File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0808/08080501microfourthirds.asp

They promise us compact cameras with large sensors and with 80% less fail than Sigma DP1.
>> Anonymous
going to be THE new point and shoot.

kinds sucks that it doesnt ave an optical viewfinder, maybe they will have some new crazy lcd one?

i didnt read like any of it im busy watching curb your enthusiasm
>> Anonymous
>>231508
Oly 310 + pancake = fuckwin
>> Anonymous
>>231511
>kinds sucks that it doesnt ave an optical viewfinder,
Well, if there's a hot shoe, you can always use clip-on viewfinders like those on rangefinder cameras.
(Oh, and speaking of rangefinders, putting RF lenses on Micro 4/3 cameras will be the hottest thing once the Chinese make some adapters)

>maybe they will have some new crazy lcd one?
Minolta made an electronic viewfinder with megapixel resolution in the A2 some time ago, but it failed because it was slow and expensive. Maybe Olympus can do it better.
>> Rad !!IpQSryGvPPO
finally
>> Anonymous
I'm not impressed. We'll see how it actually pans out. If it works, I'll be impressed then.
>> Anonymous
>>231515
As long as you like shooting telephoto on almost everything...even a 28mm lens would be longer than normal.
I'm not impressed by this at all, actually. So they took out the mirror box and called it a new system? It's the same sensor and the same lenses work in the same way. If they'd made it a rangefinder I'd be a lot more impressed, but this is just a glorified point-and-shoot.

And yeah, DP1 is fail. Any camera with a large sensor and a fixed prime lens is bound to be.
>> Anonymous
>>231522
>So they took out the mirror box and called it a new system? It's the same sensor and the same lenses work in the same way.
There's no difference between all 35mm film systems by your logic - it's the same film and the same lenses working in the same way.
Taking out the mirror box and making a new mount seems like a pretty significant change to me. At least it's no less significant than putting in an AF motor and calling it a new system :D

>If they'd made it a rangefinder I'd be a lot more impressed
Well, I don't see why they can't put a rangefinder on a Micro 4/3 camera; it just needs to be electronically rather than mechanically coupled. But the rangefinder market is limited to a small number of fans, I doubt a relatively large company like Olympus is interested in it.

>this is just a glorified point-and-shoot
That's their fucking point.

>Any camera with a large sensor and a fixed prime lens is bound to be.
O RLY? Is this why Ricoh GR series and Olympus E-420 pancake kits sell like hot cakes?
>> Anonymous
>>231522
First, unlike rangefinders, cameras with EVFs don't have any limitations concerning telephoto lenses. Second, fast 40 to 85mm film primes serve as very good portrait lenses on crop-sensor cameras.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>231536
I imagine long lenses would be hell to focus with contrast-detect AF. I could be wrong though.

Really this is a perfect opportunity to make a new digital rangefinder. As>>231533put it, a rangefinder could definitely be included. But the way I see it, it could even be traditionally mechanically coupled - just that Oly and Panasonic wouldn't do it. A third party could probably build a traditional rangefinder to the Micro 4/3rds standard though.
>> Anonymous
>>231558
>I imagine long lenses would be hell to focus with contrast-detect AF.
Well, if we're talking about rangefinder lenses on Micro 4/3, AF is irrelevant.
And anyway, both superzoom cameras and Olympus' own DSLRs have no problems with contrast-detect AF at 300+ mm equivalent focal distance. It's usually rather slow, but no one intends Micro 4/3 cameras for shooting sports.

>A third party could probably build a traditional rangefinder to the Micro 4/3rds standard
No, adding cams for mechanical rangefinder coupling automatically means losing compliance to the standard.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>231565
Perhaps if they could add the cams without affecting the other required features of the mount (wow, then you could use such lenses both on a rangefinder and on an "official" Oly/Panasonic AF camera)? Or do standards organizations tend to be this anal?
>> Anonymous
>>231569
Yes, they tend to be anal and for a reason. Imagine if some company puts a non-standard protruding cam on their lens, then someone tries to put this lens on a camera that has no room for this cam, breaks both, then sues Olympus because he assumed that all 4/3 lenses and cameras are compatible. They don't need this kind of problems. (The artificial incompatibility between Canon EF-S lenses and EF bodies exists for similar reasons)
>> Anonymous
What I'd like to see instead of a new digital rangefinder is a mirrorless camera with a fast, high-resolution EVF that can display a zoomed part of the image in the same place where the rangefinder patch is supposed to be. Or, better yet, in the corner/to the side of the entire image so it doesn't obstruct framing.
This will allow camera to be small and quiet like a rangefinder, yet retain a TTL viewfinder. Also, no more parallax error and RF misalignment.
>> Anonymous
>>231676
That's what this is going to be. I'm really looking forward to it; I love EVFs.

Every EVF camera I've shot with has the focusing patch start off in the center when you boot up, but you can move it around to any point on the screen. They've also got a feature- which sounded annoying, until I tried it- where the entire screen displays an even more magnified image for insanely precise focusing. It's not the thing to use for fleeting subjects (the patch is) but if you know the subject is still going to be there a second later, it's analogous to a camera with a separate rangefinder and viewfinder.

Viewfinder cameras (including rangefinders) have their advantages, too, so my ideal camera is something in the same body shape, etc. as a Leica M, a coupled rangefinder, electronically projected (and hence always accurate) framelines, and either the RF-VF is removable and an EVF can be put in its place, or the EVF just goes into a hotshoe like on some Ricoh small sensor models.

I'm actually hoping they *don't* come out with a rangefinder; I don't want the M mount to die. IMO, with the huge back catalog of great lenses, any non-SLR camera pretty much ought to be using the M mount, although I understand why the Four-Thirds consortium is using, well, the Four-Thirds mount.

>>231673
An amendment to the standard could be created, though.
>> Anonymous
>>231682
>where the entire screen displays an even more magnified image for insanely precise focusing

olys already have this.
>> Anonymous
>>231682
>I'm actually hoping they *don't* come out with a rangefinder; I don't want the M mount to die.

A pocket-sized Micro 4/3 camera with EVF suitable for manual focus + Chinese Leica-to-Micro-4/3 adapters = fuckwin. I also fully expect the now cheap Soviet rangefinder lenses to increase in price.
>> Anonymous
>>231686
Yeah, but the M42 mount is dead even though its lenses can still be used on adapters.

It's a sentimental and non-moral principled ("don't replace something if it works just fine") objection, not really a practical one.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>231688
>M42 mount is dead

Russians don't think so
>> Anonymous
>>231688
I don't think anyone ever will make a new mechanically coupled rangefinder mount. Electronically coupled and with AF, maybe, but I'm more inclined to say that the rangefinder focusing itself is a thing of the past.
>> Anonymous
first thing I thought was...hey rangefinder? I mean its possible, Leica is part of the 4/3 alliance.
>> Anonymous
>>231708


companies that sell high end stuff generally don't dictate where the market is going. In cars, for example, you buy a ferrari for one purpose: to go really fucking fast. you don't buy it for your daily driver (inb4 exceptions to the rule), you buy a chevy or ford or etc for your daily driver.

Canon and Nikon don't make the majority of their money off their expensive FF cameras, they make the majority of it off Rebels and D40s.
>> Anonymous
>>231709
if olympus is smart they wont price it offensively high.
with some advertising and a good price it will definitely be a huge hit with the soccer moms, travelers, and kids who have been using a point and shoot because they dont want to carry a huge dslr
>> Anonymous
>>231711


agreed, but they won't.


Those credit card sized P&S's are far more expensive than their "large" brothers.
>> Anonymous
>>231712
they basically have to, the 510 is pretty cheap, i assume its because most people dont know that oly makes good dslrs

if the credit card ones are far more expensive than this should be an easy choice, a compact (relative) dslr should win over a shit tiny camera.

if when they come out they have some sort of viewfinder, and the adapters have no limitations than il definitely consider replacing my e510 with one.
if i have money to burn il be buying a body asap
>> Anonymous
>>231712
Olympus makes no credit card sized P&S for offensive prices, that's Sony's specialty.
>> Butterfy !xlgRMYva6s
>>231729
They're all shit cameras too.
>> Anonymous
>>231712
I'd like a serious credit card camera, 1/2.5" (6x crop) sensor, 7/2.8 or faster fixed lens, and a teensy non-standard shoe for an optical finder. Aperture set on a clicking slider on the side of the body (think the gear shifter on an automatic transmission, but with a tiny tab), ISO set on a slider on the back, shutter speed set by a dial on top, focus set on a rear LCD by a joystick, like on Panasonic small sensor cameras. Menu provides only for the viewing of pictures, their deletion, the formatting of cards, LCD display settings, and housekeeping function like date/time for the EXIF. Spotmeter and a live histogram. Shoots raw. Small articulating flash available for the shoe, too.

Pic related possibly forthcoming if I'm bored enough.
>> Anonymous
>>231740
this would be the most cluttered thing ever, and it wouldnt sell. people like to use the lcd screen to take pictures, /p/ needs to accept that.
>> Anonymous
>>231745
>LCD display settings

By which I meant gridlines, etc.
>> Anonymous
The most significant change with this is the possibility for even smaller and cheaper lenses.
>> Anonymous
It'll be nice to see small and inconspicuous bodies like I have with film again. A lot of modern DSLRs are huge and bulky by comparison.
>> noclue !!2yUmAID3520
>>231682
that would EXACTLY be the concept i'd spend LOTS of money for ... let's just hope.
>> Anonymous
>>231511going to be THE new point and shoot.

What a joke. It's just going to be another tiny faiLR from Olympus.

Nothing new. Move along, people.