New Olympus High End m43 Camera

[pegelli]

Some good points Peter, allthough I have a few different thoughts on some of what you say

1) M4/3, agree with most of what you say and I surely hope Olympus will survive. And it won't be difficult to dominate that segment if you're the only one left However I doubt they will be able to convince everybody of the strength as you describe them so in my mind it will remain a niche, albeit a very capable niche.

2) APS-C, agree it's good enough for 95% of the applications. Fuji probably has better lenses but for me the attraction of Sony is that you can use their lenses across APS-C and FF. It probably has to do with familiarity, but the Fuji bodies don't excite me, but obviously that's very personal. I would love to use the Fuji lenses on my Sony APS-C body, but alas the mounts are not compatible.

3) FF, now with all major brands going FF and the format being popular there's going to be such a watershed of FF mirrorless lenses sold the coming 3-5 years that I don't think the format will die soon. And if you're careful putting your system together it doesn't have to be very heavy. Also using all kinds of older manual focus lenses at their designed format is an attraction to me, but obviously that's also a small niche application.

4) MF, I think nobody needs to go, I consider it a low volume/high margin enterprise so as long as the current brands keep their customers happy enough in my opinion they all have room to stay. I even guess it's a more profitable niche than M4/3.

So in my mind I would like to paraphrase Mark Twain "The report of the death of any format or brand is an exagerration". Obviously some will die but to determine who that is at this moment is speculation and everybodies guess is as good as another.

 

[faberryman]

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.

A question: what percentage of professional sports photographers use m43? All I see are big lenses in the swarms of photographers on the sideline and end zone equivalents. What sports do amateur sports photographers shoot? Don't you have to have a press pass to get anywhere close to the action, assuming they actually let you bring a camera to the venue? And a related question: what exactly is "action photography"?

 

[ptomsu]

A question: what percentage of professional sports photographers use m43? All I see are big lenses in the swarms of photographers on the sideline and end zone equivalents. What sports do amateur sports photographers shoot? Don't you have to have a press pass to get anywhere close to the action, assuming they actually let you bring a camera to the venue? And a related question: what exactly is "action photography"?

You might be right that it could be the hardest part to enter sports photography with m43, just because this in many cases does not require small equipment that can easily be handheld - but that future Olympus high end system would definitely be well suited for that task as well.

Action photography - sports is in many cases part of action photography. But the all where you want/need quick reaction moving fast and easily with your equipment in order to photograph whatever action. And there smaller and lighter and 100% weatherproof equipment is a big advantage.

 

[iiiNelson]

A question: what percentage of professional sports photographers use m43? All I see are big lenses in the swarms of photographers on the sideline and end zone equivalents. What sports do amateur sports photographers shoot? Don't you have to have a press pass to get anywhere close to the action, assuming they actually let you bring a camera to the venue? And a related question: what exactly is "action photography"?

I’ve seen a lot more Sony bodies lately on the sidelines and in political press venues and lately I’ve even seen a few Fuji’s and a Leica M in political press venues... BUT I still mostly see Canon 1Dx/5D and Nikon Dx/Dxxx bodies.

I dont know that Micro 4/3 will ever “take over” those specific markets and with many press corps dissolving their full-time photographer departments - much of it is all independent freelance shooting now. I think there’s a market for landscape, outdoors, and backpacking that olympus can fill well. This is especially true if the video capability approached the GH5 cameras. There’s also a strong case for using any of these Mirrorless cameras for digiscoping.

 

[faberryman]

You might be right that it could be the hardest part to enter sports photography with m43, just because this in many cases does not require small equipment that can easily be handheld - but that future Olympus high end system would definitely be well suited for that task as well.

Action photography - sports is in many cases part of action photography. But the all where you want/need quick reaction moving fast and easily with your equipment in order to photograph whatever action. And there smaller and lighter and 100% weatherproof equipment is a big advantage.

Yet professionals don't, as a rule, use m43 for sports and action photography. There must be a reason to lug the bigger camera and lenses around. Sensor size and image quality?

 

[ptomsu]

Some good points Peter, allthough I have a few different thoughts on some of what you say

1) M4/3, agree with most of what you say and I surely hope Olympus will survive. And it won't be difficult to dominate that segment if you're the only one left However I doubt they will be able to convince everybody of the strength as you describe them so in my mind it will remain a niche, albeit a very capable niche.

2) APS-C, agree it's good enough for 95% of the applications. Fuji probably has better lenses but for me the attraction of Sony is that you can use their lenses across APS-C and FF. It probably has to do with familiarity, but the Fuji bodies don't excite me, but obviously that's very personal. I would love to use the Fuji lenses on my Sony APS-C body, but alas the mounts are not compatible.

3) FF, now with all major brands going FF and the format being popular there's going to be such a watershed of FF mirrorless lenses sold the coming 3-5 years that I don't think the format will die soon. And if you're careful putting your system together it doesn't have to be very heavy. Also using all kinds of older manual focus lenses at their designed format is an attraction to me, but obviously that's also a small niche application.

4) MF, I think nobody needs to go, I consider it a low volume/high margin enterprise so as long as the current brands keep their customers happy enough in my opinion they all have room to stay. I even guess it's a more profitable niche than M4/3.

So in my mind I would like to paraphrase Mark Twain "The report of the death of any format or brand is an exagerration". Obviously some will die but to determine who that is at this moment is speculation and everybodies guess is as good as another.

WRT FF my view is that Nikon as well as Canon played the ball pretty low when it comes to native lenses for mirrorless. They both try to force existing customers to stay in their systems by introducing mirrorless bodies and offer adapters to make use of their existing glass. This is great from one side, but reality is that all these solutions are not up to the quality and speed that would be available with lenses just designed for mirrorless. That will in turn force all these adapters of Nikon and Canon mirrorless to ditch their existing glass and move on to the mirrorless solution from Nikon and Canon - I call that really very customer oriented :ROTFL: And this in a time where m43 as well as Fuji (and maybe also Sony) APSC offer very capable and relatively cheap systems that solve 98% of what all photographers need.

What remains then is a relatively small FF market segment. So I think over time it will be a pretty bad wakeup call for one or two of all the suppliers of FF (mirrorless) systems. Maybe Canon has the financial muscles to overcome that but with Nikon I am not so sure!

WRT MFD - IMHO Leica S is dead (or will soon be) and so is Hasselblad - they both maybe can survive because their owners pump money into these systems but I have ny doubts the currently make enough profits, nor will they do in the future.

Remains - m43 (Olympus and maybe Panasonic) and APSC (Fuji and maybe Sony), FF )Sony for sure with either L-mount alliance and Canon or Nikon) and MFD (Fuji and P1).

 

[ptomsu]

Yet professionals don't, as a rule, use m43 for sports and action photography. There must be a reason to lug the bigger camera and lenses around. Sensor size and image quality?

There was nothing like a D5 and/or D1X2 but soon suddenly there will also be m43 Olympus EM1X with PRO lenses (zooms) ranging from 14-800mm (FF-eqivalent) that are optically superior to any FF lens (m43 principle) while at the same time lighter and faster.

One big question though is if this EM1X can top AF from D5, D1X2 and even A9 and of course another question is acceptance of sports shooters. But hey, also sports photographers need to optimise their costs and equipment - so this might work finally.

Overall there will be lot of change in that industry over the next few years - and I find that interesting and amusing and GOOD at the same time!

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Yet professionals don't, as a rule, use m43 for sports and action photography. There must be a reason to lug the bigger camera and lenses around. Sensor size and image quality?

AF and ergonomics. At least that was the case for me. The D2H was a legendary sports camera. It featured a 4 MP APS-C sensor. I still use my D2Xs for sports, whenever I feel like combining long walks, heavy lifting and photography.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

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:

I have to say that the camera in the photo isn't mine, although I have an identical one with 6 lenses from 50 to 300 mm plus the GX680 IIIs for travel. The "s" is a couple of hundred grams lighter but lacks movements.

The camera in the photo belongs to Danny Burk:

https://luminous-landscape.com/fuji-680/

 

[faberryman]

I think there’s a market for landscape, outdoors, and backpacking that olympus can fill well.

I would think landscape shooters would be more likely to go to the GFXR than m43.

 

[Knorp]

Was browsing the internet and came across this ... :grin:

 

[iiiNelson]

I would think landscape shooters would be more likely to go to the GFXR than to m43.

I don’t disagree... I certainly would prefer the GFX to the Olympus but this is were I also think high megapixel FF cameras are a nice “compromise” between being able to do pretty much everything well with minimal compromises. IQ likely will never be as good as the better MFD of the same generation and it will have tangible improvements over smaller sensors with manageable sized lenses.. hence why it’s not dead yet... especially considering you can get an A7RII (a camera that was the flagship 42 months ago) for around $1500-1800 new without trying very hard. That’s the benefit of allowing the old models to become the value priced entry models over time. Yes people lose money in the aftermarket but also people use these cameras as the test beds for IR, monochrome, or Full Spectrum photography with great success. Depending what comes of the next Sony cameras and the Lumix S I may wind up converting my A7RII into a monochrom camera since no one besides Leica and Phase One are choosing to release any OEM versions.

 

[faberryman]

Depending what comes of the next Sony cameras and the Lumix S I may wind up converting my A7RII into a monochrom camera since no one besides Leica and Phase One are choosing to release any OEM versions.

I once thought I would do that, but, after doing many BW conversions, I don't think I can give up color sliders to adjust tonality in the same manner I use filters with BW film.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I would think landscape shooters would be more likely to go to the GFXR than m43.

I agree. There's a lot of positive things to be said about Fuji medium format, but the strongest side is the superb detail rendering, which I understand is important for landscape photographers. However, there are landscape photographers who also do wildlife and vice versa, and for those, m4/3 might be a good alternative for several reasons:

- Small size and light weight.
- Lenses that are evenly sharp across the frame (much easier to obtain with a small sensor).
- A "crispness" of the files that I cannot explain. It's simply there.
- High resolution modes.

For this purpose, the G9 might be an equally good alternative to the E-M1X.

 

[Elderly]

EM1-X. I'm GUESSING (because I don't know the reality of it) that it's not going to be for ME.

It's almost certainly going to be too big, it's probably going to be too heavy,
I presume that I'll be paying a premium for a high quality capability that I don't ever use (video).

I do look forward to another incremental increase in sensor quality and I do like the fact that the function
lever is pivoted the other way from the EM1-ll. But I doubt that I will perceive its improvements as representing
'value' for ME.

Re. the more general discussions in this thread about which manufacturers and sensor sizes will prevail …..

….. In terms of the camera divisions bottom line; I wonder how their sales divide between
the professional and amateur markets?

And if it's the professional side that is the more profitable, it's not just the cameras/lenses that will appeal;
it will be the professional back-up that the photographer can obtain.
Back in the (analogue) day when I was a pro, I chose a marque that if in the event of breakdown could be fixed
instantly and anything out of the ordinary for that camera system that I needed could be hired almost anywhere.
Which camera manufacturers can still offer that, unless that's no longer a factor in today's pros' choice?

 

[ptomsu]

I agree. There's a lot of positive things to be said about Fuji medium format, but the strongest side is the superb detail rendering, which I understand is important for landscape photographers. However, there are landscape photographers who also do wildlife and vice versa, and for those, m4/3 might be a good alternative for several reasons:

- Small size and light weight.
- Lenses that are evenly sharp across the frame (much easier to obtain with a small sensor).
- A "crispness" of the files that I cannot explain. It's simply there.
- High resolution modes.

For this purpose, the G9 might be an equally good alternative to the E-M1X.

As long as you are willing to work from tripod the G9 might be equally good for high res landscape shots, but The EM1X should bring handheld high res with 1/60th second. This also kind of freezes motion in the image more than the G9 can - so the EM1X will be definitely superior.

Also it should come with the first 20MP BSI m43 sensor, that should bring some other advantages WRT high ISO and DR.

 

[biglouis]

At present I have no interest in going FF. I thought I did and indeed for many years as a Leica DRF shooter I dreamed of leaving the crop factor that artificially altered my lenses behind for a FF solution.

But is strange how over time it has become irrelevant to me. When I did finally go FF with both the Sony alpha bodies and then the Leica Q I found that I was less than satisfied. FF did not seem to add anything to my photography and in the case of the Sony system the lenses were large and completely unbalanced on such a small body.

In the future I would prefer not to ever have to use an optical viewfinder again, unless that is I am shooting film rather than digital.

My feeling is that firmly advocating any particular sensor standard is increasingly meaningless. Film cameras standardised on the 35mm format (and of course 120mm) because of the limitations of analogue technology.

In the digital world, it is the entire digital system around the sensor which is more important than the sensor size. Our digital world will evolve continuously in ways we cannot even anticipate which was not the case with the mechanical/chemical world of film.

m43rds has an 'ecosystem' which is ideally suited to certain purposes, in the same way I suspect the new Nikon mirrorless FF systems will eventually evolve to fill their niche, as are the Fuji and Hasselblad 'MF' mirrorless systems doing so currently. And who knows how physics will impact sensor sizes in the future (stacked and organic sensors may demand entirely different sizes and dimensions, for all we know).

Advocating for any individual system as superior misses the point, imho. Choose your digital system for the application not because of sensor size is my advice.

Just my two cents

LouisB

 

[ptomsu]

EM1-X. I'm GUESSING (because I don't know the reality of it) that it's not going to be for ME.

It's almost certainly going to be too big, it's probably going to be too heavy,
I presume that I'll be paying a premium for a high quality capability that I don't ever use (video).

I do look forward to another incremental increase in sensor quality and I do like the fact that the function
lever is pivoted the other way from the EM1-ll. But I doubt that I will perceive its improvements as representing
'value' for ME.

Similar for me, while I appreciate all the goodies of the EM1X I am not sure if I really need or want all.

The two things that I desperately am waiting for is sensor improvement through BSI and improved IQ based on that together with much more capable processing.

I also hope for an EVF with much better resolution - i hope they at lest go 3.6MP - better would be more like >4.5MP. Combined with 120 pps (Pictures per second) refresh rate at least - hey for what else use this new processing capabilities.

Improved AF could be a great feature although only if it is at least as good as in the Sony A9 and Fuji X-T3.

Not so sure about all the video stuff, I use video bit not to that extent that I would benefit from all what is reported to come - especially all features based on external monitors/storage as this is something I most definitely will NEVER use.

Would I buy one as soon as my wanted features are implemented - probably but not 100% sure. I am still missing my Fuji kit and the X-T3 looks pretty tempting and for the price of the EM1X I could almost get an X-T3 with kit zoom plus a second hand 100-400 - and then I would be almost done again - well till the X-H2 arrives But then I would be tempted to go 100% Fuji and stop playing and fooling around with Olympus and m43 forever :clap:

 

[ptomsu]

EM1X should have "Live ND Filter" - could be very useful for video :thumbup:

https://www.43rumors.com/ft5-the-olympus-e-m1x-also-has-a-live-nd-filter/

 

[pegelli]

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.

@ptomsu, I did some more research on this issue of the E-mount being too small and despite all the internet huffing and puffing on Sony's IQ problems (and there were a few real ones like "star-eater, uncompressed raw, A7r vibrations, shadow banding with strong backlight .....) I could not find anything substantial on the mount size other then the theoretical arguments that you raised as well.

I then looked at my Voigtlander 12 mm and saw it's rear element was 20 mm, so very far from being limited by the E-mount size, so for extreme wide angle the E-mount size seems sufficient. Also looking at pictures of the Samyang 14/2.8 AF for E-mount the rear elemet is less than half of the mount diameter.

Then I looked at the 35/1.2 and 40/1.2 large aperture lenses and there the rear elements are resp 26 and 23 mm, so again still much smaller than the E-mount.

So neither extreme WA or ultra bright WA are limited by the E-mount size. Theoretically it could be more difficult to design a 10 - 15 mm with f1.4 or larger but it's not even shown in real life (yet) that a larger mount would result in a better lens. Such a lens doesn't exist for any mount today, so I think I can accept a risk like that.

Obviously proving there is no problem is much harder than showing an existing problem, but currently I'm more leaning towards the story about the "too small E-mount" being a result of "people suffer most from the suffering they fear" and that it is not a real problem in practical terms.

It's obvious you tried and didn't like the Sony's and that's fine, we all understand people have different needs/likes/preferences but using the "Too small E-mount" as a reason for that seems unwarrented.