the truth is that these FF mirrorless cameras are going to kill 4/3. They are not that much bigger
Ah yeah you might want to rethink that...
While Canon isn’t going (yet) for the smallest FF mirrorless, this comparison from Canon Rumors shoes it compared to a Sony FF, which is pretty small, and more closely illustrated what I’m saying.
As you can see, the Sony is just a few mm larger than the much smaller sensor 4/3 Olympus. The Olympus also has terrible heft with that almost nonexistent handgrip.There are larger 4/3 cameras than that one. Considering the huge increase in IQ from FF, I can hardly see much advantage in 4/3 anymore. And if we move to APS-C, the size differences disappear.
Can someone tell me if this is a micro 4/3 system? I am not sure if the "full frame" has to do with that or not. As an owner of 3 micro 4/3 bodies, I would love to see more lenses come to the market.
Full frame always means the equivalent of a 35mm frame. About 24x36mm.
the truth is that these FF mirrorless cameras are going to kill 4/3. They are not that much bigger, but have far higher image quality. It will take some time, but it will happen. Both Sony and Canon’s APS-C mirrorless offerings are pretty small and light and have themselves eaten into the 4/3 market. They also offer higher quality IQ. What they don’t have as yet, is large native lens lineups. But they’ll get there.
FF mirrorless is not going to kill m4/3. There is a growing segment of m4/3 users who have given up on FF and APS-C. As someone who shoots Canon FF, APS-C and Olympus m4/3, there is precious little difference in image quality unless you go to extremely high ISO settings. For most uses, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference. The IBIS in the m4/3 lets you shoot at lower ISOs so you don't have to go as high in low light as you would with APS-C or FF. The size and weight difference alone is worth moving to m4/3. To go super telephoto (600 mm) with my FF rig, it weighs in at 2,465 gm. My m4/3 equivalent rig weighs in at just 813 gm, 140 gm less than the FF body alone. APS-C bodies as lighter than FF but the lenses are still big and heavy if they have optical IS, which is required for telephoto work. I was originally interested in the EOS-R, as it is just a little heavier than the flagship Olympus EM-1 MII, but the lack of IBIS and outrageous price killed it for me. I can get more capable cameras for less money from other manufacturers. Too bad.
4/3 sales have been dropping more quickly that for other sizes, and the companies producing them are experiencing financial difficulties. Yes, they will disappear at some point.
there is a BIG difference in image quality. In fact, when 4/3 first came out, the advertising for it said (maybe not exactly):
the best compromise in size, weight and image quality. They knew from the start that it couldn’t compet on IQ, and that was before FF cameras came out. APS-C very much dies beat 4/3 in IQ. There’s no question about that. Bigger sensors always beat smaller sensors, whether you like it or not.
Sales of ALL cameras have been eaten by the Cellular Phone market where vast numbers of people are finding the results from the microscopic sensors are more than adequate for their needs.
Modern m4/3 sensors are vastly superior in image quality compared to when they were first introduced to the market. As an owner and user of modern cameras with m4/3, APS-C and FF sensors, I can tell you that the difference in image quality is not BIG. You may see it if you pixel peep, but most likely not. I just want to throw a little reality into the discussion.
If you want the ultimate in image quality, go with the Phase One 150 MP camera back. :-)
Can someone tell me if this is a micro 4/3 system? I am not sure if the "full frame" has to do with that or not. As an owner of 3 micro 4/3 bodies, I would love to see more lenses come to the market.
Full frame always means the equivalent of a 35mm frame. About 24x36mm.
the truth is that these FF mirrorless cameras are going to kill 4/3. They are not that much bigger, but have far higher image quality. It will take some time, but it will happen. Both Sony and Canon’s APS-C mirrorless offerings are pretty small and light and have themselves eaten into the 4/3 market. They also offer higher quality IQ. What they don’t have as yet, is large native lens lineups. But they’ll get there.
FF mirrorless is not going to kill m4/3. There is a growing segment of m4/3 users who have given up on FF and APS-C. As someone who shoots Canon FF, APS-C and Olympus m4/3, there is precious little difference in image quality unless you go to extremely high ISO settings. For most uses, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference. The IBIS in the m4/3 lets you shoot at lower ISOs so you don't have to go as high in low light as you would with APS-C or FF. The size and weight difference alone is worth moving to m4/3. To go super telephoto (600 mm) with my FF rig, it weighs in at 2,465 gm. My m4/3 equivalent rig weighs in at just 813 gm, 140 gm less than the FF body alone. APS-C bodies as lighter than FF but the lenses are still big and heavy if they have optical IS, which is required for telephoto work. I was originally interested in the EOS-R, as it is just a little heavier than the flagship Olympus EM-1 MII, but the lack of IBIS and outrageous price killed it for me. I can get more capable cameras for less money from other manufacturers. Too bad.
4/3 sales have been dropping more quickly that for other sizes, and the companies producing them are experiencing financial difficulties. Yes, they will disappear at some point.
there is a BIG difference in image quality. In fact, when 4/3 first came out, the advertising for it said (maybe not exactly):
the best compromise in size, weight and image quality. They knew from the start that it couldn’t compet on IQ, and that was before FF cameras came out. APS-C very much dies beat 4/3 in IQ. There’s no question about that. Bigger sensors always beat smaller sensors, whether you like it or not.
Sales of ALL cameras have been eaten by the Cellular Phone market where vast numbers of people are finding the results from the microscopic sensors are more than adequate for their needs.
Modern m4/3 sensors are vastly superior in image quality compared to when they were first introduced to the market. As an owner and user of modern cameras with m4/3, APS-C and FF sensors, I can tell you that the difference in image quality is not BIG. You may see it if you pixel peep, but most likely not. I just want to throw a little reality into the discussion.
If you want the ultimate in image quality, go with the Phase One 150 MP camera back. :-)
Peace
Nobody’s talking about ultimate IQ. If you want to do that, the the Phase doesn’t come close, you need a scanning back.
we’re talking about what almost everyone will buy in a camera system.
we’re also not comparing this to smartphones.
and, sorry, but you’re simply wrong. Thee is a very noticeable step up in quality from each sensor size. 4/3 will always be the stepchild of an attempt to be a bridge between fading film camera sales, and the more expensive DSLR larger formats.
But one of the big problems with 4/3 is that there is no major camera companies producing them. All of them are being produced by companies with tiny marketshare. Between Canon, Nikon and Sony, that’s a 92% marketshare in DSLR’s, and about a 75% share in ILC mirrorless, even without the new cameras from Canon and Nikon, and that’s without Nikon being in mirrorless until now, since they discontinued their Nikon 1 line of 1” cameras.
now, with the entry of the “big hitters” in the industry, mirrorless sales will end up, as DSLRs are, being almost totally divided between the three biggest sellers, and the rest will continue to be squeezed out. And that means that 4/3 is going to be squeezed further, because it’s only the smaller sellers that have them.
thats the facts in the industry. You can look up the CIPA numbers yourself.
Comments
As you can see, the Sony is just a few mm larger than the much smaller sensor 4/3 Olympus. The Olympus also has terrible heft with that almost nonexistent handgrip.There are larger 4/3 cameras than that one. Considering the huge increase in IQ from FF, I can hardly see much advantage in 4/3 anymore. And if we move to APS-C, the size differences disappear.
Modern m4/3 sensors are vastly superior in image quality compared to when they were first introduced to the market. As an owner and user of modern cameras with m4/3, APS-C and FF sensors, I can tell you that the difference in image quality is not BIG. You may see it if you pixel peep, but most likely not. I just want to throw a little reality into the discussion.
If you want the ultimate in image quality, go with the Phase One 150 MP camera back. :-)
Peace
we’re talking about what almost everyone will buy in a camera system.
we’re also not comparing this to smartphones.
and, sorry, but you’re simply wrong. Thee is a very noticeable step up in quality from each sensor size. 4/3 will always be the stepchild of an attempt to be a bridge between fading film camera sales, and the more expensive DSLR larger formats.
But one of the big problems with 4/3 is that there is no major camera companies producing them. All of them are being produced by companies with tiny marketshare. Between Canon, Nikon and Sony, that’s a 92% marketshare in DSLR’s, and about a 75% share in ILC mirrorless, even without the new cameras from Canon and Nikon, and that’s without Nikon being in mirrorless until now, since they discontinued their Nikon 1 line of 1” cameras.
now, with the entry of the “big hitters” in the industry, mirrorless sales will end up, as DSLRs are, being almost totally divided between the three biggest sellers, and the rest will continue to be squeezed out. And that means that 4/3 is going to be squeezed further, because it’s only the smaller sellers that have them.
thats the facts in the industry. You can look up the CIPA numbers yourself.