Olympus OM-D sensor not from Panasonic?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Mar 8, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Loads of rumours floating around about this.
     
    RichA, Mar 8, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> 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. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Mar 8, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Mar 8, 3:39 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> 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.  ;-)
     
    RichA, Mar 8, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    RichA <> 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.
     
    nospam, Mar 8, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    Mort Guest

    nospam wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > RichA<> 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
     
    Mort, Mar 9, 2012
    #5
  6. Mort <> writes:

    > nospam wrote:
    >> In article
    >> <>,
    >> RichA<> 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, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 12, 2012
    #6
  7. David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > Mort <> writes:
    >> nospam wrote:
    >>> In article
    >>> <>,
    >>> RichA<> 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
     
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 12, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Chris Malcolm
    <> 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.
     
    nospam, Mar 13, 2012
    #8
  9. nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Chris Malcolm
    > <> 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
     
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 19, 2012
    #9
  10. RichA

    Ian Guest

    "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > nospam <> 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..
     
    Ian, Mar 19, 2012
    #10
  11. Chris Malcolm <> writes:

    > nospam <> wrote:
    >> In article <>, Chris Malcolm
    >> <> 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.


    Furthermore, it displayed the spots measured graphically across the
    bottom of the screen, so you could quickly determine what was falling
    where, and perhaps what was going to be clipped.

    > 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.


    Yep, detailed histograms give us a LOT more data now. I do so like
    progress!

    > 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..


    That sounds right.

    > 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.


    At this point my two light meters just sit in the cabinet (I hope I
    remembered to take the batteries out). I find I can "guess" (based on
    40 years of experience) quite a good starting point, and whether I need
    one, two, or very occasionally three test shots really doesn't matter
    much (especially compared to digging the meter out of the shoulder
    bag).
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 19, 2012
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Steven M. Scharf

    D-SLR Sensor Resolution and Sensor Size Comparison Size Matters!

    Steven M. Scharf, May 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    5,562
    Georgette Preddy
    May 16, 2004
  2. IMKen
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    933
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Jun 22, 2004
  3. MeMe

    Dust on sensor, Sensor Brush = hogwash solution?

    MeMe, Feb 10, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    1,197
  4. Rich

    Panasonic FX30..why not use 2/3rds sensor???

    Rich, Dec 12, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    440
    HornBlower
    Dec 14, 2005
  5. Replies:
    14
    Views:
    2,190
Loading...

Share This Page