GH3 Does investing in M4/3 Gear make you nervous?

I

Ianscreations

Well-known member
It's unfortunate that some of the better lenses for m4/3 gear are just as pricey as good full-frame lenses.
How future-proof do you feel the m4/3 format is?
I realize bodies come and go, but I wish that the m4/3 customer base was more substantial so we knew there would be continued support for this gear years down the road (as Full Frame users can trust).
Does anyone else share my trepidation or is it unfounded?
 
If you see the m4/3 format like a tradeoff, or something without obvious value in video work against other formats (S35 or FF) then my advice is to not invest at all in m43. Invest in other format. It's more expensive than m43 when you start, but in the long run it's less expensive to buy directly the format you're comfortable with, than buy another before you see your mistake, and then buy the good one.

For me, the m43 format is just perfect for my video works (not the same thing in the photo work : I rather use a FF), you can shoot low light without going awfully shallow, we have a good bunch of excellent lenses (I have the voigtlanders, olympus and some vintage that I dig), it can be very lightweight when you need it to be, and the picture quality (more so with the new Black Magic) is just the top that I can actually deal with.

I'm considering another format (FS700) just because some of my corporate clients need ultra-slowmo sometimes. But I hope to see something equivalent in the m43 world before my purchase... because I love the format and I have all theses goddam lenses to work with. ;-) (Sorry for the english, I'm just a french)
 
Astra,
I agree with your reasons for using m4/3. In fact...we share much of the same appreciation. But what I'm really getting at is....do you think that we will still have body support for these lenses a few years down the road? I know technology comes and goes, but as a reliable format with continued support for the near future...do you think this will continue? The DSLR video technique really exploded in 2008 and 5 years in, it's still going strong. Before I purchase too many lenses for my GH3, I kind of would like reassurance that i will have support a few years down the road.
 
Well for "niche" product (like ultra slow mo) I really hope a body support will come in m43 but it's just a hope. I'm not sure : with the shutter speed you need at thoses cadences - like 240i/s - maybe the lens format reach its limits in terms of actual light you need... but seriously I don't know. For the rest, better codec (prores or a new format from pana), raw, 4K, I'm sure we'll see many m43 bodies with thoses capabilities. The Black Magic entries in this format is a very good thing. Not because you have to buy there cams (which are very good but have some serious flaws... just in actual deliveries to begin with) but because it will force the giants to up there game. Lumix/Pana can deliver very quickly something that will smash the good but weak (in term of enginering power) attempt of Black Magic. And I'm sure they will. We just have to hope that there isn't 100 incremental updates (and crippled capabilities) before then.
 
Ianscreations said:
.....what I'm really getting at is....do you think that we will still have body support for these lenses a few years down the road? ............ as a reliable format with continued support for the near future...do you think this will continue?
Click to expand...
To condense thoughts in the other thread - 4/3 was (is) primarily a still camera format, and the majority of lenses seem to be designed with that uppermost. If you're happy with using cameras like the GH2 etc for video use (maybe for reasons of size etc) then my feeling is that will continue.

But if you're looking at cameras designed first and foremost for video, then I think the future is far more likely to lie with s35, and the implication is that if you're looking to build up a set of lenses, with a view to later progressing up the scale to a more sophisticated camera, then going down the s35 route from the outset makes sense. There's just much more choice from a variety of manufacturers at a range of prices.

For 4/3, there's the AF100 and..... not a great deal else. Even Black Magic seem to have gone s35 for their latest offering. Panasonic have announced a 4K varicam for sometime in the future which will also be s35, so in the absence of any information of a forthcoming 4/3 "AF200", s35 looks to have a far better future than 4/3 - at least for true video cameras, if not those who prefer the GHx form, video or stills.
 
I honestly don't feel like any of the lenses are more expensive then other format equivalent lenses. Sure the 12-35 is pricey but the full frame equivalent for the same range is actually twice as much when you factor in everything it does.

Yeah it is a bit of an investment but I honestly don't look at it that way. In the past most of us purchased traditional video cameras with fixed lenses. If we wanted a good camera we were looking at somewhere between $3,000.00 and $5,000.00. This was for a locked ecosystem video camera where chances are even the batteries would not work with a future model. Pretty much nothing but the mini dv tapes were capable of moving to another camera. When we no longer wanted that camera we either sold it or just want out and bought a new one.

I guess my point is you can buy a GH3 and a heck of a lot of great lens options or $5,000.00 or the price most people considered standard for professional video production. Who cares if five years from now you can no longer buy M4/3 gear. Either continue to enjoy what you have or sell off the entire system and but into a new system.

Is there any guarantee Canon or Nikon will use the same mount five years from now? Canon could decide to pull another FD to EF mount move. We just don't know. The only guarantee you have in life is your talent and the tools you get to use today. I don't want to unlink about the tools I will use five years from now because they don't exist yet. So much can change by then the whole concept of DSLR may be turned upside down. We just don't know. If you constantly worry about the tool you have today you will never focus on perfecting your skills with that tool. As soon as you open the box you will be busy planning your next upgrade.

M4/3 may not be here forever but frankly I just don't care. I'm more interested in using it today and selling the kit and moving on if it no longer does what I need in the future. Look how many of us still buy old FD and Nikon lenses. I'm sure somewhere you will always find a buyer for M4/3 gear.
 
Ianscreations said:
Do you think that we will still have body support for these lenses a few years down the road?
Click to expand...

I don't see the m4/3 format disappearing any time soon...

In fact I think it's going to go the other way over the next 5 years because sensor technology is going to keep getting better, and at some point in the future there may be no advantage to using larger formats.

At some point we are going to have 50 Mpx m4/3 sensors with 16+ stops of dynamic range for still photos, and most photographers aren't going to care about any more Mpx than this. ( unless you are shooting wall murals )

With video I think we are going to see m4/3 4K sensors with 14+ stops of dynamic range and global-shutters, that can produce a decent image up to 10,000 ISO.

Right now it looks like Panasonic is finally getting ready to jump on the S35 bandwagon, but I think the S35 format is going to be what separates Panasonic's higher end pro video gear from their m4/3 pro-sumer gear. The GHx cameras are going to continue to get better, and likely A LOT better by 2015 when the new high dynamic range Panasonic/Fuji sensor technology is ready to roll out. ( I really think Panasonic's stumbling block has been their sensor tech, with Canon and Sony having more advanced sensor tech up to now )
 
It's future proff... until it isn't.

It's future proff... until it isn't.

Ianscreations said:
It's unfortunate that some of the better lenses for m4/3 gear are just as pricey as good full-frame lenses.
How future-proof do you feel the m4/3 format is?
I realize bodies come and go, but I wish that the m4/3 customer base was more substantial so we knew there would be continued support for this gear years down the road (as Full Frame users can trust).
Does anyone else share my trepidation or is it unfounded?
Click to expand...


I look at it this way: S35 sensors seem to be where the higher end cameras are heading- Panasonic broadcast included. The fact that there is no AF200 as of now, would appear to be an indicator of what panasonic broadcast is thinking about M43. Too bad.

Then again ,does it really matter if that is not your market ? Or does it matter if m43 is suiting your needs ? Most of your needs ? Some of your needs ? As it is, M43 punches way above it's weight class.

I do share some of your trepidation, in regards to M43 glass. I own alot of legacy nikkor lenses and a handful of M43 lenses including the 12-35, and 35-70. I use the Lumix zooms for run and gun/ ENG work and the nikkor primes in a film style shoot, with the luxury of more time for lens changes. I don't intend to invest that much more in M43 glass for the purpose of motion imagery, but may add another prime for still work.


For me, M43 is a good value proposition for stills and motion uses. M43 has made the APSC sized sensor camera irrelevant for me. The irony is that I started using M43 for motion purposes, and have now become quite enamored with it for stills as well. If M43 outlives it's usefullness in the motion realm, I will continue to use it for stills.

I have no qualms about purchasing other M43 bodies ( heck, they are cheap enough), but my lens purchases will be more constrained, and need to have utility for both stills and video. Outside of the specific purposes I outlined above, I'm not inclined to invest heavily in M43 glass for motion work.

FWIW, my current M43 investment consists of GH3, GH2, GX1, 20mm, 25mm, 12-35mm, 35-70mm and the 14-42 kit lens.
 
Last edited:
M43 is a moderate investment into the world of broadcast standards. I think the format will stay but obviously the cameras will evolve - hopefully to include built in ND's and XLR's. You never know they might even have peaking, big red record indicators and a display that stays up for those that can't work out if they're recording or not. I'd like to see more R&D into things like ergonomics, user-friendly menus, viewfinders and quality glass.
 
Considering most any modern electronic lens used professionally will ultimately fail due to corrosion, tin whiskers, damage, wear, etc., I don't see any modern glass as an investment but instead a depreciating asset. My accountant agrees. The same is true of any technology... it'll never be worth more to you (or likely anyone else) than the moment you buy it. In Logicland, the only real motivator should be to buy what's necessary to accomplish a job now (not that I live anywhere near Logicland).

I'm not nervous putting money into m43 when it makes sense and saves me time, weight, space, and ultimately money vs. larger-format offerings. I can justify my 17.5/0.95 because it satisfied a need for that "full frame aesthetic" using the m43 gear I already had - a 35/1.8-2 lens is cheap, but the body to utilize it would have been twice over the Voigt's cost and wouldn't have been capable of 1080p60. For one frequent client, my entire base kit is auto m43 glass because it's a huge convenience in those jobs vs. manual glass... except for the macro lens, which is an old Micro-Nikkor as a m43 lens (or any auto lens) makes no sense in that role.
 
For the time being MFT seems to become more stable as a system with every new tool that is added to the "family". So, welcome BMC. What would make me nervous would be when the overall sales figures of cameras, which seem to be in a stagnation for the moment, would convince manufacturers of cameras, lenses and MFT-gear to stop to invest in the system. Currently this does not seem to be the case.

And after having witnessed just now in my holidays how people are schlepping canon-size and -weight equipment to shoot their pictures, I hope also more of them will come around to a system much better suited for that purpose while still retaining pro-qualities also in photography. For video the advantages are out of question anyhow.

Okay: If Panasonic would give up the idea of a successor to the AG-AF I might start to feel a bit itchy.....
 
Rolf Silber said:
And after having witnessed just now in my holidays how people are schlepping canon-size and -weight equipment to shoot their pictures, I hope also more of them will come around to a system much better suited for that purpose while still retaining pro-qualities also in photography. For video the advantages are out of question anyhow.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. I'm so happy to not be lugging around a Dslr when it's not needed- which is almost all of the time. Whether it's for travel, family outings or pro work, I'm almost giddy to not carry around a cumbersome beast of a Dslr anymore.

I would still really like to see a Af100 successor as well. Under 10k, 10 bit, avc-ultra ( I'd even settle for Avc-intra) and a quality viewfinder- I'd put a deposit down tomorrow.
 
TheDingo said:
In fact I think it's going to go the other way over the next 5 years because sensor technology is going to keep getting better, and at some point in the future there may be no advantage to using larger formats.

At some point we are going to have 50 Mpx m4/3 sensors with 16+ stops of dynamic range for still photos, and most photographers aren't going to care about any more Mpx than this. ( unless you are shooting wall murals )

With video I think we are going to see m4/3 4K sensors with 14+ stops of dynamic range and global-shutters, that can produce a decent image up to 10,000 ISO.
Click to expand...
There are two types of limit to technical performance - the "laws of physics" type, and those down to current technology.

Think of the motor car, in at least one respect - size - it's limited by the size of human beings. You're never going to get cars shrinking by 50% year on year. Similar arguments with the laws of thermodynamics, engines may well improve in performance, but don't expect the rate of advance to be anything like is still being seen in such as computing technology.

Move to cameras, and in particular the front end and sensor, and the main law of physics that can't be got round is the wavelength of light. If we were to try to make the 50mpx sensor you talk of, that's about 9,500 pixels horizontally, so the inter-site spacing will be approximately 2 micron - 500 every millimetre! The actual pixel dimensions will be of the order of barely a couple of wavelengths of light. You also start to run up against quantum efficiency as a hard limit, so the only way you're ever likely to get 16+ stops of dynamic range is by making each photosite much bigger. 16+ stops of DR may be possible, 50Mpx may be possible, 4/3 may be possible - but not all together.

Yes, that's an extreme case, but the drive for higher resolutions (or at least 4k) and better DR limit the designers options. Make the sensors larger and the task is easier. Sorry, but saying that in the future there may be no advantage to using larger formats is to ignore the laws of physics.

I don't see 4/3 going away for the GH market for many of the reasons previously given by others. But for the more dedicated, video oriented, camera it's a different matter. The AF100 was a clever idea when first conceived, when the competition was DSLRs or vastly more expensive cameras. But when first Sony and then Canon brought out competition at roughly comparable prices which were s35, the AF100 went from being at a sweet spot to falling between stools. The GH cameras do still hit a sweet spot in terms of cost, size etc - but they are primarily stills cameras.
 
harddrive said:
Sorry, but saying that in the future there may be no advantage to using larger formats is to ignore the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

Sensor tech is still immature, and this is where I think we are going to see big improvements over the next 5-10 years. The Panasonic/Fuji organic sensor tech that's coming in 2015 will enable 14.5 stops of dynamic range in small camera sensors, so I would expect to see a new m4/3 GHx body incorporating this tech that year. ( this new tech also doubles the light sensitivity )

harddrive said:
The AF100 was a clever idea when first conceived, when the competition was DSLRs or vastly more expensive cameras. But when first Sony and then Canon brought out competition at roughly comparable prices which were s35, the AF100 went from being at a sweet spot to falling between stools. The GH cameras do still hit a sweet spot in terms of cost, size etc - but they are primarily stills cameras.
Click to expand...

The problem with the AF100 follow up camera has been Panasonic sensor technology. Without competitive sensor tech, Panasonic is stuck in the mud while Canon and Sony pass them by. And I don't think S35 vs m4/3 was ever the issue, as the formats are physically not that different. ( put the equivalent of a Sony F5 sensor in an "AF500" body and you would have a kick-ass camera, but without the sensor you've got nothing )
 
TheDingo said:
And I don't think S35 vs m4/3 was ever the issue, as the formats are physically not that different.
Click to expand...
Well - for 16:9 video, s35 is about twice the area of 4/3 (varies a bit camera-camera). That's equivalent to about a stop in terms of dof, diffraction effects and sensitivity (latter assuming equivalent sensor tech.) So effectively the same difference as between 1/3" to 1/2" or 1/2" to 2/3". That's fairly significant, isn't it?

Be careful when looking at specs that you use the 16:9 dimensions for 4/3 - not the chip area that gets used for stills.
...... put the equivalent of a Sony F5 sensor in an "AF500" body and you would have a kick-ass camera, but without the sensor you've got nothing
Click to expand...
Not hypothetical - what you describe is exactly what the FS700 is! Compare RAW between an FS700 and an F5 and in image terms there's not a lot to choose.

The real issue with the AF100 is not the actual sensor tech but pixel count. What makes such as the C300 work well is the pixel count being exactly 4x HD resolution, so Canon can do a simple read out of 2x2 blocks, and derive HD very simply (and well) at full HD resolution.

But that (it's about 8.3Mpx) is not enough for a camera for still photography, nowadays. The GHx have more - which may seem a good thing, but isn't - not for video use anyway. (It obviously is for stills - that's why it's what it is.) It complicates the readout, means it's difficult to read out the whole chip at video frame rates, and means the processed output then needs to be scaled to HD resolutions.

If you were designing a 4/3 camera from scratch, you don't need new technology - just design a 4/3 size chip with the "magical" (8.3Mpx) pixel count. But then you lose the economies of scale between the stills range (GHx) and the video range. Since we know that Panasonic are going the s35 route for the future Varicam, it seems far more likely that for any "AF200" they'll just use that chip in a simplified body. So the 4K s35 Varicam/"AF200" will have the same relationship as the F5/FS700 do now.

