CP+ 2013: Interview with Olympus' Toshi Terada

The long wait for the next generation of cameras for Four Thirds may soon be over, suggests Olympus' Toshi Terada, Manager, Product Planning SLR products. He also discusses the role the OM-D has played in increasing uptake of mirrorless cameras in the USA and the future of compact cameras now that smartphones have become many users' cameras of choice.

The progress of mirrorless in the USA

'Market share for mirrorless is increasing in the USA. It's not booming, but it's growing. Now Canon and Nikon have mirrorless products, that will help increase awareness of what mirrorless is and what the benefit is. In addition, the OM-D has become a really big topic of conversation in both the US and Europe. Those two factors are creating a better situation for the mirrorless market,' he says.

'We have three groups of people buying our cameras - OM-D users are mostly people who would have bought a DSLR, then you have users stepping up from compacts and buying PEN models. Then, finally, you have DSLR users who are buying PEN as a second camera. Other manufacturers aren't targeting all those people.'

'DSLR-type users are used to beautiful lenses but we also like to offer lenses for the step-up users - lenses like the 45mm. One of the main reasons for buying a DSLR or mirrorless is the good image quality, including shallow depth-of-field. The kit lens is versatile but to give the shallow depth-of-field you need a fast lens. The 45mm is positioned as a 2nd or 3rd lens, as is the body cap lens. We'd like to offer attractive lenses for both DSLR-type users and step-up users.'

'In Japan, the work to encourage people to buy a second lens has been a success. The 45mm lens has sold well world wide, and in Japan, not only DSLR-type of users, but also Step-up users have purchased it.'

The future of Four Thirds

Building on the promise Olympus has made about continuing to support Four Thirds users, Terada suggests the wait may nearly be over: 'Direction-wise, we'd like to produce products for Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds within this year. Because we have to provide a product for users with SHG and HG lenses. And there are people using E400, 500 and 600-series DSLRs, we have to provide products for them to keep enjoying their photography.'

'For those users AF speed is important and a suitable finder is necessary. And also it needs to be the right size - the benefit of Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds is compact size. We have to provide those things to benefit those users. One of the benefits of DSLR is continuous autofocus. In this respect, we have to promise total AF performance in future.'

They can be confident about image quality, he says: ''They already know image quality from the OM-D. Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds sensors are the same size, so they can imagine that.'

Where now for compacts?

'Smartphones have had an impact on compact camera sales - especially for affordable compacts. We have to make some kind of differentiation from smartphones, whether that's in terms of image quality, optical capabilities or photographic control,' Terada explains: 'We've shifted to high-value products - long zoom, enthusiast compacts and TG-type cameras that have benefits to differentiate them from smartphones.'

'From a sensor aspect this can mean bigger, but a camera need optics. To have optics with an APS-C sensor, capability cannot be offered. Another format combination is something I can see happening - you need to have something that works size-wise as well as quality-wise. If you consider APS-C, you're never going to make a very compact lens. Maybe 1", 1/1.7" or some intermediate could exist in the future, I can't judge at this moment,' he says, and maintains there's some fight left in 1/2.3": 'the XZ-10 is still attractive - together with a nice lens and imaging chain it can offer a big difference from smartphones.'

Comments

Total comments: 242
12
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (7 months ago)

Strange thing is that Olympus doesn't have built in flash in most m4/3 models...I guess the sun is shining 24 hrs a day over Olympus HQ...

0 upvotes
comet suisei
By comet suisei (7 months ago)

strange, the Fujifilm X System has a APS sized sensor, but their lenses are very compact, much smaller than these from Canon, Nikon or Sony

0 upvotes
samwang
By samwang (Feb 10, 2013)

In order to keep the good image quality ,the ape-c size sensor is the lowest level in this moment .To Develop smaller lens is easer than improving the image quality by 4/3 system. Olympus an 4/3 system never will be the major.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Feb 8, 2013)

Maybe 1", 1/1.7" or some intermediate could exist in the future, I can't judge at this moment,'
Why not try a fixed lens (prime or zoom) based on your 4/3s sensor so you don't have to develop a new sensor? You got to produce one because plenty consumers don't buy another lens that came with the camera.

0 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Feb 4, 2013)

I was four months ago, sold my 5d II and never looked back.
APS-C (Pentax K-5) appeals to me more. . .
And now, in addition to my GH2 (HackVitaliy) for Film, I bought the awesome OM-D E-M5, because I already own this very good lenses.
MFT is at a very high level - almost on par with the top-DX Pro Pentax K-5 -
at this level it does not matter anymore to the camera, but the photographer

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
8 upvotes
kff
By kff (Feb 5, 2013)

however, K-5 IIs (with Ltd line of their lenses) seems be a cheaper alternative to Lecia in the size and in the image quality such as OM-D E-EM5, but they don't have new technologies by
smartphones/tablets/computers world as Nikon/Canon/Samsung/Sony.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
sportyaccordy
By sportyaccordy (Feb 4, 2013)

4/3 and Micro 4/3... man people love to be ripped off. APS-C prices for down to less than 1/2 the sensor area and no added portability. I will never understand it

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 4, 2013)

actually, APS-C SLRs are worse than 4/3" (in theory or potential) and some APS-C lenses are very expensive, too, compared with 35mm-format lenses.

the best place for APS-C SLRs and 4/3" is, IMHO, the toilet.

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 4, 2013)

It's not less than half the sensor area. It's about 60% of APS-C (68% of Canon APS-C). You could have made your point without spreading misinformation.

8 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 4, 2013)

judging from the output image quality, that we can easily see and compare, it's more like half size and maybe worse.

I expect both Oly and Pana abandon micro-4/3". may be NEX for Oly and a new APS-C mount for Pana.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 4, 2013)

Judging from the output of the latest generation m4/3 cameras (E-M5/E-PL5/E-PM2/GH3), they really aren't that far behind, and they're arguably on par with Canon APS-C.
As long as m4/3 doesn't lose market share dramatically, I don't think Oly or Pana will abandon the system. There are obviously lots of people who think the IQ is good enough for them.

4 upvotes
LJohnK2
By LJohnK2 (Feb 4, 2013)

yabokkie....what are talking about ...?

m4/3rds was/is not my cup of tea but output quality from m4/3rds is good...high ISO was bad... simple as that.
"APS-C SLRs are worse than 4/3rds" ...In what way would you say ?.

"a new APS-C mount for Pana".....whats the basis for this ?.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 4, 2013)

Pana chose 4/3" that Oly can switch over easily, not becasue it's any good. I know that many at Pana like small aperture lenses and it's not funny everyone make APS-C, but let's see.

0 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (Feb 4, 2013)

You see no added portability, despite the smaller focal lengths and smaller, shallower lens mount?

What is the equally portable APS-C equivalent of a lens selection like the Olympus 12-50, 40-150, and 75-300? (Small bodies for larger formats are easy enough; lenses are the main size constraint.)

Of course there is a trade-off : smaller kit size and weight vs better performance in high shutter-speed/low-light situations, but both alternatives make sense for different people with different priorities. And even for the same person when addressing different priorities at different times: many users of high end gear in 35mm or medium format also have an m43 kit as a lightweight option these days.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 4, 2013)

> You see no added portability,

you are right. the portability comes from one thing,

the small aperture.

0 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (Feb 4, 2013)

Indeed, the attraction of smaller formats, as with 35mm "compact" film format vs medium format, is largely through smaller, shorter, lighter lenses, of smaller effective aperture diameters. Even with MF film cameras, the extra bulk and weight came mostly from the longer focal lengths, with some of that extra length put into the bodies.

And for over a century, advances in resolution (lp/mm) and usable ISO speed have driven an overall trend toward smaller formats that can still match or exceed the low light ability of older technology in larger formats. Meanwhile, larger formats all the way up to 10“x8“ film persist for a smaller, higher level market sector where higher performance is important.

Why expect the mainstream of interchangeable lens cameras to reverse direction, towards larger, heavier kits, like Panasonic abandoning its investment in Four Thirds format lenses, sensors, etc., to start again, in direct competition against multiple well established“APS-C" lens systems?

2 upvotes
tjbates
By tjbates (Feb 4, 2013)

What about a circular sensor?
It appears that Olympus are having success with the OM-5 because of the way it looks. Doubt they'll dump the OM film camera look.

0 upvotes
sportyaccordy
By sportyaccordy (Feb 4, 2013)

It would be wasted when you cropped it to a rectangle

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 4, 2013)

4K and 8K TVs will be the standard appliance to view photos and they are 16:9. I personally don't like it but we have to face it.

1 upvote
E Dinkla
By E Dinkla (Feb 6, 2013)

From the sensor manufacturing to the implementation in the camera a change to a circular sensor would be more difficult than using a square sensor that is larger than the lens can cover. Waste is a relative thing, you either waste lens coverage on a fixed aspect ratio rectangular sensor or the other way around waste pixel area. Pixels are not that expensive anymore and in case of the 4/3 lenses used the size of the lenses remains the same.

0 upvotes
RoccoGalatioto
By RoccoGalatioto (Feb 4, 2013)

I can only say that the micro four thirds is really a fine format. At first, in view of the great excitement over FF etc, in reality all formats are FF, i thought that it didn't have a chance but my E PL-2 changed my mind fast.
As they improve, in focusing speed for example, they will be even better.

8 upvotes
Alex Hubenov
By Alex Hubenov (Feb 4, 2013)

All I want is a new 4/3 body !!!
I don't get this obsession with smaller camera bodies! Why would one sacrifice so many good things just for a smaller body? And who is it good for? Snappers and tourists? The 4/3 gear is still more compact than NiCanon DSLR's and the Oly lenses are unmatched!
Come on Olympus, give us a good new 4/3 body this year!!!

5 upvotes
RoccoGalatioto
By RoccoGalatioto (Feb 4, 2013)

I do not share this view that one must have huge cameras. It all depends on the type of photography one does, naturally, but this sort of condescencion about tourists and snapshooters is just that, condescencion. I am a retired public relations photographer and now I travel a lot for pleasure. I have totally given up on big cameras. i'm in agreement with you with notion that micro four thirds is really good. I have got shots with the EP L-2 with the kit zoom that are really nice. Presently I'm using the Panasonic LX-7 but it's IQ is not as good but it sort of gets the job done. Mt aim is to be as unobtrusive as possible and sort of not allow the camera to get in the way.
I have a blog galatiotophoto.blogspot.com that shows the difference and the high quality of the four thirds system.

7 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Feb 4, 2013)

Rocco, that's a very nice blog you've got there. Your photographs are quite impressive. Congrats.

1 upvote
sarkozy
By sarkozy (Feb 4, 2013)

why???
I think you do have one or more already good body with the E-Series -
why does her body always a new?
with the existing E-Body can shoot very well

1 upvote
attila_feher
By attila_feher (Feb 4, 2013)

I shifted from FT to MFT about two years ago. There are two reasons for this:
- I have sold my FT camera but kept a couple of lenses that I still use on the MFT (an EPL2)
- The MFT body and MFT lenses can be veeeery compact if you need a "carry around" camera, and the MFT lenses are no slouch (sure, they don't compare to TP lenses..)
The only downside of MFT bodies (especially the older ones) is focusing speed. My EPL2 has a great MF-assist feature: it enlages the centre of the image in the viewfinder when I turn the focus ring, but... yes.. a good autofocus cannot be replaced. However, the newest MFT cameras have made a big leap in this direction....

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 4, 2013)

Agree. I don't get the obsession with miniaturization of enthusiast cameras. For snap shots and travel, sure, nobody wants to carry large, expensive and heavy gear, but for serious photography why compromise ergonomics, usability and IQ, just for convenience/weight savings? Nothing worth doing is easy.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
AndyGM
By AndyGM (Feb 4, 2013)

Enthusiasts travel too, you know...

Nature photographers will go hiking into the wilds to get their shots.

There are plenty of examples of where "serious photography" and "weight saving" are not mutually exclusive.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
J2Gphoto
By J2Gphoto (Feb 4, 2013)

I sold my E-5 and felt I gave up nothing as far as IQ goes with the OMD. I did lose two of the finest lenses in the 50-200SWD and 12-60SWD But I feel what I gained makes up for it, and has more potential to make up for it with some of the lenses available that I do not own yet.

1 upvote
E Dinkla
By E Dinkla (Feb 4, 2013)

I would not mind if 4/3 goes 4/4, a square sensor based on the longest side of 4/3 (or a bit more) and the best sensor stabilisation Olympus offers, OM-D style. A raw format that would have all the sensor data included but some choices of aspect ratios on the camera for other output. No changes to the lenses, there will be severe vignetting on the corners of the square image but at least in RAW development one can select the best aspect ratio - composition within that lens covered disc.

Ernst Dinkla

2 upvotes
acidic
By acidic (Feb 4, 2013)

If 4/4 were based on the longest dimension of 4/3, you wouldn't be able to use 4/3 lenses due to the larger image circle required. Still, it would be pretty cool if compatible with 4/3 lenses, even if that meant dark corners. One could easily crop the final image to vertical and horizontals and squares pretty nicely, avoiding the dark corners. Personally, I like the multi-aspect ratio sensor of the GH2. It would be even better if raw could capture all of the pixels, even if it meant missing pixels in the corners.

0 upvotes
RoccoGalatioto
By RoccoGalatioto (Feb 4, 2013)

Talking about square format, how about a Rolley type square format camera so that one could focus on the focusing scree and only manually. That is really a dream. But i like to dream.
Seriously. the square format would be excellent. No need to flip the camera, this would be done after the shot. Perhaps some day this will occuss.

1 upvote
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Feb 4, 2013)

The vignetting problem shoudn't exist at all if the sensor was sized to fit within the lens FOV. The square format has all the advantages, possibly surpassed only by the round sensor image. All the usual formats can be cropped from it. If there was an internal masking option, the outside of the frame could be seen as maybe 50% darker. One could dial their own preferred format, and take (record) just the chosen part of the total image...
Now, if only people who make such decisions would be willing to give it a thought... Then we could perhaps hope to expect the "new, revolutionary" All Format Camera.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Feb 4, 2013)

I see that there would be slight vignetting, but with sensors built to the same pixel density, no part of the image would be lost. Cropping would be a pain, though.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Feb 4, 2013)

I'm not sure why everyone's so obsessed with square sensors, look at your camera's screen and think about what would happen if you turned "portrait mode" on with your square sensor, your preview would be absolutely tiny on the landscape screen! With the regular way of shooting portrait (turning the camera) you still get to use your entire screen/EVF area to compose.

1 upvote
Joesiv
By Joesiv (Feb 4, 2013)

OldArrow, if you shrink the square to fit without vinetting than any regular aspect ratio would actually be a much smaller crop than the current 4/3 size. Square is efficient, but the horizontal is actually narrower than 4:3, and 16:9 is even worse (you'd chop off even more of the top/bottom) leaving it much smaller.

The only way around this (and have a more square sensor), is to have it oversized, so that the horizontal (and vertical) are as big as you need it to be for 4:3/3:2/19:9, which inevitably would be the 16:9 version.

But it would be neat, shoot raw, get lots of vignetting, but you also have the choice to crop post shot either horizontal or vertical.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Feb 4, 2013)

Well, since this would be a new concept, of course it would have to be made so that no part of the sensor is shaded / vignetted. I'm not saying it has to be adapted to current cameras. After all, a 1:1 sensor would also require 1:1 monitor(s).
Sensors are getting better by the day (and not necessarily bigger for that), so I think it's feasible, even with the current set of lenses (i.e., no need for larger lens output FOV).
@Joeslv... if you cropped 1:1 to, say, 4:3, your monitor would show just 1:4 less of the image (1:1=4:4), or 1/8 from each side. But every format would have that maximum longer side being equal in both landscape and portrait aspect. If you "dialled" a 4:3 portrait mask, it would be the same size as a 4:3 landscape.
Mind, there would always be a possibility to shoot full-surface 1:1 and crop later, from that single shot, to any format imaginable.
People shooting 120 roll film formats (6x6) almost always had to crop for publishing, but that's no problem at all.

0 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (Feb 4, 2013)

OldArrow,
Square format is the opposite of a new idea: it is an old idea that has been gradually been abandoned ever since innovations like eye level prism viewfinders made it easy enough to rotate the camera for verticals, and thus make more efficient use of the film or sensor by reducing the amount of cropping needed for most images.

Why do people get so excited about ideas that are old, well-known, and have been tried and then abandoned by most camera makers and photographers?

0 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 5, 2013)

Square format is very bad for making films.

0 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (10 months ago)

The new way of making landscape/portrait might be...
to shoot perpendicular or diagonal?
Box or diamond?
;-)

1 upvote
thx1138
By thx1138 (Feb 4, 2013)

Sorry Mt Terada, there is NO life left in the antediluvian 1/2.33" sensor. It's way past it's used by date, so let's stop propping it up. 1/1.7" should be the new 1/2.33" and 1" should be the new 1/1.7".

2 upvotes
Slanicka Tomas
By Slanicka Tomas (Feb 4, 2013)

I think that the problem is not the size of sensor but the number of pixes.

1 upvote
RoccoGalatioto
By RoccoGalatioto (Feb 4, 2013)

After noting what people get with their iphones. one must wonder if big cameras will only be needed for specialized work only and ttally not needed unless for showing off. I have made this point many times over in my blog.

2 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Feb 4, 2013)

Rocco,

I have to agree with you. I think that many people who post on dprreview don't print, or print very little. The prints I get out of my Canon SX230HS (1/2.33) are excellent up to 8x10. The small sensor gives me long reach and something that fits in my pocket.

m43 prints are better, but not much, especially at the sizes I print at. I'm keeping my GH2, though. I like the lenses I use.

FF prints are probably better still, slightly, but do they carry around the equivalent lens lengths that I do? In the real world, I suspect I can sometimes make better prints with a 1/2.33 sensor than FF could make, because I am better able to frame the picture

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Feb 4, 2013)

Except you need a bigger lens to go from a 1/2.33" to 1/1.7" image circle, especially for superzooms.

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 4, 2013)

"there is NO life left in the antediluvian 1/2.33" sensor."

Tell that to Sony and the other companies that manufacture those sensors, presumably because they think there's still a market for them.

0 upvotes
rialcnis
By rialcnis (Feb 4, 2013)

They should update the 4/3 lenses for m4/3 to native m4/3 with just a innovative adapter. Keep the small body size. Then all m4/3 users will buy the adaptor and start using (buying) the 4/3 lenses too.

3 upvotes
Alejandro del Pielago
By Alejandro del Pielago (Feb 4, 2013)

Yes. That beautiful 12-60mm should work perfectly in the OM-D.

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Feb 4, 2013)

They only reason 4/3rds lenses don't work well is the focus motor isn't optimised for CDAF, which can't be fixed with an adapter unless it's an SLT type. PDAF pixels will probably appear on m4/3 sensors in the next couple of years tho...

1 upvote
nasuryono
By nasuryono (Feb 3, 2013)

Olympus can just shut down their 4/3 DSLR department and keep focusing on the Micro 4/3. Why waste money on developing something that the market will not buy?

0 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (Feb 4, 2013)

No.

0 upvotes
peterbee
By peterbee (Feb 4, 2013)

I and many others who have all the best oly hg and shg lenses will
continue to buy 4/3 dslr even though they may be larger and
heavier as long as low light iq and af speed keep up with the
competition. So many exquisite Zuiko af lenses , zoom or not,
completely unmatched--the cameras need to catch up.

2 upvotes
Alex Hubenov
By Alex Hubenov (Feb 4, 2013)

peterbee, I can't agree more with you. All I want is Olympus to come up with a good new 4/3 body! I love all my 4/3 lenses and I don't care about the smaller body sizes, which , I think, only benefit tourists. The 4/3 gear is still more compact than NiCanon DSLR's and the Oly lenses are unmatched! Come on Olympus, give us a new body this year!!!

2 upvotes
ChrisWal
By ChrisWal (Feb 5, 2013)

I agree peterbee! However, are there enough of us around to make it financially viable for Olympus to carry on producing "good 4/3" bodies?? I am concerned that there are not! :-(

My E5 will suffice for me for several years to come (I hope), but what then?

0 upvotes
rialcnis
By rialcnis (Feb 3, 2013)

Mr. Terada,

You forgot to tell us about the new, upcoming, FIRMWARE update for the OM-D, that will unlock 50-72 mbps bitrate, and 24p and 60p. For video.

I might have to switch to Panasonic, if the OM-D doesn't get a video update right away.

Thank You

3 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (Feb 4, 2013)

It's not smart to listen to customers.

1 upvote
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Feb 3, 2013)

The sheer amount of various formats makes one think about why. What really dictates the image formats today? Cinema? Can't be. TV? Which among all the various sizes? Books? Newspapers? Surely not. Almost every paper-reproduced image has to be adapted to any of these formats.
So why don't they all agree that the best photo imaging format would be square? It exploits the lens FOV in the best possible way. It gets rid of side-up camera holding. It produces images easily cropped to all ratios or purposes. It allows internal masking to facilitate framing for every photographer's need...
No go. We get to buy whatever the analog era left behind, as if it's some stone-hewn universal law.
Ditto, mechanical mirrors in digital cameras - obsolete from the first digital camera onward. Ditto, camera shapes; although there is no more film to stretch between the casette and the take-up roll. Ditto, God forbid, an universal lens mount.
Funny, but the whole thing is supposed to cater to camera users...

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
Craig from Nevada
By Craig from Nevada (Feb 3, 2013)

See economic theories of imperfect competition

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 3, 2013)

A square is not an efficient use of sensor or image space unless you plan on keeping every image as a square. If you want your final image to be a rectangle, then it makes sense to start with a rectangle format to begin with. It's really not that complicated.

4 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 3, 2013)

Actually it should be the golden ratio not the square.

0 upvotes
Mal_In_Oz
By Mal_In_Oz (Feb 3, 2013)

@ T3, some of us live in the real world and can benefit from the musings OldArrow has to offer. personally I would like the option of any crop from an image, or a large 1:1 image from my tiny m43 camera.

0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Feb 3, 2013)

Whether you have a square or rectangle you have the ability to crop and use what you like at very high quality these days.

2 upvotes
boggis the cat
By boggis the cat (Feb 3, 2013)

I have long maintained that they should adopt an oversize square (1:1 aspect ratio) sensor, then allow the user to select the crop. Provided the sensor adequately covers the projected image circle, you could offer everything from e.g. 3:1 through to 1:1 to the photographer (in either landscape or portrait orientation). EVFs would facilitate this.

The 'unused' areas of the sensor could be re-purposed or simply ignored.

Also, if you store the entire sensor data in raw format you could offer the photographer the option to re-frame later -- or even produce an 'oversize' image using the normally unused sensor area.

There are many interesting possibilities. Due to the conservative instincts of the industry I would expect a cellphone maker to try this first, unfortunately.

0 upvotes
spencerberus
By spencerberus (Feb 3, 2013)

Our visual field is rectangular, that's why its better than a square. Any square that fills our visual field horizontally will exceed our visual field vertically. If you start with the square and always have to crop, then you end up using less of the lens than if you start with the rectangle.

If we're going for maximum use of area covered by the lens, then the 'best format' would be a circle. Why not advocate for a circular format?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Feb 4, 2013)

@spencerberus... Our visual field is oval, and the best right-angled cutout from that is rectangular - the reason for most usual forms of cinematic and TV presentations.
But other formats, based on technologies over time, came into everyday use (newspapers, books, signs), that's why we need the vertically oriented formats too.
The square (1:1) RECORDING format offers the largest possible image dimension in all aspects to crop from.
You're right, and I have mentioned the circular format elsewhere here, but this is more like SF for traditional minds, while 1:1 existed from the first photo ever made. We are not used to round images, but we can accept square format and all the rectangular versions easily. My guess is, people would accept it, and it would efficiently put an end to a raather useless bickering over advantages of 2:3, 3:4 etc., as it would contain all of those, and more.

1 upvote
boggis the cat
By boggis the cat (Feb 4, 2013)

A circular sensor is not feasible due to how they are fabricated -- sensors must be rectangular -- and the electronics involved -- sensors are read in such a manner that a circular array of pixels would be problematic.

The best compromise is to use a square sensor that covers as much of the image circle as possible -- the more coverage you get, the wider (horizontal) or narrower (vertical) the aspect ratio possibilities become. Panasonic have variable aspect ratio cameras that use this idea in a "horizontal" form only: but have not continued this in the GH3.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Feb 4, 2013)

Square image sensors have the disadvantage of 1. wasting a lot of pixels in the corners that aren't covered by the image circle (or if it is wasting the extra sides of the image circle) and 2. not fitting with the shape of cameras with their nice big landscape screens. I mean just imagine trying to compose a portrait shot on a landscape screen, your preview would be tiny!

0 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (Feb 4, 2013)

Square sensors would be a great waste of resources on sensors and in the preview screen and viewfinder ... and so would be "Golden Ratio" sensors of about 8:5 shape.

I am not sure why this myth of the Golden Ratio as the ideal shape for paintings, drawings or photographs persists despite the massive evidence to the contrary in the shapes actually chosen by artists quite consistently over the centuries. The most common choice of artists are about 4:3 and 7:5, and the vast majority of "still rectangular artworks" are in the range from 5:4 to 3:2. (Movies are a different issue; panoramic landscapes are an outlier, not the norm.)

The Golden Ratio is perhaps a nice shape for abstract forms like in architecture, but not when the actual subject matter of an image dictates the framing.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
boggis the cat
By boggis the cat (Feb 4, 2013)

The advantages offered by a square sensor outweigh unused pixels, in my view.

It also makes little difference what shape the rear display is if we are talking about using an EVF. The EVF would also be square, and could be set to put shooting information in the non live image areas. (The rear display will be 'the wrong shape' for many shots, regardless of what aspect ratio is chosen.)

If the raw data captured the entire sensor area then you also have the option of changing your mind about the chosen aspect ratio during processing, and could do things such as shift the used portion of the image around. For example, if you have a 1:1 aspect ratio portrait shot that doesn't look quite right, 'unlock' the crop in the raw and re-compose it.

0 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (10 months ago)

Yes!
a square sensor and instead of 21:9 or 16:9 we should have both pictures and videos as stereoscopic 18:9 OR - if you insist - say...HDR 18:9.
HOW? WHY?
Well, 18:9 is 2:1, which means that the upper half of the sensor and lower half on the square sensor would then form the wide picture either bringing a stereoscopic 4K video in 4096*2048 pixels or ~8 Mpix (8.4M) photo with HDR. If you need Nikon style D800 that would be 8192x4096 or about 32 Mpix (binary) or rather 33½ Mpix
What do you think folks?
(I know: 1080 movies are going to be clipped to 1024)

1 upvote
rurikw
By rurikw (Feb 3, 2013)

Seems to me that m43 might be the best strategy adopted so far in the business. I am probably buying into it one of these years. Three wishes: 1. dump that stupid faux slr retro design, both oly and pana! 2. Issue m43 versions of zuiko 12-60mm and other +++ glass. 3. Fully articulated screen on omd successor (along with new design) and most other models both oly and pana.

0 upvotes
eozdural
By eozdural (Feb 3, 2013)

just go buy something and stop hoping to find the perfect product on the market

10 upvotes
speculatrix
By speculatrix (Feb 3, 2013)

He's right.
If your interested, and there's one which suits you, get it.
Each time I've bought a digital camera I've done so when a model comes along which satisfies a checklist of requirements. I write a list in descending order of must have priority and the cut of is "might be useful one day".
For me the Lumix G5 was that camera back in October 2012.

2 upvotes
rurikw
By rurikw (Feb 3, 2013)

Eozdural you are perfectly right but while I don't have the money yet I enjoy singing along with the whining choir. It's free;-)

1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Feb 3, 2013)

Something like my GH2 (or GH3 now, haven't tried it) might be what you're looking for. The "faux slr retro design" is what made me buy the camera. You'll notice that the "compact style" or "rangefinder style" cameras don't have included viewfinders. If Olympus had offered something with a built-in viewfinder when I bought, I would have went with Oly, because the jpegs are better, and I don't need the GH2's excellent video.

0 upvotes
rurikw
By rurikw (Feb 3, 2013)

Right khunter my number 1 alternative right now is the gh2 despite the reactionary design in a progressive camera. I will just have to look more at what is in front of the camera than at the camera itself, rather recommendable anyhow. Oldarrow above pretty well sums up my thinking about camera design. However, the market economy just doesn't work that way. Actually I think more about the lenses, which to me, constitute the main part of the system. There are some "able bodies" to put behind them and I might even live long enough to buy another one if something interesting turns up. Or maybe I will just go on living happily with my Sony R1 and iPhone. I do have some trouble justifying the 1500 + euros it will cost to replace it with similar range+quality system let alone extending it.

0 upvotes
rurikw
By rurikw (Feb 3, 2013)

Right bobbarber my number 1 alternative right now is the gh2 despite the reactionary design in a progressive camera. I will just have to look more at what is in front of the camera than at the camera itself, rather recommendable anyhow. Oldarrow above pretty well sums up my thinking about camera design. However, the market economy just doesn't work that way. Actually I think more about the lenses, which to me, constitute the main part of the system. There are some "able bodies" to put behind them and I might even live long enough to buy another one if something interesting turns up. Or maybe I will just go on living happily with my Sony R1 and iPhone. I do have some trouble justifying the 1500 + euros it will cost to replace it with similar range+quality system let alone extending it.

0 upvotes
CCH dp
By CCH dp (Feb 3, 2013)

1 more point...
IF all people say.. Consumer pay the price for the quality...

Have u ever imagine/wondering about...

Why there is so Huge different in price during Early of the year and End of the same year?

*Especially u can obviously see in what happening of the price of compact cameras market...

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Feb 3, 2013)

Their perception of where the battle is right now, being:
"it can offer a big difference from smartphones"
pretty much explains the recent 1/2.3" xz10 introduction (and Fuji's small sensor mega zooms as well).

Perhaps listening to what users want would better help compete, expand market share... and the smartphone wouldn't even be an issue.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Feb 3, 2013)

Your perception of where the "battle" is right now is wrong. We are freaks on this forum. Most people use smartphones for pictures. Cameras like the ones we buy are uncommon.

5 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 3, 2013)

@bobbarber
And for music, most people listen to Justin Bieber or Katy Perry, that doesn't mean that real musicians are wasting their time. This is a site for photographers, not snap-shooters. What the majority of regular people use for photos is only relavent from a business perspective.

Proper cameras are not uncommon, what's uncommon is the thought that snapping a pic with a phone is photography and that a smartphone is a camera.

4 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Feb 3, 2013)

@marike6

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the Olympus camera's take on the future of the camera industry was directed at the users of dpreview. I need to get my head out of the sand and realize that it's about me, me, me, I mean us, us, us!

1 upvote
AndyGM
By AndyGM (Feb 4, 2013)

@marike6 regarding compacts, Mr Terada was giving a business reply - "we are focusing on 3 sub markets, and here is the business reason why".

"The thought that snapping a pic with a phone is photography" may be uncommon to the readership of DPR, but it is VERY common to the public at large. The readership of DPR alone cannot keep any of the camera makers in business.

1 upvote
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (10 months ago)

:-)
Is there a way to delete messages later on...

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
alatchin
By alatchin (Feb 3, 2013)

Great news. Olympus makes excellent cameras and lenses, I look forward to seeing what they produce this year for their stunning 43rds lenses :)

0 upvotes
CCH dp
By CCH dp (Feb 3, 2013)

With all the high technology we have nowadays..
It's not about the manufacturer able to produce it or not..,
Just.. depending on them..whether they want that Quality on the market or not..

Good for make money.. Bad for Us (as consumer)...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Feb 3, 2013)

Actually...good for consumer as they get what they have been asking for at a price they are willing to pay. If you are unwilling to pay it means the product was not good enough.

2 upvotes
CCH dp
By CCH dp (Feb 3, 2013)

IF it's truely Fullfil...AND Great..I will 100% willing to pay..
around...$500 - $600

If it's truely Good!!

*And I won't buy any smartphone to photograph anymore!

0 upvotes
CCH dp
By CCH dp (Feb 3, 2013)

I think they (camera manufacturer) able to produce High quality pro enthusiast compact camera..
With better lenses quality, sensor and size.. 1", 1/1.7"

Anything just depending on THEM. [the manufacturer will, and their "marketing plan"..... in my opinion..

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Feb 3, 2013)

Question:

How difficult would it be to make 4/3 lenses work on a mirrorless body? What are the hurdles exactly? Do other manufacturers have the technology patented?

I have 4/3 lenses, but I am not wedded to the idea of a mirror like other users. Don't get me wrong, I like mirrors, but the EVFs are better for many things (although never as pleasant to use). Anyway, I'd like fast autofocus back, that's all. I'd settle for an OM-D type camera with phase detect autofocus implemented in some way.

0 upvotes
eozdural
By eozdural (Feb 3, 2013)

one of the first converters that came out when the m4/3's first came out was the 4/3 to m4/3. I am sure you can find one if you look for it.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Feb 3, 2013)

That wasn't my question. I've owned a converter for years. Everyone on this thread who owns 4/3 DSLR lenses wants native support on a 4/3 camera. The problem is that 4/3 lenses use PDAF and m43 cameras use CDAF, which means that the autofocus is lowed down considerably using the adapter. Other manufacturers have managed to put PDAF in mirrorless. My question was along the lines of whether or not Olympus can do that too, are they blocked by patents, etc. Thanks for your help.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 3, 2013)

I agree with bob. It seems crazy to have all those nice 4/3 lenses going to waste. Nikon 1 is a young system, but one thing Nikon did was they made certain that they offered a solid adapter with full AF for F mount lenses. And it's not uncommon to see a Nikon shooter with a small 1 series camera because of this. And part of the reason why is compatibility.

2 upvotes
photobeans
By photobeans (Feb 2, 2013)

Been a Nikon DSLR user for 6 years with 2 bodies. Switched to m43 and not looking back. For the majority of us who do casual photography, m43 can't be beat with small bodies and small lenses. Never enjoyed photography more than I have with m43.

12 upvotes
speculatrix
By speculatrix (Feb 3, 2013)

I can carry my Lumix g5 with pz 14-42 lens around all day and never feel burdened by weight or bulk. It's lighter than the Canon powershot it replaced.

The best camera is the one you have with you.

2 upvotes
108
By 108 (Feb 2, 2013)

Nothing really clear about the 4/3 future. First Olympus should keep their recipe for colour treatment. That's why I keep that E520 body with all its sluggish AF issues and general image softness : WB and colours I see no equivalent anywhere. E620 image treatment is not as good. Epl-2 is more "digital" like and no viewfinder except that horrid EVF you keep losing if you don't watch it. I checked the OM-D but I found it too small . Ergonomics are a major issue for me and this OM-D body is not comfortable at all, bad handling, sharp angles, a hard feeling. I don't like this all M4/3 line : too small and yet too big to offer the convenience of pocketable compacts like the ZX1 or Canon S95. I want something with the supposed quality of the OM-D in a body the size of a E510/520, and use my superb 4/3 Zuiko lenses , should have also an excellent optical viewfinder and good manual controls. Comfort, Mr Terada, comfort. If Pentax and Nikon can do it, why not Olympus ?

1 upvote
Lucas McDonald
By Lucas McDonald (Feb 3, 2013)

I found the OMD size at little weird at first but after adding the battery grip it is now just about perfect for me.

2 upvotes
Nokaoi
By Nokaoi (Feb 3, 2013)

I got the JB Designs Grip Base and it made a big difference. I was getting cramped fingers without the grip.

But, if Olympus had made the grip part of the HLD-6 available separately, I might have bought it instead.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
SirSeth
By SirSeth (Feb 2, 2013)

Mr. Terada,

I understand that you can't divulge company secrets, but it's always good to hear that Olympus is working on something to be announced soon. Are you really going to support your 4/3rds lens owners? My vote is for a slightly larger OM-D with improved speed and ergonomics that works seamlessly with both micro lenses and 4/3rds zooms. I'd like a grip with high capacity battery (maybe BLM-1s) and dual SD slots. 1/8000. 5-axis IS. Yes please!

Can't wait. Please keep the messages coming, even if they are vague. May good things come to those who waited!

2 upvotes
OniMirage
By OniMirage (Feb 2, 2013)

So all but confirms no E7 or 4/3 body. They are targeting the E-XXX users with a new product to be able to use SHG and HG lenses. On sensor PDAF or hybrid with a m4/3 mount on a larger than EM5 body.

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Feb 2, 2013)

"Because we have to provide a product for users with SHG and HG lenses. And there are people using E400, 500 and 600-series DSLRs, we have to provide products for them to keep enjoying their photography."

That is talking about two different groups of people not one. SHG and HG lens users and people using E400, 500 and 600-series DSLRs. It's that 'And' that is important.

2 upvotes
AndyGM
By AndyGM (Feb 4, 2013)

@Stu 5
This suggests there is going to be an E-M5 successor, with PDAF, for E400/500/600 users, and a higher (and probably larger) model for those hoping for a E7. So a E-M6 and E-M60?

0 upvotes
Rambazamba
By Rambazamba (Feb 2, 2013)

I converted 2010 from E420 to a Nikon D90. Although the Nikon is much better in IQ and DR, the e420 was more fun to operate and had better color rendering (blues and greens). If a E7 would be in cool retro design I might come back.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
cashewNut
By cashewNut (Feb 2, 2013)

I assemble my own computer and most of the parts are made from Taiwan, Indonesia, Singapore, and Philippines etc. My Samsung plasma tvs are made in Mexico. I try my best to avoid made in China products. You have no idea how many floor standing electric fans that still look new but don't work at all that we have in the basement. I installed a made in China Haier air-conditioner and the same story. No more for me. Enough bad experience with made in China products. Olympus Om-D is not cheap. I get more value with Nikon D7000. Just my opinion.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 2, 2013)

And I had a window AC unit (GE branded) that worked for years even though it was made in China. It still works just without the punch.

I believe the Nikon P7700 is made in China.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
cashewNut
By cashewNut (Feb 2, 2013)

Nikon D7000 is made in Thailand. That is problem with Haeir AC I installed. 12,000 BTU and does not cool the room so you turn it up so high and the noise goes up too. You are awake and cannot watch your tv because of the noise. The other thing that I did not want to mention because it is not related to photography is my dog
died of kidney failure because of dog snacks made in China.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 2, 2013)

cashewNut:

check my edit to P7700.

Sorry about your dog, but much of what is made in China is fine, particularly industrial things not food stuffs.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
ChrishsChan
By ChrishsChan (Feb 2, 2013)

Same as I hate those made in US cars too, I had very bad experience with US cars , when I drove it did not move, no re-sale value, not reliable. I have a Haier frig. it runs for over 7 years without any problem until now. You guys were poisoned by the propaganda. All you frig at home were made in China, only the brand is not, check the back of the frig or air-conditioning.

2 upvotes
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (Feb 3, 2013)

I got rid of the US made washing machine because it was rusting & falling apart in its drive mechanism & it was supposed to so well made & rugged (ha!), but I like several things that were made in China (but not all). There are some great violin makers there that turn some great instruments (as well as others that turn out cheap crap).

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (10 months ago)

Your phone is made in China (or Korea)

1 upvote
cashewNut
By cashewNut (Feb 2, 2013)

As long as it is made in China, then I am not a part of this vision even if i am alone on this. I am going back to Nikon D7000.

3 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (Feb 2, 2013)

So no parts of your computer are made in China? Or say your TV, virtually anything electronic in your house?

11 upvotes
cfh25
By cfh25 (Feb 2, 2013)

So you prefer Thailand to China?

0 upvotes
cashewNut
By cashewNut (Feb 2, 2013)

I don't mind Thailand. Don't buy tires made from China. Lots of death reported because of the quality of the product.

0 upvotes
daqk
By daqk (Feb 2, 2013)

It does not matter in China or Thailand ..., we pay enough or too much for iPhones made in China. My A65 made in Japan had more hardware glitches than A33 made in Thailand or what so ever, and neither of them are as good as my Olympus DSLR made in China ... Did you just pay half price to what you would pay for a made in USA air condition?
Beside material, it is the engineering design quality ... then the manuafacturing workmanship... Asians making pretty much everything these days since we are not "cheap" enough :-( What you might need avoid is "Design by China. Thailan ...", although they are getting better.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ChrishsChan
By ChrishsChan (Feb 3, 2013)

You re those creating hatred amoung races. Don't go Walmart, Target etc, no iphone, ipad etc. You don' know anything about WWII.

0 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (10 months ago)

@ ChrissChan
hate? races?
the only one talking about people was you!
we were talking about equipment...
OH NO!
My camera is a "paleface" or "honky"...can the outer shell be changed to a beautiful (and more professional looking) black?
AND
Nokia Lumia phones comes in colors white, black, red, yellow or are they actually Caucasian, African, Native American, Oriental

1 upvote
whoodle
By whoodle (Feb 2, 2013)

Wow, was this translated, or does he speak English? I ask because I don't know who to doff my cap to for the elegant, creative parsing & word usage..might I say "slight of tongue"?

I mean, just look how many people here now think that a new 4/3SLR body is now back on the table!

In reality, a close reading seems to confirm the earlier suggestions that the body he's talking about is a mirrorless 'hybrid' that's mostly designed for m4/3, but will finally work well with legacy 4/3 lenses.

Read his lips: "No new 4/3 SLR"

1 upvote
CollBaxter
By CollBaxter (Feb 3, 2013)

As to the lip reading is this a wish or a hope. No one knows what Olympus will release we will have to wait and see. The words humble pie come to mind.

0 upvotes
FranKois
By FranKois (Feb 2, 2013)

APS-C has been developped because FF cameras where to expensive for consumers market.
But even APS-C cameras are still very heavy and big. 4/3 or m4/3 cameras offered reduced size and weight and in addition the possibility to purchase cheap long-focus lenses because of crop facror.
But at the end of the day, even with fast lenses, DOF with 4/3 lenses is always to much and it is impossible to get a nice bokeh.
I regret my OM1, OM2 and all 24x46 zuiko lenses.
The day you will put on the market a FF camera of same quality and compactness of OM film series and zuiko lenses, I will immediatly resale my Canon D6 for the new OM, no doubt!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 2, 2013)

Get a Leica M9. That body is about the same size as an OM1, 2 3 or 4.

Clearly you're perfectly comfortable with focusing manually and the optical quality be good--better than the good Zuiko lenses for the OM system.

1 upvote
FranKois
By FranKois (Feb 2, 2013)

Sure, it's an evidence, but I am not rich enough...

2 upvotes
whoodle
By whoodle (Feb 2, 2013)

What are you talking about?

A slew of hyper-fast primes (.95-1.2) are out & on the way at pretty affordable prices. It's clearly much easier to produce fast glass in this smaller form-factor, thus mitigating the so-called 'disadvantage' of m43.

And all this bokeh talk is clearly just posturing & format-defense. I mean, portraits comprise probby 75% of the shots where people want shallow DOF. Do you really think more than 5% of DSLR users have portrait lenses faster than f2.0...or even f2.8?? I'd peg it at 2%...most of which are professionals for whom larger formats make more sense for many other reasons.

And those f1.8-.2.8 DSLR portrait lenses are more $$ than the f0.95-f1.4 m43 equivalents...so what's your beef?

The only legitimate gripe is w/zooms, where m43 cannot match the DOF of a fixed f2.8 35-70, on a FF DSLR. (and I don't see an f1.4 12-35 for m43 coming too soon). But are the bokeh-purists using f2.8 zooms? Again, maybe a tiny fraction, at most

4 upvotes
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Feb 2, 2013)

How about the NEX? They have the same size and weight.

2 upvotes
audiobomber
By audiobomber (Feb 2, 2013)

The biggest problem with 4/3 DSLR's is that they did not provide a size advantage despite a smaller sensor than APS-C. The smallest DSLR ever was the E420, but it was only fractionally smaller than a Pentax K-x, the second smallest DSLR. The E620 is only slightly smaller than a K-30. The E5 is gargantuan compared to the K-5. Yet in each case the APS-C performance is significantly better.

0 upvotes
Kim Letkeman
By Kim Letkeman (Feb 2, 2013)

"But at the end of the day, even with fast lenses, DOF with 4/3 lenses is always to much and it is impossible to get a nice bokeh."

a) It is impossible to get *the same bokeh as FF sensors* with the same EFL and aperture. That much is true.

b) It is impossible to get creamy bokeh at short FLs, that much is true.

But ... it is not impossible at all to get "nice" bokeh. You just have to get the right combination of subject to background ratio, aperture, EFL, and camera position ... it is a myth that this is "impossible." Of course, perhaps it is for you, who can say.

1 upvote
Kim Letkeman
By Kim Letkeman (Feb 2, 2013)

@audiobomber: "The biggest problem with 4/3 DSLR's is that they did not provide a size advantage despite a smaller sensor than APS-C."

That was the reason for the creation of the m4/3 standard and mirrorless cameras. The G3 and G5, for example, are very small dslr-like cameras without the mirror. Having just dumped my D7000 for the G5, I can tell you unequivocally that these cameras are close enough to a match in capability for most people (action shooters probably need to look elsewhere) and that they are a great deal smaller and lighter. I don't think it makes sense to complain about an obsolete and supplanted system, when the end game is out there and slowing eating APS-C's lunch.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
audiobomber
By audiobomber (Feb 2, 2013)

The rumours of APS-C's demise are nonsense. DSLR's outsell MILC 10:1, and the grand majority of DSLR's sold are APS-C.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Feb 2, 2013)

Thank you, FranKois. You've just taught me this picture is impossible:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/manuelvilardemacedo/6902274507/in/set-72157629383979281/lightbox/
Now I need to tell my E-P1 and my OM 50mm-f/1.4 that they'll have to go because the depth of field they provide is not shallow enough.

0 upvotes
FranKois
By FranKois (Feb 3, 2013)

Gentlemen, I agree, "impossible to get a nice bokeh" is not the right wording, I should better say, it is not so easy...
As a personal experience, I noticed that using a FF with 24-105 f/4, I had not problem of visible nasty details behind the faces and at the opposite, I very frequently had the problem using any compact ixus or G3.
You may reply, that it is because I am not well trained or of course compacts have very small sensors... OK
But it is what happen to many people and even specialists.
If you have a glance to picture P4210009 made by DP for the review of OMDM5 fitted with ZD45-1,8, you will see a portrait of a bold guy who left ear can be confused with the ear of a person behind him.
Therefore, my conclusion is that in everyday shooting life, if I use FF, I stick to my past expereince of Ag 24x36. At the opposite with smaller sensors, I have always nasty details behind my subject to be cancelled.
Of course, if you are not disturbed to get 3 ears on a portrait ...

0 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (10 months ago)

@ audiobomber & Al
no, not the size of the camera - you need a good grip
but the size of the lenses!
Duh!
Who wants to lug around expensive and heavy huge tubes while the advances in technology give you a superb smaller "film" with enough light gathering properties to allow the same quality as old full frames.

1 upvote
Pierre Daigneault
By Pierre Daigneault (Feb 2, 2013)

Interview could have been with a politician. Covered almost all his bases....1/2.33, Phones, FF, APS-C etc.....
The truth is that most formats will now give acceptable quality for 8x10 prints, but many never print these days. My boss just bought a FF Nikon but only ever looks at his images on the screen. The key now is versatility, size, usability etc.
Oly is doing very in M4/3.....

0 upvotes
TrapperJohn
By TrapperJohn (Feb 2, 2013)

Keep that ZD glass viable, please. It's the reason I bought an OMD - to get a state of the art sensor behind those excellent zooms. Except for the somewhat sluggish AF, the combination is terrific. With the grip installed, it even handles decently. The EVF? not an issue. It's a bit different, but it is not an impediment to good composition, and it has a few very handy features that OVF's don't have.

The bonus is, take off the adapter and grip, put on a tiny and high quality M43 prime like the 45 1.8 or 75 1.8, and it turns into an ultra portable system that still rivals the better DSLR's in quality and capability. The same IQ, at a fraction of the weight and bulk.

Fix the slow ZD AF, add 1/8000 shutter speed, maybe make the grip a bit larger with a few extra buttons, but keep the OMD form factor, and you have a dual purpose system that competes with both the micro mirrorless and the APS DSLR's. Smaller and capable with fast ZD zooms, tiny and capable with fast MZD primes.

2 upvotes
Ed Gill
By Ed Gill (Feb 2, 2013)

Dear Mr. Terada,

There are a number of improvements and perhaps inovations needed in the MFT camera systems that would cause a consumer like myself to abandon APS-C for MFT.
Please consider long lens users also. We need the 250 - 400 mm range covered by f4 lenses. (500 - 800 mm FOV)
Please address the macro/micro field. Olympus has a wonderful history supporting photograpers for macro (1 to 3x), but MFT is lacking lenses. The spectacular 90mm f2 Olympus macro lens made for MFT would be very welcome, even if manual focus, but with full electronics (aperature+AF confirm). A product to seriously consider would be 75 -150 f2.8 macro zoom. (150-300mm FOV) No market competition for such a lens.
Please provide ability to use batteries simultaneously in grips for heavy lens group focus and cold weather (same voltage more amps).
Please consider Pen/PL/PM viewfinder mount on side (RF style), not top, so I can use flash and VF togehter plus more comfortable holding.

Respectfully.

EJG

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 2, 2013)

Except this is about the four thirds system for which Olympus has many very good lenses; it's the Olympus DSLR system, don't confuse it with the m4/3rds system. That the new camera may not have a mirror is really the only questonl.

0 upvotes
Ed Gill
By Ed Gill (Feb 2, 2013)

I may be confused - often am but if so, why is he 'discussing the role of the OM-D"? And the first title was: "Progress of Mirrorless in the USA". The mirror box 4/3 may have another generation left (everyone has dropped it except Olympus). The advent of Phase detection on sensor and rapid refresh EVFs should pretty much kill the need for more mirror box (read large) cameras with small sensors. Olympus needs to re-issue their fine 4/3 lenses as MFT and lead the pack - just IMHO. Competition can be fierce and Panasonic is pushing hard - just see their latest offerings.

0 upvotes
Opinionator
By Opinionator (Feb 2, 2013)

None of the options are really serious for the long haul. They'll compromise the FF until the degree of distinction between a camera phone and a CSC or MILC is negligible. The manufacturers are facing reality but their tone is an admission of a difficult task to turn the market share back in their favor. There may be if not already evident a break up in the market. Sensor makers will be like computer chip makers. Bodies like boards. I'm sure WiFi and GPS are not being reinvented. It will streamline to profitability in order to maintain viability or they'll be bought up by the phone manufacturers. Eventually they'll hit a wall of consumers who would prefer a single gadget and the cameras will be down to FF or phone. But I agree optics will be the next challenge followed by improved software. Today there's no distinction except a button on top or the size of the screen. No one is original.

0 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Feb 2, 2013)

Some seeds of truth are in there.

m43 (or mirrorless in general) is the new "APS-C", the next mainstream thing.

Front line has moved to enthusiast compact, exemplified by the RX100. I'm hopeful that this year we would see more of the cameras to compete against it. And probably I would finally dump my interchangeable lens camera for good.

Otherwise, let me repeat what I have said 2+ years ago: Oly, talk is cheap, show us the cameras!

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Feb 2, 2013)

I'm currently a Fuji user, but I still think M43 has a bright future.

0 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (Feb 2, 2013)

OMD was a winner. I am looking forward to what comes next. Every product can be improved. It may not matter to those on the forum but to the general masses a small light duty popup flash is important.

I hope the compact market continues. I do think the key is to offer image quality above and beyond iPhones etc. This is what I want but I don't see it happening.

0 upvotes
schaki
By schaki (Feb 2, 2013)

Problem is that there is probably not many users left which still actively uses their E-4x0, 5x0. May be different for 600-users and diehard E-1, E-3 and E-5 users.
Many have may have made the switch to other dslrs which offered better high iso and Dr and maybe even switched to Olympus m4/3 or some other mirrorless system. The future in general for Dslrs aint looking very bright with the mirrorless system beginning to catch up in AF-speed which many of them still lagged behind.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 2, 2013)

Oly's 4/3" got serious problems mostly because the designer had not enough understanding of camera mounts.

one issue is the "equivalent back-focus" which is near 76mm. this means that extra effort/cost is need to make any lens wider than 76mm on 35mm-format. that make the mount less competitive.

0 upvotes
Roger Engelken
By Roger Engelken (Feb 2, 2013)

Well here is one that uses an E-420, E-620 and E-5. Whatever any new system may or may not hold, if it makes full use of the beautiful line of four thirds mount Zuiko digital lenses, that is the bottom line. There are many strong systems out there, and I for one would rather see Olympus and the major manufacturers not abandon the world of photography to the smartphones and the like.

0 upvotes
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (Feb 2, 2013)

I'd rather see Olympus abandon the 4/3 format and resurrect its FF OM cameras as DSLRs.

Yabokkie — interesting point. Overall, the 4/3 cameras were simply too big and that's one reason why.

I think the first camera maker to create a camera part that leverages the smartphone properly wins. E.g. Build a M4/3 mount which lets you slide in an iphone or ipod touch or certain popular android handsets and provides an API. You get wifi, cellular, gps, and gyro for free, you allow third parties to replace your horrible UI (applies to all camera makers), you get a far superior display, GPU acceleration for software, and a fast multicore CPU. You can charge more than you would for a camera body that includes its own CPU, touchscreen, etc. (until competition heats up) while actually making higher margins.

Why hasn't this happened already? Because the camera makers are too stupid and the serious camera business is frankly too small for Apple to bother with.

3 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Feb 2, 2013)

@Tonio

No, the smart phones have awfull user experience when it comes to actually taking photos. Too slow to operate...good enough for casual shooter.

And how do you think modern camera process their high MP count raw files several frames per second? By using software only?

2 upvotes
Yanko Kitanov
By Yanko Kitanov (Feb 2, 2013)

Canon's new sensor technology (currently under development) is their chance to get back on top. But as we see they are almost too late and Nikon has it's sh*t kickers on and is ready to kick some sh*t....

0 upvotes
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (Feb 2, 2013)

It's pretty much Canon vs Sony right now. Sony's sensors appear to be in every serious non-Canon camera from Leica to Pentax to Fujifilm to Nikon. (Sony even dominates smartphone cameras.) There are minor variations — color filter arrangement, microlens design, bayer filters, but that's all fiddling at the margins.

Now it's interesting that Sony seems to be doing so well technically while doing so poorly financially. But I don't think Canon's strategy should be to hope Sony goes broke, because then anyone (Samsung, Apple) might buy its camera division.

2 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (Feb 2, 2013)

Great news from Olympus everybody was waiting for!

0 upvotes
cfh25
By cfh25 (Feb 2, 2013)

Sorry, there doesn't seem to be any news here, just a series of generalities

2 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Feb 2, 2013)

Sensor sizes and mirrorless fancies are not what concerns us, Mr. Toshi Terada.

Just stay TRUE to your lens mount and you will once again become legend.

Unlike Canon which, once again, introduced ANOTHER mount of confusion with the M-mount, (they abandon lens mounts like gusto...) Olympus should stay true.

.

3 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 2, 2013)

Yes and there are a lot of legends connected to mount olympus.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 2, 2013)

Canon were crazy to change mounts again and again until they got EF, a design that all modern mounts copy.

Olympus is currently the most experienced one that they abandoned OM in 2002, they are abandoning their 4/3" now, and they are likely to abandon micro 4/3" soon (to switch to NEX).

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 2, 2013)

Why on earth would Olympus abandon m4/3 anytime soon? And switch to NEX? Is that grounded in anything other than wishful thinking or homespun market analysis?
Olympus still have a larger market share in mirrorless than Sony, at least in their home market Japan, and m4/3 is so far a success story. And with the renewed interest in Olympus that followed the introduction of the OM-D line, what would be the point of abandoning the system?

4 upvotes
rrccad
By rrccad (Feb 2, 2013)

umm for a MILC canon would have to change their mount .. just like nikon came out with the 1 mount. may i have what you are smoking?

1 upvote
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (Feb 2, 2013)

@Revenant Olympus got bailed out of its current woes by Sony. NEX is ultimately a better mount than M43 — scales to FF, doesn't result in bodies any bigger than M43 bodies. Sony needs lenses, Olympus needs sensors and a path forward. So I can see it happening. (If Olympus started churning out Zuiko NEX lenses I think it would make a lot of money.)

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 2, 2013)

Tonio Loewald:

Some problems with that idea: Many of the Olympus four thirds system lenses are amazing, where else can you get 150mm F2 (FF 300mm) lens with near Leica optical quality? You can't pretty much no matter what monies you spend.
And that's not the only very special lens for that system.

Whereas Sony hasn't bothered doing more than one good lens for the Nex system, and that lens retails for 1100usd. Samsung, Panasonic and Olympus have all paid attention to lens quality with their respective mirrorless system and Olympus then has these amazing lenses for the nonmicro 4/3rds system.

So more power to Olympus for sticking with this good system, but yes it could use some newer sensor gear.

Sure Zuiko Nex lenses could sell well, but they're not exactly cheap to start up making.

2 upvotes
sadwitch
By sadwitch (Feb 2, 2013)

I've went all micro now and he says this.... Luckily i still keep my 14-54mk2 as a just in case.

they got it quite right in ergo and button placement with EP2 and EP3... not quite with the EM5. I prefer the flush mode dial on the EP2 and thumb dial as I have a tendency to knock the EM5 dial while changing lenses.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
wjlonien
By wjlonien (Feb 2, 2013)

Yes Mr. Terada, I can imagine an E-520 with the E-M5 sensor. That would be something I would even pre-order. Our 45mm lenses wouldn't fit, but I also have the wonderful 50mm macro, and I'm still considering getting the 12-60mm and 50-200mm HG lenses which would be perfect on a body the size of E-520 to E-30, but not so on the much smaller and lighter OM-D or even Pen lines. Thanks for your thoughts.

1 upvote
richarddd
By richarddd (Feb 2, 2013)

I'd like to see Olympus improve the firmware in the E-M5, etc. Being able to access MySets through the mode dial and SCP would go a long way. Easier access to bracketing is frequently requested.

More high quality lenses should be a priority. Optical quality is key.

3 upvotes
dpfan32
By dpfan32 (Feb 2, 2013)

Funny no one is discussing the XZ-10 :)
IMHO they took a too small sensor.
To provide better quality than an iPhone 5 they need something like 1/1.7" or bigger. 1/2.3" can't shoot significant better photos than a good smartphone camera (not to mention the 808 PureView)

3 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Feb 2, 2013)

The difference between 1/1.7 and 1/2.3 is small, much smaller than the difference between 1/3" in the smartphones and 1/2.3. Besides, no smartphone offers f/1.8 and optical zoom as X-10 does.

1 upvote
TheProv
By TheProv (Feb 2, 2013)

XZ-10 eats an iPhone for breakfast.
Are you really comparing a 1/3.2" sensor and 30mm F2.4 lens with a 1/2.3" sensor and, more important, a real zoom 26-130mm eq with F1.8-2.7?

I don't think so.

1 upvote
tompabes2
By tompabes2 (Feb 2, 2013)

Well, a 1/2.3'' CAN have a significantly better output than a cameraphone sensor.
Anyway, seems that you're not considering many important advantages of the XZ-10 over a cameraphone:
1) real flash vs led flash
2) optical stabilizer
3) optical zoom (and, for the XZ-10, FAST optical zoom!)
4) significantly better lens quality
5) manual controls and buttons (including lens ring)
6) faster and accurate AF, faster workflow in selecting options, shooting modes etc
7) AF assist light
Take this things together and you'll have a package a cameraphone can't absolutely match. It will allow you to take better photos in many situations where a cameraphone simply won't be capable enough. There's not only sensor size in a camera... like there's not only the engine in a car.
If you're happy with a cameraphone, if you don't need these additional features in your photographic workflow, that's absolutely fine, but please don't say that an iphone and the XZ-10 are the same thing, because they just aren't!

2 upvotes
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (Feb 2, 2013)

Unfortunatelly I haven't seen iPhone5 shots, but here's iPhone4S:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/IPHONE4S/FULLRES/IPHONE4SINBFL.HTM

And here's how a good 1/2.3 sensor crushes it:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FZ150/FULLRES/FZ150INBI0200.HTM

0 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Feb 2, 2013)

With the XZ-10 they have put the tiny 1/2.3" sensor instead of the massive 1/1.7" sensor. The 1/2.3" sensor is like a micro dot you know and in the spying days you could put 30 of them on top of the end of a pin. The XZ-10 is half the size of the XZ-2 but you could easily fit a 1/1.7" sensor in it.
Like the bridge cameras which easily have aps-c sensor and that would be awesome man, they only do not use them like because they want to keep their DSLR sales up you know.
To have the same aperture on a 1/2.3 sensor as a aps-c would need a lens half a mile wide you know.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 2, 2013)

dpfan32:

Besides the iPhone lacking optical zoom and image stabilization points that others have made above:

The Olympus XZ 10 shoots raw; even if the sensors were the exact same part that fact in itself would make the image quality of the Olympus much better than any iPhone. And since when do iPhone cameras have real manual exposure controls?

1 upvote
tompabes2
By tompabes2 (Feb 2, 2013)

@Greynerd:

" The XZ-10 is half the size of the XZ-2 but you could easily fit a 1/1.7" sensor in it."

Really? How do you know? Are you an engineer who works in the camera industry? Terada explained it and said that they would not have been able to put a 1/1.7'' sensor in the body of the XZ-10 while retaining the same lens brightness. Do we have to trust you more than him? If so, please explain... I don't think Oly is so stupid, if it would have been possible of course they'd have used a bigger sensor!

"Like the bridge cameras which easily have aps-c sensor"

Oh, come on! Did you ever see how big the lens in a bridge camera is? And how slow it is? And did you compare the lens of the Sony RX100 with this? To use a bigger sensor, Sony had to make a lens which is f/5.9 at zoom end. You may choose what you prefer: big camera, big sensor and slow lens, or smaller sensor and bright lens. If the XZ-10 is not what you're looking for there are alternatives.

1 upvote
dpfan32
By dpfan32 (Feb 6, 2013)

OK OK speaking of wide andle photo quality :)

Look at my comparison:

iPhone 5
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8453/8051659713_3fc9421bd5_o.jpg

Canon S95
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8039/8051664791_7ee8febeab_o.jpg

Olympus PEN
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8459/8051538709_2a8a651996_o.jpg

Nokia 808 PureView
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8320/8051663044_8d9347fde2_o.jpg

Iphone 5 is not that far away from S95. 808 beats even the PEN

Comment edited 60 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Swagon
By Swagon (Feb 2, 2013)

Richard, I do see your point, but I'm not yet ready to sell my 4/3rds DSLR stuff and buy micro 4/3rds. There will come a day when the EVF is superior to the optical finder. It already has many advantages, but I wouldn't call it superior just yet, especially if shooting action.

2 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 2, 2013)

EVF's are an abomination that should have been shot at birth.

Go and look through the vewfinder of a D600 or 6D and tell us which is best. They aren't so much more expensive than a OMD, and the image quality is vastly superor. Who buys these dinky toys?

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 2, 2013)

Hugo808:

Then there needs to be a mirror or a rangefinder system, and with a mirror video is a bit more tricky.

The EVF on the Sony Nex 7 and the Fuji XE1 are very good, and there are others like the newish OMD.

Sure optical view finders will always be better for some uses, but those uses are going to become fewer as the years pass.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 2, 2013)

I think EVF has lots of advantages over OVF but I can live with none. some people find it funny shooting with a iPad but that's by far the more natural way we can shoot photos instead of peering into a small hole.

2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Feb 2, 2013)

As BJP found with the A99 the viewfinder was nowhere near as good as the Nikon D600 optical viewfinder in bright light.

0 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Feb 2, 2013)

An OVF shows the scene as your eye and brain sees it (or a percentage of it anyway), an EVF shows the scene as the sensor sees it. Which of the two will end up getting captured? And that is assuming you have a through-the-lens OVF in a DSLR, and not a separate OVF with its own lens, where you have to guess even more...

0 upvotes
Thoughts
By Thoughts (Feb 2, 2013)

The way Olympus charges premiums on lens hood, black version lens and has been reluctant to offer black lenses may suggest it is quite a arrogant company, I would be careful to buy into their system. Thankfully, Micro 4/3 has other contributing companies to make the system attractive.

I have to admit though, Olympus has better know-how about lenses, good looking lenses too (even better in black in my opinion)!

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
TimK5
By TimK5 (Feb 2, 2013)

Yep, that lens hood charge is outrageous!!!

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 2, 2013)

Lens hoods should be free.

6 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Feb 2, 2013)

A black version lens will always be more expensive if it is not being made in the same quantities as a silver lens. As for lens hoods they have never been free when they came with a lens. Their cost is built into the overall price. Admittedly it is going to cost more to market it as a separate item though.

0 upvotes
Thomas Hoven
By Thomas Hoven (Feb 2, 2013)

Not only expensive, also darn hard to find. Even B&H in NYC didn't have them. Except for this, I am very happy with my PEN camera and lenses.

0 upvotes
TimK5
By TimK5 (Feb 2, 2013)

"the benefit of Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds is compact size"

So, why continue develop 43rd? A total waste of resources! I would never buy a 43rd cam, but I got an OM-D. The only reason was small size and weight. If 43rd were the only choice I'd stick with a standard DSLR. For me, to abandon DSLR completely, the next OM-D must not be larger and heavier than the current model and needs serious improvement in high ISO and cont. AF performance! And 20+ MP would be great.

2 upvotes
Roger Engelken
By Roger Engelken (Feb 3, 2013)

You may consider it a waste of resources, while others may and do not. There is more than just body or lens size and megapixel count to consider in a system, there is the end result of a quality picture that displays the benefits of the system and the eye of the photographer. Many systems out there can reach that end result, and many of those systems you, and likely others, will not like. I may not care for one system or another, but I have seen the results than human skill applied to a technology can produce, and in the end, that is the joy in photography, whatever the source.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
MatijaK
By MatijaK (Feb 2, 2013)

I did not buy my E-3 because it was compact - I bought it because it was just the right size and had many useful buttons available without being able to press any of them by accident.

Then I added a grip and realized I was sorely mistaken, because only with the grip is the E-3 the right size.

I don't want a compact DSLR. I want a big E-7 that can use my existing grip (or has one built-in), I want it to be heavy, sturdy, reliable and a confidence-inspiring workhorse that I can beat a wild bear with if it attacks me. I can buy an E-720 or an E-M5 if I want more compact.

I've been happily and patiently hanging onto 4/3 and my many lenses, and the only thing that can push me away is a small camera body. If they screw up by making the E-7 small, I'll have to switch systems, despite considering a 3:2 aspect ratio with a 1.5x crop factor to be the spawn of Satan (135 "full frame" being Satan itself).

2 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Feb 2, 2013)

So you don´t mind if a DSLR is bigger, you just want it to be solid built. So why do you want to stick with 4/3 sensor? Every manufactures of DSLRs can offer you something better: Pentax, Canon, Nikon or Sony.
I have never understood the meaning of E-5: as big as fullframe: http://j.mp/TpjcWH but with worse image quality than APSC.

7 upvotes
MatijaK
By MatijaK (Feb 2, 2013)

I thought I made that pretty clear - I absolutely hate 3:2 and 1.5x crop. I'd be the happiest with a 6:6 (square) aspect ratio, but 4:3 is the closest that comes to that.

Also, since you can never have enough depth of field, a 2x crop factor also helps tremendously.

2 upvotes
Louis_Dobson
By Louis_Dobson (Feb 2, 2013)

The attraction of four thirds is that the lens can be better quality and smaller than those for larger sensors. I switched from FT to FF and then to MFT. I miss the FT lenses, they were the best I have ever used.

3 upvotes
TimK5
By TimK5 (Feb 2, 2013)

In a nutshell, you want a Nikon D4!

0 upvotes
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (Feb 2, 2013)

I think you've missed the point. No, he wants an E7! The Olympus lenses & the format size is ideal. A Nikon D4 reqires even bigger lenses & they'ed have to be bought on top instead of using the lovely Olympus lenses he already has.

3 upvotes
RoAlmeida
By RoAlmeida (Feb 2, 2013)

After my initial E400 a couple years ago, I tried a Canon 600D and a few EFS lenses. Later on I invested on a E30 to bring fairness to the dispute. After a year or so, I sold all my Canon/EFS gear and invested in a few more new and used gear for FT and MFT (E500, E620, E5 and EM-5 & a substantial set of HG lens). IMHO, each body/lens suits for different occasions and motivation, but these two complementary systems offer an unique and unbeatable combination of cost, build quality, picture quality and weight. This no to mention what I consider the diamond of their crown: Zuiko and (why not) Panny (Leica branded) lens. I still believe FT/MFT users will leave many Canikon FF users very jealous as soon as Oly launches their E-5 or E-30 sucessor... But don't worry! Although you'll still need to pay more for good quality lens, you'll benefit from having both vendors forced to accelerate their 'enthusiast DSLRs' roadmap with more cheaper FF bodies like the D600 and 6D...

0 upvotes
Total comments: 242
12