E-PL5 shipment from October 12th. New Olympus Interview (there is no unprocessed RAW conversion)


The japanese site Kakaku reports that the new E-Pl5 will start to ship from October 12th. It will ship in EU and US one week later (Bhphoto says Oct. 23th). And our australian readers can now preorder the E-PL5 at Digidirect.

There is also a new Olympus interview at DSLRmagazine (Tranlsation here). The first interesting news that olympus admits that there is now “clean” RAW file conversion. It means that all processed RAW files are actually modifying the image  “especially with regard to distortion control“. DSLRmagazine also shows you in the article how the RAW processing works.

Panasonic and Olympus Preorder Links with specs and price:
Special GH3 page at Amazon (Click here) and a full Olympus presentation page at Amazon (Click here).
GH3 at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here) and in Europe at Wexphotographic UK (horrible price in UK!).
35-100mm X lens at Amazon (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here).
E-PL5 at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here). In EU at Amazon Germany, Amazon UK, Amazon France,
E-PM2 at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here). In EU at Amazon Germany, Amazon UK, Amazon France,
XZ-2 at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here).
60mm macro at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here).
12mm Black prime lens at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here).
15mm cap-lens at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here).


  • Anonymoose

    DSLR Magazine is currently down :(

    • Anonymoose

      It’s up now. Once again they said the E-5 successor, whatever it is, will be smaller. That worries me a little; my E-5 is just the right size and fits my hand like a glove. I hope the next 4/3 comes with a free grip, then.

      • http://www.43rumors.com/members/i-m-feoyon/ lnqo-M

        LOL. E-5 successor is not a mFT camera anyway.

        • http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric amalric

          I wondered about it. Perhaps Olympus does not feel strong enough to feed two separate formats and would rather convey all its efforts on one.

          It is surprising that even after a few years 4/3 owners don’t see that smaller size was what would allow Oly to compete.

          The pentaprism and the mirror assembly can be the first to go, but then of course why not make the register smaller too: so you have a m4/3 camera.

        • Richard

          What I know is that there will be no E-5 body with EM-5 sensor and IBIS. They have other plans to make 4/3rds lenses work well with a new camera. We just have to wait and see. Probably sometime next year.

          • http://tmutzek.110mb.com/ TheEye

            “They have other plans to make 4/3rds lenses work well with a new camera. We just have to wait and see. Probably sometime next year.”

            That’s what I was expecting three years ago, hoping two years ago, and about which I have been laughing for the last year. “Maybe, maybe not.”

      • Milan

        Yes, it’s strange that they insist that they are trying to find solutions for the 4/3 users and the problem they are trying to solve is size!

        Don’t they know that the E-450 was a very small camera already??

        What they really want is to not have to produce a 4/3 body anymore, but instead to offer a m4/3 body that can take full advantage of the 4/3 lenses. The main issue being AF.

        They should probably release an adapter with a translucent mirror and PhD AF built in (like Sony did) and be done with it.

        • http://youdidntdidyou.com/ YouDidntDidYou

          Olympus problem is balancing size and weight, if the new E7 or O-MD pro is the same size as the E5 but lighter larger lenses will feel unbalanced, if they make it the same size as the E630 but heavier to help with balancing Four Third Lenses than the smaller mft lenses will feel unbalanced…

          Solution = about the same size as GH3/E630 but with a much heavier grip (which would be used when shooting with heavier Four Thirds glass as well as with the new adapter),when using MFT lenses do use grip so weight feels balanced (or use a lighter grip)…………

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric amalric

            With due respect I think that Oly murky statements about a smaller camera for 4/3 lenses are due to the shrinking FF, both in size and price.

            There must be no room left for an E-5 successor at 1700 $ when cheap FF are pushing the 2000 $ limit.

            Some analyst predicted that cropped dSLR would be squeezed between FF and compact mirrorless, and that’s now.

            If Oly thinks this, after wasting 4 yrs. time, Oly will do all they can to adapt 4/3 lenses to m4/3. An E-XXX size with SHG lenses, makes no sense at all.

            Instead with an additional grip on m4/3 they can solve the balancing problem.

            It would be nice thought to know what is the remaining stock of 4/3 lenses at this point. It makes no sense to produce them unless they are refurbished with linear motors.

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric amalric

            With due respect I think that Oly murky statements about a smaller camera for 4/3 lenses are due to the shrinking FF, both in size and price.

            There must be no room left for an E-5 successor at 1700 $ when cheap FF are pushing the 2000 $ limit.

            Some analyst predicted that cropped dSLR would be squeezed between FF and compact mirrorless, and that’s now.

            If Oly thinks this, after wasting 4 yrs. time, Oly will do all they can to adapt 4/3 lenses to m4/3. An E-XXX size with SHG lenses, makes no sense at all.

            Instead with an additional grip on m4/3 they can solve the balancing problem.

            It would be nice thought to know what is the remaining stock of 4/3 lenses at this point. It makes no sense to produce them unless they are refurbished with linear motors, and two additional contacts.

            • http://www.43rumors.com/members/i-m-feoyon/ lnqo-M

              Well i talk for myself, but i will have a E-7 if the cost over 2000$ too, i can not use FF camera on my FT lens anyway. 😀

              • http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric amalric

                Yes, but you see, they are not making a camera FOR YOU. They must find a BREAKEVEN between cost and price, They are not LEICA, They don’t have Leica-type of customers.

                4/3 with its small numbers sold has LOST money for over TEN yrs Even a loyal Japanese soldier would call it quits now. The War is over :)

                m4/3 is not losing money or v. little so if they want to keep the SHG lenses for Archaeological purposes, the solution is adaptation.

                Even the last Mohicans of the 4/3 forums can see that. They are CLEVER enough to see that their last stand is for the lenses, not for the dSLR or the optical viewfinder, and the AH there who fear to go blind without it – LOL!

                Anyway in the INTERVIEW which is most of all an exercise in the interpretation of Japanese little laughs, for the second time thet mention a small camera for 4/3, so something is simmering in those refined minds – LOL!

                • Boooo!

                  You are so terribly, terribly wrong. The entire imaging division keeps losing money, year after year, 4/3 or m4/3.

                  At its peak, Olympus had about 10% DSLR market, more than Pentax and Sony combined, and their market share was actually increasing when they decided to pull the plug and go m4/3 to cater to the camera joshi, a market which proved not to really exist at all.

                  m4/3 didn’t save them, and it WON’T save them until they stop producing 20 different lines of P&S and ultrazoom cameras with 3-4 models per line every year. The amount of utter camera crap Olympus just keeps releasing is enough to pull them down even if they become the world leader in mirrorless.

                  BTW, try doing astrophotography with an EVF. You won’t see anything in the viewfinder *and* it’s going to severely screw up your night vision, so you will continue not seeing anything with your bare eyes for the next 20 minutes. So much for that.

  • http://YouDidntDidYou.com YouDidntDidYou

    I don’t think there has been any real RAW off any DSLR or mirror less camera made in the last 6 years….

    • http://perkylberg.smugmug.com/ Kylberg

      -Right! Canon, since many years, and later Nikon does things “image enhancement” in the camera processor. Now all does.
      This is the reason that the format changes on every new camera that comes out. -And the reason not all camera makers use .dng. (f.i. Leica uses .dng)

      • Agent00soul

        Don’t you mean the other way round? Using DNG would demand that non-standard corrections be done before storing, wouldn’t it?

  • http://tmutzek.110mb.com/ TheEye

    ” Olympus admits that all manufacturers are actually “cheating” on RAW files. It means that all RAW files are processed RAW “especially with regard to distortion control“.

    Sounds like, “They’re doing it, so we are doing it, too!” I actually expected a firm “Maybe, maybe not” statement from those pixel-squeezers. 😛

  • http://andy.bryant.name Andy Bryant
  • IanS

    Google cache is up though, so you can read it there.

    I think the ‘not RAW’ discussion is a bit confused. Olympus RAW files definitely are raw, i.e. they contain the measured 10 bit ADC values for each pixel in the array, plus a load of metadata to help with the calculation of the human-viewable image (including information on how to correct distortion). If you want to look at the file at a low level, you can do that using dcraw. The key point is that the RAW files contain all the information that the camera captured.

    There is valid question about whether it’s a good idea to correct optical defects (distortion, chromatic aberration, potentially other aberrations) in software vs. using the actual optical elements, and I think this is what the interviewer is really driving at. My answer would be that final image characteristics are all that count; it doesn’t matter whether a correction is made in optics or software so long as it’s effective.

  • Camaman

    I should bloody well hope they cook the RAW files in this day and age. Whats the point of releasing distorted and flawed output if you can address that in camera and save us the hassle of PP.

    Sure, they will make flawed and cheaper optics, that work less good on other bodies, as a result, but that is what all of us want… cheaper, cheaper, cheaper.
    Its our own fault.

    I hope they will cook them even more, to our advantage.

    • http://tmutzek.110mb.com/ TheEye

      ” that is what all of us want… cheaper, cheaper, cheaper.”

      You must be a member of amalric’s cult. 😛

      I wish you wouldn’t try to speak for “all of us.”

  • Bob B.

    I think you meant to say:
    It means that all RAW files are processed RAW “especially with regard to distortion control“.

  • arad85

    I thought it was well known that there is distortion (and CA) processing applied to the raw file on import to the raw processing program. Panny lenses on Panny bodies allow both distortion and CA correction, any lens on an Oly body does distortion only. It is part of the micro 4/3rds standard.

    But then there is always some processing applied on import anyway (LR does white balance and some sharpening on import amongst other things)

  • http://pekkapotka.com Pekka Potka

    Actually distortion info is not cooking RAW because the info is not in RAW data itself but as a note for the conversion software on how to read and process the data. The maker of software can choose to use this info or omit it, like some do.

    A completely different question is how we want our RAW converted. I am for the use of distortion info. If one lens looks bad after correction, it is a bad lens, simple as that. But maybe there should be a slider to choose from 0 – 100% correction, because correction not needed always, e.g. in landscapes.

    • rtry

      Every major RAW convertor uses the data only one or two of the more exotic less popular convertors don’t .In theory I am not against it if it keeps lenses smaller , lighter and less expensive .Problem is that is not always the case and when you look at genuine NR off files with no distortion correction a lot of the mFT cameras and lenses do not look so clever. I was actually shocked to see just how bad my E-M5 is at high ISO if you look at the untouched files. So called high end mFT lenses like the 12mm Olympus and the 12-35 are pretty shoddy when looked at without their disguises even my 25mm F1.4 is a lot poorer at the edges wide open than I was led to believe. That’s what I get for reading fan boy BS on forums lol.

      Overall I am still happy with mFT and the upsides easily outweigh the downs. Though some of the prices in the UK are shocking and with the likes of the D600 and 6D bringing FF into the reach of more people it could get interesting. I hope the GH3 price listed in the UK of £1549 turns out to be a mistake as it is awfully close to the D600 price .

    • admin

      Correct. I updated the post!

      • Oliver

        Just use DXO, all image quality problems solved!

  • Hubertus Bigend

    Wow, four years after the introduction of the Micro Four Thirds system and its first camera, the Panasonic G1, which already came with automatic correction of distortion, vignetting and CA in dedicated RAW converters, “dslrmagazine.com” finally noticed it, too! Congratulations.

    Too bad they were not even able to distinguish between pre-processed RAW files, which is not what we are seeing here, and stealthy application of lens corrections by RAW converters, which is what it is.

    Too bad neither the Olympus reps did!

    • Milan

      Yes, I agree, what a whole nonsense that part of the interview (not that other parts are very interesting either…)

  • David

    I find the Raw discussion silly. We all knew that when Adobe updated the DNG spec to version 3 that distortion control, ete was being carried forward. Come on, this is not news!

    Also Olympus have the best approach, the RAW is RAW!! Just open up the file in Dcraw and you see all the badness that modern lenses have. Sony, nikon and canon actually don’t give you true RAW and the data is manipulated before saved in the RAW file. This is very bad. Sony has latter removed some of the smearing in raw files latter with firmware after complains. But its still not right off the sensor.

    For Olympus camera is you want the full image just take your Pan 7-14mm lens image and open in UFraw or Raw thereapee. Then you will see the 7mm is actually wider, and some it thrown away to avoid distortion. If you need that extra mm, just use UFRaw and go for the fisheye effect.

    I think this whole part of the interview was wasted!! Really, don’t ask silly questions that are already known. Asking more direct questions as does olympus find AF on chip degrade image quality too much? Hence will not see AF on chip like the NEX6.

  • http://www.43rumors.com/members/sneye/ sneye

    By the time Olympus finally brings to market a solution to the AF compatibility problem there will be little interest in it. Panasonic’s f/2.8 zooms are probably the best solution anyway.
    Fast tracking remains a challenge, but let’s face it – Olympus never managed to compete in this regard. The only lenses which are still missing from the m4/3 lineup are fast long telephotos, both zooms and primes. However, using those lenses on m4/3 makes the least sense. Perhaps Olympus should consider a proper 4/3 replacement to the E-5 after all. Not many will buy it (I, for one, certainly won’t), but how many users will buy a large, hefty and expensive m4/3 body to mount their 150/2’s and 50-200’s on? I’d rather use my E-5 for that despite its dated sensor. It’s still a very nice camera.

    • http://www.43rumors.com/members/i-m-feoyon/ lnqo-M

      Same reason for E-7 now so for E-5 two year back, but E-5 sell good and i think a E-7 will sell good too.

      • londoner

        The e-5 never sold that good and it only sold what it did as there was no other choice for anyone wanting to get a new body. Looking at the yearly sales figures for all DSLR makers after the E-5 was launched the Olympus DSLR ratings were so low that they never even registered on the annual figures.

        The E-5 AF sucks compared to the similar level models from Canon or Nikon , which makes the demands for fast AF on mFT a bit ironic. Sad as it is if Olympus has any wish to make money selling ever better mFT cameras and gradually releasing higher end lenses like the 75mm making a whole new market is the way forward. Why go to a lot of bother to put out a body that focuses lenses that for the large part are already owned by the guys who want it. The SHG lenses are massive and the mFT market for them would be miniscule. Though they are great bits of glass I personally think you would be mad to pay that much money carry that much weight and then mount it on a small sensor body . Small fast light and compact that is what the market has told Olympus sells

    • Milan

      That’s interesting to note, that AF tracking is not something that comes magically by using PhD AF sensors (even less in the image sensor itself). From all the DSLRs, only Canikon have good tracking, Olympus and Pentax never did and Sony was not especially good either as far as I’ve heard.

  • David

    I think the solution we don’t want to hear is for Olympus to use the new lens design and technology to just re-release the f2 lenses. They will have faster focus, can be used for video and might be slightly smaller. But you will have to buy the new lenses.

    The 35-100mm was to be released as SWD version, which got scraped when the 14-35 SWD one was having focus issues. So its due to be replaced anyway. Similarly the 90-250mm was to be updated. I heard this back from an Olympus rep in 2008.

    • http://www.43rumors.com/members/i-m-feoyon/ lnqo-M

      Agree, Olympus will natural do SHG lens also for mFT later.

      • t5t5

        @ingo I really hope they do not go down the SHG road I feel that these lenses where a major contributing factor to the downfall of FT.Why would you pay more than FF lenses { Olympus shg lenses cost a fortune in Europe or UK } they are also just as heavy and just as large this is the absolute antithesis of mFT

        • http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric amalric


          Very true. Pros that use m4/3 also use FF. They use m4/3 for portability. Oly can sell HG lenses, it’s their job after all, they are lens makers even before camera makers, but there’s a limit. For special tasks a Pro will use his FF.

          Heavy, long lenses don’t go well with the concept of the ‘always with you camera’. Why make two times the same mistake?

        • http://www.43rumors.com/members/i-m-feoyon/ lnqo-M

          @t5t5. If we look 5-10 year by at go, i think Olympus will come up by a SHG lens, but not F2 for zoomlens.
          Example, is HG 12-60mm F2.8-4 and SHG 12-35mm F2.8 but them lens can have same size but not same IQ and price.

          And now by the new FT camera, the i think Olympus do, is think like on E-M5, not build in flash on E-7 but sensor for 5-axis IBIS can build into hump so camera will be more compact and also accessories shoe from mFT so all tech and accessories from mFT will be use in E-7. 😉

          • t5t5

            I have both the 12-60 and the 12-3.The 12-60 is considerably heavier, a little longer, and a good bit thicker it has a 72mm filter size compared to the 12-35’s 58mm. The AF on the 12-35 is excellent and the results on a Panasonic body are great .Obviously the AF on the 12-60 is very slow and it is not a constant aperture either.

    • http://tmutzek.110mb.com/ TheEye

      Updated designs will be optically compromised and software-corrected. Sadly, this cheapness will come at a high price.

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric amalric

        Well that’s the utter stupidity of The Eye.

        Because it is known that it is the manufacturer’s choice. Many m4/3 lenses have little FW correction. Like the very inexpensive Sigma primes.

        You might want to check the figures with reputed sites like Lenstip, instead of listening to this prejudiced retarded 4/3 henchman, full of misplaced pride and BS.

        Admin, give us a way to avoid permanently these morons, with an ignore button.

      • t5t5

        I don’t mind the software correction so much with the proviso that it keeps lenses smaller and lighter .It is a natural step forward we are in the digital age our cameras are pretty decent image processing machines why not make use of it. Where I do resent it is when they charge a premium for it in lenses that without the digital trickery should be much cheaper to make than the end price we pay.

  • Lena

    The DSLR interview was totally silly

    • http://www.43rumors.com/members/i-m-feoyon/ lnqo-M

      Agree, 50% off interview is by RAW (and maybe F-RAW problem ;-)),
      and not question mark by Olympus only have 12bit RAW :-D,
      i think the is time for 14bit RAW now by the new sensors.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric amalric

      I am in two minds about this. Take the 12/2 which I find expensive, especially because it has FW correction.

      My 4/3 9-18 is as good, without FW correction, and now costs about half. But the 12/2 is half the size.

      To me it’s clear that one pays a premium for the small size, and FW allows it.

      When mirrorless brands will start to compete with price too, we’ll see them decreasing. After all assembly costs should be less than with dSLR. Oly and panny should really watch out in not getting too greedy.

  • http://worldwitholympus.designbykl.com sadwitch

    To me it’s the end results that matter, in print and JPEG. You can’t use a RAW file at a photolab, you can’t place a RAW file into layout when designing magazines or advertisements, you can’t even print a RAW file using your inkjet printers. Unless you’re going to use these software corrected lenses on other bodies which till now there’s no such manufacturer, corrected raw if done properly would be a welcome ‘feature’. Why spend extra on software or plugins to correct barrel, pincushion, PF, or vignetting if your camera can already do a good job?

  • http://www.106racepark.com/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=CelsaJ31 Larae

    Howdy! It looks as though we both have a passion for the same thing.

    Your blog, “E-PL5 shipment from October 12th. New Olympus Interview (there is no unprocessed RAW conversion) | 43 Rumors”
    and mine are very similar. Have you ever considered writing a guest post
    for a related website? It will unquestionably help gain exposure to your
    website (my site recieves a lot of traffic). If you might be
    interested, e-mail me at: laraeeddy@gawab.com. Many thanks

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.