My Increasing Disillusion With Micro 4/3

DxOMark recently reviewed the newest version of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens. It performs fantastically. It is easily the best lens in their tests. It has autofocus and costs only $900. And this is the rub: with a Metabones image reducer-type adapter, this would become a 17mm f/0.7 on m4/3. F/0.7. For $900.

Note: I converted the focal length into 4/3 terms. The image actually seen on the frame would be identical on full-frame or 4/3.

Tell me again why Panasonic is trying to sell its 42.5mm f/1.2 for $1,600? On what fucking planet do they live?

The Olympus E-M5 is a great camera. I love it. The E-M1 is great. I even feel much better toward the GX7 now that I've had a chance to use it. But the Speed Booster just makes the entire system untenable. A $600 adapter opens up the lenses of other systems and turns the market on its head.

To play Devil's advocate against myself, I understand that some degree of design must go into keeping the lenses at a particular size. Yes, the FF lenses are significantly faster, but they are also larger — often by a great deal. That said, it doesn't matter. Any photog on Earth would happily trade a little size for a lens that is faster than f/1.

Metabones hinted at a live micro 4/3 adapter, and that would be peachy keen. I do like my tiny lenses and frequently go back to my beloved GF1. Especially when I don't want to truck along a Nikon as when just going to a restaurant with friends. And while FF equipment is usually larger, it isn't always by much. Canon's 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm primes aren't very large and wouldn't appear out of place on a small body. And again, with the Speedboster, their apertures are all below f/1.0. But whither Micro 4/3 with that ability at hand? A system of small cameras that people buy to then use their Canon lenses?

The prices of 4/3 lenses are just becoming too big a burden for the sake of maintaining the system. The Panasonic 42.5mm really drove that home in grand fashion. I've felt a bit ripped off with my current lenses and their public statements indicate that they will be making no course corrections in the future, meaning I will feel even more ripped off then. The Speed Booster has made it so I can no longer abide this. Not when the Sigma 35mm becomes f/1 on the Fuji X Pro 1, a camera that can shoot ISO6400 without much breaking a sweat.

You can see in the freaking dark. Nothing in Micro 4/3 offers this, and if it did, they would try to charge a bazillion dollars for it. That I will not accept.

There is a concept in economics called the opportunity cost. It's the sort of thing you learn in econ-101. Basically, when you spend money, you are not just spending the money, you are spending the opportunity to buy other things. So when I spend $500 on a lens, it costs me the $500, any other lens I could have bought, a wardrobe, four pairs of shoes, one-hundred $5 Footlongs from Subway, and on and on.

Included in that cost are all of the other competitive camera products out there. Some of them are truly amazing. And that's the rub, right there. That's why camera companies are so desperate to get you into their closed or semi-closed system. That dynamic alters the value equation. Because then, when you spend $500 on a lens, you are not spending the opportunity to buy another lens, because you would have to buy into an entirely new system. It reduces the number of alternative uses of your money, reduces the opportunity cost, and thus increases the value of the lens beyond what it would be in a perfectly competitive landscape.

The art of pricing is thus determining how far a camera company can squeeze its adherents before they start to jump ship to another system.

I bought into Micro 4/3 at the very beginning. I even bought some old 4/3 lenses. And I have felt squeezed ever since.

A 1:1 Sensor Is Possible For 4/3

Lloyd Chambers, over at Diglloyd, has posted an analysis of the image circle of Micro 4/3 lenses and found that they are huge. Most of the lenses could cover an APS-C sensor

That doesn't really tell us anything, though. We would need analysis of the degradation of the image, and I suspect that it would be pretty extreme on an APS-C sensor. What excites me about this is the prospect of a 1:1 sensor, which would be completely and absolutely unique in the camera world. I don't think there are even any 1:1 medium format sensors being made.

A 1:1 m4/3 sensor would have a diagonal of about 24.46mm. The smallest image circle was the Panasonic 45mm f/2.8 at 25mm, which just squeaks by. Basically, a 1:1 image circle is compatible with every lens he tested, even the cheap ones.

Considering that this sensor, if implemented, would be in pro-oriented product, the possible confusion associated with degraded image quality at the corners wouldn't need to be much addressed. Pros and enthusiasts understand the principles underlying photography and know quite well what the 1:1 ratio would entail.

I again express my absolute support for this sensor in the upcoming Olympus E-7. It needs a unique calling card. In a market with cameras like the NEX-7, X Pro 1, and full-frame cameras costing below $2,000, any Oly offering that costs in the $1,500 area would die a quick and inauspicious death.

First Review Of The Panasonic X 45-175mm Lens

ePhotozine has posted a review of the new Panasonic 45-175mm X-series lens. It is not terribly worth mentioning --EPZ has terrible lens reviews; I don't know why they bother--- but a major review of this lens has been long awaited.

While the resolution charts are useless, the chromatic aberation charts are not, and the lens performs acceptably well on Panasonic bodies. Remember, these lenses all have automatic correct for this on Panasonic's bodies, so the real numbers are much higher. If the amount is near zero, that's fine, but at many lengths and apertures, the numbers are nowhere near it, meaning that the lens' actual, optical quality is very disappointing.

Unless another review produces some seriously good data, I'm not going anywhere near either X-series lens.

Fewer Fucking Pixels!

I'm still going to likely buy the Panasonic GH2. I'm simply waiting to see what Olympus has up its sleeve. What bothers me is that instead of concentrating on noise reduction, Panasonic upped the pixel count on the GH2. The smaller the pixel, the higher the gain required to achieve a set ISO. And this was never too much of an issue for until recently. I've had my GF1 for slightly over a year, and generally, it does everything that I want. But I was out wth my tripod a week or so ago and decided to do a long exposure. Not ridiculously long. Five seconds, but sure enough, I had a hot pixel. It was only one, and this was easily fixed in post, but I'd imagine that the number of hot pixels would increase with, say, a ten second exposure or longer.

I understand that this isn't much of an issue. But it goes towards my assessment of the general attitude of the camera manufacturers. They're still interested in numbers, which I assume means that we consumers are still interested in numbers. What it means for me is that my GF1 is not sufficient for all of my applications. I like the 12mp rating. I think that it's a good trade-off between detail and noise, especially at low-ISO. But I would have rather seen a generational advance in noise reduction. I'm already disappointed as hell in the E-5, I want to see something new to get my blood flowing, like the GF1 and Pen cameras did.

Moreover, the 4/3's format is ripe for experimentation. It's finally found its niche. The 4/3's format, backed almost exclusively by Olympus, was a failure, but Micro 4/3's is hot shit. Panasonic's multi-aspect sensor in the GH1 and GH2 illustrates a cool advantage of the small 4/3's sensor. You can experiment with its layout and design without adversely affecting the final size of the camera. Doing the same thing in an APS-C camera wouldn't likely be possible. Manufacture a larger sensor and let users play around with aspect ratios, or even move the lens forward and back.

What I'm trying to say, in the end, is that the Micro 4/3's format feels usable. It's small and almost toy-like. It's accessible and friendly, as opposed to the massive gear associated with full-format cameras and their philosophical little brothers, the APS-C cameras. This is the format to use to experiment with niches and get an entire generation interested in the wild possibilities of photography. Just imagine Panasonic selling Lens Baby at Best Buy. That would be great.

UPDATE: There's an article over at Luminous Landscape discussing the nature of sensors and pixels. Basically, it's not the size of the pixel that matters, it's the size of the sensor. You're going to have a set amount of noise over the surface of the sensor for any given ISO, and it doesn't really matter if you spread that out over 10MP or 20MP.

From experience, and also technically, I disagree. The author addresses the need for connecting hardware that makes pixels smaller at higher MP ratings, but if we simply count the surface area of a pixel, and split that into two pixels, thus doubling the MP rating, we still have the same surface area of the previous, larger pixel. The same amount of light is being detected.

We have a few examples of this being proven not entirely correct. DxO Mark's rating of the Panasonic GH1 and GH2. They are very similar sensors, only one has a higher pixel count: the GH2. The GH2 underperforms the GH1 by four points, according to the scale. Moreover, in each camera generation, it's the camera with the highest pixel count that gets hurt the most by noise.

Again, if we follow the formula used and simply scale down the higher-resolution image to the resolution of the lower-resolution image, we do achieve similar levels of dynamic range and noise, but it's artificial. The process of photons randomly hitting the pixels on the sensor, thus determining the exposure, is an analog process. It is the process that is most representative of the scene we're trying to photograph. In post production, We have to digitally determine how to average together the smaller pixels into a hypothetical larger pixel. How can the program know it got it right?

Finally, the formula used in the article would be perfectly accurate if all pixels measured the same thing, but they don't. Each pixel only registers a red, green, or blue value. If we take a set area of a sensor, fill that area with an RGB set of pixels, then triple the pixel count, we must fit an entire RGB assembly where the blue pixel once was. That means that that area of the sensor is now 1/3rd as sensitive to blue light as it once was.

Averaged over a large area, this effect is minimized, which is supposedly what DxO Mark does, but it obviously doesn't fully negate the effect since small areas of the sensor will be less sensitive to particular colors than they once were, introducing hot pixels and noise. These hot pixels and noise will then be averaged into the final image when we try to scale the image down to the size that a lower-resolution sensor would have produced. This means that the raw materials from which the image is produced are more numerous, theoretically allowing an average to be high quality, but each individual pixel is of lower quality.

Pro-Level Mirrorless Cameras From Nikon and Olympus

Maybe this explains the absence of Olympus' counterpart to the Panasonic GH1/2.

Rumors are circulating that both Olympus and Nikon will be announcing pro-level gear for mirrorless systems. Nikon's logic assumes that releasing a direct competitor for the Pen and GF2 would more likely cannibalize sales of their own entry-level APS-C cameras, and not steal sales from the 4/3's format. Instead, they're going to release compact gear for professionals, recognizing that many pros have been using Panasonic and Olympus products as walkaround gear because it's so much lighter. I think that the logic is sound. But how "pro" they plan on going is the big question. If they're talking $1,500 or less, I think they've got a deal, but any more than that and I can't think of many professionals who would be interested. Just look at the Olympus E-5. The E-Series has been a success, but not the flagships. Olympus won't talk, but sales of the E-5 are supposedly a fraction of the numbers that Canon, Nikon, or Sony do in the same price range.

The biggest question is, of course, the hardware. As Panasonic pointed out, the larger the sensor, the larger the corresponding lenses are going to be. Will Nikon go for an APS-C sensor and simply charge more for miniaturized lenses? Will they embrace an entirely new format? Considering the incredible quality from the new D7000, I find it highly unlikely that they'll abandon their APS-C sensors. Then, all Nikon lenses would be quickly compatible with an adapter.

Olympus is exciting. I don't find it coincidental that rumors of pro-level gear start circulating right after their contract to buy Panasonic sensors terminated. They're not free to buy sensors from Kodak, who is a bit behind in the noise category, but their sensors work wonderfully without low-pass filters and their colors at low-ISO are among the best in the industry. Just look at the Leica M9.

Even though Nikon is an excellent company, I'm sticking with the 4/3's group. They're the innovators. They're pushing the boundaries. For now at least, Nikon is following, and I'd rather hang out with the guys leading.

Where are the Micro 4/3's Compacts?

In a recent interview, some dude from Panasonic was talking up Micro 4/3's in comparison to the APS-sized where he bashed them for degrading the quality of their glass to get it sized down far enough to be worthwhile. While I agree that the Samsung and Sony lenses aren't the best, he dodged the question of whether people will care at all and, instead, be swayed by the superior low-light performance. For example, I'd happily take a crap lens on the Nikon D7000's sensor than a great lens on almost any other sensor.

Also, since most people who bought into Micro 4/3's did so because the cameras were so bloody compact, and a paired lens/sensor can be distilled down to a very compact size, why aren't there any Micro 4/3's compacts?! The Leica X1 is smaller than the GF1, and the upcoming Fuji X1000 is compact and will likely have excellent image quality. If the sensor size is such a limitation on the lenses, and companies are making super-compact cameras with full APS sensors, then 4/3's sensored compacts should be freaking amazing.

And I think that they would be! The smaller sensor would give slightly better zoom capability and much more latitude in the physical design of the camera body. Olympus could have been the first into this arena, so what do they release? Yet ANOTHER compact sensored camera. Yay. I'm sorry Olympus, you've got to really kick it up a notch to capture our attention. A 50mm equivalent compact camera with a 4/3's sensor would be an excellent product. It would likely be so excellent that it's actually baffling that they haven't released one yet.

A Panasonic Micro-4/3's Semi-Pro lens? Where do I sign up?

Rumors are circulating of a semi-pro Micro 4/3's lens coming out of Panasonic. Thus far, both Panasonic and Olympus have concentrated, smartly I think, on the consumer end with their m4/3's lenses. I'd imagine that this is because they both, probably correctly, assume that anyone interested in greater image quality will just buy an adapter and pick up some of Olympus' semi-pro and pro-level Zuiko lenses.

I've been holding out, though. This is because moving the lens very close to the sensor, compliments of the missing mirror and prism assembly, results in significant differences in the lens design. Truly, it results in some big advantages in lens design which helps to explain why m4/3's lenses are so bloody sharp for so little money. For example, the Panasonic 14-45mm lens costs roundabouts $300. The Olympus 12-60mm costs $800, yet the two lenses are similarly sharp. Obviously, there are advantages to the Olympus, but the sharpness differences aren't very big even though the Olympus costs nearly three times as much.

One large disadvantage to these tiny lenses, though, is that angle at which the light hits the sensor. Moving the lens so close to the sensor means lots of light will be hitting at sharp angles, which classic sensors can't detect. The light needs to hit them straight on.

Now we get to the interesting stuff. Olympus is now out of its contract to buy Panasonic sensors and can freely buy from Kodak, which makes CCD sensors as opposed to the CMOS sensors in most modern cameras. CCD sensors aren't as good in low light as CMOS, but they are excellent at sensing light from sharp angles. This is why Leica uses them in their M9. Leica's lenses produce almost nothing but oddly-angled light. This means that Olympus can manufacture lenses that produce angled light, in a compact body, and still be sharp as a knife. Olympus also appears to be abandoning its old 4/3's format, what with the E-5 all but confirmed as a swan song. Olympus has a loyal group of pro photogs, lots of pro lenses kicking around, and a budding Micro 4/3's market that seems more than ready to take up the mantle. All of this means that Olympus is primed to expand its m4/3's operations to comprise the totality of its interchangeable lens system.

Panasonic, likewise, has many interesting dominoes lining up. First off, the GH1 and now GH2 have garnered a significant professional following. And wherever pros go, lenses follow. The GF1 earned lots of love as a poor man's Leica, perhaps helped by the actual Leica logo on the body. Panasonic's original line-up of m4/3's lenses were good enough to actually be carried around by pros as working lenses because they were so small and light. All Panasonic would have to is release a pro-level body for the GH2 and the orders would roll in. Finally, Panasonic appears to actually be invested in m4/3's. Much more so than the old 4/3's format, which their efforts in were... half-hearted.

The first sign that m4/3's is going semi-pro, and that Panasonic will be the first one to pull the trigger is the rumored release of a 12-50mm f2.8 lens. Reports indicate that it will be large, but in m4/3's speak, large is still pretty damned small, and that it's housed in a pro body. I am excited to find out if it will be weather sealed, because that would all but guarantee a pro-bodied Panasonic GH2 (perhaps the GH3). I'd also be interested in the possiblity of both companies exploring sensor sizes. Look at the GH1 and GH2. They're easily on the top of the image-quality heap in 4/3's sensors, and much of that probably has to do with the size of the sensor. No matter their tinkering, the sensors will always be smaller, and thus a stop behind, the APS-C cameras, but I think that they can get it to the point where it's moot.

Nikon D7000 Dukes It Out With Pentax K-5

Holy crap! The Nikon D7000 has been ranked near the tippy-top of APS-C sized SLR cameras! With an overall score of 80, that puts it with or above all of Sony and Canon's full frame cameras. Excellent work, Nikon!

The D7000 is fighting with Pentax's K-5, which even more shockingly mustered an 82, which matches the Nikon D3s. If these numbers are to be believed, sensor development in the APS-C arena has kicked into turbo. I'll wait for further information, but this is making me reconsider my previous ideas about Micro Four-Thirds.

I still say that m4/3's is the best system to buy into for someone wanting a family shooter. It's compact, fantastic lenses cost very little and weigh even less, and Panasonic has proven a complete dedication to the format. You can buy a m4/3's camera and lens for less than $800, buy two more lenses for $500 to $1000 a piece, and you'll have a complete kit that fits into a small camera bag and will do for any situation an average person could imagine. Perfect.

But I used to also argue for the four-thirds format over APS-C because the increased sensor size didn't seem to net much benefit. Going up to full-frame resulted in a significant difference, but notsomuch APS-C. The smaller sensor's 2X crop factor meant that zoom lenses positively sung, with greater length and deeper depth of field. Colors were somewhat better on the larger sensor, as was dynamic range, but I felt that if that was a serious concern, you should save up for a full-frame camera. APS-C just didn't provide enough of a quality boost to warrant the increased size and cost.

These results change that perspective. The best 4/3's sensor on the market is the Panasonic GH1/2, which has a best score of 64 on DxO Mark. That plopped it smack in the middle of most modern APS-C cameras, truly, trailing the EOS 7D supercamera by only two points. But trailing the leading APS-C camera by 18 points cannot be ignored.

As I said, I'll wait to pass judgment, but if these early results hold up, anyone with enthusiast or semi-pro aspirations cannot consider the 4/3's format any more. APS-C has just walked away.

Tests and reviews for the camera Nikon D7000 (DxO Mark)