What Olympus actually promised:

Started May 27, 2013 | Discussions
illy
illy Forum Pro • Posts: 12,160
Re: High Angst always precedes the typical 3-4 year upgrade.

pris wrote:

This is another puzzling part. Who needs new camera more often than every 3 years? (Sure, this is where the choir chimes in pointing out that E-5 wasn't all they wanted so it's more than 3 years for them... but heck, it was their decision that it wasn't enough of an upgrade for them. It was for many others. Someone always will be unhappy no matter what. I seem to remember the latest Canon iteration being widely accused of being a lame warm-up with nothing to show and intended just to keep the price high. I'd say E-5 over E-3 was much more than that.)

not everyone is on the same upgrade path so a camera every 3 years seems like a long development cycle, also keeping the camera line looking fresh would entice more people and fresh customers to join 4/3rds, it is a business after all and needs to make money to survive.

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

 illy's gear list:illy's gear list
Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D5100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR +4 more
pris Senior Member • Posts: 2,191
Re: High Angst always precedes the typical 3-4 year upgrade.
1

illy wrote:

pris wrote:

This is another puzzling part. Who needs new camera more often than every 3 years? (Sure, this is where the choir chimes in pointing out that E-5 wasn't all they wanted so it's more than 3 years for them... but heck, it was their decision that it wasn't enough of an upgrade for them. It was for many others. Someone always will be unhappy no matter what. I seem to remember the latest Canon iteration being widely accused of being a lame warm-up with nothing to show and intended just to keep the price high. I'd say E-5 over E-3 was much more than that.)

not everyone is on the same upgrade path so a camera every 3 years seems like a long development cycle

I don't understand this, sorry. Flagships in every system are updated around these timelines, why is it not enough? Notice, I am not talking about how this plays into the whole "system health" argument, I am talking about particular person buying and using a camera - why would such person want a more frequent upgrade unless they just collect cameras in another GAS bout?

also keeping the camera line looking fresh would entice more people and fresh customers to join 4/3rds, it is a business after all and needs to make money to survive.

Maybe, maybe not. Releasing cameras of a line that hasn't proved to be successful could have deepened the bleeding. Olympus' decision to make a lateral move in a form of m43 and take the fight with competition into new territory was probably better idea than continuation of a losing battle?

illy
illy Forum Pro • Posts: 12,160
Re: High Angst always precedes the typical 3-4 year upgrade.

pris wrote:

illy wrote:

pris wrote:

This is another puzzling part. Who needs new camera more often than every 3 years? (Sure, this is where the choir chimes in pointing out that E-5 wasn't all they wanted so it's more than 3 years for them... but heck, it was their decision that it wasn't enough of an upgrade for them. It was for many others. Someone always will be unhappy no matter what. I seem to remember the latest Canon iteration being widely accused of being a lame warm-up with nothing to show and intended just to keep the price high. I'd say E-5 over E-3 was much more than that.)

not everyone is on the same upgrade path so a camera every 3 years seems like a long development cycle

I don't understand this, sorry. Flagships in every system are updated around these timelines, why is it not enough? Notice, I am not talking about how this plays into the whole "system health" argument, I am talking about particular person buying and using a camera - why would such person want a more frequent upgrade unless they just collect cameras in another GAS bout?

also keeping the camera line looking fresh would entice more people and fresh customers to join 4/3rds, it is a business after all and needs to make money to survive.

Maybe, maybe not. Releasing cameras of a line that hasn't proved to be successful could have deepened the bleeding. Olympus' decision to make a lateral move in a form of m43 and take the fight with competition into new territory was probably better idea than continuation of a losing battle?

well a 3 year development cycle on your only product is a long time, other companies have a more diverse lineup, so the range as a total is changing and being update regularly

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

 illy's gear list:illy's gear list
Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D5100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR +4 more
pris Senior Member • Posts: 2,191
Re: High Angst always precedes the typical 3-4 year upgrade.
1

illy wrote:

pris wrote:

illy wrote:

pris wrote:

This is another puzzling part. Who needs new camera more often than every 3 years? (Sure, this is where the choir chimes in pointing out that E-5 wasn't all they wanted so it's more than 3 years for them... but heck, it was their decision that it wasn't enough of an upgrade for them. It was for many others. Someone always will be unhappy no matter what. I seem to remember the latest Canon iteration being widely accused of being a lame warm-up with nothing to show and intended just to keep the price high. I'd say E-5 over E-3 was much more than that.)

not everyone is on the same upgrade path so a camera every 3 years seems like a long development cycle

I don't understand this, sorry. Flagships in every system are updated around these timelines, why is it not enough? Notice, I am not talking about how this plays into the whole "system health" argument, I am talking about particular person buying and using a camera - why would such person want a more frequent upgrade unless they just collect cameras in another GAS bout?

also keeping the camera line looking fresh would entice more people and fresh customers to join 4/3rds, it is a business after all and needs to make money to survive.

