This topic is in the 2012 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2012New Olympus OM-D announced
p.15 #1New Olympus OM-D announced
Water resistance and build quality seem to be the selling point for the 12-50 M.Zuiko. Have you take a look at Robin Wong's macro shots? They look quite good, good contrast and color.
http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2011/12/olympus-mzuiko-12-50mm-f35-63-review.html
http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2011/12/olympus-mzuiko-12-50mm-f35-63-review.html
Feb 16, 2012 at 08:57 AM
p.15 #2New Olympus OM-D announced
People at the MFT forum seem to be indicating that Robin Wong is not a very objective reviewer.
Feb 16, 2012 at 09:04 AM
p.15 #3New Olympus OM-D announced
Bifurcator wrote:
No, not always in both directions, no. For example I doubt we'll see an µ4/3 camera ever costing more than a FF. Smaller sensor cameras are released at much higher frequencies so the sensor tech is almost always likely to be newer. I don't think FF will match µ4/3 in pixel density (or at least not for long) thus resolution/area will be higher on µ4/3 as well. etc. Also some of those things actually disqualify that magic equation! It's just a mistake to use it and think it's actually meaningful in practice. It's fine for grasping a concept but that's...Show more →
We can discuss this forever, but maybe we should stop for the peace of our fellow members.
But I just have to answer.
Cost is never said to be a part of the technical equivalnce. You cannot use that as an argument that the image quality and shutter speed considerations are false. Of course you apply practical considerations in addition to the technical.
Pixel density is cancelled by the equivalence equation and is irrelevant as long as you are not focal length limted. For image resolution FF will most often have the advantage.
Newer sensor tech: the higher frequency of u43 releases tends to reuse old sensor tech more often. Olumpus has released new cameras with old sensor tech for a long time now. Even the new Panny GF3 uses the old sensor. I actually was attacked for using a new camera with old sensor tech in my comparison with the now not so new D3s.
So no, I don't buy any of your arguments here. But I know you like to argue. Have a nice day
No, not always in both directions, no. For example I doubt we'll see an µ4/3 camera ever costing more than a FF. Smaller sensor cameras are released at much higher frequencies so the sensor tech is almost always likely to be newer. I don't think FF will match µ4/3 in pixel density (or at least not for long) thus resolution/area will be higher on µ4/3 as well. etc. Also some of those things actually disqualify that magic equation! It's just a mistake to use it and think it's actually meaningful in practice. It's fine for grasping a concept but that's...Show more →
We can discuss this forever, but maybe we should stop for the peace of our fellow members.
But I just have to answer.
Cost is never said to be a part of the technical equivalnce. You cannot use that as an argument that the image quality and shutter speed considerations are false. Of course you apply practical considerations in addition to the technical.
Pixel density is cancelled by the equivalence equation and is irrelevant as long as you are not focal length limted. For image resolution FF will most often have the advantage.
Newer sensor tech: the higher frequency of u43 releases tends to reuse old sensor tech more often. Olumpus has released new cameras with old sensor tech for a long time now. Even the new Panny GF3 uses the old sensor. I actually was attacked for using a new camera with old sensor tech in my comparison with the now not so new D3s.
So no, I don't buy any of your arguments here. But I know you like to argue. Have a nice day
Feb 16, 2012 at 09:08 AM
p.15 #4New Olympus OM-D announced
Robin Wong's conclusions are that at regular distances the 12-50 M.Zuiko is only a mediocre performer.
As you said its main selling points seem to be build quality and water resistance but evidently its not optical performance. Just a big slow kit lens basically, I'm going to skip it when I order my OM-D body.
As you said its main selling points seem to be build quality and water resistance but evidently its not optical performance. Just a big slow kit lens basically, I'm going to skip it when I order my OM-D body.
Feb 16, 2012 at 09:28 AM
p.15 #5New Olympus OM-D announced
ChrisDM wrote:
I do wish there were a m43 zoom lens with a decent aperture
Pansonic is coming out with some new X zoom lenses for MFT - a 12-35 f/2.8 and a 35-100 f/2.8
http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc498/43rumors/personal_view.jpg
I do wish there were a m43 zoom lens with a decent aperture
Pansonic is coming out with some new X zoom lenses for MFT - a 12-35 f/2.8 and a 35-100 f/2.8
http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc498/43rumors/personal_view.jpg
Feb 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM
p.15 #6New Olympus OM-D announced
Hopefully we'll see those lenses sooner rather than later.
Feb 16, 2012 at 10:22 AM
p.15 #7New Olympus OM-D announced
Bifurcator wrote:
I think I'm in the middle on that part of it. Like KaaX says sensors are and actually have been for a couple of years now, bumping up against physics. And Nex is no better really. It's the same for what it is as an APS-C. Of course Nex owners might wish it were different but...
Lenses topped out 30 years ago already and all that's happening today is mostly just wheel reinvention. I have 30 and 40 year old lenses that kick ass on the very best Nex and µ4/3 lenses - especially from about 20mm on up! And the...Show more →
I understand what you are saying here and I would agree that there are some fantastic lenses from yesteryear; however, I think it's somewhat similar to the other ongoing discussion here about equivalence and comparable values between m43 and FF senors/lenses, etc. What lens from yesteryear would you compare to the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 that is as small and is as fast to AF? Sure, you may find some lenses that have better IQ but they're probably not going to be as small and they're certainly not going to have AF. And that is the point I was trying to make with KaaX, that the lenses that Olympus and Panasonic have for m43 are unequalled from any manufacturer at this time when comparing size, AF, aperture, focal range and IQ.
In regard to current sensor technology running up against the laws of physics I also understand what you are saying; however, we have seen time and time again engineers finding ways "around" the laws of physics. The laws of physics cannot be broken (unless the law/theory was found to be flawed by new evidence) but it never ceases to amaze me what our incredible minds can come up with to solve a problem. So the limitations we have today could be overcome by some new technology that gets around some physical limitation, whether through hardware or software.
I won't even pretend to claim that I know as much as posters here talking about the differences between sensor design and lens design etc. What matters most to me is how the final image looks and there are so many variables and factors that go into that I can't even begin to comprehend, but what I know is I can set the shutter, aperture, ISO, focus point and frame the image a certain way which, once I press the shutter button, gives me an image that I can then take into Lightroom and make some adjustments and then possibly take into PS and make more fixes which ultimately ends in an image that is pleasing to me or my family/friends, or to my client who then gives me money for me to print that image on some medium and give it to them so they can now enjoy it themselves
The beauty of it all is that anyone with artistic talent for photography can grab almost any equipment today and be able to make beautiful images, some photographers even use noise to enhance their image (I use it all the time with B&W because I used to shoot Ilford 3200 and Neopan 1600 pushed to 3200 and sometimes 6400 to get a certain "look" in the image and loved the grain/noise structure). So regardless of any limitations with current technology we are still able to make fantastic images
I think I'm in the middle on that part of it. Like KaaX says sensors are and actually have been for a couple of years now, bumping up against physics. And Nex is no better really. It's the same for what it is as an APS-C. Of course Nex owners might wish it were different but...
Lenses topped out 30 years ago already and all that's happening today is mostly just wheel reinvention. I have 30 and 40 year old lenses that kick ass on the very best Nex and µ4/3 lenses - especially from about 20mm on up! And the...Show more →
I understand what you are saying here and I would agree that there are some fantastic lenses from yesteryear; however, I think it's somewhat similar to the other ongoing discussion here about equivalence and comparable values between m43 and FF senors/lenses, etc. What lens from yesteryear would you compare to the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 that is as small and is as fast to AF? Sure, you may find some lenses that have better IQ but they're probably not going to be as small and they're certainly not going to have AF. And that is the point I was trying to make with KaaX, that the lenses that Olympus and Panasonic have for m43 are unequalled from any manufacturer at this time when comparing size, AF, aperture, focal range and IQ.
In regard to current sensor technology running up against the laws of physics I also understand what you are saying; however, we have seen time and time again engineers finding ways "around" the laws of physics. The laws of physics cannot be broken (unless the law/theory was found to be flawed by new evidence) but it never ceases to amaze me what our incredible minds can come up with to solve a problem. So the limitations we have today could be overcome by some new technology that gets around some physical limitation, whether through hardware or software.
I won't even pretend to claim that I know as much as posters here talking about the differences between sensor design and lens design etc. What matters most to me is how the final image looks and there are so many variables and factors that go into that I can't even begin to comprehend, but what I know is I can set the shutter, aperture, ISO, focus point and frame the image a certain way which, once I press the shutter button, gives me an image that I can then take into Lightroom and make some adjustments and then possibly take into PS and make more fixes which ultimately ends in an image that is pleasing to me or my family/friends, or to my client who then gives me money for me to print that image on some medium and give it to them so they can now enjoy it themselves
The beauty of it all is that anyone with artistic talent for photography can grab almost any equipment today and be able to make beautiful images, some photographers even use noise to enhance their image (I use it all the time with B&W because I used to shoot Ilford 3200 and Neopan 1600 pushed to 3200 and sometimes 6400 to get a certain "look" in the image and loved the grain/noise structure). So regardless of any limitations with current technology we are still able to make fantastic images Feb 16, 2012 at 10:51 AM
p.15 #8New Olympus OM-D announced
Jman13 wrote:
Hopefully we'll see those lenses sooner rather than later.
I want them too Jordan I feel like I jumped into m43 about a year too early, if I decided to get into this stuff in November of 2012 instead of 2011 I would have been able to jump right into a OM-D E-M5, with these lenses along with the Oly 75mm f/1.8 and 60mm macro, etc. But as it stands now, I am still pretty happy with the lenses I have to work with now, just would like those longer/faster prototypes to get here quickly
Hopefully we'll see those lenses sooner rather than later.
I want them too Jordan
I feel like I jumped into m43 about a year too early, if I decided to get into this stuff in November of 2012 instead of 2011 I would have been able to jump right into a OM-D E-M5, with these lenses along with the Oly 75mm f/1.8 and 60mm macro, etc. But as it stands now, I am still pretty happy with the lenses I have to work with now, just would like those longer/faster prototypes to get here quickly Feb 16, 2012 at 10:56 AM
p.15 #9New Olympus OM-D announced
Hey everyone, I certainly don't want to muddy the waters, but I have been reading the very interesting posts on all the sensor and lens issues and it has been quite informative to say the least. I found these two articles that really helped me to understand a little more about sensor technology and design so thought I'd post them hear in the hope they would help some who are struggling to understand.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
Feb 16, 2012 at 10:58 AM
p.15 #10New Olympus OM-D announced
wjmeyer wrote:
What lens from yesteryear would you compare to the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 that is as small and is as fast to AF? Sure, you may find some lenses that have better IQ but they're probably not going to be as small and they're certainly not going to have AF.
Well, at least among the lenses I've tested here, they don't even come close in the image quality department (though unfortunately, I didn't have any Zeiss Planar's or Leica 50s to test when I did this):
The 45/1.8 is a cut above (and the other m4/3 lenses are no slouch either...even the Panny 14-45 is a really, really good piece of glass):
12 50mm lenses do battle:
http://admiringlight.com/blog/12-lenses-spanning-50-years-do-battle/
What lens from yesteryear would you compare to the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 that is as small and is as fast to AF? Sure, you may find some lenses that have better IQ but they're probably not going to be as small and they're certainly not going to have AF.
Well, at least among the lenses I've tested here, they don't even come close in the image quality department (though unfortunately, I didn't have any Zeiss Planar's or Leica 50s to test when I did this):
The 45/1.8 is a cut above (and the other m4/3 lenses are no slouch either...even the Panny 14-45 is a really, really good piece of glass):
12 50mm lenses do battle:
http://admiringlight.com/blog/12-lenses-spanning-50-years-do-battle/
Feb 16, 2012 at 11:00 AM
p.15 #11New Olympus OM-D announced
Sensor sizes, focal lengths of Micro 4/3 vs full-frame, ect are not relevant here, start a new thread.
The subject line here is the new Olympus OM-D stay focused on that subject.
The subject line here is the new Olympus OM-D stay focused on that subject.
Feb 16, 2012 at 12:24 PM
p.15 #12New Olympus OM-D announced
None of the new Panny lenses are weather sealed correct?
Feb 16, 2012 at 12:26 PM
p.15 #13New Olympus OM-D announced
FlyPenFly wrote:
None of the new Panny lenses are weather sealed correct?
That is my understanding that they are not; however, if Panasonic plans to introduce a GH3 or something better they may make it weather sealed and since these lenses are prototypes they certainly may decide to make them weather sealed, until the "official" release we won't know for sure...
None of the new Panny lenses are weather sealed correct?
That is my understanding that they are not; however, if Panasonic plans to introduce a GH3 or something better they may make it weather sealed and since these lenses are prototypes they certainly may decide to make them weather sealed, until the "official" release we won't know for sure...
Feb 16, 2012 at 12:35 PM
p.15 #14New Olympus OM-D announced
wjmeyer wrote:
And that is the point I was trying to make with KaaX, that the lenses that Olympus and Panasonic have for m43 are unequalled from any manufacturer at this time when comparing size, AF, aperture, focal range and IQ.
Do you mean *native* m4/3 lenses? I will freely agree that the range of native m4/3 lenses will grow considerably over the next few years. On the other hand, if you mean "any lens that I can mount on a m4/3 camera", things get considerably murkier. The Zeissonistas and Leicaphiles might not agree :-D
wjmeyer wrote:
In regard to current sensor technology running up against the laws of physics I also understand what you are saying; however, we have seen time and time again engineers finding ways "around" the laws of physics.
Well, yes, I mean the current "type" of sensor technology and its hard limits. I don't have a good enough crystal ball to peer, say, 20 years into the future. Maybe someone will be able to make Foveon-type sensors work well. Maybe lightfield cameras will take over. Maybe something else will happen. But in the near term, say, not more than five years out, what we can get out of sensors is fairly clear.
And that is the point I was trying to make with KaaX, that the lenses that Olympus and Panasonic have for m43 are unequalled from any manufacturer at this time when comparing size, AF, aperture, focal range and IQ.
Do you mean *native* m4/3 lenses? I will freely agree that the range of native m4/3 lenses will grow considerably over the next few years. On the other hand, if you mean "any lens that I can mount on a m4/3 camera", things get considerably murkier. The Zeissonistas and Leicaphiles might not agree :-D
wjmeyer wrote:
In regard to current sensor technology running up against the laws of physics I also understand what you are saying; however, we have seen time and time again engineers finding ways "around" the laws of physics.
Well, yes, I mean the current "type" of sensor technology and its hard limits. I don't have a good enough crystal ball to peer, say, 20 years into the future. Maybe someone will be able to make Foveon-type sensors work well. Maybe lightfield cameras will take over. Maybe something else will happen. But in the near term, say, not more than five years out, what we can get out of sensors is fairly clear.
Feb 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM
p.15 #15New Olympus OM-D announced
KaaX wrote:
Do you mean *native* m4/3 lenses? I will freely agree that the range of native m4/3 lenses will grow considerably over the next few years. On the other hand, if you mean "any lens that I can mount on a m4/3 camera", things get considerably murkier. The Zeissonistas and Leicaphiles might not agree :-D
Well, yes, I mean the current "type" of sensor technology and its hard limits. I don't have a good enough crystal ball to peer, say, 20 years into the future. Maybe someone will be able to make Foveon-type sensors work well. Maybe lightfield cameras will take over....Show more →
I apologize, yes, I mean native lenses to MFT. If I was considering a system to put older glass on I would probably choose the NEX for its focus peeking capability and larger sensor.
Five years is a long time for digital. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a cleaner/better sensor for MFT within that time
Do you mean *native* m4/3 lenses? I will freely agree that the range of native m4/3 lenses will grow considerably over the next few years. On the other hand, if you mean "any lens that I can mount on a m4/3 camera", things get considerably murkier. The Zeissonistas and Leicaphiles might not agree :-D
Well, yes, I mean the current "type" of sensor technology and its hard limits. I don't have a good enough crystal ball to peer, say, 20 years into the future. Maybe someone will be able to make Foveon-type sensors work well. Maybe lightfield cameras will take over....Show more →
I apologize, yes, I mean native lenses to MFT. If I was considering a system to put older glass on I would probably choose the NEX for its focus peeking capability and larger sensor.
Five years is a long time for digital. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a cleaner/better sensor for MFT within that time
Feb 16, 2012 at 01:46 PM
p.15 #16New Olympus OM-D announced
wjmeyer wrote:
Five years is a long time for digital. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a cleaner/better sensor for MFT within that time
Sure, we'll see *slightly* better sensors.
On the other hand, I shoot at lot at ISO1600 f/1.2 using the four-year-old sensor of my 5D2. I don't anticipate being able to shoot m4/3 in the same light in the foreseeable future...
Five years is a long time for digital. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a cleaner/better sensor for MFT within that time
Sure, we'll see *slightly* better sensors.
On the other hand, I shoot at lot at ISO1600 f/1.2 using the four-year-old sensor of my 5D2. I don't anticipate being able to shoot m4/3 in the same light in the foreseeable future...
Feb 16, 2012 at 02:12 PM
p.15 #17New Olympus OM-D announced
KaaX wrote:
Sure, we'll see *slightly* better sensors.
On the other hand, I shoot at lot at ISO1600 f/1.2 using the four-year-old sensor of my 5D2. I don't anticipate being able to shoot m4/3 in the same light in the foreseeable future...
Why not? APS-C is already there with the Sony 16MP sensor(which in my experience doesn't start to get marginal until ISO 3200), I expect m43 to get there on the next sensor generation from Panasonic (probably 2014 or so)
wjmeyer wrote
Five years is a long time for digital. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a cleaner/better sensor for MFT within that timeOn the other hand, I shoot at lot at ISO1600 f/1.2 using the four-year-old sensor of my 5D2. I don't anticipate being able to shoot m4/3 in the same light in the foreseeable future...
Why not? APS-C is already there with the Sony 16MP sensor(which in my experience doesn't start to get marginal until ISO 3200), I expect m43 to get there on the next sensor generation from Panasonic (probably 2014 or so)
Feb 16, 2012 at 03:16 PM
p.15 #18New Olympus OM-D announced
mawz wrote:
Why not? APS-C is already there with the Sony 16MP sensor(which in my experience doesn't start to get marginal until ISO 3200), I expect m43 to get there on the next sensor generation from Panasonic (probably 2014 or so)
If you look at DxO tests (and their sensor tests are much better and more believable than their lens tests), the Sony APS-C 16Mp sensor (as in, e.g. NEX-5N) is almost exactly 1 stop worse than the 5D2 sensor. Remember, the 5D2 sensor is four years old. And given the hard limits that physics imposes, I don't expect a m4/3 to get there ever.
An m4/3 system looks great if (1) you value small size and light weight; and (2) don't have to shoot in low light.
Why not? APS-C is already there with the Sony 16MP sensor(which in my experience doesn't start to get marginal until ISO 3200), I expect m43 to get there on the next sensor generation from Panasonic (probably 2014 or so)
If you look at DxO tests (and their sensor tests are much better and more believable than their lens tests), the Sony APS-C 16Mp sensor (as in, e.g. NEX-5N) is almost exactly 1 stop worse than the 5D2 sensor. Remember, the 5D2 sensor is four years old. And given the hard limits that physics imposes, I don't expect a m4/3 to get there ever.
An m4/3 system looks great if (1) you value small size and light weight; and (2) don't have to shoot in low light.
Feb 16, 2012 at 03:35 PM
p.15 #19New Olympus OM-D announced
Are you referring to any specific hard law of physics, or just invoking the hard law of physics argument in a hand-wavy kind of way to "support" your argument?
Feb 16, 2012 at 03:39 PM
p.15 #20New Olympus OM-D announced
KaaX wrote:
If you look at DxO tests (and their sensor tests are much better and more believable than their lens tests), the Sony APS-C 16Mp sensor (as in, e.g. NEX-5N) is almost exactly 1 stop worse than the 5D2 sensor. Remember, the 5D2 sensor is four years old. And given the hard limits that physics imposes, I don't expect a m4/3 to get there ever.
An m4/3 system looks great if (1) you value small size and light weight; and (2) don't have to shoot in low light.
I also add "doesn't mind a little bit of grain in their photos." I frankly don't mind a little noise in my images. Heck, I've been known to ADD noise from time to time. At most print sizes, noise isn't even visible until you're at really high ISO on any modern camera.
I mean, ISO 1600 is doable all day and night on the 16MP m4/3 sensor, IMO. If properly exposed, it is mostly invisible in prints up to about 12x18, and even on larger prints, it's very fine grained.
I printed a blowup section of this shot, sized to 24" and there is no noise visible in the sky at all, and the noise in the buildings is very subtle and you have to look very close to see it. It's a multi-image stitch (38MP), so that certainly helps, but it's at ISO 2500 handheld with the shadows boosted a fair bit. (the purple and blue mottling is not a noise effect, but rather subtle differences between clear sky and low clouds).
http://www.jordansteele.com/2012/statehouse_night2.jpg
If you want to print ISO 1600 at 30" and don't want any noise at all, then sure, micro 4/3 isn't there yet, but most people who shoot in low light handheld don't enlarge those images very large.
BUT...everyone has their own threshold for low light quality.
This is also at ISO 2500 with my GX1, and is a more typical use for higher ISO...indoor shooting:
http://www.jordansteele.com/2012/chloe_onefish.jpg
mawz wrote
Why not? APS-C is already there with the Sony 16MP sensor(which in my experience doesn't start to get marginal until ISO 3200), I expect m43 to get there on the next sensor generation from Panasonic (probably 2014 or so)An m4/3 system looks great if (1) you value small size and light weight; and (2) don't have to shoot in low light.
I also add "doesn't mind a little bit of grain in their photos." I frankly don't mind a little noise in my images. Heck, I've been known to ADD noise from time to time. At most print sizes, noise isn't even visible until you're at really high ISO on any modern camera.
I mean, ISO 1600 is doable all day and night on the 16MP m4/3 sensor, IMO. If properly exposed, it is mostly invisible in prints up to about 12x18, and even on larger prints, it's very fine grained.
I printed a blowup section of this shot, sized to 24" and there is no noise visible in the sky at all, and the noise in the buildings is very subtle and you have to look very close to see it. It's a multi-image stitch (38MP), so that certainly helps, but it's at ISO 2500 handheld with the shadows boosted a fair bit. (the purple and blue mottling is not a noise effect, but rather subtle differences between clear sky and low clouds).
http://www.jordansteele.com/2012/statehouse_night2.jpg
If you want to print ISO 1600 at 30" and don't want any noise at all, then sure, micro 4/3 isn't there yet, but most people who shoot in low light handheld don't enlarge those images very large.
BUT...everyone has their own threshold for low light quality.
This is also at ISO 2500 with my GX1, and is a more typical use for higher ISO...indoor shooting:
http://www.jordansteele.com/2012/chloe_onefish.jpg
Feb 16, 2012 at 03:56 PM