Panasonic interviewed at Imaging Resource…

FacebookShare

Imagin Resource (Click here) had a long talk with MR. Darin Pepple, Senior Product Marketing Manager, Imaging at Panasonic Consumer Electronics Co. Here are some of the interesting points:

– Again Panasonic explains the advantage of m43 over the NEX system: “it allows us to produce really small lenses, still extremely good optical quality, and at the same time make small bodies.” Edge detail of NEX lenses suffers from lens size.

– He confirms that Panasonic is “seriously” following the hacked GH2 improvements: “Yes, you can go outside that with some hyped-up features and firmware updates and that sort of thing, but then you’re outside the normal specification, and for us as a manufacturer, we really have to stay within it.

– About the new lenses: “By this time next year I hope to come back to you and say, ‘Look at our lens line-up now. We’ve added four or five more lenses.’

– Panasonic says real innovation is coming not from Full Frame but from small sensors. Those technologies will be implemented in future m43 cameras. It sounds like the future GH3 camera could have BSI technology!

– Panasonic doesn’t believe a big sensor in a compact camera makes sense. They will not go the same path with the LX5 successor as the Canon G1 X.

 

In summary: When reading the interview you really feel how “video” is very important for them. There is also no plan to create a new system with bigger sensor as the market really focused on sub-fullframe sensors size. Panasonic approach is more “little steps” forward instead of looking for big revolutions. They have a very practical and rational approach and this is also something I like. As I always said, the first problem with Panasonic is their management. It is not possible that every time they release a new product you have to wait up to 6-7 months to get them! P.S: Easy to guess that the next products they will announce are the LX5 and GH2 successor :)

FacebookShare
  • Mumbly

    If they could just finally implement wireless flash control in their cameras… This isn’t too much asking for!

    • MikeS

      Unfortunately, that is too much to ask, because Panasonic clearly doesn’t care about photographers.

      “When you look at the Sony NEX-7, one of the interesting things it does really well is video. ”

      No photographer on the planet would have given that answer.

      “Well, the GX1 really falls between some of our products. It’s the range finder form factor; very cool looking in terms of retro; really great sensor. But at the same time, there’s the G3, which is very similar in a lot of ways […] it’s got a button placement and dial placement that’s popular with the photo specialty crowd.”

      The remark about the G3 is especially telling, since the G3 has fewer buttons and dials than the GX1 (and, incidentally, beginner DSLRs like the Canon Rebels), and they are similarly placed. As a Marketing Manager, I don’t expect the guy to have actually used the product, but it’s disturbing that those are the lines he’s being fed, because they reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the “photo specialty crowd.”

      Micro Four Thirds has been disappointing me ever since I adopted the system. This interview does nothing to rekindle my confidence. Fujifilm, on the other hand…

      • > Fujifilm, on the other hand…

        … produced bunch of compromised over-priced cameras.

        I could have agreed with the “compromised.”

        I could have lived with the “over-priced.”

        But not with the both at the same time.

        “Premium camera” my ass…

        IMO m43 and Fuji and NEX offerings at the moment are sub par and not worth a serious investment. As a second camera, probably. But heck, they cost just as much as my main DSLR. Were I pro who could extract every last tiny bit of the performance out of them – or afford a second camera just for sake of fun of it – or put up with quirks and just “shoot away!” – may be. But I’m not: I struggle with PP; I can’t afford a second body just for fun of it; I have problems remembering to adjust all the main camera controls, and quirks simply drag the whole experience very far away from the “shoot for fun.”

        I was so hopeful that X100 could replicate the simplicity of the film cameras… But it didn’t.

      • Bob B.

        I own the GX1 and the G3 (bought the G3 as an open-box sale as a back-up body). It is a little confusing the way that that quote reads. The GX1 definitely has the button placement for an enthusiast. The G3 offers fewer (function buttons) and just less than the GX1 as far as controls and interface go. It has the same sensor, image-size and a similar layout to the GX1 which is what was important to me…but I picked the G3 body up, after I bought my GX1 for 1/2 the price of the GX1 and LVF2… I think they are BOTH great cameras…The GX1 being more fluid. They complement my FF DSLR. They will never replace it.
        There are so many great camera systems out there, right now….but NONE of them do it all.
        Guess that will keep us blogging! LOL!

    • to be honest:
      I don’t think Darin Pepple thinking is totally on key with what they think at Panasonic HQ

      …just my thoughts.

    • No Name

      “- He confirms that Panasonic is “seriously” following the hacked GH2 improvements: “Yes, you can go outside that with some hyped-up features and firmware updates and that sort of thing, but then you’re outside the normal specification, and for us as a manufacturer, we really have to stay within it. ”

      The hacking community won’t take to well to Panasonic calling their work “hyped-up features and firmware updates”. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah no kidding…. ask anybody whats awesome about a gh2?

      • Mr. Reeee

        Panasonic allows them to hack their cameras and follows what they do.
        Where’s the argument?

        You can bet they have people who apply hacks in house and test them. For Panasonic, it’s FREE R&D.

  • I agree that there is NO need for 35mm sensors . But I wish that m4/3rds will have other options than Panasonic sensors which are clearly not at the level of the competition

    Harold

    • Stu5

      And this is the whole point. It is not the sensor size holding M4/3 back, it is Panasonic’s inability to make a decent sensor compared to the competition.

      • CRB

        Agree completely…and they keep talking about lenses, not about improving the sensors….

      • david

        Unless you care more about video than stills, in which case Panasonic actually does very well compared to the competition.

      • Steve H

        I would love to see a 12 MP sensor with 12+ stops of dynamic range versus the 10 stops we currently get.

    • user

      So don’t bother here. Buy superior products from Sony, the most advanced, DR, IQ, ISO, …

    • Anonymous

      Yep… No offense to the people that use it for stills….i never have… But once Vitaly and Driftwood Pushed this camera to its fullest potential, the 5d mark 2’s just started collecting dust for motion work. Really, i mean i would be sending those 2’s kids through college if I were Panasonic… I’m in the market for one, but i may wait for the gh3 in hopes they dial in the dynamic range and low light issues. I believe if they put enough processing power into it, the more doors will open. My biggest fear would be they prevent it from being hacked. (idont believe they would chop their own legs off like that but you never know…) – if they fix those issues with the global shutter, this would be the camera to have. People are excited about it because nobody with a regular job, kids, bills, etc. can afford a damn Scarlet, Epic, Alexa….and renting one is just as ridiculous… ($3,000 a day for Alexa and a 50 mm Cooke S4.). So if Panasonic can TRULY grasp that concept, they can put an opportunity in the hands of a very talented story teller that cant afford thousands upon thousands of dollars for those cameras…..people like that exist too… lol

  • Jorginho

    Note how he does not address NEX7 IQ, design and EVF but actually wants us to believe that the NEX7 is about…VIDEO….??? Righttt….Nice try. With that attitude we know that we should no expect anything substantially better on DR and may be high ISO to, let alone a true rangefinder style cam.

    If this is really their goal, video, than I hope Olympus will come up with a sensor from somebody else with the focus on IQ. And have a nice EVF (a lot of rumors about that one). m43 was the best thign around and as a system, it still is but this is mainly because of the lenses. The bodies have been surpassed by Sony in less than 1,5 years.

    • CRB

      Agree…now all we need to find out is if Oly will come with some sensor other than panasonic.

      • leu

        No way have the bodies been surpassed by sony in 1.5 years. You have to remember that pany hasn’t released anything to compete with sony in 2 years, and the GH2 is still like, multiples of what the Nex 7 is in terms of video and lens interchangeability. There is more support for it, more work from it, and more thought about it, than there will ever be about any NEX cams.

