100-300: is the OIS this bad??

[luisflorit]

The low score of the E3 is exactly what I expected and match my experience, although it is interesting that the E3 works much better with the Panaleica than their own 12-60. So it is Oly system, not just the camera.

Or just the individual Oly lens.

Maybe... Oly is not strongly dependent on sample variations, though.

As you can see, the results for the 14-54 are quite a bit worse than those for the 12-60.

And I thought that the 12-60 was horrible! I always have to take 3 or 4 pictures of each subject to raise the chances of getting good focus to an acceptable level. Teh 50-200 is much better, though.

One difficulty when testing AF systems is that the result depends on the camera as well as the lens and that it is difficult to sort out the contribution of each.

Maybe it is that. But it is strange that they tested the E3+12-60 twice, and with different combos.

However, I don't understand why the E3+12-60 data in the graph for the E3 differs from the one in the graph for the E5.

Neither do I. Looks like the E3+12-60 got better with time. ;-)

I wonder how much the AF microadjustments would impact these tests.

Probably not much. I am pretty sure they test for systematic front focus/back focus before they test for unsystematic inaccuracy and have the camera/lens adjusted if necessary (by sending it in or using the microadjustment on the camera if available).

Perhaps... My E5 improved substantially when I made it 'front focus'. My 50-200 + EC14 combo is now adjusted +12. A lot if you think that the scale goes to 20.

Anyway, I'm happy with this test results (I am assuming they are well made). Mirrorless and CDAF cameras indeed have a brilliant near future.

Thanks,
L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[Anders W]

Maybe... Oly is not strongly dependent on sample variations, though.

I probably didn't express myself clearly enough here. What I meant to say was "indivudal lens design" rather than "individual lens specimen". Although sample variation is a general concern with lenses, I hope/think it is limited with respect AF performance, at least once any systematic BF/FF tendencies are properly corrected.

Anyway, I'm happy with this test results (I am assuming they are well made). Mirrorless and CDAF cameras indeed have a brilliant near future.

Yes, at least AF accuracy seems to be one of their strong points, along with the ability to do precise MF via the VF. Both are considerable advantages in my book.

 

[luisflorit]

Maybe... Oly is not strongly dependent on sample variations, though.

I probably didn't express myself clearly enough here. What I meant to say was "indivudal lens design" rather than "individual lens specimen".

Oh, I see. Then, yes, I agree, since a lot of people have had problems with the 12-60 AF accuracy.

Although sample variation is a general concern with lenses, I hope/think it is limited with respect AF performance, at least once any systematic BF/FF tendencies are properly corrected.

Probably.

Anyway, I'm happy with this test results (I am assuming they are well made). Mirrorless and CDAF cameras indeed have a brilliant near future.

Yes, at least AF accuracy seems to be one of their strong points, along with the ability to do precise MF via the VF. Both are considerable advantages in my book.

You bet. I switched from the FZ50 superzoom to DSLRs because AF was too slow for wildlife (and not really because of IQ, although today I see my pictures of that time as quite bad). But even after 67000 pictures with my DSLRs, I still miss the EVF, despite it was horrible by today standards. I cannot wait to come back to EVFs! I loved also the autoreview without taking the eye from the EVF. I never had 2 shots in a row badly exposed.

Still, from what people have told me here, I think I'll wait until Pany gives 1/250s of flash sync or, better, an electronic shutter.

Cheers,
L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[Anders W]

You bet. I switched from the FZ50 superzoom to DSLRs because AF was too slow for wildlife (and not really because of IQ, although today I see my pictures of that time as quite bad). But even after 67000 pictures with my DSLRs, I still miss the EVF, despite it was horrible by today standards. I cannot wait to come back to EVFs! I loved also the autoreview without taking the eye from the EVF. I never had 2 shots in a row badly exposed.

Yes, having better means to quickly arrive at the proper exposure is another significant advantage of EVIL cameras. Why should we have separate systems for framing, manual focus, AF, and metering when it can all be done via the sensor itself? The answers to this question are gradually becoming less and less convincing and that's why I think we are now witnessing the beginning of the end of the fifty-year rule of the SLR.

Still, from what people have told me here, I think I'll wait until Pany gives 1/250s of flash sync or, better, an electronic shutter.

Yes, given your particular needs I can see why you find the current flash sync speed restrictive. For me it's not much of a practical problem but I surely wouldn't mind seeing the mechanical shutter (which is now the only mechanical system left in the camera itself) and all its side effects (shake, noise, flash sync restrictions) disappear altogether. As you probably know, the electronic shutter was rumoured to appear with the GH2 already. But since it didn't, let's hope that the rumours were right that it's just around the corner anyway.

 

[luisflorit]

You bet. I switched from the FZ50 superzoom to DSLRs because AF was too slow for wildlife (and not really because of IQ, although today I see my pictures of that time as quite bad). But even after 67000 pictures with my DSLRs, I still miss the EVF, despite it was horrible by today standards. I cannot wait to come back to EVFs! I loved also the autoreview without taking the eye from the EVF. I never had 2 shots in a row badly exposed.

Yes, having better means to quickly arrive at the proper exposure is another significant advantage of EVIL cameras. Why should we have separate systems for framing, manual focus, AF, and metering when it can all be done via the sensor itself? The answers to this question are gradually becoming less and less convincing and that's why I think we are now witnessing the beginning of the end of the fifty-year rule of the SLR.

These are exactly my thoughts. I am sure mirrors will go away in a few years, and each new pany camera reinforces my beliefs more and more. Not sure which solution will come out from Canon and Nikon, but it will be quite interesting to see. Something tells me that both brands are a bit worried about the GH2. Certainly much more than with the E5...

Still, from what people have told me here, I think I'll wait until Pany gives 1/250s of flash sync or, better, an electronic shutter.

Yes, given your particular needs I can see why you find the current flash sync speed restrictive.

My needs are quite special, unfortunately. I'm eagerly waiting for a switch. I would also like to see a better 300mm lens than the 100-300.

For me it's not much of a practical problem but I surely wouldn't mind seeing the mechanical shutter (which is now the only mechanical system left in the camera itself) and all its side effects (shake, noise, flash sync restrictions) disappear altogether. As you probably know, the electronic shutter was rumoured to appear with the GH2 already.

Oh! I didn't know this!! Quite interesting. OTOH, I hope the rumor didn't come from 43rumors....

But since it didn't, let's hope that the rumours were right that it's just around the corner anyway.

Let's pray!

Cheers!!

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[453C]

luisflorit , it's photographers like you that are pushing the limits of m43, and while it's not the most enviable position to be in, I've appreciated following this discussion. Let's hope a there's a m43 + super tele designed for you in the near future, because that will surely help all of us.
--
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dont_be_a_dick

 

[Anders W]

Not sure which solution will come out from Canon and Nikon, but it will be quite interesting to see. Something tells me that both brands are a bit worried about the GH2.

Unless they already sit with good cameras and a rather extensive set of lenses ready to go (and I somehow doubt that, at least as far as the lenses are concerned), I think they have every reason to be worried. I am rather surprised that they have waited this long, giving others a head start into the future. Recent history gives us a number of examples of exactly how fast markets can change and how quickly the old market leaders may lose what looked like an extremely stable position. But neither Canon nor Nikon is as much of an electronics giant as Panasonic, Samsung or Sony, and it may be that they simply have greater difficulties delivering good electronic solutions meeting the demands of EVIL cameras.

 

[Peter Nelson]

Anders,

I also do not like type of person/dpr member that resorts to bringing into the current conversation/thread any comments not made to themselves personaly and in another entirely differnt thread as well. Like you have done. So please take note of that, and add it to your profound observations about me.

BTW, I stand by my instructions to you to read more books on photography as you do not comprehend your subject to the point that you think you do. But having suffered through your posts I for one, no longer have the inclination to show you where you err. It is explaing something to a person who because of his ego will not listen, but rather will fight you and endevor to bring you down. All the while not actually understanding the subject.

With regard to your personal conduct, I would like to begin with a short summary.

1. To my two-line question about the relationship between shutter speed, focal length, and subject motion, you respond by a) giving me a tutorial on the relationship between shutter speed, focal length, and camera shake, b) suggesting that I read up on the subject "as it's no supprise to [you] how many uneducated in photography consumers belong to this web site", and c) letting me know that in this regard, I am not alone but "fit the dpr mold very well".

2. To the two-and-a-half line message in which I point out that I talked about subject motion, not camera shake, you respond by recognizing that you overlooked what I actually said but nevertheless a) suggest that I "open a book on photography tonight", b) inform me that you "had it up to hear with people who have not bothered to educate themselves properly or even adequetly about photography" but still make "dubious statements", c) point out that missing a word in a post is common on just about any forum (thereby implicitly suggesting that it is also acceptable, even if the word happens to be an underlined key-word), but that "incomplete knowledge of photography seems to be prevalent on this [particular] one."

3. In the next post, which, like all those that follow, constitute reactions to messages that I directed to others, not you, you tell me that I may "be intelligent and very educated but not in photoraphy".

4. You continue by "accusing" me of "having made [my] understanding fit reality" (although I have a hard time seeing what is wrong with that) and suggest that this is somehow a dubious characteristic of mine. You additionally instruct me to "stop trying to outsmart people trying to help [me] understand photography".

5. Finally, you inform me that I "need to read more than one book on this subject" and need to learn that [my] wit and experiences are not going to change reality."

In a thread posted on another DPR forum (Canon EOS-1D/1Ds/5D), you make the same kind of remarks in more general form, indicating "that the majority of dpr members have not educated themselves about photography" but still make demands on you "to provide information, withoput having done their own learning and searching" and that this is something you "can not tolerate". You therefore seek assistance on finding "a more knowledgeable photoography web site than dpr".

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=38029289

More specifically, it seems that you are looking for a place with people like yourself in the hope that you would find that more satisfying. Although I hope that you will succeed in your quest, I must admit that I am rather pessimistic about your prospects. I have rarely seen a more systematic tendency to demand more of others than you demand of yourself than the one you have evidenced here. In my experience, people who entertain such dual standards of conduct rarely get along well with others, least of all people like themselves.

Let me therefore offer a few words of friendly advice in the hope that this will make your life here on DPR more harmonious: a) carefully read those posts you are about to respond to, b) think before you type, c) do not assume that others are less knowledgeable than you, and d) try to avoid defaming others by implying that they are ignorant, lazy or manipulative.

Take care,

Anders

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[Peter Nelson]

I like this post. It reminded me of Albert Einstien's question what happens when you turn on a foward facing flashlight in a spaceship traveling at the speed of light already?

I'll admit that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to physics, but this has got me worried.

Subject: My (Norwegian Forest) cat in the garden on a windy day.

Motion: fur blowing around and cat moving around (he hates the wind). You could probably measure the speed of the fur moving and of the cat walking.

Surely the motion (i.e. speed) is going to be the same whether I use a 20mm or 200mm focal length? To put it another way, I will certainly see more of the fur at 200mm but the movement of the cat and his fur will be same if viewed at 20mm. I may not see as much of the fur at a focal distance of 20mm but it is still moving.

On the other hand, the focal length will affect the ability of a camera to freeze the same degree of motion. When shooting at 200mm I will need a greater shutter speed to capture the same amount of movement at 20mm. I may be able to take a perfectly sharp picture of Cologne Cathedral at 1/50 on my 20mm lens at f 3.5 but to capture that exact same image (i.e. in terms of size) using a 200mm lens at the same aperture I would probably need at least 1/200.

If I'm wrong, you gotta give me 'A double-plus good' for effort!

For what it's worth, and in answer the original poster's question, I don't think there is such thing as reliable hand-held telephoto photography, especially at 600mm. You really, really need a tripod. I see no reason to skimp on this simply because one is going through a rain forest. I would just set up the equipment, sit back, have a smoke & drink some beer until something happened. That way, the results should be ok.

Some tripods are seriously lightweight and shouldn't be a problem to carry around. The GH2 and its flip-out screen should brilliantly with wired shutter release.

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[jeffharris]

I only want to know if the 100-300 OIS is good enough to handhold at 300mm and 1/160s, shooting a building if you wish.

At this point, it seems all the OIS, IS and IBIS opinions aren't helping you too much. The best way to find out how the lens works for you would be to go to a camera store (with an SD Card) and shoot a bunch of test shots at the sorts of shutter speeds you use.

When trying to decide which M4/3 camera and lenses to get, I made several trips to B&H with an SD card. I tried the Olympus EP1, EP2, EPL2 and Panasonic GH1, GF1, G2. One trip they had a GH2 on display with a bunch of native M4/3 lenses and was able to try them.

Looking at all the shots taken with a variety of different cameras, lenses and combos, in uncontrolled situations and in bad light made all the difference.

You could always order one from Amazon, try it for a few weeks and then decide to keep it or return it, based on your images and how it works for you.

 

[deep7]

Your FZ50 has a very large depth of field compared to micro four thirds at the equivalent focal length and same aperture. So you think you have nailed the focus because it is good enough, even though you probably have actually often got focus on something behind your bird.

You're wrong. When you shoot at 714mm F3.7, even with a small sensor camera, DOF is tiny unless the bird is very far away. For example, if the bird is at 5 meters (not far from the minimum focus distance at those FL for the FZ50), the DOF is 4.8cm. So with only 2.4cm of far focus, you clearly see when it focuses on the branches behind, of course.

You seem to be far less picky than me in this regard...

Cheers,
L.

Really??? You have a 714mm lens that you somehow bolt onto your FZ50? I sorely doubt it, which means you have got trapped into the dastardly "equivalence" trap. So I'll state clearly that your FZ 50 at a given equivalent focal length and equal (not equivalent) aperture will give a much larger depth of field than my E3, making your photos look more in focus. NOT less so as you implied.

Anyway, I'm out of this discussion. What I offered is based on experience and a solid knowledge of why things work the way they do. Just remember, people wouldn't pay me for out of focus photographs and I am very happy to rely on my particular E3. That's a bottom line which counts. I doubt they, or me, are less picky than you.
--
Don.

A Land Rover, a camera ... I'm happy!

 

[Anders W]

Anders,

I also do not like type of person/dpr member that resorts to bringing into the current conversation/thread any comments not made to themselves personaly and in another entirely differnt thread as well. Like you have done. So please take note of that, and add it to your profound observations about me.

I did not do what I did because I thought it would please you, and I don't really care about your likes and dislikes, so no new observations need to be added.

BTW, I stand by my instructions to you to read more books on photography as you do not comprehend your subject to the point that you think you do. But having suffered through your posts I for one, no longer have the inclination to show you where you err. It is explaing something to a person who because of his ego will not listen, but rather will fight you and endevor to bring you down. All the while not actually understanding the subject.

Thank you for not trying to show me anything. I much appreciate that. It would be a complete waste of time albeit for reasons quite different from those you mention.

This is the last post of yours to which I will respond. I am sure that others following this thread are not at all interested in our controversy. In fact, I find it incredibly boring too.

 

[luisflorit]

I only want to know if the 100-300 OIS is good enough to handhold at 300mm and 1/160s, shooting a building if you wish.

At this point, it seems all the OIS, IS and IBIS opinions aren't helping you too much. The best way to find out how the lens works for you would be to go to a camera store (with an SD Card) and shoot a bunch of test shots at the sorts of shutter speeds you use.

You'd be absolutely right... if I didn't live in Brazil. I am at a few thousand miles from the nearest camera shop that has the 100-300, or actually any m43rd lens.

When trying to decide which M4/3 camera and lenses to get, I made several trips to B&H with an SD card. I tried the Olympus EP1, EP2, EPL2 and Panasonic GH1, GF1, G2. One trip they had a GH2 on display with a bunch of native M4/3 lenses and was able to try them.

You know that I envy you to death, don't you?

Looking at all the shots taken with a variety of different cameras, lenses and combos, in uncontrolled situations and in bad light made all the difference.

You could always order one from Amazon, try it for a few weeks and then decide to keep it or return it, based on your images and how it works for you.

No Amazon here........ but we have the forest!



