So, trusted sources responded fast on my previous rumor and this is now a full reliable FT5 rumors:
1) The 40-150mm PRO zoom got a slight delay and will hit the market the second half of the next year (and not the first half of 2014 as previously expected).
2) The new Ultra wide zoom will be shown at Photokina but be available in 2015 only. And it’s not a 7-14mm f/2.8 Specs are slightly different!
—
For sources: Sources can send me anonymous info at 43rumors@gmail.com (create a fake gmail account) or via contact form you see on the right sidebar. Thanks!
For readers: Don’t miss any news. Join our group on facebook and follow our tweets.
Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct
106 Responses
Perfect! I’ll be able to afford it by then. 🙂 Just invested in the 12-40mm!
Someone mentioned in another thread that the transition to mirrorless was happening rather slowly. I think that’s probably a good thing for Olympus, because it give them time to fill out their lens line-up. The constant aperture wide zoom and tele zoom are pretty important, in my view. There are pros who won’t look seriously at the system until those lenses are there. I’ll certainly trade in my current zooms for them as they arrive.
Folks need to be patient. Mirrorless is only a few years old and making massive progress. But it takes time. I’m personally glad they started with consumer-oriented models to see what worked. Now they can apply that knowledge to making top notch professional gear!
Yes, these and few strategic primes and the system will be rocking complete, for basics!
Olympus tends to “beta test” their pro offerings with consumer/prosumer units first. I just hope they crank up the max aperture on some of their prime lenses in the future, especially moderate wide angles, standard, and moderate/medium teles.
I agree. This is exactly why I’ve been picky about their primes until now. To take exactly the same shot on m43 as on full frame, with the same noise level, same DOF, and same field of view is relatively straightforward. You just open your aperture up one and three quarter stops more than the full frame lens, cut the focal length in half, and drop your ISO one and three quarter stops. You’ll get the same picture, same DOF, same field of view, same noise performance. Full frame sensors really only have a 1 and 3/4 stop advantage in low light, at best.
To do this in general, you need lenses that are about two stops faster. So your 24mm f/2.8 has to be a 12mm f/1.4. And your 50mm f/1.4 has to be a 25mm f/0.7, about. These lenses should perform well on micro four thirds, if you can build them. After all, the sweet spot on most current lenses is wide-open. So going wider shouldn’t be a problem.
I look forward to seeing what they come up with. But no doubt, this is still in its infancy. We’re all early adopters at this point.
But if you do you’ll be taking away the size advantage.
Granted you would still have the option of going lighter with m43.
But these lenses have to be commercially viable and so few people would buy them I very much doubt that they would be.
Most people who need that sort of DOF/low light ability would buy a FF camera with 24mm F2.8 and a 50mm F1.4, neither of which would be significantly larger than the m43 ‘equivalents’.
They may also own an m43/mirrorless system when they want to go smaller
I think that m43 needs to aim its products at people who don’t need that sort of ability (most of them ?) and concentrate on the weight/size advantage.
This doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t produce high quality lenses but chasing after FF DOF and light gathering is a fools errand
You’re right, the equivalent lenses would be of a similar size, at least at and ahead of the aperture. The rear elements could be scaled down. The shorter flange distance simplifies and shrinks the back half of the lens. It certainly would negate some of the size benefit of these particular lenses, but at the same time it would provide that capability.
To be fair to professionals, wide open bokeh isn’t something that pros use most of the time, except in very specialized fields. In low light event shooting, the struggle is generally to get enough depth of field that your subject isn’t drifting in and out of focus, to get the whole face in focus, or to get multiple subjects in focus. Shooting subjects you don’t have control over or group shots can also be a real challenge. The fact that you need those two stops to get exactly the same capabilities doesn’t mean you’ll ever use them.
I feel that the fact that a system can offer a size advantage doesn’t mean you always have to use it *for* that size advantage. These cameras have much more to offer, in terms of speed, features, IBIS, body size and weight and sensor fabrication. I believe they could easily be the future of photography. Making micro four thirds perform like full frame is a very realistic goal, partly realized already. But DSLRs and full frame mirrorless will never be capable of the level of portability you can get with equally capable micro four thirds.
Just my view on it.
I personally think you are right.
OTOH, if size and price are equal, at least for having all FF shooting potential, you still have to consider the resolution difference. All else equal, resolution-wise FF cannot be beaten. I still think that someone who wants FF capacity, should buy FF cameras and lenses. It is quite pointless to spend thousands of dollars for a system which is “almost like” an FF system, and has the same dimensions and price (or it is even more expensive) than an equivalent FF system, but does not have the resolution of the FF systems.
If you are into the “good enough” philosophy, as it should be for m43, then lenses do not have to be f 0.7 to be “good enough” even for a pro camera.
So we’re not saying it would be as large. It would probably still be substantially smaller. It just wouldn’t be the 1/3-1/8th the weight current lenses are. Even the new PRO lens vs. the L lens, there’s a pretty big discrepancy there. If I had to estimate, I’d guess that a f/0.7 prime on MFT would still be half the weight or so. But the body would still be much lighter. This would also be a specialized lens, like the 85 f/1.2, which is really a one trick pony. Most people wouldn’t buy it or need it, or even want it. Similar lenses already exist, like the 44.5mm, 25mm and 17.5mm f/0.95s, so you can have a look at them to get an idea of the size. They’re chunky, but nowhere near a full frame portrait lens.
So losing some of its weight advantage doesn’t mean it’s the same weight as a FF kit. 😉 That would be silly.
Keep in mind too, 16 megapixels is a good resolution for a pro camera. There are insane cameras like the D800 and the a7R, but then you’ve got the D4’s 16 megapixels which are still more than adequate. Most of us simply don’t want to have to deal with 30MB RAW files. People requiring 24 or 36 megapixels represent a niche market. For now, those people will have to go with FF sensors, but we’ll see what the next years bring. 😉
Well, I would gladly accept the burden and cope with those 36 mp of the D800 😉
As for future improvements of m43 sensors: I sure hope so. The 20mp sensor in the 1″ Sony RX100 promises a bright future also for m43. But sure bigger sensors will always have the edge, resolution wise.
Personally I prefer a smaller system that gives away some of the functionality of FF systems for compactness. I can carry around a DSLR and big lenses during a dedicated week-end, but as a daily system m43 (with even smaller lenses) is what I need.
But I really don’t think big lenses would benefit the system as a whole: as small as the camera may be, the overall result would be big anyhow. And small camera + big lens is not exactly what I think as “comfortable”.
But you are right that if there is a choice, it is always better for everybody, even if you don’t personally need that specific feature…
The thing about camera resolution is that there comes a point where more isn’t necessarily any better. For 95 percent of scenarios, that point is well under 20, and usually well under 10.
The reasoning is very simple. In the real world, what limits how far you want to, given perfect focus and perfectly steady cameras and subjects is the resolving power of your lens. Top-grade glass on a Nikon D800 *might* let you take advantage of 24 of those 36 megapixels in cropping or enlargement, but probably much less in most situations. Most of the best lenses on any system deliver sharpness at best about 3/4 (Canon L lenses, for example) to 4/5ths (eg: Olympus 75mm f/1.8) of what the sensor is capable of recording. Your average kit lens is maybe delivering 1/3rd the resolution of your sensor.
And much more likely to affect sharpness is your photographic technique. If you’re shooting handheld, you’ll be lucky if you’re actually able to resolve 16 megapixels on any system. If your focus is a little off, that’s going to make a big difference. If you’re stopped down too far, diffraction is going to be very noticeable on the D800. Or if you’re not stopped down far enough. There might only be one f-stop and focal length on a given lens that even lets you get close.
Basically, I’d be very skeptical if there were ever a real-world scenario where 36 megapixels was actually any better than 24, and it would be unusual to find one where 36 was better than 16.
It’s like Nokia putting 40 megapixels on a phone camera. It’s absolutely pointless. Of course it proves you don’t need a full frame camera to get more than 36 megapixels. 😉
I came to pretty much the same conclusion. With the exception of pushing the edges a Nikon D4 or D800 really doesn’t give me substantially better images than a Nikon D7000 or an E-M1 when shown on the web, or even printed to the 13×19 max size that I normally print at.
The D4 has better low light performance, and I occasionally shoot where the low light performance would be appreciated. But at 4x the cost, I can live with the noise or post processing. The D800 for very large prints or very touchy stuff is probably better too, but is it 2x better than an E-M1, not in my book. To me the D800 is for people who worry more about the specs than the pictures.
So I’ll save a lot of money and weight; while having the next best thing to a pro camera. Now if they would just get their act in gear on the glass. I can go with FT class, which is nice stuff, but it’s very expensive. I don’t know if the new MFT glass will be less; but I’m pretty sure they won’t be more.
As fas as this FT5 goes, this is nothing new as it was announced to that effect from Olympus anyhow.
This was in their news release (from Oly Australia).
Quote; “Development Announcement: M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40-150mm F2.8 PRO
lens will be a telephoto zoom lens that conforms to the Micro Four Thirds System
standard, with a bright constant aperture f2.8, featuring a dust and splash proof
construction rugged enough for professional use.
This lens will be the high-performance version of the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40-150mm
F4.0-5.6; with professional-grade optics, compact size and lightweight for portability.
Scheduled to be available in 2nd half of 2014.”
To clarify, the timing was announced that the 40-150 would come out in the 2nd half of 2014.
The wide zoom will probably be a 6-12mm f2.8. They’ve got to give people some sort of reason to switch from the Panasonic 7-14!
weather sealing buld quality and the overall lens quality, all packaged in a decent price point, will be enough. 6mm at the wide end? that’s maybe too much for most of us..
The 6mm focal length has its uses for architectural/interior work. One can stand in the corner of a room and capture a horizontal angle of view (aov) of 110.51 degrees—that will allow one to capture two adjacent walls. A 7mm horizontal aov = 102.04 degrees, and a 8mm aov = 94.47 degrees.
If you want to switch to a portrait framing, a 6mm vertical aov = 94.58 degrees, allowing one to showcase both floor and some ceiling.
That must be the one that real estate agents like to use to give the impression a small house is ‘huge’ inside. 😉
Exactly what I need! So I can impress my mom and show how big an apartment I have in Tokyo 😉
😀
An excellent and portable 6-12 (I don’t mind the variable aperture) would be enough for me to buy whatever camera, whatever the price
Fair point. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s 6-14mm, or even 7-18mm. But 6mm (12mm equivalent), arguably, isn’t all that useful in a rectilinear lens.
I think the key advantages of the Olympus against the Panasonic are likely to be the constant f/2.8, and L-lens class performance. If they nailed the performance, they’d have a big advantage, as the Panasonic has problems with peripheral illumination and color fringing, both areas that should be done better on micro four thirds versus full frame, not worse.
I have no doubt that the Olympus line will beat the Pants off Panasonic, left, right and center. 🙂 They seem to be taking exactly the right approach by taking their time and doing it right.
I can’t say enough good about the 12-40mm. Any lens that can compete head on with the L-lens is really something special.
You don’t need lenses two stops faster. The apertures we normally talk about are more formally referred to as relative apertures since it depends on how the absolute aperture relates to the focal length. In particular, the relative aperture = (focal length) / (absolute aperture). For instance, if the focal length is 100mm and the absolute aperture is 50mm, then relative aperture = 100mm/50mm = 2. It is often depicted as F/2 to emphasize it is a fraction of the focal length F.
The absolute aperture is simply the diameter of frontal node.
I know that many “full frame” disciples love to confuse the issue by erroneously claiming that “full frame” is two stops brighter. However, if one wants to argue that way, one can make similar spurious arguments for medium format being “brighter” than “full frame” or large format being “brighter” than medium format. By the way, I deliberately place the term “full frame” within quotation marks because the 4:3 and µ4:3 formats are also full frame since they do not crop the rectangular image captured in the image circle—another useless point of confusion.
