Micro Four Thirds Lenses & Adapters for Panasonic & Olympus OM-D Cameras: Quick Review
Speedmaster 25mm lens review by Photobyrichard.com.
The Olympus E-M10II and 7-14 Pro Lens Review by Steve Huff.
In eigener Sache: Kamerabuch E-M5II ist fertig (PenAndTell).
Olympus OM-D E-M10 II at Dutch Pixelmania.
Matt: “Two videos made with Panasonic GH4 for a contest. Would love your views and votes! http://www.gensqueeze.ca/cheese_squeeze and http://www.gensqueeze.ca/young_canadian_modern_family”
Austin: “The steadxp kicker starter campaign released some new footage today show with the GH4. Looks great with the 4k https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1091165875/steadxp-the-future-of-video-stabilization/posts/1373243“
30 Responses
Ahhh Tony you are such a hater. He makes a 32 minute “quick review” to review M43 lenses. But just ends up down talking M43. The Oly 45mm is apparently bad for portraits because he doesn’t have enough skill to focus on eyes. He claims the 2.8 zooms are not sharp at all. Oh and the Oly 75mm? He claims is super sharp, but it still cant get enough background blur for separation. REALLY???? gimme an break Tony. Why don’t you go back to writing Windows OS instructional books please.
Man, I have to watch this now… If he can’t get enough background seperation with the Oly 75mm then he simply needs to increase the distance between the background and his subject – he just needs to work within the capabilities of the lens or go for a larger aperture lens if he needs more.
Ok having watched his video he is generally good on facts and science of lenses (f-stops, crop factors) but his critique of those lenses is way off.
Sounds like he blames the 75mm 1.8 for being a 75mm 1.8, because he needs a 75mm 0.95. And even if you don’t have enough skill to get the 45mm to focus on the eyes, he could have made sure the camera would have done it for him.
I wonder why he’s taking the time to do this.
there was this one shot while he was talking about it where it was obvious the lens had auto-focussed on the rim of the hat instead of the eyes. Noob mistake. If the camera doesn’t have “eye-detection AF” then go manual.
It wouldn’t be easy for a noob to get the rim of the hat in focus with eye detection on… 😉
depends how good the AF eye-detection is, it SHOULD use face-recognition to find the eyes but I honestly don’t know if there are any MFT cameras that even have that feature? Certainly not Panasonic.
My E-M10 has few levels of this. Face detection, face detection with focus on eyes, and with focus on either left or right eye. Not sure if that’s the same as on newer/older Oly cameras, though. And haven’t really used it to know if it’s any good in real life.
Good to know – Lumix cameras only have face detection where I assume it (maybe) looks for the eyes too, but I haven’t tested. I tend to use 1-point AF (when I use AF). Left/right eye detection sounds a bit ridiculous – having to set that up each time a subject turns their head takes longer than manual focussing.
No, it’s either the closest eye in focus (the one I choose) or the other eye. I don’t know since when they had these face / eye recognition modes, but e-m5 and newer omds and pens have them. Don’t know about Lumix.
The GH4 has face and eye detection. I didn’t look if that is also in the G7 and the GX8 but it would be strange if not.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-gh4/panasonic-gh4TECH.HTM
Yeah, that’s where he lost me. PanOly AF isn’t precise enough. Huh? Tap on the eye to focus, and shoot. Not rocket science. OTOH, my FF DSLRs constantly chose the wrong AF points, so I’d have to hit a button and spin two different dials, and by the time I’d selected an AF point, the subject had moved. And, some lenses back- or front-focused, which never happens with mirrorless.
This video is a hit piece.
In the video he links he says that FF lenses are not at all as sharp as m4/3 lenses and you get sharper results with m4/3 than with FF glass on FF body.
He is so conflict with himself that it makes wonder like what?
Robin Wong could teach him a thing or three.
lol Wong is an emplyee posting infomercials for fan boys know any ?
He was an independent reviewer before Olympus hired him.
Mostly what Robin Wong posts are photographs. The accompanying text is incidental. I fail to see any bias in the photos, which is more than I can say for the tripe Tony disgorges, like: ‘there are no pro-grades zooms available in the M4/3 system’.
so i wrote there
hmmmmm so 12-40 is sharp as kit lens ???? in what parallel universe ??
12-40 Pro is sharp as any prime lens ( 12 F/2.0, 20 f/1.7, 25 f/1.8, 45 f/1.8 ) and is about 3-4x sharper than 12-50 or 14-42 but as always Tony ( i like you videos even got your book but ) get how sharp is lens by looking at DXO mark and as 4/3 got small sensor the results will be low and 12-40 got 9mpix but superduperultra sharp 75 1.8 got 11mpix and 14-42 got 5mp and 12-50 4mp
and 40-150 PRO was as sharp as 75 ( on 75mm ) on every test they made so i would also like to go to FF to D750 from E-M1 12-40,
… 40-150 but as much picture I look from FF none is as tack sharp as a lot of them from E-M1 and PRO zooms…
12-40 PRO is A KIT LENS!!!!!
How difficult it is to understand?
“kit lens” is a lens that was sold in same box with the camera body!
“Kit lens” doesn’t mean bad quality!
Canon and Nikon has terrible lenses that some of those they ship with the body, as no one would buy just the body as starting package! And Nikon and Canon are in business sell lenses more. Olympus released E-M1 with kit lens choices of 12-40 PRO or 12-50mm. And it just happens to be that Olympus PRO line beats any lens from Canon and Nikon for same field of view or focal length or aperture ratio.
No… the 12-40 is not a kit lens. It is a lens that can be combo’d and sold with a body, which is no different than what many vendors already offer with say, the Panasonic GX8 + 35-100 f2.8 or 12-35 f2.8. Hell, panasonic used to also combo bundle the 20mm f1.7 as well. Literally any lens can be considered a kit lens by your definition.
A kit lens is a lens that doesn’t add significantly to the body cost (maybe an extra 100-200 dollars), and is typically a slow zoom. This is what people typically are referring to when they think of a “kit” lens. No one thinks the 12-40 pro zoom is a kit lens just because it can be purchased as a combo with a body.
OK. You just proved it…
You really ARE insane. ?
Good 25mm Mitakon lens review. Interesting to see comparison shots with Voigtländer 25mm, too.
I guess all m43 lenses need to be cheap – because they’re small? (like Leica lenses). Please, no more Tony video links.
The video is interesting enough, but his perspective seems to be that of absolute quality, and nothing else. The nature of a smaller system is trading some quality for size. From that perspective it is absolutely spectacular if the 75mm really is sharper than a FF-camera with a fourth of the sensor size, that is an insane accomplishment. The video is fine if you only care about quality and nothing else. (but then m43 is not the best choice IMHO)
The 75 is sharper on the EM5 II in hi res mode – see YouTube for videos on this. Not a single shot! M43 may not be the best, but I will carry it, so as they say …
So? It is still pretty increadible for a lens which projects the light down to 1/4 of the surface.
You missed the point – the 75mm on a standard m43 sensor (1/4 the surface area) camera is NOT so amazing that it beats a FF camera! – I think his description was a bit deceptive, you had to really listen. Images using the hi res mode of the EM5 II are NOT the same as a standard images – 8 shots combined into one 40meg shot. Bottom line, the 75mm is good, but it’s not so incredible that it beats a Nikon D810 – many other lenses could probably do as well in hi res mode. This was supposed to be a lens review, not a camera review.
This is a good video IMO. He covers many aspects of the E-M5 II.
Which is funny, because it wasn’t supposed to be a camera review.