I think there’s a gap in the market for a system with a 1" or APS-C sensor and built in speed booster to allow full frame lenses to be added. Give it a system to mount vintage lenses and market it to people who want the character of vintage lenses. Add film sims. Treat low resolution and noise as “character”, keep it pretty, light and affordable. No ibis, limited specs.
Full-frame lenses on a body with a 1" sensor seems like it could be quite unbalanced? I could see it more with APS-C though, or M43.
If OM System could incorporate a speed booster or other way to replicate the benefits of full frame, I could see that as a big win for them. I fear they have dug themselves into a bit of a hole with M43 and are forever doomed to be a niche brand now. Panasonic have their full-frame L mount to diversify their offering, but OM System doesn’t have any other options. And I think this is a shame because they have some ideas and expertise that bring a lot to the industry. All other brands are involved with at least two different sensor formats.
But what is the advantage of an adapted FF lens, to a native m43 lens? Native will always be smaller and cheaper.
1 Like
Because there are so many great vintage lenses out there. They’re generally smaller and lighter than modern lenses and have a lot of character.
1 Like
OM is full frame and is one of my favourite systems. OM-D looked like a good idea, but none of the cameras ever took my interest.
I don’t quite see how. So that one could use vintage FF lenses on an OM body? Such products already exist, and have their own compromises. Olympus/OM has a tradition of optical excellence (for a given price point, of course) and may not see value in diluting that for no good reason.
What’s wrong with being niche, if it is sustainable? Many brands are niche, in the sense that they are serving a very limited audience, and have been doing fine. Photography itself is a niche activity.
I think it is a uniquely modern conceit that every company should aim for market domination. We should probably name it the “niche fallacy” 
State infrastructure — they have one camera for every 2 citizens (!). No need to invest in your own kit, just grab an image from the cloud.
2 Likes
Olympus has messed everyone around and called their modern OM-D stuff OM. I’m referring to the the original analogue full frame OM lenses in contrast to their modern u4/3 kit.
I love the OM film system because it’s light-weight, performs really well and have a lovely rendering.
Nothing wrong with being niche, so maybe poor wording on my part. But Olympus, now OM, has had a sad decline from the days when it was more of a player in the industry. Estimates put it at having about 10-15% market share at its peak. Now it’s something like 3%.
So when I say doomed to be niche, I’m thinking more of how it’s doomed to be a very small player now. I wouldn’t expect it to aim for market domination, and if it can be sustainable within its niche, then that is successful too. But the niche territory comes with less money for R&D and probably means fewer product releases. From my point of view as a user, that’s a shame. Olympus was my first serious camera, and so I have a soft spot for them.
It’s a personal thing for me, but I typically want to invest in a system that is flexible, dynamic and offers lots of choice. I am starting to see the appeal of a brand that works with two different sensor sizes and their mount is compatible with both. Most brands are like this, but the two that I own - Fuji and OM - are not! Both Z and E mount offer lots of possibilities for bodies and lenses.
But I’m not arguing that this is important for everyone.
2 Likes
One always have to weigh alternatives.
A smaller sensor system like M43 opens opportunities for reducing lens size – which has been an important purchasing factor for many users of M43. If you are to use a double standard gear wardrobe, the lenses will need to cover the larger sensor and, hence, the size advantage of the smaller system is lost.
Can as well have two completely different system.
1 Like
I always though that was supposed to be the point, but the better bodies never seemed as small (or the glass as cheap) as I would have expected.
2 Likes
Yes, valid points. Although I was mainly referring to the ability to use both crop and FF lenses on the same mount. I know it’s sometimes frowned upon to use an APS-C lens on a full-frame sensor, but as long as you have the resolution, e.g. in the 33-61 MP range, then you are essentially able to use the FF body as an APS-C camera and get the benefit of smaller lenses at times when it makes sense.
At some point in the future, I could envisage a situation where I have both an APS-C and FF body with the same mount, e.g. a6500 and A7V, or ZFc and Z7 II, with a selection of APS-C and FF lenses, and I can mix and match the lenses and bodies to suit the situation.
While I would usually want to use FF lenses on the FF body most of the time, it could also be good to put an APS-C telephoto lens in your kit to benefit from the increased reach and smaller size when out for a long day and wildlife might be around.
I currently have both M43 and APS-C with two different systems - OM and Fuji - but without using adapters, I can’t mix and match anything. I will probably streamline my kit(s) one day, and I’m seeing the appeal of a brand whose mount works with different image circles.
Not necessarily the best approach for everyone, but I’m exploring it.
2 Likes
This would make a lot of sense in theory, especially with high-res sensors, but unfortunately in practice, brands that have both APS-C and FF mostly reserve their better lenses for their FF lineups, not the other way around.
The slight exception seems to be, again, E-mount, but only to the extent that their APS-C line has good lenses too, both from Sony and 3d party manufacturers.
However, I still think we live in a golden age: regardless of the lens mount, everyone is offering pretty capable bodies (their advantages/disadvantages only matter for specialty applications), and up to 100 mm ff equiv, lenses are pretty affordable if you know what you are doing. It’s only constant zooms and pro telephoto lenses that remain very expensive.
I am slowly zeroing in on what kind of lenses I enjoy shooting with. Recently I took the Panasonic 35–100mm f/4–5.6 (and nothing else) on a hike for “compressed landscape” and I was delighted with the results. I don’t care about the narrow aperture since I am doing landscapes at f/6.3 anyway, it is delightfully small, and I even got some bird pics with it now that I figured out how to pinpoint AF through tree branches.
4 Likes
Yes, you’re right, although as you say we thankfully have 3rd party manufacturers who create some very nice lenses for both APS-C and full frame. And these manufacturers are going from strength to strength right now, so the golden age is set to get even brighter, as long as prices don’t get out of control and/or legal disputes don’t ruin everything.
I also think Nikon is starting to take its APS-C line more seriously, so it will be interesting to see what smaller lenses they create going forward.
I think the telephoto range is where APS-C is still lacking, and this is where I see the most advantage.
As you say, E mount definitely is the one that makes most sense for mixing and matching crop and FF, both in terms of bodies and lenses. Even their “mid-range” bodies can be used as crop cameras because the A7 IV and V both have 33MP, which I think is the minimum you need for APS-C crop. And of course the A7R line gives you a 26MP image in crop mode, which is more than enough.
Nikon has potential, although only the Z7II and Z8 are options for bodies, and their lens options are more restrictive.
I’m not even considering Canon at the moment. The RF mount is just too restrictive for me at the moment, and I don’t have enough EF lenses for it to make sense. Plus, their x1.6 APS-C crop factor just simply annoys me for being different 
3 Likes
Yes, especially since the Sony A6700 is such a neat camera: compact, yet powerful, with enough dials and powerful AF. One can still get it new for 1300€.
2 Likes
Yes, it’s been on my watchlist for quite a while. It’s very well regarded and it’s a form factor I like a lot. If I hadn’t bought my X-T5 and OM-5, I might very well have had one by now. Pricey, but they hold their value on the used market well, so it’s a trade-off.
Previously, I always thought that if I went the Sony route, I would probably get the a7C, which is basically the same size as the a6700, but now I’m more tempted by the main a7 line (IV, V, RIII, RIV, etc.) and then the a6700 for a more compact walkabout 2nd camera. We’ll see…
1 Like
The a6X00 series is intriguing. They are the smallest APS-C bodies, and full-featured, too. And with a fine lens selection only rivaled by Fuji.
I use an a5100 as my webcam. It’s been running eight hours every workday for five years straight. No problems whatsoever (with a dummy battery and an HDMI grabber).
But somehow these cameras never appealed to me. I really can’t articulate why. Something about their design looks so… vanilla to me. Not unlike Lightroom’s UI, come to think of it. I realize that’s probably nonsense. Still, I find them weirdly, uniquely, unappealing.
I’ve handled my buddy’s A7R4 last year. A very capable camera no doubt. But even there, weirdly boring. Perhaps I’m a victim of influencer talk? They keep ragging on “soulless” Sony.
4 Likes
No, that’s not nonsense at all, and as you say, it’s not uncommon for influencers to say similar things. Sony in particular has a reputation for boring cameras and unappealing colours out of camera.
There again, their “vanilla” nature is also why some people praise them, including people like James Popsys and Roman Fox. They like the “blank canvas” of the files, and they like the idea of the camera being unobtrusive and getting out of the way of the creative process.
For me personally, I have no idea how I feel about them because I have never owned one. I guess it’s something I can’t form an opinion on until I do own one. I’m mainly tempted by the ecosystem, which is unrivalled. And for reasons I have already mentioned, they offer the best opportunities for mixing and matching because of the combination of glass selection and high-res bodies.
I’m still forming my opinions of what inspires me to take out a particular camera. I’m pretty sure it’s not just looks and ergonomics. I think it’s mainly formed around the purpose. If I’m travelling, I want compact and light with a versatile focal range. If I’m doing some serious woodland photography, I want the best image quality, comfortable ergonomics and not to have to worry if my kit can handle the conditions (e.g. high DR, low light). I’ve come to the conclusion that OOC JPEGs don’t bother me that much because I process RAWs 90% of the time. That said, I do enjoy Fuji’s film simulations for the inspiration they give me. I often try to emulate the look with my RAWs.
2 Likes
Even the elders amongst us have grown up with Nikon, Canon, Olympus etc. They invoke history. I had a Pentax Spotmatic. I longed for a Nikon F. I used an Olympus OM1n for several years, and it is still in my museum cupboard. This is fifty years of history, for me personally, which Sony does not have.
Of course, I am leaving Minolta out of the story. And so are all those Sony critics. Sony does have camera dna which, through Minolta, goes way back.
We are not taking photographs today with the cameras we dreamt of in out teens. We are taking pictures with today’s cameras, and mystique, where it exists at all, probably only really remains in those that, despite the advance of technology, remain difficult to use!
There is only so much variety one can put into the design of either “rangefinder” or slr-like bodies. What differences there are may suit different hands or different fingers. Or simply be aesthetic choices. Nobody has to buy Sony. Or Nikon, or Canon. Or Leica, etc etc.
I am an almost-accidental Sony user. I looked for a lightweight, small, affordable camera and got an a6000, at the start of my current photographic lifetime. Soon upgraded to a6500 (remember, always cheaper to buy only once!) and loved both cameras. Critics pour scorn on them, but make them black, put the name Leica on them, and the same critics would be grovelling. And, at 15 paces, there is not that much difference.
I loved those two cameras, partly because of how light and easy they were in the hand, (my) hand, but also because they were my path to what I do today, and my tiny little corner of fame in that obscure niche world.
I didn’t have the same love for my a7iv. But I loved the pictures it took. Even the jpegs, although now I work from raw. I can’t imagine being without it, and don’t have any particular GAS-type need to “upgrade.”
Even as I type this, I realise something. A camera’s soul is not about a century of history, it is about what we do with it.
end bedtime waffle 
5 Likes
A good bedtime waffle I think!
I think Sony deserves praise for what it has brought to the industry. Certainly praise for innovating and bringing its tech expertise to an industry struggling to compete with smartphones and moving to mirrorless. The amazing choice in cameras, sensors, lenses and tech today has been driven by Sony to a significant extent.
It’s quite incredible how well Sony did and continue to do considering it was labeled a “new player”.
But there’s an argument that it could have leaned into the Minolta heritage a bit more and not completely Sonyfied everything. Maybe it needed a clean break from the Minolta brand, I don’t know. But for many of us, there’s something comforting when we pick up a Canon, Nikon, Olympus camera and recognize it from the ones we had decades ago. Even Fuji, which wasn’t known for its stills cameras in the film era, has embraced heritage and is very successful because of that.
3 Likes
The post below is a decent summary of the 3rd-party lens situation in 2026.
A couple of gripes I have with it though are:
- It says that Sigma and Tamron are available for Nikon’s Z mount, although I think that’s a bit of a stretch considering how few native Z-mount Sigma lenses there are available. It’s just a trio of APS-C prime lenses as far as I know. Yes you can use an adapter, but I don’t consider that the same as native support
- In its brief summary of the L mount, it touts it as a best-case scenario for an ecosystem, but it doesn’t mention that one of the biggest 3rd-party manufacturers - Tamron - isn’t part of the alliance, and may never be because of its rivalry with Sigma. So I think E mount still beats it hands down.
1 Like