Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: MFT: the decline of the empire  (Read 18179 times)
fredjeang
Guest
« on: May 11, 2010, 09:24:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Dear all,

People who read my posts here know how much I respect Michael Reichmann's opinions, specially when it comes to photographic industry vision, equipment field reviews etc...
But there is a point where I've always been in complete disagreement with him: MFT enthousiasm.

Don't get me wrong, when Michael "promoted" Micro four third, he was right IMO. Because that was the only serious proposal in what was a desert land.
None of the Sigma DP saga or Leica X could be taken seriously compared to MFT.
Untill now...

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/NEX5A.HTM

This, is exactly what I thought will happen soon or later.

I had an Olympus E1, and was a sort of fan of FT...but then, I read at that time an article of MR here: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/came...lympus-e1.shtml and as a current FT user, I was aware of what Michael was pointing.

When they did MFT, I was sure that history was about to repeat again soon or later, this time yes, later than sooner but here we are: Sony's first quick fire.
And IMO, they got it right in the middle.

The MR's comments about FT actually happened.
Example of this surrealist situation.
Madrid shop,
Competent Olympus E3 body is sold today at 1500 euros.
FF top level Sony Apha 850 is sold at 1650 euros... no need more explainations.

The promised land of FT was: size will be reduced, IQ will be optimised for digital, and price will be kept low: none of these factors where true.

The promised land of MFT was exactly the same, the only difference is that they started in an empty space in that niche product.
Yes, they where the very first and they did a sort of well done rescue of their FT system with this nice alternative.
But the terrain was already a minefield.

Does not take too long to see that Sony's design is offering a smaller gear, a bigger sensor with the overall increment in IQ, specially in low light,
at a price on par with the MFT. Very very attractive option really.

The MFT empire is now about to decline, exactly like what happened with the FT.

I won't be surprised even if Oly won't survive that blow in the next 3 years.

This NEX 5 is the first MFT "killer". More wolfs are about to come to the feast soon or later.

Can't wait the Michael's review (if there will be one) about that Sony.

Regards.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2010, 09:28:13 AM by fredjeang » Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2010, 09:29:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Why don't you wait for people to actually get the cameras before you start this nonsense again?
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2010, 09:31:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
Why don't you wait for people to actually get the cameras before you start this nonsense again?
In less that 2 years you won't call that non-sense.
You just refuse to see it now. Yopu like your gear, fair enough.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2010, 09:36:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
In less that 2 years you won't call that non-sense.
You just refuse to see it now. Yopu like your gear, fair enough.

Whatever.
Logged
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2010, 09:43:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
This NEX 5 is the first MFT "killer". More wolfs are about to come to the feast soon or later.


Well, I followed the link you provided, and I have to say that in my opinion that is the ugliest camera I have ever laid eyes on. Enough so that I hope it's a hoax. OMG. It looks something like a point-and-shoot being mauled by a giant lens. It immediately brings to mind those carrier based radar aircraft.

No offense.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2010, 09:55:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Fred,

how many times that this has to be said: the total size of a working camera with standard zoom lens is going to be a major factor in the choice of such cameras, and as expected, the Sony NEX and Samsung NX cameras, with standard zoom lens attached, are somewhat larger than MFT cameras with equivalent zoom lenses. This will inevitably be balanced against the somewhat better low light performance allowed by the larger entrance pupil (effective aperture diameter) of these larger format cameras. (A difference which some people persist in attributing to the sensor alone, ignoring the basic physics of light gathering by a camera.)

Sony has gone to fascinating extremes to make the NEX camera bodies small and light, combined with an assortment of optical illusions to make them appear even smaller than they already are (the bevelled top, main body less high than then lens mount, lens mount color coordinated with lenses so as to appear not to be part of the body when people judge body size ...)

My prediction is that both MFT and NEX will do well (I am not so sure about NX) because unlike some forum posters, I recognize that not every camera buyer has exactly the same priorities as me in the trade-offs between camera size and weight, low light performance, desire for a good amount of telephoto reach without excessive bulk, desire for a standard prime offering roughly normal FOV rather than wide angle, and so on.
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2010, 10:12:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm less enthusiastic, both about the camera and the thread, than DarkPenguin.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2010, 10:59:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I wrote this thread before the Michael's latest was on line, coincidence. I'm happy that we'll have a field review very soon.
I agree with the content of MR's article.

The Sony design is IMO a very good design. What I expect digital tech is not bringing us old film designs (bad) remakes like often but
new ways, ergonomics and usability that allows digital.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2010, 11:12:18 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2010, 11:15:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I couldn't ever get into the idea of framing and making my decisions through the grace of a screen like that; I never use the ones on my digi cameras for anything beyond histogram consultation. Am I a photographer or am I a scientist at his microscope?

It's my opinion that photographers today have become obsessive about the difficulties or otherwise of focussing. In that same opinion (mine) the single most important thing the viewfinder should offer you, in ALL small format cameras, is sight of 100% of the subject; you can't afford to lose or crop on tiny formats.

It is written (indeed!) that you can't focus well with digi unless you magnify to a zillion degrees - I never could magnify like that with film, was seldom off and neither have I found myself off with digital. It's a bloody great hoax which may, just may have some relevance and become less hoax-like to people shooting flat artwork, but is meaningless to anyone else. Good God in heaven, are we suddenly all doing shots that will end up in Times Square?

It was right for what it was when they made the Ms and even more right when they made the F; they plateaued (apologies, Fred!) and there were no new peaks to climb. All else is hype and marketing and I need food, right now.

Rob C
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2010, 11:24:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
I couldn't ever get into the idea of framing and making my decisions through the grace of a screen like that; I never use the ones on my digi cameras for anything beyond histogram consultation. Am I a photographer or am I a scientist at his microscope?

It's my opinion that photographers today have become obsessive about the difficulties or otherwise of focussing. In that same opinion (mine) the single most important thing the viewfinder should offer you, in ALL small format cameras, is sight of 100% of the subject; you can't afford to lose or crop on tiny formats.

It is written (indeed!) that you can't focus well with digi unless you magnify to a zillion degrees - I never could magnify like that with film, was seldom off and neither have I found myself off with digital. It's a bloody great hoax which may, just may have some relevance and become less hoax-like to people shooting flat artwork, but is meaningless to anyone else. Good God in heaven, are we suddenly all doing shots that will end up in Times Square?

It was right for what it was when they made the Ms and even more right when they made the F; they plateaued (apologies, Fred!) and there were no new peaks to climb. All else is hype and marketing and I need food, right now.

Rob C
I knew you gona hate this design Rob  .

Well, yes, the current digital designs that have just cloned so far (and indeed very badly cloned a part of some exeptions) the film age designs are just painfull. You pointed the viewfinders experience and that's probably the worst of the long list of digihassles. I rather get this inovative Sony than a pale cheap clone of an M like those MFT.

Reading Michael's first impression and the review in Imaging Ressource (they are not that bad IMO), got the impression that it is much more acheived than a simple marketing delirium, but as DarkPenguin pointed, it is important to wait for users opinions and more infos when released.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2010, 11:25:27 AM by fredjeang » Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2010, 11:38:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Not what I was expecting from the thread title; I expected a rant about how people are too obsessed with MFT charts and resolution/sharpness.

I've never seen MFT used as an abbreviation for micro four-thirds. Usually it's m4/3 I think.

I don't agree with your premise though, and the main reason is lenses. NX lenses will have to be bigger than m4/3. And the fact that m4/3 is a shared standard means more lenses available. Sony still has some big gaps in their SLR lens lineup, I'm not sure adding an entirely new lens lineup is something they can pull off.  I guess you could argue that they're going after point-n-shoot users looking for an upgrade and don't need a bunch of specialty lenses; but how many of those folks care about the difference in sensor size between APS and 4/3?
Logged

douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2010, 12:55:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Using adapted lenses, like M, is what I'm excited about.  BTW, the lenses aren't as big as they look, it's just that the body is so small that proportions are difficult to judge:


Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2010, 01:41:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
Not what I was expecting from the thread title; I expected a rant about how people are too obsessed with MFT charts and resolution/sharpness.

I've never seen MFT used as an abbreviation for micro four-thirds. Usually it's m4/3 I think.

I don't agree with your premise though, and the main reason is lenses. NX lenses will have to be bigger than m4/3. And the fact that m4/3 is a shared standard means more lenses available. Sony still has some big gaps in their SLR lens lineup, I'm not sure adding an entirely new lens lineup is something they can pull off.  I guess you could argue that they're going after point-n-shoot users looking for an upgrade and don't need a bunch of specialty lenses; but how many of those folks care about the difference in sensor size between APS and 4/3?
My expectations were similar to yours from the thread title. In fact the thread title made no sense to me at all since I was thinking MTF.

But  I now know MFT is quite common - perhaps as common or even more so if google is a fair indicator.

As to the premise of the thread, I find it pretty premature and some what presumptive.  MFT has gained enough market penetration and acceptance to be relevant for a while.
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2010, 01:50:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
Not what I was expecting from the thread title; I expected a rant about how people are too obsessed with MFT charts and resolution/sharpness.

I've never seen MFT used as an abbreviation for micro four-thirds. Usually it's m4/3 I think.

I don't agree with your premise though, and the main reason is lenses. NX lenses will have to be bigger than m4/3. And the fact that m4/3 is a shared standard means more lenses available. Sony still has some big gaps in their SLR lens lineup, I'm not sure adding an entirely new lens lineup is something they can pull off.  I guess you could argue that they're going after point-n-shoot users looking for an upgrade and don't need a bunch of specialty lenses; but how many of those folks care about the difference in sensor size between APS and 4/3?
Jeff, I agree with you that the lens size, as you point and being pointed by others, is actually what makes the real strengh of MFT or m4/3 if you like. Not so much the bodies conception.
But look at the Pentaxes primes pancackes, (vintages and current) it is possible to acheive a lot in that aspect.
As we know that this industry if it wants, can really overcome many obstacle it is not so unrealistic that they could bring solutions very soon.

This Sony seems to me, at least for the information available now, a more than serious proposal.

What we've seen so far with digital gear is that biggest sensors, more MP, power and correct price have always won the market place. And that these features are each time smaller, lighter, better etc...
May I'm wrong with my thread tittle? who knows...
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2010, 01:58:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
My expectations were similar to yours from the thread title. In fact the thread title made no sense to me at all since I was thinking MTF.

But  I now know MFT is quite common - perhaps as common or even more so if google is a fair indicator.

As to the premise of the thread, I find it pretty premature and some what presumptive.  MFT has gained enough market penetration and acceptance to be relevant for a while.
Agree 100%, it is presumptive in some ways: I come here to say nothing less than: hey guys you are going dead end road with your micro four third cameras.
Actually I may be totally wrong, but I feel it 100% sincerely, if not I would not have writen this.
I've lived from inside the 4/3 saga and don't find any difference here, if not the fact that as you pointed, the Micro is more implemented now in the market.
So as many things that have been abandoned later.
Logged
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2010, 02:36:30 PM »
ReplyReply

If I'd have to make a ladder of camera categories with size in mind I'd most likely do it like this (Don't take it all too serious):

1. Cameras that fit in the breast pocket of my shirt
(= the real day to day cameras, like a photo mobile)

2. Cameras that fit in the pocket of my jacket
(= the clumsy day to day camera - Compact, P/S, etc)

3. Cameras that fit in a bigger jacket and need one or two additional pockets for lenses and stuff
(= the tools of the undecided: MFT, FF RF, like Leica M)

4. Cameras that do not really fit in a jackets pocket anymore.
(=the even bigger and more expensive tools of the undecided - DSLRs, Leica S2 etc)

5. First real cameras
(= For the freaklings - Rollei, Bronica, Hassies (System V) and the like)

6. Tank cameras
(=  For the real freaks - Mamiya Press, Arca Swiss, Alpa and such)

7. Spaceship cameras
(= For the really big freaks = 4x5'' and above)

8. Camera mutations (x-tra category)
(= Cameras for artists: Paper and pencil, Holga (with mayonese or mustard on the lens), Kodak box, pinhole cameras, sand and finger, Lomography, etc ...)
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2010, 02:56:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ChristophC
(=the even bigger and more expensive tools of the undecided - DSLRs, Leica S2 etc)

5. First real cameras
(= For the freaklings - Rollei, Bronica, Hassies (System V) and the like)



I now accept my new classification as card-carrying freakling: owned all three marques! Only regret? Bronica 6x7.

Rob C
Logged

NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2010, 04:19:35 PM »
ReplyReply

If you ask for my opinion, I'm neither pro nor against, at the contrary!

But for something a bit more factual, don't forget to take into account the lens offerings with these new cameras with new mounts (and so far, µ4/3 is the only paved road in this respect, at least for me who uses a WA zoom as a "normal" lens).
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2010, 06:02:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikoJorj
If you ask for my opinion, I'm neither pro nor against, at the contrary!

Is the opposite of "neither pro nor against" "either against or pro"?
Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2010, 01:39:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
Is the opposite of "neither pro nor against" "either against or pro"?

  - You can't say it is so.
  - You can't say it is not so.
  - You can't say its is as well so as it is not.
  - You can't say it is neither so nor not.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad