What will happen to Olympus now??

Started Oct 20, 2013 | Discussions
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 5,914
Like?
Re: What will happen to Olympus now??
In reply to Jay Ell, Oct 21, 2013

Jay Ell wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

Well, for the same reason I prefer unibody laptops, I'd prefer the E-M1.

If you want to wait for 4 years of usage so you can assess which is more durable, then be my guest.

Your right to do so, but you might be paying extra money for nothing, or even less than nothing. Typically, you'd put these things through accelerated wear tests, using shakers and drop hammers, environmental chambers and the like. You can simulate the culminated effects of years of use in just a few weeks. I'm surprised that none of the test sites have made any serious attempt to test fro robustness, weather sealing and the like.

-- hide signature --

Bob

We can do two things.

We can observe that the E-M1 is built in a similar fashion to other high end cameras, such as the D800/D4/1D, with a full metal body

Full metal body means quite little when it comes to durability. A good example is Apple iPhone va. Nokia Lumia 920. The latter is plastic, but it trounces the iPhones in numerous youtube videos.

And in cameras and laptops?

Also, body is not a structural weight carrying part, but just a thin protective layer. Plastic is as good as metal for that role, if not often better.

-- hide signature --

Copyright © Jay Ell

Oh come on. There have been a whole pile of pics posted so far. The E-M1's body is very clearly structural.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 30,208
Like?
Re: What will happen to Olympus now??
In reply to Martin.au, Oct 21, 2013

Mjankor wrote:

Jay Ell wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

Well, for the same reason I prefer unibody laptops, I'd prefer the E-M1.

If you want to wait for 4 years of usage so you can assess which is more durable, then be my guest.

Your right to do so, but you might be paying extra money for nothing, or even less than nothing. Typically, you'd put these things through accelerated wear tests, using shakers and drop hammers, environmental chambers and the like. You can simulate the culminated effects of years of use in just a few weeks. I'm surprised that none of the test sites have made any serious attempt to test fro robustness, weather sealing and the like.

-- hide signature --

Bob

We can do two things.

We can observe that the E-M1 is built in a similar fashion to other high end cameras, such as the D800/D4/1D, with a full metal body

Full metal body means quite little when it comes to durability. A good example is Apple iPhone va. Nokia Lumia 920. The latter is plastic, but it trounces the iPhones in numerous youtube videos.

And in cameras and laptops?

Also, body is not a structural weight carrying part, but just a thin protective layer. Plastic is as good as metal for that role, if not often better.

-- hide signature --

Copyright © Jay Ell

Oh come on. There have been a whole pile of pics posted so far. The E-M1's body is very clearly structural.

Some bits of the E-M1's body are structural.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Antony John
Senior MemberPosts: 1,014Gear list
Like?
Re: What will happen to Olympus now??
In reply to ioshadha, Oct 21, 2013

Well let's see. Put together a few numerics trying to emulate one system against the other in terms of a (more or less) complete zoom setup of Oly m4/3 and Nikon FF:

Em-1 + 9-18 + 12-40 F2.8 + 75-300 Cost $3,800 Mass 1.455 Kg

D610 + 14-24 + 7-24-70 + 70-200 Cost $8,290 Mass 4.130 Kg

I chose the D610 as being the lowest price and mass Nikon FF camera.

I'm not an Oly shooter so my choice of lenses might not be yours or even optimised for IQ - but I think they provide at least a comparison point.

Added to the Nikon FF kit one should also add chiropractor fees ;-). Camera mass is not that big a difference (500 vs 760 grams) but the mass and size of the FF camera lenses are the problem.

Hopefully the m4/3 sensors will improve over time to provide even better resolution, noise and DR - one would expect this as technology advances.

So, I guess Oly will eventually be able to provide IQ that is on a par with FF for most people's requirements other than those that require to print very large.

As the requirements are for a system, rather than for simply a camera, it would seem to be sensible to invest in the m4/3 system for the longer term if the mass and price constraints are of significance to you.

