Is Olympus going in the wrong direction?

[RichardC]

I want a square sensor. I miss my Bronica!

 

[Brownie]

I want a square sensor. I miss my Bronica!

I just shoot 120.

 

[stevedo]

"counter sales people"?

How much is a high end square counter these days?

 

[Aristophanes]

How much is a high end square counter these days?

Not even available for astrophotography.

 

[Aristophanes]

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?

Ahh....the "tiny" fast primes again.
You can either get fast, or tiny.
Pick one.
Weather-sealed = much larger, costlier.

RAW panoramas can't be RAW unless the editor can accept. That means Lightroom, Photos, etc. need to accept the panorama format. That's a disadvantage of RAW...the importing converter must be able to read the proprietary format.

 

[speedy]

Ahh....the "tiny" fast primes again.
You can either get fast, or tiny.
Pick one.
Weather-sealed = much larger, costlier.

My Laowa 10mm f/2 disagrees with you, as does my Lumix 20mm, & PL 15. My Lumix 42.5 qualified as tiny too, IMO

 

[Aristophanes]

My Laowa 10mm f/2 disagrees with you, as does my Lumix 20mm, & PL 15. My Lumix 42.5 qualified as tiny too, IMO

I have the Panny 15. It barely qualifies as "fast". The poster was referring to f/1.4 and 1.2.

 

[Hypilein]

I think in most people's world an f1.8 lens is already fast, similar to how a 12mm (on mft) lens is already wide angle. It's not the fastest out there but it definitely is fast.

 

[Aristophanes]

Lol. You're only being a nit picking pedant, rather than realistic.

No. The poster was specifically referring to faster than the current 1.8s and specifically wanted "tiny" 1.2s.

That's pedantic.

 

[Aristophanes]

The OP in this thread was criticizing OMDS for releasing a too large 8-25/4. Their overall complaint is that Olympus/OMDS have released too many overly large bodies and lenses when FF MILC has shrunk their systems, making m43 less competitive. This is the "wrong direction".

These threads always return to the same issue of offsetting the lesser IQ sensor with small size bodies and lenses, then rampant criticism both are not engineered small enough or "fast" enough.

 

[amit]

No. The poster was specifically referring to faster than the current 1.8s and specifically wanted "tiny" 1.2s.

That's pedantic.

Well yes, we already have tiny f1.8's.

 

[amit]

The OP in this thread was criticizing OMDS for releasing a too large 8-25/4. Their overall complaint is that Olympus/OMDS have released too many overly large bodies and lenses when FF MILC has shrunk their systems, making m43 less competitive. This is the "wrong direction".

These threads always return to the same issue of offsetting the lesser IQ sensor with small size bodies and lenses, then rampant criticism both are not engineered small enough or "fast" enough.

I think the 8-25 is a great idea , going from ultra wide to normal is perfect for me ,and I dont think any other system has somthing like that.

M43 bodies being large isnt the problem.
The main rival is sony with the small primes and tamron zooms. You can really pick up an FF system with lenses and carry more or less the same weight. (If you dont need the telephoto side).

 

[Hypilein]

"If you don't need the telephoto side" is a big if though. Honestly, who doesn't ever shoot longer than 150mm FF equiv? I agree that the 8-25mm is a great idea for a lens. Paired with something like a 50-200 you get a setup that can pretty much do anything you would ever need for travel/wildlife. I guess throw in a 1.8 prime if low light/shallow DoF is important to you.

I do something similar with the 8-18 and 35-100 f2.8 which both fit into one of the camslinger waistbags with my GX8. Perfect travel setup, which I only extend when I need the extra reach of the 100-300 or the low light of the 20mm 1.7.

 

[Aristophanes]

"If you don't need the telephoto side" is a big if though. Honestly, who doesn't ever shoot longer than 150mm FF equiv? I agree that the 8-25mm is a great idea for a lens. Paired with something like a 50-200 you get a setup that can pretty much do anything you would ever need for travel/wildlife. I guess throw in a 1.8 prime if low light/shallow DoF is important to you.

I do something similar with the 8-18 and 35-100 f2.8 which both fit into one of the camslinger waistbags with my GX8. Perfect travel setup, which I only extend when I need the extra reach of the 100-300 or the low light of the 20mm 1.7.

Agreed. And the 8-25/4 compares to a 16-35 in FF with a bonus 15mm. OMDS needs a 45-200/4 or 4.5 pairing so the user has the 8-25/4 or 12-45/4 option.

Telephoto and macro are the m43 strength. It’s weakness at wide to,”normal” FLs compared to budget FF, but a 2-lens kit (affordable) plays to system strength. The 8-25/4 give the classic 16, 20, 24, 28, 35, and 50mm FL equivalents in a single lens. To get there it had to be larger than the 12-45/4. Reasonable tradeoff.

There’s the classic “trinity” f/2.8 setups and the reasonable alternative of a 2-lens kit. Like the 12-100 + 100-400, for example. That fits the EM1 series, but something tele for the EM5 series is missing complementing the 2 recent f/4 PROs. Notably on the roadmap.

 

[PakkyT]

The main rival is sony with the small primes and tamron zooms.

I just noted today a blurb I read about Tamron just announced a lens for Sony FF to be developed of 35-150mm f2-2.8. Sounded interesting but I don't shoot FF let alone Sony so mine was just a "hmmm, that's neat" reaction to the aperture on it. No idea of its proposed physical size.

 

[DeeJayK]

I just noted today a blurb I read about Tamron just announced a lens for Sony FF to be developed of 35-150mm f2-2.8. Sounded interesting but I don't shoot FF let alone Sony so mine was just a "hmmm, that's neat" reaction to the aperture on it. No idea of its proposed physical size.

I saw that announcement as well along with a claim that this would be the first zoom lens ever offered with an f2 aperture. Obviously, that's not correct because the Olympus Zuiko 14-35 f/2 and 35-100 f/2 lenses exist. There might have been some caveat about "for full frame"or such that I missed.

- K

 

[amit]

I just noted today a blurb I read about Tamron just announced a lens for Sony FF to be developed of 35-150mm f2-2.8. Sounded interesting but I don't shoot FF let alone Sony so mine was just a "hmmm, that's neat" reaction to the aperture on it. No idea of its proposed physical size.

All tamron zooms use 67mm filter size ,smaller then the olympus 72mm of the 12-100 and 40-150 .

 

[Brownie]

I just noted today a blurb I read about Tamron just announced a lens for Sony FF to be developed of 35-150mm f2-2.8. Sounded interesting but I don't shoot FF let alone Sony so mine was just a "hmmm, that's neat" reaction to the aperture on it. No idea of its proposed physical size.

Mine was one of HOLY CRAP cool. I am awaiting the release of the A7 Mk IV. If I go that way, this lens will be HUGE! (literally! )

 

[jk4u59]

This recent article from Digital Camera World makes some decent points about the direction OMDS (neė Olympus) is heading with its emphasis on PRO lenses.




I've had many of the same thoughts this writer expresses, particularly when the E-M1X was introduced. It almost seems like Olympus has a bit of a complex over its smaller sensor and is overcompensating in trying to compete with the "big boys" on their turf.

Don't get me wrong, the PRO lenses are undeniably great optically and in every other aspect except size. But size is the primary advantage Olympus had over their competitors, and they should be leaning into that.

Of course the answer may be as simple as the fact that they've already MADE the small and light lenses (basically the f/1.8 primes) and thus are simply expanding the lens lineup in other directions.

What do you all think?

- K

Me too had some concerns about the "huge" (wrt other Olympus bodies) E-M1X. I also read a cutting review somewhere (under the title "Are they going nuts?"), stating just something like this: "Olympus has always been appreciated for its smaller bodies and lenses, but this monster goes in the opposite direction...". It sounded as a very reasonable criticism. But after some months I read the review of the spectacular, brand new 150-400 super-tele lens that, only when coupled to an E-M1X body, can offer an extraordinary 10-stops-gain in image stabilization, as well as a feature based on AI (Artificial Intelligence) that allows the camera to spot, recognize and perfectly focusing far birds flying in the wild, hence reducing the number of wrong shots. In that moment I understood the reason for such a huge camera body: it's the only one able to host two image processors! I think this is the reason for such a "non-Olympus-style" body. Now, let's see how the market will react!

On PRO lenses: I'm not a professional photographer, nor I have a deep experience in lenses evaluation. The only things I can swear on are the following:

• last year I decided to buy a PRO lens, the 12-45 mm f/4 PRO: well, its image quality is by far the best one among all the other lenses I already own. For sure, it's really worth the money I spent.
• even if it's true that it's the smallest and lightest lens among the whole PRO serie, I don't think it's too huge. For sure, everytime I see a guy holding its cumbersome full-frame stuff I cannot avoid thinking about my by far lighter equipment: I usually carry with me a small bag weighting around 4Kg, comprising an E-M5 Mk.II body and up to 4/5 lenses, all paid something near to 3k€. Had I choosen a full frame system, every number (dimensions, weights, euros) should have been doubled (or more).

I will not abandon my M43 system at all!

Ivan (Milan, Italy)

 

[Aristophanes]

https://j.mp/3jt7fz7

Difference will have to be price, which is likely.