Like every year the Japanese Digital Camera Magazine interviewed all Japanese Photo company managers. After the interview the magazine shares “rumors” about what we could expect in 2014. From the past experience we can say that about 60-80% of what they write becomes true. For 2014 this is their “prediction”:
– Olympus will launch two more PRO zoom cameras (ok, that’s a fact and already mentioned by Olympus itself)
– A High End Stylus camera with FT or ASP-C sensor
– A Silver E-M1 OMD model
– As a note (in blue on the image on top) the magazine writes that Olympus could go for more Megapixels and even larger than FT sensor cameras (don’t know if he refers to the Stylus or also possibly completely new system mount cameras with FF sensor).
Just my two-cent: I think there is much more than this to come from Olympus. We can expect some big things at Photokina in September!
110 Responses
I can’t wait for the “zoo camera.” I hope it will be ideal for shooting marmosets. 😉
I want a meerkat one.
So, the gps unit will disable the camera if it´s being used outside the zoo? Don´t know if that´s a good idea from Oly to come back to black numbers!
Perhaps it will have a ‘Tough’ style casing, pressure tested to 100 metre’s plus, UWA lens making it suitable for Whale photography.
It´s actually Pro zoom LENSES, not Cameras!
This is a recurrent thoiught. Why wouldn’t Oly attempt a Super FT camera? Nowadays you can start a system with a couple of good lenses, and see how the market takes it, a’ la Sony?
In one go you can break the 24/36 Mpx barrier, without having to wait 2-3 years for a technology change. Additionally small sensors are probably reaching some limits to growth. Synergies with Sony might make it v. easy now.
Differently from dSLR, where mount, mirror and sensor are more or less tied, with mirrorless the sky is the limit.
No doubt .
Even current latest m4/3 cameras are doing quite well but improvement need to go on such like megapixels & ISO performance . 18 to 22 megapixels would be enough or even think about a bigger FT sensor .
Of course the Organic Sensors & global shutter in m43 are the true breakthrough people want to see .
keep on dreaming about organic sensors Yun lol
“PRO zoo” camera should be outstanging for wildlife shooting 😀
Yessss here we go…… When Oly comes with the same quality camera’s, same price but with a bigger (better) sensor it would be great. M43 has reach its maximum 2 years ago and can not compete with APSC or FF. I think they would get a lot of more customers. Oly nows this to and hopefully the are going to act on it. GO OLY!!!!!
The difference however is in the execution. A camera company cannot ruin its photographic reputation, like an electronics company. So all must go concurrently: the AF, the SNR, the processing speed, the lenses, in order to avoid all the pitfalls Sony fell into.
Fuji is showing restraint too: you can’t use customers like guinea pigs more than once, before they get disgusted.
My feeling is that FF35 and short register mirrorless compound the problems of ‘cropped’ sensors, so that theoretical resolution slip aways very easily, unless you achieve telecentricity in the lenses: and then you have simply shifted the problems, by having to make them much bigger.
Oly is a lensmaker one century old – so if anybody can attack the problem is them and Leica. Smaller format and smart image processing was an elegant way to attack it. Do they see now a way to do it with twice the sensor surface, without making a frankencamera a’ la Sony?
At the moment people are v. happy with m4/3, so a larger format would be more an exercise in future-proofing, than a strict need.
“can not compete with APSC or FF”… hahaha… that’s the whole point, it can!!! Probably you missed the boat….
Really? Which boat? Anything to do with photography?
Well, it can compete easily with APSc… So the real question here is “can APSc compete with FF”?
Maybe it was the Titanic…
Of course it can compete. Thos who dont think a M43rds camera can sit side by side a FF or APSC camera dont really understand equivalence.
EQ means that for the same DoF ie the same picture/results the two cameras collect the same amount of Total light and the FF system has NO meaningful advatnage.
E.G FF ISO 800 F4 at 100mm 1/100 for environmental portraits
m43rds ISO 200 F2 at 50mm 1/100
Same DoF, same perspective, same light and same noise.
Now if you want to shoot the FF at f2 the m43rds had to use a very wide aperture (which now exists) but again a lower ISO until we hit base ISO with m43rds. And while at base ISO on all systems the differences are really marginal.
The MAIN advantage the larger sensors afford is larger physical apertures which result in lower ISOs and Shallow DoF. This is great if you WANT or NEED the shallow DoF but if you dont there is no meaningful advantage.
I honestly think this whole DoF thing has been built by the armies of wedding photographers trawling the net for the Bokeh that their brides so desire. However some of the most stunning imagery I have seen has used controlled DoF not the absolute shallowest.
Abraham
That (well) said, m43 is much smaller and light, if needed…
Sounds like spin to me.
For example, a Canon 6d with a 50mm @f/2, 400iso would beat any M43 camera with the P/L 25mm @f/2, 400iso, would it not?
Why would you make comparisons if they’re not at the same settings? If the settings were the same, the dof of the FI would slaughter a M43 camera.
“If the settings were the same, the dof of the FI would slaughter a M43 camera.”
No, the DOF of the FF would be shallower. That doesn’t make it better or worse.
Personally, I like to have as much DOF as possible so I can shoot wide open in dark locations.
yes! some are having hard time to get that… one can shoot 1.4, even 0.95, and still have something in focus…
As previously pointed out, with the settings the same the FF image would look very different to the m43rds image.
But let me use a case study, I have my son on his great grandmothers lap, we are using a normal window for directional light (on a cloudy day day in London) as opposed to leaving a lamp and having mixed light.
I have my Olympus EP2 plus 45mm f1.8 set to f2.8, My ISO is already at 3200 and my shutterspeeds are at 1/80 and my moving son isn’t quite tack sharp when he moves quickly on her lap.
I have just about enough D0F to have them both in focus… just about… So I could stop down to F4 and bump my ISO to maintain the same shutterspeed, or shoot a wider lens and give a greater perception of sharpness… But I want the long flatter FL.
So to get the same on the FF system I would be shooting F5.6 ISO 12800 and still have the shutterspeed at 1/80. I sure could stop down to F2.8, then I would have a hsarp son and a fuzzy Great Grandmother, or visa versa… The FF system has no advantage for the same picture. But If you like the Shallow DoF, go for it, but dont fool yourself.
Light gathering capability is the only area where sensors have surpassed us humans, so at this point, you are mostly arguing DoF.
I remember full frame lenses – zooms rarely would go lower than 2.8 and were expensive as hell. Now you can buy a sigma for aps-c that has a f1.8….
FURTHERMORE, you can take that same lens and smack it on a m43 camera with a speedbooster, and get it a stop faster further, plus make it wider. (The downsides are manual focus for those that care, and that you probably can’t use it on full wide, but you would get down to about 14mm on GH3, which is a 28mm-50mm F1.2 equivalent)
So, now compare that to a FF good 2.8 zoom, and see how much better full frame really is…
“Light gathering capability is the only area where sensors have surpassed us humans”
Yeh cuz they are shit at washing-up!
“EQ means that for the same DoF ie the same picture/results the two cameras collect the same amount of Total light and the FF system has NO meaningful advatnage.”
Nope. Sounds like marketing pseudoscience.
Take a Nikon FTn and a 50mm lens at 2.8. Then take a Hasselblad 500CM and an 80mm lens at 2.8. They both are running Kodak VPS at 125asa.
Both cameras will “collect the same amount of total light,” and each will have the same exposure setting (say, 1/125 at f/2.8).
The Nikon will definitely show more depth of field.
The Hasselblad will have marked advantage in detail and in tonality.
Optics is optics and apertures are apertures and medium sensitivity is medium sensitivity and focal length is focal length. These things do not magically change just because we for whatever reason try to convince the world that a small format is exactly as good as a larger format.
And I should add… the images from both will display the exact same field of view.
You are right, the image brightness will be the same between the two images, but there will be a DoF difference. So these are not the same image… They are different. If I am shooting F2.8 on m43rds for the DoF I need (say a group of people) I would need to shoot f5.6 on FF or less of my group would be acceptably sharp.
If I am doing this I must either use a Higher ISO and eliminate any noise advantage of the larger sensor or I NEED more light or I will have an image which is underexposed.
This is no Pseudo science this is fact. Now if yo ucan get away with images that have very shallow DoF more power to you, a M43rds users can use onw of the growing number of VL lenses to achieve a similar look… But this is not always an option, often we need to show MORE of what is in the frame, more less.
Abraham
“Both cameras will “collect the same amount of total light,” and each will have the same exposure setting (say, 1/125 at f/2.8).”
Same exposure indeed, same sensitivity (film), shutter speed and aperture, hence the same brightness
Only small issue with your argument is that the larger format has more area, and the total amount of light used for a picture is brightness times area of the medium, and hence the larger format will in that case collect more light. It needs to in order to fill the extra area it has with that same brightness.
Equivalence however is about taking the same picture, not about using the same settings. It is a helpful thing to keep in mind, but flawed when used without consideration, because you generally do not use 2 different cameras in the same way to begin with.
Just briefly, there are plenty of examples of when systems may be used within the similar envelope of capability. The handheld portrait example in available light is a perfect one.
Generally speaking, the majority of imagery is within this envelope, it is the extremes that people seem to want to use to make the case that FF is “better”… So they use a fringe example to make a general argument.
Similar envelope of capability, absolutely, but even then, different cameras with different sizes and different handling, different lenses, different standard aspect ratio etc, still tend to favor slightly different usage, and hence slightly different pictures, even in the same circumstances.
Absolutely true, and “slightly” is the appropriate word. There are many cameras that are better than many others for a multitude of reasons.
Yaa.
What is ‘brightness’?
How are you defining it?
How are you measuring it at the point of actual delivery?
What allowance are you making for the fact the hassy is letting in more light but it is also covering a bigger area? In other words the relativity?
JimD, brightness is light/area (or photons/area if you prefer).
And before you come with the silly ‘so I just put a led behind the lens and have more light’, no, it is about light reflected by the subject that makes it through the lens to the sensor.
And how that works out with regards to larger area also needing more light to get the same brightness is something I already pointed out, please read better.
Yaa, your one of the few so far that has used an approprial definition. You have equated it to an area, a portion of the whole. As such the concept of total light is a misnomer. The reading of the light is not done by the whole but by a part, the parts then being assembled into a ‘Whole’ the image. The light per pixel and the per pixel management is what counts. The lens being designed to give light over the usable area irrespective of the areas size, small area small diameter lens, large area large diameter lens. Hence my comments about a led to make the sensor brighter when I hear about total light, as it is never related to anything. As a concept it is flawed as a stand alone statement.
Well yes but – not quite the same noise – Take ANY FF camera on DPR goto RAW and put it up against the EM5… if you give the FF camera 2 stops more ISO the image quality is not quite as good as the EM5!
Ok its not a lot in it but it suggests the EM5 is punching above its weight even with the latest round of FF sensors comming in!
I would like to see the em1 (next version) in 2 forms. One with a very high density sensor tuned for flat out resolution. With a second version tuned for for high iso.
I would also like to see, but its unlikely, an oversize sensor that can be used as a normal m43 but also switched to a “big” mode giving APSC or there abouts size. Some M43 lenses will cover an APSC circle already and many many third part lenses will also work in this mode. This would also work well with speed boosters and lens turbos. It could be aimed at the enthusiast market quite easily. I have an em5 and the em1 but would love an oversize sensor and speed booster for my old manual glass.
To be fair – you might as well be asking for a NEX5 or somthing… if you want more APSC lens usage then NEX5/7 would be ideal… also bigger sensor, more heat, more mass, poorer IS! Ooochh…
That’s not what I said or what I would like.
A system has, or should have, options. Change to another brand should never be one of them.
An oversize sensor is merely an option. It would give the opportunity of 2 worlds in one system.
Agree, but when your talking about using lenses from another system… and buying a new larger sensor camera… well then why not just get a NEX? – what your talking about is making the system better at being another system? Ok granted menu setups will be diffrent and abilties but so are panasonic to olympus..
Ultimate conclusion is a FF mirroless with ~48Mpix that can mount and AF m43, APSC and FF lenses… yes would be nice… very nice… well actualy go one further and have a centre area of sensor at m43 pix density, the area from m43 to APSC at 7D resolution and the remaining pixels at the D800 resolution!
If only patent and copyright did not exist… waiting for china to hack the hell out of the world 🙂 can’t wait!
I hope you become the victim of that what you desire.
I already have some nice m42 glass and some om and md glass. All can and are currently used on M43. I have an EM5 and an EM1 with a small range of lenses. I like the cameras.
Please do not keep trying to sell me NEX. I made the decision to go with Oly a long time ago. Nex is fine, yes, but I just don’t like the looks as well as the very limited offerings and adjustments. Simple.
I do like using my manual lenses as well as my m43 glass.
I will be getting a speed booster/ turbo for FD as soon as one appears on the market. That with an oversize M43 sensor would do me nicely. AF with m34 lenses and MF with speedbooster. What else does one want….
Sorry, Gin and Tonic twisted lemon peel and 3 large lumps of ice. Pour in gin till ice floats clear of bottom, fill up with tonic. Yes, very large glass.
but isn’t this “bigger sensor compact” just something that people has been hoping since last year? Everybody thought that after Sony others would follow but well, that was it.
– Two new PRO zoom lenses (not PRO zoo cameras) are a given. They’ve been announced.
– A large sensor compact could be very cool and would make sense (like an RX100 with an EVF).
– A silver E-M1? The E-M5 looks great in silver, but I don’t think the E-M1 would.
– Anything larger than 4/3 would have to be a fixed lens camera like the Fuji X100 or Sony RX1.
I’d like to see an Olympus version of RX1, with a 50mm f1.8 Zuiko lens on it, and perhaps an integrated EVF.
More easily I expect to see a compact camera with a m43 size sensor (not interested in it).
It would be interesting to see a fixed lens Olympus.
It could be the new ‘Olympus trip’…?
mmm maybe they mean chrome 🙂
Do you think we can use m43 lenses on a bigger sensor?
I’m afraid not.
Some oly m43 lenses cover an APSC sensor right now. The third party m43 lenses (sigma, etc) are made for APSC image circle anyway so there are lenses available.
If Olympus/Sony would just put all of their efforts into improving everything about the current size sensor we will not need to go bigger with the sensor. The camera and lenses will stay small…which is why we are all here. Yes..so the larger sensors (APS-C and FF) will get better, too…but who cares..we are already on a level where currently the capture is good enough for most needs. Eventually the other formats will be overkill (which they already are for many needs other than large prints) with huge files and MFT will offer much more than it does even now. I for one do not want to buy another FF camera from Olympus or anyone else.
Let’s just make THIS system better!
I hope they will indeed concentrate on the 43 format. For a very long time.
I totally agree. FF is up there with MF film IQ. MFT is aproaching 35mm film IQ. There is a limit to where good enough will be good enough. In a year or two there will be a jump in sensor technology to where MFT will be equal or better than current FF. Still MFT will have the advantage of smaller size and smaller lenses. FF will have the advantage of shallowe DOF and higher f-stop before difraction becomes a problem. This is just physics. I see MFT being at a very nice spot for future growth. Still I see the need for FF.
yes…I agree, then we will have to get a whole set of primes at the quality level of the Olympus 75mm f/1.8, which at this point most of the lenses are NOT (some of the Panny/Leica lenses are), to handle the improved resolution. That is what I see happening….. I see no need for Olympus to try and take on FF. Also…I agree with you…FF systems are here to stay for the immediate future…The resolution and all of the lenses, flashes, etc….etc…are necessary for professional work..MFT comes ho where near that at the present time….
I am presently in the midst of working with an interior designer installing a large print of one of my images (46″ wide)…I could NEVER have produced a quality print at that size from a MFT capture. No way. …..but with improvement with the sensors AND the printing technology..I can definitely see that being a reality soon!!!!
That is simply a result of m43 camera makers being conservative with resolution to keep noise down. As you say, things are improving, so it won’t be long until resolution starts going up, at which point, as long as you have enough light, the project you mention would be fully feasible.
Olympus should just put in a larger sensor to cover the current 43/m43 image circle. The 16:9 and 2:3 formats could then be wider (a la GH2), pros can shoot portrait orientation on the tripod without moving the camera and 1:1 images would be larger than APSC can achieve.
Just make sure that Adobe are awake and will allow images to be recovered from a full RAW image after images are shot in specific formats. What they are doing at the moment with Lightroom by restricting to only the original format is a joke.
A square sensor would be very welcomed by me. I love my 6×6 shots recently done in Jakarta.
Yess !
I’ve just made some rough calculations which suggest a square format sensor to suit the image circle of a native u43 lens would be 15 x 15mm, which I calculate as approximately 1.15% larger than the existing 1×1 cropped square, anyone who can correct me please do, my maths are not degree level.
The image circle of the m43 sensor is 21.6mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format) so it would require a 21.6mmx21.6mm sensor to fully cover the image circle. While this would be awesome, especially for use with old 35mm lenses to get a full 1:1 image from the sensor, it is unlikely that Olympus would consider such a large sensor.
More likely would be a sensor that simply covers all the common aspect ratios within the circle. If 3:2 was the highest supported ratio in both landscape and portrait, then the sensor would only need to be 19.32mmx19.32mm.
With this slightly smaller square sensor and using regular 43 or m43 lenses, a 3:2 format crop of the sensor would be 17.97×11.98 compared with Canon APSC at 22.20×14.80mm and 23.50×15.60mm for the Nikon DX. The 1:1 format would be 15.27×15.27mm compared to 14.80×14.80mm for Canon APSC and 15.90×15.90mm for Nikon DX.
When using a larger lens (designed for a larger image circle) then 19.32×12.88mm could be used for 3:2 and 19.32×19.32mm for 1:1. And even 4:3 ratio would benefit going from the original Four Thirds size of 17.3x13mm to 19.32×14.49mm, and go to a resolution of 20mp.
It would be interesting to see how well the Sigma, SLR Magic, Voigtlander and other third party lenses would perform on this oversized sensor. Many are made for the APSC image circle but fitted with the m43 mount, so you might get the larger, wider images complete with AF and aperture control where provided in the lens.
I think it would be an exciting addition to m43 as long as they can cram that big sensor into tiny camera bodies like the Pens and OMDs and retain the 5 axis stabilisation.
Hi Mal,
Interesting comment but you are so wrong in your interpretation, the existing sensor size is 17.5mm x 13mm (Diagonal of 22.5mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system)), considerably smaller than your 21.6mm x 21.6mm. It was from the 22.5mm dimension I calculated 15mm x 15mm as the largest square that would fit withing the image circle projected by a u43 lens.
Hi Omega,
There is some debate about the actual image circle size. I don’t know which is correct but if you follow my link on Wikipedia you will see the image circle is quoted as 21.6.
From that, if it were correct, we get the following. With X being the length of a side of a square that fits within the image circle and using Pythagoras theorem:
X^2 + X^2 = (21.6)^2
2X^2 = (21.6)^2
X^2 = (21.6)^2 / 2
X = 21.6 / root(2) = 15.27351mm
Regardless of the actual image circle size, all my comments stand correct in terms of benefit. By increasing the sensor to a square that covers either the entire image circle, or even just the major aspect ratios, we could get many benefits using existing 43 and m43 lenses.
Its possible that 21.64mm is the specification sensor diagonal but 22.5mm is the lens projected image circle to take into account image stabilisation and other manufacturing factors that require some tolerance.
I would also go with the idea of a square sensor which covers the image circle of a u43 lens, assuming it does not mean it being narrower, which I’ve no doubt it will be, even if only marginally but will still be larger than the present cropped 1×1 available in camera, the advantage of shooting one to one format (with the slightly larger sensor coverage) would be immense. I have tried to find the Image Circle of a u43 lens, so as to calculate the size such a sensor would be, though to no avail, anyone who can state that dimension please do.
Why not put the same pixel density of today’s m4/3 sensor into a full frame and allow m4/3 lenses in cropped mode? This would give 16mp in cropped and whatever the new value for full frame.
I currently use the A7 with E 35mm f1.8 in cropped mode and it yields a >10mp image and guess what? It’s more than acceptable!
In my opinion, Olympus must produce a full-frame compatible with their existing m4/3.
I see your point, but where would the advantage be? A lens system doesn’t fall from trees.
And one small detail…Could that be made without changing the register distance?
Let them use the same mount. A7 does that.
Advantage for oly is less pressure to come out with new FF lenses.
Advantage to us is existing lenses while we wait, plus the ability to use FF old glass to their fullest.
Difficulty is sourcing a sensor supplier.
The m43 mount is very narrow for a 35mm sensor, it was designed for a small sensor in a 43 format. To make the mount work with a number of larger fast lenses it would need to be a lot wider. Make m43 to 35mm and it would be quite limited and not cater to any market very well.
The A7 for example, has a wider mount and can be utilised for a bigger sensor without restricting lens construction (when they make some). Though the short flange distance is a big big problem and will limit the potential of the camera, as lenses to avoid the problem will cost. did I say cost?
Putting an APSc sensor in the m43 camera would work. Several lenses would work from the current offerings. And the sensor size difference, which is in reality is minimal, would not leave one with a perceived gelded apsc system.
The APS-C offering could no doubt be a byproduct of their new cooperation with Sony. Possibly a high-end fixed-lens camera with NEX sensor and 5-axis IBIS…?
So since Olympus is already unprofitable with micro 4/3, it should launch a new format so it can also be unprofitable in NEX format… where Sony, too, is already unprofitable?
I really don’t get why Olympus would want to have a go at full frame, let alone aps-c which makes no sense whatsoever. They’ve picked their system, they’re finally starting to carve out a niche where they are unique from the competition, and now that they’re making headway people want them to switch? Panasonic probably has some spare money to blow and it would be a dumb decision for them- for Oly, it could be fatal.
If you want a bigger sensor, get one. You have plenty of choices. If you want a smaller sensor, same. M4/3 hits the perfect sweet spot for me for a single camera. Compacts aren’t up to snuff, and 1″ is close but not quite quite there, m4/3 gives me good enough IQ and DOF control. I don’t want the bulk of a bigger system, and I don’t need the benefits.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this comment. I switched from Sony/Minolta to m43 lenses. At the time I could only afford a aps-c camera, but bought FF lenses in anticipation of buying a full frame dslr. Fast forward a few years, I realize how bulky the lenses are, and that sensor technology has evolved so fast that m43 can compete with FF from back then, if not beating them, not only in quality, but in light sensitivity. Sure, if you need an absolute lightcannon (and Speedbooster doesn’t do it for you), the FF cameras are of course even better, but really, at this point, what level of versatility and quality do most of us need? For us on this forum, we are to a large degree enthusiasts (I don’t think there are many internationally claimed photographers here). Do we need to make billboard size prints? Are we planning on documenting deep sea caves?
A sane comment at last.
Quite simply we DON’T need a larger sensor.
m43 is good enough for what most people do other than a few specialised photographers who have other options like FF.
It would be suicide to launch a FF system for the few people that need or want it when the opposition has already captured nearly all of the small market.
If I was a Nikon or Canon FF user why would I suddenly change to Olympus for a marginal difference in SYSTEM size in order to use all my lenses with an adapter and have to learn a new set of ergonomics, for a company that may exit the imaging business in a few years and I have no brand loyalty with????
It just wouldn’t make sense as Sony will find out shortly.
It’s only a few internet nerds who like to have bragging rights about specifications that currently are screaming for a larger sensor.
Most of us are delighted that we can get better quality than we ever dreamed of a few years ago with a ‘tiny’ sensor.
When the E_M1 was annouced OLympus claimed that there will be a 12-40 f2.8 then the 40-150 f2.8 and then two more pro lenses. My OLympus rep. told me that he expected the 40-150/2.8 to be out sometime during 2014 2Q. If rumors are crrent this date has slipped to the 3Q of 2014.
The question is what the other two Pro lenses will be. One of them will be announced for Photokina. My quess is that it will be the wide angle zoom. Something like a 8-16 f4.0. Then again it could the the telphone lens and if this rumor is current it will be a zoom and not a prime.
A camera like the Sony RX100 would be nice.
Why not a silver E-M1 OMD model.
With Olympus being partially owned by Sony I could see Olympus developing a FF camera with a Nex mount. This will give strength the Sony FF Nex mount with an other company developing and producing cameras and lenses for the mount.
They are likely wrong about the 2 pro lenses in 2014. Previous rumor already suggested that the wide zoom was delayed to 2015.
http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-pro-zoom-info-40-150mm-coming-second-half-of-2014-ultra-wide-zoom-on-market-early-2015/
I would like to see something like x100s or even rx1 camera from Oly… Apsc or FF. That way they would show as that they can do it good, nobody would worry about lens roadmap and it wouldn’t decrease m43 sale. After that maybe system camera with larger sensor. Maybe.
Everybody would buy it… Fuji, Alfa, Canon, Nikon guys…
It should be superior camera! EVF, great sensor, 35 to 50mm fixed lens with at least f1.8. Pen style. Superb materials.
Just my thoughts 🙂
My thoughts:
Olympus to launch a more video centric camera at Photokina, O-M5 replacement to be available also in white possibly other colours (will also have screen display that rotates info with camera, built in panorama function), MFT tugh camera and 2 tough lenses in 2014, new 7-14mm and 8m from Olympus,E-M1 in silver and also white, some longer Olympus primes announced for 2015, and maybe a Olympus mft camera that has apps???
If ever there is to be an app I’d want, it would need to be a scripting app that lets me read/write values and shoot for camera functions.
mmmm, python on a camera with a library to access camera functions…
One can dream right?…
I don’t know you, I am not a marriage hack so the main advantage I see in 35mm, is not shallow DOF but potential for cropping, and that Sony understands v. well in the RX1.
You can do digital cropping even in camera, it is multiformat, it is really like having a digital back – you can cut up a 16:9 and have an instant panorama, without need of stitching.
I don’t see it at all as replacing m4/3, but something you use: in Landscape, like van Wolferen showed v. well. That is why he and other photogs. use Sigma’s Foveon, except that Sony’s sensor is more manageable.
A one, fixed format, fixed mount and distance to flange is a legacy of the mirror box which is on the wane with the dSLR/mirror box paradigm.
m4/3 for now sits v. well at the center of the digital web, so I don’t see a real competition. It has all the reactiveness, the ‘decisive moment’ requirements so It’s not either/or. A larger sensor will simply offer more flexibility in the choice of format by simple cropping.
Most people doing weddings don’t want ultra-shallow DOF either anyway.. You know, you generally do want both bride and groom in-focus and so on..
Not to mention, much of this simply comes from people not understanding the difference between DOF and bokeh, and aren’t that good at using a situation to their advantage, rather, they want to force every situation into one that is described by a simple rule.
You are right, shallow depth of field is not an advantage, it is a disadvantage. Going back and forth between medium format and 35mm allowed you to escape the tyranny of shallow medium format, not to mention large format, depth of field.
I often don’t understand what people here are thinking…
The Sony A7 is the full frame OM-D. It is only a matter of time until we see Olympus-branded bodies and lenses for this system.
I don’t understand what you are thinking. For years now, we have been running into the law of diminishing returns for media size increases, so where 5 years ago it might have made a lot of sense technically to go ‘full frame’, that isn’t as much the case now, and will be even less the case in a few years from now.
Is it this need to somehow have something that is ‘full’? Thats totally between your ears.
Indeed, there is nothing magical about so called ‘Full Frame’.
It’s just a traditional size, that’s all.
Yes, that’s true. Because micro 4/3 is so much better than 1″, it’s not funny, and they will never get better.
And micro 4/3 sensors will just get better and better, and APS and 135 formats will just still still and never ever get better.
Uhm ronin, where exactly did I say that?
Actually, I said the opposite of what you suggest, you just decided to misrepresent that so you could make a silly argument against it, properly called a strawman argument.
I think it is compensating for something, unless you have extremely demanding environments to shoot in, or need poster sized boards. The people talking down anything but FF on this board are more than likely not successful enough to qualify for either of these scenarios (and neither am I for that matter).
Ultimate in light gathering capability and resolution = FF
Portable and more than sufficient quality for 99% of people = m43
In that event, I’d really like to hear Olympus’s marketing message:
“Remember when we told you micro 4/3 quality was just as good- nay, better- than larger formats? Well, we lied, larger formats are better and we have just the solution for you.”
“Remember when we told you micro 4/3 was lighter and smaller and therefore better than larger formats, and hence you didn’t need to lug your heavy gear around? Well, we lied, larger formats are actually pretty cool.”
My wish would be a fast 150mm or 200mm prime. If 150mm, f2 or faster. If 200mm, at least 2.8.
+1
Actually ‘large formats’ are NOT pretty cool, for the simple reason that they are more difficult to keep in focus, and even more even across the frame. This is more apparent in mirrorless Sony because of short distance to flange, wells being geometrically askew in relation to rays, especially in WA.
That is why resolution is wasted: you have users complaining of loss of pixel sharpness at the edges and no improvement in sensitivity. Others report they have to stop down most of the time.
Additionally large megapixel count make the camera v. sensitive to handshake, so that tripod is needed.
So it seems that Sony FE is both tricky and expensive to use. In fact when I mentioned Super Four Thirds, I was not thinking of FF35, but a sensor in a bigger format optimised for resolution, without losing too many of the m4/3 advantages.
That one format has all the advantages is just the illusion of childish, bloodthirsty mentality that wants to have everybody else at the point of a gun.
Welcome to E-mount, fellow mirrorless users. While you wait for the new Olympus FE camera, you can start accumulating FE lenses and adapters right now. You can also pick up a NEX to try them out before Olympus delivers their rebadged cameras.
Well, I’m using M mount lenses on my Em1. And they work really nice.
Say that at Photokina Oly introduced a rebranded A7 with one native Zuiko lens, one of those 3 zooms. Would you object?
Would you think that the m4/3 environment had been damaged? It is within the realm of possibilities, and I don’t think it a great drama.
Users would simply check the way the Sony sensor had been fixed by Oly firmware, the way they did with Panny sensors.
OTH the rebranding might take very little the A7 being already v. similar to the M1. Probably most of the excitement would come from the lens, which would be sold as a resurgent OM…
I completely agree. A rebranded a7 would appeal only to hardcore fans, and I don’t think Olympus would take this new route just to please them.
As you say, the most interesting thing would be a reborn OM lenses brand, filled with Zuiko mojo.
An even more appealing feature would be Oly impressive new IBIS (once you tried, you can’t say no to it), but bigger sensors are heavier and I think it’s quite difficult to add it to a 35mm sensor, but that would be awesome.
So my thought is that Oly could go for a m43 fixed lens camera, but I’d like to see a new Olympus Trip: that would be an interesting option to x100s, X2, RX1 and Ricoh GR. With a touch of retro style that’s already in its line up.
When I first saw the A7 I thought it was an Oly product. Then finding out more about it I thought it may have been at one stage, but it is not now. Why. The e mount and the flange distance.
If Oly had originally designed it, it would have had a slightly longer flange distance and it would have had a new mount. A longer flange distance to make lens construction easier and image quality better particularly at wide angle. A new mount, because the m43 mount is not suitable for 35mm sensor size, particularly when using 3.2 or 16.9 format. It is to narrow and would not support fast lenses very well. A super 4/3 mount might suffice, being short enough to allow a small camera size and the use of many legassy lenses. But it would need to be wider to enable the use of fast wide angles. Also would the additional weight of the sensor allow the Oly stabiliser system to be used. If oly fronted with a rebadged version of the current a7 I would not buy it.
What the hell is all the Bl00dy moderation? It takes about 8 hours to be moderated. That’s just not good enough, when being part of a conversation.
Maybe you should start a crowdfunding effort so admin can hire a few dedicated moderators?
I folded up a $100 note and poked it in the back of the computer. Hope he got it.
🙂
Hi Jim,
You have an interesting response to Amalrics comment, I guess it is all what the individual sees, in the A7 I tend to see an NEX with a penta-prism on top, no way can I see any form of Olympus input here, it is far too angular for Oly’ styling, in fact I would go as far as to say, one of the ugliest of designs about.
Only my opinion.
My initial thoughts were that it was an Oly 35mm design. One that had taken the e-m5 a step further back to film era. That was just based on looks and some initial functionality reports. But as I noted above when I looked at the specs and what it actually was I changed my opinion. Oly could well have made the rough drawings as a design idea, one that Sony took up and built round the E mount.
I looked at A7/r initially against the e-m1 and as I found out more it faded from view. My e-m1 is quite at home with me, alongside the e-m5.
oly would never go APSC …thats nonsense
There is little or no point in Olympus going APSc the difference is so little now you would never reap the rewards.
But having an over size sensor on a m43 mount is not going APSC. It just enables more options in formatting.
Again a negligable difference, from my experience if I have needed to go wider than what I am able with the 12mm, I prefer to use a 21 or 24mm Zuiko with a cheap shift adapter, by using the adapter images marry next to perfectly in PS, Pre focus set aperture and over lay layers and just erase with a soft eraser brush. Wider than Pannas over sized sensor.
Sometimes a different format, one that does not require a crop of the standard image is nice. Also as I mentioned earlier a speed booster and my Flektogon 35mm or Elmarit 28mm on an over size sensor would be nice, rather than using them at 70 and 56mm. Get three options out of one lens instead of 2. That’s easy to take.
In a rational world, we’d get the already announced 40-150/4, plus an ultrawide f/2.8 zoom for the landscapers and a 300/4 for the wildlifers. Well OK maybe the pany UW is already great and f/2.8 is not needed. But still my guess is “two new pro zooms” means 40-150 and UW. The long telephoto may never happen.
Olympus have been working on the so called “Super Four Thirds” concept for some years;
interesting times coming at Photokina.