–
Pekka continues to raise the suspense on the next new OMD model by hinting tidbit
First Pekka wrote “For some of us E-P5 actually moves our expectations to the next model in OM-D line. I know pretty much what will be the big highlight of this body. Quite obvious to everyone seeing E-P5 should be that the next OM-D series model goes well above E-M5 in features. Incorporating VF-4 should be just one of them. And that is all I can say now…”
And now: “E-P5 AF with 4/3 system lenses: Maybe there is a slight improvement over E-M5 maybe not. I tried shortly but did not notice anything worth closer look because the real thing for 4/3 lens owners is already on its way.”
Meantime PChome (google translated) had an Interview with Olympus manager Mr. Haruo. And the interviewer couldn’t spill out any new info about the future releases but he said that he “got the feeling” that the new E-mount camera will be smaller than the previous E-5.
94 Responses
OBS is coming. Too late to be widely interesting, most probably too expensive for most of those interested, but it’s coming just the same. Finally, I might add.
As it turns out, it will see some fierce competition from Pana’s GX7(?) as well as from Canon’s 7D mark II and from Nikon’s D400, which will be all announced in the same time frame. In other words, we are looking at another loss generator for Olympus just like the E-5. But then, technology does not stand still and in 2014 the E-M5 replacement may get most of the novel OBS features for half the price.
Why OBS?
Isn’t he just talking about the E-7?
I don’t think so.
Speculating about vaporware… What you should ask yourself is where a Canon APS size DSLR and a Nikon APS size DSLR is really better than mFT cameras. It is not image quality, because they are too close to each other for 100% of people (pixel peepers not included) to see any practical difference in images. It’s not handling either…
There is a migration going from DSLRs to mFT. But there also is this one BIG issue which prevents many advanced shooters from switching. Fixing this one will not be a loss generator, because of what it does to the image of mFT.
-p-
Thank you for your input. Actually, this BIG issue concerns me because I have a few items which may become more useful after it is fixed. As to competition, it remains to be seen how significant the size difference is going to be. If the difference remains large those will be considered entirely different tools. However, if size difference is eroded the system might be often compared to equivalent DSLRs.
As to “image quality” I couldn’t agree more.
Fixing the BIG issue will be nice, but will I be able to afford the BIG price of another suitable body? 😉 I have a couple of lenses that would beneifit (assuming the Sigma USM lens will be fine with it too).
I think the competition will be more from the FF models from Canikon) that are now more affordable since they couldn’t (or didn’t) compete directly at the mirrorless level of M4/3’s with so many DSLR users buying into the M4/3’s system (especially with the OM-D).
The future gear is something I’m looking forward to, but it will become harder for each desired purchase. It would be easier if I’d only sell some of my present gear not being used, but I just keep it.
I am very happy with my mFT gear so APS or FF has little interest for me. However the best APS models { D7100 etc} have a very notable advantage over even the best mFT. The D7100 has 1.4 stops better DR than the E-M5 along with 1.4 stops better color depth plus better high ISO. This gives the D7100 an advantage that is greater than the advantage that the E-M5 holds over the GH2 and we saw the claims some made about the significance of that.
The other advantages still remain the Nikon/Pentax/Sony APS models have a .75 stop DOF advantage over mFT which may not sound much but this means an F1.8 lens on APS gives you the same DOF as an F1.2 lens on mFT,an F1.2 lens costs significantly more than an F1.8.With regards to high quality native AF lenses there are far more options available to APS users both own brand and off brand.
So saying that differences between systems is so small as to make no difference is rather incorrect. I am afraid that way too many of the sources referenced here including yourself, Robin Wong , Ming Thein et al are so biased as to be all but useless, sadly I would have to put them in the Ken Rockwell category, namely fanboy blogs sometimes with a vested interest in promoting one system over another regardless of facts.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/865|0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28appareil2%29/793|0/%28brand2%29/Olympus/%28appareil3%29/677|0/%28brand3%29/Panasonic
Analitically, you are perhaps correct. Practically, not so much.
Generally usable ISO 1600 is what made the E-M5 significant.
How many stops something is better is irrelevant, what you can do because of the improvement is what matters. The better things get, the smaller the actual effect of an improvement will be.
May be this first iteration of OBS from Olympus will be expensive. This will be for the sake of new technologies being used, and not yet cost optimised.
Generally, mirrorles cams have potential to be much cheaper than DSLRs. Because they are built with much less mechanical components. No mirror box, no PDAF assembly, no OVF assembly, which all have many mechanical parts, which have to be aligned preicely and/or calibrated. These things cost a lot.
All industry is cost sensitive, and when mirrorless will have same performance (technologies are still maturing), and potential to be built cheaper than DSLRs, all companies will follow this path. Rest assured. Mirrorless cameras (no mentioning of brands) are bound for world domination…
Sorry, what does OBS stand for?
Thanks
“One beautiful system”.
Might I ask what OBS is?
The answer, my friend, was blowin’ in the wind, just like your question twenty minutes later, but then they landed close together, the anwser just a centimeter above the question 😉
Too bad i am not married with the daughter of the main engineer at Olympus, then i would get all the info firsthand including a prototype SOB body from my father in law.
Too bad, there are no swedish or italien camera manufacturers with main engineers…
I think it´s not difficult to guess which features the PrOM-D will get: It´ll be an E-M5 with the new features of the P5 (wlan, 1/8000, iso100 etc.) plus the VF4 plus sensor based phase detection af.
Hopefully it will get decent ergonomics and not just a facelift.
.. the daughter of the lead engineer you mean..?
I’m afraid new Olympus model(s) that will be announced in September will be too big for me, but I hope some of future smaller ones (PENs) will also feature PDAF on sensor or whatever makes 4/3 lenses focus properly (again).
ROTFL. The only thing interesting: increased compatibility with 4/3 lenses not addressed, if one believe Potka spilling the beans.
Couldn’t care less about an uber expensive E-P5 with integrated viewfinder.
E-P7 will perpetuate the ghetto for 4/3. So much for ‘one beautiful system’. Nevertheless shills and marketeers will do their clown jobs.
Why so positive?
OK, smaller but with a large grip, PLEASE!
$400 additional.
>> but he said that he “got the feeling” that the new E-mount camera will be smaller than the previous E-5.
This means that we have no more Olympus 4/3 system. Sony not only buy stakes in Oly, but destroy its famous m4/3 & 4/3 mount ..
E-5 is way too big. Large 4/3 SHG lenses have their own tripod collars anyway, but there are more compact choices where E-5’s size does not make sense, especially if it has combined m43/ 43 mount.
The E-5 and HG/SHG lenses are what helped to reduce FT to the shadow it now is . I never saw the logic in paying as much , carrying as much size and weight, yet having a sensor a quarter the size of FF , worse still the sensors were behind the times from the day they came out.
So the question is: will we get an improved E-5 which accepts MFT lenses, or an improved E-M5 which works with FT lenses? …or both?
If there are two cameras I will be interested, in the OMD successor. I would not be interested in a hybrid camera that makes concessions and or compromises for lenses that I do not own or plan to own (4/3)…
Hej I have heard that Finnish people have some Asian resemblance but Pekka Poktka looks Chinese! LOL
😀
And he’s gained a bit of weight :).
Are you familiar with the expression “click bait”?
Well – I wouldn’t mind a slightly shrunk state-of-the-art version of the E-1 with EVF and all the goodies Oly have got up their sleeves.
If I was the boss there, I would command to come with a mirrorless version of the E1.
The L-shape automaticaly moves the EVF to the left, so that would quiet alot of potential critics, and the hump should stay.
Can’t believe that the EM-5 succesor will be even smaller. It needs to be slightly bigger (OM size) if we are to successfully use our big and heavy 4/3 lenses.
I believe that he was talking about the replacement for the 4/3’s E5 being smaller, not the E-M5.
Only not pop up flas on this new E-x camera like OM-D, so homp will not be so height. But i think the come an new E-xx by 43/M43 mount next year.
It will probably be smaller than the E-5, not the OMD EM-5 (which makes it bigger than the EM-5).
At CP+ in late January Olympus had a poster listing the interchangeable lens cameras they are planning on releasing this year. The cameras were:
1. E-P5
2. OMD series
3. E series.
In an in an interview they mention making cameras slightly larger for better ergonomics.
So my guess is that we are talking about two cameras. One being an OMD series camera above the E-M5, since the poster didn’t have the E-M6 name while it did have the E-P5 name. Let’s for the time being call it the OMD-Pro. It might be a hybrid camera.
The second upcoming camera, the E-series camera just might be a traditional dslr model with an optical viewfinder. Then again it could the the hybrid camera.
With two high-end cameras coming rumors and leaks can be very confusing.
I don’t expect the true E-M5 replacement to be released until late spring 2014. I would expect it to be basically the E-P5 with a built-in EVF and the sensor from the OMD-Pro in a body very close to the current E-M5.
Dave
Hi Dave – From one caver to another, I think you are correct, except I wager that the E-M5 replacement will show up well before late spring 2014.
If the Olympus poster at CP+ is correct we will have the OMD-Series camera and the E-Series camera left for this year. I am guessing the OMD Series camera is going to be the one above the E-M5. When the E-M5 came out just over a year ago in an interview an Olympus official stated that the E-M5 is the middle camera in the OMD series. So I am guessing the one coming this year is going to be either the one below or the one above the E-M5. With all the rumors it seems like it will be the one above the E-M5.
If the next camera (either the OMD-Series or the E-Series) is going to be released in September. This means an announcement should be in August. Then in two months the other camera is released. This means an announcement in October and an release in November.
Then this will mean that the E-M5 replacment (E-M6) should be announced at CP+ at the end of January and the release in March. For me March is close enough to summer, especially when it takes a month or two to get the supply chain completely filled.
My E-M5 has taken a lot of rugged use in caves and it has been really good. Still it has nearly 20,000 shots and is showing its age. The OMD-Pro might be an interesting camera, but most likely I am more interested in a true E-M5 replacment. I am expecting the E-M6 to be the same size as the E-M5, with the VF-4 built-in and with all the features of the E-P5 with some slight improvements in those features. It might even have the sensor from the OMD-Pro, which sounds like it will have PD on the sensor which should help with C-AF. Then again on sensor PD-AF might be the left for the OMD-Pro and not for the mid-level E-M6. Still I just keep hoping my E-M5 last until early next year and then see if I get the OMD-Pro or the E-M6 for my new camera. Then again the GX-2 is starting to sound interesting to me.
Still very interesting times for M-43 and 43 rumors.
the Pentax K5II has a perfect size and better sensor,and better price…only a EI reborn could interest me,at a fair price,then my 43glass would not collect dust..
OK, so a dual PDAF/CDAF system is finally coming to m43. Happy for the 4/3 users, but happier for me. I’ve held off, knowing that decent m43 telephoto lenses would only come with dual AF.
If I save my pennies, I guess $1500 (body only) will soon buy me:
-Dual AF, finally
-Weatherproofing
-5-axis IBIS
-pop up flash
-Latest Epson EVF
-latest Sony sensor (20MP?)
-body size between E-M5 & E-5
Sounds like a decent upgrade from the E-PL1 to me!
I have to say..that the photo at the top of the page doesn’t excite me about anything! 🙂
Camera geeks and execs aren’t that exciting.
My guess: camera announced in autumn is bigger than the EM-5, but smaller than the E-5. Similar shape to EM-5, gets all EP-5 + VF-4 + phase detection and a new adapter for 43. Not rocket science.
More interesting is if it is the successor to the EM-5, or a new category of camera. If it is the successor (and thus a category switch), I expect a new PEN model with built-in viewfinder to replace the current EM-5. Oly may be forced to do this if the GX7 is a success.
Far from certain though.
I think I confused the models. Since the bigger EVF is only one of the features, the other must be compatibility with 4/3, above the E-P2.
So we have a hybrid. However no indication of dual mount here. If they do it will cost a fortune.
Is PChome talking about the same camera, or about an E-7, 4/3 mount only?
I wish they could keep thing simpler…
Consider this as a 4/3 camera (the innards are of no significance) that can take m4/3 lenses too. Olympus will probably introduce it as such.
Considering that the FT user base is now microscopic making a high end model that appealed mostly to them would be folly they would need to charge Leica prices to make any money. While the reverse a high end mFT model that has an adapter that allows the FT owners to move into mFT would have much more appeal.Chasing a small group of old users who in all likelihood own every lens they will ever buy seems bonkers.Honestly when the obvious trend is for smaller and lighter who do they really think will be queing up to buy the SHG lenses that cost a fortune and weigh a ton , while being easily outperformed by other formats,crazy but we are talking about Olympus
+1. As someone pointed above a dual mount camera would be a loss generator.
Not so if it were a m4/3 camera with adapter.
What I fear is that someone at Olympus is convinced of the intrinsic superiority of 4/3 glass, and want to make a sin of pride.
Very few, except those who still have 4/3 lenses are interested in adapting. Majority asks for fast native m4/3zooms, but even then there might be a limit in being portable.
So choice of size will be strategic for the new camera.
> “What I fear is that someone at Olympus is convinced of the intrinsic superiority of 4/3 glass, and want to make a sin of pride.”
it always will be, there is no escaping that, what it wont be capable of is m43rds form factor
>”Very few, except those who still have 4/3 lenses are interested in adapting. Majority asks for fast native m4/3zooms, but even then there might be a limit in being portable.”
In the mix of things its rather better than that. Theres an easy 40k units which will add to the annual total that they wouldnt ordinarily have, and it will be a longer lived model than m43rds have been historically.
there isnt any value in shutting 43rds down while several conditions exist. That no m43rds body is capable of same or better AF, and that there is apparently still some market resistance.
The lens range for 43rds covers a defined range superior to FF focused APSC manufacturers. One can always find exceptional glass for specific FL range with SHG, higher utility with HG,or compactness with SG. Nobody else offers that b/se they feel the need to offer FF as a higher alternative,ie they never will.
>”So choice of size will be strategic for the new camera”
as we had it from July last year 2 cameras were being investigated for 43rds, the first is nicknamed EP3, an E30 sized 8fps with E3 OVF and a kind of LC overlay to add VF information like levels and histogram. That seems to fit best with the current traffic.
LOL. There is little use for 4/3 glass, because of huge size and weight. Even if it focussed ultraquick with no errors, which was never the case, even on native bodies.
The demise of 4/3 was not optical quality , but the miscalculation about size and weight compared to other formats. That has not changed, so you keep us telling fairytales, because you miscalculated too.
And because of this sin of pride you’d rather bring us all down with you.
However no m4/3 user is going to subsidize 4/3: there’s no interest. So it’s where the dream stops working.
Because an E-620 with a 14-54 is sooooooo huge..
serious work requires a serious lenses and interface
non of the m43rds models ATM can dethrone an Ex for that
micro is highly practical on the amateur front
but that isnt what I need cameras for
I use a GH2 every day for video, despite its far better video and better sensor it isnt tough enough, it isnt controllable enough to get even close to what Ex can do.
Just b/se cameras have similar sensor sizes doesnt in the end make them similar, actually if anything it highlights the differences. If say Canon FF had the featuresuite of Ex Id probably already be gone, but that as we know is unlikely.
I use Ex b/se it is the best for what I do.
But 4/3 glass IS superior. At least the zooms are. Importantly, it is optically corrected for geometric distortion and more telecentric, so the corners are sharper. The difference is noticeable too. Compare the 12-60 at 17mm to the 17/1.8 at any common aperture and you will see for yourself. The same goes to the 11-22 compared to the 12/2. I have not had the pleasure to own SHG glass, but I believe it has no equivalent in m4/3 except maybe the 75mm.
Well in my small way I have the 4/3 9-18 which is way better than the m.4/3 9-18, so I know.
However my contention is that we are going towards a sensor dominated world, which needs ultra light groups, and will eventually end in adaptive optics.
Therefore nobody is going to use 4/3 dreadnoughts, when they need the equivalent of a drone.
4/3 is legacy, no matter what. There is excellent legacy and poor legacy, but they share the fact that they have little USE. So you are really speaking about wars of the past.
It’s not like Oly has much money to waste. Imagine if USERS are not impressed.
Yes, you’re right.
🙂 🙂 🙂
” There is excellent legacy and poor legacy, but they share the fact that they have little USE” …hmmm..thats a rather bold claim, and in the case of the excellent HG and SHG there are little alternatives in the MFT line-up. Olympus might have chosen this MFT lens line up on purpose, and they did like that, I can live with that and manybe others will see some logic in it too. But for the ones who want a 12-35 or 35-100 F/2.0 in MFT format…there’s less logic in that than in the Olympus way IMHO.
May I ask, do you have any idea of what adaptive optics is and how it works?
There’s a v. good article about a new Canon patent at DPR.
The general principle is that it works like a pupil of an eye, with the liquid density controlled by microcurrents.
The big difference with classical lenses is of course a huge difference in size. Why don’t you do your own bit of research?
Yes, Canon invented a incremental improvement of liquid lens technology, and a nice improvement it seems.
This improvement might eventually also be used as one of the components of an adaptive optics system, but in itself it isn’t adaptive optics, not by far.
Adaptive optics is a system consisting of 3 major components:
– wavefront sensor
– computer for wavefront analysis
– optics that can be used to change the wavefront, this can range anywhere from tilting optics (similar to image stabilization) to highly deformable optics (such as certain liquid lenses)
Adaptive optics allows correcting for distortions of the wavefront caused by the atmosphere or imperfect optics.
Top end m43rds will happen anyway, there are few other spaces to fill. A 43rds body based on m43rds tech is making the most of their investment, requiring very little capitol.
You are applying western logic to a non-western issue. Olympus feels ashamed about abandoning its loyal customers and is obliged to offer them the solution they have been waiting for even if it does not make economic sense.
Hopefully they can apply the new technology to mass products too, but that is only second in priority.
+1
Not sure about that. They must know that true 4/3 users, the deer hunters, deeply despise EVF, and they can’t avoid to put one in the hybrid 🙂
However if you believe that they want to atone for their sins by making hara-kiri, more power to you 🙂
I OTH they are reasonable, they will issue a slightly bigger OM-D with adapter and PDAF on sensor. That might solve *partially* the issue.
They might watch the sales and decide if to launch an E-7 at Christmas for the last ditch. Or say good bye for ever.
I don’t believe for a second they have an E-7 on their hands. They ditched the OVF path years ago. In fact, the new V-F4 (and its built-in twin) is Oly’s salvation.
It exists as a prototype, and I’ve for a few minutes held one in my hands.
That said, there is also an EVF based prototype capable of AF with 4/3 lenses.
Supposedly they decided a while ago which one will be released as a product.
“”Olympus feels ashamed about abandoning its loyal customers “”
Try telling that to guys like me who were Olympus film camera users same old same old
Indeed, ask those who used the manual focus OM system, or those who bought the OM-707 (or 77 depending on where you live) or OM-101 or…
The responses especially to abandoning the OM system is still being felt within Olympus, and its something they are somewhat desperate to prevent this time around.
Olympus only loyalty is to making money and targeting a system that has a miniscule market is foolish in the extreme if the pro model is a high grade mFT body with a fully compatible FT adapter that allows proper AF speed then fine.However a DSLR only aimed at this tiny market is plain dumb unless it is going to cost $2000 upwards. The E-P5 with its EVF { absolutely vital to me} cost $1280 with a far larger potential sales number than an E-7 ,the E-5 a re-hashed E-3 came out at $1700 , given the limited potential market I do not see how they can charge less than this for an E-7 Due to the lower ability to amortize costs across lower sales numbers. The guy above saying that they have a market of 40000 is being more than hopeful. The high end Canikon models sell in multiple hundreds of thousands and look at the price they charge so even if every FT user left jumped to this high end model which i doubt 40000 sales is nothing
If their loyalty was to money only, they’d have quit the camera business years ago.
I’m afraid you are applying standards from a different culture to a Japanese company.
And yes, a possible E-x would very likely cost at least $1700, which is not such a concern when compared to the cost of switching systems unless you only own a few standard grade lenses. Should you? thats totally upto you, but unless you start considering the lenses and accessories that you have to replace when switching systems, you aren’t making an anywhere useful comparison.
Just as an example, replacing the 50-200 lens with something that can be called equivalent makes you end up with for example Canon’s 100-400L lens which adds $1475 to the price of switching. Ok you may sell your 50-200, but not for anything near that price.
>”if the pro model is a high grade mFT body with a fully compatible FT adapter that allows proper AF speed”
it isnt, so I guess that does that
>”The E-P5 with its EVF { absolutely vital to me} cost $1280 with a far larger potential sales number than an E-7″
the EM5 was considerably cheaper, during the run of E3 and E5 D300s was $100 more at $1800,7D was $1700. There is always room to charge less,it depends on the cost structure, the expected total volume,and the duration of the model, and the capacity to reduce. This is why GF3 can be sold with a lens at $250
>”40000 sales is nothing”
indeed big selling production models reach that in a month, but Olympus are not a big seller. So maybe Olympus should just quit?
you might like that but its not likely
the combination of models EM5 and EP5 drains the top end of m43rds potential, so what other places are there to expand for Olympus. Cheap m43rds already fulfilled by older models looking to degenerate stock. The one remaining facet, that Olympus had after all promised it would cover is 43rds, and yes 40k units is believable,and not as much as all that in the scheme of things
i think that Olympus have and amazingly large stock of 4/3 glass that they thought at the time was a good bussines, so in order for them to end that stock they need to convince us that the 4/3 lenses are way better, but i believe that they are trying to revive a dead corpse, if the new camera brings an additional adapter, and they sell those lenses at cost price, then they could have a good system on their hands.
the first is the OMD upgrade, it has the VF4 built in
the next is EP5 with 43rds lenses, remember Doug Brown says theyre almost twice as fast, this guy thinks kinda less so, but sounds a bit vague (canon user?)
the last being ‘E’ mount, is an SLR for 43rds, being smaller than E5, which we knew already
I read what Doug said about the AF speed unfortunately no one else is making the same claim, we have heard so much BS claims over the mFT years about AF being faster and better with every camera that has come along pity that real life use has not lived up to this.Especially in the area a lot of us want C-AF and tracking.I have the O-MD and have tried out the E-P5 extensively can’t say I see any kind of advance not for what I want anyway.Ideally I would love a new DSLR with all the bells and whistles and to hell with mFT lol.Only problem is I don’t see it coming
tell ya what skippy
you can go over to DPR and call Doug a liar
just invite me over to watch first
of course you wont do that,
maybe Doug already did you over sometime before and you know what to expect
I never called Doug a liar I said no one else is making the claims and Doug never shot moving targets with it he simply reported that it was quicker.There have been a lot of claims about mFT cameras getting faster AF for FT lenses which do not pan out in real life. I have never had a conversation with Doug it is very easy to get assessments of speed wrong especially when we are dealing with non moving subjects,a scenario in which the AF speed of many FT lenses is already at least passable. DPreview is a quagmire filled to bursting with OTT fanboys and sociopaths making it the last place I would want to post.You seem to be taking your imagined slight on Doug rather personally are you guys related in some way?
well heres what you said
>”I read what Doug said about the AF speed unfortunately no one else is making the same claim, we have heard so much BS claims over the mFT years about AF being faster and better with every camera that has come along pity that real life use has not lived up to this”
sounds awfully like an accusation of “”BS”” to me
>”DPreview is a quagmire filled to bursting with OTT fanboys and sociopaths making it the last place I would want to post.You seem to be taking your imagined slight on Doug rather personally are you guys related in some way?”
yeah right
first you suggest by proxy (not having the guts to make open claims) that what he says is BS, then you attack me for defending him while aligning us with some sort of ‘fanboy’ diatribe.
People can figure out for themselves who the ‘sociopath’ is…
“”we have heard so much BS claims over the mFT years about AF “””
This exactly what i said and it is true , how many times have we heard over the various mFT bodies about AF being better for FT lenses none of which have proven to be real.
I read Doug,s article here
http://torontowide.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/olympus-e-p5-pen-camera-first.html
His quotes about the AF include the following
“” on the E-P5 it definitely felt a little quicker”
Wow, a little quicker , amazing
“”Not mZuiko fast””
mZuiko fast only applies to static or slow moving subjects again no mention of the C-AF and tracking we need
“”I would expect even better performance outdoors. “”
Outdoor performance of static subjects is not an issue as typically even with the slower AF FT lenses do fine for this. There is no problem with accuracy just speed and the building or landscape is not going to run away.
Then he went on to quote the percentages as claimed by Olympus he did well testing the accuracies of Olympus claims by eye .He made no mention of taking C-AF or tracking into consideration.You sound like the typical mFT fan who is happy with what he has and doesn’t much care what FT users need.
I have no issue with the speed of my FT glass for static subjects on my E-M5,the problems come when I shoot sports or for birding which are two of my favorite subjects.Situations where my E-5 does far far better.For what its worth I did make these exact comments on his blog which he chose not to post.It is like testing a race car in a car park and claiming it will be a world beater. Until we get some reliable reviews and reports using the cameras in the type of situations that are actually challenging it is all just opinions and pushing of the Olympus message or are you trying to tell me he actually tested the AF speeds down to the level where he could claim exact percentages
I have an E-P1 and an E-M5, and both the performance and accuracy of AF with 4/3 lenses has most definitely improved between those 2.
You are however right that in practical terms this improvement is meaningless as it is still only really usable for static subjects.
@ Bart
My post was in relation to C-AF and tracking, for static subjects that are not going to run away I have no problem with my FT lenses. A little quicker in this scenario is neither here nor there as it doesn’t really matter if a static photo rakes a little longer to AF. My issue is regarding C-AF and tracking which have not moved forward in any worthwhile way as anyone who has tried using the superb FT glass for fast moving sport or nature will agree
If this OMD-pro is marketed at $2000.00, I have to do a “Yun” – its not for me.
Gentlemen (and ladies, should, by some chance, there be some here), what are you talking about? How can Nikon and Canon produce DSLRs with lower grade glass and sell these well – especially Canon with lower grade sensors too? Why should Olympus not be able to sell well a less pricey DSLR (like E-550/E-650 or E-50) with the new sensor and stabilization? They CAN! And I will be the first to buy one.
Why has a technically inferior computer system dominated the market since the 1980s?
Why did a portable audio player with inferior sound quality dominate, and to some extent even create the market for such devices?
There are many similar questions, and the answers are similar.
– being technically better does not matter to the average consumer unless they can very directly and obviously take advantage of it.
– well known brands are an easy sell to technically unaware consumers
– most consumers don’t care at all about technology but do care about convenience
– there are many how-tos and other task orriented material available for the biggest brands
I would say the main question consumers ask is:
“Is this cheaper thing good enough for my needs compared to the similar more expensive thing?”
Of course, needs morph into wants, and off we go down our gear addicted pathways.
Something (object or so) becomes “good” in our minds at the time we start desiring it. That’s the aim of any marketing campain: build desire for a product in the mind of the customer (using analogies or paraboles), and he’ll think that product is good. Look at CaNikon TV campains for instance and see that those brands plays with our desires of “nice colors, nice landscapes, emotions, pleasure”, and who brings us all that? Of course, the “brand” Canikon (same strategy with computers, phones, cars, food…).
Olympus’ marketing strategy seems a bit different since they seem to capitalize on customer’s satisfaction and so, fidelity. At least in Europe, there’s a really poor (unless no) advertising campain for Olympus products (maybe they don’t have the financial power for it). So they need to go on and “please” their customers, comfort them in their choice (fidelity), and then stay in an sort of “niche market”…
Sales at Olympus show that most customers are prepared to pay some 500 $ for a PLx, and you want to shove down their throats a 2000 $ camera under the pretext it can accept lenses or another system?
Think again: either a system is popular, or it doesn’t survive. We are saddled with older parasites who would have *their* old system subsidised by the new one. But that can go on only that much before a company collapses. Think of Kodak and film. Weren’t they making the best film? Then technology changed.
Same goes for 4/3. ‘Lenses are forever’ NOT. Those who spent 10,000 or 15,000 on such lenses should have been brought to a mental ward, and prevented to do so. Now it’s too late 🙂
They could and maybe should have done that a few years ago together with the release of the E-5.
But as it is, they already spent the money on R&D for this as the hardware has existed for a while now, and can recoup at least part of it by doing a production run of what they developed. Also the resulting technology may well help m4/3 as well (supposedly it already did)
Good news: My HG/SHG-lenses long for an appropriate sensor. My wishes for the new camera are quite modest:
– full AF on FT-lenses,
– fully articulating screen,
– live bulb and
– slightly larger body than the E-M5, but not as big as the E-5.
A hybrid body that can use FT- and mFT-lenses alike would be perfect, but I would not complain about a classic DSLR either…
Great. They’re up for a big surprise when people who own E-x cameras precisely because of their size, weight, control and ruggedness (which is basically everyone) aren’t going to buy the new camera because it’s too small and therefore too useless.
They really don’t have a clue, do they?
Calm down and wait until we actually see the thing before you start spitting venom. He didn’t say how much smaller.
Let’s be honest here, I’d say the majority of people seem to be asking for an E-30 size even E-620 before E-x.
Except that the E-30 and E-x are almost equal in size and weight – which is why the HLD-4 battery grip fits all. The difference is in slightly different ergonomics.
Knowing Olympus, they’ll create a mid-sized camera with fewer (and smaller) buttons, the HLD-4 and all the batteries will be useless, E-xxx fans will say it’s too big, E-x fans will say it’s too small. Just you wait and see.