(FT4) E-5 successor the second half of the year.


A couple of readers sent me info that they are getting info from their Store or Olympus dealers that the E-5 is running out of Stock. The only thing I heard from a trusted sources is “the E-5 successor is defintiely coming…but not yet! it will be on market the second half of 2013!

The next announcement will come in very early 2013 and be for at leats one new camera and one new MFT lens.

  • Richard

    I got a mail from Olympus (after asking them) that the E-5 successor will be something totally new. Not an E-5 body with an EM-5 sensor.

    • binoyte

      yes indeed. It will be an E-3 body with an EM-6 sensor !!

  • I’d better start saving then, in this economy it’s gonna take forever… By late 2014 I expect my E5 to reach 50,000 clicks…

  • Anonymous

    I call BS. The reason the E-5 is running out of stock is because they are no longer produced, and you’d have to be insane to spend $1700 on a camera with 2008 specs at the end of 2012.

    • @Anonymous
      the Nikon D4 and the Canon EOS 5D Mark III are pretty much 2008/9 specs so who’s insane?

      • EASY

        Nikon and Canon are still supported, unlike Olympus 4/3.
        So yes – it is complete wasting of money.

        • MAFAv8r

          @EASY not supported? How?

          • EASY

            No new lenses.
            No roadmap.
            1 obsolete overpriced body with spec from 2008 spec.
            4/3 lenses cannot be used properly on M4/3.
            No upgrade path, users can only switch.
            4/3 system is dead, not worth investing a penny.

            • bart

              You can still buy new lenses for your 4/3 camera.
              You can still get the camera and lenses repaired.
              You can still ask questions and get answers about using such a camera and lenses.

              So to a practical definition of ‘supported’, 4/3 is still supported.

              You’d be right to claim that there is no longer any active development for all we can see. That is relevant, but not the same as ‘unsupported’.

              • Bollox

                blah blah blah… go out and shoot dimwit.

                • Bollox

                  I wasn’t talking to you dick.

              • bart

                That is not an advice but simple facts.

        • Jerome LaPlume

          Well…for a owner of Zuiko’s HG lens E5 is, simply, the best camera he can get.
          Yep, it’s pricey(look at K5 and 7d, for example), but in four years we haven’t seen any price cut, so probably in terms of sales E5 have done her job.

          • Sorry, but EASY is right. Somebody that pays so much for such an old cam must really be a little bit crazy… The problem is, that FT-User with Pro lenses don’t have a choice, except the solution to adapt them at mFT bodies, but for that the lenses are to big and to heavy and to slow.

            It’s still possible to make wonderfull pics with the E-M5, and absolutely no need to buy a new cam if you are happy with it, but to buy a new one with this old technology for such a price is another thing.

            • bart

              Sorry but he is not right at all.

              Looking at the price of a camera body only is ignoring the fact that you need lenses to make use of that body.

              If you already own a bunch of nice lenses, then the choice is between buying a new body, or buying a new body + lenses to replace what you currently have.

              That will typically be spending some $1700 compared to spending some $5000++++

              Yes, spending that $5000+++++ will indeed get you something better, but it also means spending a lot more money.

              Now, if you are exclusively talking about someone starting with nothing at all, and having to make a choice, you’d be right, but, that is a very limited way of looking at things.

              • Better sell all Oly FT Pro lenses and buy some nice equipment from another company ;-) If I had some pro or only semi pro lenses I would feel like I’m fooled by Olympus.

                • bart

                  If all you care about is a body with the latest and greatest tech, that makes sense.

                  But you won’t get enough for those HG and SHG lenses to get anywhere near replacing them for any other system, if requivalent replacements exist at all. Tell me, where is the equivalent for the 50-200 in Nikon’s system? There is one from Canon, but you’ll not be able to buy it after selling your 50-200.

                  Obviously, an E-5 can be had for far less then $1700, and will breathe some 3+ years of extra life into those lenses. If you can totally deal with the technical limitations of the E-5. then that is a much better option then what you suggest. If yo can’t live with the technical limitations of the E-5 at all, then you should not have been in this system to begin with, and this all should not matter to you at all.

                  What you suggest however Matthias is easy talk from someone who is not in that position, and with total disregard for the fact that there isn’t a viable replacement in most systems for lenses like the 12-60 and 50-200 or when they exist, those being rather pricey and not something you’ll be able to buy from selling your current lenses. What is more, if you were to get a COMPLETE functional replacement, you’ll be spending a lot of money regardless of selling your current lenses.

                • You Selling

                  You have any you are selling?

            • bousozoku

              When I bought my E-5 last year, it wasn’t the choice I wanted. It wasn’t nearly as advanced as I wanted with the sensor they’ve included.

              However, my lenses are too good to waste and switching brands would mean buying poorer quality lenses at 1.5-2.0 times the price, just to get better low light ability.

              At this point, the E-5 should at least get the GF5 sensor, if they want to stay with the same image size. It won’t be great but it will be improved.

        • @EASY
          I’m hearing that canikon support is a bit thin on the ground lately…..

          and who needs so much support with a four thirds cameras that are built to last ( my two L10’s have done over 300,000 shots each since 2008 and are in perfect working order)

      • Anonymous

        Firstly, the use of D4 HAS been called into question given the quality of the D800, and this is widely discussed, and I doubt Nikon is selling many of these.

        Secondly, the D4 and 5D MIII eat the Olympus E-5 for breakfast and crap it out before lunch.

        The E-5 was behind latest tech even when it was released. I understand that the owners of SHG glass and those who had an actual use for the 2x crop factor (like with the 150mm f/2 lens) feel a bit trapped and screwed at the same time. But that’s life, and those lenses can still be unloaded for quite some money.

        I too am a 4/3 user, I still have my Oly E-620, but fact is, 4/3 was a failed business venture, it lost money, and Olympus didn’t even make a dent in the DSLR market. Even in its heyday it only had 6% market share.

        • Ulli

          4/3 failed because of the consumers who are brainwashed with the idea that you can only do decent photography with nikon or canon.

          • Anonymous

            4/3 failed because Olympus was pushing previous generation sensor cameras for $1700.

            It also failed because the smaller sensor in the end delivered absolutely no advantages over full frame – the E5 is the same or very close to the size and weight of today’s full frame cameras. Their best lenses from the SHG lineup are the same size and weight as full frame lenses. They are also the same price. The cost of producing a high quality crop sensor camera is also basically the same as that of a full frame. Which means there is no advantage for anyone, either a 4/3 manufacturer or user, over full frame cameras.

            The only place where 4/3 delivered was with a camera like the E-620 and E-450, and lenses such as the 50mm f/2, 9-18mm f/4, 70-300mm f/4-5.6, 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5, but alas, competition is fierce, the smaller DSLRs from Canikon are also quite small and cheap, and its not easy to achieve the economies of scale necessary for cheap production.

            m4/3 is everything 4/3 was supposed to be.

            • Daemonius

              Yep, I think m4/3 is what 4/3 was supposed to be too. Small while having advantage of larger sensors. Light enough to carry anywhere.

              I would like downsized E-6 or E-7 in m4/3 mount with 100% reverse compatibility with 4/3s. Then I would even come back to this system.

              4/3 as m4/3 had lots of advantage, Olympus service is probably best from all. People have issue that some lens were big. Well, I dont think you can make small f2 zoom with that level of quality which SHG lens have.

              Only real downside of these systems were sensors, everything else, just perfect.

            • Ulli

              43 had different priorities then m43, it was all about optical performance by using the optimal lensmount size vs sensor size ratio. it was not about size. many shg lenses proved their superior quality, thanks to this concept. But most consumers found high iso performance much more important.

            • bart

              So, lets compare the smallest ever 600mm/5.6 made by Nikon with the Zuiko digital 300/2.8. Note that this Nikor is no longer available, does not support AF, has a lower optical quality, and has been out of production for over a quarter century now, its replacement is bigger and heavier.

              The Nikor is indeed lighter, 2700 vs 3300 grams.
              In size, the Nikor has a diameter of 134mm against 127mm for the Zuiko 300/2.8. The Nikor is 382mm long, the Zuiko 285mm.

              So.. in weight, this 300/2.8 is a bit heavier, but is is significantly smaller. The weight difference is gone and the size difference only got bigger when looking at the more modern Nikon replacement for that 600/5.6

              This is just an example, and one based on one of the very smallest and lightest ‘full frame’ equivalent.

              That doesn’t even get to the points of a 600/5.6 lens being a pita for manual focus, being even more of a pita when wanting to use a 2x tc (you are now at f11, hopefully you can still see something at all through an optical viewfinder but that requires a lot of light).

              That the 14-35 and 35-100 are unusually and needlessly large for their range and aperture is true, but suggesting this is the case for most SHG lenses is just ignorant.

              • @ bart:
                “That the 14-35 and 35-100 are unusually and needlessly large for their range and aperture is true…”

                “Unusually large”? You cannot say that, because they are in fact the only F2.0 zooms in the world! Keep in mind that these are twice as bright as their brightest FF counterparts. Have you ever held one of them? Just look at the casing, it’s pretty slim, and doesn’t add much width to the glass itself. It’s the glass elements that are big, due to F2.0, and that’s an inevitable result of physical laws, not because of excessive lens barrel design. F2 is F2 is F2 – still.

                • bart

                  Eric, I understand that, but they are in fact big enough to facilitate a f1.4 aperture. That makes them unusually and needlessly big, despite being the only f2 zooms.

                  • I don’t think they could yield F1.4 in their current size. That would in fact require double the light opening, which I believe is mission impossible w/ the current design and size. But even so, they are deliberately baffled to obtain the highest possible IQ. As SHGs, no soft corners allowed :)

                    • bart

                      The size of the front and rear elements quite allow for f1.4, and consequently an f1.4 design could fit in the same dimensions as the 14-35 and 35-100. At f1.4 it wouldn’t provide the consistent iq that the 35-100/2 offers, but it would fit.

                      To witness, the diameter of the 35-100 is at its maximum 96mm. The front element of an f1.4 lens at 100mm has to be almost 72mm at least. This would fit easily, and actually is pretty much the size of the front element of the 35-100/2

            • Esa Tuunanen

              > m4/3 is everything 4/3 was supposed to be.
              Except being cash cow for Olympus because of girl cameras not challenging system camera market domination of DSLR…
              Owned by Canon and Nikon who are apparently only camera companies with camera divisions having been almost steadily profitable.

            • MAFAv8r

              I do agree that to buy an E5 now would be foolish, with what is available in the OM-D, of which I will buy as a second camera. But you could say exactly the same about buying a 2010 Canikon now would be foolish, so there is no logic behind your argument. The reality is unless we get the latest science in our cameras, and that won’t be manufactured for another 5-10 years at the earliest, then we are stuck with bigger lenses for telephoto. Unlike some of my compatriots here, I shoot 35% of my shots at 200mm (400mm equivalent ) and another 10% at 283mm. So its important for me. I am looking for an OM-D slightly larger with a decent grip and battery life, that can take that lens. I will probably keep, but use less frequently my 12-60mm, and use primes more often. One of the reasons why I will not buy Canikon is because of their poor QC compared to Olympus. It would be great to see the failure rates of cameras like there is for cars.

          • again too funny

            4/3rds as in micro as well outsold all of canon in 2011- as for 4/3rds lens owners this post is all about the next camera for the lenes – these canon and nikon people are lost

        • Esa Tuunanen

          > Olympus didn’t even make a dent in the DSLR market. Even in its heyday it only had 6% market share.
          And neither has small girl camera concept done that.
          I don’t think there are any public statistics about sales directly but CIPA numbers of camera deliveries should in longer term follow quite well sales because shops don’t order more of item which doesn’t keep selling.

          For January-October share of mirrorless from total system cameras is only 18% and I suspect October’s weird spike came from both big name Canon and Nikon delivering their new mirrorless bodies and also shops readying for end of the year sales.
          Some of that 18% goes to small sales mirrorless brands, though EOS-M might be rising fast because of brand religion.
          Sony’s NEX, Panasonic and Olympus share rest possibly about evenly.
          So system camera market share of Olympus is probably still that same roughly 5%.

    • MAFAv8r

      @ Anonymous,
      BS fron someone anonymous.What a joke.

      I still get beautiful photos from my E5 and am very happy with it. I am also thrilled to hear that it is another 6 months before it is delivers, and am happy to hear that it is not the same as the E5. If they are going to spend some time on tweaking things it will be well worth the wait. Beautiful camera as a workhorse for in the field. Travelling in 12 countries with it, and its never missed a beat. The number of Canikon that have failed in the mean time… Its had one clean in that time
      However I do agree with you, it is getting outdated seeing what the EM5 can do. I can’t wait to play with that when I get one for my wife in 2 weeks when travelling back through Asia from East Africa where there are no Olympus dealers!

  • Robbie

    The 1 dollar price reduction in the picture is a joke

  • Yun

    Hopefully the incoming Oly camera will be higher than EPL5 , above OMD is what I expect .
    Then I’ll not hesitate to get it if Oly make it happen .

  • Camaman

    Look at that presumptuous price…
    Priced like you win a photo award just by owning it.

  • Michael

    Call it E-5 successor but what it will be is MFT and not FT! FT is as dead as a dodo and Oly will be the last ones to revive it. In Oly Terms to be announced second half of 2013 means early (if we are lucky) 2014 and not in the shops until 2015.

    • Christian G

      Read the text, it says ON MARKET second half 2013..

  • Andrey Yashin

    We are still waiting…

  • I don’t believe anything about availability of Oly products before they are not really available ;-)

  • Miroslav

    E-3 2007
    E-5 2010
    E-7 2013

    As expected…

  • OMd

    4/3 is death, Oly fakes it still alive.
    Some big and very expensive lenses like 90-200/2.8, 150/2, 14-35/2, 45-100/2, 300/2.8 are usless in micro43, and can be only used with body which sensor has worse result then compact camera (DxOMark test – Sony RX100 and Olympus E5).
    No new bodies, no new lenses…

    • Daemonius

      DxOmark tests need to be read properly.

      Olympus lens vs RX100. Heh while RX100 is decent, its nowhere near SHG quality. Neither it can change lens.

      Sure RX100 does have nice DR, but its pretty noisy at base ISO, which is issue, even when someone would like to not believe it. Actually old E-3 is better, if you like to take photos and post-process them. E-5 is bit noisier (but sensor is almost without AA, which might be related). RX100 is different category and not better than these. AF absolutely cant compete with these.

      Frankly its bit stupid to even compare those, its for different purpouses anyway. DxOmark can be pretty misleading if you just take numbers and dont know how to interpret them and put to context with real pics and real world.

      And for example their SNR measuring is very missleading as it should be measured in each color channel separated, not just by shooting 18% grey (which is something you pretty much never do). Then it wouldnt be so nice, cause some manufacturers have incredibly noisy blue or red channels, while shot at 18% grey looks “amazing”. Just when you shoot blue sky, you will see that even on base ISO its a way worse then you expected.

  • The E-5 successor must be Oly’s interpretation of the “one beautiful system”. We have been waiting for three years to see it, so another year doesn’t matter. M4/3 changed my photography. No more zooms for me. The only reason I still have my 4/3 zooms is the ridiculous prices they are going for on the used market. Hopefully the announcement of a hybrid 4/3-m4/3 camera will bump the interest in those lenses. I am not going to buy that camera whatever it can do, unless it is sold at a reduced price to E-3/E-5 owners. In fact I am not going to buy a camera for $1700 ever again.

  • mountainwalker

    WHY is it so complicated for Olympus and Panasonic to provide a reasonable support for FT lenses on mFT bodies? The adapter includes enough contacts, doesn’t it? When I use my 50mm/f2.0 Macro lens on the Lumix G3, the autofocus seems to be 10 times slower than on the E-30 in live mode and some 100 times slower than in mirror-mode (phase dedection). So I always end up in motor driven manual focus — what an anachronism.

    • nobody

      “WHY is it so complicated for Olympus and Panasonic to provide a reasonable support for FT lenses on mFT bodies?”

      Because the AF hardware inside the FT lenses is designed for phase detect AF, which is significantly different from the AF mechanics in lenses that are built for contrast detect AF, like all m43 lenses. As of today, all m43 cameras feature CD AF only.

      In order to fully support FT lenses, a m43 camera would need an on sensor PD AF system (like the one in the Nikon 1 cameras). Since Oly have stated that they want to improve continuous AF for the m43 cameras (which also needs that on sensor PD AF technology), I can imagine they will finally make a high end model that incorporates PD AF as well as CD AF and thus supports the classic FT lenses better than all m43 cameras do today.

      Don’t expect it to be cheap, though.

      • WT21

        It’s not just a FW, but a mechanical engine issue. A focus MOTOR for CDAF is different than one for PDAF. They are not going to send you a new focus motor for your older PDAF lenses as an upgrade to work with CDAF bodies.

        They should, though, release a NEX-like SLT sort of adapter. With Sony as partners, perhaps they could license the SLT tech.

        • bart

          Olympus has used SLT like tech a long time before Sony even got serious about the photographic camera market with the E-10 and 20 and their ‘translucent’ mirrors. Canon did this a few decades before with the Pelix.

          This technology has inherent problems, the most prominent and unavoidable one being loss of light. The larger the sensor, the less of a problem that will be usually, but it won’t go away because you cannot magically create energy when splitting a beam of light.

          There is an additional issue. The difference in flange distance between the alpha and e mount leaves enough space for a mirror, the difference in flange distance between 4/3 and m4/3 doesn’t, and the mirror would protrude into the light chamber of the camera itself for quite a bit.

          Hence, such an adapter for m4/3 doesn’t seem very likely or even viable.

          4/3 (or other AF SLR) lenses do not depend on the phase detection aspect of PDAF, but on the information the camera can get from phase detection: what direction and how far should the focus element(s) move to obtain focus. If that information can be had in a different way then it will work just as well.

          • Anyway is the likely that Olympus come by 4/3 to m4/3 adapter with built-in CDAF and image stabilization, so we ca use all 4/3 lens on all m4/3 camera. But not so easy to use for 4/3 lens so an new E-7 will be.

            • bart

              The first patents regarding in-adapter CDAF date from a few years ago. They added IS in the latest patent that was mentioned on this site, but none of this is any indication that such an adapter will actually be made at all.

              That said, an adapter with a focus group in it is a lot more feasible then one implementing an SLT like setup when looking at m4/3, but like the SLT solution, it comes with some unavoidable consequences. One is that refocusing behind the lens simply has unavoidable impact on image quality, and another one is that such a setup will introduce significant focus breathing. Add to that that such a solution does not even make a start at addressing continuous focus.

              It is a possible solution for sure, but not a complete one, and considering the focus part of this solution was already known and patented years ago, also not one that is overly likely to appear anytime soon.

              For people hoping to use their 4/3 lenses on current m4/3 cameras with ‘high speed AF support’, an adapter is the only viable solution, but it is techically not the best solution.

              Anyway, we don’t know yet what solution Olympus will use in the end. There are many options, and some of those can be combined.

  • bonzoo

    I hope that it is a fake. Imo Oly should focus on M4/3. My guess it that once PDAF on sensor is mature, 4/3 lenses will just work fine.

    The question is how long it will take us to get there.

  • it’s funny

    The Nikon and Canon folks that alway comment on here must live in fear of 4/3rds after all 4/3rds outsold all of canon in 2011. As for 4/3rds lens owners don’t buy into these negative comments – these people are just hopful

    • Anonymous

      4/3 outsold Canon? LOL

      4/3 was a financial failure, and it didn’t even make a dent into the DSLR market. That’s why it was discontinued.

    • Ross

      I think that would only be in the CSC category & certainly not overall.

  • WSG123

    I wonder if this is the pro-omd we keep getting hints about? If it had on sensor PDAF providing proper autofocus for adapted 4/3rds lenses and with a m4/3 mount, that would be killer, to say the least.

    • nobody

      That’s what I expect also.

      A high end m43 camera with on sensor PD AF would kill two birds with one stone: fast and reliable continuous AF for m43, and classic 43 lenses as well (with adapter, of course).

      I’m not sure, however, whether all of today’s m43 lenses (that are built for CD AF cameras) will be able to fully support that camera’s AF capabilities.

      • WSG123

        That could be a problem. I don’t know enough about AF and sensor technology to know whether it’s possible to have both PDAF and CDAF, with the appropriate method being used depending on what lens is mounted. As someone who has adopted the m4/3 system, I’d love to be able to use some of that 4/3 glass though.

    • PEN

      A hybrid focusing camera capable of using both lens systems is all that makes sense. The FT lineage has been excellent for those who got to know it but has stopped growing. Even so, the E-5 is still a workhorse camera suitable for many subjects if artistic results are more important to the photographer than technical specs. It handles, adapts and performs on a par with most DSLRs of its vintage. It will be interesting to see what replacement Olympus comes up with.

    • yep

      over all yes 4/3rds cameras outsold Canon

    • too funny

      the insanity of the canon and nikon people on this site is amazing 4/3rds as in 4/3rds including micro 4/3rds in fact outsold all of canon last year

  • Schweinchen Schlau

    As you can see – this discussion shows that judgement always depends on personal opinions.

    Some people judge products by watching sales statistics. For these people FourThirds must be a desaster. And in this point of view they are right.

    Other people concentrate on technical facts. On the one hand these people will complain about the weak low-light performance of the old FourThirds sensors. They will also complain about the Olympus decission to immolate the old OM standard for a digital one. But these people will also like the terrific compactness of FT cameras and lenses. They will like rich equipped cameras (from the beginning) with sensor cleaning system, image stabilisation, water and dust sealing, movie function,… for low prices. And they will like FourThirds lenses with superb quality.

    The E-5 wasn`t completely new designed. Just the sensor, the display and some functions were updated. So it is clear that it could never be compared with a Nikon D3 or Canon 5D.

    But in combination with Olympus mirrorless cameras the development of their sensors went on. And if these sensors will be used for their FourThirds concept then I could imagine that the result could become really interesting. Because there are not only D3 and 5D users on this planet.

  • anon

    wake me up for real news

    • nobody

      You may not yet have noticed, but…this is a rumors site, not a news site :)

  • jlw518

    Hey, admin…Any rumors at all about any Panasonic M43 bodies in the pipeline? Still hoping for ANY smaller camera with the new sensor……if this dry spell keeps up, I may have to get an Oly :) .

  • RepublicWay

    I’m happy to hear of a successor to the E-3 :) I love my Olympus and will stay with them. Grant it, when I do my paid commercial gigs I rent out a Hassey anyway. So for me switching to a different brand is just -> meh. My current E-5 does everything I need it to do. Im a big fan of “it’s not the camera that makes the pictures – it’s the person behind the camera” mentality. Can’t Wait for Olympus to bring out the E-7!

  • Boy are there some scorned girlfriends on this place.

    I for one welcome a new 43rds body, if it is an E-7 with some more upgrades I will buy it (as will many, many others), if it is a m43rds body with good SAF for 43rds lenses I will buy it.

    My biggest gripe for m43rds is the large AF box. It is huge, and will often focus on elements behind your subject. A small PDAF box would be perfect, whether on a m43rds or a 43rds body.

  • RepublicWay

    Remember, you still need to be a good photographer to take good pictures. No camera in the world will help you accomplish this if you have zero skill.

    • MAFAv8r

      Absolutely :)
      Its science being used to produce art, through eyes and a brain

  • ljmac

    Oly keeps making the same mistake with their flagship – they take far too long to update it, then when they finally do, it’s already out of date on the day of release! The E5 could and should have been released at least a year earlier than it was, and the E-7 – with the current Sony sensor – released alongside the E-M5. How could Oly have ever expected pros to take 4/3rds seriously when they kept neglecting their flagship model so much?

  • I am not sure if an E-x is still viable. It has the same price of a Canon 5d II FF, so who is going to buy it except those who already have 4/3 lenses, and are not ebaying them.

    I can see only birders having a distinct advantage with telezooms. But the day Oly comes up with fast telezooms for m4/3 there won’t be left even that niche.

    • Shanti

      or the D600 for that matter,same price as E5 here!! I’m about to switch to Pentax as K5II + 200mm f2.8 is same price as E5..your right about birders,as I was hoping for an E7 to use with my good glass..but can’t wait anymmore…

      • bart

        No idea where ‘here’ is, but when just sampling prices throughout the world, and looking for actual selling prices, the E-5 can be had for as little as $1400 new. A D600 can’t be had below $1800 new. E-5 can be had second hand for way below $1000, D600 can’t be had second hand yet for less then $1600. Maybe you live in a very special part of the world where Nikon prices are way below average and Olympus prices are way above average, but otherwise, you are at least massaging reality to match your argument. If you were instead talking about a D700, it would be much closer.

