Since yesterday you can see links posted on forums (and even on my comment system) to rumor/news sites that claims to know that Olympus will launch a Full Frame OMD.
Well, of course you can never be 100% sure on any rumor (not even on 43rumors). But as far as I heard this is completely fake!!! I know I am not spectacular when I say this but as far as I heard Olympus will “only” announce an E-PL7 and probably a Silver E-M1 is going to be announced at photokina (among some great PRO lenses).
That said of course I would love to get a Full Frame version of the OMD. That’s why for once I posted a FT1 rumor months ago to keep dreaming a bit… 🙂
147 Responses
good decision by Olympus!
watch that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY
The only effect on me, after reading Zack post, was to lookfor a medium format and a large format camera.. :/
Ha, I did the same thing… then realized how steep that learning curve was 🙁
Steep but funny too!
Neeegligible – between FF and APS-C. I mean, in his comparison, as soon as you go over 2 steps, say M43 to FF, the difference gets quite obvious. Yes, there is a difference. A difference that I want.
Actually, it’s the other way around: APS-C is really much closer to MFT than FF. (~1/3 of a stop difference from MFT but 1 and 2/3 from FF, give or take a third, if you don’t crop.) There’s no significant differentiation between MFT and FF in terms of capabilities. Buy slightly faster glass for MFT and the difference goes away entirely.
No. APS is halfway between nano 43 and 135. It is one stop bigger (ie better) than nano 43 and one stop smaller (ie worse) than 135.
Why post that bs? It’s basic math, really.
Huh? No, the crop factor is half way between, but that’s a factor. The area of APS-C is only ~30% larger than MFT (and nearly the same height). FF is 4x the area of MFT. Huge difference there.
If you want to look at the crop factor, apply it to the aperture. Say you’re shooting f/1.4 on MFT. That’s about f/2.8 on FF. On APS-C that’s f/1.8. f/1.4-f/1.8 is well under a stop. If we’re talking about Canon APS-C it’s f/1.75, which is about a third of a stop away. So what I said is essentially correct.
Here’s a good reference: http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/16/engadget-primed-why-your-cameras-sensor-size-matters/
You can see from the diagram that 4/3″ isn’t much smaller than APS-C. DXO scores tell the same story, with under 1 stop difference from MFT to APS-C in every case. FF is nearly always 2 stops away from MFT for equally new sensors.
Amazing video ! I like it !
who paid this clown?
Why so serious with so called “full frame” ? 4/3 format is certainly a FULL FRAME !
Right! APS-C is not if used with so called 35mm counterparts.
4/3 is full frame when used with 4/3 lenses. Not when used with the old OM lenses.
Good point, we should call it 35mm equivalent.
I might consider buying a full-frame OM-D, if it wasn’t much more expensive than existing MFT OM-Ds, and if the full-frame sensor’s megapixel count was somewhere between 64 and 80 MP, because then it would still be possible to properly use existing (M)FT lenses 😉
🙂 good one!
and ideally a unicorn mounting bracket fot it, too.
yuo mean using the mft lenses in a crop mode just using the center part of a socalled 24×36 OMD sensor? Sony’s A7 series have a similar option as the NEX lenses use the same mount. Maybe they should have included an oversize mount during the design of the MFT?
lol only fly in that ointment is that the mFT glass is designed to cover a sensor with just over a quarter the area and of a different ratio
Yeah, that was the idea 😉 – And while I don’t know about MFT, the FT mount surely looked like it may have had a large enough diameter for a full-frame image circle…
yes maybe? I read the larger dimensions were for allowing lens designs where lightrays can hit the sensor almost in straight angle in border areas(I forgot the short name for it…)
Another new system, with a completely new lens lineup ? Sorry, but Olympus already switched from 4/3 to micro 4/3 and made sell my 4/3rds gear for peanuts once. Not twice. Apart from professionals who have to do really large prints, who for God’s sake really needs the so called Full Frame ? It’s just as 4k, a kind of hype for wealthy techies… or maybe a need for a few amount of professionals. But do you really think that that tiny bit more creamy bokeh is worth 2000$ or even more ?
If Olympus did go FF and, as the rumour suggested, use the Sony FE lenses then it’s an ‘as well as’ not an ‘instead of’ system. No one who doesn’t want FF need bother. I’m not professional but I’ve had a couple of exhibitions and sold a few prints – I’d love to be able to print bigger. (Yes, I can print bigger than I do from MFT and no, the quality isn’t the same.)
Sorry, but from a marketing point of view, this move would be stupid. You’d have an Olympus body to use with Sony glass, concurring against Sony bodies ? If Olympus creates a FF body, they need an Olympus branded lens lineup. I know Sony is part of Olympus, but why in the hell would they compete against themselves ?
Don’t know why my comment got blocked, there was nothing offensive in it… anyway. I think creating a FF body without a corresponding, dedicated lens lineup is a commercial nonsense.
You don’t just pay for bokeh in price, you also pay in weight. I ran into a guy with a D700 and one zoom lens. His gear weighed more than my camera and three lenses. We both like to bring our cameras with us everywhere. he was paying a higher cost in weight than I was.
he pays yes but he gets something for it in return, otherwise he would go to a lighter system too. For MFT users, compactness/low weight plays a more important role then the extras he gets.
Now, seriously Ulli : tell me concretely what’s the “something” you mean ? Bokeh ? Do you really need that much bokeh in outdoor photography with wide-angle lenses, for example ? (seeing people asking for things as crazy as a 12mm f/1.2 always makes me laugh !) – and you can get good bokeh with longer lenses on m43rds.
The only thing you really have with a bigger sensor is narrow DoF (paper thin DoF, as I could get with my E30 + 50f2 for example – but when do you really need such paper thin DoF ?), and the ability to make large prints.
There are plenty photo magazines out there with tests of m43rds cameras (A3 prints). Take one, and tell me where you can see a sensible difference in quality, compared to pictures of the same size, taken with a so called FF camera. It’s as simple as that. Then, ask yourself if this difference is worth the price for you. Maybe for some, it is, but for the vast majority, I don’t think so.
