Reading mode: Light Dark

12 - 100 Price in Perspective

Go to last post
cnyram said:
Great Bustard said:
ristar said:
Great Bustard said:
GodSpeaks said:
Arizona Sunset said:
Please put these in total light numbers for clarity. It's deceptive to compare total light f4 to total light f8 on a travel zoom.
Click to expand...
Please leave the equivalence BS at home.
Click to expand...
Well, if you're not comparing to another format, then sure. And, indeed, the 12-100 / 4 PRO will likely turn out to be an outstanding lens and an excellent addition to the mFT lineup. Furthermore, it's not like DOF options and light gathering ability are all there is to a lens, either. That said...
cnyram said:
It's an f4 lens. PERIOD.
Click to expand...
It's an f/4 lens that puts the same amount of light on the sensor as FF lens would at f/8 with the same exposure time.
cnyram said:
If DoF is your holy grail, then dump MFT now and buy a FF body and lenses.
Click to expand...
It's not just about DOF, but also about how much light is projected on the sensor, 'cause that translates *directly* into a less noisy photo.
cnyram said:
Or better yet, medium format. I hear the new Hasselblad will be shipping this month.
Click to expand...
Well, there's more to a camera than DOF options and light gathering, obviously, and even more obviously is a little thing called money.
cnyram said:
My ONLY concern with aperture is EXPOSURE...
Click to expand...
OK, so DOF is not a concern -- got it. But why is exposure a concern? For example, why choose f/2.8 1/200 ISO 1600 over f/5.6 1/200 ISO 6400 (or vice-verse)? I'm thinking it's noise, or qualities that are offshoots of noise (such as DR or color fidelity), which brings us back to light gathering.
cnyram said:
...and for exposure, f4 is f4 is f4 regardless of sensor size.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is. However, FF puts 4x as much light on the sensor for the same exposure as mFT, thus half the noise. In other words, just like 50mm on mFT doesn't do the same thing as 50mm on FF, f/4 on mFT doesn't do the same thing as f/4 on FF. Specifically, ignoring the context of what the numbers actually mean leads to, well, how shall I put it? Hmm. How about saying that It leads to thinking that doesn't quite match up with the facts?

The question, then, is do the facts matter? Well, sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. For example, there are Flat Earthers who make far more money than I do. Still, you wouldn't argue against knowing that the Earth is round, would you?
Click to expand...
You, and the two posters directly below you, are stating the same facts and yet your argument is flawed because you fail to consider there are two separate issues, namely:

1. Getting the "correct exposure" (i.e. not overexposed or underexposed)
Click to expand...
Is that a problem for one camera or the other?
cnyram said:
2. Sensor performance/crop factor
Click to expand...
Isn't 25mm f/1.4 1/200 ISO 400 on an E1 (5 MP 4/3 DSLR) equivalent to 25mm f/1.4 1/200 ISO 400 on an EM1 (16 MP mFT mirrorless)? And yet, the resolution and noise will be rather different between the two.
cnyram said:
By definition, given a fixed ISO and shutter speed...
Click to expand...
Why would you require a fixed ISO setting? That's an artificial handicap, is it not? I understand fixing the exposure time as that has to do with motion blur, but there's no reason, whatsoever, to require the same ISO setting on two different systems.
cnyram said:
...you need the same f-stop to get the correct exposure, regardless of focal length or sensor size. We all get the fact that the FF sensor will produce less noise, but we were aware of that when we chose the MFT system. In practice, what one typically cares about is getting the correct exposure (for a given sensor size). If minimizing noise trumps all other factors, then you should just sell everything and go full frame. Companies do not price lenses based on equivalent noise level, which appears to be what you are arguing.
Click to expand...
Two questions:
  • In terms of the visual properties of the photo, what does 25mm f/1.4 1/200 ISO 400 on mFT do for you that 50mm f/2.8 1/200 ISO 1600 will not?
  • In terms of the visual properties of the photo, what does 50mm f/1.4 1/100 ISO 400 on FF do for you that 25mm f/1.4 1/200 ISO 400 on mFT does not?
For reference:

Neither the focal length nor the f-ratio of a lens change as a function of sensor (for example, a 50mm f/1.4 lens is a 50mm f/1.4 lens, regardless of the sensor behind the lens). However, the effect of both the focal length and the relative aperture (f-ratio) on the visual properties of the photo very much depend on the sensor, and scale in direct proportion to the size of the sensor.

In short, 25mm f/1.4 on mFT (4/3) is equivalent to 50mm f/2.8 on FF (FX), where "equivalent to" means:
  • The photos all have the same diagonal angle of view (25mm x 2 = 50mm) and aperture diameter 25mm / 1.4 = 50mm / 2.8 = 18mm).
  • The photos all have the same perspective when taken from the same position.
  • The photos all have the same DOF (as well as diffraction softening) when they are taken from the same position with the same focal point and have the same display size.
  • The photos all have the same motion blur for the same exposure time (regardless of pixel count).
  • The same total amount of light falls on the sensor for the same scene, DOF, exposure time, lens transmission (e.g. if the 25mm lens is t/1.6 at f/1.4 and the 50mm lens is t/3.2 at f/2.8), and vignetting.
  • The same total light falling on the larger sensor will result in a lower exposure than the smaller sensor (the same total light over a larger area results in a lower density of light on the sensor).
  • The larger sensor system will use a concomitantly higher ISO setting for a given brightness on the LCD playback and/or for the OOC (out-of-the-camera) jpg due to the lower exposure (keeping in mind that the ISO setting affects noise only inasmuch as higher ISO settings result in less electronic noise than lower ISO settings -- e.g. a photo "properly exposed" at f/2.8 1/100 ISO 1600 will have less noise than a photo of the same scene at f/2.8 1/100 ISO 200 pushed to the same brightness).
  • The same total light will result in the same noise if the sensors record the same proportion of light falling on them (same QE) and add in the same electronic noise, regardless of pixel count and ISO setting, keeping in mind that the electronic noise matters only for the portions of the photo made with very little light.
  • If the 25mm lens at f/1.4 is twice as sharp (lp/mm) as the 50mm lens at f/2.8, the sensors have the same number of pixels, and the AA filter introduces the same blur, then all systems will also resolve the same detail (lw/ph).
  • Other elements of IQ, such as bokeh, color, distortion, etc., as well as elements of operation, such as AF speed/accuracy, size, weight, etc., are not covered in this use of the term "equivalent".
Click to expand...
The intensity of the light is always the same per pixel.
Click to expand...
The intensity of the light is the same no matter the area the light falls on. Regardless, neither here nor there.
cnyram said:
More light does not fall on the same portion of an Fx sensor compared to M4/3.
Click to expand...
For the same exposure, yes, it does.
cnyram said:
The exposure is the same...
Click to expand...
But not the total amount of light making up the photo.
cnyram said:
...this chronic "light gathering" argument is a joke.
Click to expand...
I'm of the opinion that parading self-harming statements like the above is not the best choice. However, I'm sure you feel otherwise. Don't fret, though -- you're not alone.
 
ristar said:
Great Bustard said:
ristar said:
Great Bustard said:
GodSpeaks said:
Arizona Sunset said:
Please put these in total light numbers for clarity. It's deceptive to compare total light f4 to total light f8 on a travel zoom.
Click to expand...
Please leave the equivalence BS at home.
Click to expand...
Well, if you're not comparing to another format, then sure. And, indeed, the 12-100 / 4 PRO will likely turn out to be an outstanding lens and an excellent addition to the mFT lineup. Furthermore, it's not like DOF options and light gathering ability are all there is to a lens, either. That said...
ristar said:
It's an f4 lens. PERIOD.
Click to expand...
It's an f/4 lens that puts the same amount of light on the sensor as FF lens would at f/8 with the same exposure time.
ristar said:
If DoF is your holy grail, then dump MFT now and buy a FF body and lenses.
Click to expand...
It's not just about DOF, but also about how much light is projected on the sensor, 'cause that translates *directly* into a less noisy photo.
ristar said:
Or better yet, medium format. I hear the new Hasselblad will be shipping this month.
Click to expand...
Well, there's more to a camera than DOF options and light gathering, obviously, and even more obviously is a little thing called money.
ristar said:
My ONLY concern with aperture is EXPOSURE...
Click to expand...
OK, so DOF is not a concern -- got it. But why is exposure a concern? For example, why choose f/2.8 1/200 ISO 1600 over f/5.6 1/200 ISO 6400 (or vice-verse)? I'm thinking it's noise, or qualities that are offshoots of noise (such as DR or color fidelity), which brings us back to light gathering.
ristar said:
...and for exposure, f4 is f4 is f4 regardless of sensor size.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is. However, FF puts 4x as much light on the sensor for the same exposure as mFT, thus half the noise. In other words, just like 50mm on mFT doesn't do the same thing as 50mm on FF, f/4 on mFT doesn't do the same thing as f/4 on FF. Specifically, ignoring the context of what the numbers actually mean leads to, well, how shall I put it? Hmm. How about saying that It leads to thinking that doesn't quite match up with the facts?

The question, then, is do the facts matter? Well, sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. For example, there are Flat Earthers who make far more money than I do. Still, you wouldn't argue against knowing that the Earth is round, would you?
Click to expand...
You, and the two posters directly below you, are stating the same facts and yet your argument is flawed because you fail to consider there are two separate issues, namely:

1. Getting the "correct exposure" (i.e. not overexposed or underexposed)
Click to expand...
Is that a problem for one camera or the other?
ristar said:
2. Sensor performance/crop factor
Click to expand...
Isn't 25mm f/1.4 1/200 ISO 400 on an E1 (5 MP 4/3 DSLR) equivalent to 25mm f/1.4 1/200 ISO 400 on an EM1 (16 MP mFT mirrorless)? And yet, the resolution and noise will be rather different between the two.
ristar said:
By definition, given a fixed ISO and shutter speed...
Click to expand...
Why would you require a fixed ISO setting? That's an artificial handicap, is it not? I understand fixing the exposure time as that has to do with motion blur, but there's no reason, whatsoever, to require the same ISO setting on two different systems.
ristar said:
...you need the same f-stop to get the correct exposure, regardless of focal length or sensor size. We all get the fact that the FF sensor will produce less noise, but we were aware of that when we chose the MFT system. In practice, what one typically cares about is getting the correct exposure (for a given sensor size). If minimizing noise trumps all other factors, then you should just sell everything and go full frame. Companies do not price lenses based on equivalent noise level, which appears to be what you are arguing.
Click to expand...
Two questions:
  • In terms of the visual properties of the photo, what does 25mm f/1.4 1/200 ISO 400 on mFT do for you that 50mm f/2.8 1/200 ISO 1600 will not?
  • In terms of the visual properties of the photo, what does 50mm f/1.4 1/100 ISO 400 on FF do for you that 25mm f/1.4 1/200 ISO 400 on mFT does not?
For reference:

Neither the focal length nor the f-ratio of a lens change as a function of sensor (for example, a 50mm f/1.4 lens is a 50mm f/1.4 lens, regardless of the sensor behind the lens). However, the effect of both the focal length and the relative aperture (f-ratio) on the visual properties of the photo very much depend on the sensor, and scale in direct proportion to the size of the sensor.

In short, 25mm f/1.4 on mFT (4/3) is equivalent to 50mm f/2.8 on FF (FX), where "equivalent to" means:
  • The photos all have the same diagonal angle of view (25mm x 2 = 50mm) and aperture diameter 25mm / 1.4 = 50mm / 2.8 = 18mm).
  • The photos all have the same perspective when taken from the same position.
  • The photos all have the same DOF (as well as diffraction softening) when they are taken from the same position with the same focal point and have the same display size.
  • The photos all have the same motion blur for the same exposure time (regardless of pixel count).
  • The same total amount of light falls on the sensor for the same scene, DOF, exposure time, lens transmission (e.g. if the 25mm lens is t/1.6 at f/1.4 and the 50mm lens is t/3.2 at f/2.8), and vignetting.
  • The same total light falling on the larger sensor will result in a lower exposure than the smaller sensor (the same total light over a larger area results in a lower density of light on the sensor).
  • The larger sensor system will use a concomitantly higher ISO setting for a given brightness on the LCD playback and/or for the OOC (out-of-the-camera) jpg due to the lower exposure (keeping in mind that the ISO setting affects noise only inasmuch as higher ISO settings result in less electronic noise than lower ISO settings -- e.g. a photo "properly exposed" at f/2.8 1/100 ISO 1600 will have less noise than a photo of the same scene at f/2.8 1/100 ISO 200 pushed to the same brightness).
  • The same total light will result in the same noise if the sensors record the same proportion of light falling on them (same QE) and add in the same electronic noise, regardless of pixel count and ISO setting, keeping in mind that the electronic noise matters only for the portions of the photo made with very little light.
  • If the 25mm lens at f/1.4 is twice as sharp (lp/mm) as the 50mm lens at f/2.8, the sensors have the same number of pixels, and the AA filter introduces the same blur, then all systems will also resolve the same detail (lw/ph).
  • Other elements of IQ, such as bokeh, color, distortion, etc., as well as elements of operation, such as AF speed/accuracy, size, weight, etc., are not covered in this use of the term "equivalent".
Click to expand...
Yes, that's exactly right.
Click to expand...
Pleased to hear it!
ristar said:
And that's why F4 is F4 regardless whether you are using a FF camera or a MFT camera.
Click to expand...
Just as 50mm is 50mm regardless of whether you are using a FF camera or mFT camera, right?
ristar said:
I'm glad we're on the same page!
Click to expand...
;-)
 
Bhima78 said:
Great Bustard said:
GodSpeaks said:
Arizona Sunset said:
Please put these in total light numbers for clarity. It's deceptive to compare total light f4 to total light f8 on a travel zoom.
Click to expand...
Please leave the equivalence BS at home.
Click to expand...
Well, if you're not comparing to another format, then sure. And, indeed, the 12-100 / 4 PRO will likely turn out to be an outstanding lens and an excellent addition to the mFT lineup. Furthermore, it's not like DOF options and light gathering ability are all there is to a lens, either. That said...
Bhima78 said:
It's an f4 lens. PERIOD.
Click to expand...
It's an f/4 lens that puts the same amount of light on the sensor as FF lens would at f/8 with the same exposure time.
Bhima78 said:
If DoF is your holy grail, then dump MFT now and buy a FF body and lenses.
Click to expand...
It's not just about DOF, but also about how much light is projected on the sensor, 'cause that translates *directly* into a less noisy photo.
Bhima78 said:
Or better yet, medium format. I hear the new Hasselblad will be shipping this month.
Click to expand...
Well, there's more to a camera than DOF options and light gathering, obviously, and even more obviously is a little thing called money.
Bhima78 said:
My ONLY concern with aperture is EXPOSURE...
Click to expand...
OK, so DOF is not a concern -- got it. But why is exposure a concern? For example, why choose f/2.8 1/200 ISO 1600 over f/5.6 1/200 ISO 6400 (or vice-verse)? I'm thinking it's noise, or qualities that are offshoots of noise (such as DR or color fidelity), which brings us back to light gathering.
Bhima78 said:
...and for exposure, f4 is f4 is f4 regardless of sensor size.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is. However, FF puts 4x as much light on the sensor for the same exposure as mFT, thus half the noise. In other words, just like 50mm on mFT doesn't do the same thing as 50mm on FF, f/4 on mFT doesn't do the same thing as f/4 on FF. Specifically, ignoring the context of what the numbers actually mean leads to, well, how shall I put it? Hmm. How about saying that It leads to thinking that doesn't quite match up with the facts?

The question, then, is do the facts matter? Well, sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. For example, there are Flat Earthers who make far more money than I do. Still, you wouldn't argue against knowing that the Earth is round, would you?
Click to expand...
This is where total light really matters... practical shooting noise levels. F4 on m43's can be quite unacceptable to me in modest light (ISO6400+), whereas a FF camera at F4 can get a shot with better noise performance at the same ISOs. I pretty much don't care about the noise below ISO1600 and even ISO3200... but m43's does drop off pretty hard at ISO6400. Its the nature of the sensor size combined with our tech today to handle it. It will likely get there some day, but that day is not today.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Just to give some context, the best Bayer BSI sensors in modern digital cameras record about a fourth of the [visible] light that falls on them. So, if sensors can be made that record all the [visible] light falling on them, that would bring mFT up to the levels of current FF.
 
offtheback said:
offtheback wrote: When I take a photo, field of view is a prime consideration. (sarcasm)
Click to expand...
This wry comment certainly points out what is most important of all: i.e., What's in the picture!

Anyway, for my needs, the new lens is too big and expensive. It may be that Olympus is targeting videographers with this lens, rather than stills shooters. Over here in Australia, I was able to purchase the Panasonic F2.8 pair (a new 12-35, and an excellent used 35-100) for the equivalent of $1170 USD, which is slightly less than the reported launch cost of the new Olympus lens. Both of the Panasonic lenses offer great IQ right from F2.8.

When I sold my APS-C digital camera gear earlier this year to fund a new Olympus EM-1 + 12-40 "pro kit" ($1180 USD equivalent, including 10% sales tax, 2 years Olympus Australia standard warranty), I knew these things about micro four-thirds, in comparison with APS-C:
  • The sensor is smaller so, all things being equal, there would be a penalty in dynamic range and noise.
  • For field of view, to think in FF focal length terms, just double the MFT lens focal length (instead of 1.5x as in APS-C).
  • The smaller sensor also meant that, at any given aperture, the DOF would be less than a camera with a larger aperture.
  • There were plenty of weather-sealed bodies and lenses available.
  • Some of the cameras featured superb EVF units.
  • Olympus and Panasonic bodies, lenses, and flash units could be used together.
  • Most important: The camera bodies and lens would usually be smaller and lighter than those for larger sensor cameras.
For me, these factors are simply part of MFT. As some folk say, "It is what it is." For this photographer at least, when weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of the various digital camera systems currently available, micro four-thirds came out the winner!

--
Dostoy, from Oz
(Oz = Australia)
 
Last edited:
Bhima78 said:
It will likely be extremely sharp at F4 throughout the zoom range, and likely, much better in the corners than FF equivalents like the Canon 24-105 F4... and it has a much longer effective focal length. So, in this respect it is very versatile, and likely of the highest quality, giving you as good of results in good lighting as any other great m43's lens could possibly give.

Having said that, since we are working with an m43's sensor, F4 does severely limit its shooting envelope in even modest light because you will have to crank up the ISO, and now that beautiful hunk of precision crafted glass is at the mercy of a small sensor. This is why I have complete mixed feelings on this lens. I believe it is better than the FF equivalent 24-105's, but it will be completely overshadowed by them the minute you hit modest lighting let alone bad lighting.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree, simply from mine own experience. I'm mostly a landscape shooter, I do some people and street photography too. The only action shots I take are done when the sun is up, even using slower f/5.6 glass for other systems, I still stop down to F8 usually and still have very fast shutter speeds - even on cloudy days.

Today I shot at hot air balloon festival and even though the sun hadn't peaked over the mountains yet I still had very fast shutter speeds and 0 blurry photos - and again, I was shooting at F8.

I really think this lens was designed for people like me, who want a great multipurpose lens. Give me the focal length I use/need 99% of the time, give me a little faster aperture at the long end, give me solid build and things like the manual focus feature fro the other PRO lenses. Check, check, and check. I know this lens will be a mixed bag for others, based on their shooting style, but there are other options for them, this lens, however, might turn out to be the best option for me.
 
JOrmsby said:
No doubt this will be a useful PRO lens, but I can't help but feel like I'm being ripped off by Olympus when companies like Sigma are putting out lens performance in their ART series for much more reasonable prices. Not to mention the Sigma ART's aren't under-designed to where they have to rely on software correction to produce a sharp, undistorted image, as I'm sure the 12-100 will. I only wish Sigma would design more DN series lenses for these systems.
Click to expand...
Sigma likely sells at least 10 to 20 times as many of a given lens as Olympus, thus making it easier to turn a profit at a lower price point. This aspect of pricing has nothing to do with ripping people off. It has to so with staying in business.
 
Earlier this evening I was photographing a band, taking tight shots of the lead singer with my 50-200 at about the 100mm length. Suddenly he lunged across the stage and leaned against the bass player, who was only about 10 feet from me. 50mm was too tight to get the best shots of their brief pose. Being able to zoom out from 100mm to 12mm would have gotten me some killer shots.

THAT is what goes into considering a price for me as a working photographer.
 
NowHearThis said:
I know this lens will be a mixed bag for others, based on their shooting style....
Click to expand...
There's a big whiner following in this forum, much of this thread being a typical example, with the usual "contributors". If they weren't complainng about this, they'd be complaining about something else, and they will be again, as soon as the proper subject is initiated.
 
eques said:
GodSpeaks said:
The US$1170 price is wrong. It is based on an exchange rate conversion from the Canadian price of CN$1550. Rarely are US vs Cdn price differences based on exchange rate alone.

My guess is the US price will be closer to $1000. Only have to wait until Monday for the official announcement. Then we have to wait for the lens reviews to tell us how good (or bad) the IQ is. I have my fingers crossed, but given it's 'PRO' designation, I am expecting a lot.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
eques said:
GodSpeaks said:
The US$1170 price is wrong. It is based on an exchange rate conversion from the Canadian price of CN$1550. Rarely are US vs Cdn price differences based on exchange rate alone.

My guess is the US price will be closer to $1000. Only have to wait until Monday for the official announcement. Then we have to wait for the lens reviews to tell us how good (or bad) the IQ is. I have my fingers crossed, but given it's 'PRO' designation, I am expecting a lot.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Gregm61 said:
NowHearThis said:
I know this lens will be a mixed bag for others, based on their shooting style....
Click to expand...
There's a big whiner following in this forum, much of this thread being a typical example, with the usual "contributors". If they weren't complainng about this, they'd be complaining about something else, and they will be again, as soon as the proper subject is initiated.
Click to expand...
 
Bhima78 said:
It will likely be extremely sharp at F4 throughout the zoom range, and likely, much better in the corners than FF equivalents like the Canon 24-105 F4... and it has a much longer effective focal length. So, in this respect it is very versatile, and likely of the highest quality, giving you as good of results in good lighting as any other great m43's lens could possibly give.
Click to expand...
Let's hope so. Here a quotation from LensTip on the PL 100-400, that might, to a lesser degree, apply to the 12-100 as well:

"As you deal here with a zoom lens it will need stopping down by about 1-1.5 EV at the maximum focal length in order to “cut out” most of optical aberrations. It means a necessity to close the lens to f/9-11 apertures. In the case of a small Micro 4/3 sensor with a resolution of 16 millions of pixels the diffraction limits resolution in a significant way by those aperture values so the lens simply lacks space to spread its wings."

This would mean, that the lens is best at F5,6-6.3 and, more important, can't reach the levels of a faster lens at all.

But we will have to wait for the first independant reviews.
Bhima78 said:
Having said that, since we are working with an m43's sensor, F4 does severely limit its shooting envelope in even modest light because you will have to crank up the ISO, and now that beautiful hunk of precision crafted glass is at the mercy of a small sensor. This is why I have complete mixed feelings on this lens. I believe it is better than the FF equivalent 24-105's, but it will be completely overshadowed by them the minute you hit modest lighting let alone bad lighting.
Click to expand...
This is certainly true for indoor shooting without flash and for winter in central to norther Europe; here you simply need a fast lens to make up for this. In my case this would be the P 1,7/20.

Peter
 
A lot is known about high resolution mode and how it works, so there is no need to guess.

Its current iteration takes 8 shots.
- 1 RAW 16 MP
- 4 times with a half pixel shift for higher resolution
- 3 times full pixel shift to measure each colour.

This means you get a 80 MP file with every colour measured and therefor no more interpolation needed.

The results as many reviewers have noted are stunning. The colours for instance, according to dpreviews review, are better than the 645Z. The noise drops by about 2 stops, the resolution is an 80 MP or (better) the JPG from this 80MP RAW which is downsized to 50 MP.

That Canon sensor you are talking about is 1,5 to 2 stops better when it comes to noise, but the rest is 1 stop better and when it comes to dynamic range at base ISO it is worse than the PEnF (slightly).

The only thing in favour of the Canon is that you can shoot it with 1/8000s which is a decisive advantage compared to a 1 second (including processing) shot with the current HiRes mode.

However: when the rumour about a handheld 1/60s shooting mode is correct (and the 1/60s is just from one rumour...) that gap would be not nearly as big. Anything with some action (not some movement) cannot be shot with the Em1mkII, but landscapes, streetlife etc in reasonable or better light will likely get us great pics.

Since the new iteration also gets us 10 shots vs 8 we can suspect the IQ going up again from that perspective.

Of course these are still rumours I know.

Finally it is a bit amazing to me how people are unaware of HiRes mode and just brush it aside as if it is only higher resolution. No: it is higher resolution and much better picture quality from other angles too.
 
Pixnat2 said:
tgutgu said:
Pixnat2 said:
tgutgu said:
Pixnat2 said:
Arizona Sunset said:
bluevellet said:
Something cheaper than the 14-150 (II)?
Click to expand...
I think $799 to $999 would have been more reasonable.
Click to expand...
Exactly in line with what I think!

At this price, it would be a good value
Pixnat2 said:
Look at the weather sealed FE 24-240 at that price point. Greater total light on the sensor, outresolves (in front of an R II) everything in the m43 zoom arena, and gives you a lovely 42mp resolution to crop into.

The Oly lens is overpriced against alternatives to start, and everyone knows it, no matter how you skin it. I know, I know, small is beautiful and expensive, but still. It will sell, of course.
Click to expand...
Yup!

But it seems a vocal minority is defending Oly pricing like if their lives depend on it. Now I hope they will actually buy it.

--
Cheers,
Frederic
http://www.azurphoto.com/
Click to expand...
Have really looked at FF lens prices in the top range? If so, you would recognize that the FF lenses are mostly about double the price of equivalent m4/3 lenses (i.e. P 2.8/35-100mm vs. EF 2.8/70-200mm / FE 2.8/70-200mm). Some lenses don't have equivalents (O 2.8/40-150mm).

In that respect, the O 4/12-100mm is rather cheap.
Click to expand...
Funny, you agree on equivalence for only half of the equation. You agree that 35-100 is equivalent of 70-200 mm on FF, but do not agree that f/2.8 is equivalent of f/5.6
Click to expand...
Yawn. f2.8 is f2.8, why do you open the misconception that it is not, again? Not everybody needs or want that shallow DoF that FF provides, it is purely a matter of taste and compositional aspects. Equivalence doesn't mean that you can produce exactly the same image.
Click to expand...
Thomas,

If you say f/2.8 is f/2.8 (which is true), so 35mm is 35mm (wich is true too). With that logic, you should compare to a 35-100 on FF.
Click to expand...
Important is the angle of view, not the focal length.
Pixnat2 said:
Pixnat2 said:
Pixnat2 said:
Hmmm, not really fair to take in consideration only half of the reality!
Click to expand...
Well, it is very fair. f-stop has a clear definition.

m4/3 has the advantage to allow smaller and lighter lenses with the same f-stop and view angle than FF.
Pixnat2 said:
That said, the 12-35 and 35-100 f/2.8 from Panasonic were priced very competitivley. This is not the case of the mew 12-100.
Pixnat2 said:
And no, I do not belong to a vocal minority, but I can compare realistically.
Click to expand...
In a reality that is all yours, the Half-Reality ;-)
Click to expand...
I would consider that full reality. The prices of high end Lenses (to which Olympus Pro line belongs) are well known. Fact is that FF lenses are much more expensive (and larger and heavier). I even expected a higher price of the Olympus zoom, so I am quite satisfied. It has about the price of the O 2.8/12-40mm, when it was released. So the O 4/12-100mm is in fact a bargain!
Click to expand...
If you think that 1300$ is a bargain for a superzoom, you and me definitely live in a different reality.
Click to expand...
The reality is the same, but not everybody can afford a 1200$ lens. But if you compare the Olympus lenses with the competition, the Olympus prices are very competitive.

A 12-100mm zoom with less build quality, variable max aperture, less quality glass, and a plastic tube, of course would typically only cost around 600$. The weaknesses of the P 12-60mm can show you, what to expect at that price point - from all manufacturers.
Pixnat2 said:
No problem, but that's probably the reason why we don't understand each other.

Have a nice day anyway.

--
Cheers,
Frederic
http://www.azurphoto.com/
Click to expand...
--
Thomas
 
Last edited:
SamKnopf said:
SkiHound said:
Maybe I'm out of touch and I'm certainly not sure I'll be a buyer. But I don't think the price is especially out of line. The Canon 24-105L F/4 goes for about $1100. It's a nice L lens, but generally note considered one of the star L lenses. The Nikon 24-120 F/4 goes for about $1100 and I know that at least some folks recommend the Sigma 24-105 f/4 (about $900) over the Nikon. The Olympus 12-60 f/2.8 to f/4 hit the market at about $1000, and that was several years ago. These are 4X - 5X zooms. The 12-100 is about an 8X zoom and almost surely presents more difficult design and build challenges. So if the IQ turns out to be strong, I just don't see that a price in the $1100 to $1200 range is out of line. Now, it's a lot of money and it may well not be worth it to many folks. But that's a different issue.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Jorginho said:
A lot is known about high resolution mode and how it works, so there is no need to guess.

Its current iteration takes 8 shots.
- 1 RAW 16 MP
- 4 times with a half pixel shift for higher resolution
- 3 times full pixel shift to measure each colour.

This means you get a 80 MP file with every colour measured and therefor no more interpolation needed.

The results as many reviewers have noted are stunning. The colours for instance, according to dpreviews review, are better than the 645Z. The noise drops by about 2 stops, the resolution is an 80 MP or (better) the JPG from this 80MP RAW which is downsized to 50 MP.

That Canon sensor you are talking about is 1,5 to 2 stops better when it comes to noise, but the rest is 1 stop better and when it comes to dynamic range at base ISO it is worse than the PEnF (slightly).

The only thing in favour of the Canon is that you can shoot it with 1/8000s which is a decisive advantage compared to a 1 second (including processing) shot with the current HiRes mode.
Click to expand...
I always understood it was 2 seconds to take the images, unless shutter speed lengthened it.
Jorginho said:
However: when the rumour about a handheld 1/60s shooting mode is correct (and the 1/60s is just from one rumour...) that gap would be not nearly as big. Anything with some action (not some movement) cannot be shot with the Em1mkII, but landscapes, streetlife etc in reasonable or better light will likely get us great pics.
Click to expand...
I suspect the rumour came from when they were considering the 16MP stacked sensor, which seems to have lost out to the 20MP Sony one for the E-M1 II, which surely doesn't have the readout speed. For 10 shots in 1/60th you'd need a super-high shutter speed (at least 1/1000) plus immense sensor readout speed. Even if a new sensor could read the full sensor at 60fps (which is an immense data rate and would greatly hurt the noise performance) you're still at about 1/6th for 10 shots, assuming the IBIS can keep up. But there isn't a new 20MP sensor, just the Sony one. Oh and even the Sony stacked 1" sensor is only getting 14.2fps so I suspect even the 1/60th was the sensor readout speed for a single image (which is very fast) rather than 8 or 10.
Jorginho said:
Since the new iteration also gets us 10 shots vs 8 we can suspect the IQ going up again from that perspective.

Of course these are still rumours I know.

Finally it is a bit amazing to me how people are unaware of HiRes mode and just brush it aside as if it is only higher resolution. No: it is higher resolution and much better picture quality from other angles too.
Click to expand...
Yes but you need a tripod and no shutter shock or subject movement, which makes it much more limiting than a lot of people like to suggest, especially as minor movement can turn into something very nasty. It's handy where you can make it work well, but there's always the issue that you don't know if you really got the shot without a lot of pixel peeping.
 
Last edited:
I think this lens might be very interesting for some of my photographic situations.

It might be a good all in one solution for hiking even though the lens is a bit on the heavy side. Low light is not generally a problem when I hike.

Also when I do bike trips a one lens solution is interesting.

My out of rucksack hiking camera is at the moment an EM5 with a Panasonic 12-35, with one or two lenses attached to bodies in my rucksack. So I would save weight on the whole.

But the weight of this lens + camera hanging round my neck will have to be tried out before buying and the quality will have to be much better than the 14-140 I have at the moment.

If it solves a problem I might trade in some little used gear to soften the blow. But I think the price is in line with other systems.

As for the size. Well the strength of the M43 system is that you can mix and match to have a very compact camera or use some more heavier bulkier lenses when they are needed to get the job done. I found the EM5 plus the heavy14-140 combination to be a winner on certain occasions.
 
If the 12-100mm f/4 PRO was the only normal zoom lens available, then you'd be right.

It is too big, too expensive, and doesn't "compete" well against similar lenses from other systems. No one who buys M4/3 for size and weight will want this lens. No one who is on a tight budget would want this lens. Absolutely no one.

However, it isn't your only normal zoom option. It is one of around a twenty choices we have, all of which offer some special appeal for someone. And they all range from 12mm or 14mm to somewhere between 32mm and 150mm.
  • Some are small and light. There is even a pretty good 12-32mm pancake zoom lens from Panasonic.
  • Some have power zooms, which works really well for video. Both Panasonic and Olympus make pancake 14-42mm power zoom lenses, and Olympus has a 12-50mm EZ that even adds a macro function.
  • Some are medium sized. There are several good options in this group. Including budget kit lenses and better step up models.
  • Some are large and outstanding. Often weather sealed, with first rate build quality. These were not designed for people who wanted the smallest or cheapest options.
This new lens isn't for me, and it may not be for you, but I am pretty sure someone will want it. And the more options the system provides, the more users it will attract.

This new lens is simply one more option. We can take it or leave it, but I am sure glad it exists for someone.

--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
Upgrade to E-M1 III + 12-100 vs Z5 II + 24-200
2
Replies
29
Views
60K
Owlsfan
O
joger
  • User review User review
G 70 .. 200 OSS macro II beats GM 100 .. 400 clearly - hands down
4 5 6
Replies
104
Views
90K
ray_burnimage
ray_burnimage
R
  • User review User review
Well rounded
2 3
Replies
42
Views
137K
RLight
R
Ben Herrmann
  • For sale For sale
FS - Two (2) Panasonic Lumix 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS Zoom Lenses for Micro 4/3 'rds
Replies
3
Views
2K
Ben Herrmann
Ben Herrmann
S
Canon 5D MKII plus 24-105mm F/4 L IS USM II EF-Mount
Replies
5
Views
6
Norm Neely
N

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top