ePhotozine (great work guys!) posted the first pictures of the Olympus 300mm f/4.0 prototype lens! Olympus released no info about detailed specs and price but the lens will be released next year (2015). For reference: Teh 1 stop faster Four Thirds 300mm costs $6499 at BHphoto.
UPDATE: Admiringlight also posted pictures of the 300mm and the 7-14mm mockup lenses. He writes:
The Olympus employee noted that they were only mockups, rather than working lenses. The finish on these two lenses appears identical to the other two Olympus Pro lenses, and the 300mm f/4 looks to be roughly the same size as the 40-150mm, which isn’t too bad at all.
Let’s hope Olympus will not let us wait oo much before we can get the final production version in our hands!
Olympus preorders:
Silver E-M1 body at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus. In Europe at Wex UK.
40-150mm f/2.8 PRO lens at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus. In Europe at Wex UK.
LH-76 lens hood at Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus.
MC-14 1.4x teleconverter at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus.
PRF-ZD62 Z protection filter at Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus.
PRF-ZD72 Z protection filter at Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus.
General links to all new Olympus stuff at Adorama.
ALL new stuff announced at Photokina at Amazon.
Panasonic preorders:
LX100 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto. Europe at WexUK.
GM5 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto. Europe at WexUK.
GM5 in red at Adorama.
35-100mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
189 Responses
Actually, I had them up in my Olympus booth report yesterday. Do I get a cookie?
By the way, did you get my submitted links for my photokina how reports? (One yesterday and one today) just making sure the submissions are working correctly
Hi! I am preparing a roundup post with all link included! If I miss yours let me know!!!
P.S.: And sorry if I am slow with linking. My mailbox is fulll and I have to work during the day 🙁
One mroe thing: Will post links to your site from MirrorlessRumors too!
No sweat, I just wanted to make sure you got them.
What a monster. I bought an MFT system for it’s compact size and light weigt. Olympus is defeating that purpose.
Uh, then don’t buy this one? This existing doesn’t make your current lenses bigger.
Switch the universe, this one dictates some rules.
It is only defeated if you buy and carry the big lens. If you stick with smaller and lighter lenses, you will be fine. Options are good! Nobody is forcing you to buy or use this.
Something tells me you were defeated a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.
but the new 40-150mm is also very large.
mFT system is compact & light for the use to shoot below 150mm ( 300mm ) , once hit 150mm above , it will getting bigger but please don’t limit it’s potential .
This lens just come on time for people to fulfill their birding dreams .
Too bad it will cost more than my last car. 🙁
It will also be lot better than your last car.
Geez, I hope so. 😉
This is pretty small compared to a 600 for a big DSLR and it lets the wildlife and sports folks into the mirrorless world. Almost every article making the case that DSLRs aren’t dead is by someone who can’t live without their car-sized, car-priced glass. We need lenses like these to round out the system.
You are comparing apples and oranges. You can’t compare this to a 600 mm piece of glass, it’s a 300 mm. A 600 mm lens on any of the DX (crop) format cameras on Nikon/Canon would give you more than 600 of course, but that’s not the point. This is physically a 300 mm lens, and you have to compare it to other physical 300 mm lenses, despite the crop factor your camera has.
The original complaint was about losing the size and weight advantage of m43. This lens is the same size as any other 300/4, and while that’s big compared to the 14/2.5, when you look at the whole system this will give comparable reach to a 7d with a 400 or a d4 with a 600. Objectively it’s not a small lens, but relatively, it’s pretty compact and gives a wildlife shooter the option of shedding their aging 1D or whatever because the only thing keeping dslrs ‘alive’ is the lenses available for them
How small do you expect a 300/4 lens to be? There’s only so small it can physically be made.
I have an old manual fullframe 200mm 4.0. It’s way heavier, but it’s still worth using. This new lens is longer, lighter, and has autofocus.
For bird photographers a m43 kit with this lens would save them a LOT of weight. The only thing missing is faster autofocus.
Tell that to Pekka Potka 🙂
They are not discontinuing the smaller lenses. If this is too big for you then, you know what comes next. Don’t buy it.
Olympus has just the lens for you! It’s the 75-300mm 4.8-6.7. Probably half the weight, and just 1/3 the cost! It’s your lucky day!
It’s good then that Olympus has many small bodies and small lenses for you to use that fit your photographic needs, so you have nothing to complain about. This will be smaller and lighter than a comparable DSLR/lens combo and that’s why I and many users are excited for longer lenses in m43.
Who is still buying Olympus anyway?
Really?
Name the other bits in the system that will be made bigger and heavier because this lens exists?
My head will be “made bigger”, after carrying this monster…
OMG! It looks huge …
She said! 😉 Or you just wish she did. 😀
Jordan at Admiring Light mentioned it’s about the same size as the 40-150/2.8. So not ridiculous for telephoto users, especially when you couple it with the 1.4TC. A 420mm/5.6 for that size is pretty amazing!
-never mind-
The SHQ 300/2.8 was the sharpest lens in the old 4:3 lineup—at least it had the flattest MTF graph. I wonder if Oly ZD is aiming to make this µ4:3 300/4 even sharper! With a max aperture of F/4, it should be easier to design than the 300/2.8. I still find it incredible that the new µ4:3 40-150/2.8 has a flatter MTF graph than the 4:3 150/2! I also wonder of they have designs for a 150mm SHQ µ4:3 super tele down the lens roadmap?
Impressive.
Olympus is really working hard making its ecosystem work for all types of photographers.
this ..is..my.. BOOMSTICK!
amazing.
Wow.. Olympus is getting crazy serious about new lenses .
Where is the respond from Pana ?
To be fair, Panasonic already has all their Pro options on the market with the exception of a long telephoto, and has for a while. Their 7-14, 12-35, and 35-100 are all available…
Since 2012 we have been promised a 150mm f2.8. Oh yes, it was certain that it would be announced at PK2014.
Nice !
+1
It looks like Panasonic is not going to focus on the longer telephoto lenses. Disappointing for me as I will need to switch bodies from my GH3 to E-M1/2 when the time comes.
It seems like panasonic is spending much less on R&D.
Didn’t you see…….the…….yaaaaaawwwwwnnn – excuse me, where was I – oh yes – didn’t you see the….ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz….what, where am I? – damn, yes didn’t you see the Panasonic 30mm f something macro lens – oh yes, 2.8 I think – that’s a new one I think.
I can hardly w….. I can hardly w….ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz……
With teleconverter x1.4, that’s a 420mm (840mm 24*36).
840 mm F11, to be precise. Barely useful in full sunlight.
Actually it is 840mm f5.6!!!
On a sensor with 1/4 the size and 1/4 the ISO capabilities, it breaks down to a rather useless combo, like some bridge cameras.
Your brain, your mouth – now there’s a useless combo.
LOL it stings huh?
Yep, so there *are* a couple of people who know stuff in this forum. I am glad.
Ya’ll are so ignorant. f11 in terms of dof, but still f5.6 in terms of light gathering. Yes the sensor is smaller blah blah, but there sometimes you need that deeper dof and at lower ISOs full frame cameras do not have a full stop sensor advantage in terms of detail, noise, etc.
please check size 800/5.6 sizes on FF system… This 300mm m.zuiko is only 20cm size lenght
and 12.000$
F5.6. good enough.
Some thing in VDO >>
Oly 7-14 f2.8 & 300 f4 ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG-5rOrHhpE
Really looking forward to this lens, honestly, though I hope it’s not that terribly expensive.
Hope, not expect.
The 7-14 is the lens I’m saving for.
I was hoping they would include a filter turret with this zoom, holding a circular polarizer, a strong UV, and a couple ND filters. All of these are still not possible to represent through software. Hopefully, they are also employing a filter turret for the 300/4, although they may just use a 82mm filter thread with it—like they did with the old 4:3 150/2.
Ultra big lenses on tiny sensors……LOL.
Good one. Very original.
Ultra-big, expensive and heavy lenses in a huge backpack, killing your shoulders and back…. Way to go, dude !
Ultra tiny mind with a big camera…LOL
But they are by far the smallest in its class. In order to have a smaller camera system you need to shrink the sensor. While the FF fanboys apparently enjoy to carry a lot bulk and still not get adequate IQ in most lenses, m4/3 users enjoy small systems, small weight and excellent corner to corner sharpness.
Nope. Equivalent lenses have similar sizes. Some people have been conned into thinking otherwise.
Please. You need to educate yourself on how large a 600mm f4 full frame lens really is.
Have you been conned? Or are you the conman?
This is a 300 F4, not a 300 F4. Have you “educated” yourself to reading and understanding?
“This is a 300 F4, not a 300 F4.”
Makes sense to me.
I need to educate myself? LOL where are you being educated?
Canon 5D + 135mm f2 (11cm long) + 4/3 crop = 270mm f2.
Canon 700D (smaller,lighter) + 100mm f2 (7,5cm) = 320mm f2.
Canon EOS M + …you know what i mean.
Really? Have you read that in Mickey Mouse?
Really. And I am a big (no pun intended) supporter of m43 (I have more lenses than I can count). This is just silly.
You have a very limited vocabulary.
Viezevure is a FF troll so,please,stop to respond to him.
+1
Oh, I thought the comment was about the *advantage* of tiny sensors. 🙂
As in: Big lenses on tiny sensors! Yes!
Tell us more, which tiny sensor advantage? A tiny advantage? Please go ahead. Be careful though: I am a troll.
“which tiny sensor advantage?”
No need to manually crop the blur/distortion/chromatic aberration/vignetting at the edges of lenses designed for larger sensors? 🙂
Warning: I am also a troll.
N/A. Got more?
Thanks for the warning! 🙂 I’ll try to put a response together and post it on my blog at leicaapostate.com. I’ll let you know when it’s ready.
Looks like this thread is deleted, so I don’t know if you will get this, Diick. Here is my response, too long to post here: http://leicaapostate.com/index.php?file=20140920__Tiny_Advantage
Admin, ban this troll by IP or lose your user base. We’re tired of asking.
Stop asking then, clever boy.
Where are the updates on the Olympus 9mm 1.8 Pro lens!
Not necessary. We already have the 9-18mm. It works…that is all.
It’s very apparent you are not an astrophotographer. It’s impossible to capture the milky way with the 9-18mm
I will have a little news about that tomorrow 😉
Looking forward to it. This would be the killer lens that would sway me over to the M43 camp.
Oh admin, you little tease!
Spill the beans!
No, but I’m interested. It’s hard to find good information on techniques and what not in terms of astrophotography.
build yourself a motordriven Barndroor tracker i can capture 10-30 minutes with my 9-18 delivering beautiful milky way pics at iso 200. I can even track deep sky objectes a couple of minutes with my Pany 100-300. Even without barndoor it is possible to capture the milky way with that lens, just stack more images.Though, any serious astrophotographer has to use these ugly old fashioned astromodified canon bodys or invest a couple of thousand euros in a peltier cooled CCD.
Personally, I find the 300mm f/4 (plus converter) to be the first MFT lens that will make my planned – or rather enforced – switch from FT to MFT somewhat attractive, not just a nuisance I have to cope with if I want a competitive camera for my FT lenses.
To be honest, though, as a 300mm lens I would have preferred a zoom, something like a 100-300mm f/4. Very similar to Fuji’s 140-400mm, a (surprisingly compact) prototype of which is on display at Photokina, too. Fuji has no teleconverter yet, though.
I can’t decide if I want the Oly 7-14 or the Voigtlander 10.5 more. Maybe it will depend on price.
i think prices will be same for both. now depend what do you photography. Indoor with larges plans and landscapes, i will go with 10.5mm.
Why is Olympus and not Panasonic announcing all the good stuff ?
Bummer !
Cause panzy-sonic is out of ideas. Olympus is carrying the torch now to the finish line.
I hope its not going anywhere near a finishing line.
Because Olympus didn’t get distracted by improving their video specs but instead stayed on a steady course of their own strengths.
what is bigger in size? 7-14mm or 12-40mm, can’t see.
7-14 a bit, but mostly cause of the hood
Ok thank you
One word….BIG.
These pro lenses are serious grade. I need to be able to beat a dog down and take pictures at the same time. Rad is what that is.
There is a comparison of all present and future pro lenses made in photoshop.
It was posted here a while ago.
I’ll see if I can find it. If I remember correctly 300mm was 3-5cm larger im that composite than 40-150mm
Here is the link. The projection for the 40-150mm ended up being quite close. Based on this image the 300mm f4 should be about 20cm.
http://www.43rumors.com/the-big-olympus-pro-lens-size-comparison/
Yes that’s it!
thanks!
I’d forgotten about this image, thanks. Have just measured up to these lengths, again, and they will all fit in a Billingham Hadley Pro, along with an E-M1 body. That’s a lot of range in a fairly compact bag! It will fit a 13″ laptop as well.
For those that care, I have travelled with a Hadley Pro for years, and never had an airline check the weight or dimensions as my camera bag. Meaning that even with Ryan Air and other budget airlines, you could carry a max size cabin bag, plus this full “pro” system, and not have any issues with luggage not arriving.
I have the weight of the entire m43 pro kit calculated in an Excel table to 4kg without a tripod and 300mm lens. But with 7-14, 12-40, 40-150, nokton 42.5, nissin i40, and all other accessories included.
Add to it just a bag weight and you have a very powerfull kit right by your side.
I’m afraid we’re talking about 2.5k units here. 2k if it comes in low.
Even the lower-resolution CaNikon 300/4s are already 1.5k new, and this one needs to deliver to a more pixel-dense sensor and will have lower production volume. But it will be THE wildlife lens to go to. I’m sure like all OEM exotic telephotos it will deliver, and that already at f/4. That’s what you pay for.
Am I the only one who wants a 7mm rectilinear (non-fisheye) prime?? A Big/Heavy Zoom is a deal-breaker for me, ‘cuz all I’ll use is 7mm. When I feel the need for a 12mm or 14mm, I’ll just use a small/light 12mm or 14mm prime.
Yes you are – you’re all alone!
Attention is $1.50
A sympathetic ear is $4.99
A shoulder to cry on is $22.99
Sympathy with supportive responses is $48
Hugs are $112 per minute
All prices are exclusive of VAT of 22%
I’ll undercut Stig’s prices! Unfortunately, only the first two items can be sold in our online store, but you’re lucky, we’re having a promotion and they are FREE today! While zooms certainly have their place, I also would like to see a bright UWA prime that weighs less than a pound and costs less than 1k units.
The announcement of the 300mm earlier this year was my main reason to switch from 4/3 to m4/3 instead of jumping ship. I don’t care about size or mirrors, but I do care about Zuiko glass and this lens is going to be exactly what the doctor ordered. I’m very worried about the price tag, I’m hoping it’ll stay below $2,500.
It should definitely be less than $2,000 based on their realistic pricing of the 40-150 f/2.8 and the fact the full-frame 300 f/4 lenses are less than $1,500.
Drool! A fast hyper-tele lens that you can carry around all day! Anyone now doubt the advantage of smaller sensors? Bwahahahahahahaha!
It’s a pity that sensor is only 1/4 as good as a larger one… Suddenly the “hypertele” turns into a 600 F8. Better have a lot of light with that system…
Admin, again, ban the trolls or lose your user base. We are sick of it. Your future is up to you.
Completely agree, very aggravating that you don’t monitor and posts on the forum and delete the obvious posters only in it to antagonize and bait people.
Well, to be fair, I was totally troll-baiting. And I don’t care what they say any more. History is ours! Bwahahahahahahaha! 🙂
Problem is, the “troll” is the one who’s got the facts right, here. I, as a long-time Four Thirds and future Micro Four Thirds user, do know and want to know the technical and physical background facts of the gear I’m shooting with. Unfortunately, some people prefer to dwell on superiority delusions about “their” system instead of trying to really understand the facts. That’s neither good for themselves nor for the system they’re trying to bestow their unasked-for advocacy upon.
I’m with you in this discussion. It’s an unfortunate fact that there are a few trolls on this forum who
1) have the basic facts of photometrics right, BUT
2) ignore that all systems are some kind of compromise AND
3) don’t post anything of value.
Being correct is not a virtue in itself!
Then there are well-meaning contributors, real users of m43 system, who actually use their equipment to take pictures, but unfortunately have serious misconceptions on the photometrics. Like equating exposure parameters with total light collection.
Buuuaaaahhh the bad bullies badmouth your toy.
You have some strange ideas in your head. Luckily they are only ideas and baer no reality to fact. Or there would be no photographs in the world.
Do you have any camera?
Not that I want to reply to a troll but from a wildlife photography perspective the 600 f8 as you comment is perfect because light gathering is at f4 but depth of field is f8 giving a two stop advantage in light gathering whilst giving a good depth of field for this kind of telephoto lens.
Not to mention that a high-quality, refractive 600/8 would be a monster to carry. This baby will fit in my purse! 🙂
Nope. It would be similar in size to a 300/4.
Nope 600/8 it would be twice as long.
No, not necessarily. Lens design has made progress since. I am surprised you don’t know that. Oh wait, you are a salesman aren’t you? Good boy, good boy…
So show me an 21 cm long 600/8.0
Canon 400 DO + extender is about 25 cm, and it is F5.6. Learn to use Google. Not to mention mirror objectives, you know what they are right? Otherwise, try Google. It’s not hard.
J Shin wrote “refractive” if you know what that is. That excludes mirror lenses. That Canon lens isn’t a 600mm it’s a 400 with a TC, so you still have to show me a 600/8.0. Try to Google that.
You can also try any 300/F4 with a TC, that will give you a “fab” 600/F8 at about 25 cm. On that tiny sensor, it will sing… Not.
Why are you so angry? You should take the opportunity to learn something, you should say “thank you” to those who waste their time to teach you stuff. Instead, you are like a stupid kid whose pocket money has been taken away.
So you are Size little helper boy? Tom in scandinavian languages means empty. That describes your head, doesn’t it?
Lost another argument, and now clinging on to rudeness? How old are you pointless cr_ap seller?
Sorry, are you his girlfriend? In that case helper boy was a bit rude.
Let me enjoy your anger, write some more rubbish. How old are you pointless cr_ap seller?
Extremely bad and unfair example. If the 300mm f/4 Olympus would have used diffractive optics (which, in the past, introduced some image quality issues for Canon, by the way), it could have even been shorter, actually it could have been very much shorter. Not to mention mirror lenses – in fact there is a Tokina 300mm catadioptric lens for MFT, which is quite tiny, not in the least as big as similar FF designs. Unfortunately, it’s not very sharp, either.
It’s true, though, that a conventional 600mm f/8 wouldn’t really need to have double the length of the Olympus 300mm f/4. It would probably still have to be somewhat longer.
True, but don’t forget that noise is larger, too! If you need to use ISO 4000 your images might turn up unusable for printing larger (downside on FF: very large weight + size of lens + prize).
You would use ISO4000 at f8, not at f4 😉
?? In dim light for a required DOF and shutter ISO 4000 is quite usual. I was giving a typical ISO for the 300 at f4 (we know its an f8 equivalent in DOF).
But in FF land I would have to go to ISO 6400, where with m43 I could stick to ISO 1600, theres a big difference between the two. But also this is where things start to divide into what constitutes pro requirements and what doesn’t. If I need to print very large prints, saying bigger that 20″ or I have a commercial client of course I would then consider FF, size is irrelevant, i would be paid for the back ache.
Correct. So for equivalent pictures sensor generation is a factor. If, however, I can live with shallower DOF, I can keep the same ISO as with my m43 kit with lower noise (albeit heavier lenses, ususally).
Correct. And if you haven’t got special requirements, you can choose between smaller and larger formats without backache differences – provided you can find some odd lenses such a 600mm F8 for FF.
On top of it, the larger sensor will always beat the other with the magnification advantage.
Correct. And ISO 1600 on m43 is similar to ISO 6400 on FF. See?
On top of it, FF has the “magnification advantage”, it will always have it.
Doesn’t look that way to me;
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mingthein/9669817548/
No wonder Craig, some people make disinformation their job. This test is a prime example: whatever this Ming Thein wanted to show here, the only message is, he has no clue. Not a freaking tiny clue of any scientific disciplines.
I do encourage you to try for yourself, using raw data. 4 times the size=> 4 times less noise – roughly – should prove itself rather easily.
I forgot: the output size should be the same between all sensor sizes. This is crucial if we want to compare apples to apples.
The comparison actually doesn’t show too much. The most pronounced thing it shows is Olympus’ noise reduction introducing visible artifacts, severely smearing low-contrast detail, and removing virtually all color from a small part of the image (this is true for both the E-M5 and the E-M1: the CD cover labeled “Dreamworks” in the lower left corner). The Nikon image, though, seems to be created without any noise reduction whatsoever, therefore there is some color noise, which could have be easily reduced without really visible detail loss, though. Just to name the most obvious things.
Light intensity is f/4, light gathering (the amount of light) is the light intensity that comes through at f/4 multiplied by the image area, which equals what comes through at f/8 multiplied by the FF image area.
Nevertheless this lens will definitely become a favourite for people doing hand-held wildlife shooting, especially with the new converter. Even if the resulting package is only the equivalent of a 840mm f/11, and the comparison gets even worse if take the pixel pitch of, say, a 36 MP Nikon into consideration, there simply is no such option for FF which would be both good and portable.
True, nothing comes for free. If you like it portable and can live with the shortcomings of smaller sensors, this lens certainly should provide excellent IQ in a portable package. Just don’t expect to be able to separate your animal form the background as nicely as with a FF camera.
Very true. And I am one of the “trolls” LOL.
Sorry that’s just not the case.
http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/
You still have it wrong. Light gathering is not exposure. With the same F-stop and the same shutter speed, the FF sensor gathers four times the light (i.e. amount of photons) the FT sensor gathers.
Please before replying, do some research, read the link I kindly provided for you.
You were kind to provide the link but we do know our physics, thanks! I am an engineer, for example.
So as an engineer you’ll know that although a FF sensor gathers ‘more light’ this only effects the noise of the image. an f4 lens is and f4 lens.
Yes! But that is exactly the point: it effects the noise of the image, i.e. image quality. If I want the same image detail resolution and image quality out of a small sensor, I need to keep the ISO lower than I’d need to with a large sensor. And that’s why, if I want similar results, I need a faster lens for the small sensor – or, the other way round, a larger sensor can do with a slower lens. The difference may not be always be exactly two EV stops between two specific cameras, one FT and one FF, but many such cameras have already proven in practice that a difference of 2 EV stops is not too bad a guess either.
If
the photocites on a FF sensor and a 4/3 sensors are the same size and performance,
total light isn’t relevant. It’s like
cropping a picture in post, and that doesn’t change the IQ of the cropped
picture.
Enough already! At least, ask politely, don’t shove that rubbish on the forum like a ton of rubbishy nonsense. Go sell your cr_ap in some commercial centre.
Wrong in two points. One: If we talk about what we need to take a specific picture, we cannot compare a whole picture with a cropped picture, we need to compare equal pictures. Two: in practice, there is no such thing as a FF sensor and a FT sensor with photosites of the same size. For a current FT sensor, the FF sensor would need to have 64 MP. Even then, the total number of pixels would be a central aspect of image quality. You cannot, by sleight of hand, throw away three quarters of a sensor’s or an image’s pixels, compare only the remaining few with another image and proclaim “equal” image quality of both sensors…
You have a FF camera
with a 300/4.0 and a 4/3 with a 300/4.0 and you take a picture of the same
object from the same distance and same settings on the cameras. As an example a
football at 40 meters
distance. If you look at those pictures you will se that most of that four
times more light gathering on the FF sensor is used for the background, not the football,
correct? So is the IQ off the football 4 times better with the FF?
None of it makes any sense… You are a stubborn waste of space.
Perhaps you are just stupid. For normal people it makes sense.
LOL are you normal? Tell us sweetheart.
Selling crp is his job, of course he insists. I am rather disgusted at all this lying and incompetence, it actually keeps me from buying into the system.
Wow Tom, so now you create a new alias, to have someone agreeing with you. Actually noone gives a rats a** about what system you buy.
No, it isn’t, but that’s not the point, because it would have been if you had used more than just a quarter of the camera – and the the right lens, meaning an equivalent one, not one with the exact same focal length and aperture.
If your reasoning was right, there would never have been any sense in using medium or large format film instead of 35mm film, because the image quality of the main subject wouldn’t have been any better there either, [i]using the same focal length[/i]. On different formats, you don’t use different focal lengths, and you use the whole film (sensor), not just a cut-out piece (crop) of it.
“it affects ONLY the noise”? isn’t that exactly the issue? I mean, what ELSE would sensor size have to affect to matter?
Maybe it’s just a matter of definition here: To me, two systems are equivalent in photometrics when they produce images with the same field of view and the same signa/noise-ratio at the same final viewing size. Really, they should also have the same resolution (MTF) but for simplicity let’s just say they are not post-processed other than demosaicing.
Then, in bright light (when photon noise dominates over read noise), a m43 camera with a 300/4 lens is equivalent to a FF camera with a 600/8 lens. Differences may come from different sensor technologies at the pixel level, of course. For example, current Canon APS-C sensors are only slightly better than m43 sensors despite having twice the area. There are other simplifications made in this comparison, but they do not amount to a difference of a factor of 2 in SNR, like that between m43 and FF.
NOW, what do we conclude from this? This is where the trolls are wrong. The conclusion is, larger sensors with deliver better images, but the corresponding systems genrelly are also larger and heavier. Not entirely surprisingly, there’s no free lunch, and you have to make the apprpriate compromise. Also, a difference in SNR of 2 is not as much as you might think when the light is good. Human vision is not too good at picking up noise at low noise levels.
Guys, m43’s noise is 4 times as much as 135’s, even Canon’s.
Equivalent lenses are *not* larger if the sensor is larger.
Some compromises are more compromised than others, and they must be priced accordingly: this is m43’s deadly flaw.
Actually, noise INCREASES with collected light. It’s just that the signal increases MORE. to be exact, signal/noise scales with the square root of the light collected on the sensor, which is proportional to the sensor area.
A FF sensor has 4 times the area of a m43 sensor. Therefore, signal/noise is twice, all else being equal.
So, pretty simple, sensor half the size, lens half the size (quite a difference in the case of an f4 300), “image quality” half of FF.
Very clear trade off in size vs noise to me. Choose accordingly.
And I am a physicist and Craig is right.
The link says just what I say, “if the f-stops are the same, and thus the intensity of the light is the same (and the exposure is the same), then the full frame camera will be using four times the total amount of light to make the image”. If you want to talk about “light gathering”, those are the facts.
(Whether it “matters”, though, is mainly a matter of opinion, and to achieve a non-biased opinion it helps to get other facts right, too. The link, for example, is wrong postulating “smaller sensors are more light efficient than larger ones”, because while in specific cases it may be true, there is no such physical/technical law.)
This is offset by the fact that the bigger the sensor the greater the noise floor. There’s not that much difference in sensor performance.
A full frame will produce better pictures for ‘normal’ shooting but APS-C is questionable.
We seem to be obsessed with the gross light gathering properties of large sensors when light per unit area is the important thing for exposure and shooting. After that it is down to camera performance.
For wild life and low light AF the M43 format has a number of advantages.
M43 tracking is not brilliant so we won’t use that then, when the AFC works rather well in near darkness (AFS is even better).
Craig that’s a great link, i had already read this page on admiringlight site.. Very informative and i can’t believe that after two years i still see people that don’t learn before talk… maybe you should tell these people to also read page two!!!!!!!!
Bingo!
Nope. As the “troll” tried to explain, the ISO disadvantage balances out the light advantage. Sometimes “trolls” have something to teach after all.
So your logic is that the difference between m43 and FF is proportional when it comes to ISO. 2 stops is the difference between 1600 and 6400, 6400 isn’t that pretty on FF let alone m43. I would take an f stop advantage any day.
There’s a cleaner sensitivity advantage with FF yes, but it’s not proportional. Not perfect.
The other advantage of weight still exists.
I do a lot of wildlife photography yet I fail to see why the necessity for these very large and expensive tele lenses especially given the better high ISO performance of DSLR and ILC cameras these days. I personally use a much smaller tele lens usually a 50-200 or 28-300 on my DLSR with f4-5.6 for traveling light. I would rather have seen a much smaller 200mm/f4 for m4/3 +1.4 teleconverter. For the birding and longer reach etc I would simply use a FZ1000 or superzoom. After all who prints much larger than 11×17 anyway?
Try taking photos of bears 🙂 the 300mm with the 1.4x giving 420 or a massive 840mm in 35mm equiv is impressive. High ISO + the nice bright f stop lets me keep that shutter speed up during dawn and dusk.
I’d love to do that but I’d want a long lens and an ADT.
For me, a 300mm f/4 plus 1.4x converter is just what I’ve been waiting for since I’ve started shooting wildlife (hand-held) with a Four Thirds DSLR. Until now, I’m using an E-30 with 50-200/2.8-3.5, usually plus 1.4x or 2x converter. Often I find I would need (at least) the focal length of the 2x converter, but if the object is not in bright sunlight there’s not enough light left to get good images, either because I need to up the ISO too much or because of motion blur, and the 2x converter reduces image quality, too. (I’m no particularly big or strong person and find no problem in carrying the stuff with me on most of the hikes I undertake, by the way.) The situation will be better when I get the E-M1 for my glass, but then again the high-ISO advantage will be, although clearly signifcant, still not enough to completely eliminate the problem.
(An FZ1000 has only 400mm equiv. focal length, whereas we’re talking about 600 and 840mm here, and a superzoom has even more image quality problems, especially without bright sunlight. Not that I would want to carry something like that in addition to my E-30 or E-M1, which would still have to be there for everything else, of course.)
The 300mm f/4 plus MC-14 now will give me a sharp 420mm f/5.6 lens, while until now I only have a similarly big and heavy 400mm f/7 lens with reduced image quality. Together with the E-M1, this will be a really huge step forward for me. The only downside is that it is no zoom and that I have to carry extra glass to cover the range up to, say, 200mm. When hiking, though, my existing 14-150 (Panasonic/Leica, for FT) may even do.
How about because the 4/3 format gives you a more favourable FoV with a smaller lens with for better ISO /performance/ in low light than the average DSLR.
M43 now AF faster than a DSLR, usually more accurate and certainly in lower light.
Are we forgetting that a DSLR is hopeless at AF in low light (dusk, anything much smaller than f/8) whereas the M43 can AF in the coal hole at night with the lights out. DSLR tracking is better but not if it can’t AF in the first place. You try “camp fire” or “candle lit” shots with a DSLR and no flash.
Stick the GH4 spot cross hair on the birdie at dusk, push the shutter right down, beep-click in one go. It is that fast and accurate. The GX7/G5/GM1 are only a wee bit slower. Sorted!
Do you have a superzoom?
No?
I do have the FZ200 which has a longer reach than the FZ1000 but I will use our M43 systems for better quality shots, birds in flight (quicker/better AF) and such.
The FZ200 can i.Zoom to 1200mm (35mm equiv) which is one long, long lens for f/2.8 and can do extremely long birdie shots, or close-up on an eyeball. It is (one of) my back-up camera and my “quick, grab a camera” camera. IQ is as good as it gets with a 1/2.3-in sensor.
I rarely print, and then rarely bigger than postcard but the computer screen and telly are quite big and I want full resolution on them. An HD telly is only 1080 up the side but the smaller computer screens have more pixels and they’re calibrated for photos.
I want 7-14…
http://giant.gfycat.com/OccasionalAgileAlligatorsnappingturtle.gif
The light is wrong… Fortunately, they wrote “pro” on those lenses LOL.
I suffer from this.
and I have a wife …