Kirk Tuck says OM-D is shot across the bow

Started May 12, 2012 | Discussions
Badbatz
Senior MemberPosts: 1,914
Like?
Re: Kirk Tuck says OM-D is shot across the bow
In reply to Tim in upstate NY, May 14, 2012

Tim in upstate NY wrote:

Quote: "The traditional, big DSLR? Quickly becoming the Firebird Trans Am of an older generation. Wearing their Members Only jackets and revving up their engines... While the world drives by in a Prius."

Perhaps in some twisted world where only Trans Ams and Priuses exist (gasp, what a repulsive thought!)

In the real world my one DSLR is an Acura NSX, the other Panamera and the OM-D is a KIA in comparison And yes, I do use the OM-D with two pancake lenses as a (sort-of) pocketable rig.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
intruder61
Senior MemberPosts: 2,490Gear list
Like?
Re: Amazing how defensive the old guard is...
In reply to chrisfromalaska, May 14, 2012

chrisfromalaska wrote:

The only thing holding back M43 is the lack of fast native zooms. I think Olympus will start to make its F2 zooms in M43 soon as it tries to move the format to a more professional level. They will have to shrink them a bit, but they will still be large - unfortunately that's the penalty for fast glass. They've already said that the EM5 is not the pro M43 camera, that one is still coming. While it may not be here yet, its only a matter of time...

they already do

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/301933-REG/Olympus_261004_300mm_f_2_8_ED_Lens.html

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kodachromeguy
Regular MemberPosts: 485Gear list
Like?
Re: Wont happen - analogy
In reply to Kirk Tuck, May 14, 2012

This is very similar to suburbanites buying massive SUVs with 4WD because they see the advertisements showing surfers, foresters, and oil field workers bumping their way across the tundra or the Serengeti. May as well get a vehicle that might suit their needs .001 of their total usage.
--
The Kodachromeguy

 kodachromeguy's gear list:kodachromeguy's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TrapperJohn
Forum ProPosts: 10,030Gear list
Like?
True, but there is an issue of size
In reply to The Skipper, May 14, 2012

As it is, the EM5 is borderline small for a full function, high quality camera. Below that size, and there simply isn't enough camera to hold steady, or to accomodate a wide range of lenses, or even accomodate a decent range of control buttons.

That's about as small as you can make a camera, and still provide what most amateurs and pros want in terms of controls. Contrast this with the One and the Q, very small bodies with even less room for controls, and the NEX, whose larger sensor demands outsized lenses. With current tech and even factoring in further advances in sensor tech, a body smaller than the EM5 will be difficult to use.

Unless there is a major shift in control technology and lens technology, the EM5 sized camera is probably the baseline for a quality camera tool for at least the next ten years.

 TrapperJohn's gear list:TrapperJohn's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mazin Sami
Regular MemberPosts: 322Gear list
Like?
Re: To all the "in the box" thinkers:
In reply to Kirk Tuck, May 14, 2012

Kirk Tuck said.

Well Jogger, I guess we could talk about people's impaired reading comprehension instead. Would that be better?

I don't think your response to Jogger was a good course of action, that's what he vigorously wants to see.... "he's an agitator."

Best thing -- is to ignore him, and maybe the entire MFT forum should do "that!"

 Mazin Sami's gear list:Mazin Sami's gear list
Sony RX100 II
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jhinkey
Senior MemberPosts: 2,203Gear list
Like?
Re: Kirk Tuck says OM-D is shot across the bow
In reply to Tim in upstate NY, May 14, 2012

In some sens Kirk Tuck is right. As a D700 owner the OM-D E-M5 is the first m43 camera that I would seriously consider buying because:

  • the image quality now seems good enough

  • 5 axis IBIS so I can use some of my excellent MF Nikon lenses

  • Rugged build

  • Two dials

  • Small and light

  • No built-in flash, but the supplied external is certainly small and light and non-obtrusive when mounted.

It seems that it could be my "tweener" camera between my LX-5 and D700 for those times where both weight and image quality are equally important (LX-5 when weight is utmost and the D700 where image quality is utmost).

Will FX DSLRs be going away any time soon - no way. In too many ways an FX DSLR is the right tool for many jobs. The FX DSLR will evolve for sure, but it will not go extinct.

John
--

 jhinkey's gear list:jhinkey's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GodSpeaks
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,720Gear list
Like?
Re: Wont happen
In reply to PerL, May 14, 2012

PerL wrote:

Mirrorless is all about portability, but for pros the end result is what matters. The larger sensors will always have advantages for light gathering and subject isolation.

It is unprofessional and a bad business decison to let portability have priority over the images.

For amateurs its another matter and personally I am very much for compact cameras. But the pros with the big DSLRs are not stupid, they just have a professional attitude.

Agreed. There is a reason the D4 and D800 are such hot items, and it is not because of their larger size.

Personally, I use my A850 for fashion/glamour shoots. I need the speed of operation and AF accuracy the camera offers. I would never consider using my micro43 for such a shoot. It just could not handle the job.

That said, it is my GX1 that will accompany me when I go on vacation. Different tools for different jobs.

-- hide signature --

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

  • Rayna Butler

 GodSpeaks's gear list:GodSpeaks's gear list
Minolta DiMAGE 7i Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS4 Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS5 Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n +35 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chez Wimpy
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,691Gear list
Like?
A few mistakes in the article...
In reply to Kirk Tuck, May 14, 2012

"not being able to buy cost effective full frame cameras from Canon until 2007 and not being able to buy any full frame camera at all from Nikon until the introduction of the D3 in 2009. "

Shift that timeline back a couple of years. 5D was 2005... and the D3 was 2007

Edit: Also, upcoming is a 75mm f1.8 lens, not 70mm (nits nits nits!)

-- hide signature --

-CW

 Chez Wimpy's gear list:Chez Wimpy's gear list
Sigma DP1 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 20D Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Canon EOS 550D +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
zxaar
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,122
Like?
Re: True, but there is an issue of size
In reply to TrapperJohn, May 14, 2012

TrapperJohn wrote:

As it is, the EM5 is borderline small for a full function, high quality camera. Below that size, and there simply isn't enough camera to hold steady, or to accomodate a wide range of lenses, or even accomodate a decent range of control buttons.

That's about as small as you can make a camera, and still provide what most amateurs and pros want in terms of controls. Contrast this with the One and the Q, very small bodies with even less room for controls, and the NEX, whose larger sensor demands outsized lenses. With current tech and even factoring in further advances in sensor tech, a body smaller than the EM5 will be difficult to use.

Q has pretty good ergos. Ask anybody who has used one. Which dis-proves what you are saying.

About the lenses, what makes you think that the lenses of Q will be of size of m43 cams or of APC sized cam's lenses. Q lenses are centainly very small and light. This also is against what you are saying.

Unless there is a major shift in control technology and lens technology, the EM5 sized camera is probably the baseline for a quality camera tool for at least the next ten years.

-- hide signature --

::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Skipper
Contributing MemberPosts: 872
Like?
Re: Forgiving the hyperbole, he has a point
In reply to Chez Wimpy, May 14, 2012

Chez Wimpy wrote:

The Skipper wrote:

One can make the same argument with M4/3 vs 1/2.3". Someday 1/2.3" IQ will be so good that the performance difference will be academic. You can always wrap a big camera around a tiny sensor, but not the other way around.

That day may not be far off (eg. multi-layer sensors & other technologies that haven't been announced yet).

Forgiving the performance of the Pentax Q sensor (and I am not sure apologies are in order), it didn't clearly demonstrate that body/lens size scales proportionally to sensor.

I agree, the Pentax Q is ridiculously large, and its kit zoom is huge! In fact, if we go by the smallest dimension (which IMO is what matters), it is actually larger than many M4/3 cameras with the Pan X kit zoom.

Pentax chose to wrap a big package around a tiny sensor.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PerL
Forum ProPosts: 12,243
Like?
Re: What would be the point?
In reply to chrisfromalaska, May 14, 2012

chrisfromalaska wrote:

Everything else in big media is being downsized to lower cost staff, facilities, productions and so on, this will soon follow. If $5,000 in gear can do the job of $20, $30 or $50,000 in gear, and it can, its only a matter of time. So yes, there will be a slew of CaNikons with $10,000 lenses at the Olympics this summer and on NFL sidelines this fall, but at the 2016 games that will be different. The EM5 with a 200mm F2 lens can easily produce images that will stand up next to a D3 with a 400mm lens. Large corporations with massive amounts of overhead are constantly losing market share to smaller more nimble operations and a more fractured marketplace in general. Cameras will be a part of the endless cost cutting, its inevitable.

Why do you think a 200 F2 for m43 would be cheaper than a 400 F4 (non existant, but you need to have a 200 1.4 for eqv with a 400 2.8)?

When Oly made a 300 2.8 for the 4/3 system the price was almost twice as high as the 300 2.8s from Nikon and Canon, because Oly claimed it should be compared to a 600 mm.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Franka T.L.
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,378Gear list
Like?
well ....
In reply to Tim in upstate NY, May 14, 2012

till the day I can get a FF version of the mirrorless with the sensor signal as good as the Nikon D3s , and one with the like of capture that I can get with the Sigma SD-1 or the new Nikon 800E ... well actually it need not be FF, but it need to provide the detail in capture, and the signal as good

The fact is , mirrorless is a good form factor, but saying its better than today's DSLR is a long shoot. The DSLR sure is a bulk of a beast but with that bulk also come significant performance and feature boost which the mirrorless lacks. Its not like Film days, With Film, a compact can record as good as a SLR providing the lens is capable. Since we can all use our chosen media ( the film ). But with digital, the camera is the media and good media cannot be ignored. Then there is the part about being a SYSTEM ... hey with the Nikon or the like I can have decent lens that I can get, give me the same with mirrorless and then we are talking. The like of 24/1.4L-II from Canon ( and the same optical performance )

Right now , and in fact before M4/3 there is already very good mirrorless that can rival and even better the like of FF. But are people prepared to pay and work a digital back attached to a technical body ( say Alpa 12, or Arrca, ) which require liveview on a totally manual lens. Mirrorless is nothing new, just ask anyone old enough about good old 8X10.

-- hide signature --

  • Franka -

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ShatteredSky
Senior MemberPosts: 1,044Gear list
Like?
Re: What would be the point?
In reply to PerL, May 14, 2012

PerL wrote:

When Oly made a 300 2.8 for the 4/3 system the price was almost twice as high as the 300 2.8s from Nikon and Canon, because Oly claimed it should be compared to a 600 mm.

That is indeed the only thing that galls me, the price of the SHG and some of the m43 lenses. I coughed up for the 12-60 as it still is quite unique in its capabilities (I know there is a Nikon "equivalent").

The whole package (camera + lens) will still be smaller (even if it's not that much), and that is what counts for me (don't care about weight). Ask all those who are waiting since I do not know when for a fullframe sensor in an OM-D to K-5 sized body.

And please nobody starts that "not-able-to-be-shooting-a-large-lens-on-small-body-with-one-hand"-argument again.

Cheers
--
"Blue for the shattered sky"

 ShatteredSky's gear list:ShatteredSky's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS2 Olympus Tough TG-1 iHS Samsung NX300 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OIS +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Barry Fitzgerald
Forum ProPosts: 29,888
Like?
His quotes are a tad OTT
In reply to Olymore, May 14, 2012

Olymore wrote:

The point Kirk Tuck was making was that it was the mirrorless camera that finally has enough sales momentum to be accepted, and capability to be considered, as a serious option for many pro photographers.

I'll keep a look out for that then esp wedding and sports photographers

That does not mean it does everything as well as a DSLR. But it does enough things well enough (and some things better) to be added to many pro photographers bags.

Added to or instead of?

If you read his blog regularly you will notice that many of hiis comments are based upon conversations with and impressions from the community of pro and serious photographers that he is in contact with as well as his own opinion.

At no point is he suggesting that all photographers will change systems or use mirrorless for every photographic situation.

"The traditional, big DSLR? Quickly becoming the Firebird Trans Am of an older generation. Wearing their Members Only jackets and revving up their engines... While the world drives by in a Prius. Or, are you still using your Motorola Brick cellphone instead of an iPhone?"

Stuff like that which is fine I've no problems liking stuff, but it's the same old "game changer" vibe we've heard before. I do think the OM-D will do pretty well, but I don't think it's a mainstream product and it's overpriced IMO quite a bit.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Olymore
Senior MemberPosts: 1,055Gear list
Like?
Re: His quotes are a tad OTT
In reply to Barry Fitzgerald, May 14, 2012

It may replace DSLRs for certain types of Pro photography but as always it would depend on the job in hand.

Travel photography (books, brochures, magazine articles) would be an area where it would be more suitable than a FF Dslr.
In fact any photographer using an APS-C Dslr and not requiring C-AF.

I suspect most pros have several cameras depending on the circumstances of the job. Some may hire equipment as well when the job requires it.

As Louis Dobson here so succintly pointed out most professional drivers drive vans not racing cars.

 Olymore's gear list:Olymore's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Skipper
Contributing MemberPosts: 872
Like?
Re: Forgiving the hyperbole, he has a point
In reply to Chez Wimpy, May 14, 2012

Chez Wimpy wrote:

The Skipper wrote:

DOF & brokeh will be handled by software, and the latter will be incredible, because it doesn't have to obey the law of optics.

That is very optimistic. You first have to develop AI to the extent that it can anticipate what you want in/out of focus, or at least get some sort of pixel-by-pixel range-finding (or something like the recent light field camera) that knows how far each object is from the sensor.

All the camera has to do is to capture the maximum DOF, and in PP you can selectively blur subjects, choosing the creaminess of the brokeh to use.

Small sensor cameras such as 1/2.3" are ideally suited for this task.

Some version of this can also be implemented in camera using a touch-screen. After all, cameras can already identify faces. It would not be a big obstacle for it to identify subjects.

In both scenarios, I believe that the finished product will look better than trying to do it optically, and certainly more flexible.

With technology marching at the pace that it is at, I believe that large sensor cameras like M4/3's days are numbered probably quicker than we think. Improvements in sensor technology, combined with DOF using software will see to it.

And it is not such a bad thing. It is easy to wrap a big body around a small sensor for ergonomic reasons, but you can't do the opposite.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Olymore
Senior MemberPosts: 1,055Gear list
Like?
Re: Kirk Tuck says OM-D is shot across the bow
In reply to Badbatz, May 14, 2012

The point is that the KIA is all that is required most of the time and can be replaced far more easily and cost effectively than an NSX.
Most pros simply do not require an NSX.

As Louis Dobson mentioned on another thread, most professional drivers drive vans and lorries not racing cars.

 Olymore's gear list:Olymore's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
eagle2a
Senior MemberPosts: 1,890
Like?
Re: Kirk Tuck says OM-D is shot across the bow
In reply to Olymore, May 14, 2012

I liked Kirk Tuck's piece. I like the way he writes and thinks. His observations make sense to me. I have bookmarked his sight.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/

Don

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Raist3d
Forum ProPosts: 31,862Gear list
Like?
Re: Kirk Tuck says OM-D is shot across the bow
In reply to Makinations, May 15, 2012

Makinations wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

Been discussed elsewhere and I disagree with him. And as far as dpreview, the EM-5 is hardly the only camera "anointed" by this website. So what is that supposed to mean?

I think presents a few interesting and a couple of valid points but the whole thing really seems tainted by the unilateral vision of having only a hammer.

A lot of what he is writing about seems quite a bit off- like pros scared of leaving Canikon for fear of trying something new. Yes, because a pro would swap their entire lens system and workflow to another untried (yet) camera to make his pro-cash. That's oh such a right idea.

He addressed that ...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=41495955

Sorry but I don't believe that was addressed there. I am talking specifically about the tone and way the post under discussion is written.

And what next then? Didn't he mention before pens where fine? Or was it the G3, and now the EM5? What happens with a G3H comes out or the EM5 MK II? etc.

Pens are fine. So is the G3. The EM5 is better. So what?

That the point of the EM5 representing this photographic revelation rings hollow considering all the praise of the models before it.

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
zumbalak
Regular MemberPosts: 281
Like?
Re: Kirk Tuck says OM-D is shot across the bow
In reply to Olymore, May 15, 2012

Lol

Take your Kia to the track and race it with NSX and let's see which vehicle is preffered by the track pros.

It was the most stupid example for an argument I have seen in quite a while.

And pro drivers driving vans?

lol

What utopic fantasy land is that?

Just the example of Tony Stewart
He drives the Nascar
And at home he drives the Lambos, Ferraris and more.

Along with custom trucks and classic muscle cars in his stable.

When arguing at least make some sense.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads