Olympus seems to be the lone soldier for the 4/3s system when they were the first company to release a 4/3s camera, the Olympus E-1 in November 2003. For 3 years they were alone until Panasonic came up with their Lumix DMC-L1 in February 2006. Even though there were many supporting companies (check out the official website ), most of them arent in the right position to release 4/3 cameras.
Introduction
1. Eastman Kodak: Only makes sensors for cameras as of now. Their pro-line DSLR backs failed long time ago. Maybe a comeback? Their compact digital camera segment is not too bad, so they should have enough money to inavde the DSLR market. Moreover, they have a good reputation since film times, so I am just wondering why they arent planning to release any cameras. Their sensor making role in the 4/3s is rendered somewhat redundant since Panasonic is able to manufacture sensors too. Of course, there are people who favour the “Kodak colour” (if there are such a thing to begin with anyway) and competition between Kodak and Panasonic will simply lower costs for Olympus. The live view sensors Panasonic is making using some NMOS technology is “favourable” as of now (at least the marketing department is trying to make live view favourable).
2. Fugifilm. I have completly no idea why on earth did Fugifilm join the 4/3 system! Their DSLRs are commonly shaped after Nikons DSLR and they are ususally targettng the mid-range markets. In fact, they use Nikon lenses on their cameras. Of course, their SuperCCD technology may create even more competition to the sensor supply market if they manage to come out with one in a 4/3 format.
Then again, the 4/3s system is badly lacking in cameras in the mid-range. Since Fugifilm have with some experience in the mid-range DSLR market, it could really fill the gap. Moreover, worries that 4/3 sensors being noiser, due to the need to squeeze more pixels withing a smaller size, can be allayed if Fugifilm manage to get their super-low noise SuperCCD techonology into making sensors in the 4.3 format. This would be a potential success.
3. Leica. Their name really shouldnt be here. But since Leica is such a reputatable ad respected brand, it seems mroe of a marketing decision to add them here. All Leica has done so far is to rebrand cameras. In fact, all their digital cameras excep for the Leica M8, are rebranded goods (the R9 is really just a digital back). When Leica worked with Fugifilm in the past, they rebranded their compacts. Now Leica is working with Panasonic, and also rebranding their compacts and even their DSLR. The Leica Digilux 3 is really a Panasonic L1 in Leica skins. (The marketing department claims a different image processing though). The lenses made by Panasonic/Leica are branded Leica (since it has a much better reputation) even though they (if I am not wrong) made by Panasonic (even though Panasonic claims that they have Leica are invovled in the optical design and quality controls or something).
4. Panasonic. They have certainly come a long way since their late entry into the photography buiness. Their success so far, I believe, is largely due to the fact that their electronics department is making so much money for them such that they are able to invest heavily, speeding developments. I find Panasonic cameras to be very well constructed and have an effective image stabilisation system. With regards to their first DSLR in the 4/3s format, the Panasonic L1, there are certainly mixed reactions about the design. Some says it looks like a brick (in fact, it really does) while others find its traditional rangefinder styling appealing (I stand on this side). While the price is in the mid-range area, it is not really a mid-range camera, offering many things the Olympis E-330 offers (which is the high-end entry level or basic mid-range, depending on how you classify). Instead, it can be considered as niche product, for people who want a DSLR with rangefinder traditional look (but you are really paying big bucks for design here). It comes with a Leica 14-50mm f2.8-3.5 lenses with IS (probabaly manufactured by Panasonic, as I mentioned above when I talked about Leica). It has an aperture ring A wonderful feature! Some may find it cumbersome, especially if you do manual focus. However, I find it very very appealing. Remember this lenses when I talk about the clash between Olympus and Panasonic later on.
Their success would be somewhat dependant on their sensors. Panasoninc sensors hae a bad reputation for being excessively noisy and this is not helped by needing to squeeze more pixels into a relatively (compared to full frame or other current cropped sensors) smaller space. If noise is bad for their NMOS sensor, and if Fugifilm starts offering their very clean SuperCCD sensors in 4/3s format, Panasonic may not be able to sell their sensors to Olympus. By the way, Fugifilm already has live view technology (albeit for 30 seconds only in their Fugifilm S3 Pro), so Panasonic should be starting to get worried if their NMOS is noiser; because one day or another, Fugifilm is going to go 4/3s and if they manage to merge their live view+ clean SuperCCD techonologies at a similar price to their NMOS, then Panasonic is in deep trouble.
5. Olympus. They released most of the lenses and cameras available in the 4/3s system. Too much have been said about them so no introduction is needed.
6. Sanyo. This is really just a name. Sanyo’s digital compact camera departmet is struggling. They never had any experience with DSLRs. And seemed to all but disappear from the camera market. Are they preparing to mount a counter-attack to the camera market by releasing a DSLR soon? But I think they will just exsist a name. Alternatively, they might get funding from the profits from some other department (maybe electronics) and charge into the camera market like General Imaging. Who knows. But I still think its going to be just a name, maybe until they pull out of the camera buiness altogether.
7. Sigma. They are not producing any 4/3 cameras as of yet, having their own camera system using a unconventional 1.7X FOV crop. However, they seemed to have done nothing but changed the mount of a few of their lenses to fit the 4/3 cameras, i.e. those lenses seems to be designed for 1.5X-1.7X FOV crop DSLRs, but since 2.0X FOV crop uses a smaller field of view, those Sigma lenses wouldnt display vignetting (which is caused as a result of the sensor being too big and not of lenses design). This renders some of their very useful lenses (in 1.5-1.7X FOV crop) to not-so-useful lenses. One example is the Sigma 18-50 f2.8. While it a cheap alternative to the Canon 17-55IS (although the Sigma doesnt have IS) for Canon users or the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 for Nikon users, it is not that useful as a 4/3s lenses as you get around 27/28.8/30.6mm with 1.5X,1.6X and 1.7X FOV respectively (which is relatively wide), you get a dull 36mm in 4/3s at the widest setting.
So why isnt Sigma included in the competition of the different 4/3s manufacturers? Firstly, they have yet to release their own 4/3s DSLR. Secondly, their lenses tends (I use the word “tends” very carefully here) to stay clear from Olympus’s main lineup and in fact complements part of it. For example while Olympus cameras cover until a focal length of 250mm with their Olympus 90-250mm f2.8, Sigma complements the 4/3s format by allowing users to choose a longer focal lengths of up to 800mm. Similarly in the macro department, while Olympus has released several lenses of short focal length (Olympus 35mm f3.5, Olympus 50mm f2), Sigma on the other hand, releases macro lenses of longer focal length (Sigma 105 f2/8 and Sigma 150 f2.8). Thirdly, Sigma’s reputation in quality of lenses are not as good as that of Olympus or Panasonic.
But who knows. In the future, if Sigma decides to implement their FOVEON technology into making 4/3s cameras, they might be seen as a interesting competitor too. Sigma cameras, the Sd9, SD10 and recently the SD14 can be considered as mid-range DSLRs. So Sigma is in a similar position as Fujifilm, but I just wonder who is going to act first; or will Olympus and Panasonic respond faster…
One thing to note is that there is one instance were we can claim that Panasonic is competiting with Sigma. This is because Sigma has a 24mm f1.8 and a 30mm f1.4, while Panasonic recently released a lense with a similar focal length, the 25mm f1.4. Of course, the differcence between f1.8 and f1.4 is relatively great (and so are their prices), so this does not really make them fierce competitors; instead we can consider Panasonic to be offering a higher end alternative to the Sigma. So while there is a certain degree of competition, this is not a very great one.
Competitors? Allies? The 2 sides to a coin
As seen, there are only 2 active members in the 4/3s consortieum. So what is the relationship between Panasonic and Olympus?
When we look at the history between Panasonic and Olympus, there seem to be much indication of conflict.
1) Enemies? Memory card.
Olympus and Fugifilm developed the xD cards and used them in their cameras. On the other hand, Panasonic, Toshiba and Sandisk, developed the SD cards. The SD cards are now used over a wide range of items from MP3s to compact digital cameras to DSLRs (like the Nikon D80) etc. However, the xD card is very limited to digital cameras, especially compacts. While this 2 formats, on the surface, seems to be very different, it is worth noting that Sd cards has such a large market share compared to xD cards. After all, the only way to expand xD is displace some parts of the SD market user (people going for small and light memory cards).
2. Enemies? Long zoom range compact digital cameras.
Before Panasonic lanched their highly sucessful FZ long zoom series, Olympus was the only other camera to offer a decent long zoom. This all changed with the introduction of the Panasonic FZ1 and FZ2 and later on the more famous FZ10 and FZ20, and recently the FZ30 and FZ50. This rendered the Olypmus long range zooms rather obsolete. Only recently has Olympus managed to steal the headlines with thei new super 18X zoom cameras, the SP-550 UZ. However, it does seem to offer less advanced features than Panasonic current top-of-the-line FZ50 (for example, it doesnt have an external hotshoe) and it seems to be targeting the low end of the long zoom market, the FZ5, FZ6, FZ7 and FZ8 range.
Now, with the 4/3s system, has they patched up their past?
3. Enemies? High end standard zooms
Olympus has made a high end standard zoom for the 4/3s format, the Olympus 14-54 f2.8-3.5. On the other hand, Panasonic first lense into the market was the Leica 14-50 f2.8-3.5 with MOIS. This is a direct competition, but not as of yet. This is because the Leica is only available with purchase of the Panasonic L1 (or Leica Digilux 3) and not sold on its own while the Olympus is available on its own (can this be considered as a friendly gesture on Panasonic’s part?). If Panasonic prices it similarly to the Olympus, then Olympus might lose out because the Panasonic has MOIS (this is assuming that image quality are comparable which is much expected since the Panasonic lense is given the Leica label).
4. Enemies? Standard zooms with long zoom range.
Both Olympus and Panasonic has a standard zoom with a long zoom range. The Olympus has a Olympus 18-180 f3.5-6.3. However, Panasonic 3rd lense is the Leica 14-150 f3.5-5.6 with IS. This offers a wider zoom range (at both ends too) with a wider aperture at the telephoto end. Moreover, it also has IS. In fact the Panasonic lense reminds me of the Nikon 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 VR. So this might not be very fierce competition, but people might be inclined to pay a bit more for 1) a wider angle at the wide end, 2) image stabilisation, 3) faster aperture at telephoto end and 4) Leica brand (especially if image quality is superior). The competition is not very direct, sort or like betweem the Sigma and Panasonic primes I mentioned above, but still woth a mention.
5. Enemies or allies? Image stabilisation
Olympus has recently released a camera (Olympus E-510) with image stabilisation built into the camera body by shaking the CCD. However, Panasonic uses lense based IS by shaking an IS group in the lense. There is no evidence that these 2 forms of IS will work together. I can think of 2 possible future scenarios:
1) Olympus and Panasonic work together to develop the first system that can exploit the advantage of having both the lense and body with image stabilisation. The gyrosensor distributes the amount of compensation the between the IS in the lense and the body, effectively increasing the number of stops reduced. Maybe they will market it as dual iamge stabilisation.
2. Olympus makes more cameras with built-in stabilisation so that lenses like their Olympus 14-54 f2.8-3.5 would not be less favourable than Panasonic’s 14-50mm f2.8-3.5 with MOIS. If users mount a Panasonic lense based IS onto a Olympus body-based IS system, users are forced to either turn of the in-camera stabilisation or the in-lense stabilisation. This will mean that for a lense that is similar in price, focal length and speed, Olympus will not lose the edge of havng no IS in their lense.
6. Allies? Camera sensor.
Olympus has abandoned Kodak non live-view sensors for Panasonic’s live view NMOS sensors. This can been seen as a friendly gesture. But their friendship would be put to the test once a second manufacturer (hopefully Fugifilm) comes into the game.
7. Allies? Camera parts.
The Panasonic L1 borrows many parts from Olympus (more specifically, the Olympus E-330), for example the “lenses mount, mirror box, auto focus and auto exposure sensors” (quote from here ). We have to see if Olympus is willing to share more for future generations of Panasonic cameras.
Conclusion
They are competitors, so they are foes. However, the “friendly” gestures seemed more money-motivated (sorry to put it in such a layman term). For example, Olympus uses Panasonic sensors because they are the onyl manufacturer that is willing and able to supply them with live view sensors (Canon is able, but I dont think they are willing, while Kodak should be willing, but should not be able). And the use of Olympus parts in the Panasonic L1 is beneficial to Olympus as they get to sell more stuff.
It would be interesting to see and monitor the developments in the near future. Whatever the case, the love-hate relation between Olympus and Panasonic will continue to be a deciding factor in whether the 4/3s system will continue to survive in this Canon-Nikon dominated DSLR world.
