Over one year ago a top source sent me the info about two Four Thirds camera prototypes. It may be useful to repost it to discuss what of the mentioned features could be implemented in the future E-7. I doubt both prototypes cameras will ever get on market:
“1) The E-P3 prototype (fake name) has a new 15 Megapixel sensor produced by Panasonic. It has a new focus-system with 19 points in continuous mode and 11 points in single mode. The eight new points are just assisting and cannot be selected manually. The new autofocus is very good, but not as good as the professional Nikon or Canon cameras. It has 8fps (frames per second). The viewfinder is the same us the [shoplink 15032]E-3[/shoplink] but it has a kind of “translucent overlay”. That makes it possible to see the histogramm, gridlines and the digital level. The Design of the camera is an evolution of the E-30
2) But there is also a second FourThirds prototype that he is testing. The name is E-P330 (again a FAKE name). It is be very similar to the current E-330
That second model sounds particularly intriguing. Early this year Olympus chiefs unveiled that one of the key technologies they are working on is the Viewfinder.
55 Responses
I would say: “Lets see what happens.”
Since Olympus did very well with the EM-5 I am pretty sure they will do with a maybe upcoming 4/3 camera as well.
Rumors are okay but why speculating based on old stuff?
I’m not very convinced by the general ideas around combining OVF with data overlay. I think EVF is the way forward, breaking the need for a direct line of light from the lens to the viewfinder. This provides much more flexibility in camera design. I like the E-M5 looks, but I would have been happier with a flat top plate with a viewfinder in the middle or side, just not stuck up on a little tower allowing space for the non-existent pentaprism. (I know the IS is in there, but it could have been spread across the top plate equally as well).
EVF is not as good as OVF yet, but it won’t be long before the technology improves to the point that OVF is unnecessary and EVF with all it’s overlay and (importantly) preview capabilities is much more desirable.
I think budget DSLRs (modern DSLRs in general to be honest) have done a disservice to OVFs: small tunnel-like finders, no snap focussing, sacrificing magnification for coverage, uncomfortable viewing distance — all of the above have made EVFs seem superior. I’ve yet to enjoy shooting with an EVF but I appreciate that’s subjective.
The E-5 has a respectable viewfinder, Oly did a good job with it and a digital overlay is exactly what I’ve been waxing lyrical about for 2 years! Combine the 2 and I think a lot of people would be converted.
Fingers crossed Oly release an E-50, it’s a great size chassis.
If I’m going to carry a mirrorbox and all the size that comes with it, it is only going to have a full frame sensor behind it.
@WT21, many would have liked that – but the bulk of the lenses gets in the way.
You should first wish for more modern and more compact FF lenses.
The bulk of the lenses? The 4/3rds zooms I have seen in person are no smaller than FF equivalents. I finally got a chance to handhold one of the larger Oly bodies with the 14-54 attached recently, and the combo was shockingly heavy (a coworker still not considering m43). I could have mistaken it for a 5D2 with a 24-85 had my eyes been closed.
yes you are right, but lets remember D300 is even bigger and heavier, and I ‘think’ 7D (without checking) is too. Or at least the bunch of them are close.
Is it looking like Olympus are losing the Japanese penchant for size simulating capability?
Really??? Zooms are no smaller? Have you held the Oly 40-150, and compared it to, say, the Canon 70-300? Even the Panny 100-300, about the biggest zoom there is, would be small compared to a 200-600 zoom.
On FF — I would only use FF with normal fast lens. Maybe a portrait prime. I’d keep the m43 for travel kit and long zooms.
edit — ignore the above. I thought you said m43 were no smaller than FF. I see now you said 43 is no smaller, and I would agree with that overall.
i hope it is “pro” and contains rare materials like metals, glass, and plastic so that one day i can “buy” it
The E-P3-prptotype will maybe have same sensor so E-M5, and if this come think i the will be a E-50.
Had to read it twice before it sunk in me that those are 43 prototypes, not m43… 😐
> The Design of the camera is an evolution of the E-30 design.
> It is be very similar to the current E-330.
I do like where prototypes are borrowing their genes. Updated E-30 (few years back) would have made many people happy. Some fans still shoot with the E-330 – and appear to be totally in love with colors of the Kodak sensor.
The E-330 had a panasonic sensor. 😉
True, Kodak sensors were CCD and didn’t do Live View.
nt
Continuous development in 43 means m43 gets less resources. I really don’t want this to be true, since there is really a lot of work in mft area…
Cheaper models with integrated EVF (a-la Panasonic G3), tele primes, high quality zooms… where are they? Exchanged for futuristic translucent mirror that nobody would buy? If that is true, I’m really disappointed 🙁
People still like their Zuiko tele zooms, so that’s the room I see for further 4/3 models.
Fast telezooms are not easy to introduce in m4/3 because of the size factor.
If Oly has translucent tech it makes sense to introduce it.
The main effort however will be elsewhere. I wish for an E-P5 with simpler IBIS, more autonomy, no hum, and the Sony sensor.
Admin, what about the VF-over-spectacles, similar to the Google contraption? Deepthroats don’t say anything?
Are you referring to the Olympus MEG4.0 glasses, http://tablet.pcmag.com/?ref=299941&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcmag.com%2Farticle2%2F0%2C2817%2C2406740%2C00.asp
A new 43 camera to replace my old E420 that I use next to my E5 would be very welcome. Something akin the EM-5 in looks and size (bit bigger is okay for me) sounds great.
How to fill a summer hole … 😉
Good to remind that there could be the technology to use a fixed mirror instead of a flipping one. So, now, maybe it could fit in a 4/3-to-m4/3 adaptor and not necessarely in a 4/3 body.
This could allow everybody to use both m4/3 and 4/3 lenses with just one body and the eventual use of this adaptor.
I guess it could be the right idea. The E-M5 (and all its successors) could be THAT body, now Oly just give us that adaptor! 🙂
hard to say as there are several ways to do this, and this field of prototypes seem more diverse than the creations from ‘ordinary minds’. Truly this would be the ultimate endpoint for 43.
There’s a lot going on out there with Olympus
Sony has a SLT adapter for the NEX-7 that allows use of PDAF on Alpha mount lenses.
The general consensus seemed to be that it made little sense, as you ended up with a combination that was heavier and more expensive than getting a SLT body in the first place.
Similarly, while there may be value in such an adapter for m43, I’d hardly call it the ‘ultimate endpoint’, because you end up with larger 4/3 lenses on top of a mount adapter on top of a m43 body, negating the size advantage of the format. Additionally, since the translucent mirror described in the patent eats up 50% of light transmission when focusing, it makes combined PDAF+CDAF harder.
On-sensor PDAF seems to be a much more attractive solution to me. All the advantages of traditional PDAF (speed, moving subjects, no seeking) with none of the drawbacks (backfocus), and theoretically easy to combine with CDAF. Hopefully, Nikon doesn’t have a patent-block on the technology, or we’ll have to wait 15 years to see it on competing systems.
There is still huge need for 43 bodies.
E-M5 is a very nice camera, but lenses are nowhere near SHG level, and zooms are impractical.
When I compare my E5 + 7-14/35-100mm shots with EM5+12/45mm combo, there is a huge difference in quality and rendering. I just hope Oly puts up a new body with better sensor and AF out soon so SHG lenses can breathe.
I might even sell my m43 gear then and get a good compact instead, lenses just don’t cut it.
Huge need ny foot. You are just one of those poor s@ds stuck in the past, who find nothing better than smear m4/3 excellent lenses.
Liars like you serve to be left on a slimming diet: the fewest possible bodies and the most expensive ones 🙂
Amalric, c’mon..!
Grow up, please. Why all this stupid hatred?
Why can’t you grasp the fact that people having lots of 4/3 lenses also want a new camera body in between? Why do you need to be so greedy, and claim all R&D to be put into m4/3 alone, IOW solely into the system you have yourself?
If these faithful 4/3 customers had not invested in their gear before, I guess Olympus Imaging had not been able to develop any m4/3 in the first place. Such long term customers really earn some respect instead, and not this silly puke you’re constantly coming up with, so full of anger and misperceived hatred, for no reason whatsoever, towards persons that have actually done you a favor, and no harm at all.
You seem incapable of looking outside your own small bubble. But there is a world out there, that has other needs than yours. Realizing that should induce some tolerance and flexibility, and making you a better person. Inflated egos is not a good thing, which is kinda proven here, as you obviously have the need to let the pressure out somewhere. But mind you, this is not the place to do it.
>Huge need ny foot. You are just one of those poor s@ds stuck in the past, who find nothing better than smear m4/3 excellent lenses
Am this is a question of Olympus keeping their word
I expect them to do that no matter whether you think thats ‘old hat’ or not
>E-M5 is a very nice camera, but lenses are nowhere near SHG level, and zooms are impractical.
Yes, because a 12-35/2.8 that has more range, 1/3 the weight, and costs less than the Oly 12-35/2 is wholly impractical.
Admittedly there is a scarcity of cheap, fast zooms in m43, but m43 already has more fast primes and portrait lenses than 4/3 ever did.
Comparing 12-35 to ZD14-35 is silly since Panasonic lens can’t even match ZD12-60 and difference between ZD14-35 and 12-60 is bigger than between kit zoom and 12-60mm.
I think that Oly should let the 4/3 format die.
Yes, Olympus has some amazing glass for this format, but I would rather see an adapter like Sony’s LA-EA2 with built in phase-detect auto focus.
that wont help mFT have pdAF, which it still needs to have any hope of focusing moving targets. ie no saving for R&D
Also fitting a phasing mirror between mFT and 43 means you have to do that in 18.6mm and still have room for 2 electrical mounts. Just one mount and the sensor size mirror are 19mm.
In addition, an SLT like Sony takes light from the sensor, in the smaller formats like mFT that is a critical issue.
Aren’t you assuming the phasing mirror has to be full size? As I understand it, it wouldn’t need to cover the entire sensor, just to the outer-most AF points. It also doesn’t even have to be flat, or square-to-the-sensor since the PD AF points *could* be anywhere in the light box (not just on the sensor surface), and a sensor-fed EVF wouldn’t need the mirror for image acquisition.
Also, most people used to think CDAF would never be able to match PDAF for single-shot AF speed, and they seem to have figured that one out. I still have hope they can figure out a way to speed up continuous AF as well, *without* having to stuff a mirror in the box, or adding yet another type of adapter.
I tried working with this and it just doesnt seem to go, in fact I just dealt with it in 43 forum
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&message=41987650
the plusses are that such a camera would turn the ‘mirror’ on and off as needs be to allow full light transmission to the sensor, and this would give us full time pdAF any time the mirror was ‘on’, and satisfy using 43 lenses.
The minuses are that such a camera would be a 43 camera and like SLT would accept only larger register lenses, and it would be EVF dependent. IOW no different to a 43 SLR, except if you prefer an EVF, just fine if you do.
IMO the only way this device applies is if you can fit it into a mFT camera, which within the body it would allow both 43 and mFT lenses using pdAF full time as long as the mirror is ‘on’.
The problem is I dont think it will fit, you need 3mm for an electrical mount and there is only 12mm total from the sensor stack to the outside of the mount, that leaves 9mm when you need 13mm for the mirror, a part mirror wont do unless it articulates out of the way.
A part mirror would me differences in apparent exposure across the sensor, or it would look like that mirror down. The only way to articulate the mirror is to withdraw it out one side with a linear motor, not enough room to fold.
The other way to do it is like Sony did with the kludge, an adapter that incorporates the mirror and AF mechanism within, that is assuming the electrical connections are available. To do this we have available 18.6mm, we need 5+ for the mount and contacts leaving 13.6. At 45 degrees we need 13mm for the mirror alone, Sony accomplish this same thing in 26mm for a sensor little taller than 43rds. As you can tell there is absolutely nothing to spare.
It is possible they have thought of some ways of getting around the space issue which would make it a unique and very useful mFT body as it would accept both lens suites and have pdAF with 43 lenses. While that is surely a very desirable outcome it is I would concede more likely with the adapter but then there is that ‘space’ issue, and no pdAF for mFT lenses.
The best outcome is pdAF on the sensor for mFT
A small reflector (series of reflectors) on a paddle/slide that goes up and down or side to side. The reflectors angled to the PDAF sensor, or be sensors themselves. This would take up only about 2mm and would fit between the lens mount and the shutter.
Also, how about making the shutter reflective and PDAF would be updated/used at each shutter action. CDAF would work as now. Or
A pelical screen that tilts/cants left or right a little between shots when PDAF lenses fitted. It would be parallel to the sensor during shooting (maximum light transmission and CDAF) and tilted between shots.
>A small reflector (series of reflectors) on a paddle/slide that goes up and down or side to side. The reflectors angled to the PDAF sensor, or be sensors themselves. This would take up only about 2mm and would fit between the lens mount and the shutter.
some RF had exposure assistance like this, but for Liveview it and the arm that supports it would be in the way. Also number of AF points and location becomes a lot more limited.
>Also, how about making the shutter reflective and PDAF would be updated/used at each shutter action. CDAF would work as now. Or
The shutter idea is nice, but the only opportunity to use it is as the camera goes off liveview and the shutter closes quickly then reopens to expose, it isnt enough time for a lens to transit to focus, or if it is you are blind the entire time it achieves AF. Not conducive with what pdAF is meant to solve ie moving targets.
>A pelical screen that tilts/cants left or right a little between shots when PDAF lenses fitted. It would be parallel to the sensor during shooting (maximum light transmission and CDAF) and tilted between shots.
Harder to visualise from the description but potentially this looks better. You could retract it entirely to the left or right with a linear motor when shooting which saves space and keeps the angle more reliable.
But then there is a difference in exposure when evaluating focus and when shooting, and liveview will need to adjust a little in correction. The difference in exposure would be consistent so no issue making a correctly exposed image, but it would stumble. Sony avoid this with a full time half mirror.
Creating one highly modular system could help Olympus achieve a new economy of scale—have one capturing engine (hardware) that couples to all their glass.
The loss of light from an SLT is of little consequence to me the owner of 4/3 glass—especially with the E-M5. Sony’s LA-EA2 is an excellent example on how to bridge the old with the new.
Olympus should stay focused on m4/3.
> Creating one highly modular system could help Olympus achieve a new economy of scale—have one capturing engine (hardware) that couples to all their glass.
yes it would
>The loss of light from an SLT is of little consequence to me the owner of 4/3 glass—especially with the E-M5. Sony’s LA-EA2 is an excellent example on how to bridge the old with the new.
but first you have to make it work, Sony have 26mm to do this, we have 18.6mm. Unless there is something especially clever I havent thought of, we have to find another way
I would love to see a new E-330… What a great concept design!
I’d buy a E-30 successor for my 50-200 if it has M5 quality – and I guess others would too (love the lens but it’s too large for m43).
The E7 will be the bus that picks up the remaining Olympus users who have been left standing by the side of the road. I really think that’s the last 4/3s camera that Olympus will produce. It’ll be the E-M5 sensor, but outside of that, we’ll just have to wait until Photokina.
I have a 330 + 14/54, and that’s go-to kit until I can afford an E-M5. But a rangefinder styled m4/3s body with a left-sided EVF would be really special. We’ll know better in a couple of months.
Wrong way. Dont make a 43 body, olympus. Its the wrong way
instead:
1. make pd autofocus work on the sensor & in connection with the 43 to m43 adaptors
2. make a large, heavy and robust m43 body with all the gimmicks you can think of.
every 4/3 user with the fantastic zuiko lenses will be happy, because they have a fantastic new body (with proper C-AF) to use their lenses on (those folks can weld the adapter on the body if they want to…).
For the m43 system, it will be the real “coming out”. M43 CAN compete with the Pros of CaNikon?!
If Olympus are to produce “a large, heavy and robust m43 body”, it may as well be a 4/3 body which will cater for the superb 4/3 glass out there, what is the point in producing a large body if you are to partially cripple it with the lesser u4/3 glass.
Why “cripple”? If an m43 body had built-in PDAF it would work with legacy glass just fine using a regular hollow adapter.
For one thing no doubt all new lenses will be made for mirrorless mount which also offers possibility for lot lighter to carry lenses in short focal lengths. (like Samyang fisheye which is lot smaller than what fisheye would be for 4/3)
Mirrorless is no doubt going to be the future for every maker (because of major complexity of SLR’s mirror box and OVF) with DSLR shrinking to niche with advance in mirrorless camera tech. (also Canon readying it with first integration of PDAF)
But you can be sure that Canon won’t be sticking lens mount to their Powershot S and then pretending it be advanced DSLRs replacement and instead their mirrorless system is surely going to provide also bodies which offer high end DSLR level ergonomics.
At that point m4/3 would be pressed to fight hard just for retaining it’s existing market share if all it can offer is small.
Better to retain same headstart as what m4/3 got in small mirrorless bodies.
Olympus/Panasonic aren’t in special niche position like Leica where they can keep selling at any price regardless rest of the photography world and neither they are biggest players in the game so they should be constantly looking for ways how they can topple Canon and Nikon. Canon and Nikon sure are thinking for ways to challenge m4/3.
Why cripple a new Oly body by making the use of the wonderful µFT primes impossible. This would be complete and utter economic insanity.
>1. make pd autofocus work on the sensor & in connection with the 43 to m43 adaptors
and if they cannot make this work ?
they have a duty to other system owners that had confidence they would do this in a timely manner. If it comes out next week or next month fine, if not ?
there is a ready market out there willing to take 50k bodies from them to update their 4 yr old gear. Make the SLR and make good the guarantees. I do not care about myself here, I care for the Exxx and Exx owners that got left behind
Olympus spread a lot of confusion about a lot of things, but on the next generation camera for owners of E-xx/xxx cameras, they were very clear….three years ago. The option was m4/3. That’s now the space taken by the E-M5. As several owners have commented, an E-M5 with landscape grip is roughly the size of a 620.
That said, I understand the compromise that implies with respect to HG/SHG 4/3s glass. Unfortunately, that’s not the bulk of the market that Olympus has built. They provided the MMF-3 which is unarguably a band-aid at best. The solution is PDAF integration, but I don’t think any of us knows how that’s going play out, if it does.
IMHO…and ONLY my opinion…the bottom line at this point for owners of HG/SHG glass is going to be buy the E7 or put an adapter on your m4/3s camera. An E-xxx/xx is going back into the land of Canikon, and I just don’t think the bankers who now run Olympus want them going back there.
> an E-M5 with landscape grip is roughly the size of a 620.
But because of fashionable oversizing of display has worser ergonomics.
MMF-3 wasn’t some band-aid but necessary product because existing adapters weren’t weather sealed.
“An E-xxx/xx is going back into the land of Canikon, and I just don’t think the bankers who now run Olympus want them going back there.”
No, it’s going back into the land of establishing trust, instead of being a camera maker that abandoned a lens mount 2-3 years after it started gaining traction with the E-5xx line.
If Olympus hadn’t wasted a shitload of money on a billion point-and-shoots and ultrazooms in a market that’s far more competitive than the Canikon duopoly, things would have probably looked a lot different.
I am torn, I would love to see a final solution to the focus issue on m43rds. I do believe this is on the way. However keeping I would say 2 bodies in 43rds would be an excellent Idea.
However as I am growing my m43rds lens collection and am holding onto the 50mm macro 35mm macro and 12-60 mm zoom. I would love to see a professional level m43rds body. Bigger than the OMD, but not by much, with some type of PDAF support.
Then keep the E-5 – E-7 etc.
But look into the future here for me. ONE professional level m43rds body with pdaf support for both lens sets, as well as CDAF, video etc… That can focus both sets of lenses would be sublime.
I would pick up a 35-100 f2 almost immediately as would so many others. Is it big? Yes. It is a performer? Absolutely. I mean having these primes in m43rds, along with a newer suite of entry level zooms, the HG and SHG lenses… Mn that would be killer.
Ab
no new model with articulating screen + e-m5 sensor?
I don’t think it makes sense to say that Oly has an obligation towards owners of E-xx or E-xxx cameras.
I was among the latter, thankfully wt little native lenses and did the transition.
People who have ultra $$$ lenses have E-x, so the obligation is fulfilled.
That glass will never make it into the next generation. It doesn’t have the contacts, it doesn’t have the motors, it is not optimised for video, so despite the optics it is already obsolete, legacy glass.
Is it worth to buy a multi-standard, modular bulky $$$ camera?
I cannot see it. I already have all the optics I need in m4/3 without needing a kludge.
Besides as FF decreases in size, there might be economies of size and scale in getting it, so that 4/3 is squeezed from both sides.
In the end the answer it that there is no real market left for 4/3. So some select the 4/3 lenses that respond better in m4/3 and resell what they don’t use. In the end it is more practical.
Buying new complicated bodies is no joy for anybody. If anything one must go towards simpler, more general purpose cameras, and m4/3 offers them. People also use m4/3 lenses for pro work, so please don’t propagate the BS about their being inferior. They are more than adequate for fashion, product, travel and they offer video.
You have the optics you need in a phone camera. I have no idea why you bought into m4/3, since it’s clearly not the system for you.
mFT might be nice, but I think that many people still need or want FT. Though there are some nice mFT-primes, the mFT-zoom lenses are pretty substandard compared to FT-zooms. Besides, I would never buy anything from Olympus again if they stopped supporting FT-lenses with a proper body. I do not mind if it is a normal DSLR or an mFT with an adapter, but I demand at least decent AF on my 50/2.0, 7-14 and 12-60.
Still shooting E-3.
I will change system as soon as I have money for doing so.
E-M5 sure has some nice innovations but it’s quite expensive for what it is. I don’t need a touch screen toy but a handy tool. E-3’s buttons are nowhere near perfect but it’s been only downhill since on ergonomics of Olympus cameras.
Changing for m43 is also almost as hard as changing to any other system. All I’m left from my 4/3 kit is my flashes.
Olympus itself said it’s not a “pro” model. I like OM system and still shoot it too, but OM-D is no OM either.
For the viewfinder disgussion: I find E-3 finder only adequate for autofocus lenses. It’s a no-go for MF. Big EVF is the future for Olympus.
43 was a dead end, but m43 has the potential. Now Olympus only needs few well placed products. Innovation is there. Now we only need photographer’s mind like Maitani’s.