Is Olympus going in the wrong direction?

swifty

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
218
Location
Singapore
Real Name
Dave
Why would we be comparing it to FF btw?
And if you really wanted to compare it to FF, why not compare it to a comparable FF of equal sensor tech.
If you want to use the cheapest FF at ~$1k, then you’d need to dig up an old catalogue APS-C FSI sensor as a basis for comparison. But we’re talking about a premium product feature that would trickle down to other lines later perhaps. So maybe try a FF stacked sensor as a basis for comparison.
But I think some more relevant competition are about to materialise in new flagship APS-C bodies from Sony, Nikon, Fujfilm all using stacked 8k sensors, and Canon perhaps doing their own thing with their dual pixel design.

Yes, a body line redesign would be required but it’s a once only endeavour. Once you’ve established the platform ability to accept the next sensor up, the development can trickle through to your entire line later on.

Why would EVFs need to be redesigned btw?

And how does anyone really know what the demand is for multi aspect ratio sensors? All I see are a couple respondents expressing interests and couple of others thinking the opposite.

Olympus had some huge issues with their financials. We may never really know what were the root problems but I’d hazard a guess it is related to very large overheads in their Japanese workforce that couldn’t easily be shed because of their employment laws so required a divestment. But that’s for another thread.
How’s that relevant to the idea of making better use of the existing image circle again?
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,785
Location
Massachusetts, USA
are excellent when viewed with a 4x loupe.
I hope you don't spend most of your time viewing your prints in this way! ;)

To have a choice for aspect ratio is one advantage of digital over film, or at least it should be.
There were no issues printing to different aspect papers from the same 35mm negative including "cropping" (enlarging). 4x6, 5x7, 8x10, etc. were of course all standard print sizes but if you made your own prints you could print to any size and aspect ration as you wanted. So no digital advantage there.

If OMDS were to use an APS-C sensor, they would have no need to disclose it is an APS-C sized sensor.
Ha! Except that the sensor is easily viewable (and measurable) with the lens off, so about 3 seconds after a leaked photo of the new model hit the internet, everyone would be crowing about how OMDS is going to start using an APS-C sensor and has abandoned the m43 format.
 

jbruce

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Messages
247
Location
Northern Minnesota
Real Name
John
HMM, I obviously know very little about what I'm going to interject, but what is the possibility of just making a lens/body adapter to put a m4/3 lens on a FF body? OK, Ok, I know it's a stupid idea, but could that be done to solve the problem? If so, just get a FF body of your choice and the adapter, and then crop the excess edges off in PP; problem solved for those folks who want the large square aspect at a reasonable cost. Are you laffing yet? John
 

swifty

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
218
Location
Singapore
Real Name
Dave
Ha! Except that the sensor is easily viewable (and measurable) with the lens off, so about 3 seconds after a leaked photo of the new model hit the internet, everyone would be crowing about how OMDS is going to start using an APS-C sensor and has abandoned the m43 format.
Except the non-imaging area will be behind baffles.
How would making better use of m43’s image circle be twisted into abandoning m43?
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,785
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Except the non-imaging area will be behind baffles.
Why would it be behind baffles?

How would making better use of m43’s image circle be twisted into abandoning m43?
Because this is the internet. I am not saying *I* would be saying this. But this will be the drum beat over an DPR and with the Northrups and anyone else who is overly bitter about a system they don't even use.
 

swifty

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
218
Location
Singapore
Real Name
Dave
HMM, I obviously know very little about what I'm going to interject, but what is the possibility of just making a lens/body adapter to put a m4/3 lens on a FF body? OK, Ok, I know it's a stupid idea, but could that be done to solve the problem? If so, just get a FF body of your choice and the adapter, and then crop the excess edges off in PP; problem solved for those folks who want the large square aspect at a reasonable cost. Are you laffing yet? John
Not a stupid idea. Just requires engineering from a third party supplier who are willing.
But some mounts are more difficult eg. L-mount which is ironic in some ways.
Technically Z mount would be the easiest physically.
But if you own m43 lenses, using a m43 body is still more ideal.
 

swifty

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
218
Location
Singapore
Real Name
Dave
Why would it be behind baffles?



Because this is the internet. I am not saying *I* would be saying this. But this will be the drum beat over an DPR and with the Northrups and anyone else who is overly bitter about a system they don't even use.
Because unless the intention is to allow users to use the entire APS-C area to freely crop in post, there are no need for the 2.5mm or so of redundant extra sensor area on each side of the APS-C sensor. My opinion is not to allow use of the whole APS-C sensor and restrict to crops with a m43 diagonal so that all lenses made for m43 will work without unintended vignetting.

The internet has been $hitting all over m43 since forever. Either join them or stand your ground and educate ppl. I couldn’t care less about clickbait you tubers.
 

Armoured

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
197
HMM, I obviously know very little about what I'm going to interject, but what is the possibility of just making a lens/body adapter to put a m4/3 lens on a FF body?
Sure, except that most m4/3 lenses wouldn't have focus or aperture control (that would be a lot of engineering I should think), leaving only the manual lenses.

And if you're going to do that - just use your FF lens and crop afterwards. The only benefit of the m43 lens for that purpose is ... it's smaller. (General comments here - I think it's so far-fetched it's not worth discussing)
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,488
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
The "wrong direction" would be OMDS putting $100 million into a custom APS-C sensor for aspect ratios for which there is little proven demand in the face of videocentric dominance, and then try to market NOT using the full sensor size with native lenses.

All so people can save $$ on a grip.

Given that marketing nightmare, the simple Joe logic would be to just get a lower-end FF and crop away.
 

DeeJayK

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
4,139
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Real Name
Keith
Man, this thread has really devolved into the worst of online interaction. Each participant is convinced in an almost religious way that his POV is the only correct one and thus only parses any counter-argument solely to pick out any concessions or "errors" which can be dunked on.

I'm strongly considering renaming the thread to: "DPR Corner: wherein I shout you down until you become convinced of the superiority of my position"

We can do better here, can't we?

- K
 

swifty

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
218
Location
Singapore
Real Name
Dave
Man, this thread has really devolved into the worst of online interaction. Each participant is convinced in an almost religious way that his POV is the only correct one and thus only parses any counter-argument solely to pick out any concessions or "errors" which can be dunked on.

I'm strongly considering renaming the thread to: "DPR Corner: wherein I shout you down until you become convinced of the superiority of my position"

We can do better here, can't we?

- K
Apologies then.
My only position is that making better use of the m43 image circle is a good idea and may be desirable for a sizeable group of users.
How we get there (APS-C, custom oversized sensor, etc) is largely just speculation and I don’t particularly mind the discussions but perhaps others do.

Ok then, I’ll bow out. Good day folks.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,785
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Because unless the intention is to allow users to use the entire APS-C area to freely crop in post, there are no need for the 2.5mm or so of redundant extra sensor area on each side of the APS-C sensor.
Yes but you still need to leave much more than the traditional m43 uncovered. Not only the extra "multi-aspect ratio" areas of the sensor but then a somewhat significant area to account for the IBIS system. It will still be very obvious the sensor is much bigger than m43 and it wouldn't be long for someone to broadcast the truth behind the new "m43" sensor.

The internet has been $hitting all over m43 since forever. Either join them or stand your ground and educate ppl. I couldn’t care less about clickbait you tubers.
Ya you may not but OMDS's concerns to grow the business are with encouraging new customers. You can not grow if you are only targeting the existing base who are already onboard.

By your own calculations the "m43" camera will now take ~15mp 4:3 photos. Not sure how you market that the extra pixels you gain with the occasional cropping over a traditional m43 sensor offsets the over all pixel loss of ~4MP in normal 4:3 aspect shooting.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,488
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
Multi-aspect sensors are a great idea, but behind the times. They literally would have required industry consensus at the start of the digital era. Unfortunately, cost pressures and existing optics made it impossible to take this path. This includes Ricoh with the modular GXR system, rumoured to have a forthcoming 1:1 sensor in concept.

Then video took over and 1:1 is a crop and portrait constant is a high-margin, lucrative grip.
 

BDR-529

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,008
The "wrong direction" would be OMDS putting $100 million into a custom APS-C sensor for aspect ratios for which there is little proven demand in the face of videocentric dominance, and then try to market NOT using the full sensor size with native lenses.

The funny thing is that APS-C camera owners can simply crop a 15MP square from the center of any image they have ever shot and get exactly the same result as proposed here without having to buy anything.

... and they are not even limited to the very center but can make this 15MP crop anywhere because their images contain the full 24MP area.

I'm still having hard time understanding how OMDS would gain competitive advantage with APS-C sensor that can't even use the full APS-C image area.
 
Last edited:

Armoured

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
197
Man, this thread has really devolved into the worst of online interaction. Each participant is convinced in an almost religious way that his POV is the only correct one and thus only parses any counter-argument solely to pick out any concessions or "errors" which can be dunked on.

I'm strongly considering renaming the thread to: "DPR Corner: wherein I shout you down until you become convinced of the superiority of my position"

We can do better here, can't we?

- K
If there's a "better" that we can do, I'm pretty sure it's not renaming the thread in a fit of pique because it didn't go the way you wanted.

Outright childish.
 

amit

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
238
I think olympus should fight as hard as they can - split their lines into :
Em1 and em5 .
Give both all specs , same everything ,HHHR , live ND.
Make em5 metal again , flippy screen again. offer automatic raw HDR stacking , and rqw focus stacking ,automatic raw panoramas -save us some time in post .
Make tiny WR primes f1.4 or maybe even f1.2 with some distortion and vignatting- who cares?
 

Brownie

Thread Killer Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
4,516
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
If there's a "better" that we can do, I'm pretty sure it's not renaming the thread in a fit of pique because it didn't go the way you wanted.

Outright childish.
You kind of have to admit though that this horse was beaten to death several pages ago!
 

Latest threads

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
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom