CP+ 2019: Olympus shows super-tele zoom and 2.0 TC under glass

Re: "A lens with 150-400mm and F4.5 has theoretically - concerning the math - a front lens diameter of 400mm / 4.5 = 88.9mm, let's say 90mm."

Effective aperture (entrance pupil) diameter, not "front lens diameter". However, the front element must be at least the same diameter (usually pretty close to the same for telephoto lenses).

Re: "And that's independent of the sensor size - right?"

Yes.

"And the difference to a lens with the same specifications but for a 36x24-sensor is just the size of the image circle it produces - MFT versus FF.
The same amount of light goes in, but not the same area of light comes out."

No. Someone could make a 2x TC for the lens that worked on a FF mount, and then the lens would perform on a FF camera the same as it would on an mFT camera.

The point is that f/4.5 1/1000 on mFT *does not* have the same exposure as f/9 1/1000 on FF. However, the same total amount of light is projected on the sensor for both, and that is what matters.

The ISO setting simply sets the lightness of the output file for the exposure -- it is simply an in-camera processing parameter, like setting your in-camera jpg settings.

@Great Bustard: "The point is that f/4.5 1/1000 on mFT *does not* have the same exposure as f/9 1/1000 on FF."
If we're speaking about the same light conditions, and the same ISO, my point exactly. The same exposure on FF would also be f4.5 at 1/1000.

The ISO setting does not figure into the exposure except inasmuch as changing the ISO setting may result in changes to the f-number and/or exposure time. The exposure is determined *entirely* by the scene luminance, t-stop, and exposure time.

However, as I said, that's all irrelevant to the topic at hand. What matters, with regards to cross-format comparisons, is not the exposure, but the total amount of light projected on the sensor. And, yes, for a given scene, f/4.5 1/1000 on mFT projects the same amount of light on the sensor as f/9 1/1000 on FF. Set the ISO setting to taste to get the desired lightness -- the ISO setting is a *processing* parameter, not an exposure parameter.

So, bringing us full circle: 400mm f/4.5 1/1000 ISO 200 is *equivalent to* 800mm f/9 1/1000 ISO 800 on FF because they have the same [diagonal] angle of view, same DOF/diffraction, have the same lightness, and project the same total amount of light onto the sensor.

@SantaFeBill - I never said the same shutter speed, I said higher shutter speed, whatever it might be for MFT or FF. You are missing my point. What is the value of your analysis of equivalence to ME if I consistently get good pictures with my camera and lens, be it 1-inch, MFT, or FF? There is no value. Whatsoever. People should assess their equipment by their needs, not by what it is capable of. Using equivalence only can make you spend much more than you need for your type of photography. I just don’t want people to be discouraged by equivalence rubbish which is often used in condescending manner. “Oh, this lens is only f9 equivalence, too bad.” No, it is not bad at all. In many cases it is irrelevant, because like you said, it is still an f4.5 lens when shutter speed is more important than ISO.

@Great B - sure, I suppose you can use equivalence for “good or evil” LOL. Which makes it even more confusing to use it in lens review IMO. The only person who would be interested in this lens is the one who already has MFT system. What is the point of referencing another system? When we review FF, do we need to equate it to MF? I still don’t get it.

Equivalence is neutral. Saying that f/4.5 on mFT is equivalent to f/9 on FF should be no more controversial than saying 400mm on mFT is equivalent to 800mm on FF. And given that the f-number is literally defined as the ratio of the focal length and the [effective] aperture diameter, by using the equivalent for the focal length, you *necessarily* invoke the equivalence for the f-number.

Basically, the resistance to Equivalence (primarily from the mFT crows) stems from two things:

1) The belief that equivalent f-numbers disparage their system (although they hypocritically celebrate the "deeper DOF" and celebrate the "greater reach" of the equivalent focal length).

2) The failure to understand the relationship between exposure, total light, and ISO, and the role they play in the visual properties of the photo.

Getting upset over Equivalence is like getting upset because someone gave metric conversions. However, like metric conversions, it's not always necessary to do.

GB - I think dingenus above said what I wanted to say only better. So I would be interested to see your reply to that post. Personally, I think all lenses should have the same focal lens and f-stop numbers, regardless of sensors. For example, focal length could be measured in something universal, not even in mm. Maybe on a scale of 1 to 10, one being UWA 10 super tele. Same with aperture, 4.5 is 4.5, and that it. Same with sensors - their light gathering abilities could be graded on a certain scale, say from 1 to 5. Then image quality could be easily compared by simply looking at the sensor scale, leaving fl and aperture alone. I think this would be less confusing than equivalence.

@ dingenus

Re: "5.6=5.6 regardless of the type of sensor. Only the dof is the same as with a f11 FF."

No, it's not only DOF -- it's also the total amount of light projected on the sensor. So, yes, f/5.6 = f/5.6, no matter the format, but f/5.6 on mFT is *equivalent to* f/11 on FF. This is spelled out in detail here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60356894

@ buratino

The "hate and tiredness and hopelessness" come from those who don't understand what Equivalence actually says (spelled out in the link above) and, worse, have no interest in understanding what Equivalence actually says.

Re: "I accept all formats"

Absolutely. Equivalence doesn't say anything about one format being better than another. In fact, that point is also explicitly spelled out:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#Q&A

Forget the numbers here & just use your camera within it's ideal parameters. Nobody can deny smaller sensors end up with more 'noise' in the higher ISO range than the larger sensors, but it's the presenting of smaller formats, 'ad nauseam' with "equivalence" particularly MFT & it's just totally tiresome he had to do it again with this lens. He refuses to just show equivalent focal length or equivalent DoF to the 35mm format but insists on showing his 'total equivalence' concept, all the time. It's just not necessary with every product presented.

@ TheTomx

Sorry, but you are mistaken. For a given scene and exposure time, f/5.6 on mFT puts the same total amount of light on the sensor as f/11 on FF.

Most likely, you, like many others, do not understand the difference between exposure and the total amount of light projected on the sensor (to include the role of the ISO setting on the camera) and how those relate to the visual properties of the photo, especially with regards to cross-format comparisons.

It's fine if you don't care, but I would ask that you don't argue against the facts of the matter and to at least understand the facts before expressing disagreement.

@Great Bustard
The most irritating thing though, it was not necessary to be presenting this lens by pushing the 'total equivalence' all the time. Is it? Just the equivalent 35mm format focal length & maybe DoF would have been totally sufficient.
So instead of discussing the value of this lens, for those of us (others) that could afford it we're talking about 'equivalence'. Not ideal, is it?

@ Ross the Fidller

Re: "Just the equivalent 35mm format focal length & maybe DoF would have been totally sufficient."

I would argue that the total amount of light projected on the sensor is every bit as important, except to those that do not care about noise.

Re: "So instead of discussing the value of this lens, for those of us (others) that could afford it we're talking about 'equivalence'. Not ideal, is it?"

Inasmuch as this lens is being compared with options available for FF (or any other format), then Equivalence is a relevant matter to discuss. However, if not relating to another format, then Equivalence would not be of any use.

So, the question is, with regards to Equivalence, is this lens only being discussed relative to other lenses being used on mFT, or is this lens being compared to options in other formats?

@Great Bustard
This will be my last comment on this subject. In his comment below, (as quoted) he refers to it as "while the lens that would offer this capability on FF might sound rather modest" because he keeps wanting to lower the speed (aperture) of the lens with his 'equivalence', being "rather modest".

"Richard Butler
The point I was trying to make is that, while the lens that would offer this capability on FF might sound rather modest, it doesn't exist and he felt this has the reach and weight advantage, regardless."

It's always, nothing can be as good as FF, even though he tries to praise it.
I wonder how excited he gets with MF?

Anyhow, I've made my point & it's wasting everyone's time making anymore comments.

@Great Bustard
The introduction of the E by Richard was not needed. Would anyone having a full frame camera actually consider purchasing this lens...I think not many. In fact, I suspect few full framers would even bother to read the article, I certainly don’t give a hoot what Canon L lens I won’t buy for my Pen F.

@Great Bustard If you are right and i am wrong Mobile Phones are working in F22 so its impossible to get images in low-light but guess what they work fine.

why ? cause they are F1.8 in light. same as M43 in light.

F11 - Can't give you normal light at cloudy day - so based on your insight M43 is useless unless the sun shines...but oops .. you can get fine ISO 200 images with M43. Why F5.6 is F5.6 from light.

Physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics,

Who cares, Sensor moving forward any modern M43 Sensor is better vs 5D MII & 6D FF...

"any modern M43 Sensor is better vs 5D MII & 6D FF"

You obviously don't own either of the cameras you reference. I do, and also m43. Still a big difference.

Equivalence, though.

The only difference is in the fact that the EM1 Mark ll has better dynamic range and noise than the 5 D Mark ll, but not the 6D. The 6D is better than either camera for high iso, not so much for dynamic range though. Interestingly, photo site size has much less effect on noise than it did several years ago. At iso values from the lowest settings to around 400 iso there is little difference between 20-24 mp cameras m4/3 to 35 mm for making larger prints, 20x30 perhaps larger.

This is a 300-800 Lense + 1.25X multi so the Sigma is a toy vs this one.
( I have a feeling that Sigma Weight more)

You all miss one small point - Sensor tech is moving forward.... so you can't use "old" rules while modern sensors don't really align to it. (a modern MFT sensor is much better vs old FF sensors).

TheTomx - almost all new sensors are better than almost all old sensors. But, just like F-number, equivalent aperture doesn't pre-suppose what your sensor does with the light, it only tells you how much light the lens will project onto your sensor (as a whole, rather than per square mm).

The differences between modern sensors are pretty small. So while Canon is still using some chips with comparatively low DR, they are very good at high ISO (and not that bad at low ISO: the DR cutoff doesn't tell you everything about image quality)

@Richard Butler I am Computer Vision engineer - Trust me sensor change everything. check what sensor are doing in Mobile cause according to the "basic" rules (Those are F11-F20) there is no way that a mobile device will be able to take shots at low-light but guess what - they are doing it not bad at all.

DOF can be addressed in many sensors (4D layers for example) and vision techniques without dealing with F. The future is small sensors ... not big ones.

So using a small body with heavy lenses (same as DSLR) won't survive. I assume that M43 or even a smaller format will win in the end. Why ? Cheaper to manufacture and more simple to vision processing. and that's the future.

Olympus btw - realized that that's why they invest more in AI and vision processing.

I think the point is that pixel size make much less of a difference now, as opposed to the area size of the sensor, considering both sensors have similar number of pixels. The difference in the size of the pixels means much less than it did in tje not so distant past, partly attributable to the particular cameras processor and the engineering that goes into it. Olympus engineers are doing this very well, and one could argue, that “for their size” the Olympus sensors are among the best in the business. In real world shooting, at lower iso settings....64-400, maybe 800, there is little difference between 20-24 mp APSC, m4/3 and 35 mm sensors, photos printed to 20X30 for instance.

Well stated. It proves that the vision is the most important factor. And it is refreshing to hear from a real photographer here.

Cause she focused on taking a good shot and not on stupid specs.

Bingo!
My wife and I both shoot m4/3, but she is the one with the “eye”. She likes her E-M1 II because she doesn’t have to worry about all that goofy math, equivalencies, and exposure triangles. Just “see the art through the EVF”. She is the one that brings home the blue ribbons.

It's a pity that a good portion of photographers have trouble understanding the link between number of photons and noise. Maybe we should put a label analogous to NSFW on articles that use the term equivalent aperture to spare them the trauma of being confronted with such concepts.

In the review of the Canon lens, there's a short video that shows exactly what happens.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-ef-200-400mm-4-1p4x/2

Religion is tainted facts. Take the Catholic religion for instance.... You do not want that debate, do you?
You got jwillams point. I think that he makes a good one.

....... well religion doesn't have anything to do with evidence based facts does it? I was led to believe it was a faith.

Dave C 150,
Faith is a part of every person's life. Do you believe the scientist? Have you duplicated his tests to prove them for yourself? If not, you are taking his science by faith, because you believe in him.

When you go to a doctor, you look at the diploma on his wall and, by faith, allow him to diagnose and treat you, based on a written document.

Religion is a system of beliefs that govern one's behavior. Whether based on ancient writings, or scientific methods, or prevailing political thought, if one holds to a certain core set of values and gathers together with other like-minded persons to celebrate and participate in the tenants of those values, one might say it is a form of "religion."

If you are saying that religion must be based around the belief in God, I would ask you to examine the written and spoken testimonies of witnesses to those beliefs in question. Not all truth is established by "fact." And, we have all seen facts manipulated to distort the truth, haven't we?

Sure, but religion relies on beliefs that cannot be verified, while in science everything that is asked of others to believe can and has be verified.

We are discussing religion in the comments section of a lens review?

What is wrong with you people.

TEdolph

So, for a theorem to become a Law, it has to make predictions which come to be true, and the experiment must be repeatable, true?

So, evolution of species has been proven in petri dishes and the results are repeatable. So, evolution applied within a species is really a Law. The reason Evolution between species is a theory, is that we have not been able to jump species in the lab. That is why it is not a Law.

I see that you can not explain the Hybrid Pi model and thus did not take Circuits II as a sophomore.

Hmmmm....

Where did you get your BSEE from?

TEdolph

@Lee Jay,

You sir are incorrect.

Lots of theories have become laws.

Galelio's theory that horizontal and vertical motion are independent is now a Law of Motion, Newton's Law of Gravitational attraction was a theory until the gravitational constant was calculated by Cavendish. Copernicus Heliocentric theory became Kepler's Law of Planetary Motion.

I could go on and on. Every Law of Nature started as a postulate, then a hypothesis, then a Theory, and eventually a Law.

For someone wth a BSEEE and an MSEE you are surprisingly ignorant of the scientific method.

None of the above has anything to do Creationism so I have no idea why you are bringing it up

One more time: where did you get your BSEE from?

TEdolph

In the early days of crop sensors it made sense to use a yardstick like 35mm format equivalence, since the presumption was that most people would be able to visualise an angle of view based on a 35mm format focal length. But how quickly does offering both figures become a cumbersome relic? How long did it take ASA ratings to replace DIN? how many distance scales still have to show feet as well as metres? why is your car's engine still rated in horsepower?. I've got an idea... lets start quoting angle of view in radians.

"In photography, the 35 mm equivalent focal length is a measure that indicates the angle of view of a particular combination of a camera lens and film or sensor size."
Suggested "equivalent to a 300mm mFT lens" - usless piece of information.

"And does anyone make a sharp 800mm FF lens (any aperture) for under $10,000?"

Canon 400 4.0 DO + 2x TC costs about $7.000 and is reported to be very sharp.
Canon 400 5.6 + 2x TC costs less than $2.000
Canon 100-400 +2x TC costs about $2.500 and is reported to be sharp: http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/146492

How is it biased to explain the spec on a common basis and point out that this is the only lens to offer that combination of size, weight and capability?

The point I was trying to make is that there's little point getting hung-up on what FF lens would behave like this because no such option exists!

Stefan: Good point, well made...

Anyways, why is this equivalence business doin' me head in?

Because, for anyone with a reasonable knowledge of how photography works, it doesn't serve any purpose at all. But possibly I've now excluded 80% of DPR's reader base.

Course it serves a purpose.
There has to be a yardstick by which a lens's reach and field of view can be judged, whether it's a phone, video camera, compact camera, whatever - and that yardstick is 35mm film, which of course is FF.
If 110 film had been the accepted norm in film days then that would be the yard stick.

StefanD, that was a good pun, but I’ll come back with mine.
Cropped sensor users are “more focussed”. 🤓

The point I was trying to make is that, while the lens that would offer this capability on FF might sound rather modest, it doesn't exist and he felt this has the reach and weight advantage, regardless.

Equivalence doesn't dictate what's better (less stil what's better for you), it just states the spec on a common, per-image basis.

"The focal length point is valid, but the aperture....... really?" – Yes, really.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

It's funny that people still think there was anything wrong with it, even after dpreview has for some time now been putting those relationships to good use in their compact camera comparisons, too. It's the only possible way to truthfully and honestly compare lenses and what they can do across sensor sizes.

"There has to be a yardstick by which a lens's reach and field of view can be judged, whether it's a phone, video camera, compact camera, whatever - and that yardstick is 35mm film, which of course is FF."

Well, I would personally prefer not a "yardstick" but a "meterstick", but unfortunately the "wrong" format is still in use. It is interesting, that it is reach and field of view that are mentioned - and here I totally agree that those are the major parameters one thinks about when composing a picture. How many photons per area and DOF issues are secondary. Also, while, say 50 mm lens is always 50, but without its image diagonal the number does not tell anything.

Waiting on your example.

Cannot find the exact size and weight of the Olympus, but my guess is that a Canon 100-400 with 2x is both smaller and lighter. And probably cheaper.
The Sigma 150-600 comes close too, especially if you consider that you can crop a bit further to get to 20MP.

When you consider, that a MFT sensor produces approximately 2x times more noise than a ff sensor so yes this is in every way a f9 (or f11 with extender) lens.
Tony Northrup explains is for you. I'm out.

@dpfan32
You're not out. You've just jumped in hands & feet. Another biased "M4/3's is Dead" TN with a biased opinion not worth listening to.
Sure a larger sensor (with larger pixels) have an ISO advantage but not as you have coloured it!
For one, how many 35mm format lenses can be used 'wide open'? I keep hearing of lenses having to be stopped down for suitable sharpness, & we are specifically talking about telezooms here.
Dong!!!!!! There goes that advantage.
Olympus design their lenses so they can be used wide open with excellent sharpness.

@StefanD
Sorry, I was sarcastically quoting Richard's idea of MFT's F4.5 & 5.6. The advantage for MFT is having sufficient DoF being " F9 or F11 equivalent" when displaying an image at the same size to that of one from a 35mm format system (with the same angle of view). Too often an image can be too shallow in DoF.

I can't add 'depth-if-field' because that would be false and misleading.

Images shot with equivalent settings have more in common than not (and certainly more in common than images shot at the 'same exposure').

If you need the depth of field that an F9 (or F11 with TC) lens would give on FF, then this is ideal because such a lens simply isn't available so you'd need to spend more and carry more weight just to get something additional that you didn't need.

Which, if you understand the trade-off of your system (and all systems are a series of trade-offs), you wouldn't mind, since this is simply that trade off, for better, as well as worse, being spelled out.

@Ross the Fiddler

Re: "This is where the FF biases are just seen for what they are, a bias. In other words, it was a put down of the format it was designed for."

That's simply a statement of your ignorance about what Equivalence actually says. If you actually understood what Equivalence said, you would understand that it doesn't favor any format over another, and, in fact, explicitly states that fact.

Actually, the bias is in denying the fact that 400mm f/5.6 1/1000 ISO 400 on mFT is *equivalent to* (as opposed to "equal to") 800mm f/11 1/1000 ISO 1600 on FF.

This is simple non-sense! fx on MFT is same fx on FF, ISOx on MFT is same ISOx on FF, shutter speed x on MFT is same shutter speed on FF!!!!!!!!!!!!
DoF and FoV are different. There is no such thing or term as equivalence! In this world there is no equivalence but there is good tool for the job! So you can choose tool for your job if you know how this tool works. There are terms DoF and FoV already used and introduced years ago.

Richard: In your car example: the speedometer will also not tell you how much space there is to the car, how comfy the seats are, and 192990233 other things. My point is that this is that designing a product IS a multi-objective optimisation and the designer makes a decision on what to prioritised.

In case of this lens, the designers went for reach and constant aperture. Sure, it is f/9 in terms of DoF*, but that doesn't matter for this type of usage. At 450 (or 900 if it makes you feel more comfy), you probably care more about getting sharp photos by having a fast shutter speed. For that, the aperture in the exposure triangle is f/4.5.

*technically, the reason that the DoF is different is because its actual FL is a 150-400mm; at 150mm gives you the same DoF as a 35mm-sensor f/4.5 lens at 150mm. However, as the FoV is different, it just makes confuses people and makes it easier to say "300mm f/9" for FoV & DoF. See: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#dof

Richard: thanks for responding, but my question was simple enough and only related to exposure and ‘amount’ of light.

In absolute terms a bigger sensor will capture more light at the same exposure because it’s well, bigger. In relative terms the amount of light will be the same across different sensor formats.

Athonline: exactly.

the way dpreview reports on the equivalence matter is tailored to a certain demographic. i call them the "i can't compose, so i need maximum bokeh to make my images still look cool somehow"-crowd.

well, originally it had to be invented by journalists and wedding photographers that quite often can not control their shooting environment. then this "professional" look was copied by unknowning amateurs and declared the de-facto standard. dpreview just caters to this strong uneducated mass.

while we have to accept that everyone of us is mostly uneducated in most fields, spreading knowledge only from a single vantage point is something different. it's propaganda.

just ignore it, and take pictures. =)

I saw this article in the news section of DP Review, with over 200 comments.
I wonder how much it will cost. I guess it's intended for professional photographers and wealthy amateur wildlife enthusiast photographers.

@GRUBERND as an academic, I find it hard to "ignore" misinformation or biased one-sided reporting. Especially, when it comes from the leading site in the field… but it is true that maybe we should all spend more time taking pictures than arguing online about that extra stop of ISO or DR....

@FoPar: It is definitely aimed for professional or very serious semi-professional wildlife photographers. Probably a good companion to the E-M1X. For the rest of us, the Panasonic 100-400mm or the Olympus 300mm (with a TC) should do! ;-)

@Athonline
As someone that deals in some retail (musical) products I find it disturbing & a little close to some unscrupulous sales people (or worse, politicians) with twisted misinformation.

Michael953 - if you acknowledge that there are absolute and relative ways to look at a problem, why are you demanding that no one should ever discuss the absolute perspective (which is relevant at the image level, unless you believe all Micro Four Thirds users should only be allowed to print and view their images at 1/4 the size full frame shooters do).

It's not biased, it's simply re-stating the spec on a normalized basis. It isn't a value judgement. It doesn't say which it better (much less what it better for you and your photography). It doesn't say or imply that full frame is better.

The words in this article literally point out that you cannot buy a FF lens that offers the reach, weight and size that this one does. But that is the result of a trade-off and that trade-off is how much light your image as a whole gets.

Richard: I'm not demanding anyting; why should I.

But first of all, this whole equivalence thing has turned into an unnecessarily confusing circus. It doesn't help at all in understanding the basics of what differentiates different sensor formats. That's why it's doin' me head in.

Second, annoyingly, even in your valued contributions, objective observations get adorned with subjective qualifications. Just explain how it works, not why it's better or worse (in your view). That's for at least another paragraph.

And yes, a bigger sensor receiving the same amount of light (aperture, shutterspeed) per square mm as a smaller sensor will have more potential for enlarging the resulting image. It;s only natural. Whether that's important is for another day.

Richard.. By now you should get the idea that introducing that useless equivalence stuff doesn’t do anything but detract from your article. Nobody that is interested in what this lens is compared to their FF lenses would be remotely interested in buying it anyway.

@Goodmeme
There is nothing wrong "talking about in terms of viewing angle and depth of field?" What is wrong is calling the F4.5 lens F9 applying to exposure with the following statement, "While it's easy to point out that it's an F9 or F11 equivalent," as if it applies to exposure (as well as DoF). That part is just tiresome.

FF is only a standard for Fool Framers when so deeply stuck in a bias like that.

Wow. What was the standard before 135? Before roll film? Before sheet film? In 1968 we did not spend time doing useless equivalent comparisons between the myriad of formats in use at the time. And the reason that 135 caught on so well was because of its affordability (equipment and processing), its portability (try hiking or shooting a wedding with a Graflex), and it's greater depth of field (a big advantage in that day as it is today). Choices are a wonderful thing.

@lili23:
Since the vast majority of DSLRs and (I believe) mirrorless cameras (if we put those two body kinds in the same basket so to speak) are in the APS-C format, then THAT must be the "standard" to refer to, today. By your logic, Shouldn´t it?

I could get used to just horizontal or diagonal angle of view, say, 40-50 degrees for a normal lens, 90-110 for a wide-angle one, irrespective of the format used.

Ross the fidler/ Too bad. All brands calculate the focal length for 35mm FF for a long time.

revio/ Majority does not matter. 35mm was the standard since Leica developed a camera with 35mm film.

If you dont calculate all focal lengths to FF, how will you going to know the real perspective and angle? YOU WONT. This is why we have a standard to unify in order to not to confuse about it.

Then what is 75mm? Huh? For FF, 4x5, APSC, or medium format? You see, without the standard, you wont gonna know. Be aware that the 35mm format was created since late 1880.

Theogrem/ They dont have any good sports cameras at all.

And most important thing is that:

ALL lenses are base on the FF focal length!

Yes, it is the standard believe it or not. For example, a 100mm lens for APSC is still 100mm on FF. But in APSC, it has 150mm perspective. 12-50mm for MFT is still 12-50mm on FF too. Yes, you will see a big black hole since those lenses were not meant for FF.

Gosh, I cant believe that people dont know about these facts. No matter what you say, all lenses we see today are FF focal length. You just need to calculate it base on the sensor size.

lili23 Just now I saw one of your posts above claiming:
"If you dont calculate all focal lengths to FF, how will you going to know the real perspective and angle? YOU WONT."
Seems like you have no education even in basic math. Do you know we can measure angles long before cameras were invented? Please educate yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_(angle)

Majority in cameras in the world today have no FF sized sensors so comparing with them is useless! This trend will continue so soon only bunch of people will care much for FF FoV and DoF.

Video-vs-photo/ Too bad. All crop factors are base on 35mm FF. Did I even mention Cinema for angles? Stop judging someone with a lack of information. All focal lengths are base on 35mm FF or just lens angle. Yes, most of them are not FF sensor BUT the focal lengths are base on 35mm focal length. Is it hard to understand?

Back to the topic, using crop factor or equivalent is totally normal and necessary. Why dont you tell me which lenses dont use 35mm focal length standard? Even C mount lenses use it. If you can believe it, mount every single lens on 35mm FF camera. The focal length that all lenses have are exactly 35mm FF focal length.

lili23 Could please explain what is crop factor? And how exactly focal length is BASE on 35mm?
And do you really know what is the size of Super 35mm?
Up to the moment you demonstrate total ignorance and lack of knowledge!

Video-vs-photo/

Gosh, do I have to explain this again?

25mm F1.4 for MFT sensor is exactly 25mm F1.4 on 35mm FF.
200mm F4 for Medium format is exactly 200mm F4 on 35mm FF.
75mm F5.6 for Large format is exactly 75mm F5.6 on 35mm FF.
35mm F1,4 for APSC is exactly 35mm F1.4 on 35mm FF.

iPhone, cameras with a smaller sensor, and different sensor size like super 35mm use 35mm FF focal length standard. This is how equivalents and crop factor exist.

I'm saying that 35mm FF with 36X24 is the standard for all lenses and sensors. You will know this by adapting those lenses on 35mm FF camera. Of course, the heavy vignetting will happen because some lenses dont support 35mm FF size sensor.

With a crop factor, you can get a real perspective and angle which will be calculated to 35mm FF focal length.

All those numbers for focal length are base on 35mm FF with 36X24. No matter how big and small sensors they use. Like I said, if you cant believe it try adapting those lenses on 35mm FF and you will exactly get 25mm focal length from 25mm F1.4 Micro 4/3 lens.

Video-vs-photo/ I guess you just trolled here.

I’m guessing you’ve never shot in the conditions you mention with the newest Olympus or LUMIX? Full frame hype is just that and borders on brain washing.

You understand that a lot of best selling photo books of the genre (wild animals) were shot on Velvia... 50 ISO. That was pure magic, right. Sometimes the conditions were so difficult that they had to go crazy and get out the fast films like 200 ISO.

@danieljcox, with the latest improvements in the FF sensors (Sony MK3 bodies, Nikon Z series), you can shoot in unbelievably low light with little to non-existent noise, with very acceptable dynamic range (See https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=olympus_em1ii&attr13_1=olympus_em1x&attr13_2=nikon_z6&attr13_3=sony_a7iii&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.12339850860196114&y=-0.9640090921011962 ). So, physics is physics & there is no hype.

@eugene1979 OTOH, a m43 system is perfectly capable in stadium lighting or in forest. In daylight, where most shots are taken, even the most shady places are well in to territory of m43 systems. So, this is not useless glass, but a very clever and interesting move indeed.

Lots of videos prove that m43 can deliver in nature. No need to bash m43.

What total nonsense.

No true. Not all wildlife photos are running or flying animals. Very often the subject is fairly static. Shutter speeds of 1/100 and below are often used with long lenses. Micro 43 might be not the best choice for low light wildlife photography but it's very good for many situations with decent light.

@eugene1979
Please tell me you don't actually believe that?
I'll educate you a little here. Only a fast lens will allow a fast shutter speed or else a higher ISO is needed. Actually, not all teleshots require a fast shutter if the subject is stationary in lower light when there is an excellent Image Stabilisation possible with Sync IS (body & lens combined) as it gives up to 7.5 stops of stabilisation, but of course, if you want to carry an 800mm (or 1000mm) f2.8 lens on a heavy FF body, then go for it. You'll obviously need to carry a heavy tripod too though.

Lol. It still gathers light at f4. 5. But your comment explains why youre still stuck lugging GIGANTIC FF systems around. Someday maybe itll all make sense.

It's not a "stupid comment". The FF equivalent is, of course, useful to those who use FF or think in terms of FF (which is why, I'm sure, RB gave the FF equivalent). However, many people only use mFT, thus the equivalent in another format is irrelevant for them.

Equivalence isn't for using it on FF, but for comparing it with FF alternatives or the lack of them.

Ridiculous comment. FF is a standart, not m43.

Great Bustard. Irrelevant for mFT users so it shouldn't be there ? Just because they don't need it ? Have you even think about it before commenting ?

Exactly.

Who decided that FF is a standard ?
Who really cares about that anyway ?
i f you need a m43, buy it, if yours needs speak for a Ff buy it. Many professionals have both , or only Ff , or only m43, depending on their kind of job. Discussing about « standard » or « equivalence » is totally useless un,ess you talk about your real needs according to the type of photography .

@cyberphi:

FF a standard, well, yes, but not "THE" standard!! That may be APS-C from sales numbers of DSLR/IRLC bodies, by the way. They (including m43 or not) FAR outsells FF, and it will take some time before that may change.

And, to inform you:
m43 is de facto a standard, too. Just another one but a standard it sure is!

Here we go again ... m4/3 lives matter ... Jeez, all standards matter, and we need equivalence to be able to compare them properly. If there was a FF lens in question, then we could say that its m4/3 equivalent is something/something. You are blowing it out of proportions.

Troll-party...
FF equivalence - is a standart. Go and check specs for any lens or ever 1/2.3” compact camera. There will be FF equivalent in mm. Ask yourself a question- why? And google the answer if you don’t know the answer.

The real idiot is the one buying this lens without an idea of its FOV.

DPR shows 5 slides and have to compare it three times to FF but don't mention useful things like the Arca tripod foot.

The thing is equivalence is irrelevant except for debating on forums. I guess that's why DPR keeps mentioning it. Some people remind me of the guy who insisted a beginner with an APS camera needed to learn about crop factor because "FF was standard" when it was completely irrelevant to them. It's irrelevant to m43 users and the first thing you learn when switching to m43 is the crop factor. Are people so stupid that they need to be reminded three times how it compares to FF?

you are correct, but so many don’t seem to comprehend that, it’s frustratimg to attempt to get people to work that out in their heads! All things being equal, micro four thirds will always be two stops less iso (400 vs 1600 for example) for the same photograph, same dof, same shutter speed and with a lens half the focal lengths...exactly the same framing. So there is really no iso advantage to using a 35 mm camera over m4/3..except for when you need to go below the lowest aperatures setting...2.8 or 1.4 etc...

It's worth pointing out then that the only (more or less) equivalent lenses would be the big Nikkor, Sigma and Tamron zooms on a D500 or a 7DII, or the enormous Sigma 300-800mm on a full frame camera. When it comes to portability and build quality, this lens seems to sail circles around the above mentioned, which is what makes it so interesting. There's simply no equal. One can talk about equivalence and light gathering till the cows come home, but after 10 years with MFT, I've found that there's no reason to worry. If the viewfinder and AF of the E-M1X meet the expectations, this will be a fantastic, unique combo.

Why on earth should he? FF is a standart, not m43. Equivalence needed to be mentioned to understand how wide/tele this lens is.
Equivalence is in every lens article, even for meduim format lens.
It looks like mentioning FF just hurts your m43 user feelings. Sorry, but no one cares about it.

Richard: there’s no effect on the aperture. Aperture is aperture, shutterspeed is shutterspeed, ISO is ISO.

Richard, then PLEASE start reporting lenses in angle-of-view and drop the focal length.

it's 6.6° to 2.5° horizontal in case you don't have the formulas handy. ;-)

@Cyberpi1 Why do you think micro4/3 is not a standard? Do you think the micro 4/3 camera manufacturers make the sensors the size they wish, with no regards to euh... the micro 4/3 standard?

"Why on earth should he? FF is a standart, not m43."

Wrong. 35mm is the 'standard' by which we define the reach of a lens (the first criteria when we choose a lens), and that comes from film days.
If FF sensors were 30 by 20 mm would it be a 'standard' ? I don't think so.

GRUBERND wrote: "Richard, then PLEASE start reporting lenses in angle-of-view and drop the focal length."

That's a great idea! And then please also report the aperture in mm instead of its size relative to the focal length.

Equivalence is only theoretical. Usually it predicts close to real world results other times it does not.

Look at two fast FPS cameras.
The EM1/2 has a out 1 full EV more DR at ISO200 than the A9 at IS0800. Both at ISO200 yield near equal DR.
This depsite what equivalence predicts.
Of course most other times equivalence does a better job.

As for exposure, a small piece of film and large sheet of film expose equally in the same light. Same goes with sensors.

No, exposure is more important than focal length. I can crop an image that is too wide, but I can't fix an incorrectly exposed image nearly as well.

"Same amount of light on the sensor" is your difference. Who cares? The important thing, which you didn't really address, is that you want a correctly exposed photo. And you get that at the same aperture regardless of sensor size.

Re: "Equivalence is only theoretical."

So is Relativity. So is Quantum Field Theory. So is Evolution. Etc., etc., etc.. Like the other theories, it correctly predicts results.

As for your DR example, aside from other problems with it, even two cameras from the same format do not necessarily have the same DR (or noise, or resolution, or ...) yet a Canon 50 / 1.4 on a Canon 6D is still equivalent to a Sigma 50 / 1.4A on a Nikon D850. People fail to understand what Equivalence actually says:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60356894

and then try to dismiss it as "just a theory".

Re: "'Same amount of light on the sensor' is your difference. Who cares?"

Anyone who cares about noise.

Re: "The important thing, which you didn't really address, is that you want a correctly exposed photo. And you get that at the same aperture regardless of sensor size."

If f/5.6 1/1000 ISO 400 on mFT is "correctly exposed", why wouldn't f/11 1/1000 ISO 1600 on FF also be "correctly exposed"?

There was no deflection, nor did Equivalence "fail" -- Equivalence does not guarantee the same DR between formats for Equivalent settings, just as it does not do so for resolution, noise, bokeh, color, flare, etc., etc., etc., as I explicitly stated and as was explicitly stated in the provided link.

As I said, it is people who fail to bother understanding what Equivalence actually says who attempt to dismiss it as "just a theory".

That said, if your DR example is based on the charts from photonstophotons, well, there's another misunderstanding that you might want to clear up -- best to start a thread on it in Open Talk or the PST forum.

I agree. That’s not always the case though.

Let’s not forget that IQ and DR going to be identical for an Oly at 200 ISO vs a Sony at 800ISO.

For sure shutter speeds and freezing action are a factor but with 7 stops of IBIS with a 1X you can stay at lower ISO for much longer than you can with a Sony.

For some subjects that can be a major factor, for others less so.

But it reminds us that the automatic assumption that FF is better is plain wrong.

As a dual m43 and FF user I can see this every day.

All this conversation about equivalence is telling me is that I absolutely do not want to not want to be shut in a room or at a dinner party with some of the people in this thread.

For me photography is a creative medium and I’ll use m43, FF or even MF if it gives me what I want.

For some people it’s a nerd fest by people who seem to forget the purpose of a camera in the first place.

Sometimes DPR is a sad boys locker room. Where is the art guys? Where is the joy in making images ?

Relative is the key word here.

If you really want a high quality 1000 mm equivalent, this lens is probably going to be relatively small and lightweight.

I write probably, because nobody really knows how large and heavy the final product will be.

Yes and sometimes you could take pictures not possible with any other camera and lens combo.

For example, you can put 20mp on 1000mm. IBIS of 7 stops should allow you to keep the ISO down for some shots.

The 7 stops of IBIS is impressive, for sure. But I'd shy away from saying "you could take pictures not possible with any other camera and lens combo" when other systems can use a tripod or monopod with an additional 5 stops of ILIS for static scenes and/or scenes where motion blur is either desirable or a non-issue.

Not hand held though. That’s the biggest point.

You can get pretty close on a Sony 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter and a Sony APS-C body - 840mm out at 24mp. If you crop to match at 20mp, then it's really only 924mm vs 1000mm here.

Ha... 1000mm at F11. What a low light nightmare... IBIS or not. F8 is bad enough. Not impressed.

@dgumshu For low light shooting it's f/5.6 with iTC engaged, not f/11, and f/4.5 with iTC not engaged.

Anyway, low light shooting of high action with super-tele lenses is asking for all sorts of trouble.

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to the better options that exist for hand-held shooting at 1000mm.

Don’t forget this is f5.6 with the TC at 1000mm. NOT f11- the DOF equivalence is F11 but you still have light gathering at f5.6.

Don’t forget you have 7 stops of IBIS - hence why according to my math this lens on an EM1X is a unique combination that no FF can get close to.

but you can't use IBIS to help in every situation, if you need higher shutter speeds to freeze the action it's useless