I was stating that I appreciate that the DOF is greater for the m4/3 12mm f/1.4 than for a FF 24 f/1.4 and expect to take advantage of this difference.
I also understand that the total light gathering is a similar discussion compared to DOF but I would also expect the light per unit area on the sensor to not be the same for a 24mm f/2.8 on FF versus a 12mm f/1.4 on m4/3. Thus for FF to get the same exposure for an image shot at 12mm f/1.4 on m4/3 at 1/60 s, the FF 24mm f/2.8 would require a 1/30 s exposure (for equivalently specified sensors only differing in size). Doesn't the same f stop and shutter speed provide the substantially similar exposures to similarly specified sensors that only vary in size due to camera format. This was certainly true in the film world for the sunny 16 rule when 1/ASA at f16 was a correct exposure in sunlight regardless if whether were shooting a large format 5x7 or a small format 35mm.

@NM EM1shooter
"because 30 second shots at ISO 1600 are possible, while the FF 24mm f/2.8 is best shot with an ISO of 3200" your reasoning is perfect, with the exception that you have to apply noise equivalence, where ISO1600 on m43 is equivalent to ISO3200 on FF. You gain no more DoF, but because it is a $1300 lens, I guess the IQ quality of your 24mm/f2.8 (FF EQ) photos wide open will be stellar.

@Great Bustard
"the noise is determined by the total amount of light recorded, not the ISO setting."

Brilliantly, explains Noise equivalence.

"The advantage of the mFT setup is that the *system* is smaller, lighter, and less expensive overall, which matters much more to many (most) than the noise/DOF options that FF offers."

The closesest Small Size + Image Quality equivalent would be Sony A7 + Zeiss Batis 25mm/f2 (67mm filter, 78mm long, 335g, $1300), I guess, vs GX8 + Summilux 12mm/f1.4 (62mm filter, 70mm long, 335g, $1300), but here the Sony combo would be 1 stop more powerful.

@Great Bustard
Thanks for taking the time to explain your points. I appreciated reading and learning from these. Cheers.

Vlad S - my thinking was, as a purely stills shooter, I don't need more than f2.8, and hopefully such lenses would be a bit smaller and cheaper than f2 versions....

What's so magical about f2.8? Why is 2.8 good enough, and f3.5 or f4 is not? If your creative vision includes low light, or the Milky Way shots, then 2.8 is not such a great option at all.

rialcnis: It doesn't work on Olympus cameras.

I don't recall any Olympus lenses having an aperture ring. It may be that Oly bodies simply do not support that function.

To say the lens is incompatible with Oly bodies was extreme. There were some saying this in comments. In manual mode how could this aperture ring not work? I can see this being a great lens for video.

Incompatibility was mentioned in this hands-on report: http://www.sulantoblog.fi/panasonic-leica-summilux-12-mm-f1-4-ensituntumat/

It works with Olympus bodies just fine. You just don't use it at all. The aperture is controlled like every other lens attached to those cameras. The ring is fly by wire. It's not actually connected physically to the lens's aperture.

I don't read Finnish so the blog link was useless.

Any way, kittos for posting it ....

Use google translate for this sentence: "Jostain syystä Panasonic on ottanut himmenninrenkaan käyttöön joissakin objektiiveissa ja näin on myös Summiluxissa. Olympuksen runkojen kanssa himmenninrengas ei toimi, vaan aukko säädetään kamerasta." It's not a good translation, but you should get the point: Some Panasonic-lenses have a dedicated aperture ring, but that does not work with the Olympus-body. Insted with Olympus-bodies, you must change the aperture from the body itself.

yup, this lens needs to be much better than the Wides currently available. I had the impression that it is very hard to produce an outstanding MFT wide.

I will say the PL25 1.4 I've had for some time has lovely bokeh, not really seen in other fast M43 lenses. To me, that's the primary reason to pay extra to get this lens. That PL25 has been one of my all time favorites.

Olympus 7-14mm f2:8 is outstanding and wide.

...as is the Panasonic 7-14 f4.

Panasonic is wide and outstanding, but comparatively slow. My praise for the Olympus 7-14 was because it is f2:8, quite and achievement and closer to a fast prime.

Sure, George.

I use the Panasonic 7-14 for shooting landscapes, so f/2.8 is redundant for me given that it would mean carrying extra weight around for a lens that will be stopped down anyway. The Panny 7-14 does have outstanding image quality.

When I need speed I switch to the 12/2.0, but f/1.4 would be nice.

Roger that, I am a big fan of the 12mm and primes in general, and it has the virtue of enabling me to use ND grad filters,Some say it's a tad soft at the edge of the frame. Perhaps I have a good copy as it is tack sharp from F4, and I love the MF collar. I keep hearing that Olympus is working on a 12 mm f1:2. If correct it will likely be just as expensive as the Panasonic 12mm 1:4 if not more so,. Given how pleased I am with my 12mm I would struggle to justify the cost of replacing it, and more beside the 7/14 mm covers all other bases save filters. As you say it would be nice to have the extra speed.

no the oly 12mm f2 is very good .... but perhaps i overstate .... no i totally exaggerated ..... respect ..... the beast i claimed is 10 times the size is in fact about 3 time s the weight and appx 4 times the "size " [ volume wise as volumetric stepped cylinders] clearly ive been exaggerating and accept your chastisement

i stand by and accept your corrections fellow forum members , however i still think this is beastly large from the photos i see

@kentique and samtheman2014 My problem with the 20 1.7 is the horizontal banding in low light, it can be so bad that I returned the lens. In many other regards, the 20 1.7 is the perfect m43rds companion, so I also want them to improve it in a new model.

Try doing candid / street photography in low light with the 20mm. The focus is so slow that you'll often miss the decisive moment. I switched the the Panasonic Leica 15mm for just that reason, and the difference is night and day. Took a while to get used to the new focal length but now it seems natural.

chj - I shoot low-light events professionally with this lens on a GX7, often at ISO 1600 & 3200, I process RAW, and I've never seen this mythical horizontal banding so many speak of. I wonder if it's specific to a particular body or RAW developer, or camera settings.

@Jacques Cornell, it doesn't happen all the time, but I'm surprised you haven't noticed it if you often shoot in low light. I noticed it after one night of shooting. Here's an example. This was shot with a GM1. After returning the lens, it has not happened with any other lenses.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7902741997/photos/2804079/20mm-f-1-7-banding-issue-in-low-light

Nope. I just carefully examined ISO 3200 shots with 20mm & GX7 at local concert, and none of them show banding. I've made thousands of other shots with this combo at up to ISO 6400, and I've never noticed banding.

It's bad for previous/current owners who want to sell the lens later, yes. Funny that a major retailer in my country still is selling 42.5 f1.2 for 1800 euros, while on grey market ebay (within european union, so no customs needed to pay) it's 1000 euros (new), and even on bphotovideo it's 1400 USD.

It's similar story with 35-100 f2.8 . It cost 1450 on retailer, and on ebay it's 700 euros (also new). Makes wonder what's the point on throwing good money away? The new 100-400 is 2k on retailer and 1600 on ebay.

It's true, that hobby stuff loses value, but some stuff just loses value a little bit too much imo. The D810 body for example costed 3100 EUR new, and right now one needs luck to be able to sell it used even for 1700. 2200 new grey market model within same area (thus no customs) probably hurts it too.

A 24mm F/1.4 is equivalent to a 12mm F/0.7 on m43. You can use a 28mm F2.8 on the FF to match what the Panasonic 12mm F/1.4 can do. As a side note the Nikon 28mm F1.8G does have dust and moisture sealing at around $600 and when mounted on a FF camera will comfortably outperform even the very best m43 lenses

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Leica-DG-Nocticron-42-5mm-F12-ASPH-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-versus-Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-28mm-F18G-on-Nikon-D810__1297_909_952_963

Then with the D-Lux 109 or the V-Lux? They should have seen some opportunity in that segment.

They did, early on. Called the Digilux-3, it was a rebadged Panasonic L1 4/3 body. Beautiful to look at, but you were paying a very hefty premium for a brushed stainless steel covering and a red dot, for something that was really no better than the L1.

The lenses they made for that body, though: 25 1.4, and a 14-150 superzoom that actually lived up to the promise, were very special.

You're cutting out a huge amount of real life variables here.
What if the outer parts of the full frame were highlighty areas and the centre of the frame was a shadowed area?
In this situation the FF mode will capture more light than the crop mode, and the recommended exposure reading from the meter would be different (assuming it's not set to spot or partial meter mode)

@waitformee: you have not understood what this is all about. it is not about the exposure, that will not change, it is about the DOF.

Yes @ TheDecExp ... Thats it Its all about DOF.Amount of light should be equal with respect to sensor size.Thats why FF lenses are more bigger and M43 compact.Right ? Wait for GH5 it will allow for 2X focal reduction with speed booster ( I dream Ha Ha } and that will put an end to all comparison. Not only more light but also same FF DOF look...

@fmian

Some very basic photography class would do you a lot of good...

@fmian, if you know that then it is good. if the reverse happens, then apc-s will receive more light? I think you can try a simple one by shooting at a plain white wall. Anyway. I never believe too until i own the a7 and tried out this experiment.

@the decent exposure

Consider this
DOF is the distance between the nearest and the furthest objects giving a focused image.

With the same experiment, use a7 mount any lenses. place a measuring tape on the floor (example 1 metre measuring tape). Tilt downwards mounted on a tripod and just focus one point on the measuring tape (maybe at the 50cm mark). then finally take a photo with both FF and Crop mode.

U will realised that the area in focus for both the full frame and the crop is the same.

This will point out that DOF has nothing to do with the sensor size.

So DOF for a 12mm on a m43 and a 12mm on a FF is the same.

So back to why FF is better.
All know that FF is better.

Think about this.
With a person standing at the same place and the photographer standing at 10m away. U will need a 24mm on a FF to get the same picture (angle of view) as a 12mm on M43.

In this simlar picture taken, the FF is has a different DOF because FF is using 24mm while M43 is using 12mm.

DOF is due to the lenses difference. not because of the sensor!

@kpaddler I'm open to receive some actual insight from you since you're making such a suggestion.

@waitformee Point is your test only works if the scene is evenly illuminated and only then shows that exposure meter does not change. Just wanted to mention that since you didn't.

You lightmeter for elements or subject, not for entire frame...unless you are a point and shoot photog

@kpaddler, first off you're underestimating the usefulness of getting an overall exposure reading in many situations outside auto point and shoot. If you can't see this.. then the less you know...
Secondly, having to meter for specific elements within the frame is the kind of scenario that breaks the example that waitformee gave.. which was the point of what I originally said - so are we going in circles with this or what?

Applying crop mode may require a change of exposure settings. ie. A larger format with the same mm lens will see more. Obviously.

Not sure what was not clear in what I said.

You expose for the subject, you could average for a couple of spots but overall exposure is adjusted in post production, not when you are taking the picture. That applies even you are an experienced jpg shooter.

[sarcasm] Thanks for the definitive FACTS on how to expose kpaddler. You've taught me something valuable that I clearly didn't know before.. [/sarcasm]

It's still sexy though.

@astrostripper I think this comparison is better http://camerasize.com/compact/#521.586,624.85,521.91,ha,t

The Olympus 35mm 3.5 macro for 4/3 is a really nice lense. What do you think is wrong with it?

You have to get very close to subject, meaning there's big risk you get in contact with subject / get some dirt on the lens, scare the insect, or you get in the way of the light (assuming no flash or such used). I don't think you can shoot even flowers very well because of the fact you get close and might create shadow.

astrotripper: Sony A7 below 1000 Euro so you will be with rounf about 1500 to 1600 euro what is close the euro price of that lense. and you will have a better high iso perfoemance

@the decent exposure

How will I have a better high ISO performance? Does equivalence not work for Sony?

At f/2.8, all benefits of FF sensor go out the window. Not to mention the lack of proper RAW format. And astrophotography is one of the very few scenarios where the artifacts caused by lossy RAW compression Sony employs can be visible. Also, if DxO is to be believed, A7 does not have the same noise advantage over MFT as for example Nikon FX have. So the theoretical 2 stop advantage from equivalence does not hold (at least according to DxO).

So again, why would I pay 1500 or 1600 EUR to get something that will deliver roughly the same image quality at best, but with heavier, larger, manual focus only, non-sealed kit? How does that make sense?

Sure, you can shoot it wide open and get distorted stars, soft image across the frame and deal with monstrous vignetting. But I don't need to spend 1600 EUR to compromise on quality, I can do that with SLR Magic 12mm T1.6 for 600 EUR.

@astrotripper: the samyang works also below 2.8 without problems.
the problem for the raw file is a forum hype, no problem in real life like the high iso: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7-versus-Nikon-D610___916_915

and tehn as soon as you want the 42.5 1.2 and you compare it with a canon 85 1.8 for example, then you can save money :)

@the decent exposure

BTW, I don't understand why are you pushing this idea so hard. I saw that you did a fair share of night sky photography with a 24mm. None of your photos I saw were shot at wider than f/2, and it seems like you choose f/2.2 as your sweet spot. The stars in the corners are still distorted and corners are visibly darkened, but it looks fine on 1.5 megapixel images you publish online. So you know exactly what I'm talking about here.

The thing is, even if you shoot a m43 body with a lens @1.4 aperture, a FF body with same type of lens @f2.8 will usually have better results. Not big difference, but there's some. The dpreview article on "equivalency, why its matter" has section for "real-life impact" or something, and there you could see that even in situations where m43 has same equivalent light as FF, the FF would still have less noise. This could be a 1/3 or 2/3 difference, dunno.

And if we're talking bodies, there's indeed some sony bodies, but maybe D610 could be affordable too?

@Lassoni

No matter how you slice it, it's going to be more expensive, larger, heavier and by the looks of it, not much better. What's the point? Why should anyone bother? Why do people scream "THIS IS SOOO EXPENSIVE" and then suggest even more expensive alternative? How does that make sense?

How is D610 or A7 + Nikon 24mm f1.8 (either with adapter or without) more expensive than a lens that already costs 60% of the former?

How can you say "by the looks of it" when the panny lens hasn't been tested yet? We don't know yet for sure how the coma performance will be like.

On ebay, new d610 and nikon 24mm is 1.6k (withing same area, no customs needed to pay) . The panny lens is probably 1.2k on ebay when it hits the streets.

@Lassoni

What do you mean?

D610 + 24/1.8 costs over 2000 EUR.
This lens will probably cost 1300 EUR.

So, which is more expensive?

Can you give me a link where 12 f1.4 is being sold for 1300 EUR ? In my country it's being sold for 1570 EUR, though I suspect on ebay it may end up 1200-1300.

And I say "by the looks of it" because coma is the only thing not yet tested on that lens. I looked at few RAW files shot with it, and found nothing to complain except distortion. It's already been compared with other wide angle lenses for m43, and it's proven to be the best one released yet.

Generally, you can't have sharp corners with poorly handled coma, and corners on this one look good. That's a pretty good sign, so my hopes are up.

Oh, blimey. I assumed they would keep the 1300 price tag in Europe, just switch the currency, but we get the short end of the stick once again.

So okay. It's 1400 EUR (according to german press release), not 1300. Which sucks even more. As for being sold, it's not sold anywhere, the release is planned for August. Don't know why it's 1570 in your country, maybe scalpers looking for prey? I have not seen it listed in any shops yet.

So coma is not tested, but if ePhotozine is to believe, the corner sharpness is not actually that impressive? https://www.ephotozine.com/articles/panasonic-leica-dg-summilux-12mm-f-1-4-asph--review-29473/images/highres-Panasonic-Leica-12mm-MTF_1465900588.jpg . The value is "so" low, that 100-400 @400mm (the fl that people are wondering whether it's usable or not) is doing better. https://www.ephotozine.com/articles/panasonic-leica-dg-vario-elmar-100-400mm-f-4-0-6-3-asph-review-28971/images/highres-Panasonic-100-400mm-MTF400mm_1456761832.jpg

What will be the difference of "good" and "great", that's a subjective question. But it's more than obvious that corner performance is not its forte.

Hey Impulses Pay attention to what I wrote won't you. In fact go read it again or maybe thirty more times until it sticks in your head. I clearly wrote it wasn't for me but that I was GLAD they are giving MORE OPTIONS. I even said more is better. Damn the reading comprehension levels on this form can be so kindergarten at times.

Yes Terry, maybe you should pay more attention... :p Sorry maybe i should've done the whole @ thing but I figured it'd be clear I was commenting on Lassoni's comment... You can't reply to sub replies here, I agree with your sentiment tho.

You don't even know how well the lens performs!

You have no basis for the claim that it's not worth the money!

<smashes head against desk>

More silly comparisons assuming cameras are free and instantly interchangeable.

There is nothing wrong with either Canon or Nikon. And as I said earlier, what's the point to buy this lens let's say with the Pen-F for US 2500 when for the same money you can get a Nikon D750 and still have 1K for glass? Nonsense!

Cherry picking one of the more overpriced bodies with one of the newer/priciest (and somewhat overpriced) lenses makes the argument null... BUT it doesn't change the fact that either might STILL be appealing on it's own for someone already invested in the system. Frankly I think both should be closer to a grand if not exactly that, but I'd drop up to $1,500 for a fast sealed 18mm in an instant too.

Yes expensive but consider that Touit is not dust/splash proof and when announced its price was $1250 exl. VAT. MFT isn’t the best system for quality fast wide angles – but Panasonic does offer it, too, for a price and in high end style.

I think there's market for updated 100-300, since there's also a 75-300m2 . 100-400 is not same as the cheaper lenses. They can add better OIS for 100-300m2 and 75-300m3 if they want, people will buy them (they provide good value for the money after all).

Hejnar makes some nice mini plates too btw, along with a wide variety of other tripod adapting gear like rails and whatnot.

Thanks for the suggestions - will look them up.
The tripod socket is way out to the front edge of the body. Actually it extends past the body. It's a problem. Hoping for a nice RRS plate / grip kind of thing

It's not a problem, trust me, the E-M5 II has a tripod socket that's sticking out the front edge as well and I have several plates that still fit with plenty of clearance while using even larger lenses. Some of the plates from the brands I mentioned also allow you to slide the plate back off center from the tripod thread, Desmond also has some that have like no edge lip whatsoever.

Like I said, if you hit me up with a PM I can help ya out with test-fit photos with different lenses etc. The tripod socket on the GX85 might stick out ever so slightly more than my OM-D's but we've got way larger lenses than the 12mm in the house too. I did get a RRS L/grip for my E-M5 II, even tho I found it rather pricey and i don't agree with their politics, but this was better designed than anything else out there as far as not interfering with the flip out screen.

I also liked that the grip part on the RRS L plate could be removed without a remaining protrusion. If I could've found a grip-less L plate (that was still custom made for the body) or the screen wasn't an issue (wouldn't be on the GX85 since it's a tilty) I would've gone with a much cheaper Chinese one off Amazon/eBay... Plenty of em are really well built, RRS's clever design earned them my $ tho (begrudgingly).