Oh how I wanted this lens to be Olympus's version of the Canon 24-70 f4, ie with proper 1:2 macro capability. Even though 1:4 is nice at 12mm, it just isnt sufficient at 45mm for being a replacement for a dedicated macro prime.
I read earlier Micro Four Thirds was the #1 lens mount in Japan in 2019 again. I am sure they have the most users their and therefore the most potential customers. This could be a very popular lens.
That's a significantly larger lens which weighs more than twice as much. I think Olympus is right on the money with this lens. MFT users want lightweight and compact lenses. There are better systems if you want a bulky lens that weighs half a kilogram.
Yep, you're missing weight and size difference. For many 12-40/2.8 feels a bit unbalanced on E-M5 and fits better to E-M1. 12-45/4 with E-M5-III makes great lightweight all weather travel, landscape and just all round kit. While its users would mostly shoot f4-8 anyways (even with faster lenses).
Yup, price is the only criteria when deciding for a lens... if you want the smaller lens, buy the 2.8, because it costs only 130,-€ more... if you want the lighter lens, buy the 2.8, because it costs only 130,-€ more... If you want the lower cost lens, buy the 2.8, because it costs less..um...130,-€ more...
@ SridharC I agree. Is this a better lens optically? 5mm difference and a stop slower, don't see any reason for this lens. Weight and balance? Could care less about balance or ergonomics, ever take a picture with a cell phone, the worst ergonomic camera platform in history? Weight, how much difference are we talking?
I want a smaller lens - I buy the overpriced 12-45f4 I want a lighter lens - I buy the overpriced 12-45f4 I want the "cheaper" lens - I buy the overpriced 12-45f4
.... But this nagging feeling I just had to take 130€ more and buy the better f2.8 lens will remain as long as you don't but the f2.8 lens.
Yes you are. You are not getting the fact, as do so many even though the cycle endlessly repeats itself, that old mature kit sells at a discounted price and new equipment comes out a premium price for a while for people who will pay extra to get the kit quickly. It is also likely that Olympus will cut the discounts on the 12-40 f2.8 now they have slotted this lens in to the line up as the former more premium lens does not have to cover such a wide user base now.
They always focus first on the impatient or just those with money to spare and good luck to them and the more stolid mean tight fisted miserable mob can wait until later.
Early premium priced take up keeps the camera business alive and we should be grateful for it.
Only that the f2.8 has been around for so long that you can get it much, much cheaper nowadays. I got mine for 395€ brand new last year. And it balances just fine on my GX8, as does the 7-14 f2.8 Pro.
No it's an f4 lens. Full frame terms is not relevant at all, it won't be used on a fullframe camera, if somehow it was the sensor cover would be too small, but the l ns would still be f4
Lenses don't act they just gather light. We're not talking Oscars here. Equivalency is just a measure stick from a standard. It doesn't really matter to anyone who doesn't have a system based on fullframe
How good the lens is? I would prefer not to watch the video, it's basically a wrong way of conveying information. What I saw in the discussion below the video on Youtube was mostly about the sexy voice. Sorry, I do not care how sexy the voice is. (Classic literature suggests not to listen to it.) Give me the text and charts any day!
I think for me personally, the extra 10mm on the long end isn't worth giving up the f2.8 across the board of my 12-35. I use that extra step of speed way more often than I bump into 35mm and say "Gosh I wish I had another 10mm". (Besides, I have the 45mm f1.8.) The 12-35 is within a hair of excellent or better, right from f2.8 at every focal length, and only 12mm might see an improvement stepping down one stop. I'm staying put. Nice lens though.
The 12-100 f4 trumps all the others. It’s a beautiful lens, incredibly sharp no matter what focal length and aperture, and that wonderful dual stabilization. It’s the lightest combination of a 24-70 and 70-200 f4 zooms, all wrapped up in one, with near prime quality, and crisp even at f4 flat field closest focus, an area most folk don’t check for! Also when shooting at f13-16, I see very minor diffraction, but that another topic of discussion. http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#diffraction
@steve.. So your recommended price £1,199 lens at 116.5mm length outperforms a 70mm long lens coming in at £599. Where is the relevance in all this? In fact there is an almost perfect scaling in length and price which seems fair to me and nothing being trumped. Just different lenses for different purposes at different price points.
Still nobody interested in doing a 9-35 / 18-70 or similar lens (besides the 10-25 from Panasonic)? Had at least some hopes for the what now turned out to be the 12-45.
No problem with German. Yes, I know something like that is on the roadmap. A 8-24/4 would be a start, though it would be too slow and to short for ma taste. What I don't get are all those overlaps. A 9-35 or 40 / 2.8 / 4 or 2.8-4 lens would have avoided that.
Of course you might argue that than we would have the overlap with the 7-14/2.8. But that is exactly my problem, the 7-14 is a way to specialised lens, and using it in conjuncture with the 12-40/2.8 or 12-45 /4 still means changing lenses.
As always, the proof is in the pudding but for those interested in specs, the 12-40 f2.8 has 14 elements in 9 groups, the new 12-45 f4 has 12 elements in 9 groups. Otherwise the design looks the same. A faster lens is harder to correct so that probably accounts for the extra two elements. So, it has two more elements and of course a lot more mass of glass. That implies a much more expensive lens but timing is everything. One site I looked at has the 12-45 f4 at 12% more expensive than the older discounted 12-40 f2.8. Fancy that, two very similar lenses but the f4 is more expensive than the f2.8. So, if you need speed and what m4/3 user doesn't, there are bargains to be had.
I'm afraid that's only true if you're solely interested in a per-unit-area understanding of light.
As soon as you print or display the images then a full-frame f/8 image shot with the same angle of view and shutter speed will be made up from just as much light. 1/4 the light per unit area, 4x the area. I'm afraid you don't get something for nothing.
which is equivalent to the hypothetical lens JackM proposed. Which, as buratino correctly pointed out is not a lens that's available for any FF system. In which case, it's fair to say that no other lens offers this combination of capabilities.
We m43 users are spoiled for choice. I had the Oly 12-40 Pro and is was fantastic at everything. I bought the Oly 12-100 Pro last year and although it is a bit big it is just fantastic at everything it does including close focus, and handheld shots of several seconds. Sold my 12-40 and since I have hardly used my Oly 40-150 Pro since getting the 12-100, I will be selling that as well. This 12-40 has its place on smaller bodies that do not have grips. I use an EM1 which fits my hand better than any camera I ever held and is ideal for larger lenses. So again, we are spoiled for choice as we also have three Panasonic lenses which also cover the 12-35/60mm range.
This lens has better rendering in all focal lengths than my 12-40/2.8. Considering the price after the premium subsides, it is a good addition to the system.
If this lens is the first in a series of f/4 trinity, let them come baby! I probably will goble up the UWA and telephoto of that series.
The lens is very good. Much better than Lumix 12-35 2.8 and maybe close to Oly 12-40 2.8. However, with Olympus 12-100 F4 having gotten the best reviews and with honor on some sites (850 euro) it is very close to the 12-45. In my opinion with F4 in the micro 4/3 the game starts from the 45-50mm and above when the depth of field makes the difference. I can't see practically any game in the new 12-45 is marginal. I have some kits lenses like the Oly 40-150R 4.0-5.6 When you go between 50-85mm the apartures stays between 4.0-4.7F which produces amazing results. But when I play with my very sharp Olympus 45 1.8 at 4.0 I can't say that I like the boquet. So in other words, the Oly 12-40 2.8 is much better option and the 12-100 f4 my favorite.
Unnecessary because a more expensive, larger and heavier lens with similar focal range already exists? LOL
If anything the whole concept of an m43 body with a normal zoom is unnecessary given that you can buy a full frame mirrorless with a normal zoom for under two grand. Yet here we are.
I would take this lens combined with a E-M5 mark III any day against a FF kit within the same price range. Good thing we can choose what we use. It would be rather boring if all company's would do exactly the same. Luckely we have company's like Olympus, Fuji and Panasonic for more diversity.
Yes it's a bit of a mystery. I know how the lenses differ but really, has anyone complained that the 12-40 was too big and heavy to the extent of opting for the Pana instead? Don't think so. Perhaps their planned production run of the 12-40 was up so they took the opportunity to redesign. I wouldn't mind betting that in a year or two users will start complaining that the 12-45 is too slow. But what would I know about the intricacies of lens marketing.
NZ Scott: OK, I'll give you that. Actually I bought an Oly 45mm f1.8 to add the 12-40 because I wanted a small light walk around lens and it is very small and light. It's a great value fun lens but I wasn't expecting the extent of spherical aberration in scenes with back lit out of focus branches. You get what you pay for :)
@mfinley.... then you should also ask why a pro would want f2.8 with a 4/3 sensor instead of f2.8 with a larger sensor... the answers to both are really the same.
My statement was a general statement, I didn't say anything about full frame. If you don't know why a pro would choose f4 instead of f2.8 on a 4/3 sensor then you also don't know why a pro would choose f2.8 on a smaller sensor instead of f2.8 on a larger sensor unless you've discovered the top secret holy grail combination of max aperture and sensor size for all pros.
What's wrong with choices? Olympus has 12-40mm f2.8 already and that is a great lens. Now there is a lighter and smaller f4 version came. Why are you so pessimistic?
No investment strategy? As much as any system user wants all lenses for a system developed yesterday, I don't see where Olympus has really slowed down on their lens releases, they seem to be on the same pace they always have.
Oh, and it's good to see the video starting with the "full disclosure" about Olympus funding the trip! I like to think maybe it's the result of my comment a few days ago on the Olympus E-M1 Mark III hands-on preview ;-)
It's so funny to see comments state this is an F8 lens. It's only f8 equivalent for depth of field in FULL FRAME terms. F8 in full frame can still render pleasing backgrounds for close subjects. But it's f/4 in terms of light transmission, meaning you can get that wonderful depth of field you need for landscapes etc. but with two full stops improvement in light gathered/shutter speed. This makes it an excellent street lens too.
S1H is a solid video camera, but I wish this was shot on the new EM1. The previous video shot on that camera looked excellent (and Chris’s photos were some of the best I’ve seen here in a while). It would have been nice to see video shot with the lens in question. We know that EM1 is capable. (Not saying all video, just this one.)
Enough of this misleading FUD about diffraction being worse in a smaller format at the same f-stop! (f/16 in this case.) If you are stopping down to f/16 in FourThirds to get enough DOF, you would need about f/21 in APS-C and f/32 in 35mm format — and all three then give equal diffraction effects! The diffraction/DOF trade-offs are independent of format: just use the same effective aperture diameter (focal length divided by aperture ratio.)
Meanwhile, the aperture giving the same DOF and diffraction effects goes with four times the exposure duration at equal ISO speed (or four times the ISO speed to get the same shutter speed); useful I suppose when you are stopping down for the sake of getting a long exposure time, to blur moving water or whatever — could save on ND filters anyway.
As I said; it’s a tie on DOF vs diffraction trade-offs; not a win for larger formats on “less diffraction”. And since you raise the subject, it’s also about a tie in shallow DOF from lenses of a given size (equal DOF requires scaling f-stop with focal length and format size, which means roughly equal front element size) and a tie on DOF vs noise in low light situations (larger formats needing to higher ISO speeds due to the higher f-stop)
I am debunking some myths about the superiority of one format over another, not claiming any of these is a clear advantage for a smaller format, or for a larger one.
(There are of course some real advantages in each direction; just not these.) ones.
True, larger formats have virtually no advantages when DoF is the same. That’s not true the smaller formats are often smaller and lighter with less expensive bodies with less rolling shutter and a lot faster frame rates with HHHR modes and better weather resistance and better color science and better IBIS.
There are no trade-offs. There's only a larger sensor win. A 50€ bill has no advantages over the 200€ bill (which is equal to four 50€ bills). You don't trade 50€ for 200€. Diffraction is being measured at 1:1, while FF sensors can have much higher resolution than m4/3, which results in much better detail even at the same level of diffraction. You could call it "trade-offs" if there were any 40-50mp m4/3 cameras and if m4/3 lenses wouldn't cost more than equivalent FF lenses. Larger chips offer a wider "spectrum" of possibilities. We can reproduce any m4/3 images on FF. But not vice versa. The m4/3 format is and always will be 2 stop behind the FF. Of course, not everyone cares about that part of the "spectrum" uncovered by the m4/3. But this doesn't make it irrelevant. There's value in it and there's a price we pay for it. This ($650) 12-45F4 "PRO" deserves more skepticism the the new ($400) RF 24-105F4-F7.1 (which is equivalent to m4/3 12-52F2-3.6), because it costs $250 more.
FF system has a number of autofocusing f1.2 lenses. Small format system does not have anything comparable. And FF f1.8 lenses are much cheaper than f1.2 APS lenses or f0.9 m43 lenses.
There is no tradeoff here, simply FF dominates when you need shallow DOF.
“Larger chips offer a wider "spectrum" of possibilities.” True, but also slower readouts (unless you put multiple ADCs like in an A9), worse IBIS, and more heat generation. Also, so far, I haven’t really been convinced by the ergonomics/features combination of any FF mirrorless body, but that may change with the new Canon R5.
By the way, with my E-M1 II, I am able to take hand-held exposure brackets throughout which IBIS keeps the sensor perfectly steady, which increases DR tremendously after merging (by more than two stops). To your knowledge, is there a FF body that can also do that? I am curious.
"slower readouts" - Same readouts in crop mode though. "worse IBIS" - Better IBIS in crop mode combined with digital sensor stabilization. "haven’t really been convinced by the ergonomics/features combination of any FF mirrorless body" - EOS 6D/5D ergonomics are the best, Canon knows how to do it properly. But, I must admit that EOS R is a "button apocalypse". I hope that they will never mess up like that ever again. While, honestly, Fuji retro knob-fest "ergonomics" are the worst. Can't comment on Nikon Z or Sony A7, I'm not a Nikon or Sony guy. However, ergonomics don't affect the actual images so much. I would gladly trade my highly ergonomic camera for a 907X Hassy, which is essentially a box with a screen and a lens mount. We can use any cameras with exposure bracketing to produce high bit-depth images. Doing it all in-came is overrated and pointless.
