Is the 4/3rds system becoming obsolete?

I have 4/3 cameras with many 4/3 lenses, but it seems all the new
stuff is "micro 4/3rds"

On 18/12/2014 04:58, Peter Jason wrote:
I have 4/3 cameras with many 4/3 lenses, but it seems all the new
stuff is "micro 4/3rds"

That is the trend.

I don't know whether I'm typical, but I looked at 4/3 and found it not
to be a significant size or weight saving over a small DSLR, but more
recently I looked at the Panasonic GX7 micro-4/3 and decided that I
could live with its electronic viewfinder to gain the size and weight
reduction I wanted.

Some would argue that the DSLR is moving towards obsolescence, and will
be left more for specialised applications.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article , David Taylor wrote:

Peter Jason:
I have 4/3 cameras with many 4/3 lenses, but it seems all the new
stuff is "micro 4/3rds"

That is the trend.

I don't know whether I'm typical, but I looked at 4/3 and found it
not to be a significant size or weight saving over a small DSLR, but
more recently I looked at the Panasonic GX7 micro-4/3 and decided
that I could live with its electronic viewfinder to gain the size
and weight reduction I wanted.

Some would argue that the DSLR is moving towards obsolescence, and
will be left more for specialised applications.

Hasn't it always been?

This is how consumer electronics work. SLR's were for professionals only,
and DSLR's were so expensive in the beginning so the same applied to them.

As prixes dropped for DSLR, the compact cameras becamse better and better.

Before compacts could get good enough, there was a time period where DSLR
was your only choice if you wanted to do more "serious" albeit not
professional photography, so "prosumer" DSLR's popped up more and more, and
since prosumer DSLR's now make up the bulk of DSLR sales, one thinks that
if if prosumers would choose mirrorless compact cameras, that would be at
the expense of the DSLR market, when in fact that would just mean that DSLR
would go "back" to be for professionals and compact cameras is for the
consumers, so in the end nothing changed really.

I would go so far to claim that the range finder or the 60's and 70's are
what the prosumers DSLR are today, a middle-way for someone a bit more
interested in photography. The compact camera ate up the range finder in
the 80's and 90's and the mirrorless is eating up the prosumer DSLR today,
but the mid- and high-end of photography will continue to be DSLR for quite
some time.

--
Sandman[.net]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 15:58:33 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:

I have 4/3 cameras with many 4/3 lenses, but it seems all the new
stuff is "micro 4/3rds"

Yes. But that doesn't mean you need to change. Also, if you want a new
body but would like to keep using your lenses, get an Oly EM1, which,
via an adapter, can make full use of your 4/3 lenses.

On 2014-12-18 08:05:13 +0000, David Taylor said:

On 18/12/2014 04:58, Peter Jason wrote:
I have 4/3 cameras with many 4/3 lenses, but it seems all the new
stuff is "micro 4/3rds"

That is the trend.

I don't know whether I'm typical, but I looked at 4/3 and found it not
to be a significant size or weight saving over a small DSLR, but more
recently I looked at the Panasonic GX7 micro-4/3 and decided that I
could live with its electronic viewfinder to gain the size and weight
reduction I wanted.

Some would argue that the DSLR is moving towards obsolescence, and will
be left more for specialised applications.

I never thought I'd give up my film SLR. Then I never thought I'd give
up my DSLR. Then, despite using my rangefinder (R-D1) more than my
DSLR, I thought a DSLR would have a place in my bag forever. Since I
got the EOS-M, I haven't used the R-D1 or the EOS DSLR. There's really
no point any more, for me. The M can take all the Leica-mount (S and
M) and EOS lenses that I have, as well as all the Nikon, M42, and the
two dozen more oddball SLR-mount lenses that I own.

But even though I love that EOS-M, it's still a lot more clunky than my
Powershot S90, which I *always* take *everywhere*. I see that Canon
has the G7X, and the G1X II, and the S120 - all which are now competing
for the honor of replacing the S90 some day in the not too distant
future.

I guess my point is that, if there's a smaller camera that has good
capability, why the hell would you want to lug around a big ass thing
that's only marginally more capable? Obviously I will always need a
DSLR or the EOS-M in order to take full advantage of my extensive macro
system, my large white telephoto lens, and my TS-E needs, but other
than that? Fah.

Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
But even though I love that EOS-M, it's still a lot more clunky than my
Powershot S90, which I *always* take *everywhere*. I see that Canon has
the G7X, and the G1X II, and the S120 - all which are now competing for
the honor of replacing the S90 some day in the not too distant future.

I guess my point is that, if there's a smaller camera that has good
capability, why the hell would you want to lug around a big ass thing
that's only marginally more capable? Obviously I will always need a
DSLR or the EOS-M in order to take full advantage of my extensive macro
system, my large white telephoto lens, and my TS-E needs, but other than
that? Fah.


Hi,

I'm with you. When I was younger, I carried a camera body and lens
around my neck,and a bag with a body, 3 lenses, motor drive, flash, etc,
on my shoulder. It weighed about 14 pounds,and I walked like the leaning
tower of Pisa. Now,as an an octogenarian, I use my Canon Powershot
S-120, and get most (but not all) of the shots that I used to get with
my film gear. Using simple software, I edit and crop, etc.and print my
own pix. I can do almost all that I used to, except for the fisheye and
ringlight effects. The pocket camera is always with me.

Mort Linder

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com