Timmbits: "According to mirrorlessrumors.com the new camera will cost 2450 Euros (~$3100). What do you make of this latest rumor? Let us know in the comments."
Someone remind me why an apsc should cost this much?
For that price you could get an E-M5 and a whole bunch of lenses that are a lot faster than f/6.whatever...
Carlos AF Costa: Full Frame? No? Ok, thank you, but no!
Are they, though?
I have an old book on nature photography, back in the film days. It specifically advises against getting a 50 f/1.2 lens, saying that "how often are you really going to use that last stop, anyway? That's not enough depth of field. Save your money."
Now we have immeasurably better high ISO performance; very fast apertures aren't as crucial as they once were. I do wish Olympus made faster telephoto glass (something faster than f/5.6!), but for shorter focal lengths there is a slew of excellent f/1.8 or f/1.4 primes, and a few f/0.95 things if you really need speed (although at that point you ought to go fullframe, as you say). These give you the equivalent of f/3.6 or f/2.8 on fullframe in both depth of field and noise performance. Is that good enough? For many people, yes -- it's worth the lighter weight, smaller size, and lower cost of m4/3 (plus, if you're trying to handhold in low light, m4/3 has IBIS!)
DavinaG: I love Olympus cameras, they are great tools for photography and I will continue to wait for an E system replacement. However, what I really want is a mirrorless system such as this camera for travel. But with wi-fi that does only a fraction of what the Samsung NX-300 will, GPS integration that is laughable, and a price that makes me shriek, I think I will continue to wait. Great pictures are not enough anymore, I want a system that truly embraces the latest in technology after the picture is taken.
Olympus has never been at the bleeding edge of that sort of technology -- ultimately they are a optics company first, a camera company second, and a computer company a distant third.
The price will come down -- I really don't see why you'd want one of these over an E-M5.
rfsIII: What do birds have to do with this camera? Half the comments below are about ibis this and ibis that. I don't understand the connection between coastal bird species and Olympus. What am I missing.
In-body image stabilization.
For many years Olympus has done image stabilization by wiggling the sensor around instead of glass elements in the lens. By all accounts it works quite well: I have an older E-510, and have some quite lovely pictures of an ibis taken with the aid of IBIS.
What exactly about the Four Thirds sensor format makes it unsuitable for serious photography?
EOSHD: Imagine this in video Ex-Tele mode on the GH2/GH3. The extra crop factor would make it a telephoto over 9000mm!
I've shot sunspots with a 400mm, actually :)
Ramyeah: Well, it's a spotting scope for MFT, aimed at birders. It comes with a Φ50mm objective lens and 12-36X zoom, which may be the base minimum for a spotting scope. A good birding scope typically has >Φ65 mm objective lens and Φ77-90 are the most preferred ones, which ensures sufficient light gathering. Depending on the quality of the glasses used, this'd be useful to capture quality photos of distant birds that are much more than just ID-shots. But definitely not crisp and detailed ones of comparable SLR-Lens quality :) 'Digiscoping' is a niche in the bird-photography, that's slowly gaining popularity and any new developments in this regard would be of great interest to those pursuing this genre, I'd say.
Lensrentals did an interesting test comparing digiscoping to dedicated supertele lenses; the verdict was that digiscoping did remarkably well for the cost but that when it comes to clarity and contrast, it's not in the same league as real lenses. Digiscoping will get you a picture from far away when nothing else for the price will, though.
With bird photography, the real trick is figuring out how to get close. Some of the best bird shots (of herons and the like) I've seen were done with a 50-200mm zoom.
topstuff: It's all a bit "meh" is'nt it?
Is it just me or is it really hard to get enthusiastic about these shapeless black plastic lumps?
Good IQ is a given. But then you get great IQ with a NEX, or M4/3 or whatever.
Other manufacturers are starting to make cameras which are covetable. They are nice objects to own.
Canon don't seem to get this. All their products are so darn plasticky and dull and generally hard to love. At the leisure end of the market, this matters IMO.
The camera I've got in my backpack has peeling rubber and the writing is wearing off. It's an ugly lump with an an ugly lens on the front (at the moment, the ZD 35/3.5 macro). Yet it takes lovely images, and *those* are what I am enthusiastic about and whose appearance matters to me, not the camera itself.
BeanyPic: Just been reading through some of the comments below. Canon should thank their stars that the people who are trying their best to find fault with this camera know not what they speak. Adding a swivel screen would do 2 things... Make it bigger and the screen size would have to be smaller. People this is the nearest thing to Dr Who's Tardis that you'll get. When you can break the laws of Physics please share with the world and brands will buy it from you. This will beat Sony's and Olympus's try and fail cameras, that promise so much on the box but fail when it comes to the real world.
While you're saying that Olympus cameras "try and fail", there are people running around taking fantastic images with them despite their quirks. People also shot great stuff on (gasp) ISO 25 Kodachrome.
IrishhAndy: This kills micro four thirds but it is not really good.
Micro Four Thirds lenses are a *lot* smaller.
The 45 f/1.8 is a superb portrait lens, and you can lose it in the sofa. The 14/2.5 is a good wideangle prime, and the 20/1.7 is very good; both are *tiny*.
maxola67: It's less the Panas-GH3!What's next Canon step relating to lenses size?I remember Oly made the same mini- DSLR(e-420) with no success.
The failure of the Oly mini-DSLR's was mostly due to Olympus' marketing fail rather than anything wrong with the product. The E-410 and 420 didn't sell that well because the 510 and 520, with a little bigger body and with (very good) IBIS, came out alongside them. The E-620 (the next version), with an only slightly larger body but IBIS, a bigger viewfinder, and a 12MP sensor, had a fair bit of success, at least compared to the under-marketed Four Thirds line as a whole.
I've still got an E-510 in my pack -- it takes lovely images.
Entropius: So Canon just invented the E-410. Cool!
I have shots from my E-510 (same sensor as the 410) at ISO 800 (and even pushed 2/3 stop in post) printed 16x20 that look great. Yeah, the sensor is ancient and not so good, but it's not that bad, either.
So Canon just invented the E-410. Cool!
Vitruvius: So the 16MP, 7FPS, with 1.3X crop factor would be almost exactly the same crop and resolution as a Micro 4/3 camera, except slower frame rate than the M43 cameras.
I wonder -- the file sizes should be smaller in 1.3x crop mode. How much will this increase the buffer length?
Roger Engelken: Thank you for posting this article and interview. As an E-5, E-620 and E-420 user, along with several of the Zuiko four thirds mount lenses, I would welcome continued investment in the line by Olympus. Time alone will tell.
What I'd love from Olympus, honestly: pretty much any new DSLR with the E-M5 sensor and a quality AF system, along with a 300 f/4 SWD lens.
backayonder: Barney. Will you be returning there tomorrow? If so take a wet fish and slap the company reps around the head with it and repeat. " I want a viewfinder, I want a viewfinder" You might need more than one fish.
sdyue: Sensors don't see in binocular vision, why should viewfinders?
I don't need a viewfinder to tell me what the world looks like to me; I have eyeballs for that. I want a viewfinder to tell me what it looks like to my camera.
Lan: Questions to DxO:
1) How do you source your lenses for testing?
2) On average, how many copies of a lens do you test?
Roger Cicala also understands the optics and mathematics well enough to write very competently about the technical things.
Erik Magnuson: I think this score will correlate pretty well with lens sharpness in general, i.e. a lens with a P-Mpix 15 (of 18) will be noticeably better than a lens with a score of 8. However, it may not correlate as well for small differences, e.g. a score of 14 and a score of 15 may mean lenses that merely have different strengths (i.e. center vs. edge, best vs. wide open performance) where the weighting used does not match the user preference.
If a user merely wants to know "what's an excellent vs. merely good lens", then this number will be useful. Buying the lens with the highest number is rarely going to be "wrong" but it may not be optimal. If you want to know "what the best lens for 35mm f/2 corner to corner" then this number will not be as useful. Digging down into the detail graphs may help, but if you have specific questions you should not expect average numbers to be the answer. Also remember YMMV so small differences in measurements may not be significant in field use.
Not being lazy and actually reading a real review, assuming someone will write one :)
There are a lot more things to a lens's performance than a one-dimensional measurement. What does this scheme make of a lens like the Panasonic 14/2.5, which is extremely sharp but has high chromatic aberration? What about the Canon 70-200/2.8 mk1 at 200/2.8, which has poor microcontrast but resolves a good amount of detail? The high sharpness and resolution, but bizarre bokeh, of the Zuiko 50-200?
What about a classic lens like my Olympus OM 50/1.8, which is surprisingly highly-resolving wide open in the middle of the frame (great for portraits) but without the high acutance of modern asphericals, and with a strong dropoff in sharpness toward the edge?
There's a whole lot more to a lens's performance than one number. That's why the old DPReview lens reviews were great, with the little checkerboards: you can see for yourself what the point spread function at different places in the frame is.
OseasMillan: 39 Auto Focus Points? OOOMMMMGGG, very nice for an entry camera.
How many AF points is less important than how accurate and surefooted they are...