New Olympus Camera Mid February

Joined
Jul 5, 2018
Messages
492
Location
Covina, California
They tried a larger pixel EVF in the E-M1X & it didn't refresh & display nicely & why they used the one they did.
I get a little tired of so many experts that believe they can design a camera & tell the manufacturers what they should have done. It's not as simple as so many want to believe.
I get a little tired when experts enable camera companies not to move forward with new tech.

The tech is clearly out there and no excuse why they shouldn't incorporate a higher than 2.36 million dot resolution evf.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
6,711
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
I get a little tired when experts enable camera companies not to move forward with new tech.

The tech is clearly out there and no excuse why they shouldn't incorporate a higher than 2.36 million dot resolution evf.
Agreed - cameras from Panasonic, Fuji, Sony, Nikon and Canon all use larger, higher quality displays without any noticable refresh issues.
 

Aristophanes

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
751
Location
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
I get a little tired when experts enable camera companies not to move forward with new tech.

The tech is clearly out there and no excuse why they shouldn't incorporate a higher than 2.36 million dot resolution evf.
The EVFs are supplied by Sony IIRC. The EM1.2 and EM1X were less resolution than other models available. For the “pro” designation, this stood out as a liability. Maybe Oly was emphasizing battery life, but realistically it just looked like a cheapening of the product compared to the competition.
 

Michael Meissner

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
484
Location
Ayer, Massachusetts, USA
To be fair regarding the EVF, and OLED EVF (and the lack of an OLED EVF which a lot of reviews criticize the E-M1x for) is more saturated but has slower refresh rates and is less color accurate. vs LCD which is more light/color-accurate but poses some problems regarding orientation has polarization effects. For the E-M1x I can understand why Olympus went with the LCD option.
And of course my usual hot-button issue. There is the issue that the LCD viewfinders don't work well with polarized sunglasses when shooting in landscape orientation. Either about 1/2 of the viewfinder is distorted or it is completely opaque.
 

zanydroid

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
174
Location
San Francisco, CA
I don’t think an iterative improvement like what some people here are satisfies with and is rumored is a healthy sign. That indicates Olympus is settling for a Pentax model of development. That slow pace of iteration may have been fine in previous eras, but IMO in the current era is a sign that the company might be switching to a business model where they maximize profits for the next 5 years by cranking out new lenses and engineering cost efficient bodies. Also keep in mind they have talked about *reducing* their release cadence. IMO camera bodies with 4-5 year cadence need to be developed like graphics cards, game consoles, and CPUs, with enough architectural, feature, and performance overkill to power through that time.

The technological and business fundamentals just aren’t good for Olympus outside of their core competency (photography that benefits greatly from stabilization). For candid action, RX100s are smaller and focus just as well. For wildlife, Sony and Canon mirrorless get to benefit from the large R&D investment across their whole lineup. As an all arounder in everything other than stabilization-enhanced photography, Fujis are now superb. While Canon mirrorless hasn’t been great, RF system investment means that they 100% chance will catch up with Sony within 2 years, and thanks to their lenses have the best system level cost. I expect the M5-3 generation to be quite good for wildlife, with equivalent pixel pitch to 16MP M43, trickledown AF system, and plentiful EF glass to leverage.

Based on the business fundamentals (smaller, less diversified company in shrinking market), we would expect Olympus to have a tougher time investing in their system anyway. And an iterative release would confirm that.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
253
Location
Finland
I don’t think an iterative improvement like what some people here are satisfies with and is rumored is a healthy sign. That indicates Olympus is settling for a Pentax model of development. That slow pace of iteration may have been fine in previous eras, but IMO in the current era is a sign that the company might be switching to a business model where they maximize profits for the next 5 years by cranking out new lenses and engineering cost efficient bodies. Also keep in mind they have talked about *reducing* their release cadence. IMO camera bodies with 4-5 year cadence need to be developed like graphics cards, game consoles, and CPUs, with enough architectural, feature, and performance overkill to power through that time.

The technological and business fundamentals just aren’t good for Olympus outside of their core competency (photography that benefits greatly from stabilization). For candid action, RX100s are smaller and focus just as well. For wildlife, Sony and Canon mirrorless get to benefit from the large R&D investment across their whole lineup. As an all arounder in everything other than stabilization-enhanced photography, Fujis are now superb. While Canon mirrorless hasn’t been great, RF system investment means that they 100% chance will catch up with Sony within 2 years, and thanks to their lenses have the best system level cost. I expect the M5-3 generation to be quite good for wildlife, with equivalent pixel pitch to 16MP M43, trickledown AF system, and plentiful EF glass to leverage.

Based on the business fundamentals (smaller, less diversified company in shrinking market), we would expect Olympus to have a tougher time investing in their system anyway. And an iterative release would confirm that.
Olympus said they will start releasing two cameras per year. E-M1 III coming 3,5 years after the II is first evidence from them to go back to normal cycles. E-M5 III came 4,5 years after the first so it was misleading.

Fuji has no IBIS in smaller cameras, only one has IBIS as far as I know. There has been speculation that they are not able to put it in smaller cameras because of their mount.

Current Sony sensors in APS-C are not much better than M43 ones. I have put the comparison from DxoMark here couple times. The technology difference isn't seen there. Continuous autofocus some but with the PDAF it is much more even.

RX100 and such cameras go old. You cannot change camera behind it in similar way as when your phone goes dud after 3-5 years, you lose your investment in the lens. While in ILC's you can just get new better version of the camera and the lens stays great.

I don't understand the doom and gloom compared to other manufacturers.
 
Last edited:

jeffbuzz

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
81
The Olympus name has brand recognition and therefore value. The changing product release cycle could be a sign they are trying to improve short term cashflow to make their financials more appealing to prospective buyers. I would not be a bit surprised by a sale of the photographic business. How that would work is a mystery. Unlike the Pentax sale(s) in the recent past, Olympus has other much larger business segments. So if the Olympus camera business is split off it would likely need some kind of rebranding to differentiate it from the remaining "Olympus" medical and industrial segments. Hopefully that would also lead to new R&D investment and even more new products.
 

zanydroid

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
174
Location
San Francisco, CA
Olympus said they will start releasing two cameras per year. E-M1 III coming 3,5 years after the II is first evidence from them to go back to normal cycles. E-M5 III came 4,5 years after the first so it was misleading.

Fuji has no IBIS in smaller cameras, only one has IBIS as far as I know. There has been speculation that they are not able to put it in smaller cameras because of their mount.

Current Sony sensors in APS-C are not much better than M43 ones. I have put the comparison from DxoMark here couple times. The technology difference isn't seen there. Continuous autofocus some but with the PDAF it is much more even.

RX100 and such cameras go old. You cannot change camera behind it in similar way as when your phone goes dud after 3-5 years, you lose your investment in the lens. While in ILC's you can just get new better version of the camera and the lens stays great.

I don't understand the doom and gloom compared to other manufacturers.
Other than build quality and IBIS, Fuji is improving very quickly. IBIS is the only unequivocal technological edge that Olympus has. The AF and stacking are nice, but Olympus lacks the modern software and product development process to properly take advantage of them. Compare that to the much faster release iterations of nimble young drone, videography, and phone companies...

RX100 since V was better than small Olympus cameras in AF for quite some time, if action/candids are your jam. Same for video. In addition to AF, Sony’s massive tech base means that it could trickle down Slog2/3 and cine profiles to all their cameras for free, and enable users to leverage software and training material for those profiles. Those have a much longer track record in the professional world than OMLog and OM flat.

Olympus is the smallest by enterprise value, and I am guessing at best second smallest in terms of imaging overall. That means few options for cash injection.

EDIT: you are correct in the strengths that you enumerated vs Fuji and Sony. Though I wouldn’t overindex on Sony’s middling APSC stuff, rather look at the big picture of their portfolio, from RXs up to FS cameras, and the massive in house sensor division.
 
Last edited:

zanydroid

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
174
Location
San Francisco, CA
The Olympus name has brand recognition and therefore value. The changing product release cycle could be a sign they are trying to improve short term cashflow to make their financials more appealing to prospective buyers. I would not be a bit surprised by a sale of the photographic business. How that would work is a mystery. Unlike the Pentax sale(s) in the recent past, Olympus has other much larger business segments. So if the Olympus camera business is split off it would likely need some kind of rebranding to differentiate it from the remaining "Olympus" medical and industrial segments. Hopefully that would also lead to new R&D investment and even more new products.
Sure, Olympus is more diversified than Pentax, but smaller/less diversified than most of the remaining players...
 

RS86

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
253
Location
Finland
Other than build quality and IBIS, Fuji is improving very quickly. IBIS is the only unequivocal technological edge that Olympus has. The AF and stacking are nice, but Olympus lacks the modern software and product development process to properly take advantage of them. Compare that to the much faster release iterations of nimble young drone, videography, and phone companies...

RX100 since V was better than small Olympus cameras in AF for quite some time, if action/candids are your jam. Same for video. In addition to AF, Sony’s massive tech base means that it could trickle down Slog2/3 and cine profiles to all their cameras for free, and enable users to leverage software and training material for those profiles. Those have a much longer track record in the professional world than OMLog and OM flat.

Olympus is the smallest by enterprise value, and I am guessing at best second smallest in terms of imaging overall. That means few options for cash injection.

EDIT: you are correct in the strengths that you enumerated vs Fuji and Sony. Though I wouldn’t overindex on Sony’s middling APSC stuff, rather look at the big picture of their portfolio, from RXs up to FS cameras, and the massive in house sensor division.
I'm not sure any of the players have much of an edge in technology. One would think Sony would use their sensor production advantage more.

Everyone has something better and something worse. We probably all know M43 strengths, and those won't go away and Olympus has said they will focus on them. Especially now after their factory move. It's the smallest ILC system.

I won't go into to this speculation more, it's pretty useless and has been going on since M43 arose.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
6,711
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
I'm often critical of Olympus, but really the doom and gloom over the last few posts is a bit much. The fact is that the Oly m43 ecosystem has a number of distinct advantages:

- Massive lens range to meet almost all needs. Small, cheap, expensive, exotic, long, wide, fast, slow - you choose. About the only thing missing is tilt/shift.

- Wide range of bodies and features and prices. Stable, proven, robust.

- Amongst the fastest sensor readouts of any camera (60fps raw).

- IBIS and sync IS.

- Weather sealing.

- Unique features like LiveComp and LiveTIme, Focus stacking, Capture Pro, Hi-res, HHHR, Live ND, ...

- Good enough IQ for most (at least up to A2 prints).

- Pretty good AF now for sports and wildlife.

- Excellent repair and support capabilities.

- Widely available over most of the globe.

- Reasonable, competitive prices.

- ... I could go on.

Sure, not everything's rosy, but that's true of the other manufacturers too:

- Sony - still a limited range of quality lenses unless you are prepared to pay big time and handle the weight for the G-Master beasts

- Canon - still catching up with the rest of the mirrorless crowd. Few native R lenses yet. System gets big with EF lenses. No IBIS.

- Nikon - still catching up with the rest of the mirrorless crowd. Few native Z lenses yet. System gets big with F lenses.

- Fuji - No IBIS. Lenses notably bigger than m43. Weird raw files. Lacks some features of Oly cameras.

- Panasonic m43 - hey, we're friends!

- Panasonic FF - H U G E and $$$$

- FF in general - bigger, heavier, more expensive in general than m43 for an IQ lift that many just don't need.

- Compacts in general (RX 100 etc) - lack the handling and ergonomics of "proper" cameras.

We all need to accept that we can't have all the candies/sweets in the shop!
 

zanydroid

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
174
Location
San Francisco, CA
Especially now after their factory move. It's the smallest ILC system.

I won't go into to this speculation more, it's pretty useless and has been going on since M43 arose.
The factory move excuse only really applies to lack of new releases, and not slowdown in feature iteration. Only a certain set of their engineers needed to be tied up with that. Their camera engineers could have continued working on new models/prototypes. Or maybe they retired/got moved to higher profit divisions.

The main difference between now and start of M43 system is that the overall business is in an awful shape. Maybe this isn’t worth discussing in this thread, but I think its very interesting to examine as the transition happens. The phone disruption is on the same order of magnitude as AF cameras back in the 1980s/1990s and the film to digital transition in the 1990s/2000s. Lots of corporate carcasses in the
 

RS86

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
253
Location
Finland
The factory move excuse only really applies to lack of new releases, and not slowdown in feature iteration. Only a certain set of their engineers needed to be tied up with that. Their camera engineers could have continued working on new models/prototypes. Or maybe they retired/got moved to higher profit divisions.

The main difference between now and start of M43 system is that the overall business is in an awful shape. Maybe this isn’t worth discussing in this thread, but I think its very interesting to examine as the transition happens. The phone disruption is on the same order of magnitude as AF cameras back in the 1980s/1990s and the film to digital transition in the 1990s/2000s. Lots of corporate carcasses in the
I seem to remember Olympus got better result in recent financial update compared to earlier even without bigger camera releases.

Anyway I think it needs a separate topic or continuating of an old one, I'm sure there are plenty. This is about the new camera, not about Olympus doom and gloom that doesn't seem to stop.

There was the "news" thread about Olympus selling Imagining Division early this year. It's THE place for prophecies. Maybe someone can put up a compilation of phophecies over the years, would be interesting read.

One notion that I can add, is that even if they sell it, the new owner will likely make use of the M43 format and OIympus brand so not much changes and one part of reasoning why I think it's useless speculation.
 
Last edited:

jeffbuzz

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
81
Fuji - No IBIS. Lenses notably bigger than m43. Weird raw files. Lacks some features of Oly cameras.
Actually, Fuji does have IBIS. It is called the "X-H1".

While most Olympus lenses don't have OIS, we're seeing recent ones baking stabilization into the lens. For longer focal lengths OIS works better than IBIS. Don't get me wrong, I really like IBIS. It is an advantage to me. But I'm not sure Olympus needs to rely on that feature especially if newer glass will have OIS.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
6,711
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Actually, Fuji does have IBIS. It is called the "X-H1".

While most Olympus lenses don't have OIS, we're seeing recent ones baking stabilization into the lens. For longer focal lengths OIS works better than IBIS. Don't get me wrong, I really like IBIS. It is an advantage to me. But I'm not sure Olympus needs to rely on that feature especially if newer glass will have OIS.
Yes, I'd forgotten about the XH1 - probably because no-one seems to buy it!

As to OIS, I agree that for longer lenses it works better than IBIS. The two combined of course really is spectacular!
 

Richard_M

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
137
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Yes, I'd forgotten about the XH1 - probably because no-one seems to buy it!

As to OIS, I agree that for longer lenses it works better than IBIS. The two combined of course really is spectacular!
I have a Fuji X-H1, and it’s possibly more popular than you believe. The Fuji X-T4 is rumored to include IBIS.

I use three brands of cameras, and each has their strengths and weaknesses. On occasion I’ll use two brands on a photowalk, but generally take a couple of bodies from the same brand.

I’m sure we can all find fault in every camera body and lens. To me they are a tool, and I use the appropriate tool to try and get the results I’m trying to achieve.

It was interesting Olympus followed Fuji’s focus bracketing method in the last E-M1 firmware update.
 

Ross the fiddler

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
3,895
Location
Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Real Name
Ross
Actually, Fuji does have IBIS. It is called the "X-H1".

While most Olympus lenses don't have OIS, we're seeing recent ones baking stabilization into the lens. For longer focal lengths OIS works better than IBIS. Don't get me wrong, I really like IBIS. It is an advantage to me. But I'm not sure Olympus needs to rely on that feature especially if newer glass will have OIS.
It's the ability to use Sync IS that has the most advantage, as Panasonic is also doing with their Dual IS. Even earlier bodies (E-M5) can use the 300 F4 lens & still correct rotational movement with the IBIS while using the lens OIS (it came with a FW update).
 
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