Four 50mm f1.4 on GH4 from Dario Viola on Vimeo.
Full Frame vs Micro 4/3 Revisited with Pro Olympus Lens (Christography).
Olympus OM-D E-M10 review at Thenewsprint.
Kowa Prominar 8.5mm F2.8: Impressions & Sample Images (Bmupix).
Camera RAW Compatibility 6.04 adds support for the E-M5II, CM1 and GF7 (Apple).
Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 Review at the London Coffee Festival (Michael Briggs).
IISW 2015 Program: All-Pixel PDAF, Global Shutter Stacked Sensors, and More (Image Sensor World).
Mitakon 42,5mm f/1.2 pricing in Japan (DC.watch).
Lensbaby Velvet test at DC.watch.
Luke: “This is a short, non-profit video I put together that was shot on GH4 in Cine-V with Veydra lenses: https://vimeo.com/126703123“
30 Responses
Full Frame vs M43…
WORST.
COMPARISON.
EVER.
And this dude is supposed to be a teacher? My gosh, did Olympus Pay for that guys trip to Iceland for that write up, like they did for Steve Huff For his??
Coming from a 6D, there is NO. WAY. my GX7 could compete IQ wise to my 6D. No Way.
First he uses a filter on the Olympus lens, giving it a more visual advantage, then the 6D images have ZERO DETAIL. Does he have Arthritis or something? I owned the 35mm 2.0, the 50mm 1.4 and the 40mm 2.8 and NONE of them looked as bad as those images!
Admin, you should really be ashamed of yourself for linking that FUD. That’s really low. To think that that was an honest comparison is a Joke. Your credibility is really suspect. Did you even LOOK and read the post?
Note the images from Cameralabs:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon1740L/page5.shtml
Here is the digital Rev of the Canon lens..
https://youtu.be/FWUjwbJK8fQ
I second that. WORST COMPARISON EVER.
Ridiculous to compare an ultrawide zoom to a normal zoom.
Ridiculous to compare a 2003-made lens to a 2014 modern lens.
Ridiculous to compare different focal lengths.
And he says he’s a photography teacher? Gosh.
Why is it ridiculous to compare a 2003 lens to one from 2014?
It isn’t. It neither is ridiculous to compare “different focal lengths”, as long as they’re equivalent. Otherwise, the criticism, of course, holds…
For one it’s not news for someone who knows a bit about canon lens that the 17-40L is not the sharpest of the bunch… its resolution may be good enough for 2003, but hardly enough resolve the newer sensor of the 6D
Hardly surprising that its resolving powers lag behind that of a modern lens
You are talking about just one lens. Your statement was a general one and seemed to imply that current lenses are somehow better than older lenses. If you believe that to be the case, you are mistaken.
6:27 “something you can’t correct so much is the slight softness in the corners”.
Says the master pixel peeper.
Gosh that guy is a horrible tester (FF vs M43)…even by his “unscientific” standards he’s god awful. Puts a filter on, not even F/8.0 vs F/4.0, etc…. obviously a rookie to the game.
Unbelievable. I’ve seen my share of faulty comparisons over the years, but it seems I didn’t even know how many mistakes can be made in one such simple comparison!
Using a filter on one, but not the other shouldn’t affect the sharpness (in fact the lens with the extra filter glass could potentially suffer), but I agree he shouldn’t have used it on one unless he used it on both. My main complaint is that the images were shot a year appart, which does not take into account any current atmospheric conditions (haze, pollution, etc) that may affect image quality, especially on the detail of the buildings in the distance. I agree that it was a pretty poor and worthless comparison.
Also, maybe I’m just old, but does anyone else think that the Coffee Festival (Michael Briggs) photos look like instagram crap? I’ll never get why someone would use an OM-D with 45 1.8 lens combo, then run them through an iphone filter to make it look like you had diarrhea on your lens when you shot the pics? I’m just not a big fan of the hazy, grainy look that you get using those type of filters I guess, but to each is own. As a lens review example though, I think he could have done without them.
Hi, I’m the author of the instagram crap…it’s a polarising style clearly! the point of the article was to look at the benefits of the lens as a small kit, quick shoot, quick edit & publish to social media, rather than other more technical reviews, maybe this has been missed. The filter style is easy to critisise by purists, but it definitely has it’s place, and little days out like this to share a gallery online before you even get in the door, is spot on. The Steller app is a great representation of how filtered photography from mirrorless cameras work in tandem beautifully https://steller.co/s/4R6FuF8HVAa
Thanks for some feedback though!
Sorry Mike, have to agree with KC, that brief series of images does little or nothing to demonstrate the quality of the diminutive 45mm, in fact if I was Olympus I’d be offering to pay you to remove it, the are pure garbage.
No need to apologise Pappy. Thanks for visiting my site even if you didn’t like the post.
Like I said, to each his own. I personally don’t like it, but I’m sure there are plenty of teenage girls on instagram that have a different point of view. You’re making money though, so do whatever works!
NEVER MIND THE COMMENTS HERE MIKE.
most people who come here are wanna be or equipment and technology fans or brands whore.
most of them very frustrated because they ain’t got the talent and just discover that equipment and money ain’t gonna cover or hide that.
so they get their poison in here on someone like you or the other people who post here.
DON’T MIND THEM.
You’ve got a little something on your nose…
Polarizer DOES increase sharpness and microcontrast. This is precisely WHY you use it for landscape… not for just changing the sky. This guy is CLUELESS!
Plus, at F10 diffraction may start to come into play as well.
I have never, ever heard or seen anything that shows using ANY filter will increase sharpness. I would go so far as to challenge you to do a comparison with and without using a polarizing filter, with all other factors being equal, and show crops where using a polarizer would increase the actual sharpness of an image. Please someone else correct me if I’m wrong (and provide proof).
You have not then heard much on this topic. This is THE CLASSIC use of polarizer in landscape photography.
Plus I have done my own comparison photos to prove it to myself.
Google the explanations, if you do not believe me, but the main reasons is that a polarizer cuts down on reflections that wash out colour and features. It increases the sharpness for a GIVEN/specific situation, above what you would get without polarizer… of course it does not create or add sharpness beyond what is in the scene, minus reflections.
… i.e. prove it to yourself if you care, I am not your free photography tutor if you are unwilling to even google a simple thing 🙂
Wait, in the same paragraph you state “It increases the sharpness for a GIVEN/specific situation” but also that “of course it does not create or add sharpness beyond what is in the scene, minus reflections”. So it INCREASES shapness, but dose not CREATE or ADD sharpness.
I’m not asking you to be my “free photography tutor”. I’d prefer someone that knows what the hell they are talking about.
Any piece of glass placed between the lens and the scene you are shooting is going to have an adverse effect (albeit small, depending on the quality of your filter glass). Nothing will INCREASE, CREATE, or ADD sharpness. Now you may be able to reduce reflections, and increase contrast to give the illusion of a sharper image, but that does not mean it’s actually improving your sharpness.
Why can’t you show your comparison photos to prove it if you have already taken them?
A polarizer definitely increases image contrast, but I’m not sure you can say it increases the resolving power of an optical system.
… same thing in the end, if you look through say haze, the resolution will be reduced… if you remove haze, you will be able to see better resolution. Like looking through fog, remove it, and you see sharper features. The same for reflections from rocks, foliage, etc.
Let’s then say that it increases effective sharpness of the photo, but of course does nothing to underlaying performance of the lens.
The rest is a philosophical argument on whether it actually increases sharpness or just brings out sharpness hidden by other effects… to me this is all the same for the purpose of a review. The problem is that people look at test charts and think THAT is the ultimate way to measure resolution and you do not shoot test charts through haze, under strong sunlight, etc.
“… same thing in the end, if you look through say haze, the resolution will be reduced…”
No, the resolution of the lens remains exactly the same.
The same? How? The finer features will disappear and the resolution will be reduced… try it as a test in a real photo 🙂 The argument is not about the lens, but about the PHOTO. Or think about the extreme example of heavy fog when the resolution goes to zero because you see nothing.
Haze reduces sharpness, the polarizer eliminates the haze, returning sharpness to what it would be without haze. Eliminating a factor that reduces sharpness is not the same as increasing sharpness.
… I am not showing anything because you argue the point and seem to have no experience and I am not inetersted in arguing. Comparison photos can be found online, there are millions… look for them.
You’re not interested in arguing? Bwahahaha! That’s ALL you’ve been doing! You actually STARTED the argument. Just because you keep repeating the same, WRONG, info isn’t going to change anyone’s mind. Proof is in the pictures, and that’s something you just don’t have.
yes, arguing as in flaming… I find your persistance insane… it takes less time to find the info than it took you to ask me repeatedly. The further point is that if you find it, you will believe it, and if I GIVE IT TO YOU, you will argue with it… as you are doing now, over the simple point I gave that this is all EASILY found through google.