Few days ago we posted the email we received from one of our readers. He said that he saw the new Olympus camera (the modular camera) in Atlanta. It is a new source that’s why I posted the news with a low value (FT2= 20-40% chance the rumor could be true).
But I was quiet surprised to see that one of my trusted sources sent me following email:
“I have a good reason the new camera would be seen in Atlanta. The gy who does all the training powerpoints for Olympus lives in Atlanta, and would be hanging out with the Japanese gentleman (probably Akira Watanabe) taking sample photos for use in his technical training powerpoints. The [shoplink 15032]Olympus E-3[/shoplink] could have been spotted in a similar manner back in 2007, and I know this for a fact. 😉”
And a second (very good source) confirmed that few people is testing the new “E-system” camera in the field. So keep your eyes open! 🙂
P.S.: Click here ot read the rumor posted few days ago.
35 Responses
oh my effin’ god!!!
Hi,
don´t matter to me the modular system if they don´t have something good inside,
Olympus need a very good sensor to compete, from Panasonic or from someone, but right now,
i talk about DR and noise from ISO base, AF speed, etc..
then 4/3 will have a chance to survive
Oly E-5 Haiku
Each day I check out
Olympus Rumors.com
Could this be the day?
I don’t think “could have” and “I know this for a fact” can be used in the same sentence. You know for a fact that it might have happened?
In other news, a Canon 5D Mark II could have been on sale for $5 at Best Buy yesterday, and I know this for a fact.
Let us suppose that the sighting is true. What new information does it provide? Only that the mount module slides in from the top and some obscure idea of the shape. In fact the confirmation you got from your trusted sources is more exciting.
I do not understand all this enthusiasm for a modular body that will, assuming it actually (or ever) exists, take standard 4/3 & m4/3 lenses. The m4/3 lenses are slow compared to the standard ones, so if you own both why use the m4/3 ones on anything apart from an m4/3 body?
What happened to the talk for a new E-x pro body, with all the features we expect from that? Everyone now seems to want a multipurpose body that they can configure as required with EVF or OVF, m4/3 or standard 4/3, mirror or no mirror, grip or no grip etc.
Me, I am waiting for an E-x to replace my ageing E-1. And this E-x needs to be a “pro” level body that is weather sealed, robust and has good ISO performance.
John.
Though I don’t have the surest of expectations, what interests me is the potential for T/S functions.
When I saw the first rumour, It made perfect sense. A swappable mount that allows you to choose between M43 and 43 lenses when carrying the camera with you.
Olympus – and others – have said before that the key to future is to sell many more accessories to enthusiasts and allowing people to mix and match M43 and 43 lenses in their collection has to be good news for Oly.
It’s easy to imagine a pretty compact body, two swapable lenses mounts and an optional battery grip.
Depending on what you are doing, you could take just the body fitted with the M43 mount and a collapsable M43 lens, or the body with a grip and a 50-200 43 lens.
Just so long as the E5 allows me HD video and a proper microphone port….I’m very interested.
I agree with Newsed. I think modular would be advantageous with a 2nd camera, not your best one. The more modules, the more places for dust to accumulate for one. I think it is better to get things right the first time and produce it. I would have no problem with a EVF instead of an optical if it is an improvement. The swivable live view would have to stay to save me lying in mud taking photos of miniature flowers from underneath for example. And yes I definitely want HD video but it has tone better than the Pen as that is still too jumpy. As a current E620 user how much difference does a decent grip make?
I think it’s important to take the idea of a modular mount in consideration with the other leaks we’ve gotten. If Olympus actually has come up with a 2:1 converter for OM and other full frame lenses, the required thickness for this converter necessitates the micro-four-thirds mount flange to sensor distance. If this pro body can accomodate the 2:1 converter and enable autofocus on OM lenses using an integrated lens group in the converter itself, that feature alone would make the Four Thirds pro body a de facto full-frame camera, albeit with a smaller sensor.
Wrap your head around the concept of a full frame camera with a smaller sensor. It seems like an oxymoron, but if the photos LOOK full-frame, aren’t they? Assuming a light advantage of one stop for the converson (approximately), what’s the difference between the 5D Mk II and the Oly pro body other than megapixel count? If this is the reason for making the body modular, I’ll take one. If Olympus starts producing Full Frame glass to function optimally with the converter, it probably won’t even need a focus mechanism, relying completely on the SWD mechanism in the converter.
Sign me up for a 50MM F1.2 fixed-focus lens element on an AF SWD 2:1 converter making it a 50MM EFOV F0.95 with F1.2 DOF on ISO 100 please. From their patent applications, they can do it.
I have to admit I’m not really sure about the purpose of a modular system. The pieces themselves would cost as much as another camera, so in that case I’d rather get a second camera that specializes in that particular function as opposed to a modular piece to an existing system that may or may not do what I need it to do. I think Olympus will fall flat on their face if they pin their hopes on a modular system. Some enthusiasts will buy it, but not the larger user population. Bad idea IMO.
I think Olympus should focus in their next E3 succesor on the core of photography: image quality (DR, noise, iso etc) and autofocus.
They can make it modular, big or small and add gimmicks they like., if image quality and AF are not stunning, people won’t buy it.
Why should anyone buy a camera that can handle both micro and 4/3 lenses if the micro lenses are not in the same leage? I don’t see the point.
You want micro you get it small with reasonable image quality.
You want 4/3rds you get outstanding lenses, weather proof (and I hope an outstanding EX). Don’t see the point of releasing a modular body that can handle both micro and 4/3rds.
Hope Olympus knows what they are doing.
if only all of us cud design cameras for olymputs, oly wud sure become no:1!
@Nathan – that was a Panasonic patent you’re referencing. See the link here: http://43rumors.com/thoughts-about-the-panasonic-adapter-patent/. Olympus has a patent regarding a double focus system. Either way, if Panasonic comes out with it it may work with Olympus cameras.
I am referring to the patent from Olympus which does not include a mirror.
http://43rumors.com/ft3-olympus-patent-rumors-adapter-with-integrated-wide-lens-and-adapter-with-swd-auto-focus/
This is a 0.5x wide converter with 1 stop of light advantage and swd autofocus, no mirror and no phase detect autofocus. Contrast detect autofocus for legacy lenses only.
It’s a different patent from the Panasonic one which adds phase detection.
Back in 2000 I remember a talk given and a discussion of hybrid devices. One point the speaker made that has stuck by me (even if a bit of hyperbole) is that one of the only successful hybrid devices was the clock radio. Industries regularly try to mix functions in a device, but usually end up compromising the quality of both.
Since then I’d say we’ve seen the camera phone and the pda phone (smart phone) as well take off, but the latter took a good # of years despite networked PDA being available as early as ’98. The camera phone was successful in large part because the camera didn’t impinge on the primary phone utility. It didn’t make it larger, more expensive, or dramatically affect battery life.
A modular camera will likely involve additional costs over non modular kin, will not be as compact as non modular kin, and will have more parts to break.
I’m certainly curious, but the history of hybrid devices means you can’t give it great odds.
maybe it will be a cheaper alternative to scarlet.
Truly successful hybrid devices simply cease to be thought-of as hybrids. The history of hybrids is that they’re everywhere. Your stove is probably connected to your oven. Your Washing Machine is a washer/spin-dryer.
Some devices are entire eco-systems in themselves: Your Computer is a veritable hydra, as is your car (there’s that radio again, along with A/C, GPS, adjustable seating…).
When the concept is developed until it just works, we don’t call it a hybrid of two devices: we call it a single device with multiple features.
It’s all semantics. A ‘clock-radio’ is not called a hybrid because it is anymore hybridized than these and other products; It’s called a hybrid because of the nature of the word-histories:
These twin features had a separate history prior that was a long-enough legacy to impart these two words ‘radio’ and ‘clock’ into our established lexicon. Furthermore, these words are utilized in other devices, and so remain cogent as separately distinguished concepts. That public awareness, grounded by language-use, of the distinct identity of these two features… is not shared for every device (and its subsequent components/features) but that doesn’t mean there is a real, substantial difference.
Right now the hybridization of video and still cameras continues, and I can think of no fundamental reason that thirty years from now we will still see still-only or video-only devices, which conceptually offer no advantage (despite allegiance snobbery) and technologically will no-longer be a challenge.
I can see an advantage in having a m4/3 mount module on a pro body for having all the controls & adjustments of that pro standard as opposed to entry level (or even mid level) m4/3 bodies as there are many adapters for various brand lenses now available, then for video, the EVF would be best for outdoors (instead of just the screen) & for 4/3 quality glass the 4/3 mount with OVF, so long as it is all done with reliable module changing with dust/moisture sealing & protection for any sensitive components. Change can be a stressful time for some, but some changes are worth it.
If this is going to be a true rumor, is it for the pro body or the next optional model down? We will see.
@Brandon & J
Good essays and points from both of you, but I feel that “hybrid” and “modular” are very different concepts.
A “hybrid” camera is best described as one that combines several functions in one cohesive unit. Most P&S cameras fit this mold, ie. they combine a capacity for still photography, movie recording, wide angle and telephoto images etc, without any pieces being interchangeable.
Any camera with interchangeable lenses is becoming “modular” by this definition, and most people following this website would agree that they are a “good thing”. They are still hybrid as well, especially the likes of the GH1: coping well with stills and video.
We don’t yet know the full scope of the Olympus modular camera, but it will certainly be extending the modularity of the interchangeable lens concept: interchangeable lens mounts will probably be the biggest step involved.
Hopefully it will go further as well, because the ergonomics of a DSLR or rangefinder styled camera aren’t that great for video. Grips, viewfinders, multiple accessory mounts would help such a camera be more “modular”.
The part that I would venture will be “hybrid” rather than “modular” is the body, containing the sensor and processing engine, applied to both video and still photography. I don’t think we will be seeing interchangeable sensors anytime soon.
Will it be popular? It depends on many factors: price, ease of use, marketing, durability. Certainly many film makers would love a high resolution body that can handle many legacy lenses well. I think that still photographers will be less enthusiastic, unless it also addresses the issues that many have with the E series: weather proofing, durability and high ISO ability.
Those are things that usually come in a second or third generation unit, so don’t hold your breath!
It’s funny how you’re all foaming about the mouth over this stupid rumour. It’s a rumour, people, and a very awful one at that. This is turning into the Oly DSLR forum at DPR.
from what I’ve read of the rumors on the modular camera is that its not totally modular but most probably just a interchangeable mount and a longshot might be interchangeable sensor. but from the few posts about its modularity, it seems its only the mount.
think some people are just assuming its fully modular, though the rumors suggest otherwise. anyway, we’ll see in a few months…
I like what you’ve said there DonTom,
I’ll expand it by adding that ‘modular’ and ‘hybrid’ are natural partners. Truly a modular system can offer nothing more than replaceable components (if say, one part became damaged). However it opens the door for alternative components, which with a small shove can go from alternative-performance (upgrades) to alternative-application (substitutions).
Regarding the weather-proofing which everyone keeps raising concern over (As in: Can it be done with a modular form?) …Really most components are electronic and fairly easily sealed. The challenges are the components mechanically connected to the optical path, meaning the lens-mount, the mirror-box, the sensor, the rumored T/S module, the rumored 2x module, etc.
My answer there is they are perhaps all necessarily round or roundish, structurally strong in size and shape, gasket-ready components that shouldn’t require many smaller seals but simply two major–one fore and one aft. We’re probably not talking about smaller components, switch-laden components, awkwardly-shaped components… So this shouldn’t be mechanically difficult to engineer. As to switching between these modular components in-the-field: It shouldn’t be any worse than switching lenses, and if the weather conditions are that unfavorable, then just like with lens-changes the user really shouldn’t be attempting the procedure.
Oly has my confidence on the weather-sealing issue; After all it’s something they’ve been historically consistent with providing, excellent at executing, and it’s also one of the top three draws to their pro-bodies (advertising shows they know this).
Contrast this to, say, Sony, whose entire lens catalog looks (near as I can tell) to be sans weather-sealing, including lenses that are directly targeted to action and sports shooters, wildlife photography, photojournalism, and general field-work. I look at this in disbelief: I’m not one to bicker that (for example) the Canon 5D isn’t sealed as well as the Canon 7D, but when I see literally no sealing whatsoever, for literally an entire catalog of lenses… !
I mean a 70-300 zoom is not for studio-work, and such a unit unsealed is I feel just a shade better than a suede trench-coat. Okay. Done ranting.
Just to be clear what I mean: electronic components are easy to seal because they can be entirely encased, and communicate via connection-ports, unlike an optical path that must be open. The connectors on those connections can even be gold-plated, which is actually not uncommon to begin with (see Audio Gear for examples) and relatively inexpensive to add, so corrosion is a non-issue.
I would like to see that wide converter spanky and Nathan were mentioning more than a modular camera. Make it for most popular lens mounts and you’ve got an instant best seller camera system.
Even if the modular rumor is true, it might not be the E5. Perhaps they will release a high performance regular 4/3 E5 and a modular camera for those who like that idea.
is this the camera you saw? http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4041/4684164617_3e30bff2b3_m.jpg
@tom
If that is the E-5 I’ll eat my GXR………….
The modular idea is a great idea. Why? Inventory control and customer choice. A modular design allows Olympus to only have one top model that can be outstanding at a wide array of uses, and customers can essentially design their camera.
As it stands now, a DSLR will always be a compromised beast when shooting video due to the OVF. With interchangeable viewfinders, an EVF can be attached for video. This would allow Olympus to offer a DSLR that is easier to use when shooting video than anything Canon or Nikon currently offers.
Here’s what I hope to see in a modular camera. An E-3 equivalent OVF, a 2x OVF so that 25mm looks 1:1, an EVF for m43, and an EVF for 43 (for existing lenses.) For changeable sensors, a video optimized Panasonic, a Kodak sensor of the caliber used in Hasselblads and Leicas, and a Fuji HDR sensor. That is 12 possible different cameras with 8 parts (1 body, 3 sensors, 4 viewfinders.) Supply chain management is easier, and customer choice is much better.
My guess is that the E-3 replacement will actually be priced much higher than the E-3, so it won’t really be a direct replacement. I’m also guessing that Olympus will come out with a camera that will basically be a weather sealed E-30 with an improved sensor and processor, improved screen and backlit buttons, and this will essentially be a more direct replacement for both the E-3 and E-30. My final prediction is that there will be an updated version of the E-620. Three bodies to match the three lines of ZD lenses.
@Russ – modular ideas are great for beancounters who worry about inventory control, but very rarely are they successful in the market because they end up being particularly great at nothing, while not really saving the consumer any significant amounts of money. So in the end, the consumer will end up going with a whole different camera that’s good at what they want instead of one that’s kinda OK at everything. Mediocrity doesn’t sell.
@spanky – modular equipment performs exceptionally well when it is at the high end, which is where I believe such a model will be. Who would seriously say that a Hasselblad, or a Canon F-1 in its day, is “great at nothing.”
@spanky:
>modular ideas are great for beancounters who worry about inventory control, but very rarely are they successful in the market because
>they end up being particularly great at nothing, while not really saving the consumer any significant amounts of money.
>So in the end, the consumer will end up going with a whole different camera that’s good at what they want instead of one that’s kinda OK at everything. Mediocrity doesn’t sell.
[b]Yeah. I agree with you that the while whole “interchangeable lens” idea is stupid and destinied to fail. Why would anyone need separate lens/batteries/filters/viewfinders/grips/flashes when you can have a solid camera with fixed lens, non-detachable battery, integrated flash without hot-shoe.[/b] I just wish the tripod was integrated too (ability to attach/detach tripod is nonsence), making this a complete great view-camera.
/sarcasm
It seems to me that this modular body is more likely to be the high end mFT
body than an E-3 replacement. Why? In my view a pro level system wouldn’t use a swappable EVF/OVF module or a possibility to use mFT lenses. On the
other hand such features could be well justified in a high end mFT body
Perhaps Olympus can even get clever and adapt CaNikon and co lenses to this new “modular” system too and steal some market share?
I’m always amazed at the ‘wisdom’ that is “modular doesn’t work”. Not sure where this particular chunk of modern-lie got started, but I’ve heard many times before.
Look, if someone tells you that hybrid products are just bad compromises they’re just not not reasoning through, paying attention, and questioning their presumptions. As I’ve said: hybrids are everywhere, and for good reason.
Modular systems are simply hybrids+. They’re hybrids with consumer-choice added-in. That’s neither fundamentally difficult nor historically unsuccessful.
As Ark-kun pointed out: you don’t even have to change subjects to see enormous modularity in the products we already buy. And our current system evolved in a world without the internet. The internet brings consumer-education, greatly expanded community-discussion and experience-sharing, direct-sales and access to hard-to-get or hard-to-know-about parts: all of which aid immensely the cause of furthering modularity.
Businesses naturally tend to be conservative in their practices, but change has been building for a long time on this front, the success-stories are mounting, the possibilities are becoming more distinct and more profound. In a few short generations this will not seem radical; It will not be given thought; It will be as ubiquitous and unnoticed as our hybrid devices are now.