|
LeicaPlace |
|
|
6Thanks
 |
|
|

June 20th, 2012, 12:23 AM
|
 |
Mu-43 Top Veteran
|
|
|
|
There is definitely something lost in the translation here.
|

June 20th, 2012, 12:42 AM
|
|
Mu-43 Regular
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Qatar & New Zealand (& Malaysia when in transit)
Posts: 181
DonTom's Gallery
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viktor
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
This PDF refers to an adapter for Four Thirds, not Micro Four Thirds
E-P1 > Frequently Asked Questions
This reference is for the E-P1, not E-M5. Also, in the restrictions on utility that are listed, image stabilisation during video is not included as a restriction.
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.
In their own website giving details of the E-M5 ( OLYMPUS OM-D E-M5: Feature 5-AXIS IMAGE STABILIZATION | Olympus Imaging Asia ) the following is stated: "It also stabilizes movies, even when shooting while walking. Because the IS system is built into the body, it is effective regardless of which lens is used." This is clearly false advertising on the part of Olympus. Recently, Olympus has admitted the banding issue with the Panasonic 20mm F1.7 lens. This issue of false advertising should be addressed in the same manner. Everyone understands that omissions occur during the design and manufacture process. It would be very helpful if Olympus would investigate this specific issue further, and make an announcement on their policy going forward. Either publicly admit the false claim and apologize, or work towards fixing the omission via future firmware update.
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
|
At least they reply promptly to your emails Viktor. But the representative really hasn't said anything at all. It would pay to ask for your questions to addressed by an engineer, giving technical reasons why the lenses cannot be stabilised in video mode by entering their focal length.
I've made some suggestions above, if you want to keep going on this email exchange with them! Ask for the issue to be escalated to a Customer Support Manager, on the basis of false claims in the company website.
I don't think Olympus meant for this lack of functionality to occur, someone screwed up. They probably plan to address it in a future firmware update, but they should say so!
Thanks for your efforts, and for posting the results here. Good luck with the next one!
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"
|

June 20th, 2012, 02:20 AM
|
|
|
I believe that it has been a marketing / product management decision not to support IBIS+legacy lenses in video mode, just to accelerate sales of the native lenses. IBIS works for stills and with native lenses it works perfectly.
Pekka
|

June 20th, 2012, 02:33 AM
|
|
Mu-43 Regular
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Qatar & New Zealand (& Malaysia when in transit)
Posts: 181
DonTom's Gallery
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by apekkpul
I believe that it has been a marketing / product management decision not to support IBIS+legacy lenses in video mode, just to accelerate sales of the native lenses. IBIS works for stills and with native lenses it works perfectly.
Pekka
|
Hi Pekka,
I disagree with you, because: - They actually tout the ability to use legacy lenses in their literature on the camera.
- They are more of a still photograph focused company, and things work fine there.
- The actual sales difference from such a policy would be minimal. Once you have experienced the size difference between legacy (35mm film) lenses and the native options, you tend to save up for the real thing.
I hope that Olympus will address this in time. I have always planned to get a GHx when I wanted to get serious about video, but it looks like I won't have to, if Olympus clears this up.
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"
|

June 20th, 2012, 04:19 AM
|
|
|
Thanks Tom. English is not my mother language, so I have used your words in my answer in this way:
I would like to ask for the issue to be escalated to a Customer Support
Manager, on the basis of false claims in the company website.
1)
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_se...f1instcomp.pdf
This PDF refers to an adapter for Four Thirds, not Micro Four Thirds
E-P1 > Frequently Asked Questions
This reference is for the E-P1, not E-M5. Also, in the restrictions on
utility that are listed, image stabilisation during video is not included
as a restriction.
2)
In Olympus website giving details of the E-M5 (
OLYMPUS OM-D E-M5: Feature 5-AXIS IMAGE STABILIZATION | Olympus Imaging Asia)
the following is stated: "It also stabilizes movies, even when shooting
while walking. Because the IS system is built into the body, it is
effective regardless of which lens is used."
This is clearly false advertising on the part of Olympus. Recently,
Olympus has admitted the banding issue with the Panasonic 20mm F1.7 lens.
This issue of false advertising should be addressed in the same manner.
Everyone understands that omissions occur during the design and
manufacture process. It would be very helpful if Olympus would investigate
this specific issue further, and make an announcement on their policy
going forward. Either publicly admit the false claim, or work towards
fixing the omission via future firmware update.
|

June 20th, 2012, 05:33 AM
|
 |
Mu-43 Top Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Massachusetts USA
Posts: 925
Real Name: Fred fredlong's Gallery
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grinch
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.
|
This isn't a compatibility issue. CA correction is not part of the m4/3 standard. It's a feature added to Panasonic bodies.
Fred
|

June 20th, 2012, 07:00 AM
|
|
Mu-43 Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
Posts: 465
Real Name: Mike zapatista's Gallery
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grinch
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.
|
Use Lightroom?....just populate the remove chromatic aberrations radio button under lens profile....you don't even have to populate a specific profile.
|

June 20th, 2012, 12:54 PM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viktor
image stabilisation during video is not included
as a restriction.
"It also stabilizes movies, even when shooting
while walking. Because the IS system is built into the body, it is
effective regardless of which lens is used."
This is clearly false advertising on the part of Olympus.
.
This issue of false advertising should be addressed in the same manner.
Everyone understands that omissions occur during the design and
manufacture process. It would be very helpful if Olympus would investigate
this specific issue further, and make an announcement on their policy
going forward. Either publicly admit the false claim, or work towards
fixing the omission via future firmware update.
|
I agree! In their ads and even in the manual, it says it works with non-native lenses. Also, in the manual, there is no "warning" printed that it doesn't work in Video-IBIS for non-native lenses. The manual states all kinds of and other restrictions and "warning" that the camera cannot do, but it doesn't state and omits the fact that IBIS doesn't work in video mode for adapted lenses. Actually, in page 49, it says in order to make the IBIS work with adapted lenses, all you need to do is to input the FL; it never states for which, stills and video, and never states it doesn't work for video.
A good reason many get m43 cameras is because they are a mount that is compatible with Every lens out there, highly experiment-able, etc... from m39, to rf, to m-mount, to cctv, to m42 and everything in between, because it has a narrow flange back; unlike DSLR's which are unable to mount RF and other smaller lenses.
I just find it funny, that the OMD was designed to have that "vintage look" of the old MF SLR's; which in turn will attract many MF, vintage, adapted, lens users...yet, isn't compatible with those true, old, vintage MF lenses.
|

June 21st, 2012, 05:27 AM
|
|
|
:-/ Like a slippery politician. Probl. wont get much out this...:
We are deeply sorry if our explanation was insufficient.
1)We are supposed to show you the URL append to previous mail as
an example that there are some restrictions on operation for legacy
lends adopted to DSLR.
DSLR is basically designed to deliver the required performance and
functions with the same standard. Legacy lenses are attached to
Micro Four Thirds bodies; however, it has to be considered those
restrictions.
2)In the page we say "It also stabilizes movies, even ?" basically
means for usage of Micro Four Thirds products.
However, your disappointment is understandable if the functions of
the camera it says was not as good as you expected to any kind of
the lenses and bodies.
This issue that IVIS functions of legacy lenses adapted to MFT
cameras are not malfunctions, clearly false advertising, but its
specifications. This issue is different from banding issue with the
Panasonic lens.
All comments from you and the other customers are definitely
escalated to any co-workers in different positions of our company.
Lastly, we do have Service Center in Denmark in case you are
able to get in touch with us.
*** Distributor/Service center in Denmark ***
Olympus Denmark A/S
Tempovej 48-50
2750 Ballerup
Tel: +45 44 73 47 00
*** European Technical Hotline ***
Available via toll free number:
00800-67 10 83 00
Available via charged numbers:
+49 180 5-67 10 83 or +49 40 -237 73 4899
*Available from 9am to 6pm MET (Monday to Friday)
http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/208_1636.htm
We hope that we can be of service to you in the near future.
We are striving far continuous improvement by taking our customers'
comments to heart.
|

June 21st, 2012, 06:18 AM
|
|
Mu-43 Regular
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Qatar & New Zealand (& Malaysia when in transit)
Posts: 181
DonTom's Gallery
|
|
Absolute Tosh from Olympus.
They are paying attention Viktor, but that particular person has run out of words.
Here is a quote from the Olympus press release, as published on DPReview when the camera was announced:
"Unprecedented 5-axis image stabilization
The Olympus E-M5 is distinguished by the world’s first 5-axis image-stabilization mechanism capable of reducing the effects of camera motion and image blur from five directions on stills and video, even including motion blur caused by the photographer walking or running. Previous IS mechanisms compensated for camera shake by addressing only two kinds of movement along the vertical and horizontal axis. However, camera shake can actually be caused by five different kinds of movement: horizontal shift, vertical shift, rotary motion, as well as the yaw and pitch. While some technology has attempted to correct for camera blur by building the Image Stabilization mechanism into the lens, the Olympus E-M5 IS mechanism is incorporated into the camera body itself so that all lenses mounted on the body can take advantage of this sophisticated technology, whether shooting stills or HD video." (My emphasis in blue).
I noticed this, and thought "Cool", when the camera was announced.
The question is, how to proceed with this issue? I have not bought an E-M5. If I had, I would be prepared to make a complaint of false advertising to the Consumer Affairs Department in the country where I bought the camera. You have bought one, and this course is open to you.
Another option is to start an e-mail campaign, via the various forums that specialise in m43 cameras. Olympus need to pay attention to this issue!
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"
|
 |
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
More Discussions |
|
Click the "101 Active Discussions" tab at the top of the page.
|
|
More Member Ads |
|
Click the "Buy and Sell" tab at the top of the page.
|
|
FTC Disclosure |
This site uses affiliate programs and referral links for monetization.
|
|