First of all Happy New year to everyone! Hope you recovered from the party 🙂
The new 2014 is here and it’s about time to ask you what’s the one camera release you are dreaming about:
[poll id=”221″]
*Please also check your spam folder if you don't get the confirmation mail. And mark the mail as "non-spam" to see the future newsletter.
187 Responses
E-PM3 about GM1’s size for me.
A GM1 with a builtin EVF is my current dream camera.
Happy new year btw!
Agree, something in the GM, GF, PM, PL size range with the smallest amount of bulk added needed to fit in an integrated EVF.
m4/3 has a fundamental size advantage over APS-C/FF systems and they should push that rather than drifting towards building small DSLRs.
Yup, these smaller m43 cameras are begging for an integrated viewfinder. Even the GM1 would be great if it had one. Olympus and Panasonic need to get away from the point and shoot styling, and make all of their m43 cameras more SLR-like as far as functionality goes. I think most of the cameras look great, but they are lacking.
I picked up the E-PM2 with the two lenses for $349. Great deal, right? Well, I’m finding that it’s a bit frustrating to use. Even at $349 it doesn’t compare to the cheapest Canon Rebel in terms of basic functionality. Perhaps it’s because my E-M1 is just that good, but I find that the E-PM2 just lacks the ability I need to quickly change settings. Even as a “knock around” camera, I don’t like using it. I have really tried hard to like it. What’s even more concerning is I am well acquainted with the Olympus menus and functionality, and I still find it cumbersome to use. I can only imagine what somebody new to the system, looking for a dSLR alternative, thinks of it. It doesn’t surprise me that these cameras are not selling. It’s more like a point and shoot than a dSLR. The addition of a viewfinder, scroll wheel and flash would easily make this camera a contender.
Problem with integrated VFs is that the primary market/target audience doesn’t use them which makes the additional cost, size and weight a losing proposition. The whole “camera joshi” image still has an element of truth, particularly in the Pacific rim market. I agree that I’d love to see a GM1 with a VF but I think both Pany and Oly view VF users as a minority. So, we can continue to wish/hope for more compact m4/3 cameras, but there going to be few and far between.
You may be right, but therein lies the problem. If the target market is someone looking for a slightly better than a point and shoot, then you are right. However, if the target market is a person looking to buy a dSLR, they are more than willing to use a viewfinder, and actually equate that with higher quality. A true “step up,” if you will.
I can’t help but feel they are targeting the wrong market, especially at the prices they expect.
Ehm… An RX2 with a 50mm.. 🙂
lol 🙂
Macros comment is awesome!!! Rx2 with a 50mmf2!!! Hell yes!! I’d spend 2500 on that!!
+ $450 for VF!!! 🙂
Amen to that!
Love my RX1R, but I still have a hard time with 35mm FL. But man does it spit out some amazing files!
RX2R, with 50f2 Sonnar and built-in viewfinder.
The rumoured Sigma Foveon m4/3 ? 😀
Also a dream from years ago. Ricoh GXR m4/3 module. Alas, that system is canned already, sadly
Why so many votes for oly FF??
For myself it was that or a choice of the E-M2 (not interested in video) or the PEN but that style does little for me, not being a rangefinder user, so FF it was.
I’ll never understand this, “What I really want is a camera none of my lenses will work on”. If you want a much larger camera system none of your lenses will work on, buy a A7R.
I wonder if cat forums are full of people saying, “I like my cat, but I really want one that barks and will fetch a stick”
What I’d really like is an E-M1 body able to accept a square sensor, as wide as existing 4/3 but as tall as it is wide, now that would be a step up.
Yeees!!! +1000!
Agree 100%. Increased (vertical) resolution and same pixel pitch and no impact on existing lenses would be fantastic.
Other than that, owning the GH3 (which satisfies my video needs), my next camera is going to be an Olympus, since I miss the IBIS (and I have several Olympus lenses..)
+1000 from me too 🙂
Duncan, your cat comment is one of the most succinct I’ve read on this forum – pithy, insightful, and delivered with humour – devastating in fact! Perhaps too subtle toward whom it was aimed at :-/ Bravo nonetheless!
I like the camera without any usable lenses aka A7 comparison most.
Is it schizophrenic to say I don’t need FF for 99% of my photography but I want a FF OMD? Or are the trolls and Canikon trying to apply Zersetzung by pushing the votes for the FF OMD?!
Well I voted for it because I am happy with my current m4/3 camera and lenses. I would really like a full frame mirrorless camera with IBIS for all of my legacy full frame glass.
My guess is that Sony will offer it first. But I would rather have an Olympus as I think they make more functional cameras.
Well said man!
I agree with you completely…nobody is ever happy with what they have.
Want full frame? Wrong rumors site, pal!
The comment was for Duncan, by the wy… 😛
The full-framers are all the trolls… who apparently outnumber the fans on this site. :-/
it is surprising that after all the “we don’t need FF, m43 is good enough” discussions – this is the number one wish. And i dont think it’s the trolls – but rather the “silent masses”.
I guess we all dream of much better IQ than we currently have, and somehow expect a full frame sensor to deliver just that.
But are we ready to live with the physical consequences of a much bigger sensor? If so, then why did we choose m43 in the first place?
I am wondering about this as well. Even if the camera size could be kept low, the lenses would be bulky and heavy. That kills the purpose of a reasonably sized system camera.
What I would like to see is a small MFT camera, a little bigger than the Panasonic GM1, with an integrated EVF and IBIS… (although I think that the GM1 is already a very good camera!).
For the longest time I thought the notion of an Olympus FF was ridiculous. However, recently I’ve given it more thought. In my opinion, Olympus knows photography even better than Nikon and Canon, or any other mainstream camera company for that matter. They have been innovators in the field of photography for as long as I can remember in my 50 years. They made a bet with 43 and that hurt them, because Canon and Nikon kept their film users happy until they were ready to ease into digital. However, the bold move they made with m43 shows just how innovative they are. They aren’t afraid to take a risk, and believe in it. I believe in m43, and what it can and will be. Sony’s problem is that they are shooting in the dark, and hoping to hit something. Not that it is entirely bad for photography in general, but Sony needs to pick a system and build it out.
That being said, since there are so many enthusiasts and pros that are SO hellbent on the virtues of FF, I think an Olympus FF might actually be something to shut all these people up. Imagine an E-M1-like FF camera! Or an E-P5-like FF!! If anybody would do it right it would be Olympus. Make the lenses compatible with m43, and all of a sudden you have one hell of a force to be reckon with. Sony is on to something here, but I have handled the A7 several times, and I feel it is still severely lacking. Olympus could easily run them over. And, imagine the pandemonium it would create at Canon and Nikon!
I personally only want what m43 offers, and to me the E-M1 has been everything I have been waiting for m43 to be. If Olympus did the same with a FF, they would have EVERYONE’S attention, and once you have the pros and enthusiasts on board it’s only a matter of time before it trickles down to the masses.
I suppose if the resolution is increased so much that when you use the current m43 lenses on it, the cropped area used from the sensor would still output 16mpixels, that would be ok. Not sure how many megapixels the full FF chip would do then, anyone know?
61-62 Mpx.
wow, that’s a lot, but if Nokia can squeeze 41 megapixels into a cell-phone.. 😉
I may even settle for 12 mpix in crop, but would still be a lot of megapixels though. On the bright side, if lighting is good, no need for zooms anymore if you have FF lens, you can just crop 🙂 haha
This is a common misunderstanding when it comes to semiconductor fabrication. As the die size increases, so does the minimum feature size, and so does the routing area. So while you might be able to make a 40 megapixel cell phone sensor, it’s nearly impossible to make a full frame sensor anywhere near that density.
The result is that cropping a larger sensor will always be worse than simply making a smaller one, in every way. Cost, resolution, low light performance for a given resolution, etc… There are marginal advantages to going larger, not linear ones, and they come at a cost.
I have to laugh. Olympus will NEVER make a FF camera…it goes against their entire philosophy. Does anyone notice that?
I voted for FF only because I couldn’t see anything else that looks interesting. I already have the E-M1, and not into video, so the only way I can go forward is going FF.
+1, I also have E-M1 and 5 with an E-P2 which I take to work.
The four thirds format still has a lot of potential for improvement, so expect better sensors than the E-M1’s in the future. The history of semiconductors is a story of smaller things eventually outperforming larger things. I expect smaller formats to at least match larger ones probably in the next ten years, whereas now they’re already coming very close.
So the only way to go probably isn’t up.
Full frame, really?
Is that really the holy grail? If organic sensor works as advertised… FF is obsolete.
What about a FF organic sensor? 😉
Making the sensor ‘organic’ does not at all address the issue of a ‘full frame’ setup resulting in bigger lenses.
It does if you can make it (the sensor) spherical. Then you don’t have to correct spherical aberration in the lens anymore, making it smaller. Simple spherical lenses would be perfectly acceptable on a properly curved sensor.
Well, a curved focal plane could work, but wouldn’t that be rather specific to the actual lens being used?
Yes, it might work with a fixed lens, not interchangeable ones
If you can design for a plane, you can certainly design for a nominal regular curvature. The point is that it’s actually easier. So no, it would be better for large sensor non-fixed lens cameras. And not necessarily any better for a fixed lens camera.
Another good point to make is that it would also solve the corner illumination sharpness issues with most flat formats, allowing for much larger formats in smaller bodies. Imagine a medium format camera with a 3/4″ flange distance. That becomes possible when you curve the sensor.
Of course you’d have to start from the ground up with the lenses. Lenses for flat formats wouldn’t work. You’d need to start a new system. But it does seem like the kind of thing Olympus might eventually do, especially since it would probably have application in their medical imaging business.
Sort of. All spherical lenses suffer from spherical aberration when the projecting surface (aka: sensor) is aspherical. Some focal lengths are more affected than others but the problem is endemic to flat sensored cameras.
The solution currently is to correct for this optically with special aspherical elements, adding to the complexity of the lens design. If you don’t correct for it, you don’t have a flat focal plane which was often the case with very old triplet lenses. Double Gauss designs are better since they are inherently symmetric, but obviously they’re less symmetric away from normal focal lengths, making distortion a problem.
Of course if you shoot at a small aperture or your lens is super wide you’re not going to notice it as much. Older lenses (30s and earlier) often had small apertures anyway. Triplets are fine if you’re shooting at f/128. Diffraction is going to soften your image too much to notice anyway.
Well, a flat surface is merely a part of an infinite radius sphere 🙂
But I understand what you are getting at, just not sure if it would work out commercially.
It probably won’t work out commercially. But there are a long list of problems with current cameras it could solve, including lens design, peripheral illumination, edge and corner resolution, etc… Large sensors are fine, but when they’re flat, the optical requirements get really complicated, really fast. Medium format mirrorless with a short flange distance would not be feasible with a flat sensor, for example.
I simply wouldn’t be on large sensors long term, period. But if you do, curved gets you around a lot of headaches. 🙂
Sorry…meant to say “I simply wouldn’t be[t] on large sensors long term”
I agree, it’s more hype than substance for most people’s needs. Since leaving my Canon gear in 2009, sensor size was NEVER my concern with using m43. The functionality and speed was. And, boy was it lacking, but I stuck with it, and I’m so glad I did.
GX9? Why would they skip the 8 – another unlucky number?
It seems like the GX line, just like the GH line, isn’t updated as frequently as the G and GF lines.
Forgot to write: So I think there probably won’t be a new GX in 2014.
Fot chineese 8 is very lucky. Maybe for Japan is the same.
I vote for the E-7.
+10… especially IF this is the best way to get to the C-AF focusing performance level that Canon and Nikon have in their top tier cameras. they just have to make is smaller than the E-5 with an integrated vertical grip.
“especially IF this is the best way to get to the C-AF focusing performance level that Canon and Nikon have in their top tier cameras”
Sure, because the E-3 and E-5 compare so amazingly well with contemporary DSLRs when it comes to C-AF…
And yes, I have an E-3, and yes, C-AF on it is usable with a little practice and proper setup, but it doesn’t compare well to the Canikon top tier cameras from a generation before it, let alone contemporary top tier cameras.
The E-M1 however provides quite a bit of improvement over the E-3 and 5 with regards to c-af especially for tracking.
But hey, you can dream up anything you like, even a magical E-7 that addresses everything thats wrong with any camera, and will capture a 120% market share 🙂
Yes, I was missing E-7 on the list too. Count me in for one body (maybe twoo).
While at it, let it be made with 4K video, organic biodegradable sensor, and whatnot.
I vote for Organic Sensor & GX9 .
Happy New Years to All Folks here !
There are 2 thing that I am dreaming about that are not on this list and they are not necessarily cameras.
First, with all the improvement in the OMD, the only thing left that they have to do to really play with the big boys is to develop an unquestionable focusing system with PDAF that meets all the requirements expected for sports and nature photography. A C-AF tracking system that is accurate and fast. Since it is focusing speed that we are talking about and it is also predictive focusing, this is the reason that the PDAF is the system that needs to be employed. Unless they again come up with a revolutionary focusing algorithm utilizing CDAF, Olympus will not be able to dump PDAF. I do not know where the tweaking has to be done. Is the current 4/3 lens line up adequate to really get the fastest and most accurate focusing system they can get with their installed base? Is the answer in the in camera PDAF system. This is an engineering question.
The other wish has to do with a rangefinder type viewing system not unlike what Fuji has in the X-pro 1. They are already implementing zone focusing in the 12 and 17 mm lenses, they just need a camera to take full advantage of the concept… Just a few wishes
So their CDAF is already faster than PDAF, and more accurate. It already has better tracking in the plane of focus. The question is whether or not the phase detect in the E-M1 has made up for the deficiency in tracking towards or away from the camera. No doubt, if it hasn’t, Olympus will be quick to improve it in the next release.
Keep in mind that PDAF is only better at one thing these days: detecting the direction of motion toward or away from the camera. CDAF is best at confirming focus and it’s now faster at static subjects and tracking in 2D, especially outside the PDAF area.
A updated GH3 with the GX7’s sensor and IQ, something approaching the EM-1’s EVF quality and in-body stabilization similar to that of the EM-1. In other words, something with the IQ of the GX7 (or the EM-1 if you want), controls and size of the GH3, that is oriented less toward video and more toward stills and that can make better use of the non-stabilized primes. Oh, please keep the price reasonable. I Don’t care about 4K so I don’t want to pay for it.
Actually, an EM-1 with a fully articulated touch screen would be just about perfect!
I think you’re meaning more of a G6, not a GH3 upgrade. Crippling its (GH3) video would remove its reason for existence and its appeal. We already are saturated with good stills cameras. However, having the G7 with a body similar to the GH3’s, maybe also weathersealed, and a grip offering, is probably what you want. Panasonic, to stay current in its video niche, which gives panache to the whole line, means going to 4K.
Gaining ProRes (or similar) would be even better for Panasonic’s m4/3 video strengths than getting 4K.
But unfortunately the marketing draw of “4K” is going to win here over the better performance which ProRes would offer.
High end PEN with built in EVF or Panasonic GX9, whichever comes first :).
But more than that, I’m dreaming of 6-14mm F2.8 or faster lens.
P.S. Happy New Year to all in 43rumors community.
E-PM3 would be nice…I loved my E-PM2 but wished it could track better…and as for the E-M1 and video…I am not a videographer but last night I used the video on my E-M1 during a New Year’s Eve parade and the E-M1 did splendidly for my purpose . The more I use the video on the E-M1 the more I appreciate it…I know it is no GH3 wish it was….but I am OK with it
Am I wrong in thinking that a full frame Olympus or Panasonic would warrant the arrival of a new lens system? Or could an adapter be made that would enable MFT lenses to be used fully (and not just part of the glass)?
I would hate having to invest in a third lens system. In any case maybe regular SLR lenses would work on a full frame Oly or Pana with an adapter?
The organic Panasonic sensor – I hope it materializes and with great results, especially long exposure wise. Other than that I am hoping for a GM2 with a viewfinder and even better IQ and an EM2 with far better IQ and pretty much the same features (obviously better video too).
Yes a full frame system would necessitate a new lens system and for equivalent field of view to MFT, the lenses would be dramatically larger.
Happy new year!
And FF is just a thing of the past.
Panasonic fixed lens f/1.7 MFT organic sensor camera GM1 size (folded lens) with 4K video for $199 🙂
Panasonic, please.
Seriously, a full frame OMD is the dumbest of them all…how is it leading?
How true. That proofs, that even most of the mFT-Users didn´t really understand the advantages and the sense of the (m)FT sensor size.
Three different video systems: VHS, Beta and Video2000. You do remember wich one did establish best? VHS of course, the worst of them all. Customers are to accessible for manipulation of the marketing. They buy what they are told to buy. That is a question of conformance and not a matter of mature objective needs…
Not at all. Nobody I know has the camera I have. No salesman in town even sells it. I’ve been a serious amateur photographer for nearly 30 years now, and I bought exactly what I judged was the best camera for me. The E-M5 is the camera I’ve been waiting for ever since I hung up my Spotmatic gear. The best balance of lens selection, size, weight, resolution, low light performance and features.
There are significant advantages to MFT as the system can do things larger systems can’t, like 5 axis in body stabilization. And a clean 3200 with f/1.4 or 1.8 glass is an amazing capability for me at a third the price of full frame DSLRs…that only get 1.5 stops better low light performance but weigh three to four times as much. Done right, the E-M5 also has a very usable 12,800. But I never need it.
The point is that not everyone wants full frame, and I’d rather see Olympus provide the amazing choice they are providing in the market place than to cave to the childish and unrealistic expectations that their camera must have a full frame sensor to be good. The E-M5 is an amazing camera, full stop. So is the E-M1. So is the D800.
I’m glad there are full frame cameras out there. But the E-M5 simply doesn’t need a full frame sensor to be an amazing camera with amazing image quality and features. It is without a doubt one of the best cameras in the world for shooting hand-held in all conditions, while you really need a tripod to take advantage of the D800. That’s just not my style. I personally feel that a full frame sensor would make it decidedly LESS amazing, not more. The suggestion of a FF OM-D is a pipe dream that makes absolutely no sense in reality. It simply wouldn’t be an OM-D.
People are still too much focused on resolution. They don´t even care if there is hardly any lens that could offer at least half of the resolution of a D800e. Nevertheless resolution is a rare problem amongst professionals, as 99,999% of the market does not need more than 8mpx. And those few that really need much resolution, won´t be satisfied with that tiny resolution advantage of a Nikon D800e. Any serious Pro would permanently use a PhaseOne if resolution would really matter in the heads of our customers.
Most of the hobby-photographers would obviously rather give up a wide choice of unique bright (FT-)Zoom-Lenses (wich are perfect even wide open), just to have a resolution they never needed. In my view, professional equipment has to offer a wider range of possibilities. “FF” is nice for anyone who does not need more than 200mm or less than 35mm focal length. But I´d never like to dispense unique Glass like the 35-100 f2.0 or the 90-250 f2.8, that gave me the chance to catch pictures, that my colleagues with their heavy prime lenses could not catch…
It’s not the resolution they’re after, it’s shallow DoF capabilities. The question is… if a full-frame OMD existed with enough good lenses, would it be better than a 6D/7D/D4/D800e? From what I can judge, the E-M1 has all the features of the top full-frame cameras plus awesome IBIS and long exposure features. Therefore if it were possible to have a full-frame one with a full range of lenses then it should do very well?
Some people might prefer the shallow DOF of a FF-cam. But in the daily routine of a pro, the desire for more DOF is the reality. The decision for the sensor size of Four Thirds is the result of the experiences of professional photographers from all over the world and not the arbitrary choice of Oskar Barnack who had nothing to choose from but a 35mm movie-film…
Those few Portrait-shooters with an unambitious desire to place motifs in front of a diffuse color mud may play with a Hassi or a Phase One. That´s really a difference in DOF.
For most of my work, even f5.6 with FT is not enough to offer enough DOF. That would be a f11 on a FF. No need to tell you something about the assumed noise advantage of FF-sensors…?
There are some people who know quite well, why they are working with that “tiny” FT-sensor. And its definetly not just about the wider range of focal length or because of all those faster lens constructions that would not be possible on a praised FF-sensor…
I just want the OMD EM1 to have the gh3 video codecs. This would be the perfect camera for my needs since I shoot as much video as stills.
agree, or conversely, if the GH3 had Olympus’ 5-axis ibis and focus peaking, it would be EVERYTHING I need. I have a GH3, but I’m worried about lack of ibis since I have been buying Olympus primes..
LX9 with tilt display and 1080/120p AVCHD
A Pen E-p2. That’s not a new one? Oké put in the newest sensor and all that other new stuff, and I’m happy. In my eyes still the most beautifull Pen.
Some sort of incrementally better or different sensor is all I can ask for at this point by default. I have the E-M5 and there’s little wrong with it, really. People voting for an FF Olympus should go buy a Sony A7R right now.
Me? I’m sticking with Micro Four Thirds.
I know its off topic, but if there is anything on my mind, its the PL15
I would like to see Olympus release all the Pro glass they promised. Preferably before the end of 2014.
Not a camera, but I am curious about that Kowa 8.5mm lens (and worry it’s going to cost $1000).
I’m interested in Sigma’s involvement with the system because I think it would better secure the future of u4/3 and improve the system.
I’d LOVE to see what would happen lens-wise when they are working on it.
Happy new year!
I am especially curious what the next GX will be, perhaps with further improvements in IBIS and maybe GPS.
GX9 because i dont want full frame with bigs lens. And i was disappointed about built-in EVF because of 16/9 native and is too small (LVF2 is better for me).
Why not GM2 with an hotshoe with a new EVF , i could love his small size but not much button, and i dont like touchscreen. And it already exist, it’s called EP5. So that’s why i’m waiting for a new GX.
A FF OMD could work with MFT lenses in a crop mode. Would need a 64 MP sensor to equal 16 MP. A camera like this would offer the ultimate in flexibility for lenses (native and adapted) and creativity. Since Sony and Olympus are cooperating no technical reason new Sony FF lenses could not work as well.
You’d need a mount that is wide enough to support this properly. Not sure if the m4/3 mount would be wide enough, but the FE mount evidently isn’t.
I’m hoping for a G7. G-Series has an almost perfect body for me, tilt&swifel,flash, ELV and enough dials and knobs.
But what is needed in my respect, is a much better sensor, with much less shadow-noise, like GX7/GM1. And may be an enhanced JPG-Engine (pray) and colour-representation.
In Playback-mode please implement a propper magnification in 8x & 16x modes which doesn’t blure the Image.
Also nth would be IBIS like GX7.
would be a dream, at least for me 😉
kind regards
A G7 with the Constant Preview feature from the GH-series and GX7 would be great.
I don’t know why Panasonic offers it only in those cameras and not in the rest of their camera line-up.
This, plus weather sealing and the ibis of the GX7. That would make the G7 the M43 camera to get in my opinion.
MrALLCRAP
No one cares about your pathetic opinion.
For myself I didn’t need Weathersealing. I’m a german “Weichei”, leaving the house only when sun is shining 😉
I guess WR would require a propper chassis, which the G-7 dosn’t have. It would make it heavier and more costly. So, at least for me, it would be fine to let the WR Feature reside in the GH-Serie only.
@Jeffharris
At leats in “A” mode the Display reacts on Exposure compensation and meets the taken Picture. In “M” mode I’ll have to activate the Shutter Effect. In both cases preview and token picture matches.
@C.C.
Forgotten to take your medicine? 😉
regards
I would like to see a WEATHER protected PEN from Oly. Built-in VF not a necessity. Just the latest hi-tech and access to attach a VF is fine.
Let’s take it a step further and see a PEN Tough version like the TG-series. Or the Nikon 1 Nikonos that was released recently.
weather sealed small body with weather sealed lens ( primes). I hate how there are no small lens that are weather sealed. And nikon raised the weather sealing game with the nikon 1aw. If I could have a m4/3 with that I would be so so happy. If not I’m switching to nikon 1 as my adventure camera soon.
And add improved hybrid AF on a multi-aspect Merrill-type sensor with raw histograms, auto-ETTR and fully configurable Program/Auto mode. Not much to ask is it?
I didn’t see an “all of the above” option ??
Guys, guys, guys.
25% of you – that is, the relative majority – dreams about a FULL FRAME camera.
Sorry, but in this case what the hell are you looking for in this forum, as 43rumors does mean rumors about 4/3 format (hence NOT full frame) cameras?
You are perfectly right! Olympus will be MFT only for a lot of time to come. There is already the Sony A7/r so why do we need a FF OMD? Not to mention the FF lineups from Nikon and Canon for those who like mirrors :-).
Happy New Year to all of you!
No place to vote for the already-rumored Leica compact mirrorless system?
Their current interchangeable-lens cameras are out of my price range, but I like their Spartan design philosophy. So my 2014 dream is a Leica-concept camera with a compact body, small and well-chosen range of lenses, excellent low-light performance, and (I can dream, can’t I?) an attainable price.
PS – I know it’s only January 1, but I nominate Duncan’s cat simile as Comment of the Year.
I want to master my E-M1 in 2014. As long as I didn’t manage to made the best pictures out of my existing cam, eny new cam don’t get me better pictures. It only decreases the numbers on my bank statement…
Olympus EM-1 did pretty well in polls generally all across. From dc.watch it was closely trailing the Nikon DF. And surprise, the stylus one took the crown beating even the Ricoh GR and sony rx100II
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/special/20131231_629180.html
Anyway, in a few years the camera part of Olympus will be sold to Sony.
Maybe less than a “few” years. I would not think it was an outlandish prediction to say that that could happen in 2014 or 2015 at the latest.
One interesting result of the poll is the contradiction between n1 and n2.
An Olympus FF is quite a jump. It might be in the cards but it can’t really be implemented the way Sony did it: too large a sensor for too short a register.
N2, the foveon, would allow to keep the m4/3 mount, and thus the lenses, while still having the benefit of a FF equivalent.
Organic sensor, yielding the same FF benefit is only N6. So are we sure people here understand the conditions?
Sony mirrorless FF at the moment is far as reactive and flexible as m4/3. I agree with Barneck (Barnack?) that there might be business in it, but not as much as people take it to be: lenses are twice as expensive, and they are limited in range.
So are those answering the polls photogs. or uninformed customers? And how much are they really prepared to spend?
BTW those who spent for FF, like Soundimage, lost their mind against Rockwell and Tuck, who didn’t:
http://soundimageplus.blogspot.it/2013/12/why-are-all-these-internet-pundits-so.html
There is now a pitched battle. Should act a s a warning for 2014 🙂
Well, not everyone are photographers.
There’s also tech enthusiasts whose main interest is technology more than photography.
As for the Foveon, I’m sure there’s a sizable chunk of the voters who are basing it on the idea that it’s an unusual sensor design, different than the majority Bayer filter sensor. This sparks excitement because it’s not just continued improvement (better high ISO, better dynamic range), but a “new world” altogether and they want to see how it will works out.
Not a bad reason, other than perhaps for photographers who are too purist about their crafts and don’t like the idea of outsiders coming close to their idea of perfection.
Well, it’s an original opinion, but frankly I must side with the photogs. There are probably more interesting ways to spend money for a technologist than in an activity which is also an art.
If you cannot take the art side you might as well limit yourself to smart phones: they are perfectly adequate for mere memory.
Even choosing the foveon for kicks is a strange idea. One choses foveon for Landscapes and because one wants to have a detailed one. But the choice of Landscape and the composition still stay the initial and most important factor.
HAAHAHAHA!
The Olympus Fanboys here are a JOKE!
They rage about how good the 43 sensor is good for 90% of photography in the previous post, yet the FF Olympus camera gets the top vote!
HAHAHAHA! Really? FF? I thought M43 would rule in five years? I thought 43 is all anyone ever needs? I thought FF isn’t selling? hahahahaha!
Your point is well-taken and I agree that the voting for FF makes little sense [for anything but a “dream” camera] — fanboy or not. I couldn’t help but wonder whether those voting FF really understand the Four Thirds design and benefits that accrue to the sensor size for the entire system. The FF boys and girls have to deal with much larger and heavier lenses on an apples-to-apples basis. I left FF because it didn’t do anything significant to offset its weight and cost.
I think this response from users is just a wish to have everything. Small and light and the best image quality possible. I bet there are many FF owners wishing for smaller cameras. You could ask them why they don’t have m43’s cameras.
Micro Four Thirds has an ethos of being small and light. This is something we haven’t seen applied to FF until the A7/A7R. And there is a long way to go before Sony gets it all in place. Yes a small collapsible NEX lens can be fitted to an A7R and fit in your jacket pocket but you don’t get the benefit of that larger sensor. They need a collapsing prime pancake FF lens around F2 to make it really something special.
Personally I want quality small gear. If that can be done in a FF then bring it on. But I don’t think that is the best approach. With ever improving sensors and some clever use of oversized sensor combined with collapsing lenses I think we can get awesome image quality and features (read IBIS, EVF) in a GM1 sized camera, where the lens can collapse into the body. I would prefer that over any FF.
”
Micro Four Thirds has an ethos of being small and light. This is something we haven’t seen applied to FF until the A7/A7R
”
Yes, tey shrunk the body, but it will still need FF Lenses, which will be big and costly. And aou will sitll have this shallow DOF which isn’t always helpful. So you had to stop down, raise the ISO… uuups, where is my advantage…
And the shutternoise of the Sony’s. Only heard it in some Videos, but my God, this thing seems to be really loud. May be it would have been possible to build it quiter…
regards
?? We all know that *you*, MrAllCaps, have voted some 500 times for an Oly FF under your various personalities 🙂
NOPE.
I voted for the FF Panasonic G camera.
I feel the limit of the 43 sensor is here. Engines will help lengthen it, but I feel it’s done. I want more.
For the past year, I’ve been hoping Panasonic creates a FF camera similar to the G6. Hopefully, we’ll at least get a G6 with a APS-C sensor.
My real wish is a Fuji-Panasonic union, where Fuji will continue to make Rangefinder shaped bodies for the Xpro system, while Panasonic makes G6 like bodies for the Xpro system.
I think that would be the near perfect system.
I agrree with you, FF isn’t really needed for all.
Lower Noise is the only aspect that let me think about buying an FF camera today. But all other aspects aren’t meeting my needs.
I would like to have a fourthirds Sensor with a higher dynamic range and lower noise then the sensores used in the G-Series today
(had G2, G3 and G5 all not very good in that respects)
For me, it would be sufficient to have the E-M5 Sensor, and the jpg engine, or maybe the GX7 / GM1 Sensor also would be fine, in the G-Series.
So, why I’m not buying the Olympus EM-5 / EM-1???
No internal flash, no tilt & swiffel… Not my Camera… 🙂
But may be as a second cam.
So, I’ll wait what a G7 will bring. Then deciding between G7 and EM-5.
Regards
None of the above, my wishlist is rather :
E-M2 = E-M1 + swiveling LCD + always-on preview
E-M5 Mk II = E-M5 + E-M1 processor/LCD/EVF/switch (the rest of the design, shutter, battery and grip compatibility left unchanged)
With that I’d replace both my GH3 and my E-M5, and with a E-P5 I’d have a 3-tiered system all sharing the same batteries, oh yes…
Please explain in what way the EM1 or EM5 do not have always-on preview, compared to how it’s implemented in the GH3. How do they differ in use?
In M mode, with Constant Preview On, the GH3 automatically displays the correct Exposure, Depth of Field, using the right Aperture and simulating the correct Shutter Speed.
Meanwhile, on the E-M5, you are by default wide open, displaying compensated exposure, by pushing the Preview button, you have access to the proper Exposure, Aperture and Depth of Field.
You don’t have access to Shutter Speed simulation or a way to have Aperture and Exposure constant preview.
It doesn’t matter for some topics, but in some instances it really is invaluable (Macro for the constant aspect of the preview, light painting and movement effects for shutter speed simulation).
Anyway, it saved me enough time on the GH3 that I end up missing it when using the E-M5 in a similar situation.
Sure, it’s mostly laziness and I could live with it if I thought just a bit longer, but in some cases it’s time I don’t have.
So, basically :
Only the GH3 provides Shutter Speed simulation.
In M mode, the GH3 provides Constant Preview while the E-M5 requires to keep pushing on a button.
In all other modes, the GH3 requires a push of a button to display everything but Shutter Speed simulation, a second push to add Shutter Speed and a third to get back to normal; The E-M5 behaves as in M mode and display the preview only as long as you keep pushing the preview button.
I hope I have been clear enough in how it differs and affects operation (and have forgotten nothing, I tend to forget details that do not matter to me).
Thanks Eos, I have the GH3, and for my purposes find I can only use it in M, since in other still photo modes the EVF gain-up (which I believe = most of what you call the lack of always-on preview) misleads and distracts me.
So on the Em5 (& Em1?) you need to additionally push the Preview button to see your actual exposure represented – can you press and release the button? And I assume it requires pressing again for every exposure… That would be a pain. Are you sure that there Is no way to customize that function on the Oly’s?
Last question, does it behave the same way in video mode, both before, And during video capture?
Push and release doesn’t work, Preview only works as long as you keep the button pressed, at least in my experience and according to the manual of the E-M5 (I don’t know if it’s still true for the E-M1).
I have not enough interest and experience with video to be certain about it but AFAIR, video is WYSIWYG obviously for all Aperture related effects and there is no exposure compensation, so you can consider the E-Mx have constant preview in Video mode.
That’s terrible, and also a surprise that few have mentioned it.
Thanks for the info.
So let me clear something up here: on the E-M5, my actual exposure is represented always, and I use it in manual so I know this. The “Preview” is the depth of field preview, and you don’t get exposure preview when in depth of field preview, but as soon as you release the DOF preview button, it goes back to exposure preview, the default mode.
So what’s said above isn’t accurate.
I’m sorry, but you are wrong, I just did a simple test in M mode.
I aim at a subject in low light conditions, manually put Aperture at f/22 and Shutter Speed at 1/4000s, with a proper Exposure Preview I should get nothing but a black frame.
With Constant Preview set to On, the GH3 displays a black frame, as it should.
With LV Boost set to Off, the E-M5 displays the dimly lit scene (no Exposure Preview as you claim), then I push the preview button and… I get a slightly darker image (due to the fact that it is now using the proper Aperture, but indeed that’s a side-effect of something intended for Depth of Field Preview), but it’s still not the proper Exposure.
Now, let’s aim them at one of my monitor displaying black text on a white background, set the Aperture to f/1.8 and Shutter Speed to 1s, that should give us an all-white frame.
The GH3 dutifully shows a white frame, as it should.
The E-M5 and E-P5 still display the text.
Now, let me tell you why you think you are right (because you are indeed, in a fashion, right).
As long as you are within +/- 3 EV of the ideal Exposure measured by the E-M5, it will display a faithful Exposure Preview, once you get out of that zone, the E-M5 automatically compensates it up or down (and signals it by having the Exposure Compensation flashing).
Even though, it still fails to qualify as Constant Preview (as it fails to be constant).
It’s not a Olympus bug, it’s a deliberate feature to favour composition over exposure, even though it makes little sense in the most extreme situations (as demonstrated, giving the beginning or distracted photographer the false impression that he will get the shot, when he will not).
Panasonic’s solution at least gives me a larger choice of behaviour and is more accurate in border or corner cases, whereas Olympus forces me to trial and errors.
Don’t get me wrong, that Exposure Boost is one of the huge advantage of mirrorless, EVF and LiveView over traditional DSLRs and OVF, it is invaluable in many situations.
I’m hoping against hope that Panasonic actually makes a push this year to display and sell m43 cameras in the U.S. big box stores (Best Buy, Fry’s, hhgregg).
Yeah, and I’ll take an organic sensor GX8 with OLED VF, thanks.
GM2 with GX7 style EVF. Enable 60p for video. Loose the touchscreen.
Don’t care about any cameras, I want some lenses to stick on my gx7!
Start with these…
http://cameraquest.com/voigt_m43_17.htm
🙂
or here
http://www.hennigarts.com/micro-four-thirds-objektive.html
Has anyone asked Olympus what their plans are? I think it was foolish to include a FF Olympus as an option – Olympus is in bed with Sony and likely to collaborate in Sony lenses but FF bodies? – why carve into an already limited market when Olympus is just beginning to break through into the mainstream with m43? And potential FF buyers – are you ready to spend thousands on replacing bodies and lenses when even most pros reckon m43 is already good enough for the vast majority of cases? Don’t believe me, take a look at Reichmann’s appraisal of the EM1. The next 12 months will tell us where Olympus are going but I doubt it will include FF.
I’ll guess they will share markets. Sony FF, Oly m43….
Sony gets Body and Lens knowhow from Oly
Oly gets Sensors an knowhow from Sony.
regards
I’m kinda shocked to see FF envy on THIS site, where people are so passionate about the size benefit to IQ trade off when selecting M43 (i.e., the image quality remains very high, but the size benefit is considerable). 🙂
The closest thing to a FF OMD seems like the A7 or A7r, but lacks Oly’s amazing autofocus speed (from reports and reviews I’ve read). Of course, to get FF lenses that rival M43 speed and quality, you’ll likely lose the size benefit of the Sony solution pretty fast. Sony’s choice to go with slower, smaller, HQ glass seems like a compromised solution to a currently unsolvable problem. But if we’re talking pure fantasy, then sure, a FF Oly that can still use the current glass at full size and quality would be great.
Meanwhile, I’d be thrilled to see Oly and Panny focus on improving the already very good high ISO performance, building more pro grade, weather sealed fast lenses (that 12-40mm mount issue is worrisome), and building even more rugged, sealed bodies in a variety of styles, shapes and sizes. A PEN with EM1 style weather sealing and bigger buffer and lenses to go with it would make me very happy, as will the GH4K from Panny. All of which seems not only possible, but probable in 2014! 😉
Happy New Year everyone
I wouldn’t call it full frame envy, really. I shoot both a Nikon D800 and an Olympus E-M5, and find that both excel in different ways. I love the absolute image quality of the D800 and the portability of the OM-D. As far as I’m concerned, with current technology, the Olympus cameras are nearly as good as they can get outside of a few little improvements that won’t make a big difference as far as image quality goes. The next generation of sensors will likely change this, but that’s not something I’d expect in the next year or two.
My wish is that a photographer-centric company like Olympus does a compact full frame camera right. I do not trust that Sony will ever get it right, as it seems to jump from idea to idea without fully developing anything. I believe that Olympus could build the first great compact larger sensor camera system that excels both at quality and is significantly smaller than current full frame gear. Sure, it will be bigger and more expensive than m4/3 gear, but there is a niche that Olympus could exploit that could promise high margins and perhaps create more visibility for the brand.
It certainly wouldn’t replace m4/3, but would offer a new option at prices that I’m sure would still be a fraction of what Leica charges these days.
I agree.
I would dump my RX1R if Oly had a FF compact like an Old Pen EE, or the RC RD rangefinders, etc. Give it IS, and a quality built in VF like the one in the EM-1 and it would be an absolute JOY!
I know there are lots of people here who ho-hum FF sensors. As someone who shot extensively on 4/3 and m4/3 and now have both FF and m4/3, there is a quality (a signature) to the 35mm size sensor thats unique. Olympus shouldn’t run away from it. Continue to develop m4/3 and it’s advantages, but have a premium offering with FF to attract people used to that format.
A RX1R with a built-in viewfinder would be very, very nice. I just can’t get used to the awkwardness of accessory finders or composing at arms length.
The A7 and A7R are promising, but seem a bit half-baked from the reviews I’ve read. This is where Olympus could really shine, taking the same concept and making it really work, both with the small body and lenses. I think Sony made a big mistake by not finding a way to utilize in-body stabilization into both the full frame and aps-c nex camera designs. Just too obsessed with thin designs rather than making something functional.
7mm f4 lens with a good small size, accepts filters and is blisteringly sharp wide open 🙂
Well that is what I would vote for if I could
Simple!
Most of us won’t buy a FF due to its size and weight, and price too. However, we are craving to see how Olympus could implement a FF system and trump the other brands. We know Olympus is good in making great cameras, don’t we?
I know it is not likely that Olympus would make a FF but still, I voted for it.
Sony made a good start with the full-frame mirrorless A7/A7r.
Let’s see what they do with version 2, with the kinks straightened out.
If I wanted a FF I would have kept the 40 pounds of glass and my Nikon. The E-M1 is superb camera and I see no reason to head off in another direction. Your questionnaire left off “none of the above.” My wish would be for more Pro glass like the 12-40, including a replacement for the 75-300.
We want the FF IQ in MFT size.
In 2014! So simple.
These choices are not reflective of what I’m looking for.
I have no need for 4K at this point. What I’m looking for are:
5 Axis Stabilization IBIS in Video
Good Video Codecs (the Black Magic Pocket Camera comes close) ProRes and RAW
Settings that work both for Europe and the US (is this so hard Olympus?)
1080p
Something like this is a GH3 or GX7 form factor and I’ll be happy to buy.
THIS!
FF? Really?? What’s wrong with you people?
I personally voted for the organic sensor. I want to see what the tech has in it.
Previous years I voted for Foveon-like sensor cameras, but frankly got tired to wait for anything to change there.
Strange that so many people want to see a full frame OMD. If you want full frame, then why are you shooting this format to begin with?
Many of these voters are the ones who wanted a RED video functionality in the GH3. “After all its already there it just needs enabling” they said. Now that pany is making a higher spec video unit that costs substantially more they have all gone quiet. Presumably they now think that their nice little m43 lenses will work ‘just fine’ on a 35mm version. OK there are several people who do want a 35mm Oly, But really if they want 35mm sensors they should seriously consider Sony A7, by the time Oly comes up with a 35mm camera Sony will be into its second generation body, and may have the things that people seem to want and the benefit of a fair array of lenses.
Perhaps these voters don’t realise that a 35mm Olympus would not be a m43 camera. It would be a Sony A7 follower. Sony is better placed, at present, to build a lens line up for the A7 line, than Oly would be for a 35mm set up.
I’m looking forward for camera capable of shooting video 2.5K, MFT/FF, Global Shutter, PRO RES/RAW, with built in IS. Don’t care what name it will be branded with.
A small compact FF sensor camera that can use both MFT lenses in crop mode, and FF lenses in either crop or FF mode would be the best of all worlds.
But there wasn’t an option in the poll for the JK Kodak Pixpro S1 micro four thirds camera! We are in the window for the announcement of that (first half of the year.)
Actually, it’s more likely that within the next month they’ll postpone it again, or my bet is they’ll cancel it altogether. Their train has left the station, and it’ll be gone five hundred miles when the day is done.
Note Well.
75% do NOT want an OMD 35mm.
My pet would be an oversize m43 sensor. Use of m43, 4/3 glass and utilisation of focal reducers for legassy glass. But that’s me.
Again, note, 75% do not want a 35mm sensor.
Not sure what all the fuss is about FF. I hardly use my FF camera now because the lenses are too big and heavy. m4/3 lens size and weight seems to me to be the ideal compromise. I wouldn’t be interested buying into a new FF lens line up from Olympus while I’m still enjoying the amazing Olympus m4/3 primes.
My dream camera is something like the new Sony RX10 but with a broadcast codec (prores422), m4/3 sensor size and a shorter but faster 24-105mm f2.0 zoom lens.
This is something like the GH4 I suppose. Should be a good year.
I asked myself why so many reviewers chose the E-M1 while they could have chosen the A7r. Only a couple did the latter. So are they being conventional? Or are they being rational?
Rationality in economic choices is guided by marginal utility. You buy until what you buy has the same marginal utility of the money you separate with, or what you trade it with.
A FF mirrorless system is v. expensive for little additional utility, compared to m4/3, that is the long and short of it. Some might think honestly that they need the difference, and are prepared to fork for it, but the majority?
That is why I believe there is a large element of crappy participation in this forum. How many of you are ready to change all their lenses for twice the price? Reminds me of the legend of the Island of Crete, where all the inhabitants were liars. How could you ask anybody for directions?
And what will you do with you cherished m4/3 lenses? Dump them on ebay for 1/3 of the price? LOL.
I may be biased, but I’m not the least bit surprised that so many of these blogs are picking the E-M1 as camera of the year over the A7s. I’m always the first to say the A7 is a great start. Sony has been doing some very interesting things. However, if you have ever handled the A7 it feels rushed to market. The ergonomics and handling just feel unfinished. Not to mention the system is lacking in lens choices, and is not THAT cheap when you compare it to the E-M1 and what you get in speed and build quality. There is so much more to a good camera than just a better sensor. The E-M1 feels like a finely crafted tool in my hands. Whatever “shortcomings” in image quality is more than made up for in handling and an amazing design.
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a million times, ALL of these sensors, including even smaller than m43 have amazing image quality these days. DOF be damned. You CANNOT tell what camera took a perfectly exposed, well composed, artistically interesting photo. There was a time where every improvement in a sensor meant a lot. Not anymore.
I agree, after all those who have had a FF35 camera can tell if they need it or not. However the problem I see with Sony is that it chose too short a distance to flange for too large a format. So that many lenses don’t resolve well, except at the center. Or they must be too big and expensive, like the 55mm.
Now why did it do this? So that it could mount NEX lenses as well.
So if Oly or Panny did the same they would have a similar choice. Either scr*w the native lenses, or give up the m4/3 ones, because of a longer mount.
Otherwise why take all the pain for an increase in resolution which is not granted? People would have every reason to stay with their earlier mirrored FF AND m4/3.
So mirrorless FF35 has some basic limitations, and doesn’t seem as convenient as the former,
My wishlist is a firmware update for the EM5…
Olympus, if you are reading this can you please include the following in order of priority:
Focus peaking
Silent electronic shutter
24, 25 and 50P video
“My sets” configured on command dial
Stop motion
More black and white art filters
Now everyone else butt out. This is my dream and I don’t want anyone spoiling it… 🙂
+1 focus peaking for the E-M5
+1 for silent shutter
waterproof panasonic mft system
I would like to see Oly jump over FF and move into Medium format
Also now that Olympus finally has a true pro mFT camera, it is time to look at the rest of the pro ecology. I would like to see Olympus adopt the Wistro AD180 and AD360 (they are the MFT of studio strobes after all), really get plugged into the 3rd party scene, and really develop their pro support network.
I vote g7. Its gonna be cheaper em1. And you ff voters….just bizarre. You do know that all your lens will be redundant…..that the ff lens that you have to buy will be much, much bigger….
M43 is freaking great, hope Olympus and Panasonic pay no attention to these surveys, shame on you oly ff fanboys.
are Leica FF lenses bigger or smaller than MFT lenses? Or maybe just the same size?
Lets see.. elmarit-m 90/2.8 is 55x83mm
Olympus 45/1.8 56x46mm
Only lenses with a focal length a bit longer then the flange distance will be very close to m4/3 lenses with the same field of view. See, there is a direct relation between focal length and the distance between medium and optical center of the lens.
A Panasonic G7 that keeps all the good parts of a G6 and adds live HDMI out, is such a pity the G6 can’t used properly with an external monitor while recording.
Adding ProRes as an option too for the G7 would be nice, but I’m afraid that is probably very unlikely.
so must M43 user want a FF sensor camera, interesting… 😀 That’s the final proof for the inferior complex going on in the microcosmos. Happy new year!
what do I want,..??
I want the camera companies to stop making me feel that I need a brand new camera every 6 months. I have a Fuji 100 and now I have to sell and get a 100s cause it’s sooo much better. I’m done for the next 5 years. How can this new camera really help me take better pictures than my Canon G12 or my LX7 or my TG-2. Its madness and a terrible addiction that many people have today. I’m sorry but put the laptop away. I’m getting outside and taking pictures.
Kevin, if you use a laptop you are well into frequent full replacement of gear. If you had a desk top you could just replace this part or that part. Lot cheaper and no learning curve.
And. And.
If you have a mac you will be well versed in the need to buy a new one every, what is it? month, or so and then a new OS every 10 minutes, not compatible with earlier hardware, of course.
And. And.
Had to join intel to make the graphics work. Ha Ha, sorry I have a sick sense of humour. Its based on reality, macs have always tickled my funny bone. Also have been known to pinch the security chain and leave the item and lock then demand a report on the issue.
But you forgett that a Mac is good for at least 5 years, doesnt crash and that the OS is free. And when ots time to update you can sell it for money.
But I agree that the camera, pc laptop, smartphone and many other type of products needs to updated way to often.
I have had maybe 5 cameras, 3 PC laptops and 4 smartphones over the life span of one Mac. I wish they all lived as long as the mac. Thats why I have promised my self to always buy premium.
Oh my, an apple fanboy, as if having Pana and Oly fanboys wasn’t enough,
Ahh, an FF fanboy as there wasnt enough of them around.
Which is why I use this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrobjective/11056807816/in/photostream
And this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrobjective/8354432806/in/photostream
Indeed full frame 4/3″
“Doesn’t matter how you get the gold as long as you beat the leprechaun.”
If you’re not interested in new camera gear then what the hell are you doing on a rumors site? Just buy a camera and use it until it’s dead but don’t complain about companies producing better cameras every year and websites reporting about it. Just ignore it and you’ll be a lot happier.
I feel exactly the same. There is no rationality but only greed. Some 8 yrs. ago, when I began taking an interest in Olympus, sensor technology was comparatively backward, perhaps 4 stops less than todays, so it made sense to follow the latest, smallish progress, and trade cameras.
But now it is really the opposite, and we are approaching the limits to growth. That is the only reason why I can see an interest in FF35, but that too in turn is reaching its limits.
OTH it makes little sense to apply technologies developed for astrophysics and faint stars to a human portrait: it rather needs art than dehumanised science. 50,000 Mpx for an ugly nose?
The hint that we are dealing mostly with trolls and noobs is exactly that: the clamour for abstract performance. If they were smarter they would take photography classes instead of blabbering about FF35. Many of those who had it now use m4/3 for daily practice, with a sense of liberation.
Ken Rockwell made a v. clever case by showing that a Leica 50mm has actually LESS resolution with an A7 Sony than with a Leica. He did similar stuff with a Canon and other lenses. So much for mirrorless FF. In fact with the best lenses at m4/3 we have some of the best resolutions of the camera industry. WTF do you want more?
Perhaps we have too few people who take pictures, and too many mechanical engineers, week end photogs, who waste their time online, trying to worry their fellows. They should beware the bad karma they are preparing to themselves.
As for camera buying Olympus might wait 🙂
i never here about FF from 2 fourthirds partner ,
where is source? or fanboy fake news,rumors that like panny join leica for M mount(FF)
but i bet no FF from Lumix.
Then GH4K and E-M5 successor is true.
You can’t see if the FF voters are actually m43 users, so you still don’t know if m43 users want FF.
Oly re-joining the world of 35mm photography in digital form has been mooted as a possible by Olympus. What needs to be recognised here is that it will not be a m43 or 4/3 camera. It will not take m43 or 4/3 lenses. It may well be a mirrorless camera, to go back to mirrors and all their faults would be silly, nay, stupid. To work in the most effective manner the registration distance would need to be longer than M43 or the Sony a7. The old 4/3 is a reasonable distance but the mount is not wide enough, this being very limiting for this size image circle.
M and E mount lenses have problems with 35mm sensors, yes, they can be overcome, but the fix is an expensive one and applied to individual cameras. This leads to the question of avoiding these issues. The use of a mount of about 35mm register distance would reduce the existing problems and allow for smaller lenses, if it were wide it would help new lens design and make mounting legassy glass easier. This at the same time allowing, with good design, a smallish body to be made.
Maybe now is the time to tell oly what we want, fine. But don’t forget. The basic thing is, it ain’t no m43 camera.
So don’t think it will be part of your current system. Sony used the e mount for a 35mm sensor. using an m43 mount would more than double the problems that Sony is beginning to encounter, something that will cost Sony with each new model.
Why moderation?
For people like you who have been released too early from the Mental Asylum.
Just reread what you wrote here above and stay serious if you can 🙂
Three different video systems: VHS, Beta and Video2000. You do remember wich one did establish best? VHS of course, the worst of them all. Customers are to accessible for manipulation of the marketing.
VHS was more affordable.
VHS was better distributed.
VHS offered longer recording time (120mn vs 60mn) at the cost of image quality.
Yet at equal recording time (120mn), VHS and Betamax offered similar image quality.
VHS also offered an even longer record time (240mn) once again with reduced picture quality (below 120mn Betamax).
VHS was marginally easier to use.
Pre-recorded media played a role in VHS’s success as they quickly became more varied and cheaper than the Betamax offer (ignoring content is a mistake Sony would repeat with the MiniDisc).
VHS was indeed the technically inferior solution, however it prevailed because it met the needs and use of consumers better than Betamax.
A technically superior but inconvenient solution will always be trumped by a “good enough” but convenient one when it comes to consumer electronics.
It’s not – just – that consumers are uneducated idiots swayed by marketing, but that to them, the elegance and superiority of the underlying principles is NOT a factor in their purchase, only the adequation to their needs and actual uses is.
Black Magic Pocket with IBIS
if Olympus/Zuiko starts to design and build lenses for A7 and A7r … could be possible that Oly starts to build a FF cameras to.
Hmmm… first time in the last 10-15 years that are true possibilty that Oly goes back to FF
G7++++++++
full frame om-d???????????? the olyfans are brainless.. (e oly is happy.)
Anyone here who is into MFT would not want Oly nor Pany to get into FF. All those two companies need is to dilute their resources by adding a new incompatible new format; sure we are making no money so let’s make even less money. If you voted for FF, I don’t think you really thought that one out.
I love Gx-7 so I imagine next iteration will be even better.
“Sigma Foveon mft camera” – this one would be the real big thing for the MFT world. Olympus and Panasonic should actually pay to Sigma to do it.
Took a look at the poll results again. (Where was I when this vote was held?) the M4/3rds possible options were so divided and fractured, that it would be surprising if the only FF option did not win. 74% preferred m4/3rds to a FF option.