--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[luisflorit]

Your FZ50 has a very large depth of field compared to micro four thirds at the equivalent focal length and same aperture. So you think you have nailed the focus because it is good enough, even though you probably have actually often got focus on something behind your bird.

You're wrong. When you shoot at 714mm F3.7, even with a small sensor camera, DOF is tiny unless the bird is very far away. For example, if the bird is at 5 meters (not far from the minimum focus distance at those FL for the FZ50), the DOF is 4.8cm. So with only 2.4cm of far focus, you clearly see when it focuses on the branches behind, of course.

You seem to be far less picky than me in this regard...

Cheers,
L.

Really??? You have a 714mm lens that you somehow bolt onto your FZ50? I sorely doubt it, which means you have got trapped into the dastardly "equivalence" trap.

If you read more carefully, you'll see that I wrote EFL = effective focal length. Nothing to do with "equivalence".

So I'll state clearly that your FZ 50 at a given equivalent focal length and equal (not equivalent) aperture will give a much larger depth of field than my E3, making your photos look more in focus.

Of course. Who wrote otherwise?

NOT less so as you implied.

Not a problem if you don't know the math involved in the computations, but you can check the numbers I posted here:

http://www.dofmaster.com

Select 150mm of FL (because of the TCON17), F3.6 (they don't have F3.7) and subject distance of 5mts. Actually, there they'll give you less DOF of 4cm only, but that is only because of rounding errors.

Cheers,
L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[luisflorit]

luisflorit , it's photographers like you that are pushing the limits of m43, and while it's not the most enviable position to be in, I've appreciated following this discussion. Let's hope a there's a m43 + super tele designed for you in the near future, because that will surely help all of us.

I don't care about you, I want such a lens for me ONLY!!!

Thanks for your kind words!

Cheers,
L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[luisflorit]

Not sure which solution will come out from Canon and Nikon, but it will be quite interesting to see. Something tells me that both brands are a bit worried about the GH2.

Unless they already sit with good cameras and a rather extensive set of lenses ready to go (and I somehow doubt that, at least as far as the lenses are concerned), I think they have every reason to be worried. I am rather surprised that they have waited this long, giving others a head start into the future. Recent history gives us a number of examples of exactly how fast markets can change and how quickly the old market leaders may lose what looked like an extremely stable position. But neither Canon nor Nikon is as much of an electronics giant as Panasonic, Samsung or Sony, and it may be that they simply have greater difficulties delivering good electronic solutions meeting the demands of EVIL cameras.

This is certainly the main point. I simply don't think they can compete in electronics. Actually, I do believe the same about Olympus, and that's why I think they made a mistake abandoning 43rds: they abandoned the only niche they had. They could have made a great 300 F4 and get lots of wildlife shooters (few, I know, but still). In any case, they are way behind Pany, and getting farther and farther away quickly.

The other point is the huge amount of APS/FF lenses they still have and want to sell. Those lenses would certainly be of very limited use in a camera like the GH2 (even being APS), because of the AF, weight and bulk. Kind of what happens today with the zuikos in m43rds. As you, I also don't think they can make so many lenses of a completely new design.

So perhaps there is simply little they can do...

Another interesting player is Sony. They appeared to be entering in the market quite strongly, and then... they went to sleep?

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[Anders W]

This is certainly the main point. I simply don't think they can compete in electronics. Actually, I do believe the same about Olympus, and that's why I think they made a mistake abandoning 43rds: they abandoned the only niche they had. They could have made a great 300 F4 and get lots of wildlife shooters (few, I know, but still). In any case, they are way behind Pany, and getting farther and farther away quickly.

Yes, I too think Olympus has a hard time competing in electronics, probably even more so than Canon and Nikon. As to 43rds, I think you are right that they should have taken better care of their user base, primarily by upgrading their bodies at a faster pace and to higher standards than they have actually done. But I also think they did right to move their primary attention to mirrorless because 43rds had difficulties to really make good on its promises except for a rather small minority with needs and preferences similar to your own.

Yes, like you, I see them trailing Panasonic and falling increasingly behind. Perhaps they should have tried to establish a closer partnership with Panasonic, or even merged with them. Perhaps they have even tried precisely that. But I am not sure how interested Panasonic is. Olympus needs Panasonic but does Panasonic need Olympus, particularly since Panasonic seems quite capable of designing and producing good lenses on their own?

The other point is the huge amount of APS/FF lenses they still have and want to sell. Those lenses would certainly be of very limited use in a camera like the GH2 (even being APS), because of the AF, weight and bulk. Kind of what happens today with the zuikos in m43rds. As you, I also don't think they can make so many lenses of a completely new design.

So perhaps there is simply little they can do...

Yes, lens design requires time and resources and for shorter FLs, new designs are needed to take advantage of the shorter flange distance of m43, thereby reducing size and weight. While they are on their way here, quite a bit remains to be done. In addition, they would need an m43 camera that is on a par with the GH2 without necessarily being a copy of it. Why not a retro-style model with integrated EVF (somewhat like Fuji X100), IBIS of course, plus sensor and video capabilities on a par with the GH2. I certainly think that might sell. But can they do it, and do it in time?

Another interesting player is Sony. They appeared to be entering in the market quite strongly, and then... they went to sleep?

Yes, I see what you mean. Sony sometimes seem to be on the go in a big way in a certain direction but then gets tired, falls asleep, and wakes up again to set off in some new direction. Not enough foresight and stamina it seems. NEX/E-mount is certainly a serious rival to m43 already (for some consumers, not me). But I think Sony might have done quite a bit better if they had made a more determined effort: twice as many lenses on the table by now (which I am sure they would have managed if they had really tried), the really important ones first (a 16/2.8 is hardly top priority), sufficient quality (as you probably know, the lenses currently available have a rather mixed reputation, although I am not sure how much of it is a matter of design and how much can be attributed to poor QC), and a body with integrated or optional EVF. If all that were in place by now, I'd certainly think twice before choosing m43 over E-mount. As things currently stand, however, it's a "no brainer".

 

[luisflorit]

Yes, I too think Olympus has a hard time competing in electronics, probably even more so than Canon and Nikon. As to 43rds, I think you are right that they should have taken better care of their user base, primarily by upgrading their bodies at a faster pace and to higher standards than they have actually done.

Absolutely.

But I also think they did right to move their primary attention to mirrorless because 43rds had difficulties to really make good on its promises except for a rather small minority

I'm not sure. They were in the middle of the way with 43rds, but they were alone and they could have made something really special with a 300 F4, or a 100mm macro, or... They made a system special for long lenses yet they didn't make a single high grade long lens??!! A 300 F4 was so obvious!

But then they suddenly left the road to be a clear second player in a field they cannot win. Maybe I am alone here, but the only single thing that interests me in the whole Oly m43rd line is the 9-18. Everything else is way behind pany. And getting worse.

Probably they'll try a pro-m43rds to be different from Pany. That can give them some air (I mean, if pany doesn't come with one first!). But without pro lenses... I don't know. I don't see a promising Oly future. I hope I am just short sighted and plain wrong.

with needs and preferences similar to your own.

Certainly not. 3 years ago, when I bought Oly, perhaps. Now they are way behind the competition. The E5 is a joke compared with the 7D... and the 7D is older.

Yes, like you, I see them trailing Panasonic and falling increasingly behind. Perhaps they should have tried to establish a closer partnership with Panasonic, or even merged with them. Perhaps they have even tried precisely that. But I am not sure how interested Panasonic is. Olympus needs Panasonic but does Panasonic need Olympus, particularly since Panasonic seems quite capable of designing and producing good lenses on their own?

They don't seem to need anyone else... and not only in the EVIL market. Look at Pany LX5. Look at Pany superzooms (I really believe that they didn't continue the FZ50 line just because they already had m43rds in mind). They make superb products by their own. They don't even need Leica.

Perhaps the fact that they already had all the experience with top camcorders helped. Well, at least this seems to be true for the movie mode of the GH2.

So perhaps there is simply little they can do...

Yes, lens design requires time and resources and for shorter FLs, new designs are needed to take advantage of the shorter flange distance of m43, thereby reducing size and weight. While they are on their way here, quite a bit remains to be done. In addition, they would need an m43 camera that is on a par with the GH2 without necessarily being a copy of it. Why not a retro-style model with integrated EVF (somewhat like Fuji X100), IBIS of course, plus sensor and video capabilities on a par with the GH2. I certainly think that might sell. But can they do it, and do it in time?

Well, they are late already...

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[Anders W]

I'm not sure. They were in the middle of the way with 43rds, but they were alone and they could have made something really special with a 300 F4, or a 100mm macro, or... They made a system special for long lenses yet they didn't make a single high grade long lens??!! A 300 F4 was so obvious!

But they did make a 300/2.8, didn't they, although I can understand if you wouldn't want to carry that one around. ;-) And I am certainly not saying that this was a sufficient effort.

Probably they'll try a pro-m43rds to be different from Pany. That can give them some air (I mean, if pany doesn't come with one first!). But without pro lenses... I don't know. I don't see a promising Oly future. I hope I am just short sighted and plain wrong.

I certainly hope they will survive although the prospects look rather dim. I have always liked Olympus since the PEN and OM days although I never owned one of their cameras. Style and soul. Until recently, I knew next to nothing about Panasonic cameras and would never have imagined I would stand ready to get one. What I associated with the company was run-of-the-mill electronics: not bad but nothing special. I realize now that I was prejudiced. The Pany designers do seem to know quite a bit about photographers and their needs and the GH2 certainly looks like a pretty mean machine although I perhaps wouldn't call it stylish or charming.

Certainly not. 3 years ago, when I bought Oly, perhaps. Now they are way behind the competition. The E5 is a joke compared with the 7D... and the 7D is older.

Yes, the E5 is hardly a competitive upgrade at this stage.

They don't seem to need anyone else... and not only in the EVIL market. Look at Pany LX5. Look at Pany superzooms (I really believe that they didn't continue the FZ50 line just because they already had m43rds in mind). They make superb products by their own. They don't even need Leica.

Perhaps the fact that they already had all the experience with top camcorders helped. Well, at least this seems to be true for the movie mode of the GH2.

Yes, Panasonic has certainly risen in my estimation after learning more about what they are actually doing. And I think their know-how and market position with respect to camcorders may be a strategic asset now that the border between still and video cameras is becoming quite diffuse. Sony has that advantage too compared to other players. Don't know about Samsung.

 

[luisflorit]

I'm not sure. They were in the middle of the way with 43rds, but they were alone and they could have made something really special with a 300 F4, or a 100mm macro, or... They made a system special for long lenses yet they didn't make a single high grade long lens??!! A 300 F4 was so obvious!

But they did make a 300/2.8, didn't they, although I can understand if you wouldn't want to carry that one around. ;-) And I am certainly not saying that this was a sufficient effort.

Yes, they made a 300/2.8, but that is a SHG lens, not HG. That means it weights a ton and costs a lot. You need tripod for such a lens, so why don't get a 7D+400 F2.8 then? No advantage, so what's the point? Now a 300F4 could indeed be much cheaper ($1500?) and lighter (1.2kg?) making a unique combo with the E5. That's the word I think: Oly had the opportunity to make something unique , and let it go. Instead, they made a dozen overlapping wide zooms, where the system has no advantage!

I knew next to nothing about Panasonic cameras and would never have imagined I would stand ready to get one. What I associated with the company was run-of-the-mill electronics: not bad but nothing special. I realize now that I was prejudiced. The Pany designers do seem to know quite a bit about photographers and their needs and the GH2 certainly looks like a pretty mean machine although I perhaps wouldn't call it stylish or charming.

You need to handle a FZ30 or FZ50 if you haven't done so. Even today, they are great cameras. Of course after so many years you'll find they don't fill your needs, and it is not a DSLR. Still, they are extremely well made taking into account that they are P&S. I shoot 23000 pictures with my FZ50, let it fall from 1.70mts to the floor and got rain several times in rainforests. It still works as new. I still prefer its EVF, with all its flaws, over the """pro""" OVF of the E5.

Yet, I have had 7 serious problems with my Oly """pro""" gear:

http://luis.impa.br/foto/myexperiencewitholy.html

Cheers,
L.

-
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250