New Olympus High End m43 Camera

[k-hawinkler]

Full frame is for me a nice compromise between (low light) image quality and weight carrying around. M4/3 is indeed lighter (mainly the lenses for equivalent FOV) but I would hate to lose the on average 2 stops of low light noise capability and narrow DOF capability without having to resort to super large aperture lenses (which are also bigger).

How do you define "dead end"?

Yeah, I just found that there was no need to even touch that comment. I clearly have different photo needs/desires than Jorgen as it applies to lowlight and FF sensors.

Nothing against Micro 4/3 at all and u til recently it was the system I recommended most for people that wanted a balance of smaller, lighter, with great IQ. Now I recommend Fuji more often since they’ve added the f/2 primes along with the kit lenses for weight conscious people. Micro 4/3 is still lighter but there are enough improvements in the latest Fuji bodies that I think the slight increase in size is neglible for the average person. The attitude or being required to choose either or is directly against what I believe in though... it sort of explains a lot about why I have questions about the long term future of Olympus. There’s room for a person to utilize multiple systems for different types of case usage. A Micro 4/3 “outdoor kit” would be great as a travel companion where a person may not want to bring their “pro” FF or Medium Format Kit. Happy snaps and family vacation photos likely don’t require 40+ megapixels...

At some point we have to stop looking at advancements in technology as a negative. No they don’t overcome every person’s flaws or shortcomings but they do/should allow people to become more efficient and increase their keeper rates IMO... If they don’t add anything for a person than existing gear will continue to work no doubt but that’s not reason enough to be resistant to advancements.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: for mFT, APS-C, FF, MF ~44x33mm
I enjoy all 4 formats. :clap:

 

[iiiNelson]

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: for mFT, APS-C, FF, MF ~44x33mm
I enjoy all 4 formats. :clap:

Well for me it’s Micro 4/3, APS-C, FF (film and digital), and MF (6x6 film)... but I get your point and too enjoy multiple formats. I always remind myself that I have constantly increased my sensor size when possible but I agree with Pegelli that FF is likely the best all around compromise and even it is still considered a small format system.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Full frame is for me a nice compromise between (low light) image quality and weight carrying around. M4/3 is indeed lighter (mainly the lenses for equivalent FOV) but I would hate to lose the on average 2 stops of low light noise capability and narrow DOF capability without having to resort to super large aperture lenses (which are also bigger).

How do you define "dead end"?

A "dead end" is a road that doesn't lead me anywhere other than a limited number of properties. To maintain a low light advantage with full frame, I would need lenses with the same large apartures and camera/lens combinations with stabilisation as efficient as that with a smaller sensor camera. If I only carry a camera and a couple of primes, that is not a problem with a full frame camera, but I don't do that. I want to be prepared for any photo opportunity when I'm out and about. So I carry focal lengths between 16 and 600 mm eqv., including a fisheye and a macro. It's around 2 or maybe 2.5 kg. 3 with an extra body. And it pays off.

Others have other needs of course, but I'm selling photos taken in the middle of the night with my m4/3 bodies, so I'm not sure what those needs would be. Shallow DOF? Yeah, by all means, but for typical portraits, I mostly stop down even when using m4/3, and the newly acquired PL 45mm f/2.8 seems to be perfect for the purpose. Wide open. If I need shallower, I have the Samyang 50mm f/1.2 and I will probably soon buy the Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 again. I can carry a whole bunch of those little lenses without breaking my back or my wallet.

The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 in Z-mount weighs almost exactly the same as the Zuiko 25mm f/1.2 in m4/3 mount, around 410g. There goes one of your two stops already, and with m4/3, I can choose to use a PL 25/1.4 (200g) or a Panasonic 25/1.7 (125g). There are simply more size and weight options with smaller formats. It's a photographic motorway.

Luckily for me, most photographers seem convinced that their photos will look better with full frame. So I buy their used lenses for bargain prices when they upgrade

 

[faberryman]

At some point we have to stop looking at advancements in technology as a negative. No they don’t overcome every person’s flaws or shortcomings but they do/should allow people to become more efficient and increase their keeper rates IMO...

The way to increase keeper rates is to make better images, not buy cameras with better technology. We don't need technically better mediocre images.

 

[pegelli]

Others have other needs of course

That's the key point, all the rest is just equivalence talk that seems to work nicely in the middle but don't work at the extremes of the spectrum. So why don't we agree FF is a dead end for you and not for most kinds of photography as you first claimed, but that for others with different needs/desires it's a fully alive system with room to grow and develop including a choice of 5+ brands.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

At some point we have to stop looking at advancements in technology as a negative. No they don’t overcome every person’s flaws or shortcomings but they do/should allow people to become more efficient and increase their keeper rates IMO... If they don’t add anything for a person than existing gear will continue to work no doubt but that’s not reason enough to be resistant to advancements.

No, advancements in technology isn't negative. The most significant advancement is the possibility to shoot quality photos with smaller sensors, not having to haul around big lenses. Throughout the history of photography, photographers have been moving away from larger formats, from large format to medium format, then to 35mm, then to APS, then to 4/3 and now most people take photos with camera phones and tiny sensors. 35mm is the dinosaur of photography.

They are very cool of course, those 35mm cameras, and even I feel tempted. Portrait lenses that weigh more than a kilogram and approach the size of real dinosaurs look impressive for sure, and would probably make me look even cooler. But I don't see the purpose of them. Luckily, I have the GX680 when I want to impress the ladies :ROTFL:

 

[pegelli]

The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 in Z-mount weighs almost exactly the same as the Zuiko 25mm f/1.2 in m4/3 mount, around 410g. There goes one of your two stops already, and with m4/3, I can choose to use a PL 25/1.4 (200g) or a Panasonic 25/1.7 (125g). There are simply more size and weight options with smaller formats. It's a photographic motorway.

The trick for FF is not to go to the very large apertures and you can also get very small lenses.

For my system I can have the following AF lenses (and I actually have and use 4 of these 5 options)
-24/2.8 of 93 grams, is there a M4/3 12/1.4 with a similar weight?
-28/2 of 200 grams, is there a M4/3 14/1.0 with a similar weight?
-35/2.8 of 85 grams, is there a M4/3 17/1.4 with a similar weight?
-55/1.8 of 281 grams, is there a M4/3 26/1.0 with a similar weight?
-85/1.8 of 371 grams, is there a M4/3 42/1.0 with a similar weight?

It's indeed a photographic motorway, but weight wise also not always in favour of M4/3 if you're careful what to choose to put on your FF body.

 

[pegelli]

Throughout the history of photography, photographers have been moving away from larger formats

Tell that to the users of the new Fuji and Hasselblad MF systems that came out the past years. Do you consider them also dinosaurs or mammoth's

I'm not going to buy such a system even though I like the results they present here on the forum a lot.

They are very cool of course, those 35mm cameras, and even I feel tempted. Portrait lenses that weigh more than a kilogram and approach the size of real dinosaurs look impressive for sure, and would probably make me look even cooler. But I don't see the purpose of them. Luckily, I have the GX680 when I want to impress the ladies :ROTFL:

I think the equivalent M4/3 42/0.7 lens will also be more than a kilo and impress the ladies even more (if you want or need that) :ROTFL:

Only problem is that it doesn't exist.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Could we please get back ON TOPIC! Thanks.

I personally am looking forward to the Olympus E-M1X.
My mFT lenses should excel on that camera even more.
What attracted me to mFT was foremost IBIIS,
then the 300/4 Pro and 1.4x TC, and excellent quality lenses in general.
In good light this is a great tool set for me.
Although the E-M1.2 was a terrific step forward in AF for me
- no more focus hunting to speak of -
Olympus now needs another big step forward with the E-M1X
to become competitive again for my needs.

 

[pegelli]

Could we please get back ON TOPIC! Thanks.

Sorry, will do (If Jorgen stops bad-mouthing other sensor size systems, which is also off-topic)

 

[k-hawinkler]

Sorry, will do (If Jorgen stops bad-mouthing other sensor size systems, which is also off-topic)

Thanks Pieter. No problem. Understood.

I feel the relevant points in this discussion have been made and don’t need further amplification. If Jorgen wants to troll on, why don’t we let him. I think he will eventually stop if he doesn’t get rewarded with further replies. My 2 cents.

 

[ptomsu]

Could we please get back ON TOPIC! Thanks.

I personally am looking forward to the Olympus E-M1X.
My mFT lenses should excel on that camera even more.
What attracted me to mFT was foremost IBIIS,
then the 300/4 Pro and 1.4x TC, and excellent quality lenses in general.
In good light this is a great tool set for me.
Although the E-M1.2 was a terrific step forward in AF for me
- no more focus hunting to speak of -
Olympus now needs another big step forward with the E-M1X
to become competitive again for my needs.

I am pretty sure from what I have heard that the EM1X will excel in many aspects that are interesting also for you. BSI sensor should bring much better high ISO results with better DR. And one big advantage of that small sensor is that read out times can be much faster than a FF sensor - which is what you are looking for especially - right? And also IBIS is much more effective with a smaller sensor!

I also heard that there will be an new 2.0 TC coming - think about that with all the great telephoto lenses then available - 40-150, 150-400 and 300 :thumbs:

WRT FF and MFD - who thinks to need it and wants to spend that money should definitely do - I for myself abandoned MFD long time ago (with a H3D39 being my last adventure) as for the things I photograph it is almost unnecessary for me and I decided no longer to burn money. And don't forget that already the EM1.2 can do 80MP high res shots today and the EM1X will be able to do that without tripod - I would call that a serious advantage over MFD, as also DR usually improves significantly in high res mode.

FF I would still want as a second system but as long as Nikon is not up to speed in FF mirrorless (AF and native lenses) this is a no go for me. And I don't consider Sony an alternative for that, especially as they are stuck with that non-optimal E-mount.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

The trick for FF is not to go to the very large apertures and you can also get very small lenses.

For my system I can have the following AF lenses (and I actually have and use 4 of these 5 options)
-24/2.8 of 93 grams, is there a M4/3 12/1.4 with a similar weight?
-28/2 of 200 grams, is there a M4/3 14/1.0 with a similar weight?
-35/2.8 of 85 grams, is there a M4/3 17/1.4 with a similar weight?
-55/1.8 of 281 grams, is there a M4/3 26/1.0 with a similar weight?
-85/1.8 of 371 grams, is there a M4/3 42/1.0 with a similar weight?

It's indeed a photographic motorway, but weight wise also not always in favour of M4/3 if you're careful what to choose to put on your FF body.

Good work

No, there aren't equivalents of course, and I don't need them. Depending on focal length and system, full frame will still mostly have a low light advantage, but I don't miss it. When that is said, most of the f/1.7-2.0 primes between 12 and 45mm are 80-130g, and there are rather a lot of them. 12 + 17 + 25 + 42.5 mm are a total of 505 grams, and those are not the lightest alternatives (I don't see the point with 24 and 28 mm eqv., so I didn't include the 55 grams 14 mm). Throw in a 30 or 60 mm macro, and you're approaching 700 grams. Add the 75mm too and we're at just under one kg. Plus 2 GX9 bodies and 4 batteries and you're still under 2 kg. I also carry the Panasonic 100-300 mm which would increase the weight to 2.5 kg and the reach to 600 mm eqv. That's applied technology.

The result of all this is that I don't choose what equipment to bring anymore. I have one compact bag (Lowepro ProTactic BP 350 AW) where all this and a MacBook Air 11" fit. I have a slightly different setup and I carry 3 bodies, 2 x GX8 and 1 x GM5 with one lens mounted on each. I simply grab that bag and take it wherever I go.

If I'm just going for a stroll or for dinner with friends, I just bring the GM5 with the 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6, 35-100mm f/4-5.6 and 25mm f/1.7. Same system, same sensor size, total weight around 500 grams and it all fits in two cargo pockets or a small camera pouch. No other system offers anything even close to that.

 

[k-hawinkler]

I am pretty sure from what I have heard that the EM1X will excel in many aspects that are interesting also for you. BSI sensor should bring much better high ISO results with better DR. And one big advantage of that small sensor is that read out times can be much faster than a FF sensor - which is what you are looking for especially - right? And also IBIS is much more effective with a smaller sensor!

I also heard that there will be an new 2.0 TC coming - think about that with all the great telephoto lenses then available - 40-150, 150-400 and 300 :thumbs:

WRT FF and MFD - wholes thinks to need it and wants to spend that money should definitely do - I for myself abandoned MFD long time ago (with a H3D39 being my last adventure) as for the things I photograph it is almost unnecessary for me. And don't forget that already the EM1.2 can do 80MP high res shots today and the EM1X will be able to do that without tripod - I would call that a serious advantage over MFD, as also DR usually improves significantly in high res mode. FF I would still want but as long as Nikon is not up to speed in FF mirrorless (AF and native lenses) this is a no go for me. And I don't consider Sony an alternative for that, especially as they are stuck with that non-optimal E-mount.

Thanks Peter.
As soon as the E-M1X arrives at my place, my mFT gear will see a lot of use.

BTW, sensor readout time should be independent of physical sensor size.
It will depend on the number of senses, i.e. sensor elements.
But you are correct that FF sensors these days seem to have more pixels than mFT sensors. :thumbup:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Thanks Pieter. No problem. Understood.

I feel the relevant points in this discussion have been made and don’t need further amplification. If Jorgen wants to troll on, why don’t we let him. I think he will eventually stop if he doesn’t get rewarded with further replies. My 2 cents.

Ok, ok... but there's a point here:
Olympus is developing this new camera because they believe that the 4/3 sensor size and the m4/3 system is good enough to compete with more or less any camera out there under most circumstances, particularly for action, and I think they are right. If the E-M1X is approaching D5/D1X II/A9 AF performance and if it offers very high quality video with proper slow motion, it will be a hard nut to crack for the competition. Having shot sports for a decade, I know what a strain it is carrying heavy, long lenses for 10-12 hours per day, not to speak about the cost of those lenses. There are a few relatively lightweight primes for full frame available (Nikkor 300 and 500 mm PF and Canon 400 mm DO), but if Olympus adds a couple of high quality telephoto lenses to what already exists, the m4/3 kit will probably be much lighter and complete enough. When it comes to video, only Sony can compete.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Thanks Peter.
As soon as the E-M1X arrives at my place, my mFT gear will see a lot of use.

BTW, sensor readout time should be independent of physical sensor size.
It will depend on the number of senses, i.e. sensor elements.
But you are correct that FF sensors these days seem to have more pixels than mFT sensors. :thumbup:

All FF sensors normally used for sports and action offer 20-24 MP.

 

[pegelli]

and I don't need them

Another key point of difference that we can't stress enough here, so I'd rather have you answer to my suggestion in post # 225 then keep repeating what we already know for years, which is that you can get slower (equivalent) lenses/systems that weigh less. Or as they say in England, "no need to teach your granny to suck eggs". We know that and we know you like them and there is nothing wrong with that. But that doesn't mean that anybody not using them is stuck with a dead-end or dinosaur system. Be happy with your M4/3 system which has it's advantages and we can all agree to that, but that's no reason to badmouth other systems/sensor sizes.

 

[Gate]

What is an FF system, I know the 24X36 system, but the FF system has no legitimacy. Personally, I was equipped with Nikon in their 24X36 sytem with all pro lenses. I have all sold after the troubles of Nikon with their 800 and 600. I was waiting impatiently for a real replacement of the D700, D310S that I had who never came. In the meantime I bought a small Olympus EP-L1 and fell in love with the MFT. Today, I am only equipped with Olympus and Panasonic and never again will I invest a penny for a 24X36 camera. For me the 24X36 is already dead. No comparison is possible in terms of weight between pro lenses in 24X36 and M4 / 3. After there are bottlenecks but there are other things.

 

[iiiNelson]

The way to increase keeper rates is to make better images, not buy cameras with better technology. We don't need technically better mediocre images.

Yes, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One person’s mediocre is another’s masterpiece. I’ve been to many museums where I’ve thought to myself - “I don’t get why this is hanging in here... but apparently people love it.” I’ve also seen images that I didn’t feel were super bad (considering the response) but the photography community as a whole drags the images... the Royal Wedding Photos come to mind.

What is material is whether or not a person can more easily capture what they intend to do. This is what improved focusing screens in film cameras, Autofocus, better lenses, improved camera bodies, etc. have always done. Microprocessors, automation, and computing has taken it another step - and when we talk about keeper rates there’s the factor of the subject captured and the factor of performance.

Just my opinion though.

 

[iiiNelson]

Could we please get back ON TOPIC! Thanks.

I personally am looking forward to the Olympus E-M1X.
My mFT lenses should excel on that camera even more.
What attracted me to mFT was foremost IBIIS,
then the 300/4 Pro and 1.4x TC, and excellent quality lenses in general.
In good light this is a great tool set for me.
Although the E-M1.2 was a terrific step forward in AF for me
- no more focus hunting to speak of -
Olympus now needs another big step forward with the E-M1X
to become competitive again for my needs.

I hear you and agree. The EM1x will likely be great... not looking like a camera for me personally but I can respect what they’re creating.