jarski
Veteran
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Not counting third party products ...
According to Nikon USA's listing, they offer 81 lens products currently.
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/All-Lenses/index.page
According to Canon USA, they offer about 70 lens products currently.
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup
FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds together offers users 75+ lenses from all vendors, about 15 of those from other than Panasonic and Olympus. No one else is even close to the Nikon or Canon lens lineup in total number of lenses.
So why don't you "even count Olympus in with Nikon and Canon?"
G
DNG
Film Friendly
True... but we are talking about lenses made for current system cameras.
Fuji X mount only.
Olympus 4/3 and m4/3 only
defconfunk
n00b
Large? Hardly. They are larger than the kit lenses, that's all. Compare them to FF equivalent lenses from the full frame boys, and Olympus' reasoning shines through.
Lets compare apples to apples: high grade fast 400mm equivalent.
Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 ED SWD Zuiko
67mm filter, 8.65cm wide, 15.7cm long, 995g, $1199
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
77mm filter, 9.14cm wide, 18.8cm long, 1380g, $1699
Nikon AF VR Zoom-NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED
77mm filter, 9.14cm wide, 17.02cm long, 1360g, $1349
Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G Alpha
77mm filter, 9.45cm wide, 19.61cm long, 1500g, $1998
Both the Canon and Nikon have IS/VR (which Olympus also has, it is just in the bodty), but are a full stop and a half slower. They are also both 3/4 of a pound heavier. The Sony is more than a pound heaver, just as slow as the canon and nikon but lacks IS/VR in lens.
Oh, and AF on the E-M1 is definitely good.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
They should, in XA package.
NazgulKing
Established
Well, you are going to need as much help you can get to keep the camera steady, because I would never use more than ISO1600 on any m43 sensor, and I really dislike the splotchy noise profile on the EM5 and EM1 even at low ISO. I don't get why people say ISO3200 is fine on the camera, but I suppose I'm just being picky. I do not however expect technology to improve much, since the technology has plateau somewhat. Maybe Organic sensors might allow them to squeeze out a stop or so but I won't hold my breath.
So if there is one good reason that Olympus must go to a larger sensor, is because a larger sensor will always most certainly give a cleaner image. But then again, given the issues the company has, I don't think they have the ability to push through such a project.
Relatively new system with no extensive history and I'm not sure it is here to stay to be honest. I see it as the same thing the film Pens did. Half frame was to keep camera size down. However, Rollei made the Rollei 35 which showed you can do FF small. I see history repeating itself.
Nothing against the system... I just don't see it as on par with the vast array of what Nikon and Canon have offered for many, many years. It's just an opinion.
DNG
Film Friendly
Just to show the Size Differnce in a FF 70-200 f/2.8 N/C next to a E-M1 with the 35-100mm f/2.8 (same IQ, Same FOV as FF lenses)
DNG
Film Friendly
BUT, Olympus doesn't advert that they are a replacement for FF..
Although, many are using the E-M5 and E-M1 as Pro level camera for many of their paid jobs..
The E-M5 and E-M1 have better DR than most mid-range DSLRs and can shoot at ISO 3200 with the NR in camera turned off, and shooting RAW with very little image degradation and no smearing at all.
ISO 8000 E-M5-Pany 14mm f/2.5 ASPH No Flash
Benjamin Harrison Home: Indianapolis, IN 8-2012 par Peter Arbib, on ipernity
ISO 8000 E-M5-Pany 14mm f/2.5 ASPH No Flash
Benjamin Harrison Home: Indianapolis, IN 8-2012 par Peter Arbib, on ipernity
ISO 8000 E-M5-Pany 14mm f/2.5 ASPH No Flash
Click on image, and view the original,(1900x1450-- 1/2 the File size) and look at the sheer curtain thread pattern....
or just click here 1900x1450 upload
maybe not like ISO 200... but really good for ISO 8000 as far as Fine detail and lack of smearing.
A little color noise though... but minor.
Benjamin Harrison Home: Indianapolis, IN 8-2012 par Peter Arbib, on ipernity
Just saying... OM-D's have plenty of High ISO detail, DR. And clean solids.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
+1000
Of course Olympus should produce a full-frame camera.
For one thing, they know what quality is, for them to be successful with a smaller sensor, they have to
Better yet, they ought to use Sony's full-frame system and design a body and tweak the image software "engine."
mh2000
Well-known
I got into adapting legacy glass on a Canon body. Many Canon shooters still use legacy glass. Actually, I found that shooting legacy glass was less attractive on m43 because because of the crop factor and that larger lenses don't balance well on a small m43 body.
defconfunk
n00b
When using any 400mm lens, to get the best image you should be using a support. I use a monopod. Trying to get a good image on a 400mm lens without one is hard, IS/VR or IBIS. I don't think you'll see too many people using the three pound Sony without support.
You don't expect technology to improve much? Over what time frame? ten years ago a flip phone cell phone that couldn't display an entire 140 character text message was cutting edge. Today cell phones that play back 720p movies and out-shoot p&s cameras from 10 years ago are the norm.
The EM-1 has better IQ at the same ISO than an first gen 5d (released 8 years ago). Check noise images here
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/21
and
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/18
playing with the second link, I'd say the E-M1 is actually about a stop better than the original, and 8 year older, 5d.
And the m43 sensor has a trick up its sleeve to get away with using a lower ISO than FF: DoF. If I use a FF 50mm 1.4 lens at 6 feet for a portrait, my Dof is 4". Using a m43 25mm 1.4, my DoF is 8" - the same as using the FF at 2.8. If I want most of a person's head in focus, I can shoot the FF at f2.8 ISO 6400, or I can shoot m43 at f1.4 ISO 1600.
It isn't magic bullet, there are times when a razor thin DoF is acceptable and the older FF camera wins out. And of course, keeping to the same technological generation, the FF takes better pictures, period.
I think the plateau effect is due to so many minor revisions being released each year. True the Rebel T5i is not practically better than the T3i, but they are only three years apart. When you look at cameras that are only updated once every five years (like the 5D) you see big jumps in IQ with each generation.
You're right about Olympus not being in a position to push a FF camera, but I think that extends well beyond just Olympus. I don't think the market as a whole is ready to embrace a fourth mainstream FF option at the price point FF is going for. If I could have bought a FF camera for E-M1 money, I probably would have. But right now, due to either production costs, or simple need to maintain margins, no one is releasing a FF camera that costs what even the most expensive m43 camera costs. And now that I've lived with the E-M1, I'm less and less interested in the trade offs that come with a FF system.
DNG - thanks for that picture, it conveys what I said much much better - what's that old saying about pictures and thousand words yadda yadda...
Go back and look at what I originally said to Godfrey. I just said that I (personally) didn't include Olympus m43 in with Canon and Nikon with regards to a full blown system that will stand the test of time. That is it. I never said it isn't capable. I don't use Canon or Nikon myself. The only thing I don't like about m4/3 is that it is a 4/3 ratio.
DNG
Film Friendly
OK... point Taken..
Many assume FF is the last word in IQ... in some cameras (Df, for example), it is the last word.
so, w/o you saying it, I figured not having a full blown lens system yet, equated in a less capable camera also... as many do project, when pointing out "one" disadvantage. (Although, the m4/3 line from Pany and Oly do have the necessary high grade lenses for Pro use as far as some common Pro Needs. [Weddings, etc., Studio and Photo Journalism]..just not as deep yet.
Now DNG, do I care if it isn't a full blown system? Nope. I only use a few focal lengths anyway. By the way, the E-M1 is a very nice camera... so much nicer feeling than the Sony A7 that people are going nuts over.
By the way, the E-M1 is a very nice camera... so much nicer feeling than the Sony A7 that people are going nuts over.mh2000
Well-known
I've never heard anyone discount Canon's L-lenses because they have also produced so many variants of their cheap consumer zooms.
Upgrading a lens is (almost always) a good thing anyway. I don't undertand why anyone would be slamming Oly for coming out with zooms that are quieter for video or styled a little nicer.
On the upside, I was able to get one of the first generation Oly 40-150 zooms for $150 new. I don't shoot long that much so the little slow zoom is nice for my needs. Shot at f8 on a tripod I'm able to get good sharp images. As much as someone else might want to spend $1000+ for a f2.8 constant aperture version, it wouldn't be a lens I would ever consider buying myself.
TXForester
Well-known
Yes, but those are kit lenses and aimed mostly at entry level photographers. They had a nice line up in mid-level and high grade lenses for 4/3 if you could afford them.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Yup, it's just an opinion ..
The question was "Should Olympus produce a FF camera line?" I don't have any particular insight as to 'should', but I am sure that if they did it would be great.
The question to me is whether there's any need for it. Does everyone need a big honking sensor, a bazillion megapixels, etc etc, for every photographic purpose? I doubt it.
The other question, of course, is whether it would be profitable for Olympus to do so. The Sony A7 is a new system too. The first blush of sales is good, but they've only got a couple of lenses for it and there's not enough time in the market yet to see whether the lens line is filled out properly or say whether the effort is profitable to Sony (who've also been going through some rough years financially, just like most of the equipment manufacturers except for Leica). The A7's getting a lot of press, but that and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee.
G
mh2000
Well-known
>> The only thing I don't like about m4/3 is that it is a 4/3 ratio.
From a lifetime of shooting 35mm film, I felt negatively opposed to the 4/3 asperct ratio, but somehow got over this predjudice and gave it a try. Now I like it significanly better than 2:3.
I have essentially imposed a landscape orientation only shooting style which works really well with the 4:3 aspect ratio. makes for a much more cohesive body of work IMO and even for portrature, I find my photos more interesting when some of the scene is included and not just a tight crop of head and shoulders.
Using standard matts and frames, 11x14" prints work out great from m43 too!
Back when I mixed film and digital images, I standardized on 2:3, but after my scanner died and I went full digital, I ended up surprising myself and embracing 4:3.
From a lifetime of shooting 35mm film, I felt negatively opposed to the 4/3 asperct ratio, but somehow got over this predjudice and gave it a try. Now I like it significanly better than 2:3.
I have essentially imposed a landscape orientation only shooting style which works really well with the 4:3 aspect ratio. makes for a much more cohesive body of work IMO and even for portrature, I find my photos more interesting when some of the scene is included and not just a tight crop of head and shoulders.
Using standard matts and frames, 11x14" prints work out great from m43 too!
Back when I mixed film and digital images, I standardized on 2:3, but after my scanner died and I went full digital, I ended up surprising myself and embracing 4:3.