I'm actually hoping it will not be a FF camera. I'm hoping for a proper camera to mount all my great m4/3 glass that I already have. I've no interest í $2500 lenses and $4000 camera bodies. Give us small, lightweight and great performing cameras/lenses and I'll be a happy snapper!
hauxon wrote:
I'm actually hoping it will not be a FF camera. I'm hoping for a proper camera to mount all my great m4/3 glass that I already have. I've no interest í $2500 lenses and $4000 camera bodies. Give us small, lightweight and great performing cameras/lenses and I'll be a happy snapper!
I wouldn't pay that either, this isn't Leica after all.
But $2000 body with proper controls, large EVF, FF sensor with great noise control, and a good LCD.
$1000 lenses is about all I'd pay, but only if they were high quality.
Bifurcator wrote:
Yup! they all (C, N, M, O) came on-line with something professional-ish at about the same time! I felt Nikon, Pentax, and Contax were at the same point with their offerings myself tho actually. The F to me wasn't pro-ish but the F2's and 3's were.
The F was the camera that made SLR's a Pro option and was the definitive Pro SLR until the class of 1980 (F3, New F1, LX). Plenty of Pro's skipped the F2, much like they would the F4 and F6. Frankly the F2 was little more than a mild update to the F, adding 1/2000 sec shutter speed, a battery in the body and later some new prism options. With the exception of the EE Aperture Control unit there really weren't any options that the F2 had and the F didn't, the F2 was just a refined F.
1st with an ergonomic layout that set the Shutter and Aperture both as rings inline with the lens,
I really wonder where this myth comes from, aside from Oly's always excessive marketting claims. This ergonomic innovation was standard on fixed lens rangefinders (all Canonets were like this and they predate the Pen F by several years) and also used much more successfully by Nikon in the 1960's on the Nikkormat line.
mawz wrote:
The F was the camera that made SLR's a Pro option and was the definitive Pro SLR until the class of 1980 (F3, New F1, LX). Plenty of Pro's skipped the F2, much like they would the F4 and F6. Frankly the F2 was little more than a mild update to the F, adding 1/2000 sec shutter speed, a battery in the body and later some new prism options. With the exception of the EE Aperture Control unit there really weren't any options that the F2 had and the F didn't, the F2 was just a refined F.
F2 Mild update? I thought the F2 was the best of all the F's and much more than just a minor update. Completely new and different body and mechanicals, film door/ chamber, titanium shutter, much better motor drive options, finders, you name it - but then it was my favorite of all 35mm classic pro mechanical film bodies so I could be bias. I used an old F as a copy camera and it felt like stepping back into the stone ages, what with removing the entire back/bottom to change the film. I did not care for the F3 and the F4's were a disaster with regard to reliability. Guess they should have avoided using the number 4!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
F2 Mild update? I thought the F2 was the best of all the F's and much more than just a minor update. Completely different body, film door/ chamber, titanium shutter, much better motor drive options, finders, you name it - but then it was my favorite of all 35mm classic pro mechanical film bodies so I could be bias. I used an old F as a copy camera and it felt like stepping back into the stone ages, what with removing the entire back/bottom to change the film. I did not care for the F3 and the F4's were a disaster with regard to reliability. Guess they should have avoided using the number 4! ...Show more →
It's my favourite F as well, but as a practical matter it was simply an F Apollo with relatively minor (but VERY noticeable) tweaks. The F and F2 were closely enough related that they could share unmetered finders, focusing screens and all the flash accessories. Only metered finders, film backs and motors were incompatible due to the tweaks.
The body pretty much is an F with the shutter moved forward, a modern film back and a proper motor drive coupling. The biggest tweaks were in the finder area, with a set of minor changes which allowed much smaller finders, mostly in the move of the battery into the body. It's pretty amazing how much improvement Nikon got by those relatively minor changes (from an engineering perspective the biggest change is actually the shutter release relocation).
mawz wrote:
It's my favourite F as well, but as a practical matter it was simply an F Apollo with relatively minor (but VERY noticeable) tweaks. The F and F2 were closely enough related that they could share unmetered finders, focusing screens and all the flash accessories. Only metered finders, film backs and motors were incompatible due to the tweaks.
The body pretty much is an F with the shutter moved forward, a modern film back and a proper motor drive coupling. The biggest tweaks were in the finder area, with a set of minor changes which allowed much smaller finders, mostly in the move of the battery into the body. It's pretty amazing how much improvement Nikon got by those relatively minor changes (from an engineering perspective the biggest change is actually the shutter release relocation). ...Show more →
The F2 also had a larger mirror than the F. It's been a while since I read the original Modern Photography F2 review - I believe it was Modern - back when they would completely disassemble a camera and examine its parts, but I seem to recall that pretty much everything - mirror box, shutter train, titanium curtains, body - was redesigned. From an engineering standpoint, reading the review did not make it seem like a minor change. But then it's been a while.
I want to like u4/3, but I need a sensor that has proper dynamic range at base ISO first. This obsession with high-ISO noise is IMO stifling innovation at base ISO (and give us a proper 50 or 100, not 200). So many R&D dollars poured into being able to put 5-digit ISO numbers in the marketing literature. Meanwhile I'd love to use their nice little lenses to shoot landscapes but I lose 2 stops of DYR compared to APS-C.
Anyway, I am hopeful this Oly might have some real improvements in that area, more than just what the 16mp Panasonic sensor has over the old 12mp.
theophilus wrote:
I want to like u4/3, but I need a sensor that has proper dynamic range at base ISO first. This obsession with high-ISO noise is IMO stifling innovation at base ISO (and give us a proper 50 or 100, not 200). So many R&D dollars poured into being able to put 5-digit ISO numbers in the marketing literature. Meanwhile I'd love to use their nice little lenses to shoot landscapes but I lose 2 stops of DYR compared to APS-C.
Anyway, I am hopeful this Oly might have some real improvements in that area, more than just what the 16mp Panasonic sensor has over the old 12mp....Show more →
I'd disagree with the idea that the obsession with high ISO noise is also stifling base ISO performance. Sony's 16MP sensor, which is generally considered the king of APS-C sensors in high ISO performance is also noted for its superb base ISO performance, particularly in terms of DR. And Sony's 24MP sensors both prioritize low ISO performance over high ISO.
m4/3rds is in the unfortunate position of trying to compete with APS-C in both DR and high ISO performance and failing at both (although they are getting better). The limitation you note is in Panasonic's sensors, not sensors in general and it's also tied to the smaller format's general weaknesses vis-a-vis larger sensors.
It's claimed (and shown in at least the dpreview test) that the much smaller sensor in the Nikon V1 rivals that of the current M43 sensor used in the Olympus Pens. If that is true, perhaps there is hope that this new 16MP Olympus sensor will be competitive with APS.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It's claimed (and shown in at least the dpreview test) that the much smaller sensor in the Nikon V1 rivals that of the current M43 sensor used in the Olympus Pens. If that is true, perhaps there is hope that this new 16MP Olympus sensor will be competitive with APS.
But even if that is true and m4/3 can be as good as current APS, then newer APS will also be better than current APS, maybe approaching FF.
Then one will have to go from bragging about how their new OM matches a NEX5 or something to again feeling the pains of a smaller sensor when the APS sized NEX7n comes up with 24meg and matching current FF
Needless to say then as well, whats going to then compare to next generation 36meg FF. Never ending cycle
Better to choose a system based on the lenses available, if they can get you the DoF your seeking etc rather than hoping it can match a different systems sensor performance because thats a race thats never going to be won
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It's claimed (and shown in at least the dpreview test) that the much smaller sensor in the Nikon V1 rivals that of the current M43 sensor used in the Olympus Pens. If that is true, perhaps there is hope that this new 16MP Olympus sensor will be competitive with APS.
Remember, the 12MP sensor is long obsolete, dating back to the E-30 in 2008. While it's a good sensor for its size and generation it's entirely believable that a current generation sensor at a 2.7x crop and a lower 10MP pixel count can match its performance. I doubt the V1 sensor matches Panasonic's newer 16MP sensor much like I doubt that the 'new' Olympus sensor will match the current 16 or 24MP APS-C sensors (on the other hand I expect it to match the older 14 and 12MP APS-C sensors in performance just like the Panny sensor it's most likely related to does).
millsart wrote:
But even if that is true and m4/3 can be as good as current APS, then newer APS will also be better than current APS, maybe approaching FF.
Then one will have to go from bragging about how their new OM matches a NEX5 or something to again feeling the pains of a smaller sensor when the APS sized NEX7n comes up with 24meg and matching current FF
Needless to say then as well, whats going to then compare to next generation 36meg FF. Never ending cycle
Better to choose a system based on the lenses available, if they can get you the DoF your seeking etc rather than hoping it can match a different systems sensor performance because thats a race thats never going to be won...Show more →
Well, no doubt the next gen APS sensors will continue to improve. My only point is that right now, I think M43 must improve to remain relevant given the advances in mirrorless APS over the past year. For myself, I would be more than happy with an M43 that had a sensor as capable as current APS sensors (with regard to noise and DR) as my second, take everywhere compact. I have not been convinced by M43 IQ yet.
As a former 5D classic and 1Ds II owner I'd like to see an improvement in the base ISO and long exposure noise. My guess is that long exposure noise is somewhat related to high ISO abilities but currently I'm rather lusting for super clean ISO 200 rather than usable 25.600. Super cleaness is mostly what digital has brought us over using film and has a lot to say about how big you can print an image, equally important as resolution when it comes to printing in my opinion.
hauxon wrote:
As a former 5D classic and 1Ds II owner I'd like to see an improvement in the base ISO and long exposure noise. My guess is that long exposure noise is somewhat related to high ISO abilities but currently I'm rather lusting for super clean ISO 200 rather than usable 25.600. Super cleaness is mostly what digital has brought us over using film and has a lot to say about how big you can print an image, equally important as resolution when it comes to printing in my opinion.
+1
Exactly, Canon needs to realize that there is a landscape photography market whose users don't care about high iso and just want maximum resolution and low noise at iso 100 or 200. The 1d-x is not for this market segment and neither is the rumored 5d3 which is still going to be around 21MP but with better high iso. Rumors are that Canon is waiting until their 4K related camera to go for the extra MP. My old 1ds3 is still Canon's best landscape camera, pretty pathetic progress by Canon for this market.
hauxon wrote:
I'm actually hoping it will not be a FF camera. I'm hoping for a proper camera to mount all my great m4/3 glass that I already have. I've no interest í $2500 lenses and $4000 camera bodies. Give us small, lightweight and great performing cameras/lenses and I'll be a happy snapper!
+1
Also a 5D classic owner, hoping too for much cleaner LOW iso...
Exactly, Canon needs to realize that there is a landscape photography market whose users don't care about high iso and just want maximum resolution and low noise at iso 100 or 200.
Perhaps Canon does know about this segment, but feels it's not big enough to warrant a camera that does that.
If the camera proves to be a GX1 with built in evf and other olympus goodies (ibs, solid jpeg engine, ...) the name might be - as you said - nonsense - but the actual product might be quite nice. So rather than focus on the name (even if you find it offensive) I would focus on the product itself.
Andrew Wood wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a bit of nonsense?
So much time has passed since the last OM film camera came out, that there is likely no technical link.
IMHO this would be a brand new camera, with an OM badge, designed to tap into some misplaced nostalgia.
