Previous news story    Next news story

Olympus working on new body for 'Pro' Four Thirds lenses

By dpreview staff on Aug 17, 2012 at 18:04 GMT

Olympus has issued a press release, confirming that it is working on a camera body for use with its range of 'Top Pro' lenses. According to the press release Akira Watanabe, manager of Olympus's Imaging SLR Planning Department acknowledges that while Olympus has 'pushed the boundaries of performance' with the Micro Four Thirds OM-D E-M5, 'it did not deliver with the legacy high end lenses from the E-system'. Although the statement is vague and very brief, it is the most formal confirmation yet of the company's plans to continue to support its Four Thirds lenses. Released in 2010, the 'pro-grade' E-5 is a camera that many commentors and Four Thirds users had assumed would be the last in the line.

Although Olympus's recent Micro Four Thirds cameras like the OM-D E-M5 offer competitive performance (usurping what was once the E-5's claim of 'world's fastest autofocus'), they cannot match the E-5's speed when used with Four Thirds lenses.

The 'pro-grade' E-5, released in 2010, is Olympus's flagship E-system DSLR, and offered what Olympus claimed was the 'world's fastest' autofocus system.

Press Release:

Olympus working on new body for top-pro lenses

Akira Watanabe, manager of Olympus Imaging's SLR planning department, confirmed today that the company is definitely working on a body to deliver the focusing performance expected by users of the Top Pro lens series like the ground breaking 90-250mm f2.8 fixed aperture zoom.

Watanabe has been delighted with the success of the OM-D which has pushed the boundaries of performance for system cameras but acknowledged that it did not deliver with the legacy high end lenses from the E-System. Whilst further information wasn't forthcoming, he was keen to emphasise that Olympus is actively developing a solution and will announce more details in due course.

Related Links:

Comments

Total comments: 266
12
alfa
By alfa (Aug 26, 2012)

I am pretty happy with the performance of the 12-60 on my EM-5. It is a lot slower focussing than the 12-50 in some circumstances but actually only a little worse in low light. It's pretty handy and since I use the 12, 20 and 45 primes far more since I got the EM-5, the 12-60 does fine as my walkabout zoom. I much prefer to have its IQ and quirks than to settle for the softness of the 12-50 even with its focussing speed improvement.

The 50-200 is the only lens which is not really usable on the EM-5 as it won't track quickly enough for moving subjects, though focussing speed is almost acceptable for single frames. The FT 9-18 and the FT 70-300 are both only slightly slower on the EM-5.

Small wonder the primes are selling so well.

0 upvotes
Lennart E Johansson
By Lennart E Johansson (Aug 26, 2012)

Yes we know that, but when putting my otherwise marvellous 12-60/2,8-4 with MMf-3 on the OM-D EM-5 the focusing speed was disappointing compared to the much cheaper (darker and lighter) 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ.
In most other respects I like the EM-5 body a lot, maybe because I have quite small hands, but anyhow I feel the battery grip is necessary anyway for a reasonable balance with the 12-60 and bigger lenses.
I'll swap to an OM-D body if it gets top-class Phase Detect AF and even faster, higher resolution EVF
For wide-angle shots I prefer using fixed length lenses because they automatically encourage some footwork and soft knees so I compose superior pictures.
I hope they have capacity to develop a full range of wideangles, there could
be at least 2 ranges,
Consumer ex. 17/2.8
Pro ex. 12/2.0 as fast as possible but retaining pancake shape and weight below 150 g. Here I miss 10/2.8, 14/2.0, 20/2.
I'm disappointed that 45/1.8 + 60/2.8 came instead of a new 50/2:0 that does it all.

0 upvotes
CameraExpert
By CameraExpert (Aug 23, 2012)

The Four Third lenses can be used on PENs and OM-D via the MMF-2/MMF-3 Lens Adapters

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital_omd.asp?section=lens

1 upvote
brandtb
By brandtb (Aug 23, 2012)

The Scoop: I was just at Olympus US headquarters in Hauppage...and spoke to someone in a senior position about this. He first just chuckled...and said the interviewer interpreted a LOT into what was actually said in the interview...and it became somehow a possible "new DSLR" in the subsequent chatter. He said that it was highly doubtful that Oly will "upgrade" or add "new model" to the E3-E5 line. Sad to me because the ergonimics of these cameras are second to none...and that's important to me...high ISO IQ etc. etc. are other issues but not a concern for what I do

0 upvotes
J2Gphoto
By J2Gphoto (Aug 24, 2012)

I would hope that Dpreview would have made some calls to confirm this story before they posted it. They seem to be pretty accurate with their news.

0 upvotes
J2Gphoto
By J2Gphoto (Aug 21, 2012)

I may have posted this A LONG time ago. Prior to the E-5 being released I sent Olympus an email expressing my concern and anger about dumping the 4/3 system. This was when the rumors were everywhere they were done with 4/3 camera's and working on PEN's to take their place. A rep from Olympus actually called me and we spoke for a very long time. He said then that Olympus has never gone on record that 4/3 was dead and they were done with the line. I had made comments about switching systems in my letter and he said be patient, I can't tell you what's coming but if I can wait my concerns will be put to rest. Then the E-5 came out. I have since sold my E-5 in favor of the E-M5. I'm not sorry I did. For me the E-M5 is near perfect. I don't miss the size and weight of carrying my E-5 with the 50-200SWD on it. Sometimes I miss the girth of the grip. The only thing I miss is a line of weather sealed lenses. If the E-7 out performs the E-M5 I may switch back. But right now I love it.

1 upvote
AndyGM
By AndyGM (Aug 20, 2012)

If this body this Olympus Manager is referring to, is not an m43 camera, with some form of PDAF built in... I'll eat my hat.

1 upvote
AndyGM
By AndyGM (Aug 24, 2012)

Looks like no hat eating required. This is the clarification message on Olympus UKs Facebook page:

"A new camera is under study in order to optimize the Four Thirds lenses".

Which I take to mean a non Four Thirds camera that works as well with Four Thirds lenses as a Four Thirds camera does.

If you get my drift...

0 upvotes
AshMills
By AshMills (Aug 20, 2012)

Too little too late sadly I fear- I miss my E1, E3 and zuiko lenses, but I think for me physics won out in the end.

I wish it well however - Canikon need competition, as their incremental "new" models often lack drive if you ask me.

0 upvotes
PaulSnowcat
By PaulSnowcat (Aug 20, 2012)

Those 4/3 lenses re just great. Maybe the best out there... But how many users still work with 4/3 system? They've scammed us with that E5, that actually was a E3Mk2, nothing more... And now they expect someone to come back? Well, a few would. But very few.

And of something is made for a very few ppl, that something will be VERY expensive I afraid ><

2 upvotes
d3xmeister
By d3xmeister (Aug 20, 2012)

I used both extensively and the E-5 is a totally different animal. It has better......everything.

2 upvotes
James A Rinner
By James A Rinner (Aug 20, 2012)

The E-5 was heads and tails over the E-3. The EM-5 did replace my E-5 so I could take more lenses and less bulk and weight with me where ever I go; day hike or into the back country!

2 upvotes
sauchiyong
By sauchiyong (Aug 20, 2012)

Olympus made an announcement before about a shift from p&s to higher end product as it will increase their profit. Engineers from the low end will likely to reposition to other department within the company, likely SLR and m43 division. It is understandable for Olympus to focus on M43 as company limited resource should focus on M43... with now with extra engineer involve we should see more 43 and M43 than p&S...
Olympus were holding back as there was wasted effort if the sensor can not match what others system. Time has changed and if they just have their extra engineers to put the sensors from EM-5 to the E5 they will have a competitive system. Which they will sell a lot of the pro lenses, and will bring them a lot of profit as the r&d and tooling r paid for long ago... I think they can assure this time it is not wasted effort as we already saw what the sensor can do. This is the SLR that will make a big difference! >10fps, 16MP, AF DR, lSO performance, IBIS and 1080p

1 upvote
sauchiyong
By sauchiyong (Aug 20, 2012)

This already look like the spec of D4, with IBIS and smaller lens system... I am sure you will not see just nikon and Canon in the next Olympic games.

1 upvote
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Aug 20, 2012)

To Sauchiyong: no, Olympus will not dispatch these ingineers to other sections, they will probably FIRE them all, by pack of thousands: http://100hla.com/2012/05/disgraced-company-to-lay-off-thousands/

For those who are about to buy a product from this company and who don't know what's the Olympus big scandal, have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_scandal

And think again !

For my part, no Olympus ever, I'm not such a pleasure-seeker as seem to be too much of us here. That's my politics: not a single penny to a company that behaves bad, otherwise tomorrow don't be surprised to be fired too in order for your boss to sell "affordable goods". Affordable for those who still have a job, though !

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
sauchiyong
By sauchiyong (Aug 20, 2012)

hi, WilliamJ , olympus is a public company, and bad guys are already in jail, and I think that should be end of story. as to fire off staffs,it is company internal decision, if business lose its competitive edge, it is nature to fire off unproductive staff or close business as a result. The good staff will always find better job. As far as I know Japanese company is more a life time employment.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Aug 20, 2012)

I don't doubt you are of good faith, but gathering a little bit more informations about all of that won't be unuseful. To have an insight about the unreformable Japan Inc. : http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/668ea860-8a0d-11e1-87f0-00144feab49a.html#axzz2471mUBgz and http://thediplomat.com/2012/07/05/after-olympus-can-japan-inc-reform/

0 upvotes
Craig from Nevada
By Craig from Nevada (Aug 19, 2012)

I suspect this camera will be very expensive. I don't care so long as it provides value for the dollar.

2 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Aug 19, 2012)

Good timing for a 4/3. Very curious to see what is being delivered.

2 upvotes
Tim the Grey
By Tim the Grey (Aug 19, 2012)

I still use my old E-1. It's 8 years old, and I love using it. It just WORKS. I also have a D700 acquired recently, and if I'm honest, I grab the E-1 if I NEED to get the shot just now. That may change, but right now, I KNOW what that E-1 will do...
Oh, and I also know it can handle ANY rain, any time. The Nikon gets tucked away for now!
So, yes, I like this announcement, if it's for a new E?. If it's just an m4/3 adaptor, then I stay away.
And all those claiming Zuikos are big, and heavy, etc. just please go TRY one? You might find it's way better than you thought.

7 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Aug 19, 2012)

Great pragmatic view

We do not need a camera every six months. If you know how to shoot, the camera body becomes second. The E-1 was my first digital camera. The grip and manufacturing quality is unique, still something nostalgic compared to lots of the cheap stuff from today.

But, please make peace with your D700. The sensor is really great and still outstanding – will be a long lasting value as your E-1. Good to read about people getting out of the “upgrading”, throw-away trends serving profit hungry industry.

Nevertheless, we will be open for an “E-7” or whatever make, offering something similar we expect using Olympus lens quality. If Olympus fails to deliver, we must look elsewhere. Would be a pity.

2 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Aug 19, 2012)

I don't think they'll announce an adapter. Mr Watanabe is head of Olympus' SLR division, so it'd be bizarre if he appeared in public to announce a m4/3 accessory. I'm sure it will be a new 4/3 body.

3 upvotes
Craig from Nevada
By Craig from Nevada (Aug 19, 2012)

Mr. Watanabe better have a an SLR up his sleeve. Otherwise why have an SLR division?

2 upvotes
CameraExpert
By CameraExpert (Aug 23, 2012)

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital_omd.asp?section=lens

The adapter already exists!

0 upvotes
Nate21
By Nate21 (Aug 18, 2012)

I am guessing olympus will make a micro 4/3rd camera that uses both 4/3rd and mirco 4/3rd lens, it wil mostly likely be the OM-D replacement or the new section for the system only time will tell.

3 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Aug 18, 2012)

I'm thinking Olympus should have done this in the first place.

2 upvotes
Domagoj Batinic
By Domagoj Batinic (Aug 19, 2012)

for that to happen they have to make an adapter that will focus 4/3 lenses as good as 4/3 body, and that they didn't succeed to do yet. and making OM-D replacement so soon is nonsense.

this will be 4/3 body

2 upvotes
Valentinian
By Valentinian (Aug 20, 2012)

I'm afraid you're right..... which means no chance to be able to use 4/3 lenses on the EM-5 ...
meanwhile they waste time with a new 4/3 body...

0 upvotes
Edgar_in_Indy
By Edgar_in_Indy (Aug 21, 2012)

How would they make a camera that uses 4/3 and m4/3 lenses without an adapter? Are you thinking of a camera that has the size/depth of a DSLR, but with an EVF and no mirror? That way, the sensor assembly could move forward when using m4/3 lenses, or stay back when using 4/3 lenses.

0 upvotes
CameraExpert
By CameraExpert (Aug 23, 2012)

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital_omd.asp?section=lens

The adapter already exists!

0 upvotes
olyflyer
By olyflyer (Aug 18, 2012)

So finally Olympus officially recognized what the fanboys refused to recognize all these years... ALL the current mirrorless cameras are too slow with the Olympus pro lenses.

Too bad it took Olympus so many years to officially admit this. They should hurry up otherwise there will be no more people using their pro ranges. However, what would be most important is to make new lenses. The pro range is extremely old by now, most are non-SWD and slow focusing by today's standards.

4 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Aug 20, 2012)

That's kind of a tradition in Olympus to deny reality. Exactly like when they lost 1.2 billion yen in a settlement with their unfairly fired ex-CEO M. Woodford. Even after that, they persisted in stating it was not the fact they did wrong ! Cf: http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20120621p2a00m0na008000c.html

Yet, Olympus is next to collapse now (cf: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/economy/business/AJ201208100053 ) and this time, maybe they will (re)act properly. But can you really change your fundamental nature ?

0 upvotes
Promit
By Promit (Aug 18, 2012)

If you think that the Oly 12-35 f/2 should weigh and cost the same as a full frame 24-70 f/4 because the depth of field is the same, you don't even deserve to own a camera.

3 upvotes
Antonio Rojilla
By Antonio Rojilla (Aug 18, 2012)

Said the guy who decides who deserves a camera and who doesn't.

12 upvotes
MichaelEchos
By MichaelEchos (Aug 18, 2012)

It's supposed to be the same. Not only the depth of field is the same, even the low light performance should be the same given the sensors have similar technological advancement.

2 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Aug 18, 2012)

MichaelEchos, exactly (about low-light noise performance). On top of that the best achievable (base ISO) noise performance of a m4/3 camera is also about 2-stop worse than the same generation full-frame (assuming the same base ISO, which is typically true).

4 upvotes
d3xmeister
By d3xmeister (Aug 20, 2012)

The 24-70mm is not even close in optics quality, maybe not even in 12-60mm standards.

2 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Aug 20, 2012)

:))

Do you mean all of them are not close? Nikon, Zeiss, Canon (both versions)? Also are they not close at the equivalent apertures (e.g. f/4 vs f/2)?

1 upvote
James70094
By James70094 (Aug 26, 2012)

I just looked at some iso6400 images from the E-m5 and the Nikon D800. I don't see a 2stop advantage at all. I don't even see a 1 stop advantage, it looks like about a 2\3 stop advantage for the FF D800. I guess some people just can't accept the advancement made by Oly.

1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Aug 26, 2012)

You did take into account the different pixel count between these cameras, didn't you? If not then that's that extra stop and a bit (log2(36.3/16)~=1.2 EV to be precise) in ISO performance that you are missing from the comparison you checked.

0 upvotes
James70094
By James70094 (Aug 27, 2012)

Actually I was able to comapre the images on the computer and several printed 8x10s. It was less than a full stop difference at iso6400. You are trying to be overly technical and it doesn't work, the actual images and prints are proof of that.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Aug 27, 2012)

I'm looking forward to seeing DxOMark E-M5 results so that there's no need to guess. For now, briefly comparing E-M5 and D800 results published here at DPReview I personally felt E-M5's ISO6400 is close to D800's ISO25600 in terms of detail loss due to noise. Physics dictates that an ideal 2x crop sensor will have 2 EV disadvantage versus the same ideal fullframe. So for E-M5 sensor to have just 2/3-1 EV disadvantage (compared to D800) it has to be more than twice as efficient as the D800's sensor per unit area. That is very very unlikely since that would mean that E-M5's quantum efficiency is about 60-90% (vs D800's 30-40%) -- only the best Peltier-cooled grayscale scientific CCD's currently have such efficiencies (and they cost a fortune). All-in-all my guess is that when DxOMark results are out you'll see 2+-0.3 EV difference between E-M5 and D800 :-P. Science works :))).

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
inasir1971
By inasir1971 (8 months ago)

It's a 14-35 (24-70 equivalent) NOT a 12-35

0 upvotes
Atlasman
By Atlasman (Aug 18, 2012)

The press release makes no reference to Four-Thirds (FT), it just acknowledges that the E-M5 is not capable of utilizing existing FT lenses.

The solution that they are working on could still be something other than a new pro E-System.

Olympus would do better to develop a smart adapter for m4/3 that utilizes the existing pro-grade lenses. The adapter could actually help Olympus expand their market to sell more of the FT pro-grade lenses. Another pro-level E-System would only be sold to existing lens owners.

1 upvote
Gesture
By Gesture (Aug 18, 2012)

Yes. Because the OM-D EM-5 has from the start begged the question "What would come next." We have an improved sensor, a retro form factor with an EVF, so would the next camera be a lower-priced model, more upscale, etc. Also, what next for the Digital PEN line?

0 upvotes
kievfotog
By kievfotog (Aug 19, 2012)

totally agry: "Olympus would do better to develop a smart adapter for m4/3 that utilizes the existing pro-grade lenses. "

they don't have money and market sector to make new body and go to Pro consumers.
most of photographers can go to mirrirless systems.
and the 4/3 to m4/3 adapter can hold them in Oly/Panas systems.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 48 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
CameraExpert
By CameraExpert (Aug 23, 2012)

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital_omd.asp?section=lens

The adapter already exists!

0 upvotes
lester11
By lester11 (Aug 18, 2012)

Yup, AFAICS the statement says nothing about a "new FT body", only about improving AF performance with FT lenses. Pause and reflect; it's mFT that needs this improvement, not existing FT bodies... So this might be a new FT, but it could also be an E-M7, and it just might be a firmware / MMF3 upgrade for the E-M5.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Haider
By Haider (Aug 20, 2012)

Maybe they (DPReview) know more than they let on. Maybe Oly said something off the record...

0 upvotes
Documensony
By Documensony (Aug 18, 2012)

I think DPR interpretes the press release incorrectly.

The statement from Olympus says nothing about any continuation of the 43 system (as suggested by DPR), it only says that Oly is working on a better AF solution for using 43 lenses.

Which may very likely be a solution within the m43 system (i.e. via AF measurement directly from sensor - Nikon, Canon and Sony sensors are able to do this already).

2 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (Aug 18, 2012)

The story of the comments sections:

"Example: 14-35 f/2 ($2300, 2lbs) vs Canon 24-105 f/4 ($950, 1.5lbs); 35-100 f/2 ($2500, 3.6 lbs) vs Canon 70-200 f/4 IS ($1200, 1.7 lbs)."

Lets compare an f2 lens to an f4 lens and claim parity of value.

Everyone who uses SHG or HG glass and undersands what it is, raise your hands.

7 upvotes
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (Aug 18, 2012)

I think you've lost the plot there. It isn't just about DoF, but light gathering too & that is what you are paying for with those particular Olympus lenses, as well as high quality, edge to edge sharpness.

4 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Aug 18, 2012)

Edge to edge sharpness is overrated for a lot of photography applications.

1 upvote
MichaelEchos
By MichaelEchos (Aug 18, 2012)

Light gathering? Lol. A f/4 on full frame cameras have the same low light performance as a f/2 on M43.

3 upvotes
MichaelEchos
By MichaelEchos (Aug 18, 2012)

Just look at this example, when compared to full frame with f/2 lens, M43 has 1/4 the sensor size but the f/2 optics capture 4 (2x2) times the density of light and therefore, low light ability is the same. Whatchu talking bout'?

3 upvotes
MichaelEchos
By MichaelEchos (Aug 18, 2012)

And I'm sorry to say, it seems like the Olympus equivalent isn't as sharp as the full frame lenses.

1 upvote
Nate21
By Nate21 (Aug 18, 2012)

Edge to Edge sharpness should only be the difference.

1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Aug 18, 2012)

mapgraphs, 14-35 f/2 is indeed 28-70 f/4 FF equivalent in terms of both depth of field AND low light performance since angle of view AND the physical aperture is the same for these two lenses at f/2 and f/4 respectively (14 f/2 --> aperture size 7 mm = 14 mm/2 , 28 f/4 --> 7mm = 28 mm /4 ). See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

3 upvotes
Martin.au
By Martin.au (Aug 18, 2012)

Oh cool. So I should be able to grab an average 300 f4 and mount it on a 4/3rds camera as a 600 f2, right?

Didn't think so. Maybe try reworking your equivalence argument so it doesn't result in such a ridiculous conclusion.

1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Aug 19, 2012)

LOL :)))))))

300 f/4, is 600 f/8 equivalent on m4/3. You can also crop full-frame image 2x and, apart from a different pixel count, you too will get essentially the same image (AoV, DoF, midtone noise, diffraction) as you would with 600 f/8 lens on that same camera without cropping.

I again refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format and the references therein, specifically the sections on shot noise, depth of field, and diffraction.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Aug 19, 2012)

Another, more "experimental" way to look at it.

Take two "equivalent" lens/sensor combinations: 150 f/2 on a m4/3 (crop =2) and 300 f4 on a full-frame as example, set to their max apertures (f/2 and f/4). Set shutter speed to the same 1/100 sec on both cameras. Say m4/3 camera's meter chooses ISO 400. Since the 300 f/4 is 2 stops "darker" full-frame camera will choose 2-stops higher ISO, ISO 1600, for the same image exposure. Now, compare ISO noise levels of full-frame cameras and m4/3 (see DxOmark.com for example). Within the same sensor generation, ISO 1600 on FF will be about as noisy as ISO400 on m 4/3. In general FF will have 2 stops noise advantage over m4/3. ==> 150 f/2 + m4/3 sensor will take a very similar image in terms of noise as 300 f/4 + FF given the same shutter speed and sensor generation. AoV, DoF, and diffraction effects will also be very similar.

But read about the cool physics of this equivalence on Wiki as I mentioned above.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Martin.au
By Martin.au (Aug 19, 2012)

Yeah, sorry Ppastoris. I don't have an issue with what you're saying. I do find the claim that, for example, an Oly 300/2.8, should only be as expensive as a 300/5.6 FF lens as ridiculous. That is what my comments were directed at, though not very clearly methinks.

1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Aug 19, 2012)

Hey, Mjankor, no problem at all.

I think the right way to compare would be to compare the set of "equivalent" lenses that you plan to use with their corresponding bodies. Larger format sensors are generally more expensive but require potentially cheaper slower lenses, while cheaper small format cameras require potentially more expensive faster lenses to achieve equivalent DoF and light gathering capacity.

So I guess what many were criticizing here was not the Olympus lenses per se (they may technically be very good), but the fact that even together with a cheaper 4/3 body bright Olympus lenses are as expensive and as heavy if not heavier than an equivalent FF system (that also has such benefits as much better base ISO noise and DR performance). Of course, some lenses just don't exist for (m)4/3 system, like F2.8 FF-equivalent zooms or F1.2-1.8 FF-equivalent primes.

0 upvotes
dbateman
By dbateman (Aug 20, 2012)

Wow! You guys really need to buy a camera and starting using it to learn something about light.

First buy a light meter. Take a reading, lets pretend it says ISO 100, F4 1/60.
Now place a four thirds lens on the camera and set it there. Magic you have a correctly exposed image.
Now place a what ever lens on your what ever full frame camera and set it with those same settings. WOW Magic you have a correctly exposed image.

Now think f4 on fourthirds was f4 on full frame, so F2 on fourthids will be f2 on full frame (SAME LIGHT WITH SAME SHUTTER SPEED!!!!)

The only difference will be DOF!

3 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Aug 20, 2012)

dbateman , read above :)

Also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (Aug 20, 2012)

dbateman, you probably lost them when you mentioned "light meter"

It's unlikely any of them shot 135, 120 and half frame using a light meter. The concept of shooting plus X on all three formats, using the same exposure with different lenses, is not something bracketeers are going to understand. Probably ever.

2 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Aug 22, 2012)

mapgraphs,

Firstly, fortunately or not, any learning is a humbling experience -- one must at some point accept that they don't know something. That is what makes you improve. Secondly, baselessly criticizing people who are willing to teach you is to say the least childish, but more importantly unproductive (primarily for you). I'm quite certain that some of the posters here not only know how to use various photographic equipment, but also, having degrees in physics and/or engineering, actually understand the science behind photography.

Cheers!

1 upvote
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Aug 18, 2012)

Interesting corporate story

I sold all my Olympus digital cameras a year ago, but kept the Pro lenses in the shelf. The color, sharpness and contrast in total is - in my view - even better than Leica lenses I also own. I do not rate by lab charts, but in the field work.

As soon as Olympus offers something like an E-7 four thirds – I will return and buy. I find the MFT some different class – for holidays=ok, or making snapshots. Serious work with MFT – no way. Just by the tiny dimensions, and a high class optical viewfinder cannot be matched. Direct light passed thru glass in the finder will always be better than converted light by sensors and electronic circuits.

Today’s technology will enable FT to have much improved noise and dynamic range behavior. The gap between FT and APS-C will narrow. Olympus will make a smart move by serving the FT market. Because their treasures are the optics.

The future of Olympus continues to unfold. I wish them best of luck and courage.

8 upvotes
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (Aug 18, 2012)

I don't think you've handled an OM-D E-M5 with the high quality primes available for it. I do agree it is useful for travel etc., but also useful at events (without the bulk of a FF DSLR) & with the likes of the 12mm, 45mm & now thw 75mm primes it is no snapshot camera. Also, with the lenses coming from Panasonic & others, there is an ever increasing selection of lenses available for the micro 4/3's cameras.

4 upvotes
tgutgu
By tgutgu (Aug 18, 2012)

Most DSLR optical view finders are worse than the EVF pf the E-M5: they are partly smaller, dim, usually with some clor cast.

The E-M5 finder is as clear as most EVFs and gives you accurate information about exposure and white balance, something asn OVF cannot do.

Only the best OVFs in the very expensive flagship DSLRs do realistically beat current EVFs.

3 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Aug 18, 2012)

Hi Ross

I wanted to buy the OM-D EM-5. But I also like design. I personally find the EM-5 looks terrible. Either you do a purely classic design or hi-tech ergonomics. For me the EM-5 is an intermediate step.

Therefore, I sold the E-3, E-630, kept the glass and wait for the balanced, clear direction FT camera.

The E-5 is still based on old sensor technology - end of life cycle. If there is no successor, I will terminate Olympus entirely.

I have MFT Panasonic, also tried their Leica MFT and Sony derivatives. I also use Zeiss and M Leica. In my personal view Olympus is the best. This is a purely subjective view because I am not a scientist comparing Siemens stars. Everybody has different judgments and preferences which I fully respect.

The “best” what I have – you will smile – is my left over E-510 with adapted Leica R lenses or with the Zuiko digital 11-22 mm. I will immediately join any new “E-7” and continue with Olympus.

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Aug 18, 2012)

tgutgu wrote: 'Most DSLR optical view finders are worse than the EVF pf the E-M5: they are partly smaller, dim, usually with some clor cast.'
A several year old 5D classic with a fast prime knocks the socks off the EM5 viewscreen.
Please understand WHY an optical viewfinder may be small or dim before making such claims.
Are you not concerned that you are seeing a pixellated messed up processed version of what the lens sees when you look through an EVF?

1 upvote
Joele
By Joele (Aug 20, 2012)

"Are you not concerned that you are seeing a pixellated messed up processed version of what the lens sees when you look through an EVF?"

Not if it is consistant with what the same sensor sees when I actually take the shot...

0 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (Aug 20, 2012)

"Are you not concerned that you are seeing a pixellated messed up processed version of what the lens sees when you look through an EVF?"

On a related note, how do you process your photos then?

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Aug 20, 2012)

'Not if it is consistant with what the same sensor sees when I actually take the shot...'

In my experience the sensor does not take a scrambled aliased jagged noisy shot like an electronic viewfinder displays.

'On a related note, how do you process your photos then?'

Certainly not on an EVF (if I am using a camera with an EVF), and definately not on the LCD screen on the back of the camera.
When I'm shooting black and white film I process them by hand. When I'm shooting DSLR I run them through Lightroom or CS5.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Aug 20, 2012)

I wrote: "Are you not concerned that you are seeing a pixellated messed up processed version of what the lens sees when you look through an EVF?"

I guess I should have written 'highly processed' to differentiate between what the EVF is doing on the fly, and raw processing.

0 upvotes
James70094
By James70094 (Aug 26, 2012)

:Direct light passed thru glass in the finder will always be better than converted light by sensors and electronic circuits." You do understand that "converted light by sensors and electronic circuits" is how digital cameras capture images?

0 upvotes
Rick Knepper
By Rick Knepper (Aug 18, 2012)

Not familiar with Olympus so after seeing this article, I researched these "Top Pro" lenses. Are you kidding me? $11045 USD (best prices on Amazon) for all 4 zooms plus whatever this new body will cost. Sure, I could probably ditch the 90-250 since I am mostly a WA user anyway and that would take the bill to $6546 for the lenses. Price for Canon's L series FF zooms covering a similar range sans the 90-250mm is $5907 (Amazon best price),

Lesson here: top lenses (assuming these Olympus zooms are as amazing) cost $$$$ no matter what format. Since pricing advantage isn't really there for the lenses, and assuming the user does not need a mature line of primes, the decision goes back again to a comaprison of bodies: format, resolutiion and the quality of the sensor including high ISO performance and DR, AF performance and ancillary functions. Sure I am stating the obvious but the allure of 4/3s just got less alluring after seeing the price of those lenses and the lack of choice in primes.

1 upvote
Rick Knepper
By Rick Knepper (Aug 18, 2012)

Dear DPR, it is ridiculous to limit the number of characters in a post since I can reply to myself and continuing typing. Word!!

I am replying to this news article while on a current photo trip and the last few days of hiking with serious elevation gains has piqued my interest in lighter equipment. I met up with a hiker on the trail who was shooting 4/3s and according to him, had moved from Canon due to weight. I wouldn't necessarily stick my nose into a topic I am unfamiliar with but I am truly interested in the brand and format. At least, Olympus has a line of quality lenses (trying to avoid the term "professional" because it is fraught with BS in the photography biz.) Can I assume Zeiss meakes lenses for this mount?

0 upvotes
jeff_006
By jeff_006 (Aug 20, 2012)

I went hiking 2 days ago and was sleeping in the montains so carried a lot of stuff: tent, water, sleeping bag, air mattress, light,...I was so happy to have an E-M5 with 12-35 f2.8, this is just the most versatile and compact system for hiking ! I also carried a lightweight tripod (due to the low weight of E-M5 + 12-35 you don't need a heavy tripod...) and some filters. I just missed my oly 9-18 a little bit, next time I will take it, it is just 155 g !!

0 upvotes
Michael S.
By Michael S. (Aug 18, 2012)

Actually it does look like as

a) almost all posters here are too young to remember or

b) have already forgotten what Olympus claimed as the introduced the 4/3 system long time ago.

I have been there - as Olympus EUROPE introduced, marketed the at that time new and 100% digital 4/3 system with the upcoming E1.

The two sentences that fell and have always been repeated by the presenters have been:

1) "5 Megapixels are enough..."
2) "We will have smaller, lighter and cheaper lenses than our competitors".

Without a doubt - both clamis have failed.

5 upvotes
Martin.au
By Martin.au (Aug 18, 2012)

1) I don't believe that. Got any references for it?
2) For any particular angle of view, I think that Oly's claim is usually correct. Certainly a 300mm Oly is usually a lot smaller and lighter than a 600mm FF lens.

3 upvotes
SUPERHOKIE
By SUPERHOKIE (Aug 18, 2012)

But other than the super tele realm, what other advantage does 4/3 provide?

Are the lenses any smaller or chepaer than their FX counter parts? Does the sensor performance equal their FX or even APC counter part with no degradation in performance due to high pixel density?

I mean, other than the super tele advatage gained by the 2x crop factor, what other advantages are there???

On the other hand, look at M43 and their lenses, espeically the 12-35 and 35-100. Those lenses and the M43 system makes sense, but 4/3 is a last minute dying effort from Olympus to try to salvage something from their failed investment into 43.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Martin.au
By Martin.au (Aug 18, 2012)

With 4/3rds I can cover 24-600mm equiv, with two reasonably sized lenses. That seems to me to be a pretty huge weight saving.

2 upvotes
Antonio Rojilla
By Antonio Rojilla (Aug 18, 2012)

@ Mjankor : Sure, a 300m is smaller than a 600mm... just like a motorcycle is smaller than a car.

0 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (Aug 18, 2012)

1. It was never claimed that 5MP is enough for all (then again, nor did Bill Gates ever say that 640K will always be enough). An early sensor road map already went to about 12MP.
2. The claims on size and weight was for the mainsteam lenses that most 4/3 users would have,, compared to the available lenses of twice the focal lengths for 35mm. And indeed things like the 14-42 kit zoom, 50-200/2.8-3.5 and 100-300 zoom are smaller and lighter than 28-85, 100-400 and 200-600 zooms, especially since the last two do not exist. Of course there is a trade-off beween size and speed, but a lot of people are happy to make that trade off with the far higher ISO speeds possible with digital compared to film.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 18, 2012)

Wow, Olympus haters all up in here, in force! The Canikon clone troopers never rest. Poor little hater children, are you all suddenly feeling a might insecure, that you must resort to savaging the four-third systems to feel better about yourselves, and your purchases? Get a clue and start using what you've got, and stop bickering over who's got the most massive lens, eh?

0 upvotes
Antonio Rojilla
By Antonio Rojilla (Aug 18, 2012)

Hey Camediadude, I like your metacomment, that's it, a comment about your own comment. Because it's clear who is a fanboy (even your nick proves it). I am a happy m43 owner and user, but I find just silly comparing a 300mm with a 600mm when simply knowing basic numbers tells you it is completely wrong. of course a 300mm is smaller, because, well... it's a 300mm and not a 600mm. Some just don't want to get it.

0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 18, 2012)

I am unashamedly a long-time Olympus fan, but I love all cameras mostly and I never put other people down because of their gear choices. It is childish to me! I don't care about comparing the lens size, that is silly, but to have two supposedly grown men immediately come out and claim it to be a "failure" (referring to the whole system) ... well, those are some pretty antagonising and immature words, don't you think? Sure the system has flaws, but calling it all a failure? That is simply not very nice ...

0 upvotes
Martin.au
By Martin.au (Aug 18, 2012)

Which was covered in my first comment. "for any particular field of view". For a fov of 4 degrees, you need 300mm on an Oly, 600mm on FF. There's your weight saving.

1 upvote
Antonio Rojilla
By Antonio Rojilla (Aug 19, 2012)

If you want a fair comparison you need to compare all aspects and not only those that benefit your agenda. A 300mm f2.8 in m4/3 gives you EXACTLY the same results that a 600mm f5.6 in FF and there is no weight savings. Period. Now, you can come with the f2.8 is f2.8 mantra (that shows that you know nothing about the law of physics), but then please then don't forget that 300mm is 300mm also.

1 upvote
Martin.au
By Martin.au (Aug 19, 2012)

Well that's wrong. If I'm looking for a camera, then I need to look at exactly what aspects benefit my agenda. Your requirements would be different to mine.

Here you go. I wanted a general purpose camera, with the capability to shoot very long telephotos of birds, etc, generally in good light.

I chose an E520, 12-60 and 70-300.
Was I wrong? Please, educate me on what I should have bought.

2 upvotes
Viski
By Viski (Aug 20, 2012)

" A 300mm f2.8 in m4/3 gives you EXACTLY the same results that a 600mm f5.6 in FF"

That's just wrong. Sure, the DoF is exactly the same, but you will get four times as much light with the f2.8. For example ISO 400 vs 1600 with same DoF and shutter speed. That is quite a big difference to me.

2 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Aug 22, 2012)

Viski, and the same noise (ISO400 m4/3 ~= ISO1600 FF).

P.S. f/2.8 only determines image brightness, not the total light intensity (which is brightness*area) on the sensor. So 300 f/2.8 will collect 4 times less light on m4/3 sensor, than 600 f/2.8 on a full frame :)). Or exactly the same as 600 f/5.6 on a FF. And, according to the laws of nature, image noise in "midtones" is primarily determined by the total amount of light on the sensor not the brightness (cf. Wikipedia article on image sensor size for example). That is exactly why given the same or comparable sensor efficiency m4/3 has a 2-stop ISO disadvantage compared to fullframe.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
RoAlmeida
By RoAlmeida (Aug 18, 2012)

Back in 2009 I got a E-420 and one year later a Canon 600D+few EFS lens. Right after I got a E30+14-54MkII in a very good deal, so I could compare both systems fairly well. Well, a couple months ago I sold all my Canon gear and I got a EM5 and I think it tells everything. When I was in Tokyo a couple weeks ago, I spoke to Oly's sales rep from a famous camera store. Seems more likely the next steps are upgraded PENs with IBIS+EM5's sensor next month - including a nice rangefinder/EVF surprise. The 43s line should continue with 'high-end' bodies arriving in Q3/2013 only. But it should bring a competitive tech package - including a new high-res Sony sensor that should make many FF users very jealous. For me it makes a lot of sense as only those who tested EM5's Sony sensor can really understand the huge potential of the 43s system limited by Panasonic sensors for so many long years... Olympus wants to go beyond as very few will pay for a E7 if it's just another make-up of the EM5...

3 upvotes
RoAlmeida
By RoAlmeida (Aug 18, 2012)

Similar to any other mount, a new body announcement should bring excitement among its users. It doesn't seem logic so many comments 'attacking it' or defending other systems right here. CaNikon are market leaders thanks to their own merit and they offer great products and solutions (including FFs). But I panic to imagine less competition and I love to see the different approaches from other remarkable players like Olympus, Pentax, Sony, Panasonic, etc. It's not about size or weight only. It's preference! Go shooting and enjoy whatever the gear you have, but it's stupid to think you get better pictures just because of that. I guess the 'real pro' also have different preferences as they also believe this kind of discussion is absurdly pointless...

2 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (Aug 23, 2012)

Finally someone with some actual sense. Thankyou RoAlmeida.

1 upvote
SUPERHOKIE
By SUPERHOKIE (Aug 18, 2012)

Whats the point? 4/3 lenses are NOT any smalller or cheaper than full frame lenses. Who in their right mind would get this supposed Pro body and a 12-35 vs a 5d3 and a 35-70? Yeah the 12-35 will give you one more stop in brightness but loses a stop in DOF. With FX sensors F2.8 on a fx sensor will destroy F2 on this new pro body in noise anyways. So what is the point again? Not every product that comes out of japan is gods gift to earth. Look at suzuki and mitsubishi, two brands that are dying in the US.

5 upvotes
SUPERHOKIE
By SUPERHOKIE (Aug 18, 2012)

I meant 24-70

0 upvotes
Corne Ferreira
By Corne Ferreira (Aug 18, 2012)

The world is just a touch bigger than the US and not everyone has your priority's in photography. I for one would more than likely be an early adopter of a new 4/3 camera. Olympus makes great budget cameras for the mortals who cannot afford a 600mm lens but still wants to be able to make a reasonable photo of what ever 200m away.

2 upvotes
MatijaK
By MatijaK (Aug 18, 2012)

http://www.optyczne.pl/97.4-Test_obiektywu-Canon_EF_24-70_mm_f_2.8L_USM_Rozdzielczość_obrazu.html

http://www.optyczne.pl/190.4-Test_obiektywu-Olympus_Zuiko_Digital_ED_14-35_mm_f_2.0_SWD_Rozdzielczość_obrazu.html

3 upvotes
SUPERHOKIE
By SUPERHOKIE (Aug 18, 2012)

The world is somewhat little bigger than the utlra long 600mm and longer market. Overall, the system makes little sense. Micro 4/3 makes a whole lot of sense, but not the traditional 4/3 wtih it's riduculously big and expensive lenses. Just because it gains an advantage in one area (super telephoto), does not mean it's a smart system.

0 upvotes
Martin.au
By Martin.au (Aug 18, 2012)

No sense? I can cover from 24-600mm with just two lenses, 12-60 and 70-300, neither of which are terribly large. The system works well for me.

You don't have to buy SHG lenses you know.

4 upvotes
Uaru
By Uaru (Aug 18, 2012)

I also do not see almost any point in 4/3 now. If you think the sensor size is OK, then get M4/3. You can also connect long lenses to it, it started to have weather sealing, etc.

If you want to have big camera, go for FX.

I see 4/3 like a amalgamate of the worst features in m4/3 and FX - without their advantages.
Except for phase-detect AF...

But I accept some people can have different views. It is just I expect full 4/3 to be niche now. I never grew very big, but it will be even smaller...

0 upvotes
SUPERHOKIE
By SUPERHOKIE (Aug 18, 2012)

if you are talking about normal f5.6 slow 300mm lenses, there are pletny of othe choices outside 4/3. Canon and Nikon all make f5.6 300mm lenses for cheap prices. On a APS body 300mm will be 450mm. If you need 600mm FOV, then just crop little bit. Speaking of crop factor tele, a Nikon V1 will give you even more crop zoom than any 4/3 system for a whole lot less money. An even the Olympus 300mm f2.8 is only a 600mm lens BECAUSE it is a cropped view on a 4/3 sensro anyways. There is nothing wrong with cropping a little to get 600mm on APS sensor. Either way, traditional 4/3 is a dying breed and you'd have to be pretty stupid to buy into it.

1 upvote
BJL
By BJL (Aug 18, 2012)

Why the anti-Japanese rant? The 5d3 is Japanese too! And what is the equivalent of the 90-250/2.8 for the 5d3?

I agree that the 14-35/2 was rather pointless, and even the 35-100: telephotos are were a smaller format has its main advantages. For example, 35mm format still has no good match for my 50-200/2.8-3.5 at comparable size and weight, so I would love a new body that gives good AF with it ... while also accepting m43 lenses, maybe with in-sensor PDAF as in the Nikon One bodies.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Aug 18, 2012)

BJL, what about the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6. It's a bit lighter, has a larger (equivalent) aperture, and not that much more expensive? Or Canon 70-300 4-5.6 on an APS-C (or you crop FF by half), where it's equivalent of 112-480 f/6.4-f/9.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Corne Ferreira
By Corne Ferreira (Aug 18, 2012)

Ever compared the canon and Olympus 70-300? clearly not. The 100-400 canon is more than 3 times the price and IQ is not reflected in the premium. My E30 KIT two lenses with of camera flash cost less than the 17-55 F2.8 canon lens alone. Add that any lens benefits from a fantastic in camera IS system and that a OM 50 F2 olympus lens and adapter can be had for less than $20 it makes a lot of sense once you get past the brain block that it has to be canon or nikon. As a traveling combo ill leave my canons behind every time its. Why do I have Canons then well the E30 met an unfortunate demise and because the insurance guys could not replace it at the time (no stock of Olympus SLRs) I had to choose between a Canon and Nikon with 2 lenses. Nice enough of them they let me keep the lenses and flash so cant wait for the new camera to be released Ill be back with Olympus in a heartbeat.

0 upvotes
Richard
By Richard (Aug 18, 2012)

Meaning they have never made a "Pro" grade camera since the 4/3rd system came out. It will be interesting to see if this camera will be a pro camera or if it will be a consumer camera like they have produce in the past with 4/3rds.

1 upvote
utomo99
By utomo99 (Aug 18, 2012)

when the manufacturer will design new body for Mirorless DSLR ? I hope they looking at it and it can increase the image quality. maybe also bigger sensor ?

0 upvotes
MtOlympus
By MtOlympus (Aug 18, 2012)

The E5 tooling has been paid for, instead of a "new" body I would be happy if they just put the new sensor in the old chassis and lowered the price.

3 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Aug 18, 2012)

Olympus camera division seems to be taking advice from the endoscopy division on how to bend over their end users.
How many high end E system users sold off their gear cause Olympus has all but left that system dead in the water and been concentrating on Micro cameras.
Now they must be kicking themselves... or not if they have migrated to other PRO systems that majority of the industry shoots with, and has more support and stability than Olympus.
Also, EM5 users now being told officially by Olympus that their 'expensive' high end camera is not good enough for pro lenses. They must be feeling pretty sore as well. Like constantly being told the best is around the corner, similar to Nikon and what they say about the 1 System.
Olympus is clearly on life support, with this new dose of morphine designed to keep the left over signs of life from kicking and screaming towards it's demise.

3 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Aug 18, 2012)

They didn't say that E-M5 isn't good enough for pro lenses. They said it isn't good enough for pro 4/3 lenses, because those lenses are made for PDAF. We've known this all along, so it's nothing new.
Also, Olympus stated right from the start, that E-M5 was not a pro grade camera, but that a pro OM-D could very well be produced in the future.

2 upvotes
olyflyer
By olyflyer (Aug 18, 2012)

Exactly right, except that the comparison with the Nikon 1 system is wrong. Nikon did not abandon the DSLR line yet in favor of the Nikon 1 and I don't think they ever will.

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Aug 20, 2012)

'except that the comparison with the Nikon 1 system is wrong'

I was referring to how Nikon released the 1 system and then after made statements that the sensor is capable of doing 2k and 4k video. I think they mentioned a more pro/manual oriented body as well. ie. 'We can do better, but we won't give you a better product. You'll have to wait for that.'
So (potential) anxious users wait a year for an upgrade, and then Nikon announce the equally as underwhelming J2.

In a similar vein, Olympus says of the EM5 in their product brouchure,
'The FAST AF represents the pinnacle of Olympus AF technologies.'
And then several months after release officially state otherwise.

How can you not feel burnt by that?

0 upvotes
KrisPix
By KrisPix (Aug 18, 2012)

Great news
As E-510 owner with a few lenses I still dream of a non-Pro lower cost body

1 upvote
KrisPix
By KrisPix (Aug 18, 2012)

Just to clarify, I meant lower cost 4/3 body (more affordable than an E-5 or even E-30).

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
1 upvote
fmian
By fmian (Aug 18, 2012)

So you dream of having something that you already have?
Makes sense.

3 upvotes
olyflyer
By olyflyer (Aug 18, 2012)

Dream on...

0 upvotes
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (Aug 18, 2012)

Talk is cheap.

4 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Aug 18, 2012)

And that is literally the same talk we hear for 3 years now.

0 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (Aug 18, 2012)

I just looked at the Olympus SHG lens prices. Holy smoke....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=olympus+super+high+grade&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma

I know they're excellent, but wow... it hurts to look.

4 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Aug 18, 2012)

Not only expensive, but also big and heavy, despite the (m)4/3 crowd trying to convince everybody that small sensor means small lenses. No such thing, good quality bright lenses aren't much smaller or lighter than equivalent FF lenses.

6 upvotes
zanypoet
By zanypoet (Aug 18, 2012)

Holy crap, they are expensive and heavy. Now, what was the advantage of 4/3 system? Will the new body do video finally?

1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Aug 18, 2012)

yep, 14-35 f/2 is a great example how a 4/3 lens, equivalent of a full-frame 28-70 f/4, is heavier and more expensive than even a more capable canon 24-105 f/4 :).

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Aug 18, 2012)

> No such thing, good quality bright lenses aren't much smaller or lighter than equivalent FF lenses.

They could have been.

But Oly went on and tried to implement them to perfection. End result: lots of bulk.

Though the optical IQ won then a number of fans. It's hard to part with the edge-to-edge sharpness with wide-open aperture...

0 upvotes
Everdog
By Everdog (Aug 18, 2012)

Clearly talking about Micro Four Thirds NOT 4/3rds. Four Thirds already focuses the PDAF lenses really well, so why would they claim cameras like the E-5 do not and that they are working on a new AF system for it?
This is all about a new PRO micro four thirds camera that works with PDAF lenses.
Can't wait to use that E-M7 with the 50-200mm SWD lens.

0 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (Aug 18, 2012)

A few reasons why Olympus might consider building an E-7

Zuiko Digital ED 14-35mm F2.0 SWD
Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm F4.0 lens
Zuiko Digital ED 35-100mm F2.0 lens
Zuiko Digital ED 90-250mm F2.8 lens
Zuiko Digital ED 150mm F2.0 lens
Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F2.8 lens
Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 SWD lens
Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 SWD lens
Zuiko Digital ED 11-22mm F2.8-3.5 lens
Zuiko Digital ED 50mm F2.0 Macro lens
Zuiko Digital 14-54mm F2.8-3.5 II lens

9 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Aug 18, 2012)

One reason could be that the best and the brightest of those lenses like 14-35 f/2, 7-14 f/4, 35-100 f/2 are generally comparable or heavier and more expensive than the equivalent or better full-frame lenses. Example: 14-35 f/2 ($2300, 2lbs) vs Canon 24-105 f/4 ($950, 1.5lbs); 35-100 f/2 ($2500, 3.6 lbs) vs Canon 70-200 f/4 IS ($1200, 1.7 lbs).

2 upvotes
olyflyer
By olyflyer (Aug 18, 2012)

Most of those lenses should have been replaced and upgraded a long time ago, so in my opinion your "list of reasons" are the evidence that Olympus actually abandoned the FT system all together. Otherwise they would have released at least a few new primes (What happened to the 100mm macro?) and updated those old lenses with SWD and contrast focus ability.

0 upvotes
mas54
By mas54 (Aug 18, 2012)

Keep in mind that the 4:3 format is the same as 645. Given the right pixel count, you have a wonderful camera. Of course the sensor has to be large enough to allow good wide angle lenses.

0 upvotes
olyflyer
By olyflyer (Aug 18, 2012)

Don't confuse the 4:3 aspect ratio with the FourThird camera system. According to your logic every P&S is actually a 645.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Marathonianbull
By Marathonianbull (Aug 18, 2012)

Be it an "E-7" or "E-M7" or a ZWX-1, the future looks bright again for my awesome Zuiko 4/3 gems!

3 upvotes
Zoran K
By Zoran K (Aug 18, 2012)

How many times Olympus will 'pushed the boundaries of performance' with some "new Pro body" ???

I hope this time time they will have more success then before.

1 upvote
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Aug 18, 2012)

Olympus goes against the grain. They know full well that FF is much better suited for professional market, even P&S is moving into bigger sensors, and yet they insist on manufacturing professional equipment with small 4/3 sensor. Are they being nuts?

7 upvotes
BobT3218
By BobT3218 (Aug 18, 2012)

Really! I would have thought medium format was the professional's choice.

5 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (Aug 18, 2012)

It will be an expensive camera, as it is meant to be used by those who have bought expensive top level lenses. So, I was thinking of a K-01 kind of camera, but unlike that basic camera, it will be one that has all the best features, EVF, etc but sans mirror. It will focus 43 lenses much faster than using an adapter on the E-M5, and it will be a better "bridge" camera to let 43 users to go mirrorless.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
konicky2
By konicky2 (Aug 18, 2012)

So are you suggesting that Olympus produce a FF camera? That really would be nuts!

P.S P&S isn't moving to bigger sensors, but I expect you know that really.

1 upvote
nofumble
By nofumble (Aug 17, 2012)

What is the M34 prof ??? One that has OVF ?

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Aug 18, 2012)

I beg your pardon, but what are you talking about?

0 upvotes
Valentinian
By Valentinian (Aug 17, 2012)

I was hoping that Olympus would forget the DSLR system, and would concentrate on making lenses for the MFT...
How difficult would it be for Olympus to produce versions of the existing 4/3 lenses making them compatible with the m4/3, that is changing the lens AF motor from phase detection to contrast detection, and leave the optics as they are? Then all that it would take is to use the already existing adaptor, and the MFT system would have all the lenses one could wish...

1 upvote
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (Aug 17, 2012)

Is it possible that this solution that Olympus is developing for its legacy top level lenses is a mirrorless one, and not a DSLR? Or a pellicle or some other solution?>

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
BobT3218
By BobT3218 (Aug 18, 2012)

Quite possible and even likely I think!

0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 17, 2012)

Even though I probably can't afford it (someday!) this is VERY good news ... that SHG glass produces some truly stellar imagery from what I have seen. Olympus has never been lamented for their lenses.

5 upvotes
esuohe
By esuohe (Aug 17, 2012)

As a happy OM-D owner, this news still excites me.

2 upvotes
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (Aug 18, 2012)

Same here. I couldn't afford to wait for the E5 & bought a used E30 a couple of years ago & the OM-D E-M5 was too good to wait for anything else this year (& I probably couldn't afford a pro M4/3's camera anyhow). This is my 4th Olympus camera now.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
TOM SKY
By TOM SKY (Aug 17, 2012)

I embrace with love my collection of OM system from 18mm 3.5 to 600 OM Zuiko legendary products!

3 upvotes
Biowizard
By Biowizard (Aug 17, 2012)

For entirely emotional reasons (I've used Olympus cameras since my original, then brand new, OM-1n, which I still have and which still works perfectly, through my E-1, which delivers 5 million lovely pixels per shot) - I *REALLY* hope there is an E-7 sometime ...

Brian

4 upvotes
TOM SKY
By TOM SKY (Aug 17, 2012)

Olympus is in position and in need to refresh their competitive momentum by creating new level of imaging device wheter it is continuation of m4/3 by improving its performance and boosting the category to higher level OR by bringing new performer such as full frame camera. To gather bigger audience and increase interest in the company must surprise and utilize what it does best.
Photography is at first an emotional territory in which buyer places his heart before justifying the cost. Olympus has marked the history with great understanding of light and photo industry it is time for the company to take advantage of its knowledge and philosophy to again surprises us with new great product not just by improving existing line which simply adds to greater number of already over saturated number of choices but perhaps by new product such as full frame option

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
mytake
By mytake (Aug 17, 2012)

I only have the EM-5, my first "digital" camera.

I am so glad for all the four-thirds camera owners that Olympus is keeping that superb line alive...truly great news. I've been considering a 14-54 ll purchase for my little camera...I have the grip, so balance would seem to be a non issue (I could be wrong). Does anyone have experience with this combo for a walk around kit...(auto-focus, maybe something better...) and again, excellent news.

2 upvotes
John K Lee
By John K Lee (Aug 17, 2012)

I have an EM-5 and use the 11-22 lens (without grip). It handles very well, and the image quality is so much better than the standard 12-50 lens.

1 upvote
mytake
By mytake (Aug 18, 2012)

Thanks John...I hadn't considered the 11-22 before, but I'll check it out as an alternative to the 12 f2, much more flexible. I do have the 45 f1.8 (I love it), and the 12-50 fslow...

0 upvotes
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (Aug 18, 2012)

I use the 14-54 II lens on the E-M5, but it isn't fast to focus (like the M12-50 lens does) & it is better with the grip but not necessary. It does produce lovely photos, but it is best for more static subjects (but hopefully this new body will change all that). I wouldn't buy one to use on the E-M5 because of its slower focussing. Wait & see what comes out of Photokina this year.

0 upvotes
mytake
By mytake (Aug 23, 2012)

I guess you're right...waiting is hard, but it is only a month. Thanks for the reply, good info.

0 upvotes
Ben O Connor
By Ben O Connor (Aug 17, 2012)

... and still no news about New XZ series. (XZ-1 / XZ-10 / XZ-GK (GodKnows).

1 upvote
Vernatropius
By Vernatropius (Aug 18, 2012)

Yeah. I'm also currently waiting for the replacement of my beloved XZ-1, I'll wait till September for their announcement on Photokina, Hopefully.

0 upvotes
dark goob
By dark goob (Aug 17, 2012)

It doesn't necessarily have to be a new DSLR. It just has to be something that works quick with the phase-detect lenses. Sony managed to make an adapter with a translucent mirror in it that lets all the old lenses work fine. Nikon built phase detect sensors onto the main sensor in the 1 series. Olympus, who was first in the mirrorless game with Panasonic, and was first to have Live View, ironically has lagged behind on focus speed with the old lenses. I wish they would just allow us to send in the old lenses for a motor upgrade to MSC motors.

But I still want E-7 to be a DSLR because it would be nice to actually see the stars in the viewfinder at night on an f/3.5 lens so I can focus.

1 upvote
AlbertSiegel
By AlbertSiegel (Aug 18, 2012)

Fuji had the first SLR with live view. Pentax had a mirrorless concept/prototype camera long before that never made it into production.

Olympus did have the first good live view though with the 330. I loved that camera. I sold it to my friend a few years ago and he finally just sold it last month. Worked like a dream and had some excellent IQ, but it sure was one ugly looking camera.

0 upvotes
Donnie G
By Donnie G (Aug 17, 2012)

It will be interesting to see just how long Olympus will even be able to stay in the interchangeable lens camera market after their near death experience due to their corporate accounting scandals. They absolutely need to generate some serious sales for their 4/3rds lens line just to be able to afford to keep making them. Hopefully, a new flagship 4/3rds camera body will do the trick for them.

I'm not even a 4/3rds system camera fan, but Olympus has always been a fierce competitor, and I hope they can find a way to stay in the game.

4 upvotes
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (Aug 18, 2012)

Olympus are doing OK (they aren't out of the woods yet, but are on the way to getting there) now that OM-D E-M5 has taken off. They have been filling lots of back orders as sales have far exceeded expectations & the cameras aren't exactly piling up on any shelves anywhere as they are being snapped up by many people.

I think they have a good chance of staying in the game if they're careful.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Aug 17, 2012)

Commenters shouldn't concern so much about the body, sensor area or whatever. Olympus isn't doing the new body just for the sake of it, or trying to challenge the big names; they're doing it for all those consumers who made a massive investment on 4/3 lenses and sooner or later will need a new body. Changing a whole system isn't something you do lightheartedly, you know, and Olympus customers were getting more than a little bit nervous about the idea of having to dump all that expensive 4/3 glass. Oly sent all the wrong clues to them lately; they were so focused on m4/3 that many people thought 4/3 was going to be dropped altogether; it must be reassuring for those people to know that there will be a new 4/3 body when they'll need one.
Anyway, commenters are obsessed with bodies nowadays and pay next to no attention to lenses. You build a system around your lens collection, not around the body.

13 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (Aug 17, 2012)

Yeah, I was an OM system user when Olympus let that product line stagnate and then eventually die. A new camera is good news for 4/3 system owners, but a single camera in development seems a bit more like life support than new 4/3 vitality.

4 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Aug 17, 2012)

BJN, if you have a pile of OM primes taking too much shelf space, I'll be more than happy to help you dispose of them :) They work wonderfully with my E-P1!
Seriously now, I agree with your last sentence. It is indeed more life support than revitalizing 4/3.

0 upvotes
ctlow
By ctlow (Jan 20, 2013)

It's all a bit agonizing for an E-620 owner (former E-500). Very happy overall although I'm sure that Olympus wishes it had designed the whole FT line with bigger sensors - the only thing which has really impinged is the poor low-light capability.
Back in the 1970s my siblings all got Olympus TRP-35s - very simple battery-less cameras which took great photos, with at that time very respected lenses. Just to say that it is the lens on which I concentrate the most attention.
But: should one stick with the Olympus FT system? Selling it and starting with something else will be expensive! At the moment, I'm looking for a Leica f25 f1.4 lens - not cheap, even used. What happens when/if the body fails and I have all these lenses and all that's available are upper-end E5s and maybe something like an E7? Pricey for an amateur photographer!
OTOH, my son just got into Nikon, and whatever happens with that in the future won't be for the frugal either!

I like my camera system. What's its future?

0 upvotes
Total comments: 266
12