What planet have they been living on?

[Steven R]

LOL. DP review just now acknowledged that Olympus no longer makes 4/3 equipment and everything is now mirrorless.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/98...-thirds-system

[Edmunds]

I wish they would produce more cameras capable of handling 4/3 lenses. The E-M1 II at $2000 is simply too expensive. If they added support for 4/3 lenses on the E-M5 III, I'd definitely love to get some of my old 4/3 gear back

Other than that, I think m4/3 as a system has progressed far ahead of anything 4/3 ever was.

[Daniel Bradley]

"Other than that, I think m4/3 as a system has progressed far ahead of anything 4/3 ever was."
Have to agree. Pretty amazing, really, and you can understand why they are concentrating on mFT rather than trying to keep the older FT technology alive. Pretty hard to mix the two, and they have actually done a good job of it. The FT lenses work quite well on the E-M1 (after numerous, very helpful firmware updates) and somewhat better on the Mark II (hoping for improvement in updates). Not a huge difference, but noticeable. I have no intention in selling my 50-200 and my 14-54 II. Excellent lenses and they still have a lot of life left in them.
But the new PRO series are pretty impressive!
Olympus made it clear years ago when they dropped the E-7 idea which way they were going to go and what they were going to have to do to survive as a company. No surprises there. But what has in fact surprised a lot of people is how well they have done and the quality of the stuff they are putting out. Hats off....

[BobT]

We know that a feature of 4/3 was that it is a truly bottom up telecentric design. Does anyone know for sure if m4/3 is also telecentric? There seems to be some confusion on this on other sites, not that it matters much anymore. APS-C was never telecentric but that didn't hold it back too much.

[Daniel Bradley]

I was under the assumption that practically all lenses with the exception of macro lenses were telecentric. Why was ASP-C never telecentric? I don't see what the crop has to do with it. Please explain...

[RAH]

LOL. DP review just now acknowledged that Olympus no longer makes 4/3 equipment and everything is now mirrorless.

So, you're saying that I should stop waiting for the E-40?

[Guy Roberts]

I was under the assumption that practically all lenses with the exception of macro lenses were telecentric. Why was ASP-C never telecentric? I don't see what the crop has to do with it. Please explain...

My understanding of it is that to get best from a digital sensor the light needs to fall on it at right angles or the quality falls off. To get this to happen at the edges the lenses had to be telecentric. Oly, Kodak and some others (I think) did the math on lens design and 4/3 was a good size compromise, but even so the e5 was as big as an ASP. So my guess is that the other designs did not bother or their lenses would be much larger than they are.

[Guy Roberts]

"Other than that, I think m4/3 as a system has progressed far ahead of anything 4/3 ever was."
Have to agree. Pretty amazing, really, and you can understand why they are concentrating on mFT rather than trying to keep the older FT technology alive. Pretty hard to mix the two, and they have actually done a good job of it. The FT lenses work quite well on the E-M1 (after numerous, very helpful firmware updates) and somewhat better on the Mark II (hoping for improvement in updates). Not a huge difference, but noticeable. I have no intention in selling my 50-200 and my 14-54 II. Excellent lenses and they still have a lot of life left in them.
But the new PRO series are pretty impressive!
Olympus made it clear years ago when they dropped the E-7 idea which way they were going to go and what they were going to have to do to survive as a company. No surprises there. But what has in fact surprised a lot of people is how well they have done and the quality of the stuff they are putting out. Hats off....

I use my 7-14 and 50-200 on the em1, but I would love to replace them with m4/3 for the portability, but it seems an extravagance. the 12-40 has made the 4/3 14-35 redundant and I tried a comparison between the two and could see no difference at 100%. So yes, the pro lenses seem to rock.

[Don Baldwinson]

I got what the E-6 could have been.
And couldn't be happier,
Don

[BobT]

I was under the assumption that practically all lenses with the exception of macro lenses were telecentric. Why was ASP-C never telecentric? I don't see what the crop has to do with it. Please explain...

Sorry, can't really explain. We know that APS-C was originally a compromise to allow Canikon users to continue using their huge livery of FF lenses. Then Oly came along with a fully bottom up no compromise design in 4/3 and crowed loudly how it was telecentric therefore sensors worked better, therefore the one TC can be used on all lenses, so I just assumed. A bad habit of mine.

[Daniel Bradley]

Yeah, Don's files from his D-500 look really good. Definitely a knock out body.

[RAH]

I got what the E-6 could have been.
And couldn't be happier,
Don

Yes, but at least for me, I had to wait till the OMD lineup appeared before I could say that (I WANT a built-in viewfinder; EVF is fine). Meanwhile, I went to Canon (60D, etc) for about 5 years in the middle. I'm back with m43 now, but just for travel (but PERFECT for that!).

[Don Baldwinson]

Yes, but at least for me, I had to wait till the OMD lineup appeared before I could say that (I WANT a built-in viewfinder; EVF is fine). Meanwhile, I went to Canon (60D, etc) for about 5 years in the middle. I'm back with m43 now, but just for travel (but PERFECT for that!).

I'm like you Rich. Can,t bring myself to sell the Oly lenses. I like them too much. And who knows what comes around the corner and fits next. They are the innovators.
Don

[MetilHed]

LOL. DP review just now acknowledged that Olympus no longer makes 4/3 equipment and everything is now mirrorless.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/98...-thirds-system

To be fair,it is not a case of "DPR finally acknowledged", but Olympus ​finally acknowledged.

[Gunn]

I use my 7-14 and 50-200 on the em1, but I would love to replace them with m4/3 for the portability, but it seems an extravagance. the 12-40 has made the 4/3 14-35 redundant and I tried a comparison between the two and could see no difference at 100%. So yes, the pro lenses seem to rock.

I own and use both on my EM5. The 14-35 produces incredible images BUT it is a pisser to focus!

[Daniel Bradley]

I suspect that is because of the lack of PDAF in the E-M5.

[Daniel Bradley]

I think I got "telecentric" confused with something else.... sorry... not getting any younger.
So a telecentric lens is basically one that has larger rear elements that send the light more or less (within 7°) straight at the sensor. Makes sense as light has to fall straight onto the wells for it to get all the way through the sandwich of layers. Micro lenses on sensors help too, but you will always get more roll-off with a non-telecentric lens, which results in vignetting and I think even loss in resolution. Less of a problem with smaller sensors with big (FF) lenses, but things get tricky as the lenses get smaller, like native mFT lenses. So maybe the lenses made specifically for ASP-C were in fact not telecentric. Then along came Olympus and made the rear lenses bigger to enable telecentricity. Brilliant really, but it does not answer Bob's question in post #4. I would suspect the cheaper lenses are not but that the Pro series lenses are. My little 75-300 II's rear element is MUCH smaller than the rear element on my 50-200, if that is any indication. The edge sharpness of the 50-200 is superior and there is no visible vignetting where vignetting is clearly visible on the 75-300 and it falls a bit behind the bigger lens in sharpness and contrast. Also to be expected.

[Edmunds]

Yes, a lot of 4/3 lenses were telecentric and APS-C & m43 aren't.

But the problem with telecentric lenses on 4/3 and m4/3 is that they are larger than normal lenses, and the whole format is already a compromise on image quality. I have made a conscious choice to go for slightly worse image quality, but use smaller cameras and smaller lenses in return.

Maximising image quality on a large sensor makes sense, as you're trying to get the best there is. But maximising image quality and making large lenses on a format where you've already made a compromise on IQ... the problem with 4/3 was that it did not offer smaller cameras & lenses than APS-C, or at least the difference was pretty negligible. But it did offer worse High ISO, worse DR, worse depth of field control and worse autofocus performance. The only area it really made sense was if you needed telephotos, it was as if 4/3 offered a built in 1.4x teleconverter over APS-C.

And so, with their super high quality lenses, Olympus pushed themselves into a corner. And they did not really get back out of it until m4/3 started offering lenses such as the 45mm f/1.8, 20mm f/1.7, 25mm f/1.4, 9-18mm f/4-5.6, 14mm f/2.5, 12mm f/2. I mean these tiny lenses are what m4/3 started off with and its what made the format work.

Yes, we now have access to lots of lenses. We have options, including high quality, large lenses. But without the tiny ones that made the format work, m4/3 would be exactly in the same spot 4/3 is.

[Daniel Bradley]

Absolutely correct!
But it is NICE to have the option of using bigger, higher quality lenses on the mFT system if one WANTS to. Every time I stick my Canon 400/5.6 out the window I am reminded of just how nice it is to have that kind of focal length that can easily be hand held well below the magic 1x focal length shutter speed.
Dull light this morning, 400/5.6 on my Mark II...

[Edmunds]

That's the great thing about m4/3 - options!

In 4/3 we just didn't have the options. There was no 35mm equiv prime. No 85mm equiv prime. And the only 50mm equiv. prime was $899.

I bought the 50mm f/2, but the focal length is very long, and it was a macro so focusing was slow because if it hunted it went to macro range and back

EDIT: I think that where 4/3 really shines was one level under the higher priced stuff. An E620/E30 + 12-60 + 50-200, now that was a combo that was hard to beat price/quality wise.

[Daniel Bradley]

Agree with your setup suggestion, though I prefer the IQ of the 14-54 II over the 12-60. The 14-54 can also focus really close and performs well up close, sort of medium macro range. Add an EC-14 to the mix and you are cooking.
I had the 50/2 macro for a while, but I didn't really like it. I found it too harsh and I hated the focus by wire. Impossible to control if the lens was pointing down. So I sold it and still use my ancient Leicaflex Macro Elmarit-R 60/2.8 for things where I want to be really exact, and I have the little 35/3.5 macro for walk around hand held macro. It focuses faster and in less light on the Mark II, by the way.

[Edmunds]

For me the deal breaker with the 14-54 was the 14mm. Just doesn't do it for me, with 14mm I was always compelled to bring an additional wide angle lens. With 12mm not so much, and I no longer bother owning a wider angle.

Back in the day I probably would have bought the 14-35mm f/2 if it was 12-35mm.

[RAH]

I agree with Edmunds. When I got my 12-35, I quickly learned how NICE those extra 2mm are vs a 14-whatever lens. I knew in principle that 2mm at the wide end could make a significant difference, but I found it to be REALLY true in actual use (go figure!). It had the same effect with me - less desire to take an additional ultra-wide (although sometimes you do want to have one, navigating in those underground caves like we all do...)