I think that, if the rumor is true and the EM5mkIII gets the EM1mkII sensor, that will be a solid upgrade. Adding good CDAF is a significant boost to keep up with the competition, that will help with both stills and video.To get back to the point of this thread...
Probably the size. Assuming the 5.3 doesn't grow a whole lot compared to the 5.2, it'll be quit a bit more compact than the 1.2. Other than that, maybe a new feature or two. But I'm fully expecting it to be a 1.2 in some new clothes.So what's going to be the differentiator between the em1ii and 5iii?
As far as pricing goes, the $1299 range would be the maximum in my opinion.
That's also been around in various bodies for quite some time. Perhaps you simply bought into the wrong system to begin with? And it's not really a "fault" of upcoming camera.Enjoying the extra 2-3 stops of usable high ISO for starters.
I think the E-M10 is one of their best selling models, possibly even more so than the E-M5s at this point. They are good enough with an EVF, at a good price point. An model as you've described would not be positioned between the E-M10 and E-M5, and would not be priced like an E-M10 to sell in such volumes, so I think would actually hurt profits for Olympus.Personally I'd like them to use the E-M1.2 sensor with phase AF in a body somewhere in between the E-M5 and M10, then kill the M10.
Then use the sensor again in a simplified Pen F sized rangefinder.
The EM10 is the entry level camera. Olympus cannot afford to kill it. Because then the $ entry point is raised significantly, and entry level market share is handed over to Panasonic (for m4/3) or Nikon/Canon for dSLRs.Personally I'd like them to use the E-M1.2 sensor with phase AF in a body somewhere in between the E-M5 and M10, then kill the M10.
Then use the sensor again in a simplified Pen F sized rangefinder.
I think the E-M10 is one of their best selling models, possibly even more so than the E-M5s at this point. They are good enough with an EVF, at a good price point. An model as you've described would not be positioned between the E-M10 and E-M5, and would not be priced like an E-M10 to sell in such volumes, so I think would actually hurt profits for Olympus.
I do think that an E-M5 at this point needs PDAF - like it or not video AF is now very important, and there's nothing more frustrating for a parent than trying to AF on a moving child. The E-M1 Mk2 with firmware 3.0 is my first Olympus camera that can do it. They could just drop in the sensor, TruePic VIII, the basic C-AF algorithm, and skip most of the fancy AF group targets and high-speed options, pro-capture, etc. Oh, and single card slot would work fine.
While they're at it - for the next entry-level PENs and E-M10, drop in the E-M1 Mk1 16 MP sensor with its basic central non-cross-type PDAF array, combined with the TruePic VIII tweaked to apply the new C-AF algorithm for video. Good video AF would be a killer feature for parents.
I few points maybe to clarify:The EM10 is the entry level camera. Olympus cannot afford to kill it. Because then the $ entry point is raised significantly, and entry level market share is handed over to Panasonic (for m4/3) or Nikon/Canon for dSLRs.
In general, once you loose a customer to another brand, you may never get that customer back. With Panasonic, there is half a chance, because of the common m4/3 mount. But with Nikon/Canon, because the mount is different, you LOST the customer. And once they start to buy specific accessories and lenses, the hook is set deeper.
Besides, I as an EM1 owner bought the EM10, specifically to have a SMALL easy to carry m4/3 camera.
There have been times where I would grab the EM10, rather than the EM1, because it is small and light.
BTW, you are talking about down shifting the EM5 to be closer to the EM10, not enhancing with EM1-mk2 functionality. Or said another way, enhance the EM10, and kill the EM5.
That means giving up some of the advanced features everyone is wanting, to lower the price point. As mentioned, maybe the EM1-mk1's 16MP sensor rather than the mk2's 20MP sensor.
I was not denying 20 MP for an E-M5 equivalent. I was suggesting 16 MP with PDAF for the E-M10.I few points maybe to clarify:
Just my thoughts.
- The 16mp sensor from the E-M1 mkI had worse high ISO performance, so no I would not want to see that in another camera, sorry.
- Move the E-M5 down or more the E-M10 up. Either way you say it amounts to the same. It's just we know the E-M5 mkIII is about to be released so that one moves down.
- You have to take both parts of my post together. Make the rangefinder the cheaper entry, how well has the GX85 sold? Phase and EVF are a must if they want to compete with things like the X-E3, so again use that 20mp sensor.
- If the X is a one off or limited series than OK the M10 / M5 / M1 are fine. If not than do they really need 4 SLR style bodies? IMHO all the companies have too many options in the contracting pool. But I'd hope with the 300 and the new 150-400 we will continue to see more development in that higher end area.
I've also owned the E-M1 mkI, along with the E-M10 mkI & II, the E-M5 mkII, and the E-P5. Currently I have the E-M1 mkII.I was not denying 20 MP for an E-M5 equivalent. I was suggesting 16 MP with PDAF for the E-M10.
The E-M1 did not have meaningfully worse high ISO perfomance. I went from an E-M5 to an E-M1 and high ISO was not a problem for me - long exposure noise was the issue. There are many happy users of the E-M1 who find it just fine.
How many E-M10 buyers outside of those of this forum would really care for a TINY improvement in high ISO performance? The 20 MP E-M1 II isn't that much better (I now have one). I think they'd pick hugely better AF. Most of the people that I know that bought an E-M10 were not enthusiasts like us... They stuck with kit lenses and maybe consider a fast prime.
As for the RF... I dunno, they seem to be a certain type of enthusiasts' dream but most of the high end RFs on m4/3 tank in general sales. E-P5, GX8, PEN-F...
This is the unfortunate truth about all premium rangefinder style bodies. Everytime one got released it was for an uncompetive price. So they sold poorly and the manufacturers decided that rangefinder bodies were not sought after. People like rangefinder bodies, but they don't like to pay a 200$/€ premium for them. The GX8 also had the problem of having a in some important parts better camera be released soon after and cheaper. I think if the GX85 had happened a year later we would have a proper GX9 today...The E-P5, Pen F, and GX8 aren't what they should release, they were ALL over priced.
The problem is sales, accounting and a crystal ball.This is the unfortunate truth about all premium rangefinder style bodies. Everytime one got released it was for an uncompetive price. So they sold poorly and the manufacturers decided that rangefinder bodies were not sought after. People like rangefinder bodies, but they don't like to pay a 200$/€ premium for them. ..
But the fundamental difference between RF and SLR styles is only cosmetic/packaging. Whether the EVF is on the top or the side is surely fairly inconsequential.The problem is sales, accounting and a crystal ball.
If they think they won't sell a lot, they have to raise the price to recover the development cost and not loose money.
But if they raise price too high people won't buy.
If they don't raise the price enough, and they don't sell enough units, they don't recover the development cost and they loose money. And other product line have to support the money loosing product.
To keep the cost down, they have to design to use as much existing parts as possible to reduce the development/manufacturing cost.
But that means something similar to what we have, not something new.
Can they put the guts of a SLR into the body of a RF, with minimal additional cost? The more different you make it, the more the cost goes up.
IF a manufacturer would change their model and make only rangefinder style cameras rather than SLR style, then the picture changes, as the multiple RF models share development costs, and the mfg expects to sell them in enough volume to support the development cost.
Where there are BOTH RF and SLR, there is dilution.
They provide more choices for the customer, but increased development, manufacturing, marketing and sales cost is spread over 2 different styles.
Do they sell enough units to make it worth spending $$$$$ on both model lines? Or should they consolidate into a single SLR style line.
There is no easy answer.
GM shut down the Pontiac and Oldsmobile Divisions.