The administrator of the Nwpphotoforum (Click here) posted an interview made with Sally Smith Clemens (Product Manager at Olympus USA). Sally talks about the future of the two systems, Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds. Those are the “highlights”:
1) “I want to make sure that we convey the strong sense of responsibility that we feel towards people who’ve adopted our Four Thirds system. We believe in the Four Thirds system – not just as a precursor to Micro Four Thirds, but in the Four Thirds System itself.”
My opinion on that: Interesting that they used the word “responsibility”. It has some negative meaning here because it suggests that they keep the FOur Thirds system alive not becuase of technology reasons but because otherwise current 43 owners would get very angry.
2) “We now have a large array of optics from 16mm to 600mm (thinking in 35mm format). We feel that it is fully matured in that aspect – which is why product releases for Four Thirds have been slower than Micro Four Thirds. There is still quite a lot of room to grow Micro Four Thirds in order to catch up with the Four Thirds System in terms of both product capability and breadth.”
My opinion on that: Compared to Nikon and Canon the Four Thirds lens range is far from being “mature”. Anyway, does it mean there will be no more Four Thirds lenses?
3) “we believe that the market for most of the compact dDSLRs, such as the 420 and 620, is best met by the Micro Four Thirds System. The area which remains in question for some people is the mid range category, such as the E-30. We believe that if they were given a choice, these people would really prefer an E-5.”
My opinion on that: So people looking for the E-30 successor should buy the E-5?
4) “The first thing is that it is important to get beyond the idea of ‘which system will Olympus support and develop.’ Ultimately there is only one system – Four Thirds. While Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds differ in some aspects, they are ultimately the same thing in terms of image quality and sensor format. Four Thirds is Four Thirds, whether or not it is a dSLR or Mirrorless camera body.”
My opinion on that: Sounds a bit confusing or not?
Like it or not, when I talk with dealers they all say that for them Four Thirds is dead. They do sell Micro Four Thirds only.
95 Responses
Clear as mud. Let the speculation commence.
this is a crazy statement … go get a life olympus… you guys destroyed 4/3 system
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&thread=39075157&page=1
hmmmmm…..they sound like American politicians. Can you say “double-speak”?
That’s probably because it’s coming from an American. Say no more.
That’s funny! Have you ever listened to the UN or, better yet, EU proceedings???
4/3 is history MFT is here to stay – why they can’t just say it and move on. Acceptance for some can be so difficult :/
yes the history of m4/3 was 4/3 but the point is simple e5 maybe something but compared to EP3… i guess ep3 is way better lol… i hope you get the point
they should still develop the 4/3 system because a lot of 4/3 user believe in the system… we accept the fact the m4/3 is the future of mirrorless camera… there should be a refreshing development with 4/3
clearer than mud to me…….The policy would appear to be……Lets freeze all Olympus formats at 12 mpg…. thereby insureing no difference can be seen between top end product and point and shoot upgrade. Why ask for a better 4/3 camera that only matches…. or isn’t as good as micro 4/3. And indeed is bigger.
Panasonic didn’t withhold their best sensors. Olympus doesn’t want them. Olympus wants regular 4/3 to go away. The sooner the better it would seem.
Sounds to me like they want to sell as much FT stuff as possible – without investing in it. So there will be a E-7 or E-50 with the same housing & the same sensor but faster CD-AF, new ArtFilters and a touchscreen. Or maybe WiFi or bluetooth or GPS or some other gadget.
I have to commit I’m looking at sonyalpharumors more often now – and I like what I’m reading there…
A77!
How did you know? 😉
+1…and i come from canon camp…go figure…looks like a77 + 16-50 2.8 is exactly what i need for a dslr:
good handling – check (for what i could see at least)
weather sealed body – check
24-70 2.8 equivalent weather sealed lens – check
fast ACCURATE AF – check (we’ll need to confirm this though)
excellent low light performance – check (based on previous sony sensors performance)
fast fps – check
gps – check
bang for buck – check
+2 for looking at sony – but looking at NEX7. I want to like Olympus, I really do, but they are making it hard for me!
I don’t know if she is echoing the opinion of Olympus Japan in this (though it would be logical if she did), but lets not forget one thing, Olympus did drop their OM system in the past and it would be bad if they did the same with FT (i am aware that quite some people state the FT system as already dead), which is still a very young system with nevertheless a great selection of ZD lenses covering most of the range we need. There should be transition moment where the regular mirror bodies will be officially ended as part of FT, leaving their lenses to be adopted by the MFT group officialy by way of new product.
Its this vision i have 😉
No new information there. The interview is intended to the ears of 4/3 users who feel “stuck” with their old cameras but are unwilling to give up on their nice lenses. The option to upgrade to an E-5 is there. However, the gap in price and size is tremendous. Currently m4/3 bodies are not optimized for use with 4/3 lenses so the choice for those customers is between adopting m4/3, keeping their lenses and hoping for the best, and migrating to another SLR system. Lens compatibility must cause Olympus a massive headache. They know their time is running out. They MUST develop a solution to that issue by early 2012 (the E-620 third birthday), even if it’s not very elegant (a mirrored adapter?).
Mrs. Smith Clemens’s answers sound as if she was reading them out of an official response sheet. They are vague and diplomatic, but not very informative. The “one system” idea is important, though, because it reinforces what we already knew about Oly’s future plans.
+1 but I would like mirror adapter with build in O.I.S from Panasonic instead 🙂 -> stabilized 50-200mm on GH2
If admin is right that the retailers think that 4/3 is dead then it’s a fait accompli no matter what Sally says.
“We now have a large array of optics from 16mm to 600mm (thinking in 35mm format).”
Did she forget the 7-14mm???
plus 1 AGREED hahaha is she really a product manager lol..
Fast, wide primes are missing (or ridiculously overpriced) from 4/3. The only reason I switched to m4/3 was for the 20mm 1.7. I would MUCH rather have stuck with 4/3, perhaps upgrading to to the E-5 in the next year.
PS- f2.8 isn’t that fast.
in my idea olympus should develop a Mirrorless system that can used all our 4/3 regular lens… like my 14-35, 35-100, 12-60, and 50-200, 25mm, and 2 kit lens.. i’m sure all 4/3 user will agree with me..
in my idea olympus should develop a Mirrorless system that can used all our 4/3 regular lens… like my 14-35, 35-100, 12-60, and 50-200, 25mm, and 2 kit lens.. i’m sure all 4/3 user will agree with me.. NOTE without using a adaptor
Quote from an interview with Watanabe, published here a short while ago:
“We tried to adapt “big” optics to micro system but there are fundamental troubles: phase detection system is made to calculate needed focusing shift and to shift lenses to proper place at once but contrast detection system uses iteration fidgets by its nature. We cannot to join them right, so in fact we have capitulated. Approximately in this way. ”
The interview was originally published in a russian online website so Watanabe’s words habe been translated from English to Russian and then back to English. Still, he is clearly saying Olympus is currently unable of integrating the two systems.
Bearing that interview in mind, Mrs. Smith Clemens’ statement about 4/3 being in essence one system – regardless of the use of mirrors – seems inaccurate at best.
Particularly aggravating is her next statement: “People who purchased Four Thirds cameras can now purchase the professional E-5 dSLR or a Micro Four Thirds body – and still use all of their former Four Thirds lenses without any loss of ability as long as they have an adapter.”
Would you be able to confirm that, as the owner of SHG lenses?
Re #1. I’m OK with it. Yes, they have to support 43 mostly because vocal (and often influential) users would create (even more) negative publicity for Olympus.
Re #2. There is some unique glass in Canon/Nikon catalog. But unless company sticks to the camera system like Canon or Nikon do, the it is no use. Olympus simply wants to remain flexible, but covering only about 95% of photo needs. A niche lens like 24mm TS? Not Olympus type of thing. All in all, it just tells indirectly that Olympus doesn’t have any plans to become a #1 in photo market. (What is a well known fact.)
Re #3. I guess that downgrades all E-50 related rumors by a couple of notches.
Re #4. It’s not confusing. Or wait – it is. Unless you look at things from Olympus POV. What they essentially are saying that we, 43 users, should see the m43 as an extension of 43 system. So that we do not think that Olympus has abandoned us. Rephrasing, they want to kill 43 (and probably drop the ‘m’ from m43) but due to point #1 they still can’t. So their best strategy is to make us think that 43 and m43 are the same thing, so dropping 43 completely wouldn’t count as an EOL.
All in all, I’m pretty sure that my next camera will not be Olympus. I’m glad that I have started with 43 – because thanks to the cheap but good optics it allowed me to experiment a lot and find what interests me. But sticking with the brand like Olympus to me doesn’t make sense: they are too unpredictable, they do not have any long term strategy, they do not want to be bigger in the market. As an amateur, I would be much better served by a more mainstream brand. At least now, I’m able to sieve through the see of shit of Canikon lenses and pick the ones I want.
P.S. Of course I can be more technical, rather than rhetorical, why I’m not planing to buy the Oly (m)43:
– E-5 is too large and too heavy. I prefer ergonomics of E-520 (and flip-LCD of E-620).
– PENs are too small. No compact/foldable/etc grip for the cameras yet materialized. Not sure how the thingy on the E-P3 would work in real life for me.
– PENs do not have bright fast standard zoom. 12-60 ftw.
– PENs do not have flip-LCD, which I like very much, especially for candid photography. (Tilt is only half of swivel.)
– PENs do not have built-in OVF/EVF, which I strongly prefer to LCD. My hands are not very steady.
– Nikon/Sony had good/decent ISO 3200 for at least 2 years now. Me want that now too. Honestly, I do not need lots of ISOs, but I want to have proper ISO 100 (or ISO 50; for long exposure photography) and ISO 1600/3200 for available light photography. ISOs which loose too much detail do not interest me at all. (Always wondered why camera manufs bother to include them?)
All your needs can be met with the Panny GH2 and the 4/3 to m4/3 adaptor. I use an oly 14-54 mk 2 and it works very well. I get the bright zoom, flip LCD, EVF, decent ISO 3200, ergonomics close to the E-620..
Too bad it has no IBIS – but should work with Leica 14-50/2,8-3,5. Also not a bad lens
This was post targeted at Olympus and their current offering.
I handled GH2: too small, controls are too crammed. I didn’t like it.
But yes, I obviously keep an eye on Pannay lineup. (G3 is mighty sweet – but I had no chance to hold it in my hands and given Pannay’s ergonomics record I do not expect miracles.)
I hear you Dummy00001. I keep checking 43 rumors in hopes that Oly will one day reverse direction and create something amazing. That said, I switched to Nikon when the E5 released and it became clear that Oly was done with 43. I almost went Pentax for IBIS, but I didn’t want a minor player anymore and Nikon has never abandoned the F-mount lens.
Like you, as a beginner the bang for the buck on Oly glass was awesome. I do miss my 14-54. However, now I have a decent selection of primes, I actually get shallow DoF, I can use ISO 800 and above, and the autofocus is amazingly better (3D tracking is incredible).
I still hope one day Oly will pull its head out of the sand and revive 43. Saying it’s not dead right now is like saying Windows Vista is not dead. As for now, Nikon is set to release 2 new bodies in less than 2 weeks, has the Sony 24mp sensor on the way, released 2 unexpected lenses over the summer, and is developing their own mirrorless without abandoning DSLR. It’s not the Olympus I have loved since my first camera, but they are giving me what I want.
—
As long as I can mount my SHG lenses on a body and AF works as well or better than on the E-5, I don’t care what mount the body has or how it looks.
E-5 is a monster of a camera (in a good way), successor will only be better, be it in m43 or 43rds mount.
As for the lenses, 43rds lineup is awesome with 2 lenses missing:
– 300mm f4 SWD and 400mm f4 SWD.
Those lenses would make for an awesome long range system, but since I’m content with 150mm, I don’t care much.
If I were mean, I’d say that I was much more concerned about m43 than 43rds because the way lenses and bodies are going, i.e. very much low end oriented with a notable exception of 12mm f2.
It will be interesting to see the mirrorless APS-C competition because I think it may kill m43 if they do it well, but since CaNikon is invested in DSLRs too much, I don’t see it happening soon at all because Sony/Samsung/Pentax are not really a threat.
Well…I guess I’ll just stick with Lumix for my micro 4/3 needs, and move to Canon or Pentax for my DSLR needs.
I’d love to get an E-5, but not at the high price it’s selling at now: $1,700 USD.
B&H has a good deal on the Canon T3i going on at this time.
Olympius
The 4/3 system had agreat idea – lets make a DSLR system from the ground up, give it great and innovative features like Live View, In camera Stabilisation and a first class lneup of lenses, and what’s more we’ll make it smaller than the rest of the DSLRs available.
It’s just a shame that their sensors ultimately wrren’t good enough to really make the system sing, and really that’s the only major failing of the 4/3 system.
If they’d put a more focussed effort into delivering a truly great sensor I think a lot of users of other systems may have thought “hang on a minute – look what that’s capable of and it’s half the price of my photocopier, I want that!”
Basically what I’m saying is if they’d put as much effort into 4/3 as the yhave with the EP3, then we weouldn’t be in this mess!
I agree. Looking at the past it looks there were several times were olympus almost got it right but not quite. Like AF slowness with their top of the line f/2 zooms. Or bad low light performance. You get the idea.
Its a pity. They are forward thinking and definitely photographer oriented, their weather sealed zooms and bodies are top build quality. What a strange underdog olympus is…makes us all want to love them but there’s always something that’s not entirely right with their products..
> The 4/3 system had agreat idea – lets make a DSLR system from the ground up, give it great and innovative features like Live View, In camera Stabilisation and a first class lneup of lenses, and what’s more we’ll make it smaller than the rest of the DSLRs available.
My response back when 4/3 was introduced is still the same: they never delivered on “make it smaller.”
As for the rest, while we all complain about camera features, when push comes to shove the serious photographers look at two things: sensor quality and lens quality. Those two things combine to tell you what the best image you can take with the product is. All the gizmo stuff (stabilization, GPS, dust removal, Live View, etc.) are nice to have, but they are supplemental and ease-of-use things, not the core function. Olympus delivered on the lenses, as expected, but they’ve never delivered on the sensor. Couple that last bit with not delivering on the size advantage and the outcome was a foregone conclusion.
Sony is on the gizmo road right now, too (GPS, PD focus all the time, better EVF, high-end video, basically the full boat marketing check list of features), but ultimately they haven’t delivered on the lenses (especially NEX). The engine, transmission, drive train, and suspension have to be right, or else you end up with too much chrome on something that doesn’t perform.
I’ll give Olympus full credit with the E-PL# and the collapsing lenses: that’s the closest they’ve come to getting m4/3 right and preparing it for a full on onslaught from above. On the other hand, the 12mm is a very nice lens, but where’s the sensor to extract it’s full performance?
> On the other hand, the 12mm is a very nice lens, but where’s the sensor to extract it’s full performance?
It would be the E-P5, sadly the last MicroFourThirds camera, since Olympus would start switch by then to new PicoFourThirds format.
Sony haven’t deliverd on the lenses? The Carl Zeiss and Minolta G Optics seem to be one of the best APS & FF Lenses! Additionally there are cheap but good Tamron Optics with Sony mount. I see no way to complain here.
From 24 to 200mm, maybe. As you venture outside that realm the choices get slim, and in my (admittedly brief) testing not quite so appealing. And I don’t think you can count on used lenses (Minolta) to drive your camera sales: you have to show forward commitment. Where’s that 500mm?
I would be happy, if they (Olympus) would upgrade E-30, E-5 and E-620 with a sensor like that one in the GH2 and would deliver, what they are able to deliver better than their competitors: IQ in RAW and JPEG. I can see no reason, why they are denying to feed their customers of fine ZD lenses with bodies in all three lines, because the innovations will be already paid by the next generation of PEN cameras.
It’s weird that he says “there is only Four Thirds” – considering that no Micro Four Thirds body can properly focus the SWD 4/3 lenses, I can’t really buy into that.
Honestly I don’t even care if they kill off Four Thirds going forward, so long as they give me a Micro Four Thirds body that can properly use my old (expensive) lenses. I really think they missed the mark by not getting that worked out *before* they started phasing out 4/3 bodies.
Well, 43 users can only hope that Olympus figures out a spectacular way to make 43 lenses perform on m43 bodies. Together with the Pen Pro this would be the upgrade path.
In the long run 43 without the m is dead. The future is mirrorless. It’s interesting to see how the camera makers will master the transition to mirrorless – or fail. Actually, one could say that Olympus is a step ahead compared to e.g. Canon and Nikon. The problem of Olympus is that they might give up a system again. The solution would be to find a way to use 43 lenses with full compatibility on m43 bodies. Such, the transition from mirror to mirrorless would be smooth. At the moment it seems that only Sony found a smart way with a translucent mirror adapter that gives high speed AF to all alpha lenses on NEX bodies. My feeling is that Olympus will fail and spoil 43 users in the long run. But it has to be seen what Canon and Nikon will do. A 2.7x crop mirrorless system (a Nikon rumor) is not the transition that will be necessary.
This is what that IR-AF patent is all about: Phase detection on the main sensor. Fuji utilizes a different, but essentially similar idea in its compact cameras. There seems to be more than one solution to this problem. In the worst case it will have to be a mirrored adapter. We shall see.
There are more solutions but none was really convincing up to now. I can’t really remember, but can you use 43 lenses with full AF speed on the m43 Olympus bodies? I think you can’t. So Olympus found a smart way to improve AF speed on mirrorless cameras with IR-AF (though tracking is the challenge), but this is not the problem to be solved to get a smooth and user friendly transition from mirror to mirrorless. As far as I know Olympus actually gave up making 43 lenses work on m43 with full AF.
> 1) “I want to make sure that we convey the strong sense of responsibility…” It has some negative meaning here because it suggests that they keep the FOur Thirds system alive
I think you’re over-reading the statement. I’m pretty sure that every camera maker would make the same statement about their currently available systems, too. The only alternative is to take it off the market completely. It does seem like it’s a bit defensively worded in this context, but I don’t read much into that.
> 2) “We now have a large array of optics from 16mm to 600mm (thinking in 35mm format). We feel that it is fully matured in that aspect ”
My opinion on that: Compared to Nikon and Canon the Four Thirds lens range is far from being “mature”.
The 4/3 lineup is indeed relatively mature. If 4/3 were a competitive system sensor and camera-wise with Nikon/Canon it wouldn’t be uncompetitive because of a lack of lenses. Which, by the way, is one of Sony’s Alpha and NEX problems.
> Anyway, does it mean there will be no more Four Thirds lenses?
Probably. Exactly what new 4/3 lens would you be waiting for at this point? The kinds of lenses that are missing are highly specialty in nature, like Perspective Control. But Olympus has built what 90%+ of the market would want.
> 3) “we believe that the market for most of the compact dDSLRs, such as the 420 and 620, is best met by the Micro Four Thirds System.” So people looking for the E-30 successor should buy the E-5?
Well, that’s a marketing person making a marketing statement. All they have to sell you is an E-5 ;~). Until that changes, that’s the only statement they can make other than “don’t buy Olympus.” So guess which one they’ll make?
> 4) While Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds differ in some aspects, they are ultimately the same thing in terms of image quality and sensor format.” My opinion on that: Sounds a bit confusing or not?
Well, that’s been the central problem with Olympus’ strategy for some time: they can’t describe 4/3 as a failure without shooting m4/3 in the foot. They’re stuck with their original sensor size decision, and they continue to try to find ways to justify it in marketing speak, but fail to do so in practical compelling camera terms. I wrote when they introduced 4/3 that they were bringing a knife to a gun fight and would fail at it. m4/3 finally started to deliver on the size promise of a smaller sensor, but it may be too little too late, as they’ve already got Sony and Samsung nipping at their heels with a larger sensor, thus replaying the size of the weapon problem, and they’re about to have Nikon show them what small really is. They’re caught in a very narrow place; the question is whether that’s the right place to be caught or not.
I actually think that m4/3 is about right except for one thing: sensors. It seems ironic that Olympus chose a different sensor size but never really got an optimal sensor at that size, which is very much needed. Their dependence upon others for sensor tech has hurt them more than the choice of size. They need a 10-12mp sensor that is low light optimized and can perform as well as at least a D3100, they need a 16mp sensor that is as good as the Sony 24mp. They have neither. Thus, getting pushed from below and above by sensors that are outperforming them makes the place they occupy very, very narrow indeed.
Nikon just announced their latest results. Still 30% market share in interchangeable lens cameras, with an expectation to grow to 34% in the next nine months (and I’d say that’s realistic if their mirrorless system is any good at all). Thus, Olympus is in the same place with m4/3 today as they were with 4/3 at its height: still too small a player to grab market share and larger than market growth. As Reis and Trout pointed out, the top two players in a market enjoy economies of scale and pricing advantages over the rest of the players.
What bothers me most about Olympus is that they haven’t “nailed” a design in a long time. Yes, the focus speed on the E-P3 is improved and that’s very nice. But as a high end product there are a lot of things they didn’t get right. Having a tilt screen on the lower model and not the high is a mistake. The controls/dials are still compact camera-ish than serious, the external viewfinder is going downscale, not up, and so on. In essence, an E-P3 is still an E-P1, but with faster focus, an external EVF option, and a built-in flash. That’s about it. Not a lot of real movement towards being a convincing small system camera in two years.
I agree with everything except your evaluation of lenses for 43. The lack of anything faster than f/2 and lack of primes is atrocious. For portrait you basically get 1 option, 100mm f/2 that has 35mm equiv DoF of f/4. To get a 135mm equiv you have to use a 70-200 or 100-400 equiv. For non-portrait, how about a 35mm f/1.4 to make shots really pop out? Not there.
There are far more holes in the lineup than just tilt/shift, and these aren’t insignificant. Look at all the people buying Voigtlander 25 f/.95 for m43. They’re giving up autofocus just to get something fast with decent DoF.
Ok, I’m stopping the hate now. It’s just that being reminded of how Oly killed off a great system when they could have really completed it gets me fired up.
“The lack of anything faster than f/2 and lack of primes is atrocious.”
Couldn’t agree more.
Maybe I’m missing something – what about the 20/1.7, 25/1.4 and the (soon to be released) 45/1.8?
No, they’re referring to the lack of sub f/2 primes in 4/3, not in m4/3. True, those are missing, but I suspect efforts in fast primes were subsumed into m4/3 designs rather than put them out as 4/3 designs. I mean, other than the E-5 it should be obvious now that Olympus stopped the 4/3 work and put all efforts into m4/3 at some point. So if some optical engineer in 2006 had been tasked with “create some fast primes” he would have heard somewhere in 2007 “oh, and make them m4/3.”
Oh sorry, I missed that.
I think it is no mistake or coincidence, rather that Olympus has reached the conclusion (justified or not, I am not an expert) that lenses faster than f/2 do not perform as well on a digital sensor. 4/3 was designed with very rigorous design criteria, hence the brilliant optical performance. Of course there’s the lovely (Panaleica) 25/1.4. While not the sharpest 4/3 lens it is still one of my favorites.
Micro 4/3 is based on much more relaxed design criterias, in most cases it is quite apparent in image quality. The only m4/3 lens that compares favorably to its 4/3 equivalent is the 7-14. I am anxious to see the old and new 25/1.4 compared, my hunch is that the older 4/3 version will fare better.
I am an amateur but isn’t a pro-body like the E-5 made for using fast primes? The ability to change the format to portrait with the battery grip for long photoshoots in the studio with its flash sync out or to schoot on location in all weather conditions? As Olympus wants to keep The E-x range I would in particular expect here the fast primes to come for 4/3. Or do you see any professional photographer shoot in the studio with the e-P3, the new 45mm and some remote flashes triggered by the in-body flash or taking some seaside wedding shots risking to fry the camera? For candids or kidshots of course great as a sencond body.
Olympus built their lineup primarily on zooms: fast f/2 SHG zooms as well as the f/2.8-3.5 (or so) HG zooms and slower SG zooms. They have relatively few primes on their lineup (two f/2 tele SHG, two macros a fisheyes and a pancake).
Primes actually make more sense for m4/3 because the emphasis is on small size.
err the 300mm SHG tele is actually f2.8
If you compare Olympus (4/3) with Pentax:
Oly has 11 zooms and 6 primes, Pentax has 13 zooms and 17 primes.
Well they needed to quickly cover the entire focal range in all qualities as they introduced a new format and mount. Once they had done that they would have started to place the primes if it wasn’t for the development of m4/3.
I agree that primes are smaller and therefore balance better on the small body but they usually also allow for better image quality and faster apertures so they are more interesting for ambituous and professional shooters. Based on the comments of a professional photographer here in this forum he jumped ship to Olympus and his colleagues regret they haven’t and stayed with CaNikon! A 4/3 12F2 would be nice for them, I guess, but you can’t mount m4/3 on 4/3 (afaik).
I am more likely to get an E-P3 with the 12F2 than an E-5 with a ’12F2′ but I assume Olympus could attract quite some Pro’s with some SHG primes. If I remember right DPReview stated in those days on the 4/3 7-14 the lense alone would be a reason to get a 4/3 body…
“I agree that primes are smaller and therefore balance better on the small body but they usually also allow for better image quality and faster apertures so they are more interesting for ambituous and professional shooters.”
Guess what? The Olympus 35-100/f2 SHG zoom performs better than the 50/f2 macro – and that macro is a gem of a lens (strictly in terms of IQ).
The problem with the 35-100 is price, size and weight and (with some copies) poor AF performance. Otherwise it is a masterpiece.
And that’s the key. Olympus zooms outperform their prime and outresolve their sensor. After used 14-35mm f/2 SWD (SHG), I came to the conclusion, you don’t need primes in 4/3 system. They aren’t going to be any smaller to be considered of any advantage (without sacrificing IQ), and even if you made one, what’s the point? The IQ bottleneck is not the lens, but the sensor. 4/3 sensor is too small to take advantage of any optical improvement. Like I said before, even HG glass like 50-200mm SWD outresolves E-620’s sensor already. You’re not going to see any improvement with even better lens.
That’s why they move onto m4/3, which delivers small package, but don’t worry too much on IQ. It sells…. It surprised Olympus that the market actually prefer small cameras over the quality of 4/3, but as a business, it’s not their place to defy customers.
There is no hole in 4/3’s lens line up. But there are a few that can be improved. A 17mm prime is missing (35mm equiv., which is never Olympus’s forte, even during OM days), and a non-pancake (reads: quality over size) 25mm should be made. Yes, you could use PL 25mm f/1.4 for 4/3, but there needs to be an Olympus version. Other than that, from 7mm-300mm, you’re covered with SHG with the highest quality lenses possible for such small sensor that are also 30% smaller than competitors’.
> Their dependence upon others for sensor tech has hurt them more than the choice of size.
Well, it works for Nikon?
The problem here is that Olympus choose to remain small instead of being more ambitious and invest in growth. Target should have been the sale volumes which could allow them to dictate terms to the sensor manufacturers.
If they were more ambitious back then, Sony might have been part of m43 too, instead of pursuing the NEX on their own.
Nikon’s not exactly dependent on anyone, and never has been. They’ve had multiple sensor design groups in place since 1988. They’ve now executed five sensor designs on their own, all of which were highly competitive with anything others could do at the time, and all of which have had some interesting internal advances. Nikon has also had a close working relationship with Sony Semiconductor and has been at the center of many of the changes Sony made to its sensors. We’ll see at least two more Nikon sensors in the coming months, I think.
I doubt that Sony would have joined 4/3 or m4/3. The Nikon/Sony cooperation has been trying to knock off Canon, and indeed has been nibbling away at Canon’s dominance. I don’t think they would have done anything that they saw enabling another to gain share, especially so since Panasonic was behind the curtain with Olympus.
AFAIK, Olympus had the choice of Panasonic, Kodak, Fujifilm, and one other smaller vendor in terms of original sensor choices. Fujifilm priced themselves out of the sensor business. Kodak couldn’t do video with their CCD design. Betting on a smaller player would have been tough. That left Panasonic.
Sony’s problem to knock out Canon has never been quality but brand recognition issue. Canon is such a dominant player, if consumers buy based on quality alone, Sony and Olympus can knock out Canon easily long time ago, but it has yet to happen and I don’t see it happen any time soon.
It’s possible Sony could make a slightly better sensor than Panasonic could, if they ever make a 4/3 sensor, but I doubt it’ll be something revolutionary. 4/3 sensor’s problem is physical size. It bounds limitation. I don’t agree with your other post that Olympus picked the wrong size. It is carefully picked instead of making a smaller version of APS-C, which is 3×2 in aspect ratio, which would be a terrible choice, but smaller size does mean the market direction should be different. m4/3 is their best bet, quality wise…, forget it. Regular 4/3 is the best you could possibly achieve already. Any photographer who want best image possible with 4/3 should start polishing their skill, not yet another camera to give them false hope that it’ll improve their photos further.
Trevor’s right, and then again it’s not just fast primes which are missing. FT is still far from having a complete telephoto and supertele lineup, especially in the “middle-class” range. Where’s the 300/4? The 400/5.6? Be it prime or zoom. Such lenses would have been the killer app for enthusiast/semipro nature/wildlife shooters, had they been available early. They could have made Four Thirds THE telephoto/supertele system, utilizing one real advantage of the small sensor size – making telephoto more portable.
Speaking of advantages, it’s simply a shame that Olympus with its history of a cornucopia of magnificent and even unique macro lenses and accessories, making the OM system a standard choice in the medical field, threw all that away and chose to only offer two macro lenses and an overpriced fixed extension tube for their Four Thirds cameras.
And, no, for an all-round camera system, which is what all current DSLR systems want to be, it is not enough to cater to 90% of potential custumers. To be successful, you have to provide solutions for as many specialty fields as you can. Otherwise your system is not an all-round system, but a system restricted to satisfy mass-market needs.
Thanks for commenting the interview in plain text. I fear that’s exactly how it is.
FT is dead, and Olympus keeps trying to mollify FT customers with the same phrases for something like three years now, while serious DSLRs below the E-5 are just as dearly missing as many lenses which have been available for other systems all the time, which is why many of even the most die-hard E-System fans have switched systems in the last one or two years. To Canon, Nikon, Sony or Pentax, not to Micro FT.
couldnt they use the top and bottom borders of the sensor to include a phase detection module? its still fairly in the center… ? is this a bad idea to allow PDAF in 4/3 lenses?
I find that with Olympus and Panasonic both at the helm of micro 4/3rds, the format has a chance. If Olympus folds, I doubt Panasonic can keep the format afloat. I think if Fuji gets in the mix and starts supplying sensors, there might be a chance.
Lenses are more expensive => manufacturers want to sell you more lenses => camera bodies are only a vehicle to sell more lenses => chances of more companies joining m43 are slim.
That at least how I see it.
my opinion is that the future of interchangeble lens cameras is in the mirrorless cameras. Oly and Pana are rebuilding their line up. in 3 years they have created the substitutes for their e-450 to e-620/l1 to l10. the bigest problem are the high grade 43lenes. Sony are doing the same,but i dont think that the translucent mirror is the answer. the mirrorbox isgonne, next i hoppe will be the shutter, and hopfully we will finally get a digital camera with interchangeble lenses.
They haven’t created substitutes in anything except amount of PR BS.
E-620 is ergonomically way ahead of GH2’s unergonomy of small grip and too big LCD in comparison to body and in general even low end Olympus bodies gave chance to have half decent grip from camera without accidental button presses.
Mirror&OVF can go with the analog era film which was the reason for their introduction in the first place but proper controls and ergonomy stay among top requirements.
Fron experience I have learned to distrust anything that comes from Olympus America. They seem at best disconnected from Olympus Japan, and not fully realise what is happening. There might be cultural motives. the US are really a market for dSLR, while Japan and Asia are the birthplace of mirrorless.
It is no wonder that some technology watchers still insist that the 4/3 sensor is too small. That is hardly a factor for new sales. Dinosaur’s thought.
+100
Olympus intends to merge regular 43 with m43. So? The future is mirrorless. We know Olympus is working on on-sensor PDAF and when it works the single-lens reflex camera will be something enthusiasts use, just like rangefinder cameras or film cameras.
… not only sensor based PDAF, also a global shutter will be a major leap forward.
How much money all the 43 users saved going with Olympus!? I think a lot,almost each lens have a lower price than the Canikon lens of the similar class, at least at standard grade lens. The image stabilization,the in body dust removal,the in body mipmapping,better build quality,better portability.
Cmon, the dSLR are basically the electronic version of the film based SLR, thay just slamd a sensor,processor and a little ram inside, everything else is ancient history, the mirror, pentaprism, shutter, the body size and format.
The mirrorless cameras should be created 10 years ago , and than thay should say:”we have donne a digital camera with interchangeable lenses”
And the best of all is that the m43 cameras are much ompatible and easier to use with old manual lenses. he,he this the best part 🙂
I read that Oly’s camera division has really two different teams. One for P&S and the other for dSLR. Pens’ design was made by the first, so there might even be a generational divide among engineers, and infighting for resources.
What is surprising is that Oly has patents for a mirrored adapter, or for IR PDAF on sensor. So why don’t they use to merge systems? It is as if they didn’t want to create confusion between the two levels. At present if the killed olf 4/3 they know that people would be unsatisfied in trying to adapt their SHG lenses to Micro. But they would be anyway it’s not only a question of AF but also of weight.
The can’t make big Micros without losing the advantage of size and go back ot square one.
The Pen’s design team must push for making an entirely new lineup of lenses, which in the end will substitute the old ones – but it takes time and resources.
So this unsatisfactory standoff may last for another, what, five-ten years, before the white flag is raised on classical 4/3. That I suppose might be the extent of the responsibility of Olympus towards its old customers.
An Oly manager stated that they expected mirrorless to be the majority (worldwide?) in ten years, so that fits.
The 12/2 is also the first Micro HG lens, so the evolution won”t happen in one day, unless sales and profits consolidate year after year, and feed R&D.
It’s sure easy to believe that Point&Shooters have taken over m4/3 at Olympus. Even release rate of (re)iterations is basically similar to dozenware compacts.
And 12mm F2 might be HG but only on m4/3.
Optically it struggles against even standard 4/3 lenses in distortion and vignetting.
Quote: “So this unsatisfactory standoff may last for another, what, five-ten years, before the white flag is raised on classical 4/3. That I suppose might be the extent of the responsibility of Olympus towards its old customers”
As soon as the PEN-Pro arrives with a better capability for using 4/3 lenses, the 4/3 line of DSLR’s will almost immediately disappear except for selling off old stock. This could actually happen within the next year. Sally is just blowing smoke at you 4/3 guys to prevent a premature stampede for the fire escape exits.
I am a professional photographer and I really believe in the 4/3rds system. I have used 5d’s 7d’s and now I shoot witht he E5. Their are so many advantages of using the 4/3rd system but I think the mirrorless is going to take over in the next 3 years so imo Canon and Nikon will have to make the switch too. Olympus made one big mistake and that was to wait so long between the e1 and e3. I think they would be big players if it wasnt for that. I get exellent results with my E5. I work with 3 other photographers and they all use Canon but when the E5 came out and we compared images they now all wished the had the E5. We mostly shoot weddings and the keeper rate is much higher on the E5 than the 7d’s. The 4/3 ratio looks much better in albums too. So I dont know why so many people say the sensor is out dated and the system should die.
A hornets nest seems to have been stirred-up by this ‘Product Manager’. I wonder what Olympus Japan think about her comments.
3) “we believe that the market for most of the compact dDSLRs, such as the 420 and 620, is best met by the Micro Four Thirds System.”
Interesting how this is phrased “best met by the Micro Four Thirds System” rather than by the “Olympus Micro Four Thirds System”. Basically they’re conceding the obvious, for those E-5xx and E-620 users wanting to upgrade with similar feature-sets, the path goes through Panasonic, not Olympus.
They remain thick as a brick on the matter of their “brick” mFT’s having appeal to FT users only to supplement their FT systems, not replace them. The result, how they’ve simply cut off the revenue stream from their investment in an excellent FT system of lenses, could well become material for “what not to do” business courses.
One has to know what business one is in — that is, what niche best fits the company and its products. Olympus’ niche has always been “small.” Its full-frame 35 mm cameras came after its jewel of a Pen half-frame system. The OM cameras were small, but, more importantly, the Zuiko lenses were small, far smaller than anything produced by Canon or Nikon of equal focal length and speed.
Since digital sensors require light to hit them at right angles, unlike film, which allows light to come in at an angle, it is much more difficult to make lenses small in a digital system. Olympus/Panasonic/Kodak recognized this problem early and developed the 4/3 system. However, for a mirrored SLR, the smaller sensor size leaves the viewfinder at a great disadvantage. Small sensor SLRs can’t compete with full-frame SLRs for view-through-the-mirror experience.
Ultimately, the mirror is going to go, since it is unnecessary in a digital system. It will remain for high end full-frame sensor systems, which Canon and Nikon will own, along with a few other players, such as Leica, that can afford to charge big bucks for their systems and have the buyers willing to pay the price.
For the rest of us, it will be a mirrorless world. Here the small sensor size has an advantage, even over a slightly larger format such as APC, where Sony’s clunky lenses are an example of the limits set by sensor size. The future for Olympus is in the Pen cameras and M4/3, not in mirrored systems. My OM cameras are now obsolete, but they gave me great value while I used them. Nothing lasts forever.
On the issue of quality, one must keep in mind that there is always a trade-off. Thirty-five millimeter cameras were originally called “miniatures” and their original print quality was terrible because the films of the time were not up to the demands made on them by the cameras. If 4/3 is no match for full-frame, neither is full-frame up to the quality of view cameras. One gives up absolute quality for utility.
That said, Olympus present M4/3 line-up does not make sense. The EP-3 should have had a built-in eye-level digital viewfinder off to the side, like the poroprism finder of the half-frame Pens. The EPL-3 would go without. It is the “lite” version, after all. The Micro is an orphan. The limiting factor for small is lens size, not body size, and so there is no increased value to going smaller than the EPL-3. The Micro should go to a smaller sensor size, but one larger than point-and-shoot. Nikon’s move to a sensor smaller than 4/3 is an indication they’re on the same track — to allow for lenses that can fold down and be nearly as inobtrusive as today’s large range travel cameras.
I don’t think Sony E mount lenses are a reliable barometer for APS-C lens designs.
After all, Samsung’s NX mount is capable of small lenses (like the 30/2) that outperform larger Sony lenses. It’s just a pity Samsung’s sensor tech is not up to snuff.
Samsung is in the same boat.
Small lenses can be designed for specific focal lengths but these are exceptions to the rule (especially in digital photography).
Larger sensors require large lenses or offset microprisms (AFAIK the only ones offering it currently are Leica, Fuji and Ricoh with their new m mount).
Check this out to see just how tiny can tiny be: http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=33&products_id=481
I was trying to edit my comment but it timed out. A time horizon of 5 years seems more likely. Oly stated that if the camera division didn’t offer profits, it would be closed down in 5 years. Those things are not said lightly at a company which has been into camera making for a century.
As for the quality of Oly dSLR nobody *who used them* doubts it, but it’s where personal utility diverges from the producer’s utility. Oly typically must churn off 150 million cameras to make a profit. So it a certain camera earns considerably less than another it is completely entitled to drop it. I don’t see how people still can’t see it.
In the history of photography there have been major innovations and those who stayed behind simply disappeared. O&P smaller sensor simply cried for smaller cameras, Whatever the E-3 and the E-5 might have been for single photographers their big bodies and big lenses negated the advantage of the smaller sensor.
Mirrorless instead plays the full advantage of the sensor with smaller lenses. Just go to a shop window and compare. The price of ILS are much the same but the size of mirrorless is different. That is why they are bought at a rate that 4/3 dSLR could never be.
I don’t think that was saying much. Olympus can profitably make cameras if it wants to. The question is whether they can make profits and be competitive across a wide range of cameras. Historically the answer has been no: Olympus has always been a high-quality, modest product line competitor. Think of them as somewhere between the mass market Canon and the high-end niche of Leica.
The problem for Olympus is that Nikon and Canon are selling more than 34 million cameras a year between them. Sony/Nikon/Canon gobble up more than 50% of all camera sales each year. Panasonic and Samsung are trying to break into that elite group and are already ahead of Olympus, and Fujifilm has now announced they’re going to take another whack at it. You can spend a lot of money trying to be #5 in the overall market. Or you could whittle things down to a few really great products and be profitable.
For their optical quality and field of view equivalency 4/3 tele lenses are small.
Very long flange back distance in comparison to sensor size probably just complicated making wide angles more than for other mounts.
And if all APS-C and FF optics had been made to similar optical quality as 4/3 lenses their average size would be surely clearly bigger than currently.
In optics there’s no such thing as even semi-free lunch and no doubt good part of smaller size of m4/3 lenses comes from lower optical quality, combined with slower apertures in case of some.
Sure for P&S masses that shrinking of everything (except marketing gimmicks) goes but using that as rule for everything is same as saying that full size vans aren’t needed because small cars sell lot more.
That’s something what no mirrorless manufacturer has yet figured out for getting headstart over big and slow Canikon in the process of digital cameras eventually becoming all (except for that probable stubborn niche like one held by film) mirrorless.
Guys, just one remark. Do not read to much into these statements at all. There is no evidence how much a Product Manager at Olympus USA knows about the roadmap of Olympus Japan. (IMHO not a lot.) If it is like in another Japanese company where I happened to work for a couple of years, the role of an overseas product manager is much more to sell what is there and has very little influence on the product line up. What is there is decided in Japan head quarters.
Personally I think, that Oly did not succeed (from financial point of view) with the 4/3 system and tries to make money in the m4/3 niche. Good luck!
P.S. I still like my little E-620.
I wonder where I got that 150 million figure, somebody mentioned, but it’s perhaps the whole ILS market?
At any rate I think that with electronics the breakeven must be higher that at the time of mechanical cameras. The pace of innovation and replacement is so much higher, that clearly quantities matter. You need more money to stay in the game.
Oly indeed tried the niche strategy with classic 4/3 but it miserably failed after a very few years *despite its lenses were excellent*.
To me it’s no wonder that Oly returns now to profit exactly at the moment where it became the ILS n. 1 in Japan according to BCN rankings.
You cannot afford to stay niche, you must break the C&N monopoly at least at home, and from there win abroad within a few years, starting from Asia. That I believe is the master plan.
Oly’s advantage is its high R&D rate (including the medical sector), there is no reason if by finding the right mix of enabling technologies they don’t end up dominating the market with Panny.
The alternative, like Mr. Terada put it is ‘capitulation’. I believe that in the 1950 there were some 50 camera brands, there was room for niches, but where are they now?
I’d say, reminding my Economics books, that what is happening is typical of mature sectors, concentrations ending with a duopoly at the top. You can only disrupt it with disruptive technology.
But it never was a matter of Oly making poor cameras, as innocents protest.
I’ll use the figures Nikon uses because it keeps things tiddied up with the Japanese fiscal year (April through March).
Fiscal 2011:
14.14m interchangeable lens cameras sold overall (Nikon: 4.29m)
107.41m compact cameras sold overall (Nikon: 14.26m)
Fiscal 2012:
16m interchangeable lens expected to be sold (Nikon: 5.4m)
100m compact cameras expected to be sold (Nikon: 15.5m)
The overall camera market, therefore, is headed slightly downwards, the interchangeable market slightly upwards. Nikon’s overall market figures come from CIPA, to which all the camera makers provide data, and they are accurate numbers historically, since they count what was actually manufactured.
The problem for Olympus is that Canon and Nikon count for 12.4m of the 16m interchangeable lens cameras. Canon, Sony, Nikon, and Panasonic count for almost 70m of the 100m compact cameras (and Samsung and I believe Fujifilm are ahead of Olympus, too, and gobble up so more of that 100m).
So Olympus is stuck in a position where they may have to discount to gain market share. Which impacts profitability. Here in the US, Olympus is losing traction in the dealers, which is not a good sign, especially since Sony is gaining with the dealers (and spending liberally to do so).
I would not read to much in what is said. She basically said nothing other then being polite and diplomatic.
Currently Olympus is making a very good 43 camera the E-5 which is less then a year old, the lens are available. The price is very attractive. What 4/3 lens needs to be developed? Other then one or two higher telephoto if that, I can’t think of one, that would be of interest to more the a flew. I think a e-50, with good build quality, would be nice if under 1,000 USA and personally I might get one. I like the 4/3 size sensor for its depth of field, but as suggested the ISO quality should be improved. My suggestion to them would be refresh the camera every 2 years. Even if they did not WE would still will get another a decade out of it, in usability.
As far as the M43 the success is on system is on the EP-M1; They need to get it on the shelf to sell. It will need to be sold at under $450 dollars. If so it will be my “Black Friday” purchase. I would love to have it my car at all times, with a kit lens and a old telephoto. With a pancake or other small lens it looks simple like a compact and will not attract attention, like a DSLR did for me last week; asked by the police politely why was I taken pictures, I said I was only taken one and showed it to the officer, then asked if I could take a picture of them which they liked.
There is not much product differentiating the EP-3 and the EPL-3 which is good as they both are good cameras, I hate dumbing down. They may have plans to distribute them differently. Just wish all the latest had a OLED screens, but maybe something is coming down the line. As far as a fully articulating screen, the camera seems to be a little to small for that and being held properly. In my opinion they need to make the EP-3 screen removable, or a connection to a tablet or smart phone. If we (I am including myself in this) got all we want in a super Pen it would be a Camel. They should refresh the design every year for cameras aimed at the general consumer, for marketing success.
On the real plus side is they seem to be able to deliver the first two of the first pens to market in decent quantity. Why they haven’t announced the price of the third, is maybe because they are negotiating in various markets at what they will sell it to the distributors and shops.
There still is a market for high end compacts, such as the XZ-1, their X and tough series. The others and those similar made by Nikon, Cannon, and other name brand camera companies aren’t doing so well due to smart phones (they just aren’t selling, at least in the stores I go to). While there will be some sales the heyday is over. This has and will hurt Olympus and Cannon the most. Compacts at the new Fuji level(real nice camera, tried it out) will have a limited market, I recognized this when I saw them for sale in an email with a nice wood presentation case.
As far a real Pro m43s, I think not. There will be a lack of optics for a year or two. A slightly better sensor is needed. real weather proofing, a high end evil finder. There also needs to be a pro support system. That is not saying one can not make a decent living using m43 cameras or that it is not a good supplemental system now. Typical pro cameras cost over 4,000 dollars and are worth it if you need to do a lot of shooting and a are a shooting pro. Other wise the next rung down at half the price or less are better both in price and overall performance usually (not durability). Durability, getting repaired, being able to rent out equipment when needed are need and should not be underestimated, it is almost as important as the optics and sensor game for the professional. If I did a lot of shooting for money now, I would get back into the Nikon world (I have had more then excellent support from them in the past), but for personal use now I choose Olympus as I really like their build quality, even though most bodies are a little over priced, and find their optics more to my personal liking.
In the past there have been some candied statements from Olympus about their belief that a 12 meg sensor is big enough (which was more or less true for me the way I USE to take pictures [shoot and done, [I did a lot of slide work at one time, and kept shooting like that even when not shooting slides], but not so much now as I have gotten back into aggressive cutting) and that they see a end of the DSLR (which is true, but a way off in my opinion). Finally, I believe I read that here Olympus Camera division was profitable so far this year. Cannon camera division has its own fiscal challenges ahead.
Panasonic decided earlier to go mirrorless only after what 3 dslr’s and 3 lenses. Up till now in the m43camp they have the better lenses, better video implementation and choice in EVF or not.
Olympus is stuck with one foot in the grave. While 43 lasted they did offer a decent range of dslr’s in several price brackets with a compelling range of lenses to boot. Imho it’s better to continue 43 as a enthusiast/pro system and wait until m43 grows up.
e.g. Stop doing the incremental upgrades to m43! Give us the E-50 or E-7
Oly’s m43 is nowhere near where it’s supposed to be.
Release should be E-P1, E-5, E-PL2, E-50, E-P3, E-PE730(evf like GH-series), E-PL4 and then OM-5 to merge 43 with m43.
Yes but their loosing money on DSLRs and making money on m43 (the PENs are selling quite well, at least in Japan).
How can they say the market for E-620 is met by micro 4/3?
Where’s the tilt/swivel screen?
If E-PL3 had swivel screen, I’d gladly pay the (too-high) price of $700 they-re asking for it. As it is, with lame tilt-only screen, NO SALE.
Her statement “we believe that the market for most of the compact dDSLRs, such as the 420 and 620, is best met by the Micro Four Thirds System.” is simply restating the nonsensical mantra Olympus has hired her for.
There is, of course, not even close to an Olympus mFT equivalent to the now 2 1/2 year old E-620 and associated 4/3’s SG/HG/SHG lens system it provides a gateway to. A real shame.
E-620 2 lens kit: $700 buys a sturdy yet compact body with viewfinder, flash, flip LCD, instant focus, ability to track sports and BIF along with high quality 14-42mm and 40-150mm kit lenses. For another $600 you can add the excellent 14-54mm Mk II lens.
E-P3: $1150 buys a body with mediocre 14-42mm kit lens, optional viewfinder and flash, but no flip screen and inability to track sports/BIF. An mFT lens of the quality of the 14-54mm Mk II doesn’t even exist.
What a deal…for Olympus. I’m waiting on the sidelines and watching where things land with other manufacturers. If my E-620 fails, I’m likely to jump to a new system for a DSLR and may pick up an XZ-1 to supplement it, thereby avoiding Olympus’ over-priced mFT lens trap.
4/3rds and DSLRs are dead end. Just make adapter for PDAF lenses, like Sony, make some bulkier m4/3 bodies and don’t look back, Olympus…
You are so right Miroslav! Today I plan to go out and make some fine photos with my dead end E-5. Get over it, everything will be obsolete some time in the future.
The problem with Olympus is that at the moment 4/3 lenses ( and your E-5 ) look obsolete although they don’t have to be. How come much older Pentax and Nikon lenses can be used on their new bodies? I’m not saying a good photographer can’t make great pictures with 20-30 year old camera, let alone E-5…
With an adapter you can use all your “old” 4/3 lenses on the new bodies, with a slow AF. Of course the AF is slow, but if you mount a very old NIkkor to a Nikon camera there is no AF at all….
But I do hope for Olympus that they are able to upgrade their sensors in in a future possible E-50 or E-7 or whatever (or a at least in a new PEN) if they ever materialize. HIgh ISO shots (above ISO 1250 for me) is a troblsome experience on any Olympus camera.
im a proud owner of olympus e620 and love the picture quality of the straight out of the camera jpegs apart from many other things oly has to offer. i currently own both kit lenses 14-42mm, 40-150mm, 70-300mm,14-54mm and 7-14mm ZD lenses and the recently acquired fl36r flash. im loving my photography but what really concerns me is the sad news that oly wont be producing the starting and mid level cameras. that being said let me share a small story with you. i once bought an android phone xperia x10 which was only supposed to be updated to a specific firmware i.e os2.1. but hardware wise it was a much much more capable devicw. so the xpwria users formed a petition requesting the sony company to release the 2.2 veraion for it, which sony eventually obliged and not only provided the 2.2 but also the 2.3. the crux of the story is olympus has the capabillity to release a great mid range dslr like the e-50 same as e-5 minus the weather shielding and maybe high grade magnesium alloy body and give us what we really want… a true four thirds dslr. judging by the quality of the latest ep3, it is crystal clear that the olympus has the expertise to transform that into a dslr.what do you say?