Most Promising Camera System of 2013

 

The season for awards  Most camera related websites and blogs offer some kind of recognition for achievement by camera makers at this time of year. This usually takes the form of  a camera of the year award with subcategories. This provides information or possibly confusion for prospective camera buyers and is a bit of fun for those of us who get to pontificate about the merits of various products. 

I take the view that selecting a camera system is the first step in the decision making process. I think that the long term viability and appeal of the system is more important that the attributes of any one particular camera model at a point in time.

So Camera Ergonomics again nominates a "Most Promising Camera System" of the year.

Last year  I picked the Micro Four Thirds System [M43] as the most promising. This year it's M43 again, going from strength to strength as some of the other systems struggle to find  direction and momentum.

Let's briefly review the contestants, in alphabetical order:

Canon   Canon is still the market leader and was once very adventurous in pushing the envelope of camera design and technology. In my view Canon is now the market leader because  of it's legacy of past innovation.   But in recent years Canon has been iterating models with at most only very slight improvements from one to the next. Canon's main problem is that it is locked in to the DSLR, a camera type at the end of it's evolutionary journey.

Canon's foray into the world of the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera [MILC]  has been unconvincing. It's EOS M cameras are underspecified and overpriced relative to DSLR's, presumably because Canon doesn't want to compete with it's established product lines. The question is whether the EOS M can compete with anything.

Fujifilm  Why does Fuji insist on keeping the word "film" in their name ? Maybe it's all part of the retro-style appeal of it's camera lines. Fuji's MILC system is the X series of interchangeable lens cameras.  Some of these are based on a faux rangefinder shape with OVF or EVF top left on the camera body and a control system based on aperture ring on the lens and shutter speed dial on the top plate. Fuji has also invested in innovative sensor technologies such as the current X-Trans sensor which does have the benefit of low noise at high ISO settings but presents difficulties to the designers of RAW converter programs. Having used and tested an X-E1 recently I find the retro style control system less streamlined and slower to operate than the "Mode Dial + Control Dial" system on recent Panasonic M43 cameras. Fuji has a history of spawning  multiple models of a theme. Thus we have the X-Pro1, X-E1 and 2, then X-M1, X-A1 and X-Q1.

This market review is about camera systems and it is here I find problems with the Fuji lineup. One of these cameras has an OVF, some have an EVF, some have no viewfinder. Some have the traditional "aperture ring and shutter speed dial" control layout, others have the "mode dial and control dial" system.   None of them has a decent built in handle. Some lenses have an aperture ring some do not. In my view the Fuji X system lacks coherency and consistency. I don't really see it as positioned to move forward to become a fully comprehensive, all purpose system. Maybe Fuji is content to occupy it's present niche.

Leica  Trading on an illustrious reputation and possibly the most recognisable brand name in the camera world, Leica is still in business following several close encounters with corporate death. I read recently they are even opening new production facilities to increase output. Leica still makes the M system of rangefinder cameras. These are real rangefinders with an old fashioned optical viewfinder / rangefinder and  manual focus lenses.  The fact that this type of camera survives in the electronic era and the even more remarkable fact that customers are prepared to pay astounding sums of money for such relics of the (good ?) old days  is quite remarkable. I suspect this says more about human nature than cameras.  Anyway there are rumors Leica may be about to release a new interchangeable lens system with bodies to be built by Panasonic, with whom Leica has a long standing relationship.

Olympus  Appears to have survived a corporate near death experience resulting from massive fraud and to have been re-invigorated by an infusion of capital and sensor technology from Sony. Olympus had good  success with the  EM5 model now followed by the considerably more convincing EM1 with better performance and ergonomics. Olympus appears to have managed to make it's existing, highly regarded 4/3 system DSLR lenses compatible with the EM1, a bonus for Olympus fans with legacy 4/3 DSLR lenses.

Panasonic  corporation suffered from major financial losses in the last year but is restructuring and may be recovering. Well, I hope they are, my cameras and lenses are all Panasonic. The M43 camera division while not yet profitable, is pushing ahead with innovative new products, some of which redefine the concept of a camera. With no significant DSLR legacy acting as a brake on development, Panasonic has been free to concentrate on the M43 system with evident results. 

The GH3 is an excellent professional workhorse, the G6 and GX7 a pleasure for enthusiasts to use. The GM1 has attracted much attention by being the world's smallest camera with interchangeable lenses. I personally have no interest in the cult of smallness and would never buy a camera with such limited ergonomics. But it is getting Panasonic in the photographic headlines and maybe that is the point of the GM1.

Olympus and Panasonic users benefit  from the growing list of lenses from many makers which can be used on the M43 mount. Lenses with M43 mount are made by Olympus, Panasonic, Voigtlander (Cosina), Sigma and Tokina. The M43 official website lists 25 zoom, 2 macro and 17 single focal length lenses with M43 mount. Using adapters, a multitude of current and legacy lenses from many makers can be used on M43.

 Panasonic's lens line is expanding at a great rate. There is now a full spectrum of zooms and primes from full professional models to ultra tiny and light but still optically excellent kit zooms.  The only missing piece of the Panasonic high performance zoom lineup is the 100-300mm range where the present offering is of budget price and quality.  

Nikon  The market number 2 has had problems similar to those experienced by Canon, notably Nikon's dependence on DSLR's for volume and profitability. Nikon is doing much the same thing as Canon with it's DSLR offerings because they have no real alternative. Sensors improve every year or two and there are minor changes to the user interface with each new model. But overall the DSLR is not evolving because there is no direction in which it can evolve.

Nikon does have an ace in it's corporate hand but appears not to know quite how to play it. I refer to the Nikon 1 system, the top tier models of which have some remarkable performance capabilities. I think that if Nikon were to focus more attention on developing the 1 System it could become very attractive to users seeking a compact alternative to  the  DSLR.

Ricoh/Pentax   I am a Pentax user from way back and would love to see this once proud brand  return to market prominence. Sadly that appears unlikely with market share and product rollout declining each year.  Ricoh's experiment with the GXR system appears to have failed to the surprise of hardly anybody.

Samsung   This mega corporation (chaebol) makes just about everything from ships to (electronic) chips and also has a camera division which makes up a tiny percentage of total production.  Samsung entered the system camera market with a model sharing agreement with Pentax then went alone with the NX System which is still in production, but with a limited model lineup and no clear sense of direction as far as I can tell. Samsung's recent interest appears to be less about cameras and more about  devices which blend the characteristics of camera and smart phone. The recently released Galaxy S4 Zoom is an example, featuring a 10x zoom lensor module fixed  onto  the back of a smartphone module.

Sony  To my mind Sony is the most adventurous and innovative of all the camera makers, not always to Sony's or it's customer's benefit. Sony entered the ILC market with the purchase of the Minolta camera business and made DSLR's for a short time, using the A mount. Then they dropped the traditional flipping mirror DSLR and introduced the fixed mirror SLT variant of  the DSLR type camera also using the A mount. Then came the MILC NEX system using the new E Mount with very short (18mm) flangeback distance and 28mm diagonal sensor. But now it seems the NEX name is no longer to be used.

Recently we saw the arrival of the new FE mount which squeezes a full frame (43mm diagonal) sensor into the E mount. The sensor is longer on the diagonal than the internal diameter of the lens mount.  That could be thought of as "courageous", in the sense the word is used in the classic TV series  "Yes Minister".  It means no lens designed for that mount will ever be able to have a rear element with a diameter equal to the diagonal of the sensor. This means the light rays going to the corners of the image will always strike the sensor at an angle. Digital sensors have to utilise special design features to enable corner sharpness, brightness and color fidelity with such arrangements. Presumably the Sony engineers figure they have this issue under control but it will still be interesting to see what lenses are developed for the special requirements of the FE mount.

Sony's promotional material says the A mount continue but  if so what type of camera will it support ?

What lenses will fit on the FE mount and will they give full coverage on the sensor without vignetting or sharpness problems at the corners ?

What is Sony's overall product strategy  ? What system is Sony going to promote and what lenses are /will be available for it ?

You see the problem here.  We are so many years down the evolutionary pathway of digital cameras and yet it is not clear to me (and I follow the photographic news with reasonable diligence)  where Sony is headed with all these recent changes.

Sony has a history of introducing  innovative new ideas, but has thus far struggled to  translate  those ideas into a market leading camera system.

Some final comments about the M43 system  It has been my view for several years and remains so,  that M43 represents the best balance between image quality and compact size, when considering a camera system with bodies and lenses, including long telephoto types. 

If, dear reader, you don't  believe me, consider the new (for 2013) Lumix 14-140mm 10x zoom lens mounted on a Lumix G6, GX7 or GH3 body.  In no other camera or system can you find such an effectively realised combination of compact size, light weight, superzoom all-in-one convenience, image quality, performance and ergonomics. Check it out.

An abiding mystery to me is that Canon, Nikon, Sony and Fuji did not join the M43 consortium and have not produced M43 cameras. Canon, Sony and Fuji MILC's use the larger 27-28mm sensor.  The Nikon 1 System uses the smaller 15.9mm sensor.

My theory on this is totally speculative and based on nothing other than the absence of M43 in the models being offered by  those companies.  You see, Panasonic is the most recent of the corporations reviewed here to enter the camera making world.  That includes Samsung which made compact film cameras for many years before the digital era.

I wonder if the reason is pique, as in... "that upstart Panasonic went with M43, and the buggers got there first,  so we will go somewhere else, so there."  Maybe I am being a touch paranoid here. Maybe Canon, Sony and Fuji simply thought the 27-28mm sensor would make a better system. But that doesn't explain Nikon going to an even smaller, 15.9mm sensor than the 21.5mm M43 one.  To the slightly cynical observer (me) it looks as though they went anywhere else except M43.

I guess we will never know......................