I work for a company that has to make large prints (street advertising, folders and so) and we use medium format for everything. On small prints, the difference in quality (sharpness and so on), if there is any, is negligible. You just have to work with bigger file sizes.
bokeh is a collection form many kinds of how oof are can add to the mood. it is very subjective as it depends on the person….i dont think we can discuss about how much we need. the FL choice is also very personal.I work with 45-50 mm in general, and just to get less dof/object isolation by using longer FL is sometimes not really practical, plus longer tele makes a picture rather flat(no nice fluent transition from focus to blur) i would never say what we need, instead prefer to say what ineed. Which again depends on the scene and qualty/amount of light available etc.For printing imo it makes not much difference in the quality as we watch prints from a larger distance(I print alot in magazine format and do sometimes 60x80cm print orders )I wont argue with you, but for me if i need awesome object isolation with portrait lens i prefer to use 24×36 with a canon 85 f/1.2. If i want to keep it compact with a very nice dof/bokeh I used my E-M5 with the 45mm f/1.8. Both results I like, but it looks different,
i posted a long reply but it does not show up, nothing rude but just a reply because for the fun of it…now too lazy too make a new one.
people who choose 24×36 for the way it renders have good reason, not many people need the ability to print large, as most files are only used for screen formats or professionaly for a magazine(with playboy centerfold format as max). Only Artisitic gallery people print huge format. The gain in object isolation is for the same artistic reason worth more then you see it. Just look at a guy like the BokehFactory and its clear what advantages bigger film/sensor formats have. MFT has its advantages too, we cant just praise one format and speak less about other formats. It all depends on your preferred style…I think this is all pretty obvious with so many types of photograhers walking the earth.
I looked at the BokehFactory’s work. Great stuff. Some of it is actual camera Bokeh, but alot of it is in post as well (likes to use iris blur in photoshop. you can tell because there are things that are blurred that should be in focus because they are on the same focal plane).
He might be a bit too obsessed with certain rendering, but in general I see the lens rendering in his work.you know he works alot with medium format and 24×36/bokehmaster combos, so the software effects are not needed, looking at the selection of lenses he uses, obviously he loves bokeh king type lenses.and then some…
Fullframe & APSC are getting cheaper & cheaper & that is the best strategy to compete against m4/3 ( now become expensive stuffs ) .
No way Olympus going into FF consider this is not the game they want to play against Canon & Nikon . Olympus since can’t make sensors should chase Fuji-Pana to speed up development of Organic element sensors .
To me the small size of m43 bodies and lenses is a huge selling point. The lenses seem to cost about half of what their full frame equivalents cost and weigh a third. Why would olympus give up their advantage to be like everyone else. No thanks.
The lenses are indeed smaller and lighter the main advantage of the system for me. Alas the prices are not so, certainly not for truly equivalent lenses .Or are you one of the mFT flat earther’s that happily acknowledges the 2x crop factor when it comes to equivalent focal lengths but conveniently ignores it when it comes to equivalent apertures.
The problem with finding equivalent comparisons is that there are no super slow lenses made for FF. How successful would a FF 24-100mm F7-12.6 kit lens 12-50 { an exact equivalent to the 12-50F3,5-6.3} or a FF 150-600mm F9.6-13.4 { an exact equivalent to the 78-300mm F4.8-6.7}. When you move up the ranks of mFT lenses it get rather silly the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.2 costs £1200 while doing the same job as an 85mm F2.4 { same AOV, same DOF and same total light gathered} at more than 3x the price of the excellent Nikon 85mm F1.8g .It even costs more than the Nikon 85mm F1.4G.
Even if you want to go down the flat earth denial of equivalence route and look at other mirrorless F1.2 options the excellent Fuji 56mm F1.2 costs £300 less than the Panasonic the Nikon CX the Nikon 32mm F1.2 costs £500 less than the Panasonic. How come Fuji a very small player in mirrorless compared to Olympus/Panasonic can produce an excellent F1.2 lens hundreds of pounds less than Panasonic.
I think you will find if you genuinely compare like for like , which seems to be an absolute anathema around here the prices of mFT lenses are not really that clever. Just before the defenders of the faith jump in I am a mFT user and have been since the system launched as it fits my needs very well. Right from day one I was fully aware of the compromises of the system {all systems have them} and willing to accept them. The tedious comparison { typically skewed } with other systems makes us all look like a laughing stock, I firmly believe that is why mFT forums are so often an amusing target for trolls. Have a look at any other sytem forums and tell me how often they rant about mFT. mFT barely registers a mention on those forums , I wish I could say the same about mFT forums .
The Fuji 56mm has a different construction compared to the Nocticron (different number of elements, different number of blades, no stabilisation), perhaps this doesn’t justify the extra cost to you.
Personally I can tell that after a two days session of street-fashion shooting in Venice, a friend of mine admitted that the Panasonic lens has “something more in rendering”.
I don’t have a Fuji so I went with the Nocticron and I’m happy with it.
It’s expensive, but I don’t roam CaNikon fora to troll about their old lenses, big body cameras, cluncky shutter sounds or clone cameras, simply because I don’t care about what other people use as gear, and I have better and more important things to do in real life.
It’s not a fault of m43 system nor of its “fanboys” if some people feel the need to troll the site.
Oh dear another defensive mFT user in . I am exclusively a mFT user with no interest in larger systems. The major difference is that I am not in denial about the consequences of my choice. The Fuji is an excellent lens with the same DOF and light gathering as an F0.9 lens on mFT, with a better sensor to boot. I am curious just how vital is IS on an F1.2 lens ?
LOL, oh well that seals it then “your friend” conforms the Panasonic is worth £300 more than the Fuji . The reason why so many troll mFT forums is down to the constant stream of BS that gets posted by mFT fanboys. I no longer read the mFT forum at DPreview becasue of the never ending posts with ridiculous claims , some mFT fans think equivalence is a made up construct by nasty larger sensor users just to upset them.
