Is This the End of Micro Four Thirds?

Is This the End of Micro Four Thirds?

Olympus recently announced the sale of their camera division, bringing an end to the storied company's history, at least in the iteration that we know. Does that mean the end of micro four thirds along with it?

Do you remember much about computers in 2008? Back then, Sony Vaios were some of the coolest laptops and desktops out there. They were absolutely beautiful and often innovative, though admittedly expensive. Still, though, they were experimental, they pushed boundaries, and they made many geeks (myself included) often drool over them. In fact, if you are not familiar with the old Vaio line, you should check out this photo essay, as you might be surprised by just how neat those computers were. 

Unfortunately, a product being innovative and desirable does not always translate to sales. In 2014, Sony sold the Vaio line to Japan Industrial Partners (the same company that is set to acquire Olympus' camera division), and six years later, only one model remains, the SX14. It is a shame — not that JIP had any obligation to continue the Vaio line's past history. In fact, that would probably be a bad idea, given that they acquired the line due to its lack of success in the first place. 

Micro Four Thirds

Back in 2008, when the micro four thirds system was released by Olympus and Panasonic, the camera world was a different place. You could generally draw a straight line from point and shoot through to digital medium format, one without many gaps and with a roughly direct correspondence between price and sensor size: small sensors, micro four thirds, APS-C, full frame, medium format. However, something else was on the horizon that would drastically alter the camera industry and break that chain of continuous correspondence.

Just the year before, the first iPhone had been released, and the seeds of the smartphone camera revolution were planted. Digital camera sales would peak over the next couple of years before beginning a precipitous drop over the next decade, dropping almost 90% by the end of the decade. That left the industry in a very different place. The main victim of the smartphone revolution was the point and shoot, which was replaced by the smartphone, as most casual consumers simply wanted a device for capturing memories, and the convenience, simplicity, and connectivity of smartphones outweighed whatever image quality gains could be had by moving up to a point and shoot, and indeed, today, many smartphones meet or even exceed lower-level point and shoots. 

This left the world of dedicated cameras for enthusiasts and professionals, who have different needs and desires than the casual consumer. This separated the various sensor sizes into different purposes and groups: medium format for upper-end studio photographers, full frame as the standard for most professionals and dedicated enthusiasts, APS-C as an alternative for professionals and a popular choice for enthusiasts, and micro four thirds for a wide range of enthusiasts and a few professionals, especially a portion of video shooters. 

In recent years, APS-C has been making huge strides, spurred on by Fuji's highly popular and respected X Series of cameras. APS-C's role in the industry has expanded in both directions: as quality lens offerings have expanded, sensor performance has improved notably, and bodies have gained professional features, more and more photographers have embraced the format's size and cost as a fantastic alternative to full frame. On the other end, budget offerings have continued to expand and have often encroached on the price territory of micro four thirds. The other draw was that there was often some degree of cross-compatibility with a company's full frame mount, giving users an upgrade route if they so desired. 


In the meantime, Panasonic has pushed into the full frame mirrorless market and joined the L-Mount Alliance with Leica and Sigma. And they wasted no time getting serious about it with the S1 and S1R. And the great video capabilities of those cameras left a question lingering: what was Panasonic planning to do with their micro four thirds cameras, which are mostly known for their usage in videography? And then came the S1H, which now offers 6K raw video, making it one of the leading consumer-level video-oriented cameras. Its arrival only underscored that aforementioned question all the more. Maintaining two lens mounts simultaneously is not a cheap proposition, and in an industry continually feeling the pressure of shrinking demand, they might decide it is more prudent for them to focus their attention on a single mount, and given their recent entrance into L-Mount Alliance and fast development of their full frame system, the likely winner of such a head-to-head matchup would be full frame.


What does Japan Industrial Partners plan to do with Olympus? They may have a strong transition services agreement in place with Olympus if they intend to continue business as usual. In a statement on the events, Olympus said:

JIP is a strong investment fund with a track record of success and has maximized the growth of many brands. JIP will use the innovative technologies and solid brand position of Olympus within the market, while also improving the profit structure of Olympus’s imaging business.

Of course, that could mean a wide range of things. "Improving the profit structure" can mean drastically shrinking development and offerings, or it could mean revamping the lineup, or it could mean selling off the company's assets and intellectual property. It remains to be seen. However, after the imaging division reported losses of almost $100 million during the fiscal year ending in March of this year, it's clear that it is going to take drastic action of some sort to right the ship. 


It certainly seems that the micro four thirds system is at a bit of a crossroads, with one company in the system focusing on the development and deployment of their own full frame system in tandem with two other companies and the other being sold, all against the backdrop of an industry moving increasingly toward a niche status for enthusiasts and professionals. If nothing else, I certainly hope that we will see Olympus' innovation make it into other cameras in the future if the company and micro four thirds don't survive. 

Where do you see micro four thirds going? 

Alex Cooke's picture

Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Music Composition. He is also an avid equestrian.

Log in or register to post comments

I think the one thing that will keep m4/3 alive is video. It's not just Panasonic anymore - well, it is in the stills world. But Blackmagic, Z-CAM, and a number of others have long used the m4/3 mount and there are tons of cinema lenses manufacturers out there that make m4/3 cine lenses. And it definitely has benefits over larger sensors for video, namely more depth of field for a given exposure.

I agree. The mix of size, weight, and capability that the GH5 / GH5S provides is top notch. There's literally nothing else I'd rather bring into street journalism situations. But it's an equally capable filmmaking camera, and the fact that these bodies can be had for $1400-$2000 is absolutely ridiculous to me. 10 bit, 4:2:2, 4K, with VLOG-L and dual IS - there's literally nothing like it on the market. It's not perfect (The AF is kind of meh, it's only 20 MP, focus by wire native lenses) but it's more than sufficient for what I need it for. It's paid for itself many times over.

Also, people talk about the (very real) disadvantages of the sensor size, but they also forget that one of the HUGE advantages of the MFT sensor is the fact that you can adapt pretty much any lens to it. Canon, Nikon, Four Thirds, Canon FD, you name it, you can probably adapt it. The only thing you can't adapt is other mirrorless lenses, but given that there are literally hundreds of other lenses you can use, that's still a significant advantage.

If I want to break my back adapting my FF Canon glass because I want full time manual focus and mechanical focus rings, I can do that. If I need to cover everything from 24mm FFE to 300mm FFE, I can do that with two lenses that weigh less than three pounds. THAT'S NUTS.

Unless Panasonic plans to introduce budget FF cameras as cheap as $500 I don't think they'll drop M4/3 any time soon. They would kill their sales if they only sold a premium line of L mount cameras. Wouldn't surprise me if they slowed development of premium camera bodies and lenses, but I don't expect them to leave the market entirely. Personally I have Panasonic M4/3 gear along with Nikon FX and DX, the value of how compact the M4/3 lenses are cannot be underestimated.

It's also an open standard that Kodak and Yi have dipped their toes into although unsuccessfully. Sony produces sensors. M4/3 has made it onto drones as well. We have no idea how long Olympus gear will remain available or if JIP will continue the line or eliminate it.

I like my Olympus gear a lot. So it is kinda sad. I think that Olympus cameras have a very reach and unique feature set. I do not see any other brand that has the same. For kbnow i will keep shooting with my oly gear I may buy the mc-20.
When the day comes where the systems fails to work I will have to see what to do. They talk about that this is an opportunity for Panasonic. I am not sure that I agree. Maybe I will buy a Panasonic body to my oly lenses. But I like the oly feature set and I do not see Panasonic is even close to match that. So when the day comes I may go to an APS-C camera and it will not be Canon. i have never liked that brand.

Done like dinner.

Why would anyone buy M4/3 at the current price levels when APSC and FF are same price or less?

Lens size and weight. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that. Also, there are types of photography where the DOF advantage of MFT is useful. I'm a MFT user and don't plan to switch. Low light is really the only significant advantage of FF as far as I'm concerned. If you are bananas for bokeh that might be another.

Better dynamic range...greater DOF control, and the sizes of the top spec M4/3 lenses are not far off from what is offered on FF formats..and the prices are lower/or at par. Why buy a system that is now DOA?

And I was a heavy M4/3 user since 2012...and left it in 2017.

The issue and topic of the article is whether it actually is DOA.

I see Panasonic keeping it alive for a while, for a number of reasons. Their GH line alone probably sells boatloads. Video will keep m4/3 afloat - not just Panasonic, but other companies like Blackmagic and Z-CAM, among many more. M4/3 has distinct advantages for video in particular.

And "top spec" is a pretty loose and subjective term. I think what you really mean is "fast, f/1.2 type lenses." If you aren't trying to match the DOF of FF, there is nothing in APS-C or FF land that competes with the size, quality, and price of lenses like the Olympus 45/1.8, Panasonic 14/2.5, Panasonic 20/1.7, Olympus 60/2.8 Macro, Olympus 75-300, Panasonic 100-300, etc etc etc. Nowhere else can you get 600mm of reach with excellent IQ at or under $600 in a lens that's smaller than a kit telephoto zoom.

I agree, M4/3's lost the size and weight argument a long time ago, when other brands started to develop their mirrorless lines more. Pick up a Fuji XT30, with lenses, and compare it to an EM1 Mk2/MK3 with equivalent lenses, the Fuji is lighter and in my opinion gives better image quality. I own an XT30, and owned an EM1Mk2. Also, if size and weight is your USP, and it was, why release a brick like the EM1X?

Why not compare it to E-M5III instead of the bigger, bulkier E-M1III? They're almost the same camera specswise. People ALWAYS pick the biggest m4/3 bodies to compare against the smallest models from competitors. Same goes for lenses. Always comparing the PRO lens lineup while there are lots of quality, small lenses offered as well.

Makes no difference, there's no size and weight advantage, and better IQ from the XT30. Also, I could pick up a new EM1 2 and an XT30 for about the same price. I still own an EM5 MK1, the XT30 is smaller and lighter.

You’re right, 425 vs 574 vs 383g respectively ..and 2012 vs 2016 vs 2019 respectively.

How's the weathersealing on XT30? Or the fps? Or other features? Please don't compare an enthusiast/semi-pro model to a beginner's one thinking they're 1:1. :D There's more to cameras than the sensor size.

Can you give a proper replacement for my 75mm F1.8 without gaining size and weight?

Why, do you just carry the lens, with no camera? It's a spurious argument unless also taking into account the weight of the camera. Can you give me an Olympus camera replacement for the Fuji XT30 without gaining size and weight?

You tell there is no size and weight advantage. I ask for a replacement of my favorite lens. You can't name 1. The E-M10 Mark II is a nice replacement for your X-T30. Combined with the 75mm it will be great and with IBIS.

Sure hope for fuji users that the X-T40 coming next year does have IBIS.

No, I can actually, the XF50 is a nice portrait lens, but only 200g, that would save you about 130g. The EM10 MKII is not a "nice replacement"... Its got a 16MP sensor versus a 26MP sensor, there's no contest when it comes to IQ. You carry on cherry picking.

Yes, just like you with a 75mm equivalent lens VS a 150mm equivalent lens. Lol. There is indeed no contest in iq between these 2 lenses. The 75mm is way better.

I do enjoy you over emotional brand fanatics.

Weather sealing, so you are comparing the EM1 MK2, to the XT30 then, funnily enough, you complained when I did that! Make you mind up. FYI, I don't use IBIS, I'm a landscape photographer, and neither would I ever use a grip, I have tiny tiny hands. I shoot with an A7R3, I only use the XT3 and XT30 for travel.

I'm sure the majority of XT3 owners will be thrilled to have some minor validation from am Olympus fan. Will you tell us what camera you actually shoot with, and perhaps point us towards your amazing Portfolio so we can appreciate why you're so emotional about your camera brand? Because I don't have your fanaticism about camera brands, I can take a more balanced view and concede that Olympus made great cameras, they have the best weather sealing on some high end cameras, the best IBIS in the business, and I actually even like their menu system, but perhaps that's because I've used them for years. However, newsflash... none of this was enough, their last three camera's were parts bin insults to their customer base and their IBIS and weather sealing wasn't enough for them to make a profit. No one should ever get emotionally attached to camera brands the way you obviously have; it's just a camera.

No portfolio then to impress us on how you got the job done? Anyone who describes an an EM1X as cheap, has clearly wandered off into fantasy land, which is a comment that can generally be applied to your last post.

Ah, you were the one who bought it. Yes, I'd be over emotional too, given the circumstances.

Because it meets my needs.

My Sony A7Riv with 85mm 1.4 is massive in size and weight compared to my EM1mk2 with 45mm 1.2.
I prefer the autofocus, low light and shallow DOF from FF for my normal photography (fitness, swimwear, fashion, beauty, landscape).
For travel photo, I prefer the portability and ruggedness of the EM1mk2 4/3 with the 12-40 2.8 pro lens.

I've got that lens paired with an EM5ii, then I also carry the pana20, and meike35, and the pana7-14. the comparable kit to that in any other range scares me a bit for being able to go anywhere. I carry all this around in a tiny shoulder bag.

I don't shoot M4/3 and have absolutely no interest in it but why question someone else's motivation for preferring it, or preferring anything? Shoot what you like and leave others to do the same in peace.

I have no idea why people wish or hope for camera companies to go under. Competition is a good thing, and modern cameras wouldn't have the excellent IBIS they do if not for companies like Olympus. That's just one example, too.

Like all the Sony fanboys that want Canon and Nikon to fail, makes no sense because Sony wouldn't need to aggressively push innovation and launch better cameras if they didn't have competition.


Wasn't aware anyone sold a compact full frame camera with two kit lenses for $450 or less that shoots 4k video.

Can't think of a single APSC option either.

Here's a great reason that nobody seems to talk about:

-Multishot that works with strobes-

Really it is a huge asset when working with materials with lots of low-contrast details that a single bayer image can't resolve. Things like neon lights (especially red), deep blue or red textiles, moire patterns, etc..

Routinely my E-M1X, because of Multishot, creates a superior file to my D800E. Might not have the DR, but in controlled commercial situations, that's totally okay.

I think that Olympus created the E-M1X for the 2020 Olympics to compete with the more expensive FF cameras. A success could have meant a further expansion into sports photography. However successful that might have been, if the Olympics were not cancelled by the coronavirus it was still a risky marketing approach and not one aimed to the vast consumer market. Instead, if Olympus had improved their video and also obtained a higher megapixel sensor for the 2019 and 2020 camera releases they could have had greater market share. I understand Olympus is very popular in Japan for mirrorless cameras, especially the Pen series which also make a kind of fashion statement. This could have been parlayed with Olympus's high tech IBIS and pixel shift along with AI to start making the cross between smart phones and high quality image and 6K video cameras. I have an OM M1 MkII and love its build quality and lens selection. The 12- 100 mm f/4 Zuiko lens zoom is a true optical engineering marvel. The lens VR coupled with the bodies IBIS is fantastic and always give great results. Primes like the 45 mm f/1.8 yield wonderful results and is much cheaper than the 45mm f/1.2 pro which is aimed at a market that would not return the revenues of the slightly slower much cheaper and lighter f/1.8. Olympus went after the prosumer market instead of the mass market. Right now the days of serious photographers seems to be changing and maybe diminishing. As a last though, cameras could offer the same type of stacking that is employed by smart phones using AI to yield what you want without computer based development. Cameras could give three different results, JPEG, RAW and stacked, all hand held. This gives the photographer many options. Add to that had held High RES shooting in a micro 4/3 camera and you have a very desirable alternative to smart phones. I rest.

I'd gotten the impression they gave up several years ago when they basically stopped improving their sensors...

Sony makes the sensors, and Sony has not advanced M4/3 sensor development. They have advanced very other format from cellphone sensors to MF. Why this is I don't know, the technologies can apply across the board.

I understand that Sony produced a M4/3's sensor, which is 47 mp, It was for security cameras and allegedly had great low light performance. I always expected this to adopted by Olympus, but of course it never was and never will be. I'm sure I read about this long before this article was released in September last year.

M4/3 may survive, at least for a while. Panasonic just introduced a new M4/3 camera, the G100, that in my view reverts back to the the main advantage of M4/3, size. Although Panasonic is now part of the L group, L is nowhere. There is no infrastructure. There is a well developed infrastructure for M4/3. Not huge, but well defined. I suspect Panasonic will keep their M4/3 line intact until L fills out, if it ever will. The L format has it's own problems, established FF systems being the main one. Who's going to really give a shit about L, especially professionally? We'll have to wait and see, but until L fills out, if it ever does, Panasonic will either have to keep M4/3 alive, or bow out of cameras altogether.

I work with all sensor sizes, from the FF sensor in my Nikon to the tiny sensors in my Raspberry Pi units. I have a use for them all. M4/3 cameras are my primary street cameras. It's the perfect format for street work, and I really like my Olympus E-M10 Mk II, Pana GX85, and my tiny Pana GM5. I will probably get a G100 when the prices are more realistic. Overpricing has always been a problem with M4/3 (and 1-inch), and that's one of the primary culprits that killed Olympus (and the GM5).

Olympus is now officially dead. It will join the ranks of Minolta, Samsung, etc. Just read the comments made by this fellow Doug Janis to give you a wake-up call on this: JIP will gut it out and toss it. It's unfortunate because overall Olympus gear was better made than Panasonic gear. I don't know if they'll be any real discounts on their gear in liquidation, or they'll try to eek out as much as they can from remaining stock. I'll pick up whatever I can and use it till it dies.

Olympus is dead. Long live Olympus...

"Olympus is now officially dead."

No it's not. It might be in 2021. Or might not. The brand might continue living under the new owner. Or not. Too early to say. But one thing is certain: it is now officially dead yet. It's business as usual until the end of the year. What happens then is anyone's guess.

We'll see. Right now that's not what it's looking like. Some people get really emotionally tied to a brand and become religiously fanatic about it and have a hard time accepting the reality of the consequences of badly managed publicly owned corporations. Shareholders don't give a fuck about anything but the bottom line, and will gut it out until they've sucked the last dollar they can out of it.

"Olympus is now officially dead. It will join the ranks of Minolta, "

The Minolta acquisition is what put Sony on the map in serious photography.

That really did great things for Minolta, didn't it?

Minolta wasn’t purchased by Vulture Capitalists.

L mount serves a different purpose, and is surely not dead. Its a niche platform. Alone through the Leica and their expensive primes it will exist as the modern exchangeable lens platform for the clientele without money issue or with the need to uncompromising quality.
M3/4 is actually quite established as a system. Just look at the mass and wide variety of lenses. I think that m4/3 for the "day light" is perfect. Not only birding and sports, but also simply for the active city photography. Small size allows for less intrusive appearance and crossing large distances on foot, dining, carrying the gear with you everywhere. When the sun goes down, and one would like to utilize the high ISO, of course, go for FF.

I never said L is dead, I said it's nowhere. You're right that it will cater to the well-heeled, which will limit it's acceptance. Unless Sigma, Panny, etc. put out affordable hardware it will stay nowhere. Professionally it go nowhere. Professionals need practical, reliable and relatively affordable hardware with an established infrastructure to work with. L is none of that.

I hope the Olympus camera division and MFT survive in some form but investment is needed and so does the potential to generate a profit.
I had Olympus film cameras (OM1n and OM4Ti), various compacts and then an E-P1 and one of the first OM-D E-M5s in the country together with half a dozen lenses. They were all excellent cameras - small, innovative, practical and lovely to use. I took some nice pictures with those cameras.
It’s a long and irrelevant story but or reasons unconnected with the cameras, I had to sell that system and when I bought a new camera the best deal I could lay my hands on was a used Nikon D610. The D610 wasn’t as nice to use as the the OM-D but it took better pictures, it just did. I grew to respect the Nikon but I never loved it and last year I replaced it with a D850 to address a couple of weak points. The D850 is awesome, there is no other word and I knew it would be but I still seriously considered an Olympus M1X.
I actually believe that the M1X is a better designed, better built camera than the D850 - I didn’t buy the M1X though... Why? You know why, the D850 had the world’s best sensor i. A body that there was nothing particularly wrong with whereas the Olympus had an outstanding body with a sensor that was not only handicapped (ye canna canna change physics, Cap’n) by its size, but was also years out of date.
For MFT to survive, people have to either stop caring about image quality or the sensor needs improvement on a quantum level. It doesn’t matter whether people NEED more image quality, they’re always going to buy it anyway.

More comments