Olympus E-520, E-1, 14-54 f/2.8-3.5, 50-200 f/2.8-3.5Olympus C2040Canon Elan II/EOS-50, 28-105 f/3.5-4.5Pentax K1000Kodak InstamaticFirst camera: Kodak Brownie
Stabilization by Manfrotto
OldArrow: The sheer amount of various formats makes one think about why. What really dictates the image formats today? Cinema? Can't be. TV? Which among all the various sizes? Books? Newspapers? Surely not. Almost every paper-reproduced image has to be adapted to any of these formats.So why don't they all agree that the best photo imaging format would be square? It exploits the lens FOV in the best possible way. It gets rid of side-up camera holding. It produces images easily cropped to all ratios or purposes. It allows internal masking to facilitate framing for every photographer's need...No go. We get to buy whatever the analog era left behind, as if it's some stone-hewn universal law.Ditto, mechanical mirrors in digital cameras - obsolete from the first digital camera onward. Ditto, camera shapes; although there is no more film to stretch between the casette and the take-up roll. Ditto, God forbid, an universal lens mount.Funny, but the whole thing is supposed to cater to camera users...
Square sensors would be a great waste of resources on sensors and in the preview screen and viewfinder ... and so would be "Golden Ratio" sensors of about 8:5 shape.
I am not sure why this myth of the Golden Ratio as the ideal shape for paintings, drawings or photographs persists despite the massive evidence to the contrary in the shapes actually chosen by artists quite consistently over the centuries. The most common choice of artists are about 4:3 and 7:5, and the vast majority of "still rectangular artworks" are in the range from 5:4 to 3:2. (Movies are a different issue; panoramic landscapes are an outlier, not the norm.)
The Golden Ratio is perhaps a nice shape for abstract forms like in architecture, but not when the actual subject matter of an image dictates the framing.
sportyaccordy: 4/3 and Micro 4/3... man people love to be ripped off. APS-C prices for down to less than 1/2 the sensor area and no added portability. I will never understand it
You see no added portability, despite the smaller focal lengths and smaller, shallower lens mount?
What is the equally portable APS-C equivalent of a lens selection like the Olympus 12-50, 40-150, and 75-300? (Small bodies for larger formats are easy enough; lenses are the main size constraint.)
Of course there is a trade-off : smaller kit size and weight vs better performance in high shutter-speed/low-light situations, but both alternatives make sense for different people with different priorities. And even for the same person when addressing different priorities at different times: many users of high end gear in 35mm or medium format also have an m43 kit as a lightweight option these days.
The suggestion that the only size step beyond 1/2.3” (6.2x4.5mm) worth making is all the way to the almost APS-C sized 18.7x14mm of the G1X sounds like a classic PR smokescreen:"we do not (yet) have a certain category of product that our competitors do, so we will talk trash about that category ... until we have one to announce".
Like Canon talking down the need for mirrorless interchangeable lens systems before the EOS-M, or successive claims that Apple was not interested in phones, or e-book readers, or tablets smaller than the original iPad.
Of course there is room for intermediate size/performance trade-offs size in that huge format size gap, which is a factor of nine in sensor area and a factor of three in focal lengths needed, so that lenses of equal minimum f-stop need about 27 times the mass of glass in them. Photography has always had format choices in increments of less than three in the area of the sensor or film frame. 1“ format is near the middle of Canon's gap ...
biggles266: So many people on here arguing about the downside of huge prices for telephoto for FF, and saying that that boosts the market for crop and for m43 because they offer still decent quality but with more flexibility. Here's my vision of the future which makes all that argument silly, or am I missing something?
To me, the future is FF cameras, with IBIS, available below $2000 (preferably down to $1300-$1500 as hardware costs inevitably reduce like they always do), with the feature of letting the photographer switch it to crop/Dx mode or to m43 mode, or even lower. You get top FF quality for most photos, and simply reduce that quality as much as you want to when you want more telephoto or do macro. No need for huge expensive telephoto lenses for FF, just buy a very long lens designed for say crop/m43 etc instead. So in that sense, there is no market for just 'crop' cameras, since the future camera should be both FF and crop and more.
I would love to see a Canon 3D model like this.
This assumes that a sensor more than twice as large as an APS-C sensor and with the same pixel size, so considerably more pixels to read out, will some day not cost mich more than the smaller alternatives that are already meeting the performance needs of most SLR users. Maybe, but I doubt it:(1) There is still a gap of well over $1000 between the price of entry level APS-C and 35mm format bodies.(2) Chip prices go down mostly due to size reduction, no use for sensors at fixed 36x24mm size. Increased volume does help some through economies of scale, but those gains level out eventually.(3) Chips larger than 33x26mm are far more expensive to make, because that is the industry-standard maximum field size for the steppers used to make chips, so that larger sizes like 36x24mm require a slower, more expensive, lower-yield process of on-wafer stitching. And there is absolutely no sign that larger format steppers are coming, with the dominant trend being towards smaller chips: see item (2).
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I have an old, OM mount, manual focus, 75-300 by Vivitar, which I use with an Olympus micro 4/3 body. It is f/4.5-5.6 - and it is huge and heavy. So heavy, in fact, that I can't photograph vertically with it mounted on my tripod because the camera keeps sliding down, no matter how hard I tighten the camera to the tripod socket. Perhaps the slow aperture is the price to pay to keep the lens compact and lightweight. I can't image how huge a 150-600mm EFL lens would be if they made it a constant aperture lens, say f/2.8.That said the use of this new lens is limited to bright sunlit days, otherwise a tripod is mandatory. The focal length is quite useful, but it is a budget lens. If Olympus, with all their experience in optics, wanted to make a fast, high quality zoom lens for micro 4/3, they would. Only the price would make it unaffordable.
Manuel,Please do not say "only usable without a tripod in bright sunlight" when all you mean is that "the absolute best image quality possible is only attainable ..." for one thing, once one is insisting on absolute best image quality from a super-telephoto lens, I would think that a tripod is always necessary! Of course a $500, 430g super-telephoto lens involves some compromises in image quality compared to heavier more expensive options.
And of course I know about "high" ISO films; I suffered with ISO 800 film occasionally. My point, if you read what I said carefully, was is that in any situation where those high ISO films were acceptable, about four times that ISO speed is acceptable with a camera like the EM5, making this lens comparable in low-light handling to a 150-600 f/2-3.4 used with 35mm film. So many of us are happy to use that ISO advantage in order to greatly reduce the weight (and cost) of a super-telephoto zoom lens.
With the excellent IBIS of the EM5 and ISO 800, 1600, and even beyond quite usable, such a lens is not at all limited to "bright sunlit days". My 12-50/3.5-6.3 is certainly not.
You need to move beyond thinking in terms of the f-stops that were needed with film cameras and unstabilized lenses back in the '70’s!
Mssimo: Lets compare to a FF lens if we may:
Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG APOvsOlympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm (150-600mm eqv)
500mm Reachvs600mm Reach
15670gvs430g (old style)
This is a perfect outdoor lens. Price is right, IQ is good, Focus is great, not too heavy, fits MFT cameras perfect.
@qianp2k: the Canon 100-400 both weighs and costs about three times as much as the Olympus m.Zuiko 75-300 Mk II, so your example highlights the advantages of this lens rather nicely.
cgarrard: So much for... "micro" ;).
Compared to the longer focal length lenses needed in larger formats to get equal telephoto reach, this lens clearly wins on size-for-reach trade-offs. Actually, what longer-than-300mm zoom lenses exist to match this lens in any larger format? Off hand, I can only think of the Canon 100-400 and Nikon 80-400, which are both somewhat larger and more expensive! (To be pedantic, if you allow the option of cropping to equal pixel count, it is the smaller photosites and thus higher resolution in "lines per mm" that allows the use of smaller lenses.)
In fact, smaller formats have always given their greatest size advantage in the telephoto regime: consider the great advantage that 35mm film SLR'S had over medium format, which never bothered to go beyond about 300mm ("150mm to 200mm equivalent").
b534202: 300mm, f/6.7 and no IS. They just don't want to sell to Panasonic body owners eh?
Olympus has designed this lens primarily for use on Olympus bodies: why does that surprise or bother anyone? By having good in-body IS, lenses can potentially be lighter and less expensive; in-lens IS would simply be dead-weight for PEN or OMD users.
P. S. the main reason to choose a smaller format system like MFT is a smaller, lighter kit, including smaller, lighter lenses. Bear in mind that due to the usable ISO advantage of recent MFT sensors over film, this lens with a recent Olympus body has a high speed/low light advantage over 35mm film used with f/4 super telephoto primes. Larger, heavier digital body+lens combos can perform even better, but it should be easy to understand that for many people, the performance is good enough, and preferable to carrying a heavier kit.
On the other hand, if your goal is even better low light capabilities combined with less of the image being in focus, then a larger format is a better choice: "horses for courses".
It seems not to work on mobile devices (fine on iPad but fails on iPod), which is ironic if true.
Josh152: Until EVFS have real time refresh rates with dynamic range and resolution that at least come very close to matching the sensor of the camera, they will never replace OVFs for still photography. Especially on the pro side of things.
SLR OVF's do not have nearly as much resolution as the sensor or lenses, due to using a secondary image produced by focusing the image from the lens on a frosted glass or plastic screen. From what I have read, EVFs need about 2MP to out-resolve OVFs.
And of course with zoom for manual focus, EVFs already give a far bigger and more detailed view of the subject, for far more precise focusing.
FujicaST605: Olympus lenses w/Sony sensors. Might be a good combo.
Agreed: for example, Olympus could help fix the mismatch of small NEX bodies with oversized zoom lenses, and add some very nice macro lenses, while Sony does seem to have the best sensor technology right now, and could provide PDAF in the main sensor to support 4/3 SLR lenses.
The attempt to justify the price as due to material costs is surely a lie: a small chunk of burl wood or carbon fiber wrap does not come close to adding all those thousands of dollars to the price of a NEX7.
But the promise of all three cameras having "the same style" means that we have a woody RX100 and a woody A99 coming.
But if the profits extracted from *people with too much money*(TM) goes into at last getting a 21st century (CMOS with on-sensor ADC) sensor for its MF cameras, all will be forgiven.
Louis_Dobson: I want an E-PM2. I suspect I will use it more than the OM-D...
Louis, Do you no longer care about an eye-level EVF, or do you plan on using a clip-on EVF?
FWIW, with my EM5 I still find the EVF best for the majority of situations, but there are also situations where the LCD is the best tool. Certainly the EVF not nearly as bad as many posters say ---probably based only on watching snap-shooters using P&S compacts rather than seeing how a careful photographer can make use of the rear screen or making a serious effort to use one themselves.
Great idea and I love Wikipedia and am interested in offering some photos, but having an Android app but no iOS app is shooting themselves in the foot for the sake of political correctness.
vtinitus: Call me uninformed but why does it not come in Sony/Minolta A/AF mount too? I recon that Sony E has probably better chances to sell well, considering their cameras but Sony's SLT Alphas aren't to bad when it comes to video too, aren't they? Or did Sony push the E mount through royalties and so forth?I own one awesome A55 myself, but don't have any need for such a lens though. I'm just puzzled...
For motion photography, E mount is far more attractive than alpha mount: NEX bodies offer an EVF (without the light loss of a pellicle mirror system) and Sony offers multiple professional video cameras in E mount.
falconeyes: To anybody in the knows ...
I've got a question: Why is it that cine lenses (in general, and from Zeiss, comparing their cine and SLR offerings in particular) are much more expensive than SLR lenses -- while at the same time, the resolution requirement for cine lenses must be on the lower end even considering 4k video, i.e. 8MP?
Designs that minimize *focus breathing* are another constraint. That is, with many lenses, changing the focus changes the field of view, and cinematographers care about avoiding that far more than still photographers do, to avoid the framing changing during a shot as the subject moves closer to the camera and focus has to follow.
SUPERHOKIE: Whats the point? 4/3 lenses are NOT any smalller or cheaper than full frame lenses. Who in their right mind would get this supposed Pro body and a 12-35 vs a 5d3 and a 35-70? Yeah the 12-35 will give you one more stop in brightness but loses a stop in DOF. With FX sensors F2.8 on a fx sensor will destroy F2 on this new pro body in noise anyways. So what is the point again? Not every product that comes out of japan is gods gift to earth. Look at suzuki and mitsubishi, two brands that are dying in the US.
Why the anti-Japanese rant? The 5d3 is Japanese too! And what is the equivalent of the 90-250/2.8 for the 5d3?
I agree that the 14-35/2 was rather pointless, and even the 35-100: telephotos are were a smaller format has its main advantages. For example, 35mm format still has no good match for my 50-200/2.8-3.5 at comparable size and weight, so I would love a new body that gives good AF with it ... while also accepting m43 lenses, maybe with in-sensor PDAF as in the Nikon One bodies.
Michael S.: Actually it does look like as
a) almost all posters here are too young to remember or
b) have already forgotten what Olympus claimed as the introduced the 4/3 system long time ago.
I have been there - as Olympus EUROPE introduced, marketed the at that time new and 100% digital 4/3 system with the upcoming E1.
The two sentences that fell and have always been repeated by the presenters have been:
1) "5 Megapixels are enough..."2) "We will have smaller, lighter and cheaper lenses than our competitors".
Without a doubt - both clamis have failed.
1. It was never claimed that 5MP is enough for all (then again, nor did Bill Gates ever say that 640K will always be enough). An early sensor road map already went to about 12MP.2. The claims on size and weight was for the mainsteam lenses that most 4/3 users would have,, compared to the available lenses of twice the focal lengths for 35mm. And indeed things like the 14-42 kit zoom, 50-200/2.8-3.5 and 100-300 zoom are smaller and lighter than 28-85, 100-400 and 200-600 zooms, especially since the last two do not exist. Of course there is a trade-off beween size and speed, but a lot of people are happy to make that trade off with the far higher ISO speeds possible with digital compared to film.
xoio: I'm getting sick & tired of this manufacturer imposed 'TREND' where they're loosing the EVF or Viewfinder, thus forcing us all to have to wave these camera's around in front of our faces like bloody Iphones.Pathetic!
Every mirrorless system except Canon's has models with EVF and models without, so no-one is being "forced" --- except maybe Canon loyalists who refuse to consider any other brand.
Maybe you are one of those people who is bothered by the existence of an option that does not interest you.