43 Rumors

“14MP LiveMOS” – and here it is, the “special” sensor for the new Olys. Let us see…

HDMI real-time output?

I’ll believe when I see it…

seems reasonable…

“Target” means the spec they are aiming for. It doesn’t mean that they would reach that until the camera is released. These “targets” sound confusing if these cameras are meant to be released in few months… The already have the resources to meet the criteria or not.

A 12-75 f/2,5-3,3? Are you kidding? They finally understood what we were looking for?
There’s still something I don’t understand… Why didn’t they write it on their roadmap?
I think you receive a guy’s wishlist unfortunately…
Besides, where is the difference concerning GH2/G2? You say the G1 should have the same sensor than the GH1 but you write it’s a 14mp?

So, there is hope for a 12-75?? Can’t wait for it!!
Anything about the design? Is it gonna be the same as the G1?

Seems to me that m43 needs some serious Fuji-magic on the sensor side

I think we should not underestimate Pana… More megapixels aren’t necessarily a bad thing…

Hope I am wrong but the Panasonic branded Live Mos technology has hitherto not been the most performing in terms of sensitivities, to say the least. Then consider a recent camera widely acclaimed in this area, namely the Pentax K-x with its 12mp Sony sensor and photoshites of 5.7 micrometers : this proceeds from a Pixel account that is two or three years old but great recent improvements with stunning pictures at 3200 isos. For reasons that I do ignore, Panasonic is taking an opposite direction with special emphasis on bewildering video capacities. A couple of days ago, «Mark» had a long and detailed post about the case for the LiveMos sensor and against a Fuji-like solution: though I was everything but convinced about the ease in adapting the specificities of the Fuji sensor he seemed to presume, his argument also stressed the involved industrial costs of such a move for Olympus. Unfortunately, he was very right in this regard.

well I think that this is quite difficult to understnad why these two models should have different name: a different sensor in not enough ti justify two models instead of one.- IMO, the onyl reason to have a G2 AND a GH2 should be sometihng similar to panasonic TS5 AND TS7 – same camera, one with video, the other without (or with a very base level video). which is, btw, wath I”m looking for, as I’m not interested in video…..

hannes: why do you say this previous rumor is wrong ?
Q1 2010 is FT5 now, and very few details has changed from this rumor.

Don’t believe it!
It just looks too good to be true. Specially the lens part.

And another thing no one is mentioning: the only difference will be the sensor? I see no differences in sensor, only on the EVF. And why wouldn’t the upper model have an integrated microphone while the lower would?

Not credible. What this is doing is raising expectations that won’t be fullfiled. Remember the Samsung NX rumored specs? What a let down the real product was.

12MP to 14MP doesnt make that big of difference….i want a sensor with better DRANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jos: why ? Video IS the strong point of GH1 over all others DSLR. That’s the only reason I’m waiting GH2: it would beat any camcorder ! (GH1 has some codec weakness)

Here’s a comparison table I made of all HD DSLR available so far:
http://blogs.wefrag.com/divide/2009/12/14/les-apn-hd-hd-dslr/

I still don’t understand people who a refusing video on DSLR. It’s one of the best innovation seen over these last year, every body welcomed it very well in the video world but photographer, always traditionalists, are still thinking it makes the camera worsen.
Divide is right!
(Et d’ailleurs, je suis content de voir un autre Français ici! Super ton comparatif!!)

Paying for things that you don’t need? Are you using ALL the features of your mobile phone? Or all the options of your Photoshop-like software? Or ALL the games included in your Operanting System?

Companies have included video in cameras because PEOPLE (like me) want it, like it, and because price does not rise too much.

If you don’t want video, just don’t use it. You’re paying for all the device, and it’s silly to ask to pay only for the features you use.

Maybe somebody wants video but not the EVF, other does not care about the articulated LCD, other does not want a integrated flash,… etc.

Video will be on almost every camera. It’s even on mobile phones. Learn to live with that and stop crying

“If you don’t want video, just don’t use it.”

Simplicity is the point. A lot of people, myself included, just want a pure photographic tool. Nothing more. If video, scene modes, and all that fluff is added it gets in the way of the photographic experience. I went back to shooting film with a Pentax LX because no one aside from Leica ($$$) makes a pure camera anymore. I don’t want or need excess buttons, dials, microphones, menu bloat, scene modes, face detection, pop up flash, or faux metal on a camera. Basically there are a large number of people that want exactly what the Leica M9 offers (a no nonsense camera), but can’t afford a $7000 body + $3000 glass.

Jos: adding features does not make the device complex.

-power on camera, auto-mode, click
-power on DVD player, insert dvd, press “play”
-insert meal into micro-wave, chose timing, press “start”

All the additionnal features do not interfere with the simplest auto mode.

“These cameras aren’t designed for dummies. I’m sure you all are smart enough to avoid video options without troubles”

It has nothing to do with being smart enough, I’m a software interface designer by day, so I know a thing or two about tech and gadgets. I just prefer a more pure experience. Photography for me is away to unplug and get away from the tech world. When I’m out taking photos I don’t want to be distracted by junk features. I want a lens, aperture control, a view finder of some sort, and a shutter release. That’s all I want. Take a Leica M9, put an EVF where the view finder is and call it a day. That is the m4/3′s camera I want. I’d also be interested in a m4/3′s version of the Contax G2, complete with optical zoom view finder instead of an EVF.

Well, I’m one of those software developers (currently without job) that likes to make things absurdly complex instead of easy

As I already said, I’m sure you’ll be smart enough to avoid those “junk features” and not being distracted while you take your photos. Meanwhile I’ll be enjoying playing with the video of my EVIL camera

Leica’s way is not the right way. Sure they’re great, but the price is silly. And Leica is quite snob, that’s why there’s no video there, for the same absurd reason of their prices.

@Jos

At least regarding photography, the problem is more fundamental. I am amazed by the amount of dSLR owners that has no clue about elementary things such as aperture, shutter speed, sensitivity, etc.

if iA mode was flawless, directly connected to the brain, and that out-of-the-box jpegs were optimal, then I’d only want a shutter. For now, I can live with bloated interfaces even if I too prefer simplicity.
Average soccer mom and dummies are no excuses. those are not meant as end-user GUI.

“I also find it hard to justify a move from digital back to film just because the film camera doesn’t have a video option. Really?”

You’re getting too hung up on the video part. It’s about overall simplicity. Video is just one of the MANY features I don’t want on a camera. Eliminating just video won’t help. Take a look at how a Leica M9 is operated, then take a look at the controls on the average Japanese designed digital camera. Lets just say that these Japanese companies could learn a thing or two from a company like Leica (or even Apple). Don’t let features get in the way of the original purpose of the gadget. I want a camera so clean and simple that I rarely every have to look at the menu system at all.

And don’t knock film, I’ve been blown away by some of the pics I’ve been getting. Nice film in good light can easily out resolve the vast majority of digital cameras out there….and more importantly the color tone and dynamic range (I never see jagged white clipping anymore) is far better than any DSLR period. Really the only thing I need digital for is convenience and price (if you take a lot of pics).

I’m not knocking film, but the ability to review your clips and take practically endless pictures is priceless for me.

I understand your concern for design. I love functional design. More hardware knobs is better for me, but some may want fewer and therefore longer menus. And hooray for Olympus letting the user change the functionality of buttons. Not sure if Panasonic is doing that yet, but they should if not. Some people have mentioned a number of manual knobs/buttons that can be programmed to ones exact preferences. Imaging being able to erase the video option from firmware if you wanted to. Or let the menu only let you access shutter speed or iso. That would be an awesome solution for people who monitor a site like this, but I guarantee people would then complain that it is too hard and annoying to program it the first time. Or maybe people would complain about that too.. Anyone tried a Logitech harmony remote? You can basically program it to do exactly what you want it to, but it does take some setup time. Olympus has taken a step in the right direction. Maybe all we are waiting on is the ability to change the printed label on the buttons with led displays or something.

I hope for the sake of meeting everyone’s needs that there will be hybrid cameras and still-only cameras. It is just that the video is practically free since just about the same hardware is required for either device. Or maybe there will be a still imaging sensor that takes better stills, but can’t handle the fast reading and writing of video. In that instance, I say make the still camera. In almost all other instances, though, CMOS-types of devices can do both and most likely will not be handcuffed out of the box.

@ Liza

Global shutter in CMOS has been demonstrated thru “Scientific CMOS” (www.scmos.com) — sCMOS can currently do global shutter at 2560x2160x52.5Hz (grey scale). It is for technical applications, but there doesn’t seem to be any particular reasons why it couldn’t be adapted to general digital imaging.

Has Panasonic done all that in such a short time? Like you, I have my doubts …

I don’t buy the notion that movie capability is free in a still camera. It takes lots of software effort to support movies, and motion recording does not require a low noise sensor. All of the effort put into supporting movies could be directed at developing a low noise sensor, which is, once again, the weakest point of the current M4/3, IMHO.