Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Olympus OM-D sensor not from Panasonic? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t869177-olympus-om-d-sensor-not-from-panasonic.html)

RichA 03-08-2012 05:41 PM

Olympus OM-D sensor not from Panasonic?
 
Loads of rumours floating around about this.

Bruce 03-08-2012 08:39 PM

Re: Olympus OM-D sensor not from Panasonic?
 
RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>Loads of rumours floating around about this.



The E-M5 has a Live MOS sensor according to Olympus. Panasonic has
the design rights to Live MOS.

Olympus has registered Live MOS as a trade mark in several countries
but allowed the USA application to lapse. Ownership of a trade mark
does not imply ownership of the design and/or manufacturing rights.

So the IP situation is slightly complex, but Live MOS is definitely
Panasonic's design. Where they are fabricated, and by which
company(ies) is unclear.

I have heard from contacts at Olympus Europe (who have become more
communicative since you-know-who left the company) that Panasonic
demanded exclusive rights to the 16 MP Live MOS sensor used in the G3
and GX1 models for 12 months before allowing Olympus to use it. That
time will soon expire, hence the arrival of the E-M5.

It isn't an OM-D, by the way. That's the name of the range. The
model is an E-M5. Apparently that is derived from E System plus this
being the (O)M model after the OM-4.

Remember that the OM System was called the M System before E Leitz
objected in very strong terms to the use of M-1. There were quite a
few M-1 models and M Zuiko lenses made before Olympus acceded to E
Leitz's wishes.

Ironic that the Olympus lenses for m4/3 are called M.Zuiko. Olympus
is very aware of history. ;-)


RichA 03-08-2012 10:14 PM

Re: Olympus OM-D sensor not from Panasonic?
 
On Mar 8, 3:39*pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Loads of rumours floating around about this.

>
> The E-M5 has a Live MOS sensor according to Olympus. *Panasonic has
> the design rights to Live MOS.
>
> Olympus has registered Live MOS as a trade mark in several countries
> but allowed the USA application to lapse. *Ownership of a trade mark
> does not imply ownership of the design and/or manufacturing rights.
>
> So the IP situation is slightly complex, but Live MOS is definitely
> Panasonic's design. *Where they are fabricated, and by which
> company(ies) is unclear.
>
> I have heard from contacts at Olympus Europe (who have become more
> communicative since you-know-who left the company) that Panasonic
> demanded exclusive rights to the 16 MP Live MOS sensor used in the G3
> and GX1 models for 12 months before allowing Olympus to use it. *That
> time will soon expire, hence the arrival of the E-M5.


Kind of like moratoriums on prescription drugs, or DVD releases.
>
> It isn't an OM-D, by the way. *That's the name of the range. *The
> model is an E-M5. *Apparently that is derived from E System plus this
> being the (O)M model after the OM-4.


E-M5 is weak. OM-D is strong. OM4-4 would have made more sense, but
I doubt it has manually selectable, multiple spot metering.

> Remember that the OM System was called the M System before E Leitz
> objected in very strong terms to the use of M-1. *There were quite a
> few M-1 models and M Zuiko lenses made before Olympus acceded to E
> Leitz's wishes.


Collector's cameras now.
>
> Ironic that the Olympus lenses for m4/3 are called M.Zuiko. *Olympus
> is very aware of history. *;-)



nospam 03-08-2012 10:17 PM

Re: Olympus OM-D sensor not from Panasonic?
 
In article
<e5a8a2e7-85d3-4e46-99f2-3526410b2ac7@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It isn't an OM-D, by the way. *That's the name of the range. *The
> > model is an E-M5. *Apparently that is derived from E System plus this
> > being the (O)M model after the OM-4.

>
> E-M5 is weak. OM-D is strong. OM4-4 would have made more sense, but
> I doubt it has manually selectable, multiple spot metering.


if only it did. the multi-spot metering on the om3 & om4 was awesome.

Mort 03-09-2012 10:00 PM

Re: Olympus OM-D sensor not from Panasonic?
 
nospam wrote:
> In article
> <e5a8a2e7-85d3-4e46-99f2-3526410b2ac7@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> RichA<rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> It isn't an OM-D, by the way. That's the name of the range. The
>>> model is an E-M5. Apparently that is derived from E System plus this
>>> being the (O)M model after the OM-4.

>>
>> E-M5 is weak. OM-D is strong. OM4-4 would have made more sense, but
>> I doubt it has manually selectable, multiple spot metering.

>
> if only it did. the multi-spot metering on the om3& om4 was awesome.



Yes, the multispot metering was awesome, because the spot readings were
additive, and exposure could be beautifully controlled regardless of the
difficulty that the scene presented. I treasure my large collection of
OM-4 and OM-4T bodies, lenses, motor drives, flashes, etc., even though
I no longer use them. I would love to have a digital body that could
utilize all these items, but it is probably not going to happen.

Mort Linder

David Dyer-Bennet 03-12-2012 06:14 PM

Re: Olympus OM-D sensor not from Panasonic?
 
Mort <mort@cloud9.net> writes:

> nospam wrote:
>> In article
>> <e5a8a2e7-85d3-4e46-99f2-3526410b2ac7@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
>> RichA<rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> It isn't an OM-D, by the way. That's the name of the range. The
>>>> model is an E-M5. Apparently that is derived from E System plus this
>>>> being the (O)M model after the OM-4.
>>>
>>> E-M5 is weak. OM-D is strong. OM4-4 would have made more sense, but
>>> I doubt it has manually selectable, multiple spot metering.

>>
>> if only it did. the multi-spot metering on the om3& om4 was awesome.

>
>
> Yes, the multispot metering was awesome, because the spot readings
> were additive, and exposure could be beautifully controlled regardless
> of the difficulty that the scene presented. I treasure my large
> collection of OM-4 and OM-4T bodies, lenses, motor drives, flashes,
> etc., even though I no longer use them. I would love to have a digital
> body that could utilize all these items, but it is probably not going
> to happen.


I loved the idea of multi-spot metering. I envisioned myself getting
near-zone-system exposure precision much MUCH faster (and hence usably
on things that aren't static or repeating).

In practice I didn't find it actually that useful. I changed from Nikon
to Olympus, specifically for multi-spot, in 1987.

I ended up changing back from Olympus to Nikon, for AF, in 1994. I
still had enough Nikon lenses that it mostly forced the system choice.

Speaking of sticker shock: My complete Olympus system, 2x OM-4T, one
auto-winder, 50/2, 35/2, 85/2, 24/2, 24/3.5 shift, Vivitar Series one
28-90, Vivitar Series one 70-200, cost $2700 new from B&H. That might
have included the Olympus flash module for my pre-existing Sunpak 555,
too. (Not absolutely sure I have the apertures right to the nearest .2,
or the 70-200 focal length endpoints exsactly right, it's from memory.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Chris Malcolm 03-12-2012 11:06 PM

Re: Olympus OM-D sensor not from Panasonic?
 
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Mort <mort@cloud9.net> writes:
>> nospam wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <e5a8a2e7-85d3-4e46-99f2-3526410b2ac7@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
>>> RichA<rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:


>>>>> It isn't an OM-D, by the way. That's the name of the range. The
>>>>> model is an E-M5. Apparently that is derived from E System plus this
>>>>> being the (O)M model after the OM-4.
>>>>
>>>> E-M5 is weak. OM-D is strong. OM4-4 would have made more sense, but
>>>> I doubt it has manually selectable, multiple spot metering.
>>>
>>> if only it did. the multi-spot metering on the om3& om4 was awesome.

>>
>> Yes, the multispot metering was awesome, because the spot readings
>> were additive, and exposure could be beautifully controlled regardless
>> of the difficulty that the scene presented. I treasure my large
>> collection of OM-4 and OM-4T bodies, lenses, motor drives, flashes,
>> etc., even though I no longer use them. I would love to have a digital
>> body that could utilize all these items, but it is probably not going
>> to happen.


> I loved the idea of multi-spot metering. I envisioned myself getting
> near-zone-system exposure precision much MUCH faster (and hence usably
> on things that aren't static or repeating).


Does not Sony do the same kind of thing on their Alpha models which
have two image sensors, one for taking the photograph, the other for
presenting the LCD live view? That enables fast phase autofocus while
using live view, and it also makes use of the live view secondary
sensor to do very accurate multi-spot metering.

--
Chris Malcolm

nospam 03-13-2012 12:26 AM

Re: Olympus OM-D sensor not from Panasonic?
 
In article <9s7dscFpl4U1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
<cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> >>>> E-M5 is weak. OM-D is strong. OM4-4 would have made more sense, but
> >>>> I doubt it has manually selectable, multiple spot metering.
> >>>
> >>> if only it did. the multi-spot metering on the om3& om4 was awesome.
> >>
> >> Yes, the multispot metering was awesome, because the spot readings
> >> were additive, and exposure could be beautifully controlled regardless
> >> of the difficulty that the scene presented. I treasure my large
> >> collection of OM-4 and OM-4T bodies, lenses, motor drives, flashes,
> >> etc., even though I no longer use them. I would love to have a digital
> >> body that could utilize all these items, but it is probably not going
> >> to happen.

>
> > I loved the idea of multi-spot metering. I envisioned myself getting
> > near-zone-system exposure precision much MUCH faster (and hence usably
> > on things that aren't static or repeating).

>
> Does not Sony do the same kind of thing on their Alpha models which
> have two image sensors, one for taking the photograph, the other for
> presenting the LCD live view? That enables fast phase autofocus while
> using live view, and it also makes use of the live view secondary
> sensor to do very accurate multi-spot metering.


nobody has had anything remotely close to om-3/4 multi-spot metering. i
don't know why, since it was so damned useful.

Chris Malcolm 03-19-2012 08:38 AM

Re: Olympus OM-D sensor not from Panasonic?
 
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <9s7dscFpl4U1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
> <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:


>> >>>> E-M5 is weak. OM-D is strong. OM4-4 would have made more sense, but
>> >>>> I doubt it has manually selectable, multiple spot metering.
>> >>>
>> >>> if only it did. the multi-spot metering on the om3& om4 was awesome.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, the multispot metering was awesome, because the spot readings
>> >> were additive, and exposure could be beautifully controlled regardless
>> >> of the difficulty that the scene presented. I treasure my large
>> >> collection of OM-4 and OM-4T bodies, lenses, motor drives, flashes,
>> >> etc., even though I no longer use them. I would love to have a digital
>> >> body that could utilize all these items, but it is probably not going
>> >> to happen.

>>
>> > I loved the idea of multi-spot metering. I envisioned myself getting
>> > near-zone-system exposure precision much MUCH faster (and hence usably
>> > on things that aren't static or repeating).

>>
>> Does not Sony do the same kind of thing on their Alpha models which
>> have two image sensors, one for taking the photograph, the other for
>> presenting the LCD live view? That enables fast phase autofocus while
>> using live view, and it also makes use of the live view secondary
>> sensor to do very accurate multi-spot metering.


> nobody has had anything remotely close to om-3/4 multi-spot metering. i
> don't know why, since it was so damned useful.


I did a bit of googling to find out what this was. Seems it allowed
you to spot read up to 8 regions of the photograph which could be
either averaged for a mid-tone exposure, or expose to the left
(darkest) or right (lightest), giving you some automation to help you
apply a simplified version of the zone system.

I used to do that the hard (and more expensive) way with a light
meter. I've still got the light meter. I now use it to balance manual
flash guns, and to assess exposure for some purely manual lenses. But
I find I never now use it for doing zoney exposure stuff. Why not?
Because when I want to do that kind of thing, being able to take a
shot and immediately see all the oversposed and underexposed areas
highlighted, plus being able to see not only the light level histogram
but the individial colour histograms, lets me have so much more
detailed control so much more easily.

So I conclude that had I owned an OM4 I would have liked and used the
multi-spot system, but if I had it now in my camera I wouldn't bother,
I'd go for the histograms etc..

I still carry the light meter around, BTW. I use it to balance flash
guns and assess initial trial exposure for totally manual lenses. Even
in the simple easily accessible confines of the studio I never bother
doing the zone thing with it because the camera now offers me better
ways of doing that.

--
Chris Malcolm

Ian 03-19-2012 12:11 PM

Re: Olympus OM-D sensor not from Panasonic?
 
"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9so9jeFn2aU1@mid.individual.net...
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:


>
>> nobody has had anything remotely close to om-3/4 multi-spot metering. i
>> don't know why, since it was so damned useful.

>
> I did a bit of googling to find out what this was. Seems it allowed
> you to spot read up to 8 regions of the photograph which could be
> either averaged for a mid-tone exposure, or expose to the left
> (darkest) or right (lightest), giving you some automation to help you
> apply a simplified version of the zone system.
>
> I used to do that the hard (and more expensive) way with a light
> meter. I've still got the light meter. I now use it to balance manual
> flash guns, and to assess exposure for some purely manual lenses. But
> I find I never now use it for doing zoney exposure stuff. Why not?
> Because when I want to do that kind of thing, being able to take a
> shot and immediately see all the oversposed and underexposed areas
> highlighted, plus being able to see not only the light level histogram
> but the individial colour histograms, lets me have so much more
> detailed control so much more easily.
>
> So I conclude that had I owned an OM4 I would have liked and used the
> multi-spot system, but if I had it now in my camera I wouldn't bother,
> I'd go for the histograms etc..
>
> I still carry the light meter around, BTW. I use it to balance flash
> guns and assess initial trial exposure for totally manual lenses. Even
> in the simple easily accessible confines of the studio I never bother
> doing the zone thing with it because the camera now offers me better
> ways of doing that.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm


Hi Chris.

Canon's T90 also had multi-spot metering. I used it a lot because it was
quick and easy to use.
The T90 also had flash spot metering and I think this has come across from
the T90 into their DSLRs.

Regards, Ian..




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.