E5 official release

<p >Gee whiz, Jeff, what happened? Did you fall out of the wrong side of the bed (and the bed is against the wall)? You seem to be a bit upset about my opinions and knowledge of cameras. For the most part, your inane comments have nothing or very little to do with the E-5 and/or comparisons of the same to that of other DSLRs.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >You're obviously upset because you think I'm against technological changes. There again, your comments demonstrate a severe lack of understanding when it comes to the needs and expectations of semi pros and/or professional photographers.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >You criticized me about my comment concerning optical viewfinders. If memory serves me correct, optical viewfinders are still better than EVFs as of the date of this writing. Until that technology can dramatically improve, then I guess optical viewfinders are as I previously stated, “... the way to go.”</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Your poorly constructed hypothetical analogy of my critiques compared to the technology of aircraft propulsion seems to be way off the subject matter, but then again what else can one expect from someone who has so much delusional faith and loyalty in the way Olympus does things. Try staying on the subject of the newly released E-5 and not some absurd futuristic hope that Olympus will solve/improve upon any photographic technology.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >It's quite obvious to casual Olympus E-3 users that the newly released E-5 has fallen short when it comes to expectations of the present technology used by its competitors. You would think after a three-year sabatical, Olympus would amaze us with newly developed technology. If EVF is so great, why didn't Olympus replace the optical viewfinder on the E-5 with their fantastic (sarcasm) EVF?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If I'm being so-called “condescending” it would only be proper for those who take delight in trying desperately to make a point with little or no substance. Again, please stay on topic... remember this is a forum discussion about the newly released and highly technological Olympus E-5 (sarcasm maximus).</p>

<p > </p>

<p>When I first purchased the Olympus E-30, it came with the Master 2 software, which does not have the ability to convert RAW to TIFF or JPEG. I called Olympus Support and was told to download the software, Studio 2 and you'lll have 30-days usage. A payment of a $99.00 purchase price after the 30-days trial would give me full rights of usage. I complained to the manager of the support department.</p>

<p>Apparently, I was not the only user to complain and this became a sore spot for Olympus. Somewhere down the road, someone made the decision to offer the software, Viewer 2, (changed software name from Studio 2) for free as long as one enters their serial number of the DSLR camera.</p>

<p>Thanks for the heads-up, Jeff... I downloaded it and now can easily make conversion of RAW to TIFF and JPEG without having to do so in Photoshop CS5.</p>

<p>It may not be a technological enhancement but more of customer relations move.</p>

<p>Ken, your expectations fall short because you are expecting a company that does play to the popularity contest game to play. They won't do it. They are not Canon or Nikon. They're not part of "The Big Three" (automotive reference). You are trying to compare apples to oranges. The closest thing they have in common is that they are both imaging devices, fruit if you will. However each company develops their technology in a completely different manner. I think you're missing the part about Olympus designs their cameras around their lenses and sensor. You If it was possible for them to have a 15MP sensor, they would have done so. New lenses have nothing to do with new cameras. Honestly, right now you're really just come across as a whiner with an unrealistic list of wants from an uneducated company stand point.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Gee whiz, Jeff, what happened? Did you fall out of the wrong side of the bed (and the bed is against the wall)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Uh, please see your own statement:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Again, please stay on topic... remember this is a forum discussion about the newly released and highly technological Olympus E-5 (sarcasm maximus).</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You're obviously upset because you think I'm against technological changes. There again, your comments demonstrate a severe lack of understanding when it comes to the needs and expectations of semi pros and/or professional photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please don't lump me, or anyone else you don't know into your ramblings. You have an idea in your head. But what you consider to be professional and good, based on your personal website and PN portfolio, I find unappealing. Everyone has opinions. Opinions are just that, opinions. Not something that is right or wrong. Remember, the term professional is NOT synonymous with perfection. I myself am a paid professional photographer and I do so with a camera I bought 4 years ago as a consumer level DLSR. I have never been happier, and I cannot wait to get my hands on an E5.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but then again what else can one expect from someone who has so much delusional faith and loyalty in the way Olympus does things</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, please do not speak on which you know nothing of. I happen to know that Jeff is a devout Canon user. And he will not likely be converting to Olympus any time in near or distant future.</p>

