Who do you think should join Micro Four Thirds?
Image above: The current Micro Four Thirds members
There are many camera manufactors that still didn’t make or join a mirrorless system. You will agree with me that it would be good if some of them would join the Micro Four Thirds system. My question to you is: do you have any special preference? You might explain us why?
Loading ...Share
Recent comments
Comment from Kane: Would be wonderful if they all did, but ...
Comment from panasonic: Just learn one thing, too light camera h...
Comment from inteliboy: Thanks for educating another McConsumer,...
Comment from ILO: It just realized that other camera maker...
Cteve
2 years ago |Pentax, because it sounds like the most logic answer.
Vlad
2 years ago |Why? I think someone who can make good sensors would be a better idea.
Jim Ramsey Khoury
2 years ago |Nikon. Would give such a boost to the system. Canon is too arrogant to join.
frosti7
2 years ago |Jim I agree but the pool asks who would u want to join, not who u believe can acutually join
Jim Ramsey Khoury
2 years ago |Well Nikon or Pentax would be nice IMO.
Vlad
2 years ago |Canon is not arrogant. It’s a company.
Milos Janata
2 years ago |MFT companies should rather join APC
frosti7
2 years ago |Canon, because they are the biggest seller of cameras in the market,
I would like to see a more realstic pool (w/o canoniknon)
Ken Thomas
2 years ago |Nikon and Canon wouldn’t bring anything to the format it doesn’t already have – other than massive advertising budgets and a horde of fanboys, of course. But a Pentax camera in the m4/3rds format would be incredible.
Diti
2 years ago |I voted Nikon because of their superior optics. But I would definitely prefer Sigma: third-party inexpensive, good quality lenses = lowering prices from Panasonic, Leica, etc.
Mice
2 years ago |Kodak – Because god knows they are neck deep in the shitter without anything exciting…
Ryan
2 years ago |Sigma-Foveon sensor and cheaper(might be bigger) lens.
Guest
2 years ago |Yes! I came here to say this, I want sigma to join for their Foveon sensor!
Luis Sanz
2 years ago |I expect lenses by Leica and Sigma (my vote) and camera bodies from none on the list.
Luis Sanz
2 years ago |Being realistic, Fuji is out of the game. Joining m4/3 is against any logic after having launched the X100. It would make more sense another X series camera with a different lens.
Nikon is said to launch a tiny sensor system, and I don’t see them supporting four interchangeable lens systems (FX, DX, m4/3 and the new one) at the same time. I’ll wait for the new system to become true for assuring they won’t join m4/3 or any other CSC system.
Canon joining m4/3 is very unlikely. They use to do the things in their own, lonely way. But it’s the only firm we have no idea what is planing regarding CSCs. A complete mystery for now…
I think sooner or later Leica will join m4/3 with all its consequences. The X1 way goes to nowhere and their past collaboration with Panasonic is a plus. But they must hurry up: Panasonic is gaining reputation for its lenses so what they have to offer may be unnatractive after some time.
I don’t know how Kodak can contribute to the system. Maybe supplying sensors to Olympus? Not a very interesting deal I think.
Sigma is welcome. Their lenses are nice and a Foveon-based camera would be a dream. But the new sensor on the SD1 is a step on the opposite direction, at least regarding an hypothetical camera release and their DP series were succesful enough for keeping them working on.
And finally Pentax… may be. A near 4/3 size sensor CSC is expected and, frankly, there is no need to reinvent the wheel…
Michael Devitt
2 years ago |Anyone who can make modern 4/3 sensors to push Panasonic LiveMOS development further. Sigma’s Foveon would be interesting, but is it capable of HD video recording? It’s pretty standard these days to have it (only traditional systems like Leica M series don’t need it
).
Neonart
2 years ago |If we get the Foven sensor (no AA filter at all) on the Trupic V+ engine, it’ll be something else! Sigma wins with a new outlet for their sensor, and 4/3 gets another option for thier lenses.
It’s like when car manufacturers share engines and apply them to different purposes. (i.e. Toyota/Lotus. )
TJ
2 years ago |Leica should officially join. They already had a 4/3 DSLR and Lens before. This should cover the “luxury” or “people with so much damn money” category.
Prodigy
2 years ago |Leica Digilux 4 = Black Panasonic GF2 with Leica Red Label -_-”
tom
2 years ago |wow, i’m surprised that the most of you like fuji too.
let’s enjoy our fotos, not the reputation of our brand!
may other have big kameras with huge lenses to impress….
Vlad
2 years ago |There are plenty of forums out there dedicated to enjoying our photos.
Some people buy big cameras, because they want the best possible IQ or because they perfer having a real grip.
Ulli
2 years ago |I agree with Sigma already being in the club,they should decide to design a custom version of the Foveon for the PEN.
Guest
2 years ago |I would buy 3 of these!
mochapaulo
2 years ago |Don’t take it serious and none of the manufacturers take it serious enough.
At the early state of the 4/3 group, just Panasonic and Olympus seriously involved because they are the companies which actually making the sensor and bodies. Sigma just makes her own camera to test the water. The so called alliance has no legal obligation to contribute any related products at all. What you can see is the manufacturers think before act as the growth of the market getting strong. It is really a shame that all those participants just speculating but no involvement in the 4/3 developing period.
So that’s meaningless to discuss who will join the group. It just help to create an image for m4/3 impressing the consumers that it gets support from the industry and no more worrying about cease to exist of the system. All the manufacturers are just profit oriented. For the lenses manufacturers, the only matter is how much they should pay for the m4/3 license fee. I guess if m4/3 (or more accurately, Panasonic and Olympus) has opened the license earlier and at least, push Sigma to produce several lenses in the sense of third party producer, the growth of m4/3 should be much faster. So Sony makes a good move to encourage the other parties to make more lenses for her with free license fee. M4/3 should be awaken from Sony’s action.
Neonart
2 years ago |Mochapaulo, 4/3s has always been open to other manufacturers. Since 2002 or whenever it started. Sigma has been making 4/3 lenses for YEARS.
It was Sony who was pushed by 4/3s to open their standard. Sony has copied 4/3 in that regard.
Not sure if you knew that.
43photo
2 years ago |Nikon should join m4/3 becasue we can finally buy a top notch camera and use Olympus SHG, carl zeiss or voitlander glass on it. that would be nice…
David
2 years ago |I would love to see pentax provide autofocus support for their lenses on m4/3 bodies. Then we could use their FA limited lenses. But really, I don’t think m4/3 needs MORE partners. What it needs is for the partners it currently has to perform. Olympus needs to start putting out top notch product. Kodak could be a great help if they could provide olympus with a new sensor with better DR.
GreyOwl
2 years ago |admin: ‘Image above: The current Micro Four Thirds members’
Should this not read ‘Four Thirds members’ not ‘Micro…….’?
admin
2 years ago |That graph includes all m43 and 43 members.
-> Komamura, Zeiss and Schneider expressely stated they joined the “Micro Four Thirds” system.
Miklos Rabi
2 years ago |Both Leica and Pentax like small but quality products. Their philosophy is quite close to m4/3.
GreyOwl
2 years ago |Think of what would happen to our choices as buyers if they committed to Micro Four Thirds. Competion improves the breed, or so I’m told.
dCap
2 years ago |Canon have been tooooo quiet … gotta be them!
Nikon & Pentax are going tiny (maybe they will share a mount? nah!!)
Miroslav
2 years ago |Fuji. Unlike Pentax and Nikon that use Sony sensors for a couple of years, they have their own sensors ( although X100 uses Sony ) and could contribute greatly to m4/3 by making a large version of it. I like Fuji colors and have made some memorable pictures with their cameras. Fuji are bold and innovative, although have lost their way a bit lately, but would be the greatest addition to the system of all mentioned above.
Nikon would add considerable weight, but that would be seismic shock for photo world, as Nokia – Microsoft tie up was for mobiles… Unlikely.
P.S. People forget Leica already makes one m4/3 lens, so they are already in…
cL
2 years ago |I voted Leica not because I am unaware of Leica m4/3 and 4/3 lenses, but because I wish they have one m4/3 camera (they had Leica Digilux 3 for 4/3).
Fuji is too alternative to join m4/3
. Nikon and Canon? I bet they “don’t care” to join. Kodak fails at everything they touch (except films), so I hope they don’t join….
Michael Devitt
2 years ago |If Olympus with Panasonic do it properly, no other brands are needed. But without real contributors like Cosina they didn’t realize that there is definitely a market for high quality MFT products (and I’m sure Cosina is nicely suprised with Nokton sales
).
Jonathan
2 years ago |+1
The Nokton’s sale should definitely drive Oly + Pana to come up with higher end products. Having said that, more competition within m43 is welcome if it helps the format grow.
ILO
2 years ago |Kodak should join if they want to stay relevant and be respected in photography world. Kodak does not have higher end cameras anymore and if it enters M43 it may help to bring down prices considerably and provide sensors if they get serious about their CMOS sensor development (which they want to get rid of). Kodak with Schneider made great cameras at some point in the past. Currently Schneider provides lenses to upper level Kodak cameras and the fact that Schneider joined M43 and is abandoning Samsung makes a good opportunity for Kodak to join M43. Kodak’s higher management though was clueless for years so I do not hold much hope that it will happen. Most likely Kodak will get extinct in few years.
Jonathan
2 years ago |I don’t recall Schneider announcing they will be leaving Samsung. Why would they not cooperate with everybody if they can?
Sigma, Tokina and Tamron produce lenses for Nikon, Canon, Pentax and what not. Zeiss make lenses for Canon and Nikon (CP.2 mounts as well as ZF and ZE lenses) as well as native lenses for Sony.
Jonathan
2 years ago |Zeiss has announced it will offer its CP and LWZ cine lenses with m43 mounts, as of now it did not commit to developing new lenses for the format.
Zeiss and Schneider might well be only in it only for the higher end video segment (read Panasonic AGF-100).
ILO
2 years ago |Schneider provided fast superzoom 28–840mm/f2.8 (according to Kodak website) video/still lenses for new Kodak MAX camera. Compare it with 28/f4.0 for typical Olympus/Panasonic m43 zoom. If Kodak put m43 sensor instead of 1/2.3 or 1/1.7 sensor it would have a great value. Of course lens image quality will not be up to Olympus and esp Panasonic zoom lenses, since there is price compromise, but will have better ISO performance for decent price. Most people do not need interchangeable lens camera. All they need is fast superzoom compact camera with manual controls and decent size fast sensor optimized for both video and stills.
cL
2 years ago |Kodak is clueless because they only want to sell cheap things cheap. If Olympus continues that route, it’ll extinct like Kodak.
None of Kodak digital cameras look exciting. Specs, believe or not, have been more interesting lately, but it’s already too late, because its reputation is already crap.
If they could learn why their films continue to have followers, they should know price has nothing to do with it. Start making stuff consumers want, not what managements want (i.e., let’s contract some Chinese OEM to design and fabricate some el cheapo cameras, and cut R&D expense totally out of it, because it’s “too expensive.”).
ILO
2 years ago |Actually Kodak outsourced production and design to Funai, so Kodak cameras and co-designed and made by Funai and Funai is a second tier manufacturer, there is no way they can beat Panasonic or Sony. It says something about level of engineering and electronic components used in Kodak cameras. Ironically Kodak invented digital camera and OLED display but instead of taking lead left behind (similar with what happened with Motorola and IBM). It says also something about American business leaders who are bean counters, have no clue about industry, no long term plans and only care about getting quick bucks and huge bonuses. I am not sure Obama will around to bail out Kodak when it sinks.
cL
2 years ago |Kodak is not making necessity. If it fails, nobody will feel the pain, so the government won’t bail it out with tax payers’ money. Most managements are too stubborn and unwilling to listen with an open mind. Guess how Japanese learn to run business…, based on American theories. Except American business dismissed them as “unrealistic” so those professors propagated their theories oversea. Guess what, American businesses now try to learn “Japanese” business model to stay competitive…. Listen a little more and talk a little less can prove very helpful in staying competitive.
There are many things invented in this country if only people would appreciated them a little more. Many greatest economic theories are invented in this country and we have the most mature financial infrastructure in the world and yet guess what happened to banking. Lots of businesses are only interested in playing cheap tricks…, in the end, greed plays them like toys.
Actually IBM is a little like Olympus. They’re both a little slow at releasing their products but their products are thoroughly tested so they rarely break, but they won’t win on specs. Depends on the market, it may or may not be a good thing. You wouldn’t want to buy a server that fails regularly, do you? Even if it has the best specs in the world, it wouldn’t matter if downtime is too much.
Len
2 years ago |The more that join the better… Shame about the big players… They would benefit so much… Open systems are the way to go… Beter for everyone…
Would love to see kodak, fuji, canon, Nikon, pentax… See them all join…
But short sighted profits will get in the way of making a long term sound decision…
Gareth Lovering
2 years ago |I would like to see Tamron join mft
BrianP
2 years ago |You left off one choice… None of the above.
I think they should be building APS-C or Fullframe. Take a look at the sizes of Leica M lenses.. They’re pretty small but heavy because they’re made well. There’s no reason a mirrorless has to be as small as M43 to have small lenses. If you could fit m43 in a jeans pocket like a P&S it would be one thing but realistically you’re still carrying around a camera that is too big for that. The gains of APSc and FF are leaps and bounds ahead of M43 so I think that’s what they should be making. I have an EP2 and realize it will never have the DOF of FF,APSc. I want all these makers to make bigger sensor mirrorless rangefinder styling like Leica, X100 interchangeable lenses.
inteliboy
2 years ago |Couldn’t agree more with BrianP. m43 has a nice following, and a lot of photographers love the system – but let’s face it, it’s a compromise in terms of the crop sensor. All the tech nerd rants about iso and megapixels are completely misguided – just as film size counts, sensor size means the world in terms of image quality.
Esa Tuunanen
2 years ago |And another one buying “education” from McConsumer Marketing…
Plain sensor size decides nothing about absolute dynamic range or sensitivity limits. Those are decided by size of the pixel.
And Canon’s 18MP sensor actually has slightly less area per pixel than 12MP sensor used in most (m)FT cameras so same DR and sensitivity is only up to Panasonic doing their homework also in bigger than compact sensors.
And if you’re not getting also bigger optics along bigger sensor then you’re heavily compromising quality of optics.
Lenses of NEXes are way oversized for the body and those are still basic, mediocre quality optics. Neither are Samsung NX lenses above that basic consumer level.
inteliboy
2 years ago |Thanks for educating another McConsumer, internet expert.
I was just making a quick simple point, rather then getting into technical specifics of pixel size, density, area etc – let alone the DOF and dynamic range (yes) that a larger sensor affords you. And wouldn’t the “McConsumer” be the flock that debated endlessly about megapixels, and have now moved to ISO… all at the whim of manufacturers marketing?
panasonic
2 years ago |go high spec aps-c mirrorless?
Esa Tuunanen
2 years ago |Lens size depends on size of required image circle which again depends on size of the sensor.
Long focal range lenses have to be big because of physical aperture size requirement and wide angles again require bigger elements because of greater amount of required “light bending”.
And especially zooms require lots of glass for good sharpness across the image and zoom range.
Compared to Olympus Four Thirds HG/SHG lenses big chunk of APS-C and FF optics are undersized and undercorrected with notable resolution drops toward edges of frame.
Only way to small lenses with big sensors is fixed focal length and/or bottle bottom lens quality, like this 108mm f/7:
http://www.teknofokus.fi/Foto/Optplo/ppohjalns3.htm
So decide what you want because you can’t have big sensor and high quality versatile zoom optics in small size.
Nathan
2 years ago |Anyone who is willing to make AF lenses in the F1.4-F2.8 range.
panasonic
2 years ago |I see no Sony in the list. WHat happen?
TR
2 years ago |I don’t see a lot of value in big producers like Canon or Nikon since they would always want to keep MFT as a kind of half-way house bridge to bigger SLRs. Good and small but never quite as good. I like it that Pana and Oly are in it boots and all. There are already plenty of lens makers in the game and good ones too. I would want to see an alternate sensor maker like Kodak step up.
BTW when can Olympus use sensors other than Pana?
Miroslav
2 years ago |“producers like Canon or Nikon since they would always want to keep MFT as a kind of half-way house bridge to bigger SLRs”
Agree. m4/3 needs companies without legacy or other camera lines to protect. That’s why Fuji, Sigma or Kodak would be much better than Canon, Nikon or Pentax. Also, I’d more like the small ones to join in than the big two.
ZDP-189
2 years ago |Who should join the Micro Four Thirds system?
Nikon
Nikon should join MFT. A failed Nikon EVIL standard would cost them dearly, but Nikkor MFT lenses would sell like hot cakes.
Canon
Canon should not join MFT. They have the financial and technical resources to establish their own ‘pro’ standard and reap the rewards.
Fuji
Fuji should join MFT with X100 successor… but NEX would be better if Sony allows!
Pentax
No MFT. Pentax NC-1 mirrorless camera’ll have a 1/2.33″ sensor. Pentax style: innovation, compact pancake lenses, two fingers to the herd!
Kodak
Kodak should stay well clear of all consumer cameras, including MFT. It goes totally against the strategy of their recovery plan.
Leica
Leica join MFT, beyond licensing their name to Lumix? Perish the thought!
Sigma
Sigma should not make MFT bodies. Lacks budget, know how. Heck they should dump or license all camera bodies for their shareholders’ sake.
demian
2 years ago |I miss the ability to vote no one! Three 4/3 players are enough. I find the 4/3 sensor too small.
Mal
2 years ago |I think if Pentax joined then it would give Micro Four Thirds and Pentax more cudos that either can achieve on there own. At least in the short term, as Olympus and Panasonic may just get their on their own anyway. But with Pentax on board the move would have enough momentum to make Four Thirds almost the new standard, like HDMI is to video. Every manufacturer would have to have one.
But back to the real world… it would be a real bonus if Pentax could bring another sensor supplier too so we are not burdened with the slow rate of progress achieved by Panasonic alone, which operates at the speed of evolution.
And from Pentax’s perspective, they may not have what it takes to stay on their own path indefinitely. It will be hard to pull customers from Canon and Nikon without a very good reason. Those customers have investment in glass and accessories that will make it difficult to shift them unless there is significant benefit. And although Pentax are making probably the best APSC right now, people will still question the long term value of building another system with Pentax glass and accessories.
Micro Four Thirds is achieving some purchase over Canon and Nikon right now, especially in the Asian markets, using size as that very good reason. And Pentax need some of that action. But to try to go another new road using a super-micro nano system just looks like folly. I cannot see how Pentax are going to get buyers to their nano system when it cannot even rival existing P&S cameras like the S95 and XZ-1. Existing P&S cameras can fit in the pocket, zoom from 28-120, open to f1.8 and use a 1:1.63 sensor. How can their new system compete with that? IQ? Not likely.
Pentax, wake up and join the club now. I would buy a Pentax Micro Four Thirds camera!
Cristian
2 years ago |Where’s Ricoh?
Ricoh would be an excellent partner for m4/3, they have great controls, great build and make small lenses with excellent optical quality so basically everything the m4/3 lacks so far.
omox
2 years ago |FUJI of course!!!
We don’t need mastodonts in MFT group!
demian
2 years ago |I hope that Fuji the APS-C sensor, or bigger, remains. Yes, a full frame X100.
Alfons
2 years ago |Leica has declared 4/3 sensor is not big enough for them. Who wants their cameras anyway? Too much price for a red dot on the body.
I see much more potential on Fuji and Sigma side. Ambition wins tradition here.
ILO
2 years ago |It just realized that other camera makers are not going to join m43. Every company wants to carve separate niche for itself where it can live happily without competition.
It also dawned on me that actual m43 users do not need interchangeable lenses. They did not come to m43 to have interchangeable lenses, they just want larger sensor size because compact cameras suck regardless who make them, and to have decent HD video. So fast enough superzoom with m43 will be hit with general public. Take Canon G9, the image quality may challenge m43 cameras, but it is not superzoom and is not optimized for video and looks ugly too). And it has OVF which is very nice touch. So put nice superzoom there and add 43 sensor and it will be the hit. Take GH2 – does it really need an anything other than 14-140mm and then wouldn’t OVF be better in GH2? Well something like X100 but with 43 sensor and therefore reduced size lens.
panasonic
2 years ago |Just learn one thing, too light camera have disadvantage. It has possibility let the wind to blow it away to the sea. Bloom Gh2 has already slept in the sea, sad tragedy!
But i still like light camera
Kane
2 years ago |Would be wonderful if they all did, but can’t see it happening.
My own view is that m43 is the ideal compromise for mirrorless, but APS-C is the better choice for compact DSLRs. Unfortunately though it is unlikely that any manufacturer would pursue both formats.
Also Canon and Nikon both have bigger reputations than the originators of m43, so could been seen in Japan to “lose face” by adopting the standard. I fear if certain “Coolpix Pro” rumours are on the right lines that Nikon will lose face anyway.
Pentax too could find themselves missing the boat with their mooted small sensor system. Interestingly some have compared it to a “digital 110” system, and we know what happened to that! (although to be fair it was the flawed design of the 110 cassette that killed the system). How will they even compete with top line compacts?
Leica have already thrown a wobbly over the software based lens corrections of one of the major players, and have apparently ruled themselves out. The “downmarket drift” of m43 would also argue against Leica’s involvement. If the “Pro m43” segment ever materializes perhaps their interest would reignite.
So who does that leave….? m43 could continue with just the 2 camera makers, but would IMO greatly benefit from another manufacturer (even another sensor). No one mirrorless system has gained any great dominance yet, so there’s still everything to play for, but m43 already needs to up its game. Sony and Samsung are both making ambitious noises and Canon surely have plans – m43 needs a boost from someone…..please….?