[shoplink 37230 ebay]
[/shoplink]
It’s quite amazing how many compact camera Olympus did in the past. We are discovering some of their nicest products in our Amarcord column. Til now we saw the (Click on the name to read the article) Olympus 35 RD, Olympus Trip 35, Olympus PEN EED, Olympus 35 SP and the PEN F.
Recently Olympus launched the new body cap lens that has a constant f/8.0 aperture. Many of you argued that f/8.0 is a huge limit and a faster body cap lens should be done by Oly. And actually….Olympus already did such a compact and fast lens in the past! The [shoplink 37230 ebay]Olympus PEN-W (ebay auctions here)[/shoplink] used an extremely compact and fixed 25mm f/2.8 lens (see picture on top). This Pen Series camera was designed specifically for wide-angle photography (Source Olympus). To see how compact this lens is you can also watch that youtube video. Ok, so it’s possible…but how good is a lens like that? Lars-Göran Hedström posted a full review of the PEN-W on his blog Sculptingwithlight (Click here). Greta pics!
Now let’s see if Olympus can do a lens like that for the MFT system too!
Olympus PEN-W auctions on [shoplink 37230 ebay]eBay (Click here)[/shoplink].
There is a commerative Gold finished PEN-W on [shoplink 37231 ebay]eBay US (Click here)[/shoplink].
57 Responses
Anyway will a pancake lens 25mm F2.8 be nice, by 25mm and F2.8 need we more usable focus, but then can be more compact so 17mm pancake lens is.
Learn English.
fark off
Learn some respect and manners. And then come back when you can speak 3 languages (German, Spanish and Italian) fluently plus some not so bad Portugese, French and Dutch, as well some some awful, non-understandable, undecipherable English (!) as admin does.
Your great English language is a conglomeration of many languages anyway. And most common English names are derived from Hebrew, Greek and Latin names.
Be careful where you tread. You may be shocked to find that French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Italian, etc., etc., along with English, are also a conglomeration from other languages.
And, yes, I’m an American, and shockingly I speak more than one language fluently. Sorry to disappoint you.
Most of European languages come from latin. Even most words come from latin/greek. I wish people could walk some more mile in some other’s shoes, before criticizing.
Quite incorrect.
Some European languages come from Latin.
Most? Nope.
caver3d, I am neither shocked nor disappointed. Because I already know and agree with what you say in your first sentence. Yet I did not make the point because I did not need to. In reply to the O.P., it was not necessarily relevant to make it, since the subject in question was the English language.
He must be either from the U.S. or English Canada to make such a chauvinistic remark.
My previous comment was by no means intended to accuse everyone in the US or english Canada but to rather spell out the truth about a number of individuals (a minority) who think that everyone in this world should speak English as they do. They obviously only speak English and have no interest in learning any other language, and will make no efforts, no matter which country they visit, to try to respecfully learn the native languages.
Hahah nice try at backpedalling but this is still one of the best examples of hypocrisy I have seen.
No packpeddeling but just a clarification. I would hate to think that you felt that I was speaking about you, or did you feel accused for some reason? Based on my experience from having seen how certain individuals behave, and how many of these individuals feel that everyone should speak English, I will not retrack my previous comments. Do you make an effort to speak French when you visit Québec, or speak Italian when you visit Italy? If you can answer yes to this question then you have no reason for being insulted.
US. English Canadians and British people aren’t so full of themselves like some Americans.
And don’t leave out us Aussies, we practice bigotry with the best of them!
People can be ignorant, regardless of what they speak or where they are from. I’m just saying.
I am not sure unfortunately, there are jerks the world over.
Republican, right wing christian without the humility
Stick your anti-US comments where the sun don’t shine rdc, as they are as uncalled for as the ‘learn English’ comment that you responded to. A jerk is a jerk, they come from all countries. And yes, the ‘learn English’ commenter is a troll/jerk.
+1
Today’s Irony Prize goes to RDC because he and “anonymous” seem to be competing for who can be more of a biggot. By the way, I live in Canada and have no idea what you are smoking. I also can’t understand (aside from blind prejudice) why he would single out English speaking Canadians vs. French speaking Canadians as being more chauvinistic???
Since they say that the 5 axis IBIS doesn’t fit into a PEN camera, I wonder if they could integrate it into the new external viewfinder. If so, I would forgive them for not including it into the body. 🙂
The IBIS component sits around the sensor, so no it wont be in any external vf.
How do you want to put a SENSOR-SHIFT IBIS into an external viewfinder? 😉
The shift mechanism have to be in the body, but they could put the sensors in the viewfinder module. Don’t make much (any?) sense though.
Oly already has a compact with 5-axes IBIS, so the 5-axes mechanism does not require a hump.
Which compact has 5 axis?
Olympus Stylus SH-50
Well, I didn’t know about that. I thought they said E-PL5 couldn’t have 5 axis IBIS without a hump. So in the end it was only a marketing reason for that statement, and It also means that the new PEN could have the fantastic OMD IBIS.
Admin, can you ask this to your sources ? 🙂
Right now I have a hard time deciding between OMD and Fuji X-E1, but if the E-P5 will have 5 axis IBIS and better senzor, then it’s an easy one. 😉
Olympus Stylus SH-50
Cool,
I will have to see one in store – I often get people asking me to recommend a camera for them and for most people I recommend the rx100 at the moment – although I can imagine IBIS would be very useful for a compact so will definitely trial one of these.
The amazing compact Zuiko lens for me is still the on inside the Olympus XA, bright, super flat design and it was a focusing (RF) six element five group 35mm f/2.8 on 135 A pancake portrait on mFT would be maybe the ultimate street lens?
Well, I am not sure. I am now comparing three lenses the 14mm, the 17mm, and the 30mm lens. The latter is more suited for portraits OC, but possibly the first two for environmental portraits.
It’s a myth, no lens is suitable if you don’t have a clear idea of the use you are going to make it. In forums most are good collectors and bad photogs. So we get a completely distorted view.
Nonsense. There is no evidence for such a bold statement.
Having a single fixed focal and no need for an EVF with a simple VF window, and having no need for a mount saves money and means the camera can be unusually thin. This is the ultimate in cheap larger sensor cameras
Easy to make weatherproof like ‘Tough’ it has all the makings of a cult camera. Rather than routine ‘one the same as the next’ Pens, it is one camera Olympus simply should have offered.
The Pen/OM series can be a very strong marketing brand for Olympus if they handled it well. We should see more Olympus ads highlighting their photography heritage.
definetly…both of the series were massive…do you think there is some technical limit to not produce OM serries with film size senzor?…the OM lenses are nice & small…why Oly with digital started with 43 senzor…and if in the past there was limitation to keep the overall digital small …are they still valid?
Why break up the product line when the four thirds sensor is more than capable against apsc. Maybe they might consider something alot (approx FF) larger but the gap between apsc and ft is minuscule.
It’s more than a year that I long/wait for Olympus to show some fixed lens-pocketable-fast-high quality camera (Fuji x100 anyone?). I stopped dreaming and waiting. Now I’m waiting for my new x100s.
+1. Olympus has the know-how, history and quality to make some standout products for the digital age. Apart from OM-D, a lot of what Olympus does now is fragmented concepts spread throughout too many models and classes of cameras. Less products and more cohesive, direct strategies would be better. Strangely enough, and as you allude to, this is what Fuji has been doing lately with its its X branded cameras and XF mount lens system. While Fuji products do have their quirks and are designed for a more discerning market (some call niche), it shows they are willing to take risks and do different things to the other companies.
It is quite amazing what Fuji has managed to do in 2-3 years since the original X100 was brought to the market. And I cannot remember a camera company (or any company for that matter) in recent times to so quickly respond to user feedback over the two years of its product’s life (X100) and come up with a successor model (X100S) that addresses just about every single one of those feedbacks and more.
This is so different to what m4/3 seems to be doing which is more minor iterations and leaving off features while still charging as much or even more than the competition. This kind of strategy has worked for C & N for many years, being the big two established players. But companies like Olympus cannot afford to play the game this way. They must be more like Fuji is now: innovate, take some risks, give the customers especially the enthusiasts and loyal users the products they are asking for, respond quickly to user feedbacks through firmwares and develop future models that address past failures instead of repeating them. Putting all the emphasis on OM-D as the flagship line while the PEN models and small sensored compacts play as backup and support roles is not a good strategy. One product line cannot sustain the entire imaging division for that long. 2013/14 could end up being a great year for innovation for Olympus but it may be too little too late. The vagueness in communication to its users and lack of a public roadmap has become frustrating and annoying, leading many to look to other brands and systems for solutions.
In 2013, I’ve decided I’m going to put my money with Fuji and get the X100S. 35mm equivalent and fixed is not restrictive to me. It will serve me well for many uses, and until I decide what system to go with for the UWA side and the short tele/portrait side. Waiting to see how Fuji’s 10-24mm f/4 (15-36) and 56mm (84) f/1.4 turn out as well as Panasonic’s 42.5mm (85) f/1.2 and a possible UWA m4/3 prime. That will ultimately decide whether I go with m4/3 or Fuji X in the long term.
Praising Fuji for releasing products, which had beta status at best, and still do not have a state for art auto focus, sound pretty silly.
The risk to start with a mirrorless system like Panasonic did with the G1 was much higher than Fuji took with its X series, which started when it was already clear the retro look is popular. The risk medal for introducing retro in an affordable product (Leica was always retro) with exchangeable lenses, belongs to Olympus with their PEN line.
Fuji mostly copied what existed before (Leica, PEN), did canonical stuff not very good (AF, operation speed), and invented something, which is today almost superfluous (hybrid view finder) given the current quality of EVFs.
Panasonic had a lens line up ranging from ultra wide (14mm equiv.) to strong tele (400mm equiv.) within around six month. That pace is not matched by Fuji.
mahler, I appreciate your opinion. Thanks for sharing it. But I don’t share it. Your response, typical of many invested in m4/3, sounds spiteful, rather than balanced, towards other brands and systems’ efforts.
The Fuji AF being substandard is now (X100S) and will be (X-Pro1 and X-E1 successors) a thing of the past. They now have a hybrid AF system with PDAF on sensor combined with CDAF. And unlike the Canon EOS M and Sony NEX systems, it actually delivers what it promised. Early reports of the X100S AF speed and operational performance show it as good as any competing mirrorless system right now. I have not heard much reports on the tracking AF performance, however. That would be interesting should that be an improvement also. When DPReview and Imaging Resource and other stalwart reviewers get their full reviews and analyses out, we will objectively see whether the Fuji hybrid AF is legitimised as a state of the art AF system or not. Right now, we are going by what individual testers and users say who have early or full production samples of the X100S. Photography Blog has done their condensed style review already. They awarded the X100S 5/5 in all of their testing categories, except for the value for money category which rates it 4.5/5. So 4.9/5 overall. Not too bad. I can only see highest recommendations and Gold Awards for the X100S henceforth.
Your point of copying what existed before is a weak argument against product development. If no one copies or mimics anyone else, then we only have the original product. We would have no Japanese optical and camera manufacturers if they did not mimic the Germans and other Western Europeans. Also, no Japanese musical instrument makers, watch makers, electronics makers, automobile makers, etc. The world would have been poorer for it were that the case. The same would be true now of the Koreans and Chinese, mimicking and imitating their Japanese and Western counterparts in fields of industry and technology. What is wrong with taking influence and inspiration from other products, companies and cultures? Nothing that I see for the most part, except for trademark and copyright breaches.
Besides, Fuji has done plenty of innovation. The Fuji X-Trans sensor is a novel (in a good sense) development that sets it apart from traditional Bayer sensors, providing a unique interpretation and rendition of a digital photographic image. I personally like the X-Trans output a lot. Sure, there are issues with it, but these can be worked around and can be solved over time. They join Foveon in taking a risk with sensor development and put themselves in the firing line of high criticism from protective/defensive users invested in their status quo systems, who wish others to have no options other than their options. Viable, widely available RAW support is now a reality with Adobe coming to the table and sorting out the demosaicing problem with their updated softwares. Hybrid Viewfinder is a great implementation for the style of cameras the Fuji X100/S and X-Pro are. It gives users options between optical, electronic and rear display (LCD) composition. The EVF in the X100S is a new 2,360k dot LCD finder, most probably made by EPSON; so quality is assured. If one doesn’t like the optical implementation, they can just leave it on the EVF all the time, and have one of the best EVFs currently on the market.
It’s obvious that Fuji are envisioning and targeting a very different user to what Panasonic considers for m4/3. Whilst most people would like more lens choices all the time, what Fuji has released so far is very good and high quality. How many of m4/3’s lenses are slow kit-zooms? (No need to answer that.) For me, quality over quantity. Always. I only need to cover three main focal lengths/ranges, so I’m not looking for 100+ native lenses from a system. Besides, there is always the MF option available by adapting legacy lenses in the ILC models.
There will always be criticisms from competing forces with vested interests and nit-picking gearheads who seldom or never take photos out in the real world. (Not saying you are one or both of them, mahler. Just an overall observation, that’s all.) The Fujinon 35mm f/1.4, 18-55mm f/2.8-4 and 14mm f/2.8 (virtually an optically distortion free ultra-wide angle) are already exceptional lenses. Even more so when you can pick up the 35 prime and the 18-55 zoom for around $300-400 as part of a kit. Several more lenses for the X mount will be announced and released within the next several months, including some from Zeiss.
I follow most camera systems and can see good points in all of them, even if I would never consider most of them for my uses. I bought into m4/3 because for me it does away with the need for P&S compacts and bridge cameras. I don’t need shirt pocketability, so an m4/3 RF styled camera with a compact zoom or prime lens replaces my P&S compacts. But for a long-term system where I will likely spend considerable money, I am more convinced by the Fuji X system than with m4/3. This is my own analyis that addresses my own purposes and requirements. I try and present my case, though I don’t need or want to convince others for the same. Let others make their own choices. But I have to counter and refute unjustified criticisms and poorly informed judgements, that has the potential to mislead others into forming and holding the same misguided views. I try and do this in a considered manner.
Enjoy and make good use of your camera gear, whatever that may be.
Well, no need to recall the benefits of the Fuji System. However, you claim somehow, that Fuji is THE innovator and are impressed, how quick they developed their system. I see that differently.
Fuji released their products in a way, that wasn’t really acceptable in some basic aspects, slow AF and operation, lots of quirks in the menu system. They needed two years to fix only some of it.
If I compare that with the system start of m4/3, Panasonic had this right from the beginning. The G1 had already fast AF, quick operation, and almost no quirks. Image quality wasn’t has good as we have it today, but at that time nobody had it better.
The fact that raw editor developers needed so much time to provide proper raw support, does not speak for Fuji as well, since it seems that they did not cooperate well with the software companies.
Last, I think the Fuji lens line up is too small with not enough range. Sure, it develops, but as I said, it does not gain range fast enough.
You kind of blamed the m4/3 zooms. Actually, the ones, which are crucial to a system (like he first 14-45mm or the 7-14mm) received a lot of praise and were available – as I said – within six months after the availability of the system.
I do like the Fuji X System. I think it is the second best after m4/3 and as its own merits. However, I find the development of the system too slow and inconsequent, as Fuji seems to reach state of the art performance in too many and too slow iterations. Many users say that the X-E1 is still a relatively slow camera. Why can’t Fuji fix this, even after three years? Olympus and Panasonic can engineer cameras on par with DSLR systems regarding performance. Why not Fuji?
mahler, thanks for the good discussion so far. I’ll just address some of your points if I can. Apologies for the lengthy post. I’ll try and keep my comments relevant and interesting.
– I did not claim Fuji is THE innovator, as you put it. They are A innovator. The X-Trans sensor being perhaps their most important contribution in recent times.
– Not even the most dedicated Fuji enthusiast would doubt that Fuji has had poor AF speed and operational performance. This also persists in many of their cameras which carry over from before the X100S was released. Let me just make this point here first. The major criticism concerning the Fuji AF is its speed, not its accuracy. In the original X100, the time it takes to lock onto a subject or area of focus can be painfully slow. But when it does lock on, it is highly accurate and will result in well focused images. Firmwares addressed AF performance and other quirks to a good degree, but never completely resolved them. Some of these issues carried over to the X-Pro1 and X-E1, where again, firmware addresses some issues but have not fully resolved them. Much of this is due to hardware limitations too, so we must not forget that.
I think also much of the criticisms and high scrutiny directed at Fuji in the last couple of years has been a little unfair, if I may say so. Many camera brands and models suffer AF problems and operational idiosyncrasies, even more so than Fuji. Sigma DP, Ricoh GXR, Pentax K-01, Canon EOS M, Sony NEX, and Olympus in the early stages of m4/3 have all their fair share of AF woes and camera quirkiness. I think because Fuji aimed high from the outset, this drew a lot of attention, and subsequently, both high praise and high criticism from the photographic community. I suppose it just may be “one of those things”, that Fuji cameras will always bear the scars of having quirks and persistent operational issues. This is true of many products made throughout industrial history. But how much is ingrained prejudice and how much is actual, present reality? It’s hard to shake off a reputation, whether positive or negative, but especially if it’s negative. Even if and when Fuji addresses all its camera issues, there will always be those who will criticise something unjustifiably because of the past.
– I remember the beginnings of m4/3 well. I have been following it since the start in 2008/9, so I know how both Panasonic and Olympus fared in those days. I agree that Panasonic had their version of the system more sorted than Olympus did from the beginning, even though Olympus had the greater photographic heritage by far.
Panasonic really didn’t have a lot going for it in the ILC market before m4/3, as 4/3 was a dismal failure for them. Panasonic had already been doing some positive things in the compact camera market with its LX, TZ and FZ lines, and you can see these design and feature influences in its Lumix G m4/3 cameras today. The reason Panasonic’s AF was good from the start is they had already done a lot of investment into the contrast detect system for several years already. They chose their path early and have stuck with it since, improving as each m4/3 model was released. But this also begs the question: since m4/3 is a joint system shared by Olympus and Panasonic, why did they not both have the same level of AF performance from the beginning? Olympus’s AF was highly criticised despite a lot of positive sentiment for the PEN concept, and it was not until the E-P3 in mid-2011 that its AF got to the level we are used to associate with m4/3 today. But that’s history now, and it doesn’t matter to users now in 2013.
– Concerning the RAW support of the X-Trans sensor, Fuji stated several times when asked in several media, that they had already gave Adobe and other prominent software vendors all the literature they needed in order to properly decode the X-Trans algorithms. Now, what more can be said. Capture One Pro 7.0.2 gave full support to the best of their abilities back in January 2013. And now Adobe have announced official support in ACR and Lightroom updates.
– Fuji X system’s currently available lens selection is small but the roadmap is strong. What is available should not hinder someone from taking photographs of quality. The system has now a:
Fisheye: Samyang 8mm f/2.8 (12mm)
Ultra-wide angle: Fujinon 14mm f/2.8 (21mm)
Wide angle: Fujinon 18mm f/2 (27mm)
“Standard”: Fujinon 35mm f/1.4 (53mm)
Macro/short tele: Fujinon 60mm f/2.4 (91mm)
Standard zoom: Fujinon 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS (27-84mm)
Six more Fujinon lenses are scheduled for 2013, but it is unlikely we will see them all until early 2014. Roadmaps are a guide, not a guarantee of delivery.
– I never blamed the m4/3 zooms (as you put it) for anything, other than to imply that there were too many slow kit-zooms released from both Panasonic and Olympus. Each brand could have offered from the beginning one slow (yet quality) standard kit-zoom for consumers and budget users, plus one variable aperture faster standard zoom akin to their 4/3 versions for enthusiast users. Had this been done, we would have all saved a lot of time, energy and internet bandwidth, and both Olympus and Panasonic would have made a lot more sales. Panasonic almost got it right, but they abandoned the original 14-45 as a widely available kit-lens in favour of a mediocre plastic mount version; adding to that a novel though substandard “pancake” power-zoom version; and finally coming back to square one with the newly released 14-42 II, which, from early reports, appears to match or even exceed the quality of the original 14-45.
– One last point in an already lengthy post. I read in an Imaging Resource interview with Fuji that they had been researching and working on X-Trans as early as 2006-7. A lot of groundwork and trial and error had to be done before the concept could be realised in photographic form. What this tells me is that most of Fuji’s budget in developing the X system went to the sensor. That could explain why other aspects of their cameras suffered. Budget constraints and limited resources did not allow them to put the best performing components in their cameras. Not until it was viable to do so. Now that they are selling more cameras and lenses, they can begin to recoup some of their investment monies. And with those profits, they can now afford to manufacture better performing products, of which the X100S is a prime (pun intended) example. Well, this is just my take. Sounds plausible enough, does it not?
Long comments, but I enjoyed reading everything. And I agree with you aout everything wrote.
Thanks, Marco. I like good discussions and sharing info, rather than the typical fanboy madness. mahler had some good points to make too. My part of the thread is running out of room, so I’ll continue these discussions in another post when I feel like commenting.
Right. What I really can’t understand is how Olympus can be so deaf and blind to (loyal) customers. Olympus has also a history, to take inspiration from. And many customers would be happy to see some of its old glories shining again with current technology. Fuji has not such a long history, in terms of cameras, BUT it’s listening to feedback from customers, and results are here before our eyes. I could not stand x100 slow AF, nor EX1 with its 35mm f1.4: they are so slow that it was almost frustrating, at least to me, used to my em-5 and fast (even slower) primes. Now things have changed, with x100s, and Fuji gained my attention (and some of my hard earned money).
Marco, your story is similar to so many users out there, including myself. Have you already arranged to purchase an X100S with your local store? Or are you waiting for more confirmation and assurance from full reviews? I won’t be able to afford a new camera until later on in the year, for a few more months. Too many other bills and expenses to pay at this time, unfortunately.
ISO… Not yet: my local store can sell me x100s for 1120 € in ten days, and I have found an even better price at another store (it’s quite far but they will send it by UPS). As you, there are other more important bills to pay. I have seen many reviews about x100s, last video on FujiRumors, and it looks like a really good camera. What I like is that its main flaw (slow AF) has been fixed. Now it’s a really good all-round camera.
??? well i have a PEN by a 17mm F1.8 and also 12mm at 75mm, so i only need a 25mm F1.8. (but i hope the not the lens come one a new camera by firmlens 😉 )
Imqø: the post is about a fixed lens camera, and I’d like Olympus to present us a camera like this. I also have all range of Zuiko lenses, and I love the overall quality. If Olympus would offer a 25mm lens I personally would not buy it, since I already have PanasonicLeica 25mm and I find it a good lens, even wide open.
Not only fixed lens camera, also lens cap.
But if Olympus will come by a 43 sensor in a fixed lens camera think i the will be a 17mm.
Inqø, I think that Olympus should have already done it: Fuji x100 could have teached Olympus something about a “new” niche of customers, but sadly we (me) are still waiting for something similar. Yes, a 35mm equivalent would be a classic focal lenght, and I would love to see and have a camera with a high quality lens COUPLED with a good sensor. Coupling lens to sensor has advantages, even in output quality of images taken. I know x100(s) is not shirt-pocketble, but still is easy to carry around.
I am not sure why there is such a need for a rangefinder style, however I am sure that there must be some limitations on space. While the NEX7 does have an internal EVF it lacks IBIS, and has done on every NEX camera. As IBIS is an integral part of Olympus offerings swapping it for an internal EVF would probably not make everyone happy.
Add to this, that Olympus has already sold a great deal of EVFs to purchasers of the Pen cameras and one starts wonder, would they upset a lot of EVF owners who would feel like their purchase i redundant on their next camera choice?
So does Olympus say that the new EP5 will have the new IBIS, or a swivel screen etc. There must be tradeoffs, the Fuji X100 is not smaller than a PEN, the lens is integrated into the body… While their newest cameras show a good size tradeoff and EVF, they also lack IBIS, and their lenses are quite large in comparison.
Personally I think we have a great deal of choice, we have a body barely larger than a pen with the built in EVF, we have very small bodies in the PEN line with an optional EVF for when it is needed. It will be interesting to see what Olympus feels is the right tradeoff.
but I will go onthe record saying this, the fact they are introducing the EP5, it will have an EVF built in. There would be little reason to launch it without one, as all these companies seem to react to each other, this will be Olympus’ move against the new Fujis and NEX6/NEX7. So I am going to say the rumor it has not EVF is wrong, but then… I could be wrong.
Some people like the viewfinder in the left corner in stead of in the middle as you it some extent makes it easier to avoid touching the LCD. You’d get the same effect putting the viewfinder on the right side, but mot people ar right handed.
I’ve never seen this as a problem though and like the viewfinder in the middle, or close to the middle. I’d really like a viewfinder that dont protude as much on the top of the camera though. The E-M5 is particulrary bad in that area, but a lot of dSLRs also have a hump in the middel for viewfinder and flash. Maybe not a problem for a large dSLR that you’r never try to fit i a pocket anyway, but the hump makes it a lot of difference on a smaller camera that just about go into a large pocket or small bag.
Abraham, you make some fair points and do it in a sensible manner. I’ve made my position on the integrated EVF issue well known on this blog already in several posts. I won’t repeat them here. Do a search if you wish. To say it in short, I am a strong proponent for an m4/3 RF styled camera with an integrated EVF, for both matters of practicality and principle.
You realise you are challenging admin’s reputation by going against the FT5 rumor, don’t you? He has rarely, if ever, been wrong on an FT5. But we will find out soon enough.
As much as I like Olympus and as much as I want the E-P5 to be that RF style camera with the i-EVF that so many m4/3 users do, I am starting to realise that Olympus looks after No.1 by thinking of No.1, instead of looking after No.1 by looking after those who would support No.1 by buying No.1’s products and staying with No.1’s system in the long-term. In other words, I think the FT5 rumor stands.
Just in case folks have forgottent that the PEN cameras were “half frame” 35mm i.e. cropped “film” cameras with a crop of 1.4x
The 25mm f/2.8 lens on a 18x24mm (30mm diagonal) half frame is 35mm equivalent.
A 17mm or 14mm lens on a FourThirds sensor would make an interesting new Olympus compact.
If samples in the sculpting with light blog are typical of what this lens is possible of I am not impressed. They were all soft, particularly in the edges and corners.
Small primes, of which I have a range, are ideally suited for Pens (or GF/GX). Up to a point, because you have IBIS and fast AF, one can work without an EVF at all.
The OM-D series is a natural with zooms, since it allows accurate framing, even in difficult conditions. The EVF increase the size, but perhaps it is not a factor since you already have to deal with bigger lenses.
So to me the matter comes sown to: do I want a small bag, or not? I some cases it might be good not to alert at all people to your having a camera.