• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

New camera, 150-400 and 2x TC ? (1 Viewer)

Could be. However, the fact that Oly has patented 7 FF lenses lately indicates that it might be a completely new segment of the market they are trying to get into.

Niels
 
Could that be the new 150-400 zoom lens in the video?
It seems to focus a lot on the lens so to speak.
Or perhaps not, 50-150/2.8 probably and the first shown is the 300/4?

Your second guess was the conclusion on another forum, and I concur. Nikon and Canon make lenses with similar specs as the 150-400 mm F4, and they weigh over seven pounds (three kilograms)! And the Olympus 300 mm F4 weighed more than the Nikon/Canon 300 mm equivalents. My guess is Olympus is announcing a bloated lens at the same time they announce their bloated camera (i.e. E-M1X). They will both appeal to those for whom weight is not an issue. I don't think there are many of those who are fans of micro 4/3 though, so I don't really follow what Olympus is doing here.

I really like the E-M1 line of cameras before this one; they are full-featured and lighter than the Panasonic flagship models (GH-5, G9, etc.). Too bad Olympus isn't coming out with long lenses that complement that design philosophy. The PL100-400 is a great lightweight option from Panasonic, but it is a bit annoying that it doesn't have the excellent dual IS you get when you have an Olympus lens paired with an Olympus camera.
 
Last edited:
Your second guess was the conclusion on another forum, and I concur. Nikon and Canon make lenses with similar specs as the 150-400 mm F4, and they weigh over seven pounds (three kilograms)! And the Olympus 300 mm F4 weighed more than the Nikon/Canon 300 mm equivalents. My guess is Olympus is announcing a bloated lens at the same time they announce their bloated camera (i.e. E-M1X). They will both appeal to those for whom weight is not an issue. I don't think there are many of those who are fans of micro 4/3 though, so I don't really follow what Olympus is doing here.

I really like the E-M1 line of cameras before this one; they are full-featured and lighter than the Panasonic flagship models (GH-5, G9, etc.). Too bad Olympus isn't coming out with long lenses that complement that design philosophy. The PL100-400 is a great lightweight option from Panasonic, but it is a bit annoying that it doesn't have the excellent dual IS you get when you have an Olympus lens paired with an Olympus camera.

Personally I thought the E-M1 II was on the smallish side with a "bigger" lens mounted and a larger/deeper grip does not have to be that much heavier, see Nikon Z7/Z6 for example.

Maybe Olympus is aiming at the pro sports shooters with less muscles? And their latest prime lenes in the PRO series are very nice glass. Any brand will have difficulties to expand their user base today but I'm pretty sure there are current Olympus users out there that will get this new camera.
 
Could that be the new 150-400 zoom lens in the video?
It seems to focus a lot on the lens so to speak.
Or perhaps not, 50-150/2.8 probably and the first shown is the 300/4?

It certainly looks like the 40-150mm F2.8, though the lenshood is not the standard issue. Could just be the photographer's own lens with a different hood (the original has come in for some criticism), or it might be a Mk II version of the lens - there were rumours of two tele-zooms being introduced and this particular optic could do with being upgraded with the dual/sync IS.
 

Attachments

  • 40 150.jpg
    40 150.jpg
    172.6 KB · Views: 62
Olympus have doubtless designed it with a particular market sector in mind - priced accordingly - with a predicted sales figure that will decide if it was a success or failure.

Like most cameras it cannot do everything - I retained an E-P5 with VF4 solely for low level close up and macro work as the OM-Ds are nowhere near as useful, but grudgingly bought an E-M1 body to work alongside it for in camera focus stacking.

Probably not for me - but I have been proven wrong in the past over similar comments - when my needs changed. We shall see, (the E-3 was a colossal bloat over the E-1).
 
Looked a bit closer on the specs. It seems that Olympus did go for a pro-sized housing with built in vertical grip. To me it's actually a bit refreshing and I'm sure olympus pro shooters will love this.

For wildlife, the lack of long lenses is still an issue to me though. 300/4 is really not 600/4 equivalent (rather than 600/8) and something like a 400/4 would be needed for shorter DOF and more reach. TC:s does not count. A lens equivalent to 800/8 would be more similar to what you can get on APS-C or FF.
 
Agreed there are a small minority of Olympus users that prefer the existing E-M1 with the added grip, making it similar in size to the E-M1X. The camera might appeal to them. Though I suspect most photographers who, for whatever reason, feel the need for something bigger to grab onto simply use an APS-C or FF camera to begin with.

But I really think the main purpose of the E-M1X is to maintain the prestige of the Olympus line compared Panasonic; Olympus will have something in its lineup “above” its current models that it can argue is comparable to Panasonic's forthcoming full frame camera, but retaining the m4/3 crop factor.

The good news from my perspective is that Olympus has stated that the E-M1X is not the successor to the E-M1 mk. ii, so those who prefer the smaller form factor that is the hallmark of m4/3 are hopefully not being cast aside.
 
Looked a bit closer on the specs. It seems that Olympus did go for a pro-sized housing with built in vertical grip. To me it's actually a bit refreshing and I'm sure olympus pro shooters will love this.

For wildlife, the lack of long lenses is still an issue to me though. 300/4 is really not 600/4 equivalent (rather than 600/8) and something like a 400/4 would be needed for shorter DOF and more reach. TC:s does not count. A lens equivalent to 800/8 would be more similar to what you can get on APS-C or FF.

Your statement I highlighted is close to misleading. The 300/f4 is equivalent to a 600/4 when it comes to shutter time and iso. You are correct that it is not equivalent in DOF. However, if you are using a lens like that wide open, how often do you have too much DOF? I more often find myself looking for more DOF rather than less.

Niels
 
Your statement I highlighted is close to misleading. The 300/f4 is equivalent to a 600/4 when it comes to shutter time and iso. You are correct that it is not equivalent in DOF. However, if you are using a lens like that wide open, how often do you have too much DOF? I more often find myself looking for more DOF rather than less.

Niels

Yup, I agree.

A lot of discussion about the E-M1x on the mu-43 forum, and more than a few grumbles from people who want more affordable and smaller bodies. Some have speculated that the larger body size was really needed in order to accomplish other goals for heat dissipation and the extra battery, etc... that makes sense to me. I won't be buying it any time soon, but like everyone I will be very interested in how much they were able to improve the AF-C/tracking performance.

Personally I would be more interested in a 500 or 600mm prime telephoto than a 150-400 zoom... I use my Oly 300mm with the 1.4X teleconverter pretty much permanently attached, so I'm already at 420. I heard a rumor that when they have the big event coming up, they might also announce development plans for more lenses, maybe even a little "road map"...

Dave
 
Last edited:
Your statement I highlighted is close to misleading. The 300/f4 is equivalent to a 600/4 when it comes to shutter time and iso. You are correct that it is not equivalent in DOF. However, if you are using a lens like that wide open, how often do you have too much DOF? I more often find myself looking for more DOF rather than less.

Niels

Why would it be misleading? 1.5-2 stops (f4 vs f8) better noise performance is a fact for the best FF sensors vs MFT sensors. It might not be a big deal at ISO1600 but at ISO6400 it is. If you do action shots in sparse light like mornings/evenings that might be rather important.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Com...E-M1-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D5___1177_1136_1062

When it comes to DOF I would say, as short as possible. Not always, but It's nice to have the choice for subject isolation, but it depends on distance to subject of course. Closer shots might need stopping down.

The DOF-thing was misleading though! A 400/4 would not help here. The problem is that you have to back down with MFT to get the same framing as with FF and DOF will increase with distance. Instead you will need a shorter lens with a larger f-stop and a 300mm/f2 on MFT would be equivalent to the 600/4 on FF also in DOF.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
 
Last edited:
Why would it be misleading? 1.5-2 stops (f4 vs f8) better noise performance is a fact for the best FF sensors vs MFT sensors. It might not be a big deal at ISO1600 but at ISO6400 it is. If you do action shots in sparse light like mornings/evenings that might be rather important.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Com...E-M1-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D5___1177_1136_1062

When it comes to DOF I would say, as short as possible. Not always, but It's nice to have the choice for subject isolation, but it depends on distance to subject of course. Closer shots might need stopping down.

The DOF-thing was misleading though! A 400/4 would not help here. The problem is that you have to back down with MFT to get the same framing as with FF and DOF will increase with distance. Instead you will need a shorter lens with a larger f-stop and a 300mm/f2 on MFT would be equivalent to the 600/4 on FF also in DOF.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Sorry, but I cannot see sensor considerations to be relevant for a lens critique. And that is how you worded the original statement.

