EPl-2 review

TEBnewyork · Feb 12, 2011

There is an issue with m4/3 and that is the two companies making bodies have gone in different directions. It is easier to use Panasonic lenses on and Oly body than Oly lenses on a Panasonic body strictly because of the IBIS vs OIS.

So, it isn't so simple to put together a system of Oly gear and then a year from now if there is an interesting Panny body to swap over. So, buy carefully.
--
terry
My picture a day site
http://blipfoto.com/terryb
General photos
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/

bunfoolio · Feb 12, 2011

Andy Westlake said:
Kikl said:

simpy said:

Andrew Westlake said:

What do you consider to be an open standard? My interpretation is that the specification is published and may be adopted by any third party. This is the case for micro four thirds.

Click to expand...

I don't see any link on that page to the specification of the standard, or any indication that it is accessible without becoming a consortium member. Presumably for a fee and with conditions attached.

Click to expand...

Well, then read closely, the white paper of the m43 standard is published and freely available.

Click to expand...

I think it's difficult to argue that the information provided in the white paper you linked to is sufficient to produce a working micro four thirds lens, for which you need the full engineering spec and communication protocols. Maybe I missed that bit.

The fundamental point to this discussion, though, is that there's no substantive difference in this regard between Micro Four Thirds and Sony E-mount. The third party lens makers can obtain the specifications for each, so as to design compatible lenses without having to reverse-engineer everything first. So this does not count as a specific advantage for Micro Four Thirds.

--
Andy Westlake
dpreview.com

Link below from the official M4/3 website stating this is an open standard

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/contact/faq.html

bunfoolio · Feb 12, 2011

I just found out what you are talikng about. Your price is right. However for $299 i would use the less expensive lens.

drwho9437 · Feb 12, 2011

The lens system is smaller but it is not less expensive on the whole than APC lens options.

35mm on Nikon/Canon is about what the 20 mm costs
9-18 is similar in cost to a 10-22
45 macro costs more than a 100 mm f2.8 macro on FF/APS (Canon)

etc.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbryce/

Joele · Feb 12, 2011

MY PRICES BASED ON BHPHOTO

drwho9437 said:
The lens system is smaller but it is not less expensive on the whole than APC lens options.

smaller and lighter is very important to me, YMMV..

drwho9437 said:
35mm on Nikon/Canon is about what the 20 mm costs

But the 20/1.7 kills the 35/2 or 28/1.8 on Canon in terms of optical quality in my experience (having owned all three) so they are not directly comparable.. The Nikon 35/1.8 is a better (my wife has it) but I still think the 20/1.7 steps ahead in across the frame resolution (esp wide open), not to take anything from the Nikon 35/1.8 it is a true bargain and much better than the Canon options I owned..

drwho9437 said:
9-18 is similar in cost to a 10-22

Olympus 9-18mm = $570
Canon 10-22mm = $820
Nikon 12-24mm = $899

My wallet would certainly feel that price difference..

drwho9437 said:
45 macro costs more than a 100 mm f2.8 macro on FF/APS (Canon)

Overpriced Panasonic 45mm OIS macro = $735
Canon 100mm f2.8 IS macro = $996

$250 price difference and a massive size and weight difference but I still agree the 45mm macro is a little overpriced, we'll see if the Oly and Sigma competition brings it down by say $100 where I think I would buy it ;-)

------------
Joel - Pana G2, 14-45, 20/1.7, 45-200, K-A 50/1.2, CV 75/2.5, Oly 9-18
My Gallery: http://www.eisner.id.au

Andrew Westlake · Feb 13, 2011

bunfoolio said:
Link below from the official M4/3 website stating this is an open standard

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/contact/faq.html

That particular page refers specifically to Four Thirds, and pre-dates Micro Four Thirds, when the language subtly changed.

Two things matter here, really. Firstly, you have to decide what you think the term 'open standard' means. The commonly accepted definition is a standard for which the specification is publicly published in full, and anyone can use it with no further conditions or fee. In photography, a good example is Adobe's DNG raw specification - you can download a document from their website which describes it in full, and in principle anyone could use this information to make a camera or raw converter support it completely.

This isn't quite the case with Micro Four Thirds. If a manufacturer wants to make a lens and brand it 'Micro Four Thirds' using the official logo, they have to join the consortium and sign an agreement. The American company Noktor found this out very quickly when the screwed a Micro Four Thirds mount onto the end of a CCTV lens - they started out with the logo on their page and very quickly removed it.

However, a number of manufacturers have joined the consortium and announced their intent to make lenses, including Sigma, Carl Zeiss, and Cosina. This means that all of their lenses will be fully compatible with the system and should bring no unpleasant surprises at all.

Secondly, and crucially, what matters isn't the semantics of the statements, but the outcome for the consumer. Here Sony's approach of releasing the specifications of the E-mount to manufacturers who request it is essentially indistinguishable. Chances are you'll eventually be able to buy essentially the same Sigma lens for either mount, and it will work equally well on both (in terms of physical operation at least).

In fact, arguably the the only significant difference at the moment is that Tamron has endorsed Sony's decision, but not joined the Four Thirds consortium. It would make no sense at all to choose Sony based on this one fact alone, though.
--
Andy Westlake
dpreview.com

TrojMacReady · Feb 13, 2011

bunfoolio said:
I just found out what you are talikng about. Your price is right. However for $299 i would use the less expensive lens.

But in comparison you wouldn't have any wideangle to speak of...

Kikl · Feb 13, 2011

Andy Westlake said:
bunfoolio said:

Link below from the official M4/3 website stating this is an open standard

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/contact/faq.html

Click to expand...

That particular page refers specifically to Four Thirds, and pre-dates Micro Four Thirds, when the language subtly changed.

Two things matter here, really. Firstly, you have to decide what you think the term 'open standard' means. The commonly accepted definition is a standard for which the specification is publicly published in full, and anyone can use it with no further conditions or fee. In photography, a good example is Adobe's DNG raw specification - you can download a document from their website which describes it in full, and in principle anyone could use this information to make a camera or raw converter support it completely.

This isn't quite the case with Micro Four Thirds. If a manufacturer wants to make a lens and brand it 'Micro Four Thirds' using the official logo, they have to join the consortium and sign an agreement. The American company Noktor found this out very quickly when the screwed a Micro Four Thirds mount onto the end of a CCTV lens - they started out with the logo on their page and very quickly removed it.

Open standard does not mean that you are allowed to use a particular trademark, for example "micro four thirds". A trademark is not part of a technical standard. The trademark or branding aspect is not part of the common definition of an open standard. Therefore, m43 need not license their trademark in order to be an open standard. That does not prohibit third party manufacturers from providing compatible products. Anyone can use the standard with no conditions or fees.

First you dismiss an open standard as essentially meaningless, but later on you talk about the open E-Mount standard as significant. Strange argument! Please note that this standard has not been published yet and that all other DSLR mounts are proprietary. It does make a difference to the consumer whether he is investing in an open standard or into a proprietary product.

For example many people prefer to buy PCs - because it is an open standard - over MACs - because it is essentially closed. Many people don't want to be tied to a single company for a considerable period of time because they feel this is a sure path to being ripped off. To say that this is not significant when starting to invest in a camera system - well - I find this notion incomprehensible.

The only reason why sony is going to publish the e-mount standard is the competition from m43. They need to in order to create a competitive line of products fast.

SteB · Feb 13, 2011

Andy Westlake said:
bunfoolio said:

Link below from the official M4/3 website stating this is an open standard

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/contact/faq.html

Click to expand...

That particular page refers specifically to Four Thirds, and pre-dates Micro Four Thirds, when the language subtly changed.

Two things matter here, really. Firstly, you have to decide what you think the term 'open standard' means. The commonly accepted definition is a standard for which the specification is publicly published in full, and anyone can use it with no further conditions or fee. In photography, a good example is Adobe's DNG raw specification - you can download a document from their website which describes it in full, and in principle anyone could use this information to make a camera or raw converter support it completely.

This isn't quite the case with Micro Four Thirds. If a manufacturer wants to make a lens and brand it 'Micro Four Thirds' using the official logo, they have to join the consortium and sign an agreement. The American company Noktor found this out very quickly when the screwed a Micro Four Thirds mount onto the end of a CCTV lens - they started out with the logo on their page and very quickly removed it.

However, a number of manufacturers have joined the consortium and announced their intent to make lenses, including Sigma, Carl Zeiss, and Cosina. This means that all of their lenses will be fully compatible with the system and should bring no unpleasant surprises at all.

Secondly, and crucially, what matters isn't the semantics of the statements, but the outcome for the consumer. Here Sony's approach of releasing the specifications of the E-mount to manufacturers who request it is essentially indistinguishable. Chances are you'll eventually be able to buy essentially the same Sigma lens for either mount, and it will work equally well on both (in terms of physical operation at least).

In fact, arguably the the only significant difference at the moment is that Tamron has endorsed Sony's decision, but not joined the Four Thirds consortium. It would make no sense at all to choose Sony based on this one fact alone, though.
--
Andy Westlake
dpreview.com

I remember not long after m4/3 was announced, and if I remember rightly before any camera was announced that there was clarification on this. Without doing a search I think it was in the BJP. Basically it said the m4/3 agreement was different to 4/3 and not a truly open standard as with 4/3 i.e. it was entry by invitation only.

Doesn't Sony have a stake in Tamron?

Andy Crowe · Feb 13, 2011

bunfoolio said:
Point 1

I think our definition of an open standard is different. Open standard means Plug and Play to me. This concept can not apply to Cannon, Nikon, sony or any of thier third party lens makers. All M4/3 lens and bodies are plug and play. Being an outsider this is good for the consumer and if the concpet cathes on can change this industry. Look what the PC did for computers.

That's a bit of a funny definition of an open standard. An open standard generally means the full specification is available to anyone for free. I believe with Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds you have to sign up to the consortium and pay a licensing fee before you can see the specification, which means it's not really an open standard.

I'd call it more of a shared standard. Panasonic and Olympus are being more open about it than Canon and Nikon, but it's still not a true open standard.

Andy Crowe · Feb 13, 2011

Open standard generally means that the specification is available for free and can be implemented without paying a licence fee.

You can still reverse engineer it and create a compatible product without licensing, but to get the mount specifications (such as electronic communication protocol) you have to join the Micro Four Thirds consortium.

If you want to show that Micro Four Thirds is an open standard then show us the full mount specification including physical dimensions and lens communication protocol

Kikl said:
Open standard does not mean that you are allowed to use a particular trademark, for example "micro four thirds". A trademark is not part of a technical standard. The trademark or branding aspect is not part of the common definition of an open standard. Therefore, m43 need not license their trademark in order to be an open standard. That does not prohibit third party manufacturers from providing compatible products. Anyone can use the standard with no conditions or fees.

Kikl · Feb 13, 2011

Andy Crowe said:
Open standard generally means that the specification is available for free and can be implemented without paying a licence fee.

You can still reverse engineer it and create a compatible product without licensing, but to get the mount specifications (such as electronic communication protocol) you have to join the Micro Four Thirds consortium.

If you want to show that Micro Four Thirds is an open standard then show us the full mount specification including physical dimensions and lens communication protocol

Well, the specification can be had for free and no licence fees must be payed.

"What is the Four Thirds System standard?

It is an open standard for the design of lenses for use in digital SLR cameras with 4/3-type image sensors, including definitions of the suitable mount size, image circle and the interface between the lens and body."

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/contact/faq.html

Cosina didn't have to pay for producing m43 compatible lenses? They were only asked not to infringe trademark rights, ups, ... Clear indication that you must not pay for distributing m43 compatible products.

If you want to prove that is a non-open standard then prove to us that a licence fee must be payed for producing 43-compliant products;-)

noirdesir · Feb 13, 2011

Andy Westlake said:
'At this point, Micro Four Thirds is beginning to lose its size advantage over conventional APS-C SLRs. Below we see the GH2 / 100-300mm combination alongside a Canon EOS 550D plus 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM lens. Of course these have rather different capabilities the Panasonic setup has longer 'reach' - but in terms of portability there's not a lot in it.

And BTW, the 14-140 mm lens is larger than 18-55 mm lenses for DX. This clearly shows that m43 has larger lenses, though the m43 lens as a longer reach. A flawed comparison does not get any less flawed by typing the admission that is flawed in bold letters.

If you want to compare apple to apples compare:

14-42 mm vs. 18-55 mm (Nikon), 112 g vs. 256 g, 50 mm vs. 79 (105) mm
40-150 mm vs. 55-200 mm (Nikon), 190 g vs. 335 g, 83 mm vs. 79.5 (105) mm

(values in parentheses refer length mounted, ie, including the flange differences)

Of course one could argue that m43 is only smaller because its lenses are actually a stop slower than the DX lenses (in terms of total amounts of photons captured and DOF). But then again, the argument was always that m43 gives you a more compact system at the cost of less low-light capability and less DOF freedom.

Fogel70 · Feb 13, 2011

bunfoolio said:
TEBnewyork said:

I honestly don't think there is a bias against the sensor size. I think right now the APS-c sensors just visibly perform better (IQ including dynamic range). If 4/3 can take a leap in IQ it would be a non- event.
--
terry
My picture a day site
http://blipfoto.com/terryb
General photos
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/

Click to expand...

I just want to point out that the review can point out the negatives to M 3/4 but does not mention the positive. THe fact that it does have a small sensor means smaller lenses.

Not necessarily, a bigger sensor collects more light so a lens can be made slower without any disadvantage compared to a camera with smaller sensor. And by making the lens slower the size can be made of the same.

A 20mm f/1.7 m43 lens is comparable to a 27mm f/2.3 APS-C lens, or 40mm f/3.4 on full frame.
The lenses closest to the above example are:

MFT - Panasonic 20/1.7 - 63 x 25.5 mm, 100g
APS-C - Samsung 30/2.0 - 61.5 x 21.5 mm, 85g
FF - Pentax 40/2.8 - 63 x 18 mm, 110g

The Pentax lens is manual focus and made for SLR so it is not fully comparable to Panasonic and Samsung lenses that has AF and are made for mirrorless cameras.

If wanting to use extreme telephoto in good light a smaller sensor has some advantages as there usually are more cheap alternatives.

bunfoolio · Feb 13, 2011

Andy Westlake said:
Just two points:

1) Micro Four Thirds is not described as an 'open' standard; it's really no different from any other system. Note that Olympus's original Four Thirds was described as 'Open', but still didn't attract a huge number of partners, with the likes of Tamron and Tokina conspicuous by their absence.

2) If you compare like with like - Samsung 30mm F2 vs Panasonic 20mm F1.7, or Sony 18-200 OSS vs Panasonic 14-140 OIS - there's not really such a radical difference in size or price.

--
Andy Westlake
dpreview.com

You stated that the origional 4/3 standard is open in your post above. Off the official m4/3 website it states that M4/3 is an Extension of this standard. Read below

The Micro Four Thirds Specification was developed with the following objectives.

(1) To extend the Four Thirds Specification by reducing the size and weight further, while maintaining the high picture quality of the 4/3-type image sensor device.

(2) To develop a standard with a basic structure that can deal with changes over time such as acceleration of the need for further size reduction or advancement of Live View photography style.

Live View dedicated specification with a structure eliminating the mirror box.
About half the flange back length of the Four Thirds System.
Reduced lens mount diameter without compromising strength.
Addition of contacts to improve the speed and efficiency of lens-body data exchange and control.

(3) To enable use of existing Four Thirds System lenses.

Compatibility is provided by a dedicated mount adapter.
Since the Four Thirds camera body has a longer flange back length than the Micro Four Thirds camera body, Micro Four Thirds lenses cannot be mounted on Four Thirds camera bodies.

(4) To facilitate the addition of movie capability in the future by providing compatibility with image aspect ratios from 4:3 to 16:9 within the diagonal length of the effective pixel area of the Four Thirds Specification.

Linnk below for your review

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/whitepaper.html

Fogel70 · Feb 13, 2011

noirdesir said:
Andy Westlake said:

'At this point, Micro Four Thirds is beginning to lose its size advantage over conventional APS-C SLRs. Below we see the GH2 / 100-300mm combination alongside a Canon EOS 550D plus 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM lens. Of course these have rather different capabilities the Panasonic setup has longer 'reach' - but in terms of portability there's not a lot in it.

Click to expand...

And BTW, the 14-140 mm lens is larger than 18-55 mm lenses for DX. This clearly shows that m43 has larger lenses, though the m43 lens as a longer reach. A flawed comparison does not get any less flawed by typing the admission that is flawed in bold letters.

If you want to compare apple to apples compare:

14-42 mm vs. 18-55 mm (Nikon), 112 g vs. 256 g, 50 mm vs. 79 (105) mm

40-150 mm vs. 55-200 mm (Nikon), 190 g vs. 335 g, 83 mm vs. 79.5 (105) mm

(values in parentheses refer length mounted, ie, including the flange differences)

Of course one could argue that m43 is only smaller because its lenses are actually a stop slower than the DX lenses (in terms of total amounts of photons captured and DOF). But then again, the argument was always that m43 gives you a more compact system at the cost of less low-light capability and less DOF freedom.

It's not really fair to compare mirrorless kit lenses without stabilization with SLR lenses with optical stabilization. One of the biggest advantage of mirrorless system is that lenses can be made smaller, and is more important for the size of Olympus MFT kit lens than sensor size. And optical stabilization in Nikon lenses make them more bulky and heavy than they need to be.

IMO It is more fair to compare lenses for the same type of camera and both without optical stabilization. Like lenses for Olympus and Pentax DSLR.

Olympus 14-42 mm - 65,5 x 61mm, 190g
Olympus 40-150mm - 65,5 x 72mm, 220g
Pentax - 18-55 mm - 68 x 68mm, 200g
Pentax - 50-200mm - 67 x 79mm, 235g

This shows more of the real difference in size and weight of these types of lenses between 4/3 and APS-C sensor size.

bunfoolio · Feb 13, 2011

Fogel70 said:
bunfoolio said:

TEBnewyork said:

I honestly don't think there is a bias against the sensor size. I think right now the APS-c sensors just visibly perform better (IQ including dynamic range). If 4/3 can take a leap in IQ it would be a non- event.
--
terry
My picture a day site
http://blipfoto.com/terryb
General photos
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/

Click to expand...

I just want to point out that the review can point out the negatives to M 3/4 but does not mention the positive. THe fact that it does have a small sensor means smaller lenses.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, a bigger sensor collects more light so a lens can be made slower without any disadvantage compared to a camera with smaller sensor. And by making the lens slower the size can be made of the same.

A 20mm f/1.7 m43 lens is comparable to a 27mm f/2.3 APS-C lens, or 40mm f/3.4 on full frame.
The lenses closest to the above example are:

MFT - Panasonic 20/1.7 - 63 x 25.5 mm, 100g

APS-C - Samsung 30/2.0 - 61.5 x 21.5 mm, 85g

FF - Pentax 40/2.8 - 63 x 18 mm, 110g

The Pentax lens is manual focus and made for SLR so it is not fully comparable to Panasonic and Samsung lenses that has AF and are made for mirrorless cameras.

If wanting to use extreme telephoto in good light a smaller sensor has some advantages as there usually are more cheap alternatives.

Also consider the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm f2.8 Lens- 57 x 22mm and 71 grams

Andrew Westlake · Feb 13, 2011

bunfoolio said:
You stated that the origional 4/3 standard is open in your post above. Off the official m4/3 website it states that M4/3 is an Extension of this standard.

Yes, I know. But the point I'm making is that you can't just download a copy of the Micro Four Thirds specification off the internet and start making compliant lenses, which is what would be normally understood by an 'open' standard. Instead, manufacturers have to formally join the Micro Four Thirds consortium to get this information, and the language of more recent releases has subtly changed to reflect this.

For an example, see the recent press release from Schneider-Kreuznach here:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1102/11020405schneiderkreuznachmicrofourthirds.asp

This includes the following lines:

'Schneider-Kreuznach has joined the “Micro Four Thirds System Standard Group” – a consortium of companies with the objective of improving the possibilities and quality of compact digital cameras.'

'The forum standard policy means that any member company can make and distribute accessories for the system that meet the standard.'

Note that this directly imples that non-member companies (such as Tamron) can't make and distribute lenses that meet the standard without joining. So this isn't (quite) what is normally understood as an open standard.

However, this is substantially a question of semantics that seriously risks clouding the real issue - is M43 more 'open' than its competitors? And as I've also said elsewhere, it's not clear there's any obvious advantage to consumers of this arrangement over Sony's policy of simply giving out the E-mount specifications to lens makers who ask for them.

[EDIT] I should make absolutely clear here, by the way, that I'm not endorsing either approach over the other. I'm not trying to encourage or discourage anyone from buying Sony, Olympus or Panasonic. And if you really, genuinely believe this stuff matters, fair enough. But personally I'd be much more inclined to make a choice based on factors more related to actual photography.

--
Andy Westlake
dpreview.com

timiano · Feb 13, 2011

Andy Westlake said:
And as I've also said elsewhere, there's no obvious advantage to consumers of this arrangement over Sony's policy of simply giving out the E-mount specifications to lens makers who ask for them.

Would Sony provide E-mount specifications to Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, etc, if they asked for them? My guess is not, but I could be wrong.

The way I see the mFT consortium, is that anyone is welcome. Unfortunately hardware manufacturers just love proprietary where it's possible to get away with it.

Andrew Westlake · Feb 13, 2011

timiano said:
Would Sony provide E-mount specifications to Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, etc, if they asked for them? My guess is not, but I could be wrong.

The way I see the mFT consortium, is that anyone is welcome.

So you think Canon, Sony and Nikon would be welcomed in with open arms?

--
Andy Westlake
dpreview.com

EPl-2 review

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts