Olympus and Panasonic launch Micro Four Thirds, compact "DSLRs" will be yours
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Aug 5th 2008 2:50AM
posted Aug 5th 2008 2:50AM
How big of a development is this? Huge. As Phil Askey, editor over at dpreview puts it, "This is without doubt the most exciting digital photography announcement this year. It's fair to say that this "extension / addition" to the Four Thirds standard is finally able to deliver on the original promise of that format; considerably smaller and lighter lenses and bodies."
Unfortunately, no products were announced so you've got plenty of time to debate the spec and pour over the illustrations we've dropped in after the break.
[Via 1001 Noisy Cameras]
Ladies and gentlemen, introducing the DSLR camera phone!
Haha 40mm thick camera phone that can only make 20 shots before the battery dies and has weight of 300gramms but has removable optics hahaha! Just kidding :)
Thats really really good news to see this FINALLY coming - compact-sized DSLR, other than Sigma DP1!
Umm this is != to dSLR. This is just a digital camera with a removable lens and larger sensor.
Digital single lens reflex
Reflex referring to the reflex mirror that flips up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera
@Omnicloud.
You see, thats why " DSLR" is in quotes. Despite the definition we all associate DSLR's to quality, high quality, having the ability to swap with official lenses, get adapters to use lenses of cameras from the days of old.
This new technology will allow us to do that with smaller devices.
Everybody knows FF is the ultimate solution. And those jerks are heading back into the stone age. Funny.
Agreed. The only reason the sensor is small is because it's cheaper. The size of the current form factor is really enough, it doesn't need to be smaller, for the exception of the casual consumer who wants a more compact size (Though it must be said there is the risk of being it not small enough to be compact or big enough to have decent output).
That just has to be one of the most uninformed remarks on this site - evar. But I guess you believe the typical Canon/Nikon-fanboy fullframe marketing-hype BS.
Somehow that BS works so well on me. lol
Well then, what's with the numerous digital backs that are coming out? How do you think Phase One makes money?
the sensor is the same as fourthird. Still a far cry from full frame and not up to the size of aps-c.
For those who like the size of a compact but want the quality of a dslr can suddenly find a good compromise in mFourthirds which is in essense a rangefinder format. probably let you easily adopt leica m lenses too.
But I'll keep my dslr. I don't mind the extra weight.
We definitely won't see them in the Olympics.
so basically no more DSLR?
No more huge big boxes that could make you look like a pro, now its all about what you picture, not how you do it :P
Size (of the sensor) still matters. though the difference is becoming less and less noticeable (but in no way comparable yet)
These have to be uncomfortable cameras. Well, at least for me, I am a 6'4'' shooter and frankly anything under a 5d body just seems miniscule.
I know what you're talking about. Big body is really better when you're using big heavy lenses.
Except that using 100g compact camera is way easier to hold and needs easier grip when taking pictures than half of kilo DSLR :)
So yeah, big body for a heavy camera and lenses, small body for a compact camera and lenses.
Did I mention I'm 185 cm tall? (approx)
Yeah, compacts all the way for me.
If you're tall, that must mean you have huge hands, yes? Well I'm 5' 7" and have hands that genuinely look like a child's. Means I can use the grips everyone else calls "tiny" on cameras like the 400d just fine.
You know... I never actually could use that optical viewfinder thing, and I personally think electronic viewfinder is way superior (LiveView, which appeared just recently in DSLRs but was there for years in compacts).
So I'm happy I can finally get a proper DSLR-quality camera with changeable optics and great picture quality. Forget about the price, its all about quality and... ability to buy it?
electronic viewfinders are way superior? Really? But why don't you see any of those Olympic photographers using it to shoot sports. When they see the moment in the screen, the moment already passed a long time ago(counting in micro-second wise)
You can still use an accessory viewfinder, right?
That's like saying that looking at a picture of a tree on your TV is better than looking at a tree...
A tiny, low resolution screen is in no way superior to the human eye and a lens.
Optical viewfinder allows you to see about 90% of the actual picture, while -high resolution- viewfinder (its almost VGA if its 230 000 pixels) lets you see 100% of the picture. Besides, you're not limited to viewfinder any more - you can see -the- tree you try to make a picture of with one eye and... everything around yourself with your other eye - no need to put the photo camera next to your eye closing the other eye.
And if you're not happy with it, you can always get good old viewfinder!
The only disadvantage live view has - it drains battery.
Yeah, getting an external viewfinder introduces the parallax problem, one of the biggest advantages of an SLR system when compared to a point and shoot.
Shinigami- in this instance you cannot 'go back' to an optical viewfinder, as there isn't one. Besides, there are plenty of things an optical viewfinder can do that an LCD can't. Like being dark and so small to be tunnel like. Wait... uh, lemme start again.
My eye is kind of a bit better than VGA. I can never judge focus on an LCD properly, besides you can't really see the depth of field on an LCD anyway. I wouldn't be prepared to give that up. Controlling what is, and just as importantly, what isn't in focus, is one crucial ingredient in making good photos. Most decent DSLRs have only about 5% missing of the frame- this is bloody tiny. I've never had anything unexpected creep into my final shots, so it can't be missing that much.
But yeah, this will hopefully just create a new breed of Sigma DP1-like things. High-quality, compact but interchangable lens cameras. There's a market there, but I'll have to pass.
Shinigami you're wrong the optical viewfinder in an upper class DSLR gives you 100% it is only those entry-level cameras that limit you to 90 or 95%.
Anyway optical viewfinder still has higher resolution than a lcd screen.
Actually, 230000 dots is QVGA (typically 320 x 240). Three dots are needed for each pixel (one for each of Red, Green and Blue). For VGA you would need 922000 dots. Very few of those around right now, but they might be common by the time the first micro 4/3 cameras hit the shelves.
thirteenguy:
SLRs have more timing problems that non-SLR (rangefinder) cameras. This is because after you push the button it has to raise the mirror before shooting. Because of this, many of these sports photographers use SLRs with pellicle mirrors.
Additionally, cameras which move the mirror extra quickly in order to reduce lag also add more shake from that rapid motion, which is a problem with long telephoto lenses.
There are lots of reasons to prefer non-SLR. Right now I think SLR has the advantage for most people due to the higher res of an optical viewfinder, but I don't expect that will last forever. As higher res LCD panels become available, I think the optical path will go away on higher end cameras.
Electronic viewfinders are most problematic in the dark when all they end up showing is a blank screen. Which makes them fairly useless when you're trying to set up a long (ish) exposure night shot.
Honestly I hardly ever even used the live view on the Rebel XSi. I thought it would be a neat feature but honestly it ended up being far faster just to use the regular old viewfinder.
This is the start of the EVIL (electronic vievfinder interchangable lens) camera :).
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/10/evil-camera-not.html
And I already found the Canon DSLRs too small for my hands when I had to choose mine...
If you would read up discussions, you would find that this is problem if the Canon: somehow they cannot design proper grip so hand is tiring quite fast.
This is noted in literally every review of the 300D-450D cameras: grip is bad.
Also consider that Olys are not only smaller, but also lighter. And even on 520 (which is smaller than Canon from same price range) grip is bigger.
Probably Canon decided to make grip smaller to intentionally make cheaper cameras imperfect ;)
I have large hands and own a Canon 400D. I've never had a problem with my hands tiring, even when my lens and flash add ~2.5 pounds to the weight of my camera.
My arms get tired sometimes, but that can't be blamed on the grip.
Use a LCD over a optical viewfinder?
Um...No thanks.
And um....
Smaller DSLR bodies?
No thanks either, my Rebel XT is already small enough.
I'd rather have a larger body like the 40D because of the much nicer grip area and large optical viewfinder.
Seriously, I will rather choose a EOS-1Ds Mark3 that weights like a brick rather than some thing is tiny small and not dependable(aka the crappy 4/3 system.) Small things are just easier to loose in my messy house. lol
Wow, and I just bought me a Panasonic DSLR.
I really hope they continue to support lenses for the full-size four thirds lens format.
I love my camera, and I'm really getting used to using it's (very small) viewfinder, but I must say I really, really love the idea of these new cameras.
Your headline "DSLRs ENTER A NEW PHASE" is completely ignorant of even the simplest notion of what DSLR stands for. I'll give you a hint... this new development means these new cameras will not BE DSLRs, despite the heritage of their four thirds format.
DUH, please hire bloggers who actually know what they're talking about and save yourself embarrassment.
A digital single-lens reflex camera (digital SLR or DSLR) is a digital camera that uses an automatic mirror system and pentaprism or pentamirror to direct light from the lens through the viewfinder eyepiece.
From wikipedia.
You're right! Its not about DSLR, its about DSLR-quality compact-sized cameras :)
Before you start complaining about small size, get one and try using it for a month. Then complain ;)
I had a RebelXT for like 2 years, and I got so uncomfortable that I decided to use it on the beach and see how much water can it resist before smoking. And it sure did cracked up. After that I got my EOS1D Mark3. Not Satisfied enough. Still I never complained about the size. A Rolliflex 2.8FX is what I'm going to get soon. Thats medium-format!
Relax - obviously these cameras aren't meant to REPLACE SLRs so it's not "the end of" anything.
It just means there's now a STANDARD for large sensor, interchangeable-lens cameras like the Sigma DP-1. Which is a Good Thing because then maybe we'll see more of them.
The 4:3 adapter is a nice touch - lots of very very nice (and fast) Olympus lenses to choose from if you so desire.
"It just means there's now a STANDARD for large sensor, interchangeable-lens cameras like the Sigma DP-1. Which is a Good Thing because then maybe we'll see more of them."
Yep... the one nice thing about Standards is that there are so many to choose from.
Great, so now I have to find my reading glasses every time I shoot. This is obviously not for us 40+ pros.
HOWEVER: There is the possibility of an interchangeable-lens rangefinder, with these lenses it would be nice and compact, and nothing stops Panasonic from adding a good an optical rangefinder (except possibly their cooperation with Leica).
I concur with others - I want a reasonably steady and therefore weighty camera, and the optical viewfinder is essential. And this standard should be wider.
So keep your SLR.
dumass
I still can't get over how bad of an idea this is. Using an adjustable lens with a point and shoot body will just be too clunky; you'd be more likely to turn the camera rather than the lens when zooming and end up with twisted photos.
I guess that few of the people responding to this post are actually photographers. If you need a BIG camera to compensate for a trouser inadequacy then they will still be available. Remember who Panasonics other partner is and look forward to a proper modern Leica
You haven't seen Oly's "Pan Cake" lens then...
I laughed long and couldn't believe that is a lens. But it is.
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/single.html#olympus25
And btw, reviews say that it is quite good lens. Combined with E-420 (or 410) body, it results in most compact DSLR you can find right now. (Though without image stabilization).
FourThirds lenses are generally smaller than their FF counterparts.
Whilst I can see smaller cameras having their niche, I doubt this development will seriously change the DSLR market;
1. An optical viewfinder works at the speed of light, and with DSLR what you see is what you get, unlike an external viewfinder.
Liveview's disadvantages are actually;
i. eats batteries
ii. lag (the killer as far as I'm concerned, when I open the shutter on my camera the picture I get is the one I was looking at)
iii. resolution, making it harder to ensure sharp focus
2. It's an uneasy compromise. People, in my experience, either want something that's small enough to fit in a pocket or they just don't care. I fall into the latter category, many of my friends the former. I can't imagine them buying one of these any more than I would.
