The new Sigma lenses on Olympus cameras (Source: Personal-view)
Dave from Imaging Resource (Click here) interviewed MR. Terada from Olympus. Some interesting points:
1) Camera work isn’t affected by the Olympus fee scandal: “we are working usually. Nothing special.”
2) Because fo the Thai flood consequences there are production problems especially for the E-P3. Not Olympus itself is having problems but some of their suppliers: “we cannot fulfill the whole demand from the market at this moment.”
3) Olympus is now working on new prime lenses: “we already almost fill up the zoom lens line-up. Then, now we are concentrating on single focal lens line-up.”
4) Olympus asked other companies to join the m43 system: “but no success at the moment.“
163 Responses
“we already almost fill up the zoom lens line-up. Then, now we are concentrating on single focal lens line-up.”
So no fast zoom from Oly? Disappointing.
Zoom lenses are contradictory with such a system.
I pray for attractive prime lenses!
If I want bright zoom lenses, I’d rather go for a Nikon D7000 for instance…
Why wouldn’t you rather go with an E-3 or E-5? Much better body, much better lenses. Only the sensor is lagging.
If Olympus had invested money into a quality sensor and marketing, instead of Tupperware, they’d have been a major player now, and most of those fancy wildlife photos would have been made by an Oly camera.
Oh, yes, there are so many people, who feel obliged to tell everybody, what is contradtory to m4/3.
– bodies with no rangefinder shape
– bodies, which look like a DSLR
– bodies without IBIS
– everything from Panasonic
– everything that is not pocketable
– and now: zooms
Mirrorless is about diversity, so hard to get?
So far I can’t see any m4/3 product, which is contradictory to the m4/3 system. People have different needs and so far m4/3 is the system, which reflects this most and best.
Straight to the point, thank you. Diversity is successful, so m4/3 should offer a diverse line up (and so far it does a pretty good job at doing so).
@YeahYeah: If you like dogmas and telling people what is good for them, find some religion to suit your needs.
News for you they already are!!!!!
So I need two cameras, my m43s for 95% of the time, and a APS-C for the 5% I need a fast tele?
pfft.
besides what other lenses are needed now? we have lots of primes, truck loads of slow zooms. The only thing missing is fast tele zooms.
I agree with Anonymous. Zoom lenses are NOT contradictory to m43. You really think that? Tell that to Pany then because they’re getting it all wrong! LOL.
m43 is about options. Some of us want small rangefinder-like bodies with pancakes, some of us want mini-SLRs with convenient zooms. Some people want cheap/small super-zooms, some want big and bright zooms. It’s all good! That’s what makes m43 better than the other mirrorless systems (for now).
exactly , I also pray for a new super sharp wide prime or maybe a sharp 100f1.8 kind(about a 200 f1.8 equivalent).
That is true – Panasonic built all the zoom lenses and there’s nothing left for Olympus to create.
Of course, they could always go back to 4/3, make more lovely camera bodies and refresh some of the awesome lenses they made for that system, but why do the proper and logical thing when you can make a digital OM with the same 2008 sensor?
Why don’t you change the record or stop playing that same old tune?
Why don’t you accept the truth? 🙂
+1
Do you think making 43 DSLR would save Oly?
Who said anything about DSLRs?
Boooo….go to the mirror…and scare yourself.
They all broke.
Boooo Hooo!
Panny is a silly company that does not know any new marketing tech and it is losing lots of money because of that , not because its MFT system is bad.
Thom said it very very well in his recent future mirrorless market forecast.
Olympus in Australia is advertising like crazy, driving to work I see at least 3 huge Olympus billboards…
Not sure if it is helping their sales or not here, their image isn’t great and isn’t beng help by the news stories we keep seeing and hearing..
He said “almost”.
Yes, they still need another slow kit powerzoom 😉
One for each eye.
After two awesome fast zooms. Like Panys, but more Olympus quality and style 🙂
Quality, selection, and style of the Panasonic lenses seems to be better, though.
Well that is just a matter of taste isn’t it. Personally i much dislike the shiny blacks with brightly colored typography and a general look that should (imo) be reserved for TVs and BluRay players. I do not have anything against their ‘selection’, and the quality is anything but bad, but it is ‘different’ from Olympus Zuiko. Therefore it is worth another approach.
what about the MZD45f1.8? is there anything from Pana that beats it?
@ Admin
just read this from 3 years ago, when you had just 3 members http://www.43rumors.com/funny-self-interview/ made me smile 😀
Wow! I completely forgot I made this. Now I am embarassed 🙂
Viagra post!?!?!? LOL!!!!!
That made me laugh
If Olympus survives as an independent company, I’m OK with two main companies being part of m43. More would be better but two is OK. The way their lens line-ups complement each other is fantastic. Now we just need the fast zooms.
Yes, Olympus asked other company to join- making lenses, not to make cameras! And then they wonder… they even admit on the interview they would compete with Olympus on Olympus’ terms. Why the surprise then, nobody wants to join?
RAIST — where do you get this idea from? What you claim is not stated in the interview! The Oly people say they have invited other companies to join in on the m43 SYSTEM! They do NOT say that they have asked other companies to join making lenses — the fact is that several lens makers HAVE joined in making lenses!! So obviously, they are talking about cameras.
Admitting that they would compete with Olympus on Olympus’ terms?? Do they really “admit” this? This idea is raised by the INTERVIEWERS based on Olympus’ suggestion that Nikon went for a “substandard” sensor size so that the “1” system would not hurt the lucrative FX and DX lens marked of Nikon. This argument is not a new one; in fact most commentators have suggested this as the reason for Nikon’s choice of sensor size. I simply don’t understand the constructed question of the interviewers — what they mean by “competing with Oly on Oly’s terms” is obscure. Did Oly “admit” anything? They may have felt they had to say something, and the interviewers are in complete control of how it is presented. In general, I think “the worst” of companies, but I find the idea so constructed that the whole question/”admittance” is absurd.
m4/3 size would not have hurt DX or FX. As I’ve pointed out several times, m4/3 is about a stop different from DX, and DX is about a stop different than FX. And CX (Nikon 1) is about a stop different from m4/3. Almost certainly Nikon picked CX for a reason other than you suggest. Likely ones:
1. Sensor costs go down almost logarithmically with size. Just as 4/3 had a cost advantage over DX/APS-C, CX has a cost advantage over m4/3.
2. Nikon didn’t want to join m4/3 and enable competitors, nor did it want to do a 2x crop of its own and be directly compared to competitors.
3. Technical reasons. The bigger the sensor the more bandwidth becomes an issue in getting things off it. Ditto pixel count. But more interestingly is the phase detect on the sensor. People wonder why the CX mount is so big compared to the sensor size; I think it has to do with the geometry of phase detect.
3. You probably mena “the more megapixels” not “the bigger”, right?
Nope, physical size is an issue, too.
Agreed on the cost issue. This is where Nikon’s smaller sensor will be advantageous later on. Let’s hope Nikon is not 4/3, and they WILL release compact cameras with CX sensors. And in turn, i hope, it will force Canon and 4/3 to create similar compacts (G1X and smaller) with their 4/3 sized sensors.
MR.Hogan , first off thanks for your new site ,I love it.
1. Sensor costs go down almost logarithmically with size. Just as 4/3 had a cost advantage over DX/APS-C, CX has a cost advantage over m4/3.
so, how much cheaper to produce the CX sensors than the MFT sensors?
2. Nikon didn’t want to join m4/3 and enable competitors, nor did it want to do a 2x crop of its own and be directly compared to competitors.
Why ?
3. Technical reasons. The bigger the sensor the more bandwidth becomes an issue in getting things off it. Ditto pixel count. But more interestingly is the phase detect on the sensor. People wonder why the CX mount is so big compared to the sensor size; I think it has to do with the geometry of phase detect.
vrey interesting , this means we dont see any FX sensors with some phase detecters on them from Nikon soon?
I was hoping Nikon D4 would have got this new sensor based PDAF tech from the Nikon one.
And do you think Nikon will introduce some Mirrorless camera with D4 sensor or D800 sensor soon?
Thanks for your presence and outstanding new site.
@jake
this isn’t Mr Hogan’s new website although he and his disciples act here on Aleoh’s website (which he has built up through hard work over 3 years.) it’s an easy mistake to make.
Perhaps you might go over to Mr. Hogan’s website and put a request for him to open up HIS WEBSITE to comments if he is brave enough.
@ youdidntdidyou,
You are the one who is acting like this is your own personal site and no one else is allowed to have an opinion… your 13 posts in this thread alone (so far) is a clue as to how much you need to dominate things.
And leave the Admin out of your self-righteous rantings. He can speak for himself, but he is much more gracious than you are. I have not seen anything to suggest that he feels anything other than appreciation for Mr. Hogan’s contributions in his site. IIRC he has even featured Thom’s comments on the main rumors page in the past.
The way you go after him, one would think that Mr. Hogan stole your wife or something like that; however, I think it is actually nothing more than plain old jealousy of the fact that people seem to put more weight on his comments than yours – and anyone who does, you instantly try to discredit as “disciples” or religious zealots.
Guess what, if you want people to pay attention to you… stop spending all your time critiquing everyone’s posts (all you ever seem to do), and contribute some information yourself.
> so, how much cheaper to produce the CX sensors than the MFT sensors?
Tough to calculate since volume, R&D costs, and supplier relationships all get factored in different ways between these two. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that it’s a US$20-30 at retail price differential, though. In the case of these two, it’s probably more since the Nikon 1 digital guts (sensor, ASIC, support) is exceedingly compressed over previous designs. Nikon is high into part cost reduction, and it shows heavily in the Nikon 1. If they get volume up, the J1 will be tremendously cheap to produce.
> Why didn’t Nikon want to join m4/3 or do a 2x crop of its own and be directly compared to competitors.
Nikon’s view of the camera market is unique from all the other companies. It’s Nikon’s main business, period. They’re now the only Japanese company that can say that. While Japan’s camera companies have been an intertwined set of co-dependencies in the past, in Nikon’s specific case they’ve been investing to go it alone for some time now, and we’re slowly starting to see the results of that. Ultimately, they want to be seen as a camera company that decides things because they’re a camera company, not a partnership with other tech companies. It’s an interesting–and slightly Western–strategy, and we’ll see more, not less of it in the coming years.
> vrey interesting , this means we dont see any FX sensors with some phase detecters on them from Nikon soon?
I’m not sure what happened here. I know there was a prototype that used PD on the sensor. There was an 18mp prototype that looked like it was going to be the winner until video issues came up. Nikon does try to follow their “pick the best solution” mantra, which is why we’ll probably see at least another camera coming with a Sony sensor from them soon.
> Will Nikon introduce a mirrorless D4/D800 soon?
Doubtful. The Nikon 1 line will increase, and I’d expect the low-end DSLRs to convert first. Indeed, if you look closely in the basement of my site, you’ll find that’s exactly what I predict for the D3100 and eventually D5100 replacements (see the announcements page).
> > vrey interesting , this means we dont see any FX sensors with some phase detecters on them from Nikon soon?
> I’m not sure what happened here. I know there was a prototype that used PD on the sensor.
I think it would be really cool to have PDAF which would allow the possibility of either a Fuji style hybrid VF or a return to interchangeable finders. Lock up the mirror, remove the prism, slide in the EVF, and still have fast AF.
I’m sure we’ll get something like that eventually. Right now only some Fujifilm compacts and the Nikon 1 cameras have it. I find it interesting that these are both small sensor devices.
BLI- I am not making things up. This is an exerpt:
“DE: There are other manufacturers wanting to join Four Thirds?
SSC: We always invite them, so it can be standardized optics then, anybody can make optics for that format.
SB: Then they’d be competing against Olympus on your terms.
SSC: They could sell their own optics, or.. yeah.
”
SSC is Sally Smith Clemens, Olympus USA which was interviewed along Terada. What do you think that means? Moreover, Olympus is the owner of the standard (along with Panasonic for micro four thirds). It’s not an open standard. There are rules. And if you read the press release when Panasonic and Olympus both announced micro four thirds they both said, in no uncertain terms, that anyone joining will have to contribute something substantial to the standard before they could join.
You really think they are going to just leave them as they want, with no particular benefit to Olympus? If you do you need to wake up.
I am not saying this makes them evil. It’s just business. But likewise everyone saying “boo why Fuji didn’t join m4/3rds (like admin to my surprise who should know better” need to realize it’s not just a simple “oh we just didn’t want to join.” There’s that and the fact that if for example, other companies see more money doing their own thing, why not? These are not charities.
“actually, because Pana does not want any one else to make MFT sensors for Oly , this is why noone wants to join MFT camp”, this is what many huge Japanese camera dealors saying these days , I am not sure it is true or just they made up a story, though.
but many think we might see some new Sony based MFT snesors soon since Sony has bought some of newly issued Olympus stocks(some gone to Panasonic) , I dont know what was exact number Sony has bought, though.
or Oly will become a lens brand for Sony E mount , either way but I think Sony will make sensors for Oly not the other way around here.
anyway, there is a long lasting rumor here in Japan that Sony is very much interested in buying Oly’s medical division and lens division.
@jake and @jake
it’s not hard to get yourself educated
@somebody eat this
“For the compact camera business, we are considering a step-up type of strategy. Once a customer is using our camera, we are opening those customer to upgraded cameras. We have each product for each category, each customer. Especially the PEN, it’s a really good kind of bridge type of camera from the compact to the DSLR.”
…as I been previously saying this is exactly why Olympus are pricing their cameras very competitively with various models (older and new) at various price points and not because of some “fire sale”
Sounds like their Olympus tough cameras are doing well too.
Also Olympus marketing strategy seems very well thought out and very now 😀
“We are CONSIDERING a step-up type of strategy”? As in, we don’t have a strategy yet? Moreover, the only places where they have any traction at the moment are the Tough compact, the XZ-1 (though that was killed by the G1X), and Pens. What exactly do you upsell those customers to (in order: nothing at the moment, maybe a Pen, the E-5). Upsells need to be logical, not just “brand.” To upsell within a brand on brand alone, you need marketing and customer support to be working 100%.
“Not because of fire sale.” Unfortunately, the facts argue against that. The current camera is E-PL3. The best-selling Pen is the E-PL1, and because of price. Notice anything wrong with that? The underlying market numbers (available by subscribing to one of the services) show inventory build-up of the E-PL1. It was overproduced to sales. Indeed, so have been just about all the Pens except for the E-P3. You are correct in that this seems to be part of an Olympus “strategy”. They tried it with 4/3, too: overbuild inventory, fire sale it when it didn’t sell. But the problem is that their competitors have economies of scale Olympus don’t have. Nikon pretty much matched Olympus in DSLR pricing. The same thing will happen in mirrorless if Olympus gets any firm traction.
Here in the US, Olympus has another problem: declining dealer base. This exacerbates the pricing issue. Many dealers don’t want to touch the Pens now in the US because Olympus lowered prices on existing inventory to less than what the dealer paid for them. While they did some price protection, this is still a form of “lend me money now and I’ll pay you back less later.” The smart dealers have figured that out and don’t want to play that game. The remaining outlets (Big Box, Amazon, etc.) want bigger discounts from the manufacturer.
Regarding the price reduction, that has been happening in the industry for several decades and it is something all camera companies have done. If the smart dealers have just worked that out it has taken them decades to do it. It happens with other products as well.
@Stu5
not in Thom Hogan’s world!
Some of us actually keep track of these things rather than keep making attacking and sniping comments.
The average Nikon DSLR price drop over its life cycle is ~25%. The average Olympus m4/3 price drop over its life cycle is currently at over 50%, though we have only a few data points.
yeah , you are spot on , Oly MFT drops about 50 percent or more and Pany ones even more this was reported by some Japanese consumer products report a few weeks a go.
actually, NEX 5n or NEXC3 keep its value quite high through out its life cycle.
the NEX5n price dropped only 20percent in 3 months ,while Panny GX1 price droped about 34percent just in a month.
@Thom Hogan
“The average Nikon DSLR price drop over its life cycle is ~25%. The average Olympus m4/3 price drop over its life cycle is currently at over 50%, though we have only a few data points.”
…yeah artificial high prices worked for Canon and Nikon in the past but won’t work for them in the future, the game is over!!!
And your evidence is? All you are coming in is with vain personal attacks with no evidence. Sorry, you will have to try harder than that if you want people to take you any seriously.
I am not sure you realize what Thom is saying with the inventory buildup… is going right over your head.
@Raist
inventory build up happens if you are still producing, do you or Thom know either way if it is still being produced and do you know for fact that they are not selling through?
Yes, price reductions are common, but most companies phase out old models fairly quickly so as to not hurt sales of their current models. How many other companies can you point to whose best selling model (E-PL1) is two generations old?
@MichaelKJ
so Samsung are wrong to do the same in the mobile hand set market too (have older models and new models out at the same time)- even though they are about to become the world’s no. 1 (overtaking Apple and Nokia, out pacing HTC and Sony).
Keep up with the times!
How many two year old phones are Samsung selling?
Following your logic, Nikon would be better off still selling new D80s and Panasonic should still be selling new GF1s, G1s, and GF1s.
@MichaelKJ
the Samsung S was launched 2 years ago and still on sale, as is the Galaxy Ace and the Samsung Galaxy S2 ( both 1 year ago) because they have launched new models like the Samsung Note doesn’t mean they will take the others off sale.
– side note
The Samsung Note has been available in the Europe and Japan for the last 3 months but not yet available in the USA – notice something here???
Thank heavens you and Nikon are too blind to see it.
Keep up with the times!
I assume you were referring to the Galaxy S (announced in March 2010) and not the S2 (Feb 2011). Anyway, extrapolating from one market to another is of little, if any, value.
More relevantly, would you care to respond to my comment that your argument that it makes sense to sell camera models that are two generations old suggests Nikon should still be the D80 and Panasonic should still be selling the G1, G3,GH1 and GF1?
@MichaelKJ
“Anyway, extrapolating from one market to another is of little, if any, value.” they are the same consumers.
Nikon shouldn’t because that would be bad for Olympus, anyways Nikon has their old and trusted technique of artificially high prices and slow product cycle (3-4 years) which will fail them in these and future times.
Panasonic are rapidly innovating so don’t won’t to keep older models on sale and are more focused on their target customer, which as a marketing strategy is also working for them.
Nikon slow product cycles, LOL! Where you get this? The low end iterates fast, the higher end doesn’t. How many pro cameras has Olympus done? Oh yeah, three (E-1, E-3, E-5).
@Raist
yes slow Nikon product cycle because of lack of new features in new models.
It is also worth noting that the Galaxy S is no longer offered by major US carriers (by your logic they should still be offering both the S and S2). The S is also only one generation old, unlike the two generation old E-PL1.
The phone market isn’t easy to calculate, because the phone companies are subsidizing phone prices. What Samsung actually gets in revenue is not what you paid for it in almost every case (there are a few exceptions for buying unlocked phones directly).
Basically your arguments are once again non-sequitors. You find and report anything you think supports your conclusion, but fail to actually look at the real data that might actually reveal what happened. Over time, what happens is that the smart folk that read these comments start to realize this and start to dismiss your claims out of hand. Is that really what you want?
@Thom Hogan
I know how the mobile phone market works, thank you and yes I’ve looked at the “real” data.
You certainly don’t seem to be looking at real data for cameras. Than an EPL1 has Olympus stuck with inventory is no good.
@Raist
it’s good for increasing market share to people you might upgrade in the future.
Crazy-talk to suggest that the 534g G1-X ($799 to preorder) is going to “kill” the 275g XZ-1 ($375 new on Amazon right now). It’s twice the weight and twice the cost – different group of buyers!
@Thom Hogan
…EP4 series,new Tough models,XZ-2, Pen Pro, E7 and maybe an E30 successor, lenses,accessories, apps.
Micro four thirds is very logical and allows for cross use in families and in business like no other camera format.
examples/scenarios (follow carefully)
1. family – wife and daughter own Pens (maybe EP-1), husband owns a Pen Pro or a GH1 or 2, son owns a G3 – they can all share/swap lenses and accessories.
typically in other households this wouldn’t happen: the father owns a Canon (with one mount), wife might own a small Nikon (another mount), daughter owns a cool pix, son owns a Fuji bridge
2. work place – employees own Pens or Lumix G which they carry everywhere and can use for work or home, managers owns/has use of a Lumix GH or Pen Pro, company owns a AF100 – they can all share/swap lenses and accessories.
etc etc
“It was overproduced to sales.” maybe it is still being produced to meet demand? Not every company works like Nikon you know, some are more adaptable.
I don’t hear you bitching left right and centre but the large early price drops of the Nikon 1 system in Europe and probably elsewhere so soon after launch.
Nikon beat Olympus DSLR in marketing and distribution, price wasn’t an major factor in that bygone era.
Nikon doesn’t have the will power to match Olympus in Mirrorless pricing because it will affect the sales of their coolpix and devalue their other products (see the lame D4)doh!
The quality of the dealer base in the USA doesn’t sound to healthy at the moment anyway.
“Olympus lowered prices on existing inventory to less than what the dealer paid for them. While they did some price protection, this is still a form of “lend me money now and I’ll pay you back less later” speaking to dealers in the UK over a few years this is an ongoing occurrence anyway with Canon and Nikon as well, so what gives?
> …EP4 series,new Tough models,XZ-2, Pen Pro, E7 and maybe an E30 successor, lenses,accessories, apps.
None of which exist, of course ;~). While inventories of some of the existing models pile up. The problem with your answer is that the game constantly changes. By the time we have all those things, we’ll have other things from the competitors. It generally takes disruptive products, pricing, and/or messages to change market share.
> Micro four thirds is very logical and allows for cross use in families and in business like no other camera format.
Not sure about the “very logical” part. Not sure I can agree with your “cross-use” assertion, either. Nikon and Sony both have fairly easy cross-use between CX/DX/FX and NEX/Alpha. And this is only going to get more evident over time. Basically, you’re arguing that because Panasonic and Olympus have been making multiple style bodies for three years, that’s some sort of permanent and irrevocable advantage. It isn’t. Sony’s almost there already.
> “It was overproduced to sales.” maybe it is still being produced to meet demand?
You’re claiming that the E-PL1 is still being made? Nope.
> I don’t hear you bitching left right and centre but the large early price drops of the Nikon 1 system in Europe and probably elsewhere so soon after launch.
First, why would I bitch about price drops when I pointed out how over-priced the Nikon 1 was in the first place. A Nikon 1 costs less than an E-PL3 to make (heck, less than a Coolpix P7100 to make, and maybe an XZ-1) but is priced higher than two of Nikon’s DSLRs. My bitch, which you didn’t hear, was that Nikon was gouging the initial buyers of the Nikon 1. In fact, it’s clear you don’t read what I write at all: “[J1] would be an average value at US$499.”
> Nikon beat Olympus DSLR in marketing and distribution, price wasn’t an major factor in that bygone era.
Nonsense. Actually: bullshit.
> Nikon doesn’t have the will power to match Olympus in Mirrorless pricing because it will affect the sales of their coolpix and devalue their other products (see the lame D4)doh!
Be careful when you argue, because sometimes your points actually disprove themselves. If we are to believe your argument, then Olympus doesn’t care if the Pens undermine the XY-1, right? Not.
As for your comment about the D4: (1) you haven’t actually even seen the camera, let alone held it or shot with it, yet you’ve completely dismissed it. Yeah, that’s mature. (2) for a wedding shooter, I’d think that you might actually be interested in the next generation Canon/Nikon DSLRs and how they really compare to what you’re using. Hey, that brings up a good point: what the hell are you using? A Pen? Which one?
> The quality of the dealer base in the USA doesn’t sound to healthy at the moment anyway.
It’s not, but it’s still a major component of unit sales in this country. Moreover, Olympus isn’t exactly in every Big Box that Canon/Nikon/Sony are in, either. Basically, you don’t want to become less visible to potential customers.
> “Olympus lowered prices on existing inventory to less than what the dealer paid for them. While they did some price protection, this is still a form of “lend me money now and I’ll pay you back less later”
> speaking to dealers in the UK over a few years this is an ongoing occurrence anyway with Canon and Nikon as well, so what gives?
Price protection has a long history in tech. Let’s see, I first starting doing it with my dealers in 1981, and I first encountered it AS a dealer in 1978. The question is how you go about doing it, and how well you do it. Without going into details (this response is already getting long), Nikon has been better at it than Sony who’s been better at it than Olympus in this country. Olympus’ attempt to have a Black Friday special last November was notoriously bad and pushed a few retailers over the edge. To their credit, they did try to do something after the fact. But to have the manufacturer advertising a product on the manufacturer’s direct sale Web site for less than you as the dealer paid for it is going to cause just a wee bit of a problem.
@Thom Hogan
1. I don’t see anything coming from Nikon, Pentax, Samsung, Ricoh or Nikon that micro four thirds have to worry about within the next 2 years, I’ll hold judgment on Sony, Canon and Fuji.
2. Obviously misunderstood the CLEAR example of families owning various brands of cameras and camcorders that ARE NOT compatible betweeen. Most famalies do not own all Nikon or Sony DSLRs. The camera that a teenage daugther might own would own ie a coolpix would not be compatible with their father’s Nikon DSLR or mother’s Nikon 1. Tennage girls but Blackberry’s because their friends own Blackberrys.
3.Obviously you can afford to charge less for products near the end of their sale cycle (don’t play dum). Do you know which products oly and Panny still have and don’t have in production for a fact, and who says they couldn’t order more to be built. (Panasonic recently stated the original Leica 25mm f1.4 is still in production 4 years after it’s launch).
4. When you point about bad things about Nikon you do in a soft manner, when you do it about Panasonic and Olympus you do it in a aggressive and disseminating manner and constantly measure them and others against Nikon.
5.Nope, not bullshit thank you.
6. Nikon have stated that their target market for the Nikon 1 is very similar to their coolpix customer fact.
I see plenty of D3’s all the time (don’t forget some of my second shooters use them ( and Canon Mark II’s) and also I shoot a lot of wedding videos) and the D4 looks pretty identical. It also has very few new features and there are numerous reports that says the GH2 beats it on video even at four times the price (body only).
If it came down to it I would rather photograph a wedding with a Pen than any Canikon (no issues with white balance/metering, more friendly and less post processing).
***I could post some really really embarrassing videos online of Nikon D3 wedding photographers shooting static subjects on continuous/burst, bracketing every shot, asking wedding couples to hold poses/moments for an uncomfortable long time while they get the shot right, just using 1-2 lenses at a wedding, carrying loads of gear etc etc***
My clients look at my results – I’ve never ever been asked by a client what I shoot with, have you (but if I ever was I wouldn’t have a problem telling them)?
7. The USA isn’t massively profitable at the moment for Japanese/Korean electronic companies compared to the rest of the world stage, so they have to balance their resources.
8. Well then.
“) for a wedding shooter, I’d think that you might actually be interested in the next generation Canon/Nikon DSLRs and how they really compare to what you’re using. Hey, that brings up a good point: what the hell are you using? A Pen? Which one?”
I apologize but I have to admit, as a wedding photographer, this made me laugh. 🙂
@Raist @Thom Hogan
reasons not to use a D4 for wedding photography
1. Live view largely impractical in real shooting situations
2. no tilt and swivel LCD
3. lack of aspect ratios
4. no autofocus across the whole of the viewfinder (or LCD)
5. intimidating to clients
6. no art filters
7. compact flash cards(bent pins)
Again shows that you haven’t actually paid any attention to the facts:
3. The D4 has selectable aspect ratios. I think you mean “doesn’t have the aspect ratio I want.”
4. Yes, it does, in the Live View mode you think doesn’t work.
6. Nikon DLSRs have many of the same effects these days, they just don’t call them Art Filters. If it’s important to you that they be called “Art,” then my suggestion to you is that you hack the firmware and replace all instances of Picture Controls with Art Controls.
7. So use the XQD card instead. But different card types fail in different ways. I’ve not seen any incredible advantage or disadvantage to any of the physical packages. Meanwhile, there are advantages to performance of certain card designs.
@Thom Hogan
3. no 16:9 (or 20:9 or 21:9) for stills to be used for video and no 1:1
4. nope I’m talking 100% not a bunch 85% CENTRED
6. art type filters not listed on dpreview
7. SD over compact flash any day and everyday
@Thom Hogan
” What you’re saying here is that you don’t believe Nikon will do a higher-than-V1 model. Time will tell, but I’ll take the bet: they will.”
*NEWS UPDATE*
“Sigma lukewarm on Nikon CSC
It seems unlikely Sigma will make lenses for the Nikon 1 system as it tells AP its primary market is ‘serious enthusiasts’. Asked if it hopes Canon will enter the CSC market, Sigma’s chief operating officer Kazuto Yamaki said: ‘If they introduce a camera like Nikon’s we have no interest.’ “
3. I’m not sure why Nikon doesn’t put 16:9 on the D3/D4 models. It seems an odd thing to leave out these days if you have settable aspect ratios. But just as easy to point out that the m4/3 cameras don’t have 5:4, which is the format of most picture frames.
4. Live View AF is not 85% centered. Moreover, even the D3 does something very interesting (and the D4 improves on this): with humans it can and does focus outside the focus sensor areas in the 3D mode. That’s because the metering sensor is also supplying focus information to the camera, and it covers 100%. I was surprised when I encountered this in D3 testing back in 2007, and it’s gotten better since.
6. No one has seen a full set of menu items (unless they’ve got a camera in hands). I’ll admit I’m guessing here. I don’t see Nikon skipping something they’ve added to previous cameras.
7. I’m agnostic. All the things that people claim are better about one card type or another just don’t really prove out in the facts. Your claim was bent pins. This is a bit like pointing out deaths due to plane crashes. Yes, it happens, but statistically, the incidence is low. It’s happened to me once in 20 years of using such cards. I’ve had as many SD failures as CF failures overall.
Ah yes, and another of your non-sequitors: Because Sigma says they’re lukewarm on the Nikon 1, Nikon won’t produce a higher end model. That failure of logic is so blatant even most school kids would recognize it. There’s no connection there. In fact, if Nikon DID announce a higher end Nikon 1, it would be an “serious enthusiast” camera and WOULD probably interest Sigma if we take their statement at face value.
Let’s examine some other possible motives for such a statement: (1) Nikon is suing Sigma; (2) Sigma’s lens designs don’t currently extend to 2.7x crops, heck as we’re seeing with their m4/3 offerings, they don’t have compelling 2x crop designs yet, either, and they’ve used the same design for both 1.5x and 2x crop; (3) Sigma isn’t able to get all the lenses they’ve already announced to market, they don’t want to look like they’re just announcing more and more things without delivering.
3. 4:3 picture frames have increased in popularity in the last 3 years probably because of compact cameras.
Also many digtal frames are 4:3.
Most new mobiles are 16:9, some TVs and digtal frames are 16:9 and this is how people are consuming their images now.
A business opportunity for the future might be 16:9 pictures frames as people print off from their mobile phones (incidentally the head of Jessops in the UK said this week it was a growing trend!)
4. So the photographer can’t choose to autofocus over 100% of the screen but can let the camera try?
7. Compact Flash:One Olympus E-1 totally ruined (kept the lens), 3 Canon printers ruined because of broken pins (but can still use with SD cards).
Have had many SD damaged in older Fuji bridge cameras.
# I’m having trouble seeing how Nikon can take the Nikon 1 system to serious enthusiasts, paint a picture for me….
“***I could post some really really embarrassing videos online of Nikon D3 wedding photographers shooting static subjects on continuous/burst, bracketing every shot, asking wedding couples to hold poses/moments ”
Maybe those photographers suck?
> I don’t see anything coming from Nikon, Pentax, Samsung, Ricoh or Nikon that micro four thirds have to worry about within the next 2 years, I’ll hold judgment on Sony, Canon and Fuji.
You really don’t know how to debate, do you? Your assertion was that Olympus’ strategy will work. Now you’re holding judgement about whether Sony/Canon/Fujifilm’s offerings might make it NOT work. You don’t have a consistent position, and you don’t know how to argue your position. As for your “don’t see anything from Nikon/Pentax/Samsung/Ricoh” (and did you notice you reflectively repeated Nikon, your hate is so high?), we’re now to believe that you know what they’re going to do (and what Olympus is going to do for that matter) in the next two years. Just faulty logic and “I’m right” babble on your part.
> Obviously misunderstood the CLEAR example of families owning various brands of cameras and camcorders that ARE NOT compatible betweeen.
Didn’t misunderstand it all. Let’s see if you do ;~)
> Most famalies do not own all Nikon or Sony DSLRs.
Most families don’t own Olympus DSLRs, Pens, or compact cameras, so the “most” part is not relevant here. MORE families own Nikon or Sony DSLRs, though, and that IS relevant.
> The camera that a teenage daugther might own would own ie a coolpix would not be compatible with their father’s Nikon DSLR or mother’s Nikon 1.
Apparently you’ve not actually used or owned a Coolpix lately. Nikon moved to EXPEED-like controls on all their cameras. We now use the same vocabulary and to a large degree menu structures on most of the Nikon lineup, and it’s becoming more prevalent, not less.
> Obviously you can afford to charge less for products near the end of their sale cycle (don’t play dum).
“Afford”? No. You anticipate charging less at the end of a product cycle. The question is whether or not market dynamics push you below what you calculated when you put the product together in the first place. My contention is that Olympus did NOT believe it would charge 50% for a product at the end of its life cycle nor have products two generations old their primary sellers when they’re trying to sell their third generation. Indeed, you’d be hard pressed to show me a company that does that as a strategy.
> Do you know which products oly and Panny still have and don’t have in production for a fact,
Sort of. I know some of the manufacturing plant cycles, but not all.
> and who says they couldn’t order more to be built.
Right. The product you expected to get US$700 for is selling for US$300 and stalling sales of your other products, so you’re going to crank up the factory again to make that US$300 product. Exactly HOW are you going to market that? “Hey people, you loved the Model T so much that Ford is bringing it back, with new colors other than black!”
> (Panasonic recently stated the original Leica 25mm f1.4 is still in production 4 years after it’s launch).
Lenses are a little different than bodies. Generally they stay in production as long as there’s demand.
> When you point about bad things about Nikon you do in a soft manner,
Absolute nonsense that shows you don’t actually read what I write. For example, you seem to have missed the three RANTS in my J1 review. There was nothing at all soft about them.
