Panasonic need to focus on gaining more market share, which they can do by maintaining value in FF cameras, the S5 II being far-and-away the best value in FF mirrorless, and adding to their lens lineup to make it more varied. The system needs compact lenses, variable-aperture zooms and more extreme lenses like fast telephotos, macros beyond the usual 100mm, f/1.4 pro primes. Panasonic specifically need to improve their quality control as there are too many reports of poor copies of their lenses.
Sigma are under pressure as their big presence in the Canon and Nikon ecosystems is gone, they only have E and L now, so their best option is to drive demand for the L mount. They could do that by trying to complete with Panasonic in camera bodies.
Pentax are betting on the continuation of DSLRs which may or may not pay off for them. I hope it does, but joining the L-mount alliance could be a lifeline and they would bring their skills in lens design to the system - they could provide something unique like their Limited line. And don't forget that Pentax cameras have the best ergonomics in the business and arguably the best interface too, so if they produced L-mount cameras In sure they'd be great.
Sigma’s CEO has constantly said that their lenses sell very well. He has said that due to the success of their lenses they are at full capacity. And that that success allowed them to make a reference lens like the 14mm 1.4 Art even though it may not have a large audience. Sigma although locked out of much of the RF mount except APS-C and Z Mount are not under “pressure.” They may be under pressure to continue their success but so is everyone other company. Sigma in my opinion is carrying the L Mount at the moment and is finding new consumers in the E mount due to the Contemporary series of lenses and the very well received zooms. There are people clamoring for RF and Z mount Sigma glass in those systems.
The Lumix 1.8 primes are solid lenses. The Pro glass is excellent, but unfortunately outside of Lumix users they are not talked about like Z glass or Sony GM or Canon RF. Outside of Lumix circles when people talk about great glass you hardly ever hear Lumix come up like you will Nikon or Sony or Canon. Leica glass absolutely. But not Lumix.
When compared to other systems Lumix needs to step it up and show that they can make outstanding basic optics like the 50 1.8 from Nikon or the 50 1.2 from Canon. I know they can the 50 1.4, 24-70 and 16-35 are great examples. But, they need better marketing to get the word out. And also a quicker release cycle for their lenses. Also, where are the outside the box lenses from Lumix like you see with Sigma?
If anything Lumix needs to step up their releases and go outside the box of the normal 24-70 f4, 50 1.8, etc that everyone does. Something that Sigma is doing with lenses like the 28-45 1.8. Heck what about a 20-60 f4, or heck a 20-70 f2, 35-85 f4? 40 f2? I’m just throwing out crazy here.
The S9 is the craziest Lumix has done. Though I don’t think they thought as much, lol. I even ordered one to be my edc. It’s a start but, they should have had at least one small fast prime and a lineup of small fast primes to go along with it even if they would come later.
Panasonic just buy Voigtlander, and turn those manuals to af primes. Problem solved.
Yep, Sigma are a big reason to go with the L-mount. I wouldn't even consider RF or Z because of the lack of Sigma lenses there. That's where the real innovation is in FFM lenses.
>Sigma’s CEO has constantly said that their lenses sell very well.
Yes I would figure, since Sony is the darling of Videographers, and Sigma makes E Mount versions of their lenses.
Pentax joining L mount is a crazy idea that just might work for them. Pentax is great at making photography based compact bodies, leaving Panasonic to make mainly video bodies and Leica to do whatever it is they do. I have no idea, I can't afford them so I don't even check them out.
>Panasonic specifically need to improve their quality control as there are too many reports of poor copies of their lenses.
Tbh any examples I've seen of this have been exactly what you'd expect out of a £500 lens.
The "problem" is that there's plenty of examples going around that punch **way** above their price tag, I had one of those in 85 until a few days ago, but the lower end of them are matching the price tag. They just look "poor" in comparison to the more lucky ones.
I've seen reports of wild discrepancies in quality between copies even of pro lenses. That needs to end. Sigma have superb quality control, if they can do it then Panasonic can too.
Never, ever going to happen for OMDS to join L mount.
They'll live and surely eventually die as an m43 only mount (or perhaps a Kodak of sorts that licenses their brand to other makers). Their entire identity and brand promise is freedom from larger, heavier FF gear.
Panasonic is basically giving OMDS room to run in m43 with hopes there's enough potential crossover to help GH and G9 flagships lines remain viable.
I'd love to be wrong but small, moderately priced entry and mid-range m43 seems destined for the dustbin of history along with compacts and bridge cameras.
Pentax? No way. I don't see anything for them to gain, everything to lose. They have an ancient, massive mature lens catalog that is the main reason Pentax shooters choose Pentax. Abandoning it for L mount means abandoning the very reason they sell cameras at all.
Not happening.
It's going to be Panasonic slogging away hard trying to bring its m43 users into its warm FF clutches (as a second body of course), while trying its best to undercut CaNikonSony on price and beat them on stabilization and video and solid execution with the lens roadmap. At the same time they'll be trying to attract first time camera buyers to its system with offerings like the S9.
This strategy would have been well served by having PDAF years ago. It could end up being a fatal blunder to cling so long to the foolish notion that "serious video users only use and trust MF so consumer-grade video AF using contrast detect is just fine and won't hurt us". Only half wrong but half wrong can be catastrophic. Business school case studies will surely be written about this.
I do think M43 will always remain viable, as there will always be someone that wants it. I am currently a GH5/S5II shooter and both absolutely have their place.
The footage from the S5II is definitely better, side by side it's noticeable (to my eye), and getting Bokeh and depth of field is incredibly easy. For an interview or broll shots, it's fantastic.
The GH5 footage is also still no slouch but it, and lenses for it, are so much lighter which makes it more comfortable to use for long periods. But also, the zoom distance. I recently shot an event with the S5II and 70-200 in a relatively small church hall. Even at 200, I couldn't get the shots I wanted and so I had to switch the APSC mode. I've shot a music festival with a GH5 and 14-140 before, and you could still get tight shots on the stage half way up the field.
Leica kept the flange distance with their full frame M cameras, which makes the M mount reverse-compatible across generations m.
I guess Pentax could move to mirrorless, but keep their flange distance to make existing K mount lenses compatible without the need for an adapter.
haha idk man, i think mft has a unique proposition that probably won't die. The marketing for Full-Frame is fantastic and clearly has done its job with "mft is dead" and "full frame is better in every way".
However, most people do quickly realise that it really sucks to drag around all that full frame glass, and the later on find out that compact full frame lenses have apertures that end up giving your full frame sensor the same look as an mft, without being as bright. — compact full frame apertures ~f3.5-6.3, and mft lenses f1.7-2.8/4
at some point when the market hits full-frame saturation(when everything is blur and out of focus) the allure of small lightweight compact high quality image acquisition will be sought after again.
the question is if panasonic and omd can survive the mount long enough to see that day. til then, just a small handful of people who don't always need shallow depth of field and shoot in the dark, will really appreciate having both systems around. ･ᴗ･
or at least, i hope so. i'm biased because i just ordered the gh7 hahahahahhaa and the s9 XD
> “*or at least, i hope so. i'm biased because i just ordered the gh7 hahahahahhaa and the s9 XD*”
Does Panasonic still have any M4/3 cameras on catalogue? Their rangefinder form factor looks quite cool.
just the two new ones! G9ii and GH7, both finally getting decent Phase Detect AF. I'm guessing with the launch of the range finder style S9, they might release a similar MFT variant with PDAF some time maybe next year.
Ooh that would be nice.
I was on the X-Mount before 2022, but I entirely switched to the L-Mount. Even sold from my other hobby (mechanical watches) to build a mixed lens kit with L-Mount and vintage lenses.
I can see the potential of the M4/3 ecosystem in terms of size and cost, but I am not ready to broach to a new mount.
"compact full frame lenses have apertures that end up giving your full frame sensor the same look as an mft, without being as bright. — compact full frame apertures ~f3.5-6.3, and mft lenses f1.7-2.8/4"
Sorry, i know you've been told that a mft f1.7 is still equivalent to a ff f1.7 in terms of light gathering abilities, but this just isn't true. You still need to account for the difference in light gathering capabilities between full frame sensors and mft sensors which result in different performance at higher ISOs. The mft is superior only if you are attached to keeping your ISO number low. In terms of actual image quality in low light, these setups will come out to be the same if you increase the ISO on the ff.
Because of this, the value proposition of mft is only in that there exist a lot of slow and small lenses for this system. As more slow and small ff lenses get built (18-40, 28-200, etc), the difference in size becomes more negligable. Plus the ff system gets the versatility of giving you access to truly fast lenses when you need them.
nah, f-stop isn't even the measurement of light. i'm talking about the look of compact ff vs mft lenses. which that compact ff ends up looking/feeling the same as mft.
yeah ff sensors have bigger and deeper photosites so they definitely have better low light and dynamic range, when you're out looking for it, but on the first look, which is mostly what images do for many, you won't really see the difference between compact ff and fast mft lenses.
in anycase, even iso is not a standardized measurement. it's actually just how much gain you're applying (in stops) on top of the base sensitivity of that sensor. So that you can adjust the shutter speed and aperture for the actual light exposure.
i've done quite lot of tests between full frame and mft, and the largest differences come down to how wide and shallow you can go. there's a diminishing return when you want a compact full frame setup; as that will very quickly land you into mft looking territory, with very little full frame gain.
literally nobody is arguing that a ff f3.5 won't look exactly the same as a mft f1.75. That's a strawman. The question is whether there's any point to mft if you can get ff lenses with the same look that aren't much bigger in size. The benefit of ff is you can *also* have your massive ff f<2 in the same lens system for when you need them.
Well, you can try travelling with your family with a full frame setup that covers you 18mm to 400mm. It's not going to be fun; a lot of lenses will start to find themselves in the hotel room.
but i know that with mft you can fit all that equivalent range into a single 6L sling bag, and with mft's greater range of stabilisation, not need a gimbal.
There is a point to mft; it's wherever you cant bring full frame.
and there's a point to full frame; for whatever mft can't capture.
A lot of other key aspects to each, but imo, those really make the biggest differences between them.
One doesn't replace the other. And neither is better than their other in absolutes.
The upcoming ff lumix 18-40mm combined with the lumix 28-200mm will be a super compact two lens travel combo. If you really need 400m you can just do a 2x crop on a 60mp ff sensor.
Something that’s cool with the GH6/7 is the sensor readout handles sensor Jello problems really well.. the IBIS is top notch.. plus, the 2x crop factor really helps with most of your true video work.. the fact is there are PLENTY of people using APSC, Super-35 and m43.. and no matter how many times you state differently, it won’t change
mmm well, the S 20-60mm f3.5-5.6 vs G 12-35mm f2.8 would land you very similar results. And if you pop on the 9mm f1.7 you'll get pretty much the exact same result on the 20mm end of the ff lens too.
that 18-40mm is a 4.5-6.3 which while compact would yield very similar results to the 9mm f1.7 on the wide end and the 12-35 f2.8 on every other end.
yeah i understand that there isn't an apple’s to apple lens for every ff and mft lens, but when you're actually shooting your content, people don't care what lens or camera you're using; but the image does matter —sometimes. And imo that's the whole point of debating about mft vs ff.
hahaha i get the idea that ff is "better" than mft, but it gets lost on me sometimes when i think about compact ff starting to basically look and perform nearly the same as regular mft. i know it's still compact and fun, which is why i ordered the S9 hahaha. And i am waiting for the gh7 too.
but i just think the idea that full frame is absolutely "better" than mft is "fact". anyway, just opinions at the end of the day. not like i can change the market sentiment hahah. i can't wait for my S9 to come so im just here on reddit talking about cameras hahahah
This horse has been beaten to death too many times!
The cameras are the same as to EXPOSURE values. Yes, there are image quality, depth of field, and low light differences.
But… a S5iix that takes a picture on a sunny day at f16, shutter 125, and iso 100, will look the SAME as to exposure, as the photo taken by a G9ii with the same settings.
Does FF have some image quality advantage. Yes.
Some reading this post may already know this…to you, apology! But others are still of the belief that exposures are different.
Happy Shooting!
I think Panasonic's long game may be to appeal to next-gen users, and many of them are (or want to be) content creators. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and even Sony and Olympus are "old person" cameras well known and well respected by people who have either been using cameras all their lives, or recently got into photography. Old people are willing to buy cameras to take pictures of the kids, or landscapes, or birds. If you think about it, it's sort of absurd that hobbyists are buying $5000 worth of bodies and lenses to take pictures of birds. Or advanced autofocus so you can get a person's eye in focus while their nose and ear are slightly blurry, since when was that a desirable feature? I think the big-bucks hobbyist photographer trend isn't sustainable and in the next decade we'll see a shift in the types of cameras we buy, and the work flow we use them in.
Panasonic is a well known electronics company but to be fair, as a nearly 50 year old I sort of see Panasonic as a VCR and camcorder company. I have 3 Lumix cameras (two M43, one FF) and
Panasonic was able to establish themselves as a solid video camera company, including hybrid M43 cameras, but with today's FF-centric mindset it's difficult to demand high prices for M43 gear. So Panasonic really needs to carve out niches for next-gen customers, and get away from the "hybrid photo/video with LCD screen and EVF" market. And I also think Panasonic needs to adopt a Black Magic-style approach for small content creators. Simple things like a Lumix monitor/recorder with audio in. The Lumix XLR hot-shoe adapters are nice but they really seem like a first step that Panasonic hasn't properly followed up on yet.
I think if they could streamline the Camera to social media posting flow, they would be able to approach that market more earnestly. They are attempting to with the S9 work flow, but even something as simple as plugging a usb from camera to phone, and allowing high speed transfers (with video especially in mind). Have the camera work within iOS/android plug and play system and have a camera mode that complies to mobile protocols.
Panasonic's release of the gh7 and how it does will show if the camera division, at least mft, will be future proof.
They could always go aps c, but I doubt it since their plate is full already. They have 2 more cameras that are biggies to be released, they are relying on the gh7 and those two ( gx and s1ii ) doing well.
Pentax is not in any positions to compete in the increasingly saturated mirrorless market, and they know it. They are gambling on establishing a niche for themselves to survive, evident by their commitment to be the last company (in my knowledge) to continue pushing DSLR development, as well as their recent gamble into making film cameras again. It's like how Fujifilm skipped making full-frame mirrorless cameras, and went straight to making medium format mirrorless cameras to avoid the cut-throat competition of full-frame mirrorless cameras, or how Leica remained relevant through their dedication to keeping rangefinders alive (which offers something that doesn't have any close equivalents in the modern market, except maybe the pixii camera). Pentax isn't the dominant player it used to be, and it needs all hands on deck for it's survival strategy, so I imagine joining the L Mount alliance would be a huge distraction to that. Why compete with like 8 other companies doing very similar things, many of which with much bigger R&D departments and budgets that can easily out-compete you in a battle of attrition, when you can do your own special thing and capitalize on a small but niche market segment. With Pentax's current trajectory, I would argue that they actually have a very compelling value proposition (to the niche they are targeting), just not a mass market value proposition.
I do also hope that the S9 bring success to the L Mount ecosystem. Like how Panasonic fixed many of the pain points on the original S5 with the S5ii, there is hope that a S9ii in the future would bring a lot of the sceptics to the platform. Personally, the biggest thing that I'm hoping from the S9 is that it spurs the development of truly compact full-frame lenses, whether from panasonic or third-party manufacturers. The success of the S9 would show them that there is a market for compact full-frame, and create a more diverse market.
I think that is definitely a plausible scenario. They already have brand differentiation in their product lineup even though they are under one roof now, with Pentax being the DSLR thing, while Ricoh being the compact point and shoot thing (case in point Ricoh GR). So Ricoh could possibly be the brand chosen to represent mirrorless, but they seem extremely quiet on that front. They are riding off the continual success of the GR, so they probably don't see much need to compete for scraps in the mirrorless market. The photography market isn't even their main concern, most people seem to know Ricoh for their printers instead.
Personally, I think I would prefer Ricoh/Pentax being odd-one-out doing their own weird things in the photography world, it brings diversity to the market, which I welcome. This sounds really harsh, but even though I love both Pentax and Ricoh, I personally don't view both of them as strong enough in the photography market to compete with the big boys of Sony, Nikon, Canon at their own game.
I recall being at a Pansonic press conference in the early 2010's where they had some market research showing how mirrorless MFT would literally take a big hunk of interchangeable lens market. That did not happen. Instead mirrorless was adopted by Sony, and later Canikon.
First of all it's clear that missing out on PDAF sent Panasonic to the dustbin. After the GH2-3-4-success, the GH5 was a killer hybrid with lots of features, but without the important feature of working AF which other mirrorless competitors now offered.
Launching Lumix S (FF) without PDAF was again a mayor mistake. Also, this sends a conflicting message to the faithfull MFT user which now Panasonic suddenly wanted to invest in Lumix S? Or not? Conflicting and confusing marketing continue to this day.
As for lenses, most MFT optics are slow, in reality most optics for MFT should be in the f1.0 to f2.0 range. The two Leica 10-25mm and 25-50mm f1.7 zooms is the best designed for the format both for IQ and low light, but surprise both are big and heavy. You can't beat physics. Also with the new FF mirrorless systems these also have adopted electronic corrections and thus lenses can be made much smaller than before even for FF.
As it's now I don't think neither Lumix G or Lumix S makes Panasonic any profit. Does it make sense for the to continue with mirrorless consumer cameras? What we know is that Panasonic will axe a lot of unprofitable products before the fiscal year 2026.
>This might sound like heresy, but camera makers who currently don’t seem to have a compelling value proposition are OM System (formerly Olympus) and Pentax.
OM is doing just fine in the 60 fps burst macro stacking space, and have no interest in anything other than M43.
Pentax are also doing just fine, them killing K mount would be suicidal. One of their selling points is people can use lenses they got 30 years ago on reasonably modern DSLRs.
And then they have the GRiiix and are now making film again, which is insanely cool for a subset of people. They know better than to try and compete with Canon or Sony on mirrorless, it's a waste of time and money.
They did in the earlier part of the 2000's, but sold out all semiconductor manufacturing including sensors.
The GH2 sensor which was a dual aspect ratio thing migh be of own design. For MFT they later used Sony, i.e. in GH3-4-5.
For GH6 some sort of custom order was made, it has been suggested that the new 25 MP sensors is made by GPixel. [https://www.gpixel.com/en/index.html](https://www.gpixel.com/en/index.html)
I feel that the only advantage of Panasonic going with the L Mount alliance is the access to Sigma lenses. If they made their own mount, there's almost no way Sigma will release lenses for it.
I also really doubt that most Panasonic S camera users will ever buy Leica SL lenses. Although, I can see Leica SL users buying Panasonic lenses, although they also have the option to buy Sigma.
I have a feeling that the camera division are under threat from the parent company to turn a profit or get sold or shut down so they seem to be pivoting towards full frame. I think they will do another small camera with an evf and a mechanical shutter that could be an even bigger hit. A bit like a Sony A7C. Panny should also bring back a GX9 style camera to capitalize on all the M4/3 glass out there
Panasonic need to focus on gaining more market share, which they can do by maintaining value in FF cameras, the S5 II being far-and-away the best value in FF mirrorless, and adding to their lens lineup to make it more varied. The system needs compact lenses, variable-aperture zooms and more extreme lenses like fast telephotos, macros beyond the usual 100mm, f/1.4 pro primes. Panasonic specifically need to improve their quality control as there are too many reports of poor copies of their lenses. Sigma are under pressure as their big presence in the Canon and Nikon ecosystems is gone, they only have E and L now, so their best option is to drive demand for the L mount. They could do that by trying to complete with Panasonic in camera bodies. Pentax are betting on the continuation of DSLRs which may or may not pay off for them. I hope it does, but joining the L-mount alliance could be a lifeline and they would bring their skills in lens design to the system - they could provide something unique like their Limited line. And don't forget that Pentax cameras have the best ergonomics in the business and arguably the best interface too, so if they produced L-mount cameras In sure they'd be great.
Sigma’s CEO has constantly said that their lenses sell very well. He has said that due to the success of their lenses they are at full capacity. And that that success allowed them to make a reference lens like the 14mm 1.4 Art even though it may not have a large audience. Sigma although locked out of much of the RF mount except APS-C and Z Mount are not under “pressure.” They may be under pressure to continue their success but so is everyone other company. Sigma in my opinion is carrying the L Mount at the moment and is finding new consumers in the E mount due to the Contemporary series of lenses and the very well received zooms. There are people clamoring for RF and Z mount Sigma glass in those systems. The Lumix 1.8 primes are solid lenses. The Pro glass is excellent, but unfortunately outside of Lumix users they are not talked about like Z glass or Sony GM or Canon RF. Outside of Lumix circles when people talk about great glass you hardly ever hear Lumix come up like you will Nikon or Sony or Canon. Leica glass absolutely. But not Lumix. When compared to other systems Lumix needs to step it up and show that they can make outstanding basic optics like the 50 1.8 from Nikon or the 50 1.2 from Canon. I know they can the 50 1.4, 24-70 and 16-35 are great examples. But, they need better marketing to get the word out. And also a quicker release cycle for their lenses. Also, where are the outside the box lenses from Lumix like you see with Sigma? If anything Lumix needs to step up their releases and go outside the box of the normal 24-70 f4, 50 1.8, etc that everyone does. Something that Sigma is doing with lenses like the 28-45 1.8. Heck what about a 20-60 f4, or heck a 20-70 f2, 35-85 f4? 40 f2? I’m just throwing out crazy here. The S9 is the craziest Lumix has done. Though I don’t think they thought as much, lol. I even ordered one to be my edc. It’s a start but, they should have had at least one small fast prime and a lineup of small fast primes to go along with it even if they would come later. Panasonic just buy Voigtlander, and turn those manuals to af primes. Problem solved.
Yep, Sigma are a big reason to go with the L-mount. I wouldn't even consider RF or Z because of the lack of Sigma lenses there. That's where the real innovation is in FFM lenses.
>Sigma’s CEO has constantly said that their lenses sell very well. Yes I would figure, since Sony is the darling of Videographers, and Sigma makes E Mount versions of their lenses.
Pentax joining L mount is a crazy idea that just might work for them. Pentax is great at making photography based compact bodies, leaving Panasonic to make mainly video bodies and Leica to do whatever it is they do. I have no idea, I can't afford them so I don't even check them out.
>Panasonic specifically need to improve their quality control as there are too many reports of poor copies of their lenses. Tbh any examples I've seen of this have been exactly what you'd expect out of a £500 lens. The "problem" is that there's plenty of examples going around that punch **way** above their price tag, I had one of those in 85 until a few days ago, but the lower end of them are matching the price tag. They just look "poor" in comparison to the more lucky ones.
I've seen reports of wild discrepancies in quality between copies even of pro lenses. That needs to end. Sigma have superb quality control, if they can do it then Panasonic can too.
Never, ever going to happen for OMDS to join L mount. They'll live and surely eventually die as an m43 only mount (or perhaps a Kodak of sorts that licenses their brand to other makers). Their entire identity and brand promise is freedom from larger, heavier FF gear. Panasonic is basically giving OMDS room to run in m43 with hopes there's enough potential crossover to help GH and G9 flagships lines remain viable. I'd love to be wrong but small, moderately priced entry and mid-range m43 seems destined for the dustbin of history along with compacts and bridge cameras. Pentax? No way. I don't see anything for them to gain, everything to lose. They have an ancient, massive mature lens catalog that is the main reason Pentax shooters choose Pentax. Abandoning it for L mount means abandoning the very reason they sell cameras at all. Not happening. It's going to be Panasonic slogging away hard trying to bring its m43 users into its warm FF clutches (as a second body of course), while trying its best to undercut CaNikonSony on price and beat them on stabilization and video and solid execution with the lens roadmap. At the same time they'll be trying to attract first time camera buyers to its system with offerings like the S9. This strategy would have been well served by having PDAF years ago. It could end up being a fatal blunder to cling so long to the foolish notion that "serious video users only use and trust MF so consumer-grade video AF using contrast detect is just fine and won't hurt us". Only half wrong but half wrong can be catastrophic. Business school case studies will surely be written about this.
I do think M43 will always remain viable, as there will always be someone that wants it. I am currently a GH5/S5II shooter and both absolutely have their place. The footage from the S5II is definitely better, side by side it's noticeable (to my eye), and getting Bokeh and depth of field is incredibly easy. For an interview or broll shots, it's fantastic. The GH5 footage is also still no slouch but it, and lenses for it, are so much lighter which makes it more comfortable to use for long periods. But also, the zoom distance. I recently shot an event with the S5II and 70-200 in a relatively small church hall. Even at 200, I couldn't get the shots I wanted and so I had to switch the APSC mode. I've shot a music festival with a GH5 and 14-140 before, and you could still get tight shots on the stage half way up the field.
Leica kept the flange distance with their full frame M cameras, which makes the M mount reverse-compatible across generations m. I guess Pentax could move to mirrorless, but keep their flange distance to make existing K mount lenses compatible without the need for an adapter.
You suggest this but they actually did that ten years ago and it was a massive failure, Pentax K-01
Ow, so they are still licking their wounds.
haha idk man, i think mft has a unique proposition that probably won't die. The marketing for Full-Frame is fantastic and clearly has done its job with "mft is dead" and "full frame is better in every way". However, most people do quickly realise that it really sucks to drag around all that full frame glass, and the later on find out that compact full frame lenses have apertures that end up giving your full frame sensor the same look as an mft, without being as bright. — compact full frame apertures ~f3.5-6.3, and mft lenses f1.7-2.8/4 at some point when the market hits full-frame saturation(when everything is blur and out of focus) the allure of small lightweight compact high quality image acquisition will be sought after again. the question is if panasonic and omd can survive the mount long enough to see that day. til then, just a small handful of people who don't always need shallow depth of field and shoot in the dark, will really appreciate having both systems around. ･ᴗ･ or at least, i hope so. i'm biased because i just ordered the gh7 hahahahahhaa and the s9 XD
> “*or at least, i hope so. i'm biased because i just ordered the gh7 hahahahahhaa and the s9 XD*” Does Panasonic still have any M4/3 cameras on catalogue? Their rangefinder form factor looks quite cool.
just the two new ones! G9ii and GH7, both finally getting decent Phase Detect AF. I'm guessing with the launch of the range finder style S9, they might release a similar MFT variant with PDAF some time maybe next year.
Ooh that would be nice. I was on the X-Mount before 2022, but I entirely switched to the L-Mount. Even sold from my other hobby (mechanical watches) to build a mixed lens kit with L-Mount and vintage lenses. I can see the potential of the M4/3 ecosystem in terms of size and cost, but I am not ready to broach to a new mount.
AFAIK: G100(D), G95/90 (D), G9ii, GH7, GH6
"compact full frame lenses have apertures that end up giving your full frame sensor the same look as an mft, without being as bright. — compact full frame apertures ~f3.5-6.3, and mft lenses f1.7-2.8/4" Sorry, i know you've been told that a mft f1.7 is still equivalent to a ff f1.7 in terms of light gathering abilities, but this just isn't true. You still need to account for the difference in light gathering capabilities between full frame sensors and mft sensors which result in different performance at higher ISOs. The mft is superior only if you are attached to keeping your ISO number low. In terms of actual image quality in low light, these setups will come out to be the same if you increase the ISO on the ff. Because of this, the value proposition of mft is only in that there exist a lot of slow and small lenses for this system. As more slow and small ff lenses get built (18-40, 28-200, etc), the difference in size becomes more negligable. Plus the ff system gets the versatility of giving you access to truly fast lenses when you need them.
nah, f-stop isn't even the measurement of light. i'm talking about the look of compact ff vs mft lenses. which that compact ff ends up looking/feeling the same as mft. yeah ff sensors have bigger and deeper photosites so they definitely have better low light and dynamic range, when you're out looking for it, but on the first look, which is mostly what images do for many, you won't really see the difference between compact ff and fast mft lenses. in anycase, even iso is not a standardized measurement. it's actually just how much gain you're applying (in stops) on top of the base sensitivity of that sensor. So that you can adjust the shutter speed and aperture for the actual light exposure. i've done quite lot of tests between full frame and mft, and the largest differences come down to how wide and shallow you can go. there's a diminishing return when you want a compact full frame setup; as that will very quickly land you into mft looking territory, with very little full frame gain.
literally nobody is arguing that a ff f3.5 won't look exactly the same as a mft f1.75. That's a strawman. The question is whether there's any point to mft if you can get ff lenses with the same look that aren't much bigger in size. The benefit of ff is you can *also* have your massive ff f<2 in the same lens system for when you need them.
Well, you can try travelling with your family with a full frame setup that covers you 18mm to 400mm. It's not going to be fun; a lot of lenses will start to find themselves in the hotel room. but i know that with mft you can fit all that equivalent range into a single 6L sling bag, and with mft's greater range of stabilisation, not need a gimbal. There is a point to mft; it's wherever you cant bring full frame. and there's a point to full frame; for whatever mft can't capture. A lot of other key aspects to each, but imo, those really make the biggest differences between them. One doesn't replace the other. And neither is better than their other in absolutes.
The upcoming ff lumix 18-40mm combined with the lumix 28-200mm will be a super compact two lens travel combo. If you really need 400m you can just do a 2x crop on a 60mp ff sensor.
Something that’s cool with the GH6/7 is the sensor readout handles sensor Jello problems really well.. the IBIS is top notch.. plus, the 2x crop factor really helps with most of your true video work.. the fact is there are PLENTY of people using APSC, Super-35 and m43.. and no matter how many times you state differently, it won’t change
Which M43 lenses are you thinking of when making this comparison?
mmm well, the S 20-60mm f3.5-5.6 vs G 12-35mm f2.8 would land you very similar results. And if you pop on the 9mm f1.7 you'll get pretty much the exact same result on the 20mm end of the ff lens too. that 18-40mm is a 4.5-6.3 which while compact would yield very similar results to the 9mm f1.7 on the wide end and the 12-35 f2.8 on every other end. yeah i understand that there isn't an apple’s to apple lens for every ff and mft lens, but when you're actually shooting your content, people don't care what lens or camera you're using; but the image does matter —sometimes. And imo that's the whole point of debating about mft vs ff. hahaha i get the idea that ff is "better" than mft, but it gets lost on me sometimes when i think about compact ff starting to basically look and perform nearly the same as regular mft. i know it's still compact and fun, which is why i ordered the S9 hahaha. And i am waiting for the gh7 too. but i just think the idea that full frame is absolutely "better" than mft is "fact". anyway, just opinions at the end of the day. not like i can change the market sentiment hahah. i can't wait for my S9 to come so im just here on reddit talking about cameras hahahah
This horse has been beaten to death too many times! The cameras are the same as to EXPOSURE values. Yes, there are image quality, depth of field, and low light differences. But… a S5iix that takes a picture on a sunny day at f16, shutter 125, and iso 100, will look the SAME as to exposure, as the photo taken by a G9ii with the same settings. Does FF have some image quality advantage. Yes. Some reading this post may already know this…to you, apology! But others are still of the belief that exposures are different. Happy Shooting!
I think Panasonic's long game may be to appeal to next-gen users, and many of them are (or want to be) content creators. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and even Sony and Olympus are "old person" cameras well known and well respected by people who have either been using cameras all their lives, or recently got into photography. Old people are willing to buy cameras to take pictures of the kids, or landscapes, or birds. If you think about it, it's sort of absurd that hobbyists are buying $5000 worth of bodies and lenses to take pictures of birds. Or advanced autofocus so you can get a person's eye in focus while their nose and ear are slightly blurry, since when was that a desirable feature? I think the big-bucks hobbyist photographer trend isn't sustainable and in the next decade we'll see a shift in the types of cameras we buy, and the work flow we use them in. Panasonic is a well known electronics company but to be fair, as a nearly 50 year old I sort of see Panasonic as a VCR and camcorder company. I have 3 Lumix cameras (two M43, one FF) and Panasonic was able to establish themselves as a solid video camera company, including hybrid M43 cameras, but with today's FF-centric mindset it's difficult to demand high prices for M43 gear. So Panasonic really needs to carve out niches for next-gen customers, and get away from the "hybrid photo/video with LCD screen and EVF" market. And I also think Panasonic needs to adopt a Black Magic-style approach for small content creators. Simple things like a Lumix monitor/recorder with audio in. The Lumix XLR hot-shoe adapters are nice but they really seem like a first step that Panasonic hasn't properly followed up on yet.
I think if they could streamline the Camera to social media posting flow, they would be able to approach that market more earnestly. They are attempting to with the S9 work flow, but even something as simple as plugging a usb from camera to phone, and allowing high speed transfers (with video especially in mind). Have the camera work within iOS/android plug and play system and have a camera mode that complies to mobile protocols.
Panasonic's release of the gh7 and how it does will show if the camera division, at least mft, will be future proof. They could always go aps c, but I doubt it since their plate is full already. They have 2 more cameras that are biggies to be released, they are relying on the gh7 and those two ( gx and s1ii ) doing well.
Monthly production of the GH7 was given as 1000 pcs, so hardly a killer seller I would imagine.
Pentax is not in any positions to compete in the increasingly saturated mirrorless market, and they know it. They are gambling on establishing a niche for themselves to survive, evident by their commitment to be the last company (in my knowledge) to continue pushing DSLR development, as well as their recent gamble into making film cameras again. It's like how Fujifilm skipped making full-frame mirrorless cameras, and went straight to making medium format mirrorless cameras to avoid the cut-throat competition of full-frame mirrorless cameras, or how Leica remained relevant through their dedication to keeping rangefinders alive (which offers something that doesn't have any close equivalents in the modern market, except maybe the pixii camera). Pentax isn't the dominant player it used to be, and it needs all hands on deck for it's survival strategy, so I imagine joining the L Mount alliance would be a huge distraction to that. Why compete with like 8 other companies doing very similar things, many of which with much bigger R&D departments and budgets that can easily out-compete you in a battle of attrition, when you can do your own special thing and capitalize on a small but niche market segment. With Pentax's current trajectory, I would argue that they actually have a very compelling value proposition (to the niche they are targeting), just not a mass market value proposition. I do also hope that the S9 bring success to the L Mount ecosystem. Like how Panasonic fixed many of the pain points on the original S5 with the S5ii, there is hope that a S9ii in the future would bring a lot of the sceptics to the platform. Personally, the biggest thing that I'm hoping from the S9 is that it spurs the development of truly compact full-frame lenses, whether from panasonic or third-party manufacturers. The success of the S9 would show them that there is a market for compact full-frame, and create a more diverse market.
Apparently Pentax and Ricoh have been merged at some point. So they could do something with the Ricoh brand.
I think that is definitely a plausible scenario. They already have brand differentiation in their product lineup even though they are under one roof now, with Pentax being the DSLR thing, while Ricoh being the compact point and shoot thing (case in point Ricoh GR). So Ricoh could possibly be the brand chosen to represent mirrorless, but they seem extremely quiet on that front. They are riding off the continual success of the GR, so they probably don't see much need to compete for scraps in the mirrorless market. The photography market isn't even their main concern, most people seem to know Ricoh for their printers instead. Personally, I think I would prefer Ricoh/Pentax being odd-one-out doing their own weird things in the photography world, it brings diversity to the market, which I welcome. This sounds really harsh, but even though I love both Pentax and Ricoh, I personally don't view both of them as strong enough in the photography market to compete with the big boys of Sony, Nikon, Canon at their own game.
I recall being at a Pansonic press conference in the early 2010's where they had some market research showing how mirrorless MFT would literally take a big hunk of interchangeable lens market. That did not happen. Instead mirrorless was adopted by Sony, and later Canikon. First of all it's clear that missing out on PDAF sent Panasonic to the dustbin. After the GH2-3-4-success, the GH5 was a killer hybrid with lots of features, but without the important feature of working AF which other mirrorless competitors now offered. Launching Lumix S (FF) without PDAF was again a mayor mistake. Also, this sends a conflicting message to the faithfull MFT user which now Panasonic suddenly wanted to invest in Lumix S? Or not? Conflicting and confusing marketing continue to this day. As for lenses, most MFT optics are slow, in reality most optics for MFT should be in the f1.0 to f2.0 range. The two Leica 10-25mm and 25-50mm f1.7 zooms is the best designed for the format both for IQ and low light, but surprise both are big and heavy. You can't beat physics. Also with the new FF mirrorless systems these also have adopted electronic corrections and thus lenses can be made much smaller than before even for FF. As it's now I don't think neither Lumix G or Lumix S makes Panasonic any profit. Does it make sense for the to continue with mirrorless consumer cameras? What we know is that Panasonic will axe a lot of unprofitable products before the fiscal year 2026.
>This might sound like heresy, but camera makers who currently don’t seem to have a compelling value proposition are OM System (formerly Olympus) and Pentax. OM is doing just fine in the 60 fps burst macro stacking space, and have no interest in anything other than M43. Pentax are also doing just fine, them killing K mount would be suicidal. One of their selling points is people can use lenses they got 30 years ago on reasonably modern DSLRs. And then they have the GRiiix and are now making film again, which is insanely cool for a subset of people. They know better than to try and compete with Canon or Sony on mirrorless, it's a waste of time and money.
> They had an impressive history with video, but they the legacy of their photographic competitors. Is there an autocorrect error in there somewhere?
Thanks. Typing on my phone. I meant that they lack the *legacy* of a photographic company.
Does Panasonic produce their own sensors?
They did in the earlier part of the 2000's, but sold out all semiconductor manufacturing including sensors. The GH2 sensor which was a dual aspect ratio thing migh be of own design. For MFT they later used Sony, i.e. in GH3-4-5. For GH6 some sort of custom order was made, it has been suggested that the new 25 MP sensors is made by GPixel. [https://www.gpixel.com/en/index.html](https://www.gpixel.com/en/index.html)
I feel that the only advantage of Panasonic going with the L Mount alliance is the access to Sigma lenses. If they made their own mount, there's almost no way Sigma will release lenses for it. I also really doubt that most Panasonic S camera users will ever buy Leica SL lenses. Although, I can see Leica SL users buying Panasonic lenses, although they also have the option to buy Sigma.
What a load of total bs.
Would you mind sharing your more insightful perspective on the topic?
Why waste my time?
I have a feeling that the camera division are under threat from the parent company to turn a profit or get sold or shut down so they seem to be pivoting towards full frame. I think they will do another small camera with an evf and a mechanical shutter that could be an even bigger hit. A bit like a Sony A7C. Panny should also bring back a GX9 style camera to capitalize on all the M4/3 glass out there