What Olympus actually promised:

Started May 27, 2013 | Discussions
Messier Object Veteran Member • Posts: 8,099
Re: I just checked Oly's website
2

goblin wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

... Either way = no m.4/3 glass. I'd rather spend $ on my Canon system...

Your choice is your choice of course, but I believe you are locking yourself out of some quite interesting combinations which would certainly not integrate with your current gear, but are on their own a steal which could integrate into your "gearflow" could/should any m43 brand some dayrelease an m43 body matching your AF needs:

- There are two absolutely amazing m43 lenses which on their own justify looking towards m43: the Zuiko 45mm 1.8, which can be found used at $250 (and $299 refurb) on a quite regular basis, and the much less known Sigma Art 60mm 2.8, which can be had for $160 used and $245 new.

Combined with an E-PM2 body (soon to be discontinued, last time it was on sale it went for $199 body only at newegg), any of those is more than worth the less than $500 it would cost.

Those two lenses simply make it worth buying an m43 combo on the side. Of course, the E-PM2 won't be the best choice for your 300mm, but then again it doesn't have to be used with it.

My $0.02 of course.

My spending history is: 1 lens + 1 more + 1 more and I eventually end up with a full system.
Not again with Olympus.

As I wrote to GB, if I was just starting out  it would be a different thing

But I thank you for your considered response

Peter

TheEngineer Regular Member • Posts: 381
Re: Not true...

TrapperJohn wrote:

Oly USA shows the E5 in stock.

Well, they did state that they would continue DSLR's 'without change'... and the E5 doesn't appear to have changed... so, technically speaking, they have adhered to that statement. A bit too literally, but they have adhered to it.

Last time I was at Yodobashi I still saw an E-5 on display and they are still being sold.

Having owned an E3 and used an E5, and now having an EM1, I think Olympus absolutely did the right thing. They couldn't compete with C/N in the DSLR arena, so they headed off in a new direction and appear to be doing quite well there.

Exactly and I do see people happily using their 43rds lenses on E-M1 bodies, so I guess some people like that new direction as well.

You want to give that up for a mirror and a prism? Not me. I like the direction they have gone in. It's not perfect, but the future looks a lot brighter than it did three years ago.

I definitely agree after using an OMD for a while now I could never go back to a mirror and prism.

 TheEngineer's gear list:TheEngineer's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Olympus E-510 Olympus PEN E-PL2 Olympus PEN E-PL3 Canon EOS 6D +14 more
rovingtim Veteran Member • Posts: 8,644
Markets and fertilizer

TrapperJohn wrote:

Oly USA shows the E5 in stock.

I cannot buy an E5 in my country. However, were the US actually the world, then you and Olympus would be right.

Well, they did state that they would continue DSLR's 'without change'... and the E5 doesn't appear to have changed... so, technically speaking, they have adhered to that statement. A bit too literally, but they have adhered to it.

Yes. And I noticed that in 2013.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51542473

My previous post saying they 'lied' when it was first released only refers to their claim that they would not 'drastically reduce' their DSLR presence. The second paragraph of Olympus's statement is accurate as long as you live in the US. That paragraph is now a lie if you live in most other major markets.

Having owned an E3 and used an E5, and now having an EM1, I think Olympus absolutely did the right thing.

Yes, but they lied about it.

They couldn't compete with C/N in the DSLR arena,

Many didn't agree with those previously pointing this out on this forum. Hindsight?

so they headed off in a new direction and appear to be doing quite well there.

In this I totally agree. In fact, m4/3rds is starting to pull in CaNikon pro drivers.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54020798

This is an awesome result even though Olympus is yet to make a profit.

My beef isn't with the current state of affairs, it is how Olympus repeatedly miss-sold their original 4/3rds system. Olympus's bullsh!t statements is one of the reasons some on the forum had to wade through a great pile of stinking fertilizer while attempting to convey reality.

Personally, I think m4/3rds is a fantastic system and I have just added a m4/3rds camera to my stable.

I just wish Olympus (and everyone else) would put the bloody AA filters back on. Grrrrrrrr.

Michael M Fliegel
Michael M Fliegel Veteran Member • Posts: 3,679
Re: Markets and fertilizer
1

I sold my E30 after purchasing the EM1.  I don't miss the AA filter.  The EM1 is what the E5 should have been.

 Michael M Fliegel's gear list:Michael M Fliegel's gear list
Olympus E-520 Olympus PEN E-PL2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 +13 more
rovingtim Veteran Member • Posts: 8,644
Re: Markets and fertilizer

Michael M Fliegel wrote:

I sold my E30 after purchasing the EM1. I don't miss the AA filter. The EM1 is what the E5 should have been.

I agree in many ways, just not about the AA.

TrapperJohn Forum Pro • Posts: 16,488
In the world of advertising...

Canon is still trying to convince people that OIS is better than IBIS. Since the advent of the 5 axis IBIS that stabilizes video in the roll axis (OIS can't do this), Canon's position is open to considerable interpretation.

Canon, Nikon, and now Sony are saying that bigger sensors are better. As tech advances, that is also open to some interpretation, though it's not as cut and dried as comparing OIS to Oly's 5 axis IBIS.

Sony is trying to convince us that body specs are all that matter - quality glass isn't important. How accurate is that?

Every company tries to promote its products. Some get more absurd about it than others.

Actually, had Oly been able to put a Sony/Exmor sensor in the E5, they might have had something. 4/3 struggled for years because the sensors just weren't all that good - the EM5 proved that with it's Exmor based sensor and dazzling performance. It wasn't that the older 4/3 sensor was smaller, it was that the sensor just wasn't all that good as compared to the competition, and probably wouldn't have done that well in APS or FF form either.

But, that was then, this is now.

-- hide signature --

There is no such thing as a lie, there is only the expedient exaggeration.

Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant) in North by Northwest... one of my all time favorite films.

Big Ga Forum Pro • Posts: 18,623
Re: In the world of advertising...

TrapperJohn wrote:

Actually, had Oly been able to put a Sony/Exmor sensor in the E5, they might have had something. 4/3 struggled for years because the sensors just weren't all that good - the EM5 proved that with it's Exmor based sensor and dazzling performance. It wasn't that the older 4/3 sensor was smaller, it was that the sensor just wasn't all that good as compared to the competition, and probably wouldn't have done that well in APS or FF form either.

No, the older 4/3 sensor wasn't as good as the competition, AND it was smaller.

But its funny that now (M)4/3 at last has a sensor that's contemporary in performance, all of a sudden people are willing to admit that the old technology was lagging behind the others.

I tried to point this out when I did my comparisons back around 2007 - that on a number of tests, there was MORE than the predicted two stops difference in performance between say an E3 and a D3. People here didn't want to know.

But, that was then, this is now.

Indeed.

And denial isn't a long river in Egypt.

goblin
goblin Veteran Member • Posts: 3,524
Re: In the world of advertising...
1

Big Ga wrote:

that on a number of tests, there was MORE than the predicted two stops difference in performance between say an E3 and a D3.

FWIW - on a comparison between a $4999 camera and a $1799 one - I still wouldn't want to know. There's always a bigger fish.

 goblin's gear list:goblin's gear list
Ricoh GXR P10 28-300mm F3.5-5.6 VC Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma dp2 Quattro +73 more
Roger Engelken
Roger Engelken Veteran Member • Posts: 5,429
The Past and Burials
1

My beef isn't with the current state of affairs, it is how Olympus repeatedly miss-sold their original 4/3rds system. Olympus's bullsh!t statements is one of the reasons some on the forum had to wade through a great pile of stinking fertilizer while attempting to convey reality.

Personally, I think m4/3rds is a fantastic system and I have just added a m4/3rds camera to my stable.

I just wish Olympus (and everyone else) would put the bloody AA filters back on. Grrrrrrrr.

Olympus miss-sold their original 4/3rds system.

That is the past.  Lamenting about it over and over again will not change it.  We cannot change the past in any way.  Many may not like that, but that is the way it is.

In other words, bury it and move on.

I will concur on the new m 4/3 additions, and I'll give it to you on the AA filters.

Roger.

 Roger Engelken's gear list:Roger Engelken's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Olympus E-M1 II +10 more
Denjw
Denjw Veteran Member • Posts: 6,349
Re: The Past and Burials

Well said Roger. I don't understand why people keep regurgitation the mistakes Olympus has made in the past. Surely every major brand manufacturer has made misleading marketing satements over promising and underdelivering to their consumer base in many varied ways? How often does the marketing hype live up to the reality?

Most people disappointed with Olympus 4/3 system made the decision to switch systems and move on without the need to continue to bash Olympus's shortcomings.

-- hide signature --
 Denjw's gear list:Denjw's gear list
Olympus E-300 Olympus E-30 Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 II +16 more
Big Ga Forum Pro • Posts: 18,623
Re: In the world of advertising...

goblin wrote:

Big Ga wrote:

that on a number of tests, there was MORE than the predicted two stops difference in performance between say an E3 and a D3.

FWIW - on a comparison between a $4999 camera and a $1799 one - I still wouldn't want to know. There's always a bigger fish.

FWIW - when a few months later you could get a D90 for $800 which also gave MORE than simply the predicted difference in sensor performance between 4/3 and APSc, you should have wanted to know.

TrapperJohn Forum Pro • Posts: 16,488
The irony is...
1

The original vision behind 4/3 was: digital, combined with a mount and lens designed for digital, could yield a smaller system with more precise lenses than could recycling the 35mm film specification.

This finally came true, once they got a sensor that could do justice to the mount, plus a few other things like state of the art IBIS. Right idea, that was ahead of the sensor tech of the early 2000's.

Today, we're seeing quite a few people adding a µ43 setup to their big rig, only to find that they're leaving the big rig at home more often than not.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads