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

Young people are also early adopters and technology savvy. They like new tech and all electronic. Many go for SONY when they want FF. Its a strong brand with that age group.

I see only one lens good for sports from m4/3 system and that is 40-150mm f/2.8 pro. Add teleconverter and you have 56-210mm f/4 with same lens.

Now Panasonic has 50-200mm that you must use as f/4 regardless it is f/2.8-4, because you can not get ISO raising or shutter speed changing shower when you zoom in.

So two lenses at f/4, 56-210mm and 50-200mm.

But not enough. And m4/3 doesn't have any zoom lens past 210mm that is f/4 or faster.

Why if Olympus releases 150-450mm (3x zoom) f/4 zoom, it will turn serious look at the system from many.
As of one can go from 12mm to 100mm and from 150mm to 450mm with f/4, it would be serious benefit. Combine with 12-40 and 40-150 with f/2.8 and four lenses and two bodies makes very capable system.

Yes they do as Sony is now the new and radical innovator who "invented mirrorless".

And when these young people read about equivalence, they take it without any salt. As they don't even think twice about final quality.

It is more difficult to sell the equivalence to mid aged who can rationally look at the final quality and only come to conclusion that equivalence doesn't matter, so they don't need FF as they already have knowledge without fear that what they need. The older people can go to rationale route by size and weight but as well their needs, but more are unfamiliar about digital technology why digital cameras can be little mystic with experience from earlier digital cameras and equivalence goes well to them as well.

It is easy for many to understand m4/3 ain't inferior by IQ when you show them the proof on table and they can see there ain't such difference as claimed in final photographs.

It really requires that you can get the person sit down and look the prints and judge visually the difference, not mathematically or wrong from the raw files etc.

Sorry but C-AF ain't big deal. Even more important than that is face detection and eye detection.
Most important is fast S-AF, and to be faster than what m4/3 offers is difficult.

Most people don't use sequential release, but single release. You take photo by pressing shutter release each time you want a photo.

You can see the same marketing talks in different markets, what is done to draw idea for customer for possibilities, not for reality what they need.

And you can see this happening all the time, people go and buy the next "big thing" for Christmas or for holiday etc, only to find that after some time they are not interested anymore.

It is like owning a sailboat, you get 2-3 weeks a year to really sail with it, then you just fix it and service it and have it in harbor or dry dock.
And it is a far more expensive hobby than photography.
Even a flying is more often done, while being really far more expensive like 400€ per flight hour, piloting license and all other things.

Yet you don't see everyone buying sailboats and airplanes...

The anecdotal friend, who loves his EM-10 MKII with a grip, a 14-150 and the Panasonic 25 f/1.7, who takes wonderful travel pics of the cruises he and his wife go on twice a year vs. his son who never owned a camera and thinks he has to have a SONY FF for snapshots of his first baby due in August, and will never be a serious photographer.

If the SONY has something like iAuto, good change its all he will ever use. This is a guy who can do well most of the time with a cell phone or the cheapest one-lens standard zoom kit he can find, or something like a Panasonic LX100 which I think would be an excellent choice for him.

DLBlack wrote:

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

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.

-- hide signature --

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3380136992_7c5a0986ea_m.jpg

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

"Size matters" in this sub-thread started taking about the E-M1 Mkii and/or the rumor E-M1 Mkiii. The GX9 and the rumor E-M1 Mkiii might be a good comparison. It all depends on the specs and design niche of the future E-M5 Mkiii.

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.

Nearly all the MFT cameras the past several years have been good cameras for the market niches that they were designed for.

I agree whilst remaining disappointed with the E-M10iii (and the GF7 and its successors).

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.

All cameras are designed for a price bracket. Even the flagship cameras have a few price compromises. Maybe price compromising was a reason that the E-M1 Mkii didn't get a class leading EVF. The E-M10 Mkiii is a great entry level camera with things simplified for a beginner.

This is my issue - there seemed to be a need to make it entry-level rather than just a compact little brother of the E-M1ii (so it does not have to have the ultimate grunt, but it could at least be made so that it does not seem beginner “twee” for the serious user.  The GM series cameras were tiny fully fledged cameras with every bit of horsepower that Panasonic could pack into a body that small.  However, much of the market sees “small” as not a proper camera and only suitable for beginners, or those whose interests are basic, or simply as a backup camera (same as previous indicator really).  The GF7 reprised this with a camera marketed straight at lower interest level use - accordingly the GM set has largely ignored it - even if it is apparently a good enough basic camera - it is not made as an enthusiasts camera.

The E-M5 Mkii or the Pen F is the enthusiast level cameras from Olympus. The GX9 had compromises to like the EVF to meet a price bracket.

Some like myself have no issues with the evf on the GX9 and prefer the compact size it allows.  I don’t have  GX9 because I am still in love with my GX7 and GX85 and hardly need yet another camera of this exact style.  Besides I did buy a G9 and one part of me is saying that maybe if I had known the GX9 was not far away I should have waited.  It is a nice camera but a big lump of one that is hardly necessary.  But M4/3 buyers have a proven track record of seeing only large cameras as proper cameras.

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.

A rumor has that Olympus will be announce two cameras early next year. We will see what the mid-level vs the flagship levels have and don't have. I can see both cameras having the same sensor. I can see the flagship model having a bigger body for better ergonomics, and more direct controls better heat dispersion. I can see the flagship model having more processing power, more buffer space and more bandwidth. These things all cost more money. The mid-level camera I can see having a smaller body with fewer direct controls, smaller EVF, less processing power, buffer space and bandwidth. This will reduce the price but still will make for a great camera for a enthusiast.

We shall see.  M4/3 needs Olympus to be making cameras for the system and there has been a noticable drought in new body types for a while now - and next year is still quite a while away.

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.

When comparing the GX9 to the G9:

1. The EVF is got as good.

This is debatable - some quite like it, others don’t really care, a few cannot stand it - but there are other choices for those that like a larger evf - G85, G9, GH5/s

2. The ergonomics is not as good.

Bigger grip?  Useful mainly for large lenses.  As far as the actual controls are concerned I would prefer the GX7/GX85 (by implication also the GX9) to the G9 - but I do have a preference for enthusiast type smaller bodies (so I am biased )

3. The direct controls are not as good.

Not sure about that - it is only because the G9 is so highly customisable that it can be made more GX7/GX85 like and therefore more intuitively usable.  Out of the box it is not a really good user interface.  The battery grip control structure is not well thought out at all.

Still the GX9 is a nice camera, especially for users that value compact size over other things. It is great having choices. I do prefer a rangefinder style body over the DSLR style body, but I much more prefer the tings that the G9 or the E-M1 Mkii provides.

One day someone will make a RF-style body with a slr-type grip

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.

For most enthusiast the GX9 is a very good camera.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

-- hide signature --

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3380136992_7c5a0986ea_m.jpg

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.

You are talking unsupportable rubbish. All you can see at that distance is a textural difference that spans many pixels, you cannot see a resolution difference.

”PDAF is excellent in continuous focusing as it can measure the distance changes and keep moving focus motor predicting where contrast will be. PDAF will become superior when the subject distance starts to be erratic and unpredictable and continuous direct measurement is required. This is in situations like a wild horse that is jumping left and right at different distances or a butterfly that is flying as its distance changes between each shot closer and further instead linearly.”

=”kids”

Haven't had any problems photographing kids (3-7 old, sugar batteries) with just S-AF. The two already compete in horse races with a normal horses instead ponies because their skill level, and even there S-AF ain't problem at all to time all 80-120cm obstacles etc. The main challenge indoors at winter time is shutter speed, not the focusing.

Having Jaegers to perform close quarter combat, tactical hand to hand and close engagements, all kind services from parajumping to storming buildings, S-AF does fine and already E-M1 level PDAF does great.

S-AF is as fast as C-AF with only one difference, single vs continuous.

1. Tommi K1 wrote:

Haven't had any problems photographing kids (3-7 old, sugar batteries) with just S-AF. The two already compete in horse races with a normal horses instead ponies because their skill level, and even there S-AF ain't problem at all to time all 80-120cm obstacles etc. The main challenge indoors at winter time is shutter speed, not the focusing.

Having Jaegers to perform close quarter combat, tactical hand to hand and close engagements, all kind services from parajumping to storming buildings, S-AF does fine and already E-M1 level PDAF does great.

S-AF is as fast as C-AF with only one difference, single vs continuous.

My experience matches yours actually, only I’d rate my hit rate for kids/people in motion as pretty bad. And it gets worse indoors. DFD hasn’t done miracles for me, the E-M1 with its rather primitive PDAF does better (how much of that is due to generally better processing speed is hard for me to tell).

I actually have better luck with Single Shot AF than with continous, which isn’t really how it’s supposed to work out.

Basically, I see a lot of room for improvement here, not only in the basic performance per se which may be reasonable, but in keeping subject tracking under various conditions, which may depend as much on general image analysis speed and algorithms as on underlying hardware capabilities.

Sorry but you have no idea what you are now talking about...

Sorry but 8K is pixel peepers dream, not useful for most people at all.

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Its certainly true that the E-M1 mk 2 is overkill for many folks. But if all you need is PDAF for tracking AF, you could certainly get an original version EM.

Tracking doesn't require a PDAF but works as great with a CDAF.

People confuse tracking and continuous autofocus, that are totally different technologies.

Tracking is about automatic AF point selection, continuous Auto focus is about continuous focussing by using selected AF points.

Tracking has as well other sub modes like face detection, that first gets detected and then tracked and it's selecting the AF points used for focusing.
Same is with scene detection, to automatically select where to focus as well.

Autofocus had nothing to do with tracking, scene or face detection. Autofocus system only task is to measure distance from used AF point and move lens focus group so it is in focus.

Photographer can select manually what AF point to be used for focusing and track the subject manually by pointing camera at it trying to keep selected AF points on subject.

I said it made profit, not that it is making our have made continually profit. Hence past tense...

And they can come to make profit, but it doesn't matter as Olympus is medical company, not camera company.