«

As the most eagerly awaited Micro Four Thirds announcement yet draws
closer, 43rumors.com has unretouched images of the new Olympus OM-D
model equipped with a battery grip.

It is a very good looking camera, drawing on featured of the original
Olympus OM 35mm SLRs plus the E Series DSLRs. It is mirrorless but
has a 1.4 million dot EVF in the "pentaprism housing".

The camera is confusingly named the Olympus E-M5 but the front of the
top plate is clearly marked OM-D. It looks like OM-D describes the OM
Digital range, and the model number within that range is E-M5.

Official announcement is on Wednesday February 8.

http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-first-fu...s-of-the-e-m5/

What makes this an "OM enthusiasts prayers answered" more so than any
previous E series SLR (other than the OM-D name)?
Does it have an OM lens mount as standard rather than 4/3? Or is it simply
just an E-series evolutionary move away from a reflex prism/mirror.

Trevor.

In article <>, Bruce
<> writes
>As the most eagerly awaited Micro Four Thirds announcement yet draws
>closer, 43rumors.com has unretouched images of the new Olympus OM-D
>model equipped with a battery grip.
>
>It is a very good looking camera, drawing on featured of the original
>Olympus OM 35mm SLRs plus the E Series DSLRs.

OM looks outside don't compensate for the tiny 4-turds sensor inside.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

"Trevor" <> wrote:
>
>What makes this an "OM enthusiasts prayers answered" more so than any
>previous E series SLR (other than the OM-D name)?


The OM-D looks like an Olympus OM, just as the PEN E-P1, 2 and 3 look
like an Olympus Pen F or FT. Yes, it is all about appearances, and
about exploiting the enormous positive sentiment for the OM System.

I am very happy to be exploited and I think many OM enthusiasts will
too. I have no doubt that the OM-D E-M5 will sell very well indeed. I
expect I will buy one at some point, just not immediately.


>Does it have an OM lens mount as standard rather than 4/3? Or is it simply
>just an E-series evolutionary move away from a reflex prism/mirror.


It isn't an E Series body. It doesn't have an E mount. It is a Micro
Four Thirds body. Olympus will be making at least one more E Series
body, but this is not it.

To the sceptics I would ask, where was Olympus before the PEN E-P1 was
introduced? The answer is dead and buried. The E Series was not
selling and sales of compact P&S cameras had peaked.

Panasonic developed Micro Four Thirds without Olympus and went down
the route of making their first camera - the LUMIX G1- with the look
and feel of a modern SLR. Olympus drew on their history and made a
Micro Four Thirds camera that looked like a 1960s PEN.

Although the PEN was an SLR, it didn't look like one. It was an
inspired choice, though, as it helped Olympus gain a greater share of
the Japanese market than Panasonic. The OM-D will provide an even
greater boost to Olympus sales at a time when they really need it.

On Feb 5, 2:54*am, "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
> What makes this an "OM enthusiasts prayers answered" more so than any
> previous E series SLR (other than the OM-D name)?
> Does it have an OM lens mount as standard rather than 4/3? Or is it simply
> just an E-series evolutionary move away from a reflex prism/mirror.
>
> Trevor.

Non-crappy OVF, no crappy plastic body, less bloated than the E-3/5
pro bodies, fans have always said they wanted an OM-type digital.
Plus, according to the latest rumours, Olympus is going to release
another reflex camera anyway.

"Bruce" <> wrote in message
news:...
>>What makes this an "OM enthusiasts prayers answered" more so than any
>>previous E series SLR (other than the OM-D name)?
>
> The OM-D looks like an Olympus OM, just as the PEN E-P1, 2 and 3 look
> like an Olympus Pen F or FT. Yes, it is all about appearances, and
> about exploiting the enormous positive sentiment for the OM System.
>
> I am very happy to be exploited and I think many OM enthusiasts will
> too. I have no doubt that the OM-D E-M5 will sell very well indeed. I
> expect I will buy one at some point, just not immediately.

As a long time OM enthusiast I can say it will take more than a retro look
for me to buy one. My Canon DSLR's take my OM lenses with adapters just the
same as the E-series or OM-D will.
Now if it had an OM mount with aperture automation, it might "answer some of
my prayers", but it doesn't.

Trevor.

"Trevor" <> wrote:
>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>>>What makes this an "OM enthusiasts prayers answered" more so than any
>>>previous E series SLR (other than the OM-D name)?
>>
>> The OM-D looks like an Olympus OM, just as the PEN E-P1, 2 and 3 look
>> like an Olympus Pen F or FT. Yes, it is all about appearances, and
>> about exploiting the enormous positive sentiment for the OM System.
>>
>> I am very happy to be exploited and I think many OM enthusiasts will
>> too. I have no doubt that the OM-D E-M5 will sell very well indeed. I
>> expect I will buy one at some point, just not immediately.
>
>As a long time OM enthusiast I can say it will take more than a retro look
>for me to buy one. My Canon DSLR's take my OM lenses with adapters just the
>same as the E-series or OM-D will.
>Now if it had an OM mount with aperture automation, it might "answer some of
>my prayers", but it doesn't.


Then your prayers are slightly different, Trevor.

Many, if not most OM Zuiko lenses present significant problems when
used on a (Micro) Four Thirds digital sensor. The sensor design
strongly prefers telecentric lenses, where most of the light rays are
approximately perpendicular to the sensor when they hit.

But the OM Zuiko lenses were designed primarily for compactness and
light weight - small and light was the USP of the OM System - and this
coincidentally tended to produce lenses that were far from
telecentric. That didn't matter with film, which can record light
rays from all angles; all that mattered was where they hit the film,
not at what angle. But with a digital sensor, light rays striking at
oblique angles generate a much lower response from the receptors.

The result is that many OM lenses are poor performers on digital
sensors, particularly on the small (Micro) Four Thirds sensor. They
suffer particularly from vignetting and their overall performance is
degraded compared to their performance on film.

Olympus helpfully released a list of OM lenses with indications as to
which would performed well, or less well, with suggested limitations
on some in terms of lens apertures. I was so put off by the
complexity of this list, and the dire warnings it contained, that I
never even tried an OM Zuiko lens on my E-1 bodies. There was no need
because I no longer owned any OM gear and the Zuiko Digital lenses
were in any case superb.

So the OM-D E-M5 is not intended as a digital body for use with OM
lenses. It is more about retro styling that taps into the positive
sentiment for the OM system that is still around. People will buy it
because it looks like an OM SLR, not because it accepts OM lenses.

I accept that some people won't like it. But that's true of every
other product on the market.

mscir <> wrote:
><snip>
>> It isn't an E Series body. It doesn't have an E mount. It is a Micro
>> Four Thirds body. Olympus will be making at least one more E Series
>> body, but this is not it.
>
>I own and E-620 and I'm still learning about Olympus products. What is
>the E mount you referred to?


It's the mount that Olympus Four Thirds DSLRs use; it is the mount on
your camera and lenses.

Micro Four Thirds cameras use a different mount. However, it is based
on the technology of the E mount and there are adapters available
which allow the use of E mount lenses on Micro Four Thirds cameras.

On Feb 6, 6:14*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
> >"Bruce" <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:.. .
> >>>What makes this an "OM enthusiasts prayers answered" more so than any
> >>>previous E series SLR (other than the OM-D name)?
>
> >> The OM-D looks like an Olympus OM, just as the PEN E-P1, 2 and 3 look
> >> like an Olympus Pen F or FT. *Yes, it is all about appearances, and
> >> about exploiting the enormous positive sentiment for the OM System.
>
> >> I am very happy to be exploited and I think many OM enthusiasts will
> >> too. *I have no doubt that the OM-D E-M5 will sell very well indeed.I
> >> expect I will buy one at some point, just not immediately.
>
> >As a long time OM enthusiast I can say it will take more than a retro look
> >for me to buy one. My Canon DSLR's take my OM lenses with adapters just the
> >same as the E-series or OM-D will.
> >Now if it had an OM mount with aperture automation, it might "answer some of
> >my prayers", but it doesn't.
>
> Then your prayers are slightly different, Trevor. *
>
> Many, if not most OM Zuiko lenses present significant problems when
> used on a (Micro) Four Thirds digital sensor. *The sensor design
> strongly prefers telecentric lenses, where most of the light rays are
> approximately perpendicular to the sensor when they hit.
>
> But the OM Zuiko lenses were designed primarily for compactness and
> light weight - small and light was the USP of the OM System - and this
> coincidentally tended to produce lenses that were far from
> telecentric.

True, but people should experiment. However, it is true that a good
micro m4/3rds lens (even a zoom) will produce better images than some
of the OM glass across the field. I can see vignetting with an 85mm
f2.0 OM lens, even at f8.0 on a micro 4/3rds sensor. This probably
runs counter-intuitive to idea held by some who think that because the
lens covers a 35mm film plane it won't vignette on a small sensor.

Eric Stevens wrote:
> Surely that's wrong. The PEN was never an SLR?
>
Hi,

There certainly was a PEN SLR, as I owned one. It was half frame camera.

Mort Linder