anyone else want a full frame oly?

<p>its possible to do and be a potential boon for oly. they would rake it the money. their lenses are already top notch, why not have a body thats revolutionary too? maybe an EVF full frame camera!</p>

<p>How exactly will they "rake in the money" by entering a market already dominated by Canon and Nikon during a global recession? They're facing increasing competition in the 4/3 market and falling behind Panasonic in micro4/3. Where will they get the resources to develop a full-frame camera?</p>

<p>i have no clue but i want a full frame camera and might have to switch to nikon to get one. they are not poor either. they make more than just cameras, they are huge in the medical field. i dont think it costs as much as people think it does to work up some 3d renderings in a CAD program. oly fans who want a FF would stick with them so they would not lose all that business to the other major players. what about sony? they are new to the FF game and they are doing fine.</p>

<p>maybe oly can partner with nikon!</p>

<p>When Olympus announced 4/3 format as the main platform for their DSLR, they critisized all the larger formats by enumerating the prblems of larger formats and advatages of 4/3 fromat. They even compared the image quality of the lens designed for film and that dedicated for 4/3.</p>

<p>So, if Oly is going to release any of larger (even DX) format cameras, it is as good as admitting that they were wrong. I don't think that they dare to do that. Ironically, micro 4/3 turned out to be "the" format that truly realized what Olympus had promoted at the initial announcement of 4/3.</p>

<p>If ever Olympus would go into full-frame digital, they would need complete re-design of the lens linup anyway, although some lenses were re-branded for Sinar system (seemingly) without design changes. As Nikon MF lens lineup proved, the usability of lenses designed for 135 film format is highly unpredictable: high-class lenses can be useless while cheapo lenses may turn out to be excellent performers.</p>

<p>So, no one can assure your older Oly manual lenses can be used properly even if Oly would retain the classical OM mount. If I would have to buy new lenses for the new full-frame format, I couldn't find any reason to stick to Oly.</p>

<p>As for the money, the optical quality of a lens nowadays is decided solely by the cost, not the brand. Remember Sigma made a zoom lens for Leica and Tamron Made one for Hasselbald and they were considerably more expensive than their regular lenses.</p>

<p>makes sense to me. looks like i might have two camera systems eventually. i cant state how strongly i want the field of view of a FF system. i dont want to convert cropfactors or anything like that anymore. i want digital film. by that i mean a direct replacement for film, same dof, same focal lengths, same field of views...i dont think i will ever get that with olympus.</p>

<p>It is far easier to convert cropfactor on the 4/3 format than DX format! (lol) EVF of Panasonic G1 provides the same magnification of the finder image as that of full-frame camera and 100% field of view, which is the properties of the highest-end model of Nikon and Canon.</p>

<p>In terms of shallow DOF effect, I'm pretty much satisfied with the G1 and 50/1.2 combo. 35/1.4 would do for me, too. If you need standards and wideangles, that's another story.</p>

<p>I have to admit that larger format system will ALWAYS be advantageous in terms of noise, but I, former user of Nikon D2H, cannot go back to the bulky camera (even 5D or D700) once I've become comfortable with the compact M4/3 system. With G1, bulk is hardly a problem, so I tend to take my camera more often, which I have re-realized as the most important factor at the end of day. (Yeah, I'm lazy! :P)</p>

<p>I don't even want a full frame Nikon, and I'm a Nikonista. I'm tired of bulky, heavy cameras (I also have a D2H). Takes all the pleasure out of handheld casual photography. What I really want is the return of the enthusiast's miniature format camera. Olympus used to do that really well. Occasionally they still do.</p>

<p>And the heck with megapixels. I'd rather have fewer megapickles in exchange for good high ISO performance that didn't require post processing noise reduction at ISO 1600-3200.</p>

<p>A good optical viewfinder too, please. Not a big fan of the LCD and EVF. That's the main thing that turns me off about the rumored Oly Micro 4/3.</p>

<p>Personally, I think it's a mistake to battle Canon and Nikon, or even to lust after Sony's turf (and who knows whether the Sony has staying power in the dSLR field?). Olympus should concentrate on carving out a niche that used to be occupied by Leica - *affordable* digital equivalents to the handheld camera once revered by enthusiasts.</p>

<p>Seems like I've sung this song before tho', a few years ago when I first considered an Olympus dSLR.</p>

<p>Nikon, Canon, etc will be history once a full frame (or even APS-C) liveview cam without mirror show up.</p>

<p>In fact, DSLRs are history. Who would come up with that, remains to be seen.</p>

<p>EVF and live view are the future.</p>

<p>Another thing to consider Warren. If Olympus did develop a FF camera their "top notch" lenses would no longer cover the frame and a new line of lenses would have to be designed amd manfactured. I know, we would all love to just stick our old OM mount Zuikos on it but in the real marketplace that just would not compete. So not just a body is involved but new AF lenses. Just look how long it has taken them to flesh out the current 4:3's lens lineup.</p>

<p>As I've repeatedly pointed out, the fatal problem of live-view digital camera is the continuous shooting mode which is next to useless. Having said that, if the camera can do both single shot and video (which means still- and motion pictures) well enough, continuous shooting mode can be obsolete (lol). The RED system kind of proved that, I think.</p>

<p>Majority of photo enthusiasts still adore optical viewfinder, which is well understandable. But to me, the shortcomings of optical viewfinder are also very fatal: they are next to useless for manual focusing especially in dim situation. So far as manual focus using fast lenses is concerned, newer optical viewfinders (to be more specific, the matte parts of newer brighter focusing screens) are worse than the older screens. Among the 135 film format cameras I've ever owned and used, Nikon F2 was the best in terms of the ease of manual focusing. On the other hand, automatic gain adjustment function of Panasonic G1 is fantastically effective. Although the image will become very jumpy and grainy, the manual focusing in dim condition is a breeze. I've never experienced such an easiness in any optical viewfinders.</p>

<p>normally i am not a casual street photographer. i take my time. i have big hands and what might be considered bulky to some might be just right to others. i have patience. i am willing to wait years to find out what is going to happen in the photo world. i just completed my system and have no plans to buy any more lenses or bodies for at least two years. i know that oly is slow releasing lenses for the 4/3 but, the lenses they release are top notch (most times). i think they should release at least two more prime lenses though; 85mm f2 (or faster) and a 100-105mm f2.</p>

<p>I think there is a higher probability that leica would release a full frame camera than Olympus - their "M9" will be seen as an upgrade to M8 owners who had to suffer a crop factor when they switched to digital.<br>

Great lenses and 35mm <i>equivalent</i> focal lengths are, to me, more important than FF. The reason I still use film is because I have not been able to find a system/lens in the digital world that matches my contax g biogon 21mm lens). Not sure how difficult it would be for Oly to release an 11mm f2.8 four-thirds lens. Pricey I'm sure.</p>

<p>Not me.<br>

I like what I get out of the current Olympus bodies and lenses. </p>

<p>I don't believe 24x36 to be relevant in the digital age--it's a regrettable artifact of choices made eighty years ago. If Oly were to go far up market, I'd like it to me a "mid format" 4/3 system, say 30x40mm. It would dramatically differ from 4/3, more of the frame would actually be used in final photos, and it would make better use of the image circle. I'd also like it to be an upsized µ4/3 rather than a big ol' dslr. (I'm envisioning a digital xpan, or something relatively compact like that.)<br>

I think it's highly unlikely from Oly, as even 35mm FF is a niche market despite body prices dropping--lenses remain huge and expen$ive. At a kids' swim meet yesterday a couple dads were lugging FF Nikons with 400/2.8 lenses. That's about $16k and near 20 pounds each. Who needs that?!?<br>

Cheers,<br>

Rick</p>

<p>I don't believe 24x36 to be relevant in the digital age--it's a regrettable artifact of choices made eighty years ago. If Oly were to go far up market, I'd like it to me a "mid format" 4/3 system, say 30x40mm. It would dramatically differ from 4/3, more of the frame would actually be used in final photos, and it would make better use of the image circle. I'd also like it to be an upsized µ4/3 rather than a big ol' dslr. (I'm envisioning a digital xpan, or something relatively compact like that.)<br>

I think it's highly unlikely from Oly, as even 35mm FF is a niche market despite body prices dropping--lenses remain huge and expen$ive. At a kids' swim meet yesterday a couple dads were lugging FF Nikons with 400/2.8 lenses. That's about $16k and near 20 pounds each. Who needs that?!?<br>

Cheers,<br>

Rick</p>

<p>Whoops, sorry for the double post. I didn't mean to repeat myself!<br>

Rick</p>

<p>I will stick with Olympus and the 4/3. And learn satisfaction in less is more.</p>

<p>IMO sub-FF square format would make more sense than FF for most photographers... 4/3 and APS lenses aren't restricted to their narrower dimensions, square would use them most fully. </p>

<p>Note that interest #s in Sony and Oly both fall far behind interest #s in Leica and Pentax on P.N....I think that's substantially for prime lens reasons.</p>

<p>Maybe Sony will buy Oly to strengthen their historic competitive position vs Panasonic? </p>

<p>i would be overjoyed with a square system. i like square much more than i like rectangle. even a 30x40 system. 4/3 is a ratio you could upscale really easily. i sent an email to oly about a year and a half ago with the idea of a digital olyflex.</p>

<p>I waited patiently for the Nikon full-frame D700, while using a Leica M6 and now M8. As soon as I picked the D700 I knew my wait was over: I had no desire to lug around a tank that heavy. Made me quite sad. The G1 made me happy, except for all the buttons that surround it that keep getting punched by mistake (but I'm getting better at that). So, I switched to waiting for a Nikon to G1 lens adapter to be able to use my Nikon 180mm lens. The fact is, everyone, especially those who never used full frame film cameras and lenses, are simply getting used to digital cameras and lenses. There is no "crop factor" when that's what you start off with, or use for 5 years. Smaller formats become the norm and work well enough. If the main purpose is sharing images on the web or printing up to say 11 x 14 inches, then full frame cameras are just not necessary for most people. But alas, when I finally get to try my favorite 180mm Nikon lens on the G1, I'll have to face the following comparative facts, or should I say length and weight issues: <em >Leica 90mm macro, 1.6 inches, 320 g; </em><em >Leica 28mm Cron f2.0, 1.6 inches, 270 g; Pen F 150mm f4.0, 380g, and last but not least, the </em><em >Nikon 180mm f2.8: 5.7 inches, 771g=1.7 lb. The Nikon is a small telephoto lens! </em></p>

<p ></p>

<p>i complain too much</p>

<p>Techically possible? Yes. Economically feasible? I think not. Besides, I don't want a full frame camera, I want a compact, quality camera with excellent optics and anti-shake in the body. Both Olympus and Pentax have that. If I had money to burn, I would want the non-existing digital Pentax 645 to replace my 645N :-)</p>

<p>I'm skeptical too. I'll admit, I'd love to have one, but I'm not will to pay what it would cost to have one custom made. The best we can hope for is for some "tinkerer' to knock a prototype together from surplus and even that is verrrry far fetched. Wishful thinking, I suppose. That and remembering a time when hobbyists built the gear they couldn't buy or afford. (Like homemade telescopes, ham radios, etc.)</p>

<p>there is a thought....pentax (small market) + olympus (small market) = super awesome affordable digital medium format camera with superior lenses (rule the world!).</p>