E-M1 with Four Thirds Lens Test (Robin Wong).


Four Thirds Lens owners will be very interested to se Robin Wongs E-M1 FT Lens test (Click here). He tested these four FT lenses and you can see the results on the video I embedded on top:

1) Olympus ZD 7-14mm F4 (here on eBay)
2) Olympus ZD 14-35mm F2 SWD (here on eBay)
3) Olympus ZD 14-54mm F2.8-3.5 II (here on eBay)
4) Olympus ZD 50mm F2 macro (here on eBay)
5) Olympus ZD 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 SWD (here on eBay)
6) Olympus ZD 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 (non-SWD) (here on eBay)

And the conclusion is:

“The focusing speed of Four Thirds lenses on the E-M1 is NOT as fast as how they are on DSLR E-5, E-3 or E-30. It may not have fulfilled my expectations, but in all seriousness, the focusing speed was FAR from disappointing. In comparison to previous focusing on any micro Four Thirds camera, the focusing speed on E-M1 has increased by quite a far leap, and is now very fast and reliable. For some lenses, the focusing speed was very close to the DSLR E-5. The fastest focusing lens out of the series tested was undoubtedly the ZD 14-35mm f2 SWD lens”

Robin writes that the reason why the E-M1 cannot match the E-5 performance is:

“Looking at Olympus DSLR E-5, it has 11 point AF, and each point has TWIN CROSS sensor, meaning FOUR lines of phase detect sensor were installed in each point to maximize the focusing potential. Looking at the specifications of the new Phase Detect in E-M1, it was not the same, and rather completely different. It has 37 selectable points, which covered quite a large area of the frame. Now here is the main difference, the AF points are NOT Twin Cross, in fact, they were not Cross points at all. Again, knowing these facts, to expect the autofocusing performance to match DSLR E-5, was starting to look more and more difficult to happen.”

I guess most FT Lens owners are not surprised by these results. Already Dpreview mentioned that the AF wasn’t as fast as on the E-5. We may need an E-M2 or E-M7 before we see an AF performance as fast as on the E-5!
Please take time to read the full test at Robin Wong’s site (Click here).

Preorder Links:
Dedicated page at Amazon.
Olympus E-M1 body at Amazon, Adorama and BHphotoAmazon DE (via DL), Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL), WexUK, Topshot FI, CameraWorldUK.
Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO Lens at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, AmazonDE (viaDL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus E-M1 with 12-40mm Lens kit at Amazon DE (via DL), WexUK and CameraWorldUK, Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus E-M1 with 12-50mm Lens kit at Amazon DE (via DL), WexUK, CameraWorldUK, Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus EP-13 Eyecup for E-M1 at Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus HLD-7 Battery Grip for E-M1 at Amazon, Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus LC-62D Metal Front Lens Cap for 12-40mm at Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus LH-66 Lens Hood for 12-40mm at Adorama and BHphoto.

  • Anonymous

    Why so much attention to such a small audience? Those old lenses aren’t cheap, popular or lightweight.. so what’s all the fuss? Olympus saved face, long life Olympus. Can we move on now for the rest of us all? Let’s test moving targets on native m43 lenses. that’s interesting to a wider audience.

    • Oly

      If you have no interest in that, why do you comment here ? Go visit a “How to Weave a Wicker Basket” page and tell them you’re not interested in that also.


      • spam


      • Anonymous


      • Sam


      • +10

        damn reply,…lol,.

        i almost pee on my pants

      • Cellaroor

        Best comment on 43rumors ever :-D

      • Fish

        Great point (and a much needed boost in site traffic for jons bushcraft)

        • Anonymous

          I thought that was an excellent site – really.
          His art stuff looked really nice as well.

      • Well, if I ever lose interest in photography, I now have a back-up hobby. Thanks!

      • Phred

        That would be strong therapy to cure a weak mind……

      • +100
        Definitely the best comment I’ve read on 43rumors :).

      • saviour

        Mate, you just won the internet.

      • Chad

        Stating you are not interested in something is nothing strange. I do that all the time to let people know to post less of what I don’t want to read. Obviously hes not going to go anywhere else to say it because this site also has the most posts on m/43 stuff.

    • Nobody asked …

      Have you bothered to look at the 50mmf2 images on Wong’s site… There is a reason all by itself and that lens is not expensive or heavy and if it is not popular then all the more reason to own one since your images will stand out from the crowd

    • This website is called 43rumors.com not micro43rumors.com. It encompasses more than just what you’re interested in. Deal with it.

    • Vlad

      Why so much attention to a post that is not of interest to you? Skip it, it is rather easy.

      • Because trolls are intrusive, annoying, and disruptive?

    • Shenkie

      Please don’t feed the troll

      • desperate looser

        shenkie im your fan

    • Point wiht this test for the old FT lens so not have SWD motor, on an E-M1 is i not need buy an E-M1 for testing out this even, so i is wery happy for this test. :-P

    • Walter

      There’s a wonderful 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 that can be gotten for $225 used, a 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 that goes for $450 used… they’re both very sharp. Being able to use these lenses on m4/3 is a big deal.

  • Oly

    ouch.. this will hurt, a lot.. and now trolls will have to take one step back and focus everybody’s attention on small sensor, DOF and crap like that, again..

    • Mattphoto

      Not everyone that doesn’t suck Oly’s dick like you do is a troll.

      • Anonymous

        Must be very hard for you now after all your doom and gloom Olympus_is_dead shit. Funny how people put themselves in these “look how stupid I am” situations.

  • first things first
    so far so good

    actually it looks like 14-35/2 users will be happy

    • Have been happy in three year with my 14-35mm so see not reason for stop with this.

  • Jankoff

    Bad news: AF speed not that fast.
    Good news: will wait for faster speed. :-)

    • Why not buy an 12-40mm with the E-M1.

      • Jankoff

        Because I have 12-60 – great lens, optimal range.

    • I disagree that the AF was bad. The test was very flawed. The two subjects were very close to the camera, so relative to one another, the focus distance was doubled, meaning the focus motor would have to move the elements a long way. In real world shooting, one would rarely switch from one subject to another at twice the distance. Even if you are changing your subject distance from 3m to infinity the elements would require less movement.

      Since these older motors aren’t as fast as the new ones, or perhaps because they did not incorporate weight savings in the moving parts, the lenses themselves may not be able to focus any faster even with better in-camera focusing device.

      So don’t wait for the next model, it is unlikely the focusing will get better than this with these lenses.

  • Paul S

    Surprised at Robin’s conclusions as my albeit rudimentary and subjective tests with the camera and 4/3rds lenses at an EM1 show day in London were very positive and I had my E5 there for comparison. It was the consensus of the group of people trying the camera out that there was no discernible difference and this was in low shop light. Interestingly I found the 12-35 not as fast as the 12-60 with the little time I had with it. Although it wasn’t scientific I would have no problem using 4/3rd lenses with the EM1 in the real world myself.

    • spam

      It certainly looks like E-M1 is fast enough with FT-lenses to work perfectly well in most situations. It also means that Olympus has doubled the number of usable lenses compared to other mFT-cameras, including both fast zooms and high quality tele lenses which have been a weak point for mFT until now.

      I’m sure the discussion about faster than E-M5 or not will continue, but IMO the important question now is whether focus tracking is good enough for sports, BIF and similar tasks. I don’t expect a definitive answer to that until more people get to use the camera over time.

      • Sören

        The FT lenses are reasonable usable now.
        That is great for owners of these lenses. However, I doubt that
        Olympus will sell new FT lenses to many people. Therefore, the FT
        lenses need to be exactly as fast as the mFT lenses, otherwise they
        will always be 2nd choice.
        I think it is just a matter of time to get it really really right. However,
        too much time and the great FT lenses are museum pieces ;)

        • Anonymous

          There’re many situations where a fast AF isn’t mandatory. I know that everybody want’s to go faster, but for someone who “compose” it’s pictures I don’t think a fast AF is really a big deal.
          Of course, if you’re into wildlife (moving kids are wildlife ;) ) or sport it’s another story…

    • Anonymus

      I tested the E-M1 with the following lenses in real life-Shooting: 35-100 with ec14, 50-500 Sigma, 14-35, 14-54, 7-14, 150 /f2. The C-AF-performance is far better than the E-5, the S-AF-performance in dim light is on par, in bright sunlight it’s better than E-5. Don’t know, what Robin’s been tested. I think it was not the final firmware, because 1.0 comes out after his first posts. What I see was, he didn’t realize that the new AF-System works other than the AF-system in the E-5. In the E-5 you have “nearest is best”. In the E-M1 you have “farest ist best”. So you had to pay attention on the exact placement of your focus point if you wanna focus on the nearer point. If you place your point on the edge of the apple (like robin did) – like it’s best on E-5 – than the AF on the E-M1 had to hunt – and so you got the feeling, that the AF is slow. If you place the point correct, the AF in den E-M1 is faster than the one of the E-5.

    • Ranger 9

      Robin’s writeup (and the summary of it here) make it sound as if he made side-by-side comparison tests of the SAME lenses used on the E-5 and E-M 1 before drawing his conclusion that the E-M 1’s AF speed was not as fast.

      However, on careful reading there is no evidence that he actually DID make such a comparison.

      His video compares varous 4/3 lenses when used on the E-M 1; the E-5 isn’t included in his video (and testing the E-5 wouldn’t have been possible with his test methodology, which uses the E-M 1’s touchscreen AF feature.) There’s no information on how (or even IF) he measured the E-5’s performance to form a basis of comparison. I’ve posted on his site to ask about this.

      Incidentally, didn’t I read somewhere that DPReview later modified its initial assesment that the E-M 1 was slower, saying that had been based solely on their subjective recollection of the E-5’s performance rather than on actual measurements?

      • caver3d

        That’s right. DPReview blew it. The reviewer used his “memory” about the E-5 to claim that the E-M1 is not as fast with 43 lenses vs. the E-5. They later retracted some of it with an “update”. Meanwhile, he did a lot of unnecessary damage to the E-M1’s reputation.

        Go to dpreview and see my original post in the m43 forum – “Shame on You, DPReview”.

    • I wonder if the earlier tests were just to see the monitor snap into focus, where are Wong was using the touch-to-take mode, and we were waiting for the shutter sound. iIn many of his examples there was a delay between when the lens seemed to be in focus and when the shutter fired.

    • “Interestingly I found the 12-35 not as fast as the 12-60 with the little time I had with it.”

      Well, 12-60 is one of the fastest focusing lenses.

      Otherwise, I would suggest to read Robin’s write-up carefully. The summary might make the false impression of a generalized statement. That isn’t the case. Robin has tested the lenses he had (50mm, 14-54mk1(?), 50-200 mk1&mk2, 14-35) separately and found that there are differences in how they AF on E-M1 compared to how they AF on the E-5. In other words, it’s not a clear cut: some 43 lenses AF better on E-M1, some AF better on E-5. His impression was, for example, that 14-35 AFs faster on the E-M1, while 50mm is faster on E-5.

    • Ok, but 12-60mm give also focus on my E-P1 with MMF1 too, so i is not surprised.

  • eeveep

    Seems to be quite a big screen blackout after each photo is taken – assuming this isn’t the standard behaviour?

    • Possible reason could be jpg+raw and iso 25600. Maybe there is some noisereduction going on while saving? I know my E-P5 doesn’t have any noticable blackouts atleast.

      • Ross

        Yes, it does take longer (on my E-M5) with Larger Super Fine & RAW & also added detail increases the file size, hence a longer write time to the SD card & a longer black out time.

  • Robert Mark

    I see a microphone icon on the LCD display. Anybody know if you can click it to add a voice memo to an image? That’s a great feature for any editorial shooter, and one that requires a 1DX of D4 otherwise.

    • Mattias

      The E-5 has it, but it is not in the E-M1 manual, so probably not.

      • THE E-M5 has voice memo, so i guess theE-M1 has it too

        • The Real Stig


    • I just checked the (English) manual for the E-M1 — it’s on page 64. So the answer’s “yes” — you can add up to 30 seconds of audio to a photograph.

  • john

    who gives a S##t if if focuses a nano second less, does the photo look better than the E-5

    • Critical moment photographers care. Pro photographers care.

      For instance, if your snazzy new camera can take 6 fps, then what happens if the lens takes 1/3 second to focus? I guarantee the camera is not taking 6 fps in-focus shots. So anyone with real-time (critical moment) focusing requirements cares.

      However, if you focus manually (e.g., rangefinder style street shooting), obviously you don’t care.

    • Robert Mark

      Auto-focus is really great. It’s enabled the professional known as “pro photography,” and for that, I’m thankful. Because before auto-focus, there were no pro photographers.

      • I didn’t know that. Thank you.

      • JimD

        Great point AF giving rise to the Pro photographer. The pre pro photographers you mention were also 4 handed. 1 to hold the camera, 1 to focus, 1 to hold the meter and one to set the aperture. We are indeed in the time of lost skills. They also called their cameras 35mm. The ones who used big fold up jobs or smaller press cameras did not call theirs FF to be derogatory to the 35mm users either.
        Each shot had to be thought about, no press the button and take 500 shots, one must be good!
        It really is good that the Pro arrived to tell us all how and most importantly, what happens when they press a button.

        • Don’t you think the OP was being sarcastic?

          • By “OP” I meant Robert Mark, not the OP in this thread.

          • I think ” Robert Mark” was grandstanding based on a straw man (and perhaps trying to be sarcastic). So we straw manned him back by taking him literally. Garbage begets garbage (as with the trolls on these threads).

          • JimD

            Of course. Hence the first sentence. Then the poor pre pro with 4 hands. Don’t you have any sense of humour.

            • Well, you aren’t exactly a comedian! :-P

              • JimD

                I like the response to sarcasm to be a follow on and take it a little further. To the point of making it a conversation of most serious proportions.
                OK. I know, don’t give up my day job.

  • “We may need an E-M2 or E-M7 before we see an AF performance as fast as on the E-5!”

    Seeing how long it took for the on-sensor PDAF to mature at all, I’m doubtful. But wish to remain hopeful.

    As far as I have understood the posts on SAR, Sony would also present soon the A-mount bodies with on-sensor PDAF. Correlation of AF performance from the two bodies would tell us more about this generation of the tech. And if Sony as promised decided to go all mirrorless, there is hope that they would be improving and fine-tuning the tech with every iteration. They’d have no choice.

    • +1

      Sony has choice, and their choice is mirrorless. I am looking forward to their new generation mirrorless (successor to SLT technology).

      The killer feature (I gather) is that the new full-frames will accept any lens (a la CSC mirrorless). So, the new Sony may actually support Canon and Nikon lenses too… giving Sony’s new format more lenses than the two biggest legacy formats. That’s disruptive. :-)

      I could use a killer replacement for my Nikon D700 since Nikon seems to have little interest in providing one (D600 has poor build quality, and D800 is overengineered for my use). Fingers crossed for Sony alternative.

      • “Fingers crossed for Sony alternative.”

        After using the pancake primes, I can’t see myself going back to large lenses, what FF entails. The sensor tech slowly by steadily erodes the need for large apertures. (Sigma IMO knows what it does with the recent f/2.8 lenses.) IMO the shallow DOF alone is simply not worth all the overhead (price, size, weight).

    • Carlos

      I hope they calle their new mirrorless efforts – microAPC and/or microFF ;-)

    • I think we will see an E-M2 in 2015 with new sensor with light split from Panasonic, but i hope Olympus not give an compromise with IQ more.

  • The video demonstrating focusing of FT lenses on E-M1 was very enlightening. The reality is FT lens performance vs. expectation is better, worse or both, depending on what “expectation” there is to start with.

    From my point of view, it looks pretty good. Then again, I didn’t ever expect FT lenses to equal mFT lens AF performance. It is sufficient that FT AF on the E-M1 is passable, usable and not impossibly slow as it often has been with prior mFT cameras. Very likely, there’s not a whole lot more that can be achieved.

    From what can be gleaned from the video (and a couple of others as well), the E-M1 meets this moderate-demand criterion. For Olympus, and those of us with FT glass we wish to use, it’s fitting to say: mission accomplished.

    • Mr.Chainsaw

      Actually there is. On sensor PDAF is always a compromise between IQ and AF ability. As said in the post the new PDAF sacrificed the (double) cross sensors for better sensor IQ. So this one gives okay PDAF performance with IQ equal to E-P5. Not bad, if you ask me :)

      • > On sensor PDAF is always a compromise between IQ and AF ability.

        Yes, that’s true, PDAF dedicated pixels occupy places in the image that must be “interpolated” in current technology.

        But it’s not just IQ that’s the issue. I read somewhere that one reason “cross-points” weren’t used in the E-M1 sensor is the processing complexity required to make it work. And even if cross-points were present, FT lenses would still fall short because lens internal electronics and motors can’t work with mFT as efficiently as the much newer mFT lenses coming on board.

        > Not bad, if you ask me

        I definitely agree. Having FT lenses in addition to the mFT stable of options is a real asset, as long as we realize FT lens limitations and don’t try to use these lenses beyond their capabilities.

        • AndersN

          Wasn’t there an Olympus patent for on-sensor PDAF which used arbitrary pixels for phase detection, i.e. no dedicated pixels at all and therefore no need to sacrifice a bunch of photo pixels for every AF point?

          • I could easily have missed it, but don’t recall that patent. A great idea, though not quite sure how that would work. In any case only a partial solution for existing FT lenses, given their intrinsic electronic and mechanical constraints. However could be valuable for new lenses designed to take advantage of such PDAF sensors.

          • I dont think thats Oly

        • Robert Mark

          Canon seems to have pulled it off with the 70D focusing system.

      • IQ is best on E-P5 and after where the is E-M5, but on ISO 25600 is E-M1 best
        (Look on dpreview IQ testing)

        • stu5

          You should look at the tungsten light test chart and look at the left hand side. You will then see the E-M1 beats the other two very early on at high iso.

  • michael

    A nice new pic of the 40-150:

    I have to say I am quite disappointed about the size of the 40-150.
    Judging from that pic, it will be ± 17cm long – thats the same as the 70-200/4 from C or N. But it should be smaller! After all, the sensor is much smaller, too. The filter size will be at least 67mm (larger than the 12-40).

    Oly, that lens should have been a 40-150/2.8-3.5 or f4 on the long end to make it smaller and keep the same filter size. Or they should have let Sigma do the design of the lens. Sigma once had a tiny (14cm, non-expanding!), 760g, 50-150/2.8 on offer for APS-C Cameras. That is what I call “take advantage of smaller sensors to make smaller lenses”. Oly failed on that – again (see the tele lenses for FT).

    • Tobias Giesen

      No, we need F2.8 @ 150mm for better Bokeh …

    • i want one,.but

      If the glass its so expensive,.somebody please make A MUG of this 40-150/f2.8,

    • Anonymous

      You are smoking pot. Canon 70-200 is 20cm long and takes 77mm . It’s also 3.29lbs /1.49 kg. the oly 40-150 is shorter, lighter smaller filter size and has a longer reach.

      Canon has no such lens with constant 2.8 up to 300mm(eq).

      • Shenkie

        Troll get a life.

        • desperate looser

          shenkie your the best ever

      • Robert Mark

        I haven’t seen the filter size in any of the pics. Sitting next to the 12-40 in some of the photos, I’d bet the filter thread is 72, but I’m cheering for 67. Either way, 72 or 67 would be pretty remarkable when you compare the size of a 300mm 2.8 in C or N.

      • Cheaperthanbyou

        I think your the one smoking up. He is right.

        Approx. 3.0 x 6.8″ (7.62 x 17.27 cm)


        • there is no point in buying FF
          if all you want to do is exactly the same thing as m43rds

          you have to buy premium lenses with FF to have an advantage
          in this case that would be 70-200/2.8 II IS
          US$2,500 at B&H, 3.5 x 7.8″ (8.89 x 19.81 cm) 77mm filter, 3.28lbs

    • BLI

      The Nikkor 70-200/f4 is ca 18 cm and 0.9 kg. The Nikkor 70-200/f2.8 is some 20.5 cm and 1.5 kg.

    • The other lens in the picture is the Zuiko 14-54, which is 88.5 mm long. In the picture, it’s sitting on its back cap, but the 40-150 is not. The 40-150 should measure approx 152 mm from the flange to the edge of the filter ring, assuming they are positioned evenly in the photo.

      FWIW, the Canon EF 70-200 2.8L is 199 mm long. Canon’s 300mm F2.8 is 252mm long, weighs 5.5 POUNDS, costs $4879, and requires its own case.

      The pending Zuiko 40-150 will give us the equivalent of an 80-300 constant F2.8 that’s only 60% as long as the Canon optic, and a TINY fraction of the weight. That’s a pretty remarkable achievement.

    • I definitely disagree with you there.

      For it’s focal length and constant f2.8 aperture, there’s no way you’d get it this size on any other format.

      Too many people are expecting an alternate reality; be it price, size or quality. Both from FFfanbois and FTfanbois.

      Accept what is offered to you and but what you like.

      I, for one, am VERY interested in both the 12-40mm and 40-150mm new mFT lenses!!

    • Jon

      I may not be unreasonable to expect a size close to the 70-200 F4 from Canikon. Olympus would need a slightly bigger front element but could probably make it a bit shorter too. But remember that long lenses doesn’t get a benefit from the shorter flange distance since they don’t need elements close to the sensor, so a mirrorless version will be around 2cm longer.

      The Canon 70-200 F4 L IS is 173mm and 760g and is a very good lens (I had one with a 7D before I switched). I would be pleased if Olympus can make it a bit shorter and get similar weight though I probably won’t buy one.

      The Sigma 50-150 F2.8 that was just tested at Photozone is 198mm and 1335g! Making fast zooms is more than just focal length, at least if quality has to be good.

  • Camaman

    I wonder where are all the whiners whining how robin is payed by oly and should not be trusted cause he always says the best of their new tech…

    • Anonymous

      well he is stating very clearly he’s employed by Olympus now – so there is nothing to whine about.
      being employed by a company doesn’t make one incompetent to assess their products – as long as this fact is not hidden. A positive bias may be expected and accounted for – especially with more subjective aspects – but when it comes to stating facts – it shouldn’t matter really.
      Olympus having a talented user/artist like Robin in their employ is a good thing in my opinion.

  • Tobias Giesen

    These academic, systematic tests may or may not be representative for what happens in real shooting situations … I am still optimistic.

  • I believe its just a matter of time,.probably in the next line of E-M1/E-M5,we will see the refinement of C-AF both mode CDAF & PDAF,.and at that time,.i hope Olympus and Panasonic would already make A NATIVE M43 Tele/Super tele.

    When the refinement of C-AF has been accomplish,.we will see the biggest advantage of 43 sensor in a wild life and Sport photography. and i believe it will be much better option than CaNikon , 1DX/D4

  • Eric

    It seems that the ZD50 finds more easily the focus on the E-M1 than on my E-620.


  • Juan

    Is it my imagination, or was there a fair amount of hunting going on there? I noticed it most in the 50mm macro, but it was there quite frequently throughout…or was that just the camera filming the camera that was hunting?

    • jim

      the 50mm macro was known sa the slowest focusing 43 lens and hunty!

  • In fact I agree with the OP. Why don’t we move on? Technology has changed, so what in fact is offered is at best an emulation of the old one.

    4/3 lenses will work better than in the past but they were never designed for m4/3. In the latter PDAF-on-sensor is an adjunct to CDAF, it is not designed as standalone. Purpose? Better CAF for a m4/3 camera.

    I have been doing experiments with CAF (also with tracking) on the E-M5. It is not brilliant but it’s not shabby either. When using 9fps it won’t refocus anyway, so who cares?

    There’s a franken-camera element in the E-M1. The grip is asymmetric and ungainly *because it has to stand the weight of non m4/3 lenses*.

    Additionally knowing that Oly pursues again heavy zooms leads again to the defeat that was 4/3.

    I still v. much believe in the old ethos of small primes, m4/3 needing to be a small and cheaper Leica substitute. Clearly instead there is a lobby believing that it must imitate C&N.

    Wasn’t one defeat enough? Big zooms again? Those were beast that began their career half a century ago, for god’s sake!

    We know live in the age of digital teleconverters, and people still ask if the camera will carry the optical ones without breaking apart!

    Thus there will always be a disconnect with 4/3. If m4/3 doesn’t keep small the original advantage is lost.

    It is also getting v. expensive, so it risks missing the popular appeal. But who cares gear greed and jealousy always at the forefront, at the expense of plain photography…

    • Mr.Chainsaw

      Whats the problem?
      There are many small primes for mft, and those won’t disappear if someone releases some big lenses eventually.

    • jim

      A couple of zooms covering 28-200 equiv at F2 is a very capable option – primes are too clumbsy sometimes and when in lower light the F2 takes you places other systems may have trouble following…

      I would say the M1 is about only 1 stop behind the 5DIII in ISO quality and the 5DIII only has F2.8 zooms so an M1 with F2 zooms is near as dam as good as a 5DIII with L zooms! – thats suddenly made this a very very grown up system (and a its still alot smaller than FF). That is the value of the 43 mega glass!

      • Carlos


    • The Real Stig

      Just because Olympus is making some high quality zooms, doesn’t mean you or anyone else who doesn’t want their size or weight has to use them. Stick to your primes, no one is forcing you to use a zoom.

      Olympus would die in short order if they followed your suggestions. The failure of 4/3 wasn’t the lenses or their size, it was the sensor. Olympus made a bet on Moor’s law when they left the OM system for the promised land and they got it wrong. The sensor wasn’t big enough to provide good enough IQ compared to C&N. It is only now that the sensor tech has gotten to where I suspect Olympus thought it would be nearly a decade ago.

    • Seems a strange stance to take. It’s as if to say, “it’s offensive if you use older generation equipment because it’s not as good as the current product”.

      By analogy, all houses more than 20 years old should be torn down because newer buildings are more “efficient”. Cars built over 5 years ago should all be consigned to the scrap heap. Watches using mechanical gears to keep time are just worthless compared to contemporary electronic marvels. Need I go on?

      My decision to keep driving my 14 year old car, as long as it’s not a public hazard, is mine alone to make. Using old lenses affects no one but me, so in what way is it anyone else’s affair?

      Your “campaign” against all expressing interest in using 4/3 lenses on mFT has repeatedly been called out as strident and intrusive. Whatever you are attempting to express remains entirely obscure behind the barrage of contentious and insubstantial commentary.

      Shame of it is, if and when you have something of real merit to add to the discourse, who among “regulars” here will take it seriously?

    • achiinto

      I think olympus went with zooms in 43 and now the 12-40 is due to weather sealing. I have done lot of wildlife photo in dirty, dusty, wet environment in cold gusting wind and storm. I will always go for zooms over primes in those situation.

      Although I agree that 43 has been lacking primes, but m43 indeed has been lacking good zooms.

      • ivo

        sealing was next to the optics and olympus colors the main reason for me to get a E3 and the 12-200 swd combo… And though those two lenses cover a HQ range, i would still want a lesser grade but sealed 14-150 (now preferably m43) on a em1 to keep my travel kit much lighter and with as less lens changes as possible. Might get a small prime for those very low light situations.
        But one 4grand slr kit (canon) killed due to 3 weeks tunesia desser was enough for my wallet…

        • achiinto

          That’s hurt with that 4 grand Canon.

          I totally agree with you. That is why I like weathersealed zoom from Olympus and also loves their primes.

    • Jankoff

      I join the opinion. m43 is for primes, those big zooms discredit the idea. As I wrote sometime ago, having three small cameras with three small lenses to carry around will give the same range plus an enormous IQ advantage, at roughly the same weight and even size as an E-series with 12-60. What I have in mind is three E-PM2s with Oly 12mm/f2, Leica 25mm/1.4 and Oly 45mm/1.8 or Sigma 60mm/f2.8. Price will be higher but not much. I am on the way to implementing the idea.

      • Anonymous

        it doesn’t have to be one or the other.
        there are is an increasing variety in bodies and lenses in this system, from different vendors – and that is a great thing.
        while the smaller size compared to DLSRs, with comparable image quality is the key interest of the m43 system to me – there is room for larger solutions.
        I can perfectly imagine having the EM1 for studio/assignment use next to a PEN for travel use. One has to decide for oneself if these more expensive and larger options are justified by one’s use of photography. If they are, then it’s great they exist now, and you can remain within the same system.
        And last but least – we call these new options large – but they’re still decidedly more compact than the alternatives – and so for me – firmly remain true to the m43 ethos…

  • jim

    So now the ultimate kit would be somthing like:

    panasonic 7-14mm F2
    Oly 14-35mm F2
    Oly 35-100mm F2
    Oly 90-250mm F2.8
    Oly 300mm F2.8
    + now we have the 1.4x and 2x TCs.

    And thow in for faster street use:
    Oly 12-40mm F2.8
    Oly 40-150mm F2.8

    And for totaly portbility:
    Panasonic 20mm
    Panasonic X 14-45mm

    Think that would cover absolutly every occation!

    That realy has changed the m43/mirrorless landscape, m43 now has one of the widest ranges of some of the best lenses for any system… remember most 43/m43 glass performs wide open!

    • jim

      err the 7-14 is F4 not F2 soz… getting carried away :D

      • Zune

        7-14mm F2 will anyway be nice, to an nice price. :-D

  • Seriously Olympus!??

    Dear Olympus

    What were you thinking with the E-M1?. Either give us customers what we want or we will jump ship. I’m now forced to investigate other camera systems (I will only go with authentic camera manufacturers, which, no offence, Panasonic isn’t). You better get your act together soon, Olympus, or I will leave for good.

    Yours sincerely

    Long Time But Now Disillusioned Olympus User

    • Tobias Giesen

      Just switch to MFT, you’ll love it!

    • jim

      Yeh I know – I feel your pain you too must be wishing for 24,25,50,60p in video… lol :) – this was olys biggest fcuk up…

      • We don’t just want more video frame rate options, but a PEN Pro with in built evf (like Fuji, Sony and Panasonic offer).

        Those 4/3 lenses are awesome, but OBS is a pointless exercise. They should just put a better sensor in an E-7 and continued to develop the Pro m4/3 line separately.

        With the Pro lenses, does m4/3 need 4/3 lenses?

        Also, the OM-D line is very confused.

        What is the successor to the EM-5 called vs the successor to the EM-1?

        • M

          PEN Pro? For $ 1’500? ;-) Even cheap PEN should have a built in VF…

        • M

          and if you need a high quality tele zoom until 250mm you will need the 43 lenses, unfortunately… I wonder if a m43 lens like the 90-250 ever will be…

          and there was a rumors about a low end O-MD as I remember…

      • nice reply, Jim!-)

        • when actually
          its just you flipping nicks
          now you can use another to argue with me :)

          • Jim

            ? – well if you look at most of my jim posts you probably see a theam of me recently moaning about oly not including video modes that they have on their compact stuff

    • BLI

      Seriously? I’m sure Olympus is willing to listen to realistic wishes from good customers. But in your post, there is not a single clue as to what you are disappointed about. With such a lack of information, and with a “user name” that looks similar in style to a forum troll, how do you expect to be taken seriously?

      • Ditto. And that’s what makes Jim’s reply so good — he turns a garbage post into something totally relevant. Pure genius. :-)

    • The E-M1 is exactly what I have been wanting for 4 years.

      • achiinto

        Agreed with you. exactly the same for me. I have regretted spending that 1000$+ preordering the limited edition White E-P1 though…. Should have saved the money for E-M1…. Some how I was expecting the E-P1 would perform like E-M1 in focusing… and what hurt me more was the release of E-P2 so close to the E-P1…

  • Anon

    Seriously Olympus!?? That’s a seriously stupid post…

  • Has anyone else noticed the discrepancy between the conclusions and the evidence?
    The video demonstrates perfectly acceptable focus speed and determination, especially with SWD lenses. My E-5 is not faster than this with either 50/2 or 50-200 and my experience with Nikon’s D700 is not better. Yet mr. Wong’s conclusions are full of caveats. I suppose he had to write something negative about the E-M1 for the sake of his credibility.

    I am delighted with the results shown here and would not have any resevations whatsoever in using 4/3 glass on this camera. I’m convinced continuous AF will be quite useful too. Here’s to the coming of age of micro 4/3.

    • I just think he’s trying to be circumspect and careful in his claims.

      What I like about his post is that the evidence is video. He doesn’t really explain anything, he just shows it. Draw your own conclusions.

      I definitely see variances among the lenses. A few seem to do the CDAF search, while other seem to do the PDAF jump. I don’t have to agree with Robin’s brief assessments as I can see for myself.

      His experiments may have been done on earlier firmware, one poster here suggested. So that may leave some room for improvement.

      • Maybe some improvement with “firmer” firmware. I don’t expect anything substantially different that what’s in Robin’s (and other) video(s).

        One thing to keep in mind is the fact of life re: lens variability. Some specimens will be faster than others. Don’t know how much range there is among lenses “in the wild”, but I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if it’s quite a bit. You know, +/- 20% would not be shocking, considering age, condition and all.

      • digifan

        Sorry but Wong doesn’t prove anything.
        If anything he just shows performance of 43 lenses on m43 bodies. There’s NO comparison whatsoever. It’s based on his memory thus very subjective and incorrect!!!!

        If he wanted to do it right he should have made a direct comparison with an E-5 in the same video.

    • Love Bath

      I believe there should be a direct comparison example when comparing anything. It’s easy to say it’s slower or faster but how did those lenses focus anyways on the older system. You heard how loud and clunky some of them were. A lens can only focus as fast as the lens can focus. Again, one could compare a large DSLR to it as well and just show some side by side examples. Same equivalent focal length for both and the same apple and pear focus test. AND if comparing the new E-M1 body, mount the same 4/3’s lens on a E-5 and do a direct comparison instead of off of memory or just saying it’s slower than an E-5. By the way, just seeing the video, the focus was still fast with the 4/3 lenses either way you look at it.

      The 50mm is not a fast focusing lens to begin with so to pin it against these other lenses is not a good test. It has a very long focus travel and the lens nearly doubles is length in size when focusing to both extremes.

      I’d like to see these test done with same lenses, two different cameras, 4/3 system and E-M1.

      • Agree, and maybe C-AF is better on E-M1, but problem on C-AF on E-5 is the take for long time for each new focus check, that is hardware problem not only PDAF.

  • Ash

    The test results are just fine, because on-sensor phase detection is not intended primarily for 4/3 lens support. Lens support is just a pleasant side effect.

    The main purpose is to introduce competent C-AF tracking into the m4/3 system.

    Olympus is going to replace most of the 4/3 lens lineup with new models optimized for m4/3 cameras.

    • Actually, I think you are right about that. The limitations of 4/3 lenses are more about what’s built in to the lens than whatever form of PDAF is put on the sensor. It sure seems likely that with 4/3 lenses, what we see is what we got.

    • Absolutely so. PDAF+CDAF is mainly designed to counter the last dSLR stronghold: action.

      The OM-D has been developing some impressive technologies, however this time I find more interesting the GX7. It might be lacking in those, but it has hit the perfect form factor for Micro.

      Thanks to the bigger grip it can take moderate zooms but it really shines with small primes. And by what I read it works seamlessly, which is now what I mainly look for in a camera.

  • Maybe the hybrid focus system be used to auto-focus other brands of lenses with electronic mounts, like Canon EF or Nikon G. Olympus could release a series of wide-converters AKA SpeedBoosters optimized to work with the E-M1 PDAF system.

  • JimD

    There may well be a few E5 users who would like the AF to be a bit faster on the E-M1. However I think the users of the E-xxx and E-xx series cameras who have 4/3 glass will be quite happy.
    I note that the focus was positive and consistently accurate with only one small stutter.

    Personally I find consistent accuracy more important than sheer focus speed and a few misses. At least I would know I missed a shot because of slow focus whereas with inaccurate focus it may not be evident until post. Its a bit late then, the party is over and all have gone home.

    • Love Bath

      I agree, what if the E-M1 did NOT incorporate the improved 4/3’s lens focusing? At least Olympus made the 4/3 lenses more usable with focus now. Just think of it as another m4/3’s camera AND they threw in 4/3’s lens usability. It’s better than them not having it.

    • ivo

      I can only agree, would love focus as fast as with my E3,
      but acurate focus is way more important.
      I never forget going from an Minolta A1 to an A2, which focused a heck of a lot faster, but had a allmost 50% just not completely in focus rate. Meaning the Allready sold A1 had much more keepers, even with a lower nr of mp. Never again.


    At least panasonic listen to us, while Olympus blows smoke. Either way, it doesn’t matter success of the Lumix brand will prove you wrong.

    Dxo has Panasonic zoom lenses leading all M43 lenses, the 25mm P/L prime is only second to the Olympus 75mm and the Panasonic 20mm is THE LENS of Micro Four Thirds!

    So yeah, you can thank that TV, Toaster and Vacuum manufacturer for keeping M43 alive.

    • jim

      If the gx7 had oly IBIS it would be my next camera!
      If oly had better vider it would be my next camera!

      I’ll just stick with my E-P1 untill they get it right ;)

      • If we look on dpreview is IQ the E-P5 best of all Olympus camera on low ISO we need up to ISO 25600 for E-M1 is best, and maybe the have better DR on lower ISO to but anyway.

      • Ash

        So you are just going to keep shooting video with your E-P1?


        • jim

          well either way I want 1080 50/60p as well as 25p so untill I get that with a goood IBIS I will be compramising so am happy to wait it out – not long now for sure… the EP1 video is a bit nasty I muct admit but with a bit of work in after FX it cleans up ok ish… just…

      • Yuriy

        And weather sealing please!

    • dau

      Im a lumix (g3) owner but im finding it a little hard to sympathise with the constant bitching on this site by other panny users that theyre being targeted by the olyboys. All it takes is a little backhander and you can be sure to get some fire and brimstone response!
      Personally i dont care who makes the best product in this system, i just want the best bang for my buck. Atm im very tempted by the em1. My only reservations are the lack of built in flash (portability was one of the major reasons for buying into micro 4/3), and the price!

    • Why so angry? Nice thing about m4/3 is that you can choose from 2 brands. If one the companies fail, then it’s not good for the system.

      BTW, the GX7 is nice and probably gonna get one when it dips in price a bit to replace an EPL2. Or get a discounted E-M5 now. Either way, it’s good to have the option.

  • bobthewrecker

    There will be no more FT lenses released. Olympus’ effort is going into MFT – it is good will more than anything to continue support for FT. This camera is first and foremost an improved MFT body, FT support is of secondary importance and it’s there only to allow the existing group of FT users to get ready for the switch. FT glass has almost become legacy – I can see there being maybe up to three iterations of those bodies more until support for FT lenses is dropped. Olympus will now continue releasing MFT counterparts and when the process is complete, FT will become a closed chapter. E-M1 is a succesful attempt in keeping FT kit owners reasonably happy. E-M3 will possibly make FT lenses AF quicker. Don’t forget the next five or so E-M1 firmware upgrades all improving AF speed :)

    • dau

      I agree. Oly has released this camera to prevent FT lens owners jumping ship to another system altogether..

    • What’s wrong with supporting both mounts? Why should FT be dropped? It doesn’t affect m4/3 glass performance one bit.

      BTW, FT lenses are mostly superior to their micro equivalents. It would be silly to lose them after full support has been finally gained.

      • ivo

        I would not be surprised if oly would relaunch some of the 43 glass with an integrated mmf3… or maybe to order, definitely some need for m43 versions of the EC14 and 20.
        maybe a mmf4(macro) version which could extend 0-10mm extra for macro shots with a 43 lens
        And since all those lenses seem to have firmware, we might see some tricks overthere too.

      • bobthewrecker

        Oh I’m well aware of how great this glass is! But they have only just started releasing “nice” glass in MFT. I’m just saying that to me it’s clear from Olympus’ communication is that no more R&D is going into FT lenses. I’m guessing that they will be combining new revisions with a move to MFT and when that’s done, they will have no more commercial interest in supporting a then 20 year old line of lenses. There will always be (slow) CDAF for those who really want to use their FT glass. Just like with Canon FD – great line, shame it got dropped, but we moved on and a lot of designs were ported to EOS. I’m sure people with big white FD lenses were a little annoyed at first, so some kept using their New F1s and T90s and MF for a while but all eventually moved. I think Olympus are still being gentle!

    • ” I can see there being maybe up to three iterations of those bodies more until support for FT lenses is dropped…”

      Once PDAFOS (on sensor) support is in place (from E-M1 and onwards), all FT lenses will remain supported. Since m4/3 CAF also benefits from it, it will be implemented in future m4/3 bodies as well, and both camps will be happy. So PDAFOS (once developed to satisfaction) is not gonna be dropped in any fore-seeable future at least…

      • bobthewrecker

        Don’t get me wrong, I want them to keep the PDAFOS forever, but the way I understand it, the sensor has to be designed with PDAF in mind, the PDAF sensors don’t just have regular sensels assigned to PDAF. This means that Oly will have to keep doing specialised designs for this which limit their options – they will not do it forever, hence my guess is that they are doing FT kit owners a great favour but will eventually phase it out.

        In fact I think that what’s more likely is that Oly are merely probing the market with the E-M1’s FT lens support. Given that the previous bodies didn’t provide reliable support for FT lenses, they didn’t even have enough market research data to verify if the expense of supporting FT is justified i.e. how many users actually want it. After the E-M1 they will have a better idea, which will drive the future of FT support.

  • Looks good to me.

    These new lenses are very promising as well. IMagine the 40-150 focusing as fast as the 75mm with that accuracy. Stunning.

  • Seems that for some the right to criticize must be banished in their tribal world. I am only reminding that with its big, heavy zooms Oly comes from a *failed business model*.

    The margins in the mirrorless segment a very narrow, so one must be double sure of the strategy – there is no room for the ‘spray and pray’. BTW many of my remarks have been made by Thom Hogan, so I am not alone in this. He is quite skeptical of the rising prices policy, and advises more moderate offers.

    It should be self evident since mirrorless cameras are still losing sales and money.


    • Jankoff

      What, on Earth, is the problem for Oly to turn out BOTH the E-M1 and a E-550 DSLR with the new sensor and stabilization?
      They are losing customers with the exorbitant price of the E-M1! And I may well be one of them.

      • Anonymous

        Maybe Olympus realized that E-7 wouldn’t be any better than the E-M1 (even in AF), and the only difference would’ve been OVF vs EVF. They probably think E-M1 is the best of both worlds (FT and m43) and the only profitable way to go.

      • ivo

        since it is likely that the sensor tech will be in the next em5, ep5, whatever m43… Olympus should simply state just that somewhere before the holidays. That would give those Exx Exxx users a (relative, still teethgrinding expensive) alternative to use that 43 glass.
        Doing it now would hurt EM1 sales for those who can not wait, must have the newest latest technology.
        Keep in mind that 90% of what is called pro is bought by gear headed enthusiasts, not by pro…
        But if you have 5k of glass in your bag and getting the same quality of another brand.. you want that expensive alternative, it is still cheaper…
        do the math..
        Alternative there are second hand E3 on ebay around 200-300 usd… who knows they might get more expensive soon.

    • Anonymous

      IMO the shortcoming of 43 was that it didn’t go far enough: it still had the mirror, had a longer flange distance – so the size benefits were less substantial than they could have been. Meanwhile technology has evolved a lot: fulltime liveview, software playing an ever more important role as well as crucial components such as sensor and display panels. Perhaps 43 fell short of the vision the designers had, and only now, with m43, are they fulfilling that potential – easy to say with the hindsight.
      it still was the first step in getting away from the hegemony of the DSLR, m43 is a subsequent step. Obviously, times have changed and the competition has been evolving as well – perhaps in part because of what happened with this system.
      Enjoying the new system while giving the old system some respect, because without it, no way we would be where we are today…

      • I should not answer to Anonymous, both there you go. We are not very many to have witnessed the whole development of Live View. It had a long incubation period, and my take is that it was harshly opposed from the beginning by those who had SHG lenses, either because they were not compatible with it, or for optical purism.

        This rearguard battle went on for some seven years: it delayed the advent of mirrorless, split some forums and generally resulted in internal strife. Peace has been restored at a dear price, which is the E-M1. But I cannot have fond memories of those who did all they could to oppose camera progress for mean selfish reasons.

        In a way it was a blessing that Panny had no SHG lenses. It allowed it to introduce the first mirrorless camera, and open the way to Oly, which had to warring factions at the time. It was also a generational thing which has been cured by the renewal of the Oly board.

        Of course some of you couldn’t care less, others will try to hide the stark reality of it. What matters is that Oly doesn’t repeat the same mistake and doesn’t fall hostage of the conspicuous consumption group, that is the few that can afford top prices, and would rather sink the company intead of bringing progress to all. Keep in mind that even a simple mirrorless kit lens today is infinitely quicker to focus than a SHG lens of old.

      • digifan

        Big applause, +1

      • JimD

        You forget that live view was an Olympus first. Along with the tilt screen of the e330. If you also remember both were derided by the so called experts, professional reviewers and others of the time as not wanted and completely unnecessary (DP review included).
        The problem is Olympus was so far ahead of the game that acceptance became difficult. The ones who thought ‘future’ are the ones who purchased. The rest just denied the need for the innovations and progressed to denigration.

        • LOL- What is not clear to you in the above:

          ” We are not very many to have witnessed the whole development of Live View. It had a long incubation period, and my take is that it was harshly opposed from the beginning by those who had SHG lenses, either because they were not compatible with it, or for optical purism.”


          • Anonymous

            You may be a little egocentric on this one: JimD wasn’t replying to you directly :)
            So he agree with you, but you can’t retain yourself from bashing him… Hopefully he wasn’t denying you! ;)

  • Anonymous


  • I wish there were some focusing examples from near to far, for example from 3 feet to 50 feet and vice versa.

  • lone.samurai

    Either way I’m buying the em1.
    If after I’ve tested it thoroughly with my mmf2 it proves to be a complete af solution for my 43 glass in saf and caf then I’ll purchase the mmf3 for it’s weather sealing and all 43 and m43 lenses stay as one happy family but if it doesn’t deliver especially in the caf department things get a little more complicated and I’ve been patient enough.

    Ultimately these are all tools and if the caf on the em1 really sucks I think I’ll sell the e3, 40-150,50-200swd, ec14 and probably even the 12-60swd and will raise money for one high end canikon body plus one telephoto lens for wildlife, birds and this setup is only for these types of photography and won’t interfere or overlap with my m43 setup which I’ll continue using for all other photography like travel, landscape, macro etc…

    In this worst case scenario I’m intending to keep the leica lumix 14-150 43 lens and the 50f2 + ex25 combo because for the type of photography I use these lenses it seems the af speed will be adequate and they simply have no equal.
    Some will choose to wait longer till the em7 or the em1 mk2 and I respect that but I’ve done my time, besides I’ll still be using Olympus for a long time to come.
    I dont see a better format for me than m43 after factoring in size, weight and quality. Wildlife photography perhaps being the one exception and if Olympus falls short with their latest offering combined with 43 glass I think I’ll supplement my Olympus with a precision tool/camera instead of jumping ship like some do…..for me that’s not even conceivable because I love using Olympus gear.
    Any others here that’ll go the same way by adding a canikon + tele lens stricly for caf intense stuff and for all other use oly or panny m43?…this is only if the em1 doesn’t deliver remember.

    • ivo

      i wish there was a sealed version of that leica 14-150…

  • andrew

    Cameralabs: E-M1 vs E-M5 vs. GX7

  • C. C.

    Did Robin actually compare AF on the E-M1 with 43 lenses versus the E-5, E-3, and E-30? Where were the results with these other three cameras? Nope, he did it from “memory” with these other cameras, just like the bogus DPReview.

    Based on what I’ve seen on the Internet, the E-M1 with the 43 lenses is plenty fast enough for me. And this is why I will purchase the E-M1.

    • Bob4

      “Nope, he did it from “memory” with these other cameras”

      That’s the thing the Olympus cultists like all good little followers trust the word of their preacher men above all those heretics and non-believers :-).Jesting aside I am with you I am buying the E-M1 because it has a superb feature set that ticks all the boxes I want.

  • Yuriy

    With all this mess with Olympus OM-D line, Panasonic GX7 looks great. The only thing that prevents me from jumping to Pana is weather sealing which is a critical point for me. I hope Pana will figure out something. Imagine weather sealed GX7. A dream…

  • Henrik

    I like it that you post the conclusions of external reviews you’re linking to.

    I just wonder if the original writers like that too. I for one will rarely click the provided link to read the whole original review; i am content with the conclusion you copied into your blog post.

  • Leo C

    AF speed is fast with 50mm f/2 macro, this is what I only care about.

  • Not an Expert

    I have an E400 and 3 4/3 lenses should I buy the E-M1 or start again elsewhere? (I can handle the abuse!)

    • ivo

      highly depends on your lenses, if they are relative cheap not high grade, you might be better of going m43 alltogether since the mmf3 is not cheap either.
      Would also remove your limitation to the em1 (depending your needs).

    • JimD

      You can keep the lenses then take them to a shop and try them out on an E-M1, which I would do (I have 4/3 glass as well as m43). Or take the punt and swap systems. If I was doing that it would be to Sony Nex but ONLY after I have seen the new ‘BIG’ one that should be around from Oct. Either way wait. If the E-m1 is great on 4/3 glass then 4/3 glass will go up in value then bail out or stick with it as you already have made the investment.

  • Brigitte Zaczek

    If you like the general micro43 idea (smaller bodies and lenses) buy the EM-1 as I am going to. But don´t buy it only because you own 4/3 lenses if they are not top quality.

  • Just wondering – does using touchscreen shutter introduce any extra measurable delay? I imagine at least the system has first to decide what AF point to use…

    • Well that shows how totally clueless you are about the technology in general. Perhaps even reading an old manual would bring you up to speed :)

    • undoubtedly
      but we are talking in milliseconds
      countable? yes, significant? no

      • Probably not, but touch screen operations on my E-P3 feel just a little sluggish. It certainly was a good way for Robin Wong to demo AF, but i’d be interested to see how PDAF performs with a preselected AF point. Either way it seems rapid enough for my purposes.

        • It is the same of the E-M5, therefore it is instant. The only way it could be delayed are if the motors of an old lens don’t follow. But thenThe EVF AF should be similar.

        • JimD

          As Riley said “countable? yes, significant? no” or that should be the case. However when you use the EVF and shutter button your mind is operating slightly differently and seeing a similar action in a different way to using the touch screen. I think that makes the touch screen appear slower though it is not really different. Maybe an avid phone user would find the reverse. Perception would also be changed by the resulting display of the jpeg and for how long if at all.

  • Not an Expert

    They are kit lenses 14-42, 50-150 plus the 18-180 Zuiko

    • Ivo

      Imho opinion those lenses would not be my reason to get a em1 but I own 12-60/50-200swd and the ec14/20
      In your case i would try to loan a em5 or cheaper m43 and either the 14-150 or the 12-50 with the em5 if you need weather sealing, make some shots and see if it makes you happy for a lot less as the em1 with mmf3
      Otoh you could also loan a mmf3 and see how it works on that em5 since the 43 lenses which are causing most issues are the swd high end ones and they need the em1 to come close.

      But getting a complete m43 set omd-em5 with 2 lenses might be the best alternative, though I love oly I would also peekaboo at other brands if you are going to change completely.

      unless you have to much cash at hand and love the em1 grinn which is ok also. I will wait a bit until the em5ii hits the streets and the em1 might drop a bit or gives a good alternative to the em1

    • anymouse

      Realistically, you’ll be buying into a new system no matter what you do. Which system you go with depends on what you really want from it. I like the m43 system for the size and flexability. That I can use 43 lenses on the E-M1 is just a bonus. After all, my E-510 and E-30 never stopped taking pictures. I also recognize the weaknesses of the system. If I want better IQ or more control of DoF, I can use something else. Since I am not a pro and take pictures for myslef, it doesn’t matter that I am not using a FF camera. If you want something small and flexable for travel, consider m43 and take a look at some of the APS offerings as well.

  • AF looks slower, like on lower end E bodies such as the E620.

  • bobthewrecker

    Funny how those AF “benchmarks” are done on fruit or action figures in studios. To me, sharp-to-misfocused picture ratio while actually shooting something for purpose, is the real benchmark. Some people who didn’t shoot fast action, were even OK with FT lens support via CDAF. It’s all relative.

  • Not an Expert

    Thank you Ivo for your honest opinion

  • tygra

    Khe-khe, is it the test???
    My D90 with 18-105 lens have same speed AF if i focused on far and near
    But if i focused on same distance – AF speed is very fast
    Where is it in test?

    That not test of AF speed, that test of AF motor speed :-)

  • AF technology has been constantly changing, even from a 6 month old model to another. And this has been going on for years.

    The only evergreen lenses, which never lose money, are the MF beauties, like the Voigts.

    So what does one complain about with 4/3? It is nothing short of a miracle that Oly succeeded in salvaging them. After all it did so by translating a technology, into another, which is much much older.

    I contend that it is the utter stupidity of their owner that made them spend thousands on lenses which AF was going to obsolesce as sure as the Sun circles the Earth.

    Instead they contended the opposite, that the Sun should circle their private Earth.

    A sound advice by an old fox, is never spend more on lenses than what you can afford to lose in a very few years. The rate of obsolescence is increasing if anything. Even in CDAF we’ve seen multiple versions, that sent to the dogs the earlier version.

    And yet the old illusion of film – that lenses are eternal – endures. Like cameras, inexpensive lenses can be excellent. With ISO 5000 and 4 stops IBIS, nobody needs more than f/2.8 primes, like the excellent Sigma primes, which cost nothing, compared to IQ.

    People cling desperately to the old pecking order of film, getting homicidal, when you tell them that it has perished. I say, R.I.P. It was no better or more just than this one.
    We don’t deal in Egyptian Mummies, after all :)

    • Anitbiotics

      Pssst. Psst. ow many mummises yoy wana i give special justa for you.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website, 43rumors.com, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.