[gaweidert]

I have to admit that there is a lot about this camera that really appeals to me. Size is not an issue as the battery grip pretty much lives on my K1. The video on the B&H site is pretty good. Some amazing features. It is basically everything I want in a camera,


Playing around on the B&H site I figure I can outfit myself for about $12,000 with the camera and some very, very good glass. Time to open a GoFundMe page.

[northcoastgreg]

Regardless, it basically states they built the camera to the design specs of their user base. So, Pentax shooters can debate all they want how it's doomed, but once again if Olympus really seems to have built this camera for Olympus users.

Did their user base clamor for a camera that weighed two pounds and cost $3,000? I'm sure that some of the features in the camera were clamored for, such as improved video specs, improved IBIS, improved weather sealing, etc. etc. But did they really want an m43 version of the 1dx and D5? Well, they got it—except it's nowhere as good a sports camera as those Canon/Nikon flagships. Be careful what you ask for, because you'll never know what you'll end up getting.

[rawr]

an m43 version of the 1dx and D5? Well, they got it

Certainly came very close to that:


Compare camera dimensions side by side

[Mountain Vision]

Did their user base clamor for a camera that weighed two pounds and cost $3,000? I'm sure that some of the features in the camera were clamored for, such as improved video specs, improved IBIS, improved weather sealing, etc. etc. But did they really want an m43 version of the 1dx and D5? Well, they got it—except it's nowhere as good a sports camera as those Canon/Nikon flagships. Be careful what you ask for, because you'll never know what you'll end up getting.

That's a good question, but you can ask the same thing about the K-1 and a DFA 70-200 or DFA 50 1.4 or 15-30. Is that really what the majority of the user base wanted. I think the answer to the is probably not. At least not based on the history of Pentax cameras and lens designs, many of which were compact.

If this wasn't what the Olympus user base wanted, than it looks like it's a hell of a farewell to the M4/3 system, I truly hope Ricoh/Pentax has the ability to push something like this to us as a goodbye when the time comes. I hope that isn't for a while, but I do hope when the time comes its on the scale Olympus went with.

[funkythiru]

GRIII is our swan song? Just Kidding. 2020 should reveal a wide berth for DSLR as established players move out. Aps-c Fuji / M43 Oly / FF Dslr Pentax. Lets see who forges an alliance with Samsung. But congrats to Oly! This is an impressive piece of gear.

[biz-engineer]

GRIII is our swan song? Just Kidding. 2020 should reveal a wide berth for DSLR as established players move out. Aps-c Fuji / M43 Oly / FF Dslr Pentax. Lets see who forges an alliance with Samsung. But congrats to Oly! This is an impressive piece of gear.

Yes, you get the point. Those brands keep address market segment left by others. Size of camera body does matter especially once a lens is mounted on it: I already received an accreditation for press photo based on the size of my camera gear. The general public as no clue about sensor size, Olympus could even fit a 1 inch sensor in that E-MX1, it would still look like a pro camera (without actually being a pro camera).

[surfar]

Aps-c Fuji / M43 Oly / FF Dslr Pentax.

My main 3 systems.

Lets see who forges an alliance with Samsung

They want to sell sensors,Nikon would be an obvious target.

[mecrox]

Did their user base clamor for a camera that weighed two pounds and cost $3,000? I'm sure that some of the features in the camera were clamored for, such as improved video specs, improved IBIS, improved weather sealing, etc. etc. But did they really want an m43 version of the 1dx and D5? Well, they got it—except it's nowhere as good a sports camera as those Canon/Nikon flagships. Be careful what you ask for, because you'll never know what you'll end up getting.

This looks to be an extremely capable camera in some regards and those who really do need what it offers will likely buy it and like it. There won't be many but there will be some.

However, it looks to me as if an important function of the EM1X is to normalize high sticker prices for Olympus. I've seen a post from a connected guy hinting that the sticker price of any EM1 Mark III will be $2K plus and nearer the price of the EM1X if one adds a grip. One can believe this or not. It looks to me, though, as if Oly are desperate to raise the selling prices of their better kit into the $1500-$3000 bracket. Perhaps their forecasts tell them that unless they do the finances of their camera division simply won't work because compared to the big boys their sales are relatively modest. To do this, Oly seem to be concentrating on features, features and more features. The big one with the EM1X seems to be "computational photography" though no one seems entirely sure what that actually means. Thing is, it's not much more than an embryonic promise at the moment and within a couple of years all the main outfits will be offering their own takes on various computational tricks. The most successful one so far is face/eye tracking and to date that's been done best by Sony.

I like Oly kit a lot and M43 does some things very very well indeed, but I'm not sure the future looks all that bright for it at the moment. The risk is that as the FF ceiling gets lower, with entry-level FF costing less and less, Oly's pricing is going to leave them high and dry. The killer, I suspect, would be a simpler Canon EOS R model costing say $1500 allied to some variable-aperture consumer zooms which could be quite modest in size and cost. I'd guess that's quite likely within a couple of years.

[Rondec]

I hope micro four thirds sticks around. We need more options in the market place. It just feels that between APS-C and full frame cameras dropping in price, it is hard to imagine micro four thirds going upscale.

I suppose Olympus could join Panasonic and Sigma and Leica in their full frame endeavors to diversify...

[RonHendriks1966]

I wrote this in July 2011:

Well that new camera will be bigger than K-5 is, that I do believe. Partly why (next to the convenience of having some crop and thus not so large lenses needed) APS_H is appealing to me. It will drain battery's faster then K-5 does, so maybe instead of current D-Li90 a new battery, but just carrie a spare and you get along. AF is an important issue, since it does need a new approach to make AF-C workable. Maybe I'm sattisfied with single PRIME III that is just twice the speed that PRIME II delivers (that should be possible with new technoligy, since PRIME II design is from 2008/9).

So here's my crazy idea: MAKE TWO NEW CAMERA'S

So you design that new camerabody, with the big OVF, that new AF-module (also for al the other platforms APS-C and 645D), that new electronic design (faster processing and also for APS-C and 645D) and the new shutter (stil quiet please).

My preference is APS-H, but the idea is still the same for a Full Frame format sensor.

The base for this is an APS-H sensor of about 28-21mm with a surface of 588^2 mm and pixelsize of 7 microns or 4,75 microns.

1. New Hi-iso performance (sports/action orientated) camera with big pixels and a resolution of between 12-16 megapixel.
2. New Hi-resolution performance (for those big prints) camera with pixels the size of current K-5 and a resolution of 26 megapixel.

Produce this camera in batches or like in car-industrie just as they come along in the productionfase. The only real difference between them fysical would be the sensormodule (and an extension on the name) that needs to be designed based on the same electronic lay-out and fysical size and connections.

They would run on different Firmware that makes one acting as a fast camera and the other slower (but that is also implied by the data read-out from the sensor, that is ofcourse slower with the sensor that carries more pixels.

The sports/action camera with up to 8 fps and the portrait camera maybe only up to 4 or 5 fps. This keeps the amount of datatstream to handle in the camera within reach of the possiblity's of a PRIME III processor.

In wich form to pack this camera:

Well I do realize that a camera that will pack more then a K-5 does needs to be bigger. But I don't believe that it isn't possible to make it small!

Looking at: Pentax K-5 with grip attached.


And making the grip integrated with the camera, just a little smaller then on this picture (wich can be done, since there is no separated connection between them) and don't make room for two battery's or a set of 6 AA's, but make room for one larger and more powerfull battery (more power then D-LI90 has to power up everything) then you still end up with a small camera

When K-5 messures: 131 x 97 x 73 mm (5.16 x 3.82 x 2.87") then you can make a K-1 (futuring a Full Frame of APS-H sensor) messuring 131 x 145 x 73 mm (5.16 x 5.71 x 2,87") futuring two sets of grips for landscape and portrait use. In this way there is for both grips the same space to the mount-housing giving the same workingway. Maybe still under 1 kg?

With only one battery inside, wich coult use a bigger space to carrie more power there is still a lot of extra room in the body to future more electronics and bigger AF-sensor. A second SDHC slot. Maybe even a little bigger screen on the back.

Is it small then?

When I look at Canon's 1D:
Wich messures 156 x 157 x 80 mm (6.14 x 6.18 x 3.15") and weights 1230 g (2.71 lb / 43.39 oz) then this K-1 is still very small.

In this way there is enough space in the camera to cramp all the neede electronics in and choosing a form that gives maximum ease of use for photographers combined with a reasonable small camera.

That would still be smaller then this Olympus camera and would accomodate a full frame sensor (or aps-h).

The overkill in this camera is enourmous. But if people buy it.....who is complain ing.

[biz-engineer]

It looks to me, though, as if Oly are desperate to raise the selling prices of their better kit into the $1500-$3000 bracket.

Image quality of micro 43 used to be good enough not to get into full frame (Pentax K1 was way too expensive and image quality wasn't better than micro43).
But now, I'm afraid that the image quality of 1" sensor is gonna have to be good enough to avoid getting into micro 43 :-)

---------- Post added 27-01-19 at 13:49 ----------

The killer, I suspect, would be a simpler Canon EOS R model costing say $1500 allied to some variable-aperture consumer zooms which could be quite modest in size and cost.

Compact camera will do.

The reason why camera prices are increasing isn't related to the equipment, it's related to falling volumes that require significant price increases to pay back R&D, regardless of sensor size and lens speed. The EOS R is the low end product, Canon are going to release a "professional" model even more expensive than the EOS R.

[northcoastgreg]

That's a good question, but you can ask the same thing about the K-1 and a DFA 70-200 or DFA 50 1.4 or 15-30. Is that really what the majority of the user base wanted. I think the answer to the is probably not. At least not based on the history of Pentax cameras and lens designs, many of which were compact.

At least some people in the user base badly wanted the K-1, and some of those wanted the F 2.8 trio (which is de rigueur for an FF system in any case). The DFA* 50 is a bit more questionable and is in some respects a vanity project for Pentax ("we can make a better 50mm lens than our competitors"). I would contend that a slow aperture trio on par with the DFA 28-105 should have been as much of a priority as the f2.8 trio. With those two trios in place, they could make whatever lenses they pleased; it wouldn't matter so much.

However, it looks to me as if an important function of the EM1X is to normalize high sticker prices for Olympus. I've seen a post from a connected guy hinting that the sticker price of any EM1 Mark III will be $2K plus and nearer the price of the EM1X if one adds a grip. One can believe this or not. It looks to me, though, as if Oly are desperate to raise the selling prices of their better kit into the $1500-$3000 bracket.

I believe that's highly probable. The larger issue here is that Olympus' camera division has struggled merely to break even; and indeed for years they were losing very large amounts of money. Their camera division has quite a bit of impressive expertise; but manufacturing cameras at low price points where they can easily turn a profit is not something they're very good at. This is one of the reasons why I don't think it would be a good idea for Olympus to enter the FF market, because if they can't turn a profit on high-end m43 cameras without charging well over $2,000, how the heck are they going to compete in the FF market against Sony and Canon?

One thing else to note about Olympus: they have a very lucrative medical divsion, which now essentially controls the company. How long will the medical division feel comfortable subsidizing the camera division?

[Mountain Vision]

At least some people in the user base badly wanted the K-1, and some of those wanted the F 2.8 trio (which is de rigueur for an FF system in any case). The DFA* 50 is a bit more questionable and is in some respects a vanity project for Pentax ("we can make a better 50mm lens than our competitors"). I would contend that a slow aperture trio on par with the DFA 28-105 should have been as much of a priority as the f2.8 trio. With those two trios in place, they could make whatever lenses they pleased; it wouldn't matter so much.



I believe that's highly probable. The larger issue here is that Olympus' camera division has struggled merely to break even; and indeed for years they were losing very large amounts of money. Their camera division has quite a bit of impressive expertise; but manufacturing cameras at low price points where they can easily turn a profit is not something they're very good at. This is one of the reasons why I don't think it would be a good idea for Olympus to enter the FF market, because if they can't turn a profit on high-end m43 cameras without charging well over $2,000, how the heck are they going to compete in the FF market against Sony and Canon?

One thing else to note about Olympus: they have a very lucrative medical divsion, which now essentially controls the company. How long will the medical division feel comfortable subsidizing the camera division?

Based on the amount of used K-1 for sale that often list, too big moving to a smaller system, I'm going to say it wasn't what everyone wanted. The camera itself isn't entirely the problem either. If you want a weather sealed system you have to lug around those monster lenses. Or, I guess you can shoot in crop mode, but then why not just buy a K-5IIs or something cheaper and smaller.

Anyway, I just find it hilarious that people in glass houses are throwing stones.

[RobA_Oz]

Based on the amount of used K-1 for sale that often list, too big moving to a smaller system, I'm going to say it wasn't what everyone wanted. The camera itself isn't entirely the problem either. If you want a weather sealed system you have to lug around those monster lenses. Or, I guess you can shoot in crop mode, but then why not just buy a K-5IIs or something cheaper and smaller.

Anyway, I just find it hilarious that people in glass houses are throwing stones.

“Amount” doesn’t necessarily equate to “proportion”. My take is that most K-1 purchasers have kept them, even if they’ve also kept their APS-C or other gear.

It’s good to call out hypocrisy, where it occurs, but I’m not convinced there’s much of that here, at least in terms of makers catering to their base. Most of what I see is people baulking at the size and price of the EM1X.

[Mountain Vision]

“Amount” doesn’t necessarily equate to “proportion”. My take is that most K-1 purchasers have kept them, even if they’ve also kept their APS-C or other gear.

It’s good to call out hypocrisy, where it occurs, but I’m not convinced there’s much of that here, at least in terms of makers catering to their base. Most of what I see is people baulking at the size and price of the EM1X.

Fair enough. But if Olympus is going down in a blaze of glory, how about Ricoh poaches some of that talent and upgrades the autofocus system on Pentax. I bet a lot of folks would love that AF system in the K-3II and it's successors.

Fwiw, I own a K-1, K-5IIs and a boat load of FA/DA glass. I like my equipment, but I'd love to see a refresh of lenses like the FA* 24, FA 20 and the FA Limiteds at a minimum with modern coatings and weather sealing. Obviously, coatings alone won't be enough to get the most out of the resolution of the K-1 sensor, but they would have given people smaller, lighter, cheaper, faster alternatives.