Cheer up everyone!

Started May 15, 2013 | Discussions
Craig from Nevada
Contributing MemberPosts: 637Gear list
Like?
Re: I will be unlike myself for a change, and sulk a bit
In reply to RoelHendrickx, May 18, 2013

I am not sure the appearance of an E-7 (if it does appear) changes the strategic direction of Olympus.  They are marching forward to merging the two systems.  Whether they are having some problems getting there in terms of technology and customer acceptance is a fair question. The E-7 maybe  an interlude in this march remains to be seen, but the next step is a mirrorless camera for FT.

The ideas of modularity that we saw with EM5 with the grips and the continued optional viewfinder Pen line are the features.  We will be able to mix and match parts to create a camera the walk around town one day and the same camera can be reconfigured to go birding the next with grips and and lenses.

All of this will be expensive.  The old-fashioned camera is going high end.

RoelHendrickx wrote:

daddyo wrote:

4/3 Rumors claims 3 new Olympus models within the next three of four months -- including the new E-5 replacement. They have rated the rumor at FT-5 -- their highest level of confidence.

Let the rejoicing begin:-) -- Unless of course you're a 'glass half empty' person!

Most here will know me as generally a positive person.

Well, let me be unlike myself for once and say that I am not overly thrilled by the concept of a possible E-7 on the way.

That is because I would be more thrilled by definite news of the long-awaited camera body that will be one body "to unite and rule them all" : the "hybrid" that will unite FT and µFT for those with FT lenses and a desire to use them on µFT bodies (but use also µFT lenses on that camera).

Last year I took my first step towards µFT with the purchase of an E-M5.  I love that little camera and the lenses I have accumulated since then : the versatile 12-50 is just versatile, but I am having much fun with the Pany 20mm, the Oly 45mm and the Voigtländer 17.5mm.

I still enjoy my E-5 and would like a path forward for the excellent lenses I use on that camera, but I would have really liked it to be a mutual path with µFT (even without mirror but with a great EVF and good AF).

The news/confirmed rumor of an E-7 tells me that the merger of the system is not yet planned for the near future.  It tells me that I will maintain essentially dual systems for another while : compatible but not unified.  It tells me that my upgrade path (roughly one body every two years, with the two older ones still being used frequently : currently E-M5 and E-5 and E-3) will force me to prioritize which next body to invest in.  And the choice will probably be : something to replace the old E-3 and make FT again my prime system with µFT as "fun" and "back-up" system.  And not get the E-M5 replacement but skip a generation there.

I would really have preferred not to have to make that choice, with a single and unified path forward : get the HYBRID (let's call it E-M6) that would offer me a choice for any occasion between using two µFT bodies (E-M6 and E-M5) or two bodies that work perfectly with FT lenses (E-M6 and E-5).

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
klauser
Regular MemberPosts: 420
Like?
Re: I will be unlike myself for a change, and sulk a bit
In reply to RoelHendrickx, May 18, 2013

RoelHendrickx wrote:

I would really have preferred not to have to make that choice, with a single and unified path forward : get the HYBRID (let's call it E-M6) that would offer me a choice for any occasion between using two µFT bodies (E-M6 and E-M5) or two bodies that work perfectly with FT lenses (E-M6 and E-5).

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

You  know, Roel,  I'm not convinced that this would be such a good idea: given  that we want best possible iq and good ergonomics I just don't see how mft's strengths (small body plus small primes) can go together really well with ft's strengths (excellent but much larger zooms which however require a bigger body to balance well). I believe that in a niche market one has to be uncompromising: mft plus primes has a USP (size in relation to iq) and ft has a different one (superb zooms with a unique balance of size,  reach and iq). In order to fully make use of ft's USP one needs the bigger body which in turn does not do justice to mft's USP. I would definitely prefer a big body that balances well with FT zooms and which may also take mft lenses rather than the other way around.

Klaus

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RoelHendrickx
Forum ProPosts: 22,776
Like?
Nuance
In reply to Craig from Nevada, May 18, 2013

Craig from Nevada wrote:

I am not sure the appearance of an E-7 (if it does appear) changes the strategic direction of Olympus.  They are marching forward to merging the two systems.  Whether they are having some problems getting there in terms of technology and customer acceptance is a fair question. The E-7 maybe  an interlude in this march remains to be seen, but the next step is a mirrorless camera for FT.

I agree.

And I don't mind the idea of a really capable E-7.

Nor do I mind the idea of the eventual merger.  I've accepted and embraced that .

My only "sulk" is about the fact that Olympus apparently feels the need for another FT "interlude", which just means that for more time than I had hoped, my upgrade path is dual and not single.

That's all.

The ideas of modularity that we saw with EM5 with the grips and the continued optional viewfinder Pen line are the features.  We will be able to mix and match parts to create a camera the walk around town one day and the same camera can be reconfigured to go birding the next with grips and and lenses.

Absolutely.  It is what I hope for too, and I believe it will come.

Only : the advent of an E-7 makes clear that such a bright future is not as near as I would have hoped it to be.

In other words : I never mind the announcement of a great new camera by Olympus.  I surely applaud any sign of loyalty towards FT customers.  But I had just hoped that such a great new camera would be the HYBRID and not two separate flagships for still separate (compatible, but not really unified) systems.

All of this will be expensive.  The old-fashioned camera is going high end.

RoelHendrickx wrote:

daddyo wrote:

4/3 Rumors claims 3 new Olympus models within the next three of four months -- including the new E-5 replacement. They have rated the rumor at FT-5 -- their highest level of confidence.

Let the rejoicing begin:-) -- Unless of course you're a 'glass half empty' person!

Most here will know me as generally a positive person.

Well, let me be unlike myself for once and say that I am not overly thrilled by the concept of a possible E-7 on the way.

That is because I would be more thrilled by definite news of the long-awaited camera body that will be one body "to unite and rule them all" : the "hybrid" that will unite FT and µFT for those with FT lenses and a desire to use them on µFT bodies (but use also µFT lenses on that camera).

Last year I took my first step towards µFT with the purchase of an E-M5.  I love that little camera and the lenses I have accumulated since then : the versatile 12-50 is just versatile, but I am having much fun with the Pany 20mm, the Oly 45mm and the Voigtländer 17.5mm.

I still enjoy my E-5 and would like a path forward for the excellent lenses I use on that camera, but I would have really liked it to be a mutual path with µFT (even without mirror but with a great EVF and good AF).

The news/confirmed rumor of an E-7 tells me that the merger of the system is not yet planned for the near future.  It tells me that I will maintain essentially dual systems for another while : compatible but not unified.  It tells me that my upgrade path (roughly one body every two years, with the two older ones still being used frequently : currently E-M5 and E-5 and E-3) will force me to prioritize which next body to invest in.  And the choice will probably be : something to replace the old E-3 and make FT again my prime system with µFT as "fun" and "back-up" system.  And not get the E-M5 replacement but skip a generation there.

I would really have preferred not to have to make that choice, with a single and unified path forward : get the HYBRID (let's call it E-M6) that would offer me a choice for any occasion between using two µFT bodies (E-M6 and E-M5) or two bodies that work perfectly with FT lenses (E-M6 and E-5).

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RoelHendrickx
Forum ProPosts: 22,776
Like?
My ideal scenario for the hybrid ...
In reply to klauser, May 18, 2013

klauser wrote:

RoelHendrickx wrote:

I would really have preferred not to have to make that choice, with a single and unified path forward : get the HYBRID (let's call it E-M6) that would offer me a choice for any occasion between using two µFT bodies (E-M6 and E-M5) or two bodies that work perfectly with FT lenses (E-M6 and E-5).

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

You  know, Roel,  I'm not convinced that this would be such a good idea: given  that we want best possible iq and good ergonomics I just don't see how mft's strengths (small body plus small primes) can go together really well with ft's strengths (excellent but much larger zooms which however require a bigger body to balance well). I believe that in a niche market one has to be uncompromising: mft plus primes has a USP (size in relation to iq) and ft has a different one (superb zooms with a unique balance of size,  reach and iq). In order to fully make use of ft's USP one needs the bigger body which in turn does not do justice to mft's USP. I would definitely prefer a big body that balances well with FT zooms and which may also take mft lenses rather than the other way around.

Olympus is really on the right track with the two-part grip for the E-M5.

I can use that camera :

* as REALLY small (no grip, add 20mm or 45mm),

* as small but not too small (add first part of grip and use with 12-50 or 17.5 Voigt or ZD8mm or ZD70-300 adapted)

* or as (just) big enough to handle even the bigger FT lenses ergonomically (add two parts of grip : I've used that with ZD12-60 but also ZD35-100 and ZD150; I admit : not with the even bigger lenses (that I don't own) and I would also not advise to carry that combo by grabbing the camera only, like I do with confidence with the E-5).

In my ideal scenario, the HYBRID will be slightly bigger than E-M5 (also with that slightly bigger EVF), but still small enough when naked to be a perfect fit for the smalles µFT lenses.  And it will have the same two-part grip configuration (all of it very sturdy) to be a good ergonomical fit for any µFT or FT lens.

In fact, I have said from day one, that an excellently designed detachable grip would be a key element in the merging of systems.

Here is a thread I started in december 2011, quite a while before the arrival of the E-M5 :

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/40079371

This was BEFORE anyone learned about the E-M5 and its very clever approach to the grip issue with that two-part grip (I still consider that a stroke of Olympus-genius and it is certainly one of the points that sold me on getting an E-M5...)

The E-M5 fulfilled my desires to a large extent (large enough to buy it), but we are still waiting hopefully for the true hybrid and I was just hoping it was already closer around the corner.

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Craig from Nevada
Contributing MemberPosts: 637Gear list
Like?
Re: Nuance--one set of batteries, charges and cables
In reply to RoelHendrickx, May 18, 2013
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RoelHendrickx
Forum ProPosts: 22,776
Like?
Agree - that would be nice (see my old thread) NT
In reply to Craig from Nevada, May 18, 2013

Craig from Nevada wrote:

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Craig from Nevada
Contributing MemberPosts: 637Gear list
Like?
Re: Agree - that would be nice (see my old thread) NT
In reply to RoelHendrickx, May 18, 2013

RoelHendrickx wrote:

Craig from Nevada wrote:

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

I recall that thread.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads