I know I don't want the cost, size or weight of FF 35.....lenses! Bad enough for the bodies. But the glass will kill you. That is one of the huge appeals of MFT. Fuji is looking better all the time.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Olympus sells imaging business
- Thread starter Darmok N Jalad
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Casual photographers suffer from a specific set of cognitive dissonance. They don't quite know what they want from full frame and they probably realise there are better cameras out there, but they go for it because they felt that it is a safe choice. It's peer pressure; wanting to be with a group of photographers who had accepted that bigger is better. The superior format vs the inferior format mentality and insecure people like to be in the superior format camp just so that the superior format masks their personal insecurity. Olympus visionaries had tried very hard to break that cognitive dissonance in main stream photography for so many years and unfortunately had not succeeded.
When I worked in camera sales, I had met so many people that would actually benefit from a smaller sensor format based on their use cases and yet would go for full frame, just because they can afford it. No amount of convincing will dissuade these people. They are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
I think Sony made full frame affordable. Years ago you had to pay $6000 for a nice full frame camera. Those numbers have come down thanks to mirrorless.
MacNut wrote:
"I wonder if m43 has a future, you only have 2 companies supporting it and one is about to sell off. Will Panasonic keep it alive or abandon it."
My guess (and it's ONLY "a guess"):
After Olympus is gone, Panasonic will drop m43 in favor of APS-c and full-frame.
Long-term, I see m43 as a "light that failed", soon to disappear from the market.
Again, my opinion only.
"I wonder if m43 has a future, you only have 2 companies supporting it and one is about to sell off. Will Panasonic keep it alive or abandon it."
My guess (and it's ONLY "a guess"):
After Olympus is gone, Panasonic will drop m43 in favor of APS-c and full-frame.
Long-term, I see m43 as a "light that failed", soon to disappear from the market.
Again, my opinion only.
I have an A7R2 and and A7R3 with lenses to support them. I'm currently using a Nikon Z7 as my main body. The Sony bodies are nice and Sony lenses are quite good. So why am I using a Z7?
My biggest quibble with Sony is that they *still* haven't found a way to offer lossless compressed RAW. So I am forced to either choose between lossy compressed RAW or uncompressed RAW. The difference in file size is significant. The difference in quality between the lossy compressed RAW and uncompressed RAW files may not be noticeable for many images. But they are very obvious in RawDigger. Yes, this is pixel peeping to the extreme. And for many images it may not matter (certainly not as dramatic as the difference between a JPEG file and a RAW file). But I honestly don't understand why Sony can't figure out a way to get a lossless compressed RAW file. Other manufacturers can obviously do it, why can't Sony?
Again, for most images it may not matter. But for some images it can, at least potentially.
With the Sony bodies I've had issues with sensor artifacts where you can see the grid pattern of the sensor in the image. Most noticeable in areas of sky, even when shot at base ISO. A total PITA to deal with in post. Depending on your output it might or might not be evident/relevant.
Related is a tendency on the Sony bodies for less smooth tonal gradations, again most obvious in the sky, even at base ISO and "exposing to the right". I haven't done a controlled experiment to know if these behaviors are less prevalent when shooting uncompressed RAW vs lossy compressed RAW. But I've been burned a few times (shooting lossy compressed RAW as my default with the Sony bodies).
Haven't noticed either of these behaviors to the same extent with my Z7 (shooting lossless compressed RAW).
I also prefer the AF of Nikon vs Sony. Eye AF is slightly better with Sony, but I really like Nikon's AF-C + Area AF implementation. Easy to pick a focus area and then have it track (for a moving subject) or allow me to recompose while maintaining focus. Very useful for much of what I shoot.
Nothing wrong with the Sony system overall. Don't get me wrong. I used my A7R2/A7R3 almost exclusively for a couple of years. I was late to the Z7 party because I was happy with my Sony bodies and lenses. But I really prefer the Z7 at this point. Partly for the above reasons. But also because there are some Nikon lenses that Sony doesn't offer (i.e. 200mm macro, Tilt/Shift, etc.). The latter aren't lenses that I use regularly for most of my shooting, but I do use them often enough that I appreciate having them as options.
Last edited:
From what I recall when reading reviews when the A7R IV was released, one of the issues that was addressed with that camera body is the one you mention, with the sensor artifacts and such, along with the infamous "star-eating" problem, too.
It is odd that by now Sony wouldn't have offered lossless compressed RAW. I use uncompressed RAW and yes, those image file sizes are pretty large!
Another thing which is odd is that Sony hasn't jumped on the focus-stacking bandwagon so that one can do macros and stack images right in-camera rather than having to mess with third-party apps and such.
It is odd that by now Sony wouldn't have offered lossless compressed RAW. I use uncompressed RAW and yes, those image file sizes are pretty large!
Another thing which is odd is that Sony hasn't jumped on the focus-stacking bandwagon so that one can do macros and stack images right in-camera rather than having to mess with third-party apps and such.
Way back when, in April 2004, I put up my first shots from an Olympus E-1 in these forums. I looked at the Nikon D70 and the Canon 300D and decided against them easily. I also looked at the Pentax *ist and decided that it also wasn't for me. Kodak's sensor was quite good, although being a miniature Medium Format sensor, it had drawbacks, especially in low light. The software of the time didn't help and raw development software was horrible then.
When Kodak couldn't produce a good sensor with more pixels, it caused a lot of people to doubt the format. Panasonic helped a lot and the industry now has Live View because of what Panasonic and Olympus did. Olympus was certainly responsible for many technological advances over the years.
I've had a number of digital camera bodies since then, including the Panasonic GH4 and Nikon D7200.
Right now, no company is safe. Nikon has the best new mount. Sony has the momentum but has as many disadvantages as they have advantages. Pentax is coasting with decent equipment, but can't quite push itself to greatness. Fujifilm has the best lineup, but they don't have the market share or the mind share. Canon is the compromise it has always been, but less steady than usual.
What's possible is that stills cameras might be eliminated completely, and only video cameras with some decent stills capabilities will continue.
When Kodak couldn't produce a good sensor with more pixels, it caused a lot of people to doubt the format. Panasonic helped a lot and the industry now has Live View because of what Panasonic and Olympus did. Olympus was certainly responsible for many technological advances over the years.
I've had a number of digital camera bodies since then, including the Panasonic GH4 and Nikon D7200.
Right now, no company is safe. Nikon has the best new mount. Sony has the momentum but has as many disadvantages as they have advantages. Pentax is coasting with decent equipment, but can't quite push itself to greatness. Fujifilm has the best lineup, but they don't have the market share or the mind share. Canon is the compromise it has always been, but less steady than usual.
What's possible is that stills cameras might be eliminated completely, and only video cameras with some decent stills capabilities will continue.
Interesting to see what will happen. Lots of big camera companies losing more than Olympus. Not sure what relative percentages the camera parts of Canon, Ricoh, Panasonic and Sony are, but I seem to recall that Nikon's was pretty big. Not sure if that's a good or bad omen.
It might interest folks to know that the Oly PL-9 was the best selling mirrorless in Japan last year. So not every place is into the "bigger is best" hype, in camera or sensor size. But Americans do seem to want bigger sensors, more megapixels, and more features. Kinda like their trucks or SUV. I'd love to see a chart of camera size per owner in the various countries.
It might interest folks to know that the Oly PL-9 was the best selling mirrorless in Japan last year. So not every place is into the "bigger is best" hype, in camera or sensor size. But Americans do seem to want bigger sensors, more megapixels, and more features. Kinda like their trucks or SUV. I'd love to see a chart of camera size per owner in the various countries.
After experiencing the 40-150 Pro lens for a week, I’m seriously considering getting even more Olympus gear. I have some premium Panasonic lenses, and they don’t seem quite as good, for whatever reason. This Pro lens keeps impressing me.
Yeah, I got one of those as a refurb right before I heard the news...they were running a great sale. It's fantastic, and perfect size for me for a hiking long reach rig. Especially with the 2x TC in my pocket. I sold some APS-C gear to afford it.
Now I'm wondering about that 400mm one coming out...probably way beyond my means, but if it shows up in refurbs I'll be all over it (I think they get some demos and loaners from reviewers back there. That's the only way I can explain the low shutter counts on the cameras I bought there).
I think they have 2 400s on the roadmap, so I hope the non-pro isn’t so bad, at least not PL100-400 expensive. The aperture range suggests it might not be too heavy either. It could be a great bird lens.
APS-C is an afterthought for practically every manufacturer except for Fujifilm, and maybe Pentax. The others treat it like little more than an entry-level camera system that is designed to get people into the premium offerings of their full-frame systems.
Which has more lasting more is a tricky question. People here are talking as if µ4/3 was only consisting of Panasonic and Olympus, but there are more companies involved. They're largely forgettable - Sharp and Black Magic have their video-focused systems, while there was a Chinese company that also made a µ4/3 camera (I keep thinking it was Yongnuo but I'm not 100% on that) - but they're there. I would anticipate that the other companies with both APS-C and "full frame" would dump the APS-C aspect if they began to struggle, unless it was profitable for them. But µ4/3 served as a negativity sink in the photography world, and if it loses focus people will begin to hate on APS-C, claiming it's not different enough from smartphones, and then it won't exist...
Hard to say. Panasonic created their full-frame system and while I haven't heard about how well they're selling, people noted the relatively fast and steep discounts and have begun to assume that they're not selling well. People may respect Olympus' lenses, but was (or is) there really room for yet another "full frame" system?
I think the four thirds (and later, µ4/3) format was actually pretty smart, but it suffered from a few factors:
1) The smaller sensor provided a lot of benefits compared with film, but those benefits became weaknesses due to shifting expectations and styles in photography. For example, a benefit of µ4/3 was being able to have a deeper depth of field without needing to close the aperture quite as much. But around the time of digital photography we began to view photos on screens (including tiny screens that made DoF seem deeper anyway), and due to the rise in compact cameras, shallow DoF became a sign of skill and/or high-end equipment. People wanted bokeh, not deeper DoF, and a lot of the people getting into photography wanted to do portraiture or vacation snapshots. The benefit if having more "reach" per millimeter of focal length was also under appreciated (partly Olympus' fault as well, as they weren't releasing lenses longer than 300mm).
2) Sensor development. The sensor market consolidated fairly quickly with Sony coming out on top. Sony did not devote much resources to the 4/3 sensors as compared with the other sensor lines. People often criticized Olympus for this, but Olympus was at the mercy of Sony's release cycle. Almost all of the camera manufacturers are; a lot of people are hoping for a Fujifilm GFX 50S Mark II, for example, and those who follow Sony's sensor designs note that Fujifilm can only release products based on what Sony puts out. (Side note, this should sound familiar: release cycle issues was a driving force behind Apple deciding to shift away from Intel and develop their own processes.)
3) The rising influence of social media and web forums. Granted, Olympus' marketing team should have done a better job to combat this one, but even over ten years ago 4/3 seemed to be the most derided thing in the photography world. People sneered at the smaller sensor's performance and made haughty remarks supposedly backed by physics about how smaller sensors were eternally doomed to perform worse than larger sensor. Those arguments continue today, even though modern µ4/3 cameras easily outperform older full-frame cameras. (And I have to say, shooting the GFX System as a secondary, it is incredibly interesting to hear people use sensor size to justify trashing µ4/3 in favor of full frame, and then to hear how there's not a significant difference when justifying full frame over medium format. Dislike for the 4:3 aspect ratio is consistent, at least!)
And that social influence matters a lot: I bought into Olympus because their entry-level camera kit was a better deal than Canon. Didn't know about all of the other companies, didn't know about sensor sizes. As I learned more I began to feel a sinking sense that I had made the wrong choice, and a few times a year I'd seriously consider selling everything and starting over. The frequency of those feelings diminished with the E-M1 MkII (which still amazes me today), but it wasn't until I bought the GFX 50S and could compare for myself just how different sensor sizes handled that I felt inner peace. Yet I was lucky and could afford a second system; a lot of other Olympus users couldn't handle the weight of the online photography world's opinions and had to sell their system in order to see what they were (or weren't) missing.
Olympus lost users to that social pressure, but how many high-end users reverted to Olympus? I've known many, but many seemed to be at the ends of photography careers, or were downsizing in general. I wonder how many bought their equipment new, instead of used, too.
Short of joining someone else's mount, I'm not sure what Olympus could have done to shake off that negative reputation associated with the 4/3 sensor size. I did wish they had gone the medium format route, though... I favor Olympus' designs (both hardware and software) to Fujifilm, and would have switched from the GFX System to Olympus ("macro 4/3," I had hoped they'd call it) if they had.
@Ledgem The only way olympus could have done to shake off that negative reputation is to transcend their own ethos, by not maintaining the insistence of making micro four third sensor cameras, but by innovating like Apple did with the iPhone. Apple never made phones until Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone in around 2007. Then, there was Nokia and Blackberry and there were like the Canon and Nikon of phones then. Any how did a computer company produce a phone that will eventually kill both the market share of Nokia and Blackberry?!? By solving the problems those phones lacked by adding the smart functionality. Olympus did solve one major issue with traditional cameras and that is the size and weight and unfortunately went to form their ethos, their existence. This worked for awhile during the film days and during the infancy of digital when sensor technology was at their infancy and the style of photography didn't deviate very much from film. But just like the phone, Nokia and Blackberry didn't expect that people would use a phone beyond just messaging and calling people. People wanted their phones to do more than that and when Apple introduced a phone that could do much more, then it spelled the end of Nokia and Blackberry. Sony introduced a full frame mirrorless camera, a camera people wanted. Olympus was already in a position to do so. Imagine if you have a full frame E-M1 with all the bells and whistles that can produce medium format images using pixel shifting or their handheld high res technology, that would not only maintain their ethos of being compact and light weight, but transcending their full reliance on micro four thirds. Now it does not mean you abandon m43. It simply allows people like myself an upgrade path to full frame and having the ability to make medium format images, plus a compact portability of m43 side by side. I asked that question once in their pro seminar, but just like Blackberry did back then, they just shrugged it off. People in the room were in their own relative cognitive dissonance. They didn't want to listen to inputs and suggestions. They were dead lockset in their distorted vision in a photographic market that had already left and that the photographic style they had envisioned had since transcended into full frame and medium format. They were simply drinking their Kool Aid. They were in their own personal closed system. And like second law of thermodynamics; a closed loop system will eventually disintegrate and collapse all by itself. And that's what happened to them and will happen to any company and individuals who simply insist in their own closed loop system if they do not innovate and transcend from their own existing success.
Sharp has come out with a 33MP 4/3rds sensor, so development has not ceased here, and it’s supposed to handle 8K video, too. I suspect M43 will continue on as a video-first/photography-second format. Honestly I’m okay with that, so long as they continue to make proper photography bodies and features in this trickledown effect. Also, I don’t feel the need for more that 20MP anyway, as it’s a reasonable amount to work with without eating up storage space. I’d rather see them continue to improve the light-capturing ability at 20MP.
Never own an Olympus. I started off with a Nikon D80 as my first DSLR and I still have it. I wanted to upgrade to a much better camera body about 2 1/2 years ago. I initially pre-ordered a Nikon Z7 from B&H Photo, but after doing some more research didn't to go with the Sony A7R3 camera. I only had a couple of lenses for the Nikon System, so starting over wasn't that big of the thing. Then about 6 months later the Sony A9 came down in price and I like taking Birds-In-Flight (BIF) pictures, so I bit the bullet and bought it. I have nothing against smartphones, but I like Full Frame cameras and I think the Mirrorless is the way to go. I pretty much satisfied with my camera bodies that I have along with the lenses that I use own. I have my action camera in the A9 and my high resolution camera in the A7R3.
With any luck I have these cameras for a long time and that to me is part of the problem for the camera industry. Sure there are going to professionals that buy the lastest cameras, but for the professionals who stay satisfied with their cameras for a long-time and semi-professional photographers they are not going to be buy cameras on a regular basis. The Point-and-Shoot market is dead thanks to smartphones, so camera companies already have a shrunken market. The A9 II would had had at least 38 megapixels for me to even consider upgrading and even then it would be a year or two before I did. The A7R4 is a nice camera, but I really don't need that high of a resolution camera.
I can see Canon with its large selection of camera bodies and lenses surviving, Sony being a large company surviving even with the splitting up of the company and Fuji with it long history surviving. I see Nikon being the next camera company having a problem surviving, but I wouldn't count them out if they get their act together as the Nikon Z cameras are nice cameras and they do have a nice history. Just my .02 cents...
It's too bad about Olympus as they seem like intriguing cameras, but nothing more than that. If I were rich I probably would had bought one just to see what it is like. The Fat Lady hasn't sung, but Olympus is on life support with the plug coming loose from the socket.
With any luck I have these cameras for a long time and that to me is part of the problem for the camera industry. Sure there are going to professionals that buy the lastest cameras, but for the professionals who stay satisfied with their cameras for a long-time and semi-professional photographers they are not going to be buy cameras on a regular basis. The Point-and-Shoot market is dead thanks to smartphones, so camera companies already have a shrunken market. The A9 II would had had at least 38 megapixels for me to even consider upgrading and even then it would be a year or two before I did. The A7R4 is a nice camera, but I really don't need that high of a resolution camera.
I can see Canon with its large selection of camera bodies and lenses surviving, Sony being a large company surviving even with the splitting up of the company and Fuji with it long history surviving. I see Nikon being the next camera company having a problem surviving, but I wouldn't count them out if they get their act together as the Nikon Z cameras are nice cameras and they do have a nice history. Just my .02 cents...
It's too bad about Olympus as they seem like intriguing cameras, but nothing more than that. If I were rich I probably would had bought one just to see what it is like. The Fat Lady hasn't sung, but Olympus is on life support with the plug coming loose from the socket.
The older Sony full-frames are popular because of the spike in interest and relative ease for photographers to do good Astrophotography; plus the odd wedding/portrait photographer that thinks they need full-frame to achieve good portraiture imagery because the Fro/Kelby/Grimes/etc all use full-frame!
[automerge]1593908196[/automerge]
My Olympus E-M5 II can pump out 64MP RAW's that stand shoulder to shoulder with the Nikon full-frames in resolution and detail.
[automerge]1593908341[/automerge]
I still stand by my original thoughts in this thread about Olympus and innovation
Yeah, HR and now HHHR really gives a lot of options there. My comment was more that I can still see M43 continuing on as a video platform primarily, with a bone being thrown to the stills buyers. M43 really seems to have a lot of interest from the vloggers.The older Sony full-frames are popular because of the spike in interest and relative ease for photographers to do good Astrophotography; plus the odd wedding/portrait photographer that thinks they need full-frame to achieve good portraiture imagery because the Fro/Kelby/Grimes/etc all use full-frame!
[automerge]1593908196[/automerge]
My Olympus E-M5 II can pump out 64MP RAW's that stand shoulder to shoulder with the Nikon full-frames in resolution and detail.
[automerge]1593908341[/automerge]
I still stand by my original thoughts in this thread about Olympus and innovation
I investigated video on the M43 cameras pretty thoroughly and ended up only keeping the Blackmagic Cinema Camera for this format of sensor, the GH5, even though it could capture in 10 bit is outperformed for my use by the a7III full-frame sensor for detail and colour rendition, even though the Sony is only 8 bit!
It's been interesting watching the vlogging debacle, with the quest for the perfect vlogging camera still not reached by any of the manufacturers! Each of the later offerings for vlogging has fallen short in some major way or another.
Sony has recently launched a new camera meant for the vlogging crowd, the ZV-1, which according to their literature, was specifically designed for creating vlogs or other video content. It is about the same size and general shape as my RX100 M7, with many of the same features and functions but with more emphasis on the video elements and such. I've never seen one, no interest in that kind of thing at all, but Sony apparently saw a potential market in the rise of vlogging so decided to go for it.....
Sony was smart when they designed the E Mount to work in both Full Frame and APS-C bodies.The older Sony full-frames are popular because of the spike in interest and relative ease for photographers to do good Astrophotography; plus the odd wedding/portrait photographer that thinks they need full-frame to achieve good portraiture imagery because the Fro/Kelby/Grimes/etc all use full-frame!
[automerge]1593908196[/automerge]
My Olympus E-M5 II can pump out 64MP RAW's that stand shoulder to shoulder with the Nikon full-frames in resolution and detail.
[automerge]1593908341[/automerge]
I still stand by my original thoughts in this thread about Olympus and innovation
& don't forget Nikon doing that too! I still am flabbergasted at the Canon camp never doing this properly, they have the most fractured lens assortment known to man!
I don't really agree with your post. The reason why is that you talk about having an "upgrade path" to "full frame" as if "full frame" is the holy grail of photography, and this idea that Olympus should have offered more beyond the 4/3 sensor specification.
µ4/3 has inherent advantages, but most people trying to review it made comparisons purely from the standpoint of full frame systems. For example, people would talk about how the ISO noise was superior on full frame cameras compared with µ4/3, which was true... while also overlooking the fact that if you wanted more depth of field, you'd need to close down the aperture with the "full frame" system, therefore making it a bit of a wash. I'll ignore the superiority of µ4/3 image stabilization to allow even lower shutter speeds than you could get by with larger sensors, but I probably shouldn't because that's another real variable that is also often overlooked. But then there was the other assumption being that everyone wanted a razor-thin plane of focus, so the benefits of having a deeper DoF were also regarded as a weakness. It was a marketing failure on Olympus' part, but it was also a loss against the culture of the photography fads of the time.
And why should "full frame" represent the pinnacle of photography? Why aren't people flocking to the "mini medium format" systems, like those offered by the Fujifilm GFX or Pentax lineups, which are close in price to some "full frame" offerings? Fads and culture, that's why. People belittled µ4/3 for having a "small, noisy" sensor, and then they'd turn around and argue that medium format sensors weren't significantly different in size from "full frame," and didn't offer significant enough difference. Having one's cake and eating it too, it seemed.
Moot point now, of course. All I'll say is that, having both medium format and µ4/3 made me realize the strengths of µ4/3 even more. It also made it painfully obvious that many review websites didn't use µ4/3 as their primary system, and again, they were treating it as if it were just some sort of handicapped "full frame" camera system.
As for how your proposed strategy of having µ4/3 and "full frame" mounts would have played out, let us watch how fortunes go for Panasonic. Their "full frame" system has numerous accolades for build quality and technical performance, yet it doesn't seem to be catching on as well as one would expect. I hope they'll do well - I'd probably favor them if I ever wanted a "full frame" system - but it makes me think that Olympus probably would have been in the same boat, if not worse off.
I like how Olympus keeps pushing the envelope on the technology side, while using the M43 sensor. This lens is due out later this year, probably would be out already if it wasn’t for COVID:
www.bhphotovideo.com
The 150-400 pro, with built-in 1.25x TC, AND support for the 2.0TC. It will have the potential FF EQ range of 300-2000mm!
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm f/4.5 TC1.25X IS PRO Lens
Buy Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm f/4.5 TC1.25X IS PRO Lens featuring Micro Four Thirds System, 300-800mm (35mm Equivalent), Aperture Range: f/4.5 to f/22, Built-In 1.25x Teleconverter, Four Super ED Elements, Two ED Elements, EDA Element, Two HR Elements, HD Element, Z Coating Nano, MSC...
www.bhphotovideo.com
The 150-400 pro, with built-in 1.25x TC, AND support for the 2.0TC. It will have the potential FF EQ range of 300-2000mm!
I think people like full frame because (for those of us who are older at least), it makes it easy to translate focal lengths from film. I shoot full frame and don't want to go to a crop body because then my lenses are all different lengths.
Now, if you start with a different size sensor and stick with it I suppose you get used to whatever that translation is. Also, for a portrait photographer, full frame is "better" because it gives you a shallower DOF and more bokeh; it isn't cropped off. I started with a crop body and lusted after a full frame for a few years, and when I did move to a full frame camera, I instantly liked my photos better because they gave me a better background. I don't shoot many portraits these days but still prefer a shallow DOF for most of my work.
Now, if you start with a different size sensor and stick with it I suppose you get used to whatever that translation is. Also, for a portrait photographer, full frame is "better" because it gives you a shallower DOF and more bokeh; it isn't cropped off. I started with a crop body and lusted after a full frame for a few years, and when I did move to a full frame camera, I instantly liked my photos better because they gave me a better background. I don't shoot many portraits these days but still prefer a shallow DOF for most of my work.