Olympus OM enthusiasts' digital prayers have been answered ...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Feb 4, 2012.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    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-full-size-pictures-of-the-e-m5/
     
    Bruce, Feb 4, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce

    Trevor Guest

    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.
     
    Trevor, Feb 5, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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 pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Feb 5, 2012
    #3
  4. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    "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.
     
    Bruce, Feb 5, 2012
    #4
  5. Bruce

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 5, 2:54 am, "Trevor" <> 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.
     
    RichA, Feb 6, 2012
    #5
  6. Bruce

    Trevor Guest

    "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, Feb 6, 2012
    #6
  7. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    "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.
     
    Bruce, Feb 6, 2012
    #7
  8. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    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.
     
    Bruce, Feb 6, 2012
    #8
  9. Bruce

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 6, 6:14 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > "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.


    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.
     
    RichA, Feb 6, 2012
    #9
  10. Bruce

    Mort Guest

    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
     
    Mort, Feb 7, 2012
    #10
  11. Bruce

    Mort Guest

    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.
    >
    > Trevor.
    >
    >

    Hi,

    I still have about a dozen OM lenses for my two OM-4T bodies. It
    certainly would be nice to have a new Olympus digital body with the OM
    lens mount and auto diaphragm, and I would not mind manual focus. I
    suppose that it is just daydreaming.

    Mort Linder
     
    Mort, Feb 7, 2012
    #11
  12. Bruce

    Mike Guest

    On 06/02/2012 9:42 PM, Mort wrote:
    > 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
    >

    So larger format than mini 4/3


    --
    Mike
     
    Mike, Feb 7, 2012
    #12
  13. Bruce

    Trevor Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.


    Right, so just who's "prayers" are being answered simply by a retro "OM"
    look I wonder? The "look" was hardly what attracted most people to the OM
    system, it was the size weight and performance for me.


    > 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.


    Haven't used one on 4/3, but I'm puzzled how they suffer from any
    significant vignetting when your only using the middle half of the lens
    circle?


    > 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,


    Do you have a link for that list? Sounds interesting.


    > 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.


    True, I would only use an OM lens because I already had it and did not want
    to buy another lens of that type. Which also rules out buying another camera
    body just to use the old lenses I guess! So looks like my "OM enthisiasts
    prayers" are never going to be answered :-(



    > 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.


    Right, hardly anybody "praying" for that AFAIK. Which is NOT to say it won't
    be a good camera for some, or that nobody will buy it of course.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Feb 7, 2012
    #13
  14. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    "Trevor" <> wrote:
    >"Bruce" <> wrote:
    >> 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.

    >
    >Haven't used one on 4/3, but I'm puzzled how they suffer from any
    >significant vignetting when your only using the middle half of the lens
    >circle?



    I explained it in my previous post. You replied to that post but
    snipped the relevant paragraph. ;-)


    > > 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,

    >
    >Do you have a link for that list? Sounds interesting.



    It was on the Olympus Four Thirds web site.
     
    Bruce, Feb 7, 2012
    #14
  15. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Mort <> wrote:
    >
    >I still have about a dozen OM lenses for my two OM-4T bodies. It
    >certainly would be nice to have a new Olympus digital body with the OM
    >lens mount and auto diaphragm, and I would not mind manual focus. I
    >suppose that it is just daydreaming.



    Unfortunately yes, that is just daydreaming. Olympus rejected the
    idea of a digital OM because of the incompatibility of many OM lenses
    with digital sensors, which I explained in the post you replied to.
     
    Bruce, Feb 7, 2012
    #15
  16. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Mort <> wrote:
    >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.



    The Olympus PEN F, FT and FV were half frame 35mm SLRs made from 1963
    to 1970, still being sold as late as 1974.

    The current PEN E-P3 (and previous E-P1 and E-P2) mirrorless digital
    cameras are styled to resemble the PEN F, FT and FV.

    However, the first PEN was made in 1959. It was a viewfinder camera.
    A range of non-reflex PENs were made from 1959 into the 1980s.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_Pen
     
    Bruce, Feb 7, 2012
    #16
  17. Bruce

    Trevor Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>Haven't used one on 4/3, but I'm puzzled how they suffer from any
    >>significant vignetting when your only using the middle half of the lens
    >>circle?

    >
    >
    > I explained it in my previous post. You replied to that post but
    > snipped the relevant paragraph. ;-)


    No, you explained why it would happen if you were using the full lens image
    circle, but since your not, I can't see how it's a big problem? Sure there
    might be a slightly measurable loss, but a visable vignette, really? Not
    saying your wrong, but I'd love to know the TRUE extent.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Feb 7, 2012
    #17
  18. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    "Trevor" <> wrote:
    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>>Haven't used one on 4/3, but I'm puzzled how they suffer from any
    >>>significant vignetting when your only using the middle half of the lens
    >>>circle?

    >>
    >>
    >> I explained it in my previous post. You replied to that post but
    >> snipped the relevant paragraph. ;-)

    >
    >No, you explained why it would happen if you were using the full lens image
    >circle, but since your not, I can't see how it's a big problem?



    You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Your loss. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Feb 7, 2012
    #18
  19. Bruce

    Trevor Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Mort <> wrote:
    >>
    >>I still have about a dozen OM lenses for my two OM-4T bodies. It
    >>certainly would be nice to have a new Olympus digital body with the OM
    >>lens mount and auto diaphragm, and I would not mind manual focus. I
    >>suppose that it is just daydreaming.

    >
    >
    > Unfortunately yes, that is just daydreaming. Olympus rejected the
    > idea of a digital OM because of the incompatibility of many OM lenses
    > with digital sensors, which I explained in the post you replied to.



    Well it's all relative. I note they don't recommend the 75-150 below 100mm
    and 5.6, yet it works well enough on a Canon DSLR, on par with the kit zooms
    at least, which are only f5.6 at that range anyway. And most of the other OM
    lenses I have seem to be reasonably OK on their list.

    Have you actually tried any OM lenses on a E-series camera yourself? I think
    Olympus is just advising caution. And of course they'd prefer to sell more
    new lenses :)
    But as I said, buying a fairly expensive DSLR body just to use some old
    sub-optimal lenses is probably not such a great idea anyway. And simply
    using a retro look as a marketing feature will appeal to some, but there are
    more important things I look for in a camera.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Feb 7, 2012
    #19
  20. Bruce

    Trevor Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>>>Haven't used one on 4/3, but I'm puzzled how they suffer from any
    >>>>significant vignetting when your only using the middle half of the lens
    >>>>circle?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I explained it in my previous post. You replied to that post but
    >>> snipped the relevant paragraph. ;-)

    >>
    >>No, you explained why it would happen if you were using the full lens
    >>image
    >>circle, but since your not, I can't see how it's a big problem?

    >
    >
    > You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Your loss. ;-)


    Nope I read it, and it doesn't match my experience, so I queried what YOUR
    experience was? (rather than theory)
    Maybe it's only a major problem with Olympus 4/3 sensors perhaps, but as I
    said, it's all relative.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Feb 7, 2012
    #20
    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. Robin Goodfellow

    hotmail problem - sorry if this has been answered

    Robin Goodfellow, Aug 8, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    512
    Robin Goodfellow
    Aug 8, 2003
  2. MayB

    Attention you Concorde enthusiasts

    MayB, Apr 14, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    420
    slumpy
    Apr 17, 2004
  3. Brad Smilanich
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    478
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    404
  5. Charles

    Camera enthusiasts

    Charles, Mar 14, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    595
    Mark Thomas
    Mar 20, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page