As you know the E-M5 is showing some banding issues when coupled with the [shoplink 14796]20mm f/1.7 lens[/shoplink]. Olympus just issued an official text: “After checking every possible combination of a body and a lens, we found the phenomena only with this combination (OM-D, E-M5 coupled with the Panasonic 20mm pancake lens). We are continuing to study how we can eliminate this and we recommend for our customers using E-M5 with Panasonic 20mm pancake lens to keep a low ISO to avoid this problem for the time being.” (via Dpreview)
And Olympus confirmed once again at DC.watch that the Four Thirds system stays well alive. Not a surprise but we need to see some new camera and lens to believe you Oly 🙂
—
New E-m5 and new lens (pre)orders:
E-M5 at Amazon, Adorama, B&H, Jessops, Amazon UK, Amazon Germany, Amazon France, Amazon Japan and Digitalrev.
Olympus 75mm lens at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Amazon Germany and Amazon UK.
Panasonic 12-35mm X lens at Amazon, BHphoto, Adorama, Amazon Germany, Amazon UK, Amazon Japan and Digitalrev.
60 Responses
Why would they not check all the lenses before hand? There are only a couple of dozen.
1st ^^
Congratulations: you’re an idiot.
While they are at it can Oly look into PAL 25/50p video rates?
Very good news, I miss to use the 20mm on the OMD…
I use the 20/1.7 regularly with the OMD, and have not seen the banding problem yet. But I’m glad the problem has been recognized, and hope for a quick solution.
+1 never saw any banding
I’ve got a mint 20 mm f/1.7 for sale if anyone wants to buy it…$300.
Ok, I’ll buy it. 🙂
I had one, then thought the Fujifilm x100 would be my dream camera. It didn’t work out. :-/
So now I’m going back to micro 4/3.
Try ebay!
I have this issue with my 20 1.7 (I bought it with my GF1 when it was launched) but I have read something on dpreview which seems to be accurate : when the AF is AFS, I don’t have banding issue. When I use AFC, then I have banding. It might be because of interferences between the focus motor and the magnetic field IBIS.
Still, if other can test this…
Sounds like a plausible cause of the problem given the 20mm uses an old style focus motor which probably uses magnets. I guess you still get the issue when the IBIS is off as the system still remains active, but why would it affect AFC only?
PS I think the 20mm is not supposed to be used with AFC on Panasonic cameras anyway.
The lens doesn’t support AF-C, even on Pnasonic bodies it doesn’t!
I think it’s not optimized but it works (not smoothly…)
20 mm is nice on OM-D, but it autofocuses terribly during video – and I mean it is so bad it is pretty much unusable in AF mode during video.
The trade-off for poor video, is a lens that has an excellent IQ, a nice 40 mm equivalent field of view, compact size, low price and admirable level of magnification/close-up ability.
While at it could Olympus also check the problem with video mode (from no IS with manual lens to 24P and 25P), such a shame that OM-D potential not fully unleashed. In the meantime keeping and saying the 4/3 system stay well alive but showing no intention to release new product may be an indication of PR service to avoid existing 4/3 user from disappointment.
43 is dead. They need to move on, and stop wasting resources. I can’t conceive of any scenario where 43 is anything but the tiniest bit player.
lol you must be so glad you feel that way. Now when you say they should move on, how many E-5’s did they sell? How many E-30s. How many E-3 owners are still using their E-3?
You have no idea how many they will sell, you have no idea how popular it will be… And the fact YOU cant conceive of any scenario is not a surprise as you have very little information to go on.
Simply serving an existing customer base, and benefiting from a trickle up of m43rds users who have now been exposed to the Olympus brand, even if it just for a 50-200 plus body etc. is all business.
As many keep saying the sensor is there, electronics and components are there, body design is there, lenses are there. I think people need to stop behaving like a camera coroner and just accept while it may not be for them, it may very well be for others (and potentially on a significant level worldwide).
Ab
> I can’t conceive of any scenario where 43 is anything but the tiniest bit player.
A player it will not be. That chance (if it was one) they have missed a long time ago.
Yet reasons exist. For example: reduce number of potentially dissatisfied users; allow to use existing (expensive) gear for which there is still no replacement.
But you shouldn’t worry. They would probably release E-7 only. High-priced and in limited quantities for specific group of users – a 100% niche product. A niche product is perfect at highlighting the dead-ness of 43 than anything else.
I can’t wait for a new 4/3 camera!. I have a e-420 which I really love because all the customization and features no other entry-level DSLR had at the time, and also, I was really surprised with the increase in IQ when I first got the 50mm and 11-22mm.
I was about to buy an e-5 but I think I’ll just wait a bit more.
I don’t have my E-1 or lenses anymore, but I’m glad Oly is doing the right thing, its important.
I am a new m43 owner (em5) but own mostly 43 lenses and will be first in line for a 43 camera with the EM5 sensor. And will keep my EM5 as backup/travel camera.
Whatever happens you cannot avoid technological change. You see it with the obsolescence of the 20mm, but also with the new hybrid AF of the Ti4. This is the camera Olympus might have built to accept 4/3 lenses, but it didn’t.
Thus one has the feeling that it considers the reflex system doomed. Those lenses don’t work in m4/3 C-AF, they don’t work for video, and even the Ti4 is a bit of expensive kludge.
4/3 might still work next to m4/3, but as a supplementary system, and possibly as one which will be replaced. The problem then becomes: how much Pro Olympus (and Panny) want to go with m4/3?
With the downturn it might take longer than expected, but there is every sign that the O-MD line will generate a Pro camera. After that there will be even less people interested in 4/3, probably no new body buyers at all, and Oly might stop production of lenses too.
That is what they might have intended when they encouraged *transition*. But of course some never wanted to hear even the word. So who is responsible for their woes?
BTW all systems are transitioning to video, which needs specific lenses. So 4/3 is already a Legacy System. If fast zooms are to be built again for m4/3 they’ll need to have new motors and new AF. Probably Oly had already this in mind when it issued its warning, which went unheeded. One doesn’t stop one business right away, but one must see what is coming ahead and prepare, or go bust.
When production costs of making, and maintaining a new body will be higher than the sales of 4/3 lenses, they’ll probably stop the whole format. It will continue to exist however on the secondary market, for those who want to perpetuate it, like it happened for many brands that stopped production. Nothing wrong with it.
I dont think they should care Am. It is pretty easy to see that they can sell 100k 43 cameras over 2 years out of this, that will add to the bottom line and add to their portion of market share, What else matters
100k? Can you document it? But even then, as Thom notices, the compact mirrorless system is worth 20-30 *million*/yr.
That is where all the collision between makers is happening:
http://www.bythom.com/
In the end, when people object to the reviving of an old format, they eye R&D costs, not dispersing them. It’s those in the end that allow to consolidate profits and market share.
Oly can still make use of 4/3 for a time, but that’s not how it’s going to fight off cameras like the V1 or the Ti4, nor the shrinking FF.
It is still about making the 4/3 viable, but camera and lenses size is of the essence. And video too.
There is a constant underrating by older 4/3 users of the circumstances in which Oly and Panny are fighting against heavy players.
As much as you’d like it you can’t play the endoscope trick again, taking m4/3 as a milking cow. Either plain 4/3 is viable or it isn’t, becasuse it costs money to maintain it.
Imagine having to fix three or four separate lines of motors, if there’s money only for one or two. It becomes a nightmare, only for the spares 🙂
“100k? Can you document it? But even then, as Thom notices, the compact mirrorless system is worth 20-30 *million*/yr.” you have misquoted thats 20-30 million UNITS not value.
Even his 20-30 million estimate is plainly wrong just working back from UK figures.
These are different times it’s much more easier to fight against the 2 heavy players – the biggest change has been in customer behaviour 🙂 (something he still doesn’t get).
I also think you exaggerate the influence older 4/3 users.
A comment to Thom Hogan’s article:
It’s so typically american to put all focus on selling price. That’s why entry level DSLRs still outsell mirrorless in the US. People think they get more for their money just because it’s bigger. Same thing as with american cars. This is also one of the reasons why camera prices are lower in the US. Because in the US you compete on price instead of quality.
I guess the real money are in the lenses. Its in Oly best interest to keep selling those wonderful HG and SHG lenses. And for that they need a state of the art body which can use them without compromises. They were talking about merging the m4/3 and 4/3 systems since the beginning. And they are almost there – the only piece missing is the hybrid on-chip AF. They might be somehow limited by the fact that unlike Canon they don’t make their own sensors. So there might be one more generation of regular 4/3 cameras. You can also see that none of the HG or SHG lenses has an equivalent in m4/3 line. This might signalize that in the long term they are planing to sell them side by side.
People were complaining that there was basically no new 4/3 body since E30/620/5 generation, while there were 3 generations of PENs. But all these 3 generations of PENs shared the same old 12MP sensor from E30, so there wasnt much need to update the 4/3 line. that has changed now with the new IS and a new 16 mp sensor, so its likely we will see some new 4/3 camera. Soon.
Olympus isnt a typical consumer electronic company, most of their products has indented lifetime measured in decades. For example in our lab we are quite happy with Olympus fluorescence microscope which is more than 20 years old. As an accessory camera for their microscopes you can still buy only E-330. So I am guessing they slightly underestimated the consumer market where if you dont update your product line every 6 months or so, you are considered dead.
@Riley
Nikon’s Thailand factory produces about 300k DSLRs per month. 100k over two years would have a trivial effect on Oly’s bottom line and might not even cover costs.
300k a month is 3.6mil pa, thats the 2010 figures.
The 2011 figures were 4.4 mil units or 368k month which was still less volume than Canon. But Nikon do this across 5 models making 61k per line per model per month average.
Clearly thats only an average, but common sense tells us they flog more d3x00/d5x00 than they do d4/d800, but the higher volume cameras have a lower return.
ie the figures are viable by any standard
> Thus one has the feeling that it considers the reflex system doomed. Those lenses don’t work in m4/3 C-AF, they don’t work for video, and even the Ti4 is a bit of expensive kludge.
I actually applaud Canon for trying to smooth the transition into mirrorless.
Ability to use legacy lenses without major handicaps is anything but “kludge.”
I would call the 43-to-m43 adapter the “kludge” instead.
> BTW all systems are transitioning to video, which needs specific lenses.
Video needs specific lenses. But who needs video?
Video is a niche as ILC/DSLR go. My mobile phone is ok at video for all my personal needs. Videographers – yes, but they are … well, a niche.
“Video needs specific lenses. But who needs video?
Video is a niche as ILC/DSLR go. My mobile phone is ok at video for all my personal needs. Videographers – yes, but they are … well, a niche.”
+1.
You are quite correct in saying that video is a niche in still photographers markets. It caters mostly to the low end. There are the indies, but to them the still camera with video is just a stopgap and they will jump ship if they can. Let me expand a bit. Just like in still shooter market, there are 3 kinds of video equipment consumers, the pro (cinematographers), the pro wanabee (indies) and the amateur (the rest of them, like the hockey mom/dad, etc). Their requirements are different. The Pros want the best quality lenses, bodies, but most importantly adherence to cinema standard. The indies aspire to have the equipment (and money) of the Pro. The Hockey people want simple, convenience, and price.
It is clear that Pana and Oly are aiming the m4/3 still cameras for the Hockey people. For one, the Pros do not bring their systems on hikes and don’t care if the camera is the size of a cigarette box or a small office cabinet, there goes your size advantage. Then they don’t care if it can focus automatically because they have people trained as focus puller and they don’t band the camera about randomly, and there goes your AF speed advantage. Then they probably have not heard of image stabilization because their systems is mounted on a sturdy base, and there goes your IBIS and OIS advantages.
Left with just the Hockey People, who are not going for quality equipment, the odd of Oly and Pana producing anything on a ‘Pro’ level is not is not good.
You clearly haven’t seen what a pro can do with a hacked GH2.
“You clearly haven’t seen what a pro can do with a hacked GH2.”
Pro wanabee. You forgot the wanabee part.
I have a GH2 and want to be a pro. But I have not seen Peter Jackson or Francis Coppola with one.
Pro Olympus? You mean Olympus pros? Are there any? Beside you of course.
Maybe Olympus should release a new 17mm lens that is in the same league as the 20mm Panny. That way we would also have fast and silent focusing.
I didnt mean to sound dismissive of the 20mm, it and the 14mm pancake see more use than any of my lenses.
if it went to lenses there are 2 that have the most pressing need, a portrait prime, and a 200-400 HG zoom
I’m with fish – new olympus 17mm would be great. I would by it plus e-m5 straight away.
As far as I’m concerned, the 45mm has portrait prime covered (or 75mm if you want longer).
But I agree, a high quality telephoto would be awesome! I would take a 200-400mm zoom – or a prime lens at any focal length within that range.
We keep plugging away at this on the forums, hopefully Oly are reading and will soon fix this huge gap in the lens line up. The banding problems with the 20mm surely give them an ideal opportunity to snatch market share from Panny. I’ve nothing against Panny selling lenses, have the 14mm and it’s great, but I am looking for excuses to push Oly into fixing the 17mm.
Please re-read. I never wrote 30 million $. What is interesting in Thom’s analysis is where he sets the core of the ILS market.
600$ is entry market dSLR, 800 now 1000$ mid dSLR AND mirrorless. m4/3 can do such prices because of the small size advantage.
There’s little money to be made by >1000$ bodies, according to Thom
E-5 or E-7 very expensive, especially when sub 2000$ FF bodies arriving. So the situation is not getting better but worse. Ti4 is directly competing with m4/3. Can O&P make such a camera? Will it focus fast 4/3 lenses? No guarantee it could. Probably would need new linear motor lenses like the Ti4.
So it’s not our of bad will, that I see no easy solution. A hybrid 4/3 camera would be even more expensive than an E-7. Oly is no Canon. It wouldn’t even have the privilege of small size. Customer base for a 2000 $ camera extremely small. Oly even said so: v. expensive – the blueprints they already have.
OTH 4thirders take half a word said in Japanese and blow it out of proportion believing in the Second Coming of 4/3. Who would you rather believe? At least try to understand with Thom that the elbow room for 4/3 is extremely limited, and thaat even successfull m4/3 is under heavy attack. Other brands are not passive at all.
@amalric
you suggested/insinuated dollars.
thom’s arguments are flawed and very bricks and mortar USA centric.
also price is only a component (eg the iphone isn’t the cheapest mobile on the market)
according to thom LOL (never known someone to be so wrong so often)
the E-7 will compete and innovate on many levels, none of them mentioned by you or thom.
nope not a second coming a second front maybe to break into the canikon duopoly
m4/3 is not under heavy attack from Nikon1, Pentax Q or Samsung NX, maybe a bit of pressure in some markets from Sony NEX, also m4/3 shouldn’t even be worried by Canon’s offering….
> There’s little money to be made by >1000$ bodies, according to Thom
And still it’s brand image from those enthusiast/pro bodies which played big part in allowing Canikon to sell volumes of entry level DSLRs. (which don’t generate much lens sales)
> A hybrid 4/3 camera would be even more expensive than an E-7.
That’s why instead of some complex modular lens mount hybrid camera Olympus must keep pushing for on sensor PDAF.
M4/3 is in any case going to need good tracking focus capability in the future.
Its claim to fame is high image quality from small body and without viable competition that went in, hook, line and sinker… and some of you couldn’t stop to that but also had to swallow rod and as result have now that stiff neck.
Now fixed lens compacts growing their sensors start attacking from one side and can offer slimmer optics because of integration into body. On other side competitors are having their first mirrorless experiments, updating their DSLRs closer to mirrorless in features and possibly replacing DSLRs with (lot cheaper to make) mirrorless once they have mature enough on sensor PDAF.
All of that can make m4/3’s foothold narrow if all it can offer as system is small bodies without ergonomical high end bodies.
Which do you think Average Joe is going to select if on one shelf there’s m4/3 offerings of only small cameras and on next shelf whole big brand diverse product range of Canon/Nikon starting from similar compact cameras?
4/3 failed to make big brand in DSLRs but winners of that didn’t evolve their systems enough and that left opening for mirrorless 4/3. You shouldn’t want m4/3 to do similar mistake of stopping to look where to expand.
Why should anybody read you even once? Let alone reread.
Why not, a 30mm F1.2 high grad.
I only think back to OM Zuiko 55mm F1.2, and very nice bokhe.
Sorry ,little bit out of topic
I wander is there any comparison review between Lumix 20mm F1.7 against the new Canon pancake 40mm f2.8 also both Pentax pancake lens 40mm f2.8 ,in term of color ,contras,clarity,resolution and sharpness .
It will be very interesting review if there is any website could do it.
What I read about the pentax was not very appealing…
Yes, this is interesting. And it might be the reason why Oly might give some limited new life to 4/3.
However if they found a way to make use of 4/3 lenses different from the E-x, they would have clamoured it, wouldn’t they?
As I said many times Oly can play the Leica trick as long as they want, but forget that it will be their main market share, or even a technology leader with 4/3.
Working on the e-m5 firmware? Don’t forget focus peaking and IS in video for legacy lenses while you’re at it!
I dont see why Olympus shouldn’t repackage the EM5 in a 620 or E5 body. After all 4/3 won’t be dead so long as the lenses they have sold in the past continue working so there will be demand and I understood that the E5 sold much better than was expected. Also Sigma still seem to think a DSLR is viable and I’ve never ever seen a single person using one so niche markets can obviously work.
I dont see why Olympus shouldn’t repackage the EM5 in a 620 or E5 body. After all 4/3 won’t be dead so long as the lenses sold in the past continue working so there will be demand and I understood that the E5 sold much better than was expected. Also Sigma still seem to think a DSLR is viable and I’ve never ever seen a single person using one so niche markets can obviously work.
Couldn’t agree more. The E-M5 specs combined with the wonderful FT-lenses would be stunning. I would be happy to swap my E-3 for such a camera.
If anyone with 4/3 glass needs an MMF-3, there are a gazillion of them on eBay. Olympus Australia gave us a free MMF-3 with the E-M5. Nobody wants them.
Wish I could have got the FL-600R or HLD-6! Or a lens hood for my 12mm! A $50 Olympus gift voucher! No one can even sell the stupid adapter! Why didn’t they take even just $50 of the RRP!! Glad I’m not trying to sell a 4/3 lens or camera!
No where does that interview say “development” of four-thirds continues. It says (based on the Google translation) that “sales” of four-thirds continues. That’s a very big difference. I’ll eat my hat if Olympus ever introduces a significantly new four-thirds camera.
I hope for you, your hat is small!
“…..but have to concentrate on (mirror-less) non-reflex camera, and to continue digital SLR camera is also “Four Thirds System.”
it isn’t a product announcement, it is a statement of intent…
I am more concerned about reports that sometimes the OM-D (which i consider to buy) doesn’t wake up from sleeping mode unless you pull the battery. It seems to happen most the time with the 20mm.
http://www.mu-43.com/f42/omd-hangs-freezes-ones-while-25878/
With my E-PL1 and the 20mm I have a different but similar problem, here the lens often doesn’t wake up after the E-PL1 falls in sleeping mode – the camera works, but the lens doesn’t autofocus. Pushing the lens release button helps.That happens exclusively with the 20mm.
“the camera works, but the lens doesn’t autofocus”
I have E-M5 and it happened to me while using the 20 mm it was rare however…(maybe 2 times during hours of using it…)