“EOS 6D/5D ergonomics are the best, Canon knows how to do it properly.” Possibly, but those are DSLRs. I have a personal preference for mirrorless, which is why the R5 looks potentially exciting.
“However, ergonomics don't affect the actual images so much. I would gladly trade my highly ergonomic camera for a 907X Hassy, which is essentially a box with a screen and a lens mount.”
Ah, personally, I would not. Ergonomics are very important to me. I do photography as a hobby for enjoyment, so I would prefer it to be enjoyable.
“We can use any cameras with exposure bracketing to produce high bit-depth images. Doing it all in-came is overrated and pointless.”
Just to clarify, I didn’t mean doing the merging in-camera. I meant that the stabilization keeps the sensor perfectly steady throughout the bracket, even from one image to the next, thus minimizing any alignment issue, and the fast burst rate means that it’s over quickly, minimizing subject movement.
You miss a point that changes everything: pixel density. I suppose you are right with all you saied but pixel density of m43 20mp vs 20 mp FF is so much different, that diffraction level would be seen at smaller aperture in ff. To have the same levels of diffraction you need the same pixel size. So comparing 20 mp sensors, yes diffraction wise the Ff has more usable aperture values and comparing m43 with 80 mb ff sensor diffraction should appear at about the same aperture value. But even at this case ff wins on smthg: print size: with same levels of diffraction with ff you gain size. This also means that for same mp sensors, you print the same max size but ff has more usable aperture values ( and shorter dof for same apertures). Of course you practically do not need more dof than F5.6 on m43 and f8-f11 on ff so the pixel density could reach these levels that diffraction starts.
ecka84's post about the RF 24-105 F4-F7.1 "which is equivalent to m4/3 12-52F2-3.6" caught my attention.
I use a mixture of Canon full-frame, Canon APS-C and Olympus MFT. I mostly use MFT for "travel" as the Canon gear is big and heavy. However having recently been using the Canon gear a lot more I've been reminded how much better the high ISO is, including the APS-C body, compared to my E-M1 II.
A Canon EOS RP, with the RF 24-105 F4-F7.1 would be of similar size and weight to the E-M1 II with the 12-40 2.8. Of course that Canon body/lens combination isn't weather sealed and I'd lose other nice features which the E-M1 II has and I like the physical ergonomics of that body.
"the stabilization keeps the sensor perfectly steady throughout the bracket" - So does optical lens stabilization plus the somewhat less effective FF IBIS. I've done this (the exposure bracketing) even without any sort of stabilization, handheld. It works fine (unless you are shooting long exposures). And FF can offer much more pixels for cropping. See, crop companies have been feeding you lies for the last decade, so that now you are in a cognitive shock. You are trying to find any actual FF disadvantages and you can't, because its one and only disadvantage (the price) is gone and the rest turned out to be BS propaganda. But, don't worry, it is going to be OK :). Learn equivalence, get a bigger monitor and start enjoying FF :). The grass is greener on FF :).
Erm, I know equivalence, thank you very much. And if the response to some of the disadvantages is “use crop mode”, why go to the trouble of getting a larger sensor in the first place? If one wants pixel density such that crop mode has as much resolution as a crop sensor, the price difference is anything but gone (especially if you want stabilization in the lenses to make up for the worse IBIS, which digital stabilization will only compensate 1. across frames and 2. if you read a larger area). Do you think I haven’t looked into it?
The Sony A9 could match what I want spec-wise but it costs much more and has worse ergonomics. Likewise with the A7R III or IV. Plus, Sony cameras apparently struggle a lot with sensor dust and I would rather not have to worry about that.
Until all of this is addressed within a single system (not just one aspect in a Nikon camera and another one in a Canon body), M43 has real advantages for me.
@spider-mario Well, I don't use crop modes. Once I tried FF, I don't want the crop anymore. I stitch to Medium Format. But if you can't see the difference (which is why you are arguing) then why can't I use the crop mode as an argument? You want bells and whistles more than image quality? Fine. FF is perfectly capable of providing those too. And if you'd know equivalence and some handy camera tricks, you wouldn't question it. The A9 is running circles around your m4/3. If ergonomics prevent you from taking a decent picture, then perhaps photography isn't for you. Many thousands of people are using Sony cameras to produce amazing results. And if I had to choose between a 20mp m4/3 snapshot and a 40+mp FF reproduction of the same thing, I'd take FF. And you can't stop me :). That puny sensor is just not enough. Why can't Oly make a FF camera with 2x crop mode for all the hardcore m4/3 masochists and see what happens? :) They should let people choose, instead of preaching lies about FF.
“But if you can't see the difference (which is why you are arguing) then why can't I use the crop mode as an argument?” It’s not that you can’t, it’s that it destroys the price argument.
“If ergonomics prevent you from taking a decent picture, then perhaps photography isn't for you.”
If using a M43 camera prevents you from taking a decent picture, maybe photography isn’t for you either? ;) (^ This is just a friendly taunt, no need to reply to it.)
But basically, I do photography as a hobby, to have nice pictures for myself and my friends and family. I want the process to be enjoyable, and with my E-M1 II, it is. All cameras have compromises, whether they have to do with image quality or not. To me, trying to squeeze the maximum IQ out of my M43 camera (with ETTR, stacking, etc.) is a fun challenge that I enjoy. Struggling with a badly-designed grip that makes my wrists sore would not be one.
How does it destroy the price argument? The m4/3 is more expensive than FF.
m4/3 prevents me from taking high-def pictures instead of snapshots :)
"I want the process to be enjoyable" - Well, I want to enjoy the result even more than the shooting process.
"trying to squeeze the maximum IQ out of my M43 camera (with ETTR, stacking, etc.) is a fun challenge that I enjoy" - Like I said ... masochism :). People pay extra to feel the pain :) while calling it fun and joy. Well, it's your life. "Struggling with a badly-designed grip that makes my wrists sore" - Just grab it by the lens. The E-M1 is not the only m4/3 camera, there are plenty of badly designed ones too.
“How does it destroy the price argument? The m4/3 is more expensive than FF.” But not more expensive than a full-frame camera which performs as well in crop mode, that’s the point. A 24MP A7 III is close in price, but a croppable A7R IV or a fast A9 is not.
“Well, I want to enjoy the result even more than the shooting process.” I enjoy both.
“Like I said ... masochism :). People pay extra to feel the pain :) while calling it fun and joy. Well, it's your life.” It’s one pain or another, and here we get to choose. Compromises everywhere. To quote Mark Manson: > Problems never stop; they merely get exchanged and/or upgraded. > Happiness comes from solving problems. The keyword here is “solving.”
“Just grab it by the lens.” That’s what I did with my left hand. My right wrist was still sore.
“The E-M1 is not the only m4/3 camera, there are plenty of badly designed ones too.” Why would I care about them? The E-M1 II exists and is well-designed, and that’s what I have.
A $200 meal might be better, but a $50 meal I’d going to be darn good.
Want a FF camera that shoots 15-20 FPS? Just get a smaller sensor camera that costs half as much. What the best IBIS and less rolling shutter? Get the $50 meal.
Want to take a picture of two people with both faces in focus. That $50 meal will be just as good.
Sure sometimes a $200 meal is better, but not much. Most don’t even notice it. So you are probably wasting your money.
A7R3 shoots 10fps@61MP and Z7 shoots 9fps@45MP with mechanical shutter. E-M1III only does 10fps with mech shutter. I won't feel limited using any recent FF bodies that can do 10+fps for shooting sports.
And Nikon/Canon ergonomics are proven to be very, very good.
@nerd2 Personally, the reason why I want fast readout is not just for burst speed (which can reach 60 fps with the E-M1 II, by the way) but also so that I can use the electronic shutter without too much fear of rolling shutter effect, whether for silent stills or for video. My camera is pretty much always in silent shutter mode.
Canon ergonomics may be good, but as far as I am concerned, until the R5 is released, their cameras have shortcomings in other areas. As I said, it’s not enough for me that FF is theoretically better if the options that are actually available in practice are not. Those new FF mirrorless systems show promise but for my personal use cases, they are not quite there yet.
The price advantage for smaller formats looks real to me. Look at the entry level "EVF" bodies in M43, APS-C and 35mm format for a very obvious price difference. For example compare the Canon M50, Olympus E-M10 Mk III, Nikon Z50, Sony A6100, to the Canon RP, Nikon Z6 and Sony A7 III. (I omit some even less expensive and smaller models with no EVF.)
Look further up the scale if you want performance like 20FPS (or up to 60FPS) in the various formats.
It is irrelevant to compare the entry level bodies in 35mm format (RP, Z6 etc.) to the higher-end models in the smaller formats that have advantages like higher frame rates, better video specs, better weather resistance, and 5-axis IBIS (which already out-performs in-lens IS, and can combine with in-lens stabilization to give even better performance.)
I'm always amazed by people who can't understand the importance of the user experience for some of us. For me too, photography is a fun pastime, and I enjoy the journey just as much as the destination. Walking around looking for interesting scenes and subjects, and then using the camera to capture them, is as much part of the enjoyment for me as the final picture. And a camera with ergonomics that doesn't suit me absolutely detracts some from that enjoyment, it takes some of the fun out of my hobby. Even more so than slightly worse (but still good enough for me) IQ in the final picture.
@dimls "for same mp sensors, you print the same max size but ff has more usable aperture values ( and shorter dof for same apertures)."
True only when the larger format also uses a larger lens, which is likely to be heavier and more expensive. For example, it is true when you compare a 16-70/2.8 zoom in APS-C to an 24-105/2.8 in 35mm format, but not if you compare more more "equivalent" lenses of similar size (and cost?), like 16-70/2.8 vs 24-105/4.
Larger formats _allow_ one to get advantages like more speed and less DOF, but only by facilitating the use of bigger lenses with larger effective aperture diameter (focal length divided by aperture ratio) : so often it comes down to "bigger glass", not just "bigger silicon". For example, Canon's 24-105/4-7.1 and 100-500/4.5-7.1 are not offering any DOF or low-light handling that is not doable in APS-C, or probably even in Four Thirds.
@spider-mario People who are fine with crop tend to not care much (or at all) about the megapixels. I mean, all they want is a snapshot for their social media. Which can be like 3mp or smaller. You don't need the A7RIV to crop. Stop overexaggerating.
"Solving problems" - Yeah. Everyone does it. Except Oly. They want to be selling you the same camera for ever :).
The E-M1II design is no better than the EOS R design. No back wheel, no joystick.
"too much fear of rolling shutter" - Right. So, you've found yourself a problem. Now go fix it :). Reduce the fear :). And how a rolling-shutter-free snapshot is going to help me? It's useless, just like shooting 60 snaps per second instead of a single really good one. It's a solution looking for a problem.
M4/3 SYSTEM is more expensive than FF. Not the camera body. For example, the $1300 Zuiko 25F1.2 "PRO" is like FF 50F2.4. Nikon's new MEGA-expensive Z 50F1.8 S is only $600. Half the price! Can't you see what's wrong?
“People who are fine with crop tend to not care much (or at all) about the megapixels.” Good for them, but I do. In part because, imagine that, I can crop further!
“You don't need the A7RIV to crop.” Indeed, I don’t need it. ;)
“"too much fear of rolling shutter" - Right. So, you've found yourself a problem. Now go fix it :). Reduce the fear :).” Rest of the Mark Manson quote: “If you feel like you have problems that you can’t solve, you will […] make yourself miserable.” Rolling shutter is just not the kind of problem that I want to deal with. (How would I even go about solving it? I am not a sensor engineer.)
“And how a rolling-shutter-free snapshot is going to help me?” You? I don’t know. Me? I just don’t enjoy this kind of distortion, especially in video.
“It's useless, just like shooting 60 snaps per second instead of a single really good one.” Sometimes, the “single really good” moment is very brief. This feature makes it more feasible to capture it without superhuman timing.
Essentially, it’s easy to dismiss some advantages as “useless” and then claim that there are none. Maybe they are indeed useless to you. But that doesn’t make them non-existent.
For your apparent use case, yes, it seems that large sensors are probably the right choice. But that’s not everyone’s use case. And before you jump to hyperboles, just because someone prioritizes certain features over a higher-resolution sensor than they have, that doesn’t mean that they would be happy with Instagram resolution. (Do you realize the irony in your telling me not to exaggerate?) Everyone has their criteria in various dimensions, and it’s all trade-offs. You have chosen yours, I have chosen mine. And everybody is happy :)
"I am not a sensor engineer" - Engineers don't cure phobias. "I just don’t enjoy this kind of distortion" - What about other kinds of distortions? What about the lacking ultra-wide angle on m4/3? You just want to use silent shutter all the time? While most circumstances and places where it is really needed don't involve any kind of fast movement for you to shoot. You are being unreasonable. "Sometimes, the “single really good” moment is very brief" - And that is why photography is so fun :). You have to capture the moment. Not spray the hell out of it and then fix it later, "trying to squeeze the maximum IQ out of my M43 camera". Such masochism makes no sense. Unless you are trying to make money with your camera while knowing nothing about photography. Which is sad. No wonder it makes your wrist sore. You are doing it wrong. "superhuman timing" - It's called experience :)
“Engineers don't cure phobias.” Who said anything about phobias?
“What about the lacking ultra-wide angle on m4/3?” What happened to the wonders of stitching? But I have a 10mm rectilinear lens and an 8mm fisheye, that’s wide enough for me.
“You just want to use silent shutter all the time?” Yes.
“And that is why photography is so fun :). You have to capture the moment.” Strictly speaking, I don’t have to do anything. But I prefer to maximize my chances than leave it to luck. What’s wrong with that?
“Such masochism makes no sense. Unless you are trying to make money with your camera while knowing nothing about photography.” What does it have to do at all with trying to make money?
“No wonder it makes your wrist sore. You are doing it wrong.” The A7R III/IV made my wrist sore when I tried them at a store. My E-M1 II still has not.
Honestly, I find this conversation rather tiring, and I will stop here. I am happy with my choice and you are happy with yours (I believe). What are you even trying to convince me of? That my preferences are wrong? Wrong relative to what standard?
It is you who dismiss some essential advantages, to justify your own choice of a camera system. You don't have to do that. I'm not trying to take it away from you. Just be honest with yourself (and others). Crop systems are overpriced and they don't deliver FF result as promised. And every time a m4/3 rep compares their a lousy F2.8 or F4 zoom against F2.8 or F4 FF zoom, he is lying, he is preaching BS ignorance, he is trying to deceive everyone shamelessly and fool people into buying the product. I think that such dishonesty deserves to be punished.
“It is you who dismiss some essential advantages, to justify your own choice of a camera system. You don't have to do that.”
And I don’t. I say that those advantages are not enough to me to justify other compromises, but I fully recognize that they are to others, including you apparently. That’s completely fine by me. Now please recognize it in the other direction.
“And every time a m4/3 rep compares their a lousy F2.8 or F4 zoom against F2.8 or F4 FF zoom, he is lying, he is preaching BS ignorance, he is trying to deceive everyone shamelessly and fool people into buying the product. I think that such dishonesty deserves to be punished.”
"Who said anything about phobias?" - You said :). You fear the rolling shutter too much and I suggested you to get rid of that phobia. Not to design a sensor. Can't you read?
"The A7R III/IV made my wrist sore when I tried them at a store. My E-M1 II still has not." - I don't believe you. Stop lying :)
"my preferences are wrong?" - Your attitude is wrong :). Look, my camera is not the best camera. I know that. And don't believe nonsense like - "the best camera is the one you have with you" - No. That's BS. The best camera is the one that you cannot afford (yet) or it doesn't exist (yet). The are no right ways. There's the right direction. Size matters.
"why punish me?" - Who's punishing you? Nobody is punishing you ... You punish yourself. Remember? m4/3 image rescue masochism? :) Pain is joy? :) No pain, no gain? :) Whatever is your excuse ;). Don't blame me. I'm here to tell you that FF is a better idea. And it's not even about FF. If Medium Format was cheaper than FF, then I'd be bashing FF right now :).
“You fear the rolling shutter too much and I suggested you to get rid of that phobia. Not design a sensor. Can't you read?” So it *is* that my preferences are wrong? I prefer not having rolling shutter. I also prefer not to drop my camera on the floor (or worse). Would you suggest that I should get rid of that fear too rather than buy a camera strap?
A phobia is commonly accepted to be “an irrational or obsessive fear”, or “a persistent and excessive fear of an object or situation”, not just any fear.
“I don't believe you. Stop lying :)” I wish I were, because then maybe they would be more viable options than they currently are to me.
“Your attitude is wrong :).” How so? I am genuinely curious.
“The best camera is the one that you cannot afford (yet) or it doesn't exist (yet).” Right, but in my case it’s the latter, so I settle for what exists.
“Who's punishing you? Nobody is punishing you ...” This discussion is, kind of. Like I said, defending my preferences gets tiring.
“m4/3 image rescue masochism? :) Pain is joy? :) No pain, no gain? :)” It’s not pain to me. As a software engineer, I enjoy “problem” solving, to a certain extent. Not all kinds of problems, though. And most likely, I would do that on FF and MF, too. It’s just a fun process (to me), regardless of how needed it actually is.
I am deliberately putting “problem” in quotation marks because I have a vague feeling that otherwise, you will say something along the lines of “so it is a problem :) you said it yourself”.
I don't know. If your preference is to feel pain, then perhaps it was the right choice :). It's not my business really. "“Your attitude is wrong :).” How so?" - You are blindly worshiping the m4/3. "I settle for what exists" - And generates pain :). But not for your wrists. I get it. OK then, I wish you the best light. Your tiny little sensor needs it :).
I am not blindly worshipping anything. All I have said is that currently, with what exists and with all compromises considered, my M43 camera looks like the right choice for me. I think I have made it clear from the beginning that what I said was true for me specifically. I just shared it to show that there can be reasons to prefer it, not that everyone has to. That’s all.
I am enjoying these “IBIS is useless”, “60 Fps is useless”, “handheld high resolution is useless” posts. Some will lie about anything Tehran they are insecure.
@ecka84: "Equivalent lenses are the same size/weight for all formats." That's about right — but the bodies with larger sensors are more expensive (comparing with rough equivalence in other capabilities like frame rate, video, IBIS, etc) so a kit like RP+24-105/4–7.1 with big sensor and small aperture lens is an expensive way to get about what you could have in a smaller format; for example an APS-C body with f/3.5–4.5 zoom, or M43 with f/2.8–3.5.
P. S. When you refer to price as an advantage of 35mm format, are you ignoring camera body price, or deluding yourself that the larger format bodies have a price advantage?
"Equivalent lenses are the same size/weight for all formats."
Obviously this is BS.
Show me an 800mm (any aperture) lens that is as small as a 400mm MFT lens. What every you come up with is going to be 1600 on MFT with no FF equivalent too!
Someone asked for a 150/3.5 lens as small as the MFT 75/1.8 The FF fans either ran, made dumb excuses, or tried Manual Focus legacy lenses.
It is fun to watch the myths and lies insecure FF fans come up with.
@BJL Well, yes, larger sensor cameras are supposed to be more expensive, but, unfortunately, that doesn't make the MFT systems any cheaper. Because camera gear companies love to make more money and people are easy to fool with meaningless F-stops and ISOs. RP+24-105/4–7.1 would still have the advantage of cleaner low ISOs. And we don't have any equivalent APS-C 16-70F2.6-4.6 or MFT 12-52F2-3.6 alternatives.
@Sir Laslo Technically, a 2x TC makes any FF telephoto lens as good as MFT lens of the same focal length and aperture. That $900 Zuiko 75F1.8 is a very nice lens. But I'm a happy owner of a beautiful Sigma 150F2.8 APO Macro, which is equivalent to MFT 75F1.4 APO Macro. Of course, it is 3 times larger and heavier, but it is a more powerful lens and somehow its release price was those same $900. So the actual BS is how much the MFT costs. We can use FF 70-200F4 and just forget about the MFT 75F1.8 and a whole bunch of other overpriced MFT toys in this range.
Guys, please don't respond to ecka84 anymore. He is a renowned anti-m43 troll. No matter how much proof you show, he isn't here to discuss. He is here to bash.
Which recent FF camera sells for under $500 with a kit lens?
I keep reading this lie that FF cameras are as cheap as MFT. MFT is simply more flexible. It can be as small as an rx100 (GM5) and it can sell for under $500 with a kit lens, or it can be larger and shoot 60FPS, or hand held High resolution, or have the best IBIS. At the moment no FF camera can do any of those.
Btw, where are the small 800mm FF lenses the FF fan boys keep taking about that are the same size as an MFT 400mm lens?
Who is trolling here? When I said that I enjoy things like ETTR, you called it pain and masochism, and when I said that my camera makes certain hard things easier, you replied about such hard things: “And that is why photography is so fun :).” You are entitled to your own preferences, as we all are, but I hope that you at least see the hypocrisy.
You keep talking about cognitive dissonance and being honest with oneself, all the while performing sufficient mental gymnastics to reach the conclusion that e.g. there is no price advantage in M43. Could it be that *you* are in a cognitive shock that M43 may actually be a better fit for some people?
I am interested in friendly conversations, including with you, but you don’t always make it so easy.
@Sir Laslo $500 crop kits are no better than P&S cameras. Only larger. And when you try getting better pictures out it, you end up paying more than FF would cost you, plus you won't get anything comparable to FF. Phones are replacing $500 cameras. I already answered your telephoto trolling. Can you show a single MFT super-tele image that is as good or better than FF? Please.
@spider-mario Photography is about the picture. Not about silently paprazzing the hell out of everything at 60fps :). Drugs make things easier. But it's a bad thing in the long run. Tiny sensor is easier, yeah, use your phone. The only reason why you are advocating for MFT is because you can't imagine what you could do with all that extra FF goodness. Same way you can try arguing that $10'000'000 is better than $40'000'000, because you don't know what to do with the rest $30'000'000.
“Photography is about the picture. Not about silently paprazzing the hell out of everything at 60fps :).”
Sometimes, that’s what gets you the picture.
“use your phone.” I am not satisfied by phone picture quality (or ergonomics, for that matter). I am satisfied by M43 quality. Again with the hyperboles. It’s all-or-nothing with you, isn’t it?
“The only reason why you are advocating for MFT is because you can't imagine what you could do with all that extra FF goodness.”
That, or I don’t think it’s worth what I have to sacrifice to get it.
There is nothing wrong with having $10 000 000 instead of $40 000 000 if $10 000 000 is enough for you and you would rather not do what it takes to earn the other $30 000 000.
"I am not satisfied by phone picture quality" - Then you know how I feel about the lousy overpriced crops. They are not good enough. All the crop companies do is they spread lies about FF, to survive. It's pathetic. Why can't they compete fairly? I don't hate cameras. Camera engineers are doing what they can. It's not their fault. I hate cheaters and liars who make money by fooling people.
"There is nothing wrong with having $10 000 000 instead of $40 000 000" - See, you are predictable :).
“Then you know how I feel about the lousy overpriced crops.”
How you feel is not how everyone has to feel. Some people are satisfied with their phones, and that’s fine. I am not, so I use something else. You are not satisfied by what I use, so you use yet something else. And in turn, it is possible for phone or M43 users not to be satisfied by what you (or I) use, for reasons that go beyond image quality (or price, for what it’s worth).
“See, you are predictable :).”
I am fine with being consistent, so I will take that as a compliment. Thank you. :)
'It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.'
Feel free to use whatever you like. But don't preach nonsense about smaller format superiority. Stop spreading ignorance and lies. That's all I'm asking.
Nice one ;) but, as I am sure you actually understood, that was a way of conveying that to the best of my knowledge, I have not started at all. Therefore, I cannot stop.
On the other hand, you very much seem to believe in the “superiority” of large sensors for everyone.
Yeah, this BS started before you came along. But, sure, you are unstoppable :) Look, FF is superior. Specially because it is cheaper than MFT. And shooting 60 snaps per second doesn't compensate for anything. Would you prefer a phone camera if it could shoot 200 snaps per second? Why not just shoot video (silently) and then grab a few frames out of it for stills. And doing it on FF would probably be as good as MFT 60fps.
“Look, FF is superior. Specially because it is cheaper than MFT.” Sure, getting “a” FF camera is cheaper than some M43 setups. But one that would satisfy me as much, for what I use mine for? Doubtful. I have already looked into it, believe it or not.
“And shooting 60 snaps per second doesn't compensate for anything. Would you prefer a phone camera if it could shoot 200 snaps per second?” No I would not, because it would have other shortcomings. Why do you always have to resort to exaggerations? Between 15fps with rolling shutter and FF quality at one end, and 240fps with phone quality at the other end, 60fps with M43 quality is the compromise I like best. It’s as simple as that.
“Why not just shoot video (silently) and then grab a few frames out of it for stills. And doing it on FF would probably be as good as MFT 60fps.” Sure, those H.264-compressed 8-bit files with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling and at most 8MP would be as high quality as my 20MP RAW files. Who’s trolling, really?
Don't you think that 60fps is an exaggeration too? See, you are putting 60fps MFT quality against 10fps (which is plenty) FF quality. Well, if it could shoot 60fps non-stop, then it could be useful as a RAW video feature :). But a few seconds of it, without AF, is only good for staged shots, pretty much. "H.264...8-bit...4:2:0...8mp..." - Oh, so now you care about the image quality? :)) What about the image quality difference between 20mp MFT RAW and 30+mp FF RAW? I'm pretty sure that you are not even utilizing the full potential of your MFT camera. That's why it is all the same to you.
“Don't you think that 60fps is an exaggeration too?” No, because once more, the fact that it’s able to do 1/60s readouts also means less rolling shutter than a slower sensor.
“Oh, so now you care about the image quality? :))” Yes, as always? Up to a certain point, such that 20MP M43 RAW is enough and a compressed video frame is clearly not. Why is that seemingly so hard for you to understand? Actually, I’m pretty sure that you do understand, you just pretend not to.
“What about the image quality difference between 20mp MFT RAW and 30+mp FF RAW?” At that level, I might care a little, but not enough to sacrifice other advantages.
It really seems as though you have trouble understanding the fact that just because you care about a certain dimension up to a certain point does not mean that you need to maximize it at all cost. At some point, the marginal cost (not just monetary) exceeds the marginal benefit.
“I'm pretty sure that you are not even utilizing the full potential of your MFT camera.”
1. Possibly, but I would be curious to know what you base that assumption on.
2. I don’t even understand how that’s an argument in favor of FF, since it effectively means that I could get even better quality than already satisfies me without changing systems. So I could almost say that I hope you are right. :)
OK then, $40 000 000 for me and $10 000 000 for you :)
My problem with you guys is that it feels like I'm talking to blind people here :). The MFT can produce fine images, in a studio. Nothing spectacular though. But, overall, even FF doesn't deliver the oomph every single time in whatever situations. I don't understand this boring snapshot culture/generation. I don't understand how or why you justify the high price you pay for the crop. It really seems like a waste when I'm looking at the actual results, editing them, trying to make it work. It really is a pain :). It is mind-boggling to see someone traveling to the other end of the world, shooting some sort of once in a lifetime event and bring back home a freaking snapshot (or what you call a "20MP RAW"). My old 6D has a 20mp sensor too, but the images it produces contain more detail and less noise. "I would be curious to know what you base that assumption on." - On the fact that you see no reason why sensor size is relevant.
I really feel like I am repeating myself. It’s not that I see no reason why it’s relevant, it’s that it’s not *sufficiently* relevant *to me*. I considered getting a camera with a larger sensor, wondering “why not?”, then I actually looked at the why nots and they were too much for me with the current offerings. If new offerings appear that do not have those why nots, maybe I’ll switch. But at the moment, no.
"I really feel like I am repeating myself" - Yeah, and every time you make no sense to me :). "it’s not *sufficiently* relevant *to me*" - The FF is objectively and empirically 4 times (2 stops) more relevant :). The way I'm seeing it, cameras are evolving. With time, newer models gather more and more data, which means higher image quality. Higher quality means that we can view larger (have more megapixels) and have less noise. Modern photography gear is capable of producing large (60x40-ish), high-def, lifelike, amazing looking images. But somehow, you people are satisfied with tiny little snapshots. JZS! What is wrong with you guys?! :) Open your eyes, for nerds sake. There's a whole new world waiting for you. Get a new large monitor and start enjoying digital photography. Instead of 'snobbering' around the pseudo-"color-science", film simulations, rolling shutters, magical F-stops on overpriced lenses, retro camera body design, etc.
“The FF is objectively and empirically 4 times (2 stops) more relevant :).”
In low light, that’s only true if you compromise on DoF, and possibly weight and minimum focus distance (or both). In bright light, if I feel limited in dynamic range, I just merge bursts, with great results.
“Get a new large monitor and start enjoying digital photography.”
Actually, I just tried looking at a few of my photos on a 65" OLED TV and they look great, so thank you for the suggestion. :) I even managed to get an HDR burst to display in HDR mode (and it looked great too), though I had to encode it as a video first (using http://lumahdrv.org/ ).
OK, keep exploring :). I have no idea if your TV can act as a proper monitor/display. TVs tend to kill all the oomph with too much brightness, sharpness, contrast and saturation. They are not meant for close up viewing. So, be careful :). I think that a 40+" UHD IPS would do better. Viewing pictures on 65" TV from far away isn't any better than viewing them on an iPad. It's pointless.
Of course I have problems, but unlike you, I am self-aware of my problems. My recommendation to sell the camera gear and use the money for therapy sessions still stands.
But we don't have mental problems :). We don't need therapy ... See, people like you (with problems) come to camera gear web sites to tell us stop using cameras, stop caring about cameras, stop talking about cameras. Man, you are insane :))
Nice to have a good quality lens that bucks the stupid, counter-productive trend of non-portable lenses in what should be portable cameras. Mirrorless was supposed to mean compact, light-weight. Instead, you got nose-drooping cameras stuck with 2lb lenses.
I would prefer a short video COMBINED with a text review. There are situations when you can’t watch videos. For example: while sitting in the waiting room of a doctor, no cellphone data left when traveling, while reading DPReview at work with the boss sitting in the same room...
Having said this, once I have the time I enjoy watching those clips.
On bashing. The bashing is across all systems, regardless of format. Broadly, I guess it is in built/human nature for a good portion of society to identify with a group or team. Perceived victories over, or defeats and injustices from other groups are associated with individually. Aggressive and defensive commentary helps to define a team and form a hierarchy, satisfying identity and relative success needs. I would guess that this is on a substitution basis, virtual world vs real world and probably why I am writing this comment:) . Why the field of photography seems to be particularly aggressive I have no idea, i don't think it is solely due to being an overwhelmingly male hobby/profession. Would be great to hear your ideas .
I suppose the simplest explanation is that often people have laid out a bit stack of cash on their choice. That’s a huge incentive toward a conformation bias. No one likes the idea they’ve spent their money unwisely.
It does however annoy me that so many people seem unable to grasp any system has compromises. There are huge constructed scotoma especially it seems when it comes to MfT. People cheerfully trumpet the compact nature- the effective doubling of focal length, but then aggressively deny the light penalty, subject isolation difficulty with an effective two stop halfing of aperture value and also the same penalty in terms of noise at similar values. Of course for a lot of everyday shooting situations and normal print/viewing sizes, these things either aren’t that noticeable or not perceptible at all.
It’s frankly weird that people don’t accept I can be using the system knowing these drawbacks or will alternatively insist I’m just wrong and they don’t exist. Rather sad.
Tribalism is a defining characteristic of our species. Banding together provides a survival advantage in some circumstances. But there are downsides, manifest at the petty end by things like puerile bickering over brands and sporting teams.
Ever followed car blogs? Same thing. Mine is always better because if it's not, that would make me feel inferior and because I lack self confidence, I have to try and assert my position.
Kudos to Chris and Jordan for once again doing a H2H comparison between two lenses in this review. Rishi, are you reading this? Using a comparator lens is how DPR should do ALL lens reviews. It works just as well for camera reviews too.
As soon as Canon makes 24-90/f8 lens this Olympus will be as good as dead. Since Canon can make 24-105/4-7.1 for $400, they definitely can make a simple lens for $300.
It is photographer’s fault Olympus makes this crap. Do not buy F4 MFT lens called PRo and they will not make it. as simple as that. Soon Olympus pinhole body cap will be labeled as F8 Pro bodycap.
How much does this Canon lens weigh? How big is it? Unless it matches the Olympus in size and weight I will buy the Olympus...
I really like the Nikon Z6, but the lenses are larger and heavier than their m43 counterparts. So if you like something smaller m34 is still the way to go.
Also, how is the optical quality, build and weather sealing of the Canon lens? I'm not saying it's worse, because I don't know, but those are things that must be taken into consideration when comparing price. There are more variables than focal length and aperture.
@Franz Weber -- Equivalent lenses in this range are approximately the same in weight and size. Weight is usually the result of materials used, build quality, and optical performance. Since FF and m43 mirrorless bodies have similar flange distance, FF equivalents would have theoretical advantage in size/weight for wide-angle lenses, and m43 would have advantage with long telephoto. And it stands to reason the lower the requirements, the simpler the design, the smaller the lens.
Yes, Z6 lenses are larger, but they are not equivalents. Can you find equivalent f/0.9 m43 lenses?
Also, Nikon seems to be obsessed with optical quality. Look at the optical formula, lenses are packed with glass, very little air inside. The lenses are complex with special glass, and they perform like none other.
What a bummer, getting a sick on a free trip to paradise. Your candor about who paid is appreciated (as is seeing the results from Costa Rica instead of Alberta.) Looks like a nice lens for those who value sharpness & compactness over the other stuff. Obviously there are better choices for bokeh and stars if that's a priority.
Was it just 8 weeks ago that Olympus showed a road map, and some savvy DPR posters said the chart was bogus. After all, it was just a chart, and the company would be out of the camera business by spring.
They missed a great opportunity to make something like a 9-35mm lens (18-70mm full frame). Most high-end smartphones now have an ultra-wide lens because most people find it so useful. Yet 99% of standard zooms start at 24mm. And most of the wide zooms end at 28-35mm, which is still quite wide.
The phones you refer to use multiple lenses and cameras to produce these effects. Making a single wide angle optical zoom is very difficult, especially if you want to keep the size down.
8-25mm will be interesting to see. Panasonic recently released their 10-25mm, but that is F1.7 and huge. Before that, I'm only aware of the Canon 17-40mm which comes close.
I think it’s technically difficult, but something like 10-25 F4 will be feasible. I have the 11-22 2.8 3.5 four third. Nice lense, but quite big and heavy, a smaller micro 4/3 will be appreciate.
From the samples, corners look very good at 12mm where zooms usually are weak. Lateral chromatics are very well controlled. Overall performance seems excellent for a midrange zoom.
The DPReview TV team recently traveled to Costa Rica where they had an opportunity to shoot with the new Olympus 12-45mm F4 Pro lens. Check out their sample images in this gallery and see how it performed.
The latest Olympus Pro lens the most diminutive yet while still retaining the lineup's high level of both build and image quality. It also looks to be a great compact companion to the company's recently released OM-D E-M5 Mark III camera.
For our initial sample gallery from Olympus' new 12-45mm F4 Pro, we bring you images of beaches and boats in both Costa Rica and the Pacific Northwest. Oh, there are monkeys in this gallery too.
The DJI Air 2S is exactly what many drone enthusiasts have been asking for: a consumerdrone with a 1"-type camera sensor that's budget-friendly. Does it live up to the hype? In our opinion, yes.
DxO has just released PureRaw, a simple, standalone program that can automatically apply its high-quality lens corrections and impressive noise-reduction algorithms to your Raw files, and then pass those Raw files off to your favorite editing app. We're pretty impressed by it – find out why in our review.
The Fujifilm Fujinon XF 70-300mm F4-5.6 R LM OIS WR is a very versatile, compact telephoto zoom lens. But how does it perform? Read our review to find out.
The X-E4 is going to make a lot of photographers happy, especially those craving a near-pocket-size X-mount body with Fujifilm's latest IQ performance.
In our latest software shootout, we pit Adobe's Camera Raw against Capture One Express Fujifilm, included for free with every Fujifilm camera. Can you get all you need with the free option? For a lot of people, it looks like the answer could be yes.
If you want a camera that you can pick up and use without having to page through the manual first, then this guide is for you. We've selected seven cameras ranging from compacts to full-frame, all of which are easy to operate.
Family moments are precious and sometimes you want to capture that time spent with friends or loved-ones in better quality than your phone can manage. We've selected a group of cameras that are easy to keep with you, and that can adapt to take photos wherever and whenever something memorable happens.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that might be a bit older but still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
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.
Conservationist and photographer Donal Boyd and filmmaker Frank Nieuwenhuis visited the ongoing volcanic eruption on the Reykjanes Peninsula in Iceland, where he captured beautiful visuals of the eruption.
We took the Panasonic Lumix DC-G100 to the Bay Area and put it in the hands of commercial and fashion photographer Robert Silver to see what it can do.
Cosina adds to its Voigtlander Vintage Line series with its new 28mm F2 Ultron lenses, which come in two models — Type I and Type II — with different focus ring styles.
Sony's latest FX3 has a lot in common with the a7S III on the inside, but we've got our hands on one to show just how different it is on the outside – take a look.
The DJI Air 2S is exactly what many drone enthusiasts have been asking for: a consumerdrone with a 1"-type camera sensor that's budget-friendly. Does it live up to the hype? In our opinion, yes.
The winners of the Professional, Open, Student and Youth categories of the Sony World Photography Awards have been announced, showing some exceptional projects and single images.
Canon has announced two new telephoto prime lenses for the RF mount: the RF 400mm F2.8L IS USM and 600mm F4L IS USM. Click through for a closer look at these two new telephoto options for RF.
From the stately twin-lens reflex to the timeless view camera, here are some of the less common film camera types still kicking around on the used market.
Micro Four Thirds users can now enjoy the Speedmaster 35mm F0.95 Mark II manual lens that was previously limited to Canon EF-M, Fujifilm X and Sony E mount camera systems.
Hasselblad Masters contest opens to professional photographers, with a dozen medium format mirrorless cameras up for grabs. And you don't need to shoot on a 'blad to enter!
Fujifilm's latest prime, the XF 18mm F1.4 R LM WR, is a solidly built lens that we've really enjoyed shooting with. It's also a big departure from Fujifilm's previous 18mm F2 prime lens – get a sense of how it handles right here.
The new Fujifilm XF 18mm F1.4 R LM WR provides a 27mm-equivalent focal length for Fujifilm's X-mount cameras. Find out why Chris and Jordan like this fast, sharp 18mm lens.
We've been shooting with a pre-production copy of Fujifilm's new XF 18mm F1.4 R LM WR lens for a few days, which offers a 27mm full-frame equivalent field of view, and optically, we're impressed.
Fujifilm has announced its lightweight (370g/13oz) XF 18mm F1.4 R LM WR wide-angle prime. This 27mm-equivalent lens offers numerous special elements and a linear focus motor, and is also weather-sealed.
DxO has just released PureRaw, a simple, standalone program that can automatically apply its high-quality lens corrections and impressive noise-reduction algorithms to your Raw files, and then pass those Raw files off to your favorite editing app. We're pretty impressed by it – find out why in our review.
Canon has just announced a native RF-mount contemporary to its popular EF 100mm F2.8L Macro lens. The RF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM is an all-new design, and we've been digging into its feature set. Click through to learn more.
Sony's Xperia 1 and 5 Mark III smartphones introduce a variable 70-105mm telephoto optic, 120Hz OLED displays, and are the first cameras ever to shoot 20 fps with temporal noise reduction. Read on for an in-depth look.
Canon has just announced the development of what will be the highest-speed RF-mount camera yet, the EOS R3. It looks like a really interesting camera, but the R3 also points toward something else coming in the future; something even more capable. Here's what we know.
In today's episode of DPReview TV, Chris and Jordan answer the question everyone is asking: what do they think about Canon's EOS R3 development announcement?
Canon's new RF 100mm F2.8L IS USM offers a minimum focus distance of 26cm (10"), up to 8 stops of shake reduction, and the ability to adjust bokeh and softness by turning its 'spherical aberration' dial.
Canon has announced two new super-telephoto primes for RF-mount: the 400mm F2.8L IS USM and 600mm F4L IS USM. Both lenses share the same optics as their EF-mount counterparts, and will arrive in July priced at $12,000 and $13,000, respectively.
Canon has announced that it is developing the EOS R3, a high-end full-frame mirrorless camera. It will feature a Stacked CMOS Dual Pixel sensor and be able to shoot at up to 30 fps.
Comments