gavinlg
Veteran
WTF is olympus doing with their lens announcements today? Are they seriously thick?
There's a massive user base wanting some good fast and small wide prime lenses and they keep releasing big, slow ass zooms. I hate slow zooms. There's already 2 slow zoom lenses with similar reach for sale for m4/3s, why the F&(* would they release two more? How many slow zooms does one need? No one looks back at the OM system and says "wow, those slow zooms they had for the OM cameras were really something..." - it's all about fast, high quality primes.
Argh. That's my rant for today.
Note: check www.dpreview.com for lens releases
There's a massive user base wanting some good fast and small wide prime lenses and they keep releasing big, slow ass zooms. I hate slow zooms. There's already 2 slow zoom lenses with similar reach for sale for m4/3s, why the F&(* would they release two more? How many slow zooms does one need? No one looks back at the OM system and says "wow, those slow zooms they had for the OM cameras were really something..." - it's all about fast, high quality primes.
Argh. That's my rant for today.
Note: check www.dpreview.com for lens releases
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
I totally agree. I was very disappointed to see no prime in the list. Panny's 20/1.7 one superb lens, and I was hoping Oly would come out with the bang.
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
I would tell you how I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks like that - but honestly, out of all the photographers I know, none of them think these stupid slow m4/3 zooms are a good idea.
I even heard a decent few people telling the olympus rep's at the last digital imaging trade show in Australia how much they wanted fast primes for the m4/3 system. Every single forum is the same deal.
We should all lay bets on what lens we think olympus will announce next. I'm going to say a 50-200 f3.5-f5.6. And maybe after that we'll get a 20mm f2.8, or a 25mm f7.1.
My hope rests with panasonic and cosina/voigtlander.
I even heard a decent few people telling the olympus rep's at the last digital imaging trade show in Australia how much they wanted fast primes for the m4/3 system. Every single forum is the same deal.
We should all lay bets on what lens we think olympus will announce next. I'm going to say a 50-200 f3.5-f5.6. And maybe after that we'll get a 20mm f2.8, or a 25mm f7.1.
My hope rests with panasonic and cosina/voigtlander.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Although I am certain that the user base you're describing is massively opinionated, I'm not at all sure that that user base is "massive" in number or purchasing power. In Japan this summer, I saw a lot of Olympus micro 4/3 cameras on the streets. It may be a mistake to assume that we know Olympus's customer base better than they do.
I've used my Nikkor-H 300/4.5 hand-held on the EP2 to grab some shots of deer in the backyard. They normally get spooked, and did not get much time to do the ideal setup on a tripod. The image stabilization works well.
S
sfaust
Guest
Based on their sales and advertising message, I think they know exactly what they are doing. We just aren't the market they are targeting with this system.
And even in our own ranks, there are many that feel only a DSLR is appropriate for serious photography.
ampguy
Veteran
In Japan, it is very stylish to sport a new u4/3 camera around, but not for long, maybe 3 months max before moving on. This is good for refreshing style and the opportunity for new products with new features and different colors patterns.
kuzano
Veteran
I went through the phase of using legacy manual focus lenses on the standard 4/3 cameras. (I've gone through about a half dozen of the e-xxx starting with the e-300). It was interesting and I might do some on the e-PL1.
I used mostly OM Zuiko lenses and got some very interesting results. However, I tired of the extra handling, even though I thought the legacy lenses produced better results in some cases than the "kit" Zuiko digital lenses.
I find the 14-42 rather slow kit lens for the E-PL2 producing surprisingly good IQ including some decent bokeh. I will get one of the pancakes eventually.
I catch "gas" quite easily, and feel that if I get into MF primes on the E-PL1, I will go nuts on lenses, when I really want images.
This little camera is a considerable achievement by Olympus. I don't expect the NEX or other pretenders to the mirrorless EVIL camera's to change my mind in any way. I've been shooting Oly's since the OM-1. Their strong suit is glass and their range of adaptors for legacy glass is huge.
I'll probably, as I said, stick with the lenses designed for the camera and fall back to film Medium Format for more IQ. But I still am surprised with the E-PL1....
Hoping I can post an image, here is an image I took a few days ago, exhibiting both OOC IQ and a bit of bokeh from the Oly micro 14-42.
kuzano
Veteran
It's rather simple when broken down ......
It's rather simple when broken down ......
Just as the medieval crusades were all about "olive oil" and the contemporary wars in the middle east are all about "dinosaur oil", the current offerings of lenses and the emphasis on the "micro" mirrorless cameras are all about income for Olympus.
The market for the mirrorless cameras is the "bridge" market. The majority of those people will simply stare blankly at you when you bring up the issue of "prime" lenses.... Prime What????
It's not likely that the pitifully small market for "primes" will step up for the prices, when they don't even take the camera's seriously.
I don't take the time to look at the figures on sales, but I suspect that Olympus is pleased, as it Panasonic, with the sales of offerings currently on the market for the Pens and G series cameras.
Frankly, I don't expect to see much if any effort by Oly/Pana to produce primes. That market seems to well served by the adaptors and a glut of old legacy lenses being pressed back into service.
I tend to agree with other posters who indicate that the desire for primes is much smaller than you imagine. If you count merely those on this web site, I'd say a "spit in the bucket".
It's rather simple when broken down ......
Just as the medieval crusades were all about "olive oil" and the contemporary wars in the middle east are all about "dinosaur oil", the current offerings of lenses and the emphasis on the "micro" mirrorless cameras are all about income for Olympus.
The market for the mirrorless cameras is the "bridge" market. The majority of those people will simply stare blankly at you when you bring up the issue of "prime" lenses.... Prime What????
It's not likely that the pitifully small market for "primes" will step up for the prices, when they don't even take the camera's seriously.
I don't take the time to look at the figures on sales, but I suspect that Olympus is pleased, as it Panasonic, with the sales of offerings currently on the market for the Pens and G series cameras.
Frankly, I don't expect to see much if any effort by Oly/Pana to produce primes. That market seems to well served by the adaptors and a glut of old legacy lenses being pressed back into service.
I tend to agree with other posters who indicate that the desire for primes is much smaller than you imagine. If you count merely those on this web site, I'd say a "spit in the bucket".
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Gavin, I never thought that this day will come. As an Olympus nut, it pains me to say that the current Olympus is run by idiots. Half-hearted idiots at that.
They broke the mold, introduce a system that captured the heart of millions of people (and pissed-off the other millions who don't get it). They get the spotlight, the got the business.
But they are now *proven*-idiots for not recognizing what their own system really needs, again and again.
Don't get me wrong, the 9-18mm is the *one* zoom that I'd consider purchasing. I think it's that good.
But to put Fisheye before Wide pancake primes are sheer lunacy, not to mention, as you said, two more slow zooms.
Look at history, the Pen-F system is famous for what?? zoom lenses? *slow* zoom lenses? or those gem-like sparkling primes.
Sorry for the rant. I am beyond ... miffed.
retnull
Well-known
I'd love full-frame (or close to it), too. But in practice, there's an unexpected benefit to 2x crop: physically small lenses become super-teles. For example, a Elmar 90/4 becomes an 180mm lens...which is something I'd never considered carrying around. But it turns out to be a lot of fun.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
That may be the case today. But Olympus is as Gavin said: "thick" not to recognize the *potential* of the market if they had been consistent with the message: sleek, whip out of the pocket, beautiful pictures -message (remember the Kevin Spacey ad?).
They could break another mold, and continue to keep their competitors in tow. But no, they just had to listen to their accountants.
Want to see the trend? follow 43rumors.com and see what their polls say. To those who think lightly of that website, you'd be surprised how effective it actually is in reaching their audience.
ampguy
Veteran
so ...
so ...
assuming you are going to want a large print, say 20" x 30" what's going to degrade the image more, the TC, or the tiny 4/3 sensor?
Will the IS in an Oly 4/3 let you get away without lugging a tripod?
so ...
assuming you are going to want a large print, say 20" x 30" what's going to degrade the image more, the TC, or the tiny 4/3 sensor?
Will the IS in an Oly 4/3 let you get away without lugging a tripod?
Absolutely true, I'll give you that. It's mostly the smaller sensors that I have little or no interest in. More noise, less if any DoF effects, etc.
If I need reach, I'll break out the "big guns" - namely, a Canon 1D Mark IIn w/100-400mm or 300mm f/2.8L IS lens and a pair of TCs. But yeah, there's no comparing the size... LOL.
That spanky-new CV 0.95/25 does give one pause however!
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I've never tried one of those cameras...
Here's what I think: if I consider my DSLR (APSC FujiS3 for Nikon) inferior in tonal range to 35mm film, u4/3 sensors (half APSC size, and one fourth FF size) couldn't be better than bigger sensors... I wonder why people say results are "amazing"... Is there any link to check a comparison of the same shot done with u4/3, APSC or FF, and 35mm film?
Cheers,
Juan
Here's what I think: if I consider my DSLR (APSC FujiS3 for Nikon) inferior in tonal range to 35mm film, u4/3 sensors (half APSC size, and one fourth FF size) couldn't be better than bigger sensors... I wonder why people say results are "amazing"... Is there any link to check a comparison of the same shot done with u4/3, APSC or FF, and 35mm film?
Cheers,
Juan
gavinlg
Veteran
Yep Will, last time I checked on the 43rumors website the polls showed 500 people who didn't like olympus's announced lenses as opposed to 50 people who did.
To make the point a little clearer, I'm going to list slow telephoto zooms available for m4/3s below:
- Olympus 40-150mm f4-5.6
- Olympus 75-300mm f4.8-6.7
- Olympus 14-150mm f4-5.6
- Panasonic 14-140mm f4-5.8
- Panasonic 45-200mm f4-5.6
Now lets compare the list of available AF primes that aren't a fisheye or macro:
- Olympus 17mm f2.8
- Panasonic 20mm f1.7 (the saving grace of the system so far IMO)
So there's a 40mm equivalent lens which is great quality, and a 35mm equivalent lens of average quality, as well as being slow (and infuriatingly) no smaller than the faster panasonic.
The very thing that makes m4/3 so great is that it's small and easy and fast. The panasonic 20mm f1.7 holds to that promise, and they sold them faster than they could make them. MAKE MORE LENSES LIKE THAT!!!
gavinlg
Veteran
The results are comparatively amazing taking into account that an e-p1/2/pl1 or gf1 is only slightly larger than a run of the mill point and shoot. The quality is about equal in most ways to a regular APSC dslr. In some ways better, in some ways worse. In good strong light the IQ is comparable to a 5d/d700, but with less control over DOF. In low light the full frame sensor is significantly better.
The portability and cuteness of the system makes it so likable. For me anyway.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Maybe someone could post the same shot with D700 and u4/3...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
P
Paul T
Guest
The point is that you won't get the same shot with both of them!
I have many frustrations with my GF1, but principally down to its ergonomics. These outweigh sensor limitations. At the moment I'd probably be more frustrated with the D700, which has entirely different limitations.
If only the GF1 were nearer the quality and usability of my HExar. It's not close, but for my purposes it's nearer than the D700.
kuzano
Veteran
Can we "agree to disagree" to be trite here?
Can we "agree to disagree" to be trite here?
I have always been a better capitalist than I have a photographer. 45 career years plus in banking and marketing lead one to that result.
Olympus hasn't so much turned to idiocy as they have capitalism. Their decisions for the last decade have been directed more toward the profit model than the "let's really satisfy photographers".
I suspect part of that decision goes way back to the OM-1 to OM-4 era when they failed, due to lack of reliability in the Press Corp market, to penetrate the Professional marketplace.
So, I am inclined to say that Olympus has turned to bottom line development and marketing, rather than cater to a smaller niche marketplace, ie prime lens users. It's possible that those buyers wouldn't spend the required money to offset R&D, marketing and distribution and return a suitable profit. In fact, they are not seeking loyalty, but profits.
Can we "agree to disagree" to be trite here?
Gavin, I never thought that this day will come. As an Olympus nut, it pains me to say that the current Olympus is run by idiots. Half-hearted idiots at that.
Sorry for the rant. I am beyond ... miffed.
I have always been a better capitalist than I have a photographer. 45 career years plus in banking and marketing lead one to that result.
Olympus hasn't so much turned to idiocy as they have capitalism. Their decisions for the last decade have been directed more toward the profit model than the "let's really satisfy photographers".
I suspect part of that decision goes way back to the OM-1 to OM-4 era when they failed, due to lack of reliability in the Press Corp market, to penetrate the Professional marketplace.
So, I am inclined to say that Olympus has turned to bottom line development and marketing, rather than cater to a smaller niche marketplace, ie prime lens users. It's possible that those buyers wouldn't spend the required money to offset R&D, marketing and distribution and return a suitable profit. In fact, they are not seeking loyalty, but profits.
Last edited:
The 17/2.8 is under-rated. It and the EP2 make a nice combination, and is usable even without the EVF. For legacy lenses, the EVF on the EP2 is amazing. As far as offering a 25/1.4 AF lens- it would be nice, but I expect Cosina is going to fill the gap for fast prime lenses.