Olympus Micro 4/3 in March?

<p>According to an article on <a href="http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/digitalcameras/0,39001469,62050282,00.htm">CNET</a> , Olympus is planning to unveil their M4/3 camera as a finished product at the Photo Marketing Association trade-show in March. I'm not sure if it was prudent or careless to let Panasonic introduce the G1 before Olympus could perfect their entry... but one thing is certain, having had all of these months to get feedback from reviews as well as customers, Olympus at least has the advantage of knowing what kind of market they are stepping into. So the question is, how will their version of the M4/3 camera hold up against the G1, which in itself has some pretty impressive stats? If Olympus is smart, they will start with a lower price than the G1... it would be odd to have a camera that is not an SLR be more expensive than current Olympus SLRs... especially considering the current economy. The lack of an EVF should lower the price somewhat. One thing Olympus COULD do is offer a few compact affordable prime lenses in normal and wide focal lengths with the introduction of the camera, and offer an adapter to mount telephoto 4/3's SLR lenses. It also seems critical that they find a way to make sure that people who have invested in 4/3's SLR lenses are not left by the wayside with a new standard with incompatible auto focus. And considering the interest, at the very least, an official OM to M4/3's adapter would strengthen ties to legacy lens users and an official M to M4/3's adapter would probably really get many classic shooters under their wings.</p>

<p>It also seems like Olympus needs to make sure they are not directly competing against themselves... maybe that means canning either the e-4xx or e-3xx line and allowing the M4/3s cameras to take their place, with the e-x, e-3x and e-5xx series' as the primary SLR cameras with semi-pro and pro features.</p>

<p>i think if its a digital rangefinder the g1 wont have any real competition nor will the new m4/3 oly. if they can keep the prices comparable to the e520 and the lenses under a grand for really fast primes (f1.4-f2), they should be able to corner the market. i am looking forward to seeing what they can create.</p>

<p>Some interesting points there..... I am not at all up on what to expect form the oly body, but it appeared from the artist rendition on the website (last time I checked) that it will likely have live view only like a point and shoot? (maybe I am wrong there) It will be interesting to see what they came up with.<br>

If so I just can't imagine that they would bag the SLR line yet, unless they are going to completely concede the SLR marketshare to canon and nikon. Since the 20mm flange back distance precludes a mirror set up for SLR, I would think that would mean the continuation of a 4/3 setup for at least a while. I think alot of folks will balk at the idea of having live view only for a serious camera setup- it just seems to point and shooty. I give the G1 props for a stab at something of a compromise with the EVF.<br>

I'd sure like to see a wide prime or 2 in the standard 4/3 mount. </p>

<p>I don't care if the camera looks point and shooty.<br>

If Olympus manage to produce a camera with the design ethics of the OM series then I will be delighted!<br>

The mirror is a hangover, it is a relic, it is totally unnecessary.<br>

The savings and gains in price, size and image quality (no mirror flapping about) are potentially amazing.<br>

I would love to see a small, (Olympus OM or Leica M size or smaller) range of professionally built cameras; with Zuiko lenses designed like they used to be: small, solid, sharp, contrasty, FAST, high resolution and importantly; best in class.<br>

(There are lots of OM users that do not need the fuss of a huge DSLR. They don't shoot sports of wildlife and so need massive pieces of glass stuck on the front of huge chunks of plastic.)<br>

I think this is a very exciting development. I think Olympus could take this opportunity to get back to why we all loved them - which to be honest was the OM cameras and zuiko lenses.<br>

Can't wait to have small, light, beautifully engineered Olympus kit in my camera bag again.</p>

<p>Fingers crossed X</p>

<p>Very exciting. I come from Leica film cameras and I have great hopes for the next Olympus camera. The G1 is very significant, but I think the first M4/3 camera after the G1 has massive potential. Can't wait.</p>

<p> "I'm not sure if it was prudent or careless to let Panasonic introduce the G1 before Olympus could perfect their entry"</p>

<p>It is an open system. How could Olympus stop Panasonic from introducing their camera if it was ready sooner?</p>

<p>The Olympus body is totally different from G1, more rangefinder or digicam like while the G1 is like small DSLR. I have been waiting for something like this for a long time and will most likely buy it if it is any good. I am not so interested in G1 since it is just like a smaller DSLR, with some benefits and some disadvantages. New lenses are surely on the way, both from Olympus and from Panasonic/Leica.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think m/4.3 is a very exciting development, and I have put off purchasing any more 4/3 cameras and bodies until I get a clearer picture of what can can be expected from the new system. As a OM System user, I agree with William's comments regarding the design ethics of the OM cameras and bodies. A solid, reliable, small body with a handful of small, fast and superbly crafted primes would be superb. I would love to see the OM Zuiko 21mm F2, 35mm F2, 50mm F1.2 and 100mm F2 re-incarnated.</p>

<p>If this was the case, I would switch to m4/3 without hesitation.</p>

<p>Cheers, Steve.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>can you imagine if oly paired the first release with a 50mm f1.2?</p>

<p>I'm guessing it won't be a 50mm, and f/1.2 is pretty exotic... I mean fast is one thing, but I don't think they are going to garner much support for a camera with a kit lens that costs three times as much as the body and is a portrait lens. A super fast kit lens also would mean not having pocketability. I think a 20mm f/2 modelled after the now famous OM 40mm f/2 pancake would be great.... such a small lens could even feature a built-in dust-guard so that it would truly be pocketable... and wider lenses I think are more appropriate to this day and age where people are indoors alot. If they give it a super small fast(ish) lens for the kit, that will def give them a different market approach than the G1 which is basically just exactly like a scaled down SLR without a mirror. Something I mentioned last year that could be possible is accessory optical viewfinders with a single focus confirm spot. A small collection of micro prime lenses modelled after the compact series of OM Zuiko's could have their own viewfinders, with the zoom lenses being shot strictly with the rear LCD. I know Olympus seems to be fixated on zoom lenses with the full size 4/3's cameras, but M4/3 is def an opportunity to do something different and come from a different approach, and the mockups seem to suggest that.</p>

<p>ooops! i meant 50mm f1.4 not f1.2. i would like to see a 25mm f1.4 also.</p>

<p>What would be the m4/3 equivalent to a 50mm lens on a 35mm slr or dslr?</p>

<p>David, the four thirds chip is about half the size of the frame on a 35mm film camera. So you just have to Half the 35mm equivalant to figure the lens needed. For example, 25mm on the four thirds is like a 50mm on the 35mm film SLR.</p>

<p>4/3 is roughly the size of a standard 35mm cine frame (half of a 35mm still frame). I don't know if any of the zillions of fine cine lenses that cover that half-frame format are configured adequately to be adapted to G1.</p>

<p>Oly's abandoned "half frame" 35mm SLR was cute, but unsatisfactory to almost everybody despite great ergonomics and lenses because the prism was too dark for many situations (like trying to focus manually stopped down to f/5.6 through a full frame SLR). Unfortunately they didn't introduce a comparably high quality P&S or rangefinder in half frame...half-frame film was more than enough for many photographers.</p>

<p>Just to get the math correct. 4/3 is about a quarter of the area of 35mm film, a little bit more because of the different aspect ratio, but very much less than half. The diagonal is about half, and that is why a 4/3 normal lens is 25mm and the crop factor is 2. Since the diagonal is half, it does not take much visualisation to realise that you can put four 4/3 sensors on a piece of 24x36mm transparency.</p>

<p>John, lenses for 35mm cine cameras should work fine on 4/3's although they are very long in the film to lens distance, much longer actually than many 135 cameras. You might be thinking of 16mm cine lenses... much has been discussed about these and even "super-16" format is quite a bit smaller than 4/3's, so finding lenses that cover is probably a crap shoot. (All lenses have different coverage and some may be very tight to the film frame and some may have much broader coverage.... normal focal length lenses tend to have the best coverage I've noticed.) Ilkka is correct about the math... 4/3's is 1/4 the area of a 35mm film negative.... or the same size as 110 film, or 1/2 the size of half-frame. There are many misleading websites which show how APS-C is "almost" the same size as 35mm full frame and 4/3's is "almost" the same size as APS-C.... but these are just creative illustrations. APS-C is half the area of full frame 35mm and 4/3's is half the area of APS-C, and that's that!</p>

<p>I am going to continue with the full size 4/3 as long as the system is supported. And considering either the new E30 or the E3 maybe for portrait and landscape work. For travel and short day trips, another story. My Coolpix is nice but I miss the beauty of a clear viewfinder image. I see micro four thirds as a promising substitute for having the versatility and lens quality of an SLR in a smaller package. It does not have to be a pseudo Leica to make me happy. I wil accept an electronic viewfinder since they have made them usable,even nice...I won't dispute w/ anyone who adapts, i.e. recycles if you will, older fixed focal lenses. I happen to like what Olympus has done with its wide range zooms in high grade series. I imagine one good zoom lens for the micro size would cover me well. And for the balance, adapter <em>if they work....</em> The lens autofocus business does confuse me and gives pause. (The mirror based system and the mirrorless system.)We need a white paper on that I think. Any good links?</p>

<p>Both Wrotniak and Foster are puzzled about the lens business and they are well informed as anyone out there. The question of lens compatibility and the body vs lens stabilization systems are something that I would have to alert potential entrants into the system about....notwithstanding the many virtues. I realize that Japanese manufacturers love to drive us nuts with multiple standards, but I am getting too old and tightfishted to digest it all. I need a translator.<br>

Control layout gets to be dicey on a small body and won't make every one happy maybe noone fully happy. I appreciate some of what Canon has done with thir G10 but I think Olympus may do even better and make a splash... I want the back LCD to rotate up at least one direction as in the Camedia C 5050. I believe the mockup shows that Olympus will push the limits in miniaturization even farther than Panasonic for their entry. It should be interesting year. And one where consumers will stop and think a lot...</p>

<p>One thing I am interested in Oly's new m4/3 system are two sizes. Size of system and frame size. I like to take photos of small subjects, usually ice forms. If I can capture smaller area with roughly same sized camera I use now (and get even better DR and other IQ) that would be great. I tend to use Canon A650 now for "macro"photography, and 350D for social events. I like to think that Oly's new m4/3 camera (O-1 or whatever) with few lenses could be more versatile, "better" tool than those two together. So for question my answer is if it's style and size are what I have seen and not dslr style I will turn to Oly. IQ can not be that much different. And yes, I am also waiting for fast primes... a s l a</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00RtD2&photo_id=8418541&photo_sel_index=0">http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00RtD2&photo_id=8418541&photo_sel_index=0</a></p>

<p>Asla, with macro work I think the M4/3 will have a steep advantage. I have a friend tying to do macro work now with a PNS camera and diopter lenses. He get's decent results, but there is always haloing and color fringing issues. With M4/3 you will be able to adapt a cheap lens, say the OM 50mm f/1.8... a giveaway lens... and mount it as a long macro lens by using M4/3-4/3 plus 4/3-OM plus extension tubes. With 50mm of extension tube, you will end up with the equivalent of a 100mm f/3.5 macro lens in a much smaller (and cheaper) package.... and the OM 50mm f/1.8 is a tack sharp lens, really a stunner. For a few more bones you could go with the larger and heavier OM 50mm f/1.4 and get that smooth bokeh everyone is always talking about, and the equivalent of a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens. </p>

<p>Thank You, Patrick. I was thinking of 35/3.5 macro. My A650 can cover just 27mmx20mm area, so 1:1 in m4/3 would be huge leap to me. What I am just beginning to figure out is what can one do with OM- lenses and what are their other limits than loosing AF. ...and are there other real benefits than their price? a s l a<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8500592">http://www.photo.net/photo/8500592</a> ,taken with A650</p>

 

<p>Check out <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/index.htm">mir.com</a> for technical details on the lenses. Until we know what the Olympus M4/3's camera will be like in terms of AF and metering, it will be hard to judge how useful legacy lenses will be on it. One thing is that for macro work, manual focus can be done by simply shifting the camera back and forth and can be much more accurate than fighting against a finicky AF system, which means that for macro photographers, the main factor to look at is metering capabilities. Most manufacturers seem to be heading towards better metering with non-proprietary lenses in general so that's a good sign. The OM lenses will mainly be of benefit in terms of speed and price. Proprietary M4/3's lenses should be much much smaller than the OM lenses of the same focal length, although there are many OM lenses that are competitively small with their full size 4/3's cousins. With extension tubes, macro specific lenses aren't necessary, and manual focus extension tubes are dramatically cheaper than AF tubes. (Of course if you are shooting in nature and want to be able to quickly shift from macro into "normal" shooting, a dedicated macro lens will be superior in that regard). It will be interesting to see if Olympus offers a fast macro-capable prime lens for M4/3. One lens that I have thought would be interesting mounted to 4/3's is the 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 which is a very very compact zoom that close-focuses to about 18 inches. With the OM to 4/3's crop factor, 18 inches with a 140mm equivalent lens is VERY close... possibly approaching macro proportions.</p>

<p>Oh yeah, if you are talking about the Macro specific 35mm that is used with bellows, then you don't need tubes and it's much more flexible... sounds like a great setup. </p>

<p>Latest rumor:</p>

<p>Olympus will unveil two cameras, both with compact zoom lenses. One will be larger (presumably similar to the G1) and the other will be smaller and more like the concept shown at Photokina. This is a little dissappionting for folks hoping for a compact camera paired with a super compact prime lens for pocketability. Neither the 12-45mm f/2.4-3.5 and 14-70mm f/3.5-5.6 don't sound very compact, in fact both of these lenses sound spec-wise like they should be much larger (although not all that different) than the 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 lens offered with the G1.</p>

<p>http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2009/01/olympus-readyin.html</p>

<p>I'm reallllly curious why a more modest zoom isn't being offered... I mean... 24-90mm or 28-140mm equivalency lenses are both pretty generous for a kit lens for a super-compact camera, and both really throw the idea of a "pocket" camera right out the window... barring some miracles of physics that are previously unknown, the compact prime shown at Photokina (which looks like an f/2.8 25mm lens) is really about as small as you could expect. Also curious to me.... why would Olympus be introducing camera with two lenses with specs so similar to the G1 months after the G1 is introduced? Why not offer something... gee I donno... different? Although, if it's sharp, 12-45mm f/2.4-3.5 is an impressive speed for a wide to telephoto zoom, it really doesn't strike me as being all that special.</p>

<p>The "leak" also mentions that the lenses will between 400 and 500 grams.... holy jeez! I mean... whatever happened to the days of high quality optics in compact lightweight packages made by that company... what was their name? Oh yeah... Olympus!</p>

<p>Guess we will have to only wait. If they only release couple of lenses We will have to wait more. I bet they are committed to m4/3 system and develope that. I also understand if they have not full range of m4/3 lenses, when they release that/those bodies... So yes, I am waiting... a s l a</p>

<p>This is such a corking opportunity. I really hope Oly don't cock it up.</p>

<p>I was looking at a DP1 yesterday as I am desperate for something small to carry all the time and also to use for street photography. It's the best digital compact option but still essentially a point and shoot (manual focus impossible to use, autofocus slow). I really would love Olympus to come up with something good as I really would rather not go back to film and a CL/CLE etc...</p>

<p>I think they would sell buckets of CL sized compacts with some small, fast(ish) primes (they'd only need equivalents of say 24 or 28, 40 or 50 and 85/90 or 100). Fingers crossed, but I really do think Olympus have lost their way completely since the advent of digital...</p>