Where are the Olympus cameras?....

bet they finally address their convoluted menues before they pack in M3/4

Sometimes it baffles me how much money people want to spend on cameras. What is it with wanting a new model before even getting fully familiar with using the last one?

Surely it isn't necessary to upgrade so often.

I'd far sooner manufacturers wait a little longer to replace their current models and provide a substantial improvement when they do. This drip feed of incremental changes must be a tremendous draw on R&D resource and it is certainly screwing money from those photographers who always jump at the 'latest and greatest' iteration no matter how insubstantial the improvements are.

James Stirling wrote:

MEDISN wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

MEDISN wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Okapi001 wrote:

cpt kent wrote:

2016 - Three (that’s better) - E-M1ii, Pen F, E-PL8

They are too good;-) Even after 2 years, E-M1 II is still one of the most feature-rich camera, regardless of system. It's hard to beat 80 mpix hi-res, 60 frames/sec ...

Yep that is why Olympus camera division makes so much money , oh wait....

Neither does The Boring Company's "Not-A-FlameThrower" but they sure are fun.

I had to Google that as I did not get the reference What the hell were they thinking

The 80mpix thing gives at best 50mp of detail it is no better than the results from multiple high MP FF cameras

You say that like it's a bad thing! I can get 50MP OOC from a $1000 pocket cam. Remind me how much those "high MP FF" camera's cost?

I can do the same by stitching images from any camera the old way with the same limitations it just tales a bit longer in post

How much time does that take away from actual shooting? How much does that software cost? Does stitching images increase DR? Does it eliminate moire?

Yes it does eliminate moire, and increase DR

https://photography.tutsplus.com/tutorials/how-to-create-high-dynamic-range-and-panoramic-images-in-adobe-lightroom--cms-23982

I think you’re conflating stitching and bracketing.  Stitching will not increase DR as it is limited to the DR of each file placed “stitched” next to each other.  HDR, as the link your reference states, is achieved by exposure bracketing.  Pixel shift increases resolution, increases DR and eliminates moire.  The only way to do that in post sans-pixel shift would be to shoot bracketed sets of photos that you then merge in to HDR then stitch the resulting HDR files together.  Why bother when the camera can do this in a few seconds without all the fuss?

, with the serious limitations of having to be bolted to a tripod

Here we go again. This simply isn't the case. The camera must be stationary, that is all.

Look at any of the vegetation in the image I am sorry but that is not sharp

It was shot with a 9-18. Not exactly a sharp lens.

Well get the big guns out

Or shoot with what your brought.  The best camera in the world is the one you have with you.

Camera balanced on a wet log

Camera leaning against a water bottle

I very rarely travel with a tripod and when I do it's a 120g UltraPod.

I think looking at the pictures a heavier tripod may be useful It is not just about getting bigger files they need to be sharp .

You’re looking at a compressed 8-bit JPG with minimal sharpening in Lightroom. If I wanted sharp, I would toss it to Ps and unsharp mask with excellent results.

When you look at the little things that move like vegetation blowing in the wind the flags in the monument image , the weird look to the moving smoke and water

At long exposures ANY movement is going to get blurred. Nothing to do with high-res.

The pixel shift mode needs multiple times longer exposure than one shot from a high res shot and is therefore impacted by motion much more than single shots

Those shots are made of individual 1-2.5 sec shots.  Too slow to freeze any motion whether pixel shift was used or not.  The alternative was to raise ISO 7-stops and “freeze motion”.  What would you have done?

and only useful on an absolutely static subject.

Or not...

This is no doubt handy within its shooting niche and I am hoping for an evolution of it going forward. You can of course get higher resolution the old fashioned way on any camera stuck on a tripod. It just takes a bit longer in post

Why bother when a $1000 pocket camera can generate a 50MP JPG and upload right from your phone? No need to purchase additional software and camp out at your computer.

The point is if I want big files by taking and stitching 8 images I can do it with any camera . My phone sucks I think it would choke on a 50mp file

And I can stitch 8 high-res images together, now what? 😆

Man that would be cool too see and involve a wee bit computer time

We need a genuine jump in image quality not features/gimmicks whatever you non- Luddites want to call them :-).

How much of a jump? To what end? Those "gimmicks" (high-res, live-composite, focus stacking, live bulb, time-lapse, Pro-Capture) accounted for 22% of my 4- and 5- star photos last year. Should I go back and delete those??

Most of those are gimmicks as far as I am concerned . I want a lower base ISO, cleaner shadows and a few more MP that I do not need to use a tripod for

Lucky for the rest of us, we’re not constrained by your preferences 😝

Just you wait the photo gods are listing to all my pleas , its a coming

Despite the ever amusing claims to the contrary that every Olympus camera since the E-M5 mk1 is a stop better it is abject nonsense { you are probably one of these optimistic chaps } If you added up all the claimed "stops better" in the forum we would have the best image quality in the world

Where was this said? Since you love DxO so much, there was a 13% improvement in sensor score from the EM5 - EM1mkII, yet only a 5% improvement in sensor score from the A7R to A7RIII. How can that be??

Those numbers are nonsense as can be very clearly seen looking at RAW files where the rubber hits the road.

They’re DxO numbers. You love DxO! Subjective assessment aside, I see no meaningful difference in any of the high MP FF sensors since 2012.

Here is the 2012 E-M5 vs the current 20mp E-M1II

Base ISO E-M5 up-sized to match E-MI II , that is a Feb 2012 model vs the best we currently have available , I fail to see years of advances in image quality . If you want features/ gimmicks happy days

3200 ISO I would not even shoot this high with m43, the E-M1II at the same output size is not even a stop better . I do not really care if ISO's above this are marginally less terrible than the other because they are all terrible

Same lack of progress we see in FF high-MP and DR cams over the same 5 year time period.

They don't need it they already have all the things missing from m43 files . That is my point . I already have two 42mp FF bodies, and a 36mp FF body with clean shadows and the rest . It is debatable how much more FF needs regarding image quality advances. m43 could do with a few .

Sounds rather arbitrary. Who decides what is good enough for which format?

The guy parting with the cash to buy it

As the Sony 1" sensors are getting more of the latest sensor tech before m43 I can see the gap closing .

Which 1” sensor has 10ms readout and the dynamic range of the EM1mkII from 2016?

At their respective base ISO you can see that the Sony 1" sensor is pretty similar to the E-M1II

You’re judging this based on compressed JPG in a web browser from a beta version of ACR? Download both and open in ACR.  The EM1mkII looks better to me at every ISO.  Once we match the shutter speeds, it’s no contest.

The data looks like m43 has lost some market share

And? Nikon and Sony both experienced larger sales declines than Olympus did last year. Canon is flat.

If the system gets much smaller the cost of developing new sensors in a size and ratio that no one else uses certainly no volume markets ,will increase per unit cost. When Sony makes an APS sensor it is used in their own cameras, in Nikon and Fuji and Pentax cameras . Same story with FF sensors, their 1" sensors are now used by Sony, Panasonic & Canon.

Base ISO DR the biggest weakness of m43 due to the shadow noise , size of sensor we cannot change and thus that difference is unavoidable. However it is greatly compounded by that damn 200 base ISO . Dpreview does not have DR test for the E-M5 1 but the mark two and other cameras use the same sensor. Think about it a base ISO shooter like myself can get as clean a shadow push on a Sony 1" sensor camera that sensor is roughly half the area of a m43 sensor,

And now you've sacrificed shutter speed. Match the shutter speeds of the D500 and Rx100 to the Olympus and watch what happens. But realistically, who is lifting shadows 5 EV? Why not expose for the shadows then?

It is only extreme on m43 because the results are terrible , in any of the Sony sensor APS or FF cameras the results are clean . For landscape shooting I am always shooting at base ISO I can get fine speeds at 64 or 100ISO I do not need to shoot at 200ISO . When your DR is limited you can either expose for shadows and impact the highlights or vice versa

Which is why, if the scene requires, I expose for the shadows - a common approach. +1EV clean shadows with little to no impact on highlights on Olympus files. i.e. ISO 100.

Those PDR tests really have little bearing on actual results , the fact that he uses the stated ISO by the manufacturer making zero attempt to compare like to like makes me doubt them as a comparison tool

If you don’t like the results, dismiss the test! The curve might be shifted left but the values measured remain.

Take a look at DPreviews controlled RAW DR test at their respective base ISO, do you think that the E-M1 II is a stop better than the RX100 mk5 at their best settings ?

When I download RAW and open in ACR, yes. Especially as ISO increases.

As the ISO increases I agree with you but my ISO rarely increases

The DR is higher everywhere including base ISO.

Yep we have now had 6 and half years with tiny real world advances in image quality , by the time the wonder camera comes along they will have had over 7 yrs to give us a meaningful upgrade. Which with regards to image quality I would argue they have not give us since Feb 2012, but man those features

This is true across all formats. There haven't been any meaningful IQ improvements in sensors since the 36MP Sony's hit in 2012.

The 36MP sensor arrived in the D800 in 2012 , Sony started using it in 2013

And was still a Sony sensor. Same old song and dance.

Honest question, Jim. Have you ever used Live Composite, Live Bulb, Pro-Capture, High-Res, or Focus Stacking?

I have been able to do focus stacking for decades :-), I can stitch images together from any camera and given the average age of the forum members I suspect that most will have been doing the same.

So I have to be at a computer, purchase additional software. How long does this take? What is that time worth to me? A cheap Olympus can do it in a few seconds and share instantly. Simple.

We have been shooting digital for many years I suspect there are few of us without computers or software . It is part of the fun for me just like developing and printing was part of the film experience. Without the toxic chemicals and you can do it in the light with a nice cup of tea

Fun?  Perhaps.  But time spent sitting in front of a computer is time spent not shooting.

Live composite and live bulb are probably useful especially for some niche subjects , handy for low light stuff in a system with noise problems . I do not have a camera with pro-capture though I have tried the similar Panasonic 4k burst mode . There are numerous test sites posting hundreds of RAW files to see samples of pixel shift or anything else you want to look at.

Living vicariously through others? 🤣 So you have ZERO first-hand experience with these features yet refer to them as gimmicks. Okay Jim!

I am a Luddite , I have similar chats in the Sony forum where some assure me it is nigh on impossible to take a portrait without using eye-AF Though I am going to try this out of curiosity

Could it be done?  Sure.  But why would you when eye-af makes portraits so easy?  Why chase down a taxi when an Uber will come to me when I want it?

Like everyone else in the forum I have spent a good few quid on m43 and stuck with it since 2009 . I firmly believe that we do not need more features/gimmicks ,

You’re not the only user!

Every m43 camera since the start has had a good feature set which has expanded in every generation . In fact if features were the gold standard of cameras , I honestly think the likes of the E-M1II and G9 would be very hard to trump in any system at any price.

unless there is some magical way to accelerate the pixel shift mode by a significant margin in which case I will east humble pie and jump on the camera Failing that is it really outrageous to want cleaner base ISO with a few more MP ? As far as photography goes I am indeed a Luddite and for me personally I am not making a joke when I call most of the features gimmicks .

You seem to have little photography interest outside of base ISO, high MP, heavy tripod landscape. Correct me if I’m wrong, I’ve never seen you share any of your work. If that is your primary interest, I’m not sure mFT was ever a good choice for you. That certainly wouldn’t be a reason for me to choose mFT.

I get this often , I post images regularly in the forums I post in the themed threads now and again . I post my landscape shots in more photography orientated forums which DPreview isn't . The problem is keeping up with my banned ID's I also do a fair bit of 4k video shooting which Panasonic in particular does very well. If I am at a party photographing my idiot mates doing some daft stuff when drunk { ah the joys of being a boring teetotaller }. I am not going to be using a large camera lens and tripod.

A wee fun snap I posted in the weekly photo thread last week , when my side of the bed was stolen by a handsome chap. I recently posted a batch of test shots on the Sony forum . For some reason I have a lot of trouble uploading to DPreview galleries

If that pixel shift mode can be accelerated notably by some Olympus voodoo .m43 could turn out to be the perfect landscape kit. High image quality , a great selection of lenses , in a small form factor ideal for hiking about the countryside

Handsome fellow!  We will see.  Pentax has implemented some sort of hand held pixel shift mode.  I haven’t read much about it though.

We have some superb lenses , great IBIS for video , my super camera which I am sure Olympus are busily developing right this minute Will come with a lower true base ISO and higher MP count , I do not care about how many FPS or pro-capture or most of the rest of the features unless they can do something clever with the pixel shift mode

Yet, I’ve come to employ on those “gimmicks” rather frequently. Adding a lower base ISO would be a bonus but I still want innovations that cater to my photographic interests.

I know I come a cross as a whinger but I honestly do not see my wants as outrageous . Hopefully the next wonder camera will answer all my wants

Lower base ISO is not too much to ask. But just because you don’t use in camera tools doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t 😜

Oh I am not saying do not put the gimmicks/features in just show those of us who do not need them some love. If they want to throw in a 100fps mode with the lower base ISO higher MP sensor I will not complain. My moaning is not about all the features per se but the lack of what matters to me . Yes I am being selfish , yes I am moaning and yes I am a PITA

No comment!  This is why I wish there were compact rangefinder style FF ILC cameras.  Something like where the new Fuji MF GFX is going but smaller still.  Something the shape of a GX8, PEN-F, XE3 but big enough to house a 45MP high DR sensor.  Pair with some compact Loxia-like primes and be done.

petreluk wrote:

SpinOne wrote:

petreluk wrote:

SpinOne wrote:

cpt kent wrote:

2018 - One new camera this year - E-PL9

2017 - One last year - E-M10iii

2016 - Three (that’s better) - E-M1ii, Pen F, E-PL8

2015 - Three - most notably, that’s the last E-M5 model...

(source: DPR product timeline)

I’m not saying they need to introduce something every 6 months, but the last couple of years have been a bit baron.

I only looked because I’m wondering, WHERE IS THE E-m5iii ???

It will probably be out some time in 2019.

Digital cameras are mature, and Olympus is doing pretty well with the E-M1 ii and Pen-F. The E-M5 iii probably won't add much, except a few meaningless MP on the sensor, and better AF. Meaning, there is almost nothing you will be able to do with the E-M5 iii that you can't do right now with an E-M1 Mk i.

The days of revolutionary M43 hardware are pretty much over. So it goes.

Where I live both the E-M1 Mark II and the Pen F now a bit look overpriced for what you get. The competition has caught up, particularly things like the G9. In the meantime the midrange E-M5 Mark II is showing its age and could really do with a sensor bump and PDAF focusing. There’s plenty of scope for a refresh so far as I can see. I’d expect Oly to come out with a strong contender or two before long because otherwise they will start losing customers.

The G9 is $500 more than the E-M1 ii, and $400 more than the Pen-F. The G9 is also designed more for large lenses. I'm not sure they are direct competitors.

I don't see the E-M5 Mk ii "showing its age." The AF is not as good as it should be, but that's been true since the day it came out. Otherwise, it seems like it has more features than a Nikon Z. Again, other than AF, I just don't see any radical changes coming for an E-M5 iii.

The G9 and EM1 II are direct competitors for anyone in M43. They are the flagship cameras of the range. And where I live, Panny so far have been the more aggressive with tasty discounts/sales (though time limited as they always are).

”The AF is not as good as it should be” (EM1.2) is a lost sale right there, at this level in the market and now that we are rushing towards 2019. Market standards are very, very high these days as they should be if customers are being asked to part with $$$.

In the same way, offering 2012-era 16 mpx and no pdaf on a midrange item (EM5.2) is a lost sale by now too. It’s just not competitive. Fuji, Canon or whoever will happily take the biz instead.

It’s not a question of expecting radical change from any new model, usually a once-a-decade event, otherwise fantasy and hype. However, all the camera companies are in business to sell new product - or they go out of business. It”s up to Olympus not us to produce good new cameras with good reasons to upgrade or buy them from scratch. Otherwise, yes, Oly will start to lose sales as people drift away. That’s not a good road to start down. The risk is being left with a shrinking band of die-hard users and only few new ones coming in. After that you end up like poor Pentax. No thanks.

I’d guess that Oly will square this either by jumping to FF or by staying on M43 with a view to exiting the biz over the next few years. There’s no future in offering uncompetitive products at fancy prices.

Yaay, yet another post that boils down to "If Olympus doesn't do exactly what I want, it's doomed!" Yawn

• Again, the G9 doesn't compete against every M43 model out there, in no small part because not every potential M43 user wants a camera of that size, form factor, emphasis and price. (In case you missed it, nearly every M43 body larger than a GM5 results in endless complaints that "M43 bodies are getting huge and it's ruining the Spirit of M43!!!")

• Again, AF is every bit an issue for the E-M5 ii today as at launch. The idea that this is somehow a new challenge makes no sense.

• You seem to be advocating putting out new models, with almost no substantive improvements, for the sake of putting out new models and... doing what, other than pleasing gearheads whose flappy-doodles twitch whenever a new camera is announced?

Launching a new camera, even one with minimal changes, is not free. It can take 2 years of development and testing, plus manufacturing and marketing costs, plus distribution and inventory, plus any costs in phasing out the old model. That old model, by the way, long paid off those launch costs, and thus the price can be lowered and/or generate more profit per unit. This is not to say that "new cameras are never profitable," only that it's usually not worth the cost unless it's going to have a real impact, especially for a smaller company like Olympus.

• Are you really saying that the only thing standing between Olympus and Corporate Doom is... putting out the E-M1 iii six months sooner than they originally planned? Have you thought this through?

Parkettpolitur wrote:

When I got my E-M1.1 (still using it) in 2013, the competition in the mirrorless world was completely different. Fuji had some decent cameras out, but no IBIS, and their funky X-Trans files didn't work (and still don't work) with my software of choice (DxO). Panasonic didn't have IBIS. Sony had just entered the fray with what I'd politely call decidedly first-gen products (A7/A7R) - and they too lacked IBIS. The E-M1 was the most rugged and responsive camera in its price class, it came with one of the greatest standard zooms money could buy, it had best-in-class stabilization and was just plain awesome. Now, though? Everyone else has caught up!

Did you really think that was never going to happen?

I still like M43, but honestly, I'm pretty excited to see Panasonic's announcement on Tuesday.

Rumors are that it will be a $4000 camera with the Leica SL mount, which means most of the lenses at launch will cost over $5000 each. Yay...?

Olympus haven't offered up anything remotely exciting since 2013....

Really?

There was nothing remotely exciting about the E-M5 ii, with high-res multishot? E-M1 ii, with a new sensor, no viewfinder blackout and insane framerates? No one blinked at built-in focus stacking? Hybrid stabilization?

Everything that distinguished them back then can now be had from other manufacturers as well, with better IQ, DR and noise performance to boot!

Uh huh. So, what can they invent, that won't be replicated in a year or two?

James Stirling wrote:

MEDISN wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

MEDISN wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

MEDISN wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Okapi001 wrote:

cpt kent wrote:

2016 - Three (that’s better) - E-M1ii, Pen F, E-PL8

They are too good;-) Even after 2 years, E-M1 II is still one of the most feature-rich camera, regardless of system. It's hard to beat 80 mpix hi-res, 60 frames/sec ...

Yep that is why Olympus camera division makes so much money , oh wait....

Neither does The Boring Company's "Not-A-FlameThrower" but they sure are fun.

I had to Google that as I did not get the reference What the hell were they thinking

The 80mpix thing gives at best 50mp of detail it is no better than the results from multiple high MP FF cameras

You say that like it's a bad thing! I can get 50MP OOC from a $1000 pocket cam. Remind me how much those "high MP FF" camera's cost?

I can do the same by stitching images from any camera the old way with the same limitations it just tales a bit longer in post

How much time does that take away from actual shooting? How much does that software cost? Does stitching images increase DR? Does it eliminate moire?

Yes it does eliminate moire, and increase DR

https://photography.tutsplus.com/tutorials/how-to-create-high-dynamic-range-and-panoramic-images-in-adobe-lightroom--cms-23982

I think you’re conflating stitching and bracketing. Stitching will not increase DR as it is limited to the DR of each file placed “stitched” next to each other. HDR, as the link your reference states, is achieved by exposure bracketing. Pixel shift increases resolution, increases DR and eliminates moire. The only way to do that in post sans-pixel shift would be to shoot bracketed sets of photos that you then merge in to HDR then stitch the resulting HDR files together. Why bother when the camera can do this in a few seconds without all the fuss?

, with the serious limitations of having to be bolted to a tripod

Here we go again. This simply isn't the case. The camera must be stationary, that is all.

Look at any of the vegetation in the image I am sorry but that is not sharp

It was shot with a 9-18. Not exactly a sharp lens.

Well get the big guns out

Or shoot with what your brought. The best camera in the world is the one you have with you.

Camera balanced on a wet log

Camera leaning against a water bottle

I very rarely travel with a tripod and when I do it's a 120g UltraPod.

I think looking at the pictures a heavier tripod may be useful It is not just about getting bigger files they need to be sharp .

You’re looking at a compressed 8-bit JPG with minimal sharpening in Lightroom. If I wanted sharp, I would toss it to Ps and unsharp mask with excellent results.

When you look at the little things that move like vegetation blowing in the wind the flags in the monument image , the weird look to the moving smoke and water

At long exposures ANY movement is going to get blurred. Nothing to do with high-res.

The pixel shift mode needs multiple times longer exposure than one shot from a high res shot and is therefore impacted by motion much more than single shots

Those shots are made of individual 1-2.5 sec shots. Too slow to freeze any motion whether pixel shift was used or not. The alternative was to raise ISO 7-stops and “freeze motion”. What would you have done?

and only useful on an absolutely static subject.

Or not...

This is no doubt handy within its shooting niche and I am hoping for an evolution of it going forward. You can of course get higher resolution the old fashioned way on any camera stuck on a tripod. It just takes a bit longer in post

Why bother when a $1000 pocket camera can generate a 50MP JPG and upload right from your phone? No need to purchase additional software and camp out at your computer.

The point is if I want big files by taking and stitching 8 images I can do it with any camera . My phone sucks I think it would choke on a 50mp file

And I can stitch 8 high-res images together, now what? 😆

Man that would be cool too see and involve a wee bit computer time

We need a genuine jump in image quality not features/gimmicks whatever you non- Luddites want to call them :-).

How much of a jump? To what end? Those "gimmicks" (high-res, live-composite, focus stacking, live bulb, time-lapse, Pro-Capture) accounted for 22% of my 4- and 5- star photos last year. Should I go back and delete those??

Most of those are gimmicks as far as I am concerned . I want a lower base ISO, cleaner shadows and a few more MP that I do not need to use a tripod for

Lucky for the rest of us, we’re not constrained by your preferences 😝

Just you wait the photo gods are listing to all my pleas , its a coming

Despite the ever amusing claims to the contrary that every Olympus camera since the E-M5 mk1 is a stop better it is abject nonsense { you are probably one of these optimistic chaps } If you added up all the claimed "stops better" in the forum we would have the best image quality in the world

Where was this said? Since you love DxO so much, there was a 13% improvement in sensor score from the EM5 - EM1mkII, yet only a 5% improvement in sensor score from the A7R to A7RIII. How can that be??

Those numbers are nonsense as can be very clearly seen looking at RAW files where the rubber hits the road.

They’re DxO numbers. You love DxO! Subjective assessment aside, I see no meaningful difference in any of the high MP FF sensors since 2012.

Here is the 2012 E-M5 vs the current 20mp E-M1II

Base ISO E-M5 up-sized to match E-MI II , that is a Feb 2012 model vs the best we currently have available , I fail to see years of advances in image quality . If you want features/ gimmicks happy days

3200 ISO I would not even shoot this high with m43, the E-M1II at the same output size is not even a stop better . I do not really care if ISO's above this are marginally less terrible than the other because they are all terrible

Same lack of progress we see in FF high-MP and DR cams over the same 5 year time period.

They don't need it they already have all the things missing from m43 files . That is my point . I already have two 42mp FF bodies, and a 36mp FF body with clean shadows and the rest . It is debatable how much more FF needs regarding image quality advances. m43 could do with a few .

Sounds rather arbitrary. Who decides what is good enough for which format?

The guy parting with the cash to buy it

As the Sony 1" sensors are getting more of the latest sensor tech before m43 I can see the gap closing .

Which 1” sensor has 10ms readout and the dynamic range of the EM1mkII from 2016?

At their respective base ISO you can see that the Sony 1" sensor is pretty similar to the E-M1II

You’re judging this based on compressed JPG in a web browser from a beta version of ACR? Download both and open in ACR. The EM1mkII looks better to me at every ISO. Once we match the shutter speeds, it’s no contest.

If you handicap the Sony by shooting higher than its base ISO sure

No more than the Olympus is handicapped shooting at a higher shutter speed.  If I shoot the Olympus at 1/200 like the Sony below, mFT wins every time.

The data looks like m43 has lost some market share

And? Nikon and Sony both experienced larger sales declines than Olympus did last year. Canon is flat.

If the system gets much smaller the cost of developing new sensors in a size and ratio that no one else uses certainly no volume markets ,will increase per unit cost. When Sony makes an APS sensor it is used in their own cameras, in Nikon and Fuji and Pentax cameras . Same story with FF sensors, their 1" sensors are now used by Sony, Panasonic & Canon.

Base ISO DR the biggest weakness of m43 due to the shadow noise , size of sensor we cannot change and thus that difference is unavoidable. However it is greatly compounded by that damn 200 base ISO . Dpreview does not have DR test for the E-M5 1 but the mark two and other cameras use the same sensor. Think about it a base ISO shooter like myself can get as clean a shadow push on a Sony 1" sensor camera that sensor is roughly half the area of a m43 sensor,

And now you've sacrificed shutter speed. Match the shutter speeds of the D500 and Rx100 to the Olympus and watch what happens. But realistically, who is lifting shadows 5 EV? Why not expose for the shadows then?

It is only extreme on m43 because the results are terrible , in any of the Sony sensor APS or FF cameras the results are clean . For landscape shooting I am always shooting at base ISO I can get fine speeds at 64 or 100ISO I do not need to shoot at 200ISO . When your DR is limited you can either expose for shadows and impact the highlights or vice versa

Which is why, if the scene requires, I expose for the shadows - a common approach. +1EV clean shadows with little to no impact on highlights on Olympus files. i.e. ISO 100.

Those PDR tests really have little bearing on actual results , the fact that he uses the stated ISO by the manufacturer making zero attempt to compare like to like makes me doubt them as a comparison tool

If you don’t like the results, dismiss the test! The curve might be shifted left but the values measured remain.

Take a look at DPreviews controlled RAW DR test at their respective base ISO, do you think that the E-M1 II is a stop better than the RX100 mk5 at their best settings ?

When I download RAW and open in ACR, yes. Especially as ISO increases.

As the ISO increases I agree with you but my ISO rarely increases

The DR is higher everywhere including base ISO.

Yep we have now had 6 and half years with tiny real world advances in image quality , by the time the wonder camera comes along they will have had over 7 yrs to give us a meaningful upgrade. Which with regards to image quality I would argue they have not give us since Feb 2012, but man those features

This is true across all formats. There haven't been any meaningful IQ improvements in sensors since the 36MP Sony's hit in 2012.

The 36MP sensor arrived in the D800 in 2012 , Sony started using it in 2013

And was still a Sony sensor. Same old song and dance.

Honest question, Jim. Have you ever used Live Composite, Live Bulb, Pro-Capture, High-Res, or Focus Stacking?

I have been able to do focus stacking for decades :-), I can stitch images together from any camera and given the average age of the forum members I suspect that most will have been doing the same.

So I have to be at a computer, purchase additional software. How long does this take? What is that time worth to me? A cheap Olympus can do it in a few seconds and share instantly. Simple.

We have been shooting digital for many years I suspect there are few of us without computers or software . It is part of the fun for me just like developing and printing was part of the film experience. Without the toxic chemicals and you can do it in the light with a nice cup of tea

Fun? Perhaps. But time spent sitting in front of a computer is time spent not shooting.

I am lucky enough to have taken early retirement { 54 and out the door } and time is aplenty , if you are working full time with a young family things are very different . With my photographic interests I am never dealing with the massive amount of images that say a sports guy may have so it stays fun.

I am at the other end of the spectrum.  Between my career, children (as young as 3) and other time consuming (and more costly) hobbies, I am lucky to get time to shoot.  Last year my cumulative (keepers) across all formats/cameras was ~15k (down from 18k the previous year).  No chance I want to sit in front of a computer anymore than I absolutely have to.

Live composite and live bulb are probably useful especially for some niche subjects , handy for low light stuff in a system with noise problems . I do not have a camera with pro-capture though I have tried the similar Panasonic 4k burst mode . There are numerous test sites posting hundreds of RAW files to see samples of pixel shift or anything else you want to look at.

Living vicariously through others? 🤣 So you have ZERO first-hand experience with these features yet refer to them as gimmicks. Okay Jim!

I am a Luddite , I have similar chats in the Sony forum where some assure me it is nigh on impossible to take a portrait without using eye-AF Though I am going to try this out of curiosity

Could it be done? Sure. But why would you when eye-af makes portraits so easy? Why chase down a taxi when an Uber will come to me when I want it?

I have not used the feature and I may be wrong { go figure } but unless you were shooting very shallow DOF . would eye-AF really be that much better than face detect or normal single shot AF , which on mirrorless cameras is superb, the S-AF on m43 is as good or better than any DSLR I have ever owned including the likes of the D3s. I will set it up and map it to the fn button on the lens when next I am shooting people, they say the Sony eye-af on the third gen cameras is very good.

Thats the problem with FF, too shallow 🤣.  Face AF is good at moderate apertures but will still miss focus at large apertures too often, especially when the subject is close.  i.e. shooting at f/4 you would probably be fine with face detect.  But the 85mm at f/1.4 with the face filling the frame - you want eye-af.  S-AF is indeed excellent but with eye-af I have moved to C-AF and shoot in bursts as I frame and reframe the subject.  Brilliant for shooting children and their ever-moving, hilarious expressions.

Like everyone else in the forum I have spent a good few quid on m43 and stuck with it since 2009 . I firmly believe that we do not need more features/gimmicks ,

You’re not the only user!

Every m43 camera since the start has had a good feature set which has expanded in every generation . In fact if features were the gold standard of cameras , I honestly think the likes of the E-M1II and G9 would be very hard to trump in any system at any price.

unless there is some magical way to accelerate the pixel shift mode by a significant margin in which case I will east humble pie and jump on the camera Failing that is it really outrageous to want cleaner base ISO with a few more MP ? As far as photography goes I am indeed a Luddite and for me personally I am not making a joke when I call most of the features gimmicks .

You seem to have little photography interest outside of base ISO, high MP, heavy tripod landscape. Correct me if I’m wrong, I’ve never seen you share any of your work. If that is your primary interest, I’m not sure mFT was ever a good choice for you. That certainly wouldn’t be a reason for me to choose mFT.

I get this often , I post images regularly in the forums I post in the themed threads now and again . I post my landscape shots in more photography orientated forums which DPreview isn't . The problem is keeping up with my banned ID's I also do a fair bit of 4k video shooting which Panasonic in particular does very well. If I am at a party photographing my idiot mates doing some daft stuff when drunk { ah the joys of being a boring teetotaller }. I am not going to be using a large camera lens and tripod.

A wee fun snap I posted in the weekly photo thread last week , when my side of the bed was stolen by a handsome chap. I recently posted a batch of test shots on the Sony forum . For some reason I have a lot of trouble uploading to DPreview galleries

If that pixel shift mode can be accelerated notably by some Olympus voodoo .m43 could turn out to be the perfect landscape kit. High image quality , a great selection of lenses , in a small form factor ideal for hiking about the countryside

Handsome fellow! We will see. Pentax has implemented some sort of hand held pixel shift mode. I haven’t read much about it though.

If there was a real handheld pixel shift mode that made the process much quicker it would be a true game changer. I would happily get rid of my FF gear. I have no idea how or if this is even possible. I have looked at the Pentax process and it is not very effective plus their pixel shift only takes four shots as it is about noise and colour rather than resolution

I see the rumours are suggesting that the Panasonic FF may have a 150mp mode

We have some superb lenses , great IBIS for video , my super camera which I am sure Olympus are busily developing right this minute Will come with a lower true base ISO and higher MP count , I do not care about how many FPS or pro-capture or most of the rest of the features unless they can do something clever with the pixel shift mode

Yet, I’ve come to employ on those “gimmicks” rather frequently. Adding a lower base ISO would be a bonus but I still want innovations that cater to my photographic interests.

I know I come a cross as a whinger but I honestly do not see my wants as outrageous . Hopefully the next wonder camera will answer all my wants

Lower base ISO is not too much to ask. But just because you don’t use in camera tools doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t 😜

Oh I am not saying do not put the gimmicks/features in just show those of us who do not need them some love. If they want to throw in a 100fps mode with the lower base ISO higher MP sensor I will not complain. My moaning is not about all the features per se but the lack of what matters to me . Yes I am being selfish , yes I am moaning and yes I am a PITA

No comment! This is why I wish there were compact rangefinder style FF ILC cameras. Something like where the new Fuji MF GFX is going but smaller still. Something the shape of a GX8, PEN-F, XE3 but big enough to house a 45MP high DR sensor. Pair with some compact Loxia-like primes and be done.

I love my GX8 one of my very favourite cameras ever , man was I gutted when the GX9 came out Apart from the bump on top the Sony bodies are not much different to the GX8 size wise . The Loxia 21mm is a beautiful bit of kit ,I wavered between it an the Batis 25mm with the Batis winning out just . I also picked up the tiny Samyang 35mm F/2.8 AF FE mainly for its size but I have been very happy with its image quality. It offers an amazing bang for the buck, and gives me a similar vibe to my GX8 + 20mm

As I rarely shoot long tele though I do on occasion dabble in the irksome world of bird photography , now that is a challenge . Most of the FF lenses I use are not particularly large this is my most used combo for general out and about the A7rII or III with the 24-105mm F/4, that and the 12-24mm F4 covers a lot of what I shoot. If your interests are at the longer focal lengths the size quickly gets out of hand.

Nah, I did read it all... most of it... and from that I extract:

My camera is good enough.

It is. I love think it's fantastic. I don't need more. But I'd like a little more because some of the features they could potentially include would be really handy, and are certainly possible to add.

Updates may be coming:

Or may not. Possibly before I finish typing this. And I heard a rumour that....

I'd certainly upgrade my E-M5ii if a newer model had the right specs. I don't need FF or BSI or Foveon or Moo Juice™ , but I'd like the best E-M5 I can strap onto my lenses.

(I know... but I don't want an E-M1)

And I don't mind a slower release cycle. But nearly 4 years is a bit of a stretch, unless they do a ~2yr incremental update. Personally I'd even consider a warmed over model after 2 years, because even incremental updates are sometimes worth it.

Updated models aren't really required. But they might be.

I don't need a stream of minor, annual improvements. But the E-M5ii as is, now, is hardly a competitive product in the market. Adequate - yes. Suitable for some - yes. Competitive against others. No.

I'd like to know that if it broke, I could replace it with something the same, but better. That I can't gives me (very minor) cause for concern. (The Pen and E-M1 are not replacement IMO)

Something something FF...

Something about a flamethrower...

Zippo is the best. At the moment...

Barron ≠ Baron

Anyway:

I'm still happy with my little E-M5ii. Still going strong. But for your consideration, here's a list of 'little things' they could include in an E-M5iii. Each item could be added relatively easily. Every item could be included, or just a couple. And I'd be certain that just one or two would be enough for some to justify upgrading, and for others, not enough.

• 20mpx (Just the current version)
• PDAF
• 4k
• GPS
• NFC
• Pro Capture
• ISO 100
• Support for UHS-ii cards
• Better build quality (I'd expect Gen3 to be better)
• Maybe better menus may interest some...

I'll be the first to cheer at a solid rumour of an update of any kind. But I can wait.

And, of course.... YMMV

I don't claim to know the intent of the OP's originating post, so I'll try to play Devil's advocate to your reply.

I agree that release a new model for the sake of releasing a new model is pointless and counter productive.  I bought the EP1 and G1 when they were introduced and during those early years, mFT models were introduced frequently, each one trying to find a market or trying to improve on weakness or perceived weakness compared to the DSLRs of the day.

I remember when the Contrast AF were slow and that was rather quickly "resolved" at least for AF-s.  I remembered the lens AF motor tech changed also, with Olympus releasing a new kit lens every 6 months (it seemed like 6 months to me anyways).  Back then, these models would depreciate for quickly that I figured out the trend so I would wait a few months and buy them on "sale specials" at less than 50% of original release date prices.

Once the sensor got to 16MP, I realized that this sensor was "good enough" that I no longer needed to buy each new versions anymore.  To me, mFT matured once the 16 MP from Pany and then the 16MP Sony made for Olympus sensors were introduced.

After the EM5, EM1, I found very little to motivate me to buy another.  That is a good thing for me and it is to me a sign that mFT is good enough now and there is no longer any "excuses" or defensiveness needed.  Although this forum is still filled with defensive mFT users, why they feel insecure is for them to resolve.

As a multi-user or all systems user, I can attest that when I don't feel the need to buy the next model is a sign to me that the line up is mature and it will be many years before I purchase another.

Some examples from other brands.

Canon 350D, I converted to IR.  I replaced it with an SL1.  That's it.

Canon 40D, bought it first day it was available, I haven't replaced it "yet".

Canon 5D, haven't bought another 5D but I did upgrade  if you can call it to 6D.

Fuji XPro1 , still no need to upgrade

Fuji XE-1, upgraded recently to XT-20.

Oly EM1, waiting for version III.  Hoping the AF-C is as good as Sony.  That's all that I want.  10-15 fps AF-C on the 40-150 f2.8.  The technology exists.  The question is does Olympus have the resources to bring this to market?

I now own pretty much all of Olympus HG and SHG glass.  I remembered when Olympus was a major sponsor at the US Open (tennis), I went to the booth and they had the E-3 paired with the SHG glass and the AF on these were pretty bad.  I was able to demonstrate show this to the rep and he had no answer as to when would Olympus fix this.  These were some of the best glass made at the time and there never was an improvement.  Years later, my EM1 with adapter could focus better and more reliably than any of the top of the line Olympus DSLR.  E1,E3,E5.

My fear is that as good as Oly glass and some of their bodies are, with all the "tricked out" features, the one weakness that has followed Olympus since I started buying them in 2005 is that the AF could never keep up with the competition.

I compare this with Fuji, or even Sony.  Both introduced mirrorless bodies that just couldn't AF much but now they're the leaders or close to the top (Fuji).  Even the Canon M, that crippled step child from Canon can now do video AF as good as any out there.

I don't shoot things that are black, why do people keep posting them Nikon is classic for PP incamera blacks Im interested in real life photos( detail) that are not black, I don't think I have ever entered a competition with a black photo.

Don

SpinOne wrote:

• Again, AF is every bit an issue for the E-M5 ii today as at launch. The idea that this is somehow a new challenge makes no sense.

This would be true if the market were standing still, but it's not. When the EM5ii came out, it had class-leading IBIS, new HiRes, etc. So, there were lots of great reasons to ignore the limited AF. Now everyone has that stuff, and everyone has better AF. Personally, that doesn't bother me - I shoot a lot of landscape, macro, MF video, etc. But I don't think it's good for Oly to have only one competitive action cam.

• You seem to be advocating putting out new models, with almost no substantive improvements, for the sake of putting out new models and... doing what, other than pleasing gearheads whose flappy-doodles twitch whenever a new camera is announced?

Those gearheads are key because they subsidize the rest of us!

Launching a new camera, even one with minimal changes, is not free. It can take 2 years of development and testing, plus manufacturing and marketing costs, plus distribution and inventory, plus any costs in phasing out the old model. That old model, by the way, long paid off those launch costs, and thus the price can be lowered and/or generate more profit per unit. This is not to say that "new cameras are never profitable," only that it's usually not worth the cost unless it's going to have a real impact, especially for a smaller company like Olympus.

Instead they blew all that development dough on the 1.2 lens line. I wonder how profitable those are?

• Are you really saying that the only thing standing between Olympus and Corporate Doom is... putting out the E-M1 iii six months sooner than they originally planned? Have you thought this through?

I'll leave that to Oly to figure out, but it seems like they ought to get releases spread out a bit more if they're really going to a 4-year cycle.

Ben Herrmann wrote:

As I said, even though I shoot with various contemporary models, there is still a certain joy in using some of the older models.

the manufacturers would have you feel otherwise