[shoplink 35471 ebay]
[/shoplink]
Highly trusted sources said that Olympus will not only announce the new E-M6 in February. There will be also “One more thing”!!!!!!!!
Maybe it’s just me but I hope this is the digital [shoplink 35471 ebay]Olympus Trip 35 camera (here on eBay)[/shoplink] 🙂
[poll id=”259″]
—
For sources: Sources can send me anonymous info at 43rumors@gmail.com (create a fake gmail account) or via contact form you see on the right sidebar. Thanks!
For readers: Don’t miss any news. Join our group on facebook and follow our tweets.
Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct
183 Responses
I’d love to see a large sensor compact from Olympus!
I think 1″ is good enough is the lens is bright (my dream would a 24-120/2 equivalent in the size of the LX100) 🙂
I can’t see how that would be the same size of the LX100. It is preatty obvious that the Sony RX100 mk3 is at the limit of compactness with that sensor and lens. You are asking for a big, non pocketable camera, almost as large as the Sony RX10. Plus, if Olympus wants to differentiate its offering, it should be a 43 sensor, à la LX100 but with all sensor usable. You stick a variable f. 1.8-2.8 on it and I am sold.
The Sony is smaller than the Panasonic, especially the depth. The canon g7x has a 24-100 f1.8-2.8, and is the same size as the Sony RX. All he needs is a little more length and speed at the long end, so a little larger lens should be able to do it. The Canon G1Xii has a 24-120 2.0-3.9 lens on a m4/3 sized sensor, and the size is still in the ballpark:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#573,569,534,ha,t
Fixed aperture might not be likely, but something like a 1″ sensor with a 24-120 1.8-2.8 lens should be perfectly doable in an lx100 size. This was exactly what I hoped the rx10 was going to be.
Olympus Cinema Camera with MFT mount 😛
FullFrame is very very unlikely .
My guess will be compact with large sensor although I’m more happy than enough if EM6 come out with new generation Exmor sensor .
“New budget OM-D”?
Voted for large sensor compact.
Still trying to grasp what people expect precisely from the “Full frame OMD”. It’s not like full lens catalogue would spring to life out of nothing. Or they want yet another 50mm lens?
Why they want full frame olympus? I am happy with my OM-D – PEN combo that uses the same lenses. There are plenty of full-frame alternatives (Nikon, Canon, Sony), we don’t need another one.
what if Olympus would join the Sony E-mount?
What if Canon would drop EOS M and joined Micro Four Thirds?
They’d be even more doomed than they are right now 😀
….. new E-M1 firmware up with better video… (25fps) and electronic shutter (silent), +++ 😛
Is the Name EM-6 confirmed?
Hard to say…. The name hasnt been confirmed yet.
Trip-D? With 24×18 mm sensor??
I think you mixed it with the PENs. Trip-D is 135 format.
34% voted on full frame OMD…
Why not? It would be *the* best FF on the market hands down.
34% of the voters are on the wrong website…
Exactly.
What about a camera with a PDAF-enabled sensor? Why should this sensor be on the E-M1 only? There are many thousands of FT lenses around the world and they do not focus well on mFT (apart from E-M1). This is ridiculous. Would Olympus like us, FT-glass owners, to finance the production of a reasonably-priced mFT camera with a PDAF-enabled sensor? I suppose we could do even that. Although we have already financed Olympus more than a lot!
so let me get this straight, you were okay with buying FT glass when it came out even though SHG and HG were often time over a thousand dollars a piece, but now you’re balking at spending a thousand for an E-M1?
I just don’t get the logic that says you expect them to put the sensor that differentiates the top of the line camera in a lower end camera so that you can hang your FT lenses off of it.
Further I think that if the E-M6 comes with PDAF it is more likely going to be a hybrid PDAF/CDAF system for absolute best performance. I would expect such a system would not focus FT lenses in PDAF only mode.
The logic is the following. First, I don’t need to buy AGAIN something extremely expensive. For example, I will not buy 12-40, as I have 12-60. Having once subsidized Olympus, I will not subsidize them AGAIN for the SAME thing AND for their WHIM not to make FT glass compatible with mFT bodies (something technically fully possible). Second, I am NOT going to buy the E-M1 not because I can’t but for the following reason. The E-M1 has a disgraceful ISO performance (DXoMark): 757 against 932 of the E-PM2. To put it simply: the E-PM2 (of which I have three) takes better pictures in low light than the “glorious flagman” costing four times more. Any other question?
Only one. When can we stop hearing about the PM2 vs M1?
You’re saying that you base your whole photographic experience around what a company like DxOmark says ? Boy, that is sad. DxO is the cancer of photography, they’re just a company, they’re not the vatican of photography. That’s worse tham buying a whole camera system based on some youtuber’s review. Being a DxO measurebator is the saddest type of existence for a photographer, closely followed by being a pixelpeeper. Thank god Dxo didn’t exist in the age of Cartier-Bresson or Adams, otherwise they wouldn’t have permitted the existence of many memorable pictures. Go out, take pictures, Dxo numbers are just digits on your computer screen, they’re not photography.
I think you are a very sad sob. Droeftoeter. If you are that angry at Olympus why do you still own their stuff, and stay on this website. You come across as the biggest troll ever.
I had FT lenses as well, I still own the E-1, and have bought the E-M1 when it became obvious it was the future. Unfortunately FT was just to early born at a ime where the components were just not possible to make small enough to start directly with mirrorless.
Native m43 is the future though, until maybe another technical milestone is made. I’d rather buy from a company that wants to take risks a go full forward than one that doing nothing spectacular like Canon. At least Nikon was more innovative than Canon.
The E-M1 isn’t less quality due to stupid DxO ratings. I actually look at pictures not at ratings.
You know that m43 can never get a perfect score by that company due to their sensor bias!
maybe there is no logic present when buying gear.
FF all the way!
Trip D all the way!
I am very much expecting a digital XA (ot Trip 35) with FF sensor.
m4/3 sensor maybe, but “full frame” sensor? I’d be shocked.
Only the FF compact market is almost untouched (RX1/R), the APSC market has GR, CP-A, X100/S/T, Sigma DPs, Canon G1X, etc. The 1-inch size has Sony, Panasonic, Canon with a bunch of models. OK the Olympus equivalent of LX100 is an option, but with the Pens in house and the GM1/ with Panasonic, a m43 sensored Trip model looks mto me as a hard sell. OK, the FF should have a X100T equivalent price to sell well.
I love my EM5 for the IBIS and the compact size of the lenses. Still, I’ve been hoping for a FF OMD: with higher sharpness, detail, lower colour noise, higher dynamic range, etc; but with Oly’s colours, controls, customizability, and the high quality yet compact Zuiko lenses. They could’ve taken the market with such a system. However, they didn’t have the guts to take that step. Sony beat them to the FF with 5-axis IBIS game, and since they won’t have that advantage, Oly won’t even try now. Such a shame, I could use some better glass than the current FE lineup…
it takes more guts to do things differently then to do that what many think is the right way. if i were you(which i am not thankgod, because then you would be me) i would choose the A7 as next body.
Except for the sensors the A7 are crap all around. Olympus makes just so much better cameras and lenses than Sony its not even really comparable. Only holding an A7 for more than 30 minutes makes my hands hurt, not to mention that the user experience while shooting is abysmal.
thank god i am not that demanding or crititcal in what i use, as long as i can do the things i want to do with it
I actually am eyeballing the new A7m2 with the OMD-like 5-axis IBIS; but just taking a look at native FE lenses, I could cry. There are 2 primes: the 35 is just f2.8 and though optically passable, for it’s price, it’s underwhelming. The 55 is sharp but among the biggest size among lenses of f1.8 aperture. There’s a pricy 24-70 ‘pro zoom’ that’s only F4, and it is not just less sharp than the kit lens, but even has more severe vignetting and distortion than it! The 16-35 is okay, but expensive, there are some similar range UWA FF zooms with better performance for less. Plus one more F4 tele-zoom, and that’s it. All in all, current FE lenses, with maybe the 55 as an exception, are all underwhelming from an optical and a price/performance point of view.
As DensetsuX also commented, Sony is all about sensor and tech. Nikon could get more out of the same Sony sensors than Sony in their own bodies. Then there’s also colours, details, sharpening, jpeg compression, etc; then ergonomics, controls. And as stated above, the glass…
yes but you ignore the fact that the A7 series is still brandnew, just give them time to come with more lenses. Regarding the Nikon advantage, thats because Nikon spends millions on the development of the image processing. Just give Sony time.
So you want an FF camera, but you don’t want to lose the main advantage of smaller sensor. How do you imagine that? It seems to me you’d like to eat the cake and keep it, too.
If by “the main advantage of smaller sensor” you mean lens size, then as I wrote, just look at the original Zuikos, of the OM line. E.g. the 50 f1.8 was only 31 mm, the f1.4 was 36 and the f1.2 was 43 mm in length; and these are all FF. The Sony FE 55 f1.8 is 70.5 mm. The flange distance is 46 vs 18 mm, so 28 mm longer, but even factoring that in, the FE 55 f1.8 is as long as the 50 f1.2 (88.5 vs 89 mm).
And then there’s even the 85 f2 at a mere 46 mm… OM had some wonderfully compact but high quality and sharp lenses. That’s what I would like to see with a FF MILC, not the monstrosities Sony is cooking up.
why not a lens ??
Rangefinder from Olympus, pretty please!
That’s a wet dream.
Not really, just put an EVF into the next E-PX and you’re there. Basically Olympus own high end GX7. Now if you’re talking about an actual RF, then I’m afraid only Leica is willing to go that route
If there’s actually a Trip-D or XA-D I really hope they stick to a fixed focal lenght lens like the Fuji X100, Sony RX1 and the Ricoh GR. The fixed prime lenses are far superior than the zooms in the Leica X Vario or the Panasonic LX series. Oh, throw in a leaf shutter or an electronic shutter capable of flash sync at every speed and then you’ve struck gold.
That said, I LOVE my XA. It’s amazingly well-designer. Please bring that back! Throwing in a portrait of it as eye-candy and like-magnet 🙂
The original XA a timeless design in the best meaning of the word. I still have and use mine, and am intrigued by Maitani’s colored sketch you posted. Do you have a source?
Hey Sean! That’s not made by Maitani, I drew that myself 🙂
Some weeks ago I started drawing a series of “Camera Portraits” from my collection! I’m working on that right now. Glad you like it!
Ah, I was wondering what historical nugget relating to Maitani had passed me by! Please do share more of your Camera Portraits with us! Come to think of it, here’s another fantastic Olympus camera for you:
+1
The XA is a better bet than the Trip 35 in my mind. A legitimate competitor to the Ricoh GR (but with a longer FL) is much more appealing and interesting than yet another take on the X100/S/T. It should be truly pocketable (RX100-style), and have a 4/3 sensor with a fixed f/2 lens.
The XA is my all-time favorite film camera. I would love a digital XA. Clamshell design, fixed 35 equivalent focal length, a m43 sensor (or even a 1″), sold. Take my money.
Excellent camera portrait, btw!
Why ask for a FF camera? There are no FF lenses and I doubt Olympus can invest in a new line up of lenses.
On the other hand a Trip-D with a bigger sensor could be possible (some kind of Sony RX1 but with a Zuiko lens?).
If they go FF, they could revive the OM mount. Maybe even make it backward compatible to some older power focus lenses. Since digital sensors far outperform film, they don;t need to. And I don’tt beleive they would bring out a FF camera.
“Revive” a mount that was abandoned years ago, while squeezing already meagre resources from their M4/3 line?
Sounds like great formula.
If you want to use OM mount lenses, buy an A7x and some lens adaptors. That’s what I’d do if Sony makes a higher megapixel version of the A7s.
That’s pretty much what I said, if you would go past the first sentence. Why use OM lenses on Sony cameras? That’s what my A Mount lenses are for. And they will autofocus, even with the A Mount adapter for the A7 cameras.
Olympus needs to expand its market reach not contract it into a niche, they’re are not a multinational corporation on the scale of Sony, they can’t afford to go into a market where they’ll surely have a disadvantage (just what would they bring to the table now that Sony has 5 axis ? uh?). Olympus is already cornering itself into a niche thanks to its obsession with the OMDs and high products/prices, they’re shrinking into profitability by going the way of leica when all they had to do was promote m43 to the masses (people in merging markets coming out of smarphones with a photographic interest) and expand their user base, but now it’s too late for marketing to solve anything. Going all the way into FF would just be the next nail in their coffin.
Sony and Olympus can have a contest for worst interface. 😉
FF is the new MP or ISO buzzword around because of paid trolls (or just blind brand loyalists), no surprise there. 99% of people who come here to evangelize about FF have never even touched one in their life, they don’t own one, they don’t know the workflow associated with it, they don’t have any real use for FF (unless it’s unfocused 0.0001mm DOF cat portrait). They come here to flame because at some point in their recent P&S learning curve they learn about FF existence from canikon loyalists /marketing department and they instantly assume it’s the pinnacle of photography and their ultimate consumerist goal. Just how many of the FF trolls that come here daily do you guys think are actual Pro photographers ? do you think any Pro would come here to evangelize about (one of) their system(s) ? Just the fact that Admin put that option on the poll demonstrates that he incites trolls to come here and produce traffic for the site, otherwise why doesn’t he appoint mods ?
and viewfinder, please!
Sorry guys, I cannot understand the urge for a large sensor trip camera. The price will be huge and you would get the same quality and size with a GF7+pancake for less than that price. Or a PM2 (or equivalent) for even cheaper if you don’t need a viewfinder. I might be stupid, but can you please explain why you feel so excited? ;o)
Maybe a reply from Olympus to the DMC-LX100 from Panasonic.
The price wouldn’t be all that huge. You only have to look at the Sony A7. It’s about the same size and price as a top end MFT camera. It could be done. If it’ll be done is another matter. But no, you wouldn’t get the same quality from a GF7+pancake lens.
I think you WOULD get the same (or similar) quality from a small body/lens combo, but the difference is size. A fixed lens camera can be much smaller, especially when turned off.
I know, that it wont be posible To be a FF OMG. But i would buy it anyways if it will ever be. Coz i think, mFT and ff are a perfekt Match the they Cover each other’s weknesses.
Sorry 4 my bad english.
FF is not big enough of a leap from m43 in terms of absolute best IQ attainable, what you’re thinking of is medium format. FF in itself is a compromise between these two extremes, it doesn’t complement with anything because it tries to do everything and fails to do so (not as good IQ as MF, not as compact or portable as m43). m43 and MF complement each other perfectly because there’s enough of a difference between them that suit each other to different enough scenarios and work environments and also for the fact that both formats offer a huge levels diversity in terms of body styles, manufacturers and and applications. FF on the other hand is dominated by just 2 brands which offer the same rehashed black blobs over and over and over, thank god Sony is changing.
tl;dr: If you’re gonna complement m43 with a larger format, go MF. There’s no more versatile or fleshed out MILC system out there than m43 and not better IQ that MF.
Agree!
Medium Format and m4/3 are best choice for anyone. The m4/3 offers compact and light weight size, while offers best native focal length range (wider than 35mm has), is great for low-light, sports and street / event (landscapes is as well) photography.
The medium format would be for studio, portraits, events and landscape where ultimate quality with razor thin depth of field at long ranges is required.
A Medium Format from Olympus would only need a two zoom and two prime lenses to be awesome. Like 90-180mm and 210-350mm and for primes 50mm and 127mm.
It would be perfect combo for photographer doing wide range of works, while typical photographer could do just with either one. No one would need small format than idiot fans. Panasonic could then do a 4k MF camera!
Forgive my ignorance. Is it possible to build a M43 body with a full frame sensor that would be compatible with the existing M43 lens system? It would be a shame to make obsolete the whole current set of lenses.
should be possible, could have advantages too
Possible? Yes. Absolute nonsense and absurd waste? Even more so.
Micro4/3s glass was designed to focus on a 4/3s size sensor, and to project an image circle for that size. You’d only be using the center 15-20% of a super-expensive FF sensor. A 36 Mpx sensor would yield only 5.4-7.2 Mpx useable images.
where you get that numbers from? Right is > 25 % and >9 Mpx. (it’s more because 43 format is closer to square and has more area per given diagonal)
No, it’s not possible. Full Frame sensor needs lenses with larger image circle – FT / mFT lenses are built for this 43-sensor size.
Of course it could be possible to have a mount that could accept also these lenses and use the cropped area of the sensor, but it would be very difficult to built lenses for the full sensor then. The mount of mFT-system is quite small…
IF there is going to be a full frame Oly, I’ll bet it will use the Sony E-mount – and be someway modified A7-seres camera. Makes more sense than builting a new mount and lens series from the ground.
They can start with APS-C sensor, 45/1.8 covers APS-C already 😀
But not APS-C with IBIS….
The image circle is bigger on m4/3 objectives because there needs to be space for IBIS movement (about 4mm to any direction) and that gives possibility to use Super-16 or Super-35 sensors without IBIS.
It would then be simply little better for Olympus to make a 35mm sensor that has native OM-mount and can be used with adapter to get m4/3 or 4/3 for crop mode and for about 8-12Mpix. It would be crap as the optics can’t be well designed for different size sensors.
So best thing to Olympus would be to do a 6×7 camera with totally new objectives. Or simply do a R-lock digital back… That would only make sense (any larger sensor than m4/3) so “Full Frame” idiots could be more green than now.
well, sometimes IBIS is not needed.
and many people were asking for multiaspect sensor in 43, just sticking aps-c sensors isn’t that difficult…
Interesting, how do you know this?
http://m43photo.blogspot.ru/2014/01/put-aps-c-sensors-in-micro-four-thirds.html
There were 35mm film cameras with a smaller diameter, or at least there was one, the Asahiflex (37mm versus 38mm of MFT). But of course it had a bigger flange distance (45 vs 19 mm), which seems important for the optical quality for the edges if you want to keep the lenses small (otherwise you can always put some air between the lens elements and the lens mount). Also, film and sensors seems to behave different: Sony E-mount (46 diameter, 18 mm flange distance) was criticized by Sigma that it’s hard design lenses with good optics for it and Leica hat to design special sensors for their M-Mount (44/27 mm). So unless there is a revolutionary new sensor technology it doesn’t look to good.
Refer Sony A7 FE mount.
Possible yes, with the option of selectable m4/3 capture on the sensor…
You can already buy a “TRIP” camera. It’s a Fuji X100T. Sigma has the DP Merrill. You have to buy all three to get 28 to 75mm. I think you can rule out a full frame TRIP on the basis of precedent. I bet Olympus has thought about it though. It is an interesting what if? All of the digital cameras from Olympus, alas, with names borrowed from film-era cameras have sensor frames smaller than the film-era counterparts. I thought it was a bad thing that Olympus bet the farm on the FourThirds sensor because the 12-MP was a dog, but the OM-D cameras changed my mind. The sensors are every bit as good as APS-C. The 16-MP are awesome. The format surrenders clean 6400 ISO to the low pixel count full frame, but that is all. If you have to print large, you have only a few choices, and the 36 megapixel Sony sensor is fantastic, but has pixels about the same size as the 12-MP APS-C. Manufacturing prowess gives the 36-MP the same boost it gave to modern Four Thirds, so evidently there is a bit more to it than just pixel size.
its more in the image processing engine/chip now, otherwise every increase in mp with sensors would just result in worse IQ, now it just stays the same because of the “impressive by the nrs” mp race. would we never have increased the mp more then 10mp but focused on image processor only,then IQ could have been much better then it is now
And just how big dio you mean when mentioning printing large? I have a 36inch by 24inch poster printed with my E-P1 that looks just fine. Several people commented on it and asked where I bought it. I have also given away poster prints as gifts to several people. I think I can print plenty large enough, especially with my E-PL5.
At the print sizes you and I can afford, 12 and 16 MP are plenty. Up in 36 MP territory, or on medium format 51 MP, my idea of large print sizes are on the order of several feet. That is why I think, for most of us, this whole “full frame rules” thing is baloney. It’s arrogant dogma. Although I thought my E-PL1 was kinda fun, I was disappointed on two counts, unspectacular IQ beyond 800 ISO, and AF hunting in low light. My experience with an E-M10 is the opposite. I am absolutely thrilled. I had the use of a friend’s discarded D-5100 for a while, and the E-M10 equals or bests all my expectations. I need a rich uncle so I can afford a few more lenses. My favorite so far is the 45mm f1.8.
Probably will be the previous said vertical viewfinder fixed lens 4/3 camera.
I hope this time Olympus will do it the right way and the Trip will have an EVF in the corner! Not the way they did it with PENs.
I dont care about interchangeable lenses as much as for really compact powerful body with decent built in zoom.
LX100?
A MFT Trip Camera with a very similar design to the original would be an excellent competitor to the LX100. If it shoots 4k and has IBIS I’d buy it.
Why a Digital Trip? Why not a digital Pen E with fixed lens, maybe a fast 4x zoom.
Something like Ricoh GR, but thinner, smaller, faster. Lens 14mm f/2, 100x50x20mm, 150g – I want it.
Am I the only one who thinks the Trip was an ugly camera?
If they want to go retro, they should at least copy great looking designs, like the Konica Auto S2, for instance (my second camera).
LOL. Uh, no.
I have to say they look similar…60s-70s compact viewfinder/compact rangefinder cameras more or less look like each others. I have a Yashica electro 35 CC, and I really like the look of it. Olympus PEN F* is also beautifully made.
a man who likes some symmetry 🙂
Now go convince Konica to build one…
Olympus needs a small trip D to compete with Sony excellent small Cameras like the Sony RX100 III. The little camera that better photos than my EOS-1D Mark IV.
It’s a FF 35mm fixed lens Olympus Trip, we all know that already.
I guess it will be a new prime lens or maybe something like Panys LX100… who knows. I don’t expect anything ground breaking.
Olympus needs to wake up and release a high end PEN with EVF and use it as a platform for releasing their new sensor technology, like how they introduced a new sensor with the EM5. Sure, they could use the EM5KII/6 for that same purpose but it wouldn’t cause much impact in the market simply because it would be taken as a simple update to the EM5 instead of a radical upgrade to the much neglected PEN line. The EM5 update can then make a proper entrance at a later date so they can release it AFTER the competitions new models (Fuji, Sony) with even more features that also help differentiate it more easily to the EM10.
It’s about time Olympus catches up with the times, their stubbornness to offer a proper Pen flagship has practically killed the PEN range. Having diversity of body styles is INTEGRAL to the success of the format, just look at Pany, Sony and Fuji. Having just OMDs leaves out a lot of consumers that’ll end up going to Fuji or Sony (just like the lack of a pen with EVF sent thousands of user to the XE and Nex 7) for their faux RF needs. I don’t see how having a proper high end PEN would hurt Olympus, Pany handles the coexistence of the GX/GM and G/GH series just fine, even though all of them feature an EVF. Making such a huge deal about the EVF in nowadays market is just mindbogglingly obtuse, no other manufacturer would dare NOT to offer that feature, even the RX100 has an evf now Olympus !
E-P5 has been a proper pen flagship! I prefer it without the EVF, thats partly the reason I switched from E-M5. More compact body without the hump, as I only use the EVF while birding, and will bring the VF-4 for those occations.
The argument against an EVF within a PEN because ¨it would make it bulkier¨ was debunked the minute Panasonic released the GX7, and it was utterly obliterated the second the GM5 was announced. Modularity is awesome but that feature is already covered by the E-PLX series, the flagship model NEEDS to have all the bells and whistles. The whole problem with the PEN line up emerges from this very issue. By not properly developing the pen flagship the lower models make no sense because they’re not differentiated enough from it.
By having an EVF at the top the lower models suddenly become more logical:
E-PX: EVF, 5 axis, weather sealed, feature rich.
E-PL: modular with add on evf, 3 axis, less controls
E-PM: GM sized, 2 axis, minimlistic controls.
I don’t know about you but this level of differentiation makes even more sense than the OMD line up. In this scheme the PEN would serve as the primes-oriented series while the OMD would function as the (pro) Zoom series.
There, all of Olympus line up solved in one move (EVF in E-PX)
I’m still not confident that there’s room for an E-PL and an E-PM to co-exist as is, but there’s definitely not room for 3 undifferentiated models the way Olympus has it now.
The E-P5 was an okay camera but when you compare it to the GX7, it’s an atrocious value proposition. I would like to see if Olympus can incorporate more of a flush-mounted EVF, perhaps with an accessory eyecup or eyepiece for people who don’t mind it protruding, and who need it for wearing with glasses. The bulkiness of EVFs is a bit of a peeve, since they add thickness in the most critical dimension.
I’m not seeing the market for a premium PEN with an EVF as it would literally just be an OM-D in a slightly different body. I do see the point of an economical PEN like the PM2 as it can hit a price point that is much lower than today’s OM-D line. I think there may even be a place for an E-PL with rangefinder-esque EVF in it at a cheaper price point than the OM-D line, yet more expensive than the PM2.
special edition peel and stick color kits for EM bodies for $195
I voted for the digital Trip but I want it to keep the ethos of the original. A basic easy to use affordable family camera that stays out of your way and is capable of producing high quality photographs.
Only large sensor compact makes any sense. Olympus still has no contender in this market. And looking at how well the LX100 was received, Oly will need to come up with something really nice here. And I hope they do. But it probably won’t have a 4/3 sensor, 1-inch type is more likely.
I don’t see Olympus playing the budget game, they don’t stand a chance against Sony, Canon or Nikon. The high-end PEN makes no sense either, E-P5 was not exactly a hit.
And I don’t get the obsession with Full-Frame OM-D. Actually, premium Full-Frame compact camera (with small prime lens) would make more sense. Maybe something of the rangefinder type? Not much competition there. But that’s a pipe dream, very unlikely to happen, IMHO.
The E-P5 wasn’t a hit because it was obsolete before it was even announced, it offered no real advatage over the lesser PENS other than 5 axis and the accumulated expectations for an EVF (after several generations without one) didn’t help one bit. That and the huge overprice they put on the camera for no discernible reason! especially considering every other manufacturer had their own faux RF with EVf already on the market, with already superior features, for cheaper. It has nothing to do with the PEN range or the market segment, the demand is clearly there otherwise Sony, Fuji and Pany would not produce nor sell their non-slr looking milcs with EVF. Olympus is paranoid about hurting the OMDs and too blind to see that Pany (and Fuji, and Sony) has no problem having success with their mixed faux RF & DSLR styled line up.
The e-p5 didn’t stand a change because Olympus gimped the camera (intentionally or through sheer lack of foresight). That’s why Olympus ought to release an E-P7 with EVF, featuring their latest sensor breakthroughs (from their rumored collaboration with another manufacturer) so that they can make a proper impact in the market. Simply updating the Em5 woudln’t cause much noise, while the pen would at least offer the element of surprise.
What you write is true. The thing is that any new high-end PEN would need to be pretty much a complete reimagining of this line. A bold statement of sorts. Just repackaging OM-D guts in a PEN like body won’t cut it (we’ll see how that works for E-PL7, but that is targeted at mainstream consumers, not enthusiasts, so it might just work). If they can manage such a feat, that would be nice. But lets just say I’m not counting on that. And if they can’t refresh the E-P line with a big omph, then I rather see them put resources into something else.
We’ll likely know which way they went in about 3 months.
It’s admittedly a long shot, but I very much hope that what you’ve described materialises. I still prefer the style and handling of the Pen series to the OM-D line and I don’t actually think shoehorning EM-6 specs into a Pen body is the problem.
The issue with justifying a high-end Pen comes from the allure of the E-PL7 which is equally compelling in nearly every way that a consumer might notice, for a drastically lower price. An E-P6/7 would make sense with more distinct and obvious advantages over the E-PL7. To be honest, I don’t have a problem with the lack of an EVF on the E-P5 since the VF-4 is so excellent, but the absurd price of the bundle, brought about by the fact that the VF-4 costs £200 on its own, made it so difficult to swallow next to the GX7 or A6000.
Well, it will for some unfathomable reason end up being priced well above any APS-C fixed lens compact. Nothing to get excited about UNLESS it is really small like the GM1.
The “one more thing” is probably going to be a commercial version of the Olympus Open Platform that they revealed at Photokina. I wouldn’t necessarily get your hopes up for something radical and exciting, guys.
Lens on the chip, inspired by the insect world.
35% for full frame OMD.
Well guys,
YOU
ARE
INSANE.
PERIOD.
Amen!
35% of people coming to this site are either in the wrong place, delusional or have absolutely no clear purpose for their current camera and are looking to get a rush from GAS.
These are people who wish for all sorts of things, yet when they’re released… IF they’re released… bitch about the size, weight, speed, color, price… you name it… and WON’T actually vote with their wallets, where it counts.
A full-frame Olympus is the worst idea possible at this point. Buy a Sony or a Nikon if that’s what you need. Or hey, even a Leica.
That’s exactly the point. If you want full frame, you have to leave Olympus. I’m sure there are at least some people at Olympus that would probably want you to stay with Olympus even if you want/need full frame.
And I’m sure there are at least some people at Canon and Nikon who would probably want you to stay with them if you wanted/needed Micro Four Thirds or some other mirrorless camera, as well.
Just what sort of demanding work environment are people PERSONALLY presented with on a daily basis that warrants the NEED for FF exactly ? I very much doubt this website is flooded with sport photographers or the like.
I think this sudden FAD/¨NEED¨ for FF is nothing more than a farce that people present on forums but has little to do with their real life needs. If m43/APS-C is not enough for you then FF probably won’t be either. The sort of real life practical applications of m43/aps-c don’t differ much from FF, in other words, the amount of assignments that m43/aps-c can’t cover confidently are increasingly few, there’s just a couple of work environments that FF has exclusivity to, of which I HIGHLY doubt anyone here has a real professional urgency to cover.
Just in which way are people expecting to use their future FF so differently than their m43/aps-c ? Will FF improve their technique ? will FF allow them to take their gear where they couldn’t before ? Is the real life marginal extra performance really going to matter in their workflow ?
If you’re just passionate about IQ or whatever (GAS) then you might as well jump straight into MF, FF is not going to bring you any more degrees of freedom than what m43/aps-c already brings you.
OH btw, Isn’t it ironic that this ¨need ¨ for FF has risen now that the gap in IQ between small and large formats has shortened ? 10 or 15 years ago you wouldn’t have seen amateurs or hobbyists wanting to jump into FF even though the gap between consumer grade cameras and FF (exclusively pro) was HUGE. Shouldn’t it have been the other way around? Do aspirational FF users feel threatened by how smaller formats are catching up to their unattainable holy grail ? or has FF just become a consumer grade product ? In any case FF isn’t gonna make you a better photographer if you care about the craft at all. That’s what these small cameras are perfect for, lots and lots of photo opportunities and practice.
Hey,
That’s pretty simple. M43 can not give you enough shallow DOF for anything <= 50mm FF eqv,! That's exactly where FF is superior to m43.
Anyway I would not purchase any FF Olympus camera since it would be hugely overpriced. Why ? Well just looking at E-M1 prices (at least here in Europe) …
Cheers
MF hasn’t yet hit the sweet spot of usability / IQ / price that 35mm sensored cameras have.
If someone comes out with a $2000 digital MF body with the handling and autofocus of an OM-D, I expect that you would have a ton of photographers lining up for it.
Pentax is getting pretty close to conventional FF DSLRs with the 645Z, though. And the price tag is only a hop, skip, and a jump from the ultra high end options like the 1DX or D4S. Though obviously it competes more with the likes of the D810…
What’s so insane about this? Canon, Nikon, Sony, even Leica has both APSC and Full Frame lineups. It only makes sense for Olympus to compete with them or else they are leaving food on the table. As great as M43 is, there are times when FF is more suitable (high ISO, shallow DoF) and there are situations where M43 with it’s greater DoF and lighter weight/size is better.
All those other companies you listed? Yeah, they use the same lenses for APS-C and FF.
Olympus would need to start entirely from scratch making a new line-up of lenses. You know what presents confidence to your existing buyers? A brand new, entirely incompatible lens mount that will take years to flesh out, all while neglecting the system that you bought into in the first place.
Sounds like a sound business model to really capture that 2% of the market that is buying full-frame.
MOST CONSUMERS want full frame. It’s a PROVEN fact time and time again. No matter how hard you bold your words.
By “MOST CONSUMERS” you mean 8.7% of DSLR consumers, and less than 7% of interchangeable-lens camera consumers, yes?
Because that’s what the numbers prove, at least in 2013.
http://bcnranking.jp/news/1312/131227_27056.html
Unless you mean “MOST CONSUMERS want full frame” in the same way that “MOST CONSUMERS want Ferraris!” Which is maybe a fair point. But utterly banal and pointless at the same time.
There you go using facts again.
Stupid facts.
Then they definitely don’t want your pathetic, noisy little m43 sensor…
Currently 12% and growing, do. Compared to 7% on FF.
So that means that 70% more people want a pathetic, noisy little M4/3 sensor than want a full frame sensor. Wow!
Have you considered that the full frame mirrorless interchangable lens camera options in 2013 consisted of Leicas? The A7 series wasn’t even released until December.
All your link proves is that people don’t buy what doesn’t exist yet.
So you’re suggesting that the A7-series sold more than every single Canon and Nikon full-frame DSLR, and so radically altered the dynamics of the landscape as to make all data precedents useless??
I’m using the entire interchangeable lens market to get those percentages, not just mirrorless.
I’m saying that it’s impossible to gauge consumer desire for a product off of sales figures for a product that doesn’t exist yet.
But we weren’t even talking about mirrorless. Jimmy Russell just made the blanket statement that most consumers wanted full frame. But we can prove that simply isn’t the case by looking at well documented data.
If you want to extend that statement to “most mirrorless buyers want full frame” then you’re right, we’ll need to wait until the 2014 data comes out and shows how much or little of the market embraced the A7.
Don’t you mean ‘our’? I thought M43 was your ‘second system’.
That’s definitely what Nikon hopes and prays for. And heavily markets.
… or capitalize them.
No, it’s not. Quit trolling.
BS
I am, but that’s beside the point.
However, this is called market segmentation. Nikon also have 1″ CX, APS-C DX and FF FX lines. It’s about choosing the right tool for the right task. While we also have FF MILC now, the lenses are either optically underwhelming, or underperforming price vs performance-wise, or even both.
If more supercompacts like the LX100 are to follow, m4/3, or at least Olympus, will soon be in a very uncomfortable situation. Panasonic has video, where the higher DoF at wider apertures can be an advantage. Porting the OMD IBIS to a FF camera and bringing back the high quality yet compact size of Zuikos of the OM era (unlike the bulky FEs from Sony) could’ve been a way of escaping forward for Oly; but now it’s looking more like a missed opportunity.
Really sorry for your thought that a bigger sensor would have inherently thinner DOF.
Negative. Usually the physically bigger the lens, the thinner the DOF (either it would be a tele lens or just a brigt lens). So it would be borth cheaper and easier for Olympus and Pana to develop as ultrabright lenses as they could compete with their FF counterparts than making an FF system from scratch.
In a way, yes, it is insane, but the options for a high end or budget pen also help a lot to reach that 35% score. You could say people would even prefer a ff over those two options, but the number one choice is no doubt the large sensor compact.
No FF please…. Lets keep M43 small for us people with tiny hands and weak body’s. No need for FF or APSC. The quality from M43 look already good on my phone. No need for bigger prints or more controle over dof.
Unless of course you blame your disappointments on the size of the sensor.
Dear Admin, do you have something to share or not? Otherwise I would say: The next rumor will follow, that’s why FT5!
There will never be a full frame OMD with micro four thirds mount. Not ever. The current supply of lenses would be incompatible. That’s a deal-breaker. You’d have to use a 2x teleconverter on every lens just to cover the full sensor with the image circle.
Well, as for the quest for the digital Olympus Trip 35: It’s just hit the market & it’s called GM5.
Most likely the one more thing is a new prime lens.
lol, half the posts on the mu43com forum is people selling off all their m43 gear. you all better sell your m43 junk while you can.
Yeah, you can head over to Talk E-Mount where half the posts are people selling off their Sony gear.
u mad? u gonna have another hissy fit like you did on the A7RII forum post? lol
The “hissy fit” where I said this, right?
“Very impressive. But disappointing that they still haven’t added a touchscreen to any of the FF offerings. Or, for that matter, anything with an EVF. It’s a huge usability improvement for focussing (both AF and MF, when magnifying) that can hardly be overstated, in my opinion. I’d happily pay $100 or $200 more, knowing full well it doesn’t cost anywhere near that to implement.”
By the way, I’m happy people are selling off their Sony gear. I’m pretty tempted by an A7 once the prices continue to tumble below <$1000 where they're at now. I just wish it had a touchscreen!
That thread is still going on, the amount of mental meltdown going on from the m43 diehards is hilarious. It’s like the world is coming to an end for half of them.
Fortunately for me, since I shoot mostly Panasonic (well, and Samsung NX) not Olympus, I don’t tie my self worth up in 5-axis IBIS. I tie my self worth up with good user interface, and Sony still hasn’t caught up there, haha. :p
Well, I’d like to see a full-frame PEN, but I got slammed for even suggesting it on a forum recently. As Olympus is an optics company first and foremost, I’d say the ‘next thing’ is their hyperprimes.
you got slammed because these m43 fanatics are like rabid animals. they’re insecure about their puny little sensors, crying like weak little babies at the mere thought of “full frame”. I truly hope Oly does come out with a full frame camera, since it would shatter their pathetic lives.
If you legitimately think that it would be in Olympus’ best business interests to drop their existing system and compete head-on against Nikon, Canon, and Sony on their native turf with no differentiating advantage, that’s something else. Don’t confuse “what you wish for” with “what makes business sense.”
The camera companies that didn’t adapt and differentiate got eaten by their competitors. See Konica, see Minolta, see Mamiya, see Rollei, see Polaroid, see Yashica…
Canikon doesn’t have anything remotely resembling an FF OM-D. In the “smaller than a DSLR” space Canon has that EOS-m abortion and Nikon has the 1s.
Sony would be a competitor (it’s a new mount as of last year, the FE), but they hardly have any lenses. Olympus is a skilled and highly thought of lens manufacturer that has shown an ability to crank out a quality lineup. That would be their differentiating advantage.
Leica would be a competitor too, but Olympus would crush them on price and sensor quality. That would be their differentiating advantage.
You may be correct. I just don’t think that a full-frame OM-D would end up representing a system much smaller than a Canikon FF DSLR, if Sony’s E-Mount lenses (and Olympus’s PRO lenses) are any indication.
I just don’t think that Olympus has the resources to put together a set of full-frame lens offerings before the market closes to them or moves on. It took them 5 full years before they put out high-end 24-70 and 70-200 equivalents for M4/3…
Olympus could probably make more profit selling 3rd party FF lenses to Canikon DSLR users than by making their own FF-based system.
I think that Olympus is capable of designing a much smaller full-frame OM-D system like Leica or Zeiss have been in the past. I don’t think that there’s been a change in the past 50 years so that a FF Leica or FF Contax G type lens design can no longer be produced by a skilled lens manufacturer like Olympus. Sure, you’d have to stick an updated autofocus mechanism in there, but Oly already does that with some tiny primes in m4/3.
I suspect that Olympus could have put out those 24-70 and 70-200 lenses a lot sooner, but they didn’t have an appropriate body to stick them on, and they’re kind of contrary to the point of m4/3 anyway. They’re lenses you buy if you get married to the m4/3 system and want to do all of your photography with the system, they’re not lenses that are going to get you to switch.
Maybe they don’t have the resources to do it, but that doesn’t mean that people don’t want it.
Like I said, you might be right. But a new mount would be a very long row to hoe for a struggling manufacturer. And it would the 2nd time they’ve betrayed the confidence of their base. There’s plenty of 4/3 users who haven’t forgiven them for abandoning that mount, I’m not sure what fraction of Olympus fans would follow them through yet another massive change.
By the way: I just want to say how much I appreciate you arguing with words and logic, rather than insults. It’s refreshing.
Basing you entire business model around a sensor size makes sense, does it? Olympus’ only advantage is a sensor?
No, Olympus’ advantage is a system. Particularly a system that is shared with other partners, and has by far the most complete lens offerings in the mirrorless world. You can say that “that advantage won’t last forever,” but then you could say the same thing about Canon and Nikon, no?
Don’t forgot, Olympus chose to go with 4/3″ sensors for their DSLRs, and then again with 4/3″ sensors for their mirrorless cameras. As lens and camera manufacturers they obviously saw some advantage to that sensor size.
Sorry, who’s the rabid animal exactly?
Thank you for your thoughtful post. You may want to compare notes with ‘Ben’ below. He seems to have similar interests and he posted exactly the same time as you.
Wait, isn’t that a coincidence.
It’s going to be a weathersealed jeans-pocketable 4×5 inch camera with fixed 20-400 mm lens and 300 point AF.
My answer to the poll — None of the Above.
No interest in compact cameras, my iPhone take its place.
No interest in Budget Pen cameras.
No interest in High End Pen cameras.
Full Frame Sucks. Why would I want a Sucky FF OMD ??
FF trolls sucks. Nuance.
There is certainly some merit to a FF sensor with compatibility to 43rds lenses… But I ask you, why FF, why not a larger 4:3 sensor, or a square?
However the truth is collaboration is best so producing a FF body in collaboration with sony’s mount and sharing the lens burden would be best.
There is a reason Nikon hasn’t fleshed out their lenses for 1″ system or hell, hasn’t even produced a fulll set for APSC… It is expensive. Canon has let M sit there… Because having lens suites in 3 or 4 mounds is expensive.
SO where am I going? Well it is most likely we will get a 43rds sensor in a trip style camera with a fixed lens, or a LX100 look-alike, or an updated pen model with built in EVF. These are more economical.
As for the noise and DoF advantage to the larger sensor… Those are two ends of the same rope, your noise advantage goes hand in hand with the DoF advantage.
I’d love to see a Tough m43 fixed lens rangefinder in three flavors:
20mm f1.4
12-35mm f2-2.8
14-75mm f2-4
but didn’t the a7mk2 killed m43?? what are you still doing here??
discussing the ins and outs.
do you want me to worship?
Wouldn’t it be funny if Olympus all the sudden released a 645 format camera with only a 100/4 lens? Really, the thing I would like to see most is a major innovation towards the signal to noise ratio in images to where we wouldn’t have to worry about ISO speed. I just want to shoot in really dark environments and not be penalized by Sensor noise.
This silly reviving of old designs. What is wrong with a new design? The trip was designed for what at that time was possible. My father had one, we never understood what of the 3 or 4 focus settings should be set haha. Today we live in a world with complete different technology options. Design a body that can fit the best of those, with the best controls for those.
I see no reason to disregard full frame. If Olympus can do it and do it well, why not.
Why not just do it, or why not likely? I think it is a marketing/psychology question. Part, but not all, of the enthusiasm for full frame can be rationally understood. I think it is the “not all” that keeps Olympus busy. It is simply not true, that everything but full frame is crap, nor is it true that full frame is always better or often better. It depends on the exposure value and lens. The rational part grants superior performance at ISO values beyond 3200. The 25mm mZuiko does depth of field like a 12mm FX lens, so you get a 45mm or 60mm for the rare occasions when the nice 25mm bokeh may not be enough. That is the problem. You can have an OM-D that does 95% of the job and a whole bag of awesome lenses for less than a full frame with one lens. For the dollar, I would rather have a slew of lenses. My opinion is, obviously, at variance with mainstream bias. Against the inference that the position is weak without full frame, the Olympus proposition is very strong. It does tend to fall on deaf ears. The hole in the strategy, IMHO, is not above FourThirds, but below in LX100 territory or at the one-inch level. That part of the market is hot. The enthusiasm for full frame is being tested at a time when Nikon and Canon are embellishing the high end to keep it from slipping further. How might things change with a sensor upgrade with Graphene or Organic CMOS? It is distressing to me, the way Olympus bets the farm and does NOT get the message out.
Hopefully it’s the E-7. A real camera.
You are not expecting that Olympus launch a DSLR, are you??
I hadn’t thought much about it, but you know what? An optical DSLR with the Sony Four Thirds sensor would actually be kinda fun.Those Zuiko phase-detect lenses are still awfully nice. In the day, I thought a lot about that 14-54mm-II f2.8-3.5 lens that you could get for around $600. It is both cheaper and wider than the 12-40mm f2.8 and is no optical slouch. You can, of course mount it on an E-M1, but by the time you buy the adapter, you might just as well have the newer lens that you can mount everywhere else too. Meanwhile, I am spending my hard-earned cash on primes for the OM-D. I am not disappointed at all.
It might be fun for the 12 people that would buy it.
But most four thirds users have moved across to m43 or moved to another system if they didn’t like EVFs.
And there weren’t enough users in the first place to make the system profitable so the few remaining dSLR users are not going to make any money for Olympus.
I still own three of them but always pick up my m43 cameras
The 43 sensor was born out of tech / greed straits: Olympus was not up to producing larger sensors and selling their products at reasonable prices.
Then they went along with EVFs and some small lenses, which make sense if marketed at sensible prices – they are mostly overpriced, though.
Then they went on adding huge pointless uberpricey lenses, which probably sell in the dozens.
They have added software tricks to try and make dung look like gold. However, people who pay that type of money are going to look for flaws and find them because they are there. In general, this format has underwhelming artifacts, noise etc.
They have cleverly spread lots of marketing myths all along, and managed to keep a tiny portion of the market. Still, the financials are disappointing at best.
I don’t think Oly will be around for long unless they make a radical change. I see some options:
1) Cut those prices already.
2) Get rid of the toy models without direct controls on the most elementary features – it seems they are going that way already.
3) Focus on small fastish primes (F1.8, not F1.0) that make optical / financial sense for the buyers. Leave alone the ultrafasts that only make sense to internet geeks. Nobody sane would pay 1500 USD for an 85mm F2.4, 5% software-corrected distortion and silly flare.
4) Explore new options with larger formats. Maybe 135 with a fixed zoom? Or maybe even larger? The fixed zoom could keep the bulk low.
5) Explore new options with hi end compacts – those are probably going to kill m43 anyway, so eat your own lunch rather than leaving it to someone else.
6) Introduce a great radio-based flash system.
Hi. Thank you very much for your orientation. We are going to try very hard to do that. Congrats, you are a genius. Everything we need to know to success in business. Let us know if we owe you something for being this online expert consultant.
I totally agree. The high and mighty Nikophants who don’t own an OM-D seem always to be talking out of their ass.
I agree, but the problems for us M43 users is the huge seize and weight of APSC and FF. For most of us are hands are to small and body’s to weak to handle APSC or FF. We just have to work with the limitations of M43. The quality is often better than FF. All my pictures look good on my phonescreen.
Not to editorialize, I thought this comment section was about Trip camera rumors. Anyway… If you want something like a trip, there is that very sharp little Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens you can stick on everything in the m43 barn.