This is continuation of last year's summary of my thoughts on a subject of a digital camera and its future.
First of all, I'm not writing about a camera I recently parted with, because I didn't. Even more, with holiday season coming I was on a lookout for something (GAS, you know...), but struggled to see an object that could be of a valuable addition and/or replacement to one of currently owned devices. So FZ1000 is definitely safe, with its versatility, more than satisfying image quality, very good handling and option for 4K. Then there is Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens: with its sharpness uniformity having no contender amongst other systems and lovely contrast, it makes the perfect day-to-day piece of glass. Atached to E-M1 body it balances well, and this camera was the first I managed to complain that it offers too many direct access buttons (to be fair, only after using the lever) and needs refreshment course in operation once not used for longer. Then there is E-PM2 - as good image quality as any other MFT body in as little as not many package, with equally diminutive Panasonic 45-150/4-5.6 complementing range of angles of view. Last, but not least, the beast: Nikkor VR 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 on Nikon V1 body.
So what happened? Quality of images produced by these cameras (except for V1), in typical conditions I photograph (outside, daylight, no rain) and typical output being WQHD (2560x1440) display or 1000px wide export for web is sufficient for me. Full stop. I occasionally find challenging conditions, but not often enough to justify foray into large sensor teritory. Operation of the cameras I own, even though not free from quirks, is also satisfying (Nikon excluded). In the current market climate there are not a lot of objects desirable enough to reach to the pocket.
What is currrent market in my opinion then? Most of all, progress in sensor sensitivity improvement slowed down, so new generations of cameras aren't much different than what they replace. Changes seem to be focused mainly on polishing operation ergonomics (which is great!), but that hardly justifies price tag coming with 'just released' being actually 'mild facelift'. But it definitely is great market for buyer, with cameras perfected in their n-th generation, and old-but-as-good-as-new models available for a fraction of price asked 2 years ago: E-M5, which still is a great piece of equipment (see reasons above), can be had new for £349. With new models inevitably coming, that pushes even greater pressure on the market, and soon its players will need to adjust. One already seemed to have found a solution: Sony uses its lead in sensor manufacturing as well as innovation in camera forms and capabilities and focuses on the upper end of price brackets. Canon and Nikon do their usual (not a lot). All the rest try to innovate, but the scale of sales is against them.
What might happen?
This is a speculation based on my observation of digital imaging devices market and my experience with some of those devices. I started editing this post come time ago, and so the opinions were evolving, rather than being a snapshot of the current state.
Again I'm going to divide into specific areas, and refer to the previous 'forecast'
4K - quite surprisingly, Ultra High Definition TV receivers seem to be selling well, so the gap created by the lack of content will help leverage adoption of 4K recording in digital cameras even more.
8K - wooah, not too fast? Maybe not - since 4K painfully paved way for the underlying technology, 8K actually isn't that far away. Its advantage is obvious : 8K=4*4K . Simples ;) But most of all Sony new 42Mpix sensor is exactly that: 7952 x 5304 easily cropped to 7680×4320. Easily downsampled to 4K. Or heavy cropped to 4K. Take your pick.
I hoped to see the end of megapixel war, and even though Canon had to breach 50M barrier, the main player seems to be more pragmatic: use as many sensels as it is really needed, and only so many so reading them fast is not more challenging that required. The slight bump in pixel count from current best 36Mpix (7380 x 4928 - just shy of 8K) over the same surface should be offset by using BSI structure.
C'mon, it was supposed to be about photography, wasn't it? Well, I feel this is where the biggest shift is going to happen: with 4K, and more so with 8K, having 24/30fps with so many details will cause traditional 'still' approach to be greatly reduced. With serious consequences.
Stabilisation - back in the stills domain for a moment, spatial resolution of the sensors became so high, that any minute movement causes image to be blurred at pixel level. To the extent that electronic first curtain shutter of Nikon D810 is the most notable upgrade of that model versus D800, and good enough reson for many to switch. Sony A7RII headline feature is 5-axis IBIS, greatly expanding its shooting envelope. With video good stabilisation is even more crucial, as with affordable readout methods pretty much limited to rolling shutter only (I'd love to see some clever mechanical video shutter one day, unless stacking methods finally enable global shutter for masses), so jello and all other forms of vibration are big enemies. With advent of drones and their gimbals, it seems obvious this technology will filter into recording devices. Or upscale from current mage stabilisation systems. And so the video will be still :)
Form - naturally digital still image camera grew on legacy of film, and so video recorders came from studio boxes. Yet nowadays they share the same key components, and their functionality overlaps more and more. Surely, many will remain as their specific specialized form suits well in many cases. But as still/video will blend, the form will ivevitably morph as well.
So let's talk about film SLR: it needs space for a roll of the film, space to expose it, space to collect it, a lever actuated with the right thumb to transport it and a hump housing a prism right on axis with the lens.
Now let's talk about digital mirrorless camera: it doesn't need space for the roll of the film to the left of the lens, it doesn't have to use vertical form of grip because thumb is relieved from duty and neither EVF needs to sit right above the lens (luckily in this case designers can peek at rangefinders and place it in the top left corner of the body). The point is, as much as retro is visually attractive (by being reminiscent?), it actually acts against the ergonomics of a camera: if holding it is as unnatural as a smartphone when taking a photo, isn't that another point against having dedicated device? Cameras keep downsizing, there is less and less room for fingers of the right hand to hold on to, yet the lens does not shift to the left to regain some space. No, there must be 'traditional' chunk of chassis which whole purpose is to cut into left palm supporting the lens. And of course there must be no good grip: cameras 20 years ago didn't have one, so why would you want such comfort today? As much as I can understand that approach for pocketable models with fully collapsible lenses, in case of bodies with interchangeable lenses it is obvious that the glass this is going to be the most protruding part of the combination, so adding decent grip will not make the eventual setup any thicker! And that grip can house bigger battery, more controls or whatever sits to the left from the lens.
Traditional form is terrible when it comes to space: its T shape means that most of the volume of a box around is wasted. Also weight distribution (biased to the left and front - where the lens is) causes handling issues and contributes to blur at exposure (shutter press movement, lens front drop).
Alternatives? Handycam-like: weight supported by lying on the thumb, rather than squeezed, better weight distribution (mostly front-back balance), possible to hold with both hands and use EVF, more useful surface for controls, more efficient use of volume (lighter and smaller device).
Some experiments in that field can already be seen (Canon XC10)
Modularity - in some respects extension of the form. Once controls and preview are detached, by using external modules (smartphone, field monitor, VR headset maybe) then only a box housing sensor, storage, battery and electronics is needed. Potenitally can be wrapped into adaptor with viefinder/controls to become more traditional device if required. Or attached to some handy gimbal. Still to gain traction, but some devices already popping up (Blackmagic, DJI Zenmuse X5, DxO One)
External controls - There was no breakthrough in that field over the last year. There is however one thing I would be happy to change my opinion about: focus point selection method. I suggested a solution that would improve manual focus point selection, as use of 4-way controller is not an optimal method. But seeing excitement about capabities of autofocus of new Sony cameras, I'm happy to vote for this road of improvement. After all, purpose of automation is to speed things up and make more reliable at the same time. If AF can select the right subject as fast (or faster) than fidling with D-pad, and on top of that track it - I'm in. Moreover, it does not require any new fancy controls I suggested (4-way around shutter button, next to lens, on the lens?) and still allows for manual selection, should a photographer or conditions require that. By extension, this can be, and is, applied to many other settings. So my viewpoint now is: why some of those controls are still required, and the unfortunate answer is: because automatic setings are often rubbish. So I'm looking forward to reduce number of buttons by improving functions of intestines.
Internal controls - IoT seems to be the buzzword of today, chips in mobile phones gain more procesing power that supercomputers in XX century, their software reacts on touch, voice, shake and location of the device. And then there is ringfanced world of cameras, where tethering is big halo, redefining function of a button impossible, menus crippled by ergonomic idiots (they can be ridiculous)/sadists (they infuriate users)/psychos (one must be out of mind to complicate simple things so much). It is not all doom and gloom though: Panasonic figured out yet another use of 4K video, employing it into post-focus function. Similarly, Olympus managed to add in-camera focus stacking to their products. The list of missing features is still long: as much as I love the idea of OLED depth of focus display on Zeiss Batis lenses, I cannot quite figure out why none of the cameras offer such function on their displays.
So what is going to happen to digital cameras? In short term major driving forces seems to be:
- rolling of backside illumination process across all formats. That will reduce influence of sensor size to total light collecting area (low light sensitivity) versus required/achievable depth of field
- increase in sensel count to 4K/8K, increase in readout speed
- increase in processing capabilities
- progress in lens manufacturing: complex aspherical surfaces and use of Fresnel lens being already used. Shape tuning ('liquid lenses'), metasurfaces, computational optics wait round the corner
On a subject of the sensor format, 1" type (13.2x8.8 mm) and full frame (36x24mm) seem to be defining types. The former is significantly more capable than imaging devices in phones and compact cameras, still allowing for miniature (pocketable) devices. The latter, being of size of traditional film frame, making it natural reference. Micro Four Thirds (17.3x13mm) advantages are proportions (4:3) and fact of using common lens mount by more than one manufacturer. APS-C: With pressure from 1" from the bottom and full frame from above, it is endangered. On the other hand this is 'native' video format, so 4K/8K should boost its importance. It seems to be the most popular, but also the most fragmented format, and there will be some victims. I would love to see some steps to avoid that, like Samsung switching to Fuji X mount - imagine 4K video (no luck with Fuji body) with those lovely primes.
Back to Earth to see what changes could happen in my camera bag:
- Nikon V1 - first on the relegation list. Recently introduced Nikon J5 is what V1 should have been and is on the list as a potential target. Unless V4 with newly announced Sony sensor will smash in.
- Nikkor 70-300 VR - there is a patent for Fresnel version, which should make it even lighter. I doubt it shows any time soon, and this being a great lens, little reason to think about switching, except... announcement of PanaLeica 100-400.
- M.Zuiko 12-40 - fantastic lens, nothing comparable seen so far, definite keeper.
- Olympus E-M1 - new sensor and EVF will surely make way to MkII, but will it be enough to upgrade? Not any time soon. New firmware version brings more reasons to keep it.
- Olympus E-PM2 - I love its size, especially considering the potential. Permanently mounted Panasonic 45-150 lens is so-so, but I like the way it renders (warm colours, significant falloff) and do not use this range so often to be a problem. M.Zuiko 40-150/2.8 too large and expensive for my limited use.
- Panasonic FZ1000 - 1. use new Sony sensor, 2. add touch screen, 3. improve EVF (especially optics), 4. fit bigger battery, 5. reduce lens to 300mm reach: that will make it smaller and lighter overall, of smaller diameter and less unbalanced (better handling), 6. add more video pre-set capabilities. Sony RX10II will be in troble as its 1st version.
2015/10/06
2015/07/28
Small apple and big orange: Panasonic 45-150mm f/4-5.6 vs Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8
Traditional wisdom suggests to compare apples to apples, and so there are many comparisons, and many more opinions, about which of the two telephoto zoom lenses of both MicroFourThirds (MFT) manufacturers is better: Panasonic 45-150 mm f/4-5.6 or Olympus 40-150 mm f/4-5.6
I happen to use Panasonic lens on Olympus body (E-PM2), and that makes the great mid-range zoom combo, possibly the best in image quality per size/price. I do not complain neither handling of the camera (with this lens it is acceptable) nor the lens itself (heavy vigneting, red-ish color cast), as the range between 100mm - 200mm focal lengths (in 35mm terms) seems to be the least popular for me, and for the wide angle and supertele I have more appropriate tools.
Nevertheless, this lack of popularity might be coming from subconcious feeling not to compose it that range due to inferior output. Because of this lack of importance to improve in telephoto department as well as a bit prohibitive price and most of all the size of Olympus 40-150 mm f/2.8, I've always been lukewarm towards that piece of glass. However when I learnt about Olympus TEST & WOW offer, I was ready for the challenge.
Usually reviews are focused on picking the one from a bunch of comparable products. Challenging results produced by two so different lenses is a different matter: to figure out if an upgrade is worthy. That aspect seems to be missing, so I hope to help folks in similar situation.
Let's start with the most important difference: Oly offers 1 stop more at the short end, and 2EV more light when at the maximum reach. That is a lot of a difference: in case of achievable shallow depth of field and most of all in terms of light collecting ability. That may make a difference between acceptable image and no image. That is the reason it bears 'PRO' badge - it gives greater confidence in succeeding with an assignment. On top of that it is splash, dust and freezeproof, comes with tripod foot and retractable hood. The hood is lovely - it takes no time to extend it, folding for transport is immediate too. The foot is not so lovely: it is built like a tank, but with the lens being front heavy it painfully reminds (if the load of the neck wasn't enough) on the chest what optics is currently attached. It is secured with a nut, and that is located exactly where a palm of left hand supporting the lens is - rubbish (Olympus seems to have devious tradition of locating elements - like neck strap eyelets - so they poke your hand). When loosened, the foot can be spun around the lens, but apart from painted dots helping to align it, there are no detents setting the position at the quadrants of the collar. The foot can be completely removed (turn it to the 'upside down' position and pull towards the lens mount), but then it exposes four small screws - I suspect they are for foot guiding only, but in case they do set optics element I'd rather not touch them. Also without the foot the barrel looks a bit naked - some masking plastic ring would be a nice addition to the kit. Removing saves however quite substantial 121 g of total weight.
Let's finish with the most obvious difference: it is large (in MFT terms). I used to have Panasonic 100-300 mm, but 40-150 mm f/2.8 is in another league. Saying that, its metal build is of very good quality, with hefty feel reassuring that this lens is going last. It does not extend when changing focal length. That for sure helps with sealing agains elements, and explains its length.
A bunch of numbers:
Test procedure
Tripod loaded with a dumbell for extra stability, located indoors, test camera (Olympus OMD E-M1 firmware v3.0) set to ISO200, IS off, single shotwith 0s anti-shock, external cable remote, AF single. Raw images imported to Lightroom 5.7.1 with no settings applied (other than under-the-bonnet lens profiles and default 25/1/25 sharpening. Since all the images come from the same camera, whatever happens here does not matter too much anyway, as the lenses are the only variables). The best of 3 images made at each focal/aperture setting taken for analysis. Pictures exported to jpeg at 90% quality, sharpening to screen - normal. Crops for
side-by-side comparison saved in IrfanView as jpeg at 90%
(different percents than LR) quality. I have no intention nor tools to
produce absolute numbers, just naked eye to subjectively judge which from a
pair of images looks sharper. Taking advantage of the setup, some other lenses occasionally get added to the mix, to see how they cope in such noble party.
40mm
With guest appearance of Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 . Distance to target about 20m, focus (centre point) on the sign. For edge sharpness, focused with rightmost point. That will show the best case scenario, as when focused in the centre, the side will likely be offset (field curvature), although at these depths of field the effect should be negligeble. Click on the images - unless you can already see differences :)
Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 is a bit wider at the long end that 40-150 f/2.8 at its wide setting, so there is some overlap in the system. Both lenses are compromised, being at the end of their ranges, but 12-40 seem to be affected more, showing clearly worse macro- and microcontrast in the centre part. This lens shows some colour fringing evan at f/4, whereas 40-150 seem to be free from chromatic aberration, even wide open. When looking at the side, situation is different: 12-40 is pretty much equally sharp as in the centre (except for soft f/2.8), but 40-150 now loses at each setting, with delicate purple edges at f/2.8 and f/4. So having both lenses Olymous gives a choice: moderate, but uniform sharpness of 12-40 or excellent centre paid for by worse sides in case of 40-150. Light falloff in 12-40 disappears gradually all the way till f/8, in 40-150 is gone by f/4
45mm
Here Olympus 45 f/1.8 joins the party and the real battle between Olympus and Panasonic begins.
Let's start with the lonely prime: at the centre it starts very soft (and at f/1.8 it is much worse!), but at f/5.6 the macrocontrast seem to be in the region of 40-150. Microcontrast is worse though. Panasonic 45-150 starts at f/4 like 45 f/1.8 stopped down to f/2.8 (bar purple fringing) and stays there. 40-150 f/2.8 nice and crisp, until diffraction starts affecting at f/8.
At the side, the story of 45/1.8 repeats: very soft at f/2.8, acceptable (sharper than 45-150 in the cente) when closed more. Since it was designed to be an affordable portrait lens, where out of center area being of poor contrast is actually an advantage (adds to diffraction induced backround blur), that is even better than expected. It is actually as good as 40-150/2.8, this one winning only at f/2.8, but also showing some traces of chromatic aberration. Surprising winner here - even if not a lot - is Panasonic! It also means that at this focal lenth its sharpness profile has got a 'mustache' shape, with peaks towards the sides, what explains worse centre.
75mm
At this setting centre only: side for 40-150 mm f/2.8 got missed. Olympus wins hands down, except at f/8, or rather at exposure time of about 1/125s, where the images are clearly blurred, and it seems only in vertical direction. It looks like this is the poltergeist of modern cameras: shutter shock. Leading shutter curtain induces vibrations when it stops at the end of travel. Always! Only for short exposure times the effect is negligeble, as exposure is short enough to avoid moment of significant movement, and for long exposure, the time of shake is small comparing to the total exposed time. So there is a specific range of exposure times, where the whole magnitude is captured. Specific, as it depends on the lens attached: its weight (and its distribution) affects resonance frequency, focal length translates the offset proportionally (like in normal camera shake). If you're interested in the topic, read the excellent piece by Jim Kasson. To avoid that, new cameras are equipped with electronic first curtain (no blade travel, no shock created) in case of OMD E-M1 described as 0s delay. I swear I enabled it, but clearly that was not the case - thus it is crossed over in the description above. Anyway, 1/125s is barely the recommended exposure time for 300mm (equivalent) focal length (although IBIS or tripod do not render it totally useless)
100mm
Olympus again much better than Panasonic. At this setting the latter starts at f/5.5, so there are already full 2 stops of relative aperture difference. In both cases the side is as good as the centre. Olympus is well shaken at f/8 and 1/125 s in the centre, but even with this handicap it manages to makes it pretty equal as Panasonic without such issue - that is the amount of 'natural' blur in the cheaper lens. The side of Olympus at f/8 is even more affected, exposure time was 1/100 s.
150mm
Olympus leads significantly unless limited by vibrations, Panasonic again seems to be slightly sharper towards the edge than in the centre
Let's see what happens when the distance increases:
At 45 mm setting Olympus leads visibly at f/4, and the closer to centre the better. At f/5.6 Panasonic pulls forward, with centre matching Oly, but edges being better.
At 100 mm setting pictures from Panasonic look like those made with bigger lens through a delicate fog: contrasty edges look similar, but fine detail is blurred.
At full stretch there is not much of a difference: fine detail is lost due to air quality (heatwaves). That is one of the limitations of far distance photography which one needs to bear in mind before splashing $$$ for the greatest kit, which will be handicapped anyway.
On the second day I repeated some of the tests, this time making sure that anti-shock setting is on. Also included other cameras from my zoo to see what tricks they can make in presence of the Oly beast. Because of that reason images were downsampled to match Nikon 1 V1 long edge, which coincidentally also equals dimension of 4K display width - likely medium of presentation of the pictures in the forseeable future. This time focal length is quoted in full frame equivalent values!
150mm (equivalent: 75 mm for 4/3" sensor, 58 mm for 1")
At f/4 FZ1000 not far from Olympus 40-150 mm f/2.8, and at f5.6 I'd call it a draw: brute force of 20 Mpix does the trick. Setting of f/8 is the best for Panasonic 40-150 mm, Olympus suffers shock, and FZ1000 feels the fate of diffraction. FZ1000 metering system seemed to have protected highlights, thus shorter exposure resulting in darker images.
200mm (equivalent: 100 mm for 4/3" sensor, 74mm for 1")
Not a lot of difference in setting and no difference in results. The 4th set: Nikon V1 with 70-300 CX started off very well, even though handicapped by the lowest number of photosites on the sensor.
300mm (equivalent: 150 mm for 4/3" sensor, 112mm for 1")
FZ1000 starts to soften and lags behind, all 3 other setups head to head. Interestingly, 40-150 mm f/2.8 gets soft quickly when stopping from f/5.6 to f/8, even though this time there is no visible shake, and 0s delay was definitely on! Can there be another source of vibration at around 1/100 s exposure time? The other curiosity is Panasonic 45-150: this time it is not that much worse, unlike when tested the day before. Is it after all also affected by vibrations, just of different frequency/magnitude?
420mm (equivalent: 210 mm for 4/3" sensor, 155mm for 1")
FZ1000 just about stretches (its range finishes at 400mm), but the winner this time is Nikon 1 duo. How did Olympus lens lose, and how did it even reach that far? The answer is in its teleconverter. By adding 15mm of thickness it multiplies focal lenght by factor 1.4x. No free lunch though: maximal aperture is reduced to f/4, image clearly suffers and it is quite chunky piece of glass and metal, adding another 118g (with caps). Because of its construction it cannot be used with any other MFT lens (it engages into the back of 40-150 mm f/2.8)
Focusing
The sharpest lens will be less useful if cannot acquire focus fast enough. That is what traps Panasonic 100-300 for example. Because of good light conditions, single focus was instant in both cases. I did some unscientific comparison of continuous AF as well, aiming fot the passing cas on a motorway. in both cases the result was identical: after about 1s of hesitation, from the moment the camera locked on the targer the whole series was in focus. It was actually a bit easier to track with Panasonic lens attached, because blackout of EVF felt shorter. I suspect it was due to slightly lower framerate achievable with that lens (= longer preview time).
Closing thoughts
At the end of two days with Olympus PRO 40-150 mm f/2.8 I have got mixed feelings. The lens is quite remarkable and thus it is not easy to judge it. It seems like it was designed as a non-compromise optics offering fast aperture and possibly uniform sharpness across the frame. The question is though why would one need both at the same time? Short end covers typical portrait focal lenth, but if one is interested in that, then there is a selection of dedicated ~ 45mm primes by both Olympus and Panasonic (Leica), offering even shallower depth of field, much lighter and cheaper. At this end 40-150 mm f/2.8 isn't uniformity champion neither. The long end is likely to be futher cropped, so the corners aren't that critical. All purposes I can imagine then are some sport activities (or moving subjects in general), but not sure if E-M1 is the best choice when it comes to continuous autofocus. Taking into account price and weight, 40-150 mm f/2.8 seems to be in the same league as 70-200 mm f/4 lenses on APS-C cameras, which in many cases may offer better performance per size/weight/price ratio. Subject separation is also easier to achieve in larger sensor systems to begin with, so the lens brightness in respect to shutter speed seem to be the only consideraton. Within MFT camp, Panasonic offers its 35-100 mm f/2.8 at two thirds of price and less than half of weight. Especially if one is already equipped in something covering focal length above 100 mm (like Panasonic 100-300 mm f/4-5.6, or recently announced Panasonic 100-400 mm), the range of up to 150 mm offered by Olympus is less of the advantage (unless, of course, f/2.8 aperture is a must). In that case included teleconverter also becomes completely obsolete (not that is of much use anyway). The other option to fill the gap in the 45-100 mm range, is to take primes route: to complement 45 mm f/1.8 (or 2 available Panasonic lenses) with Sigma 60 mm f/2.8 (also available Olympus Macro 60 mm f/2.8) and Olympus 75 mm f/1.8. Lower total purchase price and weight, versus flexibility of zoom lens.
Overall the unique selling point of Olympus PRO 40-150 mm f/2.8 seems to be short achievable exposure times in wide focal range (4x zoom) lens with very good image quality, consistent across the frame. That makes the neck heavy and the wallet light though.
How did the Panasonic do? You get what you pay for: at £130 (what I paid, split kit) I have nearly pocketable solution, which with E-PM2 does not take too much space and weight in my bag, yet provides always-at-hand telephoto tool and a backup body. Olympus PRO glass would cost me about 10 times more and put an extra kilogram into the bag. With results comparable to Panasonic at short end, challenged by Nikon 1 from 200 mm (35mm equivalent) onwards and not many reasons to use f/2.8 it definitely wasn't a keeper.
I happen to use Panasonic lens on Olympus body (E-PM2), and that makes the great mid-range zoom combo, possibly the best in image quality per size/price. I do not complain neither handling of the camera (with this lens it is acceptable) nor the lens itself (heavy vigneting, red-ish color cast), as the range between 100mm - 200mm focal lengths (in 35mm terms) seems to be the least popular for me, and for the wide angle and supertele I have more appropriate tools.
Nevertheless, this lack of popularity might be coming from subconcious feeling not to compose it that range due to inferior output. Because of this lack of importance to improve in telephoto department as well as a bit prohibitive price and most of all the size of Olympus 40-150 mm f/2.8, I've always been lukewarm towards that piece of glass. However when I learnt about Olympus TEST & WOW offer, I was ready for the challenge.
Usually reviews are focused on picking the one from a bunch of comparable products. Challenging results produced by two so different lenses is a different matter: to figure out if an upgrade is worthy. That aspect seems to be missing, so I hope to help folks in similar situation.
Let's start with the most important difference: Oly offers 1 stop more at the short end, and 2EV more light when at the maximum reach. That is a lot of a difference: in case of achievable shallow depth of field and most of all in terms of light collecting ability. That may make a difference between acceptable image and no image. That is the reason it bears 'PRO' badge - it gives greater confidence in succeeding with an assignment. On top of that it is splash, dust and freezeproof, comes with tripod foot and retractable hood. The hood is lovely - it takes no time to extend it, folding for transport is immediate too. The foot is not so lovely: it is built like a tank, but with the lens being front heavy it painfully reminds (if the load of the neck wasn't enough) on the chest what optics is currently attached. It is secured with a nut, and that is located exactly where a palm of left hand supporting the lens is - rubbish (Olympus seems to have devious tradition of locating elements - like neck strap eyelets - so they poke your hand). When loosened, the foot can be spun around the lens, but apart from painted dots helping to align it, there are no detents setting the position at the quadrants of the collar. The foot can be completely removed (turn it to the 'upside down' position and pull towards the lens mount), but then it exposes four small screws - I suspect they are for foot guiding only, but in case they do set optics element I'd rather not touch them. Also without the foot the barrel looks a bit naked - some masking plastic ring would be a nice addition to the kit. Removing saves however quite substantial 121 g of total weight.
Let's finish with the most obvious difference: it is large (in MFT terms). I used to have Panasonic 100-300 mm, but 40-150 mm f/2.8 is in another league. Saying that, its metal build is of very good quality, with hefty feel reassuring that this lens is going last. It does not extend when changing focal length. That for sure helps with sealing agains elements, and explains its length.
A bunch of numbers:
Panasonic
45-150 mm f/4-5.6
|
Olympus
40-150 mm f/2.8
|
|
Length without hood
|
73 mm
|
158mm
|
Length with hood
|
105 mm
|
220 mm
|
Length with hood @150mm
|
143 mm
|
220 mm
|
diameter (hood)
|
70 mm
|
95 mm (105 top to foot distance)
|
filter diameter
|
52 mm
|
72 mm
|
weight (lens only)
|
198 g
|
877 g
|
weight (with front cap)
|
210 g
|
902 g
|
weight (with hood, no cap)
|
220 g
|
1004 g
|
Test procedure
Tripod loaded with a dumbell for extra stability, located indoors, test camera (Olympus OMD E-M1 firmware v3.0) set to ISO200, IS off, single shot
40mm
With guest appearance of Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 . Distance to target about 20m, focus (centre point) on the sign. For edge sharpness, focused with rightmost point. That will show the best case scenario, as when focused in the centre, the side will likely be offset (field curvature), although at these depths of field the effect should be negligeble. Click on the images - unless you can already see differences :)
Centre Side
45mm
Here Olympus 45 f/1.8 joins the party and the real battle between Olympus and Panasonic begins.
Centre Side
Let's start with the lonely prime: at the centre it starts very soft (and at f/1.8 it is much worse!), but at f/5.6 the macrocontrast seem to be in the region of 40-150. Microcontrast is worse though. Panasonic 45-150 starts at f/4 like 45 f/1.8 stopped down to f/2.8 (bar purple fringing) and stays there. 40-150 f/2.8 nice and crisp, until diffraction starts affecting at f/8.
At the side, the story of 45/1.8 repeats: very soft at f/2.8, acceptable (sharper than 45-150 in the cente) when closed more. Since it was designed to be an affordable portrait lens, where out of center area being of poor contrast is actually an advantage (adds to diffraction induced backround blur), that is even better than expected. It is actually as good as 40-150/2.8, this one winning only at f/2.8, but also showing some traces of chromatic aberration. Surprising winner here - even if not a lot - is Panasonic! It also means that at this focal lenth its sharpness profile has got a 'mustache' shape, with peaks towards the sides, what explains worse centre.
75mm
At this setting centre only: side for 40-150 mm f/2.8 got missed. Olympus wins hands down, except at f/8, or rather at exposure time of about 1/125s, where the images are clearly blurred, and it seems only in vertical direction. It looks like this is the poltergeist of modern cameras: shutter shock. Leading shutter curtain induces vibrations when it stops at the end of travel. Always! Only for short exposure times the effect is negligeble, as exposure is short enough to avoid moment of significant movement, and for long exposure, the time of shake is small comparing to the total exposed time. So there is a specific range of exposure times, where the whole magnitude is captured. Specific, as it depends on the lens attached: its weight (and its distribution) affects resonance frequency, focal length translates the offset proportionally (like in normal camera shake). If you're interested in the topic, read the excellent piece by Jim Kasson. To avoid that, new cameras are equipped with electronic first curtain (no blade travel, no shock created) in case of OMD E-M1 described as 0s delay. I swear I enabled it, but clearly that was not the case - thus it is crossed over in the description above. Anyway, 1/125s is barely the recommended exposure time for 300mm (equivalent) focal length (although IBIS or tripod do not render it totally useless)
100mm
Centre Side
Olympus again much better than Panasonic. At this setting the latter starts at f/5.5, so there are already full 2 stops of relative aperture difference. In both cases the side is as good as the centre. Olympus is well shaken at f/8 and 1/125 s in the centre, but even with this handicap it manages to makes it pretty equal as Panasonic without such issue - that is the amount of 'natural' blur in the cheaper lens. The side of Olympus at f/8 is even more affected, exposure time was 1/100 s.
150mm
Centre Side
Olympus leads significantly unless limited by vibrations, Panasonic again seems to be slightly sharper towards the edge than in the centre
Let's see what happens when the distance increases:
At 45 mm setting Olympus leads visibly at f/4, and the closer to centre the better. At f/5.6 Panasonic pulls forward, with centre matching Oly, but edges being better.
At 100 mm setting pictures from Panasonic look like those made with bigger lens through a delicate fog: contrasty edges look similar, but fine detail is blurred.
At full stretch there is not much of a difference: fine detail is lost due to air quality (heatwaves). That is one of the limitations of far distance photography which one needs to bear in mind before splashing $$$ for the greatest kit, which will be handicapped anyway.
On the second day I repeated some of the tests, this time making sure that anti-shock setting is on. Also included other cameras from my zoo to see what tricks they can make in presence of the Oly beast. Because of that reason images were downsampled to match Nikon 1 V1 long edge, which coincidentally also equals dimension of 4K display width - likely medium of presentation of the pictures in the forseeable future. This time focal length is quoted in full frame equivalent values!
150mm (equivalent: 75 mm for 4/3" sensor, 58 mm for 1")
At f/4 FZ1000 not far from Olympus 40-150 mm f/2.8, and at f5.6 I'd call it a draw: brute force of 20 Mpix does the trick. Setting of f/8 is the best for Panasonic 40-150 mm, Olympus suffers shock, and FZ1000 feels the fate of diffraction. FZ1000 metering system seemed to have protected highlights, thus shorter exposure resulting in darker images.
200mm (equivalent: 100 mm for 4/3" sensor, 74mm for 1")
Not a lot of difference in setting and no difference in results. The 4th set: Nikon V1 with 70-300 CX started off very well, even though handicapped by the lowest number of photosites on the sensor.
300mm (equivalent: 150 mm for 4/3" sensor, 112mm for 1")
420mm (equivalent: 210 mm for 4/3" sensor, 155mm for 1")
Focusing
The sharpest lens will be less useful if cannot acquire focus fast enough. That is what traps Panasonic 100-300 for example. Because of good light conditions, single focus was instant in both cases. I did some unscientific comparison of continuous AF as well, aiming fot the passing cas on a motorway. in both cases the result was identical: after about 1s of hesitation, from the moment the camera locked on the targer the whole series was in focus. It was actually a bit easier to track with Panasonic lens attached, because blackout of EVF felt shorter. I suspect it was due to slightly lower framerate achievable with that lens (= longer preview time).
Closing thoughts
At the end of two days with Olympus PRO 40-150 mm f/2.8 I have got mixed feelings. The lens is quite remarkable and thus it is not easy to judge it. It seems like it was designed as a non-compromise optics offering fast aperture and possibly uniform sharpness across the frame. The question is though why would one need both at the same time? Short end covers typical portrait focal lenth, but if one is interested in that, then there is a selection of dedicated ~ 45mm primes by both Olympus and Panasonic (Leica), offering even shallower depth of field, much lighter and cheaper. At this end 40-150 mm f/2.8 isn't uniformity champion neither. The long end is likely to be futher cropped, so the corners aren't that critical. All purposes I can imagine then are some sport activities (or moving subjects in general), but not sure if E-M1 is the best choice when it comes to continuous autofocus. Taking into account price and weight, 40-150 mm f/2.8 seems to be in the same league as 70-200 mm f/4 lenses on APS-C cameras, which in many cases may offer better performance per size/weight/price ratio. Subject separation is also easier to achieve in larger sensor systems to begin with, so the lens brightness in respect to shutter speed seem to be the only consideraton. Within MFT camp, Panasonic offers its 35-100 mm f/2.8 at two thirds of price and less than half of weight. Especially if one is already equipped in something covering focal length above 100 mm (like Panasonic 100-300 mm f/4-5.6, or recently announced Panasonic 100-400 mm), the range of up to 150 mm offered by Olympus is less of the advantage (unless, of course, f/2.8 aperture is a must). In that case included teleconverter also becomes completely obsolete (not that is of much use anyway). The other option to fill the gap in the 45-100 mm range, is to take primes route: to complement 45 mm f/1.8 (or 2 available Panasonic lenses) with Sigma 60 mm f/2.8 (also available Olympus Macro 60 mm f/2.8) and Olympus 75 mm f/1.8. Lower total purchase price and weight, versus flexibility of zoom lens.
Overall the unique selling point of Olympus PRO 40-150 mm f/2.8 seems to be short achievable exposure times in wide focal range (4x zoom) lens with very good image quality, consistent across the frame. That makes the neck heavy and the wallet light though.
How did the Panasonic do? You get what you pay for: at £130 (what I paid, split kit) I have nearly pocketable solution, which with E-PM2 does not take too much space and weight in my bag, yet provides always-at-hand telephoto tool and a backup body. Olympus PRO glass would cost me about 10 times more and put an extra kilogram into the bag. With results comparable to Panasonic at short end, challenged by Nikon 1 from 200 mm (35mm equivalent) onwards and not many reasons to use f/2.8 it definitely wasn't a keeper.
2015/07/27
2015.07.25 Dorchester - Hardy Monument bicycle trip
Our exploration of southern coastline of Britain took us to Weymouth. Since spending all day there seemed too challenging, we started off with a bicycle trip from Dorchester to Hardy Monument and back making a loop. The trip was inspired by this route, we modified it by following National Route 2 all the way from Dorchester and doing last two climbs on foot. We used an excellent map found here.
Bicycles were rented from Dorchester Cycles.
The climbs were challenging, but the views were fantastic and the descent from Portesham just lovely - virtually no pedalling needed. See the tracklog of our journey.
Bicycles were rented from Dorchester Cycles.
The climbs were challenging, but the views were fantastic and the descent from Portesham just lovely - virtually no pedalling needed. See the tracklog of our journey.
2015/06/15
How to avoid Google Photos interface and access good old Picasa Web Albums
Recently Google introduced new service: Google Photos. All existing images stored within Google account moved into that service. I appreciate that drift towards mobile devices is inevitable, so the layout is simplified and all the options are only available after several clicks (that is 'responsive' website design accordingly to Google - as long as you use touch interface...), especially that some new cool features were added. Unfortunatelly some not very cool, but plainly necessary features seemed to disappear as well. How to set album cover in Google Photos? How to change image date in Google Photos? How to... Well, it seems the questions now need to be rephrased and start with 'Why can't I'
Luckily, there is still a backdoor to the old interface: when logged into your Google account, just follow Picasa Web Albums link, and it redirects to your album, with existing functionality. Changes applied there are visible in Google Photos interface. I'm not sure how long for that will be active, hopefully new service will be polished by then making hacks obsolete.
Luckily, there is still a backdoor to the old interface: when logged into your Google account, just follow Picasa Web Albums link, and it redirects to your album, with existing functionality. Changes applied there are visible in Google Photos interface. I'm not sure how long for that will be active, hopefully new service will be polished by then making hacks obsolete.
2015/06/14
Copenhagen 2015.05.29 - 06.01
Unusually this time instead of travelling south (the hotter - the better /for some/) we moved up north and landed in Copenhagen.
Preparation for the trip started very well, with return flights booked for under £100 for 3 people. The grin on the face disapperaed when it came to booking hotels. Especially it wasn't a weekend break, but a 5-day visit...
In the end we found hostel Belægningen - for us it was great, half price of the hotel down town, shared kitchen being an advantage (one can heat milk or even prepare meals), bathroom - or actually wetroom - manageable with proper use of a squeegee (provided), and most of all a bunk bed, climbed by happy boy at least 100 times on the first day :) It's got not a bad connection with the city centre, within 45 minutes: 1A bus every 15 minutes after 3 minutes walk; S-tog every 10 minutes after 15 minutes walk, passing the shops on the way.
Another clever thing was to equip with Copenhagen Card - especially since we stayed 5 days and used bus/S-tog on daily basis, 120h version felt a good deal overall.
On day 1 we arrived at midday, used Metro to get to the Copengahen H (central station), which involved a change - one will be better off using a train. We put the bags into locker (right next to S-tog platforms, large locker fits 1 child or 3 bags - depending which is more of a trouble ;) - for DKK60.
We went along the main promenade, popped in to a local kebab shop for a lunch and left amount that usually funds a decent dinner. In the meantime the weather became as bad as in the forecast, so rather than having a boat trip, we hid in the National Museum. Since I'm not a museum man, the two things I remembered were that most of the exhibits were luckily preserved as found in a bog, and that Danish Vikings were actually not that bad :) As the sky did not clear by the time we learnt all about Danish history, we called it a day.
Morning of day 2 was much better, so we decided to take advantage and have the boat trip. As Copnehagen lies on the water that is actually more practical (and pleasant) than an open top bus (not included in the Copenhagen Card anyway).
Tracklog of the cruise
From the boat we went towards Christianshaven. We climbed the Vor Frelsers Kirke (quite a challenge) and were rewarded with fantastic bird view panoramas of Copenhagen.
Then we walked along the borders of Christiania, but we did not feel it was the right vibe, and didn't explore it further. We finished off sightseeing by walking across the town via Nyhavn to the Little Mermaid.
Day 3 was purely joy (for some). In the morning we went to the Experimentarium. It can be fun indeed, but many of the tasks rely on understanding physics, or explaining it, so children below 10 and those scientifically challanged may not enjoy it a lot. Afternoon was spent at Tivoli Gardens - avoid the place, it will empty your pocket and make your head spin - unless you love this sort of fun!
On day 4 we travelled outside the city: first to the Open air Museum of traditional Danish architecture. Then we carried on S-tog line A to the last stop, and boarded the ferry on the lake around the Frederiksborg Castle, with a walk along the bank of the lake (quicker than the ferry - just) on the way back.
Last day was filled with final walk along the promenade, visit to the Lego store and Den Blå Planet - the national aquarium. Coveniently located right next to the airport, we spent good time watching both ugly and colorful submarine creatures (we found Nemo!), and had a tasty lunch before returning.
Copenhagen is a beautiful city - one can see the wealth of an old sea port in the buildings along the roads. Layout, facades, and then detail - at every level it is pleasure to watch. There are many modern buildings as well, and I think purely because of their number it actually feels natural that they fill the gaps in 'traditionally' looking architecture. In the end they are traditional modern orgy of weird geometry covered in glass though...
What I do like is the fact that old, disused buildings aren't demolished, but rather turned into flats, offices, storage, or any other purpose (like our hostel!), but at least externally their history continues. Extra effort for sure, but it is noticable and much appreciated.
Copenhagen will be remembered for surprisingly wide S-tog trains, number of bicycles and their dedicated lanes, prices (including recycling fee for a bottle of water being higher than price of the water itself), but most of all for general feeling of easygoing thanks to good organization.
Preparation for the trip started very well, with return flights booked for under £100 for 3 people. The grin on the face disapperaed when it came to booking hotels. Especially it wasn't a weekend break, but a 5-day visit...
In the end we found hostel Belægningen - for us it was great, half price of the hotel down town, shared kitchen being an advantage (one can heat milk or even prepare meals), bathroom - or actually wetroom - manageable with proper use of a squeegee (provided), and most of all a bunk bed, climbed by happy boy at least 100 times on the first day :) It's got not a bad connection with the city centre, within 45 minutes: 1A bus every 15 minutes after 3 minutes walk; S-tog every 10 minutes after 15 minutes walk, passing the shops on the way.
Another clever thing was to equip with Copenhagen Card - especially since we stayed 5 days and used bus/S-tog on daily basis, 120h version felt a good deal overall.
On day 1 we arrived at midday, used Metro to get to the Copengahen H (central station), which involved a change - one will be better off using a train. We put the bags into locker (right next to S-tog platforms, large locker fits 1 child or 3 bags - depending which is more of a trouble ;) - for DKK60.
We went along the main promenade, popped in to a local kebab shop for a lunch and left amount that usually funds a decent dinner. In the meantime the weather became as bad as in the forecast, so rather than having a boat trip, we hid in the National Museum. Since I'm not a museum man, the two things I remembered were that most of the exhibits were luckily preserved as found in a bog, and that Danish Vikings were actually not that bad :) As the sky did not clear by the time we learnt all about Danish history, we called it a day.
Morning of day 2 was much better, so we decided to take advantage and have the boat trip. As Copnehagen lies on the water that is actually more practical (and pleasant) than an open top bus (not included in the Copenhagen Card anyway).
From the boat we went towards Christianshaven. We climbed the Vor Frelsers Kirke (quite a challenge) and were rewarded with fantastic bird view panoramas of Copenhagen.
Then we walked along the borders of Christiania, but we did not feel it was the right vibe, and didn't explore it further. We finished off sightseeing by walking across the town via Nyhavn to the Little Mermaid.
Day 3 was purely joy (for some). In the morning we went to the Experimentarium. It can be fun indeed, but many of the tasks rely on understanding physics, or explaining it, so children below 10 and those scientifically challanged may not enjoy it a lot. Afternoon was spent at Tivoli Gardens - avoid the place, it will empty your pocket and make your head spin - unless you love this sort of fun!
On day 4 we travelled outside the city: first to the Open air Museum of traditional Danish architecture. Then we carried on S-tog line A to the last stop, and boarded the ferry on the lake around the Frederiksborg Castle, with a walk along the bank of the lake (quicker than the ferry - just) on the way back.
Last day was filled with final walk along the promenade, visit to the Lego store and Den Blå Planet - the national aquarium. Coveniently located right next to the airport, we spent good time watching both ugly and colorful submarine creatures (we found Nemo!), and had a tasty lunch before returning.
Copenhagen is a beautiful city - one can see the wealth of an old sea port in the buildings along the roads. Layout, facades, and then detail - at every level it is pleasure to watch. There are many modern buildings as well, and I think purely because of their number it actually feels natural that they fill the gaps in 'traditionally' looking architecture. In the end they are traditional modern orgy of weird geometry covered in glass though...
What I do like is the fact that old, disused buildings aren't demolished, but rather turned into flats, offices, storage, or any other purpose (like our hostel!), but at least externally their history continues. Extra effort for sure, but it is noticable and much appreciated.
Copenhagen will be remembered for surprisingly wide S-tog trains, number of bicycles and their dedicated lanes, prices (including recycling fee for a bottle of water being higher than price of the water itself), but most of all for general feeling of easygoing thanks to good organization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)