What do MFT manufacturers need to do to take the format to the next level and is it even possible?


kodachrome 7 718
12 Apr 2016 8:49AM
I see your point Chris, but APS-C is still the industry standard and is still the most popular sensor format both for DSLR's and some CSC. CSC is most popular in the far East and Asia, where as DSLR's still rule in the US and to a certain extent Europe. Strangely, Bridge Cameras and high end compacts seem to have the biggest growth round the globe and most if any are not APS-C. I have to admit, a high end Bridge is very tempting for my kind of photography, I no longer need to carry round a bag of lenses or risk dust getting on the sensor.

I still prefer the old 4thirds format as Olympus designed that system from the ground up rather than converting the old 35mm SLR's into digital cameras where compromises had to be made, I think the DSLR is still No 1 and has been developed to near perfection, but its common knowledge that DSLR sales are falling faster than any other system. Have you noticed that some of the CSC get bigger as each new model gets launched, even Olympus did this, which in a way is defeating their own Ethos about being compact. I shall continue to try and build a small system round my Sony A6000 but as yet, that is proving easier said than done. I'm currently using an adapter so I can use my A mount lenses, but that's defeated the object of small and compact,


Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Carabosse 16 41.2k 270 England
13 Apr 2016 12:11AM
Realistically, these days if you want any noticeable quality improvement over MFT you have to go full-frame.

And even then you might not see a worthwhile improvement except at high ISO settings (e.g. 3200 or over) plus large print sizes or at least 50% crops for the web.

I have used both FF and MFT. I think it nowadays comes down to what you feel happier using rather than arcane pixel-peeping theoreticals.
kodachrome 7 718
26 Apr 2016 12:04PM
Unless you have the very best lenses and if you can afford them to do justice to a FF sensor, you will probably get equal if not better IQ from M4/3, a similar criterion applies to APS-C, where lenses are now struggling to serve the large pixel count sensors adequately such as 24mp and above
27 Apr 2016 7:49AM
Every camera has its selling points. It is just not everyone understands them because of limited skill or old stereotypes. M4/3 offers quality in compact camera. If one is not into advanced image editing they may not see any image quality difference with APS-C under most circumstances and maybe little difference with FF as well. It used to be (and probably is) major selling point of APS-C vs FF.

It is always like that in any kind of human activity - one needs to be skilled to see the difference, and do some work for finding it.

APS-Cs are spit polished ergonomically and by design will always be faster than M4/3s. And they are cheaper currently. Ridiculously cheaper. Compare cost of say, 28mm EF-S STM lens from Canon and one of 20mm primes from M4/3 makers to see the point.

And FF DSLR is still a major working instrument of professionals and advanced enthusiasts - except very few extravagant ones. And it will always be faster and more advanced for it was honed to perfection in this field and still able to incorporate all the newest technologies.

The choice is great, but why people still in doubt about any camera and compare apples to oranges? The answer is simple - they do not know what they really need. As result they go for the cheapest or most advanced and therefore expensive. Long live DSLR!
kodachrome 7 718
27 Apr 2016 8:39AM
Its a fact now, they all take great pictures whatever the format, thats how advanced the digital camera has become. I must agree with you on the DSLR, its a format honed to near perfection and very affordable with a massive range of lenses, both new and a huge second hand market as well. However, the original question is in not so many words, how can M4/3 be moved on to the next level, they are in a fairly tight box in my opinion and I guess it can only be in the soft ware where improvements might be made.
Panasonic and Olympus have extolled the virtues of a CSC from day one, but they are getting bigger and the lenses are getting bigger and heavier. Its ironic, that DSLR's are not getting bigger or heavier and the lenses are not getting bigger or heavier, at least at the entry to mid range area.
Both Panny and Oly make some excellent glass, but you pay for it.
27 Apr 2016 12:36PM
Well, DSLRs are getting smaller and lighter. I bought my current camera Nikon D5500 because it is actually lighter than my Fuji superzoom and pretty close to it in size. Nikkor lenses, even entry level ones, are simply industry standard.

With that I use Olympus E-PM1when I cannot be bothered with a lot of image processing and compact simply does not cut it . Are there ways to improve M4/3? Let's go to my first post in this thread: M4/3 continues compacts evolutionary line in revolutionary way. Their own evolution goes along "bigger, faster,smarter' line. Then there may be another revolutionary step. What it will be? I'd love to know. Maybe, Sony FF mirrorless A7 gives us a glimpse of it... After all, last generation film point-and-shoot cameras were incredibly small full frame cameras.
P.S. Full frame in M4/3 terms may read as 24x32Wink
kodachrome 7 718
27 Apr 2016 4:52PM
I'm tempted towards the Canon 750D, mainly because I love Canon colours for landscapes. My Sony A6000 takes outstanding pictures but I don't think the colours are as pleasing as Canon.
Yes, may be Sony are showing the way with small bodied FF sensor cameras, perhaps M4/3 will follow one day, but the glass has to be up to it.
Paul Morgan 18 19.3k 6 England
27 Apr 2016 8:53PM

Quote:I'm tempted towards the Canon 750D, mainly because I love Canon colours for landscapes. My Sony A6000 takes outstanding pictures but I don't think the colours are as pleasing as Canon.
Yes, may be Sony are showing the way with small bodied FF sensor cameras, perhaps M4/3 will follow one day, but the glass has to be up to it.



I don`t get this thing with colours, but I`m not a jpeg shooter.

Shooting raw my Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji raws are pretty much identical, if I ever picked up a Canon or Nikon these to would be pretty much the same as well.
kodachrome 7 718
28 Apr 2016 7:50AM
I'm a Jpeg person Paul, sorry mate, I just don't have the time or inclination to shoot RAW and then spend time in PP, thus my Jpegs have to be good and that is where cameras do tend to differ.
Paul Morgan 18 19.3k 6 England
28 Apr 2016 9:32PM
I spend very little time post processing, colour profiles are loaded at the import stage in Lr, to be honest I probably spent much more time correcting jpegs (in my early years with digital)
kodachrome 7 718
29 Apr 2016 8:50AM
Its good to do colour profile presets and as you say, it saves a lot of time, i'm perfectly pleased with my Jpegs especially from my Olympus, very little if any PP is needed, perhaps I'm too easy to please or perhaps I'm a not taking digital photography seriously enough according to some people I know, but at the end of the day I like my pictures, surely that's all the matters.
Chris_L 5 5.1k United Kingdom
29 Apr 2016 12:06PM
I can understand the jpeg shooters.

I know that when importing images into Lightroom, as the thumbnails are built, you will often get to see the embedded jpeg for a moment before Lightroom replaces it with Lightroom's own preview. Lr version often looks worse; it's "uncooked".
,
Jpeg shooters have a ready-baked cake which has been made to the manufacturer's careful recipe. Raw shooters have a bowl of raw ingredients. Camera makers do take time to come up with decent preset picture styles for portraits, landscapes etc.

I shoot raw when jpeg would do. Taking pictures of things to put onto ebay, record snaps of events etc.

I'm going to have a bash at shooting jpegs with camera picture styles, will choose WB and exposure myself, it will be interesting to see the results. I can always shoot both together just in case.

Paul Morgan 18 19.3k 6 England
29 Apr 2016 1:16PM
I use the colorchecker and either the xrite or free adobe software to build profiles, its especially useful with Panasonic raws since you don`t get ready made colour profiles with them.
ChrisV Plus
12 2.3k 26 United Kingdom
29 Apr 2016 1:39PM
I'm still using Aperture. The really odd thing is that while it lacks support for RAW files for the GX8 [which do in any case looked 'uncooked' as Chris put it], I'm finding the latitude you get with RAW [between one or two stops of headroom for highlights, ability to alter white balance without subtracting anything] is still available to the supposed JPEGs, which do seem to have more pleasing colours as well as a broader, less flat dynamic range. Not sure what's going on, but it seems like a bit of the best of both worlds, so I'm not complaining.
Paul Morgan 18 19.3k 6 England
29 Apr 2016 1:48PM
When viewed in editing software all raw files are cooked in some way, its just that the adobe default (if you haven`t already set another profile) is a little flat.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.