(FT4) Trusted source: E-5 successor coming for sure.


A trusted source told me to trust him (LOL) when he says that a native Four Thirds camera is going to be announced this year. He is 100% sure that this is not a hybrid MFT and FT camera but simply a new E-7 FT. He also told me the camera is also ready to go into final production and all specs are defined (alreayd since end of last year). The camera will be on amrket the second half of this year. Good news for all those folks using top class Zuiko FT lenses :)

The two superb Zuiko f/2.0 zooms:
14-35mm f/2.0 on eBay (Click here) and via Slidoo eBay.
35-100mm f/2.0 on eBay (Click here) and via Slidoo eBay.

Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct

  • this is good

    • Brigitte Zaczek

      best news of the four thirds year so far ;-)

      • spam

        Good news? Sad IMO, probably mean that Olympus still can’t get good enough AF-performance with FT lenses on mFT bodeies.

        • Tropical Yeti

          Err… not sure why only FT4, if E-7 is comming for sure.
          But I’m sure that any rumor about 4/3 cams is sure to trigger 100+ posts…

          • Yes trigger 100+ posts by FT is dead, and new OM-D need PDAF on sensor. LOL

  • Sören

    temporal blood transfusion:
    E5 Body, E-M5 Sensor + software, go.

    I think if they want to make it somehow attractive, they should reduce the Body-Size to Pentax K5 level.

    • and ask 400 € for the new HLD-7?
      no thanx here but I’ll start saving ;)

    • bousozoku

      I’d always wanted an E-1 replacement, but I understand why the E-5 body is the size it is–to be balanced with the SHG series lenses. The E-5 is quite comfortable with the 35-100mm lens, whereas the E-1 is not. Even the 14-35mm is quite a small cannon on the E-1.

      • Ulli

        I found the E-1 plus 35-100 great in use, eitherwith or without the battery grip. For me the body does not need to be bigger or heavier with such lenses.

      • Es

        I find the E-5 body to be grossly oversized. The E-30 is a much better form factor for the smaller sensor. The E-5 is full frame size.

        • Boooo!

          E-30 and E-3/5 are almost exactly the same size. Look it up.

          • Fish

            He said “e-30”

            • Boooo!

              And I said “they are almost exactly the same size”. The difference is 8mm in height (width and depth are equal) and 150g in weight.

              • yeah, and most of the 150g weight difference counts to the magnesium alloy with the E3/5

              • Adam Maas

                And while small, it’s VERY noticeable, particularly in handling. I chose an E-30 over the E-5 for that difference.

      • Martins

        Not true, I played a lot with E-3 and E-1 and SHG lenses… E-1 is perfect, E-3- totally off. Why? because E-1 have much deeper grip. E-3 and E-5 is designed for those with short fingers…

    • Rchard

      I talked with an Oly rep. from their developement departement and she said that it’s not going to be an E-5 body with an OMD sensor.

      • bousozoku

        Good, they’re bringing the E-1 body back! :-D

        • HEHE maybe, but maybe E-7 will have AP2 port like a MFT camera and also can use same flash so E-M5 can so the not need popup flash. ;-)

    • Mr. Reeee
      • Bob B.

        This topic could use a little humor…

        • Mr. Reeee

          No kidding!
          Topic? Try necrophilia!

  • Matthias

    I wonder how much it will cost, I’m almost sure it will be much to expensive compared with other DLSR from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc.

    • if I’d have to guess – around 2k

      • Matthias

        I think about the same…

  • bonzo

    I dont like this. I was hoping for a MFT cam with a new AF System with full FT lens support :/

    Olympus should focus on MFT because FT clearly failed. I know that there are a lot of people with FT gear out there, but combing the systems is the way to go.

    • Dave Bennett

      100% in agreement with you.

    • BdV

      What would be the meaning of the M in MFT if it’s a full FT lens support body?

      • “What would be the meaning of the M in MFT if it’s a full FT lens support body?”

        The M still designates the physical MOUNT, which will still be Micro, even if the body supports the native 4/3 lenses w/ PDAF. The M will always mean Micro mount, regardless of body innards or features.

      • Adam Maas

        The idea is a mFT body with some AF solution (perhaps on-chip PDAF) which allows full-speed AF with FT lenses on an MMF-3 adapter.

        This would preferably be a larger body than the E-M5, simply for handling’s sake as even the E-M5 with grip is a little too small to handle well with SHG lenses.

        Such a body would make a great top-end OM-D body as well as a proper transition to mFT for FT shooters who have been left out in the cold by Oly as the new 16MP mFT bodies have a significant IQ advantage over even the E-5.

        Given that Oly is rumoured to be introducing a high-end OM-D, a FT solution for FT shooters and a f2.8 zoom this year, I wouldn’t be surprised if such a body happened. I’d actually be a lot more surprised if we saw a natively FT body get introduced.

  • lnqø-M

    Nice, :-)

  • Marck

    This is a bad news. They are not going to merge the two systems (43 and m43), so they will not take advantage of the wide lens catalogue of the two systems.
    A LOT of people gave away many 43 lenses in the recent past so, how many E-7 would they sell? A very few, and this means that it will be very expensive (1500-2000€). It will be for sure the same good E-3 and E-5 body with the E-M5 sensor, not a big effort for them but if this had to be the solution they should have done it last year a couple of month after the E-M5 release, not now…

    IMHO, epic fail.

    • Anonymous

      “A LOT of people gave away many 43 lenses in the recent past so, how many E-7 would they sell?”

      Who did they give them to?

      • Marck

        To other 43 users with less money to invest in the system (because they prefer used lenses to new ones). Many 43 lenses&bodies in the while also broke of course, and many users moved to m43 or to other reflex systems in the last 18 months.

        Not a single new lens have been released in (I guess) at least two or three years..

        The right solution would have been to create an adapter for m43 bodies to mount 43 lenses and have the PDAF. This would have opened a new catalogue to 43 users (the whole m43 catalogue with a lot of interesting lenses) and would have allowed to travel “light” when necessary…

    • bonzo

      I guess the AF System takes more time than most of us expected.

      So far it seems like only Nikon 1 got phase detect autofocus to the sensor right.

      I probably it takes more than just slapping those phase detect pixels on the sensor.

      • Ross

        Only in a small sensor though.

      • Adam Maas

        Nikon was the only one to design their system from the start for on-chip PDAF. Sony is using PDAF only as an aid because their E lenses were designed for CDAF from the start.

        It’s difficult to design a lens AF control system which can do both PDAF and CDAF well, as we’ve seen with FT Imager AF lenses, which do PDAF well and CDAF OK, while non-Imager AF lenses do CDAF badly.

        If Oly restricts on-chip PDAF to FT lenses they could well deliver excellent performance. Or perhaps to FT lenses and mFT lenses in AF-C only (where CDAF still struggles) as current mFT lenses do CDAF well enough to not need PDAF assist unlike Sony’s E mount lenses.

    • lnqø-M

      A E-5 body and E-M5 sensor is good solution for me anyway if price will be large so E-5.

    • who knows if it will be the same sensor.
      Let me speculate a bit:
      Sony created a cuople of years ago a truly wonderful 16 MP DX sensor they sell to all others except Canon, thus giving the players the opportunity the have the “best” DX sensor on market.
      Then, probably 2 years ago or so Sony made a 16 MP FT-sensor, which rocks in the S/N and dynamic departments and sold it to O/P.

      Now they made a newer, better one with 20 MP and released it a couple of days ago within their A58 and for what my eyes saw already it IS better than the 16 MP.

      Now Olympus is planning to release a flagsship (or two) and my crystal ball somehow is trying to convince me that if, then they will both have 20 MP and one stop better ISO + 14-bit.
      Sony and Oly do work together and I am quite confident that behind the curtains there is a lot more going on.
      May be Sony will then announce the first Zuiko E ;)
      Beat that rumor, cheers

      • I like your crystal ball ;)

  • Liad

    A source that worth a FT4 grade rumor should know much more about the camera specifications.
    Please admin approach the source to give us more info on this camera and wheather it’s instead of the famous adapter / hybird FT +MFT body.

    • admin

      I know I can’t ask him more than this.

  • One Beautiful System (OBS)

    Talk to me, don’t lie to me, save your breath
    Don’t look at me, don’t smile at me, just close your eyes


    Don’t say your prayers, don’t build your hopes, just walk away


    I was so in love, I was so in love, I was so in love with you, so in love with you


    • Ross

      You’ll just have to keep dreaming a little longer! ;)

  • Damn it, I also was hoping something like a pro OMD that would connect both by having better AF with native 4/3 lenses and get rid of E line by giving pro service to OMD… Now I am stuck with something with no inovation, since E7 will be just a clone of older OMD with no improvement in video mode or focusing system. Oh well, Olympus has done it again – it failed to deliver and no proper communication with buyers talking about their plans and just cashing in by giving a half ass product. I want to go fully m4/3 but it need more… Waiting for the next OMD

    • true homer

      The omd is old?! Its not even 9 months! Canon has been using the same sensor for 3 years! The e5’s auto focus system runs circles around the omd, if you have a 4/3s collection you should be thrilled!

      • Dave

        E-5 AF is garbage compared to the OMD. You obviously have one but not the other (or neither). So many missed OOF shots from the E-5, E-3, E-510 and E-500, E-PL1 in my catalog and hardly any from the OMD

        • Another Guy Named Bob

          Sorry, that is not my experience. I own the E-5 and owned the E-M5. I was always unsure of what and where the E-M5 was locking focus, even with center point selected.I could actually watch the camera focus and then just before it took the picture, go slightly out of focus. I have no such issues with my E-5.

          • Luda

            For pro-use E-5 is nearly useless indoors with the most important lens being 14-34 f2. It is great outdooors on a bright daylight but once the light levels dropped, one could forget the speed and reliability when it comes to focus. For a happy amateur or someone shooting static subjects this is not a problem but for the rest this is just simply unacceptable.

            • I is not agree, i can use me E-5 by 14-35mm F2, if the is so dark i not can see realy what i take picture of.

              • Luda

                As I said in previous post, how man weddings etc. did you cover with your E-5 and 14-35? How many similar events where fast AF was important? 1, 10, 50? And don’t count your friends weddings etc, I am talking about real assignments.

                • Rchard

                  Fast moving objects on a wedding!? Runaway bride? :-)

                • People have been doing weddings with fast lenses and low iso since forever, typically because there were no alternatives.

                  Doesn’t mean there isn’t anything to gain from a more capable system, rather the opposite. It does however mean that it is totally possible to do professional wedding photography with an E-5 and the 14-35/2.0, as this is already a much more capable system then the ones used for lots of excellent wedding pictures in the past.

                  It does however also mean that more is required from the photographer, both in taking and processing skills.

                  • Luda

                    Wrong again. It has nothing to do with photographers skills but with 14-35 AF being unreliable and slow taking several seconds to lock on target when used with E-5. Again stop with the theoretical posts and accept the facts. Don’t believe me? Read posts of other pros tha had similar issues.
                    No bride will not run away, but she will not wait during the ceremony untill your darn camera acquires focus.. :-)
                    That is the truth. Those of you that have had enough money to buy 14-35 to use it as travel or all round lens for family use don’t mix things here. You don’t need same reliability as people who live out of photography so your “experience” about this lens in this case has zero value.
                    Funny thing is that 35-100 f2 altought not being SWD lens, never had similar problems. I exchanged 5 14-35 lenses before I gave up. OM-D with Panasonic 12-35 feels like from another planet in this regard.

              • Martins

                Well, let’s face truth- Oly AF system is not very reliable. :( I would never user Oly gear for shooting fast events professionally.
                But as I’m an amateur and I prefer to have best lenses and can accept generally weaker bodies, I prefer Olympus. I had played with all Canon top lenses, I didn’t enjoy them.
                So, just choose proper gear for your work. :)

        • Thats NOT true! I have both and i like the AF of the E-5 more. Only under bad light conditions the OM-D ist better, perhaps.

          • I often know when my E-3 will ‘misbehave’, and what to do about that (enough so to not have to think about it consciously), I know when my E-M5 is likely going to ‘misbehave’ and how to deal with that. The situations are different, and so are the solutions.

      • to make it clean why I say old. Old means something made before, something that was done with E-5 and next gen pen. Since OMD got new sensor, new video capabilities, new IS and so on, this trend will go on – m4/3 will get the new modifications and 4/3 will just get everything and will be old compared to next m4/3 and so on. That’s why I wish 4/3 would die… in a way. If they don’t have the money to invest in 4/3 anymore at all, why make a E.. body at all? Just concentrate on making both users happy with one PRO body that connects them – proper AF for 4/3 mount lenses on a m4/3 body. Since I can’t really sell my gear for proper price anymore like my 35-100mm f2 since I bought it already used, other gear shows signs of long term use. In other hand, we have m4/3 – the new trend which attracts all sort of companies to join and make all these new options. I have always wanted something like 75mm lens or just something reliable with f1,4. So yeah.. Oh, and another thing that I was keen on before the arrival (wishlist) of E-5 is the helping light to focus in those super dark moments or just dim light but more moving objects. I know I know, I can always use flash light help, but it sucks so much and I will like a noob using it somehow :D and people most of the time just think that the shot was made and go their way after first blink. Oh, OVF or EVF – no competition – OVF win every time so that’s something I am willing to compromise with if everything ells is taken care of

    • bousozoku

      I’m sure you can depend on another OM-D series body this year. Whether it replaces the E-M5 or extends the line is the question. The E-5 replacement won’t modify their plans for that.

  • Gusnana


    typo amrket = market

  • bousozoku

    It really wouldn’t take much. The newer sensor plus the back-end to make it work with the current mechanical bits should be all.

    Considering the price of the Nikon D7100, they need to reduce the E-5 successor’s price to US$1299.99.

    • I think thats exactly how much it will be

      • Wouldnt that be nice :)

      • Harry Th

        I would be a happy bunny if that was the price , unfortunately I so not see how it can be done. I am pretty sure I paid $1630 for my E5 one of the first in NY I think. That was in Xmas 2010, in what was essentially a rehashed E3 body with the E30 sensor thus next to no R&D costs. It is still listed at B&H and amazon at $1699 , I cannot see how it will be as low as $1300 , the E-M5 which I also have costs a thousand bucks , and though it may well be weather sealed its build quality doesn’t come close to my E-5 . If they have to bring out a new body to accommodate all the goodies like the 5-axis IS , the price could really rocket.

        It gives me a bit of a conundrum I was just about set on a future O-MD which I would be able to use my lenses on , I do honestly appreciate the smaller lighter mFT gear , but I still love my 35-100 and my baby the 150mm , damn it all , it had taken me months to think it through lol now I need to think it over again


  • anon

    All those who claim 43 is dead, please sell ur shg lenses dirt cheap to get the best out of it!!!!

    • Another Guy Named Bob

      I am selling, they will be a bargain but they won’t be “dirt cheap”.. there are too many dreamers with a complete disconnect from reality that are too willing to buy.. no need to sell them dirt cheap. And that will fund my move to One Real Existing System.

  • I never fail to be amazed and the amount of dogmatic comment based on pure strawmanism that spews forth whenever a totally undefiled, unconfirmed rumour is announced. All this does is to add some reinforcement of the line from Olympus that FT is not finished (yet). Which is good – in my opinion. But this is then immediately inflated to a certainty that it will be a rebaked E5, with corresponding vitriol.

    IMHO an OBS would be perhaps nice to have, but at the same time in danger of being neither one thing (small, light, discrete) or another (DSLR handling, balanced with big lenses). And inevitably would attract the same level of vitriol.

    Let’s wait and see, shall we ? Before burning our bridges?

    • Ross

      Ah, but this is the place to burn bridges & spit dummies though! ;)

      • Yea, just the place to be.
        D’ont stand on one side of the fence here, some one may turn the fence around then you will be on the wrong side side.
        The one who did not have clue last blog will now be your best mate. What a lovely place to be.

        • Ross

          At least it’s entertaining. :D

    • Ulli

      David got a point in mentioning the possible reason why it takes so long for Olympus to come up with a solution.

  • Incredible bad idea. A PDAF lens adapter with built-in translucent mirror wouldn’t extend the 4/3 agony, rather would give an elegant way to use both high quality FT and MFT lenses on a single body.

    • it wont fit

      • Why?!

        • hold a 43rds m43rds adapter in your hands
          it has to fit between the mounts on each end
          there isnt enough room
          it wont fit

          • It makes no sense, as the flange-back distance on 4/3 system should be enough to fit a classical mirror mechanism, hence a translucent one as well. It has to do nothing with the adapter size. (BTW The mirror may loll out from the adapter on the sensor side.)

    • Even better, use a cristal liquid based variable reflection mirror and dont’t even lose light (The EVF may darken during focusing, though).

      • Ross

        I think if they could have, they would have (if possible for the right price.

    • Mike

      Why would you do all that if you can just have PDAF on the sensor like on a Nikon 1. Nikon 1 focuses better than every DSLR out there.

  • Although I possibly would buy this camera – if they shrink thre size to E-1 or K5 dimensions and if it features a significantly improved C-AF – I regard this news as not too good. The comments made by Toshi Terada earlier this year made me believe that the OBS will be launched before too long. But I can’t imagine that there will be the OBS AND an E-7 DSLR and this means, that I have to keep on using a big bag pack for two camera and their lenses if I want to get the most out of my Oly gear. Not exactly what i hoped fpr.

  • Two years ago such a rumor would have been interesting to me, but now? nah…
    With the E-M5, m4/3 has fully replaced 4/3 for me. I still own an E-5 and even use it occasionally, but the E-M5 is so much lighter, faster and easier on the brain. My 4/3 glass is still superior to the best m4/3 primes though. I hope to be able to use it without restrictions on a m4/3 body one day.

    • michael

      100% agreed. Thanks to Olympus’s silence, I’ve already gotten rid of all my 4/3 gear.

    • Martins

      I Oly will release E-7 in body of E-1, I would be first in row to buy this camera. :)

  • It’s not only that m4/3 and 4/3 are diverging more and more, mirrorless is diverging from dSLR inevitably.

    I am astonished at Oly’s mangement still wanting to have a foot in both camps. They should know better since they, with Panny, invented mirrorless.

    I find this thing v. boring, since there is no lack of lenses in m4/3, and there will be even more so, including fastish zooms.

    Admin, why don’t you make two separate forms. So that we won’t bore each other? :)

    Give the birders what they deserve them, and let them go :)

  • Bob B.

    This is so bizarre. Why would a financially-troubled company finance a camera body for a (basically),
    discontinued camera system? This makes no sense? So a percentage of the lens owners can purchase one? No one else will buy inoi that camera with no new system support? (I am not trying to begrudge the FT system owners)…but why on earth would Olympus make and distribute such a camera body? Dead end, no?
    Scratching my head here?

    • “No one else will buy inoi that camera with no new system support?”

      So a brand new FT camera equals no system support?!
      I’d say it states the opposite, no?
      The current native FT lens lineup is almost complete, so not many new lenses needed. The SHG zooms really are a bag full of primes, so the only thing missing is a 100mm SHG Macro.

      There are a lot of users with a native 4/3 lens inventory justifying the purchase of a new FT body, so provided the right price, the E-7 can be the upgrade path from all the former E-bodies. Note that this does not exclude a PDAF-compatible EM-7 as well, or further development of the final OBS. So stop the whining, this will not hurt m4/3 at all, but it will make FT users happy. And I dare say, they do deserve it! :)

      • Jim Peters

        The price is where I see a potential problem , the E5 came out at $1700 with a far larger potential market than current FT which is a fraction of the size. A new body to accommodate all the latest features ,new sensor, 5AXIS, improved LCD and so on, will in all likely hood be more expensive. Once you get up towards the $2000 zone you have some major players like the D600 at $1900 heck the new D7100 is launched at $1200 and it looks pretty damn good.I hope that Olympus don’t do a Leica with the pricing. I hope you guys get a high end body to use your FT lenses to their best , but I see this as a waste of resources for a company with very limited resources that are losing money in cameras hand over foot

        • Is the a problem by a price over 2000$ for as so need a E-7.
          And one to, i can not use FT lens on D600, if i will use D600 need i also lens for Nikon too.

          • Harry Th

            I think the fellow simply means that the market is ultra competitive at that kind of price point and anyone not already committed to FT lenses would not necessarily see any advantage .Though I surely love my SHG lenses ,I ain’t getting any younger and the trails are a little harder every year and this year for the first time I only took my mFT kit it was quite liberating , and this old fart appreciated the not insignificant difference.

        • Ulli

          maybe its a 2 or 3 digits model? E-xx or E-xxx? that would prob make the new FT clearly lower priced then an E-x

        • bousozoku

          The E-5 came out a couple of years too late for its feature set and specifications to bring more than a yawn, as did the E-3. Adding art filters certainly didn’t help sell the E-5 or show why it was worth more than a D300.

      • michael

        No one is making 4/3 lenses anymore, and no one will. It’s an evolutionary dead end, making it a sales & marketing dead end.

        • I dunno.. Phone Olympus and explain them.

      • Bob B.

        Well Eric….I for one do not own any (apparently incredible) 4/3 lenses. ( I have a full frame system and when I want the big gun I get the BIG gun…why screw around). I do have an extensive MFT system with 9 lenses and two camera bodies….for when I want and can travel light and have very decent image quality. …my point is…VERY FEW…if any NEW photographers are going to buy into the 4/3 system…. I could be wrong….its just my opinion..but I see that it is not something I would do. If you have lenses …good for you…..and I am glad Oly made you a camera…it is just REALLY surprising to see a company do this at this point in time. Really surprising!

    • Why many Proof photographyer like, maybe fast, maybe sure, maybe solid, maybe good IQ, and maybe…. Them pay for sure safe and realy.

    • Flash

      Why? To make money. It probably is an easy call, as they know the market (same as the E-5 minus a flew) and will make a limited number, they will be expensive. It will be a great camera I am sure, as the E-5 is, but will only sell just about exclusively to current 43 users.

      I know a where there will be a couple of sells, to people who use it exclusively for professional studio work. I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone who does not have 43 stuff though; and I am somewhat an Olympus fan.

      • Es

        You need economies of scale to produce cameras. Even at the $2000 price point, you require to sell quite a few just to make back the money needed to put together an assembly line.

  • Seth

    I agree with the folks who say “give us a OM-D Pro with full competent AF support for our lenses.” Olympus has said that it will always have a body for the 4/3rds lenses until mirrorless matures enough to compete on every front; the DSLR is not dead. My hope is that even if there is an E-7 DSLR, they will make a hybrid mirrorless for enthusiasts that is close to the goal of one beautiful system. (blah blah blah). GH3 sized, packed with features and advanced IQ, able to focus both sets of lenses.


    • Esa Tuunanen

      If Olympus is going to be stuck using that rumoured Epson’s Ultimicron LCD for EVF they might be well considering it inadequate for replacing OVF.
      Besides only contrast ratio spec for Ultimicron being same as decade old first consumer TFT LCD monitors response time of liquid crystals makes it harder to minimize EVF image lag.

  • sounds too good to be true . but assuming they use the same sensor as in the OMD and they fix the dual card slot so that it can work like EVERY other camera on the market , I will buy one or two for sure


  • Yun

    I support the theory of the camera with decent AF to mount all the FT lenses would be sufficient .
    There is no need to have a new FT camera as I doubt it will sell well . Even Nikon & Canon are heading their way to make more FF cameras with reasonable price .
    To concentrate on creating better sensor & optics for m43 are the right way to go .

    • jimstirling

      In the past year Nikon alone have released a D5200,D7100,D600,D800/D800E,D4 so I guess they see a space in the market for DSLR users at all price levels .I am a FF Nikon D800 and Panasonic GH3 mFT user and just recently added an Olympus FT 50-200 with the intention of using it on a future fully compatible { full C-AF tracking etc} high end mFT body.
      The current E-5 has a lot going for it other than the now dated sensor, an E7? With a new sensor, 5 axis IS, higher quality LCD, along with improved video etc .Would be a very attractive upgrade to current E5 users who are already heavily invested in FT lenses many of which outperform mFT lenses , though often with the penalty of being heavier and costing more. I do not think that it will attract many new users to the system but it will help to hold on to a faithful group of user till such time that mFT delivers in all areas [ C-AF, tracking, improved EVF etc}

      • Rchard

        Even more atractive to us E-3 users who didn´t think the E-5 big enough improvement over the E-3. In the mean time I use my EM-5 but I think it´s a bit to small for my SH and SHG lenses, and the AF with these lenses on the EM-5 isn´t good enough.

  • Dit

    Hope your trusted source is not Reinhard Wagner!

  • arthur

    good news, i am still happy with my top glass ft lenses !!

  • QBNY

    Sony’s plan to take over Olympus: Confirmed.

    Really? DSLR sized Four Thirds size sensor? Who’s gonna buy this over the 6D/D6000? Heck, who’s gonna buy this over a 7D? Or the soon to be announced 7DmkII with a larger sensor??

    Not worth the money, not worth the manpower. Olympus fanboys, I hope y’all don’t mind a name change to NEX.

    • jimstirling

      QBNY The Olympus FT users have been very faithful to Olympus, many with thousands of pounds worth of high end lenses. It will be great if Olympus reward their patience as for many especially users of C-AF and tracking even the best mirrorless bodies simply do not measure up.There are also many who feel that the EVF does not yet replace the better OVF such as those found in the E5. I am not so sure how much of a potential market there remains for a high end FT model

      • Troll Detector

        QBNY owns and extols the Panasonic GH3, the DSLM aka DSLR wannabe. Yet dismisses the FT E-5/7 for being a DSLR that has a DSLR sized body with a 4/3″ sensor. Yeah. Right. He is an Olympus hateboy. Don’t feed the troll.

        • In Denial

          have you ever held the GH3? Have you ever seen a comparison between the GH2/3?


          And lets not got there with the size of a E-5… Y’know what? -Lets..


          “The size of the sensor is significantly smaller than for most DSLRs and this implies that lenses, especially telephoto lenses, can be smaller.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system

          Olympus is a joke, their Fanbase is a joke, and Sony will soon gobble them up.

          • Troll Detector

            Your comparison is a joke. Put a mirror box and prism finder in the GH3 sized body and its back to E-5 size. Its size and weight reductions is directly due to the removal of those items. GH3 being mirrorless is already at DSLR size. GH5 will get even bigger as new features and higher end video are added. Its the Digital Single Lens Monstrosity (DSLM) of the mirrorless ILC world. The same fanboys who make fun of 4/3 DSLR want bigger grips and bodies on m4/3 cameras and extol the GH3 as the hero of mirrorless ILCs. LOL. Bring on GH8. It will be D800 sized to try convert FX users to m4/3.

            • SammyHAKK

              @troll detector
              I think that is rather the point it is a mirrorless camera and therefore doesn’t need these items. The E5 is larger and heavier than it needs to be for the format size it weighs more than a D600 . The E5 is 40% heavier than the GH3 ,it is also 10mm longer and 22mm higher. I own both the E5 I use for anything that involves fast moving targets , the GH3 for everything else.

              “””””GH3 being mirrorless is already at DSLR size. GH5 will get even bigger as new features and higher end video are added. Its the Digital Single Lens Monstrosity (DSLM) of the mirrorless ILC world. The same fanboys who make fun of 4/3 DSLR want bigger grips and bodies on m4/3 cameras and extol the GH3 as the hero of mirrorless ILCs. LOL. Bring on GH8. It will be D800 sized to try convert FX users to m4/3.”””

              Well the D800 is exactly 3mm wider than the E-5 and 6mm higher with a sensor almost four times the area. But just as with FT to FF the real difference is in the lenses. Let’s look at the E5 +35-100 { my all-time fav lens }compared to the GH3 with the 35-100 , firstly in theory I lose one stop but the reality is that the GH3 sensor is more than one stop better than the E-5 especially regarding DR. The E5 combo weighs in at 2400g the GH3 with its 35-100 weighs in at 910g that is a huge reduction in weight. There is also the small matter of price at current {B&H} prices the E5+35-100 costs $4200 compared to the GH3 +35-100 that is $2800, $1400 is a fine saving in anyone’s book.
              I have held on to my fav FT gear the E-5 , 35-100,150 and the old faithful 50mm macro, I am not interested in an E-7 I am hoping that a future OMD will do the job . Mirrorless has a couple of gotchas no doubt, EVF {quality and refresh} and C-AF /tracking the thing is the EVF gets a bit better every gen and there are already companies working on reasonable solutions to the AF problem notably Nikon. So it is only a matter of time till these problems are resolved , mirrorless also has many advantages, I think it is only a matter of time till all formats will be mirrorless. I am one of the mFT users who much prefers the GH3 size and design compared to the E-M5 style though I would sure like that 5 axis IS. The times they are a changing

    • Rchard

      And what kind of fanboy are you? Canon fanboy? If I would change system I would buy a D800.

    • arthur

      do what you think, let other´s do what they think is right! don´t teach people …

  • Cameras are a lens accessory.

    Please look at the MFT Charts of Olympus/Zuiko 4/3 Super High Grade lenses. They deserve a camera that comes as close as possible to maximizing their potential. Over the next few years, 4/3 sensors will displace FF sensors … both because their aspect ratio is not an awkward borrow from 35mm film cameras, and because they will have about 48 MP with less noise than today’s 36 MP FF sensor. The high-end pro 4/3 Olympus cameras of 2016 will come even closer to maximizing the potential of SHG lenses. Meanwhile, the E-7 will be the best match available. People who invest in SHG lenses and buy an E-7 when it becomes available may be few in number, but they will be in the vanguard.

    • hauninfrisco

      ‘John Hartung

      You are dreaming if you believe that many high end Nikon or Canon users will adopt mFT .I do think that mirror less is the future as despite the few significant disadvantages which will hopefully be solved in the next couple of generations however I don’t believe that it will be mFT. The physic’s remain the same a same generation sensor from a FF will still have two stops better high ISO along with the significant advantage of better DOF control.And whatever the bold claims in real life low light murky shooting my E-M5 sucks above 1600 unless you are posting 400pix shots ,or love mushy NR. Truth be told the E-M5 main advance was in its DR at low ISO which is what I use most often and it delivers excellent results here.I love my E-M5 for its low ISO performance the amazing 5 axis and the cool design but I am more realistic about it than many seem to be.

      Every lab I know produces prints in the 6×4, 9×6, 12×8, 18×12, 30×20,36×24 range standard even the cheap and cheerful COSTCO type shops.So getting prints in the correct ratio is hardly an issue.You can also cure two “issues” at once by simply cropping your FF image to a 4×3 ratio { bye bye corner problems} and still with the D800 end up with a mp file.If anything with the ever increasing resolution of display devices { TV ,monitors etc} a 16×9 ratio is more likely to dominate than the ancient 4×3 ratio which is most associated with old TVs.With regards to lens charts etc they only tell half the story as it is the output lens + sensor that matters and the FF cameras will out-resolve FT the lowest current FF camera is 22.3 with the excellent Nikon D800 being 36mp , lens plus body is the only output that matters.For me mFT delivered what FT never did , it delivered a genuinely small lightweight system with very decent image quality. The E5 weighs more than the D600 and is not far behind the D800 same story with the better lenses, I would have to ask myself why would I want to carry that kind of weight instead of simply using a FF set up , though personally I will never go back to a heavier set up

      • Yes, a 4x larger (in area) sensor has a high iso and dynamic range advantage, but there is a point where performance is going to be good enough for almost every imaginable situation, and something smaller will do the job for almost everyone. If that weren’t true, we’d see a lot more (and more affordable) medium and large format digital systems.

        And that has been true in photography since the very early days, and it won’t just stop now just because of a format that was devised almost a century ago as a compact and practical (due to easy availability) format that would still allow reasonable quality photographs.

        DOF control is just as much a function of available lenses as medium size, and ultra-shallow DOF is a rather over-used gimmick, through at times a very useful one.

        • SammyHAKK

          The performance being good enough for every imaginable purpose is a long way away even in current FF models. Firstly upfront I am both a mFT user { GH3 and E-M5} side by side with my Nikon FF gear {D800/D4} and as such have a foot in both camps. MF and LF were always niche use even in film times due to factors like size and weight limited lens selection etc. Even, more so in digital due to the often fearsome cost. There is also the matter that MF sensors are not as large as their film origins, for example the Leica S2 has a 45x30mm sensor which is approx. 1.5x the area of FF which even allowing for the sensor tech being as good { which it isn’t } would result in well under one stop advantage. Combine this with the abundance of fast lenses for FF and for most shooting scenarios the MF advantage dwindles even further. Now if I only shot landscape photographs or worked in a studio with controlled lighting then MF really gets a chance to shine.

          DOF control is always a combination of lens plus camera however FF has the advantage of much wider selection of fast lenses combined with a sensor nearly 4x the area .Shallow DOF is no more a gimmick than any other photo technique it is just as open to abuse as it is to creating wonderful images.

          People go on about things like super high ISO performance, often harping back to film and how bad it was. The reason why very high ISO is seen as such a minority topic is down to the dreadful performance of high ISO in the past which put people off for life lol. I shoot all sorts of activities including fast moving subjects in real low light. For me personally I wouldn’t dream of using mFT at anything over 1600 as it is simply not good enough and with FF I prefer not to go above 3200 , imagine the possibilities if tomorrows 3200ISO is as good as todays 200ISO. There are also other ways in which sensor tech can move forward [ foveon etc} with real potential though it sucks at high ISO the results of the Sigma foveon cameras at low ISO is amazing given the sensor size.

          • The point is, and you actually allude to that yourself in your post, every format is a compromise, you give up potential image quality for practical considerations such as size, weight, overall handling and such.

            I disagree that medium/large format has always been a niche even in film days. In the first half of the 20th century, 120 film was a very common format even in the consumer market. There are landfills full of consumer grade medium format cameras from that time. Upto the 1980s at least, many professionals doing portraiture were doing so with medium or large format cameras. Product photography, landscapes and such were done with medium or large format cameras as well, and the mantra of those days was that 35mm was an amateur format that only made inroads in the pro market for things like sports and news photography, where compactness trumps quality. By the 1980s that mantra wasn’t really correct anymore, but it didn’t come out of nowhere really.

            Publications like National Geographic didn’t accept 135 format pictures for their magazine until pretty recently (way past the introduction of digital).

            Al that doesn’t mean that medium or large format is required for general purpose photography, as the situations where smaller formats won’t do well enough have been reduced to a small niche.

            There is however no reason why the same won’t happen to 135 format. Technically better then smaller formats? True, but that is only relevant when it makes a difference for pictures. If shooting action in near darkness is something you do a lot, you want the biggest medium that is still practical to use (and can be fitted with appropriate lenses), but that too really is a niche.

            Or in short, technically better is meaningless unless it makes a difference for your use. As all formats in use get technical improvements, you’ll be able to use smaller formats over time and still get good results. This has been true since the invention of photography, and there is no reason why it stopped being true now.

            With regards to DOF control, shallow DOF has never been regarded as an advantage, however, the ability to blur an ugly background has been regarded as an advantage, or rather as an inferior but acceptable alternative to using a better backdrop. Getting enough DOF has always been seen as an issue, especially in film days. We didn’t get 50/1.2 lenses to get shallow DOF, but to make up for the rather lousy low-light capabilities of the medium.

            That this has been turned into an at times useful technique, absolutely. I’ve seen pictures that make very good use of this, but those are a few amongst a huge pile of pictures that have too little DOF just because the photographer could, and it looks ‘artistic’.

    • hyukfsa

      The MTF results of lenses in isolation is all but worthless information as alas we have to mount them on a camera which is why a FF camera with FF lens will out resolve what an FT lens plus body will do . The 4×3 ratio that most people associate with old fashioned TV is hardly a trend setter, every lab I know has a full range of 3×2 ratio print sizes even places like Costco have a 6×4, 9×6 ,12×8 ,18x 12, 30×20, 36 x24. In fact with the ever increasing resolution of display devices nearly all of which are in a 16×9 ratio which is obviously more closer to 3×2 than 4×3 , 16×9 is probably the future format.

      One of the main reasons FT was such a failure is down to the ridiculously large and heavy lenses in relation to the sensor size a quarter the size of FF in fact. The E7 market will consist of a very small cadre of current E5 users it will not attract one single person to the system. You can’t mess with physics a same gen FF sensor will always be two stops better , two stops better DOF control and always capable of higher resolution. FT failed its game over this is a final reward from Olympus as they have failed to sort out a proper AF system for FT lenses. Do you truly believe that a mFT with 3 times the current mp count will gain 2 stops better performance than current FF , and this assumes that FF will stay static man some of you Oly guys really go all out lol

      • Rchard

        And still, a lot of FF fanboys claim that FF is as good as or better than MF. Funny that the laws of physics doesn’t apply when it comes to FF!

        • HSUDFOL


          And still, a lot of FF fanboys claim that FF is as good as or better than MF. Funny that the laws of physics doesn’t apply when it comes to FF!

          The problem with MF is that it is really geared to low ISO photography , combine this with the slow lenses and that it is often hideously expensive and though it surely shines in some areas it is at no advanatge in most scenarios. The MF sensors are not the same size as their film camera cousins, with most giving at best a theoretical advanatge of under one stop.This is further impacted by MF sensors not being developed at anything like the rate of FF/APS/mFT sensors.

      • The reason four thirds wasn’t the kind of market success that Olympus (and Panasonic) hoped for has little to do with the size of lenses, and everything with bad marketing and distribution policies.

        When looking at the consumer market, where the large numbers are, the E-xxx models and the standard grade lenses weren’t big, rather the opposite. The E-4xx fitted with the 25mm pancake is small enough to fit in a large coat pocket, and the 14-42mm isn’t very big either. Actually, its only since pretty recent times that aps-c cameras got sizes approaching those of the E-4xx and 6xx models, and that only lasts until you consider the lenses also.

        When looking one step up from the consumer market, we get to an E-620 or E-30 and high-grade lenses. This still results in camera lens combinations that are relatively small and light, compared to larger formats with equivalent functionality.

        The SHG zooms are big, much bigger then they need to be purely based on the focal length and aperture, but are also of very good quality, and very well corrected. The later does make lenses bigger. At any rate, this is a high-margin, but low numbers segment, that has very little direct impact on market share.

  • simon

    the biggest problem with 43 is the tiny optical viewfinder unusable if you ask me. the top grad 43 zooms are great but worthless with that tiny viewfinder for me. the adapter solution with pdaf would have been a much better idea

    • Dave Bennett

      Tiny viewfinder???? Smaller than FF but perfectly usable.

      • Jim Peters

        Dave the e-5 VF is perfectly fine it is the lower models that are poorer before moving to mFT I had an e-620 which had a lot of features for the bucks but the VF was very poor and small so bad in fact that I instantly loved the EVF. I know that my low end use isn’t the same as the E-5

  • Federico

    Shoot film and set yourself out of this rampage for the latest gear. Actually I have an Olympus OM-1n with Zuiko lenses.

  • OM-4ever

    Great news, Oly would be foolish to do otherwise.

  • Bob B.

    These must be quite SOME lenses…then..how come….my new $500 17mm f/1.8 is so mediocre???? Small diameter glass…etc…yet Olympus makes a lens in the exact same build and style with MUCH better IQ and large diameter glass (12mm f/2.0)….
    This is one puzzling company… I feel that they REALLY need to streamline and organize everything and target market segments and deliver clearly styled and label products to different tiers of the market. They are not doing this. I think that if they could they would sell more products and their customers would be more comfortable with a clear direction. Duh.

  • Milt

    Do not begrudge present 4/3rds owners their investment in glass or loyalty to the genre. M4/3rds a much better idea and continuation of the 4/3rds is a bad one. But hats off to Olympus for their loyalty to these particular customers, perhaps while they work on a fully functioning adapter.

  • Camaman

    They should price this new body 50% lower than the E-5 was!

    That way almost all of the former 43 users that are still shooting will buy it and enjoy their investment in lenses for a few more years.

    When you consider todays options from other manufacturers, pricing it high is rather insulting IMO.

    • Anonymous

      Camaman wrote
      They should price this new body 50% lower than the E-5 was!

      The simple rules of economics and production would suggest that a camera of the same quality ( nothing else would be acceptable) aimed at a significantly lower potential market FT user base has shrunk greatly since the start of mFT. Will if anything actually be more not less expensive , especially if the upgraded feature set 5 axis etc necessitate designing a new camera rather than simply rehashing old designs.

    • Anonymous

      Camaman wrote
      They should price this new body 50% lower than the E-5 was!

      The simple rules of economics and production would suggest that a camera of the same quality ( nothing else would be acceptable) aimed at a significantly lower potential market FT user base has shrunk greatly since the start of mFT. Will if anything actually be more not less expensive , especially if the upgraded feature set 5 axis etc necessitate designing a new camera rather than simply rehashing old designs.

      • camaman

        That’s why I called it insulting…
        Economic rules should be broken once in a while, especially in this not so economically important sector (old 43 users)
        It would be a good image booster…

        • Freddie G

          Sadly , the imaging division at Olympus is not in the financial position to be putting out loss leaders especially to a system that has a very small user base. With the majority of users probably already owning any lenses they are interested in, lets face it with the lack of development in recent years the FT guys have had plenty of time to round out their lens collection.
          The FT faithful definitely deserve a body that will allow their lenses to function fully , an I hope they do however for Olympus the better option would be a higher end OMD with full AF support which would have a far higher market appeal

  • prometheus

    I understand Olympus’s desire to please their loyal 4/3rds customers, but they are a company that is struggling financially. This camera will only appeal to a small set of existing 4/3rds holdouts. No one looking to buy into a new camera system will buy a 4/3rds camera, it just doesn’t make any sense. There is no growth potential here and given their financial woes, it would seem more reasonable to focus their resources on m4/3rds which can still grow. This is obviously just my opinion and I don’t really know the investment and foretasted revenue from this, but the last thing anyone here wants is for Olympus to approach bankruptcy.

    • +1.

      Alas, if you go to some 4/3 forum you will see users that would rather have Oly go bankrupt, by keeping on the old format.

      They are such filthy liars that the now try to shift the guilt on m4/3 owners, for the company incurring losses.

      Years ago the argument was that the Endoscope division must pay for their precious toys. No shame at all.

      • -1
        As it happens Olympus lost money on imaging products last 2 seasons, this is almost exclusively m43rds. Since theyre finding that, although improving m43rds isnt as successful as older 43rds was in the US market. With 43rds they dont require any new design they can launch a product to plug that gap right away. It could be that in some markets, both 43rds and m43rds exceed sales of either other on its own.

        • QED & LOL.

          We know what these markets for 4/3 are: there are half a dozen birders, two dentists, one white hunter, and about the same number of retired people, including one Pest Control Australian.

          That should be about all. Let’s throw at them half a million 4/3 cameras, including those with an endoscopic @ss accessory, and a dental circular flash :)

          • Bibicul

            You fuc. idiot! You are a share holder at Olympus that you insult Olympus custumors? Who are you to speak about those who have 43 gear? Who the fuc. are you tu comment the strategy of a company who is trying to bring new products on the market?

            • htbhtbh

              @bibicil you sound like one of the retarded Olympus FT guys from DPreview did someone drop one of those humongous Olympus SHG lenses on your head

        • KWnnyahy

          Olympus have been losing money in their imaging division long before mFT came along , hence the huge cover up. The P&S market is what is currently most damaging to OLympus , combined with the low sales of new cameras compared to old stock which is damaging profitability

          • I saw this the other day and it simply isnt true. The money lost was through financial gambling on other ventures. If they trumped up the imaging div figures they wouldn’t show the loss realized would they?

            • Freddie G

              Sorry but there is little secret that FT was a money loser for Olympus from the get go and their imaging divisions fiscal woes far precede mFT

              • Boooo!

                So, erm, Olympus had financial issues when 4/3 held 10% of the DSLR market and Olympus has financial issues now with m4/3.

                Doesn’t that suggest to you that MAYBE the problem is not related to 4/3 and m4/3, but something else?

              • That is not a ‘little secret’, that is something that has been reported, by Olympus, in their financial statements. Suggesting that this was what was being covered up is just insane. if it were covered up it wouldn’t have been reported.

                • SDFG

                  If the thieving bastards on the board had their way nothing would have been revealed

        • KWnnyahy

          Olympus have been losing money in their imaging division long before mFT came along , hence the huge cover up. The P&S market is what is currently most damaging to OLympus , combined with the low sales of new cameras compared to old stock which is damaging profitability

    • It would have been better to focus those resources on m43 instead, and provide a workable solution in that system.

      However, for such a camera to appear somewhere this year, it must have existed as a prototype for quite a while already for testing and firmware development, and its quite reasonable to assume that those resources have been spent quite a while ago already, and the question has now become one of throwing that away or doing something with it.

      But lets wait and see what is going to happen. A traditional DSLR successor to the E-5 is technically the least difficult option, but it doesn’t really solve the issue, ending the DSLR line without pissing off the remaining users. An ‘OBS’ could in the end do that, and could provide some rather desirable feature to the current m43 system, usable C-AF/tracking.

  • PEN

    Is it April Fools already? Does a “trusted source” have any idea what Olympus thinks the market for an E-7 might be? How many E-7s would need to be sold to break even? Does Olympus really have the resources to spend on a dead system?

  • Brian665

    Another well known site has a thread in the Oly SLR forum where a Pro asked Olympus straight-up via their web site if there was another FT coming for his HG lenses. They answered him straight-up and confirmed ‘…an “E-5 successor” for all 4/3 lenses will be (not maybe but will be) released later this year..’ so I take it as confirmed – mods checked facts and all checks out that this pro being cheeky and direct got the info. Good on him/her for going “to the horses mouth” as it were.

  • We have to wait and see what they have in mind here. A past interview indicated that not only an e5 successor was coming, but a smaller camera for 4/3 too. The smaller camera could very well be some kind of hybrid. They have said several times that there is a portion of the market that really wants an optical viewfinder, hence a classic 4/3 body that allows that. But any other bodies, smaller ones, could be EVF hybrids.

  • Love all these armchair intellects… They seem to know everything about the current state of 43rds better than the company who makes and sells them. They know how many bodies the E-5 sold, the know how easy it is to develop on sensor PDAF (especially since only 1 company has done it well, and even it has limitations Nikon).

    If the detractors here understood how companies do business in a competitive market, they would see the E-7 as a very good idea, as one poster here put it, camer bodies are lens accessories.

    How many lens owners are out there with E-5, E-3, E-1, E-30, E-620, E-520 etc. And would be willing to buy a new 43rds body. Now dont get me wrong, I would be very pleased to see the market push the price of the E-7 down to below $1500, but it still remains the best camera for my lenses, and that fact is true for all HG and SHG lens owners.

    • lotdreb

      the issue I see is that Olympus are in no position to be wasting resources for a camera whose only real attraction is to current owners which are but a tiny subset . The majority of whom will already own the FT lenses they need making the new camera the only money that Olympus will make from them.Given the competition in the respective price sections, is so fierce Olympus is limited in what it can charge. The E5 when it hit the market here was $1700 , with a much higher potential user base which has now dwindled meaning to make any money ( I know that is not an issue to Olympus ) they can either cut a lot of corners or charge a lot of dollars for it.

      • When looking at prices, you really have to factor in the cost of replacing lenses. When we talk about people owning multiple HG or SHG lenses, that cost of replacing lenses is going to dwarf the cost of the E-5, or the expected cost of the E-7. Hence, just looking at the price of the body, and comparing what other camera bodies you could buy for that price is not a valid comparison, unless you are looking at new 4/3 users.

        • Bollox

          Not straight but logical nevertheless. You are making progress bat.

        • hismh

          That is fair enough for the handful of high end FT users , however many of the users of the system will have the lower end bodies with the SG lenses which deliver a lot of bang for the buck. These are clearly not the high spending SHG buyers . The SHG lenses are oversized for a 4/3rds sensor , the market for a potential E7 is obviously a fraction of that which existed when the E5 came out as so many have left the system and moved on.I hope that these guys get a camera that does the lenses justice they have paid a lot and waited a lot but it will only ever be a niche a tiny niche. Olympus need mass market success and they are far far more likely to achieve that in mFT .

          • I doubt anyone at Olympus is expecting mass market success with an E-5 replacement really.

            While I agree with regards to ‘bang for the buck’ that you got from the e-xxx models and SG lenses, I don’t see Olympus all of a sudden turning 4/3 into a hugely successful DSLR system, and that would make it very difficult to create upgraded e-xxx models that are both affordable and profitable.

            I’d think the largest remaining group of customers are those with high grade lenses, especially the 12-60 and 50-200. Sure, owners of SHG lenses are also potential customers for an E-5 replacement, but I’d venture the group of HG lens owners interested in such a thing is significantly larger, and the HG lenses are much harder to replace with equivalent lenses in another system.

      • There is one problem with your thinking about whether or not Olympus will make money. Only they know how many E-5s they sold, on top of how many repairs etc. they make, pert requests and so on.

        • KWnnyahy

          Well the obvious factor is that the massive cover up of losses was initiated in the FT years so you would have to be very blind to not see that FT was a very major money loser for OLympus , from a purely business viewpoint OLympus need to get rid of nearly all compacts , FT and concentrate on mFT possibly their OLYMPUS chance of making money . Considering how many years the cover up went on , I for one would not be surprised if FT actually never made a profit.

          • Maybe you need to read up a bit about that covering up, unless you like looking rather silly. Its not like it is difficult to find what losses were being covered up.

            Agree about drastically reducing the compact line-up.

            • Jesjokiujf

              The hugely inflated prices OLympus paid for nonsense purchase were with the specific intention of covering up long term ongoing losses in the imaging division, it is you who is being foolish if you think anything else. Thankfully for Olympus camera users Olympus medical is a very successful endeavour in a market where they have a huge share.

              This is well documented and accepted by all reputable sources other than a few tinfoil hat wearing Oly fans.

              • I suppose you can point out some of those reputable sources.

                Here is a reputable source that seems to believe otherwise however.


              • You are mad :) They lost the money on bad investments from their investing arm long before 43rds was even a twinkle in their camera divisions eye… You crack me up.

                • DevSeet

                  Whatever the idea behind the massive cover up.Four thirds was a major financial failure for Olympus long before mFT came into being.It is crazy to think that an almost extinct system is worthy of wasting any R&D in a company whose imaging division is in financial trouble , they doubled their losses in the last year compared to the previous.By far the most financially sound answer would be a future OMD or higher end mFT camer with full support for those lovely FT lenses. This would have a larger user base to aim at and it might even boost the sales of some of the FT lenses many of which are excellent.

                  • As far as I am concerned an OMD that focusses my HG lenses as well as DSLR is a camera for me. But if it isnt ready, it isnt ready, and if losing money made 43rds a failure… well, bye bye m43rds :D

    • Frybl

      I doubt that there are many e520-e620 users champing at the bit to buy $1600-2000 cameras or they would already be E5 owners .If it comes to pass the E7 will be one of the most niche cameras ever made.

      • Are you thinking more nice than say, a wooden Sigma SD1?
        People here assume to know so much, it is amazing to see so many simply “know” how many E-5 users there are, and “know” how to steer a huge camera maker… It is almost funny.

        • hismh

          Olympus FT sales have been so insignificant in the past two years that they do not even register on any of the major data sets ( CIPA ,BCN et al) , even at its peak FT accounted for at best 9% of the DSLR market . The FT user numbers have massively declined in the past couple of years. The E5 was behind the times the day it was released . Combine the numbers who have moved on to mFT with the many others who have moved on to other DSLR systems and the user base in the current market place is negligible . Now you are telling us that users of low end FT cameras are waiting in the wings for years to suddenly buy a camera that is three times the price their current choices cost.

          you are the one with who is not looking at the current market realistically. You are the one suggesting that owners of low end gear are going to jump on an E7 that will in all likelihood weigh as much and cost as much as a FF camera.

          • obviously if 43rds isnt trading the losses incurred are with the rest of the product range. Theres an easy 20-50k units in 43rds right now, that will add to the total at years end

            • DevSeet

              Hey Riley I truly hope they come up with a camera that satisfies the users of the FT lenses god knows they deserve it. My only gripe is that Olympus need to make money by producing and selling cameras with broad mass market appeal.Obviously the smaller a production run the higher the per unit costs, would the FT guys settle for another rehashed E3 body like they did with the E5 assuming they could fit in all the new tech such as the 5 axis.When the E5 came out in 2010 it was priced at $1700 with a far higher potential market than today.Logic would suggest that an E7 of the same quality would be more expensive.Especially if they are selling in Leica numbers.

              Like a few of the other posters here I was hoping for a new OMD with support for the FT lenses.Firstly because it would be more likely to sell in numbers than a straight E7 and more selfishly even though I came from a Canon DSLR background originally I love my E-M5 which along with my 75mm is the most enjoyable gear I have ever used. I have looked at {that should really be ogled }a couple of the SHG lenses and I am lusting after the 150mm F2.Though I enjoy the advantages of mirrorless too much to go back to a DSLR.

              • “My only gripe is that Olympus need to make money by producing and selling cameras with broad mass market appeal.”

                they are a niche producer not a volume producer
                it would be irresponsible for them to aim to compete against the big powers in manufacture.

                • Tony Yeog

                  With mFT Olympus have managed to capture a larger share of the market than they ever did with FT.At one time they held 9% of the DSLR market that is not a niche player. They have made FT a tiny market by simply ignoring it while many maybe even most of its users moved on to either mFT or other DSLR makers.Simply having a tiny user base does not make them a niche manufacturer , that was never their intention just a consequence of bad planning,bad timing and bad promotion.

                  The big worry with niche manufactures is that like Leica you invariably end up with hugely inflated product prices while a small bunch of diehards pat each other on the back and tell each other how well they have done.Olympus FT lenses deserve to be continued in a system that has a real potential of continued development.

                  I do not wish to come over as selfish I honestly hope that Olympus deliver the goods. My only concern would be regarding what will be most profitable to Olympus therefore helping them to get out of the hole they are in.Your numbers above about the potential sales numbers assumes that nearly all FT users left will upgrade to this body.For the average man in the street a camera “system” that has only a $1700 option is or maybe even more for I cannot see a camera with such small market potential costing the same as a 2010 model with far higher potential sales

                  • 1) “With mFT Olympus have managed to capture a larger share of the market than they ever did with FT.”

                    -that isnt playing out in the US and other western markets – like Sony they need both

                    2) “The big worry with niche manufactures is that like Leica you invariably end up with hugely inflated product prices”

                    -Fuji is a niche manufacturer

                    3) -it wont be $1700

                    • Omdays

                      How do you figure that the E7 is going to be cheaper than an E5. The E5 came out in 2010 by the time we see an E7 three years will have past. Assuming the E7 is a for real replacement of the E5 ,with the same awesome build quality,new sensor , new 5axis IS,upgraded LCD,AF,video aimed at a far smaller market, common sense dictates that it will not be cheaper ,though I guess that they have cheaper FF options to compete with which might influence pricing. Olympus are not in a good financial position to sell at a bargain price, they are shafting customers for hoods now.The E-M5 is a $1000 and though weather sealed does not have a fraction the build quality of the E5 I have both so I ain’t blowing smoke. Much as I like the image quality of the E-M5 the E5 is a whole different class of device.
                      I sincerely hope you are right my friend , I just can’t see how they could do it , I would jump on an E7 if it is all that it should be but other than cutting corners I do not see how they can keep the priced own. It is also a bit of a PITA that they are not catering for the guys with the e-620 size bodies not everyone wants to splash 1500bucks on a camera

  • “He is 100% sure that this is not a hybrid MFT and FT camera but simply a new E-7 FT.”

    The easiest and least risky route: put newest 16 Mpx sensor, newest processor and refreshed LCD in existing E-5 body…

    • The is al MFT produc so have hight cost for Olympus not FT, FT is sure and safe.

  • Vassilios

    This will be the most EPIC fail in the history of Digital Photography.

    Really… how many FT users are out there? And by “users” I mean those currently using FT at least as their MAIN (if not only) system?

    Let’s be generous and say about half of those of a SINGLE Canon or Nikon model, like the 550D or the D5100. How many of those own HG or SHG lenses? Again, being generous, 1/5th of the total number?

    Sorry folks…. I know it sucks to have invested in a dying system, but that’s what FT really is. Please embrace reality. It makes no sense whatsoever for Olympus to further invest in it TODAY. Even a “E-M5 in E-5 clothing” would eat up valuable resources which could go into a better m4/3 system.

    If the above is the case, I’ll happily ignore this camera anyway and await for what Olympus has in store for the OM-D replacement.

  • Anthony

    New DSLR with FF & 4/3

  • Anonymous

    This seems like a another stupid move by Olympus, rather than just make a good adapter. But, the truth is, that it doesn’t surprise me in the least. Stupid is as stupid does. Eventually, people will catch on.

  • Pat

    This is great news for me as it will only increase the value of my FT lenses which I hope to offload to get true cine lenses instead.

  • Lionel

    Non : les rumeurs quant à une sortie d’un appareil reflex numérique E System d’Olympus successeur du E-5 n’est que poudre aux yeux. C’est faux ! Olympus ne propose que le E-5 en reflex (qui est très bien d’ailleurs), mais ils sont allés dans une direction de miniaturisation, et on voit très bien leurs volontés d’adapter les optiques Zuiko Pro et Top Pro sur les appareils sans miroir (hybrides) avec l’OM D et la sortie de la bague MMF-3, tropicalisée. Il ne serait pas logique ni vendable de commercialiser un Olympus E-7 avec le bon vieux capteur 13mm par 17,3mm lorsque l’on voit la différence en taille de numérisation avec un EOS 7D ou un D300S (ISO, et résolution possible). Il faut arrêter de déclarer qu’un E-7 va sortir : ce n’est qu’une rumeur qui court, et rien ne prédispose réellement à penser à un successeur du E-5 autrement que par les sans miroirs PEN et OM-D. Le E-5 est un appareil historique d’Olympus parce que c’est le dernier appareil numérique à miroir qu’ils produiront.

  • Nic Walmsley

    I don’t understand the technicalities, but might this be relevant:

    1. OMD uses Sony sensor
    2. Sony NEX7n being announced soon and has “a new 24 Megapixel sensor with phase detection pixels on sensor.”

    So maybe by end of Q3 Olympus will have the 4/3 version of this new sensor.

    See here for quote:


    • seems more likely that the Sony is a 1.5x design based on the OMD pixel. IOW it wont perform any better than Olympus with a Sony in it right now

      • A OM-D sensor build out to a APS sensor size will give a sensor on ca. 26.2mpx

  • james70094

    I would like to see a successor for the E-30 or perhaps the E=6xx or E-5xx cameras as well. I own the E-30 and a couple of E-510’s. Having some additional capabilities at less than the pro pricing would open my wallet.

  • Hubertus Bigend


    As much as I’d rather want an E-30 successor or an E-620 successor, and as much as I still think Olympus should have continued at least one of them if not both alongside the E-3/5/7, I will applaud them for the E-7 when it comes and if it doesn’t disappoint. Which I don’t expect it too either, after the E-5 and the E-M5.

    I have yet to handle another camera I find myself as comfortable with as my E-30, so an E-7 is, although probably still heavier, the next best thing to the missing E-30 successor. Much more so than a hypothetical OM-D with phase-detection enabling FT adapter.

    And although I never wanted to spend as much money on a single camera or a camera body as Olympus so far has been asking for all of their flagship DSLRs, I’ll start putting some money aside right now.

    Damn, until it’s there I have to follow the rumor channels even more closely now ;-)

  • Redeye37

    Some people like EVFs, some people like OVFs. Some like bigger small cameras, some people like smaller small cameras. Having two semi-pro, to pro, product lines is good for consumers and good for Olympus.

    • KWnnyahy

      I do not think that Olympus imaging is in any position to carry two major lines , it makes no sense to carry on in a market that has shrunk so far it is almost invisible , the FT camera sales have been a small fraction of one percent in the last two years

      • Jackknill

        “FT camera sales have been a small fraction of one percent in the last two years”
        That’s hardly surprising given there has only been one FT camera available at a (high) price point with little advertising. I do remember that a few years ago Oly were promising to keep both E-x and E-xx lines going. I would make sense to have one FT model at a lower price point as it would be more attractive to new buyers and those looking to upgrade second bodies. Personally I’m enjoying my E-3, bought on ebay for £114, but will wait to upgrade my EP-1 until there is better glass ( and integrated EVF).

  • frisbe54

    Well, I for one like the idea of a replacement for my E-5; however, I was expecting a hybrid type camera that would work great for my SHG lenses. Could be that Olympus dosen’t quite have a handle on a hybrid that can focus SHG lenses yet, hence another FT camera to keep those of us that are impatient from jumping ship to another brand DSLR. I believe this move (if true) by Olympus is meant to retain FT users until that super Olympus hybrid camera comes along; I’m staying with Olympus regardless, my E-520, E-30 and E-5 still work fine as do my lenses.

  • etr brony

    cant wait for the new e-7, the sooner the better olympus

  • Javier

    Luda, i shoot weddings with an E3, 12-60 and 50-200, and i can assure that is possible.
    I know there´s no significant difference between E3 and E5, so i continue with it, bad days to change such a body.
    I know, it’s more noisy with high ISOs, more difficult to get right focus, and less DR than other cameras, but i know very well my tool, and i use it with flash, (very obvious).

    I know one man in my city, who was shooting weddings till 2 years ago, with an E500, and he shot thousand weddings with it.

    The industry is growing very fast, and we are becoming its victims…

    Millions and millions of weddings have been shot, with worse cameras than an E5, and worse lenses than 14-35, and always will be professional works.


  • Rich-Rich

    Olympus needs to make a sale on E5 at $999 and on F2 lenses new at $1500 and refur at $1200 before too late. This is the last chance for E5 to make a real sale volume and money for Olympus. Just look at the used prices of Pentax K5 and K7 Nikon D7000 introduced at the same time as E5. Have of those potential E5 buyers have switched for Full frame DSLR of nikon or Canon. The rest like me are about to leave.

    • Leo vents

      Olympus would have to reduce the price of the 35-100 by $1000 to sell it at $1500 that is never going to happen .The E5 remains high as that is the only new camera in the system the price of it will crash ( ancient sensor , crap video ,too large too heavy) when it is replaced , just as happens with every other model from every maker. The SHG lenses are the jewels in the crown and along with the HG lenses all are better performing than the distinctly mediocre zooms for mFT .Even the 12-35 from PANASONIC is a very poor performer compared to the Olympus FT options . In fact the only mFT lenses that are Up to comparison are the 75mm,60mm macro,25mm F1.4 and the 35-100 the rest are not a patch on the HG and SHG glass

  • Uncle_Pix

    GH3 proved: People still want/need bigger bodies. And here they are. Not a bad decision.

  • Алексей

    Лично я жду от Olympus E-7, это-обновленный во всех отношениях Е-1, пусть он будет с электронным видоискателем,это не принципиально, но однозначно стандарта 4/3, а не микро 4/3, потому, что мне нужен нормальный ф.аппарат, который удобно держать в руках-а не миниатюрное чудо технического прогресса, даже не смотря на то, что в частности OM-D E5 делает хорошие фото, но не так уж, он делает все фото притемненными, с ним хорошо снимать ночные сюжеты.

    • DevSeet

      Лично я жду от Olympus E-7, это-обновленный во всех отношениях Е-1, пусть он будет с электронным видоискателем,это не принципиально, но однозначно стандарта 4/3, а не микро 4/3, потому, что мне нужен нормальный ф.аппарат, который удобно держать в руках-а не миниатюрное чудо технического прогресса, даже не смотря на то, что в частности OM-D E5 делает хорошие фото, но не так уж, он делает все фото притемненными, с ним хорошо снимать ночные сюжеты.

      Thats easy for you to say lol

      • Martins

        I also continue to invest in SHG lenses and shoot with E-1. :) I hope some day Oly will realize that dimensionwise E-3 and E-5 is failure- they lost their uniquines whicha came with E-1. E-3 and E-5 is something between Canon and Nikon. That’s what pro canon shooters told me after I gave them E-1 and E-3- canon shooters really enjoyed E-1, nonoe of them E-3 and e-5… Sad.

  • IMHO Oly will put an E-M5 in a Scuba housing and call it an E-7.

    Il will still cost 1800 $, same of the Canon 6D, a FF :)

    And if will still be bought by dentists, and retired people who have to look at birds from far far away :)

    • LOL, Scuba? you mean a tank Amalric.
      I will be very happy for a Olympus tank for my HG and SHG lens. :-P

  • Tony Yeog

    Well I am in Hong Kong though I travel to Japan ,Korea and ThaIland so you could well be right that my experience is regarding Asia . Looking at the large etailers from USA such as Amazon Olympus DSLR is not in the top 130 DSLR sales. I am curious how you calculate that a camera aimed at a far smaller market than its predecessor with hopefully new technology in the sensor,5-axis,LCD and video, will be cheaper than the E-5 was ,even the E-M5 is priced at $1000 USA . Especcially when they have what is essentially a captive audience of high end FT users who have bought into the excellent lens system .I do not understand how they could produce it cheaper not if they wanted to keep the same standards of construction as the E5 which is very well known for this.

  • Macintosh Sauce

    I have read most of the comments in this thread, and I have one thing to say… If Olympus does indeed bring out a 4/3 camera in Fall 2013 I am going to pre-order that baby. Maybe even a second body for backup. Over the last few days I’ve been looking at pictures taken with the E-5 and the wonderfully sweet Zuiko lenses. WOW! That’s all I have to say. :)

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.