  • “Edge detail of NEX lenses suffers from lens size.”
    – Nex cameras has a very short distance between mount and sensor witch makes it hard to make lenses with good optical performance in the corners. m43 has more reasonable distance and the Four Thirds system is of course even better. Bulky DSLR has an edge in this aspect for sure. If you want to be able to use tilt-shift lenses the image circle must be a bit larger than the sensor and I doubt m43 or even 43 can provide that. I wonder how the Fuji X-PRO1 will perform optically regarding corner sharpness – also short distance between lens and sensor.

    “Panasonic doesn’t believe a big sensor in a compact camera makes sense. They will not go the same path with the LX5 successor as the Canon G1 X.”
    – Too bad. I certainly would like a LX5-alike with an APS-C sensor. Or an Olympus XZ-1 F/1.8 with that sensor size for that matter.

    • You have it completely backwards. A short distance between the rearmost lens element and the sensor makes it EASIER to get good corner performance. A positive rearmost lens element can straighten up the light rays to make them hit the sensor almost head-on.
      HOWEVER, this lens element must have a large diameter. So the width of the mount must be large, relative to the sensor size. This might be where the NEX falls down.

      • Charles

        I disagree with you here or 4/3s would of had a short distance. IIRC a longer distance was required to get the lens near telecentric. With film a short flange distance made things easier.

        • The longer distance in 4/3s was required to make room for the mirror, nothing else.
          Remember, there is nothing that prevents you from placing the rearmost lens element further out in the lens barrel if you really want to. Having a short flangeback distance just adds flexibility for the designer, nothing else.
          When I look at the back of my lenses, the 45/1.8 and the kit zoom have the rearmost lens as far back as it will go. The 20/1.7 has it a little further out and the 12/2.0 a couple of millimeters further still. You would have expected the wide angle to have the lens element closest to the sensor, but as you can see, this isn’t always the case.

          • Jonathan

            The Longer distance in 4/3 was also serve to make 43 lens telecentric as Charles has said (The more longer is the flange distance, the more easier it makes the telecentric design). If it didn’t, Olympus would came out a with a shorter flange back distance something around 30~32mm was enough to put a mirrorbox with FT mount.

            • Why? There is nothing that prevents the lens designer from putting the lens elements further forward in the lens tube, so how could it have made it easier?

              • Jonathan

                It is more useful to have compact lenses and “huge” body as was olympus FT, than the opposite : Compact body with longer et huge lenses… like NEX for example.

                • Well, you’re right that it made the lenses physically shorter. And that of course made sense at the time. But for telecentricity it meant nothing.

          • “The longer distance in 4/3s was required to make room for the mirror, nothing else.
            Remember, there is nothing that prevents you from placing the rearmost lens element further out in the lens barrel if you really want to. Having a short flangeback distance just adds flexibility for the designer, nothing else.” /Agent00soul

            This is all true. But the sensor is only capable of capturing light at a certain angel with maintained sharpness, so if the rear lens element is too close, you will have a problem. Of course, you can just move the whole package further out in the lens barrel, as you say, but it will make a bigger lens (Sony NEX). As the talk goes, Nikon had an issue with corner sharpness when moving from film to digital, as sensors at the time could not accept as steep angels as film, and the mount was a bit too narrow. (The solution was APS-C). As they say, this was the reason why Nikon could not match Canon with a Full Frame camera until 2007 when the D3 was launched and sensor technology was improved and higher angels of light accepted.

            • reverse stream swimmer

              “The longer distance in 4/3s was required to make room for the mirror, nothing else.”

              Remember the E-300, E-330, DMC-L1, Leica DigiLux were all using a side-swing Porro mirror. Cutting that option, would have given Olympus a shorter flange back than the used one in classical Four Thirds.

              However, with MFT all the mirror restrictions are removed. Still, the MFT is using the same image cone (telecentric) specification as the classical FT.

    • moomin

      Its bullcrap from Panasonic. I own both systems (m43 & nex) and the Nex 5n has no corner issue (I use voigtlanders and Fds) the curent native pancake on nex is crap though.

      • atze

        Well, so what you are saying is that you use an adapter to lengthen the flange distance and use a lens with a larger image circle of which you only use the center. But that has nothing to do with the E-mount and the argument it leads to corner issues.

        • digifan

          LOL, you are right, just moomin doesn’t realize the error of his notations. ;-)

        • Hubertus Bigend

          There is no such thing as an inherent and inevitable “corner issue” for the E-Mount. Only a few adapted super-wide-angle rangefinder lenses, and, to some extent, the inferior 16mm Sony pancake are showing “corner issues” at all. There’s nothing except an attempt to absolutely, brutally minimize lens size which could stop Sony from constructing any lens in a way that could avoid all “corner issues” perfectly – at worst, if flange distance was really the problem, by placing the rear element slightly further away from the sensor plane than the mount as such would require.

          • truth

            Err yes there is. It’s there with APSC DSLR never mind the NEX knee jerk design.

          • atze

            i agree with you,

            looking at the Nex 50mm and 35mm it looks like they have done exactly that. Both lenses do look a liitle long for their focal length.
            I´m just guessing here, but it seems as if sony might have chosen a too small flange distance in combination with sensor size and mount diameter. Its easy to fix by just putting the lens elements a little further away from the mount, but it leaves sony in a position where they have the slimmest bodies but the longest lenses.
            I´m curious to see if they can come up with a pancake lens that has no corner issues or if this is a limitation of the nex system.

          • moomin

            Yeah thats what I was basically saying. Flange distance is issue so pancakes probably wont be too great there is no “corner issue” when using standard “big” lenses.
            It would be interesting to see how Sony will do with future pancakes.

  • JF

    “By this time next year I hope to come back to you and say, ‘Look at our lens line-up now. We’ve added four or five more lenses.’ ”

    Too bad if we have to wait 1 year to get 12-35 and 35-100 f2.8

  • hans

    BSI doesn’t make sense in large sensors, there is no real advantage.

    • spam

      They need BSI for global electronic shutter

      • reverse stream swimmer

        I think the interviewee was wrong about the Panasonic FZ150, which has a FSI CMOS sensor, not BSI.

        BSI isn’t required for global electronic shutter implementation, FSI will just do it as well.

        What can be more influential, is whether the sensor is analogue output or digital output.

        Like the Sony has a column-parallel A/D conversion technique, similarly the Panasonic GH2 sensor delivers digital output.

    • reverse stream swimmer

      +1
      BSI is mainly for the smallest 1/2.3″ sensors.
      Never seen it on larger sensors, Fujifilm might using it on larger sensors though.
      BSI will most likely not arrive in CSC (EVIL) cameras, apart from in Pentax Q.

  • ertu

    To my way of thinking the only way micro four thirds makes sense at this point is if you use fast compact primes and you want something that is easy to carry around. The sensors are falling too far behind. If you want a fast zoom which by necessity will have to be fairly large, just get an APS, which will be superior. The number of micro four thirds zooms is annoying. Olympus should redo that 17mm and make it f1.8.

    • digifan

      @ ertu.

      LOL, APS-C is only a little better due to other sensor manufacturers.
      You are annoyed because you buy all the mFT kit zooms?
      Nobody explained to you about choice?.
      I will have three kit zooms, if the OM-… is a feasable camera for me.
      The 12-50 although slow will be a good asset. I have the 14-45mm Pana and will definately buy the 14-42X. All three kit lenses have their purpose even in my bag. If I wanna go ultra portable then the 14-42X is indispensable, same goes for the 12-50mm when it is raining outside. Depending on things I might sell the 14-45mm, but hej it didn’t break the bank when I bought it and it isn’t a collectors item either so it will not compensate me enough when I sell it.
      Such is life, I move on constantly. I’d advise you to look up and do the same

      • fgl42

        I agree with ertu. Micro four thirds only really makes sense if you want to shoot with fast and compact primes. It’s dumb to have all these zooms. Zooms are always a compromise and with micro four thirds they are an even bigger compromise- because of the clearly inferior sensors. And no, micro four thirds are not just a little behind. They are falling further and further behind. If you want to shoot with a zoom, unless it’s the next compact X zoom, just get an APS. You’ll get better results. The strength of the micro four thirds is in small fast primes- something that they need to make more of. Enough with the zooms. Give us a fast 17mm- like 1.8. And give us a fast 50 mm- like 1.4.

  • GenoGibson

    Who cares about high ISO and DR…I’m tired of the same tired whining. Panasonic, improve your colors, image processing and AF accuracy to match that of Olympus! Until then, I’m not buying another Panasonic M43 camera! Love the Panasonic lenses though! :-)

    • moomin

      Agreed and improve shutter lag also!

      • onlyme

        I agree on Panasonic’s need to improve their jpeg colours and white balance. The G3 looks better in this regard than the G2 but it is still not good enough for me to buy one.

  • Hubertus Bigend

    Yeah, Panasonic, and that’s why Sony’s cameras tend to be even smaller than yours. The gross dishonesty in both Panasonic’s and Olympus’ marketing and PR blurb relating to Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds since the introduction of the first E-System is sometimes more annoying than their prolonged failure to design a complete, universal mirrorless system which could really substitute a DSLR system.

    Having used Olympus DSLRs with a lot of expensive glass since 2005, I’ve now added a cheap NEX-3, and what can I say, with a couple of sensibly fast, manually focused old Minolta primes it gives me more creative freedom than the small Four Thirds sensor ever could. At the same time these lenses clearly falsify Olympus’ claims that only ‘digitally designed’, semi-telecentric lenses could be good for digital sensors. Unfortunately, this already made the prices for all kinds of legacy lenses substantially rise.

    For the time being, I’ll be sticking to Four Thirds mainly for longer telephoto stuff. But I’ll probably switch to an APS-C based mirrorless system (whichever that will be) as soon as there will be a fast, comparable solution for hand-held telephotography in the range of 600-800mm (equiv.).

    • digifan

      Same comment is valid as was given to moomin a few reactions higher-up.
      You use legacy glass on the NEX3 and thus extend the flange distance, LOL, you contradict yourself, but haven’t realised it!

      • Hubertus Bigend

        What do you mean? As I have made no claims whatsoever about flange distance, there’s nothing to contradict, is it?

      • Mr. Reeee

        Don’t you realize that many people simply don’t care about such minor technicalities. Sure, it can be an interesting factoid, but so what?
        Does that help the creative process? Not much.

        • moomin

          does it really matter?
          Most guys I know use legacy glass with adapters on their m4/3rds, Nex whatever.
          Some of us are not always wanting teeny pancake lenses. The only decent one is the 20mm f1.7. and that uses a lot of software correction.
          Id rather have quality optics over size.

          • Mr. Reeee

            Exactly. That’s what I do, ADAPT! ;-)

            The only native M4/3 lenses I use regularly are the 7-14mm and Voigtländer 25mm. Mostly I use adapted Nikon, Pentax and Voigtländer.

        • moomin

          does it all really matter?
          Most guys I know use legacy glass with adapters on their m4/3rds, Nex whatever.
          Some of us are not always wanting teeny pancake lenses. The only decent one is the 20mm f1.7. and that uses a lot of software correction.
          Id rather have quality optics over size.

    • coda

      Hope you enjoy that sharp centre. Tunnel image to go with your tunnel vision.

  • Of course Pana plays down the (size) advantage APS-C and FF has as they don’t have that.
    As stills photographer I am not so keen to pay for video features. Owning a G3 it has good IQ, poor EVF, very useful (rotating) LCD, average usability, average general quality feel – it is really worth it’s relatively low (GX1, GH2, EP3) price.
    What I miss in the interview is more focus on sensor/processor. We already know they have an impressive roadmap concerning lenses, but where is the camera to fully utilize HQ lenses? (Please do not comment with mentioning GH2 or EP3, they are not there at all!)
    A m4/3 camera with sensor technology a la Fuji XPro or something would be nice. The m4/3 system having both very small cameras (PM1, GF3) and high end cameras with excellent IQ – and lots lenses that can be used on all.

  • > Panasonic says real innovation is coming not from Full Frame but from small sensors.

    Innovation often happens in niches – but in new ones, not the old. FF is old one. But IMO even 43/m43 is a niche when looking at the photographic market as a whole.

    More often innovations happen in the mass market. The most technological advances did happen in the mobile area, where one had to extract every bit of performance from the small sensor. The reason being the economies of scale: even minor improvement multiplied by huge sale volumes provides companies with good profits. Smaller the market – smaller the margins. FF was forced into the niche and it needs a miracle to be dragged out of there (*).

    > They have a very practical and rational approach and this is also something I like.

    I too. The only problem is when the companies forget to look carefully at the competition. And go on thinking that their product line stacks up to the competition well, because, well, as corporate propaganda would lead you to believe, the competitors suck anyway because they’re competitors.

    Small evolutionary steps are OK, as long as they manage to keep up with competition.

    Well, I ranted surprisingly a lot, but I think actually the Panasonic stacks up pretty well to the competition at the moment (unlike the other m43 company). GH2, which I didn’t liked, still remains the flagship camera of m43 and compares to competition pretty well. I hope GH3 would improve in ergonomics but also in the price department, because I’m wary of buying a camera which costs more than $1000.

    I too do not mind the Panasonic’s focus on video – as long as the stills function works as expected.
    I also understand why they focus on video: if I recall statistics correctly, sales of camcoders over last two years started shrinking, being eaten by video-capable cameras.

  • Mike1

    Canon GX1 sensor is just very slightly larger than 4/3 and it’s IQ looks very promising. So smaller sensor isn’t an excuse. All existing 4/3 cameras must improve the IQ to remain competitive…not just putting a new body or new features.

    • Forbes

      I agree, but the GX1 has a serious pricetag. A high quality sensor in a high quality body with a high quality viewfinder is going to be expensive, even for m4/3. I wonder where Olympus and Panasonic are thinking to compromise? A high price body might work for some, but for the mass market?

      • Umm.. the problem isn’t that there is an abundance of high quality m4/3 cameras that noone can afford, is it?

        • Forbes

          Right. There is no high quality m4/3 body in the sense of, say, a NEX7 equivalent. But would it make sense for Panasonic or Olympus to make one? Would that suit their target market? (I dare say I would like one, but I’m a bit of a gearhead.)

  • Yun

    Such long interview didn’t even mentioned about future M4/3 image quality . Lacked of ambitious & innovative ! I want to hear like Fuji’s spokesman “Image quality that beat all the best fullframe” or Sony’s NEX slogan “DSLR within your hand” . This are the words I want to hear fr Pana !

    • leu

      Thats funny, cause most people don’t want to hear marketing bull shit. From what I can tell, Pany is the ONLY straight-talk camera manufacturer. Look at the ridiculous OM-D marketing and tell me it isn’t pathetic.

  • Again Panasonic explains the advantage of m43 over the NEX system: “it allows us to produce really small lenses, still extremely good optical quality, and at the same time make small bodies.” Edge detail of NEX lenses suffers from lens size.

    -this is wrong, Fuji already proven it!

    Panasonic approach is more “little steps” forward instead of looking for big revolutions.

    -good luck to m43 users. panny follow canikon with incremental feature!

    • Well, the only small NEX lens available is the 16 mm pancake and that one has bad corner quality, so that’s the data points we have at the moment.

    • Forbes

      “-this is wrong, Fuji already proven it!”

      At a price. Fuji are targeting the high end market.

  • Jón

    I miss the Kodak sensors a bit. There was something about their output (and Olympus processing) that made them shine. I’m not as content with the output from the Panasonic sensors, it’s not something I can describe, but something is missing…

  • slomo

    >He confirms that Panasonic is “seriously” following the hacked GH2
    >improvements: “Yes, you can go outside that with some hyped-up
    >features and firmware updates and that sort of thing, but then you’re
    >outside the normal specification, and for us as a manufacturer, we
    >really have to stay within it. ”

    Here’s a suggestion for Panasonic, which sounds still undecided about a third party firmware improvement of their hardware: Allow it and foster relationship with its developers.

    Many products gain a fan base and becomes very popular as a result of third party custom modification. Users will strongly feel they are getting extra value that costs them nothing. You will gain additional fans by word of mouth and you would spent near zero effort supporting them.

    Examples: Apple II, IBM PC computers (third party customization which IBM tried to squash and eventually lost), Linksys and some home routers brands (through DD-WRT and Tomato), and case in point in the camera industry is Canon 7D, Ti2, Ti3 series through Magic Lantern.

  • Just a heads up on BSI: it’s not going to come to all sensors. BSI has clear advantages as the photosite size nears 1 micron. However it has disadvantages, too, and those come into play with larger photosites. Primary amongst them is crosstalk: some photons get collected at the wrong photosite. Since we use Bayer filtration on sensors, crosstalk has implications on color information.

    BSI is also more expensive to produce than normal sensor designs, and has higher tolerances in the manufacturing process. Aligning both microlenses and Bayer filtration is more difficult, for example. So you wouldn’t automatically opt for BSI in a sensor design unless you have a clear benefit.

    The crossover point for BSI right now seems to be about 1.4 microns. Below that and you should do it. Above that and you shouldn’t.

  • ihateidiots

    That blurb about the GH2 sensor being digital and the G3 and GX1 sensor being analog is interesting. I wonder what it altogether implies on the DR etc.

  • Ahem

    I assume the unexplained BSI acronym means backside illumination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backside_illumination Just because there is an acronym doesn’t mean everybody knows what it means.

  • Daemonius

    Unfortunately what they think isnt much relevant. As soon as someone will make full-frame mirrorless in some decent size (as M9 or smaller), then they can say just say “bye bye”. Sensor size is why Olympus was never really sucessful with 4/3 dSLRs (4/3 dSLRs not being much smaller than regular is another reason.. tho Panasonic L1 was actually improvement, just world never noticed).

    Nikon will live with 2.7x quite easy, cause its Nikon (and cause suprisingly unlike m4/3s its quite decent in real life, despite cameras being ugly as hell).

    And NEX with APS-C. m4/3s are better ergonomic and size wise (whole lens + body size). But ergonomy of NEX is improving and will further. Lens selection will grow.. and what then Panasonic?

    I wonder why are manufacturers so often so detached from reality..

  • A lot a people on these forums are too technologically obsessed. My 5 year old camera takes good enough pictures for most of what I do, and the photography company I worked for still used a Nikon D1x and never got one complaint. It’s about lighting and knowing your print size. For those who really want a lot of range and high ISO performance, just go to medium format. 4/3 is what it is for a pretty obvious reason and there is no reason to stick to one format. The awesome flange depth and adaptivity of the system makes it an ideal second camera to a full frame or larger system. Panasonic is mainly a video company (and bicycles) and they use heavy aa and low pass filters to compensate, and that will always limit the picture side.
    For my job I shoot video, but the stills option is great for getting quick shots I can use in graphic design, editing, or as a slide show for client DVD’s. Never get a complaint. There is just too much technical bla bla competing going on in today’s forum and it’s awful and impractical. Who actually makes money here using their camera or is everyone a tech hobbyist, I can’t tell.
    For really art fart stuff or super nice portraits of my kids I use film. I am damn fast with film and hardly need a light meter cause I’ve shot the same ASA for sooo long. I take the picture, scan it with a negative scanner and 24 bits bla bla big numbers way higher than any digital camera puts out, and I have walla- a huge gorgeous print with nice dynamic range. And it doesn’t look that much better than most 4/3’s.

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, 43rumors.com, 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: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

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.

Close