The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

New Olympus High End m43 Camera

Knorp

Well-known member
Of course, who can forget those gems, not me. I even remember the 2005 cameras like the Konica Minolta 5D and 7D and Olympus E300, for me those are unforgettable too :salute:
:OT: From 2001: my Pentax Optio 330 ... :toocool:

PENTAX OPTIO 330.jpg
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
My first digital camera was the 5 MP Canon A95 that I bought in 2004. It featured an optical viewfinder, a fully articulated LCD and used 4 AA batteries, something that I still miss, although those batteries made the camera rather heavy.

The price of the camera was around $400. Interestingly, a photo that I took with it back then, a handheld city night scene, has earned at least $200 from microstock sales so far and is still selling. 15 more years and that photo has paid for the camera :chug:

The A95 was to me then the ideal digital camera, and those key features are still important to me, which is one of the reasons for me using Panasonic cameras. Most Panasonic m4/3 models include, and have included since the beginning, a proper viewfinder and a fully articulated LCD.

 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Crikey - a thermometer and a barometer ? At that size they could have just as well put in a fridge ... :ROTFL:
Not sure what this move from Olympus is all about - maybe pissing off existing customers :banghead: :angry: :LOL:
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Well, cameras of today obviously have built in thermometer and barometer :toocool: but at least also GPS :thumbs:

https://www.43rumors.com/ft5-new-additional-e-m1x-info-has-built-in-gps-thermometer-barometer/
That's nothing. My telephone actually came with a built in camera. Coming to think of it... it didn't come with one camera. It came with three :shocked:



But seriously; apparently most GPS chips come with thermometer and barometer to help keep the altimeter reading accurate over time. It's just a question of extracting the data. If the data can be a part of EXIF as well, it can actually be useful when the camera is used for documentation.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
If we are going down memory lane then this was my first digital camera: the Panasonic Coolshot KXL-600A which I bought in the duty free shop in Singapore airport in transit on a business trip to Austrailia in 1997. I also created what I think may have been the first ever blog because each day I was in Oz I would update my website with photos from the Coolshot and a short story of what went on that day. I took the website down in about 2004 but one day I will reinstate it with my claim of being first. The Coolshot would take about 10 photographs before completly depleting the 4AAA batteries that powered it. But I just used it like a film camera, with the batteries being the consumable rather than film. I sold the camera in 2001 on eBay. I inlcude a couple of photos from the album I created on that trip in 1997 with the camera, which was capable taking 640x480 pixel 80K jpegs! (I still have all the photos stored on my computer and have successfully kept them even though since 1997 I have probably been through at least 20 different PCs and Laptops). Of course, back in 1997 640x480 was close to a standard website page width, so the camera fitted the standard of the time.





 

bensonga

Well-known member
and don't forget the 1999 2 MP Nikon Coolpix 950 :bugeyes:



This was the first camera that I used for infrared. Also had the prior 1 MP Coolpix 900.
I used the 4 megapixel Coolpix 4500 (a design which was very similar to the 950) for afocal astrophotography many years ago. Unfortunately, I didn't get very many images that met my hopes and expectations, so I switched to using a DSLR.

Gary
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
So the question then is: a E-M1X for $3,000 or a used A95 for $30?

Here are a couple of shots from the old A95 that I unfortunately gave away:

A95 @ 19.25mm and f/4.5



A95 @ 16.22mm and f/5



I should just keep my GX8 bodies, right? Spend more time taking photos and less time speculating over gear.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
I should just keep my GX8 bodies, right? Spend more time taking photos and less time speculating over gear.
Not a bad plan, unless you have 3000 $ burning in your pocket to spend on a new body (and I mean camera body :LOL:)


And since we're going down memory lane, my first digital camera from 2000, the Nikon 990:


Very capable camera for its time and it still gets sporadic use, example from oktober last year:
 
Last edited:

archiM44

Member
16mp G5 Pebble sized to 31mp Sharp? Cobblestone sized noise?:thumbup:
My Leica M8 and M9 let alone my M6 with kodachrome 200 all produced much more "noise" than my mft sensors EM1m2 and Pen F.
The number of good images over the years has never been limited by noise or grain but by myself.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Throughout many past years of photography I learned one thing - "Never say never again!"

But in the case of that EM1X I am almost sure that this is NOT the camera for me. But that does not make my EM1.2 and all my other Olympus gear bad and outdated, especially as I learned that there will also be a major FW update for the EM1.2 after the EM1X is introduced.

And there is hope that the EM1.3 will come maybe in 2020 with many of the features of that EM1X but in a smaller package.

And the new tele-zooms should also work on my existing EM1.2 - so actually life is good :clap::thumbs::clap:
 
V

Vivek

Guest
A pity that you never tried the Kodachrome 25! :p

My Leica M8 and M9 let alone my M6 with kodachrome 200 all produced much more "noise" than my mft sensors EM1m2 and Pen F.
The number of good images over the years has never been limited by noise or grain but by myself.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
You must have had reasons for that. May be it was nearly dead, for example.
No no... it was in great shape, but I had bought the Fuji S3 and didn't see the value of a small camera. The girl who got the Canon was very happy, so I suppose it was all for the best :)

One more thing that I liked with the A95 was that it was 114mm eqv. at the long end and very usable for portraits and people shots in general. I've been considering the LX100 II, but 75mm eqv. is a bit short in my book. I find the RX100 too fiddly, particularly the pop-up viewfinder.
 

archiM44

Member
A pity that you never tried the Kodachrome 25! :p
In the early 1950's I only had very very slow kodachrome as well as having to push slow B&W Black and white to 400 or 800 ASA
for getting some sport images into the MIT The Tech newspaper.
Now that I have passed 82, I am amazed every day what's now possible. Printing from Kodachrome slides with the ancient Ansco kit
compared to my Epson P800 seems a miracle.
 

drunkenspyder

Well-known member
I would be amazed, though if the new Olympus super camera can really extend the bounds of high iso limitation of 43rds sensors by anything other than a thin margin. Unless, of course, it is going to have a BSI sensor, which I am dearly hoping Panasonic or Olympus will get Sony to develop for them next.

Just my two cents

Louis
Agreed. Sensor limitation is the negative side of the MFT compromise. I shoot Phase when I can transport it, tech cam with the Phase back on occasion, Nikon FF, DSLR & mirrorless, when nimbleness and camera speed become important, and MFT [G9] and the Sony RX10IV when size and weight are paramount. I would not be shooting MFT now if a colleague on a trip to Africa last year hadn't suggested it. I had read too many criticisms of IQ, and I felt the RX10IV was already enough of such a compromise [but with huge advantages in exchange]. But I decided to try out a G9, ended up with a few lenses, and can put it all in an inconspicuous Peak Designs 20L pack with a small tripod at about 20 pounds. No airline has given me difficulty with that. And I can see that, when shooting wildlife, it will be a real boon. But if IQ is paramount, then it's no contest. So, when Oly pushes the envelope on camera body and lens size, it's just of little interest. Why carry a body and lens that is bigger than my Z7 kit just for the privilege of 20 noisy megapixels? Granted, the other lenses in the kit will remain smaller, and a backup body can be smaller, but when the 150-400 lens gets as big as some FF lenses, what's the point? Even if that lens, with an effective 800mm, is excellent, why sacrifice quality pixels? My Z7 body weighs six grams more than the G9. Native base ISO is 64, not 200. Noise is much more manageable. it's just as nimble, though it's best lenses are not. If I have to go super-light, the G9 still wins, but with a much smaller zoom, either the 100-300 or 100-400. The former represents another IQ compromise, but it's not as severe, when one only has 20 mpx to process, and it's amazingly compact and lightweight. But it's still 20 fairly noisy mpx.

A BSI sensor would go a long way to making the compromise more tolerable for a longer time. IMHO, IQ should be the MFT paramount target. YMMV.
 
Top