1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Olympus full frame future?

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by BrundleFly, Mar 30, 2016.

  1. BrundleFly

    BrundleFly Mu-43 Regular

    40
    May 6, 2015
    Ontario
    As I wait eagerly for my Em5 Mkii to get repaired I am stuck thinking about the future of Olympus cameras. I know there has been a lot of chatter about this on other sites and if this is a repetitive post please let me know, but I wanted to get your thoughts on Olympus potentially going full frame. Would you be interested? Do you think comparability with m43 gear would be feasible? Would Olympus create a new mount or join Sony or Leica's camp?

    Personally, I would love to see the EM1 Mkii be a full frame flagship that allows for full compatibility with m43 gear via an adapter. I would then love to see Olympus make the EM5 a full featured compact flagship for the m43 format.
     
  2. Nathan King

    Nathan King Mu-43 Regular

    103
    Jun 19, 2013
    Omaha, NE
    I'm not interested. The added portability, reduced weight, and increased depth of field the small sensor gives is what drew me TO micro 4/3. Never have I looked at a print from my E-M5 and felt something could have been improved by a larger sensor.
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
  3. DaveEP

    DaveEP Mu-43 Top Veteran

    683
    Sep 20, 2014
    York, UK
    If they could magic full frame lenses to be small, I'm interested, but they would have to be tiny Leica prime size but also include some fast zooms ;)

    I'm really not interested in the chunky big/heavy full frame lenses produced by Canon, Nikon, Sony, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc. Been there, done that over far more years than I care to remember. TBH, I'm even wondering just how much I'll take the 40-150 with me instead of the 35-100 now that I've had it a while and am having to carry it around!
     
  4. JonVdG

    JonVdG Mu-43 Regular

    25
    Feb 2, 2016
    Colorado, USA
    Jon
    Thanks for starting the conversation. Personally, I have zero interest in full frame. In my years of doing photojournalism and now fine art aerial photography, I strongly believe its advantages over M43 and APS-C are overstated. Yes, there's a tiny bit less depth of field available for macro users, but otherwise it mostly increases the cost, weight, and size of both cameras and lenses. Regarding adapting lenses, I've adapted many lenses to many different types of bodies and I always come to the same conclusion: native is better. My full frame Leica lenses adapted to my APS-C Sony cameras are never as good as they are on my full frame body (that said, they do adapt noticeably better on my GX8).

    At the end of the day, what matters is the print. I usually print at 12 x 16 for galleries, sometimes slightly larger. I use the Lightjet and Epson P600 printers. There is no difference in my print quality between M43 and full frame, even at close viewing distances. In fact, I've had more customers/viewers indicate that they prefer my M43 prints to my APS-C and full frame prints. My agency also has no preference for full frame, or at least none that they have indicated to me. So, I would suggest that bigger is not better in this case and I would much rather see resources spent on the development of M43 than full frame. I hope this is not one of those instances where technology consumers rather than artists become the primary driver of the development of our tools. I do acknowledge that a few consumers would benefit from full frame and for them, that's great.

    Happy shooting.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 4
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. MaK543

    MaK543 Mu-43 Regular

    139
    May 1, 2012
    MD USA
    To cover m43 lens image circle, a FF body has to shoot crop. The result would be the same as shooting m43 body in term of FOV, but worse in term of image quality because of the hefty crop.

    Due to large image circle, it is very difficult to make tiny FF lens with builtin AF motor at a reasonable cost. Small fast zooms are next to impossible if not truly impossible. :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    I've been shooting my A7 and E-M5 II bodies side by side for the last 2 months and honestly I've been gravitating towards the A7 shots more. Mainly due to the greater DR, color tone and image malleability in raw processing. Not to mention the subject separation with a FF sensor just looks nicer. With Sony recently announcing a $250 50mm 1.8 and the current sub-$500 USD 28mm f/2 lens, affordable mirrorless FF is becoming a reality. You can already pick up a used A7 body for cheap.

    I'd actually prefer if Olympus produced an FF body. I prefer their image processing, camera features and lenses far more than Sony. If Pentax can make a FF DSLR, Olympus and Panasonic can surely make awesome FF mirrorless cameras and a solid lens system!
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2016
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 2
  7. DaveEP

    DaveEP Mu-43 Top Veteran

    683
    Sep 20, 2014
    York, UK
    Exactly. That's why FF is of no interest to me ;) I'm not going back to hauling around huge lenses.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. NWright

    NWright Mu-43 Regular

    193
    Jan 13, 2014
    Michigan
    I just got flamed on essentially saying this yesterday...I'm interested to see who pipes in and tried to somehow discredit this statement of fact.
     
  9. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Canada
    David
    Now with so many choices in full frame bodies you can buy from Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax, I think it will a tough road ahead for Olympus to create a new system. Who is going to buy it? Full frame sales aren't in double digit and manufacturers are and will be planning to keep raising prices as plummeting camera sales continue. This is the problem. Smaller sensors sell more because ultimately, price is a determining factor, but even small sensor bodies are getting more expensive come ever product updates. While there is a discerning difference in image quality shot either with base ISO or higher ISO, it is so miniscule that will question even the most practical photographer if it is even worth sinking thousands of dollars for little gain that you might or might not see.

    In fact, you need to develop good eyes to seek those differences for they are there, but something most people don't bother.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I'll play, but I forgot my pipes... :)

    How much is the cheapest AF portrait lens? How much is the cheapest telephoto? How about a macro lens? UWA? How much is a camera body with 4k, fast AF and/or IBIS?

    Two OK lens options under $500 and one old $1000 camera doesn't suddenly make the system affordable.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. DaveEP

    DaveEP Mu-43 Top Veteran

    683
    Sep 20, 2014
    York, UK
    I'll add to this:

    How small / light is an f1.4 AF portrait lens?

    How small / light are the f2.8 or faster telephoto lenses?

    How small / fast is the UWA?

    Just because the body is smaller and used models cheap, it doesn't make the overall system cheaper / smaller / lighter.

    I'm not knocking Sony or their products. In fact, I'm really glad they are around. While I don't care for the styling of the Sony bodies I think they are really having a good go at competing with Canon & Nikon by providing something different rather than trying to compete with the same things. Good luck to them.

    However, every time I've picked one up in the store and the sales guy sales extols how small / light this system is, it turns out he's also paired it with a slow (f4 / f5.6) lens requiring you to be shooting much higher ISO compared to the EM1 in my bag in the same lighting. Needing that higher ISO using slower lenses negates any/all benefits of full frame for me, even if I wanted to go back there.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Canada
    David
    I sometimes wondered about why Pentax went in so late. There are so few dedicated digital full frame lenses for the K1. The K1 has to rely on APS-C lenses and I never found their lenses to be on equal footing against the Nikkor or the Zuiko glass. Maybe it's a bragging rights that Ricoh wants to project that Pentax is not dead. Maybe Olympus will make a full frame body, but that would hinge upon several things and that is, the development of organic sensors to market mass production is too far away that make full frame body production a stop gap solution. We will see what Panasonic has in store for 2020, which they claimed will have organic sensor ready for production. If that's the case, then we don't need full frame.
     
  13. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Canada
    David
    I don't think it's fair to use the Sony A7 as an example of affordable full frame as this is a 2013 camera. The A6300, judging from Bill Claff's dynamic range graph, seemed to indicate that it has almost the same dynamic range performance as the Sony A7. But of course, I'm getting a 2016 camera with much more capable PDAF tracking system plus more. Just because the system is affordable does not mean the features are equally as well represented. I found the Sony A7 to be very lacking. Low light AF seemed to produce more front or back focus shots compared to my E-P5. Despite how good the camera is, I felt the A7 is a half-baked semi-finished camera. Not as polished as the Olympus. The A6300 is nicer and with a 16-50 has the same price as a bare Sony A7. For being practical and for size and weight, I will choose the A6300. But Sony has very little in terms of APS-C glass to admire upon.

    A good camera system must have a good sensor + good imaging processing algorithm + good selection of glass.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. NWright

    NWright Mu-43 Regular

    193
    Jan 13, 2014
    Michigan

    Compact Camera Meter

    Whoops

    I LOVE my EM5. I love the m4/3 system. Sony has now made the full frame system more affordable. It's literally a statement of fact and I can't imagine it will push people away from their system, I'd imagine quite the contrary might happen.
     
  15. DaveEP

    DaveEP Mu-43 Top Veteran

    683
    Sep 20, 2014
    York, UK
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Ian.

    Ian. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2013
    Munich
    Ian
    If they do make a large sensor, it should be at 4:3 ratio. And not blindly following some legacy fad.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    I am still strongly considering picking up a Sony A7r (not the A7, since the sensor performance on that one really doesn't impress me), but I suspect I will mostly be pairing it with legacy lenses and treating it as a dumb digital back to work with for fun, deliberate photography. Get a lightweight old ultrawide zoom and maybe the 28mm f2 as my single native lens, and call it a day.

    I'm kind of annoyed with the timing of the Pentax K1. There are no more Pentax FA 20-35/f4 lenses around. Optically very nice from what I can see, and only 250g.

    There's a A7r on sale for $1300 near me ($1000 USD), and I'm sure cheaper ones will pop up in time. That's almost worth it...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. DWS

    DWS Mu-43 Regular

    78
    Jun 6, 2014
    Been there, done that during wedding shooting days. Sold the farm and went MFT. No regrets.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. MaK543

    MaK543 Mu-43 Regular

    139
    May 1, 2012
    MD USA
    should make it 1:1 ratio to fully use the image circle, and get rid of vertical grip at the same time. ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. DaveEP

    DaveEP Mu-43 Top Veteran

    683
    Sep 20, 2014
    York, UK
    Indeed, and I often found myself stopping down on FF BECAUSE of it. Shallow DOF can be as much a curse as a benefit.

    People talk about aperture as if DOF was the only thing it provides. I typically don't shoot f2.8 for shallow DOF (for that I would use faster primes), so let's get right past this one. What else does f2.8 provide? How about faster shutter speeds? How about lower ISO? µ43 gives me those but with the greater DOF that I want. I actually like having two people's faces in focus when I'm shooting them together (e.g. Bride & Groom) instead of being borderline on at least one of them.

    To get that DOF on full frame I have to stop down which in low light completely negates the 1.5-2 stops better high ISO that often people claim.

    For those who like wafer thin DOF I'm not sure why they are even reading the µ43 forums. That is not what this format is good at. Go buy FF and some super fast primes and be happy. One of the benefits of µ43 is more DOF and I like it :)

    Please don't try to talk me in to FF + f5.6 being equivalent because it some how meets the same size approximation, we'll simply never agree.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 2