Oh My Goodness (digital OM)

[Trius]

Originally Posted by wblynch

Tens of millions of them were sold around the world. Hardly a failure.

Which is why Olympus shut down the OM system. I see.

[edit]

And not to extend an argument/thread hijack, but it would be interesting to see official sales numbers of those models. Tens of millions?

[willie_901]

Originally Posted by Paul T.

I'm glad for Olympus - the EP range has proven the sensor-size-fetishists here wrong, by redefining the market. If the focusing on this is far superior to the XPro, maybe a good number of people will go for practicality over sensor size once more.

Good luck to them, it all expands our choice.

Appreciating the advantages of increased sensor area is not necessarily a fetish. The physics of Bayer imaging dictates larger sensor areas collect more information (all other factors being equal). I prefer to record more information. Others will decide different factors are more important to them. I would not say they have a small sensor fetish.

[Archiver]

I can't think of anyone, Mitch Alland notwithstanding*, who says that they prefer the look of a small sensor after having experience with large sensor cameras.

I would love it if the OM-D matched the dynamic range of today's aps-c sensors. That would be a real coup and something of an incentive for me to invest. I've stayed out of m43 for years because I haven't seen what I like in the image quality as yet.

I do like how the OM-D is being positioned as a higher end 'professional' system. There are some super lenses coming out and the addition of 1080p h.264 video is attractive to me.

Having experience with small, aps-c and full frame sensors, I have to say that I prefer the image quality I get from my full frame cameras overall. Bigger sensor = better image quality from what I can see. I don't know how much of this is a factor of intangibles like depth of field, and how much is from greater dynamic range, lower noise, higher resolution and suchlike. As far as the OM-D goes, I like its looks and form factor. I like what I read of the specs. Performance is yet to be seen.

*Mitch often says that small sensors should be regarded as another format, much like aps or 110 film in the old days, with their own characteristics which are not necessarily 'worse', but just 'different'. I agree that small sensors have come a long way, and can yield very high quality images for most applications, but I also prefer the look that I get from large sensor cameras.

[Paul T.]

Originally Posted by willie_901

Appreciating the advantages of increased sensor area is not necessarily a fetish. The physics of Bayer imaging dictates larger sensor areas collect more information (all other factors being equal). I prefer to record more information. Others will decide different factors are more important to them. I would not say they have a small sensor fetish.

I am not criticising those who prefer larger sensors for themselves, that's a reasonable opinion - I am referring to those who said four thirds would fail because the sensors were too small. They were wrong!

[Spicy]

Is it APS-C sized?

[kanzlr]

2/3 of the images on my walls where shot with the D700, the rest is a split between the M8 and GXR.

If that's because of the sensor size? More because the D700 fell in my most active phase of travelling

That OM-D looks tempting for just that: travel. If the GXR does not live up to that job as well as I hope, the OM-D could be it. Weather seals would be nice for hiking Iceland, for example. I loved that about the D700. I took her everywhere, including Austrian Alps and the badest of weather and never lost a thought about the camera (other than its weight...)

[kuzano]

Originally Posted by Trius

I also have friends who wouldn't touch them, but manipulate like hell in PS. Yeah, I know there's a difference, but philosophically, not much.

Yes, and actually that difference is the time wasted in front of the computer attempting to duplicate an effect that the camera can so easily perform. Your friend does not value his time at a very high rate.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by igi

Your prayer seems to have been answered by Voigtlander... on the other thread, there's a strong rumor that they're going to release a 17.5mm F0.95 (albeit its very likely MF only).

[edit]

Oh, just announced!
http://www.43rumors.com/hot-voigtlan...mm-f0-95-lens/

I was just about to post about this



If this lens has the option to trigger the zoom-focus feature when I turn the focus ring, I'd be very interested.

It's like having an Ultron 35/1.2 for OM-D, that's pretty sweet.

The price makes me ill, though. Not saying it's unreasonable.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by Spicy

Is it APS-C sized?

Smaller .

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by Paul T.

I am not criticising those who prefer larger sensors for themselves, that's a reasonable opinion - I am referring to those who said four thirds would fail because the sensors were too small. They were wrong!

Agree, Paul.
It's amazing to me the number of people who dismissed 4/3rd system simply because of the sensor size, who never owned one, never even tried one.

Yet interestingly some of them willingly entertained the idea that they may like that Nikon's idea of a jok... I mean mirrorless-system whose sensor is even smaller, and give them all the benefits of the doubt.

[rbelyell]

my personal experience causes me to question whether sensor size or tecnological advancement is at the heart of this IQ debate. i shot a great deal with 12mp full frame 5d coupled with first rate zeiss lenses. i loved the IQ and felt no small sensor cam could touch it, and that was backed up by the results i got (get) from my ep2.

then i got a 12mp aps-c x100. frankly it performed as well as my 5d up to iso800 after which the x100 blew the 5d away, no contest. obviously the 5d represents 'older' technology. from what ive seen, i think the mkii would probably beat out the x100 across the board. but it would also beat out the prior generation mki as well.

thus my conclusion that its not just sensor size, its the progression of technology. end of the day, the 5dmki was the 'pro' cam large sensor of choice for a good while. pro's used it to great effect across the publishing world. now its beat by an apsc sensor, which means that smaller sensor could also be used across the publishing world, at least in terms of IQ.

once you reach this level of pro result with smaller sensors, does then this argument make real life sense? if someone told you 5 years ago you could get the same or better results with a 'pocketable' cam as you got with your 5d that person wouldve been laughed out of the building! now that its come to pass i'm not sure the sensor size 'debate' is not over.

[TXForester]

Originally Posted by kuzano

Yes, and actually that difference is the time wasted in front of the computer attempting to duplicate an effect that the camera can so easily perform. Your friend does not value his time at a very high rate.

Maybe, maybe not. How much tweaking can you do in camera? Doing it post processing allows you the greatest flexibility in getting what you want. Even shots made without an art filter and never intended to have a "trendy" look are not always left alone.

[hub]

Originally Posted by Spicy

Is it APS-C sized?

Can't be. m4/3 lens likely don't have the coverage needed for the size as the m4/3 sensor specify the sensor size as well.

[JonasYip]

I was curious how big (or small) this thing was, so I made a comparison pic here:

http://jonasyip.tumblr.com/post/1722...ll-as-it-turns

It's really small.

j

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by JonasYip

I was curious how big (or small) this thing was, so I made a comparison pic here:

http://jonasyip.tumblr.com/post/1722...ll-as-it-turns

It's really small.

j

Good stuff!

Some may think it's a little too small, but I think it's going to be absolutely perfect...

[ian paterson]

Nice one Jonas - that D700 looks like a house brick!

[Focal Plane Circus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=ydznRIa7fbw

[Water Ouzel]

Originally Posted by Trius

Which is why Olympus shut down the OM system. I see.

And the Canon FD series was a marketplace failure, too.

/sarc

[Colin G.]

image samples:
http://e-p1.net/olympus-om-digital-c...28samples!%29/

camera size:

http://e-p1.net/olympus-om-digital-c...deo-from-cnet/

looks tiny...

[jsrockit]

So this is olympus' "G3" basically... just prettier?

[Colin G.]

video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yutT...e_gdata_player

[jsrockit]

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_se...p?product=1583

[xayraa33]

Originally Posted by Colin G.

video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yutT...e_gdata_player

That thing looks sweet !

[Trius]

Originally Posted by Water Ouzel

And the Canon FD series was a marketplace failure, too.

/sarc

Other companies (Canon, Nikon) kept producing film SLRs well after the OM system was discontinued. Olympus' late entry into the AF SLR market was the death of OM.

[TXForester]

Mr. Tuck has preview that is interesting.

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/