Olympus ensures again that they are committed to DSLR cameras

Olympus DSLR camera

After several Japanese websites reported that Olympus will be scaling back their investments in future DSLR cameras and concentrate on mirrorless products, Olympus Japan published a statement denying the withdrawal from the DSLRs market. The truth is that the Olympus E-5 DSLR camera was announced in 2010 and has not been refreshed yet. Olympus have indicated on several occasions that the E-5 replacement will be some kind of a Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds hybrid solution.

This entry was posted in Olympus and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • mythbuster

    Olympus pro DSLRs were aberrant. Where was the advantage of going 4/3 if cameras and lenses were so big? . Micro 4/3 is a far better system.

  • mythbuster

    Olympus pro DSLRs were aberrant. Where was the advantage of going 4/3 if cameras and lenses were so big? . Micro 4/3 is a far better system.

  • Sebastian

    That’s a great idea. Why would you stop running down that dead- end road before you’ve hit the wall?

  • http://alphacorner.eu/ Sky

    Hahaha, the company that made worst DSLRs and was first to abandon them now suddenly jumps out of the bin saying that they are “committed to DSLRs”? Committed in a strength of… 2 people? or just 1 person? Actively trying to work on any developments?

    • Nate

      The Olympus DSLRs were very usable in a studio environment, and in halfway decent lighting, were even excellent. Their low-light performance was lacking significantly, but since studio environments are usually compatible with ISO 200 or ISO 400, the performance lack was hardly noticeable. When using their 14-35 f2.0 or 35-100 F2.0, the system was actually a joy to use.
      Using slow glass on the system was not a fun thing, though- of course, using crappy Canon (non-L ) glass is no fun, either. You are correct, though, in stating that the micro four thirds concept is worlds beyond standard 4/3 in utility.

  • elho_cid

    It was not the worst system, Sigma was far worse…

  • elho_cid

    It was not the worst system, Sigma was far worse…

    • mythbuster

      Agree. At least, Olympus implemented the first and best anti-dust system when Canon and Nikon didn´t have any. It was the enormous size and weight of their pro line the main problem, but somebody in Olympus stupidly thought that a pro camera should be very big…

      • http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/ genotypewriter

        Well it probably worked better because the sensors were so tiny they didn’t have any room for dust

      • http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/ genotypewriter

        Well it probably worked better because the sensors were so tiny they didn’t have any room for dust

        • mythbuster

          HAHAHA (sarcasm). Not tired of speaking nonsense? What a boring troll!

    • http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/ genotypewriter

      Let’s see… Olympus created a line of DSLRs that promised people smaller and cheaper lenses but the result was neither. When taking equivalence in to account, their lenses were slower and overpriced.

      E.g. Olympus’s 70-200 f/4 equivalent is 1.6Kg and $2500, 24-70 f/4 equivalent is 0.9Kg and $2300, 14-24 f/8 equivalent is 0.8kg and $1800, 600mm f/5.6 is 3.3Kg and $7000. None of them have optical stabilisation either.

      Sigma on the other hand has at least created a line of cameras that produces images in a better way. Take their SD1 for example, gives proper 14.7MP images. To get the same (spatial) resolution from a Canon/Sony you need a 59MP sensor. Sigma claims a 46MP is comparable because standard Bayer sensors are extremely efficient in everything else (colour/DR) it narrows the gap from 59 to 46.

      Related:
      http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/2012/04/more-resolution-without-going-foveon.html

      • mythbuster

        “f/4 equivalent”…
        An f/2.8 lens is always an f/2.8 lens, no matter the format of the sensor and twice as luminous than a f/4.0 lens. The fantastic 14-35 f/2.0 is four times as luminous than a f.4.0 lens and the same with the 35-100 f 2.0.
        A different matter is the depth of field you can get in 4/3, but in this case you are again mistaken. The “equivalent” depth of field of these lenses in FF is f/2.8, not f/4.0. Also the Olympus 12-35 doesn´t exist, but the 14-35 f/2.0.
        You, troll, must work better before posting your trash.

      • mythbuster

        “f/4 equivalent”…
        An f/2.8 lens is always an f/2.8 lens, no matter the format of the sensor and twice as luminous than a f/4.0 lens. The fantastic 14-35 f/2.0 is four times as luminous than a f.4.0 lens and the same with the 35-100 f 2.0.
        A different matter is the depth of field you can get in 4/3, but in this case you are again mistaken. The “equivalent” depth of field of these lenses in FF is f/2.8, not f/4.0. Also the Olympus 12-35 doesn´t exist, but the 14-35 f/2.0.
        You, troll, must work better before posting your trash.

        • http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/ genotypewriter

          Well well look at the n00b who doesn’t understand equivalence LOL You have much to learn about cameras… unfortunately for us you learned how to post comments before you learned how to use google.

          One day, I hope for your sake, you will learn this subject. And on that day, you’ll be very ashamed of these posts you have made. But that’s ok… you’re not registering your handle because you know you don’t have to stand by what you say.

          FFS when _I_ say something google it before you talk and make a fool out of yourselves… all of you! :P

          • mythbuster

            Now you realize your mistake and don´t want to admit it. And do you have a blog? Ridiculous!

          • http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/ genotypewriter

            Crying won’t make your wrong understanding right. Time to change your alias again. And you give the original mythbusters a bad name… didnt even think that was possible.

            Here’s a tip… learn to ask and think before you go claiming. It’s clearly not something schools and parents communicated in your generation.

          • mythbuster

            Now you realize your mistake and don´t want to admit it. And do you have a blog? Ridiculous!

          • http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/ genotypewriter

            Crying won’t make your wrong understanding right. Time to change your alias again. And you give the original mythbusters a bad name… didnt even think that was possible.

            Here’s a tip… learn to ask and think before you go claiming. It’s clearly not something schools and parents communicated in your generation.

  • ZeissDarling

    Isn’t the OM-D line where they’re going? Pro camera delineation is getting blurred these days. Some successful fashion photogs use dx level slrs at least to start with.

  • http://profiles.google.com/ksuwildkat Rob S

    They put a tiny sensor in a monster camera and think its going to sell?

  • Back to top




// B&H PopView code