The Swedish Magazine Fotosidan (google translation here) interviewed Setsuya Kataoka (General manager Olympus Imaging Corp). And there is some talk about the future Olympus products:
1) Right now Olympus is considering whether to develop a bright super telephoto lens, or a super-telephoto zoom with a little lower brightness.
2) When the pro series is getting full, it may be necessary to develop a bit more specialized or extraordinary lenses, such as lenses with ultra-high brightness.
3) No Tilt Shift lenses are coming
4) Working to update the IS for new astro-photography features.
Let’s go with the f/1.2 and f/1.0 prime lenses Oly! We already saw your patents on those 😉
242 Responses
Don’t ‘consider’ – just do. You won’t regret it.
Lens sales are DOWN for m43 biz.
They have to get R&D back and make a profit.
Not possible with so few m43 customers buying etxra lenses.
Your source is?
With the bad business Oly has.. where is the money coming from?
Setsuya Kataoka also said that they are co-operating more with other divisions (like medicine) to cut and share development costs for new technique.
Olympus is a profitable company as a whole. Camera division as a whole is not profitable, bot the upside is that the OM-D line, lenses and accessories is profitable(however, Compact camera’s and PEN series are not doing to so well ).
This is exactly what I waiting for
17mm f/1 and 25mm f/1 to fully compete with APS-C/FF DOF at those angles of view (35/50mm). Voigtlander, but better optical quality and super fast native AF.
DOF-oriented pictures are so last decade. 😉
Well, the amount of light it will let through is also an important side of it, as a compensation for the FFs better ISO capabilities.
I don’t care about shallow DOF, for me the aperture is only to get more light or less light.
People thinking aperture as DOF controller are just stupid and idiotic people who don’t get what photography is about. It is about to get sharp photos, not about blurred out of focus shots where you need to fight against yourself to get subject sharp.
If you want blurred backgrounds, any image manipulation software has allowed to do it correctly in last 10 years, all it requires is that person learns to use layer mask and layers. And YES you can get ANY looking “bokeh” you want, no need to sell arm to get one ultra contrasty lens.
at least for people with tiny sensors.
It is worthwhile reading the translation. More information is revealed:
– Higher resolution sensors are coming.
– Olympus is developing multiple readout exposure to increase dynamic range.
– Olympus is dreaming of a global shutter.
– E-M5II IS is the same as the one in E-M1.
– There will be more functions relying on sensor movement (rotating it for astrophotography is only one example. I would take a close look at some other ideas Pentax has been implementing).
– No cooperation with Panasonic in product development.
Correction:
Olympus is asking for a sensor with increased dynamic range, maby by multiple readout
Thanks.
“- E-M5II IS is the same as the one in E-M1.”
Then why have the reviewers all said that the 5-Axis IS is improved one stop in the EM5II and Olympus has explained that they have installed new technology to improve the 5-Axis IS to make it better???
Is everything I have read about that in the last week a lie?
I kind of doubt your statement.
First, it’s hardly MY statement.
Second, I suspect everybody was comparing the new IS to the original E-M5 and not to the E-M1.
Yes.
Olympus has stated that E-M1 IBIS is 5 stops, that is ONE stop better than what E-M5 had and it was rated 4 stops.
If the IBIS effectiveness is improved one stop to E-M1, it is then 6 stops!
But no one has compared to E-M1 as it is not successor to E-M1 but to E-M5 and for that it has been compared.
Still, different improved tech for video movements, but similar 5 stop effectiveness both E-M5 II and E-M1
Man …that is confusing. My readings had olympus saying that they put in new advanced components that improved the IS…yes maybe that statement was “relative” to the old EM5…..not sure. Good point.
The way it read (can’t recall where I read it, sorry) that the sensitivity in the components had been newly improved…it didn’t read like “Olympus put the same IS as the E-M1 in the camera. It sounded very new…” …could just be marketing!!!! LOL!
maybe software
Robing Wong said: “What is the biggest change between the old and new Image Stabilization mechanism you may ask? I was told that the gyro sensors used to detect the movements on 5 different axis were replaced with newer and more superior parts, with better sensitivities, responding significantly quicker, thus the Image Stabilization mechanism can react more efficiently based on the faster feedback of the new gyro sensors. “
It is not clear whether the IS is exactly the same in EM-1 and EM-5ii. Some reports claim that the IS in EM-5ii is improved because of using better components (actuators). When he says the same 5 axis IS, this could refer to the main principle and not the implementation. I seem to recall that Olympus indicated 4 stops improvement of the IS in EM-1, while they say 5 for EM-5ii.
Still, the high resolution mode will not be available in the EM-1 because this requires an electronic shutter.
—
He also refers to implementing a trick from a Canon camera of avoiding flimmering light.
Olympus said 5-stop IBIS in E-M1, but the E-M5 II has newer gyros so it can detect much more accurately the smallest shakes from meant movement.
And the electronic shutter isn’t required. The HR mode allows to delay each frame up to 30 seconds. And for that you can use the anti-shock feature that E-M1 has = electronic first curtain. Meaning the sensor exposure is started electronically, but at the end shutter closes.
So instead having 1 second processing, it could be like 5 second processing with real shutter. Still would be very acceptable for product photography.
Question just is, is there change to get the code to control the IBIS, at least it is accurate enough.
“The 5-axis VCM image stabilisation, which powerfully compensates for any type of shaking, has improved” http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/product/dslr/em5mk2/
I do not like the higher resolution sensor statement… Higher ISO or DR would be welcome, not more MPs. We have FF or MF for latter. Why cant we be happy for what M43 is, no need to reach FF capabilities in every way.
Lower ISO would be welcome like 25 , 50, and 100, instead of those pointless ISO billion.
Some of the wishes down here are ridiculous. To them I add: it must come at <299 euros.
Olympus are making all the right moves at the moment. I love my 12-40mm for stills and video, and hoping to pick up the 40-150mm this year. Olympus “super-bright” primes – oh yes please!!!
Speaking of niches, how about a 4.0/100mm (or longer) macro lens?
the 300 f4 (with extension tubes) is probably going to double as macro quite nicely… or is it too long?
A 50mm 1.0 or a 100mm f1.2 (or 1.4) would be very nice to me.
An 100mm F1.8 would “fit” really well (to the rest of the constant F1.8 prime-lens bunch) ^^. Or a good constant F4 (or F2.8 to F4 – full weather sealed) 14-60mm would be great – Together with the “click back” focus-ring of the PRO lineup.
Would LOVE to have such an higher qualiy “always” on zoom (with a good performance and more focus throw compared to the 12-40mm F2.8) – Paired up with a few fast primes it would be a DREAM to use (paired up with the 25mm and 45mm F1.8 for example – To get more light on the sensor or a “nicer” bokeh if necessary).
50mm btw. is just too close to the (already extremely nice) 45mm F1.8 (I think there´s no need for an 50mm F1.0) – More interesting would be a new 35mm F1.8 – As an option inbetween the 25 and the 45mm F1.8. Though also not THAT needed if we´re honest. More interesting would be a super fast 20mm or 25mm PRO lens – As they would be the most interesting standard focal lengths – 40 and 50mm for example on full frame with a 2-times crop sensor. But as there are the 17 and 25mm F1.8 – Not gonna happen ^^.
But hey – It´s nice to dream =)
I’m curious in what direction Olympus in going in the tele section. I already own the 40-150 PRO and am considering buying the 300mm PRO, but especially the later is already very specific. What do they what to build? A 200-400? A 300-400? Or some prime in between 400 and 600? Who would buy that? Or is that just a statement saying they commit to m43?
nobody would buy that…. except people on olys payroll and PR department.
