Olympus E-5 announcement

Olympus E-5 is now official:

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

    … serious landscape/scenary shot done on a wobbly rock. Who are they trying to kid?

    Weather-sealing is the only feature that second-rate camera makers like Olympus and Pentax have to show off. Ooh they made a bunch of rubber seals… that’s cutting edge photo-imaging technology right there!

  • OP

    “… serious landscape/scenary shot done on a wobbly rock. Who are they trying to kid?”

    All that’s clear from your comment is that you believe that the shot in the video could not have been “serious,” as if that is a meaningful distinction.

    Someone without a agenda to disparage Olympus (or Pentax for some reason) might have noticed that the shot was stabilized *despite* the camera being on a wobbly surface.

    And if weather-sealing is such an unimpressive feature, and so easy to provide, you would think that it would be a default feature on all of the “first rate” manufacturers’ camera bodies?

    Better question: what are the groundbreaking features of the camera bodies from “first rate” manufacturers that Pentax and Olympus don’t provide with their “second-rate” wares?

    • Wow great…

      Image stabilisation is good but a tripod is always better for static scenes. And don’t forget that this is the flagship Olympus camera here. So, unless I missed the flying fish the guy was trying to follow and freeze in mid-air, this shot could have benefitted from a tripod to maximise the image quality. People who take pics this way are tourists and casual shooters, which is the reason why I said this is not a serious shot.

      “And if weather-sealing is such an unimpressive feature,”

      Never said it was. I said it’s the “only” feature that they can talk about in their cameras. Which is sad, because Olympus and Panasonic aren’t in the business of selling rubber sealing solutions.

      “Better question: what are the groundbreaking features of the camera bodies from “first rate” manufacturers that Pentax and Olympus don’t provide with their “second-rate” wares?”

      1. Images with less noise

      2. Images with finer-grain due to high pixel counts

      3. Shallower DOF for creative control. Simply put, Olympus doesn’t have anything better than a f/2.4 on FF.

      4. A fast standard lens. E.g. the Panasonic 25 1.4 is like a 50 2.8 on a FF, when FF cameras have up to 50mm f/1.2.

      5. Olympus camera+lens combos, after lacking all the above, can still be heavier and more expensive than even FF equivalents. E.g. 35-100 f/2 is equivalent to a 70-200 f/4 but it lacks SWM and in-lens stabilisation and is even heavier and sometimes more expensive than the Canon and Nikon 70-200 2.8 IS/VR lenses with USM/AF-S. Same goes for the Olympus 150 f/2 which is equivalent to a 300 f/4 on FF.

      6. Fast tele lenses. For Olympus to match 200/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4 on FF, they’ll need to produce 100/1, 150/1.4, 200/1.4, 250/2 and 300/2 lenses respectively. We all know these lenses are going to become reality with FourThirds. And that is forgetting the fact that the view-finder’s stabilised on Canon and Nikon with those lenses.

      The list goes on…

      Before anyone tries to chime in and waste time, a 300 2.8 on a FT body is not like a 600 2.8 on FF. It’s equivalent to a 600 5.6. I see a lot of Olympus users have very wrong understandings of optical equivalence and image noise… which makes sense actually.

      • Victor Hassleblood

        @Wow great…,

        OMG, you really put a lot of effort into it, don’t you? “It” BTW means nothing but making some Oly-users feel bad. What’s in it for you?

        Personally I have no current Oly-gear whatsoever and I do not intend to buy any, so I don’t feel touched from your comment apart from the fact, that people like you really do annoy me.

        Your (shallow) DOF-perspective on the lenses is just silly. Some people might even regard it as an advantage, to have a little extra of it, while achieving higher shutter speeds at same ISO settings. Such things as 70-200 F2.0 equivalents don’t even exist for FF, so how can you possibly compare it?

        I want to see as much diversity on the market and as much competition as possible and I can understand, that some guys might fall for the compact Oly-equipment. Some of their lenses perform amazingly well. Just give these guys a break.

        • Wow great…

          … another person who doesn’t understand equivalence. 35-100 f/2 is like a 70-200 f4… I mean, when was the last time you actually did some reading on this? Please, do it as a favour to yourself or someone will quote you and laugh at you in years to come…

          • Discontinued

            “35-100 f/2 is like a 70-200 f4”


            your DOF-issue is a widely known fact. As Victor said, some people might even like it.

            You make it sound as if f/2 was equally f/4 in all other aspects as well. Maybe you got a little obsessed by this DOF-thingy?
            Make sure not to get quoted.

          • Wow great…


            Yes… a 35-100 f/2 on FT equivalent to a 70-200 f/4 on FF… doesn’t hurt to get yourself educated.

            And like I said, on FF you’re not forced to have shallow DOF… you can always stop down. Suddenly flexibility is a bad thing.

            The bottom line is Olympus made a big mistake with FT (but mFT was quite a good recovery idea) and managed to brainwash people along the way too. Coincidentally, most Oly users who believe a 35-100 f/2 on a FT is equivalent to a 70-200 f2 are old, film-day fools who can’t use Google.

        • Wow great…

          Btw, the shallow DOF claim is not silly. Saying that deep DOF of FT helps is like saying “I rather take the Toyota instead of the Ferrari to the race track because I’m going to drive it all the way there on a speed limited public road anyway”.

          Getting back to lenses… are you forgetting that you can stop down a lens on a larger format sensor? Also it’s much easier to optimise lenses for image quality when the apertures aren’t ambitious. For example, Oly can never make a consumer/pro level photographic 25mm f/1 lens to match a decent 50 f/2 on a FF body.

          Yes, Oly does make good lenses… personally, I think their 150 f/2 is extremely good, optically. But their cameras are garbage, so what’s the point? If their market keeps blindly accepting this junk, why would they bother to improve? It goes for all manufacturers.

          • Discontinued

            Now this is really funny.
            I hate car-camera-comparisons anyway, but yours is beating them all: comparing DOF with the speed of cars … OK, you made me laugh, but talking of speed, what about shutter speed ? ? ?

            Is it any faster with f/2.8 or 4.0 on FF than with f/2.0 shot on four thirds? I bet you believe it is.

          • Wow great…

            “Is it any faster with f/2.8 or 4.0 on FF than with f/2.0 shot on four thirds? I bet you believe it is.”

            When you describe a lens as being “fast” they mean you can use higher shutter speeds. In that sense, no… f/2 will always be faster than f/2.8 but don’t you know anything about noise? Because the FT sensor area is just a fraction of the FF sensor area it has almost 2 stops of a ISO disadvantage. So on FF you can actually crank up the ISOs by +2 stops on a f/4 lens and get the same shutter speed as a FT sensor does 2 stops below with a f/2 lens.

            Like I said… doesn’t hurt to get yourself educated… I mean, how hard is it to use a search engine thesedays?

      • Eric Pepin

        your numbers arent the way things work , a 200 f2.8 is a 200 f2.8 wether its on full frame, 1.5, 1.6 or 2.0 crop. It lets in the same amount of light and magnifies the same amount, the crop is different and the dof is different but not everyone wants less DOF, many do want more so this could be a advantage. Also a oly body with a F2 zoom against a similar priced nikon with a f2,8 zoom will perform the same, yes the nikon has a bit more high iso but its using a slightly slower lens.

        • Wow great…

          I’m absolutely, positively sure you’re an Olympus user.

          Btw, just search for the wikipedia article “Image Noise” and read the section titled “Effects of sensor size”…

    • Rabot

      Wow, I hate when people go so crazy about that subject.

      Olympus lens are super fine, Olympus camera are quite good. No, the E-5 is not a 1D or a D3s. It is indeed wierdly priced.

      Oohh and the whole creativity thing with DOF made me lol.

  • Alfons

    As an owner of 4 Olympus cameras, both digital and film, I am truly disapointed on how E-5 showed up. I think all 4/3 users had high hopes on the new 4/3 flagship.

    Not that it isn’t a great camera. It’s must be better than my E-3, which is a great camera. E-5 just isn’t as ground breaking as I have used to expect from Olympus.

    • Eric Pepin

      all the dev money is probably in MFT, M4/3 was a rush of money for oly, i doubt they honestly care much about full SLR pro bodies anymore. A shame as if they had a more complete system and maybe atleast one full frame option i would consider them.

      • Yes I think olympus should make a larger sensor but that would mean ditching the whole 4/3 system. None of their lenses would cover fx. I think its too late for them. 🙁

  • Back to top