. It is I am just not going to buy any new ones or lenses anymore. I would go the Fuji X-T3 route now over m4/3. I personally don't see the advantage they have now, the GH5, GH5s is an exception on the video side, unless you are into birding, sports. Then something like the Oly 300mm, or the Panny 100-400mm on a EM1 mk II makes a lot of sense, at least to me.

I really don't care about full frame or any of that sensor stuff. 

To me the latest M43 sensor seen in the GH5S is all I need. Only problem is nobody has done anything proper with it. Panasonic won't put a phase detect system in and there color science isn't really my cup of tea. The Pocket 4k is amazing but again no phase detect auto focus. 

The Z cam E2 is pretty amazing specs wise. 4K 120fps without a huge crop. Their color science is iffy though and they don't have phase detect auto focus. 

For me as long as M43 can't stay ahead of the others specs wise I'll be interested. If not its a waste of time. Right now they are dragging behind. 

[nigelbb]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

You make a very good point, but then you are getting away from native lenses, and particularly Panasonic can't focus it own native lenses worth crap, let alone a Nikon or Canon lens on a SB. Sure MF works fine and that is a plus. But then there are plenty of cheaper Cine lenses that are already fast and wide with a MFT mount.

But the draw of a small, light camera has gone out the door since the Sony A7 came out. Most good Panasonic bodies for video are as big as DSLR's anymore. Even the G9 is a Moose. I can take my A7s and put my 55mm f2.0 Super-Takumar on it and be as small as nearly any m4/3 camera. And I can set it to say f5.6 at infinity and never have to touch it focus wise unless I am taking shots of really close stuff.

But yeah the new Olympus EM10 mk III does seem like a good option for the money I can't argue about that camera. I am not saying m4/3 is useless at all. It is I am just not going to buy any new ones or lenses anymore. I would go the Fuji X-T3 route now over m4/3. I personally don't see the advantage they have now, the GH5, GH5s is an exception on the video side, unless you are into birding, sports. Then something like the Oly 300mm, or the Panny 100-400mm on a EM1 mk II makes a lot of sense, at least to me.

The Olympus OM-D EM10 III is not a new camera. It's been on sale at least a year. It was the last new camera that Olympus shipped. It has the advantage of being much smaller & cheaper than a FF or APS-C mirrorless. Sadly the size advantage is not shared with the high end MFT cameras (GH5/OM-D EM1 II/G9 etc).

2 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I really don't care about full frame or any of that sensor stuff. 

To me the latest M43 sensor seen in the GH5S is all I need. Only problem is nobody has done anything proper with it. Panasonic won't put a phase detect system in and there color science isn't really my cup of tea. The Pocket 4k is amazing but again no phase detect auto focus. 

The Z cam E2 is pretty amazing specs wise. 4K 120fps without a huge crop. Their color science is iffy though and they don't have phase detect auto focus. 

For me as long as M43 can't stay ahead of the others specs wise I'll be interested. If not its a waste of time. Right now they are dragging behind. 

Olympus need to forget about protecting sales of the $2K OM-D EM1 II & put their 20MP sensor, latest IBIS & 4K video in an OM-D EM5 III High end large MFT are doomed. It's only smaller lighter cheaper MFT cameras that will sell now.

[thebrothersthre3]

5 minutes ago, nigelbb said:

The Olympus OM-D EM10 III is not a new camera. It's been on sale at least a year. It was the last new camera that Olympus shipped. It has the advantage of being much smaller & cheaper than a FF or APS-C mirrorless. Sadly the size advantage is not shared with the high end MFT cameras (GH5/OM-D EM1 II/G9 etc).

Olympus need to forget about protecting sales of the $2K OM-D EM1 II & put their 20MP sensor, latest IBIS & 4K video in an OM-D EM5 III High end large MFT are doomed. It's only smaller lighter cheaper MFT cameras that will sell now.

I prefer bigger bodies myself though I understand the appeal. Big bodies with big batteries and small lenses. 

[tosvus]

17 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I prefer bigger bodies myself though I understand the appeal. Big bodies with big batteries and small lenses. 

Agreed, but they need both smaller and larger bodies coming out at a lower price point. Hovering around $2K for bodies will be tough to justify unless they have vastly better features compared to full frame at similar prices. At lest Olympus has the appeal of PDAF if they bother putting it in more competitively priced cameras.

On another note: Panasonic states they will NEVER (probably a bit exaggerated but..) abandon m43. https://www.43rumors.com/panasonic-we-will-never-give-up-on-mft-because-70-of-the-system-camera-market-is-not-full-frame/

 

That said, I have just bought my first EF lens that will for now be adapted to my G9 (a sweet 120-300 f2.8!) - along with some adapters and a canon teleconverter. I'm not sure I will buy more m43 lenses, because I have come to realize size doesn't bother me (and I have been buying fast glass to compensate for small sensor anyway). Eventually I will probably try out Sony FF or L-Mount, though I see myself keeping a lot of my m43 equipment anyway. There are still times when the size comes in handy, and no arguing the cameras (like the G9) are very good.

 

[thebrothersthre3]

38 minutes ago, tosvus said:

Agreed, but they need both smaller and larger bodies coming out at a lower price point. Hovering around $2K for bodies will be tough to justify unless they have vastly better features compared to full frame at similar prices. At lest Olympus has the appeal of PDAF if they bother putting it in more competitively priced cameras.

On another note: Panasonic states they will NEVER (probably a bit exaggerated but..) abandon m43. https://www.43rumors.com/panasonic-we-will-never-give-up-on-mft-because-70-of-the-system-camera-market-is-not-full-frame/

 

That said, I have just bought my first EF lens that will for now be adapted to my G9 (a sweet 120-300 f2.8!) - along with some adapters and a canon teleconverter. I'm not sure I will buy more m43 lenses, because I have come to realize size doesn't bother me (and I have been buying fast glass to compensate for small sensor anyway). Eventually I will probably try out Sony FF or L-Mount, though I see myself keeping a lot of my m43 equipment anyway. There are still times when the size comes in handy, and no arguing the cameras (like the G9) are very good.

 

If Olympus puts PDAF in one of their cheaper cameras, I'll definitely buy it. PDAF combined with their amazing IBIS is a killer combo.

[webrunner5]

15 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

If Olympus puts PDAF in one of their cheaper cameras, I'll definitely buy it. PDAF combined with their amazing IBIS is a killer combo.

So is the Olympus EM1 the Only Olympus camera that has PDAF in it?? You can buy the original EM1 for a little over 400 dollars now. A real bargain. Now it is not a very great video machine like the newer one is.

[homestar_kevin]

I personally like m43 because of the reach it can give you so easily.

I also do think there's a bigger size advantage than has been portrayed in this thread.

Yeah, the huge fast telephoto lenses are huge no matter the sensor size, but I can pack up several m43 bodies and many lenses in a small camera backpack and not worry about it as much.

I have the g7 and gx85 and bought both for under $1100 new from the local Best Buy, so they definitely are avaialble in american stores.

[webrunner5]

18 minutes ago, homestar_kevin said:

I personally like m43 because of the reach it can give you so easily.

I also do think there's a bigger size advantage than has been portrayed in this thread.

Yeah, the huge fast telephoto lenses are huge no matter the sensor size, but I can pack up several m43 bodies and many lenses in a small camera backpack and not worry about it as much.

I have the g7 and gx85 and bought both for under $1100 new from the local Best Buy, so they definitely are avaialble in american stores.

Yeah but the Sony A7 series have Clear Zoom and that is in essence doubling the focal length with no real loss, and you can always switch to the crop mode and get a 1.5 crop in s35. These Sony cameras have some damn nice features on them that make them more versatile than people think. No way I am changing from them. I will keep buying the older, better ones to me for a great price..

And size wise I have owned a bunch of both Panasonic and Olympus bodies, and other than my Oly EPL1, none of them are really any smaller than all my A7's I have had and still do own. Even with my battery grip on it my A7s is  not any bigger than my Oly EM1 was with the grip on it. in fact my Sony is Smaller. I bet even the Fuji X-T3 is as small and maybe smaller. Times have changed.

https://camerasize.com/compare/#482,548

[jonpais]

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's like the Speed Booster never existed isn't it? Sigma 18-35mm F1.8? F2.8 full frame zoom on Speed Booster? And now there is the upcoming F1.7 Panasonic zoom!

Hang on is that the sensational fast aperture telephoto for Micro Four Thirds?!?! I thought Micro Four Thirds was just saddled with slow telephoto lenses!

Thanks, maybe I wasn't clear, Andrew.

First of all, I was talking about native lenses, not adapted lenses.

m43 struggles enough with AF without throwing a focal reducer in the mix. 

If I'm going to be shooting with FF glass, I'd sooner pair it with a FF sensor.

The Leica DG Elmarit is equivalent in FF terms to f/5.6 - and nobody here's buying one anyhow as it costs $2,500.

The only truly "fast" Panasonic zoom you can point to is one that may not even ship for a year or more.

Those are my thoughts; I realize you and many forum members actually like focal reducers; and that quite a few here could care less about shallow depth of field.

[homestar_kevin]

19 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah but the Sony A7 series have Clear Zoom and that is in essence doubling the focal length with no real loss, and you can always switch to the crop mode and get a 1.5 crop in s35. These Sony cameras have some damn nice features on them that make them more versatile than people think. No way I am changing from them. I will keep buying the older, better ones to me for a great price..

And size wise I have owned a bunch of both Panasonic and Olympus bodies, and other than my Oly EPL1, none of them are really any smaller than all my A7's I have had and still do own. Even with my battery grip on it my A7s is  not any bigger than my Oly EM1 was with the grip on it. in fact my Sony is Smaller. I bet even the Fuji X-T3 is as small and maybe smaller. Times have changed.

https://camerasize.com/compare/#482,548

I hear you, and I think the sony cameras are great too. It's hard to go to wrong either way.

The size comparisons look similar and are in body weight, but still not in lenses.

http://j.mp/2RuegRq

[thebrothersthre3]

Its really about lenses not bodies. I like big bodies but not big lenses. 

I just used a Sony A7III for a shoot the other day. Definitely a nice camera. Menus are trash but all you have to do is custom set the buttons and you are good to go for the most part. Lenses are all huge though and super expensive, native ones at least.

[webrunner5]

5 minutes ago, homestar_kevin said:

I hear you, and I think the sony cameras are great too. It's hard to go to wrong either way.

The size comparisons look similar and are in body weight, but still not in lenses.

http://j.mp/2RuegRq

Oh no doubt the lenses are bigger. But for video like we are mostly going to use a camera for we are not going to use many long lenses and you don't even need to have really fast aperture lenses on FF to stay even DoF wide to m4/3. They all have their uses. But I really can't go back after doing FF again. Sure if I was lugging a Canon 5D mk IV with a battery grip on it I am not a happy camper that is for sure.

And this is the lens I use the most for just walking around. It is not that much bigger.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#673.336,579.396,ha,t

 

[jonpais]

Not gonna disagree that the GM lenses are costly. 

But coming from Panasonic, the Leica 12mm f/1.4 cost me roughly $1,300 and weighs in at about 12 ounces.

The Sony 24mm f/1.4 will cost $1,400 and weighs just around 16 ox.

The Olympus 45mm f/1.2 Pro, my favorite m43 lens, cost me $1,200; the Sony 85mm f/1.8 cost $600, and on the a7 III is actually lighter than the GH5 combo.

And the difference in price between the prized Voigtlander m43 lenses and their FE mount lenses is not very great either.

But the numbers, bodies and lenses can all be shuffled around and we'd get different results each time.

I used to carry around the Fujinon 50-140mm f/2.8 everywhere I went and it's a beast; I decided to avoid fast zooms for the most part when selecting FF lenses.

17 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Its really about lenses not bodies. I like big bodies but not big lenses. 

I just used a Sony A7III for a shoot the other day. Definitely a nice camera. Menus are trash but all you have to do is custom set the buttons and you are good to go for the most part. Lenses are all huge though and super expensive, native ones at least.