E-5 vs E-M1 size comparison. POLL: Do you think there will be any new FT camera?

Share

E-5 vs E-M1 size comparison image by Paniko (Thanks!).

So, now we know it for sure. There is no new “Pure” Four Thirds camera. The E-M1 is going to replace the Olympus E-5 too. This opens a couple of questions:

1) Was the E-5 the last Four Thirds camera?

2) Is Olympus going to officially announce the end of the pure Four Thirds camera system or will they follow Panasonic route and simply silently abandon the FT camera development?

I hope Olympus can answer these questions in September when they will announce the E-M1.

Meantime this is the question of the day:

Do you think there will be more new Four Thirds mount cameras in future?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

P.S.: An E-M1 vs OMD vs E-P5 size comaprison can be seen at Dicahub.

 

Share
  • There is no need now for new Four Thirds cameras, most of us have evolved with or to micro four thirds…

    • mattphoto

      Data on that?
      Because if you look at flickr upload stats, Oly SLRs dominate over Oly m4/3.

    • Well if it’s only “most” then arguably there is still a need for a 43 camera, to hold on to the last of us.

      And there may well be more of us than you think. Whilst m43 may out rank 43 in the flickr stats, it is also the case that E-XXX outranks E-X and – in aggregate – is close to the top-ranking m43 in use.

      Are we seriously saying that those E-XXX users – already in possession of relatively small/light SLR’s have also added an OM-D to their bag ? But that the pro E-X users – as pros already more accustomed to having multiple bodies and sometimes even multiple systems – are the ones that have held on to their 43 bodies and not embraced m43 ?

      Come on.

      It’s damned obvious that the people left to cater for are the mid-range SLR owners… who LIKE their SLR’s. They didn’t buy small and light SLR’s because they were small and light, otherwise they would already have switched to the even smaller and lighter OM-D or PEN.

      No, they just like their SLR.

      I am still clinging to the shred of hope left by the fact that this video was most likely deliberately leaked. If Olympus are on the brink of a decision about an SLR product, this leak could have been a way of testing reactions.

      That being the case, I am hopeful that they have seen the reactions from a LOT of people (and there have been a lot) saying that the EM-1 is NOT the right camera for them. This still leaves open the possibility that the EM-1 could be delivered as a range topping OM-D without closing the door forever on Evolt.

      Whether they have an E7/E700/E50 ready and waiting to be announced alongside the EM-1, I doubt. But the reaction to the EM-1 could well decide whether a future announcement w.r.t 43 is one of a new camera (or cameras) or it’s formal termination.

    • end user

      Who is this “us” I have an EPL-1 and as much as I like the output of the camera the user interface and using the camera is just a pain in the ass compared with my E1 or even my E-5.

      I don’t think I’ll be able to go with M43 as the ergonoics/size are attrocious. I’d rather have a comofortable 3mp camera vs a yoga excercice 24mp monster. Whats the point of a camera where I constanlty have to hunt for options and think more about how to operate the camera than concentreating on the shot/composition.

      Back in the film days I had a Pentax MZ3, it was great for shooting at night clubs as it was small but when I got my Canon D30 I never once wanted to touch a tiny slr ever. Then I got my E-1 with the grip and that was the best size for a camera ever.

      • I have and love the E-1 myself. Having said that though, I wonder if your comparison between the Full-on Professional E-1 and the point-and-shoot based EPL-1 is a bit harsh. Even the EM-5 is a semi-pro model, so until the EM-1 comes out, I dont think there is an apt basis of comparison between the professional 4/3 and a m4/3 equivalent in terms of control. Granted, by the way you talk about larger cameras, it seems like the EM-1 will be unlikely to satisfy you purely because of the size anyway. I do agree that not everything seems addressed by the m4/3 transition at this point, unfortunately.

        • Esa Tuunanen

          Basing to current pics E-M1 seems to be physically only E-M5 with small additions and changes.
          Just like how Windows 8.1 doesn’t fix problems of 8.

          And once again for Olympus there’s lack of differentiation between models.
          Instead of being truely different high end model like Panasonic GH3 this E-M1 basically sits in same slot as E-M5 with landscape grip.
          So once new features trickle down to E-M5’s successor what’s the point in E-M1?

          • Anonymous

            Hmm, and the GH3 isn’t just a slightly bigger slightly more advanced G5 or G6 for all practical purposes?
            Funny as the G5 was at introduction called GH2.5 by many.

          • Thanks for the comment. Well, hard to say what the EM-1 exactly has in store, but there seems to be more direct control buttons such as the HDR – The EM-5 is already quite capable semi-propmodel, so it just needs a few more features to actually make it a pro-level camera. For myself, the EM-5 is a perfect balance of compact body and its features, but with people needing grip, more access to advanced controls, and ipad mode(gotta admit, that’s really useful for a lot of purposes) – EM-1 seems, in the bigger picture, the right approach. I wonder how much of this negative perception also has to do with the looks of the camera as opposed to the actual innovations and features it might actually bring.
            I do agree Olympus can do better to differentiate or define the product line, but I think categorizing EM-1 as “EM-5 with a grip added on” is a bit of an oversimplification considering the buttons and features we’ve seen introduced in the short video leak.

    • derek

      right , they shouldn’t waste their very limited R&D money into the FT, with tiny usless optical view finder and annoying slapping mirror crap.
      the m43 is great and it is a better system than the ancient FT system.
      Olympus please do not waste your money on that FT crap.
      After all , EVF is the future.

  • HighStandards

    43 is dead and there is no further need for 43 development.

    The E-M1 is the bridge towards m43, use it or sink with the old system.

    Oly Should focus on m43 exclusively and seriously step up their game because with the sale of their best technologies (lens-tech, ibis, jpeg engine) to sony and pana stepping up with ibis and even an integrated viewfinder in a small formfactor they have not only nothing going for them anymore but are starting to fall behind.

    So bring it Oly and finally put 43 to rest.

    It served its purpose but its time to finally move on…

    • Dave-3

      Agreed.

  • There is still a niche for OVF cameras. But since it is a niche, I frankly do not think Oly would bother.

    Oly always – hardware-wise – tried to appeal to the wider audience. The only niche appeal we ever got from Oly was in the form of numerous firmware features.

    • Right, because the market for people wanting to use lenses which require PDAF support is sooooo huge, right ? (facepalm)

  • Why should Olympus declare the “death” of anything? As long as they offer a valid way out it doesn’t matter.

    • Oilymouse

      Indeed. “Dead” has no meaning whatsoever in OBS terms – it just a matter of being able to use the glass properly.

      Amalric has indicated there exists a small group of mirror aficionados that think m43 (even with cameras like the E-M1) is not for them. If true, these people will have to make a small mental effort to get back in line, but this will work out alright.

      We might as well start using 43-OBS or OBS-43 from now on, but that may confuse some even more.

  • Es

    The 14-35 lens pictured here is actually not THAT big. Its only 123mm long.

    In comparison, the 35-100 f/2 is 214mm long and the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 is 157mm long. Not even gonna bother mentioning the 90-250 f/2.8 or the 300mm f/2.8

  • KI

    FourThirds system isn’t dead… – there will be no new camera, but the lenses might continue to sell (and there might be some new ones from samyang etc) as they now will get 100% support by on-sensor PDAF.

    My 7-14, 14-54, 50/2, 50-200 will continue to be used.., and I still look for at secondhand 35-100/2

    • Anonymous

      you really believe it will be 100%?

    • Captain Obvious

      Olympus is surely happy to hear you are supporting them by buying used lenses.

      • KI

        Haha…. yeah … ๐Ÿ˜‰

        Point is – If you got the money, there are still FourThirds lenses on sale around – The 35-100 is a bit too expensive for me at the moment, and I feel that I’ve got enough lenses now. However; Let’s say I was in the market for a macro-lens right now; with the PDAF support – I would STRONGLY consider the FT Zuiko 50mm/2 Makro instead of the microFourThirds 60/2.8 Makro. The 50/2 is BRILLIANT and in the same price range. – One step faster than the m43 one.
        For the guys that need a faster “standardzoom” – the 14-54/2.8-3.5 is a GREAT option, or the 12-60/2.8-4 if you need the extra wide-angle (and a bit of tele).

        As for telezooms – The m43 system really don’t have fast telezooms. The 40-150 ++ focuses really fast, but at f/4-5.6, they don’t let in lots of light – the 50-200 SWD will then be a saviour as long as it’s supported well. ๐Ÿ™‚

        And yeah; I believe it’s going to be supported 100% – maybe even better than we are used to on FourThirds because the increase in processing power and the addition of CDAF that might be an additional asset to the focusing system.

        I believe. ๐Ÿ˜›

        • Robot

          There isn’t as good macro lenses as 4/3 Olympus 50/2 and 35/3,5. They are both just superb and best of their classes no matter how they are compared. For me ability to use those two lenses on future E-M1 will be big thing. Olympus should agressively market certain 4/3 lenses to m4/3 users becouse they are fantastic!

          I have tested numerous Canon and Nikon lenses and while there are superb lenses on their assortment too – i never come across winner (in price/IQ/weight/size/fastness) to these old 4/3 Oly products:

          12-60 (and 14-54 in many extent too)
          50-200
          50 macro
          35 macro
          11-22
          14-35
          35-100 (with some reserves)

          Those are fabulous products and if 100% support is to be found on E-M1 and following models then i think it is great think that E-system 4/3 bodies are dead.
          I will be happy to have m4/3 primes to previous collection and will really combine best of the both worlds. I think Olympus is thinking this whole process wisely. As long as they remember to market those lenses! Please Canon and Nikon users try new E-M1 with previously mentioned lenses and they really will suprise you!

          What olympus should do now is -> reduce models!!!
          No-one understands their naming and many different models, they are biting their own tail. There should be 1.Entry level m4/3 camera (400 โ‚ฌ) 2. Enthustiastic camera /(700-800 โ‚ฌ) 3. Semi-pro (pro-camera) (1100-1200 โ‚ฌ) Nothing else!!! Wit those three CLEAR price- and marketclasses olympus would sell so well.

      • Oilymouse

        I’m sure there are more companies, but for Leica, Pentax, Canon, Nikon and Olympus (the latter to a lesser extend, but still), the solid prices in the used market show that their system is alive and therefore attractive for people willing to really invest in it.

        If you’re in it for the long run (as Olympus clearly is), that’s the foundation you need to start from if you want to make high-end products.

      • ATTN idiots

        Actually, Olympus is, and it’s fairly obvious why. Give it more than 2 seconds thought, you will see it too.

    • Hifinut

      I am actually wanted to buy the panny 12-35mm f2.8 and 35-100 f2.8, but spotted a 14-54mm mkII and a 50-200mm 43 oly lenses. Ended up spending $350 for the 14-54mm mkII and $450 for the 50-200mm instead.

    • Zune

      Yes if Olympus say this E-M1 is made for the extreme, so the say by E-5.

    • OD

      He’s right. Too many people are going all or nothing on thus. Nothing wrong with the FT lenses if they have improved the focusing for MFT. Same with the flashes, TC’s, etc. Olympus isn’t flush for cash. They’re not going to want to throw out all that work or production to retool for new lines all at once. I do use the 14-35 and 35-100 regularly. They are outstanding lenses. Now that they will finally have a camera with a decent grip, I can pair those lenses with a decent MFT body that doesn’t look like a toy. The E-M5 is a wonderful camera but it needed a little more heft. When I’m traveling, I’m happy to use smaller and slower lenses. And we finally have new primes that weren’t developed in FT. But why would you throw out and redesign a larger FT design that pros could use but few hobbyists would? Pros still end up with a system half the cost and weight of comparable lenses. And when the glass is that big and fast, any camera body size becomes inconsequential. It’s about the lens at that point. I’m not going to use an FL-50R on top. But I’m glad they have it. The FL-600R is a great flash but its not the workhorse the beefier FL-50 is.

      Farther down the line when Oly is still at it and everyone is more comfortable with pros carrying smaller cameras, we’ll talk about retooling then. I’m thrilled that we now have a system that has expanded. FT bodies may be done but FT lenses/accessories and their size still have a place for the next several years.

      • Ross

        I frequently use the FL50(R) on my E-M5 which also has the grip & looks even more balanced with (adapted) ZD14-54 II lens on it too ๐Ÿ™‚

        The FL50R is good with it’s power output on the E-M5 for night photography with the M.ZD75-300 lens (& was too with the adapted ZD70-300) when getting shots of possums in the trees etc. I do need to use a torch for focus assisting though.

        I’m glad to be able to use these flashes (along with the FL36R for closer work) on the E-M5 (& in RC mode as well).

    • Dave-3

      The Samyungs won’t as they are MF.

    • This makes no sense at all.

      Why would you make new 43 lenses that can only be used on (currently) one m43 body with an adapter that not every owner of that body will have ?

      New lenses will continue to be MFT. PDAF will be a niche feature for a niche market. The EM-1 makes no sense as a “broad market appeal” product.

  • Do

    Shouldn’t you tell us instead of asking us?
    ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • Z

      lol, good one.

      The questions was likely phrased wrong. As opposed to “will there be?” where we have to guess what Olympus is thinking, it should be “should there be?” or “would you like to see?”

    • Z

      And the answer depends a lot on the EM1 performance. If AF is as fast as the E5, and feedback from customers is positive, that would delay the E7 considerably.

      However if real world AF is slower, or handling of the large lenses is awkward and users are complaining, it may speed up E7 development.

      Regardless, the E7 will be an expensive machine as it will be produced in low quantities only for existing 4/3 customers. Low quantities = higher price.

  • Anonymous

    IMO its only dead in the sense that no more 4/3 lens will be made. All existing 4/3 lenses will still be perfectly useable as long as m43 exists because all future sensors should (hopefully) have PDAF built-in.

    • That raises another question:
      Now that all those 4/3 lenses are presumably added to the m4/3 system, how many more lenses are still needed? The system is nearly complete, I suppose.

      • Anonymous

        The lens system is complete but those 43 lenses are too big and heavy for M43 and they won’t sell well. They will continue to be sold mainly to people for special applications, being so inconvenient and expensive. And in time they will all be gone, as no new ones will be made as few would buy them. So, new ones have to be made to fill all the gaps in the lens line up, with M43 mounts.

        • I believe the long 4/3 lenses are as small as they can be without resorting to correction by software. They would probably be as large if they were designed for m4/3. With wider lenses, all the m4/3 glass I am aware of needs correction, including the best available. lenses such as the 4/3 11-22 are not likely to be re-designed because of low demand. Besides, most of them are not very large.

          • Anonymous

            With regards to the long lenses you are right, but for the wider lenses, the shorter flange distance would most definitely allow making m4/3 lenses smaller then 4/3 lenses because of less need for strong retrofocal designs.

            • Ross

              Ah yes. I know where I’ve read that. ๐Ÿ˜‰

          • Tron

            Sneye, it has been reported that many 4/3 lenses can effectively cover APS-C size sensors and that Olympus was keeping their options open at the original launch of the system. That fact (or perhaps rumor) would seem to indicate that they could be compacted further with an image circle reduced for use strictly with 4/3 sensors. That being said, I run the 4/3 9-18mm on my GH3 and enjoy the fact that there is practically no vignetting even if the lens is a little larger than the m43 equivalent.

            • Anonymous

              Getting decent corner to corner performance with little to no distortion and little to no vignetting will make lenses larger, that is a simple consequence of the laws of physics.

              Some but not all of that can be corrected by software, and that does always come at some penalty (an acceptable one in many cases).

            • 4/3 lenses, especially those of HG and SHG designation are somewhat over-engineered. However, the idea behind it was to make them work better on a 4/3 sensor. Someone actually checked the 14-35 image circle and reported it would not quite cover APS-C.

              • Tron

                Good info, thanks.

              • I read somewhere that the SHG line’s dimensions were explained as “having similar size as the 24×36 competition but with superior performance” while the HG line is “more compact then 24×36 competition but with similar performance”

              • PNB

                Some history:
                When Olympus designed the original 43rds lenses, they noticed that an electronic sensor picks up light much more accurately/with greater sensitivity when it hits the sensor at a 90 degree angle, whereas the angle matters much less with film. So, they designed the original 43rds lenses to be “telecentric” which lands the light gathered through the lens straight onto every part of the image circle on a 43rds size sensor. They were NOT designed to work with larger sensors. The need for telecentric lenses was reduced by incorporation of on-sensor micro-lenses intended to pick up light from angles. I am not sure that the use of micro-lenses fully negates the telecentric lens benefit and this may be one of the reasons that the 43rds lenses continue to perform so well. Providing telecentricity made the lenses larger – though still smaller than APS or FF lenses for similar fields of view. If telecentricity no longer truly provides benefit, Olympus can design new m43 lenses for the same focal lengths that are smaller but retain excellent optical quality. If they scrimp on that and have some distortion corrected in software, they can go yet smaller.

                Peter

  • Anonymous

    no news here. most of us figured this out years ago.

    as a m43 user i think we should be asking why olympus hasn’t released high quality m43 zooms and telies.

    is it because the old guard at olympus want to give 4/3 an excuse for existing?

    • shatteredsky

      That, or see comment below …

    • Ryan

      I believe they were waiting to incorporate a PDAF solution before rolling out high-end zooms. Now that on-sensor PDAF is here, I don’t think it’s coincidence we hear rumors of a Zuiko f/2.8 zoom in the works.

  • blohum

    As a 43 user in transition to m43, so long as this camera focusses the HG and SHG lenses at least as fast as E5 I see no reason to continue with traditional 43 bodies.

    • chronocommando

      +1

  • Narretz

    Can we please stop with this Oly talk? I only want to know about a real GX7 review.

    • Mr. Reeee

      +100

    • Phred

      Just buy an EP5 with VF4 instead…it’s more better. LOL!

      • Cyril

        +100

    • The Real Stig

      This is primarily a rumour site so it is quite natural the focus is on forthcoming products rather than those that have already been released. Dpreview would be your best bet for a GX7 review.

    • bousozoku

      Write one yourself!

  • soyeltroll

    Where is MMF-3????

    • I have an MMF-3 right here. ๐Ÿ˜›

    • Ross

      Right now it’s in between my E-M5 & 14-54 II lens.

    • Ross

      Sorry. ๐Ÿ˜‰ It’s actually mostly hidden behind the E-M1’s grip.

      • Zune

        Size on grip is same so on E-620, but price is more same so E-30. LOL

  • Dirk

    Let me tell you once and for all. There won’t be any new 43 cameras. This is it. There will only be M43 cameras with PDAF, which will get better in time and make 43 lense work fine. Use your brains, die-hard 43 users. Take this opportunity to switch out and be able to continue to use your lenses.

    In addition, there won’t be any NEW 43 lenses. Any new lenses from Olympus will be made for M43, the future. These lenses are too big, too heavy, and too expensive to sell in any quantity, except to some but not all of the neglible number of 43 users who still cling on to 43. Why should Olympus make more cameras or lenses for those 6 or 7 users who still refuse to switch, now that Olympus has provided a workable way out for them?

    If you still don’t get it. Think about this. Anything 43 camera or lens even if made would be prohibitively expensive for such small numbers, since no one else would be buying into 43. Why would any newcomer buy a very expensive E-7 and a very expensive 43 lens to get into a system with no future when they can buy a DSLR from the major brands? Why would anyone trust Olympus’ DSLR again? See, no sales there for anything 43, and therefore they won’t be made.

    • Anyway you idea is, we will not go up to 43 from M43, but only from 43 down to M43, this is also an new thinking, and not so Canon and Nikon so is interested at folk go up from APS to FF. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  • somebody

    i can say OM will move 43 system to m43 system for sure. thats why they are working hard with the new adapter. pretty close to

    • OMega

      What new adaptor, it’s the MMF-3 that is used, an existing stock item.

  • whats better than to have camera that accepts 4/3 & m4/3 lenses with full functionality from both? Oly better not be wasting their resources on creating new 4/3 bodies, this new dual system camera is the way to go!

  • shatteredsky

    As long as I can focus my 12-60 as fast as on my E-600, but more accurate, I do not care. Though a smaller m43 version of that lens would be welcome.

    Cheers

    • Mr. Reeee

      +100 about a native M4/3 12-60mm.

      That would probably be the only zoom I would actually lust for. The 12-35mm doesn’t cut it as far as range goes. It just isn’t zoomy enough. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  • Macx

    Do we really know for sure? It seems Olympus themselves have gone back and forth on the issue. While I think we won’t see another traditional DSLR any time soon, I think we may see a “big” camera from Olympus again, probably using the “SLT” technology that Olympus themselves pioneered in the E-10 and E-20, but their new partner Sony has continued work with. Such a system could even be made with a removable electronic mirror (no moving parts) that would allow for compatibility with micro four-thirds.

    • “SLT technology” is dead, passรฉ.
      -p-

    • Zune

      No thank pleace, STL tech is trash for IQ.

    • “It seems Olympus themselves have gone back and forth on the issue.”

      There is no “back and forth” on the issue from Olympus. After E-5 release, there was a statement that it is the last 43 body. As outcry had started, the statement was retracted, and replaced by a non-committal non-statement. Then we had more non-committal non-statements over this two years.

      Considering the hole Oly dig itself into, there were only two options talked about: (A) drop 43 completely, or (B) make a hybrid 43/m43 cam. Without the outcry I pretty sure they would have simply EOL-ed the 43, just like they done with OM. But people started vividly recalling and bringing back the stories of how OM was EOL-ed. To save the face, Oly had no other choice but to stick with the hybrid plan. Needless to remind that judging by the rumors, there were multiple *failed* hybrid plans before – until the partnership with Sony has started.

      Frankly, as long as the PDAF and 43 compat would also make it to the entry and mid level m43 bodies (E-PL and E-PM), I do not mind. OVF on E-xxx cameras was never particularly good anyway. And if live-view would finally work with the 12-60, it would be a small miracle of its own.

  • Anonymous

    It does not make any sense whatsoever for Olympus to make any more 4/3 cameras now. Why do people keep asking?

    • Valentin

      People (those who understand why E-5 is functionally better than E-M5) just want to find out should they migrate to other DSLR systems right now or not. ๐Ÿ™‚

      • Philip

        That includes me. 4/3 does really seem to be at an end. I do not like the E-M5 at all and the new camera with the adaptor looks a right old bodge with 4/3 lenses. I am looking at Canon and Nikon options but will wait to try out my 4/3 lenses with the new camera before switching.

        • Per

          I have had some great years with the E-3 which I don’t regret. But it would have saved me a lot of money if I had picked another (Nikon/Canon) brand from the beginning. Now I have to start from scratch.
          I also have a GX1 and there are situations where you don’t have a chance to get focus in time (flying birds for example). In some other situations I think it is better than the E-3 but it can not replace an DSLR.

          • “Now I have to start from scratch.”

            You are not starting from scratch. IMO experience counts too.

            43 was my first DSLR system and I’m pretty fine that I have started with it: it allowed me to learn better capabilities of the DSLRs and lenses. Most importantly it allowed me to learn what lenses I like to own. Two my colleagues started with Canon (1000D) and Nikon (D5100) only slightly later, and believe me, their journey is far from being smooth. With the cheap standard grade 43 lenses I had a chance to try a lot more stuff than my colleagues (real a lot: tele, macro, wa). People like to boast number of available APS-C lenses, but what people forget to tell is that most of the lenses are junk and only few of affordable ones are gems and worth buying. Most people get simply overwhelmed, give up and never look beyond the kit lens.

            • digifan

              Well, I initially came from as some would say the Dark Side; “Canon”.
              I bought into the EOSsystem heavily. Had the 650, 700, and tried the “lightweight” 1000Fn starter camera after te 700 before going to the higher tier 10, 5 and the 1.
              When they started with digital EOS I changed over to 20D, but it was a crime because the camera and lenses needed calibration. Tis was not a free service and after having to send my gear multiple times I was fed up. When someone showed me Olympus 43 I was sold. It was all the EOS was not. “Light” total package, no more sensor cleaning, my E1 has never seen a swab, and very very reliable focus meaning no back or front focus issues at all.
              Given all the (r)evolutions you won’t see me back in the Canon camp as an owner of an EOS system. Nowadays I even rent more often Nikon than Canon for follow focus situations. If the E-M1 is as capable as rumored then I will buy it from the getgo.

            • Anonymoose

              A $100โ‚ฌ 50/1.8 lens is a gem – your friends had it available, while Olympus users had to pay $600โ‚ฌ for the 50/2.0. Also, that is a lens that is barely usable on the “junior” SLR models and is basically only able to focus well on the E-x and E-xx.

              That’s just one example.

              • “A $100โ‚ฌ 50/1.8 lens is a gem โ€“ your friends had it available, while Olympus users had to pay $600โ‚ฌ for the 50/2.0.”

                Wow, man. Have you even owned the Zuiko 50mm??

                You’re comparing the Canon’s “plastic fantastic” 50mm with the pretty much best macro lens ever developed. (Not the most useful macro, mind you.) The IQ of the Zuiko 2.0/50mm is legendary and still largely unbeaten. Canon’s 1.8/50mm is very well known for the IQ, but then, as the 50mms go, it is pretty much ordinary 50mm prime lens, with the only major thing going for it – the low price.

                “Also, that is a lens that is barely usable on the โ€œjuniorโ€ SLR models and is basically only able to focus well on the E-x and E-xx.”

                I’m not sure what you are talking about. The Zuiko 2.0/50mm auto-focuses equally like crap on all Oly bodies. (I have it on E-620, colleague on E-30.) But then, almost all macro lenses focus like crap. I use my own pretty much exclusively in the live-view mode and with the manual focus. AF isn’t particularly useful in macro anyway.

                Anyway, as cheap macro on 43 go, the 35mm is the thing. IQ is not up to the 50mm ballpark, but 35mm provides 1:1 magnification, while 50mm only 1:2.

                Any more of the “one example”s?

                • Anonymoose

                  You were the one that said “experience counts too”. Whether or not the lens is a “plastic fantastic” doesn’t matter – it’s cheap and it allowed many people to shoot portraits and discover bokeh, on top of letting a new shooter know what it’s like to use a prime.

                  And yes, I have the Zuiko 50 – and I have tried on the E-520, E-600, E-3 and E-5. It’s an entirely different lens on the E-3/5 when it comes to focusing. Fast (I mean “fast”), accurate, doesn’t miss direction. Same with the 35, which is another notoriously bzzz-bzzzz-y lens.

    • Phred

      Admin posted this page just to create controversy! ๐Ÿ™‚

  • amalric

    Japanese mentality is alien to the loss of face, so they might quietly drop the matter.

    After all they have provided the solution, and they probably know that of the original pool of 4/3ers, not 3% is left.
    Witness the 4/3 dslr forum at dPR where all that is left is 3 partypoopers, smearing the E-M1.

    All others have changed ship or are transitioning to the E-M1, and so because of the selfishness of 3 the forum is dying, what used to the biggest in the internet.

    Poll results are also significant. I do expect that there will be a significant increase in speed in 4/3 lenses, but by the same token m4/3 lenses CAF should also be much better.

    So why should Oly make, or a camera user make seppuku by buying a camera that can take ONLY ONE kind of lenses?

    Not even a Maitani redux would buy a 4/3 dSLR at this point ๐Ÿ™‚

    Note that I am a gentleman and I won’t make the names of the little shits and filthy mods that had me banned a dozen times for having predicted this even years ago. I will simply ignore them, and watch the forum go down like a deserted Titanic. They killed it.

    Now Admin, let us know ASAP how the constant 2.8 zoom behaves with the E-M1. It should make the reputation of the E-M1 as an action camera. No mean thing.

    And let’s bygones be bygones.

    R.I.P 4/3, August 2013.

    • THEY DIDN’T BAN YOU, YOU GOT YOURSELF BANNED.

      The foulness that spews out of your mouth is the reason you got banned. But you should feel proud because they stil make fun of you from time to time.

      Funny that you still go there, knowingly unwanted, yet you refuse to humble yourself, you just continute to spit hate.

      Mr. all CAPS

      • amalric

        From time to time I love a Talking Monkey and a Clown. One needs the circus. However I wished Admin kept them in a cage like lions, and unleashed them only from time to time.

        Otherwise the effect will be spoiled. Lick my hand, Talking Monkey. Here’s a peanut.

        • Anonymous

          Nobody loves you.. You are a bad man acting like a teenie: is that because your health issues? If so, you should stay away from forums on your bad days. Peace. And behave.

          • amalric

            If I look well in my pocket, I can find another peanut.

            Care for it, Olinguito?

            • Anonymous

              Save them for your mom LOL

              • Amalric’s mom

                I want to lick amalric’s salty peanuts.

  • Hubertus Bigend

    If the E-M1 works as well as the E-5 or better in all aspects, finder aside, there is no need for a new FT camera.

    There is a need, though, for a budget version of such a high-end camera with FT lens compatibility, and I’d still rather buy a hypothetical updated E-30 for $/โ‚ฌ 900 than I’d buy an E-M1 for $/โ‚ฌ 1500. Which is not to say that I’d believe something like that would be coming one day.

    There probably will be no new FT DSLR, and as long as there are MFT cameras which make full use of FT lenses while the MFT lens lineup is still lacking many important and serious types of lens, that’s fine with me.

  • Still a niche for OVF cameras???? Must be news to Nikon and Canon etc that OVF is a niche

    • Valentin

      +1

      If small size is really good for a flagship camera – why Canon/Nikon still produce pro cameras that are so bulky?

      If EVF is really good for a flagship camera – why Canon/Nikon still produce pro cameras that are equipped with OVF?

      If dropping SLR form-factor for compatibility with a cheap product line (such as MFT lenses) is important for a flagship camera – why Canon/Nikon still produce flagship DSLRs, not flagship mirrorless? ๐Ÿ™‚

      If one is not a MFT fanboy, the answers are simple. ๐Ÿ™‚

      • Ross

        “why Canon/Nikon still produce flagship DSLRs, not flagship mirrorless? ”
        For the same reason they were slow to add live view (& other features like sensor cleaning & art filters etc) to their cameras after Olympus started it.

      • BdV

        You don’t look at Nikon/Canon to see the future of OVF’s…

        • kl

          Indeed there’s not much things to look forward to for ovf. You know canikon will never give you 100% viewfinder in their lower end cams. Only Pentax includes 100% viewfinders in their mid tier bodies. There’s no such restrictions in evfs and its ever improving. Apsc ovf will never reach the size of ff ovf whereas vf4 is almost equivalent to a 1d x ovf

      • “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, chairman, IBM.

        • alexander

          right, so Olympus has its own niche !

      • Hmmm… Maybe Canon/Nikon don’t want you to think. Or maybe all this bulk is needed to support their FF lenses.
        I believe the two lions realize in which direction the wind blows, but are afraid to move lest their followers who own all those lenses are pissed off.

        • Valentin

          …and that makes sense. Only Oly is not afraid to shit on their followers. ๐Ÿ™‚ Such is life, will probably move back to Canon. Maybe I’m way too primitive to realize all the greatness of MFT. ๐Ÿ™‚

        • Mr. Reeee

          I still use my Nikon lenses with my GH2. I even bought a few more used AI-S lenses, to give me focal lengths we may never see, or wait forever to see, as native M4/3 lenses.

          If Nikon made a serious mirrorless camera, NOT their “1” joke system, it might be hard to resist. But, and that’s a big but, their live view would have to rival the “no chimp” Live View in Panasonic’s GH-series and GX7.

          • Jerome LaPlume

            Well, i think the 1 system is pretty cool.
            Focus blazingly fast, delivers sharp and images with great colors, and the lens offers is growing with nice pieces, all in a small package.
            Maybe it’s not on the same league with m4/3 or Fuji X, but i think it beats Canon M very easily.

          • Anonymoose

            So, are you also one of those people who think that Canikon will suddenly stop producing DSLR-sized bodies when they go mirrorless, instead of just tossing the mirror out, placing an EVF inside and keeping everything else the same?

            Just wait. It’ll be a couple of years more, but they will all go mirrorless – with full, absolute compatibility.

  • Ivo

    IMHO Olympus should take an e5 and insert as much of the newer parts of the em1 in ae5ii and make sure caf works as it should be, even with a price sticker as the em1 It would make a lot of the long tele fast sports semi and pro users happy

    But I seriously doubt if Olympus would do that, maybe they would do it with a e30 instead, both would be lovely, not change the exterior, just sensor, ibis, LCD, electronics

    but again doubt it much cheaper to bring a sub 1000 usd m43 able to focus 43 em5ii anyone? And I am sure that will happen in less than 3 months just before Christmas collecting the i must have em1 order first, followed by those who can not afford it and get the cheaper solution, followed by next year summer a even cheaper model…

    For me the em1 is smaller lighter and the drawbacks are less important as the gains in respect of my current e3 soo for me it is likely the em1 but I am not in a hurry…

    • flipinus

      Ivo,
      I absolutely agree!!! There are only four things that they have to do, 1)get the best image quality that they already have in an E-5 type body, that means updating the sensor and associated electronics, 2) update CAF, I am not an engineer so I do not know if this is a hardware or software fix or both 3)up the frame rate to 7-8 frames per second with accurate CAF focusing. 4) go up to 5 axis IBIS. Leave everything else the same. If they want to update the viewfinder to have more overlay information in the OVF, I would not complain. They just have to update the pixel count on the rear LCD panel, they don’t have to enlarge it. Don’t change the flash, don’t change any of the button placements. Somehow, as much as most people keep saying the OVF are dead, there are still situations when it has it’s advantages. Especially if we are talking about battery life. We don’t even know how the new EVF’s will stand the test of time.

      Yes this is a niche, but I do not think it is a niche they can ignore because of the perceptions of the vast majority of the camera buying public that the DSLR is the pinnacle of cameras. Besides, especially here in the US, the sales people will capitalize on this and steer them towards the camera that will increase theirs sales. I think that Olympus has to do this since they are good at both technologies, mirrored and mirrorless. They have a vast lead in terms of camera technologies and lenses in the latter, I think they can catch up with the former given the right products and proper marketing. I just don’t know if they have the financial backing to do this.

  • Knipser

    Hello Admin ๐Ÿ™‚

    What about new lenses?

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/further_to_fly/9556596506/in/photostream/

    In case you haven’t seen this yet. This is part of the Olympus hands on video for Engaget that got leaked.

    I like the camera, but at 1500EUR plus the extra cost for the Four Thirds adapter, I am not going to replace my E-5. I own an E-M5 with most of the better prime lenses too, so there’s no reason to spend that kind of money to get better low light image quality from my Four Thirds glass where I would use the E-M5 (which probably is on par with the E-M1 in terms of image quality) with a fast prime lens anyway. Also, Looking at the design of the body, the E-5 looks more solid, more rugged and allows for the display to be turned inside for extra protection. The E-M1 is not going to be that same, rugged, can-take-it-all outdoor camera the E-5 is. I also have concerns with customization options on the E-M1. The mode dial cannot be programmed, all modes are pre-configured and fix, just like on the E-M5. The E-5 allows adding custom modes to it’s ‘mode dial’, that is one of the strong usability advantages the E-5 has.

    That’s just my opinion. I will wait until the price of the E-M1 drops by 40% and then probably buy it. My prediction will be that’s going to happen about 18 months after first market availability, we’ve seen the same price drop on the E-M5 which costs now less than the E-P5 (ridiculous!!).

    • The E-P5 has programmable mode dial positions. In fact you can program each one of them. I don’t see why this won’t be the case with E-M1.
      Prices of Olympus flagships tend to remain almost unchanged until they get replaced (and anyway they are discontinued before the replacements are announced). Good luck with 40% price drop.
      I’m sure the E-M1 will have the same resistance and build quality as the E-5.

      I’m in the same position as you, but already decided to sell my E-5. Can’t bear its weight anymore. My 12-60 will go with it to make the package more attractive. Never liked that lens.

  • Yun

    Yes , GX7 reviews please .
    Where is Kai ( DigRev ) ?
    I still remember this guy did a remarkable GX1 review , the screen shot he stood in front of water is impressive .
    FT already become history & now mFT take the rule so
    no point to have a fully FT camera , just to support the lenses although I did admitted I love some of the lenses .

  • Anonymoose

    There probably won’t be, but there should be – the new E-M1 is going to be entirely useless to current E-3 and E-5 shooters. They have nothing to migrate to, so it’s best to just switch to Canikon and enjoy proper customer support and future without uncertainty.

    Olympus is going to go out of camera business soon. They make the wrong decisions all the time. Small sensor, geared for telephoto – whoops, horrible CAF and zooms that top out at only 400mm and 500mm equivalents. Billions of compact camera models – whoops, smartphones destroyed them. E-M1 – whoops, useless to most 4/3 users and unnecessary for m4/3 users.

    • Anonymous

      “the new E-M1 is going to be entirely useless to current E-3 and E-5 shooters.”

      Oh really?

      How so?

      And eh, the longest native 4/3 zooms go to 300mm, so 600mm ‘equiv’.
      So.. unqualified prediction about a camera that isn’t released and for which no reviews are available, and getting your facts wrong. I call troll.

      • Anonymoose

        The 70-300 that you’re mentioning is:

        1) Bad – like, really, really bad, up to the point of “requiring” f/11 at 300mm
        2) Standard grade entry level stuff
        3) Actually made by Sigma

        Nice try, but it’s sooo easy to spot m4/3 fanboys who never, ever used a pro camera, nor know anything about 4/3.

        • Anonymous

          Seems not that easy afterall, as I actually own and use an E-3, and have rented and used D3s for a number of gigs.

          And eh, nothing of what you said changes that the longest zoom ends at 300mm, you did not qualify it had to be a ‘pro’ zoom, or had to be made by Olympus.

          What are the longest Canon and Nikon zooms?

          For all I can tell, the Canon ones end at 400mm, and beyond that there are only prime lenses, unless you go for an off-brand zoom. Wanna stay with a Canon lens? Use a prime lens.. Hmm, this sounds strangely familiar now doesn’t it?

        • Oilymouse

          It’s well known it’s made by Sigma (of 30mm and 50mm and 18-35mm fame). It’s clearly marketed as entry level, and for the money you get a really nice range in a portable package. I’d take it instead of the Nikon 70-300 (also not pro) any day.

          Bonus: because of the 2x crop, you don’t have to go to the soft end that often.

          If you want to party, take a 50-200. Will be interesting to compare that on an E-M1 with a FF setup, yup!

    • Rchard

      Are you payed by Canikon for all that puking or just an ordinary idiot with megalomaina?

      • Rchard

        The question was to the resident TRoll, Anonymoose

  • Here we go again…

  • Anonymous

    The implication in the question is that Olympus needs to run two lines of cameras – why? Olympus would surely say, ‘We have satisfied that need: the sensor is the same, the fact there are 2 different mount sizes is something we have now adjusted into one camera body’. To make something bigger just to incorporate those larger E lenses no longer makes any sense. People seem to think Size is the issue: it is not and never was, the whole mirrorless movement was never about size per se, it was about newer technology replacing old, it was about getting rid of a mechanical mirror box that would ultimately be more expensive to make. The newer technology has given designers more freedom to create better equipment. This is why I believe ultimately the SLR as we know it has to face up to its own demise. So many of the negatives the SLR-camp said of mirrorless cameras have been proven unfounded. The (CaNikon) resistance now is about profit, nothing more.

  • stravinsky

    This is their chance to add a new generation of apsc sensors into their “E” line of big bodies. They could even use the excuse to go bigger if they made a 4/3 full frame or apsc in these proportion. Then they could compete in both markets. Would be a win win for Olympus. With their jpeg engines and wonderful lenses plus attention to detail, I am sure they could pull it off. Although it costs a lot of money to develop something like that…

    • Anonymous

      Dream on, mate..

      • stravinsky

        I am not counting on it, just offering advice. I am already transitioning out in favor of my pentax outfit. Sold my gh2 and had to decide between gh3 and k5iis. Same size and the k5 is cheaper! Plus it’s easy to sell my old k5. The one thing I will miss about 43 and m43 is the lenses, I was heavily invested.

        • ATTN idiots

          Great advice, Oly must be smacking themselves on the head thinking “oh yeah, full frame and whole new lens lineup, all to compete with two established major players in diminishing market where they produce cheaper and cheaper models to keep it going… what a great idea, how come we haven’t thought about it!”

          • stravinsky

            I am not talking about about a whole new system you troll . I am saying, implementation of a larger sensor in the regular 43 system that would utilize the size of an E5 body and normal 43 lenses. I am sure they can figure it out, just have to figure out the distance between sensor and lens mount. Keep the 43 proportions. Call it “mega four thirds” if you want. Desperate times desperate measures. They get to keep their customer base and they get to compete on an even playing field. They already have their medical division, they can afford to try it.
            At least someone has a dream here, unlike the bored bitter asses that frequent online forums

            • ATTN idiots

              You seriously have zero idea what you are talking about. Incredible. Continue living in the world where laws of physics do not exit, I am sure it’s fun.

            • shaind

              What is the point of putting a sensor that is larger than the image circle of the lens to a camera body? Want some LOMO-feel? LOL

  • Peter C

    I supported Olympus from the late 1970s to 2002 with the OM system and now use micro4/3, but I never bought into the 4/3 system. They made great manual focus cameras but I think with auto-focus and digital they lost their way and where always trying to play catchup to the other manufactures. I think they made some really bad decisions with their early digital SLRs, trying to be innovative and different with their 4/3 system lost a lot of fans including me. I was waiting and hoping for some sort of digital OM type system that they now have with the OM-D, but its taken around ten years for them to realise this.

    • Anonymous

      @peter, hope for a ‘digital OM system’ that is actually a continuation of the classic OM system was already lost in 1986 when Olympus did not follow up on the OM-707 (or 77 depending on the market you are in). Its right there where they gave up on the professional SLR market, and in the 15 years after that, they did nothing to try to resolve this for the OM line. Expecting a digital but truly compatible OM in 2001 required an extreme leap of faith.

    • ATTN idiots

      “Took Olympus 10 years to realize this?” Say, oh great prophet to whom Olympus hasn’t listened at their own peril, had it ever occurred to you that technology employed by OMD just wasn’t there 10 years ago?

    • Curzon

      They made great compact cameras… Remember the Camedia line, and the back then incredible Ultra-Zoom serie (the C-750UZ was the first with a 10x optical zoom…). They always tried to innovate, even if they sometimes failed somehow (ie: XD picture cards…).

  • Interesting that many are jumping up and down moaning about the ‘death’ of 4/3. It’s the same sensor, always has been. Innovation, it’s what Olympus is about. Imagine for the sake of comparison that Canon brought out a camera that allowed their Full-Frame lenses to be used on their APS-C cameras without sacrificing anything. Nobody has suggested they need to do that, but it’s the same as what Olympus has done. Except that Canon (or anyone else!) didn’t do it and Olympus did. I take my hat off to those guys every time.

    • Anonymous

      You already can use Canon EF lenses on their APS-C cameras without sacrificing anything. You even get better corner performance due to not using the entire image circle. It’s the other way around, you can’t use the EF-S lenses on the FF bodies.

  • liuswie

    If they are thinking of selling the E-P5 to the P&S upgraders, then it is priced too high. If it is meant to appeal to the photographers, then why cripple it for fear of cannibalizing the E-M5? Now the GX7 will cannibalize it for sure.

    • liuswie

      Ignore this, wrong thread.

  • Really Stupid

    Olympus isn’t paying attention – with all the charts out there clearly showing mirror less cameras loosing in sales they pick now to get excited about merging their SLR to mirror less – insanity

  • MarcoSartoriPhoto

    Admin, time ago you mentioned also a rumor about a fixed lens camera: can you tell us more? I’m curious to see if it will be something new. Thanks!

  • Anonimous

    I’m user of the Olympus e30 with some lenses (14-54, 9-18, 70-300), not the best of the 4/3 system, to go up to the E-M1 would have to spend approximately U$ 1,650 (E-M1 + MMF-3), with this money could change to another system (Pentax have attractive prices and good system), what would be the argument to stay with Olympus M4 / 3? size?. I like my E30 but no have video and I need it, but it is much money to keep in the same system if there are other attractive systems on the market for less cost. Iโ€™m not a professional, just amateur.

    • Valentin

      14-54, 9-18, 70-300 – they all support CAF! So what’s the problem? Every m4/3 camera may fit your declared needs.

      • Anonimous

        Iโ€™m not sure if the performance of my glasses is good in a OMD. The E PL5 not like the size in my hands with lens 4/3 (I had an E-PL1 and donโ€™t like). In my country there is no representation of Olympus and I can only buy online and unable to test the camera with my lens is difficult to make a decision just for reviews, for me is a lot of money, but it’ll keep your advice, thank you!

  • Cyril

    For everyone E-M1 is the best deal…why people would buy an only 4/3 camera today,the price of E-M1???

    With E-M1,newcomers (and all) can use small fast prime ,Scheinder will come with some weather sealed lenses and hope Olympus will come with more than one zoom…

    “Elle est pas belle la vie”

    • Richard

      optical finder!

    • Richard

      We would prefer an E5 MK II instead of M43. M43 is for small portable consumer use(better point and shoot).

      Professionals are in need for SLR full system for pro applications(national Geographic photos or wedding photos)

      • Anonymous

        Before being so certain, you should read Andrรฉ Arthur’s review (few articles back on this same site) or this post from a pro:http://jonathanposner.tumblr.com/post/40780795719/my-olympus-challenge-10
        But maybe they aren’t pro enough for you?

      • bousozoku

        Well, micro Four-Thirds is fine for certain professional work, but it can’t do everything well without an optical viewfinder. Besides, there is a huge balance issue using large lenses with stubbornly small camera bodies.

        I still don’t find it good for sports photography.

        • MAFAv8r

          What am I missing? Having used the excellent OVF on the E5 for 23000 shots, I can see no is advantage of the EVF on the EM-5 I have been using for the last 6 months. In fact the advantages are huge. With the high res EVF coming next, the disadvantages are?

        • Anonymous

          Sports without good continuous focus is an issue indeed, but that has absolutely zero to do with the optical viewfinder.

          Please give us some facts instead of a preference.

      • Anonymous

        Wedding photographers are much better off with an e-m5 or gh3 with 12-35 and for example the 45 and 75mm primes. May consider a 2 body setup, one with the 12-35 and one with a prime mounted. Smaller, lighter, more flexible.

        Now, replace e-m5 by e-m1 and you could use the 14-54 or 12-60 instead, and forget about the 45mm prime, and possibly even the 75mm one.

        Not enough low-light capability? use a 2 body setup with 3 or 4 primes, still very little need for changing lenses, and a very capable system for such applications.

        Considering a 5Dmk1 already had the performance to do this with a 2.8 constant zoom, there is no reason why a decade newer m4/3 setup with a 2.8 zoom or primes can’t, it is actually going to do a much better job at it.

        Now.. if you are talking indoors sports, thats another thing.

  • PNB

    It is clear to me that new development for the 4/3 mount has ended – but it is simply trolling to call that the end of the 4/3s system. Micro 4/3rds is an evolution of the standard that brings the best forward. If done well, integration of phase detect AF into the m43 system changes the game for m43. Not only does it finally support the set of excellent 43rds lenses (some of which I own), but it provides the basis for continuous / predictive auto focus, thus-far the weakness of the system. Tele lenses are primarily used for capturing moving objects in sports or wildlife that require CAF/PAF for best results. With on-sensor PDAF, Olympus will finally be in position to support that kind of photography with current m43 bodies. They can then develop native m43 tele lenses optimized for the particular implementation they have done for the hybrid PDAF/CDAF. The system now will have:
    * Immediate access to 43rds lenses – among best zoom lenses made and a few top primes.
    * The best stabilization system – key for long tele lenses
    * No converter required for new m43 tele lenses they develop – minimizes size & weight
    * The biggest sensor size except for APS – (and the IQ attainable with this will just keep improving)
    * Cutting edge EVFs that will ever more closely rival OVFs providing large clear images with ever less lag.
    * Hybrid PDAF will be included on all new m43 Olympus bodies so this will not just stay a top-end option.

    As stated above, provided they have done the PDAF well, this will finally make their new offerings competitive on all fronts with DSLRs. With this R&D front conquered, they can focus on bringing in top of the line video support – an area that Sony can help with.

    If initial reviews look good I will be buying the E-M1.

    • amalric

      Yes, this sums it rather well, and I am sure that if things are shipshape, the E-M1 will get terrific reviews – with objections to price.

      Surprising I find that so few get the notion that m4/3 is a scalable system, and that therefore a new technology reverberates through the whole product range.

      If there is a terrific improvement in CAF,thanks to PDAF on sensor, it makes no sense to keep it for the E-M1 only. I might quietly wait for the next E-M5, or even a cheaper body.

      Do note that there has been some confusion in the Engadget botched presentation. What they meant, I guess, is that if 4/3 lenses focus faster, they will never get to the AF speed of native m4/3 lenses of the last gen, those which have linear motors.

      So with this technology and the pool of 4/3 lenses, Oly has earned one or two years of respite, but they won’t replace the fast m4/3 zooms everybody seems to expect.

      Unless the company goes bust, or we go broke, which is a definite possibility. Now I must get my anti-GAS medicines ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Raist

      Why is that trolling? Why simply calling it like it is trolling or just having a different opinion trolling? The FT system comes to an end simply because there’s no new bodies, no new lenses, and watch it over a couple of years, those lenses starting to sell out of stock.

      Maybe Olympus can keep all the FT lenses build to order at a (high) price so they can earn cash from those in m4/3rd lens land that want to use them.

      • ATTN idiots

        Because it’s not “calling it like it is,” it’s a negative spin on a very positive event. But then again, that’s your specialty, negative spin, so what else is new.

        Any normal person will see it as CONTINUATION of 4/3 in new technology, enabling even more possibilities; it’s people like you who want to trash the system that insist on terms like “end,” “death,” etc.

        • NOT ITS NOT, IT’ S CRUTCH FOR OLD LENSES

          -THAT Olympus refuses to tell anyone it’s dead. Even that picture is a joke! How many users of this camera is going to do that?

          Olympus is stuck with a whole bunch of FT lenses, they’re not selling, and they not going to sell. This camera will sell to the 1% of camera users out there.

          What a waste of time, money and resources to go backward, when they should’ve made a EM-5 MkII.

          THey also talk about this is for FT users, but I bet it won’t ship with the adapter. Hahaha!!!

    • Jono

      Nice points! I just really, really hope success (even expected success) for the E1 galvanizes Olympus ZD into making pro lenses with weather-sealing again. This nonsense of ยต4:3 lenses with no weather-sealing is disturbing to a user like myself who likes to shoot in all weather conditions; who, in fact, finds inclement weather conditions to create some of the most beautiful and interesting light.

  • bousozoku

    Unfortunately, doing sports with micro Four-Thirds seems rather unlikely for me. I’ve already tried it and it’s a 50-50 shot. It’s not just the poor lenses but the EVF that makes it difficult to get really fast, well-focused shots.

    I can’t imagine that Olympus will be doing another Four-Thirds body, but they dug themselves a huge hole when they didn’t release a replacement for the E-1 in 2005, replacing it with the E-3 in 2007 with specifications that were good in 2005.

    • amalric

      You don’t know nothing about what is coming now with PDAF-on-sensor.

      Perhaps you are even so ignorant that you don’t know that it should help precisely with action and sports.

      Being a drama queen you try to attract attention on things of the past, while we are talking about brand new technology.

      Certainly it must be put to the test, but there’s less than one month for the first data to appear.

      Some even try to smear the EVF as unable to keep track of action. So why does my E-M5 has a double rate, can be increased from 60 Mhz to 120 Mhz at the flip of a switch. Is it too little?

      And what blackout are we talking about? I am sick and tired of clueless people trying to obfuscate new materiel, and technologies with their prejudices and lies.

      Just get back in the queue, and wait for the tests. You are not interesting.

      • Ross

        Good answer! ๐Ÿ™‚

        I don’t know why these critics even raise an issue with the so called ‘black out’ as a DSLR certainly has a ‘black out’ time when the ‘old tech’ mirror flaps up & down. ๐Ÿ˜‰

        • amalric

          Indeed. While a company gets its feet wet deeper and deeper, it might become difficult to understand.

          Focus speed technology, visualization (EVF), IBIS are all related if you think of borderline genres, like fast sports or bird watching. They must all be directed to the common goal of better resolution and timeliness, as if one was directing a trio or a quartette.

          Larger, faster EVF like the VF-4 requires a doubling of processing power, which also benefits to fast CDAF. No backfocus issues of the past. Add PDAF and you also have predictive focus.

          With the three of them working in concert one should end up in having better birds and better athletes.

          Stabilization in the EVF with long lenses must be tried to become aware of the progress achieved by 5 axis IBIS, video getting a huge benefit.

          I do forget to change the setting myself – so many factors. That is why recording different sets in Mysets can really make life easier.

          Old dSLR users might get confused, but if they don’t even do the basic effort of experimenting, their naysaying will just further undermine their credibility.

    • PNB

      bousozoku:
      I doubt you tried it with the VF4. Have you? The refresh rate is said to have gotten faster now with very little lag. The speed of EVFs will continue to improve. Even if it does not quite reach the speed of light, the speed of electronic transmission and display may well reach the point that the difference is not significant in comparison to our neural response time.
      Further, with regard to difficulty getting “fast, well-focused shots”, that is where the PDAF based continuous and predictive auto focus comes in.
      The changes brought in with the E-M1 are EXACTLY intended to have users like you satisfied by M43 system performance. It is currently the most significant weakness of the system.

      Regards
      Peter

      • bousozoku

        Peter:

        Auto focus doesn’t always work, especially with fast sports. It’s often faster and more precise for me to use manual focus than to get the wrong focus point, as splatter pattern auto focus does–even on Nikon and Canon dSLRs. I could have already switched to a D800 or D300s and a 70-200mm lens but chose to wait it out a bit longer.

        Until then, I have to wait for an EVF that actually works well, and I doubt the VF-4 works as well as an optical viewfinder, but I continue to hope for improvements. I will try the E-M1 and hope that it’s everything I need it to be, but what I’m seeing is that it’s not even close.

        • PNB

          Hi bousozoku,
          Fair enough. I do think it is just a matter of time on EVF response rate, but until it is there it will be an issue for your approach. Alternatively, I am sure that smart, object aware CAF/PAF will continue to improve such that, once a particular object of focus has been identified and locked onto, the focus system should be able to keep that object in focus even though it is fast moving.
          This could address the reason that you currently require use of manual focus.
          PDAF is a key development for enabling the latter in m43 and justifies the priority that Olympus has given it regardless of the ability to use the older 43rds lenses.
          The rest is the software/firmware to make use of the focal tracking data and the processing power to do it quickly. As we are all aware, the latter area has the greatest room for rapid improvement, but it needed the physical data collection provided by on chip phase detection to work from.

          Peter

        • Ross

          I think users forget to use the double frame rate with the EVF (on the E-M5 but it does halve the resolution, a small price to pay) which has been specifically included for faster action conditions. I know I don’t always remember to use it when it would give me some advantage in certain situations.

    • true homer

      Did you try with an ep1 or gf1? The 3 year old gh2 could already keep up with fast action, even in dim light

      • The Real Stig

        I replied to your comment in the GX7 thread about the EXIF data. Checking the EXIF data of that photo with Olympus viewer and Photoshop shows I was correct and that the exposure time was 1.3 Sec, not 0.7 as you claim.

  • safaridon

    I fail to see how the picture posted accurately reflects the comparative size of these cameras as not to same scale? As others have noted the EM1 is wider because of the new grip and if you campare the shoulder heights to EM5 using lens mount as a reference the EM1 has taller sloping shoulders to lesson the protrusion of the EVF similar to some extent to what the G6 does?

  • Daemonius

    My only gripe with EM-1 is that its too small and doesnt look much “pro”. Unlike E-5. And neither it looks comfortable and it really cant be with big lens..

    • Jono

      Many said the same thing when Olympus released the OM-1. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  • kl

    if the size is similar to OMD plus grip i think it’ll be the perfect balance. If it were to go bigger, it’ll fall back into the too big camera for too ‘small’ sensor category. My wish is the add on grip should have the 4way dial and hope the grip will fit a BLM-1 which i still keep and good to finally have a new home for my 14-54 mk2 every since my E-3 is gone. The EM1 is looking more and more like a E520 to me.

  • AdamR

    I want E-7 , whatever.

  • Raist

    Admin, Panasonic *did not* silently abandon FT. They first denied it (lied), then about two years later came forward and admitted fully that yes indeed, no more FT from them.

    • AND OLYMPUS IS STILL LYING

      At least Panasonic came out and told the truth, while Olympus lies to you and wants you to slap HUGE discontinued (to the world, not them) Lenses on your small MFT bodies.

      • Anonymous

        Actually, it is owners of 4/3 lenses wanting to use them on a current body.

  • Bob

    I’m somewhat amused, or maybe appalled, at all the claims and counter claims about focus speed from people who produce no evidence at all to support their viewpoint. The FACTS (as documented in controlled testing — see links below) is that the best of the new m43 cameras have caught up with all but the very best DSLRs, but that Olympus is nowhere near the best mirrorless or m43 camera in this regard. See test results from a German photo mag:

    http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51955665

    The summary of the result:

    1st: Nikon1 V2 91% accuracy.
    2nd: D4 72%
    3rd: 1Dx 71%
    4th: 7D 63%
    ==>5th: G6 57%
    6th: NX300 56%
    7th: K-5II 48%
    8th: D7100 47%
    ==>9th: EM5: 38%
    10th: A99 33%
    11th: Nex-6 32%
    12th: A77 9%

    And a test by a US blogger:

    http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51957330

    Results:

    A) Cars moving towards and away from the camera accelerating from or decelerating towards a corner, shady conditions. I assessed each frame as being sharply in focus, slightly off or out of focus. There were very few completely out of focus pix from any of the cameras.

    Sharply in focus: G6 85%, D5200 86%, V2 66%

    B) Person walking towards the camera, shady/dull conditions requiring ISO 3200-6400

    Sharply in focus: G6 93%, D5200 95%, V2 76%

    Note that the results for the G6 are essentially identical to those for the D5200.

    But please, don’t let facts dissuade you from your pre-conceived notions. Feel free to go back to arguing about your opinions.

    • The Real Stig

      Where are these claims of M4/3 focus speed being the fastest for tracking CAF?

      Are you perhaps confusing them with the claims of the E-M5 and E-P5 having the fastest AF for static subjects?

    • ever hopeful

      They don’t seem to have taken into account the additional DOF from the lenses used. Now in practice, you may say that if you use a (for example) 100mm lens instead of a 200mm lens that is an advantage, but that is measuring the lens capacity not the AF ability. You could just as easily put a 100mm lens on a D4 and crop the image.

    • Kabe

      Well, C-AF with Contrast AF is indeed very hard. This is exactly what the M1 will improve, hopefully a lot.

      In S-AF MFT works much faster than SLRs and with great precision. This also applies to moving subjects, as long as they are covering the focus field. If that condition isn’t met, Contrast AF tends to fail and focus on the background.

      I suspect that the test (the link you provided does just link to a forum posting) used the default setup of the cameras to focus, which puts any Phase AF into a better position.

      If Olympus has done this right in the M1, the progress in AF will be terrific for all lenses, not just FTs. On sensor Phase AF also addresses issues like the notorious front- and backfocus issues which plague Phase AF systems that use off-image sensors.

    • I personally see the Nikon1 V2 #1 place as a very good news for E-M1 C-AF performance !!!
      I looks like the combination of PDAF + CDAF gives better performances in C-AF than a single AF system.
      I would expect the E-M1 to give the same % of accuracy.
      finger crossed

  • Bob

    Admin:

    Why do posts with names assigned wait for moderation, but anonymous posts go straight into comments? Seems like it should be the other way around.

    • The Real Stig

      Comments containing more than one URL go straight to moderation on suspicion of being spam. Stick to one URL per post if you want to avoid this.

    • admin

      It should. But I have no control on that wordpress thing. That’s why we will mvoe to Disquis.

  • dirty harry

    Will Olympus get it right for those of us that have invested thousands in HD optics? Shooting NCAA sporting events this new body needs to have spot-on AF and tough enough to hang a 35-100mm. Screwing on a mmf-3 adapter and then a ec-14 ontop of your lens choice sounds crazy.

  • amalric

    Until we have some tests it is impossible to say how far progress in CAF and tracking has gone.

    But just for the sake of logic, I heard that a pro usually amortizes – offsets, his equipment in three years. Since 4 or 5 years went by since you pros bought the equipment, isn’t it time you got some new one, with recent technology?

    One might certainly object that Oly, or Panny, don’t yet have the fast zooms needed in m4/3, but OTH they were never the mainstream for sports photography.

    It makes good sense that a new system first covers the need of say 80% of the population, than 90% and only in time covers the need of the last 10%, if ever.

    So I can only *imagine* that 4/3 lenses will focus faster, but never as fast as new lenses with light groups and linear motors.

    But the latter in the end might become the fastest in the industry and that is certainly the prize Oly and Sony are aiming at. I remember, that before changing tack Sony has one of the best CAF+ tracking with translucent technology.

    So why don’t we stop the moaning for *20 day*s, before we start having the E-M1 performance figures from the company, and then test them at ease?

    It will be particularly significant to test the new 2.8 zoom, because that will give the shape of things to come, certainly more than the performance of old 4/3 zooms, which are legacy lenses after all.

    • Enzojz

      Surely not faster and that on E-5. For exemple SWD, the motor travels at a constant speed, the improvement I think will only on the capture de focus, so that will not miss like on E-5.

  • Krayzie

    The E-7 was already made and canned before release. That’s how we ended up with the E-M5. This new ugly cheap model shouldn’t be even called the E-M1, but an E-M50. Giving this a “1” designation is a complete joke.

    • Kabe

      If they actually thought about that, they were 100% right on canning it.

      Olympus needs to focus. Supporting a system where Olympus is the only provider does not have a future. FT has a great legacy, exspecially great lenses. Bringing that fully to MFT provides value.

      Klaus

  • Dave

    Dont trust Olympus they always crap on their customers by abandoning system after system – Pen F, FTL, OM and now 4/3. Other manufacturers have managed to keep continuity in their systems which is why Canon and Nikon have control of the camera market.

    • Martin

      Canon rules due to continuity? In 1987, they shocked their long-term customers by announcing the incompatible EF bayonet, and within the next two years abandoned their extremely popular FD bayonet. Slightly before that, there briefly was the AC bayonet, an autofocus extension of the FD bayonet that was marketed for only one year(!), only designed to fill the gap before the EF actually became available. Then later, in EF times, they suggested that the EF-S short-flange variant would be the EF for the digital era, just to breath fresh life into standard EF when 24x36mm sensors became affordable. Hmmm, continuity looks different to me…

  • Cyril

    Without Panasonic and Olympus today we can choose only between Apn and Pro DSLR…

  • Lacunapratum

    Looks like we’ll soon have the best of all worlds and I am personally very happy about that. An EM-5 for those great Olympus primes, 75mm, 60mm, 45mm, 17mm and 12mm. I’ll get a GX7 for those great Panasonic lenses, 7-14mm, 25mm, 45mm, 100-300mm, and I have already converted my GH3 as part of a movie rig with some of those Voigtlanders. I am now waiting how the EM-1 holds up, if it does, it will replace my E-5s for those wonderful 4/3 lenses, 50mm macro, 150mm, and 300mm and some of those great Sigmas. I am sure they’ll talk about the E-7 in September. If it still comes I’d prefer an E-7, but just the EM-1 would be great to get the best out of those 4/3 legacy glass. 4/3 and m4/3 have never been better – too bad the photographic public doesn’t get it.

  • ANTHONY

    I like to have new Pro DSLR with FF & 43.
    Nikon D600 can use FF & DX

    • Anonymous

      Would you go to ferrari and say “I would like a 911”? If Nikon suits your needs, go to Nikon! Nobody’s gonna blame you for that!

  • MF

    Has anyone noticed that the size comparison between the e-5 and the em-1 is wrong? The e-5 is pictured with the 12-60 lens while the em-1 prototype in the Video had the 14-35 lens on it which is quite a bit larger than the 12-60. So in fact the em-1 is not as much smaller than the e-5 as the Picture suggests.

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