What's happening, Olympus? And the E-M5 III ?

Size matters wrote:

Some very interesting discussion points here but I am afraid the original post and many responses miss some huge points that make a lot of it irrelevant.

Firstly, you cannot compare Olympus, and in particular the E-M1 mk2 to any other manufacturer as follows:

1. Size - Olympus are now the only manufacturer of a small professional standard high speed body that offers full functionality witbout a grip and small exceptionally high quality lenses.

Take an A7 mk 3. Great camera, huge lenses. Fuji bodies need the grips for full speed and the lenses are bigger and heavier, plus the XH1 is bigger too. Panas G9 is bigger than the Oly and needs the big grip for parity. A big package. Canon mirrorless lacks native lenses and once the adapter is used the lenses are huge. Nikon is really a wait and see.

2. Weight - fof the same spec as the E-M1 mk 2 and lenses, everything else is heavier. For my outfit, the Sony system is 10 kg heavier and the Canon/Nikon 15kg heavier.

3. Cost. I have 2 E-M1 mk 2's plus the full range of Pro lenses. To get the exact same field of view (equivalent focal lengths) and the same apertures, The Canon Nikon and Sony direct equivalents cost over £25,000 more than the Oly system.

So folks, the Oly is about great quality, plus size, weight and cost advantahges over any comparable camera or system. There just isn't s real world competitor going to happen. You are comparing apples with pears, so Oly really don't have to fear Canon, Nikon, Sony or Fuji when their customers are driven by size weight and cost.

Do I know what I am talking about? Well I will be exhibiting and speaking at Photokinaso there is a chance that I do....😁

Blush

You missed the GX9.

Mike Arledge wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Daiken wrote:

I'm okay with Olympus killing off the E-M5 line. Keep the E-M1, E-M10, and the Pen line and that's it.

As for what Olympus is doing, I dont know but whatever they're doing better be good and fast because I think the competition is really encroaching on their market share right now. There's stiff competition coming from every side and the fact that they havent upgraded their entire line yet to use the 20mp sensors spells trouble imo. A 12mm f1.2 isn't going to save the system.

But the E-M1 line is the one that is threatened, from the Sony and soon the Canikon FF mirrorless cameras. Maybe it should be merged into the E-M5 III to produce a lower priced and more sustainable product.

I am no smart enough to know if that makes good business sense, but as a camera owner, I would prefer that route for me. I see so much in the E-M1 II that I don't need out of Micro 4/3, but I would love my E-M5ii to a sensor upgrade and say PDAF... otherwise it can stay exactly the same.

Yes, I suppose the day of the good-enough camera is here and if the camera is good-enough then why not buy a smarter lens?  Plenty seem to be arriving on the scene.

It has always been surprising to me that they is always this hankering after a new broom camera body with a sensor that will make dreams of perfect images come true with a the known relaisation that in a few years an even better camera will replace it - more expense and constant roll-over of bodies when a great lens give an immediate step up in image performance and will be still doing that continually for a lifetime of use.

Oh - but I suppose that great lenses tend to be expensive - more expensive than yet another camera body.  Thereby might hang the tale.  Great lenses are unlikely to be rolled over (sold) to buy yet another great lens - more accumulative stuff and therefore need more funds to buy because there is less chance that something can be sold to replace it with something a bit better.

Humansvillian wrote:

The folks that want full frame cameras aren't going to be buying Olympus.

Olympus makes Micro Four Thirds cameras.

You can buy a PL9, an OMD M10 III, an OMD M5 II, a Pen F, or an OMD M 1 II, and the gadgets will accept every lens ever made for the MFT system, and the menus will be about the same as the first PL1 you ever owned.

Better yet, you can hand your Olympus camera to your wife, and she can take a picture like this one while she's at a Farmer's Market and you are someplace else.

And the same MFT camera, will scratch the itch an amatuer photopgrapher has for an excellent small camera system, with affordable interchangeable lenses.

Olympus needs a new PL1, not a new OMD M5 III.

Among the best sensible posts to that point in this thread. Well said!

Guy Parsons wrote:

MShot wrote:

A SONY engineer told me sensor upgrades still take 3 years and they can't do anything to speed it up.

Plus of course trying to negotiate time on the sensor production line as those darn smartphone cameras with multiple cameras are keeping them busy. Just a guess, but that's where the money really comes from.

Software upgrades take 18 months. It pretty much brackets what camera makers can do.

Yes, think of a new camera design and if in an extreme hurry and things go right it would be maybe 2 years to see it, though more like 3 years from idea to shelf at the fastest.

My guess is the current design panic is the onset of 8K mania that is trying to be pumped up along with the 2020 Tokyo Olympics - that could be draining valuable R&D efforts.

Regards..... Guy

Consider the Olympus “hiccup” (some years ago now).  Perhaps R&D expenditure hit the wall then?  I have no real knowledge of just how long the gestation process might be for serious R&D on new projects before the end result make it to the shops. But a R&D hole may well have ensued which has eventually migrated down the line to recent slower releases of higher technology cameras.  Even if R&D had just been compromised and the tap not completely shut off then all resources may well have been directed towards completing the E-M1ii project.

If this is indeed so then with better times serious R&D might well be on-line again and some patience will be duly rewarded.

I can easily conceive that the necessary R&D, design and tooling process for new lenses might take less time from concept to finished product.

itguy08 wrote:

goodbokeh wrote:

8K is just around the corner, so let's hope your dream comes true. If Olympus/Panasonic don't substantially upgrade sensor technology to 33MP @ 16X9 then it's going to be curtains very soon.

Who is asking for 8k? We have no 4k broadcast at all and limited streaming 4k. To top that all off there are not a lot of 4k sets out there.

I'm all for more resolution as the more the better as it makes cropping not lose detail.

Agree... 4K isn’t yet fully implemented.

No doubt 8K TVs will come some time. But unless I’m closer than 2m I can’t resolve that my 65” 4K Sony is any better than my previous FullHD. And a still image cast to it is just 8Mp. I just finished processing my recent trip to New England (in NSW), with my EM1.2 and Pro lenses and everyone gets downsampled when cast direct to the TV. But they look stunningly sharp and colourful. I’m struggling to rationalise that I “need” anything better than my EM1.2. Wonderful camera, great lenses, and totally satisfying to use.

There is only so much balderdash one can stomach in this thread. Hyperbole, assumptions and opinion dressed as facts... oh my...

Have you heard of Panasonic?

DLBlack wrote:

The GX9 is a nice camera but in a totally different class than the E-M1 Mkii. Consumer level versus pro-level.

I am sorry if my post was too brief to be clear.  The thread is mainly about the mythical E-M5iii.

I was thinking E-M5ii/iii versus GX9 and I didn’t think that the E-M5 as a type was really pro-level material - although I would easily acknowldege that it is a fine camera.

The GX9 is more a close relative to the G9 but scaled back to a more consumer price bracket. I was interested in the E-M10iii as a compact E-M1ii clone until I found out that it was unashamedly aimed at the entry level market.

Surely Olympus will not deign to make an E-M5iii that rivals their flagship E-M1ii at a more affordable price. This would possibly mean deliberately “crippling” (for want of a better word) the E-M5iii with features that could be easily handed down from the E-M1ii so as not to upset their flagship’s market.

The GX9 might be said to be a crippled G9 but only as far as the evf and lack of grip is concerned. And as I have never had any issue with the smaller field sequential evf I don’t really regard this as a negative - in fact I prefer the more compact RF shape and willingly accept the smaller field sequential evf as the necessary compromise that must be made.

Therefore if the G9 is regarded as pro-level (and I think that it must) then the GX9 must be close enough at a more consumer-level price bracket.

MShot wrote:

Have you heard of Panasonic?

Sometimes we might wonder if there is only one star in the M4/3 sky (grin)

And the GX9 with all the doo-dahs of the G9 except its size and great big evf and faux-dslr shape is not a pro-level camera - presumably because it is at a more affordable price.

Foto4x4 wrote:

itguy08 wrote:

goodbokeh wrote:

8K is just around the corner, so let's hope your dream comes true. If Olympus/Panasonic don't substantially upgrade sensor technology to 33MP @ 16X9 then it's going to be curtains very soon.

Who is asking for 8k?

Not me.

We have no 4k broadcast at all and limited streaming 4k. To top that all off there are not a lot of 4k sets out there.

I'm all for more resolution as the more the better as it makes cropping not lose detail.

Agree... 4K isn’t yet fully implemented.

Freely available but 4K content is rare. Except for one's own camera.

No doubt 8K TVs will come some time.

Watch for Samsung announcements August 29th and sales begin before end of 2018. The 98" screen available in 2019 it seems from this Forbes report...... https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2018/06/28/samsung-announces-two-new-ranges-of-8k-tvs-and-discusses-future-8k-tv-tech/#4d1b71ba7caa

Start saving, pixel nerds.

But unless I’m closer than 2m I can’t resolve that my 65” 4K Sony is any better than my previous FullHD.

Dead true, it's just the other smart features that are usually in the new 4K TVs that make them a more useful product. The OLED HDR screens look nice but this little bunny is not going to spend that much money to watch crummy TV content, though my own piccies would look nicer on them.

And a still image cast to it is just 8Mp.

Sit back comfortably and even about 1MP images look good on my 4K TV.

I just finished processing my recent trip to New England (in NSW), with my EM1.2 and Pro lenses and everyone gets downsampled when cast direct to the TV. But they look stunningly sharp and colourful. I’m struggling to rationalise that I “need” anything better than my EM1.2. Wonderful camera, great lenses, and totally satisfying to use.

For TV display (stills or ProShow Gold slide shows) and maybe some random photo books and some large prints for the wall then M4/3 does it all.

There is only so much balderdash one can stomach in this thread. Hyperbole, assumptions and opinion dressed as facts... oh my...

Agree.

Regards...... Guy

MShot wrote:

They have something in the oven. They know they can't stand still. They would have to exit the business.

Olympus forecasts an increase in mirrorless camera unit sales, so they must have some new product planned.

Source: Olympus

Tommi K1 wrote:.

Correction, Olympus Camera division made profit,

Yes, and no.

That division made a loss, due to expenses from closing their factory in China. They forecast a camera division loss for FY2019 for the same reason.

If not for those expenses, the camera division would have been profitable for both years.

Tom Caldwell wrote:

DLBlack wrote:

The GX9 is a nice camera but in a totally different class than the E-M1 Mkii. Consumer level versus pro-level.

I am sorry if my post was too brief to be clear. The thread is mainly about the mythical E-M5iii.

I was thinking E-M5ii/iii versus GX9 and I didn’t think that the E-M5 as a type was really pro-level material - although I would easily acknowldege that it is a fine camera.

please tell me what does the em52 lack in a pro studio situation ?

The GX9 is more a close relative to the G9 but scaled back to a more consumer price bracket. I was interested in the E-M10iii as a compact E-M1ii clone until I found out that it was unashamedly aimed at the entry level market.

Surely Olympus will not deign to make an E-M5iii that rivals their flagship E-M1ii at a more affordable price. This would possibly mean deliberately “crippling” (for want of a better word) the E-M5iii with features that could be easily handed down from the E-M1ii so as not to upset their flagship’s market.

The GX9 might be said to be a crippled G9 but only as far as the evf and lack of grip is concerned. And as I have never had any issue with the smaller field sequential evf I don’t really regard this as a negative - in fact I prefer the more compact RF shape and willingly accept the smaller field sequential evf as the necessary compromise that must be made.

Therefore if the G9 is regarded as pro-level (and I think that it must) then the GX9 must be close enough at a more consumer-level price bracket.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

goodbokeh wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

Foto4x4 wrote:

itguy08 wrote:

goodbokeh wrote:

8K is just around the corner, so let's hope your dream comes true. If Olympus/Panasonic don't substantially upgrade sensor technology to 33MP @ 16X9 then it's going to be curtains very soon.

Who is asking for 8k?

Not me.

We have no 4k broadcast at all and limited streaming 4k. To top that all off there are not a lot of 4k sets out there.

I'm all for more resolution as the more the better as it makes cropping not lose detail.

Agree... 4K isn’t yet fully implemented.

Freely available but 4K content is rare. Except for one's own camera.

No doubt 8K TVs will come some time.

Watch for Samsung announcements August 29th and sales begin before end of 2018. The 98" screen available in 2019 it seems from this Forbes report...... https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2018/06/28/samsung-announces-two-new-ranges-of-8k-tvs-and-discusses-future-8k-tv-tech/#4d1b71ba7caa

Start saving, pixel nerds.

But unless I’m closer than 2m I can’t resolve that my 65” 4K Sony is any better than my previous FullHD.

Dead true, it's just the other smart features that are usually in the new 4K TVs that make them a more useful product. The OLED HDR screens look nice but this little bunny is not going to spend that much money to watch crummy TV content, though my own piccies would look nicer on them.

And a still image cast to it is just 8Mp.

Sit back comfortably and even about 1MP images look good on my 4K TV.

I just finished processing my recent trip to New England (in NSW), with my EM1.2 and Pro lenses and everyone gets downsampled when cast direct to the TV. But they look stunningly sharp and colourful. I’m struggling to rationalise that I “need” anything better than my EM1.2. Wonderful camera, great lenses, and totally satisfying to use.

For TV display (stills or ProShow Gold slide shows) and maybe some random photo books and some large prints for the wall then M4/3 does it all.

There is only so much balderdash one can stomach in this thread. Hyperbole, assumptions and opinion dressed as facts... oh my...

Agree.

Regards...... Guy

I have a 2018 65" 4K (8MP) LG OLED TV. Before I moved the old TV to the bedroom I did a photo slide show test. I could Easily see the difference in resolution vs my Samsung 1080P (2MP) 60" TV from10 feet away in my easy chair. So that 2 meter distance referenced is wrong for me and I'm sure many others. I wear glasses corrected to 20/15.

Also to be remembered is that the pixels on TV sets are full RGB pixels, not Bayer sub pixels. (Counted in camera terms, that 4k TV is 7680x4320. Of course, it should be the other way around, counting sub pixels is a dubious remnant of when digital photo resolutions were really low.)

8k video resolution is definitely coming, wanted by photo buffs or not. It will be a broadcast format at the Tokyo olympics, but mostly it will be a check box feature for cell phone manufacturers. It will offer superior downsampled to 4k image quality, 4k slow motion due to the high readout speeds, as well as the full 8k image extraction/pre shutter/stacking/et cetera box of features.

Everyone may not want that. I do.

Source material for display will at least initially be self generated. There are distribution issues with 8k material that is worked on but will take years to overcome. Does that matter? Should film and photography only capture to the limit of the common output at the day of capture, or will someone like to watch them in the future as well? Is having headroom such a strange concept?

Prices for screens will come down, interface standards are in place, and so on. I can easily buy a 4k screen today for a few hundred, so there is little doubt that 8k screens will fall in price quickly as there is no technical reason why not, but manufacturers will want to milk early adopters for profit for as long as they can.

At the end of this path you want to get rid of resolution as a limitation. You want enough sensor resolution to fully capture what the lens passes on without undersampling artifacts, and you want display options that can transmit that without the eye catching on artifacts caused by limited output resolution.

We aren’t there yet, but we could be there relatively soon.

And just as with cell phone screens it will be a relief just not having to care about those limitations ever again.

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Olympus does not make sensors. If it can get the next big thing, an organic or global shutter, it would have to be supplied by someone else, most likely Fuji, Panasonic or Sony. What I mean is that all these camera makers will also be able to buy if not make those sensors themselves and put them into their own cameras. By that time that technology is available, the Olympus E-M1 III will probably be competing with a Sony A7 IV, or a Fuji X-H2, which will also have an organic sensor.

Actually Olympus does make own sensors, it just doesn't fabricate them for mass production.

Olympus has lithography and fabrication capability for small batches for their development and research purposes.

Olympus has not just patented something that doesn't exist, it has patents as white papers for working prototypes it has made itself, for as well organic sensors and all kind other ones.

Olympus just does need to pay someone to make production runs in large scale.

E-M1 III is coming in early next year, so sooner than you think.

I'm more interest in the content on the display and good audio than the display. A fantastic display is still boring if the content is boring. Great content is great on any display.

I sit 10-12 feet from a 42" screen. 12-15 feet from a 65" screen, can't see the difference between 1080 and 4K from there and don't care. I'm watching the content, not marveling at pixel count.

A 720 ED TV is good enough for me. I never wish the resolution was higher. For me 8K, don't care a bit about it. Don't even need or use 4K.

Sergey Borachev wrote:

I may be wrong, but I don't think I am too far off. Based on what I read here, people's profiles and what they told us, and gut feel, it seems there are many more older photogs (including myself) and birders using MZ43 than other gear.

I would say that from DPR forum overall, as on the field there are more mid aged than soon to retire...

And young ones (15-30) are going to pick up easily FF because they think it is required and that makes them better photographer.

In other words, they are very easily in same position than elderly that get affected by equivalence talks and get illusion that FF is the way to go.