Olympus: All in on M43, We Will Not Go Full-Frame

[pRICE cUBE]

Looks like Olympus is going to focus on the Micro 4/3 format unlike their friends over at Panasonic that now deploy a M43 and full frame approach. Micro 4/3 is a nice platform that is well supported by Olympus and Panasonic. The camera tend to be smaller than aps-c and full frame 35mm sized cameras.
I know that some people use M43 on this forum. It's worth looking into.


https://petapixel.com/2021/04/02/om-digi...ull-frame/

For some time there has been repeated speculation that OM Digital was going to (or should) join the L-mount alliance, but in answering questions in its “Four Thirds Day” presentation with Panasonic reconfirmed that it has no plans to produce full-frame cameras.

In the hour-long video below, summarized by DigiCame Info, OM Digital’s Toshiyuki Tsumura, who is in charge of product strategy, answered several questions about the company’s business model going forward, and of course, it was once again asked if the company would not produce a full-frame camera.

“We are on the path of Micro Four Thirds,” Tsumura says, translated from Japanese. “We do not do full-frame.”

[davester]

I think that the term "full-frame" is a funny anachronism in the post-film world since it refers to the size of a 35mm film negative, which is irrelevant to the digital world. I also think that all of these crazy names (APS-C, Micro 4/3) for sensor sizes is a bit annoying. Couldn't someone come up with a better naming convention that would allow you to compare sensors easily, perhaps a number based on sensor area?

That said, I think that with the quality of sensors today and the trend towards miniaturization, Micro 4/3 is a large enough size for 95% of the photographers out there so I understand Olympus's direction. They have always been good at being on the forefront of major changes. There's still a need for "full-frame" and larger sensors but it is becoming more and more a niche item.

[mattkime]

Seems like they're making the right move although I'm not particularly interested in their form factor for my own photos.

[deckeda]

You get several sensor sizes for the same reasons you got several film sizes previously: cost and choice.

But “full frame” should not be smaller than “medium format” anything. Just go back to calling the former 35mm. If anyone’s confused, that is what model names and numbers are for.

[freeradical]

davester wrote:
I think that the term "full-frame" is a funny anachronism in the post-film world since it refers to the size of a 35mm film negative, which is irrelevant to the digital world.

"Full Frame" has more implied meaning than simply size. It also refers to the depth of field characteristics that you get with a sensor of that size. In the digital world, it also implies the low light traits of the sensor.

[deckeda]

^^ Yeah but that’s all just short-term stuff. Medium format has always had more depth of field, it’s just that 35mm was (eventually ... ) the default consumer format. On that score, it is a “full” frame base from which to compare others.

[deckeda]

I still say that if 24x35mm sensors continue to fall in price APS-C will die a merciful death because it’s just too similar in how it’s marketed, as being “good enough” despite all the “equivalent” focal length talk for lenses. And it’s not as if APS-C has ever had any camera size advantages.

Phones
A few small cameras with whatever.
Full-frame.
MF.

I honestly think we’d be there already if every new camera wasn’t compelled to additionally be a professional video rig. Prices are artificially high as a result.

[davester]

deckeda wrote:
I still say that if 24x35mm sensors continue to fall in price APS-C will die a merciful death because it’s just too similar in how it’s marketed, as being “good enough” despite all the “equivalent” focal length talk for lenses. And it’s not as if APS-C has ever had any camera size advantages.

Phones
A few small cameras with whatever.
Full-frame.
MF.

I honestly think we’d be there already if every new camera wasn’t compelled to additionally be a professional video rig. Prices are artificially high as a result.

I disagree completely. Micro 4/3 cameras, and particularly the lenses that go with them are much smaller than "full-frame" cameras. A big problem with full-frame is that the glass you need to get an equivalent focal length and aperture is massive compared to those for smaller format cameras. The package of camera body + lens is completely different from the smaller but still high quality formats. Now admittedly, that massive piece of glass does get you great light-gathering ability for very-low-light shots, but there's a significant sacrifice in weight and bulk and $ to get that.

[Gareth]

deckeda wrote:
I honestly think we’d be there already if every new camera wasn’t compelled to additionally be a professional video rig. Prices are artificially high as a result.

I've mentioned the flip-side argument to this before. Prices may actually be cheaper because of the added video capabilities. It increases the market of the camera and more sales can mean a lower price. Remove video, and you have a smaller market, more niche camera and thus you'd need to charge a higher price.

[Z]

deckeda wrote:
I still say that if 24x35mm sensors continue to fall in price APS-C will die a merciful death because it’s just too similar in how it’s marketed, as being “good enough” despite all the “equivalent” focal length talk for lenses. And it’s not as if APS-C has ever had any camera size advantages.
.

Pentax would like to disagree with you. But most other makers would agree. (shrugs)

Happy with my new to me KP.