Would you buy an Olympus FF fixed lens camera?

[bargainguy]

Already have an RX1R. Really a lovely camera and hard to beat in some respects. The 35 Sonnar draws nicely and the camera is relatively compact for FF.

Of course, the Sony menu system is a bit of a dinosaur and the ergonomics are not great - it's basically a little brick - but it is an incredible form factor.

 

[PakkyT]

And I'm not sure that the Tough series has enough IQ to interest me, although I might try a used one eventually to see.

Later on, after the Tough series had gone through several versions I thought, hmmmmm, that might be a handy camera to have for certain situations, but by the time I looked at them a little closer, I found they had ditched the EVF and you only had the back screen to shoot with. I quickly lost interest.

 

[Tom Marshman]

I would. I like and use both MFT and FF gear. Different tools for different situations.

 

[Bushboy]

Not in a million years...

 

[memzinla]

I would really love one. That way Olympus doesn't really invest in FF by having to create so many lenses? I don't know. haha

 

[saladin]

Potentially, absolutely yes.

Style it like the PenF, aperture ring on lens (35mm focal length) , lots of manual controls, weather sealed, why wouldn't I be interested?

Slightly off topic, but after handling the Sony A7C , I'd love similar from Panasonic. The FF issue for me is the size of the lenses. A fixed prime would potentially negate part of that issue if Oly went that way. Even if it was "only" a 35/2/2.5/ 2.8 , or something like the Pentax 43/1.9. Thats not a big lens. Yes , you have to make compromises with small lenses, but if you choose them wisely the less than perfect vintage rendering could suit a vintage styled camera perfectly. The somewhat soft 23/2 lens on the Fuji X100 for it's first 4 generations didn't stop buyers.

 

[John King]

That's what my E-PM2 + 14-42 EZ + auto-opening lens cap is for ...

Fits in a small polo shirt pocket, but still has interchangeable lenses.

I wouldn't mind an E-PM3, with a tiny EVF and 5 axis IBIS, but only if still tiny, and absolutely no more than 300 grams. Preferably the same size and weight as the E-PM2.

The E-PLx series are too bulky and heavy for this role IMO.

 

[phigmov]

I remember the original Oly M43 announcements & mock-ups - something like this w/ a 4/3 sensor and fixed 24 or 28mm pancake lens would be awesome. Sadly I can't see many buying it tho'. Instead of their foray into the A01 (which was super-niche), they may have done better with something like this.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[saladin]

I'm not going to lie.

If Oly build a FF, fixed lens equivalent to this:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Then I am absolutely, 100 percent guaranteed certain to lust after one and ponder whether I really need two kidneys for what is probably the final 30-40 years of my life.

 

[saladin]

Oh , and since honesty is the name of the game, I can admit that I'd also lust after a "standard" Pen-Fii . Hopefully sans the kidney auction requirement!

 

[LilSebastian]

No, but that is why I haven't bought a Sony RX1, Ricoh GR or Fujifilm X100. I like the flexibility of interchangeable lenses too much.

 

[DGoakill]

Would you buy a full frame fixed camera by Olympus? Something like the Sony RX1 II or Leica Q2? I would love one!

I've been wanting FF and keep trying different cameras, and always end up going back to Olympus. I know some people don't want a FF Olympus camera because there might be a lose in interest in m43? So would you be interested in a fixed camera?

I have full frame (Canon & L glass) never use it.

I wouldn't buy any brand's first attempt at a new format. It typically isn't done well.

As for fixed, almost all of my street work was done with a fixed 28mm Ricoh GRD III P&S. Excellent for street shooting in the city. Once I left the city it was never used. When I lived in the city the longest lens I'd use was a 35mm. Now in suburban life I find my self between the 50mm and the 85mm focal lengths. So, no on any fixed camera, regardless of sensor or brand. They only work for a specific purpose and not much else. If that need changes you're out of luck and the prices are too high for what is fixed on the market right now for such a limited use.

 

[agentlossing]

No, but that is why I haven't bought a Sony RX1, Ricoh GR or Fujifilm X100. I like the flexibility of interchangeable lenses too much.

I park myself within the same general range of wide to standard focal lengths, and I find interchangeable lenses more of a GAS distraction than anything else. Give me a camera like the GR and I will be happy with its strengths and weaknesses, but add the choice between rendering, max aperture value, size and weight and all of the other considerations between multiple lenses within M4/3 land, and I'll nearly always want to spend more $$$.

 

[retiredfromlife]

If the FF was a beefed up tough camera, yes

 

[pake]

If the FF was a beefed up tough camera, yes

Well... THAT I didn't think of. Yes. I'd be interested in that. My snorkeling photos suck. I want superclean photos of sharks etc. Although there's one problem though... I don't want to be in the water where there are sharks. Oh well... Let's solve the camera issue first.

 

[BDR-529]

Would you buy a full frame fixed camera by Olympus? Something like the Sony RX1 II or Leica Q2? I would love one!

Why does it have to be fixed lens FF camera?

I don't see anything wrong with the "rangefinder" style ILC concept á la PEN or GX9 but this is already available in FF. Just have a look at Sony A7C or better yet Sigma fp. I would certainly consider PEN with FF sensor should one be launched in, say L-mount which is the only realistic option.

Removing bayonet would not make the body substantially smaller or lighter but just next to useless compared to one that is ILC.

Given the examples it also looks like the price somehow gets doubled when one very essential feature is removed. Also: should I buy a fixed lens FF camera from (add any brand here) @4000USD/EUR? Absolutely not.

 

[Macroramphosis]

Not for me. If I'm laying out that sort of money for a system with so many attributes, then linking it to a single focal length would be a huge detriment for the way, and for what, I like to shoot. I suspect that's the reason the RX series are not hugely popular - very expensive for a limited shooting envelope. If I bought into a FF system I'd want to make the very best of it, and not be limited to a single focal length.

This all before we talk about Olympus (or OMD) being technically capable of bringing such a camera to fruition at the first time of asking....

 

[macabee]

FF means bigger lenses on smaller mirrorless bodies, IMO they only balance well on DSLR's. I had the excellent Pentax K1 FF great camera. However I changed from FF to OMD for size and weight issues and I have not looked back

 

[scb]

Perhaps a clarification to my original "no". At times, because I love nature photography, I've had thoughts about a full frame body with a quality zoom lens. But aside from the prohibitive cost (and there's other stuff I like to spend $$ on), I've learned that I really don't want to deal with the weight and size of such a combination. On my many hikes to Sandy Ridge Reservation, which is a popular spot for birders, I see a lot of fellow photographers with high end cameras/lenses and see what they are hauling around. Then I look at my E M5ii, 40-150 Pro with or without the 2x teleconverter, usually mounted on my monopod and I think to myself that I really don't want to deal with anything larger or heavier. And, before spending money on FF gear, I'd rather buy another pro lens such as the Olympus 300 mm lens. I can live with any limitations of the m4/3 system rather than deal with more weight and larger gear.

 

[moonhawk]

I'd be interested in a good TG, but in m43, not FF. And with a viewfinder.