More Support For Micro 4/3rds As The Future

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

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

Embed­ded Link

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

Google+: View post on Google+

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

    Old Serbian proverbs say:

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

    They seem appro­pri­ate some­how.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Lens are antenna system for light.

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

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

  • WRT to sensor size, if that is the aswwer then why not go for 14 inch for exam­ple ?

    Your phone is surely smaller than 43 camera and it has many other func­tions.

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

    I don’t doubt that 43 are fit for many purposes, but the ques­tion was will the 43 mirror­less push SLR effec­tively out of the market. 

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

Comments are closed.

Respond