In any regard, I would like to see pro versions of some primes with weather-sealing included. A 12/1.4 may well be ridiculously expensive, but they might do a pro 12/2. I would love to see a pro 20/1.4 or a 25/1.4. I remember Olympus ZD briefly talking about a 50/1.7 macro a few years ago when the mirror less µ4:3 format was still new, before dropping discussion altogether. I hope they were waiting for a pro body before releasing such a beast.
I would also love to see a 75/1.4 medium telephoto. With a 1.4X teleconverter, one would still have a very bright 105/2 optic. These translates to 35mm equivalents of 150/1.4 and 210/2, respectively! As much as I love macro lenses, such a bright medium tele could easily become my favorite lens.
You misunderstand me. 50mm at f/2.8 has roughly the same absolutely aperture as 25mm at f/1.4, giving the same DOF but gathering more light. This makes up almost exactly for the light gathering disadvantage of full frame, the resulting lens focusing the same light that would normally fall on a full frame sensor into a smaller image circle of the four thirds sensor, negating the advantage.
So yes, you do need a two stop larger “relative aperture” to get the same DOF at the equivalent focal length. You are right, that the absolute aperture will be the same at the equivalence point.
“50mm at f/2.8 has roughly the same absolutely aperture as 25mm at f/1.4, giving the same DOF but gathering more light.”
No. This is more internet malarkey. A 2.8 lens has roughly the same ‘light gathering’ capability of any other 2.8 lens, regardless of focal length (allowing for slight differences due to light loss through different coatings of lens elements, different numbers of elements, and such).
A hand held light meter will allow you to enter ISO and shutter speed, and then find a match for aperture. That aperture- let’s say 5.6- is applicable to any focal length lens in any format – 35mm, medium format, 4×5, be it a 24mm lens, a 50, a 135… You certainly do not need to enter in the format or area of your light sensitive zone in your camera. This is because the aperture setting already takes into account the focal length, and the focal length already takes into account the format (since it is designed to give a field of view for a given format). It’s very simple math.
(Another secret is depth of field really IS a function of focal length, and is equivalent across focal lengths).
““50mm at f/2.8 has roughly the same absolute aperture as 25mm at f/1.4, giving the same DOF but gathering more light.”
No. This is more internet malarkey. A 2.8 lens has roughly the same ‘light gathering’ capability of any other 2.8 lens, regardless of focal length (allowing for slight differences due to light loss through different coatings of lens elements, different numbers of elements, and such).”
Everything you said is correct, but you’re not actually disagreeing with me. The f/1.4 gathers more light than f/2.8. No disagreement from me. I apologize if my wording threw you off.
But I’m puzzled as to what exactly it is that you disagree with. The f number is a ratio of the size of the aperture to the focal length. The ISO number describes the light sensitivity of the sensor at a given f number. It’s corrected for the focal length because wider lenses gather more total light than longer ones. And the ISO number describes different sensitivities at different sizes because the light is concentrated to a larger or smaller area. You don’t need to know any of this, because like you said, the same ISO number and f number will always give you the same exposure, ignoring transmission properties of the glass in the lens.
What it comes down to, though, is that the 25mm f/1.4 has the same absolute aperture as the 50mm f/2.8, roughly. But both projecting onto the same sensor, the 25mm would be the brighter lens, because it has a wider angle and therefore gathers more total light, despite the absolute size of the aperture being the same. All of this is simply a mathematical consequence of the definition of the f number, and all of these are different ways of saying the same thing.
In any case, it’s unimportant to the point, which is that at 25mm you have the same depth of field at f/1.4 that you have at 50mm at approximately f/2.8. That means that the same shot can be achieved on the micro four thirds at a lower ISO. Exactly the same shot, actually, down to the depth of field, viewing angle, subject distance and the noise level.
Do the experiment yourself if you don’t believe me. Pick equivalent focal lengths, iris settings two stops apart, identical shutter speeds and ISOs two stops apart. The results should be the same.
I apologize if I confused you. There should be nothing even remotely controversial in what I’m saying. It’s just basic camera math.
“What it comes down to, though, is that the 25mm f/1.4 has the same absolute aperture as the 50mm f/2.8, roughly.”
Indeed.
“But both projecting onto the same sensor, the 25mm would be the brighter lens, because it has a wider angle and therefore gathers more total light,”
That is one way of looking at it, a useful one also, see below, but its actually simpler then this: brightness times area is all that really matters. f/1.4 is brighter, same sensor area, so more total light.
“despite the absolute size of the aperture being the same. All of this is simply a mathematical consequence of the definition of the f number, and all of these are different ways of saying the same thing.”
Well, f numbers are defined that way for a reason.
The ‘real’ math is that as your focal length increases, so does the (optical) distance between focal plane and the optical center of the lens. Since light also spreads out, the inverse square law gets you a good approximation of how much light you’ll have left per area at the focal plane. The simple result is that when comparing 2 lenses with the same relative aperture but a different focal length, the difference in absolute aperture is ‘undone’ by the difference in distance between optical center and focal plane.
A similar thing happens with regards to diffraction, where a smaller absolute aperture introduces more subject side diffraction, but a shorter distance (from exit pupil to focal plane) results in less projection side diffraction. It so happens those cancel eachother out, and hence you’ll find that for a given system, diffraction will limit resolution at a given relative aperture regardless of the focal length, and at first glance maybe somewhat surprisingly, regardless of the absolute aperture.
And hence, relative aperture is what matters in photography, absolute aperture matters to astronomers (because they are interested in getting as much light as possible from what is essentially point sources at infinity).
Now, to get back to your ‘wider angle of view’ comment, yes, that is a way of looking at it, and relates to how astronomers look at aperture and light gathering:
– absolute aperture determines how much light you can extract from a fraction of a scene
– angle of view determines how much scene you can capture.
Multiply the 2 and you get the total amount of light you can capture, and indeed when comparing things on the same sensor, you’ll get that a wider field of view with a smaller aperture can use the same amount of light as a more narrow field of view with a wider aperture. This is useful for visualizing what happens.
But the simple thing to remember is that f-stop is an indicator for brightness, and that sensor area times brightness tells you how much light got used for creating a picture.
“In any case, it’s unimportant to the point, which is that at 25mm you have the same depth of field at f/1.4 that you have at 50mm at approximately f/2.8. That means that the same shot can be achieved on the micro four thirds at a lower ISO. Exactly the same shot, actually, down to the depth of field, viewing angle, subject distance and the noise level. ”
Actually, take a very careful look at that. When comparing 50 and 25mm, its close but not exactly the same with regards to where your DOF starts and ends for a given focus distance and aperture. This is already evident from the hyperfocal distance for a 50/2.8 and a 25/1.4 being slightly different. That isn’t a rounding error in DOF calculators, it is a real effect.
If you’d be looking at 100 and 200mm, those differences are too small to matter, but at 50 and 25mm, the difference starts mattering somewhat. Go shorter, and it becomes bigger and more relevant.
“Actually, take a very careful look at that. When comparing 50 and 25mm, its close but not exactly the same with regards to where your DOF starts and ends for a given focus distance and aperture. This is already evident from the hyperfocal distance for a 50/2.8 and a 25/1.4 being slightly different. That isn’t a rounding error in DOF calculators, it is a real effect.
If you’d be looking at 100 and 200mm, those differences are too small to matter, but at 50 and 25mm, the difference starts mattering somewhat. Go shorter, and it becomes bigger and more relevant.”
Thanks very much for the very comprehensive reply. I studied optics years ago, but it’s been a long time and you obviously have a more comprehensive knowledge. I completely agree that my two stop example isn’t precise, but it doesn’t need to be to support the premise that for any depth of field on a full frame lens, there is smaller f number on the FOV-equivalent lens on micro four thirds, for which the depth of field is practically identical, allowing for a lower ISO for the same shutter speed. Basically, making possible the same shot on both systems, given the right lens. For 50/25, that’s actually a little shy of two stops (which happens to be very close to the difference in ISO performance), and the difference closes as you go to shorter lenses. But it never gets closer than one stop above about 6 or 7mm. 1.5-2 stops is a good enough estimate. I don’t think the difference would matter in the field.
It also annoys me when people say “if you want less depth of field, get closer”. True, if you frame tighter you can get less depth of field at the same f number, but if you frame the subject the same, f/1.4, for example, will always give you pretty much the same depth of field on a particular sensor at any focal length. The way you make micro four thirds fully competitive (in shallow DOF/low light) with full frame is with faster glass. That magic f-number for a particular amount of bokeh is going to be lower and there’s just no way around that.
That’s why I was slightly disappointed when the 12-40 was only f/2.8. They could have gone with f/2 or f/1.4 and given us essentially complete parity with full frame, although probably in a larger lens. Oh well.
Andrew, agree completely there, and as others also said, thanks for your comprehensive and very informative posts.
I think you also misunderstand me, in that I’m not a “full frame” proponent. I’m very much a proponent of smaller systems for the simple reason that, with the right glass, you can get exactly the same image, as explained above. You simply need larger relative apertures to make up for the smaller absolute aperture at the relative focal length. And it turns out they perform exactly the same when you do this, and better in some cases.
ISO numbers are also relative to sensor size, where the gain applied to achieve a particular ISO number is higher on a smaller sensor. This is made up for by brighter lenses and the ability to shoot wide open with superior optical performance. Amazingly, current sensors really do make four thirds an equivalent system, again, with the right lenses!
The E-M5 with a two stop brighter lens beats the pants of any current full frame in terms of low light capability. If people understood the basic physics, they wouldn’t be so quick to jump on the “full frame” bandwagon.
A full frame lens of a given aperture will have just about identical ‘light gathering’ capability of a micro 4/3 lens for that aperture, as well as of a 4×5 view lens for a given aperture. Differences will be slight, probably less than 1/4 stop at most for the most part, depending on lens design and coating.
“A full frame lens of a given aperture will have just about identical ‘light gathering’ capability of a micro 4/3 lens for that aperture, as well as of a 4×5 view lens for a given aperture. Differences will be slight, probably less than 1/4 stop at most for the most part, depending on lens design and coating.”
There’s a difference here between f number and aperture. It’s true to say that a lens designed for any sensor with a standard ISO sensitivity will produce the same exposure on any other sensor at the same f number. But a full frame sensor, covering a larger area, will gather more total light.
If you pick an equivalent focal length on micro four thirds to get the same viewing angle, you will divide by two, getting 25mm. 25mm is a shorter focal lenth than 50mm, so has a wider angle of view, which means it gathers more light per unit area of the sensor. Since the f number is a ratio involving the focal length, the same f number in a 25mm lens represents a smaller aperture opening, in order to compensate for the wider angle.
So again, same f number, same exposure, but the aperture size at the same aperture will depend on the focal length. Shorter focal length, smaller aperture for the same exposure/f-number. And consequently, smaller depth of field.
Depth of field depends on the absolute size of the aperture, one of the variables calculated into the f number. Smaller aperture, smaller depth of field, regardless of focal length. The 25mm f/1.4, being 1/2 the focal length of the 50mm, has the same absolute aperture size as the 50mm f/2.8, giving it the same depth of field, despite having different f numbers.
To look at it another way, focal length and f number are equal contributors to the depth of field calculation. The f number factors in both the size of the aperture and the focal length to allow you to calculate exposure in a standard way. But across focal lengths, it’s the absolute size of the aperture that tells you the depth of field, not the f number.
You can look at the way sensor area affects light gathering too. At a certain ISO, a certain focal length with a certain aperture will produce the same exposure. Across focal lengths, a particular f number on a sensor with a certain ISO will produce the same exposure. But the smaller sensor is absorbing less total light than the larger one, so for the same resolution, each pixel must be more sensitive per unit area to produce the same ISO sensitivity. More pixels, smaller light buckets, more gain, more noise.
You can change the f-number of a lens with changing its aperture simply by concentrating the light that would normally fall on a larger sensor into the smaller area of the smaller sensor. You are, in effect, producing a wider lens, changing the focal length. Say your speed booster halves the focal length, say from 50 to 25. You will see an increase in f-number from 2.8 to 1.4 in the process. Go buy one…you’ll see what I mean. 🙂
Anyway, if you still don’t understand, respond, and I’ll try to clear it up further.
And once you get your head around the basics, you’ll see what I mean about being able to get the same shot at a lower ISO and f number of micro four thirds. If you check out dxomark you’ll see that the OM-D E-M5 has a high ISO rating around 800, according to their metric of what acceptable noise is. You’ll see that the best full frame cameras come in at under 3000. One stop above 800 is 1600, 2 stops is 3200.
So to match the sensitivity, you need to open your aperture up about two stops wider on micro four thirds. And it turns out that gives you the same depth of field at the same focal length. Pretty neat, eh?
It’s also interesting how insignificant the advantage of APS-C is. The best APS-C sensor has well under a stop of low light advantage over the E-M5. An average one (Canon 60D) has the same high ISO performance. To match APS-C in depth of field, you need less than a stop brighter a lens. This means that in practice, you can’t expect any significant benefit from APS-C cameras, as long as your micro four thirds lens can open up about a stop brighter than your APS-C lens. So a f/2.0 can take exactly the same pictures as a f/2.8 on APS-C, and then some, at a lower ISO number.
Another exactly equivalent description is that if you take a lens with a particular absolute aperture, for full frame, and zoom it out, so that the light that was hitting the full frame sensor is now focused down onto the area of the smaller sensor, the f-number will be higher, the light will be brighter in that area (because it will be more focused, so you can turn the ISO down. Because the aperture (but not the f-number) is the same, you get the same depth of field, and because you’ve zoomed out, on the smaller sensor, you get the same field of view.
Andrew, thanks for your insightful comments. I own a full frame Nikon and an E-M1, and find myself picking up the E-M1 and a fast prime more often than the Nikon. Fast lenses put image quality in the same ball park. The only deficits for micro 4/3 compared to full frame that I see are lesser ability to crop, and less capable continuous autofocus — but I suspect those things will improve over time.
Peter, have you looked at Pekka Potka’s finding using the 3×3 square for AF? You may find an improvement.
That goes back to the E-3/5/30, and also worked better on those, in fact, it was pretty much mandatory to get any kind of usable C-AF there.
I haven’t noticed a big improvement from it on my E-M1 so far however.
Hi,
I’ve also looked at optics years ago so your replies have been great for jogging my memory 🙂 Really enjoyed.
One aspect that you mentioned that I do not completely agree with is the light falling on a greater area with respect to 35mm , so as per your comment more light in bigger buckets the 35mm should have a bigger advantage. This would be the case if all buckets were created equal… and they are not 😉 A 35mm sensor from canon behaves very differently to a 35mm sensor from Nikon.
For example up to iso800, the e-M5 has a greater dynamic range to a 5d mark iii and not too far off the d800 in real world RAW dynamic range tests. Tonal range tests have shown the E-M1 to have better roll offs to highlights.
Bigger pixels are as you said bigger buckets and potentially given the same sensor generation
However efficiencies in sensor design improvements, new mechanisms for preventing light bleed from tighter pitch pixels have allowed todays modern m43 sensors to compete extremely well with 35mm. To the point that blanket ‘a 35mm has a 2X advantage over m43’ is misleading.
It depends very much in what? Color reproduction? dynamic range? Clean roll offs to highlights and shadows? Noise, ok maybe there is a noise advantage but usually you need to go further up the ISO range to actually notice a 2 stop difference.
With respect to noise and
I completely agree, in fact I’ve often argued exactly that point. Canon’s best sensors don’t match the E-M5 in some key areas like dynamic range. Sensor technology does matter much more than size. The closest in terms of technology to the E-M5 now are the Sony sensors, and possibly the Nikon ones. But I think those are made by Sony too, just like the E-M5’s. So when you’re comparing the E-M5 to Nikon or Sony’s current offerings, you’re usually looking at sensors with identical pixels to the E-M5’s…just more of them.
When you go beyond full frame, you see that medium format doesn’t provide superior dynamic range (anymore), nor does it provide better low light performance. In fact it’s much worse in low light because of heat dissipation issues. Interestingly, heat generation also limits full frame sensors, which theoretically should be able to do even better than they do.
Totally agreed.
I saw an interview (think it was on between pekka potka and the olympus executives during the castle lesley launch of the E-M1. Supposedly the E-m1 is a 100% Olympus imaging design…. what that probably means (and i am speculating here 😉 ) is that Olympus imaging purchased the design from Sony and then modified it for their own needs 😉
That being said (and I think we are on agreement on this) the sensor technology in the current generation of m43 is phenomenal.
The lens mount in and of itself better lends itself to perpendicular light travel to the corners of the sensor for better edge to edge sharpness and a more direct light path. I truly believe that it is the golden compromise and gives up nothing to the bigger sensor formats.
The ONLY thing you loose/gain depending on your perspective is a wider/shallower depth of field at a given field of view.
With respect to ‘noise’ , noise levels at base ISO’s between 5d, D800 and E-M5 are very similar. That ‘difference’ of a stop and a bit only opens up when you start ratcheting up above ISO 800. But the kicker here , is that ISO800 and even ISO1600 has less ‘noise’ today on a modern day digital sensor than say HP5 / TriX400 did back in the days of film. It is also funny that back in the day , a user would deliberately choose one film type over another because the photographer would prefer the grain/noise that film would give to the final image. Personally I prefer the aesthetic value that a little noise gives to an image. It makes it look a lot less sterile and adds texture.
To my mind the small pixel pitch of m43 means that when we do pixel peep for ‘noise’ at silly high ISO’s, it does tend to look very film like and quite beautiful.
M43 is the most considered of the different lens mounts available today. Especially when we consider that we ‘ideally’ want as much light as possible to fall perpendicularly on the sensor. Try mounting a wide angle on the Sony A7/r 😉 The fact that there are a few companies developing for an open standard mount means that there is a huge advantage to the end consumer.
Any disadvantages the format may have had during it’s earlier introductory years have long since been eradicated by improvements in sensor / processor design. And it will continue.
I walked in off the street to a photography exhibition recently. My friend that was with me has long since been an advocate of the 35mm format being the minimum format size that should be used for Gallery quality prints. We have long since discovered the ability to agree to disagreeing! Anyway my friend zeroed in on a particularly image, a simple wheelbarrow in a field at the precipice of a mountain range. It was a stunning capture. He proceeded to point out how it must have been taken with a 120mm film camera because the roll offs were so gentle. He started rambling on about dynamic range etc…. “you would never get that on a smaller format”. It was comical then to meet the photographer in question who shoots with both an Olympus E-M5 with 12mm F2 and a Ricoh GR. This particular shot had been taken with the 12mm F2 and stitched in post. My friends jaw dropped. I think the point is that even experienced photographers WANT/need to see a big difference in IQ , so will deliberately pixel peep to the n-th degree to try and find something, anything wrong and justify that big purchase. Possibly these same people do not pixel peep the bigger formats to the same extent because conversely they do not want to find anything and I mean ANYTHING wrong 😉
Yes, I agree, the system has huge advantages. It’s tightly integrated, well designed and planned, has excellent technology behind it and produces amazing results.
I’m sorry to harp on this too, but there’s only a depth of field or noise disadvantage compared to full frame at the same f-number. At lower f-numbers vs full frame, both of those things are negated simultaneously, leaving you with essentially the same imaging capabilities. You just need fast glass. 🙂 So there is an equivalence point where everything is pretty much identical except the f-number, nominal focal length and ISO numbers are lower. I think that’s pretty cool. It means the format doesn’t matter nearly as much as people claim.
Here’s a hyperfocal chart. It’s pretty neat…you can see that a 25mm f/2 has the same DOF as a 50mm f/4, but you can shoot at a lower ISO on the 25mm, which is a 50 on MFT.
http://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html
I need a 8mm f2.8 tilt shift. Not holding my breath.
I was hoping for a 8/2.8 fisheye and a 12mm/2.8 tilt & swing.
8mm f2.8 fisheye ?? You can use the samyang 7.5 mm f3.5, It’s sharp, small and cheap but not weathersealed… ok it’s manual but only a problem with close-up, otherwise you set to f8, focus point a bit before infinity and it is focused !!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-f_leguen/11009199456/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-f_leguen/11009059725/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-f_leguen/11009264913/
I tried to take some shots of my cat but there manual focus is boring…
Nice shots! What kind of distortion correction did you apply?
Incredible shots. I own this lens, and you’ve just inspired me to get out and use it more. 🙂
I still fail to see the concern. We traditionally had three tiers of camera systems: large format, medium format, and small format (i.e., the so-called “full frame”). As one advances from smaller to larger formats, resolution tends to increase, but depth of field decreases. The 4:3 and µ4:3 format is even smaller than the traditional small format and continues these trends. No one talks about getting faster medium format lenses to get the same depth of field as equivalent large format lenses.
There are ways to decrease apparent depth of field regardless of format. As a simple example, If possible, by moving closer to the subject (e.g., a model’s face, a flower, a bowl of fruit), one will decrease depth of field, giving a more blurred background.
The point is the trade offs between small format and the 4:3/µ4;3 format is really no different than the trade offs between medium format and small format or between large format and medium format.
That’s nicely put, that last paragraph. I agree, mostly. But there IS one difference: going from MF to FF and from FF to APS-C, things get progressively cheaper. Because the sales volumes are there. But going from APS-C to m43, it gets more expensive. Not because Olympus makes some huge profit or Panasonic is super greedy, it’s just the numbers.
The rest is just trading off DOF and light for size and weight. Which seems totally reasonable for most purposes. (and yes, less light is gathered, that’s why astronomers use HUGE sensors).
As I wrote in the previous post, the purple lens flare is the only annoying thing on Panasonic 7-14 f4. Having said so, if Oly presents a lens that wide with a better coating, and faster, I’ll sell my Pana7-14mm.
I would love to see them add a built-in filter turret as well, with a polarizer, a strong UV filter, and a couple strengths on ND filters.
I’ve seen lots of complaints about the purple lens flare, in practical terms how often does it actually happen.
Obviously depends on the lighting conditions, but many situations where you have bright lights in an otherwise relatively dark scene, it can be a problem, and one that is often hard to prevent with the very wide angle of view.
To me it looks like the lens behaves better on the E-M1 then on the E-M5, through the flare is certainly still there (and not something the camera can do much about beyond reducing stray light being bounced back into the lens from the area around the sensor)
As Yaa said: in a hall with artificial lights in front of you, the purple flare is assured. Same thing if you don’t pay attention and don’t leave the sun above/behind you on a sunny day.
I think a filter over it would cause much more trouble and that’s why Panasonic didn’t design the lens with that option.
A better lens coating would have partially mitigated the problem though.
On a cloudy day this lens can create some really dramatic and cool effects. I’m happy about it, but a better version would be welcome!
@marco, did you use it on your e-m1 yet?
Curious if you notice any differences compared to your e-m5.
@yaa I have used it lately in a hall with artificial lights all around, and the flares were there.
I have most of them removed in PP cloning each spot (annoying), but there was still some purple halo: it’s visible when pixel peeping.
I can’t say Em1 performs better than Em5 with this lens: now it’s winter and there’s a different light and sun, and most of my 7-14mm photos were taken in summer, when I bought it.
I know its flaws and I try to keep the sun behind me or use the 12mm if I can’t.
Just out of topic: 17mm f1.8 performs better on Em1
Thanks Marco. I also still have the flare issues, and like you, am aware of them. Since I also own the 12-35/2.8, that is what I often will use when not needing anything wider then 12mm. The 12-35 is nearly immune to flare at least in comparison to the 7-14.
What I noticed is an improvement in distortion correction and working CA reduction, resulting in much better corner performance (provided you are shooting jpegs or use an ‘official’ raw converter)
Yaa, I’d like to know if MZuiko9-18 has the same issue at 9mm. I think the cause is the round front element: light bounces inside of it in a different way, and I don’t really know if a better nano coating surface would solve the problem.
Lately I had to go to 7mm because I was in a beautiful hall, and had to capture a Gospel choir and could not move further away: even 12mm was too narrow.
I am enjoying Em1, maybe IQ is not that better than Em5, but the overall feeling in handling is almost perfect.
I don’t own the 9-18, I have borrowed one for a bit through, and didn’t find I had to be as vigilant on preventing light sources in the frame as with the 7-14. I didn’t use it long enough to ensure I ran into the more difficult cases, but ‘simple’ things like indoor pictures with a window or other light source out-of-center in the frame worked somewhat better then with my 7-14, no bright ghost images, through still noticeable loss of contrast.
That said, beyond the size/weight, I wasn’t impressed much by the 9-18, and I doubt it would survive the daily life in my bag very well.
There’s no rush, if they want to spend another 6 months improving design, I’m all for it.
I would be happy to see a 12-40mm f/2.8 Oly Pro that I could put on my camera RIGHT NOW! 🙂
It’s already available, I have one and it is a corker.
They’re fairly hard to find, depending on where you live. I’ve been waiting two weeks for Amazon.ca to fulfill my order. They still don’t have one in stock, but hopefully soon… They’re offering a huge discount for pre-orders right now, if you know any Canadians looking for this lens.
Any patents out there on the ultra-wide?
Yes, a Konica Minolta patent on a 2.8/8-17. That’s what we can expect, I assume
Well, I’m sure _some_ people will like these. But me, I just couldn’t care less. Too big, too heavy, too much money.
Still waiting for optically decent (a step up on the kit lenses) f/4 zooms that are more aligned to the inherent size and weight advantages of m43.
Don’t hold your breath waiting. 😉
how about a longer tele as mentioned on the roadmap (something like the 300/2.8 but more compact) ? My hurting shoulder and back are waiting impatiently…
sorry, only read the rumor about the super telelens after my previous comment
“Ultra wide zoom on market early 2015.”
Pfffff… 😀
I prefer Tokina 11-16 + Speedbooster (available NOW and 1 stop brighter! – 2.0)
Does it work well? My feeling is the SB works best for normal to short telephoto.
I guess that means the long Tele-photo lens won’t come until 2016. With Panasonic removing the 150mm f2.8 from their len roadmap I guess we won’t see any IQ image past 150mm for at least 3 years.
I have enjoying using my 100-300 for the past 3 years but it looks like I will go elsewhere next year for an upgrade.
Admin:
Please ask your sources also about the rumored 300/4. NOT hearing anything about this lens makes me worry very much, that it will still be very far away – which will make me (and many more) unhappily stick to canikon for more serious tele reach.
If the wide zoom is not coming until 2015 then it looks like 2016 is the earliest for the longer lens. I was hoping that one of Panasonic or Olympus would do something soon for the long end but it looks like this lens will keep getting neglected.
I have enjoyed using my 100-300 but I will likely go elsewhere in 2014 for my birding. Life is too short and there are some other new handheld long lenses that will be an improvement what I am using now. Just waiting for Canon to release their 100-400 replacement then will decide between that, the Nikon 80-400, Tamrom 150-600 or maybe Nikon will release the CX 70-300 by then. All more expensive but highly quality glass than what m43 will have for the next few years.
I fear that you are right, although I still have hope.
My alternative would be a Nikon V2 with the rumored CX70-300 zoom, or a also rumored new stabilized nikon 300/4. I want it small, no more carrying the big birding gear. Will take a smaller sensor if needed.
And the Pana 100-300 just doesnt give the quality on the long end.
Yes, the rumored 300mm F4 from Nikon could also be an option and apparently a new 1.4tc is coming at the same time as this lens. I would certainly consider this over a zoom.
300/4 for m43 is just as hard to design as 600/4 for FF. lots of fancy glass flavors. It’ll be expensive.
But my biggest worry about this lens is that they make a 150-300 instead. That will be really really expensive and heavy.
SPEED IS THE ESSENCE OF WAR……..
There are lot of lenses available but not for wildlife/birding. I switched from Canon 7D + 300L F4 to EM5 with 70-300 II. I’m still waiting for a 300mm F4 and extender but it looks far away. Even Sigma and Tamron are not there and they can make money with this.
An adapter from Metabones from ef to mft with Af is not available. What to do?, go back to Canon or go Nikon?
Wait for another year?, i’m waiting allready 1/3 of my life.
Please hurry up.
For wildlife and birding, use 4/3rds lenses on the E-M1. That is the intended solution for the time being. The 4/3rds lenses do not have quite the same size/weight advantages as the Micro Four Thirds lenses, but they are still smaller and lighter than equivalent lenses for 35mm sensors, and some of them are extremely good. The 90-250mm f/2.8, 150mm f/2.0 and 300mm f/2.8 together with the 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters are ideal for wildlife photography (and the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 equally good for wildlife photography on a budget or with lower weight and size than the above).
By developing on-sensor phase detection, Olympus have opened up the world of 4/3rds lenses to Micro Four Thirds users (at least with an E-M1), giving a highly professional range of lenses immediately without having to wait for the Micro Four Thirds equivalents to be developed. What one is waiting for when one is waiting for the Micro Four Thirds lenses, therefore, is merely a lower weight and bulk and faster focussing equivalent of the already existing Four Thirds lenses.
I wish I had known it was going to be delayed. I was told informally January, waiting an additional 5 to 11 months is going to seriously delay my transition from Nikon. At this point I should probably just waited until the lenses I wanted were out. I’m going to have to reevaluate what I’m going to do. The Panasonic 35-100 is just a bit short for my needs, the FT glass may be something I need to consider, nice stuff but heavy and expensive. I may just use the E-M1 for a second body and walk about, and keep shooting with my Nikon.
Get yourself a 4/3 50-200 (don’t really need the SWD version for your E-M1) and EC14. Combination should still be quite affordable (relatively spoken) and not that insanely heavy or big either.
In the Canon world, the 100-400L/4.0-5.6 (on a full frame body) would be the closest equivalent, through in my experience it isn’t as good optically, and more expensive then what you should be paying for the 4/3 50-200 nowadays.
I already own the 50-200 and EC14, but if Olympus hadn’t released the E-M1 by now, I’d be buying a 6D with that 100-400L to replace my aging E-3 and get an alternative for that 50-200.
I was looking at the 50-200 as a possibility, it has better range and the speed difference isn’t much. The price is probably better too. My only concern was focus speed, on the E-M1 that might not be too bad, but I have to wonder if the 40-150 would have been better.
@bob
I obviously don’t have any experience with the 40-150/2.8 yet, but going from general behavior of 4/3 and m4/3 lenses on the e-m1, its easy to predict that focus speed with the 40-150 will be better, with the additional advantage of having about double the number of focus points.
So far my ‘field experience’ with the 50-200 on the e-m1 is somewhat limited. For me its a lens I mostly use for outdoor concerts and events, and its not the season for those overhere. But from what I found so far, it should be totally usable for me, S-AF is fast enough to not hinder me at least. AF is certainly not as fast as either the 40-150/4.0-5.6 or 14-150 m4/3 lenses that I own at the same focal lengths, through more predictable (as in, the time it takes to change focus between 2 subjects is directly related to the distance between the subjects, which isn’t the case for the m4/3 lenses). Another thing I found together with another local Olympus user is that there is no difference between the ‘standard’ and SWD versions of the lens with regards to AF performance on the E-M1.
What else did I notice so far… AF accuracy seems better then on either the E-3 or E-5 and is very good actually.
My hope is to use it for high school football, where the light isn’t particularly good. I don’t know if the E-M1 can do it or not yet. The 12-40 performance has been good enough that I’m encouraged. The other lens I keep looking at is the 90-250 f2.8. The price is the main issue there. It’s weight wise comparable to a Nikon 200-400 f4.
Can’t really say how well it would work for that. So far, the most comparable thing I did was taking some pictures of children and pets at play to try out C-AF. As long as distances were beyond some 3-4m that seemed to work very well. Light was a cloudy almost winter afternoon at 51 degrees north, so you are talking about ISO 1600 at f/2.8 to get 1/400. Somewhat contrasty subjects help with AF obviously. Trying this with S-AF was also workable by means of ‘fingering the shutter button’, ie, repeatedly half-pressing it to keep focus close to the subject to keep AF times low.
With regards to low-light AF of the e-m1, m4/3 lenses do better then 4/3 lenses of equal focal length and aperture typically, and S-AF does better then C-AF with the same lens.
Just give me a rectilinear 8, 9 or 10 mm prime already.
+1
+1. But the lens makers are obsessed with zooms. The third party makers are no better than the camera companies.
Except Kowa,but I guess the eye wants AF.
oh good! only years to wait!
Its funny, when companies don’t say anything about the future plans for a system, people complain that they want a roadmap, and when a company presents such a roadmap, people complain they have to wait for years.
Oh well, can’t win there.
Announcing a delay IS NOT a roadmap. But seriously, Oly is just out of resources I think.
Well, this is a rumor about a delay, but the release time mentioned in that rumor seems to be what Olympus itself has been suggesting (see above for a reference)
So, if we want to nitpick, this wasn’t an announcement, but a rumor that confirms an earlier announcement, but that doesn’t comply with earlier hopes and expectations.
This won’t stop True Homer from commenting on it obviously, as he has to somehow ensure not too much attention will be given to the 150/2.8 that all of a sudden disappeared from the Lumix roadmap.
pro point and shoot?
im pro i shoot with my iphone
i will tell you the future of M43 dead like 43 isystem will be aviable soon at second hans shop for almost nothing
Gosh, I sure hope so!
FF – With that sort of spelling it looks like you’re using a 2nd hand brain! 😀
“Ultra wide zoom on market early 2015.”
2015??? Late is an understatement.
So what? Delayed by a year. Most of you couldn’t afford this lens anyway. LOL. It will be $3000+. Better stick with the out of box $99 deals 40-150mm f/4-5.6 kit lenses, okay, pro poseurs.
40-150 DELAYED!? 🙁 Man what a bummer, I’m so ready for that lens to match with my 12-40!
It sounds like it is coming out when they first announced it would, as quoted.
“Scheduled to be available in 2nd half of 2014.”
pro poseurs
Second half of 2014 means after a year?? Olympus is going to miss another summer season.
Where are the long lenses? 150mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4?
Or just be in time for summer in the southern hemisphere, and holiday season around the planet…
About the ultra wide zoom, 7-14mm F/4 would be perfect for me. Image quality at least as good as the Panasonic and :
1. WITHOUT THIS PRONOUNCED FLARE OR PURPLE GHOSTS OF THE PANASONIC WITH OLYMPUS BODY (same problem with Panasonic body but without so much saturation)
2. Weather sealed lens,
If possible, not bigger (or smaller) than the Panasonic, and less expensive.
For me, F/4 is enought for a ultrawide zoom, especialy to limit size, weight and price. If the price is 1300 euros, i will keep my Panasonic, and i’m not sure a lot of people will buy it !
I’m waiting for a long time now, and try sometime to use the 9-18mm to avoid this horrible flare. So please Olympus, do not delay, or i will have to go for another brand (Canon 10-22 is good) for my ultra wide angle activity.