I would be a bit disappointed if they didn't improve on it at all, considering how massive the OM viewfinder is, but in fact, the VF-2 is good enough for me.
The OM-1 had 97% coverage with 0.92x magnification. Compare that to the 100% coverage 0.7x magnification of today's high-end DSLRs. Just huge. I find it hard to see the edges, and I don't wear glasses.
Jman13 wrote:
Cameras? No. Lenses? Absolutely. The micro 4/3 lenses as a whole are smaller than their equivalent APS-C counterparts on something like the NEX. Plus, as the lenses get longer, you need shorter focal lengths for the same framing, so to get ~400mm of reach, you need to grab a 265mm lens (so you'd probably carry a 300mm) on an APS-C mirrorless, while a 200mm will do you on m4/3. Multiply that over the whole system and the size adds up.
Longer lenses yes, but faster lenses really don't have that much savings. 25mm f1.4 for example is a very nice lens, but is it really that much smaller/lighter than my Nikon 50's ? Not really
Overall, yes, 12/25/45 combo does save weight and size to some degree, but not all that much over a 24/50/90 set in RF lenses or even most SLR lenses.
I've owned both and its not really that different carrying a m4/3 prime in my pocket or carry a Zeiss Biogon C etc in my pocket. Main difference is the price lol
Now if you want something like 600mm reach, then yes, the 100-300 in m4/3 is going to give you big savings you couldn't get with FF, and even APS-C with a 100-400L type zoom. Of course going to get better high ISO with a 7D etc, but thats a different story.
Just comes donw to the type of kit your after. m4/3 with a couple of primes is pretty small and easy to take, but then again, so is a NEX system, or a M9 etc.
Its not like you could take a G1 and 12/25/45 combo anywhere you couldn't also take a NEX5 with legacy glass, or a M camera etc.
carstenw wrote:
The OM-1 had 97% coverage with 0.92x magnification. Compare that to the 100% coverage 0.7x magnification of today's high-end DSLRs. Just huge. I find it hard to see the edges, and I don't wear glasses.
i know, i really want to rip out an original 5D sensor and figure out a way to pair it with the mirror and viewfinder from an OM-1 (or pentax MX 95% coverage .97x magnification). i'd like to keep the body and controls from the film cameras too...
carstenw wrote:
I don't see why a new big EVF is doubtful. Even just bolting the VF-2 on top would be nice, and I am sure they can improve.
Specs seem to all suggest 1.44meg, "standard" quality EVF, just like the VF2, VF3 and Panny's G series ones.
Its not bad by any means, but I also had the same thing years ago on my original Panny G1. Back then it was pretty new and exciting, now its par for the course.
Needs to be something like a 3+ meg OLED that bests the latest Sony's and thats bigger than a 1Ds mkIII VF to be really exciting.
Otherwise as I said, whats it really giving me that I couldn't already have with the VF2 attached to my EP3 (other than being less likely to come off and get lost) and giving up the ability to tilt upwards ??
carstenw wrote:
I would be a bit disappointed if they didn't improve on it at all, considering how massive the OM viewfinder is, but in fact, the VF-2 is good enough for me.
The OM-1 had 97% coverage with 0.92x magnification. Compare that to the 100% coverage 0.7x magnification of today's high-end DSLRs. Just huge. I find it hard to see the edges, and I don't wear glasses.
I think the OM is just a name and a source for body style, I highly doubt they would try to copy the VF experience on it any more than they would try to make it still use the same mount, have a FF sensor etc.
millsart wrote:
Otherwise as I said, whats it really giving me that I couldn't already have with the VF2 attached to my EP3 (other than being less likely to come off and get lost) and giving up the ability to tilt upwards ??
millsart wrote:
I think the OM is just a name and a source for body style, I highly doubt they would try to copy the VF experience on it any more than they would try to make it still use the same mount, have a FF sensor etc.
millsart wrote:
Longer lenses yes, but faster lenses really don't have that much savings. 25mm f1.4 for example is a very nice lens, but is it really that much smaller/lighter than my Nikon 50's ? Not really
Overall, yes, 12/25/45 combo does save weight and size to some degree, but not all that much over a 24/50/90 set in RF lenses or even most SLR lenses.
I was talking native lenses. The NEX lenses are monstrously large, considering the size of the bodies. RF lenses are of course tiny, but this is a completely different comparison.
Spyro P. wrote:
well if Oly didnt want to invite comparisons they shouldnt have named it OM. If they want the extra nostalgia cash they'll take what comes with it.
Carsten "good enough" is not "high quality in a small package".
You are mixing up your definition of good enough with mine. I would never buy a Hyundai and don't consider it good enough
As far as I know, there are only two, maybe three EVFs on the market of higher spec than the VF-2. 1.44MP is quite good, even if it isn't the best.
But let's see. Maybe Olympus will outdo themselves to get this right. I am sure that they have a suitable amount of respect for the OM name and wouldn't want to waste it.
millsart wrote:
Longer lenses yes, but faster lenses really don't have that much savings. 25mm f1.4 for example is a very nice lens, but is it really that much smaller/lighter than my Nikon 50's ? Not really
Hi millsart, I'm a little confused here?
Nikon 50mm f/1.4G = 2.9D x 2.1L and 9.9 oz.
Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 = 2.48D x 2.15L and 7.05 oz
That's a 1/2" less in diameter and almost 3 oz. lighter, okay, maybe not much, but the differences get much bigger when you compare the 85's
Nikon 85mm f/1.8G = 3.1D x 2.9L and 12.5oz
Olympus 45mm f/1.8 = 1.81D x 2.2L and 4.09 oz
Over 1" less in diameter and over 8 oz lighter
To be honest, I have the PanLeica 25mm f/1.4 and it is an awesome lens, but it is a bit big for MFT; however, if you look at the new MFT lenses from Olympus (the 12 and 45) they are remarkably small with superb image quality, I think we are just beginning to see what MFT can offer for the future.
In all my testing I was going to get a NEX-7 and a NX200, but to be honest, I'm not thrilled with the bulk of the Sony/Zeiss lenses for NEX. Possibly the Samsung or the new Fuji might be options, but if the OM-D gets it right and has a new sensor capable of nice high ISO IQ, then I'm not sure if I even need to look at the others until they mature a bit more.
millsart wrote:
I think the OM is just a name and a source for body style, I highly doubt they would try to copy the VF experience on it any more than they would try to make it still use the same mount, have a FF sensor etc.
and
bluetsunami wrote:
I think the OM name deserves the latest EVF tech. It would have been nice for users of this system to have the Sony OLED EVF.
Yes, I think Olympus is just using it as a name to exploit in the short term, not a legacy to live up to. I agree with the sentiment that the name deserves the latest tech and that a re-issuance of the OM name deserves an innovative, step-out, even ground-breaking product that the original Om represented. I don't think that yet another variation of the existing Pen cameras with a couple extra features really accomplishes that.
It may well be a fine camera that attract some buyers (I suspect mostly existing 4/3'rds and Pen camera owners who want a bit more), a camera that will meet the needs of many users -- as certainly expressd so far in the thread. The issue is not whether is a good camera or not. I'm sure it is "good enough" as also expressed here. The issue, rather, is whether it is deserving of the storied "OM" brand. I think that Olympus was holding out the OM brand for the development of such a deserving product, but recent events (scandal) forced them to try to capitalize on the name in the short term, with only a small development cost (using the existing Pen range of the cameras and technology as its basis) to hopefully rescue the company (presumably). Yes, this is speculation, but I think it is reasonable. One should ask, why hasn't Oly used the OM name so far for any of their digital cameras. Why wasn't the entire micro 4/3rds camera branded "OM" instead of "Pen" (certainly a brand with less appeal, respect and affection -- but certainly not without these sentiments)? Of course we'll never know the answer to that question. That's just how I think of it, and I will admit that my perspective on this is colored by the respect and affection I have for the OM cameras and lenses I've owned in the past, and the brand.
Yes, Wymeyer, as I said, not really huge differences unless you get into longer focal lengths. 2oz, 8oz etc, adds up to maybe 1lb weight savings or so total and hardly any real difference in space in a bag.
I know people like the examples of race bikes or distance hikers doing everything possible to shave ounces,but realistically for me saving 1lb in the weight of my carry on bag isn't going to be felt, nor is it going to drastically change what else I can pack.
Now if you want to carry something from fisheye to 600mm, then yes a m4/3 system is going to be less to carry, especially compared to a full frame DSLR kit, but thats rather extreme and just one way of looking at it.
Pentax K5 and two LTD pancakes you could easily carry in a briefcase, same goes for a RF system, NEX etc
Make no mistake, its not that I'm saying m4/3 isn't good, or portable, it is very much so, and that fact is why I bought a G1 when they first came out and have had m4/3 cameras ever sense, but it was only a drastic change for me coming from my D700 and f2.8 zooms.
I've sense traveled quite a bit with a M9 kit, a NEX5 kit, X100, and m4/3 kits and they were all quite easy to carry. What I guess I'm trying to say overall is that m4/3 doens't have any unique ability other compact systems don't have.
I suppose my X100 is the easiest to travel with though as its just wrapped in a shirt and thrown into the bag with a spare battery. Nothing else to take possible makes life easy
Lotusm50 wrote:
I think that Olympus was holding out the OM brand for the development of such a deserving product, but recent events (scandal) forced them to try to capitalize on the name in the short term, with only a small development cost (using the existing Pen range of the cameras and technology as its basis) to hopefully rescue the company (presumably). Yes, this is speculation, but I think it is reasonable.
Hi Lotusm50, I agree with some of your post, but I don't think your speculation above is reasonable, and that is because these digital camera's are in a long development cycle; therefore, this "OM-D" has been in development long before the "scandal" occured last year. Now, what they name it can be changed at any time, but the physical camera itself has been something in the making for some time now, especially if it has a brand new sensor (and not using Panasonics one they've had for a year or so now). Early rumors indicated the viewfinder would be revolutionary and while the latest rumored specs show it as 1.44 (same as the VF-2) it doesn't necessarily mean it is going to be the "same as", they can keep the same resolution and increase qualities in many other areas. Like you mentioned all of this, these threads and even the rumor websites, are all speculation, so I will be waiting, and hoping, for something revolutionary, not just from the EVF but also from the sensor. But even if they are using the same Panny sensor we've been seeing lately, that is a pretty decent sensor and shows nice improvement at high ISO over the current 12MP sensor Olympus has been using and I would probably still be interested in the OM-D simply for its other features, but won't be as "wowed" by it as I hoped, but gosh, isn't that the case with almost everything except the D700 for the past few years...
I think that probably a good 90% of people who buy the OM-D will not in the slightest be familiar with the original OM.
I mean heck, the majority of photographers these days has little to no knowledge of even shooting film, much less a good, but quite dated system like the OM.
Good system for its day, but nothing to be revered any more than Canon coming out with a new AE line up cameras, or a new series of Nikon F's.
To say the OM name "deserves" something is a bit silly, its just a name.
Its simply a clever bit of marketing to cash in a bit on the companys history and the current fad of "retro" styled cameras being popular.
Lotusm50 wrote:
and
Yes, I think Olympus is just using it as a name to exploit in the short term, not a legacy to live up to. I agree with the sentiment that the name deserves the latest tech and that a re-issuance of the OM name deserves an innovative, step-out, even ground-breaking product that the original Om represented. I don't think that yet another variation of the existing Pen cameras with a couple extra features really accomplishes that.
It may well be a fine camera that attract some buyers (I suspect mostly existing 4/3'rds and Pen camera owners who want a bit more), a camera that will meet the needs of many users -- as certainly expressd so far in the thread. The issue is not whether is a good camera or not. I'm sure it is "good enough" as also expressed here. The issue, rather, is whether it is deserving of the storied "OM" brand. I think that Olympus was holding out the OM brand for the development of such a deserving product, but recent events (scandal) forced them to try to capitalize on the name in the short term, with only a small development cost (using the existing Pen range of the cameras and technology as its basis) to hopefully rescue the company (presumably). Yes, this is speculation, but I think it is reasonable. One should ask, why hasn't Oly used the OM name so far for any of their digital cameras. Why wasn't the entire micro 4/3rds camera branded "OM" instead of "Pen" (certainly a brand with less appeal, respect and affection -- but certainly not without these sentiments)? Of course we'll never know the answer to that question. That's just how I think of it, and I will admit that my perspective on this is colored by the respect and affection I have for the OM cameras and lenses I've owned in the past, and the brand.
Hi millsart, I suppose part of it is because I am still a newbie with MFT. Having shot for almost 15 years now with big f/2.8 zooms and "big" fast primes my little E-P3 with the above mentioned lenses makes a huge difference to me. I used to lug my D700 with a 14-24, a Sigma 50 1.4 and my 70-200 f/2.8 when I travelled to cover the full range, and that wasn't fun but I preferred the IQ, now with this little E-P3 I look forward to travelling much lighter than before I like the small system for family trips, especially to the zoo, I prefer not to get all the comments about the "big" lens which always baffled me, especially when shooting weddings; I always chuckled when someone said, "that's a big lens" or "nice lens" - what am I supposed to say to that? I started a pretty hilarious thread over on DWF a few years ago about how should you respond when asked about that. One of the best responses was "that's why it's called a Canon", but now that I shoot Nikon I can't really use that, ha!
millsart wrote:
I think that probably a good 90% of people who buy the OM-D will not in the slightest be familiar with the original OM.
I mean heck, the majority of photographers these days has little to no knowledge of even shooting film, much less a good, but quite dated system like the OM.
Good system for its day, but nothing to be revered any more than Canon coming out with a new AE line up cameras, or a new series of Nikon F's.
To say the OM name "deserves" something is a bit silly, its just a name.
Its simply a clever bit of marketing to cash in a bit on the companys history and the current fad of "retro" styled cameras being popular. ...Show more →
+1
I started photography in 1992 and got hooked and in '96 started my professional career so I am certainly one of those who had little experience with some of these earlier systems and I only new the Olympus OM by name only, really new nothing about it. I started with Minolta and then went to Canon once I began my professional career. I have been wanting Canon to make a 3D to bring back the nostalgia of the EOS 3 which was my last a favorite film bodies, but honestly, I could care less what Canon would call it if they would actually make it. I am not even worried about that anymore though because the D700 was (to me) what the 3D should have been and I have been quite happy with Nikon ever since.
