CP+ 2014: Olympus - 'our reason to exist is to push the envelope'

OK. You know that major down-turn in camera sales, that we are experiencing. We are waiting. Make a better camera.

1. Small cameras have been made with APS-C sensors. It's been done. We've just not been offered the total package, yet. Yes. M43 sensors may get better; but so will (some not all) APS-C sensors. FF also, and with slightly more size limit; but FF can also still be made small(ish). Produced cameras already prove this.

2. The areas of improvement need to be the EVF speed, Focus tracking, and optimized lens choices. Moreover, no photographic blindside (benefit) needs to be conveniently left-out (no jello video, flash power and commander) of the total camera balance. Including a low price!

A certain minimum size is always required to get good ergonomics. I want a camera with good customization and many dials and buttons. EM1 or XT1 size at least is necessary for me.The image circle of m43 is smaller than APSC and FF resulting in smaller lenses. A Sony A7r with a FF 2.8 stabilised zoom? The form factor will be lost. I use both Systems to get the best possible benefit.

FF DSLRs aren't going to get any smaller than APS-C DSLRs, which are relatively large and fat compared to m4/3 bodies. And are FF lenses going to get any smaller? Nope. FF lenses are pretty huge compared to m4/3 lenses. I love my FF DSLR gear, but all of it is large, chunky, and fat compared to my m4/3 gear. That's why I have *both* FF and m4/3 gear...they each have their pros and cons, especially when it comes to the size of the gear! For work, I still mainly use my DSLR gear, but for my personal, casual, travel, street, and around-town shooting, I always grab my m4/3 camera.

It's great having the option of both. But I don't see FF DSLRs ever getting as small as m4/3 cameras. Add in lenses, and the difference in size is even greater. That's a physical size gap that won't ever be bridged. Maybe the price gap will shrink, but not everything is about price. With m4/3, part of the value proposition is the size of the equipment.

Yeah; but not everything isn't about price, on the other hand.

There is great value in more than one camera; but not when it's because the things that can be combined are not.

Ironically, the very same argument you use for the truly smaller m43 system fails with certain longer lenses, when all things are equal (and they never are), and after it becomes a certain size. Meaning big, and a little bigger becomes a non issue. Where these camera shine is with smaller faster primes. Then these can also be applied to APS-C sized systems to make them small; but not as small. That doesn't matter to some, as it's with rare exception, that either system camera beats a true pocket camera in its carry size.

The best pocket cameras still suck for anything less than great lighting and other photo challenges. Which means: You never see the pictures [an uncomfortable percentage] that you can't get; even with it ready in your pocket.

These total issues need a solution and affordability.

There are 2.8 zoom for m43. I know about aperture difference, just saying...

Plasnu, I have both Canon pro gear with zooms (and some primes) and Oly m43 with primes. There are so many good and bad things in both, that it is absolutely impossible to compare.

I have been shooting FF since 1DsII and bought the Oly E-P1 as soon as it was available. With that experience, I can assure you that there are situations where m43 easily beats FF. And vice versa.

Samuli: exactly my observation with Em1 and D610. I don't understand theses religious battles, why not use the strengths available in both formats? I must add, however, that the usual customer is not investing in two systems.

Samuli is right here.

If you try to shoot some street photography with the 1ds you will fail. Becouse the presence of that massive camera will change the behaviour of everyone around you.

Shooting sports with almost all M43 camera's will also fail since it hunts all over the place. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. Just do NOT underestimate the image quality of M43 because of it's slightly smaller sensor. With some primes it will leave you impressed. Especially the recent ones.

Hopefully the image at the top of this interview isn't the most important aspect of the content, but I'll summarily execute myself after lunch.

jkoch2: I wasn't talking about that photo. I was talking about the mugshot at the top.

That Sony mirrorless camera you use greypixelz, remind us did Sony design the concept of them first? Or what about the dust filter inside it. Who brought those out first? Almost forgot, the live view Sony uses who was the first camera company to bring that out? A clue to all three answers... It was not Sony.

since I'm a fan of Sigma, I will agree. :) yet, Olympus has the 5-axis sensor stabilization which is still impressive.

"The fact that... will have to... in the not too distant future has been known..." Just FYI, before something has really happened it's not a fact but a mere conjecture or an educated guess if you please.

@Donnie G- You find it entertaining. I find your "entertainment" pretty pathetic. It's like cheering that a new animal species has disappeared. "Woohoo! The polar bear has gone extinct! I win! Hehehe." Pretty sad that you find such things so enjoyable. But I suspect you're the kind of person who also enjoys firing people, too.

Agree. There is always a balance between a lot of factors. Just imagine that one day, the cell phones integrates with MF sensor while keeping similar portability. It will be almost a death to Canon and Nikon. Who knows the next innovation on technology!

It has only been about 2 years since Olympus first released the 16mp sensor in the E-M5. That compares favorably with the other camera makers.
As for your last comment, you could make a similarly inane criticism of the large/heavy DSLRs that have IQ no better than the smaller/lighter Sony A7/R.

Isn't 16Mp enough for most of us? Who really needs 36MP? I bet it's a small minority of photographers including enthusiasts. The 16MP are enough for A3 prints, how many do you have in your house? Why do you compare the largest m43 camera with the smallest FF camera, does this make sense? What if you attach a 70-200/2.8 zoom to the Sony, the weight of the body doesn't play a major role then anymore. Considering the price of the Sony lenses (excellent, but not fast glass), how much will other fast primes cost compared to m43 and what about weight and size, stabilisation?

36MP holds up better to post-processing

There is a thin line between optimism and self-delusion.

No, no, no. The reason for the huge falling of the mirrorless is about the pricing. Americans can easily pick up Canon Rebel and Nikon 5200 in their supermarket with $600. Where are the mirrorless camera? PENS are very ugly and EM5/EM1 targets high-end people. The availibiity of lenses are also in consideration.

EM10 is a big and good step for Olys. Keep the pricing comparative is the king.

Anastigmat - worthless and uninformed.

Latest m43 can compete with apsc. I have an k30 and gx7. It's very hard to pick one over the other in image quality. Both have their obvious strengths in other regards.

With full frame there is no denying that Olympus just can't achieve the same clarity and depth of field control. But be aware that an good fullframe system is much heavier as a m43 system

@Anastigmat - Good Night.

I use APS-C and FF. But I also use m4/3. I like m4/3 for what it is. It allows for lens sizes that simply aren't attainable with APS-C and FF. I guess that's why I like m4/3. Personally for me, if I had to consolidate down to only two formats for my own use, it would be m4/3 and FF. Small and big. But that's just me.

Anastigmat.
Sleep well Rip Van Winkle.

No, it's just that the answer is obvious. Technology getting better and format size shrinking has already happened once. It is happening (has already happened, with cell phones) again. The answer should be predictable, though, based on common sense. Why would better sensors mean that you need a bigger sensor?

This isn't entirely true. Medium format has been sold alongside 135 format 35mm for 80 years, both formats have coexisted. Pentax has released a lot of medium format film cameras in the last 40 years, with the most recent being 2001.

Eric

It is also possible that Olympus forecast much larger sales than actually materialized. And then they had to move the inventories to make way for the EP3 series cameras.

Olympus has also kept the E-5 at full price or close to it.
Based on poor sales of the E-P3, they may have decided to produce a much smaller number of E-P5s with the aim in mind of selling to a niche market that is willing to pay full price.

I don't understand the whole 4/3 and micro-4/3 pricing. They cost as much as full-fledged DSLR equipment. I guess some people put a premium on price, but when something is miniaturized, it is supposed to be cheaper. That does not seem to have happened here. In fact, it seems quite the opposite, and THAT is something I just can't understand. There is an advantage to a larger sensor. That is why full-frame is so popular, vs. APS-C sensor cameras and why people pay so much for them (and their lenses). Why then is it MORE expensive for smaller sensors? It doesn't make any sense at all to me. I guess that is why I have never bought a 4/3 or micro-4/3 camera . . . even though there is such a wide variety of lenses for them now . . . finally. Of course, the micro-4/3 sort of took some momentum away from the whole 4/3 movement. I wonder what's going to happen next.

It is more expensive for smaller sensors because Olympus does not sell too many cameras. It needs the higher margin just to survive, or at least to lose as little money as possible.

"That is why full-frame is so popular, vs. APS-C sensor cameras"
APS-C dSLR's outsell FF dSLR's many times. Your statement is incorrect.

It will take a few more years for mirror-less to become mainstream. Remember DSLRs ? For years only pros and advanced amateurs owned them. Now look around and every soccer mom and dad owns a Nikon or Canon DSLR. People in this particular market segment seem to be a few years behind.

Personally I would definitely prefer the smaller size of mirrorless (I'm not American), but currently for the same price DSLRs offer better performance. A D7100 is cheaper than an OM-D E-M1 and D7000 is much cheaper. Add in the price and availability of older used/refurbished lenses, and a DSLR will clearly seem better for someone who's cost conscious.

Regarding the fact that Americans don't seem to care about small cameras: it's not surprising that in a country where the majority of the population drives a car daily, portability is not the main concern

I cannot speak for other people, but here is the way I look at mirrorless cameras. Sure they are smaller, but the tradeoff is considerable. You don't have the optical viewfinder, and the sensor isn't any bigger. In some cases the sensor is actually smaller,and noisier. And the price of the camera and lenses are steeper since there are hardly any used lenses out there. On top of that I need new lenses, or use adapters and lose AF capability. These are steep prices to pay for a slight bit of compactness, and I am not willing to pay them.

When I am photographing birds in flight with a 400mm lens, I need AF. A more compact camera is useless, since the lens dwarfs my DSLR camera, and a mirrorless camera with an APS-C sensor and a 400mm AF lens would cost more than I have already spent for the same setup and it does not give me any better image quality or any noticeably decrease in size and weight.

Sir Nick -- I think it has a lot more to do with retail presence. When you can buy the full lineup of Olympus cameras in Best Buy, you'll see a noticeable change in sales volume.

My Olympus camera produces beautiful video.

Just another uninformed, worhtless comment. You obviously don't own any Oly mirrorless cameras. The video quality is very, very good. Clueless.

Even though the video codecs of Olympus bodies are crippled you can't just fire him for that. Fujifilms are probably even worse for video. But who cares both are great for stills.

The Olympus video may be not as good as Panasonic GHx, but it is by no means poor.

Has anyone offered better video stabilization than Olympus' 5-axis IBIS? Pray tell.

Wait and see on the G1Xii for me... I handled the G1X Mki in the store the other day, and thought it was kind of cool. The viewfinder was adequate. I'm not sure about the same camera without a viewfinder. Also, I'm suspicious of the Mk ii lens/aperture/size/zoom combination. I have CHDK on my SX230HS, and it is an eye-opener to see what the photos look like in raw. At the wide end, for example, I get a completely vignetted result, wider field of view than the jpeg, and corners black! Obviously, to produce the jpeg, Canon does some serious cropping, stretching, etc. in-camera. It would not surprise me that the G1Xii features a small (well, we know that), not well corrected, not very sharp, lens, that Canon messes with in the firmware to get the stated headline specs. I know that m43 corrects lenses in-camera too, but not like I've seen from Canon. On the other hand, my SX230 lens has some sweet spots, too, where the lens is quite good.

No new PEN models and on another site Olympus said they are not interested in adding a VF to a PEN. I wonder if they are leaving that segment to Panasonic. It is almost liek they are trying not to compete with each other (Olympus not providing many video features).

The main user interface on my E-M1 is the two programmable control dials, with a thumb switch changing their functions instantly. I don't think anyone else has this 2x2 interface and it works brilliantly. The rest of the menu stuff is one button click away to activate a Super Control Panel on the LCD. Where's the problem?

I use older Olympus cameras, and I've never had a problem with the Super Control Panel, or whatever it's called. It's easier to change settings than on other cameras that I've tried. I've read that some people have trouble finding it, but I've always just cycled through displays to get to it.

The ok button with all the major settings on the right side of the screen is a no-brainer to use

Jogger is working hard today! :)
Since the EM1 sensor is within 1 EV of FF sensors at most (not all) ISOs, I'll take the camera with that has F/2.8 zooms that are smaller than FF F/4 zooms. Optics are more important and so is functionality...which is why the EM1 won all those camera of the year awards. :)

Jogger, a sensor that is 4 times as large, is 300% larger.

The sensor size to cost comparison is such an oversimplification. If all that matters was power to cost, everyone would use desktop pcs or drive cameros.

For many people, things like size, handling, features, and so on actually do matter. I know it sounds crazy...

@Lab D. If you go on DxOMark and compare the E-M1 to the A7 (roughly the same price) you'll see that the A7 is 2 stops better at noise performance at all ISOs. If you compare the base ISOs of both cameras the difference is even more dramatic.

The biggest flaw of these Olympus cameras is that they lack ISO 25, 50 and 100 (which would be the equivalent of ISO 100, 200 and 400 on full frame). Shooting an Olympus camera is like having a camera that can't go lower than ISO 800.

Don't get me wrong, I love my E-P5, but sensor performance is not the strong point.

I also don't understand the push for LCD screens. CRTs do just fine.

" Peering at a tiny video of your scene serves only to separate the photographer further from his subject"
Thats Not true, and this is why: - this "tiny video" you're peering at is the same and ONLY one you will be peering at when you take the picture, there is no going back to real world view, you have a picture that you can print or view it on your monitor. Also current best olympus electronic vewfinder is as large as best optical viewfinders out there
About being separated from your subject - thats what I see when my DSLR friends shot, than put down the camera to look at display ( histogram etc ) = all this time I am still with the subject because I have all this info all the time ( or I can turn if off If I want )
'

Well lets see the profit first.. i doubt it and it would only come at cost cutting.

The time for them to be profitable was 2-3 years ago. Today they are up against Fuji's excellent X line for retro photogs, Panasonic is the go-to choice for video, Sony for FF in a small package, Canon/Nikon for traditional DSLRs, Sony for their RX line, Sigma for foveon, Ricoh for compact APSc.

Olympus doesnt excel at anything. Most likely they are setting themselves up to sell off their ILC assets.

No the time to be profitable is whenever they can achieve it. You set silly arbitrary limits and then claim they can't do ir. It's over. The image division losses are at a fraction of what they were two quarters ago. If the trend continues, they will be in the black by next quarter. Fuji, Sony and Canikon DSLRs were there before.

It's not just cost-cutting, it's investing and producing products people want. You know, the kind of products that keeps winning reader awards over here.

Jogger, Olympus excels at in-body image stabilization (5-axis IS) and optics (their lens line up is mostly great).

They excel at unmatched compactness (a trait they share with Panasonic) in a mirrorless camera (well, Pentax Q series and Nikon 1 are smaller, but with way smaller sensors too). I think they hit a sweet spot between compactness and sensor size.

These are all arguments for my choice to switch/augment my camera gear with an Olympus m43 camera.

sandy b I can. Nikon have almost gone under in the past. They are still a very vulnerable company because so much of their profits come just from camera sales. canon is far more stable.

Thank you James Pilcher on how the WHOLE camera industry should go according to you. I happen to make some pretty good money doing video on Digital Cameras.

For some uses, like shall DOF full body portraits or wide angles, 35mm gives control that m4/3 just can't. But for me, I agree with Bob, it's a nice compromise. Good for low light shooting when you don't want shallow DOF.

No. Once you go small, there's no DOF control (worth mentioning). It's not a compromise if you throw out image control - what you have then is a point and shoot.

Depends what you want out of the camera. If you're someone who raves about bokeh and wants DOF as shallow as you want, then go FF and use fast primes. If you're someone who's looking for great depth of field, crisp detail from foreground to distance, then small sensors are fine. The only problem with small sensors then is too much noise from cramming too many pixels onto the sensor, and the associated problem of trying to hid it with over-done noise reduction. A 6mp m4/3 sensor could be a killer.

You're right but that goes both ways. If you're going for extremely shallow DoF, it's harder (but not impossible) to get that on a M43 camera.

However, that also means once you need more DoF, M43 wiill have a natural advantage.

@Matthewson: you're wrong, Micro Four Thirds has approximately the same kind of DoF control as an APS-C camera (at least there's not so much difference). If you cannot get shallow depth of field on a M43 camera, you should question your skills, not your gear.