Me too. The clear OVF was a major reason I moved up to DSLRs.
In addition to zero delay, an OVF also renders at an infinite frame rate.
for some of us OVF's are the answer because quite simply they work, i see nothing wrong with the desire to still be using one in 10 years time, i also see nothing wrong for those who wish to be rid of them, i just hope that my choices and wishes are catered for too.
Yes, it would be a mistake to chuck the mirror if the EVF did not equal an OVF (or nearly equal it, but bring other improvements.)
I prefer OVF to EVF for the time been. But EVF does not have to beat an OVF.
So someone who is described as "Olympus America's DSLR product manager" is really a rep, perhaps isn't employed by Olympus, works with marketing, and probably doesn't know much about Olympus cameras and lenses? Hmmm!
I really think that anything signioficantly smaller than the E-1 would not work well as a serious camera for top grade lenses. I am also pretty sure that OLympus would be making a huge mistake to abandon the brilliant optical VF they developed for the E-3 that soon.
Same here. Video, film, etcetera can be very good, but they are still a long way from reality. Olympus has always been an innovator, but sometimes the wrong direction, especially in VF's (I'm remembering the dim oprical tunnels of the Pen and E-300 here).
I also wonder whether this is mainly speculation, or (I suspect) reflects internal discussions taking place in Olympus. Personally, I'd like to see an E-1 sized or slightly larger camera with an E-3 sized 100% VF, with some effective switching back and forth to EVF and a competitive sized and res pivoting, possibly detachable and cable or Blue tooth linkable - LCD. (Which certainly became possible when the pivoting LCD was developed.)
The typical hybrid horses for all possible courses are Canon and Nikon's behemoth, $7k 'professional' models. These are not something I have ever wanted to carry or use, even at times when I might have affiorded one (I was almost given an F5).
Please don't twist my words. Of course he is a rep if he is employed by Olympus at all. I don't know that, and unless you know that better, neither do you. Never the less, a rep is short for representative, he represents Olympus Japan in USA. The word "rep" is not a derogatory term in my vocabulary, which it seems to be in yours. I was also not the one who said he does not know much about Olympus cameras, I say he does not have to know everything concerning cameras and lenses. I'd in fact expect him not to be the camera expert , but work with marketing issues on a larger, global scale, not the small details. I'd expect him to be an economical and marketing expert, not a camera expert.
Nobody has said or implied that. There is nothing "wrong" with the OVF. Nobody complains about the OVF on the E-3. EVFs still have a long way to go before they can compete with OVFs.
It has lasted 50 years for a reason. OVFs do not require mechanical shutters or flapping mirrors. Yes that is the standard, but there are other options. Pellicle mirrors have been around since the 50's. It appears (rumored) that Sony has chosen to go with the fixed pellicle mirror in the new A-7xx. Of course the Sony sensor can afford the 2/3 drop in ev the pellicle mirror imposes and still produce clean 1600 images. Olympus still can not compete with the Sony/Canon sensors.
Olympus has done a lot of things that other more successful companies have not done. Olympus got out of the SLR business once already because they could not compete. Olympus still needs to prove that they can.
The E-1 and E-3 were innovative cameras.... Everything thing else in the line is pretty much recycled. Even the design of the latest EP series is taken from an old camera. The sensor/IBIS come from the E620. How innovative is the fickle (sometimes great.... sometimes not) AF system in my E-3. Why is it not consistent from lens to lens?
The OVF actually works and many people like it, That the concept has lived on for 50 yrs is enough evidence of a how good it is. Unless someone has a EVF already developed to match the speed & quality OVF ( as Marc pointed out ), they shouldn't shouting out loud about it.
Fair point, but unless Oly has a better idea, ( I hope ) they don't talk about innovation and blank statements that make no sense. I understand, all this thread stemmed from a possible speculation lets hope it is not true.
I got into Olympus due to the concept of 4/3 & innovation of a complete digital system about 6 months ago. If they want reinvent this concept again and want to innovate again - then the customers are just paying for the research involved in the innovation & never get to see the ultimate end product which is fully matured. 4/3 definitely is a concept that can mature further. As many have pointed out, nothing wrong in putting in the imaging pipeline of the EPs into a flagship and/or even E-6XX for starters. They probably don't have the resources to replenish the current production lines and also the m4/3 customers beat the 4/3 customers in terms of volume hence we are not going to see intermediate cameras anytime soon.
wow.
