Olympus denies the DSLR investment reduction news.


In response to yesterdays article from Sponichi Annex (translation here) today Olympus officially denied that they are going to reduce their DSLR (aka Four Thirds) business (Source: DC.watch). And they underlined that their DSLR plans will remain “unchanged”. And regarding the compact camera business they said that they are now “focusing management resources on higher-priced models”.

Editor’s note: With no new Four Thirds lens released in three years and just one Four Thirds camera (the E-5) there is no need to read a press release to see that their DSLR investments and product strategy has been “reduced”. No matter what Olympus says. Of course, Olympus may could restart to push the Olympus FT system. But I don’t think this is ever going to happen (just my personal opinion).

In summary what to expect in 2013: Rumors are unreliable and unproven stories but they tell us that there will be a new PEN in June, new OMD in September, new MFT zooms and indeed a high end premium compact camera with fixed lens. It is also rumored that there will be a camera with a 100% lens support for Four Thirds lenses. But whether this will be a high OMD with phase detection AF pixels or an E-7 has yet to be seen.

  • Marck

    I that, *if we are lucky*, we will have a new OMD with PDAF support for 43 lenses. This is the maximum we can hope. Otherwise we will have *nothing*.
    A new 4/3 only (non micro) body is really impossible in my thought.

  • Eric S


    From 0 to 0, you can change your investment about +100 % or -100 %. It’s your choice.

  • alfons

    Premium compact with fixed lens? Not fixed focal lenght thou, right?

    I wouldn’t mind a small street shooting camera with optical viewfinder.

  • Bob B.

    “Of course, Olympus may could restart to push the Olympus FT system. But I don’t think this is ever going to happen (just my personal thoughts).”
    I agree with this sentiment….by denying this Olympus saves face and also keeps their options open…but does nothing for the Four Thirds hopeful…..

  • Raist3d

    Admin. I applaud your objectivity in this post.

    – raist

    • Pintoo

      And hopeless English.

      BTW, it’s a response TO, not OF.

      • admin

        Thanks. Corrected :)

      • bousozoku

        How is your German?

  • Beautemps

    Announcements to save your face have sometimes just the opposite effect.

    What did they do with their 43-ressources team? Since years in the Oly’s tourture chamber? In Guantanamo?

  • Luda

    And we don’t care about what you think about anything Olympus related Raist.
    Move over to Pentax together with your “insights”.
    We will surely applaud you fro that move……..

    • fredskportf

      you assume that you have a position that we agree with and the authority to say what or who “we” care about.You are a DPreview Olympus DSLR fanboy using a fake ID to hide your hatred for anyone who does not agree with you. The FT system was and is an entire finacial disaster for Olympus, even at its peak and now the FT market is a tiny fraction of one percent. If Olympus is ever to make its imaging department successful they need to look forward not backward.Waisting resources that are already limited on delivering what would be a tiny niche product would be a ridiculous waste of money for a company struggling with its imaging division.

      Sadly we simply cannot trust these random comments that pop up now and again from Olympus as they are both vague and contradictory .Though what is clear is that Olympus have produced one FT camera since 2008 the E5 in 2010 and the last lens was it the 35mm macro I can’t even remember . So whatever the statements and counter statements the facts speak for themselves. For Olympus the best that could happen would be a high end O-MD with full support for FT lenses

      • Sorry you have sleeping in hour.

        E-30 come in 2009 by the last FT lens, so is 14-54mm II, and also E-620 and E-600 coming in this year, in 2010 come E-5 so is the last camera body to now. And E-XXX is tattoo by E-M5.

        • Luda

          What a bunch of uninformed rubbish. I don’t care about Olympus or any company since they are just plain and simple companies. It is cheap to “defend” your buddy Raist by attacking someone who you know nothing about. It is even a bit tragic since I don’t own any Olympus 4/3 equipment. My attitude towards Raist as nothing to do with brands of equipment but with his wiseacre attitude. “We” are normal readers that have seen enough of Raist hostile attitude towards people who “dare” to question his “greatness”.
          4/3 is dead, end of story.

  • “Maybe, maybe not.”

  • “Will remain unchanged”

    Nuff said..

  • Es

    It could be that Oly is realizing that mirrorless is hardly making a dent in the USA market, and with the new Sony sensor an Olympus DSLR would be competitive with APS-C.

    • But who in their right mind would buy into olympus dslr system? Answer: no one. Only existing owners of legacy 43 lenses that need a body to mount their lenses on. But new users? Don’t think so.

      • Mr. Reeee

        They do their 4/3 customers a great disservice with these nondescript proclamations of 4/3 system “support”. I’d be pretty pissed off had I invested time and money in 4/3s only to have it slowly abandoned.

        • Anonymous

          “slowly abandoned”

          Oh NO, they Abandoned it a long time ago.. They just didn’t TELL anybody.

          • No this so Olympus mean is after 100 year ia everything forget, if we not look on no lens is forever maybe.

    • snap

  • Es

    That said, if they make an E-7 the same as an E-5 with new innards (that is to say, almost the same size as full frame cameras are these days) I think that’ll be game over. We might see that camera but certainly not the next one.

    • Anonymous

      yeah.. GAME OVER for Olympus. That would just make Sony’s day to swoop in and take over if they did that. Look, FT is DEAD. it’s Dead and stinking…

  • If there will be a E7, they have to take a lens behind the mount witch fills a larger sensor. So we have the same, superb quality and the FF guys are satisfied ;)

  • I applaud Admin’s efforts in the face of Olympus’ v. poor communications skills.

    If you go to one of 4/3 surviving forums, you’ll find a poor sod who has invested 14,000 $ in 4/3 equipment. So what must he do – sell at half price, and buy Nikon?

    The extreme uncertainty and obscurity of Oly’s briefings are making Oly 4/3 owners mental wrecks.
    As a result if you only mention m4/3 informants will make mods delete the thread and ban you.

    Personally I tend to think with others that a system that doesn’t grow anymore is a dead system, but beware. Oly’s DoubleTalk is what allows them to deny that they wasted a terrific amount of money anyway.

    This however throws a shadow over m4/3 too. How much is it worth investing in lenses, if the system doesn’t make a profit?

    • The Japanese business culture seems to be extremely conservative. Executives of all levels refuse to admit failure and consequently vast resources are wasted on long-losing concepts. I am bewildered by the sheer number of compact camera announcements made each year while it is clear most of them are never going to make any profit. The situation of the 4/3 system is different because it can be kept “alive” with minimal input. I’m guessing Olympus is stuck with a large inventory of 4/3 lenses and can’t declare the system dead until they can be properly used on a different mount (i.e. m4/3). Developing a solution for this issue must have been a top priority and now, only months before it is released in the market, would be a very bad timing to publicly abandon 4/3. Yesterday’s news may indicate something is moving under the surface. Someone at Olympus might have said something prematurely with the wrong ears lurking in the vicinity. Anyway, I’m guessing that the 4/3 system will be officially dead before the end of the year.

      • This seems to be a new definition of the word “conservative”: refuse to admit failure and consequently vast resources are wasted. I believe you mean “stubbornly unrealistic.” ;~)

        As for the number of cameras being designed and sold, I actually don’t have a huge problem with that. Olympus would be a very small business if they only made m4/3 gear. So small that they couldn’t afford a dealer network, nor use marketing techniques to hook people on low end gear and move them up. But that’s been one of Olympus’ problems: there is no continuity of product from low to high. The low stuff is now all lowest common denominator, the high stuff hasn’t been updated in forever.

        Look at Apple. Consider the smallest iPod and how that ranges up to the iPod Touch, which is really an iPhone without the phone. And how the iPad Mini picks up again above that. The whole line has some continuity and “feed upwards” to it, right through to the Macs.

        The real issue isn’t that the Japanese executives are conservative, uh, excuse me, stubbornly unrealistic, it’s that they simply are iterating an old formula that doesn’t work. Can I imagine a camera maker that has a well considered product line from bottom to top? Sure. Is there one? No.

        • ThomHoegan

          You really are opinionated, and talk a lot of rubbish. I can do with the latter but the former stinks of w4nker…

          • So basically your stance is that people shouldn’t have opinions? My, how progressive of you.

    • minnow

      Its not like their existing kit will vaporise if Olympus discontinues FT, they can continue using what they have now for many years to come.

      I think the main thing Olympus needs to do is provide for use (not crippled in any way) of FT glass on a future MFT Pro body.

      • u7io7o

        The problem with that plan is that even when new the E-5 sensor was behind the times compared to other systems and it is now very far behind

    • I’m glad that I didn’t buyed expensive 4/3 lenses, if I had, I would be very angry about Olympus…

  • Rchard

    I have used my EM-5 for eight months now and I hardly use my E-3. The only thing I miss, is the 4/3 lenses. So if Olympus makes a mirrorless with EVF that can handle my 4/3 lenses I would be happy. I learnt to like the EVF more and more, so I don’t need an OVF.

    • DC

      Same here. I’ve moved from 4/3 to NEX, but still missed the 4/3 lenses. If there is an m4/3 system with good PDAF, I would get one for those lenses.

  • Another joke from Olympus… ;-)

  • Camaman

    smoke and mirrors…

  • Common Sense

    Yaaa they have a lot of DSLR lenses in stock and they cannot sell them. So they try to mislead users and they pretend to refresh DSLR line.
    Only naive would believe in that. Oly DSLR are dead. They only try to make fools to buy remaining lenses.

  • leo1975

    I would love a both 4/3 AND m4/3 camera. I’ve got too many 4/3 lenses to consider to switch to a different system (Nikon/Snoy/Canon/Pentax) and I love what I see coming for m4/3. But the camera needs to be bigger than the current m4/3 models, my hands don’t magically shrink! ;)

    • minnow

      “But the camera needs to be bigger than the current m4/3 models”

      The OMD with the full battery grip is great to hold, I don’t see why you would want anything larger than that, unless you have monster hands ;)

      • 43t34t

        The EM5 is an ergonomic nightmare for anyone with hands larger than a child

      • Jw

        Try strapping the 150mm F 2.0 onto the EM 5 with grip, and you will see why people are asking for a larger camera. I can create a workaround more easily for the slow autofocus then I can for the less than stellar handling.

      • John verde 1976

        the GH3 is better sized

    • Stu5

      leo1975 did you hands magically grow then when DSLR cameras came out or did you not use SLRs?

      • leo1975

        @stu5 No, my hands haven’t grown suddenly :D

        I Started out with an OM-2000, went to an E-400. Those are about the same size, no complains up till then. But then I bought an E-5 and I was very pleasantly surprised by the much better handling of it. I don’t want to go back to a smaller camera and – for me – thus worse ergonomics.
        Even with an extra grip the E-M5 feels too small. And I don’t have the funds to change systems, so yeah, I’ll be using my E-5 for now (it still meets my needs most of the time).

        • MAFAv8r

          Having sold my E5, and having larger hands than average, I do not find my wife’s EM5 too small, but I do find it hard to find the info button without taking my eye off the viewfinder. The rear dial is a little too small and close to my eye, and the power lever is a little too recessed to find in the dark easily. But besides that I have no real problems. In the successor I would like lighted buttons like the E-620 and maybe 10% larger, no more than that.
          The advantages of the weight and size reduction far outweigh the disadvantages of the weight and size reduction.

  • wt21

    Another day, another rumor site mis-translation and/or vendor denial. I don’t even pay attention to those “country X manager for vendor Y run through Google translator” posts. Who could ever take those seriously??

  • Yun

    The only valuable thing in FT system are all the decent SHG lenses . FT DSLR not longer relevant & hard to see them back to compete against Nikon & Canon if no real breakthrough in sensor technology .
    As we already have 1 great system , mFT so why not commit to something that is much promising ?
    All Olympus need to do is to develop
    a Pro / Super mFT / Highend camera , this definitely change the method of the game .
    I believe this is what Pana is currently working on .

  • “No matter what Olympus says.”

    That basically sums it up. “Damage control” is the word for it.

    “It is also rumored that there will be a camera with a 100% lens support for Four Thirds lenses.”

    We have this rumors – and occasional mentions by Oly reps – now for third year in a row. It is apparent that Oly is working on it, but performance is nowhere near the level of the E-x/E-xx. and they are not aware when it would be ready for the market.

  • Mr. Reeee

    4/3s is dead. Why does Olympus try to deceive everyone… especially themselves… by trying to deny it.

    Why would anyone buy into 4/3 when an E5 is bigger than a Nikon D600!

    That’s not to mention the vast array of Nikon lenses available vs. the few native 4/3 lenses available.

    • Pupkind

      “Why would anyone buy into 4/3 when an E5 is bigger than a Nikon D600!”

      1) It’s damn good that it is not less than a Nikon D600. :) Form factor depends on hand sise not sensor size.
      2) Compare size with lenses and feel the difference. For example, Leica D 14-150 is very small (and at the same time better than huge Canon 28-300 white tube).

      • Don’t disagree with the form factor comment. But, this was the reason why I wrote that Olympus was bringing a knife to a gun fight way back when 4/3 was introduced: if the form factor ends up being the same size, then everything boils back to two issues: price and performance. 4/3 should have a huge price advantage over full frame, but it also has a two-stop performance penalty, all else equal. For the folk that really appreciate what the large form factor does for them in shooting, they are more performance-oriented than price-oriented.

        • Esa Tuunanen

          > but it also has a two-stop performance penalty, all else equal.
          Nope, all else equal every format has same light gathering capability.
          Bigger format gathers more light only when allowing shallower DOF.

          • I’ll stick with what I wrote, and I’ve written about the differences ad infinitum elsewhere.

            An E-M5 maxes out at about 25k e-, a D4 at 115k e-. About a two-stop difference in signal-to-noise, especially given that they have the same quantum efficiency. I shoot in situations where I hit saturation all the time, so there’s a tangible difference, all else equal.

    • The E-5 has some advantages over the D600: better JPEGs and especially better skin tones (could be important for wedding photographers et al.), better sealing/durability and sharper, smaller zoom lenses. In fact the E-5 is quite a decent camera per se.

      • Johnnie Hanson

        JPEG is easily tweaked in camera for any system ,though the D600 seems fine at default.The zooms needed to compete with the sensor advantage of FF are anything but small and they cost even more here in the EU.The build quality thing is nonsense the D600 is weather sealed and well built .these type of claims are just a salve FT users come up with to console themselves. In the are that matters image quality the D600 is a mile ahead of the E5 .The E5 sensor can hardly compete with the RX100
        let alone FF

    • ZOID

      Not to say that Olympus can’t be trusted to be honorable, but selling the old stock of 4/3 lenses might be a good reason not to spill the beans just yet. Actually, I have to say that I really and truly do not trust Olympus, after watching their tactics, over the past several years.

      • Pupkind

        As we used to say here is Russia, “even Olympus hates you because you use Olympus”. Yeah, I really love my 4/3 system but at the same time I surely wouldn’t put a finger into their mouth. That’s why I use lenses with CDAF support only (to be sure that I will be able so sell them).

        • So you think Olympus do Russian roulette. :-P

    • yeah, so what about this then?

      • bandwagons

        Does that change the size of the D600 compared to the E-5 ,times move on for all systems well mostly all systems.My FT lenses are now wrapped in bubble pack waiting on an mFT body with proper C-AF and a better EVF.The future for every system is mirrorless eventually there are no doubt a couple of major issues for us who want a future for our FT lenses.

      • Mr. Reeee

        So? Full frame vs. APSC? So? The D300 is still about the same size as the E5 and the D600.


        If nothing else, this may bode well for larger sensors in smaller bodies… SONY?!! Do you hear us?

    • Well i think is better and use E-5 so D600 on my FT lens :-P

  • Matt

    As long as they understand themselves .. there’s at least one who understands Olympus. It’s getting peinlich ..

  • An interesting breakdown of Olympus’ quarterly results:


    The E-M5 and E-PL5 are mentioned for good results.

    Since general camera demand is declining, that could explain the lengthening of product cycles.

    It would be interesting to know if there are any inventories of 4/3 lenses left, or if Oly’s statement is only continuing damage control.

    The company is still making operating profits, but also losses. Less personnel and expenses, so it will further slim down.

    Demand for Canon and Nikon is also slacking down, so I wonder if the only winners are iphone makers.

    Cameras might become luxury items in the long run?

    • Esa Tuunanen

      > Demand for Canon and Nikon is also slacking down, so I wonder if the only winners are iphone makers.
      If Canon and Nikon think (like they seem to be doing) that they can kick up consumers masses to 35mm retro format smartphone makers will surely win.

      • You’re missing a point. The reason why Canon and Nikon are pushing full frame is to move their average selling price upwards. It’s one of the key metrics that investors look at, especially in a declining market. As long as they keep their volume relatively stable, if they move some of it upward to a more expensive platform, it’s a big win for them.

        At this point you have two groups of companies:

        1. Canon/Nikon: their goal is to hold onto the #1/#2 market share and survive the declining market, just as they did with film in the 90’s. They then hope to resurrect camera sales growth with the Next Big Disruption, whatever that may be.
        2. Fujifilm/Olympus/Panasonic/RicohPentax/Samsung/Sony: their goal is to figure some way to get from a money losing business to a money making business in a declining market. No one has yet shown they have a handle on that. Note that Fujifilm, Olympus, and Sony all seem to be saying that they’ll just invest in the higher priced models (X for Fujifilm, m4/3 for Olympus, NEX/SLT/RX for Sony).

        Everyone is doing the same thing: seeing the market unit sales decline so they decide to head upstream in pricing. If you’re going to sell fewer product, which would you rather sell, the thing you get US$99 for or the thing you get US$400 for?

        This is little different than what happened after film camera sales, especially SLRs, peaked last century.

  • blastingmills

    I’d be more than satisfied with a m4/3 body that can fully auto focus 4/3 lenses. I don’t care if the camera has a mirror or not.

    My only concern is that I can continue using my 150 f/2 SHG Zuiko lens. Without a body to control that lens, I’m dead in the water.

    In fact, I’d rather prefer a m4/3 body capable of continuous auto focus with the 4/3 lenses, as this would allow more options by being able to use m4/3 lenses too.

  • Beautemps

    Olympus for must have warehouses with thousands of lenses (FT2).
    Nearly dead capital manifasted in hardware for years now. To sell that allready depreciated stuff will be the turning point for imaging divisions profitability! Thats why a OMD-Pro with phase detection on sensor will surely come.

  • Cam Era

    I’d buy 4/3rd gear. After being impressed by how Olympus handles their M43 bodies, the E-5 has me really interested now.

  • Anonymous

    Of course Olympus won’t flat out say that they’re ditching FT’s.. They made a Huge investment in it, and failed. They’re not big enough like a say, Sony that drops products and act like they never even made it…

    • I don’t see why? What loss of face after providing a crutch to 4/3 like the E-5? The real problem must be inventories.

      There is an ongoing misunderstanding about buying lenses in the digital world, compared to film days. No lens is forever. The AF tech changes, and where does your investment go?

      In a way a system with a short distance to flange allows to make more secure investments. Because you can easily adapt legacy lenses. Because you can use new MF lenses, like CV, Samyang etc.

      That is also the reason why some pros are attracted to Leica. Yes it is v. expensive. but at least lenses last forever. By comparison dSLR lenses are a dangerous investment – 4/3 owners should have known.

  • If Olympus releases a FT to m4/3 adapter with phase-detection auto-focus, would that be considered DSLR development?

    • Not if you think on an patent like STL adapter to Sony.

  • Tommy

    I bet Oly will launch a new ‘Sony Sensor Inside’ 43s body – or anything backwards compatible with existing 43s glass. And I’m confident they’ll make all of us absurdly happy as well as bring in new users to the system (probably upgrading from m43s).

    Whoever freaks out in case they can’t find a way to spend their money on new gear, go Canon APS! Every year or so they release a minor evolutionary entry and mid-level model exactly to those who believe they’re improving they photography skills by buying the last generation gear. To prove this ridiculous ‘upgrade-mania’, can someone explain what is the major breakthrough from the 550D (April 2010) to the current 650D (August 2012) considering both use the same 18Mpx sensor? Please tell me something really meaningful and not just a touch-sensitive LCD on the back after everybody did it… Even Nikon is taking a long while before releasing the successor from the D7000 announced back in Nov 2010…

    Now check Canikon’s life cycle from their flagship models. The 5D MkIII was launched on March 2012 after almost 3 years since the MkII (Feb 2009). Nikon’s fantastic D800 was launched last June 2012 – almost 4 years after the D700 (October 2008). I know this is a rumor site – and that’s the essence of being here – but if you think a bit and check the facts, there’s no point to jump from the window yet: Oly is not doing that much different with their E-1, E-3 and E-5 (Sep 2010). The E-7, E-50 or whatever is already on the pipe for the second half. Meanwhile, let’s enjoy our wonderful gear with the amazing pictures they can deliver to us!

    I really enjoy to see people killing Oly every couple days because I’m really benefiting a lot from it. Since this panic started a couple years ago, I paid less to get more Zuiko, Sigma and Panny (Leica branded) 43s glass. Most of them are primes I got used in excellent conditions at amazing deals on eBay. And I’m loving them with my E-420, E-500, E-620, E-30 and E-5 (most used from eBay as well). And by the way things are moving, I’m absolutely confident I’ll not regret any penny from my humble investment! Do you have anything special for sale?

    Have a nice weekend!

  • Marc

    In total agreement with Tommy on this one. I bet you half the comments that I have read about this announcement are from people who have never even used a four thirds camera.

  • Flash

    Having used the E-5 I feel that the E-5 and lens are not bad, in fact they are very nice to use. The self cleaning and reliability of the shoots and camera have been very good. Would a FF Nikon be better? It depends on what the pictures are for. I really like using a D4, every type of lens and stuff are available for it, Nikon pro service is great, especially in NY. Never used or even seen a d600; but it might be the DSLR I would recommend to most people; it seems to be a lot of camera for the price and size.

    Despite loving my Om cameras, I did not jump aboard when 43 was first introduced by Olympus, Kodak and Panasonic. In fact I felt bad as it did not really use the OM lens. Later I looked at the early xxx, could of got one real cheap. but felt the viewfinder was to dim for me.

    If they release a new FT body that is like the E-5, but better, I expect I will get to use it. As the E-5 is made in small numbers it is expensive, as will be its replacement. That does not mean that Olympus will not make one, but they will only be able to sell a flew of them. I can not see it being marketed to new to Olympus 43 users. They can even make money on it, but a mass market 43 I can not see that happening.

    A 43 with out the mirror would be nice for my use, most of the time I am looking at a monitor when using the E-5 so the mirror is redundant anyways; but I expect I am in the vast minority of not needing any type of viewfinder. If the new Epson finder is really good, I am sure that is the way Olympus will go. A mirrorless camera is so much simpler to make then one with a mirror.

    If it happens to be a mFT with a special adapter, it will depend. I personally would not want to use an adapter that is like the Sony as it seems to much of Kludge. And will suggest that, as the E-5 that I use work for what they were intended for, there is not real need to upgrade them to something that would be less reliable.

    I have big hands so the smaller mFT cameras are not ideal for me to use, but I do enjoy using them with various primes for my travels. I only try to get a few real good personal shots a year so I do not need auto focus etc. as I can take my time taking a shot, sometimes I take days waiting for the right light etc. Last year I only got 5 shoots that I am really like, 2 were portraits taking with medium format and 2 were outside landscape like taken with mFT, with manual lens. I am currently in the market for a truly knock around camera, that is always with me, that has GPS, for documentation, snaps and web pics. I am considering the TG-2, not sure though.

    With Sony owning a part of Olympus a lot of pun-dents seem to think Olympus will adapt the current NEX mount, but I think that is silly, it has as many if not more problems then the mFT mount. Sensor fabs seem to be able to become bigger and cheaper now, so what might happen is a slightly larger Sensor then FF from Sony that Olympus will also use on some premium cameras, but more then likely everyone will keep their current mount for the next 3-5 years. A supper zoom like the use to have but now with a bigger sensor and a fixed zoom lens might be interesting, from a sells point anyways.

    The cheaper compacts even in the world market will be hard to make any money off of. The DSLR sells will continue to drop little by little (mostly because most photographers do not need the performance, photography seems to becoming generally less demanding. Cameras them self are mostly a fashion statement for a lot of “photographs” , I was at Grand Central Terminal recently and I think I even saw someone shoot a film camera with out any film in it. So all that is left for Olympus is to get into the high end compacts, and mirrorless mFT cameras. Olympus does actually make some of their own products and seems quite good at the manufacturing practice, especially the high end stuff. They do need to revise and simplify their product line.

    The saving grace of all Japan’s camera makers might be a devalued yen. In fact long range I do not see anything else that will make Japan Camera companies long term profitable, in selling cameras that is.

  • What I find funny is the feeling of condescendence from the few 4/3 owners, who are down to get for cheap the leftover of those who fled – like vultures.

    On the pretense of having better glass they must be happy with sensors of older generation, and no further choice in lenses, while good m4/3 glass expands by the day.

    Let them feed on their own corpses.Thjeir pleasure, their begging.

  • Marc

    I don’t agree with you on this one Amalric. Many of us still have excellent lenses and cameras like the E-1,E-3 etc, that are extremelly well built and reliable cameras that can still deliver the goods. These cameras are a pleasure to use. Sensors have improved since then but on an A3 size print you would not be able to tell the difference between what these cameras can deliver and more recent sensored cameras. I still use my four third cameras (expecially for bird shots and macro), but also use a Sony A850 and Fuji X100. Different tools for different days and needs. I would gladly welcome another four thirds camera from Olympus. I have tried micro four thirds and I just don’t need to change for a smaller system camera.

  • What I object to is the show of superiority towards m4/3. If anything it is the opposite. The World market found no use for 4/3. It preferred APS (or FF). Now it is rather the opposite, compactness and IQ are making APS obsolete.

    Oly compounded the problem by issuing some ultra expensive lenses for 4/3 therefore creating an aristocracy of money, and committing the ultimate sin of pride. Because those lenses are so heavy that they have sense for the v. small subset of moneyed birders :)

    So really I feel unable to weep on the problems of the v. wealthy. 4/3 cost the same of a FF Nikon or Canon, 14.000 $ for the full Monty.

    By comparison m4/3 costs 6000 $, and doesn’t give up IQ one bit. Guess what the market choose?


    • “What I object to is the show of superiority…”

      Says our princely ruler.

  • Marc

    You don’t need to be using the most expensive lenses made for four thirds. Many of the cheaper lenses are excellent as well, and with cheap adapters you can use M42 lenses, OM lenses etc. Even their kit lenses are excellent. Some people prefer dslr’s and Olympus already has a system developed for four thirds with excellent lenses. All they need is an updated body with a new sensor. I don’t see this as being a threat to further development of micro four thirds. Both systems can co-exist. Can Olympus afford to do this. I would seem that they can, and that they believe that they can cover both bases.

  • I used to have an E-410 and an E-620 so i remember v. well the perceptions then. As said above I took care of having CDAF enabled lenses, at a time where traditionalists smeared and ridiculed LiveView.

    So it can’t be denied that the rise of m4/3 was opposed all the time to those who could conceive cameras only like a SLR with film replaced by a sensor. If Oly had listened to them it would be out of the camera business.

    Now like years ago the last stand is made about the OVF and camera size, so that really, for *some* nothing has changed for years. And since they can’t stop mirrorless, they want it now to finance 4/3.

    At the time the presumption was even worse: the endoscope business should finance their precious dSLR come what may. No sense of economic realities or social usefulness. For them, and their bird watching, the company might have gone to the dogs – if you allow the pun.

    So why take pity? They have opposed technological change for so many years that their market share is now nil. And irrecoverable.

    So why should Oly tarnish its image with obsolete cameras? Why waste resources, when it is cutting the workforce, and development expenses?

  • Marc

    I understand your point but it is based on the assumption that dslr’s are on the verge of extinction, to be replaced by mirrorless cameras. I am not so sure. I think mirrorless cameras will be more and more popular, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the end of dslr’s. I think that there is a market for both systems.

    • I witnessed the transition from RF to Reflex when I was a kid. So I know the reason, the mirror and TTL vision were introduced only to cope with the parallax of earlier cameras. Later the metering became TTL, and so more precise.

      With digital these advantages are over, and the clumsy up and down of the mirror is exposed. The only reason why makers don’t give up is because they are stuck with obsolete mounts, and the preference for OVF. That is largely irrational, and clashes anyway with the need of not carrying suitcases of oversized equipment. Not to mention weight limitations at airports.

      So what will be left of OVF will be for static FF 135mm cameras, and studio work. This really concerns a tiny percentage of pros and affluent enthusiasts, steeped in their old ways. No concern for the majority.

      Someone even detected the pattern of changing status symbols. Today it is more fashionable to shoot with an iPad, than with a dSLR at a social event :)

      Cropped cameras, mirrorless, are exactly in the middle. They are small, they have refined controls and settings, good IQ and easy to connect. In fact when you shoot you can see exactly what you are putting online. Quite a different world from the dSLRs’ one.

      If Sony is right even FF will be mirrorless. Like Leica always was. It’s interesting to see the photographic experience going full circle after 70 yrs.

      • rrr_hhh

        It is only very recent that E-VF are able to give you what the DSLRs are offering with an optical finder. And still for action shooting the E-VF aren’t yet entirely there. I say that even if I prefer E-VF myself, but then I’m shooting mostly at immobile targets.

        I agree that cameras in the end will all going mirrorless, but ther were good reasons for keeping the mirrors untill not so recently. It isn’t only due to old habits if we have gone through the DSLRs phase.

        • When I originally got the 17/2.8 it came with an add on OVF. Although I like it I have not used it a single time in a real shot.

          In a way the EVF made me understand that you don’t really compose in a VF, but in your eye/brain first. VF after that is just a cue, but one could should shoot blind. The act of *seeing* comes even before raising the camera to one’s eye.

          Therefore those who can’t let go of the OVF, are just fetishists: those who imagine they can’t see without the crutch of an OVF.

          In static situations an EVF helps in tonal and colour composition, but in action it is just a framing device, like another.

        • bousozoku

          Whatever the technology, I just have to be able to keep up with the sports and photograph them well. If an EVF arrives that can do that (and not drain the battery significantly), all the better.

        • MAFAv8r

          I disagree, I see no reason to say that EVF’s aren’t there. I use the OM-D viewfinder and have no problems with the EVF’S. The advantages are massive, and the refresh rate of the OM-D does not negate those, even for birds on flight – except for the C-AF. THE OVF did nothing to help that, if anything the EVF is better than the OVF on the Olympus EM-5 vs E5.

  • Marc

    Only time will tell! Cheers

    • The quarter report and Hogan’s analysis point to Olympus’ slimming down, while keeping the technological advantage. As always facts are better than words, but I think they will be very careful about making only models that sell well.

      So less models, higher tier is a possibility.

  • bousozoku

    Olympus doesn’t have to do much, but to replace the image sensor and processors working behind it and the E-5 will be a much better camera body. It doesn’t need more AF points, or a larger, more versatile display. For my use, it doesn’t need video or Live View.

    We’ll see.

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.