[Rondec]

Umm, f 4,5 is still as fast as f 4,5 on any other format. What is effective is dof of: f 9, instead of f 4,5. On FF. It is pretty narrow still with effective 300-900 mm. Advantage is that you won’t have to stop it much down to get more Dof.

f4.5 is f4.5, but then again 400mm is 400mm, regardless of the sensor size. Somehow micro four thirds folks insist on converting the focal lengths to 35mm equivalent, but don't like to convert the apertures (I suppose because it makes them look not as good).

[Fcsnt54]

f4.5 is f4.5, but then again 400mm is 400mm, regardless of the sensor size. Somehow micro four thirds folks insist on converting the focal lengths to 35mm equivalent, but don't like to convert the apertures (I suppose because it makes them look not as good).

Exactly, somehow people overlook this. Only difference is a cropped sensor compared to cropped in post. Makes me wonder... With all this equivelance, do people apply an equivelance factor to everything if they crop there image on the computer?

[beholder3]

Makes me wonder... With all this equivelance, do people apply an equivelance factor to everything if they crop there image on the computer?

If they want to compare things, yes, they definitely need to as cropping (or magnifying to 100%) on your computer changes noise, dynamic range, DoF, background blur just the same way as spedning money on other sensor sizes does.

I am with you that probably not 5% understand this though. This is the reason for the ongoing myth in forums that low pixelcount cameras have less nosie than high pixelcount cameras.

[repaap]

f4.5 is f4.5, but then again 400mm is 400mm, regardless of the sensor size. Somehow micro four thirds folks insist on converting the focal lengths to 35mm equivalent, but don't like to convert the apertures (I suppose because it makes them look not as good).

Right. let’s talk about Q then. it has nice lens system. Now take 4,5 mm prime on that. it is funny that it will not give similar picture as extremelly wide lense 4,5 on aps-c. you have to measure it up, in order to make sense. Also if you buy 8-16 mm zoom on aps-c and think that it is ultrawide like 8-16 on FF(35 mm), you will not be pleasantly surprised. also aperture of those lenses is what it says in the barrel. now that has been rounded up or down too. but it will give to you relatively an idea of what you will get. Not to confuse one too much. also that new 11-18/2.8. can you say that it is not 2.8, but actually it is approx. 15-28/4 on FF? Does it make more sense? or DA 55-300/3,5-5,6. it is 85-450/5,6-8 lens in FF equiv?

---------- Post added 02-05-19 at 20:49 ----------

I would like to like 4/3 more. I do agree that there is difference in noise and DR. APS-c is still better. and I have been spoiled by K-1. But for video M4/3 is amazing. also imagequality of these new things seems better, as seen in that video above.

[Rondec]

Right. let’s talk about Q then. it has nice lens system. Now take 4,5 mm prime on that. it is funny that it will not give similar picture as extremelly wide lense 4,5 on aps-c. you have to measure it up, in order to make sense. Also if you buy 8-16 mm zoom on aps-c and think that it is ultrawide like 8-16 on FF(35 mm), you will not be pleasantly surprised. also aperture of those lenses is what it says in the barrel. now that has been rounded up or down too. but it will give to you relatively an idea of what you will get. Not to confuse one too much. also that new 11-18/2.8. can you say that it is not 2.8, but actually it is approx. 15-28/4 on FF? Does it make more sense? or DA 55-300/3,5-5,6. it is 85-450/5,6-8 lens in FF equiv?

---------- Post added 02-05-19 at 20:49 ----------

I would like to like 4/3 more. I do agree that there is difference in noise and DR. APS-c is still better. and I have been spoiled by K-1. But for video M4/3 is amazing. also imagequality of these new things seems better, as seen in that video above.

I do understand this. There is a whole thread on this floating around here talking about it. If you want to read through that, you can.

Obviously putting a lens on a different size sensor changes the angle of view. However, it is merely cropping the image. Any additional "length" you might get from the lens is based on higher pixel density on the smaller sensor, not on the crop factor. So, a K5 gives no additional length to lenses versus a K-1, that is to say if you want to crop your K-1's image to 16-ish megapixel APS-C crop, you can do so with no loss of detail compared to a K-5.

But this is very different from APS-C making your lenses 1.5 times longer or micro four thirds making them 2 times longer.

[repaap]

I do understand this. There is a whole thread on this floating around here talking about it. If you want to read through that, you can.

Obviously putting a lens on a different size sensor changes the angle of view. However, it is merely cropping the image. Any additional "length" you might get from the lens is based on higher pixel density on the smaller sensor, not on the crop factor. So, a K5 gives no additional length to lenses versus a K-1, that is to say if you want to crop your K-1's image to 16-ish megapixel APS-C crop, you can do so with no loss of detail compared to a K-5.

