Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro Lens Review by Blunty
Full E-M1 review at Digitalcamerareview (Click here). They like the camera a lot but there is also an open question:
“The camera has all the making of a semi-professional or professional camera. The addition of Olympus professional grade lenses makes the E-M1 a strong contender for professional. But will professionals be ready to take the plunge into a mirrorless system instead of holding strong with their DSLR systems? Sadly, I’m not quite sure we are. I think the E-M1 has some pretty spectacular features that most professional cameras don’t offer like an in-camera image stabilization system, weather proofing and tilting LCD screen. But, the overwhelming majority of DSLR users still have no idea what mirrorless can offer and changing camera systems is a scary notion to most. With a price point that is surpassing the Nikon D7100, Olympus is going to struggle with securing new buyers.”
CamerLabs RAW test: “under the hood, the Panasonic Lumix GX7, Olympus OMD EM5 and EM1 all share pretty much the same degree of real-life detail and noise levels.”
More E-M1 tests:
E-M1 images of Buchangrant.
Olympus OM-D E-M1 Studio Sample Photos (Photographyreview).
Test at Itmedia (Japanese).
Full size RAW by Steve Huff.
test au château at Lepidi.
Preorder Links:
Olympus E-M1 body at Amazon, Adorama and BHphoto, Amazon DE (via DL), Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL), WexUK, Topshot FI, CameraWorldUK.
Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO Lens at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, AmazonDE (viaDL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus E-M1 with 12-40mm Lens kit at Amazon DE (via DL), WexUK and CameraWorldUK, Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus E-M1 with 12-50mm Lens kit at Amazon DE (via DL), WexUK, CameraWorldUK, Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus EP-13 Eyecup for E-M1 at Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus HLD-7 Battery Grip for E-M1 at Amazon, Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus LC-62D Metal Front Lens Cap for 12-40mm at Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus LH-66 Lens Hood for 12-40mm at Adorama and BHphoto.
168 Responses
cameralabs raw = first remotely useful/intelligent comparative analysis to come out of the entire online community. Even just for em5/gx7 which could have been done properly 2 months ago.
shure not any pro will use this camera for work mostly in studio work when iq is need it cut be fun camera for day famaly use and as fir journalist etc they even post cellphone pics so shure can be use for that
Just a little more, and I think we wore him out
Why you don’t find a more profitable way to spent your time?
There’s a lot of porn in internet, use it.
LOL! 🙂
😉
I forgit to mention I bought GX7 for my vidoe needs and E-M1 for family picture’s although I’m concerned about small sensor and big nose!
Good for you Skanky, especially as the E-M1 isn’t available yet. Have fun with your imaginary friends.
And don’t worry, their noses won’t look big unless you do portraits with a wide angle. Or of a dog, in which case it’s really OK if their nose looks big.
I thought it was his own big nose he was worried about! 🙂
Adding a coma or a full stop, now and then, would help those who still try to read your comments.
Yeah, falling into a coma would help. 😉
Yes, I misspelled it, sorry.. But it was a nice joke. 😉
It would have been a joke had you not committed the very offense you were commenting on. There are people from all over the world who post here regularly many who do not have English as their native tongue. Combine this with typos and it is all too easy to make a mistake.
Franzh, I was not offending our “friend” above. It was just a suggestion about writing properly: English is not my language, but
I know what commas and full stops are for. And they serve the same purpose in every language. Fact is, that the guy above is trolling as usual, but in this case his comment makes no sense at all, at least to me..
I thought “coma” was a Freudian slip! Anyway, I come here only for the mediocre entertainment and the watery drinks. 😉
🙂
I feel another poem coming on, but, alas, I have to go to my other job…
ADMIN: Is there any word if/when the US will get the E-M1 + 12-40mm f/2.8 kit? I’d consider buying such a kit, but there does not seem to be a preorder option for it yet. Is this Europe only for launch?
+100…I am selling my E-M5 and Grip and waiting for this kit….since Olympus does not discount their cameras before they ship like Panasonic, :-)…..I want to wait for the Pro Kit to try and save a little….
Maybe the Pro Kit will become available when the lens is available for sale?
There was briefly a $200 rebate for the 12-40mm lens and E-M1 but it was pulled the same day. You can still see the page in Google’s cache. Hopefully this will go into effect soon because I’m not interested in paying the early-adopter fee. At least other countries get a choice of the vertical grip over the flash and 4/3 adapter.
November/December — in time for Xmas and when there will be enough lenses to actually put into a kit
Yes…somewhere in that timeframe sounds about right….Let’s hope it is sooner! LOL.
Pinocchio, is that you? 😛
Oops, the above post was for the guy with the big nose in the previous thread.
It is good to see Panasonic catching up to Olympus in IQ.
Catching up to Sony you mean – and that is a last generation sensor. The sad part is that Olympus will get the new sensors only after Sony releases cameras with them. So the E-M6 might have the same sensor as the E-M5. It’s not a bad sensor, far from it, it just feels like m43 never has current gen sensors.
Blunty is the 50% more sedate Yahtzee Croshaw of the online photography realm.
Did anyone count the number of times “pro” was uttered? ^^
Look, even tho Blunty probably had a Blunty before he shot the video…he did a nice job..it was friendly and informative and how could he not be excited about THE BEST ZOOM FOR MICRO FOUR THIRDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Looks like a beauty.
Is this a review or a commercial? I can’t tell. “Maybe I’ll really, really suck up to the people at Olympus…” I think he already has.
How would the GH3 compare?
Blunty is wonderful, does he love, love, love the lens… yes… lol ..
What a fricking idot, whom I assume sells used cars as well. Really…. is everyone so gullible to believe this crap from this guy?
Would I trust Blunty? Yes! Would I trust the crap from you? NO!
The guy in the video is so nervous that I never again want to see a video with his hands
Dude, if you are going to shoot a video review with closeups of the lens in your hands, you can’t talk with your hands. This thing made me want to barf up my lunch 😉
Oops, forgot to fill in the name fields on my jestful comment above. This Anonymous post is not to be confused with other ones which aren’t by me 🙂
Please post your video and we will see how you do!!!! Thank you.
What an absurd comment. I don’t have to post my own video to know that his hands are all over the place and constantly shaking the camera distracting from the review.
Stop whinging and submit your video review Mr. Peiker…we all want to critique you! We want to know where this critique is coming from…now c’mon…let’s get on with it….
A little google may do wonders if you happen to not know who he is and what he does.
He just wants to see your video to see how well you would do it! It’s soooo easy to criticise.
I agree with E.J. I wanted to watch video, but can’t with all the jittery hand movement.
What intrigues me is that someone of ‘your’ stature in the photography community is posting on a rumor site E.J! Does this mean you will be posting an article on m4/3 as part of the new generation of tools sometime soon? Maybe an article comparing the merits of two different ‘Ones’ in the field, I am thinking of course of the Phase One IQ system and the EM-1 with pro lens on the same shoot.
This site just got that much better knowing that E.J. Peiker comes here too.
I was not in m43 or csc photo in general when the EM5 was launched…but was there too so many & detialed & deep reviews from so many different sources ?
…also that thing about 15 (or how many) different pro fotographers/bloggers on 1 location(Ireland) with presentation and testing of brand new camera ?
… is this somehow standard accross the brands ? …or Oly really put pressure on this pro EM-1 camera ?
…just curious what is your opinion here …
Nice talk about the lens. Looks like a good one. The pictures i am not sure tho. To be honest I’m quite disappointed by the noise. The background of the pictures taken at 640 ISO is really noisy. Even at low iso it does not look real good. Noise levels are not too bad though not great, but the noise doesn’t look at all like film grain, more like reticulation which was an unwanted effect that could happen during film development, causing the emulsion to ‘ripple’. I wouldn’t be spending near 1500 euro for this camera. But its still good for a point and shoot. The wife and kids can not wait to get their hands on one.
Ah, Shenkie, you revealed your true self. What, too many posts to keep track of all your pseudonyms? By the way, I shot this with the E-M5 last week: http://www.flickr.com/photos/94046993@N08/9995124756/
Have you ever shot…anything?
Yes we have read this one before… boring…
Oh and here is the same post agin under the name ‘Chris’ this time on Steve Huffs website:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/09/28/by-request-full-size-from-raw-olympus-om-d-e-m1-images/
Stu you truly are a moron. Wake up to the real world and try to understand that some wanker use the name Shenkie and Viezevure to troll. The real Shenkie en Viezevure do not troll.
“Have you ever shot…anything?”
Maybe in the foot. 😉
“DSLR users still have no idea what mirrorless can offer”? Get a reality check, it’s exactly the other way round. Mirrorless zealots have no idea what DSLR systems offer in addition to what mirrorless systems admittedly *do* offer today. Perhaps most significantly: serious lenses. (Although at least MFT achieved a major improvement there by really becoming FT compatible with the E-M1.)
Enlighten us what significant and useful features DSLRs have over the latest Mft cameras…
Just little things like, better DR, better colour depth, better high ISO,OVF,a huge range of fully native AF lenses, better C-AF, better tracking,assuming you want to compare the best of each format.Worse still it is often cheaper.If you prefer we could compare the D800e to the 12mp GF1 that seems to be how it goes with your type
The equation works this way:
1. You can have a much smaller lighter set up with poorer image quality
2. You can have a larger heavier set up with better image quality
Whatever your personal choice between them is is cool, just don’t try and claim it is the only or even best choice for anyone else. I am delighted to carry the lighter load so FF is not an interest for me
As the actual real shipments from Japan show 83% of cameras being pumped out are still DSLR. mFT has at most 8% of the current interchangeable camera market. These are hard cold facts lying about them does not change anything.It just makes you look like a fanboy or worse still a shill. Use whatever gear makes you happy and don’t whine about others choices
The regular fanboys here whine about the FF trolls who flock here for a laugh at the expense of you and the other fanatics.If these type of idiotic posts dried up the rest of us would just maybe be able to have a forum that we could enjoy instead of reading constant BS and bickering
If you had a real interest in making this forum a decent place to spend some time you would ignore the posts that wind you up .They are doing it for a laugh only thing it isn’t funny for us who do not want any part of it.
@Enough For God’s sake
-Not seeing better colour depth,
Much more dynamic range? far easier to nail the exposure with the latests mft over any DSLRs
– Not seeing many shots taken over ISO6400 anywhere
– OVF have next no advantages over the latest viewfinders and LCDs and a considerable amount of disadvantages
– a huge range of fully native AF lenses…just like for the E-M1,
– better C-A, better tracking…much better than the E-M1?
If you prefer we could compare the D800e to the 12mp GF1 that seems to be how it goes with your type…NOPE I said latest mft
The equation works this way:
People can read, see images, try out the cameras and speak to fellow photographers and then make their own minds up.
The regular fanboys here whine about the FF trolls (childish and shallow) who flock here for a laugh at the expense of you and the other fanatics.If these type of idiotic posts dried up the rest of us would just maybe be able to have a forum that we could enjoy instead of reading constant BS and bickering….maybe keep the same username would also help!
If you had a real interest in making this forum a decent place to spend some time you would ignore the posts that wind you up ( I would normally ignore but at times trolls have run riot on here) .They are doing it for a laugh only thing it isn’t funny for us who do not want any part of it…..maybe keep the same username would also help!!
The is no argument. Full-Frame cameras totally have MFT cameras beat in image quality and features. To try and argue that useless. You look like a MFT Fanboy/girl fool. I have a Canon 5D Mark III and an OMD E-M5 and an E-P5. I love my MFT kit…but dude, get real. The file quality, overall features and pro choices for lenses, flashes, etc. just don’t compare. End of Story. Yes, MFT is smaller and lighter…but it does NOT deliver the same image product.
native lens choices mft is slightly behind but for overall lens choice including ability to use practically use other mounts mft is on a par, yes mft is a little bit behind on some flash scenarios at the moment but for 98% of client’s purposes the latest micro four thirds cameras and system is good enough.
btw 2 of the photographers that work for me both shoot Canon 5D Mark II so I’m use to working with their “full frame” files.
Talk all you want…the more you do the more you make a fool of yourself. FF delivers a super product. Period.
yawn…
That argument only works when there is a real-world difference in quality in the end-product.
At times there is, other times there isn’t, it depends on the situation and on the end-product (print size, type of paper, intended viewing distance etc).
Anonymous… Yes, FF gives *slightly* better image quality. Yes, Nikon and Canon have slightly more lens choices, especially in the tele range, etc. Yes, Nikon and Canon have better flash systems, etc.
To claim that FF is far superior to m43 at the current stage is just not true. With your perpetual mantra that larger sensor size gives better images, then obviously MF sensors should give even better images? What about DR? Film based cameras still give better DR than digital cameras, so if this *really* is your concern, why don’t you suggest MF film based cameras? Eh — could it be that you are not a *real* photographer, but a pixel peeper?
The latest m43 sensors are more than good enough to give professional results for real photographers. The best lenses for m43 are at least as good as the best FF lenses. Partially because they are easier to make due to the smaller sensor. But that is not unfair, it is a feature :-).
@YDDY AND BLI
What Koolaid did you two drink?
The White House Staff photographer is not switching to MFT anytime soon.
Sports Illustrated photograpers would just flat-out laugh in your face.
I love my MFT cameras….BUT….LOL @ you two!
Hmmmm….I wonder why Mr. Terada would consider Olympus making a Full-Frame camera???…hmmmm….
Just have another drink of the Koolaid kids….and sit in your delusion….it will all work out just fine.
LOL.
“The White House Staff photographer is not switching to MFT anytime soon.”
Chances are, (s)he didn’t switch to 135 format yet either.
“Sports Illustrated photograpers would just flat-out laugh in your face.”
If they can get the required results for far less weight and in the end money? They most certainly will. They switched to 135 format as soon as that could deliver the required results for the exact same reason.
Pete Souza is a real person he uses all Canon FF Digital…um…like ….the 5DMark III to document our beloved President!
http://www.robgalbraith.com/content_page9edf.html?cid=7-11678-12720
“Sports Illustrated photograpers would just flat-out laugh in your face.”
If they can get the required results for far less weight and in the end money? They most certainly will. They switched to 135 format as soon as that could deliver the required results for the exact same reason.
That is my whole point…they can’t get THAT with MFT TODAY. That is my point. NONE of them are switching…why….because they are professionals and need professional gear. MFT is not at that level yet, it could be someday..but is ain’t today.
Dumb argument.
I still love my MFT gear though…I just use it accordingly…what is the big deal.
“That is my whole point…they can’t get THAT with MFT TODAY.”
Says you. Funny enough there are professionals around showing this isn’t as generally true as it was 5 years ago, more the opposite actually.
“That is my point. NONE of them are switching…why….because they are professionals and need professional gear.”
Professional gear is gear used by a professional to make money. Many professionals have used disposable film cameras…
Oh, you meant built to professional specifications? Tell us where it doesn’t meet those..
“MFT is not at that level yet, it could be someday..but is ain’t today.”
Again, there are professionals around showing that to be wrong at least for their applications.
But hey, National Geographic thought 135 format too low quality until pretty recently for their centerfold prints, and honestly, the last decade or 2 of that refusal was just total bullshit.
No sir, you aren’t looking at a situation where they cannot get the results they need at least in many cases, but at a situation where conservatism and fear of not being perceived as pro because of not using the ‘pro uniform’ are the determining factors for way too many people.
more than 2-3 times of shots per battery charge.
@Boooe
you would need to take more 3-4 shots with a DSLR while chimping so yeah I guess DSLR users need that extra battery life 🙂
Your parenthesis cancels your argument (and rightly so). Also the new mft Pro line lenses by Olympus follow and share the same high standards with the FT line (more or less). Both lines BTW are “significantly” better than most other DSLR lenses of other brands as you should know.
Both lines BTW are “significantly” better than most other DSLR lenses of other brands as you should know.
That is simply incorrect a FF lens on the best FF camera will outperform any mFT/FT glass on any mFT/FT body .It is camera + body that matters for the final image some of the FT glass is indeed truly excellent but no match for a like for like comparison with FF unless you are doing the old trick of comparing lenses with very different DOF.
Comparing lenses with very different DOF.. but identical exposure?
I think in your enthousiasm you forgot a tiny little detail, when you use lenses that give the same DOF and AOV, your 135 format camera will be shooting at a 2 stops higher iso level, undoing almost all advantages that 135 format might have.
Maybe you should go learn a thing or 2 instead of just repeating what you read elsewhere.
Yes, because none of us were taking photographs before mirrorless came along a few years ago.
And there are no dual system users here either.
What a ridiculous comment
Many of us here were probably using film slrs before you were born and have used many different formats over the years.
And decided that m43 best meets our needs based on experience and knowledge.
Mirrorless came along decades before the first SLR.
There are and have always been a number of advantages to not having the mirror, but for quite some time, the advantage of a TTL viewfinder was bigger then the advantages a mirrorless camera offered for most applications.
Ah yes. M43 missing serious lenses. I totally see it.
Clearly there’s no fantastic primes at every focal length like the 12mm and 17.5 mm olies, 20 Pana and 25mm panaleica or the 45mm and 75mm olies.
It’s a pity Voigtländer and SLR magic aren’t making some of the fastest (f0.95) manuals for speed freaks.
Wouldn’t it be great if Pana or Oly made some great 24-70 f2.8 equivalents that are half the price and a fourth the size (you know, to prove the point of m43)? Or a nice sharp wide angle like, say, a 7-14mm. That’s be just great.
Get the hell out of here. You have no idea what you’re talking about. M43 has one of the best lens selections of any system, and even more are on their way. Find some forum for pants-shitting or brain death-survivors. Seems like it’d be more up your alley.
Mate… kiss goodbuy to the past… nice knowing you!
Hey BigButt, I’ve shot 35mm SLRs, followed by DSLRs, since about 1970. I think I have a pretty good idea what DSLRs offer. Along with certain benefits, they offer extra weight, extra bulk, extra noise, poor live view (except maybe the 70D), weak CDAF for live view and video (ditto). Also, limited information in the viewfinder, low viewfinder magnification for APS-C bodies, and dim, dark, tunnel vision VFs in entry-level DSLRs.
..perhaps the blue square should change his/ her name to Hubris Bigend.
I for one maintain two complete systems…Full-Frame (1 body and 10 lenses) & MFT (2 bodies and 10 lenses).
So…just speaking for myself …I do not fit into your equation…I am WELL aware of what both systems offer.
Does my MFT system offer as much versatility or the image quality of my FF system…absolutely not…if it did I dare say I would not maintain two systems…. But MFT offers soooo much in a very small package and offers MORE than any other mirrorless system in lens choices…and this is before the E-M1’s ability to tap into the 4/3 lens quiver. The other mirrorless systems just do not have anywhere near the quality AF lens choices that we have, in a small size. Period. Every day it gets better….and many here are aware of that!
The D7100 and the E-M5 have similar amount of daily users with the E-M5 having a much higher activity score.
Other recent Nikon cameras do not have high amounts of daily users it tends to be their cameras which are 3+ years old….just saying.
No one cares what happens the only numbers that count are the sales numbers and there the D7100 will sell 20 for every one E-M5. Just to show you how much nonsense you sprout the D800 a niche FF camera that costs more than double the E-M5 has 8,429,023 items and 1259 daily users compared to the E-M5 with 4,623,321 items and 608 users both cameras came out at the same time just saying
The D800 have only twice the amount of users and photos of the E-M5 would be a fail in many folks eyes and would surprise many Nikon users…
Wait, the only thing to determine the relative quality of things is how well they sell ?
By that standard McDonald’s offers some of the finest food on earth I guess.
Sales determine both popularity and more importantly they are rather good indicators of profit. The depressing data from Olympus and Panasonic’s imaging division tells the real story of the “success” of mFT.
@MichaelK
oh really, Nikon claims that Nikon 1 has been a success but in the same breath saying the Nikon 1 has damaged their profits so what gives?
and since when did you have a break out by mount of Olympus and Panasonic imaging divisions profits?
and since when did you have a break out by mount of Olympus and Panasonic imaging divisions profits?
Both Olympus and Panasonic provided detailed data on the finaces of their respective imaging divisions.I am aware that you get antsy when real numbers intrude on you fantasy numbers.
@MichaelK
camera companies don’t break out where they make their profit or loss on whether which model, mount, lens, point and shoot, DSLR, mirrorless, medium format etc unless you care to post a link where they do?
Try D800 D600 D3200 all have more daily users than the E-M5
Not relative to the so called “DSLR dominance” they don’t when you consider micro four thirds is suppose to be still a ” niche player”
The top 18 Nikon cameras on Flickr “EACH” have more items than the entire Olympus mFT range put together.I knew DSLRs dominated but Jesus I didn’t know it was that bad.
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/nikon/?s=photos#models
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/olympus/?s=photos#models
It only gets worse when you look at Canon
Their top 35 cameras all individually have more items than the Olympus mFT range
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/?s=photos#models
You really really shouldn’t reference data that can be verified better to stick to plucking numbers out of the air
like I qualified earlier Nikon’s cameras on flickr are dominated by their older cameras ie Nikon’s best days are behind them.
You know, Nikon do not have a Blunty to advertise their merchandise. They lack a “pro”. LOL.
“still a ” niche player””
The entire mirror less market including all brands makes up just 17% of the interchangeable lens camera market .The latest mFT share of the mirrorless market is 44-48%. That gives between Olympus/Panasonic a maximum of 8.1% of the interchangeable lens market. The breakdown of sales between Olympus and Panasonic is not made clear but I would estimate with some of their big sellers that Olympus is probably ahead with say 5% of the total market.
I would say that is pretty much a niche and ironically despite the hype/lies/exaggeration of fans like you.It is quite a bit lower than Olympus’s share of the DSLR market was at their peak.
Actual 100% solid data :
http://www.cipa.jp/english/data/dizital.html
You have a problem with accepting facts that you do not like. I wonder did it take you a long time to accept Santa wasn’t real
hmmm… checked a couple of UK online stores earlier today from what I could work out where available looking at their top 25 from across 3 websites canikon had 1 each in the top 25 mirrorless, Pentax and Samsung zero, Sony and Fuji a few more but the bulk was made up of Micro Four Thirds cameras.
Looking at Flickr data Nikon’s recent cameras are performing badly considering that they are suppose to have such a large share of the market.
Also look at Flickr micro four thirds users buy more lenses (ie profit) and use them than DSLR users.
What is an “activity score”? Your second paragraph makes no sense at all.
“Other recent Nikon cameras do not have high amounts of daily users it tends to be their cameras which are 3+ years old….just saying.”
Not so Declan, the D800, D600 and D3200 all have higher numbers of daily users , the D800 an expensive niche FF camera actually has double the daily users and millions more items.In fact the D600 that came out a full year after the E-M5 has more items and more users , just saying
And how would you have the slightest idea of how many “daily users” each camera has. You’re just blowing smoke, and embarrassing yourself.
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/nikon
The buchangrant.com blog was interesting because his work was actually good. While internet fanboys keep drooling over specs, people are losing sight of what matters. Today any digital interchange lens format can technically take better pictures than Henri Cartier-Bresson’s camera and film combos. But will they? I seriously doubt it.
Olympus AU said that E-M1 12-40 pro kit will be available in Oct on their facebook. I have per-ordered one already.
I think Oly and Pany should lower their prices, perhaps even take a loss, to attract new customers. After they’ve gained enough market share, then they can up the price.
Great idea. Lower prices to attract users. Become known for the low price. Then raise the price and laugh all the way to the bank. How’d that work out for Ron Johnson at JC Penney recently?
It would seem we have a big problem here that as yet has not been realised.
The lens is black yes
But its gloss black. That must equate to silver in the mentality of some visitors here. But so far nothing by way of comment, is that good or???????
Maybe they are all to busy being rude.
Got to admit my pref would be mat black 😮
Just because it stands out the least – and if ever I want to do a sneeky timelapse where I cant be assed to babysit the cam then black and no lights can hide away at night well!
I would say camoflauge but that just stands out in other ways when around people, so mat black kinda hits it on all leverls for me personaly.
Have to laugh at the above conversation.
Tha lens is the BEST zoom lens MFT has seen to date,IQ-wise and build quality.
It’s weather AND freeze-proof.
It comes with the best double locking lens hood I have ever seen.
It comes with a newly designed pinch-type lens cap.
I comes with a pouch.
It has snapping manual focus.
It has an additional funtion button on the barrel to further expand the photographers options.
The lens comes I black.
…
…and all these two clowns above can do is complain about the type of black color isn’t right for them.
In a word: Pathetic.
Have to laugh at the above conversation.
That is my default for posts here
Tha lens is the BEST zoom lens MFT has seen to date,IQ-wise and build quality.
It has yet to be tested by professional test sites Blunty is for sure an amusing dude and great fun but not a scientist by any stretch. He seemed to be keener on the hood and lens cap.
It’s weather AND freeze-proof.
True
It comes with the best double locking lens hood I have ever seen.
Locking hoods are nothing new
It comes with a newly designed pinch-type lens cap.
Pinch lens caps are even older
I comes with a pouch.
Wow a $900 lens with a pouch bargain
It has snapping manual focus.
Just like lots of old AF lenses
It has an additional funtion button on the barrel to further expand the photographers options.
LOL
The lens comes I black.
It’s a beautiful lens and is the BEST midrange Zoom the the MFT system has to offer. PERIOD.
:-). Oh dear!
Read the comment. Your intelligence seems to be a bob short of a quid. I says in a sarcastic tone!
In the words of Nigel Tufnel: “It’s like, how much more black could this be? and the answer is none. None more black.”
this oly ”pro“ lenses are in real terms f/5.6 so even the new canon 24-70 f\4 or 70-200f4 beats them there is so much blind people here basically all tje ppl that do the reviews are sponsored or camera dealers other thing regarding to called pro is the terrible oly costumer suport i need to wait like 3 months to get the fl600 fix and cost about the same almost 2 to fix em5 button and csnt even replace eye cup and im not in europe or america that for shure that service is worst
Who gives a monkey about dof… shutter speed is king – DOF is its bitch!
F2.8 is F2.8…
FZ200 king of all cameras 25-600mm all at F2.8 those mFT lenses suck .What you mean smaller sensors have different end results at the same nominal aperture,damn I thought I was on to a good thing ‘
DOF,AOV and total light !!! otherwise P&S cameras would have results as good as larger formats
By the same token, if what you equivalence trolls believed was correct, compacts and especially mobile phones would barely work at all. By your logic, an iPhone would ‘really’ be F100 or something like that. Then how would it be able to take pictures at all?
Also, what would the ‘real’ F-numbers of medium format be?
Equivalence *only* applies to DoF; for light intensity (which is what an F-number actually measures – otherwise a light meter wouldn’t work either), an F-number is an F-number.
let’s do the math: most phones have about 6x crop sized sensor and f/2.4 lens.
so in low light they work much like 35mm f/14 FF. just get rid of that “ISO” and everything becomes clear. “ISO” is not a physical value…
Still wrong.
That small sensor only uses a fraction of the light, the lens is f/2.5, no matter which way you turn it.
Relative aperture IS a physical property of a lens, it is entrance pupil diameter divided by focal length (not equivalent but real). It does not care at all about the size of the medium behind it.
“25-600mm”
No, a field of view equivalent to a 25-600 zoom.
It is not actually 25-600mm.
It has a DOF comparable to what? can’t be bothered, but lets say f/16 on a 135 format camera at the same field of view, but it isn’t f/16.
The problem is that you simply do not understand at all what f-numbers are.
50-60 years ago, medium format was the king of pro and prosumers but for portability and other advantages it switched places with the full format. In the digital era full format changed places with the aps-c which has the biggest market share. We see now a revival of the full format but it still remains a tool for profesinal photographers who earn their living from photography. D600 and 6D are less expensive than their professional counterparts but they are crappy cameras compared to the top of the line aps-c (no 1/8000, no 100% viewfinder coverage for the 6d, less focus points and bad placed etc). You compare everything with the full format. The f4 on full format is f6 on medium format regarding dof. This means that f4 on full format is crap because it’s not comparable with f4 on medium format regarding dof? Come on! Wake up! Leave your cozy chair in front of the computer and start taking pictures! This is my advice.
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-6D-vs-Canon_EOS_7D
What Aps-c camera is beating the 6D… NONE OF THEM. Andrei, I see you like to spin the truth, so I’m here with links to make your “Spin” irrelevant. Please, explain to me what aps-c camera makes the Canon 6D crappy?
Here’s another link where the 6D even beats the 5DMkII in some areas: http://www.digitalrev.com/article/canon-6d-vs-5d-mark/NTczODM1ODc_A
That “One” cross point in the 6D helps make it a low light beast. It has better low light performance than a MkIII!!!
But honestly, I didn’t have to go there, because obviously, you don’t know your stuff just for saying the 6D is a crappy camera compared to top aps-c cameras.. You need to be laughed at by everyone.
I won’t say any further on the topic, back to M43 talk. Pardon me, everybody.
Oh my, the 6D has better low-light performance then the couple years older 5Dmk2? Amazing!!!!
But eh, I don’t think it runs circles around a D7100, actually, it will have a hard time beating that one at all.
Just like the D2 I purchased back in ’05, the one which could not provide consistent exposure, the one which was sent in for service, the one which Nikon returned saying it had been fully tested and they found nothing wrong, the one which I sent back suggesting one of their tech’s used for a week who agreed there was an issue and still the one Nikon returned saying there was nothing they could do as it was fine in the lab. So much for Nikon service, the camera is still faulty but suits my brother who is not that concerned, saying “It’s better than my Coolpix 800”). End of story, last Nikon I ever purchased, a heap of junk. Any trouble with Oly, yes faulty sensor in an early E-P1, trouble getting fixed, no returned within a week working perfectly.
But boy, do FF DSLRs suck in terms of DOF control compared to medium format cameras, and especially view cameras with tilt and shift controls. FF cameras are toys compared to read cameras.
Might as well use a P&S as an m43 or FF. Real photographers know that medium format is where it’s at.
FFS, this one has been beaten to death, there’s a limit to one’s inability to understand basic physics and fundamental photographic principles (how one can think himself a photographer or have any opinion on photographic technique when one doesn’t understand what a f-number actually is, is beyond me).
Also, one has to wonder what type of photography they do that actually REQUIRE paper thin DoF…
he does understand, you do not.
in same conditions under low-light, same shutterspeed, a FF with 70/4 at ISO=1600 will produce a lot better image than m43 with 35/2.8 lens at ISO=800
and FF with 70/5.6 lens at ISO=3200 will produce similar output as m43 with 35/2.8 lens at ISO=800.
your “F2.8 is always F2.8” disappears once you place camera into Auto-ISO mode.
See, your math is approximately correct, but your understanding of physics isn’t.
Aperture is a physical property of a lens independent of whatever size medium you put behind it, so yes, f/2.8 is f/2.8. The sensor behind it is what is responsible for the difference in results.
f-numbers are the most fundamental concept you MUST grasp to practice photography beyond P&S, get it right or don’t complain being clowned for being ridiculous, ignorant loudmouths especially when you try to use physics as your argument.
E-M1 is almost the same size than the E-M5 and much smaller and lighter than the entry-level APS-C like the D3200 or 100D. So it retains the portabiliti of the m43 standards.
What you fail to understand is that we all know what a “full frame” camera can offer. And despite the perceived benefits, we still choose m4/3. Nobody wanders into m4/3 by chance for the simple fact that it is not well advertised. The gullible and uninformed buy Canon and Nikon because they were told by someone else to do so. To have even heard of m4/3 you have to be a camera enthusiast on some level. I picked m4/3 because it was the perfect balance of size and quality for me. If I want absolute quality I’ll skip your mediocre “full frame” and get a medium format camera. M4/3 can get me 90% there compared to your “full frame” and I am fine with that. I’ll happily save half the weight as I hike 20 miles into the back-country.
Trying to justify your purchases and ideals here is just silly. Try venting on a Canon or Nikon blog (whichever you didn’t buy into) instead.
“M4/3 can get me 90% there compared to your “full frame” ”
NO, it won’t. Maybe in your eyes, but no, you’re bugging. Try 75%, and honestly, that’s not bad.
Maybe you meant to say: “M4/3 can get me 90% there compared to your “APS-C”
Its far easier to nail exposure, white balance and composition in real world shooting with the latest micro four thirds over “full frame” DSLRs
What you need is a camera that has very good auto white balance. Just sayin’!
@horseface
white balance is part composition/intention…don’t think any camera can do that.Just sayin’!
Its amazing how you seem to totally know what everyone needs, and hence can determine that no, 90% is not correct.
Beyond that, know what the issue with your ‘argument’ is?
Theoretical quality is totally and utterly irrelevant, enough quality to comfortably cover the intended applications is what matters. If a camera does that for 90% of what someone is wanting to do with a camera, then it covers 90%, regardless of your theoretical argument or uninformed opinion.
It is not “smaller and lighter than 100D” anymore. Better – sure.
lolwut?
nikon d3200 => 505 grams
canon 100d => 407 grams
olympus e-m1 => 497 grams
e-m1 is only slightly larger than e-m5, which only slightly larger than small mirrorless camera and therefore e-m1 is huge compared to small mirrorless cameras which go under 497 grams with body+lens
Eh? You take pictures without lenses? The 12-40/2.8 weights slightly more than 1/3 of the Nikkor 24-70/2.8.
That is true but unfortunately to match the output of the 24-70mm on FF same DOF,same AOV and same total light it would need to be an F1.4 lens.Just as the F2.8 lens on the Panasonic fz200 at F2.8 ,does not have the same DOF,or total light of an F2.8 lens on mFT.
It is profoundly embarrassing to those mFT thirds users of whom I am one.That so many here are so ignorant in spite of having the simple facts pointed out to them literally hundreds of times.
“output of the 24-70mm on FF same DOF,same AOV and same total light”
Dear fellow MFT user, before you accuse others of ignorance, please get your details right.
Total light is a function of surface area of the image sensor times brightness. ‘Total light’ is as such not a property of a lens, but of the sensor.
That is trivial to demonstrate to yourself really. Take that 24-70 that you were talking about, set it to 24/2.8 and point it at an evenly lit white wall. Check your exposure, and now change to 70/2.8, and check your exposure again.
If the ‘total light’ was a lens property, it would result in a different exposure at 70mm because you’d have a much bigger absolute aperture.
Since this doesn’t happen, ‘total light’ for as far as photography is concerned isn’t a property of the lens, plain and simple.
If you want to know the math behind why a larger opening doesn’t automatically get you more ‘total light’, it is called inverse square law, and it means that any ‘total light’ you gain at the aperture, you lose again because of the larger (optical) distance required between optical center of the lens and focal plane.
The ‘light bucket’ analogy works for astronomy because you are only interested in how much light you can extract from what for all practical purposes are point sources at infinite distance. Since that is generally not what you are interested in in photography, the analogy also doesn’t work.
If you want to know the math behind why a larger opening doesn’t automatically get you more ‘total light’, it is called inverse square law, and it means that any ‘total light’ you gain at the aperture, you lose again because of the larger (optical) distance required between optical center of the lens and focal plane.
—
I know what the inverse square law is, both for light and gravity, but I do not quite understand why light is “lost” when it has to travel an inch more. Where do *you* think that this light (energy) goes?
Because light has this tendency to spread out.
But if we want to be really accurate, inverse square law merely gets you an approximation for this, as we aren’t really talking point sources either. A good enough approximation however as any light meter or camera can tell you.
Try it, I told you how to do that, and its really easy to demonstrate to yourself. Its why a f/2.8 lens gets you the same exposure regardless of focal length when pointed at a large enough evenly lit area. You can use the brightness times area argument there as well, it comes down to the same thing.
There is another approach that will also tell you the exact same thing, but is a bit more difficult to understand possibly.
A 4x larger aperture area will let you gather 4x the amount of light from a single point in the scene, but half the focal length will get you 4x the amount of scene. Getting 1/4 of the light per point, but 4x as many points (well, not really, but fractions of the scene) is simply equivalent when it comes to ‘total light’.
Well…if you do not mind lenschoice, lenssize, Image quality, weather- and dustproofing you can opt for another system than m43s of course. Just go ahead. No one cares.
Show us your FF photos Foolframe – bet they suck balls.
Finally, the truth pokes its head up above the howling masses and emerges.
So in RAW, the EM-1 and EM-5 are about the same. Maybe a light touch better to the EM-1. Maybe not.
That’s sure worth upgrading for twice the price of an EM-5. And spare me the nonsense about all the REALLY GREAT features of the EM-1. If it’s the same image quality as the em-5, stick it, and wait for the next generation.
First and foremost, this camera was designed to appease 4/3 users. It should have been released along side the EM-5. But why sell a camera once when you can sell it twice? If I had an EM-5 I wouldn’t upgrade. Having said that, if I was in the market for a new camera now, I would get the EM-1. For now though, my GH2 is serving me just fine. I’ll save my money for the 42.5 come December instead.
As of now, I think it hit a wall. I can even see a return of the 12mp sensor. A re-designed better sensor that takes better advantage of the 12mp than previous ones.
Why not 8 Mp sensor, or even… one pixel sensor??
Twice the price? I guess you haven’t reached middle school yet, because you certainly don’t know how to divide.
EM-5: $1,000
EM-1 $1,400
That would be 40% more expensive, not 100%.
EM-5 with grip: $1300 (can’t buy just the horizontal part)
EM-1: $1400
That’s 8% more expensive.
Exactly.
For what it’is worth. N5005 had the same sensor (film) as the Nikon F5. One was a couple of hundred dollars the other cost thousands. Was one better than the other, absolutely, could an experienced photographer capture the same image, absolutely, then why pay more?
Because the superior pro camera has:
More direct controls for quicker adjustments
Faster shutter and sync speeds
More accurate metering
Better more reliable focus
Better Viewfinder
Weather sealed for less than ideal conditions.
There is more to a camera than just a sensor. Until new technology comes along, most sensor upgrades will be minimal. One could wait 2-6 years for those organic sensors to come out but I would much rather shoot now .
In my country the
em5 = 900 body only and 1900 if I buy the 12-40 separately
em1 = 1500 and 2200 with 12-40
That 300 € premium is a bargain if ergonmics, af tracking, viewfinder and all those “useless” features have any importance for you.
Would I own the em5, I would not upgrade. But otherwise, it´s a no brainer.
A professional wedding photographer dump his MarkIV and went to EM5 with prime lens, I experienced it first hand I know because I am proud to say it was the sharpness and the fantastic Olympus naturally realistic color of my Photos which made him do it and I am not even a professional photographer by trade. What you think this EM1 can do in the hand of a professional?
In general DCR offered a decent and positive write-up. It sounds like the reviewer really likes the camera but is having trouble figuring out how she can use it and preserve her appearance as “professional.”
Howeever, there are a number of comments that leave me shaking my head.
For instance these comments about the battery grip:
“But, an additional battery grip is available for those that love the extra bulk and like the look of a heftier DSLR.” … “While I was at it I would also purchase the additional battery grip (HLD-7). This no longer makes the camera as compact as originally packaged, but it does give the appearance of a professional ensemble. And in the world of professional photography, looks matter.”
Her whole focus is on appearance rather than function.
More important are: longer battery life, grip for portrait use, better balance for large lenses. Additionally, I wonder if the greater battery capacity will improve focus speed with larger lenses. It was often said that on the E-1, the 50-200 focuses a bit faster with the battery grip. I think that is probably the case, and used that combo for my son’s soccer games but have not measured it myself.
Ultimately, I think she was considering whether the battery grip would do the trick of making the cammera look “professional” and ended up being uncertain.
Leaving aside the old beaten horse of mirrorless vs. FF 35mm, these findings beg the question if 16Mpx is the sweet spot of m4/3, that is if the system has met its limits to growth. As said above even a reworked 12 Mpx might be right.
My prctical expectations in fact were completely met by the jump to 12-13 stops of DR. Denoising might go on, but unless pixelpeeping at 200% is already v. good. AA filter couldn’t be lower, so – Horror! – I am losing interest in updating. Am I wrong? For daily snaps I even find my ‘old’ E-PM1 good as it is.
I can see further progress in lenses, more in the Sigma line than in the proprietary ones which are impossibly expensive. I am v. curious about what Kodak will bring, and I welcome the popular initiative about having TTL radio triggers, but that’s about it for m4/3.
Does FF 135mm have more development legroom or are we hitting a general ceiling, due to the physics of noise?
If so the Quality of Image, instead of IQ, will make the difference, that is photographic content. The Phoblog. ran a feature about aspiring Pros spending more money last year in Photography courses, than in gear. Perhaps an era of common sense is beginning?
As far as (practical) IQ goes, I have no reason to upgrade from my E-PL1, and have managed to avoid upgrade fever for 3 years or so. For me, the revolutionary improvements in m43 have been the 5-axis IS, and now the PDAF capability. I’m in two minds about buying the E-M1, because I think the PDAF implementation will improve exponentially in a few iterations.
I’ve done plenty of large prints with files from my E-PL1, so I have no doubt that the the 12MP sensor is enough, for my needs. Sure, we can bang on all day about ISO improvements, noise levels, focus speed etc…..it’s all good, but just gravy as far as I’m concerned. What I’m interested in is that I can now use a m43 camera for my son’s rugby!
Having got a EPL-1 myself the improvement is the lack of shutter lag on the E-M1. The benefit to you is not missing the moment when you press the shutter. Also there is a night and day difference in the files. If you shoot Raw there is a massive difference on the amount of highlight information you can recover as well as recovering shadows. Even on small prints it will notice.
For me, the combination of better resolution, smaller size and much better high ISO that my E-1, better ergonomics with more dedicated controls that my E-PL1 and, of course, much better ability to AF my 43rds lenses than my E-PL1 is driving my interest. No doubt there will be iterations of improvements in subsequent models, but I have been patient enough to wait for this!
I ordered at 7 am on release date and am hoping that B&H will hit their target date of 10/4.
>mirrorless vs. FF 35mm
what a s%%t.
there’s a FF mirrorless camera from Leica, and Sony will soon announce theirs.
43 slrs already died…
It’s great! 🙂
I’d like to know what they’re putting in that go-kart, because it’s running laps around you: http://www.flickr.com/photos/94046993@N08/8646031821/
Upon Infinity
I’d like to know what they’re putting in that go-kart, because it’s running laps around you: http://www.flickr.com/photos/94046993@N08/8646031821/
That shot is actually an excellent example of the weakness of mFT look closely and you will see the shadows filled with noise and the detail level sucks.
Yep m43 noise is a problem compared to apsc/ff. The background of the pictures taken at 640 ISO is really noisy. Even at low iso it does not look real good. Noise levels are not too bad though not great, but the noise doesn’t look at all like film grain, more like reticulation which was an unwanted effect that could happen during film development, causing the emulsion to ‘ripple’ Even with low iso pictures are not that good. M43 should stick to point and shoot prices. They are walking the wrong road and trying to compete with high end apsc and ff. Only fangirls or people who prefer small above quality will buy this stuff. So lets stop comparing m43 with apsc and ff. And even if you want small you can buy a nex 6 for 600 euro wich is as small as the em1 but has way much better output.
Hey, did you just change your name or did you just copy/paste Shenkies rubbish from a few threads ago…
Shenkie’s just fighting through his multiple personalities again. He has pet names for them all -‘the wife’, ‘the kids’, ‘the dog’ which he kicks when his full frame camera doesn’t perform to his wishes. They all buy their own cameras and then as one big family argue over which is best. When one personality wins the debate, they get to come online and relay their thoughts to the world. It’s truly a wonderful life. Viezevure must have beat Shenkie with a big stick
Green looks good on you, Anon.
That pic was taken with the E-P1. My shots with the Canon 350D do not look that much better…
I do not understand this childish discussion. If you don’t like the camera (or if it is too expensive for you), don’t buy it. I am glad that I pre-ordered the kit. All previews so far convinced me that this will probably be the ideal camera for me. There may be better cameras out there, however, I am not willing to carry the weight. Therefore, for me the E-M1 is a very good compromise.
” With a price point that is surpassing the Nikon D7100, Olympus is going to struggle with securing new buyers.”
Totally correct. Olympus must be crazy overpricing the camera like that. Some existing 4/3 and m43 users? Sure. New ones? Fat chance.
The E-5 sold for $1700 IN 2010 dollars, still sells for $1300 to $1600 used now, and the E-M1 is a more capable camera. Even at that price, Olympus was surprised by the response and sold more than they anticipated. This carping about the cost is misdirected.
I think that the summary pretty much sums things op with regard to professional use. Sure there will be enlightened pros who see the benefits but many who work for big agencies, their choice of gear will always be dictated by the huge backup that Nikon and Canon have. But for us keen amateurs the EM1 is heaven sent!
The real test for this lens is how it measures up to the 43 12-60 zoom and the 43 14-35. I am still waiting for the results.
We know it is faster in AF, has constant faster aperture and has a slightly better macro mode, but how does the IQ really compare? I think the software corrections might give it an edge in some areas, but I really doubt it can beat the 14-35 zoom in overall IQ.
Hey,
i find the first dealer on facebook with the body on stock:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=524789594269031&set=a.113875105360484.21223.112330645514930&type=1&theater
greetz
Here in Italy you can found FF camera kits for €2.200/.2300 (Canon 6D + 24-105 L or Nikon 600d + 24-85 Vr) so I think that EM-1 + 12-40 Kit at € 2.200 is wayyyy overpriced!
The pro market segment don’t care too much about weight or small dimensions, and at this price levels it will be very difficult to convince them to switch system givin up sensor size, megapixel count, high ISO performance, great lens selection for “cuteness” and overall smaller size.
Olympus just try that route with the E-xxx series and failed, I don’t understand why it could be different with this m4/3 attempt….
Nowadays if I’m gonna spend € 2.200 for a camera + zoom lens, I pretende that it can take good sport/action photos, or give good results up to 12.800 ISO or have a good selection of supported pro Flash systems etc…
m 4/3 is the PERFECT system for amateurs o (rich..) pro-sumers who want to travel light, the pro market is another league or , maybe, another sport!
very ambiguous, not clear how he feelsabout this new lens also
a 9 minute video and you couldnt say if the hood reverses