Are you going OM-D?

[Zonan]

Inspired by your decision, I had just ordered one myself, and that's how I found out about the offer

Originally Posted by rover

Oh, I just saw the rebate form. That wasn't up this morning when I ordered. I will call B&H and add something to my order to get the bonus.

[kbg32]

Amateur crap? I guess Daido Moriyama is an amateur.

[Johann Espiritu]

I just saw OMD (Yes, Orchestral Maneuvers in the Dark) live in Manila last Monday. Just thought I'd mention that since it was part of the poll! Haha!

[ajuk]

Originally Posted by gavinlg

I had an e-3 and it was worthless for AF tracking - my 5d is muuuuch better. It can't be much worse than that

I never said it was worthless, in fact I might get an EVIL, but only because it's smaller. If this sensor's so good why don't that ALSO put it in an SLR. Trouble is as the price of larger sensors goes down, 4/3 is going to become obsolete anyway.

I looked at Sony SLT camera and I genuinely don't get the point of it.

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by ajuk

I never said it was worthless, in fact I might get an EVIL, but only because it's smaller. If this sensor's so good why don't that ALSO put it in an SLR. Trouble is as the price of larger sensors goes down, 4/3 is going to become obsolete anyway.

I looked at Sony SLT camera and I genuinely don't get the point of it.

Because their SLR development is pretty much dead. They haven't brought out a 4/3 SLR in years.

People have been saying that the 4/3 sensor is going to become obsolete 'soon' since the e-1 in 2003. Right now m4/3 is commanding a large portion of the photographic market, and growing.

[Trius]

No doubt this sensor (or a derivative thereof) will make it into a DSLR. Olympus has said the 4/3 E series is not dead.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by ajuk

Trouble is as the price of larger sensors goes down, 4/3 is going to become obsolete anyway.

Y'know, I don't think there isn't another camera offering the *combination* of features that E-M5 has, regardless the sensor size.

(this should ruffle some feathers )

[Paul Luscher]

Just to drop back into this again and be annoying:

I think what I find interesting is that most people voting in the poll won't get the EM-5 because they "don't want to be caught dead with a dinky 4/3 camera."

Frankly, if that's the case, I find it silly. After all, wasn't the Leica the "dinky camera" of it's time when it first came out--and especially considering it was using 35mm film--essentially the 4/3 sensor of its time? And wasn't the concept of the Leica to be a small, light ""carry anywhere" camera? Isn't that one of the virtues Leicaphiles celebrate?

Same with the original OMs-- they were "dinky" cameras compared to the ones put out by the Heavies of their time--Nikon and Canon. Yet the OMs are now considered classics of camera design.

One thing I've noticed is that as technology progresses, it tends to make many things smaller, lighter and more capable.One good example is the cell phone: we've gone from the box mounted in your car to the brick that could do only one thing--dial out--to the flip-phone and the Iphone, etc. Do people deride the Iphone as "dinky" and prefer to return to the pocket-straining brick?

So why should a camera that's small, compact and light be an object of derision? And why do we think only a sensor as big as the old 35mm film frame can produce a "good enough" image? Isn't that retrograde thinking?

I for one like to think of the EM-5 as being the wave of the future--the Leica I of it's time if you like--with the same concept behind it. And from my personal standpoint, I am all in favor of a small, light camera which produces standout images--after a long day, a bag of Nikons can start to feel like carrying an anvil around....

[rbelyell]

paul, yours is the single best, most accurate and pointed analysis of this 'non' issue of sensor size that i have either read or made myself. bravo. 'nuff said, argument over.
tony

[Zonan]

Originally Posted by Paul Luscher

I for one like to think of the EM-5 as being the wave of the future--the Leica I of it's time if you like--with the same concept behind it. And from my personal standpoint, I am all in favor of a small, light camera which produces standout images--after a long day, a bag of Nikons can start to feel like carrying an anvil around....

Same for me. Sold my D200 backup, 70-200, etc. and going EM-5 to lose that anvil. Having just lugged the kit around with my D700 (which I'll keep as backup to the EM-5 for a while), I thought "why am I being uncomfortable walking around like this?" Some may need the big, heavy stuff for their purposes, but I no longer do. Nikon and Canon are following the Kodak business plan and becoming increasingly irrelevant, at least for me.

[robert blu]

! full agree with Paul. I wanted to say something similar but I could not rationalize it so well (english is not my native language). Thanks Paul.
robert

[Paul Luscher]

Tony and Zonan: Thanks! To the future of photography! May it result in less back pain....

[Paul Luscher]

Oh, and you too, robert blu...

[Steve M.]

"It's not the camera that makes the amateur".

That's the best thing I've heard all year. Ain't it the truth? This should be on the mast head here.

[Zonan]

And I am looking forward to owning an Olympus again. Years ago, I had (still have) a little DZ4040 (4mp), which took beautiful pictures, some of which I printed 13x19 and they look great. I've always had a soft spot for that little guy, tho he ate AA batteries like crazy.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by Paul Luscher

Just to drop back into this again and be annoying:

I think what I find interesting is that most people voting in the poll won't get the EM-5 because they "don't want to be caught dead with a dinky 4/3 camera."

Paul,

I think those who have chosen this particular option think that they are not getting the maximum value off their purchase because they ended up with a smaller sensor considering there are other cameras with a bigger one.

And I probably would take the same stance had I not seen hundreds of images (my own or otherwise) from 4/3rd systems that meet or exceed my standard for Image Quality (whatever that means that can be quantified objectively).

So with the new OM-D having a new sensor (at least a new level of performance), I think more people would consider it seriously once it has become available. Including some who chose not to be seen dead with a dinky m4/3rd camera ... at the moment

[campbellcj]

I am seriously thinking about one to replace my E-P2. I love the E-P2 overall but the slow AF and FPS are highly irritating. I had been leaning towards the NEX-7 but it seems to have too many compromises.

I already have a D3 rig and of course no M4/3 camera could replace that, but I like to have a small kit that can literally go everywhere with me without breaking my back or being too conspicuous.

[rover]

I am getting anxious, and it appears B&H will be delivering my OMD while I am away on vacation.

[Paul Luscher]

Shadowfax, sorry I didn't get back sooner.

I might have felt the same way about a smaller sensor had I not been shooting an E-3 for the last few years. I was initially hesitant about buying the E-3 because its sensor was half the size of a 35mm frame, but then I realized that this was false logic--that there was no reason that a digital senor HAD to be "full frame" in order to produce a quality image. It was applying analog concepts to a digital medium, so to speak.

And I admit that I have not been disappointed by the images out of my E-3. So yeah, I'm looking forward to what the EM-5 has to offer--more firepower in a smaller, lighter, Leica-size body. My shoulders will be happy.....

[shadowfox]

New updated review linked via the rumor site, it's pretty interesting.

http://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/revie...arling-updated

Olympus fanboys kind of review (OM-D = "Oh My Darling"... please )?
Or not? you decide.

[seakayaker1]

Originally Posted by Paul Luscher

Just to drop back into this again and be annoying:

I think what I find interesting is that most people voting in the poll won't get the EM-5 because they "don't want to be caught dead with a dinky 4/3 camera."

Frankly, if that's the case, I find it silly. After all, wasn't the Leica the "dinky camera" of it's time when it first came out--and especially considering it was using 35mm film--essentially the 4/3 sensor of its time? And wasn't the concept of the Leica to be a small, light ""carry anywhere" camera? Isn't that one of the virtues Leicaphiles celebrate?

Same with the original OMs-- they were "dinky" cameras compared to the ones put out by the Heavies of their time--Nikon and Canon. Yet the OMs are now considered classics of camera design.

,,,,,,

Perhaps if the person who set up the poll just allowed a person to say "NO" that would have been the response instead of the opinions of the person who set up the poll.


A simple 'Yes', 'No', 'Maybe' or 'Undecided' may have allowed a person to choose the response they wanted to give in the poll without the additional opinion of the originator of the poll being included.

I believe you may have jumped to a conclusion based on the only available responses for an individual who may simply wanted to respond with a simple 'NO.'


"No" would have been my response but did not agree with the full response since I already own a Micro Four Thirds camera, just not interested in the OM-D at all.

[gilpen123]

IMO, the basic difference between an amateur and professional photographer is the latter get paid. The tool does not define that. There are actually many amateur that are way better than some professional some even using a P&S can get excellent results. It's the eye for composition and the patience to wait for the right moment that makes one a better photogrspher amateur or pro.

[JoeV]

Originally Posted by ajuk

... Trouble is as the price of larger sensors goes down, 4/3 is going to become obsolete anyway...

I keep seeing this argument being posed, and have trouble believing the price of any size-specific sensor will come down significantly over time.

To be overly simplistic about it, but Moore's Law doesn't apply to silicon chips whose physical size is specified by some parameter like camera sensor format size. Moore's Law (more of an observation than an actual physical law) works by shrinking transistor size, making integrated circuits smaller over time, which has two effects: 1) Makes the circuit run faster because transistors are closer together, and 2) Reduces the cost per chip because more chips can be fit onto the same sized silicon wafer.

The economics of semiconductor manufacturing is based on the fixed cost of processing X thousands of wafers per week through a Fab - it costs the same to run those wafers, regardless of what circuits are printed on them. So, if you can shrink your transistor technology to make more circuits printed on each wafer, and sell them at higher prices because, being smaller, they run faster, then you have a high profit business model.

But camera sensors that are fixed in physical size can't scale to Moore's Law, the only ways of increasing profit are: 1) Depreciation of the factory equipment over time; 2) Increased efficiency in manufacturing (i.e. reducing waste); 3) Increase pixel count of each chip, thereby selling them at a higher profit as an "upscale" product. This third method is what has driven the pixel wars in photography. The first two methods are insignificant compared to the high profits earned by scaling microprocessors to Moore's Law.

Point and shoot sensors aren't fixed to specific format sizes, so these do scale to Moore's Law and can be shrunk in size over time to yield higher profit margins in the manufacturing process.

The main cost reduction to camera manufacturing going forward will not be from the cost of the sensor (because, as I've explained, the cost of fixed size sensors is also relatively fixed) but from reduced costs in the rest of the camera and lens system. Hence mirrorless cameras, which have less mechanical parts and are therefore easier to manufacture using robotics.

-Joe

[digitalintrigue]

I think that outline is accurate...there is not much at play to reduce the cost of large sensors, other than getting the yields higher (#2 in the previous post.) That will be difficult with current wafer technology.

Comparing APS-C to full frame:

On a standard 12" wafer there will be an approximate theoretical max of 2.3 times as many APS-C sensors as full frame sensors (197 vs 84.) Of course since the wafers are circular the numbers won't be quite that high.

Then there is the matter of yield. A very rough rule of thumb for similar products is the yield goes down by the square of the die size.

An APS-C sensor has an area of ~370 square mm and full frame ~864mm square mm. Using this rough rule of thumb this means the yield of a full frame sensor is about 18% of an APS-C.

Combine these two and a single wafer with 100% yield for APS-C would result in only 15 working full frame sensors. And 100% yield is definitely theoretical.

So a full frame sensor would be at least ~13 times more expensive (197 divided by 15.) I doubt this could be reduced significantly over time.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by seakayaker1

Perhaps if the person who set up the poll just allowed a person to say "NO" that would have been the response instead of the opinions of the person who set up the poll.


A simple 'Yes', 'No', 'Maybe' or 'Undecided' may have allowed a person to choose the response they wanted to give in the poll without the additional opinion of the originator of the poll being included.

I believe you may have jumped to a conclusion based on the only available responses for an individual who may simply wanted to respond with a simple 'NO.'


"No" would have been my response but did not agree with the full response since I already own a Micro Four Thirds camera, just not interested in the OM-D at all.

Dan, sorry to disappoint you.
But in case you haven't noticed, this poll is far from being a serious one.

I came up with the options precisely because I knew how polarized people's opinions on this camera are. And in a way, I'm giving those with ... uh, "extreme views" an anonymous way to vent. And according to the poll, they did take advantage of it.

I am half-surprised myself. Let me put another way. I have no love for Sony Nex cameras, but if there were a poll option that said: "I won't be caught dead with a dinky Nex camera", I would *not* have chosen it; because I simply can't feel that strongly towards a mere tool.