More Support For Micro 4/3rds As The Future

There does seem to be an growing feeling that mirror­less is the way cameras are going.

I suspect there will always be some uses for the crazy large lenses, but in truth even most profes­sional photog­ra­phers don’t need those extremes.

Embedded Link

Future Cameras – Is The DSLR Bound To Go The Way Of The 8-Track Player?
Never one to shy away from contro­versy, I want to point to a well thought-out and well-written piece by my pal Trey Ratcliff.  He says he doesn’t plan to buy any more DSLR gear. He thinks the fu…

Google+: View post on Google+

Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Tread­well.

6 thoughts on “More Support For Micro 4/3rds As The Future”

  1. To put it succinctly: Modern man is just a nean­derthal that has seen and learned to use cellphone.

    Wanting to use new and new crap doesn’t somehow make one smart and tech savvy. One has to under­stand how things work.

    As far as there is no funda­mental break­through within the lens, it seems stupid to show some­what smaller body along big lens as the reason of change.

    And miror­rles has yet to show us fast dinamic auto­focus WITHOUT light loss.

    Old Serbian proverbs say:

    Those that survive shall speak”
    “First jump, then say hop”

    They seem appro­priate somehow.

  2. Dismissing micro 4/3rds as just “new crap” or new for the sake of being new really under­es­ti­mates the impor­tance of the size savings (both for the camera and the lenses) and the value that has to many photographers.

    When I see profes­sional photog­ra­phers saying that they are taking and selling photos using micro 4/3rds cameras I think it’s time to stop assuming that DSLR is somehow the best.

  3. I have never consid­ered myself as an serious photog­ra­pher. Avid yes but no pro.

    When I bought my first Canon 300D I didn’t have a clue what SLR means. Nor did I care.

    All I knew was that I was sick of elcheapo crap I was using and that I wanted some­thing that could get the job done.

    Which 300D has done. It wasn’t perfect, but it was afford­able and defi­nitely step upward then.

    From that point on I couldn’t care less what made it tick– be it SLR or Harry Potter itself sitting inside and making each photo appear in my CF card.

    This is how I see things today. I strive to unde­stand tech­nology and science, but for useful purpose, not to chase around the market some “tech­nolo­gies” with bombastic names that some marketing depart­ments conve­niently prepared for me.

    Early tests show that there is consid­er­able light loss and that no one has good, solid fast auto­focus mech­a­nism yet.

    All they have is some heuris­tics that might or might not work.

    And wrt to lens– well good lens cost money and weight a fair bit.

    It’s just like an antenna– every good radio ham knows that good, solid, decently sized antenna is foun­da­tion of everything.

    You can have HW made by NASA, with shitty antenna it won’t help you much.

    Lens are antenna system for light.

  4. By the very nature of the micro 4/3rds design the lenses are smaller and thus lighter than tradi­tional DSLR.

    Both the lenses and the cameras are getting extremely posi­tive reviews. The auto­focus was an area of concern but recent models have done well in that area too.

  5. WRT to sensor size, if that is the aswwer then why not go for 1/4 inch for example ?

    Your phone is surely smaller than 4/3 camera and it has many other functions.

    Answer is simple– sensor noise. Why do you think manu­fac­turers state size of each photore­cep­tive site on sensor ?

    I don’t doubt that 4/3 are fit for many purposes, but the ques­tion was will the 4/3 mirror­less push SLR effec­tively out of the market.

    Based on what I have seen so far and without some revo­lu­tion in sensor and lens tech, IMO no.

Tell Me What You Think...