Announcement: OLYMPUS M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 150-400mm 1: 4.5 TC 1.25X IS PRO

The OLYMPUS M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 17-2020mm 150: 400 TC 1X IS PRO lens was announced on November 4.5, 1.25.

OLYMPUS M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 150-400mm 1: 4.5 TC 1.25X IS PRO

OLYMPUS M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 150-400mm 1: 4.5 TC 1.25X IS PRO

Basic properties

  • For Olympus Mirrorless Cameras Micro 4/3
  • Maximum aperture ratio: 1: 4.5
  • Focal length: 150-400 mm (EFR 300-800 mm)
  • Built teleconverter multiplicity 1.25, allowing to obtain FR of 187.5-500 mm (EGF 375-1000)
  • MDF: 1.3 meters (with teleconverter)
  • Maximum magnification ratio: 1:2.78 (500 mm, with teleconverter)
  • Built-in Image Stabilizer with 4.5 stops. With the function of stabilization on the sensor up to 8 steps
  • Optical design: 28 elements in 18 groups (7/4 teconverter), includes 1 EDA, 4 Super ED, 2 ED, 2 HR, 1 HD
  • Filter Diameter: 95 mm
  • Aperture blades: 9 pieces
  • Protected enclosure
  • Tripod foot
  • Weight: 1875 gram
  • Price: about 7.500 dollars. All prices for modern Olympus lenses are available see here

Appearance

All OYMPUS M.ZUIKO DIGITAL Lenses for Micro 4/3

  1. 8mm 1: 1.8 FISHEYE PRO
  2. 9mm 1: 8 FISHEYE
  3. 12mm 1: 2 ED MSC
  4. 15mm 1: 8
  5. 17mm 1: 1.2 PRO
  6. 17mm 1: 1.8 MSC
  7. 17mm 1: 2.8
  8. 25mm 1: 1.2 PRO
  9. 25mm 1: 1.8 MSC
  10. 30mm 1: 3.5 ED MSC MACRO 1.25X
  11. 45mm 1: 1.2 PRO
  12. 45mm 1: 1.8 MSC
  13. 60mm 1: 2.8 ED MSC MACRO
  14. 75mm 1: 1.8 ED MSC
  15. 300mm 1: 4 IS PRO
  16. 7-14mm 1: 2.8 PRO
  17. 9-18mm 1:4-5.6 ED
  18. 12-40mm 1: 2.8 PRO
  19. 12-45mm 1: 4 PRO
  20. 12-50mm 1: 3.5-6.3 EZ ED MSC MACRO
  21. 12-100mm 1: 4 IS PRO
  22. 12-200mm 1:3.5-6.3 ED MSC
  23. 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 ED
  24. 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 MSC II
  25. 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 R MSC II
  26. 14-42mm 1: 3.5-5.6 EZ ED MSC
  27. 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 ED
  28. 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 ED MSC II
  29. 40-150mm 1: 2.8 PRO
  30. 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 ED MSC
  31. 40-150mm 1: 4-5.6 R ED MSC
  32. 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 ED MSC
  33. 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 ED MSC II
  34. 100-400mm 1:5-6.3 IS ED MSC
  35. 150-400mm 1: 4.5 TC 1.25X ED IS PRO

Decoding of the main markings of OLYMPUS lenses M.ZUIKO DIGITAL for Micro 4/3:

  • PRO - professional lens
  • SPLASH PROOF - a protected lens (so are marked, for example, all 'PRO'-lenses)
  • ED (Extra-low Dispersion) - low dispersion elements in the optical circuit
  • MSC (Movie & Still Compatible) - a special focusing system for comfortable video and photography
  • EZ (Electronic Zoom) - electronic zoom
  • IS (Image Stabilizer) - built-in image stabilizer
  • MACRO - macro lens
  • Fisheye - ultra wide angle fisheye lens
  • R (?) - lens with an updated design
  • II - second version of the lens
  • TC - built-in teleconverter
  • the lenses 9mm 1: 8 FISHEYE и 15mm 1: 8 (MF) do not have auto focus

All Olympus Micro 4/3 cameras

Olympus Pen EP Series:

Olympus OM-D EM Series:

Materials on the topic

  1. Full-frame mirrorless systems. List of all cameras and lenses to them. Mirrorless fever, discussion, choice and more
  2. All cropped mirrorless cameras, discussion of systems
  3. Mirrorless crop that has stopped or is stopping its development
  4. Fallen Digital Mirror Systems
  5. JVI or EVI
  6. About mirrorless batteries
  7. Simple and clear medium format
  8. Smartphone Impact
  9. All announcements and news
  10. What's next?

Comments here on the site do not require any registration. In the comments, you can ask a question on the topic, or leave your feedback, or describe your experience. For the selection of photographic equipment, I recommend E-Catalog. Many little things for the photo can be found on AliExpress.

The material was prepared by Arkady Shapoval. My Youtube channeland Radozhiva's group on Facebook и VK.

Add a comment:

 

 

Comments: 62, on the topic: Announcement: OLYMPUS M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 150-400mm 1: 4.5 TC 1.25X IS PRO

  • Michael

    What a horse

    • Ivan

      Olik himself advertises his technique as more compact:

      • Michael

        So yes, depending on which telescope to compare with)) But holding a 2-kilogram XNUMX (for a mirror) in my hands and having a micra available, it never occurred to me to put such a lens there)))

  • Vladimir

    I wonder how much battery power does it consume? )

    • Arkady Shapoval

      I don't think there are many, or that there will be any serious problems with this. So I recently shot on a huge Sigma 60-600 S (weighs one and a half times more than this Olik), I did not notice at all that she somehow took an abnormally much energy, the same applies to the overwhelming number of lenses with af and stub

    • Victor

      I'm interested in another thing - how many Radozhivs' readers will actually buy this glass.

      • Arkady Shapoval

        Even if no one is okay

      • Sergei

        If you look at the prices of lenses of this class on FF, the price tag already starts to seem more adequate.
        But for statistics, personally, I definitely won't buy, although I own the system - there is no need and extra funds.

  • Novel

    Non-removable foot? Is the converter being driven into its base?

    • Novel

      Yeah, in the tail, there are relatively small glasses. Well, I wonder what. If I were a better-off tourist, I would assemble the system.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      non-removable, built-in converter, it is switched to active position with a large mechanical lever

      • Novel

        Well, Canon has 200-400 according to the same principle, but there is a protrusion for the converter in the off position, but here it is not visible, I thought that they were being driven into the paw. And it looks like there is enough room in the back to take the converter out of the field of view of the lens.

      • Ivan

        Arkady, they write that the bracket is removable.

    • Ivan

      Well, there is also a double converter for this lens. In combination with the built-in converter, 2000 FR is obtained at a 35-mm equivalent.

      • Sergei

        And minus 2 stops of luminosity ...

  • 1

    Vyacheslav has already managed to get it for the test. A very interesting thing and a very emotional story
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_MVR2FcoxAM

    • B. R. P.

      He swings it so boldly and the bayonet does not fall out)

  • Sergei

    Excellent glass considering optical qualities, size and weight. Although I couldn't run too long with this. I tried to run with Tair 3 - such a pleasure for myself, but he seemed to be a pound lighter.
    Sadly, some bulging-eyed reviewers are in a hurry to compare it to its full-frame counterparts. Although the lens looks very decent, there are some subtleties, like a 1-2 stop loss in iso for full-frame cameras, the fact that a 2-focal teleconverter will add, but eat up another 2 stops of aperture. But no matter how bland in terms of exposure, we still have a gain in weight and dimensions with excellent picture quality. And he will be working and sharp, with an open mind, in this respect I have no doubts.

    I myself, as the owner of microra and Olympus in particular, will never buy such glass for myself, somehow, unnecessarily, such wild TV sets and the price tag is far from amateur. But Olympus is great for releasing this glass, although the future of the system is still vague.

    • Ivan

      Yes, I would not say that Olik's future is vague. In my opinion, quite definite:
      https://photowebexpo.ru/news/Ubytki-Olympus-Imaging-okazalis-znachitelno-bolshe

      • Sergei

        Well, let's see what happens next. In a sense, it doesn't matter to me anymore, because In principle, I have two carcasses and almost all the focal ones are blocked, only the super-width is not enough, but this is a profitable business, I think I will close it this year.
        I thought I would jump off the system when the news came out, but then I forgot it, besides, it turned out that there was not much to jump off with. And changing the system is a huge loss of money without a tangible profit. Micra can be said to be a complete system, a lot of glasses for every taste and budget. The new one can be bought for a few more years, then for another ten years all this will be available on the secondary housing. Well, it seems like there is still Panas, but for a photo it's not so interesting.

      • 1

        I don’t know what the business rules are, but in my opinion, they shouldn’t have announced the transfer of the division to the whole world in advance. Judging by the thematic sites, the reaction of people was unequivocal - Olympus - everything. And no matter how much you do not roll out more cool products, you still cannot convince people. When they see that JIP will do everything right (suppose such an outcome) and the product line will develop and gain stability - then, yes. Until then, even fans of the system will likely wait. They had to quietly and calmly do all this, come to an agreement, arrange everything, and only then quickly formalize everything so that the broad masses did not feel this at all.

        • Sergei

          Yes, they historically have a beard with PR. In any case, in the Russian Federation. Xs, maybe in Japan and other countries the representations work more adequately. They held contests with very fat prizes, where some cool photographers could simply collect them by buying there one of the cheapest cameras to participate. And nowhere was it really said about this competition. On Instagram, contests were held with prizes - cameras and glasses. It was also not announced en masse. Now there are regular contests, but with prizes like branded sweatshirts, well, that's it. Well, that is, our local office suffers from nonsense instead of performing its direct duties - promoting brand products.
          I don't know what JIP will do, we'll see. As I said, I closed almost all the focal points. My two carcasses will be enough for me for 5-10 years, and there maybe some Chinese will catch up, the MFT format is open.

  • Ivan

    Back in March, we published tests of this lens:
    https://photar.ru/opublikovany-snimki-sdelannye-na-olympus-150-400mm-f-4-5/

  • Ivan

    Built-in converter:

  • B. R. P.

    Antiresno, how many prof. sports reporters filmed on micra?

    • Ivan

      I'm afraid to assume that not a single one. Olik with his professional OMD E-M1X and this lens is generally not clear who is counting on. There are fewer amateurs than Leica owners, and professionals use a friend's technique.

      • Arkady Shapoval

        To whom Olik paid, they shoot on him. And many more “to try”. And I am sure there will be not so few enthusiasts who will really use it.

    • Sergei

      In fact, with the advent of this glass, many professional sports reporters can just pay attention to Olympus. If you need compactness / portability in this class, then the choice is really not great.
      The closest option is Nikon D500 + Tamron 150-600mm F5-6.3 Di VC USD SP G2, but this is not a native lens and there may be problems with focus, or there is still a NIKKOR 200-500MM F / 5.6E ED VR, but it seems to be not protected from bad weather. At the same time, the price of em-1x + 140-400 can fit the three sets described above. In this case, Olympus has an advantage in stub, native ligament and dust-moisture-frost protection. On the above-described set on Nikon it will be possible to get a picture similar in technical quality, but when shooting more static scenes, Olik will come out ahead, well, it should be more compact.
      In general, the lens is really small, I have a telephoto lens from a 4/3 mirror system - 50-200mm 2.8-3.5 and it is rather small on the e-m1 mark3, but consider this one as if you put a 200-300ml mug on mine. In general, a good lens.

      • Sergei

        * 150-400, of course, a typo. This is how mine looks on the carcass. But it's bigger than the modern 40-150mm f2.8.

      • Arkady Shapoval

        If this Olik also cost the same as the Tamron 150-600mm G2, then it would be a super-mega popular solution, and so Olik costs 7 times more. For some tasks, Nikon D500 / Canon 7D M2 under Tamron or Sigma will be more effective.

        • Sergei

          If we calculate, then the efficiency in terms of exposure and sensitivity will be the same for these kits, in the case of Nikon, with Canon it will be less effective. It is not known that with the permission of the cited Tamron and Nikkor, about Olik in this regard, I have no doubts that he will be good with an open one.
          And then, if the Sigmas and Tamrons had no problems, people would have no need to buy their own Nikon glasses.
          Glass is expensive, but it has no direct analogs. Either shorter and not protected, or non-native (let's lower the aperture). And on FF, if you look for analogues, then the price tag flies into space and there are no direct analogues either.
          Sigma 300-800 f5.6 suggests itself, but this is a 6-kilogram huge pipe, without a stub and protection, and this is again a non-native glass for Canicons.
          Well, that is, the choice is quite difficult in this class of camera + lens bundles. But I had no experience of dealing with such glasses, maybe other things are important there.

          • Neo

            ISO u d500 is not comparable with any micro, their best m1x ceiling 6400 has, these are the capabilities of a ten-year d3s

            • Sergei

              The real difference is 1 stop. I took RAW from dpreview test shots. The difference with Z6 is 2 stops, with z7 if 2 stops are brought to the same scale, if absolutely - 1 stop. Compared with om-d e-m1 mark3. I myself was a little surprised, positively.

              • Michael

                Their old matrices are also very good. Was pleasantly surprised when comparing

            • Pokemon

              Before you start discussing a working iso on micros, just look at what is going on with them after 2000.

              • Sergei

                And you don't have to look there. Add 1-2 stops to the competitor and everything will start the same. If the scene is relatively static, then Olik will get an advantage over the ZOC without a stub, over the Z-kami it may be minimal.
                But those are high ISO, while Nikon will certainly be better for shooting a landscape on a minmalk with a wide DD and rubber raves. The same goes for astro landscapes. Unfortunately, this is practically unrealistic on micra, at least in one shot. Although you can try your native fish with a hole 1.8 - you can still get something with it.

              • Sergei

                You can watch it wherever you go, of course. I just draw your attention that if you do not like the color degradation at 3200 in Olympus, you will not like it in a good crop on iso 6400, and FF on iso 12800. That's all the magic. If these opportunities are not enough for you - well, ok, choose something else, no problem.
                Yes, there are quite understandable limitations associated with a smaller matrix and higher pixel density. It's just that this particular difference is not that great in practice. There are other characteristics and capabilities / impossibilities of cameras.
                As for the bad shots on Flickr - well, it depends a lot on the author of these shots. You can remove it on ISO 3200 and it will be satisfactory, or you can remove it with underexposure and try to pull something else out. In addition, photos with poor color and / or noise can be found on users of any system.

            • Sergei

              Here's a look, Olympus OM-D E-M1 mark III vs Nikon D5 & Nikon D500
              As a result, it merges 1 stop D500 and 2.5 stops D5, but this is still D5, rather bold.

              • Pokemon

                "You don't have to look there."
                I look wherever I want.
                I see real photos on flickr, with the same micr.
                After 1600, color and DD evaporate, as does detail.

            • Sergei

              Likewise E-M5 markII vs Nikon D4 / DF - 2.5 stops difference.
              Why 2.5 stops - because Olympus is doing worse on 2 stops, and much better on 3.
              In general, when I started to compare, I thought it would be much worse, but I was pleasantly surprised.

              • Arkady Shapoval

                the sensor is physically 4 times smaller in area, from here and similar numbers. 2 steps = 4 times

              • Victor

                The enthusiasm for evaluating a microscope usually disappears somewhere when we start to really use something small-matrix, and not consider test frames with a uniform high-quality light and a pressed aperture.

              • Sergei

                2 Victor
                It depends on what tasks. If there is a hellish need to blur the background into jelly - then yes, FF. But if the target, on the contrary, is a larger grip at the same aperture, then a micra is ahead. And in most problems, plus or minus the same thing.

                I thought of leaving Olympus six months ago, on the Z5 / Z6, but when I imagined that it was necessary for a set of glasses of thousands so 5-7 bucks, I immediately got sick for the sake of a ghostly profit and a new potential crap to which I would need to get used to. In addition, glass without a spark and the available ultra-wide zoom is rather poor at the wide end, vignetting does not go away until f11, which is kind of dumb for a remake.

                And by the way, there is a button on the preview that worsens the lighting conditions, which in our comparison does not change the alignment of forces. And by the way, it was she who was pressed on the given screenshots.

              • Victor

                FF exists not only for blurring the background in jelly, there are many other factors for the priority of choice and blurring the background - in one of the last places.

                I am aware of the button, and I am aware that it slightly changes the lighting conditions. However, this is far enough from real conditions, almost an abyss. I have seen a lot of microshots, thanks.

              • Victor

                I could think of a couple of cases when the micra shows itself well - this is shooting birds (not because it shoots better than a full frame, of course not, it's just that the weight, dimensions and the cost of the kit are much lower, and stabilization), as well as macro photography.
                Alas, both of these cases do not coincide with my area of ​​interest.

              • Sergei

                2 Victor
                For me personally, FF and Nikons in particular are interesting only for the ability to shoot astro-landscapes in one frame so that the Milky Way, for example, can be seen. Mikra (in the person of Olympus) covers all my other tasks completely and it is convenient in them. Yes, there are slippery moments when FF would be better, but this does not cause a desire to completely switch to another system, and it is costly to keep the two systems both financially and by itself.
                When Olympus made his statement, I just had the money and I thought it might be worth crawling over to the Nikon Z5 / 6, but I looked at the reviews, at the carcass on the glass and somehow got sick. Not that very bad, just somehow not impressive and all this is far from ideal, unfortunately, although new and expensive. And I don't want to go to the ZK after the UPC. And in the end he took a fresh carcass of Olik. I will buy the super-wide later, although it will be expensive. We'll have to take 3-5 shots of astro-landscapes somehow staking ...: D
                And the pictures for all systems are very different, here it depends more on the taste and abilities of the author than on the camera.

              • Victor

                Of course, you can't argue about taste and abilities, this is the main thing, but the camera is not the least important (more precisely, the matrix format)

                For example, I know for sure that in portrait photography, not a single Olympus will draw in the same way as the “ancient” pioneers, for example, and the point here is not even a small depth of field.

                However, if m4 / 3 suits your needs completely, that's good :) The system itself has a bunch of nice buns, including a good color.

              • Sergei

                2 Victor
                I don’t know, maybe 5D evokes warm feelings of nostalgia or something like that, I don’t. As for drawing portraits - without tests in the same conditions, these are all empty words, but unfortunately no one will conduct such tests. It's just that light is very important in a portrait, if the light is good, you can shoot it on anything, well, almost. If there is no light, you can try to paint something there in HSV, here you need a wide DD of the camera so that artifacts do not get too much. But IMHO, where there is nothing to shoot, there is no need to shoot. This is also taste, of course.
                And in terms of technical characteristics, 5D is no better than Olympus and, in general, has more problems in terms of the matrix, in particular, pronounced banding.
                He has a bold pixel, minimal requirements for optics and it seems like a pleasant color rendition in the stock, and this is where the advantages generally end.
                Also, Canon's filters are made in such a way that enough green penetrates into the red channel and it is probably from this that the skin tone of people's faces is better, especially in green bushes. It is more difficult to achieve this on Nikon, although I saw good pictures with skin tone norms on Nikon and I myself ruled, but this must be done and this is a minus.
                After Nikonov, I like Olympus also because the photos almost do not need to be processed by color, you can leave them right in the drain, the colors are pleasant despite the poor DD and so on.

              • Arkady Shapoval

                Soon they will frighten with banding in photo schools. But personally, no matter how much I did not shoot with the same 5d (and many other Canon and other cameras), I have never encountered at least some tangible problem of banding. He got out only with very highly specialized types of shooting, for example, at a very long exposure, or when trying to do vseudo-xdr and twisting the sliders to + -5, or when shooting on extreme ISO. Of course, this is my experience and it has nothing to do with reality.

              • Victor

                2Sergey, I'm telling you, if Olympus suits you by the picture 100%, it's great :) I perfectly see the difference between the one and the other and no banding (by the way, how do you need to twist the picture to get it ??) you can't scare off the old penny (I myself shoot on an old man d700, a super convenient camera, with zero color problems, especially with custom profiles, a penny is simply given as an example of the most budget fullframe today, and also famous for a rather colorful camera)

                Don't look at those. characteristics on paper, a flat test scene for a preview and so on, the technical characteristics of the same 2005 penny should not limit in anything even modern photographers, I mean amateurs, AF may not be suitable for professionals, of course. As for the picture, there are no miracles, a large matrix ALWAYS looks more advantageous, all the more (paradoxically) in good light.

              • Sergei

                2 Victor
                You gave an example of a camera with good color reproduction in your opinion in the context that FF is needed not only for a narrow DOF. From this I can conclude that modern FF cameras “paint portraits” worse?
                Banding was given by me as an example of the imperfection of everything. I don’t think he will somehow show himself in ordinary shooting, but in night shooting it can be very much. Anyway.
                Especially I went to the flickr to look at the photos and saw there just a photo, except that I saw much more professional photos, and so ordinary photos and noisy overshadowed landscapes, and vulgarly processed portraits - everything is there. As with the Nikon D7000 and any other camera.
                I opened raw with dpreview and the same one from Olik, twisted it, yes, if everything is roughly equalized, Canon will have more saturated colors. And this, in principle, does not mean anything either, tk. in equal measure, information is added using a profile, all sorts of unique tone curves, and so on. The main thing here is that a double-cropped picture can be brought to the form of an ancient one, but FF.
                As if the conclusion that I'm trying to convey is that micra makes it possible to photograph well. If the correction can bring the results to homogeneity, then in this particular discipline the cameras are conditionally equal.
                You are writing about custom profiles for the D700 - this is the same thing.
                It's just a stereotype that FF is better than a micra in everything for a hundred years at lunchtime, besides, it seems to have appeared back in the days of the 4/3 mirror system. But this is a stereotype and it must either be confirmed or refuted. And it cannot be confirmed by comparing photos taken under different circumstances. Those. a double-blind test must be performed. But no one will bother with this, tk. making it is not as easy as it seems.
                The stereotype about film color can also be put here.
                That is, an analogy can be drawn with hi-end audio. There are audiophiles who buy equipment for $ 100500 and they have their own stereotypes, warm tube sound, class A, lossless formats. Well, the price of all this is blind testing, which usually shows that there is no special difference, and if there is, it is beyond the limits of perception.
                In the photo, everything is of course a little more complicated, because any combination of camera / set of lenses has a huge number of combinations of parameters in certain conditions and among them there are, so to speak, ranges in which the result is good. And these ranges for crop / micra and FF often overlap for some shooting scenarios.
                I do not want to say that micra is better than FF, in any case, just in very many situations it is not worse, and in some even better. It's just a tool with specific parameters.
                Sorry for a lot of letters.

              • Victor

                Sergei, according to the first conclusion - he is slightly wrong. The first dime is shown not because modern dimes are worse, but because it is the cheapest of those models, which allows you to get an excellent picture - 12-15 thousand rubles bu, it is cheaper than an entry-level (!) Level crop in a store.

                Now another point (about flicker) - you can shoot badly with any camera, as well as good.

                Again, what follows is that if we see a good picture taken with a “bad” camera, and a taxic one taken with a “good” camera, we will certainly choose the first one, there is no doubt about it. Despite the undoubtedly greater potential of a “good” camera.

                But. With all this, if we have “other equal” - one operator, one plot, the same color / light on the other side of the lens, some technical differences already begin to emerge. Which can be quite insignificant (and there are many comparisons of micra and ff on the network, where, consciously or not, competing models are driven into conditions leveling the result, and it is proposed to find a vanishing difference), or they can be significant, but in any case, this needs to be compared yourself, on different subjects and in different conditions, and then draw conclusions.

                Not according to the picture with the preview.
                Not by "paired" tests made by someone unknown.
                Not on the cards uploaded to flickr, people with random preparation and random tastes in processing.

                Something like this :)

              • Sergei

                2 Arkady Shapoval
                I just gave the banding as an example that nothing is perfect. I also don't think that in real practice you can stumble about it.

                With regards to the site. If it's not difficult for you, please do so that at the 6th level of comment branching you can reply to the commentator. And then you have to answer yourself with a link. You don't have to do a branch shift, just to be able to reply to a specific message.
                And also I do not receive notifications of replies, my mail is at mail.ru. If this is not intended and in your power to fix it, then please fix it. The last notification was in 2017, this year nothing comes, and there is no spam either. You can "burn" this comment after reading. Thanks!

              • Sergei

                2 Victor
                Obviously, there are just enough people who think that Canon is no longer cake in terms of color. Now it is clear.
                In fact, I would not start with minimal budgets. Mirror crop can be found even cheaper.
                Conclusions must, of course, be done by yourself, but not everyone has the opportunity to check all interesting cameras in all use cases. Having to apply prediction based on logic and common sense, researching technical tests and reviews on technology, starting from the limited experience of using available cameras.
                And the problem when comparing cameras is just the absence of these very other equals, they simply do not exist. If we compare, for example, FF Canon with FF Nikon, it is still quite simple, then when we take micru / crop, then it already has other disadvantages and other advantages. You just need to determine the list of scenes to be filmed and see if a particular set of equipment can provide high quality in these conditions.

                For example. We take Canon 5D and half a penny 1.8, we take some Olympus e-m10 mark 2 (relatively cheap camera) with a native “fifty kopeck piece” 25 1.8. If we want and can (the quality suits) take pictures on the open at the FF, then here the micros really have nothing to offer. But if we cover the FF (and the old glasses are not too working on open holes), say up to 2.8, then we can shoot without covering the micra at a lower ISO value with the same or slightly better color. Yes, DOF will be wider in the case of the micro, but this is not significant. Further, if our lighting falls and the scene is relatively static (a portrait, for example), and we were shooting at the limit, at ISO 3200 and 1600, respectively, in the first case we either take a flash, if the situation allows, or a tripod, or stop shooting. At Olympus, we can extend the pleasure by 3-4 steps at the same iso value. But here, too, there are moments like if the wind, then the hair and clothes of the model may blur, some will like this effect, some will not. But in general, a staged portrait can be shot at shutter speeds up to several seconds. Here, well, either use a flash too.
                Shooting a motion in the dark without a flash, I must say, not every FF will allow, this in itself is difficult. Well, in general, this is an example.

                Yes, modern lenses for FF BZK are good with an open aperture, but here the question of price and weight and dimensions already pops up. And the latter is not taken into account by many. I had a Nikon D7000, 16-85 3.5-5.6, 50 f1.4G and Sigma 10-20 4.5-something there, I don't remember already. This fit into one bag of Lowepro Event Messenger 150. With a creak, you could drive in something else narrow like Jupiter 37A.
                After moving to Olympus, I have an e-m1 mk3 carcass with 16 1.4, 30 1.4, a whale 12-50 3.5-6.3, a macro 60 2.8, a fisheye 7.5 3.5 and a telephoto 50-200 2.8 - into the same bag with the same weight. 3.5, and this is EGF 100-400, as it were. Moreover, the telephoto consumes about a third of the useful volume of the bag. Well, that is, more possibilities fit into a unit of volume.
                Yes, we can say that according to depth of field I have a maximum correspondence to aperture of 2.8 at FF for two focal lengths. But if a 24-70 2.8 fits into the same bag, then the 70-200 is most likely gone, not to mention the 400mm. And it will be noticeably harder. Of course you can use a backpack, yes, you can, but not everyone wants to.
                Actually, this is the essence of the pain of choice, that there is no clear advantage. If you need to make some landscape portraits in one frame in high resolution 36-100 megapixels - here without special options for FF and SF. But in the same subject in controlled lighting, Olympus can shoot HiRes at 50-80 megapixels. In the latest cameras, you can take 50-megapixel shots (assemblies of 8 frames) handheld, but this is not suitable for all scenes, because there will be artifacts on moving objects.
                If there is a need to pull the maximum of the range from one frame, then a 14-bit rav is also useful. But in ordinary life, these files are not required and take up kilotons of disk space if you want to save them, but that's another question.

                And so I don't understand why Mikra makes 20MP matrices. Most of its users do not need this. Here Panas rolled out a camera with a 10-megapixel matrix, which gave the user a larger working ISO and 14-bit raw, which seems to make sense.

              • Victor

                Sergey, I seem to have mentioned in the previous message that the depth of field is not the main thing, but you are again comparing ff at 2.8 and micra at open, they say it will be almost identical)))) Well, it won't.

                Firstly, with good light the picture will be "fatter", and with poor ff it starts to lose color and details with a noticeably higher ISO, and the resolution on the same lenses (I mean systems where crop and ff are present simultaneously) is much higher.
                From the crop, by the way, the micra has much less difference than between the crop and ff. Therefore, I can understand the change from q7000 to Olik and the pleasure of winning in size.

                Do it easier - buy 5d and half of the cheapest (it does not always hit, but sometimes it still hits :-)), they cost a penny now, and if suddenly "does not work" - sell for the same money, without losses.

                But - compare yourself.

                You see, the smaller the pixel size, the more you can see that the color becomes “strained”, overclocked. I personally took the 7100 after owning the d7100, and I want to say the difference is quite noticeable, and not in favor of the XNUMX.

              • Sergei

                2 Victor
                So I'm not telling you that the depth of field is the main thing. It's just that in that example I tried to bring the result to the maximum correspondence, although it was necessary to take 25 1.4 under the micro, but Olympus does not have such a native, there is only 1.2.

                It's just that all these epithets like “fatter”, “more voluminous”, etc. - all this cannot be objectively measured, therefore it is better not to use these terms. As in audio - juicy sound, vinyl, lamps ... But in fact, the point is different in general.
                Here is a bold picture - what's this? For some it is low contrast and softer transitions, for some it is moderately contrasting, for some it is an overcooked picture, some like it like in old print magazines - with a color shift due to chromatic aberrations of optics (but they are then they do not know about it). Well, it happens, you know, clouds in the sky are kind of convex, but the secret is that they have a colored border simply because of aberrations.

                Technically, this can be explained by the large area on which the light is collected. That is, if we have sensors of the same sensitivity, all other things being equal, the one with more area of ​​one point accumulates more information. This is important at high ISOs because in most cases, increasing iso is a blunt multiplication of that numerical value of photons from the matrix by a certain coefficient. But what matters is not the absolute value of these photons collected by the pixel, but the relative one. Therefore, pixels of a smaller area, even if they collect information, with an increase in iso (multiplication), the difference will be coarse, hence we have the fact that on the crop our color begins to degrade earlier than on the FF matrix, all other things being equal. What I showed by comparing micra 16mp and ff 16mp - the difference is a little more than 4 times (two stops). This disadvantage is partially compensated by the use of high-aperture optics, when we supply a larger luminous flux to the same cell of a smaller area. Well, that is, if we compare ff at the limiting iso and hole 5.6 and the micra at the limiting iso for it (2 stops lower than the FF) and glass with a hole 2.8 (2 stops lighter), the result should be comparable in terms of fat and all other things being equal ...
                But this is theoretically, this is not verified information. Just as your information about the fat content of the picture with FF has not been verified. And you and I have already decided everything for ourselves and no checks are needed. This comparison is necessary for those who are not yet in the subject.
                Of course, I will not buy a Canon, I took Nikon's 6D and D750 to play, not bad, but they are very bulky. If we ignore all the factors, I should have taken ZK Canon for the sake of super-wide-zoom, they have which I like, but it's too inconvenient in real life. Two systems, if one is the main, the second is lying, you have to think if the batteries are charged there, take or do not take with you, etc. Well, search at a flea market, buying, selling at a flea market, I don't want to waste time and contact people once again. And from fifty dollars I will definitely not get a buzz. Nikon and fifty dollars seem to be doing even better.
                And then the cheapest 1.8 kopeck piece from Canon - well, here it is, starting in an amicable way with f4, such a conclusion can be drawn from the reviews here on Radozhiv, however, from any others. This means the same 2 stops lower exposure and wider DOF. Yes, I will get fatter races there, but no tangible profit.
                The owner of that same 6D ended up using a Nikon D5500, a crop, yes. From motivation - a big heavy fool, but the picture is plus or minus the same. Well, apparently the color of Nikonov didn't bother him. If we take multi-megapixel FF cameras - there, in a 1: 1 scale, exactly the same hat is going on as on the crop.

              • Victor

                Sergey, and here you are again for some reason about depth of field, you calculate the equivalent, F2-F4…. :-)))

                Let's just say, as a result, I made conclusions for myself a long time ago, having reviewed a bunch of ravocs from the micro, filming a lot on crop, and came to the conclusion that the best option is to have two systems - a light crop / m43 with a travel fix-zoom (and only, collect two full-fledged systems make no sense), and the main, full-frame, heavy, but also high-quality, with the necessary set of optics. The best option (for me, again, in terms of the totality of parameters) is Nikon.

                You also made conclusions for yourself that the quality of m4 / 3 is quite enough (like that friend who escaped from 6d to d5xxx), well, everyone here, I hope, are adults and are able to make decisions on their own already)) And the choice of another important to respect, yes.

              • Victor

                To clarify, Nikon, of course, is a mirrorless one, since I do not find any special advantages for myself (!) In a mirrorless one at the moment, but there are disadvantages. Even if we close our eyes to the cost of the carcasses themselves (in today's realities this is normal), and to the need to get used to EVI, it is extremely unpleasant that Nikon cut AF-D support in his adapter.

  • Trueash

    Here's another review for anyone interested:
    https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9921022118/hands-on-olympus-150-400mm-f4-5-tc1-25x

  • Still

    Wah !!! ETOGES on Crop 2 you can shoot astro !! I'll go look for 7500))) No one has extra ones? ))

    • Sergei

      For astro, it is really better to take a telescope, you will get into kilobax-one and a half, most likely, it will be longer and lighter and the mount is still with auto-steering, which will be useful for astro photography anyway.

  • Still

    Nikons have a similar only lighter Nikon 400mm f / 2.8
    I saw pictures of him. I did not sleep at night)

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2020

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2020/11/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-150-400mm-4-5-tc-1-25x-is-pro/