    • bart

      I can buy a D700 for the same money as an E-5 overhere, both new.

      But you know, that is only half of the story, as you can’t take pictures with a body alone. Hence your reasoning is totally valid for someone looking at investing in a system, but it doesn’t work that way at all for someone who already has a bunch of lenses. Switching to another system may still be a good option in such a case, but the cost is totally different from what you suggest here.

  • not just an adaptor

    if olympus was going to introduce an adaptor 4/3rds to micro 4/3rds all they need to would be release we wouldn’t be waiting for a camera

    • That last adapter patent from Olympus is only for F/T lens so not have CDAF, and camera so not have ISIB, and maybe also focus on MF lens.

      I only use; m4/3 lens on m4/3 camera, and 4/3 lens on 4/3 camera now, maybe i is crazy :-D

      • It might be one of the reasons why the adapter is yet to be introduced. dSLR owners have a superiority complex about mirrorless. Against all evidence they believe their equipment, not only lenses, not only zooms to be superior, to other ILS and to primes.
        This might also be the reason why, at Oly, only the flagship is left. Some loathe the adapter because it contaminates two systems, an amateurish one and a pro one.

        No wonder that some loathe the snobbishness and the near sight.Therefore Oly’s marketing has a tough nut to crack. True too a SHG telezoom isn’t a good match to a small mirrorless body. So even with an adapter the different designs are little compatible.

        • “dSLR owners have a superiority complex about mirrorless”

          Im not sure its that, just remember their 43rds lenses do not operate as well on mirrorless, and using an adapter AND a 2x is going to be problematical for those that need the range a 2x offers

          • If you look at the exploded view at Photorumors, you’ll see that it has definitely many lenses inside. Those cannot be related to IBIS.

            The view published here was so small that people believed the inside was empty, but it is not so.

            • it takes at least 3 optics to form an IS system, 5 lenses is quite believable given the circumstance where it is a retrofit solution. That I might add we dont really need

          • LOL, 4/3 owners had 3-4 years to do a transition, as advised by Oly itself. Some did, and are now relatively happy: they mix and match lenses of the two mounts.

            Instead there is an entrenched lot, and I am pretty sure that the issue with them, is not only fast AF with their now old lenses. It is about the mirror and the so called superiority of the OVF in respect to EVF.

            They are so ignorant, that they are afraid to go blind. Fuji did a good experiment by introducing a hybrid VF with the X Pro 1, because now people are adopting the EVF only X-E1 seamlessly.

            This bunch of diehards are the same that always despised LiveView in 4/3. They never took to digital, perhaps believing that it was a mere translation of film and that SLR would be immortal.

            No Sir . EVF won’t make you blind. Instead it is a powerful help for composition, and now the refresh rate is so high that it is even encroaching in the Sports and Birding genres.

            Despite this EVF are constantly lied about by this pack of retarded fools, who believed to be at the pinnacle of Oly’s pecking order and now are just the nobodies they always were.

            • patently wrong
              The AF performance of 43rds lenses on mirrorless is well below par

            • bart

              See amalric, I’m one of those who mixes and matches between 4/3 and m4/3, yet, I’d rather want something that can do proper AF with 4/3 lenses.

              There is a reason why I’m keeping my E-3 for now, and that has nothing to do with size and everything to do with AF, both speed and tracking. Especially with regards to tracking, no m4/3 camera comes anywhere near something like an e-620, eventho that camera isn’t good at that.

              That doesn’t just concern pro sports photographers but also your typical mom/dad wanting to take pictures of their kids during a school sporting event and such.

              Not recognizing that there currently is a functional difference that makes that m4/3 cameras aren’t an alternative for a significant number of people is probably a matter of lack of experience and failure to look beyond your own use.

    • I dont see an AF component to that adapter, it seemed to me to be purely about stabilisation.And remember too that an adapter using a mirror, or SLT type would have to fit within the 18mm available, Sony have 26mm available to theirs.

  • The Other Chris

    Does no one remember the modular camera and liquid mirror rumors from a couple of years ago? I’m putting my money on that.

    • jap

      “Does no one remember the modular camera and liquid mirror rumors from a couple of years ago? I’m putting my money on that.”

      I remember and have been somewhat impatiently awaiting them. I never cared for the 4:3 system size—I guess I was too spoiled by the compactness of the legacy OM system I have used. µ4:3has the ole legacy OM compactness but is still deficient with key pro attributes like weather-sealing. The only µ4:3 ZD lens that I want that has weather-sealing is the relatively new 60/2.8 macro, although I am sure more will be coming once they solve the hybrid 4:3-µ4:3 (modular) body problem.

    • if you experiment with the geometry of the SLT type of mirrorless, it wont fit. The only way I can see to have an SLT Olympus is on 43rds register which offers more room

  • The last patent shown here – the adapter has a lot of glass inside, so there would be a loss of light.

    Would you use such an adapter if you didn’t already have SHG glass? And would you use it if you had it?

    I am beginning to believe that the two systems are best left separate.If you look at Lenstip resolution tests, you’ll see that m4/3 lenses are slowly getting the upper hand, so there is no motivation in adapting.

    • all the 43rds lenses on Lenstip are tested on E3
      it had quite a severe AA filter and was only 10Mp
      this makes quite a difference on an MTF plot
      proven by the increase of resolution on E5 of over +30%
      micro inst generally better with the possible exception of 2 primes, that wouldnt be better than SHG zooms

      • Go tell Lenstip, becaUse I remember v. well them arguing that there was no increase of resolution in 4/3 lenses when increasing from the 10 to the 12 Mpx.

        You can’t always have it both ways. If you can decrease the AA filter it is probably because there is better anti-moire’ done by firmware, the same firmware which allows better denosing and hence more resolution in m4/3.

        My argument is that m4/3 is increasing resolution, past 4/3 performance and it does. So the motivation to adapt is lessening.

        The only one remaining is to save money as you said elsewhere. But this is now a concern of relatively few individuals, who didn’t ebay in time. Instead for Oly it makes good sense to provide new, high resolution m4/3 lenses.

        Technology has simply changed. The old one, E-x, is provided at a price, so I am not sure it is worth it.

        • “Go tell Lenstip, becaUse I remember v. well them arguing that there was no increase of resolution in 4/3 lenses when increasing from the 10 to the 12 Mpx.”

          by the math the Root(12.3/10.3) or 10.3%
          DIWA already did this test between E3 and E5 both using a 12-60 Zuiko, and the difference was around 30%. DPR saw it differently and registered E3 with 2000 LPh vs 3000 for E5, thats 50%.

          “You can’t always have it both ways. If you can decrease the AA filter it is probably because there is better anti-moire’ done by firmware, the same firmware which allows better denosing and hence more resolution in m4/3.”

          I think this technology was developed for Leica and the M8, then Panasonic were working on it, then Olympus appeared to be using it.

          “My argument is that m4/3 is increasing resolution, past 4/3 performance and it does. So the motivation to adapt is lessening.”

          What the SLRs lack is a body with a sensor available to everyone else for the last 2 years. On paper by Mp the difference between OMD and E5 would be Root(16.1/12.3) 14.4%, What they registered at DPR was 3100/3000 3.3%

  • tooo funny

    if Olympus and 4/3rds sensor weren’t a threat to canon and nikon you wouldn’t be wasting your time worried about any of this on an Olympus site

  • John Afflitto

    Maybe manufacturers should have built a modular camera design so that the sensor could be changed or updated (like a film back). Such is available for medium format and Ricoh has a system with interchangeable modules, but it includes an integrated lens. I guess it would have to be a high precision affair for the sensor and lense to line up perfectly. It might make sense on high end cameras where the body is a significant part of the cost and customers get used to a body but only change it to get an updated sensor. It’s kind of a shame that nice old digital bodies become paper weights when the next best sensor comes out.

  • A successor to the E5 in a alike body would be a must, in my opinion. I’ve never seen a sturdier and reliable camera for outdoor and serious/heavy duty action. m4/3s such as the new OM-D are rather laughable as they are now, if compared to it, despite the very good performance and specs (not concealable liveview, for example, is definitely to modify for me). A lighter tool would certainly be welcome, but small sizes drive me nut.

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.