43rumors exists for three years now and during that time we only had two single Four Thirds related announcements. The [shoplink 17163]Olympus E-5[/shoplink] and the great [shoplink 29677]Samyang 24mm f/1.4 lens (here on eBay)[/shoplink].
I have heard of many other camera prototypes but a part of the E-5 they remained in the hidden labs of Olympus. Of course I have heard about another E-XX(X) model and Olympus already said that they are working on an [shoplink 17163]Olympus E-5[/shoplink] successor too. But it remains a mystery for me if Olympus really will announce the stuff I keep hearing about. As you know the 100mm macro had been deleted from the roadmap and to me it almost looks like Olympus is only waiting for the right moment to merge the two systems in one. That said rumors are still being posted on external websites:
1) A Canadian guy at dpreview forum wrote that “I went to a photo show over the weekend… and spoke to the Olympus rep there… he confirmed a E-7 is definitely coming (which is known), but also suggested that there is much pressure from Japan for Olympus to build a E-720 type camera given that many people still want something between the EM5 and E-5…”
2) And the well (oly) connected Damian McGilliCuddy keeps posting mysterious E-X or E-XXX messages -> He started to post this kind of messages back in February 2012.
As I already told you, I think Olympus goal is to release a “professional” E-M Micro Four Thirds camera that provides full AF support for the great Four Thirds lens system. Once they have done that the only remaining argument for classic DSLR development remains the Optical Viewfinder. But I don’t think this will be a reason enough to keep the DSRL segment alive…
146 Responses
Continuous autofocus sounds like a good reason to me.
Providing “full AF support for the great Four Thirds lens system” implies getting PDAF to work in a mirrorless body, which in turn would (should) mean fast continuous AF.
@ Admin, I have to agree there will be no need for the DSLR once tbey sort out PDAF on m4/3 for tbe 4/3 lenses. I think we will be a year or two away from that though.
Just read Damian’s latest post, which he tags with 300mm “equiv”, as well as 75/1.8….I have to wonder: is he using the 4/3 150/2.0 on an Exxx, or a big brother to the 75/1.8 on the E-M5?
There’s a build up of photographers (and Videographers) who believe canikon have lost their kudos and a ready for a change as long as Olympus can deliver everything that is in the E-M5 and some new innovative features coupled with good design and marketing at an attractive price point.
Any E-X or E-XXX could do really well, if they release any new Four Thirds models this year they must also signal their intention to shortly introduce apps… ie within the next 18 months on any E-7 successor etc
spot on!
“Olympus can deliver everything that is in the E-M5”
You mean like an old Panasonic sensor with built in NR even in RAW lol , priced for the guidable fan boys with a kit lens that is f6.3 at its long end
It seems ironic given your idiotic rants here and DPreview about the wonders of Olympus { thieving swine’s that they are lol } and micro four thirds in general that the two companies who are doing worst are Olympus and Panasonic.
I would by the E-720
If it would happen to have E-M5 sensor, I would be tempted too.
Though frankly, I want to move on and try some other system. But sadly the only other interesting system if the m43(*). If I were to switch brands, that leaves with me with only the Panny.
(*) NX was interesting too, but I frankly given up trying to figure where the hell Samsung is going with it. Excessive MP count + large RAWs + poor JPEGs do not make me happy.
I prefer they improve the continuous autofocus…
To late. I have sold all my FT lenses. But a new pen with the sensor of the E-M5 would be great.
The only advantage of E system is PD auto focus (for C-AF) if they make a hybrid to work with PDAF with older lnses and also take newer micro 4/3 lenses (without PDAF) they may have a selling camera, otherwise they going into a dead end.
you’re right, a good way to Olympus would produce a hybrid camera (in the style of E-5 with a good grip and more buttons) compatible with the m4/3 and 4/3 (via adapter)
Isn’t continuous autofocus just a question of writing good software? Or is it also HW related?
C-AF needs hardware support. A contrast based AF can not reliably guess how a focused object *changes distance* like a phase detection AF can. There are Hybrid-AF systems (like Nikon V1/J1) now, which have dedicated phase detection areas embedded in the image sensor.
The interesting question is: Are these dedicated phase detection areas physically different from the rest of the sensor? Or does the imaging processor just read this area differently than the rest? Because in the first case you need special sensors, in the second case you just need a powerful processor and clever software. But since afaik this area is cutted out of the final image I guess it’s the first variant – and I doubt it would pay for Olympus to develop yet another sensor type.
Fuji has experimented with on sensor PDAF earlier and also Nikon 1 must be using similar system
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2010/8/5/fujifilmpd
The phase detect sensors on the Nikon 1 is not a normal pixel, and the values for the areas used for phase detect has to be interpolated from neighbouring pixels so you need special sensors. The Nikon 1 one is made by Aptina, but might rely on some Nikon patents.
Also, on Nikon 1 you only get to use the center point with the adapter and Nikon 1 lenses so it’s not a perfect solution (yet).
There may be two hardware issues:
* they need to jerk the lens focus quickly back and forth to be able to experimentally see how the contrast changes in order assess which direction to rotate the focus motor and also to see when in focus. In order to allow quick autofocus, this requires very fast servo motors in the lens, which probably the 43 lenses don’t have. This action *may* be replaced by moving the sensor quickly back and forth (in the sixth direction, which implies an upgraded IBIS system as compared to the E-M5).
* it is also necessary to send much more data between the lens and the camera with CDAF than with PDAF. 43 lenses have limited communication capacity compared with the m43 lenses, I have heard. So this is perhaps the main stumbling block.
That is the first time I heard that suggestion. It’s quite brilliant. Instead of hunting with the lens you move the sensor in/out of focus. Since the IS is built to jerk it back and forth in milliseconds you save the lens. Use IS to determin lost focus and direction and start moving the lens. Brilliant!
The only advantage of E system is PD auto focus (for C-AF) if they make a hybrid to work with PDAF with older lnses and also take newer micro 4/3 lenses (without PDAF) they may have a selling camera, otherwise they are going into a dead end.
Not only one advantage, but PDAF it’s very important
I should have bought a 5d instead of my E5
Sorry, guys, but cannot see the reason for a system which succesfully unifies both the weak points of 4/3 sensor size and the single lens reflex technology.
So you think the original Four thirds cameras were pointless?
At this point in time they probably are. The lenses are another story though. If they could make the regular 43 lenses focus fast on m43 (probably with an adapter a la sony or with on-sensor pdaf a la nikon), that would immediately open access to tens of excellent quality zuiko lenses, which would be benefitial for the system as a whole.
I believe that the Sony way is the better choice, because it means that the technology could be used with most if not all m43 cameras. The tracking on the Sony adapter in video mode is pretty good. In stills mode it’s amazing, blistering fast. You might lose a bit of light (1/3 or so) but who cares.
What will I do with my 7D if this happens? Who knows…
> You might lose a bit of light (1/3 or so)
Light loss is 2/3 EV.
So there goes the performance advance of E-M5’s sensor…
The market has already answered your question. Years ago.
I agree. Once 4/3 lenses are properly supported by m4/3 the E series will be history. Of course, a somewhat larger and heftier body would be required (something like the OM-1). Nothing wrong with that despite the expected whinging by clueless gear “specialists”.
> Once 4/3 lenses are properly supported by m4/3 the E series will be history.
1. PENs and OM-D are E system too. (They still have the ‘E-‘ prefix.)
2. Once 4/3 lenses are properly supported by m4/3, the E-system becomes not “history” but “successfully merged.” Because then there would be no difference between m4/3 and 4/3 cameras as the 4/3 lenses go.
> Of course, a somewhat larger and heftier body would be required (something like the OM-1).
… with much larger battery of course. It’s a win-win! 🙂
+1
I’m glad i’ve switched over to a Canon 5D mk2! And i do not miss my Oly. They lack of confidence for not bringing new cameras in the E-X line, or they wait to long!
Such dedicated forum contribution will always amaze me. Seriously, if you moved on from 43, why do you even bother?
He is trying to justify moving away from Olympus and trying to make himself feel good about it. It is a worthless post – and not valid at all.
He is doing a form of self justification. He can only convince himself of having made the right decision if he talks himself into it.
Its a bit like a ‘confirmation’ advertisement for one.
Bring back the mirror would be suicide.
Commercially speaking, brand building for consumer electronics is all about focusing attention.
EM-5 is successful because 1) it is a good product; 2) it is the only news from Olympus.
Consumers got the clear message: we have one product and it rocks. When you launch 7 series with 20 new products, people just got confused. Nokia and Motorola died on that. EP3 launch suffered from that.
With the financial difficulties, Olympus is hardly getting enough resource for grow the OM-D and EP line.
Adding another system? No sense.
@leonedolci
I agree with your sentiment, but, they are not introducing a new system at all, they are continuing to support their existing pro customers until such time as the micro four thirds system is mature enough to offer a viable migration path.
I agree that the end goal is to consolidate the two systems but not by dumping existing users and leaving them with the e5 which is starting to show its age.
I agree with you. We have excellent FT-lenses and nice and modern MFT-bodies. The major job is to bring both into one smooth system now.
I see everything that is being said here but I see no way in which a 4/3 lens is going to be used on a u4/3 body without an adapter, that then begs the question are there enough contact points in the existing mount’s to properly interface the required electronics between body and adapter if we are to follow the Sony system of a PDAF adapter. The big problem which very few seem to have accepted is the greater flange distance of 4/3, to the extent I clearly recall a couple ofposts where someone suggested that Olympus simply enlarge to throat of a u4/3 to accomodate a 4/3 mount, a ridiculous idea. As for myself, I use an E-1 & E-620, so what would I like, I wonder if the rumoured E-720 could be made weatherproof???
The Sony adaptor for using their DSLR lenses on NEX bodies works very well. The autofocus is impressively fast. I got a chance to try it on a NEX-7 several months ago when I spoke with a Sony rep at B&H and he let me try his NEX-7.
The only problem is that the adaptor is quite large! I suppose if there were a similar 4/3 to M4/3 adaptor people would complain, but from what I’ve seen of 4/3 lenses, they tend to be BIG when compared to M4/3 lenses, so maybe that point is moot. The point is that AF was at least on par with native lenses.
PDAF adapter would be an optional choice. Until the m43 lenses does not reach the quality of 4/3 lenses, would be a good solution. We will see soon…
Why do Oly not just copy the Sony solution with an adapter (for 4/3) including phase detection AF? All the excellent 4/3 lenses can then be used on m4/3 bodies. The Sony solution works well.
No financial room for Oly to maintain and further develop two camera systems that are so similar. 4/3 did not make it (too big) and is dead – long live m4/3!
If Oly feel a need to have two systems, they should look at larger sensor camera. They have all the competence needed to develop a street photo/photo journalist/fine art camera – a crossing between Leica M and Mamiya7 but with blistering performance. Not very many, but the lenses that this type of users need. Profitable? YES – today the wealthy amateurs are numerous and a larger community than pro’s.
This is a great idea.I hope that is also attacked in Olympus. My E-30 and 14-54 is at the edge of life. Lens survived three bodies. I am satisfied. Today’s plastic lenses with many components can not withstand even more when you use them daily to work. So I like to buy Olympus lenses and a great chip! m4 / 3 is not for me as the main system possible.
Sorry, but the Leica Red Ball logo will sell many more cameras to big spending wealthy amateurs than anything Oly ever puts out.
Leica also has the advantage of many generations of native lenses able to be used, both in the current Leica M mount and in the older L39 screwmount. This doesn’t even include their SLR lenses.
An Oly system would probbly end up being yet another marginal, sketchily supported system, like 4/3.
– Leica only builds cameras as something to hang their lenses on. The digital implementation is still very poor, sw and hw. Lousy performance. Leica has so many weak sides – yet is so expensive.
– Large format sensors are now more suited to mass production and subsequently cheaper (D800, D600)
– A new system could have a M-bayonet + AF
– Several manufacturers are capable of developing something much better than Leica at half to 2/3 of price
– Yes Leica will still sell a to the rich in China and other places for status, and to someLeica lovers. – But there are many more real photographers that would buy the alternative. (I believe)
Olympus hasn’t released an adapter with two possible reasons:
1) will be the successor E-5 and Oly wants to have a little market in the current FourThirds users
or
2) We will soon see the “pro” m4/3 with adapter for 4/3 lenses (with Phase Detection AutoFocus)
Kylberg
I think Oly feels the need to leverage their existing 4/3 lens. All this development, all that wonderful glass, would otherwise pass into history.
But you are right that they should copy Sony—maybe they should license the translucent technology. The 4/3 kit would consist of one adapter and clip-on shell to act as added grip for larger glass.
Any takers?
NEX-style adapter isn’t exactly smallest or lightest so that would be more stuff to carry.
Also that light loss wouldn’t be good thing now that Olympus finally has sensor which isn’t ancient in performance.
And m4/3 would still need phase detection to enable proper continuous focus for moving targets so that adapter would be left as temporary solution.
If I were the CEO of Olympus Camera Division and had to cut expenses, as is apparently the case, I’d kill off the 4/3 system and the cheapest “me too” compacts. Then fous on m4/3 and fewer “stand-out compacts” that would offer something unique and still appeal to a wider audience (as opposed to the stand-out compacts by Ricoh).
@ Soeren Engelbrecht
In addition to this:
1 stop developing a proprietary raw format and use DNG. Maintaining a proprietary format is a frustration for users and doesnt make money for shareholders…get rid of it.
2 stop developing pointless desktop software that noone uses (i.e. ib or olympus viewer). Who buys an olympus camera because of IB? Pro users will use lightroom, rawtherapee etc. For users that do need packaged software brand RawTherapee and put in on a CD. If it is missing features you need, add them, its open source. It makes more sense to contribute small amounts of code upstream than to maintain your own pile of code that is frankly crap.
Use the savings from the above to invest in your camera software platform. Even pro cameras need to start integrating with ios, wp and android devices. Get this functionality into OlyOS so you can lead the market. If you dont Samsung will.
“Olympus goal is to release a “professional” E-M Micro Four Thirds camera that provides full AF support for the Four Thirds lens system”
Hopefully that compatibility won’t be reserved for the top model only. I hope they won’t do a Nikon and stop smaller cameras from using AF on some lenses.
Not a single company that produced sub-par optics lived very long.
m4/3 optics are very sub-par. The 4/3 optics are not.
It is in Olympus’ best interest to find a way to use their good glass on m4/3. Issuing merely decent lenses like the 12, 45 and the upcoming 75, none of which approach the level of even the Zuiko HG glass, much less SHG, can only be considered a stop-gap until the final solution.
Sadly, that solution is some time away, which means there is still need for a new DSLR model or two. Olympus Imaging is going to die without continued investments into DSLRs.
Not a single company? So Tamron and Sigma are known for their fine optics? 4/3 failed as a system despite having good lenses.
You say m4/3 optics are very sub par.
It is true that some kit zooms are sub par, and the 17 f2.8 17mm is a nuisance.
But if you describe the 12, 20, 25 amd 45mm primes as very sub-par, then you are living in a different world.
A lens delivering finest detail in every corner of a brick wall is all very fine, but only if I can afford it with my sub par income.
Even if I was in the par income class (say that of Tiger Woods), I still wouldn’t be in the brick wall photographer class.
12: beaten soundly by the 12-60 (prices are the same with the lens hood), though at the expense of 1 stop
20: no such thing
25: beaten by the 4/3 version
45: beaten by the 50
75: no such thing, but initial reports suggest 45mm-level photos, which means that the 35-100 will be a lot better (you can buy a 35-100 for the price of the 45 and 75, and you will have not two, but sixty-six different primes producing higher picture quality; weathersealed too).
If you’re not interested in optical quality, but only lens size and speed, you can adapt CCTV lenses to m4/3. You will get vignetting, poor sharpness and low contrast, but it’s going to be cheap and you’re going to rock f/1.0 in many focal lengths.
“20: no such thing”
You’ve never heard of the Panny 20? You did say you were discussing m43 optics, not Oly lenses specifically. There’s not a single 4/3 counterpart for it, and in itself justifies the move to micro43 for many users.
Squeak, squeak.
Awaiting moderation! That’s cheesed me off!
> m4/3 optics are very sub-par.
> The 4/3 optics are not.
There is such figure of speech: “good enough.”
IMO m43 optics is good enough. To me, 16MP leaves more than enough IQ after software lens correction.
> Olympus Imaging is going to die without continued investments into DSLRs.
I disagree. As much as I want to have E-xxx or E-xx successor, I think 43 cameras are pretty small blimp on Oly Imaging bottom line. Some vocal customers would be royally pissed, but I do not think that it would be much worse than the reaction to the 2yo accidental remark that “the E-5 is the last 43, all future Oly cameras would be mirrorless.”
Informative note: majority of m43 users were never 43 users.
> Informative note: majority of m43 users were never 43 users.
Were you expecting DSLRs users to downgrade?
PEN’s don’t have ergonomics to challenge even E-4xx entry level DSLRs and neither can E-M5 even try that without horizontal grip.
And then lowered optical standards…
2) And the well (oly) connected Damian McGilliCuddy keeps posting mysterious E-X or E-XXX messages -> He started to post this kind of messages back in February 2012.
Oly was using confusing prototype names in past. I wouldn’t hold much on to it.
The only positive news to me is that I’m not alone who thinks that E-5xx/E-6xx replacement is still missing. Though the m43 (GH2/E-M5 + 12-35mm) sort’a moving closer to fill it, but at higher price bracket.
E-4xx & E-5xx have already been superceded by the E-M5, the main market segment for those were the size which the OM-D has taken over. The E-6xx is where the E-7xx comes in so it could be labelled E-6×0.
> have already been superceded
That’s only if you stretch meaning of the word “superceded.” You might as well go and say that E-30 or E-5 “superceded” the E-xxx line.
Otherwise, comparison:
E-4xx/E-5xx vs. E-M5: the PDAF-only lenses do not work as good on the E-M5.
E-6xx vs. E-M5: E-M5 lacks swivel screen.
E-xxx vs. E-M5: E-xxx were cheaper by almost a half.
To me those are non-inconsiderable downsides of the E-M5. It sure has its advantages. But considering the price, E-xxx simply wipe out the E-M5 on the features-for-price ratio.
Right, let’s compare:
E-4xx/E-5xx vs. E-M5: all the great µFT primes don’t work on the FT cameras.
E-6xx vs. E-M5: E-620 lacks the flip-out screen that can be used ain the waistlevel-finder style.
Exxx vs. E-M5: didn’t come with half the features of the E-M5. Indeed, apart from the arguably supposedly less long living shutter and the not fully competitive C-AF, the E-M5 delivers on the same level as my E-5 and is a true bargain.
Let’s see, no the u4/3 lenses will not work on any 4/3 body, they simply wont fit.
However the ‘great u4/3 primes’ are easily beaten by the 4/3 lens, unless on a u4/3 body.
E-620 lacking flip out screen, no it has a fully articulated screen, so will function above or below eye level.
I’ll give you the next comment, E-M5 does have newer technology all round, so should perform better than any of the 4/3 bodies to date.
Myself I use an E-1, E-620 and E-P2, with a wide choice of glass, from Zuiko to M.Zuiko, with no complaints about manual focusing on any body. Yes I’d like an E-M5 but will have to wait awhile, which hurts a little having handled one for an hour or so.
Hmmm – I sold all my FT lenses apart from the 500-200 SWD and am keeping my E-5 only as there isn’t an appropriate replacement für this lens that I could use with my E-M5 for my dog action.
I never used the swivel screen of my E-30 or E-5 as it’s always in the way of my left hand if I want to use it for waistlevel-finder style shooting. For me, the flip-out screen of the E-M5 is just perfect. But I’m aware that this isn’t necessarily the case for macro shooters. So it seems that there isn’t a perfect display for everybody.
And yes – it should be better as it’s newer but if you compare prices you also should take into account that it’s as sturdy as an E-5 and delivers on the virtually same level – in a significantly smaller package. And don’t forget the unique features such as the amazing five-axis IS.
As I see it, the E-M5 is the game changer for Olympus, paving the company’s path into a great future – just nine months after everybody said they were just a dead man just refusing to fall.
I never enjoyed shooting half as much as I do now with this little masterpiece.
This would be a colossal waste of resources at a company that can’t afford mistakes.
With the fact that Olympus still have logistical problem fulfilling the OM-D demand, have to lay-off 2500 employee, still have unsold stock of EPL-1, EPL-2, EP-3, EPL-3 and EPM-1 also E-5,and the camera division still unprofitableI’m afraid it’s in the edge of bankruptcy if they push the E-XXX and E-X successor. From the marketing side why creating a product that you know only a handful will be sold, may be they have the demand locally but they can just sold it as JDM like EPL-1s, i.e E-620x or E-5x, x designated the 16MP and True Pic VI uses. The cost they have to bear in manufacturing new E-xxx and E-x globally will be too high. If global market must choose the E-xxx and E-x series compare with DSLR from two major manufacture which have bigger sensor advantage but the same body size, surely Olympus will loose. The only viable solution is creating the PDAF to CDAF adapter like Sony, therefore creating a temporary stopping gap for user to use 4/3 lens in OM-D until the profesional level m4/3 camera can be made or SHG m4/3 lens available.
Olympus is not going bankrupt. The current “operating” revenues are fair. They are smart in moving out of compacts. They are dealing with past investment mistakes that occurred over a decades ago. The only thing now is it is on the books and more in the open. While it is a difficult time for Olympus it is not dire, their bankers like them, their competitors are willing to invest in them etc. Please do not believe everything you read from Reuters.
They do not have vast unsold mft cameras, check the manufacturing date on the cameras, however they might want people to believe they do. They are making some money on every mft camera and lens sold. The profit margin is good. They do have some real marketing issues with brick retailers, do to many factors.
Camera “model” development is not that expensive when done by bright people. Adapting some of the new mFT stuff on a FT is doable. The E5 is a very good camera now, with just a better sensor it will be much better. The E5 has excellent auto focus and optics. I do like its viewfinder, which I can not say for most under 2,000 dollars US DSLRs.
“Olympus really will announce the stuff I keep hearing about.” – Admin, can you share the revelation with us, please? Mark it FT2/3 and that’s all.
Thanks
“also suggested that there is much pressure from Japan for Olympus to build a E-720 type camera given that many people still want something between the EM5 and E-5…”
I’m curious to know what people are looking for in a camera that sits between the EM5 and an E-5. Or is it more a matter of wanting a less-expensive camera that properly supports the 4/3 lenses? If that’s the case, a m4/3 camera (eg. EM7) with proper PDAF support should fill that role, shouldn’t it?
I guess that the way to go is the adapter with the mirror, like the Sony one. The mirror itself could be smaller than the mirror of the 4/3 bodies since it doesn’t have to “mirror” the 100% of the image. I guess that the 70-75% of it (the central part, I don’t need to focus on the corner of the image..) could be enough to focus, so the mirror could be 25-30% smaller that the regular one.
If it could fit in the size of the m4/3-to-4/3 adaptor it would be a winning product, I could also pay 200$ for it but let’s not limit its usage to a new m4/3 body, give at least E-M5 users the chance to use it, with a firmware-only upgrade.
Mirror in PDAF adapter cannot be smaller than the 4/3 bodies, because in mirror must be fixed and semitransparent (like sony DSLRs). Smaller mirror will cause reflections on the corners and other flares on the optical path to the sensor.
Oh, I thought that the mirror could flip up while shooting, like in regular reflex bodies, I didn’t think to a semitransparent one.
They need to put 4/3 to bed and move on. Even if they put out a E system the market is too small. They are not going to convert nikon/canon users nor will they attract new. They need to concentrate their resources on m/43 alone. They had some great lens, but never had the body to go with it, it’s too late to turn back now.
@Chad
Olympus need to put ft to bed gracefully, mft will replace ft, but lets be mindful that lots of pro users have fantastic ft lenses that they expect to be useful into the future. Once pdaf can be supported on a pro mft body with ft lenses and an almost perfect evf/hybrid is available, that will be the time. Be patient and wait for what will be a golden era of Olympus, they bet the house on mirrorless and they will derive the benefits of it over the next five years. Good work Oly 🙂
Yes, Chad, I believe you are right.
If it needs an E-720 to put 4/3 gracefully to bed, ok, if the development cost can be recovered (including the possible cannibalisation w.r.t the MD-D line).
But resources should be concentrated on or two model lines in the m4/3 realm.
43 lenses are so much than micro. I recently compared 45 to 35-100 and out was slaughter of the 45mm.
Sure, it’s big and expensive, but having several m43 primes to match is also and they are inferior and not cheaper at all, plus you have to change lenses often.
not cheaper at all… 340$ vs 2750$???
… and 116g vs 1800g
and of course 9 elements vs 21 elements.
But I agree, M43 will never be the same optical quality of 43 lens, they are not in the same league and never will be.
Not just 1 lens.
To cover 35-100mm you need a lot of primes, say ~30, 45, 75 and 100mm.
That’s 4 lenses.
Just the 45 and 75mm cost about $1300 and 35-100 can be had for ~1500 second hand.
That’s just 2 lenses, you need 2 more (more money and weight).
At the end if you want that range, you either have large and heavy 35-100mm f2 or 4 primes which are similar in weight and more expensive.
It also means you need to change lenses often.
That’s the thing you can always count on with prime advocates:
Forgetting to tell that if you want same range when foot zoom is not possible needed pile of equal quality primes isn’t anymore cheap or convenient.
Everything is always compromise.
I think that Oly needs a new E-System camera to keep the HG- and SHG-lenses alive until they work properly on mFT. Abandoning these lenses would be a disaster for Olys reputation.
Optical viewfinder? Gah! I want to see what the sensor, not the lens, sees.
If I wanted a big, heavy, expensive 70-200mm equivalent, I’d buy it for my Nikon. I quite like the Olympus m4/3 primes. They are small, affordable, and good quality.
E-720 would be nice for 12-60 SWD & 50-200 SWD combo! While MFT has no PDAF support for our SWD lenses, we need new PDAF (E-x/xx/xxx) body with 16MP sensor!
I agree with Chad: why revive a system which has such a small customer base?
In m4/3 people accept the smaller sensor because the whole outfit is smaller. Even if 4/3 had the sensor of the OM-D it would still not be able to compete with C&N.
Could Olympus do a Leica? In a way it does, it is the expensive E-x. People claim marvels about past Zuikos zooms, but even those which are PDAF enabled, how many buy them? At DPR 1041 I haven’t seen one single example.
4/3 is one of the big wastes of the camera industry, the consolation for Oly being that it gave birth to the winning m4/3 system. Let the thing rest in peace and call it a day.
@amalric
This is not a revival! This is basic product management, Oly are past the sustain phase and in decline on the ft system but need to develop a migration path to mft. Likely any advance in the ft system will be technology “borrowed” from mft developments. I.e. sensor and ibis.
Once mirrorless sytems have the maturity required Oly will make the move, until then they need to retain this user base.
A real 4/3 to M4/3 lens adaptor that supports current M4/3 auto-focus speeds (or as close as possible), is the most sensible migration path, NOT more cameras that few are interested in and even fewer will buy.
An adaptor can also be sold to current M4/3 users who want or may have 4/3 lenses. VERY few M4/3 users will buy a 4/3 camera. Ever.
“43rumors exists for three years now and during that time we only had two single Four Thirds related announcements. The Olympus E-5 and the Samyang 24mm f/1.4 lens”
Olympus E-600 was announced in August 2009, two months after E-P1.
In my opinion it would make sense to have a pro-spec E-30 size, mag body, sealed, new sensor and IS, max $1,500 body only. I am sure many non-Olympus users will discover those HG and SHG jewels…
an ex employee just paid us a visit to 1022 and his contacts tell him just the XZ, E-7 and m4/3 will be kept going through the next financial blunders. Doesnt sound like theres a Exxx to me however…
AF, … AF, … AF – what a stupid reason to stick to the old mirror box clunkers.
I really don’t care for AF at all, be it CDAF or PDAF. I mostly use manual lenses. And just forget it for videography – the “focus puller’s” job is secure. The only time AF is helpful is when you are shooting “snap shots” – on CDAF m43 just shoot a hell of a lot and you’ll get something useful.
Having got rid of all the mirror-based bulk in 2008 I’m definitely not going to invest in DSLR cameras now, from Olympus or anybody else.
+∞
Somewhat off topic, but I’ve been shooting with the 14-54mm II on my EM5…what a stunning lens.
hai Nikku…any performance issue, like AF speed/lock, connection between body + adapter (MMF-2 or MMF-3 ? ) + lens, or anything else ?
can you share the experience & photos ?
I also interested to go into your path for my traveling kit…thx
A awful lot is being said of new 4/3 bodies E-x, E-xx, E-xxx, of these options I see only a max of two being produced. If there will be two then I suspect they will be based on the x & xxx bodies, the xx possibility will (I feel) mean a single body option, unless Oly considers xx & xxx as the right path.
If we look at the three options, we have the E-5, a very good and well built body, a good base to build the suggested E-7 on, rework the chassis to accept the 16 Meg sensor and IBS, job done. The same can be said and applied to E-30 & E-620 bodies, only addition required to them is weatherproofing, everything else people ask for are mainly firmware issues.
E5, 30 & 620 all had wonderful revues when released, they have not become bad designs in the meantime, so there is little that needs to be changed
Here is what they should do, in my opinion:
1. Design a new large m43 body, with a proper grip for heavy 43 lenses (something like a E-5 & L-1 mix).
2. Add PD to the M5 sensor, so that the existing 43 -> m43 adaptors can be used with fast AF and C-AF. Also improves C-AF for mft lenses!
3. Hybrid viewfinder, for the 43 users who cannot live without an optical viewfinder 🙂
(and dont forget articulated screen and built-in flash)
And here you go with the new 43 + m43 “Pro” Camera. Call it the E-7 if you want.
43 users with their lens collection can keep the adaptor attached all the time, and hardly notice that they actually use a m43 camera.
For the m43 system it will be a huge boost again: Pro Body! C-AF! Full access to SHG lenses! Hybrid Viewfinder!
I would be very surprised, if we did not see something like this within the next 6-12 months. We already had rumors and patents about viewfinders and sensor-PD a good while ago!
A new E-7 (43 mount) makes no sense at all.
Tend to agree with you that a larger m43 body could fit the bill and be the pro m43. I made some posts similar to this some months ago. Adding PD to the sensor may be a problem, but a focus detect paddle that comes down/up/from left or right when a 43 lens is detected and the shutter button is half depressed may be usable. It could be hidden from the EVF by a small hold in the EVF refesh while it does its job and then retracts.
If Olympus is able to do it – – – I think the suggestion of a larger Pro E-7 along with a small E-720 would be perfect for their 4/3 lineup. Nothing else really needed as far as bodies that work with the great 4/3 glass so many have. The addition of those two 4/3 bodies along with the E-M5, a lower priced Pen and possibly a pro micro 4/3 – what else could any Olympus user desire really.
I see and read a lot of pro and anti 43 users. Put me in the middle please.
Well, I love photography as a hobby since 1978. I started with an Olympus OM-1. I made a selection based on quality, possibillities and pricing. I was and sometimes still using analog bodies and the Zuiko lenses.
I was sorrow that Olympus decided to quit with the OM-system is the beginning of 2002. Angry sometimes. But what can you do? From mine perspective I prefer a firm which is loyal to his customers as well. There are camera brand’s which do beter or worse than Olympus.
I continued (analog) photography and only went (serious) digital when the Olympus E-3 came around. Four important reasons: big viewfinder, durability, good lenses and via an adapter I can still use mine ‘old’ Zuiko’s. A camera-system to me is not only the camerabodies or only the lenses. To me it is the whole of the system.
Thru, camerabodies come and go in this digital era. Introducing new lenses do come at a lower rate. So 13 moths ago I bought on Ebay a second hand m43 E-P2 with EVF-2 and the standard zoom. Today I own the marvelous 1.8/45 mm, the (underestimated) 2.8/17 mm, the very good 9-18 mm and the Panasonic 45-200 mm. All second hand.
Though I have no years of experience with the m43 stuff I can really say it is fun and you can do a lot with it. It’s light, tiny and still able to produce marvelous pictures. But compared to HG and SHG Zuiko lenses, the m43 lenses are toys. I like them a lot now and in the future but most of them are made of plastic and on a different level of durability and even of image quality. Of course they will become better and better and we already see knew m43 lenses recently introduced and I’m happy for that.
But 43 as a camera system, including those beautifull lenses and stronger bodies, is stil for me going strong. I honestly hope that Olympus will not throw this E-system marble away like they did with the OM-system. I completely disagree with some Big brand fans, that the 43 is dead.
I do see a lot of pictures made by those and by Olympus or other even smaller brands. And I can only say: The best pictures are made by those who knows how to use there camera and how to compose a picture. And thes are certainly not only the ‘photographers’with the last camera model with the big Brand names on it.
ClickRick
I wouldn’t hesitate to upgrade to the “E-7”. My e5 has treated me wonderfully since its. release. Paired with my 35-100, it would be unstoppable. The e5 feels natural to shoot, and the build quality is better than any camera I’ve ever held and like that my raw files are only 13-14MB. I do plenty of large format printing and never had a complaint. I will stand by them till the end. They’re only getting better from here!
I think a lot of people don’t want to see new 4/3 cameras because they would feel remorse for having abandoned the system for something worse.
in next future compact cameras will be killed from smartphones.
so should oly remain with just m4/3??it is consider just a toy from dsrl users.
i have an e5 and i tried some m4/3…it’s not ready for…
so if oly want to survive must keep reflex clients in the club.
otherwise next to be killed will be m4/3.
just the time for c & n to enter there.
If Olympus wanted to keep FT alive then they should have put some real effort into it 2-3 years ago. Today it’s too late. They might keep some existing customers happy and that could be worthwile, but they can’t really save the system.
MFT is the future of Olympus. If they can get FT-lenses to work well then they can save some money for their customers, increase the chance of keeping their customers and expand the lens selection a lot. Would be great, but if they can’t then they’d better quit using resources on FT.
Well AFAICT if they lose the viewfinder they can package PDAF hardware in a much smaller space that could possibly fit in an mft body with its shorter register. Because PDAF needn’t use the main (OVF) mirror, does it? In the Nikon F4, it uses a second smaller mirror located behind a small translucent opening in the main mirror. Thus PDAF is located below the main mirror, opposite of OVF, and they basically have nothing in common.
Not sure what you are saying but…. They all use a sub mirror for pdAF. The thing is with a full time liveview camera like M5 you cant have an obstruction between the lens and the sensor.
Despite there being a 20mm register in mFT, theres only 12.2mm from the top of the sensor stack to the outside of the mount, take away the electrical connections and you have 8.8mm left.
Not a lot you can do in 8.8mm
+1, good explanation
Basically whole space from below the mirror to bottom of the body is taken by separate PDAF system of SLR.
Here’s excellent E-30 cutaway showing internal structure of DSLR along optical axis.
http://forum.mflenses.com/cutaways-and-transparent-cameras-t28075.html#1028856
Yes you can, there is plenty can be done. A cdaf sensor/reflector on a paddle/arm/slide that detects the presence of 4/3 lenses. Such a paddle could come before the sensor as the shutter button is half pressed. During such time the EVF could either hold the image or change the refresh rate to slow (home position may be top, bottom, left or right and it may cross the screen completely, with the next cycle from the other direction, or simply out, do, return). As the lens will possibly have been focusing with CDAF slowly it would not have far to go.
thats fair, but no CAF
you could actually sweep an optic over the AF cells on the sensor to give it the opportunity to phase, but really its the same issue, no CAF
however there might be one more way ….
I would definitely buy an E-720!
My E-510 is getting very long in the tooth and I need a successor for it to drive my 12-60mm and 50-200mm lenses.
The E-510/E-520, to me, was the ultimate Fourthirds camera, especially when coupled with these two lenses. No other brand has ever offered the entire 24-400mm focal range in such a compact (just 2 lenses!), bright (f2.8-f4), high quality package. The E-510 was rightly Olympus best-selling Fourthirds SLR ever, and I’ve never understood why they didn’t release a successor. The E-5 was too heavy, large and expensive to even consider it as an alternative. And the E-M5 is a wonderful camera by itself, but not to drive these Fourthirds lenses (I will eventually buy into Microfourthirds when they have a good range of bright lenses).
So, I’d be very glad if this rumor about an E-720 turns out to be true, and I imagine there are still many tens of thousands of Fourthirds users with similar needs and preferences.
Owning both m4/3 and 4/3 cameras and lenses, I use them both side by side. Each has strengths and weaknesses.
My best photos have been created using the E-5 with either the Zuiko HG 50 f/2 or the Zuiko SHG 150 f/2. My best video images have been created using the GH2 combined with one of these three lenses: Zuiko SHG 150 f/2, Nikkor 50 f/1.4 or the Voigtlander 25 f/0.95.
I don’t know what it is, but the E-5 is hands down better at all photography work while the GH2 is hands down better at video work. I think it might be related to the sensor/processing being biased towards one or the other.
Regardless, I absolutely love the SHG Zuiko 150 f/2 and will continue to use it as long as some kind of body will work with it…and the E-5 does an excellent job at that.
I certainly hope Olympus figures out a way for a m4/3 camera to work with the 4/3 lenses, because they truly are amazing lenses.
an real semi pro/pro ft body would be great. fingers crossed the new e-7 will be a true “game changer” camera
FT or MFT? Neither, why should I bother with crappy toys? Neither should you guys, get laid or at least get a real camera.
@ Harold Ellis is dead
Trolling websites, nothing better to do? Cant get laid?
Perople are not afraid of telling lies here. I had the 620 and it was quite crappy in comparison to my E-P2.
4/thirders are in denial, and keep deluding themselves that the golden past will return.
Not v. differently by those Moslem sects that believe blindly in the Second Coming 🙂
Oly should not provide them with new models, but with a clinic where they can be inspected for anal damage with its precious endoscopes. 😀
Intriguing comment, as a user of E-1, 620 and E-P2, my camera of choice is the 1, it handles better than the other two, though I will accept it is quite lower in spec. Of the others I have to disagree, I find the 620 superior in almost all ways, it handles far better than the Pen, results are better, focusing is easier when using legacy glass. If I am doing a critical shoot I will use the 620 first, having full choice of all my lenses, so no advantage there, just the results clearly out perform the 1 and have the edge over the Pen. The only way the Pen wins is in convenience of carriage, it is a beatifully small camera. But for handling the E-1 wins every time for me.
It was beautiful when you weren’t around 1022 and this site for the past week or two. The discussion was civilized everywhere and nobody was insulted.
Unfortunately, you’re back, and here we go again, now you’re talking about rape and sodomy… I don’t know what’s wrong with you, but you need to be treated by a qualified psychiatrist.
😀
Should I respond to a poor s@d who has not even the balls to use a proper name?
Anonymous mails don’t need comment.
And yes, the E-P2 is all in metal, has more or less the same buttons of the 620, and mine uses the same lenses I carried with the 620, CDAF compatible, so no great loss of compatibily. The poor dethroned kings 😀
That is the reason why I feel no pity for 4/3 users. They had *three* years to make the transition, and didn’t, thinking theirs was the superior system.
And now they are scr*wed, because their lenses are not worth a fig on eBay.
So they carry their wailing across forums with no dignity.
Three years really isn’t that long… who *needs* to buy a new camera every 3 years? I still have my E510 which I bought when they came out and an E1 which I still enjoy using and still comes up with the goods.
So far I haven’t changed because the Pens weren’t that interesting and while the EM5 is a great camera it’s still too expensive for me, especially when you factor in additional cost of changing lenses for the m43 equivalents.
Personally, I’ve been hunting for these 43 lenses which “aren’t worth a fig” but you know what, I haven’t found them getting much cheaper…
For me, it has nothing to do with “superiority” (both my E510 and E1 are clearly lagging behind the Pens let alone the EM5), just not offering the right combination of reasons to upgrade at the right price.
Olympus upgraded their flagship D-SLR from E-3 to E-5 within three years.
So they may take until September 2013 before a successor for the E-5 is announced.
I don’t think that Olympus is going to abandon their professional user base, including famous wild life photographers Iwago Mitsuaki and John Isaac.
Here is a list of famous professionals that currently use the E system:
http://olympusprogallery.com/prophotos/en/
http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/dslr_top_photographers.htm
And of course there are many more lesser known professionals and amateur users out there.
Considering most of the images these days are published on-line, and then for newspapers, magazines, brochures and books.
The E system is more than capable of fulfilling the editorial requirements for such assignments.
Have you ever used HG or SHG Zuiko lenses on either the E-3 or E-5?
As a working professional, that owns two systems, and has experience with using rival systems too, I can appreciate the quality of the E-3 and E-5 bodies and the Zuiko HG and SHG lenses.
From my experience, Olympus professional D-SLR equipment is better value than the equivalent from other manufacturers and their build quality and performance is at least equal, if not better.
It is reliable, durable, and portable and creates sharp, low distortion images with excellent colour reproduction and depth of field effect.
They may even push an “E5 mkII” out faster just to give existing HG/SHG users access to the new sensor… at least it would give them breathing space.
As admin mentions, I don’t think an OVF alone will be enough to keep 43 alive… if they can solve the PDAF issue on m43 then as far as I see it, the “one beautiful system” will be a reality.
I’m sure that everyone at Oly knows how good the HG and SHG lenses are; I’m also sure that they know that killing 43 as it stands would create a lot of bad press.
As I see it, the it’s the R&D cost of solving PDAF on a m43 body vs. the cost of creating new HG/SHG lenses for m43 AND (more importantly) the cost of being branded the company that drops formats which could haunt them for decades to come. I wasn’t around when OM was dropped but people still remember it now…
I’m sure there aren’t many people who only want a dedicated 43 body, but there are many people who want a body they can use their 43 lenses on without compromise.
Agree. I welcome a system that merges 43rds and m43rds.
I spoke with an Olympus Rep at a Digital Camera Expo recently.
Asked him why Olympus didn’t put PD AF detect sensors on the new image sensor substrate in the OM-D EM-5.
He told me the technology is currently limited to operate with a maximum aperture value of f/5.6.
Considering the HG and SHG Zuiko lenses have maximum aperture values of f/2.0 and f/2.8, they have some R&D ahead.
On a positive note that does tell us that they’re at least investigating solutions that could lead us to the one beautiful system.
> He told me the technology is currently limited to operate with a maximum aperture value of f/5.6.
Which was politically correct way to say m4/3 has too many dark/slow kit zooms to fully benefit from it… (but wouldn’t be problem for 4/3 lenses)
PDAF has actually easier time with bigger aperture, in one point DSLR makers used to keep that f/5.6 as smallest aperture they advertised autofocus to work with.
>I don’t think an OVF alone will be enough to keep 43 alive
this is true, and eventually pdAF at the sensor plane will be conquered. But there is one more shot in the gun to better differentiate the two systems. Use a beamsplitter and multiple sensors. It would have to have both pdAF on sensor from mFT, and an EVF, but the AA’less, and CFA’less IQ it presents will smoke most systems, and have a noise signature like APSH.
It would be left with one remaining problem, that of obtaining shallow DoF for those who require it, that would need new very fast primes
may be this thing will never happen.. may be an E7 really coming, i don’t know. But olympus , give ur best shot. give us a body with slightly better or same sensor as OMD. This is the thing u cant do more , right? no problem , give us a awesome new autofocusing seytem with 3d tracking. make it 15 fps. make the buffer size 100 raw file.. give us a battery with 3000+ shots. all in a body smaller then E5. and less then 2000 dollar. Lot of the people never really bought E5 as it was not a good enough upgrade compared to E3. you allready solved your biggest problem …”sensor”.
You are a big joke, right? Do you really exist? Who cares which bampot bought which pointless toy? Get a life or at least get a real camera.
He is mentally ill. Unfortunately, I do not know his name or where he lives, otherwise I would alert the medical services in his city, because he is extremely aggressive towards people and very likely a threat to other people’s safety in real life…
squeak squeak
@ blohum
It’s a reasonable answer, contrary to the morons here. Yet it fails to ascertain what is Olympus reality. 4/3 is not profitable, it’s a residual business.
We see it all the time in real life: prestigious business close and are replaced by others. Olympus must have a profitable masterplan, so if you see the writing on the wall, why don’t you take steps?
Even if you don’t like EVF and mirrorless, why don’t you get another brand of dSLR? Three years are a v. long time to take a decision in front of a downturn.
You can’t wail for 3 years, do nothing, and not be considered a nuisance in the end.
You are not going to convince Oly to restart 4/3 production by clamouring. These thing are made by marketing enquiries, and they must have made them from the start, when they decided to change their warhorse.
In fact it was a brilliant move of chess, which avoided total defeat, so there’s really no chance that they go back to the old order of battle, clamours or not.
I guess I’m one of the ever hopefuls and I know that the moment I switch to m43 they’ll announce a new Exx which for me would fit the bill perfectly.
One thing I would question with your argument is the three year limit… I presume you’re starting from when the EP1 came out; to me that was more of a curiosity which I discounted because of the low-res screen, lack of VF and speed of autofocus… EP2 sorted the VF (I have no issue with EVF) but it wasn’t until the EP3 that it started to get interesting and that’s only a year old.
I did nearly pull the trigger on an EM5 but according to the wife putting the money towards the house was more important than a new camera 🙁
I know I have missed the Panny cameras… personally I’ve never liked their processing and I find it quite hard to get excited about them; a bit like buying a Kia, yes it gets you from A to B but they lack that certain something… or maybe I’m just being a camera snob.
You surely know a lot mate, I am so proud. You really got us there with the chess move.
Well said.
Amalric, you’re the one who is being nuisance here by telling OTHERS what they should downgrade to.
Slapping lens mount to compact doesn’t make it automatically advanced ergonomical camera and except for lens mount and bigger sensor all PEN iterations (+Pana G/GFs) are like Canon IXUS, Powershot S/SX compact models.
Retro E-M5 with additional horizontal grip does better but that huge travel TV for body size doesn’t leave much space for rear controls and thumb’s resting place leaving it behind E-4xx bottom of entry level models which were surprisingly comfortable in hand for basically gripless SLR.
For my use I would take modern EVF over OVF any day of week.
In fact that’s why after seven years of Minolta Dimage prosumers I chose 4/3 sensor and bought campaign priced E-30+12-60mm kit in May 2010 as temporary step. I was expecting late 2008 announced mirrorles 4/3 to expand to diverse fully DSLRs challenging system which would offer body with equal controls and ergonomy to KonicaMinolta Dimage A2 which feature set wise was basically that ultimate “bridge/prosumer” camera. (before best of them got complete axed or dumbed down to avoid competing entry level DSLRs)
E-30 had more than adequate size grip and same level of direct non menu driven controls but because of complex extremely retrofocus design causing huge size(/price) for 7-14mm and video being duct taped feature in (D)SLRs I bought “high end” Panasonic GH2 year ago…
Whose ergonomics isn’t even up to entry level DSLRs and bad design forces turning off camera to prevent accidental button presses changing settings when carrying it in hands for longer time than ten seconds.
All I’m asking is that actually DSLR challenging mirrorless body with good size grip and high end DSLR level direct external controls and I could forget 4/3 DSLRs ever existed. Also many of those 4/3 DSLR users who don’t need fast focus would surely accept that as mandatory evil until PDAF on sensor is ready.
So what’s your excuse for ordering what OTHERS including me and those still using 4/3 DSLR should use?
Looks much like your parents failing to engrave respect to other’s people needs as automatic reflex…
The EM-5 is a game changer, but classic 4/3 is done. I say this a some very satisfied with the EP3 and a former user of an E3 with the Zuiko 12-60 SWF and 50-200 SWF zooms.
I have no doubt the EM-5 is a home run. Positive reviews and pre-orders are just pouring in these days. The m4/3 system already has a good selection of lenses, some of which are excellent, such as the mZuiko 12mm and 45mm.
Since the EP3’s sensor and JPG engine is essentially the same as the E5, I never had a big incentive to buy the overpriced E5 body at $1600. I soldiered on with my E3, but found it lacking for anything but daylight and flash photography. Instead I started investing in a Pentax K5 system for less money and its sensor can’t be matched by any 4/3 camera. No matter how good that Zuiko glass was, the E3 or the EP3 could not match the K5 for image quality with similar optics. The EM-5 closes this gap by quite a bit, the downside is that legacy 4/3 glass is far too slow to focus and out of balance with the EM-5 body.
Micro 4/3 is the way to go.
I really question if Oly will release a new 4/3 DSLR based on the EM-5’s sensor and JPG engine. Their R&D and marketing dollars are better spent on advancing the m4/3 systems. No new 4/3 lenses have been released in years and there is no road map plotted either. It’s a shame they let the classic 4/3 system linger or did not develop a 4/3 to m4/3 adapter that allows PL autofocus instead of CDAF, which renders the lenses usable on the Pen or OM-D series.
If Oly had released a smaller, lighter, ruggedized and weather proof DLSR,with the similar IQ and resolution as the EM-5 or Panasonic G3, they may have sustained the 4/3 system. The E5 was a fine camera, but at $1600, there were better options out there.
Now that EM-5 is released and there is some excellent m4/3 glass available, I do not see any reason to believe 4/3 has any future or is a viable system given its already tiny market share. At the end of the day, there’s only so much you can do with a 4/3 size sensor and the EM-5 seems to have reached its full potential.
For now I’m happy with two systems and I love my EP-3 as a grab and go or travel camera. IMHO, Oly still has the best JPG engine and I may contemplate an EM-5 purchase down the road. They really are on a great path with m4/3.
I actually started out with the E-PL1 and it was literally by accident. I had a Canon S90 as my portable camera and dropped it a mere four feet and it was busted. At the time it was cheaper to buy the E-PL1 instead of a Canon S95 and I figured the Pen had to be more durable. After taking my first batch of photos with the E-PL1, I was convinced that m4/3 and the new JPG engine could make great photos.
I resisted buying the E-P1 and E-P2 because of cost and slow autofocus and no built in flash. The E-PL1 seemed like a better camera. My gripes with the E-PL1 was its very basic button layout, crummy LCD screen and cheaper construction. Once the E-P3 came out, I scooped one up and it is a joy to use. In fact, I really like using the touch screen to selectively focus and shoot.
@ Esa
What the F… is “huge travel TV for body size”?
Is that all you have to say against a new system, and that it is not Minolta based?
You are beginning to have a vast experience in falied systems 😀
I have an E-1, E-3, E-600, E-P2 and even a GH1.
When I do photography for $$$, the E-3, E-600 and my Zuiko high grade lenses bring home the bacon, especially the 50-200 SWD.
The GH1 has fantastic video, and is fun to use as a light weight camera system, but there’s no way I could use that for paid work, as micro 4/3 has really awful choices for telephotos and telephoto zooms. Maybe someday that will change, but right now, they don’t have crap.
The E-P2 is what I use for a point & shoot. Wonderful little camera for casual use, but by the time you get all the lenses and accessories to make it a formidable camera, you could have bought a Nikon D7000 instead, which is 100x the camera that the E-P2 is, and I love the E-P2. Other than it’s cute little size and wonderful build quality, it doesn’t have much going for it, and battery life is a complete joke. My E-600 routinely gets twice the number of shots that the E-P2 does, and they use the exact same battery. Not too mention the extremely useful tilt-swivel screen, PDAF focusing, CF cards, better ergonomics, etc., etc….
For those of us who need high quality telephotos and telephoto zooms, DSLR’s are a millions miles ahead of any mirrorless camera system, and will be for a very long time, if not always.
Hence, Olympus better get back in the DSLR game, and make something useful for my HG zooms, or it’s off to CaNikon land I go, and I don’t even like CaNikon. Maybe a Pentax will work for me….
– Olympius
Indeed, you’ll end up calling yourself Pentaxius.
Because you conveniently seem to forget that The E-x is just a stopgap, waiting for a mirrorless body that can take SHG lenses.
In Oly’s Brave New World less is more, and Japan’s sales even indicate that more mirrorless ILS are sold, than mirrored ones.
So why should they invest in a declining market? No answer, mh?
Well, the DSLR market is doing anything but “declining” for CaNikon, the only two companies that actually MAKE money selling cameras, unlike the Olympus money losing machine. So far, micro 4/3 has been a big, fat dud outside of Asia, which isn’t good, as the bulk of a camera manufacturer’s sales are Europe and North America.
Poor Nikon, I guess they didn’t get the memo that DSLR sales are dead, as the waiting list for the new D800 is something like 6 months to a year long. But Canon is doing a much better job getting the 5D MK III out into the hands of it’s eager owners, and they are selling very well.
Why should I wait for PanOlympus to figure out that micro 4/3 needs PDAF, when Nikon figured that out on Day One of their Nikon 1 intro, and Sony has had it all along on their SLT’s? Anyway, you will never, ever see PDAF on a micro 4/3 camera, nor on a Sony NEX (accept it’s neat-o adapter) or a Fuji X-PRO 1. I’m amazed Nikon used it, but then they want their camera buyers to be able to use their DSLR lenses on their cameras, with no penalty. But then again, they actually make MONEY selling cameras, so perhaps they no what they are doing.
Why no PDAF on micro 4/3? Because 99% of the people who buy these silly camera will never, ever need it. So you add to the cost of the camera, putting on a feature that is useless for most of your market. That’s a great way to lose money, something that Olympus is doing very well with already, even without PDAF enabled micro 4/3 cameras.
The old 4/3 platform is far, far, far better for fast zooms and telephotos that I need in my work. Shoot, any DSLR platform would do, but those sweet Olympus files, and those wonderful Zuiko 4/3 lenses (let alone the AWESOME Panny/Leica lenses) are unequaled in the DSLR world. Too bad Olympus cant figure out how to sell DSLR’s, because there is still a lot of potential there.
I like those little micro 4/3 cameras, but they are woefully inadequate for the kind of work I do. Follow focus is a joke, battery life is a joke, and fast zoom / telephotos is the sizes & kinds I need are non-existant.
So why add PDAF to a platform that is still crippled in so many ways, when the DSLR’s have already all that I need?
– Olympius
I think it’s a noobies question but: is there anyway to hack the 4/3 lens to become cdaf???
I think it’s a noobies question but: is there anyway to reset cpu of the 4/3 lens to become cdaf???
No, because you need NEW lenses for fast CDAF. That is linear motors, and light focussing groups – see the new Sigmas.
4/3 lenses, even the CDAF compatible ones, are sluggish, because they lack the above.
Native CDAF is not only fast but also v. precise, contrary to 4/3 lenses. That is another reason why they are obsolete, although optically good.
>4/3 lenses, even the CDAF compatible ones, are sluggish, because they lack the above.
I think I have described several times why that isn’t so.
E-XXX is pointless, redundant with PEN. E-XX is not pointless. I NEED a sync port. It’s not optional for me. The sync port is the only reason I haven’t upgraded my E-30 to an OMD E-M5. I needed a built in EVF and sync port, still waiting on the sync port.
Would prefer micro four thirds mount, since all the truly good lenses can be mounted to a micro four thirds camera, whereas only MOST of the good lenses can be mounted to a Four Thirds camera. Four Thirds is dead.
(for those who ask why a sync port is necessary, I use wireless TTL for main light, and monolights and dumber strobes for fill and kicker, etc. There’s no reason to replace the entire studio for each camera, so if I buy only cameras with sync ports, I can use 99 percent of my gear with everything, only using wireless TTL strobes for main light. I use BOTH wireless TTL and dumb sync simultaneously, and need the sync port.)