CP+ might’ve been cancelled due to COVID-19 concerns, but Olympus has improvised and shared its presentation on YouTube instead. The 44-minute video covers a variety of topics, but two specific moments stand out.
The first is a demonstration Olympus shared showing just how much zoom you can get out of the Olympus 150–400mm F4.5 lens. One demonstration, seen in the above screenshot from the video, shows a photograph captured with the sun setting over Mount Fuji, captured a ridiculous 67km (42 miles) away, at Olympus’ Ishikawa facility. To capture the shot, Olympus used the 1.25x converter inside the lens as well as the MC-20 2x converter to achieve a 2000mm (35mm equivalent) focal length.
A screenshot from the presentation contextualizing just how far away the photograph and timelapse images were captured from.
The next demonstration with the lens was a hand-held shot of the moon, seen in the below screenshot from the video, captured with the exact same camera setup.
In addition to both images, Olympus also shows a short timelapse video of the sunset over Mount Fuji (the section on the 150–400mm F4.5 lens starts at roughly 36:00).
The above captions in the image are auto-translated via YouTube.
Olympus representatives also note later on in the video that more lenses are in development. However, no further information was given.
Much hype, not much substance. Is this the best Olympus can do? My own admittedly amateur moon pictures with EM1 Mk 1 and 300mm f4 with 1.4 tc look better.
While this is nice, I would like to see them take a photo that has more details in it so that I could get an idea of the resolution. When the photo is of the sun, which appears as a white ball, above a black silhouette of the mountain... I can't tell anything about resolution. I would like to see a picture of a bird taken from far away. That way I could see what kind of detail there is in the eye and the feathers. If the lens & camera combined can take great pictures of birds, especially flying birds, then that would be intriguing.
I had a Sony A6300 and adapted the Sigma 150-600mm. And yes I could do handheld shots of the Moon at ISO200, f8 and 1/160s at 600mm x1,5. And yes the photos looked sharper.
@ StarLord: There is no difference with hand holding an 800 mm focal length lens when shooting the moon, no matter sensor size.
The moon will fill the same area on any sensor, and the full moon will not even fill the MFT format at 800 mm. The difference might be pixel size (you can of cause have small and large sensors with same pixel density), and smaller pixels will reveal camera shake or imperfect focus easier than larger pixels.
For high resolution moon shots with long focal lengths the most important factor is seeing, though, to which extent turbulent air affects fine detail resolution.
"There is no difference with hand holding an 800 mm focal length lens when shooting the moon," No one said there was. Just a silly straw man. There is a difference between 2000mm and 800mm EFL obviously.
Umm I think you guys are confused here... There is a difference here, because we are talking about 800mm vs 400mm. The size and weight difference should be substantial.
Umm I think you guys are confused here... There is a difference here, because we are talking about 800mm vs 400mm. The size and weight difference should be substantial.
Umm I think you guys are confused here... There is a difference here, because we are talking about 800mm vs 400mm. The size and weight difference should be substantial.
"RX10 Camera with 24–200 mm The RX10IV has a "ZEISS® Vario-Sonnar® T* 24–600 mm" lens.
Magnar despises Sony, Clearly he thinks the RX10IV is incapable of achieving images with the same FoV as a 600mm lens, and that whole "equivalence" thing is BS. Now we can form a good opinion of Magnar's (lack of) knowledge of photography :)
@ StarLord: What I say is that 400 mm don't become 800 mm just because of a crop or a smaller sensor.
And I don't use terms like "morons" and "really stupid" about people. I prefer plain arguments, tied to the topic that is discussed.
Equivalent focal length is just for comparing systems. Like the terms "effective focal length" or "field of view", equivalent focal length does NOT change the physical focal length.
And you know what: I own two cameras with MFT sensors.
When I compare the EM1.2 and A6300 on dxo noise is virtually equal as is DR at ISO200. But you are using F8. This lens is equal to F/5.6 on APSC, so a full stop faster. No doubt the M43 image will be better. Of course there is no HHHR mode on the A6300, so resolution will be poor compared to this camera too.
We get it. You hate Sony for lying and saying the RX10 Camera has a 24–200 mm lens and the RX10IV has a "ZEISS® Vario-Sonnar® T* 24–600 mm" lens. And you think Equivalence is not real.
@ StarLord: I think you have said enough about yourself, and your ability to discuss objectively. I have not even mentioned or commented on the small sensor cameras and the equivalent focal lengts you are talking about.
Equivalence is a construction, and is used in photography for comparing systems.
@ StarLord: Equivalence has caused a lot of misunderstanding, and this is proved in about every discussion where systems are compared, including this tread.
"Equivalence has caused a lot of misunderstanding" It is a mathematical framework. It hasn't "caused" anything. Ignorant people calling it "silly" (like you did) cause misunderstanding.
You know it’s funny, because the film days people didn’t try to create an equivalence with the focal length... They just said find a lens with an equivalent field of view when shooting smaller than Medium Format and it really is that simple.
I am primarily interested in the AF capability of the 150-400 with the camera, if it can equal or surpass the A9ii, then I am in. DOF is of a lesser concerns when you want reach and portability. Also need to know the noise level compared to APS-C and FF. Please educate as I know nothing about the Olympus four-third system. Thanking you in advance! Cheers.
You'll have to wait for reviews and production samples to determine if AF on the 150-400mm will meet your expectations/needs for your subject matter. I suspect the lens will not be a weak link, and you'll be practically limited by the body and processor capabilities. Recent flagship m43 bodies (e.g., EM-1iii, EM-1x, EM-5iii) are all excellent, although perhaps still not quite as good as A9ii (or even Nikon D500). I suggest you ask on m43 forums and Sony forums to see if anyone who owns both systems can comment.
As far as noise, recent m43 sensors are ~2/3-1 stop noisier at same ISO compared to APS-C and ~2 stops sensors compared to FF. But depending on what you shoot, you might find you can shoot m43 closer to wide open and still have adequate DoF, which may let you shoot at lower ISOs than on a larger sensor system. On the other hand, when you can shoot the larger systems closer to wide open and still achieve needed DoF and image sharpness, the noise differences will begin to appear.
Well sometimes when you build cameras for fun and as advertisement they turn out interesting. T is nice we have one vendor that does not play for profit
In 20202, does DPreview really lack the technology and expertise to translate at least the subtitles into English? I understand only a few words of Japanese, and that's probably more than many others reading this.
The Nikon P900 has been taking shots like this for years and the newer P1000 surpasses it with ease, the huge ball of fire sunsets I get plus amazing moon shots for a fraction of the cost and weight, small sensor, agreed ,but the glass is magnificent and with care I get images that surpass my D800 and AI-p 500mm f4! Regards Davy
Didn't anyone tell you, there is this thing called diffraction that means only FF and MF cameras can take these kinds of pictures. And it is impossible for the p1000. Just like all the photos showing the Earth is round, your amazing photos can't be real. :)
+Sony San Didn't anyone tell you, there is this thing called atmosphere/haze that means even FF and MF cameras will not improve IQ as greatly as you think? Just shoot with P1000 and then FF with proper lens. I was heavily surprised and now I know why people like these megazooms so much.
FF cameras can shoot for miles because cropping doesn't affect their IQ and the Earth is flat. Smaller sensor cameras cannot because of diffraction and Bigfoot.
Since the earth is a globe, and mt Olympus is on quite another side of the globe vs Fuji´s headquarter, they´d have to go to Grecce and shoot from some random place there,..supposing that they´d shoot the mt Olympus image from the same distance as did Olympus did shoot their mt Fuji image ;-)
This and the recent omf em1x and mk3 offer something different: the next step to removing the mirror and boosting video specs - computational photography. Keep it up
Funny you should mention that, I did a diffraction test just the other day with my 12-100 f4. The camera and lens were tripod mounted, silent shutter and iso200. F22 of course was not the best, and fine detail was compromised to a certain degree...still usable though. But interestingly, when viewed at 100%, there was almost no difference from f4 through to f13, fine details were similarly retained.
It's worth remembering aperture size is relative to focal length. F11 at 1000 mm actual is still a physically quite large gap for light to pass unobstructed
I would never want use this lens with a 2 X converter, shots of the moon for details serve a purpose, but are banal to be honest. But for birds this lens is fantastic, and f4.5-8 is fine with plenty of dof for extreme close ups, head shots etc, of these difficult subjects
When you start getting out to super telephoto distances, often your limiting factor is atmospheric haze rather than diffraction. There's nothing you can do about that, no matter your aperture size.
Olympus, Some of the best weather resistance around. Some of the best build quality around. The best HHHR around. And one of the better in camera HR modes around. Until there is an 80MP FF camera or a 40MP APSC camera, this is going to be one of the better options for wildlife, hiking, and extreme outdoor use.
Sony is now making 33 and 43 mp 4/3 sensors too. Thanks, Sony I look forward to them with this lens.
I'm incredibly impressed that Olympus shot the sunset from the top of their building. Almost as if they had built the building there anticipating that in 2020 they can take a shot of the sun landing on top of Mount Fuji. Some good calcs going on there to get the date right!
The big difference will be in usability of such a kit. A7R IV is not exactly an action shooting camera.
Not sure how Sony would AF at f/13 as well (A9 can do it easily, don't know about A7R IV). But then again, we also don't know how well Olympus focuses at f/11.
And finally, image quality is a big unknown. 200-600 + x2 TC looks pretty good on a 24 MP sensor. But at 61 MP?
And you're probably close with the price of this Olympus. Might be even higher, who knows.
Let's look at this 1200 mm - and by cropping to Olympus level 2000 mm. That is a 1.7x crop on top of a 2x TC. Because of the crop, depending on which ISO is used, DR could be a little higher or usually lower than an EM-1.2 Because of the extra crop, there is even more stress on the lens. I'd like to see see how the Olympus performs, but the Sony would appear to be at a disadvantage here.
You say "for 20 fps I use A9." which will give you an 8mp image. You are getting into smartphone territory. :)
Have seen good results from that Sony combo, Still though, it's only a good thing that Olympus are offering such a thing. And tbf one can take pretty good handheld moon photos just with the 300mm f4 + 1.4x TC, with very little excursion.
Bravo, Olympus! They've got one of the best systems out there. The future might be bright thanks to the (ironically) smaller sensor and computational photography. There's also a new 48mp 4/3 sensor from Sony, which could be great in a new E-M1R Regards
If anything like the 300mm lens, it will take years before avaliable after launch. Another lens you will have to order and wait 6 mo. or a year before it is in your hands. If I had to guess there will be a 1-2 year waiting list.
Eehh, at the price it will be sold for, I think there will not be that many buyers. I mean $2500 (or whatever the MSRP on 300 was) is still within reach of more dedicated and wealthy enthusiasts. A lot of forum members on DPR own one.
But at around $10k, you're looking at very few people buying that. A few Olympus die-hards, maybe a few pros switching because of it, maybe a few filthy reach enthusiasts. I think if they produce a first batch of 300 of those, the supply side will be good for a few months :-)
In the most extreme case, it will be "made to order" kind of deal.
When I was a teenager, I bought a 3x Vivitar teleconverter (yes 3x!) to go behind my Tamron 70-200mm. Yes of course it gave me a huge 600mm reach and some good shots of the moon. So what? Olympus demonstrate that a tiny sensor + telephoto lens + lots of teleconverters = big magnification. We know that already. Who needs 2000 mm?
2000mm eq. is an extreme example. The lens by itself goes to 500mm (1000mm eq.) which is perfectly reasonable and useful, as demonstrated by MFT forum members posting shots of birds at 600mm (1200mm eq.). Slapping an extra x2 TC is a bit overkill, but what Olympus is showing is that it is possible. Nothing wrong with having options.
It's a bit of a halo lens, yeah. Olympus is probably making this as much to show they can as because people have been clamoring for it. They probably won't sell huge volumes of these, but if you really need this kind of reach then there are only so many options!
Birders will buy it, though. They are often wealthy amateurs, and they need tons of reach. I regularly see lines of cars on the beach, all with $10,000 bazooka lenses hanging out the windows, photographing Snowy Owls. These are people who will spend thousands of dollars on a pair of binoculars. M43 is popular because it offers a lot of performance without all the bulk and weight of FF gear, and frankly most of the dedicated birders I know (especially the more well-to-do ones) are on the older side and probably don't want to be dealing with full frame superteles. Birds are always small and far away—2000mm would not be overkill at all.
The EM1Mark II has no trouble keeping up, the following comparison between the original E-M1, let alone the E-M1 II, and Nikon D800e is compelling! For the vast majority of photographic situations, Full frame superiority is all in your head. When I’m out photographing with any group, friends or otherwise, and especially older folk who are carting around their 70-200 2.8s, or a 100-400 f4.5-5.6, and these huge and limited range 24-70 2.8s...it just looks painful, and not much fun. And I say to myself, why are thy carrying equipment, that weighs so much, and they never make prints of any size from the thousands of images that they make....marketing baffles me sometimes! https://www.thewanderinglensman.com/2014/02/the-practical-difference-between-full.html
Sony 42MP FF cameras have an 18MP 1.5x crop mode. You could use a 600mm zoom with an absurd 2x TC on the Sony, too. Now you have 1800mm equivalent 18MP with an APS-C sensor vs 2000mm at 20MP with a 4/3 sensor. Not really that different.
Or if you just use 24MP APS-C with the same absurd 600mm+2xTC you end up at 1800mm with 24MP which crops to 19.5MP at 2000mm.
"simply impossible from a practical POV with "full frame"
To make an M43 out of FF, simply crop the FF to M43 size. All the physics of M43 apply to that cropped FF image, including "equivalent FL", FOV, sampling, noise and so on. But aside from the physics there will be differences in firmware, user interface, weight/size and such. So there may be some merit to that claim but it is certainly not "impossible".
You apparently have little or no understanding of optics or physics. Otherwise you would be capable of responding with something of substance. Your silly accusation that I belong to "FF religion" is an obvious (and false) projection that only reveals you as an M43 acolyte ("fan boy" in DPR-speak).
your simplistic reduction of an entire sensor world speaks volumes
and I left out your fundamentalist devotion to the pheronology of "equivalence " lol dragged out like a dead cat to any comparison , except i phones laughingly
Olympus did the right thing and not going into the fullframe market where canon nikon and Sony dominatre. Much better concentrsting on those that Can sacrifice little of the performance Benefits with ff cameras etc för a smaller kit. And zuiiko lenses are fantastic like the 12-100mm f4 lens. Me i dont have any problems shooting with a 5d and a huge sigma art lens the Whole day but thats me
I don't think they have anything like the budget, so wasn't an issue. Hopefully continued losses won't stop them being around for many years (my last m43 lens was the Oly 45/1.2 and I'm very happy with it BTW).
When you say: "2000mm (35mm equivalent) focal length" That's for FoV, for detail that's only when comparing to a 20MP FF camera. People with 50-60MP FF cameras get a built-in 1.5x or more resolution boost (with good lenses). A Sony 200-600 with a 2x extender on a A7rIV might only be 1200mm but is going to give you about the same coverage per pixel.
BTW you can stack the Canon 2x and 1.4x extenders (just one way, so be careful), but the reduction in quality only makes it worth considering for computational photography (i.e. stacking). I can't see it'll be different here. (Also you can't go wide if you need to.)
(Just saying, note don't have a Sony ILC but do have m43/FF.)
The thing to remember is that cropping isn't free. What looks like a good quality image with 24 MP sensor might not be so good when you crop a third of the pixels from the center of a 61 MP sensor. In fact, it will never be as good (but at least no vignetting and probably a lot more uniform sharpness if cropped from the center).
And of course, the whole cropping argument goes out the window once a higher res Micro 4/3 body comes out.
Aside from that, there's not much we can say now on the advantages or disadvantages of this Olympus lens. It's going to be expensive for sure. Everything else is an unknown, including the very trivial things like its size and weight (which we can only approximate).
There are some great videos around of insane P900 zooms, and the P1000 goes even further. Though the small sensors mean you need just the right conditions to get anything half-decent. Also the P1000 is huge.
The extreme zoom of P1000 is mostly a marketing gimmick. I actually went to the trouble of taking a shot from a lower focal length that was close to P900 max and blowing it up to simulate P1000's longest FL. The image quality was the same.
So yeah, this amazing reach of P1000 can easily be simulated by a digital zoom. Video is probably the only area where there's some advantage to the longer lens.
I find it hard to believe there was no atmospheric distortion at that distance. I guess it's possible if very rare but It would have been more credible if it showed some distortion. It's almost misleading to suggest such an image is the norm.
Hah ha, why ? Sony is not a benchmark and a fixed lens and a system camera are very different things, it would be different if Sony made the RX lens with a m4/3 Mount , you could compare then because you would also have the same crop factor.
You 2 are not aware of the superior quality of the Zeiss lens in the Sony RX 10 IV ,. If you try it , it will blow you away. Even with the small sensor ! That's why I asked the original question.
The bridge camera has a nice lens. Sure, I believe that it performs great on the bridge camera. But it is in no way a competition for this beast. Let alone be of 'superior' quality.
It will likely be one of the sharpest super telephotos available when it’s released. Olympus produce some of the very best glass, their optical engineering is at the top...they don’t *#*# around when designing their pro lenses! No, the RX 10 IV won’t even be in the same universe!
paulfulper - the zuiko legacy is every bit as credible as zeiss. I have seen RX images and they are impressive for a bridge camera but next to the Oly Pro 300 F4 they are only good at best.
Such photos are the reason that I keep my Canon EF 5.6 400, its 2x TC and the SL2 which has the 3x "zoom" mode for FullHD video making it a 400 x 2 x 1.6 x 3 = 3840 mm equiv lens! Great to see Olympus doing such development and IQ seems very fine!
Gio on, some us some images you have taken with that set up. I have the EF400 and the 7D mkii and would not dream of using the extender as the already slow aperture just gets slower, F8, then to get a good hand hold and deal with fast action I typically need 1/1250 - 1/1600 which drives up my ISO in all but very good light. Try magnifying grainy images and all you get is ugly noisy images that can be partially fixed at the expense of introducing artifices. Don’t get me wrong, I love the EF400 and my 7D mkii, I have some great BIF and wildlife shots , the best of these taken in good light.
On my GH4 it had an option to shoot 1080p video using the centre 1920x1080 pixels of the sensor, which made for the same quality as cropping FHD from the centre of a 4k video. But much easier to see what you were shooting. Stacking teleconverters/extenders doesn't work as well in my experience though.
- Patlezinc: I had to add "for this type of lens / situations" In fact there is small chance to have stable atmosphere, stable enough for these FLs so max IQ is reduced by that and FOR THAT I stated my remark.
George1958: Below is a frame of a short sequence of the moon running through the image with the above mentioned package. IMO IQ is very good for that combo and in the movie it is better because turbulences are averaged and eye-brain search for the sharpest image. And this one was NOT made handheld :)
Dr_Jon: Maybe the EF 400 5.6 and the OLDEST mark i 2x TC work well together because they were developed in the same time. At least I think the combo can work very fine (see below):
Michael B 66 - the moon is nice enough, movie can be shot with relatively smaller sensors for good results and the format is somewhat more forgiving than stills. Also the moon is a fairly bright object, I can shoot a and held my 7D at low ISO and will often need to turn down my exposure compensation.
A better test is wildlife that is fast moving or in poor light using stills, I think you would notice the difference.
@George1958: You are right about the remarks with wildlife especially e.g. in a forest. A f/2.8 400mm with 2x TC is a must.
With the 7D (or e.g. 600D in my case) AF isn't available with EF 5.6 400 + 2x TC - with M50 or RP you have DPAF just @ f/11 which is very precise but not very fast in low light @ f/11.
Not something I have a use for, but they seem pretty busy for a company that's due to go out of business in the next few weeks. Maybe the rumor in DPR based on a PowerPoint wasn't 100% true.
Samsung was pretty busy making good cameras and then suddenly stopped. Sorry, I just had to say that. I hope Olympus stays around for a long time as I love their cameras!
But that was Samsung. A company with no tradition in photography.
For Olympus, dropping their photo division would probably be seen as humiliating.
For Samsung it was just business as usual. And not surprising if you saw how they didn't really want to sell their stuff in many regions or the way they marketed it. Samsung thought selling cameras would be just like selling smartphones. It was not, it got them nowhere, so they cut their losses and went home.
Indeed, that 800 monsters are about $12.000 and at 4.5kg are far from hand-holdable .
I expect this to be somewhere closer to the $3-4.000 range. The "dual" TC is actually a good thing, as you will usually use none or only the internal one which makes the lens F5.6, still nice on the M43 sensor. This is also a more general audience lens, being a very useful zoom range at it's base setup for sports and wildlife.
You don’t lose DR when you crop. Stop spreading nonsense. Yes there is a noise problem because the pixels are smaller. Although you seem to neglect that in your praise of the system below.
The sony is 6.3 at tele, with a 2x TC, that would be 1200mm F12.6. This is 800mm F4.5 or 1000mm F5.6 (with the built in 1.25 TC) or
If you would want to apply overall equivalence (accounting for same total light gathered), you should use the entire FF sensor. 1000/F11.2 (built in converter), 1600mm/F18 (with 2x TC only) or the 1200/F12.6 with the sony.
But, the main point and great thing, is that for Olympus users the sony lens is not really a solution, so congrats to Olympus for the lens :)
Agreed, A7RIV + 200-600mm is an option but most people who use Olympus trust them for their rugged/weatherproof build quality. They've never let me down in poor weather unlike an X-T2 +100-400mm I had that didn't enjoy a heavy downpour.
More equivalences only when it suits you.you have to scale up the aperture when you scale up the focal length for all purposes except calculating exposure.
@mike... i am not a "equivalence advocate", though the numbers usually don't lie - they give a reasonable scientific starting point in a comparison between different systems.
And n case you missed it i did scale up the aperture, as i specifically said that i used the numbers for the total light gathered. The Olympus is a constant 4.5 lens (x1.25 the internal TC, x2 the crop equivalence gives you that F11.2 at 1000mm)
Anyway, some people would prefer the effective faster lens simply because of advantages in AF, some would prefer the larger sensor , but that is another topic.
P.S. It doesn't "suits me" in any way, as i'm not planning to buy any of the two lenses :))
"You are very optimistic, I would say. :-) My bet is $8k or more."
Yes, if Olympus is seeing them as in the same region as the canon's 200-400/F4 with 1.4TC (priced at $11k), you'd be probably right. I was thinking that both the F4.5 smaller aperture, and the smaller TC factor (with somewhat the "saving" of the smaller format) to put it half of that. Now, i guess that i was too optimistic indeed, but i still think over 6k will not be that greatly appreciated.
I've always enjoyed watching people like MikeRan who clearly don't know what they are taking about but still trying to make a ridiculously wrong point.
What @MikeRan is saying relates to everyone’s discussion here of FF vs APSC vs. MFT.
If all are the same pixel count, cropping a FF sensor should provide higher DR because its pixels will be larger, though MP count of the cropped area will of course be lower.
If the FF sensor is proportionally higher resolution, i.e. FF 48MP vs APSC 24MP, the DR of a FF crop to the APSC “window” should result in the same DR, all else equal.
"If all are the same pixel count, cropping a FF sensor should provide higher DR because its pixels will be larger, though MP count of the cropped area will of course be lower."
Not if you look past individual pixels and consider the whole image. If the FF crop will be 8mp and you scale down an image from a smaller sensor to 8mp, you will get about the same DR, because scaling down averages the noise.
"If the FF sensor is proportionally higher resolution, i.e. FF 48MP vs APSC 24MP, the DR of a FF crop to the APSC “window” should result in the same DR, all else equal."
Note that this is exactly opposite of what MikeRan claims. Because they do not understand what DR is. And they refuse to learn. To be more precise, they refuse to accept the definition of DR. Go figure.
Firstly I'm sorry my simple comment got so stretched.
The 16MP m43 sensors have pixels about 3.75u, this almost exactly is the same as the Sony A7rIV (3.73u).
The 20MP m43 sensors have pixels about 3.34u, this is 11.6% more linear resolution so barely noticeable (you really need 15% to see a difference).
This means you get about the same resolution cropping FF as with m43 (at same physical focal length). Sony is BSI/dual gain so has better pixels for DR. (Note DR is usually normalised, rather than given per pixel, as people usually look at the whole image this is a better comparison, but if the pixels are about the same size it matters less.)
Noise is mostly down to how much light you can catch, where the Sony pixels are about 33% ahead (BSI gives more photons, pixel can hold more).
I'm not changing my GH5 for a A7r4 at any point! Merely pointing out high-MP FF mean doubling m43 focal length to give reach, rather than just FoV, isn't great when considering very expensive lenses.
Not saying my language is perfect. Just pointing out an obvious mistake in someone's comment and trying to help them improve and people get all upset. Seems like you do too. Such a strange World.
And this shows that stacking TCs gives you a mediocre image that's at the mercy of atmospherics. I find nothing terribly exciting about this from Olympus.
I'm sure you are aware that nobody forces anyone to shoot subjects that are kilometers away.
Atmosphere will not be a problem when taking photos of small birds a couple meters away. Micro 4/3 users do it at 600mm, they might as well do it at 700 and 1000 mm.
And if this one is similar to other PRO line lenses, it will also have pretty respectable close focusing capability for larger insects like butterflies and such. Again, no atmosphere will get in the way of that.
Actually, it will not be a problem for most scenarios this lens will be used in.
Dpreview is the home of sofa photographers, pixel peepers and spec readers. I've taking photos since 1968, digital since 2005, MFT since 2009. I use MFT and full frame in addition to 35mm and medium format film. I shoot as a hobby, I do paid work and I have a stock portfolio. No system has made me as much money as MFT. No system is as user friendly and no system is so easy to take everywhere.
Yes, sometimes one can get somewhat better quality with full frame, but in real life, it rarely matters. Just a few weeks ago, I sold my Nikon full frame kit again (third time, yes I'm stupid, stupid to buy full frame again), hopefully for the last time. I just kept a film body and a couple of lenses for when I get an urge for Tri-X and film grain. Apart from that, full frame is just a hassle, something too many think they need. I do industrial photography, travel photography and portraits. Those who buy my photos never ask what camera I used. It's all about the image.
It is rather funny how the majority of the comments are either bashing or defending a camera system. All comes down to one person trying to justify their purchase vs another 🥳 I’m glad I’m past that point now, I think. Some of the best images I’ve taken of last are from my mobile phone, old Foveon Sigma cameras at the same time as my Leica M and Fuji GFX are sat in the cupboard.
@JT26 There are good reasons for that. Most amateurs don't need cameras that are better or more advanced than the 10-12 MP camera that were sold 10-15 years ago. Anything beyond that, and we start inventing reasons for upgrading. I know I did. The most suitable digital camera for my needs was the Nikon D80, the only camera since the OM-1 that I've literally worn out. Unfortunately, they don't make them like they used to. It took me 30 years to wear out the Olympus, 5 years with the D80.
Now I'm using two GX8 bodies that I bought used. One is starting to show its age, so I will be looking for another used one. Knowing my cameras is much more important than having the latest tech.
100% agree. We are photography fans, not camera gear addicts. Photos are about emotions and feelings, not dof and pixel count. Go out and take photos ! Absolutely all cameras on the market in 2020 are great. When I read this I wonder how I could only dare taking photos in 2000 😀
zakk9, you're completely right. We shouldn't judge any camera system by on-paper specs, but with results.
Smaller sensors come with more effective stabilization systems too. They're easier carry, they can take stunning photos however, they're not perfect.
If I wasn't taking too many photos in low light scenarios, I'd happily live with a Fuji kit TBH.
On the other hand, while expensive and sometimes unwieldy, I like the shallow DoF and light capture ability of my full frame kit.
I personally don't understand people who bash other systems or praise the ones they use as the only one and the best. They're the tool, not the result itself.
I want to rephrase a proverb from audiophile world to here:
Photographers use their equipment to take photographs, sofa photographers use photographs to show-off their equipment.
Photography is a skill learned over time. You can't become a good photographer overnight for just having bought the latest camera. To start taking good photographs, learn the art of photography first and then know your camera well. That means use your camera as often as possible to prepare yourself for that unexpected opportunity to capture the moment. Your camera can be more than 15 years old.
same with me, I always used FT, mFT and DX, FX and compare - for travel, macro, family you are right with mFT but I would never like to take portraits with mFT, nor 1.2/45 mm there are far better systems around, Fuji, Nikon, Sony
and I never got so much fantastic sharp pictures of moving animals - as with Sony FF - mFT is far behind - sensor is to small and the lenses will get as heavy and long as FF. A 4/300 mm is a 4/300 mm - and never a 4/600 mm - I can put a Canon 4/600 mm on a Olympus and get a 4/1200 mm! The rest is marketing bs!
I rented an E-M5 back in the day for a project since my E-30 didn't shoot video. I don't think I've ever been quite so impressed with a camera.
I shoot Nikon DX right now (and am very happy), but I'd still be on Olympus if the Oly 300 f4 had come out sooner.
m4/3 is a perfectly fine system that has some great lenses, well-designed bodies, and has better image quality than most people think (it's very close to Nikon DX).
@Entropius try the even lighter, cheaper and much more compact Nikon 4.0/300 mm PF - even with 1.7x TC - and you will never think about Olympus mFT again.
i don't have m43 as i cannot afford m43 kit to give me the look i am after !! My 5Dmk1 is only worth £150 GBP..i pay £165 for a 85mm F1.8..my 100mm F2 cost £195 you can get a 21MP 5d Mkii for£300 a second hand M.Zuiko Digital ED 45mm f/1.2 PRO les is £750 and is BIGGER than my FF 100 F2 and the zuiko 45mm F1.2 has the FF equivalent of 90mm and F2.4 so not as fast
Yes, that's what I'm shooting now. I'm very happy with my Nikon equipment. But I only switched systems because Olympus didn't make a tele lens for m4/3 that I wanted to use at the time.
m4/3 is a fantastic system; so is Nikon DX. One doesn't invalidate the other.
I didn't know why some are acting like the following is not true: Cropping a FF image 2x will reduce DR by 2EV. It will increase noise 2 stops. It will decrease resolution 75%.
Crop an A7R4 image taken at ISO 400 2x you get a 15.5mp image. It will have about 11EV of DR. Take an EM1.2 image at ISO400 and you get a 20MP image with almost12EV of DR. It will have less noise too. It's the same for almost every ISO.
And obviously 24MP images cropped 2x are only 6MP.
The point? There is no FF camera today after cropping 2x that comes close to the better M43 cameras. These comments about "just crop the FF image 2x for the same results" are total BS.
Pascal F, im not sure if you are agreeing with MikeRan here now or not?
The more detailed and higher IQ photos ive seen of the moon are with larger pixel pitches still. Even when the resulting crop is many fewer mp than the smaller sensor.
Im sure there are lots of crossover points and variables but even my 20mp 5Dm2 cropped, holds up against my 20mp 7Dm2 not cropped. In general.
Makes me think of buying an old 1Dm4 APS-H actually...
What lens was used? Put it on an EM1.3 and you'll get an even more detailed image of the center 25% of the original image. That is not a guess. It is a fact.
Mikeran you are right. All those posts below saying you can crop a FF image 2x and get the same results are dumb. It's a dumb idea. The best FF sensor cropped 2x becomes the worst M43 sensor.
I heard a variation of this argument once (it involved using crop mode on a FF), and didn't get it. Why does cropping reduce DR? The pixels aren't any different. If I take a 12 DR image with my FF, and crop the left side off, do I lose dynamic range? (Assume the tones are spread around the image. Can you explain this? Thanks.
APS-C is cropped FF but m4/3 is not cropped anything. It's a complete system in every way based on a 4:3 sensor. The 4:3 sensor is in no way a cropped sensor. It was around in the TV industry long before Olympus came up with a comletely new camera system optimised for it. So it makes no sense to compare it to a notional half a FF sensor. It's almost like comparing a motorbike to a car sliced in two lengthwise. The only compatison that makes semse is imagines side by side. Let's see them.
If you crop, you enlarge more to get to a given output size, so a given area in the final image will be made of fewer pixels, so if the pixels are merely the same and have the same individual DR, then the image as a whole has less DR. (You “zoom in on the noise”, so to speak.)
@ BobT3218: No sensors are cropped. They fill the frame they are made for, and each sensor size has it's pros and cons.
Take a given focal length, say 400 mm, and place sensors of different size behind this lens. Each sensor will record a different field of view, narrower the smaller sensor. This crop looks like more reach, but this is an illusion.
Note also that crop factor is about comparing! It says nothing at all about sensor size. It just tells how the field of view differ between smaller and larger sensors.
The latent image from this 400 mm lens is the same. If you crop all images to the size of the smallest sensor they will look identical, pixel size put aside.
If you really want to learn something about focal length and sensor size, or other aspects of image qualities between sensors, stop attacking or defending camera systems, and take a close look at the physical aspects of lenses and imaging!
What people think or feel doesn't make any camera system worse or better!
@Bob - well, if you want to put things like that, APSC is also "not cropped anything". It's a complete system in every way, based on motion picture Super35 format (with the original Superscope 235 dating back to 1954) that was simply using the standard 35mm film rolls sideways. Why show love only to the M43?
@Pascsl F, @Spider-mario It's not a rule, it's an approximation. That's easy to understand: by this approximation if you crop enough you soon get into negative EV dynamic range, which is nonsense. In reality it's unknown which is better - cropping FF or using a crop sensor outright, but the result will be close enough to not matter. There is no magic source about low volume m43 sensors.
Why would that be nonsense? It just means that the maximum signal is lower than the noise floor (or, in the case of photographic dynamic range, whatever you define as “tolerable noise”), which is absolutely plausible if you crop enough. Why would it not be?
“In reality it's unknown which is better - cropping FF or using a crop sensor outright”
It’s whatever sensor is the best on a fixed spatial scale, which is only unknown until you measure them. PhotonsToPhotos has per-pixel saturation and read noise data for various sensors at http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm (add a camera to the chart, then click it in the legend), which you can then adjust for the number of pixels in your area of interest on each respective sensor.
@spider-mario if you crop a7rIV 7 times by 2x, that will leave you with 3662 pixels (60MP/(4^7)). By your logic that would result in DR of -1EV. Would you still insist that 3662 pixels of a7rIV cannot resolve any signal above noise floor? Is this not nonsense?
In the end, this empirical evidence does not merit any claims that one sysetm will be better than the other. If there is difference it would be marginal at best. Therefore the results from m43 system shown here are very similar to cropping an FF system, with the small differences due to sensor technologies and lens quality, not some underlying laws of physics. Theoretically they will be exactly the same.
Some points... Firstly noise goes with square-root of area, so a 2x linear crop adds one stop of noise, not two. Secondly if you are cropping a FF sensor you don't get to use a 2x factor on the m43 focal length. Resolution is perceived by people from linear not area pixels, plus you can't tell differences less than 15%. I found my GH4 (16MP m43) showed about the same amount of detail on a subject as a crop from a 50MP FF camera with the same (physical, not equivalent) focal length. My GH5 (20MP) is a little ahead.
Also an A7rIV has (per Photons-to-photos) 11.6 stops of DR at ISO 100 vs 9.7 for a M1-III at 200.
“if you crop a7rIV 7 times by 2x, that will leave you with 3662 pixels (60MP/(4^7)). By your logic that would result in DR of -1EV. Would you still insist that 3662 pixels of a7rIV cannot resolve any signal above noise floor? Is this not nonsense?”
If you go by engineering DR then sure, the DR will be positive here. But if you go by photographic DR, I don’t think the DR of those 74×49 pixels will be very high, no.
“The per-pixel read noise of a7riv is lower than any olympus camera in your own source: […]. So by your logic a7rIV is better.”
In situations where read noise is the limiting factor, it would indeed appear so. I wasn’t trying to argue with that.
@Dr_Jon: “Firstly noise goes with square-root of area, so a 2x linear crop adds one stop of noise, not two.”
It adds as much noise as would exposing two stops less, which is what I believe people mean when they say that. It’s “two stops of exposure’s worth of noise”.
only theory - I have Oly EM1II, Pana G9 and Sony 7RIV here.
My results with cropping 7RIV are much better then every Olympus picture behind 1000 ISO. And I benefit from a larger, clearer viewfinder, faster AF-prozessing and so on!
From the comments I get that "reach" is not the best measure. So what is the best measure? Say I want to see the most detailed picture of the moon (or part of it), taken from earth, with standard setup (camera + lens). Other way to say it: best pixel-peeper setup for moon shots.
I have taken some Moon pictures with an OM-D E-M10 II with a single TAMRON SP 500mm F8 mirror lens that are more detailed than this one. Single shots, no stacking, from my city :
Actually #1 is reach. Crop the best FF sensor 2x and you get a below average M43 sensor. A cropped sensor gives you more reach. What ever lens you put on a FF camera, you can also put on an M43 camera and it will have more reach and perform BETTER than the FF camera after a 2x crop to get the same reach.
Roland Karlson, Marginally better, but keep in mind I used an old 500mm mirror lens, not a modern, supposedly optically better, 1000mm combo... 4x less pixels for the Moon... And if you consider the cost of the setup used by Olympus, then my shots have more than a marginally better value for the money... ;-)
spider-mario, Absolutely. And in winter, the nights are longer, which is also an advantage. The sensor also works at a colder temperature, reducing the noise. But one should take great care when going back into a warmer room to avoid moisture condensation in the gear.
Olympus has always made very high quality lenses. The problem is, the sensors they have been using are extremely old and outdated, especially the 16mp sensor. How many sensor upgrades have they made (besides going to the 20mp sensor) since year? You can have the greatest lenses on earth, but if you sensor can't take advantage of them, well... what's the point? https://www.dpreview.com/products/olympus/cameras?subcategoryId=cameras&page=1 Oh yeah, have you seen the size & weight of the most recent OM-D E-M1X! It's bigger and more expensive than most FF cameras! https://www.dpreview.com/products/olympus/slrs/olympus_em1x
Might be 2013. The NX1 with the 28MP BSI sensor was from 2014. It out classes the latest A6x00 sensor with 15 fps and less rolling shutter and more resolution in 2014. There is list of all the features and specifications where the NX1 is still better than the newest A6x00 camera. A very, very long list.
I haven't personally seen a sensor actually wear out-not counting the delaminating ones that unfortunate companies like Leica have had to deal with.. but that is more a manufacturing issue. Iit seems like the moving parts of the camera such as the shutter, buttons, lens mount, etc. are far more prone to fail due to wear or damage than the solid state items like the sensor.
Canon 100-400 f5.6 with the 1.4x tc and 2.0x tc in series is similar with a crop. The resolution and aperture on the olympus is about a half stop better but I don’t think that this lens will be nearly as cheap as a ff 100-400
the 50-200 will give you an equivalent of f/8 then... also you can use a 100-400 with a 61mp Sensor and get much sharper pictures... don’t fool yourself
"also you can use a 100-400 with a 61mp Sensor and get much sharper pictures..."
You know what's the most interesting thing about statements like this? I see them thrown around regularly as if they were a fact, but I've never actually seen them being put to a test.
A cursory glance at DxO sharpness measurements indicates that your cropped FF shot would have a sharpness comparable to a kit zoom when used on a 12mp MFT body.
AF is not generally a problem at 2000mm. You set it to infinity. You use a tripod. You fight diffraction and you get what you get. Essentially you turn your camera into a telescope where physical aperture is immensely more meaningful than focal length.
So here's the main difference and a reason to go with Oly. You can use this Olympus kit handheld and not have to fiddle with MF or tripods. The shooting experience is on a completely different level to your alternative.
The 50-200 is a fair comparison and not a bordering ridiculous size like the 100-400. I can carry the 50-200 around e.g. a zoo and not look like I'm trying too hard. The same cannot be said for the full frame kit you are suggesting.
Panasonic also has similar teleconverters that will give similar field of view. The actual resolution is also comparable. Clearly a full frame camera has its advantages but if you can't admit someone would make those tradeoffs for the ridiculous size difference then you are a fool.
@Astrotripper, I don't disagree but I'll be surprised if you can get the 100-400 olympus cheaper than you can buy an A7R4 + 100-400 + 2.0x TC + tripod. That's a lot of kit for a lot of other uses than only going past 1000mm where the olympus would have an advantage. But yes, I agree it would have an advantage. M43 reach with autofocus should always exceed FF at the extreme.
@s1oth1ovechunk: "If you can't ___ then you are a fool" is not respectful discourse. Example: If you can't see talking like this is insulting than you are a fool.
It's really hard to judge now, since we know so little about this lens (like, literally nothing except that it's a 150-400/4.5 with 1.25 TC). I don't even really know how good or bad image quality is on the Sony combo you mention. Never saw anyone showing such tight crops from that (but then again it's not like I searched).
"Canon 100-400 f5.6 with the 1.4x tc and 2.0x tc in series is similar with a crop." Similar is not better. It is the result that matters. George Lepp, a Canon Explorer Of Light, has used that combination with Canon 1MDX II and 5DMiV. He writes for Outdoor Photography Magazine and has shot a lot of magazine covers with that combination. There have been a lot of stupid things said when comparing FF to MFT to try to justify MFT for insecure MFT users. I just went thru 3 galleries: National Geographic, Peter Lik's and Thomas Mangelsen's looking at large prints on the walls. I would bet that none of the photos were made with MFT. MFT has been around long enough to work it's way into the usage by pros, but is still only a small minimum. If equivalence mattered, more pros would be using it. MFT has it's usage, but time has already determined what that usage is.
@MyReality Because nobody is going to drag along an extra MFT camera system, just so he could use it when it's actually good enough. And then switch to a better camera when the MFT can't handle the tricky light. Bicycles are great, but when you need a car, you need a car.
look at your dxo mark site and look up how much more ca problems m43 lenses have and how the measured resolutions compare to FF cameras. I don’t have anything against m43, you can get great results with it. But don’t expect to get the same image quality as with bigger sensors and lenses.
Good to see what can be done when on a budget! But mirror lenses are notoriously difficult to focus to infinity. Walimex had a 500mm f/8 which is quite a bit sharper and easier to focus, recommended: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/19457831
The diffraction limited resolution for a 90 mm diameter lens and 1000 mm focal length is (at 0.5 um light) approx (1000/90) * 0.5 um = 5.5 um, which is in the order of the pixel size. There will be a soft roll off, so there will be some softness. Which is exactly what we see.
I get 0.77 arcseconds/pixel for that sensor at 1000mm. Yes, the crop gives a small FOV, so it might feel like you're getting something for free, but at that resolution, any atmospheric issues will be apparent and good luck getting sharp images.
OK, slightly larger aperture, in mm. And I guess it was a telescope as you say "in photography terms". The slightly larger aperture do not explain the much sharper image. Either the Olympus lens is crap or they made some mistake.
Yes, I think they missed focus, as they did a handheld shot. I've found attaining sharpest focus on the Moon requires manual focus in magnified view - I would never rely on autofocus.
I love how m4/3 has figured out how to turn their weakness, their small sensor, into their superpower by showcasing the benefits of a 2x crop factor. That, combined with the small size of the system, is pretty compelling.
Compelling--yes, in the age of baggage fees and strict carry-on limits. The smaller sensor allows for a smaller and lighter kit. It offers some advantages as a travel kit.
It's all about pixel density. It would have no advantage at all in reach over an 80MP FF sensor. Already Sony A7RIV is not far behind in reach and with vastly better IQ in situations when you don't need to crop (much).
Sony’s “vastly superior” tiny little full frame lens mount, meant for APSC can’t even have an IBIS system that works. It’s a joke to use their IBIS. Olympus, Canon and finally Nikon realized this and their mounts have been designed accordingly!
Actually, small sensor cameras are brilliant for bird shooting, and for other wild life that almost never come close. And for planetary astronomy, of course. No need for a medium format camera when taking pictures of Jupiter or a far away nebulosa. And there is no need to use a 35mm FF camera for moon photos if the lens is not in the order of 2000 mm.
I don't see how anything bigger that about a 12-40 can be considered a travel lens. If you're travelling for a shoot, you take whatever you need, not just a "travel lens".
Lots of idiots saying you can do a 2x crop on FF camera images and get FF IQ that is better than an EM1.2. Hint: At most ISOs it will be slightly worse and unless you have an 80mp camera resolution will be a lot less.
And you can tell this from the 1920x1080 video. Go ahead. You keep telling yourself. Don’t talk about resolution of stills while looking at a 1080p video.
With a fast lens, GPS and useful tracking features, and Raw support, Olympus's flagship rugged compact continues to be the best waterproof camera on the market.
While improvements like HyperSmooth 2.0 stabilization are truly impressive, the latest GoPro generation really only offers incremental upgrades – and that's looking like a trend we can count on in the foreseeable future.
The Lume Cube 2.0 is much improved on its predecessor, but we do have concerns about its smartphone app. It's also pretty pricey among its competitors, but its feature set and quality of light may win you over. Find out more in our full review.
The X-T4 brings image stabilization and a larger battery to the X-T series, but dig a bit deeper and you'll find a host of improvements and tweaks. See what we've discovered in the X-T3's sister model.
Nikon's combined the best of its DSLR and mirrorless cameras into one tough-built body, equally well-suited for stills as it is for video. For effectively modernizing one of the brand's all-star camera lines, it receives our silver award.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
The fixed lens camera market may be a bit niche, but it's here that you'll find some of the best cameras you can buy. Sensors ranging from APS-C to full-frame are designed to match their lenses, which cover ranges from 28-75mm equivalent, so image quality is top-notch.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
Whether you make a living out of taking professional portraits, or are the weekend warrior who knows their way around flashes and reflectors, you'll want a camera with high resolution, exceptional autofocus and a good selection of portrait prime lenses. Click through to see our picks.
ProRes RAW for Windows version 1.0 adds beta ProRes RAW and ProRes RAW HQ support to Adobe After Effects, Adobe Media Encoder, Adobe Premiere and Adobe Premiere Rush.
Last week we spoke to Kazuto Yamaki of Sigma to get his take on the ongoing situation worldwide, and on Sigma's strategy and prospects for the coming year.
Photographer James Maher has been using the X100 series for street photography since the original version, but he's found the updates in the latest X100V make it the best street photography camera yet.
We invited a professional audio engineer to test the microphone pre-amps in cameras from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Fujifilm and Olympus. Find out which ones deliver the best sound.
Over 7,000 wildlife, landscape, and macro photographers submitted images to the inaugural Nature TTL Photographer of the Year 2020 competition. Here are the winners and finalists.
Rogue Photographic Design has released a new and improved version of its popular FlashBender shapeable reflectors for speedlights and strobes. The FlashBender v3 has improved usability and can fit a wider range of flashes.
Think of the Panasonic 25mm F1.7 as the brand's nifty fifty. At about $150 this 50mm equiv. is fast to focus, lightweight, compact and fairly sharp across the frame. See for yourself in our sample gallery.
The P series usually showcases Huawei's latest camera technologies and the P40 models are no different, featuring a wide array of innovative imaging technologies.
The updates for the X-T3 and 16-80mm F/4 lens only address bug fixes, but the 1.20 update for the X-T30 adds improved autofocus, drone/gimbal support and more.
Sony has announced that on April 1, 2020 it will be spinning off its Electronics Products & Solutions (EP&S) segment into Sony Electronics Corporation, an intermediate holding company.
While we're home-bound at the moment, we were able to sneak outside long enough to put together an initial sample gallery from our production Fujifilm X-T200.
Stuck at home with not very much to do due to stay-at-home directives or quarantines? Here's how to use some old and odd lenses to turn your room into a camera.
Like many photographers stuck at home due to the coronavirus, Chris and Jordan need a creative outlet. Let's see what happens when they try to re-create bad product photography from a kids' toy.
In a recent episode of DPReview TV, new host Don Komarechka introduced us to the magical world of frozen soap bubbles. Take a look at some of the fantastical images he captured – and give the video a watch if you missed it the first time around.
The new all-weather portrait lens is to join the company's premium line for K-1 series cameras, and will be the first 85mm designed for the Pentax digital full frame system
Canon USA has announced that due to 'stay at home' directives by authorities in various states, it will be shutting down repair facilities in California, Illinois and New Jersey.
The world has suddenly become a little smaller for many of us, but there are still plenty of photographic things you can do, while waiting for things to get a little better. Here are some suggestions.
Stuck inside? Feast your eyes on some spectacular images from the great outdoors. Winning images feature subjects ranging from active volcanoes to dramatic views of manmade structures, all captured from the air.
Comments