As you know the future of photography is changing. Smartphones and soon Google Glass, Watches and other uncommon devices will be the main tool for our daily photography. And what’s Panasonic vision of future cameras? A camera-ball 🙂
I don’t know why Panasonic is doing this, the patent is written in Japanese (Click here to download the PDF). Below you can the the section of the camera-ball. Would you walk around with a ball on your chest?
.
Olympus patented a new MFT lens. It’s a 40-200mm lens with constant f/4.0 aperture (Source: Egami).
57 Responses
I wonder what will be the price for new Olympus lens?
I hope it will be cheaper than Panasonic.
I finally may upgrade my 40-150 mm.
It’s probably one of those Sensecams like the Vicon one, which are recording all the time, and get supplemented automatically on the Web, by other feeds. They are wearable, and usually have a small UWA or fisheye lens which takes an image when it detects movement, or any other change.
They were invented for medical reasons, as helping the memory impaired, but they are also developing in a trend towards improved awareness of one’s surroundings.
Microsoft developed them in the UK.
I’m looking forward to getting something high quality & brighter from Olympus such as the 12-40 f/2.8 & this 40-200 f/4 sounds interesting too, but not quite as good as an f/2.8-3.5. I guess the size & weight is part of the design restraints here though, but this should still be a great addition to the kit.
Egami evaluates 40-200mm performance “A brilliant achievement”!
I got into m43 because Olympus had the best zoom package (12-60/50-200 for price, weight, brightness, quality). Although I love my m43 primes, Olympus let me down with zooms. Not one excellent zoom. And a m43 12-60/2.8-4 for me would be much better than a 12-35/2.8. Give me at least PDAF so I can use my 50-200 and have no longer to use this crappy 100-300 lens.
The 12-60mm and 50-200mm are 4/3 lenses NOT Micro 4/3.
I absolutely agree about how much better and more useful. 12-60mm would be over the 12-35mm. If I’m going to use a zoom, it should at least allow me to skip carrying a pile of primes instead of only 2 or 3.
For the price the 100-300mm is a pretty good lens… not great, but pretty damn good.
“The 12-60mm and 50-200mm are 4/3 lenses NOT Micro 4/3.”
Not sure where I wrote that 🙂
I wonder how good the 100-300mm lens really is. It was one that made me think that I might have a use for micro Four-Thirds. However, the 35-100mm f/2.8 isn’t as good as my 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 (from 2004) through an adapter, except where it’s faster at auto focus and I rarely depend on auto focus.
The 100-300 is in no way comparable to the 50-200. It is not sharp and low contrast on the long end.
The 100-300 is in no way comparable to the 50-200. It is not sharp and low contrast on the long end.
A 40-200 f/4 would be a good compromise between a 35-100/2.8 and a slow 75-300. If the quality is high, it should make a versatile option for wildlife and (dare I say) sports. A sort of lighter, smaller, slightly slower version of the FT 50-200.
40-200 f/4 sounds like an acceptable compromise if you really need a telezoom without losing many stops for dof control, especially in this system. I actually never liked zooms, especially when switching to the 4/3 sensor (except for the 35-100 f/2.0 which was sacrificed in the end in order to get an OMD setup).
I have the 75-300 II, and this is a fine lens for its price. Despite the DOF naysayers I usually even have to stop down this a tad to have enough DOF for my object.
A 40-200/4.0 certainly would be a very nice lens, though I’d expect that it would to be rather on the expensive side than a 40-150 replacement.
Klaus
“Ideas for life” 😀
Not really interested in zoom lenses.. I’ve already seen something like that camera: you can throw it in the air and it snaps photos with a fish-eye lens. I wonder what happens if a dog steals it while still in mid-air.. 🙂
that reminds me of the woman who’s GoPro camera was stolen by a seagull while the cam was still on, very cool footage:
http://youtu.be/RArofHji8CU
or this one:
http://youtu.be/rIu5B3Fsstg
hi Marco …you heard about monkeys who beat pros when choosing which stocks to buy and beat them in yearly revenue?…wit such ball the doggie could make interesting shoots:-)
Have you ever heard of LIFELOGGING, you unwashed?
Here’s another example:
http://petapixel.com/2012/10/23/memoto-a-wearable-camera-that-gives-you-a-photographic-memory/
By the inordinate amount of time you spend on the Web, under the tolerant supervision of the NSA, you might as well trust a wearable camera to do the photog’s job for you, without ending up in Guatanamo 🙂
I wonder if it’ll still work once teh dog has had a good chew on it.
40-200 f4 is awesome…for tele I dont need 2.8…I use OM 135 3.5 and is goodlens…if its sharp from f4 …has fast AF and has max 500eur price tag I would be tempted to buy..PS hood I will buy from ebay no issue
I think 12-40mm F2.8 and 40-200mm F4 is an very good combination by OM-D, but i nead only prime lens for me Pen, now after 17mm F1.8 can i think me an 25-35mm F1.8. 😉
There are already good 25mm primes: Panasonic f1.4 and Voigtländer f0.95. I don’t think we’ll see a 25mm from Olympus soon.
exactly, I need only something like 8/2.8 (with manual focus and scale like 12/2)
Well i wait anyway on an Prime lens from Olympus, so is 25mm up to 35mm, maybe an 30mm F1.8 but same manual scala focus dial so 12mm F2 and 17mm F1.8 have.
it would be a good combination if I could buy these lenses now…
Olympus did state that they are working on telephotos. Just like a nearly two years ago the stated tush they are working on prime lenses. They have patents for a 12-40 f2.8 and a 12-40 f2.8-4.0. A longer lens is needed to pair up with the 12-40 so a 12-200 could be such a lens. I personally would like a 12-40 f2.8 and a 40-125 f2.8. Then a 125-350 f4.0. Anyhow the Panny 12-35 and 35-100 f2.8 are looking better for me. I am still waiting for more solid rumors from Only before going with the Panny lenses.
Some would like these lenses to be cheap costing around 500 pound but I I personally have had enough of consumer zooms in this system. Don’t get me wrong, the consumer zooms we have are of good quality and play their role but enough already! Can we finally get a high end weather sealed standard zoom that’s longer than 70 or 80mm equivalent and a 50-200 pro quality weather sealed lens as well? I’m honestly not too bothered by the pricing as long as these are the ones that aren’t compromised in quality. We already have too many consumer tele lenses especially from Panasonic.
Yes it would be nice to see fast high grade zoom lenses for m4/3.(f2.8) The only hope for now is the new Olympus camera coming out to allow 4/3 lenses to be used with auto focus and tracking. The Oly 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 seems a good balance between size and price. Other wise the only option I see is going to larger formats with the added weight and size. Not looking forward to that.
Another site (www.the-me.com)posted a variant of this style of compact camera several months ago with a Leica label on it. It was designed by somebody outside of Leica and I believe he was hopeful that Leica would grab the idea. It was a flatter circle that hinged apart. It carried a fixed zoom lens with a LCD that could be used as either a LCD or EVF. Great concept with a reasonable amount of manual controls and buttons around the outside of the case.
On the Oly zooms, lets hope something comes sooner than later. I agree with others that a M43 version of the 12-60mm would be much preferred.
For all the Pokemon Fans.
>Tulio wrote 8 hours ago: For all the Pokemon Fans.
I choose you, Shutterbug!
40-200 F4?? That’s SO disappointing! M4/3 needs desperately fast glass. 40-200 F4 is OK on full frame, but on M4/3 is SLOW. M4/3 needs at least F2 (f4 FF equivalent) zooms. Until then, it will be a system purely for point and shooters and amateurs.
Tell us why m43 need more fast lens so an FF system need,
m43 is mean for the 20 next year, and the best 43 sensor is only one stop from be close to FF.
And most funny: With the Canon 700D and a several years old sensor, the EM5/GH3 is one stop better than Canon APS-C 🙂 (Who would have thought some years ago)
Yes, “the realy camera king” 😀
To Disappointed,
At some point, you have to concede the bigger sensor formats some advantage in light gathering and DOF.
For instance, if you compare and FF body with a 24-70mm f2.8, vs APS-C body with the new Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, vs old 4/3 14-35mm f2.0. They are all top optics, and size is roughly the same.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#154.379,380.286,202,ha,t
The olympus is not on camerasize.com, but size is 123mm x 86mm with a weight of 915g, so it’s even a bit bigger and heavier than the Canon and Sigma offerings.
The APS-C Sigma is about equivalent in DOF and light gathering ability compared to the FF Canon, but its reach is really shorter, at both ends.
The 4/3 loses about 1 stop in DOF and light gathering ability compared to the FF. The reach is closer to the 24-70mm, compared to its APS-C counterpart, but it still misses 4mm equivalent at the wide end.
Conclusion: while a smaller sensor provides a great size advantage and “may be” cheaper compared to bigger sensors with “regular” f value lenses, if you try to compensate the smaller sensor size with brighter optics (f2.0, even f1.4 zooms; f0.95 primes), at some point, you get bigger and more expensive glass vs the bigger sensor systems, so you lose all the advantages you first got with choosing your small sensor system. If you want to shoot wildlife in the dark, m4/3 should not be your system, given current generation sensor technology.
That said, the Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 still made a lot of sense compared to the FF competition. It was losing less than 1 stop equivalence compared to the Canon 100-400mm. Size was smaller at 86.5x157mm vs 92x189mm. Weight was less at 995g vs 1360g. It was also somewhat cheaper. A m43 version would be a welcome addition, though it wouldn’t be much smaller, and price would be higher given current pricing trends with new lenses. A high quality 40-200mm F4 would still be useful (less than ½ stop darker at the long end), and would even give you better low light performance compared to 50-200mm at the time (circa 2010 – last 4/3 body offering from Olympus), given the advances in high iso sensor performance since the EM-5.
To Disappointed & to quote:
“40-200 F4?? That’s SO disappointing! M4/3 needs desperately fast glass. 40-200 F4 is OK on full frame, but on M4/3 is SLOW. M4/3 needs at least F2 (f4 FF equivalent) zooms. Until then, it will be a system purely for point and shooters and amateurs.”
For a shallow DoF yes, but the rest of your argument is nonsense. I would like it to be f/2.8-3.5, but f/4 will still be very useful so long as it is a high quality lens producing sharp images from edge to edge (@ f/4).
This kind of comment is silly. So, only razor thin dof with zooms separates a system from pro and amateurs or p/s shooter? Funny 🙂
Ah, the preachers of the church of DOF again… If you can’t work with a tele lens at f4, then guess who the amateur is…
There is a lot more to photography than open lenses with a few mm DOF.
I like the range (40-200) a lot. What I don’t understand is why it isn’t a 3.5-4 or 2.8-4? From what I understand, technically that would make much more sense. The constant aperture is only “forced” for taking photos in manual mode. But with todays automatic modes and advanced iso setting for example, would do the trick (setting the iso in a one stop range or something). With a 2.8-4 lense the dof would be constant, which isn’t too bad also… 🙂
Looking forward to that lens. the 75-300 is a bit slow, otherwise I am happy with it…
I don’t think the camera ball is for special purpose use, simply a fun style variant. I think this is the camera version of the extremely successful (but perhaps little remembered) Panasonic “Panapet” radio that was all over the place when I was a teenager (mid-70s). The Panapet was really a 1970s take on the ubiquitous Japanese transistor pocket radios of the 1960s. Colorful, modern-looking and very functional. Looks good on a table or on a girl’s purse.
Here’s one of many links to Panapet web pages:
http://www.transistor.org/collection/panasonic/panasonic3.html
BTW, no need for a rash of snide remarks about consumer fun cameras vs. serious M43 lenses and sensors – this is a totally legitimate consumer product and could be very successful in the face of declining point-and-shoot sales. It won’t stop anyone from developing M43 products.
When I thought Oly would finally make a true tele like a 200 f2, 200 f2.8 or a 300f4, it filed a patent for a…80-400f4 ??
Another consumer-grade long zoom, none of them is of good quality by the way.
Disappointing.
200 f/2? you realise how big such lens would be, it would prob get alot of complaints about size, weight. Dont get me wrong, I would welcome such lens in the system, showing that not everything can be small.
Is 40-200/4 better than 35-100/2.8? What do you think?
It all depends upon what you mean by better. The 40-200 f4.0 will have a longer reach which is better. The 35-100 f2.8 will be better in low light and for DOF control. The 35-100 f2.8 is can be brought now, which is better. The 40-200 f4.0 is just a patent that might be made sometime in the future. Without an actual 40-200 f4.0 one can only guess about size, image quality and price. My guess is that the 35-100 f2.8 will have better image quality. The reason is that a 3x zoom is easier to design. From doing the rough calculation of the focal length divided by focal length I am guessing size wise I will guess the 25-100 f2.8 will be smaller. Price wise I m guessing theat the 40-200 f4.0 will cost more size from the rough size calcuation the 40-200 f4.0 will have larger lens elements. The more I look at it the better the Panasonic lenses look. Still for that much money I am holding off until I see what Olympus is really going to offer.
Kiki, below is my reply to your question!
The 40-200mm f/4 would go very nicely with a 12-60mm f/2.8-4 or even 12-42mm f/2.8
40-200mm is a 5x zoom while 35-100mm is not even a 3x zoom. Angle of view is slighty different from the start, but it’s two times narrow at the end. Given the same apertures, I’d go obviously for a 40-200mm.
Existing f2.8 zooms from Panasonic are too slow for my needs: considering that we won’t see any f2.0 Zoom, I prefer to use 75mm in concerts (and find a nice shooting position).
DOF wise a 200MM @ F4 will certainly have more bokeh than 100MM @ F2.8
Yes, that’s true, but I wouldn’t buy a zoom lens with bokeh in my mind, I prefer primes in this case. Also, bokeh depends also from other factors.
While I’m sure it will be small, I’m also sure that it will be a high-priced compromise, given even Olympus’ recent work. I’d rather they produce great lenses but they seem to have forgotten all about that in order to make things small and light.
I really like that focal length and fastness-I hope it’s small, (collapsable), high quality. And weather proof. Then it would be the perfect addition to my fast prime lens set.
40-200 F4 is capable of decent image quality provided Oly / Pana having breakthough in it’s sensors technology . And the days are not far from now .
If the theory of Pana’s new MCS sensor works , definitely not a problem with this F4 .
People keep blaming slow lenses ( included me ) cause we are all judge matters by current sensor technology which really need lenses that have F2.8 at least .
Once this new generation sensors are in , surely every lenses capable of deliver high image quality according to it’s class .
Hi Admin,
You sure its not a F4-F6.7 zoom lens ?
You guys didn’t got it. M4/3 needs desperately at least F2 zooms because F4, while may be decent exposure-wise, is totally insufficient DOF-wise and the pictures will look amateurish, P&S’ish. Why? F4 in M4/3 is equivalent to F8 in FF terms, and that’s hardly useful for subject isolation in the usual usage of telephotos (sports, wildlife, even portraits). Sure, if you shoot distant landscapes F8 it’s OK, but we know that’s not the most common usage of telephotos.
If the reason for making a 40-200 F4 is to have more range than a fast 35-100, that’s not gonna be longer enough anyway, so better make 40-400 or 50-500 f5.6-8. If they *really* want to make a good, serious fast telephoto, please make it at least F2, even better f1.4.
If M4/3 doesn’t go serious with serious, fast lenses, it will be always an amateurish system for amateurs and sooner than later will die. We have plenty of plastic slow zooms. It’s time to have some really serious, fast zooms. Better let’s not restrict ourselves.
I don’t agree. I’ve used the 150 f2 and the 50-200 f2.8/3.5 extensively for wildlife, and while f2 is great for exposure, the DoF is usually too critically shallow. And at longer distances, especially with a teleconverter, I don’t see any problem getting subject seperation even at f8 or smaller. Indeed for subjects at a typical distance, I find to m.zuiko 40-150 far from useless. Each to his own, but frankly the DoF craze seems to be more about gear than photography.
I don’t get these “lens patents” – or indeed camera body patents. What exactly are they patenting? How can every single minor variation on a theme be patented? It seems to be a specifically Japanese thing. Can anybody who actually understands it please explain? The net effect seems to be to announce to the market and the competition everything a company is working on. And to what gain? We never hear of patent warfare of the Apple-Samsung kind. Just curious.
And yeah, I’d take a 40-200 f4, but it needs to be weathersealed. Anything faster would be too big and heavy for m43.