What if…Olympus would join Sonys new Full Frame mirrorless system?

Share


Image on top. The “Full Frame” OM-1 film camera.

In one year from now Sony will launch their Full Frame mirrorless system. I have absolutely no info yet if Olympus will get involved in that project. Sony and Olympus said that they will share their tech for future camera developments but there were never any talk about a joint adventure on the FF system. So it is highly unlikely it will happen but nevertheless there is a small chance. Sony desperately needs lenses for the system and the FF mirrorless system wouldn’t be a competitor of the MFT system because of the much higher price of the cameras.

And now, try to imagine a new joint FF system from Sony and Olympus. And Olympus making a $2500 Full Frame OMD camera….

Would you be interested in buying a camera like this?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

I am curious to here your opinion on that!

By the way, all OM film cameras were Full Frame! Here is the chronological ordered list of all OM film cameras ever made by Olympus. Click on the names to see them on eBay (ordered by first announced camera): M-1, OM-1, OM-1 MD, OM-1N, OM-2, OM-2N, OM-2S/SP, OM-3, OM-3Ti, OM-4, OM-4T/Ti black and chrome, OM-10, OM-20 (OM-G), OM-30(OM-F), OM-40 (OM-PC), OM-77AF (OM-707), OM-88 (OM-101), OM-2000.

Share
  • Farrukh

    Personally I’d find that quite interesting, and may even be tempted. My only concern, video – if if they get that right.

    • http://youdidntdidyou.com/ YouDidntDidYou

      wikileaks speaking about canikon:
      “In general, your opponents prejudice is your biggest strategic advantage. It means they are predictable and can’t think properly.”

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

    I imagined the same. However the mirrorless register is so short, that there is bound to be big problems with wides at the edges.

    We already see with Fuji’s sensor and CV wide lenses, so imagine a FF sensor. Yes you can correct, but then you lose resolution at the edges.

    Additionally tele lenses for a FF system are going to be really big, so is there a market after all, considering that C&N are already there?

    By comparison m4/3 seems a piece of cake. The 4/3 zooms are already there, and the wides have much lesser problems.

    In the end it’s not a matter of how big the sensor is, but the resolution output of both the sensor and the lens, which is actually pretty good with m4/3.

    As for Sony, perhaps Oly should restart its production of OM lenses :)

    • Esa Tuunanen

      > We already see with Fuji’s sensor and CV wide lenses, so imagine a FF sensor. Yes you can correct, but then you lose resolution at the edges.
      Resolution is already lost when light starts to hit sensor in oblique enough angles which makes even smaller aberrations (whose effect increases farther from image’s center) to cause light coming from single point to spread to multiple pixels.
      And bigger apertures just increase incident angle.
      Something in which Fuji XF 35mm f/1.4 R has clear problems when edges never reach resolution of center until it’s brought down by diffraction.
      Film was lot less sensitive to these problems already simply because of its lot lower resolution.

      Geometric distortion is different thing but sure pours more salt to the wound if left uncorrected in lens.

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

        Well there is talk of implementing microlenses at the edges, but it is still a patch m4/3 has no need for.

        Although agencies might want a minimum amount of Mpx, in the end what matters is the resolution as a result of the interaction between the lens and the sensor. Traditional FF cameras have a lesser problem because of the bigger distance to flange. But at the extremes of the range 4/3 used to have some advantages.

        Now the problem reappears, compounded by the short register. So FF mirrorless at the moment is just a marketing ploy. People might go to it starry eyed, but sooner or later they will have to deal with the samples.

        As I said even Fuji cropped has big problems at the edges with UWA. If anything a pro OM-D with 4/3 lenses will show that it has much better resolution across the frame.

        But then of course everyone is free to take bets.

        • Anonymous

          Leica seems to have tackled the challenge of full frame mirrorless, although on the expensive side.

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

            Oh yes? Can anybody show that Leica has more resolution than an E-M5 with a good lens?

            Steve Huff showed that one couldn’t make up the difference, in samples, by a blind test.

            LOL

  • Per K

    Sharing of development costs means increased costs.
    Slightly different design and feature choices would mean more potential customers.
    Oly is working on a 4/3 / m43 compatible camera. Sony is working on a A / E munt compatible camera. Technology sharing?

    • sorry my inglish

      what about Minolta?

    • Per K

      Sorry – I ment SHARED costs not increased costs

  • jevfp

    If olympus come up with FF camera ,.it would be great but also ,.cannibalism their 43 system

  • Elf

    I think Oly has enough to do developing m4/3 and maintaining 4/3 compatability. I can’t see them taking on and diverting resources to accomadate yet another format. I think those resources are far better spent improving on what is a highly successful line of cameras. I don’t think they can afford too.

    • Mal

      Totally agree. m43 has a lot of potential and a unique offering of image quality / size.

      Olympus should maximise this format with the following strategy:

      1.Highest quality lenses possible as displayed with 12, 45 and 75. I agree with Lenstip that the new 17mm should have been a super high grade f1.4 and possibly a 14mm, even though I personally want the 17mm format. With very high quality output, a 14mm image can crop to produce a good 17mm effective image.
      2. Compact lenses. The zooms should all be collapsible like the Panasonic X lens. perhaps even some primes could be candidates for this, like a collapsing 14 or 17 f1.4 to maximise image performance AND compactness.
      3. Oversized sensor for OMD line to give largest resolution possible for any aspect ratio and so the camera does not need a portrait grip. I know Panasonic have done this and moved away from it, but it is a very good feature that would in some cases exceed APSC in size (like 1:1), making it harder to argue the case for APSC or even FF.

  • Miroslav

    Yes! Full frame body with D800 36 Mpx sensor ( made by Sony ) with exchangeable mounts. 4/3, m4/3, NEX, etc. adapters with full electronic control. 4/3 lenses would work 9 Mpx crop mode, APS-C in ~18 Mpx. PDAF on sensor that enables AF on 4/3 lenses. E-M5 IBIS. A bit bigger than NEX-7, similar shape ( as SAR says ). Nothing more to add ;).

    • CAPLOCKER

      YEAH, KEEP DREAMING MAN. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME OLYMPUS EVER GAVE YOU ANYTHING YOU WANTED? NOW EVF UNLESS YOU PAY MORE. SMALLER SENSORS BUT PAY MORE FOR PRICE. USES A SONY SENSOR FOR THE OMD AND OVER CHARGES IN PRICE. DOES ANYONE THINK OLYMPUS CAN EVEN MAKE A FF SENSOR LET ALONE MAKE A FF CAMERA? IF THEY DID IT WOULD COST AROUND 5K. LOL. SO MANYH WISHFUL THINKERS ON THIS FAN SITE.

      • Miroslav

        Dreams are free, won’t harm anyone :). Relax a bit man, it’s nicest time of the year.

        • CAPLOCKER

          I AM RELAXED. IF I WERE MORE RELAXED I’D BE DEAD.

          • Lance

            @caplocker

            You have a very likeable personality, wanna be friends?

            • CAPLOCKER

              NO.

          • admin

            Please not write in CAP!!! I have to remove your comment as it looks very bad in that way.

            • CAPLOCKER

              WHAT’S WRONG WITH CAP S,ADMIN? IT’S CLEAR AND PRECISE. WHAT, ARE YOU COLLECTING COMMENTS AND SUBMITTING THEM TO THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE COMMITTEE? DO YOU PRINT THE COMMENTS HERE TO HANG ON YOUR WALL TO ENJOY? I’M STARTING TO WONDER ABOUT YOU ADMIN.

      • Ulli

        get a life, you are only trying to get on the wrong foot with the people here..so silly.

  • Fish

    I agree that the idea is tantalizing, but I think it would be a mistake. I don’t know if Olympus users have the heart to go through one more abandoned format so I think they should stick with m4/3.

    The mirrorless FF competition will probably get pretty fierce in the near future. Especially if Cannikon makes bodies that take advantage of their existing lens lineups. Olympus should continue what it is doing, and capitalize on the size advantage.

  • http://lah.blogsite.org Roger

    Sony is s*it. I like my 4/3 format. Just I’d like to have a more efficient sensor in low light. Possibly in a sturdy body like the E series. The new OMD is freaking cool, but you can’t drag it around in outdoor so carelessly as the flagship. Personally I feel it is also a bit too small for my handy habits. Half/full frame is no problem to me. You just need the compatibility with super high grade lenses.

  • pete

    If you look at the Nikon D800 and see that it is hard to find any lens, that is good enough for the (Sony) sensor, and if you imagine the quality of the 2014th FF Sony sensor, how can you be interested in a mirrorlessFF?
    Just to have the most expansive? Just to carry the biggest lens? Oh boys….

  • Anonymous

    IMO, Olympus hardly has enough resources to keep developing for m4/3, lenses are coming out at a glacial pace, and the lineup is far from complete.

  • Hubertus Bigend

    A camera like that would surely be interesting, whether from Sony or from Olympus or both. Personally, though, I’d wish especially Olympus, but Sony, too, would rather complete doing their homework regarding their existing camera systems.

    For example, no mirrorless system yet is suited for even half-serious telephotography. Not even Micro Four Thirds, even though the smaller format carries an underlying advantage.

    So Olympus, now that they have, at last, a good sensor, should continue to work on more and better Micro Four Thirds lenses, especially but not only in the telephoto range – and at the same time try to concentrate on getting a camera out to perfectly support existing FT lenses.

    As long as Four Thirds is the zombie it is and Micro Four Thirds the incomplete building site it still is, starting another completely different range of products would be an outright insane thing to do for Olympus, even if they were up to it.

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

    Ironically, all Olympus would need from Sony to fulfill such a system is capital and sensors. OTOH Sony would need all the help it can get in optical design and manufacturing, AF know-how and JPEG processing. Olympus would design a more sensible mount than the greedy one Sony uses (focal flange distance of 32-35mm) which would still enable universal lens use but offer much higher image quality.

  • Borbarad

    Yes!

    That would be fantastic and would sit nicely beside my Leica M9P. Of course it should have support for Leica Lenses, old Olympus OM glass and a adapter for HighGrade and SuperHighGrade 4/3 glass. M4/3 glass would be of no use….

    And that would render my current OM-D useless. So bring it on!

    B

    • Anonymous

      I am quite curious – how do you find real life usage of Leica M9P compared to OM-D?

      I have been using my OM-D almost exclusively to the point I’ve decided, somewhat reluctantly, to sell my Nikon FF system. I almost got a Leica M9P due to the low prices I could get them for here, but decided to wait for the new M.

      So, really interested to hear how you find them both and which one you tend to reach for first – and, in what circumstances.

    • mooboy

      Could you elaborate on why have both a M9P and an OMD? When do you reach for one over the other? I’ve been using my OM-D so much I’ve decided to part with my Nikon FF setup.. but I was really tempted by the M9P deals going on here at the moment.

      Just really interested to when you decide to use one over the other.

      • Anonymous

        Well I’ve been a longtime Olympus DSLR User – E1, E3 & E5 plus HG and SHG glass. Sold everything part from the E1 which is not for sale. I have the M9P plus 50mm Lux ASPH, 35mm Cron ASPH, 90mm Sumarit and I’m waiting for the 21mm SuperElmar (ordered).

        The M9P is not an ISO Monster at all… Up to 640 it can be very usable 1250 is only for B&W. But the real jawdrop is at BaseISO when used with the Leica Glas. It beats the crap out the Zuiko stuff and I’m mean that for real. It’s not us much about the more sharpness but the way they render. And with the Kodak CCD you can create photos that are just stunning and full of color and detail as well as beauty. I know also the Nikon FX System very well, they are maybe technical as good and way better if ISO is included but they just don’t look that stunning. Also the Rangefinder is exactly my thing, can’t live without. Also please print the Leica Photos on Hahnenühle Papr at A2… Wow!

        And why do I have the OMD? Well because there are things where I may need AF, LiveView and Video and its fits perfectly into my photobag. While the Iq is pretty good for such a small thing, its not anywhere close. But I know that and use it with that in mind.

        B

        • mooboy

          Thanks heaps (if you ever read this). Very helpful. I’ve decided to wait for the new Leica M and then consider again: the additions of video, LV, and option to use EVF seem worth waiting for.

          Though, realising I could get a decent Phase One second hand for less than an M is also making me consider..

  • solar

    Olympus should focus :) on completing the lens lineup of M43 before starting any other venture. Where are the descent zooms? Not 43 zooms, m43 zooms?? Where is the RF styled body with a built in EVF that a significant amount of adopters have been begging for, for more than 2 years.

    FFS, finish one thing before starting another. Fuji is ahead in some areas already with the X series bodies and lenses. Within a year, they will be ahead., and both Olympus and Panasnic will be seeing customers changing to Fuji and any other prepared to listen and build what the market is asking for. Fuji can release a standard kit zoom F/2.8-4.0, and the build and picture quality is high. Is it so difficult for Olympus to do the same; it would appear so.

    Adapters and 43 zooms are NOT the solution. Primes are great, but in certan situations, native good quality zooms are. It is beyond frustrating that this company will not listen to customers. How do they expect professionals to take their products seriously when they do not provide the full package.

    This is not rocket science, it is basic sound business practices of market research and supplying what the market is demanding. I could not care less about a FF venture with Sony or another company. Complete what they started, and then diversify into something different.

    • Ed

      Not sure what you mean by lack of fast zooms, the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100 f/2.8 zooms are better than the Fuji kit zoom.

      If you are looking at something at a cheaper price from Oly, not sure that’ll ever happen, seeing how the black version of their 12mm prime lens sells for $1100.

      • Dan

        He is talking about only fast zoom not pana. I too is waiting for oly to come up with their decent fast zoom, something like 12-35 and 35-100 from pana. I am sold on the pana 35-100 and just waiting for the price drop around 200-300 because buying one. The pana 12-35mm on the other hand gives higher ca in my omd (although removable through software), so I am not too sure about this lens yet, unless there is a bigger price drop on it to compensate the extra post process work to do. I always find oly lens work and look better than pana lens on oly body. If the fast oly zoom cost 20-30% more and function better than the pana fast zoom, I don’t mind buying the oly. Oly stop wasting time on duplicated prime half decent prime like 17 1.8 and slow zoom (they have many already) and spend more time on fast zoom like 7-14 14-35 35-100, more decent prime and better more innovative m43 bodies. Fast zoom with f2.8 is ok, but if f2.0 isnt much bigger then its alright too. No ff for me unless they can make it very small and light, with nice lens support. Anyone want bulky full frame can get 6d and d600 with awesome features and lens.

    • Hubertus Bigend

      I mostly agree. But did you actually handle a Fuji X? I find them severely overrated. Their sensor is great, probably the best APS-C sensor available, and I like the design, too, but I’ve handled the E-X1 and I found it VERY plasticky. The same with their lenses, they are really not bas and Fuji designed them with very sensible focal lengths and apertures, but they’re not excellent either, and inside they’re completely made of plastic, so I strongly doubt they’re as robust as they might seem at first sight.

      • Per K

        Well -F1cars are not metall since many years. They are plastic – much lighter AND stronger than metal.
        Fuji are a bit bigger and weighs between Nex and EM5. Size means better ergonomy. But compared to the compct weight of EM5 it may feel less solid – holding it. Start using and the Fuji is better if not as nice to use as the even bigger D800.

  • alexander

    who really needs full frame?..
    especially if 99% of the pics were watched on a display! (& the sensor become always better & better).

    m43 I S T O P !

    • solar

      @ Ed,

      I was referring to Olympus with regards to zoom lenses. Why is it so difficult to recreate the 14-54 ii or the 12-60 in M43 format? I am not convinced that the Pany zooms are better than the Fuji kit zoom. The bokeh with the Fuji is great and with the larger sensor, there is insignificant difference.

      @ Hubertus,

      Yes I have handled the X-E1 and was most impressed. I prefer the layout and the manual controls. The buttons are well placed and solid, unlike the rubbery feel of the OMD. I also like the aperture ring on the lens. I thought the kit lens was solid build and a nice size. It focuses quickly (much quicker than the Fuji primes) and my only criticism would be lack of flash support when compared with Oly and the refresh rate of the EVF.

      Apart from that the X-E1 is a great camera that deliver great results, and is what the customer is asking for.

      Olympus is yet to make a quality, fast M43 zoom.

      • Esa Tuunanen

        > I am not convinced that the Pany zooms are better than the Fuji kit zoom.
        And I don’t see reason to be convinced that Fuji has especially good lenses with common undersizing and short mount distance for sensor size. (structure and lot higher resolution of digital sensor don’t tolerate high incident angle)

        18mm f/2 doesn’t have any corner resolution to speak of wide open and also edges are lot below sensor’s resolution. Plus there’s very serious barrel distortion (signature of retrofocus design) swept under the rug in software.
        35mm f/1.4 has more “symmetric” geometric distortion free optical design but now also edges are far cry from sensor’s resolution until stopped down to basic cheap kit zoom aperture.
        60mm macro’s longer focal length with bigger physical size has least compromises and most balanced performance but telephoto design’s pincushion distortion is covered up in software.
        http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x

        18-55mm’s fancy roller coaster MTF-curve hints also it being optically underdesigned.

  • Hendrik Mintarno 葉俊賢

    To tip off the balance of Canon & Nikon domination, i think we need 3 SHG primes from Olympus for Alpha Full Frame :)

    • Vivek

      Sigma already make some excellent lenses. We need a decent Alpha full frame camera to match them with a competitive price. Nikon have already shown how good the SOny 24MP sensor can be in their D600. :)

  • http://www.piter.ch/krakow/krakow.htm Matthias

    lol, how should Olympus make lenses for a new FF system if they can’t make good zooms for mFT? First they should do that…

  • http://www.43rumors.com/members/carlos/ Riley

    If they did
    it would evacuate any possible excuse for ditching 43rds
    other that that they failed it

  • Kabe

    This will not happen. The whole idea of big and heavy full frame cameras is on its way out, like the 6×6 cameras 40 years ago.

    Why should Oly invest in the kind of systems they are successfully replacing anyway? Image quality of MFT is great for mostly any purpose, Bokeh is great with the open Olys lenses, the whole low DOF hype will become boring anyway – or rather is already.

    So what is the benefit of Full frame?
    No benefit, no product.

    Kabe

    • Anonymous

      Speak for yourself, I’ve got a Canon 6D shipping to me this week! I think I’m good with that and my GX1. I’m also looking to see if this GX2 will me the L1 successor I’ve been dreaming about.

  • http://youdidntdidyou.com/ YouDidntDidYou

    “full frame” is a fast declining niche…

    • Trev

      “full frame” is a fast declining niche…”

      Which planet are you on?

      Check the DPReview user poll for this year: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/12/21/best-camera-2012-poll

      Last I checked the Nikon D800E was coming a very close second to the Olympus OM-D E-M5.

      Considering the cost of FF cams I am surprised how many I see around Sydney hanging off the necks off tourists.

      • http://youdidntdidyou.com/ YouDidntDidYou

        @trev
        the D800 was initially in the lead in that poll, but someone posted some links on mu-43.com and various flickr groups *looks all innocent* encouraging people to vote for the O-MD E-M5 and they gained a further 3% share of the dpreview vote putting the E-M5 in the lead 😀

        btw the on flickr the largest D800 contains 750 members whereas the largest O-Md group contains 3500 members (both started at same time)

        I’ve noticed a lot of photographers on flickr and in the real world haven’t upgraded their D3’s

        From what I understand D800 and D4 sales like Nikon 1 haven’t met Nikon sales targets lol

        • Riley

          at one time the high price bracket was $1700-$1800,
          all of the 7D, D300, Ex and GH2 (+lens) fitted within this genre

          by the time the el cheapo FF get 2-3 years in they will be down just below that money. FF are no longer a premium item they are a consumer item, and they have replaced D300 and the like in pro-sumer $1700 cams.

          FF are NOT a falling market it is a growing market, consumer FF has displaced pro-sumer APS. FF is not a niche camera, products like EM5 and GH3 are niche products, its the other way around …

          • Esa Tuunanen

            > FF are NOT a falling market it is a growing market, consumer FF has displaced pro-sumer APS. FF is not a niche camera
            Only because of many people having more money than brains.
            First of all there’s no Full Frame (marketing name by Full Fallacy retards) but 35mm/135 which stuck out of many film formats only because of being the SMALLEST format GOOD ENOUGH for MOST USES.

            With digital tech APS-C has in image quality and resolution way more than exceeded 35mm film and because of also that has been de facto standard for years.
            By Thom Hogan 35mm bodies make around 5% of Nikon system camera sales and no doubt situation is very similar for Canon.
            If Canon and Nikon just offered full APS-C lens line up (where are pro quality lenses?) more than few professionals would no doubt discard that film age 35mm format. For example most nature photographers would surely love lighter package because of no need for so long focal lengths in teles.

        • MC HAMMER

          LOL, I like my E-M5 but maybe you should look at Canon and Nikon’s FF sales numbers. Pros and cons to both. The world would be boring with only one sensor format.

  • http://www.43rumors.com/members/kesztio/ kesztió

    More than 50% would buy a $2500 (body only) mirrorless camera just because it’s full frame?

    Give me a break, guys! Begging for much more seriousness, please!

  • Boooo!

    It only makes sense to produce a 135 mirrorless system if the flange distance is long enough. Otherwise you get garbage output.

    I can’t wait for the day when this whole miniaturization thing finally gets thrown away into garbage and cameras start becoming of decent (pro DSLR) size once again. Go buy a decent mobile PHONE instead of demanding that all CAMERAS become the size of a matchbox and utterly impossible to use.

    • http://www.43rumors.com/members/kesztio/ kesztió

      A short flange distance can be easily made „longer” by designing lenses of proper quality. But an already long flange distance cannot be made shorter.

      The flange diameter is indeed an important parameter but it’s another story.

    • mooboy

      I don’t get it. They make damn good pro-size DSLRs now. Why not get one if that’s what you love?

    • Kabe

      LOL… you know that this is quite a stable trend since the invention of photography, do you?

      What is called „full frame“ today was considered amateur material 50 years ago. There is already very few things that a full frame can do better than an mft, and it costs a lot of weight and money to beat it.

      People won’t buy big stuff just to look „professional“ any longer, as soon as they realize how ridiculous this is… a few pros will for keep it for good reasons, but this trend is stable.

  • efwee

    Nice idea. Imagine this camera to be ordered with either NEX or M43 mount.
    Oly selling nex to 43 and m43 to 43 adapter with af and is (like the recent patent, which would make more sense then), Sony selling nex to alpha adapter with af and is.
    That would be mutually benificial, while both companies would offer a nice upgrade path to compete mirrorless with canonikon ff.
    Oly could additionaly produce some nice ff primes, in either 43or alpha mount. Maybe an Alpha to 43 adapter is feasible as well..

  • Mymaco on instagram

    What I’d buy is a “full frame” fixed lens camera, rx1 style, OVF, 35mm f1.8 Zuiko lens. Don’t really care if te camera would branded Sony or Olympus though. Sonynhad the guts to “open this new path”, but rx1 is not ok for me (f2.0 could be ok but I prefer 1.8, and it lacks of an integrated viewfinder)

    • Mymaco on instagram

      Not Optical viewfinder, I was wrong. A good Electronic viewfinder is perfect to me.

  • Rasmus

    Personally I thnk it would make more sense for Olympus to produce a few lenses for the Sony FF mirrorless than a camera. But that would require Sony to encourage third parts to license the mount, and Sony have historically not been very keen to do things like that, remember Betamax and Memorystick.

    Also, I wonder how much of a future there is for APS-C. If I had two systems it would be one MFT and one FF, not one MFT and one APS-C. MFT for the compactness and FF for thse few things you can’t do without a large sensor.

    • Jeff

      @Rasmus

      “If I had two systems it would be one MFT and one FF, not one MFT and one APS-C.”

      Totally agree – IMHO APSC will decline as FF becomes more mainstream. The difference between a FT sensor and FF is significant enough to differentiate so no competition between the two, however , given the choice between an APSC or FF camera now that prices are quite similar I imagine many will go for FF.

  • Che

    I voted yes, but have a few more thoughts on the topic.

    One of the big advantages in μ43 is that it is apparently a somewhat open standard (I say somewhat as the standard is controlled by Olympus insofar as I can tell). For consumers this is why we have such a fantastic lens selection: http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/lense.html

    What I would like to see is Sony and Olympus (Maybe even Panasonic too) get together and create a micro full frame (MFF) standard under some sort of foundation that licenses and maintains the standard allowing members to focus on creating fantastic products that comply with the standard.

    If they go and create just another proprietary mount it will be very disappointing. I probably wouldn’t buy into such a system.

  • simon

    that would be great. of course not as a replacement of m43, but as an addition. there is no perfect camera system so if you want everything, you need of course more than one system. something that many don’t seem to understand. you cant have it all, I learned that a long long time ago.

  • Mr. Reeee

    If it were capable of adapting as many lens formats as M4/3 then I’d certainly be interested. One of the biggest strengths of M4/3 is it’s ability to adapt nearly any lens made in the past 50-60 years.

  • http://www.eatswaylove.com Matthew

    I still prefer MFT with better function and IS.

  • http://Joelmassonphotography.com Jo-el

    Very interested as long as it was on the m4/3 format. As a photog who travel and likes to go as light as possible and not look like a press/pro photographer lugging around all the big guns, I’m interested in the highest quality images in the smallest package.

  • LovinTheEP2

    A small niche. To support a full complement of lens seems very odd direction for little return when Leica, Fuji and Sony are now in it. I personally don’t see why..

  • Ranger 9

    What if… Unicorns mated with centaurs? Would you want to ride one?

    That question makes just as much sense as this one. (And just as much sense as the mindless veneration of the dimensions 36mm x 24mm.)

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

    Basically the whole plot relies on Oly providing the lenses to Sony. Would it do it? Would it have a market?
    Why would people buy a small body, but large lenses?

    The opposite seems even more far fetched: Sony Providing a sensor to yet another Oly mount. Does Oly have the money to invest? LOL.

    Finally did you ever check the crazy comparisons at S. Huff? Between the OM-D and the Leica M9?
    Can you even tell the difference?

    Unfortunately it seems tht people suddenly forget being rational as soon as the hear the magic word FF. Do you really believe it offers more resolution, or just more Mpx?

    More resolution whith what lenses, exactly? LOL

    • Mymaco on instagram

      To everyone each own, I say. I would use something like a sony rx1 with EVF and a MZuiko prime lens, say a 35mm f1.8 (not wider, not brighter). What I don’t need is another interchangeable lens body (different mount than m4/3). And I don’t understand why you keep writing “LOL”..

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

        LOL is an exercise in self irony, which works also very well with the clueless, who think that it applies to them. :)

        Very practical acronym.

  • frankv

    I do not consider FF anymore. I like the balance between aperture and depth of field of m43 much better than that of FF. I see it like this. For the same depth of field, m43 gives me much shorter exposures than FF, or more low light capability.

  • Vivek

    Blind leading the clueless. As if there isn’t enough lack of vision as is.

    If Panasonic should make the batteries for such an union, it will be just perfect! LOL!

    • OneQuarterSensor

      You are so right mate, blindness and bad faith lead the clueless here. Olympus can’t manage a proper sensor? “Invent” a small thing and call it a new format. Then pay DXO or Huff or other “experts” to write it’s the greatest advance of technology :)

      • Vivek

        We are on the same page! :)

        • ARMSTRONG

          Also, the moon landing was faked, 911 was an inside job and climate change is a vast scientific conspiracy.

          • Vivek

            The world is much much bigger than you can think. Turn off your network TV. :)

    • http://www.43rumors.com/members/carlos/ Riley

      well they make them for Prius, so its halfway there

  • Per K

    M43 and “FF” are two different animals that are not really competitors. No doubt a mirrorless FF system, be it Sony, Oly or both will require new lenses, optimized for the purpose.
    Some above claims m43 and FF are equal in IQ – referring to Steve Huff. With his kind of photo, on a computer screen differences may not be obvious depnding on what quality the screen has. Making larger prints the MUCH larger sensor makes a real difference – as does higher resolution and better dynamic range. This does NOT make m43 a lesser system! Ithas its own usage and different purposes – portability being the most obvious. Depending on your photography a m43 can be your only camera or your second camera system.
    Having said that, the main negatives with FF are weight, bulk and cost. If they were the same as m43 everybody would go for FF! However that will never happen? …:-)

  • rrr_hhh

    You are stirring the pot uselessly: Olympus and Sony have already clearly announced that they were going to look for synergies, but only in the domain of compact cameras, not for bigger sensor cameras !

    • http://www.43rumors.com/members/cornflake/ Kornflejk

      Yes, they did say something to public but behind the curtains… who knows what will emerge of this collaboration? I dont share the FF madness (i am not interested anymore) although this idea is… interesting.

      • Vivek

        I predicted that Sony will bleed from their half baked Rx1. They may learn something from it too and transfer the losses to Olympus.

  • CAPLOCKER

    WOW, PPL HERE HAVE SHORT MEMEORY. WHEN M43 AND OTHER CSC CAMERAS WERE CREATED THE ONLY ADVANTAGE WAS THE SMALLER SIZE. AND THAT IS STILL THE ONLY ADVANTAGE. NOW THE SAME FOLKS WANT FF SENSORS AND OF COURSE LARGER LENSES WILL SOON FOLLOW. …SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOUR M43 FF CAMERA OR NEX FF CAMERA IS AS BIG AS A DSLR? WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOUR LENS ON IT ARE AS BIG AS DSLR LENSES? YOU ARE..BACK TO SQUARE ONE. YOU RUN AWAY FROM THE SO CALLED BIG DSLR ONLY TO COME RUNNING TO LARGE ASS MIRRORLESS CAMERAS AND LENSES? NO WONDER CANON AND NIKON DONT TAKE THIS MARKET SERIOUSLY…BECAUSE IT , THANKS TO ITS IGNORANT USERS WILL LEAD THE MARKET BACK TO DSLRS. DUH.

    LOOK AT THE STUPID GH3, YOU TAKE AWAY THE MIRROR, THAN ADD THAT BRICK GRIP AND YOU HAVE SOMETHING AS LARGE AS A DSLR. YOU PUT A SMALLER SENSOR IN IT AND CHARGE OVER 1300 FOR IT. SMART..CANONIKON MUST BE LAUGHING. SO WHATS NEXT, YOU BUY A SMART CAR THAT’S JUST AS BIG A REGULAR CAR, TAKE AWAY THE SEATS, PUT IN A SMALLER ENGINE AND CHARGE AS MUCH AS A REGULAR CAR? ARE PEOPLE THAT STUPID NOW? FF MIRROLESS CAMERAS WITH A BIG FAT 2.8 ZOOM ON THEM? OH WOW, SUCH A BIG ADVANTAGE OVER A DSLR. JUST WAIT UNTIL THEY CALL THEM “MIRROLESS DSLRS”. LOL

    • WSG123

      I don’t think that people are asking for a monstrous FF dSLR, I think they’re looking for a Olympus version of a Leica M (or something along those lines).

      Hell, just give me a smallish FF body that allows me to use Leica glass and you can have my money. I’ll pay $8k for the Leica glass, I just refuse to pay $8k for a digital Leica body that will be old tech in a couple of years.

    • JHCCAZ

      Setting aside the SCREAMING for attention, I will indulge one of your rants: The GH3 is not “stupid”, neither is Panasonic nor its users. There is a significant pro- and serious-videographer user base, as well as a number of serious still-picture users, who appreciate the technical qualities of the m43 system but who also think that the smallest-possible bodies are a little too small. Panasonic listened to them and responded.

      GH3 is not huge, it simply is designed with a different ergonomic experience in mind. If you actually buy, use and carry a few interchangeable lenses, the kit is still rather small and the extra size of the the GH3 vs. a GH2 or an OMD is not very significant. If you buy grips for the OMD, the GH3 is no longer bigger and it has better control placement.

      It never ceases to amaze me how users here line up behind their favorite badge. Human nature is to bicker with your neighbor rather than get together and build a livable and defensible city. Only after a couple of invasions and massacres do they wake up and realize who they should really be worried about.

      Having said all that, I am hoping that either O or P come up with a nice Leica form factor corner-EVF body. Also, I lament that my Panasonic bodies don’t have IS with Olympus lenses, and I lament that Olympus bodies don’t implement all the corrections that bring stellar performance to the Panasonic lens family.

      • CAPLOCKER

        OH PLEASE, THE GH3 IS AS BIG AS ANY REULAR SIZE DSLR. WITH THE BRICK GRIP IT’S EVEN BIGGER. SO IT’S ABOUT 1 AND HALF INCHES THINNER..OOOOOOOOOHH IT’S SOOO SMALL. YOU NEED BETTER GLASSES MAN. I NEVER SAID I WAS A CANIKON FAN, BUT LEAST IM NOT BLIND AS TO SEE WHERE CSC CAMERAS ARE GOING. EVF, GIVE ME A BREAK. NO EVF WILL EVER BE AS GOOD AS OPTICAL, AND NOT AT THE PRICE YOU WANNA PAY FOR IT.

        DO YOU EVER SEE MOST PROS RUN AROUND WITH MIRRORLESS CAMERAS FOR WORK? DO YOU SEE PROS USE THEM WITH LARGE 2.8 TELES? NO , NO AND NO. GO OUTSIDE AND SEE THE TRUTH DUDE. ITS ALL THERE FOR YOU TO SEE. HOW MANY GH3’S DO YOU SEE ONT HE STREET? I HAVE NOT ONCE SEEN ONE IN ANYONES HANDS. SORRY BRO, YOU ARE A WISHFUL THINKER, IAM A REALIST. I TELLS IT LIKE IT IS, DONT HATE THE MESSENGER, HATE THE TRUTH. OH WAIT..YOU ALREADY DO HATE THE TRUTH.

    • homer

      Caplocker, right off the bat I can tell.you’re one of those people who speaks out of his ass, in this case screams. You’ve never held or seen a gh3 in person, otherwise you would know the stupidity of what you just said. And second, to get the ergonomics the gh3 has to offer you have to at least go for a 7d, are they comparable in size? Have you ever had a 70-200 in your hand? It’s twice the size of the 35-100. Of course you’ll claim a friend of yours lent you his gh3 and you’re an expert on the subject…

      • CAPLOCKER

        HOMER, KISS MY ASS. BY THE WAY YOUR COMMENT STINKS FROM WHERE I’M SURE IT’S COMING FROM YOUR HOLE THAT’S NEAREST THE TOILET.

      • CAPLOCKER

        GOTTA LOVE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS, HOMO. I DONT HAVE A GH3. ASKED MY FRIEND TOLEND IT TO ME, YADA YADA YADA. AND YOUR MARRY POPPINS TOO.LOL YOUR FANBOYISM IS WHATS ROTTING YOUR HEAD. WELL, CONGRATS, YOU ARE NOW WHAT MANY IN THIS WORLD CALL A SUCKER. WHAT SOMETHING SUCKS, YOU PRAISE IT. WHEN PEOPLE CROSS A RIVER USIGN A BRIDGE, YOU LIKE TO SWIM IN THE ICY WATER. YOU CHAMPION CRAP NO ONE LIKES OR USES. YOU ENJOY IT, YOU REVEL IN IT,. IT MAKES YOU FEEL DIFFERENT, SPECIAL, BUT THE TURTH IS IT DOESN’T. YOU’RE JUST A BLIND FANBOY LEADING MORE OF THE BLIND. M43, WHATS THAT? PAY MORE FOR LESS, GET LESS FOR LESS. SO THOSE ARE MY ASSUMPTIONS OF YOU, TO ASNWER YOUR ASSUMPTIONS OF ME. WHEN PROS START USING M43 FOR WORK THAN YOU CAN TALK, OTHERWISE , STOP TRYING TO CONVINCE THE DUMB AND IMPRESSIONABLE OF YOUR MISGUIDED NOTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS. M43, YEAH WHAT’S GONNA HAPPEN TO YOUR PRECIOUS M43 WHEN SOMEDAY ALL PS CAMERA CARRY SENSORS LARGER THAN M43? OH NO, BUY ANOTHER SENSOR FROM SONY AND ENJOY YOUR SONY OM-D 2. HAHAHAAA

  • SLOtographer

    The way I see it, tech sharing will likely be mostly under the hood rather than a joint camera adventure. FF Sony-Oly would be interesting, however.

  • mma173

    If so, this site should join forces with Sony Alpha Rumors 😀

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

    The last week has been so disappointing . I understand your site is a rumor sites but now it looks that it feels obligated to create potential rumors

    and NO there is no rational reason for Olympus to start another mount and another lens line up
    despite the hype to the contrary here and there on some forums , the momentum of the market is going for sensors between 1″ and APS, at least for NON DSLR cameras

    Harold

    • admin

      Harold. Why can I never try to post something else? How many times did you see me posting this kind of articles? Once or Twice a year? I don’t get the critic. Just skip that post and read the other 897 posts I wrote this year!
      I have sometimes the right and pleasure to look into the long term future. oympus and Sony are partnering. And I am wondering what could happen from 2014 on. Just that.

      • JHCCAZ

        Exactly. This site has become much more than just a “rumors” site although that is still its core. It is a lively community of users and others interested in 43 / m43 / Olympus / Panasonic and associated trends. Our admin built it and spends a great deal of effort making sure there is something (or several somethings) to read and discuss every day. Look at how many responses have been generated by this posting – one might not agree with many of the comments but what is the harm in starting the conversation?

  • PaulB

    In the short term the greatest synergies for both companies will be more Sony sensors in Olympus cameras and Olympus lenses on Sony NEX cameras. Since it appears Olympus has already started to use Sony sensors (in the E-M5, etc) prior to this partnership, it appears that the greatest photo related benefit to Sony is a new lens supplier for the NEX bodies.

  • Ranger 9

    Let’s see… Having made the switch to M4/3, I am now being asked in this poll whether I would want to go back to a larger camera body and larger lenses. Hmmm, I think I already voted in that election.

    It’s easy to predict what a “full (of it) frame” E-mount camera would be like. Sony already makes a 36x24mm camera with an electronic viewfinder: it’s called the Alpha 99, and while it’s smaller than a lot of 36×24 cameras, it’s still fairly chunky. Omitting the transflective mirror used by its AF system might make it a little smaller, but it certainly would still be considerably larger than, say, a NEX-6.

    The A99 also has the benefit of a large, already-existing line of lenses that cover 36x24mm. The E-system does not; those lenses would have to be designed, and presumably they’d need to be similar in size to the corresponding A-mount lenses that already exist. For example, let’s look at the 75mm f/1.8 Olympus lens for M4/3. In terms of angle of view and low-light capability, the closest equivalent in Sony’s A-mount lineup would be the 135mm f/1.8 Carl Zeiss. Both are optically excellent and both have beautifully finished metal-barrel construction. The Olympus lens weighs 305g and is 6.4 x 6.91cm in size; the Sony weighs 985g and is 8.84 x 11.51 cm in size. And oh, by the way, the Sony costs US$ 1700 while the Olympus costs US$ 800 — or $875 if you want a lens hood with it 😛

    Given all these factors, it’s hard to see why Sony would be so stupid as to introduce a 36x24mm E-mount camera and have to design a whole new lens line for it when that strategy would offer no real advantages over their existing A-mount platform… which is why I still think the original rumor is nutso. But even if Sony were loopy enough to do it, I still wouldn’t be loopy enough to buy one! And I hope Olympus wouldn’t be loopy enough to waste its already stretched corporate resources on going along with this silly idea.

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

      Short distance to flange NEX FF is a v. different beast from the Alpha system. It can have lots of optical problems that the the latter avoids with a longer one.

      Therefore one could predict that it will be a mini-system, with perhaps 3 or 4 lenses, which seems what marketing requires nowadays. If it doesn’t work it won’t cost much to ditch it.

      OTH, as mentioned here, m4/3 could go for a slighter bigger format, without betraying its concept or lenses, like Panny already did.

      Again I think that all the excitement is due to people confusing Mpx with resolution. m4/3 proved it can make use of very high resolution lenses, and v.low AA filters, so when you go to compare with C&N FF it’s really difficult to tell the difference. Even, resolution at the edges might be worse in wides. And we are not even talking about mirrorless FF, where the problem is compounded by short distance to flange.

      So at first sight the proposal seems a marketing ploy.

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

    I am sure Olympus would never join the 24×36 digital camp, as it is against their concept about ideal sensor size vs lensmount size. Plus the idea to make a new lens line up is not really an inviting idea. Considering their ideas about telecentric design in FT, can you imagine such concept in bigger lensmount would result in HUGE lenses, resulting in complaints from certain people why they should be that big.

    • Vivek

      That “concept about ideal sensor size vs lensmount size” is totally gone with the m4/3rds. Even Olympus do not believe in using that propaganda anymore.

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

        they did that because telecentric concept is hard to do with such short flange. You prob never used one of the FT lenses.

        • Vivek

          Telecentricity (in lenses) is much way older the Olympus themselves. Olympus were very careful in stating that their 4/3rds lenses are “near telecentric”. They are not true telecentric lenses!

          The devil, as ever, is always in the details. :)

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

            who ever thought that it was 100% telecentric, is naive. Nevertheless it was their concept. Still you have not answered my question :-)

            • Vivek

              Telecentricity is NOT olympus’ concept. If you want to look at telecentric lenses, there are plenty in every system. The current Sigma 30/2.8 fot m43 is one, for example. The nikon DX 10.5/2.8 is another. If you look back, was E1 a proper sized camera for the sensor? Things have evolved.

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

                did I ever said it’s invented by Olympus. Why does it bother you that much lol.

    • Bee Grader

      Ulli, it’s been bugging me for the longest time and I just have to ask you. What’s with your mugshot? Why did you choose this picture? You look like the unfortunate henchman who dies a dramatic but ridiculous death, 5 minutes into a B grade movie starring Kockwell. What gives Ulli?

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

        shut up Bee, I look cool, I know it, and it bothers you lol. But thank you for the effort to post a comment just for my handsome face only.

  • Anonymous

    Every freaking day, it is “should Olympus do something totally crazy like FF, or hybrid m43-4/3, or some totally new format”. It’s always been stupid, but now it’s getting tedious.

    Olympus should focus on one thing only, premium micro four thirds. That is what they did with the E-M5, and it was their one big success of recent years.

    They should focus on super high grade m43 lenses (like 75mm), an O-MD Pro, and an E-P pro, and improving adaptors for 4/3 lenses.

    They should stop releasing “good” lenses. Like the new 17mm. The only way m43 can sustain itself is by delivering higher quality than NEX, Fuji X, etc.

    And because it has a smaller sensor, the only way to do that is to deliver super high grade optics.

    So stop with the fantasy, and deliver the goods.

    • BdV

      Woho! Cheers to that!

    • Mal

      Totally agree. m43 has a lot of potential and a unique offering of image quality / size.

      Olympus should maximise this format with the following strategy:

      1.Highest quality lenses possible as displayed with 12, 45 and 75. I agree with Lenstip that the new 17mm should have been a super high grade f1.4 and possibly a 14mm, even though I personally want the 17mm format. With very high quality output, a 14mm image can crop to produce a good 17mm effective image.
      2. Compact lenses. The zooms should all be collapsible like the Panasonic X lens. perhaps even some primes could be candidates for this, like a collapsing 14 or 17 f1.4 to maximise image performance AND compactness.
      3. Oversized sensor for OMD line to give largest resolution possible for any aspect ratio and so the camera does not need a portrait grip. I know Panasonic have done this and moved away from it, but it is a very good feature that would in some cases exceed APSC in size (like 1:1), making it harder to argue the case for APSC or even FF.

      • Fish

        I agree with everything except for the idea of collapsing lenses. It is a bit of a novelty to see how small the lens is in its ‘parked’ position, but what matters is how big the lens is while you are using it. I would rather have IF zoom lenses so they are more durable and have the potential of better weathersealing… especially on a high grade lens that requires more money and that you want to have last for a longer time.

        I have already had to pay to fix a m.zuiko 9-18mm lens because the folding mechanism broke. I ultimately replaced it with the panasonic 7-14mm and much prefer the solid one-piece construction.

        • mooboy

          2 weeks later.. just want to say bravo to this comment. (The original, though Fish and Mal have interesting points).

          Interestinly enough, I was temptedf to get the Olympus as I wanted the smaller size when not in use (when being transported etc) but went Panasonic in the end as seemed to have the higher IQ.

  • Sam Waldron

    Meh, what lenses will go on this? DSLR lenses will be large and add a thick adapter to correct the flange distance.

    The EM5 already has enough resolution for me and IBIS plus fast glass and decent high iso performance means I can shoot in most light I want anyway.

    A year or two sensor development and it will be even better with a better again lens line up.

  • jimbo

    I think it’s important for Olympus to compete in the FF mirrorless arena. If not now, soon. Since Canon and Nikon are sitting on their Laurels, the time to strike is now with partner Sony producing their FF 4:3 ratio sensor. The 4:3 ratio will allow them to create smaller bodies and lenses, which will make their system more desirable for people who desire smaller cameras/lenses.

  • Nick B

    I could go for a full frame Olympus to replace or supplement my E-5. What I couldn’t go for is yet another round of lenses. If they could use the 4/3 glass and mount on a full frame camera, I’d be interested.

  • http://www.43rumors.com/members/donparrot/ DonParrot

    What a ridiculous idea. FF is on the way into an even smaller niche than it used to be in since the beginning of the digital era and right now, Olympus should invest millions in the development of such a system?
    Why for heaven’s sake should they do so, with the only advantage of FF – if you want to regard this as advantage, at all – being the shallower DOF. No, that’s really ridiculous.

  • Minh Oltha

    Why would Sony need Olympus lenses? Don’t they have plenty to choose from Minolta? I just don’t get it.

  • http://www.digifotofreak.nl Marc

    I did not bother to read the comments, but given the outcome of the poll I can imagine what the comments here have to be…

    I can’t see why people keep hammering on the same nail that is already very crooked. First of all, there is no such thing as full frame, as formats like 4/3’s, m43’s, NEX, etc also use the full format of their sensors. Second, the OM-D and the GH3 has proven that for IQ, m43’s is the way to go, as it now gives results close to 135mm, and has no contender if you also consider size/performance/price. So, this only leaves the discussion about shallow depth of field. The difference in DOF between even m43’s and 135mm format is not as big as popular believe. You can get more difference in DOF by just changing focal length, than changing between 135mm format and m43’s. Even then, no one seems to realize anymore that between the 135mm film format and the 135mm digital one, the difference in DOF is bigger than between APS-c and 135mm digital. So, why not use 135mm film and scan the results, if your lust for shallow DOF is so big…? Or, why not use a format even bigger than 135mm?

    Price you say. Let’s see. 2500,- for a 135mm format mirrorless if you can get the GH3 or OM-D for less than half the price…? And you would all (well not all) fall for that…? Why not better invest the difference in some good glass…?

    • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

      A lot in what you say.
      But there is a problem with shooting in 135 or larger and scanning. Its not a technical problem. It’s one of understanding the shot one wants and taking it accordingly. What I am getting at is cost. An SD card is cheap and can be reused many many times. As such that’s changed photography. So much so, that very few would be able to uses a film camera effectively on a cost basis. Also, high ISO seems, for some, the most important aspect of taking a photograph. I can imagine the frustration of the Trophy camera shooter when the film in the camera is, say, 100 ASA, the sun is going down and turning the ASA dial up does nothing for the shot. Easily fixed with MF and interchangeable backs but that’s a better story.

  • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

    What happened to Rokkor. Was top glass. Sony should be able to crank out some real primes using the old Rokkor designs and methods. But I suppose the team has all gone along with the tooling. The expertise lost to Sony’s business. That sounds like Sony.

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

      The fast 58mm Rokkors are great lenses. If you really want them, have the guts to become a manual focus shooter (again). I had a great CV 50mm Nokton 1.1, did alot of great portraits with it, sold it because of another priority, regretted it forever.

  • Joel Benford

    [Disclaimer: I am a NEX-6 owner wandering onto a 4/3 site on a slow Xmas eve at the office. Hope you don’t mind the visit.]

    Well, I could be interested in a full frame mirrorless camera if it were a sort of “autofocus Leica”. It can’t be as small as MFT, but it can be usefully smaller than FF DSLR and different from anything else currently on the market.

    I envision a NEX-6 general layout (top left EVF etc).

    Now, why would I want a FF camera in the first place? Two things: selective focus, and ultimate high ISO performance. So we need a reasonable wide mount to reduce coma on wide aperture lenses. And we need IBIS, preferrably the multi-axis Oly flavour, to really ram home the desirablility.

    If the flange distance were set to just accomodate a Leica M adapter, that should hopefully (I am not an expert) give enough room for practical design of quality lenses and allow adapters for most RF/SLR lenses people care about. That’ll make a lot of people happy, with no crop on their legacy lenses. At least until they realise how soft in the corners the old glass is… 😉

    Since I want this discreet speed demon for available light and street photography, it’ll need hybrid PDAF/CDAF that can handle moving targets and low light.

    And since this “AF Leica” is inevitably going to be more like M9 than EM5 size, we’ll have room for some decent controls for selecting the AF point (a great failing of recent cameras). Joystick that falls under the thumb, please.

    Sony can do the sensor/EVF/processing, Oly the AF/IBIS/glass, and please god somebody else does the menus.

    So we have a discreet and nifty body, with a d600 style sensor, whatever lenses you like (50/1.4 + wide and tele zooms for me), and IBIS. Now I’m salivating. Whilst I’m not sure if it’s what M43 customers are looking for, I think this is a concept that could find some customers.

    • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

      Oly do the processing as well please. Style Rangefinder yes NEX No.

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

    I just wonder, some folks here dont even have/had a (m)34 camera in their hands before and clearly not have the intention to get into the system. What are they doing here lol?

    • Vivek

      Speaking for myself, I have more m4/3rds bodies than you probably have. Most of the lenses I use are the original pen F lenses and many many others (manual focus)that are non Olympus and are telecentric in design. I have fewer system lenses than bodies. I also use system flashes. I also have other system accessories. It is not just one camera/kit zoom deal. :)

      • Ulli

        Amen… Mr. “Telecentric” so you do like the bodies but not the lenses??

        • Vivek

          I only buy lenses that come in a black paint along with matching hoods. So, the choice is very limited. LOL

  • ljmac

    “Full frame” using the NEX mount would be the most optically atrocious camera system ever – the corners of the sensor are so close to the edges of the mount that they’re chopped off when viewed from the front, and NEX already has trouble with wide angles on APS-C! But who cares if half the image is a blur and twice as dark as the centre? All that matters is that it will be full frame, which will somehow make the IQ magically better regardless, because as we all know, bigger is always better, right? Oh yeah, except for the whole point of mirrorless in the first place, which was to give us smaller cameras and lenses! For God sake, when is the admin going to stop indulging in this BS fantasy? This is a 4/3rds rumours site – we come here because we recognise 4/3rds as the best compromise between IQ and camera/lens size. This FF mirrorless BS is just plain idiotic, and does not belong on here.

  • Jón

    Well, maybe they should go beyond “FF”. There is still no mirrorless camera system that has larger area of 24x36mm. Then they would have something really different, and could probably sell it at premium price.

  • dunne

    Technical discussions are always a great joy for me – they give me the opportunity to understand the differences between systems as well as a feeling of perplexity what it is all about. So please help me: as a mft user without dslr background I have learned that full frame gives you more control over FOV and less noise. But: How relevant is it for photography? Coming from a pocket camera two years ago I am now able to do great portaits with a blurry background and nice available light pictures. Don’t get me wrong – I want to know what a full frame camera could actually add to my photography. What would be possible that a mft could never do?

    • Joel Benford

      Full frame would give you a bit more of the same (as the compact to MFT upgrade), essentially.

      You could make the background far more blurred (e.g. enough to stop it being ugly) in circumstances where MFT would just blur it enough to separate the subject.

      You might get similar noise level at a stop or two higher ISO, so shoot ISO 6400 FF and have it look at ISO 2000 MFT.

      In return you suffer more size/weight/cost.

      For many people MFT is the better balanced all-rounder. I think it’s almost fair to say FF is specialised, that you should only buy it if you actually need it for something, and if you needed it you would know.

  • Dan

    With technology moving fast, I would never ever buy an expensive 4/3 camera.
    Full frame will end up being the standard again shortly, just digital.
    Can’t figure out Olympus’ thinking. They’re going to be left in the dust if they’re not careful. Do they really think by focusing on 4/3 they’re going to drive the world standard to 4/3? Ain’t going to happen.

  • http://mftadventures.blogspot.com brad Calkins

    The only way I’d be interested is if it had an adapter to allow mft lenses in crop mode, and another to go full frame (Sony and/or Oly?).

  • http://greenandyellowpages.com/ugg-quarterly-report-customer-servicepublished-by-way-of-jennifer-budd/ uggs for kids

    Since winter makes its presence felt down under around australia, sales with warm luxurious ugg boots, shoes or boots and gadgets has mushroomed. Last but not least, if you buy it from UGG on line in which case you are not able to touch the choices. No girl likes to become smudged with groundwork.

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