Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] No E-System pro camera until 2010 ;(

Subject: Re: [OM] No E-System pro camera until 2010 ;(
From: "Carlos J. Santisteban" <zuiko21@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:24:54 +0200
Hi David, Chuck, Ken, Joel, Khen, Philippe and all,

From: David Irisarri Vila <div2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>http://43rumors.com/ft4-olympus-e-3-successor-will-be-unveiled-in-2010/
>
>It seems Olympus is following the steps of Panasonic.

Well, if that means that they intend to do little-to-no development of
non-micro Four Thirds, I think they are on the right way.

>Do you think Olympus will release a new flagship camera in 2010 after
>having invested so much money in micro-fourthirds lenses, new cameras,
>accessories, etc...?

They could and should -- but surely on the micro-FT format. It should be
able
to use lenses etc for the FT format also.

>Obviously they will have to take out new compact primes.

Compact and/or FAST primes! The money is on the zooms today, but they
shouldn't
forget that niche (sp?)


>I think it
>would be a good idea to discontinue ZD 17/2,8.

YES! And redeem themselves :-)

>and they prefer to
>sacrifice lens quality, correcting distortions with the TruePIC V
>engine and leaving lovely tons of chromatic aberrations for the user!

As I replied in another thread, I don't see anything wrong on correcting
aberrations via software/firmware -- specifically geometric distortion and
lateral colour, which don't impair the sharp definition of the picture.
That would give a couple of extra degrees of freedom for lens design,
leading
to better/sharper/faster lenses -- which anyway won't be used on film.

That said, there's no excuse for the ZD 17/2.8... its design should be a
straightforward matter -- and even the soft-correction is wrong!


From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>re: a mirrorless camera.  I've said here for a number of years that,
>once EVF capability reaches a certain level of speed and resolution,
>then there really isn't any reason for a mirror.  The mirror only adds
>cost, bulk, and weight and detracts from function.

Absolutely. Couldn't agree more.

>But no doubt someone
>will attempt a launch before the technology is truly ready.

Well, Panasonic has already the G1 and GH1 -- haven't tried them,
but they're told to have very good EVFs! There's even an optional EVF for
the GF1, although of much less quality.

From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Personally, I think (and this is MY opinion not shared by others in the
>know) that not only is micro 4/3 the future of 4/3, but will be THE place
>where things are happening in the photo industry for the next couple of
>years.

I also think so -- and so does Panny.

>We're still a couple of generations away
>from having fast enough contrast-detect AF for professional use, but when
it
>does arrive, phase-detect AF will no longer be necessary and the mirror
>chamber sensors can be done away with.

It's just a matter of time -- as you say later. Ever tried the first AF
Nikon body (N2020/F501)? It takes FOREVER to focus in dim light, whereas the
very same lens on the F4 (already a "vintage" AF body also) is way faster.

>EVF is the future and the future is almost here.  The
>Panasonic G1/GH1 is a perfect example of that.  It has a better EVF than
any
>of the low-end pentamirror optical viewfinders.

Definitely. Yesterday, one of my students brought two cameras: his new toy
(the cheapest Nikon DSLR) and an old Zenit he found in a drawer... I always
thought the Zenit viewfinder was extremely poor, but after looking thru the
D3000, it doesn't look THAT bad ;^)

>It may take a SONY to reissue an improved contrast-detect focus mechanism
>with the laser-grid projection system that actually worked and worked very
>well.  It would be even better if it was in the IR range where it is
>invisible to the naked eye.

Hmmm... but trying to focus a grid in the IR range has the drawback of
IR-focus correction needed -- but that info could be sent electronically
by the lens in use, couldn't it?

From: Joel Wilcox <jfwilcox@xxxxxxxxx>
>I never found any metering tool as foolproof as the live histogram in
>the C-8080.  There is no need to shoot RAW in such a case if exposure
>is the primary reason for doing so.

I have to disagree here... I don't see the point of histograms -- it's just
an
statistical measure! I don't mind if there's _some_ clipping on the image, I
need
to know _where_ the clipping is. IMHO, the killer feature of EVF should be
the
'blinking highlights'.

From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Funny how some of us can manage to shoot slide film and get the exposure
>right, but the moment we pick up a digital camera--gotta shoot RAW because
>we can't meter to save our skin.

Maybe because digital is even more picky than slides?

AG

From: khen lim <castanet.xiosnetworks@xxxxxxxxx>
>Don't think you have a choice with plastic rear lens mounts. They're here
to
>stay but they're almost exclusively for kit lenses for lesser-flavour
DSLRs.

I would never buy a prime with plastic mount -- that could be OK for a kit,
almost-universal zoom which will be rarely dettached. But the fun of primes
is changing lenses a lot, isn't it? ;^)

From: Ken Norton (kenzone-10.com)
>Personally, I prefer RAW, because it is an unsourced acronym that places it
>on equal footing within the written sentence as JPEG and TIFF which reduces
>confusion.

Sometimes it's better to lose some accuracy in order to increase clarity...

>When writing about raw files in the generic sense, I may use
>"raw", but when I write about specific raw files I'll use "RAW".  Example:
>"I have my E-1 set to save both RAW and JPEG."

Seems reasonable, although RAW is more generic than JPEG -- CRW, ORF, DNG
or whatever would be in the same league of JPEG, TIFF etc, and could be
more appropiate.

>AG (or is it ag?) Schnozz

Ag, actually ;^) ;^)

From: Philippe Amard <philippe.amard@xxxxxx>
>my camera spells RAW with capitalized letters, so dAWs the Mac, and
>WindAWs also  ...

By the way (I'm now afraid of typing 'BTW' :-), some people refer to the
Apple computer plattform as 'MAC', but this _real, sourced_ acronym should
be reserved for networking devices addresses.

Cheers,
-- 
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz