Why is Olympus one of the last brands to make a large-sensor mirrorless?

Marty4650 said:

Their only customers will be "very brand loyal Olympus users"

Click to expand...

Specifically, very brand loyal Olympus users who actually want and are willing to pay for FF. Which makes the numbers even smaller, because they've already chosen a smaller system, where the Nikon & Canon users are already using APS-C and/or FF bodies and lenses.

Marty4650 said:

To grab customers Olympus might have to price their FF MILC cameras much lower than the other firms do,

Click to expand...

Or carve out a niche. The only niche I can see that seems appropriate for Olympus would step on m43, and that's to stick to their 35mm film heritage by creating a FF system that emphasizes the same thing m43 does: quality and compactness. So instead of going for the wide mount and f/.95 primes, they'd stick to modest specs. Maybe also go for maximum ruggedness/weather sealing right from the start, too, for every lens, so you can buy into it knowing that it's the compact, lightweight travelers system and everything built for it is designed with that in mind. I still wouldn't bet on it being viable, but who knows ?

It would help if the mount offered compatibility with m43 lenses. At 1/4 resolution, even a 6MP file is better than nothing if you're migrating from m43 and want to use your lenses, but this gets more attractive with a higher res sensor. But a higher res sensor conflicts with the idea of keeping lenses compact (instead of maximizing IQ with monster lenses).

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Dennis said:

The only niche I can see that seems appropriate for Olympus would step on m43, and that's to stick to their 35mm film heritage by creating a FF system that emphasizes the same thing m43 does: quality and compactness.

Click to expand...

Can't happen. Even sticking to slow lenses, FF means bigger. My dad had old, simple 35mm cameras and, sure, the lenses are more compact than modern lenses. But much of that is because the optics were more simple and, quite frankly not as good.

m43 provides a decent size sensor and still allows for quite a bit more compact camera. Not gonna happen with FF.

I forgot to ask: how would Olympus be particularly Olympus if they went full frame and used Sony sensors for their FF just like their m4/3? Why do we need yet another manufacturer chasing exactly the same thing, what is their USP here?

Maybe they are better off chasing $1000 PEN F camera buyers with relatively inexpensive sensors inside.

multisystem said:

Olympus does sell the best looking camera bodies although Fuji and Leica have tried. All the others seem to be clueless about visual design.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they go for stupid things like usability. Not saying that the Oly's aren't usable, but a retro aesthetic is a design priority for them. Canon and Nikon do have a visual design knowledge. Theirs is a "modern" look. Sony seem to for a "box to hold electronics and attached lenses" aesthetic, so they seem to care least. Though I wouldn't go so far as to say the had no clue about visual design.

"best looking" is a preference, rather than a measurable quantity. Though, I'd admit to liking the Oly's better, looks wise. Though, to me, the best combination of design and function was the Nikon F4s. Like it was designed by Pininfarina in the 60's and feels really nice to use.*

The problem, though, is retro has a limited appeal. One of the Canon watch sites had a retro looking top plate in their teasers before the leaked images of the R came out. I knew that wouldn't happen as that is not Canon's design philosophy.

*Whilst typing this, I did a search for the designer of the F4 and it was indeed an Italian auto designer

fishy wishy said:

I forgot to ask: how would Olympus be particularly Olympus if they went full frame and used Sony sensors for their FF just like their m4/3? Why do we need yet another manufacturer chasing exactly the same thing, what is their USP here?

Maybe they are better off chasing $1000 PEN F camera buyers with relatively inexpensive sensors inside.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is the real niche that needs to be worked. The fake SLR shapes get so boring.

In my case a screen only user but I could endure a brick shaped camera having an EVF, but it would need to be a tilt screen model (or some sort of fully articulated that stays behind the body, like my old Oly C-5060 does) and maybe lose that knob on the front, then I would consider a possibly upgrade from my works-for-me E-P5.

Hmmmm, the Panasonic GX9 seems to have the right idea......

Do I dare leave Olympus bodies? Halfway there already with Panasonic 12-32mm, 45-150mm and 35-100/2.8.

But meanwhile my E-P5 stills works fine so why do I even look at other things?

Regards..... Guy

lilBuddha said:

Dennis said:

The only niche I can see that seems appropriate for Olympus would step on m43, and that's to stick to their 35mm film heritage by creating a FF system that emphasizes the same thing m43 does: quality and compactness.

Click to expand...

Can't happen. Even sticking to slow lenses, FF means bigger.

Click to expand...

Look at Sony's Zeiss-branded 35/2.8 near-pancake lens. On 24MP, it captures plenty of detail to beat a sharp lens on a smaller sensor, even if it's not a match for a big Sigma Art lens. Sony's A mount 85/2.8 is pretty small - add an inch to make up the flange distance. Kurt Tuck had plenty of good things to say about that lens. Nikon's new 24-70/4 promises to be excellent and is reasonably size, but make that a 24-50/4 or a 35-70/4 - go old school - and they can be pretty compact. Then, make a high quality 70-200/4.5-5.6 instead or a 70-300 or a faster tele.

You're going to get a system that's pretty compact, rivaling a high end m43 or APS-C kit, with lenses that will capture plenty of detail on a FF sensor.

Is there a market ? Probably not a big enough market.

lilBuddha said:

m43 provides a decent size sensor and still allows for quite a bit more compact camera. Not gonna happen with FF.

Click to expand...

High end m43 cameras with nice, big EVFs aren't that compact - they rival the new Nikon Z & Sony A7 series. The new Nikon 24-70/4 isn't terribly big compared to an Oly 12-40/2.8. Already, people are comparing these systems and weighing FF as a viable solution where it wasn't before. With an emphasis on size via more modest specs, you could carve out a small niche - pile on with weatherproofing. I agree, it won't happen, but small FF is already here - people are putting together modest kits with lenses like that Sony 35/2.8, Nikon's new 24-70 and other options. And as they grow, they'll add their own compact offerings into the mix.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Dennis said:

The new Nikon 24-70/4 isn't terribly big compared to an Oly 12-40/2.8.

Click to expand...

Well, that's comparing a crabapple to a Granny Smith. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge.

Dennis said:

I agree, it won't happen, but small FF is already here - people are putting together modest kits with lenses like that Sony 35/2.8, Nikon's new 24-70 and other options. And as they grow, they'll add their own compact offerings into the mix.

Click to expand...

That is indeed a niche market, which I think the m43 system targets better than FF.

lilBuddha said:

Dennis said:

The new Nikon 24-70/4 isn't terribly big compared to an Oly 12-40/2.8.

Click to expand...

Well, that's comparing a crabapple to a Granny Smith. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge.

Click to expand...

I know, right ? I mean, most people would take f/4 on FF in a heartbeat over f/2.8 on m43 if size weren't an issue. To be fair, f/5.6 would do just fine on a compact FF system.
- Dennis

lilBuddha said:

Dennis said:

The new Nikon 24-70/4 isn't terribly big compared to an Oly 12-40/2.8.

Click to expand...

Well, that's comparing a crabapple to a Granny Smith. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge.

Click to expand...

'f' is that focal length, so what you're talking about is comparing 12/2.8-40/2.8 to 24/4-70/4, which is 4.3-14.3 and 6-17.5, or a light gathering area of 14.5-160.6 sq mm to 28.3-240.5 sq mm. The Nikon is collecting light through twice the area at the same angle of view as the Olympus, so the difference is one stop in the Nikon's favour.

bobn2 said:

lilBuddha said:

Dennis said:

The new Nikon 24-70/4 isn't terribly big compared to an Oly 12-40/2.8.

Click to expand...

Well, that's comparing a crabapple to a Granny Smith. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge.

Click to expand...

'f' is that focal length, so what you're talking about is comparing 12/2.8-40/2.8 to 24/4-70/4, which is 4.3-14.3 and 6-17.5, or a light gathering area of 14.5-160.6 sq mm to 28.3-240.5 sq mm. The Nikon is collecting light through twice the area at the same angle of view as the Olympus, so the difference is one stop in the Nikon's favour.

Click to expand...

People are forgetting their equivalence again! They need to remember that though Olympus lenses look nominally fast, due to the different size of the sensors the Olympus lenses are delivering images two stops down versus full frame, e.g. like f5.6 lenses in noise and depth of field. But why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

Seeing $1000 price tags for things like an Olympus 25mm f1.2 which comes out only like a 50mm f2.4 on FF put me off the system. 50mm f2.5 is slow and dirt cheap on FF. Even the Yongnuo 50mm f1.8 is $70!

Looks to me that though the niche for m4/3 sized sensors may not be that large, the niche for Olympus as yet another FF manufacturer could be even smaller and ploughing money into such launches could do them in, especially as they already have some difficulties.

deednets said:

If it's a photo you are after, you can't have it both ways, double the focal length but not the aperture.

Often enough done by MFT aficionados, but the image characteristics are sadly closer to a 90/3.6.

Click to expand...

Actually I consider that an advantage. I can get nice tight headshots with both of my subject's eyes in focus while shooting wide-open, even if not head-on and both eyes are at different distances from the lens. I get the benefits of large DOF while also sticking to available-light shooting for mobility. It's win-win.

I kind of pity people who need to stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 or so with a fullframe portrait lens just so one of the subject's eyes isn't out of focus, and then have to compensate for the light loss by doing the strobist thing. That's kind of a clunky setup. I'd rather just throw my panasonic 42.5/1.7 on my GX85 and have a nice pocketable portrait kit.

They were the ones who introduced the 4/3 system and now it's difficult for them to tell their clientele base that they made a mistake by going to a smaller format. After all, m4/3 is not even that smaller than APSC if at all. I don't know their sales figure and I don't know if they are loosing money or they are gaining money out of their camera business and it does seem there are people who buy their cameras and are happy with them. I also once bought one of their m4/3 cameras and that was my camera for a while. It was a nice camera except for the image quality that was coming out of the sensor. I switched to Sony Nex and it was quite an improvement. Too bad, they make quite nice camera bodies with beautiful design; only if they put a larger sensor into those bodies, I might have remained an Olympus user.

fishy wishy said:

bobn2 said:

lilBuddha said:

Dennis said:

The new Nikon 24-70/4 isn't terribly big compared to an Oly 12-40/2.8.

Click to expand...

Well, that's comparing a crabapple to a Granny Smith. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge.

Click to expand...

'f' is that focal length, so what you're talking about is comparing 12/2.8-40/2.8 to 24/4-70/4, which is 4.3-14.3 and 6-17.5, or a light gathering area of 14.5-160.6 sq mm to 28.3-240.5 sq mm. The Nikon is collecting light through twice the area at the same angle of view as the Olympus, so the difference is one stop in the Nikon's favour.

Click to expand...

People are forgetting their equivalence again! They need to remember that though Olympus lenses look nominally fast, due to the different size of the sensors the Olympus lenses are delivering images two stops down versus full frame, e.g. like f5.6 lenses in noise and depth of field. But why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

Seeing $1000 price tags for things like an Olympus 25mm f1.2 which comes out only like a 50mm f2.4 on FF put me off the system. 50mm f2.5 is slow and dirt cheap on FF. Even the Yongnuo 50mm f1.8 is $70!

Click to expand...

What they will say is that teh 25/1.2 is a much better lens than the Yongnuo. Yes, it is, but it needs to be. Stop the Yongnuo down to f/2.4 and it's still weaker at the edges than the Olympus (but then at 1/10 the price, maybe it can be excused). My problem with the f/1.2's is that they make a mockery of the compactness advantages of the system. I would rather they had made some good but compact f/1.4's. Maybe they would have lost a little at the edges, but generally in real use, that's not a problem, and having a really small f/2.8 equivalent would have played to the strengths of the system.

fishy wishy said:

Looks to me that though the niche for m4/3 sized sensors may not be that large, the niche for Olympus as yet another FF manufacturer could be even smaller and ploughing money into such launches could do them in, especially as they already have some difficulties.

Click to expand...

I think what they could do with doing is understanding the USPs that niche gives and playing them to the full. The general product strategy of mFT seems to be rooted in an inferiority complex, which is entirely unnecessary. Understand the niche, and there is no need to compete with FF.

raminm said:

They were the ones who introduced the 4/3 system and now it's difficult for them to tell their clientele base that they made a mistake by going to a smaller format.

Click to expand...

They didn't make a mistake going to the smaller format. The problem is they think they did. When they launched it, their marketing people told a whole load of what can only be called lies about the benefits of a smaller frame, ignoring what are the actual benefits. Be clear minded about those and the system is just fine for what it is.

spiritoftheeast said:

I kind of pity people who need to stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 or so with a fullframe portrait lens just so one of the subject's eyes isn't out of focus, and then have to compensate for the light loss by doing the strobist thing. That's kind of a clunky setup. I'd rather just throw my panasonic 42.5/1.7 on my GX85 and have a nice pocketable portrait kit.

Click to expand...

That is not why portrait photographers use strobes. It's to get control over the lighting and just the right effect. They also shoot at wide apertures, not f5.6 or f8. Since you seem to have little knowledge of portrait photography I suggest you read this.

https://fstoppers.com/lighting/how-take-portrait-shallow-depth-field-and-studio-strobes-92155

Or watch this.


--
Tom

spiritoftheeast said:

icking to available-light shooting for mobility. It's win-win.

I kind of pity people who need to stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 or so with a fullframe portrait lens just so one of the subject's eyes isn't out of focus, and then have to compensate for the light loss by doing the strobist thing.

Click to expand...

??? You are wither imagining shooting waaaay to close or shooting giants. You also miss the point of lights. It isn't just light in a dark place, but control. I love natural light portraits and I love studio portraits. For different reasons because they are slightly different beasts.

spiritoftheeast said:

deednets said:

If it's a photo you are after, you can't have it both ways, double the focal length but not the aperture.

Often enough done by MFT aficionados, but the image characteristics are sadly closer to a 90/3.6.

Click to expand...

Actually I consider that an advantage. I can get nice tight headshots with both of my subject's eyes in focus while shooting wide-open, even if not head-on and both eyes are at different distances from the lens. I get the benefits of large DOF while also sticking to available-light shooting for mobility. It's win-win.

I kind of pity people who need to stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 or so with a fullframe portrait lens just so one of the subject's eyes isn't out of focus, and then have to compensate for the light loss by doing the strobist thing. That's kind of a clunky setup. I'd rather just throw my panasonic 42.5/1.7 on my GX85 and have a nice pocketable portrait kit.

Click to expand...

Sorry to rain on your parade, but light gathering is hard linked to DOF. You're not collecting any more light with your GX80 at 42.5/1.7 than a FF worker would at 95/3.4, where he would have just the same DOF. To get the same DOF as he would have at f/5.6 or f/8, you'd be using f/2.8 or f/4. And what the other guy said about strobes.

With his strobes, he'll be using 100ISO or even 64. He'll control his lighting and his client will be delighted with the smooth, clear tonality which goes with the hugely reduced noise levels he'll be getting compared with you, working at ISO 200 and getting three stops lees light in your photo.

I also have a GX80, but I know what it's good for.

spiritoftheeast said:

I kind of pity people who need to stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 or so with a fullframe portrait lens just so one of the subject's eyes isn't out of focus, and then have to compensate for the light loss by doing the strobist thing. That's kind of a clunky setup. I'd rather just throw my panasonic 42.5/1.7 on my GX85 and have a nice pocketable portrait kit.

Click to expand...

Ah, the magical light-bending abilities of m43 ...

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

It amazes me what some people post here when they are totally ignorant about what they are talking about. It will be interesting to see if he responds to all of use pointing out his lack of understanding of portrait photography.

Dennis said:

spiritoftheeast said:

I kind of pity people who need to stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 or so with a fullframe portrait lens just so one of the subject's eyes isn't out of focus, and then have to compensate for the light loss by doing the strobist thing. That's kind of a clunky setup. I'd rather just throw my panasonic 42.5/1.7 on my GX85 and have a nice pocketable portrait kit.

Click to expand...

Ah, the magical light-bending abilities of m43 ...

Click to expand...

Better than the magical spine-bending abilities of fullframe.

I remember the days of carrying 24-70/2.8's and 70-200/2.8's with my 5Dmk3. That's 3 kilos of excess shoulderbag weight that I don't miss at all. Good riddance to it.