An obvious news: Fujiguy do confirm that Fuji will not join m43.


Fujiguys tweeted (found via Noisycamera) that they will not join the m43 for now. Just read the screenshot on top :(

This doesn’t mean that Fuji will never join m43 as the new X system is clearly targeted for the “premium” high-end market with a larger sized sensor (fullframe?). But I will bury my hopes for now. Now it’s up to Panasonic and Olympus to invent something as exciting as the Fuji announcement! Will Olympus-Panasonic ever create a new larger sensor system? I would welcome that and you?


  • Chris

    What a pity. Will look forward to checking the Fuji system out, though!

    I wouldn’t like to see O&P create a new, larger-sensor system; there’s a whole heap of potential in the m43 format and creating another system would divide efforts.

    Also, personally I don’t want a larger sensor – if I want subject isolation I’d almost certainly be using at least a portrait lens, and m43’s DOF at those focal lengths is more than shallow enough. Your tastes may vary, of course. I just want an m43 sensor with superlative pixels…

    • Gianluca


      • DonParrot

        Why please should I want a larger sensor for?
        I optedt for FT due to the numerous advantages of the sensor format although there also were major disadvantages then. And now, with the advantages increasing and the disdatanzages getting more and more meaningless with any new sensor generation, going for a bigger sensor would be the biggest mistake I could imagine.

        FT will be the FF of the mirrorless era, FF will be a niche for those ready to pay loads of money and a sherpa to get the last tiny bit of IQ out of their equipment – and APS-C is about to die.

        So no, thank you very much. I’m totally happy with my FT sensor and the more other manufacturers opt for other formats, the better for those who have joined the party.

        • camerageek

          OMFG!!!!! I laughed so hard reading this pathetic peasantry logic! Buahahahahaha!!!!!! m4/3rds will go the way of the dodo. I said Fuji would never sully their greatness with the common trash that is m4/3rd and as Sony NEX sales indicate, m4/3rds is a dead arrival. Stick with the system designed for the filthy rabble while the rest of us embrace Fuji a system for the Godlike elite!

          Really they should require a portfolio review before allowing anyone to buy a Fuji!

  • Marc

    I’m OK with this, it makes it clearer to me that the X100 is one off. And that holding off on an upgrade from my GH1 to some Fuji system is not in the cards. I am invested in micro 4/3 for now, and that’s not a bad place to be really. I am really, really hoping the the GFX7/GFPro, whatever, is what we have all been waiting for. And that there isn’t going to be a gnawing sense that I should really check out what is happening in the Fuji camp. And this is from someone who had, and cherished a GW690III at one point! Hats off to the Fuji guys, they have some cool stuff coming down the pipe for sure, but that’s not what I am really looking for. C’mon Panny don’t let us down.

    • camerageek

      Not switching to the new Fuji system because you are invested in micro four turds is like not buying Gold Toe Socks because you are invested in Tube Socks! Buahahahahaha!

  • Eugene

    If Olympus were to produce cameras with larger sensors, I hope it’s a digital OM.

    • TheEye

      Oly didn’t have the resources and/or drive to keep 4/3 going. How could they possibly expand into the larger-sensor arena?

  • Scott

    its never going to happen. new sensor size means new lens lineup. Now I do think they could use the 3 sensor system with a prism to get crazy dpi but there is little advantage to add size to a sensor. With technology the way it changes the 4/3 sensor size will be as good as the best current canon and nikon. Yes Canon and nikon will be even better then but I would rather have the smaller size and good quality rather than huge size and little bit better quality

    • Martin


    • Ahem

      This. I don’t understand how ANYONE knowing anything about cameras, business and current economy thinks it would be a good idea to make yet another mount.

      • The logic is very simple.

        1. The management runs the company on behest of stockholders.

        2. The management has to do something about the identifiable threats in the market.

        3. Reusing existing mount means direct competition with other manufacturers – and that is traditionally considered to be risky.

        4. Introducing new mount on marketroid cheat sheets looks like a win-win: totally new (aka: “incompatible”) product with lots of possibilities to differentiate themselves (aka: “gimmicks”) AND no direct competition.

        5. Thus a new mount is introduced.

        • This is logic?

          > Management has to do something about threats in market

          Actually, Fujifilm management needs to come up with a plan that shows that they can be a viable, competitive, profitable player in the digital camera future. They’ve slipped, slipped, slipped at these things. One 300k unit camera that has good PR doesn’t change this. So let’s talk about the threats: Nikon/Sony/Canon selling over 50% of the compacts; Oly/Panny/Sony/Nikon all selling near or above the 1m unit/year mark in mirrorless by the time they get their first model to market; Nikon/Sony/Canon own the DSLR market outright.

          Fujifilm’s current plan is this: sell their compact cameras into emerging markets, introduce a premium mirrorless camera that probably won’t move market shares, and ignore the DSLR market. So, is that dealing with threats? ;~)

          > Using existing mount is risky

          It wasn’t for Fujifilm the first two times around, why would it be this time? Basically by building your own mount you’re saying that you need some proprietary lock in order to compete. Put a different way, you’re saying that if you came out with an m4/3 camera you’d fail because your camera wouldn’t rise above the others. What message does that send to your designers and your customers?

          > new product = no direct competition

          But, of course, it has plenty of direct competition. The competition is for a consumer’s dollars.

          I realize you had tongue-in-cheek when you were writing this, but let’s call a spade a spade instead of insinuating it. This is a crazy, stupid decision on Fujifilm’s part. It almost certainly locks them into a low-volume solution. They HAVE to go very premium (it had better perform better than a NEX 7 in every way) to persuade someone from spending their dollars elsewhere. But that also means they’ll be the highest priced competitor in the market. Exactly how’s that work long-term? Fujifilm is not Leica.

  • SteveO

    “Will Olympus-Panasonic ever create a new larger sensor system? I would welcome that and you?”

    No need, who wants bigger lenses? How about an Olympus tuned Panasonic GH or G3 mFT sensor instead? Or better yet the latest Sony 16MP or 24MP sensor re-engineered for mFT?

    • Ardi GF2

      +1 Sir

    • Olympus put all their eggs in the 4/3 basket, and as I predicted from the beginning, that’s proving to be a problem. The sensor’s not large enough to (yet) provide great overall performance that keeps enthusiasts/pros happy, and it wasn’t until recently that they really got the size advantage the sensor promised into the actual product.

      4/3 is “tweener” and this adds complications to strategy. Panasonic was more public about the notion that a small systems camera would attract compact users moving up, and for awhile they and Olympus had that position to themselves. But does a compact user “moving up” really want interchangeable lenses, or do they just want “faster autofocus and better low-light performance”? I’m pretty sure you could have built a large-sensor compact that appealed to that audience. Meanwhile, you’ve got high-end enthusiasts that would really enjoy being able to do the same thing with smaller and lighter systems. But they want “feature set, dynamic range, overall performance, and a high degree of choices of lenses and accessories.”

      Olympus and Panasonic seem to be trying to straddle those two camps. Yes, we’ve got a large choice of lenses, but no we don’t have better low-light performance or DR. They seemed to aimed for the center of the two camps, and not targeted either. I think that was a mistake. A Pen Mini or GF3 should be 10mp, optimized for focus and low-light performance and mostly automated–targeted at the compact market. A Pen Pro or G3 should be 16-18mp, optimized for DR and complete user control at the fingertips–targeted at the enthusiast. The G3 actually comes close to that mark, while the E-P3 still misses it, I think.

      But the larger question is this: let’s assume that Panny/Oly both build a range of m4/3 models that span that full audience perfectly: is that enough to keep the user? The compact user buys an entry m4/3, graduates to a high-end m4/3, then goes where? That’s the strategic problem the m4/3 makers face: they have no additional places to send users other than to the DX/FX/MF competitors. In other words, m4/3 is potentially a market with a cap on it. Once Panny/Oly approach saturating it, they have nothing else to move a customer that’s still growing to.

      Contrast this to Nikon: compacts, Nikon 1, Nikon DX, Nikon FX. Or Sony: compacts, NEX, APS, FF. You can move a customer a long way in those hierarchies.

      I won’t speak to Panasonic, as they’re such a huge company that their “strategy” is absurdly tied to cross-organization priorities (sensors, semiconductors, phones, cameras, you name it). But Olympus has a shrinking compact business, a growing m4/3 business, and virtually no DSLR business. It’s difficult to retain and grow customers as long as that continues. It’s clear that they need to “fix” the compact side of things (the XZ-1 was a nice start), but it’s what they do above m4/3 that is the open question. Personally, I think they should completely drop 4/3, build as many of those lenses that make sense into m4/3, and introduce a larger sensor modern OM-4, perhaps reintroducing some of the old Zuiko mount lenses.

      • PS

        Hi Thom

        How about a super 4/3 using the micro 4/3 system with old 4/3 lenses. These lenses will cast a bigger image on mirrorless than on 4/3 cameras?

  • reverse stream swimmer

    So you mean, the fact that Fujifilm will not join Micro Four Thirds, will not rule out that Oly % Pana will join Fuji in Maxi Four Thirds.

    How about a 1.44 crop sensor, having a 24×18 mm and still having an aspect ratio of 4:3, pixel pitch like the GH2, making a total of 30 Megapixels.

  • Meh, in any case I don’t think I could even afford whatever Fuji comes up with…

    • JeremyT

      Pretty much my thought! I’m sure Fuji’s product will be nice, but I don’t think I’m the target audience. µ4/3 size is good for me.

  • Bob B.

    I have no interest in a larger sensor mirrorless system. I like the size of MFT as it is..and if I need to go bigger I will use my DSLR. (I just have no interest in investing in another camera system). Panasonic has the cash to make a quantum leap and produce a revolutionary sensor of MFT size. If Steve Jobs was involved in this ….He would create the camera we have all been waiting for and add some things we would all be amaze at. Hey Panasonic…really surprise us…it will be good for business!!!!!!

    • Tropical Yeti

      If Steve Jobs was involved in this, he would create a cam with minimal number of buttons, connectors for operating the cam. One extra button to download photo apps to your cam and one button to upload videos to Youtube. Oh and the price would be higher.

      • Bob B.

        LOL!!! you could be right!…but it would make the company LOTs of money…and the stock would go up.
        …and we still would not have the camera that we want!

    • Anonymous

      If Steve Jobs had been involved with m43 from the start, noone would have complained about the noodtoestand 12mp sensor…

      • … because Jobsy would have forced R&D to compensate the deficiency with something else. That’s the way he was.

        But internally, he would have actually forced R&D to develop better sensor/imaging tech.

        Jobs was always extremely hard on his subordinates at the core things affecting experience. To subsidize the greater R&D costs, he would also have started another venture on a side (a-la Pixar) to create addition stream of revenue to reinvest into the new developments. Firmware updates to the Apple cameras would have also being more often, bringing not only fixes but also new features from the new camera models. App store would have been striving too – esp after Apple would have paid the Adobe to port the ACR and the PhotoShop to the iCameraOS, supporting the GPU acceleration and 3G connection.

        OK, I’m kidding. About 10 years ago it might have been a reality, but not now. Apple of this days doesn’t really care much about professional/enthusiast users as it used to. And Apple cameras would have been expensive thus would have to be targeted at professional/enthusiast users willing to pay.

  • NineFace

    Great it will competing with the new Leica

  • Nic Walmsley

    m43 has a top class sensor. It’s in the G3. They just need to get it in more bodies. That they didn’t do that in 2011 was a serious mistake. The whole system would have been in a much stronger financial position if that sensor was in the pen 3 lineup. (well I’m guessing so)

    • The Other Chris

      This is why Olympus needs a new sensor manufacturer, and they needed it two years ago.

      • Weber

        I read a post here by someone (LGO I think) that Olympus should just use the Sony 16mp sensor now used on the NEX-5N and just crop the image to a m4/3 size. What is stopping Olympus from doing this?

        With such a sensor combine with the small size and light weight of the m4/3 plus IBIS, Olympus will do very very well even against Panasonic Sony, Fuji, Nikon and Pentax and anything that Canon can throw at it.

  • compositor20

    it needs at least iso 100 for better DR (12 stops are enough?) but with g3 performance at high iso (or even better) so that actual iso3200 looks like the next gen at iso 6400

    • nobody

      Going by the DXO figures, the NEX cameras have a base ISO of about 80. So m43 should go down to ISO 50 to have about the same base ISO noise.

      Of course, ISO range will always be limited. So Panasonic should just abandon ISO 12800 (which is too low quality anyway), and have an ISO range of 50 to 6400 with very high image quality at the low end.

      Of course, YMMV!

  • Roger Mason

    What’s really exciting for me about the née Fuji mirrorless is the Foveon-ish sensor. If Oly or Pany comes out with a built-in EVF in a E-P3 style body with a Foveon sensor I’ll be the first in line to buy. Manual dials for shutter and exposure comp would be nice too.

    • Perhaps Fuji will sell an mFT version of their new sensor designed for allowing much more pixel density with low noise but that would imply completly new signal processing by the buyer compagny (olympus?).

  • jake

    they should release one MFT mirroless and one FF.

    I love MFT (only) but I hate Panny sensor in it.

  • Thomas

    premium means premium prices so i guess we will have round $1500-2000 Bodys with $800-1500 Lenses… so i dont care anyway. Too expensive

  • Hiplnsdrftr

    Whatever excitement was created from the early PEN and the GF1 has been squandered away. Really a shame.

    Fuji and Sony seem to be poised to take full advantage of this opportunity.

    And Nikon did everyone else a huge favor by releasing a noncontender.

    Looking forward to a true follow up to the GF1.

  • shutterwill

    thanks fuji, now I can look else where

  • NineFace

    obliviously in this forum most people will be disappoint :) but companies know that small sensor won’t work in the next few years. Fuji, Sony, Samsung, Canon and Leica they all going for large sensor. However, for the lenses, if Pana can make it small then other big companies should able to do it as well.

    • Thomas

      People here want cameras with proportionately sized lenses and bodies. That is the theme of the responses in this thread. Those Sony cameras look absolutely ridiculous.

      • Forbes

        That is the one true strength of m4/3, a platform that can keep it small and relatively inexpensive. Although the large zooms still make m4/3 look just as ridiculous as Sony, the new pancake standard zoom from Panasonic is a really good development.
        Fuji is in a different league and is aiming to compete directly with Leica, that is not the place for m4/3.

        • pisto

          I agree. However, a system is built with bodies and lenses in mind. In M43 (which I do not own), we have quite good lenses aimed at the enthusiast photographer (Oly 12 and 45mm, Pana 20 and 25mm), all of them primes with large apertures and great IQ.

          All we need to make it the right system for the enthusiast photographer is a body with IBS, a good quality EVF (not even dreaming about an hybrid system) and centered in pictures, not in being bling-bling, which is what Fuji accomplished with the X100. Price it correctly (around 600-700 for body). Sensors are there (GH3) and deliver, concept is there and works (Fuji and shortages). Now we need someone with courage to actually build and stopping to release yet again the same camera in different sizes.

    • reverse stream swimmer

      Small sensors with high resolution we’ll already find in the mobile phones, i.e. iPhone 4S with 8Mpx. Product differentiation requires either more resolution or better performance, or both!

      The mirrorless cameras at least needs better performance, through better optics and larger sensor areas. Micro Four Thirds is the third sweet spot up on the performance ladder (the 1/2.3″ & 1/1.7″ are the first steps up), APS-C is very close to MFT, while FF is close to APS-C.

      Is there a need for a further APS-H size? I think so, since with each step up on the performance ladder, it’s an exponential increase in the overall system cost.

      FF existence is only dependent on legacy film format, 135. Going mirrorless erodes that legacy reason totally. Furthermore, APS-H is so much cheaper to manufacture compared to FF 24x36mm.

      For mirrorless, if max performance is required of a new system, make it a new mount, APS-H sized, and fit it with Panasonics multi aspect ratio sensor (16:9, 3:2, 4:3, [1:1]).

      • APS-H make sense for me in Fuji next Pro mirrorless :) but Fuji claimed larger than FF, sound like we will meet something “extraordinary”

        • Thomas

          they NEVER claimed bigger than FF. Only better IQ than current FF…

          • Oliver


            Yes, many blind people here! Fuji even never claimed “bigger than anything” They didin´t tell anything about size. They only talked about quality.

            Folks! You can repeat the mistake again and again. But that will not change anything.

      • Forbes

        I think the legacy of 135 film is important as there are a significant number of photographers who really want to get rid of all this 2x, 1.5x, 1.3x crop business. For them full frame is the future, everything else is just a way of bridging the gap until the price of full frame bodies goes down enough. For me, I too want a camera where a 50mm is really 50mm (although I use a 7D).
        I’m hoping Leica will have the guts to go for a full frame sensor in their EVF model next year.

        • reverse stream swimmer

          Well, at some point in time, you have to do a paradigm shift; Film is out – Digital image is in!

          The Canon & Nikon haven’t showed the guts earlier, rather tried to retain some legacy lens investments in a mediocer mix together with 24x36mm FF sensors.

          With less photographers having experiences with film, the crop factor goes away. It really doesn’t matter the 50mm heritage meaning anymore.

          A 24×36 mm heritage system doesn’t add any substantial value anymore, just additional production costs over APS-H chip sizes.

          However, the video business might have a future influence where money is spent on sensor formats, i.e.

          • Forbes

            For the mass consumer market film is indeed out, but even film still has a strong following and the traditional format of film is still a reference frame for photographers and manufacturers. It makes perfect sense for the full frame format to become a standard for higher end digital cameras. Why use anything else? Cost? For high end cameras? I would much rather pay 10 or 20% extra to have my 50mm perform the way it was meant to perform, like a 50mm. Whether I use an M2 or an M9 or a 5D or a D700, a 50mm gives the 50mm perspective. I hate every manufacturer coming up with something different. Digital photography needs consistency at the high end, full frame is the most logical solution.

        • Ahem

          No need to get rid of it, it’s a useful convention as long as there will be non-35mm sized sensors – ie. always.

          Also, FF is not “the” way to go. Each crop factor has different desirable characteristics, and are always a compromise between several factors of IQ, size cost and lens compatibility.

          • Forbes

            Certainly there will always be crop sensors, but that is largely for the general consumer market. What I mean is that for the high end (‘premium’) cameras it really makes much more sense to go full frame. Although at the moment it is still technologically challenging.
            Case in point are the success stories of the D700, 5D, 5DmkII and M9. Many prefer full frame.

            • digifan

              Many prefer 35FF because they still deliver the best in rel. small (compared to MF and FF) package, look at those huge hasselblads etc.
              Pro’s want small also case in point being that almost no Pro photographer owns a Hassy anymore but in stead do that work with a 35FF camera.
              Ultimate studio and glamour quality is still done by those 10.000+ camera’s but often those camera’s are rentals if the photographer in question isn’t specialised in that area.
              So when APS-C and m43 hit current 35FF quality and speed, that’s when 35FF’s days are counted.
              No need to carry those big clumsy things when there’s a perfect other solution. And IMO the perfect solution is m43 because it represents the sweet spot. Overall package is balanced.

              • Forbes

                Everyone has their sweet spot. For many it will be m4/3, but certainly not for all. When quality is an issue and money a lot less, that is where full frame hits the sweet spot for many. Neither m4/3 nor APS-C will get to the same quality as full frame simply because it will always be a matter of physical size. When m4/3 and APS-C hit current full frame quality, so too will full frame ascend to a higher level of quality.

  • mister_roboto

    I would have REALLY loved it had they joined… however, I don’t think they EVER will, and hoping that they will some day is pretty futile.

  • Olympius

    Yes, this blatant announcement by the FujiGuys does mean that Fuji is NOT going to be a 4/3 partner, not now or ever. They aren’t going to throw millions and billions of yen into a new premium mirrorless system only to come out with a similar micro 4/3 system a few months later. Fuji has the confidence and the technology to go head to head with the best mirrorless system out there: the Leica M9, and that’s where I think they are setting their sites. If they can pull it off, it will be quite the accomplishment.

    I’ve been watching Fuji with great interest since the introduction of the X100, and now the very interesting X10, which I hope to own someday. (I think it will be even more popular than the X100) Those two cameras show how serious Fuji is in regards to going after the enthusiast photographer market, and I think the new X?? system will follow that pattern.

    It may be that not only will this new Fuji mirrorless system be an awesome mirrorless system, but might be a new standard in digital photography, bar none.

    – Olympius

    • Martin

      > Those two cameras show how serious Fuji is in regards to going after the enthusiast photographer market, and I think the new X?? system will follow that pattern.

      Why do you think so? With the ‘new X system’ they appartently have pro market in mind, not an ‘enthusiast photographer’. Otherwise they wouldn’t speak about better performance and resolution capacity than any current FF system.
      IMO the new mysterious system will be expensive as hell, nothing for mere mortals (like us m43 users).

      • Ahem

        Not only that, it will require large and heavy lenses, which is probably what the MFT crow got away from in the first place – that’s what I did.

        • Olympius

          No, you don’t need “large and heavy lenses” for APS or even full-frame if you know what you’re doing. Go somewhere where you can find Leica lenses, and you’ll see they are small and compact–but the M9 is full frame. Same with most 35mm film lenses, they were all, especially the old Zuikos, very small and compact. The only lenses that need to be huge are telephotos, but that’s true for any sensor size except for the Pentax Q system.

          – Olympius

          • Martin

            If you don’t need your lenses to autofocus, then they can be smaller, that’s right. But I, for one, do want my lenses to AF..

          • Ahem

            So you’re saying Canon makes their 35mm-format lenses huge although they don’t need to? That’s disingenuous.

            Leican rangefinder flange distance is different which plays a big role in lens sizes, but I don’t know how much of a factor it is. Also, Leica lenses cost thousands (plural) of euros, so that’s not a fair comparison.

      • The Other Chris

        I think it’s safe to say that enthusiasts care more about specs than pros. As I understand it, professional photographers are in the business to make money, not to spend their profits on top-notch quality every time a new camera comes out.

  • We must think at the 1st place, why Nex and X100 be larger sensor than m43/43 at the 1st place. What stuff draw Sony and Fuji decided to the direction. Is Sony and Fuji already have an answer about limitation in small sensor deliver performance and IQ.

    If today you guy is hoping Panny to join large sensor, i believe this is defeat Panny original vision in m43. m43 exists is to proof a small sensor, compact bodies deliver amaizing performance and IQ with its super pancake lineup. And today after few generations of GF/GH released only realize need to switch to large sensor (APS-C or above) to be compete with rivals, this is defeat its own purpose will cost the lose leading in mirrorless segment as the 1st company participated in mirrorless to its rivals if to start a whole new chapter in large sensor. The question – Why not Panny started large sensor at the 1st place (curious)…

    • reverse stream swimmer

      Re: The question – Why not Panny started large sensor at the 1st place (curious)…

      Panasonic had a golden oportunity to alter their future direction, when transitioning from classic Four Thirds to Micro Four Thirds, with almost no legacy burdon.

      Is Micro Four Thirds such a golden step on the sensor size ladder, where everyone needs to place their feet?

      Perhaps it’s the sweet spot, but Panasonic and Olympus hasn’t been able to proof this yet.

      Well, at least with the lenses I think so, but there’s still a way to go with their sensors. An upscaled Nikon 1 sensor to MFT size with embedded Phase Detect patterns, having it’s speed and performance, would make this sweet spot position realized – at least to me.

      • The Other Chris

        Panasonic is the problem. They’re lagging behind in sensor development, and they’re keeping the technology to themselves instead of letting Olympus get a piece of the pie.

        There needs to be more than one sensor manufacturer in the Micro 4/3 consortium. Otherwise, Panasonic has very little competition and almost no incentive to move forward at a decent pace.

      • Gravityloss

        Well, since Sony is also making SLT:s and has the whole Minolta heritage, it makes APS-C sized sensors. Also for other camera manufacturers. So a no brainer to use those for NEX as well.

        With Olympus and Panasonic it was a no brainer to continue with 4/3 sensors. Quick and cheap.

  • Alexander

    Just implement some features of Pentax Q (YES….) & NEX ( Sweeppanorama, EFV) & try to make the lens a bit smaler, that is it!!! And what about remote control?!
    Most people are more than enough sudisfied with the wuality of m4/3, they would like some practical features. Thats all.

    • + Nikon1 1200fps Awesome!

      • digifan

        Yeah a niche feature, only suitable for slow motion video.
        1200fps for stills is rediculous and an amateur feat. Try to cull through them to search the best one, useless I say, they will all look the same anyway. I have better things to do than work 24hours.

  • Miroslav

    Seems to me they’re aiming for Leica again. First it was X100 that targeted X1, now it’s M9’s turn I suppose. A niche system, not for photographers but more for those who like to be with their camera in the photograph.

    “Will Olympus-Panasonic ever create a new larger sensor system? I would welcome that and you?”

    I hope they won’t. Large(r) sensor means larger lenses and for me, m4/3 is as big as I’d go. We need better, not bigger sensor. But even with these ones, image quality with appropriate lens is good enough for most situations, it’s camera features that need to be updated first.

    • Thomas

      Yes we need 12 MPix sensor with the performance of the current 16MPIx Sony sensor. NOBODY would complain about the size then i guess.

      But i think that, if Fuji is able to deliver nice quality with a decent, not leica-like price, it will be a hotseller.
      Nobody really needs a 5DMkII when the same quality can be achieved with a M9 sized camera. At least, most wont need that.

      I will look at the price, but it sounds to me, like Fuji COULD make the perfect system!

      • Miroslav

        Crop that 16 MPx Sony sensor to m4/3 size => get 10 MPx sensor, put it into higher end Olympus bodies and price it accordingly. Keep Panasonic sensors in lower end series for buyers on tight budget. End of story, everybody happy. Nikon has two sensor suppliers, why can’t Oly do the same? They put Sony sensors in their P&Ss anyway.

  • MrGuyFawkes

    It seems to me that everyone are going to the wrong direction here….The new Fuji X Whatever is not gunning for the M43 or the NEX system(or indeed the yet to be announced Leica Mirrorless) but rather the full frame segment of the market(ie,Canon 5D’s,Nikon D700,D3S,Leica M9 .etc)….If they managed to produce something at least fullframe and mirriorless and without the bulk then they’ll have a winner.Never mind any new lenses, the prospect of being able to mount practically any old legacy 35mm lenses on is enough of a reason for a lot of people.

  • napalm

    this doesn’t rule out fuji making sensors for Oly right? wasn’t there a rumor about this?

    • Ahem

      Yes, please, make that happen. Oly needs better sensors to stay relevant.

      • For a long time I had some vague suspicions that as soon as Oly would find another sensor partner (aka: Panny loses competitive edge over Oly) Panny might decide to rethink its involvement in m43.

        Strange as it sounds, interoperable camera system is still unprecedented. And I have impression that camera manufacturers (like many businesses (*)) still think that it is better to be alone in their walled garden and hope that few users could jump the fence.

        More I think about it, more unpredictable m43 future looks to me: if Panny releases killer camera, Oly Imaging might go out of business; if Oly releases killer camera, Panny might decide that the Imaging division isn’t profitable enough to keep it up. It is nearly impossible to squeeze in a 3rd player between them, because two of them seem already too much for one camera system. The volatility would becomes even worse when the IQ would reach a plateau.

  • DonTom

    My money is on Fuji and Leica being partners on a new mirrorles format/ sensor. Both have announced their intentions to move into that area, neither have given definitive details. Perhaps we are going to see a mirrorless S2?
    Fuji has to have got Leicas intention with the X100, and Leica has never been shy in forming partnerships.
    I would not invest in a full frame step up from m43 (M9), but I might go for a mirrorless S-format camera.

    • Ahem

      Mirrorless S2 produced with a Fuji sensor and Leica UI? You just gave me an… excited physical response :D

  • Dan Scott

    the nex5N sensor just PAAWWWNNEED all the the crappy 4/3 sensors… and most of the recent slr sensors. check dxo mark, it’s getting hard to be a olympiss or panasonic fanboy

    • Miroslav

      You can’t drive a car without proper wheels no matter how good the engine is.

    • Ahem

      Not a fanboy, but there’s more to a camera SYSTEM than a mere sensor.

      And lol at Olympiss, can’t believe I haven’t thought of that before :P

      • Martin

        Ah, poo humour! Olympiss made 4 Turds and then abandoned them for cute micro 4 Turds.. :D

        • Ahem

          Don’t forget that Olympus E-PM1 is a VERY compact turd :)

          • Martin

            Yeah, it’s a goat poop in fact. Olympiss can be proud of it ;-)

  • Redkite

    Not interested in larger sensor. Just want a GH3 with better DR. Titanium weather-sealed body would be a bonus.

  • beavis

    “Now it’s up to Panasonic and Olympus to invent something as exciting as the Fuji announcement!”
    How funny sentence! Actually Panasonic is DOING exciting things first, others are rumoring, announcing dreams with big words and no real or disappointing results…

    • Martin

      Exactly. It’s actually up to Fuji to SHOW something as exciting as m43 system. Talk is cheap. And I’m afraid that the most ‘exciting’ feature of the new system will be its price. (Oh finally something ‘non-cheap’ :D)

      • beavis

        And technically :),
        this announcement can be exciting for someone, who doesn´t know, that mirrorless concept is not suitable for larger sensors combined with interchangeable lenses, because of light direction through microlenses. The distance between the lens and the sensor is simply too small and larger sensor microlenses has to be optimized for the specific lens to achieve best results (FinePix X100)… So maybe it will be a classic film camera :)…

  • Zorg

    >> Will Olympus-Panasonic ever create a new larger sensor system?

    No, No, No, please no!
    Enough with so many systems! First the Four Thirds, then the micro Four Thirds, now another system, with new lens mount, fully NON-compatible with FT/mFT lenses (smaller image circle), is that a joke?

    What we need are better sensors and ONE FULL system:
    – For the sensor, all the technology exists in other products, either for low noise, high dynamic, or both (back-illumination, Foveon, Super-CCD, super fast in-camera stacking).
    – For the lenses, we need more pancakes and more bright lenses (a 11-22/2.8-3.5 redesigned for mFT should be pretty small).
    – For the functionalities, we still need in-camera geo-tagging and various accessories (flashes, etc., a Nikon SB-R1 would be awesome) to go with the mFT cameras.
    – For the camera, we need some common sense… For example, E-PL3 and E-PM1 have 16:9 screens so how come there’s still info overlapping the image? With all this screen real estate completely wasted, it would have been sooooo much better to display all the info on the sides so I can SEE what I FRAME (mimic DSLR optical viewfinders). And please, Olympus, be realistic : you may not have the resources to innovate on the software, so just give us Android and let people create Apps and skins for you!

    • ArKersaint

      + 1
      Everything is available to m43, just strenghten research on 12 mpix sensor devlopment, right size for bodies (not smallish) and pancakes !

  • Ahem

    ANOTHER sensor format is desirable from Panasonic or Olympus? You got to be kidding me.

    Olympus is already struggling financially, and putting money into R&D and manufacturing of a new mount would be suicidal. Panasonic is in a better financial position, but it would have to carve a niche in another niche of mirrorless ~APS-C -sized cameras.

  • AndersN

    Fuji X “premium” system: a full-frame camera with a modified Leica M mount which autofocuses by moving the sensor back and forth, thereby giving manual lenses autofocus?

    • lnqe-M

      Yes, like Contax AX, so autofocuses by moving filmplan.

    • Martin

      Huh? It was your today’s dream, right?

  • Mike

    If the X100 was already £1k, and this will supposedly have a full frame sensor, there’s no way in hell I’ll be able to afford it any time soon ;__;

  • Andi

    Please, no large sensor system!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Miki Coga

    Je suis três desolée! It seems that is going to be expensive… I’ll can afford that! O_o

  • Kyle

    Wait, so we’re back to everyone needing larger sensors and big lenses again? How does it make sense for Pan/Oly to develop a larger sensor?

    Why not improve DR and noise on m4/3 and maintain the advantage on small system size?

  • As unfortunate as Fujifilm’s decision is from a Micro Four Thirds user’s perspective, and as much as one would think that a cooperation between Panasonic, Olympus and Fujifilm could have provided massive improvements for Micro Four Thirds as a whole, it is probably just the right thing to do for Fujifilm.

    As long as existing mirrorless systems concentrate primarily on small, light equipment with lenses mainly in the wide-angle to moderate-telephoto range, there actually is no great benefit size-wise in using a small Four Thirds sensor instead of larger ones, while on the other hand a significantly larger sensor will automatically provide significantly improved image quality, especially in, but not limited to, low-light scenarios.

    If you look at the tiniest 35mm cameras of the film era, there were quite a few as small or even smaller than anything Micro Four Thirds has to offer. Take film spools, give sensor, electronics and battery – the same compactness should be possible today even with a 35mm “full frame” sensor.

    If that, or something nearly full-frame, is what Fujifilm is about to do, and if they do it just half as good as they did with the X-100, it will probably be just what some people always hoped Micro Four Third would become – an enthusiast’s system camera somewhat comparable to the Leica M of the analog era, with similar high-end image quality, but more versatile and less expensive than the digital Leica M.

    I, for one, would welcome such a Fujifilm system, which in any case will force Panasonic and Olympus to acceleratedly improve Micro Four Thirds, too.

    • Rob S.,

      One important thing to keep in mind is that, with digital sensors, the angle of incidence of light on the sensor needs to be near perpendicular to prevent things like purple-fringing and other aberrations from occurring.

      This is because today’s sensors, generally, do not deal well with off-axis light.

      OK, here’s one way to look at it: Take a look at your LCD screen, head-on. Now look at it from the side. Not as good, right? That’s the same *general* idea with digital image sensors. (I stress, general.)

      Anyway, the reason I bring this up is because film is pretty much immune to these issues. You could have a tiny camera with a huge film area illuminate by a cone of light exiting the back-end of a lens. If it were Leica engineers, they probably did a good job of manipulating that image to keep distortion low at the edges. Either way, they could get away with a more compact setup because they didn’t have to worry so much about the light exiting the lens as horizontal as possible (relative to the long axis of the lens).

      Now… with these unfortunate digital sensors, we don’t have this luxury.

      Think about it:

      If the lens is very close to the sensor (I guess going with the spirit of keeping the body compact), the actual lens element (where the light exists) will have to be wide enough to be able to project a large enough image circle to cover the sensor… at as close to a 1:1 ratio as possible. The closer the lens get’s to the sensor, the higher need for that lens to be as big as, say, the 4/3rds sensor… or in the case of NEX… and APC-C sensor. That’s really big!

      You can’t make very small, large sensor digital cameras… at least not with the current digital sensor limitations.

      I mean, what’s gonna give? Sony’s got a great sensor in the NEX, but they will NEVER be able to provide small, wide lenses unless they employ some heavy lens engineering and fancy surface coating to combat the issues with bending light enough to keep the lenses small while still servicing a large sensor.

      Yeah, with film… all this is *SO* much easier.

      Truth be told, there are advances happening with digital sensors nowadays. Micro-lenses covering each pixel element, for example, help gather off axis light while limiting wavelength shifts due to diffraction (or the creation of “phantom” color/luminocity which results in purple fringing).

      Solutions like the one’s above help, but digital sensors still cannot replicate the flexibility of film.

      So yeah, small lens/body & large sensor cameras are just not possible right now… at least not without a stratospheric price-tag.

  • I don’t think that this new Fuji Camera with interchangeable lens will have an effect to the sales of the mFT-System because I think it will be a lot more expensive and made for another target group. But I wonder how big the body of the Fuji will be. For me it would only be an alternative to the PEN if the price for body and 2 quality lenses from about 14 – 150 mm would not be more then 1500 Euros, and if the body size is not bigger then the size of the PEN. I don’t want a big, heavy body and lenses if I travel a few weeks by train and bus.

  • Considering Panasonic’s ambitions being a major player in digital cameras, the Fuji announcement must be most unwelcome to Pana: Sooner or later Panasonic must enter the high end camera market. This place has now been taken by Fuji. Fuji will take the initiative providing a Leica-basher at a significantlty lower price – and with autofocus.
    Contenders here will be Fuji, Sony, Leica, and most likely Nikon and Canon.
    Theese systems do not compete with m4/3. Everything will be at least twice the cost and also a bit heavier.
    m4/3 is a compromize in form, quality and price that is very attractive I think. What is really needed is a better sensor. Above is mentioned the G3 sensor as “enough”. I have a G3 and the qualiry is much better than EP1 and GF1. But the m4/3 flagship camera Pana GFXZSL or what ever it will be called needs something a lot better in terms of DR and ISO performance.
    Then we have the EVF that needs to be much better compared to what they have today.
    Exposure is, compared to for instance Nikon D300, pretty unsophistacated and is not good in difficult ligting situations.

    • lnqe-M

      Panasonic have not problem by the new X- system to Fujifilm, but i think the is Leica have if pris is under 4000$ for a camera body.

  • Re Panny/Oly sensor. Actually they do make rather notable progress.

    If I were asked “m43 camera with fast AF or good high ISO” I would have picked the fast AF. And fast AF is precisely what they have delivered.

    Next, yes, I would need a sensor with improved color fidelity/good detail retention in the low light. ;)

  • Raist

    What I wonder is what price bracket is Fuji pursuing here. Given their claims I would think $3000-$4000 camera. But starting from scratch? I wonder.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website,, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps:
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: Addthis cookies:
Disqus cookies:
Vimeo cookies:
Youtube cookies:

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.