Olympus' Toshi Terada discusses the future of Four Thirds and compacts

Started Feb 7, 2013 | Discussions
Craig from Nevada
Contributing MemberPosts: 585Gear list
Like?
Re: Why "all of the sudden" . . . .
In reply to John King, Feb 9, 2013

A four thirds camera on the way out.

(BTW--I do love my E-5, the build and the pictures it takes (ah the blues))

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
illy
Forum ProPosts: 12,160Gear list
Like?
Re: Why "all of the sudden" . . . .
In reply to John King, Feb 9, 2013

John King wrote:

Craig from Nevada wrote:

.

Olympus pursued other opportunities because that was where the money was.

They had to do that. No choice. It was a sensible and successful decision.

and then there was no four thirds.

Well ... That last sentence is stretching things just a little ...

What, pray tell, is the E-5?

Until fairly recently, one could also buy new E-30 bodies ...

They dropped the E-620 pretty promptly. I'll grant you that.

But back to the E-5. Still available new. Isn't it a four thirds camera?

-- hide signature --

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
I am a Photography Aficionado ... and ...
"I don't have any problems with John. He is a crotchety old Aussie. He will smack you if you behave like a {deleted}. Goes with the territory." boggis the cat
.
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Bird Control Officers on active service.

it's their current Dslr but hardly new.

you only have to look at a site like camera price buster and it's a very telling story

Canon range

Nikon range

Pentax range

Sony range

Olympus range

Olympus m4/3rds range

i'll let you draw your own conclusions

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

 illy's gear list:illy's gear list
Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D5100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Craig from Nevada
Contributing MemberPosts: 585Gear list
Like?
Re: Why "all of the sudden" . . . .
In reply to John King, Feb 9, 2013

John King wrote:

Craig from Nevada wrote:

.

Olympus pursued other opportunities because that was where the money was.

They had to do that. No choice. It was a sensible and successful decision.

and then there was no four thirds.

Well ... That last sentence is stretching things just a little ...

What, pray tell, is the E-5?

Until fairly recently, one could also buy new E-30 bodies ...

They dropped the E-620 pretty promptly. I'll grant you that.

But back to the E-5. Still available new. Isn't it a four thirds camera?


The road map is pretty clear---EP-1 supplanted the E-620;  OMD supplanted the mid-range E-30 and now comes the top of the line.  I would be very surprised to see a DSLR.   I think a pricey mirrorless camera with an acceptable adapter is the best hope.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jean Dupont
Forum MemberPosts: 58
Like?
Re: Why "all of the sudden" . . . .
In reply to John King, Feb 9, 2013

John King wrote:

Craig from Nevada wrote:

.

Olympus pursued other opportunities because that was where the money was.

They had to do that. No choice. It was a sensible and successful decision.

and then there was no four thirds.

Well ... That last sentence is stretching things just a little ...

What, pray tell, is the E-5?

Until fairly recently, one could also buy new E-30 bodies ...

They dropped the E-620 pretty promptly. I'll grant you that.

But back to the E-5. Still available new. Isn't it a four thirds camera?

You can still buy one of minoltas

Digital Cameras › "konica minolta"

Don't even need to look for it.


-- hide signature --

jean

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rriley
Forum ProPosts: 21,843Gear list
Like?
Re: Olympus' Toshi Terada discusses the future of Four Thirds and compacts
In reply to HarjTT, Feb 9, 2013

HarjTT wrote:

Riley, Mate totally agree with you.

thanks Harj

-- hide signature --

Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

 Rriley's gear list:Rriley's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Olympus E-3 Olympus E-5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus E-M1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Craig from Nevada
Contributing MemberPosts: 585Gear list
Like?
Re: Why "all of the sudden" . . . .
In reply to illy, Feb 9, 2013

They have been selling four thirds users a micro four thirds camera with an adapter for the past few years.  Why would they do something else now?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
micronean
Regular MemberPosts: 296Gear list
Like?
Re: Why "all of the sudden" . . . .
In reply to Craig from Nevada, Feb 9, 2013

It's pretty obvious micro four-thirds is Olympus' priority from now on. All they need to do is make the final connection of 4/3 camera to micro 4/3 lens before they kill off 4/3s altogether. I don't even know how a pdaf system is even worth the effort for Olympus. It's not like it'll be some kind of miracle camera that gets them out of the Japanese imaging slump that all manufacturers are going through.

 micronean's gear list:micronean's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roger Engelken
Senior MemberPosts: 2,720Gear list
Like?
Re: Why "all of the sudden" . . . . nicely put.
In reply to Messier Object, Feb 9, 2013

Peter,

Well said and thank you. I have so much more enjoyment to look forward to with my existing setup of bodies and lenses, so I will keep going down the path of challenging my skill and imagination, just as so many others do, regardless of the setup they have. If something new comes down the line, I might just be a bit more ready for it by then, and if not, I will just keep on shooting forward. Thanks again.

Roger.

 Roger Engelken's gear list:Roger Engelken's gear list
Olympus TG-830 iHS Olympus E-1 Olympus E-420 Olympus E-30 Olympus E-620 +22 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
boggis the cat
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,267Gear list
Like?
Re: Four Thirds upgrade cycles
In reply to Great Bustard, Feb 10, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

Canon only fairly recently produced a 70-200 mm f/2.8 that was comparable to the SHG 35-100 f/2 (and it is still a stop down).

You know, I never did see a shootoff between a 70-200 / 2.8 IS on a 5D2 against a 35-100 / 2 on an E5 just to see how "uncomparable" the Canon was. It reminds me of this post:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/34217058

but that was with the non-IS version of the lens on a 5D, rather than a 5D2. Sure would be nice to see a comparison of the same scene with the same framing and DOF, though.

DOF is not a lens parameter usually tested. I leave that to you to consider why that may be.

DOF was not in question, except to say to compare sharpness between systems only for the portions of the photo within the DOF.

Typical lens test use a flat target.

The fact is that Canon did produce an updated lens that 'caught up' with Olympus' equivalent (or near equivalent, since it is f/2 rather than f/2.8). This means that Canon can build lenses as good as Olympus -- and presumably anyone can do so.

But "caught up" in what way? "Near equivalent" in what way? The way I see it, you cannot make a photo with just a lens, or just a camera -- you need both. Thus, we cannot consider the lens in a vacuum -- we must consider it's performance on the camera on which it is used.

But then we are moving from a lens test to a system test.  This means revising the test for each improved sensor.

It also means that Olympus cannot rest on the SHG line in perpetuity, and it is likely that they will eventually build f/2 monster zooms for Micro FT or simply drop down to f/2.8.*

It seems to me that Olympus has decided to leave speed for the primes, and compactness combined with "fast enough" and "good enough" for the zooms, which, in my opinion, is the sensible thing to do.

For "Micro" FourThirds, yes.
The problem is whether people will accept the compromises to get smaller lenses, and be willing to pay as though those lenses were not compromised.  Olympus has pulled the price of the m.ZD 75-300 mark II down to $550 from $900, so I would think that they have determined that few people will pay top dollar for relatively poor lenses.  The 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 is $1200, so a 'Micro' variant that was 50-200 f/4-5.6 (for example) should cost a fair bit less than $1200 -- or it should also be f/2.8-3.5, which would necessarily make it effectively the same lens.
Note that there are few standard FT primes to compare the Micro FT primes against, so the 'value proposition' is not skewed by the excellent 'bang per buck' standard FT system.

I don't see Olympus supporting standard FourThirds any longer than necessary. If they do have a PDAF capable high-end Micro FT body then I'm sure that would be the 'E-7' (assuming that the latest Epson EVF is a 'good enough' replacement for an OVF). That is not a problem provided it meets the requirements of present E-x customers.

From what I've read, Olympus, if anything, is looking for a way to make 4/3 lenses work on mirrorless bodies, rather than investing in one more 4/3 DSLR before that technological hurdle is overcome. In my opinion, that was a mistake.

They did mention that it has turned out to be far more difficult to achieve the "One Beautiful System".  No company has been able to predict exactly what will or will not work.  Nikon and Canon put a lot of effort and money into marketing and support for professional users, partly to ensure that they can sell what they produce regardless of any deficiencies.

(* Closing down the maximum aperture would, as you allude to, cause shallow DOF to be less comparable to the 135 format. But it has always been questioned whether Olympus FourThirds was a direct competitor in any case, and they were and are a competitor to APS-C variant systems.)

When 4/3 first came out, it was, indeed, marketed as a direct competitor to FF.

No, it was marketed as competitive with 135 film.
Or in other words, Olympus' claim was that shifting to the smaller format of FourThirds was more sensible that sticking with the 135 format.

This was unfortunate. Instead, it should have been marketed, and developed, in accordance to the strengths of the format, which, ironically, is what they are doing with mFT.

They did exactly that.  The 'bigger sensors are better' argument won out over 'designed for digital' (eventually).  Now the market seems to be splitting more distinctly between 'large sensors' (135 and up) and 'small sensors' (around the 1" to APS-C range).  Cheaper 135 bodies are forcing people to think through the compromises.
We still see some people claiming that 135 systems are the only viable format, and others claiming that Micro FT and other small formats will erode 135.  APS-C may end up in the same predicament as standard FT in that it becomes a nuisance to the smaller and more profitable ILC range.  (This may be why Nikon went with a very small sensor in their "1" system, while Canon went with the "M" system being semi-compatible -- different approaches to protecting APS-C.)

 boggis the cat's gear list:boggis the cat's gear list
Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 20,765
Like?
Re: Four Thirds upgrade cycles
In reply to boggis the cat, Feb 10, 2013

boggis the cat wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

Canon only fairly recently produced a 70-200 mm f/2.8 that was comparable to the SHG 35-100 f/2 (and it is still a stop down).

You know, I never did see a shootoff between a 70-200 / 2.8 IS on a 5D2 against a 35-100 / 2 on an E5 just to see how "uncomparable" the Canon was. It reminds me of this post:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/34217058

but that was with the non-IS version of the lens on a 5D, rather than a 5D2. Sure would be nice to see a comparison of the same scene with the same framing and DOF, though.

DOF is not a lens parameter usually tested. I leave that to you to consider why that may be.

DOF was not in question, except to say to compare sharpness between systems only for the portions of the photo within the DOF.

Typical lens test use a flat target.

Sure, although the focusing distances used makes field curvature more of an issue in a lens test than might otherwise exist for actual photos.

The fact is that Canon did produce an updated lens that 'caught up' with Olympus' equivalent (or near equivalent, since it is f/2 rather than f/2.8). This means that Canon can build lenses as good as Olympus -- and presumably anyone can do so.

But "caught up" in what way? "Near equivalent" in what way? The way I see it, you cannot make a photo with just a lens, or just a camera -- you need both. Thus, we cannot consider the lens in a vacuum -- we must consider it's performance on the camera on which it is used.

But then we are moving from a lens test to a system test. This means revising the test for each improved sensor.

*All* lens tests are system tests.  That is, whatever measurements they give for a lens are based on the paricular body the lens was tested on.  And, realistically, it's the system that we are interested in.  The problem is, of course, that if the lens is not tested on the particular body we're using, then we don't really know, although we can estimate, at least in a relative sense, based on how it performs by tests of the lens on another body compared to other lenses tested on that body.

It also means that Olympus cannot rest on the SHG line in perpetuity, and it is likely that they will eventually build f/2 monster zooms for Micro FT or simply drop down to f/2.8.*

It seems to me that Olympus has decided to leave speed for the primes, and compactness combined with "fast enough" and "good enough" for the zooms, which, in my opinion, is the sensible thing to do.

For "Micro" FourThirds, yes.

Seems to be going well for them.

The problem is whether people will accept the compromises to get smaller lenses, and be willing to pay as though those lenses were not compromised. Olympus has pulled the price of the m.ZD 75-300 mark II down to $550 from $900, so I would think that they have determined that few people will pay top dollar for relatively poor lenses. The 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 is $1200, so a 'Micro' variant that was 50-200 f/4-5.6 (for example) should cost a fair bit less than $1200 -- or it should also be f/2.8-3.5, which would necessarily make it effectively the same lens.
Note that there are few standard FT primes to compare the Micro FT primes against, so the 'value proposition' is not skewed by the excellent 'bang per buck' standard FT system.

All the more reason to put out another 4/3 body with the EM5 sensor and IBIS at the very least, and hopefully with improved AF, until Olympus has been able to get mFT bodies to work as well with 4/3 lenses as the 4/3 DSLRs.

I don't see Olympus supporting standard FourThirds any longer than necessary. If they do have a PDAF capable high-end Micro FT body then I'm sure that would be the 'E-7' (assuming that the latest Epson EVF is a 'good enough' replacement for an OVF). That is not a problem provided it meets the requirements of present E-x customers.

From what I've read, Olympus, if anything, is looking for a way to make 4/3 lenses work on mirrorless bodies, rather than investing in one more 4/3 DSLR before that technological hurdle is overcome. In my opinion, that was a mistake.

They did mention that it has turned out to be far more difficult to achieve the "One Beautiful System". No company has been able to predict exactly what will or will not work. Nikon and Canon put a lot of effort and money into marketing and support for professional users, partly to ensure that they can sell what they produce regardless of any deficiencies.

Again, all the more reason for another 4/3 DSLR until they get their "One Beautiful System" working.

(* Closing down the maximum aperture would, as you allude to, cause shallow DOF to be less comparable to the 135 format. But it has always been questioned whether Olympus FourThirds was a direct competitor in any case, and they were and are a competitor to APS-C variant systems.)

When 4/3 first came out, it was, indeed, marketed as a direct competitor to FF.

No, it was marketed as competitive with 135 film.

That's not how I remember the "Four Thirds Story":

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/special/story.html

but it's been a while since I've read it, so I may be mistaken.

Or in other words, Olympus' claim was that shifting to the smaller format of FourThirds was more sensible that sticking with the 135 format.

What's "sensible", of course, is subjective.

This was unfortunate. Instead, it should have been marketed, and developed, in accordance to the strengths of the format, which, ironically, is what they are doing with mFT.

They did exactly that.

I disagree:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/36149406

The 'bigger sensors are better' argument won out over 'designed for digital' (eventually). Now the market seems to be splitting more distinctly between 'large sensors' (135 and up) and 'small sensors' (around the 1" to APS-C range). Cheaper 135 bodies are forcing people to think through the compromises.

Sure.

We still see some people claiming that 135 systems are the only viable format, and others claiming that Micro FT and other small formats will erode 135. APS-C may end up in the same predicament as standard FT in that it becomes a nuisance to the smaller and more profitable ILC range. (This may be why Nikon went with a very small sensor in their "1" system, while Canon went with the "M" system being semi-compatible -- different approaches to protecting APS-C.)

I don't disagree.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SergeyGreen
Contributing MemberPosts: 582
Like?
Pretty much
In reply to boggis the cat, Feb 10, 2013

boggis the cat wrote:


But then we are moving from a lens test to a system test. This means revising the test for each improved sensor.


Unless you are looking at the curve only, and use your judgement for what the rest will/may look like on the next camera. Have a look at this blog,

Roger Cicala compares three 24-70mm F2.8 lenses

Even at that, as the technology improves we will likely see less and less of shady corners in future.

-- hide signature --

-sergey

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads