contaxndigital
Well-known member
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 0
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
New photo of the OM-D
- Thread starter contaxndigital
- Start date
Nice. Do you think that could be a pop-up flash trapdoor on top of the EVF?
http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg
paul_kew
Veteran Member
Either a backwards E or an odd 3.
pocketpygmy
Leading Member
i doubt it... where else would you realistically place the hotshoe? either it'll come bundled with a small external flash, or it'll be built into the left side of the camera. there might be space -- those OMs were rather long, proportionally...
anyway, if the thing can go up to ISO 12,800 with respectable ISO 6400 or at least 3200... who needs a flash all the time anyway? it's obviously got an AF-assist light too.
so. moving on... what lens has a minimum focus distance of 1.15 ft?
Andy Crowe
Veteran Member
Tho from their previous naming conventions I was always expecting an E-OM1...
Louis_Dobson
Veteran Member
Fairy nuff.
Not what I'd have specced, I'd like a control wheel between body and lens, and I'd bin the mode dial and put buttons there.
But if I want the perfect camera for me I'll have to find a billion or so and buy a camera company, and in the absence of that option, this is shaping up quite well.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Not what I'd have specced, I'd like a control wheel between body and lens, and I'd bin the mode dial and put buttons there.
But if I want the perfect camera for me I'll have to find a billion or so and buy a camera company, and in the absence of that option, this is shaping up quite well.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Louis_Dobson
Veteran Member
Without wishing to be argumentative, I never understand a) why so many people are obsessed with high ISO and b) why they take any interest in an FT sensor, which is never going to be much cop at that.
I'm interested in its behaviour at ISO200 (or 160, or whatever). It should match the GH2, and that's more than enough.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
I'm interested in its behaviour at ISO200 (or 160, or whatever). It should match the GH2, and that's more than enough.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
I noticed a discrepancy in this picture of the Oly 12-50 while trying to figure out what lens is attached to the OM-D:
--
http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg
Louis_Dobson
Veteran Member
Clearly not that lens, the focusing distance is wrong.
I suspect it is wearing an Oly 25mm of some form.
Which is a bore, because Panny have that covered.
If it is a 45mm f1.4, I shall wet myself with delight.
By the way, does anyone have the FT lenses to hand to check the minimum focusing distances? I'm 1,000 miles from home...
I could yet be that Oly DO have on sensor PDAF, and will be re-issuing their excellent HG lenses in MFT format. And then folks, we are away!
Too much to hope though.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
I suspect it is wearing an Oly 25mm of some form.
Which is a bore, because Panny have that covered.
If it is a 45mm f1.4, I shall wet myself with delight.
By the way, does anyone have the FT lenses to hand to check the minimum focusing distances? I'm 1,000 miles from home...
I could yet be that Oly DO have on sensor PDAF, and will be re-issuing their excellent HG lenses in MFT format. And then folks, we are away!
Too much to hope though.
--I noticed a discrepancy in this picture of the Oly 12-50 while trying to figure out what lens is attached to the OM-D:
--
http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
VariableScope
Leading Member
Seems like the 12-50mm might not be the only kit lens for the new OM. Maybe a weather sealed prime?
--
Jim Ramsey Khoury
Follow me on twitter @DuJim
--
Jim Ramsey Khoury
Follow me on twitter @DuJim
pocketpygmy
Leading Member
I'm not one of those obsessed with high iso -- just brought it up to consider what may compensate in case there is no built in flash. I agree with you on low iso -- it'd be swell to have 100 (I guess) but 200 does pretty a-ok for me...
Not only is the focusing distance wrong but seeingly conversions have changed overnight. According to those two pictures 0.98ft = 0.35m = 1.15ft...??
Also is th oly is weather sealed and manages to get a distance scale on the focus it might hopefully tempt me away from splashing out on a voigtlander.
Louis_Dobson
Veteran Member
This is really quite interesting.
It may be an OM-D and an E series camera.
In other words they really HAVE brought the ranges together.
They can't pretend to do that unless they HAVE got some more effective means of focusing the FT lenses.
So perhaps we have all been too pessimistic.
Have they managed PDAF? If so I will be surprised, delighted, and first in the queue!
On the downside, that means Eva will want one too (she has an E3), so the gits will cost me money!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
It may be an OM-D and an E series camera.
In other words they really HAVE brought the ranges together.
They can't pretend to do that unless they HAVE got some more effective means of focusing the FT lenses.
So perhaps we have all been too pessimistic.
Have they managed PDAF? If so I will be surprised, delighted, and first in the queue!
On the downside, that means Eva will want one too (she has an E3), so the gits will cost me money!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Ah, well spotted!
So the metre to foot conversion on the image from the lens announcement is wrong. 0.98ft is actually 0.299m. Maybe a slip up due to the picture being of a prototype lens and not the finished article?
And it seems they have now corrected this with the lens that is in this leaked image of the camera.
Louis_Dobson
Veteran Member
Sadly, it also suggests a hoax.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
kimchiflower
Well-known member
The error is on the lens below, not the OM-D lens in the leaked picture.
1.15ft is 0.35m
0.98ft is 0.30m
http://www.flickr.com/photos/53061745@N02/
1.15ft is 0.35m
0.98ft is 0.30m
--I noticed a discrepancy in this picture of the Oly 12-50 while trying to figure out what lens is attached to the OM-D:
--
http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/53061745@N02/
andix
Well-known member
The PERSPECTIVE on the OLYMPUS logo is not slanted as the surface it's supposed to be etched/painted on. In other words, the OLYMPUS logo is actually a Photoshop text layer over a rendering or a cut of another image.
And I win. Because I'm awesome like that.
(EDIT: I can't cut out the part of the image to demonstrate what I am trying to point out, but look at the "PUS" letters shown lower left and you'll understand. I'm at work => no Photoshop here.)
--
indecision may or may not be my problem...
http://www.americandusk.com
facebook.com/americandusk
And I win. Because I'm awesome like that.
(EDIT: I can't cut out the part of the image to demonstrate what I am trying to point out, but look at the "PUS" letters shown lower left and you'll understand. I'm at work => no Photoshop here.)
--
indecision may or may not be my problem...
http://www.americandusk.com
facebook.com/americandusk
Michael Dodge Thomas
Well-known member
If genuine, I'm disappointed that access to custom modes is apparently still not available through the mode dial.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum