3 ms·

> The Olympus cameras are extremely capable, yet small in size. That advantage evaporated after Sony released A7 in 2013, which was almost equal in size yet co

> The Olympus cameras are extremely capable, yet small in size. That advantage evaporated after Sony released A7 in 2013, which was almost equal in size yet contained a vastly larger and more capable sensor. Olympus hung on while A7 line was still expensive, but now that one can get an older used model for as much as a new micro-four-thirds one, Olympus bit the dust. Many saw this coming for a long while.

Zombieball 6y ago
While the high price of an A7 probably slowed new customers rushing to Sony over Olympus I think the primary reason customers stuck with Olympus was "vendor lock-in" with lens mounts. People likely bought multiple m43 mount lenses to go with their Olympus or Panasonic. A customer would be more likely to buy another one of these brands if they had an existing lens collection over switching to the A7. Note: I am reluctant to use the term vendor lock-in as the idea behind m43 was to have multiple camera manufacturers adopt a common lens mount. The fact that Sony and Canon have their own mounts is a net negative in my opinion.
- eropple 6y ago
  Yeah, much more than body prices for me has been lens prices. A 25mm f1.7 m43 lens is $150. I've got multiple. I don't mind putting them in kinda-risky places on my cheaper bodies if it makes sense.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    A 25mm f1.7 M4/3 lens is equivalent to a 50mm f/3.5 lens. Which costs about as much on a FF body - as part of a zoom lens. In fact, the much better Sony 50mm 1.8 also costs about 150$.
_ph_ 6y ago
No, the advantage did not evaporate with the A7. Yes, the body of an A7 is pretty close to the mFT counterparts - though for a really tiny body look at the E-M10 and the E-M5, these are a step smaller than the Sony. But the one thing which did not shrink are the lenses. Actually modern designs rather grow the lenses. Look at the Olympus 25/1.8, 45/1.8, they are tiny. And of course on the long side, look at the difference of a 40-150/2.8 and 300/4 to their counterparts. This is where mFT wins big time. This is why I kept buying into mFT, because my Olympus kit in total is significantly more compact than any 35mm equivalent.
- etangent 6y ago
  It's true that on the long end 35mm full-frame lenses are significantly larger and heavier than micro-four thirds lenses. However, most people don't shoot extremely long lenses most of the time (and when they do they can afford to use a lighter f4 lens because larger sensors have better noise peformance). Compare Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for Sony E mount (550 g) with Olympus 12-40 f2.8 (382 g). That's only 168 g (44%) more for a lens that lets in >3.5x more light. If you wanted to take portraits with very shallow depth of field with Olympus (possible with the Tamron lens), you would have to buy a dedicated prime (and one could always find a brighter prime, often for a used one for much less money in the 35mm full-frame world). Even on the long end, advancements from Canon/Nikon/Sony (such as DO and PF lenses as well as very high-resolution sensors with excellent noise performance) meant that Olympus' advantage was disappearing. For example, all 300mm lenses with the same aperture share the same design and similar size. And yet 300mm f4 from Olympus weighs 1,474 g while 300mm f4 PF from Nikon weighs only 755 g -- twice less. Yes yes it's true that the Olympus comes with a 2x magnification factor. However one can make that up by using a camera with a very high-resolution sensor (such as the one in Z-7) or simply by using a teleconverter and taking advantage of higher noise performance of the full-frame sensor. Ultimately the reason micro-four-thirds lenses were lighter was not because the system was better -- they were lighter because they were dimmer. The fact that this was not mentioned in most marketing materials made Olympus and Panasonic look quite bad -- and many interested prosumers (like myself) had felt the company was lying to them.

Zombieball 6y ago

While the high price of an A7 probably slowed new customers rushing to Sony over Olympus I think the primary reason customers stuck with Olympus was "vendor lock-in" with lens mounts. People likely bought multiple m43 mount lenses to go with their Olympus or Panasonic. A customer would be more likely to buy another one of these brands if they had an existing lens collection over switching to the A7. Note: I am reluctant to use the term vendor lock-in as the idea behind m43 was to have multiple camera manufacturers adopt a common lens mount. The fact that Sony and Canon have their own mounts is a net negative in my opinion.

eropple 6y ago
Yeah, much more than body prices for me has been lens prices. A 25mm f1.7 m43 lens is $150. I've got multiple. I don't mind putting them in kinda-risky places on my cheaper bodies if it makes sense.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  A 25mm f1.7 M4/3 lens is equivalent to a 50mm f/3.5 lens. Which costs about as much on a FF body - as part of a zoom lens. In fact, the much better Sony 50mm 1.8 also costs about 150$.

_ph_ 6y ago

No, the advantage did not evaporate with the A7. Yes, the body of an A7 is pretty close to the mFT counterparts - though for a really tiny body look at the E-M10 and the E-M5, these are a step smaller than the Sony. But the one thing which did not shrink are the lenses. Actually modern designs rather grow the lenses. Look at the Olympus 25/1.8, 45/1.8, they are tiny. And of course on the long side, look at the difference of a 40-150/2.8 and 300/4 to their counterparts. This is where mFT wins big time. This is why I kept buying into mFT, because my Olympus kit in total is significantly more compact than any 35mm equivalent.

etangent 6y ago
It's true that on the long end 35mm full-frame lenses are significantly larger and heavier than micro-four thirds lenses. However, most people don't shoot extremely long lenses most of the time (and when they do they can afford to use a lighter f4 lens because larger sensors have better noise peformance). Compare Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for Sony E mount (550 g) with Olympus 12-40 f2.8 (382 g). That's only 168 g (44%) more for a lens that lets in >3.5x more light. If you wanted to take portraits with very shallow depth of field with Olympus (possible with the Tamron lens), you would have to buy a dedicated prime (and one could always find a brighter prime, often for a used one for much less money in the 35mm full-frame world). Even on the long end, advancements from Canon/Nikon/Sony (such as DO and PF lenses as well as very high-resolution sensors with excellent noise performance) meant that Olympus' advantage was disappearing. For example, all 300mm lenses with the same aperture share the same design and similar size. And yet 300mm f4 from Olympus weighs 1,474 g while 300mm f4 PF from Nikon weighs only 755 g -- twice less. Yes yes it's true that the Olympus comes with a 2x magnification factor. However one can make that up by using a camera with a very high-resolution sensor (such as the one in Z-7) or simply by using a teleconverter and taking advantage of higher noise performance of the full-frame sensor. Ultimately the reason micro-four-thirds lenses were lighter was not because the system was better -- they were lighter because they were dimmer. The fact that this was not mentioned in most marketing materials made Olympus and Panasonic look quite bad -- and many interested prosumers (like myself) had felt the company was lying to them.