carstenw wrote:
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.
But people seem to keep repeating "APS-C of FF lenses have to be big" they don't as RF glass proves.
The problem with Sony glass is that Sony has no experience making small lenses for large sensors, they can only draw on what Minolta has made in the past.
Also the issues with the corners was I think the main reason why their lenses were larger, the addition of micro lenses will help with the new designs. Although why they didn't use them in the 7, I don't know... to force an upgrade? too expensive with how tightly packed the pixels are?
Then there is the fact that Sony didn't expect the NEX to be popular with the advanced shooters, and had nothing in the R&D pipeline.
Sony has announced that there are more compact lenses in the pipeline, it will be interesting to see what they are.
millsart wrote:
To say the OM name "deserves" something is a bit silly, its just a name.
I suspect that to make a statement like that you have little understanding of brands and branding, consumer reaction to branding and their perception of what a given brand represents, and the attention and investment that companies pour into their brands as a valuable and essential asset.
LightShow wrote:
But people seem to keep repeating "APS-C of FF lenses have to be big" they don't as RF glass proves.
The problem with Sony glass is that Sony has no experience making small lenses for large sensors, they can only draw on what Minolta has made in the past.
Also the issues with the corners was I think the main reason why their lenses were larger, the addition of micro lenses will help with the new designs. Although why they didn't use them in the 7, I don't know... to force an upgrade? too expensive with how tightly packed the pixels are?
Then there is the fact that Sony didn't expect the NEX to be popular with the advanced shooters, and had nothing in the R&D pipeline.
Sony has announced that there are more compact lenses in the pipeline, it will be interesting to see what they are. ...Show more →
I think the issue with Sony is also that they chose a very small register distance for the mount to make the camera as compact as possible. And that makes it hard to make lenses which are small yet perform well. Samsung on the other hand chose a slightly larger register distance and they have no trouble coming up with compact lenses for their system. Samsung is no more a camera company than Sony, Sony at least had Minolta acquired. And still the 30 f2 pancake was one of the first lenses released for the NX system. We have to see how Sony handles this issue going forward. It is clear that when they designed NEX they didn't think much about these issues because they didn't see this becoming a serious system. At that time they just wanted the bragging rights for being the "smallest APS-C mirror-less".
Lotusm50 wrote:
I suspect that to make a statement like that you have little understanding of brands and branding, consumer reaction to branding and their perception of what a given brand represents, and the attention and investment that companies pour into their brands as a valuable and essential asset.
Marketing 101: A "brand" is not just a "name".
I think it all depends on how you define a "brand". You have the "name" of your company which can often define the quality of what you make, etc. (e.g. Leica). Thinking in terms of cars, you might have the name BMW which indicates a certain type of car and quality, then you mention Ferrari and someone has a completely different idea. But then there is the "brand" or "product" from the company that has the "name", and the product is judged independently of the name, so while BMW and Ferrari have made some pretty awesome cars, they have also made some that didn't win over the hearts of their followers.
So when talking about the brand "OM" does that mean Olympus has to do exactly the same as what they did with the original? I don't think so, it simply means they are capitalizing on a strong product from the past, hoping to catch people's attention to take a look. And hey, they've caught my attention and I wasn't even that familiar with the original OM, but then again, I wasn't that familiar with the original GTO by Ferrari but when they introduced the new GTO in the early 80's it grabbed my attention nonetheless
curious80 wrote:
I think the issue with Sony is also that they chose a very small register distance for the mount to make the camera as compact as possible. And that makes it hard to make lenses which are small yet perform well. Samsung on the other hand chose a slightly larger register distance and they have no trouble coming up with compact lenses for their system. Samsung is no more a camera company than Sony, Sony at least had Minolta acquired. And still the 30 f2 pancake was one of the first lenses released for the NX system. We have to see how Sony handles this issue going forward. It is clear that when they designed NEX they didn't think much about these issues because they didn't see this becoming a serious system. At that time they just wanted the bragging rights for being the "smallest APS-C mirror-less"....Show more →
I don't think 7mm is enough to make a big difference, either way. I think much of the difference is down to the difference in most of the focal lengths and speeds. The only two comparable lenses between the systems are their 16mm lenses, and they're similar in size. Sony is rumored to be working on smaller lenses.
sebboh wrote:
much as i would like it to be FF i don't think 35mm is the defining characteristic of the OM series. it was the combo of very small and high quality in both cameras and lenses.
As someone alive back in the day, Olympus was seriously attempting to unseat the existing professional systems of the time (Nikon and Canon). That competition is show by the huge number of very specialized products in the OM lineup, as shown in the earlier picture. At the time, lots of people were deciding between OM cameras and "professional" cameras such as the Nikon F2 (I know, I was one of them).
The current version of the 70's battle would be the Olympus OM-D taking on the Canon 1dsIII or the Nikon D3.
douglasf13 wrote:
I don't think 7mm is enough to make a big difference, either way. I think much of the difference is down to the difference in most of the focal lengths and speeds. The only two comparable lenses between the systems are their 16mm lenses, and they're similar in size. Sony is rumored to be working on smaller lenses.
Sony reps have outright stated that Sony is working on more pancakes.
tr1957 wrote:
As someone alive back in the day, Olympus was seriously attempting to unseat the existing professional systems of the time (Nikon and Canon). That competition is show by the huge number of very specialized products in the OM lineup, as shown in the earlier picture. At the time, lots of people were deciding between OM cameras and "professional" cameras such as the Nikon F2 (I know, I was one of them).
The current version of the 70's battle would be the Olympus OM-D taking on the Canon 1dsIII or the Nikon D3.
That would be Nikon and Leica, not Nikon and Canon. Canon, Minolta and Olympus introduced their 'Professional' systems around the same time, in 1971-1972. Prior to that the Professional 35mm systems were the Nikon F and the Leica M. FD mount was around long prior to that, but without the higher-end body that it needed to be a Professional system. It finally got that with the F1.
tr1957 wrote:
The current version of the 70's battle would be the Olympus OM-D taking on the Canon 1dsIII or the Nikon D3.
Yes. Exactly. That's what the OM brand represents to people. Taking on the best professional equipment of the day -- providing professional quality output and capabilities with an innovative design approach -- like it did when it was first introduced. (even if it wasn't Canon in 1971). Instead, it is taking on enthusiast, casual use products from Panasonic, Sony NEX, Fuji and Ricoh, seemingly having given up on challenging the professional systems of Nikon and Canon (and Leica, depending on your perspective).
Nikon and Leica I think it was. If you look at the Om1 body from a design and size perspective, it looked a lot like Leica with a mirrorbox and pentaprism.
I don't blame you, that was my hope when reading the teaser.
As a m4/3rds body I'm sure it will do fine, for those that don't have a collection of FF lenses they wish to mount....
The rest of us, the search will continue.
LightShow wrote:
But people seem to keep repeating "APS-C of FF lenses have to be big" they don't as RF glass proves.
Sure, if you can leave out the autofocus and electronic communication, then RF lenses are viable. Otherwise not. And this is my point: RF lenses are out there, are small, and are great, but not everyone wants to play alt. I'm having fun with alt on my primary system, a Nikon D3, with various Zeiss and Leica lenses, but my compact system I want to just work, which means AF and full communication.
Lotusm50 wrote:
I suspect that to make a statement like that you have little understanding of brands and branding, consumer reaction to branding and their perception of what a given brand represents, and the attention and investment that companies pour into their brands as a valuable and essential asset.
Marketing 101: A "brand" is not just a "name".
+1 This thread and the reactions of everyone here who has known the OM system proves Lotus' statement.
curious80 wrote:
I think the issue with Sony is also that they chose a very small register distance for the mount to make the camera as compact as possible. And that makes it hard to make lenses which are small yet perform well. Samsung on the other hand chose a slightly larger register distance and they have no trouble coming up with compact lenses for their system.
Sorry, but that just makes no sense. If the best compact lens for such systems would have a slightly larger register distance, then that is easily built into the lens itself.
Wow. Another thread gone wild. It is very interesting to read all the comments here. It seems the most heated have to do with the name "OM" itself and not what this new digital body can do. At the end of the day we can bicker and complain all we want but Olympus gets to make the decision, after all it is their product. But I'm sure this is not the end of it. In a few weeks they will probably announce the OM-D and there will be a whole new wave of lovers, haters and the in between. But I have come to learn that being frustrated at a camera manufacturer does me little good and usually only serves to bring me greater frustration because they didn't make what I thought they should. The nice thing is that we have choices. It'd be one thing if there was only one manufacturer but there are not and more seem to be getting into the mix especially with mirrorless. So if the OM-D is not all you hoped it would be then thank God that we have options and I'd be willing to bet that within the next couple years someone will make an affordable FF mirrorless. I have been watching Olympus under the radar for some time now and I have high hopes for this OM-D even if it is MFT. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Cheers
Bill
carstenw wrote:
Sure, if you can leave out the autofocus and electronic communication, then RF lenses are viable. Otherwise not. And this is my point: RF lenses are out there, are small, and are great, but not everyone wants to play alt. I'm having fun with alt on my primary system, a Nikon D3, with various Zeiss and Leica lenses, but my compact system I want to just work, which means AF and full communication.
I didn't say anything about removing the AF stuff, I fully realize that a camera without AF will have a very small target market, and I would like the option for when I need it.
I'm enjoying my alts on my 1DIII, but I can't mount everything on it that I'd like to.(FD, MD, RF...)
Here is a list of messages I got from different sources:
1) “The improved dynamic range is a result of the new sensor“. -> In response of my question if the higher dynamic range was a result of a software feature or new hardware design.
2) “The 3 inch LCD is a tilting touchscreen“.
3) “AF is not faster…it is MUCH faster than on the Olympus E-P3”
4) About the leaked picture: “The mode dial is on the other side. imagine the OM4-TI (here on eBay) – almost there in looks.”
5) “425 g is the weight with the Li-ion battery and a memory card, 373 g is without them“.
6) “The image processor is TruePic VI.”
7) “Price Body+kit lens = 1150 Euro.”
8.) “The cameras name is not OM-D (that’s just the new series name).”...Show more →
1), 2), 3) sounds good to me.
8) Hmmm, so we could see EP3, EPL3, EPM1 equivalents in the OM-D line.
OM-D1) standard m4/3 body
OM-DL1 same as above but with less features
OM-DPro FF with at most 3 lenses at launch. it's good to dream.
