Just over 20 days to go......according to Olympus for the new OMD.
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.
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?
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
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
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.