Olympus could launch three new cameras in early September. One of them is certainly a new OMD camera and this could be the specs:
- DSLR-like design, similar to the E-M5 but with a larger grip that will contain an additional control dial on top
- Micro Four Thirds mount
- 16MP sensor
- 81 AF points
- 3″ tiltable LCD screen
- Electronic viewfinder with 2,300,000 pixels
- Max shutter: 1/8000
- 10 fps
- Built-in Wi-Fi
Sounds like an E-P5 as OMD 🙂
—-
via Photorumors.
all today’s new photogrpahy deals for US and Europe at Dealsrunner.
183 Responses
“81 AF points” = phase detect sensor?
me thinks so too 🙂
yes indeed
Hope so!
Without a phase detection sensor a PrOM-D doesn´t make any sense.
16 MP?
Come on, I’d like to see at least 20MP, or 18MP at the bare minimum to consider buying it.
16 MP smells like Oly is playing the same old game rehashing a sensor again and again and not evolving but only standing still.
🙁
People still care about megapixels?
Only those who like others to think there a pro
He’s a pro, he’s got requirements…
He’s probably been turning down all those shoots for billboard and fashion prints only because his MFT cam doesn’t have ennuff meggahpixles dammit.
^ +1 funny
I need more resolution so I can crop more. It happened more than once that a client wanted to blow up a part of an image from my omd which then turned out unsharp. And lugging my (too) heavy d800e around is not always an option.
But I guess you kids who only dabble in amateur photography don’t really understand.
Next time ask your clients what they need. And buy the right prime. And take the right shot.. 😉
pros don’t read these forums and post that they are pro. Pros are off doing pro things like making money and working with what they have. They don’t care what amateurs think nor would they respond in the manner that you did. but what the heck do I know I am an amateur.
u sure know the behaviour of a pro alot..unless…are u a pro too?
“but what the heck do I know I am an amateur”
You should have just skipped right to the end.
Should have used medium format film.
+1
None of my clients ever asked me about more megapixels. 16 is more than enough. If they needed more, I’d rent a Phase One with 60 MP. It’s as easy as that.
exact, yes!
so Nikon D3s is not a procamera
UK TV on BBC1 10.40pm tonight Imagine programme about British photojournalist Don McCullin
You never hear anyone complain about too many megapixels. It generally denotes an evolved sensor. Regardless of the MP debate, no jump in MP, it traditional Olympus “same ol’ sensor, new tweaks” which we have all come to learn mean little beyond 100% crops.
As a professional photographer, only Olympus folk treat more MP as a bad thing, and primarily out of brand loyalty. More Quality MP is always welcome. Cropping is a fact of life, especially for wildlife photographers. It’s about time people stopped denying that and grow up. Start embracing higher quality MP, and stop equating more MP as more useless MP, because that is not a law. MPs have increased over the years adding more detail to a photo. not detracting for it. You can always take your 24 MP camera down some MP. You can’t take your 16 up.
Olympus cameras are not well known for their autofocus tracking abilities. I doubt you’ll see lots of wild life photographers shooting primarily with an OM-D. And I complain about high MP. Why do you need them aside from an occasional crop? And if you’re cropping extensively (outside of wildlife photography), you’re obviously not composing properly or getting close enough.
+1
That is not entirely true.
I only shoot in Raw for flexibility of post processing. But I am not a pro photographer and I only share my photos online so I don’t need extra MP. Extra MP only means bigger memory card, bigger harddrive and longer time to transfer and process.
I think 16MP is a sweetspot. And 1/4 of it is enough for HD feed, how much do you have to crop out?
Not true for me. I was holding off the Sony RX100 because it has 20 megapixels. 16 is fine, and I’ve actually made some very nice 16 x 20 prints from a 12 megapixel camera.
To be frank Matt, I wouldn’t care for more than 16 MP. But speaking from the point of view of the domains in which I photograph. For weddings and street life 16 MP is plenty and having say 24 MP I feel is a workflow clog.
But, I don’t do the photography you describe, so I can understand to some degree. Though I would have imagined given the 2x crop factor, framing telephoto with your lens is quite possible.
@Mattphoto
Too many pixels:
slows up your computer when editing
harder to ftp to clients
slower right speeds
fills up your hard drives quicker
….overkill unless your are printing the size of a bus and intend that work to viewed close up.
I can not take seriously a person who calls themselves a pro, states a requirement for massive numbers of pixels to compensate for poor technique, and doesn’t just go full-frame.
Higher pixel density might adversely affect noise.
“You never hear anyone complain about too many megapixels.”
WTF?! For example, revisit Samsung archives when Sammy went to 20MP and 16-bit RAWs – and ~55MB on average per RAW file.
Excessive pixels are just that – excessive pixels. Typical size people use for their photos is 2-3MP. Web still hasn’t reached the average of 1MP. Displays are barely ready to break the 4MP barrier (what would be very fun experience as users would also realize that they also need a pretty power-hungry and hot GPU to drive paint all the pixels).
“MPs have increased over the years adding more detail to a photo. not detracting for it.”
You argument is basically repetition of all the same crap few nutheads say about SD v. HD (and now the 4K).
Fact of life, human visual perception puts a rather hard limit on how much details is actually needed. (About 70% of people can’t tell SD from HD.)
But then, I gather you are too busy oversharpening your photos, and have no time to listen to the arguments.
We all know that 12mp is enough, but 16 mp is also fine. I think that 24mp-and-higher cameras should support pixel binning so raw files can be properly reduced to manageable proportions. But then again, shooting in JPEG gives you that already…
see! m43 is just as good as dslr apsc. there is no need to go for dslr apsc..we r good enough or better! ..agree with me now quick!..
16Mp is around the max for the m43 sensor size, any larger with current technology and it’s hitting the diffraction limit.
Sony RX100 says hello to you, with his 13*8mm sensor and his 20mpx. Compare raw from that camera and omd em5 and gh3 on imaging resource. Im talking about noise, take a look 🙂
i reply to myself, i dont see the part of diffraction and about it, you right!. Sorry 🙂
the current mft 16mp sensors equals a “FF” 64mp in density right? or am i a complete idiot?
Ok, but what about the rx100 sensor? Smaller but 20Mp.
There’s a website that promotes a pixel size not smaller than 3µm and calculates up to 27 Mpix as reasonable for (M)FT sensors (near the end of the page):
http://6mpixel.org/en/
Even 16MP is diffraction limited to somewhere between f7.0 and f8.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
So, like the APS-C sized sensors at 24 MP, it’s all finished?
Diffraction is caused by lens, not sensor. More resolution in sensor gives more resolution in image at every f-stop. With a 16 MP sensor diffraction starts to affect image quality usually starting from f/5.6, but seeing it varies with different lenses. With a 20 MP sensor the same would happen roughly 1/3 of a stop earlier. Still, as said, 20 would always give more than 16. In theory 11% more resolution linearly, in practice a lot less with most lenses.
-p-
According to diffraction rules:
Diffraction May Become Visible f5.9
Diffraction Limits Extinction Resolution f/7.3
Diffraction Limits Standard Grayscale Resolution f/8.8
Don’t believe the myth, there is still a lot of headroom before diffraction is becoming an issue.
diffraction is a cold hard fact the myth is that you are a pro shooter
There is indeed some resolution to be gained from extra megapixels. Diffraction means that a black point becomes an airy disc (it’s a 2D mathematical function looking like a guassian with a sine wave at the based). Having more information about the decay rate of such disc, will allow you to deconvolute image with the point spread function (PSF) and gain more resolution. This PSF is something that is a property of a lens and could technically be programmed into firmware, if necessary. This is used commonly in microscopy. However, sharpening functions in photoshop could give you a similar effect. So what he said based on phenomenological evidence, is in fact true. The added pixels are not completely lacking information below the diffraction limit.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m going to go out on a limb and say you didn’t take photography in any reputable university, or you would have learned about diffraction, and you’d have learned not to talk out of your behind.
the current one does not meet your standards?
20mp is doable in the RX100 one inch sensor, so there should be enough space in the m43 sensor for 24mp. I am VERY happy with my epl5 but sometimes would like to have more resolution to print bigger. the image quality is very pleasing and images can be enlarged to 200% depending on viewing distance. but higher res would be welcome from my side and allow even more use of the m43 system for me.
Just out of curiosity, how big do you print then? I’ve made a1 sized prints from 8 mp camera files, they turned out excellent. There’s a limit of how much your eye can see, I believe we reached that limit with 10 megapixels already. The viewing distance of large pictures naturally needs to be bigger, that’s why you don’t need more megapixels. My clients never ask for more anyway. 🙂
Good comment,makes me ask the question how many users of this site have bigger than A4 printers, myself I use an Epson 1400 make more than acceptable images from my E-1, and superb images from my E-620 E-P2 and E-M5, of course the E-1 is helped immensely by the attached glass sometimes (Old Zuikos).
I have the 1400 as well (with RIHAC pigment ink). Printing 8mb at A3 is fine on many occasions I also have some at double A3 from 8mb. 16mb on the E-m5 allows a fair bit of cropping to be done, if required. This makes 8-12-16mb enough for my needs, beyond my needs. I also have 12 terabytes of disk available. So I am not scared by larger mp meaning more disk. I just don’t need more mp as a must have.
I would suggest that most people complaining about not enough mp mainly/usually print to web or screen. Those that print large (A3 and onwards) all the time, or frequently, already have the equipment to do it.
It‘s so easy, by a FF or MF camera ;)!
STFU…
Olympus doesn’t make its own sensors. If there’s no new sensor generation available to them, what else are they supposed to do?
I’d rather have the lower ISO (ISO 50!) and lower noise/more details in the higher ISO’s.
But I suspect it’s just the same Em-5/E-P3 sensor.
“just the same em5/ep3 sensor”
???
em5 and ep3 have totally different sensors
Sorry, meant the E-P5
to feed the MP discussion, I have a very good idea which will make everybody happy !
This idea is called multi-aspect sensor !! A very good idea which allow you to have more MP with same pixel density ! ok it doesn’t work with 4:3 ratio but it works with all the others !
I dont think that those 200-300 extra pixels of resolution make any difference, 16 or 18 or even 20 megapixels are for any reasonable purpose functionally equivalent.
when cropping 4:3 to 2:3 on a 16 MP sensor, you loose around 400 pixel on height which make a total of around 1.8 MP lost when multiplying by width…This is not insignificant ! when cropping to 16:9 you loose 4 MP ! I think multi-aspect is a good feature…this is a bit cheating because in fact you change the focal length, the wider is your format, the wider your focal is…but in practice I liked it on my GH1
megapixel doesn’t matter if you not going print bigger then a poster size… putting into website.. even 2mp more then enough.
I’m pretty sure that Pros don’t need 20MP considering that Nikon was at 12MP for years with plenty of Pros perfectly satisfied with that resolution. If your resolution requirements exceed 16MP, why are you shooting small format? You should be shooting medium format on a Hasselblad or Leaf. Keep in mind, that comes with a tradeoff- most of them don’t go above 800 ISO.
16MP is plenty. Physics dictates that pixel density must stop at near this point because after that point, additional pixels do not add to resolution in any useful way. Sure, you can go crazy and go to 40MP in a 4/3 sensor, but that won’t give you resolution, it will give you color accuracy by making each noisy pixel less of a contributor to the overall picture- but your resolution will not improve because no matter what they told you in school, light doesn’t travel in straight lines. It travels in approximately straight lines mostly confined to one wavelength of deviation. This leads to an airy disk of photon strikes from a point source through an aperture, not a dot.
Why E-M1 (as we already have the E-M5)?
@ Admin:
You should put the login dialog box in the top right corner on the front page, and not way down underneath the ads, as of now. Not intuitive find that way…
EM1 because its a lower end model, to be placed under the EM5.
And because making confusing model numbers seems to be a deliberate marketing strategy.
EM1 because its a lower end model, to be placed beneath the EM5.
And because making confusing model numbers seems to be a deliberate marketing strategy
Will it really be named E-M1?
If there is really an E-M1, that would hint at the low-end OM-D (same structure of the name: E-Mx but lower number), but the specs are too good for a lower model. They could still strip down weather sealing/build quality and button layout, still they would kill the E-P5 too soon after it’s birth.
So no big surprise after all?
But what comes after the E-5? an E-M1 in a bigger box?
I sort of see what you are saying and partially agree if this is it, but I think the surprise will be how well it will use 4/3rd lenses. But if this is it, the price needs to be right and not mega stratospheric.
– Raist
I’m hoping 1300 bucks to make it competitive…should be possible if they use the same sensor or if Sony treats them right.
1700 would be ridiculous.
Is this the entry-level OMD you were talking about admin or the rumoured OMD Pro? Or an Em5 upgrade?! Whichever way, I’m interested…
When it it will be only an e-p5 as om-d, then I really don’t need it. I am not interested in Wifi. 10 fps and 1/8000s are nice, but nothing that you need very often. I’m happy with the evf of the E-M5 an don’t really need more pixels.
When I see the price for the e-p5, than the e-m1 will cost 1300-1400$ for the body.
I think for e-m5 owners it will be better to buy one of the new olympus lenses, that will be announced.
P.S.: But I see it coming, when the E-M1 is in stock, I only want want want this camera and have to discipline myself to don’t buy it 😉
There is very high possibility of new sony sensor under the hood and the second generation of FAST AF system as well? Longer battery life is also important!
And lenses… yes lenses are definitely more important than bodies!
this E-M1 is not the OMD entry level (as the news of some days ago)…is right?
Wondering about that myself, but the lack of weather-sealing and 5-axis IBIS in the spec makes me think it’s the entry level OM-D (with E-P3 tech carried over).
mnh…maybe you’re right 😉
Ooohhhh noooo!
For 4/3 useres there is an Adapter ! Basta!
M I C R O 4/3!…..
New Om-D is ok but NOT bigger !
For knower : bigger is not better. Transportable is better!
For Big Fans we already have the Panasonic G!
I understand your point, I have the Omd and it suits me perfectly and, i think, the next version must have the same size and philosophy.
But, a higher model, a E-5 successor is a right move.
All those beautiful 4/3 glasses needs a new body, maybe hybrid can be the way.
The adapters are not enough, right size and reliable AF are necessary.
Looks very interesting for me but still I am thinking forward Full Frame…
I too would like to see just a bit higher mp on tap. Hopefully the ‘pro’ version of the OM-D will sport a higher mp sensor. I do see the arguments about diffraction limit, etc, and of course we don’t want to go so high as to hamper the capabilities of the camera in some other way. Something tells me we could get away with something in the neighborhood of 18-21mp and still be okay. Perhaps I’m wrong, and in all likelihood I am, as I don’t confess to know a ton about sensor tech/limitations.
If we’ve reached the limit at this point with 16mp, I’m fine with it; but then let’s hopefully see some further increases in dynamic range, and a better snr, both of which I think are absolutely possible, given what we’re seeing from current sensor technology.
Admin,any news about an embeded flash?
with regards
Great! I’m still waiting for an e-m5 price drop to buy it 🙂 (who said looser?)
I’m longing for an improved dynamic range performance for landscape photography. Real ISO 100 would be nice to have, also.
Ah a sensible comment! 🙂
The trouble is Marco, they (Oly bods) look at your pictures and tell themselves they do not need to do any more. If Marco can, then the camera’s ok. It just needs a competent driver.
Thank you Jim! But you know, the quest for the holy camera will never end. Of course a good photog, be it amateur or pro, can take a good photo even with a cheap camera, but I think also that knowing that we’re using “the best” gear available helps also from the psychological point of view. And as I wrote different times, put “the best” gear in the hands of an unqualified, incompetent amateur, and the results will always be unpleasant to the eye.
… what are the other two cameras?
There’s the long rumored 4/3-m4/3 all in one camera and there is supposed to be some kind of higher end OM-D. It could all be the same camera though.
The E-PL7 and the 7+ :o)
– m4/3 fixed lens camera
– OMD mini/lite
– OMD hi-end (E-M1?)
Well, Olympus is out of the P&S market so that pretty much leaves us with big sensor cameras only, of which I’m guessing two could potentially be one of the following:
– Another OMD model, either Pro or Lite depending on how Olympus is marketing the E-M1
. If Pro: this should answer the 4/3s compatibility with PDAF on sensor and modular chassis
. If Lite: well I don’t see the point since the OMD line itself is pro-ish and the E-M5 is going down in price already (and there’s the E-P5 also)
– The 4/3s renewal model, the E-7
. This would be a waste of R&D IMO, resources should be focused on an hybrid m4/3 model, Oly needs to pull the plug on 4/3 and offer its users a way into m4/3
– New Pens ? Who knows, it’s olympus…
What I’m sure of is that we won’t see an E-P5 with built in EVF for the next couple of years by which time Oly will tragically realize the tremendous mistake of not producing such camera when everyone else was making money with theirs already. Seriously, if the hurtful propaganda by APS-C companies wasn’t enough they’re giving them more arguments by not releasing competitive (feature-wise) cameras, and then having the balls to overprice them. I love the PENs and every little Oly feature but when Pany releases their GX2 Oly will be left behind as the only company without a RF CSC in the market, the OMD line is great but it doesn’t make up for a RF CSC, Sorry for the rant.
Not be scared, Olympus will do mony on E-7. 🙂
Regardless of a new hybrid body from the OMD series, the ‘E-7’ will be definitely a great addition to 43s universe. Panny’s sensors had been the only vulnerability after Kodak was gone in their early days and it took a long while before Oly switched to Sony. But now just wait and see as I would seriously consider it before jumping into a D7100 or even the new 70D… No such R&D waste as mentioned. Just launch the new MFT sensor that will be surely offered in future MFT bodies and all the lastest Oly’s tech altogether into the same E-5 chassis. With this in place, I agree they will make some good money and even bring in new users if they market it properly. The discussion on the Mpix war is useless as very few (if any) existing Canikon lens can effectively deliver sharpness levels beyond the 18 Mpix limit… Just check the frustrated reviews from D800 users…
How many 4/3 users are there left?
They are the only target market for a new E-7 4/3 DSLR. And because Oly would not expect to sell it in high volume, price would be close to low end FF (i.e. > 1500$). Some 4/3 users would still buy it because they are heavily invested in lenses, but most would just pass and change system eventually. There is no compelling argument for 4/3 DSLR at this point for new users. Portability is in mirrorless territory, value for money is in APS-C DSLR, and top IQ was always on the FF side. Releasing an E-7 would just be a costly PR operation, to show that loyal lenses users are not left aside. A fully compatible m43 camera would be much smarter at this point. Not sure though that Oly could charge a huge premium if it is just for backward compatibility with 4/3 lenses.
Paul is right, there’s no point in going back to DSLR now, Olympus has been an irrelevant player on that market for way too long now. The need to keep/enhance the modularity aspect of the OMD line, small portable workhorses than can go small or big on damnd. This is crucial for this system, Pany’s GH3 approach is understandable to a point because of it’s centered around video (and industry standard video rigs), but on the big picture, it’s a bad approach to mirrorless. If you want a big mirrorless, modularity is the way to go, otherwise you’re stuck with a DSLR again. This is why an E-7 is utterly disastrous as a solution now, you can get all the benefits of 4/3 in a m4/3 modular/hybrid OMD camera with making it bigger just because.
When E-5 come is the also E-30 and E-620 FT camera for sale, but now will E-7 be alon FT camera, and all lens will be there in long time. 😉
Four Thirds was an unmitigated financial disaster the reports were that they lost money in every single body sold.The seeds of the financial disaster were firmly rooted in the FT era.They would have to charge a fortune to make any money on a high end FT body.The E-5 a warmed over E-3 body with a mediocre sensor cost $1699 at launch what would an E-7 need to be priced at to make money considering how tiny the remaining market is.
You think maybe the is only FT lens 2-3% VS. MFT lens 97-98% this is not right, the is more 50/50 FT lens VS. MFT lens now.
The seeds of the economical disaster were certainly *not* in the FT project!!, but rather in a crazy venture into property speculations ca 1990 — looong before the FT era. I’m not saying that FT was a good project. But we should not forget that there are some superb FT lenses that become much more attractive with faster AF/phase detection like properties. Given the small profit margins in the camera industry, it may be a safer approach to provide HQ lenses for mFT users to support fast AF for FT lenses in a mFT body
then to redesign every lens for mFT.
Spot on.
The FT lens lineup is still impressive and has been waiting for current sensor technology for some years now.
DLSR or not is completely irrelevant; Olympus needs to deliver a pro body that supports both PDAF and CDAF beautifully. This body will target existing users and prospects alike.
I find it hard to believe so many people here have such a hard time seeing the possibilities for the One System and continue to whine about whether some new body has a mirror inside or not. Do you have any idea how much Olympus has invested in those lenses?
“DLSR or not is completely irrelevant; Olympus needs to deliver a pro body that supports both PDAF and CDAF beautifully.”
Well, if it supports CDAF lenses (meaning current m43 lenses), then I guess it’s not a DSLR. Hence, same conclusion: mirrorless with PDAF support for 4/3 lenses.
> Well, if it supports CDAF lenses (meaning current m43 lenses), then I guess it’s not a DSLR.
Indeed, what is it? Can it be properly qualified? Anyway, mirror or not is no longer irrelevant, combined PDAF/CDAF is:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/07/03/canon-videos-show-70d-focusing
The new age of photography has arrived. Expect: 1) complete convergence of still and video photography, 2) happy coexistence of DSLR and mirrorless (and in-betweens), 3) then some.
In a few years, we will all look back in laughter at these forum posts about DLSR vs mirrorless and the values of sensor size, high ISO, DR, DoF and whatnot. I’m laughing already (but I’m a bit of a dreamer).
Does it come in black?
I’ve got two E-M5’s and three lenses now, but I’ll hold off on upgrading to a new OM-D until Olympus sells the camera 43rumors showed as a patent about a year ago…the MODULAR OM-D! That camera showed us a modular, piecemeal assembly of modules assembled into a camera. You would be able to change out the lens-mount module, the sensor module, the LCD viewfinder module, the eyepiece module, the handgrip-battery module, the memory card module, etc, etc, etc, etc. THAT camera would be forever immune from obsolescence, as you would be able to eternally change out the modules, at an affordably small piece at a time, forever. Several decades into the future, your camera would still have the latest technology. But the upgrades would occur as smaller, incremental, not-to-expensive steps. This was a revolutionary concept, showing how Olympus is, at heart, a mind-boggingly creative engineering company.
@RetiredDP
A modular camera would be as about successful as kit cars, if you want a modular camera get yourself a Raspberry Pi
Hasselblad might care to differ.
Actually, Olympus considered making a modular OM camera. If you google Olympus OM-X, you find images of it.
http://wsubiektywie.pl/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/olympus-mdn.jpg
Well, not too long ago, Ricoh tried to do something in that modular direction with its GXR – and failed miserably. The camera admittedly was not as modular as you suggest, but even its moderate modularity added enough to the price tag to let it sit on the shelves. I can’t see how full modularity, with its enormous requirements on reliable and future-proof high band-width digital connectors, mechanical precision of the exchangeable mounts, etc., wouldn’t end up being excessively expensive. In principle, such a design could be somewhat more future-proof than a monolithic one, but you’d have to pay for seriously over-dimensioned components (think bus bandwidth, processing power, buffer memory size, etc.) that you don’t need at the moment of purchase, may never actually need, and that would drop in price by a big margin the very moment they become actual state of technology. Hence, such a modular design would either be too confined to be able to avoid rapid obsolescence, or far too expensive to be a reasonable market option.
cool, looks like i can still take fotos with my OM-D.
come on babyyyy, OMD price drop!!!!
Ooooohhh…
Sounds great! This has been a very good year for window shoppers like me. 🙂 By the time I’m seriously in the market for a new body again, there will be many fantastic choices!
LOL i to agree. 😉
There’s a lot of decent and exciting cameras coming this and next year, but this one has it all for me. Superb camera if true, at least on paper. Well done Olympus.
Micro should be small, not big.
I want new camera, but EP5 size with inbuild EVF (VF-4 technology) but not bigger then NEX-7. EP5 shape with EVF on the left side, small camera. Oly, don’t go GH3 way… If you want grip – lets make additional like for OM-D.
Ditto on all accounts.
Oly needs to:
a)Keep OMD line small and modular
b)update the E-P5 with an EVF within a year
c)Integrate PDAF for full 4/3 compatibility
d)release a fast standard zoom
Had the E-P5 featured an EVF at its current body only price (or even the kit price) would’ve taken the market by storm, even more than the OMD did. Had the OMD featured any of the currently available technologies for PDAF and full 4/3 compatibility it would’ve consolidated m4/3 as THE mirorrless system to get. To this day there’s no glimpse of Oly’s famous lens making mojo in terms of zooms, sure, primes are godly but their zooms are meh in comparison to lens making newcomer Pany, how come?
A few weeks ago I was talkign with an Olympus Sales Rep. He even let me play with his “early production model” E-P5 while he was in a meeting. The E-P5 is a really nice camera. I told hime I like the E-P5 but needed a camera with a built-in EVF and weather-sealing. He told me the next OMD will be the one for me. It is a level above the E-M5. It should be announced late Sept or early Oct and be available in mid-Nov. He also mention it will be have a new lens for the kit option. He didn’t know the name of the new OMD. I am guessing from an year old Olympus official interview that the new OMD will be slightly bigger for better ergonomics. The E-M5 is continuing in the OMD series of cameras and should acrtually be replaced in early 2014. My guess is that the actual E-M5 replacement will be the E-P5 with weather-sealing, built-in EV4 viewfinder and just maybe a few goodies from the upcoming camera above it. So if the so called E-M1 is too big just wait for a few months and get the E-M6.
@CaverDave
you pick up anything about a new Olympus flash system or new versions of the Four Thirds 8mm, 9-18mm and 70-300mm?
Boring specs and makes no fucking sense.
Bigger grip, eh? So presumably, the HLD-6 won’t fit? Have to buy an HLD-7 for the new OM-D? D**k move, Olympus.
What the new OMD needs is better video. Hybrid photography (videos and stills) is catching on and Olympus could be missing the boat. Otherwise, my next camera will be a GH3. Oh my!!
“Sounds like an E-P5 as OMD”
Ha ha different packaging but the same ole specs. So many models aimed at one small target market, what genius! That’s Oly for you.
Why we will pay more to have similar design than DSLR. I don’t understand this format
+1000
We’re starting to pay more for DSLR sized cameras that should cost less and be smaller than actual DSLR cameras (GH3 anyone?). How can a salesman justify selling a m4/3 camera to acustomer when you can get bigger sensored DSLRs or CSC for less ? this is getting ridiculous. MFT should be competitive, feature and price-wise.
Ever held a GH3? Still less volume and weight than a T4i but the GH3 is weather sealed, has more physical controls, bigger VF, etc. It also has better video than any DSLR/ mirrorless – even better than a $3000+ 5DmkIII.
Comment I made in the Samsung ad post.
“Welcome to the real world. The world of the ‘Camera of the day’ buyer. Want what you like, but buy the ‘camera of the day’ ‘we have the biggest, over there on that pallet’ ‘best price today only’ ‘biggest packaging so the neighbours can see you have a real camera’
“Unfortunately it takes a lot of ‘camera of the day’ purchasers to support the manufacture of higher quality cameras. Without them, some top cameras would not exist nor would the company who makes them.
“This partly explains why m43 is quite expensive compared to many DSLRs.”
It’s sad but true.
More comments from people who havent even seen or held a gh3 or the 2.8 zooms. Stupidity reigns supreme here
🙂 Indeed, just forum jockies all claiming to understand both marketing and technology. Reading that crap is becoming an addictive form of entertainment.
I really can´t understand this argument of m43 has to be small. At least not for the bodies. The size and weight advantage of the system should be especially in the ( zoom ) lenses, not in further smaller bodies.
For example. I have the Pana 35-100. Wonderful lens, you can put it in your jacket pocket. Try this with the FF 70-200/2,8 or 4…
The weight is about 1/4 of the DSLR lenses…. Or the 12-35. Less than half the weight of a Tamron or Canon 24-70.
The primes are smaller too than the APSC or FF pendants, but the difference isn´t that great for daily use.
Last week I was at a photo store. They have the Sigma 2,8/120-300. Nice, but the size… Or the Nikon 2,0/200. Nice, but the size… The list could be longer
In fact it should be easy for Oly or Pana to make a 2,0/60-150 or a 1,4/100 mm which are half the weight and size of these lenses. That would be a real argument for the salesman in store to convince somebody to buy m43 system.
But sadly Oly is sleeping ( or watching the market ), maybe until it´s too late..?
Man, your jacket has really BIG pockets ! even if I agree the 35-100 is compact for what it is…
So you think Oly or Pana could make a 2,0/60-150 that would be half the weight/size of FF 2,8/120-300 lens?
I guess the designers of 4/3 14-35mm/f2.0 and 35-100mm/f2.0 4/3 thought otherwise!
What would be less than half the size/weight is a 60-150mm/f2.8. Small f2.0 zooms still don’t exist (and LX7 doesn’t count).
yes, because the existing 35-100 and 14-35 are constructions for SLRs, not mirrorless.
Even if those lenses are not in the 1000.- € class, it would give a clear sign what´s possible.
Let´s see: the Sigma 2,8/120-300 : divide the 300 / 2,8 = 107 mm for the diameter of the glass ( more or less; in fact 114 is the outer diameter ). That´s for a body construction with mirror.
a 2/60-150 mm : divide 150 / 2,0 = 75 mm ( more or less; for DSLR´s, for mirrorless even less.. )
I am no expert, but looking at the 2,8/35-100 and the FF counterparts the conditions should be alike..
And if Oly would make it even better, they make the same lens with the same build quality, but 1 or 1,5 stop down, means: 2,8/60-150 or 2,8-4/60-150.
But not again low quality zooms like 4-5,6/40-150 ….
I understand your point about 300/2.8 needing a bigger aperture/front element than 150/2.8.
I don’t know anything about lens design, but somehow, the 3 real life examples that I know of (the two Oly lenses and the Sigma 1.8) didn’t succeed size wise. Those are all DSLR lenses. I sure hope it would be different for mirrorless, but at the tele end, I’m not sure of the size benefits.
See this from camera size (APS-C cheap tele zooms):
http://camerasize.com/compact/#375.90,287.103,313.53,373.193,393.321,ha,t
Sony Nex vs Sony Alpha APS-C tele lens: The Nex lens (55-210mm f4.5-6.3) is a bit longer and heavier even if the Alpha one (55-200mm f4-5.6) is brighter. Samsung NX mirrorless, and Nikon and Pentax DSLR lenses are all about the same size too. 4/3 is not featured on Camerasize, so I can’t test it easily for m43 vs 4/3. Fuji X tele zoom is not there yet either.
I think f2.8 or f2.8-4.0 would make more sense at the tele end because of the size advantage.
To differentiate more from the Lumix 35-100, I would go 60-200mm f2.8-4, high quality (Lumix or Zuiko – I don’t care). Not pocketable at all, but it would add something really new to the line up.
> I sure hope it would be different for mirrorless, but at the tele end, I’m not sure of the size benefits.
Yes, I fear that in practice the difference will be minimal.
> I think f2.8 or f2.8-4.0 would make more sense at the tele end because of the size advantage.
Agreed, slightly smaller apertures combined with IBIS and advanced correction in software are key (as we all should know by now). The (m)FT sensor is of course already smaller than the APS-C competition, so with everything put together such zooms should be quite good for their size, and the physical benefits will be apparent especially if you’re filling up your bag with more than one zoom.
Moneywise, I’m sure it will be disappoining indeed 🙂
Indeed, we’re talking f/2 vs f/2.8. Enormous difference. Now, with modern distortion correction in software and a smaller f/2.8 aperture, it should be possible to offer something interesting for amateurs to complement the existing FT SHG f/2 zooms for pro users. Panasonic has already shown the way, but I hope Oly can improve on their efforts IQ wise.
A clear competitor against G6 .
Wow…. 89 focusing points .
This is one of my long await improvement in mFT camera . Now what about OMD Pro & GX7 ?
Hey Admin – let us know when you find out about the upcoming fixed lens premium compact. Thanks.
I wonder if the standard lense still wil be the 12-50, or maybe a new weatherproof!
Larger camera?
Olympus didn’t learn anything from Panasonic GH2 to GH3 debacle?
If I want a larger camera, I’ll get one with an APC or FF sensor. If I want a m43, I want it no bigger than the em5.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
Well, I would not personally buy it, but I can imagine someone already invested into m43 lenses, who would like to have also a bigger and better-handling camera once in a while, for some specific shots.
Still, I think this camera is too similar to many other Oly cameras for being genuinely interesting.
And I am afraid they will price it on par with the D7100, and at that point no, it will not be competitive (also considering the form-factor…)
If the tie-in is that someone already is invested in m43 lenses, that’;s a pretty slender reed.
I’ll stick with my em5 in that case.
Really good cd af of m4/3 is superior to pdaf for single focus and also really flexible. In addition, even if the body is same size as smallest aps-c dslr, the lenses still quite a bit smaller. QRather small choice of lenses, especially high quality glass that is designed for aps-c. Comparing size and cost of FF system is just pointless, way too big difference.
Handling of e-m5 is just plain horrible, if they really make a camera with large grip last and biggest advantage of panasonic will be gone.
The GH3 is selling good for a nice profit for Panasonic.
The OMD late thisyear is a camera above the E-M5. It is going to be slightly bigger for ergonomics. It is going to have a new kit lens, assume to be weather-sealed to go with the weather-sealed camera body. Early to mid 2014 there will be a true E-M5 replacement. It will be an E-P5 size camera with weather-sealing and a built-in EVF. So if the next OMD is not for you then wait 6 months and there will be a smaller one that you just might like. Having a range in size is a very good thing.
I like the way so many people are talking about a larger camera, where do they get this idea from?
Quote, “DSLR-like design, similar to the E-M5 but with a larger grip that will contain an additional control dial on top”.
DSLR like = OM-D E-M5.
Larger grip? = fill out the existing grip a little, there’s your larger grip, with enough room for an extra dial.
Hardly a bigger camera ala GH-3
A year ago during an interview an Olympus official mention a camera above the E-M5 in the OMD series and the body will be slightly bigger for improved ergonomics over the E-M5. Now he might mean just the grip will be bigger or he might of mean the whole body being a little bigger. My guess is that the whole body is going to be slightly bigger. Anyhow, if one don’t like the camera above the E-M5 then just wait a few months , by mid-summer 2014 there will be a true E-M5 replacement that will basically be the E-P5 with be VF4 EVF built-in and a weather sealed body.
Steven, whats so difficult to understand about you not being the only personon the planet and hence manufacturers not exclusively catering to your specific needs?
The debacle was held here only, everywhere else people agree its a great camera, smaller still than a rebel t4 and with the controls of a ff
Relax, and please think again. If you are really convinced that size will be the only (or primary) reason mFT will survive and that all other differentiators are irrelevant compared to a few mm here and there, you’re in for more nasty surprises during the coming years (I certainly hope so, at least).
mFT has a lot more going for it than size alone. The differences in size and IQ between mFT and APS-C is really not that relevant anymore. Just compare an E-M5 with a D3200 today and envision the future. What’s your point again?
I’m interested to see if the Hi end EM5 has the phase detection, so 4/3 glass can be used as well as m4/3 glass. Long, fast, quality, telephoto zoom lenses are missing in the m4/3 line up. The Oly 50-200 f2.8-3.5 looks like a good option for wildlife.
D7100 is another option, but the lenses get heavy.
Any other recommendations ?
It will be interesting to see how Oly going to price this OMD-lite. If it is a cheaper OMD model it will be @ $800-1000 with kitlens, but that will affect the sales of the E-P3 @$1499 with kitlens + evf. If it is priced above $1000 with kitlens then what’s the point?
So obviously, it is not an OMD-lite.
The next OMD is the camera above the E-M5 . It is the so called OMD-Pro. So it will be price above the E-M5 and above the E-P5 plus VF4. If Olympus ever does come out with a OMD below the E-M5 the pricing will be interesting when compare to the relationship to the E-M5 and the E-P5. Still by then the E-P5 will be nearly a year old, the OMD-Pro and the true E-M5 replacement will be on the market for a while.
It seems Olympus is trying to make its GH3…if it has phase detection on sensor, it could be the road for 43 users
I would hope this camera has improved video functions as well. The least they could do is allow us to change aperture and shutter speed and tap focus point while recording. That’s basic.
Let’s have some substantial rumours please.
This post is posted just for the sake of doing so (put E-P5 specs with integrated EVF and voila)
Let’s have some substantial rumours please.
This post is posted just for the sake of doing so (put E-P5 specs with integrated EVF and voila)
So far, so good, especially the part about larger grip. If it’s really called E-M1, than it could turn out to be the rumored entry level OM-D from http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-there-will-be-a-new-entry-level-omd-in-september/ .
Therefore made of plastic fantastic? Think of the irony if it is the first fully 4/3 compatible Oly camera…
I have a real hard time believing this would be the “next after E-5” camera- or at least the highest end model Olympus would produce. I still think this camera can do well as long as the price is right.
– Raist
I just wish Oly would make a camera that focusses on video, so it would have the wonderful Oly IBIS but the video controls, codecs, and bit rates of the GH3.
M43 I stem is going to die really soon
Haahahahahahahaha! Wishful thinking or are you regretting buying a neck busting dslr? This phrase has been around since 2009!
Not an entry-level OMD, not the pro OMD, but closer to being a EM-5 replacement. But does it need to be replaced, and does it need to get bigger? EP-5 should have had a viewfinder, so Oly could have gone pro with OMD, and focus on 4 models, instead iof maybe 6? wtf … Imo, there’s definitely no room for an entry level OMD, and for the OMD Pro only if it accomlishes OBS.
Size wise I think that the E-M5 stroke gold. Even, if I had to get an E-PMx for everyday use.
The only reason for increasing size, and thus losing competitive advantage, is to mount 4/3 lenses, a v. limited endeavour indeed, except for the older generations at Oly comp.
Cannot they see that they risk to kill the chicken with the golden eggs for a me-too dSLR contraption?
Perhaps Western audiences have lost all sense of direction. Shall we remember that not only RF, but also the first SLR were small cameras? Much smaller than today’s pro dSLR?
Well we have E-P5, E-M1 by sam spec, but
OM-D Pro/OBS will maybe be an E-xx.
can someone explain when would be a situation to use multi-AF points instead of single AF point?
This so is important if you can choice the right point, not use all on one time.
Do we have a rumor about what lens it will be sold with? The long awaited 12-40 maybe? That would be fantastic for people photography.
People’s photography should be the 25/1.8, and they should be forbidden everything else for at least a year. That’ll teach them 🙂
But it does seem to have taught you.
Pedagogic use of primes are overrated. you want to learn, take some lessons.
Taking lessons teaches others bad habits!
First year should be 35mm and 85mm only. After that, anything goes.
anyway, I think it will be to expensive 😉
M43 is dead is for hipster
I hope the E-M1 is in the spirit of the E-1. Place the mount to the extreme edge, make it round with soft edges and not hard like the existing designs.
Make the EVF swivel.
Give it great video (at least 1080p 60fps).
Simplify the user-interface.
Make it a little smaller than the GH3.
COMING:One lower end model and one”pro”model.Pro model with everything everybody wants as improvements.C-AF that works like a charm and 700 shots/battery,and on+on.What a wonderful world this would be!!!
Admin, you need to up the (FT).
Additional control dial means 3 dials then?
Wish they’d make that a fully articulating screen instead of tilt only.
Much more useful for video and portrait orientation.
3rd control dial, wifi and 1/8000 shutter speed will all be welcome for me.
ethreatecltc
voaypuoyblum
Please quit telling me I can’t shoot wildlife with my Olympus E-5. Just improve the light sensitivity on a new Oly DLSR and get the megapixels up to 16, and keep the price below $1500…
Please quit telling me I can’t shoot wildlife with my Olympus E-5. Just improve the light sensitivity on a new Oly DLSR and get the megapixels up to 16, and keep the price below $1500…