After the E-M1: Does Olympus have to go Full Frame?

FacebookShare

The E-M1 is selling that well that Amazon issued a High Demand warning (Click here to read it). Same warning applies for the new 12-40mm PRO lens too (Click here). The E-M1 is a great camera but according to ThePhoBlographer Olympus can’t rest on this success

“It only seems like a matter of time until Sony wipes the floor with the rest of the industry and releases a full frame mirrorless camera. And with that said, the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera world will experience the same shift that the DSLR world took where everyone always complained about the smaller sensors in Olympus cameras.
Olympus surely seems like they’ve got quite the uphill battle to face with their photography division. And somehow or another, they’re going to need to innovate and create something that no one else has that is extremely marketable–and it will need to be a hit with the mass market.”

Now, I am really not a fan of MFT vs FF sensor discussions. It’s like saying a big car is always better than a smaller car. You cannot compare two cameras by considering as only factor the sensor size. And to be honest when seeing prints you hardly see any difference!
It’s true that Sony will soon announce a mirrorless FF camera. But it will cost 2.5 times the E-M1 and I doubt it will give you the same kind of mature usability and durability. That said the High End market is the most profitable. And maybe that’s one of the few reasons why Olympus could/should make a FF Macro Four thrids system :)

Preorders in US and Europe (Click on the store name to read price and specs):
Dedicated page at Amazon.
Olympus E-M1 body at Amazon, Adorama and BHphotoAmazon DE (via DL), Amazon UK (via DL), WexUK, Topshot FI, CameraWorldUK.
Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO Lens at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, AmazonDE (viaDL).
Olympus E-M1 with 12-40mm Lens kit at Amazon DE (via DL), WexUK and CameraWorldUK, Amazon UK (via DL).
Olympus E-M1 with 12-50mm Lens kit at Amazon DE (via DL), WexUK, CameraWorldUK, Amazon UK (via DL).
Olympus EP-13 Eyecup for E-M1 at Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus HLD-7 Battery Grip for E-M1 at Amazon, Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus LC-62D Metal Front Lens Cap for 12-40mm at Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus LH-66 Lens Hood for 12-40mm at Adorama and BHphoto.

FacebookShare
  • Anonymous

    I don’t know about full frame, but they need to move the f-ing strap lug. I just checked on the Camera Size Comparison page and it’s just like the EM5. Jesus H Christ, I’ve been complaining about this since the E420 as have many others. How stupid can a camera maker be? I guess about as stupid as the people that buy there stuff and never complain. Third strike Olympus, I’m done.

    • both lugs are in slightly different locations on M1
      especially the grip side

    • Funny, I own two olympus MFT cameras and I never even notice that the strap lugs are there.

  • Sony will wipe the floor with the rest of the industry if they make sensor shift AF work, be it on APS-C or FF sensor. Olympus and Panasonic should try to make similar system for 4/3 sensor.

    Does Olympus have to go Full Frame? Why should they? If the next generation of 4/3 sensors has one stop more in DR and high ISO compared to current ones, is there anything more to ask from a digital camera sensor? What Olympus and Panasonic need to make is more fast lenses, both primes and zooms. If they want to rival full frame cameras, m4/3 lenses need to be at least a stop faster, not equal or a stop slower.

    • JimStir

      “Sony will wipe the floor with the rest of the industry if they make sensor shift AF work, be it on APS-C or FF sensor. Olympus and Panasonic should try to make similar system for 4/3 sensor.”

      I would be very interested in a sensor based AF FF nex with the proviso that it has at least as high a mp count as the D800.Sony could shift a boatload of them A universal camera that takes the lenses you already own.Only fly in the ointment is that I would simply replace my D800 with FF Nex and keep the same lenses so the only money Sony would make would from a lot of buyers would be from the bodies.Imagine the sweet lens line up you could have if you could cherry pick from all makes getting he best option for each focal length regardless of mount.

      • Togger

        Actually I think you are missing something. Imagine how much it would simplify lens design if you didn’t need any glass to move (prime). You could see much smaller and faster lenses being made.

  • David

    Yet another unthoughtful post by ThePhoBlographer. Nearly everything I have ever seen on that sight is insipid.

  • alexander

    answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    M43 IS IT !!!!

    • Matt

      I really wish Olympus would stick to M43 only and concentrate on making it better and better, rather than running all over the place like Sony did and never getting anywhere.

      For years, Sony has tried really hard or tried too hard going in all directions with so many different lines and models and trying different technology, in spite of the limited total market share it has. With all its resources and perseverance, it is still not getting anywhere near breaking out because it is not thinking through and making mistakes.

      A rolling stone gathers no moss!

      • Sean

        Agree. Sensors will get better and better and most will have enough IQ if not already. Just like PCs, sensor technology advances will mean that we will reach a point when more power (or IQ) is not any reason to upgrade any more as most people do not need it. People are not going for more power and upgrading their PC every other year now.

        In another generation, this should become so apparent. Just think of what a sensor like the one in the RX100 can do, if scaled up to M43 size (twice as big). Cameras are portable devices. Small is good, and small but good quality goods cost more. People’s views will change.

        • jim

          m43 is already better than old 2003 FF sensors by a good margin!

          • bousozoku

            Who had a 135 format sensor in 2003?

            I was shopping for equipment at the time and didn’t find any.

            • Jenglot

              Kodak DCS Pro 14n

              • bousozoku

                Just one?

                • Anonymousse

                  And some even bigger than FF in scientific and military uses.

                • Jenglot

                  There was one from canon in 2002 and another one by contax earlier. If you were looking for one, i’m very sure you would have known about them.

            • Smenette

              Contax N Digital. Went on sale in 2002.

      • tomas

        good comment!

    • Anonymous

      No!!!

  • full frame

    simple nex ff kill m43 then canikon will follow it and who will want 1\4 of performance ? same es 43 m43 destiny is to dye simple u fanboys cry

    • alexander

      who needs more???

      hello wake up & play this:

      http://camerashowdown.com/

    • Gabriel

      Hi there!
      That was a thoughtful, inspired and *very* insightful post! Your evaluation of m43 performance as “1\4” of FF clearly shows that you know what you’re talking about!

      Oh golly you must be ecstatic about the moment when that $3K full frame NEX with only two $1K lenses expels every other camera out of the market! It’s definitely happening!

      Now please, oh visionary one, would you be so kind to lead me to to your dealer. I want some of that stuff you’re huffing, ’cause it sure must be strong.

      • Norseman

        The ridiculously low numbers of lenses avalaible for such a new format sure is a very valid argument…
        But there’s even worse: the size of FF (or even APS) lenses.
        That problem getting bigger and bigger as the body used gets smaller and smaller, for balance reasons.

        Really: who’s dumb enough to be excited at the prospect of a NEX sized FF body?
        Carry 3 or 4 lenses often, and µ43 just is the very best option, if waving the sheer size of your stuff and thus trying to impress peasants is not amongst your requisites.

        Plain and simple: I for one would never ever go back to FF, mirorless or DSLR – would it only be for the size and weight of my lens pack.
        My last few years long chronic shoulder tendinitis has been fixed (due to a few life changes; µ43 being one amongst many): and I sure would rather have it not come back.
        (Won’t) screw you, FF behemothic junk!

      • Al

        Like you, I have an injury that makes carrying heavy kit very uncomfortable. I can’t use a shoulder strap, so a wrist strap is my only real option. The injury weakened my arms, so I had to go light.

        FF is for people willing to carry the weight. I’m not.

        • Togger

          FF is heavy NOW. But what about when it’s not?
          What about when it’s mirrorless, when the lenses are pancakes?

          • Norseman

            If you’re only using pancakes, then chances are you’re neither doing macro, nor tele… then chances are you’ll be cropping very few, if at all.
            And if you don’t need massive cropping, why in the world would you bother using FF to start with?

            Really, there certainly are use cases for FF… very few, but there really are.
            Now, take a look at FF “pancakes” like Sony Alpha 50mm F1.4: 422g… that’s in the range of µ43 telezooms weight!

            Just be serious: carrying a few such FF “pancakes” would be heavier than carrying my full fledge µ43 collection, and all pretty much for nothing!
            No way. Just. No. Way.

    • The year was 1960. Mamiya Press was introduced, and Koni-Omega was taking off. Panic was widespread in the still-nascent 35mm fan-verse. Now that the bellow-less rangefinder was available for the larger format with 6 times the image area, 120/220 was going to wipe the floor with 35mm! And don’t forget the grainless versatility of 70mm! If Leica, Canon, and Nikon could not quickly enter the 6×9 rangefinder market, it was predicted, they were surely doomed. When the Graflex XL came out in 1965, the death of 35mm was undoubtedly imminent.

      And, as they say, the rest is history. This is why, today, all best-selling cameras for serious photographers employ the 6×9 format; only uneducated amateurs taking snaps of family and pets, and some war correspondents who need portability at the expense of IQ, use 35mm.

      • Anonymous

        FoolFrame is a fool donkey, it’s a waste of time replying to it..

        • Didn’t feel like writing poetry today. :-)

      • Oh, how I remember those cameras and even shot with Koni Omegas. But like so many things, times changed. 35mm was on the move, and the tiny frame 135 roll film cameras with their small, inferior negatives were taking the world by storm and changing the way we saw and experienced life. In 1973 Paul Simon sold and sang “Kodachrome” which made #2 on the USA Billboard 100. The little film camera that they said couldn’t, did it anyway.

        It didn’t happen overnight, but it happened. Small, compact, flexible, durable, light weight, lots of lens variety, many high grades sharp lenses and despised by the “larger format” aficionados. Sound like any system we know today?

        • In 1973 Paul Simon sold should be Paul Simon wrote.

    • fl00d

      lol just shoot yourself, ‘full frame’ and get it over with. You’re not convincing anyone with your ignorant BS.

      We already know your pictures are terrible, why else are you so insecure? Your gear can’t compensate, so instead of lugging your huge lumps of camera and lenses around again, you come to masturbate in our forum in a vain attempt to feel better about your failures.

      You’re a F***ing JOKE!

    • Anonymousse

      FF is doomed! Who wants 1/2 the performance of medium format?

    • Milton

      Good luck finding decent lenses for Sony FF NEX.
      Sony has failed in this regard with the APS-C NEX system.
      What makes you think it will be any different with FF?

  • If m43 dies and NEX-ff is king, Olympus could simply join NEX, no? Perhaps for the first time ever we will have a universal mount.

    I’m inclined to think, however, that m43 will win out in the end. History has favored smaller formats over time.

  • Mr Realist

    Olympus should just stick to making the bits that make the sensors vibrate up an down and side to side.
    They’re not up to anything else

    • Gabriel

      Yeah, totally. It’s not like the E-M1 sold out so hard Amazon is issuing warnings to prospective buyers.

      As Mr. Realist says: Olympus cameras, nobody wants them.

  • Mr Realist

    “Now, I am really not a fan of MFT vs FF sensor discussions. It’s like saying a big car is always better than a smaller car. You cannot compare two cameras by considering as only factor the sensor size. And to be honest when seeing prints you hardly see any difference if you do not use a giant lope!”

    Oh Dear, Admin is now stating opinions in the form of a tabloid editorial. However, it goes without saying that teeny tiny 4 thirds is a poor joke compared to full frame (thanks especially to sony’s sensational d800 sensor! {not forgetting the huge amount of well priced quality glass available – take note Olym-Puss)

    • Dave

      I see you as one less person standing in line for my new EM-1. Oh, and I also see you as an amateur troll with daddy issues :)

    • BLI

      Admin and tabloid editorial? Why not? You (Mr Realist) obviously failed in your application to become News of the World journalist :-)

    • fl00d

      LOL ‘Mr Realist’… you should go hit up the phone camera forums and wave your tiny dick around there – I’m sure you’d feel EVEN BETTER about yourself then, right?

      EM-5 was dpr’s ‘Camera of the Year’ beating out your precious D800. I love that you’ll never understand why.

  • Chris

    Ill stick to m43, the size is right. Big enough to look good small enough to be comfortable.

  • Of course 4/3 is enough. There is little practical sense in anything larger because the penalty in optics becomes more substantial than the gain in DR / high ISO performance / DOF control. Return is diminishing faster than it used to and this trend will become even more overwhelming in the future.
    Despite the above axiome, 35mm sized sensors keep being the holy grail in marketing. Moreover, many young photography enthusiasts fail to acknowledge the important role optics still play in defining the “image quality” of a system and tend to concentrate on the sensor alone. Hence Olympus (and Panasonic) might hit a high hurdle once FF mirrorless reaches a reasonable price level (which will take years). Oly’s strategy should include a ‘shelf system’ which is based on a slightly larger than 35mm sensors, say 36x27mm with a few prime lenses. When (if) the right moment arrives they can quickly put this system into production and silence the critics with one effective blow. Most of the technology required is already available to Olympus.

  • mrc4nl

    I dont care if olympus makes a ff mirrorless camera. doesn’t change a thing for m43 users.I very doubt it that it will have a m43 mount. it would be silly to attach normal m43 lenses on a ff camera.Although a ff lens for m43 doesnt need a bigger mount.If i compare a 28mm f2.8 for analogue cameras to my 14mm panny the the rear element and mount seem pretty the same size

  • gorman

    It would be cool if Olympus made a 35mm Full Frame camera, incorporating the 4/3 lenses and 4/3 lens mount, along with a short flange-back distance. So that the 150mm lens would have a 150mm field of view, instead of 300mm.

    However, I don’t know if it’s necessary. I’d rather they kept the m4/3 sensor and added an electronic-connected 4/3-m4/3 adaptor with a speed booster build into it. A speed booster with a factor of 0.5 instead of 0.7. This way they can keep the compact system, and with improvements of sensor technology, have a full-frame equivalent field of view option, using the existing 4/3 lens line-up. Especially now that they have on-sensor PDAF.

    • The 4/3 mount and lenses are not designed or intended for FF use. Just look back at the details which were provided when the 4/3 system was introduced. Take a look at http://www.four-thirds.org.

  • Olympus would face massive startup costs to introduce a new FF camera line, both in design and production of the body and a whole new line of lenses.

    The comment that Sony is going to wipe the floor of the competition in FF cameras does not have any factual basis in my estimation. Canon and Nikon have decades-old reputation for FF cameras and the dominant forces in the digital FF field.

    • Anonymousse

      Phase One and Leaf are wiping the floor with Canon and Nikon, right?

    • Togger

      If Sony can release a FF RX1 with interchangeable lenses & with some Olympus style E-M1 AF & 5axis IS, Sony WILL wipe the floor with the competition.
      Hell, if the OMD system was FF (but a little bigger) it would already have hammered Canikon.

  • I think Olympus should release a model with a sensor *bigger* than the standard 35x24mm “full-frame.”

  • DSLR Die

    m4/3 defeats foolframe. foolframe die. DSLR die. m4/3 is better future.

  • Hubertus Bigend

    If it would do Olympus any good, I’d be fine with it, as long as I don’t have to buy it ;-)

    I thoroughly doubt it would do Olympus any good, though. Before jumping on another wagon, they should complete their existing system. There are still lots of holes to fill before it can really compete with the big SLR systems in terms of versatility.

  • I was the first to quote the phoblographer for fun, and now admin quotes it again! Really he should be grateful enough to allow others to start threads :)

    As you know Oly agreement with Sony includes making lenses. So it is v. possible for Oly to design FF lenses. In this case, it would be v. easy to make their own body to go with it. Or not?

    As I mentioned it doesn’t make sense for Oly to make another full blown system, but a camera like the RX1 plus a v. few lenses perhaps would bring in welcome money, without being a ruinous investment. Sony however would have a headstart.

    IMO digital is fundamentally different from film: it’s not tied to a format. What matters are the technologies involved.

    It would be interesting for instance to know if Oly is selling IBIS for FF to Sony: I always assumed that ‘levitation’ was easier for smaller sensors.

    For a mirrorless company however it makes sense to play with multiple formats and see which carry more revenue. For a photog. too. You don’t need to feed different full blown sytems at a time. As I said you could have a Sony FF and two lenses and the rest m4/3. So why not Oly?

    It’s not either/or but and/and. Probably the weight of full blown FF system doesn’t male sense anymore for a m4/3 user… So just a body and two, most used, primes…

  • I, Photographer

    What’s with the fixation with full-frame?

    FF is only needed if you want oversize prints (over 30’x40″), shoot at ISO 6400 and want to impress your clients when you mention FF.

    Otherwise, APS-C and MFT will do nicely thank you.

    Olympus need to concentrate on bringing us noiseless sensors. We already have enough pixels.

  • highwave

    Dear Admin

    Stop publishing any material at all from “the PhoBlographer”

    This reviewer is a joke at best and very badly informed and opinionated. Stop sending any internet traffic to that blog and hopefully it’ll die out from lack of clicks.

  • Olympus have a lot of work to do, and it has nothing to do with 35mm

    First, they need to release a Pen PRO

    Second, they have to release a m43 fixed lens tough camera

    Third, they have to get their technology into a smart phone

    Fourth, start talking about the horizontal length of the sensor. It’s not full frame: it’s 35mm. It’s not APS: it’s 23mm. And it’s not micro four thirds: it’s 17mm

    With 1, the Pen is a very important element of thier lineup. The flagship Pen is without a sail (evf) and doesn’t float (weather sealed). Sony, Fuji, Panasonic and Samsung have done it, and the Pen line is going to suffer until Olympus does too.

    • GW

      How is talking about the width of the frame going to help Olympus marketing?

      They will be the only ones using that terminology and then once it becomes perfectly clear that their sensor is only half the width – game over.

      You want to try having the discussion with the consumer about how not all sensors are equal, the sensor size is not the only determinant of quality in the chain. Good luck with that.

  • blackghost

    I think I understand why the 35mm (I refuse to say Full Frame) trolls come in here to bash ANY smaller format, not just 4/3. Everyone here knows the advantages of 35mm, as well as the disadvantages. We know that all other things being equal, 35mm will win the battle in IQ, and yet 4/3 lives.

    So what’s going on? I think it’s about the price. The advantages of 35mm mean very little in real world use for most people, so the demand for it is actually small, and the number of people who actually need it is even smaller. If there’s little or no increase in demand, the price of 35mm won’t come down to consumer levels. There’s little that can be done about the size of the lens needed to cover that sensor, and while Sony is innovating, they can keep the price high if no one steps up to challenge them. The reason 35mm has not broken the $1000 barrier the way the original Rebel did is because those who really need it have shown that they will pay to get it.

    • Anonymousse

      Shhh… don’t tell the FF fanboys that medium format kicks their ass… they might commit suicide.

  • “Now, I am really not a fan of MFT vs FF sensor discussions.”

    The puny crops can’t compare to 8×10″ photo sheets. Muhahahaha.

    Frankly, I’m not even sure where the “FF” craze is coming from. It is sure not based on any particular photographic need.

    m43 and NEX and FujiX forums are full of people who owned “FF” for some months and then got over it – the expensive way. I do think the “FF” craze is simply another fad and it would eventually go, as the number of people who actually handled real “FF” would increase.

  • Bigger sensors acquire more light. That means more definition and more detail, i.e. more quality.
    I find so ludicrous reading that there is not much difference in pictures coming from cameras with MFT or FF sensor. Have you really ever compared a D800 image or an Hasselblad image with a MFT image? Try and then, let me know. There is a reason for MFT are not used in commercial and industrial photography (just to mention one).
    MFT is a commercial move. Olympus need money and to reestablish a presence in a market nobody was. So she needs to sell on numbers. Small size is appealing (large number of women got into the camer hobby purchasing ‘small’ reflex like camera in the few past years). But if she wants to hit really the pro- level (which she has barely scratched in the past), she needs to produce a tool fit for the SuperHigh Grade lenses she already has. With a larger and more performing sensor. Because, by phisic, small sensor don’t get much light. And she had better starting to develop the concept of customer care and assistence, stopping butt-f***ing her old time users.

    • Anonymous

      but those super high grade lenses are made for a 4/3 sized sensor – they will not cover a bigger sensor.

  • And since at OLY they are pretty ruthless on their customers – and SONY is being said it might present a mirrorless FF camera – I I would not be surprised, if OLY in a couple of years would come back resuscitating the E7 they discharged in favor of EM1, saying that they changed their mind. This, of course, after everybody got rid of their Super High Grade optics… You’ll see.

  • Chris G

    I would buy into a bigger sensor but keep it a ratio of 4/3, so I can still print.
    I hate cropping on a 35 format.

  • MarioZ

    Women don’t use Olympus, they use Canon mostly. Real tough hardened smart men use Olympus almost exclusively.

  • uiti

    Olympus Full Frame mount will be called “One First” and then they gonna kills M4/3
    though I don’t hope that.
    I think good censor with small good lenses is important.

  • robin

    great… i thought m4/3 is slowing fading… this will spice things up again!! =D long live micro four thirds!

  • Seth Ellis

    Repeating strongly enough that FF is the ultimate goal, won’t make it so.

  • GX vs M6

    The FF vs MFT debate is a waste of broadband.

    The real competition is between FT and APS with Sigma design for APS lenses.

    MFT and FF are as different as salt water vs fresh water, no debate to had.

    FT is just becoming interesting now, talk of the end of FT after this Oly camera are frightening. They can’t give up on FT just as they catch their second wind.

  • TempTag

    I would be interested in a FF mirrorless but just being FF would not make a sale. The camera would have to be usable, FF IQ, and I would wait for confidence the system would be backed with lenses.

  • JimD

    No, to the question.
    But, I note from the user manual that the Mysets are still not nameable. Something that has come up here often. I personally think that is a big let down. Even having only 10-20 characters would be great.

  • Darryl

    Absolutely not. My advice to Olympus would be:

    Establish a brand identity of making compact cameras with impeccable build and optics. Discard lines that don’t fit that identity – the entry model should feel solid, and only lack in controls (touch screen/2nd-3rd knobs), and sensor stabilization compared to more advanced models.

    Expand on-sensor phase detection autofocus into all models in the line. Soccer moms demand it.

    A fast telephoto is important for naturalist photographers on the move. Make sure it works with PDAF.

    Improve video output modes for those needing professional output. Many choose Panasonic bodies over Olympus on this factor alone

    2 PENs and 2 OMDs at any given level of sensor technology are enough. Three of them should have viewfinders (high end PEN, both OMDs). A history of making yearly models with negligible upgrades (prior to the Sony sensors) has hurt the brand. After on-sensor PDAF is standard, new models can wait till there’s a marked improvement in sensor technology.

    Companies can strengthen their brand with after the sale support. Witness Sony adding focus peaking in firmware updates. Let the consumer know that their purchase won’t go obsolete with the next model, and they’ll feel less nickel and dimed.

    • I agree absolutely. Oly just needs to refine a bit the order of battle but it is now good as it is.

      Different case for Pany which is still a mess. They’ll have to sort their lineup better.

      Despite this I still uphold the Phoblographer reasoning. (my earlier post was missed and another still awaiting moderation, a night later!)

      The impact of the new Sony mirrorless ILS will be big, a game changer. Since Oly already contributes with lenses and IBIS, why not have a single FF body and just a few lenses? We are talking about a budget of $ 5000, say a body + 2 lenses. Not a full blown system, possibly a 35mm and a portrait lens. Rich people and pros would love it, they would bring a lot of revenue, and it would not kill m4/3.

  • Rob

    No. I would think a poll on this site would come up with the same result.

    It’s not the sensor that’s the problem. It’s the fact that Olympus would have to come up with an entire lens line again. Quite frankly I don’t think they’d make good competitors in the full frame mirrorless market anyway. Sony are trying to get a head start, but we all know if it’s a serious money making market, Canon or Nikon will get in and dominate quickly and use their back selection of lenses for good marketing measures too.

  • Leo C

    larger sensor size will be the trend.

    e.g.
    Nikon just patented medium format lens,
    there’s rumor about Canon’s medium format camera, as well

    I suggest Olympus to consider making new system with full frame sensor format,
    Olympus got tons of OM lens, not difficult to create new lense.

    • Agree again. They don’t need to make a full fledged FF format. Use it with only a few lenses like Fuji was doing for its 6×9 film cameras. Use it as a medium format complement to m4/3.

  • CGL

    DUH! Dumb, not gonna happen!

  • prowatches

    I love performance of the EM5 with good glass, especially the 50mm. Cannot wait to see it paired with the EM1.

    http://professionalwatches.com/gallery/gallery-tudor-heritage-chrono-blue.html

  • paradoxix

    Please stop using this Full-Frame word it’s only missleading it’s 35mm film format.
    It only makes sense for a camera that had a 35mm format and the sensor was reduced from that, like Nikon and Canon did with there DSLRs.
    What is a medium format in this speak an over full format?
    4/3 is by definition full frame it was designed for that size.
    This Full-Frame word is pure marketing foo.

    • GW

      What would be the point of removing a perfectly understood and accepted term? We understand that it is FF (relative to 35mm).

      The world is full of misnomers particularly ones that are related to inheritance from old terminology e.g. a “lead” pencil, which now have graphite in them.

      Sure you could be pedantic about it, but basically you’re just creating more confusion.

      • paradoxix

        I doubt it’s perfectly understood. If every one knows it’s 35mm why not name it correctly in the first place. Well I don’t like these misnomers as they remind me of newspeak ;-)

        • I. Impress with your knowledge thank you

          • JimD

            Is that full frame made by zimmer? Its not photographic.

            • GW

              It was suggested above we use the width of the sensor. Frankly, I think consumers would find that way more confusing and it would actually work against m43 marketing.

              Yes, I am aware that m43 is the mount and not the sensor. Again, just another way to confuse the consumer.

              It sounds like most people would be happy to keep m43 to enthusiasts. Yet complain about the relatively high and escalating prices of their equipment because they aren’t sold in volume.

      • JimD

        The reality is its 35mm or 135 in film terms. FF has no photographic implication or interpretation. It may have some connotation as a put down for small sensors and used by bods with 35mm cameras. Other than that it has no meaning. What do I call 35mm when I use my 6×7. That’s right I call it 35mm. I have been using 35mm cameras since the early 1960s and FF is certainly not part of my photographic history.

  • Accept the truth Sony kill m43 just fanboys will buy this or asian girls that mostly like panasonic in auto mode. …..soon after. Nikon and canon have to release something. That will sunk. M43 even more oh wait for the iPhone 7 maybe same sensor please be honest to your self and accept this system is fail it wil be forgeten as 43 you will be beging at secondhand shops to get 100$ for your priced lenses in less than one year

    • Cyril

      pauvre type

    • Milton

      Do you own a full frame camera or waste your time on blogs annoying other people? I’d be curious to see your photos, do you have a blog or flickr account?
      Why don’t you do yourself a favour and trade that camera for some English lessons. Your grammar is atrocious!

  • lone.samurai

    Haven’t we heard and read all this m43 end times crap before?….well guess what? This format just keeps growing, adapting and getting stronger.
    Let’s for a moment entertain the possibility that for some strange reason the masses all wanted to suddenly walk around with huge zooms and large primes, what’s to stop Olympus from making the same 35mm ff mirrorless cams if thats What is profitable and financially viable and relegate m43 to the ultra small consumer and possibly even enthusiast market?
    Why stop there? In ten years time when everything may have gotten even smaller and better, perhaps one brave company may take a risk and make a relatively small medium format mirrorless camera and then what?….that means the end of 35mm ff I guess.
    Hilarious really. I don’t think any formats will disappear for a long time to come whether it’s nikon 1, m43, apsc, 35mm ff or even pentax Q!!!
    The only endangered species at the moment are entry level cheap & nasty point and shoots and I for one am happy about that because already cameras in phones are improving at a tremendous rate which will always encourage camera companies to improve what point & shoot they will continue selling.

    • Olympus making profit hahahahahah not even to pay yakusa

  • tomas

    for myself I say no …keep in what you are good …small good performing M43 camera/lenses

    anyway …I am from small country in midle of europe.
    Here on local photography forum was E-M1 release and it was totaly bashed down by all of the ASPC/FF/nex/fuji users mainly due to fact that in 1500eur(body) or 2200eur(pro kit) you could have either APSC or FF kit with better IQ and the body size is not much different
    I believe many other countries with canikon fans react the same way

    myself …i am ok with m43 IQ …but would welcome better prices thats for sure

    • archeogeolab

      I think Oly first should make their Sony 4/3-sensor a real multi-aspect sensor just as the GH1 and GH2 have. Why not use a Sony APS-sensor to make a real 4/3 multi-aspect sensor of it. This will result in increasing IQ viewing our Oly images on the common 2/3, 16/9 or 16/10 monitors.

  • lone.samurai

    If Olympus did release a 35mm sized mirrorless system I’d buy in and it would exist side by side with my m43 system, each playing to their own strengths and not their weaknesses.
    On one hand one for low light, shallow dof and if I want to print large and the other for travel, light weight and zooms at a manageable weight. I’m not carrying three times the weight when I travel, no way.

    • At times I am playing with the idea of getting an RX1 *next* to my n4/3 stuff. Mirrorless FF can do all sorts of digital magic. For instance it has a teleconverter, so it’s like having two lenses. One could also add an UWA converter. You can also have all multiple images devices Sony has: swipe Panoramas, HDR, etc.

      FF135 could be v. useful for both panoramas and portraits, which is 90% of what an amateur shoots, at untold degrees of resolution.

      To think about Oly is v. natural, because of the Sony-Oly agreement. IMHO it wouldn’t even dent m4/3, like the middle formats, think Pentax, never hampered 135mm formats. Prices are also miles apart.

      Sony attempt however could be industry leader, because mirrorless FF is SMALL and that could be a BLOW to C&N juggernauts. Just let SMALL become fashionable among the general public, the journalists, and its the beginning of the end for C&N… For Sony the beginning of the Eternal Reich, and for Oly sweet vengeance :)

      This is digital, not film. Different rules apply. BTW Sony will be multi-format, innit?

  • I think a mirrorless ff system makes most sense if you combine ff primes and reduced image circle zooms, than you have the advantages of both systems. Sony has an advantage
    here with their aps-c lenses. Olympus needs a 48-60 mpix ff sensor for their mft-lenses to to get 12-15 mpix images out of them. On the other side, Sony’s lenses are of much lower quality than Olympus.

  • John

    Mirrorless is the future no matter the sensor size.

  • shep

    The idea that FF is “ideal” is absurd. “Full frame” was introduced by Leica in 1925. It was immediately criticized as being far too small a format for “real” photography compared with the large formats of that day. And for having too much DOF.
    “FF” is an arbitrary size. The quality of image (IQ) at any given format size gets better every few years. There is no reason, other than DOF, that a larger format size is useful. The quality of FF at any point in time will quite soon be equalled by smaller formats.
    If you want short DOF, use a large aperture with today’s high-quality lenses. If you want gigantic prints, go with a large format. Otherwise, avoid back injury with new, smaller, gear…

  • Sergey

    The Phoblographer’s idea of FF Olympus is as stupid as their name.
    Phoblahblahgraphers…
    If Oly managed to manufacture mirrorless and flashless camera bigger than their own DSLR (with mirror and built-in flash) – E-410 which I still count as one of the best cameras I owned, I only can imagine what size their mirrorless FF will be – something like shoebox I think.
    I predict that Sony FF NEX will crash – with such small DOF there will be too many complaints from people not knowing the basics of optic. Especially if the price will be high.
    Look, I see the people selling their E-M5 with top lenses and the reason they sell them – too small (for them) DOF which they mistake as autofocus malfunction or defect in camera!
    I liked the size of Pens but didn’t like the lack of viewfinder and built-in flash. Even Casio QR 51 (which is slightly bigger than credit card when looking from the front – and I still own it) had zoomable (!!!) optical rangefinder – tiny but sometimes useful.
    I still waiting Oly to make really small camera.
    m43 is the only platform to perform that task and if they dive into FF (which means new line of lenses, bayonets and accesoiries etc.) will bury Olympus.
    Don’t you please touch FF with ten feet broomstick!
    I see people who invested in top Zuikos spitting like mad and moving to other systems because Oly doesn’t make reasonably priced 4/3 bodies anymore.

  • The entire idea of Olympus going fullframe is utterly absurd.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website, 43rumors.com, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.

Close