Olympus and Panasonic launch Micro Four Thirds, compact "DSLRs" will be yours

Ready for this? Olympus and Panasonic just announced a new mirrorless format and lens mount based on the venerable Four Thirds standard. Dubbed Micro Four Thirds System, the enhanced standard uses the same 18 x 13.5-mm sensor but promises 50% slimmer cameras due to the removal of the mirror box. We're also looking at smaller lenses (while remaining compatible with existing Four Third lenses with an adapter) thanks in part to a new reduced lens mount which is now 6-mm smaller. With the mirror box gone, Micro Four Third cameras will lose the optical viewfinder so you'll have to frame up your subjects using a Live View LCD or an external viewfinder.

How big of a development is this? Huge. As Phil Askey, editor over at dpreview puts it, "This is without doubt the most exciting digital photography announcement this year. It's fair to say that this "extension / addition" to the Four Thirds standard is finally able to deliver on the original promise of that format; considerably smaller and lighter lenses and bodies."

Unfortunately, no products were announced so you've got plenty of time to debate the spec and pour over the illustrations we've dropped in after the break.

[Via 1001 Noisy Cameras]

[who? @ Aug 5th 2008 2:57AM]

Ladies and gentlemen, introducing the DSLR camera phone!

[Shinigami @ Aug 5th 2008 3:11AM]

Haha 40mm thick camera phone that can only make 20 shots before the battery dies and has weight of 300gramms but has removable optics hahaha! Just kidding :)
Thats really really good news to see this FINALLY coming - compact-sized DSLR, other than Sigma DP1!

[omnicloud @ Aug 5th 2008 4:09AM]

Umm this is != to dSLR. This is just a digital camera with a removable lens and larger sensor.

Digital single lens reflex

Reflex referring to the reflex mirror that flips up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera

[neofolklore @ Aug 5th 2008 8:34AM]

@Omnicloud.

You see, thats why " DSLR" is in quotes. Despite the definition we all associate DSLR's to quality, high quality, having the ability to swap with official lenses, get adapters to use lenses of cameras from the days of old.

This new technology will allow us to do that with smaller devices.

[Unknown @ Aug 5th 2008 3:04AM]

Everybody knows FF is the ultimate solution. And those jerks are heading back into the stone age. Funny.

[TRLK @ Aug 5th 2008 3:18AM]

Agreed. The only reason the sensor is small is because it's cheaper. The size of the current form factor is really enough, it doesn't need to be smaller, for the exception of the casual consumer who wants a more compact size (Though it must be said there is the risk of being it not small enough to be compact or big enough to have decent output).

[Beef Stallmer @ Aug 5th 2008 4:11AM]

That just has to be one of the most uninformed remarks on this site - evar. But I guess you believe the typical Canon/Nikon-fanboy fullframe marketing-hype BS.

[thirteenguy @ Aug 5th 2008 4:27AM]

Somehow that BS works so well on me. lol

[TRLK @ Aug 5th 2008 5:23AM]

Well then, what's with the numerous digital backs that are coming out? How do you think Phase One makes money?

[Geir E @ Aug 5th 2008 8:03AM]

the sensor is the same as fourthird. Still a far cry from full frame and not up to the size of aps-c.

For those who like the size of a compact but want the quality of a dslr can suddenly find a good compromise in mFourthirds which is in essense a rangefinder format. probably let you easily adopt leica m lenses too.

But I'll keep my dslr. I don't mind the extra weight.

[thirteenguy @ Aug 5th 2008 3:08AM]

We definitely won't see them in the Olympics.

[Ryuken @ Aug 5th 2008 3:09AM]

so basically no more DSLR?

[Shinigami @ Aug 5th 2008 3:13AM]

No more huge big boxes that could make you look like a pro, now its all about what you picture, not how you do it :P

[TRLK @ Aug 5th 2008 3:20AM]

Size (of the sensor) still matters. though the difference is becoming less and less noticeable (but in no way comparable yet)

[Jimmy @ Aug 5th 2008 3:35AM]

These have to be uncomfortable cameras. Well, at least for me, I am a 6'4'' shooter and frankly anything under a 5d body just seems miniscule.

[Shinigami @ Aug 5th 2008 3:55AM]

I know what you're talking about. Big body is really better when you're using big heavy lenses.
Except that using 100g compact camera is way easier to hold and needs easier grip when taking pictures than half of kilo DSLR :)
So yeah, big body for a heavy camera and lenses, small body for a compact camera and lenses.

Did I mention I'm 185 cm tall? (approx)
Yeah, compacts all the way for me.

[Liam @ Aug 5th 2008 4:59AM]

If you're tall, that must mean you have huge hands, yes? Well I'm 5' 7" and have hands that genuinely look like a child's. Means I can use the grips everyone else calls "tiny" on cameras like the 400d just fine.

[Shinigami @ Aug 5th 2008 3:15AM]

You know... I never actually could use that optical viewfinder thing, and I personally think electronic viewfinder is way superior (LiveView, which appeared just recently in DSLRs but was there for years in compacts).
So I'm happy I can finally get a proper DSLR-quality camera with changeable optics and great picture quality. Forget about the price, its all about quality and... ability to buy it?

[thirteenguy @ Aug 5th 2008 3:21AM]

electronic viewfinders are way superior? Really? But why don't you see any of those Olympic photographers using it to shoot sports. When they see the moment in the screen, the moment already passed a long time ago(counting in micro-second wise)

[Shinigami @ Aug 5th 2008 3:29AM]

You can still use an accessory viewfinder, right?

[FluffyPanda @ Aug 5th 2008 3:43AM]

That's like saying that looking at a picture of a tree on your TV is better than looking at a tree...

A tiny, low resolution screen is in no way superior to the human eye and a lens.

[Shinigami @ Aug 5th 2008 3:49AM]

Optical viewfinder allows you to see about 90% of the actual picture, while -high resolution- viewfinder (its almost VGA if its 230 000 pixels) lets you see 100% of the picture. Besides, you're not limited to viewfinder any more - you can see -the- tree you try to make a picture of with one eye and... everything around yourself with your other eye - no need to put the photo camera next to your eye closing the other eye.

And if you're not happy with it, you can always get good old viewfinder!

The only disadvantage live view has - it drains battery.

[commiepenguin @ Aug 5th 2008 4:20AM]

Yeah, getting an external viewfinder introduces the parallax problem, one of the biggest advantages of an SLR system when compared to a point and shoot.

[Liam @ Aug 5th 2008 4:15AM]

Shinigami- in this instance you cannot 'go back' to an optical viewfinder, as there isn't one. Besides, there are plenty of things an optical viewfinder can do that an LCD can't. Like being dark and so small to be tunnel like. Wait... uh, lemme start again.

My eye is kind of a bit better than VGA. I can never judge focus on an LCD properly, besides you can't really see the depth of field on an LCD anyway. I wouldn't be prepared to give that up. Controlling what is, and just as importantly, what isn't in focus, is one crucial ingredient in making good photos. Most decent DSLRs have only about 5% missing of the frame- this is bloody tiny. I've never had anything unexpected creep into my final shots, so it can't be missing that much.

But yeah, this will hopefully just create a new breed of Sigma DP1-like things. High-quality, compact but interchangable lens cameras. There's a market there, but I'll have to pass.

[Fenchurch @ Aug 5th 2008 4:23AM]

Shinigami you're wrong the optical viewfinder in an upper class DSLR gives you 100% it is only those entry-level cameras that limit you to 90 or 95%.
Anyway optical viewfinder still has higher resolution than a lcd screen.

[christos @ Aug 5th 2008 5:03AM]

Actually, 230000 dots is QVGA (typically 320 x 240). Three dots are needed for each pixel (one for each of Red, Green and Blue). For VGA you would need 922000 dots. Very few of those around right now, but they might be common by the time the first micro 4/3 cameras hit the shelves.

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Aug 5th 2008 11:56AM]

thirteenguy:
SLRs have more timing problems that non-SLR (rangefinder) cameras. This is because after you push the button it has to raise the mirror before shooting. Because of this, many of these sports photographers use SLRs with pellicle mirrors.

Additionally, cameras which move the mirror extra quickly in order to reduce lag also add more shake from that rapid motion, which is a problem with long telephoto lenses.

There are lots of reasons to prefer non-SLR. Right now I think SLR has the advantage for most people due to the higher res of an optical viewfinder, but I don't expect that will last forever. As higher res LCD panels become available, I think the optical path will go away on higher end cameras.

[tekdemon @ Sep 1st 2008 9:18AM]

Electronic viewfinders are most problematic in the dark when all they end up showing is a blank screen. Which makes them fairly useless when you're trying to set up a long (ish) exposure night shot.

Honestly I hardly ever even used the live view on the Rebel XSi. I thought it would be a neat feature but honestly it ended up being far faster just to use the regular old viewfinder.

[Cyprian @ Aug 5th 2008 3:21AM]

This is the start of the EVIL (electronic vievfinder interchangable lens) camera :).
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/10/evil-camera-not.html

[Jed @ Aug 5th 2008 3:23AM]

And I already found the Canon DSLRs too small for my hands when I had to choose mine...

[Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Aug 5th 2008 7:09AM]

If you would read up discussions, you would find that this is problem if the Canon: somehow they cannot design proper grip so hand is tiring quite fast.

This is noted in literally every review of the 300D-450D cameras: grip is bad.

Also consider that Olys are not only smaller, but also lighter. And even on 520 (which is smaller than Canon from same price range) grip is bigger.

Probably Canon decided to make grip smaller to intentionally make cheaper cameras imperfect ;)

[Gene @ Aug 6th 2008 3:31AM]

I have large hands and own a Canon 400D. I've never had a problem with my hands tiring, even when my lens and flash add ~2.5 pounds to the weight of my camera.

My arms get tired sometimes, but that can't be blamed on the grip.

[Dan @ Aug 5th 2008 3:27AM]

Use a LCD over a optical viewfinder?
Um...No thanks.

And um....
Smaller DSLR bodies?
No thanks either, my Rebel XT is already small enough.
I'd rather have a larger body like the 40D because of the much nicer grip area and large optical viewfinder.

[thirteenguy @ Aug 5th 2008 4:19AM]

Seriously, I will rather choose a EOS-1Ds Mark3 that weights like a brick rather than some thing is tiny small and not dependable(aka the crappy 4/3 system.) Small things are just easier to loose in my messy house. lol

[threefingeredlord @ Aug 5th 2008 1:17PM]

Wow, and I just bought me a Panasonic DSLR.
I really hope they continue to support lenses for the full-size four thirds lens format.
I love my camera, and I'm really getting used to using it's (very small) viewfinder, but I must say I really, really love the idea of these new cameras.

[DK @ Aug 5th 2008 3:47AM]

Your headline "DSLRs ENTER A NEW PHASE" is completely ignorant of even the simplest notion of what DSLR stands for. I'll give you a hint... this new development means these new cameras will not BE DSLRs, despite the heritage of their four thirds format.
DUH, please hire bloggers who actually know what they're talking about and save yourself embarrassment.

[Shinigami @ Aug 5th 2008 3:58AM]

A digital single-lens reflex camera (digital SLR or DSLR) is a digital camera that uses an automatic mirror system and pentaprism or pentamirror to direct light from the lens through the viewfinder eyepiece.
From wikipedia.
You're right! Its not about DSLR, its about DSLR-quality compact-sized cameras :)

[Shinigami @ Aug 5th 2008 3:56AM]

Before you start complaining about small size, get one and try using it for a month. Then complain ;)

[thirteenguy @ Aug 5th 2008 4:25AM]

I had a RebelXT for like 2 years, and I got so uncomfortable that I decided to use it on the beach and see how much water can it resist before smoking. And it sure did cracked up. After that I got my EOS1D Mark3. Not Satisfied enough. Still I never complained about the size. A Rolliflex 2.8FX is what I'm going to get soon. Thats medium-format!

[Yem @ Aug 5th 2008 4:06AM]

Relax - obviously these cameras aren't meant to REPLACE SLRs so it's not "the end of" anything.

It just means there's now a STANDARD for large sensor, interchangeable-lens cameras like the Sigma DP-1. Which is a Good Thing because then maybe we'll see more of them.

The 4:3 adapter is a nice touch - lots of very very nice (and fast) Olympus lenses to choose from if you so desire.

[Charles Lee @ Aug 5th 2008 10:19AM]

"It just means there's now a STANDARD for large sensor, interchangeable-lens cameras like the Sigma DP-1. Which is a Good Thing because then maybe we'll see more of them."

Yep... the one nice thing about Standards is that there are so many to choose from.

[Lars @ Aug 5th 2008 4:45AM]

Great, so now I have to find my reading glasses every time I shoot. This is obviously not for us 40+ pros.

HOWEVER: There is the possibility of an interchangeable-lens rangefinder, with these lenses it would be nice and compact, and nothing stops Panasonic from adding a good an optical rangefinder (except possibly their cooperation with Leica).

[Ethan @ Aug 5th 2008 4:11AM]

I concur with others - I want a reasonably steady and therefore weighty camera, and the optical viewfinder is essential. And this standard should be wider.

[Yem @ Aug 5th 2008 4:42AM]

So keep your SLR.

[Minilap @ Aug 5th 2008 2:11PM]

dumass

[commiepenguin @ Aug 5th 2008 4:22AM]

I still can't get over how bad of an idea this is. Using an adjustable lens with a point and shoot body will just be too clunky; you'd be more likely to turn the camera rather than the lens when zooming and end up with twisted photos.

[Steve Sparkes @ Aug 5th 2008 4:44AM]

I guess that few of the people responding to this post are actually photographers. If you need a BIG camera to compensate for a trouser inadequacy then they will still be available. Remember who Panasonics other partner is and look forward to a proper modern Leica

[Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Aug 5th 2008 7:27AM]

You haven't seen Oly's "Pan Cake" lens then...

I laughed long and couldn't believe that is a lens. But it is.

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/single.html#olympus25

And btw, reviews say that it is quite good lens. Combined with E-420 (or 410) body, it results in most compact DSLR you can find right now. (Though without image stabilization).

FourThirds lenses are generally smaller than their FF counterparts.

[Jake @ Aug 5th 2008 5:31AM]

Whilst I can see smaller cameras having their niche, I doubt this development will seriously change the DSLR market;

1. An optical viewfinder works at the speed of light, and with DSLR what you see is what you get, unlike an external viewfinder.

Liveview's disadvantages are actually;
i. eats batteries
ii. lag (the killer as far as I'm concerned, when I open the shutter on my camera the picture I get is the one I was looking at)
iii. resolution, making it harder to ensure sharp focus

2. It's an uneasy compromise. People, in my experience, either want something that's small enough to fit in a pocket or they just don't care. I fall into the latter category, many of my friends the former. I can't imagine them buying one of these any more than I would.

3. For the foreseeable future, until sensors become way more light sensitive, I would rather have a larger sensor. Secondly, a larger camera actually decreases camera shake just by it's mass alone; it takes more energy to move a larger camera, therefore if it's hand-held then the physical size of the thing is actually better larger (or at least heavier). For me, the largest piece of my camera isn't the body, it's the lens and I'm happy for it to stay that way; more glass = more light.

4. A DSLR makes your manhood larger.

[Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Aug 5th 2008 8:02AM]

> Liveview's disadvantages are actually

LiveView - yes. But heck, LivePreview is actually cool feature.

Recent Olys have very good LCD making it perfect for previewing shots.

> It's an uneasy compromise.

Well, taking with me some $2K-3K photo gear on vacations is what really is "uneasy compromise". But if you still want to make good shots, you need to have a compromise - price compromise, something you wouldn't cry wolf loosing. And having as cheap, standin extra camera for occasions is really handy.

> For the foreseeable future, until sensors become way more light sensitive, I would rather have a larger sensor.

Me too. But I'm on other side of fence: I'd rather have compact camera (which I can carry with me most of the time) instead of FF monster I need a separate bag for. And you really see few people carrying around expensive cameras around. More your camera with you - more chances for good shot opportunities you have.