This article makes very little sense. The upgrade path is a real marketing strategy from the two largest camera manufacturers: Canon and Nikon. And that strategy is a proven success.
The reality is that 99% of the image 'look' is produced by the LENS. If money were no object, you choose the lens that gives you the most pleasing image, and then you attach a camera with a compatible sensor size.
However, most people have a limited budget and compromise accordingly. A crop body can be one of those compromises.
WGVanDyck: An interesting article, however, there is a fallacy within “Fallacy 2”. The manufacturers introduced a false premise that the APS-C lenses would do the same things as the FF lenses they try to emulate (35DX=50FX). The reality is; you are going to get the native characteristics of a lens’ focal length regardless of the sensor you put it on. As an example: a 35mm DX lens is going to give you 35mm lens distortion and DOF characteristics when mounted on an APS-C sensor. Other than angle of view, it (or any 35mm) is not equivalent to a 50mm lens. But, with the DX 35mm, you have all of the light falloff, distortion, and filter vignetting issues that would be reduced or nonexistent if a 35mm FF lens were used. The only APS-C lenses that make any sense are the wide to ultra-wide focal lengths. I love my Nikkor 12-24mm DX, but otherwise I find FF lenses don’t have the DX lenses' edge problems. So, there is a good reason to buy FF lenses, even when one doesn’t plan “upgrading” to a FF camera.
martindpr: I would add that different gear should be used for different assignment: Read the field test about the Canon 7D2 @ dpreview and you will see that it outperforms FF for wildlife photography. The reason is evident: Better resolution of the APS-C area (given the same lens) than FF, and better DOF. This is valid also for macro photography. For ex., you are photographing lions in the savanna and you have 1DX and 7DMk2, you have, say 300mm lens mounted on both, and you are 300 feet away from the heard. Which will produce a better picture? Well, the 1DX has 18MP and its sensor is x2 the size of 7D2. If it had the pixel density of 7D2, it would have to sport 40MP (double than 7D2) because of sensor size. So, given the diffraction limit at around f/8 of 20MP APS-C, it would be easy to conclude that 7D2 would produce better MAGNIFICATION of the physical frame (lioness hunting), given the same 300mm lens. The extended DOF further improves the quality.
This comment is bunk.
Jonathan F/2: What I find funny is that Nikon shows how to do small optics with the 300mm f/4 PF VR. Sony makes small bodies, but their optics look no smaller than SLR equivalents.
Who cares about Sony lenses when you can use Zeiss, Leica and Voigtländer glass on your A7?
Gabriel Chan: So far, non of Sony FE lens have any significant weight advantage compared to the Canon and Nikon FF lens....so what's the point of changing to a mirrorless system if only the body is 100g lighter and all the lens weigh about the same as FF DSLR lens? the FE 70-200 f4 is even heavier than the Canon 70-200 f4
The answer is Loxia.
select: when they will make a 50mm and 35mm f1.8 at the same price point of Nikon and Canon? (so it means around $250)this system won't be successful if they don't make some good quality but cheap lens
Those Canon and Nikon lenses are garbage so no thanks.
Summi Luchs: My guess is that they will use the sensor-shift to de-Bayer the image. They can move the red, green and blue pixels between the exposures so, that they get a full RGB sample for every pixel (like a Foveon sensor). This would not give us 'true' 40MP resolution, it is simply the same calculus of 'equivalence' Sigma uses for its cameras. (Sigma uses a factor of three, Oly gets a lower factor of equivalence, as the Bayer sensor is not RGB but RGGB).The gain would be better color information, that what makes Foveon images special.
I don't think they do the same as Hasselblad and other earlier attempts to increase true resolution by sensor movements. Earlier sensors had more blind gaps between the photosites making such techniques meaningful. Newer sensors have a dense array of microlenses (to gather more light per photosite), so there is not much left to sample in between.
@duartix, you make very good points. My opinion is that the E-M5's achilles heel is actually the color separation and tonality, and not the resolution (16mp is plenty).
prossi: Sounds like a gimmick, grasping for straws to extend the life of the current 4/3 sensor. I'd rather commission a better sensor from sony like a quad RX100 III sensor for 80mp and work on other improvement that should come first...better AF, more fps, more battery life, better software, better video. But the light gathered by the 4/3 sensor is what it is and the lumympus universe has already many great cameras. Both manifacturers built their ceiling before the walls when they married the 4/3 sensor.
The question is if it still uses the Sony sensor from the EM-5 and E-P5 (which is lousy, imo), or if it uses the Panasonic sensor from the E-M1, GX7 and GM5 (which is quite decent actually).
I just wish they wouldn't try to hard to compete with full frame, and just make a 10-12mp 4/3 sensor with native ISO 50.
Richt2000: Effectively this is manual re-sampled interpolation.The good thing about this (If I understand correctly) is it doesn't require the optics to be sharper to make a noticable benefit like going from a 16 to 40mp sensor would.
Considering that you are shifting the sensor and not the lens, the maximum achievable sharpness is still limited by the lens.
kodacolor: Sony is catching up with olympus' OM-D line
@Cameracist: in terms of M43 equivalence Sony has: 8-17mm f/212-35mm f/235-100mm f/214-70mm f/217mm f/1.427mm f/0.9Zeiss Loxia 25mm f/1Mitakon 25mm f/0.42
And announced for 2015:14mm f/117mm f/0.742.5mm f/0.745mm f/1.4 macroZeiss Loxia 17mm f/1
So I really don't see the problem compared to M43. And this is coming from a M43 shooter.
SirLataxe: Very nice - but lacking in two essentials: no articulating screen and no facility to mount a wide angle conversion lens.
An articulated screen would make the camera so much more useful, especially for close-ups, street photography and video, where taking the pictures from waist or lower level makes such a difference.
A high quality add-on WA lens would make the camera an ideal tool for landscapes taken during longer walks in difficult terrain, where the weight of a larger camera and lenses would be tedious.
Those are not essentials.
What I would like to see is a comparison from this little gem of a camera to the Olympus E-M1 with monster-size 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO lens.
The Df was a great missed opportunity.
A typical DSLR wastes more than a centimeter of space between the sensor plane and the surface of the LCD screen. This is part of the reason why DSLRs are so much more bulky than analog film SLRs.
They could have done some Apple-style trickery and left out the LCD to shave off that rear centimeter.
Instead Nikon chose to do a skinned D600 with the most ridiculous dial interface ever vomited onto the face of this earth.
The camera is a joke.
Mike99999: Time for Olympus to launch a full frame OM-D with E-mount.
@String, no, your opinion is wrong, as Sony already supports that mount and Sony owns Olympus now, so nobody would need to support anything new.
@Bluevellet, your opinion is wrong as well. Crop sensor mirrorless will die the same fate as the original four thirds, Pentax, Nikon DX, etc... There's not a single indication otherwise.
A great design experiment that lives on in X-T1 and A7 series cameras.
The problem is the sensor. The E-M5 produces flat and digital-looking images. Worse so than older, albeit more noisy, micro four thirds sensors.
Time for Olympus to launch a full frame OM-D with E-mount.
loafer: The demographic group that purchases this kind of camera has already bought into the fuji x and sony A7 systems.
Exactly and I'm one of them. Sold my Olympus gear for Sony + Loxia. I could not be happier.
Sirandar: If Pana and Oly want to make "Pro" lenses they need to know what kind of pros they are targetting and realize they are competing against their own 40-150mm lenses which usually can do the job. I love my OMD-E5 to death but if I was really making my living with it I probably would be forced to used FF, if only because my customers would expect it. Thankfully I am free of the bondage of actually trying to sell photography.
Take home message .... there is not much point making 1000$ plus pro lenses for M4/3. The rich want more prestige cameras and the middle that loves and supports M4/3 cant justify the price when the 40-150 is only 149$
If the Oly primes I wanted dipped below the 400$ mark I would buy them tomorrow (12mm and 75mm). That is the price these primes should be.
The 75mm is worth it's money. The 12mm is a bit overpriced.
Everlast66: I think it is laughable to call anything associated with the M4/3 system "PRO"!!
Surely there would be one or two enthusiasts, but no normal professional will rely on a M4/3 sensor for their professional work.
A lot of things coming out of Panasonic lately are M4/3 and are most definitely as PRO as it gets, like the GH4 camera.
And the new GM5 with pop-up viewfinder and two collapsible zoom lenses is a winner for extreme outdoors sports photography. No more lugging around huge tele lenses in the mountains.
But Olympus... Olympus is going down the same downward spiral as in the 4/3 days.
Dheorl: I'm impressed at how little screaming about equivalence there's been. Maybe that phase has at last passed.
They are too busy taking photos with their A7 camera.