Well, sometimes I really get “impossible” rumors. I am 99% sure these specs are fake but it’s good to see your reaction on that camera anyway. The anonymous source who sent me this said Olympus will present a Full Frame E-mount OMD at Photokina in September. These would be the specs:
– 32 Megapixel Full Frame sensor (Sony made sensor)
– ISO 50-102,400
– 3 fps
– dual core newly developed Olympus processor
– No on sensor stabilization (!)
– USB 3.0
I repeat it. Don’t believe this is ever going to happen although it would be “possible” for Olympus to make a camera like that. The only thing that would disappoint me on that camera is not having the on sensor stabilization 🙁
—
For sources: Sources can send me anonymous info at 43rumors@gmail.com (create a fake gmail account) or via contact form you see on the right sidebar. Thanks!
For readers: Don’t miss any news. Join our group on facebook and follow our tweets.
Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct
237 Responses
Let me be the first to say…. not going to happen at this year’s Photokina! (however I’d be very happy if another manufacturer joined Sony’s E mount system, as sadly Micro Four Thirds is the only system which has the backing of multiple manufacturers. Is one of the reasons why I love it!)
It deserves not a FT1 rumor level, but a new FT0 created just for it! 😉
That would be the FE mount that cover 135 format and APSC sensors. The E mount is the NEX-series APSC mount.
But you’re right, ain’t a-gonna happen. 😉
There are E lenses, covering the APS-C sensor, and FE lenses, covering full frame. Both, however, use the same mount, which is the E mount.
I was really expecting it for the Photokina, as the cost to reach Medium Format performance has come down, and Olympus is in close touch with Sony.
32 Mpx is puzzling but might be explained – one same sensor of the A7r – to get better DR and sensitivity.
Not getting IBIS is sad, but might have technological reasons – sensor too big to levitate? 🙂
Think tripod instead 🙂
No. The 32mp is because Olympus wants to retain 4:3 aspect ratio. As I noted above, you need compatibility if you’re going to go multiple mount. You don’t want your users picking up one camera and shooting 3:2 then picking up the other and shooting 4:3. That’s one of the things that drives me nuts when shooting with my Nikon and Olympus gear on the same trip.
Yes, I didn’t think of that. As a constant Oly user, I would miss very much my 4:3 ratio. So it’s a hint, after all.
About the need for lenses, I am part of those that would need just two native, or even one. The FE Zeiss 35/2.8 *which costs the same of the Oly 17/1.7 (!) and an 85/2, which I have, the old Jupiter 9.
For longer lenses I would keep using m4/3, because of the more helpful magnification ratio.
For UWA it would depend on evenness across the frame, but of course the attraction of FF big megapixels is for Landscapes.
That is why I see no contradiction for Oly going two formats. Because of the slow nature of photog. with FF one can adapt MF lenses, and keep the expense down.
For Street Shooting I’d still keep m4/3, its wonderful IBIS, and blazing AF (and silent shutter).
Ultimately what I find tends to happen is that people don’t just use System A for A and System B for B. One of the other wins out, or they duplicate.
wishful thinking 😉
There are multiple reasons why this is not going to happen:
1. The E mount is an engineering disaster. A respectable manufacturer of optics will never go there until the structure of image sensors sees a major revision.
2. FF would be a risky adventure for Olympus imaging. It cannot compete with the lions. Even Sony struggles to sell its A7 system.
3. There is little reason to go beyond m4/3. The performance of sensors and lenses has been good enough for a while now. Faster, high quality lenses (e.g. the Nocticron) can bridge the remaining gap.
How is the e-mount an engineering disaster?
tiny diameter + short flange can make lens design harder (ie pricier).
Curious to this as well. On the contrary, the E mount appears to be the most efficient mount available in terms of physical space. Its flange distance is among the shortest of all mounts and it can still fit a full frame sensor without any wasted, unused space. The mount is the epitome of efficient design. It is no larger than it needs to be. Technology to accommodate it will follow.
For most, there is really little reason to go beyond a one inch sensor but that reality Doesn’t mean you can’t.
But why do we need *another* system with the same lenses as before?
How many more 35mm and 50mm lenses one needs???
IMO Oly should release some specialist lenses for m43 instead. m43 is large enough and to grow further it needs to start appealing to the niches.
Would Olympus make the lenses or count on Sony to make them?
Many here are just too peabrained and fearful to see that there is room for BOTH formats, as pros know very well. You simply handle them differently, with their own restrictions. A clean 32 mpx would go down v. well with Stock Agencies, and in general with advertising, which needs some room to do its dirty job of cloning and replacing. LOL.
Agreed, with a caveat. You really need compatibility between the two formats of some sort to pull this off. Sony’s finally getting that somewhat right with the E versus FE, though I fear that they’re about to pull a Canon/Nikon and start stiffing the E in favor of the FE lenses.
Soundimage, who has cash for various cameras in the end decided to keep his A7r next to Fuji and m4/3. So he doesn’t worry about not having more than two FE lenses:
http://soundimageplus.blogspot.it/
Perhaps you can check how the 7% FF sector fares in these hard times, perhaps it’s rock solid. Being mirrorless small then might be a way to enter a sector that doesn’t lose money. You don’t need necessarily many native lenses, so the investment might be limited.
BTW,Visit my new blog, it’s fun:
Photo & Poetry
http://amalric2014.blogspot.it/
For me it was different. Having the D800E means that I have a camera that outperforms the A7r for the things that I need the 36mp sensor for. I chose to sell my D610 and keep the A7 because I use that camera more casually, e.g. for shooting while walking in cities, etc., and I’m generally not as performance-bound but size aware.
As far as I can tell, the full frame market is not dropping other than the cyclical aspects. In other words, most cameras sell best early in their life cycle, then decline to a lower level, plus they have longer life cycles than consumer bodies. I can’t detect any significant change other than that the D800 continues to sell fairly well, probably higher than we’d expect at this point.
I’d still say that you need lenses to really make an impact. Even Olympus realizes that: note that they said attach rate for lenses for them is higher for their high-end cameras. That’s been what I’ve seen overall.
Congrats on the new blog.
Sony has pretty screwed with their last 36mp (more correct definiton is 30~ mp) sensors… Nikon D800 and A7 already has very bad contrast and color characteristics (sony bad a bit more) If it is possible to make a FF oly camera, it should not with a sony sensor. (custom ordered might be more accurate) I do really miss ccd sensors. There were some noise issues on ccd’s but it has more “soul” than this cmos sensor. Pity that Kodak has left the business and Dalsa still doing nothing.
What is this, nincompoop day?
Guess so . . . you’re here.
LOL look at the children, how upset everybody is.
M43 is ailing and will fail soon; they will be left with their overpriced toys and without their (lowly) marketing jobs. So sad.
SD! I missed you.
Wow so much hate…
This is a 100% fake rumor, no way Olympus would enter such cheap, low grade systems.
On the other hand I’m convinced that Olympus will announce a medium format mirrorless system soon, together with a cheap, compact kit lens of 40–150 mm and constant F1.8 aperture. (Don’t forget multiplying by 0.625 to get the proper 35 mm equivalent!)
What is medium format? Is that used by large format wannabe people? Never heard of the FF system in this article neither. Is that some kind of “for fun” sensors used in phones? Either way too small, large format is the only way to go!
I wish some camera maker would make a larger than FF compact camera. Something like the Fuji 6×8. Add few sharp primes, they don’t even have to be fast, just F4, and I think we have a winner.
http://www.jafaphotography.com/images/eq/BRRFK.jpg
Yes one misses the old 6×6 for Studio work, although if you have a big enough pixel count one can use multiformat.
BTW going FF35 might mean that makers ARE accepting that there are limits to growth to cropped sensors.
Like you know squat…
I’ve seen his photos . . . Amalric is the Real Deal.
Haven’t seen YOUR pictures yet????
Seen them too, they are crap. What about yours? Smarter than your comments?
Quick Troll . . . . change your login alias again and spew more of your tired “crap”. Then maybe you’ll be more “Pro” than Amalric.
Like I said, Amalric has a website with REAL content and Poetry and many cool photos. Amalric is doing something worthy and uplifting with his time, and maintains his credibility and respectability, while taking time out to make insightful comments here.
Would you care to direct us to your “work”?
My work would reveal my identity, even you magilla can get that? It’s OK that you like amalric’s work though, it confirms my suspicions on your brain.
Myself, I must be a really bad boy because your rants on changing logins, poetry, uplifting, credibility etc just don’t hit the spot. You “profited” from an American education huh?
SD, I’d recognize your anger anywhere. And now you’re voting thumbs up on your own posts. You actually registered your name as ‘Samuel’? It’ll make it a lot harder to keep switching names, but I’ll give you credit for stepping a bit further out of the shadows.
You must be even thicker than amalric… And you “give credit” to others? LOL
Take credit where credit is due. Do they have that saying where you’re from? I’m proud of you for registering a name. I know that’ll make you even angrier, but so be it.
Smack! Remember, it’s all for the fun.
Smack what?
Have you come back from your fav hobby? Sukking dixx? You must smell yucky.
MrSuxDix, two childish posts in a row! And what did you do with Samuel?
Well, there are limits to either. With larger than 24x36mm we probably have to sacrifice zoom lenses, and lenses brighter than f2.0, especially if we want a compact ‘landscape photojournalist’ system. But I can live with that.
The ‘Full Frame’ sensor size benefits from decades of lens designs, but going smaller was limited by film. 24×36 frame size was the limit, anything smaller and you started to sacrifice quality. And same with any film over ISO400. That is one reason for strong sales of behemoth lenses like 300/400mm f2.8. Now we can crank the ISO up to 12000 and use 400/5.6 or use smaller sensor without sacrificing (much) quality.
ILC rangefinder medium format digital? Yes please! But the new Pentax 645Z looks pretty amazing, on paper, tho not a smallish rangefinder. I can’t wait to rent one.
Fake, but…
Why FullFrame again ?
Oly & Pana not need a FF system , what they need is to double / even triple up the current sensor performance with a new element of sensor & once acheived is more sufficient than a full frame option .
Although to make a full frame sensor is much easier than to double / triple up current 4/3 sensor’s performance .
If the RX100’s 1″ sensor can acheived such amazing high megapixels & DR performance , I don’t see why 4/3 can’t do it better .
Olympus is committed to mft which I think is a good thing. Not everyone needs full-frame. Sony shooked the market with the A7/A7r/A7s but Sony is Sony. One of the Big Tree in photography. I don’t think that Olympus can embark on a full-frame mirrorless journey because of the costs of developing a new ecosystem (lenses in particularly). Profit is something that Olympus photography hasn’t achieved in a long long time…
So this rumor goes in the same category as Fuji going full-frame mirrorless.
http://photobyandrei.wordpress.com/
Oly engineers are clever enough to make a camera with more than 3 fps. Period.
You mean better than Sony, who managed 1.5 fps? ;~)
Why would I want to go back to FF?
Back? LOL liar or imbecile?
Neither a “Liar” (like yourself) nor stupid. Anyone who took pictures during the 1970’s used a full frame camera. Every SLR camera company made nothing but FF. What was the result?? . . . camera nirvana?? Hardly.
What ACTUALLY resulted is MILLIONS of camera users decided that FF was unnecessary to our photographic lives, (especially after the collapse of film). That realization persists and is driving ALL SORTS of alternative and Hybrid photographic products, more in line with our current lifestyles. Whether you are protesting APSc, m4/3, 1″ sensors or “smart phone” cameras, (all of which fit into our real lives better than HUGE cameras and lenses), you are fighting a losing battle.
Canikon will still make BIG, HEAVY, CLUNKY, cameras and lenses for those “Pros” who need them. Most of the photographic world will migrate to more sensible gear.
Geez, go buy your crappy toys, nobody is holding you back. What a loony. And for the record, Canon and Nikon make excellent compact cameras.
Like Nikon 1, right SD? Live and let live buddy.
OMG, take your medication!
Millions of camera users don’t even know sensor size in their camera. With transition to digital, FF cameras became much rarer just because of technical difficulties of producing a FF sensor.
What does this have over Sony then besides the name? FF end 2014 or so? 50 MPIxel. 5 FPS at least (surely with dual core PU). And still: what does it have over A7S? No, I’ll await the rumoured MF Sony fixed lens cam…
Thank you Admin! 🙂 yesterday I asked for low ranked rumors and here we are! 😉
E-mount can’t use IBIS unless you crop the image. And again I doubt the mechanics are strong enough to move a bigger and heavier sensor. Not now at least, but maybe in a year or two..
Sony a7 is something like “the cheap FF” (a7r and a7s are different) and I don’t see a place for a FF sensor camera from Olympus. Not even a MF. Talking about FF sensor cameras, I’d prefer an alternative to Sony RX1.
I would love for this to happen but I’m realistic. I’m not holding my breath and anyway, I wouldn’t be able to afford those prices.
Olympus is already a money strapped company and they would be thinning themselves too much. What meager benefit would they gain by dividing up their R&D? They would have to produce both FF and m43 bodies and lenses or possibly abandon m43 alltogether. I would rather see them concentrate their efforts on making m43rds as good as they can and hope that sensor development with both Sony/Oly and Fuji/Pany take a big leap forward and we can move on with sensors capable of excellent IQ and higher pixel counts.
I’ve heard this rumor, too, but with different details: basically a full frame camera shown at Photokina (not shipped in 2014). The problem with that idea is the same as always: unless you use an existing mount and existing lens sets that benefit, you basically start in a hole. Thus, you need something awful compelling to get attention and repeat sales. Even Sony is finding that difficult, and worse still, the A7 models are pulling sales away from there DSLRs, so they’re competing with themselves and harming the A mount future.
Coupled with the timing–who won’t be showing a new full frame camera at Photokina?–I just don’t see the upside. A far better use of Olympus’ time would be to re-engineer the menu system of their m4/3 cameras.
That said, I don’t think Olympus or anyone else has any choice, long term. As the bottom of the camera market continues to crater, several things happen: (1) larger sensors go into smaller cameras (e.g. compacts, as Sony, Canon, and Nikon have shown); (2) the mirrorless competition gets rough with APS and full frame cameras gaining more traction and most likely to push the sensor boundaries up again; (3) the remaining high-photo enthusiast has the money and wants the quality associated with full frame; and (4) as CMOS facilities keep downsizing to meet the demands of CPU/GPU/memory, reutilizing one for low volume large format image sensors gets cheaper. In short, if there are anything like interchangeable lens cameras as we know them today still available three to five years from now, they’re most likely all going to be APS or full frame and mostly high end.
Just as everyone eventually succumbed and had to develop autofocus systems, the same will likely be true of higher end large sensor systems. The problem is that there are three big players already there.
“A far better use of Olympus’ time would be to re-engineer the menu system of their m4/3 cameras.”
Absolutely!
That, coupled with overall improved ergonomics and ratcheting up their quality control would be a huge plus!
Fracturing their R&D and manufacturing would be mistake.
And finally pay attention to video.
“In short, if there are anything like interchangeable lens cameras as we know them today still available three to five years from now, they’re most likely all going to be APS or full frame and mostly high end.”
The only problem with the statement is that I have been hearing something similar over the last 3-5 years. And it is, as you say, still 3-5 years away. Heck, I even said once something similar myself.
We’ve gotten to the IQ plateau, sales slowed and it is the time of uncertainty. Yet, the only thing is certain is that manufacturers would keep milking their systems till the last living breath. Thus I do not see reasons for any sudden change.
As much as I want fixed lens cameras to win, and all interchangeable lenses/cameras die a horrible horrible death, I still do not see it happening. RX100 hasn’t conquered the world – and I’m quite certain at MSRP of $650-750 it is not going to happen for quite some time. Because Sony wants to milk it too.
In the end IMO, as it is always, the cheapest system would survive. But who that would be, I do not know. Knowing Oly’s quirky pricing habits, chances are not on their side. IMO.
There is no future in cheap cameras. They are getting eaten by cameras in cellphone. Camera makers make money from high end cameras, because high-end users buy many more lenses. Olympus is switching to higher end segments (such as OM-D) for this reason.
“There is no future in cheap cameras. They are getting eaten by cameras in cellphone.”
You have mixed up “cheap cameras” with “cheap crap cameras”.
RX100 for $100 would be a technological achievement. But it is still impossible to make such camera for such low price. Electronics might fall in price with the time – but the optics tends to maintain the cost high.
And this is IMO why the “3-5 years” mark is always getting delayed: prices of optics are still high and nobody can really get to the market’s sweet spot price. (But probably with the software correction…)
There is little demand for cheap cameras regardless of whether they are crap of not. We can argue about the value of a camera on the internet all day but in the end it all comes down to profitability, and cheap cameras are a shrinking market. Just look at the numbers! This is why lots of camera makers are getting out of this market and aiming for higher stuff like OM-D cameras and “cheap” full-frame.
> and cheap cameras are a shrinking market.
Man… What are you smoking?? The cheap cameras is THE largest f***ing GROWING market!!
But you are still mixed up what the cheapest camera is. Big hint: it is in your smartphone. And not only you perceive that it costs nothing, it is also THE cheapest (digital) camera there is out there. Thanks to the economies of scale, plus the shared RAM/CPU/GPU/storage resources, the smartphone camera units cost around 5-30€, depending on the model.
Name me a single compact/bridge/ILC which costs as little? Right. None.
So by camera you meant phone… right. The decreasing sale in cheap cameras (you know, the real cameras, like point & shoot) are shrinking.
If we can’t agree on that point then it’s pointless to discuss because you are just using one word for another.
Camera is the device which allows to capture images. As such, smartphone is also, among many other things, a camera.
The problem is more apparent now, and you can even see it with Olympus: every camera maker is heading upstream to the top levels. Why? Because they see the writing on the wall: they will sell a much smaller number of cameras, and they’ll only be higher priced ones catering to the long dedicated photo enthusiast. Those folks are a bit large sensor biased, they’re going to ask for every ounce of quality to justify the costs, and so on.
Olympus themselves say they’re dropping virtually all compacts, de-emphasizing Pen, and concentrating mostly on OM-D. They’re going upstream with all the other fish. Photokina this year could be a full frame shootout. We’ve got believable rumors of Fujifilm and Olympus joining the fray, and there’s long been one of Samsung doing so, too. Who’s left? Pentax, and yes, they’ll head that direction, too.
Meanwhile, the market from lowest compact to APS-mirrorless/DSLR is very disruptable by someone like Apple, Google, or Microsoft right now. That’s because when IQ is on a “good enough” plateau, software becomes the next disruption.
Finally, looking at the actual sales prices of cameras bought at retail: they’re going up on average. The lower end stuff is getting clogged in the channel, and I personally believe that we’ve hit the household saturation point with low-end DSLRs and are now in mostly a replacement only market.
So I’m going to stick with what I wrote. The camera terrain is going to look very different five years out, and possibly much sooner than that.
Thanks for sharing the insights. If time would allow (and it would be possible) I’ll try to visit Photokina this year. There we shall see whether the change you are talking about is as upon us as you say.
But it would be sad really, if it is true. Because that would mean that Olympus also wouldn’t finish the lens line-up for m43, hopping onto something new. (Lens-wise, I do not even want to talk about Panasonic. Because I, frankly, consciously, can’t fork that much money on the lenses with the Leica name on them. I do love the IQ. But they are waaay too expensive.)
I don’t think there’s any danger in Olympus and Panasonic not finishing the lenses they’ve already announced and hinted at, so I’d say that m4/3 will be pretty filled out by the time all those hit the shelves.
But yes, the “hopping on something new” thing is worrisome. That’s been Sony’s pattern so far, and it hasn’t really given them any traction in the marketplace. The worry is also that the “something new” gets replaced with “something newer.” Camera systems weren’t disposable before (film SLR to DSLR). Now they’re starting to look more like they are. That’s a worrisome trend, and I don’t think it will play with the customer.
I’d love for Olympus to make e-mount lenses in collaboration with Sony. Instead of creating holes they could fill them. That would sound like a good move since Sony would benefit from more lenses without having more competition body-wise. And that would give Olympus a b-plan to stay in the camera market.
But that may be more a dream that a possibility.
. . . “who won’t be showing a new full frame camera at Photokina?” . . . .
That’s easy . . . . Panasonic won’t be showing a new full frame camera at Photokina.
“A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.” KJV
Probably not. But remember that Photokina also shows video gear, too, though I’d be surprised if Panasonic went bigger in sensor for video cameras at this point.
We have four companies in full frame: Canon, Leica, Nikon, Sony. High chance that we’ll see more from at least two of those.
We have five companies that aren’t currently in full frame: Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, and Samsung. I know that two of those are readying systems and I’ve heard rumors on two others.
Nice Idea! Lack of rumors…invent your own!
I guess this is your response for the Olympus fanboys who complain that you are talking about Panasonic too much? Next time make up a rumor about Olympus having a profitable camera division!!
What the heck are you talking about? Go find some cheap pana bodies and live as you like.
We would better hear some rumor bits about next OM-D E-M5 🙂
Yeah! We haven’t heard a good E-M5 rumor in a while. I wonder if Olympus will go to 2 OM-D cameras like the contraction with the PEN series.
Admin, the FT1 category needs a correction: It needs to be 0(!!)-20% chance the rumor is correct. I simply don’t believe.
🙂
BUT: I think it would be good for Oly to have both formats. Good for visibility and reputation. In the market is room (and need) for both systems. I don’t think anyone denies that. So: why not? Cost or effort? Depends on the expected success whether this invest would be worth it. My prediction is: if done right, it could be successful.
I’m German, I like structure. PEN line streamlined, OMD line nicely diversified, good system. Now add two bigger sensor lines, “enthusiast & pro” + “entry but good and mostly sufficient” sounds nice.
I support the idea of an E-M5 update. Would help me to get a cheaper E-M10 as second body 🙂
The image on top says it all: why? What new would it bring to E-mount? What would Sony get by such a rebadge?
E-mount is open source.
Is it? Sony said they’d share the mount details with others via some sort of development relationship, but I’m not aware that they’ve openly published the details or allow them to be openly published.
I can only trust what was said in the media. The fact that Sigma and Tamron released (or wanted to release) lenses for MFT and e-mount suggests that this is the case. One issue was that Sony did not release info about autofocus, hence why the sigma lenses were not compatible with PDAF until recently.
A camera maker could go around the AF issue by releasing both lenses and camera bodies in a specific mount, which Olympus could technically do. Otherwise, I doubt that Olympus would release a camera body in e-mount that doesn’t use PDAF or they’d shoot themselves in the foot.
So unless Olympus has a special agreement with Sony regarding AF, the only option is that Olympus also releases lenses (which I would love). Otherwise this whole FF e-mount thing is suicide.
“Open” is different than “Proprietary via NDA.” IIRC what Sony said at the E-mount launch was that they would allow others to get the mount information if they signed an agreement.
Tamron is tricky, as Sony is their top investor ;~)
Sigma is also tricky, as it’s slowly being discovered that they have been doing lenses for some of the main camera companies that don’t have the Sigma name on them.
Zeiss is tricky, as Sony has a close, long term relationship with them.
So who does that leave that really has done autofocus lenses for the E-mount? So far it looks mostly like Sony’s long-time friends are the only ones producing E-mount lenses.
I think we agree that AF is the main issue. This can be solved by either getting insider info or making your own body. Either is possible now that Olympus and Sony are in bed together. Hopefully this leads to more than just shared camera parts.
Thom Hogan is 100% right on this issue. It frustrates me when people call E-mount open. It is not, and not going to be.
Since when Sigma’s E-lenses have PDAF support? proof?
Nice rumor. The question is what an FF Oly could do for us that a Sony can´t. We would need new lenses anyway.
But I really don´t see it happen anytime soon. Oly needs years (many many) to come up with a few new lenses. How would they create a new system from scratch and keep committed to mft?
Oh, now I get it – Oly joins Sony E-mount^^ Well, that would give the Sony people some nice lenses for the first time 😉
What would be the advantage to Olympus creating a FF line of cameras?
Could we use our current M4/3 lenses? If not, then many M4/3 users would be forced to choose between their M4/3 cameras which they already have lenses for or a “new” FF set of equipment. Also such a move by Olympus would signal a loss in faith in M4/3 technology as somehow not sufficient for “pros”.
If a person needs a 135 format camera, there are already MANY well developed FF camera systems to choose from. Why should Olympus spend it’s precious resources providing a Me-Too product which would ONLY appeal to Oly Fanbois. Olympus will NEVER challenge Canikon for that business.
This is fever-brained consumerism mixed with fanboi foolishness and is a complete non-starter.
The same goes for Fuji…there are a lot of Fuji users who are yelling “We need ff!!!” every time a rumor appears. Those days a photo company (except Canon, Nikon or Sony) can’t have multiple ecosystems (interchangeable cameras/lenses) because of the costs (yeah I know, Pentax has the 645 mf but that’s a niche market while ff is more and mainstream those days considering we have the 6D, the D610 or the A7 at low prices unthinkable half a decade ago for ff)
http://photobyandrei.wordpress.com/
Profitability may trump users needs when it comes to business decision, don’t forget that.
HIgher-end product can be sold for much more.
If I wanted or “needed” a “Full Frame” . . . . Why wouldn’t I buy a Nikon or Canon? FF is Canikon’s specialty, and they are VERY good at producing such gear. It would NOT be prudent to buy into an upstart FF camera system with a dearth of lenses.
I believe this is Oly fanboys losing their perspective over another chance to blow their credibility in a frenzy of silly consumerism.
FORTUNATELY, Olympus is NOT quite that judgmentally impaired.
– Mirrorless FF would potentially mean smaller lenses/camera bodies compared to DSLR.
– A mirrorless camera with FF and IBIS would be a dream for lots of people who use legacy glass, although I don’t think IBIS is compatible with FE mount. I would be happy with APS-C e-mount and IBIS though 🙂
– Mirrorless also means no issue with micro-adjustments for each lenses.
– The low-end FF offering from Canikon are not all that great AF-wise. Probably sufficient, but not great in terms of tracking. Maybe Olympus could be competitive in the cheaper FF segment.
These are just a few things on the top of my head. I love the MFT lenses but the sensors do not convince me, although a 24 MP MFT sensor could potentially change that. I’d rather have an APS-C sensor though, and there’s no denying that Olympus offers nice bodies and nice lenses.
Sounds like a pretty BS camera.
Unless it’s 1.200$ Body.
No IBIS LOL!
What’s so “LOL” about no IBIS? It makes absolute sense. The reason why 4/3 works so well with IBIS is because of it’s size.
Yeah…this makes no sense. A new camera with a break-thru in sensor technology does make sense, though.
Not sure I’d go for it. I like the smaller body size, I love the additional DoF I get with m43, plus the IBIS on my E-M5’s and E-PL5. I’m very happy with the image quality and low light performance (sure my 1Dx is better at really high ISO’s, but I don’t go really high (ISO6400+)) a lot. There’s very little about the m43 system I really think holds me back, well maybe the C-AF and flash support, but I’ve DSLR’s for those occasions.
Of course this camera is happening and it is great news for everyone. It is the only logical step if Olympus wants to survive.
It wouldn’t even be that expensive for Olympus considering the R&D exchange with Sony. They’d just have to put some of the A7 tech inside the E-M1 body. put an E-mount on it, and it’s done.
Olympus FE primes would kick some serious ass.
Could it be that Oly is simply designing prototype for Sony? That would make sense.
Otherwise, if proven true, I can only say that there are still holes in the m43 lens line-up. I wish Oly would drop the casual attitude and produce some niche lenses (long tele, WA TS, 90-250 for m43). System grew large enough to sustain the niche products too. If they would now split the R&D resources with another system, it would be another casual, shallow system.
I agree with the need for niche lenses such as WA T/S but to say that m4/3 is casual and shallow ? What does that say about other mirrorless systems with no decent catalog ?
You said it. If you look at it objectively, no mirrorless lens system to date even tried to produce *something* specialized to even appeal the niches.
I blame the “street photography” fad.
P.S. As an amateur, I’m clearly extrapolating. But I had taken a serious look as Nikon and Canon lens catalogs. Many things are covered by m43 – but the specialist niche things (which surprisingly are few) are missing. After producing gazillion of generic zooms, one would have never thought that adding few /different/ lenses would pose such a problem for Olympus or Panasonic. Meaning that they are simply not interested in adding the depth to the system.
Always good to have choice, why not FF and a crop mode. Many problems I know but we can continue to use our small m43 lenses. Most importantly, when bragging, FF me too and creating inferior complexity opportunities come we will have the right equipment for the job.
I’d be more excited if I found out Olympus was starting to make lenses for the FE Mount. The first company to come out with a full-frame mirrorless option with a complete line of good, competitively priced, fast, relatively small, autofocusing primes can have me my money.
Looks too much like the sony. Why do all these cams imitate the same retro style?
What do you mean ? the cameras pictured are the already existing EM5 and A7, those are NOT leaked pics, this is a lowly FT1 rumor, you know, those that are beyond ridiculous so it has almost no credibility,
oh please …not again OMD FF
focus on m43 … give us affordable lenses and support the existing users
once Oly camera division is in black numbers …they can strat to thing go FF
see this
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/olympus-results.html
You may be a fanboy: if you need a “FullFrame” camera system but you won’t consider anything not made by Olympus.
I believe a camera system manufacturer cannot lock itself into just one sensor size – forever. Development never stops and what´s not doable or too expensive today is tomorrow´s standard. Oly locked itself into 4/3 and lost a lot of money. Now they and Pana risk doing the same with m43. The way forward is to offer (like CaNikon) several sensor format systems.
One example: The EM-1 costs 50% more than a Nikon D7100 and exactly the same as a Sony A7. How great the EM-1 is and how great the lens selection is, in the end the sensor area is 25% of the Sony A7 sensor. Physical laws will always apply – even on m43 camera systems. Also developing excellent lenses is great – but they out-resolve the m43 sensor ans costs like (or more than) a lens for a 24×36 sensor.
Both Oly and Pana could develop excellent 24×36 systems – if they decide to.
On one hand, some of your points are valid. On the other hand, there’s much risk in adding a completely new camera series which would need completely new lenses, which again would divert resources from completing and perfecting the existing system, which is why Fujifilm says they won’t do Full Frame, either. And while Micro FT does have a huge range of lenses lined up today, many of them are either too slow (aperture-wise) or too mediocre in image quality or both, so there still is too much left to improve for Olympus (or Panasonic) to slow down their investments in Micro FT development.
Not every manufacturer needs to offer cameras for every existing sensor format.
not having the on sensor stabilization? Not Intersting
FF means large lenses, which means heavy lenses, which is the reason I gave up my DSLR and went M4/3 in the first place!
That’s quite funny, because I have a hard time telling my A7 + 35/2.8 + 55/1.8 kit’s size apart from my E-P5 + 17/1.8 + 25/1.4 except that the A7 combo produces about 4x the resolution and far better dynamic range.
Good point, but what happens when you put on the 24-70mm f2.8 (955g) compared to the 12-35mm f2.8 (305g). Or the 70-200mm, oh wait, Sony doesn’t have one for the A7, then you better use the 70-200mm f2.8 G SSM II (1500g) plus the adapter, compared to the 35-100mm f2.8 (360g).
Relax, the above is semi tongue in cheek. I really like the A7, I applaud Sony for what they’ve done. But going FF means having heavy lenses if you want fast lenses. I generally prefer the size of the m43 camera’s and lenses. I’m OK with the IQ too. Both m43 and FF have their uses and I’d imagine in the real world 99% of people wouldn’t push either sensor size to their limit.
The 24-70mm f2.8 compares to a the 24-70mm f5.6 on 135. The cheap Sony zoom will take care of it and offer shallower DOF at the wider lengths.
The cheap Sony Zoom is many magnitudes worse in terms of optical quality and it fails to address the need for the faster f-stop for… you know, decent shutter speeds without maxing out your ISO. No one here cares about your DOF equivalences.
DXO truism? Self-justification? Children at home awaiting their cheeseburgers? Sad sad sad…
Nope… just the honest truth. As another commenter already posted, this pretty much sums it all up: http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/#comment-199408
Most of the people that shoot m4/3 that actually post here ALREADY shot FF, APS-C, etc and likely STILL shoot those formats from time to time. We already know that we have a trade off in DOF and overall resolution, though in many situations this is actually a blessing and not as much of a curse as you want us to believe.
Sorry, but many of those who post here are clueless gadget geeks, or marketing folks trying to earn a buck. There are more of those around, and some write on blogs. Lack of education makes consumers vulnerable. Result: you get screwed. Enjoy…
Phew, luckily we’ve got you then.
Not so lucky, because you are too stupid to follow my advice. But hey, that’s nature.
But no one have asked for your advice, so you can shove them up where the sun never shines or at Sony rumors
Stupid AND rude huh? Not so good as you at shoving I am afraid, cuntie.
Why would one use huge, 360 gram 35-100/2.8 when Pentax Q 15-45/2.8 is ONLY 90 grams?
This one will be the Olympus OMG camera series.
Nope, they should develop something better and call it Super 4/3.
FF E-mount will be dead soon as Sony lenses are poor.
NO! I refuse to let my A7r join my betamax and minidisc player in the back of the closet!
Please, no, this is 43 Rumors not FF Rumors.
Next on 43rumors:
(FT1) The OMD Medium Format Mamiya 7 mount Camera.
I would buy that.
The admin has a choice here- does he post these silly, not-gonna-happen rumors and get some hits, even though they hurt credibility?
It would be a terrible idea for Oly to release a full frame at photokina, but I’m not worried, because they won’t.
How can a rumour site have its credibility hurt? Well, if rumours are claimed to be facts, perhaps, but this was only given an FT1 rating. This site deals with rumours, so posting a rumour doesn’t hurt the site’s credibility at all.
You are so right !
I agree, one day he apologized to the Olympus fanboys for talking too much about the GH4, the next day he makes up goofy rumors to pacify the pack of salivating kool-aid drinkers…. Sad really.
If this is a possibility, I think it’s not the best idea. Just let the Sony division work on FF and develop better 4/3 sensors; let Olympus work on their product line. If they want to get back into the DSLR game, then Sony should focus on making the best 4/3 sensor and help make the E-7. Zuiko SHG 4/3 is still one of the best glass lines out there from my experience.
This was a 1 april joke
FF is optimal sensor size. Olympus cannot survive outside the rectoscope business without making FF cameras, so this is a necessary move. Soon there will be Olympus cameras for real photographers too, and not just toy cameras for children. We will enjoy all the noisefree splendour of FF.
Given that in the real world, full-frame cameras make up less than 10% of the sales of interchangeable lens cameras, and ILCs make up about 40% of all camera sales, I’d say that full-frame is the optimal sensor size for 4% of people.
But that’s if you care about the real world. Then again, when you factor in the popularity of camera phones, FF is optimal size for less than 1% of people.
Like this you would argue that McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts provide the optimal food?
When you factor in people’s time to prepare food, their budget, and taste preferences (for greasy garbage, even!), then why not? Certainly, someone’s avowed preference – paid for with their own dollars – is a more valid argument than your arbitrary proclamation, no?
If everyone thought full-frame was the optimal camera for them, they’d be willing to pay large amounts for it and carry around the extra size and weight. This doesn’t seem to be the case, therefore, maybe it’s not optimal for one reason or another.
What people prefer and think is optimal for them, and what people ought to prefer and what really is optimal for them, are two different things.
Maybe you’re right, and we’d be better off if you were king of the world and could make everyone’s choices for them. Until that day, we’re stuck with what we’ve got, unfortunately.
Yes, you are stuck with crap gadgets, we are enjoying a hobby and knowing how it works. If you learn, you can always switch systems.
You do understand that most point and shoot cameras today are already better than most people using them. Stop trying to push a big, heavy format that is fantastic for the very small percent of people that actually need it on the rest of the world.
When the “camera dictator” is appointed to make our photo gear decisions for us . . . It will NOT be you.
Keep practicing your trolling- you’ll get there one day. 😉
There is not much extra size, not with equivalent lenses. Learn before you post, I start to have enough of this.
The problem with this “mine is better than yours” thinking is that people seem to be looking for 1 “optimum” while there obviously are several optima and everyone has different demands and needs.
Market shares are not an indicator for me as the general public as a whole acts like a dumb mass, a chicken without a head.
The optimal camera proclamation did not come from me. I am happily using micro four thirds and full frame side by side, because I find great uses for my cameras and lenses on both systems. Not every lens equivalent exists on every system. Not every lens type is the same quality on every system.
Flawed argument. You assume that those 96% already have the optimal sensor size, which is false. FF is optimal for everyone, so everyone should use FF cameras, period.
“FF is optimal sensor size” — my Graflex 4×5 laughs at you!
welcome to bigs lens FF world.
Wasn’t April Fools day last month?
I guess I don’t understand who would even buy a full-frame Olympus? There aren’t lenses to go with it, and the reason people bought M4/3 in the first place is because of the compromises made to ensure a compact and lightweight system. System being the key word there, since it includes both cameras and lenses.
Anyone compared the size of the Sony A7 + 70-200mm F4 to an EM-1 + 35-100mm F2.8?
You have to compare equivalent lenses.
The Sony 35/2.8 is identical in size and weight to the Olympus 17/1.8.
The Sony 55/1.8 is identical in size to the Voigtlander 25/0.95 but lighter.
The Sony 24-70/4 is similar in size and weight to the Olympus 12-40/2.8
The Sony 70-200/4 is significantly smaller than the Olympus 35-100/2.
Of course there’s more to a lens than equivalence (sharpness, bokeh, distortion, etc…) but my general feeling is that equivalent lenses have equivalent sizes.
Yes! Please post again, it seems that nobody here understands this. I am not taking the piss!
Plus a lens like a 55 f/1.8 will likely be better at f/1.8 than the Voigtlander 25 will be at 0.95.
I think Turbofrog was referring to the Pani 35-100mm F2.8, not the four thirds Olympus lens, in comparison to the Sony 70-200/4.
Yeah, Sherlock, and I was referring to the fact that those lenses are not even close to equivalent.
You’d have to compare to a full frame 70-200 f/5.6, for example the Nikon 70-210 f/4-5.6 which happens to be the same size and only slightly heavier than the panasonic.
Yawn… the tired ol’ response that equivocates DOF to aperature numbers. NEWSFLASH: f2.8 is f2.8 in terms of actual shutter speed regardless of the differences in DOF from the smaller sensor. Also, the m4/3 lenses are significantly sharper at f2.8 than all the Sony Zooms at their slow aperatures. Enjoy your DOF!
Say on, Bro. Here is the truth.
“Full Frame Equivalence and Why It Doesn’t Matter”
http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/#comment-199408
Feel free to believe whatever, pigs haven’t learned to fly yet.
But you are proof that pigs still OINK! Equivalence simply doesn’t mean squat, unless you are an EQUIVOCATOR.
equivocator:
e·quiv·o·cate [ih-kwiv-uh-keyt] e·quiv·o·cat·ed, e·quiv·o·cat·ing. to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge:
brainless
Line breaks:
brain|less
Pronunciation: /ˈbreɪnləs
/
adjective
Stupid; very foolish: a brainless fangirl
I agree with you. I’m not sure why people keep making false statements. Aside from the numbers I think these people should own these items and take a photo. Then they should look down on their Aperture, Shutter, and ISO and check out what it says. If Mike is referring to DoF comparisons then that should have been his original statement.
BREAKING NEWS: f-stop is relative aperture and is meaningless without taking focal length and sensor image size into account. Draw a diagram. Or are you saying that the iPhone’s f/2.8 lens pulls in as many photons as a full frame f/2.8 lens? Per unit of sensor surface, sure it does, but what does that tell you when the sensor is 10x smaller?
m43 lenses are by no means sharper than the FE primes. This is the typical blabber from people who have not done the comparison themselves. Or if you are so convinced of your statement, show me the m43 lens that can resolve 29 mpix like the FE 55mm.
But what about the lighter, smaller, faster, sharper Panasonic 20mm/f1.7, instead of the Olympus 17? They aren’t the exact same focal length, but the comparison is only made tricky because Sony has so few FF lenses.
And what about the Panasonic 12-35/2.8, which is 1/4 lighter and smaller than the Olympus?
The 35-100mm f2 is a telecentric DSLR lens, and arguably one of the best lenses ever made. It’s a bit like using a Zeiss Otus as your example of a 50mm/1.4 full-frame lens for weight and size comparison.
You’re absolutely right that equivalent lenses are (roughly) equivalent in most cases, but the question is whether those lighter options even exist in the full-frame catalogue to begin with. You can’t buy a 70-210 f4-5.6 these days, and when you say “slightly heavier” you’re comparing 380 grams to 590 grams. That’s enough of a difference to carry the 20mm/f1.7 and the 45mm/f1.8. Not trivial!
The smallest currently available 70-200+ equivalent lens for full-frame is something like a Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 that still weighs 610g (60% more than the Panasonic) and is 5″ long, and one that no one would pretend is the optical equal of the Panasonic. Not to mention weather-sealing, yada, yada, yada…
The issue at hand is sufficiency. For many/most, the ISO range available on modern cameras – even lowly M4/3 sensors – is enough to make an f2.8/(f/5.6 on FF) telephoto more than enough for the average, or even well above-average, photographer.
Yet there simply don’t exist light, affordable, and competent “equivalent” full-frame options to compare. Certainly, you can spin that right around and say that there aren’t the ultra-fast telephotos (i.e. f2 zooms) for Micro Four Thirds, and you’d be right. But in the real world, is anyone even asking for them?
The Panasonic 20/1.7 is quite similar to the Canon 40/2.8.
But you are absolutely right everything comes down to the availability of the particular lens you need. In the long range m43 is served great in my opinion, with the 75/1.8 and several excellent tele zoom options. And that’s why I’m keeping both systems.
So far, in the 35 and 50-55mm range, the A7 lenses beat the crap out of what’s available for m43 in terms of IQ, while maintaining a similarly small size. It will remain to be seen for the other primes to come…
The Sony 35 2.8 is not identical to say the Pana 14 2.5 which is what it is closer to in optical quality and f-stop.
The Sony 55/1.8 is NOT identical to the Oly 25 1.8 which would be its direct competition.
You compare a slower zoom that is not weather sealed to Oly’s 2.8 zoom that is STILL lighter and smaller. Not to mention the fact that the Oly lens is cheaper and objectively better in optics when you look at the quantative testing of both lenses.
The only people that care about f-stops in terms of DOF to disregard all other aspects of a lens (weight, optical quality, rendering, etc.) are people like you that continue to push this issue as if anyone that actually uses m4/3 cares about. Slow news day at Sony Rumors I guess.
Gosh some people have no clue…
Bhima is right though. You said, “equivalent lenses have equivalent sizes”, which in this case is wrong on your last sentence. What you should have done was kept to your first four comparisons of size and weight.
If equivalent lenses have equivalent sizes then you would have at least stated:
Sony 35/2.8 is identical to size and weight to the Olympus 17/”2.8″. = equivalent lens.
No! To match the Sony 35/2.8, you need a 17/1.4. That will match the FOV, the DOF, and the noise (you need to bump the ISO).
You don’t need to bump up the ISO of a 17, f/2.8 to match a 35, f/2.8, but for the same DoF you are right – you do need a 17, f/1.4.
You will need to bump the Sony’s ISO to match DOF to DOF. That way, you will have the same FOV, DOF, exposure and noise across the two systems.
You will also have similar sizes.
The FF lens will likely be cheaper, because a slower lens is cheaper to produce.
Ok, I think I am following what you are saying. Like if with a 17, f/1.4 your m4/3 camera needs 800 ISO to get the exposure you want, then to match a FF you would need f/2.8 and 3200 ISO(6400 maybe to match noise) to get a similar picture. Is that correct?
Yes!
Then if that’s where you are coming from then it wasn’t made clear initially. I do agree with what you clarified after.
Sure you agree it’s physics 🙂 I am glad.
Also for the same amount of light you need f/1.4.
That’s why an MFT image is full of noise at ISO 200 and a full frame image isn’t: the sensor captures 4 times less photons, so your lens needs to be two stops faster to capture the same amount of photons.
So you also don’t understand what equivalent means… there’s no point in arguing this until you educate yourself.
Mike, your ignorance is beyond yourself. You just can’t admit to not being able to write what you are trying to convey. 35, f/2.8 is close to size and weight as 17, f/1.8; however, those are not equivalent lenses.
No, 35mm f/2.8 would be equivalent to 17.5mm f/1.4. Draw a diagram if you need to understand. Or grab two cameras and try it.
Or look at the comparison I did on Steve Huff Photo comparing the 35/2.8 to the 17/1.8 and the 20/1.7 maybe then you will get the picture.
For the same DoF and FoV then yes, a 35mm f/2.8 = 17.5mm f/1.4.
Grab two cameras and try the 35, at f/2.8 and 17, at f/1.8 and tell me if the ISO, and shutters are the same for the same exposure. My guess right now is “no”. The marketing of equivalence when it concerns f-stops in a general sense refer to speeds not DoF.
My point to you sir is that your statement is incorrect. “Equivalent lenses have equivalent sizes” is terribly wrong and misleading to people. An f/2.8 equivalent lens in m4/3rds should be smaller and lighter. Micro 4/3rds doesn’t have a 17.5 f/1.4. SO if they did then I can agree with your statement, but since that lens doesn’t exist I can’t agree. And even then you are placing variables that you are now bringing in, like DoF and FoV that you don’t make known initially as your equivalence definition. So to be technical, you said a 35mm f/2.8 = 17.5mm f/1.4 for accurate equivalency(we can even forgive the 17.5/17mm diff.), which still contradicts your original 35/2.8 to the 17/1.8.
Just because I didn’t initially tell you to your face that you were wrong doesn’t make you right. I’m just going to agree to disagree with you.
My statement is 100% correct, you just haven’t understood it yet.
Take a Sony A7 with 35/2.8, set camera to 35mm f/3.6 ISO 800. Then take an E-P5 or E-M1 with 17/1.8, set camera to 17mm f/1.8 ISO 200. Apart from ISO cheating variations, the shutter speed will be the same. FOV, DOF will be the same. Assuming equally efficient sensors and resampling to the same resolution, the noise level will be similar. That’s the only fair comparison.
You need to pull the equivalence through all the way: If you convert the focal length to another sensor size, you need to convert the aperture and the ISO accordingly. If you miss 1 item in the triangle, your equivalence is off.
That’s why everyone saying that f/2.8 is equivalent to f/2.8 across systems is dead wrong. That’s where all the pointless light gathering discussions come from. Because people leave out 1 item in the triangle (focal length, aperture, ISO) when doing the conversion.
When I compare the 35/2.8 to the 17/1.8 I do it because they are strikingly similar in size and weight, and they serve the same purpose. Of course the equivalence is not exact, I’ve always used the weasel word “roughly equivalent”. The 17mm is not 1.4 of course. I’ve compared them side by side (published on Steve Huff Photo) and you notice the slight difference. However in real-world use, these lenses can be considered “roughly equivalent”. With the only difference that the Zeiss is about 4x sharper. I encourage you to try it, it is really eye-opening.
In fact, I encourage everyone who has his head messed up with DOF and light gathering to try to get your hands on 2 cameras and “roughly equivalent” lenses and see first hand what is happening in the image… rather than spewing the internet full of nonsense.
Those are not equilevant lenses at all. All has worse light gathering and that matters.
My god not another light gathering idiot.
Here you go: Sony A7R gathers THREE stops more light than an Olympus E-M1. Why? Because the sensor is 4 times bigger and the sensor is more efficient.
Three? I see about two stops. Take an SNR of 30 dB, the E-M1 needs light equivalent to about ISO 750 and the A7R needs light equivalent to about ISO 2850 which is close to a factor of four. And since a ‘stop’ is a doubling (or halving) and 4x is doubling twice, there is a 2-stop difference and Oly f/2.8 lenses should be compared to Sony lenses at f/5.6.
This must be for the people who complain there’s too much coverage on the GH4. Haha
I’d buy it I n a heart beat and use it as my high mp camera for landscape photography with the forthcoming weather sealed zeiss 16-35 f4, so yes it would have to be a weather sealed body from Olympus with all the usual that it offers in the way of features. I’d continue using my m43 system for everything else but I wouldn’t mind adding a 50 f1.4 on the E-mount omd despite owning the panny 25 f1.4.
For me there’s no real risk for Olympus hurting itself by adding a body to a system that has an ready growing lens system.
The only thing this means for me is I would no longer buy the 7-14 g2.8 pro but no real loss as I have the impossibly small m.zd 9-18 anyway.
Please no! Olympus should be saved from the in part horrible E- and FE-lenses. The FE mount is flawed as is the whole A7 system. Olympus should not be forced to adopt E-mount because of its partnership with Sony.
have you ever shot the A7R + the 55mm f1.8 or 35mm f2.8 , they are nothing short of amazing , beating anything under 5k from Canon Nikon Leica Zeiss ,etc. I have been shooting the A7R before it was even out to the public(and I am a long time D800E user), and I have to say the Sony combo easily beats the Nikon D800E + the best Zeiss or Sigma Art lens. I think you should try the A7R + Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8, anyway the FE system has no issue , at least much more reliable than D610 or the 6D or anything from Olympus. the GH 4 is a more versatile camera as a hybrid camera , but for pure stills nothing beat the A7R(unless you do want to go Phase One or Leica S).
Man. Get real. A camera and two lenses might sell well. But, however great the are, they are not going to create a new niche, least a new market.
The fact is the A7 cameras are sitting strong in the *old* niche which are the users of legacy lenses. And due to age, that niche isn’t really growing, it’s shrinking.
Micro four thirds started in the same place.
The A7r + Zeiss 55 is indeed a great combo for IQ. But the AF is slow and the shutter is loud. Ergonomics are not great. There are few lenses. In short, it’s basically a great sensor looking for a complete system.
Now Sony will improve on all of those points: AF will advance, they will probably make a shutter with less shock, and new lenses will be released.
But…Sony still has a long way to go to build a really complete system.
The AF is slowER, but not slow, and on the A7 the shutter is quieter than any DSLR. And WTF are you talking about “not great ergonomics”? The ergonomics are fantastic, with three dials right where your forefinger and thumb are and seven customizable buttons within easy reach. The main reason I chose an A7 over an X-T1 was for its ergonomics (I didn’t like the locking buttons on the X-T1).
While it’s a good bet that Olympus management have thought about it, it’s as unlikely as their thoughts about using the larger SHG Four-Thirds lenses for medium format actually getting to production.
If they had an amazing cache of OM-series lenses that would take advantage of a larger, digital sensor that would be fine, but everything has been out of production for more than 10 years or so. The last I heard someone trying to sell me a new OM-4Ti was around 1998.
It takes real money to engineer a new class of lenses. It would be more likely that Sony want them to create lenses for the A7 series of bodies, though.
I was thinking for a brief moment this socalled OMD/E-mount body has a built-in FL reducer (something like NIkon tried in the early days of digital photography with their E2-series). But ofcourse it is something like ripping the MFT system, if you use the designs exclusively for another mount/brand?
I would say that olympus would be smarter then just to provide an adapter designed with the speedbooster manufacture. Just like there are many lenses what use that design (like the famous f/0.7 NASA lenses) in them it would not be so much required for most.
I have few situations now and then that I wish I could get a shallower depth of field but I couldn’t even get wished one with FF body but I would need a medium format, and that means just that for me FF is unacceptable format what drops between medium and m4/3.
I’d like to see someone bring a 645 format to digital era at consumer level with manual focus lenses only. Price range to 1100-1200€ for body and mount to accept any old era Mamiya lenses. Megapixel amount dropped to 16-24 but veeery large pixels. It would be focused to amateurs and professionals who want to get shallow depth of field for full body portraits and architecture, this of course with capacity to use 1/4000 shutter speed and 6-10 FPS
Things are getting tricky. M43rds has hit a bit of an impass. They’ll need a major breakthrough to move the format forward. As far as a Full Frame- they’d be heading into no mans land. Good luck pulling that trophy away form Sony’s cold dead hands. The E mount may not have a ton of stellar performing lenses but they do plan on extending it agressively over the next two years. Olympus would seriously need to move quickly.
You hit the nail on the head. They NEED a major breakthrough. Maybe something that closes the gap between PDAF and CDAF focusing on moving objects, or maybe video stuff. I dunno, but they need something big!
What if . . . (rather than wish for larger format cameras manufactured by Olympus), we were truly as happy as we claim with our “right sized” camera equipment? What if Olympus is almost ready to spring their E-M4k or E-M6 upon us, . . . . would we still be drooling and panting over an Olympus camera system that WILL NOT HAPPEN? Would the psycho-consumerism over a “FullFrame” OLY subside as soon as the E-M5 replacement is announced?
It is unseemly how quick Olympus buyers are ready to dismiss and discredit the m4/3 format as soon as a ‘FullFrame” OLYMPUS is rumored.
Unknowingly, Oly fanboys are giving the FF Flamer the victory if Oly’s user base would so quickly jump aboard the FF Titanic.
I will continue to use the GX7, E-M5 and GH3 and very soon the GH4 and enjoy my photography and video hobby without regard or thought to “Full Frame”. And I won’t be jerked around by a secret “small camera syndrome” or flamers or “Pros” on the internet.
This would be MUCH more believable if you said Olympus was intending on abandoning m43 without announcing it and was planning on letting its customers wait years for a new camera that never comes.
Olympus dropped the OM mount, then the 43 mount (E-M1 is too pricey and too bad with af, for those who never tried it), and now the M43 mount? I am going to stick to Panasonic.
I have decided to follow you. Whatever you say to do about my cameras, . . . You’re the boss. I guess I’m sticking with Panasonic too, just like you. Thanks so much for helping me make this momentous decision.
Wait! Wait! I know this… This.. This is sarcasm, right? Right? Am I right?
Oh, for the love of humanity, somebody tell me if I am right!!!
YOU’RE RIGHT!
Hmm, didn’t Pana dropp the 4/3 mount before Oly did?
Bad Auto-Focus in E-M1?
Clearly you have not used the camera then at all.
And OM mount would have been very nice to update to digital era, but not required when compared any FF to m4/3.
4/3 had promise but not the delivery because the size difference was not enough to FF. It was a mix of APS-C cameras but smaller sensor. Few generations later now m4/3 what olympus designed with a Panasonic (4/3 aka sensor size and lens design was Olympus+Kodak) and they are selling very well, Olympus pushing more than they can manufacture and selling more than others in mirrorless or APS-C cameras.
If you own m4/3 camera, it is not going to die for years/decade. If you own olympus, there is nothing to worry, not even consider Panasonic what is exactly in same ship and there are now JVC and many other manufacturers making lenses and cameras to format, it is here to stay.
So be scared as much you want and terrorize others as much you want but others might not believe you.
It just doesn’t matter and this is why cameras are getting boring. Sony’s A7 offers around 14 verses 12EV. It’s noticable, but most people couldn’t discern the difference if you gave them two pictures side by side and told them to pick. Extra resolution? Yawn- doesn’t matter in most applications and given 2 percent of photographs are ever printed what’s the point. Better ISO…ok, I guess we’re on to something but at what expense? We’ve already determined that increases in DOF negates the advantages of FF high ISO in many applications.
I’m starting to fall asleep with the endless array of cameras that offer little if no discernable difference. Given most people view their pics on facebook, none of this matters until we have a major breakthrough in sensor technology. Olympus in FF territory is suicide.
I already know it’s false, as Olympus cameras are nothing without Olympus lenses.
well, your logic does not work here since Oly can sell lenses to us Sony FE users.
Well, Oly makes lenses for Panasonic cameras, so why not too Sony cameras? 😉
not saying that Olympus wont make E mount lenses some day, but the reason their lenses work on Panasonic is because they both use the MFT standard mount, not because Olympus has a desire to make lenses for Panasonic. In other words, Oly lenses work for Pany because they share the same mount.
They can, but they won’t. 😉
cool but I prefer GH4 FF over this OM-D FF. I shoot stills and motion 50/50 and I think the GH is the most logical choice if you have to have only one camera for both stills and motion, or maybe the 5D3 with ML.
Olympus should just say eff-it, go FULL RETRO, and give us the medium format Olympus TLR we all secretly hunger for.
A sensor is no real sensor if I can cover it with my hand!
Why FF. Until they can make small and light weight FF lenses I say focus on improving the M43 sensor. M43 lenses are the right size and weight The Sony A7/r is a proof that – the lenses are large and the 70-200mm just looks way to large for that body as well to keep the lenses smaller and lighter Sony is not producing any F2.8 fast zooms. Only F4.0. I’d rather use the OMD em1 over the A7/r
Good points. There will be improvement in both camps. m43 sensors will only get better, and more and more approximate the performance of FF.
OTOH, the FF mirrorless cameras will get better in AF, and lens selection will grow. Of course the FF sensors will also get better, but at what point is the sensor sufficient?
But the bottom line is this: the lenses for any FF mirrorless solution will always be larger, negating some of the size advantage of a mirrorless body. And as noted by Jon, the longer focal length lenses will still be rather large, defeating the purpose of the smaller body.
So taking into account the entire system, if one wants to remain small and light, then one has to stay with m43.
Bullshit. Equivalent lenses are the same size, across systems. And FF lenses tend to be cheaper, even way cheaper, than equivalent M43 lenses.
Bullshit. Image circle is part of the equation too. Also you can have small FF lenses but mechanical. Add the motors and stabilisation to see where the size goes. Some FF are cheap because their development is paid. Most of them are on the shelves for +20 years. Costs are only in some plastic and glass besides the assembly line.
Sorry no educ not talk.
Due to your profound lack of education, you aren’t qualified to converse with reasonable people?
You got it cunt.
Yeah you got it cuntz.
Nothing to do with ignorant trolls. They don’t want to learn, they want to justify their stupid purchases – or they try to sell crap. You can as well leave them alone.
You are talking to yourself again. Agreeing with yourself, High-fiving yourself, voting up your ding-dong nonsense and marketing it as knowledge. Just like 500 times a day.
Get REAL JOB, nerd.
I Must agree with “equivalent”: you are a cunt_. I cannot talk to cunts_. it’s funny but demeaning.
Sorry mom forbid to talk to folks below 3-digit iq, and you seem to reach one.
Wow! 169 comments on an FT1 rumor. Admin, you should post more FT1 rumors to drive traffic!
Wishful thinking.
@Admin
This post is seriously offensive and misogynistic. It is beneath the dignity of your forum and most participants.
@Admin
Is this misogenistic comment OK with you?
IF something like that would hapen, I am 99% sure olympus would not use E-mount even if Sony would threaten with its 10% share owning, but olympus would go to OM bajonet and only add pins to future lenses. There are so many great Zuiko lenses that would reserve over 30mpix sensor, while being manual only. Sure E-mount would support them via adapter but….
I disagree. The OM mount is not compatible with electronics. We live in a a digital world now. We make fantastic use of manual glass, some even made for our digital systems (ie, like Voigtlander m4/3 glass for instance), but the actual body manufacturer (ie, Olympus) will not produce a digital body to work only with manual glass. They produce systems, not bodies.
There was also an AF OM mount that could be used with the OM-707 AF and OM-101 PF bodies. In theory Olympus could reincarnate this mount for a digital FF body.
Oooh, that would be a good idea!
I could see this being done with a special mount adapter, though it would still go to a shorter register mount on the body. Olympus is not going to make a long-register body after dropping their entire DSLR body line just to avoid that. :/