Maybe, maybe not. Releasing cameras of a line that hasn't proved to be successful could have deepened the bleeding. Olympus' decision to make a lateral move in a form of m43 and take the fight with competition into new territory was probably better idea than continuation of a losing battle?

well a 3 year development cycle on your only product is a long time, other companies have a more diverse lineup, so the range as a total is changing and being update regularly

Ummm... didn't I address this above? Again, lineup in the 43 which was bleeding money and losing market share was replaced by developing lineup in m43. Remaining camera (flagship) is on schedule for this fall/winter. Whether the whole lateral move is successful is to be found yet, but staying the course was pure suicide, no?

If your point is that E-5 successor should have been released a year ago as simple E-5 body with EM-5 sensor/IBIS, well, allow me to link again post where I said what I thought about it: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50796257

Rriley
Rriley Forum Pro • Posts: 21,846
Re: Anyone else did?
1

Forgottenbutnotgone wrote:

pris wrote:

Forgottenbutnotgone wrote:

pris wrote:

Craig from Nevada wrote:

They certainly didn't commit the company to build a DSLR forever.

I am sorry, is that supposed to be a some kind of beef with them? Please show a statement from any other camera manufacturer stating "We hereby assure you that we are going to offer DSLR forever and ever, as long as Earth is tracing its orbit around Sun."

For someone so quick to accuse others of being disingenuous, you surely have no problem being blind to your own inconsistencies of thought.

I was wondering where my stalker was. There you are, and immediately starting with personal attack. That alone excludes any possibility of our further exchange, because, you know - we've been over this before, never ended well.

What personal attack? If nothing in the post in red below (one example) was a personal attack on rovingtim, surely nothing I said to you is.

pris (so eloquently and non personal attackingly) wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51542889.

- because of all possible interpretations of events you pick the most negative one;
- because you go to any lengths to hammer everyone to death with endless repetition of your interpretation

- because of the lengths to which you go to disparage the camera you "detest" (your word). Remember nonsense claims like "every E-5 image is full of artifacts?"Or blowing image up to 700% to find a flaw? Or making a huge deal out of non-existing issue with moire - thread after thread, an issue that never was mentioned by anyone else ever since? Or ranting about thin AA filter, which was since then adopted by other brands?

You've opened the floor up for discussion of people rather than equipment, I just chose a different person than you did. My post is relevant to your topic. Surely you can't have a problem with that. You've accused rovingtim of several things, after which you prodded him to answer your question:

"Also, why don't you answer the question about what it is you actually expect, asked up the thread?"

Well, how about you not being hypocritical and obliging me in the same fashion.

I plainly asked you several questions. I think these would be them:

" Never mind promising to manufacture DSLRs for "as long as Earth is tracing its orbit around the Sun, why don't you please show another MAJOR DSLR manufacturer that given so much indication that they might STOP bulding DSLR's NOW, that they felt it necessary to make a public statement saying otherwise. Point out another current manufacturer who's actions have caused enough doubt in so many of their previously loyal following that their most expensive lenses are suddenly flooding the used markets at such unheard of prices. How about pointing out another current manufacturer of DSLR bodies and lenses that a such a large majority of people can't PURCHASE EXCEPT online."

You so ingenuously failed to respond to them, bravely choosing instead to cut them out of your reply while gallantly hiding behind the claim of being persecuted in a fashion you have no problem inflicting upon anyone else in this thread.

Leica did

Leica made a statement that they due to contractual difficulties with a major supplier they could not continue to develop or service the Digital Module R, and as a result in 2007 R9 was to be cancelled, the DMR was to be no more. Public outrage went so far as to necessitate public meetings over reassurances over Leica. Where in 2009 'R' users were promised an 'adequate replacement'.

Soon convincing images purported to be leaked views of a digital R10 were floating around the net, and murky images of scurrying photographers said to be in possession of R10 prototypes were passed around forums. Yet as this information reached a crescendo in 2010 it was announced that R10 wasnt to be, the R mount seemed dead.

Now an an 'adequate replacement' had to mean something else than an R SLR,
In the inner circle it became known as the 'R solution'
everybody wanted to be in the inner circle.....

Kaufmann had decided they wouldnt be joining m43rds, and the Panasonic relationship began to get shaky as Lumix G lenses were released without the usual Leica licensing approval. This was said to be over the Panasonic 7-14 incamera distortion removal. Yet somehow rumours surfaced that Leica was in trouble and Panasonic was said to be a potential buyer. Leica is not a publicly listed company so their actual financial providence doesnt have to be declared. Nobody knew where they stood. Worse yet,nobody knew were Leica stood.

Solms had already announced the advanced, the bigger than FF Leica S2 camera and people marvelled at resolution solid enough to make a D800 user hide his rig from his byline. Ideas were still being fielded for a hybrid R (now assumed to be a liveview M8/9 since m43rds was off the table). People over at the LUF expressed continued displeasure over the notion of using an EVF, by now assumed to be a part of the R solution, whatever that was.

To this day the R solution hasnt surfaced, but it is discussed still by know tech representatives of Leica.

The forum was bombarded by Canon and Nikon trolls armed with 'I told you so' pennants, they told them Leica was dead, that the continued mess that was the R demonstrated Leica's executive inability to run a camera company. They raised suspicion over Leica's finances, they gybed at Leica's inability to make percentage on Japanese statistical data. They compared DxO data with lowly Canon cameras. They made jokes about fonecams. They suggested corruption and deceit. Leica was said to play their cards close to their chest. Fingers were pointed at Leica marketing, blame was associated to the crippled Kodak, former users returned to curse one time friends. Her Kaufmann, at one time the saviour of Leica AG was condemned as a fool and a scavenger.

There were daily barrages, constant sniper attacks, Christmas truces, mass breakouts. It was cold freezing hand to hand combat.

It was no longer a forum, it was Stalingrad.

but

they are still there....

And as a show of good faith, even though you ignored mine. I'll answer yours first.

I consider demands on me to wait 3 years for an E-5 update quite reasonable. But demands on you are obviously too high, so you are still here why??

Because at this point, for ME it is the most viable alternative. I've invested in lenses that I happen to like the performance of, and that at this point deserve a body of commensurate performance. I expect the demonstration of good faith I made when buying into Olympus' 4/3's mantra to be reciprocated in their timely support of the product I bought.

Ok, as in all of our previous exchanges, I've taken the time to answer you. How about you being a big boy and doing the same?

Robert

-- hide signature --

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

 Rriley's gear list:Rriley's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Olympus E-3 Olympus E-5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 +1 more
alatchin Senior Member • Posts: 1,055
Interesting read Riley

I didnt know that and it was quite entertaining.

Abraham

-- hide signature --

“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” -Ansel Adams
blog.alatchinphotography(dot)com

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 9,549
The latest rumors
1

Over at the rumor site it appears perhaps possible there will be a hybrid without need for an adapter. Kind of hard to imagine, but cool if true.

-- hide signature --

John Krumm
Juneau, AK

alfredbomping New Member • Posts: 20
Re: High Angst always precedes the typical 3-4 year upgrade.
1

it's because the E-X series is already a bit behind the curve specs wise ( compared to other semi pro DSLR like D300, 7D ) at the time of announcement. Also 3-4 year upgrade cycle is already an eternity in today's tech hungry world. They should offer a incremental upgrade model in between major upgrade similar to what Apple is doing with the iPhone 4 to 4s to 5. Just my 2 cents.

Regards,

Alfred

Craig from Nevada
Craig from Nevada Veteran Member • Posts: 5,152
Re: I want to believe them.

Messier Object wrote:

Craig from Nevada wrote:

rovingtim wrote:

What am I missing?

Nothing.

Olympus has a problem.  That problem is that they need better lenses for their mircro line.

And  DPR has a forum for discussion of m4/3 issues

Thank you for the information, but i am well aware of where and what I am posting.  go play moderator elsewhere

 Craig from Nevada's gear list:Craig from Nevada's gear list
Olympus Tough TG-4 Olympus E-30 Olympus E-620 Olympus E-5 Fujifilm X-T1 +23 more
OP erichK Veteran Member • Posts: 6,499
Re: The latest rumors

jkrumm wrote:

Over at the rumor site it appears perhaps possible there will be a hybrid without need for an adapter. Kind of hard to imagine, but cool if true.

The problem with such solutions is that with cameras, not unlike computers, they more often fail sadly and obscurely than -occasionally- succeed spectacularly.  I can still remember a computer called the Chameleon that, back in the eighties, offered the possibility of emulating any of three or four computer system.

OTOH, if such a solution first and foremost really works -that it is an attractive, functional camera, much as in the case of Nikon and Pentax, the additional feature of being current, but still allowing full use of an additional pool of lenses becomes an attractive selling point.

-- hide signature --

erichK
saskatoon, canada
Photography is a small voice, at best, but sometimes one photograph, or a group of them, can lure our sense of awareness.
- W. Eugene Smith, Dec 30, 1918 to Oct 15, 1978.
http://erichk.zenfolio.com/
http://www.fototime.com/inv/7F3D846BCD301F3
underwater photos:
http://www.scubaboard.com/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/5567

 erichK's gear list:erichK's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-330 Olympus E-620 Olympus E-5 Olympus PEN E-PL5 +25 more
boggis the cat Veteran Member • Posts: 6,329
Re: Not a mistake, but the 'theorists' didn't like it
2

Raist3d wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

erichK wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

erichK wrote:

For me, the appearance of the E-5, after all our doubts and hand-wringing, was a pleasant surprise. Experiencing all the small but very useful improvements that it incorporated was even more pleasant (as tends to be reflected in its retention of value.)

So, I remain optimistic.

- The appearance of the E-5 to me was proof positive the system had gone off rails. The E-5 came at a very high asking price in a competitor's market that had moved on with lacking performance - yes the sensor.  Lack of DR, lack of good high ISO performance and worst: terrible banding.

If that were true, then the E-5 would hardly be retaining its value as well as it has.

The price should drop on any remaining stock when the 'E-7' (or whatever) appears on the horizon.  The fact is that there is no better available option to use the FT lenses, unless you can make do with the limited AF from MicroFT bodies.

Also, it is worth noting that Olympus had supply issues with the E-5 due to heavier demand than expected.  (They didn't have such issues with the E-3, or E-1 before it.)

Olympus "supply issues" with the E-5 boil down to the amount of models they made and a press release. There's hardly any evidence to suggest the E-5 sold in droves.

I am simply pointing out that it sold better than Olympus expected.

It was out of stock, then back in stock, several times here.  This was also the case generally, with quite a bit of complaining about availability.

While the sensor could certain;y be better, its real market value tends to confirm my point that it is a capable photographic tool and about as effective an upgrade as Olympus could come up[ with the resources and sensor available to them.

I bought an E-5, and have had no issues with it.  You will get some blocking up in shadow areas where you have high DR shot (even at base ISO), but there is no 'banding issue' as could arise on earlier bodies such as the E-510 or E-620.

Actually there are serious banding issues with the E-5. This has been noted by several people at this point, not just me. It's pretty easy to see. Even a lot of Doug Brown's shot had them.

No, there are not.

You don't own an E-5, and have no experience with the results from it.  My testing only produced banding issues with severe under-exposure in low light -- the same conditions that cause banding issues on any camera.

Here are results from my own "torture tests" when I first got the E-5 and wanted to check the limitations:

Normal "worst case" banding

Banding due to severe under-exposure

The resolution is excellent for the pixel count, and I have not run into any problematic 'colour moire' issues, either -- another much touted 'theoretical issue' by those who have never owned an E-5.  (Strangely, now that all manufacturers have moved to very weak or no AA filters we don't see that issue discussed.)

Oh we can certainly discuss it. Surely you didn't hear that from me.

My point is that the "issue" (that I have not encountered) has mysteriously become a "non issue" now that the same strategy it is widely used by other manufacturers.

Also, recall that most of the "colour moire" problems noted could be resolved by not using poor demosaicing algorithms.

Raist just has an attitude problem when it comes to the E-5.

No, just facts.  Everything I said about the sensor is true- the DR is the same as the e-30/e-620 sensor.

No, it isn't.

The DR is about half a stop better than the E-620 (that I also have used extensively).

There's banding (let me know if you want me to post the images or prove it, it's rather easy).

Asserting something isn't proof.

I can give you far worse banding and colour-blocking issues from other bodies.  If you use a camera beyond its limitations then you may run into trouble.

High ISO performance is sub par with the market at the time the E-5 came out.

That is certainly true, particularly when compared to the D7000 and K5.

This was the main issue with the E-5 as it made indoor / low-light non-flash use difficult.  The main reason I bought the E-M5 and 45 f/1.8 was to have a solution for those situations.

It inherits the described by many reviewers as "design by committee" of the E-3 ergonomics.

The only ergonomic problems I have found are the rear panel buttons seem 'spongy' and the shutter is not as precise as I'd prefer, which can lead to inadvertent 'feathering' and thus re-triggering AF unintentionally.  (I also don't like the HLD-4 grip.)

Incidentally, the layout does appear to be nearly identical to the Canon 1D.

They now have - according to every objective test - a much better sensor available to them.

Ah, yes.  But if they put an 'old' sensor in an expensive flagship body then we will get a re-hash of the same arguments aimed at the E-5.  Baseless arguments, in my experience.  The E-5 was improved over the E-620, regardless of having 'the same sensor' -- not by a lot in DR and noise at high ISO terms, however, as it was effectively the same sensor.

The DR and ISO was pretty much virtually the E-30's.

Slightly better, but not a lot, compared to the E-620.

The question is not whether you have "the same sensor" but if that sensor is competitive in the market and asking price at the time of introduction with what the rest of the market is doing.

Well, the sensor is smaller than APS-C so it should always have a 2/3 to 3/4 'stop' disadvantage.

The E-M5 sensor happened to close that gap to virtually nothing until you got to very high ISO settings.  As newer sensors appear on APS-C the gap will open out again.

This is inevitable.

If you want to use ISO 6400 and up routinely then APS-C is presently better.  In a few years it will be ISO 25600 and up.

For the record: I did try the E-5 personally, it's hardly any "theory."   The camera itself was ok, but the sensor wasn't.  Nothing could have been made more clear on that point than the EM5 new sensor did.

Except that I recall your theorising that the E-M5 sensor was no different from the GX1, based on a lot of 'comparison' between entirely different shots.

Based on your record, I won't be paying much attention to similar theories WRT future cameras.

My guess would be that the 'E-7' would have a tweaked E-M5 sensor, and not show significant improvements over e.g. the E-P5.  So it comes down to whether it is worth the US$1700 cost to you or not when the E-P5 is under US$1000 (and, of course, competitive APS-C bodies and low-end 135 bodies are available if you are willing to change system).

I will certainly consider the upgrade from the E-5, but if they intend on releasing a high-end MicroFT body that will work properly with my HG lenses then that may be a more sensible option for me.  (I have an E-M5 and 12-50 plus 45 f/1.8 lenses, so now straddle the FT / MicroFT systems to some extent.  It would be good to be able to reduce down to one high-end body replacement every few years.)

It will be interesting to see how Olympus approach the FT and MicroFT systems in the next couple of years.  They could use FT as a 'DSLR' competitor or merge FT into MicroFT when they have a suitable PDAF solution.  (They need a C-AF solution for MicroFT in any case, so they are likely to pursue PDAF for that reason alone.)

 boggis the cat's gear list:boggis the cat's gear list
Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +7 more
Franka T.L. Veteran Member • Posts: 8,148
Re: High Angst always precedes the typical 3-4 year upgrade.

well, well, I guess the motto here merge, but I say the real mantra behind this is that of a crisis of confidence. Simply put there is little faith in and among that see Olympus WILL be delivering us a for real E-5 replacement as in classic DSLR ( the SLR part ). Its logical to deduce that the solution will come in an M4/3 format ( or that elusive rumored hybrid which I do not see why its needed vs the already available adapters unless there is great advantage over the combo )

And I do not think the E-M6 is the answer, just as the E-M5 , despite its performance as a capturing platform goes, just do not have the build and the design as mean for the E-5 users would demand ( well not all E-5 users, but plenty ) and even Olympus themselves admitting that and are voicing of a body that will do justice to the SHG lens.

The dilemma with Olympus these days is how to actually able to migrate the customers to this new system. And basically that lies pretty much with 3 key areas.

  • Compatibility of old gears, mostly the AF, now if they can solve the AF issue with M4/3 with 4/3 lens, without altering the 4/3 hardware. Then its all about providing a platform and the adapters which is already here
  • the M4/3 platform, now while I applaud what Olympus had done with the E-M5, I must say it simply do not compare with the like of E-5, not even the E-30. Its more like an ( a bit ) upmarket E620. Or more likely I should say kind of like Pentax's K-30. Its got the bells and whistles but still its not build the way the demanding ones demands. The school of lightweight and compactness over anything simply do not observe here. In fact after handling the GH3 vs that of the E-M5, I must say the GH3 is more E-X like than the Oly
  • the M4/3 system itself. the 4/3 came to be as a system , with some variety in its depth and lineup, but the M4/3 had been too oriented towards the compactness and lightweight over anything else approach and thus its suffering a lack of providence in other sector what customer might demand and this need to be rectified. 

So for real, while there is indeed angst over the matter, that is secondary compared to that crisis of confidence. Let's just say , this is an open market, and if customer feels insecure about this, its just a sentiment that reflect the whole. Its for the Mfr to fix their own

-- hide signature --

- Franka -

garysworld
garysworld Forum Member • Posts: 76
Re: High Angst always precedes the typical 3-4 year upgrade.
1

A crisis of confidence is a very apt description, and  really where I am at this time. An early adopter into the E System, an at this time with very little to look at as far a product goes. This was the last thing I would have guessed or would have happened. With the very strong and impressive showing when the E-1 came out with a great selection of lens, cutting edge features and design that was so far ahead of the market that I just could not see it ever being in the place it is in now.

Now before those that will call this/me doom and gloom here are the facts. The Oly rep that services Southern California or possibility a larger area no longer even has an E-5 to bring to the shows or rep days at the camera stores. The last a few weeks ago here in Los Angeles (a world media capital) the rep did not even bring one E-Series lens. When looking at the Nikon, Canon, and Sony tables where there is a full line of several different bodies and systems I have to ask myself what happened, how did this happen. Do I have a loss of confidence, having gone through 3-4 years of waiting between E bodies.

I was looking for a small point and shoot tough camera, normally I would have just gotten the latest from Oly, (which they recently introduce). Although not a bad camera and a good feature set, it's back panel is a mess. Along with that and other factors that were exclusive to my use, I chose differently. There was a time I would not have even compared. I hope for the best, the E-5 just did not WOW me, so I am hoping what ever is next will once again instill confidence. This thread title is What Olympus actually promised, well back in 2004 they promised something different than where the product line is now.

 garysworld's gear list:garysworld's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-3 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 +5 more
skeys Veteran Member • Posts: 3,191
OK, we're done, please continue, sorry for the interruption.

NT

-- hide signature --

My comments and opinions are my own. I am neither a staff member, nor a paid employee, of DPReview.

Rriley
Rriley Forum Pro • Posts: 21,846
Re: The latest rumors

jkrumm wrote:

Over at the rumor site it appears perhaps possible there will be a hybrid without need for an adapter. Kind of hard to imagine, but cool if true.

and of the two cameras related to the post, the Zeiss Icon had one mount within another, as it relates to us the 43rds mount would have to allow the m43rds mount to submarine within. Even if you could do that and still provide electrical connection, and recall every function of the lens needs this to work or no aperture, no AF, no proper EXIF etc. Assuming that is conquered the issue then becomes that most m43rds lenses have too wide a barrel to actually go inside a 43rds mount.

Not to give up so soon though.... as they also mention Contax AX, which accomplished AF with MF lenses by moving the film plane back and forth within the mirrorbox. Theres a youtube video of it in action here: Contax AF in action (youtube) You can see how something ostensibly quite complicated is so beautiful to watch in execution, and that out of cheap pressmetal parts. Nice one Contax..

Ok so putting it all together,
I think the electrical connection must happen with both types of lenses, and the mounts must be trimmed so that the m43rds mount fits within the 43rds mount, but the two must be situated very close together, perhaps they toggle out of each others way but both mounts need to be very close to the front surface of the camera. Then in order to make the correct backfocus the sensor entire shifts back and forth to make the correct register difference. AF happens in the normal way by using each lenses focussing apparatus, and the camera would be configured as a mirrorless with an EVF and on sensor AF.

an additional possibility might be tempting to over-complication, wobbling the sensor back and forth would provide for a form of pdAF from a pure cdAF system with pdAF software algorithms, I mentioned that before somewhere.
Post about sensor wobble for pdAF

But going back to our hybrid, if its true it would be quite an accomplishment, but I guess
....... it has to be true first, of that Im not so sure 

-- hide signature --

John Krumm
Juneau, AK

-- hide signature --

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

 Rriley's gear list:Rriley's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Olympus E-3 Olympus E-5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 +1 more
OP erichK Veteran Member • Posts: 6,499
Re: The latest rumors

The problem with such complicated solutions, involving many moving parts is just that: they are complicated and (etc.)

The Contax attempt too deal with the same dilemma that essentially killed the Olympus OM line - the lack of AF, was, in the long run, even less successful than Oly's abandonment of the OM and move to completely new chassis-types and lenses.  I don't really know whether it even really worked in practical terms; I do know that it failed badly with potential buyers (and also that Kyocera went on to other things -but then they did not have the strong optical and camera mainstream tradition that Olympus has.)

It is difficult to predict what they will do, and certainly any well-designed/ well-handling modern-sensored camera - OVF of EVF or hybrid- that will effectively AF and finally provide reliable CAF with FT lenses will be a relief, even a joy.

But while one that effectively focusses both FGT and mFT lenses - without an adapter, even - might be a cause for celebration, I'd much prefer an updated fairly conventional DSLR over something that had Rube Goldberg on the design team!

-- hide signature --

erichK
saskatoon, canada
Photography is a small voice, at best, but sometimes one photograph, or a group of them, can lure our sense of awareness.
- W. Eugene Smith, Dec 30, 1918 to Oct 15, 1978.
http://erichk.zenfolio.com/
http://www.fototime.com/inv/7F3D846BCD301F3
underwater photos:
http://www.scubaboard.com/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/5567

 erichK's gear list:erichK's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-330 Olympus E-620 Olympus E-5 Olympus PEN E-PL5 +25 more
Rriley
Rriley Forum Pro • Posts: 21,846
Re: The latest rumors

erichK wrote:

The problem with such complicated solutions, involving many moving parts is just that: they are complicated and (etc.)

that depends on how they can be accomplished, for instance. A type of narrow ram with encapsulated oil reservoir with the valving adjusted so finely it allows you to move it by hand, but is strong enough to support the tailgate of a hatchback, those are common.

What about sensors that activate valving in a collision in such a way that they fill a large bag full of air to protect the occupant from injury with a cars hard interior surfaces. Better than that,lets fire off 6 of these things at once. The system breaks the bag from its protective enclosure, and allows the bag to gradually deflate to further decelerate the occupant more softly

If you landed from another planet some things would seem like wildly impossible ideas, but they are standardised designs that are very effective, some very cheap to execute and are in use every day.

The Contax attempt too deal with the same dilemma that essentially killed the Olympus OM line - the lack of AF, was, in the long run, even less successful than Oly's abandonment of the OM and move to completely new chassis-types and lenses.  I don't really know whether it even really worked in practical terms; I do know that it failed badly with potential buyers (and also that Kyocera went on to other things -but then they did not have the strong optical and camera mainstream tradition that Olympus has.)

Not unusually, Contax failed for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the sensor and image writing were archaic. As to the body in question, it didnt sell very well at all, neither did the fully functioning conventional autofocussing Contax N. I think their problem was a not so well sorted imaging pipeline when such things were still in their infancy, and that eventually they just ran out of money so Kyocera walked away.

It is difficult to predict what they will do, and certainly any well-designed/ well-handling modern-sensored camera - OVF of EVF or hybrid- that will effectively AF and finally provide reliable CAF with FT lenses will be a relief, even a joy.

But while one that effectively focusses both FGT and mFT lenses - without an adapter, even - might be a cause for celebration, I'd much prefer an updated fairly conventional DSLR over something that had Rube Goldberg on the design team!

in balance an SLR seems more likely
Im a little shy of trying to think how to say what they will do though

-- hide signature --

erichK
saskatoon, canada
Photography is a small voice, at best, but sometimes one photograph, or a group of them, can lure our sense of awareness.
- W. Eugene Smith, Dec 30, 1918 to Oct 15, 1978.
http://erichk.zenfolio.com/
http://www.fototime.com/inv/7F3D846BCD301F3
underwater photos:
http://www.scubaboard.com/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/5567

-- hide signature --

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

 Rriley's gear list:Rriley's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Olympus E-3 Olympus E-5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 +1 more
OP erichK Veteran Member • Posts: 6,499
Re: The latest rumors

Rriley wrote:

erichK wrote:

The problem with such complicated solutions, involving many moving parts is just that: they are complicated and (etc.)

that depends on how they can be accomplished, for instance. A type of narrow ram with encapsulated oil reservoir with the valving adjusted so finely it allows you to move it by hand, but is strong enough to support the tailgate of a hatchback, those are common.

Yes...but in the -30C winters here, the already-replaced ones on our Previa slam down so quickly that they pose an amputation risks.  We're talking about 150,000 or so actuations in widely varying conditions.


But while one that effectively focusses both FGT and mFT lenses - without an adapter, even - might be a cause for celebration, I'd much prefer an updated fairly conventional DSLR over something that had Rube Goldberg on the design team!

in balance an SLR seems more likely
Im a little shy of trying to think how to say what they will do though
Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

Exactly, and while I'd love to to see yet another great display of Olympus' inovativeness, I'd also prefer them not to risk what's left of the farm.  A couple of days ago a friend showed me some pics and video he'd taken with his Canon Ti3.  As it came on, it boasted of its sensor cleaning.  Then he showed me the video Live View -another silly Olympus solution looking for a problem- had pioneered.

As Jared Diamond explains in his brilliant GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL, innovation, by itself, is seldom a great success.  it has to be introduced at the right time, at the right place, in the way...and lots of marketing also really helps.

So even something as frankly "klunky" but apparently affective as the Sony adapter, alongside a decent new DSLR or two might be enough.  Much simpler than the rather bizarre idea of a biggish "pro"-body somehow also accommodating the shallow mFT flange.  I'm sure that I'm not alone in preferring to carry two cameras, and mFT bodies make the chore pretty easy anyway.

-- hide signature --

erichK
saskatoon, canada
Photography is a small voice, at best, but sometimes one photograph, or a group of them, can lure our sense of awareness.
- W. Eugene Smith, Dec 30, 1918 to Oct 15, 1978.
http://erichk.zenfolio.com/
http://www.fototime.com/inv/7F3D846BCD301F3
underwater photos:
http://www.scubaboard.com/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/5567

 erichK's gear list:erichK's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-330 Olympus E-620 Olympus E-5 Olympus PEN E-PL5 +25 more
Rriley
Rriley Forum Pro • Posts: 21,846
Re: The latest rumors

erichK wrote:

Rriley wrote:

erichK wrote:

The problem with such complicated solutions, involving many moving parts is just that: they are complicated and (etc.)

that depends on how they can be accomplished, for instance. A type of narrow ram with encapsulated oil reservoir with the valving adjusted so finely it allows you to move it by hand, but is strong enough to support the tailgate of a hatchback, those are common.

Yes...but in the -30C winters here, the already-replaced ones on our Previa slam down so quickly that they pose an amputation risks.  We're talking about 150,000 or so actuations in widely varying conditions.


But while one that effectively focusses both FGT and mFT lenses - without an adapter, even - might be a cause for celebration, I'd much prefer an updated fairly conventional DSLR over something that had Rube Goldberg on the design team!

in balance an SLR seems more likely
Im a little shy of trying to think how to say what they will do though
Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

Exactly, and while I'd love to to see yet another great display of Olympus' inovativeness, I'd also prefer them not to risk what's left of the farm.  A couple of days ago a friend showed me some pics and video he'd taken with his Canon Ti3.  As it came on, it boasted of its sensor cleaning.  Then he showed me the video Live View -another silly Olympus solution looking for a problem- had pioneered.

I guess it depends how clean such a camera can be accomplished
remember it would neatly intersect m43rds and 43rds, so it actually has a wider potential userbase

personally having used it Im not that afraid of an EVF solution
so I think Im going to get a ride for a few more years to come

As Jared Diamond explains in his brilliant GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL, innovation, by itself, is seldom a great success.  it has to be introduced at the right time, at the right place, in the way...and lots of marketing also really helps.

So even something as frankly "klunky" but apparently affective as the Sony adapter, alongside a decent new DSLR or two might be enough.  Much simpler than the rather bizarre idea of a biggish "pro"-body somehow also accommodating the shallow mFT flange.  I'm sure that I'm not alone in preferring to carry two cameras, and mFT bodies make the chore pretty easy anyway.

-- hide signature --

erichK
saskatoon, canada
Photography is a small voice, at best, but sometimes one photograph, or a group of them, can lure our sense of awareness.
- W. Eugene Smith, Dec 30, 1918 to Oct 15, 1978.
http://erichk.zenfolio.com/
http://www.fototime.com/inv/7F3D846BCD301F3
underwater photos:
http://www.scubaboard.com/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/5567

-- hide signature --

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

 Rriley's gear list:Rriley's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Olympus E-3 Olympus E-5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 +1 more
Forgottenbutnotgone Senior Member • Posts: 1,122
Re: High Angst always precedes the typical 3-4 year upgrade.

alfredbomping wrote:

it's because the E-X series is already a bit behind the curve specs wise ( compared to other semi pro DSLR like D300, 7D ) at the time of announcement.

Not only that, but for nearly the entire time that the Olympus 4/3's system has been in existence, the sensor, in my opinion, has been the shot in the foot of a host of innovations that potentially could have put Olympus on top of the market. What good is all the telecentricity in the world if it's recorded on an inferior medium? Back in the days before digital, there was so much emphasis put on the film. Any optical improvements must be made in addition to, and not in lieu of good film. Instead, for the entire time I've been an Olympus DSLR user, we've had to work around the sensor. Now we have one, and of all people, the "pro" camera buyers and users are the last to see it in a body WE can use.

Also 3-4 year upgrade cycle is already an eternity in today's tech hungry world. They should offer a incremental upgrade model in between major upgrade similar to what Apple is doing with the iPhone 4 to 4s to 5. Just my 2 cents.

The upgrade cycle would not be quite as critical if, as in your point above, the current offering at least started out at the cutting edge of the technology at the time.

Robert

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads