Snopchenko wrote:
That's the point; it's a risk they need to take, like oh say... Sony did with A900 and then with the NEX. Problem is, Olympus is not in a good shape for risky gambles that might sink the company if they fail. I highly doubt they have the will power; a bold executive would have been necessary to stake everything on a new breakthrough, knowing that if it fails, he would have his balls in a vice.
But I guess we just have to wait and see what comes of this.
I don't think the investment required to pull off a digital OM is all that great and certainly not enough to bankrupt the company. Much of what they need is already developed. They just need to adapt it. It simply isn't a bet-the-company project.
j.liam wrote:
However, if they're planning to spin-off or sell the photo division, how better to increase the valuation of the company than releasing a hot new enthusiast/pro product with high demand and tens of thousands of lenses already out there?
Umm, I don't know how you think the interchangeable lens camera market works but "tens of thousands of lenses already out there" is a liability, not an asset. The highest margin is on the lens sales, introducing a body with a saturated market of used lenses is not a good business case. Such a move would likely decrease the valuation if anything.
As far as FF goes, I'm not sure many folks have the correct perception of how the high-end cameras work for most of the industry players. They don't make much if any money on them, the primary benefit is that having a "pro" line drives brand recognition so that they get more sales on the low end bodies. Developing a "pro" line and the support network required for it is something far, far beyond introducing a body with a FF sensor in it. It would take years and tremendous effort for Olympus to realize even the slightest benefit from even a well managed attempt.
Any sensible analysis of the situation would conclude making a FF body that required yet another line of lenses from Olympus and was initially primarily served by old adapted lenses that realize no profit for Olympus would be an unmitigated disaster despite the fact that there are a handful of passionate Alt. shooters on FM who would buy one.
Forum posts of "I and my three friends would buy one of these at an unspecified cost with unspecified features I have in my head - so the clueless camera companies should make one and are missing a tremendous opportunity to sell me a camera if they don't" are always amusing at least but the rationale beyond them doesn't survive even the gentlest brush of analysis.
It will be a m43 camera, hopefully with a nicely integrated EVF and a newer sensor (probably the 16MP G3/GX1 sensor). There is no sound reason for Olympus to offer anything else. Every new camera announcement is not an opportunity for someone to create your "perfect" camera - the products exist in the context of what the manufacturer already has to leverage, not in the context of a random users niche or fickle desire.
kwalsh wrote:
It will be a m43 camera, hopefully with a nicely integrated EVF and a newer sensor (probably the 16MP G3/GX1 sensor). There is no sound reason for Olympus to offer anything else.
As disappointing as this might be (Yes, I've said it again), there is a high probability that this is all it will be. The question then is, what differentiates this particular camera as an "OM" as opposed to the "Pen" cameras, or even the E-series DSLRs (if it has a pentaprism and an OVF)? What does being an "OM" camera mean? "Pen" cameras were always half frame camera, and the m43 sensor is essentially half-frame (full frame being by convention 36x24mm). What makes this camera an "OM" if it is just a re-packaged "Pen"? Or will this product just ignore and erase the meaning of the "OM" brand?
Lotusm50 wrote:
As disappointing as this might be (Yes, I've said it again), there is a high probability that this is all it will be. The question then is, what differentiates this particular camera as an "OM" as opposed to the "Pen" cameras, or even the E-series DSLRs (if it has a pentaprism and an OVF)? What does being an "OM" camera mean? "Pen" cameras were always half frame camera, and the m43 sensor is essentially half-frame (full frame being by convention 36x24mm). What makes this camera an "OM" if it is just a re-packaged "Pen"? Or will this product just ignore and erase the meaning of the "OM" brand? ...Show more →
I do have an OM-1 and a handful OM lenses i use with film (less and less); i also do use the OM lenses on my 5D, for fun (the ones i have are not better than the Canon counterpart, and all manual...).
I got a used GF1 with the 20mm just to check m4/3 out and i like some aspects of it.
Olympus is now on m4/3, so anything they'll offer will be in that realm.
It does indeed interest me a lot, since it might get to the point where it would be good enough for me as for image quality, but they still lack a few key thing for me to go with it all the way and dump the big 5D: good viewfinder (5D is full frame, but VF is just 'good'); good basic controls for aperture, ev comp., iso; a flash sync port; nic,e tough, durable build, and it will probably even be weather sealed; small but decent lenses; fairly compact body for what it offers.
THAT, for me, would be a digital OM; you can't think of an OM with a full frame sensor in it and manual focus with old used lenses to use on. It will be a modern m4/3 camera, no matter what. But in this realm, they might incorporate some of the aspects that made the original OM line what it was.
That was Olympus professional line, in the form and context of pro cameras of that age, hence an SLR. That is ending now...
This will be a try at a 'professional' line for m4/3.
BTW, i'd rather use some good modern lenses made for the format any day, if it's not just for fun or experimentation, and m4/3 has some good ones, fortunately.
Remember that Olympus was also rumoring before the OM tease that their next camera would have a breakthrough viewfinder technology. I'm wondering if the digital OM, while being a 'pro' m4/3 body, will have an EVF that is as big and clear as the much-storied OM-1 viewfinder. That is, an extremely high-res EVF with huge magnification.
Considering the current EVFs for m4/3 give a viewfinder image the same size as the 1Ds II, getting it larger shouldn't be too difficult, and with newer EVF technology, it could be really wonderful.
Yes it has been mentioned in the rumour mill that the viewfinder will be something special.
That viewfinder and a new 16 Mpx sensor in a weather sealed pro M43 body would be a great way to resurrect the spirit of the OM in the digital age, just as the design of the digital PEN is a great homage to the film PEN.
They also have said that some other things will be released, hopefully we will get some more delectable primes along the design and performance of the 12mm f2 and the 45mm f1.8
OM lenses are well built? Hehehehe... Not really, No! Very simple design and while not the cheapest materials ever, still pretty low on the list. Opening about 20 or so of the OM Zuikos along side other makers has taught me about how their build quality stacks up. They aren't total rubbish but they ain't usually great either - given others from the same period.
Yeah, I would say they are, considering I have used a bunch that are 30-40 years old and every one has had smooth, precise focusing, and the optics on many are still excellent today (e.g. the 24/2.8, 28/3.5). If a lens still performs well optically after over three decades, with the coating still excellent, and the focusing is nice and smooth then yes, I dare say they are "well built". Just like most other lenses from that era. My PC-Nikkor from the 70s looks and feels new still.
Lotusm50 wrote:
What makes this camera an "OM" if it is just a re-packaged "Pen"? Or will this product just ignore and erase the meaning of the "OM" brand?
I'd love to see a FF mirrorless myself (besides Leica) - but it isn't going to come from Olympus.
Your two questions are on the money.
The second one provokes a bigger question, what is the meaning of the "OM" brand. Many would argue even an m43 sensor has a wide variety of IQ advantages over 35mm film - so does "OM" really mean FF? If it does, can any manufacturer have reused any branding from the film days? Was the M8 not an M? All the Canon and Nikon APS-C cameras ignored their heritage? The Pentax digital K's really aren't K's?
I suspect from the sensor side of this it is just a "re-packaged Pen" - the new 16MP m43 sensor. Shoot that sensor at ISO 1600 and it will blow away the original OM as far as IQ goes. So is it a Pen or an OM in that sense?
I suspect as others have alluded to that the "OM" is meant to point towards a more "professional" level body and a big VF (EVF most likely). Of course I don't think it will be a "pro" camera like a Canon/Nikon backed with a support network.
Anyway, we'll see, and probably few will care what they call it or what heritage they claim for it.
LightShow wrote:
What I'd like to see is an OM2n with a FF sensor with a center 4/3rds section that is at a higher density for m4/3 & 4/3 that gets binned when shooting FF.
....
Funny that this is exactly what I have thought of as well (except that I am even greedier and want an intermeridate APS-C level as well )
Lotusm50 wrote:
As disappointing as this might be (Yes, I've said it again), there is a high probability that this is all it will be. The question then is, what differentiates this particular camera as an "OM" as opposed to the "Pen" cameras, or even the E-series DSLRs (if it has a pentaprism and an OVF)? What does being an "OM" camera mean? "Pen" cameras were always half frame camera, and the m43 sensor is essentially half-frame (full frame being by convention 36x24mm). What makes this camera an "OM" if it is just a re-packaged "Pen"? Or will this product just ignore and erase the meaning of the "OM" brand?...Show more →
If they put a DSLR hump on it to make it "OM", it's a fail imo.
If it stays small form factor with those M4/3 lenses and better ISO performance -- 16MP -- I think it could be a huge sales winner as I see the smaller lenses beating out the NEX. (Not to mention better lenses.)
Spyro P. wrote:
Well, we can say that to Leica who was making losses for 10 years straight before the introduction of the M9, and the shareholders kept covering the losses from their own pockets until they finally succeeded. See what they reckon. Or to Fuji who invested 3 years of R&D on the development of X100 and X1, practically reinventing the wheel to make two cameras that they knew would appeal only to the fringe of a niche market. Seriously, Fuji has always been making cameras for obscure target groups that you needed half a page just to describe them. I mean a gigantic 6X9 rangefinder? Seriously? Who buys these things? Try to get funding from a bank or your shareholders with a business plan like that.
But you are right, the market economy is a cruel place, it takes balls and a vision. Shame Olympus has neither....Show more →
A few points:
1. I dont think leica showed any great "vision". They were a rangefinder company and that's what they should have concentrated on in the digital era right from the go. It took them quite a while to realize that need to stick with what they did in the film era, and that they have no chance of competing in the mainstream. Olympus and panasonic on the other hand did show a vision in creating a new and rapidly growing market segment.
2. Lecia is a niche premium brand now and relied heavily on its prestige to be able to sell M9 for 7K, or even more suprisingly the X1 for $2K. No other company without the "leica brand" could have sold a camera like an X1 for $2K to more than a handful of people.. The willingness of people to buy these camera at these high prices was what enabled leica to survive and even become a bit profitable. There is no way a company like olympus will be able to sell its products at that price. So it will be pretty much a suicide for a company like olympus to invest so much into an FF mirrorless system. At this point the company in the best position to launch a mirrorless FF is probably Sony, but I don't think it is high on their priority list.
asleep wrote:
If they put a DSLR hump on it to make it "OM", it's a fail imo.
If it stays small form factor with those M4/3 lenses and better ISO performance -- 16MP -- I think it could be a huge sales winner as I see the smaller lenses beating out the NEX. (Not to mention better lenses.)
I still think that a manual focus FF OM digital would be commercially viable even at a premium, same way the x100 proved to be a hit although I'm pretty sure some people would have laughed at the idea at early development stages. There was a gap in the market and fuji went for it. Also I think it could be a decent lens seller as well, because there might be a ton of OM lenses out there but they are far from perfect by modern standards. They could select a few key ones and add auto aperture, new coatings, floating elements. Also fill some gaps in the range like a 35/1.4 or a corrected normal f1.2. Give people a couple of reasons to feel they're missing out if they dont get the new ones (photographers are anal they dont need too many reasons). Lastly, a FF OM wouldnt even cannibalise their current range (the AF range), it would most likely grab a share of CaSoNikon's FF users who are there just for the sensor. The ones who are tired of carrying a big DSLR around, those who never really used AF eg landscape shooters, those who shop legacy lenses from KEH and own every adapter known to man, those who shoot film on the side and are used to MF. It's a healthy market share that's begging for a clever camera maker to take their cash.
curious80 wrote:
2. Lecia is a niche premium brand now and relied heavily on its prestige to be able to sell M9 for 7K, or even more suprisingly the X1 for $2K. No other company without the "leica brand" could have sold a camera like an X1 for $2K to more than a handful of people.. The willingness of people to buy these camera at these high prices was what enabled leica to survive and even become a bit profitable.
Thats a bit of the chicken or the egg thing. The brand has the prestige and the customers to support it precisely because it can identify what it is good at making, and stick with it. These customers (contrary to popular belief) are not stupid, they want Leica not to cut any corners on production regardless of cost, and Leica does exactly that. As opposed to Oly who reduces what is meaningful (viewfinders- sensor sizes-lens range) and then gift wrapping it with the meaningless (retro looks)
kwalsh wrote:
It will be a m43 camera, hopefully with a nicely integrated EVF and a newer sensor (probably the 16MP G3/GX1 sensor). There is no sound reason for Olympus to offer anything else. Every new camera announcement is not an opportunity for someone to create your "perfect" camera - the products exist in the context of what the manufacturer already has to leverage, not in the context of a random users niche or fickle desire.
Ken
I would agree with as the most likely scenario and would be happy enough. It'd be nice if the EVF was as good as the that in the NEX 7. I wonder if it is the Panasonic 16MP sensor, if Panasonic are then going to announce a newer sensor? They seem to like leaving Oly on older tech if possible.
I'm also keen to see what Pentax have in store as they have some very nice compact glass.
)