Previous news story Next news story

Just posted: Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x review

Jun 25, 2013 at 13:53:07 GMT

Print view

Just posted: Our quick review of the Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x: the world's first SLR zoom with a built-in switchable teleconverter. It's been two years in the making, but when Canon offered to show us a production version of its professional super-telezoom, we couldn't help but be intrigued. In this review we've teamed up with DxOMark to bring you full optical test data of this unique lens, backed up by some quick real-world examples. So how does it perform? Click below to find out.

Click here for our quick review of the Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x

Click here for DxOMark's review of the Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x

REVIEW CANON EXTENDER

Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x

Add to: Login to add this item to your gear lists.

GearShop

Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x Lens●

$11,799.00

Buy on GearShop

Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x	$11,799.00
Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x	$11,799.00
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras	$1,449.00
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras	$1,449.00
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM UD Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras	$1,599.00

Get more prices from Amazon

Comments

Total comments: 113

Curious, for similar money, would a person get similar or better performance if they just bought a Nikon 200-400 *and* a D800, then just cropped down when they want the added distance of the included tc?

In any case, a wonderful design achievement. But it seems you pay a lot to not have to mount a tc manually. Seeing as this type of lens will usually be lashed onto a wimberly in use, adding a tc isn't that hard to do.

-Suntan

0 upvotes

teleconverters are there for low resolution sensors and should not be used if sensor resultion is good enough.

a built-in TC may mean that the resolution of Canon cameras won't beat the lens for a long time.

0 upvotes

The Nikon beater ... big time !

2 upvotes

I'm sure it has its select niche, but for me, a tele-converter seems like an anachronism with modern high-resolution digital photography where it is so easy to crop without losing any practical resolution for the output medium.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

I am willing to bet that you aren't a birding or wildlife photographer or else you would never make such a statement.

People who shoot with 800mm lenses for birding still find the reach insignificant at times and those who care for max IQ crop as little as possible.

14 upvotes

that is true but is it worth the extra 6grand?

0 upvotes

Great, fantastic technolovy, and excuse me for being cynical, all this so that someone can see a 2x2 inch photo on their I phone for .5 seconds. It really makes me wonder?

0 upvotes

For those who are willing to spend so much on a lens will probably be more than a casual arm chair photographer.

Just have a look at what is possible with this lens to get an idea. Tell me which of those photos is not sharp enough to be published in any reputed magazine.

http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?page_id=174

0 upvotes

Those are some awesome pictures. A combination of zoom, fast AF, and high resolution into one, the price of the lens is quite affordable. At least for a professional.

0 upvotes

^^ Or an advanced amateur with BIG pockets. :P

0 upvotes

@Abhijith Kannankavil - crop mode uses a limited area of the sensor, but does not increase the resolution artificially. Opposed to that, digital zoom usually uses the whole sensor, crops a part of the image and usually outputs the same resolution as the input image's resolution, which takes away quality.

0 upvotes

In crope mode you'll lose resolution. Significantly. But The image will not be resampled.

And i'll admit that i dont know a lot about digital zoom, havent used it at all, even on mobile phones. But, i think, as you said, the image may be resampled to the input resolution.

Thanks for clarifying anyway :)

0 upvotes

Nikon 200-400 not just a half price but all body that match a 200-400 have and built-in tele-converter that call 'high-speed crop'.

2 upvotes

That high speed crop that Nikon calls it can be easily done with any camera in post process.

The Canon built in TC is NOT something that can be easily replicated. And lets face it, attaching a TC to a Nikon 200-400mm is not an easy task considering the sheer weight and size of the Nikon.

Not saying the price of the Canon is justified but there are clear advantages for the Canon.

5 upvotes

that's what a point and shoot camera does. Crops into the image digitally and zooms it for you. While Extender gives you magnification optically.

0 upvotes

would prefer a shoulder fired super-telephoto with
a drop-in sensor at the end, and
an electronic viewfinder near the front of the lens

1 upvote

Bear in mind if you add glass to the mix the resolving power of the lens will suffer- If your chip outresolves the lens, you are better off cropping the sensor- and you dont loose light that way either.