Niels
 
Sorry, but I cannot see sensor considerations to be relevant for a lens critique. And that is how you worded the original statement.

Niels

I usually mount a camera on the lens to take photos so the whole system is relevant for the result.
BTW, I didn't invent the laws of physics/optics that sets the limitations related to sensor size.

There are pros and cons with any camera system. But at least for me the 300mm/f4 lens on MFT is a bit short in many cases for bird photography. And TC:s come with downsides.

Another spanner in the works for Olympus (and the rest of the competition) is the Nikon 500mm PF that did change the market quite a bit as you get 750mm eqv. on APS-C (or 500mm on FF) and the weight is not much more (1468 g) than the Oly 300mm/4 (1270g).
 
Last edited:
Vespobuteo:
I agree with you that 300mm is still a little shorter than desired for bird photography with mu-43, and I also agree that teleconverters are a bit of a compromise to get the longer focal length (tho I have been very pleased with the image quality from the 1.4x converter on the Oly 300... even with the teleconverter the lens can produce results as good or better than my Nikon 500 f/4 without any converter). But it would be nice to see some new longer super telephoto lenses (400mm or more) to pair with mu-43 bodies. This new large E-M1x body seems to be geared specifically toward serious sports/wildlife photographers, so it gives me some hope that maybe Olympus will announce the development of another longer prime telephoto, but we'll have to wait and see.

I agree with Niels that it is at least a little misleading to say regarding a mu-43 lens, "300/4 is really not 600/4 equivalent (rather than 600/8)." First of all, in terms of the ability to shoot at a faster shutter speed or use a lower ISO, f/4 is f/4 regardless of format. And secondly, although it is true that the depth of field is greater on mu-43 format with any given focal length, I see that as an advantage more often than a disadvantage with my bird photography. I mostly pursue smaller birds, but when I get close enough to get a really nice image, I almost never wish for less depth of field, always more. Even when I stop down 1 or 2 stops I usually do not get the entire bird in focus. Very often I get the head/eye very good, but the tail or one of the feet is blurry. Now some might say it could be desirable or artistic to have part of the bird out of focus... Ok fine, but my point is that I often don't have that choice; I'm forced to leave part of the bird out of focus. There is almost always plenty of nicely blurred background, plus it is possible to help that in post-processing. That's just my experience with smaller birds, but I really hope we don't drag on with a discussion about equivalence and so forth. Lord knows that subject has been beat to death.

Dave
 
Last edited:
I mostly pursue smaller birds, but when I get close enough to get a really nice image, I almost never wish for less depth of field, always more. Even when I stop down 1 or 2 stops I usually do not get the entire bird in focus.

Exactly. I've tried to shoot chiffchaffs hunting from 7-10 meter, with my 1-inch system (Nikon V2 + CX70-300 lens). At f/5.6 the DOF of 6-13 cm is so tiny that I never get the whole bird in focus. Next year I plan to use f/8.0, which offers a DOF of 9-19cm (for those distances 7-10m). However, at f/8 there is already diffraction kicking in.

The Olympus 300mm prime offers the same DOF already at f/5.6, one stop less. So I must admit I am envious.
 
According to Cambridge in Color diffraction will kick in already at f5.5 for a 1'' sensor at 15MP. For a sensor with 20 MP on MFT the limit will be f6.5 and 20MP on ASP-C will be limited at f8.0. DOF is shorter from the beginning for the larger sensors so not much difference in the end if you want to avoid diffraction. For perched birds I guess focus stacking would be an alternative. Personally I don't find short DOF a problem rather than a creative tool. If I want more DOF I use a wider lens/picture angle.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

Concerning the equivalence issues, discussed above,
this is a pretty good resource to digest ("Equivalent Speed"):

https://www.opticallimits.com/Reviews/986-equivalence
 
Last edited:
What Olympus are doing with the rumoured EM1.X and lenses is making a statement that the company celebrates its 100 year anniversary, that they are committed to m4/3 and also launching a body and telephoto zooms in time for the 2020 olympics in Tokyo.

The first lens that appears in the video is the 300 F/4. The second lens is the 40-150 F/2.8 with a rubber lens hood.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top