And now, that Micro 4/3 is already great ...

[Aleo Veuliah]

• We have no excuses for not taking good pictures, and we already see many even with the cameras using the 12 megapixels sensor, now with the new 16 megapixels things are even better and almost equal to bigger sensors.

• We have really good lenses, from the kit lenses to the more expensive ones, and the choices are much better than other mirrorless systems, from ultra wide to long distance focal lengths. We have good primes, fast lenses, counting with the more recent like the Olympus 75mm and the two Panasonic Lumix f/2.8 zooms.

• Also we have the OMD with weather sealing, and the Panasonic Lumix f/2.8 zooms, and the GH3 will have it also.

• So, what we need more ?

1- More megapixels ?

2- More DR ?

3- Even more lenses ?

4- A range finder camera with a built in EVF on the left ? Rumors "promised" that from Panasonic Lumix, a camera similar to the LC1

5- Better AF ? We already have ultra fast and accurate, only a bit better continuous AF is needed

6- More FPS ?

7- Better IBIS and OIS ? I think the existent is pretty good on both systems

8- Built in GPS ?

9- Even better video quality ?

• I would like to read what you think about this, improvements are always welcome if well implemented

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

God always take the simplest way.

• http://aleo-photo.org

• http://blog.aleo-photo.org

 

[Photo Grapher]

I am satisfied with the results from m 4/3 now, but one thing I like to see is that range finder camera with the built in evf on the left side like the Leica M

--

Perfection is achieved, not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away

The smallest act of kindness is worth more than the greatest intention

 

[Shawn67]

"5- Better AF ? We already have ultra fast and accurate, only a bit better continuous AF is needed

6- More FPS ? "

These would be the two I'd like to see with the AF being able to work at higher FPS along with live view being active there too.

Shawn

 

[Aleo Veuliah]

"5- Better AF ? We already have ultra fast and accurate, only a bit better continuous AF is needed

6- More FPS ? "

These would be the two I'd like to see with the AF being able to work at higher FPS along with live view being active there too.

Shawn

Those are my most important choices also, but I have to admit that to the kind of photography I do more, that is landscape I really don't need better AF, but it is good to have it in case you need it

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

God always take the simplest way.

• http://aleo-photo.org

• http://blog.aleo-photo.org

 

[Kikl]

• We have no excuses for not taking good pictures, and we already see many even with the cameras using the 12 megapixels sensor, now with the new 16 megapixels things are even better and almost equal to bigger sensors.

• We have really good lenses, from the kit lenses to the more expensive ones, and the choices are much better than other mirrorless systems, from ultra wide to long distance focal lengths. We have good primes, fast lenses, counting with the more recent like the Olympus 75mm and the two Panasonic Lumix f/2.8 zooms.

• Also we have the OMD with weather sealing, and the Panasonic Lumix f/2.8 zooms, and the GH3 will have it also.

I can only answer what I personally feel would be desirable. Other people may have different tastes.

• So, what we need more ?

1- More megapixels ?

No, 16 MP is more than enough for me. I don't print any larger than A3, so the resolution of the pictures is adequate. In fact, this would lead to even larger files without providing any visual improvement.

2- More DR ?

Yes, that would be nice. But, since you can shoot a series of pictures with differing exposure and easily combine a high dynamic range picture, this is not a high priority.

3- Even more lenses ?

Sure, competition is always good. But, to me, there are more than enough lenses available. Therefore, this is not a game changer for me.

4- A range finder camera with a built in EVF on the left ? Rumors "promised" that from Panasonic Lumix, a camera similar to the LC1

Yes, that would be great. It would increase both the portability and usability of the camera. The Sony Nex 7 looks great. Something comparable should be done.

5- Better AF ? We already have ultra fast and accurate, only a bit better continuous AF is needed

I agree. Possibly, the implementation of phase detect autofocus on the sensor, like in the Nikon V1 would be great.

6- More FPS ?

Not for me. The 8 fps on the Olympus OMD is more than enough. A larger frame buffer would be welcome, so that you can shoot more pictures in a row.

7- Better IBIS and OIS ? I think the existent is pretty good on both systems

No

8- Built in GPS ?

No, not important.

9- Even better video quality ?

Not important for me. For the video geeks full HD at 50 or 60 fps non-interlaced would be desirable. But, the current video quality is good enough for even most professional uses.

To sum it up: I see two important improvements for the future. A range finder like camera like the Nex 7 with a more reliable continuous autofocus both for shooting video and series of large frames. Otherwise, the current system should just grow continuously.

 

[sderdiarian]

The E-M5 remarkably hits most of the features I (and apparently many others) are looking for in a camera:

• small and light enough to take anywhere, yet excellent build in a weather and dust sealed body
• a 16 MP sensor that actually competes with better APS-C sensors, but with the added benefit of Olympus JPEG processing/colors
• class leading IBIS that works with all lenses
• quality EVF
• touch screen 3" tilt OLED

I agree with others, no need for more MP's, 16 MP is plenty so why clog up our harddrives with still more. I also agree the E-M5's video is fine for most users; I personally will rarely if ever use it.

What is needed:

• focus tracking ability to match that in Canikon DSLR's for BIF, wildlife and sports; this is the most glaring weakness still present in mFT
• full compatibility/fast AF with my 4/3's zooms; primes are nice, but they don't replace the convenience/flexibility of a high optical quality HG zoom
• on same note, a mid-range zoom that matches the optical quality/price of the 4/3's 14-54 f2.8-3.5 MkII or 12-60 f2.8-4 yet offers some size and weight benefits
• a low-priced quality macro that matches the capabilities of the 4/3's 35mm which sells for $225
• a gateway model with the same features as the E-M5 but non-weathersealed to bring the price down around $700-750 to compete with the D5100
• and yes, I too would have an interest in a rangefinder styled body with E-M5 capabilities provided it has a built in EVF and 5-axis IBIS; not sure if that's possible and the E-M5 is small enough that I'm not sure how much it's needed/how well it would sell.

--
Sailin' Steve

 

[amalric]

• We have no excuses for not taking good pictures, and we already see many even with the cameras using the 12 megapixels sensor, now with the new 16 megapixels things are even better and almost equal to bigger sensors.

• We have really good lenses, from the kit lenses to the more expensive ones, and the choices are much better than other mirrorless systems, from ultra wide to long distance focal lengths. We have good primes, fast lenses, counting with the more recent like the Olympus 75mm and the two Panasonic Lumix f/2.8 zooms.

• Also we have the OMD with weather sealing, and the Panasonic Lumix f/2.8 zooms, and the GH3 will have it also.

• So, what we need more ?

MONEY

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

 

[Art_P]

What do I need ?

Well, what's available surpasses what I need, but improved focus tracking would be helpful (tried focus tracking w my dog, and the camera kept locking on to the fence in the background rather than staying w the dog as I panned.

What I want ?
Well, a 100 or 150mm macro would be nice

A 400mm prime or 200-400mm zoom Or a reasonably fast 50-200 with matched 2x converter

Full AF support for 4/3 lenses would be nice, or m43 versions of 4/3 lenses. Not having a great many 4/3 lenses it's not something I need, but I expect other people would consider this a need .
--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

 

[stimmer]

Sharper zooms are definitely needed. My 4/3 glass is so much superior and it would be much welcome on a micro body.

I would be happy if they could just get it to work as is.

 

[Pompous Moronox]

• We have no excuses for not taking good pictures, and we already see many even with the cameras using the 12 megapixels sensor, now with the new 16 megapixels things are even better and almost equal to bigger sensors.

m4/3 sensor area is about 25% of full frame.
APS-C is about 43% of full frame.
Full frame is 100% of full frame.

Light collecting ability is a function on sensor area. Additionally full well capacity is largely a function of area. So even if the read noise were similar to the bigger sensors, it would still lose in ability to collect light (and store the signal). Also the read noise is, especially at the base ISO well below Sony and at least one Nikon.

The reality is that the smaller sensor will always be handicapped, no matter how much we would like it not be. And the gap hasn't gotten any smaller - if we compare the best Panasonic sensors to the best Sony sensors in the APS-C and FF size, the Panny would lose even if the competition were as small as it is. Against Canon it fares quite a bit better though.

• Also we have the OMD with weather sealing, and the Panasonic Lumix f/2.8 zooms, and the GH3 will have it also.

Weather sealing is not much more than marketing gimmick. Sure there are some seals, but Oly doesn't give any guarantees or warranty.

• So, what we need more ?

1- More megapixels ?

Always.

2- More DR ?

Of course - now it is hard to shoot high DR scenes. The read noise needs to come down.

3- Even more lenses ?

No, all the lenses should be melted to plows

4- A range finder camera with a built in EVF on the left ? Rumors "promised" that from Panasonic Lumix, a camera similar to the LC1

Certainly - no reason for the nose to bang against the LCD.

5- Better AF ? We already have ultra fast and accurate, only a bit better continuous AF is needed

Continous AF is difficult nut to crack with contrast detect method. On-sensor phase detect system would improve things lots, but there may be patent issues.

6- More FPS ?

This will naturally come with time.

7- Better IBIS and OIS ? I think the existent is pretty good on both systems

Hard to improve much as the image circle and/or sensor movement range place restrictions. They're very good already.

8- Built in GPS ?

For non-budget models, yes.

9- Even better video quality ?

Yes, especially since EVF (and live view) may benefit from it as well.

--

DPR doesn't like signatures complaining fanboy moderation and tends to remove them.

 

[dv312]

Would like to see (in any order) :

1) a Pen with builtin EVF + flip up LCD a la Sony NEX 7 (weather proof desirable; would be the ultimate gear for me)
2) Oly faster normal zooms f2.8 (12-45 or 14-50 without IS)
3) Oly version of 35-100mm f2.8 without IS
4) Builtin ND filter (with split ND)
5) Builtin HDR feature
6) Builtin panoramic feature
7) higher shutter speed 1/8000 or even higher
8) longer lasting battery
9) more accurate colors LED
10) Eliminate hissing noise on in body IS
Cheers ;-)

 

[acahaya]

• Better zooms in terms of faster, fast af, outstanding resolution, little to no vignetting and distortion and Cas and corner sharpness. I also miss my FT12-60. The problem with the current zooms is that they are on kit lens level, which is OK as long as they are light and small. But sometimes you simply need bigh quality glass.
• I'd love to see a faster tele zoom (like the Ft 50-200/2.8-3.5 or the Sigma 70-200/2.8), a zoom with longer tele range (200-400).
• Better C-AF and tracking.
• More DR can't be wrong.
• Personally i do not need more MP, makes pp awfully slow even on a powerful pc.

--
http://www.acahaya.com

 

[dmanthree]

I have the 45-200, and it's a good lens, but that's about it. I tried the 45-175 and experienced issues with the IS and double-imaging. Right now there isn't an excellent tele-zoom. I'm pretty surprised at this hole in the m4/3 lineup.
--
-------------------------------------------------
No Signature.

 

[sderdiarian]

Sharper zooms are definitely needed. My 4/3 glass is so much superior and it would be much welcome on a micro body.

I would be happy if they could just get it to work as is.

+1

I'd love to see Olympus put the same attention and sensor/processor into a small DSLR body that tracks well and makes full use of their excellent HG zooms (and 9-18 SG as well), but that likely isn't in the cards. Given this, I'd be just as happy if they could simply bring these same qualities into the next gen E-M5.

But it's getting kind of niggling, the E-M5 offers so much, and frankly so do even their earlier E-PM1 and E-620 models which I've been enjoying on our Martha's Vineyard vacation, a photographers paradise.

My goal now? Cut back on the quantity of photos taken, currently about 600 per day combined while on vacation. Many are due to the uncertain focus of my 70-300 even when tripod mounted (1 in 5 hit ratio), some to cover my bases since its difficult to judge quality of output in the field, and each camera has its strengths and weaknesses as well. An E-M5 might bring me back to using one camera, but I want to instill more of my film days discipline in taking shots as well.

Jim Zuckerman sums things up nicely in "Pro Secrets":

"In terms of excellent composition, exposure, lighting and capturing wonderful moments, a camera that costs $500 can do just as well as one that costs $8000. The truth is that how successful the pictures will be is all about the artistry of the person shooting."

Equipment will always improve, but the older I get the more I realize we're the biggest part of assuring quality results.
--
Sailin' Steve

 

[Ignace]

M4/3 needs top-quality zooms, equivalent to Nikon's "holy trinity" (14-24 / 24-70/ 70-200--F/2.8.)
If top quality, they could even be F/4.
At that point, professional photographers will have to take note.

--
Extracting art from life experience

 

[howardfuhrman]

dmanthree wrote:

"I have the 45-200, and it's a good lens, but that's about it. I tried the 45-175 and experienced issues with the IS and double-imaging. Right now there isn't an excellent tele-zoom. I'm pretty surprised at this hole in the m4/3 lineup."

What about the 100-300mm? While I do not have one, the photos taken with the 100-300 posted to other threads in this forum look very nice--clearly better ones taken with my 45-200.

--
Howard
http://www.photo.net/photos/howardfuhrman

 

[Najinsky]

3- Even more lenses ?

This is the number 1 need. While there are lots of of lenses, there are not a lot of very good ones nor a lot of variety of good ones.

Currently there are a lot of people using adapters to put their favourite glass onto M43 (and NEX). This is a compromise in usability in exchange for the quality renderings these lenses deliver. Native mount versions could be a little smaller and lighter while offering more integrated features. More and more people will be entering the system without these legacy lenses and will wan't the good stuff. People in the NEX forum are actually buying Canon L, Zeiss, Nikon etc solely for use with their NEX, which is crazy, but the beautiful renderings tempt them to do it.

OM-D helps the cause by showing people will invest serious money into the system, and by edging closer to a system that makes producing fine lenses more viable.

-Najinsky

 

[Bob Meyer]

My humble opinion only:

2- More DR

Yes, but the OM-D is really good enough for almost anything, and the GH2 isn't far behind

3- Even more lenses ?

Of course. Too many is almost enough. I'd like to see more fast zooms (like a 50-150 2.8) and fast long primes.

5- Better AF ? We already have ultra fast and accurate, only a bit better continuous AF is needed

not "a bit better" m43 has a long way to go to be a really good action system

6- More FPS ?

Can't hurt, but 5 fps is plenty for most things. 9 fps with AF might be nice, though (see the comment above about better C-AF and action)

Plus:

The EVFs need significant improvement in bright light, really dim light, and with rapid camera movement. The LCDs could be better in bright light, too.

Lower ISOs. I don't really need to shoot at ISO 25000 or higher. I would really like to be able to shoot wide open in bright light, or shoot really long exposures without having to resort to ND filters. If base ISO is 160, give me ISO 80 and 40 as extended options. Better yet, give me a base ISO of 50, so performance doesn't suffer.

Faster shutter speeds, mostly for the same reason as above, but also to freeze motion.

Bigger buffer and faster write speeds, and way, way less finder blackout between shots.

What I don't particularly need is more megapixels.

--

Bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the blur in out-of-focus areas of an image, or the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light. Bokeh is not the same as depth of field (DOF).

 

[Bob Meyer]

The 12-35 Panasonic fills the middle spot, and hopefully the 35-100 will fill the tele end. The 7-14, while not as fast as the Nikon, is very, very good.

M4/3 needs top-quality zooms, equivalent to Nikon's "holy trinity" (14-24 / 24-70/ 70-200--F/2.8.)
If top quality, they could even be F/4.
At that point, professional photographers will have to take note.

--
Extracting art from life experience

--

Bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the blur in out-of-focus areas of an image, or the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light. Bokeh is not the same as depth of field (DOF).

 

[Nic Walmsley]

We could do with a new generation of normal primes.

And some more budget gear, like the 45mm 1.8.