Olympus outs mid-range Four Thirds E-A1 and Micro Four Thirds prototype
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Sep 22nd 2008 6:10AM
posted Sep 22nd 2008 6:10AM
As co-conspirators with Panasonic behind the Micro Four Thirds format, it's no surprise to hear that Olympus also has a tiny, mirror-less prototype camera to show off at Photokina as well. The only surprise is that it'll be on display under glass without a date, specs, or price.
[Via cnet]
If this is real picture and this is real u4/3 lens - then the camera not even small: it's damm tiny.
BTW, to see how really small Pana's Lumix G1 - check that out - http://www.flickr.com/photos/audioblog/2849769877/in/set-72157607245255351/ ( posted on http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalcameras/0,39029429,49299014,00.htm )
This should give enough insight into how small u4/3 camera/lens is.
How is it tiny? This is a normal FT camera, and that's a normal FT lens. That lens looks luge on that camera.
I really don't think this is the future for photographing tools. There is a rather clear distinction between consumer-grade cameras (Canon SDs, Sony T, Casio Exilim, etc etc) and the big gun SLRs (Nikon & Canon). Olympus and the four thirds alliance have tried in vain to create a market out of thin air.
Why would people sacrifice image quality (over a bigger sensor such as Nikon/Pentax's 1.5x crop or Canon's 1.6x crop, or even the full frame options from Nikon, Sony, Canon) while paying the same money for the cameras/lenses? The size difference is still fairly minimal, Canon and Nikon both offer relatively small cameras that are more capable than Oly/Panasonic's offerings, with a much bigger lens selection to boot.
If size really mattered to people, they would opt for consumer or prosumer grade cameras like Canon's G series or Sony's H series cameras. I see no future in where Four Thirds is going, unless they really step it up and release a small form camera with the capabilities (image, video, ergonomic) as a Nikon D90 or a Canon D50. And even then, they still have to compete with the colossal arsenal of pro lenses from the Nikon and Canon camp, which takes more than a few months of R&D.
Not really true. There was a lot of excitement over Sigma's SD-1 concept. People were seduced by the promise of DSLR-like image quality in a compact digital-sized package. It was to be the perfect pocket camera for the kinds of people that care about IQ over MPs. Sigma didn't really come through, but it doesn't mean their concept was flawed. I thought that was a good idea, and I think this is also has potential. Given the looks of Oly's prototype, I can see these generating some sales.
"""The size difference is still fairly minimal, Canon and Nikon both offer relatively small cameras that are more capable than Oly/Panasonic's offerings, with a much bigger lens selection to boot."""
So many stereotypes at once... Can't see a hole where to start.....
Shortly: get your hands on Oly E-420 - and then tell me that Canikons are "relatively small cameras" or they are "more capable" or they have "much bigger lens selection". You need a reality check. Fast.
Point is that Micro Four Thirds is not a "tool" - it is a holiday camera for the guy who has big DSLR at home but doesn't want to be burdened by it at a leisure time.
"""And even then, they still have to compete with the colossal arsenal of pro lenses from the Nikon and Canon camp, which takes more than a few months of R&D."""
Canon/Nikon has nothing to compete in the u4/3 form factor.
Also, to me personally, the "colossal arsenal of pro lenses" is now pretty useless baggage from past. They suck on digital cameras for many reasons (nor hardly provide quarter of must-have featrures).
And pretty much all professionals by now could have bought for theirs DSLRs new lenses - simply using money they have saved on films and developing.
I'm not familiar with Olympus cameras or lenses. What's the crop factor on these, about 2x?
Also, interesting lens; according to Amazon it's $400. Why can't we get something similar for an EF mount? I mean, this is about a 4x zoom and, I would assume, roughly equivalent in range to a 17-70 on a 1.6x. Sigma makes a 17-70 for EF, and it goes for about $400, but it's f/2.8-4.5, not f/2.8-3.5.