[Parallax]

There is also the solution of stopping down

Not really, considering his reason for wanting 1/8000 was to shoot at large apertures

In the last year alone I have shot over 200 photos at 1/8000 shutter. even at iso 80. You need it if you like shoot at f1.4 to f2 in broad daylight without an ND............

[Aristophanes]

In the last year alone I have shot over 200 photos at 1/8000 shutter.

If the OMD is $500 more that works out to $2.5 per photo for the added stop of SS.

The ND filter would be $0.33 per shot.

I love economics.

[Wired]

If the OMD is $500 more that works out to $2.5 per photo for the added stop of SS.

The ND filter would be $0.33 per shot.

I love economics.

I was thinking about the economics before bed.

OMD $900 (how much I got it for)
offical grip: $300
microphone kit: $90
Eye-fi card: $100

So $1400 to get the additional specs somewhat close between the two cameras? (Add wifi, add grip, add microphone jack)

Sure, I don't give too poops about the wifi, but I do want the grip for the extra...grip....and the microphone kit so I can plug my condenser in when I tape live musicians. So in that case, the EM1 would have been the better buy.

[Aristophanes]

So in that case, the EM1 would have been the better buy.

Hah! Would have.

Neither Pentax nor Olympus make a time machine.

[Wired]

Hah! Would have.

Neither Pentax nor Olympus make a time machine.

Quick I need a Delorian and a Mr. Fusion

[northcoastgreg]

The problem that they face is that NEX is trying to get that same market and doing it with some really nice specs (as well as undercutting upper end four third pricing). Hard to see how all of the four thirds players pull out of this unscathed.

As good as some of the specs might be for NEX, the OM-D series are better system cameras; and usually the better system camera has an advantage. I'm seeing a higher level of interest from pros in m4/3 than in NEX systems. Thom Hogan, Joe Farace, Scott Bourne, Derrick Story, Guilio Sciorio, Ctein, along with several others whose names I don't remember, are all using m4/3 cameras, sometimes as their "vacation" camera, sometimes for professional work. What gear professionals use can sometimes be a harbinger of future trends. Pros have influence, not only among other pros, but, more importantly, among the enthusiasts. While m4/3 won't replace FF, I can see it becoming a powerful supplement. For their most exacting work, pros will continue to use top-of-the-line FF. But some pros will be using these smaller cameras for nearly everything else. And cameras like the OM-D will have an edge over the NEX because it's a better system camera, and pros prefer the better system camera than the one that has (slightly) better specs (i.e., sensor performance). After all, Nikon sensors perform (slighty) better than Canon sensors, but who's stil number one in DSLR sales?

[polachekphotography]

Quick I need a Delorian and a Mr. Fusion

I think you need to get the Delorean first. Then wait for the Mr. Fusion to be added to the power source roadmap. All the while cursing the prohibitive cost and weight penalty of plutonium.

[Quicksand]

I think you need to get the Delorean first. Then wait for the Mr. Fusion to be added to the power source roadmap.

* Road map may vary in response to market situation.

[rparmar]

I have time to kill so I'll reply to this bait post.

The kicks on the Oly strategy are:

1) Costly lenses with deep DOF.

Actually, most of the lenses are darned cheap for the quality. Much better price-performance ratio than Pentax, to give one pertinent example. 14 / 45 is my daily combo. Quality at a complete bargain price. And the DOF is plenty thin for any practical use. Without optical compromise, since every MFT lens I have used looks just fine wide open. (Unlike, say, the Pentax 50/1.2 which I also use, but only wide open when I need a gimmick.)

2) It has definitely edged up in size to compact DSLR with larger sensors.

The EM-1 is slightly larger, yes. But not the other models. They are far smaller than any DSLR. So now we have our choice of four body sizes with different controls and configuration options (grips etc.). Is more choice a bad thing?

On your other point, one would have to go to 135 for a significant improvement in sensor size. No such camera is anywhere near as full-featured and compact.

4) Concerns about Oly's financial health.

FUD.

5) Lots of outlay for a camera and AF system outclassed in 2 years (or less).

Buy what you need. No compulsion to upgrade. The number of new models only means I got a complete bargain in older bodies.

6) No on-board flash, so no quick fill. And the supplied external flash looks.....ridiculous, and is under-powered.

I use a trigger and remote flash for any serious work. As does everyone else I imagine. Never found an on-board flash I liked.

I really liked the EM5 when I first tried it save for some inscrutable controls and my aversion to EVF's.

I don't like the control placement on the EM5 and so didn't buy it. The E-P5 looks good to me, so I will buy it in a year. Choice: a good thing.

But I would never go back to an optical VF after the ease of use and fluid photographic control of an EVF. I have wonky eyes but the quality even in the previous generation screens looks good to me. I was as sceptical as the next guy. But honestly, DSLR viewfinders always sucked compared to film cameras. Good riddance.

[Wired]

I have time to kill so I'll reply to this bait post.



Actually, most of the lenses are darned cheap for the quality. Much better price-performance ratio than Pentax, to give one pertinent example. 14 / 45 is my daily combo. Quality at a complete bargain price. And the DOF is plenty thin for any practical use. Without optical compromise, since every MFT lens I have used looks just fine wide open. (Unlike, say, the Pentax 50/1.2 which I also use, but only wide open when I need a gimmick.)




The EM-1 is slightly larger, yes. But not the other models. They are far smaller than any DSLR. So now we have our choice of four body sizes with different controls and configuration options (grips etc.). Is more choice a bad thing?

On your other point, one would have to go to 135 for a significant improvement in sensor size. No such camera is anywhere near as full-featured and compact.



FUD.



Buy what you need. No compulsion to upgrade. The number of new models only means I got a complete bargain in older bodies.



I use a trigger and remote flash for any serious work. As does everyone else I imagine. Never found an on-board flash I liked.



I don't like the control placement on the EM5 and so didn't buy it. The E-P5 looks good to me, so I will buy it in a year. Choice: a good thing.

But I would never go back to an optical VF after the ease of use and fluid photographic control of an EVF. I have wonky eyes but the quality even in the previous generation screens looks good to me. I was as sceptical as the next guy. But honestly, DSLR viewfinders always sucked compared to film cameras. Good riddance.

Gotta agree with your opinion of the on camera flash and the EVF.

I think on camera flash is only suitable for wireless use on Pentax and Nikon...otherwise remotes or bouncy strobes please.

The EVF on my EM5 is very impressive and I actually enjoy it. It brought me out of the "grrrr EVF means evil view finder..." mindset.

[Aristophanes]

The EM-1 is slightly larger, yes. But not the other models. They are far smaller than any DSLR.

Really?

"Far smaller"?

Compare camera dimensions side by side

The K-50 is already less than 1/2 the price.

I have trouble seeing success in a declining market by selling smaller sensors at higher prices.

The K-50 has better video options (odd).

Olympus' Imaging Division financials are dreadful. Not FUD. There has been actual talk in Japan of a takeover very recently. Senior management put poison pills into play to try and thwart a hostile attempt, and that cost a penny. Their Imaging Division is bleeding red ink worse than any optical and camera company right now with an almost YOY 30% decline projected in units and worse in revenues. At some point, the merry-go-round stops because while the rest of the company is making money, Imaging is dragging the company down and that is causing problems through the organization, not to mention the UK lawsuit and other entanglements. Their credit and borrowing options are ugly as a result because of unconstrained liabilities. They suspended dividends until they can turn the Imaging Division around, and despite massive QE from the BoJ, Olympus has under-performed in the Nikkei. They are the weakest camera company in terms of operating capital.

The Financial Season Ends | Sans Mirror ? mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan

Even if the EM-1 is a good seller in a down market, they still have to sell more units across the board just to keep going. When you track what Olympus has been doing in camera sales over the last 6 quarters the losses are really breathtaking. They need to sell 50% more units at a static value just to break even! Many more people than Thom Hogan have noticed this. They've closed 3 of 5 plants and rumour has it they may have to close another. They are turning into a hobby camera maker for an endoscopy company.

What is killing Olympus as a camera maker? A high-priced flagship that sells far too few units to make a decent ROI (EM-5 and now the EM-1 at an even higher price, meaning less unit sales), and a range of mediocre mirrorless offerings that have questionable quality, get mediocre reviews, sell mostly in Asia amongst a certain class of buyers, and rely on a few chintzy lenses for their bulk sales and sell far too few of their pricey ones (7% market share). They've treated their $500 revenue carrier products like cheap P&S replacements, and it is showing as original m4/3 buy-in excitement has gone bye-bye and many of those customers have not replaced their original investment or have moved on from the brand. Their P&S loyalists (I have been one) have largely not moved on to m4/3 as was hoped (smartphones) and all the assembly lines were premised on this it looks like. They mostly dropped P&S. Sony took a 10% stake to add solvency. It's really ugly for Olympus. Investors and creditors are watching this company like vultures in part because management and directors are seen as compromised an untrustworthy with their financials and projections.

Olympus is a classic case of a company whose buzz on the 'net forums is all ga-ga, but whose performance in the Best Buy aisles is awful. The last time we saw this was with Minolta. Will Sony or Panasonic buy Olympus' Imaging? Hard to say. Panasonic is a tepid camera manufacturer and Sony has NEX. I'd say no, not as a independent camera maker or brand like Pentax. Pentax never bet it all on a unique product like m4/3. They followed the herd and gained cover that way.

For poor Olympus it's like a Samurai whose lost all his ronin and is left by himself with a single, magnificent sword (made by Sony).

We all know how that ends.

[monochrome]

Will Sony or Panasonic buy Olympus' Imaging? Hard to say. Panasonic is a tepid camera manufacturer and Sony has NEX. I'd say no, not as a independent camera maker or brand like Pentax

Hmmm. Would Ricoh buy the patents and plants at a fire-sale price and let Olympus keep the name?

That would be the Ricoh way!


(Won't happen but fun to think about).

[NicholasJong]

Really?

"Far smaller"?

Compare camera dimensions side by side

The K-50 is already less than 1/2 the price.

I have trouble seeing success in a declining market by selling smaller sensors at higher prices.

The K-50 has better video options (odd).

Olympus' Imaging Division financials are dreadful. Not FUD. There has been actual talk in Japan of a takeover very recently. Senior management put poison pills into play to try and thwart a hostile attempt, and that cost a penny. Their Imaging Division is bleeding red ink worse than any optical and camera company right now with an almost YOY 30% decline projected in units and worse in revenues. At some point, the merry-go-round stops because while the rest of the company is making money, Imaging is dragging the company down and that is causing problems through the organization, not to mention the UK lawsuit and other entanglements. Their credit and borrowing options are ugly as a result because of unconstrained liabilities. They suspended dividends until they can turn the Imaging Division around, and despite massive QE from the BoJ, Olympus has under-performed in the Nikkei. They are the weakest camera company in terms of operating capital.

The Financial Season Ends | Sans Mirror ? mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan

Even if the EM-1 is a good seller in a down market, they still have to sell more units across the board just to keep going. When you track what Olympus has been doing in camera sales over the last 6 quarters the losses are really breathtaking. They need to sell 50% more units at a static value just to break even! Many more people than Thom Hogan have noticed this. They've closed 3 of 5 plants and rumour has it they may have to close another. They are turning into a hobby camera maker for an endoscopy company.

What is killing Olympus as a camera maker? A high-priced flagship that sells far too few units to make a decent ROI (EM-5 and now the EM-1 at an even higher price, meaning less unit sales), and a range of mediocre mirrorless offerings that have questionable quality, get mediocre reviews, sell mostly in Asia amongst a certain class of buyers, and rely on a few chintzy lenses for their bulk sales and sell far too few of their pricey ones (7% market share). They've treated their $500 revenue carrier products like cheap P&S replacements, and it is showing as original m4/3 buy-in excitement has gone bye-bye and many of those customers have not replaced their original investment or have moved on from the brand. Their P&S loyalists (I have been one) have largely not moved on to m4/3 as was hoped (smartphones) and all the assembly lines were premised on this it looks like. They mostly dropped P&S. Sony took a 10% stake to add solvency. It's really ugly for Olympus. Investors and creditors are watching this company like vultures in part because management and directors are seen as compromised an untrustworthy with their financials and projections.

Olympus is a classic case of a company whose buzz on the 'net forums is all ga-ga, but whose performance in the Best Buy aisles is awful. The last time we saw this was with Minolta. Will Sony or Panasonic buy Olympus' Imaging? Hard to say. Panasonic is a tepid camera manufacturer and Sony has NEX. I'd say no, not as a independent camera maker or brand like Pentax. Pentax never bet it all on a unique product like m4/3. They followed the herd and gained cover that way.

For poor Olympus it's like a Samurai whose lost all his ronin and is left by himself with a single, magnificent sword (made by Sony).

We all know how that ends.

a very well-written passage of Olympus, thanks sir

I just want to point out one thing. A Ronin is a samurai who has no lord or superior, and is completely on his own. So a samurai can't lose his ronin. He can lose all his soldiers.

[RonHendriks1966]

What is killing Olympus as a camera maker? A high-priced flagship that sells far too few units to make a decent ROI (EM-5 and now the EM-1 at an even higher price, meaning less unit sales), and a range of mediocre mirrorless offerings that have questionable quality, get mediocre reviews, sell mostly in Asia amongst a certain class of buyers, and rely on a few chintzy lenses for their bulk sales and sell far too few of their pricey ones (7% market share). They've treated their $500 revenue carrier products like cheap P&S replacements, and it is showing as original m4/3 buy-in excitement has gone bye-bye and many of those customers have not replaced their original investment or have moved on from the brand. Their P&S loyalists (I have been one) have largely not moved on to m4/3 as was hoped (smartphones) and all the assembly lines were premised on this it looks like. They mostly dropped P&S. Sony took a 10% stake to add solvency. It's really ugly for Olympus. Investors and creditors are watching this company like vultures in part because management and directors are seen as compromised an untrustworthy with their financials and projections.

I think I stated something about this already a few years ago. People like my sister in law, wich is a Pen user, has just bought the two-kit lens pack and is using that until it dies. Before that they had a Nikon bridgecamera. For her this Olympus isn't an investment, just a tool to make family pictures and with the long lens vacation pictures. When it dies, it all goes down the bin and something else will be bought. Most PEN customers (as is with customers for camera's like K-x/K-r/K-500) just are onetime customers. They enjoy there product or put it in the basement. As long as you have enough off those customers you will have a good bussiness. I think Olympus biggest problem is the estimation about future sales and thus far to many products leaving the factory.

Hmmm. Would Ricoh buy the patents and plants at a fire-sale price and let Olympus keep the name?

That would be the Ricoh way!


(Won't happen but fun to think about).

Well at the right price and purchasing the right amount off production fascilities this is a good bussiness. The m4/3 is a good camera system as long as you know that it is not for the topbudget users. Downsizing the Olympus system to just the PEN and rebrand it to Ricoh can work. Olympus has some products that could be altered to K-mount camera's and add to this system.

[thibs]

Hmmm. Would Ricoh buy the patents and plants at a fire-sale price and let Olympus keep the name?

That would be the Ricoh way!


(Won't happen but fun to think about).

Had not thought about that one. It probably won't happen but if it did, it would still piss off a couple other guys, me thinks

... and add another mount lol