DxOmark: “micro 4/3 camera-lens combination is perfectly capable of replacing an APS-C combination”



Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12mm f/2.0 gets DxOmarked (Click here): “With its extraordinary sharpness for a micro 4/3 lens, the Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12mm f/2.0 is a winner.Pitted against the Nikon 1 NIKKOR 10mm f/2.8, this Olympus 12mm holds an overwhelming advantage. Even more impressive is the fact that this lens can compete with much bigger lenses, such as the Canon 24mm L-series mounted on a 7D. In short, it really does seem that a high-quality, fully micro 4/3 camera-lens combination is perfectly capable of replacing an APS-C combination

Honestly, I couldn’t agree more!!!

Olympus 12mm price check: Amazon, B&H, Adorama, Olympus US store, FocusCamera, eBay.

P.S.: A couple of days ago they posted the Panasonic 14-42mm X lens review (Click here to read it)

  • che fool


  • ag

    Yep, they sure are nice but pricey.

    The m4/3 PL Summilux 25mm is also better than the Canon 50mm EF or L.

    Canon and Nikon are great companies, but have become drunk on easy profits and slow response to market changes. They are catering to really high end pro’s the most.

    • Alan

      I don’t know about that, but it is a wonderful lens.

  • They pay DXO. :)

    • Ernest.orf

      Mewmew, u dont know nothing of photography!!!!!
      Zuiko 12 mmm is so damn good ^^

      • I have 50mm macro and 50-200 mm SWD, so I know a little bit about Zuiko`es..
        DXO have testet 2 FT “kit” lenses so far.Not much support from their side.
        Now the MFT get poppular, they smell money….

  • ijack

    In fact according to their metric, it is the best non-FF combination for Super Wide.

  • skeptics

    would DxO please stop crapping. They are no longer a source for reference for performance as far as myself is concerned.

    • JimD

      They told you something you did not want to hear?

      • John O’Connell

        Hi JimD.Love your comment.so true.

    • Ernest.orf

      Skep buuuu , i have both one with my Canon 5 D MII and the other with a EP3 in the 12 mm is far good , in construction and glass ^^, also the combination is really light, unlike the 5d that is real heavy !!!!!!

  • “it really does seem that a high-quality, fully micro 4/3 camera-lens combination is perfectly capable of replacing an APS-C combination”…

    Considering all the recent E-M 5 threads in which people have been proclaiming ever-so-confidently that M43 can’t possibly compete with APS-C, that the relative picture-taking performance of different camera/lens systems can be quantified exactly (“0.83 stops”) based on nothing but a comparison of sensor area… well, there’s going to have to be some pretty fancy rationalizing done. Get your popcorn now!

    • Raist3d

      True, considering also how many say DXo Scores are trash. I want to see how many resolve the dichotomy :-)

      • Den

        Just go away you sad little man.

        • Raist3d


          • PS

            Where do you stand ?

    • I’m still interested in hearing how you would quantify the difference between a 43 and APS-C sized sensor. As it stands 0.83 is the best analysis I’ve heard, but I’m open to alternative explanations.


    • baseline

      0.83 stops, actually it’s only 0.70 EV, 2/3 EV between DX and m4/3.

      Since the sensor area is the most dominant factor for the DxO Score, it comes at no surprise, that the somewhat smaller sensor of m4/3 will not top score in DxO figures. But DxO is more then that, there are figures, and tables that does tell a bit more, but takes a bit more understanding. I personally find it valid to compare between the various generations of m4/3 cameras.

      Therefore, it’s refreshing now to see the combination of lenses and cameras paired, and how that system performs together.

      • “Since the sensor area is the most dominant factor for the DxO Score…”

        I don’t think size is a dominant factor, actually the sensor size is not a factor at all in the DxO results!?
        (Hope I’m not wrong about this.)

        • safaridon

          The dominant factor in the overall DXO score is the light gathering ability and here sensor size and design determine how much light is received. Hence it is only appropriate to compare cameras when using lenses of the same speed or f stop.

          When you compare the Pany Xlens with the Oly 12mm faster lens the Pany resolves almost as much 49 vrs 53 as the Oly yet receives an overall score of only 10 compared to 17 for the Oly? If you compare apples with apples the Pany Xlens on GH2 outresolves the D5100 with its kit lens but both register an DXO 10. DXO have not yet tested and of the kit lenses for the NEX7 but if you compare for instance the Sony 80/f2.8 lens you will find the Pany Xlens is just as

          Any thorough analysis using this tool from DXO should indicate that the combo of m4/3 and its lenses are a match for the APS-C cameras with their lenses or even better in some cases. So instead of disparing the overall DXO marks best to just look at the breakdown of the tested parameters for a truer reflection of what you can expect.

          • Bart

            Actually, sencel size, fill ratio and design determine this.

            Sensor size only tells how many sencels one can fit, hence, how many megapixels your sensor can have based on a given sencel size.

  • Charles

    I wish they would also test the exceptional Oly 45/1.8 as well as the Pany 20/1.7 – in my book these represent the best quality for the money m43 primes at this time.

  • Raist3d

    Depending on which APS-C and m4/3rds combination + shooting situation, sure.

  • micksh

    And why is full frame lens mounted on 1.6 crop sensor for comparison?
    Change body to 5DMkII and Canon 24mm lens score goes up to 30 – unreachable for 12mm lens or any other 4/3-m4/3 lenses DxOMark tested (they almost never tested m4/3 lenses actually).

    • Tedao Endo


    • Rchard

      And how many 1.6 crop lenses have Canon? If you are supposed to use the lenses with a 1.6 crop camera, there is nothing wrong to test it on such camera.

    • True, 24/1.4 on 5DMkII is a lot better but also a lot more expensive.

      Interesting though that they don’t have a test of an APS-C lens with a 24mm equivalent – probably because there isn’t any 16mm APS-C prime other than the Sony 16/2.8. Which means, the Oly 12/2 is best on any crop system by default lol

    • Brod1er

      To answer your question, it seems pretty obvious that they compare APSC and MFT because they are in the same ballpark in terms of size and the mainstream market they sell to. It is fairly pointless comparing mft and FF as they offer very different size/price/performance. Several (lucky) folk on this forum have both.

      • Vlad


        • micksh

          Then why do they compare 36mm equiv lens with 24mm?
          There is Pentax 15mm APS-C prime and lots of zooms that start from 16-17mm, some F2.8. Most of them are cheaper than Oly 12mm and would have been better suited for comparison on APS-C body.

          • Dxo tested a bunch of those zooms and you can use their site to compare it on your own and you’ll find the 12/2 beat those zooms.

          • Vlad

            Correct me if I am wrong, but given that this is an FF lens and the APS-C is using the best part of it, it should actually be an advantage for the 7D.

      • Rich


    • Martin

      It is extremely unlikely that the score on a 5DMkII would even come close to 30. The theoretical maximum would be 18×1.6=28.8, but as most of the parameters DXOmark scores will degrade substantially when the lens is used on FF rather than just exploiting the inner circle of its image, the true value will be considerably below that. Distortion, chromatic aberration, and vignetting will increase substantially on the larger image circle for optical reasons. And, additionally, the 5DMkII has a smaller pixel density than the 7D, such that the resolution will also fail to increase by the theoretically possible factor of 1.6. You shouldn’t expect expect more than the low 20s from the combination with the 5DMkII.

      • simon

        Sounds reasonable, but they have actually tested it on the 5Dmk2 (user the drop down menu) and the score *is* 30.

        • Martin

          Okay, didn’t know about that test beforehand, but when looking at it, why is the score 30? When I look at the values, it should be very much in the same range as on the 7D. Resolution and chromatic aberration are only slightly enhanced (far from factor 1.6, in fact just ca. 15%), vignetting is rising to an awful level (3 EV). So why should I be able to produce 70% larger prints, which an increase from DXOmark 18 to 30 would imply? Seems that something is wrong with the figures, or the rules have changed between those tests.

          • simon

            The DxOmark value for lenses assumes a fairly low light condition, which means you’re balancing the f-stop vs. ISO value.

            For the 7D, the optimum has f/2.8, whereas they report f/2 for the 5D2. Couple this to the intrinsic noise advantage of the larger sensor (1.3-ish stop) and the 5D has 2+ stops more light to play with. This lowers the noise, and increases the total ‘information’ (which is what the DxOmark number measures).

    • Ernest.orf

      Brot1er mmmmm true BUT!!!
      I have that convination canon 5 d MII and the optics, and the ep3 with an 12mm zuiko, are far good,compact, and lighter, of course one is a FF and the other is an m4/3 , but still really usable and portable ^^

      • Brod1er

        You don’t need to convince me! I chose a GH1 instead of a 5D2 two years ago. Size and weight do count for me and the mft standard is now proving well established which was the main concern back then. Enjoy the EP3!

      • Test

        Well, but Canon has never gained such a good reputation for its wide angle lenses. Nikon and Zeiss are way better and a lot of Canon users shooting architecture adapts Nikkor or Zeiss lenses on their bodies. I own a 5D mk1 and my 24mm TSE mk1 is very soft in the corners. I was deceived by it?

  • Tadeo

    A hammer for the nails and the screwdriver for the screws.

    I tried some canon gear before and altough it was not top-end gear i felt it a bit soft compared to my E-P1 (or just may be that i know my camera and know how to get the best results out of it)

    • bli

      @Tadeo: if purchasing the E-M5 (the “hump”) — would that be for the nails or for the screws? :-)

  • Charlie

    I have this lens!

    • JimD

      Which one? There are three to chose from.

  • KingArthur10

    I just love the, “Oh wow, I guess a 4/3 lens can do well” when they’ve only tested three lenses from Oly EVER (the 14-42 kit 4/3 lens, and the rather weak 35mm macro).

    Maybe if they had tested more lenses, they might have realized this a long time ago with some of the superb glass that Oly has released in the past.

    Oh, and that’s the first Panasonic lens they’ve tested, too.

    At least they’ve finally tested some u4/3 lenses!

  • White_Hammer

    Of course, now everyone sees how formiddable E-M5 is. E-M5 performance is superior to both APS-C and FF. Plus, M4/3 top lens are absolutely great and perhaps better than Nikon’s pricy Nano lens.

    I’m pretty sure that APS-C DSLR will gradually disappear from market in few years from now. Then FF DSLR will slowly disappear too and will be replaced with M4/3 cameras in near future.

    • You forget that there are people who like things M43 can not provide, like DOF control. There M43 can not compete. Why people don´t get, I don´t understand.

      • Ru Elpser


        The nikkor g 24 1.4 blows everything away but as the canon it is meant for ff

        • Steve

          Can we please stop with the lens A/camera B “blows everything away” hyperbole? It’s meaningless and counterproductive.

          • brudy

            Seriously. It sounds so juvenile. My whatever is better than your whatever. Grow up and take pictures.

      • Den

        Mungo. M43 has plenty of depth of field control. The first sign of an amateur is ridiculous shallow planes of focus. I’ve got a gimmick and can’t wait to use it. Artist and film directors very rarely use it and when they do in close up it is well within four thirds capabilities.

        • Den: No it doesn´t. I am used to shooting with f/1.4 on FF, so I know what I am talking about. FYI, I shoot with 25 mm f/1.4 panaleica and 50 mm f/1.4 Sigma on FF. I also shoot with Sigma 20 f/1.8 and Canon 35 f/1.4 L on 5D mk II – there just simply is not anything like those wider lenses, since there are no decent options on 20-35 equivalent range for M43 (actually the new 17,5 f/0,95 Voigtländer might fit the bill, but without autofocus it is not so desirable)

          It just is a fact people need to acknowledge.

          For some reason the cult mentality here seems to forget that tiny little detail all the time. Why can´t people just accept the fact that we have different needs?

          Oh, and by the way: thank you for pointing out my amateurishness. Without knowing a single thing about me, that shows a remarkable talent for clairvoyance on your part.

          • Mumbo

            If you have ‘different needs” why are you here. Why not gatecrash a party and tell everyone you hate alcohol and dancing because i have “different needs”.

            • Ernest.orf


            • Rich


            • Scotch

              Yeah Mumbo is right, surely this m43 party people are drunk and crazy
              and suffer from serious “fanboyism”

          • Anonymous

            I would like to see you post some photos of yours that use a depth of field that is thinner than a mFT camera can manage.

          • “just accept the fact that we have different needs”… right back at ya.

            The 12/2 would satisfy my need for a sharp and relatively bright wide angle, which will be used for landscape and architecture. Unlike 24mm on FF, I wouldn’t have to stop down to F/4 to get a lot of stuff in focus, which is great especially when in doors, such as cathedrals.

      • flash

        I always see the depth of field argument for different sensor and film formats. Here is a place you can check some http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html (not much different for APC to mft). I have only had a depth of field problem using an old larger medium format film camera doing a portrait. Needed more light, it also was not the right tool for the job (as mention you need a screwdriver for a screw and a hammer for a nail). With flexible ISO that digital cameras that you can change focal lengths never, even ones with a not so good sensor.

        Maybe, people are using a practice books (or trying to duplicate shoots) and trying to replicate shoots taken with other types of equipment. How many shoots of flickering candles do you want? More shots (including mine) are ruined because of to shadow DOF, then to much. The background can be interesting also.

        • Geoff

          I always enjoy the DoF argument, primarily because most of us know what WE are talking about. However when most people see that photograph of themselves standing about 2-3 metres in front of a brick wall or bush, how many of them notice whether the wall is out of focus or not, how many will comment of the wonderfull bokeh, ever commented on that with someone who has replied “I don’t see the boquet”. Photography for the masses is all about taking pleasant snapshots of their family on holiday and at family parties, with the occasional scene thrown in, they don’t know what DoF is, or the difference between something which is out of focus or simply soft; I know od one guy who had a good business shooting portraits using a realy high end TLR the plastic Lubitel, why because the customers liked the soft nature of the result. Now we, spend mega bucks on buying the best lens and bodies money can by, then add a filter to soften the lens, which one of us had the best profit margins???

      • White_Hammer

        Lots of bright M4/3 lens can give us DOF more than enough and not much different than FF.

        • Scotch

          have you really used both of them or you are just talking based on tech spec?

          • White_Hammer

            Yes both.

            The test result above confirms that M4/3 top lens in market may be equal to or possibly better than top FF lens (L and Nano lens.)

      • its possible, ofcourse not as extreme as on FF, but you still get beautiful object isolation at longer distances, as long as you know which lenses to use.

      • BLI

        Have you tested the Rodenstock 50/0.75 that a US company fits to m43 cameras? Won’t that give you similar DOF as your FF/1.4?
        Of course, the Rodenstock doesn’t have AF.

        • trm böy

          and it will be unusably soft at f0.7 where a high quality FF-prime lens will be biting sharp from f1.4

      • Most of us knows about the DoF compromise. I, among many, would claim that if I badly wanted more control over out of focus blurs, I would have invested in larger formats.
        In that specific regard, indeed, m43 is not an alternative.

        That said, my Epson stylus prints at widest 13″ only and my largest prints are reproductions of my paintings. No DoF there. Honestly, I’d like to see if I’d see a difference if I used a FF for a print. For the rest, I am one of those who is not obsessed with shallow DoF. *for me* m43 does compete with aps-c.

      • I’m going to ignore the other replies for now, and the name calling, and address the basic point. First lets stipulate that a given lens wide open at a given FOV or given distance, your choice, will have different DOF characteristics when used on FF APS-C or M43 cameras… so what. Shooting say a 50mm ƒ1.4 on FF at close range, say across a small cafe table will give you certain results Lovely you can drop out some of the annoying background clutter, with any luck get a nice portrait. (btw i shot with a 50mm ƒ 1.4 for years Canon F-1 lots of tri-x). But to categorically state that M43 has no control over DOF is rather overstating things to put it midly. Yes in absolut terms you can get shallower DOF with FF, not contesting that (funny though how getting deeper DOF within a lens’ sweet spot aperture range doesn’t seem to count as DOF control…). Lets go back to that cafe table, its small, I’m sitting across from my subject, i’m close to my minimun focus distance in one case. But this time my 50mm ƒ1.4 (Canon FD legacy glass) is attached via a fotodiox adaptor to an Olympus E-PL 1and we now have a 100mm equivalent ƒ1.4 focusing at a 500mm distance…
        a couple of sample for you to look at:
        I certainly was lacking in DOF options here. Both of these btw were shot at ƒ1.4 and focus manually, of course, with the 10x focus assist zoom (yikes 1000 mm equiv hand held focusing!) i eventually found the 7x option :)

        • Anonymous

          I personally think you depth of field was way too thin on the first photo (cheek in focus, ear and top of the head out of focus). The second photo is much more effective with its wider depth of field (whole face in focus).
          I’m still looking for someone to provide a FF photo of theirs that effectively uses a depth of field that could not be achieved with a mFT camera. Until then I think that this whole “FF DOF is best” argument is a moot point. How often does the average enthusiast photographer actually need razor thin depth of field?
          (Just because an enthusiast photographer chooses to use razor thin depth of field, doesn’t mean that the photo needed it)

        • flash

          I like the second photo a lot.

          If one had a Nikon D3, if one put it on a small cafe table would the table rock to much? :) It would of made taking that shot a lot easier, but you would of had to have the camera with you. And the camera would have not to intimidate the subject. Maybe the best camera for that is a D700 (never even held one).

          Something about both Nikon and Canons “big guns” that bothers some subjects. The cameras say I am here to take photos, and they are both part of an exceptional capable system that can.

          The Leicas even the big ones seem nicer for the subjects, but not your bank account. They allow you to get more intimate with the subject IMHO. I think mFT and NEX also allows this intimacy with live subjects, which makes for a good experience in taking the picture.

        • I too prefer the second one.
          In portraits, out of focus blur is one method of separating the subject from its background. It is a fine method by any means, but I dislike when the blur reaches part of the subject. Ears, hairs, everything should be in focus. It may not a hard rule, depending on the desired effect, but its something I am sensible to.

          People talks of f1.2 lenses as “portraits lenses” when in fact some of the bests portraits are done at the lenses sweet spot, typically around f8.

        • thanks for the comments on the photos. The first one was a grab shot from very close with 10x zoom manual focus so exact framing was left to chance somewhat, or memory at least lol! Yes it is certainly extremely shallow which is why i included it really in my sample here. One can get too little depth of field if one wants with M43. btw bot were shot wide open ƒ1.4 the second worked out better because the sensor plane was more aligned with his, again all i saw in the frame when i took it was his nose and the smoke, as soon as it was sharp i took the picture, no time for anything else!

    • Miroslav

      “FF DSLR will slowly disappear too and will be replaced with M4/3 cameras in near future.”

      Wrong. FF DSLR will be replaced by FF mirrorless sometime in the future, but not in the next 10 years. It won’t disappear just like film cameras and medium format cameras did not. Too many people bought too many expensive lenses to give it up. FF will stay in the pro domain, maybe with lower sales than today, but will survive, because it has its place.

      • Steve

        FF mirrorless. You mean the Leica M digital, on the market since 2006?

        It’s here already, mate.

        • Esa Tuunanen

          Those Leicas are more expensive status symbols than heavy use tools unlike DSLRs which are designed as tool.
          In bigger sensor DSLRs it’s just easier to have prism viewfinder with big and bright image so in them it’s going to retain its place longer against EVF than in APS-C DSLRs.

          • bidou

            Really? Do you know how expensive a “real” tool cost ? I mean, not prosumer stuff ? Leica M9 is a big hit among profesional that use tool before trying to get a status.

  • Nic Walmsley

    Let the flame wars begin.

  • T.j.

    Dont mean to be the voice of question. But, a new M43 camera ($700+) and a $900 lens I should hope that it is in some way a DSLR replacement, Or APSC. I just don’t think that it’s really bang for the buck, other than in portability.

    • Scotch


  • SLO

    Why put much weight in comparisons? Get the right tool for the job and be done with it!

  • Bob B.

    Well….I love my G3 and GX1…they are amazing …and I have like 8 or 9 autofocus MTF lenses I own…including the Pany/Leica lenses (25mm f/1.4 and 45mm f/2.8 Macro) and the Oly 45mm f/1.8 and the 12mm f/2.0…It’s all good …and I have sold prints in galleries etc. with this equipment …BUT…it really doesn’t touch my Canon 5DMark II with some L-Glass primes, Zeiss primes and/or the incredible Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II Zoom. When it comes to DR and making prints ….MFT has a long way to go…but it kicks butt for portability, immediacy and just plain FUN FACTOR!

    I love both worlds! :-)

  • Pei

    So how would the ED 12mm f/2.0 compares with modern APS-C sensor like SONY’s 16 and 24mp? A Nikon D7000 + 35 f/1.8 should beats it easily.

    It sounds like 12mm f/2.0 + m4/3 sensor is only good against a sensor half its size or a sensor 4 years older.

    I would also like to point out 24mm f/1.4L + Canon FF (1DX, 5D3) will have amazing IQ, a class or two above E-M5 + whatever m4/3 lenses. (Of course the target is different but the fact is still true)

    • Vlad

      One would hope that a camera and lens twice as expensive, if not more, and a sensor twice as big, will beat an E-M5 with the 12mm.

      • Pei

        35 f/1.8 is $200, D7000 is $1200. Total cost = $1400
        12 f/2.0 is $800, E-P3 is $850. Total cost = $1650

        In fact, if you sub D7000 with D5100 $749 (total = $949) DSLR would still win.

        • BZZZTT!

          Thanks for playing. Johnny will let you know about your consolation prize.

        • Vlad

          I was talking about the FF, but anyway.
          An interesting calculation. What prompted you to use the 35/1.8?

          • Pei

            You said sensor twice as big so I thought you were talking about APS-C since FF is nearly four times the size.

            I picked 35 f/1.8 because it is a Nikon APS-C must-have lens. It has get review and I have one on my D90.

            Of course if you want wide angle lens to compare, there are many prime or zoom to choose from and Tokina 11-16 is one of the most popular and cheap.

            • Vlad

              My bad, I was writing fast.
              As I see it, comparing to FF – not much to be found there. Comparing it to APS-C – if we start choosing lenses and actually taking into account features like weatherproof body and size advantages, I find the OM-D very well priced.

    • Rich

      Yes and my Ferrari goes much faster than my neighbours Skoda – funny that….

      • Miroslav

        More like comparing a station wagon to a truck. m4/3 and FF cameras are too different to compare. Performance wise, size wise or price wise, different tools for different jobs.

    • Digifan

      @Pei, I think you are missing the clue!!!!
      The 12mm F2 WAS measured against a modern APS-C, and the D7000, is not MUCH better than the 7D.
      You seen the lens they used is the “24mm F1.4 L”?

      The thing is m43 is rated very low, sensor wise, by DxO. The rated figure is used by many to diss the m43 format.
      I don’t care for their rating, I know a (m)43 can outperform an APS-C camera or FF, it’s just depending on where you need it for.

      I rent 35mm or MF equippement when I see fit, I absolutely have NO need for APS-C at all (m)43 will do that easily even with the “old” 12MP sensors.

      • Pei

        I got your point. Everything is based on the user and the situation.

        My problem has to do with this statement: “fully micro 4/3 camera-lens combination is perfectly capable of replacing an APS-C combination”

        It seems they forget to add “…in certain situations”

        Of course the fanboy cry that m4/3 is going to finish APS-C and FF doesn’t help the situation.

    • BLI

      @Pei: are you trying to compare a lens (12/2) to a camera/sensor (Sony 16, 24 Mpx)??? And a 24mm (Oly, with crop factor 2) to a 52.5mm (Nikon, with crop factor 1.5)?

    • Stu5


      The Canon 7D that was used for the test is not even 4 years old yet. So your statement you made:

      “It sounds like 12mm f/2.0 + m4/3 sensor is only good against a sensor half its size or a sensor 4 years older.”

      is far from correct. In fact the difference in age between the 7D and GH2 used in the test is more like just over a 1 year difference (16 months)

      Also the 1DX, 5D Mk III and EM-5 are not even on the market yet. You don’t even know what sensor the 5D Mk III will have yet, so to say your a bit early on your comparisons is putting it mildly.

    • Miroslav

      You’re comparing 24mm F2 and 52.5 F1.8? What can you put on D7000 to give you light gathering abilities of that Olympus 12mm F2?

    • bilgy_no1

      “It sounds like 12mm f/2.0 + m4/3 sensor is only good against a sensor half its size or a sensor 4 years older.”

      You silly person… The GH2 sensor is less than 1 year apart from the sensor in the Canon 7D!!!

      Anyway, it just goes to show how people can interpret things differently…

  • The 12mm is a well built, fun little lens which makes nice images. That is enough information for me. I don’t need scores and comparisons to reassure my choices, thank you very much. Read this if you like (by Kirk Tuck):

    • JimD

      Nice article.

    • MGuarini


  • Bimbo

    Admin, new video from the E-M5. Looks really good. Have a look.


    • The Real Stig

      If you want people to look at the video, just mention that the ‘hot’ model from the Focus numerique shots appears in it, and then stand back so you don’t get trampled in the stampede. ;)

      Towards the end.

      • Anonymous

        That first model looks like she stuck her lips inside a beehive, lol.

  • I am kind of disappointed that DxO mark compare a lenses with a different FOV and draw that kind of conclusion. It kind of takes away their credibility, IMO. Not to mention different apertures, DOF etc. To compare lenses, fine, but to jump to that kind of conclusion, not cool.

    I love M43 as much as anyone using it, but I do recognize the need for APS-C or FF system from time to time. If there was a FF camera with M43-like small form factor, I would totally go there.

  • Ru Elpser

    Isn t the 24 canon a 38 on the 7D ? Imo all olympus lenses are overhyped even those magic SHG lenses, had them, sold them

    • E-1

      I still think my 50-200 (100-400 equiv) is the best tele there is for balancing quality (very good), brightness (good), weight (reasonable), size (ok), price (good).

    • BLI

      What do you mean by “overhyped”? I thought it was simpler to make good lenses in the “normal” range around 35-50 mm. If so, isn’t it really the Canon lens that is “overhyped”?

    • Digifan

      [quote]Isn t the 24 canon a 38 on the 7D ? Imo all olympus lenses are overhyped even those magic SHG lenses, had them, sold them[/quote]


      The point is there is no 16mm or in Canon world 15mm to get to equiv 24mm.

      Olympus lenses are not overhyped, they have been consistently better than their counter parts from most mfrs.

      • Ru Elpser

        I’ve shot with the trinity 7-14, 14-35, and 35-100 shg professionally until 6 months ago, and had amortised the setup by a long time, they’re superbly built, the f2 aperture is useful, weatherealing and all but they’re expensive,big and heavy (bigger than FF equivalents..), then a simple weekend test on fullframe gave me better pictures even with non-stellar top of the line lenses, some medium class standard lenses, this had me thinking, so i sold off all my oly gear, also the dof penalty was very annoying for me.

        what didn’t work for me, might work perfectly for anybody else, no question, personally speaking i’d been steppin up the lens game after all the rave about the shg’s in the internet. i dumped the HG lenses consistenty until i had all 3 SHG lenses. and thought the SHG lense might avoid me to step up to a bigger format, but using FF with prime lenses has been an eye-opener for me, instead of 3 huge zooms, I shoot with 3 top-notch primes now, 35, 50, 85, covers 99 % of my assignments, sharpness creaminess, dr all is there now (it never was, not even with the E-5) shooting primes changed my photography to the better, do I need anything else? yes sometimes I rent a 18 or a shift lens when I have the need to go ‘wider’ or architecture.

        another argument why m43 makes sense to me are those newer sweet primes, while classic 43 doesn’t make sense anymore (at least not in E-5 sized bodys…) olympus seems to have noticed that. those m43 prime lenses are sweet but no substitute for fullframe rather a small and light travel setup

  • marilyn

    honestly the 12mm is really a great lens… but comparing it with a mirco4/3 40-150mm vs a regular 4/3 40-150… the optics of the regular is still KING…

  • Alexander

    so now we need a range finder camera from Olympus with viwefinder. this is the only way to come out of this interface access trap that makes the camera big !

    • flash

      Rangefinder? Is not the auto-focus good? :) or do you mean a brick camera that is faux rangefinder in looks. Kind of wish they had a film body, but what film could it use?

      It would at be as big and long as the NEX 7, and if by Olympus bigger do to IBS. Maybe Panasonic can make an x model with a build in viewfinder. http://camerasize.com/compare/#33,183 I bet it would sell. I think Olympus will not for a while now, till the OM-D series is established.

      • Alexander

        I guess you are right, unfortunately. I don’t know what this interface port is good for. just for this 2 LED it makes no reaseon to build the whole camera around this option….

        • flash

          Agree with you I cant image that most will use the Pen hot shoe accessories on a OM-m5. I would of went retro with the port and hot shoe, and make it removable like the OM-1 and OM-2n.

          In fact like the OM-2n have a couple of different type of shoes, such as one with just mike jacks out, or a sync to use with one of Olympus pocket digital recorders, another standard hot shoe, etc; also I would of made the included pocket flash to connect directly to the “hump” without a hot shoe.

          This would of allowed it to be much shorter and have a pretty crown.

      • reverse stream swimmer

        Yes, I also think Panasonic is better suited for a boxy looking small camera with integrated EVF. I think the Panasonic EVF unit is physically smaller and is using a current sparser pixel-altering display technique.

        I also guess the 5-axis is huge, and will only fit in the upcoming E-P4, maybe also in E-PL3, but hardly in E-PM2.

        Trading an internal flash for an internal EVF seems to most times be like a win, especially since the Panasonic still lacks Wireless RC Flash.

        • flash

          There will be miniaturization of the “gyros” it is amazing how small they can be, giving time, money and large production. In time for the next generation of Pens maybe not:(, but the one after that.

    • mahler

      Calling the EM-5 as big, is as usual out of proportion.

  • scalia

    DXO should review the ZD 12-60mm, since Pekka Potka tested it and said it even better than the MZD 12mm prime. Telecentricity is not an Oly hoax, I guess.

  • The importance of HQ lenses is undeniable! But that goes for any camera regardless of sensor size! Put a Leica lens on the NEX-7 and IQ is the sames as a Leica M9 with the same lens on.
    Some lens reviewers have critizised the Oly 12mm – I totally disagree as for me this lens is essential (as Pana 25mm, Oly 45mm).
    What may be the differentiator for m43 system is cost and size: The three lenses above are quality-wise on the same leval as DSLR lenses costing 2 -3 times more. Weight relation is the same.
    Larger sensor with excellent lens = better IQ.
    Smaller sensor with excellent lens = lower price and less weight and volume.

  • slave

    very nice that dxomark test lens on different cameras, but i would like to see tests with different apertures for lens – that would say more about lens quality

  • st3v4nt

    While this is good and easily verified as most 4/3 and m4/3 lens is in good qualities from the standard grade to super high grade, let’s remember we shoot with our skill and not the result of DXo Mark whatsoever.

  • Miroslav

    “micro 4/3 camera-lens combination is perfectly capable of replacing an APS-C combination”

    Completely agree. Especially at the wide end, where there are simply no fast wide lenses for APS-C. The widest that comes to mind is Sigma 20mm F1.8 and that is a full frame lens. Why are manufacturers ignoring those focal lengths for APS-C I don’t know…

    Sensor size defficiency can be overcame by faster lenses and Panasonic and Olympus have wisely made many fast m4/3 primes. More diverse camera bodies are needed to be able to better compete with APS-C, though…

    • brudy

      Tokina has an 11-16 2.8 for Canon (and probably other mounts).

      • Miroslav

        Thanks for pointing that out. There are also several 17-50 and 17-55mm F2.8 zooms, but once you start to search for something sub F2.8, the choice for APS-C cameras is really bad if you want a lens under 36mm ( equivalent focal length ).

  • MGuarini

    I did not need to hear it from the DxOmark guys. I have seeing that from myself, but every time I say it, I’m branded an Olympus fanboy.

    • brudy

      Whoops. Replied to wrong post.

  • safaridon

    Very interesting tool for making comparisons. At last we get a clearer picture of how the DXO figures are derived.

    You might be very surprised to find that the resolution of the Pany X 14-42 lens is almost as sharp as the Oly 12mm 49 vrs 53 and bests it in every other category {especially less distorsion} except lens speed which results in a distorted figure of DXO 19 for the 12mm and DXO 10 for the Xlens. So in reality these overall DXO scores are only relevant when comparing lenses of the same speed! If the above is any indication one could conclude that the sharpness of many of the m4/3 lenses are a step above their APS-C counterparts although at present only a few have been tested.

  • Mike

    http://www.stevehuffphoto.com. Do a search of the OLY 12mm f/2. He has a great review of it.

  • Why should I take somebody serious who believes that it’s amazing that a smaller lens can be bietter than a bigger one.

    Although I have my doubts about it, it could be that they do know – in a weird way – something about sensors. But with comments like this they have completely disqualified themselves as lens testers.

    What did Charlie Harper say when he opened the door and his mother was standing there? “Go away, Satan!” Mihihi

    DXO definitely is the most useless of the useless test sites I’ve ever come across.

    Don’t bother with them! It’s you who should assess the quality of you cameras and lenses – not some blokes in a laboratory who never go out shooting pictures. Jeeeees!

  • mahler

    The surprise is not the good result of the 2.0/12mm lens, that is already a known fact. The surprise is, how really bad the Nikon lens fares.

    It shows that the Nikon 1 system is mostly a rubbish system, only supported by a lot of hype and successfull marketing.

  • Noob

    Pardon the naivety, but couldn’t your precious boken be easily achieved with editing software? Why not dial in a little extra dof and pull back with editing? Also, whats the obsession with speedy lenses when base iso is 200? How many are shooting in the dark?

  • safaridon

    The Nikon I camera and lenses naturally have a lower DXO mark primarily becuase used with smaller size sensor and then only 10 mp which lowers the resolution score. Compared to the Pany X lens the Nikon 1 with 10-20 lens registers a 7 versus 10 which reflects mainly the lower resolution score otherwise the lens shows good IQ.

  • JimD

    “With its extraordinary sharpness for a micro 4/3 lens,…..”
    Sounds like they don’t like micro 4/3 lenses and this came as a bit of a shock being dragged into reality.

  • JimD

    Does this not confirm the old adage that its the photographer not the camera?
    All modern cameras will take excellent images for all but the few. To the all I say pick the camera that suits your taste, budget, feel and needs. To the few I say spend your money each year on the latest biggest poser-ist camera that the pixel peepers praise, it is after all your money, and ego costs a lot to maintain.

  • prokollim

    where i can find admin?

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.