Ok, we have a problem Olympus...

Jason Busch said:

Jacques Bijtebier said:

I find very strange do decide to buy or not to buy a camera which
still does not exist, and the specs of which are unknown, even to
its future makers!
What I want is a digital SLR with interchangeable lenses, a larger
sensor and no cropping factor. Presently there exist only a Contax,
a Kodak and a Canon which are too expensive for me (and I have not
even the lenses, being a pentaxist). The Olydak seems a very
interesting concept to me and I could buy it if it becomes
available before another maker makes something which meets my
requirements and my prices. For the time being I can only wait and
continue with my E10 (I would not replace it by a E30 or any other
camera with a 2/3 sensor, as the improvements would necessarily be
marginal).

Click to expand...

The OlyDak's sensor will be only a little larger than the 2/3
sensor. If you're looking into full-frame cameras, I would suggest
starting with a brand that you won't have to change lenses as well.
Olympus will never go full-frame, and in fact, want to go the
opposite. You might consider the Canon D60 or Nikon D100. Even if
Nikon does not go full-frame, you can use your Nikon lenses for the
Kodak DSLRs that do, such as the 14n.

Click to expand...

I do not want to be prisoner of another lens mount before I can actually buy the Olydak or an affordable full frame SLR. Perhaps Pentax will make something after all.

OK, 4/3 does not mean 4/3 inches, as 2/3 did not mean 2/3. What I note is that it is 4 times the E10 and 1/4 times the full frame in area (as deduced by the ratio of the focal lenghts). A factor 4 in ISO for the same noise. It is enough for me. I am also interested by the compacity and the specially adapted lenses arguments. But of course I could not buy a camera if it does not exist!
--
Jacques Bijtebier

ha !!!

Ive ££££s invested in Minolta glass they havent even stepped on the DSLR platform yet (apart from the little known/ used brick they call a DSLR) and you think youve got problems !!!!
--
Steve
http://www.swilkes.com/
E-20/Minolta Dynax 7/ETRSI/5X4 & kodak Instamatic

I'm also a bit worried here. I like Oly, I love my E-10 and I think the 4/3 system seems like an excellent idea. My take is that Oly really HAD to do something revolutionary, not worrying about leaving Canon and Nikon lenses out, to be able to get a proper crack at the ILDSLR-market. I really do think they did the right thing here.

BUT!

I'm not certain that they'll be able to execute this. Oly seems to react the same way as another company I bougt into some years ago, Psion. I went through 3 of the Psion handheld organizers (the 3, the 3a and the 5), and Psion, like Oly, had lots of faitful, supporting users. And what did these users get back from Psion, by using these products, which were really very good stuff, for it's day? Nothing. No feedback, no anouncements, bold innovative ideas (like the Oly 4/3 system) which never materialized, Psion, being rather arrogant and ignorant, though their products were so good that they would last "forever", more or less, or that was the impression you got. When new model were released, they hardly even included fixes to problems recognized and debated by the users. Accessories were expensive and although often had reasonable quality, were hopelessly overpriced. And then Palm came around and the Psion organozer was more or less dead.

I don't think Oly is as bad of as this, but there are similarities. Having been in the software industry for 20 years, I tend only to trust products that are here and now, in fornt of me, and that any "exceptional" features only exist if I can see or hears them myself. What Oly has now is:

• A pressrelease for a 4/3 system.
• A mockup of what a 4/3 camera might look like.

That's it. And don't take me wrong here. I support the 4/3 idea, I think it'¨s a great one. But before I trust Oly to execute this idea, I want some more hard facts about the products. While the Canon and Nikon trains, using old steamtrain technology, but which seems to work fine for them, has long since left the station, Oly has spent a lot of time on a pressrelease for a Turbine engine, without telling us how fast it is, where to book a ticket, how much this ticket will cost and when the train will leave the station, and, above all, arrive at the destination.

I'll stick with my E-10 for a while, if an E-20 comes around, I'll probably get one. When some hard facts are availabel for the 4/3 system, I'll look into that. If Oly is to release the 4/3 system, say, in a year or so, there will be a major competitor out, which should not be disregarded. By then, we will have a healthy D-30/D-60 and D100 secondhand market...

Karlsson
Jason Busch wrote:
[snip snip]

Jason Busch said:

The OlyDak's sensor will be only a little larger than the 2/3
sensor.

Click to expand...

A "2/3" is 11 mm diagonal. "4/3" is 22 mm. Twice the diagonal measurement is not what most people would call "only a little." By this argument, the D100 sensor (28mm) is only a "tiny" bit larger than 4/3!

Jason Busch said:

Olympus will never go full-frame,

Click to expand...

Of course not. The whole point of 4/3 to to change the definition of "full-frame". The OlyDak will be effectively full-frame if the lenses are matched. Now it's fair to question if Olympus will offer a good 7-8mm lens (FOV equiv to 14-16mm on 35mm) so that the system will not offer all of the advantages of 35mm full-frame.

--
Erik

I just read the full interview with John Knaur Sr. Product Manager, Consumer Product Group, Olympus America, Inc. on the a-digital-eye web site ( http://www.a-digital-eye.com/Olympus43Q%26A.html ). Pretty interesting.

There is one point he makes several times that I agree with: I think there needs to be a new spec for digital. The 4/3 Oly/Kodak/Fuji spec(camera formerly known as Olydak?) may not be the answer, but I would like to see something along those lines.

I agree Oly has a bad sense of timing. Everyone else is coming out with these digital wonder machines and Oly says they are still working on theirs. They have an idea but nothing worked out. They’ll let us know were they are in a year. Maybe. Great.

The good news is the E-x0 line will continue. It’s possible there’s an E-40 or 50 in my future.

I’m not planning on getting anything anytime soon. By the time I am ready I am sure the whole digicam landscape will be totally different. I don’t plan on getting overly worked up about who has what and what’s been announced and which products are vaporware until I have cash in hand and am about ready to buy.

But is it right?

http://www.dpreview.com/temp/sensorsize/

TrentMcD said:

I just read the full interview with John Knaur Sr. Product Manager,
Consumer Product Group, Olympus America, Inc. on the a-digital-eye
web site ( http://www.a-digital-eye.com/Olympus43Q%26A.html ).
Pretty interesting.

There is one point he makes several times that I agree with: I
think there needs to be a new spec for digital. The 4/3
Oly/Kodak/Fuji spec(camera formerly known as Olydak?) may not be
the answer, but I would like to see something along those lines.

I agree Oly has a bad sense of timing. Everyone else is coming out
with these digital wonder machines and Oly says they are still
working on theirs. They have an idea but nothing worked out.
They’ll let us know were they are in a year. Maybe. Great.

The good news is the E-x0 line will continue. It’s possible
there’s an E-40 or 50 in my future.

I’m not planning on getting anything anytime soon. By the time I
am ready I am sure the whole digicam landscape will be totally
different. I don’t plan on getting overly worked up about who has
what and what’s been announced and which products are vaporware
until I have cash in hand and am about ready to buy.

Click to expand...

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

We wouldn't hardly be having this discussion if Olympus/Kodak would have kept their mouth shut those months ago. Even if Olympus would only now have made the announcments they did, and shown the mock-up, we would all be very excited.

Maybe they should learn from the car industry, you don't see announcments about a car that will maybe be on the market in 1-2 years, do you? As we say in the software industry (at least to our self) "It will be done when it is done".

J.

Bernie Ess said:

Jason Busch said:

Reading the recent IR interview with Olympus, I am becoming more
skeptical about the OlyDak, and when it will be released.

Click to expand...

Specially I prefer companies like Kodak who come out with a hammer
product like the 14n when no-one expects it, thats just the way to
go, not to talk and announce 1 or even 2 years before and never
ever coming out with sometheing reasonable.

Sigma took its last chance before falling into the same category.
IF they hadn´t introduced the SD9 now, many - like me - would have
taken it off their list.
The OlyDak for me is - from now on - a non-existing product. Just
like a Canon G6 - a nice dream, but with zero relevance for my
next buying decision.
Sleep well Olympus...

Click to expand...

--
http://jonr.beecee.org/gallery/

Phil,

Looking at your chart, a 4/3" sensor has dimensions of 18mm x 13.5mm and a diagonal of 22.5 mm yet the IR run down on the interview says the Oly spec is not a 4/3" sensor but a sensor with a ratio of 4/3 and a 22.5 diagonal.

Going deeper and looking at the a-digital-eye interview, there is a line that says:

"At the press event the size of the sensor was shared in the PowerPoint slides, and was 18mm x 13.5mm with a diagonal measurement of 22.5mm. This will be the standard for imager development in this product spec."

He also never said it was a 1" sensor, but "The FourThirds standard for the imager which is nearly 1 inch on the diagonal". He is talking about the diagonal, which is 22.5 mm, which is close to 25.4mm=1". Diagonal is not sensor size.

It looks like the IR recap of the interview missed this point. The Oly rep was a little vaugue throuout and seemed to want to avoid using the "standard" sensor size.

So O.K, they get the name 4/3 from the ratio but they also use a 4/3 sensor.

Trent

Phil Askey said:

http://www.dpreview.com/temp/sensorsize/

TrentMcD said:

I just read the full interview with John Knaur Sr. Product Manager,
Consumer Product Group, Olympus America, Inc. on the a-digital-eye
web site ( http://www.a-digital-eye.com/Olympus43Q%26A.html ).
Pretty interesting.

There is one point he makes several times that I agree with: I
think there needs to be a new spec for digital. The 4/3
Oly/Kodak/Fuji spec(camera formerly known as Olydak?) may not be
the answer, but I would like to see something along those lines.

I agree Oly has a bad sense of timing. Everyone else is coming out
with these digital wonder machines and Oly says they are still
working on theirs. They have an idea but nothing worked out.
They’ll let us know were they are in a year. Maybe. Great.

The good news is the E-x0 line will continue. It’s possible
there’s an E-40 or 50 in my future.

I’m not planning on getting anything anytime soon. By the time I
am ready I am sure the whole digicam landscape will be totally
different. I don’t plan on getting overly worked up about who has
what and what’s been announced and which products are vaporware
until I have cash in hand and am about ready to buy.

Click to expand...

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

Click to expand...

Erm, I've seen this quite frequently in the car press. Read 'Sniffpetrol' (if you don't mind the language) on the subject of the Ford RS Focus (which has now appeared at long last....) It's unusual in the camera industry, but Olympus/Kodak had no option, as they weren't looking to promote just a product, but to attract other mfrs to their standard. And they've got one! albeit another ex-film purveyor with some sensor technology.... What they really need is someone else who can do lenses: I guess Olympus now have rather fewer people involved in this than Nikon and Canon. However, I'd rate their chances of attracting others as pretty good: Minolta and Pentax for instance must be thinking very hard about whether they are going to be able to stand up on their own to the benefits of the wider Ca/Nik systems. They can both do good cameras and lenses but seem to be losing scale in the market. It's a shame Sigma do seem to be intent on ploughing their own furrow (with some success).

I think there are bound to be economic merits in a less than full 35mm sensor with lenses designed for it, and it has the potential to be as good (in the future) as the best film is now. I can see full frame 35mm becoming like medium format is now, perhaps: simply better than almost everyone needs and more expensive than they want to spend. I'm interested to see what Canon will do: maybe they can crush the new standard with market strength. Will Nikon adopt the 1.5 multiplier as their new full frame and start making lenses explicitly for it? They've been quite faithful to that size for four cameras now.

Jón Ragnarsson said:

J.

Bernie Ess said:

Jason Busch said:

Reading the recent IR interview with Olympus, I am becoming more
skeptical about the OlyDak, and when it will be released.

Click to expand...

Specially I prefer companies like Kodak who come out with a hammer
product like the 14n when no-one expects it, thats just the way to
go, not to talk and announce 1 or even 2 years before and never
ever coming out with sometheing reasonable.

Sigma took its last chance before falling into the same category.
IF they hadn´t introduced the SD9 now, many - like me - would have
taken it off their list.
The OlyDak for me is - from now on - a non-existing product. Just
like a Canon G6 - a nice dream, but with zero relevance for my
next buying decision.
Sleep well Olympus...

Click to expand...

--
http://jonr.beecee.org/gallery/

Click to expand...

--
Kingsley Reavell
MSM, Cambridge

Erik,

Yes, the imager size is double the size of the E-10. Thanks to Oly, they have confused a lot of people, including myself. Frist they say it's 4/3" then they say it's not, and it's just the aspect ration. The latest revision of the A-Digital-Eye interview, made things clearer, though. And thanks to Phil's page on imager sizes too.

--
http://pub103.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity
http://d100.topcities.com/
http://e10club.topcities.com/
--
Nikon D100
Nikkor AF-S 80-200mm
Nikkor 50mm 1.4D
SB-80DX

TrentMcD said:

interview says the Oly spec is not a 4/3" sensor but a sensor with
a ratio of 4/3 and a 22.5 diagonal.

Click to expand...

I don't know what Olympus USA's problem is. Kodak calls their sensor "Diagonal 22.2mm (Type 4/3)". This nomenclature is perfectly consistent with the Sony sensor in the E10/20 being 11mm "type 2/3".

Someone is very confused and it's not Phil (or Kodak or Sony.)

--
Erik

Erik Magnuson said:

Member said:

Someone is very confused and it's not Phil (or Kodak or Sony.)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Erik,

OK lets see . . .
2mp cameras such as the Olympus 2100 have 1600x1200 pixels - a RATIO of 4:3

3mp cameras such as the Fuji 602 have 2832x2128 (interpolated) pixels - a ratio of 4:3

4mp cameras such as the Canon G3 and Nikon 4500 have 2272x1704 pixels - a RATIO of 4:3

5mp cameras such as the E20, 707,D7, etc have 2560x1920 pixels - a RATIO of 4:3

And NOW Olympus is suggesting everyone rally around a 4:3 RATIO - not a 4/3 chip. - WOW what a revolution that will be.

Bill
http://www.goldenbcphotography.com

Hello all,

This may be a way to twist things around, save face and every company go on with its own business and claim a great success with a lot of PR.
William

Bill Pitcher said:

Erik Magnuson said:

bill pitcher said:

Someone is very confused and it's not Phil (or Kodak or Sony.)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Erik,

OK lets see . . .
2mp cameras such as the Olympus 2100 have 1600x1200 pixels - a
RATIO of 4:3

3mp cameras such as the Fuji 602 have 2832x2128 (interpolated)
pixels - a ratio of 4:3

4mp cameras such as the Canon G3 and Nikon 4500 have 2272x1704
pixels - a RATIO of 4:3

5mp cameras such as the E20, 707,D7, etc have 2560x1920 pixels - a
RATIO of 4:3

And NOW Olympus is suggesting everyone rally around a 4:3 RATIO -
not a 4/3 chip. - WOW what a revolution that will be.

Bill
http://www.goldenbcphotography.com

Click to expand...

Jason Busch said:

Reading the recent IR interview with Olympus, I am becoming more
skeptical about the OlyDak, and when it will be released.
Unfortunately, as I have posted so many times over the past year,
Olympus is consistent in one thing only: Secrets. Apparently, they
can't even give their executives the heads-up on what is going on.
This is an example of outrageously apathetic consumer interaction.
Now, it appears as if the OlyDak, and I quote from the IR interview:

"...perhaps midway through 2003 might be a reasonable timeframe to
expect the first developments..."

First developments? And even then, Oly said that was a "rough guess".

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1033665660.html

For those debating an Oly DSLR, I can't recommend it anymore. Sigma
looks promising and if the camera is reduced in price, then you
might take a look at it. I do have issues with it, such as being a
closed system (i.e., you can only use Sigma lenses), but it's
better than nothing. However, if the SD9 is still selling for
$1800, I would pay the extra $200 and get a D100 or D60. You can
still use Sigma lenses if you want, and also use Canon or Nikon
lenses as well.

What is probably going to happen, is that an E-30 will be released
in the next 6 months. I have no problems with this camera, and it's
only the DSLR that I am not recommending at this point. Apparently,
Olympus just made a quick plastic mold for Photokina, to give their
followers a little more faith.

Oly consumers need to start talking with their wallets. If you're
upgrading soon, get another brand. Email Olympus about their
feet-dragging in the technology realm of digital cameras. This is
an indication to me that Olympus still has reservations about their
DSLR systems, and that they could easily jump ship next year.

What does this mean?

Well, it means everyone better stay clear of an Oly DSLR. When and
if it ever comes out, there is no guarantee that Oly will stick
with it, and YOU will be stuck with a bunch of equipment that won't
have future upgrades, or more lenses being made.

I'm currently writing a lengthy editorial for my E-10 website, and
check back within the next 24hrs to read it.

I love the E-series, but Oly really screwed up in the DSLR world.>

Click to expand...

Joe Peoples writes:

I agree with your last statement, Jason. An E30 probably won't address the shortcomings of the E20, flipside meaning the features, ruggedness, speed and reliability won't compete with Nikon/Fuji/Canon...and now Kodak. Oly will still target the advanced amateur/semi-pro market and professionals who use an Oly product can no longer alter their shooting style to accomodate a slower camera, with faster products on the market. To give Olympus some credit, they will design a camera system with their target audience in mind and the product will be satisfactory for one reason or another (price, size, weight, etc.)

I was just rereading the interview and noticed this line from the Oly America rep:

"The FourThirds refers to the aspect ratio of the sensor 4:3 and the size of the Imager*. "
and

"The FourThirds refers to both the size of the imager and the aspect ratio of the sensor 4 : 3 which works out to be close to an 8 X 10, where as the APS imager is a 3.2:2 ratio (8x12.8") and 35mm*."

So it looks like it is BOTH the size AND the ratio he is talking about.

To be fair, I just noticed this:

" This information was updated to clarify this issue in a follow-up phone conversation on Oct. 4, 2002"

So the original interview was wrong, but has been clearified.

(From http://www.a-digital-eye.com/Olympus43Q&A.html )

See, now I just don't get that. It's OBVIOUS that the 4/3 sensor is a 4:3 ratio because they've already defined the exact dimensions of the sensor itself. So why make a point out of the fact that it is 4:3 ?

TrentMcD said:

I was just rereading the interview and noticed this line from the
Oly America rep:
"The FourThirds refers to the aspect ratio of the sensor 4:3 and
the size of the Imager*. "
and
"The FourThirds refers to both the size of the imager and the
aspect ratio of the sensor 4 : 3 which works out to be close to an
8 X 10, where as the APS imager is a 3.2:2 ratio (8x12.8") and
35mm*."

So it looks like it is BOTH the size AND the ratio he is talking
about.

To be fair, I just noticed this:

" This information was updated to clarify this issue in a follow-up
phone conversation on Oct. 4, 2002"

So the original interview was wrong, but has been clearified.

(From http://www.a-digital-eye.com/Olympus43Q&A.html )

Click to expand...

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

Yep, I gotta agree with Jason on this one. A lot of missed opportunity on the part of Oly. Why, they could have a chunk of my cash right now but, oh let's see, I gave it to Fuji instead for an S2. My E10 (and numerous accessories) has done 11,000 + images in 20 months and still works great. It produces a wonderful image. And it will still be used and loved for many reason including features not found on the S2. But I needed more and the lack of info from Oly was just frustrating me. I also have my doubts about Oly's commitment to the pro market.

Jason Busch said:

I love the E-series, but Oly really screwed up in the DSLR world.

--
http://pub103.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity
http://d100.topcities.com/
http://e10club.topcities.com/
--
Nikon D100
Nikkor AF-S 80-200mm
Nikkor 50mm 1.4D
SB-80DX

Click to expand...

--
shoot more, show more - argue less

Phil,

Because Olympus is as confused as the rest of us.

--
http://pub103.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity
http://d100.topcities.com/
http://e10club.topcities.com/
--
Nikon D100
Nikkor AF-S 80-200mm
Nikkor 50mm 1.4D
SB-80DX

Can't really disagree with Jason. Maybe the tech-people invented 'Four thirds system'. Then they had to explain to marketing why a 4/3" diagonal isn't really 4/3". Uh-oh ;-)

I wouldn't be surprised if the name is changed to 'DPS' (digital photo system') or something before the PMA.
Regards