Micro Four Thirds Lenses & Adapters for Panasonic & Olympus OM-D Cameras: Quick Review
New Filmconvert GH4 profiles.
8 days driving around California (Chriseyrewalker.com).
Zhongyi Mitakon Speedmaster 25mm f/0.95 Review (ePhotozine).
In eigener Sache: Kamerabuch E-M5II ist fertig (PenAndTell).
Michael Grecco rides for charity with panasonic a1 action camera (LumixLounge).
KIPON EOS/EF Lens to Micro 4/3 Adapter「EF-MFT AF」TEST (Part3) AF Speed Test (Youtube).
Olympus Europe refurbished MFT stock at [shoplink 22691 ebay]Olympusmarket[/shoplink].
58 Responses
Another leg up by this page to Northrup and his wealthy “i want it all’ empire….zzzzzzzzzzzzz
That dumb video again?
Poster child of DxO.
Who is this guy, Northrup? He has some generally good info, but some of his opinions are “iffy” and some of his fact are wrong.
I agree, this guy has no clue on some of these lenses.
This video is in the wrong place. Kind of stuff that is aimed to the DSLR crowd. “Let’s help poor Tony to sell more books”….. lame
Are those mtf’s for the Mitakon correct compared to the Voigtlander?
That’s surprising if true from what I have read so far about the Mitakon’s sharpness?
I’m a bit puzzled, too. It looks like ePhotozine changed their sharpness measuring scale recently, so none of the lenses can actually be compared.
Previously they just used a subjective “poor/fair/good/excellent” scale rather than posting actual numbers.
Yeah…soo…I am NOT givin up my 23mm Voigt!!!! the images just have a much more beautiful quality to them IMO than the Mitakon……but I think that the Mitakon is actually supposed to be sharper in the center at f/.95…. I think that I am misunderstanding something because his comparison is waaaaayyyy bad for the Mitakon. Something is not right there. Right?
http://www.43rumors.com/a-bit-of-everything-145/
This one again? Can’t find any good reviews to link?
Note to self; don’t worry about comparing M43 lenses to full frame DSLRs, don’t bother applying the crop factor to the aperture, ignore the total light gathered non-sense, and don’t drink the Northrup Kool-Aid. Does it makes sense to compare the Bokeh of a Olympus 45mm for instance to ALL other 85-100mm lenses on a FF camera? I don’t think so. Just silly.
For me the EM1 is the best camera in the world, because I’ll actually carry it under all conditions (can’t say that about my Canon), and as they say – the best camera in the world is the one you have with you!!
I would give the mFT forums a read over looks like numerous E-M1 cameras have significant faults
I don’t need to, I have one and am well aware of it’s ‘faults’ and am well pleased. No, it’s not perfect, but what camera is? I’m REALLY looking forward to firmware 4 – in camera focus stacking for macro. If it works as well as that feature on the TG4 – I’ll be really, really happy.
This is an mFT forum and the only repeat complaint I’ve seen is some of the vinyl coming loose on the back. Which other forums are you referring to?
There seem to be a few troubles reported in the DPreview forum .These include rear dial problems, strap lugs detaching, EVF burn etc. No camera is perfect though the E-M1 is a fine machine overall
So far, so good.
Lol, more total light gathering…
I guess my iphone 6s f/2.2 exposes like an f/44 lens, and a Sony FE kit lens is 2-3x sharper than the Noctitron. All by DXO/Northrup theorizing nonsense.
The samples he provides for the P20 are hideous. If those are the images he gets from these camera, maybe he needs to work on more than theory.
f/1.4 vs f/1.4 has the same light gathering ability for a given sensor. It’s physics. LOL!
Are you serious it is total light gathered that matters it has been explained literally hundreds if not thousands of times on numerous websitesand forums. Only mFT {some } folk fail to grasp it and especially the Olympus fraternity. It is these type of idiotic comments that keep FF fanboys abusing our forums
…light per unit area.
Go into Lightroom and crop an image. Does the exposure change for you?
I know there are other factors, but if Northrup is right it would be nearly impossible to take a photo indoors with a point and shoot or phone.
All that matters for the tedious cross systems comparisons
is total light gathered. Think about it for just a second would you expect to get the same results from a Panasonic FZ300 set at a FF equiv AOV of 300mm at F/2.8 as you would shooting the Olympus 40-150mm pro set at a FF equiv AOV of 300mm at F/2.8. If all that mattered was ISO and aperture that is exactly what you would get. But wouldn’t you know it the damn sensor size and equivalence comes nto play .
It is funny how sometimes even the same folk that have difficulty accepting the advantages of bigger sensors seem happy to accept the advantages of mFT compared to smaller sensors.
You’re not talking to an exclusive MFT shooter. I have a Canon 60d, owned an a7ii, and a few MFT bodies. There is no linear relationship between crop factor and exposure. More to the point, exposure and Iso control of my Gx7 and a7ii were nearly identical. Sure you can push the a7ii more because of the bigger pixels, but shutter speeds were identical at a given lens aperture as expected.
Northrup is full of s**t, and he probably knows it. Not sure what your excuse is.
Does this make sense to you: Smaller – big enough – bigger?
But anyway, nobody is suffering as a result of non-existing problems. Total light gathered: total nonsense. It doesn’t matter. You really think smaller sensor and matching lens combinations are doing something bad to IQ, because they fail to gather enough total light? Really? Of course you can measure that the amount of light that a FF lens spreads all over the sensor area is more than the amount that a comparable mft lens would have let through at the same aperture, same shutter time and the same ISO setting. But guess what, it’s exactly enough for a mft sensor. Of course. Damn, why didn’t you think of that before? Does Sekonic need to build a light meter for every sensor format?
It is funny that the folks who only see the advantages of the bigger sensors have difficulty in understanding that WE JUST DON’T CARE! We understand and accept the limitations of our smaller sensor cameras and am just tired of hearing this junk. Buy a FF camera and go away.
Nobody Knows what you are talking about. LOL!
You do not even know what you are talking about so chances of understanding someone else are at best slim
We get it, we just don’t care. I’m not in the market for a FF camera, so why should I, or anyone else care about FF equivalence? I take pictures with the EM1 that I’m very happy with – period. I wish the FF fanboys would go away and abuse themselves.
Only on a mFT forum does a simple scientific fact such as the consequences of total light gathered on the final image . Get attacked , honestly some of the guys on this forum sound like those mad American creationists . I wonder where a lot of you guys come from
The implication that exposure changes by a factor equal to the crop factor is hardly a scientific fact. This is where we take issue with tools like Northrup.
The consequence of total light gathered is indeed a scientific fact
So is the ratio of focal length to diaphragm.
So is the distance from the earth to the moon and about as relevant to actually making images.
Only on FF forums does a simple scientific fact such as the consequences of total light gathered on the final image mean EVERYTHING!
Why posting this video again?
Saying that the 12-35/2.8 and 12-40/f2.8 are soft lenses makes it seem like he’s using different cameras or lenses than us.
When tested for MTF in terms of lp/mm, the 12-40/2.8 and 12-35/2.8 are about 90% higher than full frame 24-70/f2.8 lenses (when stopped down to f4 and f8 respectively for the same DoF). See Lenstip.com for the results if you want to verify. Since the FF sensor has 2x as many mm, that means the FF lenses have about 10% more resolution. If that’s a big difference to you, that’s okay, but saying it’s not very sharp is a totally bizarre comment, unless you also think the FF lenses are not very sharp.
A mFT lens needs double the resoloution just to match a FF sensor with the same number of MP . Considering that there are now 36mp { multiple },42mp and even 50mp FF cameras . A photo is a combination of lens plus camera either one in
isolation is irrelevant . It is always lentip that get quoted here, as they are the only site whose testing method favours mFT. Not forgetting the often very signiificant in camera help that even top mFT lenses get.
Unfrotunatly the much hated DXO { well hated by smaller sensor fanboys} gives a far more real life comparison comparing our best to their best
Look…I have a FF camera and a lot of killer L glass. YES…MFT does not compete with that on a lot of levels….BUT…its a smaller format system that allows me to record incredible images with a LOT of really good glass. There just is no need to be trashing some of the lenses this guy was trashing. MFT is a great system with limitations. It’s more than I will ever need for anything that is shot for the web….and you can make great prints with the files as well…The are a lot of junk lenses….but this putz is trashing good glass!!!! ???!!!!!
Look fool…no on is saying that FF sensors don’t have more light hitting them… The lens is designed to have a bigger image circle..so yes they get more light per square footage, but it comes through at the same rate per square foot…at f/1.4 vs f/1.4…this is just more square footage because of the image circle.
If the exposure is f/1.4 @ 1/1000 sec. on a FF…it’s the same exact exposure on the Crop or MFT or whatever. Duh.
No one is saying that MFT is better because of this. You have it stuck in your fat head that we are. So just YOU don’t know. We all do.
Oh look a keyboard hero lacking the basic social graces how surprising. Equivalence brings out the same BS every time. It really could not be simpler total light gathered is what matters. For the same reason mFT @ F/2.8 is not equivalent to a FF camera @ F/2.8 . A smaller sensor than mFT shooting @ F/2.8 is not equivalent to an mFT camera.
Total Light = Exposure x Effective Sensor Area is all you need to know , Exposure or the total light per area is irrelevant, it is the end result that matters. An image taken on an FZ1000 at F/4 at 800 ISO will not be the same as an image taken at F/4 at 800 ISO just as an image taken on mFT at F/4 will not be the same as an image taken at F/4 an 800 ISO
You are STILL arguing with yourself. is quite wonderful…I have some images to create with whatever tool I decide is appropriate for my end needs, now. ..So please excuse me.
Fair enough and a much more civilised response lol
“Equivalence brings out the same BS every time.”
OK – then don’t bring it up.
Your comment seems not to be relevant to the point he was making? TF: mFT lensen are almost as good as the FF-lenses. You; The sensor on a FF-camera gives better quality. While true, it is pretty irrelevant to his claim, and also pretty irrelevant to tonys claim that the lenses are soft.
I know you’re used to responding to uneducated fanboys, but if you’d read my post you’ll realize that I know that you need to double the resolution, and I explicitly stated so in my comparisons.
Lenstip uses lp/mm and so you simply multiply by 2 * sensor size and you’ll get a more apples-to-apples lw/ph measurement that other sites like Photozone use.
From the above, let’s compare the Panasonic 12-35mm to some full frame lenses.
Panasonic 12-35/2.8 has 72 lp/mm * 2 * 13mm height = 1872 lw/ph
Canon 24-70/2.8 has 41 lp/mm * 2 * 24mm height = 1968 lw/ph
So a nominal 5% improvement in linear resolution at the same 4:3 aspect ratio.
If you want to accommodate for the different aspect ratios, you can also multiply the full sensor area to get a quasi-MP value.
In that case it’s:
12-35 = 72 lp/mm * 2 * 17.3mm width = 2491 lw/pw
24-70 = 41 lp/mm * 2 * 36mm width = 2952 lw/pw
So for total resolution, you get:
M4/3: 1872 * 2491 = 4663152
FF: 1968 * 2952 = 5809536
So that’s a respectable 25% increase in “MP resolved”. That means instead of printing an 18×24″, you can print a 19×28.5. Nice!
You can do the same comparison with Photozone’s numbers that do most of the conversion work for you.
Even taking the best case scenario, a 12-35mm on an old 16MP GX1 with a strong AA filter vs. the 36MP A7r with no AA filter, you get this:
Panasonic 12-35/2.8 = 3112 lw/ph peak resolution
Zeiss 24-70/f4 = 4306 lw/ph peak resolution
So that’s a 38% increase in linear resolution.
Multiply by the aspect ratios, and you get a total increase in MP of 115% for the best-case scenario AA-filterless A7r vs. the 4-year old GX1. Of course, that’s in the center. If you compare them at the corners they have…almost the same resolution (2292 lw/ph vs 2401 lw/ph). Yikes.
So yeah, you definitely get something for your money. But whether that’s worth the tradeoffs is up to you.
blah, blah, blah … Does my mFT camera take good images; YES. Do I care how they compare in every possible way to those produced by some mythical FF camera; NO
Hey…SLRGear does really good reviews…plus I own the lens. The Olympus 14-40mm Pro is a very sharp zoom lens. absolutely. This guy is a whacker.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1641
He was trash talking all lenses pretty much but the 75mm. ??????
THIS VID AGAIN? Gimme a break Tony. Why don’t you go back to writing Windows OS instructional books please. Tony’s thoughts on the Oly 75mm “You wont get quite as much blur as a full frame 70-200 f2.8…….. but it’s close” stfu with the SMUG ATTITUDE videos. Trying to cash in on youtube stardom cause your photos suck. I see you.
I don’t watch Tonys videos, and I don’t know how correct they are, but you don’t have to be a good photographer too have good knowledge about technical aspects of a camera or lens.
But when He doesn’t even HAVE a knowledge about technical aspects of the cameras or the lenses!
He follows his flawed ideas and assumptions and he doesn’t even know what HE is doing wrong and then claims that it is the gear fault while it is all about his own doing.
That is the problem.
And have you read his Windows books?
I wouldn’t even start to recommend those to anyone!
That might be, but his abilities as a photographer doesn’t matter when it comes to that. I haven’t read any of his books as far as I can remember.
Hate to break it to you ATLE43 but if your pushing a book called “How to create Stunning Digital Photography” and your pushing these smug biased informed videos to promote a dumb book, you better believe that “abilities as a photographer” DOES matter. That’s like saying a Math teacher doesn’t need to know Algebra.
He said a LOT of very WRONG things in that video…and I did not watch much.
My first “Tony” video, ugh. It only took about a minute to get turned off. I jumped ship because of technical inaccuracies that popped up right away.
Nobody gets equivalence right, for starts, particularly as regards apertures, which are related to TWO things, exposure value and depth of field. Focal length conversions are not exact either because the aspect ratio (shape) of the sensors are not the same. In general, focal length is focal length, but the conversion uses crop factors to approximate the sort of lens you would have to use on full frame to get the same angle of view (of which there are three, vertical, horizontal, and diagonal). In landscape mode for FourThirds, those factors are 1.84, 2.08, and 2.0 respectively.
Exposure value equivalence requires no conversion. Given a 25mm, f2.0 FourThirds lens, a 32mm, f2.0 APS-C lens, a 50mm, f2.0 full fame lens, similarly tuned camera bodies, identical aperture settings, and the same light on your subject, the shutter speeds will be the same—f-stops are always and directly related to shutter values you can look up on a table.
Depth of field is another matter. It is always true that the longer the focal length (without regard to crop factors) and the wider the aperture, the shorter the depth of field will be. The mZuiko 25mm f1.8, for example, does NOT have the same depth of field you would find on any full frame 50mm f1.8 lens set to the same aperture value, though a 25mm f0.95 FourThirds lens would do it. The bokeh is dimished on the standard lens, however, but still quite good.
The point is: when you opt into a crop sensor system (APS-C, FourThirds, OneInch, or what have you), you must accommodate a change in thinking. When you are going for shallow depth of field and loads of bokeh, you use longer focal lengths, multiplied by the crop factor to get an “equivalent” shot. In other words, you stand farther away, no problem. In time, this discrepancy will disappear because the technology to combine an out-of-focus background and an in-focus subject will mature. Focus bracketing is the ticket. Fuji was doing it five years ago in pocket cameras.
SO… When a journalist or full frame fascist quotes equivalence solely on the basis of depth of field, the whole and honest story is NOT being told.
“The point is: when you opt into a crop sensor system (APS-C, FourThirds, OneInch, or what have you), you must accommodate a change in thinking.”
YES!
If the rumors are true,
http://www.canonrumors.com/full-frame-mirrorless-in-the-works-cr2/
-Then Micro 43 as we know it will be in serious trouble. I’ve always said, if Canon and Nikon takes mirrorless seriously, and Fujifilm expanding its lens selection, as well as Sony with its APS-C, as well as FF lines, expect heavy losses for M43.
I honestly believe that’s the reason why Panasonic has its hands all over. Leica with its FF camera, Fujifilm with the organic sensor, Towerjazz with the sensors, they’re in a good position to move where the market goes. And their focus for their own cameras is video, as even the GX8 has a Bayer filter for video.
We’ll see if this is real soon enough.
Please go use your Canon M and stop bothering us…..
The majority of the camera marked will be mirrorless sooner or later. Shouldn’t come as a big suprise, neither for us or for the mFT-companies.
Really? Another naysayer who has nothing constructive to add to the discussion.
Canikon introducing 35mm mirrorless is not a question of if, but when. Fuji knows it, Panasonic knows it, Olympus knows it, Sony and Pentax know it. You appear to be the only one that doesn’t.
The question is how they each plan to counter.