View Full Version : Just how wrong can they be.

19th February 2016, 06:07 PM
Turn the sound on first.


19th February 2016, 07:54 PM
Answer - extremely wrong. Isn't the whole CSC sector growing? Or did I imagine reading that somewhere.

These folks are trying too hard to be Controversial. :rolleyes:

Do what I usually do with such attention-seeking behaviour ... ignore 'em totally!

Loup Garou
19th February 2016, 08:59 PM
Answer: "They" are paid by Canon to do this commercial.

19th February 2016, 10:15 PM
Ignore the soundbite about "is MFT dead" which is just headline grabbing. The discussion is really about MFT's USP. Is it still valid or does it have to move on and if so then where too. Have the manufacturers lost sight in making things small? I don't mind that things are getting bigger (EM-1, 300mm F4 etc) but they should still be making them small as well (think E-PM2, GM1/5, pancake primes) and perhaps that is where the plot is being lost.

20th February 2016, 07:50 AM
For an average user, I think u4/3 will continue to be a format of choice. Its cost effective for the results, light weight and compact enough to go anywhere yet big enough to be a serious camera.

When looking at full frame mirrorless, the eye-watering price will put plenty off. And lets all be honest, for sticking a couple of photos on the internet or even printing out some 7x5s it does this as admirably as a 35mm.

20th February 2016, 09:11 AM
I really appear to be missing something here, the sensor area isn't important the number of pixels is surely?

So when you go full 35mm equivalent the number of pixels goes up massively to give you a far better quality image, so if that were true I would follow all the arguments, BUT, m4/3 is a quarter of the sensor size to 35 MM. So the current 16MP sensor will be 64MP when multiplied by 4, except it isn't, the biggest sensor I've found is the Sony at 24MP...

The arguments around DOF equivalency remains as for a given image the lens provides the DOF dependant upon the area of the image on the sensor - shrugs - that's my problem not theirs!

So to be honest who cares if I choose m4/3?

20th February 2016, 10:25 AM
Well, what was that all about then? *shrug

I honestly struggle with the concept that 16 or 20mp is not enough. By this reckoning it's a wonder that so many photographers in film days were prepared to compromise the quality of their work by using 35mm SLRs when obviously they should have been using medium format. In fact eventually I did feel that 35mm was inadequate and traded the lot in for a medium format system. I have yet to feel the same compulsion to "upgrade" from MFT to full frame, even when comparing high ISO performance or dynamic range.

20th February 2016, 04:49 PM
Sorting through some old magazines just now I came across the June 1998 issue of Photon which featured on its cover the Olympus C1400L, a "true digital SLR" with a staggering 1.4 megapixels for a shade under a thousand pounds. Image quality was described as "outstanding", but the 4MB SmartMedia card supplied could only hold four pictures in HQ mode. 16MP? Pfft *chr.

20th February 2016, 06:03 PM
Well last year I went to a talk by Gavin Newman (does a lot of work for the BBC and National Geographic) who was saying that Micro 4/3 was the perfect format for his work ...

if it's good enough for them it will do for me ...

20th February 2016, 06:47 PM
Think , maybe, it is time to go back to basics ie:- is the image well taken on the media used?

I belong to numerous forums, and the quality of image of the contributors on here far exceeds most of the other forums put together.

With a lifetime collection of some 50 odd cameras,inc some Russian clunkers, all of which I have used at some time, I am more than happy with the 4/3rds format, it has done me proud over the last decade.

Phill D
21st February 2016, 08:31 AM
He said he was paid by Sony so what would you expect in a video about the demise of micro 4/3s. Whilst the Sony a6000 type cameras are pretty impressive and should drive Olympus to on-going improvements, I'd say the lens size issue is a concern for Sony hence supporting this video. I'd suggest there are few directions Olympus should go; first push hard to get as close as possible to the quality Sony is getting from their apsc size sensors and further develop the high res mode for more general use/marketing edge. The second direction is to put a 1 inch size sensor in a Stylus 1s body without increasing the size. Thirdly for all sizes of camera push hard with 4k video that has high quality still image capture, there is going to be a lot more about that in the near future I'm sure. These are the directions I'd go. Maybe a few suggestions for Kai's follow on videos, the quirky style of which I quite like actually. They may be biased but at least he admits it.