-- hide signature --

AJ
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero

 Antony John's gear list:Antony John's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D90 Nikon D600 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Like?
A FF system camera with no reasonably priced lenses is a non-starter...
In reply to ioshadha, Oct 21, 2013

Seems like the overwhelming theme m43 forum for the past year has been how IQ with m43 is close enough to FF for general shooting. And pretty much every day we'd see post after post about "Shallow DOF: gimmick" or "EM5 vs D800", and "EM5 vs 5D III".

Now with the announcement of the FF mirrorless Sony with 5 really expensive mostly f/4 lenses, and one small sensor bridge camera priced in the stratosphere, everybody on m43 forum is talking about the Sony A7 and RX10.

Wow, how times have changed!!!

For my needs, when I'm out in the early mornings with my tripod I prefer using a FF Nikon DSLR for the handling, ergonomics, the huge selection of reasonably price primes and high end pro-grade zooms (many available on the used market), and the big, bright OVF. That's what I like.

But I'll be the first to admit that as a hobbyist my D800 is way overkill. And if F-mount didn't offer a huge variety of lenses from a $200 50 f/1.8G to reasonably priced zooms, I wouldn't have bought it. It's as simple as that. I use a 28-50-85 f/1.8G, and 70-200 f/4 VR Nikkors and a Sigma 105 macro, and none of them except the 70-200mm were anywhere near $1000 like most of the Sony FF mirrorless lenses.

Prices and overall system matter. And in this area, the Sony FF system is a non-starter just because even their 35 f/2.8 prime is a whopping $800. Has anyone here ever paid $800 for a prime with a modest f/2.8 max aperture? The Sony 35mm f/2.8 may have a fancy blue Zeiss sticker on it, but it's not a German Zeiss lens, but a Sony/Zeiss branded lens made in Japan, Malaysia or wherever.

So while the A7 body might seem like a good deal, the Sony lenses make the entire system a wildly expensive proposition. And for the "legacy adapter crowd", mounting a $25 Ebay Konica legacy lens on a 36 mp FF camera and getting sharp corner to corner images just is not going to happen. Not to mention that fact that it will be manual focus.

The RX10, it's an almost 2 lb camera for $1300 that's going to get at least 1 stop worse high ISO than m43, and even more vs APS-C. As a DSLR size and weight fixed lens camera it's totally contrary to the concept of small, lightweight m43 cameras. Not to mention that fact that Sony's JPEG engine is one of the worst I've ever seen (See link below), so now you have an expensive RAW only camera.

http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/sony_cybershot_dsc_rx10_photos/

For walking around, general photography, travel, family photos and video, my preference has always been a small, crop sensor m43 or APS-C mirrorless with fast primes. The GX7 or X-E1 (my latest acquisition) rangefinder-esque type camera are all I need for this kind of shooting. A wildly expensive FF Sony mirrorless system is overkill, and not something that I have any interest in whatsoever. YMMV.

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 30,208
Like?
Re: What will happen to Olympus now??
In reply to Martin.au, Oct 21, 2013

Mjankor wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

Well, for the same reason I prefer unibody laptops, I'd prefer the E-M1.

If you want to wait for 4 years of usage so you can assess which is more durable, then be my guest.

Your right to do so, but you might be paying extra money for nothing, or even less than nothing. Typically, you'd put these things through accelerated wear tests, using shakers and drop hammers, environmental chambers and the like. You can simulate the culminated effects of years of use in just a few weeks. I'm surprised that none of the test sites have made any serious attempt to test fro robustness, weather sealing and the like.

-- hide signature --

Bob

We can do two things.

We can observe that the E-M1 is built in a similar fashion to other high end cameras, such as the D800/D4/1D, with a full metal body, and a lens mount attached (or actually a part of) that body.

We could observe that, but we'd be wrong if we did, The structure of the E-M1 is completely different to a SLR like the D800/D4/1D, which are built around a mirror box, which is the structural chassis holding it all together with non structural skins applied to the outside. The key thing really is what locates the lens mount in relation to the sensor. In the E-M1 this is a metal casting just as it is in the A7 and A7r.

We can observe that the A7/A7r is built more along the lines of a 6D (or if you prefer you can propose others).

Not really, the chassis of the 6D (also the 7D and 5D Mk III) is plastic with steel reinforcement.

We can then look at other cameras built using similar methodologies in the past to see how they held up and use that to predict the long term results.

You can't really compare the structure of a mirrorless with a DSLR. The mirror box doesn't exist in a mirror less, thus the design is much simpler and straightforward. In any case, there is no direct evidence that metal results in a more robust construction than plastic.

As you have a lot of experience with this type of thing, perhaps you'd like to proceed.

Also, the E-M1 gets regularly dunked during reviews, so it's not totally being ignored.

'Dunking' is not a particularly severe test. The internal pressure of an immersed enclosure and the surface tension of the water will usually stop much getting in a reasonably well fitting enclosure. Fine mist and high humidity is much worse, generally. Moisture is an interesting one. Most marine instruments are not sealed, because it is almost impossible to stop moisture getting in. To do so would mean hermetically sealing it, but that's expensive and probably impossible for an interchangeable lens camera. If it's not hermetically sealed, it will 'breath' that is take in and expel air as the temperature changes, and that air carries moisture, which you need to allow to get out, so there'll almost always be a drain hole somewhere. The trick of weather proofing is to make it hard for liquid water to enter through any of the routes that it will probably come, and labyrinth seals can work just fine for that.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ironcam
Forum MemberPosts: 93
Like?
Re: What will happen to Olympus now??
In reply to ioshadha, Oct 21, 2013

ioshadha wrote:

ironcam wrote:

Buying an A7 with two lenses, will cost you like 3000-4000 dollars. How many people are willing to drop that amount on camera gear? Most camera's that are sold are sub 1000 dollars consumer models. That is where all the money is made. Therefore I don't think the A7 release will have a devastating impact on Olympus camera sales.

Have you checked how much E-M1 costs with a decent lens?

-- hide signature --

Olympus XZ-1 and working my way up!

Any camera more than 1500 dollars starts to become niche product. The EM-1 is a flagship camera. They don't expect to sell a lot of it anyway. That's not where the all the money is.

Secondly, there is no gate way drug to the A7. No one is going to drop that amount of money on their first camera. While it is a lot cheaper to get in to the m43 system. And if someone might decide to get a more serious body, than the EM-1 is much cheaper if he already owns some lenses.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Andrewteee
Senior MemberPosts: 2,375Gear list
Like?
Selling headlines
In reply to Graham Hill, Oct 21, 2013

Graham Hill wrote:

Olympus is #6 on the list of brands that will disappear in 2014. Time to get used to that.

Those lists just sell headlines. I think Volvo was slated to disappear this year, at least in the US. How's that working out so far?

Olympus has a very strong medical imaging business too.

BTW I read a recent commentary about how many of today's photographers analyze a camera companies financial performance and make purchasing decisions based on that. That's a new phenomenon and "in the old days" people never thought about that. They just bought the camera equipment that worked for them and they liked to use.

 Andrewteee's gear list:Andrewteee's gear list
Ricoh GR Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Ricoh GXR A12 50mm F2.5 Macro Pentax K-3 Nikon Df +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Andrewteee
Senior MemberPosts: 2,375Gear list
Like?
Investments and cameras
In reply to ioshadha, Oct 21, 2013

ioshadha wrote:

With the release of Sony A7 and A7r and from a price point of view I'm wondering what sort of market will there be for Olympus micro fur-thirds - Specially the new OM-D E-M1. For the price of E-M1 you can easily get a A7 at lease within 100 bucks difference.

If one looks only at price, and is purely analytical about it, then yes it can be a tough choice. But either as art or science photography involves many other factors that play into the equation too.

For me investing on a Full-frame make more sense long term... I know micro four-thirds have a better lens line up and is more established but hey, if I consider buying a E-M1 today why not just invest the money for a Full frame? or am I missing something here?

I think "investing" is the wrong term to use here. I have purchased many cameras but none of them was a good investment. Now, if one earns their living through photography then the investment per se is more important.

What will happen to Olympus now? Any thought ? What would you pick if you were on the market today? What's the mirror-less camera you'll go for?

Several. Ricoh GR, Leica X Vario and now Olympus E-M1. Each fits a unique purpose. Overall, I prefer fixed-lens cameras, but as far as ILCs go I like the Olympus. It's weather-proof and has several good tele lenses available, and of course it is compact and light. FF lenses, unless they are highly software corrected, will be large and heavy.

Olympus XZ-1 and working my way up!

A great camera! I no longer own mine but thoroughly enjoyed mine while it was around.

It is great that there is more choice in mirrorless cameras and I applaud Sony's efforts. Someday, when the right 50mm FF mirrorless lens comes along I just may buy into it. But for now anyway I still prefer APS as the best sensor size balance.

I used to own the Canon 5D with the 50L and that's the combo that I'd like to duplicate someday via mirrorless. I had an entire series called Ground that I was very pleased with. In hindsight, I should have kept that pairing. Alas...

 Andrewteee's gear list:Andrewteee's gear list
Ricoh GR Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Ricoh GXR A12 50mm F2.5 Macro Pentax K-3 Nikon Df +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Like?
Re: What will happen to Olympus now??
In reply to Antony John, Oct 21, 2013

Antony John wrote:

Well let's see. Put together a few numerics trying to emulate one system against the other in terms of a (more or less) complete zoom setup of Oly m4/3 and Nikon FF:

Em-1 + 9-18 + 12-40 F2.8 + 75-300 Cost $3,800 Mass 1.455 Kg

D610 + 14-24 + 7-24-70 + 70-200 Cost $8,290 Mass 4.130 Kg

But using top of the line, pro-grade zooms is not a requirement with Nikon F-mount as there are tons and tons of high quality, inexpensive, and lightweight primes like the 28 f/1.8G, 50 f/1.4G, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, et al. And there are tons of reasonably priced Nikkor zooms (f/4 zooms like the 16-35 f/4, and 24-120 f/4 VR, used f/2.8 zooms 28-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8 ED, and variable aperture consumer zooms. And F-mount is one of the two most widely supported mount by third party manufacturers like Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Zeiss, et al.

For many different types of photography, landscape and macro for example, where you are shooting off of a tripod 90-95% of the time, camera weight and size is simply not an issue.

I don't think Olympus is going anywhere because they make great gear, but I also think the size and weight issue is way overhyped and exaggerated for many. It's not like a 1 lb. DSLR with a fast prime mounted is heavy for most adult men and women.  And adding large max aperture pro-grade zooms into a comparison with mirrorless systems is a bit misleading considering not every photographer needs such such lenses and not all types of photography require them.

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Like?
Re: Investments and cameras
In reply to Andrewteee, Oct 21, 2013

Andrewteee wrote:

What will happen to Olympus now? Any thought ? What would you pick if you were on the market today? What's the mirror-less camera you'll go for?

Several. Ricoh GR, Leica X Vario and now Olympus E-M1. Each fits a unique purpose. Overall, I prefer fixed-lens cameras, but as far as ILCs go I like the Olympus. It's weather-proof and has several good tele lenses available, and of course it is compact and light.

I would add the Fujifilm X cameras like the X-E2, and the Panasonic GX7, both excellent cameras with some very nice lenses available for their respective mounts.

FF lenses, unless they are highly software corrected, will be large and heavy.

This is simply not true. There are tons of primes like the Canikon 50 f/1.4 and f/1.8, Nikon 28 f/1.8G, Canon EF 40 2.8, Pentax DA primes not to mention a ton of consumer variable aperture zooms that are not heavy at all.

But since you brought up software correction, one of the unfortunate things about shooting mirrorless cameras (and I've own most of the major brands) is that often vendors like Panasonic, Olympus, Fujifilm use software correction and design lenses for smaller m43 and APS-C detectors, and still charge as much as FF lenses. Perhaps one reason some of the more niche camera systems have a hard time attracting huge numbers of regular, non hobbyist users is exceedingly high prices. With lenses designed for a smaller image circle so less glass and no need to optically correct for distortion and vignetting, and mirrorless vendors still frequently price lenses close to or over $1000 for primes and zooms. Not a good way to go from niche systems for well healed baby boomers to mainstream camera systems for the average user.

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TrapperJohn
Forum ProPosts: 10,553
Like?
No, we live in the real world
In reply to sportyaccordy, Oct 21, 2013

In the real world, that 'two stops advantage' is only really visible above ISO6400, maybe one stop at ISO3200. Below that, where most of us tend to shoot, there's no real visible difference between the two as concerns noise at the same ISO, so stopping down two stops is irrelevant when you're at ISO200, 400, 800, or 1600.

Don't take my word for it, go pull up the dpr comparameter and put the D800 up against the tiny little EM5. I won't say the EM5 is better than the D800 even though some parts of the DPR image tend to hint that it is, but if it's not as good, it's very close.

In the real world, we shoot telephoto, where FF needs a huge lens, or where one has to guess at the composure and crop later. There's still no substitute for seeing the final composition in the VF.

Yes, the larger sensor is still better - in some ways. However, the gap has closed in most ways since the days of the 5D, while the size difference and price difference and telephoto difference, especially with lenses, is still as great as it always was.

This is what you learn when you actually use the equipment, rather than read the spec sheet.

Given the practical facts of lens size, lens cost, lens availability, my best estimate is that most A7's will be used with NEX or Sigma glass in APS crop mode. The APS Zeiss 28 would probably work pretty well on the A7.

Which begs the question - why put a FF sensor on a small camera if lens size and lens cost make using the FF feature to its full advantage impractical? The FF sensor is starting to look more like a marketing gamble, than a practical advantage.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
burnymeister
Senior MemberPosts: 1,498Gear list
Like?
Nothing. For now...
In reply to ioshadha, Oct 21, 2013

Nothing.

Olympus has many more lenses and a much more complete system. By the time the Sony FE system is even close to the complete system that Olympus is, there will be much sexier technology to chase after.

Only photographers with a very specific set of needs / skills should be seriously interested in the FE system. This includes;

  • Reporters
  • Travelling Landscape photogs
  • Adapting SOME manual lenses.

For sports, kids, birthday parties and general shooting, the Olympus is more than most people can handle.

-- hide signature --

Vern Dewit
Calgary, Alberta Canada
http://www.explor8ion.com
http://verndewit.com/

 burnymeister's gear list:burnymeister's gear list
Sony RX1R RX100 III Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Sony Alpha 7S Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
justmeMN
Senior MemberPosts: 1,588
Like?
No change, meaning..
In reply to ioshadha, Oct 21, 2013

What will happen to Olympus now?

No change, meaning that Olympus' digital camera division will continue to do what it has done for years - lose money.

One of these years, Olympus may decide that selling/closing their digital camera division is preferable to constantly losing money. They are a thriving medical technology company, so they don't really need a digital camera division.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sportyaccordy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,187Gear list
Like?
Re: No, we live in the real world
In reply to TrapperJohn, Oct 21, 2013

TrapperJohn wrote:

In the real world, that 'two stops advantage' is only really visible above ISO6400, maybe one stop at ISO3200. Below that, where most of us tend to shoot, there's no real visible difference between the two as concerns noise at the same ISO, so stopping down two stops is irrelevant when you're at ISO200, 400, 800, or 1600.

Don't take my word for it, go pull up the dpr comparameter and put the D800 up against the tiny little EM5. I won't say the EM5 is better than the D800 even though some parts of the DPR image tend to hint that it is, but if it's not as good, it's very close.

Strange that you harp on me about spec sheets, but then fall back to what is essentially lab test talk. The advantage isn't in IQ, it is in flexibility. You keep the ISO, aperture and field of view the same, FF is faster by 1 stop. In less than ideal conditions, again, that's the difference between a motion blurred shot or a clear one. Or the difference between razor thin DoF and usable DoF. Etc.

Plus even just talking ISO, FF is as clean at ~ISO3000 as MFT is at ISO1000. So that 1 stop all of a sudden turns into dang near 3 when you need it the most. You don't think that's worth anything?

In the real world, we shoot telephoto, where FF needs a huge lens, or where one has to guess at the composure and crop later. There's still no substitute for seeing the final composition in the VF.

No, in the real world YOU shoot telephoto. I don't, and I haven't in years. Does that mean it doesn't matter at all? No, but then if one's only defense for a platform are its specialized uses rather than its benefits for general photography it's probably not the stronger platform. There are 30x zoom supercompacts... they are still inferior for the type of photography most people do. Most people are not taking portraits of their families from a quarter mile away.

Yes, the larger sensor is still better - in some ways. However, the gap has closed in most ways since the days of the 5D, while the size difference and price difference and telephoto difference, especially with lenses, is still as great as it always was.

This is what you learn when you actually use the equipment, rather than read the spec sheet.

I've used the equipment in the way I use it. Telephoto shooting is of no concern to me, so while I understand it matters to some I personally don't care about it. I have been shooting with the kit zoom on my NEX-C3 for years and have no problems with it.

Given the practical facts of lens size, lens cost, lens availability, my best estimate is that most A7's will be used with NEX or Sigma glass in APS crop mode. The APS Zeiss 28 would probably work pretty well on the A7.

Which begs the question - why put a FF sensor on a small camera if lens size and lens cost make using the FF feature to its full advantage impractical? The FF sensor is starting to look more like a marketing gamble, than a practical advantage.

This is a ridiculous statement, sorry. Why would anyone buy the A7, only to pair it with a cropped lens they could have used on a body costing 1/6th the price? No, folks who buy the A7 will use it with its full coverage lenses, as well as other mount full frame MF lenses. I would be fine with the kit zoom and some MF primes to play with.

At the end of the day, no camera can be everything for everybody. If shooting telephoto is top priority then by all means go with as small a high quality sensor as possible so you can get all the reach + IQ you need. But for general, walkaround "standard zoom" FL range photography, the bigger the sensor the better. The size disadvantage is marginal- again you are not putting any MFT body and 2.8 zoom in any shirt or pant pocket. The kit zoom on a full frame ranges from being as fast to nearly a stop faster than the MFT 2.8 zoom, and IIRC the EM5 + 2.8 zoom costs AND WEIGHS the same as the A7 + kit zoom, while being slower and having less resolution. For someone who does general shooting FF is the obvious choice in this comparison, and I am sure Sony will release even cheaper versions of these cameras to push the pendulum further.

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-C3 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
KariP
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,503Gear list
Like?
If you invest in FF and heavy big lenses
In reply to ioshadha, Oct 21, 2013

You must first calculate how much extra weight you are willing to carry around.

Traveling with a bag full of heavy lenses can be satisfying - if somebody carries them for you.

BTW - i do not own Olympus cameras. I chose Fuji X-E1 because i like to travel with a camera like that. I considered even an Olympus...

My 6kg of Canon DSLR gear stays at home - and all FF it would be 8kg....

Investing seriously in FF means that you have to use a car to carry your equipment or stay close to home... 

-- hide signature --

Kari
SLR photography started in 1968, Canon DSLR cameras, lenses and now also a Fuji X-E1
60.21 N 24.86 E

 KariP's gear list:KariP's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon EOS 7D Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CharlesB58
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,718
Like?
Re: What will happen to Olympus now??
In reply to Richie S, Oct 21, 2013

Richie S wrote:


Have y'all how dead Canon and Nikon forums are compared to the past, with all the innovation coming from other manufacturers.

Or maybe they are all busy making photos?

-- hide signature --

If, in my lifetime, I will have produced just one image that makes a real difference in the life of another, I will have achieved my highest goal as a photographer.
http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/
http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mike CH
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,086Gear list
Like?
Not really...
In reply to KariP, Oct 21, 2013

KariP wrote:

Investing seriously in FF means that you have to use a car to carry your equipment or stay close to home...

No.

I carry my FF gear mostly on public transport or on my back.

So far, at least

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

 Mike CH's gear list:Mike CH's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sportyaccordy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,187Gear list
Like?
Re: If you invest in FF and heavy big lenses
In reply to KariP, Oct 21, 2013

KariP wrote:

You must first calculate how much extra weight you are willing to carry around.

Traveling with a bag full of heavy lenses can be satisfying - if somebody carries them for you.

BTW - i do not own Olympus cameras. I chose Fuji X-E1 because i like to travel with a camera like that. I considered even an Olympus...

My 6kg of Canon DSLR gear stays at home - and all FF it would be 8kg....

Investing seriously in FF means that you have to use a car to carry your equipment or stay close to home...

-- hide signature --

Kari
SLR photography started in 1968, Canon DSLR cameras, lenses and now also a Fuji X-E1
60.21 N 24.86 E

I'm not sure I follow. What constitutes a "serious" investment? An M9 + a lens cost more than say, a D5III and the standard + tele 2.8 zooms. Plus one doesn't need 8kg of gear to take good pictures or be a serious photographer.

I would be more than fine with an A7 and a standard zoom....

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-C3 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rhlpetrus
Forum ProPosts: 23,275Gear list
Like?
Re: Like the A850 took over the FF DSLR world?
In reply to TrapperJohn, Oct 21, 2013

TrapperJohn wrote:

Takes more than a low price and a bigger chip to make a photographic platform.

I think this is a different thing, sales are pretty brisk at some places, something the D850 never enjoyed.

-- hide signature --

Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 rhlpetrus's gear list:rhlpetrus's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Antony John
Senior MemberPosts: 1,014Gear list
Like?
Re: What will happen to Olympus now??
In reply to marike6, Oct 22, 2013

marike6 wrote:

Antony John wrote:

Well let's see. Put together a few numerics trying to emulate one system against the other in terms of a (more or less) complete zoom setup of Oly m4/3 and Nikon FF:

Em-1 + 9-18 + 12-40 F2.8 + 75-300 Cost $3,800 Mass 1.455 Kg

D610 + 14-24 + 7-24-70 + 70-200 Cost $8,290 Mass 4.130 Kg

But using top of the line, pro-grade zooms is not a requirement with Nikon F-mount as there are tons and tons of high quality, inexpensive, and lightweight primes like the 28 f/1.8G, 50 f/1.4G, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, et al. And there are tons of reasonably priced Nikkor zooms (f/4 zooms like the 16-35 f/4, and 24-120 f/4 VR, used f/2.8 zooms 28-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8 ED, and variable aperture consumer zooms. And F-mount is one of the two most widely supported mount by third party manufacturers like Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Zeiss, et al.

You missed the point. I had said 'zoom setup'. Yes, there are far more permutations possible with different mass/price points.

For many different types of photography, landscape and macro for example, where you are shooting off of a tripod 90-95% of the time, camera weight and size is simply not an issue.

If you have your vehicle close at hand then getting the gear in and out of a vehicel is not that difficult a chore so in those circumstances, there's no problem with FF.

I don't think Olympus is going anywhere because they make great gear, but I also think the size and weight issue is way overhyped and exaggerated for many. It's not like a 1 lb. DSLR with a fast prime mounted is heavy for most adult men and women. And adding large max aperture pro-grade zooms into a comparison with mirrorless systems is a bit misleading considering not every photographer needs such such lenses and not all types of photography require them.

Mass is a major consideration if one is traveling by air (on-board weight allowance), hiking, bicycling etc.

I have a FF Nikon setup but even carrying my D600 with 70-200 F4 attached is not that easy a task to carry for a prolonged period.

I'm considering m4/3 for the times when I want to travel light because it makes sense to me - in other words a dual system, FF and m4/3. This is what a lot of pros seem to do as well.

As they say YMMV.

-- hide signature --

AJ
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero

 Antony John's gear list:Antony John's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D90 Nikon D600 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads