The E-M1 is selling that well that Amazon issued a High Demand warning (Click here to read it). Same warning applies for the new 12-40mm PRO lens too (Click here). The E-M1 is a great camera but according to ThePhoBlographer Olympus can’t rest on this success
“It only seems like a matter of time until Sony wipes the floor with the rest of the industry and releases a full frame mirrorless camera. And with that said, the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera world will experience the same shift that the DSLR world took where everyone always complained about the smaller sensors in Olympus cameras.
Olympus surely seems like they’ve got quite the uphill battle to face with their photography division. And somehow or another, they’re going to need to innovate and create something that no one else has that is extremely marketable–and it will need to be a hit with the mass market.”
Now, I am really not a fan of MFT vs FF sensor discussions. It’s like saying a big car is always better than a smaller car. You cannot compare two cameras by considering as only factor the sensor size. And to be honest when seeing prints you hardly see any difference!
It’s true that Sony will soon announce a mirrorless FF camera. But it will cost 2.5 times the E-M1 and I doubt it will give you the same kind of mature usability and durability. That said the High End market is the most profitable. And maybe that’s one of the few reasons why Olympus could/should make a FF Macro Four thrids system 🙂
Preorders in US and Europe (Click on the store name to read price and specs):
Dedicated page at Amazon.
Olympus E-M1 body at Amazon, Adorama and BHphoto, Amazon DE (via DL), Amazon UK (via DL), WexUK, Topshot FI, CameraWorldUK.
Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO Lens at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, AmazonDE (viaDL).
Olympus E-M1 with 12-40mm Lens kit at Amazon DE (via DL), WexUK and CameraWorldUK, Amazon UK (via DL).
Olympus E-M1 with 12-50mm Lens kit at Amazon DE (via DL), WexUK, CameraWorldUK, Amazon UK (via DL).
Olympus EP-13 Eyecup for E-M1 at Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus HLD-7 Battery Grip for E-M1 at Amazon, Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus LC-62D Metal Front Lens Cap for 12-40mm at Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus LH-66 Lens Hood for 12-40mm at Adorama and BHphoto.
267 Responses
The em-d o-m1 will be the downfall of m43. Full frame is the only way forwards.
Say who ?
Your statement is ridiculous and not backed up by actual sales data
do you have ANY idea how many 35mm dSLR s are sold compared to APS DSLR ?
Say who ?
Your statement is ridiculous and not backed up by actual sales data
do you have ANY idea how many APS dSLR s are sold compared to m43 bodies ?
do you have ANY idea how many FF dSLR s are sold compared to “pro” m43 bodies ?
Yes I do
1/ waaayyy more APS
2/ a lot more
but none of it was really related to my point .
Not to mention I do not get this constant moaning . Having more than ONE option in terms of sensor size is ALWAYS better
Harold
“but none of it was really related to my point”
And that’s maybe why your comment is pointless.
Mirrorless didn’t succeed being a real threat to APS dslr, and i’m pretty much affraid that a ff mirrorless body will take market part not on DSLR market but on the mirrorless one.
And i personnaly find quite annoying to have so many different but close sensor size. I don’t want to have so many different but close lenses.
@bidou: your private annoyance about similarly sized sensors is really pointless.
“And i personnaly find quite annoying to have so many different but close sensor size. I don’t want to have so many different but close lenses.”
What? Why? Maybe you should make a list of which lens belongs to which sensor size, or stop buying the products that you don’t want to own.
Maybe you have too many cameras 😉
Harold
APS-C sells more than FF because the overwhelming majority of buyers are people that want the DSLR experience, but aren’t going to pay thousands of dollars for FF.
FF DSLRs sell more than “pro” m43 bodies because there are only two, at best three “pro” m43 bodies that are out of stock half the time.
It’s completely tangential.
The only reason APS-C still exists is because amateurs think they need a big black camera to take good pictures. APS-C doesn’t offer anything over m43 other than a bit of DoF. The majority of the people are going to realize that a GFx or a PEN suits their needs and never take out the big hunk of black plastic ever again. In the other direction, pros go for FF Nikons and Canons.
APS-C is the one that’s going to die out.
” The majority of the people are going to realize that a GFx or a PEN suits their needs and never take out the big hunk of black plastic ever again”
Like four years ago ? Still waiting.
Four years ago m43 was crap. Compare a GF1 to whatever it’s contemporaries were. It’s not even remotely close.
Today, I can guarantee that you can’t tell the difference between a Pen and a Rebel. And if it’s there, it sure as hell isn’t going to be the kind of detail that matters to any amateur.
Really ? I still have a GF1 as a backup body and it was a more than fairly decent body at that time.
But how can an EP-5 can compete against a Nikon D3200 for exemple? It cost more than twice more, and the only tech part where its better is High Iso (and well, even DR is better on D3200)
Not compared to APS-C. Not even remotely.
Here, an OM-D against D7100. They’re closer in price (and they didn’t have the pen or the 3200).
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=oly_em5&masterSample=p1010017.acr&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=oly_em5&slot0Sample=p1010017.acr&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=nikon_d7100&slot1Sample=dsc_0180.acr&x=0.2150198298688287&y=-1.2000319948808191
Yeah. It’s a terrible link. Now compare noise levels. Compare resolutions. There’s practically no difference.
Well done Gabriel! I don’t think he will reply (he was the same guy with different logins, more than likely)
You should really stop to burry your head in the sand. The 7100 sensor is mostly the same than the 3200, its higher price is mostly related to every issue other than IQ of the sensor.
And you still don’t get the point : it’s not about the quality of m43 bodies (because they are great, even the GF1 was, exept maybe at pixelpeeping bullshit at 6400 iso), it’s about the uncomfortable niche they are into now. Do you understand that right now, it will be great if em-1 sell as good as sony RX1?
Hello, m43 don’t sell well, and, as the first comment stated, em-1 could be the swan song of m43. They really need to react.
Fortunately, there is no “em-d o-m1” on the horizon, so is no m4/3 downfall.
As my experienced in years of photography,.i just want to make a statement ; there’s no need to bashing up other system /format or brand,.just take picture with the gear you have right now,.
i started my photography with nikon D300,.and move to D700,and now also D600 I.also learn some film camera like Nikon FM then .but when ,.M43 came out,.i start with Gf1,.also G3 and GX1,.and later on,.with OM-D ,E-PL5, and E-P5,.,i was really tempted with the Form of FUJi,.so i purchased it X-E1,.with 18,35,60,18-55 and the last one 14mm,.i also had the Zeiss 1.8/32mm but i returned it,.,..and now,.i made a conclusion,.m43 is the best option that really suits my need of photography,.especially with The OM-D,.why,.Is a Balance and compromising of IQ ,Weight , small, reliable AF/Performace and the most important things is the large variety of excellent lenses.
I’m not a professional,.but i love taking photo’s,.everywhere i go i always taking pictures so i need a camera that not TOO big,. like my Nikon,.but have the performance,.and IQ ,.and i found ,.OM-D is more than enough for my needs,.
BTW,.i believe most of us here,.had already experienced with an FF camera,,.we don’t need another FF mirrorless system,.just to get a shallow depth of field ,.just use our own FF camera,.another FF mirrorless camera it means you have to dump your old FF-DSLR gear,.just to build up a new system,.
+1 yep, full frame, medium format, large format. In my younger years I used to haul a 4X5 view camera around the Rocky Mountains sometimes. Each had its place in those times and still do.
The fact of the matter is that most of the hollering comes from pixel peepers who probably haven’t printed to large size or published a photo in recent history if every. Or from those who just feel they have to justify whatever they bought due to insecurity.
Any decent camera with a good lens and a good photographer is capable of great photos, under reasonable conditions. What you need is determined to a great extend on how it is to be used. I figure there is a good chance the EM-1 will be my next camera. I know what it can and cannot do and it meets and exceeds my needs and desires. However, if I want to do shoot some highly detailed landscapes/cityscapes for large (40×60+ inches) printing then I’ll need a bigger sensor. But that is 1 in 1000 need. I’ll rent what I need then and probably go to at least medium format. I’ve printed wonderful 16X20 inch prints from an old Oly E500 (8mp) and that is a very old sensor technology and even did a 4 frame city panorama that was more then 6 feet wide printed. I already know that the newer 16mp sensors are capable of excellent 30X40 inch prints. So µ43 will cover 98% of everything I shoot, and if the image is bad I blame it on the photographer (myself) not the gear. For the other 5% if it is important to me, I’ll rent the right gear, and it will probably be much larger then FF.
And yes, I still shoot as though I was a working Pro. Just because I’m not selling my work doesn’t mean I’m willing to compromise.
Interesting statement, but not everyone has the cash to just buy into 3-4 systems and then make the choice. They get one chance, and they get stuck into that camp. Although your case is a nice one, it’s not realistic. If Oly gives up tomorrow, stops innovating, stops supporting PDAF, or switches to FF, the 4/3 folks are shit out of luck. You, on the other hand, have a nice set of cameras and lenses to fall back on. It’s low risk to prefer Olympus.
“Full frame is the only way forwards.”
Sorry, this sounds like a dogma.
If the biggest sensor is the best sensor,
why only 35mm format and not Medium Format or really Full Format.
And why do all peolpe say FullFormat to the 35mm Format?
In analog times, the best image quality came from Full Format.
But the most common format was the 35 mm format.
Why?
Because the Medium-Format and Full-Format Cameras were to bulky.
Since I have the OM-D, I am really happy about the size and weight of this camera.
I don’t want to carry my D300 or a Full Format Camara with me on travels and walkings.
Adda
Why FF and not Medium Format? In the end FF was only invented to use cheaper film from cinema cameras, so FF was always only a compromise. Without the mirror they would really become much smaller…
Exactly. There’s nothing magic about the dimensions of 36mm x 24mm. It was always just a compromise. Bigger is better, baby!
I’m sure Sony’s next frontier is luxury fixed-lens, LCD-only medium format cameras, which moneyed dilettantes will buy because the sensor is bigger. (Size isn’t a problem. They’ve got people on staff to carry the camera around for them.)
That will convince the “serious amateurs” that they need a prosumer version with interchangeable lenses. And then pros will have to buy the pro version because they have to have a more impressive camera than their customers.
Then Sony will step it up to a luxury fixed-lens LARGE-format camera with a 4×5-inch sensor; lather, rinse, repeat.
But personally, I’m going to hold out until there’s a camera that offers TRUE full frame — whole-plate Daguerreotype size, or 6.5 x 8.5 inches.
Full Frame and Micro 4/3 systems serve different purposes.
Olympus has a much better chance of succeeding by being a big fish in the Micro 4/3 world, than being a tiny fish in the Canon/Nikon/Sony Full Frame world. ( Especially when you consider it would mean a whole new Full Frame lens line-up )
Yes, I agree with you and hopefully Olympus is well aware of that
Harold
+100
well said,.I agreed
Anyone that cares about m4/3 should not want to see Olympus or Panasonic come out with a larger sensor camera. Anyone that wants a larger sensor can now buy a Canon or Nikon, or whatever.
If Olympus or Panasonic had a larger sensor camera then they would act like Canon and Nikon and give the newest features to the largest sensor first, and then in time let the features trickle down to the m4/3. To get the latest features you want the m4/3 to be the manufacturer’s top-of-the-line camera.
+1 Well said. I’ve shot with many different film formats and also watched the evolution of digital from its beginning. Fact is, that today’s sensor/camera technology is so evolved, that you almost have to try to take a bad photo. You can get impressive 8X10 and 11X14 prints from tiny sensor super zooms (if shot in RAW and post processed). µ43 cameras can deliver excellent large print sizes (20×24 to 30X40) and are more then suitable for news, travel and documentary work. They are even popular with some established “field” fashion photographers. Of course they are not great for very high ISO work, but considering that I came from a photo world where high iso was TRI-X 400 push processed to 1200, I have never had a need to go above 3200, even with FF (35mm). The EM-1 is looking more and more like my long time dream camera. Just the right blend of size, ergonomics, versatility, durability, optical quality, etc, etc.
By far the most meaningless and endless discussion on the net regarding cameras . It is amazing how many people on thei blogs think that THEIR preference is the ONLY way for the industry to go. Forget the fact that it will take a while for SONY , or others to develop a line of 35mm lenses as mature as the 4/3 lens line up . when one looks at the system as a whole , the m4/3 rds lenses will still be smaller lighter than their 35mm counterparts
There is a big trend towards smaller electronics ( not just for cameras , mind you ) and a LOT of people do not need or want a 35mm sensor to travel and never print in large sizes
Harold
kiddo nearly every new camera has such warning on amazone.. don´t try to bullshit your readers.
not that I know. I do that work for 5 years now 🙂
Respect the admin,, if you can’t and just want to troll, then bugger off
Not *every* one, Amazon seems to have a good crystal ball w.r.t. what will or won’t be popular. The “High Demand warnings” for the E-M1 and the 12-40 were there when I pre-ordered, less than an hour after they started accepting orders.
He-he, “demand warnings”. Like when you want to book a room through booking.com. You ALWAYS get a “last room” or “only two left” warning. You go there eventually, it turns out you are alone in the hotel or it is nearly empty. 🙂
I don’t like booking.com that much and would rather recommend hotwire.com. Once time I stayed 5m from 9/11 site and paid only around 170 bucks. Yes it does surprise and annoy me sometimes but so far so good.
Wouldn’t “macro 4/3” just be a 4/3 sensor with a longer flange back distance?
It takes a huge investment to start any system and build it to maturity. Sony has FF lenses in their A-mount, which will be easily adapted onto their FF mirrorless (FF E-mount) to cover the gaps while they develop; Olympus does not. Plus, they would almost certainly be purchasing their sensors from Sony, anyway. It just doesn’t make sense for them.
Yes, it does look like the camera market has moved up to the advance and semi-pro level.
There is more to a camera than sensor size. With the ccurrent sensor in Olympus cameras it has passed the threshold of good enough. Now in two years when the organic sensors reaches the market the mft images will be way more than good enough.
For the next OMD-pro in two years I can see the organic sensor, dual cards slots, faster c-af and tracking and radio ttl flash control.
Olympus really need to get the lenses out at least what is on the new lens road map. Then maybe a 25/f1.8.
Dave
No m43 must continue its a good system. But Oly and Pan are getting crazy with their high price an they are fishing in FF/apsc territorium. This is just a battle they can not win. For what it is em1 should have cost around 500 euro. Hell the 350 euro NEX 3 whipes the floor with the em1 picture quality wise.
I agree. At these prices, mainly pro users would buy the camera… who are probably more tempted by FF.
It won’t be long before 35mm sensors are considered an unnecessary anachronism.
Smaller sensors are already more than enough for the vast majority of casual / amateur photography, so what’s the point in going FF, with its huge lenses and extra cost?
This will only become more apparent as sensor technology improves. When MFT cameras provide squeaky-clean images at ISO 12800 with 15 stops of DR, who’s really going to need FF, even if it can do the same thing at ISO 51200?
Going further: once a 1/1.7″ sensor can do what an MFT sensor can do today, who’s going to need MFT? Think about it: an LX7 (with built-in EVF, natch) that takes images as nice as the EM5–uh, yes please!
Yeah, yeah, there’s always thin DOF… so MFT may be as small as enthusiasts want to go. But it’s all going to happen. FF is not the future.
🙂
You want thin DOF on your 1/1.7″, just get an 11mm f/0.4.
And on a 8×10 you need to stop down like crazy to get rid of that damned thin DOF…
“And on a 8×10 you need to stop down like crazy to get rid of that damned thin DOF…”
Cool, are you a member of the F64 club too? Not many of us around these days. But then most today wouldn’t have the patience or skill to work with bellows extension calculations, manual everything, swings, tilts, much less the size, bulk, etc. But then they have also never experienced the exquisite beauty, detail and sense of accomplishment of a successful shoot. Then again its been a few decades for me as well.
I have a Century Graphic with a 6×9 back, the baby of the view camera world with very modest movements.
Come to think of it, I seem to favor baby image formats with modest features. 🙂 Perhaps because my mother switched to 110 just before she passed away in the 80’s. I remember her getting her first roll of prints from the Canon 110 and comparing it to prints from her Yashica Electro, exclaiming how the little format was just fine. I’d forgotten about that… Time to call my therapist; I’m becoming my mother! 🙂
Ben,
common wake up please…get real.
Wow man, great argument. You really floored me there.
You’re the one who needs to get real. You post “FF! FF! FF!” over and over as if the only way to take a good photo is to use technology that was unavailable to photographers throughout history until 5 years ago.
And no, I don’t mean 35mm sensor/film size, I mean the capabilities of today’s FF cameras.
The EM5 is at least as good as the 5D Classic in every way except DoF control. So unless you think thin DoF is what makes a picture, you have to admit that if the EM5 sucks, then so does every image taken by the 5D classic and its contemporaries and every other camera that existed before, what, the D800?
You’re talking garbage, man. Total. Garbage.
Burn!
“Smaller sensors are already more than enough for the vast majority of casual / amateur photography, so what’s the point in going FF, with its huge lenses and extra cost? ”
There are no shortage of reasonable sized lenses for FF including some superb prime lenses, the exaggerated difference here come when people compare an F2.8 lens on mFT with an F2.8 lenses on FF.
I am not going to waste MUCH 🙂 time trying to explain the fundamental difference between an F2.8 lens for mFT and an F2.8 lens for FF. Making it as simple as possible the sensor size ratio between mFT and FF is roughly the same as between 2/3 sensor in the likes of the Fuji X20 and Mft .Now the Fuji comes with an 28-112mm {effective focal length} f2-f2.8 lens which weighs in at 350g .
Now the laws of physics work just the same whether you compare your mFT F2.8 lens to a FF F2.8 lens or to a Fuji x20 F2.8 lens. For lenses to be truly comparable you have to get the same end result, same AOV, same DOF, same noise and critically the same total light. Exclude any of these factors and you are not comparing like for like thus making the comparison pretty pointless in the first instance. Shoot what you enjoy and who cares what other systems do.
I have an extensive range of excellent mFT gear [soon to be joined by the E-M1} and an excellent range of FF gear {D800 based}, my mFT gear gets used maybe 10 times more than my FF gear. However when I use my FF kit other than weight it delivers technically better images in every way , higher DR, higher resolution, better high ISO, better colour, combined with better ergonomics and far better C-AF/tracking though hopefully the E-M1 will close the AF gap. For most situations mFT is more than good enough FF digital has always been a niche only recently expanding with the relatively speaking cheaper FF models from Nikon and Canon.
Though not convinced about any real difference in image quality between the E-M1 and the E-M5 it looks to be a superb camera and as I have a 50-200mm SWD I really hope the AF is a step up.
JimStir: I don’t think you and I disagree!
You said, “when I use my FF kit other than weight it delivers technically better images in every way , higher DR, higher resolution, better high ISO, better colour, combined with better ergonomics and far better C-AF/tracking”
Of course, the capabilities of a modern FF sensor are above those of a modern MFT sensor. And you may be one of the people who can take advantage of this improvement.
My point is simply this: as the absolute capability of all sensor sizes continues to improve, the number of people for whom this difference is important will become smaller and smaller.
And so, considering the important size/weight advantages of smaller-sensored systems, it seems impossible that people will continue to buy FF and even APSC cameras in any large numbers.
It hasn’t happened yet because we’re still experiencing a time where people like Shenkie here are confused about what (for example) MFT cameras can do. But this won’t last forever–and when more people accept that they can get awesome photos out of something a hell of a lot smaller and lighter than the brick they’ve been carrying all these years, we’ll see a big shift in how people buy cameras.
As an aside, I still don’t understand why people (again, like Shenkie) become so emotionally attached to one side or another of this argument. Sad lives, I guess. 🙂
My thought’s exactly. The fact is that sensors are going to reach an asymptote when it comes to quality. A point will be reached when adding more resolution or color fidelity is not going to make much of a difference because our eyes won’t be able to perceive it. At that point the only thing left TO do is miniaturize the sensor. At some point, full frame will become irrelevant and even M43 may prove too large in light of new sensor development.
What I do like about M43 is that it’s a nice compromise between sensor, camera size while still retaining decent depth of field without having to rely on ultra-fast glass.
Also, call me crazy, but I’m not particularly fond of the aspect ratio of 35mm (3:2). I think it’s wasteful compared to the more square aspect of M43s – especially for portraits.
+100
As you can read on SonyAlphaRumors, many are waiting for Sony FF cameras, it seems there will be two mirrorless FF.
I find silly to compare the two systems, and stupid considering a sort of a race.
Personally, I think I’ll add one of those products to my m43 gear, using one or the other system depending on my needs.
i do not think about 35mm but about this cam would
record movies in 10 bit 442…….we are so close…
what is the gap do do it not-wait till 2029????
the cam is solid good…
I dont get it. Sensor tech is getting better, not worse. That means more DR, less noise, better IQ overall, and that all with smaller sensors. Soon there is no need for a Sensor as big as FF. And years later maybe 1″ gives the same IQ like mft now.
We’ll see if only people who need lots of DOF use larger sensor cams at that time 🙂
That’s exactly what I had in mind.
“We’ll see if only people who need lots of DOF use larger sensor cams at that time :)”
Nope. The people who need DOF control wouldn’t use large sensors. By then the the tech would be perfected that allows to control focus and DOF in PP using RAW from plain 2D sensor.
so much for those cheap gits saying:
1. It cant compete with APSC
2. It will fail as a product
3. m43rds has ‘tiny’ pro following
How large of a pro following do you think m4/3 has and what is your evidence?
there was never an empirical case for the ‘tiny’ pro following in the first place
where were your objections then?
oh right, thats my name 😉
My guess is that 99% of the comments claiming that FF is the (choose one: future, salvation, only real format, vastly superior) are posted by people who a) don’t have a 24x36mm sensor size camera, and b) have never printed a photo larger than 8 x 10. I have and have done both.
I can honestly say that the many of the images from my Canon 5D3 are great, but I believe that’s because I’ve spent 30 years learning my art as a photographer, and another 10 years learning to print large format.
I’ll bet anyone in this forum that a talented photographer can print a virtually identical 16″ x 20″ image that he shot with a E-M1 or any FF camera. There are only a handful of scenarios that make shooting with the FF gear superior. But there are MANY scenarios where shooting with the E-M1 is superior.
Hell, I made very nice 17x22in prints of images taken with my E1, which had a sensor size all of 5mpx.
Granted, it would be even easier and better with today’s mFT eqipment, but it does suggest FF would be needed only in very specialized situations.
So for nearly all photography mFT and other similar formats will be well more than adequate.
Oly fans want small.
FF is not small.
Oly users don’t want FF.
Any Mirrorless FF product will be a niche, other “mirrorless FF products will simpky be DSLRs with EVFs and on sensor PDAF.
If the thinking is that you can make a FF small body with small lenses… I would think not, not without some real optical compromises.
The Sony RX1 represents a FF mirrorless body with a 35mm f2 lens welded to the front. It looks nice and small, takes beautiful pics, but from what I remember the lens actually extends a bit into the body. It is not a small lens.
New Digital FF lenses are generally quite big, take the Sony 85mm f2.8, nice lens small cheap but offering very little in exchange for an olympus 45mm f1.8 (maybe 2/3 of a stop?)
However building a body like that would mean a new lens suite, both Nikon and Canon have shown very little interest in launching anew lens suite (the slow development in the 1 series and EOSm)… In a declining camera market the players have almost staked out their territories, I cant see Sony, who has been so slow developing NEX lenses and A mount lenses launching another mount.
However a collaboration between Olympus and Sony may reveal a FF mirrorless with say 3-5 dedicated lenses,16mm f4, 24mm f2, 35mm f2, 50mm f2 and 85m f2? Maybe.
Cant see it though, not in this economy.
Who needs trolls, when we have Admin!
😉
I read so many FF vs MFT comments that I thought it would be good to share my view. Now I am a troll? 🙂
Admin, everyone of us is a troll for someone else! 😉
No, but I was disappointed to see you start this thread. I don’t feel that it adds any meaningful discussion and it certainly feeds the trolls.
– David
I think he knows something we don’t and when Olympus comes out with FF body in cooperation with Sony, he’s going to say ‘see, I told you so’.
Does anyone know when will the EM-1 with the 12-40mm kit lens combo coming out at $2199 for the U.S? If we pre-order it separately body and lens today, it will be $2400.
this is by far the most interesting question of this post and webistes are curiously silent on this fact. so it probably means those of us who want that combo will have to wait longer . even B&H removed the link yesterday to that combo
I didn’t get the chance to see the B&H combo link. Did the B&H link have the price on it? Was it even available to pre-order?
If the link worked, it was only briefly.
I was online when orders were turned on for the new gear (clicking “reload” like a lab monkey hoping for a pellet…) — as soon as I spotted admin’s link to B&H for the combo, I clicked it. B&H gave me a “page not found” error on it.
So presumably it was live at some point (or our dear admin wouldn’t have included it in the post), but I’m not sure if anybody but he saw the page it once connected to…
Yep, the link worked only for a very short time. I have been told that Olympus decided in last minute to not offer the KIT version yet. Very pity 🙁
Is this Olympus rumors. What about the other upcoming cameras. It is very Olympus positive. What about this new Panasonic?
Thanks.
Yes. Sometimes I wonder the same.
The majority of the articles are about Oly cameras lately.
I seem to recall a GX7 craze not so long ago – where everything was about GX7 and Olympus was supposedly dead because of it.
The GX7 isn’t really available yet – and already there is a new kid on the block that gets all the attention.
Oh well – all this does is make me hold back on purchasing a new camera.
Let me repeat that: the plethora of new camera’s coming out, with the very short release cycles, makes me take a more conservative approach to buying cameras – I’ll wait out where the current craze is going to.
it true this is not 43rumors and will be OlympusRumors,
i wish new social web site for panasonic and others new m43 manufacturer will begin 😉
Waiting patiently for that day…
Yep, and back at the time the GX7 was released people complained that I talked too much about Panasonic. It’s like that. it goes up and down.
Oly is in atvantage becaouse of the IBIS & smaller lenses – PASTA this is it.
FF requires large lenses. The point of advanced amateurs /pros is that the omd package is SMALLER than of a dSLR. That’s why I’m dumping my D7000.
Only in years to come will technology create a small system with an advanced m4/3 sized sensor to give FF quality. Untill then , I buy an OMD and when that technology comes, I will be ready wih my pro m4/3 lens.
Why are people debating ? Different strokes . We D7000 dumpers are accepting the shortfalls of m4/3.
Stop whining and enjoy what you have. And if what you have is not big enough, then take a Viagara.
E-M1 is already as good as foolframe. No to foolframe. Foolframe is for wannabes. DSLR die.
fankyou berry much for your foolishframe response.
From a IQ point of view mFT always will have a disadvantage. No news here. The question is if Olympus can capitalize on the advantage: smaller sensor enables smaller cameras and smaller lenses. Oly didn’t really with 43, they did better with the recent mFT offerings. The issue with Sony is that they try a lot at the moment and it’s not clear (at least to me) what will stick. An E-mount mirrorless FF (as rumored) means a new lens system after all. Sure, I propably can use E-mount lenses in a crop mode and attach alpha-mount lenses with an adapter (including AF if there is PD AF on sensor). But this is nothing you really want. It makes switching easier. But you don’t want use crop lenses on a FF body and if the AF with alpha lenses is as goog as with alpha cameras has to be seen. (The Canon 70D does a decent job with PD AF on sensor, but it’s still not the same league as the conventioal PD AF.) So The Sony E-FF requires a new system, new lenses to take full advantage of it. It’s the third system for Sony. Which one will last?
Don’t worry. Olympus will not go FF within foreseeable future. They are smart enough to know that.
In circles of photography gear forum readers, FF is a buzzword indeed, with enormous reverence.
Commoners, which do not read these Camera rumor sites, mostly don’t even know what FF stands for, and what it is supposed to be good for. But they will understand it is many times costlier, and delivers minuscule advantages over other cameras. And these commoners are by far the biggest customers.
Hell, I have FF camera too, besides 4/3. And I use FF rarely, mostly only for concert (low light) photography (where it does have slight advantage over smaller sensors). Economically, FF is far from viable for me. I just wanted to have it, and now it’s here.
If they do go FF, I’d like it to have an updated AF-OM mount, to do fully justice to the term ‘OM-D’…
Yes, all camera manufacturers will go Full Frame and then, when we are all finally adjusted, it’ll be time for Super Full Frame. 🙂
No, Olympus will fail at FF competing with the regular boys just like how they did before in the DSLR world. It should stick with the new m43 standard and keep chipping away at that, it’s what they do well. If they go FF, they’d only differentiate by ‘mirrorless’, which is NOT enough to compete.
…of course they do not have to go full frame…just keep making MFT better and better. The whole point is the small size. Duh.
Let Sony take the lead / demo with it’s FF mirrorless & follow by Fuji’s future Organic tech .
m4/3 doesn’t need to be FF , an organic sensor tech will be even better a solution if all the rumors specs are true regarding the tech .
Small camera with extraordinary performance is what m4/3 need to be .
Actually, if you look at the original four thirds literature, the system was designed for excellent sharpness across the frame. With FF don’t they pretty much toss that all out the window?
This full frame mirrorless BS is so idiotic, for one simple reason: THE LENSES WILL BE HUGE. Just as a larger sensor will always produce higher performance at a given technology level, they will always require larger lenses – it’s just a matter of physics. If sensor size was everything, we’d all be using medium format. But for the consumer, there’s always going to be a sweet spot between performance and portability, and as sensor technology improves, micro 4/3rds looks like it could be it. Current mirrorless cameras are actually closer in size to film SLRs than full frame digital – the E-M1 is almost identical in size to the OM-4. And digital lenses need to be bigger for a given frame size than film lenses did, because film was far less sensitive to oblique angled light than digital is. So current FF cameras and lenses are actually much bigger than the 35mm SLRs the market settled on in the film days. And how much sensor performance do you need? The E-M1 is already performing at a level only full frame was capable of a few years ago – I think it’s already good enough for most.
I think it’d be risky for Olympus to devote resources to developing a FF product line.
However, if Olympus did offer both M43 and FF *and* marketed M43 to photographers wanting smaller/lighter lenses then it’d put more pressure on APS-based ILCs.
I don’t think one can argue that APS sensors are the sweet spot between P&S sensors and FF/MF sensors. That sweet spot in M43. However, Olympus is pressed to deliver cameras with fast C-AF and I think it’ll focus on rounding out basic functionality of M43 than pick-up and run with a second sensor size.
The top lens example (only with respect to size, weight and price):
The Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II is only £400 and weights less than 500g
That’s a 600mm equivalent. Not offered by APS-based cameras and a whole different product on FF.
Life is a trade-off. Saying FF is better because it’s larger is silly. You could just as easily say, and some people do, that FF isn’t large enough and you need to use Medium or Large Format because of low light or image quality or whatever.
For me the quality of the current sensors is so good that almost every size is “good enough”, allowing the issue to come down to size and weight. On a recent trip to Africa I shot with a Canon 1D (long) and an EM-5 (wide). No one noticed any difference in the quality of shots produced by the cameras but I certainly noticed the difference when dragging the gear through airports. If the E-M1 lets me go long with a good quality lens I can lose more than half the volume and two-thirds of the weight.
FYI a lot of travel photography I always use a m43 because people don’t respond to it as they would if I had a DSLR. I don’t do street photography but my guess is that this would be the same.
you are correct it is not that simple as Christ something guy saying.
but Oly needs a bigger sensored system camera in addition to m43.
I have MFDB, FF, m43 and I think they should develop something a bit larger than FF but a bit smaller than MF to back the current m43 system up, then it is really a strong system.
they need a real Flagship camera with a big sensor inside.
since they do not have old film FF shitty concept , they do not have to use 36/24.6 sensor size , they can go bigger or slightly smaller or even square 30/30 size.
Of course the bigger the better. Just look at any point and shoot camera, or any camera phone. Bigger sensor means more DR etc
Reasoning to go FF vor Olympus is not understanding the advantage of the 4/3 concept. It would be teckels to spent resources on development of a complete new lens line !
no, it does not have to go all FF or replace m43 with FF system.
just develop a bigger sensor version of EM1 like system camera in addition to the m43 line.
m43 itself is nothing bad about it but the Oly’s current marketing strategy to go all 43 sensor is wrong.
they need a bigger sensor(at least a bit better than APS-C) camera system in addition to current m43.
Don’t care about FF, it’s not for me !
see the reality, this is a dying system, now most of compact cameras have APS-C or bigger sensor.
so , the EM1 was a bit too late to come and a bit too huge in size.
most of compact cameras have apsc or ff sensor? really?
If for some reason mFT fails-I will buy 2 bodys of the latest mFT camera on the market and hope they will last for the rest of my life even today the image quality is more then enough for my needs…
or I’ll switch to Nikon 1 – in 5 years they should have all the lenses I need, while still being smaller then those ff cameras 😉
well, I am just saying the EM1 itself is not that bad.
but Oly needs something more powerful to back it up, then it is a strong system.
like PCs have many types of CPU’s , Oly does not have to limit itself to the tiny sensor.
Oly can develop m43 but at the same time they need to also develop a medium format or similar to it in size.
only if they want a piece of that pie.
my guess is they’re gonna stick to 4/3 sized sensor – and do this as good as they can and not bother trying to make more systems. I mean, that’s the whole idea for OBS: one beautiful system, no two half-assed systems.
Here’s what I have in mind, Sony will take over the world mirrorless’ market with it’s FF (for those who need bigger sensor) and let Olympus swipe the rest with smaller, more practical camera.
FF idea is very very stupid.
Oly can go even bigger since they do not have any legacy lenses or film mount to support.
so why not just go a bit bigger than FF or even square format ?
I am not saying they need to go all big sensor system or ditch the current m43 system, but just get a big sensor system out to back the current m43 system up.
I don’t want full frame, I want small lenses. I bought my m43 because I can put the panasonic 35-100/2.8 in my jacket pocket.
You know, it’s a fact that most pro drivers drive Town Cars or Crown Victorias. It’s so plainly obvious that the Town Car is better than a BMW M5 that it’s pointless to even discuss it. Virtually no professional drivers drive ANY of the BMW M series.
Guys, PLEASE.
NOT the senzor size is that matters. RATHER THE LENSES.
Just think about it.
The Canon 200–400/F4 L USM is incredibly huge and as expensive as almost impossible to pay for it.
A MFT 100–200/F2 would be EXACTLY THE SAME and, though also exepensive and bulky, not even close to the horrible size and price of the Canon super telezoom.
The right way would be to make affordably priced ultra-bright lenses for MFT (even zooms, no matter how bulky should they be) and we may have a good competition for FF systems.
If you look at the prices, it is quite clear that “affordable” is not the way (micro-)4/3s are going… 🙁
The price will go down. The same way it slowly went down for the GH2 and the OM-D and it’s going down for the GH3. And either way, do you think a full frame mirrorless will be cheap? From Sony?
Other rumor site says $3000 for Sony FF body.
Prices of bodies will drop over time, that is true, but prices of glass are almost permanent. Which of the fast lenses for mFT is now way cheaper than it was in past few years? And I can’t care less how much any camera from other system will cost, as I am all the way in 4/3s and planning to invest more.
Canon 200-400 f4: $11,800
Olympus 90-250 f2.8: $6,500 (with TC)
I’m not even going to mention the weight…
May it will be a multi-aspect FF camera that auto crop when FT/MFT Len attached, and use full size when F.Zukio len attached. 🙂
I own FF, Medium Format , M43 , PENTAX Q=_=(FF is a tool, not a must
It is so stupid to said FF is the only way to go.
When you talk about PQ, there are 6X6, 4×5, 8×10.
Gee, I hope not. Why would I be here if i wanted a FF camera?
Better make an appropriate-sized square sensor for having both portrait and landscape multi aspect modes up to 16:9 w/o rotating the camera.
yeah
then they could make it round with a handle in the middle
oh wait, that would be weird
My understanding was that the 4/3 cameras were a bit crap and that’s why everyone used to complain. Micro four thirds has sensors that out-perform their small size, as well as a massive library of lenses that are tiny compared to their ff equivalents. Pros are jumping on the em5 and gh3 in droves because the cameras are great-not just great for being tiny, great. It’s not just the lack of a mirror that is making m4/3 successful, It’s the whole package. FF mirrorless isn’t going to kill m4/3
even if Olympus will go FF will be too late! sony is going FF and we can throw that crappy m43 in hell!
The remakr is so nonsensical, that words fail to describe why if you want to keep it short. But let’s give it a try:
– a mirrorless body does not make for smaller lenses
– a mirrorless FF body needs a lot of very good lenses, which Sony does not have
– The NEX sensor is bigger than mFT and the argumenthas always been between m43 and APS-c. APS-c NEX has not wiped out the mFT cams. Neither will FF
I wonder if this was said in the preview of the EM-1. I wonder what this remark has got to do with the EM1 actually. Why come up with such a far fetched thing? I do not see what the use is.
35 f2.8 zeiss on the way for nex FF XD bye bye crappy m86
Enjoy paying $3K for body and $1K for lens. It’s totally gonna crush “m86” with those prices.
for sure! you poor boy
I don’t understand why you say the lens for the smaller format won’t be smaller. Yes the length will be the same — hard to make a 300mm lens 100mm long — but the image circle can be smaller, allowing the lens diameter to be smaller. For example, the consumer grade Canon 70-300 is basically the same length as the Olympus mFT 75-300 but it’s almost 30% heavier.
Not that I care so much about such comparisons, but you have some weak points in there.
A mirrorless body does make for smaller lenses, just look at rangefinder ones.
Sony FF is just starting, so it is simply a question of making lenses over time.
Sony came to the mirrorless market later, it is a single company (unlike M43) and is already the global leader in market share in mirrorless. I wouldn’t call it “wiping out” m43, but you should rethink your position.
I am all for having many choices and Olympus does make great cameras and lenses, but time is passing and they are losing some advantages. I hope they keep it up, lately they’ve been doing really great stuff.
The only reason we are even discussing FF vs. m4/3(4/3) is because of legacy. No other reason. If we had invented cameras yesterday, and Canon would have shown us the 5Ds and all their fantastic full frame lenses, and Olympus/Panasonic the E-M1 and GX7, people would have laughed at Canon.
Flipping mirror? Are you joking? Who would want to carry all that shit around on daily basis? It might work in the studio, but in the field? Are you insane? Who needs that razor-thin DOF? Sure, I might every now and then want a portrait where the eyes, but not the nose were in focus, but that’s just one artistic effect.
And 12800 ISO? For what? Shooting black cats in a coal mine?
I’m sorry, but the perceived image quality of FF cameras is not worth the money and weight except in some fringe cases.
Other benefits and the reasons for its popularity among pros have have nothing to do with sensor size (Fast AF, Pro glass, Service)
And yes, this is coming from a guy who would love a D800 with some nice, sharp prime lenses, just for the fun of it. But FF is starting more and more to become a snobbish luxury.
a lightnig will strike me if I ever will buy an Olympus camera again. I am disappointed with the policy of olympus and will change to nikon where my system will last more than just a few years. the e5 was disappointing but the OM D is nothing
I wish I had an electronic stamp for you guys. “And you are in the olympus rumor site because ??!!”
Lol. Run out of XXX sites to visit !
pfff i would not be surprised that the next gen m43/43 will have 24mp or more, and even better dynamic range high iso, the output per size is determined by the sensor and the quality of the lens.
And people want small and big and something in between, do not be surprised if the sensors smaller as the 43 will be booming, making an even more compact camera possible. Do not think so? Ever compared a dslr of 5 years ago with something as a xz2.. you might be surprised what it can deliver. So will ff exist and m43 probably yes.. Would it be nice if it was cheaper, of course… I hope my next car gives me the same and much more for half the money too.
lets not bicker, just make some photos, now going to save cash for that EM1 (unless pany comes with a sealed 7)
if 24×36 mirrorless can be had for below 800 euros, then mft would be in trouble maybe but not now
This really touches on an interesting question regarding the entire m4/3 strategy and viability.
There is no doubt that Oly and Panny are giving us some amazing cameras and lenses. But prices are also creeping up at the higher end, whereas the prices for aps-c and FF are coming down.
So you have this race…can m4/3 mature and advance to become good enough in the minds of consumers, in which case they’ll pay the price for the smaller size/weight? Or can FF and aps-c come down enough in price and size/weight that people will buy them over m4/3 for the larger sensor advantages.
Of course there probably is no clear cut answer, as the market will remain fragmented for the foreseeable future.
I like the car analogy…bigger vs smaller. However, in general the smaller cars cost less than the larger cars. And that is the barrier that Oly and Panny face: the public will see smaller cams and expect smaller prices.
Obviously, you have the elite sports cars like Porsche, Ferrari, etc…but the analog in cameras to those brands is Leica.
“But prices are also creeping up at the higher end, whereas the prices for aps-c and FF are coming down.”
Huh?? 5D3 costs what? D800? 1DX? D4? DSLR prices coming… *down*?? Man, what have you been smoking? 😉
“I like the car analogy… bigger vs smaller. However, in general the smaller cars cost less than the larger cars.”
This is probably one of the worser car analogies.
Size of a car has direct relation to the function of a car: larger trunk, more space inside, more seats, and so on.
For most real life photographic problems, size of a camera has no relation to the function of the camera. Quite the opposite, smaller size is a definitive non-functional advantage in many many real life situations.
“And that is the barrier that Oly and Panny face: the public will see smaller cams and expect smaller prices.”
In US market mostly. But then again, that is also probably why GH3 and E-M1 are larger cameras.
>This really touches on an interesting question regarding the entire m4/3 strategy and viability.
if M1 gets off the shelves (and it looks like it is) well it will indicate it is well priced. One of the mistakes with M5 was initially too low priced as they couldn’t make enough of the things.
Pricing is key but is adjustable
but you can only sell as much as your capacity to produce can offer
thats why more expensive higher end m43rds make sense
particularly against cheap defeatured FF
When everyone goes Full Frame will they bring out a Super Duper Full Frame format? LOL
I believe that more than anything, Olympus need to adjust their prices. Yes the bodies have lots of features and the lenses are incredible, but the upward drift in prices creates a log jam with the competition for new users. Also, high prices make existing users second guess the value on upgrading to latest iteration. As a GH2, GH3, E-PL5, and E-M5 owner, I’m finding fewer reasons to spend another $1300 on a new body.
Bring it on Sony. You have tons of ideas, some of them good but never see them through. You quickly tire and move onto something new & hip. You could have dominated the consumer video market or the personal entertainment market but you lost. I don’t expect Sony to be any different in the digital camera arena. You have some Minolta/Konica pedigree but seem hell bent on making as many possible camera formats/mounts/devices as possible.
As long as Oly has access to cutting edge sensors there will be a market (admittedly small) for m43.
This assumes that full frame is what everyone wants- that’s a pretty narrow minded view.
MFT is fine so is FF.
Oly needs to create a new category with MFT lenses.
Square sensor for stills. The “art” camera.
Boxy with a big square lcd on top with collapsable hood or prism sold seperately.
No need to compete in FF arena which means new lenses and all.
MFT square sensor with fat battery to shoot for a week straight.
And up the video specs on pro mft if they want to generate sales in volume.
Now it’s like driving a big block with only 2 pistons working. Fire up the rest, it’s in there and we want to use it.
Stuff FF. If Olympus want to sell a lot of cameras and make a shed load of money in the process, just make a video only OM-D V-M1. Put Peltier cooling chips in it or whatever is really necessary so long as the IBIS still works. Add all the codecs, bit rates and frame rates people have been clamoring for.
They would sell an awful lot more of such a beast than any FF model. I say this as someone who only has occasional use for video. Panasonic have probably sold the majority of GH2s due to it’s video capabilities than as a stills camera.
This where the money is.
While Sony WILL offer a FF ML camera the real issue is how will it differ from a D800 or 5DmkIII other than missing the mirror?
The facts of physics remain the same. FF demands a much bulkier lens to cover the format and if you want high speed it gets even more bulky.
IQ will be great but that will be the point and not compactness. As the Admin pointed out, even magical FF sensors are hard pressed to meaningfully exceed the IQ of MFT for any application now used except super large prints viewed close up.
The greatest benefit I see from going ML is silence of operation. However judging from Kirk Tuck’s impression of the new A3000 they fell far short in that department.
Everyone will be ML in the future but after a bit we will realize it ain’t no big thing and that cool cameras will rule irrespective of sensor size and the absence or inclusion of a mirror.
It would be OVER for Micro Four Thirds.
That’s why I’m hoping Panasonic/Fuji/Leica Super Team develops a FF camera that can compete early and gain a foothold in the mirrorless DSLR marketshare.
Most pros use a DSLR. That’s what they’re comfortable with… A Mirrorless 6D with a slight hump (see Panasonic G6) will KILL.
-MAC
That is nonsense speaking as a dual system user each system has its pros and cons, while you can have very good small compact primes.Fast FF zooms and long telephoto options are obviously going to be huge no matter what the camera size behind it.
You always end up at with the equation maximum image quality versus size/weight. With the best FF you do get significant gains in image quality with the downside being size and weight. With mFT you sacrifice some image quality for a far smaller lighter system that is how it works , they are not mutually exclusive.Sure I could get better images at a party using my D800 with 24-70F2.8L, than with my GH3 +12-35mm but who wants to be carrying so much gear when the idea of socializing is interacting with people. The nonsense on both sides of this argument are ridiculous it is not a competition there is no clear winner as people have very different thoughts and needs on what system suits them best
You can’t even describe why losing the mirror is an advantage for FF can you?
6D isnt doing all that well in Japan
by far the biggest selling are the cheap plastic sub frame APS SLRs
The answer is simple, but Japanese companies (except Sony, and maybe Cosina) are very stubborn and not too keen on taking big gambles.
1) Olympus now has the help of Sony and their great sensors. 2) Olympus knows how to make great bodies. 3) Olympus knows how to make great glass. 3) Olympus has heritage in making all kinds of cameras.
Now, ask yourself which is one of the only camera companies making money and selling a premium, expensive product with decent profit? Answer: Leica (There selling so many new Ms, the wait is up to 1 year!)
If Olympus works with Sony on a FF sensor that works with short the M mount distance, then makes a REALLY NICE (Leica Nice) M mount rangefinder in the $3000-4000 range, and 3 or 4 NICE Lenses (24,35,50,75) in the $1000 range they will sit in a unique spot in the market that is wide open.
They can sell Bodies to all the people that would love a Leica, but $7000 is just too much.
They will sell bodies to those who have Leicas and would like a backup, or second body for less.
And they can sell Lenses to LOTS of people who have M mount bodies, be it film or Digital. Any brand.
It’s hard to believe that no manufacturer can see how the Digital Rangefinder market is wide open and has only 1 choice at the very high end.
: Leica (There selling so many new Ms, the wait is up to 1 year!)
To be fair Leica is a shadow of its former self , though profits were down Nikon still made substantial profits.Whatever the fans and trolls think in the first 6 months of this year 85% of interchangeable lenses shipped were DSLR’S .
http://www.cipa.jp/english/data/pdf/d-201306_e.pdf
More hypothetical foolishness. Oly knows their market. They also know better then to split their development resources. Sony’s FF success is purely hypothetical at this point and the fact is that while smaller full-frame bodies can be made even with shorter flange lengths for a NEX FF the lenses are still going to be much heavier and much bigger then µ43. With both Sony and Pentax talking about mirrorless FF, it would be foolish to even go there, not to mention completely unnecessary.
Simple fact of the matter is that a big world exist outside of these forums and the real photographers are out there shooting not arguing. Pros use whatever tool is available and best for the job. And there are more and more pros who are looking at smaller, not larger sensors for certain types of work. And yes µ43 is seeing more and more Pro attention. The early µ43 drew attention but didn’t meet many pros requirements. The GH3 upped the ante and got a lot of Pro attention. Too bad they messed up the viewfinder optics the way they did. The EM5 was a middle ground gauge, popular with some but still not quite what most pros wanted. However the EM5 served as a sounding ground. Oly listened and the result is a camera that has lots of Pros thrilled. I’m not a Pro any more but was one for quite a few years. I still like a well refined camera. It isn’t the size, it isn’t the sensor, it is the entire package. The EM1 brings improved ergonomics, faster, more intuitive operation, an excellent viewfinder that nearly rivals the best of the FF world, great flexibility and improved durability that is second to none. It completes, what the EM5 started. And as a former Pro, the EM-1 looks like the camera I’ve been waiting for since the dawn of the digital age. I suspect I’m not the only one that feels that way.
As a former military photographer, I can tell you that a number of military photographers today have started turning away from the FF nikons and Canon’s and looking to the likes of Pentax APSc and µ43 systems. #1 reason is durability under varied extreme conditions plus versatility and light weight while maintaining necessary quality.
µ43 will not replace FF. FF has a definite place. But µ43 is carving a niche of its own. But as impatient as some people have become, they will never be satisfied and will cry and complain endlessly flouting the benefits of cameras they never really use. There is room enough for all, at least for now.
They could at least use a multi format sensor, with full diagonal square possibility. Ok, for the next model a nice step forward.
Olympus have a lot of work to do, and it has nothing to do with 35mm
First, they need to release a Pen PRO
Second, they have to release a m43 fixed lens tough camera
Third, they have to get their technology into a smart phone
Fourth, start talking about the horizontal length of the sensor. It’s not full frame: it’s 35mm. It’s not APS: it’s 23mm. And it’s not micro four thirds: it’s 17mm
With 1, the Pen is a very important element of thier lineup. The flagship Pen is without a sail (evf) and doesn’t float (weather sealed). Sony, Fuji, Panasonic and Samsung have done it, and the Pen line is going to suffer until Olympus does too.
With two, the XZ-1 was a brilliant camera. Sony and Fuji have shown there is a place for larger sensor fixed lens compacts. Olympus could put together a very attractive camera with 17mm sensor, fixed m.Zuiko lens, 5xIBIS, super fast AF, weather sealing and shock resistance. One modle with a small 17mm 1.8 and one modle with a larger 14-42 2.8.
A smartphone is now the only place to put a small sensor. Take a tg2, make it look nice, put a smart phone in it, and you might have an iPhone killer.
I understand why they call it “full frame” – but why do we? It’s not “full”. It’s 35mm. And we are 17mm. And APS is 23mm (I think it’s 23). Using the length makes it clear “ff” is a lot bigger. But it also shows that compared to “ff” we are close to APS.
Ah well, that’s my take at least.
Happy shooting!
.
A slightly unfair, but nevertheless interesting (to me!) comparison:
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R (35mm 1:2.0): 482g
Olympus PEN E-P5 + Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8: 491g
The Sony’s sensor is 3.8 times the area of the Olympus’, the Sony camera is less tall and less wide.
You can shrink cameras a lot if the lens isn’t interchangeable.
You are right, let me try again:
Sony NEX-6 (built-in VF!) + Sony E 20mm F2.8 = 414g (120 x 67 x 43 mm)
Olympus PEN E-P5 + Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm F2.8 = 491g (122 x 69 x 37 mm)
The Sony’s sensor is 1.6 times the area of the Olympus’.
…Yes but the nex 6 is Made of plastic and ep5 metal.
You can buy 2 E-P5 for price of RX1…one with 17/1.8 in kit and another with a 25/1.4.
+ with E-P5’s IBIS you can take picture easily at 1/2 second hand-held.
Personally I really like to work with files from so called FF.
That does not mean every camera must carry an FF or even larger sensor. Truth is larger sensor area means better image quality. But that is only one aspect of image creation.
Olympus and Panasonic should keep to their niche. The fact that other, bigger cameras can produce better IQ does not mean m43 cameras images are poor in quality. A bit depending on what you want to achieve with your photography, the IQ is perfectly OK.
I think m43 is on the right track. Cameras with different features and prices. Still a bit weak on large aperture HQ lenses, but they seem to catch up in that area. Olysonic is not Canikon and will never be. Why even try then?
Sorry Admin….
This is an open goal, sure to get loads of reactions! You started this I guess because you are into FT & MFT. Let others make full-frame cameras and lenses. Olympus/Panasonic and hopefully more brands in the future stick to MFT!!
Full-frame is great for some assignments and certain photography needs. Any other camera/brand/system/sensor size can work for you too! It is just about knowing how to use your gear at what time or photography opportunity. I shoot several front-pages with a Lumix LX-3. They didn’t say, mmm we are not gonna use that, it is good, but no full-frame sorry!
I’d sold all Canon dslr gear in favor of Olympus/Panasonic for a obvious reason. The best balance between quality versus size/weight. The only reason I can think of full-frame is for extreme wide-angle with a wide aperture like 2.8 or brighter. MFT still needs to fill this gap.
OLYMPUS chose Micro 4/3 because is the best size for sensors.
Now with EP5 ,GX7 ,E-M1,next PRO Pana,fast Leica lenses…
Micro 4/3 strategie appears to light and the pillars begin to tremble.
These discussions always make me laugh. It’s completely pointless. The vast majority of dSLR buyers have no idea what sensor size means or how it affects their photography. They buy dSLRs simply to get the shot more easily. Most people I see using these cameras are using them as giant point and shoots, and nothing more. MFT fails in it’s marketing. They need to get the message out that they can “perform” just as well as any dSLR.
If Olympus really wants to corner the market, make a point and shoot that has the speed of a dSLR.
As for us enthusiasts/pros, we use MFT because we know what we are doing, and we understand the pros/cons of MFT vs the pros/cons of full frame. In my opinion, 90% of a good photograph is the photographer, 10% the equipment. And that 10% is only for special situations. I have seen people take photographs with iPhones that can blow away photos from a full frame camera. It’s all about who is taking the picture.
My father was a carpenter. He also loved to collect hammers. Everything from tiny hammers used in watch making to shoe making all the way up to some 26lb sledgehammer. He used to tell me the story about how each one is used and its purpose and why it was created.
I grew up and went into computer science. Instead of hammers, I make things with languages. Each language was created to solve a certain type of problem and while there are languages called general purpose languages, some languages simply do a better job at solving a certain problem domains than others so we choose what works best for the problem that is being attempted to be solved.
One thing of hammers and computer languages, there is always a compromise and there is no perfect tool. Each tool is also created with a certain compromise either in material or price or other real world constraint. With each iteration we learn, and hopefully the next one is better in a few aspects but we never near perfection only better compromises and decisions.
Cameras are no different. Cell phone, compact, M43, 4/3, APC, Full Frame and Medium format. They all are intended for a certain type of purpose. Usually, the cameras have more capability than the photographer and many camera users (not photographers) want a camera to compensate for their lack of knowledge and skill. Few camera users know how to maximize the tools they own but happily go on to the next one “just because”.
What aspect of the tool we currently own limits us? Are we so uncreative that these limits cannot be overcome or are we just lazy?
In the Olympus world, the record seems to be always broken. I am a long time Olympus user and have an old PEN and OM film cameras and film era lenses. I continue to use Olympus cameras and have E-510, E-30 that I still use and decided that I will finally go to M43 with the E-1 because it does more than I could ever want.
I am not a pro, nor do I aspire to be one. I photograph memories and try to show stories in my pictures and I am my own worst critic. For my purpose, any camera that I can afford is more camera than my capabilities and many news organizations use iPhone cameras exclusively but we painfully argue over pixels here every day.
The ISO wars, the Format wars are all such a waste of time and fodder for nothing. I wish the community would talk more about how to take the best photo’s and maximize the tools that are available than spending a non-sense amount of time speculating about the next technology. Sometimes I think many people purchase a camera simply for the technology and forget it also takes pictures.
With all the accusations and name calling over on this forum I hope many take their photography as passionate as they do their speculation and opinion on technology that may never happen. Only in the camera world does there seem to be so many experts who are not.
“Only in the camera world does there seem to be so many experts who are not.” If only that were true…
I don’t know about full frame, but they need to move the f-ing strap lug. I just checked on the Camera Size Comparison page and it’s just like the EM5. Jesus H Christ, I’ve been complaining about this since the E420 as have many others. How stupid can a camera maker be? I guess about as stupid as the people that buy there stuff and never complain. Third strike Olympus, I’m done.
both lugs are in slightly different locations on M1
especially the grip side
Funny, I own two olympus MFT cameras and I never even notice that the strap lugs are there.
Sony will wipe the floor with the rest of the industry if they make sensor shift AF work, be it on APS-C or FF sensor. Olympus and Panasonic should try to make similar system for 4/3 sensor.
Does Olympus have to go Full Frame? Why should they? If the next generation of 4/3 sensors has one stop more in DR and high ISO compared to current ones, is there anything more to ask from a digital camera sensor? What Olympus and Panasonic need to make is more fast lenses, both primes and zooms. If they want to rival full frame cameras, m4/3 lenses need to be at least a stop faster, not equal or a stop slower.
“Sony will wipe the floor with the rest of the industry if they make sensor shift AF work, be it on APS-C or FF sensor. Olympus and Panasonic should try to make similar system for 4/3 sensor.”
I would be very interested in a sensor based AF FF nex with the proviso that it has at least as high a mp count as the D800.Sony could shift a boatload of them A universal camera that takes the lenses you already own.Only fly in the ointment is that I would simply replace my D800 with FF Nex and keep the same lenses so the only money Sony would make would from a lot of buyers would be from the bodies.Imagine the sweet lens line up you could have if you could cherry pick from all makes getting he best option for each focal length regardless of mount.
Actually I think you are missing something. Imagine how much it would simplify lens design if you didn’t need any glass to move (prime). You could see much smaller and faster lenses being made.
Yet another unthoughtful post by ThePhoBlographer. Nearly everything I have ever seen on that sight is insipid.
answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
M43 IS IT !!!!
I really wish Olympus would stick to M43 only and concentrate on making it better and better, rather than running all over the place like Sony did and never getting anywhere.
For years, Sony has tried really hard or tried too hard going in all directions with so many different lines and models and trying different technology, in spite of the limited total market share it has. With all its resources and perseverance, it is still not getting anywhere near breaking out because it is not thinking through and making mistakes.
A rolling stone gathers no moss!
Agree. Sensors will get better and better and most will have enough IQ if not already. Just like PCs, sensor technology advances will mean that we will reach a point when more power (or IQ) is not any reason to upgrade any more as most people do not need it. People are not going for more power and upgrading their PC every other year now.
In another generation, this should become so apparent. Just think of what a sensor like the one in the RX100 can do, if scaled up to M43 size (twice as big). Cameras are portable devices. Small is good, and small but good quality goods cost more. People’s views will change.
m43 is already better than old 2003 FF sensors by a good margin!
Who had a 135 format sensor in 2003?
I was shopping for equipment at the time and didn’t find any.
Kodak DCS Pro 14n
Just one?
And some even bigger than FF in scientific and military uses.
There was one from canon in 2002 and another one by contax earlier. If you were looking for one, i’m very sure you would have known about them.
Contax N Digital. Went on sale in 2002.
good comment!
No!!!
simple nex ff kill m43 then canikon will follow it and who will want 1\4 of performance ? same es 43 m43 destiny is to dye simple u fanboys cry
who needs more???
hello wake up & play this:
http://camerashowdown.com/
Hi there!
That was a thoughtful, inspired and *very* insightful post! Your evaluation of m43 performance as “1\4” of FF clearly shows that you know what you’re talking about!
Oh golly you must be ecstatic about the moment when that $3K full frame NEX with only two $1K lenses expels every other camera out of the market! It’s definitely happening!
Now please, oh visionary one, would you be so kind to lead me to to your dealer. I want some of that stuff you’re huffing, ’cause it sure must be strong.
The ridiculously low numbers of lenses avalaible for such a new format sure is a very valid argument…
But there’s even worse: the size of FF (or even APS) lenses.
That problem getting bigger and bigger as the body used gets smaller and smaller, for balance reasons.
Really: who’s dumb enough to be excited at the prospect of a NEX sized FF body?
Carry 3 or 4 lenses often, and µ43 just is the very best option, if waving the sheer size of your stuff and thus trying to impress peasants is not amongst your requisites.
Plain and simple: I for one would never ever go back to FF, mirorless or DSLR – would it only be for the size and weight of my lens pack.
My last few years long chronic shoulder tendinitis has been fixed (due to a few life changes; µ43 being one amongst many): and I sure would rather have it not come back.
(Won’t) screw you, FF behemothic junk!
Like you, I have an injury that makes carrying heavy kit very uncomfortable. I can’t use a shoulder strap, so a wrist strap is my only real option. The injury weakened my arms, so I had to go light.
FF is for people willing to carry the weight. I’m not.
FF is heavy NOW. But what about when it’s not?
What about when it’s mirrorless, when the lenses are pancakes?
If you’re only using pancakes, then chances are you’re neither doing macro, nor tele… then chances are you’ll be cropping very few, if at all.
And if you don’t need massive cropping, why in the world would you bother using FF to start with?
Really, there certainly are use cases for FF… very few, but there really are.
Now, take a look at FF “pancakes” like Sony Alpha 50mm F1.4: 422g… that’s in the range of µ43 telezooms weight!
Just be serious: carrying a few such FF “pancakes” would be heavier than carrying my full fledge µ43 collection, and all pretty much for nothing!
No way. Just. No. Way.
The year was 1960. Mamiya Press was introduced, and Koni-Omega was taking off. Panic was widespread in the still-nascent 35mm fan-verse. Now that the bellow-less rangefinder was available for the larger format with 6 times the image area, 120/220 was going to wipe the floor with 35mm! And don’t forget the grainless versatility of 70mm! If Leica, Canon, and Nikon could not quickly enter the 6×9 rangefinder market, it was predicted, they were surely doomed. When the Graflex XL came out in 1965, the death of 35mm was undoubtedly imminent.
And, as they say, the rest is history. This is why, today, all best-selling cameras for serious photographers employ the 6×9 format; only uneducated amateurs taking snaps of family and pets, and some war correspondents who need portability at the expense of IQ, use 35mm.
FoolFrame is a fool donkey, it’s a waste of time replying to it..
Didn’t feel like writing poetry today. 🙂
Oh, how I remember those cameras and even shot with Koni Omegas. But like so many things, times changed. 35mm was on the move, and the tiny frame 135 roll film cameras with their small, inferior negatives were taking the world by storm and changing the way we saw and experienced life. In 1973 Paul Simon sold and sang “Kodachrome” which made #2 on the USA Billboard 100. The little film camera that they said couldn’t, did it anyway.
It didn’t happen overnight, but it happened. Small, compact, flexible, durable, light weight, lots of lens variety, many high grades sharp lenses and despised by the “larger format” aficionados. Sound like any system we know today?
In 1973 Paul Simon sold should be Paul Simon wrote.
lol just shoot yourself, ‘full frame’ and get it over with. You’re not convincing anyone with your ignorant BS.
We already know your pictures are terrible, why else are you so insecure? Your gear can’t compensate, so instead of lugging your huge lumps of camera and lenses around again, you come to masturbate in our forum in a vain attempt to feel better about your failures.
You’re a F***ing JOKE!
FF is doomed! Who wants 1/2 the performance of medium format?
Good luck finding decent lenses for Sony FF NEX.
Sony has failed in this regard with the APS-C NEX system.
What makes you think it will be any different with FF?
If m43 dies and NEX-ff is king, Olympus could simply join NEX, no? Perhaps for the first time ever we will have a universal mount.
I’m inclined to think, however, that m43 will win out in the end. History has favored smaller formats over time.
Olympus should just stick to making the bits that make the sensors vibrate up an down and side to side.
They’re not up to anything else
Yeah, totally. It’s not like the E-M1 sold out so hard Amazon is issuing warnings to prospective buyers.
As Mr. Realist says: Olympus cameras, nobody wants them.
“Now, I am really not a fan of MFT vs FF sensor discussions. It’s like saying a big car is always better than a smaller car. You cannot compare two cameras by considering as only factor the sensor size. And to be honest when seeing prints you hardly see any difference if you do not use a giant lope!”
Oh Dear, Admin is now stating opinions in the form of a tabloid editorial. However, it goes without saying that teeny tiny 4 thirds is a poor joke compared to full frame (thanks especially to sony’s sensational d800 sensor! {not forgetting the huge amount of well priced quality glass available – take note Olym-Puss)
I see you as one less person standing in line for my new EM-1. Oh, and I also see you as an amateur troll with daddy issues 🙂
Admin and tabloid editorial? Why not? You (Mr Realist) obviously failed in your application to become News of the World journalist 🙂
LOL ‘Mr Realist’… you should go hit up the phone camera forums and wave your tiny dick around there – I’m sure you’d feel EVEN BETTER about yourself then, right?
EM-5 was dpr’s ‘Camera of the Year’ beating out your precious D800. I love that you’ll never understand why.
Ill stick to m43, the size is right. Big enough to look good small enough to be comfortable.
Of course 4/3 is enough. There is little practical sense in anything larger because the penalty in optics becomes more substantial than the gain in DR / high ISO performance / DOF control. Return is diminishing faster than it used to and this trend will become even more overwhelming in the future.
Despite the above axiome, 35mm sized sensors keep being the holy grail in marketing. Moreover, many young photography enthusiasts fail to acknowledge the important role optics still play in defining the “image quality” of a system and tend to concentrate on the sensor alone. Hence Olympus (and Panasonic) might hit a high hurdle once FF mirrorless reaches a reasonable price level (which will take years). Oly’s strategy should include a ‘shelf system’ which is based on a slightly larger than 35mm sensors, say 36x27mm with a few prime lenses. When (if) the right moment arrives they can quickly put this system into production and silence the critics with one effective blow. Most of the technology required is already available to Olympus.
I dont care if olympus makes a ff mirrorless camera. doesn’t change a thing for m43 users.I very doubt it that it will have a m43 mount. it would be silly to attach normal m43 lenses on a ff camera.Although a ff lens for m43 doesnt need a bigger mount.If i compare a 28mm f2.8 for analogue cameras to my 14mm panny the the rear element and mount seem pretty the same size
It would be cool if Olympus made a 35mm Full Frame camera, incorporating the 4/3 lenses and 4/3 lens mount, along with a short flange-back distance. So that the 150mm lens would have a 150mm field of view, instead of 300mm.
However, I don’t know if it’s necessary. I’d rather they kept the m4/3 sensor and added an electronic-connected 4/3-m4/3 adaptor with a speed booster build into it. A speed booster with a factor of 0.5 instead of 0.7. This way they can keep the compact system, and with improvements of sensor technology, have a full-frame equivalent field of view option, using the existing 4/3 lens line-up. Especially now that they have on-sensor PDAF.
The 4/3 mount and lenses are not designed or intended for FF use. Just look back at the details which were provided when the 4/3 system was introduced. Take a look at http://www.four-thirds.org.
Olympus would face massive startup costs to introduce a new FF camera line, both in design and production of the body and a whole new line of lenses.
The comment that Sony is going to wipe the floor of the competition in FF cameras does not have any factual basis in my estimation. Canon and Nikon have decades-old reputation for FF cameras and the dominant forces in the digital FF field.
Phase One and Leaf are wiping the floor with Canon and Nikon, right?
If Sony can release a FF RX1 with interchangeable lenses & with some Olympus style E-M1 AF & 5axis IS, Sony WILL wipe the floor with the competition.
Hell, if the OMD system was FF (but a little bigger) it would already have hammered Canikon.
I think Olympus should release a model with a sensor *bigger* than the standard 35x24mm “full-frame.”
Nice idea but it has already been done. Twice. Both are only moderately larger then a D800.
One is the 40mp Pentax 645 which isn’t really 60x45mm but actually 44 x 33 mm.
http://www.digicamdb.com/compare/pentax_645d-vs-nikon_d800/
The other is the37.5 mp Leica S2 with a 45 x 30 mm sensor.
http://www.digicamdb.com/compare/leica_s2-vs-nikon_d800/
m4/3 defeats foolframe. foolframe die. DSLR die. m4/3 is better future.
If it would do Olympus any good, I’d be fine with it, as long as I don’t have to buy it 😉
I thoroughly doubt it would do Olympus any good, though. Before jumping on another wagon, they should complete their existing system. There are still lots of holes to fill before it can really compete with the big SLR systems in terms of versatility.
I was the first to quote the phoblographer for fun, and now admin quotes it again! Really he should be grateful enough to allow others to start threads 🙂
As you know Oly agreement with Sony includes making lenses. So it is v. possible for Oly to design FF lenses. In this case, it would be v. easy to make their own body to go with it. Or not?
As I mentioned it doesn’t make sense for Oly to make another full blown system, but a camera like the RX1 plus a v. few lenses perhaps would bring in welcome money, without being a ruinous investment. Sony however would have a headstart.
IMO digital is fundamentally different from film: it’s not tied to a format. What matters are the technologies involved.
It would be interesting for instance to know if Oly is selling IBIS for FF to Sony: I always assumed that ‘levitation’ was easier for smaller sensors.
For a mirrorless company however it makes sense to play with multiple formats and see which carry more revenue. For a photog. too. You don’t need to feed different full blown sytems at a time. As I said you could have a Sony FF and two lenses and the rest m4/3. So why not Oly?
It’s not either/or but and/and. Probably the weight of full blown FF system doesn’t male sense anymore for a m4/3 user… So just a body and two, most used, primes…
What’s with the fixation with full-frame?
FF is only needed if you want oversize prints (over 30’x40″), shoot at ISO 6400 and want to impress your clients when you mention FF.
Otherwise, APS-C and MFT will do nicely thank you.
Olympus need to concentrate on bringing us noiseless sensors. We already have enough pixels.
Dear Admin
Stop publishing any material at all from “the PhoBlographer”
This reviewer is a joke at best and very badly informed and opinionated. Stop sending any internet traffic to that blog and hopefully it’ll die out from lack of clicks.
Olympus have a lot of work to do, and it has nothing to do with 35mm
First, they need to release a Pen PRO
Second, they have to release a m43 fixed lens tough camera
Third, they have to get their technology into a smart phone
Fourth, start talking about the horizontal length of the sensor. It’s not full frame: it’s 35mm. It’s not APS: it’s 23mm. And it’s not micro four thirds: it’s 17mm
With 1, the Pen is a very important element of thier lineup. The flagship Pen is without a sail (evf) and doesn’t float (weather sealed). Sony, Fuji, Panasonic and Samsung have done it, and the Pen line is going to suffer until Olympus does too.
How is talking about the width of the frame going to help Olympus marketing?
They will be the only ones using that terminology and then once it becomes perfectly clear that their sensor is only half the width – game over.
You want to try having the discussion with the consumer about how not all sensors are equal, the sensor size is not the only determinant of quality in the chain. Good luck with that.
I think I understand why the 35mm (I refuse to say Full Frame) trolls come in here to bash ANY smaller format, not just 4/3. Everyone here knows the advantages of 35mm, as well as the disadvantages. We know that all other things being equal, 35mm will win the battle in IQ, and yet 4/3 lives.
So what’s going on? I think it’s about the price. The advantages of 35mm mean very little in real world use for most people, so the demand for it is actually small, and the number of people who actually need it is even smaller. If there’s little or no increase in demand, the price of 35mm won’t come down to consumer levels. There’s little that can be done about the size of the lens needed to cover that sensor, and while Sony is innovating, they can keep the price high if no one steps up to challenge them. The reason 35mm has not broken the $1000 barrier the way the original Rebel did is because those who really need it have shown that they will pay to get it.
Shhh… don’t tell the FF fanboys that medium format kicks their ass… they might commit suicide.
“Now, I am really not a fan of MFT vs FF sensor discussions.”
The puny crops can’t compare to 8×10″ photo sheets. Muhahahaha.
Frankly, I’m not even sure where the “FF” craze is coming from. It is sure not based on any particular photographic need.
m43 and NEX and FujiX forums are full of people who owned “FF” for some months and then got over it – the expensive way. I do think the “FF” craze is simply another fad and it would eventually go, as the number of people who actually handled real “FF” would increase.
Bigger sensors acquire more light. That means more definition and more detail, i.e. more quality.
I find so ludicrous reading that there is not much difference in pictures coming from cameras with MFT or FF sensor. Have you really ever compared a D800 image or an Hasselblad image with a MFT image? Try and then, let me know. There is a reason for MFT are not used in commercial and industrial photography (just to mention one).
MFT is a commercial move. Olympus need money and to reestablish a presence in a market nobody was. So she needs to sell on numbers. Small size is appealing (large number of women got into the camer hobby purchasing ‘small’ reflex like camera in the few past years). But if she wants to hit really the pro- level (which she has barely scratched in the past), she needs to produce a tool fit for the SuperHigh Grade lenses she already has. With a larger and more performing sensor. Because, by phisic, small sensor don’t get much light. And she had better starting to develop the concept of customer care and assistence, stopping butt-f***ing her old time users.
but those super high grade lenses are made for a 4/3 sized sensor – they will not cover a bigger sensor.
And since at OLY they are pretty ruthless on their customers – and SONY is being said it might present a mirrorless FF camera – I I would not be surprised, if OLY in a couple of years would come back resuscitating the E7 they discharged in favor of EM1, saying that they changed their mind. This, of course, after everybody got rid of their Super High Grade optics… You’ll see.
I would buy into a bigger sensor but keep it a ratio of 4/3, so I can still print.
I hate cropping on a 35 format.
Women don’t use Olympus, they use Canon mostly. Real tough hardened smart men use Olympus almost exclusively.
Olympus Full Frame mount will be called “One First” and then they gonna kills M4/3
though I don’t hope that.
I think good censor with small good lenses is important.
great… i thought m4/3 is slowing fading… this will spice things up again!! =D long live micro four thirds!
Repeating strongly enough that FF is the ultimate goal, won’t make it so.
The FF vs MFT debate is a waste of broadband.
The real competition is between FT and APS with Sigma design for APS lenses.
MFT and FF are as different as salt water vs fresh water, no debate to had.
FT is just becoming interesting now, talk of the end of FT after this Oly camera are frightening. They can’t give up on FT just as they catch their second wind.
I would be interested in a FF mirrorless but just being FF would not make a sale. The camera would have to be usable, FF IQ, and I would wait for confidence the system would be backed with lenses.
No, to the question.
But, I note from the user manual that the Mysets are still not nameable. Something that has come up here often. I personally think that is a big let down. Even having only 10-20 characters would be great.
Where did you find the manual?!?
http://www.olympus.co.jp/en/support/imsg/digicamera/download/manual/pen.cfm
Thanks!!!
Absolutely not. My advice to Olympus would be:
Establish a brand identity of making compact cameras with impeccable build and optics. Discard lines that don’t fit that identity – the entry model should feel solid, and only lack in controls (touch screen/2nd-3rd knobs), and sensor stabilization compared to more advanced models.
Expand on-sensor phase detection autofocus into all models in the line. Soccer moms demand it.
A fast telephoto is important for naturalist photographers on the move. Make sure it works with PDAF.
Improve video output modes for those needing professional output. Many choose Panasonic bodies over Olympus on this factor alone
2 PENs and 2 OMDs at any given level of sensor technology are enough. Three of them should have viewfinders (high end PEN, both OMDs). A history of making yearly models with negligible upgrades (prior to the Sony sensors) has hurt the brand. After on-sensor PDAF is standard, new models can wait till there’s a marked improvement in sensor technology.
Companies can strengthen their brand with after the sale support. Witness Sony adding focus peaking in firmware updates. Let the consumer know that their purchase won’t go obsolete with the next model, and they’ll feel less nickel and dimed.
I agree absolutely. Oly just needs to refine a bit the order of battle but it is now good as it is.
Different case for Pany which is still a mess. They’ll have to sort their lineup better.
Despite this I still uphold the Phoblographer reasoning. (my earlier post was missed and another still awaiting moderation, a night later!)
The impact of the new Sony mirrorless ILS will be big, a game changer. Since Oly already contributes with lenses and IBIS, why not have a single FF body and just a few lenses? We are talking about a budget of $ 5000, say a body + 2 lenses. Not a full blown system, possibly a 35mm and a portrait lens. Rich people and pros would love it, they would bring a lot of revenue, and it would not kill m4/3.
No. I would think a poll on this site would come up with the same result.
It’s not the sensor that’s the problem. It’s the fact that Olympus would have to come up with an entire lens line again. Quite frankly I don’t think they’d make good competitors in the full frame mirrorless market anyway. Sony are trying to get a head start, but we all know if it’s a serious money making market, Canon or Nikon will get in and dominate quickly and use their back selection of lenses for good marketing measures too.
larger sensor size will be the trend.
e.g.
Nikon just patented medium format lens,
there’s rumor about Canon’s medium format camera, as well
I suggest Olympus to consider making new system with full frame sensor format,
Olympus got tons of OM lens, not difficult to create new lense.
Agree again. They don’t need to make a full fledged FF format. Use it with only a few lenses like Fuji was doing for its 6×9 film cameras. Use it as a medium format complement to m4/3.
DUH! Dumb, not gonna happen!
I love performance of the EM5 with good glass, especially the 50mm. Cannot wait to see it paired with the EM1.
http://professionalwatches.com/gallery/gallery-tudor-heritage-chrono-blue.html
Please stop using this Full-Frame word it’s only missleading it’s 35mm film format.
It only makes sense for a camera that had a 35mm format and the sensor was reduced from that, like Nikon and Canon did with there DSLRs.
What is a medium format in this speak an over full format?
4/3 is by definition full frame it was designed for that size.
This Full-Frame word is pure marketing foo.
What would be the point of removing a perfectly understood and accepted term? We understand that it is FF (relative to 35mm).
The world is full of misnomers particularly ones that are related to inheritance from old terminology e.g. a “lead” pencil, which now have graphite in them.
Sure you could be pedantic about it, but basically you’re just creating more confusion.
I doubt it’s perfectly understood. If every one knows it’s 35mm why not name it correctly in the first place. Well I don’t like these misnomers as they remind me of newspeak 😉
I. Impress with your knowledge thank you
Is that full frame made by zimmer? Its not photographic.
It was suggested above we use the width of the sensor. Frankly, I think consumers would find that way more confusing and it would actually work against m43 marketing.
Yes, I am aware that m43 is the mount and not the sensor. Again, just another way to confuse the consumer.
It sounds like most people would be happy to keep m43 to enthusiasts. Yet complain about the relatively high and escalating prices of their equipment because they aren’t sold in volume.
The reality is its 35mm or 135 in film terms. FF has no photographic implication or interpretation. It may have some connotation as a put down for small sensors and used by bods with 35mm cameras. Other than that it has no meaning. What do I call 35mm when I use my 6×7. That’s right I call it 35mm. I have been using 35mm cameras since the early 1960s and FF is certainly not part of my photographic history.
Accept the truth Sony kill m43 just fanboys will buy this or asian girls that mostly like panasonic in auto mode. …..soon after. Nikon and canon have to release something. That will sunk. M43 even more oh wait for the iPhone 7 maybe same sensor please be honest to your self and accept this system is fail it wil be forgeten as 43 you will be beging at secondhand shops to get 100$ for your priced lenses in less than one year
pauvre type
Do you own a full frame camera or waste your time on blogs annoying other people? I’d be curious to see your photos, do you have a blog or flickr account?
Why don’t you do yourself a favour and trade that camera for some English lessons. Your grammar is atrocious!
Yes I own 6d 5dmk2
Haven’t we heard and read all this m43 end times crap before?….well guess what? This format just keeps growing, adapting and getting stronger.
Let’s for a moment entertain the possibility that for some strange reason the masses all wanted to suddenly walk around with huge zooms and large primes, what’s to stop Olympus from making the same 35mm ff mirrorless cams if thats What is profitable and financially viable and relegate m43 to the ultra small consumer and possibly even enthusiast market?
Why stop there? In ten years time when everything may have gotten even smaller and better, perhaps one brave company may take a risk and make a relatively small medium format mirrorless camera and then what?….that means the end of 35mm ff I guess.
Hilarious really. I don’t think any formats will disappear for a long time to come whether it’s nikon 1, m43, apsc, 35mm ff or even pentax Q!!!
The only endangered species at the moment are entry level cheap & nasty point and shoots and I for one am happy about that because already cameras in phones are improving at a tremendous rate which will always encourage camera companies to improve what point & shoot they will continue selling.
Olympus making profit hahahahahah not even to pay yakusa
for myself I say no …keep in what you are good …small good performing M43 camera/lenses
anyway …I am from small country in midle of europe.
Here on local photography forum was E-M1 release and it was totaly bashed down by all of the ASPC/FF/nex/fuji users mainly due to fact that in 1500eur(body) or 2200eur(pro kit) you could have either APSC or FF kit with better IQ and the body size is not much different
I believe many other countries with canikon fans react the same way
myself …i am ok with m43 IQ …but would welcome better prices thats for sure
I think Oly first should make their Sony 4/3-sensor a real multi-aspect sensor just as the GH1 and GH2 have. Why not use a Sony APS-sensor to make a real 4/3 multi-aspect sensor of it. This will result in increasing IQ viewing our Oly images on the common 2/3, 16/9 or 16/10 monitors.
If Olympus did release a 35mm sized mirrorless system I’d buy in and it would exist side by side with my m43 system, each playing to their own strengths and not their weaknesses.
On one hand one for low light, shallow dof and if I want to print large and the other for travel, light weight and zooms at a manageable weight. I’m not carrying three times the weight when I travel, no way.
At times I am playing with the idea of getting an RX1 *next* to my n4/3 stuff. Mirrorless FF can do all sorts of digital magic. For instance it has a teleconverter, so it’s like having two lenses. One could also add an UWA converter. You can also have all multiple images devices Sony has: swipe Panoramas, HDR, etc.
FF135 could be v. useful for both panoramas and portraits, which is 90% of what an amateur shoots, at untold degrees of resolution.
To think about Oly is v. natural, because of the Sony-Oly agreement. IMHO it wouldn’t even dent m4/3, like the middle formats, think Pentax, never hampered 135mm formats. Prices are also miles apart.
Sony attempt however could be industry leader, because mirrorless FF is SMALL and that could be a BLOW to C&N juggernauts. Just let SMALL become fashionable among the general public, the journalists, and its the beginning of the end for C&N… For Sony the beginning of the Eternal Reich, and for Oly sweet vengeance 🙂
This is digital, not film. Different rules apply. BTW Sony will be multi-format, innit?
I think a mirrorless ff system makes most sense if you combine ff primes and reduced image circle zooms, than you have the advantages of both systems. Sony has an advantage
here with their aps-c lenses. Olympus needs a 48-60 mpix ff sensor for their mft-lenses to to get 12-15 mpix images out of them. On the other side, Sony’s lenses are of much lower quality than Olympus.
Mirrorless is the future no matter the sensor size.
The idea that FF is “ideal” is absurd. “Full frame” was introduced by Leica in 1925. It was immediately criticized as being far too small a format for “real” photography compared with the large formats of that day. And for having too much DOF.
“FF” is an arbitrary size. The quality of image (IQ) at any given format size gets better every few years. There is no reason, other than DOF, that a larger format size is useful. The quality of FF at any point in time will quite soon be equalled by smaller formats.
If you want short DOF, use a large aperture with today’s high-quality lenses. If you want gigantic prints, go with a large format. Otherwise, avoid back injury with new, smaller, gear…
The Phoblographer’s idea of FF Olympus is as stupid as their name.
Phoblahblahgraphers…
If Oly managed to manufacture mirrorless and flashless camera bigger than their own DSLR (with mirror and built-in flash) – E-410 which I still count as one of the best cameras I owned, I only can imagine what size their mirrorless FF will be – something like shoebox I think.
I predict that Sony FF NEX will crash – with such small DOF there will be too many complaints from people not knowing the basics of optic. Especially if the price will be high.
Look, I see the people selling their E-M5 with top lenses and the reason they sell them – too small (for them) DOF which they mistake as autofocus malfunction or defect in camera!
I liked the size of Pens but didn’t like the lack of viewfinder and built-in flash. Even Casio QR 51 (which is slightly bigger than credit card when looking from the front – and I still own it) had zoomable (!!!) optical rangefinder – tiny but sometimes useful.
I still waiting Oly to make really small camera.
m43 is the only platform to perform that task and if they dive into FF (which means new line of lenses, bayonets and accesoiries etc.) will bury Olympus.
Don’t you please touch FF with ten feet broomstick!
I see people who invested in top Zuikos spitting like mad and moving to other systems because Oly doesn’t make reasonably priced 4/3 bodies anymore.
The entire idea of Olympus going fullframe is utterly absurd.