3. For the foreseeable future, until sensors become way more light sensitive, I would rather have a larger sensor. Secondly, a larger camera actually decreases camera shake just by it's mass alone; it takes more energy to move a larger camera, therefore if it's hand-held then the physical size of the thing is actually better larger (or at least heavier). For me, the largest piece of my camera isn't the body, it's the lens and I'm happy for it to stay that way; more glass = more light.
4. A DSLR makes your manhood larger.
> Liveview's disadvantages are actually
LiveView - yes. But heck, LivePreview is actually cool feature.
Recent Olys have very good LCD making it perfect for previewing shots.
> It's an uneasy compromise.
Well, taking with me some $2K-3K photo gear on vacations is what really is "uneasy compromise". But if you still want to make good shots, you need to have a compromise - price compromise, something you wouldn't cry wolf loosing. And having as cheap, standin extra camera for occasions is really handy.
> For the foreseeable future, until sensors become way more light sensitive, I would rather have a larger sensor.
Me too. But I'm on other side of fence: I'd rather have compact camera (which I can carry with me most of the time) instead of FF monster I need a separate bag for. And you really see few people carrying around expensive cameras around. More your camera with you - more chances for good shot opportunities you have.
Wow! They have invented compact camera! What a brilliant idea!
Wow! You have no idea what you're talking about, yet you're posting anyway! What a brilliant idea!
Calling this system "DSLR" even with quotes is very misleading - SLR refers to any camera with a reflex mirror that reflects the light into a pentaprism or pentamirror so the viewfinder's view will be coming through the lens. This system explicitly gets rid of this mirror and this is not an SLR of any kind.
I imagine, however, that Olympus and Panasonic want the public to think of this as closer to an SLR than anything else. It's a good business strategy. While a lot of people who do buy DLSRs do so for all the features of the camera (faster shutter, no lag, no parallax, clearer viewfinder) there are probably equally as many people with too much disposable income who buy DLSRs simply to have 'something professional and cool.'
These people don't know or care about the full features of their camera, take the guy I saw two weeks ago taking hundreds of pictures in and of Bath Abbey with a Canon 40D, hands outstretched using LiveView for every picture. I can only assume he had this camera because he thought it made him look more professional, unknowing that his use of it betrayed his utterly amateur status. But these people exist, and Panasonic and Olympus have realized that if they create cameras that have interchangeable lenses but not reflex mirror they can tap into a large market of people who wish they too could look 'professional' but don't have enough money to buy an actual DSLR.
In reality these people don't need this new Micro 4/3 format. For the actual pictures they're taking, arms outstretched towards various tourist attractions they'd be served just fine by a top-end digital point and shoot. Anyone who actually *required* the lens interchangeability would also probably understand the benefits of a reflex mirror and would get a real DSLR. What this new format does is play to a certain aspiring mindset and create a probably unneeded but potentially lucrative new level of digital camera.
I know it's hard to paradigm shift but it's good to be open minded. L, why does it matter that this guy you saw was taking photographs with his arms outstretched?. It doesn´t matter how you take them it matters how they end up looking. I know professional photographers will not welcome the slow demise of flipping mirrors and hundreds of mechanical parts, but that's just what it will happen, that will be the evolution of photography, and young new photographers (with no gear to cling to) will see this. The morphology of current DSLR's only had sense when there was need for it on account of film. Digital sensors can capture and transmit images, there's no need to jump over them as with film. I think this change will be revolutionary. Who knows what kind of typologies will this lead to, this technology will permit even to have the lens in your hand and a viewfinder in front of your eyes, the most impossible shots will be possible.
Granted this camera has an amateur sensor still, as technology has not made it possible for sensors this small to have the same picture quality as FF but with time they will. Just look at the human eye, the retina is much smaller than 35 mm. With innovation inspired by nature there will certainly be a point when a small sensor makes a great job. Also granted that electronic viewfinders will need to have several more millions of pixels in order to be almost life like.
To all the great photographers who love the result as much as the verb in photography, give a chance to a new way of seeing the world from another perspective, don't let nostalgia win you over, that would make this be the typical example of tradition resisting change.
I have been waiting for something like this to appear for a while now. Whatever your thoughts on the benefits and downsides to the system it is something that a lot of consumers will like.
For someone moving up to an SLR from a compact or bridge camera, the screen is the natural choice for composing photos (again, the opinion of hte general consumer, maybe not of the professional photographer) and the latest generation of SLR's with live view has improved this transition no end by increasing compatability with how people now use cameras.
For the people mainly using live view anyway this is really the obvious choice - drop the large and costly optics needed for the viewfinder, design it around live view (so presumably focus is going to be fast and simple unlike some live view SLR attempts....) but still with the benefit of the larger sensor compared to a P&S, and an interchangable lens system where you are free to use whatever lens range you like from an ultra wide angle up to a huge telephoto.
Personally I will be sticking with an SLR with an optical viewfinder, but for the consumer moving up in quality from a P&S or bridge camera, this is a nice easy transition.
I do like the way they have changed the distances for a compact lens system, but everything is still compatable with the previous system, it does seem pretty well thought out and designed.
I can't see any of the professional SLR systems changing much in this way, as the optical viewfinder does have a real use and place in photography, but in the lower end of things I can see this becoming a more common approach when live view has overcome some of the teething problems it sometimes has (slow focus and so on)
FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP
These will not hit a professional level.
It might fit decently as a step between point and shoots and the entry level DSLR's like the Nikon D40, but it will not replace them.
I'm most happy with the fact that neither of the big two, Nikon and Canon are in on this. I could care less about Olympus, I never found their SLR body and lens quality to be anywhere near the big names.
I disagree. Much like journalists used rangefinder Leicas for years, I think this will be a huge instant hit with pros. This is because they typically own multiple cameras anyway. They have plenty of need for a camera which makes these particular tradeoffs.
Prosumers will not have as much use for them. And studio photographers will have virtually no use for them.
I think this is a huge deal.
I, also, could care less.
Agree with Phil from dpreview, this is a BIG DEAL.
It's not going to replace my DSLR althogether - but so often I find I don't have it with me when I want it. These little babies will give you a quality that's more or less equivalent to a DSLR (and this will depend primarily on what lens you attach anyway), that you can keep in your bag or even a large pocket and have it with you all the time.
Great news!
DSLR (i.e. those cameras with an actual reflex mirror) also have a distinct advantage in terms of AF technology. The mirror is partially silvered and lets light go to a dedicated "phase-detect" AF system.
Compact cameras, and some newer DSLRs in "live view" modes use a "contrast-detect" AF system which is significantly slower to use. DSLRs that lack contrast-detect either don't allow AF in live-view, or momentarily black-out or stop updating the screen during AF to allow the mirror to flap, engage the normal phase-detect AF, and flap the mirror back up.
There are a few DSLRs that do allow phase-detect AF in their live-view mode by putting a separate sensor in the viewfinder image path and leave the reflex mirror down: Olympus's discontinued E-330 (in "live-mode A") and Sony's A300 and sibling A350.
You do realize that the Olympus C-8080 was a non-SLR fixed lens digital zoom with phase-detection, right?
People are still asking for over $500 for a used Digilux 2, a 5MP camera from 2004, with a 2/3" sensor. And you hardly see any Panasonic LC1 selling on Ebay. Did I mention that both models suffer from really slow RAW shooting problems? But people still treasure these little gems - they are small but capable of shooting very high quality photos.
I am sure that Panasonic/Olympus will release something that's smaller, but equally capable as at least the E-420. Coupling with a few small lenses, it (they) will be the modern descendant(s) of the Leica Ms.
Wouldnt this camera cease to be a DSLR if they remove the mirror box??? Just sounds like a point and shoot with interchangeable lenses to me.
Piece of junk.
4/3rds gets you short, compact telephoto lenses (relatively speaking). What'd be cool is if the 4/3rds adapter to micro 4/3rds could also be 1.4x or 2x teleconvertor as well.
My 40-150mm lens is less than 8cm long. It'd be sweet for that to become 160-600mm (35mm equivalent) at the same length! Max ap would likely be f6.3 or f8 mind...
The 70-300mm lens is just over 10cm long, same brightness. That'd get you up to 1200mm (35mm equivalent) for less than $500... ..great for candid shots at the beach.. ..from the cliffs.. and discovering new craters on the moon.
As much as the non-photographers that read this site think that:
a) this is a bad idea
b) not significant
they simply don't get it. This isn't a replacement for (D)SLRs. This isn't a replacement for compacts. And like every other camera design, it won't be able to do everything perfectly. Every camera design has compromises (yes, even the mighty D3, the 1D and all those medium-format digital backs).
This camera system won't be for everyone.
It will be for great for some people.
The design will fit somewhere between a bridge camera and an SLR. This should make for some interesting vacation cams (combined with pancake lenses), and I wouldn't be surprised if the first cameras will have a striking resemblance to rangefinders.
This is a rather brilliant idea. The Four Thirds mount has it flaws (all mounts do), but this is a rather nice compromise to provide higher-quality imagery on smaller body designs. Kudos to the Four Thirds group for designing this =)
@ Razor,
Gotta agree with Razor. This is about creating a new class of cameras. Problem is, who wants those cameras?
I have looked long and hard for a pocketable camera that took good pictures and allowed full manual controls (to complement my two DSLRs and my terrible but pocketable digi.) I finally settled on a Canon S80 which had the field virtually to itself. (The G9 is sort of similar.) I love it, but I wish it had better low light performance, which would require a bigger sensor, and sometimes I wish I could swap out the lens.
So this Micro Four/Thirds thing would be great. It would allow interchangeable lens, a larger sensor (smaller than APS-H or C, and FF of course, but bigger than used in compact DCs), in a package smaller than DSLRs.
It won't replace DSLRs. It would be really hard to get over the lack of a viewfinder, which is faster, brighter, and has better coverage and resolution than live-view screens. A rangefinder could help, but they have issues too (like parallax; maybe not a big issue unless you do macro.) And alanh is right, there will be an issue with the focusing mechanism too. For me, live-view screens are only good for framing. They give you no sense of depth-of-field, subtle color shifts, etc. They basically give you no sense of the mood of the photograph.
OTOH, neither will it replace compact P&S cameras. They are already small enough, and their picture quality, focusing speed, etc. is apparently good enough for the people who buy them.
So this new thing is for something in between, akin to my S80. Small but high quality. Better low-light performance, interchangeable lens, small (relatively speaking) package.
Problem is, who will want such a camera? Prosumers and pros might want a walk-around camera that doesn't annoy them, but who else? As I said, my S80 had the field almost to itself, and Canon seems to have abandoned that style of camera (the current S series has only a bridge camera.)
Actually, this camera IS for everyone.
This is a camcorder with a Huge sensor. See: http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/_img/sensor-sizes.gif for a comparison of sensor sizes. Note that professional camcorders like the Canon A1 have a 3CCD sensor system with only 2/3" sensors. 2/3" sensor is 25% the area of the 4/3 sensor. This should promise to be an amazing video camera without the video tape.
This will be a very compact camera for the sensor size. Most bridge cameras have sensors that are 1/8", which is much smaller than the 2/3". The sensor size of the micro-4/3 is nearly the same size as the Canikon aps-c sized sensor. This should yield amazing pictures in good hands.
Everybody complains when they pack too many megapixels on a small sensor. Well, here's your solution in a compact camera.
Some of you guys are dumb; this is akin to building a digital rangefinder.
Rangefinders are slick, because they (usually) allow for interchangeable lenses, but remove the bulk of having the mirror box, while being smaller, lighter, and without a mirror slap when taking a picture. It does making hand holding in low light a bit easier.
Look up Leica/Zeiss/Nikon/Canon of the pre-SLRs days, they were all rangefinders. I have a FED 2 and Kiev 4, which are Soviet copies of old Leica and Zeiss rangefinders, respectively, and they are quite good cameras. Built like tanks too.
The digital rangefinder concept that mFourThirds seems tailor made for is really exciting. I wonder if anyone will develop such a product though. It seems more likely these cameras will implement EVF / Liveview rather than the rangefinder optics.
For a rangefinder, the lenses would have to be designed to have a mechanical focus couple. I suppose it could be an electronic, fly-by-wire link instead, though I don't know how that the die-hard Leica fans would take that.
The FoursThirds system as a dSLR had three problems: 1) the cameras weren't that much smaller than the APS-C competition, and the APS-C dSLRs were already small enough for most people. and 2) the viewfinder was smaller. APS-C is bad enough. Point your eyeball through a D700 or any 35mm SLR to remind yourself how bad. 3) the smaller sensor meant more noise vs. APS-C.
Developing micro4/3 is a way to diversify and get around points 1 and 2 above, while positioning the camera against high end compacts like the G9 which reverses point 3, since the sensor is now much bigger than the competition.
A lot depends on the cost and sie of the final product, but the idea has more traction than the original 4/3 concept I think.
Since when is it a breakthrough to do something in the digital realm that's been done elsewhere seven-five years ago? Yup, that's how long this so-called revolutionary idea has been in practice.
By the way, what exactly is this, then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_M8
Okay, did some more reading. They key point was glossed over in many articles--this is about an interchangeable lens format, not form factor per se. The Four Thirds standard is about ridding us of Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, etc. specific lens mounts. The Micro Four Thirds standard extends that. All the other stuff is just fog.
A digital Leica rangefinder.
It runs $5000 or so, just for the body, plus a thousand+ for each lens.
I can see the micro 4/3rds running a tenth of that. The whole point, is that you basically get a smaller P&S or manual camera with interchangeable lenses.
It would be nice to have a bigger sensor, but those create a bigger camera.
It costs $5,495.00, this one will cost $800
at first i was skeptical. why focus on 4/3 when FF is the way to go? however, micro-4/3 is not aimed at the pro but the consumer. these cameras will be much more compact. the G9 and P6000 better watch out. any eta on when this system will hit the market?
Sounds like a decent new rangefinder concept, more or less. You get smaller cameras (ok, it largely depends on the lens you are using), and it can be pretty much silent, depending on the lens. No mirror that makes a noise. There is a market for this. And to be honest... at least those optical viewfinders on entry level cameras aren't really extremely useful, when compared to viewfinders found on older SLRs, like from the 70s and 80s.
TASTE THE FUTURE.
it can't perform better than the camera that the iphone has
It is just a rangefinder camera with new name. Nothing new here. O well, Rangefinder Camera has an additional optical lens unit for the photographer to verify the subject. And this new 3/4 thing is like a regular DC. The rest is just marketing.
hey, olympus DSLR are already looking like plastic toys for kids, now they want to make them even smaller?
no, thanks, I stick to my real DSLR for time being.
Reading through these comments by so many (not all) who feel they must impart their un-informed opinions upon everyone else. Why do people find it necessary to speculate on something they don't know... but in all their arrogance, they think they know something about everything?
Remember, DSLRs account for 7% of the digital camera market. All the rest of us, whether with small chrome cameras through impressive black super-zooms, are shooting with a sensor so tiny that anything over ISO 100 begins to show noise, and by ISO 400 it's significant. And, for the same reason, dynamic range is noticably less than any DSLR, including 4/3. I have a Panasonic FZ7 with a 1/2.5" sensor. I am not a pro, I want a fairly small camera I can carry. This development is aimed right at me. The APS-C size sensor is a HUGE improvement over what I have. Making a camera with that size sensor but half as thick as an Olympus E420 and using smaller lenses for equivalent focal length, sounds wonderful to me.
I have no argument that FF, huge lenses, and the thousands of dollars necessary to get them is the way to go for ultimate image quality. That is just not where I am. Compact with one good zoom lens that is much better than what I have now, that's what I want. Micro 4/3 sounds like it will provide that.
I have a Nikon D70, with a variety of Nikon and Sigma lenses, which works very well for me, except when its so big I leave it at home. So I'm looking at a supplementary camera, which I can carry with me always, which is better than the 2Mp excuse for a camera in my BlackBerry Palm. I have been looking for a good compromise between size, wide ancle and telephoto, with the Panasonic TX5 being a little large, but with a 28 to 280 10x zoom, and others from 24 to 100 or 28 to 140 5x zoom. But they all miss a viewfinder, and all lock me into a fixed lens - not usually a very bright one, either!
What I think about the micro four third is that I will get my 'carry in the pocket' camera, and get a choice of lens - I can pay more for a brighter, sharper lens, maybe carry a separate 24mm wide angle for when I need it ... all the fun of my D70 for when I don't want to carry it.
So, I'm waiting until after PhotoKina before making my purchase decision, to see what products emerge.
And yes, I'd like an equivalent to the Leica M8 for about the $500 price point ...
these cameras aren't due out til 2010, so can i suggest a pocket camera for you until then?
the canon sd800is has image stabilization, 28mm on the wide end, and an optical viewfinder. you might have to find a used one, but i think it meets your needs well, until the m4/3 are on the market. I'm on my second one (lost one) and have gotten great results including big blowups, thanks to the optical viewfinder.
After reading what most of the commenters here say, I don't see a point in saying this.. but i'll do it anyway:
- it's not a DSLR - it doesn't have to be. Read the official announcement, and you'll see that it was not declared as DSLR.. sites like this say that, and then ignorant people carry the word along
- it's addressed to people who want to take photos. to those that print them, not zoom in to 100% for pixel peeping sessions
- some street photographers are going to drool over some little pancake lens, on a mirror-less compact body that will not do noisy flip-flaps
And I can't help it to comment about a few other things (flame-war warning.. but I don't care as I won't come back here too soon)
- yes, it's not a new idea. Rangefinders were available before SLRs I think. and as a reply to user Joe, who complained about this: what about FF? Is it that new?
- and getting back to FF.. it's better because is bigger? Then why just FF, and not... medium format? Pf!
- somebody else said about oly's bodies that are plastic toys.. funny, as I thought the 400D is really a cheap piece of plastic (avoiding that other word instead of "plastic" because otherwise it's a pretty decent camera)
- and somebody else talking about "the big names" with better bodies and better lens. what big names? Nikon and Canon? (or is it Canon and Nikon?) Pf! For the pros, surely. For most of the people who read and comment here.. you should consider opening your eyes. Ignore the names, check the features, take photos, learn. It's not about the sensor size, it's about the photos.
Cheers
So it's a bridge camera with interchangeable lenses then?
This all seems fine to me, although personally I don't have any interest in electronic viewfinders and am not that keen on LCDs either.
Still, as everyone has pointed out, I don't _have_ to buy one, and probably wont.
Still I'm never going to knock camera development!
So could i get a dslr thats not much bigger than my panny lx2?
i think im down with that guys
interesting they haven't released any amazing new specs regarding the quickness of the live-view mechanism...
coming from a digital compact originally i used live view from the beginning but moving up to a dslr (i chose e-510 in part for live-view) i NEVER use it seriously, except messing around.
the reason? not the lcd screen. truth told, the OVF on the 510 sucks monkey balls. its simply because it takes too long for the mirror to flip down, flip up and flip down again (or whatever is going on in there). its quicker to just take a damn test shot, look at it on the lcd, and then take another shot after making whatever adjustments you decide.
so have the manufacturers improved this mirror-lag dramatically before touting this new standard? i sure hope so- for their sakes- or nobody's gonna buy this stuff except the point-and-shoot demographic, which can only hurt Oly's reputation among photographers even further.