<p>Bottom line in all of this, if you're not happy then move on. Go buy something else. To the rest of the world who does not not to buy a new camera every year because of technological evolution will mostly likely be more that pleased with what they chose to spend their money on. To each their own.</p>

<p>I'm sorry if your copy of Olympus Master did not perform as is was designed to do. I do not know what software was included with the E30 as I do not own one. I can tell you this though: My copy of Olympus Master that came with my E500, bought 4 years ago, does indeed process and convert RAW and everything else the camera produces. I can also confirm that the version my father has with his newly purchased E620 also converts RAW, etc. No additional software required.</p>

<p>On a closing dicussion note, I can all but guarantee that if Olympus is talking about advances in technology resulting in the extinction of "traditional" DLSRs, then everyone else is working on it as well.</p>

<p>Lacey, sorry to rock your little Olympus boat.</p>

<p>You haven't updated your DSLR for 4 years? You mean to say you haven't kept up with the latest technology? Does that put you in the class of the E-500, E-510, and E-520 models (circa 2006)?</p>

<p>I can see why you may consider the E-5 to be so impressive. Yes, in your case it would definitely be an upgrade.</p>

<p>Hmmm??? If I'm accused of comparing apples to oranges then why do several other websites compare Olympus with other brands such as Canon and Nikon? I'm sure we'll be seeing some comparisons of the highly technologically improved E-5 to other brands in the near future.</p>

<p>Eg.: http://www.camera-catalog.com/compares/popular/olympus_e-500_vs_canon_eos_400d</p>

<p>You have Master 2 software that does conversion of RAW to TIFF and JPEG? That's absolutely amazing, considering it doesn't perform this wonderful feature! You might be mistaken that the new Viewer 2 software replaces both the Master 2 and Studio 2 software to perform this function.</p>

<p><em>Olympus Viewer 2 is the new software for editing and selecting photos and movies and RAW file development. The successor to Olympus Master 2 and Olympus Studio 2 also delivers Art Filter effects for RAW development (only those Art Filter effects which are incorporated in the respective camera are able to be reproduced by the software). It offers the full range of image processing and management tools such as the Light Box and e-Portrait functions for RAW development and is also fully compatible with the latest operating systems, including Windows 7 and Mac OS X Snow Leopard. </em></p>

<p>This was found here: <a href="http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/205_23092.htm">http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/205_23092.htm</a></p>

<p>Hmmm... your comment, “Again, please do not speak on which you know nothing of.“</p>

<p>Has your Olympus boat sprung a leak?</p>

<p>BTW, I don't use the Master 2 software; it seems to be a bit "quirky." I use Photoshop CS5 for RAW and all editing/enhancement functions.</p>

<p>Here's one that compares the E-3 to the Nikon D300. The Editor selected the E-3 and I concur.</p>

<p>http://www.comparethebrands.com/compare/84</p>

<p>Hmmm... more apples compared to oranges?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ken, do not challenge what you do not know. I am aware of what software I have, you however are in complete ignorance. Do not pretend to know, you only make yourself foolish. <br>

Speaking for myself, and possibly many others: I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I am not a spoiled child, as you make yourself seem. I work hard for what I have. I do not make those choices lightly. I do not upgrade every year for the lasted bit gimmick. What I do and why I do it is really none of your concern. Why do care? Why are you so offended? I don't give a rat's what you shoot with, why do you feel the need to attack me? I am sorry if you feel you have to try and degrade everyone around you to make yourself feel better. You have failed miserably in your attempt to flash your supposed dominance. Seems to me there might be issues here that go beyond your facade. <br>

Enough if enough. Let it go. I waste no more time on you.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You're obviously upset because you think I'm against technological changes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This would suggest that I am somehow emotionally vested in this debate, I am not. I don't use Olympus, never have and most likely, never will given my investment in Canon over the years. I do however, respect the storied history of Olympus innovation and their willingness to take the road less traveled in order to make a better product and I expect this tradition of innovation to continue long after we're done debating the merits of the EVF.</p>

<p>Perhaps my airplane analogy was a bit clumsy and obscure. My point was simply that there is always resistance to change, technological advancement will forever have it's critics. I wasn't necessarily saying anything about you, personally. I disagree fundamentally with your assertion that a professional is determined by the equipment he or she uses but that's simply a philosophical difference of opinion. On the other hand, I think that suggesting those who lust for the E-5 are at best "serious amateurs" is just as arrogant and condescending as if I were to call you an elitist feature-nazi, which is why I don't... You're just PN member Ken who disagrees with my assessment of the E-5 as a very viable tool for professional photographers despite the fact that it doesn't offer <em>everything</em> we might have hoped for.</p>

<p>There you have it... one Olympus user who has been out of the technological advancement loop for 4 years... and another non-Olympus user who's trying to defend the merits of Olympus E-5 as a viable tool for professional photographers.</p>

<p>I've stated this before and simply reiterate my point. If I were a beginning professional photographer and have the option of deciding what system to start my business... researching all my options and making a sound decision, not based upon bias or loyalty, not influenced by advertisement or what other pros are using, and looking at the financial situation... the pricey Olympus E-5 would be in a distant third place.</p>

<p>But it's been pointed out that I'm some sort of foolish person. spoiled child, and presumed to have been born with a silver spoon in my mouth. You couldn't be further from the truth!</p>

<p>I have been fortunate during my 35+ years involved in photography, to use film cameras such as Hasselblad, Speedgraphic/Linhof, Bronica ETRSi systems, and the Voigtlander and Olympus OM-2 35mm systems. I guess this shows some age on my part. Currently, I shoot exclusively with the Olympus E-3, E-30 and Canon 7D systems, all of which have their own strong points and weak points. Past digital cameras have been the E-10, E-20N, E-500, and E-510.</p>

<p>I have shot several weddings in Florida, Georgia, and one in Italy. I have been successful enough to stay on the leading edge of the photographic digital technology, including the latest in post-production software. I've worked hard. Along the way, I've experienced some bumps in the road, and things were not as easy as some might think. </p>

<p>Silver spoon? No way! I've learned to persevere, work hard, and enjoy the fruits of my labor. Generally and with few exceptions, what one gets out of life is what they put into it. The same applies to photography.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes... Everyone, please listen to the guy who is the self proclaimed creator of the "<a href="http://www.atlantamaxphoto.com/">MAXterpiece</a>".</p>

 

<p>Yes... please do!</p>

<p>That must be a compliment coming from the typing fingers of one still shooting with an E-500, a camera with an 8 mega-pixel sensor, a camera with NO image stability and a DSLR that is nearly two and one-half generations from the E-5. </p>

<p>Yes, the E-5 would be a gigantic leap for the technologically impaired Olympus E-500 user. I say, "Make the jump." Heck, the last time I used my E-500 was... gee, it's been so long ago I can't remember. Even, the one generation above E-510 model was sold to a friend a while back. And the amount was eventually added to the savings/purchase of a Canon 7D.</p>

<p>Yes, going from the E-500 to the E-5 is similar to upgrading from a 1975 Volkswagen Beetle to a high-performance 2011 Porche 911 Carrera GTS... lightyears ahead in technology.</p>

<p>The newly released Olympus E-5, priced at $1,699, probably the last of the Olympus E-series DSLRs, with the basic technological features less than its lower priced competitors, will most likely drop in price in a year or so to about $1,200 or less. I might wait till it equals the used price of the E-500, about $250 clams... and then add it to my collectibles.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here's another observation:</p>

<p>The reason Olympus pushes the in-box art filter technology in the E-5 because it is aimed at those who are incapable, for whatever reason, of mastering Photoshop or Elements. I think most serious semi-pros and professionals who shoot digital are familiar with these post-processing applications and can easily duplicate the E-5 art filters without losing the original image. If not, then they will have to pay someone or fall to the wayside.</p>

<p>Again, the E-5 seems to be marketed toward those who are amateurs or serious amateurs, who desire to make their images appear as if they've been Photoshoped. It's a good feature in that respect and a future conversational piece within the collectibles.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>We keep getting off on these tangents... art filters, HD video, the <em>future. </em> For me, the most important aspect of any camera is the image quality. My 5D (5-year old technology) doesn't have video or art filters or built-in HDR, no in-camera frame stacking, or 7 EV bracketing, either, it's not weather sealed, weighs a ton, and has only 12.8 megapixels... It's a camera, nothing more, and it works wonderfully. Even now, after all these years, I can tell you that it's my evolving talent holding the camera back, not the other way around.</p>

<p>About the E-500 and it's users you have this to say...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Coming from... one [Ms. Hughes] still shooting with an E-500<br /> a camera with an 8 mega-pixel sensor<br /> a camera with NO image stability<br /> a DSLR that is nearly two and one-half generations from the E-5<br /> ...for the technologically impaired Olympus E-500 user.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you <em>seen</em> her portfolio?!</p>

<p>Anyway, it should be pointed out that your so-called MAXterpiece, the one mentioned by Lacey, the one photograph on your site that has been singled out with it's own page, a clever name, and a giant copyright symbol, the one set for publication and photo contests, that very photograph was taken with the same camera that Lacey currently uses... an Olympus E-500. Of course the photos used to create your MAXterpiece were shot in auto-mode (Creative-slow speed) while I can see by looking at the data on photographs in her portfolio, Lacey prefers full-manual. This brings me back to my original contention. Good photographs are made by good photographers, not expensive cameras.</p>

<p>The E-5 will be an amazing tool in the hands of a photographer like Lacey. In the hands of <em>any</em> photographer with the talent and imagination to exploit it's virtues and capabilities... just like you did exactly three years ago today, standing in the middle of that grassy field with your E-500.</p>

<p>That's right... the E-5 will be a great camera for Lacey. Going from an E-500 to the E-5 is a huge upgrade. There's no argument about that.</p>

<p>As far as the "Weathered Truck" image is concerned: It was shot with an E-500 and shortly thereafter, I graduated up to the next Olympus generation, the E-510, which has 10 mega-pixels, image stabilization and slightly better resolution and croppiong. The E-500 was placed in a backup role and rarely used shortly after the image was taken. Wow! Three years ago? I sure have come along way in the digital equipment selection.</p>

<p>I shot "Weathered Truck" in several modes, including manual, aperture pref., shutter pref., and auto. The one I happened to select was in auto mode. I chose the best possible image from nearly 200 images shot that day with variations of exposure, lenses, and composition.</p>

<p>Btw, the photo, "Weathered Truck" has won an award and has been sold to a number of individuals as a digital file for their computer desktops. Several professional photographers have pointed out that it is a remarkable digital image. (patting myself on the back).</p>

<p>Have you thought about placing the 5D as a backup to the 5D Mark II? I'm looking to graduate to the full frame sensor in going with the latest and greatest Canon... maybe a 5D Mark III when it becomes available. As a professionally marketed DSLR, I bet it won't have any art filters... LOL!</p>

<p>I don't disagree with you about a good photographer statement... but I will add, it doesn't hurt to have the expensive professional equipment to get the best possible and well composed shot. As a good example: professional tennis players don't play with cheap store bought rackets with general usage strings. Instead, they hit with top quality rackets with the latest technological improvements and high quality synthetic gut, double strung. They hit with something that gives a better sweet spot, along with power and control. I used to play a great deal of tennis when living in Florida, and I used five rackets of the same make and model, designed by Jimmy Connors and used by several pro-tennis players including Pete Sampras. It was my selection after testing several brands and models with variations of gut and stringing procedures.</p>

<p>The same applies to professional photographers who desire to achieve the highest possible resolution, with few if any limitations. The same professional photographers are usually quite adept to using post-production software applications to further enhance their images; no in-the-box art filters.</p>

<p>I wish Lacey all the best in acquiring/using the newly released E-5. The E-500 will most likely stay in the bag as a backup or retired on the shelf.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I considered upgrading, absolutely. I lusted for the MkII for months before and after release because I'm not immune to gizmo and pixelitis. In the end, I came to the conclusion that an image is an image whether it comes from a 23MP camera or a 12.8MP camera. A conclusion helped along by the fact that I simply could not afford it. The MkII didn't really offer any improvement in image quality or ease of shooting with the exception of Live View which works great for critical focusing and when I'm laying on the ground or holding the camera over my head. In addition, like the E-5, I would have to invest additional hundreds of dollars for another battery grip and spare batteries because the MkII would not accept the ones I have for my MkI. I love the performance of my 5D, every single day. If my photographs suffer it's due to my lack of talent, not the camera.</p>

<p >That's one thing that bothers me about Canon, not having compatibility along the line of high-end models. Even the APS-C cameras require the EF-S lenses.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The reason I decided on the Olympus E-30 over the Canon 50D was its compatibility with the E-3, same battery grip, same batteries, same line of lenses, and slight increase in resolution and cropping factor.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I understand that the Canon 7D is compatible to the 5DMk2, but the only concern is the EF-S lenses... will they provide the same image quality for the 5DMk2? Will there be any vignetting for the full-frame sensor?</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Another things that bugs me about the newly released Olympus E-5 is the differences in batteries, battery grip and the second memory card slot will not use the xD. Olympus decided to go with the SD memory card for the secondary slot, albeit a better memory card with much higher capacity. Oh well, life is full of unexpected changes.</p>

<p > </p>

<p>Ken "MAX" Parks:<br>

You are the first person I've seen that wishes the E-5 had xD. I tend to feel it is good that Olympus has finally moved away from a propritary memory card format. Given that xD is only 2GB and very slow, at least in my E-3, the only use is as an emergency backup card if I left the house without putting a CF card back in the slot. Given I can buy a class 10 8GB SD-HC card at newegg for $18 + s/h, I am not going to worry too much about my spare xD card.</p>

<p>The battery difference is evidently required by a new law that goes into effect in Japan next month. The announcement says that BLM-1's will work in the E-5 and BLM-5's will work in E-3/E-30 (though it doesn't mention the E-5xx/E-3xx/E-1 bodies).</p>

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>It's not so much that the E-5 should have a xD memory slot. I was taken back in the change to the SD memory card. Please refer to my last statement, "...life is full of unexpected changes." It shouldn't be taken that there was a "wish" for the slow xD format.</p>

<p>You're right about the SD memory cards; they're faster and contain higher amount of memory for a very reasonable price. I used the xDs only in emergency situations such as a full CF card and had no more CF cards with me. Heck, I always have extra CF cards and never used the xD's. I bought two 16 gig CF cards (30mb/sec) for $24.99 per each at Fry's. It will handle the speed of the newer DSLR models/brands.</p>

<p>I didn't realize there was a change in industry law in Japan concerning the batteries. Investigating, I found this tidbit of information on the dpreview forum:</p>

<p><em>"As I understood the announcement of the "new" battery, it was compatible with the blm-1, but manufactured with different safety factors in order to comply with Japans new Environmental laws.</em><br /> <em>In other words, they are interchangeable as far as where they will fit/operate, but the BLM-1 isnt manufactured any longer dur to safety constraints</em>."</p>

<p>If the above statement is true whereby the BLM-1 will no longer be manufactured, then the E-3 and E-30 users will have to acquire the BLM-5. The major change is the 1620 mAh as compared to the BLM-1 of 1500mAh; that will provide more shots per full charge. In my case, I shoot with the E-3 and E-30, allowing more shots and less batteries to carry.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Does anyone have any idea how much it migth cost in the UK?</p>

<p>Funny thing for me,as I took the time to read the above arguments-evolved to the argumentative stage they did, is that still I crop and am getting acceptable results with 10 meg. No, do not do 20 X 24 prints, I guess that is still a money maker. Nor double truck fashion shots for Vanity Fair. I am quirky, me, moi, quirky and glad of it in a way. Granting the use of "quirky" which is not quite what I would call Olympus products--not my E cameras anyway. Latter are,well, different, innovative, road less traveled, nice, solid, well I guess we can call that quirkyishness,... whatever...(best damn dust buster, but that is history, like what have they done for us lately, ya know..)<br /> Cropping capability and pixel math. I crop less with 4:3 than I used to with 2:3. I try to frame as much in the finder as I can, always have. As to EVF, I had a ball with the Lumix G-1 on a recent trip. It serves well. EVF technology has already doubled resolutions and recovery speed in the lab and will be coming soon to a micro 4/3 entry in your community...as to the speed aspect,well we read if we take the time, Olympus saying it will see if contrast detection can give the suitable speed of AF results they seek in their lineup. I am guessing that will take a while. As to comparison with other cameras of the Canon and NIkon lineage, I could care less. Why should I. Since no one who is on this forum much is here to learn the merits of starting fresh off with an Olympus vis a vis a Canon, it seems moot to argue for Canon. Not illegal though. Nor irreverant. I shot with the Canon product when it was the underdog in 1970. I could afford to add a second system,but for me, and for most that would be nonsense. (Asset allocation applies to stock market, not camera tools.) I expect my E-3 to hold me for the next 6 years. And now round out my light control goodies. I need a new Lastolite circular reflector. Lighting is the real thing to make or break the image. Hmm, I heard that one before.. and was there not something about great quality zoom lenses, oh yeah,I know, too few too late, too costly, and no red stripe..... Always something to break our hearts...aloha and happy trails, gs</p>

<blockquote>Ken Parks: You have Master 2 software that does conversion of RAW to TIFF and JPEG? That's absolutely amazing, considering it doesn't perform this wonderful feature!</blockquote>

<p>You are arguing unnecessarily. Master does convert from raw to tiff or jpg. I have it and used it convert to tiff or jpg on a regular basis.</p>

<p>Olympus had three years to upgrade their very popular E3 camera(please see the Amazon & B&H reviews) they almost score a perfect 10 ! Instead, they chose to incorporate the same (gee-wiz) gimmicks that Point & Shoot and other camera manufacturers have in their lower end models, including leaders such as Nikon and Canon in the hope of holding on, or increasing their market share. <br>

Now I have always been a big fan of Olympus cameras, because of their innovation, but the company seems to lean to unwaranted drastic and revolutionary changes rather than applying their talents(and they are talented) to products that can compete with the leaders in the industry.<br>

I have to agree with Ken on this one, look at a company like Leica, they would be laughed off the market if they offered things like "face detection" , "Art filters" in their top of the line "Professional" models, so would Canon and Nikon for that matter. IMHO, I think this was a desperate move for a company that shows so much promise.<br>

I don't mind the "Double Exposure" feature since this was offered way back in the days of film and I would certainly rather take a double exposure shot on the spot than sift through a bunch of images in Photoshop to create a composite. <br>

One thing Olympus does have going for it is the lenses, but currently they only offer 3 or 4 SWD lenses which limits their attractiveness. . What is the sence of advertising the fastest AF in the world if you can only offer 3-4 lenses, even if those lenses cover allot of territory ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A question that needs to be answered is whether Olympus has enhanced the E-3 within the constraints of the 4/3rds sensor and have those enhancements improved image quality and provided more detail, slightly less noise considering sensor size and does this camera take better advantage of high-grade lenses? If the answer to this is 'Yes' then in my book Olympus has delivered a reasonable improvement. What is it with people's mindset these days that everything has to have a 'wow affect' rather than a sensible improvement. Plus people should be cognisant of the constraints of 4/3rd sensor technology. 4/3rd sensor based cameras (DSLR, Pen cameras) will continue to have issues with severe low light scenarios and high ISO. Pros who need to have that capability will have a tool for it. 4/3rd sensor technology-based products should leverage their strengths (m43) - size, lens technology (telecentric design), quality of lenses, and focal length conversion factor of 2. As a non-professional I have no requirement to print large and 7.5-10MP is plenty of pixels for my needs. Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe for an A4 page print one only needs 6 MP. More pixels also means slower processing, faster PC and more disk space (backups etc). I do not have an ego-problem if Olympus stops to compete with the other brands for the very specific requirements of Pro-photographers, but instead focuses its limited resourced on delivering superb consumer and advanced enthusiast models that deliver outstanding image quality supported by great lenses. In the end a camera is there to take pictures and in my mind not a video camera or a replacement for PP on a laptop - there are other devices for that purpose.This is how companies lose the plot when they forget what to focus on or when they do not leverage their strengths. Tomorrow an Olympus E620, 150mm f2 and EC-14 will join my other Olympus products. In 2011 an Olympus E-5 will join them. I fully intend to keep supporting Olympus and can even see myself using a PEN camera with my lenses (2012/13). So, Olympus please keep doing what you do best, give us more great lenses and bodies that can take advantage of those lenses. Thank you, a satisfied customer.</p>