> when you do it about Panasonic and Olympus you do it in a aggressive and disseminating manner and constantly measure them and others against Nikon.
I think you’re actually missing the ball here. What you REALLY mean is that when I reply to your irrational and made up comments about Olympus and Panasonic I do so directly and with intensity. You’re actually showing your own insecurities here.
> I see plenty of D3′s all the time (don’t forget some of my second shooters use them ( and Canon Mark II’s) and also I shoot a lot of wedding videos) and the D4 looks pretty identical.
Let’s back up a minute. You didn’t actually answer my question about what camera you use for what. This is another of your many non-sequitors. Basically, if you don’t want to answer a question, you dissemble into some other statement that you think is related.
Moreover, even your “D4 looks pretty identical” comment is non-responsive and deceptive. You haven’t actually seen a D4 (my point in the first place). What you mean is “I’ve briefly looked at the specs and dismissed it as being more of the same from Nikon.” Brilliant. So you admit what I wrote: you haven’t used it, you haven’t held it, you haven’t seen results from it, you’re just making another of your “I think Nikon can’t do anything right” statements without support. I’ll again point out that the more you argue this way, the more every other reader of these comments forms a not-so-great opinion of you.
> It also has very few new features
So what the world needs is cameras with more features? You’re totally dismissive of the notion that a camera could have the same features implemented better?
> and there are numerous reports that says the GH2 beats it on video even at four times the price (body only).
Show me two such reports. I’m not going to let this slip by without citation. It very well may be that the GH2 beats the D4 at video. I wouldn’t know and I only know two people that could actually be able to make that assessment at the moment, and neither of them have. But you seem to know lots of people (“numerous”), so let’s hear from them, shall we? Citations please.
> If it came down to it I would rather photograph a wedding with a Pen than any Canikon (no issues with white balance/metering, more friendly and less post processing).
More issues with dynamic range, noise, contrast build-up, DOF isolation, etc. Nor would I necessarily agree with you on your dismissal of white balance, metering, and less post processing. I actually use Olympus and Nikon, you don’t. I might be in a better position to actually make that assertion, and I don’t.
> I could post some really really embarrassing videos online of Nikon D3 wedding photographers
You mean as embarrassing as your arguments? ;~) As others have pointed out, your comment means nothing. We could ALL post such things, for any hardware product out there.
> My clients look at my results – I’ve never ever been asked by a client what I shoot with, have you (but if I ever was I wouldn’t have a problem telling them)?
Actually, I have. Usually because they want to know how I generated the great results I did. But you’re still being non-responsive to my question, and we’re now all starting to believe that this must be because you’re trying to hide something. What do you shoot your wedding stills with?
> The USA isn’t massively profitable at the moment for Japanese/Korean electronic companies compared to the rest of the world stage, so they have to balance their resources.
Which is why at least two of the camera companies have significantly INCREASED their sales in the US in the last year? No. The US is a competitive market, no doubt, and prices have always been tight here. But it’s also over a third of the worldwide market for cameras. You can’t replace that volume by going elsewhere. There is no elsewhere big enough to replace it. In tech, economies of scale eventually dictate who wins.
1.Nikon have just released the D4 so that’s them done for 3 years and Nikon 1 has shown the world it’s target market, Samsung are not putting the resources in, Ricoh will remain niche and Pentax doesn’t seemto have the appetite.
Canon is unknown at this stage, Sony are adaptable but are making plenty of mistakes at the moment, Fuji might be in the position to do more in the future ie replace their bridge cameras with mirrorless versions.
“and did you notice you reflectively repeated Nikon” at your own game… though you might not like it.
2. since when are you able to take a lens off a coolpix and put it on a DSLR?
3.The price of components is falling all the time, the product that cost x to make in 2010 is like to cost y in 2012 with less marketing costs as well.
4. “sort of” there you go.
5. they looked pretty soft rants to me.
6. the smaller tribe often fights harder.
7. it’s pretty obvious from my website and flickr what I use to shoot what as all the exif is available. For weddings I shoot a mixture of the GH1 and L10 (with an Olympus as back up), use an average of 6 lenses and 3 types of flash for each in jpeg and am able to proof photos within days, any other questions?????????????
If the D4 is practically the same size as the D3 (which I have held many times) with a few butttons moved around, what gives?
Specs is specs.
Yes, I have read many reviews/1st impressions and seen images from it, tbh Nikon and other companies would be hard pressed to make the images better than most DSLR or mirorless cameras released in the last year plus their D3s.
“I think Nikon can’t do anything right” I have never said that and don’t believe it.
“a camera could have the same features implemented better” after 3 years and why not just call it a D3 mark 2 or a D3.01
8. Eoshd and vimeo.
9. dynamic range – Pens have enough if you know how to shoot.
noise – not an issue at upto ISO800 , 1600 is easy to clean up, can’t see myself needing ISO 128000
contrast build-up – most clients like this look.
DOF isolation – Pens have enough with the right glass.
Yes I do shoot Olympus (as well as Panny and Fuji), and yes I do work with Nikon files.
10. not fussed what your disciples post.
11. really? as a percentage how many clients asked?
12. not too sure they have some of their sector was down in the USA and some was up, so they increased their profits too in the USA and their outlook in the USA is rosy too?
“over a third of the worldwide market for cameras” probably an outdated notion.
at best your USA figures as a percentage of the world stage (which you don’t show for those 2 companies) are only representative of those 2 companies and not of Sony, Pentax, Olympus or Panasonic so are likely flawed.
“In tech, economies of scale eventually dictate who wins.” oh really is it that simple, me thinks not. (it’s not helping Nokia)
I love how you continue to make up facts so that they support your fan boy allegiance.
> 1.Nikon have just released the D4 so that’s them done for 3 years
First, Nikon’s full cycle is 4 years, not three. But their sub-cycle for pro equipment is 2 years (D3 to D3s is a good example) and often includes additional models (D3x).
> and Nikon 1 has shown the world it’s target market,
Yeah, same one as m4/3. Or do you not think that the J1, GF3, and E-PM1 are competitors? What you’re saying here is that you don’t believe Nikon will do a higher-than-V1 model. Time will tell, but I’ll take the bet: they will.
> Samsung are not putting the resources in,
Not sure they’d agree with you there, but I would. I don’t understand Samsung’s position in cameras. It seems to be one of those markets where they’ve decided “everyone else is in it, we’re big, we should be in it.”
> Ricoh will remain niche and Pentax doesn’t seemto have the appetite.
Uh, you do know that those are the same company now, right? ;~) It’s unclear what will happen there. They have more resources than Olympus and they also have the ability to go compact to full frame DSLR that Olympus doesn’t at the moment. But as I wrote about all the takeovers (Konica/Minolta, Sony/Konica, Hoya/Pentax, Ricoh/Pentax), a takeover tends to cause changes in management decision making and strategy that lose you at least a generation in product cycles.
> “and did you notice you reflectively repeated Nikon” at your own game… though you might not like it.
Proof that I’ve repeated Nikon in a list of companies, please. Oh, right, you never have proof of your claims, do you? You remind me of Charlie Sheen and his “winning” rages. Only, just like him, you’re not actually winning.
> 3.The price of components is falling all the time, the product that cost x to make in 2010 is like to cost y in 2012 with less marketing costs as well.
A classic YouDidn’tDidYou non-sequitor. Component parts fall for both parties equally UNLESS one of the parties actually comes up with a parts simplification strategy to reduce costs beyond what is expected. Having just done a teardown analysis of two mirrorless cameras for a client, I can speak to that having been done by one of the parties ;~)
> 5. they looked pretty soft rants to me.
Anybody else want to weigh in on this one? I’m actually curious as to whether anyone agrees with YDDY or not. Article is at http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/a-note-about-camera-reviews/nikon-j1-review.html.
> the smaller tribe often fights harder.
The smaller tribe often loses. What’s your point?
> I shoot a mixture of the GH1 and L10,
Thanks for finally answering the question. Only took three asks. Now everyone can evaluate your comments in context. Which brings up the point: why are you such an Olympus fan boy when you don’t actually use one? ;~)
> If the D4 is practically the same size as the D3 (which I have held many times) with a few butttons moved around, what gives?
Pertinent word in that question is “if.” Given that we know the answer is “else,” we can ignore the rest of the “if clause”.
> Yes, I have read many reviews/1st impressions and seen images from it, tbh Nikon and other companies would be hard pressed to make the images better than most DSLR or mirorless cameras released in the last year plus their D3s.
An interesting statement. Taken to its other logical conclusion: NO camera will do be better than the current DSLR or mirrorless cameras released in the last year. Guess you won’t be buying a GH3 ;~)
> “I think Nikon can’t do anything right” I have never said that and don’t believe it.
Name one single thing that you’ve said that Nikon did right in all of your comments on this site. I can’t think of one, and I don’t think you’ll find one. And yes, I have said that Olympus has done something right in all of my comments on this site.
We can only judge you by what you write. You apparently are now arguing that you might think something differently than you write.
> “a camera could have the same features implemented better” after 3 years and why not just call it a D3 mark 2 or a D3.01
We had one of those, which you’ve conveniently forgotten: the D3s (after two years).
> 8. Eoshd and vimeo.
I have no idea what that’s in response to.
> 9. dynamic range – Pens have enough if you know how to shoot.
Here we go with the non-sequitors again. “No issues” precludes “if you know how to shoot.” Basically any issue can be gotten around “if you know how to shoot.” We pros have been doing that since we started, some of us way back in the pre-Velvia days.
> 11. really? as a percentage how many clients asked?
Not high, but it wouldn’t matter if it was 100 out of 100 clients or 10 or 2.
> “over a third of the worldwide market for cameras” probably an outdated notion.
Which just goes to show that you don’t actually read the data that does exist. Check CIPA. Check Nikon’s quarterlies. Well, there’s a lot of things you could check. The one market that has shown significant change in market share has actually been Japan itself, where it has declined quite a bit from where it used to be.
> “In tech, economies of scale eventually dictate who wins.” oh really is it that simple, me thinks not.
Perhaps not as simple as that, but it’s a very strong predictor.
@Thom Hogan
hey Nokin fan boy
1. I didn’t say how long their past cycles were, but in 3 years time we’ll probably know what’s coming to the D5.
The D4 is there sub cycle.
2. Pens and Nikon 1’s are competitors.
…and nope they won’t go much higher than a V1 in my opinion
3. yeah that be quite easy to prove by cutting and pasting from your website but that would a waste of web real estate.
4. so, Olympus have chosen to go for less margin more volume.
5.”Only took three asks. ” it’s been posted here many times ..don’t play dum. Why do you try an poison Olympus well so much eh????
Do you see me posting on Nikonrumors or anywhere else (apart from once on a Nikon1 dpreview forum)
6.the D4 is practically the same size as the D3 that’s the point about handling, doh!
7. I didn’t buy the GH2 did I? if the GH3 doesn’t have enough new features it’s not a sale, simples…
8. video quality of the D4 http://www.eoshd.com/content/6757/live-qa-with-nikon-reveals-nikon-d4-video-shortcomings no tilt and swivel LCD and according to dpreview only a MONO microphone.
9. well then “not high” answers my point (could of even told your clients you took the picture with a cheese cake)
10. “Check Nikon’s quarterlies. ” there we go again…. always measuring against them.
11. glad you agree.
> 1. I didn’t say how long their past cycles were, but in 3 years time we’ll probably know what’s coming to the D5.
Again, that’s never been the case. The cycle is four years, and Nikon is very tight on releasing information on the pro cycle. We won’t know what a D5 is for four years. We WILL know what a D4s is in two years. I’ll stick by my dates. Yours are completely made up.
> 2. Pens and Nikon 1′s are competitors.
Yes.
> …and nope they won’t go much higher than a V1
Again, completely made up. To make your arguments now, you’re asserting that you know what Nikon will do in the future. As I wrote, I’m willing to bet on it. US$100 says you’re wrong (by end of 2013).
> 3. yeah that be quite easy to prove by cutting and pasting from your website but that would a waste of web real estate.
If it’s easy to prove, prove it. The comment had to do with repeating Nikon in a list of companies. So find that easily found list of companies where I repeated it and post it.
> …and no I don’t appreciate you comparing me to Hollywood druggies.
Right. And I don’t appreciate the names you’ve called me, either. Nor do I appreciate your sniping and commenting on OTHER sites about me, either, especially ones where you know I won’t post.
> 4. so, Olympus have chosen to go for less margin more volume.
And may end up with less margin, less volume. The E-PL3 is not outselling the V1, you might have noticed. That’s not a good sign.
> it’s been posted here many times ..don’t play dum. Why do you try an poison Olympus well so much eh????
Once again to the rest of you reading this: do you think I’m poisoning the Olympus well? If you do, maybe I’ll just go away.
> the D4 is practically the same size as the D3 that’s the point about handling, doh!
There are times when size and mass is an asset, there are times when it isn’t. Given the D4’s target user, most would say it’s an asset for them. Personally, I use the appropriate camera for the appropriate job. Sometimes that’s my small Pen cameras, sometimes that’s my big Nikons. The one-size-fits-all theory is not one I subscribe to.
>8. video quality of the D4 http://www.eoshd.com/content/6757/live-qa-with-nikon-reveals-nikon-d4-video-shortcomings
Actually, that mostly doesn’t talk to video quality, it talks to video features. And you don’t think a Canon site might have a bias. As for his contention that the Nikon 1 and D4 have sheering on diagonals and soft results, that’s not actually been my observation on the Nikon 1 (can’t say on a D4). I’d rate the GH2’s video better than the Nikon 1’s, but for different reasons (compression, basically).
The D4 also has the same crop video capability as the GH2, where there’s a 1:1 pixel relationship. In that, they should be relatively equal in video quality.
But your problem with your cited source is simply this: “With that in mind don’t expect resolution on the D4 to beat the GH2.” In other words, a guess, not an observation. Moreover, the use of the word “resolution” in this context is slightly troubling. All the cited cameras subsample in some form. They will all have some artifacts due to that. Artifacts aren’t exactly the same as reduction of resolution. It’ll depend upon how and where you measure their “resolution.”
Sorry your last rant is the most insane babble ever.
1. If your wife/daughter/son usually drive an automatic transmission car are you really going to let them drive your standard transmission sports car?
2. WTF I would never lend a coworker any camera except for a POS. I could make an analogy about POS and m43 but I will refrain.
3. Olympus overproduced and the inventory sat along with their money doing nothing but costing more money. To make money you need to turn your capital around as quickly as possible. Olympus is terrible at this having 3 generations of camera out at a time with the oldest the best seller, Nikon and Canon are much better at this with only 2 generations and usually the newest generation is the best seller.
I am sure everyone can find people doing stupid things with cameras. I am sure there are more Nikon and Canon users doing stupid things but their percentage is the same for every camera maker.
@CKB
1. and 2. Europeans are friendly happy to share bunch.
3. we don’t know the facts as to how much was produce and when, for all we know the USA dealership might of over ordered, or it might be part of Olympus strategy.
#3: the only problem with your logic there is that some of the biggest discounting is not in an Olympus subsidiary (OlympusUSA) but in Japan by the home team. It appears to be systemic across Olympus distribution areas, which would indicate that it is not “over ordering by OlympusUSA.”
Beyond that, the global methodology by which the Japanese companies work is not “subsidiary orders what it thinks it can sell.” It is “parent company tells subsidiary how many they will sell.” It’s a fundamentally flawed system.
Can I get a straw poll of the Europeans on this site if they would share their equipment. I am really curious if this is really true. I might have to move. 🙂
@YouDidn’tDidyou – very well thought out? Your long term memory must not be working right. Go ahead and examine what Olympus has said in the past four years. Sounds like they are still coming up with a strategy as they go.
@Raist
a good strategy is one that is adaptable.
Great news.
Please Oly, make a 17/1.8 pancake of the same optical quality as the 45/1.8!
(the 20/1.7 is too slow at focusing and the Oly 17/2.8 is soft and notthat fast)
25mm f1.2 for me. 😉
+100000000000000
ADMIN, any rumors about such a lens? Zuiko 25mm f1.2!!
No, please, not the same lens duplication strategy, that we have already with the zoom lenses. The PL 1.4/25mm should be enough for this focal length.
+1000
VARIETY, not duplication!
How many 14-42mm lenses does a system need? FIVE?
A few more wide primes…
Some telephoto primes…
A long-ish macro…
How many 14-42 lenses does a system need?
None with plastic lens mounts!!!! (just put the kit zoom that came with my new camera up on dBay!!!!! I consider it an all-round junker) LOL!
If you have to have one of these by the original 14-45mm, its sharper and has a metal lens mount.
Well the problem we’re about to face is Olympus is going to soon have a weather sealed body, and we have exactly one sealed m4/3’s lens to go with it. They are going to need to release sealed versions of some of their current lenses, or replace some of them, which of course will mean duplicate focal lengths.
I personally would love to see Olympus update the 9-18mm with weather seals (will be an extremely important lens to outdoor enthusiasts). Also, the 12mm f/2 (at that price it should be sealed already), make a new version of the 17mm (for it’s compactness), a sealed 50-200mm, and possibly a sealed 20mm f/1.4 (matching the 12mm build quality). Both the Panny 20mm and 25mm are great, but if caught out in hard rain they are going to leak like the titanic.
You already have a 25mm f1.4, real close no?
What about 100/2 and 200/2.8, weather sealed?
+1 for good 17mm
17 with improved AF and sealing would be awesome.
17mm (equiv 35m) f1.4 PLEASE!!!
Silent, real fast focus.
Would make a great walk around lens. Killer street lens.
Size would be between the 20mm f1.7 and 25mm f1.4.
“we are working usually. Nothing special.” Does it mean same old sensor?
Sorry, can’t resist.
But I really hope something new coming 8th feb.
Yeah, they ask other companies, companies they deem big enough, but they don’t even reply to email from startups that are working on new technology that wants to use the m4/3 system… Very unprofessional, but apparently you need to run a business that involves billions before they even bother with you…
@TLs
just go ahead and do it – wanderlust cameras and others did, what are your ideas???
> wanderlust cameras and others did
All they did was to produce pin hole lenses. Hardly something new or requiring real involvement in 43/m43 consortium.
But this is indeed pretty common for large businesses to ignore smaller competitors.
That’s more than we did, just buying stuff that’s available and complaining about stuff that’s not.
Well, I tried contacting them via the 4/3’s website, as my company is interested in using the m4/3 standard for one of the products we’re planning. That said, it’s not going to happen over night and I don’t think most people here would be interested, as it’s not about photography, but rather to do with video. Even so, they never even bothered replying so…
Could be. Maybe you just need to get the correct contact info.
Fuji might have been a good candidate and they had talks with them. It went it’s own way, but they now have problems in making an UWA for the APS format.
What is not said again is sensor and PDAF. I can hardly imagine that they will introduced a new, higher series without stepping it up. That I hope might have been an area of collaboration with Fuji or Samsung.
The openness of Oly bodes well: they don’t progress by the proprietary mount, but with innovation, that they could trade for other things.
Not sure what you mean by “now have problems making an UWA.” Fujifilm has already said they’ll do a 14mm (21mm equivalent) and 12-24mm (18-36mm equivalent) for the X-Pro1 in the coming year. That’s pretty darned wide. Maybe not 14mm equivalent, but I suspect we’ll get there if there’s demand.
They had no problem introducing (after MANY years of waiting) their top tier E-5 with the same old 12mp sensor. It’s kind of sad to think that my pedestrian e-pl1 shares the same sensor as the top of the line model.
The only thing giving me hope (a pretty bad bet when it comes to olympus) is the end of their binding sensor contract with Pany (or so I’ve heard). If this is true then there’s a nanoscopic possibility of seeing a new sensor (aptina, fuji, samsung, sony, etc), is new necessarily good per se ? maybe, maybe not. Fact is, every other manufacturer has made it a point to trash m43 in the sensor department, from the tiny Nikon passing through equally big Canon and ending with APS-c mirrorless (sony and Fuji specially).
Just a thought, but the price difference between the EPL1 and E-5 (both at launch) was around 1200. For the extra dollars you got weather sealing, faster FPS, OVF and more (etc etc).
The D3 shared the same sensor with the D700, their price difference was around $2000… What you got the with D3, weather sealing, faster FPS, better Veiwfinder etc etc etc…
I dont think it is sad at all.
Ab
“And nobody else wants to join m43 :(”
Obviously
Seeing how Fuji is innovating the hell out of everybody else in the mirrorless market, Olympus has basically one more shot with their OM-rehash next month. If that doesn’t appeal to semi-pro photographers looking for a non-DSLR system camera format, then most will wander to Fuji if they have pockets deep enough.
Maybe the bunch of us in the forums here have been looking at it wrong the whole time. While we were hoping that Panasonic or Olympus would come up with something that addresses the market from the top rather than the bottom, the product strategy for Micro Four Thirds has always been the bottom, not the top of the market. Fuji is doing the exact opposite thing.
After the GX1 release from Panasonic it’s clear that we can’t expect the rangefinder like camera with built-in viewfinder from Panasonic. Olympus will probably bring an OM shaped PEN with a lot of new external features in the body and the same outdated sensor technology as in the rest of their lineup.
I realize the Fuji XPro1 is much more expensive than a Micro Four Thirds setup and it might have other drawbacks (such as an autofocus that gets its butt kicked by an E-P3). But according to first initial previews of the Fuji, it takes usable photos up into ISO ranges that are not even available on MFT cameras. Also, the availability of three premium, fast prime lenses is extremely appealing.
I have considerable investments into Four Thirds (E-5, E-30, 12-60mm, 50-200mm, 50mm, Panasonic 25mm) and some investment into MFT (GF1, had an E-PL1 but sold it, still have the VF-2, 20mm, Voigtlaender 25mm, Panasonic kit zoom). If Olympus cannot convince me with their OM rehash next month, I will stop buying into MFT and consider the Fuji for sometime late this year or early next year. It would complement my E-5 well when traveling. Especially in the dark hours of the day, the Fuji will probably be the camera of choice for many many available light practitioners.
Maybe someone at Panasonic/Olympus is reading this and giving this some thought. I am no professional photographer (as I have a regular day job) but fine art photography is making enough money for myself to justify investments into a decent camera as opposed to something you’d sell to a trigger-happy tourist.
There are two innovations in the X-Pro1: (1) sensor pattern; and (2) hybrid viewfinder. While many seem to think these are the greatest things since sliced bread, most who think that haven’t actually tried an X100, which has #2, or understand color relationships (#1).
The hybrid viewfinder is interesting, but in the end it’s proven to have warts. It’s not 100% or focus point accurate in optical view, it’s a little laggy and coarse in EVF view. It’ll also have the “see the lens problem” that Leicas do with many of the lenses Fujifilm has talked about introducing. I’d rather just have a great EVF.
The sensor pattern is also interesting, and has the potential for high acuity with a wrinkle: edges with color will have considerable aliasing at certain angles. Moreover, color information is lower with this sensor than Bayer, which is already lower than what we want.
Thom, how is color information going to be lower with the Fuji sensor? As I understand it, it will have close to the same ratio of green sites to red and blue as a Bayer sensor, and every green site is adjacent to both a red and blue photosite. Furthermore, unlike a Bayer sensor, every row will have both red and green sensors.
I’m sure the new layout will have its strengths and weaknesses, but from a color information standpoint, it seems roughly equivalent to a Bayer. It’s no Foveon, that’s for sure, but Foveon comes with its own set of tradeoffs.
” Moreover, color information is lower with this sensor than Bayer, which is already lower than what we want.”
But taking into account the lack of AA filter, in the end the color information may very well be about same or even still a bit better – than the typical Bayer camera.
No. Removing the AA filter will not do that.
Let me just say that I’ve been having a back channel discussion of the new Fujifilm arrangement with some sensor experts, and there are pluses and minuses to the approach. Color information is a slight issue. Only slight, but it’s an issue.
Fuji,
hyping an expensive camera for a niche market that you can’t buy now and where you don’t know the flaws yet…
Wow! Sure they will rule the world…
If they want to create prime :
1) 10mm f/4 wide prime => 20mm eq
2) 25mm f/1.8 PANCAKE normal prime =>50mm eq
3) 100mm f/2.8 tele prime => 200mm eq
4) 50mm f/2 Macro => 100mm eq
5) 17mm f/2.5 SHARPER& Faster that existing 17mm 2.8
6) 12mm f/2.8 or f/3.5 cheaper and pancake version of the 12mm SHG f/2.0
7) 8mm f/4 rectilinear UWA compact prime would be heaven ! =>16~17mm eq
And that’s all we need !
I would add a 80 or 90/1.4 or 1.2 for portrait work (=160 or 180 1.4 or 1.2).
Shallow depth of field and nice bokeh
What I want:
9 or 10 mm f/2.0
60 mm f/1.4
If you would be willing to go to a 70mm f1.4 i will back you up 🙂
90mm f2.8 macro
300mm f4 tele
> 7) 8mm f/4 rectilinear UWA compact prime would be heaven ! =>16~17mm eq
So fisheye doesn’t have to be a fisheye. Learned something new today. 😉
Huh? A fisheye is a fisheye. But an ultra wide-angle lens does NOT have to be a fisheye.
True that, what a dummy. 🙂
ps. A better word for it would be Planar or Aspherical.
I’m a broken record wanting high-quality ultra-wides, but I’d second that nomination for a 10mm prime or even an 8mm prime!
+10
And make it a 10mm f2.8, just like my old Nikon 20mm f2.8.
I have an old Nikon 20mm as well! Love it and how amazingly small it is. Hoping to put it in front of a D800 this year…
The panasonic 7-14/4 is so good, your wish for an 8mm/4 and 10mm/4 have already been fulfilled. Just buy the 7-14/4. You won’t regret it.
The Pany 7-14 f/4 is a GREAT lens. I love it! But like Nikon’s 14-24mm FF lens, it doesn’t take filters. That’s not a showstopper for most, but I like doing work with polarizers, ND filters, etc. (And I don’t need anybody to tell me you shouldn’t use a polarizer on an ultra-wide angle; I know the limitations and how it’s still can be useful.)
UW primes or an improved version of Oly’s 9-18mm with corner-to-corner sharpness would be most welcome.
> 4) Olympus asked other companies to join the m43 system: “but no success at the moment.“
I wonder what should be the economical circumstances for other photo companies to see membership in a consortium like 43/m43 profitable.
Yeah, baby. Focus on the prime lenses, zooms are not for m43 (except tele zooms like excellent m.Zuiko 40-150).
25 f/1.8 and 100mm f/2.8 macro, please. That’s all I need 🙂
I think the closest that some other manufacturer got to actually joining m4/3 was Fuji. If I’m not mistaken, they had talks with Olympus a while ago. I think there was even a rumor of a Fuji prototype with a m4/3 mount? But as Fuji said in a recent interview, they created their own system so they could go with it by their way. Not sure what thay meant… if like Oly and Pany had some restrictions that made them think that way?
They have all the native lens. The only hope for a body from someone else is Cosina or the like. Still think that Ducati body that was shown recently would make a nice m43 camera, or a digital Voigtländer (but that would be FF). After all the original Ducati was 1/2 frame 35. Some of us still like to to focus, set apeture and exposure; so a simpler digital camera (high quality) would in fact be better, but non of the larger companies would dare to release one. People are such feature orientated that they get mad when a camera does not have the requisite inadequate built in flash.
But more stability in the Sensor market needs to come before a small company can be successful in make a CSC camera. They need to have a product life span of over 2 year, I think. I know i for one am waiting for the next generation of sensor that will be non-reflective to allow more legacy lens to be use with greater success.
It seems the wide end is covered well. 7-14, 7.5, 8, 9-18, 12, 14, 12-50, 14-4X.
What I’d love is a high quality 200mm prime. I have the Pany 45-200 and it’s just ok. I miss my Oly 50-200. I realize the 100-300 is a better lens, but after noticing that Im either using some other lens or 200mm on the 45-200, then a prime in this range would be very cool. Less bulk, better optics (hopefully), & a faster lens.
A 200 f2.8, or 3.5, or 4.0, whatever. But sharp a Ginsu knife! Like the 200s of yesteryear with a slide-out hood. What! Built like the 12! All shiny and silver to piss off the silver haters!
ADMIN, MAKE A POLL! What prime should Olympus make?
That indeed, would be very welcome for bird spotters. Fast tele prime in a small m4/3 package. Easy to run around with while very effective. Not for me tho, i won’t be shooting birds, but i certainly see the appeal. Even price, would be much less than a Canon 400/2.8L i take it.
I like silver (tho i would call it chrome), but i find that it is less attractive in large quantities, with a large surface area, like a tele. It’s more suitable for highlighting certain elements. That’s why Leicas even in Chrome have the black leather around it, because too much chrome is just not good 😉
> Fast tele prime in a small m4/3 package.
It wouldn’t be any smaller than 4/3 lens except by making it slower!
Shorter backfocus/flange back distance doesn’t give any additional flexibility for designing long tele lenses unlike it does for short focal length lenses.
Neonart..the 45-175mm X lens, while not a prime…it somewhat better than the 45-200mm….tho not a prime, it is sharper and has more contrast but is quirky to work with because of the zoom-by-wire situation. It is soooooo small though it is worth its quirks. A nice prime tele from Oly would be nice, though!!!!!!
Hi Admin any news on the new OM type model from Oly??? this is so exciting…
Hell yes that is exciting. What would be really awesome is if it would have a (electronic) aperture/shutter dial at the lens base, just like the OM1 has been famous for. If the ring is aperture only, plus a shutter dial on top, (both with ‘A’ settings), it can be just like the X100/X-Pro1: Fully manual (with Aperture/Shutter priority when using A), without the need for a PASM dial.
Olympus…a tele prime would be nice!!!!!!
17mm 1.4 plz
Why people want f1.2 lenses? They will be massive.
M43 is all about small sizes.
Make lenses 1.8 or 1.4 at the biggest!
If I want f1.2 I’ll but Canon!
The 25/1.4 from panny is already too big.
We need a 17 and 25 at f1.8 fast focus an nice and pancake small…
Why more pictures of crappy Siggy lenses and a NEX body? ick.
17.5 f 1.2 please i ll pay up to 1k for it
65 mm ; so it would be like 130 mm on a 35mm frame film camera.
Then 9 mm , 100 mm, 150 mm. In that order.
F stops 2 or 2.8 would be a good. Unless they want to make 2 F stop versions for each lens; like they did in the old days. So you can have a higher F stop version for the size and/or price concerned and a lower one for the shallow depth of field shooters.
I’d like a rework of the 150/2 for 4/3rds, or barring that, a 100/2 about the size and performance of the OM Zuiko version. Shorter focal lengths have been pretty well covered.
rework for 17mm lens to have larger aperture, silent, fast focusing and still pancake size.
This makes me glad that Panasonic did the 20mm right the first time!
A company constantly reworking and re-releasing the exact same lenses, all in a still very new system, only devalue it. If nothing else, it reinforces the impression that their strategic planning wasn’t very well thought out.
The 20mm is kind of slow to focus and NOISEY! (the images are great and it is small, though), The 25mm rocks…but yeah…its big.
…and if Panasonic is “reworking” a lens..it may not be better. Look at the new kit zoom compared to the original. I do not understand why they turned it into such a piece of junk? WhatsUpWithThat?
I wish Olympus would give us:
8 or 9mm 2.8
17mm 1.8
90mm 2.8 macro
I would like those lenses too.
Yes, with the 12 and the 45 already there, that would be all I ever need.
Why would anyone else want to join m4/3? Other manufacturers are better off making their own formats, and controlling the entire chain of development. After all, these companies DO compete with one another.
I know I’ll get flamed for writing this on a dedicated m4/3 site, but other than the fact that many of you have already invested in the small-sensor format, what makes m4/3 so great? That format may have started the trend, but I see Sony and even Fuji running away with better choices in the long run. Forget lens choices. Are you kidding me? If you want a bunch of lenses, then how much further ahead are you than if you just bough a vastly superior DSLR? Give me a nice camera with a big sensor, and one good fast prime. Done.
What makes m4/3rds so great? For me it’s the perfect balance of size and quality. I don’t care for digi compacts and don’t want to lug a DSLR around. And the small, fast primes are awesome! Unlike what some would have you believe, the PanaLeica 25/1.4 is not big, and the other lenses are even smaller. I think Canon makes very nice DSLRs, but I would never use one due to size.
But that’s just me.
Lots of interesting thoughts here. I think, after owning the Oly 25 2.8, 4/3 version, that a M4/3 version would be a nice addition to the line up. Sure a 2.0 aperture would be better, but I’m afraid it would be too large. I have the M4/3 25 1.4 and although it is a great lens, it seems rather large for the small bodies. I think a 10 mm prime, would be a good seller as well and fill in a hole that some people don’t want to fill with a slow zoom.
As far as new bodies go, it seems as though the only thing really missing – and something that a great many people wish for, is a rangefinder type body. Another GH type is just doing the “me too” and not really adding anything new to the pot, which I think is more of the typical Olympus spinning their wheels syndrome.
The other thing is sensors. I think that Ricoh really has something with the interchangeable sensor idea, though not very well implemented as yet. If Oly or Pany would make some really good bodies that could change sensors, as they develop new ones, then they could all save considerable amounts of resources, that are wasted, coming out with new throw away bodies, every six months. That would free up time and money for better lenses and sensor design. Just my opinion.
> Another GH type is just doing the “me too”
It’s gripless squarish brick which is me too camera now!
You really seem determined to make sure that m4/3 can’t be recommended to people as that only system with room to expand and challenge APS-C DSLRs by limiting body choises to unergonomically small bodies with lacking direct controls.
And digital sensor isn’t some film roll which can be changed just like that without any different requirement for body.
First of all there’s problem of mechanical tolerance. Sensor replacement would propably require camera visiting service center with approriate price tag attached.
And then there’s possible differences in sensor’s electrical requirements so power regulation circuitry would have to be included making sensor module more expensive.
Along with data bus with enough headroom for future/flexible enough to allow future expansion (=more cost) processing capacity itself is another problem, especially improving video like higher frame rate and better compression surely needs more processing horsepower.
And for example that full RGB sensor with different colour light directed to own sub-pixels would surely require entirely new processing. (no demosaicing but lot more data to handle)
So it would probably cause just lot more expenses for very little advantages.
Olympus should just use APS-C sized sensors from Sony and stick to the M43 mount. I use M43 due to size and Olympus image processing. I could care less which sensor they use.