Rumors (now denied): Olympus to shut down camera division in less than 8 months

[MichailK]

after laughing a lot about the trademarked gods I am now trying to get my head around this .....

the lens F determines the circle of confusion and the sensor size dictates the distance to the subject to get the required FoV hence affecting the DoF - right?

I cannot understand how doubling (not quadrapling?) the sensor resolution affects the DoF while keeping the above as they are

 

[Bytesmiths]

I really hope that the E-M1iii will feature a 24MP sensor or thereabouts

I'm happy with 20.

I would rather they work on things other than pixel count, like noise and dynamic range.

Note that noise and pixel count are inter-related — push one up, the other goes up, as well.

I'd rather have less noise and the same number of pixels, than more pixels and more noise.

 

[Bytesmiths]

I cannot understand how doubling (not quadrapling?) the sensor resolution affects the DoF while keeping the above as they are

You're right, of course, as long as you don't crop.

Why do people get 50 megapixel cameras? Are they making 40" prints?

No. They're cropping, which changes the apparent DoF.

 

[Pluttis]

You're right, of course, as long as you don't crop.

Why do people get 50 megapixel cameras? Are they making 40" prints?

No. They're cropping, which changes the apparent DoF.

Cropping a image want change the DoF

 

[RichardC]

I think if pixel count is important to you, you will not be planning on doing any cropping.

 

[MichailK]

Cropping a image want change the DoF

Just repeating the known yada-yada if you do not change the lens parameters:

it will if you keep FoV the same - for the same FoV with bigger (uncropped) sensor you have to move closer to the subject, focus closer hence shallower DoF - if you crop (or use a smaller sensor), for the same FoV you step back, focus further away thus deeper DoF

as @Bytesmiths says, if you crop an FF sensor waisting half the pixels you end up with an APS-C equiv system, crop more, m43 etc while you also muddy up the micro contrast qualities of the lens vs the smaller uncropped formats

using FF to have plenty of room to crop, if not for some special reason like, say BIF or action shooting, to my eyes is a waste of resources to cover up poor/lazy framing abilities

 

[MichailK]

*added*:
so, not only you waste resources but you also pay much more and you carry around much more weight and all this just to be able to brag about you superior FF kit that you are not able use to produce any better results to crop systems in your real life shooting - (facepalm)

this gets on my nerves as nice camera companies like Olympus face hard times not only because the market is shrinking but also because much of the buyers consider FF superior for their needs due to misconceptions, self inflicted lack of basic photographic education or plain ego inflating self-esteem reasons

 

[drd1135]

I think if pixel count is important to you, you will not be planning on doing any cropping.

I don't think this is true. Some folks get his rez sensors precisely so that they can crop out pieces. You don't always have the right lens.

 

[Aristophanes]

*added*:
so, not only you waste resources but you also pay much more and you carry around much more weight and all this just to be able to brag about you superior FF kit that you are not able use to produce any better results to crop systems in your real life shooting - (facepalm)

this gets on my nerves as nice camera companies like Olympus face hard times not only because the market is shrinking but also because much of the buyers consider FF superior for their needs due to misconceptions, self inflicted lack of basic photographic education or plain ego inflating self-esteem reasons

It’s a quandary m43 put itself in. The m43 shooting envelope for IQ, from shallow DOF to diffraction, from DR to low light to megapixels, currently fits within the FF spectrum. FF can do what m43 cannot, while m43 can never do what FF can.

IBIS, video, and FPS favour m43, but they are still marginal compare the basics of the sensor/lens dynamic. Olympus is particular has doubled down on this approach, in part to make up for the sensor deficiency.

The raison d’être of m43 was always a smaller sensor meant a smaller kit. Overall that still applies, but other mirrorless formats have eaten away at that substantially, and inexplicably, m43 bodies have grown even larger than some FF models. Fresnel lenses (Nikon) and good design choices and aggressive pricing (Canon) are poised to take back some of the m43 advantages related to the smaller, affordable kit arguments. Against DSLRs the advantage was absolute. FF mirrorless has taken 75% of that advantage away.

This makes it very challenging for m43 to increase margins and go more “pro” as a means of driving sales and profits. The Olympus unit and sales declines are especially worrisome as it is clear m43 is ceding market space and mirrorless unit sales to FF mirrorless. The smaller sensor is getting pushed into a more consumer-oriented market position at a time when that market is contracting. The most profitable pro and prosumer end will clearly go to FF mirrorless. Panasonic’s FF venture and pricing says as much.

 

[RS86]

It’s a quandary m43 put itself in. The m43 shooting envelope for IQ, from shallow DOF to diffraction, from DR to low light to megapixels, currently fits within the FF spectrum. FF can do what m43 cannot, while m43 can never do what FF can.

IBIS, video, and FPS favour m43, but they are still marginal compare the basics of the sensor/lens dynamic. Olympus is particular has doubled down on this approach, in part to make up for the sensor deficiency.

The raison d’être of m43 was always a smaller sensor meant a smaller kit. Overall that still applies, but other mirrorless formats have eaten away at that substantially, and inexplicably, m43 bodies have grown even larger than some FF models. Fresnel lenses (Nikon) and good design choices and aggressive pricing (Canon) are poised to take back some of the m43 advantages related to the smaller, affordable kit arguments. Against DSLRs the advantage was absolute. FF mirrorless has taken 75% of that advantage away.

This makes it very challenging for m43 to increase margins and go more “pro” as a means of driving sales and profits. The Olympus unit and sales declines are especially worrisome as it is clear m43 is ceding market space and mirrorless unit sales to FF mirrorless. The smaller sensor is getting pushed into a more consumer-oriented market position at a time when that market is contracting. The most profitable pro and prosumer end will clearly go to FF mirrorless. Panasonic’s FF venture and pricing says as much.

Have you heard the saying: "Never say never"? Why say on m43 forum that m43 can never do what FF can? Isn't that clearly false?

 

[Bytesmiths]

FF can do what m43 cannot

Y'mean, like:

• 7 stops of IBIS?
• Eight lenses, a body, and four spare batteries in a bum bag?
• 60 frames per second, including about half that number before you trip the shutter?
• 1000mm of reach in a half-kilogram package?
• A range of ƒ/1.2 prime lenses?
• Many, many ƒ/0.8 to ƒ/1.4 prime choices, with the help of focal reducers and legacy film glass?
• Automagic sensor dust cleaning?

I could go on…

m43 can never do what FF can

Okay, where do I attach the focal reducer on my Fool Frame camera, so I can shoot all my legacy Olympus OM glass with a full stop more light?

You've drunk the Fool Frame Kool Aid™. I really think you should get rid of your Olympus gear and buy into Fool Frame.

I really don't understand why you're even here. There's a bumper sticker on our wee island: "Don't try to change Salt Spring; let Salt Spring change you!"

I suggest you either try to let µ4/3rds change you, or go somewhere else. Olympus doesn't need your "advice."

 

[whumber]

• 7 stops of IBIS?

6 stops, not quite the 7 of the E-M1X.

• Eight lenses, a body, and four spare batteries in a bum bag?

Sure.

• 60 frames per second, including about half that number before you trip the shutter?

Yep.

• 1000mm of reach in a half-kilogram package?

Can you even get that in m43 without cropping in?

• A range of ƒ/1.2 prime lenses?

Yep.

• Many, many ƒ/0.8 to ƒ/1.4 prime choices, with the help of focal reducers and legacy film glass?

Yep.

• Automagic sensor dust cleaning?

Yep.

Okay, where do I attach the focal reducer on my Fool Frame camera, so I can shoot all my legacy Olympus OM glass with a full stop more light?

You can attach your OM glass with a glass-less adapter and get a stop more light than what you're getting with a focal reducer on m43.

 

[MichailK]

hey guys, no need for words in any anger!

it is a sure thing that MF>FF>APS-C>m43 in the technical aspect of things and when used by a knowledgable user
the results can be better with the bigger system, many times but certainly not all and every time as the bigger guys constantly say

no doubt about the laws of physics even if IBIS and lens details may favor the smaller formats a bit more

the thing is:
1. would I be having more fun with a bigger system with its overall shooting experience including handling/carrying/paying for it ?
2. would I get seriously better results to make it worth it for me?

=>for me both answers are a NO and yes, I can live with the higher noise levels I get - heck I remember when 1000ASA was a serious super grainy pro speed and most real life (no dark room) amateurs had 400 at most and whatever push the lab thought as appropriate to not have an unhappy customer... and I shot just a handful of photos back then in my teens with a completely basic ‘60s fixed lens Agfa 120 film camera since the damn thing had a sticky shutter and I could never afford anything serious so I mostly gave up and promised myself to get involved again someday in the future (and yes, I had a couple of lucky 120 frames looking much better than what any 135 was ever able to deliver - hey I used a real MF camera!)

the problem I see is that most people are really in my class of abilities and fun quest and they are often (self)misguided
into overbuying oversize equipment that deprives much of the fun they are after

that is all

 

[Bytesmiths]

You can attach your OM glass with a glass-less adapter and get a stop more light than what you're getting with a focal reducer on m43.

I don't think you quite understand how that works.

A lot of Fool Frame Fanatics (FFF) don't know the difference between area, and per-area.

While it is true that an acre of land has more total rain falling on it than a half-acre does, the potatoes grow just as fast on the half-acre as they do on the acre, because the rainfall rate on the two is identical.

If you only have enough potatoes to plant a half-acre, or if you can't eat any more potatoes than you can grow on your half-acre, buying a full acre just means you pay more property taxes for the same crop.

Likewise, the total number of photons striking a sensor has nothing to do with the exposure settings. An ƒ/2 lens is still an ƒ/2 lens on either system.

But on a smaller sensor, with a lens designed for a bigger sensor, you can put a "funnel" in-between that will allow you to use the "wasted" rain that is falling outside your half-acre — and that can mean you can grow more potatoes! You cannot do that if you went out and bought a whole acre.

hey guys, no need for words in any anger!

I'm sorry, but this is a website devoted to certain cameras. It says so in the URL! I begin to lose patience with trolls who come in and insist that Olympus is dead if they don't support bigger sensors. Let them start their own website! Last I checked, "olympus-is-dead.com" is available.

I have never seen a thing that didn't have both advantages and disadvantages. That is true of camera systems, too. This website is for certain cameras with certain well-known advantages and disadvantages — as well as ways to exploit the advantages and work-around the disadvantages.

I am now blocking people who have nothing better to do but run down µ4/3rds cameras on this website.

 

[whumber]

I don't think you quite understand how that works.

A lot of Fool Frame Fanatics (FFF) don't know the difference between area, and per-area.

While it is true that an acre of land has more total rain falling on it than a half-acre does, the potatoes grow just as fast on the half-acre as they do on the acre, because the rainfall rate on the two is identical.

That's true, but in this case the quality of the image (aka noise) is a function of potatoes, not potatoes per acre.

If you only have enough potatoes to plant a half-acre, or if you can't eat any more potatoes than you can grow on your half-acre, buying a full acre just means you pay more property taxes for the same crop.

Likewise, the total number of photons striking a sensor has nothing to do with the exposure settings. An ƒ/2 lens is still an ƒ/2 lens on either system.

That's only because one leg of the exposure triangle is an artificial construct. The actual gain applied for a given ISO setting in a m43 camera is different than that in an APS-C or FF camera. A m43 sensor is not actually any noisier than an APS-C or FF sensor, it's just that it's trying to feed the same number of people with fewer potatoes.

But on a smaller sensor, with a lens designed for a bigger sensor, you can put a "funnel" in-between that will allow you to use the "wasted" rain that is falling outside your half-acre — and that can mean you can grow more potatoes! You cannot do that if you went out and bought a whole acre.

That's because you don't need to as all of those potatoes are already being harvested. In your example you're still throwing out half of the potatoes. Answer this for yourself. Why are you adding a speedbooster in the first place? Is it to get a shallower depth of field, increase SNR in the final image, or just because you like to see low f-numbers in the EVF when you take pictures?

 

[KBeezie]

Waiting for when smartphones come out with M-4/3 or APS-C sensors, then we'll have a war. (and course argue that a three inch thick smartphone is a bit too thick... to be a phone rather than a camera).

I feel like mu43 carved a decent niche out, and some of us don't "need" bigger. But I'm also more concerned about how much journalism (or wanna-be blogging journalist) shared such a busted rumor when nearly the entire market is slumping in camera sales.

 

[tkbslc]

Cropping a image want change the DoF

Cropping in post actually reduces the DOF if you maintain the same output size. Magnification is increased, including the blur. This will move the transition point of "acceptable sharpness" and make your OOF blur circles larger.

Cropping in camera generally increases DOF because you have to move farther away, or switch to a wider lens to maintain your framing.

 

[RS86]

No need for any anger. That statement is just factually false in my opinion, and I find it very weird like Bytesmiths as why we see such comments on a m43-forum.

Some examples: I shoot much macro nowadays. I cannot do with m43 what FF can do in this area? I shoot live insects hand-held so I'm pretty sure it's more like FF cannot do what m43 can than the opposite. Unless you're Arnold or such strong man and I'm not. For some photos I have held the camera with a flash at chest level for many minutes almost straight to get a photo when there is the chance for a great photo. I'm in the impression m43 has an advantage here otherwise too than weight.

Another is that I like to walk and spend time in nature and have FF 18-600mm equivalent lenses with me along with couple primes which can give me enough "bokeh" + depth of field for some "artistic" shots. Again I'm no Arnold so Aristophanes can surely explain to me how FF can do this, but m43 cannot.

I do most of my shooting in day light so Aristophanes can also explain to me how FF can do what m43 cannot do, when the biggest I print is 60-100 cm wide and I don't look at those prints from under 50 cm away.

I'm sure there are other examples and others can give those, but I'm waiting for corrections for these.

Also Nikon Z series is surely interesting and very good. Their cheapest model, body only, costing over 1500 euros in Finland currently. I got my E-M10 II with kit lens for 690 euros 3,5 years ago (I'm amazed that this package still costs 450 euros in Finland, don't see that often in electronics I think).

With Nikon price I would have never even started this hobby (eventhough got addicted and GAS later) not to mention dream of having all these focal lenghts in my bag now. Or have a go at macro photography (Oly 60mm is pretty cheap and small macro lens compared to other systems) to find out I like it a lot. Not to mention wanting 2 bodies to fit lenses like prime/12-40mm and 75-300mm ready if a bird comes close for example.

Ming Thein: "Every camera/ lens/ system has a range of conditions under which it will work optimally and be able to deliver the best image quality it can. This is its ‘shooting envelope’. It isn’t just the amount of available light, but also takes into consideration other factors such as ease of use, stability, and even to some extent, subject matter. The wider the shooting envelope of a camera, the more versatile it is; however, the tradeoff is almost always that cameras with a very wide shooting envelope in one direction are severely limited in others."

https://blog.mingthein.com/2014/06/11/shooting-envelope-what-does-it-mean/

 

[Aristophanes]

Y'mean, like:

• 7 stops of IBIS?
• Eight lenses, a body, and four spare batteries in a bum bag?
• 60 frames per second, including about half that number before you trip the shutter?
• 1000mm of reach in a half-kilogram package?
• A range of ƒ/1.2 prime lenses?
• Many, many ƒ/0.8 to ƒ/1.4 prime choices, with the help of focal reducers and legacy film glass?
• Automagic sensor dust cleaning?

I could go on…


Okay, where do I attach the focal reducer on my Fool Frame camera, so I can shoot all my legacy Olympus OM glass with a full stop more light?

You've drunk the Fool Frame Kool Aid™. I really think you should get rid of your Olympus gear and buy into Fool Frame.

I really don't understand why you're even here. There's a bumper sticker on our wee island: "Don't try to change Salt Spring; let Salt Spring change you!"

I suggest you either try to let µ4/3rds change you, or go somewhere else. Olympus doesn't need your "advice."

IBIS and optical stabilization work very well on other brands. It’s not a tech proprietary to m43. It’s just not. And it appears to be at the point of diminishing returns. EIS (including with the EM1X) is a small sensor advantage, but the tech there is also approaching its limits. We are soon to see a Canon FF mirrorless IBIS paired with their OIS, claiming 7 stops.

The Olympus f/1.2 lenses are vastly overpriced and offer less shallow and diffraction limited DOF than. $389 FF 1.8. Fast glass is a very expensive solution for m43 as smaller optics at required quality are much harder to design than larger optics. We see that in uncompetitive m43 pricing. It’s not a good place to be for a manufacturer. The Panasonic 10-25/1.7 is outstanding glass, but price and mass compromises are what it takes to compete.

m43 has its tradeoffs, and they are significant. Sensor level IQ is a problem and the price to overcome whittles away at existing m43 advantages or is platform and brand neutral. And a lot of the smaller sensor advantages are video centric in full applications, and not stills optimized.

Focal reducers are a non-native kludge, and very expensive. If so useful, why aren’t Panny and Olympus making them directly?

Extreme FPS can be a liability in post.

No Kool Aid. m43 has it advantages but they are not the sensor. This makes it very difficult to price m43 at larger sensor margins. Is the other tech listed equivalent in sum to the advantages of a larger sensor? Probably not. And it’s all over the Japanese criticism about where to place Olympus relative to the other manufacturers. Every comment is prefaced by the “smaller sensor”. No serious investor sees the smaller sensors as having the profitable market traction for higher-end sales as FF and above. Panasonic went to the FF $$. Fuji went to MF $$. The real problem is Olympus.

The most successful niche camera Olympus makes right now is the very popular TG-6 as a dive camera. No action cam has come close to what Olympus has accomplished there with a small sensor. So the question is, how does Olympus do the same with m43? The $1049 1.2s aren’t an answer against a Nikon Z 50/1.8.

 

[RichardC]

Also Nikon Z series is surely interesting and very good. Their cheapest model, body only, costing over 1500 euros in Finland currently. I got my E-M10 II with kit lens for 690 euros 3,5 years ago (I'm amazed that this package still costs 450 euros in Finland, don't see that often in electronics I think).
https://blog.mingthein.com/2014/06/11/shooting-envelope-what-does-it-mean/

EM10 Mk2 body, currently available in the UK on a "black Friday" (Friday now lasts 8 days) deal of GBP 229. Bargain!