I am delighted with mFT and it serves my needs perfectly especially as I am a keen videographer. But please God stop all the BS comparisons to other systems especially FF
Dear dude, it seems you want to teach math but you can’t read. 🙂
I’ll help you understand better what I wrote on my comment: my friend, who was taking pictures with me, and using the Fuji 56mm on one of his two T1, said, while comparing the shots:” this lens has something more, it’s the rendering, it’s special”. A non biased comment from someone shooting professionally since more than 20 years and using from m43 to Medium Format systems.
If you read again paying attention, you’ll see that I wrote that Nocticron is expensive in my opinion.
And it has a different construction than the Fuji 56mm.
I don’t need IS and I also don’t think it’s worth the difference, but seriously, do you know that lenses aperture can also be stopped down? Of course you don’t need IS or IBIS at f1.2, at least if you are in almost complete darkness and want to keep ISOs low.
But I’m sure that those three or four more glass elements have their cost.
Back to your reply, I don’t need to defend this system: btw, is there a war between systems? I must have missed it.. 🙂
And yes, DOF of f1.2 on APS is equal to 0.9 on m43, and so? Does this make it a better lens? Or let you take better pictures?
Zack Arias asked:”Do you prefer math of pictures? Math or pictures?” Dude, I ask you, math or pictures? Me I prefer pictures.
And again, if someone feel the need to roam a forum trolling, is not because of the system , not even because the users are happy with their f1.2 lens. It’s because that person has nothing better to do. And that’s quite sad.
I’m going back in nature taking pictures now. Enjoy photography.
I would let it go. He is obviously in a deep personal crisis since apparently he can’t afford these “superior” systems he speaks of, so he must settle for lowly m43 for his “keen” video needs. I do enjoy hearing people lust for new and bigger toys, only to come to the conclusions months later that it is still not “good enough.” After the honeymoon stage is over, it stills performs like a camera and their pictures are still the same. If people researched upgrading their techniques as much as their next camera, they’d be a lot better off.
That’s it, you’re right. I always suggest friends to spend money in a- a travel where they can take pictures b-photography books to get inspired c-a completely different camera, to experiment and go out taking pictures.
Gear is just gear and I wish all these equivalence gurus could enjoy the medium and be happy.
LOL , I can comfortably afford any camera system I want ,well maybe not the Leica S , unless I want to add in the cost of a divorce. My point is about the never ending tedious false claims ignoring equivalence which invariably result in trolling and BS.
I am sorry my video needs are worthy of mocking , when ironically mFT well Panasonic anyway can be seen to be leading the way.
I am sorry Mraco I went OTT on what is to me an annoying topic. Your posts here are typically sensible and courteous
Nice…. another equiv, approach.
Our apertures let in a lot of light, they just don’t offer the same narrow depth of field. If you want a narrow depth of field you need to use FF cameras buy a lot of large expensive primes. I am very happy with the Olympus and Panasonic primes. Film Pens had the same issue. They were still fantastic cameras and people loved them for what they could do.
I have wrist and back problems. I had trouble holding heavy cameras and big lenses. when I sold my OG four thirds gear I could either go with canon/nikon and only small lenses or a mirror less system. I decided to go mirror less because it was better for travel. If I didn’t have the physical problems that stop be from carrying heavy gear I might have gone full frame. I really hope Olympus stays the coarse with m43rds. they have a fantastic niche and I don’t want them to loose R&D focus.
Good God man this has been posted 1000’s of times and yet it never sinks into the heads of the mFT flat earth society.. To be equivelent to a FF lens an mFT lens must have :
1: Same effective AOV
2: Same DOF
3 { This is the critical one where mFT folk go a blank } Gather the same total light.
Sure we get smaller lenses and bodies but not without impacting image quality compared to larger formats. The main reason for the claimed huge size advantage is due to not comparing like to like.
What does “Gather the same total light” have to do with IQ that is quantifiable? Can you actually show me a metric or a formula that says: If X sensor size gathers Y amounts more light than camera A sensor size, you will get a bump in DR and ISO performance of C. I’ll wait. Don’t think you’ll find anything meaningful that will tell you how much… all you can show me is a case by case basis that trends “total light” meaning something in most use cases, but not all (ie: my EM-10 will smoke an original Canon 5D, but the 5D “lets in more light”).
It is rather simple
Total light = exposure x sensor area
And for digital photography
Exposure = The total light per area
(photons / mm²) that falls on the sensor while the shutter is open,
expressed as the product of the illuminance of the
sensor and the time the shutter is open (lux · seconds).
The only
factors in the exposure are the scene luminance, t-stop (where the
f-ratio is often a good approximation for the t-stop), and the shutter
speed (note that neither sensor size nor ISO are factors in exposure).
Of course FF lenses gather more total light. But guess what, it has to, because the sensor area which needs to be covered is bigger. MFT simply doesnt need the extra light that the ff lens gathers because it has a smaller area to cover. Thus there is no FF advantage there. Its as simple as that.
lol I would like to say that yours is the most idiotic statement I have seen here teros but sadly its not. I
Hello Teros it is total light captured that matters I explained it above very clearly. I am sorry you did not understand it for it is a simple fact.
Hello to you too but i dont know if you are MFT dude or sillyfanboys, stick with one nickname, it makes things easier so i can answer you properly. Things you dont understand dont make them idiotic. Try to grasp the idea that bigger sensors need more amount of light than smaller sensors do. Of course to do that you must first understand that total amount of light is one thing and brightness is another. Thatswhy exposure has nothing to do with sensor size.
Again… you didn’t answer my question. You gave me a formula that doesn’t actually compute something that can reliably detemine difference in IQ. So I ask again, why am I supposed to care about this metric?
When I started learning photography shallow DoF was still considered a disadvantage. In fact, it still is (except under specific circumstances). In fact, even with the lumix 20/1.7, if you want to take a head and shoulders candid picture of two people talking to each other, you cannot have them both in focus, unless they are both on the same plane, or you stop down the lens – never mind longer focal lenses: just try a typical mother-with-baby-in-arms portrait with the Sigma 60/1.8: again, unless you stop the lens down, you can have either the baby in focus, or the mother, but not both. So, under almost all normal (as well as most abnormal!) circumstances, with 4/3 I have less DoF than I need, thank you very much. Cut the nonsense and stop trolling.
Errr … I meant Sigma/2.8…
Sorry I asked what the 60mm F1.8 was above , I thought it was a lens i hadn’t heard of
Amen.
What is a sigma 60mm F1.8 ?. Shallow DOF is just an extra option you can get the exact same DOF on larger formats if you need it by simply stopping the lens down. As for the 20mm F1.7 { my most used lens} Even focusing at 8-9 feet you are getting over 3 feet DOF.
If you are shooting a head and shoulders candid with the 20mm you would need to be about 18 inches away from them and you will be getting distorted perspective { big noses etc} .Time for a a different lens or using basic common sense
Head and shoulders is a moderate crop from a head and half chest shot. That’s roughly 5-6 feet from the furthest subject, if you shoot from the diagonal; no distortion ( at least if you know what you are doing) but try to get them both in focus that way. 9 feet is full body with plenty of foreground to spare. Thanks, but no thanks.
Besides – IF I were a pro, with a 2nd (and maybe 3rd) body (you don’t get many candids if you have to switch lens, you know), a flash, a bag full of lenses, and no other task than taking pictures, I could have done what you suggest, and more besides. But if you are a guest (and designated photographer) with just a GM1+pancake lens in your jacket pocket, and have to shoot in low light, options are rather limited. And the only alternatives to the 20 would be the Oly 45 or the (bigger and even bigger) panaleicas – a much more limiting (and in the case of the panaleicas also bulkier and considerably more expensive) proposition.
Having said that – I have given you off the top of my head two real life examples of not unusual situation where you need MORE DoF than a
your 4/3 lenses will give you. Can you now give me at least one realistic example where DoF is not shallow enough? Because, you know, if shallow DoF is just as useful (or likely to be used) as Formula1’s speed and acceleration in a normal car, I think I’ll pass…
Photography sometimes requires shallow dof. Buy or borrow some books, you will see and maybe learn something.
Thanks for the tip – now could you please enlighten us how shallow is shallow enough? Or under what circumstances 4/3 cameras/lenses will not allow for shallow enough DoF for you? Because, you know, this was my original question. And I don’t think than any “1001 tips for the budding photographer” primer is likely to answer it.
How can I enlighten you? How much is enough? It’s a matter of taste. Check out the flickr m43 group, you will see disturbingly thick dof in most pics. But what disturbs me might appeal to you.
Borrow some books with classic photos, they really show you stuff…
By “classic” I presume you mean HCB, Robert Capa, or Aleksandr Rodchenko. Explain what they teach about shallow DoF or stop trolling.
(Although I must concede that it was really my fault that I was tricked into feeding a troll in the first place).
You’re right about total light and FF does have superior IQ though perhaps not quite as much as 2 stops due to the higher quantum efficiency of smaller sensors. That is why many point and shoots and phones can perform relatively well at highish ISOs despite having tiny sensors.
But the important aspect is, is it good enough for what you want it to do ?
For what the vast majority of photographic enthusiasts do, I suspect m43 or APSC if you need good focus tracking (though that is changing), is more than good enough.
There will be a small number of photographers who need the extra IQ but the majority will be technical geeks who will spend all day pixel peeping. For most of them the technical side is the interest and the photograph is secondary.
And unfortunately the internet is made up of more technical geeks than photographers.
If the Hi-Fi world is anything to go by (and camera sales suggest it is) it looks like photography is going to regress like Hi-Fi did, where convenience (MP3) outweighed quality (vinyl and CD).
This will be partly due to the technical loonies driving people away (again like the Hi-Fi world) but maybe also because so many photographers have lost sight of the purpose of owning a camera. Perhaps it is a good thing that most of the population don’t care about the technical merits and just enjoy the final photograph and perhaps we as photographers should obsess less about the technical side and care more about the artistic side.
Blah blah blah. I own both and it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter…it just doesn’t matter. Blah blah blah.
Fuji has successfully marketed itself as “the new Leica,” a “premium” and high quality brand for enthusiasts and pros. They seem to have been able to do this with super teflon quality deflection of rampant QA issues surrounding everything from “black orbs” in highlights to legendarily slow autofocus. But they’ve also remained dedicated to fixing and improving these issues, even beyond the life of the affected products. And they’ve rapidly iterated to the point where the early issues are largely resolved. Frustratingly (no doubt) for Panasonic, they’ve released products that have been largely stable and without major issues, and while prized by videographers, have not been seen as high quality still cameras (although they are). So now we are paying a brand positioning tax to attach the Leica name to justify a deliberately inflated price to change perception, and bring desperately needed profit margin to a business that was previously consumed with “race to the bottom” pricing.
None of this back story takes away from the actual quality of either the Panasonic or Fuji “1.2” portrait lenses, but I think explains the price difference.
What NOTHING can explain is why Olympus continues to let the Pen line languish when it could be argued that they invented the retro camera craze, then handed it over to Fuji.
But to me, Fuji’s success isn’t really so much about “retro” as it is about classic, direct access controls and usability in a premium build quality, left side VF body, and great viral marketing and evangelization. Trip D, Oly! It isn’t too late.
1) The Noct is spendy no doubt about it. It is the only lens that Fuji’s equivalent is better priced than mft on.
* Fuji 10-24mm f4 more expensive than Panny’s wide zoom at F4
* 35mm 1.4 same as panny’s 1.4, but not even close in price to Oly’s 25mm 1.8
* 55-200mm is more expensive than the Panny/Oly equiv
* 23mm f1.4 is more expensive than either the Panny 15 or the Oly 17
* Fuji 18 f2.0 is equiv in price to the panny 15, doubtful it equals it quality though (still a good lens though)
* Fuji 14mm f2.8 is more expensive than Oly 12mm f2
* Fuji has no answer for the panny 100-300mm
* Fuji has no answer for the panny 35-100mm f2.8
* Fuji has no answer to the Oly 45mm f1.8 (price performance)
We haven’t seen Fuji’s pricing for the weather sealed 2.8 event photographer zooms (24-70, 70-200 ish) vs Oly and Panny’s versions, but the rumored price of the Oly ultra wide suggests that the size and cost advantage may be a wash. That leaves only focus speed on the M43 side of the ledger, but the recent improvements seen in the XT1 should be a wakeup call for Oly. Panny can still assert dominance in video.
The XT1 is a great camera for sure. But the lenses, on a whole are still more expensive and larger than the mFT equivalents. But yes, Fuji is making in-roads in AF… their one achilles heel. The X-system is the only other camera system that I would buy into in the mirrorless world. I wish Fuji would just dump that X-TRANS sensor and use the same one Sony is using in the A6000. Now you’ve got a system with fantastic IQ at high ISOs AND a great lens system (since Sony’s lens library is sort of meh).
Or Fuji could aggressive evangelize Xtrans support in Lightroom, ACR and others. But point taken. My experience with rental X cameras was very satisfying, in terms of IQ, but many have said that pulling all that the sensor can offer requires a different workflow that I’m not willing to use. Having left Aperture, I’m staying in LR for the foreseeable future.
Is the only RAW editor worth a look for Fuji the one that comes with the camera? Are there reviews to show the difference between that and say, the latest Lightroom? I made a comparison using dpreview’s studio scene of the XT-1 and the EM-10. The EM-10 beats it pretty handily at 3200ISO but it could be an issue with ACR. The dang Fuji file was like 40MB HAHAHAHA!
Yes, the bloated file size thing is nuts. Maybe that’s been resolved by now. I’ve not heard about it recently, but that’s another of those “quirks” that Fuji fans (myself included) seem to forgive because the rest of the user experience is so compelling. Of course, I’ve “voted” with my wallet, and ***own*** M43 gear but have yet to purchase a Fuji.
Rumors point to lots of very improved and compelling new Fuji gear at Photokina and PhotoExpo: X200, XPro2, X30 and a pair f/2.8, weather sealed zooms. it sounds like Olympus will be showing off an orange EM10, a Pen with EM10 specs but no EVF and an EM1 in sliver. Panasonic sounds like it will be way more interesting, but this may be the year that Fuji woos customers away from FF DSLRs ****and**** away from M43. Competition is good. I just want both Oly and Panny to keep up.
Thanks, great info. Does Fuji have anything like the oly 12-40 2.8?
I consider the Fuji f2.8-4 zoom sort of a wash with the Oly 12-40. It isn’t optically as good (nor f2.8 throughout the zoom), but it is priced at only $600 retail so that’s why I didn’t include it. I also hope that one day Panny or Oly will make a mid-range MFT 12-40 lens that is 2.8-4 for 500-600 retail. Sort of strange to only have the $100 kit in this range OR the $1,000 Oly or Panny f2.8
Interesting. I considered the Fuji system but the lenses generally cost more and there was less variety.
What about the oly 12-50mm and the new compact zoom?
The 12-50mm is decent because it is weather sealed. I have not checked to see if its IQ is better than the standard kit zoom or not. I sort of just disregarded it as the f-stop is no different than the kit lens yet it costs almost as much as the Fuji f2.8-4.
I do not know what part of the world you are from Bhima but here in the UK and the rest of EU the pricxeing of mFT gear can be high.
1) The Noct is spendy no doubt about it. It is the only lens that Fuji’s equivalent is better priced than mft on.
Yes , by £300 here
* Fuji 10-24mm f4 more expensive than Panny’s wide zoom at F4
Not here the Panasonic is more expensive
“* 35mm 1.4 same as panny’s 1.4, but not even close in price to Oly’s 25mm 1.8”
Nope F1.4 on APS is not the same as F1.4 on mFT, no matter how often folk claim it is.
“”* 55-200mm is more expensive than the Panny/Oly equiv”””
The real mFT equivalent to the Fuji 55-200mm would be a 41-150mm F2.6-F3.5
“”* 23mm f1.4 is more expensive than either the Panny 15 or the Oly 17″”
Once again a 24mm F1.4 on APS is equivalent to an 18mm F1.0 on mFT
“”* Fuji 18 f2.0 is equiv in price to the panny 15, doubtful it equals it quality though (still a good lens though)”””
Yet again different focal length and different effective focal lengths the mFT equivalent to an 18mm F2 on APS would be a 13.5mm F1.5
“”* Fuji 14mm f2.8 is more expensive than Oly 12mm f2″”
Surprise surprise a 14mm F2.8 on APS is equivalent to a10.5mm F 2.0 on mFT
“”””* Fuji has no answer for the panny 100-300mm””
The equivalent on APS would be a 135-400mm F5.4-7.4 not exactly tempting. You keep forgetting the effect of the 2x crop on aperture when comparing it is really very simple
* Fuji has no answer to the Oly 45mm f1.8 (price performance)
Funnily enough though it is more price as it is a macro lens the Fuji 60mm F2.4 is is equivalent to a 45mm F1.8 on mFT. The 45mm is a great performer for the price but it has the poorest build quality of any mFT lens.
Your prices are definitely different than mine in the US. My source was B&H’s website. Also, f-stop equivalence is dubious in all aspects except DoF. The light transmission argument works in some cases, but not in others (RAW m43’s 3200 ISO images retain more detail than RAW 3200 ISO Fuji images, according to dpreview’s studio scene of the XT-1 vs. an EM-10). There are many factors involved in overall IQ and DR… sensor size is one potential of those, but it is definitely not the only factor (look at the IQ of an m43’s sensor compared to the Canon 5D to realize there is alot of other tech going on in these chips besides just sensor size). Also, technology will continue to push the light transmission argument into the basement as we discover new ways to simply make the tech better.
Exposure times with the same ISOs are the exact same on an f2 m43’s as it is on an f2 APS-C or an f2 FF camera.
http://m.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m10/13
Bhima, stop with the LIES.
The DP review is against the low – end Fuji XM1, NOT the XT-1.
also, it’s mentioned that the EM10 TRIES to compete, by over – sharpening it’s jpegs. Again, trying doesn’t mean it retains more detail. That’s false.
and RAW 3200? LOL! -The EM10 starts to fail at iso 1600! The review even states that the EM10 can’t compete against APS-C sensors and shows more noise in RAW files than other M43 cameras!
The XT-1 would blow the Battery Door off the EM10. Stop lying. It makes M43 look bad.
You mean the 84mm f/1.8 Fuji and 86mm f/3.2 Nikon, right? 😀
“You mean the 84mm f/1.8 Fuji and 86mm f/3.2 Nikon, right? :-D”
Did you not see his proviso “Even if you want to go down the flat earth denial of equivalence route” and then compare lenses of the same effective AOV and nominal aperture ignoring the end results the Panasonic is still overpriced
Admin, really only E-PL7? What about the Trip-D, is it cancelled?
Right, no news about that?
No news yet but It’s not excluded at all. I only got MFT info for now…
Here’s hoping. Otherwise all we get is coal for Xmas…
Hmmmm … is this a hint that an eventual Trip-D will probably *not* have a m43-size sensor? Unlike the recently rumoured fixed-lens compact from Panasonic …
No, all he said was that the ‘Trip-D’ is not a MFT camera, since it has a fixed lens. A fixed-lens camera can have a 4/3″ sensor, but it can never be a MFT camera, because that requires a MFT lens mount.
You are right, it’s possible admin made a fine point to discern between “MFT” = m43 system camera and whatever he would call the Trip-D if it actually has a sensor of the same size … In the recent Panasonic double rumour he called non-MFT a “FT size sensor fixed lens compact” 😉
Full Frame Olympus, a step backwards.
maybe from a a technical point of view, but photowise it offers more possibilities for certain styles of shooting
Right, but there are already competing products that offer consumers way more than what we could get out of an FF OM-D. Canikon just has a ridiculous library of lenses, many of them are great and quite affordable. Oly would have to climb a very steep hill to compete in that space. No, Oly and Panasonic have carved out a niche that they are the king-makers of: A great combination of IQ, performance, flexibility and system size of an ILC. In this space, THEY are the Canikon: They beat the Canon M, Nikon 1, and any 1″ bridge camera.
I don’t expect to see Olympus ever go full-frame. There are two possible paths camera manufacturers can take going forward with mirrorless:
The first path is what Sony has done; shoehorning a 35mm equiv. sensor into a small body. It’s an interesting idea, but comes with its own set of physical challenges for shooters.
The second — and I believe more likely — path, is a significant step forward in sensor technology that allows smaller sensors to perform (and by perform I mean in terms of pixel density + DR + low light/low noise capability … not DOF, FOV, etc) as well as today’s high performance 35mm equiv. sized sensors. This will provide a big jump in sensor performance, whilst still allowing for compact, lightweight camera systems.
Yes, larger sensors will benefit from this, too, maintaining the “relative” difference that has always existed. But at that point we may have passed the IQ threshold in terms of what is realistically perceptible/necessary/sufficient for 95% of both amateur and professional shooters … in 95% of shooting circumstances. At this point, small size and light weight may carry the day.
My understanding is that Fuji and Panasonic are not the only ones racing to develop organic sensor tech, btw; Sony is apparently working on this very same technology, too.
This is why I believe Olympus is going “all in” with micro four thirds. They already have a good (and growing) lens selection, great bodies, some outstanding ergonomics and operational technology … a couple of more generations of sensors (combined with ever-improving continuous autofocus) and they’ll have the whole package.
It seems unlikely that the supply chain would be able to keep the “organic” sensor secret this close to new product launches, so I’m not optimistic about seeing a 2/3″ organic in the X30 or a 4/3 in a Trip-D or GX8 this year. I’d be very happy to be wrong, of course!
But as far as I know, we’re not even sure that even those sizes will be feasible. It sounded like the technology is gear toward REALLY small sizes, such as phone, automotive, and medical technology applications. Something as “huge” as 4/3 or APSC might be prohibitive.
I’d happily sell every piece of photo gear I own to have a Pentax Q sized CSC with a new mount if it has IQ that surpasses today’s best M43 and Fuji models.
Here’s a great discussion that largely explodes the idea that organic tech can only be used for small sensor applications (warning: it’s a pretty technically dense thread in some places) >> http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php/topic/14830-just-what-is-this-new-organic-sensor-thing/
Thanks
The author alluded to this tech being designed with m43’s and APS-C in mind. Not that I think he knows, but it make logical sense that the two companies most heavily invested in this new tech would want to pursue it for the sensor sizes they are already producing bodies and lenses for.
Well, I think the camera manufacturers are going to be pushing hard for a breakthrough sensor technology asap as a way to reignite sales in a backsliding market. Current sensor tech is pretty mature, and likely to only see incremental steps forward from here on.
Admin
Will you stop using ad services that send me to the Apple App Store without my clicking on an ad?
It is disrespectful.
I alreayd contacted Google about that. It’s google ad service messing around on mobile devices!!!
Thanks for being attentive. Keep up the good work!
While I love my MFT gear, I’ve been thinking that owning an A7 with a fast native prime or two might be fun. So it’s currently sitting around item 3 or 4 of things to do with the next two or three grand I get my hands on.
” an A7 with a fast native prime or two…” – but certainly not three, as it just doesn’t have that many! 😉
Exactly! MFT is a far better system. There’s just the odd thing that larger formats come in handy for.
On the original topic, I doubt Olympus would make bodies for FE mount while the system is still so under-developed. Maybe some day, but not in the near future, I don’t think.
LOL
You cannot have fast native primes for A7 just because of its incredibly bad design for the sake of miniaturisation: the mount diameter is way too small to make possible having really good primes. Better make pressure on MFT manufacturers to have ultra bright AF lenses.
I’d just like to see Olympus start making some 1.2’s instead of these 1.8’s. A little bit bigger is fine with me and it would win a lot more people over.
Would be cool but I am sure they would have a price that may not appeal to a lot of people.
If they would make it in the same build as the 45mm f/1.8 for double the price, it would be hard to resist. But I think other FL can become too expensive.
A7 is 24×36 format sensor and the mount is big enough for the very fast lenses from the legacy dept, while its true that not many native lenses are available, many people like to use legacy lenses, which is the true strength for the A7. Panasonic did welll with the Nocticron, but it cant get close to object isolation with shorter FL as its possible with larger sensors and appropiate choice of lens.
Are you not well. The A7 series has two of the best ever auto focus native primes. Even with the kitlens it will outperform every M43 setup in every way. An its a small package to.
Sony has a few good lenses, but not enough of them, nor that come remotely close to qualifying as a system in the way that the Olympus/Panasonic duo offer. And unfortunately, the only place the A7 outperforms cameras like the E-M1 are in ultimate enlargement size (not needed for most people) and high ISO performance (needed only by some people). In almost every other respect the Sonys lag behind.
“the only place the A7 outperforms cameras like the E-M1”
DR, color depth, resolution, high ISO, low ISO shadow/sky noise, in other words every single area of image quality . But lets face if you are interested in image quality you wouldnt be using mFT.
Professional photographers understand that it just doesn’t matter in most shooting situations, excepting the extremes. It’s only pixel-peeping amateurs who worry about such things.
But since you want to go there, here’s a little sanity (aka perspective) for you: At base ISO the differences are virtually indistinguishable, especially with proper shot discipline and processing. In fact, m43 already provides significantly better acuity and DR than 35mm film did 30 years ago (12.7 stops of DR vs about 4 for Kodachrome transparency film – the Nikon D4 offers 13.3 stops of DR). Yet nobody looks at Steve McCurry’s National Geographic cover of the Afghan Girl from 1984 and thinks, “Crappy DR, poor resolution, and look at that noise!” lol.
Photography is about content, not numbers on a chart.
Actually, I think a lot of pixel-peeping gearheads really would look at that picture, and complain about poor DR, resolution and grain. I know several people of the type, and they seem to have no interest at all in the subject, context or emotional impact of a photo, and no ability to make aesthetic judgments. For them, the gear is more important than the art of photography, and they only look at the technical aspects of a photo.
Agreed. But as I said, real photographers know that the current m43 cameras offer more than sufficient IQ for most (though certainly not all) applications, and don’t worry about such nonsense as pixel peeping.
Of course, if all my images were landscapes destined for fine art galleries, then a m43 camera probably wouldn’t be the one I’d pick up. I’d go straight to medium format, actually But for travel, reportage — and a host of other work (including the sort of work Steve McCurry still shoots to this day) — m43 is more than sufficient, particularly with their excellent lenses and onboard technology.
Horses for courses … which is also what every pro understands.
Real photographers? They rarely touch m43. I know, I am one.
Too much money for mediocre image quality. Lots of lens flare. Poor menus. Poor autofocus. Bad optics with plenty of software correction – even the noctisummat. Too much money…
When we want small, we use proper compacts, like Canons.
Yeah, no compact camera known to man have ever had mediocre image quality, poor autofocus or software-corrected optics!
I told you what we do, I am not debating with you. You don’t get it / don’t like it? Never mind.
I’m a real photog and although i agree that the image quality on FF and APC is better than m4/3rds NOT the AUTOFOCUS. The Autofocus on the M4.3rds is stellar.
If you were a pro shooter — and I doubt you are — then you’d know that everything you just said is rife with erroneous facts, half-truths, and significant omissions.
I would love to have and A7 with a legacy Canon FD 85mm f/1.2
Prob the smallest solution for awesome open aperture model photography.
What a huge surprise.
We already know that. Olympus’ strategy is to sandwich the market. Expect a medium format killer- high and low end folks. OLYMPUS FOR THE WIN!!!!!
Personally I think Olympus should make a fixed lens 35mm sensor camera. pull parts like the EVF screens etc from their existing products and use Sonys chip etc. But hell, I didnt buy the RX1 to why the hell would I buy that 🙂
Just fantasy really. If they do an F2 lens say a 50mm f2, there is only 1 stop between that any the 25mm f1.4… a coupla thousand dollars for 1 stop … Naw.
There is no reason for olympus not to produce cameras with fixed lens in some other sensor format. For example Fuji x100 apsc class(single focal length or zoom fixed lens) or even full frame fixed lens like Sony Rx1. They can play with any sensor size as long they do not introduce new mount. That would be bad for their small camera and lens philosophy… I am hoping they go that way! It would be good for them just to show off and sell lots of these cameras! We all want them 🙂
Yeah, exactly.
A full frame Olympus Trip 35-D or XA-D would be no problem. The problem comes in diluting the resources needed to produce new lenses, and removing consumer and professional confidence in their system cameras.
if it only was so simple to make something that sells alot
“There is no reason for olympus not to produce cameras with fixed lens in some other sensor format.”
Except for one: ROI.
I just hope that this doesn’t mean that the rumored 110 format disposable film cameras are not happening either… 😉
Stop…stop…please stop…just…stop. An Olympus “full frame” system would only divert their resources and hurt m4/3.
If you want “full frame”, there are multiple options out there- go buy one.
What they need to do is large-sensor underwater Tough camera, even if it is just 2.5x zoom.
+1000.
At least someone should make a good 1″ sensor tough camera. an m43’s one with a 2.5x zoom would be awesome.
Nikon AW1?
Not shorts-pocketable. And with removable lens, not water-tight enough. And with 3.5-5.6 lens and 1″ Aptina sensor, it does not even beat TG-1.
The Photokina announcement is a totally new system (in partnership with Arca-Swiss & Linhof) called Mega Four Fifths. It features a 4″ x 5″ sensor and is bundled with the new Mega.Zuiko 150mm F/2.0 ED lens. It will be the undisputed bokeh master of the digital world.
Yes, that’s right. For over a year I have been impatiently waiting for a silver EM1, to go along with my black EM1. Even though the EM1 is a year old from a technology perspective, I’m sure others feel the same.
Also, I have been patiently waiting for a Really Big Zoom. Ever since trading in my large Nikon camera and multiple lenses, I have been feeling inadequate. That’s why I want to recapture the glory and bigness and, above all, the sheer massiveness (to the extent possible), of that old Nikon system. I know it won’t be easy. I know that there are some who, after getting a diminutive m43 system, feel that the lenses should also be respectively smaller, so that the very essence of m43 (besides the mirrorless part) can remain.
Not I. I want them big. Not for me a high quality 40-150 that gives excellent image quality but is only f/4. Despite the fact that I can shoot at f/4 and up to ISO 1600 with better IQ than I could have shot with a Canon xTi a whole bunch of years ago at ISO 200. Even though my 40-150 f.28 will not be anywhere near as big as a similar Canon, I want it as big and heavy as possible. Because I think that the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 justifies a weight difference of 2 or 3 times the weight, especially when I can shoot at such high ISO’s. It will reall matter to me if my shot is at f/2.8 and ISO 400 as opposed to f/4 and ISO 800.
In fact, why stop there? Let’s really get back to Canon Nikon land. Let’s get $3,000 f/1.2 40-150 lenses that weight 10 pounds. We can do it!
Right on bro! I m with you. And how about a telescope? Its big, its heavy, its just right!
You forgot to mention extra personal safety being able to knock an attacker out with a fifty pound camera bag.
Maybe olympus will invent m43 sensor that doesn’t suffer from the high level of noise and flat deep depth of field. Then I may dump my fuji and return to m43.
Until then no point.
Until then you should study more on photography. Maybe then you’ ll find out that sensor has completely nothing to do with depth of field other than its size. No sensor “invention” is gonna change that. So keep your Fuji.
And more, Olympus buy sensors from others, they don’t invent them.
Yup no comeback about noise I see. Fail.
If I had a woodie for full frame, I would just go out and buy one. That Sony camera in the picture makes a persuasive argument. The belief that full frame is a “be all end all” is, however, quite unfounded. How about the larger, medium sensor formats? They are MORE awesome! Can you afford a Hubble Telescope of your own? It all goes along with that other misguided article of faith: the ONLY thing that matters is the sensor. Compared to five years ago, we are drowning in fantastic sensor options. At the moment, everybody is goo-ing over one inch because the trade-off offers very long lenses that cost a bit less, wherein we are enticed with apertures that save having to depend on deep ISO less strong. Take a walk where people are taking pictures and notice how many of the nice cameras have mediocre glass out front, or shooters behind that have no idea what they are doing. There are all kinds of situations that do not require deep ISO, and a few that do. If they are not your subject, there is no reason to shell out the dough. The truth is, there are many good sensor/lens combinations, and among them, different, but right answers that deliver a lot of bang for the buck, well short of a deluxe bank account.
I just cannot imagine Olympus coming out with a FF body. I think there is many question marks around the Sony A7/r/s – very few lenses etc. The FF market is already owned by Canon, Nikon primarily – and neither of those giants have really ventured to much in to the mirror-less market at any length – a small body with a FF is a dream – and yes Sony have done it – but the fact remains the same – FF = large and heavy lenses – especially zoom lenses – for example a 70-200mm F4.0 looks huge on the A7/r/s and the small body with a small grip just does not feel good with all that size and weight – not Sony is not producing any F2.8 fast zooms for it – just would be to heavy – I think the key is to squeeze better ISO performance out of smaller sensors – DOF will not be so easy – but of course there are no F1.2 and F0.98 lenses for M43
DOF will be an irrelevant concern in the near future due to better software processing of OOF areas. The new Photoshop CC can ALREADY select what is sharp from a photo and what is just slightly blurry. You can then add any type of lens blur look to that that you want. It’s only a matter of time before they streamline this tech into a camera.
I could not see 35mm as small format is dying among DSLR. But i could see a 35mm with OM mount just to give old Zuiko lenses a huge value. That could be done!
But….
If Olympus would want to make a camera with a larger sensor, forget the small format and jump over it to medium format. Now, there would be the business! You dont need many lenses, just like film era you zoomed with your feet. You had one or two lenses and thats it!
So think about it. A 50Mpix (to make it cheap) instead 80Mpix and then just a 3-5 lenses for it. A 24mm (17mm) super-ultra wide, 55mm (34mm) ultra wide, 80mm (50mm) normal, 210mm (130mm) tele.
Price it heavily to 3599-3999€ range and you have business.
If it would be possible, add a IBIS and your factory would be conquered by photographers waiting to get one from the line.
No video for it either.
Then Olympus would have a two lines, m43 for portability and small size. Then medium format for studios and field.
Small format would not offer ANYTHING between those two. Just like now the small format benefit to m43 is only on paper and wild dreams of enthusiasts.
Shallow depth of field to pros is like IR filter, you need it few times a year only. And when you do, rent a f/1.2-1.8 lens or buy a such. Those who need it more often, they already have f/1.2 lenses and thats it.
Well, FF OM-D would be quite weird, considering that there would have to be completely new lenses for it, as mFTand older FT lenses are designed with smaller sensor size in mind… just imagine the vignetting when using mFT lens on FF body, not to mention the possible ergonomic disaster of light, small body with small-ish grip when combined with big and heavy (FT-Zuiko Digital-14-35mm-f2.0-SWD type of heavy) lens.
IMHO we would sooner see “full” FT revival than FF OM-D