But this is very different from APS-C making your lenses 1.5 times longer or micro four thirds making them 2 times longer.

yea, I know. just little frustrated to have same discussion time after time. After all it is all about image that you will get and are you and your customer/forum happy about it.

[Chris Mak]

f4.5 is f4.5, but then again 400mm is 400mm, regardless of the sensor size. Somehow micro four thirds folks insist on converting the focal lengths to 35mm equivalent, but don't like to convert the apertures (I suppose because it makes them look not as good).

400mm on 4/3 will give you the FOV of 800mm on FF and 600mm on APS-C (ignoring the different aspect ratio). It's ultimately about what will fill your frame, and you use longer lenses to fill your frame with more of a bird or other wildlife. So if you have been used, like I have, to e.g. a DA560 on a 24 APS-C body, then 400mm on a 20mp 4/3 body will more or less equal that. The built in 1.25TC will more or less equal my DA560+1.4TC on APS-C (784mm vs 800mm).
The practical info for me thus is: I could replace my aging K3II+DA560+1.4TC with an EM1mkII+150-400 f4.5 with bulit in 1.25TC, and have a similar set-up, also regarding light gathering (f4.5 on 4/3 vs f5.6 on APS-C, and f5.6 on 4/3 vs f8 on APS-C)

The Olympus 150-400 f4.5 has been designed for the 4/3 sensor, ao you can not say that using this lens on a 4/3 sensor is merly cropping the image vs. APS-C or FF, which it will not cover properly. Reasoning like that, you would also have to say that a 600mm FF lens is simply "cropping" the image of a 400mm FF lens. The Olympus lens will have the inherent benefits of a lens designed for the system. It can be regarded a 800mm eq. FF lens in all but light gathering and DOF, in which case it certainly is no f4.5 lens.


Chris

---

Last edited by Chris Mak; 02-05-2019 at 04:33 PM.

[Rondec]

400mm on 4/3 will give you the FOV of 800mm on FF and 600mm on APS-C (ignoring the different aspect ratio). It's ultimately about what will fill your frame, and you use longer lenses to fill your frame with more of a bird or other wildlife. So if you have been used, like I have, to e.g. a DA560 on a 24 APS-C body, then 400mm on a 20mp 4/3 body will more or less equal that. The built in 1.25TC will more or less equal my DA560+1.4TC on APS-C (784mm vs 800mm).
The practical info for me thus is: I could replace my aging K3II+DA560+1.4TC with an EM1mkII+150-400 f4.5 with bulit in 1.25TC, and have a similar set-up, also regarding light gathering (f4.5 on 4/3 vs f5.6 on APS-C, and f5.6 on 4/3 vs f8 on APS-C)

The Olympus 150-400 f4.5 has been designed for the 4/3 sensor, ao you can not say that using this lens on a 4/3 sensor is merly cropping the image vs. APS-C or FF, which it will not cover properly. Reasoning like that, you would also have to say that a 600mm FF lens is simply "cropping" the image of a 400mm FF lens. The Olympus lens will have the inherent benefits of a lens designed for the system. It can be regarded a 800mm eq. FF lens in all but light gathering and DOF, in which case it certainly is no f4.5 lens.


Chris

Which is my point. Either convert both focal length and aperture or don't convert either. That's all. Either it is 800 f9 or 400 f4.5, but it can't be a 800 f4.5 equivalent. That sort of lens would be just as big on micro four thirds as it would be on full frame.

But if you take a 5Ds and crop it to 20 megapixels, you will have a crop somewhere between APS-C and micro four thirds. That is the amount of extension that 20 megapixel micro four thirds gives over a 5Ds, but not 2x because that is what the crop factor is.

[mecrox]

400mm on 4/3 will give you the FOV of 800mm on FF and 600mm on APS-C (ignoring the different aspect ratio). It's ultimately about what will fill your frame, and you use longer lenses to fill your frame with more of a bird or other wildlife. So if you have been used, like I have, to e.g. a DA560 on a 24 APS-C body, then 400mm on a 20mp 4/3 body will more or less equal that. The built in 1.25TC will more or less equal my DA560+1.4TC on APS-C (784mm vs 800mm).
The practical info for me thus is: I could replace my aging K3II+DA560+1.4TC with an EM1mkII+150-400 f4.5 with bulit in 1.25TC, and have a similar set-up, also regarding light gathering (f4.5 on 4/3 vs f5.6 on APS-C, and f5.6 on 4/3 vs f8 on APS-C)

The Olympus 150-400 f4.5 has been designed for the 4/3 sensor, ao you can not say that using this lens on a 4/3 sensor is merly cropping the image vs. APS-C or FF, which it will not cover properly. Reasoning like that, you would also have to say that a 600mm FF lens is simply "cropping" the image of a 400mm FF lens. The Olympus lens will have the inherent benefits of a lens designed for the system. It can be regarded a 800mm eq. FF lens in all but light gathering and DOF, in which case it certainly is no f4.5 lens.


Chris

The only metric which really matters is how many pixels can you put on that thar bird at acceptable levels of DOF, aperture, speed and ISO. It’s a very practical matter, as is the thousands of dollars which unfortunately have to leave one’s bank account to achieve it. The sensor limits on the Oly will be OK for some and not for others. I would certainly rent for a week myself to see where on that scale I really was. I suspect in the end I would plump for the value/IQ compromise and go and see Mr Nikon (D500 + whatever).

[beholder3]

The Olympus 150-400 f4.5 has been designed for the 4/3 sensor, ao you can not say that using this lens on a 4/3 sensor is merly cropping the image vs. APS-C or FF, which it will not cover properly. Reasoning like that, you would also have to say that a 600mm FF lens is simply "cropping" the image of a 400mm FF lens.

The onyl difference in wording needs to be that since the mFT lens already only fills the tiny mFT image circle, it is cropped already from the beginning. It doesnt happen as a second step by using a smaller sensor behind a large image circle lens.

It can be regarded a 800mm eq. FF lens in all but light gathering and DOF, in which case it certainly is no f4.5 lens.

That sound a litle bit strange, since all the crying for 600mm F4 lenses is ALL about light gathering not much else. So a 800mm F9 (FF equiv.) lens is just that.

There are cheap short 1000mm F10 FF mirror lenses out there, nicknamed "russian barrels" here. I'd like to see a direct comparison between them.

[Chris Mak]

The onyl difference in wording needs to be that since the mFT lens already only fills the tiny mFT image circle, it is cropped already from the beginning. It doesnt happen as a second step by using a smaller sensor behind a large image circle lens.

Of course, but then again I am assuming that if you nééd to get in that close (close like 400mm on 4/3), you would be cropping in post with a FF or even APS-C camera anyhow with a lens of similar cost and weight (ánd lose pixels doing so). And indeed, I almost always find myself cropping images from the DA560 on the K3II. What makes the Olympus 150-400 f4.5 a very interesting lens, is the ability to switch from 500 to 400mm with the flick of a switch, and if still too long, zoom out. That means that you can always make sure that you have the maximum amount of pixels in your image,without the need of mounting or removing teleconverters, and avoiding the bother of cropping and lowering your pixeldensity. If this lens turns out very good optically, I will be very tempted to consider it.

That sound a litle bit strange, since all the crying for 600mm F4 lenses is ALL about light gathering not much else. So a 800mm F9 (FF equiv.) lens is just that.

There are cheap short 1000mm F10 FF mirror lenses out there, nicknamed "russian barrels" here. I'd like to see a direct comparison between them.

600mm f4 lenses are totally impractical for me, weight, size and cost-wise. I am looking for a similar priced lens like the DA560, but still lighter and smaller. F9 at 800mm is ok., and don't forget f5.6 at 600mm!! I don't see a russian mirror lens do that.

---------- Post added 02-06-19 at 04:01 PM ----------

The only metric which really matters is how many pixels can you put on that thar bird at acceptable levels of DOF, aperture, speed and ISO. It’s a very practical matter, as is the thousands of dollars which unfortunately have to leave one’s bank account to achieve it. The sensor limits on the Oly will be OK for some and not for others. I would certainly rent for a week myself to see where on that scale I really was. I suspect in the end I would plump for the value/IQ compromise and go and see Mr Nikon (D500 + whatever).

According to the info from people that saw the lens for real, it will not be very large and heavy, and allegedly an Olympus rep. shared that Olympus does not plan to price it sky high. The lens is smaller than the big beasts out there, it may be a similar package to the Nikon 500PF, a bit larger and heavier, but if not too much, it may be a very nice alternative to the 500PF on the D500. And by the time that the 500PF will finally be available, the Olympus lens will not be far away from launch anyhow....

[surfar]

...its 20mins

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Gordon @ camera labs has done a hands on demo as well.He points of the pros and cons.

[gaweidert]

The more I see about this camera the more I like it. If I was just transitioning to digital I would give this system a long hard look.

[Fcsnt54]

The more I see about this camera the more I like it. If I was just transitioning to digital I would give this system a long hard look.

The system is great, and well worth it. I haven't tried the new camera yet, but I wished they could have upgraded the sensor and also the evf on the em1x. I've heard they carried those two items over from the em1ii, and well would have been nicer for low light and viewing the image in the evf.

[surfar]

The sensor probably didn't need an upgrade, its proven to produce great images...the evf is slightly changed,higher magnification and more elements,higher refresh rate...its 2.36mill which for a 3K camera is disappointing. The biggest downer is the price...is it worth double the Xt3 3x the A6400/XT30(announcement next week)..