It's all about demand. There's no point in making them if no one wants to buy them. R&D money down the toilet. The issue is that FF cameras have become less expensive over time, to the extent that more people are willing to step into that format (even though they get caught by the cost of all new and more expensive lenses). But with camera bodies being less costly, it's alluring. Back during the holidays you could purchase a A7II for under $1k. You can still get one with a kit lens for $1600.
Yes, it's been a chicken-little thing for years. The difference this time is here:Oh this is interesting, Yamaki San said something very similar 9 years ago:
Basically, back then they made the business decision that they would only adapt APSC lenses to MFT, not develop specifically for MFT. So the recent announcement really does make sense as a consistent corporate principle [of not supporting MFT].
This is somewhat disheartening.Well, to my mind it puts Sony squarely at the top of the list for lens ecosystems, at least for now. I think this will last a very long time since Canon doesn't seem interested in third party lenses, and Nikon will be playing catch up for some time.
Brutal honest statement from Sigma manager Yamaki: We ain’t going to develop new MFT lenses as the MFT system is in sharp decline
We've been seeing the steady decline of M-4/3 for a few years. Panasonic has all but bowed out of the stills market and are moving quickly towards video-centric with still photography as an afterthought, with the main thrust in pro-video cameras. While it wasn't the main reason I divested myself of Panny gear and moved to Sony, it certainly made the decision easier. if I were to go back it would be OM. When I was using Panasonic (G7, GX9, G9), all of my lenses were Panny with the exception of a cheap Samyang 7.5mm to play around with. I'd do the same with OM, Olympus (OM) only lenses.
I don't think it's going away, but it will be very minimal at some point. Panasonic is huge in M-4/3 sensors and video, and they've coaxed excellent performance out of them. Hasselblad is using an M-4/3 sensor in drones, where it's perfect due to lens size. But for advanced enthusiast and hobbyist gear, I agree.
Like the soon to be released 90mm 2:1 macro lens that can also be used with the teleconverters. Being able to do in-camera focus bracketing and stacking handheld is amazing.
Well it is f/4, which would make it a largish lens in any format. It'd be larger yet in FF.
Maybe, maybe not. In capable hands I doubt anyone would know the difference. I've seen amazing images from M-4/3.
A friend of mine has that lens and the OM1. His pictures are fabulous, partly because he's an exceptional photographer, who happens to be the luckiest photographer I know of, he gets so many hard to find birds pose for him it's freaky. I will say though, that if I zoom in on them, they don't retain the detail of cropping on the A1/A7RIV
Yes, they'll peter out sooner than a higher MP camera. This is another good reason to depend on skills and in-camera composition rather than megapixels. I think that's a very foreign concept to many people, especially those who weren't around during film or the early days of digital when lower resolution cameras like my Maxxum 5D were all there was.
Agree completely about composition and technique. Modern technology has made everything easier and, with no disrespect to new guys, some of whom are getting great results, it has made the need to learn good technique superfluous.
