Alert : EM5 Mk3 Release this year - it’s (well nearly) official

fsuscotphoto

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
862
Location
St. Cloud, FL
Real Name
Ron
I don't know a single Oly shooter personally who owns it, as it's pro-level priced and pretty much needs either an E-M1 or a gripped E-M5 for handling. It does what it does very well, but it's a lot of money for a do-everything lens and most folks who want to never take their zoom off are consumers who bought a 14-150.

It really comes into its own as a rough condition lens, where you can't be swapping lenses due to conditions and need that extra reach without giving up Pro level optical quality.

Most Oly shooters I know are still using the 12-40+40-150 combo at the high end, or have moved to the new PL f2.8-4's.
I can't speak to anything but those I know. There are a couple of Facebook pages geared to MFT and a lot of people there own them. I also own the 40-150. Two different beasts though.
 

davidzvi

Super Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
3,610
Location
Outside Boston MA
Real Name
David
I don't know a single Oly shooter personally who owns it, as it's pro-level priced and pretty much needs either an E-M1 or a gripped E-M5 for handling. It does what it does very well, but it's a lot of money for a do-everything lens and most folks who want to never take their zoom off are consumers who bought a 14-150.

It really comes into its own as a rough condition lens, where you can't be swapping lenses due to conditions and need that extra reach without giving up Pro level optical quality.

Most Oly shooters I know are still using the 12-40+40-150 combo at the high end, or have moved to the new PL f2.8-4's.
Love my 12-100 f/4. Had the Oly 12-40 f/2.8 and sold it. Yes it's smaller and lighter, but when I want faster f/2.8 isn't enough either. I also considered the Oly 40-150 f/2.8, but 150mm isn't enough and neither is 210mm with the TC (and I'm not a fan of TCs).

I did consider the PL trio and have the 8-18. But decided against the others for several reasons.

f4 lenses are for users who aren't caring about shallow DoF. And there's a lot of folks out there who don't give a crap about shallow DoF (or at least don't in their zoom kit) but care a lot about size/weight (where the smaller/lighter f4's come into play). One major reason I shoot m43 is because I can get more DoF at a given aperture and field of view, which is key for the landscape and nature photography that I do.

What I'm talking about is a replacement for the 12-50, not something between it and the 12-40. The 12-50 is a great range, but it's kit-lens quality optically (which ain't bad, but I want a fair bit more at its list price). And it's dog slow at the long end (f6.3) and the handling is a PITA thanks to the stupid power zoom mode. Making it f4 across the board would make f5.6 a usable working aperture (vs f8 for the variable-aperture zooms) and likely only result in modest weight gains.

A 50-100/4 will sell if it's small (which it should be) and priced around the $500 mark. It's selling point would be 'small, great and sealed', the 40-150 Pro is a beast of a lens, the 40-150 R is good optically but lacks build, sealing and AF performance. The 35-100's from Panasonic currently are the only lenses in the space and a 2x f4 zoom would allow Oly to offer something even better suited to those users looking for small and excellent (which is exactly what the biggest selling point for m43 is in the first place). Or make it 40-100 to cover more uses, that way it would pair up well with the 12-40 Pro for those looking to lose weight from the 40-150 but not giving up the 12-40.



You're saying there's no room between the $99 40-150R and the $1299 40-150 Pro? Gimme a break. There's a huge gap here for a third lens that gives 12-50 level build without 40-150 Pro size & weight.

Really? The m43 lens lineup has generally resembled larger formats almost exactly, either matching up with FF lens designs in terms of range (24-80 equivalent), or in a few cases matching up with the end result of a FF lens on APS-C (the 40-150 for example is quite close to what you get using a 70-200 on APS-C, albeit with a touch more wide end). The only real exception for that is the 12-100 and 12-200 and those are very new.

m43 was always about delivering the flexibility of larger formats without the size penalty inherent to them. That's the way it was pitched when the G1 was launched (and why I bought my G1 in Jan 2009) and unlike 4/3rds, m43 delivered on this promise.

Nikon doesn't have a consumer lens out for the Z mount yet, they also don't have a consumer body. Those will come and will be APS-C. While camera lines are shrinking, lens lines are continuing to show the same consumer/mid-range/pro lineup that has worked well for so long.



Then why does Oly have as many wide zooms in their lineup as mid-range telephotos (2 of each). Why does Nikon have at least a half-dozen of them? Why do all the 3rd party makers sell a bag full of options in that range? The reality is that UWA zooms are very popular and generally are the third zoom most users buy (after their normal and mid-tele zooms). And costly?

Nikkor 10-20VR $276.95 @ B&H

There's a bag full of other options around $5-600 from everybody else.

UWA Primes aren't popular, and thus we only see a handful of them.
I definitely agree there needs to be a better kit option. The speculation I've seen around things on the Oly roadmap might fill some of the gaps.

Camera World speculation:
  • Wide Zoom Lens (9-30mm)
  • Standard Zoom Lens (10-40mm)
  • Telephoto Zoom Lens (48-210mm)
  • Telephoto Zoom Lens (60-250mm)
I'm hoping for one of the wide/std zooms to be a pro build f/4. But a10-40mm f/4 could fill the better than kit option. I'd probably sell my PL8-18mm for either; get a more useful range; and maybe add the Laowa 7.5. Either telephoto would also fill the gap between the 40-150 Pro and R. I'm hoping for the 60-250mm f/4 Pro range.

I consider the E-M1X to be a one-off as well, standing beside the basic lineup as a pure specialty body, like Fuji's X-H1. It doesn't fit in the regular OM-D line as it has a different design focus. Unlike the D5 or the 1DX, the E-M1X isn't actually head & shoulders above the E-M1.2 in terms of performance, it's just got some (good) tweaks and that big body optimized for use on the big Pro lenses.

And yes, I do agree a 2RF/3SLR lineup would be ideal. I'm also good with keeping an E-M1X style body as a specialty body, but the price differential from it needs to be closer to reality, or the performance advantage needs to be significantly higher (faster AF, deeper buffer, maybe go to XQD cards to get a significant write speed increase). If it's going to be the D5 to the E-M1's D850, it needs to deliver D5 level increases in performance for the speed-oriented shooter, or it needs to be not significantly costly more than an E-M1+Grip.
IMHO the only reason to have 3 in the SLR range is if the E-M1x is the 3rd.
 

mawz

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
47
Love my 12-100 f/4. Had the Oly 12-40 f/2.8 and sold it. Yes it's smaller and lighter, but when I want faster f/2.8 isn't enough either. I also considered the Oly 40-150 f/2.8, but 150mm isn't enough and neither is 210mm with the TC (and I'm not a fan of TCs).

I did consider the PL trio and have the 8-18. But decided against the others for several reasons.
I should not that my E-M5.2 is my main body here, so I am observably biased towards small over zoom range.

I definitely agree there needs to be a better kit option. The speculation I've seen around things on the Oly roadmap might fill some of the gaps.

Camera World speculation:
  • Wide Zoom Lens (9-30mm)
  • Standard Zoom Lens (10-40mm)
  • Telephoto Zoom Lens (48-210mm)
  • Telephoto Zoom Lens (60-250mm)
I'm hoping for one of the wide/std zooms to be a pro build f/4. But a10-40mm f/4 could fill the better than kit option. I'd probably sell my PL8-18mm for either; get a more useful range; and maybe add the Laowa 7.5. Either telephoto would also fill the gap between the 40-150 Pro and R. I'm hoping for the 60-250mm f/4 Pro range.
10-40 would be a non-starter for me, it's not wide enough to replace an UWA and not long enough to replace a 12-50 or 12-60. For UWA 9mm is a must. The PL8-18 is about the perfect range from my perspective (and I'll likely add one eventually, I have the 9-18 for now).

I like both those tele ranges a lot but neither actually fills the gap I want filled, which is a small/good tele from Oly (I would otherwise get the 35-100/2.8 from Panasonic, but I want the locked-out focus stacking feature). Frankly, I can see a need for both the long-range mid-speed tele and the short range tiny tele in the lineup, wildly different use cases and different pricepoints (the small one should come in a little above the 75-300 in price, while the xx-2xx should be much closer to the 40-150 in cost, say $899-999)

IMHO the only reason to have 3 in the SLR range is if the E-M1x is the 3rd.
I disagree on that, the E-M1X adds very little to the range outside of a niche for the large Pro telephoto user, but having a consumer E-M10, enthusiast E-M5 and Pro E-M1 covers 98% of the use cases and most consumers aside from the purse camera/RF style body fan. You need the cheap body to bring newbies into the system, the core sales are in the enthusiast range and the E-M1.2 is a much more flexible body than the E-M1X for most uses by the serious user.
 

Aristophanes

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
626
Location
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
f4 lenses are for users who aren't caring about shallow DoF. And there's a lot of folks out there who don't give a crap about shallow DoF (or at least don't in their zoom kit) but care a lot about size/weight (where the smaller/lighter f4's come into play). One major reason I shoot m43 is because I can get more DoF at a given aperture and field of view, which is key for the landscape and nature photography that I do.

What I'm talking about is a replacement for the 12-50, not something between it and the 12-40. The 12-50 is a great range, but it's kit-lens quality optically (which ain't bad, but I want a fair bit more at its list price). And it's dog slow at the long end (f6.3) and the handling is a PITA thanks to the stupid power zoom mode. Making it f4 across the board would make f5.6 a usable working aperture (vs f8 for the variable-aperture zooms) and likely only result in modest weight gains.

A 50-100/4 will sell if it's small (which it should be) and priced around the $500 mark. It's selling point would be 'small, great and sealed', the 40-150 Pro is a beast of a lens, the 40-150 R is good optically but lacks build, sealing and AF performance. The 35-100's from Panasonic currently are the only lenses in the space and a 2x f4 zoom would allow Oly to offer something even better suited to those users looking for small and excellent (which is exactly what the biggest selling point for m43 is in the first place). Or make it 40-100 to cover more uses, that way it would pair up well with the 12-40 Pro for those looking to lose weight from the 40-150 but not giving up the 12-40.



You're saying there's no room between the $99 40-150R and the $1299 40-150 Pro? Gimme a break. There's a huge gap here for a third lens that gives 12-50 level build without 40-150 Pro size & weight.

Really? The m43 lens lineup has generally resembled larger formats almost exactly, either matching up with FF lens designs in terms of range (24-80 equivalent), or in a few cases matching up with the end result of a FF lens on APS-C (the 40-150 for example is quite close to what you get using a 70-200 on APS-C, albeit with a touch more wide end). The only real exception for that is the 12-100 and 12-200 and those are very new.

m43 was always about delivering the flexibility of larger formats without the size penalty inherent to them. That's the way it was pitched when the G1 was launched (and why I bought my G1 in Jan 2009) and unlike 4/3rds, m43 delivered on this promise.

Nikon doesn't have a consumer lens out for the Z mount yet, they also don't have a consumer body. Those will come and will be APS-C. While camera lines are shrinking, lens lines are continuing to show the same consumer/mid-range/pro lineup that has worked well for so long.



Then why does Oly have as many wide zooms in their lineup as mid-range telephotos (2 of each). Why does Nikon have at least a half-dozen of them? Why do all the 3rd party makers sell a bag full of options in that range? The reality is that UWA zooms are very popular and generally are the third zoom most users buy (after their normal and mid-tele zooms). And costly?

Nikkor 10-20VR $276.95 @ B&H

I used to get 19-35's all day long for $150 in the AF film era.

There's a bag full of other options around $5-600 from everybody else.

UWA Primes aren't popular, and thus we only see a handful of them.
Well, the Olympus lens roadmap isn’t divided into Zuiko, L-glass and Pro. It’s Zuiko regular and Zuiko Pro and nothing like the f/4 Canon L series is or has ever been indicated. It’s a two tier system. You keep arguing it’s a 3 tier system and the OEM shows only 2 tiers. So, no, the Olympus lineup has never matched the DSLR or SLR lines. You’re not going to see a $500 2x zoom that costs Olympus 40-150 Pro customers, all for 1 stop. Makes no marketing sense in a dramatically shrinking market where pressure is likely in to reduce models, not add them. And comparing to Nikon is apt as they’re in the midst of dramatically pruning their lens line and have shut both their China plant and 1 of their 2 Thai plants. Both Nikon and Canon MILC are showing a two-tier lens structure as well. Not enough market for three. No need.

What you are more likely to see is upgraded kit stuff (plain old Zuiko) from Olympus with weather sealing and a higher price (how Pentax sort of stayed viable) allowing for better revenues, buy ups by current mid-range users, and long term differentiation from smartphones, and maybe better video options. There is simply no market space for a middle tier constant f/4. They can’t grow the user base and such a line would take purchases away from the f/2.8 zooms.
 

mawz

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
47
Well, the Olympus lens roadmap isn’t divided into Zuiko, L-glass and Pro. It’s Zuiko regular and Zuiko Pro and nothing like the f/4 Canon L series is or has ever been indicated. It’s a two tier system. You keep arguing it’s a 3 tier system and the OEM shows only 2 tiers. So, no, the Olympus lineup has never matched the DSLR or SLR lines. You’re not going to see a $500 2x zoom that costs Olympus 40-150 Pro customers, all for 1 stop. Makes no marketing sense in a dramatically shrinking market where pressure is likely in to reduce models, not add them. And comparing to Nikon is apt as they’re in the midst of dramatically pruning their lens line and have shut both their China plant and 1 of their 2 Thai plants. Both Nikon and Canon MILC are showing a two-tier lens structure as well. Not enough market for three. No need.
Canon already has a 3 tier line in the R system (albeit they've only got one mid-tier lens right now, the RF 24-105 f4L, but 2 consumer lenses and a bunch of high-end L glass). Nikon has been quite vocal that the S lenses are high-grade lenses and consumer glass will follow for Z mount once they have a consumer level body (they consider the Z6 to be comparable to the D750 and a step up from the consumer-level D6x0 line). Sony does 3 tier as well (actually 4 tier as you have FE, G, GM and ZA lenses from them, although GM and ZA mix to fill one tier)

While Olympus may not differentiate on the roadmap between their Regular and Premium lines anymore, this differentiation existed for a long while (and is still on the website) and includes all the f1.8 primes as Premium lenses (IIRC the 9-18, 12-50 and 14-150 all are 'Premium'), the differentiation is clearly there in the pricing and specs across the regular line. They have the cheap kit lenses (the two 14-42's, the 40-150R and the 30 Macro). They have the Premium line of lenses (yes, it's even listed on their website at https://www.getolympus.com/us/en/mzuiko ) and they have the Pro line.

The reality is the guys who want that compact $500 tele zoom are far more likely to either settle for the $99 40-150 than buy & carry the $1299 40-150 Pro boat anchor, or they'll buy the FAR smaller & lighter Panasonic 35-100/2.8, or they may go with the similar sized and sealed Panasonic 45-200 II. It's not just about a stop. It's about size & weight & sealing. The 40-150 Pro may be a brilliant lens, but it's big and heavy in a system where small & light is supposed to be the selling point. A mid-range in here saves Oly from leakers, it's not going to cost sales of a lens these buyers don't want in the first place.

What you are more likely to see is upgraded kit stuff (plain old Zuiko) from Olympus with weather sealing and a higher price (how Pentax sort of stayed viable) allowing for better revenues, buy ups by current mid-range users, and long term differentiation from smartphones, and maybe better video options. There is simply no market space for a middle tier constant f/4. They can’t grow the user base and such a line would take purchases away from the f/2.8 zooms.
Olympus has a damned good kit lineup and no need to spend any time there right now. The Pro lineup is set aside from some needed gap filling in the super tele range and maybe a ~100mm macro. But in between the two is a complete mess. The 14-150 II is great, but the rest needs to be revisited. The majority of the market is simply not going to buy $800+ lenses and Oly isn't offering anything realistic in that huge gap between the $100-ish lenses (either new or in a kit) and the $800+ Pro lenses.

This is most obvious with the 40-150's where there's a $1200 gap in price between the two. The reality is today that Oly simply doesn't offer a telezoom for the user who wants good build and reasonable weight. They don't offer a mid-range zoom for the user who wants better than kit optics or faster, and while the UWA offering is almost there, it needs sealing to be a good match for the E-M5, and has needed this since the original E-M5 launched.

Right now Oly's entry in that space is the 12-50 and the 9-18. Neither quite meet the needs of this space (the 12-50 is too slow and not good enough optically, the 9-18 lacks sealing that it should have got 4-5 years ago).

Panasonic gets this much better and unsurprisingly their lens lineup shows this. They have their cheap kit 14-42 and 45-150, the ultra-compact 12-32/35-100 pair (for the GX bodies that Oly currently lacks a direct analog to), the splashproof 12-60 and 45-200 set (this is their mid-range, and it's a good one, even if variable aperture), then 2 'Pro' level kits, the small/video oriented 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8 and the PL 8-18/12-60/50-200 trio. All Panasonic really misses is iterating the older 7-14/4 to be splashproof.
 

AussiePhil

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
2,927
Location
Canberra, ACT, Aust
Real Name
Phil
I don't know a single Oly shooter personally who owns it, as it's pro-level priced and pretty much needs either an E-M1 or a gripped E-M5 for handling. It does what it does very well, but it's a lot of money for a do-everything lens and most folks who want to never take their zoom off are consumers who bought a 14-150.
Seriously the 12-100 is a quite popular item, it's easy to find people on the forum who have one and it's arguably the ultimate travel lens.
Consumers who are happy with the kit lens or the 14-150 are not the target audience and they are not likely to buy it. The target audience is the 12-40/40150 pro combination or one of them and they want a more convenient lens for general use rather than swapping lens during a day.

It really comes into its own as a rough condition lens, where you can't be swapping lenses due to conditions and need that extra reach without giving up Pro level optical quality.
Or as the general purpose walk around all day travel lens.... it's really not heavy as far as lens that cover that focal range and it has pro quality in image and use.

IMost Oly shooters I know are still using the 12-40+40-150 combo at the high end, or have moved to the new PL f2.8-4's.
Now i do think you need to get out more ..... large numbers of 12-40 people have swapped out to get or added in a 12-100 as it has the same image quality and greater versatility.
Personally i never owned the 12-40 as i considered it far to short on the long end.... the 12-60SWD was a far better option for me and generally the 40-150Pro gets far more use :)
I will say the PL zooms are nice but after the PL100-400 repair issues i will not own one any time soon.
 

AussiePhil

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
2,927
Location
Canberra, ACT, Aust
Real Name
Phil
Really? The m43 lens lineup has generally resembled larger formats almost exactly, either matching up with FF lens designs in terms of range (24-80 equivalent), or in a few cases matching up with the end result of a FF lens on APS-C (the 40-150 for example is quite close to what you get using a 70-200 on APS-C, albeit with a touch more wide end). The only real exception for that is the 12-100 and 12-200 and those are very new.
Sigh.... all the lens lines for the more common ranges date way back into the film era and exist more because that is the default range that people are used to than anything else
the 24-70 is covered by the 12-40
the 70-200/80-210 is covered by the 40-150 or now by the 12-100 with extended wide angle.
From 24mm up the Oly zooms tend to offer extended ranges in comparison to the main stream lens....

The reality is that UWA zooms are very popular and generally are the third zoom most users buy
I'd like to see that backed up by sales data... UWA's are a specialty lens now matter how you cut it or how popular you think they are.... levels, convergence, etc all require care in use

Nikon doesn't have a consumer lens out for the Z mount yet, they also don't have a consumer body.
Well the current Z bodies are not Pro bodies so they must be Consumer bodies.... just not cheap ones.

I consider the E-M1X to be a one-off as well, standing beside the basic lineup as a pure specialty body, like Fuji's X-H1. It doesn't fit in the regular OM-D line as it has a different design focus. Unlike the D5 or the 1DX, the E-M1X isn't actually head & shoulders above the E-M1.2 in terms of performance, it's just got some (good) tweaks and that big body optimized for use on the big Pro lenses
It may be a speciality body but i doubt it is planned as a one off and as for performance, it may not be head and shoulders above the EM1.2FW3.1 but it's performance generally is more than a significant boost above but you need to use one as the spec sheets do not reflect the improvements in the user experience of the genuine Pro level body.

To at least have a line that's on topic.....

The em5.3 should take a leapfrog over the EM1 range and give us something special... the pricing though if that happens will be at least equal to if not greater then the EM1.2 and the complaints will flow....
Oly is likely to give us the EM1.2 in a smaller body and make the price the same anyway.....
 

AussiePhil

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
2,927
Location
Canberra, ACT, Aust
Real Name
Phil
Yes we apparently have a different understanding of one-off. But by your definition is the E-M1x a one off? Or is it the top of the OMD line the same way the Nikon D5 and Canon 1DX are the top of there DSLR lines.
I my opinion is the evolutionary top of the line model just like the D5/1DX2..... and I hope we see a EM1Xmk2 at a future date
 

Aristophanes

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
626
Location
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Canon already has a 3 tier line in the R system (albeit they've only got one mid-tier lens right now, the RF 24-105 f4L, but 2 consumer lenses and a bunch of high-end L glass). Nikon has been quite vocal that the S lenses are high-grade lenses and consumer glass will follow for Z mount once they have a consumer level body (they consider the Z6 to be comparable to the D750 and a step up from the consumer-level D6x0 line). Sony does 3 tier as well (actually 4 tier as you have FE, G, GM and ZA lenses from them, although GM and ZA mix to fill one tier)

While Olympus may not differentiate on the roadmap between their Regular and Premium lines anymore, this differentiation existed for a long while (and is still on the website) and includes all the f1.8 primes as Premium lenses (IIRC the 9-18, 12-50 and 14-150 all are 'Premium'), the differentiation is clearly there in the pricing and specs across the regular line. They have the cheap kit lenses (the two 14-42's, the 40-150R and the 30 Macro). They have the Premium line of lenses (yes, it's even listed on their website at https://www.getolympus.com/us/en/mzuiko ) and they have the Pro line.

The reality is the guys who want that compact $500 tele zoom are far more likely to either settle for the $99 40-150 than buy & carry the $1299 40-150 Pro boat anchor, or they'll buy the FAR smaller & lighter Panasonic 35-100/2.8, or they may go with the similar sized and sealed Panasonic 45-200 II. It's not just about a stop. It's about size & weight & sealing. The 40-150 Pro may be a brilliant lens, but it's big and heavy in a system where small & light is supposed to be the selling point. A mid-range in here saves Oly from leakers, it's not going to cost sales of a lens these buyers don't want in the first place.



Olympus has a damned good kit lineup and no need to spend any time there right now. The Pro lineup is set aside from some needed gap filling in the super tele range and maybe a ~100mm macro. But in between the two is a complete mess. The 14-150 II is great, but the rest needs to be revisited. The majority of the market is simply not going to buy $800+ lenses and Oly isn't offering anything realistic in that huge gap between the $100-ish lenses (either new or in a kit) and the $800+ Pro lenses.

This is most obvious with the 40-150's where there's a $1200 gap in price between the two. The reality is today that Oly simply doesn't offer a telezoom for the user who wants good build and reasonable weight. They don't offer a mid-range zoom for the user who wants better than kit optics or faster, and while the UWA offering is almost there, it needs sealing to be a good match for the E-M5, and has needed this since the original E-M5 launched.

Right now Oly's entry in that space is the 12-50 and the 9-18. Neither quite meet the needs of this space (the 12-50 is too slow and not good enough optically, the 9-18 lacks sealing that it should have got 4-5 years ago).

Panasonic gets this much better and unsurprisingly their lens lineup shows this. They have their cheap kit 14-42 and 45-150, the ultra-compact 12-32/35-100 pair (for the GX bodies that Oly currently lacks a direct analog to), the splashproof 12-60 and 45-200 set (this is their mid-range, and it's a good one, even if variable aperture), then 2 'Pro' level kits, the small/video oriented 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8 and the PL 8-18/12-60/50-200 trio. All Panasonic really misses is iterating the older 7-14/4 to be splashproof.
Olympus isn’t Canon. It has less than 10% the market share.

You have 3 mid-price Olympus options for a tele-zoom. 12-200, 14-150, and the 75-300. Add in the do-it-all f/4 constant 12-100 Pro and you have the coverage suggested. And look at the weather sealed f/4 Pro and the Panny 35-10/2.8. That’s your middle tier, L-glass equivalents in scope and price and form factor. Variable aperture is pretty much the domain of low and mid-tier.

Again, the Olympus road map shows nothing like what’s being suggested in this discussion. Either Olympus won’t duplicate Panasonic (and vice versa) in some agreement, or it’s simply not economical, taking too much revenue from the high-end for minimal margin. The entire strategy for all camera makers now is to upscale and up-sell. That means more differentiation between product lines.

Across the broader industry there has been a trend towards all-in-one zooms. Their quality and utility has increased considerably. They are very popular and have been known as “body sellers”. The concept of “classic” 3 lens normative kits is actually complex, expensive, and what many consumers don’t want. As Thom Hogan regularly notes when looking at sales, many ILC buyers never change lenses. Olympus zeroed in on this trend now with 3 models bracketing options and price points. My local camera store confirms. What sold the EM1.2 was the 12-100/4. That combo attracted people who had no intention of buying any other zoom and maybe 1 prime...done! One comprehensive zoom and 1-2 primes is a very, very common kit. Telephoto long and WA are specialties that vignette the majority of the market. The bell curve of the hobbyist market would likely be very happy with a 12-100 and a low light prime or 2.

The evisceration of the low end makes it far more likely that the “kit” items get revised upward. They do need a rework such as weather sealing, but not constant aperture. It’s pretty obvious that constant aperture is either prime or Pro in Olympus speak. Given the collapsing market, we are likely to see a dramatic slowdown in development regardless.
 

hazwing

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
2,133
Location
Australia
Apparently the em5 mk3 delayed until october now (43rumors).

I suspect/hope they are delaying it, because they are trying to make it really good/competitive against other cameras in the similar market.
 

RyanM

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2017
Messages
451
Apparently the em5 mk3 delayed until october now (43rumors).

I suspect/hope they are delaying it, because they are trying to make it really good/competitive against other cameras in the similar market.
Unfortunately the longer they wait, the better it'll have to be to make a splash. I hope they succeed and surprise us with something exceptional. Though even if it's an EM1mkII in an EM5 chassis, I'll probably own one eventually: when just depends on the price.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
1,883
Why don't they change the title of this discussion? I keep thinking it might have something to do with the much anticipated EM-5 III. Oh. also that 12-100 F-4 lens is a killer,since you get unbelievable IS.
 

RAH

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
661
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
Most Oly shooters I know are still using the 12-40+40-150 combo at the high end, or have moved to the new PL f2.8-4's.
Yes, I agree. I was using a PL 12-35 f2.8 and recently switched to the newer PL 12-60 f2.8-4. The difference in size between the 12-60 and that 12-100 is quite a lot and I cannot imagine carrying a big lens like the 12-100 just to ge the extra 60-100 reach. For a do-all kit-replacement type lens, the PL 12-60 is the way to go, IMHO.
 

FrayAdjacent

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
276
Location
Austin, TX
Real Name
M@
Unfortunately the longer they wait, the better it'll have to be to make a splash. I hope they succeed and surprise us with something exceptional. Though even if it's an EM1mkII in an EM5 chassis, I'll probably own one eventually: when just depends on the price.
This is true. I'm really preparing myself to be underwhelmed. Stuffing the EM1MkII in the chassis of the EM5 would be a huge letdown to me. There would be no reason to buy it instead of just buying a used EM1MkII instead.

There is some amazing competition in what the price range will likely be. Olympus can't afford to underwhelm.
 

RyanM

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2017
Messages
451
There would be no reason to buy it instead of just buying a used EM1MkII instead.
You mean, other than the significantly smaller and lighter body? That seems like a feature that is important to many, particular m43 users who are probably more concerned with size/weight than most. It seems like you're expecting the EM5mkIII to be the EM1mkIII (i.e. a new flagship model where new tech is debuted).

Your broader point that the competition is fierce I totally agree with though.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom