OM-D - Who's still waiting for an E-xxx size?

Hi,

I just wondered, with all the doom and gloom, how many people are potentially in the same boat as me - having not jumped ship. I have an E-400. I'm a fairly low turnover guy, not wanting or needing the latest and greatest body and looking for lenses and accessories. So, my wish to upgrade is not an annual thing. (My previous system was Canon EOS-5 and I switched to Olympus due to it's smaller size as I would be travelling more.)

I've been waiting for a new E-xxx sized body to supplement my E-400 and use my existing lenses. (Occasionally I could do with two bodies to save lens-swaps.) I'm looking to beef up the ISO quality and DR a bit and keep my lenses and accessories if possible.

The m4/3 are interesting, but nothing has made me part with the cash. I think I'd like to start again rather than stick big FT lenses on a m4/3 body and compromise.

I could only see one reference to the size of the original OM series in relation to the E-xxx line. Not sure if the link will be allowed: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E410/E410A.HTM How similar could/would/will it be to the E-xxx line?

1) If the rumoured OM-D gives me a similar feel to My E-400, with good enough upgrades in DR and ISO, then it will probably be the camera for me. I would buy a m 4/3 body for my wife to use and for when I wanted to really travel light.

2) If not, then I'd pass on my camera system to family and look again, probably at one of the many compact interchangeable systems and decide on merit at the time of purchase.

David.

--
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

David J Barber said:

Hi,

I just wondered, with all the doom and gloom, how many people are potentially in the same boat as me - having not jumped ship. I have an E-400. I'm a fairly low turnover guy, not wanting or needing the latest and greatest body and looking for lenses and accessories. So, my wish to upgrade is not an annual thing. (My previous system was Canon EOS-5 and I switched to Olympus due to it's smaller size as I would be travelling more.)

I've been waiting for a new E-xxx sized body to supplement my E-400 and use my existing lenses. (Occasionally I could do with two bodies to save lens-swaps.) I'm looking to beef up the ISO quality and DR a bit and keep my lenses and accessories if possible.

The m4/3 are interesting, but nothing has made me part with the cash. I think I'd like to start again rather than stick big FT lenses on a m4/3 body and compromise.

I could only see one reference to the size of the original OM series in relation to the E-xxx line. Not sure if the link will be allowed: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E410/E410A.HTM How similar could/would/will it be to the E-xxx line?

1) If the rumoured OM-D gives me a similar feel to My E-400, with good enough upgrades in DR and ISO, then it will probably be the camera for me. I would buy a m 4/3 body for my wife to use and for when I wanted to really travel light.

Click to expand...

feel might be more dependent on the ergonomics of each,
we do not know enough here but OM-D seems to have a number of dials

David J Barber said:

2) If not, then I'd pass on my camera system to family and look again, probably at one of the many compact interchangeable systems and decide on merit at the time of purchase.

David.

Click to expand...

for just a side by side of OM and E410, but remember that OM-D will be around 10mm (1/2") shorter

David J Barber said:

--
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Click to expand...

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

As it stands I will be left with no choice but to jump ship because eventually my 620 and 520 will wear out. As someone whose main interests are in things that move I don’t believe that there is anything that matches them for price, size and meeting my expectations. As I see it, all micro 4/3 cameras aren’t as good (for me) as what I have already. Strange because evolution normally means better.

I will have a real problem when I do replace because to replace what I have including lenses will cost more than I can probably afford. If I was forced to jump at the moment I think it would be the Nikon 5100 or the Sony A65 (big beast, not too keen on that).

The Exxx do meet my niche requirements in a way that nothing else does. It was a mistake going to Olympus in the first place but the cameras were the right ones for me at the time.

--



My Galleries are at
http://picasaweb.google.com/trevorfcarpenter

I hope the rumoured dimensions for OM-D are wrong, the OM is about 10mm
wider and handles much better for it.

The OM-4 was just the right size for good handling without being too bulky.
Why make it the same width as a Pen.

Rriley said:

David J Barber said:

Hi,

I just wondered, with all the doom and gloom, how many people are potentially in the same boat as me - having not jumped ship. I have an E-400. I'm a fairly low turnover guy, not wanting or needing the latest and greatest body and looking for lenses and accessories. So, my wish to upgrade is not an annual thing. (My previous system was Canon EOS-5 and I switched to Olympus due to it's smaller size as I would be travelling more.)

I've been waiting for a new E-xxx sized body to supplement my E-400 and use my existing lenses. (Occasionally I could do with two bodies to save lens-swaps.) I'm looking to beef up the ISO quality and DR a bit and keep my lenses and accessories if possible.

The m4/3 are interesting, but nothing has made me part with the cash. I think I'd like to start again rather than stick big FT lenses on a m4/3 body and compromise.

I could only see one reference to the size of the original OM series in relation to the E-xxx line. Not sure if the link will be allowed: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E410/E410A.HTM How similar could/would/will it be to the E-xxx line?

1) If the rumoured OM-D gives me a similar feel to My E-400, with good enough upgrades in DR and ISO, then it will probably be the camera for me. I would buy a m 4/3 body for my wife to use and for when I wanted to really travel light.

Click to expand...

feel might be more dependent on the ergonomics of each,
we do not know enough here but OM-D seems to have a number of dials

Rriley said:

2) If not, then I'd pass on my camera system to family and look again, probably at one of the many compact interchangeable systems and decide on merit at the time of purchase.

David.

Click to expand...

for just a side by side of OM and E410, but remember that OM-D will be around 10mm (1/2") shorter

Rriley said:

--
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Click to expand...

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

Click to expand...

So far, the camera promises to check off a lot of boxes, but it will come down to the handling. Will it be something I can hold? Haven't heard anything about the grip yet, other than it is not removeable.

It might satisfy 4xx/6xx users, but I've been spoiled by the 520's grip (and the C2100UZ before that)

If it proves another camera w a whimpy grip, I'll likely go to an E-30 instead. (Might have to go that route anyway, if I need a new cam B4 the OM's price drops)
--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

Take something the size of an E-4X0, remove the mirror, add lots of useful gadgetry, a great EVF and good grip options and I believe Olympus could be onto a winner.

--
Regards
J

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jasonhindleuk
Blog: http://jasonhindle.wordpress.com



Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_hindle

Gear in profile

Trevor,

You wrote, "As it stands I will be left with no choice but to jump ship because eventually my 620 and 520 will wear out."

Surely that isn't your only reason because there are 620s still out there in new condition or with very low shutter counts. Maybe low-shutter-count 520s would be a bit harder to find but I'm sure they are out there as well.

Lawrence

Historicity said:

Surely that isn't your only reason because there are 620s still out there in new condition or with very low shutter counts. Maybe low-shutter-count 520s would be a bit harder to find but I'm sure they are out there as well.

Click to expand...

Lawrence

In a year or two when the 620's are no longer around, there would not be any choice left, would it not? I bought 620 new last year from Dell Canada replacing the 520, partly in anticipation that I will have to wait several years before being able to buy any new body. Now I see that Dell no longer sells the 620.

As it turns out though, I thought I would still be able to wait out another year or two for m4/3 mid range body to improve its ZD lens AF speed, but I don't think I would be able to. Going to need video this year and research so far points to the dark side. But I will keep the FT systems along side the EF-S, and keep the EF-S gears minimal as needed while I learn the new system.

Art_P said:

So far, the camera promises to check off a lot of boxes, but it will come down to the handling. Will it be something I can hold? Haven't heard anything about the grip yet, other than it is not removeable.

It might satisfy 4xx/6xx users, but I've been spoiled by the 520's grip (and the C2100UZ before that)

If it proves another camera w a whimpy grip, I'll likely go to an E-30 instead. (Might have to go that route anyway, if I need a new cam B4 the OM's price drops)
--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

Click to expand...

Art...

Did you ever try the 620 with a battery grip???

I got lucky with the purchase of my 2nd 620 in that it came with the Olympus battery grip..

It improved the handling of the 620 so much that I ordered a 2nd grip for my original 620.

I even added an "Own User" brand grip to my 510 and 520 cameras.

I dont use them "all the time" but if I think I might be shooting 500 to 1000 frames before I return home, I put on the grip and go shoot, and generally dont need the spare batteries (even though I always bring a set).

I consider the 620 to be the best DSLR I own, with the 520 coming in second.. They both crap out on low light focus, thats the one thing I thought could be improved on both (and all that came before them.).

Being "Stuck" with the 520 is no bad thing.. It is a GREAT camera, and a good performer.

I'm awaiting the real announcement myself, as I have hopes that the OM will have AF that works better on my older ZD lenses, but Im not holding my breath for it! (and I dont truly EXPECT it)
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Connecticut

Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does

In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.
Oscar Wilde

I don't know if you have ever gotten your hands on an E-5 for evaluation, but it truly is the best of what many of us were expecting from Olympus all along. Granted, its size is obviously larger than what you have in mind, but it satisfies on so many levels that it's at least worth getting your hands on for a test drive. At the very worst, it will definitely make you wish even more for an E-50 or equivalent.

I've taken shots at 6400 ISO that are genuinely better than what I've done at 1600 with the 510. With a little overexposure, which the camera seems to do on it's own when shooting auto ISO, the noise is minimal and a sitting duck for Lightroom's luminance noise slider. I'm sure if they could package the E-5 in a smaller body, it would certainly be the one for you. Whether the digital OM will fit the bill is anybody's guess.

Robert

Oh yes, this seems quite true, not to mention you can actually make out your subject in ISO 6400 conditions through the E-5 viewfinder.

Amidst all the OMD fuss I'd be quite happy to consider replacing any E-### pentamirror for an excellent EVF.

Cheers,

Rick

mrhodges2 said:

I've taken shots at 6400 ISO that are genuinely better than what I've done at 1600 with the 510. With a little overexposure, which the camera seems to do on it's own when shooting auto ISO, the noise is minimal and a sitting duck for Lightroom's luminance noise slider. I'm sure if they could package the E-5 in a smaller body, it would certainly be the one for you. Whether the digital OM will fit the bill is anybody's guess.

Robert

Click to expand...

One of the reasons I was thinking about getting a K5 was the fact that it was pretty close to the size of an E500, so I'm with you on something the size of an E-xxx. However, this camera's going to be smaller than that.

Adding a battery grip a la 620, is going to be about the only way to bring it close to that optimum size. Additional capability is a plus that comes along with auxiliary grip. The other advantage is you can "size down" if you want it to.

Size is very personal, so it may or may not work for you. I'm going to have to experiment myself. The good news is this camera will be somewhat bigger than the Pens, which were aloways too small for me.

With E.510 and 14-54 as my main arsenal, I do hope there willl be a camera body that will be about the same size. Not that E-20 was any bad, but I think E-3 size is overkill..

mring1 said:

Size is very personal, so it may or may not work for you. I'm going to have to experiment myself. The good news is this camera will be somewhat bigger than the Pens, which were always too small for me.

Click to expand...

Agreed. If this is bigger than the pens, and feels good, it'll be the one to look more seriously at. I can then consider a Pen body for my wife (budget permitting) and use that if I need/want to go smaller/lighter.

Let's wait and see.

David.

--
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Skeeterbytes said:

Oh yes, this seems quite true, not to mention you can actually make out your subject in ISO 6400 conditions through the E-5 viewfinder.

Amidst all the OMD fuss I'd be quite happy to consider replacing any E-### pentamirror for an excellent EVF.

Click to expand...

Indeed, I consider my E-P2 with EVF the true successor of my 620, plus it's pocketable and doesn't have the noise.

But with the PL3 + same EVF refresh rate ha doubled, and it's again a much better experience: no problems in low light, black out inessential.

I foresee OM-D giving even better performance in drive mode, thanks to an optical element and better auto-tracking.

The thing has an intelligence of its own, same goes for eye recognition: left or right, your choice

it makes me smile that some think they'll find better technology elsewhere. The must be self haters

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

What kind of "low light" have you used the VF-2 in? Example....the interior of a large cathedral like Notre Dame?

This is very interesting, as I can't imagine that the processessing/refresh rate in the EP-3/VF-2 combination wouldn't be ported over to the OM-D.

I'm on the more conservative side of this whole new viewfinder rumor, and my big question has been how well it works in low light situations.

Thx...

amalric said:

it makes me smile that some think they'll find better technology elsewhere. The must be self haters

Am.

Click to expand...

Really???? Wow.

The VF-2 and the PL3? Im my living room. It images and focusses well even with a single tungsten lamp - you wouldn't believe it.

Refresh rate and speed processing are everything. The PL3 has also a stellar auto WB. No need to change it for tungsten.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

I am. Although the OM-D will probably be a very fine camera, I have a problem with the price tag. I do not need a magnesium body or weather sealing (though they're nice). The price will probably be even higher because of the 43 adapter you need when you want to use 43 lenses.

So: I'd rather have something like An E620 with improved sensor for something like 500-600 euro.

That was helpful, and hopeful. So now, we all just wait....

Thx.