[cartesio]

I have a Panasonic G3 and a G80 (G85 in the US). I found the G3 output "natural", but my G80 pictures get out of camera somewhat oversharpened. Do you have the same feeling about your MFT cameras?

[WPRESTO]

Comments on long lenses, following the discussion above.
1) At one time I had both a Pentax 150~450mm mounted on a Pentax K1 and a Tamron 150~600mm G2 mounted on a Canon 7D MKii. Side by side , one then the other shooting birds coming to a feeder, the Canon + Tamron locked focus much faster and more reliably than the Pentax rig.

2) I have a Panasonic/Leica 100~400mm which has been available for some years. As best I can tell from multiple reviews and a few direct comparisons, the Olympus 100~400mm has essentially identical IQ. In lab tests you might be able to pixel peep a difference, but if presented with 50 images, half taken with each lens, you could not consistently tell which lens was used for each image, even if the 50 were taken in pairs simultaneously of the same subject.

3) The new Olympus 150~400mm must have substantially superior IQ than the two 100~400mm lenses to justify SIX TIMES the price. And then, is the IQ of an image taken with that lens @ 400mm superior to the IQ of the same subject taken with a 300mm f4 Olympus and then cropped? Is it better than the IQ taken with a 300mm f4 plus a 1.4X Oly TC? IMHO, to justify the price of the 150~400mm, nearly triple the price of a 300mm F4.0 + 1.4X TC, the zoom would have to deliver substantially better IQ. I am very skeptical.

To go back to some history. Teleconverters were introduced and became popular in the Film Era largely because there was no practical way to crop chromes/slides. Nature photographers in particular wanted to fill the frame of a chrome with a little bird. That meant using a massive prime lens with a massive price, but with a TC, a shorter prime lens - lighter and less expensive - could serve even though there would be a slight loss of IQ with a 1.4X, and semi-tolerable loss with a 2X TC. Digital imaging, with the ability to crop any image more easily than we used to crop a B&W negative, has to some extent made teleconverters unnecessary.

[northcoastgreg]

The Oly lens is way to expensive. I mean for the price of that Oly lens you can get a D850 with the Tamron or Sigma (which both have good image quality) and have a much better combo for under 4k.

If by image quality you mean the amount of detail captured (resolution and sharpness), then of course the Tamron and Sigma matched with a 48 MP FF camera should win. But in my experience selling images online, what sells images is not primarily sharpness and resolution, but content — and after content, it's color and contrast. The amount of detail captured only becomes factor when people looking for large prints — so there is something to be said for it, since larger prints bring greater profit — but in the hierarchy of aesthetic values, sharpness is lower in the scale than is generally thought. So the Tamron and Sigma are nice options — if the Tamron was available in the K-mount, I'd be tempted by it (although it is a little on the heavy side) — but I don't see either of those lenses matching the color and contrast of an Oly pro lens.

I love the OMD's but once in the EM1 series and pro lenses they loose a lot of the compactness that makes them attractive.

My biggest frustration with m43 was the fact that, until the release last Spring of the 12-45, all the pro zooms were just too heavy for my tastes. Olympus refused to play to the strengths of m43, believing that somehow they could make a complete m43 system like Canon and Nikon have for DSLRs and that would somehow work, whereas in reality m43 is a niche format and they should have been playing to the strengths of that niche (e.g., compact travel cameras and compact wildlife system).

[LeeRunge]

My biggest frustration with m43 was the fact that, until the release last Spring of the 12-45, all the pro zooms were just too heavy for my tastes. Olympus refused to play to the strengths of m43, believing that somehow they could make a complete m43 system like Canon and Nikon have for DSLRs and that would somehow work, whereas in reality m43 is a niche format and they should have been playing to the strengths of that niche (e.g., compact travel cameras and compact wildlife system).

100%

I also wish we got the 150-600 options for Pentax. That's how I ended up with a Nikon D750.

OMD's should have stuck with being a killer travel combo and a much lighter outdoors (weather sealing) and wildlife combo. I actually really like that $99 40-150 a lot for how tiny and light it is on the OMD 10, I would have preferred light lenses like that with "good enough" image quality but with an emphasis on compact and light. Who knows what's going to happen to Olympus in the next few years though with it's sale.

The Livebulb, Livetime and Live composite modes were all really cool unique features on the OMD's that were very helpful as well. Lightning is a snap with Live composite.

[UncleVanya]

Yes, as I recall there was another thread where you, normhead and I all noted being members of the bad shoulder club. Mine's not too bad, some weakness and restriction in movement. M4/3 body + Oly 100-400/6.3 seems like it would be a nice combo for me, but it's hard to think about selling off some of my beautiful old (heavy) lenses to finance it, like the Adaptall 300/2.8 and 400/4.

You're shooting the Oly 300 + 2x TC hand-held?

Add me to the list of should surgery alumni but I’ve been very lucky and only have a tiny bit of lost movement range. I did develop frozen shoulder at one point that lasted a bit but I recovered eventually.

[luftfluss]

2) I have a Panasonic/Leica 100~400mm which has been available for some years. As best I can tell from multiple reviews and a few direct comparisons, the Olympus 100~400mm has essentially identical IQ. In lab tests you might be able to pixel peep a difference, but if presented with 50 images, half taken with each lens, you could not consistently tell which lens was used for each image, even if the 50 were taken in pairs simultaneously of the same subject.

I think the hope of many is the Oly 100-400 will have better QC than the PanaLeica, rather than being optically superior.

[UncleVanya]

My biggest frustration with m43 was the fact that, until the release last Spring of the 12-45, all the pro zooms were just too heavy for my tastes. Olympus refused to play to the strengths of m43, believing that somehow they could make a complete m43 system like Canon and Nikon have for DSLRs and that would somehow work, whereas in reality m43 is a niche format and they should have been playing to the strengths of that niche (e.g., compact travel cameras and compact wildlife system).

The Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 has always been my preference of the two systems. I’ve not used the 12-45.

[edom31]

Sigma 19/2.8 EX DN on E-PM1

[UncleVanya]

Sigma 19/2.8 EX DN on E-PM1

The sigma seems to be doing just fine.

[edom31]

The sigma seems to be doing just fine.

It is quite lovely. Fast AF, nice clean results... It stays in the E-PM1...

[dadipentak]

I think the hope of many is the Oly 100-400 will have better QC than the PanaLeica, rather than being optically superior.

I was tempted by the Panasonic system r/t Olympus but the focus ring on the "PanaLeica" 100-400 was so stiff it made the lens unusable and I decided I couldn't commit to a manufacturer that put out such crap. I'm happy with my decision.

[northcoastgreg]

the "PanaLeica" 100-400 was so stiff it made the lens unusable

Reports like that scared me off that lens as well. Moreover, from what I've seen from those reviewers who have compared the PanaLeica with the new Oly 100-400, while the two lenses are virtually identical in resolution at most apertures and focal lengths, the Oly does seem to have a definite edge wide open at 400mm.

Here's a false color infrared shot with the Lumix 45-175:

[AgentL]

I have a Panasonic G3 and a G80 (G85 in the US). I found the G3 output "natural", but my G80 pictures get out of camera somewhat oversharpened. Do you have the same feeling about your MFT cameras?

Turning down both the sharpness and the saturation in recent Panasonic models creates a very nice output for the standard JPEG style, in my experience.

[blues_hawk]

So many great photos in this thread.

I used a tanky little canon g1x(1in sensor p/s) for years as my backup/workbag camera and after a rare Bald eagle encounter failed to produce good results I was determined to upgrade my compact system to something more modern that didn't require yet another bag to drag around. That's when I fell in love with the look and feel of the Olympus E-m5ii and bought one used to replace the g1x...and then I carried it a bit...then I found a couple lenses for it...and noticed my k50 kit wasn't coming along near as often. Half the size and weight, and a per pixel improvement in image resolution, coupled with a ton more firmware features made me feel like I'd just been released from the behind the iron curtain of "consumer" level Pentax.(yes I know this is treasonous) I bought an adapter to use some of my pentax-m and other manual collection on the thing but the tiny EZ 12-42mm collapsable zoom tends to get the most worktime. I liked the system so much I got a 50-150mm zoom for it next. The 2x crop of the "half frame"(see oly history) sensor digital crop feature makes it feel more like a 300mm but with much less weight. I noticed a complaint about heavy lenses somewhere during my read through and I'd suggest trying the standard lenses over the pro ones if you want a very lightweight setup. Later I got an older e-pm2 for my work bag to keep my silver and black bling em5ii pretty a while longer. The firmware in the e-pm2 is a little less friendly and the lack of game controller like external controls is obvious when you try to find something like 2x crop or time lapse video, but it's great for that moment you see the super rare (for my area) Good year blimp flying over a remote country back road and decide to chase it...and fail. :P

[fiveseven]

Soviet fast cinema/projector lens.
f1.2/35 (no aperture).
Few test pics (edited).
Very unique lens, definitely better suited for low light or indoor.