New Olympus High End m43 Camera

[iiiNelson]

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.

The irony is that mount size wasn’t an issue for Nikon F, Leica M, etc. which have a reputation for outstanding lenses.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Look at history. In 1998, except for the 110 format and a few APS cameras, 35mm was the smallest film format in use among most photographers. In 2018, 20 years later, 35mm is the largest digital format except a handful of medium format cameras, while a huge majority of photos are taken with much smaller sensors. There's no reason to believe that this development will suddenly be reversed.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

The irony is that mount size wasn’t an issue for Nikon F, Leica M, etc. which have a reputation for outstanding lenses.

There are many ironies, like the fact that current hi-end portrait lenses for 35mm, including mirrorless, are heavier than the 180mm f/3.2 for my GX680, which is 6 x 8 cm format, an area around 5 times that of a "full frame" sensor.

 

[pegelli]

And I don't consider Sony an alternative for that, especially as they are stuck with that non-optimal E-mount.

Can you point me to one practical test or example where the "non optimal E-mount" limited the resulting Image Quality.

 

[pegelli]

There are many ironies, like the fact that current hi-end portrait lenses for 35mm, including mirrorless, are heavier than the 180mm f/3.2 for my GX680, which is 6 x 8 cm format, an area around 5 times that of a "full frame" sensor.

Apples and oranges, but just for the heck of it. What do you consider "hi-end portrait lenses for 35 mm" and how much does the "180/3.2 for my GX680" weigh, and while you're at it what brand is that lens?

 

[ptomsu]

Can you point me to one practical test or example where the "non optimal E-mount" limited the resulting Image Quality.

Cannot point you to any direct example now, but what physics and maths tell me is that a larger diameter combined with a shorter flange distance should be beneficial for IQ. It allows light rays to hit the sensor with angels close to 90 degrees and this is always preferable - sure there are examples how to overcome that - see Leica M with small mount - but there Leica needed to work with micro lenses at the edges of the sensor to correct for these deficiencies.

In general it is always better to be able to work with less corrections (SW or HW) to achieve optimal results. Sony E-mount simply does not lead here, it are Nikon Z-mount, followed by Canon R-mount and Leica L-mount. I think we will see the advantages of some of these new mounts over the time of 5-10 years, when a much larger number of native lenses become available and this will be reflected by achieving higher quality combined with potentially (hopefully) lower prices.

And BTW m43 mount is pretty close to being optimal, although it has to be only optimised for a much smaller m43 sensor and it was introduced already 10 years ago

 

[pegelli]

Cannot point you to any direct example now, but what physics and maths tell me is that a larger diameter combined with a shorter flange distance should be beneficial for IQ. It allows light rays to hit the sensor with angels close to 90 degrees and this is always preferable - sure there are examples how to overcome that - see Leica M with small mount - but there Leica needed to work with micro lenses at the edges of the sensor to correct for these deficiencies.

In general it is always better to be able to work with less corrections (SW or HW) to achieve optimal results. Sony E-mount simply does not lead here, it are Nikon Z-mount, followed by Canon R-mount and Leica L-mount. I think we will see the advantages of some of these new mounts over the time of 5-10 years, when a much larger number of native lenses become available and this will be reflected by achieving higher quality combined with potentially (hopefully) lower prices.

And BTW m43 mount is pretty close to being optimal, although it has to be only optimised for a much smaller m43 sensor and it was introduced already 10 years ago

That's what I thought Peter, on the internet frequent repetition of unproven statements increases their chance of being accepted as the truth. No problem, everybody is entitled to believe what they want but as they say "picture or it didn't happen" is more my attitude, but when the pictures come I'll look at them with high interest and accept the results, but not before.

 

[faberryman]

Sony E-mount simply does not lead here, it are Nikon Z-mount, followed by Canon R-mount and Leica L-mount. I think we will see the advantages of some of these new mounts over the time of 5-10 years, when a much larger number of native lenses become available and this will be reflected by achieving higher quality combined with potentially (hopefully) lower prices.

I guess in the interim we will just have to make do with the inferior lenses currently available. But to be honest, I have never felt lens quality was what was holding my photography back.

 

[iiiNelson]

Cannot point you to any direct example now, but what physics and maths tell me is that a larger diameter combined with a shorter flange distance should be beneficial for IQ. It allows light rays to hit the sensor with angels close to 90 degrees and this is always preferable - sure there are examples how to overcome that - see Leica M with small mount - but there Leica needed to work with micro lenses at the edges of the sensor to correct for these deficiencies.

In general it is always better to be able to work with less corrections (SW or HW) to achieve optimal results. Sony E-mount simply does not lead here, it are Nikon Z-mount, followed by Canon R-mount and Leica L-mount. I think we will see the advantages of some of these new mounts over the time of 5-10 years, when a much larger number of native lenses become available and this will be reflected by achieving higher quality combined with potentially (hopefully) lower prices.

And BTW m43 mount is pretty close to being optimal, although it has to be only optimised for a much smaller m43 sensor and it was introduced already 10 years ago

Canon released their 40 page or so white paper and Leica has said there’s a sweet spot of about 51mm where beyond that there’s the opposite effect on having a larger mount. People took that solely as a swipe at Sony... I saw it as protectionist marketing and jabs also at Canon and Nikon. Coincidentally Canon and Nikon happen to be on that spectrum of non-optimal performance (according to the L-mount Consortium) so then it all comes down to who do you believe? Five years ago many said Mirrorless will never catch up or take the place of DSLR’s and now they’re saying it’s the future...

The Leica 50/2 APO is unmatched in pure optical perfection (in 35mm) to this day but at a financial cost. M-mount is 2mm smaller than E-Mount and the same size at F-Mount. Nikon said it was impossible to make f/0.95 and f/1.2 with their old mount sizes but lenses exist in real life at those apertures.

I don’t doubt the smaller mount sizes make lenses harder to design but harder doesn’t mean impossible... and people generally don’t complain about Sony image making (or Leica M and Nikon F) for that matter. No issue if Sony isn’t for you. There are many choices to try and you should. I fully plan to try out and consider the Panasonic system to see if it provides something existing systems don’t but I fully intend to see what Sony has cooking next as well.

...but back to the topic I’m still interested in seeing how close the rumors come to reality and I look forward to the Panasonic 10-25/1.7 pricing announcement too.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Apples and oranges, but just for the heck of it. What do you consider "hi-end portrait lenses for 35 mm" and how much does the "180/3.2 for my GX680" weigh, and while you're at it what brand is that lens?

I was joking... kind of, but it's a serious joke. Here's the Fujinon 180mm F/3.2 EBC GX-D. I don't have the lens or brochure here, but it's around a kilogram:

It was made for this camera, here with another lens:

The GX680 is 2-2,500 kg depending on type and configuration. It's a beast, and so are the lenses. When this camera was launched, early nineties, a typicical high quality portrait lens, like a Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 or Contax/Zeiss 85mm f/1.4, where 5-600g, in spite of all metal construction and old technology. So 35mm format offered something medium format couldn't: smaller lenses which was traded for a reduction in image quality and resolution. Still, most people preferred the smaller format, for practical and cost reasons.

Panasonic and Olympus have been criticised for the size and weight of some of the high end lenses for m4/3. The Zuiko 45mm f/1.2 and PL 42.5mm f/1.2 (with OIS) are both just over 400g. The latest full frame 85 and 105mm offerings from Sony and Nikon are 8-900g. Sigma has gone further and can be found between 1,100 and 1,600g. The reason for the big lenses is clear: more pixels dictate higher quality lenses, which seems to mean bigger. So the 4/3 format offers something the 35mm format can't: smaller lenses which is traded for a reduction in image quality in low light, but mostly not in resolution, since most cameras are between 20 and 30 MP anyway. See where this is heading?

Yes, I can in some cases buy smaller lenses with smaller apertures for full frame cameras, but where's the advantage of the larger format then?

Ironically, the small camera bodies that most mirrorless brands now offer have a limitation: ergonomics are not ideal for certain types of photography. Panasonic understood that years ago and launched the GH3, then the GH4, GX8, GH5 and G9, all of them much larger than their sensor size should dictate, but with fantastic ergonomics and build quality.

F.FWD. to 2019 and we'll have the Olympus E-M1X. This camera seems to have so much EOS 1D/D1/2/3/4/5 DNA that Canikon should sue Olympus for copyright infringement. :wtf: It's the kind of camera that sports photographers learned to love with the Nikon F5, just a bit downsized. What it does not offer are the $12,000, 3 kg+ lenses that sports photographers hate after 30 minutes at the race circuit, the lenses that make you go home 30 minutes early, missing the last minute crash at sunset, the lenses that you don't bring to the highest peak because they're too heavy, making you miss the shot of the only living sample of the Pink Headed Eagle that happened to fly by that morning.

No, CaNiSony won't die because of this. Not this year anyway. But things will change, and they'll be forced to introduce higher grade APS format mirrorless cameras. Canon and Sony already have suitable lens mounts for that. Nikon doesn't. I wonder what they'll do. Maybe the D500 is good enough?

Sorry for the rant, but I'm surprised that so many in today's world, with an industry that has been turned upside down the last 20 years, still think that things won't change. They will.

Fuji is on the right track though. As usual

 

[pegelli]

Yes, I can in some cases buy smaller lenses with smaller apertures for full frame cameras, but where's the advantage of the larger format then?

Jorgen, you're turning things around. In one of my earlier posts I have given you a list of modest weight primes that all have no M4/3 equivalent (in weight and equivalent FOV/brightness). You might not need or want that but for me it's a key advantage. And for my particular system the added advantage is I can also use those lenses on a much smaller/lighter APS-C body and consider that a 1.5x converter for these lenses. No other system besides Leica and Sony offers that. For me that's worth more than shaving off a few 100 grams by moving to M4/3 and lose these advantages alltogether. Apparently your balance of these factors comes out differently and I have no problem with that but that's very far away from any evidence that FF is dead-end or dinosaur system.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm surprised that so many in today's world, with an industry that has been turned upside down the last 20 years, still think that things won't change. They will.

Well, what surprises me is that you, in a world that constantly changes, seem to pick one "winner" and bad-mouth the other options. For me it's great to have choices and tip the balance to whatever direction suits one best. There's no need to bolster your own choice by talking down other choices. I'm sure this new Olympus camera is great for certain applications and can on objective grounds compete with different systems, but since the ideal system doesn't exist you will have to accept there's other games in town that can do some things different/better.

 

[Vivek]

I do not take some of the posters seriously. There may be many reasons behind these long winded posts.

A simple possibility is that they want to hone their writing skills. :scry:

What is the topic again?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Well, what surprises me is that you, in a world that constantly changes, seem to pick one "winner" and bad-mouth the other options. For me it's great to have choices and tip the balance to whatever direction suits one best. There's no need to bolster your own choice by talking down other choices. I'm sure this new Olympus camera is great for certain applications and can on objective grounds compete with different systems, but since the ideal system doesn't exist you will have to accept there's other games in town that can do some things different/better.

I'm not badmouthing anything. I'm simply of the opinion that things will continue to change and that certain things will disappear, like they have in the past. 35mm has been nice for many years, but the need for it will be limited in the future. The question will be who will survive in the "full frame market". I doubt that there's room for more than two plus Leica.

Look at medium format. In reality there are just three suppliers left, and I don't think that will last. Fuji is again the safest bet. They are cheaper than the others, offer top notch lenses and have plans for a camera that will be a killer.

Things change.

 

[pegelli]

I'm not badmouthing anything.

Only if calling something a "dead-end system" or "dinosaur" is not bad mouthing. I think there is no reason to use such language for a different choice from your own.

Things change.

Nobody assumes anything else, I hope it applies to you as well

 

[Vivek]

Transitioning from a vigorous gear/brand debate to something personal, is not a good thing. :salute:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Only if calling something a "dead-end system" or "dinosaur" is not bad mouthing. I think there is no reason to use such language for a different choice from your own.
Nobody assumes anything else, I hope it applies to you as well

So we disagree on the use of words.

It's important to be aware of one thing:
The E-M1X only makes sense if Olympus can convince users of high end Canon, Nikon and Sony cameras that this camera is a better proposition for a certain type of photographer, mainly those who deal with sports, action and wildlife. If they succeed with that, they will take some of the most profitable customers, those who buy expensive cameras like the A9, D5 and 1DX II plus even more expensive lenses.

A secondary effect of that will be the PR value; they will show that top photographers are happy with a smaller sensor camera. Will it happen? We don't know that yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they grab a substantial market share. For me, it would be a choice between this and the D500. I don't see the point shooting sports with a full frame camera anymore.

 

[PeterA]

I was joking... kind of, but it's a serious joke. Here's the Fujinon 180mm F/3.2 EBC GX-D. I don't have the lens or brochure here, but it's around a kilogram:

It was made for this camera, here with another lens:

The GX680 is 2-2,500 kg depending on type and configuration. It's a beast, and so are the lenses. When this camera was launched, early nineties, a typicical high quality portrait lens, like a Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 or Contax/Zeiss 85mm f/1.4, where 5-600g, in spite of all metal construction and old technology. So 35mm format offered something medium format couldn't: smaller lenses which was traded for a reduction in image quality and resolution. Still, most people preferred the smaller format, for practical and cost reasons.

Panasonic and Olympus have been criticised for the size and weight of some of the high end lenses for m4/3. The Zuiko 45mm f/1.2 and PL 42.5mm f/1.2 (with OIS) are both just over 400g. The latest full frame 85 and 105mm offerings from Sony and Nikon are 8-900g. Sigma has gone further and can be found between 1,100 and 1,600g. The reason for the big lenses is clear: more pixels dictate higher quality lenses, which seems to mean bigger. So the 4/3 format offers something the 35mm format can't: smaller lenses which is traded for a reduction in image quality in low light, but mostly not in resolution, since most cameras are between 20 and 30 MP anyway. See where this is heading?

Yes, I can in some cases buy smaller lenses with smaller apertures for full frame cameras, but where's the advantage of the larger format then?

Ironically, the small camera bodies that most mirrorless brands now offer have a limitation: ergonomics are not ideal for certain types of photography. Panasonic understood that years ago and launched the GH3, then the GH4, GX8, GH5 and G9, all of them much larger than their sensor size should dictate, but with fantastic ergonomics and build quality.

F.FWD. to 2019 and we'll have the Olympus E-M1X. This camera seems to have so much EOS 1D/D1/2/3/4/5 DNA that Canikon should sue Olympus for copyright infringement. :wtf: It's the kind of camera that sports photographers learned to love with the Nikon F5, just a bit downsized. What it does not offer are the $12,000, 3 kg+ lenses that sports photographers hate after 30 minutes at the race circuit, the lenses that make you go home 30 minutes early, missing the last minute crash at sunset, the lenses that you don't bring to the highest peak because they're too heavy, making you miss the shot of the only living sample of the Pink Headed Eagle that happened to fly by that morning.

No, CaNiSony won't die because of this. Not this year anyway. But things will change, and they'll be forced to introduce higher grade APS format mirrorless cameras. Canon and Sony already have suitable lens mounts for that. Nikon doesn't. I wonder what they'll do. Maybe the D500 is good enough?

Sorry for the rant, but I'm surprised that so many in today's world, with an industry that has been turned upside down the last 20 years, still think that things won't change. They will.

Fuji is on the right track though. As usual

Well I for one congratulate you for putting up a strong defence of the so called MFT system and Olympus - but ( as I am sure you do too ) I agree with Peter's responses to your points regarding the death of 35mm so called 'full frame' ( a truly horrible and misleading notion that people hang their hats on in teh digital age no less).

I must say thought that anyone who continues to own such a beautiful camera as the Fuji pictuired above - has DIRESPECTED Fuji so much as to leave its gentle and loving arms - traitor!:grin:

Yep things do change - here is a list of my personal; experiences....

I thought I'd never switch out of mirror box cameras- and now I dont own any and never will again.
I thought I was done with wasting money on crappy MF dinasaur cameras - and then Fuji and Hassleblad changed the game.
I thought only Leica made excellent glass for 35mm cameras - and now I am just as happy with my Fuji X lenses on apc - they autofocus ya know -
I thought one had to spend a fortune on a Red or Arri camera - and now I know because of Sony, Fuji and Panasonic that both Red and Arrri are on borrowed time.....


I'll be very interested in this Olympus camera maetd to a super tele - I need long reach for my surf shots.

 

[pegelli]

So we disagree on the use of words.

Finally something we agree on

It's important to be aware of one thing:
The E-M1X only makes sense if Olympus can convince users of high end Canon, Nikon and Sony cameras that this camera is a better proposition for a certain type of photographer, mainly those who deal with sports, action and wildlife. If they succeed with that, they will take some of the most profitable customers, those who buy expensive cameras like the A9, D5 and 1DX II plus even more expensive lenses.

A secondary effect of that will be the PR value; they will show that top photographers are happy with a smaller sensor camera. Will it happen? We don't know that yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they grab a substantial market share. For me, it would be a choice between this and the D500. I don't see the point shooting sports with a full frame camera anymore.

So you say with certainty that FF is a dead end system with dinosaur resembling lenses while (see bolding) you don't know yet if your theory on the new Olympus will materialize. I'd say as long as we haven't seen your speculation pan out most of the common used sensor formats will have a good lease on life.

But I agree with you on Olympus, I shot OM1/2/4 for a long time and I love the brand and if I would start now from scratch their mirrorless bodies are certainly a worthy consideration, even more when the new E-M1X comes out. But for people who already have a working system that meets their need I don't think their offering gives enough general justification to jump ship from a FF or APS-C system (of any brand) so I doubt the large uptick you predict will materialize. Time will tell.

 

[ptomsu]

Lot of good and not so great discussions - but hey, this site should encourage people to say what they think and discuss their findings and thoughts.

WRT different formats - m43 versus APSC versus FF versus MFD ..... I think that

1) m43 will stay definitely as the most compact format and spread possibilities from easy to carry leisure cam up till demanding wildlife, sports and action system, with increasing better IQ over the years to come (resolution, high ISO performance, DR) and I think that Olympus has now a real chance to dominate that market segment

2) APSC - I already mentioned several times over the past years that I find this format the "new FF" of photography in the years to come, as it has kind of optimal sensor size while allowing to construct still more lightweight systems (cameras and lenses) - so kind of a sweet spot IMHO. I would argue that Fuji with their X-system is the ONLY serious player as they really concentrate on this system (besides GFX) and this meanwhile really shows in what is achievable - X-H1, X-T3 and I actually cannot wait for the X-H2 to arrive. And also their stellar lenses like the 100-400, 2/200, 2.8/16-55, 8-16 etc - you see I still am kind of a Fuji fanboy and YES I would really like to hold and shoot such a wonderful system again. And this will maybe happen if I decide not to stay in m43 .... who knows

3) FF - is BTW moving all mirrorless meanwhile - who thought about that happening 1 or 2 years ago ? But I also think there will be room for only 1 or 2 and IMHO one or even two of the 4 (SONY, CANON, NIKON, LEICA-PANASONIC) will have to go. And I also believe in the fact that fro even the most demanding applications APSC will be enough and FF - where will it be left?

4) MFD - I think that 3 (Hasselblad, P1 and Fuji) are far to much for this small market - so who will have to leave or be acquired by another? For me it looks that Fuji is the clear winner here with their GFX system and especially the combination of X and GFX system would make for a brand that could offer anything for any application. And their colour science is unparalleled anyway so that would be the main argument for me to stay in their system.

Will be interesting changes we will see over the next decade or so and really interesting to have this exact discussion repeated in 10 years from now - 2028 - who of us will be still around?

 

[iiiNelson]

Lot of good and not so great discussions - but hey, this site should encourage people to say what they think and discuss their findings and thoughts.

WRT different formats - m43 versus APSC versus FF versus MFD ..... I think that

1) m43 will stay definitely as the most compact format and spread possibilities from easy to carry leisure cam up till demanding wildlife, sports and action system, with increasing better IQ over the years to come (resolution, high ISO performance, DR) and I think that Olympus has now a real chance to dominate that market segment

2) APSC - I already mentioned several times over the past years that I find this format the "new FF" of photography in the years to come, as it has kind of optimal sensor size while allowing to construct still more lightweight systems (cameras and lenses) - so kind of a sweet spot IMHO. I would argue that Fuji with their X-system is the ONLY serious player as they really concentrate on this system (besides GFX) and this meanwhile really shows in what is achievable - X-H1, X-T3 and I actually cannot wait for the X-H2 to arrive. And also their stellar lenses like the 100-400, 2/200, 2.8/16-55, 8-16 etc - you see I still am kind of a Fuji fanboy and YES I would really like to hold and shoot such a wonderful system again. And this will maybe happen if I decide not to stay in m43 .... who knows

3) FF - is BTW moving all mirrorless meanwhile - who thought about that happening 1 or 2 years ago ? But I also think there will be room for only 1 or 2 and IMHO one or even two of the 4 (SONY, CANON, NIKON, LEICA-PANASONIC) will have to go. And I also believe in the fact that fro even the most demanding applications APSC will be enough and FF - where will it be left?

4) MFD - I think that 3 (Hasselblad, P1 and Fuji) are far to much for this small market - so who will have to leave or be acquired by another? For me it looks that Fuji is the clear winner here with their GFX system and especially the combination of X and GFX system would make for a brand that could offer anything for any application. And their colour science is unparalleled anyway so that would be the main argument for me to stay in their system.

Will be interesting changes we will see over the next decade or so and really interesting to have this exact discussion repeated in 10 years from now - 2028 - who of us will be still around?

I think the market can likely sustain at least 3 main FF players (Sony, Canon, and Nikon) and as long as Leica covers their niche Panasonic and Sigma will still be able to sustain a niche market no matter what.

In MFD... it’s interesting that you’ve already dismissed Pentax and Leica but perhaps Ricoh’s financial issues and less expensive competition will seal the fate of these offerings - who knows but I think Leica might be running thin on the S line because Fuji has nearly caught up in the amount of lenses. When Leica was first introduced - they were a value option and now they seem somewhat as “overpriced” as Phase One and Hasselblad.

Regarding Micro 4/3 and APS-C... there will be a place for both of them in the immediate future but what happens if Panasonic catches fire with the Lumix S? Do they slow down and only offer the premium G, GX, and GH models to save on development costs while extending production on older models to be the “value line?” I expect Fuji to have some more serious competition from Sony... if nothing else because Sony has stated that they will develop more APS-C focused products AND because its a “gateway drug” to be able to use a common mount as a way to get people into your system. Olympus is an interesting proposition and I don’t exactly know where they fit with where sales seem to go. What I do know is if they price themselves out of the game with their bodies (as capable as they may be) it’ll ensure they remain a niche product. I talked to the local camera store and the A9 price drop got extended through early January... if the EM1x approaches that price - what do you think people will buy in MOST cases? This isn’t even taking into consideration all of the other possibilities underneath that price point. This isn’t a knock on Olympus but just the reality of where most people are. Yes, Olympus can offer things Sony can’t in the way of lens selection BUT that’s assuming everyone is shooting photography that require relatively inexpensive long lenses.

I do wish Olympus success because I still do like Micro 4/3 and want to see it remain as a healthy option. Also I hope that Panasonic continues to pour money into it because I’ve always preferred their Micro 4/3 Cameras in the past. I’ve gone back and forth about buying a more up to date Panasonic body but that’ll likely have to wait until 2019 or later after I see what I’ll do once more is released on the Lumix S and the updated Sony stuff.