What new insights in the Olympus interview?

[duckling]

I must say to me it was most reassuring. A few points to make:

1) Olympus are fully commited to the 4/3 standard, perhaps more than ever. That includes bodies and lenses.

2) 4/3 is maintained as the flagship system. MFT is designed to compete with high end compacts and does not step on the E system feet.

3) Olympus is independent from Panasonic in its R&D efforts. IMO it is a good thing.

4) Olympus take a rather liberal approach to timetables and roadmaps. To me this implies they concentrate on image quality and not on features.

5) A healthy approach to video on SLR. Another indication that improving image quality is the main goal in R&D.

What are your thoughts?

 

[wolfie]

For many people, the good news is Olympus certainly donot want to follow the G1 mini-DSLR form factor...

"They are two separate systems with two different basic user benefits; Micro Four Thirds is all about compact wide lenses whereas standard Four Thirds is about compact telephoto lenses."

This makes sense - even hanging a lumix 14-50 m4/3 zoom on the OLympus compact body wold look vaguely ridiculous and not very good ergonomically.

So that means compact, wide angle primes - hopefully f2 or faster - this should be a real available light tool for street and candid work, indoors or outdoors. Finally!

So that also means standard 4/3 is their standard to telephoto format, which they emphasize is a different market: they don't see micro is going to oust standard 4/3 because they have quite different strengths.

--
Shoot the Light fantastic

 

[Rens]

So according to the pre-amble, Olumpus exectutives read our threads.

A good reason for using it to express our likes and dislikes.

Rens

 

[klownshed]

2) 4/3 is maintained as the flagship system. MFT is designed to
compete with high end compacts and does not step on the E system feet.

I don't understand this mentality. It's fairly obvious that Panasonic are going headlong into the E-420 territory with their new µ4/3 cameras. Surely it would be better to lose an E-420 sale to an Olympus µ4/3 rather than to a competitor?

µ4/3 should enable Oly (and Panasonic) to build smaller, lighter, cheaper WA-UWA lenses. I'd love a µ4/3 SLR-type body with twin kit lenses and a tiny, reasonably priced 7-14mm lens. And a viewfinder is essential. Looks like if I do buy into µ4/3, it will be with Panasonic, not Olympus.

I would imagine a small, light SLR type (i.e. with viewfinder) µ4/3 camera would also be tempting to Canikon FF users looking for a small carry around camera too...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johncompiani/

 

[Larry Lynch]

I must say to me it was most reassuring. A few points to make:
1) Olympus are fully commited to the 4/3 standard, perhaps more than
ever. That includes bodies and lenses.
2) 4/3 is maintained as the flagship system. MFT is designed to
compete with high end compacts and does not step on the E system feet.
3) Olympus is independent from Panasonic in its R&D efforts. IMO it
is a good thing.
4) Olympus take a rather liberal approach to timetables and roadmaps.
To me this implies they concentrate on image quality and not on
features.
5) A healthy approach to video on SLR. Another indication that
improving image quality is the main goal in R&D.

What are your thoughts?

The "video thing" actually confuses me... why are so many DSLR users looking for it???

My wife just bought an HD video camera for so little money I was amazed.

For less than the cost of a good CP filter, she got a Video Camera that shoots 720P HD (not the highest res, but good enough for a camera that actually fits in my vest pocket).

Why would I want this in a DSLR?
--
Larry

Don't confuse fame with success. Paris Hilton is one; Helen Keller is the other

 

[duckling]

In my view every piece of electronics should do only what it's supposed to do, and do it well!

 

[duckling]

I would imagine a small, light SLR type (i.e. with viewfinder) µ4/3
camera would also be tempting to Canikon FF users looking for a small
carry around camera too...

Please note the interview with Canon executives just posted on DPR. At its very end there is a much expected statement on this issue. It only reinforces my view that Olympus m4/3 cameras should be small, smart and have a strong "character" to them. Unfortunately, it seems the DSLR-like EVIL segment will be rather crowded this time next year.

 

[beuler]

Many good digicams hace video and nobody uses it, and this has been going on for years.

 

[Art_P]

they are not coming out w a longer lens any time soon, but encouraged they are at least looking into it

Nothing really earth shattering there, but some reassurance that the E system is going strong
--
Art P



Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8131242@N04/

 

[The Customer]

My wife just bought an HD video camera for so little money I was amazed.

For less than the cost of a good CP filter, she got a Video Camera
that shoots 720P HD (not the highest res, but good enough for a
camera that actually fits in my vest pocket).

Why would I want this in a DSLR?

Perhaps for the use of various lenses or the shallower depth of field to be gotten from a larger sensor than is in a pocketable video camera. Or any affordable video camera. It can help provide a real "cinematic" look. Plus, if all one carries is one's DSLR, then it's a good feature to have if something newsworthy occurs.

Cust.

 

[Stu 5]

I must say to me it was most reassuring. A few points to make:
1) Olympus are fully commited to the 4/3 standard, perhaps more than
ever. That includes bodies and lenses.
2) 4/3 is maintained as the flagship system. MFT is designed to
compete with high end compacts and does not step on the E system feet.
3) Olympus is independent from Panasonic in its R&D efforts. IMO it
is a good thing.
4) Olympus take a rather liberal approach to timetables and roadmaps.
To me this implies they concentrate on image quality and not on
features.
5) A healthy approach to video on SLR. Another indication that
improving image quality is the main goal in R&D.

What are your thoughts?

The "video thing" actually confuses me... why are so many DSLR users
looking for it???

My wife just bought an HD video camera for so little money I was amazed.

For less than the cost of a good CP filter, she got a Video Camera
that shoots 720P HD (not the highest res, but good enough for a
camera that actually fits in my vest pocket).

Why would I want this in a DSLR?

Well the quality would be a lot better even if it shot at the same settings. The problem with the type your wife has gone for is the quality. They all have problems with panning and any movement really from yourself when using the camera. Don't think for a minute that the quality is anywhere near as good as the slightly larger ones that are not book sized. Footage I have seen from the 5D II is amazing and it can do some stuff that only the RED camera can do so makes it a bargain for filmmakers.

Need convincing?:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/22/without-further-ado-reverie/

Mind you it would still not make me buy one for stills photography.

--
Larry

Don't confuse fame with success. Paris Hilton is one; Helen Keller is
the other

 

[TrapperJohn]

From what I've heard, CAF compatibility is more a firmware update than a change of physical hardware. That's pretty much what they said, and they also said they thought they could update most legacy 4/3 glass. I see a u43 body in my future now, that was my primary objection.

Both Oly and Pana (who has a lot of experience with video) pointed out that good video (as opposed to just plain video) has special needs as regards AF and aperture movement. Pana has a special G1 dedicated to video. Oly seems guarded, and is watching the market before devoting resources to what might become a flash in the pan. Correct approach, IMHO.

No dslr style u43. That makes sense - it's a compact system, make it compact. While I was dazzled by the G1, it wasn't that small. What would be interesting is to see the 420 updated to G1 specs, with in body IS and the EVF. The G1 strikes me as a design that would be far better with current midrange 4/3 glass.

Long lenses - I agree. Good heavens, we're already at an effective 600mm right now, 1200 with the 2x tele. As I look back to film days, 400mm was the practical limit. You could buy lenses over that, but people rarely did. IS is okay, but doesn't produce the razor sharp photos that earth based IS does.

 

[acwalbur]

I don't really want to go from 200 mm to 300 mm and go down a grade in lens. If I want that increase I'd just use the EC-14 (which doesn't take me down a lens grade).

I'd snap up the 400/5.6 mid-range in a heart beat, even at $1200.

--
Good shooting.

• Adam

Equipment in plan

 

[CBR1100XX]

I just wish there was a follow-up to the "reduced" weatherproofing comment

 

[ljmac]

I'd really like to know more about what he means there.

 

[Chris Pirson]

"They are two separate systems with two different basic user
benefits; Micro Four Thirds is all about compact wide lenses whereas
standard Four Thirds is about compact telephoto lenses."

Is it just me or does this worry anyone else? Obviously the 2X crop from the 4/3 makes telephoto lenses more attainable for mere mortals on tight budgets like me but I'd hate to think there isn't going to be any wide angle development going on for the E system.

As much as I'd love to be able to invest in some faster glass I (and probably most "normal" people) simply can't afford to drop £1200 on the 7-14mm f/4. I want to see more affordable wide angles and that 100mm macro thats never appearing!

 

[JonathanF]

Why would I want this in a DSLR?

For the same reason that your cell phone is your pda, gps, web surfer, and emailer. You could carry a device for each purpose, but if one device does everything almost as well, then you would use it.

That's not saying that dslr video is really good yet. However, if the first or second try is "good enough", then there's no stopping.

Over at the Canon FF forum, many people are quite favourable to video on the 5Dm2. It definitely looks like it is "good enough" or even "quite good" for a start.

The Oly interview seems to hint that m4/3, not 4/3, will be the platform for video. It also seems that legacy 4/3 lenses may never be fully compatible with m4/3 and video.

I guess for the next two years, I will continue to depend on my wife's Canon p&s for video. Then it would be a bland new re-investment on my photo gear. I am hoping that it will be on Oly. However, in my mind, Oly have lost its innovater label, being matched or surpassed in most areas of innovation - live view, anti-dust, anti-shake, and now video. In the mean time, they are not catching up on areas of their realtive weakness - speed, low-light performance, etc. I can only hope that Oly's m4/3 line will be killer products.
--
JonathanF
Oly E-510, 11-22, 14-54, 18-180, TCON-17, FL-36
Canon S1IS, Casio QV-3000

 

[CBR1100XX]

"They are two separate systems with two different basic user
benefits; Micro Four Thirds is all about compact wide lenses whereas
standard Four Thirds is about compact telephoto lenses."

Is it just me or does this worry anyone else? Obviously the 2X crop
from the 4/3 makes telephoto lenses more attainable for mere mortals
on tight budgets like me but I'd hate to think there isn't going to
be any wide angle development going on for the E system.

As much as I'd love to be able to invest in some faster glass I (and
probably most "normal" people) simply can't afford to drop £1200 on
the 7-14mm f/4. I want to see more affordable wide angles and that
100mm macro thats never appearing!

--

The 9 to 18?

 

[duckling]

It's quite simple: only the E-x line will have high grade weatherproofing. This will be its selling point and the reasoning of the pricing differential between E-x and E-xx. Other brands do the same.

The E-xx will probably have seals but nothing in the neighborhood of the E-3 build quality.

 

[Chris Pirson]

Hmm, I like the look of the 9-18 and also the Sigma 10-20.

Anyone used either of these?

--
E-510, 14-42mm, 40-150mm, 70-300mm, FL36R
http://www.chrispirson.co.uk