I am neither on olys payroll nor PR department 😉
I believe it could be build by Pro line specifications. I mean 150-400mm f/4 or even f/2.8 (if they want to make it little bigger).
But if with four lenses you could get everything from 7mm to 560mm (400+TC14) it would be a dream. Add a 8mm fish eye and its complete set for most!
but I would not buy a tele Zoom with such a wide range and doubt that it ever could be built with Pro IQ specifications.
A 150-400mm f4-f5.6 would be around the same size as the 300mm f4 and would provide a zoom range from 7-400mm in their PRO lens. I think such a lens would sell.
I would buy any high quality super telephoto lens of reasonable size and weight. For that reason a faster lens than F4 would not make any sense with a focal length of 400mm or more for me.
I own 40-150 pro too and will get the 300mm pro as well and I would definitely consider buying 200mm f2 and 400mm f4 along with a 2x tele. And it would be nice to see 12mm, 17.5mm and 25mm f1 or f1.2 pro primes too.
Olympus should collaborate with Cosina to equip the m4/3 Nokton series with AF motors. It will save them a lot of expenses and time.
Those voightlanders aren’t sharp wide open. Needs to be optimised for wide open like the Leica f1 (but less than the Leica $10000 price tag hopefully)
Just as well they are soft wide open. It gives them a creative appeal absent from other m4/3 lenses. Stop them down to f/1.4 and they are great.
f/2.8 is the range where you need to stop them down to get them great. Anything below that is just between very soft and soft.
Sharpness isn’t everything.
The Voigtländers’ speed, color and rendering are amazing.
Have you actually used any of them?
If you want more sharpness, a bit of sharpening in Lightroom can do the trick.
Sharp wide open for distant objects, close up wide open has no DOF. The Noctons are the most versatile lenses ever, at least my 0.95/25mm. Stopped down a bit boosts sharpness for close ups. It takes some time to learn the lens.
Why mess with near-perfection?
If Cosina just added chips for EXIF data, that would be fine with me.
Yeah, every manual focus “dump” lens should come with pin chip attached to mount so camera gets to know focal length, lens model and so on.
Then we don’t need these and avoid warranty! http://store.tagotech.com/product_info.php?products_id=526
super bright, it won’t be black nor silver, chrome steel edition comming
Having IS for astrophotography would be interesting but just how do you stabilise a telescope image, besides the biggest problem there is the noise floor and hot pixelation of any sensor, some astro sensors use Peltier pump cooling, the Olympus sensor stabilisation system gets hot. Astro imaging may shoot 1000 pics in succession and then stack the best ones. That’s going to be a toughy for Ollie.
I think the idea has nothing to do with cooling or stabilization but with rotating the sensor ever so slightly during long exposures to compensate for earth movement.
This would be so awesome and if any camera manufacturer would come up with that it would be Olympus. How about tilt/shift feature that some want here, could it be implemented by tilting the sensor or is the range too limited?
Auto IS for astrophotography would be revolutionary as it could avoid buying a separate tracking system.
The accelerometer could easily detect azimut and make the computations required for the IS to compensate during the exposure.
The only variables I’m not sure if they are needed are latitude/longitude which, like Focal Length, could be a camera input with a proper interface.
Of course you could have limits to how much the IS could compensate, mainly on long telephotos, but with a 60s exposure limit, I reckon it would be useful the majority of lenses.
Olympus sensor doesn’t get hot. there is no added noise when you shoot even in 75 celsius temperatures long exposures and compare those to normal room temperature shots.
The CPU and battery are the heaters, mount your peltier pump cooler to back of the camera on right side and you drop the heat on those if you want, but they are separated from sensor itself.
The Panasensors in the EM1 (and some Pana Cameras) produce a lot of hotpixels. The Sony Sensors (Em5 Em10) don’t.
17.5mm f1, 25mm f1 and 42.5mm f1 primes, super sharp wide open.
That’s it. Job done. DSLR RIP.
I would love that!
I think all of these lenses exist already. They are made by Voigtländer. You probably want autofocus right?
Any super-telephoto lens for m43 would be more than welcome, please get the digit out and make one.
It’s amazing how many kids here wish for ultrafast lenses, which would inevitably cost a multiple of larger format equivalents, weigh the same and perform worse.
Guys, that makes no sense, fullstop. If you want that, you are in the wrong system.
+1billion I really can’t understand why a system must achieve the same performances of a different one.
Versatility? I think we can all understand why other people – using the same camera we do (or at least in the same “System”) might want something different than we do. Even if you and I overlap 90% of the time, I can still hope that you will eventually get your 7-14 f2.8 AND that I’ll get my 1,000,000mm f0.95.
Even the re-releases of existing lenses serve a purpose.
One can always dream, but waiting for a system to be the “ruler” of photography world is plain silly: each system has its pros and cons, period.
Right now I’m happy with the already existing fast lenses and their DOF, and with f1.4 and f1.8 lenses everyone can achieve a (boring in many cases) shallow depth of field. Need more? There’s no need to wait, a cheap sony a7 can be found used and in good conditions, thanks to the new Sony models released, and its 55mm has AF and has a FF f1.8 DOF. Or adapt some other Company glass: don’t tell me it would be bulky, because Voigtländer lenses are already bulky and heavy, and they don’t even have AF motors in it.
(A 7-14mm f2.8 is more realistic and easier to develop than a 1.000.000mm f0.95 😉 )
What I say is that too often people tend to wish and ask for unrealistic things.
IQ delivered, “brightness”, size: you can have only two out of these three qualities. Add the price factor, and still you can have only two pros and two cons.
Things might change in the future, with the use of better software or curved sensors, but we’re not there yet.
“IQ delivered, “brightness”, size: you can have only two out of these three qualities. Add the price factor, and still you can have only two pros and two cons.”
I agree with this completely! And we all struggle with it, especially when we actually GET what we ask for, then the reality of “the two cons” sets in. I’m talking to YOU, my future 40-150 f2.8 that I wished for and now wish was smaller.
But, we are all still human, and we want what we don’t have. And not ALL of us want a partial other-system for that one thing we would like to do with our mFT gear.
Anyway, I seem to have hit a nerve with you, without intending to. If nothing else comes of this conversation, I know what camera and lens to get if I want to expand my horizons. Thanks for that.
Ouch! Sorry EY20, I did not want to sound arrogant or picky, not at all! That’s the problem with comments, we can misunderstand them easily.
I wanted to say that each system has its pros and cons, and we should keep our feet on the ground when asking for products that cannot be made with today technology (or because of laws of physic).
Can you imagine the comments about an AF MZuiko17mm f0.95? It’s freacking BIG! Better a 35mm f1.8! It’s damned expensive! Compare it to a FF lens, what’s the advantage? And so on.
As you wrote, we’re all humans, and thus we’re never happy, but that “happiness” is not real, it’s just GAS. That’s why I usually ask myself if I really need something or not, if I gain something, be it in practice, like image quality, or simply a new pleasant or interesting experience (I’m curious to see if I can get that “hated” dp2 quattro, just to say).
🙂 I usually don’t get picky on fora, it’s a waste of energies!
Versatility is subjective: I think this system is versatile to me for what I do, but I have more fun when using a rangefinder camera, for example. Or: I have also a RicohGR with me and a tripod, and I use them to achieve the best quality in a shot, because its sensor is better than that of Em5 and Em1 and its 28mm lens is perfect for that shot.
Too many people act as if they are slave to the gear they use, and cannot change system.
Personally I use whatever I can, and find useful for me. Heck, I’m using a Polaroid SX-70 in these days. 🙂
How much costs a 600 mm prime lens of Nikon or Canon?
“Ultrafast” is the word he used, not “telezoom” nor 600mm.
My mistake 🙂
and how much does a 600mm mFT cost? The cost of a lens depends on physical factors such as focal length and aperture. And with same sensor technology (we are getting there) the crop factor becomes obsolete
Tell to your back and neck at the end of the day, explain them that crop factor became obsolete…
Apparently some are ready to pay silly money chasing a dream. If I wanted better ISO performance and super thin DoF, I could buy a second hand D610 and slap a new Sigma Art lens of my choice on it and still end up spending less than the price of the Nocticron. Yeah, I know it will end up a bigger combo, but to match it one would have to get an f/0.7 lens with AF on a m4/3 system. Let’s see that monster. Luckily I don’t have such needs, I’m quite happy with what the E-M1 can do.
Okay, show us where is equivalent 12mm f/1 lens for larger formats?
Or where is 8mm f/1.2?
Or where is 25mm f/1?
There isn’t others than Canon 50mm f/0.95 that costs about $2200 as used. Olympus could make the 25mm f/1 cost under 1k! Be way smaller and way lighter!
Olympus should ask you how to develop, produce and then sell a 25mm f1 for less than 1000 dollars.
Personally I would ask for an image quality at least on paar of Voigtländer lenses.
IQ delivered, “brightness”, size and price: you can choose only two out of them, the remaining two will be cons.
You mean:
24mm F2
16mm F2.4
50 mm F2
for 135 sensors.
Except for 16mm F2.4, look around, you will be surprised at the size and cost.
If you need to stick to m43 coz the doctor ordered it, you need to live with its limitations.
Cool, more superteles sounds good! Teleprimes would be nicer (and cheaper!) than zooms. When the 300 f4 is out, there’s every lens I need available in the m43 system but maybe a 400 f4,5 for under 5k€ would be a dream lens. The aknowledgement of a global electronic shutter is positive too. I hope they focus on improving c-af also (contrast detection).
I think oly and panasonic should do more co-operation, atleast panny should commit fully to ibis instead of ois, that way they would benefit from oly users buying they’re lenses too. Also it seems pointless for both companies to use rd in developing similar kit lenses (14-42, 40-150) instead they should focus on filling the holes in m43 as a whole.
Do not understand your logic when you say
“… , atleast panny
should commit fully to ibis instead of ois, that way they would benefit
from oly users buying they’re lenses too.”
Users of a Olympus body can use IBIS with Panasonic lenses (both those lenses with OIS and those without). More problematic for users of Panasonic body to buy Olympus lenses since they can not use any IS at all(except of course if you have GX7). But I am very tempted to buy the Olympus 300 F4 to get good long and bright tele lens to my GH4 whenever it is available. Just have to keep track of the shutter speed and might need to use higher ISO than I would have needed on a Olympus body.
I just meant oly users might not want to pay ois extra when buying a lens when a majority of them wouldn’t use ois anyway. At the moment m43 is divided into lenses that are not stabilised and mainly attract oly users and ois lenses that attract lumix users.
I do hope they reconsider making a MFT shift lens (no tilt, just shift – keep the price low). The digital keystone compensation in the E-M1 is a nice feature but it introduces distortion and degrades image quality. Nothing like the real thing.
Tilt-Shift or nothing. We can already get shift with adapters (compatible with OM-D) but we want to tilt the focus plane and not just shift to avoid camera shown in mirror.
And then I could stop retro using my technical camera with custom m4/3 mount plate.
I’m not about to trade size and balance for anything more than 1:1,4. Also, a prime needs to be made for easy and frequent swaps – that’s where adapted manual lenses work very well in my experience. And please – kindly – add an aperture ring. Over to you, Oly, and thumbs up for the ruggedness of my E-P5 – it just survived being flung with some elan on a concrete floor.
” it just survived being flung with some elan on a concrete floor”
so disappointed?
Please, no aperture rings. It may seem cool and retro but adds to the cost, don’t work have fraction adjustments like in-camera wheels and aren’t always in the same location (with different lenses). This is where Pana and Fuji (and Nikon Df) are going the wrong way, they seem cool now but it’s not a great longtime solution. The om-d line is a great combo of retro AESTHETICS and modern controls. The same can be said with shutter speed dials on the camera (what if your camera gets a new shutter speed in firmware but your DIAL DOESN’T SUPPORT IT?) Same goes with physical switches with hard stops for metering, af-modes or ISO.
Totally agree, the modern two control wheel scheme is much more practical and can be used with one hand. One handed operation may not seem like an important thing, but when you have a flash in your off hand for macro work, then it suddenly becomes almost mandatory. Sure, you can’t see the settings unless the power is switched on, but that’s not an issue for most users I’m sure.
Why I want to see settings when camera is Off? When I am about to take photo, I want to see it on EVF/LCD. If I dont’ remember it (like from last day shooting).
There’s always the A position for your shooting preferences – it could also relegate control to your preferred setup. Since photography is such a sensual pursuit, I’ll admit to being partial to the smoothness of OM lenses’ manual focus rings, and the snap of manually controlled aperture blades. Not to mention their astounding build quality.
I don’t want to move my hand when changing aperture when in full manual mode.
The OM zuiko lenses were great because the aperture ring was always in same place, at the end of the lens. And shutter speed was chosen from ring around mount. Both were working in 1 stop stepping.
You didn’t need to touch anything else. Very fast and easy to use.
But OM-D is even better. Two fingers and no need to even touch the lens. Far better than any physical aperture ring in any lens!
Or be idiotic and do what Canon did with their huge rear wheel for aperture, loose the grip while adjusting aperture and you are incapable to take photos at that moment.
Canon, Fuji and Nikon are for slow situations, not to sport and other fast moments where you need to have direct control under fingertips all the time. Olympus wins everyone with OM-D design!
Weather sealing and aperture rings! Yes please. With dual dials on the camera to support legacy lenses and in between adjustments
You want OM-m4/3 adapter that has electronical pins on m4/3 mount, and physical leveler on OM mount, metering the aperture ring position and reporting it to camera? Woah and now you have semi-auto digital camera!
Diversity is key. Maybe you won’t trade size and balance for anything less than f/1.4 but I would love to have such a lens in my kit for when certain situations arise.
Much better than maintaining a second system and carrying it around all the time!
So bring on the huge f/1.2 and faster lenses, they’ll still be smaller and lighter than the ff counterparts!
🙂
PS: Aperture rings in this day and age are bad, mmmkay
M I C R O 4/3 (what is the meaning of micro?..)
Careful. You will wake up the trolls.
The mount, compared to that of FourThirds.
The m in m4/3 means “mirrorless”.
Lets change it so it means that and not the “Micro” as it would be far better fitting.
4/3 and “mirrorless 4/3”
come on… mirrorless 4/3 is gonna sound dumb five years from now when there are no system cameras with mirrors on the market anymore (except maybe from leica that likes to cling on to decades old technology…)
‘Mirrorless 4/3’ would be a mirrorless camera with 4/3 mount, not a camera with a m4/3 mount.
Olympus has always been about compact gear. I believe the µ4:3 system is where they wanted to take the original 4:3 system all along.
I think this is very good news. One of the strengths of the 4/3 sensor is the potential extra reach of telephoto lenses for a given focal length. Especially when it comes to bird photography, lenses are rarely too long. Whilst both types of long lens are important, I think the priority should be on the super telephoto zoom first, simply because there will be more demand for it.
In addition I think Olympus needs a long macro lens option with a tripod collar. The tripod collar is important not just for balance, but for adjusting the orientation. I think something along the lines of the old Sigma 180mm f5.6 macro would be idea, but going to at least 1:1 instead of the 1:2 of the Sigma. This would be a good compromise with reach and aperture. Wider apertures than this on a macro lens aren’t used so much with macro photography. f4 would be plenty.
Another macro lens which would be popular is one that goes to much greater than life-size, say 2-3x. Greater than life-size macro photography is becoming increasingly popular. Something like the new Venus 60mm macro lens, which goes from infinity to 2:1 continuously would be idea. I am actually thinking of getting an E-M5 II to specifically use with this lens.
I currently used the Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 1-5x lens. Whilst this is a wonderful and unique lens, the difficulty of using a lens that either goes up to 1:1 or starts at 1:1 is that insects you encounter are likely to be on both sides of this divide in terms of size, meaning you have to swap lenses. This is difficult, because by time you have put on the other lenses and swapped your flash system around, the opportunity is gone. In other words often you have the wrong lens on for the opportunity. A macro lens that bridged this gap, would be a huge attraction to all macro photographers, and would encourage many to move to m4/3.
I don’t need super fast. A 100-400 F4/5.6 is tops on my wish list.
Panasonic already has a 100-300 with similar f stops. I think both Panasonic and Olympus need to move to faster lenses (f1 and sub 1) if they expect people to continue buying lenses. Coming out with a “new” version of the same old lens wont entice people to buy.
The Panasonic is decent but a 100-400 with better IQ, and obviously longer reach (800 equvialent vs 600 on the Pana) is well needed on this system where they have not taken advantage of the 2x crop. Compare to Nikon 1 and their 70-300 (810 mm equivalent).
150-400mm f/4 or 200-400mm f/4 would be nice . Make it compatible with current 1.4x TC and we end up at 1120mm FoV at f/5.6.
150-400 f/2.8 or f/4 and compatible with TC and it would be what we need. That would be the set to complete Pro line long end. No matter cost if 4000+
If f/2.8 it would be what gets people rushing to m4/3 world!
How about a 50-500 f2 while we’re at it ?
Juurikas, have you ever seen and lifted a 400mm f4? a 150-400 f2.8 would be insanely big and heavy
400mm f2.8, that’s a 145mm diameter aperture. The Canon’s 2.8/400, which are not zooms, weigh anywhere from 3.8 to 6Kg (depending on which) and has a front elements of about 165mm.
(edit) of, and for what it’s worth, the latest 2.8/400 sells for $12,000…(/edit)
So yes, please give us a f2/50-500 to match that EP-L 😀
a 150-400 f2.8 wouldn’t be even near 4000 €, more like 20 000 €! The Sigma 200-500 2.8 is 35 000 $….
I’d also prefer smaller and slower 100-400 zoom than any ultra bright fixed supertele. Also, a 100-300 F4.5 compatible with coming 1.4x would do if it was optically better than current 100-300.
Praying this GM is talking out of turn.
Really hoping to see a native TS lens.
Dear lord is this ever missing from the lineup. TS lenses have so many uses. Maybe Samyang will come through. Although it will likely be adapted not native mount.
I love the 40-150, its ease of handling and phantastic IQ but I am impatiently waiting for a super telephoto lens with the quality of the legendary 300/2.8 lens. Please Olympus hurry up!!!
“Working to update the IS for new astro-photography features.”
They are going to use the I.S. to do sub-pixel automated tracking.
Pivoting the sensor could compensate for a litle movement:)
Tracking with the IS would be fantastic! Pentax enables this with external GPS (at least with some models) This could mean GPS functionality for OM-D also, alternatively an user interface in settings to input local coordinates.
Anyway, great rumor!
Kataoka San, where is promised in 4/3 times 100 macro? Since now we have 60/2.8 make a longish one – 150/2.8, please.
For now we’re fine with Voigtlander and VF-4, September 2k16 we’ll get that lovely VF-6: 4.41 MPx@120 fps in E-M2 so manual focusing will be even easier. Makro with 64 MPx raw; we are missing longish “Olympus quality optics” macro.
Your truely since PL1.
Buy a extension tube set for 40-150 pro and you have the 150mm macro but still slower!
Having exotic lenses will be a great option. But how about a serious PEN camera in the meantime?
But what is really needed is some big advance in sensor tech.
It’s wanted, not needed.
It is “needed” by the manufacturers to have a compelling sales proposition. But from a customer perspective, we have more than enough camera and lenses on MOST platforms these days. M43 in particular, has enough quality and options for most users that everything could just stop. But that won’t happen. 🙂
Needed to sell cameras to people already using MFT. I’ve brought three people into the system and had them all buy the Gx7 for $500. There is no reason to spend more on the GH4, e-M5ii or e-M1 at this point unless their form factor speaks to you.
I expect big things from the next panny and Oly flagships.
Olympus has no sensor tech, and no resources to develop them. Further, it’s pretty clear to me that Sony decides what features and sensors go into the newest Olympus cameras. Sony manufactures a sensor for Olympus only when they are willing to buy 1 million pieces, because otherwise Sony can’t make a profit, and Olympus can’t afford a part that costs more than $10. Since it takes Olympus 5 years to sell 1 million cameras, one can continue to expect 5 year cycles on sensor technology. Good news is the technology from the NEX 7 is almost 5 years old. Olympus fans get the awesome sensor from that camera next… late is better than never right?
Make it GM1 size, 3-axis IBIS, with hotshoe and AP2 to mount a VF-4 and we are talking. Make the screen flipped up/down 45 degree and great!
Add two dials top that used to control shutter and aperture and 2×2 switch and rest can be in touch screen.
Keep the width and height same (expect the hotshoe can come little bit up) but add depth as needed to get the screen flipping.
That would be my dream pocket camera.
OMCG! (Oh my camera gear!)
Tech for astro-photography meaning sensor shift and rotation based the star sky! Take a sample photo, camera identifies the center of rotation and take a wanted shot now and it will rotate sensor on that axis!
Olympus had at 4/3 mount 150mm f/2 and that very likely is coming to Pro line too, or f/2.8 150-400mm! Or very extraordinary 200-500mm f/4! That would be jaw dropping to any wildlife or sports photographer!
And f/1 8mm, f/1 12mm and f/1 17mm and you make many many buy those!
But I still wish in the future Olympus would made a 25mm f/2 tilt-shift lens
Prime telephoto is not so nice to have unless you are always required cropping, always. 150-300mm would be a dream Pro line to combine the 40-150. 150-400 f/2.8 would be oh lalalalalalalala!
And “Oh, my aching back” heavy. But, to each his own.
I’d actually love to see someone on the sidelines of a major sporting event using one of these. Of course, with the Mark IV C-AF-Contrast Detect, using the new ShutterDelayCompensation system I just made up.
You do know about the 300mm f4 pro lens?
I doubt they will make a f2.8 of that focal length soon. Use the old one with an E-M1.
are you ready to pay € 7000.- for such a lens?
Yes! I have owned both the 300 and the 90-250mm before. Really missing the 300 but are really hoping for a 400F4. Or both 300 and 500:) 🙂
How about fast, weather-sealed primes with aperture rings and the manual focus snap-ring thingies like the 12-40mm? Include lens hoods, too.
I would love to see them all Jeff!
And I’d put the macro on top of the list!
I’d rather have a 200-400 f4 to keep price more reasonable and the iq better. The Nikkor 200-400 is actually quite reasonably priced (compared to the Canon 200-400 over double the price :O )
[X] 17.5mm f1.4 weather sealed, aperture ring, manual focus snap-ring – bought at any price <= $800
OMG, yes. Such lenses would be amazing, and weather sealed would be superb. I love shooting in different locations and weather environments.
I’m more interested in a $700 auto focus 8mm lens from OLy, Panny or Siggy.
Considering, evaluating, contemplating…
Always the same bullshit marketing rhetoric.
Surprising I dont see more commenters asking for a standard zoom with quality and *size* that lies between the 14-40 kit lenses and the “pro” 12-35/12-40 lenses. This is the biggest hurdle for me, as the kits are tool slow and the pros make a system size that rivals a small slr system,
I’ll throw my little hypothetical into the mix:
12-40mm f/2.8-4 internal zoom that’s no more than 10 cm long at a cost of $399.
Or a mft version of the 12-60
The 12-40 isn’t really that big and can be had for 700-800 € used. Then there’s the lumix 12-35 2.8 which is a bit smaller too? I’m not saying I would say no to a 12-40 2.8-4, the current 12-50 is very nice but way too slow at 6.3. Maybe a 12-45 f4 internal zoom without electronic zoom and macro to make it priced under 500. 150-400 f5 would be cool after the 300 f4.
I had the P12-35 on my gx7 for a few months. Just found its size diminished why I chose MFT. Maybe I had a bad copy but I wasn’t blown away with sharpness compared to the panny kit. Bokeh was nicer though.
But compared to canon and Nikon with similar spec, the lenses are small.
Okay, I’ve never tried it myself.
What would be awesome is the same 11-34mm F/1.7-2.8 Leica lens that comes bolted to the LX100.
120-150mm 2.8 pro lelve wheater sealed macro for sure and 500mm f4 prime 🙂 .. how about 50mm 1.2 as well.
I’d rather see a 400 f4, because I probably never could afford a 500 :D. 200 F2 would be cool too, it would be a 300ish f2.8 and a 400 f4 with teleconverters.
17mm f1 smaller and sharper than VL 17.5 @ 0.95 please!
Fast wide-normal with AF for indoor use that give nice shallow DOF is the only thing that make me drool over an A7s with 35mm f1.8
For tele I would like a compact 50-200 f4
Note the article posted on the new Nikkor lens site. Nikon referred to the wide angle, mid-range, and telephoto f/2.8 zooms as the Three Big Dragons. Olympus will have those once the 7-14mm is out. But Nikon also recognized the need for the Three Little Dragons (though later than Canon did ;~). I don’t disagree. There are times when I need the Big Dragons, times when the Little Dragons are a better choice. I’m not sure what the Little Dragons are in m4/3. The current variable aperture sets aren’t them, IMHO. So I agree with you.
For small maybe an f4 set of 12-35, 35-100 and 100-300 f4 lenses… But Panasonic already has small f2.8 lenses so they are really gunning just on a pricepoint.
Would be too close to the mZD 40-150 2.8 but Panasonic take note…
There’s a 1.4x adaptor that solves this problem mostly.
50-200 f4 might be stretching it, but its the size of the 40-150 that is the problem.
Let’s ask this the right way: what user problems need to be solved with lenses by Olympus that aren’t currently solved?
And right up front I have a problem with the “no tilt-shift” answer. That’s clearly a mostly unsolved problem on m4/3 (yes, I know there are adaptive solutions, but I’m talking a truly native solution that integrates camera software and lens, which is exactly the type of engineering problem Olympus is good at and likes to solve).
Likewise, I don’t think macro problems have really been solved as well as many of us would like.
When it comes to zooms, the Pro series is pushing into DSLR-type sizes. Not quite where APS is, but there isn’t a “pro optics” small solution (e.g. The Little Dragons).
For telephoto, the 300mm f/4 solves the 600mm equivalent problem, while the existing 40-150mm solves the 300mm equivalent problem. It’s 400-500mm equivalent that is not covered well.
But here’s the other part: to use an m4/3 for indoor sports, we need even faster lenses than we have, and they don’t have to extremely long. I’d argue that a 35-100mm f/1.4 would go a long way towards closing the sensor gap.
I’d say 400 f4, 200 f2, 100 f1.4 Macro/portrait and 14-90 f4.
There used to be a 35-100/2. Perhaps that will see a comeback. It was, by all accounts, a very good lens.
I would definitely consider a 35-100 f1.4.
Olympus was on the right track with their F2 series on the FT mount—why they abandoned that strategy is anybody’s guess.
Because they were huge! Compare the ZD 35-100 f2 and the Lumix 35-100 f2.8: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HofenYUQBAQ/UTWEqrEu6XI/AAAAAAAABHM/m1If3S6xEDM/s1600/IMG_1933.JPG ! Of course the ZD was designed for a slr so it’s inheritly larger, but still – only one stop faster. I think what oly is doing now, zooms 2.8 -> and primes ->2.0 makes sense to keep the lenses compact, affordable and light. I’m not saying I wouldn’t love a 35-100 f2 but Olympus clearly has good strategy. And I really like primes.
They were!
So a big question for today: should size matter to Olympus?
Should this cripple the continued development of m4/3?
The 40-150/2.8 is sharper than all the 4:3 zooms and all primes save possibly the 300/2.8 super tele. The 12-40/2.8 is a $1000 design rather than a $3000 design. I suppose Oly ZD can do a more upscale 12-40/2.0 design that is as sharp as most top primes in its focal range. They manage to do so in the past with the legacy 35-70/3.6 and 35-80/2.8 designs. I suppose a 40-100/2.0 design can be added without creating too much bulk. Although I have expressed great interest in their 7-14/2.8 design, I would prefer to replace it altogether with a 7/1.8, 10/1.4, and 12/2.0 tilt & swing trio.
In my own words
Two T/S lenses:
10 2.0 T/S
42.5 2.0 T/S
Macro:
100 2.8
Three Little dragons:
pro 17.5 1.0
pro 42.5 1.0
pro 67.5 1.0
I believe Olympus needs to keep Pro line as zooms. As they can make zooms as good as primes (or as Zeiss tester has said, it is possible make zooms even sharper than primes) and professionals usually need zooms more often. Then the primes I would keep in Premium line, while being black like 60mm f/2.8 Macro is and keep it in same range. Not all needs to be Pro to be weather sealed.
there’s already two primes in the Pro line (the 300 f4 and 8 f1.8). Of course it’s possible to make a zoom that’s sharper than SOME primes, but if your going for best iq a prime will always be sharper than a zoom which has to compromise to work with several focal lengths. Imho primes are a necessity in specialist lenses like fast superteles or compact portrait lenses, the better IQ, cheaper price, smaller weight and compactness outweigh a zoom’s flexibility in framing.
All other things being equal, a prime will always have less elements than a similarly quality-constructed zoom. The extra elements of complex zoom optics will always adversely affect contrast (no matter how good anti-flare coatings have become), which lessens overall sharpness.
Missing: 35mm (eqivalent) with shallow DOF, sharp and with AF.
100mm f4 macro with the bells and whistles of the 60mm macro.
Small 7mm f4 lens that takes filters…
60mm f1.2… but that would be pricey…
25mm f1.0 (with AF since there is a manual lens with similar f-stop)
“3) No Tilt Shift lenses are coming”
I was really, really hoping for a 12mm tilt & shift lens, with a max aperture of f/2.8 poor even f/2.0. I figured it would not happen soon as lens manufacturers tend to concentrate o the most popular final lengths first, but still! Oly Zuiko did so well with the legacy 24mm F/3.5 perspective control lens, I was almost sure they would want to produce a modern day tilt & swing lens in a mature lens lineup. This would be such a boon to architectural, interiors, and even urban-scape (i.e., city-, town-scapes) photography.
Other lens wishes I have are for a 75/1.4 that is compatible with the MC14, a 20/1.0 or 25/1.0 subnormal/normal lens, a 50/1.7 (or 50/1.4) macro. (There was actually a rumor of a 50/1.7 macro about three years ago that was quickly squelched for whatever reason.) I also hope for a super fast 150mm super tele, maybe f/1.8 or even faster. I would like to see them fill out the ultra wide angle lens with a 7/1.8 and 10/1.4 optics. All PRO tele should be compatible with the MC14 and perhaps a MC20 teleconverter.
Virtually all of the posts here about what people want are specifications, not problem definitions. e.g. “I want a XXmm f/Y.Y lens.” My point is this: a good designer isn’t going to respond just to user specifications. There will ALWAYS be someone who wants one of those numbers different than what is available or what’s in the queue. To fully satisfy this kind of user request, a designer would have to create, for example, 12mm f/1, 12mm f/1.4, 12mm f/1.8, 12mm f/2, 12mm f/2.8, 12mm f/3.5, 12mm f/4, 12mm Tilt Shift lenses in order to “satisfy demand.”
So what they do with such requests is try to GUESS at why the user wants them and group those requests into something. In other words: maybe we need a “fast” 12mm (f/1.4) and a slower one (f/2.8). But now you’re at the whim of how good the product marketing folk actually understand your spec requests.
If instead you said: “I need something in the 20-24mm equivalent range that’s fast enough to make up the sensor size difference compared to the 24mm I use on my full frame camera (e.g. f/2.8 24-70mm),” the product management and designers have a better idea of what it is you really want. In this case, the problem being solved is “I’m using this small system, but sometimes I need to shoot wide as close to equivalent as those big sensor cameras.”
Likewise, this is why I mentioned tilt/shift. There simply isn’t a good way to shift the focus plane and fix perspective when I need those things. The interesting thing is that you don’t need a LENS to do this. A camera company, seeing that demand, could decide to use sensor tilt/shift to solve this user problem. But that also means that they would have to design lenses with larger-than-needed imaging circles ;~).
Why is no camera manufacturer making a bellows that’s electronically linked to the lens? I’m not saying I would need/want one but just wondering? Canon has a macro with zooming macro extender?
Good question!
I think am going to prototype one of those. As that has been few years now a idea for me since 4/3 format but never managed to do it because 4/3 was “dying” when m4/3 was new and felt it is not going to take off. Now it would be so cheap to actually make a m4/3 mounts to bellows with electronic controls to allow autofocus and aperture control 🙂 Sure the focal length doesn’t work but IBIS isn’t required 🙂
By all means go for it if you have the skills! If you really start experimenting be sure to post reports somewhere, sounds interesting!
It is actually easy, *all* what you need is a bellows on rail that you can buy cheaply as any SLR/DSLR one works. Then get a cheap extension rings like Keeko m4/3 that has 10mm, 16mm and 21mm. With little tweaking and building, replace mounts from original bellows with these and all what is then required is to solder cables to connection pins, using a flatcable like from IDE floppy drive. Now you have bellows between two extension rings.
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/ODAwWDgwMA==/z/9zkAAOSwGvhT1h4G/$_57.JPG
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTAwMFgxMDAw/z/oMUAAOSw-ndToHD6/$_57.JPG
http://www.ocp.com/product_search/images/products/photos/70816.jpg
As you can see, it is pretty easy to make. Remove original mount, glue the new mounts (no glue between, just around) and check they are straight (not much difference but still, mounting) and attaching cables.
If wanted (and basically better) pull cables out from above the bellows so when you focus far cables inside can’t come between light. But for that it is then better use individual normal cables and tie them together for one big cable. And glue around the holes to light tight.
And with that you can get any objective to be awesome macro, even the future coming 300mm f/4, but the objective mount side needs to be very very well attached.
The zooms have a way of recording focal length, so some thing could be made up for a bellows. capacitive slide or variable resistor or whatever they use.
67.5mm f/1.2 please.
I’d buy that for 1k
Too close to the 75 in fov, rather a 55 mm f1.2 nicely situated between the zuiko 40 and 75.
135mm is a more standard focal length for portraits than 150mm and 110mm. Also, the Oly 75mm “only” have f/1.8 max aperture. Olympus should make brighter primes than that that’s why I suggested f/1.2. BTW, I curently own the Oly 75. It is a gem. Tack sharp!
There’s very little difference perspective-wise between 110 and 135 or 135 and 150. The 135 is just popular because people were acustomed to that focal lenth in different formats. I think the Panaleica 42,5 for example has that focal length instead of 45 for example for marketing reasons.
I’m just a purist that’s why I prefer “standards”. For example I prefer the Nocticron 42.5mm focal length than Olympus 45mm.
Very little indeed, why you can actually step back to same distance with 42.5mm or 45mm and get similar results.
The 135mm focal length (or equivalent to give same field of view) is again there because it was just manufacturing reason to make prime objectives for 35mm format in cheap way. 135mm was good enough to separate it from 50mm and 100mm but then still be below 200mm that isn’t so good for portraits, or clearly from 300mm (these focal lengths of course on 35mm full frame cameras like Olympus OM line).
I always felt that 135mm is the narrowest field of view I would use for portraits, while 50mm was even better for that. But 100mm was pretty good if not having the 85mm that fit well between 50mm and 100mm.
The vertical cropfactor makes the 75mm about 138mm on FF. I usually dont frame my tele subjects using the long edge, so mostly its more like 138mm than 150mm…not that the 12mm make a big difference, but still.
Oly has its own standards. Glorious 180 2.0, 250 2.0 and 350 2.8 are the perfect examples of creative and innovating engineering.
A 55mm lens would be perfect as well! Doesnt matter if 1.4
I am waiting/hoping for the Voigt 67.5mm f0.95. Mf is no problem for portraits, especially with peaking and magnification. Right now I shoot an old Nikon 85 f2 on the Kiwi adapter. It is a cheap replacement for 75 f1.8, but if there was a brighter 135 mm equivalent I would aurely be tempted.
My never be heard wish:
150-400mm f/4 Pro line zoom. With same lens hood as 40-150mm has, similar collar, but this time please add a notch for 90 degree positions. And compatible with the 1.4x teleconverter.
Or if really blowing out the minds, f/2.8 and… *drools*. As by my opinion, those who need over 150mm focal length, are ready to carry 150-400mm f/2.8 as it will anyways be smaller and lighter than identical by specs made for APS-C or 35mm formats. I am sure that many dedicated wildlife and sports photographer would get crazy GAS while seeing it.
I would like to see set of f/1 or f/1.2 level primes, with same design as 12mm f/2 is. But with focal lengths from ultra-wide angle 8mm so it can accept filters, 17mm so it fits to street photographers and a 25mm for portraiture and normal situations.
Then I would love to see AP2 compatible GPS logger that directly records geolocation data to photos while photographing, with a own capacitator to hold power 15-30min after turning camera off so it doesn’t lose GPS signal and accuracy if now and then turning camera off.
150-400mm f/4 would already have to amount to something around 3.5 to 4 kg weight, 35 to 40 cm length, with a front-lens diameter of necessarily not less than 10 cm – or, in other words, something even bigger and heavier than the existing ZD 300mm f/2.8 and ZD 90-250mm f/2.8 lenses. Mirrorless or not.
I would applaud Olympus for producing such a lens, though, and of course there are professional wildlife photographers who would put it to good use, and it is about time that Micro Four Thirds finally started making use of its small-sensor advantage for telephotography.
But personally I would prefer something that was still hand-holdable, if only just – something like a 150-400mm f/5.6. As the spare-time shooter I am, in most of the places where I shoot wildlife I don’t carry a tripod, and I wouldn’t want to carry a 4 kg lens, either. Then again, over the last ten years it happened more than once that I caught myself thinking about starting to save money for the ZD 300mm f/2.8…
7mm f4 prime rectilinear… 100mm macro f4 😀
Thats all I need!
I would make it 8mm so it could take filters without using any holders etc.
A 8mm f/4 with possibility to use ND filters and its there.
I could go for that!
I think you will have to make do with the 7-14/2.8 I’m afraid. Terrible chore, I know….
Just a price thing really. I dont use it enough to justify the cost of the larger more versatile lens… but for when I need it, I need it 🙂
I find my ZD 50mm f/2 plus EC-20 makes quite decent a 100mm f/4 Macro, and the combination does 1:1, too 🙂
I had thought of getting the EC20, and have nearly bought it second hand a few times for around $250… But I keep thinking the moment I do they will release the 100mm f4.
If you don’t get the EC20 there will never be 100mm f4.
You could get those who want a 100mm f4 to donate to your EC20 fund on the basis that it almost guarantees a production.
There is a clear roadmap, and given the time it has taken to get the other Pro lenses to market, I think there is absolutely no chance of a sudden surprise.
Was a 8mm f1.8 fisheye on the map?
Ah, forgot about that surprise 🙂
Have you considered new Sigma Apo 180 2.8 combined with metabones adapter? It will basically give you 360mm 2.8 1:1 macro lens, which stopped down for dof is quite impressive on m43 Oly body with IBIS. And that lens optically is impressive.
Hey Ivan,
I have thought of a few things… 360mm macro is a bit long for my applications. I would generally use it for Jewelry product work. Am considering getting the OM metabones and using it on a decent film era 100mm lens I have giving me about 150mm of reach which may work well.
I just dig some info on metabones site about the EF-m43’adapter, and it’s actually a speedboster + focal reducer by 1.5. So basically this lens will act like 200mm f 1.8- 2.0 true 1:1 macro lens, quite impressive!
You can as well find some info about the adapter on YouTube. I think Camerastore did a review of it.
Sigma also have 150mm 2.8 macro, which is also very good and smaller than 180mm one.
Legacy Macro lenses like Minolta 100’2.8 Rokkor, are quite good for the money, but not even close to Sigma. Sigma macro lenses are special. A top notch product. Plus you will have zero exif info with dummy adapter.
I used to have the sigma 105mm for me E3, and it was quality lens. I have been trying to pick one up but they are holding their value quite well and are very large… Honestly a 100mm f4 macro would be perfect (or f3.5). It could be small and sharp and reasonably priced with fast AF thanks to the smaller max aperture and lighter elements.
I am dreaming about Zeiss Macro-Planar 100mm f2.0 quality lens from Oly, which I had in Canon EF mount. What a beautyful, trully versatile lens.
That does sound good. I have eyeballed the 90mm f2 macro OM lens a number of times as it seems to have a reputation! Put it on a speedbooster and you have a 180mm macro and a 130mm macro in one… But they are not cheap by any means.
Why just f4? If they can produce a f1.8 fisheye, they can surely produce a f1.8 rectilinear.
Honestly, it would be a size, cost and performance trade off. For much true macro work you dont need f1.8 apertures, and a 100mm f1.8 macro would be very very large and… Oh wait, you were thalking about the 7mm… I would be mostly using it at around f4 or f5.6. Make it smaller, cheaper, and sharp, and hopefully the smaller aperture might allow the use of filters.
A bright 7mm optic can be designed with a filter turret for critical filters that are hard or impossible to duplicate in software such as a polarizer, a strong UV, and two strengths of ND filters.
True, but an f1.8 7mm AF lens is going to be pricey and exotic 🙂 a 7mm f4 lens less so.
Personally, I am interested exclusively in the high end lens offerings. Olympus’ brightest lenses are usually their best.
As a rule that is probably true… But sometimes their cheaper smaller lenses sell better (45mm f1.8 and 25mm f1.8)… But if they could do a 7mm f2 for $500 I would buy it.
The 25 and 45 are very popular focal lengths, which helps to drive down the costs. I don’t expect Oly ZD to nail the exact apertures I am suggesting—they are only suggestions, after all. However, extra brightness also helps one to focus much more easily, and that always helps.
I really hope they introduce something like a 12/2.8 or 12/2.0 tilt & swing later on. I could see myself using such a lens extensively for architectural, interiors, town- or city-scapes, even some landscape work.
Great stuff! I suspect, though, that this will make me wait for that fast super-telephoto zoom lens, instead of buying the 300mm f/4 as soon as it’s there…
just get the 300, it’s going to be awesome.
Brighter lenses is the way to go. Only that way can m43 channel more light to the sensor.
Do 2/3 of a stop brighter lenses (in terms of F-number) than the corresponding APS-C lens, and it will collect as much light as APS-C. Nil the advantage of APS-C over m43. Light collection and depth of field would be identical.
Do 2 stops brighter lenses than full frame, and you get full frame quality on m43. That’s what you have with the Nokton F0.95, it is equivalent to 50mm F1.9 on full frame.
The only problem is: those Nokton f/0.95 are nearly unusable until stopped down twice. The image quality and resolution are so poor, they are more like f/2 lenses. Check the Lenstip results. There is obviously a limitation in physics with this. So, in reality, these f/0.95 (stopped down to f/2) are more like f/4 FF lenses if you need similar IQ. The only advantage is in shutter speeds, but that is achieved with a lot of penalty in size and weight.
They are lovely to hold though and especially nice conversation pieces. Just right for those who like to fondle old Contax, Leica, or Rollei cameras. Modern day dinosaurs.
True, true. Unless these super bright lenses can perform reasonably well at or near their max aperture, they are not exactly so fast. A f/2 lens that is sharp wide open would be just as good. There is another penalty besides size and weight, in the case of the Voigtlander, and that is AF.
So, what you’re saying is when FF lenses need to go to f4 to be sharp, Nokton just have to be f2? Almost all lenses perform better when properly stopped down instead of wide open.
I haven’t tried one of the Noktons yet, but I use Minolta SR lenses with a Speed Booster on my E-M1. The MD 50mm f/1.4 becomes a (real) 35mm f/1.0, and the MD 35mm f/1.8 becomes a (real) 25mm f/1.2. The lenses are something like 30 years old, and while they do have their disadvantages compared to modern lenses when it comes to contrast loss and flare in backlight situations, they’re surprisingly sharp and perfectly usable even wide-open.
Close but not quite the same. If you compare an f/1.0 on m43 with an f/2.0 lens on FF you’d expect identical exposure if SS & ISO are the same, but the reality is that modern sensors have trouble capturing all the light at apertures wider than f/2.0. The problem gets worse as you move to brighter apertures and smaller pixel pitches. To get around this, cameras boost the actual ISO setting behind the scene.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/F-stop-blues
DxO are not trustworthy. While there might be something to what you say, DxO doesn’t even know what ISO really is. What they measure as “ISO” has nothing to do with the ISO we see in real cameras, as it adheres to both ISO and CIPA standards.
I can’t say with any confidence if this is true for m43 as I don’t really have any data for m43 since 1. I don’t own any lenses faster than 1.8 and 2. the way Olympus requires the locking pin to be engaged makes the test I use for Canon more difficult. But for Canon, this is very easy to test by having the camera meter with a fast lens mounted but without the electronics engaged. You can see the difference in exposure with the same ‘ISO’, aperture, and shutter speed between the electronics mounted/unmounted and the differences seem to line up very well with what DxO is claiming. It’s possible that the m43 sensors handle this much better but I’m pretty skeptical of that.
Edit: Just to add on, I became curious about my A7R after writing this and it does the exact same thing so it’s definitely not just a Canon/NIkon thing.
There is only one definition of ISO that makes sense for digital cameras and it is the one that DxO uses. Everything else is essentially meaningless (eg, those that refer to a medium gray in a jpeg which depends on which raw values are matched to this medium gray, something that lies completely within the discretion of the camera maker and is thus arbitrary).
Of course, the whole concept of ISO is of limited value with digital cameras in the first place.
“Of course, the whole concept of ISO is of limited value with digital cameras in the first place” – true. But as long as camera manufacturers use it to help us to control sensitivity and exposure, ISO is defined by “the discretion of the camera maker”, whether that makes sense from a theoretical or testing perspective or not. The “discretion of the camera maker” regarding the tonal curve that gets applied to the RAW data is, in fact, part of the underlying ISO and CIPA norms. What DxO measures is something completely different, and while it indeed may make sense to perform those measurements that way to say something about a sensor, they shouldn’t call it ISO. Calling it ISO results in wrong accusations against manufacturers if the “ISO” numbers made up by DxO do not match the ones the camera manufacturers use. What the reader doesn’t see is that both are not supposed to match.
The ISO is only defined by the camera maker as long as you stick to camera-jpegs or the branded raw converter. And even then only if don’t change the brightness of the image in post.
As soon as you change the brightness in post (and already by choosing a third-party raw converter you introduce a slight alteration), you change the ratio between actual exposure and image brightness (and this ratio is what is expressed by ISO).
Your point that “the discretion of the camera maker regarding the tonal curve that gets applied to the RAW data” defines the ISO for that camera only applies if you stick to that tonal curve (ie, again, if you don’t adjust the image brightness yourself).
Your implied suggestion that one should compare cameras using the camera makers ISO is of very limited use since the same ISO setting often leads to different actual exposure by different cameras for a given scene. For example, camera A might choose an exposure of f/2.8, 1/100 s at ISO 3200 whereas camera B might choose an exposure of f/2.8, 1/50 s at ISO 3200. Everything else equal, ISO 3200 will in such a case look clearly better on camera B.
All mostly true, except that I neither expressed nor implied a suggestion that one should compare cameras using the camera makers ISO only. What I’m saying is that DxO should not label their sensitivity figures ‘ISO’, because it doesn’t conform to the standards the camera manufacturers implement and because it’s not what ISO sensibly can be expected to be.
Then again, the brightness levels the camera manufacturer’s tone curve produces are most people’s guide for exposing most of their photos even if they shoot RAW and even if they use a third-party RAW converter, simply because that’s what they get to see when they review their pictures on the camera’s display, so for most people that would probably be the most meaningful way to compare cameras, too.
I would say most people shooting raw, if and when they review the exposure during shooting, use the histogram to look for highlight clipping. Now, the displayed clipping point is also influenced by the camera maker but there is less reason to decouple it from the raw clipping point than the rest of the tone response curve. Plus there is UniWB and a photographer’s experience how close the jpeg clipping point is from the raw clipping point.
Furthermore, in low light shooting (when the scene contrast is not too high), reviewing the image on the camera is much less useful, exposure is simply given by what minimum shutter speed you need, with the jpeg brightness falling wherever it may. Camera ISO is just a rough indication about the relative noise level for a given camera.
DxO is also about showing the performance of a camera when shooting raw. It definitely doesn’t evaluate jpeg IQ.
Olympus now interested in video so where is the F2.8 power zoom?
you shouldn’t zoom while recording unless panning at the same time to get a special effect, but usually zooming is best avoided.
on mirrorless rumors olympus has already “promised” this.
the admin there need some views.. go help him so he does not have to make so much up…..
What makes you think Olympus would tell the truth to some interviewer that isn’t even an American? I don’t believe anything said in that interview.
The EM-5 II has a NEW sensor compare to the EM-5!
Didn’t anyone else see this??? There was so much negative feedback about having the same old sensor…
Gearheads will never accept that a sensor is new, unless it has more megapixels. When Sony released the A7S people said that it was just a “tweaked” D700 sensor.
I think people are talking about it having the same old sensor that has been around for about the past 2 years or so, not that it necessarily has the same sensor as the old EM-5.
In the reviews I’ve seen, most people state that it appears to be the same sensor as the EM10 or EM1. I have yet to see anyone really mention it being the same sensor as the EM5.
Even Robin Wong who works for Olympus stated:
“On the whole, the image quality is something very similar to what to be expected from OM-D E-M1 and E-M10. The camera uses the same 16MP image sensor and similar processing engine, Truepic 7, thus I do not see any jump when it comes to image quality. Even if there was any difference or improvements, it was not noticeable to me, and I regard as negligible.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, considering I am still happy with what the E-M1 or E-M10 is capable of. Image quality is very good, with great amount of fine detail, and good control of noise when shooting high ISO. Olympus color has always been a strong point, rendering true to life colors, and very pleasing skin tones.”
So if there is any “complaint” it might be that the camera doesn’t get you any better photos than what is already out but most people are saying that is kind of fine because the current photos you can get are pretty good anyway.
A new sensor doesn’t necessarily mean improved image quality. The Olympus manager says in the interview that the sensor is new compared to E-M5, and that it makes it possible to have an electronic shutter.
The original EM5 came out in February 2012, I think pretty much everyone assumes that it is a newer sensor than that. The talk is whether it is a newer sensor than newer cameras like the GX7, EM10 or maybe even the EM1. It does not seem that it is a newer sensor than those. I guess maybe I misunderstood what the original posters argument is.
The OP was referring to the statement in the interview, that the E-M5II has a new sensor. But he neglected to mention that the Olympus manager said “compared to the E-M5”, and also that the main difference had to do with the electronic shutter.
Anyway, just to be correct, the E-M10 has the same Sony sensor as the old E-M5.
Do you believe marketing BS? I have a bridge to sell you…
with a pricetag or 1000 bucks
150-400mm f4… + x1.4 tc compatibility. Can i dream at least? 😛
See this comment…
You will probably get something surpassing the 300/2.8’s sharpness in the 300/4.0. A f/4.0 optic is easier to design and involves less compromises than a f/2.8 one.
Could not care less about f/1.2 and f/1.0 lenses which in most conditions cannot be used without very dark ND filters, have suboptimal transmission values (t-number related to f-number) and strong vignetting on filtered sensors due to angles of light, provide too shallow DoF on m43 and heavy.
Would not mind a weather-sealed 11-100/2.8-4 or similar though, of reasonable weight (not the PRO series weight). Or 11-70 even. May give sharp corners at tele end for weight. And E-P5-like firmware update for E-M5 is overdue.