Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: What planet have they been living on?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    536
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default What planet have they been living on?

    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
    Steven R
    Tampa, Florida

    E-330, E-520, E-3

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Latvia
    Posts
    1,173
    Thanks
    194
    Thanked 191 Times in 143 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    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.
    Olympus OM-D EM-5
    12mm f/2.0 - 17mm f/1.8 - 25mm f/1.4 - 60mm f/2.8 macro - 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7
    - FL36R

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,142
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 114 Times in 99 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    "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....

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,123
    Thanks
    65
    Thanked 18 Times in 13 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    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.
    E-M1, 12-40mm PRO, 60mm macro, MMF-3
    E-450, 50-200mm SWD, 25mm f2.8, EC-14
    FL-50R

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,142
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 114 Times in 99 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    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...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NH, USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Thanks
    56
    Thanked 28 Times in 25 Posts
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven R View Post
    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?
    Rich
    Olympus E-M10; Panasonic GM5
    m4/3 lenses: Oly 75-300; Oly 14-42 f3.5-5.6 II R; Oly 17 f1.8; Oly 40-150 f4.0-5.6 R; Oly WCON-P01 adapter; Rokinon f7.5 fisheye; Sigma 19 f2.8; Pan 20 f1.7; Pan 12-35 f2.8; Pan 12-32

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Barbados
    Posts
    1,356
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 20 Times in 17 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Bradley View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Barbados
    Posts
    1,356
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 20 Times in 17 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Bradley View Post
    "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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,566
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 129 Times in 89 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,123
    Thanks
    65
    Thanked 18 Times in 13 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Bradley View Post
    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.
    E-M1, 12-40mm PRO, 60mm macro, MMF-3
    E-450, 50-200mm SWD, 25mm f2.8, EC-14
    FL-50R

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,142
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 114 Times in 99 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

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

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NH, USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Thanks
    56
    Thanked 28 Times in 25 Posts
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Baldwinson View Post
    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!).
    Rich
    Olympus E-M10; Panasonic GM5
    m4/3 lenses: Oly 75-300; Oly 14-42 f3.5-5.6 II R; Oly 17 f1.8; Oly 40-150 f4.0-5.6 R; Oly WCON-P01 adapter; Rokinon f7.5 fisheye; Sigma 19 f2.8; Pan 20 f1.7; Pan 12-35 f2.8; Pan 12-32

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,566
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 129 Times in 89 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    Quote Originally Posted by RAH View Post
    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

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    679
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    21 (100%)

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven R View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    622
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 9 Posts
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Roberts View Post
    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!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,142
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 114 Times in 99 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

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

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,142
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 114 Times in 99 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    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.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Latvia
    Posts
    1,173
    Thanks
    194
    Thanked 191 Times in 143 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    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.
    Olympus OM-D EM-5
    12mm f/2.0 - 17mm f/1.8 - 25mm f/1.4 - 60mm f/2.8 macro - 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7
    - FL36R

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,142
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 114 Times in 99 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    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...
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EM126361.jpg 
Views:	23 
Size:	599.6 KB 
ID:	50121 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EM126369.jpg 
Views:	22 
Size:	605.3 KB 
ID:	50122

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Latvia
    Posts
    1,173
    Thanks
    194
    Thanked 191 Times in 143 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    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.
    Olympus OM-D EM-5
    12mm f/2.0 - 17mm f/1.8 - 25mm f/1.4 - 60mm f/2.8 macro - 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7
    - FL36R

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,142
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 114 Times in 99 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    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.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Latvia
    Posts
    1,173
    Thanks
    194
    Thanked 191 Times in 143 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    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.
    Olympus OM-D EM-5
    12mm f/2.0 - 17mm f/1.8 - 25mm f/1.4 - 60mm f/2.8 macro - 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7
    - FL36R

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NH, USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Thanks
    56
    Thanked 28 Times in 25 Posts
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)

    Default Re: What planet have they been living on?

    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...)
    Rich
    Olympus E-M10; Panasonic GM5
    m4/3 lenses: Oly 75-300; Oly 14-42 f3.5-5.6 II R; Oly 17 f1.8; Oly 40-150 f4.0-5.6 R; Oly WCON-P01 adapter; Rokinon f7.5 fisheye; Sigma 19 f2.8; Pan 20 f1.7; Pan 12-35 f2.8; Pan 12-32

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •