skip to Main Content


(FT5) First non blurred E-P3 picture with 12mm lens (+ FT5 Olympus rumor summary)

Share


Pictured above you can see the new Olympus E-P3 with 12mm f/2.0 lens. Cute or not?

The last couple of weeks I posted so many info that it’s time for a rumor recap! Olympus is going to announce the new products on Thursday June 30th at 6am London time. You can follow the announcement live on 43rumors where I will post all news, reviews and image samples we can find. If you want to help me send me interesting links at 43rumors@gmail.com. Thanks!

Those are all the products Olympus will announce on Thursday:

1) Common features of all three new PEN cameras
– Very fast autofocus
– Truepic VI engine
– New Olympus designed sensor
– All three PEN cameras do have AF assist lamp
– Old lenses will focus faster on the new Pen cameras (although not as fast as when using new lenses).

2) Olympus E-P3
– It has the new Olympus “tweaked” 12 Megapixel Sensor
– Truepic VI engine (two processor in one)
– ISO 100 to 12.800
– 1080i 60frs AVCHD or JPEG video
– 35 point autofocus
– OLED touch Display (610k resolution). Sounds like it is almost the same screen used for the Olympus XZ-1.
– pop up live guide
– dual dials
– flash is remote trigger capable, but no free bounce like Olympus E-PL1.
– fastest AF to date for any mirrorless cam (and I have been told that it is considerably faster that the Panasonic GH2!).
– updated art filters
– effects to combine with art filters (like starlight)
– 3D still images
– built-in Eye-Fi support for controlling the Eye-Fi cards (Click here to see the cards on eBay)
– Interchangeable grip. I have been told there are two different grips you can buy (and more will come after).
– Design changes: The top dial is now placed instead of the ON/OFF button of the E-P2. To make room for the built-in flash. There is a video recording button over the AEL button.
– Price somewere between $799 and $899 dollars

3) Olympus E-PL3
– Same sensor and af speed as the E-P3
– no built-in flash (Will have bundled external flash that uses the hotshoe+accessory port)
– tilting LCD screen
– Screen is LCD and not OLED.
– looks EXACTLY like the Olympus XZ-1 (Click here to see that camera)

4) Olympus E-PM1
– It is as small as the Olympus XZ-1
– No tilt screen, no built-in flash

5) 12mm f/2.0 lens
– It’s the very first High Grade lens for Micro Four Thirds and is made in Tatsuno (Japan)
– All metal construction with distance scale. You see the distance scale when you pull the focus ring from autofocus to manual mode.
– Lens size similar to the new Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4.
– Filter size 46mm
– Already in production since April and will be in Stock in July.
– Close focusing 20cm (0.67 feet)
– Price around $799

6) 45mm f/1.8 lens
– No macro
– Price around $299

7) New Olympus FL-300R
It works like the Sony’s F20AM (Click here to see the Sony flash on eBay). For example you fold down to turn off.

8 ) New external EVF
– cheap build quality, cheap price (Compared to the current VF-2 viewfinder (around $279.95)).

9) Olympus 14-42mm II R
Same price and optical performance as the current 14-42mm lens but with a much faster autofocus performance.

10) Olympus 40-150mm II R
Same price and optical performance as the current 40-150mm lens but with a much faster autofocus performance.

What are you going to buy? (You can select more than one product!)

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

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

Share
  • Thomas

    f2 is kind of slow. It is like a 24mm f4. I’ll pass on this one

    • Bizzarrini

      Nonsense! It’s F2 fast; only the DOF equals 24/4 on FF

      • Martin

        > Nonsense! It’s F2 fast; only the DOF equals 24/4 on FF

        It’s not ‘only DOF’, but also the total amount of transmitted light that is equal. These are the two important factors for inter-format comparisons.

        • Amount of light per surface area is equal for any format at any given f-stop number.

          • +1. (Effective) focal length and (actual) DOF convert; f/stop remains the same.

          • Martin

            ‘Amount of light per surface area is..’ not a very useful number in digital age.

            • Yet, that’s effectively what f-number measures. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number)

            • babbit

              Amount of light per surface area is the most useful number for digital cameras. For the amount of light to to shoot at ISO 100 at 1/100s shutter speed, the light per surface area is the same no matter if you are using a FF camera or a point and shoot. Of course assuming the sensor technology is comparable. That’s exactly what the f-stops are. Total amount of transmitted light is a pointless number to measure.

              • El Aura

                Sure, if f/2 on m43 at ISO 800 results in 1/100 s, f/2 on FF at ISO 800 will also result in 1/100 s.

                But ISO 800 on m43 does not equal ISO 800 on FF. ISO 200 on m43 might equal ISO 800 on FF. Thus f/2 and ISO 200 on m43 result in 1/25 s, and f/4 and ISO 800 on FF also result in 1/25 s.

                If you want to compare low-light capabilities, using equivalent f-stops is the easiest way. And incidentally it also directly gives the right comparison for DOF.

                • You are sort of right in how you compare the systems, but it doesn’t really matter in the end. An f2 lens on a 4/3 system is fast for that system, f2 is f2 within systems. We all know full frame has an iso advantage, though they lose some of it if they have to make more depth of field without a tripod.

                  Olympus has never made a lens like this even for its top pro 4/3 line. It will be interesting to see how good the photos look.

                  • El Aura

                    Yes, it all depends on your frame of reference (no pun intended). And if you think about which lenses to get (or just carry with you on a specific day) for your m43 camera than there is no point in comparing beyond the sensor format.

                    For example if you want a low-light wide-angle than this lens is much better than the 9-18 mm (and also the 7-14 mm).

                  • Jud

                    “But ISO 800 on m43 does not equal ISO 800 on FF. ISO 200 on m43 might equal ISO 800 on FF”

                    No it doesnt, it’s not that simple. High ISO performance depends on size but also it depends on sensor type and architecture, technology, generation and software. The Leica M8 sensor is 2 or 3 times bigger than an m4:3 sensor but I’d much rather shoot a good m4:3 camera at ISO2500 than the leica. Same for most medium fomat sensors, same for older CMOS sensors.

    • Wrong. You double the focal length to compare. F2 is F2 is F2.

      • Rachnaroch

        Ok, let me see. I have a compact camera with 12 MP, an f/2.8 lens and a 1/2.33″ sensor. Do you really want me to believe that it may perform as well as a full frame Nikon D3s with a f/2.8 lens on it just because they get the same amount of light per surface area? LOL!

        Please stop repeating the same myth again and again. If f/2 is f/2 then 12mm is 12mm. Period. If you want to convert the focal length then you should do the same with aperture. Do you a favor and read this:

        http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

        When you read this from the first to the last word you can come here with your own arguments against that article. Will you dare? Of course no.

        Oh, and I had an Olympus E-1, have a Panasonic GH2, and will happily buy an E-P3 with the new 12mm lens. But I’m not a blind fanboy!

        • You’re either being unnecessarily confrontational, or ignoring that there are different ways to look at it.

          It depends on what you mean by “perform.” If you mean “will D3s have less noise than MFT sensors at f/2” most likely the answer is yes. If you mean “will I be able to handhold 12mm f/2 on MFT as well as 24mm f/2 on D3s”, the answer is again yes.

          • Rachnaroch

            “If you mean “will D3s have less noise than MFT sensors at f/2″ most likely the answer is yes.”

            How is that if they get the same amount of light, don’t they by the mythical argument that f/2 is f/2? And please read the article, it’s really interesting.

            • Stop trolling.

          • El Aura

            Handholdability does not depend on f-stop, it depends on shutter speed (for a given FOV), and shutter speed depends on ISO (for a given f-stop). And ISO depends on the amount of noise you tolerate.

            So, you can handhold this lens, 12 mm f/2 on m43 at ISO 800 at eg 1/25 s. But you can handhold a 24 mm f/2 on FF at 1/25 s at ISO 3200 for the same noise level but with a quarter of the ambient light.

          • Ab

            For the same DOF and shutterspeed many systems produce comparable Images.

            To get the same DOF (ie more) on a FF camera you stop down twice, and either sacrifice shutterspeed or ISO, ISO pretty much equalizes the performance for a given techology, and shutterspeed often will only work if you have a tripod.

            Systems are designed with flaws, which others see as advantage. The infinite DoF of P&S has led to the adoration or shallow DoF images. However when MF & LF was the norm, they would go to great pains to have a deep DoF picture, as it was adored.

            Now we have affordable flexible and varied products to achieve both. It makes neither one superior to the other, only for a given purpose.

            Ab

        • fta

          Rachnaroch, is that your website? And honestly, I read the whole section #1 and found it very poorly written, so poorly written that I can see how it can confuse people. About the only thing correctly stated was “So, while a given f-ratio and shutter speed will result in the same exposure across formats (but nothing else),…” and the … is where it starts to mess things up again.

          P.S. Thomas stated f2 is “slow”, the word slow would attribute to speed, not DOF in this case and therefore f2 = f2… f2 for a landscape lens with plenty of daylight is considered fast.

        • @Rachna Nobody said that.

        • @Rachna What you should be saying is that a D3s has a much more sensitive sensor than an M4/3 camera. Thomas was a bit confused about DOF and F numbers. I was answering his point directly. You’ve just gone off on a rant.
          F2 is the same on all systems. Like 1/50 of a second is the same.

          What changes is the amount of noise generated for a given ISO sensitivity.

          • Jeffrey D

            I think it’s fair to bring up equivalency in this case. When a camera company advertises a “professional lens” and sells a prime lens for $800, it needs to be emphasized that it won’t be as capable as far cheaper non-professional lenses for an SLR, and really doesn’t make any sense for anybody except rich hobbyists.

            If you make grandiose claims about the 24-800 zoom lens in your compact superzoom, it’s worth mentioning that there’s really no comparison to an SLR lens.

            • “Won’t be as capable” in what way?
              * Light gathering and DOF control? You may be right, although cheap 16mm f/2.5 lenses for APS-C are hard to find. DOF-wise, you should really look at longer lenses.
              * Overall sharpness and usefulness wide open? We should wait and see. However, I doubt it.
              * Build quality and endurance? I doubt it.
              * Autofocus speed and accuracy? Again, we shall have to wait for the lens, but AF will not be necessary at all for most applications.

            • Steve H

              Sure, talk about equivalency, but do it in a straightforward and accurate way.

              F2 is F2. When comparing the m4/3 Olympus to a Nikon FF camera, the more appropriate argument would be to just state the truth, the Nikon has a far bigger sensor with the same number of pixels so the sensor is far more sensitive and will produce a cleaner picture especially at higher ISO.

              Oh, and that camera will cost 3x or more than the Olympus. It’s not necessarily the lens that’s different or inferior, its the camera to which it’s attached.

              • Jeffrey D

                You know full well what I’m talking about: smaller lenses/sensors have some inherent disadvantages, disadvantages any camera enthusiast is fully aware of. Of course if 1/125 at f4 is the correct exposure on one camera, it will be correct on the other.

                I question whether any $800 m43rds prime lens will be worth it, given the disadvantages of the small system. Or whether any m43rds lens can be called “professional.” After all, for people who are actually professionals and could financially justify spending $800 for better-quality pictures, they’d be even better off just shooting with an SLR. I doubt more than a very few professionals use m43rds.

                Of course smaller sensor systems do have their own advantages, principally in camera size. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here.

                • Zörg

                  “You know full well what I’m talking about: smaller lenses/sensors have some inherent disadvantages, disadvantages any camera enthusiast is fully aware of.”
                  Sorry but I’m not, though I am a camera enthusiast. I am aware of some constrains, results of physical compromises due to our earthy world, and some specificities, results of engineering compromises due to our market economy. But inherent disadvantages, i.e., points that would make smaller lenses/sensors inherently inferior to larger ones, I’m not aware of.

                  Maybe people here have been convinced that larger sensors are better in every circumstance. That’s what the makers of larger sensor cameras would like every camera enthusiast to be convinced of, as larger sensor systems also carry larger profit margins. Yet, some highly regarded professionals use compact cameras because of their technical specificities. Guys, please stop thinking in terms of size ;-)

                  “After all, for people who are actually professionals and could financially justify spending $800 for better-quality pictures, they’d be even better off just shooting with an SLR.”
                  I don’t know; ask a Leica user.

                  • Chez Wimpy

                    >But inherent disadvantages, i.e., points that would make smaller lenses/sensors inherently inferior to larger ones, I’m not aware of.

                    Total light gathered, enlargement potential, and DOF control. If it weren’t for those factors, large format film would never have been deemed necessary, and everyone would have used 110 format cameras with lens stopped down to f16 for landscaping. If it weren’t for those factors, nobody would care that the m43 20mm lens was “only” f1.7, since on FF that would provide enough DOF control for (nearly) anyone. And of course the issues with m43 noise at ISO1600 compared with, well, every other larger sensor camera currently in production.

                    I like the idea of a compact super-sharp 12/2 lens for “serious work” on-the-go. The advantage, at least without looking at MTFs, is the size. This could go places where a FF camera and 24/2.8 lens might not. Yes, the m43 is more expensive, but you are paying for the utility here… and since nobody has seen to make a similar setup at a more competitive price (NEX + 16/2.8 doesn’t count if you are serious about matching FF for image quality), Olympus is free to define the market. If the new sensors can keep pace (proportional to their surface-area), I don’t see a reason to balk… hell, if Leica released a 24mm f4 lens for their rangefinders at $800 it would sell like hotcakes!

                    • Anonymous

                      “Total light gathered, enlargement potential, and DOF control.”

                      Sorry but these are physical compromises due to our earthy world, not inherent disadvantages for quality photography. In more details:
                      – total light gathered is a compromise on sensor surface size (and to a lesser degree, sensor/microlenses/circuitry technology). It is not an inherent disadvantage because collecting a large amount is not a must-have for better photos.
                      – enlargement potential? Well, today’s mFT bodies have a tremendous enlargement advantage over some older, larger format bodies; therefore it’s definitely not an inherent disadvantage.
                      – DOF control: you probably mean access to very shallow DoF. This is again a compromise on size; and again, since a very shallow DoF is not a requirement for a better picture, it’s not an inherent disadvantage.

                      On this last point, Ab rightfully pointed out above: “The infinite DoF of P&S has led to the adoration or shallow DoF images. However when MF & LF was the norm, they would go to great pains to have a deep DoF picture, as it was adored.” Funny, isn’t it?

        • @Rachnaroch:

          Do yourself a favour and read multiple sources, preferably more reliable ones.

          But if you are too lazy, here’s a quote from Wikipedia:

          ‘For the common “same picture” comparison, i.e., the same camera position and angle of view, DOF is, to a first approximation, inversely proportional to format size (Stroebel 1976, 139). More precisely, if photographs with the same final-image size are taken in two different camera formats at the same subject distance with the same angle of view and f-number, the DOF is, to a first approximation, inversely proportional to the format size.’

          I’ll even give you a practical example:

          If you grab this lens and take a photo of a scene at F2, ISO200, and note the shutter speed.

          Then grab a D700+24/2 and take a photo of the same scene from the same spot at the same aperture, ISO and shutter speed.

          Disregarding image quality (sharpness, contrast, color, bokeh, dynamic range, etc) for now and evaluate the basics…

          Will one be over/under exposed compared to the other? NO!

          Will they differ in angle of view? NO!

          Will they differ in depth of field? YES! This is where you multiply the aperture by the crop factor and it has to do with the fact that the focal length is half (12mm vs 24mm) while distance from subject and angel of view are the same.

          These are facts! If you stubbornly think people here are “blind fanboys” because they already know what I just stated above, then you’re the fool.

          • Rachnaroch

            I already read the Wikipedia (the same that bash 4/3 sensors BTW), please read the article I linked and come back. But read it.

            • dumbo

              read it, but man was it boring!
              sorry but that guy cant write for shit even though the idea was interesting

        • An f/2 lens will gather the same amount of light no matter what camera body is attached to it.

          Just because I put a PEN body behind my Minolta 58mm f/1.2 does not mean that suddenly half the light reaches the inside of the camera anymore.

          When comparing the lenses on different systems, the DOF equivalence and the field of view (NOT the focal length) will change, the focal length and the f stop number will always remain the same.

          As Wikipedia states, “the f-number is the focal length divided by the “effective” aperture diameter”. The focal length of a lens is an intrinsic construction property of the lens that does not change with the body and its sensor attached to the lens. Neither is the aperture diameter something that changes magically in the lens when a different body is attached.

          The f-number defines the speed of a lens. Someone stating that MFT f2 equals FF f4 is just stupid and should get educated.

    • With wide-angle shallow DOF is not an issue, as there isn’t such a thing.

    • jrk

      How fast do you want a fast lens to be? 0.95? 0.7? There are physical limits you know.

      If you’re looking for less DOF I suggest you move to full frame sensors.

    • Mar

      LOL!

      I imagine Pens being 4-5x smaller than (equivalent 35mm) cameras such as D3s and around 10x less money matters too?

      If you’re spitting BS like that (i.e. m43 lenses being crap because they are 2x shorter and effectivelly give 2 stop more DOF compared to “equivalent” FF camera), you should take into an account that only D3s can match new m43 cameras when you need to increase ISO by 2 stops (i.e. ISO3200 = ISO12800 on D3s), and then you hit a bit of a snag because such camera weighs 1.5kg and costs 5.000€/$

      And I forgot about IS and no FF DSLR has wide similar wide angle lens with IS (well, maybe Nikon 16-35)

      • I would say that for wide angle protography, more DOF is usually a good thing. This means that you can happily shoot at f/2 at parties and such, while the full frame photographer has to stop down to f/4 to not get parts of the crowd blurry.

        • Mar

          Precisely, and then that 2kg combo doesn’t have anything over 0.5kg combo.
          It’s just much bigger, heavier and intimidating to others.

          m43 are fantastic cameras for photographing people because you can get much better candid photos and street photos because your huge DSLR is not shouting “LOOK AT ME!!!”.

        • babbit

          Exactly. I don’t know of anyone that tries to shoot shallow DOF with a wide angle lens. The purpose of f/2 is to get the iso down or shutter speed up for low light.

      • Rachnaroch

        ‘and then you hit a bit of a snag because such camera weighs 1.5kg and costs 5.000€/$’

        That’s just like whining about the gas consumption and price of a Ferrari. I guess that owners of both (D3s and F40s) are more concerned about performance.

        If all you care is to take snapshots at parties, then yes, it would be silly to get a D3.

        • Ab

          And if you wanted to shoot wedding in old churches in natural light as a profession, you would be silly to buy an EPL1.

          Not to say you couldnt do it. But it wouldn’t be the “best” choice… but then you need to factor budget. A small towm wedding photographer probably couldnt support a FF setup.

          Compromise is inherent in any system, and comparisons need so many variables to make real conclusions it isnt worth it, as F2 isnt F2 for DoF, but it is for shutterspeed and ISO, but it isnt for Price (F2 lens on P&S isnt the same as F2 on a FF system) etc etc.

          Ab

    • stimmer

      Light meters don’t lie. F2 is F2.

      People are so dense.

      • El Aura

        And images taken with a f/2 lens on a 1/2.3″ sensor look exactly the same as those taken with a f/2 lens on FF camera. Yeah.

        • Chris

          Dude. Depth of field is a function of diaphragm opening. F-stop is the ratio of focal length to diaphragm opening. F-stop measures how much light is let in through the lens.

          A longer lens requires a wider diaphragm opening for the same f-stop. Larger formats require longer lenses to get the same field of view. So, for a given f-stop there is a wider diaphragm which means less depth of field.

          THE AMOUNT OF LIGHT LET IN BY THE LENS IS THE SAME FOR A GIVEN F-STOP.

          Give it a rest already! Go to the library and read a Physics book if you don’t believe me.

          • Martin

            > F-stop is the ratio of focal length to diaphragm opening.

            ..to the diameter of the entrance pupil, more precisely.

            > F-stop measures how much light is let in through the lens.

            .. in a sense yes, but relative to the focal length! If you are interested in the total amount of the incident light (and you should be), than the crucial measure is the entrance pupil diameter.

            > THE AMOUNT OF LIGHT LET IN BY THE LENS IS THE SAME FOR A GIVEN F-STOP.

            I see, you can roar very well, but unfortunately your sentence does not make much sense. The same as what? If you mean as the amount of light incident on a bigger sensor for the same f-stop, but twice the focal length, than you would be very wrong.

            > Give it a rest already! Go to the library and read a Physics book if you don’t believe me.

            I for one studied optics at a university (unlike you I guess). It is not enough to ‘read a Physics book’, you should try to understand it as well.

            • Chris

              Okay, since you have studied optics, how is the amount of light let in from a 12mm lens with an f-stop of f/2 different than a 24mm lens at f/2?

              I’m being completely serious, by the way, since you’ve studied optics at the university level (I study biology myself).

              I’m just curious because I shoot the same emulsion of film in 35mm, 120, and 4×5 while metering the scenes with a handheld light meter. If the scene reads, say, 1/250 at f/8, I get the same exposure across all of the formats.

              How is that possible if there is less light being transmitted to the emulsion in the small formats compared to the larger ones (or vice versa)?

              • Martin

                > …, how is the amount of light let in from a 12mm lens with an f-stop of f/2 different than a 24mm lens at f/2?

                Your question is incomplete, as another important factor is the sensor area, when we speak about the total amount of light. Anyway, for instance, if you take a ’12mm f/2 – 4/3 sensor’ combo, and compare it with a ’24mm f/2 – FF sensor’ combination, there will be around 4 times more photones incident on the bigger sensor, in spite of the fact that ILLUMINATION (i.e. luminous flux per a unit sensor area) will be the same for the two formats.

                > I’m just curious because I shoot the same emulsion of film in 35mm, 120, and 4×5 while metering the scenes with a handheld light meter. If the scene reads, say, 1/250 at f/8, I get the same exposure across all of the formats.
                >How is that possible if there is less light being transmitted to the emulsion in the small formats compared to the larger ones (or vice versa)?

                It is because exposure is related to illuminance (see above) and not to the total light gathered. But for the same exposure and f-number, the signal-to-noise ratio will be better for the bigger format (at the expense of a smaller DOF, though), since more photones participated in creating the image. Experts talk about a smaller ‘shot noise’ here.

    • Where do all those morons come from that do not understand the basics of optics?! The amount of light going through a f/2 lens is the same on any system, it’s just the crop that’s different and because of that, the DOF is different.

      Really easy to understand: If I adapt my old Minolta 58mm f/1.2 on my PEN, just because I use a different camera body, that doesn’t change the amount of light the lens is able to gather for a specific aperture.

      • Martin

        > Where do all those morons come from that do not understand the basics of optics?!

        I am afraid that you are the moron here, sir.

        >The amount of light going through a f/2 lens is the same on any system,..

        Absolutely right. What is different, though, is the amount of light incident on different sensor areas. And that is something that YOU will probably never understand, since you are not able to see the difference between ‘light going through a lens’ and ‘light gathered by a sensor’.

    • Anonymous

      no it`s not the same

  • The grip… makes me think that there is even a bigger one, and therefore that they might designed for those who will adapt legacy 4/3 lenses.

    That’s the crucible, fast AF for those too would be shattering – and a grip for new heavier metal lenses.

    • I just can’t see getting fast AF on 4/3’s lenses. Faster, maybe, but never fast. Since only a couple of them ever were very fast anyway, I’m not sure it matters ;-). And while I’ll happily concede that the glass for 4/3’s is as good as any ever made, if I were Olympus I would start concentrating on raising the standard of m4/3’s. Which they seem to be doing.

      Besides, with every passing day, 4/3’s Classic becomes a smaller and smaller part of Olympus’ user base, and putting resources into bringing that legacy along makes less and less business sense.

      • Things that are possible now, often seemed impossible yesterday. I’m sure 4/3 fast focus could be achieved. The question is, do they have the will?

        • The tech is called PDAF on CDAF, a line of pixels on the sensor which is masked in order to act as a rangefinder. Fuji has it. If Oly adopted it then PDAF lenses could act much quicker.

          Of course they have heavy elements, so that is the limit, one would need more power too. But where there’s a will there’s a way.

          However the 12/2 shows that Micro HG lenses will develop in an entirely different way than Legacy 4/3, and they must have priority.

        • babbit

          The 4/3 lens have motors that are not designed for the quick back and forth adjustment that CDAF requires. Even if the focusing algorithm is unrealistically optimized, CDAF still requires at least 1 movement to figure out the correct direction and distance, and then the 2nd movement to reach the desired focus. Since there is only an electrical link from camera to lens, even if you force the lens to move as fast as possible, there is a physical limitation.

          • Can’t you read? I mentioned PDAF, in Fuli’s solution.

            Since rumors have it that there is a predictive element in the new Oly AF, that might be implemented either by firmware – probability focus – or in the sensor hardware.

            In any case an approx distance is calculated, the lens runs there, and the last bit, precision AF is made by CDAF.

            Can’t you understand a hybrid solution?

            • I doubt that we’ll see PDAF pixels in an Oly sensor, unless there is a license agreement with Fuji that we haven’t seen yet. It would be wonderful if they used such a thing, because attaching a E-P3 to a 90-250 (not the other way around ;-) would be interesting.

  • Dana Curtis Kincaid

    Wonder if my 12-60 will work? Anyway, this is very Contax G1-ish. I like it. It isn’t quite as sexy as the G system, but still, the form factor is similar. Now the fast primes are coming, I am interested.

    • Per

      The Contax G were AF rangefinder. The Olympus E-Px are crippeled by the lack of built-in viewfinder. Ergonomi-wise Contax G was excellent while E-Px is à very mixer bag to be positive

  • om-4

    Does it have a dedicated/programmable magnify button? And will the magnified part go away with a half press of the release button.

    Drives me crazy to cycle through info/okay button to magnify and change iso or something else when shooting legacy on the E-P2.

    Hello Olympus, a software update for the older models would be nice too!!!!
    Look at Ricoh for customizing buttons.

    • MJr

      I think that rumor was classified FT4 or 3, a while ago.

    • Zörg

      I think that at least the “direct movie” button is customizable on the other Oly mFT bodies, so that’s probably the case on these new models too. Some of the other buttons might be customizable as well (hopefully).

    • +100

  • Dana Curtis Kincaid

    Oh, and to the whiners who think the four thirds DOF isn’t narrow enough? I don’t lile seeing one eye in focus and one out of focus in a portrait shot. Four thirds DOF is just fine.

    • Dan

      That just boils down to personal preference or lack of knowledge, not the system.

  • Viewfinder or not, if they make a two tone version like this rough Photoshop mock up then I don’t think I can resist:

    http://i.imgur.com/5tmaW.jpg

    • Two words: Magic Marker.

      • Ha. I’m sure they’ll be plenty of add on leather stickers for those that want two-tone, that might look a touch better than a sharpie :)

      • :)

  • Kizu

    The E-PM! sounds like the perfect compact camera for me. i think i will take a look at it when its in the market. when should the cameras be availibe? around septembre i guess?

  • Marcus vogel

    I think this picture is a fake. It looks like a photoshop-modified E-PL2.
    So we have to wait. ;-)

  • Its gonna be a good time to upgrade form E-PL1 with kit lens at this year!
    Target: E-P3 + duel kits and MZD 9-18mm.

  • Oli G

    Andrea, is the 45 confirmed for the upcoming event or will that be a later release?

    • admin

      Confirmed!
      P.S.: Not Andrea :)

      • Oli G

        Thanks! That’s strange, you look just like Andrea in your picture :-p.

  • SPF

    Any word on focus peaking? That is a must have feature, imo.

    • Rachnaroch

      No one had this feature a mere week ago* and now it’s a must? LOL!

      * Some Nikon cameras had it like 5 or 6 years ago, not sure.

    • deniz

      tried peaking on the nex. its a nice feature but doesnt work well with curved surfaces like skin. i tried some portrait shots but couldnt focus on the eye.

      so, it would be nice to have but its not a huge loss.

  • Mikachu

    Will Olympus 40-150mm II R also have faster AF on Panasonic bodies?

    • admin

      Don’t think so!

      • Why not? Doesn’t have a faster motor/lighter lens to move?

  • Honestly? I love my Olympus E-P1 combined with my “manual focus only” Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 so much, I’ll hardly swap it for another mft – except maybe, the new one is really really breathtaking and -affordable-

    https://picasaweb.google.com/dbaechli/OlympusEP1CanonFD50mmF14#5622658485686494146

    Just a little faster yet is only good if it comes to cars ,-)
    (this is a joke – for certain moments I do like fast AF, too *g*)

    • CarlB

      Agree completely. I love that lens on my E-PL2. If you have the time to focus it, it rewards you with beautiful shots.

      Very low-light can be tough to focus with it manual. I’ve had to use the 20mm f1.7 panny for that – it’s no slouch, but it’s not the FD f1.4 50mm for sure.

  • Gravityloss

    Umm many panasonic lenses already use linear motors and are fast, no reason why when oly finally catches up that they wouldn’t at least as fast as the 14-140 on panny bodies.

  • Miroslav

    “Olympus E-PL3 looks EXACTLY like the Olympus XZ-1”

    That’s a definite step back compared to E-PL2 – no grip. Disappointed. I was eyeing E-PL3 + FL-300R combo, but now I’m not so sure.

    One retro model and two modern but totally flat – I think Olympus is still lost design wise. But there are three days of hope left :).

    There is no mention of touch screens for E-PM1 and E-PL3 in the rumor summary. Are they touch or not?

    • Wait a few weeks and there will be a ton of grips available. I have one on my XZ-1. You can have one on your E-PL3.

      • Miroslav

        Yeah, but manufacturers usually can put various useful things in grips, such as larger batteries…

    • Zörg

      Æsthetically, a really retro model will be flat — so it’s more like one modern and two retro ;-)

    • I was also hoping they’d keep the e-pl3 retro looking with a grip. Now I might have to fork out a bit more and just go for the e-p3. B’ah. Here’s hoping it looks EXACTLY like the XZ-1…with a grip!

      • Miroslav

        I somehow doubt both E-PM1 and E-PL3 will be flat bricks of similar size. I presume ( or rather hope ) the source meant “E-PM1 will look EXACTLY like XZ-1” not E-PL3, but stranger things have happened in Oly universe…

        There are also conflicting rumors, one says that “E-PM1 has enough buttons like the E-PL1” while there was another one said E-PL3 has fewer buttons than E-PL2.

        Anyway, E-PL3 looks to me the most interesting camera of the three. Let’s hope it turns to be an upgrade to E-PL2 in all aspects.

  • Gravityloss

    Also, that lens is quite big. Anybody done a comparison to their 24 mm 2.0 om lens?
    flickr.com/photos/pnoid00/1655421393/

  • Jack

    Hell, why would people still compare M43 with a FF on this forum, would you compare a Mini against a Ferrari, ok, your Ferrari is faster and what not, do I care?

  • Jason

    A 12mm (24mm equivalent) is not a rare focal length, but I cannot think of any that are F/2.0, that is actually very bright for the focal length. Some of the people that comment here are so blockheaded.

  • Victor.

    Wow, camera people are such nerds. This is a great website but after reading most comments and arguments it can get painful. Here is a question. Do most of you look like this? Slightly overweight man with grayish beard wearing photographers west with seventy five pockets, usually hanging around camera stores with a certain ” I know it all” look?

    • Ab

      LOL, maybe, maybe i am standing behind you right now :) in that vest.

      Dont insult people because of their hobbies, I am a young professional designer who owns studios in 2 countries, have traveled the world, enjoy sports (and have competed an many to a relatively high level) and have had my first child 2 months ago.

      I also enjoy discussing cameras and photography as many like talking about sports, fashion or food.

      Ab

      • #2

        Well, with that kind of education and success you should recognize a troll when you see one.

    • hahahaha lol

    • Hmmmm. So you came to a camera website and read most of the comments even though they were painful? Nerd.

    • lol

  • Gravityloss

    Rather a seventies Ferrari to a teens Ferrari… Car magazines do that every now and then to highlight the balance of progress and tradition.

    (To everyone who didnt know it yet, lets make it clear: olympus manufactured the famous zuiko 24 mm f 2.0 for their OM slr, and actually had a whole series of f 2.0 primes)

  • Enough with f/2! Anybody want to argue about what “Eye-Fi support” might mean?

    Eye-Fi already allows various manufacturers to advertise that their cameras are Eye-Fi friendly, but the most that usually means there’s a menu item to power the transmitter on or off… and many cameras that don’t advertise Eye-Fi support still work just fine with an Eye-Fi card.

    Another possibility of what Olympus might mean by that is that metal-clad cameras sometimes don’t work well with an Eye-Fi card — the metal absorbs the signal, so range gets shorter. (On the full-metal-chassis Leica M and Epson R-D 1, the signal barely can get out of the camera at all.) One solution is to leave a “window” in the cladding so the Eye-Fi signal can get out.

  • Victor

    Yes,yes I can see you! You are the one with a Safari style Billingham bag. Nice choice of color, beige with chocolate leather trimming.

    Great to read your resume. Pleasure to meet you.

  • There is something fishy about that grip. There seems to be a knob of some sorts placed towards the end of the grip. Perhaps E-P3 will come with interchangable grips?

  • Mar

    Pen + 12mm = 1200-1500 $/€, 0.5kg
    FF camera + such high quality 24mm lens = 4000-6500 $/€, 1.5-2kg

    You can’t make any “equivalence” points because those 2 systems are so much different.
    Honestly, I’d always pick pen over FF setup, even if money was not an issue.

  • exactly…or even better, have both m43 and ff, and skip aps-c altogether…(i’m thinking that lately)

    • WT21

      That’s exactly how I’m shooting. 5D and EP1 (soon to be EP3). I have toyed with an S95 as well, but haven’t pulled the trigger. Some of these new lenses (25 1.4 and 45 1.8) will strengthen this argument (i.e. squeezing out the need for APS-C). The two missing pieces are DR (which I’m mostly OK with) and AF speed and accuracy (which is missing), but perhaps the latter is address with the new Olys? We shall see!

      • That’s what I’m doing too, for FF I use Real RAW ;-) with my old Pentax and Olympus cameras, E-P1 and S90. Well I dropped the S90 and broke it, so I’m back to two cameras. But even when I had the S90 constantly living in my pocket, I’d prefer to not use it unless I needed a flash picture.

        Maybe I should start thinking about E-P3 with its built-in flash to replace both E-P1 and S90.

    • This is the equivalent of carrying both 35mm and MF back in the day. And it makes a lot sense provided the Olympus sensor (tweaked or otherwise) performs. We’ll see.

  • Scott

    F2 is F2 on any system, debth of field is the same. The only thing that changes is the crop factor. When comparing cameras its easier to compare 4,3rds to FF. That APS sensor is almost impossible to compare to 4/3rds because the lenses are not designed for it.

    The biggest advantage to Olympus (and I have both systems) You can shoot wide open and the images are sharp. When you factor in the ability to shoot wide open and the lower shutter speed then Hi ISO is not an issue. I will take the ability to shoot at 1/25 with a telephoto all day over being able to shoot at ISO 64,000

    • MJr

      As you can see here, F2.8 on FT has the same DoF as F5.6 on FF.

      http://www.seriouscompacts.com/f41/bokeh-test-olympus-zd-25mm-f-2-8-vs-canon-ef-50mm-f-1-4-a-161/

      • Ab

        That is right, but the DoF is different because you are either using a wider lens stood in the same place (such as a 25mm vs a 50mm stood side by side) hence the smaller aperture (the f2 on a 25mm is smaller than f2 on a 50mm), OR you are using the SAME focal length, such as a 50 vs a 50 but you have to stand further back to get the same framing.

        If you were to stand side by side with a 50mm f2 lens on both you would see the DoF is the same at the same setting, but you have different framing.

        The DoF is therefore a result of cropping, not the lens being slower.

        One might say “it is the final image that matters therefore…” but that doesnt change the physics behind the optics. F2 = F2 as understood in the physics of photography. To say otherwise is being argumentative. Because if you are forced to stop down you lose the larger format advantage relating to noise, or shutterspeed.

        Ab

        • MJr

          It says what was used. What is being compared is the 50mm equivalent angle of view on both cameras from the same spot. It is ONLY the equivalent field of vied that matters, that is what you see, and that is what you buy the lens for, and only that should be compared or mentioned. It’s a very simple question and a very simple answer. But when you look at your story, and scott’s story, tell me who is that actually helpful to ? I mean just read it, name one thing that actually matters in practice. You can’t possibly expect people to take into account the physical focal length, flange back distance, crop factor, angle of view, and aperture all at the same time. Just looks at the picture, what you see is what you get. And that is two stops more DoF on m43 compared to full-frame with a equivalent FoV, while requiring just as much light for the same aperture.

          • Ab

            This whole conversation is useless to anyone who hasnt used 35mm film or FF cameras. As P&S have dominated the film market (with zoom lenses) and FF Digital has been and still is very expensive you comparison is pointless to everone who hasnt used 135 format film… That would pretty much be the bulk of camera buyers.

            To the people who know something on the subject it becomes a topic of debate, but still useless. To say F2 on a 50mm lens on 43rds is slower than a 50mm f2 on FF because the DoF or Crop is different is silly. To say F2 on a wider lens is slower because of MORE DoF is still silly as we know wider lenses give the appearance of Deeper DoF for the same aperture… It still doesnt make it slower.

            Ab

  • Hope it has 60fps 720p and manual control. Wishing it also had the articulating screen. Very nice product. Let’s see the EPL3 and the mini. Those will be tempting too.

  • Pisut

    This is a bit off topic, does anyone know what kind of lens this girl is using?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qiy-t1QxCo#t=1m20s

    • Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 20mm f4

      • Pisut

        Thanks! That’s a huge lens!

  • Thomas

    I read the article, the guy has a point. But we are photographers, not physicists. As a photographer you know about the advantages different formats provide (DR, noise), e.g. FF has a two stop advantage in image noise.

    If you already take the difference between formats into account like that, there is no need to “convert” a 12/2.0 to a 24/4, at least not for exposure/noise (for comparing DOF you have to convert).

    The article claims that the image noise does not depend on the pixel density but on the overall size of the sensor. It does not matter, because everything scales with the format (sensor size, actual aperture in mm, pixel size, pixel density). Either you assume that 1) the sensors are equally efficient and the advantage is due to difference in size (pixels, aperture in mm, you have to convert the 12/2 to a 24/4 here), or 2) you assume that the bigger sensor is “better” and directly compare f-stops between systems.

    While 1) and hence the article may be more physically correct, I think 2) is much more relevant for photographers, because when taking photos you care about light (hence f-stops) and not about a formally correct comparison of formats.

    I am Thomas S, not Thomas. Sorry for that, could not correct it after submitting!

  • Mar

    What’s funny is that this lens will probably have better corner to corner definition and less abberations wide open than 24mm 1.4 lens stopped to f4 on a FF camera :)

  • The EP-3 should definitely have a built in EVF and I think Olympus have misjudged what the customers want. The EPL-3 and E-PM1 are okay without, but not the EP-3. Just my opinion.

    • Mr Hipsta:
      I dunno, assuming the E-P3 has the same dimensions as the E-P2, I could see wanting it without EVF. I find with 14-42mm or 20mm, the E-P2 will just fit in my cargo pants pocket. If it was much taller, it wouldn’t fit.

      Also, for me, unless they changed the polarization of the EVF, it would be a tough sell, since I’ve just about given up using the VF-2 in bright sunlight. This is due to the fact that I can’t see the screen with polarized sunglasses when I’m shooting in landscape mode, portrait mode is ok, but I don’t shoot in portrait mode as much. The LCD is just the opposite, I can see it with polarized sunglasses in landscape mode, but it is much darker in portrait mode.

      Finally, when I was using the VF-2 more, I noticed severe battery drains in using it compared to using the lcd. This is counter-intuitive since the back LCD is much bigger, but the EVF refreshes faster, is brighter, and has more pixels.

    • Rachnaroch

      And where would you put it in that design? I just can’t see the space unless you reduce the LCD size quite a bit. It would turn this camera into a G3 knock-off, which is good for some and not so good for others.

      On the other hand, a detachable EVF saves a lot of space when you remove it from the camera, and you can keep it while you upgrade between models, saving money too. I just wish the EVF had a better design (the base/hinge is quite awful in the current model). But you can upgrade EVFs without needing to upgrade the whole camera. Well, I just love them. :)

      Oh, well, being able to use the EVF and a flash at the same time would also be nice I guess.

  • I still prefer their current design with seperate evf, as i like the tilt function.

  • I still don’t think I’ll be replacing my E-PL2 just yet; I’m still quite happy with it. OTOH, the 12/2 is very tempting.

    I wonder if the silver 12/2 will go with my silver E-PL2. Hopefully, the shades of silver are fairly similar.

    • Nathan

      Fortunately, the mismatch wouldn’t show in photos.

  • Nathan

    Well, regardless of “equivalence”, nobody buys a 12 (24mm eq) lens for its bokeh, but many people want the fast wide-angle prime for its ability to bring light to the sensor and achieve fast shutter speeds.

    4/3 needs this fast shutter speed to make up for its sensor size disadvantage. We can quibble on and on about which cameras are good “enough” or which ones are “completely unusable”, but the fact is that any shortcoming which is remedied by manipulation of another variable is a shortcoming which is overcome.

    So micro four thirds has a smaller sensor with higher noise. How do you improve signal to noise ratio? Add more signal (light). Fast lenses do that. Who cares whether we’re using a full frame at 24mm f4 or a 4/3 at 12mm f2 if the photos are identical at that point?

    I’ve shot photos on 4/3 with a 30mm f1.4-2 and on a 1D with a 50mm at f2-2.8. Can’t tell which is which except for the aspect ratio. Who cares? It’s not as if you can’t reach equivalence with the choice of faster lenses. So you get to use ISO 6400 and can still get a half decent print? So can I, at 3200 with a slightly faster aperture. Same DOF, same AOV, same shot. Why does it matter what equipment was used? They’re all better than slide film in dynamic range and sensitivity, and slide film is useful, even if it is much more difficult than reversal film to get exact exposure with fully manual (non-ttl) equipment. It’s unforgiving. So?

    I’ll spend my money on a D3x when I NEED one to get something done. So far, it hasn’t happened. It’s funny how at the professional level, hardly ever does another photographer give you grief about what you used for a shot (unless it’s a crap shot) but the amateurs bicker endlessly about which gear is not good enough.

    • Nathan

      To be more clear, I don’t OWN the 1D, the shop does, and while it’s great to use it, it’s not exactly portable, or comfortable to carry. It’s enormous and heavy. The 1Ds MK II is the same. Big. I bought Olympus gear for my personal use away from the shop because in its size/weight, currently nothing short of a Leica matches it in utility and quality. And I can’t afford to stand in front of interesting things if I spend 6 grand on a camera body and 3k for each of 5 lenses.
      My buddies think the 35-100 F2 constant zoom is a marvel, and they wish Canon or Nikon would build something like it. Even at 100mm, I can shoot wide open with no real aberration or corner softness. I don’t do super-telephoto, so 100mm is my longest FL. (200mm equiv aov)

  • Right… good enough for an E-P2 upgrade, getting closer to a DSLR replacement. As soon as SGP release an E-P3 skin, E-P2 is going e-bay.

  • SteveD

    I bet the noise would be better with a black 12 f2. I could explain why but that involves string theory and such, so I won’t bore you with all of that. :-)

  • Someone said that the 12/2 would be good for marriages, and that struck me, because it would be very effective inside a church.

    At the moment I’ll keep my PL1 and old 9-18, which is more than enough for landscapes.

    Using legacy lenses it’s very easy to see the effect of equivalence. To reach hyperfocal you must open the aperture twice as much as if you used it on a 135mm film.

    Also bokeh becomes more critical. However f/2 is still f/2. Therefore for the same sensitivity you’ll be able to shoot the same events.

    I assume that the lens won’t have much distortion, so it might be good for large groups of people. For landscapes the 9-18 has more flexibility.

    Someone also asked if there is a magnification button. That was mentioned too, possibly the second from the top, an essential button for legacy lenses.

    Although it may seem that Oly has slow reaction times (compared to the much bigger Panny) I feel that it is doing things right, selecting the main issues without backtracking.

    Photographers who choose NEX might reconsider. A 12/2 is an awesome lens, hopefully with none of the problems of the Sony 16mm.

    But then it comes at a price :)

  • BOB

    I don’t mind weather is f2 or ff ,I can always get any good lens out there to get a good DFF on the ep1, 2 or 3 too.

    I can alway get a good photo out of it (EP1,2 &3) :D
    lens + light + angle + creatively

    And it’s not the only camera that I would have in life.
    as it’s has the characteristic look ,small
    and so many lens that can be use on it.
    Having all the dslr funtion, that’s great… .
    it’s not the greatest camara in the world
    but it’s a good camera and fun to hang out with :)

  • maitani

    i just bothered to read the equivalence and F2 discussion thing, entertaining, people seem to browse the web until they find long writeups which backup their theorys, also many people get defensive and react with expreme comparisons and compering D3s and 1D cameras with price/size/weight ratio with the pens..

    i find it more interesting comparing a ‘portable’ FF camera..

    you can have also more portable fullframe than a 1d or D3s, check 5d, d700, a850 or M9 if you have the money, compare them with the overpriced E-5 for example, same price, same size, and the fullframes are lighter if you pair it with a cheap AF primelenses, which will be optically same or better than any zuiko zoom, even SHG’s… and even the f2.8 are not bigger than the oly SHG’s

    i’m dual user FF for serious work, the pens are high quality leisure cameras which can partly replace classic 43 or APS-c cameras, or perfect legacy glass bodys as they adapt just about every lense ever made. but not a FF subsitute.

    also price difference of a used 5d and a high quality prime, might be cheaper than a e-p3 with premium lense.. just thinking out loud. but gives you much more dof to play with,

    what’s bothering (for me) that after f4 on 4/3 all shallow dof is gone, FF or film is more fun in this regard

  • Ihateidiots

    Could people quit the bitching and just simply buy the lens if it suits their needs? If it doesn’t, could people simply don’t buy? You mean your bitching counts for anything, really?

  • marcram

    The EP3 doesn’t look quite as slick as the EPL2. Although, I love the fact that the grip can be switched out. Somebody machine this one for me please:

    http://talepictures.com/cherrytreeblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/penfretu0001_1blog.jpg

  • bedo

    there is little talk of E-PL3 … but my impression from news releases, is that there is a downgrade?!
    For example, why removing the flash? …
    So why not buy e-pl2 at a lower price now?

    • MJr

      There is said to be a compact flash accessory bundled in the package. It’s probably not built-in because most want the compactness of m43 over anything else, but they did decide to bundle it because most people also do like knowing they have one. Can’t please everyone but they have obviously thought it through.

  • Admin, there are so many stupid people and trolls on this forum not understanding the difference between the focal length of a lens and the field of view, the speed of a lens and the depth of field and so on. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have a post about the basics, so we can shut up the morons in the comments?

    • Martin

      > Admin, there are so many stupid people and trolls on this forum not understanding the difference between the focal length of a lens and the field of view, the speed of a lens and the depth of field and so on.

      Are you aware that you may speak about yourself, too?

  • cL

    Sorry don’t have time to read through the thread…. But this is just a few observation I have on the newer design.

    Good:

    1) It looks like there is a flash assist lamp (or is that WB sensor?).
    2) PASM dial fortunately is only moved, not eliminated.
    3) Pop up flash looks like it’s there!!!
    4) Jog dial is still there.
    5) Overall finish looks very streamlined.

    Neutral:

    1) I don’t like the new grip, as it looks less classy than original design. I think it’s a modification made according to user’s feedback because the older, better looking design isn’t good for larger lenses. I can’t comment on it yet until I touched it.

    Bad:

    1) Still no swivel screen….
    2) No built-in VF

    Anything else is not comment-able unless I get to see the actual item.

    About the Lens:

    Looks okay to me. Uses standard 46mm filter thread instead of weird 40.5mm on some of the m4/3 lenses, a major plus for filter users. For lenses, can’t comment until we see the result.

  • Finally, AF assist lamp + flash! I am sold!

    • To what extent?I rmebemer when I worked for a pool hall I would take people’s DL’s and ID cards as collateral while they borrowed a house cue. I would take one glance at the cards and could memorize their names lol..I never used this for evil So when they would walk up I would rmebemer their face and tell them what their name was, first and last.What is the furthest extent that you used your photographic memory?does anybody know what causes some people to have this type of memory?

  • Is there actually a µ4/3 to 4/3 adapter to put the 12mm F2 on a 4/3 body?

    • Miroslav

      No, you’d have to put it IN the 4/3 body. And break the mirror in the process, giving you some bad luck :).

Back To Top

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