The devil is in the detail. Small correction on Olympus Four Thirds statement.

Share

Last Sunday we all got this message from Olympus (Click here) and there is now but there are two small details to report:
1) Olympus UK just posted on FacebookWe would like to clarify some of the recent news. Olympus has not issued a press release but have made a statement at a recent meeting saying
2) Olympus UK posted a new correct simple statement: “A new camera is under study in order to optimize the Four Thirds lenses“. Also DSLRmagazine (Translation here) that was present on the meeting reported the words from Mr. Michael Guthmann from Olympus: “we will continue to support the Four Thirds system with a camera“… and he added with emphasis: “however the camera looks like“.

In short, there was no official press release and the text spread by some journalists contained a misunderstanding. Watenabe was talking about a Four Thirds lens solution and not necessarily about a new E-7 camera. There could be also a new OMD model with some kind of new technology capable of taking full advantage of the Four Thirds lenses. Just one quick example that comes to my mind. Imaging full phase detection support (through on sensor AF pixels or special adapter like Sony with the LAEA2).

Reminder: Back in January Toshiyuki Terada (Product Planning, Olympus Imaging Corporation, Japan) said at Onfoto (Click here) that the Four Thirds adapter: “is one of the essential areas that we explore and study“.

UDPATE: Pekka Potka wrote: “One thing I´m allowed to say though. Mr Watanabe told me that Olympus is working on a body that will support the Four Thirds lens line-up

All I know from trusted sources (also FT5) is that two new PEN cameras are coming. I have no info from super trusted sources about a new E-7.

Share
  • Robbie

    Seems that a new m43 that fully supports 43 lenses is coming

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

      “Maybe, maybe not.”

      • R

        Well they’ve already stated that’s their goal, but that’s not to say they’re there yet.

        • Riley

          lets wait a few days and see what the next message is
          could end up being fishing tackle the way its going…

    • mpgxsvcd

      They need to make a new body that can actually be used with those monstrous but exquisite lenses. They also need it to be weather sealed to fully support all of the functionality of those lenses.

      Who cares if it is an m4/3s or 4/3s body. If it is made to work well with either formats lenses then it sounds like a good idea for 4/3s users.

      Face it 4/3s cameras are dead. However, the 4/3s format is still alive. The lenses are great for the people that can afford them. There is no reason that they can’t make an m4/3s camera that can effectively use both kinds of lenses.

    • Michael

      Nice. I was about to put my E-520 and lenses on Craigslist. I’ll wait for a little while longer.

  • http://tmutzek.110mb.com/ TheEye

    Mr. Michael Guthmann from Olympus: “we will continue to support the Four Thirds system with a camera“… and he added with emphasis: “however the camera looks like“

    “It look-a like-a man?” 😉

    • Anonymous

      “when used with the 50-200mm lens, it will look like a bird table, we are adapting an ‘Apple iPad’ with a four thirds mount in the centre of the back so that a lens can be mounted there.”

  • buongustaio

    there my hopes go down the drain :(
    however the camera looks like… so probably will be an m4/3 body with full support/fast AF on 4/3 lenses. could be good, no idea. but then why couldn’t they simply make a new adapter ring, with full support, just like sony did?
    i’m confused…

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/miklosrabi Miklós

      Two reasons come to my mind:
      -Olympus wants you to buy new lenses.
      -This adapter would be big and “ugly”. Oly focuses more on design than functionality.

      • st3v4nt

        If they focus on design then the looks will be OK rather than if they only focus in functionality…don’t you think?

    • Esa Tuunanen

      > why couldn’t they simply make a new adapter ring, with full support, just like sony did?

      Sony’s SLT mirror causes ~2/3 stop light loss. Which wouldn’t be exactly good thing for competing in image quality.

      Any kind separate AF sensor lacks stabilization of image which means it would have to do its job basing to possibly shaky image.

      I don’t think m4/3 mount has enough bandwidth to PDAF sensor information camera body so module would needs its own processor for doing focusing calculations and messing with data traffic in between body and lens. Adapter would also need power probably considerably decreasing battery life of these already small capacity batteries in undersized bodies. (apparently NEX Alpha adapter tends to eat battery)

  • Antonio

    Another m4/3 body will be pretty useless to big lens users.

    • SteveO

      +1 in spades.

    • Martin-K

      Only if they make a small m4/3 body again. A new m4/3 ‘pro’ body does NOT neccesarily have to be small by definition. All the current m43 bodies are small, because that was the goal (for Olympus) so far. If Olympus wants to make a big m43 pro body though (we don’t know that of course) for people to be better able to handle large lenses, have bigger grip and buttons and so on, then they can make the m43 body any size and large like the E5.

      • Antonio

        I don’t mean “small” only, I also mean “mirrorless”. We already have nice mirrorless bodies, they’re fun and useful in some situations, but not for any situation. EVF is not ready to “completely” replace OVF, there’s still need for two different system, for 4-5 years at least.

        • Esa Tuunanen

          > EVF is not ready to “completely” replace OVF
          That’s why I would expect them to do E-5 replacing DSLR with modern sensor for giving OVF to those who really need it while expanding mirrorless line up with camera with actual ergonomics as replacement for E-30.
          Without mirror box+other SLR stuff it wouldn’t have to be really heavier than E-5xx/6xx.

  • Marck

    I would hugely prefer the adapter with phase detection support to a completely new body.

    This would allow all E-M5 users like me to keep the value of this revolutionary camera. I don’t miss anything except the full support of my PRO and TOP PRO 4/3 lenses.

    I loved to use the E-M5 + MMF-1 + 4/3 12-60 and 40-150 during my recent vacations.. I made a lot of nice shots with them, but I really suffered the slow and, most important, sometimes incorrect AF.

    Please Oly give us a new MMF with PDAF support!! :)

    • Digifan

      +1, I’d rather have them make my 43 lenses fast AF with adapter on m43 than waste money continueing with 43 Camera’s.
      Olympus should fully focus on m43 but make those nice 43 lenses fully workable on m43. Then in time the should replace the 43 lenses with m43 counterparts.

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

    A big FT lens on a MFT body is not a good solution anyway, 😀

    • Anonymous

      The solution is simple: Just put those add-on grips onto an EM5. They enlarge the camera and improve it’s handling considerably!

    • Mr. Reeee

      The solution is simple: Just put those add-on grips onto an EM5. They enlarge the camera and improve it’s handling considerably!

  • Farrukh

    This makes much more sense, a MFT camera delivering optimised functionality with FT lenses.

  • aqasem

    What is the advantage of the FT body over the mFT ones?

    • Baronlee

      43 cameras are bigger and therefor more comfortable when using the better yet bigger 43 lenses. Ergonomics is the answer here.

      • Digifan

        So buy the grip for ergonomics.
        Though the buttons on the E-M5 could be bigger which would def improve ergonomics and handling.

        • Baronlee

          Even with the grip the EM-5 is still too small, especially too thin. And the buttons… indeed!

          • Richard

            If you compare to the original OM cameras from the film days the EM-5 is almost the same size as those. The OM are a bit wider, the height is the same and the EM-5 is a bit thicker. I have both an EM-5 an E-3 and an old OM-2. The biggest problem with the EM-5 and SHG lenses is the slow focusing, not the size and an EM-5 with the grip would be big enough atleast for me.

            • ulli

              completely agree with your comments, nobody complained about the om series being too small for the zuiko tele lenses. its just a psychological problem.

              • Baronlee

                I agree, mostly.

                All OM-lenses I own (except for the 28-280mm (guessing for the exact zoom of the lens since I haven’t used in ages due to a defect, it would’ve been great on my E-5), but I digress) are way smaller than the 43-lenses I use most (Sigma 50mm 1.4, Oly 14-54mm)… Now if I didn’t own these two BIG 43-lenses, I wouldn’t need a body such as the E-5. But I’ve made that investment (can’t do that twice), the lenses are good for another 20 years or so, so yeah, I love to see another 43-body. But soonish is soon enough: Q3 2013 is soon enough.

                But for the standard kit-lenses of the E-system (Oly 14-42mm, Oly 45-150mm): you are right. And those lenses have their equal in m43 lenses, easily. And there’s those lovely primes…

                • Richard

                  The Zuiko 350/2.8, 200/2.0 and 180/2.0 were hardly tiny light weight lenses and they were uused with OM film cameras, for those who could afford them :-)

                  The 600 and 1000 was not light weight either.

                  • lngq-M

                    OM camera have OVF anyway, and 350mm F2.8 and 250mm F2.0 is on 3900g so not easy to use out tripod.

                  • lnqo-M.

                    Olympus OM camera have OVF and Zukio 250mm F2.0 and 350mm F2.8 is on 3900 gr. and best to use on tripod, but 600mm and 1000mm is realt only for tripod.

                    • ulli

                      ofcourse using it on tripod, as you would do the same when using a 300mm 2.8 on an om-d, but thats not the point.

                • Bart

                  I use the 14-54mk2 quite a bit on my E-M5, usually without grip. I also have an E-3, so I know what it is to use this lens on a larger body. I also have the 50-200 and 11-22, which I also use on the E-M5. Of those 3 lenses, only the 50-200 makes me want to use the grip. For all 3 it is true that the E-3 handles even better, but, that doesn’t mean at all that those lenses on an E-M5 aren’t usable with regards to handling.

                  It does however have to do a lot with technique. 25 years ago, I was using things like the Minolta Rokkor 135/2 and 200/2.8 on an XD body, and had by then learned to support the weight of the camera+lens with my left hand, and only use the right hand for stabilizing and operating the camera. This habit makes a large grip pretty irrelevant.

              • Mr. Reeee

                +++
                Yes, indeed. The only difference is that with film cameras you used BOTH hands to hold and control the camera… it was rare to use just one hand.

                • Bart

                  True, but with digital cameras this is still a very good idea.

                  3 point stabilization (2 hands + face) is a LOT better then 2 point stabilization.

                  Beyond that, putting that 50-200 (or larger) on your camera, and swinging it around single handedly is putting a lot of stress on the camera frame and mount. Considering how the light and weather sealing really depends on things fitting tight, this stress is really not such a good idea. Hence, for longlivity of the camera as well as quality of the pictures, 2 handed operation is simply a good idea.

                  • Mr. Reeee

                    +++ You’ll get no argument from me on that point!

                    Two-handed camera operation is simply basic technique, whether you’re using manual or autofocus lenses.

                    Hearing people bitch about the difficulty of one-handed operation with long lenses is ridiculous. There’s a reason we’re all supplied with a pair of lunch hooks… USE ‘EM, people! 😉

                • ulli

                  I dont follow this,unless you mean the presence of more real estate at the body halve where the filmcatridge is located, thus automaticaly putting your left hand there. But I always did put my left hand under the lens, also because of the manual focussing.

              • Michael

                Nobody complained using horses for transportation until decent cars were invented.

                • ulli

                  you mean something like a T-ford ,i guess it was rather the start of new complaints, for me,the comparison is black and white, and in many cases, ergonomics will always be a matter of personal taste.

            • Esa Tuunanen

              OM-serie was never designed for maximal ergonomics but to be compact.

              And really any analog mechanical age design was designed to avoid limitations of that tech making them even worser examples for what’s best ergonomics.

              • http://www.43rumors.com/members/ulli/ Ulli

                but did you complain about ergonomics from mechanical bodies, when you were still shooting film before the digital era? i can’t remember any review in magazines back in those days complaining, except when talking about olympus om havin the dial around the mount, but thats something different.

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

                  Mechanical bodies? Most ’70s,’80s and ’90s bodies were electromechanical beasts that were reliant on battery power for their shutters. Ergonomics were always discussed, especially when polcarbonate-clad bodies began showing up (Canon T-series and Minolta Maxxum, for example). Especially the Colani-designed Canon T-90 was praised for its ergonomics in the mid/late ’80s.

                  Don’t forget that ergonomics go beyond a design that allows getting a good grip. DSLRs have a a lot more controls than even a complex 35 mmm SLR like an F4s. A simple, classic camera like a Nikon F2 is ergonomically very well thought out, but the the same design simply would not work well for a DSLR that requires a lot more buttons and dials, not to mention batteries larger than a small coin cell.

                  • ulli

                    lots of more mechanic parts even in superduper “electronic” bodies, we were still talking about film based bodies, so film transport was a big part of any camera, so i consider every film camera to be mainly mechanical. I also dont get the point why an f2 design would not be suited for a dslr implementation(it’s huge and one of the reasons why olympus came up with the om series-go more compact but keeping controls the same size), because there is lots of space for buttons, remove the filmtransport and other inner parts not needed, its just a matter of coming up with a good layout for the new addings.

    • chronocommando

      advantage:

      a) ergonomics if you like it bigger
      b) OVF if you prefer it

      disadvantage:

      a) you cant use mFT lenses

      • Ryan

        People shoot one-handed? No wonder people complain about ergonomics/weight balance with m43.

        Left hand under the lens, people. Left elbow against chest for support. Right hand on grip. Right elbow points down. Photography 101.

        • Mymaco

          I can’t believe people shoot single hand.. I admit it can happen (a quick street photo i.e.), but from what I read I’m really surprised that a single handed hold can be considered a habit

        • Esa Tuunanen

          I complain about you digicompact shooters insisting that Opel Corsa is station wagon.

          Ergonomics is lot more than shooting stance.
          There’s no way to hold these P&S ergonomics small mirrorless cameras with fingers resting in any natural way.
          If there’s any grip it’s small with too tight curvature needing bending fingers harder. And because of rear space is wasted for oversize movie theater screen there isn’t space where to rest thumb.
          Overhyped GH2 doesn’t have really any place for thumb except on top of buttons being accidentally pushed if you forget keeping fingers stressed for maintainig grip with only fingertips.
          E-M5 barely avoids that but controls are crammed into way too small space and you need to buy whole expensive grip set for getting any grip to speak of. And even then it isn’t even at level of E-4×0 entry level DSLRs which had more space for thumb and rear controls.

          Unless you’re right now using your mouse with claw grip style fingers bend similarly to these P&S ergonomics bodies you better stop complaining.
          http://www.razerzone.com/mouseguide/ergonomic

          Bet most of you are using palm grip with fingers/hand resting on mouse, eh?
          Because that’s closest to natural resting position of fingers/hand.

          • MichaelKJ

            >Overhyped GH2 doesn’t have really any place for thumb except on top of buttons being accidentally pushed if you forget keeping fingers stressed for maintainig grip with only fingertips.

            You must have a strange way of gripping a camera. I find the thumb pad on the back of the GH2 quite comfortable.

            I’m still trying to decide on the best way to hold the E-M5. The full Oly grip is very comfortable but I’m not sure if the extra bulk is worth it.

          • Bart

            Esa, many of the ‘handling’ and ergonomics issues that people complain about simply do not exist when using the proper techniques. That is nowhere saying that ergonomics is not important.

            And eh, I come as much from an E-3 as from an OM-1 as from a Leicaflex S1 as from a Minolta XD as from…..

            Your suggestion that people who do not agree with your specific take on ergonomics do so because they only know ‘compacts’ is silly and wrong.

            Deal with it, not everyone shares your take on ergonomics, rather, many people don’t, and not because they are stupid, or don’t know what they are talking about, but because they have different techniques and different preferences.

            And this obviously doesn’t invalidate your preferences, it just says they are not universal at all.

            • Mymaco

              +1 exactly. I use a grip on my EM5 simply because voigtlander 17,5mm is quite heavy, compared to other lenses. But anyway I hold my camera with 2 hands, 1 holding the body, the other holding the lens. It doesn’t matter if I use AF or MF: always two hands, even if I’m using the screen from some strange position. It’s like complaining that a sniper rifle has not good handling when shoot one hand… 😉

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

          I believe the one-handed shooting comes from using the display instead of a finder. 😛

  • Baronlee

    This “however it looks camera” will only make sense if it has the handling (ergonomics, especially size) and weather sealing of the E5. Anything smaller is a big no-no in my book: I want a comfortable camera in my hands, not some miniature camera that can’t handle all the lovely 43-lenses I have.

    • Digifan

      Man your a nag. I have the E-1 and E-5 mainly for the 43 lenses, but the E-M5 isn’t less comfortable at all. The only downside is the smallish buttons on the E-M5 but then again the E-5 doesn’t have big buttons either.
      I grip a camera by the lens and the strap can be mounted to a special tripod base plate.

    • ulli

      Being asian i have no problems at all with lesser real estate on a consumer product. When i still used cameras like Nikon D1x and Canon 1Ds I noticed the wealth in space overhead available. The next step to fourthirds was a subtle decrease in space. Cameras Like the E-P1/2 and the Ricoh GXR showed me the “ergonomics in being able to keep your camera with you all the time” . Now the OM-D permits me to choose between this 2 ways of interpreting “ergonomics”.

  • Miroslav
    • admin

      The E-Pm2 and E-PL5 may not be a revolution afterall. But I bet there will be a suprise.

      • SteveO

        Yes, that there’s no 16MP Sony sensor. Precisely what’s the point other than to lag the competition, Sony in particular?

      • Miroslav

        At least you’re optimistic. That gives some hope…

  • -ph-

    I think a fully focussing µ4/3rds camera makes much more sense as who would buy a top-level camera which does not take all those beautiful new lenses too? I have been shooting the 50-200mm and the 150/2 even with my E-P1. It is certainly not the best body for these lenses, but my major complaint was the lack of autofocus. If Olympus would make a variation of the OM-D which has the side grip built in and adds a very few millimeters in size around the grip, it should nicely handle most of the 4/3rds lenses. (A bonus would be a bit more of space for the buttons)

  • mahler

    Instead of issueing one misleading statement after the other, Olympus should declare the FT system officially as dead and not constantly fooling the user base.

    How can they under these circumstances expect that anybody would invest in new, expensive FT glass?

    Olympus should get its act together and do an open, clear and concise communication policy.

    • http://pekkapotka.com Pekka Potka

      Isn´t a statement saying that they are “working on a body that will support the Four Thirds lens line-up” open and clear? Support meaning here that everything including AF works like and at the speed it should. By the way: How is Canon communicating on the future of EOS-M line vs. APS-C DSLRs? How is Nikon communicating on what will happen to “1” series now or if they are working on APS-C size mirrorless? Yes, they don´t, at all.
      -p-

      • Anonymoose

        They don’t have to. I mean, neither does Olympus, but it would be nice, since they had 10% DSLR market share (and climbing) when they decided to stop making new stuff. There’s millions of Oly DSLRs out there.

        • SteveO

          Yes, I’m one. Along with mFT. I still scratch my head over how these dunderheads could so misplay a potentially strong hand of getting their loyal users to buy into mFT as small bodied supplements to their already much loved 4/3’s DSLR’s/lenses which AF’d without any compromise.

          4/3’s zooms such as the 12-60mm are simply the best for flexible field use. All they needed to do was keep the E-xxx series current with today’s technologies and many of us would still be buying them and their lenses.

          The emperor has no clothes.

          • http://www.harold-glit.com Harold GLIT

            Yes I agree with you. Give me a E6 (7?) with a sony sensor , a better buffer, a well implemented CF+SD card and I am set. Add on a RAW DNG so we do not have to worry about the future and I would get two of these bodies and be set for a long long time

            There are many cases where nothing can replace an OVF . Not to mention that it is more reliable than an EVF

            Harold

  • john

    Everybody on here is mostly negitive probably Canikons hoping Olympus goes away. Either way in the end olympus will come up with something where everybody is wrong

    • Incessant Troll

      another billion dollar accounting scandal? another $1000 single focal length lens made from a material that is recycled every single day throughout the world, although the gangsters call it pro? another $80 lens hood made in china for $0.05?

      cant wait

  • jumper

    glad I jumped ship two years ago, olympus is getting ridiculous, and so are the last fanboys of the brand

    • SteveO

      mFT fanboys.

      • Mr. Reeee

        There’s a big difference between being a M4/3 fanboi and an Olympus fanboi.

  • http://david.bateman642@gmail.com David

    I think the E7 is not ready and we will see it in 2013, they are say this to cover them selves. Since everyone is expecting a E7 and will not see one. They don’t want a disapointment event in Sept.

    The E7 might even be done, but maybe they were shown a new sensory for Sony and want to test it out before going public? Or Panasonic is letting them look a new higher end full digital read out sensor?

    Who knows, but sounds like a delay to me.

  • st3v4nt

    Those who complaint about the ergonomic of 4/3 lens on m4/3 body such as OM-D probably never even use one. I use the 14-54, 40-150, and 35 mm 4/3 lens in my OMD through adapter the only think that let me down is the AF tendency to hunt back and forth before settling. The ergonomic, The Quality is merely the same wether I put it on OM-D + grip or my E-1. If you talking about ergonomic in OM-D for more bigger lenses in 4/3 line then I could asure you that even on 4/3 body you need to use the collar in lenses if you want to have sharp picture unless you have very strong arm.

    So a full PDAF adapter like Sony did will make current m4/3 user happy.

  • Riley

    “A new camera is under study in order to optimize the Four Thirds lenses”

    sounds a little dull after four years

  • http://tmutzek.110mb.com/ TheEye

    ““however the camera looks like“

    WHAT? Looks like WHAT? 😛

    How infuriating to get quoted tidbits with the relevant info missing.

    PS: I do realize Olympus mouthpieces have the English communication skills of Swedish Chef. “Bork bork.”

  • beautemps

    “new camera” means no PDAF-adapter. Right?
    “under study” means no design decision yet, no development. How long does it take to develope and produce on the basis of E-M5? > 12 month I guess.
    And what will the result be? Sensor-Phasedetection by few pixels is asumed to be not that fast in a EOS-M using old lenses, for example.

    • http://www.piter.ch Matthias

      And then, what about my E-M5? Have I again to buy a new camera? They should make an adapter for older mFT cameras, and new cameras working properly with old FT glases. And they should also make better mFT zooms.

    • Esa Tuunanen

      > And what will the result be? Sensor-Phasedetection by few pixels is asumed to be not that fast in a EOS-M using old lenses, for example.

      When did Canon start doing any real innovation?
      Compared to Nikon 1 Canon’s on sensor PDAF’s few irregularly located pixels look much like some marketing gimmick:
      http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/recent-teardowns/2012/07/inside-the-canon-rebel-t4i-dslr/

  • Chris

    I don’t care if they make a small mirrorless! I want a bigger pro Mirrorless with a grip, ac,global shutter , rated at 5o iso for studio strobe. If they could make a body for the e lenses that would be perfect. Yes I like the aspect ratio thats why they are diffrent. I still shoot canon too.

  • HMR

    What if the GH3 were also sporting compatibility with 4/3 lenses? Panny and Oly could be working together on this and that is why some Oly leaks lately with imminent GH3 launch. Just an idea. probably not going to happen.

    • Esa Tuunanen

      Better moving target tracking with hybrid AF would indeed be also in interests of Panasonic.
      Panasonic just has been guarding their GH sensor so jealously that they probably would give Olympus only usual 4/3 sensor instead of multiaspect one. Further if it can’t match E-M5’s excellent Sony sensor in dynamic range then what’s the point in getting scraps of Panasonic when also Sony is developing on sensor PDAF.

  • Pixnat

    Olympus will always be Olympus : a wonderful camera maker, but a poor communicator.

  • napalm

    i always thought the same, that they are focusing on making 4/3 lenses work better with m4/3, not a new body. but I must admit, a part of me did want to see a 4/3 body just for the heck of it

  • Martin

    It seems more and more probable that there will be no E-7 at all:
    First the rumour saying that the E-M5 is a by-product of a high-end FT body whose development was either postponed or canceled, now this cautious statement.
    IMO they are very near the integration of the two systems (a.k.a. ‘one beauuuutiful system’) and it makes less and less sense (sorry, surviving FT users) for them to invest in another FT body development and production..

  • ArtP

    Realistically, to work optimally w the big lenses, a camera would need a BLM or equivalent, BLS/BLN won’t cut it. (Not to mention a big enough body to balance a bigger lens) Alternative of course would be reduce the size of the SHG lenses or redesign the focus mechanism, which does the current SHG owners no good.

    • Bart

      Olympus does have a patent on a technology that could allow contrast AF with any lens, not just the SHG 4/3 lenses, but pretty much every manual focus lens as well. It consists of an adapter with its own focusing optics.

      There are some inherent disadvantages to this concept however, first of all it causes noticeable breathing (changing of image size/magnification when changing focus distance, which is especially distracting for video) and essentially bypassing the focus mechanism of the lens completely, making manual focus for SWD and manual focus lenses interfer with the AF system. Focus by wire lenses could be handled properly however. Also, bypassing the focus mechanism of the lens completely means any macro/close-focus capabilities of the lens are probably not going to do anything useful.

      A link to the patent was posted on 43rumors quite some time ago.

      I’m not sure that we’ll ever get to see such a thing, but it does show that they have been investigating the issue of how to use AF with all 4/3 lenses on a camera that can only do ‘imager AF’ for quite a while already.

  • http://www.mirrorlessworld.com Atlasman

    An E-7 would only serve as appeasement to existing customers.

    A mirrorless that takes full advantage of the pro grade lenses, not only appeases the existing base, but now would also serve to expand the market with pro grade glass.

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

      Ah yes, in the now prevalent business model only new customers count. To hell with those whose money has already been taken. And then there are those consumers who mindlessly go along with this concept.

  • http://thesubversivebirds.com/ Renato S.

    it makes more sense to make a m4/3 camera that supports the 4/3 system and lens with a adapter bundle, I don’t know, than making a 4/3 camera.

    so, when they talk about a PRO body, I think it’s about that.

  • Boooo!

    I don’t care if it’s mirrorless or what mount it has – just make it big and sturdy. I do NOT want to walk around with a 12-60 or 50-200 on a body with questionable mount strength and/or a plastic adapter.

    • http://www.mirrorlessworld.com Atlasman

      When you enter the world of mirrorless, your mind-set requires a shift.

      I don’t mind carrying a configured system by the barrel of the lens—but there’s got to be enough grip; the E-M5 hasn’t got enough. The NEX-7 does. The Panasonic G-series does.

      • Esa Tuunanen

        > The NEX-7 does.
        Also NEX-7 is far cry from good controls and ergonomics. Plus viewfinder crammed to tiny space doesn’t do justice to OLED screen in it because of small eye relief/image size.
        Too bad Sony couldn’t let their former Minolta engineers do modern interchangeable lens version of Dimage A2.

        G5 may change it but otherwise Panasonic G(H)s have worser grip than E-M5 with horizontal grip. But both have really too centered legacy limited viewfinder position.

      • Boooo!

        Carrying a camera by the lens is super-awkward. I got the E-3 grip and handstrap precisely so I could carry the body around comfortably and with my wrist in a fully natural position. I can easily walk around doing that for hours, without fearing that the mount would twist or break. Carrying a small camera by holding the lens would probably result in me throwing the damn thing on concrete in half an hour – if it doesn’t drop out of my hand by itself.

        • Bart

          I do occasional camera and lens repairs for a nearby shop. After a few years of intensive use, it is usually possible to tell from the state of the mount-body attachment, and especially from how tight the flanges in the bayonet are, if the owner carries it right-handed by the grip, or left-handed by the mount.

          Obviously, it matters what the lens weight is, and how far away from the mount its center of gravity is. Its not an issue really with lighter lenses like the 14-54 or even 12-60, but with for example the 35-100 or 300/2.8, this is something to seriously consider.

          • Boooo!

            On the other hand, I’ve heard reports of the 7-14 being utterly shitty on m4/3 in some scenarios – the adapter bends under the weight if you have the camera on a tripod and don’t support the lens with your hand.

            A 50-200 should by all accounts be fine on an E-x body. The mount is very sturdy. But yes, I wouldn’t walk with the 35-100 around – besides, that’s hardly a walkaround lens 😀

  • http://www.mirrorlessworld.com Atlasman

    If Olympus have in fact switched to Sony sensors, then the next iteration of Oly’s top-of-the-line should have phase-detection on-board the imaging device.

    Will this be enough to achieve a high degree of usability from these FT lenses?

    • Esa Tuunanen

      Right now it’s really hard to see anything what Panasonic could offer Olympus in sensors considering they probably don’t want to give multiaspect sensor of GH-serie.
      Olympus and Sony really have mutual interest in on sensor PDAF.

      And remember that today’s SLR PDAF is result of some 30 years of R&D so we really can’t blame makers if they needs few years to get comparable on sensor PDAF.

  • safaridon

    Small correction, really? Instead of TWO 4/3 new models now none!
    Desperation to fuel the Oly propaganda mill?

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

      I thought Ale was cynical by posting “small correction.”

      http://www.43rumors.com is becoming the TMZ of the photograpy world. Next, a look behind the scenes at this year’s Olympus event ‘Aya and Yuki – Wet’n Wild in the Cayman Islands.’

      • SteveO

        +1, very funny and I’m afraid beginning to seem too true.

        Feels like Admin has been really struggling trying to get anything even approaching solid out of his contacts, now less than 3 weeks from Photokina. Such is the plight of a rumors site when the trail runs cold.

        Just a couple months ago it seemed we were on the cusp of significant upgrades (as in new sensors) in the XZ-2, E-PM2 and E-PL4 along with an E-7 with 16MP Sony sensor and possibly even an E-xxx with same for under $1000, to be followed in early 2013 by the hallowed “pro” mFT. What an exciting line-up!

        Alas, it’s all just drifting away now, like a mirage. Like Olympus’ endless word teasers. Rumors, drat them!

  • KK

    If it has an EVF in place of the OVF I’m used to, I won’t buy it. Period.

  • http://alatchinphotography.com Ab

    You know, the whole point of this is that Olympus is working on BOTH options not just one.

    It will work like this, if they can get the systems to merge, a pro m43rds body that has every bif of AF performance (and a bit more) of the E-X they will release it and see if they can get the cross over.

    If they can’t get it to AF and CAF on the level of the E-X they will release an E-X.

    I would love to see both, I think there is a case for both. The E-7 has the potential to be a real game changer for enthusiasts as well as professionals. The IBIS in the EM5 is superb, combined with the HG an SHG lenses you get some stunning video. The extra space in the E-X body would leave space for more processing elements or connectivity.

    Hell, even if Olympus is making a m43rds 12-60, it will cost $1200, you can get a used 43rds 12-60 for $600, leaving $600 in your pocket.

    This is where I see it, if they announce an E-7 at photokina, I will pick up a couple more 43rds lenses from people hopping systems, if they announce a m43rds 12-60 it will signal a shift. But the price difference and optics of the original makes better sense. You get the lens and a body, the E-7 is your CAF and “big” camera, and the EM5 with primes your small camera.

    I did 2 shoots in the last 2 days with the EM5, one was a model at a local park, using the FL50R and the 25mm/45mm lenses. And today at a engineering company shooting their products (an optical flow rate measurement device) with studio strobes. The images are superb from both.

    During the park shoot my EM5 ran out of batteries, I switched to the EPL2, I immediately noticed the slower AF, and as you can imagine with my equivalent settings, the noise.

    Olympus has a sensor and electronics that is superb. Get it in the E-7 and you will do very well.

    Ab

    • kdi98s

      @AB

      “I would love to see both, I think there is a case for both. The E-7 has the potential to be a real game changer for enthusiasts as well as professionals. The IBIS in the EM5 is superb, combined with the HG an SHG lenses you get some stunning video. The extra space in the E-X body would leave space for more processing elements or connectivity”

      As it has ever been the problem with that scenario is that the Olympus SHG lenses are huge, heavy and cost a damn fortune . If I was prepared to carry that amount of weight i would be shooting FF with better sensors and better control of DOF. The lenses are super good for sure but the market for them in FT was tiny and in mFT it will be miniscule

      The number of FT users was never that significant to start with and there are only a fraction of them left , combine this with the fact that they probably already own these lenses. Where exactly will the market for these very large very heavy lenses that coast a pile of dough come from. They are totally against the core reason a huge majority of mFT owners buy into the system in the first place. Olympus messed up with FT a nearly destroyed the company to boot , they have to shoot for the small lighter market that seems pretty obvious.

      • http://alatchinphotography.com Ab

        I understand where you are coming from, but the 43rds division didnt hurt the camera market, Sony buying Minolta did.

        The E-7 will sell to existing owners, and believe me you will see a trickle up of users from m43rds to 43rds. Young photographers who have shot with an EPL1 for a bit, and start looking at DSLRs, a good few will choose an Olympus product for reasons like familiarity, brand awareness and brand advocacy.

        The SHG lenses are akin to perfection, and make a false argument. The HG lenses generally start at f2.8 and finish at f3.5. The 50-200 is superb for price, size and speed. The 14-54, 12-60 and 11-22 are superb optics and follow the same reasoning.

        SHG lenses, the 14-35 and 35-100 are stunning pieces of glass, weigh very similar to FF lenses while being F2, clawing back 1 stop of the sensor advantage from a larger, heavier and more expansive camera. The 300mm f2.8 does the same while being cheaper and smaller than a 600mm f4, the 90-250 f2.8 compared to a 500mm f4 has a size, weight and price advantage.

        There are lots of reasons people would choose this format, especially now that the sensors have finally caught up.

        Ab

        • Kdi98s

          I understand where you are coming from, but the 43rds division didnt hurt the camera market, Sony buying Minolta did.

          Compared to mFT success, FT was an also ran from the start as they didn’t push for the size to image quality ratio that mFT does so well.

          The E-7 will sell to existing owners, and believe me you will see a trickle up of users from m43rds to 43rds. Young photographers who have shot with an EPL1 for a bit, and start looking at DSLRs, a good few will choose an Olympus product for reasons like familiarity, brand awareness and brand advocacy.

          I think in a time when people are starting to wonder about the long term viability of the DSLR. Other than making a lot of current FT users very happy [ which is a good thing those guys have been loyal] it will not create any worthwhile market . If you want to upgrade your mFT camera you already have reasonable products like the E-M5 upcoming GH3 and with Olympus talking about a “Pro Pen “ down the line why would anyone want to buy a bigger heavier camera without the many advanatges of mFT

          The SHG lenses are akin to perfection, and make a false argument. The HG lenses generally start at f2.8 and finish at f3.5. The 50-200 is superb for price, size and speed. The 14-54, 12-60 and 11-22 are superb optics and follow the same reasoning.

          To make money on imaging Olympus have to attract new buyers to the system and shift as many lenses as possible and the way to do this is to deliver mFT lenses of a higher grade . They will always be smaller and lighter than the SHG or HG lenses, look at the Pany 7-14 it gives maybe 95% of the quality of the Olympus 7-14 while being both cheaper and smaller/lighter that is where they should aim.

          SHG lenses, the 14-35 and 35-100 are stunning pieces of glass, weigh very similar to FF lenses while being F2, clawing back 1 stop of the sensor advantage from a larger, heavier and more expansive camera. The 300mm f2.8 does the same while being cheaper and smaller than a 600mm f4, the 90-250 f2.8 compared to a 500mm f4 has a size, weight and price advantage.

          I don’t know where you hail from but here in Europe the SHG prices are absolutely outrageous the Olympus 12-35 costs 50% more than the Nikon 24-70. The Olympus 300mm F2.8 comes in at £1600 more than the Nikon 300mm F2.8 pop a 2xTC on FF and you get the same reach while still keeping the same DOF . So the advantage here is non-existent . The Nikon 500mm F4 puts the same amount of light on the sensor as a 250mm F2 would on mFT these lenses are not comparable

          There are lots of reasons people would choose this format, especially now that the sensors have finally caught up.

          I honestly do not see why anyone would choose FT over mFT , larger heavier gear , slower if any future development . mFT is the way forward and at least for me gives an excellent weight to performance ratio. I would opt for FF if I wanted to carry those kinds of load. I will never buy another DSLR again and I would wager that a whole lot of mFT users are in the same boat. The market for these SHG lenses would be tiny . I really hope that the guys using FT get a final horah with an E-7 as the deserve it. But proper AF compatability on mFT is the only worthwhile future option.

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

            agree, say good.

          • Esa Tuunanen

            > why would anyone want to buy a bigger heavier camera without the many advanatges of mFT
            Unergonomics isn’t advantage.
            Mirrorless needs to offer also similar ergonomics bodies as high end DSLR meaning good size grip, same amount of direct external controls, which are properly spaced. (max 2.5″ display would help for that)
            Or maybe you want to keep Canikon’s DSLR stronghold still going on strong for decades?

            > To make money on imaging Olympus have to attract new buyers to the system and shift as many lenses as possible and the way to do this is to deliver mFT lenses of a higher grade . They will always be smaller and lighter than the SHG or HG lenses

            Only lenses which needed heavier retrofocus design to allow DSLR’s long flange back distance of ~4cm can be made smaller for mirrorless mount!
            Lenses with focal length longer than that distance won’t become smaller except with worser optical quality and smaller apertures. (or same tech advance would make it smaller also for DSLR)

          • http://alatchinphotography.com Ab

            There is no long term viability of a DLSR. An optical viewfinder has existed for this long for a reason, it will continue to exist and we are all guessing as to the market response.

            The price difference for the Nikon with TC is less than a thousand, but what about the price difference between a pro level Olympus body and a FF Nikon Cam? A thousand or two depending on the model more than makes up for it. But we can also get a TC and our 300mm becomes a 600mm (or 1200mm AoV)… How much does that cost for the Nikon?

            I use the EM5, and while the EVF is good, it isnt an OVF, and you can count me as an E-7 buyer if it offers what I suspect it will. Having both choices is the whole point.

            We can only watch what Olympus will do, I suspect they will launch an E-7, I hope it will offer some substantial additions over my EM5. If they dont and produce a pro m43rds body, I will buy that instead.

            The whole point of this, that most dont understand, once scorned twice shy. If olympus upset their core users they will create untold numbers of people who will actively work against their brand, against their products (no matter how good). They will solve this because they have to. They have shown they are aware of the problem by the sheer volume of statements on the subject.

            Ab

  • Anonymous

    I really think it doesn’t matter as long as they work on a camera that can use the 4/3rd lenses well, as far as E-7 vs no E-7. By using them well I don’t mean just fast AF, but also size, ergonomics, etc.

  • Riley

    FFS this story seems to change every time I come here

    • ulli

      well that happens alot with certain rumors i guess…

  • Milt

    I find this a non-news item.

  • Jankoff

    I have E-520, E-600 and EP1 with FT lenses (12-60, 11-22, 70-300, Sigma 24, Sigma 30). The handling of E-520 is perfect, E-600 is acceptable, EP1 is difficult. Interestingly, all the FT lenses work on EP1 with some slowdown in focus but in an acceptable way for general purposes. I’ve been at a loss since the appearance of the EM5. Buy EM5 or wait? Wait for what? I would wait for E-50, with everything from EM5 plus good handling. But now the feeling of being lost is deepening. One thing encouraging at least is that those marvelous FT lenses will always work on m4/3, in spite of some limitations. Hence, no desire on my part whatsoever to part with them.

  • http://www.adventurerob.com AdventureRob

    I reckon Olympus are doing a new professional OM-D which is a similar size to the current one, but with the HLD-6 battery grip on. Maybe comes with an adapter to use 4/3 lenses in it’s native phase detection too.

    This makes a lot of sense and it gives all the options people desire in a pro camera. Maybe even a hybrid optical viewfinder to use the 4/3 lenses too.

    • Esa Tuunanen

      > new professional OM-D which is a similar size to the current one, but with the HLD-6 battery grip on.
      Trying to cram worst of everything into one?

      That would only increase bulk and weight to that integrated vertical grip level while being limited to single small size battery.
      Lacking controls would be still cramped because of that inch too big display for body size with rear dial being in retro retardation position

      And that almost completely centered retro SLR viewfinder position makes nose hit body/display while ergonomics isn’t up to DSLRs.

  • Dunadan

    At this point, regular 4/3 is little more than a distraction to confuse people who are considering buying Micro 4/3. It’s time for Olympus to leave that system behind like Canon left behind FD and Apple left behind Power PC. Olympus fans will get over it. -DV

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website, 43rumors.com, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.

Close