Olympus E-5 Review out from dpreview.com - tsk tsk

[JM Tran]

Results are just as I expected it to be from any recent Oly cameras. Great in bright light, disappointing as usual in low light for high ISO.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse5/page14.asp

The E-5 isn't meant to appeal to the mass-market, and we suspect that it won't. However, as a flagship for the established Four Thirds system it succeeds brilliantly. The E-5 is capable of excellent results, and its tank-like body should take years of abuse. Unfortunately, comparably poor image quality at high ISO settings, and restricted dynamic range make it less competitive than it could be.

Dont get me wrong, I love Oly pro bodies and their pro lenses, brilliant to use and rugged, but much like a Ferrari with a 4 cylinder engine - its fine cruising along on a straight road, but when u start to push its limits, it will be disappointing.

Im not sure how long Olympus wants to keep using the 4/3 sensor for, when an APSC sensor or full frame sensor inside its bodies will sell like hot cakes and attract not only the pros but a whole heap of amateurs back.

[I @ M]

I really don't see why anyone can complain about brand and model xxxyyy not being a general great all round camera as none of them truly are.
I would happily swap the fast frame rate of a D700 for a lower base ISO and a 100% coverage viewfinder.
Just as the new Oly will appeal to certain shooters, as the 2 previous great Pentax models appealed to others there is a place in the market for all and I don't see much negative about a camera that, as you have described from the review, succeeds brilliantly.

I will have a read of the esteemed Amazon.com Dpreview test later.

[JM Tran]

I really don't see why anyone can complain about brand and model xxxyyy not being a general great all round camera as none of them truly are.
I would happily swap the fast frame rate of a D700 for a lower base ISO and a 100% coverage viewfinder.
Just as the new Oly will appeal to certain shooters, as the 2 previous great Pentax models appealed to others there is a place in the market for all and I don't see much negative about a camera that, as you have described from the review, succeeds brilliantly.

I will have a read of the esteemed Amazon.com Dpreview test later.

how is your experiences in using Olympus Andrew?

I have been there since the E1, and that was like, 5 years ago - nothing much has changed in terms of ISO performance.

I really don't see why anyone can complain about brand and model xxxyyy not being a general great all round camera as none of them truly are.

ummm I can name quite a few all round cameras that are made for that purpose - D3s, 1D4, K5 etc as recent models. The E5 is meant to be a GREAT ALL ROUND CAMERA being the flagship model, with its weather sealed body and rugged construction designed for a beating and great viewfinder and other great features. But an all round camera also needs to deliver the results in all kinds of lighting too. Please read the review before commenting more.

[I @ M]

how is your experiences in using Olympus Andrew?

I have been there since the E1, and that was like, 5 years ago - nothing much has changed in terms of ISO performance.

My Olympus experience is zilch, zip, nada. but like so many other people I am well aware that the reviews out there on the net that influence many peoples buying habits ( oops, back to Amazon.com marketing again) have painted very positive reports about many aspects of the E3 and E5, yes, it doesn't have stellar high medium range ISO performance but does that make it any less desirable to owners of of excellent lenses under the right conditions.

ummm I can name quite a few all round cameras that are made for that purpose - D3s, 1D4, K5 etc as recent models. The E5 is meant to be a GREAT ALL ROUND CAMERA being the flagship model, with its weather sealed body and rugged construction designed for a beating and great viewfinder and other great features. But an all round camera also needs to deliver the results in all kinds of lighting too. Please read the review before commenting more.

I really don't think that the cameras that you have mentioned fall into the truly great all round category, each and every one of them has a "failing", just as the E5 has in a certain area, that prevent them from being GREAT all rounders.

[JM Tran]

I really don't think that the cameras that you have mentioned fall into the truly great all round category, each and every one of them has a "failing", just as the E5 has in a certain area, that prevent them from being GREAT all rounders.

really? name what you think prevents them from being great all rounders then? Maybe you prefer them in another colour......

from my experience using them for work and fun, those 3 cameras have amazing ISO performance at all levels for full frame for APS-H, and APS-C sensors respectively. Great and accurate AF, great DR, HD filming, great viewfinders, great IQ not just at base ISO, all are weather sealed, and a plethora of others that already has made them, or will make them into classics for years to come. The D3s being something that has set a new benchmark for professional usage in all genres of work.

but like so many other people I am well aware that the reviews out there on the net that influence many peoples buying habits ( oops, back to Amazon.com marketing again) have painted very positive reports about many aspects of the E3 and E5

ummm but contrary to what you just said, this review has been more in-depth than others and did not paint it in such a positive light, so.........

I dont know about you, but I can tell when and where a review has been helpful to me in assessing a camera's performance ie. by being able to download the photos taken from the testings in a controlled environment, and also real-life situations. In this case, I am able to view its pros and cons much more accurately than I would have done in a test at home.

Also contrary to what you said, like so many other people I can tell where a review is biased towards the product or not. Sometimes dpreview gives a gold star towards something I didnt think deserve it. But this time, there were no stars involved, and the review painted it in a not so positive light due to the lack of evolution and progression of the camera sensor - which is the heart and foundation and forms the end product of any cameras - not how well it handles or if it can take a 100m drop from a plane etc.

So have you read the whole review yet?

[ricktas]

I have owned an Olympus film and digital SLR (both now sold). Olympus gear is solid and well made. I found the photos from my E-300 were great straight out of the camera and the Zuiko lenses are brilliant bits of kit. My issue is this pig-headed retention of the 4/3rd system. It will always be an issue for those that rely on it solely as the one and only sensor size.

If they make a sensor in 4/3rd's with say 16MP and good high ISO noise levels, then a full frame sensor at 16MP is always going to be better (as long as same tech level), as the bigger sensor means bigger pixel sites, and even better high ISO performance. This is just basic science! Same number of pixels over a larger area, bigger pixels, better light photo capture ability.

I am not going to dish out on the new camera, I am sure it does a super job, but Olympus are stifling their own users by this insistence on remaining 100% loyal to 4/3rds.

[I @ M]

really? name what you think prevents them from being great all rounders then?

Simple really, each model there has properties that are equal to above the others mentioned and likewise they all have a slight deficit in areas against the others that stops any of them being "great all rounders" as far as I can see.

Maybe you prefer them in another colour......

Don't know what you are referring to there, maybe just a cheap shot to draw a reaction?

from my experience using them for work and fun, those 3 cameras have amazing ISO performance at all levels for full frame for APS-H, and APS-C sensors respectively. Great and accurate AF, great DR, HD filming, great viewfinders, great IQ not just at base ISO, all are weather sealed, and a plethora of others that already has made them, or will make them into classics for years to come. The D3s being something that has set a new benchmark for professional usage in all genres of work.

So in all your experience of using all of those models extensively you are obviously more qualified than many to rate them, maybe you should be doing your own review site?

ummm but contrary to what you just said, this review has been more in-depth than others and did not paint it in such a positive light, so.........

I never said it wasn't done as an extensive review, I merely wonder whether advertising $ play any part in the final conclusion.

I dont know about you, but I can tell when and where a review has been helpful to me in assessing a camera's performance ie. by being able to download the photos taken from the testings in a controlled environment, and also real-life situations. In this case, I am able to view its pros and cons much more accurately than I would have done in a test at home.

Of course that is the case if if one did such things before buying a camera we would all probably be using 5 different brands that suit OUR particular needs rather than seeking a model that "does it all"

Also contrary to what you said, like so many other people I can tell where a review is biased towards the product or not. Sometimes dpreview gives a gold star towards something I didnt think deserve it. But this time, there were no stars involved, and the review painted it in a not so positive light due to the lack of evolution and progression of the camera sensor - which is the heart and foundation and forms the end product of any cameras - not how well it handles or if it can take a 100m drop from a plane etc.

Sorry but if the only failing of the camera is the ability to handle high ISO levels then it hasn't "failed" too badly.

So have you read the whole review yet?

Not yet.

[JM Tran]

Simple really, each model there has properties that are equal to above the others mentioned and likewise they all have a slight deficit in areas against the others that stops any of them being "great all rounders" as far as I can see.

Not the reply I was looking for, so not good enough. I want to know from your experience and knowledge of those cameras what do u think made them not worthy of being an all rounder when I stated the reasons why they are already. I want to know YOUR reasons. Not a very generalized answer with no real....answer.

So in all your experience of using all of those models extensively you are obviously more qualified than many to rate them, maybe you should be doing your own review site?

Maybe I should, I could you know. But I prefer to be helping those who lack the knowledge and experience such as those on AP by answering their questions. Besides, I shoot full time too around Aus and Asia, and not old enough to be bored enough to sit around and do testings against a diorama I made.

I never said it wasn't done as an extensive review, I merely wonder whether advertising $ play any part in the final conclusion.

Seriously? If it had gotten a nice glowing review where it shouldnt then yes you would be right. But if you had bothered to read it then no it didnt, so unless Olympus or Canon or Nikon or Pentax paid them to write a bad review.........

Sorry but if the only failing of the camera is the ability to handle high ISO levels then it hasn't "failed" too badly.

ummmm have u bothered to read what I wrote previous? What is the most important function of ANY GIVEN CAMERA? To deliver the image. In 2011, any DSLR can command a pretty decent ISO at medium to high - except for Olympus - even for its flagship model the E5. It has failed because it still fails to rectify what bothers and limits its users the most. What is the point of having all the other bells and whistles when I can piss a whole room of Oly users off by dimming or switching the light off in a room?

Not yet.

Why would you bother to try and counter and argue when you have not read it yet, nor have shown much knowledge and experience of using something that is the main topic at hand here? Correct me if Im wrong but I dont usually try and debate in subjects that I havent read into or have prior experience about before.......I dont go on a Ferrari forum and vehemently proclaim something is good or crap if I have no exp in it......am I wrong?

[peterb666]

I have been there since the E1, and that was like, 5 years ago - nothing much has changed in terms of ISO performance.

I agree with the review. I think it is spot on. My Olympus E-P1 uses the same sensor as the new E-5 and it is a crap low light performer with more noise than the front seat of a head-bangers' concert. If only Olympus ditched the sensor and moved to say something like the current 16mp sensor used in the Nikon D7000 and cropped accordingly (I expect you will still get 12mp out of that on a reduced image area), they would be competitive.

The sad fact is that I can shoot a 30 second exposure at ISO200 from my Nikon D90 with no noise reduction but cannot do that with a 4 second exposure from my Olympus.

I can shoot a 2 minute exposure with no dark frame noise reduction from my Nikon D90 but even a 15 second exposure from the Olympus without dark frame noise reduction looks like a bowl of hundreds and thousands. I cannot get a usable image out of the Olympus over 2 minutes. The sensor is crap. Olympus should be applauded for what they have managed to get out of the poor Panasonic sourced sensors but it is time they ditched them and moved on.

The problem is that while not much has changed with Olympus since the E-1, the rest of the world has moved on. I am still attached to MFT, but most of my shooting is now done with a Nikon purely because the lower image noise and increased dynamic range results in better images with less processing. It is a pity as some of my lenses, the Olympus M.Zuiko 9-18mm zoom and Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 are amongst the best of their type made by anyone.

Olympus missed an opportunity to breathe life back into the Four Thirds and instead have delivered a swansong for the format. Olympus’s future lies in MFT or possible modular cameras (if the rumour ever eventuates).

[SPL]

I have owned an Olympus film and digital SLR (both now sold). Olympus gear is solid and well made. I found the photos from my E-300 were great straight out of the camera and the Zuiko lenses are brilliant bits of kit. My issue is this pig-headed retention of the 4/3rd system. It will always be an issue for those that rely on it solely as the one and only sensor size.

If they make a sensor in 4/3rd's with say 16MP and good high ISO noise levels, then a full frame sensor at 16MP is always going to be better (as long as same tech level), as the bigger sensor means bigger pixel sites, and even better high ISO performance. This is just basic science! Same number of pixels over a larger area, bigger pixels, better light photo capture ability.

I am not going to dish out on the new camera, I am sure it does a super job, but Olympus are stifling their own users by this insistence on remaining 100% loyal to 4/3rds.

Olympus is not staying loyal to its users by remaining loyal to 4/3rds. It is dumping 4/3rds for m4/3rds which is a format I for one cannot abide. The micro 4/3rds bodies are totally out of balance with the amazing 12-60mm or 50-200mm Zuiko lenses. Having quite a bit invested in the lenses I will stick to the system rather han changing over. The investment in Canikon lenses of the quality of these costs more than a few stops is worth especially as I have had very little need for ISO speeds above 400.

[Kym]

Interesting.
EVIL cameras all seem to be 4/3 (I'm not sure if an APS-C EVIL has evolved yet - happy to be informed).
So for now if they cannot compete in the ISO stakes then EVIL will remain very much entry level.

Clearly you can do brilliant things with sensors noise wise (the K-5 & D7000 prove this), but the smaller the sensor the more difficult the physics becomes.

[Arg]

I see blogs by pro photographers who are trying out the EVIL cameras for walkaround/personal use, and say they LOVE the picture quality. Hmm, that’s a 4/3 sensor.

Secondly, the Olympus cameras are renowned for their fantastic looking jpegs. The raws can't be worse.

Then you come across portfolios by war photographers and social documentarians using compact cameras, and their images can be absolutely searing. These people are pro photographers and IMHO great artists.

The biggest problem Olympus has isn’t their sensor size, it’s buyer obsession with The Great Allrounder. If a camera has one thing that isn’t as good as every other camera, it gets bagged to death and pronounced unusable, or at the very least undesirable.

People who obsess about great allrounders probably don’t know what they want to photograph or how they are going to photograph it. Either that or they gigantically overestimate their own versatility. So they shop for a camera that covers all possibilities because they don’t have a clue what it will and won’t be used for, in fact it will probably be carried around everywhere while the owner ‘remains open to possibilities’.

Well that’ not Olympus’ fault, although they are paying the price commercially for being unique.

Olympus DSLR owners should be sneering right back over the fence at us. I always say camera bodies come and bodies go, but lenses are forever. Here are a few questions for Oly E5 owners to fire right back at FF owners (APS-C in brackets): Are you enjoying your 70-200mm (45-135mm) f2.0 super high quality zoom lens, 200mm long and 1600g? How about your 600mm (400mm) f2.8 super high quality with 3 ED elements, I don’t see that in your bag? Your 300mm (200mm) f2.0 must be left at home today, I presume? And your standard zoom 28-70mm (18-50mm), I guess the f2.0 mark has rubbed off the dial, right? Does it have 5 stops of IS? My 300mm (200mm) f2.0 has class leading performance, or it would if it wasn’t in a class of one!

My tip for Oly DSLR owners: hang in there, you've got us all beat for lenses, and you're smart enough to shoot at low ISO at which your images lack for nothing, and just one more generation of sensor and you'll be shooting at higher ISO (if you really must), while all the other brands' lenses are showing no sign of catching up, ever.

[kiwi]

I cant afford 5 different specialist camera, so, an allrounder is necessary for me

It has to (for me)

Be good in a studio - high IQ, colours etc
Be good at events - weddings, parties, awards where low light performance is a must
Be fast - fast to focus, fast to shoot, fast to write for sport - often played where you need over iso 10000 unless youre always as Lang Park

That's why I invested one great all around body - so it can do all these things as well as be a rather heavy point & shoot in "P" mode

[JM Tran]

I see blogs by pro photographers who are trying out the EVIL cameras for walkaround/personal use, and say they LOVE the picture quality. Hmm, that’s a 4/3 sensor.

Secondly, the Olympus cameras are renowned for their fantastic looking jpegs. The raws can't be worse.

Then you come across portfolios by war photographers and social documentarians using compact cameras, and their images can be absolutely searing. These people are pro photographers and IMHO great artists.

The biggest problem Olympus has isn’t their sensor size, it’s buyer obsession with The Great Allrounder. If a camera has one thing that isn’t as good as every other camera, it gets bagged to death and pronounced unusable, or at the very least undesirable.

People who obsess about great allrounders probably don’t know what they want to photograph or how they are going to photograph it. Either that or they gigantically overestimate their own versatility. So they shop for a camera that covers all possibilities because they don’t have a clue what it will and won’t be used for, in fact it will probably be carried around everywhere while the owner ‘remains open to possibilities’.

Well that’ not Olympus’ fault, although they are paying the price commercially for being unique.

Olympus DSLR owners should be sneering right back over the fence at us. I always say camera bodies come and bodies go, but lenses are forever. Here are a few questions for Oly E5 owners to fire right back at FF owners (APS-C in brackets): Are you enjoying your 70-200mm (45-135mm) f2.0 super high quality zoom lens, 200mm long and 1600g? How about your 600mm (400mm) f2.8 super high quality with 3 ED elements, I don’t see that in your bag? Your 300mm (200mm) f2.0 must be left at home today, I presume? And your standard zoom 28-70mm (18-50mm), I guess the f2.0 mark has rubbed off the dial, right? Does it have 5 stops of IS? My 300mm (200mm) f2.0 has class leading performance, or it would if it wasn’t in a class of one!

My tip for Oly DSLR owners: hang in there, you've got us all beat for lenses, and you're smart enough to shoot at low ISO at which your images lack for nothing, and just one more generation of sensor and you'll be shooting at higher ISO (if you really must), while all the other brands' lenses are showing no sign of catching up, ever.

nope, I have to disagree with this one.

In a generation where ISO performance even at mid range 400-1600 (1600 being the new mid range these days) - Olympus' decision to battle on with the smaller sensor is really doing it no favours at all to back up their lenses and innovations. I have said this and I'll say it again in this thread - the most important thing for any camera is not how awesome its lenses are or how rugged and nice it feels - its all about the end result - being the photo. if you cannot deliver comparable images at 400 or 800 above and so on, whats the point of that nice 12-60 SWD in front of it then?

Weight......geez Im willing, pretty much 99% of people are wiling to carry a few more kilos to end up with better results in the end. Someone once asked me at an Army Open Day - why dont all my men in my platoon carry something light like an MP5? I said they could, its a bloody great weapon, nice and light with next to no recoil - but it lacks the killing/punching power to nail someone to the ground and make them stay there. I think the same for the Oly cameras. BTW - an E-5 isnt that really small and light when u hold one......

If you want to play the aperture debate - heres mine - an F2 aperture on full frame is the same as F2 on an Oly. Too bad the real world use means that F2 on full frame at any given focal length will draw in much much much more light than on a 4/3 sensor. An F2 on full frame will be brighter, better bokeh etc. Not to mention better wides.......So really, great for Oly to develop light constant F2 lenses, too bad its still bloody expensive if not more so than its full frame equivalents! Oh and yeah, it is let down by the light gathering ability of a smaller sensor, harrrrooooo!

The biggest problem Olympus has isn’t their sensor size, it’s buyer obsession with The Great Allrounder. If a camera has one thing that isn’t as good as every other camera, it gets bagged to death and pronounced unusable, or at the very least undesirable.

you know whats funny? The SLR was and is meant to be a type of all rounder camera - its not the absolute best for portraits or landscapes ala medium and large formats but meant for versatility. Its coming of age was during the Vietnam War and beyond. You know what else is funny? The biggest problem with Olympus IS THEIR SENSOR SIZE! Because it represents the end product of any camera really - the Photo Not how nice and small its lenses are.

Then you come across portfolios by war photographers and social documentarians using compact cameras, and their images can be absolutely searing. These people are pro photographers and IMHO great artists.

as a professional photographer and a user of Oly 3/4 and micro 4/3 sometimes, I think Im in a good position to compare and comment on how they perform in the field for me as I have used it for my PJ line of work sometimes. Yeah I love the IQ, too bad when light fades or I step into a room or somewhere dimly lit.......what should I do? Carry a tripod with me all the time even for interviews? Switch to an F2 lens? But it doesnt gather light as good as an F2 prime on my full frame! Or how about the F1.4 or F1.2? Yeah........no.

[Arg]

<snip> if you cannot deliver comparable images at 400 or 800 above and so on, whats the point of that nice 12-60 SWD in front of it then?

The answer is in your question: below 800.

Weight......geez Im willing, pretty much 99% of people are wiling to carry a few more kilos to end up with better results in the end. Someone once asked me at an Army Open Day - why dont all my men in my platoon carry something light like an MP5? I said they could, its a bloody great weapon, nice and light with next to no recoil - but it lacks the killing/punching power to nail someone to the ground and make them stay there. I think the same for the Oly cameras.

Bad news for your men: I bet there is or soon will be a weapon with greater range which is bigger and heavier, which they will just 'have to have' or they will be the short bow against the long bow.
They are in a competition. I'm not. And even if I was, it's different because my results (photographic excellence) are 10x more dependent on skill than equipment.

an F2 aperture on full frame is the same as F2 on an Oly. Too bad the real world use means that F2 on full frame at any given focal length will draw in much much much more light than on a 4/3 sensor. An F2 on full frame will be brighter, better bokeh etc.

I must be really dumb because I don't understand this at all. To me an f2 on 4/3 is brighter than an f4 on FF.

what should I do? Carry a tripod with me all the time even for interviews? Switch to an F2 lens? But it doesnt gather light as good as an F2 prime on my full frame! Or how about the F1.4 or F1.2? Yeah........no.

Yep, I sympathise. I'm an Allrounder. I don't know what I want to shoot and how I'm going to do it. So I was not so attracted to 4/3. But I'm NOT going to say bigger sensor is always better. I'm like that foot soldier: I'm prepared to carry a bit more so I can nail 'em to the ground, but once it is big enough to do that job, I'm not going to ask for something bigger and bigger and bigger. My life doesn't depend on it either. For some photographers the Oly range nails IQ for their style and technique of photography and offers unique lens solutions that make it the right answer.

Asking Olympus to move to bigger sensors is asking them clone Canon, like Nikon do. And design a whole new range of lenses. No more f2 teles, no more sharp as a tack corners.

One day the 4/3 sensor will be good enough for sane low-light applications. Hopefully that day is soon. Then Olympus will be rewarded for their vision and courage. And sane photographers will flock to them and their lenses. Other photographers, obsessed with "more is better", and pixel peeping at photos taken hand held in gloom, and "I want what the pros use", will always aspire to FF or MF or whatever is the biggest they can afford.

[ricktas]

One day the 4/3 sensor will be good enough for sane low-light applications. Hopefully that day is soon. Then Olympus will be rewarded for their vision and courage. And sane photographers will flock to them and their lenses. Other photographers, obsessed with "more is better", and pixel peeping at photos taken hand held in gloom, and "I want what the pros use", will always aspire to FF or MF or whatever is the biggest they can afford.

Yes they will. Unfortunately for Olympus, so will the other brands sensors. This has zero to do with what pro's use or what people can afford. It is science, pure and simple. If Olympus can make a 4/3rd sensors that is good in low light for high ISO, you can bet that Canon/Nikon/Pentax /Sony etc will also be able to, and because their sensors are larger, they will have still have the advantage. A 16mp 4/3rds sensor will have much smaller pixel sites than an aps-c or full frame sensor of the same number of pixels, thus each individual pixel on the aps-c or ff sensor are going to be bigger, and therefore able to better resolve the light hitting them.

Olympus may (hopefully) develop the tech to improve their ISO performance, but with the retention of smaller sensors, they will always be behind the other players in the market, who will undoubtedly be able to replicate any tech Olympus does come up with.

I think Olympus need to stick to 4/3rds cause it is a good system, but also accept they are missing a lot of sales (they are after all a company that exists to create money for shareholders) by not considering also including an aps-c and ff line-up.

[JM Tran]

I must be really dumb because I don't understand this at all. To me an f2 on 4/3 is brighter than an f4 on FF.

ummm obviously it is if you wanna compare F2 on a 4/3 to an F4 on FF.

too bad I was talking about F2 on full frame and F2 on 4/3. Guess which ones brighter at the same shutter speed and ISO and all else equal? Hmmmm! Oly needs the F2 on their lenses to be more competitive in exposure to APSC and FF lenses.

Bad news for your men: I bet there is or soon will be a weapon with greater range which is bigger and heavier, which they will just 'have to have' or they will be the short bow against the long bow.

Not really, Land Warrior program for 21st century in Aus or US are aiming at making weapons smaller and lighter and still packing a punch. But like Olympus, they are trying to defy logic and physics here - muzzle velocity and kinetic energy etc cannot be attained from something so small. Unless there is some revolutionary new technology break-through, then the 4/3 sensor evolution will eventually hit a wall.

One day the 4/3 sensor will be good enough for sane low-light applications. Hopefully that day is soon. Then Olympus will be rewarded for their vision and courage. And sane photographers will flock to them and their lenses. Other photographers, obsessed with "more is better", and pixel peeping at photos taken hand held in gloom, and "I want what the pros use", will always aspire to FF or MF or whatever is the biggest they can afford.

hahahahaha! Please read Rick's post above - a lot more diplomatic than what I would write and he summed it up pretty well.

only thing Oly will be awarded for is the award for dogged persistence, not necessarily a good thing. As Rick said, by the time Oly manages to better the 4/3 sensor and defy actually physics and logic to be on par with what we have today - Other makers will have already gone further as they are using better platforms sorry. Check out 8x12 inch prints from a D3s at 102,000ISO, or 50,000ISO.

Have fun and show us some of your sample pics and work!

[Arg]

...This has zero to do with what pro's use or what people can afford. It is science, pure and simple. If Olympus can make a 4/3rd sensors that is good in low light for high ISO, you can bet that Canon/Nikon/Pentax /Sony etc will also be able to, and because their sensors are larger,....

I guess FF is doomed now Pentax have the 645 for a similar price. It's science, pure and simple

It's not like you'd keep your uncompetitive FF cameras because the LENSES are faster or more useful. It's all about the sensor....

[JM Tran]

I guess FF is doomed now Pentax have the 645 for a similar price. It's science, pure and simple

It's not like you'd keep your uncompetitive FF cameras because the LENSES are faster or more useful. It's all about the sensor....

ahhh how about no. Medium format digital will always be a specialized camera and field and not suitable for all applications, since its slow in functions and lack mid to high ISO range. Not to mention its very expensive to make the sensor alone. Pentax 645D is 12k body only in Australian retail right now, similar price to what?

so what was your point again?

[peterb666]

nope, I have to disagree with this one.

In a generation where ISO performance even at mid range 400-1600 (1600 being the new mid range these days) - Olympus' decision to battle on with the smaller sensor is really doing it no favours at all to back up their lenses and innovations.

It isn't the smaller sensor size that is the issue altough that contributes. It is the poor sensor performance in low light. You can crop a 16 to 18mp 1.5x or 1.6 sensor to FT size and have a similar pixel density but high ISO, low light performance is still better. Time for Olympus to cut the ties with Panasonic for sensors, or for Panasonic to pull their finger out.