[shoplink 17163]
[/shoplink]
Yesterday I received a new message from a dutch camera reseller: “A representative of Olympus in the Netherlands came to our shop and told me that Olympus will not produce anymore Dslr camera’s. they will only produce the [shoplink 17163]Olympus E-5[/shoplink]. So pretty soon we can no longer order any Dslr except the E-5. and of the E-5 we can only order four at a time wich we have to sell first before we can order another four.
They will only concentrate on M 4/3. and by 2012 they will have renewed there whole compact line-up except for the superzoom cameras.
Are the same thing’s happening in other country’s to ?”
The answer is yes! A few other dealers had small talks with Olympus reps. And they also have been told that this could be the last DSLR.
A reminder, Olympus said that they will contnue to develop Four Thirds products until Micro Four Thirds can deliver the same performance as Four Thirds cameras.
(UPDATE) Two more retailers sent me messages:
1) “Three weeks ago i was at an “open house” at a photo dealer with all of the reps there. I spoke to the Olympus rep for 15-20 minutes. Just prior to this open house he had had a meeting with one one of Olympus’ designers. He told me that Olympus will continue designing and producing a “flagship” E-X. The E-5 was not the end of the line. Olympus has not designed a system to do away with mirrors and that they were not even close. He said that all of the other series were dead. The modular E-series would not happen but he smiled when I mentioned a “pro” micro body.”
2) “in my country it is the same with E5 as in others. Only a few at a time.”
104 Responses
“Olympus said that they will continue to develop Four Thirds products until Micro Four Thirds can deliver the same performance as Four Thirds cameras”
Excellent. So, if the life span of their flagship camera is three years, this means that by 2013 all Olympus DSLRs including E-5 will be replaced with similarly performing m4/3 cameras.
That’s the way I would see it too.
i think you read it wrong,because there is no clue yet when they can make m43 equal to ft performance-wise.
It is very soon
Agreed!
I believe that since they released E-3 there were up to two engineers working on E-5 (mainly on software not hardware). The whole team must be preparing something pretty long time.
Consider that they proudly think E5 is on par with other flagship DSLRs…
It certainly seems to be the case among the reviews
i wait for dpreview.
most websites and reviewers have no clue at all.
especially fanboy sites who are commited to onye system.
agreed – I’m waiting for the dpreview too – they seem to at least get some depth into what they do and have a deal of consistency!
It’s ok for the E-3 users since they have E-5 but what about E-6xx (E-3x) users? It means if you don’t want E-5 you have to switch to mFT?
M43 does not mean a E-p2 Pen size camera. Just no mirror, a 620 type camera will come with no mirror soon.
Oly will work things out
I am not surprised.
“A reminder, Olympus said that they will continue to develop Four Thirds products until Micro Four Thirds can deliver the same performance as Four Thirds cameras.”
That statement is the insurance policy
Mirrorless will soon be able to fill the role of the DLSR in regards the FT Zuiko glass, and the Zuiko FT glass is the only real issue. Firmware and better algorithms with a sensor that has a high read rate (120fps and up) has potential to handled FT Zuiko just fine and with time, possibly better then phase-d AF.
+1
“Olympus said that they will continue to develop Four Thirds products until Micro Four Thirds can deliver the same performance as Four Thirds cameras”
I think they mean the same sensor quality. If so, then they can now stop making Olympus DSLR cameras. Personally I think that the quality of the small Four Third sensor is not better than average and the sensor of the E5 is the same as the quality of the E-PL1.
Such an expensive camera body (E5), built for an average sensor, is a waste of money.
I see this comparometer:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
and E-PL1 is best that E-5
Just need a body of m4/3 as the Panasonic GH, fast AF, AFC 100% functional with zuiko 4/3, 1080p video
…..and it is clear a new sensor with the actual times.
people complain that canon is making 18MP aps-c sensors and that 18MP is way to much for aps-c. still the sensor is better then the 15 MP sensor from the 50D.
and now people come up with even smaller sensors and that they are good enough to replace the sensors in DSLR cameras.
to hell i say… be happy with your “video cameras”.. but for photography i go fullframe all the time as professionell.
and for amateurs with ambitions i would go no smaller then aps-c.
and you are here because…?
LOL Good one! Napalm.
Very funny indeed Your conclusions are… LOL 🙂
Rolls Royce suck because in my country I do not know of any Formula 1 driver who raced using Rolls Royce.
Go and buy Canon or Nikon… or better Phase One or other Medium format gear… that is the proffesional posture 🙂
However in my applications u43 system is definitely spot on!
No offense Peter 🙂
i not need more that 12megapixels,
i’m wait more Dynamic Range and better High ISO
algo que es posible, panasonic es 4/3 y lo hace
The imaging resource comparometer only hosts OOC JPEGs with default settings. This is clearly a weak point of the E-5 – look at the still life images, you can see that the textures on the fabrics are completely turned to mud by ISO 800 and higher.
Now this is not going to be the typical usage the camera will see – the typical E-5 owner will be shooting RAW.
However, it’s definitely not a promising start, and it’s not reassuring that the RAW is being massaged on-camera by the TruePicV engine as well.
The only thing I can say is that imaging resource gives a “worst case” scenario for E-5 IQ, real world performance *should* be a lot better, but by how much, I can’t tell, as I’m still waiting for a review that posts E-5 RAW samples. Meanwhile, you can find RAW samples for the E-5 online, but as most are not carried out under controlled circumstances, it can be hard to generalise.
It’s not just about the sensor that makes the E5 what it is or the V+ engine. Apart from the rugged body & weather sealing, it has all the dedicated buttons, 2 control wheels & full customisability that a serious photographer needs (& triple resolution 3″ articulating screen & video). If you haven’t experienced an E3 or E30, which includes the focusing speed of these, then the smaller models are not going to convey what the E5 has about it that is so desirable for serious use. It is all these features that need to be included in a mirror less body before it could replace the E5. The fast accurate focus is a necessity for any action shots; otherwise it isn’t going to be a capable camera for pro & serious users. Panasonic have faster (LV) focus, but that still does not come close to what the E3, E30 & E5 cameras can do. At this point I would like the E5, but when finances allow, I might be persuaded to get a mirror less body that can do the above instead.
Why FT4, it’s sure. When Oly has released the E-5, they’ve said that only the E-5 is in production now in the DSLR line. But for the future all is possible.
yupp guys. buy into a dead market…..
anyone serious about photography (and not video gimmicks) is buying canon or nikon.
i dont know a single professionell here in germany who uses olympus or sony.
i don´t say there are none.. but in my professionell surrounding i know none.
Peter you are 100% right. When you buy a SLR your not just buying a camera your buying in to a system. And this news proves you should only stick to professional bands.
What is a “professional brand?” Unless you have very specialized needs (an many professionals do not) brands such as Olympus and Pentax and Sony do everything any photographer wants. Only a very limited subset of “professionals” need 20 lenses. This article from The Online Photographer says it best: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html
And I know a ton of amatures using Canon and Nikon and they think they are good as a professional because of the camera. Today their is no advantage to using any system. Of course apples to apples. If I were to shoot sports for a livin I would definity shoot with Nikon but for Portrait work and wedding work there is no advantage to any system. I have shot with Olympus and Canon. I perfer the Olympus. The canon is less grainy but I actually like the look of the E3 at iso 800. Reminds me of film. It wont be long and you can buy a 100 mega pixel camera at best buy for $300. Then what? Who cares about IQ taht much anyway? I can sell a pic made from an E1 or Nikon D3 for the same price. We spend too much time looking at IQ and forget we are artist. I am a portrait and wedding photographer. I dont want anymore detail. I have to soften the skin too much as it is.
Maybe you just live in a small world. To continue to bag Olympus doesn’t do anything except to show that you have been sucked into the marketing bias of the 2 big maufacturers & their biased follows. Thankfully photography isn’t just about following the crowd like you seem to be doing, but others also appreciate something that isn’t just a copy of what everybody else doing. If you haven’t used an Olympus E3, E30 or an E5, then your comments are worthless on this subject.
We are going to a statement from Japan next week that leaves the future of 4/3s open. Olympus has developed a lot of great glass for 4/3s and they aren’t going to give that up. If mirrorless technology hasn’t improved enough to make an E-7 without a mirror we’ll see one with a mirror.
There is no way Oly is telling these reps their plans for 3 years down the road anyway. I don’t think you can trust them for any information past 6 months, if that.
> I don’t think you can trust them for any information past 6 months, if that.
Oh the voice of reason.
2 things:
people whinge about mirrorless not being able to be as good as a mirror. people also used to say digital will never be as good as film, and while to some extent this is true, most people now shoot digital, and there sure as hell isn’t as much of a difference as you’d think. now with the gh-2 it’s clear to see why olympus can put so much faith in losing the mirror forever.
i hope they continue developing “pro” m4/3 lenses i.e. 4/3 lenses of the same build and optical quality. either that or they’ll sell out all their “abandoned” 4/3 lenses for cheap!!
Whatever. This is another one of those open ended rumors like the ones that said the E-5 would look like a OM-4Ti or that Palin knows how to shoot rifles because it looks like she can on TV.
And you can only order four at a time? My Oly dealer here in Indy got seven right out of the gate, so bang goes that one.
GIGO, people. Believe this (really bad Anglish) garbage at your own risk.
“The answer is yes! A few other dealers had small talks with Olympus reps. And they also have been told that this could be the last DSLR.”
Does anyone here ACTUALLY work in any kind of industry? Sales reps know NOTHING. They are told, NOTHING. Now, that may not stop a bad rep from making things up, but believe me, you don’t keep sales people in any kind of loop regarding marketing or engineering decisions. They aren’t very bright, and they get smashed and talk too much.
demian: “Such an expensive camera body (E5), built for an average sensor, is a waste of money.”
So, don’t buy one. I’m really pleased with the E-5. Love the screen, love how quiet it is, love the build quality.
And, really, $1600 isn’t that much money. A Leica M9 is a lot of money (to me), but $1600, not really.
Peter: “anyone serious about photography (and not video gimmicks) is buying canon or nikon. ”
WRONG. Many of us are VERY serious about photography, but we don’t care about wedding and sports stuff. We are quite happy buying whatever we like, such as Sony, Oly, Pentax, Panasonic, Leica, Hassy, or even Sigma.
In other words, Peter, there are many of us who don’t need Canikon or it’s evangelists. There’s a whole big world out there, Peter, you should get some variety in your life.
Peter: “to hell i say… be happy with your “video cameras”.. but for photography i go fullframe all the time as professionell.”
That’s nice. FF are not suited for everything, tending to be heavy, loud, and really expensive. This isn’t film anymore, we don’t need FF cameras for every task, even “professional”. Seems like Luminous Landscape agrees with me, and I trust them a frak of a lot more than you.
LOL, if he were REALLY serious he’d go large format. Only lower level pros shoot medium format or FF. Heck, back in the days of FILM even my MOM shot FF
Angry Oly Owner: “Mirrorless will soon be able to fill the role of the DLSR in regards the FT Zuiko glass, ”
I dunno… I’ve tried the Sony mirrorless “SLRS” and that little TV screen ‘finder still makes everything look flat, off-color, and TV-ish.
I like optical finders. I could LIVE with a TV set in a VF, my first digicam (Fuji) had one, but I don’t love them.
sonys is garbage though, try the GH1 or GH2, it bigger, and almost as big as the 1D’s FF viewfinder, and with time it will get bigger and better,
wait until Epsos releases theirs
“The imaging resource comparometer only hosts OOC JPEGs with default settings. This is clearly a weak point of the E-5 – look at the still life images, you can see that the textures on the fabrics are completely turned to mud by ISO 800 and higher.”
What was the noise reduction setting? If my E-520 doesn’t do this, I really, really doubt that a properly set-up E-5 would.
In any case, I shoot RAW 99 percent of the time anymore, so this is of little concern.
> What was the noise reduction setting? If my E-520 doesn’t do this, I really, really doubt that a properly set-up E-5 would.
IR doesn’t say, but I am heavily inclined to guess that everything was at manufacturer default (+0). I’ve also seen numerous E-5 reviews on the web post (JPEG) samples with excessive smearing, so this sounds plausible to me.
Like I said, the samples are not indicative of how the camera will be used in real life. Which would include properly setting up the E-5.
On a related note, I downloaded a few E-5 RAWs and ran them through Lightroom, and found some really weird hatching pattern going on in the flat field noise. My GF1 by contrast produces noise that is more random and organic looking. I wonder if that is due to the lighter AA filter or a different algorithm that Oly uses to demosaic or post-process.
“manufacturer default” may means whatever:
– in iAuto it means “gradation: Normal” => normal noise (as it is used in other manufacturers)
– in PASM it may mean “gradation: Auto” => high noise (because of lihten dark areas)
For Canon:
– auto mode – exposition metering average => normal pictures
– P mode – exposition metering centered => usualy overexposed images
Peter: ” wait for dpreview. most websites and reviewers have no clue at all. especially fanboy sites who are commited to onye system”
DPReview quite liked the Oly E-30. But I suppose you ignored that review.
Who said you couldnt shoot weddings with an Olympus. OMG. So basically nobody could shoot a wedding before the Canon 5dmll came out?
If people would get their heads out of the sand and look at the possitives. Wouildnt a professional m4/3rds give us the ability to use almost any lens on the market today?
if not new 4/3 body’s…
why not take at least firmware updates to E-620, E-30….?
some things to consider:
– an SLR is a Single Lens Reflect (a camera with a mirror and box)
– Panasonic make their G2/GH2 etc like an ‘SLR’ but they are not SLRs since there is no mirror box, these are our EVIL cameras (the PEN and GF are here too, bolt on viewfinder for those who don’t mind destroying all the size advantage of the PEN)
– so, could Olympus be indicating that the E-7 in 2013 (current trend) will be made at a time when the electronic viewfinder is good enough to replace the current mirror box idea? And so, the format is not dead (please!)?
I’d like to see a camera line-up like this:
– entry (the E4xx/E5xx/E6xx merged to ONE camera)
– mid-range (E-30)
– top (E5)
I’ve seen one camera shop in the UK that has deleted the 50/2 from its on-line catalogue … is this the beginning of lens shortages?
For sure the PEN m43 system is a fantastic step up from a compact in terms of image handling, and in most cases also in controls (I would argue that the Canon G10/G11/G12 handling and controls are better, but a poorer chip of course). But PEN handling is step down from an ‘SLR’.
Annoyed that the E-620 buyer is now left without an upgrade route (E-30), and there is almost no option for the on-line educated prospective E-620 buyer. Today – could you possibly advise anyone to buy into this system with an E-4xx/E-5xx/E-6xx level camera!
I’d really like to get my girlfriend an E-30 as an upgrade to her E-600. But I just can’t lay down that sort of cash for a system that is ‘suspended’ with a Whopping great E-5 as the only option!!
Yes, it is unfortunate that the E-5 is the only option right now as an upgrade to the E-600 and other basic cameras. At this point I am going with E-5, unless the predicted Olympus Pro camera comes out sometime soon, but I am disappointed in Olympus for not covering the entry part of the market as I probably do not really need the E-5 and I definitely do not want to spend that much, but what other choice do we have?
Olympus, please let us know what the new FT/MFT pro camera is going to be. It really turns off the consumers to spread rumors about the death of FT, but to then provide no clear idea of what will replace it. PLEASE RELEASE THE SPECS AND/OR PRICE FOR NEW CAMERA SO WE CAN MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS. HONESTLY, TO JUST OFFER THE E-5 AND THEN SAY THAT FT IS DEAD, BUT THAT YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE SOMETHING THAT CAN UTILIZE FT LENSES, IS QUITE A CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT.
As Olympus doesn’t release much detail about future models, we are left speculating. The flagship P&S has been announced for next year but with few details & I believe there was a comment from an Olympus person that the next PEN would be announced early next year & I take it from that we will see a model that could be a better substitute for the lower end DSLRs than at present with the PENs. I hope there will be a better line of choice in the whole line up available, such as a DSLR like mirrorless body. We shall see. In the mean time I hope to get the ZD50-200 SWD lens & multipliers to use on my E30 & later on, the E5 or a later mirrorless body that will work nicely with my lens line up.
Voldenuit: “On a related note, I downloaded a few E-5 RAWs and ran them through Lightroom,”
Ummm… Are u certain that Lightroom is optimized for the E-5 RAW files yes? What does the Oly RAW developer do?
Olympus E-5 is listed as a supported camera in the ACR 6.3 and Lightroom 3.3 update logs.
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4917
You’re right, though, this seems to be an ACR issue, as I imported the samw RAW in Capture One Express v6 and have not been able to reproduce the problem.
I don’t have Oly Master, so have not tested that.
“. It really turns off the consumers to spread rumors about the death of FT, but”
Oly isn’t. This site and other rumors forums are.
Really. It’s sort of like the AM Radio talking heads saying GM is dead because they took government s and you believing them. This site and the various usual suspects on the DOReview forums are little better than the National Inquirer, and I would say serve roughly the same purpose.
Bradgelina is marrying Elizabeth Taylor on Guam on December 25th to Codify the Nostradamus Prophecies! The photos of the event will be shot ONLY with Canon G12s!
@DCK- Well the rumor has been posted before, and both times they were sourced from olympus executives, and honestly, the Olympus press release following the initial rumor pretty much backed up what is being said:
“They will continue to have something to use with your FT lenses, until the MFT technology is capable of fully replacing the DSLRs.” As far as I am concerned, that says that there will maybe be one or two more FT DSLRs after the E-5, but only up until they can make one of the MFT setups work with the FT better.”
You can say what you want, but Olympus has released official press releases stating this. Your argument does not have much facts backing it up.
fuck this shit!
olympus is dead
i predict they will be bought ought in two years time or less
time to move on the end
After re-reading my first statement I will concede that Olympus is not necessarily making contradictory statements, however, their inability to properly communicate the facts and really any type of timeline, is actually a sign that the company really needs to learn how to better communicate with their customers. There is pretty much a mixture of communications that is confusing many customers, including myself.
If they would just release the specs for the new MFT/FT pro camera, that would at least appease so of us for now.
And as far as comparing this site to the National Inquirer, that would be like saying a Honda is like an Audi. That is an extremely poor comparison. This site has come through with many, many of their predictions and they do rank the level of each rumor, so as to show how accurate the prediction is. So the comparison to the National Inquirer is really nothing less than preposterous.
Look at it from Olympus’ perspective. Who cares about FT? The only people who _really_ care are the owners of lots of Pro FT glass, and only Olympus knows how many of those there are. So how do you appease them? You bring out a world-beating FT body, and then put all engineering into MFT.
Now, what has Olympus just done? They just released the E-5 which astonishingly, by all reports, is a world-beating camera for FT. That’s great, but that’s punctuation for FT. The E-5 is the end of line for FT.
Now what does Olympus say they’re doing? They say they’re waiting for (i.e., doing) MFT to catch up with FT — i.e., bringing MFT up to FT (E-5) spec..
From now on, a small company like Olympus is going to put all its engineering behind MFT. There’s no point in beating a dead horse (FT). They just gave FT the best send-off an obsolete format has ever gotten (the E-5, except perhaps Nikon’s F6), and that’s it.
From now on, if you have FT glass, and you want to use it, either buy an E-5 ($1,600), or buy an FT->MFT adapter ($100). I think Olympus would be foolish (and misleading to consumers) to come out with any more consumer or prosumer FT bodies. All new bodies should be MFT. That’s where the new format shines and where the future lies. And that’s what Olympus is already doing. It’s converting its FT glass into MFT versions (albeit smaller, slower versions). In other words, the FT format was just a stepping stone to figuring out that MFT is the key, and now Oly has to catch up with Panasonic in MFT.
IMO, consumers should not buy more FT glass (unless they want to use it with MFT and an FT->MFT adapter, and there’s some GREAT MFT glass), and Oly should not mislead them into buying more FT glass by releasing more FT bodies. IMO, Oly should only build MFT from here on out. To do otherwise, would be to continue to sell consumers into a clear dead-end, compared to MFT.
2c, as you will.
If the next pro camera does not have an OVF, then I’m pretty set to get an E-5 or take a nose-dive and get a FF.
I think what the statement from Oly means, E-5 is the last DSLR, but they will continue to develop 4/3 items (such as updating 4/3 lenses). Maybe the next pro level mirrorless camera can mount 4/3 glasses native, just no mirror and OVF. Which probably makes sense since FT glasses are light years ahead of their MFT counterparts, so why not just use them? The only caveat would be outer part of the glasses would be wasted. But then you can also use Nikon FF lenses on an APS-C body, and you get to use only the sharpest part of the lens. We’re still waiting for the module camera, though I know I won’t buy a module camera, unless it’s a medium format. I do care about size…. E-620 is small enough for me. Module is not.
If FT is dead, that just means I could afford SHG lenses once people start to purge them. Since I don’t base my career on photography, I don’t mind using a system that won’t release any new body. As long as I have an all-star line up of lenses, I am in pretty good shape to deliver good photos for many years to come.
Mirrorless and OVF are a contradiction for an interchangeable lens system. Don’t expexct an OVF at the upcoming line of Olympus m4/3 bodies.
Right, that’s a given, so you have any news?
+1
I think it would be the best, if they give us a lighter, cheaper kamera like the e-620, but with the better picture quality and the film option. this should be an easy job. then i can live for the next ten years wiht FT.
If not, they have to produce a real kamera, with rangefinder. Not a small, old fashioned design toy…
Agree. People are just a bit impatient, because it’s been 10 months since they last released a m4/3 body (E-PL1). Panasonic has shown four in the last 9 months. As I’ve said before, give us a 4/3 -> m4/3 adapter that enables PDAF on 4/3 lenses ( maybe with Sony-like semi transparent mirror ? ) and all will be well.
If Olympus would continue to develop a mirror-based system like the Sony SLT, they could simply continue to develop FT. Sony’s SLT is a dead end, as the CDAF performance of the Panasonic GH2 indicates.
whatever happened to the ‘promise’ at photokina that the E5 was not the last Olympus 4/3 DSLR.
I bought the e5 (and love it) based on that announcement, which was meant to appease those uncertain about the future of the fomat who where considering changing.
Been Olympus user for 10 years and annoyed (pissed off actually) at this.
This is just a rumour. Nothing more. Sales reps do not know anything and compensate their lack of knowledge with speculations.
If Olympus releases a pro pen that focuses FT glass quickly with similar performance of E5, who cares that E5 is the last 4/3rds body?
When the pro pen focuses mu FT glass just as quickly as the E5 there is no need to whine that E5 is the last 4/3 body.
Ditto @43photo: “who cares that E5 is the last 4/3rds body”. Let me give some perspective.
If you’re an Olympus fan (and I’m becoming one after just buying a few of their lenses, including 2 FT ones, and seeing what they’ve done with the E-5), IMO, you do not want Oly to pursue FT anymore. You actually _want_ them to get their act together as quickly as possible to become a force in MFT, and transfer all their expertise to the MFT format. As I said, IMO, Oly just gave a great send-off for FT (E-5). Maybe that was a good business decision, or maybe it wasn’t. But they definitely took care of their pro and prosumer customers with that gesture.
But going forward for a small company like Oly, business-wise IMO, it only makes sense to pour all their resources into MFT — all the wood behind a single arrowhead (so to speak). Remember, Olympus is fighting huge companies (like Panasonic, Sony, and Canon), so any fan of Oly should applaud them for operating efficiently and effectively. Focusing on MFT is much more efficient than splitting their engineering and marketing just to support an abortive format (FT).
I don’t think Oly is particularly happy with the shift either, but it’s prudent to recognize and act on the shift to MFT as early as possible. Eventually, it may be the best thing that ever happened to Oly (and Panasonic). After all, MFT offers radical redesign opportunities for any pioneering company. So that’s where Oly needs to dedicate itself and its resources: MFT design.
My suggestion to Oly fans/customers: be happy that Oly is adapting to MFT as fast as it can. Be happy that FT lenses are adaptable to MFT (I am), so you can keep using all/favorite FT lenses. The bodies always go obsolete anyway, so who really cares about FT bodies, as long as Oly comes out with next generation MFT ones?
The Oly FT lenses are still options (hell, I just cherry-picked two of ’em), so they do fill some holes in MFT (at least for now). So your FT lenses are still genuinely useful, especially if you have Pro glass which won’t be replaced immediately (I presume).
I think the biggest frustration for Oly fans is not (so much) the FT → MFT shift (which is both a problem and a huge opportunity), but the sensor issue. Oly does not make its own sensors, and is beholden to its coopetition (cooperative competitors). The biggest mystery to me is how Oly is going to transcend the sensor issue, and what sensors they will use going forward.
Obviously with the E-5, they did a tremendous amount with a little (old sensor). Imagine what Oly could do with a great sensor! I am hoping their next body will show us, and match or exceed even E-5 expectations.
The E-5 sensor or above is fine for me, what I need is a MFT camera that can take the FT lenses without an adapter and that can be held comfortably.
or more like a MFT camera that uses a new adapter to take FT lens that allow same AF speed as they do with a FT camera.
Dear Occam!
Great analysis – interesting background information!
Best regards
Paulus
@43photo… very true (to some degree for me).
As a pro shooter (travel, touring outback type) I love the weather proofing/sealing and ruggedness of the E5 (and E3 and E1 before that) so that is very important to me do to the locations/environments I shoot in.
So if a pro m43 can do that as well and match the e5 performance and functionality as well., then i could be satisfied.
I was going to buy the 14-35mm super-pro glass with the e5 purchase, but held off as I suspected this was going to happen… glad I didnt spend the $2000 and will wait to see what the m43 lense release is.
I dont think m43 with release a lens like the 14-35mm. Why not just make the 14-35 work with the future M43 cameras. This can be done with firmware and camera processes, not lens redesign is really needed.
Get the 14-35, the 35-100 is great also. Oly has many lenses and should foucs on primes and camera body that will focus all lenses decently
and will cameras like the GH2 having a 120fps sensor read rate, CD-AF looks like its going to be able to fill the gap rather quick
Sambob, I don’t think waiting for an equivalent lens to the 14-35 f2 lens is going to happen anytime soon as their road map for next year would indicate nothing like that. If you’re after that sort of quality, then I think the 4/3s 14-35 would be the best option & then you can drool over the sharpness it produces, especially when used with the E5. As Olympus has promised, they will continue to produce a body that will utilise (& be compatible with) all the 4/3s lenses.
+1
occam & 43phots, you guys are saying the same thing I think. Both correct
olympus is coming out with with micro versions of HG grade lenses – the 50mm and 8mm are the first.
i do hope their new camera will offer a good solution for existing 43 lenses – those few that i have are very good.
If your not a pro why would you want anything other than mft? If your thnking about going pro and you have a 5xx 6xx or whatever then you would have to buy all new lenses and flash anyway. I see where olympus’s thinkin is. Most decisions are made when people go pro. The amature stuff is all junk anyway. So why not go with mft it fits the shooting style people are accustomed to with their point and shoots but the options and quality is as good as you will ever need.
Scott – well, the point is that I do not want to buy new lenses, the FT are superior is almost every regard to current MFT lenses, so that is the main reason I want a way to use my FT lenses. And my flash works on many other cameras with no problem, MFT included, so there would be no need to buy new flashes.
Just my thouths for a penny here.
I dunno if E-5 is the last FT camera. But what I know is they received a lot of bad press with the announcment of it. I mean, when Oly came out wiyh the first specs of the E-5 everyone (including me) criticised them because the sensor, the video, etc.
But when the first real tests came out, no one was at least comparing this camera with a FF one.
Later Olympus Japan came with this:
http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/e5/special/impression/index.html
What is the message here?
The message, for me at least, is that “we are caring about our customers, specially this who spend a lot of money in glasses, we are now, getting the best (with the E-5) of them. Your money is well spend and we are trying harder to be so, now and in the next future.”
Sorry about my horrible english.
This is not rumour at all, isn’t this something we already know? The E-5 is the last DSLR (ie with mirror.) Olympus has declared several times that the future is mirrorless. As long as technology can catch up with what Olympus has envisioned, I don’t think merging 43 glasses to m43 bodies is a problem and m43 doesn’t necessarily need to translate to small bodies. It can be a system that shares the same sensor(4:3) but caters to different needs with respective bodies and lenses.
“This is not rumour at all, isn’t this something we already know? The E-5 is the last DSLR (ie with mirror.) Olympus has declared several times that the future is mirrorless. ”
The future also has T-800s and flying cars and fusion power, but I don’t seem to see all that immediately imminent.
Well considering film “died” neigh 10 years ago, I for one, welcome our new EVIl overlords.
LOL
It kinda reminds me that back in the old days we were saying like there would be flying cars in 1999.
IMDB Class of 1999. Times weren’t that rough when I was in high school!
Stop worrying if this is a rumour or not & if the E5 is going to be the last DSLR (with mirror) because the next model that will operate with 4/3s lenses will be at least as good & hopefully even better & with other advantages. Rumours said Pentax was getting close to stoppping, but look at it now with its K-5 & how good that one is. Unhealthy, critical rumours should be treated as they are, like dirt.
Oly has never said that they will stop making FT cameras, but that in the future FT will be mirrorless. Thats not the same as they will only make mFT cameras and lenses.
To the site admin… Please add the 4/3 camera bodies to the sales banner at the top of the page. m4/3 may be where it’s at – or going – but this site is “4/3 Rumors”, not just m4/3.
To everyone bashing Olympus about the E-5 – they improved upon a proven, and excellent, camera (the E-3) and CaNikon are still catching up with wannabe DSLRs (the D5000 and 60D). I, for one, am completely happy with my Olympus 4/3 system products and expect to use them for many years.
Hi OlyFT!
That is a difficoult choice. I have not enough space to add all FT cameras and lenses. And there is also to consider that Olympus is pushing MFT and there will be no new low and mid level FT camera. It’s a system that is destinated to “merge” with MFT.
But don’t you think the E5 deserves its place?
Okay… We all agree, the E-5 is the only new 4/3 product. Some, maybe just that one will fit?
Just sayin’…. 🙂
Just thinking, if Olympus feels they can get all the quality and attributes in a m4/3 of a 4/3, then it opens the door for a mirrorless super 4/3(full frame). Using 4/3 glass.
I was thinking te same…. when you remove the mirror and use the excellent 4/3 glass you can put a bugger sensor in the camera. I love the idea!
There can never be a Super 4/3 (full frame). None of the lenses will illuminate a sensor that large. The image circle cast by the lenses is sized for the 4/3 sensor. They wouldn’t even cover APS-C.
The sensor could get maybe a few millimeters larger, if you didn’t care about vignetting. Since you do, they stay where they are.
I think there’s been patents discussed on this site about an adapter that will enlarge the image circle.
But, if they’re “abandoning” their 4/3 lineup anyways, there’s no need to hold on to those lenses.
When 35mm film cameras came out all the professionals said “You cant take professional pictures with such small film” Then they all switched to 35mm. Then when digital came out all the professionals said “you cant get the quality of film with digital” Now they have all switched. Olympus will probably be the first Pro version with a evf and yes professionals will say “You cant use an evf in a professional camera”. But mark my words as soon as it comes out and people try it they will love it. There are so many advantages to evf and to the mft system. So I welcome the E-5 being the last mirror box camera from Olympus. At least they have the balls to do it.
It’s about the system, and specially the lenses. The day m4/3 can match 24mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.2 or 17mm or 24mm T/S lenses, then yes. Even digital medium format has a hard time matching those lenses. If you can live with less DOF and perspective control then it’s true there is not a big advantage on bigger formats like digital 35mm. But for many of us… there is no way we can give up the results we get from those lenses.
I use to by into the whole Canon FF thing. Then I bought a 5dmll thinking this was the answer. Well I found the 85 1.2 to be a sloppy lens. I sold it to get the 85 1.4 I shot with the 2 systems for over a year and got frustrated with the out of focus images with the Canon system so I sold it. Now I have the E-5. You cant show me a picture you can take with ff that I cant take with the 4/3rds. I know you cant use the same lens but I have all the tools I need to take the same image.
> I use to by into the whole Canon FF thing. Then I bought a 5dmll thinking this was the answer. Well I found the 85 1.2 to be a sloppy lens. I sold it to get the 85 1.4
I call BS.
Especially since there is no such thing as an EF 85/1.4. The next lens down from the 85/1.2L is the 85/1.8. If you’re getting OOF shots with the 1.2 (and you have to be mindful of the shallow DOF with that lens – that’s the whole point), the 5DMkII has a microfocus adjustment feature to fix backfocus issues, a situation common to all DSLRs, even 4/3. Failing that, you may have had to get your lens or AF system calibrated at a Canon technical center. It’s a matter of knowing your tools, and it doesn’t sound like you did due diligence in that regard. Do you throw away your car if the engine needs a tuneup?
And I know plenty of photographers who use a TS lens, at least nearly anyone who makes a living from shooting architecture.
There is no denying that 4/3 has some great lenses (14-35, 35-100), but there’s also no denying that there are some glaring gaps in its lens lineup (no fast portrait lens in 10 years? No fast wide primes?), and that /some/ photographers will simply not find the tools they need in the system.
I belong to a lot of professional organizations. I have hundreds of good professional photography friends, all that make a living with photography and I only know one that has a tilt shift and he never uses it. I know 2 that own the 50 1.2 and both agree they cant use it wide open. I think people use that excuss too much that olympus doesnt have these exotic lenses when the majority of people dont need them. If you are in a specialized field and need those lenses then by all means go with another system but if you need a handful of lenses to get the job done then at the moment their is no advantage to any system out there at the moment. And I am not talking about hi end cameras like the 1d and d3. I am talking about normal cameras that the majority of photographers use.
Your correct in I switched to the 85 1.8 and Why do you need such fast primes for portraits? I use the Panisonic 25 1.4 with a 1.4x. I shoot at 2.0. I have the sigma 30 1.4
Back focus isnt the problem. I shoot people and people move. If your subject takes a breath and your using the 85 1.2 wide open and your 4 ft away they will be out of focus. Dont be the only Canon shooter to brag about their lenses wide open. You can shoot them wide open and get good sharp images. Most Canon shooters buy 2.8 lenses so they can shoot at 4.0. You can buy a 14-35 2.0 and shoot at 2.0
I use the 50-200 the most outdoors. Show me the equilivant to that in Canon?
Yes if you are an architecture photographer go get a tiltshift. Most people dont use that lens for its purpose anyway. If your looking for select focus get a lensbaby.
Again show me a shot I cant get with a ft camera
How do you like your Sigma 30mm F1.4 lens? I heard about AF issues on some copies, but if the AF gets right it seems totally usable even wide open.
> But mark my words as soon as it comes out and people try it they will love it.
You miss the point. The move on Oly’s part is simply premature. m43 is only starting.
Look at the time frame of the 43 and see how long it took them from to complete the 43 lens range: starting from 2003, they were ready by the 2008. About 5 years.
If m43 is now at its 1st-2nd year, meaning that we have to wait about 3 years before we would get decent coverage of the m43 lenses.
Do the Oly really plans to stay in black all the time solely with E-5 (43 pro) and PENs (m43 casual)? While knowingly keeping the gaping hole of enthusiasts/hobbyists in the product line??
Its decent. I pefer the panisonic 25. I only use the sigma for getting ready shots at a wedding. Most of the time I am manually focusing anyway.
We dont need no bigger sensor!!!!!!!!!!
+1.
I used the Sigma 30mm on an E-30 & now on my E-5. The AF issue seems to be a low light problem, especially on the E-30, whilst the E-5 deals with the issue better yet not totally. In normal light, though, it’s perfectly fine, but if you’re in dull light, then yes it’ll go hunting even when its wide open. It’s is an even bigger issue when using S-AF.
+1