Progress and the Olympus OM-D
by Robert Falconer – See his website HERE
With the arrival of Olympus’ new OM-D camera, I thought I would take a look at the product’s importance to both the history of Olympus, and the marketplace in general. This is not a review, per se, but more of an overview of what makes the OM-D E-M5 significant, contextually. Steve’s real world review of this fascinating new camera will follow soon. You can also check out Colin Steel’s early evaluation of the camera here.
Yoshihisa Maitani and the OM System
In the fall of 1972, Olympus took the 35mm world by storm with the introduction of the first salvo in its new OM System, the groundbreaking OM-1 SLR. Designed by Yoshihisa Maitani (father of the Pen system and the company’s chief designer) and his staff, the new camera addressed three of the major drawbacks of the period’s SLR cameras, chiefly, size, weight and shutter noise / mirror vibration.
First, the OM-1 was 35% smaller than comparable cameras from Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Minolta. It was also a bit smaller than a Leica M-series camera, and offered a larger, brighter viewfinder than competitive SLRs. Moreover, it was exceptionally quiet and vibration-free, thanks to a four ball bearing shutter mechanism and a newly developed lightweight curtain drum, which cut down on noise and acted as an air damper for the shutter and mirror mechanisms.
Around this body was an entire system, designated OM, which offered a range of accessories for any photographic challenge or assignment, one nearly as extensive as Nikon’s—the most comprehensive at that time.
The camera’s attributes drew immediate praise from both working photojournalists and advanced amateurs alike. When one works with four bodies and lenses hanging around one’s neck, a smaller, lighter camera is an appealing proposition.
Still, smaller and lighter meant thinner parts, which meant a less durable machine—as any pro from the ’70s will attest. The heavy workload on the OM-1 and 1975’s semi-automatic OM-2 took a toll on the cameras, particularly the auto-diaphragm mechanism of the lenses and the rubber focusing grips, both of which were prone to wearing out and slipping off, respectively.
However, successful photography thrives as much on the art of compromise as the art of image-making, and sometimes size and weight mean the difference between getting the shot under difficult conditions, or not. Photographers were willing to sacrifice sturdiness for a size and weight reduction. And if less sturdy mechanically, Olympus’ Zuiko lens line certainly proved excellent optically, as professional photographers of the day like Patrick Lichfield, Chris Bonington and James Sugar would attest.
Consequently, the OM camera’s foothold in the professional market grew, and spawned additional cameras, including the OM-2 [which boasted automatic through-the-lens (TTL) off-the-film (OTF) metering] OM-2 SP, OM-3, OM-4 (and OM-4Ti), along with the OM-10 through OM-40 series.
It all came to an end in by the late 1980s. Photography was changing with the arrival of autofocusing SLRs, and Olympus soon abandoned the OM System in favor of evolving technology.
But Olympus’ innovation with the OM System was inspiring. Leica made the M-series rangefinders for the poets of photography; for the grab shooters who never wanted to be without a camera. Olympus offered a similar solution, but with the benefits of an SLR and the WYSIWYG viewfinder it provides.
Other manufacturers took note during the period and introduced smaller, lighter cameras of their own to compete: the Minolta XD-11, the Nikon FM and FE series, and, of course, the even smaller and lighter Pentax ME and MX cameras. Arguably, however, none had the magic of the Olympus OM SLRs.
(Re) Introducing an OM Camera for the 21st Century
And now, that magic may have returned. When Olympus used the introduction of the Micro Four Thirds system (MTF) back in 2008 to resurrect it’s lauded Pen series cameras, many enthusiasts wondered if an OM camera could be far behind. Perhaps not necessarily using a 4/3 type sensor, but given that the OM cameras were even more popular in their day than the Pens that proceeded them, the company’s seeming proclivity for nostalgia certainly left many feeling hopeful.
Last month Olympus OM fans became excited as the company rolled out teasers for an imminent digital OM camera, with the simple campaign slogan, “The Beginning of the New.” At last, the OM System would return, resurrected, like a digital phoenix rising forth from analog ashes.
Numerous glimpses and glances later, spring arrived, and so did the company’s eagerly anticipated new model, called the OM-D E-M5.
But is it a true OM camera? Read on.
Rather than depart from the MFT system that Olympus has poured tremendous R&D into, the company chose instead to embrace the format and imbue the OM-D E-M5 with as much cutting edge technology as possible, so as to create a clear differentiation between this camera (and likely other OM-Ds to follow) and its Pen lineup.
Beginning with a 4/3 (17.3mm by 13.0mm) sensor, Olympus took its tried-and-true imaging format and pumped it to the max—the camera uses a revamped 16MP version of the Live MOS system, likely the same one used in Panasonic’s DMC-G3. When coupled with Olympus’ latest TruePic VI processor, this new and supremely capable imaging sensor thus far seems to be producing files with good resolution, color and dynamic range that almost rival APS-C (though are perhaps not quite up to the level of Fuji’s new X-Pro 1 [http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/04/04/the-fuji-x-pro-1-digital-camera-review-by-steve-huff/] with its innovative X-Trans CMOS Sensor).
Moreover, Olympus’ Live MOS sensor boasts the kind of high ISO capacity that 4/3 sensors could previously only dream about, with a maximum sensitivity of 25,600—which Olympus claims is “totally useable” up to 12,800.
Beyond this, the OM-D E-M5 is exceptionally small (it apes the overall dimensions and feel of consumer OM models like the OM-10 film camera, yet is shorter, slimmer, and narrower); offers a pentaprism-housed built-in EVF viewfinder with 1.44-million dot resolution; an OLED screen on the back that articulates to ease shooting; 5-axis image stabilization (an industry first); the world’s fastest autofocus according to Olympus (as of this writing); up to 9 frames per second burst rate (the consecutive capture rate drops to 4.2 fps when shooting with continuous autofocus, however); a magnesium alloy shell; dust and splash resistance; and the promise of growing system capability.
All at a (body only) price of about $1000.00.
If that all sounds good to you, well, it apparently sounds good to many folks out there, if Olympus’ own reports are any indication. The company’s UK marketing manager, Mark Thackara, has told the press that the OM-D is already setting popularity records for them. “Pre-orders are the highest we’ve ever had,” he told TechRadar. “It’s a lot higher than the [PEN] E-P1, and even the biggest pre-order level for many years, which I think shows how people are responding to the camera.”
So is the public responding to “OM furor,” or something else?
In many ways it makes sense for Olympus to trade on the nostalgia factor. It worked for the Pen series. It worked for Fujifilm’s X100. Camera manufacturers have been going through dissolution and mergers in recent years, and with the OM System representing perhaps Olympus’ greatest achievement photographically — and in light of the company’s recent corporate/financial scandal — leveraging past glories to secure future sales is a legitimate strategy.
But nostalgia only gets you so far. The X100 succeeded brilliantly not because of its classic rangefinder styling, but arguably in spite of it. The same holds true for the OM-D E-M5. The camera’s aesthetic similarity to the original OM cameras is undeniable, but at the end of the day what really matters here is real world usability and, most importantly, image quality.
In addition to Steve’s own forthcoming review, and Colin Steel’s report , you may also want to check out photographer Robin Wong’s excellent in-depth review (filed in three parts here , here and here . The results may challenge preconceptions you might have had about the possibilities of this format.
The Olympus OM-D E-M5 is a digital tribute, then, to much of what made the original OM cameras so desirable: high performance and system capability in a small, lightweight package. Welding that ethos to the established 4/3 format actually makes perfect sense for the company, further solidifying the configuration’s foothold in the marketplace and elevating it into prosumer territory. All while introducing the OM moniker to a new generation of fans.
Will you consider the purchase of an OM-D E-M5? Let us know why or why not below…
Robert
Dear god,let me put all the arguments to bed. Olympus om-1- old and dead, film- dead and expensive, getting more expensive. Olympus om-d. Another m43 camera witha EVF made to look like a dslr…in other words, it’s also a 43 dslr without the mirrobox and EVF instead of an OVF. Jesus , you people here make it sound like the om-1 or om-d was and is the best thing to sliced bread. If you think the om-d is something really NEW then by god,the next thing Olympus is gonna do is sell you a digital pet rock and call it the om=R.
I would consider purchasing OM-D for it’s classic control and looks. I beginning to feel that Olympus is back on it’s path in creating imaging tools. this might as well be the revival of the ‘Titan of Olympus’.
Hi Robert, very nice article and it stimulated some incredibley divided and interesting responses:)
I bought and loved (and still have) the Olympus E 410. (a couple of posts on it http://phototravelasia.blogspot.com/search/label/Olympus%20E410 http://phototravelasia.blogspot.com/2011/08/whats-new-old-stuff-of-course-olympus.html) but somehow I couldn’t get into any of the other digital Olympus offerings until the OMD came along. I have been using it for nearly a week now and am growing a huge respect for it. It ticks all of the right boxes for me and, as per the E 410 post, I think at long last Olympus have got to where they need to be with the OMD, its a great camera, no question. For me it takes much of the philosophy of the OM cameras and modernises it, a great achievement.
Thanks again for your post and I had huge entertainment reading the comments,
Cheers,
Colin
Great article Robert but you forgot to link the 4th part of Robin Wong’s review on the E-M5 (the B&W street photography part) which shows some stunning IQ for a micro four thirds camera.
So I did. Well at least you can navigate to them from the other articles. Robin’s results are impressive, I must say.
I love the Pen cameras and this OM-D as well (I have a black OM-2n kitted out myself with the f/1.2 “radioactive” lens). However, I am not particularly fussy about the M4/3 format myself, simply for reasons of cropping and low light capability. So I won’t be selling my X100 anytime soon (image quality is simply amazing with the Fuji), and would probably opt for the X-Pro 1 instead.
But, as they say, horses for courses, and the OM-D’s styling, ergonomics and feature set are pretty terrific – truly recapturing the essence of the original OM cameras.
I just wish they would put them in the shops as i have two on order and got rid off all my Nikon gear to do it so i have no camera yet!!!!
It is small, discreet, has a lovely retro look about. Would love to give it a run in a wedding photography scenario. Looks a lot less intimidating than the big pro Canon or Nikon DSLRs to the average wedding guest.
The crop factor can play a HUGE role for Olympus. The weather sealed body, with very quick accurate AF is perfect for Sports and Wildlife/Bird watching photography. The extra crop gives it that extra magnification, all Olympus need to do is get the lenses for this.
I’m sure a wildlife pro or sports pro would prefer a more manageable body rather than a brick to lug around up a tree or around a football stadium- IF the smaller body is very quick, ergonomic, weather sealed and can handle some knocks and it has fast and fast focussing lenses.
It may not be for sports or birds… but I just LOVE the idea of my short, small diameter, 8.47 oz., decidedly NON-plastic-y Contax G Zeiss Sonnar 90mm at an effective 180mm f.2.8 on an E-PM1 or OM-D! Perfect. Paired with the diminutive 45mm f.1.8 Olympus for short telephoto, will I ever use my 40-150 f.3.5-4.5 4/3’s Zuiko?
The OM-D is a superb piece of kit, great image quality, ergonomic and quick, easy to use, small, solid, weather sealed, great looking (in silver especially) great eVF, superb lenses on offer, great legacy and history, an ultra cool look and it’ll give you photographs, in ‘real world terms’ (ie. iPad screen, magazines, prints etc) as good as anything else out there – what more could anyone ask for in a camera?
Having read a couple reviews now I will probably buy this camera.
Looks like it blows the Fuji, which is relatively a toy, out of the water.
This is exactly the kind of camera Leica need to make asap.
Which Fuji would that be? If you’re talking X100 or X-Pro 1, both will exceed the OM-D for IQ.
I’m off to hang up my latest roll of film outta my OM-2 😉
+10000000
To answer the original question, no, I won’t.
I know you can get sharp pictures from small sensors, but the crop factor and the difficulty in minimizing DOF have kept me away from anything smaller than APS-C. I have a Canon G11 as a “stick in a pocket” camera, but for most things, it’s still APS-C. The one thing, (and about the only thing), I like about the M9 is having a full frame sensor in a reasonably sized body.
Oh, well.
Well.. at the moment I am working on a small exhibition from the early seventies and many of the photos are shot on OM1 and OM2 etc AND many look not very good with grain, out of focus and bad exposure. As documentary they are superb but I am sure shot on Sony nex or even m43 they would be better.
This was meant as a reply to Magnus as he mention about wonderful cameras of yesteryear.
Will, I guess all cameras including the best modern digital ones would look equally bad if shot out of focus or with wrong exposure setting (granted it might be easier to shot well on a modern camera but that’s really about photograpy, not about cameras). But my point was more about those cameras being relatively small and still managing to be full frame so why can’t modern cameras be as well!? Add to that all the technological advancements and any modern camera should really be miles ahead…and still they aren’t. It surprises me and more so, it disappoints me.
It is not really fair to compare a full frame digital camera with the old SLR cameras.
Film only need a pressureplate that is thinner than the sensor and its casing. Digital cameras also have more electronic boards, usually one behind the sensor and a screen on the back. Check this dissection of a Nikon D7000 and you will understand better why it is not possible to make digital cameras as thin as the old cameras for film: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/d7000-dissection
And if one is comparing old SLRs with todays DSLRs one should also compare image quality!
Clearly film can’t compare under most conditions not only to full frame cameras but also not to APS-C sensors and will have a hard battle with M4/3. In fact even Nikon 1’s CX-format and the better, smaller compact sensors do well when compared to the typical ISO 200-400 color film that was the norm in the end of the film era.
Looking at it from the image quality perspective digital cameras are smaller than cameras for film.
And even if one is nice to film and say it is almost as good as an APS-C sensor the difference is not that big.
For exemple Nikon’s last consumer camera for film, F75 has the measures 131x92x65 mm and weight 380 gram without battery and film. A D3100 measure 124x96x75 mm and 455 gram with no battery and card. Give or take a few mm the D3100 is 1 cm thicker and 65 gram more heavy because of sensor and display. Not such a big deal I think.
I do however understand and share your wish for a smallar full frame camera, something like the size of D7000 is realistic to expect, as there are a lot of older lenses that could be used on such a camera. And maybe both Nikon and Canon will present that cheaper full frame camera – next year!
Bollocks, utter bollocks!
Poppycock, I say, as I look at my latest roll of the new Portra 400, shot on a medium format Rollei from the 1950s 🙂
Big opinion, stupendous ignorance. I’m going to bite my tongue; but just this — (May 7, 2010) Contax G2 shoot by Steve Huff: “…a great system that will give you better than digital results.” NO qualifications or exceptions cited.
I don’t disagree with you if we talk size regarding big (d)SLR’s, my F5 is f-ing enormous. We can of course argue regarding image quality when we compare, say a D3 and my F5. I would say it’s a bit like comparing CD with vinyl. Both are good but in different areas and on different things. However, let’s compare my Olympus Trip 35 or better yet, my old Zeiss Ikon from 1947 and the Fuji X10 I also like. All of them are the same size but there’s definitely no discussion about the best IQ there.
I guess that’s why everybody are so into Leica M9, you get FF in a reasonable small body!
Just curious, Magnus, what things do you imagine CD playback does better than vinyl, played on a high quality turntable system? Before you say it, please know that most of the debatably “objectionable” noise you may have heard with vinyl playback comes from time smeared energy storage (resonances) and the resulting overloads in sub-standard record playback chains — the only kind of vinyl reproduction most people know. It’s amusing to take the same “scratchy” record with the “pops” and try it on one of the notably “blacker” sounding high end turntable systems: you’d probably think I switched records on you!
It looks like this camera is going to be a big hit. I wonder what quality screen Olympus used. I seem to be one of few people that isn’t a really big fan of OLED screens.
So far, with the (AM)OLED screens I’ve seen, the color is a bit off, having a blue or green cast. The lifespan is also less than LCD and it breaks down when exposed to UV. Makes me wonder if the EM-5 will last as long as one of the orginal OM models.
I totally agree. I did a test using a 50mm Summicron on my Leica m9, Ricoh GXR and Panasonic G1. I printed the files on A2 sized paper just for the hell of it and I was shocked. The print from the Leica file definitely showed the most tonality. The APS-C file printed almost as well. The shocker for me though was the G1. Considering it was blown up so much more than the full frame camera file it was equally as sharp. I sold the Ricoh and only use the Leica and the G1.
To answer the original question: yes, I’ve ordered one, but my purchase has nothing to do with “retro” appearance, or yearning for a new OM. (Although I did own OM-2ns when they were new. Still do.)
I’ve been waiting for an m4/3 camera from Olympus with a built-in viewfinder, and this is it. The other features are just gravy.
For me, a viewfinder is a necessity. I bought all 3 of the Panasonic G series cameras; liked the EVF, loved the ergonomics and handling, hated the color rendition. Bought an Olympus E-PL2, and an E-P2 (very cheap as a refurb). Loved the images they made, never got comfortable with the point-and-shoot-like layout and tiny buttons.
The Panasonics are all gone, will probably unload the E-PL2 when the OMD arrives. Keep the E-P2 (with add-on EVF) as backup.
I just wish Olympus had brought out an EVF equipped competitor for the Pany G-1 two or three years ago.
Wow this is the most hate filled commentary I’ve ever read on this website.
And to boot all this, surprisingly the OM-D is one of the most pre ordered cameras on amazon and probably other retailers.
Just goes to show you the great always tend to polarize.
For those arguing the legitimacy of the OM-D being a real OM, I can counter argue by the following points:
1- the EVF can be argued to be the modern VF with its noun advantages. Along with drawbacks
2- if the original. OM was all about miniaturizing the system then m43 is justified
3- the depth of field issue can be solved with proper lenses like the 45mm and upcoming 75mm
4-the claimed mandatory FF will put the camera at least at over 2000$ and out of reach for most consumers especially considering lens prices
5- It’s assumed here that bigger sensor automatically means better IQ and the factor of lens quality is dismissed. This is a very narrow observation not backed up by professional reviewers
I think that the vast majority of those wishing for a digital FF from Olympus would not buy it. Olympus knows this and as such will not make one. They will also not make an APSc sensor camera, the 43 m43 offerings are with those now and the cost of tooling new lenses…..
As for the E-m5, I will be getting one. It seems to do everything I want and does not weigh a ton and will not make my neck and knee sore, like Oskar I have athritis. I can make it big with the HLD for my legacy lenses or I can make it small with pancakes.
If Oskar Barnack were here today he would be using the m43 or the Nikon v1, probably the M43 as there are more options (yes, even forgoing Leica). Also both cameras could use his old legacy lenses, he would not be interested in the monsters that are the mainstay of the DSLR crop
I’ve ordered one based on the feature set, not nostalgia (and a bit because of the rebate on the 4/3 adapter). Since µ4/3 was rolled out I’ve wanted IBIS, an EVF and articulated display in one camera, which meant Oly had to make it. And now they’ve done so, with the added benefits of greater dynamic range, high-ISO performance, an enhanced IS system and weatherproofing. It could have been styled after Hello Kittly or a Dyson room fan, for all I care about that.
I do like the small size and am intrigued to see how much more I can wring out of my 4/3 lenses than I can with my slrs.
I was about to upgrade from a D5000 to a D7000 but I decided to pre-order the OM-D instead. You can’t assess the IQ of a picture you never took and the D5000 sits at home far too often as it is. Smaller, lighter, about as fast and (based on dpreview) very similar practical image quality; what’s not to like?
This is a little bit of a fluff piece. Is the E-M5 a good camera? Yeah, most assuredly. Is it a breathtaking and welcome revolution of photography? Not at all. It’s a new m4/3 camera; that’s all. I’ve never seen a camera with so much pre-release hype, and at the end of the day, for Panasonic G3 image quality. The GH1 and GH2 changed the market. This merely builds on it. Not a new form factor, not a new sensor, not new image quality. It’s an E-P3 with better controls, weather sealing, and a viewfinder. All in a body almost as small as a NEX-7.
I agree. Olympus pulled a similar retro marketing stunt with the EP-1 and that camera wasn’t nearly as hot as they tried to make us believe. I am sure the E-M5 is a capable camera but not as ground breaking as Fuji’s X Pro-1 with that amazing sensor and very good lenses. For me it’s the image quality that counts in the end, even if it takes a bit of effort to deal with some minor quirks.
O.K., you’re a Fuji-guy in these Hatfield vs. McCoy debates. Point registered. Ford guys don’t buy Chevy trucks… got it. The enemy pulls “retro marketing stunt[s]” — with some implication about folks who might buy one, perhaps? — and the good guys are “ground breaking”, pulling off the “amazing” feat of dropping an anti-aliasing filter (where have we heard that one before?) and rearranging pixels points more randomly to compensate. While I appreciate the moderate, but welcome evolutionary improvement and like quality output, too, my own jaw has yet to hit the floor. I find my seat on this fence comfortable enough for now. I might start to get more antsy after some substantial body of evidence accumulates on these two JUST RELEASED cameras, with which I might make some informed judgements in a more empirical and deliberate manner.
As the less gearhead-y here have said many times (and I admit it: I like feel, performance, and rightness of certain tools), in the end it’s about the joy of the experience and the impact of other less technical or arbitrary aspects of the output that count most.
“Enemy”? Geez, these are cameras, not armies. Just chill my man. Take a hot yoga class, go for a bike ride, have a glass of wine…
I think the sensor in the OMD is also better than the sensor in the E-P3. At least from what I have seen so far.
Yeah, that’s what I said. It has G3 image quality.
Much better, it seems — like about two stops better effective higher ISO performance (See Robin Wong / Eric Kim… and Olympus themselves on that) — and, of course, four more megapixels of gain without pain. Or so it seems at this juncture…
As to “G3 image quality”, ‘agjios’… pardon me while I go have a giggle fit.
Man, the power of suggestion, huh? It’s about a stop better than the current PEN cameras. The image quality is identical in color and high ISO performance to the current G3/GX1. Nothing new to the table when it comes to moving m4/3 forward.
agjios, have a look at the following link for a comparison of 5 sensors on Oly, pany, fuji, nex. It seems that the GX1 is totally different to the e-m5.
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/olympus-om-d-1075717/review/page:5#articleContent
A good summary of OM history up to the OM-D, but Falconer should mention the original M-1 name for the 35mm series.
Yes, I should have mentioned that – and Leica’s threat to sue Olympus over it, hence the change to OM – but alas, I left it out. Thanks for remembering, though!
Robert
well i just bought one an hour ago at band h …..to retire my e-p1 and gf-1
im so happy i could cry
You can cry on my shoulder. I’ll cry on yours because mine hasn’t arrived yet!
Hey Cosinaphile… you sound like maybe the guy to ask about using one or two of those CV lenses on the OM-D (or previous m4/3) body[ies]. Personally, my curiosity’s up regarding the 15mm f.4.? wide angle, considering the m4/3 crop factor… And, with the pick-up of a nice used NEX-5N, or such like, to complement the kit, getting a 2-for-1 value bonus: ~30mm effective FL on the Olympus; ~22.5mm on the supplementary APS-C body (which in my case might work out to be more compatible with my Contax G Zeiss lenses, the wide angle 28mm — and the 21mm, should I land one of those — especially). Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!
You pose a good question Fred, I have been looking at the Voigtlander pancake lenses. I have found a whole heap of shots on Flickr with the 12, 15, 21 and 25mm f4 being used, they seem to work well on M43. http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=olympus+%2B+voigtlander+15mm&m=text
I think they would be ideal walk about lenses for street work, I am not into locking out the background with small DOF, prefering more observable backgrounds, without appearing flat, these look good for that.
Ken Rockwell has some pages set up with reviews used on the Leica. He seem to rate them very highly. http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/index.htm
Also the is a UK seller who has them at a very good price. The 15mm screw thred is on special. And they are tax exempt if outside the UK.
http://old1111.robertwhite.co.uk/about.asp
Thanks, JimD, I’ll check those links out carefully. One thing, though: I’m not hands-on with Lightroom, et.al., yet; so I don’t really know what you can do to clean up the oft-cited potential corner defects in photos resulting from the use of some wider angle ‘film’ lenses on mirrorless bodies. I’m not sure whether any such cautions would apply in the case of some of the CV lenses (screw mount?). Thus, I make judgements from ‘flickr’ photos with some reservations in mind, and seek independent confirmation.
Fred, don’t forget that these lenses are for FF any light fall off should be outside the m43 circle.
Robert,
An excellent history lesson on Olympus cameras. They made a name for themselves throughout the 60’s, 70’s, and early 80’s by providing low cost, high quality 35mm film cameras that were an outstanding value for the “average guy” who just wanted a great little camera that took great little pictures. It was not just the Pen’s and OM’s that reveal this, but also the XA’s, Trip 35’s, and the later day Olympus Stylus.
I have been a faithful user of Olympus digital cameras since 1999, beginning with an Olympus D450 1.3mp point & shoot, and I now have quite a collection of Olympus 4/3 DSLR’s, along with Olympus and Lumix micro 4/3 equipment. I enjoy all of it, especially the wonderful colors that Olympus has given us since the introduction of the E-1 DSLR, and has remained faithful to this very day.
All that being said, I’m taking a pass on the E-M5 for now, as it’s just a weather sealed Lumix G3 as far as I’m concerned, but without the benefit of any micro 4/3 weather sealed lenses apart from the 12-50. All the best micro 4/3 lenses right now lack weather & dust sealing, so it really does not make sense to me to pay extra to put them on a weather & dust sealed camera.
What I myself really wanted from Olympus, along with many other Olympus enthusiasts, was a real, honest-to-goodness digital OM with a full frame sensor that would work with the current orphaned line of OM lenses. Basically, we were hoping against hope that Olympus would do with the OM series what Leica did with the M series — keep everything we liked in tact, and just give us a digital sensor.
I would have even settled for them using the 4/3 sensor in a real digital OM, as long as the OM mount was retained, along with the original control positions for shutter speed, aperture, and so on. A new line of digital OM lenses could have then been developed that could have made use of the smaller 4/3 sensor, but would still provide a full-frame sized imaging circle so they could be used on the older film cameras.
Instead, we get a weather-sealed Pen with a built-in EVF, finally. Glad they caught up to Panasonic on that score, who has featured built-in EVF’s since Day One.
That’s not to say the E-M5 is a bad, or useless camera, it’s just not an OM, except in name only. The Pens were never that popular in the USA, so no one really cared if the E-P1 carried on that legacy or not, but the OM’s have quite a reputation in North America, with many users having very fond memories of those cameras, if not still actively using them. Hence, there are many of us who are like Kai Wong over at DigitalRev, who likes what Olympus has done with the E-M5, but wish they had really given us a true OM sucessor.
But what really holds me back from buying one is the very poor lens selection that Olympus provides for serious enthusiasts who use micro 4/3. Panasonic has beat them by a country mile, and this from a company who’s legacy is transistor radios and television sets. The only true enthusiast/professional grade lens Olympus has is the over-priced 12mm f/2. The 17mm and 45mm are very good lenses for the money, but both are mostly plastic, non-weather sealed affairs, that were built to be cheap. Even the very nice 12mm f/2, despite it’s metal construction, is not weather-sealed. And word has it that the new 75mm f/1.8 will not be weather sealed either.
The original OM line was famous not just for the small, wonderful cameras, but the outstanding OM lenses that you could mount on them. Olympus has catered mostly to the entry-level consumers with their current lens selection, and while they are very adequate lenses, they leave a lot to be desired as well. Fuji might not have produced the ultimate mirrorless camera with the X Pro 1, but at least they got the lenses right. By the time the X Pro 2 comes around, no will will remember the quirks of the X Pro 2, and those lenses will be even more valued. Not so with the E-M5, unfortunately.
For me, lens selection is 90% of a camera system. Bodies are here today, gone tomorrow, but lenses stick around for quite a while. So far, Olympus hasn’t given us much to cheer about on that score.
But when it comes to the small, but excellent collection of 4/3 lenses for their DSLR’s, it’s an embarrassment of riches. Here’s hoping for a revival of the Olympus DSLR’s, especially in regards to excellent little camera like the E-620, which is only slightly bigger than an E-M5, but has a real optical finder, live-view, and phase detect focusing. An update of that camera with the E-M5’s electronics inside would be far, far, far preferable to me than an E-M5, even without weather sealing. An update of the E-5 would also be very welcome.
Here’s hoping for an E-7 and an Olympus E-630.
I completly agree an I’m also a big fan of the 4/3 E-System – have the legendary E1, the E3 and E5 plus some HG/SHG lenses.
As for m4/3 well … Not for me due to the lenses( esp. when you compare them to the real 4/3 ones). As for the OM., I’m also with you and Kai. Give me the real one!
Anyway, I’ve now got the M9P and finally fealing home. Will keep 4/3 for Wildlife and Outdoor Stuff.
B
B,
I wish I could join you, Steve Huff, and many others with owning an M9. Sadly, that camera is way, way, way, out of reach for me. If I sold my entire collection of 4/3 and micro 4/3 equipment, I doubt I could come up with enough money just to buy the M9 camera body, let alone a lens to go on it.
But that’s OK, the lenses that Olympus and Panasonic make for 4/3 and micro 4/3 are quite good, overall, and I can live with that. That little Panny 20mm f/1.7 is just amazing, and I also really like the Olympus 17mm f2.8. Plus I still do 35mm film, which satisfies my cravings–for now–in regards to full-frame.
But then there are those 4/3 lenses, like the Olympus 12-60, the 50-200 SWD, and the 50mm macro, that just have absolutely no competition. The best super zoom made by anyone is that Panny/Leica 14-150mm for 4/3, and then there’s the amazing Panny/Leica 25mm f/1.4 for 4/3. Just wish we had some better DSLR’s to mount all that goodness on.
But who knows…if that rumored black & white sensor Leica M? becomes a reality on May 10, I might just have to become independently wealthy or something to afford one. 🙂
That is the digital camera I’ve been waiting for….I just hope those rumors prove to be true.
Well, it took me a year to finally take the plunge and go for it( even if I don’t had financial constraints). Anyway.
Again I agreee with you on the real 4/3 lenses. However I sold my 25mm 1.4 and 50mm 2.0 as I don’t need them anymore – but I still have the 7-14,12-60 and 50-200SWD plus converter and two FL50R. I’m also in the marked for the 90-250, but will decide after Photokina.
The BW Leica M9 is a great Idea – love it. I’m thinking of getting a Mp or M7 for BW Film once I’m fully M9 skilled. So far it’s still a steap learning curve comming from the E5… But I’m getting there and in 6 weeks I will be traveling along the Silkrooad which would be the major test for my M9 skills.
B
Mine is already on its way. I plan to use it with Leica glass mostly, but also with the Panasonic MFT lenses I already own (I have been using MFT cameras since the first one was released), and with old OM lenses which can be found on ebay and flea markets for a few bucks.
I had the opportunity to quickly try the camera during the last Photoshow in Rome and, as expected, I immediately had a feeling with it. Not to mention some ISO 1600 shot I took: outstanding!
Yes, the E-M5 is definitely a great camera.
I guess this is the first Olympus 4/3 camera worth owning. IQ starts to become interesting, but still not nearly as good as the IQ of the X-Pro1 or other high end APS-C cameras. But nice attempt.
Nonsense! Put a Canon APS C in 4:3 rather than 3:2 ratio and the size is almost the same only the Olympus will have comparable RAW and much better JPEG. The standard lenses will be better and much smaller than the Canon’s and also optimised from the ground up for digital capture.
Yep, there are some factors to consider… for a FAIR, “real world” evaluation. Thanks be for good old leveled-headed (if not hirsute) Steve to provide the perspective! Pretty soon, let’s hope.
There are many real world comparisons. Get active and look at some. Get ready for a surprise. You live a very limited life.
I beg your pardon?!! What a snotty and unwarranted response. Who are you mad at — just about everyone? Talk about a “limited life”…
There is no higher spec Olympus to be found any longer in any store, in or near my town. A simple “atta boy” tossed Steve’s way in no way EXCLUDES the possibilities of anything else I may be doing or care to do. You’re doing a good job of becoming the George Zimmerman of this site with that crack.
Fred, I am merely commenting that there are many real world comparisons already. If you don’t look around and you wait for Steve’s review you are limiting the comparisons, however Steve’s review will no doubt be enlightening and have interest for all.
Who is George Zimmerman? I’ve never heard of him.
At the risk of once again being told to get a life, may I usefully (I hope) direct more open-minded readers’ attention away from the peremptory, scolding, and pedantic toward another source of balanced perspective I found helpful: the blog at Neil Buchan Grant’s website [a valued contributor in these pages and, like Steve, a Leica M system enthusiast] for a couple of entries which I find to be particularly relevant in view of the forgoing debates:
Nov. 29, 2011 — “The Olympus EP3, the ultimate travel camera?”… and the entry, “My Tools”. I don’t believe Neil needs to get out more! Some may even find his twelve megapixel, “small sensor” photos to be pretty good, as I did! Thanks, too, Neil, for the recent sharing of Sicily photos here (“Goodbye DSLR’s…”, Mar. 9).
Got one and loving it.
I also got the Fuji X-Pro 1; Many of my Flickr contacts were interested in IQ comparison between the 2 cameras, so I posted them here on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soelin/
Soe, I wanted to thank you for your comparison it really helped me see what I could only read about before. Unfortunately the OM-5’s sensor is a deal breaker and I’m bummed about that fact because the camera looks awesome in most every other way.
When enlarging the photos you can see the falloff between the two camera around the coffee cup in the first shot and in the highlights of the green leaves in the FedEx shot. There is some CA going on with the Oly in those areas, whereas the Fuji is smooth throughout.
People will deride pixel peeping, but it’s the details that count and in this case .. how the details are rendered that makes the difference.
Soe,
Thanks for posting this. I’ve not seen this real world comparison yet, so this is telling. To my eyes, the Fuji renders nicer colors, generally brighter scenes and nicer background blur.
Does anyone know how different the X100 would perform vis a vis the X-Pro? I’m now tempted to consider the X100 instead of the OM-D, interchangable lens option be damned.
At 12mp, then… not 16. Your reasons again? The Fuji brighter (?) — yeah, that will happen when the Olympus gets underexposed relative to the Fuji… or the Fuji overexposed, depending on one’s taste. “Nicer background blur” on the Fuji — you mean the one with the 35mm f.1.4 lens (the BEST LENS for X-Pro 1), the one where all the details are rendered BIGGER in these frames… vs. the one with the 20mm f1.7 Panasonic lens (the best lens… er, NOT!), with its different crop factor and DOF effect? …And having the ability to just look “through and past” the JPEG processing, the “default” settings, and the Olympus having noise reduction set “ON” …I have to hand it to you, you (and John above) know how to make quick decisions!
But having said that, I’d be interested in seeing a Fuji vs Fuji comparison, too — the X-Pro 1 is just a bit of a beast compared to the nifty OM-D, as ‘soe’ shows. Although again, apples to apples would not be available lens-wise, would it?
And thanks to you, ‘soe’, for being lickety-split on the first QUICK, PRELIMINARY “shoot-off”. I’ll just be “factoring these frames in ” to my evaluation (as an active shopper in this segment). I’d love to see a comparison of your E-PM1 to the OM-D, as well — REALLY apples to apples: There are a number of us 12.3mp m4/3 owners here surely thinking hard about the new OM.
Fred,
Take a breath. I’m an E-PL2 owner and am pondering options. Based on Soe’s shots, it appears the x100 is simply more detailed than the OM-D, and while I love the 20mm 1.7 lens that lives on my PL2, it sure looks like the x100 bests it.
You do bring up an interesting point regarding exposure. I’ve been quite fond of how the PL2 exposes pictures, albeit a bit underexposed, and it seems the OM-D has similar characteristics. The counterweight to this has been the nice colors the PL2 brings out.
Again, it appears that Fuji takes what Olympus is very good at, and makes it even better. More choice = consumers win.
Hi… Well, we seem to be somewhere together on the same rowboat here! I’m all for some companionship in ferreting out the information (reliable IN THE END, we hope) which might inform our decisions. My point was really pretty simple: ‘soe’s ad hoc test was by no means definitive; and I don’t think he meant it to be. I offer no criticism of the methodology there for just that reason — I’m glad to take what I can get at this point on these two VERY new releases, and I applaud ‘soe’s initiative.
As I’ve stated elsewhere, I do not think the pixel peeping exercises or chromatic abberration hunts are the final measure of goodness here — not at all a rogue opinion in this forum. I suggested that just MAYBE, some more elusive, or “ineffable” character might emerge in OM-D photos (something not the same as, but in the vein of Leica’s “glow”… or just some notable “3D” effect) which would be persuasive in countering any technical limitations (and what tote-able format doesn’t have those?). Wishful thinking? Perhaps. But why not hope while hope is still in the cards? So far, there’s little to suggest that the Olympus has any notable “quirks” to apologize for; even the dreaded aperture chatter is beginning to appear much more under control — certainly more so than in the Fuji, unless that particular f.1.4 maximum aperture is prejudicing the comparison. And as for Olympus’s pre-release “hype”: Well, so far so good on making good on their promises. We’ll know more in time — my other main point.
And BTW, yes, I know the OM-D is likely to have some deficit in dynamic range response. O.K., that’s ONE element of the picture. But a noise problem? Hmm, I don’t think so — nothing that I believe (at this juncture) will bother me so much [See Robin Wong’s OM-D series if you or someone else may disagree.] You’ve put your cards on the table about where your priorities (priority?) lie(s). I’m finding my spot on this fence pretty comfortable as yet; there is just SO much more to learn about these cameras. I mean, you’re talking up ultimate image quality… and we haven’t seen results from RAW files yet! And we won’t, I guess, for some little (or greater) time. And again, we’re seeing pictures with noise reduction processing engaged (superfluous, I suggest).
I’m waiting for more definitive, explicit feedback regarding how the apparently outstanding USEABILITY factors of the OM-D can affect the comprehensively considered quality of its output for the skilled photographic enthusiast — and the QUANTITY of quality results produced for the same efforts. How can the 5-axis IBIS of the Olympus NOT be a huge factor here?! I mean, you shoot at ISO 1600 with the Fuji, while I’m shooting at ISO 400, or 200 (!) handheld with the Olympus… THEN let’s talk IQ comparisons. Or about the inherent appeal in the surely not the same kinds of moments captured. But right now… sheesh, who knows? I got slammed elsewhere here for suggesting that Steve’s upcoming review might be helpful in this regard! For crying out loud, flamers…
And yeah, there can surely be multiple varieties of “winners” here. My objection — and not as an Olympus fanboy — is that the OM-D is taking some shots here based on what? Little more than prejudice. Evidence, please! ‘Soe’s sequence is a hint — nothing more. Let’s get some perspective on that. As I suggested under #17 above, folks might want to take a look at a solid pro’s opinion on m4/3 vs. APS-C as a generic argument. Now there’s a fellow putting his money — pretty big money, actually — where his, er, opinion is. Nice work it is, BTW. From a Leica guy, no less. Who likes m4/3. Sound familiar?
In summary, I believe that I’m definitely one person comfortably taking breaths, while some other folks here [not making implications!] are lining up along or behind the barricades. Like Ford vs. Chevy… or does that date me? My whole argument is about chilling out, for Pete’s sake. I simply wish to be more patient and more empirical than some.
BTW, ‘donthasslethehoff’, just a little additional note of irony…: Before engaging to compose my magnum opus above, I was on a certain auction site with an unconfirmed bid entered… on a Fuji X100. Ha! Well, you see, it was sitting there so underbid… and I figured I could live with firmware ed. 1.21’s augmentations… and — to be consistent in my arguments — you can’t beat empirical results, gathered by LIVING WITH a camera. Ah, but it got to over average price in the last few seconds, and that would have made the move a bit premature and impulsive on my part: I couldn’t claim to have spec’d the X100 out so thoroughly yet, as perhaps you have. Not that this would have had me ditching the Olympus, however — horses for courses…
soe
Thank you for the shots. I have looked at them, here is my tuppence worth for what its worth to join the rest.
The pair with the post shows the E-m5 as marginally sharper with my preferred defocused background blur, that is still lookable. The exif shows that the speed was different though the aperture was the same the E-m5 slightly under exposed and it shows when the 2 are seen side by side.
The pair showing the front of the large building shows the E-m5 being slightly under exposed again, this is verified by the exif info, the Fuji was at f4 the E-m5 at 5.2 taken only seconds apart. When the exposure is taken into account I see no real difference in these pictures.
The picture of the lake shows the Olympus better in the shade, look at the base of the tree, there is more detail in the shadow by a long way. The sun on the left side of the tree also shows more detailing, even though the tree is smaller because of the focal lengths. There may have been a change in the light as the shots were 4 mins apart and the speed goes from 3200 on the oly to 2200 on the fuji. (note the pictures swap position here, I was saying the fuji was better then saw the exif and had to reverse my thoughts.)
But over all I think this shows the E-m5 to be a match for the Fuji even though it is a small test. It is from a real user and subject to the same issues we all confront when taking shots. Just the way it is in life not test tubes.
Based on what I have seen so far (here and else where) the e-m5 will take shots that match the fuji in real life, costs 2/3 of the price and comes with a brilliant selection of lenses new and old.
No doubt Steve’s soon to be give us more information
Yes I will get one.
Hi Jim,
Thanks. Yeah…when I took those shots, I wasn’t worried about matching shutter speed, and ISO. I set the camera to Aperture priority, and let the camera do the rest. In all honesty, I dislike shooting for “test” or comparison purpose. Some of my Flickr contacts are usually more interested in that sort of things, and I tried to be helpful.
But, having done that even for a little bit, I have better appreciation for those who do (reviews) and do them well—like Steve, Ming Thein and a few others. In general, I alway shoot RAW and post process them. I like all kinds of cameras. I do rely on only one camera for work—Canon 5D Mark II. Anyway, in short, there’s no doubt that the OM-D is a great camera.
This mini-DSLR still doesn’t fit in your pocket so why not just buy an APS-C sensor in decent not-pocketable body instead?.
This combination will give you much better IQ and I’m talking about RAW IQ not some new great JPG engine which is not necessary when you know how to use Lightroom.
Because of price?
I don’t see Olympus any cheaper than Canon mid-level DSLR.
1. Because it is smaller and lighter than any Canon, which is a huge bonus.
2. The OM-D just might be better than a Canon with kit lens. As you know, many people never upgrade to better lenses.
3. People may already have mft lenses.
4. With adapters almost any lens can be used on this camera.
5. Canon’s crop factor is still 1.6 . That’s not even really close to full frame. If fact a Canon crop sensor has only 38% the area of a full frame sensor.
6. Who doesn’t already have a DSLR? The OM-D represents something pretty much new to the public who is in the market for a new camera.
I concur with your arguments but this is not camera for me.
It’s a camera for a tourist and I’m looking for something invisible like Leica with great IQ and
boxy design making it possible to put in a pocket.
No gigantic lenses please (sorry Nex7, Olympus).
When I’m travelling I don’t dress as a tourist, I don’t carry a backpack, camera bag I just want to blend in and shoot.
I guess Steve is also a fan of shooting with style.
You would think that those companies could put a little energy and brain power into making those lenses smaller.
Yep Lee, it’s a dealbreaker.
“The smallest pro digital camera with the biggest lens!”
Buy a pancake prime. No one forces you to use the 12-50mm, and it’s also not the only option.
You try making a lens covering those physical focal lengths, weather-seal it, and also make it macro focusing, and see how small you can make it 🙂
you must have bloody big pockets, buy a pen and you will not need to pay for the special over size pockets.
Hey LEE, if it was you who inquired about the Olympus 4/3’s 14-54mm Mk II ‘zoom’ lens I mentioned here at the end of last week, please see my response under your original post of April 13 on this… a ways down the line under topic #18 (“OM-D E-M5 starts to ship…”, 4/13/12). Thanks — I hope to hear from you.
I’m sorry, different Lee.
Who on earth wants to lug aroung a DSLR of any level, when the E-M5 will do the same thing and in many, many casees better.
It all depends on the lenses you have. In overall versatility I guess the OM-D would be hard to beat. I am waiting for the arrival of mine.
Mo Han, you seem to have the M-9, MP, X1 (one or two?), X-pro1 (I think), OM-D on pre-order, …
One cannot feel but envies.
I’ve got an M6 thats older than half my own age, an LX5 (well, one with the red sticker) and maybe a OM-D soon. 🙂
Hi Alen,
I wish what you say is true! I could only envy your M6. In hindsight I think your strategy is the right one. I am not a Leica man yet. I thought the M series is so expensive and couldn’t afford it. I ended up buying the LX3, GF1, EP1, LC1, and the GH1. The LX3 was what I could afford at that time. GF1 was a planned buy. The EP1 and the LC1 were bought because they came so cheap (brand new) that I couldn’t afford not buying them. The GH1 is the one I bought because of limitations I felt with the rest of the kits. I absolutely needed an EVF and good IQ. My dream camera would be a GH1+EP1 combo. The OM-D is really that dream come true.
It’s a similar story with the lens journey. 20mm F/1.7, Contax G 45mm & 90mm with adapters, 14mm F/2.5, and finally the Leica-branded 25mm F/1.4. Nowadays I just go out with the GH1 and the 25mm lens.
I can now say that I should have bought the M8 (second hand maybe) in the first place with a 50mm F/2 lens (a Zeiss for affordability sake). That would have been the shortcut to the end point. But I am glad about the journey. I have actually spent more than that M8+Zeiss.
Cheers.
I think I want one, but I don’t need one. I find myself wanting too much new gear but really ought to get out and take some more photos! 🙂
I would love to see a 70mm-200mm (equiv) f/2.8 lens for this. With fast autofocus (tracking, I hope) and fast frame rate, could this combo replace my Canon weightlifting gear for indoor sports?
Panasonic has announced a 35-100 f2.8 m43 lens which will be 70-200 efl. Though SAF is reputed to be very fast and accurate on the E-M5 I don’t think they’ve solved the problems cdaf has with tracking. I think it’ll be a great camera but I don’t think it’ll replace your Canon for sports. We’ll see when more folks get their hands on the camera and put it through it’s paces. Pany has also announced a 12-35 f2.8 zoom.
those film OMs look soooo tasty!
Yes I would consider it. Actually, I really REALLY want one, but I must admit it is for the nostalgia factor. I currently own an E-P3 and the 17mm/45mm lenses. For what I do it is all I need. Although I love the grain the E-P3 produces, I actually am very interested on the quality this new camera brings.
i think the OM is a nice looking camera but i don’t really understand the hype that people make about it. in my eyes it’s just a blown up pen – what is the difference between this camera and a ep3 with the evf?
what’s even the benefit from this system, why should i use this camera and not a cheaper pen?
if it was a real new camera system olympus should have thought about a bigger sensor, i know it’s the company it’s m4/3 concept but it’s also a reaso why Olympus didn’t really make it on the DSLR market? This camera in the spirit of the OM with a new aps-c or even fullframe sensor would have been really cool and a serious successor of the system, so far it’s only a marketing thing…
I am waiting for the PEN update as I do not use the EVF much at all, but I can see clear differences between the E-P3 and the E-M5. Beyond the sensor, which I assume will be thrown in the updated PENs, you get weather-sealing, improved IBIS, tilt-screen and built-in viewfinder. It would seem like that is a good value, provided you want to mostly use the viewfinder. I don’t consider this to be just a marketing thing.
As far as going with a larger sensor, 4/3 is kind of the whole point (compact kit). No question that a larger sensor can perform better in noise, DR, etc., but they also have larger lenses. Tradeoffs.
Where’s the noise in Robin Wong’s OM-D photos?
Read Robin Wong’s 3-part review. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Do you always make comments in blissful ignorance? You evidently have read nothing of this camera so don’t comment.
I’m not sure it is for me. As a owner of various DSLRs and both the X10 and the X100 I was first really looking forward to replace them all with the much anticipated X-pro 1 but that unfortunately fell through due to the horrible auto-focus (I know this can be argued but in its price range and as a potential replacement for a DSLR it really is horrible). My hope then turned to the OM-D, which seems to be a fantastic camera in many aspects but, and this is the big but, the crop factor is making me hesitate.
If anything I’ve, as I’ve recently started to venture into old film cameras that can be had for next to nothing on e-bay today, been getting more and more into full frame (so much so in fact, that I’ve even started to think about medium format). I guess the point I’m trying to make here is that all those wonderful cameras of yesteryear, the Nikon FA, Leica M3, OM-1 etc. etc. they all managed to be small, light-weight, fast and still be full frame. All the modern equivalents with all their fancy technical solutions have caught up in most aspects besides this very crucial ones.
In the end I think this will keep me of this and other cameras like it.
The OM1 was my first ever proper camera (I only got it from my dad about 12 years ago though) and it probably has a lot to do with my change of professions into becoming a photographer.
I’ve used 5Ds since they first came out but have always looked at my old OM1 and thought “why can’t they make them this small now?” The only compacts I’ve owned since getting that first OM1 are the Ricoh GR1 V and Canon Gs 9 and 11 (the latter two I’ve never got on with, the Ricoh is great) and the OMD EM5 (what a crap name!) is the first of the new breed of mirrorless that has made me sit up and take note (except maybe the X Pro1 but I often work in low light and that AF doesn’t sound up to it).
I’m looking forward to Steve’s review (and hoping he tests it with some fast primes (4/3, legacy, any) but I’m not sure I’ll buy an OMD, or any 4/3 for that matter. I’d like to wait and see what Canon do (though I’m no fan-boy) or if Ricoh bring out a new GXR body and 90 mmish prime (that GR1 V made quite an impression).
What would it take for me to dump a couple of grand on a mirrorless system? I reckon an OMD’s build, usability and functionality with an X Pro 1’s IQ.
Yeah, that would probably sway me.
I got a OM2n and would not mind a OMD but I already got a GF1 and GF3 ..AND a Sony NEX 7. So (in theory) I should be going for a long time. I think the last few years cameras are very good and I rather need to sharpen my photo projects than my gear. Amen
+1.
Photo content over file quality obsession, now that we have so many capable tools. It used to be different not so long ago, but file quality produced by the many new cameras these days has improved significantly.
I was seriously excited about Nikon’s new D800, since I’m heavily invested in Nikon lenses, and then I saw dpreview’s comparison photos from the D800 and the new Oly. Now I’m wondering if perhaps compact digital has finally hit critical mass.
I wouldn’t lol. D800 36 mp will allow you to CROP!!! I have ep3 and d700 I wouldn’t give up the Nikon over the pen. My new fujifilm x10 replaced the pen.
Don’t put too much stock in DPReview’s images. I have shown people time and time again how worthless they are. The D800 is in a completely different league than the E-M5. I am a dual Panasonic micro 4/3 and Nikon DSLR user, and we have to clear this up on the local forum every once in a while. The E-M5 has good image quality for the size, but it doesn’t compare to the current 16MP and 24MP APS cameras, much less a 5DMkIII or D800.
What do you mean doesn’t compare? It quite obviously does, the snobbery on this board!! I haven’t seen anything like it, it easily competes and does a better job often. Steve you need to slap these upperclass naysayers once in a while, it’s like a bunch of white people debating the size off a black mans brain lol
Ooh, pulling the closed-minded racism card to a Hispanic Jew. Nice shooting there, Skip. The image quality really doesn’t compare, sorry. The E-P3 has the same sensor as my G2, and takes functionally identical photos. I love using my G2 and take it out often, but be realistic. Not only is the Nikon sensor larger, but they’re at the forefront of technology using a Sony sensor with a heavy R&D investment into CMOS tech. The OM-D has decent image quality, but the only real advantage of it over the 12MP m4/3 sensor is high ISO performance, where it’s better by about a stop. Dynamic range and colors may measure SLIGHTLY better, but not enough to be noticeable by the human eye in real-world conditions. Print a photo larger than 4×6″ and you’ll see what I mean about sensor performance, not downsized to 0.3MP like the photos in this article.
hmmm Hispanic Jews incapable of racism? that’s almost racist.. but i’ll stop there, not the forum, and i’m not in anyway saying you’re racist, obviously.
If you look at any of the test reports you’ll notice much better results than the E-P3 (or E-P1, E-P2), most compare it to the NEX 5n which excluding the Fuji is about as good as it gets for APSc. All of these companies have heavy R&D investment, obviously, the forefront of sensor development? give me a break. The DR has been improved, the ISO has been improved quite a lot which was a barrier before, all these people saying it’s the G3 sensor, really? All the tests show significantly better results than the G3 and GX1, has a different effective MP count… I mean, just look at the test results, it’s up there.
Above 4×6″? You’re not going to draw me in with that ha!
The Fuji has the clear advantage in sensor IQ but then they balls’d up the AF completely rendering it yesterdays news already, in a couple of generations it’ll be up there but who knows where everyone else will be at. In my eyes and test reports the OM-D has equivalent or better IQ than most APSc cameras however the new batch of APSc cameras is likely to come out in the next 12 months, raising the bar again.
The other factor is lenses, m43 lenses are often of higher quality than other mirrorless (obviously not Leica since technically mirrorless) and when you look at test results with different lenses used there is a massive difference, hence why NEX is a bit strange in a lot of peoples eyes.
you could be shown 20 pictures say in A4. Taken from m43, apsc and ff and you woukd not pick them by sensor size.
Scroll down and look at the images the gentleman provided for comparison. He has both a OM-5 and X Pro 1. Once you look at the images at full size there is no comparison…the Fuji wins by an landslide to nooses surprise. In the highlight and shadow detail the Fuji image is smooth throughout whereas the Oly has CA in those areas. Does that mean its a bad camera…not a chance…but basic physics tells us that more light, therefore more detail is absorbed by the Fuji sensor. So while your heart wants to tell you the OM-5 is just as good as the bigs boys the eyes tell the true story.
Scroll down and look at the images the gentleman provided for comparison. He has both a OM-5 and X Pro 1. Once you look at the images at full size there is no comparison…the Fuji wins by an landslide to no ones surprise. In the highlight and shadow detail the Fuji image is smooth throughout whereas the Oly has CA in those areas. Does that mean its a bad camera…not a chance…but basic physics tells us that more light, therefore more detail is absorbed by the Fuji sensor. So while your heart wants to tell you the OM-5 is just as good as the bigs boys the eyes tell the true story.
I tend to think that the X-Pro-1 is just an exceptional sensor, the EM-5 definitely bows to it, but then so does every single APSc cameras sensor, I am making the exception of the Fuji, which my heart had preordered almost until I found it can’t autofocus which in practise is worth more to me than the slight bump in IQ.
Will – opinion is different to fact. Print results at large sizes and the difference shows. Ever since the GF1 grabbed my attention, I’ve loved the concept/size of m4/3 bodies, the lenses, etc. but they simply cannot cut it against APS or FF cameras for medium, let alone BIG PRINT quality – particularly at low light levels.
Stop pixel peeping at 72dpi snapshots – get something printed at 10×8, or A3, or 4′ x 3′ …. or larger, then see if you can claim ‘ …the Fuji is about as good as it gets for APSc ….” That’s a bit like saying the space shuttle is ‘as good as it gets’ in winged flying machines – as you set off smugly in your 1930’s canvas bi-plane.
Too many Flikr and photo forum users around nowadays – claiming 0.5m web snapshots and ‘lightning fast’ AF performance (invariably, never really utilised) is FAR more important than actual image quality.
If the GF1 and it’s descendants/siblings had been APS – with low-light quality to match the Fuji/Nex – I’d never have sold it …. for me, shots ruined by poor quality performance in fairly average light conditions put me off m4/3 …. and I’ve seen little since to tempt me back.
You have a point in that FF will nearly always do better in printing large, I don’t do this however I do print to A4 size regularly and occasionally larger and the m43 sized sensor was never a concern, I sold my Canon DSLR because of this.
That being said, i’m not comparing the GF1 (or in my case the E-P2) with APSc sensors, i’m comparing the EM5s sensor, which is different and of better quality.
Again I can see a clear win by the Fuji sensor over all APSc sensors, however the camera poses other problems for me.
I am not comparing all of the m43 to APSc, only the latest gen EM5, which test results have backed up.
All this comparison lark is a waste of time.
It’s bollocks, I mean take a look at DP’s ‘comparisons’ for a start – crap photography.
When are people going to wake up and realise that it doesn’t matter squat whether you have a gazillion pixel full frame Nikon or a m4/3 – it’s all about the print, and any normal print size to wall mount or publish in a magazine from either is indistinguishable.
That’s why I laugh at fanboys comparing pixels and such shyte. Forget about upgrading and replacing a D700 for a D800 or whatnot, go out and shoot some nice pictures instead!
+100
Always a point well taken by the wise, Ibraar. But I do have to offer up an exception here. I’m not so sure that now in the second decade of the 21st Century that it is all about the print. Frankly, when I was shooting Kodachrome, Ektachrome 400 (when necessary), and a bit of Fujifilm back in the ’80’s, I was never happy with the prints I got back at 8 x 10 or larger… No, I didn’t get any fancy ($$$) dye transfers made, nor the best of custom printing; but I always felt that there had to be a better way… somehow… sometime.
Today, we have the means to REALLY realize our work — much, much more of it than was ever feasible before… With the likes of the iPad’s new screen soon to proliferate, I am truly excited by the opportunities to show and document my work in what I think is more consistently, a very flattering way. I particularly enjoy seeing black & white work — both film and digital capture — in this medium: the pictures just look significantly more “lit”… again, on a much more consistent basis. Grey, flat prints — ugh! No argument that the ultra-precious metal variety of prints are something to behold! But I never thought I’d see a hundred of my shots so realized, even if I did happen to inherit a bundle from some long lost rich uncle.
In short, I rather doubt I’d have geared up my personal photographic ambitions again after such a long layoff, but for the opportunity to present my own “gallery exhibit” so easily, so inexpensively, and so flexibly.
I understand fred, very true what you say, but even then, on a Computer Laptop screen, iPad screen to show clients, a print of sorts or magazine – there’s zero difference between a D800 picture and one taken with a M4/3.
It’s basically turned into a ‘game’, like comparing the handling of a 911 carrera S to an Aston Martin Vantage, or the graphics on a Playstation game compared to Xbox, with what end result exactly?
Go take a look at photoshoots in any fashion magazine from say 2002 and compare with fashion shoots taken in 2012 and what difference will you see?
Or a look at iconic sports images from years past to ones today.
Or a photographic gallery, where has photography got to after all these years?
What? Facebook and Flickr? or family snapshots? Agreed, Digital now is MUCH better than digital 5 or 10 years ago – but Is that reason to blow another few grand on a new toy? as thats what cameras are these days, Toys, electronic gadgets, toys for boys.
I mean the original 5D still produces superb shots, in real terms as good as anything produced today WHEN shot by a skilled artisan – whereas sh1tty photographs by sh1tty photographers will be crap regardless whether you put an iPhone in their hand or give them a Hasselblad.
My point is,
Your making way too much sense to be wasting time here.
You need bringing up to date. Get on the net and read the reports. Or are you to tired from lugging around a heavy lump of an old style camera.
my point is that people get too hot and hard looking for the latest gadget to jack off over, and act like impotent pedants pouring over microscopic details as they can’t seem to get it up
I have made many comments on other web sites that I believe cameras have become decoration something to wear as a symbol, sometimes they get used. People quibble over aspects of a camera that they will possibly never use, they quibble about things they want added to the manufacturers offering, many of those wants are not practically possible.
I’m with you.
Try this!
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/hammerforum-com
JimD – hahaha! I read that post when it was linked on the amazon.co.uk Film forum recently! I laughed out loud as it’s so true! “Ken Rockbuster”!
I wonder if some folks here have huge blown up photographs or posters of their favourite cameras up on their bedroom walls? Like kids have pictures and posters of their dream cars?
Or whether, as I said before, it’s like comparing graphics on a computer game? “..my Xbox 360 version of Skyrim is smoother and faster and the extra ray tracing and particle effects make it more realistic than the Playstation 3 version…”
And people act like they’re upgrading their mobile phone contracts, I had an iPhone 3Gs and then a year and a half later I fancied a 4s……. I mean there are people who purchased X100’s only to get rid and replace with the X1pro, and others who replaced a perfectly able 5DmkII with a mkIII, or replacing a perfectly functioning 5D mk 1 – for what? better photo’s? I think not. Anyone can take a look at Flickr and see what our camera owners and upgraders have been churning out.
To be honest I can’t tell the difference between fashion shots from 2 years ago to ones today, (or even from several years back for that matter) I can’t see how Wedding photo’s have improved in any way shape or form.
it’s understandable if the camera buyer is a sports or celebrity pap Pro who needs the functionality of the new model – ie. more fps, speed, weather proofing, build quality or ergonomics -as productivity and speed is of the essence, or a fashion or product photographer where the 2 year old equipment is worn out and in need of replacement, but Joe Bloggs who is an amateur and hobbyist? What’s the difference between what he or she’ll get with a 5D or 5DmkIII in real terms? Zilch! or a wedding photographer? Scoff!!!! Or 8 out of 10 types of photographer? diddly squat! nowt! or between an OM-D and D800? Does he or she really shoot every single photo wide open with a very shallow depth? does it really make a difference? If thats what they want then why settle for full frame? go for MF!
As it’s ALL about the subject, composition and most importantly, the light! No extra pixels can excuse poor lighting or composition. I’ve seen photo’s taken with a 7 year old Konica Minolta 7D which are breathtaking, and ones taken with a brand new D800E which are shyt.
Just go to the flicker d800 users group and laugh, and then pick out the decent shots and compare with decent shots from any other camera, and wonder, mmmmm… no difference!
I think the OM-D will be a huge hit, and judging by the stats and reviews it has performance to match the design.
I just wish they had an OM adaptor which would enable the MF lenses to Auto Focus (as Yashica did with their 230AF SLR Autofocussing using C/Y Mount lenses)
The Original OM is a superb range (the single digit ones) I have an OM2n and love using it, the wysiwyg advantage of an SLR trumps using a RF in my opinion.
“..an OM adaptor which would enable the MF lenses to Auto Focus..” Nope, can’t be done. But there is, of course, an adaptor (or series of adaptors) to fit OM lenses on micro-four-thirds (and Four-Thirds) cameras.
In the recent GX1 review I used an Olympus 35mm Shift lens – for example – on a ‘Kipon’-brand tilt adaptor (from eBay), which turns the OM Shift into both a tilt and shift, and also gives a straight fit for OM lenses onto a m4/3 body! (Scroll down to the shot of the Odeon cinema here on Steve’s review pages: http://tinyurl.com/74kc6hm )
But creating a (necessarily motorised) autofocus adaptor would be insanely expensive, creakingly slow and buggy, so simply use OM lenses manually, and the proper dedicated Olympus and Panny m4/3 lenses for speed. (The OM lenses have a ‘crop factor’ – i.e; have their focal length multiplied by – two, so a 50mm f1.2, for example, becomes a 100mm f1.2. Handy, eh? And the 180mm f2.8 becomes a 360mm f2.8 . with the OM-D body providing stabilisation – though it’s hardly necessary at f2.8!
Don’t forget your aperture is not 2.8 but 5.6 in terms of DoF. m4/3rds are great cameras though still larger sensor has advantages. I own ep3, x10, m8 and d700. My Ep3 is idling really. I use the m8 or x10. Mainly x10 the little fuji has compromises but for everyday shooting and not worrying about ruining my fragile m8.
The DOF is the same for any given lens irrespective of the sensor size. A 2.8 35mm lens on a m43 does not turn into a 5.6.DOF. putting any lens onto a M$# camera does not change the DOF of that lens. You may have an illusion of that being so as the focal length is halved and gives x2 tele effect.
If you print an A4 from a 35mm camera lens on a FF camera. Then cut out the centre giving the equivalent of a m43 camera with the same lens that is what the m43 will take, no difference. Take the sot with the lens in a m43 and se that the shot fits perfectly. Try it and see.
Technically correct, but in reality you’d mount a lens twice the focal length on the FF, to stand at the same spot and shoot the identical frame. And then things look differently.
Yes I think this is the main advantage of full frame, but a strange thing happened to me, in that after about 3 years of taking up photography seriously I started wanting deeper DoF, usually i’m taking street photos where you need context, or landscape where you want as much in focus as possible.
In this way m43 and even crop sensors are of a benefit, you get (for instance) f2.8 in terms of light gathering ability but f5.6 in terms of DoF (effectively). Each to their own and there are plenty of lenses for m43 that give shallow DoF if required, of course if this is your main shtick, go FF, along with a few other benefits it gives you.
I think smaller and smaller sensor sizes are going to become more standard over the next decade, i’m going to laugh when m43 is considered large, for now it fits perfectly in between high IQ and smaller size factor and only extremely thin DoF on specific focal lengths give it away.
No, that is not it. It must be the same lens, note, I said “for any given lens”, the DOF will be identical for both cameras. Set up a tripod use a FF and a M43, use the same lens. take the shot with both. The image recorded by the M43 will have the same DOF as the corresponding part of the image from the FF.
The DOF applies to the lens not the sensor.
Jim, I entirely agree with you.
Even in photographic journals it has been postulated that DoF is down to the size of the sensor. The confusion arises in that for equivalent fields of view on different sized sensors, the smaller sensors require a lens of corresponding shorter focal length hence, greater depth of field.
The fact that a 50mm lens used on a 4/3rds sensor acts as a 100mm lens in offering a similar effective field of view to a 100mm lens on full frame, does not mean that it also provides the same DoF as that of a true 100mm lens. It doesn’t, it retains all its optical properties of a 50mm.
Old stagers in photography will no doubt have come across and used the formula for calculating DoF. The four factors are: lens focal length, aperture, distance focused on, and circle of confusion. This formula remains constant irrespective of format, be it 35mm, 5×4, or the small sensors used in digital cameras.
It will be noted, though, that the circle of confusion is a variable and so adopting, say, 1/500″ or 1/1000″, will give different DoF results. 1/1000″ giving less latitude than 1/500″.
f/8 and be there!
Since when did DOF become measured at the sensor rather than the print (or display)? DOF (which is purely subjective anyway) is directly linked to the size of the viewed image and the distance of viewing. That’s how the COC is calculated. DOF can not be calculated at the sensor. The argument you, and others have made assumes that you’re not equalizing the sized of the viewed images. As soon as you print the cropped image to the same size as the larger one the COC changes and so does Apparent DOF.
Technically (and feel free to use your DOF calculator of choice to prove it) if you enlarge an image taken by a lens to a particular size (for standard DOF measurements COC is calculated on a 7×5 print) and then take a “crop” and enlarge that to the same size, the “cropped” image will have less DOF, due to the different COC.
If you take an image from the same spot and change focal lengths to get the same framing then the wider lens will have a bigger effect than the change in COC so you will get more DOF in the cropped image. Perspective will not change but DOF will.
Gordon
it CAN be done, if Yashica managed it in the 80ies, then it can be done in the 10’s.
“..if Yashica managed it in the 80ies, then it can be done in the 10′s..”
Cameras, or lenses, focus – generally – by moving the lens, or parts of the lens, further away from the sensor, or film, so as to focus on things which are closer to the camera than infinity.
In the transition to autofocus, a few companies fitted autofocus electronics in the cameras, and a rod which emerged from the camera body to automatically twist and extend the lens to enable camera-controlled autofocus. Yashica used this system in the Contax G autofocus rangefinders, but those bodies and lenses were designed to work that way from the start. Yashica also fitted the Contax AX SLR with a moving film plane, so that ordinary manual lenses didn’t need to be electro-mechanically driven by the camera, but the film inside the camera was moved further from – or closer to – the lens instead!
So how would a modern m4/3 camera manage autofocus with old manual focus OM lenses?
A screw mechanism in an adaptor between lens and camera to wind the lens out and in from the camera body wouldn’t work as fast as the built-in motors within current autofocus lenses: think of the weight which this would have to drive (a manual-focus OM lens) and the drain on the camera’s battery, and the rights which a 3rd-party adaptor-maker would have to negotiate with Olympus – or Matsushita-Panasonic – to be able to use their electronics with the camera’s own focusing software embedded in the camera.
Would Olympus, or Panasonic, make a fore-&-aft-moving sensor assembly (like the Contax AX) to allow customers to use old, manual lenses on their current cameras?
No: camera companies don’t earn anything from people using old lenses on a new camera: if those old lenses were bought in the 70s and 80s they’d contribute nothing to Olympus’ revenue today. Oly’s in the business of earning money from selling new lenses and cameras, not selling mechanisms for old lenses of yesteryear.
Would Ford or Mercedes make some device to let you efficiently use old cross-ply tyres (tires) on modern cars? No. Would any company making modern widescreen 16:9-shaped TVs create one which expands its screen height from 16:9 shape to 4:3 shape so that old 1940s films can completely fill the screen (instead of having black borders down the left and right edges)?
No: it’s not worth the bother. Where’s the money in making modern devices retro-compatible?
Simple black tubes which attach a manual OM lens to a modern m4/3 body are easily made, and cost just a few dollars. But one which incorporates a drive assembly to push and pull a lens for focusing, and with contacts to a camera’s own focus electronics, would cost several hundred dollars, would be slow and cumbersome, and would need its own power, or would quickly flatten the camera’s own battery.
Similar devices are made for movie cameras: the Redrock Micro Livelens MFT http://tinyurl.com/76spxg8 is a device which allows autofocus Canon lenses to be used on m4/3 video (and still!) cameras ..such as the OM-D. But it’s for Canon EF lenses, which already have their own focusing motor and aperture electronics built into those lenses. It just conveys information back and forth between the camera body and lens, and uses an external power pack to provide the juice to do that. It costs £478 ..that’s about $750.
There’s no reason for a camera company to do this – they want to sell NEW lenses and bodies, not support old ones which bring in no new money to them – and an accessory maker would have to spend cash on research and development to build such an item which only a few thousand people would buy.
Sorry, Ibraar, it’s not going to happen! It’s easy to fit manual OM lenses to current m4/3 bodies, and to focus them manually, but autofocus with manual lenses? ..Nope. Nobody’s going to do it. Sorry.
I KNOW it’s not going to happen, I’m merely stating that it could easily happen if they wished to.
I have a Yashica 230AF SLR (superb camera and lenses, sadly underrated), my Contax Zeiss and Yashica ML (C/Y) mount Manual Focus lenses autofocus because I have a nice AF adaptor which fit on the Yashica body enabling this to happen.
Ok, it has a 1.6 crop factor and you lose a stop, but we’re talking 80ies technology, not just 80ies but the Yashica was one of the first AF cameras out there.
We’re in 2012, if Olympus so wished, and they wanted legacy Olympus OM lenses to work with AF on their new OM-D bodies, they could easily do this
I don’t think you know anything about the Yashica AF SLR’s do you David? And I don’t think you’ve heard of the Yashica AF to C/Y AF adaptor? As you dismissed my suggestion as if it’s impossible or hasn’t happened before.
Yes I do know about the adaptor,and I do know about Yashica SLRs, and I did know Dr Sugaya who designed them and the matching Contax SLRs (..his own favourite camera was the Yashica Electro 35 http://tinyurl.com/coem2ks which he also designed, and he always had one in his pocket).
But the AF adaptor has drawbacks: (1) it has extra glass inside, which knocks down the resolution of Zeiss/Contax T* – and Yashica – lenses a bit and introduces flare to the non-flare T* lenses, (2) it crops – as you say – the lens’ focal length (as it only uses the centre of the lens) so a 50mm becomes an 80mm, and (3) it knocks down the apparent f stop by one stop (so an f/1.4 behaves like an f/2 lens).
I don’t know how fast its focus is, or how much battery power it uses up – maybe you could tell us.
But it doesn’t seem a viable way for Olympus to go: it’s such a long time since Oly made their manual lenses (whereas Yashica produced this in their ‘change-over period’ from manual to autofocus) so there’d be little incentive to support owners of old lenses; the Yash adaptor was for the 35mm film format, but stepping down from 35mm-film-OM lenses to m4/3 sensors doubles the lens’ focal length (50mm to 100mm) before any extra crop introduced by any “re-focusing” glass in the device; there’s the effective aperture loss with “re-focusing” elements in the adaptor; there’s some loss of resolution of any lens attached; and it’s a power drain.
I know of them – here’s a picture of one on your camera: http://photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00SVHE?start=10 – but I’ve never used one, and so I can’t say what the results are like; maybe you can tell us, Ibraar. How fast (focusing speed) is it? How do pictures compare with those shot with the same lens without the adaptor on? How much juice does it drain from the battery? How’s the flare when you point towards a light source, e.g; the sun?
I didn’t mention it, as any adaptor with extra glass elements inside generally reduces the capabilities of the original lens on the front of it: I was considering adaptors which don’t have any extra glass, and which adjust focus by manipulating the lens itself ..or the film/sensor by moving its position relative to the lens.
All three of those methods were used by Yashica in their various cameras, but I just don’t see Oly using any of them to provide an autofocus OM-to-m4/3 match any time soon.
Great article, this looks like a great camera and concept for Olympus enthusiasts.
I was holding my breath for a Nikon FM-D but they made the one series instead. I would be over the moon if Olympus was my brand and they made this for me. As it stands I think Olympus users with old lenses are a very lucky bunch right now. Nikon won’t be making a FM-D any time soon and if it had a one series sensor any how, id probably not want it.
No, we’re not “lucky”, DJDLV, we’re “perceptive”!
I am sure this will be a great camera. However, this sounded like it was written by Olympus PR. Also, the crop factor is real and cannot change. I will be very curious to see what people think when it gets to the general public.
Unlike film, sensor technology has room to improve (not so much in DOF, but in almost all other aspects).
Many years ago, people switched from MF digital/film to FF digital when the technology got ‘good enough’. This is the same thing happening. It may not fit your needs, but it certainly has it place even for serious use.
But sensor technology isn’t improving. Not thanks to the OM-D anyway; there are at least two cameras out today that already use this sensor. As usual, Olympus is late to the game.
How do you know? The sensor manufacturer is not known.
I just met Oly representative @ B&H who just came and surrounded by B&H employed today and I asked him when Oly will ship the camera ?
He said : some of them is already arrived here @ B&H and there would be another shipped on friday.
As far as he know ,he said it will be with the Kit Lens 14-42 first followed by 12-50 Kit lens and ,.. BODY ONLY (mine ordered) would come at the end of this month,…Rrrrrgh,.i was so disappointing.
I asked him ,.. WHO MADE THE SENSOR ?,.. First He’s muted and tried to ignored the Q ,.and the other person/ B&H employee ,.. Asked the same Question ,.. He said ,; “OK ,I’m not supposed to discuse this Q ,.. Which is I can’t , but I give you the Clue, ask He Pointed his finger to Panasonic brand,…
Other person asked him Q ; is it the same sensor as G3/ GX1 ,…
He said ; no,. It’s a brand new sensor manufactured by Panasonic.
My conclusion with other B&H employee as we had little discussion , I think Olympus design their owned SENSOR for this OM-D and Panasonic manufactured the Sensor for Olympus.
The same thing happened with Nikon who designed their own sensor and Sony manufactured it for Nikon
If Nikon designed a sensor and it is manufactured by Sony its a Nikon sensor not a Sony sensor. Sony was the contracted manufacturer that’s all. same as many other products. If Sony makes a sensor and offers it to Nikon with a range of custom changes then its a Sony.
Apple gets their gear made by a Chinese manufacturer, its still an Apple.
I think the people at B&H know as much about the manufacturer as any one who has followed the product from announcement. They don’t know about its maker either.
Jim, you don’t have to know the specific manufacturer. Either they are using a Panasonic sensor, of which the initial research and design costs have already been fleshed out, or they are using a new sensor company. If they are using the new sensor company, then they had to put in the high initial costs of a CMOS design, and that initial cost precludes them from having a sensor that performs fundamentally any better than the current Panasonic sensor. Plus, Olympus has played the “this is a new sensor, not just the same one that’s in an already-released Panasonic camera months earlier,” and EVERY TIME it’s turned out to just be a Panasonic sensor. The only 4/3-sized sensors that aren’t Panasonic are the early E-1 sensors, from Kodak. I don’t feasibly see any other company manufacturing these sensors.
Nikon didn’t design a sensor. If Nikon designed it, it wouldn’t be found in other products, such as Sony NEX, Sony DSLR, Pentax DSLR, etc. For example, if the D200 sensor were just a Sony-subcontracted design, you wouldn’t see so many Pentax and Sony 10.2MP cameras. The K-5 used this apparent “Nikon” sensor before the D7000, for example. How would that happen if it was Nikon-designed?
agjios. I think you miss what I am saying. I said, IF, Nikon designed a sensor and it was manufactured by Sony it would be a Nikon sensor. I also added, IF, Sony makes a sensor and offers it to Nikon it’s a Sony sensor. This was in response to the ‘who made the sensor’ post.
I am saying that the manufacture and product ownership of the sensor are not necessarily the same. Olympus has used Panasonic made and designed sensors, they are Panasonic sensors in an Olympus camera. However IF Olympus designed the sensor and contracted the manufacture to Panasonic, it becomes an Olympus sensor in an Olympus camera, it is not a Panasonic sensor.
I agree the cost and result of a sudden entry into sensor design would be costly and initially very risky.
Nikon doesn’t design the sensors that they share with Sony, Ricoh, etc. They are Sony designed sensors, and then the other brands who use them add their own sensor filters to them (IR, AA, CFA, etc.)
Wrong — Unless the Olympus product manager who rolled out the OM-D for an early show in the U.K. is lying to us! Officially: 1. NOT the same sensor as in the Panasonic G3 & GX-1, 2. Olympus directly involved in the specification and design of the new sensor, and 3. Manufacturer of the sensor, officially UNDISCLOSED… and they’re not [as yet] telling!
Furthermore, it’s not just the sensor — it’s the whole control and processing chain (the digital “engine” and the CHOICES made in setting the protocols and operating parameters for the hardware bits) as well — that counts. Robin Wong’s OM-D photos leave me confident that the Olympus will see off the 16mp Panasonics in both “real world” higher ISO resolution and noise performance. Not to mention the advantages in color rendition, JPEG results, and just plain “camera know-how and judgement” Olympus brings to the table, factors often attested to here by Steve’s readers/contributors.
Yes, and when every other one of their previous cameras came out, their official position was that it was not a Panasonic sensor. Their “official position” takes into account the associated electronics, and since they use their own processor, they snake their way into claiming that it’s a new sensor. You’d think by the 10th time people would stop falling for it, but I guess not. Nikon did the same thing with the D3X, but they were laying on the “it’s a Nikon sensor” so thick, that they were forced to recant and admit that it’s a Sony piece. Wake up.
I think the DigitalRev video review of the OM-D crystallized it nicely when saying that the OM-D makes you want an OM, just not an OM-D.
Funny you bring him up. The OM-D fits that guy (almost) perfectly! Did you see him “reviewing” the Nikon D800 and the Canon 5D3? Little bugger can hardly even hold up those two cameras.
Even the Olympus looks big in his hands.
Huh? He’s a pretty normal looking size/guy…
People here call the APS-C sensor huge, MFT sensor tiny, and Kai Wong a normal size guy. Freaking Twilight Zone in Huffland.
Yep. That’s exactly where Kai is right and I have to agree.
B
You can add me to that list as well.
I normally like Kai’s videos, but I thought this one was half-hearted and not really well thought out.
He was upset that the OM-D hewed too closely to the OM-1 by sacrificing function for form, and he was also upset that it didn’t get even closer and didn’t give up even more function for form.
Frankly, if you spend half a review talking about French philosophers, and don’t get to several of the important features of a camera, its hard to take you too seriously.
I don’t care if he likes it or not, but if he has decided in advance that he doesn’t like it because it isn’t more like a camera from a generation ago, then perhaps he should find someone else to go the review.
Troll alert….
Kinda like how many people dismiss the Pentax K-01 without even holding it, eh?
The Pentax k-01 is one mother of an ugly camera and normal human-beings dont like to touch things they dont like the look of…it’s only natural. A small pillow must be one of the most comofrtable things to hold in this world but would anyone buy a camera if it looked like a puffy pillow?