Olympus m4/3 goes the way of Olympus 4/3 :-(

[Henry Richardson]

Coincidentally, exactly 5 years ago on this day (2015/6/25) I started a thread about the huge, expensive 4/3 lenses that many people had bought the previous time Olympus decided to use a tiny sensor and then make huge, expensive bodies and lenses. Things didn't work out so well for Olympus with that strategy. As one might expect here, the haters came out in force. :-( Then a few years later Olympus started out well with m4/3 and then once again began making huge, expensive bodies and lenses with a tiny sensor. :-( (Huge in relation to the size of the sensor.)

Huge, expensive 4/3 lenses

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56044737

Today I was in Bic Camera and happened to see some 4/3 lenses on display. I normally never pay attention to them since I am only interested in m4/3 lenses. Anyway, they had a bunch and, in particular, I noticed these:

Olympus 35-100mm f2 -- ~300,000 yen
Olympus 150mm f2 -- ~265,000 yen
Olympus 90-250mm f2.8 -- ~685,000 yen

My God, these are huge, expensive lenses! Of course, no doubt they are great lenses. m4/3 is wonderful for being able to have great bodies and lenses that are not so big like for DSLRs. Not sure why some people wish for lenses such as these to be offered in m4/3 versions. When you get this big and expensive then it seems to me to make much more sense to just have an extra DSLR body (APS-C or FF) and equivalent lenses. The DSLR lenses are even often smaller and less expensive.

...

Olympus 150mm f2 -> APS-C 200mm f2.8 -> FF 300mm f4

Olympus 90-250mm f2.8 -> APS-C 120-300mm f4 -> FF 180-500mm f5.6

Olympus 35-100mm f2 -> APS-C 50-135mm f2.8 -> FF 70-200mm f4

Anyway, if I was into these sorts of lenses I would just get a Canon/Nikon DSLR (APS-C or FF) and the equivalent lenses. Then use m4/3 for other stuff. Best tool for the job, you know?

Today at Bic I was comparing the Olympus 150mm f2 to the Canon 300mm f4 and Canon 200mm f2.8. Boy, the Canon lenses are much smaller and less expensive too.

Same for the Olympus 35-100mm f2 and Canon 70-200mm f4. Actually, the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 may have even been smaller than the Olympus 35-100mm f2. Don't hold me to that, but I seem to remember that it appeared like it might be.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[Henry Richardson]

Fortunately all those old, big, expensive Olympus 4/3 lenses can still be used on the E-M1, E-M1II, E-M1III, and E-M1X with the Olympus adapter and users say the AF is usually as good or better than the old 4/3 DSLRs.

The Olympus m4/3 lenses can still be used on Olympus m4/3 bodies, even if it turns out there are no more new ones, or no more interesting ones. They can also be used on Panasonic bodies.

Personally, I never had any interest in any of the big, heavy, expensive m4/3 lenses. The ones I have all fit with the original m4/3 idea of small, light, and distinctly different size/weight than DSLRs. I have 4 Olympus bodies and 2 Panasonic bodies and it has been a long time since any of the newer bodies were all that interesting to me. The only recent purchase was a very nice used GX7II for $269 in January. It is my only used m4/3 gear, but all the new stuff bought since early 2012 was bought at discounts and good prices.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[roger2013]

Olympus gives you the choice. Put a 17 or 25mm or 45mm f1.8 prime, or a Panasonic 12-32 on a small body and you have something light and pocketable; or put the 12-100 on an EM1 series body and you have something heavier but incredibly versatile. Also 7.5 stops of stabilization, HHHR, Live ND, focus stacking and you can factor in not having to carry a tripod so often.

 

[Raist3d]

repeated it here years ago also. Haters indeed.

 

[prsc]

I feel like 4/3 was doomed from the beginning. I really liked the idea of taking advantage of the digital era instead of doing what had always been done, but when the mirror was still there that smaller sensor was a bad idea, because:

1. Flange distance. They were force to use long flange distance that made designing short focal length lenses more difficult, take the 35-100mm f/2.0 for example, that thing is huge compared to even full frame 70-200mm f/2.8! Even though the full frame still has about one stop of noise advantage.
2. Tiny and/or dark viewfinder. There's just no way around this with a mirror setup, either you have large magnification so you spread the light too much and lose brightness or you have a small tunnel.

Then there were other small things like image side telecentricity, that was decided on the falsely assumption that digital sensors would work quite a bit better that way. The difference is there but it is way too small to justify the increased complexity of the glass.

Then again m4/3 came probably as soon as it was possible, so not much one could have done except skip 4/3 completely, but would that even had worked?

 

[Memoochi]

I don't understand the dislike of fast, expensive glass.

1) There is a full range of pro and non-pro glass available. You can buy a cheap, small 45mm F1.8. Having a fast 45mm F1.2 doesn't take that choice away.

2) The constraint of the M4/3 is low light. Having fast glass eases that constraint for thos that need better low light performance

3) The "large expensive" lenses are still much smaller and more cost effective than the FF equivalents, e.g.,

- Nikon Z 70-200 F2.8 costs $1,900 and weighs 1.4kg

- Panasonic 35-100 F2.8 costs $900 and weighs less than half (0.6kg)

With glass, this is the advantage of the MFT: For sports, wildlife, street photography and landscape you can the same performance at half the size and weight and anything from 20% to 50% the cost of a similar E, Z and R mount FF system.

 

[SirPalomid]

I don't understand the dislike of fast, expensive glass.

1) There is a full range of pro and non-pro glass available. You can buy a cheap, small 45mm F1.8. Having a fast 45mm F1.2 doesn't take that choice away.

Problem is that you don't have in-between choices in many cases: rather you have dull f1.8 primes or slow zooms that are inexpensive, or you have crazy priced "PRO" glass.

No reasonably priced (and sized) f1.4 WR primes, same with long tele (crappy 75-300 OR crazy expensive 300/4).

I think that was one of the reasons Olympus went down the drain - no development in affordable segment for years.

2) The constraint of the M4/3 is low light. Having fast glass eases that constraint for thos that need better low light performance

For same or less money you could have FF camera with F1.8 glass - better performance overall.

3) The "large expensive" lenses are still much smaller and more cost effective than the FF equivalents, e.g.,

- Nikon Z 70-200 F2.8 costs $1,900 and weighs 1.4kg

- Panasonic 35-100 F2.8 costs $900 and weighs less than half (0.6kg)

Except that equivalence should apply to DOF control and overall performance (including low light) also. Nikon would win in that.

With glass, this is the advantage of the MFT: For sports, wildlife, street photography and landscape you can the same performance at half the size and weight and anything from 20% to 50% the cost of a similar E, Z and R mount FF system.

Oh, c'mon, m4/3 has it's trade offs, it is nowhere near "same performance" as FF landscape or low-light monsters.

This was true 10 years ago when you could have bought m4/3 kit for 1/5 of the price of Canon 6D, but now FF MILC market have grown with prices going down, and m4/3 prices going up.

 

[DeathArrow]

MFT is dead because of sensor size which means poor IQ compared to other cameras. Big lenses were made to improve that situation but they are expensive. For the same IQ is cheaper to go to FF. As cameras now are bought mainly by enthusiasts and pros, IQ and focusing matters a lot.

Things that could have saved Olympus:

-using a bigger sensor size together with cheaper lenses

-keeping the sensor small and using computational photography techniques like in phones

 

[prsc]

MFT is dead because of sensor size which means poor IQ compared to other cameras. Big lenses were made to improve that situation but they are expensive. For the same IQ is cheaper to go to FF. As cameras now are bought mainly by enthusiasts and pros, IQ and focusing matters a lot.

Things that could have saved Olympus:

-using a bigger sensor size together with cheaper lenses

This decision however should have been made a long time ago (see case Panasonic).

-keeping the sensor small and using computational photography techniques like in phones

True, and that is the way they tried to take. But it is most likely more expensive than just having more sensor are to begin with and eventually the bigger sensor rivals catch up, like they do with IBIS at the moment. Lately many computational stuff has been "almost there", which doesn't help things.

 

[K25]

Problem is that you don't have in-between choices in many cases: rather you have dull f1.8 primes or slow zooms that are inexpensive, or you have crazy priced "PRO" glass.

What is "dull" in F1.8 primes?

Slow zooms are small, light and - indeed - inexpensive... I don't see it as a reason for complaining.

The only PRO lenses that I personally could consider crazy expensive are the F1.2 primes, but I would never say that are "crazy priced": they are expensive lenses and are priced accordingly.

No reasonably priced (and sized) f1.4 WR primes, same with long tele (crappy 75-300 OR crazy expensive 300/4).

crappy 75-300? Why?

The crazy good 300 F4 is indeed expensive.

I think that was one of the reasons Olympus went down the drain - no development in affordable segment for years.

Indeed Olympus isn't without reproach... still not offering a 9mm rectilinear prime!

For same or less money you could have FF camera with F1.8 glass - better performance overall.

Glad that you have better alternatives... but then WHY are you complaining?

 

[esco]

repeated it here years ago also. Haters indeed.

You know. .

I too was a 4/3 shooter. . .there was a lot that didn't make sense on the high-end scale of things. I simply didn't believe that they couldn't put everything that the E-3 had into the E-4XX size body. Defenders insisted that the E-4xx size bodies were too small to have I.S. that the AF module couldn't fit etc. . that you couldn't make it rugged either. It was all crazy talk ofcourse.

Olympus never really fully utilized their size advantage when it came to anything beyond their entry level line-up. This was the most frustrating thing to see being repeated with the m4/3 system.

There was never a pro pen series body that was as fast and rugged as the om-d pro models. Why? The pro series is the least selling line so why handicap everything else for so long?

The PEN EPL series had 10 generations of bodies but only 2 different sensors. You could not have access to the 20mp sensor below the pen-F or pro OMD series bodies - Not even the em10 series got anything beyond the 16mp sensor - not even an AA filter removal!

Nobody in the industry had such prudent practices imo. . .you knew that with nikon, canon, fuji etc. . that some of the technology you saw in a higher-end body would eventually make it's way to the mid-range and low-end line and it would happen within the next generation or two. Not the case with Olympus. If you wanted better tech. . you had only one choice even if it contradicted the whole reason why you even bought into the system.

It was so strange yet so familiar. How could you stunt your own growth among such competition on the second go around?

 

[esco]

I don't understand the dislike of fast, expensive glass.

1) There is a full range of pro and non-pro glass available. You can buy a cheap, small 45mm F1.8. Having a fast 45mm F1.2 doesn't take that choice away.

2) The constraint of the M4/3 is low light. Having fast glass eases that constraint for thos that need better low light performance

3) The "large expensive" lenses are still much smaller and more cost effective than the FF equivalents, e.g.,

- Nikon Z 70-200 F2.8 costs $1,900 and weighs 1.4kg

- Panasonic 35-100 F2.8 costs $900 and weighs less than half (0.6kg)

Except. . . .You would need a 35-100 F1.4 and it would need to be lighter than the Nikon lens for it to be an advantage. Something tells me that lens would be similar in size and cost even more than the NIkon lens.

With glass, this is the advantage of the MFT: For sports, wildlife, street photography and landscape you can the same performance at half the size and weight and anything from 20% to 50% the cost of a similar E, Z and R mount FF system.

What if you take a small FF body with a modern sensor at 40-50mp and put a Sigma 100-300mm F4 lens? This combo would easily net you about 600mm of focal reach and would be as bright as an F2 lens for m4/3. Thats a pretty tempting combo for wildlife and sports and that lens would only be about $500.
Lets not kid ourselves - it would be tough to tell anyone interested in that kind of setup to look elsewhere.

--
Photographer first, gear second

 

[Memoochi]

Problem is that you don't have in-between choices in many cases: rather you have dull f1.8 primes or slow zooms that are inexpensive, or you have crazy priced "PRO" glass.

No reasonably priced (and sized) f1.4 WR primes, same with long tele (crappy 75-300 OR crazy expensive 300/4).

1) I am not sure there is a large enough market gap between the 1.8s and the 1.2s to justify an additional range. Sure, they should have updated the 1.8s - Maybe replaced them with WR versions, possible even 1.6s. But keeping both on the market would be strange.

In terms of the 1.2s, the issue I see is that these are just too large. I realize the design is incredible, but still, my 56mm F1.4 Sigma (which is actually an APS-C lens with MFT mount) is much smaller. Surely a native 45mm F1.2 could have come in at a more reasonable size and weight?

2) The 300/4 isn't that pricey. The Nikon equivalent - 600mm F4 is $12,000!

2) The constraint of the M4/3 is low light. Having fast glass eases that constraint for thos that need better low light performance

For same or less money you could have FF camera with F1.8 glass - better performance overall.

Or, for less money, I can have an MFT with F1.8, which is smaller.

3) The "large expensive" lenses are still much smaller and more cost effective than the FF equivalents, e.g.,

- Nikon Z 70-200 F2.8 costs $1,900 and weighs 1.4kg

- Panasonic 35-100 F2.8 costs $900 and weighs less than half (0.6kg)

Except that equivalence should apply to DOF control and overall performance (including low light) also. Nikon would win in that.

As I wrote on another post, I am sure there are those that want DoF thinner then my La Perla thong, but for most of us using long zooms, that isn't an issue.

With glass, this is the advantage of the MFT: For sports, wildlife, street photography and landscape you can the same performance at half the size and weight and anything from 20% to 50% the cost of a similar E, Z and R mount FF system.

Oh, c'mon, m4/3 has it's trade offs, it is nowhere near "same performance" as FF landscape or low-light monsters.

Except, when it comes to wildlife, sports and street photography it is the same performance. Have a look at the work done by Petr Bambousek or Lars Mueller.

I did call out that MFT is not good at low-light. That is a constraint, and that is why lenses like the 10-25 F1.7 or the Oly F1.2s are needed. Again, if you are a razor thin DoF shooter, then you need the Nikon Z 58mm F0,95.

This was true 10 years ago when you could have bought m4/3 kit for 1/5 of the price of Canon 6D, but now FF MILC market have grown with prices going down, and m4/3 prices going up.

I specifically said it is the glass that is smaller, weighs less and costs less. I know that MFT cameras aren't cheaper or lighter, which makes perfect sense as the only difference between an MFT, and APS-C and an FF is the sensor size (and IBIS mechanism when that is present). The rest is pretty much identical when it comes to size.

 

[DeathArrow]

With glass, this is the advantage of the MFT: For sports, wildlife, street photography and landscape you can the same performance at half the size and weight and anything from 20% to 50% the cost of a similar E, Z and R mount FF system.

No, you actually can't. And that's one reason Olympus is dead.

I've payed 400 eur for an used Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. How much and 35-100 f/1.4 MFT costs and how much it weights?

 

[DeathArrow]

I specifically said it is the glass that is smaller, weighs less and costs less. I know that MFT cameras aren't cheaper or lighter, which makes perfect sense as the only difference between an MFT, and APS-C and an FF is the sensor size (and IBIS mechanism when that is present). The rest is pretty much identical when it comes to size.

If they are not cheaper and lighter, than it's stupid to use a tiny sensor. Imagine going to restaurant, paying the same and getting only half of the food.

 

[joeletx]

I don't understand the dislike of fast, expensive glass.

1) There is a full range of pro and non-pro glass available. You can buy a cheap, small 45mm F1.8. Having a fast 45mm F1.2 doesn't take that choice away.

2) The constraint of the M4/3 is low light. Having fast glass eases that constraint for thos that need better low light performance

3) The "large expensive" lenses are still much smaller and more cost effective than the FF equivalents, e.g.,

- Nikon Z 70-200 F2.8 costs $1,900 and weighs 1.4kg

- Panasonic 35-100 F2.8 costs $900 and weighs less than half (0.6kg)

With glass, this is the advantage of the MFT: For sports, wildlife, street photography and landscape you can the same performance at half the size and weight and anything from 20% to 50% the cost of a similar E, Z and R mount FF system.

I don't understand the hate either. The truth of the matter, to me is, most people can't afford any glasses outside of one bought with the camera. In my case, I have save up and justify purchasing a special purpose lens. As I looked across for greener grasses, a good Sony or Nikon gears would easily cost me twice the cost and twice the weight.

 

[Orangorill]

As an amateur who left Canon DSLRs for MFT, my main motivation was primarily compactness. There's just nothing like my 17mm and 45mm 1.8 for full frame camera, and losing the viewfinder hump and flattening the front makes my GX80 and GM1 infinitely more pocketable (or non-camera-baggable) than any DSLR. The little camera and compact lenses also generally make people less on edge, and for any sort of candids I want to avoid people thinking "photographer!" and either start posing or running away.

MFT makes sense for wildlife, certainly, but personally I never really understood the appeal of huge cameras like the G9 with 1.2 lenses for street, portrait and casual photography. If you're spending $3000 and carrying a camera and lens combo weighing more than a kilogram, why not just go full frame and be done with it?

I don't see myself giving up on MFT just yet. I'm still hoping for a worthy successor to the GX80, and I'll definitely snag an Olympus 75mm 1.8 as soon as I can find on the used market. However, I don't think I'll ever even consider spending the money for a 17mm 1.2 for indoor photography, and the more affordable 16mm Sigma is monstrously large. If I really need the low light capability, I'll take another serious look at getting an EOS RP and the honestly surprisingly pleasant 35mm 1.8 lens.

 

[AllFlawed]

I don't understand the dislike of fast, expensive glass.

The lack of an affordable compact kit zoom lens wider than 28mm equivalent was always a problem. When they brought out the 12-45mm Pro lens I was most disappointed. The Panasonic 12-60 f3.5 is half the price, similar size and not everyone can splash out for top glass. My interest in it waned rapidly.

My feelings to Olympus are rather mixed as you could see the funding problems in the half baked, half finished attempt at new look menus of the E-PL9 and I sold it quickly and upgraded to an E-PL8 and got a free 45mm f1.8 to boot, so started moving backwards in time. The EM10 III is very much work in progress.

The big factor in photography is are low cost systems viable and I am hoping JIP can move in that direction and just ignore the howls of anguish when a few people start sending the lenses back after microscopic examination. Probably Olympus were just in the wrong game with the Pro stuff and trying to keep the low end viable at the same time where most of their sales are. The long warranties were also a big drain on their resources I would think and a sign of having to go out on a limb to sell the stuff.

1) There is a full range of pro and non-pro glass available. You can buy a cheap, small 45mm F1.8. Having a fast 45mm F1.2 doesn't take that choice away.

You hardly need to buy the 45mm f1.8 as they are giving them away with cameras. I have one coming in that I will sell on immediately.

2) The constraint of the M4/3 is low light. Having fast glass eases that constraint for thos that need better low light performance

3) The "large expensive" lenses are still much smaller and more cost effective than the FF equivalents, e.g.,

- Nikon Z 70-200 F2.8 costs $1,900 and weighs 1.4kg

- Panasonic 35-100 F2.8 costs $900 and weighs less than half (0.6kg)

With glass, this is the advantage of the MFT: For sports, wildlife, street photography and landscape you can the same performance at half the size and weight and anything from 20% to 50% the cost of a similar E, Z and R mount FF system.

 

[Memoochi]

MFT makes sense for wildlife, certainly, but personally I never really understood the appeal of huge cameras like the G9 with 1.2 lenses for street, portrait and casual photography. If you're spending $3000 and carrying a camera and lens combo weighing more than a kilogram, why not just go full frame and be done with it?

Largely agree here. In my personal use case, the fast glass is really about freezing movement. For example, If I am go out with my friends for dinner, or visit my twin and her kids, having the 10-25mm F1.7 indoors freezes motion in a way that my 12-40mm F2.8 never can. Of course, I carry it in a handbag, so the size is less important.

But for most other situations, that isn't really necessary. Last December I took a two second hand-held shot with my Sigma 56mm and IBIS. So even reasonable long exposures are possible with smaller lenses as long as we are not trying to freeze motion.

I don't see myself giving up on MFT just yet. I'm still hoping for a worthy successor to the GX80, and I'll definitely snag an Olympus 75mm 1.8 as soon as I can find on the used market. However, I don't think I'll ever even consider spending the money for a 17mm 1.2 for indoor photography, and the more affordable 16mm Sigma is monstrously large. If I really need the low light capability, I'll take another serious look at getting an EOS RP and the honestly surprisingly pleasant 35mm 1.8 lens.

 

[Messier Object]

Coincidentally, exactly 5 years ago on this day (2015/6/25) I started a thread about the huge, expensive 4/3 lenses that many people had bought the previous time Olympus decided to use a tiny sensor and then make huge, expensive bodies and lenses. Things didn't work out so well for Olympus with that strategy. As one might expect here, the haters came out in force. :-( Then a few years later Olympus started out well with m4/3 and then once again began making huge, expensive bodies and lenses with a tiny sensor. :-( (Huge in relation to the size of the sensor.)

Huge, expensive 4/3 lenses

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56044737

Today I was in Bic Camera and happened to see some 4/3 lenses on display. I normally never pay attention to them since I am only interested in m4/3 lenses. Anyway, they had a bunch and, in particular, I noticed these:

Olympus 35-100mm f2 -- ~300,000 yen
Olympus 150mm f2 -- ~265,000 yen
Olympus 90-250mm f2.8 -- ~685,000 yen

My God, these are huge, expensive lenses! Of course, no doubt they are great lenses. m4/3 is wonderful for being able to have great bodies and lenses that are not so big like for DSLRs. Not sure why some people wish for lenses such as these to be offered in m4/3 versions. When you get this big and expensive then it seems to me to make much more sense to just have an extra DSLR body (APS-C or FF) and equivalent lenses.

The DSLR lenses are even often smaller and les expensive.

Doing a quick check on one of the best 4/3 lenses . . .

Zuiko 150mm F2: w=1610g, L= 150mm

Canon 300mm F4: w = 1190g, L = 221mm

Nikon 300mm F4: w = 1440g, L=223mm

Nikon 300mm F4 PF: w=778, L=148

only the new Nikkor Pf lens is smaller and lighter, but that one uses diffraction optics.

...

Olympus 150mm f2 -> APS-C 200mm f2.8 -> FF 300mm f4

Olympus 90-250mm f2.8 -> APS-C 120-300mm f4 -> FF 180-500mm f5.6

Olympus 35-100mm f2 -> APS-C 50-135mm f2.8 -> FF 70-200mm f4

Anyway, if I was into these sorts of lenses I would just get a Canon/Nikon DSLR (APS-C or FF) and the equivalent lenses. Then use m4/3 for other stuff. Best tool for the job, you know?

Today at Bic I was comparing the Olympus 150mm f2 to the Canon 300mm f4 and Canon 200mm f2.8. Boy, the Canon lenses are much smaller and less expensive too.

The Canon 300mm F4 is a bit lighter than the Olympus 150mm F2, but how is it smaller ?

Same for the Olympus 35-100mm f2 and Canon 70-200mm f4. Actually, the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 may have even been smaller than the Olympus 35-100mm f2. Don't hold me to that, but I seem to remember that it appeared like it might be.