OK. So what happens to the lenses?

[mike.b]

Many people seem to be indicating that its a lens based limitation. If true, then this isn't going to change if the current PDAF techniques are used. What do you see changing in future mirror-less bodies compared to all the ones we have now?

The lenses are only the limitation because of a compatability with CDAF (they were never designed with that in mind, only PDAF). If we get PDAF into a mirrorless body, then it should be just as fast as a mirrored one. In fact it might be better for low light - the mirror only sends a proportion of the light to the af sensors, the rest tothe viewfinder. With mirrorless the AF sensors could have a lot more light to play with.

I would speculate that the reason why the older lenses aren't so good at CDAF is due to the focus motors moving too fast. They're intended to move as quickly as possible to a predetermined position for PDAF, but for CDAF they need to adjust focus at a more gradual and consistent rate, while it finds the sharpest image.

Lastly, I wouldn't say the old lenses are that bad in CDAF mode on m43 cameras. No good for sport/action work, but for general photography they do OK.

 

[MatijaK]

And I'm convinced (want to believe?) that Oly will give us the mirrorless camera that will be able to do so faster than we may be expecting it. As I see it, it's just a question of processor speed. I talked to a guy who has got - other than me - extensive knowledge of camera technology. An he told me, you just need faster calculating processors to make the older lenses focus just as fast with CDAF as they now do with PDAF. According to him, the SWD lenses, for instance, are just to fast for today's CDAF.

That is incorrect. For CDAF to work, the lens needs to be physically designed that way, with a drive that allows a large number of extremely small, extremely fast movements. It's an iterative process that keeps going back and forth and comparing the sensor readings in software.

On the opposite side, PDAF is a predictive process and very much based on guesswork. Something like "one here, one there, now predict the distance".

There is absolutely no way to get SWD lenses to focus as quickly in CDAF as they do in PDAF, not even if you stick a CPU from the year 2050 in a m4/3 body. It's simply impossible on the lens level. They aren't designed that way. It's probably also the reason why Olympus made only three SWD lenses - they're not future-proof, in terms of being mirrorless-proof.

So, when it comes to "serious" Zuiko glass, it's either DSLR (PDAF) all the way, or a technology like in the Sony cameras. Nothing else will work well enough, ever.

I think in about a year Oly's camera division will be closed. It's a dead end on both fronts, m4/3 (Panny is ahead with its offerings and has better sensors, plus we're yet to see the big guns enter the mirrorless arena), and 4/3 (gone, no more, done, E-5 is the last DSLR ever made by Olympus, there's almost no money invested in research and development).

If by autumn you don't see a cropped APS-C sensor in an E-650 or E-50, sell and switch before your gear becomes worthless on the market

 

[DonParrot]

And I'm convinced (want to believe?) that Oly will give us the mirrorless camera that will be able to do so faster than we may be expecting it. As I see it, it's just a question of processor speed. I talked to a guy who has got - other than me - extensive knowledge of camera technology. An he told me, you just need faster calculating processors to make the older lenses focus just as fast with CDAF as they now do with PDAF. According to him, the SWD lenses, for instance, are just to fast for today's CDAF.

That is incorrect. For CDAF to work, the lens needs to be physically designed that way, with a drive that allows a large number of extremely small, extremely fast movements. It's an iterative process that keeps going back and forth and comparing the sensor readings in software.

On the opposite side, PDAF is a predictive process and very much based on guesswork. Something like "one here, one there, now predict the distance".

I do know the differences between CDAF and PDAF, thank you very much.

There is absolutely no way to get SWD lenses to focus as quickly in CDAF as they do in PDAF, not even if you stick a CPU from the year 2050 in a m4/3 body. It's simply impossible on the lens level. They aren't designed that way. It's probably also the reason why Olympus made only three SWD lenses - they're not future-proof, in terms of being mirrorless-proof.

So why do you believe a faster CPU won't solve this problems if guys knowing exactly what they are talking about claim the opposite ist the case.

Are you also an engineer working in the camera business? If not, I'd rather believe the other guy. Because just saying "this or that isn't possible" ain't too convincing, would you agree?

So please give me a well-founded reason for your opinion.

So, when it comes to "serious" Zuiko glass, it's either DSLR (PDAF) all the way, or a technology like in the Sony cameras. Nothing else will work well enough, ever.

Say no more. Seems Terada-San and others - including the guy I was talking to - are taking another point of view.

I think in about a year Oly's camera division will be closed. It's a dead end on both fronts, m4/3 (Panny is ahead with its offerings and has better sensors, plus we're yet to see the big guns enter the mirrorless arena), and 4/3 (gone, no more, done, E-5 is the last DSLR ever made by Olympus, there's almost no money invested in research and development).

This is so ridiculous. The PENs are selling like hot cake - as far as I know clearly better than the Panas - and are indeed the best selling system in Oly's history as camera maker - and you want to tell us they will go bust.

If by autumn you don't see a cropped APS-C sensor in an E-650 or E-50, sell and switch before your gear becomes worthless on the market

Oh man, what a lot of nonsense. We all know that your predictions are completely ridiculous, but let's - just for fun - assume you were right: Even then I'd rather keep my Zuikos and even buy some more to use them for the next 10 years on the fantastic E-5 that gives me exactly the pictures I want.

Why should I invest in another system that doesn't offer me the great lenses and the extraordinary details I'm enjoying with the E-5 and my lenses. .

 

[Pentax_Prime]

Well, that's your opinion, and I disagree with it. It's a $1700 camera

Not exactly ... you paid $1700 for it (ouch). The cameras it got stuffed by in that review (7D, K-5, D7000) are $1500 cameras (less in the case of the D7000). Take a look at the Pentax K-7 (a camera that matches up nearly exactly with the E-5 in terms of performance and body). It costs less than $900. As much as you may like your camera - let's get real: DPR did it no favors by comparing it to it's price-for-price competition.

and I'm glad I bought it, as are a few thousand others apparently.

Considering it was your only choice - I'm assuming you wouldn't tell us if you thought you overpaid.

To say that it's a $900 camera is implying that we are insanely stupid,

The only person who implied you were "insanely stupid" is you. It's a camera that competes somewhat favorably with $900 cameras. It is currently priced at $1700.

and that's where these discussions drive into the ditch

Eh? You called yourself "insanely stupid". Get a grip.

because even if you aren't meaning to insult, you are. I really like the results I get with the E5, and I think they hold up well in comparisons.

I don't. If the reviews weren't out, you might have a leg to stand on, but reality is reality.

--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK

--
My Website
http://www.andrewallenphoto.com

My Pentax Street Gallery - Arranged By Lens Used
http://photobucket.com/andy_allen

 

[SirSeth]

I have the original 14-54mm, 50-200mm, and 11-22mm. I love them. I want to keep using them. I just upgraded from E-1 to E-3 and will look toward E-5 in a year or two...

unless...

Olympus does something Sony A55ish for 4/3rds -- which I am really rooting for. I just seems silly to create a veritable pot of gold with it's amazing ZD lens stable and then just dump it down the toilet.

Cheers,
Seth

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

 

[The Big One]

Many of us have a number of 'older' Olympus Zuiko digital lenses. Things like the Mk1 versions of the 14-54mm and 50-200. The 50mm macro, 8mm fisheye. All of them excellent lenses. Some people will also have SHG gear. 14-35, 35-100 etc.

But what does this mean to people who own the older lenses? I for one have this horrible feeling that no matter what they do, AF performance is going to be so hideously crippled, as to make the "MK1" lenses unusable for most normal situations where you'd want AF to perform at a reasonable speed. And I'm talking SAF. I'm not even thinking CAF.

This is why I jumped ship already. I sold about 5 months ago (just after the E-5 was announced), and got good prices for my lenses at the time. (Watching the 4/3 buy / sell forum, it looks like prices have dropped already, so I think I picked the right time). I had a good number of pro lenses, both Olympus and Sigma, and was waiting in vain for a µ4/3 body which really supported them.

I find it amazing that Olympus has even considered abandoning the 4/3 mount already... I went to Nikon, and have been using lenses which were made in the 70's, with full support for all original features (i.e., it is manual focus, but the aperture stops down properly, metering works, and the focal length / real aperture is recorded in the EXIF, with no need for third party chips!). How's that for backwards compatibility!

I do miss some things about Olympus (the 12-60 for one!), but I don't trust them to carry on supporting the 4/3 lenses. I truly hope for other Oly users that they do, but I am not willing to gamble my gear on that faint hope.

Cheers
--
--Wyatt
http://photos.digitalcave.ca
All images (c) unless otherwise specified, please ask me before editing.

 

[Franka T.L.]

At this moment, unfortunately your worry seems very real. It is unlikely that Oly can or will do anything to get all the old HG / SHG lens to perform on a reasonable normal pace on M4/3 , and the E5 is looking like every bit the only 4/3 body for a rather long while with the prospect of future up to date body highly questionable.

In short the market had spoken and Olympus just admit defeat. In part its their own fault, and in part the wider environment and market. But well its business.

And as for Lens, well, one had to wonder, where's the true HG and SHG lens for M4/3 ( and I mean those that do not require soft correction and independently performing just as their SLR lens do , the register is shorter, there is no mirror box, so hey its easier to do in fact

---

• Franka -

 

[Big Ga]

So why do you believe a faster CPU won't solve this problems if guys knowing exactly what they are talking about claim the opposite ist the case.

Come on now Don. Senior managers are there because of their business ability, not technical know how. And how do we know that some bloke you talked to really DOES know what he is talking about regarding the specific lens designs Oly have used.

All the evidence so far points to the lenses being the limiting factor in the speed of current CDAF technology. if your expert is indeed as knowledgeable as you claim, it would be good to ask him to explain why dedicated CDAF lenses are immensely faster than when you slap the old PDAF designed lenses on. I mean ... isn't the processing power exactly the same?

I am not categorically saying he is wrong. But so far, there doesn't seem to be ANY evidence saying he is right, and everyone else is saying its a lens limitation.

I think in about a year Oly's camera division will be closed.

...

This is so ridiculous. The PENs are selling like hot cake - as far as I know clearly better than the Panas - and are indeed the best selling system in Oly's history as camera maker - and you want to tell us they will go bust.

Olympus do seem to be selling a decent number of PENs at the moment. The question is, is this a case of making hay while the sun shines?

And are they 'clearly selling more' than Panasonic?? I'm not sure. Maybe it depends where you are.

In a couple of years time when Canon and Nikon (and probably Pentax) will also have similar offerings, do you still think they will have a similar percentage of the EVIL market?

I think closed in a year is a little premature. But didn't some top Oly executive make a statement somewhere (a year or so ago)that they have allowed 5 years for the camera division to become profitable, or else ........
??

 

[Big Ga]

Lastly, I wouldn't say the old lenses are that bad in CDAF mode on m43 cameras. No good for sport/action work, but for general photography they do OK.

Which specific lenses are we talking about, and do you have some ballpark speeds?

Oh .. and on what body? (is there a big difference between the Panny and Oly MFT focus speed using the various lenses?)

Ta
Ga,

 

[MatijaK]

So why do you believe a faster CPU won't solve this problems if guys knowing exactly what they are talking about claim the opposite ist the case.

They don't know what they are talking about.

You can't put an aeroplane engine in your car and expect it to fly across the ocean. The car isn't physically designed that way.

Take the 14-54 MkI and the 14-54 MkII, put them on a m4/3 body, and see what happens.

Say no more. Seems Terada-San and others - including the guy I was talking to - are taking another point of view.

Mr. Terada was talking about CAMERAS, not lenses.

Oh man, what a lot of nonsense. We all know that your predictions are completely ridiculous, but let's - just for fun - assume you were right: Even then I'd rather keep my Zuikos and even buy some more to use them for the next 10 years on the fantastic E-5 that gives me exactly the pictures I want.

And then what? You won't be able to buy a new E-5, and if Oly still exists and has that E-PL8 or E-PL9, your lovely (S)HG Zuiko glass will take a second to acquire focus on it.

The end of the "five-year camera division profitability or bust" period is close. Olympus isn't making enough money to continue it (look up the financial reports), and things will only get worse once the competition in the mirrorless arena increases.

I think all of us here are praying for a miracle, but I'm honestly very much unsure that it will ever materialize. The E-5, as good as it may be, is still a 2008 camera sold in 2011.

 

[bobn2]

Many of us have a number of 'older' Olympus Zuiko digital lenses. Things like the Mk1 versions of the 14-54mm and 50-200. The 50mm macro, 8mm fisheye. All of them excellent lenses. Some people will also have SHG gear. 14-35, 35-100 etc.

But you need a body or bodies to use these on. Technology is marching onwards. Performance and features are continuing to be improved. If you want to, you can at the moment go out and buy an E5 to try and remain competitive.

But everything is pointing to the E5 being the last 'conventional' DSLR that they will make. This doesn't mean there won't be any more cameras though. Olympus themselves have strongly hinted that they will be merging the FT/MFT cameras into "one beautiful system" or words to that effect.

But what does this mean to people who own the older lenses? I for one have this horrible feeling that no matter what they do, AF performance is going to be so hideously crippled, as to make the "MK1" lenses unusable for most normal situations where you'd want AF to perform at a reasonable speed. And I'm talking SAF. I'm not even thinking CAF.

Or do you think Oly do have something up their sleeves? will they do something clever like sony and use a beam splitting solution to allow normal PDAF? will this physically fit if you also have to be able to use MFT lenses as well ??

Or do you think that the E5 is the end of the line for anyone who hasn't got the newer CDAF enabled lenses, and once the E5 performance is so far behind what other systems offer, that when you decide you need to update the body, you'll have to dump all the old lenses as well?

This has certainly been playing on my mind for quite some time. What about you lot?

Suppose someone came up with an adapter with a built-in 1.25x TC to mount on Canon or a 1.33x TC to mount on Pentax or Nikon. TC's of that small magnification would hardly affect optical performance, and would allow these lenses to work as they were designed to, with the advantage of 16 or 18MP (and possibly more in the future) behind them. Technically, it's perfectly feasible - the only real problem being that Olympus encrypts the FT lens/camera protocol to make it hard for independents to reverse engineer.
--
Bob

 

[bobn2]

This is so ridiculous. The PENs are selling like hot cake - as far as I know clearly better than the Panas - and are indeed the best selling system in Oly's history as camera maker - and you want to tell us they will go bust.

I'm not so sure. I just went on Ebay, there are a lot of brand new E-P1's with 14-42 for £235-250 the kit. That's not a price you see, even for an old model, unless there is significant stock to be cleared. There are also a lot of brand new E-620's for £340 with kit lens, and one poor guy trying to sell his secondhand one for £729.

--
Bob

 

[Dan]

I can't really argue with any of your replies but maybe add a little from my own experience.

In regards to was Olympus making money - we will never know...but even if they were making money it must not have been enough margin. Companies either raise prices, trim costs or exit when they aren't making enough...just the way things go.

With keeping what you got, getting an E5 or switching that covers everything! The cost of switching for me wasn't too bad. My biggest losers were the 12-60 and the 35-100. Had I switched 6 months later or now I would have lost out only on the 12-60. But I think it would take longer to clear everything out. There's lots of stuff listed on Tony's site and most of it doesn't sell real quick unless prices are very aggressive.

I don't think this is market saturation or anything but just the economy still kinda not so hot for most people.

Having switched to Nikon and traded quite a few lens already I'll say I think the used market is very stable price wise but the same thing on FM. Items aren't selling as quickly as they were 9 months or so ago. It is pretty nice though knowing you can buy something and check it out for a few months and turn around and sell it for little or no loss...definitely much less than renting it for one half month!

It's just a bummer Olympus has decided to leave the mirror 4/3rds...who knows maybe they know something / got something great in the works. I think they'll be in the same position though once the big boys (Nikon/Canon) enter the market. I've never seen an Olympus product "pushed" in a camera store like the Nikon and Canon's.

Anyhow happy Super Bowl Sunday!

Dan

 

[Jon Stock]

Big Ga wrote:
Snip

Or do you think that the E5 is the end of the line for anyone who hasn't got the newer CDAF enabled lenses, and once the E5 performance is so far behind what other systems offer, that when you decide you need to update the body, you'll have to dump all the old lenses as well?

This has certainly been playing on my mind for quite some time. What about you lot?

Sure.

There is lots of questions about the future. Cameras are changing a lot. m4/3rds seems at the front of that. CDAF seems like the biggest limitation on that change.

Fuji has an answer using CCD pixels that are half pixels half AF sensors.

Olympus can already map out dead pixels with out it being seen. There could be lots of AF sensors built into the chip in the future. No more calibrating a lens due to miss-aligned AF sensor. Using the imaging sensor just makes sense. Mirrors and seperate AF sensors are going to seem as out of date as 8-tracks and turntables.

I think CDAF is a stop-gap measure, it has a shorter future than 4/3rds lenses.

My 2c
--
Jon

 

[mcabato]

nobody does know anything concrete, except the r&d head of oly in japan.

what i believe is:

• oly is working on a system providing phase detection AF for mirrorless cams, so that fast af with FT-zuikos is given
• whether or until when they will succeed is like throwing a coin
• there is a reason that oly filed a patent one year ago for a converter for increasing the image circle of FT lenses
• i am not hoping that contrast detect af will ever work for FT-zuikos, since it is not only a matter of processor speed&power, but also of motordrive capabilities of the zuikos.
• oly is trying to make presently money with their pens before the big dslr-producers come to the market and therefor oly is not concentrating on anything else now.
• 90% of the camera-buyers shoot jpg ooc and for them it is not an issue whether on cam ahs a new or old sensor. the only thing the look at is, wheter "megapixel numbers are high enough or that the colours are oly-like".
• in some years i will swith to the speedy oly e-8 with or without mirror using my present zuikos.
• in 50 years the some canon-guys will still fancy as wheather they will ever be able to watch oly going bancrupt - they like dreams dreams and still fancy about old canons.
• i am not sure whether in 10 years i still will like to carry bulky dslr-lenses with me, if there are good and light alternative solutions with sufficient quality.
• i am not sure, whether in 100 years i will watch photographers from heaven or from hell.
• future is bright.

regds gusti

 

[papillon_65]

And I'm convinced (want to believe?) that Oly will give us the mirrorless camera that will be able to do so faster than we may be expecting it. As I see it, it's just a question of processor speed. I talked to a guy who has got - other than me - extensive knowledge of camera technology. An he told me, you just need faster calculating processors to make the older lenses focus just as fast with CDAF as they now do with PDAF. According to him, the SWD lenses, for instance, are just to fast for today's CDAF.

That is incorrect. For CDAF to work, the lens needs to be physically designed that way, with a drive that allows a large number of extremely small, extremely fast movements. It's an iterative process that keeps going back and forth and comparing the sensor readings in software.

On the opposite side, PDAF is a predictive process and very much based on guesswork. Something like "one here, one there, now predict the distance".

There is absolutely no way to get SWD lenses to focus as quickly in CDAF as they do in PDAF, not even if you stick a CPU from the year 2050 in a m4/3 body. It's simply impossible on the lens level. They aren't designed that way. It's probably also the reason why Olympus made only three SWD lenses - they're not future-proof, in terms of being mirrorless-proof.

So, when it comes to "serious" Zuiko glass, it's either DSLR (PDAF) all the way, or a technology like in the Sony cameras. Nothing else will work well enough, ever.

I think in about a year Oly's camera division will be closed. It's a dead end on both fronts, m4/3 (Panny is ahead with its offerings and has better sensors, plus we're yet to see the big guns enter the mirrorless arena), and 4/3 (gone, no more, done, E-5 is the last DSLR ever made by Olympus, there's almost no money invested in research and development).

If by autumn you don't see a cropped APS-C sensor in an E-650 or E-50, sell and switch before your gear becomes worthless on the market

Who's trolling alter ego you are?
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 

[papillon_65]

They could also truly disappoint folks, not make a pro m43 camera, and just focus on consumer level m43 and compacts.

Which is precisely the current state of things. The E-5 is the last 4/3 DSLR (and likely the last thing approaching semi-pro from Olympus in the long term). There is nothing approaching 'pro' in the current sector of m4/3 - in fact, the system has a long long way to go to even approach current DSLR performance; much less what is available in 3 years time. Focus by wire, slow AF, grainy EVF's, lack of things like a grip, poor sensor performance, and the clearly stronger competition coming from Sony and other APS-C mirroless designs leaves Olympus on the path to compact cameras and 'fun' m4/3 designs such as the PEN (which is nowhere near 'pro').

You clearly haven't tried the m43/'s cameras as you obviously don't know what you are talking about. The vf-2 is anything but grainy and more useful than an ovf in many secenario's. Most of the Panasonic G series have substantial grips which are decent and even the G1 ( the first of the M4/3's cameras ) has reasonably quick AF, not to mention the lastest models. You need to get over to M4/3's and see how many people are either ditching or supplementing their cameras with micro models, and that includes FF users.

My advice to the OP is to consider a system change while his lenses are still worth something. Nothing destroys resale value of optics like a diminishing system with which to use them on, a lack of new influx of buyers (let's be real honest - the E-5 isn't gonna attract anyone to Olympus), and a lack of impending bodies which can take full advantage of them. I'd expect resale value to drop quickly - perhaps until the E-5 reaches reasonable prices (at this point it's a $900 camera with a $1600 pricetag).

-Prime

My advice to you would be to learn to post about things you know about instead of talking nonsense about things you don't. As I said in response to one of your other posts about the "demise" of Olympus, what is Pentax's share of the DSLR and mirrorless markets?

I wouldn't like to see Pentax fail as a camera manufacturer but they are in more trouble than Olympus because they don't even have a plan b yet. They won't sell bucketloads of K-5's because they can't compete with the lens choices elsewhere.

Much as I think the K-5 is a good camera, selling it with the 18-55mm is like driving a Porsche and sticking Red diesel in it.

--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK

--
My Website
http://www.andrewallenphoto.com

My Pentax Street Gallery - Arranged By Lens Used
http://photobucket.com/andy_allen

--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 

[43photo]

I think the demand for SHg 4/3 glass will rise when people can use them without Af compromise on an m4/3 (pro) body.

Of course, it would be nice to see the evidence of that direction sooner rather than later. If only to get the re-assurance it's all happening.

They are also up against diminishing returns. If it happens later rather than sooner, there will be even less demand for a camera that uses regular 4/3rds lenses.

--
Stu
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stujoe/
Eee Six Two Zero

.

 

[papillon_65]

all the drivel being written about 4/3's lens being worthless in a few years time then please pass on your 7-14mm, 14-35mm and 35-100mm lenses. I'm particularly interested in these, and as they will be worthless soon, it'll save you a trip down the tip. I'll even pay for the postage and packing, I can't say fairer than that.

--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 

[Hopadop]

I'm not so sure. I just went on Ebay, there are a lot of brand new E-P1's with 14-42 for £235-250 the kit. That's not a price you see, even for an old model, unless there is significant stock to be cleared.

Bob

Not quite. Assuming they're the same ones I've been looking at the e-p1s are refurbs.

It still seems a good price. I'm hoping the seller gets a load of e-p2s to shift.