Hands-on with new Olympus PRO 8mm and 7-14mm lenses

The full-frame Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC costs about $925 where I live.

It is 7x2=14mm vs 15mm. Your suggested Tamron is narrower, so not in the same class.

Where is the 14-28 (or narrower than 28mm) for crop format for same price?

Does it have the weather sealing? (Water droplets isn't real problem, dust and other particles are there as well)
What is the weight and size?

On wide end each millimeter counts a lot.

The Tamron is longer on the long end, covers a FF image circle, has buikt-in VC and is true f/2.8. It also costs less than this m43 toy.

Once you have figured out just how some people prioritize other things than the quality of a full frame sensor, you may begin to accept that a reasonable person these days may want to invest in a smaller system with a m4:3 sensor. You may appreciate the compactness and versatility of m4:3 lenses and bodies. You may even realize that not everyone prints sizes larger than 8x10, and that most people view photos on monitors at 1080p or less.

The gain in detail is as much related to the size of the image as it is to resolution. However sharp your lenses are, and however noiseless is your sensor, if you are at the same DISTANCE from the subjects photographed the bigger sensor simply allows you to see more.
I agree that I go back to my 1Ds Mkii images because they look amazing: but at the same size the D800s pictures also look amazing, and they contain much more resolved detail. At full-size the 36MP sensor's images completely outclass the 16.7MP1Ds MkII's, which itself totally eclipses ANY M4:3 results, especially as far as dynamic range is concerned. I mean results, not graphs!! that do or do not compensate for black point, noise and retrieveable blown highlights.Though the 1DsMkII sensor is also only 16+MP, its superior results are the results of the BIG Full-Frame sensor.

M4:3 wins on results with fast tele-zooms that are tiny compared to the full-frame things, but wide-berth w/angles! And APS-C remains the better choice

The best way to get ultra-high detail wide-angle shots is and will always be to do panorama stitching. You don't need a high-resolution sensor to do that. In fact micro four thirds can pull it off in-camera.

But good god. If not the fact that 40 megapixel phones exist which yield excellent detail, you'd think the EM5 MkII's existence would have served to dispel the myth that you need FF for high-resolution captures.

Totally agree.

See my articles on panoramas at

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/contrajur/album/507149

where I have written about this, including using 2 up two down with my E-PL3 and the Olympus 12mm f/4.

However, I am mostly going to stick to my Nikon D300 and Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG, as I have written about seven entries above this one. The new Olympus PRO is too large, heavy and costly, so I have no interest in it.

I use Machinery HDR Effects to develop my RAW and PTGui to stitch them together.

Tip - Although PTGui will simultaneously deal with exposure bracketing and sets of those to make into a panorama, it is better to use your RAW developer first and stitch from those merged HDR results, especially if like Machinery, the tonal mapping is superb.

Is this a post from 2005?

I don't think Sony actually warrantees any of their cameras for weather sealing. They have some nebulous description of sealing, but aren't even willing to say "splash proof."

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/the-a7ii-teardown-a-look-inside-sonys-new-camera

Robert Cicala's teardown of the A7 II reveals exactly one gasket that covers most (not all) of the battery door. No other rubber seals anywhere on the body. I'm not sure I'd trust my new $1500 body in the rain on a marketing promise with no warranty attached...

Right, SONY withdraw the statement "weather sealed" after users found out A7 is leaking light, and never puts the statement of "weather sealed" back for all FF body since.

Fuji added a seal after users found out T1 leaking light.

Water will get into the body if leaking light.

Yes, so really the best option is D610 or 6D with relevant lens if you want fast zoom with weather sealing (and decent usable ISO range)

Although I'm thinking Fuji must release an IBIS camera soon, their lens lineup demands it and they don't make small bodies to begin with so there's no excuse for not squeezing it in.

Don't forget 2.8 mtf is about 5.6 on FF both dof and IQ with FF higher iso to match speed of the 2.8 mft.
mtf cannot go lower while FF can in dof and grain.

I know that.
But i don't always care. especially on these wide-angle lenses.

I can keep ISO low on a tripod which i would use most of the time with this kind of lenses.

The problem is that when comparing prices we have to look at the whole picture. that means body + lenses.

made a comparison before with Fujifilm.
And there was no difference betweem a XT1 camera + 56mm F1.2 and a Nikon D610+85mm F1.8g at that time.

Look at the price of these lenses. Do you think people are buying these because they can't afford FF or they are "Stuck" with a smaller sensor?

We don't feel angry, we are just amazed that a system which harps on about being small and light, brings out a lens (the fisheye) which is LARGER and HEAVIER than a full frame practical equivalent........now that's irony!

I used to have a nice M43 system with a set of primes equivalent (in a practical sense) and they were smaller than my current FF primes (which are quite small) but this new release fisheye is LARGER!

That's all I'm saying.

One specialty lens (that like 0.5% of users will buy anyway) is bigger and it disqualifies the whole system?

You guys are always going on about bulk and I'm just pointing out that isn't necessarily the case.

I'm not dissing the M43 system, I used to be a user but there is nothing wrong in pointing out when someone is talking guff!

A paltry 8 elements in 5 groups with a design from 1993 and a new 2015 lens with 17 elements in 15 groups including a load of expensive elements (1 aspherical, 3 super ED, 2 ED, 1 super HR, 2 HR lenses...). No weather seal either. In term of light gathering also more than one stop faster (and I wont go into how big and heavy Nikon bodies are to save you some faces).

Equivalence in term of construction indeed...

And your tone is way off. Instead of being considerate (as you claimed), you have to laugh off and highlight every single LARGER, SMALLER and HEAVIER words. Yeah what a way to be polite and constructive.

M43 is not just about LIGHT, it is about VERSATILITY.

The f1.8 fisheye is likely going to be used frequently by divers who have their cameras in big diving rigs, anyway. Size is not the issue here.

Good optical performance, f1.8 shutter speeds, and excellent live view performance with AF are all a big deal with underwater photography. Being able to use a lower f-number to get enough DoF also means your strobes will use less power and recycle faster. Obviously you don't have that problem if you crank the ISO on your FF camera. But then you've lost all your IQ advantage, so why are you using FF?

@nerd2 - Here's what's versatile. Let's say you want to go on a trip. You pack 2 bodies, and say, 3-4 lenses.

One day you're out shooting wildlife, and you've got an E-M1 with a battery grip and a 40-150mm/f2.8 with the 1.4x teleconverter. It's big and heavy by M4/3 standards, but you'd need an FF 100-400mm (or 300mm and a TC) to match the reach, so it's all relative.

At night you want to go out into town, and you slip a GM1 and the 20mm/1.7 into your pocket. Tiny, discreet, with very competent low-light performance and wonderful sharpness.

Same system, same lenses, same camera bag. Radically different form factors and use cases. Versatility.

Obviously they're different. No one is denying that. If the only thing you care about in photography is separation, then M4/3 is not the format for you - that goes without saying.

But that's all besides the point. That 150-600mm lens you're talking about is huge! It's more than 4" diameter x 10" long, and weighs 4.3 lbs! That lens alone would be bigger than the entire M4/3 kit.

The 70-200 f4 + TC is a more reasonable comparison, though at that point you've got a lens that is the same size, the same cost, the same weight, and the same speed (but at 4x the ISO) - but with a 2x extender on it...so you're getting absolutely zero advantage for your FF image quality in either noise, DR, or resolution.

What was your point, again?

For the versatility argument, I think you forgot to mention the versatility in terms of buying and using existing lenses. m4/3 users get the option to pick between two manufactures for bodies -four if you count the budget Kodak and video-centric Blackmagic- and lenses with native support and design by a comprehensive list of first and third party.

Then you can pretty much adapt 4/3 lenses with full AF support and recently Canon EOS lenses with descent AF speed.

Sure I prefer native lenses, but I love having the option. Before I started building my collection, I was using Nikon glass in MF and 4/3 lenses (including my beloved 50-200mm SWD) just fine.

Now, even if I using Olympus bodies, I still buy Panasonic lenses if I find them a more suitable alternative for my needs.

If I want to go small, my E-M1 can fit my backpack with a full set of primes easily. If I want to bring a dedicated camera back, zooms, second body, etc are all there.

It is nice to have options...

'won't find a native one' - wrong, native 25mm f2 Batis or MF Samyang 24mm f1.4.

@abortabort - Fair, though you still can't buy a Batis (and it's $1300!), and using a Samyang 24mm with a native mount is literally identical to using it with a Nikon or Canon mount and an adapter, so calling it "native" is a little bit disinguenous.

Uh, the manual focus lenses on µ4/3 are large. Of course maybe 7 of them are f/0.95 and most are cine lenses. But take a look at the 14mm f/2.5, 15mm/f1.7, 17mm/2.8, 20mm f/1.7, 25mm/1.8, 42.5 f/1.7, 45mm/1.8 and the several pancake zooms. One could maybe add 17mm f/1.8 and 12mm f/2. Those are all tiny AF lenses with MF possibility (I hope I did not forgot many lenses and got the f-number right).

Typically, entry-level FF DSLRs cost a bit more with the camera body but you save up much more on lenses. Lots of cheap F1.8-F2 primes that perform well. The catch with the A7 series is that you pay up significantly with native lenses.

The 24mm f1.8 on E mount is an APSC lens. It will work on the A7 but you won't the full image. You'd be shooting in crop mode.

Yes, you can use m43 lenses on E mount (A7) through a very thin adapter but the image circle does not cover the entire FF sensor (you will crop manually). Why even go there?

The 12mm prime on m43 is kinda pricey for what it actually does. For most though, the 12-40 f2.8 zoom is a more than worthy alternative and it is more versatile (you expressed interest in the 17mm focal lenght, which the zoom also covers). If you're still considering m43, I think that zoom would be better suited for you than the 7-14.

Sony brings in the latest tech, but seems not to be so keen in investing in the system when it's standard tech. If you are interested in Oly, check also what Panasonic has to offer, the system (µ4/3) shares the same lenses.

I own both 3/4 systems and sony systems. I find my-self use more 3/4 systems b/c two reasons...lenses and size. Sony a6000 is a great camera, but sony really needs to work on the e-mount lenes!!!

I wouldn't worry about print size. Not only multiple actual users of m4/3 do print 24/36 and are happy with it -I just ordered a few prints that size, but also do professionals. Have a look at Steve Gosling. He is an Olympus and LEE filters ambassador, shooting exclusively with m4/3, selling his work in prints.
Another example of a large print, are some UK advert campaigns shot by Cleveland Aaron with m4/3. Billboard-size prints were produced and everyone was happy. Don't forget people were printing in 2009 with the D90 or in 2006 with <insert camera back then> just fine. Not suggesting that we shouldn't get the most out of tech and gear, but we should worry a bit less about it

Either way Olympus or Sony it is a win-win. Simply get what you feel like you may enjoy using more. For me, a non-primes guy, I ended up being in the processing now, getting a full set of Oly and Panasonic primes as I enjoy using lenses such as the PanaLeica 15mm or Oly 45mm a LOT.

A7 and 28mm f2 is a nicely priced combo.

Pichertaker, you mentioned you did close-ups as well as landscapes. I'm not a pro, am an architect and avid amateur photographer and I own two systems, Nikon D810 with a selection of lenses (including the 14-24 with which I have had stunning results) and an E-M1 based system with a variety of MFT lenses. Because of its compact size and low weight, the E-M1 is the camera I carry daily. when I want the ultimate I can get I carry my heavy Nikon equipment but I'm extremely happy with my Oly system. Years ago I printed 24x36 prints on my plotter at work from my 10mp E-3 and they were good enough for what I needed. Most of my bigger prints have been on metal at 16x24 and no problems with them too. I'm concerned by the visual results I get an not too concerned about pixel-peeping. My D810 is astounding - but my E-M1, at half the price is stunning. Here is a close-up shot with my E-M1 and 60mm macro on 500px https://500px.com/photo/67728173/brown-iris-by-alan-roberts?from=set&set_id=1193537

If you would like to see more shots with the camera, I also have an album on this site as well as on Facebook as alanrphotography where you can see 5MP shots with my E-1, 10MP with my E-3, 12MP with my Nikon D700, 36MP with the D800, 16MP with the E-M1 and 36MP with my D810. For me, it is great having both as, many times I don't need 36MP and the E-M1 is perfect. Just over a week ago I lugged my Nikon gear on the Guadalupe Mountain Peak Trail climbing just over 3,000ft and just about died - there's certainly something to be said for the weight and size of the Oly system... Here's an E-M1 shot I took in Zion National Park last year https://www.facebook.com/alanrphotography/photos/a.431504130323274.1073741843.181715518635471/421804177959936/?type=3&theater

In case you would like to see some landscapes I shot with my E-M1, take a look here. (Some of the shots were with my D810 and you can see that in the description. I am very happy with my E-M1. https://500px.com/photo/108805207/guadalupe-peak-trail-panorama-by-alan-roberts?from=user_library

@AlanGR :- Your responses are most appreciated. Have decided to leave off with Sony and go Oly.

Deliberated on EM1 vs EM5 MII. In the end I think EM1 just makes more ergonomic sense. Don't need the extra grip with it unless I want the "heft" it provides but its existing grip is fine for portrait shooting which I don't do a lot of anyway.

Hearing of a new iteration of EM1 might make me wait to see if they include external mic port, improve video, etc., but as I'm mainly interested in stills I may opt for a dedicated video cam.

The M Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 macro is amazing from reviews I've watched. Going for the 12mm f/2.0 and 17mm f/1.8 for wide and the 12-40 f/2.8 for inclement weather shooting.

Your images are beautiful.

I was going to comment on that too. The wording made it sound like the Olympus lens had some sort of disadvantage compared to some other random format when, in this case, the opposite is true! Shame on the writer for even bringing the subject up.

> F-number is about light, not DOF

Both, total light and DoF. F1.8 collects as much total light on u4/3 sensor as F3.6 lens on FF sensor resulting in exactly the same shot noise (normalized of course) in both cases.

Larger sensors lag behind in the signal/noise ratio and in bright light you need to stop the aperture down on larger sensor. However, pro's bring the light with them, right (it's a 'pro' lens)?

@ppastoris - what's more important? Total light, or signal-to-noise?

Because if you look at the dreaded DXOMark, the A7 II has an ISO score (ISO 2449) only 1.5EV better than the E-M5 II (ISO 896), despite 4x the area.

log2(2449)-log2(896) = 1.45EV

So doesn't that mean that the f1.8 lens on M4/3 is actually "equivalent" to an f3.0 lens on FF, no f3.6?

And since we know that a Canon 5D Mk III lags by 0.5EV compared to a Nikon Df, does that mean that f2.8 on Canon is only equivalent to f3.5 on Nikon? And since a Canon 5D is only 0.5EV better than M4/3, and 1 full EV worse than modern FF cameras, does that mean it's no longer equivalent to other FF? So many numbers to make your head spin if you really want to know how good your camera is...

Or does equivalence only reflect theory and not practice? I agree that it's a useful short-hand for some things. But in the reality of picture-taking, it's often garbage.

lol, total light of course ;). You buy a new camera - total light is still the same while the sensor tech is new.

Jokes aside, most people would understand that you need to compare sensors of the same or similar efficiency. You wouldn't expect the original Canon 1D to perform exactly the same as Sony A7S, would you? This way your example above would make more sense too: A7S (DxOMark ISO score 3700) and EM5II (ISO 900) are exactly 2 stops apart.

...Except that the E-M5 II has 30% higher resolution, despite 4x smaller area. More than 5x bigger pixels on the A7s. It's a niche camera with niche applications for niche users.

The A7 II and E-M5 II are the two newest cameras, the enthusiast ("non-professional") flagships of their respective product lines, and the most widely targeted. They're pretty directly comparable. Throw the D750 in there, another brand new enthusiast camera, and it's just over 1 2/3 stops better.

All I'm saying is that equivalence almost never perfectly reflects reality, not in terms of real world performance. It's useful for a very rough short-hand guesstimate if you don't know anything about the specific cameras on hand except their sensor size...but not much beyond that.

Barney, we sure all make mistakes. You also wrote "the" two times - "- the The". It never rains, but it pours ;-)

It's just a frame of reference. And until they start publishing actual angles of view, which is what we really should be using, it does provide a reference point for many who read it. I guess you can tell it doesn't bother me.

What gets annoying is the holy war that goes with it. It would be nice if a 7-14mm lens could just be a 7-14mm lens and f2.8 could just be f2.8. I've shot with everything from my cell phone to 8x10 large format. The lenses for each system did their job and I just learned what focal lengths did what for each system. When I was shooting 8x10, my 300mm was just my normal lens. I wasn't worried about what it's "equivalent" was in 35mm. I'm not sure why this is so hard this far into the digital era.

It will only annoy you if you allow it to. Also, don't sell equivalences short. For example, if you're buying a superzoon, and aren't sure of the exact size of the sensor, those MM numbers won't mean much. So providing equivalents from FF does help. Or you could just buy that FF camera you've always wanted and ignore all the "equivalent" crap. ;-)

@StefanD

Where you see author to compare these to 8x10 counterparts? I only read them to compare them to classic crop format aka 35mm sensor.

@CopCarSS.

100%, Fully, Totally and so on agree with you!

Since photographing with anything between large format and pinhole cameras to even truly pocket camera sizes (even up to 60x40cm papers) there is no problems to actually understand the focal lengths and apertures.

My only observation is that people with this "equivalent" thing has totally missed the all film cameras, they have never build and photographed with pinhole cameras and they have never ever done anything with their hands to understand the relationships between focal length, aperture and film/paper/sensor size.

Being format agnostic it is very easy to photograph without problems, unlike all these "equivalent to" people who have hard time to produce photographs if there isn't their "equivalent" printed out.

I agree that there is a lot of confusion. But that is because some people still don't understand the "equivalency". But they wouldn't understand 25mm on m4/3 either, so the confusion doesn't purely come from the 35mm reference.

I can understand that it is not necessary, especially for people like you, who shot a dozen formats. But for the likes like me, the reference is helpful, so I think there is no problem with that.
I would like an equivalency like this for example in laptop vs PC processors, so I can know exactly what I deal with.

I agree tho that it is used too much sometimes, especially like here, trying to bash m4/3.

I can only guess that the lens cap goes over the integrated hood and then locks in place from inner part of the hood by friction/claps that you release with the two buttons.

Olympus has three features over the Samyang:

1) Aperture. The f/1.8 is truly huge benefit in many situations, not just astrophotography but landscapes and many other low-light situations and even sports!

2) Auto-focus. Many claims that fisheye doesn't need autofocus, but they have not handled the Samyang 7.5mm f/3.5 that even with f/5.6-8 range is painfully slow to focus for close subjects. Because very small magnification you can exploit wide field of view very easily by getting close and you need to manually focus very carefully using magnification feature. Auto-Focus will make all that very snappy and easy, especially when recording video straight middle of the action etc.

3) Weather sealing, that should be so self-evident already, as we are placing camera near water, snow, dirt, sand and anyways using cameras in very dusty, windy and wet places that just having better protection against all that is huge benefit.

The fisheye with 899€ price tag is low one, with those features.