MichaelLee
Senior Member
What holding u back. I have fully converted to mirrorless 2 yr ago.
There are now 12-35m and 35-100mm f2.8 and more good quality lenses available.
Olympus to launch a OM type camera in Feb
- Thread starter Agrivar
- Start date
What holding u back. I have fully converted to mirrorless 2 yr ago.
There are now 12-35m and 35-100mm f2.8 and more good quality lenses available.
Let's hope it's not one-hit wonder haha...At least it not OMG.
Few more weeks we will know more...
The abbreviation OMG can cut both way. It's either good or bad. :bsmilie:
Haha as in how u pronounce it? Or it can be good or great or gosh!
Good or great or gosh is the underlying psychological emotion and physical reaction of OMG.:sweatsm:
Anthony Lee
Senior Member
The OM3Ti & 4Ti were my favorites. together with many OM jewels I used to own. Many, like myself, have been wishing that Olympus would use either of this body and remake into an FF mirrorless so that we can still use all the wonderful OM lenses. Add various adapters, M, Leica R, Nikon F, Zeiss CY, M42, PK, Minolta MC/MD and this camera will sell millions. Revive the OM lenses and remake the key zoom, 35-80f2.8, and primes, 21f2, 28f2. 35f2, 50f1.2, 100f2, to AF. The OM lenses will also be very popular for use on other mirrorless because of their small sizes and high IQs. The USD1.6 billion wasted could have been enough to remake this wonderful OM line. Why does Olympus still want to stick with m43? With Sony and now Fuji's APS-C, this market is now widening and I don't think by staying within m43 will help. Go and create the first FF mirrorless Olympus.
Last edited:
NazgulKing
Senior Member
Anthony Lee said:
A full frame cameras are not economical for the mass market.
People spend half the time bitching about "full frame" and "why is company X not giving me what I want" but when the price tag comes along, they start bitching about price.
Sometimes, my sadistic tendencies take over and I actually take some satisfaction when the whiners don't get what they want. Feckless vermin the lot of them.
Last edited:
NazgulKing
Senior Member
Olympus should do more engineering and less marketing. None of their cameras have substantially changed in nature for the last 2-3 years, and the only thing that has changed is the AF, which Panasonic accomplished months earlier. They have been resting on their damn laurels to the point that it is tiring to hear them talk big but deliver little as always.
Evilmerlin
Senior Member
And what is the obsession with FF? It defeats the entire purpose of having a small system.
Evilmerlin
Senior Member
Well, I'm waiting a bit to see what else Olympus comes up with. if not, I'll just pull the trigger on the E-P3 and call it a day.
Anthony Lee
Senior Member
Nikon users once asked the same question until D3 and D700 appeared. If they had not done that, maybe they will be like Pentax and Olympus, not being able to survive on their own. So, it's not going FF that matters, but survival for Olympus. With m43, I don't think they have any chance and the imaging division will eventually be worthless.
I think there is room for everyone and their needs.
Many are finding joy with small cameras as a 2nd 'encumbrance free' system that meets 90% of needs.
The road to success is not just 135 format FF.
Oly and Pentax may well have gone the way of the dodo if they went FF early (and Pentax nearly did with the MZ-D before anyone else way back in 2000 )
Contax went ahead with the Contax N with the same Kodak sensor as the Pentax and is no more.
Kodak forged ahead with its DCS Pro, and is in shambles.
I do think Canon was the one at the right place and time with its ability to leverage on its confluence of tech (optics/electronics/imaging know-how/sensor tech) that it had at hand in the early days of digital to move into the position that it has today.
The optics based companies have struggled up the digital steps as they were mainly (optical/mechanical based).
Even Nikon has only found 2nd place after quite a long struggle thru digital (and that is before anyone else stepped onto the stand)
If Sony had acquired Minolta just 2-3yrs earlier and pushed the digital bounds with its electronics might the position of #2 may well have been different.
No surprise that a lot of good/serious/professional photographers are basically finding that the current 'smallish' format cameras today are giving good enough o/p for 90% of needs.
Just love Kirk Tuck (Good writing and long winded
, with lots to say on the thoughts of phototaking rather than just about gear and he's and avid swimmer too ) The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: Thinking about gear made me think about gear.
Steve Huff for his 'real world' camera reviews, love for cameras and rather straight thoughts on the cameras he uses (which like many of us, no straight best camera)
Mirrorless Mania – Which one should I buy? Nikon 1, Micro 4/3, Sony NEX | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS
NazgulKing
Senior Member
By what decision metric to you decide whether they have any chance?
FF costs more, by virtue of the fact that the cost of the silicon die grows exponentially with cost. I won't be surprised that most FF sensors have dead photodiodes, just that they make sure it meets some minimum criteria and they stopped there. If the sensor has too much by way of defects, it gets binned down and sold as APS-C.
The mass market only needs APS-C or 4/3. Anything more will demand that Olympus develop a whole new lens system for which it cannot afford and will more likely bankrupt the company. So your suggestion is actually suicidal. As it is, Olympus' problem is the inability to deliver what it should be able to deliver, and Panasonic's sensor is behind the curve (I suspect they are doing their best to catch up but time will tell).
If they do less marketing, they won't be doing any marketing, as they didn't do for years.
Why shouldn't they do a 135 format-sized sensor in an OM-sized body? Surely, they could find a way. The light gathering capability would be awesome and they'd bring back the big, clear, bright viewfinder that the OM-series promised and delivered instead of the small, dark viewfinder that we saw in the E-4x0 etc.
I wouldn't mind if they left out most all of the automatic bits to make a digital version of my favourite OM-1N.
NazgulKing
Senior Member
And now they are doing the reverse. Which is bewildering. I have no idea why. But engineering wise, things have been stagnant.
Can you afford a 2.5K USD body?
Anthony Lee
Senior Member
I think there is room for everyone and their needs.
Many are finding joy with small cameras as a 2nd 'encumbrance free' system that meets 90% of needs.
The road to success is not just 135 format FF.
Oly and Pentax may well have gone the way of the dodo if they went FF early (and Pentax nearly did with the MZ-D before anyone else way back in 2000 )
Contax went ahead with the Contax N with the same Kodak sensor as the Pentax and is no more.
Kodak forged ahead with its DCS Pro, and is in shambles.
I do think Canon was the one at the right place and time with its ability to leverage on its confluence of tech (optics/electronics/imaging know-how/sensor tech) that it had at hand in the early days of digital to move into the position that it has today.
The optics based companies have struggled up the digital steps as they were mainly (optical/mechanical based).
Even Nikon has only found 2nd place after quite a long struggle thru digital (and that is before anyone else stepped onto the stand)
If Sony had acquired Minolta just 2-3yrs earlier and pushed the digital bounds with its electronics might the position of #2 may well have been different.
No surprise that a lot of good/serious/professional photographers are basically finding that the current 'smallish' format cameras today are giving good enough o/p for 90% of needs.
Just love Kirk Tuck (Good writing and long winded
The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: Thinking about gear made me think about gear.
Steve Huff for his 'real world' camera reviews, love for cameras and rather straight thoughts on the cameras he uses (which like many of us, no straight best camera)
Mirrorless Mania – Which one should I buy? Nikon 1, Micro 4/3, Sony NEX | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS
JK,
Do you think both Pentax and Olympus will make it with whatever they have been doing? Times are bad and the Japanese economy is not that sound anymore. Ricoh may have other plans for Pentax and if nobody comes up to swallow up Olympus, their digital imaging will go first because it's worthless. I am not talking about Size or IQ or whatever they are doing, but doing something different to capture some attention of investors, otherwise, bye, bye. I predicted that Kodak will not survive the digital onslaught some 20 years ago if they did not get their infra-structure right when they went into digital imaging. Companies who were too analog base found it difficult to change with times, so you are right that those who did not react fast enough would be left behind. Canon began investing in digital imaging in the eighties and in the early nineties, most of their office equipment and document management systems went digital. l know them very well because I was invloved in that industry for about 30 years. Many have been asking why Canon refused to get invlove with EVIL, less so, m4/3. Knowing Canon, I am sure they have the next 5 generations of products already in prototypes and waiting for the right time to launch. Just watch out for their G1X.
NazgulKing
Senior Member
I think if I am going to be unemotional about things, Pentax is fast on its way to a niche market doling out medium format cameras and Ricoh tries to find some way to handle the mid end with a modular camera more suited to the existing Pentax market. That is some wishful thinking, but they have do something radical to survive.
Olympus problem has been the lack of direction, and they dug themselves a rug from which they cannot escape from. They ought to have gone for APS-C with M4/3 while allowing for the use of 4/3 lenses, but they chose not to.
Similar threads
