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!

  • Recently, there has been an increased activity from spammers, which may result in you receiving unwanted private messages. We are working hard to limit this activity.

Olympus sells its imaging business

bensonga

Well-known member
I always find the comparisons between sensor sizes a bit problematic, but .. here we go :).

I like images with a lot of depth-of-field. In order to get the same DOF with my M1.3 and my Z 7, I need to close the aperture of the Z 7 lens by two stops more, which negates the 2-stop advantage of the full-frame cameras as my ISO for a given shutter speed must also increase by 2 stops.
There are often times when I also want greater DOF at moderate apertures and when I do, it is usually a mFT camera that I take along. :thumbup:

Gary
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I always find the comparisons between sensor sizes a bit problematic, but .. here we go :).

I like images with a lot of depth-of-field. In order to get the same DOF with my M1.3 and my Z 7, I need to close the aperture of the Z 7 lens by two stops more, which negates the 2-stop advantage of the full-frame cameras as my ISO for a given shutter speed must also increase by 2 stops.
Which is one of the reasons why a small MFT camera with the fantastic PL 45mm f/2.8 Macro is almost always in my bag.
 

4season

Member
Here's some of the reason for it:
Sure, if you're willing to overlook the fact that the Nikon is a f/4-6.3 lens while the Olympus is f/4 constant aperture.

The comparison starts to look very different if you compare Nikon 24-200 to Olympus f/3.5-6.3 12-200. Yes, 24-200 versus 24-400 equivalent. That longer Olympus lens is a bit lighter, about 17 mm shorter than the Zuiko Pro lens shown, and 400 USD cheaper than the Pro lens.

The world's closets are already filled with full-frame cameras and fast, high-performance lenses while much of the actual shooting gets done using mobile devices.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
...
The world's closets are already filled with full-frame cameras and fast, high-performance lenses while much of the actual shooting gets done using mobile devices.
LOL!! My iPhone 11 Pro camera is a superb performer for sure.

That said, it's never going to replace the Hasselblad 907x, but it puts up a good fight against my Leica M and CL digital ... as long as I have good light and a smartphone support to work with. :D

G
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Sure, if you're willing to overlook the fact that the Nikon is a f/4-6.3 lens while the Olympus is f/4 constant aperture.

The comparison starts to look very different if you compare Nikon 24-200 to Olympus f/3.5-6.3 12-200. Yes, 24-200 versus 24-400 equivalent. That longer Olympus lens is a bit lighter, about 17 mm shorter than the Zuiko Pro lens shown, and 400 USD cheaper than the Pro lens.

The world's closets are already filled with full-frame cameras and fast, high-performance lenses while much of the actual shooting gets done using mobile devices.
1. Yes, I overlooked that. I also overlooked the fact that the smaller 4/3 sensor needs 2 stops more light to perform as well as the fullk frame sensor. Those who worship equivalence would claim that the Zuiko lens is a 24-200mm f/8 equivalent, and they are partly right.

2. I have only found one serious review of the Nikkor 24-400mm, but that review clearly demonstrates that the lens is more or less as sharp as the Zuiko 12-200mm at all focal lengths. The Zuiko 12-200mm doesn't even come close, and again, "equivalists" would claim that it's a 24-400mm f/7-12.6 equivalent.

This is the exact problem that I struggle with when using my Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6. Already wide open, there's a bit too much DOF for some situations, particularly when the distance to the subject is a bit long. That's made even worse by the fact that it isn't really sharp until f/8 and by the fact that I'm more loimited with regards to using high ISO with MFT. It's a fine lens, and very useful, particularly considering that it's a quarter of the weight of the Nikkor 200-500mm I used back in the day. However, Nikon appears to be making great progress, offering camera bodies and lenses more or less as compact as the MFT equivalents and at similar prices. That makes the case for using a camera with a smaller sensor a bit more complicated than it used to be.

There are still cases where MFT rules superior, but with the camera/lens combos mentioned above, it's in reality the full fram alternative that under most circumstances will offer the best image quality at the best price. Things may look different when taking photos during a snow storm or other extreme conditions, but that is not the circumstances under which most people go out to take photos.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I liked/like my FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds cameras and lenses an awful lot. To this day, there are circumstances when my ancient E-1 still makes better pictures than anything else I've had or have. The E-M1 image qualities are technically slightly better when it comes to detail resolution and image gradation via its higher pixel count and very light to no AA filter, but I think the heavy antialiasing filter on the small, 5Mpixel CCD sensor in the E-1 body creates nuanced influences on photos that is not easily recreated in other cameras.

BUT, along the way I acquired a good bunch of Leica R lenses relatively inexpensively and found that the APS-C format with 24 Mpixel (like the Leica CL) proves a better compromise, for me, when it comes to small format digital cameras because of that investment. It provides the right balance of pixel count and image qualities with lens whose rendering I like the most. Aside from the Leica M, most of the FF cameras are too darn bulky for what I want in this class of camera or require much bulkier lenses, and the Leica M 240 or M10 is too limited due to its primary focusing/viewing system even though it can be used as an EVF camera as well. That's why I've settled on the CL and a modest kit of R and M lenses as my small format standard, after working my way through much too much equipment along the way.

As I said, I'll keep my E-1, maybe the E-M1 too, and use them til they don't work anymore. They've paid for themselves many times over already, and I still enjoy using both of them on the rare occasions when I get the urge. :)

G
 

Knorp

Well-known member
1. Yes, I overlooked that. I also overlooked the fact that the smaller 4/3 sensor needs 2 stops more light to perform as well as the fullk frame sensor.
Hi Jørgen, I find this hard to believe, perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying here. If you said the 4/3 sensor provides twice the DoF I'd have agreed.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Come on folks, Olympus is sold and maybe dying finally - hope not but I am not confident they will make the turnaround under their new ownership.

I have shot with almost all camera systems throughout my life - analog and digital, crop, FF and MF - AND - Olympus was always one of the most preferred brands I owned and shot, especially their m43 pro cameras and lenses. Just bought the excellent EM1.3 some 4 months ago and what a wonderful camera it is!

Having said that - I guess my second best loved camera brand was overall Nikon FF - film as well as digital. Optically superb in most cases (lens options) but also from the operability side of their cameras. This was/is also the main reason why I jumped on the Nikon mirrorless train with the Z7 and the 2.8/24-70 well before this announcement from Olympus. And very well it could be this will be my last camera brand I mainly work with.

Olympus initiated the mirrorless train and they kept improving and optimising and we see the culmination of this evolution currently in their EM1.3 and EM1.X - although I believe the EM1.X project was one of their most guaranteed way and reasons into the situation where they are in now - sold and dead. Economically and concept wise this camera was a big failure in the m43 arena - far too big and far to niche and far too small market IMHO. I shot it several times and it is an absolute great camera - but not with that sensor size and the limitations coming final with it and especially for that price!

For my taste Olympus became pretty ignorant and arrogant over the past years and while trying to innovate with some success their biggest demise was the lack of competitive sensors. And also the attitude of some of their Visionaries as well as marketing folks who (some of them) are simply a shame for any brand - do not want to mention names but anyone can guess who knows which part of the world I live in. With their attitude and arrogance they simply did not help the survival and flourishing of the Olympus brand - unfortunately. And I am really feeling sad about that because I was a loyal Olympus user for so many years throughout my whole life.

I still hope that the Olympus brand can survive reasonably well but I believe they are up for the final round over next 1-3 years and the dead. m43 might survive somehow longer but also this trend will be finalised by the ever increasing quality and possibilities of coming smartphone generations.
 

SrMphoto

Active member
1. Yes, I overlooked that. I also overlooked the fact that the smaller 4/3 sensor needs 2 stops more light to perform as well as the fullk frame sensor. Those who worship equivalence would claim that the Zuiko lens is a 24-200mm f/8 equivalent, and they are partly right.

2. I have only found one serious review of the Nikkor 24-400mm, but that review clearly demonstrates that the lens is more or less as sharp as the Zuiko 12-200mm at all focal lengths. The Zuiko 12-200mm doesn't even come close, and again, "equivalists" would claim that it's a 24-400mm f/7-12.6 equivalent.
<snip>
The comments on DPR suggest that the Nikon Z 24-200 is actually an f/8+ lens (needs to be stopped down for quality reasons). If true that would mean that you lose two stops to Olympus 12-100/4.

Can you point me to the serious review of Nikon Z 24-200? I am only aware of the one by Ricci, who is a Nikon employee, AFAIK.

It may be that the Z 24-200 is a 'miracle' lens like the 12-100/4, but I have not seen yet enough critical reviews or willingness to replace 24-70/2.8 with Z 24-200.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Hi Jørgen, I find this hard to believe, perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying here. If you said the 4/3 sensor provides twice the DoF I'd have agreed.
Under controlled tests, the Nikon Z6 sensor is more or less as noisy at ISO 6400 as the E-M1 III sensor at ISO 1600 when the Z6 image is reduced to 20MP. Too me, that doesn't matter too much, since I mostly shoot at low ISO anyway, but when marketing cameras to the general public, it matters a lot. The "full frame is better" claim does have some substance, and it's used for all it's worth. That's where Olympus have been losing, not in general photography. I can take just as good photos with an Olympus as I can with a Nikon or a Habelsad.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
The comments on DPR suggest that the Nikon Z 24-200 is actually an f/8+ lens (needs to be stopped down for quality reasons). If true that would mean that you lose two stops to Olympus 12-100/4.

Can you point me to the serious review of Nikon Z 24-200? I am only aware of the one by Ricci, who is a Nikon employee, AFAIK.

It may be that the Z 24-200 is a 'miracle' lens like the 12-100/4, but I have not seen yet enough critical reviews or willingness to replace 24-70/2.8 with Z 24-200.
Even if the Nikkor were an "f/8-lens", it would be on par with the Zuiko for all practical purposes and still cheaper. I don't know what dpr members base their comments on though, since the lens isn't available yet other than to a few, selected reviewers. They seem to agree that it's an unusually good lens.
 

SrMphoto

Active member
Even if the Nikkor were an "f/8-lens", it would be on par with the Zuiko for all practical purposes and still cheaper. I don't know what dpr members base their comments on though, since the lens isn't available yet other than to a few, selected reviewers. They seem to agree that it's an unusually good lens.
Keeping finger crossed that the Z 24-200 is on par with image quality of Zuiko 12-100. That would give the Z mount quite a boost. Sony does not have anything comparable.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Keeping finger crossed that the Z 24-200 is on par with image quality of Zuiko 12-100. That would give the Z mount quite a boost. Sony does not have anything comparable.
This is highly off topic, but the Nikkor is apparently shipping now. Reaction from a dpr poster today:

"Ordered it day 1. It showed as back ordered a day or so ago.

A few quick test shots show it's another Z stunner!!!!!!

Small, light and sharp.

I'm more than happy.

Mel"


Yeah, Nikon could use a boost. Like Olympus, they make great cameras and lenses, and there aren't many of the "historic" camera makers left. They have one more thing going for them: Most current F-mount lenses can be used for SLR, DSLR and mirrorless, full frame and APS-C going 60 years back. Again, this is not relevant for the majority of users, but it is for me. My Zuiko OM lenses work on MFT, but even with a Speed Booster, they are cropped.

Olympus has always been the "Odd Bird Out", and often technologically ahead of the pack. The problems with digital cameras are that it relies on big corporations for much of the technology and that those same corporations are also competitors with all their monies and marketing clout. Staying with a user interface that has been heavily criticised by many, also by long term Olympus users like myself, probably hasn't helped either, although Sony seems to get away with a quirky interface. I would have been an Olympus user hadn't it been for that interface, but I chose Panasonic, since the user interface is similar to that of Nikon, which I also use.
 

4season

Member
For what it's worth, the web site for Japan Industrial Partners is here: https://jipinc.com/

If JIP were only seeking to monetize trademarks and intellectual property, they surely could have chosen easier targets than Olympus Camera and Sony's VAIO division. So for now, I shall not consider the fate of Olympus's camera division a foregone conclusion.
 

SrMphoto

Active member
This is highly off topic, but the Nikkor is apparently shipping now. Reaction from a dpr poster today:

"Ordered it day 1. It showed as back ordered a day or so ago.

A few quick test shots show it's another Z stunner!!!!!!

Small, light and sharp.

I'm more than happy.

Mel"


Yeah, Nikon could use a boost. Like Olympus, they make great cameras and lenses, and there aren't many of the "historic" camera makers left. They have one more thing going for them: Most current F-mount lenses can be used for SLR, DSLR and mirrorless, full frame and APS-C going 60 years back. Again, this is not relevant for the majority of users, but it is for me. My Zuiko OM lenses work on MFT, but even with a Speed Booster, they are cropped.

Olympus has always been the "Odd Bird Out", and often technologically ahead of the pack. The problems with digital cameras are that it relies on big corporations for much of the technology and that those same corporations are also competitors with all their monies and marketing clout. Staying with a user interface that has been heavily criticised by many, also by long term Olympus users like myself, probably hasn't helped either, although Sony seems to get away with a quirky interface. I would have been an Olympus user hadn't it been for that interface, but I chose Panasonic, since the user interface is similar to that of Nikon, which I also use.
M1.3 solved the issue of UI complexity: they added MyMenu :). Frankly, to me, it is one of the major advantages of M1.3 vs M1.2. They also have, IMO, the best method to add items to the MyMenu (press VideoRec button while in any menu). Also, hand-held High-Res is really cool, especially since an m43 camera is mostly used hand-held. Only Sony beats Olympus in the complexity of menus :(.

Wishing Olympus all the best not only because the first camera I ever bought was an OM-2n. They were always very innovative.
 

raist3d

Well-known member
For what it's worth, the web site for Japan Industrial Partners is here: https://jipinc.com/

If JIP were only seeking to monetize trademarks and intellectual property, they surely could have chosen easier targets than Olympus Camera and Sony's VAIO division. So for now, I shall not consider the fate of Olympus's camera division a foregone conclusion.
That's because in part, it is the Japanese companies trying to divest themselves of another, choosing them. Read that it's a way to go around Japanese laws for employment too.

- Ricardo
 

raist3d

Well-known member
I posted this elsewhere, but I think it's an interesting exercise and decomposition of where this at least landed me. Slightly updated grammar.

M4/3 goes away, long live M4/3
------------
Not seeing how m4/3 will continue into the mid to long future. The fundamental issue is who gets new sensor tech in with their market collapsing, economies of scale gone -no one but m43 uses m43- apsc and FF have numbers.

In fact we are about to see the under $1,000 USD FF war - Canon started - Sony and Nikon heavily rumored to bring competing cameras in that space soon enough.
Panasonic will be forced to cut their loses too and focus on the L mount. They are also about to bring an entry level L mount. Before you point to the g100 note that the g100 hardly has anything new they didn’t already have parts wise.

So for us i think there’s two paths which depend on first on a couple of questions:

1 Are you really trying to do photography or are you a camera model collector / toy player?

2 Are you addicted to buying equipment?

I say this with no offense to either category - but you have to know which one you are in -or if you are addicted buying gear you may want to look hard at yourself and realize this isn’t photography and probably you may want to get out of addiction.

if you are a camera toy player you may want to keep or move since development will come to a halt. This whole “upgrade at every model” isn’t really required to do photography at all - it’s not photography - it’s something else And a luxury that those who can- can only afford.

If you are a photographer then I think the path is more straightforward forward

The two paths

1 Sell now - go somewhere else.

2 Keep and use until it breaks.

I am going to focus on the photographer...

If you are really and honestly trying to do photography - cameras from any brands are tools, not an extension of your self confidence and ego.

If you just got a shiny new em5 mark iii - nothing has changed right now that justifies not going for it as far as a tool with enough features , speed , image quality - it fulfilled your requirements as it did when it just came out and these news didn’t hit - you decided to buy it back then after all.

Given sensor tech is not improving by leaps and bounds every year, nothing should really change for you here because you already decided the current m43 sensor was enough for you- unless you have repair requirements- like you are always shooting in mud and desert or such where you already know you have had to replace/fix/clean by manufacturer your equipment - nothing has changed.

Keep using what you got until it breaks.

If you really think it’s best to divest yourself and try to get as much $$ as you can now - maybe do that - but do it because it’s a financial choice that seems to work for you- not because you look at the very equipment you just bought as not fulfilling your photography requirements.

Speaking for myself I have been both photographer and toy player, and I did become addicted to buying equipment too. I have had to slowly put the brakes on the later.

Been thinking maybe sell now and go Fuji but what exactly does that change for me photographically right now, when I’ve made the decision to go m43. And if I am lucky I get to see an epl11 with the 20mp sensor with no optical filter - that would be an ideal match for me.

- Ricardo
 

pegelli

Well-known member
I hope they will continue the brand and the legacy. I have a soft spot for them and still have and use my Olympus film camera as well as many lenses that do double duty on FF mirrorless with an adapter. Their optics are great, from the OM Zuiko's to the PEN-F lenses and now their digital line-up.

Not sure about their digital bodies, great features, small, light that's all good. Only not so sure about the small sensor, but that's probably because I am spoiled by mirrorless FF. On the other hand the small sensor also leads to smaller lenses with more reach, so from that perspective there's little to complain about.

I would really hate to see them going under.
 

Elderly

Active member
If you just got a shiny new em5 mark iii - nothing has changed right now that justifies not going for it as far as a tool with enough features , speed , image quality - it fulfilled your requirements as it did when it just came out and these news didn’t hit - you decided to buy it back then after all.


- Ricardo
But what if you were just about to buy the Mark III ?

I've had my em1 Mk II for nearly three years and hence it owes me very little.

But there are a few features on the Mk III that I fancy; the joystick, the improved My Menus and the USB charging,
and although the lack of travel opportunities for me make any immediate spend on cameras a non-starter, the seed had been sewn :banghead:.


But with this announcement ???????????????????????????????????????????
 
Top