I was very surprised to see the results of the 43rumors readers dream camera for the year 2014 (poll results here). Of the 7203 unique 43rumors voters 26% (1,858 Voters) are hoping to see a Full Frame OMD in 2014. This wishful camera beats all the rest (including the new GH4 and E-M10 cameras).
I am pretty sure such a camera COULD be realized now that Sony and Olympus have a close partnership. Imagine a camera with those features:
– 36 MP Sony sensor with no AA filter
– 4 Mio dot OLED EVF (Sony is rumored to use this in 2014 cameras)
– Olympus JPEG engine (which is better than the Sony)
– 5 axis on sensor stabilization (missing on Sony A7-A7r)
– E-mount
– freeze proof body (missing on Sony A7-A7r)
– dual SD card slot (missing on Sony A7-A7r)
– Olympus Zuiko primes coming along the camera
– OMD E-M1 alike button layout
[poll id=”224″]
207 Responses
I am surprised so many readers like that cam, I thought sensor size does not matter. It must be the usual amateurs, real pros shoot with tiny sensors. Better even, they use the right tool for every job LOL.
Now, seriously, that would be a killer camera, as long as the price is right, ie within 30% more of E-M1.
Sensor size ***REALLY*** doesn’t matter, at least not in the way most people would think.
If you use lenses with the same BIG diaphragm (I mean absolute diameter, not small F-value) you will get the same DOF and low light performance, no matter what sensor you use.
M43 would focus on F1 or even brighter AF lenses instead of jumping in such CONTROVERSAL systems like E-mount full frame (just compare current E-mount lens’ quality with their M43 counterparts).
IMO dof of f2 on m43 i perfect for producing usable portraits that have more than one eye in focus.
So i dont think there is any usable upside for FF on this regard.
Cleaner low iso would be my wish.
You cant beat m43 on usability an portability.
Plus you have 0.95 lense now that will give you those shalow dof results in a much smaller package and results will be less hazy than those from most FF f.4 lenses fuly open.
Sure the fiction camera described above would be great but only paired with Leica manual primes…
Non-photographers and weekend shooters are going to argue a lot here. You do like to roil the waters.
Does Olympus have the financial resources to develop a camera with a new mount and a complete range of lenses? I wouldn’t think so…
E Mount??? Nah, please focus on m43
Such a hypothetical Full Frame OM-D camera ought to be to some extent (Micro) Four Thirds compatible, otherwise it could just as well be labeled “Sony”, and, as far as I’m concerned, made by Sony, too. For a Full Frame OM-D, (F)E-Mount should only be considered if they’ll design it so that MFT lenses can still be mounted and used. Then again, a Full Frame sensor would need 48 MP to offer only 12 MP in FT crop mode with (M)FT lenses attached, 64 MP to offer the 16 MP which are current standard…
This is simply a very bad idea. We don’t need anymore such tiny trash sensors like M43, APS-C and Full Frame.
Please, Olympus, fulfill our wishes and make a large format system! We desperately need big, heavy bodies and huge lenses with big F values!
m4/3 is capable enough for the majority of people and I still dont understand this FF/DOF madness. Who print more than A4 and how many times a year?
Nikon 1 is capable for the majority of people and I still don’t understand this m4/3/DOF madness. Who prints more than A4 and how many times a year?
It really would be more reasonable for Olympus to develop a medium format camera system that has the same size then the canikon ff cameras. that at least would be a big enough gap in all aspects to mFT.
If they now would jump on the ff train it would be waste of research & development…
On the other hand, I would be interested in a digital XA-with full frame sensor. I don’t need another system mFT is already better than my realistic needs.
Good one! I particularly like the part about the big F values…
I don’t have to imagine it. I see it advertised all the time.
It’s called either the Canon 5D Mark III or A7r.
The whole point is the small sensor permits small bodies and small lenses. Otherwise, you are in CanoNikon-land, and while Olympus’ and Panasonic’s sensors are, millimeter for millimeter, better than the full frame sensors, there is not the slightest reason to think that it has anything but a competitive disadvantage if it steps into the FF world.
Millimeter for millimeter? Not even so, I am afraid. Whoever told you that was taking the piss.
Well, no, that’s not correct. The fact that top end m43 image quality is about equal to most APS-C quality shows it to be a little better.
Please, please, tell your friend you sussed out, and he should stop taking the piss. Oh I get it now: you checked DXOMark? Keep going then, that is precisely the site for people like you.
Sure, a proper sensor would be great. The price must stay within range tho: if they can pull this off, great.
A bad idea in my opinion.
– their system would get as messy as the Sony one who have many different sensor sizes but are slow with new lenses because of this
– the lenses would have to be way larger. So far mFT is the only one which really follows the lightweight concept _because_ they sticked to their sensor
– the current sensor has also many advantages over a larger one
Sensor size ***REALLY*** doesn’t matter, at least not in the way most people would think.
If you use lenses with the same BIG diaphragm (I mean absolute diameter, not small F-value) you will get the same DOF and low light performance, no matter what sensor you use.
M43 would focus on F1 or even brighter AF lenses instead of jumping in such CONTROVERSAL systems like E-mount full frame (just compare current E-mount lens’ quality with their M43 counterparts).
It’s just the sensor size and megapickles number that count for many amateurs. I think there are enough 35mm sensor sized cameras (dslrs included) to choose from, if someone needs it.
I’d like an RX1 made by Olympus, with ibis and EVF though, paired with a sharp and bright Zuiko lens.
Yep. The huge lenses would not really make sense. I wonder if the FF size is still required given the amazing m43 and APS-C sized sensors which are available now.
Something like the RX1 would be nice – I would prefer it with a zoom though.
Personally I have no interest in replacing all of my lenses. I don’t understand what you mean by E mount but then “Olympus Zuiko primes coming along the camera”. Wouldn’t the bigger sensor require bigger lenses? I chose m43 because it is small and has small, high quality lenses.
Pointless camera. Every m4/3’s benefits would be lost. No, thanks .
I will Buy OMD Full Frame If have sensor stabilization or at body (missing on Sony A7-A7r and Nex Series)
Dslr Sony Steady Shoot at body or sensor, no sensor stabilization Sony a7/7r is missing, HALLO SONY DO LISTEN US? why missing? no sensor stabilization Sony a7/7r and sony nex?
On FF you need a bigger camera body, and a bigger mount (so a brand new mount) to let the IBIS do its work and let you take pictures without cropping the sensor.
Then, Marco the question is will the OMD IBIS handle the weight size and inertia of a 135 sensor? Unlikely, so more cost for development. Yes, it would need a new mount as well.
Oh dear! here we go again, the guys who wanted new firmware to activate the hardware of the GH3 to make a GH4 seem to be alive and well still.
I don’t think the current IBIS can do it, but I don’t think it will be impossible. I see it happening but I think it would be easier to do it in a fixed lens camera, with a lens coupled ad hoc to the moving sensor. Just guessing, I’m not an optic nor an engineer..
I will copy it here since it got lost in the middle:
Again, look no further than a rebranded A7:it would be no better and no worse than that, other than a detail or two, like taking m4/3 lenses as crop.
So the question becomes: why does Admin feel the need to air the theory? Is he trolling? Did he read something?
I would rather publish Sony’s sales data about the A7. I am not even sure they are making a lot of money, but I’d like to know. Remeber that FF is a single figure, perhaps 7% of the market, just a prestige thing firmly held by C&N.
m4/3 instead has the future for itself. Has it reached final limits to growth? Who can tell? Do we really need more resolution?
As we saw with the A7, it came at a heavy cost. So why? Why?
Don’t forget to visti my new blog:
Photo & Poetry
http://amalric2014.blogspot.it…
I will forget, it’s crap… Sorry…
it’s called an A7r, or its followers…. ok, stab is missing, but for the rest? it will not use m43 lenses, or with a heavy crop mode. For the ones that want FF mirrorless, why not getting a A7 just now? the lenses are too big… ;-)?
And the bigger the sensor, the less you gain by having a short flange distance in term of optical design because digital sensors don’t deal well with large angle of incidence. So yes, you can probably mislead some people making them believe they can have it all, but technically, you’ll not gain much.
Bad idea from my point of view…
Interesting that so many voted for a FF OMD….. Not that I would not be interested in such camera. Today I use a D800 and a EM5 (for street scenes). I need the resolution, DR and general file quality of the D800 as my target is exhibition. The 3D feel from FF in combination with HQ lenses is really both seen and appreciated by non-experts but potential buyers.
However walking the streets with a D800 does never pass unnoticed 🙂 !
The performance and stealth of the EM5 makes it ideal for street scenes. During a recent photo trip to Lisboa I got one picture – one of my best – that would have been impossible with the D800 as well as my sold off Fuji (too slow).
This leads me to two conclusions:
1. Few really needs expensive FF
2. m43 is today really great, far from the nice but slow and low IQ P1.
It is also interesting with the current comparisons between Pana 42.5 and Fuji 56 lenses. It is not only about the lens, it is also about the sensor. Again the smaller m43 produces on APS-C level.
The so-called resolution would be enough even in case of MFT if it got rid of AA filter and Bayer-interpolation. 16 MP pure data (rather than an interpolated trash) is a lot, really a lot!
Allow me to join you dreaming about Foveon m43 cam with usable ISO 1600.
Foveon is a dead technology. I expect something different, with the same basic idea.
Remove AA-filter is NOT a game changer, improvement is marginal.
Remove Bayer? Well that requires a totally different sensor – unless you want a BW only camera. Foveon is owned by Sigma who has not been able to develop it to a versatile solution.
3.8 times larger sensor means something. Physical laws apply also to m43 ! 🙂
Laws of Physics also mean efficiency. Which is ridiculously low for current (Bayer) sensors!
If current MFT sensors’ efficiency was close to 100% it would easily beat the best current FF sensors. This is the way wort to follow, not increasing the sensor surface in a braindead style.
BW doesn’t give more resolution over bayer, only thing that you will get that chromatic abrerrations turn from semi-fixable thing to unrecoverable blur
Negative. It gives. Try to convert a Bayer image in BW and compare it to the one from a BW sensor of same megapixel using frequency analysis. You’ll be surprised.
so yours “a lot, really a lot” can only be found with frequency analysis and not noticeable to naked eye
No it doesn’t…
I vote for
Simply bad idea , we don’t need it .
All we need is an organic sensor with much much light sensitive & more & more focusing points please .
Current 23 focusing points are not sufficient . Triple it out & everybody will be happy .
It would be great to have a Full Frame system that works the way MFT does in the sense that any company can join the consortium and make bodies or lenses. So a FF system restricted to Olympus and Sony is not attractive. We have to get away from proprietary systems that only allow you to buy lenses with AF support from that particular manufacturer. An open standards FF system would get my money.
It already exists.
It is is called Nikon F-mount.
Unlike Canon, Nikon never bothered to keep the mount closed.
Fun fact. According to Wikipedia, even Canon has a camera with F-mount: Canon M15P-CL Industrial Camera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F-mount
This is why most of my manual lenses are Nikons… after the great optics, of course. If, at some point, I buy any of the generic lenses available with multiple mounts, like the Rokinon wide-angles, I’ll definitely buy F mount lenses instead of M4/3 for flexibility and using them with other systems.
Even Voigtländer makes a few F mount lenses!
I hope that people who voted for “Full frame OM-D” meant “a full frame camera built/functioning like OM-D”, otherwise I seriously don’t understand this. The whole system (glass) is designed to cover a four thirds sensor. Even if some 4/3 lenses can cover full frame (mu43 less likely), this is not what they were built for. You would end up with a system with random / useless focal lengths. Do people seriously think that Olympus would for some reason dump over a decade of developing a smaller system and go back to full frame? Where’s the logic in that? Olympus has been making mu43 for only a few years, why on Earth would they mess with that? I know that some vendors do change their systems (FD->EF, OM->nothing), but twice? If you want a full frame camera then go and buy one, there is plenty of choice out there, including mirrorless 🙂
I think all this talk about full frame OM-D and speculations about it (which keep coming back!) are largely a waste of time. And all this discussion about sensor size, DoF etc, ad nauseam, over and over again. It is what it is, period.
So, is everyone who voted for this Oly wet dream camera willing to sap M4/3 of it’s forward momentum AND be willing to wait as long… M4/3 debuted in 2008?… for the sort if lens lineup M4/3 enjoys now? But, then subtract Panasonic and all the third-party lenses we have now.
I wouldn’t mind a mirrorless 135 format camera … in my book, full frame is Hasselblad … but I’m willing to wait for the real thing from a trusted manufacturer, with a solid lens lineup… Nikon, for instance. Sony can’t be trusted, but if I avoided buying native lenses and only adapted my manual lenses, it wouldn’t matter much.
Yeah, bad idea. Why would we need yet another FF system ? DOF ? you can get get shallow enough DOF with the speedbooster or a F0.95 lens. Sensor performance ? can’t we just wait a year or two for organic sensors instead of going into a completely new and redundant system (?). As other have said I would rather have Olympus make a really significant jump and skip APS-C/FF altogether and go straight into Medium Format, FF is for people with inferiority complex that have only learned photography from sales managers and brochures, if you want a significant jump in quality from m4/3 then you might as well go Medium format, otherwise the trades in size and portability don’t make sense.
Oh, and commercially speaking, this would be a death sentence for Oly, there’s no way they would survive by entering the FF market, has anyone forgoten 4/3s ? Even with Sony’s support, they simply don’t have the muscle to sustain two systems without Canikon utterly destroying them. Fixed lens camera, maybe, a whole new system of bodies and lenses ? nope.
This is just a Troll’s wet dream, nothing more
I shoot a couple of FF bodies, as well as smaller formats. I don’t think I have complexes, but I do think you are envious – or downright stupid.
I voted “bad idea” because I’m not interested in another system with large lenses.
And no, I’m not interested in the future “potential”. For example NEX has had the “potential” for over 3-4 years now. Years later, and it is still the same: it has “potential”.
Olympus make a 135 camera? I have doubts about that happening soon. However may be it will happen. But It cannot be a m43 parts basket thingee. The standard of the OMD and style is fine though.
There will be many who come here advocating using OMD parts and technology, these same people probably are the ones who wanted a firmware update for the GH3 to make it do what the GH4 now does. They were all convinced the technology was already in the camera and just needed ‘releasing’ with firmware changes.
For Olympus there are a lot of engineering questions to be answered. Will the M43 IBIS work on a 24 x 36 sensor. Will the sensor be to big and heavy to operate as the m43 does? What mount to use? M43 will be confusing. A lot of electro-mechanical stuff needs sorting out. Electronically, updating memory and other aspects should not be difficult.
I would suggest it needs a new mount. One that is wider than m43 and uses a flange distance of between 18-25mm, preferably the longest at about 25mm.
Why? wider for faster lenses, bigger exit pupil possible. Distance of 18-25 to minimise lens construction costs by simplifying design and reducing need to make expensive corrections (lens and sensor) for distortion and colour on the sides of the image. The E mount is 18mm, but a bit longer would minimise cost of lenses and sensors.
A whole new range of lenses will also be need. The cost is going up and up and up and …….
Maybe the 4/3. m43 consortium could become the L43 consortium. The L43 being based on a 27 x 36 or a 24 x 32 sensor.
Olympus make a 135 camera? I have doubts about that happening soon. I also don’t think I am interested. I’ll stick with m43.
Those poll results who the FF OM-D got 26% out of a total 150% of votes, Hmm – love democracy?
It really is not needed – look at how Canikon have failed miserably with their mirrorless designs. Olympus would have the same failure gong the other way. And considering how people complained about them dumping the E-series, will they really trust Olympus to commit to a totally new line? I doubt it – loyalty is very hard get especially when you have trashed it so recently.
Agreed. Here’s an interesting opinion piece, in a similar vein, by Michael Reichmann on his Luminous Landscape site.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/nobody_knows_anything.shtml
It all depends on what the Olympus is trying to achieve. Convert Android/iPhone snappers? Impossible. Carve its own “second, lightweight body” niche? This has already happened and the sales are reflecting the potential of this niche – “OK” and “meh” at the same time, depending on how you look at it. But full-frame mirrorless bodies from Sony/Oly could cause quite a stir. I’m sure people wouldn’t second-guess buying such camera from Olympus. Do I need one at the moment? No, the m43 suits my travel photography needs just perfectly. But I’m not the “average customer” either.
Maybe with a curved sensor.
But otherwise you would lose the compactness, at least for the lenses.
And I personally don’t need another A7
The lens-size argument is moot. Equivalent lenses are similar in size.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#482.383,487.394,ha,t
http://camerasize.com/compact/#482.412,487.393,ha,t
And inb4 the light gathering nerds start to speak up: nobody cares about what you have to say.
When there is no difference, than why go FF?
– image quality (4x the resolution, higher DR, better colors)
– availability of fast glass
– low ISO ability (ISO 100 on FF is equivalent to ISO 25 on M43)
– high ISO ability
Nevertheless there are also arguments to use a M43 sensor:
– blazing fast AF
– IBIS
You speak of theoretical values. Even if the theoretical resolution is higher it is sampled by the number of pixels. Most FF cameras use 16-22 MPs
(only D800 and A7r have 36Mp). So for the same FOV you get the same resolution of FF vs. APSC or often m43. Only if noise comes into play you get cleaner pictures with FF. Dynamic range? Compare Canon FF to OMD or D7100. Sony sensors are much better, though, but still Canons are highly regarded and used.
You sometimes need larger DOF. The go to f8 in dim rooms with no stabilisation when using primes and you are immediately at ISO6400 and up (I am often in this situation).
The only real advantage I make regularly use of is achieving shallow DOF with inexpensive primes (Nikon 35mm/1.8,50mm/1.8,85/1.8 are great for the prize and not heavy) and boosting shadows.
Resolution matters in three cases I think: 1) noise-reduction algorithms (smaller pixels mean less obtrusive visual artifacts) 2) down-sampling (even if 100% zooms exhibit the same amount of noise at the pixel level, if we have more resolution the noise can be “averaged out”). 3) crops (with smaller sensor we already start with a crop and have less flexibility). Whether this is enough to swing the deal is another matter and it depends also on other factors. But from a purely signal processing perspective the larger sensor is in a slightly better position.
It’s not just about resolution. It’s not just about resolution. It’s not just about resolution. Whoever tells you that a lens i ssharp, they have no clue.
Agree to that. There are some nice forum posts at dpreview demonstrating that. It’s just that way higher theoretical line pairs/picture height values of lenses need to be resolved by the sensor, otherwise it doesn’t make sense. Luminous Landscape shows nicely that usually lenses far out resolve sensors at lower apertures. Things change as soon as diffraction sets in. Comparing theoretically possible values shows capabilities of a system but makes no sense if it is not made use of and if you just never need it or the human eye can’t resolve the detail at usual viewing distances.
FF lenses are however more “forgiving”. They don’t need to be that sharp to achieve sharper pictures compared to m43. But so far m43 lenses with twice the amount of lp/mm compared to FF lenses are not available as far as I know. When magnifying the image a FF picture will inevitably become sharper at one point when using the best lenses, even if the same MP are used. But to recognise it you need to print very very large.
…m43 also offers
– deeper depth of field (macro)
– superior video capabilities (Panasonic)
– fastest rolling/electronic shutter (GH4)
– less than half the weight and volume
– more dynamic range than a FF 5D3 (em-5, gh3, gm1, gx7, e-p5, e-m1, gh4)
Do you really need to ask this? You have the world wide web at your feet, use it. if you don’t see the difference, get yourself a phone and stick to it. Not too complex though!
http://camerasize.com/compact/#482.366,487.392,ha,t
The sony isn’t even at f2.8…
It isn’t. The micro lens needs to be f/2 to match f/4 FF lens.
You’re joking right? The Sony would be equivalent to the four thirds 35-100mm f/2, do you know how big that lens is!?
A7= Clunky 🙂
then have to go through the wait of another lens line up !
not sure we would see anything as good as what we have now with the choices like the Oly 75 or the new 42.5 or the CV 0.95 etc..
It would be a nice, impressive camera to be sure. But I also hope Olympus doesn’t make it.
I, personally, have no need for a FF camera–when m43 first came out I bought in because it was exactly the balance of size and ease of use I wanted. I looked at Canon FF cameras then, and decided I didn’t want one–too expensive, and just too big even if it wasn’t–and if the Sony A7 had been available I almost certainly would have made the same decision, even if it weren’t out of my price range.
So to me, personally. a hypothetical Olympus FF would just be a distraction from what Olympus has been and should be doing: Making really nice m43 cameras and lenses that I want to buy. They do what I want, and I’m happy with what they and Panasonic are doing with the system.
Every time I see the staff photographer from the University I work at come around with her D3 and hugely expensive, immense glass, I don’t feel the least bit jealous. The photos she gets (leaving aside composition skills) are a tad nicer than what I can do with my lowly E-M5, but not markedly so, and certainly not worth the fact that one lens weighs as much as my entire kit (and probably cost more).
E-M5 is not lowly. 🙂
You got it backwards with the prices: given equivalent lenses, M43 has the dearest lenses. Also: given equivalent lenses, M43 lenses are not smaller.
I’m well aware of the inexpensive Canikon glass available, but pro glass is generally as pricey as high-end lenses from other companies, and “equivalent” is a loaded term when we’re talking about the ability to take a nice, roughly equivalent photo sans DoF calculations.
The bottom line is the walkaround lens she uses weighs upwards of 700g and cost well over $1000, which is more than my camera, zoom lens, and two nice, relatively inexpensive primes weigh, and is also more than I paid for the body and zoom kit. There are no FF primes smaller than the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, period, equivalent or otherwise.
That is a pretty selfish statement. Lets say for instance Olympus came out with a Full frame Camera and a few notable photographers such as James Natchwey or Steve McCurry or any high profile photographer used it as their choice of tool. that could only be better for Micro 4/3 as well no? A company doesn’t have to go all in or nothing with regards to format. What you are saying is that companies shouldn’t adapt and that is certainly what is needed nowadays for all camera companies. Also, why is it acceptable for you too look down upon people that carry around their larger gear. it’s quite ridiculous that you even waste your energy thinking down upon others because in reality it really has no impact on your life whatsoever. believe me, If you are not impressed with your co workers images, it wouldn’t matter if they were shot with a D800 or a S100, It means they suck…plain and simple. If they were good, you would be impressed with their photos regardless of what they used.
You have a valid point, although I disagree, with regards to Olympus being able to do two things at once. Where I see market fragmentation, you see diversity and prestige.
But you’ve completely misinterpreted my comments about the staff photographer at my University. I do anything but look down on her (that’s why I made the comment about leaving aside composition skills–because she’s a substantially better photographer than I am, regardless of what tools she’s shooting with).
What I said (or, rather, meant) was that, from a purely technical perspective, the photos that are coming out of her $7000 pro FF kit are not markedly nicer than the photos coming out of my $1300 m43 kit that is a fraction of the size and weight. I’m confident that if I handed her my camera, she would take photos with it that were nearly as nice, and in some cases nearly indistinguishable.
That’s not looking down on her or her gear. In fact, as a person whose entire job it is to walk around campus and take photos for said University, I would expect her to have a $7000 camera and a suitcase full of lighting equipment. That’s her only job, weight and bulk is not important, and given the high profile of the photos she takes, she should have the absolute best tools money can buy for the job.
But I don’t say to myself, “Man, I wish I had one of those” in the same way I might with a $3000 monitor or $12,000 computer or $1500 lens I can’t afford. I see gear that compromises substantially in size and weight for a marginal improvement in the practical image quality areas that matter to me. It’s a tradeoff I wouldn’t make even if the price were the same, and it’s vastly more expensive on top of it. It reinforces my analysis of m43 as being a sweet spot in the balance of size and image quality, at least for my needs, and several years with the format haven’t changed that assessment at all, unlike with every previous camera I owned, when I always found myself envying something nicer after a little while.
Gotcha, Sorry I misinterpreted your meaning.
Having put 8X10 full frame vs. MFT prints side by side it is hard to tell of any ‘image quality’ differences. I have read in numerous comparisons that same is true for 16×20. That being said, we are no where near reaching the peak in image sensor technologies, so I would hazard a guess Olympus will focus on ‘better’ sensor technologies rather than going full frame. For those wanting minimal depth of field, the recent Olympus patents tend to suggest impending arrival of f1.0 lenses.
Strange, because I see enormous differences in terms of noise, dynamic range, tonal range, rendering of bokeh, transitions from focus to out-of-focus, etc… Not that I don’t love using my E-P5, it’s a great little camera, but the output is most definitely not on a par with full frame cameras !!!
Enormous?
common…
It is not like there is no difference.
But only people that know both kind of gear very well can tell the difference. I would say 95% of other people can not tell the difference. And in 95% of use cases it also does not make any difference.
For 95% of the people cell phone pictures are “good enough”. That’s why we have choice, and people can pick the camera that is right for them. No need for this fanboy attitude.
I don’t think that 95% would like their wedding pictures to be taken by a phone. But I guess most of them would not see the difference between FF and MFT if the pictures are well taken.
But I know some people NEED FF and thats fine. If they want to pay for it I have no problem 🙂
Again, look no further than a rebranded A7:it would be no better and no worse than that, other than a detail or two, like taking m4/3 lenses as crop.
So the question becomes: why does Admin feel the need to air the theory? Is he trolling? Did he read something?
I would rather publish Sony’s sales data about the A7. I am not even sure they are making a lot of money, but I’d like to know. Remeber that FF is a single figure, perhaps 7% of the market, just a prestige thing firmly held by C&N.
m4/3 instead has the future for itself. Has it reached final limits to growth? Who can tell? Do we really need more resolution?
As we saw with the A7, it came at a heavy cost. So why? Why?
Don’t forget to visti my new blog:
Photo & Poetry
http://amalric2014.blogspot.it/
Why? Indeed… Why do you feel the need to post this nonsense?
I can see the differences between FF and m43 when comparing on a computer screen at 100%. But printing medium sizes the difference for most situations isn’t visible. If I buy a print at A2 and pin it to my wall, I’m usually not standing 5cm from the picture to inspect sharpness and tonal differences. I sit on a sofa 2m from the picture and enjoy the scene.
Being part of a photographers group we meet once a week, showing pictures evaluating and giving marks (50cm is allowed to be the longest edge). It’s so hard to judge the format whenever the dynamic range is not excessive or DOF not extreme. The moment and composition is more important. If you are a landscape, fine arts guiy, use the top of the shelf product. Additionally look at where the sensors are now compared to 5 years ago. Tonality, dynamic range are already great with an OMD, high ISO is getting better and better. In the future software solutions to photographic effects (photo stacking to achieve DOF differences …) will become better and better further mitigating differences.
Well said. At viewing distances, it is difficult to really tell. What’s more, you will typically not have the same picture taken by a ff camera side by side, so there is nothing to compare with anyways. Photographs tend to stand on their own merit. As for DoF considerations, decreased depth of field is often a disadvantage, and in my case, undesirable. I was always fighting with limited dof with my 35mm cameras, so for me m43 is ideal.
Of course, this might just be the subject matter I choose. Others might see differences, I certainly don’t (again, in comparisons made with side by side prints at viewing distances).
I have an E-P5, too (and an EPL6),I love them, but they do not replace my FF for ALL of the reasons that you mention…. But Tom Tom has a point, too…with sensor tech improvements, won’t most of what is lacking in the smaller sensor be rectified in the very near future? (except DOF)….
I definitely have mixed feelings about the need for a FF OMD…but I can always take some G.A.S. pills, not buy it and enjoy it from the sidelines! 🙂
The Sony A7/R *is* the full frame OM-D.
Though I have no doubt Olympus will have its own models in the near future.
Full frame, necessary or not, Canon and Nikon have shown it is the only road to big success. Crop sensor brands (Pentax, Olympus, etc…) remain a footnote and if Olympus wants to make big waves it needs a full frame system to complement its already excellent micro four thirds system.
Exactly. It would do two things for them – diversify their product lineup a bit and offer a camera that people actually want (necessary or not, market forces don’t give a damn). I mean, while I appreciate the insight of Olympus engineers, having a good but stubborn vision might backfire on them. They might not last long enough to be able to correct their mistake. If, on the other hand, they have something up their sleeve, such as brand new sensor tech, they might pull it out even with M43.
It already exists, it is called the A7.
Skip the 135, go straight for medium format. Square sensor, 36*36 mm, that’d be unique. A Sony A7 clone would be nothing but a… Sony A7 clone.
Olympus FF camera? A 43 DSLR like E-550 or E-650 would be more than
enough. Something requested by Oly fans for many years now, with no
success. So why dream about Oly FF?
Of course, everything is
possible – commercially justified or not. I would not be surprised,
after the ISO failure E-M1 which costs the earth!? Almost as much as Sony A7! Crazy!
Yes, give us an affordable camera with phase detection so we can continue using our 43 lenses.Don’t make us pay for yet another system!
Global shutter, better video codecs like xavc, and better video quality and options, compact body, fully articulated screen.
I would rather olympus concentrate on making it’s mft cameras the best they can be. I don’t particularly like carrying a silly looking giant camera around all day.
If the FF OMD comes out, I will be one of the buyers!
Me too. The only reason I have not bought an A7r yet is because I want IBIS. They don’t even need to make any lenses for it, just the body. I have a full line of Canon FD lenses that are begging to be used on a FF camera with IBIS.
If you need IBIS, don’t buy an expensive camera. I needed it for years, and then, when I learned, IBIS came out big way. I don’t need it anymore. Trust me.
That is hysterical that the referenced earlier poll has 150% total percentage! Doesn’t help in the credibility dept. LOL!
A full-frame camera would not be able to take any of the mFT lenses from Olympus or Panasonic as they are not designed to cover a FF image area. Presumably some of the other manufacturer’s lenses (e.g. Sigma) might be able to as these were designed as multi-system lenses.
Would people be happy waiting for new lenses to be introduced and for their current investments in lenses to be unusable? I think not.
Mike, I think the lens issue is huge. Olympus & Pana are continuing to develope a niche and slowly-growing market in m4/3. To expect them to go off into another direction developing another set of fframe-capable optics is doubtful imo. Canikon has the fframe optics ready to go when they eventually(?) release their fframe mirrorless solutions. IF Canon released something like this, with my stable of EOS lenses, I’d strongly consider moving to this form factor, unless it is as crappy as the EOS-M 🙂
I agree, one of the reasons I went with 4/3 and m4/3 was that I already had a fair number of OM mount lenses with quite good optical performance. If I had used Canon SLRs I would have gone with Canon DSLRs 🙂 There are financial constraints between what I can get and what I would LIKE go get (for example, I still am waiting to afford an OM-D E-M1 🙂
Smaller image circle doesn’t prevent a FF body from using smaller format lenses, A7 & A7R happily take m43 lenses via m43-nex adaptor. Sigma’s m43s have APS-C coverage.
How good is the lens performance at the edge of the sensor coverage? The m43 lenses are not designed to cover a full-frame sensor, so I would certainly expect a fall-off in performance.
You misunderstand….the A7 will accept smaller format lenses…but you are only utilizing a smaller part of the FF sensor and cropping. You do not record a FF image obviously. Kind of defeats the point of having a FF sensor…duh.
It still amazes me how many people still think larger sensor systems have significantly better image quality!
Simply put, taking the same picture with a FF camera and a m43rds camera the FF body would be stopped down 2 stops and the ISO bumped… At which point the IQ of the larger sensor may well be worse than the m43rds sensor.
Now if you can exchange DoF for IQ then you can shoot the FF system at the same aperture value as m43rds and enjoy better IQ, but you have significantly shallower DoF, which in many cases simply would not work.
Now lets say you can simply slow the shutterspeed as your subject isn’t moving, well you can do the same with both, except all lenses on Olympus cameras are stabilized allowing for potentially better IQ again.
And if you have the time to use a tripod, well you can do all sorts of magic like stitching, staching etc to level the playing field.
However, and this is an important point, if you WANT the shallower DoF, well you get that, plus the advantage of the IQ of the larger sensor. That would be the only reason to produce a FF system for Olympus.
Leave it at that. I mean, look at the Panasonic 42.5mm f1.2, for the cost of that lens I could buy the Fuji 56mm plus a mid level Fuji body… Mostly thanks to Fuji’s aggressive pricing… But I could, so what for some slight Bokeh differences, or some sharpness, that is not what you buy these lenses for…
So, I have talked myself out of it… I mean, who needs the larger sensors to take the same picture, you need them to take pictures with shallowER DoF… but event then you have to buy the lenses to do it.
Too this picture the other day with the unappreciated 17mm f1.8, it does draw beautiful pictures:
I think it’s even simpler than that. If you’re going to spend big bucks on a new camera ecosystem you don’t want to rationalize your decision by telling yourself that you can stack images. People would buy FF just for the peace of mind. There are not that many customers who are willing to do the necessary research and make an informed decision. Maybe they don’t even have such ambition. Hell, I know a guy who plays with Federer’s tennis racquet – he doesn’t even realize that small racquet head hurts his game at his level of play, but he (and the manufacturer) is happy. Sad but true.
“Informed decision”? You nailed it. That’s why people buy SL100s rather than E-M1s.
I am sorry you typed so long, the result being the usual hype. Larger sensors have better IQ, and not by a small margin. I know because I experience that everyday.
Everything else is a sad attempt at self-justification, or worse, a lie to flog crap on the unaware consumers.
🙂 Your aren’t too bright, or possibly blind.
To simplyfy, for the same DoF the FF aperture must be closed down 2 stops. This removes ALL IQ advantages (for the same shutterspeed) that the larger sensor has. It actually has slightly worse IQ after (depending on resolution) stopping down and upping the ISO.
So maybe a few more words would educate your mis-informed brand bias. Hell the largest imaging company is my client… So I think I possibly have a better grasp on this than you.
Unless you are willing to exchange DoF for IQ (or unless you have plenty of light) there is no advantage using a FF sensor and lenses.
Your client? Do you suk diks? LOL sorry I could not resist that.
Again: IQ advantages of smaller sensors are nil. Nada. Nichts. Rien. This is plain physics and any Tom, Dick and Harry can see this for themselves.
I use many sensor sizes and experimental observation punctually corroborates theory.
The question is the usual: are you plain stupid or are you a rep for Crapasonic?
Hmmm,
What a vulgar mouth you have., and no self control it seems. Pay attention to what I have said and maybe you will learn something.
A clue: I didn’t say smaller sensors have an inherent advantage.
But do you suk diks?
We always like a little humour 🙂
What a lot of bollocks, everybody knows that smaller sensors have no IQ advantages whatsoever. We learned it in physics. If you want to talk size cool, as long as you are prepared to compromise on IQ – no matter what. “Abraham” or whatever your name is, there is no need for aggression . You want to sell your crap? Fine, but the others also get to talk then. This is the sort of things that put me off M43, as I was looking for a small camera for my “adventures”.
Also “LiarBrigade”, there is no need for profanity, even if I agree that liars spoil the market. And even if it is funny 🙂
Again, a reading comprehension failure.
And my name is more likely to be what you see, than yours isn’t it? Unless your parents had a good sense of humor, or an insight into your future online gallivants.
So, did you understand what I wrote, probably not judging by your reply.
Poor “Abraham”, nobody understands him… And he is such a clever boy…
Why are you so rude? I bet you are the biggest ass-kisser offline. Lying and rude: you are a waste of space.
Tell me how good the image quality is when you mount a cheap lens on an expensive camera body with a larger sensor? If you tell me that you get great image quality from such a combination, you’re not telling the truth.
You can get better image quality than mounting a cheap lens on a cheaper camera body with a smaller sensor, but that’s not really proof, is it?
The idea of waiting for a whole new lens line-up is reason enough to ignore this product if it came out. I like the size of the lenses for M4/3. I would be interested in a full frame camera with fixed ultra bright lens, which seemed to be suggested in the mention of the TRIP35 revival a week or so ago. That would actually compliment the existing OM-D line up, not compete with it.
Good to see that M43 shooters still crave FF, even though they vehemently deny it in every discussion.
FF shooters spend time trolling m43 boards because their hipster arms and legs are too weak to carry their trophy gear around. Don’t you have some more wangs to photograph?? … Get out there tiger!!
Your statement makes no sense. It should read: “Hipsters shoot M43 because they’re too feeble to carry FF”. The thing about FF users trolling M43 boards because they can’t heft their gear only adds more ill-logic to your statement. I guess your primary concern was to mouth off a quick insult, regardless of it making any sense at all. Congratulations on making yourself look retarded. Back to the topic of discussion: as an owner of an E-PL5 and an A7, I can tell you that you secretly desire FF, but you’re too committed to the M43 cause to admit it. I was.
I don’t seen this poll as scientific – too many trolls o this site. But assuming a quarter of readers actually voted for a full frame camera, it just shows that “bigger is better” is still an incipient attitude among many camera enthusiasts..
Until they start lugging around the kit, especially the lenses.
Olympus needed how long to come up with the mft lenses we have now? And still a decent wide angle zoom and fast tele lenses are missing. There are no Oly primes faster than 1.8 and a lot of gaps in the lens lineup. How long do you want to wait for a complete FF lens system? How old are you now and whats the average life expectancy for your gender in your country?
Answer is simple: Need FF, buy Nikon, Canon, Sony (if you really have to 😉
The only new tech gadget I am curious about would be a “smallish” medium format camera with a great sensor and acceptable pricing.
Oly should concentrate it´s resouces on mft, it´s good at it and people want it (I want it). Make it a complete system for everyone from beginner to professional level. Don´t waste money on trends and “me too”s.
Couldn’t agree more that there are lots of gaps in the lens lineups. We have pre announcements for 7-14 2.8 and 40-150 2.8 and even a 300 4. But no firm dates for delivery. Even the 40-150 that was first show a year ago is still months and months from delivery.
Once Oly releases these then it should start working on faster primes. 1.8 might be their sweet spot for size/design but it sure isn’t very fast.
They are ceding all of the fast lenses market to Panasonic.
And Oly needs to keep working on it’s sensors. There is considerable room for Noise improvements.
Video is two generations behind which is such a shame because the 5axis stabilization makes running and gunning such a breeze.
And a slightly bigger file would be appreciated too. 20mpx is my perfect target.
So that and the lenses already promised yet undelivered and the lenses that Oly should be making make me wary of any loss of focus around a different system altogether.
The conspiracy theorist in me says the have limited themselves to f1.8 thus far so they have room to make faster f1.4 or f1.2 “Pro” weather sealed lenses in the future. That way they get everyone’s money twice.
Probably. I wish get would hurry up so I could make that double payment a reality. Weather sealed 1.2 lenses in 17.5 25 and 42.5 please.
Good theory. If true, I’ll buy again. 🙂
They haven’t even announced a 150-300mm f/2.8 lens, and that is a huge gap, unless you count the 75-300 f/4.8-6.7.
Could someone please explain to me that voting business here to the left? I seem to have 12 votes now – what does that mean? Can I win a coffee machine or do these people think my post is rubbish and I should be banned?^^
Unless they find a way to make their existing small lenses work in full frame, this doesn’t make sense to me. Small, light, easier to manufacture (translating to) great glass is Olympus’ core brand tenant. Shifting resource away to built the very thing that they use to favorably measure themselves against seems odd. Instead, I’d prefer to see them:
* innovate on the M43 sensor to provide even better dynamic range
* build faster, weather sealed, small primes
* improve their menu system
* improve their video (4K)
* improve motion tracking autofocus
* weather seal and add an EVF/OVF to a rangefinder style body
There’s still lots to do in M43. But if they’re going to introduce another line/format of camera, they should skip FF and go straight to medium format.
If a large sensor camera is to come out of the Olympus-Sony partnership, maybe it will have something to do with the rumored fixed lens medium format camera that Sony is said to have coming later this year. If so, I hope they steal the concept from the old Fuji GW690 series, aka, the “Texas Leica.” That’s a big, beautiful rangefinder that shoots 6×9 frames and contains a leaf shutter. Leaf shutters are generally much quieter (though the 690 is not quiet for a variety of reasons), leaf shutters allow for fast flash sync (really, really fast) and can often be hand held at much slower speeds due to less vibration.
Sony’s ADD makes me think that the medium format rumor just might be true. And making a fixed lens camera would be a good move for them, since they don’t seem to be able to focus on a format long enough to deliver a lens lineup. 😉
Many Hasselblad film shooters never needed anything other than the awesome Zeiss 80mm 2.8 anyway, so one lens could be just right!
my dream camera is the successor of the e-m5, any news on that front?
Yeah, I just hope they keep the design the same, along with HLD-6 compatibility.
If anything, Olympus should build a new mirrorless system around a larger-than-35mm sensor. Three good primes would suffice. Otherwise they should concentrate on perfecting m4/3, which is what they have been doing anyway. Coming from a month’s worth of Df experience that included lots of printing I can say m4/3 is highly satisfactory. Really.
2014 just started so a bit early to say 2014 ……. The other thing is FF lenses are huge and heavy. M43 is all about size and weight. We have FF cameras with large bodies to support the large FF lenses It makes no sense to have a tiny body with a large and heavy lens. there is no 70-200mm F2.8. For Sony A7/r. Only a. F4.0 I think Olympus and Panasonic and Fuji and Sony should focus on making smaller sensors better. Due to lens physics there is a happy medium in M43. FF lenses still need a larger body to support fast zooms. If you need a fast zoom like a 70-200mm F2.8 then Sony A7/r is not the camera for you. So a small Omd with no fast zooms ? If the fast zooms for FF can be made small and light then I’m for FF in small bodies but currently not a reality
This voting is nothing more than wishful thinking and has little to do with reality.
Posters just vote with their mouths. If they had to vote with their wallets and pay in advance, I have no doubt that the results would be completely turned.
BTW, if it was easy to stabilize a big FF sensor, why wouldn’t Sony do it already on their A7? Sony had long ago access to IBIS tech before even partnering with Olympus. Even Panasonic took a good shot at it on 4/3. I believe Admin is just dreaming, like all the other FF voters…
I agree Even Fuji has no IbIS and all their primes have no IS. To me IBIS is the way to go. I am also happy to see Panasonic to put IS in a prime such as the 42.5 F1.2
I prefer a smaller sensor with IS than larger and no IS as I shoot mostly off tripod
They did in A-mount: A900/A800/A99. E-mount Sonys have no IBIS irrelevant of sensor size.
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of IBIS on a FF sensor.
Now, why would they stop doing it, is beyond me…
FF OMD? Give me a break. Wishful thinking by a bunch of newbies.
Personally, I’d rather have a 7-300mm, f/1.0 pancake lens.
haha, you would only need that one right?
You forgot that it must be inexpensive also! 🙂
And sharp all the way to the edges! 🙂
How plausible could a full frame OMD ever be? It would mean Olympus — and Panasonic and you and I — would have to start all over again. And it took them how long to arrive to this point, where there are still gaps left in the m43 lens line-up? Do m43 users want Olympus to end up like Sony’s half-baked systems?
Full Frame OMD. but what mount?
m43 mount would be a strange move, full frame sensors dont have the pixel density like the 16MP 43 sensors.
FE has a good possibility, that mount is capable of ff. and already has some sweet sony zeiss glass. olympus could add a couple more.
FF glass is not alway big. look at LEICA,
those tiny lenses are made for large sensor. Most of them and have excelent performance.
Its harder to get sharp corners on ff, thats the main reason lenses are bigger.
with a shore flange distance it reduces the need of retrofocus lens designs->smaller lenses
You need to produce huge lenses to get huge image quality to match the sensors. Sure, you can put a US$100 lens on the Nikon D800 and what you get is worthy of a US$100 lens, not a US$2800 camera body.
This “you need” is your fantasy. They’ll be huge only if you require large aperture (which is not beneficial to sharpness). The entire point of FF is that any required level of IQ can be had with cheaper lenses than smaller formats.
It’s hardly a fantasy. I don’t prescribe to the idea that a 135 Format-sized sensor as being a panacea to all photographers’ desires.
Putting a cheap lens on an expensive camera body only works if you have a desire for lower levels of image quality. The optical geometry among a lens’ elements has a lot to do with that, and you can’t fake it. You can only expect less with smaller, cheaper lenses.
If mediocrity is what you want, why spend more to spend less?
Some cheaper FF lenses produce images inferior to expensive FF lenses, but they outresolve best 43 lenses. Because stepping down eliminates most aberrations-FF lens at f/4 can get better IQ with less complex optical designs (having fewer elements) than 43s lens at f/2.
“expensive mediocrity” is, um, seems to be what 43 system is about.
canon’s 40/2.8 STM is $160 and it’s pretty sharp, sharper than any 43 lenses. How much $$$ one needs to spend for 43 lens to match its level of IQ? Tamron’s 70-300 outresolves most 43 primes, etc.
This posting is itself a troll. Neither Panasonic nor Olympus are thinking of a FF any more than they are planning to merge.
Olympus full frame; would be more expensive than Sony A7, take sales away from M43 and you would wait 5 years for a range lenses which would be double the price of the M43 lenses
2015 Olympus: organic sensor which much more DR, 4k video, rangefinder/pen style with built in viewfinder and concentrate on redesigning those F2.0 SHG zooms for M43 -that might be possible!
if Oly and Panasonic just offered an APS_C sized sensor I’d be thrilled.
I specifically like m43 because it isn’t APS-C. 2x and 1x are the way to go in my opinion.
Don’t expect Panasonic to join in this foolishness. This is all about Olympus and their user base.
… and the bigger / heavier lenses to go along with the FF camera. No thanks. Please continue making great m43 cameras and lenses Olympus.
I’d think it was cool if they created an open standard for 35mm sensors but other than that it’s just another body with no good glass.
I agree, that would be great. I’d love to hear that Olympus and Panasonic team up on an open standard for 35mm mounts. Probably just dreaming though. They both use MFT now, but it’s probably unlikely they’ll go for a standard 35mm together. 🙁
Why would Olympus scatter their research & development further when money is tight? Most of the people crying for a 135 Format camera system wouldn’t buy one unless it’s very inexpensive and it’s extremely light and compact.
If it was possible to duplicate the OM-4Ti precisely with a 24x36mm sensor in place of the film, with no increase in size, it still wouldn’t be what people wanted. Heat dissipation wouldn’t be enough to allow video of any kind and in that tight space, it might be too much for current burst mode speeds.
It’s a dream that won’t happen because it’s technically infeasible at this point to meet the demands of the dreamers.
Time to accept the fact that most of the mirrorless goodness of the MFT cameras is on account of their sensor size. The IBIS, the fast AF, the small lenses. Don’t imagine the sensor will somehow scale up, and all that other stuff will still just work. It won’t. And then the result will not be very desirable.
+1000 It’s so true!
An E-mount would be stupid. The strenght of olympus has always been zuiko
+1 …E-Mount makes no sense. It would have to be all Olympus. Personally…I am happy with my Canon 5DIII for FF and all of the lenses that I have for it…I would not be making a change over for tens of thousands of dollars just to make it somewhat smaller……no way….the beast is the beast and it can stay that way and I use it when I need it…. I just think that as the MFT sensor steadily improves…MFT will just get closer and closer to the FF dynamic. FF will get better too..but it is moot at this point. I am making 32″ & 40″ prints that are just stunning….I can’t see needing any more unless you have high-end commercial accounts that require this.
I love my Oly cameras..more times than not they are just fine for what I am shooting!!!!!
Obviously the sensor-size trolls have all been voting for full frame… because this is their main joke.
All m43 users have a different wish, so the troll’s wish comes out highest. That’s it…!
Olympus needs to go large format. skip all the mediocre crop, full frame and medium format sensors. Cover both ends of the market like a digital sandwich so to speak. I’m not talking that pultry 4×5 either. Give us the 8×10. Do it!!!!
…Imagine the amazing DOF of a Rodentsock 700mm f/1.2 hand-held portrait lens!!! ( and keep the price under $1,000 )
Just think …. 8″x10″ video at 60p – HUGE!
M43 lens on 135 sensor.
Hmm That is about a 6 or 9MP m43 image if the sensor was ff at 24 or 36MP.
How many of you bright sparks who want a 135 sensor M43 will accept that?
Do you think the M43 lens image circle will become magic and grow to cover the larger area?
Do you also think that the IBIS mechanicals will support the size and inertia of a 135
sensor?
Bet your the same ones that wanted the GH3 firmware updated to allow 4k as ‘everyone’ knew
it was only a firmware change and also should be free.
You wanters will have to buy a new camera and new lenses.
Now. How many of you have been running down Sony because of the lack of lenses for the A7 series? Also the edge smudging and colour shift because of the short flange distance?
Sensor-Schizophrenia?
An APSC sensor in the current cameras would make more sense. Some m43 lenses cover that size now and the Speedbooster 35mm legacy lens combo would be very good. It would also allow wide screen video at a higher resolution than at present. A big downside would be loss of quality and sharpness at the sides and corners though. The IBIS may also have difficulty with the extra weight and inertia.
In fact if you add the second and third category you’ll see that the majority prefer to ignore FF35mm.
The first category should further vote with their MONEY which is not a given.
So that would leave actually very few people who would effectively buy.
Seems everyone just about wants a FF from Olympus. I expect they are also forgetting that FF lenses are much much larger and heavier. To me the plus with M43 is the nice small size. I guess all want an Omd M1 or Omd10 FF. With the current M43 size lenses. Just not possible now. Also why compete with Canon Pentax Nikon Sony FF. Fuji is doing better with XT1 vs Sony A7/r. If size was everything then why are folks not asking Olympus for Medium Format Omd
I don’t get it… this is a 43rumors website, not a FF network. People should know that Olympus cannot do FF, there is just no point for them to cover a market that already exists at the same time as an emerging market -that works- (m43). The real strength and marketing strategy of Olympus, is to make a lot of lenses and small bodies with good IBS, that’s all… Why would they change clientele? Every one wants FF, but we know the tread off, build and price wise. I chose Olympus OMD because I love the small body, I get great IBS, I get a large range of affordable superb glass, the best weather sealing, all for a good price. And it takes good photos. Fuji is the same..
Just a week ago, Olympus guppies “Trip”-ped out at the prospect of Oly producing a $2,000 “fixed lens” camera in a “larger” format- with “IBIS”. This week approx. 1/3 of forum participants, (presumably Olympus buyers) are prepared to pony-up for a “Full-Frame” camera and lenses, (so long as they are branded “Olympus”), after years of taunting Canon & Nikon for large, heavy, expensive, FF cameras and lenses.
Why are some Olympus camera users anxious to jump to any larger format and spend whatever it takes?
1. Is it some camera-size inferiority complex? … (Like being the only white-boy in the shower room)?
2. Money to burn?
3 Admission that Full-Frame is superior?
4. Double-mindedness?
If some m4/3 users are sufficiently insecure about their cameras that they feel the need to “go larger” – for either IQ reasons or Inferiority Complex reasons, why not just buy a Canon or Nikon (for those all important schlong contests), rather than goad Olympus into further recklessness?
Sensor size doesn’t define a camera anymore. As I said everyone love FF (including me) and a lot of people didn’t sell their big DSLR to get M43, it became a complimentary camera… You would ultimately tread off some of the good stuffs from your Olympus or Panasonic… I admit that FF sensor is superior, no one said otherwise… But for a street photographer with 2000$ in my pocket I spent it on a small body, (+small lenses – not like sony A7 -) with outstanding autofocus, weather sealing, IBIS, etc. For this amount of money, I don’t think FF is even imaginable right now.
Also the digital “Trip”, won’t exist, so I don’t even understand why you brought it up…
Great comment. FF has two advantages , more shallow DOF and a bit better low light performance granted it is a newer sensor. But the huge disadvantage is size and weight So therefore no fast zooms for Sony A7/r. For example
M43 is the nice sweet spot of size and weight. I have sold all my FF gear – have a Nex 5n and Nex 7 but do not use much due to so so E mount lenses but love my GX7’s and OMD5 and my fast zooms and nice primes. Now with F1.2 for M43 Shallow DOF not so much of an issue and low light ability always getting better and of course the nice IBIS
It would be possible, most people forget how small the original OM was, and it was not even mirrorless, it was a very nice system with its quirks but great and small Zuiko optics! Does AF in the lens take that much space? Rangefinder lens are also quite small and some people are just fine with primes in that focal length range. If designed specifically those are not too big or heavy even for FF.
But it cannot happen just from nothing. Sony’s E-mount evolved from APS-C and then from FF video camera. Olympus evolved from the 43 system and it is going to continue. Not sure what the collaboration between Olympus and Sony but they won’t try to directly compete with each other either.
One could have everything in that wish list except the 36MP sensor by buying an Olympus EM1 today, plus a really excellent selection of lenses. An adapter and a focal reducer would then even let you use legacy lenses. Full frame – I don’t think so.
And its not even April 1st yet.
I like when Photog’s think that Sony “partnered” with Olympus to work together on Cameras. Sony purchased 10% of Olympus to get a piece of our Medical systems and that is it. Sony doesn’t give a damm about Olympus Cameras and have no interest what so ever in working with them..Also I work at Olympus, trust me.
Thank you so much for adding a note of reason to the conversation.
The Sony-Olympus corporate partnership is a very complex arrangement between 2 large and diverse companies. It is wrong to just assume that the two will combine forces to build the magical uber-camera.
Oh dear you Olympus fanboys do take things to heart “” our Medical systems””” seriously lol
That’s the division I work in, so yes our Medical Systems.
Why all the hoo-hah? Only 28% put a FF Olympus as their highest priority.- and how many of those would actually buy a 35mm OM-D?
I agree. Many people are just conditioned to ask for FF, without realizing the tradeoffs.
First, the lenses would be much larger. And Olympus would need to build out another lens lineup. Now people take for granted the mature lens lineup for m4/3, but it took years for it to get this good.
Second, both camera and lenses would be much more expensive. And the wish list camera listed above would be hugely expensive.
And also keep in mind that as technology advances, the m4/3 sensors will only get better, making FF less of a necessity.
To be fair FF sensors will also get better. It just depends if you need it.
At some point a new system might be needed to keep on selling lenses. Hopefully m43 will be able to take over market share from other brands so this won’t happen (again). But there is also the possibility that in the future lenses won’t be needed anymore.
There is also the possibility that electronic lenses produced for today’s Auto Focus cameras will become obsolete far quicker than previous manual lenses i.e. the Voigtlanders. All electronics have a limited life cycle and tend to lose relevance rapidly.
Seems quite likely that faster stepper motors – more effective Optical Image Stabilization etc will require re-designed lenses.
Will the 5-Axis IS be able to accommodate a FF sensor in such a small body?
Feature wise, Oly makes the best camera (I know of) for long exposure photography.
Sensor wise (unmodified), it is d600/610 (ability to shoot with LE NR off at low ISO).
Larger sensor Oly -> bees knees!
Olympus (or somebody) should make a larger than FF camera. This is the only digital camera type missing from the market. A compact(ish) camera with large 44x33mm sensor and few f2.8/3.5 lenses for landscape and studio.
What I wonder, which might already have been answered among the 188 comments here, is if it is possible to make a camera with a m43 mount and 35mm equivalent sensor, so that both full frame lenses and m43 lenses can be used. Larger lenses for work where highest resolution or shallow depth of field is most important and the smaller lenses when size is most important.
I think Olympus should make an 8X10 digital view camera with a 400mm f0.1 lens. This was, we will have 5 nanometer depth of field, and we can make 4km x 3km prints with no noise and 40 stops dynamic ranges. Better yet, with image stabilization, we should be able to hand hold the camera for 1 minute exposures. And, it would be weather proof, shock proof and cost less than 1000.
+1000 Seriously, I got rid of all the 35mm SLR gear BECAUSE OF BULK AND WEIGHT!!! The IQ from the current m43 sensors is fantastic, and just imagine what the future will bring. If anything, 1″ sensor based ILCs will become the future, for even greater saving in bulk and weight and delivering IQ comparable to what we are getting with APS-C and m43 to-day.
Of course, this is a bit sarcastic 😉
I love my EM-1 – there is no problem with IQ and I love more depth of field. Once I got trapped with the resolution game – I bought a Medium Format Mamiya 7ii in the hunt for sharper, “better” pictures. I stopped using it because it was too big and it didn’t improve my photos one bit, Also, I found I had to use higher ISO films in part so that I could use a smaller aperture to combat too-small depth of field. A lot of the ‘big negative’ gain was lost.
Reality – I was taking better pictures with my Nikon FE2, while enjoying smaller, lighter package etc etc etc. I waited sooooo long to go digital because the APS / full frame offerings from Canikon just didn’t do it. The EM-1 came, and all changed.
Right on. FF lenses will be large unless they can figure out a way to make them smaller and lighter but I do not expect that any time soon and they are able to continue to improve the M43 sensor I hear Panasonic is working on an organic sensor which will improve low light ability drastically So FF in a tiny body just a marketing ploy.
I have 4 rangefinder fframe lenses that in-total, easily comprise less mass than a 24-70mm 2.8 zoom. The technology has bee there for close to 100 years.
The meaning off Fulle Frame has overcome a stange change. For me my iPhone is Full Frame as the image circle of the lens coffers the sensor image. Using a 35 mm frame lens on a APS-C camera is not Full Frame.
Also smaller and lighter than the sum of its parts.
I think most of the suggested spec hangs together well if FF is the main target; but why E-mount when there are only 3 zooms, none of which is faster than f4 and none is as good as the best Olympus/Panasonic lenses? I’m now thinking very seriously about switching from Sony A-mount to Olympus EM-5, rather than A6000, mainly because of the lenses and secondly for improved DoF. My dream spec might go to a 20-24Mp FT sensor (greater scope for cropping); definitely dual card slot; and stick to 2M-dot EVF (much better battery life – important on adventurous travels).
It could be a hybrid FF/m43 camera with special adapter. In FF mode you could have a mirrorless FF camera using a new line of lenses. And with the m43 adapter we would have a lets say 12-16mpix m43 pro camera that could be used with a plenty of m43 lenses 🙂
For starters, olympus will not leave the m43 mount, it’s a small company and they don’t have the money to run parallel systems, look at who’s running parallel and who’s not. Nikon, Canon and Sony, and Leica all big money machines, and I’m not sure why Leica is trying with the new small mount.
What’s the point in releasing the em1 as a pro camera if another one is on it’s way?
Any way…
Then we have the collaboration with Sony, do you think Sony have any intent to let olympus make a system that’s cannibalizing their new A7 mount? Guess that’s the E mount (correct me if I’m wrong).
I left olympus for about two years ago, not because of bad cameras or anything like that, I still love the em5 and wish I could afford one.
But after being heavy invested in 4/3 gear, and realizing that there would not be any more 4/3 and the economy problems with olympus i could not keep it. I sold my e5 with a lost of about 4/5, and that was a two year old pro cam, I sold my pro 4/3 optics with about the same lost.
And back then there was only the em5 and no pro zooms except the Panasonic 7-14.
Olympus has a history of changing mounts, making the gear more or less unsellable, look at OM (best cameras ever made), then they started to produce the none loved OM-AF, then 4/3 and now m4/3.
It’s loads of years between those changes, but considering that I’m today running an 50mm 1.2 on my d800 without any problems makes it a killer.
Yes, you could use adapters as an hobbyist or arty photographer, but trying to have a professional workflow it won’t make any sense.
Luckily for all m4/3 users, there are more than one producer of m43 bodies.
I wish olympus made a pocket zoom with the 4/3 sensor, that would kill the market by sure, olympus optics are about the best ever made and the 4/3 sensor is a gem, for example the IS is much because of the sensor, much less mass to move than a full frame sensor.
The urge for full frame is just a marketing trick from the big producers, I promise you, there are no benefits as long as you are looking for portraits with one eye in focus or landscapes with out of focus details in the foreground.
Yeah, you could step down you said, sure, but then I will have to rise the ISO or the lower the shutterspeed, both kind of no goers.
Love
K
“Olympus optics are about the best ever made and the 4/3 sensor is a gem,
for example the IS is much because of the sensor, much less mass to
move than a full frame sensor.”
Making lenses for a 4×3 ratio sensor a quarter the area of FF is a lot easier than the reverse. Have a look at any reviews of even the worst FF lenses and crop the sample images to a 4×3 ratio and suddenly even the most mediocre lenses become far better.Olympus consciously chose a 4×3 ratio to improve lens performance , the 4×3 ratio uses roughly 10% less of the extremes of the image circle as a 3×2 crop does.
With the high mp FF bodies [ A7R/D800/D800e} you can get a 32mp 4×3 ratio crop. Even with the 24mp bodies {D600/D610/A7/A99/6D} you can get a 21.5mp 4×3 ratio file. The comparisons we tend to see here and in other mFT forums invaraibly compare apples to oranges when you actually compare like to like { same DOF, same effective AOV and same total light} and add in the unavoidable native sensor advantages the picture is far from rosy as Olympus fanboys would have you believe.
The quick sample below is a 4×3 crop from a Nikon 50mm F1.8G { with the same DOF and light gathering of an F0.9 lens on mFT} Shot wide open you end up with an excellent lens results on a lens that costs £149 { £250 cheaper than the Panasonic 25mm F1.4 and £150 cheaper than the Olympus 25mm F1.8 } To match the DOF and light gathering of the 50mm F1.8 on mFT You need to go to the
Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 a heavy , expensive manual focus lens .
Simply a stupid idea. The 43rumors readers that wish for a full frame are simply CaNikon aficionados that have never tried M4/3 gear and so don’t understand it.