Tedolph can save Olympus!

tGood God, did you read the original post? Olympus has lots of lenses with focusing and DOF scales.

Tedolph

RIDICULOUS ? did you check those scales on Olympus lenses  OR ANY other af by wire lenses . they usually have no mark between 1m and infinity so they are basically useless

ahaslett wrote:

tedolf wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Anders W wrote:

tedolf wrote:

JDLaing50 wrote:

tedolf wrote:

JDLaing50 wrote:

You can’t put a rangefinder in a ep5 body.

Why not?

Tedolph

Not enough room and Oly lenses are not rangefinder coupled.

Plenty of room if you take out the flash. Look at the rangefinder module on Bessa R or an old Leica CL (film). They are tiny. obviously you have to add the rangefinder cam to the back of the lens but again it is tiny on the wider angle lenses. Maybe sticks out 3-4 mm?

Tedolph

You overlook the quintessential question: Why on earth would anyone want to do it in the first place?

The RF was made obsolete for ILC purposes by the SLR more than 50 years ago. And the SLR is now made obsolete by the EVF.

So face it Tedolph, the RF is dead, stone dead. Long live live view!😎

Finally! Someone addresses the issue posited in the original post. Yes, why would someone want to do this? That is the issue I had hoped you would all discuss.

So, here is how I see it: the market has become technologically mature. All cameras exceed most photographers actual technical needs. Camera resolution far exceeds the resolution of any current output media, AF systems long ago exceeded anybody's requirements except for maybe BIFs (and nobody takes those pictures anyway), etc. So how can Olympus survive? Well they largely gave up the size advantage by abandoning the GM5, Pen mini, etc. Other manufacturers who had nothing much to offer, e.g. Fuji (Xtrans was a bust) did so with gimmicks. Sony had a really skinny body. Fuji had the retro controls-without that I don't think they would have made it. Leica had the whole manual rangefinder thing with the Live View back up. Nikon just came out with their own super retro model and it looks like it is going to be a super success. So, can Olympus jump on that bandwagon? The Pen F was a swing and a miss. Oly certainly knows how to make compact optical RF cameras, so my question is would an Olympus m4/3 Leica M9 clone have any commercial legs?

Oh, and thank you Anders for getting this thread on topic.

Tedolph

Now you have made .your proposition clear - I don't agree. I too thank Anders for cutting through the paragraphs of words.

Why not start again with a poll and try and explain your proposition without the distracting attempt at humour and in less than 200 words.

Well, you can be sure that Tedolph will not be taking you to any comedy clubs!

Can you make it clear whether this is just a single model as part of a wider range of bodies and lenses (a system) or whether you are proposing a complete business plan for OMDS.

What is it you don't understand? It is a regular m4/3 camera with an optical RF module and three existing lenses with RF cams glued on the back. Re-read the original post, it is all there.

Oh I forgot, you can't make it past 200 words.

Then we will see what proportion of the community agree with the proposition.

It is a proposition-it doesn't require agreement. It invites comment and discussion.

The future of OMDS is important to a lot of us and deserves a serious discussion or you can be clear that this thread is just light-hearted entertainment, as it first appeared.

I know, it is complex for you. We understand. Maybe it is just too hard....

Any camera and lens company needs to attract enough people to pay enough across enough niches to cover both the cost of developing and making each product and collectively the overheads of branding, distribution, cost-of-capital etc. The question is not what you want to pay for but what others want to pay for. If you look at Sony's success over the last few years, it doesn't fit your preconceptions.

Andrew

PS The GM5 was a Panasonic camera, although maybe you knew that.

It is not a wonder why Tedolph dies not post much in this forum anymore.

Sheesh......

Tedolph

Don't worry - I'll be staying out of your threads.

Andrew

Thanks.

Tedolph

Harold66 wrote:

tGood God, did you read the original post? Olympus has lots of lenses with focusing and DOF scales.

Tedolph

RIDICULOUS ? did you check those scales on Olympus lenses OR ANY other af by wire lenses . they usually have no mark between 1m and infinity so they are basically useless

You make a good point, but I wonder: in the retro-grouch world, does functionality really matter?

Tedolph

tedolf wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

tGood God, did you read the original post? Olympus has lots of lenses with focusing and DOF scales.

Tedolph

RIDICULOUS ? did you check those scales on Olympus lenses OR ANY other af by wire lenses . they usually have no mark between 1m and infinity so they are basically useless

You make a good point, but I wonder: in the retro-grouch world, does functionality really matter?

Tedolph

To be honest, i am not sure what the retro grouch world means 🧐 Lots of people have very different ideas about what could be a successful m43 camera body. Imho , those ideas are usually based on the notion that what would work best for themselves would be the way to go

I am realistic enough that i don’t adhere in this train of thought.I do think that mft should have a high end photocentric small body. There are many things that i don’t pretend to know like many people on these forums 
the one thing i know for sure though is that having a true rangefinder camera with manual focusing is NOT a viable option for mft for maybe a hundred reasons 🤪

Harold

Raist3d wrote:

Grimstod wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

tedolf wrote:

red pencil wrote:

Alexis D wrote:

It should help to analyse why Fuji can continue releasing the XE1, 2, 3, and 4, and apparently doing well, compared to M43 equivalents, e.g. GX8, GX9... PEN F, PEN F 11, E-P7...

Bigger sensor makes people feel more comfortable with their purchase

Once you crop the image to fit most common print sizes, e.g. 5x7", 8x10", 8.5x11", 11x14", 16x20" an APS sensor is putting about the same number of pixels on print as a 4/3rds sensor. So effectively, the APS sensor is no bigger than the 4/3 sensor especially if it is Canon.

Not really

The highest resolution commercial mFT sensor is 20MP and 3888 pixels high. Most APS-C sensors are 24MP and 4000 pixels high, but there are also 26MP ones (Fujifilm) which are 4160 pixels high. The Canon 90d is 32.5MP and 4640 pixels high.

Any of those will put more pixels on the print than an mFT camera, especially if they are Canon (90D, at least).

In terms of sensor area, it is whatever is the long side and 13mm high for mFT, 14.8mm for Canon and 15.6mm for the rest. All will give a larger used sensor area than mFT.

Incorrect. Maybe even face news. The IMX492 is the highest and it is 44mp. It has been used in a number of both Comertial and proprietary cameras.

I think the highest resolution commercial mFT sensor can be argued to be 20 MP if by commercial we are talking about the consumer digital camera market and some some specific security cameras which is what Sony advertises that other sensor for.

"

Sony Semiconductor Solutions has launched a new image sensor for high-end surveillance cameras, factory automation applications, and industrial environments. The IMX492 is a combination of high sensitivity with low noise, makes it a great solution for challenging environments where contrast and detail are required like in industrial inspection systems."

Different domain and priorities than common digital cameras.

You all missed the point. There is an underlying assumption I made and that is same generation sensor, e.g. 16mp 4/3rds sensor v. 18 or 20 mp APS sensor; 20mp 4/3rds sensor v. 24mp APS sensor etc. CHOP off the left ant right 10% of the APS sensor to match the aspect ratio of the print sizes I mentioned and you get about the same number of pixels on the print.

See, this is what I mean about Bobn. He knows this but he argues a technical point that is irrelevant to the discussion. I could bring up the High resolution mode that Fuji doesn't have. I would be technically correct but it would miss the point of the discussion.

Tedolph

tedolf wrote:

red pencil wrote:

Alexis D wrote:

It should help to analyse why Fuji can continue releasing the XE1, 2, 3, and 4, and apparently doing well, compared to M43 equivalents, e.g. GX8, GX9... PEN F, PEN F 11, E-P7...

Bigger sensor makes people feel more comfortable with their purchase

Once you crop the image to fit most common print sizes, e.g. 5x7", 8x10", 8.5x11", 11x14", 16x20" an APS sensor is putting about the same number of pixels on print as a 4/3rds sensor. So effectively, the APS sensor is no bigger than the 4/3 sensor especially if it is Canon.

Tedolph

Why should we restrict ourselves to your cherry-picked examples of "common print sizes"? Even back in the days when prints were made in a darkroom, there were certainly photo papers with a 3:2 aspect ratio. And today, we no longer have to make do with the particular sizes on offer back then.

Besides, most images are actually viewed on monitors of one kind or another (including TVs) these days, and as you might be aware, these monitors are rarely close to a 4:3 aspect ratio.

tedolf wrote:

Anders W wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Anders W wrote:

tedolf wrote:

JDLaing50 wrote:

tedolf wrote:

JDLaing50 wrote:

You can’t put a rangefinder in a ep5 body.

Why not?

Tedolph

Not enough room and Oly lenses are not rangefinder coupled.

Plenty of room if you take out the flash. Look at the rangefinder module on Bessa R or an old Leica CL (film). They are tiny. obviously you have to add the rangefinder cam to the back of the lens but again it is tiny on the wider angle lenses. Maybe sticks out 3-4 mm?

Tedolph

You overlook the quintessential question: Why on earth would anyone want to do it in the first place?

The RF was made obsolete for ILC purposes by the SLR more than 50 years ago. And the SLR is now made obsolete by the EVF.

So face it Tedolph, the RF is dead, stone dead. Long live live view!😎

Finally! Someone addresses the issue posited in the original post. Yes, why would someone want to do this? That is the issue I had hoped you would all discuss.

So, here is how I see it: the market has become technologically mature. All cameras exceed most photographers actual technical needs. Camera resolution far exceeds the resolution of any current output media, AF systems long ago exceeded anybody's requirements except for maybe BIFs (and nobody takes those pictures anyway), etc. So how can Olympus survive? Well they largely gave up the size advantage by abandoning the GM5, Pen mini, etc. Other manufacturers who had nothing much to offer, e.g. Fuji (Xtrans was a bust) did so with gimmicks. Sony had a really skinny body. Fuji had the retro controls-without that I don't think they would have made it. Leica had the whole manual rangefinder thing with the Live View back up. Nikon just came out with their own super retro model and it looks like it is going to be a super success. So, can Olympus jump on that bandwagon? The Pen F was a swing and a miss. Oly certainly knows how to make compact optical RF cameras, so my question is would an Olympus m4/3 Leica M9 clone have any commercial legs?

Oh, and thank you Anders for getting this thread on topic.

Tedolph

Happy to help you draw attention to the question you want us to focus on. Glad to help you answer it too, as I already did. Commercial legs? No, not even crutches.🤓

As to the PEN-F, I find it hard to tell whether it was hit or miss commercially for lack of data. But I think the very high second-hand prices (for a five-year old body) should tell OMDS that there is a market for a successor. IMHO, it should come with a feature set similar to that of the E-M5 series and differ only in stylistic regards.

So, how do you explain the continued success of the Leica M cameras?

Tedolph

Continued success? As I already pointed out, Leica M along with its rangefinder died as a functional product already in the 1960s. It now lives on only as a zombie due to a behavior known as conspicuous consumption, a specific variety of a the more general phenomenon of ostentation. But that behavior itself may well be a dying breed. At least one can hope so.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/3/27/18188801/conspicuous-consumption-luxury-items

Anders W wrote:

tedolf wrote:

red pencil wrote:

Alexis D wrote:

It should help to analyse why Fuji can continue releasing the XE1, 2, 3, and 4, and apparently doing well, compared to M43 equivalents, e.g. GX8, GX9... PEN F, PEN F 11, E-P7...

Bigger sensor makes people feel more comfortable with their purchase

Once you crop the image to fit most common print sizes, e.g. 5x7", 8x10", 8.5x11", 11x14", 16x20" an APS sensor is putting about the same number of pixels on print as a 4/3rds sensor. So effectively, the APS sensor is no bigger than the 4/3 sensor especially if it is Canon.

Tedolph

Why should we restrict ourselves to your cherry-picked examples of "common print sizes"?

Because I am in the U.S.A. and those are the sizes we have to pick from.

Even back in the days when prints were made in a darkroom, there were certainly photo papers with a 3:2 aspect ratio. And today, we no longer have to make do with the particular sizes on offer back then.

Where are you going to buy printing paper in non-standard sizes?

Besides, most images are actually viewed on monitors of one kind or another (including TVs) these days, and as you might be aware, these monitors are rarely close to a 4:3 aspect ratio.

Maybe you didn't notice but the title of this sub-thread is "Printing"

Thanks Anders.

Tedolph

Raist3d wrote:

Hmm but seems like the apsc gives you more print options then

and biggest commercial apsc is at 32MP- so is your statement still true? Fuji is at 26MP by the way

And the next generation of 4/3 sensor will be 24mp.

So, we are back where we started.

Tedolph

Raist3d wrote:

That's not a rumor, that's something Olympus themselves said in an interview.

This is ironic. You say last week that "Olympus management doesn’t seem very trusty" referring to an interview in which Masanori Sako, Senior Manager, Global Marketing Strategy comments on EM1X positive sales in first year. This week you believe when Olympus says PEN-F "selling situation has almost meet our expectation", referring to an interview with Shigemi Sugimoto, Head of Imaging Business Unit.

It seems your trust of statement hinges on what statement best fit your narrative in the moment.

• When something selling well = Olympus untrustworthy
• When something selling less expected = Olympus trustworthy

You can appreciate how this impacts the credibility of your argument.