kye Posted February 13, 2022 Share Posted February 13, 2022 13 hours ago, M_Williams said: I can't say anything without violating NDA but let's just say I am not happy about the direction OM System is going with the naming scheme in some ways (in other ways it is better - OM-1 is much cleaner than OM-D E-M1). I must admit that I have always been confused by their model numbering system. Something like the Panasonic lines (G, GX, GH) or Sony (Ax, AxR, AxS) or Canon (xD, xxD, xxxD) etc make it easy for people to navigate. If Olympus had a system in their model numbers, I never saw anything that explained it. 9 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said: Just to add a historical footnote... The E-M1 MK II actually DIDN'T have PDAF in video until firmware 3.0, which was two-and-a-half years AFTER the release of the camera (E-M1 MK II was released in 2016, Firmware 3.0 released June 18, 2019). That also means the firmware was available only AFTER the GH5 had been available for two years and a couple of months. And I am with you in that I wasn't sure Olympus still even made cameras until I saw that @Dave Maze video, too. There are a few things that drive me mad with my E-M1 MK II, such as the fact that LOG and Flat Profiles are ONLY available in 24fps DCI (not in 23.978fps, nor in UHD 16:9), and you have to do a bit of menu diving to get in to those picture profiles. On the other hand, for non-log, using the Natural profile with reduced contrast, sharpness and saturation is really nice as long as the dynamic range isn't overwhelming. That makes a lot of sense. I would have been surprised if I was choosing between an Olympus and the GH5 and the Olympus brand ambassador I was talking with just failed to mention the Oly had PDAF! I do remember that the Olympus was more about getting it right in-camera than the GH5 which had the log profiles and 10-bit, which would allow more flexibility in post. That definitely matters to me as I shoot travel in available light and really appreciate the flexibility in post that I can get. 24 minutes ago, tupp said: One could ask those same questions if the situation were merely that some marketing person with zero sense of history had a whim to do a "rebrand." By the way, the derivation of the new name is demonstrated by the video at the top of this web page. Never underestimate the incompetence of corporate executives and marketing people. Yeah, it definitely smells like a rebrand from some marketing people. I'd imagine that such a thing would be a pretty standard process - failing brand comes on as a client and you do the normal brainstorming / focus group / market research / graphic design / blah blah blah stuff. Mark Romero 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.