2 upvotes

Brendon - bear in mind the "high speed crop" does actually speed up operation of the camera- something not achievable in post..

1 upvote

Ash, Actutually cropping the sensor you do lose light. As much as you have cropped off. Crop 50% of the sensor, you just lost 1 stop of light. Individual pixel performance then plays a part as you will be magnifying the pixels to get the same enlargement.

1 upvote

@Ash - I don't disagree that it does speed up things but you are also loosing pixels at the start that you cannot get back.

Using a 1.4x TC degrades the IQ only slightly AND also allows you to crop further in post process.

0 upvotes

Before you call this lens expensive I suggest anyone to think again. Yes 12.000$ is a lot of money but not much at all if you are investing in a business. And this lens is for business or for hobbyists with loads of spare cash. Put together 200mm, 300mm, 400mm f4 and 500mm, 600mm f5,6 high quality primes in your bag and think about "heavy" and "expensive" again. I'm not going on to practicality issues yet.

3 upvotes

do you have pictures of the bag you are referring to?

9 upvotes

So you are saying that this zoom lens has the quality of all the primes that you mentioned?

Impressive justification for an absurdly designed. modeled and priced lens!

4 upvotes

oselmg,
No rationalization you may put forward can eclipse the FACT that this lens costs 75% more than the Nikon offer.

Even if we put aside $1,000 to $2,000 as a premium for possible better optical performance over the Nikon, it is still the case that Canon is "telling" us that the innovative in-built teleconverter solution is "worth" $3000 to $4000.

Never has price gouging been so clearly exposed as in this particular lens, I am afraid...

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

the fool is not the one that asks, it is the one that gives.

0 upvotes

somehow i suspect that the FZ-200 would have more image noise.

1 upvote

Am I the only one who noticed the picture in the review of this lens attached to an EOS M body?

Heck, with the teleconverter already built in, I wonder why they just didn't build an EOS M into the lens as well. It would have added virtually nothing to the cost or weight :-)

18 upvotes

Having used one for 3 hours during the Superbike race in Portimao, on loan from Canon, I can easily say that the lens is stellar. Heavy for a 200 and about the going weight for 400 and above, and costly, but so much more flexible than being stuck between 70-200, 300 and 500 and constantly changing, nor the weight comparison. Construction is fantastic as you'd expect.

I'm no pro, but am seriously considering it.

2 upvotes

what a sad reply. Firstly, how do you expect me to use the Nikon on my Canon body? You're obviously a Nikon fanboy troll.

1 upvote

the Nikon one is sharp across the frame at open on D3 but I never hear people say it's comparable to a 400/2.8VR in resolution.

people say EF200-400 resolves as good as 400/2.8LIS2. either they are too optimistic or the lens is really good.

1 upvote

for $12,000 you would expect it to be good, and if you had bought one for $12000 I hope you would be optimistic about your purchase...

3 upvotes

Actually not even DxOMark is saying the EF 200-400 IS L is a sharp as the EF 400 2.8 IS L. But like the 200-400 VR, it has superb performance for a zoom lens.

DxOMark EF 200-400 IS L comparison (see shortened link below)

http://tinyurl.com/ox67gxb

1 upvote

Just $12,000? For a 200-400mm lens.

You say..."Sharpness drops a little with the extender in place, but is still pretty high when shooting wide open at F5.6. The best results are obtained at F8; with only a little softening at F11. As expected diffraction takes a huge toll at F45, but this isn't exactly an everyday setting on a supertelephoto lens."

F45??? Who ever takes a pic at F45?? I'll 'struggle along' with my Bigma thank you very much, DPR.

2 upvotes

Have you never heard about "Group f/64"?

Look it up on Wikipedia...

2 upvotes

I looked it up. Its irrelevant as far as todays digi-cams are concerned and something from the past when film was used. Today's SLR glass is a different ballgame than old full format.

5 upvotes

With 8x10 plates is was possible to use f/64 without much diffraction, now with modern small sensors diffraction sets in around f/11 with MF backs, f/8 with best FF DSLRs and f/5.6 with APS-C. So f/64 really is something from the past.

1 upvote

Does 200-400 f/4 with built in 1.4X TC feel and look more professional than a variable aperture 200-560mm f/4-5.6 zoom, which would be even more practical. It could even be 200-560mm f/2.8-5.6 with the same amount of glass.

6 upvotes

this has been debated elsewhere. Arguably you would be at f 5.6 from somewhat 300 mm on. Also, it is much easier to excel optically on a shorter zoom range.

0 upvotes

If this zoom can hold f/4 to 400mm, why not a longer zoom with same lens diameter?

1 upvote

Let me get this straight DPReview. You will not review the EOS-1D X professional camera that cost $6,800 but you will review the $11,800 200-400L professional zoom lens. DPReview staff, which camera is most likely to be used with this lens?

I have heard your lame excuses that Canon will not give you a 1D X to review. We are supposed to believe that despite being owned by Internet giant Amazon, DPReview cannot afford to rent a 1D X for a week to give a quick review and post raw samples? Your reason is nonsensical. Get off your butts, spend the $317 to rent one for a week and stop being lame.

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/cameras/canon-eos-1dx

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 57 seconds after posting

15 upvotes

I suppose if one was that keen to get the low down on this camera he would spend the $317.00, really find out for his own peace of mind before coughing up $6,800 on anothers recommendation.

6 upvotes

I'd prefer it tested on 5D2 that we can compare it to other lenses easily. 1DX is more about better AF and frame-rate, not resolution.

0 upvotes

I'm starting to think that most pros don't bother waiting for a dpr review anymore. They've really been erratic in their SLR reviews. Sometimes they are bang on but oftentimes they are late if there is any review at all.

I'm sorry to say but if you are relying on DPR's reviews before you purchase a SLR, especially a smaller volume one, you will likely be waiting a long time.

Part of the problem has been the erosion of traditional photography...point and shoot models are suffering across the board in favour of phone cams, and SLRs are pretty much reaching saturation.

Even this 200-400 f/4 IS review isn't much of a review from DPR's traditional standard. I'm sorry to say this but the DPR seems to have lost it's focus.

1 upvote

Wonder why it took them so long to do this. My Canon broadcast video lenses have had extenders in them for years.

0 upvotes

Hopefully the days of having to don a teleconverter to any super telephoto lens are coming to a close. I think it's ridiculous in this day and time. I hope the next iterations of 3,4,5,6, and 800mm lenses (Canon) will have the TC built in.

Stopping to remove or don a TC gets old.

0 upvotes

Aren't those called Zooms at that point?

1 upvote

Swapping a TC in and out is not the same as a zoom, and even more so, a TC optimised for the specific lens will also improve things somewhat.

0 upvotes

Will mainly be used by SI photogs.

1 upvote

Similar to it's very narrow focal length scope are the buyers of this lens.

Great lens, no doubt about it, but very specific needs.

Not every one's cup of cappuccino...

1 upvote

For once,,, your point?

1 upvote

Canon 300 2.8 IS II + teleconverters: smaller, lighter, sharper, cheaper

3 upvotes

Irrelevant. The flexibility of a Zoom with near-prime performance is what you're paying extra for with this lens.

13 upvotes

The 300 also has less reach on-the-fly, and no zoom. I'd take (and spend money) on this new lens hands down before the 300 f/2.8.; the lens would make a great fashion/glamour/on-location portrait lens.

0 upvotes

While I won't be buying this zoom having purchased the 500 II, it's is undoubtedly a stellar performer and the built-in TC is pure genius and something I'd like to have seen in the primes as well.

Also Steven, you''d be a brave man to take a wager the 300 II + TC's are sharper than the 200-400L and of course the AF performance of the 200-400L will be better than any prime using TC's and I know that they are still very good.

If this lens were around $8K where I think it should be priced, I'd happily jump on board.

0 upvotes

For wildlife photography, 300 IS II + 1.4 TC III is unbeatable

0 upvotes

12.000 Euro Canon... are you serious? A lens at a price of an entry level automobile?

4 upvotes

Prices are relative. If you want to play the game, then you've to pay the price. Heck, a new Cessna 182 is $500,000 U.S., on the photography front, high quality power packs are more expensive than this lens... and this lens darn sure isn't the entry price of any vehicle that many people would remotely consider purchasing anyway, which brings us back to square one. What's "expensive" is relative.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2%7c1&ci=20390&N=4062040344+4291575548&srtclk=sort

People in Kenya probably think people are crazy for paying $2k for an 85mm lens too... but what does that have anything to do with anything?

0 upvotes

Mortgage house, sell wife, downsize car, buy $12,000 lens, get gym membership to help hold it. Shoot spy photos of ex wife and ex car from now empty house. Can't afford petrol so sell car and get bicycle. Can't take huge lens on bicycle. Sell lens (taken 100 shots only) for $10,000. Get life back. Buy Panasonic FZ 200 super zoom with 25 -600mm f2.8 zoom.

25 upvotes

Swing and a miss.

6 upvotes

Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS
1.4x TC
2x TC
$7500 in your pocket and the ability to shoot f2.8 at up to 300mm when needed.

This 200-400 is an amazing lens, but it's not very practical.

5 upvotes

and how sharp is the sigma stopped down to f4?

6 upvotes

Sigma is a toy compared to this lens.

8 upvotes

According to lensrentals, "The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is a very sharp lens. It’s not as sharp as lenses costing far more, but it’s certainly very good."
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/sigma-120-300-f2-8-os-sport-part-1-features-and-optics
The $7500 in your pocket could certainly make the difference between the two.

2 upvotes

Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS
1.4x TC
2x TC
$7500 in your pocket and the ability to shoot f2.8 at up to 300mm when needed.

This 200-400 is an amazing lens, but it's not very practical."

This is a damn' sight more practical than the Siggy set-up - I know, I use that very set-up.

But the 120-300mm IS a fantastic alternative, and I use it wide-open all the time. Hellish sharp.

0 upvotes

@ Juck,

you're clueless. Shut up.

2 upvotes

Poor Keith, literally, lol.

1 upvote

anybody tried the sigma 120-300? I wanted to buy it but I found the zoom barrel really stiff to turn, it could really get in the way for sport photography. Anybody knows if it loosens up after some use?

0 upvotes

A Nikon 200-400mm f4 is roughly $6700. 1.4 TC, $300.
For four grand I can miss a few shots while I change the TC.

13 upvotes

That's the difference between you and a professional photographer.

4 upvotes

Id be interested to see the resolution difference on a say 24MP camera between cropping to 1.4 and adding a bit of glass in the way. (Including stopping the lens down the same amount) - especially if "the image quality drops noticeably when the 1.4X extender is engaged"

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

By the way Juck, smb 2's work looks pretty good to me- I reckon he could earn some money there. Your shot of football looks fine too of course.

1 upvote

Even better, on a 36MP Nikon you wouldn't even need the TC, you can just crop back to 24MP (rough Canon equivalent) in PP.

4 upvotes

@ Juck, so professionals using the Nikon 200-400/4 are not professionals?

1 upvote

Re: Marvol: "on a 36MP Nikon you wouldn't even need the TC, you can just crop back to 24MP".

1.4x linear crop would drop the pixel count to half = 18 MP. Which still is the same as EOS-1DX and more than D4...

1 upvote

yes but per pixel sharpness and noise the D800 does not match the 1DX. This lens is for specific sport pro applications which is not D800 realm anyway.

0 upvotes

I want one and expect Nikon to update their lens improving optics; flare and offer the same 1.4 in-built TC but charge more than Canon version.

0 upvotes

great lens - stupid price

13 upvotes

And Pentax DA 560mm still out of sights ...

1 upvote

Interesting results - perhaps most telling for me was DX0's comment here: "Achieving an excellent DxOMark score of 24 points overall and 19P-Mpix for sharpness mounted on the EOS 5D Mk III, the lens performs very well, edge-to-edge, but the image quality drops noticeably when the 1.4X extender is engaged. Then it’s just slightly the ahead of the $999 Sigma 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG APO OS HSM, in terms of sharpness at least. In all other respects; Distortion, Vignetting and Chromatic Aberration are all very low indeed. Slightly more than one stop (1.2EV) is lost in Transmission when the extender is used."

The Sigma 120-400 is not even Sigma's best stabilized and low cost zoom which is perhaps the 50-500. Think I might be more inclined to buy a 50-500 for "all" my dSLR's including Canon, Sigma, Nikon and Olympus and take the $6000 left over and pay for some round-the-world opportunities to shoot... hmmmm

13 upvotes

This is the problem with extenders. Contrary to what many people say, cropping will almost always give you the same result as using an extender, assuming the sensor pixel density is high enough to take advantage of the lens sharpness without extender. Amazing what Canon can charge for a feature who's main advantage is showing a closer view of the image in the viewfinder at the expense of being 1 stop slower.

Same goes for prime vs zoom where the prime will always have a noticeable advantage with higher density sensors. Except currently Canon has fallen behind with sensor density so new Canon zoom designs might be good enough for current Canon bodies.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

"This is the problem with extenders. Contrary to what many people say, cropping will almost always give you the same result as using an extender, assuming the sensor pixel density is high enough to take advantage of the lens sharpness without extender."

Just... NO.

3 upvotes

Why not Keith?

0 upvotes

seems like reviews for expensive lens tend to come out WAY early than cheap ones..

3 upvotes

I wonder how will the Nikkor(v2) equivalent compares with this latest Canon beast(v1), DPR staff, when will the Nikkor 200-400 f4 review going to be publish?

0 upvotes

They used a D1 X so maybe they can get that camera into the studio comparison tool.

0 upvotes

Low resolution cameras are very accepting of lenses.

2 upvotes

Calling a 18.1 Mpix camera for a "low resolution camera"....! Really?
Pathetic, is the word that comes to mind.

2 upvotes

OP said D1X in error (which was 5MP early pro camera, reviewed back in 2001) when they meant 1DX (which may never get reviewed)

5 upvotes

Seems like a great lens for Canon fans to know that Canon makes, and to sell tissues. Sure they will be popular. I'm glad that I personally don't need one, since I spend less on my cars.

3 upvotes

1984 Canon FDn 1200mm f/5.6L had a 1.4x teleconverter built in :)

3 upvotes

"Of course it is also the kind of lens that very few individual photographers will buy for themselves; instead it's more likely to be purchased by agencies, for whom the value proposition is entirely about the saleable shots it can bring in. "

but is it cheaper than free reader-submitted content shot with smartphones?

19 upvotes

Just so you know, ENG lenses, Electronic News Gathering zooms have had built-in 2X extenders for ever

2 upvotes

Those lenses were designed for a much smaller sensor and HD (= 2 mp resolution). Apples and Oranges.

0 upvotes

Wow, $12,000 and almost a full stop slower than advertised (Just like the 24-105L is T5.1). Not as sharp as a $2,000 Nikon 70-200/2.8 G. Nice lens and all, but grossly overpriced. Don't get me wrong I wouldn't turn one down, but I don't know what Canon is thinking with this one. I would expect a lot more for my $12K.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting

8 upvotes

Just bump up the ISO

0 upvotes

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=621&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

they disagree; of course you're probably looking at DxO mark and comparing across camera systems which is a big .. durrrr.

or this one:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=704&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

less CA and sharper over the entire frame than either nikon.

3 upvotes

I get the t-stop comments, but criticizing sharpness? The whole chart is solid blue with never even a hint of green. It's perfection as far as sharpness is concerned.

12 upvotes

The Nikon 200-400 mm f/4 also has a t-stop of about 5 (measured by Marianne Oelund and posted in one of the Nikon forums here).

1 upvote

Canon also have their own version of 70-200 f2.8. As sharp as the Nikon's, maybe sharper. Who knows. For about the same price. Clearly this is not 70-200 replacement.

5 upvotes

should test all Nikon lenses on 5D2 to better compare with Canon ones. I'd like to use D800 but it's impossible to mounts Canon lenses on F-mount.

0 upvotes

the real t-stop is 4.7 not 4

1 upvote

The T-stop of the f2.8 supertelephoto primes is T3.2, so add an 1.4x extender to get 400mm f4 and your extra stop of loss brings you to T4.5.

Much ado about nothing. Very few lenses have the actual T-stop that matches their F-stop.

4 upvotes

When the extender is engaged the maximum aperture becomes F5.6, and when its not engaged its not in the way so it shouldn't decrease the light transmission.
Though I agree that not much of available lenses have identical f stop and t stop , but this lens has something like half stop difference.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

We will see many pro use this lens in next year's Winter Olympic game and WorldCup.

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting

6 upvotes

I think this looks like a better Olympic/Sports lens.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-FA-Star-250-600mm-F5.6-Power-Zoom-Lens.html

Sadly no longer made :(

0 upvotes

It was already in use at last summer's Olympics.

1 upvote

Who truly needs this lens I do not think will be concerned of the price. $8,000 or $12,000 will not change their business. The hobbyists will complain, but it was not designed for them in first place and economy of scales goes with it.
Oops, it was supposed to belong to a few threads above... sorry everyone

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

would prefer f/2.8 ones for indoor, though not much difference on TVs or magazines.

would want a 4K 120 fps body with parallel phase-detection, image-recognizing AF (kind of Sony translucent mirror).

0 upvotes

...Now, where did I put that card from those thick-accent, dark-glasses nice gentlemen I met in a parking lot, the other night...What was the outfit name again...?..."Less Kidney 4 Fun"?..."Kidneys'r'Us"...?...Darn, my memory isn't the same it used to be...

1 upvote

Dear Santa...

8 upvotes

... please come and help me carry this thing.

5 upvotes

Nice lens. If I win the Euromillions I'll put my name down for one.

1 upvote

Nice glass.

0 upvotes

Total comments: 113

Editorial content

Product database

Community


Canon announces 200-400mm f/4 telezoom with built-in 1.4x extender May 14, 2013	Canon PowerShot S120 real-world samples Oct 7, 2013	DxO Optics Pro 8.3.2 adds Canon EOS 70D and Sony DSC-RX1R support Oct 2, 2013	Canon PowerShot G16 First Impressions Review Sep 26, 2013

	Nikon 1 AW1 Sep 19, 2013
	Fujifilm X-A1 Sep 17, 2013
	Olympus OM-D E-M1 Sep 10, 2013
	Leica C (Typ112) Sep 8, 2013
	Nikon Coolpix P7800 Sep 5, 2013
	Nikon Coolpix S02 Sep 5, 2013
	Sony Cyber-shot DSC-QX10 Sep 4, 2013
	Sony Cyber-shot DSC-QX100 Sep 4, 2013
	Sony Alpha A3000 Aug 27, 2013
	Sony Alpha NEX-5T Aug 27, 2013

Okay Fuji, so now that the experiment is over....	107
D610 to be announced within 48 hours (as of 10/5)	89
How many shots do you take to get a shot?	83
While everyone ooohs and aaaahs over the ...	78
More leaks about K3 specifications	76
Anyone for Sunday Scapes (2013-10-06) ?	66
After 3 weeks & thousands of shots: NEX-6 + ...	58
E-M1 Trouble focusing on moving objects	55
The Sunday BIRD Volume 9, Issue 15 October 6, 2013	49
GX7: Extended ISO125 Image Degradation?	47
Counterfeit lens caps from Amazon	46
E-M1 as E-5 successor - first week experience	42
Help deciding between Sony NEX-6 or Olympus ...	36
X-pro1 vs x-a1 (or is it X-A1 vs X-pro1) using ...	35
Worth selling my Canon DSLR to move to Olympus ...	32
I'm going broke buying E-M5 Eyecups!	32
Shutter shock verdict is not present here. ...	31
Sensor Technology (The Software Engineer Way)	31
Camera For Landscape Photography....NEED ...	28
Five Worst Clichés About Photography	27

Your email address:
Your name: