I wonder why the camera companies are pushing for lousy video functions?
How about making the sensor a bit larger?
With the current micro lens (and other selective filtration) technologies available, the old 4/3rds white paper and the claim that this particular small sensor dimensions are essential for the best performance is not valid.
They can put a square sensor or even a circular sensor to make it bigger.
Yup, barking dogs is a good analogy.
I hope Olympus will throw the video mode in the cigarette pouch camera and not the real one with weather seals and all that. In fact, it is best if Olympus leave the video thingy to Panasonic and concentrate on making better cameras.
OK... none of these rumors are real... I know full well about rumors and reality in the tech industry... and they seldom match up even after 'proof' much more convincing than ofer in this rumor (cv any Apple site :-))
as for video... well how does taking the stream of digits that make up your live view and sending them somewhere else compromise the quality of the picture you take. Thats just digital processing power nothing else. it doesnt change the optics.
4/3 lenses are designed for that size of sensor.. You want a bigger sensor today... buy another camera and other lenses ... otherwise wait till the sensor guys work out how to make the best compromise between squeezing in more less sensitive pixels or giving us something that gives us what we want.. a great picture at teh ISO we want.
Added to which the specs do seem very logical.
Just this guy you know
Not as au fait with the olympus rumour cycle as I am with the Apple one... but with PMA coming up i suppose it could be that season.
Agree the rumours have a certain logic... but then again the good ones always do.
Just cant quite bite to the idea that Olympus would reference both their heritages (pen-f and OM) in the same time frame.
I'll pitch for a MFT XA-1 and a MFT OM-1
what ever it will be fun
Still dead on arrival, no EVF. They may reference the PEN but that's just lip service. I see no hardware which indicates the are going to do more than talk about it.
"No matter how capable it may be, any camera you have to hold out in front of you like a tourist is not cool."
not sure what you are saying... or even if you are responding to me...
but let me expand
micro XA-1 tackles the top end p and S sigma dp1, grd, lx3 market with bigger sensor and clamshell protection and pocketability. see this as fixed lens... so probably not a true MFT but using the the sensor of the mft family
micro OM-1 plays on their heritage of small well-built pro level camera with superb optics. It would have EVF and a range of small lenses.
micro pen-f may happen but i dont think it has the same cache in the wider world as the OM
yours... sipping patron
There was no size reduction (as promised by Olympus) of the 4/3rds lenses.4/3 lenses are designed for that size of sensor.. You want a bigger sensor today... buy another camera and other lenses ... otherwise wait till the sensor guys work out how to make the best compromise between squeezing in more less sensitive pixels or giving us something that gives us what we want.. a great picture at teh ISO we want.
How they perform etc are for the 4/3rds users to deal with. In case you did not catch it, this thread is about the micro 4/3rds.
It was a general comment on the DPR "report." No where was an EVF mentioned for either camera. A "3.2-inch display" just isn't going to cut it. I want to use manual focus lenses and EVF is manditory for that.
I fail to see why Olympus if it wants to follow on the PEN heritage, it can not make a micro 4/3 with the EVF on the far left side of the body with no hump.
point taken regarding processing and power... it is an issue faced by all modern digital electronics... but is something that is continually evolving at a rapid rate... unlike the world of optics which seems to have run into a barrier and indeed seems to have bounced back
absolutely agree that at the normal to wide end of the focal range 4/3rds hasn't really delivered size wise. I think at the longer end we have seen some of the promises delivered.
I am by far not an optics expert... but i do look at older OM and leica lenses and look at things like the leica 25 1.4 or the sigma 30 1.4 and wonder where it all went wrong
and with all due respect i find your closing line a little rude. Most of my comments here have been about the micro four thirds rumours... and after all micro four thirds is closely related to four/thirds in general
stand by my statement.
It has always been my understanding that 4/3 standard was designed around a fixed sensor size. I accept I may be wrong in this preconception, but until i understand otherwise your original request for a bigger sensor makes as much sense as asking that 120 film fit in your leica m6
peace and goodwill in the spirit of debate
Olympus introduces the 4/3rds (all from my memory, there could be errors):
The 4/3rds white paper emphasizes 3 things:
1. The large size of the lens mount.
2. The long camera registry.
3. Tele-centricity of the lenses for the 4/3rds.
When Kodak stopped supplying their ITO based CCD sensors for 4/3rds, the new sensor supplier (now owned by Panasonic) introduce NMOS sensors.
Live view (as opposed to the hybrid live view found in E-330) come into play.
M4/3rds debuts. Two of the 3 corner stones of the original white paper on 4/3rds become obsolete with a smaller mount and very short registry.
Panasonic have already said that the tele-centricity requirement has become less of a requirement due to new developments in micro-lenses technology.
By your own analogy, with the M4/3rds there is already 120 film in an M6!
When the sensor was shifted from CCD to NMOS, it was a compromise in terms of DR for a gain of power consumption. The active pixel site area went down. Though not as much as it would have had it been a CMOS sensor, according to the 4/3rds consortium and the neat little diagram they put up to illustrate the differences. Now, live view CMOS technology has developed to such an extent that the D3 with its huge low light capability and DR uses a CMOS sensor and not a CCD or an NMOS sensor.
Back to the rumors, curious if this source has any credibility based on past rumors. Anyone know?
Obviously, the pro model, M-1 or whatever, will have an EVF. In the market they are aiming for, no camera will sell without one, and Olympus knows that. If the rumour is true, and it has an EVF, this is the camera that I was hoping for.
As for video: some want it and some don't. Although my personal taste goes towards a bare-bones style model with only the basics (I could even do without the big LCD and the jpeg engine), I see video as a freebie that I could have fun experimenting with. With the results I've seen from the 5DII, there's apparently a lot of fun to be had
helicopter shot... the "wobble" effect is caused by the fact that the image is scanned sequentially down the sensor ("rolling shutter") rather than all at once as on a real video camera.
Exactly. I can't understand how having a feature, even one that one doesn't use, is a bad thing as long as it doesn't drive the design in directions that are negative in other ways.
I expect the G1HD to produce videos that are even better than the HD videos that my Canon TX1 produces and, if so, that's a good thing because I love the family videos that I capture with my TX1. I already like my G1 very much indeed so adding another, welcome, feature to it strikes me as all gain and zero loss.