Speculation, yes, but I think it seems likely. Believe it, and a line up of s35 Varicam and "AF200", both s35, and a GH range of 4/3 would make marketing sense and only require two basic sensor designs.
 
harddrive said:
If you were designing a 4/3 camera from scratch, you don't need new technology - just design a 4/3 size chip with the "magical" (8.3Mpx) pixel count.
Click to expand...

If you compare footage shot with a GH2 or GH3 camera with a dedicated S35 cine camera the image resolution is generally not an issue, but the dynamic range, color depth, and ability to record raw footage are big issues for professional shooters.

I believe that m4/3 dynamic range will only be resolved by better sensor tech ( along with an electronics package to properly process the image stream ), and I see color depth and raw recording ability more as implementation issues by the manufacturer. The new Blackmagic Pocket Cine camera demonstrates that it's possible to produce a small high quality video camera, though this camera is going to go through many teething pains before all of it's issues are sorted out. Still impressive tech for a $995 camera.

harddrive said:
Since we know that Panasonic are going the s35 route for the future Varicam, it seems far more likely that for any "AF200" they'll just use that chip in a simplified body. So the 4K s35 Varicam/"AF200" will have the same relationship as the F5/FS700 do now.
Click to expand...

This would be more cost effective, though I wonder about the price point they would have to sell the "AF200" at in order to not cannibalize their higher end cameras. ( and it's going to have to compete against the C100 and FS700, so it either has to be cheaper or offer better performance in the same price range )
 
TheDingo said:
If you compare footage shot with a GH2 or GH3 camera with a dedicated S35 cine camera the image resolution is generally not an issue, but the dynamic range, color depth, and ability to record raw footage are big issues for professional shooters.

I believe that m4/3 dynamic range will only be resolved by better sensor tech ........
Click to expand...
Well, I think that the s35 offerings do have a better "real" resolution - but that's not inherent to sensor size, rather they have sensors purpose designed to give true 1080 res. That's significant not just to look a bit sharper, but because they can then get away with less detail enhancement - real detail replaces "edgy" detail. But design a chip primarily for video and you'll get that whatever the size - there's no fundamental reason not to have an 8.3Mpx 4/3 chip.

But such as dynamic range is exactly the point of what I've been saying. One of the main influences on that is photosite size - much easier to get good DR with bigger photosites, it comes down to the no of incident photons per site. Which means bigger chips and/or fewer of them on the chip.

Compare the AF100 to (say) the C300 and not only is the chip itself smaller (about half), but the total pixel count is much higher than the 8.3Mpx of the AF100 (about twice as many) - a double whammy. First way to improve DR on a 4/3 chip would be to LESSEN the no of photosites cf the AF100 to make each one larger. That's why I described the 8.3Mpx as a magical number. Minimum necessary to get full 1080 res easily, but low enough to keep each photosite relatively big.

But that is better for video - not so for still photography. And I keep coming back to the key point - the GHx are primarily designed as stills cameras.
This would be more cost effective, though I wonder about the price point they would have to sell the "AF200" at in order to not cannibalize their higher end cameras. ( and it's going to have to compete against the C100 and FS700, so it either has to be cheaper or offer better performance in the same price range )
Click to expand...
Well, it would be effectively their equivalent to the FS100 or the FS700, so yes, that's where I'd expect the pricing to be around. But it would depend on feature set and where they see the market. But in principle, Sony don't have a problem with the FS700 and the F5, and likewise Canon with the C100 v the C500 (with the C300 in the middle.) Same chip - differing other abilities, codec etc.

The point is that both Sony and Canon do use the same fundamental chip across the range. It makes sense for so many reasons. And once Panasonic have got the s35 Varicam established, there's no reason why they can't do the same. Far less R&D than having to produce a 4/3 8.3Mpx sensor for a single range, certainly for a range which must sell for around AF100 prices. I just don't see that being viable.
 
FWIW I believe, and it's been suggested by intelligent contributors here, that Panasonic will be continuing the GH series with a fairly dramatic new hybrid/MFT/GH5.

I added a new MFT lens collection when we added the GH3s and I've really come to like them a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top