If they meet your needs great, but I see little purpose in ruling out more than half of the good m4/3 lenses, most of which have 0 compatibility complaints.

DH

Indeed. The whole point of creating the standard is the broad array of glassware from multiple manufacturers. I have a camera from each (GF2, E-M5) and prefer the Oly, but the lenses I'm shooting with most are Panasonic (14/2.5, 20/1.7). I've also got a panny ultrawide coming (quality is king, and I do often print LARGE. It's kind of the point for me) and I'm leaning slightly towards the 100-300 over the 75-300 for when the time comes to add a tele zoom.

__________________
EOS: 5DII, 30DIR, 24-105L, 35L, 135L, 15/2.8 FE, Σ 50/1.4, Σ 105/2.8 macro
Mu43: GF2, E-M5, P14/2.5, P20/1.7, O45/1.8, P7-14, O12-50, P12-35, P100-300
Legacy: Contax Zeiss 50/1.4, 35/2.8, Leica R 50/2.0, 28/2.8, Pentax 50/1.7

That's a disappointing response from Olympus

µ4/3 has a great following for people that use legacy lenses- and Olympus only kinda acknowledges it. Which I can understand as I imagine they would prefer people buy new lenses.

What about the lack of correction of chromatic aberrations in regards to panny lens on Olympus bodies. I'd consider that a difference, and a compatibility issue that has not been dealt with as of yet. I know that with software it can be corrected, but it does make a difference in regards to comparing the product.

While that's a wildly unsatisfying response, it's the exact response I would've expected. That's not necessarily a knock on Olympus, because I would expect a similar response from any corporation or large organization (which is sort of a sad commentary on our increasingly corporate-dominated world economy).

Obviously there is a reason (either technical or financial) why Olympus chose not to offer the capability of using IBIS for video with non-native lenses. I don't know what that reason was, but I would be surprised if they offered a "fix" for this "problem" any time soon.

So, for those who are hung up on this single feature of the OM-D, I think a more effective course of action (rather than writing letters to Olympus or continuing to whinge on this forum) is to either start trying to hack a solution (such a the dandelion chip) or find another camera that offers this functionality out of the box.

This is not meant to be an attack on the OP (or anyone else), but simply my reading of the tea leaves.

__________________
Sarcasm is my default tone, so please consider that before taking offense to the preceding message.

Criticism (no matter how harsh) is welcomed of ANY and ALL images I post.

What a let down.

The biggest and most special feature of the OMD is IBIS. Without it, there are many better options for video with more features - GH1/2/3, Nex, etc.. the OMD doesn't have variable frame rates nor high bitrates for video...but it Does have IBIS; something the other cameras don't have. That's what sets it apart (IBIS) and that's what will make up for its' shortcomings (24p, higher bitrate) compared to the other cameras that do have 24p and higher bitrate. Olympus should really be exploiting the OMD's best and most unique feature, IBIS, instead of dumbing it down.

Dangit... I guess I will be forced to buy the modern AF lenses, which is a major drawback for video work. Real MF focus rings are so much better for video work. I also use double focus anamorphic-lenses, which likes real MF focus, and not clutch/electroni MF focus of the modern AF lenses. Also, i guess all my timelapses will be full of flickering now, since I have to use modern lenses with an electronic Ap blades that close and open after every shot, unlike an MF lens whose Ap blades just stay still and don't move per shot. My work will be slightly inferior; but I guess I can live with it and work with the modern, plastic, Overpriced, AF lenses.

Sucks really... cant use IBIS to its' full potential, with Video... can't use leica, old dslr and rf canon & nikon, pen-f, legacy, minolta, vintage Russian primes, old zeiss, contax lenses, and the list goes on and on. Just some examples of some really great lenses for the poor videographer..as they are much more inexpensive than modern af lenses, but still offer really great IQ, plentiful, the important real MF focus control and Not the icky clutch-focus of modern lenses, real manual Ap ring (which also can be modified for smooth Ap turning; something kinda needed since OMD locks exp while video shooting), etc., etc.

That sucks. Big time. I see two major flaws in his argument, and I suggest replying with these two points:
1) Olympus themselves produce an (expensive) OM to m43 adapter, to allow use of legacy Olympus lenses.
2) More importantly, Cosina Voigtlander are part of the m43 standard. They produce two very high quality and expensive lenses, that are listed on the Olympus website. These lenses are a big drawcard to the format for many. Are they saying that they will not support these lenses with IBIS in the video mode?

I'm glad you got a response from them. I would be grateful if you follow it up, don't be content with the first dismissal!

Cheers, Tom

__________________
Olly E-PL1 + VF2
Panny 14/2.5, 20/1.7, Olly 45/1.8
Olly 50/1.4 OM, Vivitar 135/2.8 OM, Vivitar Series 1 200/3 OM
Billingham Hadley Pro
MacBook Air 13", iMac 24"

Ya... I actually read some have the expensive, super-nice, Voigtander 25mm 0.95, which is native-m43...and guess what? Even being a native lens, it still has no Video-IBIS. I can;t afford that lens anyways...but I can afford the cheaper old adapted lenses and am more concerned with that, even tho the vc m43 lenses don't have Video-IBIS. It must really suck for them tho..since those new m43 vc lenses cost around $1500. Ouch.

I have now written back, with focus on these two points. I will be back if they answer...

Answer:

Thank you for sending your e-mail back.
To answer your questions, we have to be sorry that not all of OM
lenses are adapted to.

Even if your lens is adopted, there are some restrictions on
operation, not only take movies but also take steel images.

1) Please refer to the following websites for more details of MF-1
OM adaptor as an example of use.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_se...f1instcomp.pdf
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_se...asp?id=1461#48

2) Cosina Voigtlander lens are adoptable for Micro Four-Thirds
bodies, however, restrictions on operation are not avoidable.
in addition to this, regarding the problem with the camera and lens,
we are unable to give you any definite comments without having
camera for inspection individually.

We are sorry that we cannot give you more constructive reply.

Thank you.

Best regard,

T. Katagiri
Customer Support Center
OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. Tokyo, Japan