Thread: Will Olympus crush Panasonic now Sony are backing them?

Originally Posted by norman shearer

Good first point and I suppose that indicates development costs for new size sensors are not that big.

A FF NEX would be the dogs gonads but aren't E-mount lenses designed for APS-C sensors? They could be used on smaller sensors without loss of quality but go the other way and you introduce heavy vignetting and distortion etc?

You could be right about the Panasonic GH3 sensor. It makes sense for Sony to supply it knowing they will always maintain a lead time in this regard and therefore keep Panasonic in their place..

Yes, to my knowledge all of the current E mount lenses are built to cover only an APSC sized sensor, but the E-mount NEX VG900 video camera has a full frame sensor. Right now you can either use it with an E-mount lens and use only an APSC-sized crop, or use it with an adapter and one of Sony's full frame lenses. But it would make sense for Sony to produce E-mount lenses that support an FF sensor in the future... which would also make a full frame, E-mount stills camera that much more likely.

Originally Posted by norman shearer

On a different note. I've seen high iso shots from the OMD and they are remarkably clean at high iso. They appear to be as good or possibly better than those from my APS-C Sony 5N. To me this is remarkable and also illogical. How can the margin of difference be so narrow? It's like a Mini out-dragging a Ferrari. My 5N files marginally outperform those of my full frame Canon 5D files but I can understand that because the time gap between the Canon 5D sensor and the Sony 5N
sensor is long and new tech progression advances pretty fast. Yet APS-C and Full Frame sensor tech is moving on too now so you would expect the differences to more or less remain constant. Unless the investment and therefore research in sensor tech is no longer equal?

As good as the Sony 16MP APS-C sensor is for clean images at high ISOs, the E-M5 is a great example of a system-based approach. I don't think that the sensor is quite as efficient as that in the 5N, but to be honest it doesn't need to be. Not only does it have a good range of lenses that you can buy right now (as opposed to maybe sometime in the future), but it also has one of the best image stabilisation systems yet developed which means that ALL of those large aperture prime lenses are stabilised because it is built into the body. It also has the advantage of using a smaller sensor (yes, I did say that right). A larger sensor can be limited by too-small a depth-of-field when shot at large apertures, which means that it is more likely to have to be stopped down and therefore require a higher ISO setting.

It was actually an interesting observation after buying a NEX-5N to try, that it wasn't a better camera for me in low light scenarios than the E-M5.

For a non-traditional camera company, Panasonic has actually proven to be a very, very good lens manufacturer. They were also the ones that dragged contrast-detect AF kicking and screaming out of slow-focusing compacts and being the first to really make it competitive with phase-detect DSLRs.

Olympus really had to turn to someone other than Panasonic for their sensors. Panasonic was keeping them a generation behind, not willing to sell them the 16MP the company had in its own models. I understand wanting to keep your competition behind you if they depend on you for a crucial part, but Olympus really could knot keep depending on Panasonic for last year's old news. My guess is that the conversations between Sony and Olympus about Sony providing the the sensors for the E-M5 and the following generation of Pens predates Sony's interest in Olympus. It may, indeed, have made the subsequent business moves more sensible.

Originally Posted by Luckypenguin

As good as the Sony 16MP APS-C sensor is for clean images at high ISOs, the E-M5 is a great example of a system-based approach. I don't think that the sensor is quite as efficient as that in the 5N, but to be honest it doesn't need to be. Not only does it have a good range of lenses that you can buy right now (as opposed to maybe sometime in the future), but it also has one of the best image stabilisation systems yet developed which means that ALL of those large aperture prime lenses are stabilised because it is built into the body. It also has the advantage of using a smaller sensor (yes, I did say that right). A larger sensor can be limited by too-small a depth-of-field when shot at large apertures, which means that it is more likely to have to be stopped down and therefore require a higher ISO setting.

It was actually an interesting observation after buying a NEX-5N to try, that it wasn't a better camera for me in low light scenarios than the E-M5.

I agree totally...Panasonic and Olympus (both together and separately) have a an ecosystem of bodies and lenses that is really hard to beat. In fact Sony can't compete with them on that level. Like anything however there are things that systems do well and other things they do less well. For someone like me NEX is the bees knees because I LOVE using old MF glass and it happens that for a variety of reasons the NEX does it better than m43 (at least for my specific needs).

Originally Posted by Lawrence A.

Olympus really had to turn to someone other than Panasonic for their sensors. Panasonic was keeping them a generation behind, not willing to sell them the 16MP the company had in its own models. I understand wanting to keep your competition behind you if they depend on you for a crucial part, but Olympus really could keep depending on Panasonic for last year's old news. My guess is that the conversations between Sony and Olympus about Sony providing the the sensors for the E-M5 and the following generation of Pens predates Sony's interest in Olympus. It may, indeed, have made the subsequent business moves more sensible.

My guess is that the relationship between Olympus and Panasonic long soured before Sony came into the picture. The rumors for a while were that Panasonic was going to be Olympus's white knight. Instead Panasonic eventually said they were not interested in Olympus and Sony came into the picture. My impression is that there is bad blood between Panasonic and Olympus now.

Originally Posted by dixeyk

I agree totally...Panasonic and Olympus (both together and separately) have a an ecosystem of bodies and lenses that is really hard to beat. In fact Sony can't compete with them on that level. Like anything however there are things that systems do well and other things they do less well. For someone like me NEX is the bees knees because I LOVE using old MF glass and it happens that for a variety of reasons the NEX does it better than m43 (at least for my specific needs).

^^ And that's the thing. No one system (or even brand within a system in the case Oly and Panny) has yet to and probably never will be capable of being everything to everyone, and system strengths and weaknesses will shift over time. I'm even fairly sure that a year or two ago I was reading threads predicting that Panasonic would steamroller over Olympus...

It is in the interest of Olympus to keep Panasonic in the business. Only one will get a hard time to keep the 4/3 system alive. They need eachother.

To answer the original question: no. Worst case scenario, Panasonic uses Sony sensors until it can bring it's own up to speed. To be honest, I don't think they are that far behind. Olympus just evened the playing filed a bit by finding another sensor source. Some folks prefer the Panasonic DSLR style bodies and, as has been pointed out, Panasonic has proven very good at making lenses.

Originally Posted by Luckypenguin

For a non-traditional camera company, Panasonic has actually proven to be a very, very good lens manufacturer. They were also the ones that dragged contrast-detect AF kicking and screaming out of slow-focusing compacts and being the first to really make it competitive with phase-detect DSLRs.

They've been making lenses for a long time. So has Sony. Just for products that most consumers are not familiar with. I remember Panasonic MII video recorders from the '80s. They were trying to challenge the dominant player in the broadcast video field. That dominant player was/is Sony. Many people are surprised that companies like Panasonic and Sony are such players in photography today. They associate them with rice makers and walkmans. I wonder why it took them so long to leverage their video know how.