Not a huge fair, but most brands where represented. No hot news, just sharing my experiences.Amidst the (ofcourse) bigger stands of Nikon and Canon, there was a small Olympus stand. I had the time to speak with the Olympus guy in this stand. Although he "couldn't" tell everything he said:30th of june news from Olympus (probably Pen 2 successor, but NO pro m4/3rds)In time there will be a successor for the E5; according to him this might be a mirrorless camera as big as E30/E5...(???). (I asked him why I would screw my 50-200mm lens onto a m4/3rds body...completely crazy).Now a mirrorless camera as big as E30/E5?? Why would anyone do that??Maybe the guy had wild fantasies and doesn't know anything...I certainly didn't understand his reasoning (or maybe Olympus' reasoning?). Maybe I'll go again tomorrow:-)

I'm pretty sure he's just read the 4/3 rumours website .. like everybody else.Trust me, having worked in similar areas, I can tell you that reps have no more info than the general public. Company roadmaps (unless published officially) are well kept secrets limited only to higher management.And those who know, will never (publicly) leak non-official information .. unless they want to get sacked.

mujanawrote:30th of june news from Olympus (probably Pen 2 successor, but NO pro m4/3rds)That date has been thrown around for a news release. Let's hope it's not just the same sensor repackaged in yet another body. No Pro-PEN is going to disappoint many.In time there will be a successor for the E5; according to him this might be a mirrorless camera as big as E30/E5...(???). (I asked him why I would screw my 50-200mm lens onto a m4/3rds body...completely crazy).Good question. Did he give any good answers?Now a mirrorless camera as big as E30/E5?? Why would anyone do that??Olympus being stubborn. They need to perform a current and competent market survey. They hold to the belief that professional photographers must have cameras the size of Canon EOS 1D. A knee jerk reaction from the Olympus OM days when compact and simple was regarded as non-professional.Maybe the guy had wild fantasies and doesn't know anything...I certainly didn't understand his reasoning (or maybe Olympus' reasoning?).There is no logic to Olympus' current reasoning. Sales keep plummeting. If I were in his shoes I would be looking for another job.New CEO, Michael Woodford has not announced any plans on how he intends to turn Olympus around.Maybe I'll go again tomorrow:-)Perhaps you can squeeze more info about the new leadership at Olympus

mujanawrote:In time there will be a successor for the E5; according to him this might be a mirrorless camera as big as E30/E5...(???). (I asked him why I would screw my 50-200mm lens onto a m4/3rds body...completely crazy).Now a mirrorless camera as big as E30/E5?? Why would anyone do that??You don't see these two statements as a contradiction answering your own question? I would say, why would anyone screw on a 50-200mm lens on anything smaller than an E30/E5? The E510 would be as small as I would make a high end PEN. The E510 is a little undersized for the bigger HG lenses but is still small enough for portability with the SG line.A mirrorless E30 size would allow people who need something bigger to have something bigger. The m43 lenses might look funny on it rather than the other way around.

mujanawrote:(I asked him why I would screw my 50-200mm lens onto a m4/3rds body...completely crazy). Now a mirrorless camera as big as E30/E5?? Why would anyone do that??Erm, probably because of the above? A 50-200 on a small body would look (and probably handle) bad.Also, since Fuji's PDAF-on-sensor is probably unattainable, the body will need room for some kind of a physical contraption to enable PDAF for (g)old lenses.

".....Probably because of the above....."I understand that, but why then not just keep the mirror in place?

They would remove the mirror to standardize technolgies across the system. Removing the moving components and associated electronics, the prisms, and the AF system (plus the related software and processing) and replacing them with a common CDAF and EVF system for their entire line of cameras.

mujanawrote:30th of june news from Olympus (probably Pen 2 successor, but NO pro m4/3rds)Great news for me, even though many others will be sad about it.All I want camera-wise from Olympus is a m4/3 in a nice form factor (PEN or DSLR-style) with EVF. I'd pay a fair amount for it, but I don't want to pay Oly's "pro" prices if I can avoid it.Excited about the rumored lens announcements as well.

mujanawrote:".....Probably because of the above....."I understand that, but why then not just keep the mirror in place?I think that the BIG push for the mirrorless concept is fabrication costs. Going from an optical/mechanical component that needs careful installing and calibration to a purely electronic component chain that doesn't need higher tech labor, has got to be a big cost saving.I also think that all the mfrs are waiting around like vultures for an EVF that is "good enough", before really jumping in with both feet. Much of the R&D has been done or looked at with all the P&S small sensor cams. When all this comes together the profit margins will improve, al least for a while and the optics, hinges, gearing, springs, prism, focusing screens will begin to fade into the sunset. Cameras with true reflex viewing systems will be like rangefinder cameras that have true coincident mechanical rangefinders (Leica M) and the higher costs will become a heated subject of discussion.....LOL Bob

...because mirrorless IS THE Future, it´s only a matter of time. All brands will end there, sooner or later. Of course, some "specialized" models may keep the mirror system, but overall mirorrless is what we will have in due time.And a well sized camera to hold the whole 4/3 line of D Zuikos can´t comfortably be any smaller than something a bit larger than fex a 510/520/620.mujanawrote:".....Probably because of the above....."I understand that, but why then not just keep the mirror in place?

mujanawrote:".....Probably because of the above....."I understand that, but why then not just keep the mirror in place?Because a rapid return mirror reflecting into a pentamirror/pentaprism OVF is 50+ year old technology that is both expensive and rife with performance issues.Vibration-it's why pro grade cameras have had mirror lock up for ages, or at least a 2 second shutter delay.Coverage issues-making an OVF give 100% coverage is expensive, and leads to increased size of the camera.Versatility-an EVF has shortcomings, but they are decreasing each year. The advantages outweigh the shortcomings in almost all respects. This is especially true regarding video or any other situation where you want to see what will actually show up as the final image-exposure, WB, aspect ratio etc-without resorting to clunky LV or chimping.Durability-an EVF can be made as or more durable than a mirror/OVF at any given manufacturing cost point.Cost, of course. It takes some very exacting (and therefore expensive) manufacturing process to ensure that a mirror/OVF assembly is aligned correctly. Also, eliminating mirror/OFV means not having 2 separate focusing systems.Technology-There are things that can be done with an EVF that will never be possible with an OVF.