OK. So what happens to the lenses?

jkrumm said:

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

Click to expand...

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').

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

Member said:

--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK

Click to expand...

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

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

I'm sure I read somewhere (probably on here), that Fuji(?) have developed an imaging sensor that has the traditional phase detect AF sensors built into it. So it can do phase detect AF in a mirrorless configuration.

No reason (other than commercial) that it can't be put into a 4/3 camera.

But I do agree generally with your synopsis, and I think Oly is making a mistake (or, if the technology catches up in time, just a blind leap of faith), by apparently abandoning DSLRs for mirrorless.

Incidentally, I think their main reason for doing so is commercial too. Back when 4/3 was conceived, the main reason for a smaller sensor was due to the electronics being expensive to produce, so it saved them money/ increasing their margins. Now sensors are cheap as chips (sorry) to make, the mechanical parts of a camera start to look like the expensive bits. Then along comes m4/3 which does away with all that - flappy mirror, and soon mechanical shutter as well.

I really think (at least with the current state of technology) that Oly should be offering a mid range DSLR alongside the top spec E-5. I'd see it as a bit bigger than an E620, but smaller/lower spec than an E-30. An updated E-620 with a grip (to take the BLM1 battery), would just about hit the spot.

Is Olympus losing money on DSLRs? If not, why would they discontinue them? The E5 seems like a hit, but many seem to lament the size and cost. So, why not complement it with an E50?

I mean, it seems like such a waste to abandon 4/3 in favor of mFT as long as 4/3 is not losing money. It would be like Canon or Nikon abandoning FF in favor of 1.6x. What's the reason not to run both?

Everybody criticizes the 4/3 sensor. So why not run an APS-C sensor in the 4/3 bodies, and have it in 4/3 crop mode, like Nikon does with the D3? Sure, I guess that means redesigning the IBIS, but I just don't see it as a huge challenge.

Of course, 4/3 would lose in the MP race due to the crop, but the lenses should be able to maintain the same resolution (lw/ph), so that could even be exploited as an advantage: "Olympus uses 10 MP to do the same job as 16 MP on APS-C".

Then start adding some nice primes to the lens lineup, and all of a sudden, 4/3 has new life. The question, then, is what does a 4/3 DSLR have over a mFT camera that justifies running both platforms? Well that brings us back to the OP -- the lenses.

dingenus said:

After the E5 there will be another camera. With or without an optical viewfinder.

They can use the same body for an E5mkII or E7 with their latest sensor and software. The cost will be low, just as now with the E5 and the buyers will have their semipro body for their HG and SHG lenses with all things a little better than in the consumer cams. And after that there will be an EVF cam that use the (s)hg lenses too. The difference with micro4/3 is very small. And in this way the investment in the development of the 4/3 lenses give an optimal efficiency. No problems also.

Click to expand...

Amen. 4/3 and m4/3 must be part of one system unless Olympus was ready to re-invent their wheel of 4/3 users. Their best prospects for m4/3 are those who use 4/3. They know they have to treat them very nicely if they want to see things work right. These 4/3 lenses are pure gold to them if they create a hybrid body. I'm looking forward to seeing it come out, even if it matches the size of any E-series camera. By hosting the huge volume of 4/3 lenses out there, they can have a very positive outcome from the 4/3 > m4/3 transition.

I'm not that worried, you know they have to go this way.
--
BruceWB

You do know you are asking the company (Olympus) to do the exact opposite of what they have said they are going to do in the future?

It is what they were doing in the past and it wasn't working for them...well all I guess except making primes!

Yes we all have our pet projects we wish they had done (mine 400f5.6...though they did come through with a full frame fisheye!)...at this point it's over and Big Ga's question is pertinent to those folks with older lens.

Me I got just 2 bodies left and one lens...E30 and E420 with a prime! Haha the 25mm pancake...all up for sale. However, having just sold some other gear I might hang on to the E30...still mulling it over.

Dan

Well, that's your opinion, and I disagree with it. It's a $1700 camera and I'm glad I bought it, as are a few thousand others apparently. To say that it's a $900 camera is implying that we are insanely stupid, and that's where these discussions drive into the ditch, 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.

--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK

Yeah he puts out a "summary" of the year's biggest events and leaves out the time period when this forum probably had the most activity / interest of the year...pre E-5 release when all sorts of folks were claiming it would have this or that...little of which came true unfortunately.

Sadly, some folks take their missed "prophecies" too seriously.

Dan

Bruce Clarke said:

In five years or so, I'm guessing pretty much all current DSLR lenses will be largely obsolete, as they won't work well with mirrorless bodies that will be the norm by then, either for focus or silent operation for video. They will also generally look ridiculously large and heavy as mirrorless lens designs improve and go into niche and pro markets. Panasonic and Oly just happen to be in the vanguard, and being more upfront about what's coming.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree that in five years time we will see a significant increase in the number of lenses that are video optimised.

However I would be very, VERY surprised if the 24-70 and 70-200 etc type lenses from Canon and Nikon won't have bodies to work (properly) on.

You also can't easily change the laws of physics. So if you want an f2.8 FX type of look (and many people do), you're going to need big lenses (just as big as they are today? I can't see them shrinking that much if at all). Even if the bodies are mirrorless and tiny.

Raist3d said:

in a new pro specced micro four thirds type body/or hybrid/whatever.

I think as long as they do this and this is what they indicated they are trying to do (get the 4/3rd lenses perform well on contrast AF, etc.), I wouldn't fear for my lenses nor I would worry about it since bodies come and go, and lenses stay.

Click to expand...

I need a bit more convincing on this 'lenses stay' thing.

For example. At the time, I really couldn't work out why Oly introduced the 14-54 MK2 SWD. Its not as if the original version is a slow or noisy lens. In fact, its the opposite. Its quick and silent. There was nothing wrong with it.
So why change the design?

Could it be that they KNEW back then that at some point, mirrorless was going to be the way ahead, and the SWD mark2 version was needed to get it to work at all properly?

This is conjecture of course, but like I say, I can't currently think of a logical reason to spend money re-designing an otherwise good lens, when there are a whole bunch of other gaps in the lineup crying out to be filled. Unless they were doing damage limitation and preparing for the future when they knew what was going to happen. Which is that original 14-54 lenses just won't work properly on the newer bodies.

dingenus said:

After the E5 there will be another camera. With or without an optical viewfinder.

They can use the same body for an E5mkII or E7 with their latest sensor and software. The cost will be low, just as now with the E5 and the buyers will have their semipro body for their HG and SHG lenses with all things a little better than in the consumer cams. And after that there will be an EVF cam that use the (s)hg lenses too. The difference with micro4/3 is very small. And in this way the investment in the development of the 4/3 lenses give an optimal efficiency. No problems also.

Click to expand...

But if you've got a whole bunch of the original fourthirds lenses, these currently don't work well at all with any of the (many) Oly & Panny cameras available that don't have an OVF.

Can you tell me what is going to change? Especially as there have been MANY hints that the E5 will be the last camera with an OVF.

Dan said:

You do know you are asking the company (Olympus) to do the exact opposite of what they have said they are going to do in the future?

It is what they were doing in the past and it wasn't working for them...well all I guess except making primes!

Click to expand...

Well, that's what I'm asking -- are you saying that 4/3 wasn't making money? I mean, I understand that mFT is likely making a lot more money for them right now, but so long as the DSLRs were in the black, what's the problem?

My guess is that they want to divert the resources from the DSLRs to mFT. Well, that will likely bite them in the a$$ when the mirrorless market begins to get more crowded with more players and more options.

As for their choices in lenses, I discussed this a while back:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36149406

Dan said:

Yes we all have our pet projects we wish they had done (mine 400f5.6...though they did come through with a full frame fisheye!)...at this point it's over and Big Ga's question is pertinent to those folks with older lens.

Click to expand...

Well, to me, the answer is rather straight-forward. Either keep what you have and enjoy it, or get the E5 and enjoy it. When you see the competition offering something more that you really need, then switch systems if Olympus no longer makes systems compatible with your lenses.

Dan said:

Me I got just 2 bodies left and one lens...E30 and E420 with a prime! Haha the 25mm pancake...all up for sale. However, having just sold some other gear I might hang on to the E30...still mulling it over.

Click to expand...

Many have left for other systems. The question is, for how many of them will it result in either better photos, or a more enjoyable experience taking them? And, for those that it does, is the cost of switching systems at this time worth it?

Great Bustard said:

Well, to me, the answer is rather straight-forward. Either keep what you have and enjoy it, or get the E5 and enjoy it. When you see the competition offering something more that you really need, then switch systems if Olympus no longer makes systems compatible with your lenses.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm.

Well the problem with this, is that you might be penalised financially for waiting.

I haven't sat down and calculated what that might mean in real terms though. And of course it would be mainly guessing as nobody really knows what would happen.
Is it conceivable lens prices might go UP ?
????

edit - this is assuming that conventional FT lens production stops.

I have an 11-22, an original 14-54, and an original 50-200 and have no plans to quit using them. Got them all when I got an E-500. I guess I am not as pessimistic as most. I don't look for the "demise" of the DSLR, just the evolution of the electronic viewfinder bodies. And not just from Olympus, but from Nikon and Canon as well. I don't think I will live long enough to see my favorite lenses become unusable. Focus speed is good enough for me on the E-3 and old lenses, low light is good enough on the E-5, and I have four 4/3 DSLR bodies now. I'm not "worried" at all. I'm set for now.

I expect the future bodies to accept these old lenses anyway, so I'm not worried, which is a good thing, since I also have a 14-35 and 35-100.

Joe

Big Ga said:

Raist3d said:

in a new pro specced micro four thirds type body/or hybrid/whatever.

I think as long as they do this and this is what they indicated they are trying to do (get the 4/3rd lenses perform well on contrast AF, etc.), I wouldn't fear for my lenses nor I would worry about it since bodies come and go, and lenses stay.

Click to expand...

I need a bit more convincing on this 'lenses stay' thing.

For example. At the time, I really couldn't work out why Oly introduced the 14-54 MK2 SWD. Its not as if the original version is a slow or noisy lens. In fact, its the opposite. Its quick and silent. There was nothing wrong with it.
So why change the design?

Could it be that they KNEW back then that at some point, mirrorless was going to be the way ahead, and the SWD mark2 version was needed to get it to work at all properly?

This is conjecture of course, but like I say, I can't currently think of a logical reason to spend money re-designing an otherwise good lens, when there are a whole bunch of other gaps in the lineup crying out to be filled. Unless they were doing damage limitation and preparing for the future when they knew what was going to happen. Which is that original 14-54 lenses just won't work properly on the newer bodies.

Click to expand...

The Mk II 14-54 isn't SWD. It is optimised for CDAF though, unlike the 12-60 SWD. I believe the way SWD works isn't compatible with CDAF.

Bruce
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bruce-clarke/
Flickriver - view large on black as a stream:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/bruce-clarke/

Joe Lynch said:

Focus speed is good enough for me on the E-3 and old lenses,

Click to expand...

...

Joe Lynch said:

I expect the future bodies to accept these old lenses anyway, so I'm not worried, which is a good thing, since I also have a 14-35 and 35-100.

Click to expand...

Focus speed might indeed be good enough on the E3 and E5, but from what I understand, if you try and use them on any of the current EVF cameras, then you're looking at probably an order of magnitude slower to get a focus lock. That's now moved into the totally unusable region for many things.

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?

E5 mkII?

The current e5 IS the e3 mkII lol

Why didn't they use the latest sensor for the e-5 then even with it already being developed and cheaper than developing a sensor from scratch for one sole body?

I'm afraid all clues point to an end in 4/3's, the reviews and various other logical posts are pretty reasonable in this aspect. Without an entry level body the system isn't attracting new customers and progression comes to a halt just as it did more than a year ago as m4/3's became the primary business direction.

How is it that you can express that there won't be any problems?

What may save the 4/3 lenses from going down horribly in value is the video scene where users of the top panny bodies are making really nice stuff and panny's commitment to providing a professional video body using these same size sensors but even then it's a pretty small group so it's still a bit of a gamble really as to how long that spark of intrest may last.

dingenus said:

After the E5 there will be another camera. With or without an optical viewfinder.

They can use the same body for an E5mkII or E7 with their latest sensor and software. The cost will be low, just as now with the E5 and the buyers will have their semipro body for their HG and SHG lenses with all things a little better than in the consumer cams. And after that there will be an EVF cam that use the (s)hg lenses too. The difference with micro4/3 is very small. And in this way the investment in the development of the 4/3 lenses give an optimal efficiency. No problems also.

Click to expand...

--
Oldschool Evolt shooter

Bruce Clarke said:

The Mk II 14-54 isn't SWD.

Click to expand...

You are quite right.

I'm going to have to go back and find the Panny AF compatibility sheet. As I don't own an SWD lens, I didn't check to see on what cameras they AF (or don't) on.

Great Bustard said:

Is Olympus losing money on DSLRs?

Click to expand...

Probably not. If you consider their entire standard 4/3 lens line as well, then it seems highly unlikely.

Great Bustard said:

If not, why would they discontinue them? The E5 seems like a hit, but many seem to lament the size and cost. So, why not complement it with an E50?

Click to expand...

Olympus want to focus as much of their R&D efforts in Micro 4/3 as possible. The E-5 only offers the lighter AA filter / revised engine as new features (if you ignore the improved LCD and mediocre video capability).

Add to this that they don't want standard 4/3 competing with Micro when Micro has a better profit margin. It surprises me that they still have the "cheaper and better than Micro" standard SG lenses around, really. Presumably the supply is limited and they won't build any more, but it can't help sales of the Micro lenses to have superior and cheaper options available in standard mount.

An E-50 could screw up the pending "mid range" Micro 4/3 body, whenever that is released. If they did build an E-50 I'd expect them to wait until the Micro competitor is already out, then release the E-50 later with absolutely no new features.

Great Bustard said:

I mean, it seems like such a waste to abandon 4/3 in favor of mFT as long as 4/3 is not losing money. It would be like Canon or Nikon abandoning FF in favor of 1.6x. What's the reason not to run both?

Click to expand...

Competition from a better and cheaper alternative system. Smaller size and weight in APS compared to 135 also has a reduced cost; having the reverse hold true for Micro compared to standard 4/3 may alert the customer that they're not exactly getting a bargain.

Great Bustard said:

Everybody criticizes the 4/3 sensor. So why not run an APS-C sensor in the 4/3 bodies, and have it in 4/3 crop mode, like Nikon does with the D3? Sure, I guess that means redesigning the IBIS, but I just don't see it as a huge challenge.

Click to expand...

Using a 3:2 sensor would be absurd and pointless unless the price disparity was huge. Even then, you'd have to balance that against the marketing issue: buy 4/3 and use 60% of the sensor or buy APS and use 100%. Just not a good marketing move.

Of course, we are considering Olympus...

Great Bustard said:

Then start adding some nice primes to the lens lineup, and all of a sudden, 4/3 has new life.

Click to expand...

Yes, but zombies are harder to kill.

Great Bustard said:

The question, then, is what does a 4/3 DSLR have over a mFT camera that justifies running both platforms? Well that brings us back to the OP -- the lenses.

Click to expand...

At the moment, it also offers advantages in AF speed and accuracy. Eventually technology will erase those, though. (Just as EVFs will eventually be superior to OVFs across the board.)

My main concern with Micro is that the lenses are compromised. While you can correct for some optical issues, I just don't like the idea of paying more money for worse lenses.

Nikon or Canon may have better ideas for a micro system, so I'm waiting to see what they come up with. (Hopefully there will be a multi-aspect, square sensor, completely new for digital design.)

First of all, I don't bother other camera makers coming up with new gimmicks. I don't need a camera that takes perfect pictures without me being involved. For my needs, the E-5 seems to be tailor-made, apart from being too big and heavy. I'd loved if they had given it a K-5 size body, but they didn't. So, i have to live with that. And in the meantime, I have accustomed to the size and if there won't be an µFT allowing the FT lenses to focus as fast as on the E-5, so what. I'll keep on using it and my lenses (9-18, 50 2.0, 12-60 SWD and 50-200 SWD for the next 10 years and if the budget will allow it I'm even going to add the one or the other SHG lens to my gear.

Furthermore, Terada San (Oly's DSLR boss) GUARANTEED in several interviews at last year's Photokina, that there always will be an Olympus DSLR until the mirrorless cams will be able to make full use of our FT lenses.

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.

And he could be right. Even the 12-60 or the 14-54 I do work in live view on the E-5, although slower than the 14-54 II. But if he is right, it will be just a question of time.

By the way: Olympus patented an on-sensor PDAF back in 2004 or 2006. Unfortunately I can't find the link any more on my packed harddrive but I've seen the patent writing myself. So, this also could be an option.

Anyway: Being a real Olympus enthusiast although I switched from Pana's G1 to the E-30 just one and a half year ago, I'm not afraid of the future. No matter if my E-5 (I even might sell my E-30 and purchase a second as back-up when the price drops), a future Ex or a pro/semi-pro mirrorless camera - my Oly gear will certainly allow me to shoot the pictures I want, in the coming 10 years - and improve my photographic skills until I hopefully will be able to make full use of their potential.

And I'd just love to do so with an OM-style mirrorless cam.

boggis the cat said:

boggis the cat said:

Everybody criticizes the 4/3 sensor. So why not run an APS-C sensor in the 4/3 bodies, and have it in 4/3 crop mode, like Nikon does with the D3? Sure, I guess that means redesigning the IBIS, but I just don't see it as a huge challenge.

Click to expand...

Using a 3:2 sensor would be absurd and pointless unless the price disparity was huge. Even then, you'd have to balance that against the marketing issue: buy 4/3 and use 60% of the sensor or buy APS and use 100%. Just not a good marketing move.

Click to expand...

The aspect ratio of the sensor is a non-sequitur as the photos are being cropped to the 4/3 rectangle. The point is to get a sensor with 14 stops of DR (albeit only 10 MP in the 4/3 crop).

So, why choose 4/3 over APS-C which uses the whole of said sensor? Again -- the lenses.

boggis the cat said:

My main concern with Micro is that the lenses are compromised. While you can correct for some optical issues, I just don't like the idea of paying more money for worse lenses.

Click to expand...

Ergo, keep 4/3 DSLRs alive and concurrent with mFT systems.

boggis the cat said:

Nikon or Canon may have better ideas for a micro system, so I'm waiting to see what they come up with. (Hopefully there will be a multi-aspect, square sensor, completely new for digital design.)

Click to expand...

I don't get the multi-aspect thing -- capture the photo with the whole of the sensor and crop to taste in post. If framing is an issue, give the viewfinder a crop mode.