Given it's all open source and literally anyone can develop for it, why don't smaller, or ambitious camera companies like Vivitar, Polaroid, Ricoh, GoPro, Moultrie, Yamaha, Schneider-Optik or Kodak try their hand at making cameras and lenses for Micro Four Thirds?
On that note, why don't companies like Toshiba who already make sensors give it a go? Or companies that have been kicked out of the camera industry but still make other stuff like Casio or Celestron?
Even Samsung could expect to reasonably compete if it enters itself into a system which already has lenses and accessories for its customers to buy into, rather than expecting them to be content with the shitty offerings of its NX range.
Companies like Z, Zhongyi Mitakon and Blackmagic have done a great job of entering the m43 marketplace with interesting products, and whilst none of the above can reasonably expect to sell as much as Olympus or Panasonic, they could certainly give the bigger companies a run for their money, and exploit the already existing consumer base rather than try to build their own from scratch.
Seriously, can you imagine how great an X-Pro 1 style micro four thirds rangefinder with a sigma foveon sensor would be? Sigma; get on this
Wow you must be a real expert! Why don't you explain for me with the knowledge of the camera industry you have picked up during your marketing and business degree and your 30 years working in the camera industry?
Stop pulling everyone else down to your miserable level. If you don't have anything of value to say just don't, and if you can't make yourself feel good but through being condescending guess what, it'll only make yourself more and more miserable because all you see is misery in others and in yourself.
Sincerely, the good therapist
Pooping into your hand and then smearing it in you your eyes is also open source, and literally anyone can do it. But that doesn't mean it's desirable.
Companies don't develop and produce products because they can, or because it's fun. They do it because they see money in it. They don't see money in M4/3.
That's the difference between us, moron. I don't have that experience so I'm not scattering my brain shit everywhere with my recommendations how companies should better do their job, without having the slightest clue what their decisions are based on.
Yeah, you say me to just shut up when somebody is talking bullshit. you sheep. you may shut up whenever you want, but I will show the apes their place.
funny, I thought the same.
And yet Olympus and Panasonic are doing pretty well in a stagnant camera market and the lens mount has become a favourite with videographers. Nowhere did I suggest that m43 was the best camera system at anything except maybe for a 4k video camera under £1000 - only that as an open source platform for mirrorless camera technology it's a decent avenue for camera, optics or accessories manufacturers who don't have the resources to fund their own system.
You really think Ricoh make any money off the GR or the pentax acquisition? It's a vanity project. Similarly the only skill vivitar has is undercutting the competition on price and quality - making cheap as shit compacts and action cams. They could feasibly do the same in the mirrorless market as well.
I had a Kodak EasyShare that was made almost a decade ago that was pretty good at grabbing sharp detail with little noise or grain. The color balance was shit, but that was an easy fix in any computer imaging software. Some of the alternate modes were actually nice to use.
I sometimes want Kodak to make a return. They can still jump back in.
> Given it's all open source
On that one Olympus camera, you mean?
> try their hand at making cameras and lenses for Micro Four Thirds
Let's not forget it's still M43. Most users want APS-C or FF sensors.
>On that one Olympus camera, you mean?
Use of the lens mount or firmware is non royalty protected. Hence why other companies besides oly and panny can use it.
> Let's not forget it's still M43. Most users want APS-C or FF sensors.
Which is why m43 is still the most widely used mirrorless system of course. The bulk of its users don't care about sensor sizes, they just want something better than their compact and smaller than a DSLR.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:01:31 10:07:07 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 640 Image Height 573
M4/3 is the mos exciting thing in the camera industry at the moment, followed by Fuji's X system.
Sensor size is becoming less relevant as sensor tech progresses. You can get amazing high ISO shots from a 1 inch compact camera nowadays. The 'full frame advantage' will always be there, but how many people REALLY need clean shots at ISO 51,200? Lens selection on M4/3 is pretty much complete. Olympus alone covers 8mm fisheye, 7-150mm, and 300mm with pro grade lenses now. There are f/1.2 portrait lenses available. f/0.95 quartet available. An array of affordable and impressive primes in the f/1.8~ range. There are many bodies to suit any level of photographer or videographer. Hell, with firmware 4.0, the E-M1 can go head to head with $8000 pro bodies from Canikon in the sports realm. Sure, the $8000 camera will make cleaner shots at ISO 6400, but the E-M1 still keeps up, for under $1000. If shallow DoF is the only thing you care about, smaller sensor systems like M4/3 and APS-C aren't going to be your thing anyway. You'll have to deal with the much higher prices and larger lenses of full frame and medium format. But for those of us who like things in focus, but still enjoy some shallow DoF when we need it, we have M4/3 and APS-C to give us everything we want.
Sony sales have started to drop, now that everyone has an A7 body. Seems like sales are dropping on the newer bodies that they release every 6 months. Olympus is on a steady rise, however. This is just a 12 months sales chart. Olympus still has more bodies out there in the wild.
For what year? What cameras are included in the measurements? Does it include lenses?
The chart is saying that Sony sold 43 million mirrorless cameras in February? That seems... high.
>Seriously, can you imagine how great an X-Pro 1 style micro four thirds rangefinder with a sigma foveon sensor would be? Sigma; get on this
They are at least aware that people want this. Not sure if it's happening soon cuz I think he (sigma CEO) said he would prefer to expand the SD-whatever dslr line or something.
Only slightly relevant to this thread but I've been wondering for a while: if you put a 3 megapickle sensor on the same area as a modern small 12 megapickle sensor, would it give better quality pictures than the 12mp pics downscaled to 3?
So Sony, Oly, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, etc. have collected all data regarding every camera they sold in a year, 6 days after it happened? That sounds real. I'm sure all the resellers like Amazon, Best Buy, and every other retailer out there have sent their reports right over.
Is m43 even actually open source?
I thought you had to join the m43 consortium to get access to the actual tech, and that's why poorfags like Mitakon don't go farther than mechanical mount compatibility.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Nokia Camera Model 6500s-1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2048 Image Height 1536 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2011:12:08 17:43:47 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1024 Image Height 768 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>why don't smaller, or ambitious camera companies like Vivitar, Polaroid, Ricoh, GoPro, Moultrie, Yamaha, Schneider-Optik or Kodak try their hand at making cameras and lenses for Micro Four Thirds?
1. Market is saturated
2. Only so many niches left to cater to
3. Decades or even centuries behind established brands in terms of experience and manufacturing capability.
Combine that with having to find people who know what they're doing, acquiring the machines to be used for design, testing, and production, finding land to build a factory to put it all in, etc.
On top of all that, a company still has to determine how to make what for whom, why they would want it, and how much to sell it for, all while preventing a bigger and more capable company from beating them to the punch. Then there are distributors to negotiate with, market research to do, ads, hiring shills and reviewers, convincing shareholders that this is a good idea, all that shit.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS D60 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 1980:01:01 00:01:11 Exposure Time 1/180 sec F-Number f/2.8 ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias -1/2 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash Focal Length 135.00 mm Image Width 3072 Image Height 2048 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
The y axis is market share according to units shipped to vendors. Also remember Panasonic makes m43 cameras as well - if you add their figures to Olympus they more than compete with Sony.
>Mitakon, Samyang and the like are just optics manufacturers. They don't do electronics in the slightest to keep costs down.
It's not to keep costs down, they're for the most part unable to.
>They're not completely hopeless are they?
>Can't they just nick a load of other people's tech?
A lot of it was Kodak's, but they cucked themselves and now they would have to pay out the ass to use shit they developed (kek) themselves.
>why don't smaller, or ambitious camera companies like [...] try their hand at making cameras and lenses for Micro Four Thirds?
They do, but mostly with niche stuff because you can't really compete with Oly/Pana directly.
On the camera side you have the aforementioned Kodak S1 (although it's not actually Kodak), DJI X5 and Blackmagic Pocket, and on the lens side there's a dozen companies making them - just usually without AF, as it's much more difficult.
A sigma rangefinder actually sounds like a great idea. By not having the sensor on all the time like on a Merrill you'd have way better battery life and noise performance, which desu is all that's stopping me from buying one. I'd happily sacrifice sensor size for those 2 problems being fixed
Don't let battery life stop you, at least. For me it's not nearly as much of an issue as I thought it would be reading all them dramatic reviews. I get by just fine with 3 batteries (bought 1 extra).
It comes with 2 yeah. I wouldn't know which is the best, I only have the dp3 merrill (75mm equiv.). You can choose between dp1 merrill, dp1 quattro and dp0 quattro, I think the idea of the quattro sensor was to get better high iso performance but some like the look of the merrill files better.