I’ve once again come across comments in a discussion thread about things I actually thought had long since been debunked. But some stories seem to take on a life of their own, and at some point they become an ‘urban legend’. The stories that ‘the FT was only built because 35mm sensors were too expensive back then’ and ‘If only they’d known back then…’.
No. I’ve written about this here before – how the idea for the FT came about in the first place. Kodak had absolutely nothing to do with it.
In 1999, Katsuhiro Takada was commissioned to develop a concept for a future-proof, digital camera system with interchangeable lenses. At that stage, it wasn’t even about the bayonet mount, but actually about the optics and the dimensions. The story went something like this: he flew to Paris for a photographers’ conference to find out what requirements Western professional photographers had for a camera system. On the return flight, he began sketching out the system. Six months later, he submitted his concept, the key specification of which was a sensor measuring 17.3 x 13 mm. The focus was not on the availability of 35mm sensors, but rather on the technical and optical limitations. The diffraction limit of the FT sensor was calculated to be in excess of 50MP – which was considered, both then and now, to be sufficient for every conceivable application of a consumer device.
This format had the advantage of allowing higher-quality optics to be built smaller. This makes them more affordable and portable. For professionals, it offers the benefit of a greater depth of field. And it has the advantage that the sensors are faster and easier to cool.
For a long time, sensor technology in FT cameras was superior to that in 35mm cameras. The noise level was not two stops worse, but only one stop. This was complemented by f/2 zooms. Olympus developed sensors without rolling shutter and even sensors capable of capturing two images simultaneously across different wavelength ranges. They were eight years ahead of the competition in sensor development and five years ahead in lens development.
On top of that, the use of FT sensors made the manufacture of medical technology technically simpler. In medical technology, macro imaging and depth of field are extremely important – the size of the FT sensors was, and remains, the gold standard in this field.
And then, in 2016, someone ‘slammed on the brakes’. From 2017 onwards, there were no more innovations. Existing developments were either discontinued or put on indefinite hold. They kept slapping new labels on the old technology and selling it for even more money. Marketing shifted to paid influencers.
35mm caught up.
The FT sensors were still unbeatably fast – but OMDS came up with the brilliant idea of launching cameras with neutered sensors. Slow shutters, tiny memory, sluggish SD drives.
35mm overtook them.
FT had led the way on every front – partly due to the smaller format. The dust shaker was easier to implement in the smaller format. The stabiliser was more effective due to the lower mass. Cooling was simpler because the sensor didn’t get as hot. The sensors were incredibly fast – partly due to the short signal paths. There was the Top Pro series, which delivered (and still delivers) unbeatable image quality.
The others had a decade to catch up and overtake.
Now the next leap in innovation is here: LOFIC. A LOFIC sensor for mFT is far easier to build than a LOFIC for 35mm. LOFIC in the 1-inch range already exists and outperforms 35mm. It’s as if Takada had already known this back in 1999. 50MP on FT with 18 stops of dynamic range? Sure, no problem.
So the question isn’t whether FT/mFT is inferior to 35mm systems – it isn’t. The question is whether someone will come along to restore mFT’s potential technological lead. Or whether the mFT’s gravediggers will be allowed to carry on.
Olympus got it all right back in 1999. The 14–54, which came out two decades ago, is still a superb lens. Only the Panasonic 12–60 f/2.8–4.0 beats it (the Olympus 12–60s are now all dying with aperture ring sticking issues), but it isn’t as well corrected. Market share had grown by 2016. Back then, Olympus was the market leader in the mirrorless sector. Sony, Nikon and Samsung were merely background noise. Only Canon, with its M series, had prospects for growth.
Nikon’s V series is gone, Canon’s M series is gone, Samsung has disappeared entirely, and Sony has since come up with a new mount. mFT is now the oldest mirrorless mount on the market. They got everything right.
They just shouldn’t have rested on their laurels.
Cover photo: A model who, back when the E-P1 was launched in Berlin, was allowed to stand around in a retro swimsuit and showcase the camera. Connoisseurs will notice straight away: this can’t work – the 14–42 isn’t extended. You can’t take photos like that. But you can’t have everything…