I was an early adopter of the Micro Four Thirds (MFT) system with the purchase of a Lumix G1 in 2009. At the time Panasonic’s autofocus was more accurate and reliable than that of the Canon DSLRs which I had been using. Over the next ten years I bought, owned and extensively used numerous MFT cameras and lenses. So I became very familiar with that system.
Eventually Canon developed their excellent dual pixel AF
(DPAF) while Panasonic stuck with their DFD version of contrast detect AF which
could no longer compete with the phase detect mirrorless systems developed
by….well….all the others.
The initial selling point of MFT cameras and lenses was
their compact dimensions compared to the Digital SLR systems of the time.
But over the next few years, MFT cameras grew in size and
mass. At the same time DSLRs gave way to mirrorless interchangeable lens camera
(MILC) systems which could have smaller
bodies and lenses than DSLR systems.
Now we have the curious situation in which we can find many
full frame camera bodies which are smaller than current model MFT models. We
also see many full frame lenses which are not significantly larger than MFT
models of equivalent focal length and aperture.
So I abandoned MFT and went back to Canon MILCs with both
full frame and APSC crop sensors with the benefit that both use the same lens
mount and can use the same lenses.
Sony and Nikon took the same conceptual path offering crop
sensor and full frame bodies and lenses using the same lens mount.
But MFT is stuck with a dedicated lens mount providing no
commonality of bodies or lenses with L mount full frame models.
Several years ago I bought a Panasonic G9 and used it for
several months with a variety of lenses. Apart from the hair-trigger shutter
button which Panasonic never fixed the
main problem I found with the G9 was the autofocus which worked quite well on
static subjects but was unreliable with moving subjects.
Now we have the G9 Mark 2 which Panasonic has belatedly
equipped with phase detect AF, promising much improved tracking autofocus.
Is this the hero model of a Lumix MFT revival or is the G9.2
too little, too late ?
Panasonic has some huge hurdles to overcome if it is to
convince photographers to buy into the MFT system via the G9.2 flagship for
still photos.
The basic, underlying problem for MFT is the one which has
been there all along and which defines the system. That is the sensor, the area
of which (225 square mm) is only one
quarter of the 24 x 36mm full frame one (864 square mm) and only 0.6 times the area of APSC (Sony) and
0.67 times the area of APSC (Canon).
This means that for any given pixel count, MFT sensors will
have smaller pixels than APSC or full frame models. This restricts how well MFT sensors can perform in
terms of color depth, digital noise and dynamic range.
These things might not be deal breakers for MFT if the
format can bring some compelling selling point to the user experience.
What might that be ?
The original and still the main selling point of MFT is
compact dimensions.
The prospect of lower price has also been offered as a
possible MFT appeal.
The problem is that MFT cannot offer a convincing advantage
on either of these measures and there is no case that MFT delivers better
performance than full frame or APSC models.
Let us look at a size comparison between the G9.2 which
Panasonic is promoting right now and an approximately equivalent full frame
model. I have used the Canon EOS R6.2 as the example here as it has about the
same pixel count and similar performance. I could not find an exact match for
the lenses as to equivalent focal length and aperture but I think the
comparison photos demonstrate the relationship between the MFT and FF cameras
well enough.
Panasonic has smaller MFT bodies like the G95, which I have
owned and used, but so does Canon FF with the EOS R8, which I currently own and
use. The R8 does cost more but it offers better image quality and performance.
When comparing MFT with FF lenses we have to multiply the
MFT focal length and f stop number by 2x to get the FF equivalent. Thus an MFT
f2.8 lens which looks pretty good on the spec sheet is equivalent to an f5.6
lens on FF which is not so impressive.
The lenses are not exactly comparable as to zoom range and aperture but we can see that there is no substantial size advantage to the MFT kit |
In this case the full frame 28mm prime has a wider effective aperture than the equivalent MFT lens. Having owned both I can say the RF 28mm f2.8 is in a different league optically. |
So much for standard primes and zooms.
What about long zooms ?
The main thrust of Panasonic’s marketing for the G9.2 is to
extol its virtues as a sport/action/bird/wildlife camera with an updated
version of the Leica 100-400mm f4-6.3 lens mounted. This gives a full frame
equivalent of 200-800mm f8-12.6.
That looks quite appealing on paper and it might prove to be
so in practice. I have so far only seen early reviews by sport/bird
photographers of his combination and they are reporting that it is better than
the original G9 but not yet as reliable as Canon, Sony or even Nikon body/lens
combinations when tracking fast moving subjects. It is still early days for
Panasonic phase detect AF so we will have to see if they can upgrade it over
time.
The problem is that even if they get the AF up to
established industry standard there is still the size/mass/cost issue.
If we compare the G9.2 with Leica 100-400mm lens to the EOS R6.2 with RF100-500mm L lens then the MFT kit is easily more compact and less expensive and has more reach into the bargain.
But Canon also has the excellent, compact and moderately
priced RF 100-400mm lens which is compatible with RF 1.4x and 2x extenders.
But wait, there’s more….
Canon also has APSC bodies which use the excellent dual
pixel AF and Canon’s DIGIC X processor.
I have an EOS R10 and have been testing it with the RF
100-400mm mounted.
This combination gives us an equivalent 160-640mm f9-13 with
very good tracking AF and very good image quality, at a smaller size and lower
mass than the MFT kit and about half the price.
The Canon RF mount APSC kit on the right is smaller, lighter and about half the price of the MFT kit and it does a prety good job tracking moving subjects. |
What about OM System, formerly Olympus ?
Potential buyers may well have concerns about the ongoing
viability of OM System as a camera maker. Time will tell.
In the meantime. OM
System’s bodies and lenses have the same
MFT issues as those affecting Panasonic MFT.
For instance the OM-1 is a bit smaller than the G9.2 but the
Olympus 100-400mm f5-6.3 is bigger than the Pana-Leica 100-400mm f4-6.3 so the kit ends up about the same size, mass
and price.
Summary
Panasonic will very likely upsell some existing Lumix G9 MFT
owners to the G9.2.
Fair enough.
However I see nothing
that might persuade a So-Ca-Nik user to switch systems or even to invest in an
G9.2 with the Leica 100-400mm lens for sport/action/birds/wildlife.
Might the MFT sensor work in a bridge camera ?
I think it might.
Olympus (now OM system) offers a 12-200mm f3.5-6.3 MFT lens with 16.6 x
zoom range which is slightly more than the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000.2 at 16 x.
The Olympus lens is quite compact at 100mm in length. This particular lens does
not receive favourable reviews regarding optical qualities but it’s existence
demonstrates the possibility of making such a compact superzoom lens for the
MFT system. Presumably if something similar were to be fully incorporated into
the body it could be even smaller.
So, maybe. However we already have some good bridge cameras
using the Sony “one inch” (15.9mm diagonal) sensor which delivers very good
results and I am not sure there would be a market for a bridge cam using the
21.4mm diagonal MFT sensor.
Time will tell but I wouldn’t bet on the G9.2 setting off a MFT revival.
Very helpful article, thanks!
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as the perfect camera! Your choice is based on what best suits you. MFT for me was originally the only format I could use with my old macro lenses (with adapters) and now the OM-1 is still best for macro (my subjects are mostly in the 1-8mm range). Full frame for these subjects is a waste of sensor space (at 1:1 not much of a full-frame sensor is used, and the higher pixel density of MFT helps). I find the weight of the OM-1 an advantage as the additional inertia over a lighter camera helps keep it steady for macro work.
ReplyDelete