File :-(, x, )
Olympus retro micro Four Thirds = OFFICIAL
Panasonic might be the first to ship its new micro Four Thirds G1, but Olympus definitely stole the hotness crown with that retro concept cam, and the company just confirmed that it'll join the ranks of the shipping -- Olympus European marketing director Miquel Angel Garcia told Pocket-lint that we should expect a camera similar to the prototype within the next 12 months.

hoping that the "similar to the prototype" part doesn't mean some stupid shit like it will look like it but not really have the full features of micro Four Thirds

>> According to Garcia, micro Four Thirds is "about design and style, not about a smaller black box" -- take that, Panny.

not really liking that part if they prioritize "design"
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:09:01 11:52:30Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height464
>> Anonymous
uh, this was posted this morning on Engadget when you couldn't post on /p/

the previous thread was just the pre Photokina announcement prototype

this is Olympus confirming OFFICIALLY they will make it

slowpoke ran away
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
You mean it wasn't official when they first announced it?... :/
>> Anonymous
it was a prototype that just said hey dudes, we're right there in the micro four thirds bandwagon

and because panasonic one upped them with announcing the g1 before them, now they made it official that it's not just vaporware
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
hey, what's up guys, am i ruining anyone's party?

Abort trap (core dumped)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>263067
Still vaporware, just slightly thicker vaporware now.

Won't be not-vaporware until you can actually buy it in the stores.

>>263081
Not really. Looks about the same size as that Olympus vaporware camera, but with a non-removable lens. And if it's otherwise similar to the DP1, the usability will be made of fail.

Also, 40mm-equiv f/1.7 pancake beats slowly-extending 41mm-equivalent non-removable f/2.8.
>> Anonymous
>>263086

don't you mean thinner
>> Anonymous
>>263086

i'll bet you $5 the dp2 costs 1/3 of that retro oly + 20/1.7
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>263088
I envision it as vapor slowly thickening and coalescing into a solid camera.

>>263091
I'll take that bet. The DP-1 costs $700; the DP-2 is probably gonna be similar. I doubt that they're going to be selling the u4/3 Olympus for $2100.

(If I'm wrong, though, you're gonna have to post your address on 4chan to collect ;) )

I wouldn't be too surprised if it cost twice as much, though. But if it lives up to half its potential, it'll be twice as good as the DP1/DP2.
>> Anonymous
>>263097

i think it works the other way around
>> Anonymous
is micro four thirds stabilized or not?

kind of fail if it's not stabilized
>> Anonymous
>>263134
It will vary from camera to camera like it does now, but the Panasonic G1 doesn't have in-body stabilization.
>> Anonymous
>>263097
>I doubt that they're going to be selling the u4/3 Olympus for $2100.

It'll be costly. The styling is blatantly up-market. Probably not *that* costly, but more costly than it really should be for what it does.

Also, could I ask a congenial question? Why is a camera being "pocketable" so important? As long as it's not bulky and a nice prime goes on the front, what's wrong with over-the-shoulder?

Don't get me wrong, I like and I'm excited about Micro Four Thirds, both cameras announced so far, but just because I'm not keen on SLRs themselves, not because I mind their size. I dig the G1 much more than this, nice grip and 100% TTL finder with no mirror.

This Olympus would be nice to work sort of like a rangefinder, manually pre-focus and buy a shoe finder for whatever field of view you've got.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>263202
You make me feel I have a chance to make you love me.
>> Anonymous
>>263202


I see this being great for nights out with friends. Sure, that type of setting is conducive to simple snapshots but if the opportunity arises for some real photography you can pull this badboy out of your pocket and do it for real. I never bring my DSLR with me when I'm out with friends (or in other similar situations). I don't trust that I won't bump it into shit and fuck something up.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>263202
>Why is a camera being "pocketable" so important?
For me, stealth. People see a big camera--even one like an S5IS, if they're not camera nerds--and they can't help but notice it. Something small that looks like a cheap P&S to the untrained eye would be great for discrete event photography, documentary work, and street photography where my big-ass 40D (or even one of my smaller SLRs) is going to be too obvious.

Also, there are places where you're not supposed to bring a camera (some concerts, for instance). The security guards will stop people with a big SLR but are a lot more lax with smaller cameras.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>263211

oh hai, did someone say discreet and stealth?
>> Anonymous
>>263211
I've had access to some of my own school's buildings denied because of my camera's look. It was described as a "Professional camera with a focus lens and everything"

(fucking XTi with a Tamron 28-75 2.8)
>> Anonymous
>>263226


eleventy billion dollars
>> Anonymous
>>263226
/fa/ is that way

------->
>> Anonymous
>>263211
stealth is a matter of how you use it. I shot candids in Paris less than 6 feet from people with a Hasselblad. Beginners lose not by having a camera that is too big or too conspicious, but by lurking and then taking too long to shoot.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>263351
Certainly I've used my 40D in a stealthy way. But there are still situations where a much smaller camera would be a great help.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Have had: Digital compact, Canon PowerShot A60.
Have had: DSLR, Olympus E-500 single kit.
Have now: DSLR, Olympus E-3, Panasonic 25F1.4, ZD 50F2.

Desire: Less weight, bulk and hassle, but with image quality equal to- or better than my E-3. I'm so fucking sick and tired of lugging around that monstrosity 'round my neck- or wrist all day. Speed is largely irrelevant. Weather seals and rangefinder focusing preferred, but not required. A Leica M8 would be too perfect, but with an upcoming (used) snowmobile purchace this winter and a (used 1. gen) Honda S2000 next spring there's just no way I'll permit myself to spend the kind of money that Leica is asking.

Potential solution: mFT concept /w Panasonic 20F1.7 or similar if priced under ~USD$1400, preferably under ~USD$1200, but I find the latter highly unlikely.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>263416
>mFT
Everyone (here at least) seems to have standardized on u4/3 (or µ4/3 if they care enough to figure out how to type a mu) as the way to shorten Micro Four Thirds. I mention this because it took me way longer than it should have to figure out what the hell 'mFT' meant--I kept wanting to go "manual focus" or "medium format" with that MF.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>263239

oh hai, affordable leica
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>263452or µ4/3 if they care enough to figure out how to type a mu

you're a faggot if you do it, no offense or anything
>> Anonymous
>>263459
Oh hai, mediocre rebadged Panasonic which was in many ways a rebadged Olympus.
>> Anonymous
I use "µ4/3," too, it makes sense. However, like here, I just copy and paste it from somewhere else.

Thanks for this one, AC.
>> Anonymous
>>263461

it's like those VW based Porsches

they might be VW at the core, but it's still a freaking Porsche, man!

Leica, man!
>> Anonymous
>>263464
>VW based Porsches

Panasonic L1 is based on Olympus E-330.
Leica Digilux 3, on the other hand, is a _carbon copy_ of Panasonic L1 except for the silver trim. For 2 times the price.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>263504
Don't forget the red dot!
>> Anonymous
but it's a LEICA!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>263508
And I'm Zeiss
Durr hurr

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A70Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:06:12 18:34:46Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/3.5Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length5.41 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height719RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>263510
Tessar 2.8/5.6
Which is the aperture and which is the focal length? You can never tell.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>263464
That'd be the 911 (shit) and the Cayanne (very shit, and ugly) then.

Real people drive VW designed but never used and bought by poor porsche Porsches :3
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>263513
>people drive VW designed but never used and bought by poor porsche Porsches
>> Anonymous
>>263511
You can if you know Zeiss follows the aperture/focal length format.

http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/7dfc5d8918d79a2bc125710a0058e2a5

This, for instance, is not a 2.8mm f/15 lens for 36x24.
>> Anonymous
>>263513
Guess what Ken Rockwell's wife drives?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>263519
Ken up the wall with her constant nagging as to when he's going to give up that stupid hobby and get a real job.

>>263514
Hell yeah
>> Anonymous
>>263513
What the fuck kind of english are you using?

From what I understand by your statement. You no absolutely nothing about Porsche...or automobiles in general (calling the 911 shit). Stick with cameras.
>> Anonymous
that type of speech is hard to read in text i guess.

i think somebody who calls a 911 shit probably knows about them mostly from the internet. i won't say i haven't met true porsche guys who hate them, but most people with real world experience in 911's love them. the 911 is my favorite p-car; i'll remember every detail of every one i've owned to the day i do.
>> Anonymous
til the die i day*
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>263612
>Stick with cameras.
You must be from /o/
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>263612
English, you might not be familiar with its correct implementation, contact your local goverment representative to discuss this further.

Also you really need to lurk moar.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>263639
Please explain to us what this sentence means:
>Real people drive VW designed but never used and bought by poor porsche Porsches :3
because I've had several runs through it and I just can't get it to parse. "Porsches that were designed by VW (but which were never used and bought by Porsche) are what real people drive" is the best I can come up with, but I don't get what that parenthetical is supposed to mean if that's the correct interpretation.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>263756
The 924 was designed by VW to be a sports car, but they decided they didnt want to put it into production. Porsche bought the designs from them and put it into the production and later also produced the 944. These Porsches are what real people drive instead of a souped up bug or a tourag in a body kit.
>> Anonymous
>>263210

Makes sense, though I'd be more worried about someone making off with it than it getting banged up.

>>263211
Fair enough, but I don't think it would give that much over the G1.

Look at the classic camera for what you're talking about- like someone pointed out, it's the M, which is also not pocketable. The M8 (which I think is like a millimeter thicker than the rest of them, 5 excepted obviously) is 139 x 80 x 37 mm. The G1 is 124 x 84 x 45mm. Pretty close, slightly less wide, slightly more tall. Add a shoe finder on top of the M, and you'll probably square them off pretty well.

And you're saying an S5IS will stand out- I use a bridge camera of roughly the same size (another Panasonic, actually) for that very sort of stuff, for the reasons you're saying. I've never had a problem with it standing out. I can actually be walking right next to someone, shoot them, and them not notice. I doubt that'll be true of the G1, but not because it's a centimeter bigger in a few directions, but because it goes for a quiet focal plane shutter over the silent leaf shutter in the bridge camera.
>> Anonymous
So, yeah, I get what you're saying, but try taking that Canonet you own out, not much smaller than the G1 and still not a compact. I don't think you'll find it much more obtrusive than your A-series, except for like little sneak shots where you just slip the thing out of your pocket and shoot without the viewfinder.

Plus, there sort of reaches the point where someone going all hardcore with a disproportionate camera will stand out more than someone with a big one. Ms, the G1, etc. seem to strike a good balance. I'd have to see the Olympus next to a camera I know or in person to call it.

>Also, there are places where you're not supposed to bring a camera (some concerts, for instance)

I've gotten that same bridge camera into the one arena concert I've gone too, no problem. But that probably was just because it didn't have interchangeable lenses, and this won't look like it does, so for people who are looking for a camera with a larger sensor they can shoot security-crazy concerts with, this plus a pancake (or at least relatively compact) tele would be perfect.
>> Gay Homo
     File :-(, x)
Hey /p/,

Gay Homo here, I wanted to ask for your opinions on buying a point and shoot. I've always hated carrying my bulky slr around and I need something that fits in my pocket, can whip out in a sec and take a picture with. Mainly looking for something that doesn't have a long shutter lag and won't set me back too much. I wouldn't mind a small rangefinder either. Thanks in advance.
>> Anonymous
>>263825
Leica M8
>> Anonymous
You want a pocketable camera that takes good photos? Leica III with a collapsible 50.

Incidentally, my carry-around (digital) camera is a Powershot S400. 4 megapixels is really all you need for taking snapshots, and it has a decent range of features. My carry-around film is a Minox B, which fulfills the dual functions of taking decent shots and getting me laid. I'm a secret agent, man!
>> SAGE
>>263845
you must like squinty viewfinders
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>263852
They're really not as bad as they're made out to be, and if you really can't take it a SBLOO wouldn't make the kit that much bigger.
>> Anonymous
>>263874

not they are worse than people think and if you wear glasses early Leica are usless
>> Anonymous
>>263758
The 924? Your original statement is that 911's are shit. While sure you could say the old 60's/70's rear engine design was just bad for handling. Despite that... they have been one of the greatest, iconic, reputable etc. line of autos.

Then you said the Cayanne was ugly and shit. Ugly? Subjective, so I don't care....but you think it is shit?

Really? You've driven one lately and concluded this? Your fucking retarded.

Ok back to the 924. Yeah lots of VW parts etc. etc. you get the history butterfly.

But your saying that's what real porsche owners drive? Ok sure. Real people that bought it own a "real" porsche. But sure isn't popular, or that great of a vehicle and considered just a lame duck of Porsche history. So again...

What point are you trying to make?

I get the analogy way back above about Leica/Panasonic. I'm just confused by your Porsche bashing.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>263948
Cool I wear glasses and I shoot a IIIc. Try touching a Leica before you start talking shit.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>263984
I'm just trolling.
>> Anonymous
>>263986
I did you stupid dick. I have a friend with several Leica's including an M6. I was looking for something light to travel with. I loved this guys shots so I figured I'd give it a try. The very first thing I complained about the the vf. The owner wears glasses too, and he told me he flips them up on everything (including his F4). It drove me crazy. Don't assume because someone has a different experience than you that they are bullshiting

I didn't even like the M6. Leica's are not for everyone
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>264014
I wasn't denying the fact that there might be people who disagree with me (which is why I suggested the SBLOO) but you started of by immediately declaring I was totally wrong, which is a good way to make yourself look like you're bullshitting.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>264017
Whoops I was actually referring to the SBOOI the whole way through. But a SBLOO is fine too - actually the whole extra viewvinder shooting style can be pretty fun, and with an old LTM Leica and modern CV ultrawides you can avoid the whole bad finder thing.
>> Anonymous
>>264017
listen pal. I don't post here much, but I do read. Your big problem here is that you often don't have any idea who you are communicating with. That very often make you look pretty bad.
Even Leica is/was aware that many people had problems using early bodies. Why did you think m^'s were available with diff. vf mags?
If you were such a smart guy, instead of telling me I never used one, you would have asked what problems I encountered, and you would have realized I had
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I love the design.
>> Anonymous
>>264005I'm just a fucking moron.

fixed
>> Anonymous
>>264019
>Why did you think m^'s were available with diff. vf mags?

Mostly to fit in wider lines better, I always thought. And AFAIK, Leicas up to the M6 always had the same magnification within the same model.

Not all cameras are for all people, you're right. But that's not what he was saying.

If you don't mind my asking, what do you shoot with?

Also:

>Your big problem here is that you often don't have any idea who you are communicating with.

What? Serenar's never had some stupid typical /p/ dust-up with anyone until this thread. Stop being so abrasive you drag *him* into a shitfest.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>264052
Now now, you need to lurk a bit more before doing that.