skip to Main Content

(FT5) First picture of the new 12-40mm f/2.8 Olympus MFT lens! And new pics of the E-M1.



And here it is the new 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO MFT lens from Olympus! And it looks great on the new E-M1 don’t you think? The images have been leaked (and now removed) in Japan (at “2ch“). Camera and Lens will be announced around September 10-11. What I still don’t know is the price of the new lens but I have been assured that the IQ is better than the one of the Panasonic 12-35mm X lens. And the new Olympus lens really doesn’t look that big after all!

Thanks Lin and Masato for finding these pics!


  • jocky scot

    I am calling it ‘The Dark Knight’.

    • Phred

      Yeah..I think that the lens looks great and if it out performs the Panasonic …all the better for the system! I like the lens hood, too!
      Also, the EM1 looks much better in these photos as well…but that is not a camera that I will be buy. I may pick up an EP5 kit with VF and 17mm as a companion for my OMD when the price drops, though.

      • j4hug

        Lens hood at extra cost no doubt. But I agree it looks good. Leaks like this are whetting my appetite

      • at

        I think it will be optically better (as should not be less expensive) without any OIS components as on Panasonic. I believe it should be a great choice for Olympus users.

        • at

          should be less expensive…

          • cuius

            Current street prices in UK of 12mm + 17mm + 45mm primes = £1100 approx
            So I’d anticipate £999 street price (Pany 12-35 currently £800)

            That “PRO” designation won’t come cheap

          • Rick

            $2500 sounds about right, perhaps with some occasional discounts to $2300 on Black Friday, etc.

            Many people tend to make the mistake of thinking that M43 must be cheaper than DSLRs for cameras with similar features. There are cheap M43 cameras but these new top models are so good they have to cost more, and considering that they can pack so much in a compact body compared to DSLRs, they are worth more. There is value in something being small and still has all the goodies. Think of sports cars compared to the DSLRs V-8s. Some sports cars can cost more than Cadillacs in spite of some obvious limitations, while there are also cheap sports cars that cost less. Olympus has always wanted to make smaller but still excellent cameras. Fine sports cars are not for the masses who buy mainly on price.

            • The only thing they pack more is a smaller sensor……..

              • Andrea

                …that gives better results.

                • The Real Stig

                  Please don’t say that…Shhhhhhhh….

                  He’s been proselytizing full frame and deriding M4/3 for about 4 threads now. Not that long ago he scared me when he said: “I took another look at it……and al the comments. I think i am going to buy this combo. My final thought is that its looking sweet. I hope that the pictures are sweet looking to.”

                  The last thing we want is for him to go ahead with that and then hang around. If we all keep quiet, with any luck he’ll change his mind and go away.

    • rfuret

      I must confess when I saw for the first time the prototype photos, I didn’t like it. But now I’m in love with it. I’ll buy one as soon as it’ll be available in my country. THE DARK KNIGHT is a very nice name.

    • Pharque Moi

      Be still my beating heart. Wow. Olympus. Just wow.

      • Dante

        Wow! Wow!

        So beautiful.

    • MarcoSartoriPhoto

      Its squared angles remind me also of a bad a$$ transformer :)

  • bousozoku

    For a 62mm filter size, it looks both big on the E-M1 and tiny in the hand. I hope that they didn’t compromise too much, or they should have made it a 67mm filter size to provide enough glass for excellent corner sharpness.

    My Four-Thirds Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 has a 62mm filter size and that’s almost as big as my ZD 50-200mm.

    • mimstyle

      It’s a 46mm filter I have filters for this lens.

      • bousozoku

        You are mistaken. You don’t have the Four-Thirds Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4.

        You have the micro Four-Thirds lens.

      • Cyril

        He talks about 4/3 version not M4/3 version…

    • bousozoku, could you compare the IQ of the FT vs MFT of the 25mm f/1.4 lenses, by chance? Are they roughly the same quality, or (as I heard recently) is the FT even better somehow?

      Thx in advance.

      • Damn Oly

        You might see the comparison of both lens, here ;

        Leica DG M43–four-thirds-lens-tests/740-pana25

        Leica D – 43 version–four-thirds-lens-tests/509-leica25f14

      • bousozoku

        I can’t compare them, as I don’t have the micro Four-Thirds version. Everything I’ve read has told me not to bother with the micro Four-Thirds version, as there is an obvious difference in image quality, although the Panasonic bodies compensate for most issues.

        The difference may be overstated, but there is one difference not even mentioned. The Four-Thirds version was designed and made for a Leica body: the Digilux 3. The other Leica D lenses seem to be similarly designed and priced. They’re probably a third of the price of Leica-made lenses because they are made by Panasonic.

        I’ve found the 25mm quite good and it fits with my ZD SHG lenses quite well, except for the lack of weather-sealing.

        • Thank you for your insights about the Leica camera connection and the lack of weather sealing. I was wondering, so it’s nice to get confirmation it’s not weather sealed. It sounds like Leica may have put some extra effort into the lenses since they were for their camera. Thanks.

          • spam

            FT-lenses are designed for cameras with OVFs so it’s not possible to do digital corrections when you want the viewfinder to show how the final image will look. This mean that you generlally get better optically corrected, but bigger FT-lenses – even for models where flange distance dont infulence the disign (much). This is true for both Leica-branded lenses and Olympus.

            So IMO it’s a tradeoff. They can make the lenses smaller, lighter and cheaper by using digital corrections, but they usually sacrifice image quality. Not by much though and probably a good tradeoff for most users.

      • As said by others, the FT version is much more expensive as the MFT version. If you want to seen samples for the MFT versions in portraits, click on my name and check for the sessions of Yona04 and Islam04, both were done with the 25 mm.

        • I mean the I.S. and Yona sessions on top of the list, at the Passage and the military concept.

    • Damn Oly

      I have both lens ,the Leica D 1.4/25mm summilux. And Leica DG 1.4/25mm summilux M43 version. Some people said the M43 better, but for me The Leica D is optically better than the Leica DG, it has more contrast, more pleasing bokeh, less CA but have more vigneting on the Leica D @F1.4 and slightly sharper at the center @1.4 and even @F2. Is crazy sharp,. The other aspec i love more is the rendering color is far more beautifull then the M43 version,. the 43 is more like Leica bluish/ cool color than the M43 which is more warm color.But slowly to focus on a M43 camera and a lots bigger size and heavier plus the adapter. Now i rarely use the glass

      • Damn Oly: Thank you for the comparison. That is exactly the kind of information I sought. You are not the only one who seems to like the 43 version better than the MFT (DG) version. Your appreciation of color and bokey on the 43 version sound particularly valuable.

        I keep thinking about the 25mm since people praise it so often, and now with E-M1 I’m weighing my options.


        • Damn Oly

          No problem bro,.

          i purchased my Leica D it was back then 2009,.i need the equivalent of 50mm
          ,and at that time ,there were no m43 version,.so ,.it was like a gamble for me because the lens was very much expensive .
          I putted my wish list at B&H but they were always out of stock,,.
          i checked it on Ebay they were selling for at least $1100 but finally there was one retailer in japan sell for $1050,.and i ordered one
          ,.combo with panasonic adapter $150 and total was $1200,.damn ,.i could buy two piece Leica DG with that money if would waited for one more year,.

  • MARK

    Lens hood extra?

  • mimstyle

    The combo is beautiful !

    • olly…


    • Emanuele


  • AMVR

    Thank god the 12-40mm ended up being much smaller than the patents, something must have changed Oly’s mind during development. The final product looks more or less the same as the 12-35mm, hopefully it doesn’t extent as much as Pany’s. I don’t know why but this pics make the E-M1 look better than on previous photos, it looks more refined. On the other hand, as good as the IQ and versatility of the lens seem rumored to be, the one thing that can make or break this product is the price. Oly should understand that even if m4/3 has more features and is much more versatile than DSLRs no one in the market (not pros nor amateurs) is willing to pay these kind of prices for what is generally perceived as a upcoming enthusiast(at most)system. Even if Pros know how good m4/3 really is they’re still gonna save this kind of money for their FF setup, if they require better IQ for their small m4/3 kit they’ll get an affordable prime, that’s not gonna change even if Oly offers Pro quality bodies or lenses.

    They need to attract people with lower than DSLR prices, they have to undercut DSLR and the other mirrorless alternatives, plain and simple, that’s the only way to convince people to join a system that’s continuously condemned for its smaller than standard sensor. They need to make a clear statement that anyone can get DSLR quality output at a lower cost in a smaller package, that strategy works for every demographic, pro or not.

    Increasing profit margins per unit instead of lowering costs and making m4/3 more accessible is only going to isolate m4/3 in a market dominated by APS-C. That road only leads to a niche, m4/3 needs to grow and become the common standard for non-FF users and make APS-C irrelevant (which is halfway a reality by know, with low FF prices and all).

    I`ll most probably end up getting this lens eventually, it is good value for money in the sense of what it offers versus the alternatives (size mostly) but in the end I still think it’ll be overpriced for this segment of the market. It’s not that I think the lens should be cheap but Oly’s expectations are not grounded on reality at all, mirrorless is not at that stage of the game where they can charge the same prices as consolidated systems (FF or otherwise). Mirrorless is just beginning to gain ground and this kind of practices (overpricing) only serves to diminish those advances.

    I’ll settle for a GX7 with 12-40, a trio of primes and be done, after that I’ll just wait until someone comes up a native tilt-shift lens.

    • D

      I think you have made some salient points.

      I have a Canon 1v with two lenses. A 50mm f1.4 and a 17-40 f4 lens. My ideal lens to complete my collection would be a 135mm f2.

      The cost of m43 differs on a grand scale when compared to my Canon lenses.

      As much as I would like a 60mm f2.8 or a 75mm f1.8 et al. I can only but think of the 135 f2 especially when it comes to cost.

      I love my relationship that I have with my OMD, its size has proved effective especially when undertaking social documentary briefs and undertaking various assignments but the cost is so high when it comes to the lenses.

    • Daav

      Hmm, you seem to speak a lot for “The Pros”. Just wondering which pros these are. Let’s also be clear, Olympus is a company that has relationships with a great many Pros around the world, and when doing their research they get a lot of advice from many of these Pros. Since this is designated as their “Pro” OMD, I strongly suspect they listened very closely to the working Pros they know and took many of their ideas into consideration. In fact, they have been soliciting ideas at least since the release of the EM5 and probably before.

      I know of a few myself who feel quite different then what you claim, and as a former Pro Photographer (military, industrial, scientific, biomedical plus a little commercial, portraiture and wedding), I also disagree with much of what you claim “for the Pros’. The Pro’s I know don’t play favorites. They use the best tool available to them for the job at hand. FF is a tool, m4/3 to them is also a tool. Which is best depends on the job, and whenever neither is best they go to whatever is such as Medium format (very expensive but not dead) or large format (slow, clumsy, heavy, time consuming but the results are worth the effort.) or whatever else works. And there are a great many times when small, quick and agile, is what works best. Contrary to claims of many in the various forums, there is no competition between FF and m43. There is competition between APS-c and m43 but the technical differences there are minimal in practical real world application so it comes down to a matter of personal choice.

      A new generation of photographers, who have grown up with technology will be the deciders, and they aren’t yet strongly committed to any single platform. But they do seem to favor small, light, quick and versatile with a degree of ruggedness. The future wont’ be written in photography forums, but by them who are actively exploring the new frontiers of photography.

      • Markthetog

        Totally agree with Daav.

        Moreover, it is pure folly to assume that lowering price would magically create demand and follow on profit. The manufacturers are profoundly aware of the available market and the elasticity of demand in that market.

        It is the province of armchair economists who universally think the ONLY tool to business success is to cut the price. Really? Is that your only business tool? If your business is based on cutting the price there is always another fool to cut it more.

        Take a lesson from Apple or Starbucks who are able to command a high price and consistently remain profitable AND to be able to fund R&D and growth. If you choose the idiocy of the price cutting you only end up in the cellar with the bottom feeders as your customers.

        Olympus (and everybody else) cannot fund R&D for all the new shiny toys people ask for without getting money for the product. Sneering claims about things being over priced come from a place of complete and utter ignorance about what it takes to research, design, order tooling, manufacture parts, write manuals, design packaging, set up warranty service, train techs, train sales people, train assembly workers,assemble parts, test, package, ship, distribute and advertise. And then some twerp says “cut the price”.
        Make your own lens for half the price if you think it is so easy. I am sure you must have finished your FF foveon chip DSLR you plan to sell for $99 so you need something to occupy your time.

        • Cyril

          Clever post

          • Bichon

            Although , there is a portion of the price in which a consumer is ‘paying more for the name’ and not necessarily for r&d or quality.

          • AMVR

            —¨Hmm, you seem to speak a lot for “The Pros”. Just wondering which pros these are. Let’s also be clear, Olympus is a company that has relationships with a great many Pros around the world, and when doing their research they get a lot of advice from many of these Pros. ¨—

            Which Pros do YOU speak of ? There may be a couple of people still using 4/3 professionally (mostly those still lurking in DPR) but in all seriousness Olympus has no Pro community to speak of. Most of the Pros who once backed Oly migrated to Canikon once 4/3 was left to die a slow death. Pros need support, a regularly updated system, a whole infrastructure behind them, none of which Oly has delivered for a long time. Most of the research done by Oly come from forums like this one, of which Pros only count for a small percentage, the majority being amateurs and enthusiasts.

            —¨I know of a few myself who feel quite different then what you claim¨–

            Indeed, a few.

            –¨ The Pro’s I know don’t play favorites. They use the best tool available to them for the job at hand. Contrary to claims of many in the various forums, there is no competition between FF and m43. There is competition between APS-c and m43 but the technical differences there are minimal in practical real world application so it comes down to a matter of personal choice.¨–

            This I can agree with, mind you, I’ve never said m4/3 cannot comply with Pro standards, m4/3 has the potential to deliver what Pros need and then some, as you said, pros are not limited to FF. All I’m speaking of is market perception of the system. I wonder if one day people will take the time to read more carefully, I never said m4/3 was competing with FF, quite the contrary I implicitly commented on how APS-C has no place and that m4/3 should take over to complement FF. It’s no mystery that mirrorless will take over in time and FF will stay a niche for Pros.

            You seem to overestimate the portion of the market that Pros really represent, specially within m4/3. I think I speak with reason when I say that Pros DO NOT make the majority of m4/3 users, not half, not an 1/8, not even 10%. Most m4/3 users reside in Asia, of which the majority are female amateurs, not Canikon wielding Pros (much less 4/3 Pros).

            I’m not criticizing the E-M1, nor its price itself, I’m criticizing Oly and Pany recent strategies. Yes, the E-M1 will attract SOME Pros, no doubt, but the impact it’ll have on the market won’t come close to the E-M5, not because it lacks features, but because there are very few people prepared to justify the expense.

            • Anonymous

              There may be more then you are thinking that are willing to consider m4/3 as either a second or a primary ‘pro’ system, many of which already took note when the E-M5 appeared, but were put off by the lack of a ‘pro standard’ body and lenses. The performance is there IQ wise for many things, but the handling and features weren’t and lack of some ‘mandatory’ lenses like at least a standard bright zoom wasn’t helping either. That is exactly what this camera and lens combination address.

              With regards to ‘pro support’, there are 2 basic ways to approach that:
              – buy a more affordable camera body so you can afford a spare or 2.
              – count on pro support for a spare and quick fix

              The first is going to help you on the spot, the later will still spoil your shoot. While there most certainly is additional value in good and fast service and in being able to borrow a spare camera, the practical value for a working pro is more then a bit overrated especially in the light of the possible alternatives. Yes, it is a change of mentality for many, one where you yourself will be more responsible for ensuring you can finish the job, but also one where you can be more assured of being able to finish the job.

        • > Moreover, it is pure folly to assume that lowering price would magically create demand and follow on profit.

          My thoughts on this topic:

        • MarcoSartoriPhoto

          +1 It’s a bad attitude of most people here: I think many will always complain even if they could have gear for free.

          Consider also that most of whiners won’t buy new lenses/cameras anyway, still they are crying as if someone is stealing something from them or as if Companies ought something to them.

      • Anonymous

        Great comments. Thanks for being a voice of reason.

        • Oly Mkt Exective

          Can admin check whether “Daav” and “Markthetog” are from same IP? I smell some serious efforts here. :D

          • Daav

            God I hope not, I would hate to think that Markthetog was living in the crawlspace under my house and hacked into my internet. That would be damn scarry.

    • Mardock

      Micro 4/3 will never usurp the APS-C format, sorry. APS-C is larger, and it’s tech is advancing even faster than Micro 4/3 (e.g. Nikon D7100, Fuji X-Pro 1 / X100s).

      Eventually, as full-frame comes down in price and begins to migrate into mirrorless bodies, APS-C will become the “budget” standard and Micro 4/3 will be forced out of the market altogether.

      Just the way things are trending…

      • true homer

        Incredibly wrong. The d7100 has no aa filter, what else, what advancements? The fuji has watercolor backgrounds and noise reduction in raw. How is that for an advancement?

        Who else has 240fps sensors? Who else can focus at -4ev? Who else comes remotely close in live view focusing speed? Who else is correcting lenses in camera? The few that are did it after m43s. Who else is doing f.95 lenses?

      • JimD

        Canon APSc is 1.8mm taller in the sensor.

        In the real world what are you going to do with that?



      • My (wishful?) prediction is that APS-C will be the one that goes away.

        1) µ43 relative to APS-C is only 1.33x crop factor, which is 0.4 stop aperture advantage and 0.8 stop sensor area advantage. It’s not that different in a lot of cases. So, µ43 can successfully compete against APS-C.

        2) However, APS-C also competes against FF, and µ43 does not (ironically because it is too far inferior). APS-C relative to FF is 1.5x crop factor, which is a bigger step (0.6/1.2), and everyone will choose FF over APS-C if they can, especially because a lot of the times they would be choosing within the same brands. The camera bodies and lenses already look exactly the same, so APS-C is doomed as soon as FF Prices come down. By contrast, FF and µ43 are different enough that people attracted to µ43 will not be tempted by FF as much. Besides, we have APS models at all only because die yields were too low for FF in the early days of digital, and still remain cost-ineffective; regardless, if we had today’s technology back then, we would not have APS at all!

        3) APS lenses, broadly speaking, are cheaper and inferior compared to FF lenses by the same manufacturer, reflecting the fact that anyone willing to spend money for quality would go for FF, but this further exacerbates the “APS is cheaper” stereotype. Zeiss and Sigma are working very hard to change this, but, if Canikon won’t take APS seriously, then Sony, Samsung, and Ricoh/Pentax can’t change people’s minds.

        One thing I agree with is that µ43 has played with too many “cheap and compact” models that tarnished its prestige (and 4/3 has been too expensive). This is changing, and µ43 is beginning to have a better balanced line-up.

        It’s 1 am here, so maybe by morning I’ll change my mind, but… :-)

        P.S. To Oilymouse: I have the yakuza poem ready, but I haven’t found a suitable troll; no FF shill in this thread! I need one that complains about µ43 prices. :-)

        • JimD

          I have the same thoughts re APSc but that its demise is something that will not happen until the “Camera of the day” mentality changes.

      • Trending my arse Mardock. Try again.

    • Anonymous

      Maybe, just maybe it might be a good idea to wait for an actual announcement before making arguments about a possible price…. you have even less to go by then with the now clearly incorrect size arguments.

      And in general, your argument about price simply doesn’t work that way, especially not in this specific case. It is very well known that the very very very very very large majority of the consumers does not buy extra lenses beyond the kit lenses that come with their camera. Why they even buy a camera with interchangeable lenses is often a good question, but they do, yet don’t buy lenses, or when they do buy lenses, it will almost always be a sub $300 prime or a small tele-zoom for even less money. You are NOT going to draw in any significant number of them with a $1200 12-40/2.8 obviously, but dropping the price to $600 is not going to make any change to that whatsoever.

      If you want to make an argument about market share, the general consumer, and price, you’ll need to be looking at prices for the lower-end kits, the 40-150/4-5.6, more affordable primes like the 45/1.8, 20/1.7 and the sigma primes..

      A weather sealed, high quality 12-40/2.8 ‘pro’ lens will simply have a price tag to match, and for most interested in such equipment, that price will not at all be a problem if the lens delivers. It has to deliver because it is being used for making money, and as long as it can do that well, the price hardly matters. I’m not myself in the market for this lens as I have that focal length covered multiple times with very good optics, but even if it would have a $1800 price tag, it only takes a few shoots to earn it back. Business expenses don’t work like your pocket money works…

      The one area where the price tag for a quality zoom will be very relevant is in the enthusiast market, where people desire high quality bright lenses, but cannot easily justify the high prices of ‘pro’ equipment. This is a market segment that Olympus and Panasonic alike should keep in mind, while the numbers are much lower then the general consumer market, margins are somewhat better and those enthusiasts are often also influencers of general consumers. However, I think Olympus as well as Panasonic will be much better off by covering that enthusiast market and the ‘pro’ market by different products that are properly tailored to those markets, as it would allow for a reasonably bright and good quality $600 ‘standard zoom’ for enthusiasts without compromising on what they intend to sell to more demanding ‘professionals’, or the income they can get from that.

      • Anonymous

        Let’s throw in some numbers, shall we?
        Let’s say that the IQ of the combo is where it should be, let’s say in 60D territory, for making our discussion practical. The other piece of info comes from a gentleman few hours ago, specifically retail Price at 2200 $/€, if these two assumptions hold true then i say this is a bargain for what you get!

        Sure, the Epl/GF crowd will complain but then what. This combo Means business for the pro as well as the affluent hobbist, that’s it.

        • AMVR

          Problem is, m4/3 is NOT a Pro oriented system, nor is it perceived that way, it’s in its majority a hobbyist system first and an enthusiast system second. It’s good that Oly is trying to capture some of that Pro market, sure, but in the end it offers very little help in the way of system growth, m4/3 simply has too little market presence for either Pro’s switching to it or amateurs to join in hopes of aspiring to get a E-M1 and 12-40 some day in far away future. We here in this forum and on DPR or sites like that live inside a bubble, go outside, talk to other photographers, you’ll realize nearly no one has heard of m4/3, much less form a perception of it being potentially worth Pro money. This system is just now starting to grow (slowly) and the only hope of positioning itself is to undercut the competition and sell cheaper than APS-C, at a loss at first and then recover and grow as it starts to dominate.

          It’s still to early to aspire to capture the pro market, at least with those prices. Oly panicked at the sight of poor sales and is now increasing their prices to recover some profits, but that’s precisely what caused those poor sales in the first place, they’re directly related to market perception: people will simply not buy mirrorless cameras that they perceive to be inferior and overpriced in comparison to DSLRs. It’s all about prices, just look at what happened when Fuji did their massive sale, people went nuts! Or look at how amazon rankings behave, every mirrorless that has reached the top (canon M, E-Pl1,etc) only does so because it’s heavily discounted. Mirrorless is still perceived as a confusing niche by amateurs and as an amateur platform by Pros.

          Now, I’m not personally saying that m4/3 is not up to standards, we all know from experience that it is, in fact in most cases it excels, but the majority of people (both pros and amateurs) do not have that experience and thus do not perceive it that way. The only people that know otherwise are enthusiast because they’ve taken the time to research the market, that’s where m4/3 has had most of it’s success outside Japan. Amateurs just go by what the salesman tells them and Pros view anything outside they working setup as a casual companion at best. The only way to change that is through marketing and good prices, I’m not saying they should ask for half the prices of Nex or Fuji but just by going down $100 or so across the range would make a huge difference, short of being called a revolution (that’s the impression Oly and Pany set out to impose when m4/3 was announced: lower manufacturing costs in a smaller package for the same quality), that and a heavy marketing effort.

          • Anonymous

            Problem is that you can develop technology using high margin premium product and let it trickle down to price competitive products relatively easily but the other way around is only really possible with very large numbers.

            Few photographers having heard about m4/3.. that somewhat changed when the e-m5 appeared. Why? For once Olympus did get their marketing totally right besides having the product to match. The same price argument was made back then, but considering how long it kept selling at its introduction price and the for olympus unusual initial availability issues, it rather looks like price wasn’t an issue at all for ‘growth’, availabiility was. For those photographers also doing somewhat serious video, m4/3 has been on the radar ever since the gh1, which ‘suffered’ from a similar price and availability situation.

            Awareness is not going to come from undercutting prices but from making enthusiasts and pros take the system seriously. This again has to do with marketing as well as having good products. The bottom-feeding price cutting market won’t be there without that awareness.

            Additionally, high margin products create the possibility of funding r&d and use the resulting technology later for improving performance of products in lower margin markets.

        • Anonymous

          Hi anonymous, here the other anonymous (the one you replied to). Totally agree. I won’t be buying the kit at any price through, but that is because I have no need for it, but will buy the E-M1 body if it delivers on iq and on being able to use the 4/3 lenses I have besides the nice m4/3 primes I also have. Intending to replace an E-M5 from my dual camera kit with one of those as well as making the old e-3 completely redundant for my use (currently it gets used once every couple months still for usable af with especially the 50-200).

          Anyway, yes, if it delivers, it looks like a very desirable package for the kind of price you suggest.

    • rrr_hhh

      People accepts to pay more for miniaturization, especially when IQ is there. IMO there is a market for this kind of product. Any pro is willing to get lighter equipment, provided the IQ is good enough (and since the E-M5, it is for most applications) and the gear is performing as expected and the body performs reliably. Of course the will keep other gear around as well.

  • What a sweet looking camera and lens. The camera looks far better than in the compressed images of the leaked video.

    • Could not agree more Robert, I was initially disappointed by earlier pics but not so much now.

    • Ross

      The compressed video images gave us a hint for what it was (& I liked what I saw) & with lens it is a very appealing camera kit. Now I need to get through some worthwhile jobs to get enough cash now & maybe…just maybe, I might be able to sweet talk my wife into letting me get this kit. ;) It would double very nicely with my E-M5.

  • Yoni

    If you take a close look at the second picture you can see that there is a special button for HDR photography – that would be a great enhancement!

    • CaverDave

      Most likely this is the direct button to the drive mode window. The drive mode options will include HDR bracketing like it does inthe E-P5. I really don’t think it is in-camera HDR. I do like how this faux rewind knob has a button for AF control on one side and drive modes on the other side, A lot of direct control buttons.

    • rudi kurniawan

      Wow yes it is HDR dedicated button … would be great!

      • Ash

        I think the HDR button will provide fast access to the bracketing menu. It doesn’t necessarily mean in-camera HDR.

        • rudi kurniawan

          Probably, but remember how olympus made dramatic tone? it is kinda mixing bracketing in one go, i wish oly can do this improvement to make HDR in one go as well.

    • ArtP

      Not a dedicated HDR button, but a frame mode button? (single frame, continuous, HDR)

  • Ronan

    I’m expecting those kind of prices…

    E-M1 $2299
    12-40 2.8 $1899


    • Phred

      I am thinking that the 12-14 will be introduced at about $1400…but we will find out soon enough!

      • Phred

        Meant 12-40mm…duh!

    • ATTN idiots

      your numbers are growing. Welcome Ronan, will ya.

    • Andrei

      It can’t be more expensive than D600/6D. No shutter, less parts etc = lower production costs than APS-C and FF. It will cost around 1500-1600$/euros. The lens will have the same price with the Panasonic 12-35 X so it will be around 1300$/euros. If you can get it as a kit it will cost around 2600$/euros.

      • Emanuele


        • Phred

          That makes sense…but I would not be surprised if the lens is somewhat more based on Olympus’ history.

      • cuius

        When did production costs set retail prices? The market sets prices.

        • Markthetog

          They will position it at the top of the line and price as they see fit. If it doesn’t work you will see price cuts and rebates.
          I predict you will see waiting lists the whiners on the web notwithstanding.

          • Anonymous

            A Fellow poster on this post has got a retail Price for the combo of 2200 bucks from his trusted vendor.

      • Anonymous

        It certainly can be more expensive, through I don’t expect it to be.

        See, a 1Dx merely has a same size sensor as a 6D, but its seriously more expensive.. a D4 only has the same size sensor as a D600, but is hugely more expensive… For that matter, a new D300s may well cost as much or more then a D600, despite having a smaller sensor and not exactly being new.

        There is a lot more to a ‘pro’ camera then the size of its sensor, actually, most things that make a ‘pro’ camera have totally zero to do with the sensor.

      • No shutter? :-P

  • Jono

    Olympus ZD are the Sultans of Miniaturization. The dual ring design (one for zooming, the other for focusing) is an Oly ZD tradition for pro normal zooms. They also have a penchant for turning out pro standard zooms that produce results comparable to top primes. I recall being initially shocked at how well my old 35-70/3.6 often yielded photos that were visually as tack sharp as my old 90/2 macro.

    This one is supposed to be in the linear heritage of their 35-70/3.6, 35-80/2.8, and 14-35/2 pro standard zooms. I am assuming their 62mm filter size will be the same as its upcoming big brother, the 40-150/2.8 pro short-to-super tele zoom.

    This “ugly camera body” is starting to look more & more like a veritable Black Beauty. ;-)

  • Luke

    That is one sexy looking lens, can’t get over it. Would love to see it on the E-M5. I may be in the minority here, but I hope Olympus look at the wider 7-14mm (or 6-12mm) end of the range for the next “Pro” zoom lens rather than going longer immediately.

    • Jono

      That may depend on how far they are in the development of Big Brother. However, the two most versatile and popular zoom designs are the standard zoom and the short-to-medium or short-to-super tele zoom designs.

      • CaverDave

        I am guessing we will see the 40-150 f2.8 by late this year or early next year. A new ultra-wide would be really nice. I could really go for a 8 or 9 mm in the f2.8 to 4.0 range to go with the 12-40 f2.8. Still it will be the 40-140 f2.8 for the next lens in the Pro-series. Also something longer than 150 is needed in the pro-series. my guess is that the excellent FT lenses will have to do at the long-end and maybe even the short-end for the near term.

    • Daav

      They will probably only go further into the ultra-wide zoom range when they have something that will outdo the Panasonic 7-14, and that lens is no slouch and works very well on OLY’s already, so I don’t think that will be a priority. They will make sure their PRO lines compete well on quality, not just convenience.

      Personally though, I would love to see them bring out a fast, low distortion, low CA, ultra-wide prime, around 7-8mm. That would be sweet and right in line with their other excellent primes.

  • Bad News I just noticed the E-M1 rear screen does not (seem to) have a hinge for flipping out to the side (i.e., full articulation). The E-M5 had it, but they couldn’t put it in this one? And I’m guessing that’s another strike against significantly upgraded video capabilities too, since full articulation is an valuable feature for podcasts and what not.

    I hope it’s not true, but so it goes. Oly gives, and Oly takes away. Argh.

    • rfuret

      It looks like the E-M5 rear screen, at least.

    • Tito

      EM-5 does not have a fully articulating screen, only tilt. It looks identical on the camera pictured unless the swivel hinge is on the right side (when looking at the back).

      • From the first (movie) leak, the right hand side was visible, and there was no sign of a hinge. Now we see the left side, and ditto: no sign of a hinge. That’s why I think Oly “forgot” the full articulation on the E-M1.

      • Tito, apologies. You corrected me, and I didn’t realize I had said E-M5. I meant E-5 (as SSP Eric points out below). Thank you for your correction too.

        • Richard

          curious; whats the benefit of fully ariculating screen when you can use your smartphone as a monitor?
          I loved teh arituclating screen on the GH2, but actually love the EM5 solution more, but now it gets better with incredible tethering and control form your smartphone or tablet! Did you see the endgaget leaked video showing this?

          • “curious; whats the benefit of fully ariculating screen when you can use your smartphone as a monitor?”

            I can think of the couple:

            1. Not enough hands to hold can and smartphone at the same time. Normal human sadly has only two.

            2. Smartphone battery is dead (because you are in some hole without reception and it has wasted all the juice trying to connect to the Internet (to report your whereabouts to the NSA)).

            • sheepthief

              3. You need to purchase a smartphone (or pad), and I expect you’ll have very limited options, ie Apple, and maybe Android, if you’re lucky.

              Given the wireless capabilities I probably would buy a pad, but that would be for indoor use. For outdoors I need an articulated screen, and I need to travel light. I do a lot of panoramas, in portrait orientation, and banding over for the E-M5 is killing my back.

          • You are right. Genius! Thank you.

      • If you watched the video it looks like you can use an iPad connected via Wifi as screen for your podcasts, that should be even better than a swivel screen, subject to having an iPod, of course.

        • You are right. Genius! Thank you.

    • occam — maybe you’re thinking of the E-5 (which *does* have a fully articulating screen), rather than the E-M5 (which only pivots up / down)?

      What I can see of the screen in pictures 1 & 3 look identical to what’s on my E-M5.

      If you look closely at picture 3, though, you can see a hatch over something we’ve been asking for — a microphone input port!

      • Eric, thank you for the correction: E-M5 → E-5 (re: articulating screen).

    • OMega

      What I find interesting about the fully articulated screen, is the fact that Olympus were the first to use it and have seemingly abandoned them, it would be interesting to know why.

      I have the C5060WZ which has one along with the E-620 which also does. The thing that gets me is that the simple flip screen as in my E-M5 I make far more use of then the articulating screen on the two cameras I have with one, ironicaly the screens are almost always in the ‘parked’ position (screen turned in) even when using them, I find the flip screen far more useful.

      Just my twopenneth on the subject.

  • Eric

    I am not THAT well versed in lens technology but for a casual shooter does this lens improve performance vs the standard 12-50 weatherproof kit lens by THAT much? Has less range, is larger, and the main significance is constant f2.8. But if you’re shooting with image stabilization and higher ISO to compensate are the image quality differences going to be that much better?

    Reason why I am asking is because I already own the 7-14, 14mm, 20mm and 60mm. I love my EM5 and the quality of images it takes but do find it annoying to have to always switch lenses, and I like the flexibility of a zoom although I have never owned one since everyone says primes are the way to go. In practical use though, time and time again I am finding that “man I wish I didn’t have to switch lenses so often” or “I wish I could shoot that but it’s too far away.” I think a zoom lens would be great. I think a 12-50 range is kind of where I would like to be shooting but now there’s 3 options, the older 12-50 kit, the Panasonic 12-35, and this 12-40. There isn’t image quality tests from this lens yet but can some more experienced photographers perhaps shed some light on what advantages I can expect from spending all this extra money?

    • Eric, first of all you’re asking all the right questions. Until the lens is tested (i.e., wait for reviews to confirm how well the lens performs), noone really knows whether this zoom will outperform similar primes (or how it will perform better, and how worse).

      Having said that though, I’ll jump to some conclusions. Several (M)FT lenses already exist which compare favorable to this lens for your purpose: MFT Panny 12-35mm which gets rave (but not perfect) reviews, and the venerable FT 12-60mm which gets legendary (but not absolutely perfect) reviews. Typically primes outperform zooms, but with Oly, the zooms can outperform typical zooms.

      So based on existing lenses (and some rumors), the Panny compares favorably with primes and provides the convenience of a zoom 12-35, and the rumor is that the new Oly 12-40 will outperform the Panny 12-35. So I think we can rule out the Panny 12-35, but also assume that the 12-40 WILL compare favorably to the primes.

      As for the venerable 12-60, no one talks much about the 12-60mm since it was Four Thirds lens only, but that may change since the new E-M1 (according to all rumors/signs/market needs) will finally handle FT glass with full focus performance. (That’s all the OSPDAF or just PDAF talk (OS ≡ On-Sensor (as in the new Sony Sensor in E-M1), and PDAF ≡ Phase Detect Auto-Focus (as in Canon/Nikon/SLR style focus).) Which means… with an E-M1, the venerable 12-60 lens becomes a compelling lens option… which is even better range than the new MFT 12-50 you mention. And the 12-60 already exists and takes much sweeter (sharper, faster) pics than the 12-50, so I think you have zoom upgrade option if you want one. (And, yes, the 12-60mm is sealed like the 12-50.) Though the 12-60 is a bit more of a beast than the plastic 12-50.

      So, to answer one question, yes, you could “upgrade” to the convenience of a zoom beyond the quality of your 12-50, today, with the 12-60 (though the auto-focus won’t perform well until the E-M1 arrives).

      So I think the real question comes down to tradeoffs. The 12-60 has more range than 12-40, but is slower (roughly 4.0, versus 12-40’s 2.8). Appropriately, the 12-60 is cheaper too ($600), compared to the 12-40mm which will be well over $1,000 (but I don’t know how much). If you have funds, you could consider getting the E-M1 with (rumored) 12-40 kit which may very well be the most economical way to get both E-M1 + new 12-40. Or compare that to E-M1 body + separate 12-60mm to upgrade from 12-50mm.

      I hope that info/perspective helps you.

      Good luck.

      • Whoops. The Olympus 12-60 costs more like $1,000, not $600. Apologies.
        So it’ll be worth seeing the price of the new 12-40 (or kit combo with E-M1) to see how the venerable 12-60 compares with the new 12-40 overall.

        • Lacunapratum

          I also think Olympus has arrived. This must be the perfect street photography combination. In recent years, Olympus often has offered these practical solutions for day-to-day photography. Still remember the 12-60mm and the E-3. This is about the same but much more compact and even faster. And if needed, one can add those marvelous 4/3 lenses. Totally exciting. I am sure I am going to get one of these!

          If there are two more wishes to be fullfilled it would be the 300mm/4 and a true wide angle prime, e.g. 8 or 9mm. But other than that, this must be the penultimate camera. The masses will be slow to follow. I guess what Olympus really needs at this point is advertisement because I am sure this is a milestone.

          • Narretz

            Olympus “arrived” in m43 with the E-M5. The E-M1 has, as far as we know, the benefit of working well with 43 lenses, and some incremental updates. I don’t get why people see this as the second coming of Olympus. It’ll be a very capable camera, but the gamechanger for the majority of users was the E-M5.

            • The E-M1’s support for 43 glass is like a big release valve for those with (or who appreciate) 43 glass. It fulfills the Olympus dream/promise of OBS (One Beautiful System) combining 43 glass with the MFT glass into one versatile system.

              I think new glass will all be MFT, but with 43 support, all the 43 glass owners can now migrate to fully modern bodies. (And for this forum, once people have the E-M1 in their hands, they’ll realize there’s no difference between 43 and MFT, as they both use the same body(-ies, and so a lot of (expensive glass) anxiety and confusion can be resolved.

              • Anonymous

                It shows that they have finally learned to provide a full transition when changing their system, something somewhat relevant when wanting to sell a system to people trying to use their camera and lenses for making a living.

            • Absolutely. I read yesterday the piecharts about US paid photography. The people that can afford this camera and lens are probably the marriage hacks and corporate portraitists of which there are some 40,000.

              Stock gives very little money, so the pool of paid jobs is quite restricted. And it is all for commercial photography, which is irrelevant to art.

              One wonders how many PJ are left, but I am sure that they could do well with a simple 25mm equivalent and an E-M5.

              The E-M1 and 12-40 are probably already too cumbersome for Street Photography. In the end what is important in the rumor is that PDAF-on-sensor technology will trickle down to all the other cameras, which are the daily bread of O&P.

              • C. C.

                Am. – Just because you can’t afford it does not mean that you need to go to name calling for those of us that can afford this camera. And, no, it is NOT just for wedding or corporate photographers. Where do you come up with this crap? Take your medication and go to bed.

                • I find funny that my rude opponents never have a recognizable nick, or any photographic site if you click on it.

                  Are they from the poor Appalachians, or from Detroit’s slums? Or even from a Transylvania’s village were they deal in scrap metal and uncertain tubers?

                  Were they abandoned at birth that even today they can’t afford a language with more than 3000 words? Or even a toy camera to let us know their photography?

                  Perhaps they dreamed of becoming doctors, and so they speak admiringly of medicines, as if they were from the famished African Deserts? :)

                  • JimD

                    Detroit does not have any slums.

                    They can’t afford them.

              • I think there may be a few well healed photographers who would appreciate the range 24-80 goes from a great wideangle to a pretty good portrait.

                I am hoping this body and lens comes in below $2000 combined.

                Could be a pipe dream, but I have the 12-60, so if that focuses properly on this I just saved a bomb.

                • MAFAv8r

                  Yes it will save you heaps, but I sold my 12-60 because the OM-D and 12-60 is just too big as a combo for my photography life

                • true homer

                  If its less than 2000 ill pick one up myself

              • that’s right

                it’s very hard to make a life with stock photography
                but you can earn enough in one year to buy a camera like this
                and some fast lenses

    • I should mention the 12-60mm is a venerable Olympus lens. Also, I should mention that the price hike of the new Oly 12-40 f/2.8 may very well include optical performance upgrade even over the venerable Oly 12-60 f/2.8-4.0 (or it may just be for the faster glass).

      Also, one more tidbit when comparing lenses. The 12-60 has aperture STARTING at 2.8, but it rapidly closes down to 3.5+, so it’s easier to think of it as a 4.0 except at the very wide angle end. So the 12-60mm is roughly 1 stop slower glass than the rumored 12-40mm f/2.8. The extra light gathering glass is why the 12-40 has shorter range but similar size to 12-60.


      • Eric

        Do you mean the 12-50?

        • Eric, regarding the aperture shutting down, I am referring to the venerable 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0. While it starts at f/2.8, (parroting what I’ve read) it rapidly shuts down to 3.5+. So it’s not fair to compare it to a straight f/2.8 lens (like the rumored 12-40mm f/2.8). So I’m suggesting comparing it as more of an f/4.0 lens (than an f/2.8 lens).

          (And I didn’t even bother to mention the MFT 12-50 kit lens because it is quite slow: f/3.5-6.3.)

    • MAFAv8r

      @ MArk

      Having used both the 12-50 and the 12-60 I think you will find that the difference is huge between the 12-50 and 12-40. The amount of definition (or detail) between the two is immense.

      • MAFAv8r

        Sorry I meant Eric

    • ArtP

      If the lens lives up to the reputation of the 4/3 SHG lenses ‘like having a basket full of primes’ or even matching the quality of the HG lenses, there will be a significant difference. And the difference between shooting at 2.8 and 5.6 should be obvious.

    • Daav

      Eric, the 12-50 was designed as a “kit” lens or essentially an entry level lens. Focus was more on convenience and versatility then optimum optical quality. However, Olympus Zuiko optical are also noted for their high end (and more expensive) Pro and scientific optical design capabilities, some of the best in the world. The 12-40 F2.8 hopefully, will live up to the standard and reputation of the 43 SHG (Super High Grade) lenses as well as many of their older 35mm lenses. If it only comes close to those venerable lenses, it will still be head and shoulders above the 12-50 in image quality.

      Only time will tell for sure, but we can hope.

    • true homer

      If youre actually talking about the em5 kit lens the yeas to all your questions. This lens will be MUCH sharper and there will be a very big difference between f6.3 andf2.8 its over 2 stops

  • I wish Oly would put ALL their good pieces in one camera (and leverage Sony for video). Oly has IBIS, so leverage it for video and leapfrog the mid-level competition. (BlackMagic et al. would still have head and shoulders better codec’s, bitrates, and formats for video.)

  • Peter C

    The lens looks great on the camera and I am sure will perform great optically. The camera is growing on me the more I see it. This is the design and body styling I have been waiting for from Olympus. But they will have to watch pricing if they hope to draw people away from SLRs. Now it seem imminent we wont see any more 4/3 SLRs from the company.

  • Bummer

    Looks awfully similar to OMD with the grip and Panny 12-35 combo. With the savings I get (approx $1000) I may as well add a Panny GX-7 as a second body.

  • Anonymous

    i really hope this cam has good sharp moire/aliasing free low noise video, codecs, clean hdmi (10bit 422 or above pleas) and headphone and mic jacks. that camera stabilisation would be a god send!

  • E-M1 Fan

    The best m4/3. Time to rule.

  • Ivo

    Constant f2.8 simply gives you more usage of the long end with lower iso giving less noise. It also means you can have shallower depth of field

    In general there is a big difference between a 300 and 1300 euro lens…

    Some people are bitching about the 12-50 performance as not being sharp, but love its flexibility.
    I am using the 12-60 43 version, and that one is flexible and sharp, but that f4.0 on the 60mm side there were many times I wished it was 2.8 giving me either shallower dof for portrait, or more speed in low light on my e3 and believe me it is never ever fast enough in low light one of the reasons people are going to invest in the faster sensor of the em1

    Still would take a serious look to a pro version of the 14-150 though as an ultimate travel zoom and live with shortcomings on sharpness and speed in low light.

  • Anatoly

    Camera (and lens) of the year!!!

    • hullyjr

      Camera of the year 2012. It offers nothing new or revolutionary. Without even knowing anything about their respective performances the Panny GX7 is a better candidate. The lens is a different matter and will probably take all the awards in its category.

      • ATTN idiots

        “It offers nothing new or revolutionary”

        Except supporting exceptional 43 lenses. LOL. Idiots unite

        • true homer

          Yes.. itll focus lenses almost as fast as native…a real advancement

          • MAFAv8r

            It is if you are trying to keep rumor whingers happy

        • hullyjr

          “Except supporting exceptional 43 lenses” which every other m43 has done. Try working with facts, you fekin eejit.

  • NikonKing

    I hope I can get the em1 and the 12-40/2.8 for 2.5K as a kit.

    • US$2.2K would be rocking… and would make a statement: Olympus E-M1 has arrived!-)

  • MiamiDallas

    Looks better than that first photo we saw of the Em1

  • RayF

    Prob wont happen but if Olympus were to drop a bombshell and offer 2K Raw video recording as well as a better compressed Codec and frame rates they could corner the whole Blackmagic Pocket Camera Market.

    By adding an external mic input, headphone jack and audio monitoring dial to the add on grip (available separately)
    as well as a physical limiter it would make the camera hard to compete with.

    Like I said I don’t see them doing this but IMO they are missing an opportunity by not.
    If Olympus are to remain a serious contender then they have to take video quality to the next level FIRST.

    All this aside I really like the look of the E-M1
    P.S. I hope they have at least added a dual card slot and headphone jack to the camera.

    • Red

      Olympus, do not miss this opportunity! Improve videooooooooo!!!! Pleaseeeeeee

  • Goldorak

    On the second pic is there a mic input ???

    • Bobafett

      @ Goldorak
      Oh man, I used to and still love the series :)

  • Kevin Sutton

    Interesting – the body has the “crinkle” paint finish like the E-5, rather than the smooth paint of the E-M5. I think that helps a lot to give it a more solid appearance and professional look.

  • Bobafett

    @ Admin

    Since most comments on this ‘rumor’ are in favor of the e-m1, what about a new poll ‘who’s gonna buy the e-m1’? Well, this is just a suggestion :)
    As for myself, I’m not gonna buy an e-m1 since I’m out of funds for another cam :(
    IMHO the e-m1 and the new zoom are going to change the game.

  • Willbo87

    Man I can’t wait to get an E-M1 and stick the 15mm lens cap on it! : )

    • :-) That would make a great (and funny) leak pic.

      • Nelson

        Actually they are using the E-M1 and 15mm lens cap as part of body only option

  • Viktor

    Now we are talking! Gimme!

  • Nelson

    Depend on the video quality, if it is at least up to NEX standard I am really tempted to dump GH3 +12-35 for this combo.

  • marcram

    Love this combo!

    Well done Olympus!

  • All right Olympus; let’s assume that you can not improve the video codec, right? well at last leave us the clean HDMI output with uncompressed video and no overlays ;)

    This is what Sony do with the A99, a normal AVCHD codec with a 28Mbit compression but leave a clean umcompressed output for external recorders, sadly the A99 has aliasing and moire problems, and is big and expensive.

  • mrc4nl

    “Weaterproof” many company’s claim that, I want to see a IP class certificate like IP62 (dustproof and dripping water resistant) tested by official standards

    • MAFAv8r

      Do a search for EM5 in iceland. After damaging my E5 in salt water due corrosion, I now hold my EM5 under the faucet of purified water after getting it wet in salt or chlorinate water

      • Robbie

        I think It’s conventional wisdom not tto come into contact with salt water….

        • MAFAv8r

          Wonderful in hindsight, but sometimes you don’t realise that you have been sprayed. Howeveer I do give them credit, I had it back within a few days, and cost less that $100 for some awesome photos of Fiordland from the sea, and a fishing boat breaking through a wave in a 98knot gale.

    • Anonymous

      Previous Olympus 4/3 and m4/3 cameras that claim weather sealing comply with IPX1. This camera will most likely comply with a higher standard. They also tend to comply with quite a bit of margin instead of just complying, but as someone points out, salt water (and water under pressure) are things to be wary of.

  • mahler

    The more images are published about the E-M1, the more I like it. The first impression was rather disappointing, but now I must say it looks good. Probably smaller than the GH3 and certainly better looking and designed.

  • Anonymous

    Shut up and take my money.

  • Hello everyone

    Does everyone knows if it is the same battery as in the EM5 ( I surely hope so) ??

    • Daav

      I can understand why many people who have the EM5 and extra batteries would want that, but I personally disagree, I am hoping the built-in grip accommodates a much larger battery with 50-100% more capacity. The EM5 is a wonderful camera but its smallish battery and shorter shooting life leaves a bit to be desired for some photographers. Hoping with their “Pro” status, they will provide a battery capacity that Pro’s can love. And it would be even more helpful if they upgrade their video capabilities.

      But that is just my preference. Your preference is valid, just not what I would want.

      • sheepthief

        I’d rather have the same battery design, but two of them.

  • Timbo

    It is going to be an expensive christmas.

    • Daav

      Who’s waiting for Chrismtmas?

  • joey jo jo


  • Hopefully they redesigned the hot shoe cover. The two piece design of the EM-5 was a recipe for losing one or both pieces. Normally losing the hot shoe cover is no big deal, but as there is a second connector over the EVF, leaving that uncovered may be an issue.

    • sheepthief

      It’s the same design, by the looks of it. Yes, fiddly, and prone to loss. Olympus claim that both parts are required to maintain weather-sealing.

  • “Olympus lens-hood LH-66”

    Please don’t tell me its on extra :-(

  • Scott

    Now this is black :-)

  • Shenkie

    I took another look at it……and al the comments. I think i am going to buy this combo. My final thought is that its looking sweet. I hope that the pictures are sweet looking to.

  • Love Bath

    I’m glad the grip is integrated in with the two buttons near the shutter. I found while using the attachable grip with the E-M5 the same Fn2 and Rec buttons, which I have assigned to ISO and manual focus zoom and use quite often, I have to reach my finger pretty far back to press those buttons or have my middle finger on the shutter and use the index finger to press either of the two buttons.

    It is quite a stretch to reach the index back to those buttons while gripping the camera. Especially while using manual lenses, for me to zoom in to focus or change ISO quickly. I’m constantly changing ISO in aperture priority to get my shutter speed down to my hand-held liking, as low as 1/10th sec or faster. This gets my ISO as low as possible for higher quality hand-held photos. Obviously the 5-axis stabilization helps me achieve this low a shutter speed.

  • Rob

    If it’s weather sealed (and it should be with ‘Pro’ unnecessarily written on the lens – that’s almost embarrassing) and not crazily priced, this may very well be my next lens. I look forward to the reviews and testing it out in stores.

    • C. C.

      There is nothing “embarrassing” about having “PRO” on the lens. If it is Pro quality then why not proclaim it proudly. Good for you, Oly. Now, take my money.

    • Oilymouse

      You apparently consider Kodak DCS pro, Fuji S5 pro and GA645 professional (and their many siblings and ancestors) all a bit embarassing? Because those cameras where not priced for consumers. I shoot or have shot them all and they deserve the “pro” designation.

      Be educated.

  • Alexander Luthor

    I have a feeling it’s going to be priced the same as the E-5, seeing how they are going to market this as a replacement for the 4/3 SLR system.

  • Egor

    E-M1 for $2300?!! Ha-ha-ha! I’m bought Canon EOS 6D + two lens and I’m happy. Olympus go to hell, yep! Compactness… hmmm, EOS 6D take a better pictures. More, more better pictures.

    • New m4/3 user

      There’s no price announced yet, where are you getting this figure from? Some random poster guessing at it? I could see this as a kit being around $2,300 or around $2,600 if purchased separately.

    • MAFAv8r

      The E5 was around USD1700 at release time, and the difference in quality is alot more to do with you than the camera when we are talking at these levels. That is why I sold my E5 and all my gear. When I look at the photod i took with my E5 verses the ones I take with the EM5, 80% of the difference has got to do with my skill improving, 20% to do with the camera. And the difference between the EM5 and E5 is less than the EM5 and the Canon you are talking about

      • MAFAv8r

        I forgot to say why I changed. Weight and size. In my profession as a pilot I can’t justify the backpack I used to take with me. Now its just a small shoulder bag.

        • AW

          MAFav8r – I’ve worked for and alongside MAF, which field are you in?

          • MAFAv8r

            Currently Arnhem Land, but also briefly South Sudan. Neville

            • AW

              PNG and Papua. Not as a pilot. Some years ago now.

    • Cyril

      Be happy and find peace in your heart…

  • Mr GH3,12-35mm f2.8

    Give it up Olympus – Panasonic is top dog now. Just keep on enjoying Sony’s sensor tech whilst it lasts. Once Sony leaves you, that will be the end of the Olympus corporation.

    • Really? There’s a blockbuster Hollywood movie in there somewhere!

    • Anonymous

      How can it be the end of the “Olympus corporation?” Olympus is mostly involved with medical equipment (which is why Sony invested), not cameras.

      • Daav

        Not to mention that Sony only has an 11% interest stake in Olympus, which while making them the largest single shareholder does not make them such a large factor that loosing them would kill Olympus simply because their would be other buyers for that stake. However, if olympus goes down, Cash strapped Sony who has their own financial problems would stand to loose several hundred millions of dollars invested into Olympus, so that they can get their feet into the medical imaging arena. So Sony would loose their investment and their stake hold in a market they want to be in. The biggest looser would be Sony themselves. No, it pays for Sony to keep Olympus going, especially since Olympus is another big sensor and parts customer for them.

    • Amnotamouse

      Consumer devices GH3 and 12-35 prices will plummet to the depths. No comparison to E-M1 and HG/SHG Zuiko heritage. Brilliant move by Olympus.

    • The Real Stig

      That was sad.

      If Olympus have significantly improved the video capabilities in the E-M1 – which seems almost certain to me, otherwise why even bother with a Mic port, the GH3 will become an also-ran.

      Want to see what IBIS does for you when filming while on the move on skis?

      • true homer

        Ibis while in skis? Hahahahahaha wtf are you talking about??

        • The Real Stig

          Just what I said, a video made while skiing. The effect of the IBIS is incredible.

  • The 12-40mm lens looks solid, especially in that hand shot. All metal, baby.

  • Anonymous

    That. Is. Beautiful.

  • m43happy

    People need to stop complaining about prices. Seriously, if Olympus considers this their flagship camera I don’t see what’s wrong with their pricing given it’s specs, capabilities, etc. The E-P5 and E-M5 are already out for less, and I’m pretty sure they’ll be rolling out more consumer oriented models like the E-PLx. If you’re gonna argue that those two previously mentioned cameras don’t have PDAF, then well all I can tell you is that you’ll have to wait for that to trickle down to the later consumer level cameras (Canon/Nikon do the same thing w/ their Pro camera tech over time getting put in the consumer level cameras).

    Also in regards to the size, and the people complaining that “hey, it’s almost as big as a dslr”, they need to get over that as well. The closest dslr in size is the Canon SL1, and is that similarly spec’d? No, not even close. Then there’s the people who’ll bring up the Pentax K-50. Is it a great camera and is the picture quality superb? Yes on both counts, but it doesn’t offer the overall functionality and versatility of the OM-D line. There is an added cost to miniaturizing the latest tech. A perfect example of this is the cell phone. It went from being huge bricks to tiny candy sized phones w/ the computer power of a regular PC (…and yes, I understand that the screen size nowadays dictate the cell phone sizes).

    Sorry rant over. I just get tired of reading the same complaints over and over again. People seem to complain just for the sake of complaining. There are a bunch of m4/3 options out there for everyone. You can’t expect the latest and greatest camera to come in at a cheap price, especially when it’s the company’s flagship camera being introduced.

    • rfuret

      Totally agree with you. People who cannot buy a Ferrari have to buy a Fiat or similar, nobody expects that Leica will be inexpensive, and Olympus is presenting a flag ship, not a plastic one, top quality and specs, could not be low-cost. Just wait a few months and it will be a little cheaper (summer next year) see OM-D E-M5 price now is 30 or 40% cheaper.

    • true homer

      I said your entire second paragraph when the gh3 came out and got bashed to death. Strange how things change huh?

      • Amnotamouse

        Dunghorse horsedung

  • kavat

    Great camera! Backlight buttons would be a nice feature.

    – Improved 5 axis with auto detect panning ( like ep5)
    – 1/8000s
    – native isos 200-25000 ext to 100iso
    – Weathersealed pro standard (e5 like)
    – Better video codecs and tools (Mic, hdmi liveout)
    – Better ergonomics (grip, buttons layout, 2×2…)
    – PDAF
    – New viewfinder
    – Fully compatible with 4/3 lenses
    – no AA filter
    – LCD with 4/3 ratio
    – I want one !

    • rfuret

      Yes, me too

  • marilyn

    pls dont speculate the price high the more yun speculate the price the more it will go higher… one things for sure olympus UK and usa is reading our comments… if you expect them high the price will go up also…. so make sure you speculate it lower than panasonic lens price…

  • kl

    One beautiful system indeed. The ugly duckling has transformed into a graceful swan

  • Daav

    amalric: You raise some good points. Just my thoughts on two of them.

    “One wonders how many PJ are left, but I am sure that they could do well with a simple 25mm equivalent and an E-M5.” —- There are a lot of PJ’s left out there, but unfortunately many of them have been forced into becoming free-lance stringers. Without a company to fund their Canon 1DX or Nikon D4, some may be looking for personal alternatives. If they already have personal Nikon or Canon lenses, they will probably stay with those systems even if it means downgrading to D600 or 5D Mark III. However if they don’t and have to fund their own gear, it is likely that many may consider a smaller Pro camera like the E-M1 and lenses. Remember it is their livelihood so portability, durability, weather resistance, cold temperature operation, versatility, are all important factors. If they are going to huff it on their own it is a viable option. Remember what medium and sizes they are printing to which is quite limited, and even ISO 6400 on an OMD is quite usable if the photo tells the story they want. I personally think that the over time (not immediately) the move to freelance stringers will bring about a new approach to photojournalism. Remember that the modern era of Photojournalism began with the little leica cameras that were roundly scorned in the beginning, until they delivered the goods better then anything else. Photojournalism is about the story.

    “The E-M1 and 12-40 are probably already too cumbersome for Street Photography. — I don’t see this at all. I think it is a matter of taste. The camera is not significantly larger then the E-M5 and the new lens is not all that much larger then the 12-60, except in diameter. But the ability to get the shot is as good or better. There are many different opinions on what makes a good camera for street photography, but I think it is really boils down to personal preference, what the photographer prefers and their style. I’ve seen great street photography from all kind of cameras pocket compacts to FF DSLRS or even medium format Pentax. Mamiya and Hasselblad. Some of the greatest old time street photography was shot with 4X5 Speed Graphics, so it really does come down to photographic skill and how you relate to people.

    There are some areas though that people don’t talk about because they aren’t glamorous, but it are still very big and very alive. That is the areas of military, industrial, scientific and biomedical photo. Olympus is a company that has had decades of experience and history working with these areas, and with a new “small, versatile Pro” camera could stand to regain much of their former influence, especially with their exceptional optical capabilities.

    I think it very foolish to take a camera like the E-M1 which is the most interesting camera I have seen in a few decades and try to limit it to any category. If it lives up to its PRO standing, and if they improve the video specs, even a little, it will be a success, I am sure. And yes there wills till be markets, for other cameras as well. Olympus, doesn’t have to “rule” the kingdom, they just have to find their area of excellence within it.

    • Daav

      AAarrgghh! Somehow that seems to have gotten posted in the wrong …

    • BTW I found that doc about Pro photogs, but it’s in the World, and it doesn’t mention marriage photogs, but especially stock ones:

      As you see it’s a v. bleak picture, therefore the market for the E-M1 must be shrinking.

      What the E-M1 has is a nexus of enabling technologies that is rather unique. If the limit m4/3 had vs. other pro cameras, fast action pictures, is lifted, the sky is the limit, although in a shrinking market.

      For me it’s the technology, as 5 axis IBIS, which is important, because it will trickle down to cameras that aspiring pros can afford.

      I am old enough to remember the switch from Leica to SLR. It happened in Vietnam or even in Korea, when war photogs needed a cheap TTL camera. First was Pentax Spotmatic and then Nikon F, when they made money. For PJ today the constraint are still the same: small, sturdy, not uberexpensive, and now, commected. The Heir to the E-M5 might be the sweet spot. The GX 7 is getting close.

      The E-M1 is more of a marriage hacks tool or even a studio tool. We are not even sure if PDAF-on-Sensor is good enough yet.So people enthuse and promise, but we don’t know how many will really buy. That why I mentioned the pie charts. Not so many can offset the expense, after all.

      How many thousands or even dozen thousand will buy? IMHO it will depend on the perception of how m4/3 can now successfully SUBSTITUTE heavier systems. dSLR and FF then will be kept for Medium Format work, and Oly’s sales might skyrocket, because of its unique blend of enabling technologies, with resolution that are second to none.

      Keep in mind that this is happening in a shrinking market for Pros, so pricing the E-M1 and new lenses requires a fine act of balancing, and brinkmanship too, otherwise the company could still go bust.

      • Anonymous

        Market for stock photography is completely dead for rather obvious reasons.

        This isn’t the case for the market for wedding pictures, official portraiture, corporate event photography, oh, and pretty much all parents still love having nice portraits of their children.

        The market for the classic pro photographer with his studio however has been reduced, and there are so many people trying to satisfy this market that its almost impossible to make a living there.

  • arthur

    wow,this forum is full of blatherers.
    would be interesting to see the “professional” pictures taken by them …

  • liuswie

    I don’t know what’s the point of this camera. The advantages of M4/3 are all gone. May as well buy a DSLR at half the price.

    • MAFAv8r

      If you don’t know then find out, there’s plenty

      • liuswie

        You are right. I still have a Lumix G1.

    • MJr

      lol, so wrong.

    • Mark

      So because the system is growing and offers more choice you will step out? It make’s no sense. I drive Mazda 3, should I sell my Mazda 3 because Mazda decided to make a other bigger model like the Mazda 6? Or your plain stupid, or you are trolling.

    • The Real Stig

      I now realise no one seems to have stated the obvious. The E-M1 is built on the same chassis casting as the E-M5, or one that is only very slightly modified. They may have attached an ancillary casting for the grip or it might be less substantial like top and bottom plates are. Whatever the details, the E-M1 is at heart, an E-M5. It seems it’s purposeful and aggressive looks have fooled a lot of people into thinking it is a completely new camera that is GH3 or DSLR sized. It isn’t, it’s either 121mm wide – the same as the E-M1 or maybe 124mm. From the video that was leaked, I measured from strap lug to strap lug in a frame where they guy holds it square on to the camera, measured the width of the hot shoe, worked out the scale factor from an actual hot shoe and came up with those numbers. Also holding up my E-M5 to the screen in the same orientation as the guy does when the screen is facing you and adjusting so the hot shoes match in width, yields the same impression.

      They have reduced the width of the screen a lot giving more area for the enlarged buttons giving the impression it’s wider, but my bet is the E-M1 is basically the same size as the E-M5 as it’s built on the same chassis and the strap lugs are attached directly to the chassis, except the right hand one has been shifted back 8mm.

      • Daav

        I’m guessing that some have not mentioned it because it seemed obvious. I don’t see a reduced width screen, looks about the same to me. Camera does seem to be wider by a few millimeters due to the built-in grip and I think that is where the button space opens up as well, along with the rearrangement of buttons. But I could be wrong.

        I wouldn’t try to match up to tightly to the camera in the video, as it appeared to me to be an early testing prototype, hence the bad grip seams, irregular surface coatings, uneven colors, etc. I could never figure out why some people thought it was a finished model. Guess they are not aware of the development processes cameras go through, from mock-ups to prototypes, to working prototypes to pre-production then finally final production approved. The latest photos are much more finished and probably mostly consistent with final production.

        But yes, slightly larger then the E-M5, mostly in width, and only by a few millimeters. The difference won’t hardly be noticeable unless you set the E-M5 and E-M1 side by side.

        • The Real Stig

          Well judging by some comments on this and related threads some people are clearly of the impression the E-M1 is larger than it is, which is why I stated what to some is obvious. The screen + frame quite definitely looks to be narrower by 5mm. The screen itself could well be the same, as there is a whopping 9mm of dead wasted space between it’s right hand edge and the beginning of the frame on the E-M5. I hope they have kept it OLED.

          The near requirement of the strap lugs to be affixed to the actual chassis leads me to think the lug to lug dimensions are the same.

          It’s fun guessing. We will know for certain soon enough.

          • Well spotted. In fact I did the same mistake with the E-M5 thinking that it was much bigger than it really is. Perhaps it might depend from the Macro perspective/foreshortening?

            OTH I had once an E-410, whoch is about the same size of the E-M5. This won’t please grouchy 4/3 people, but again there is a grip available for the bigger lenses.

            Lately that crowd I mentioned began fussying about the lightness ofthe MMf-3 adapter, but I suppose the next one might be in metal.

            • Grey Owl

              I would guess that you have a point regarding perspective (and angle) affecting the apparent size of the camera. Size allusion can be deceptive when viewing objects without a firm point of reference.

    • CaverDave

      For some people there is so much more to a camera than just size. The E-M1 is basically the size of the E-M5 but with a built in grip. This gives enough room for many more direct control buttons. Just off the top of my head the E-M1 has the following direct control button: AF mode, drive mode, AF/EL, fn1, fn2, movie, and two on the right side of the lens mount. Also with the 1/2 level you get basically four control dials. Then there is the extremely low light metering, might be -3 EV and the fast for speed. All very important to some users. With the expected specs it places the camera in the 7D and D300s class of camera. Theses two cameras are a lot bigger than the E-M1.

      Anyhow, there is room in mft camera line for cameras like the E-M1 and GH3. There are always other smaller cameras in the mfg line of cameras.

      • Plus the Fn button on the 12-40/28 lens itself (also on the 12-50).
        Lots of flexibility for direct-button configurations… :)

  • Katz

    I have the 12-60 mm swd lens , will this new lens be better than the 12-60 on the new em5

    • MAFAv8r

      Probably not, just smaller, the reason I sold mine

    • OM

      It IS better than 12-60mm

      • arthur

        how do you know? where you looking in a magic glassball?

        • MAFAv8r

          Tell us more, because that would be amazing!

  • mitico

    I hope for Oly that this camera will be excellent… the price its a little bit scary for a mft… More interisting will be look at what they will took off from that marvel to make the new generation lower budgets epl and epm.

  • Fuu

    semms like it won’t be an internal zoom lens?!
    is that impossible at that size (compared to Pana 12-35 F/2.8 (external zoom) and 35-100 F/2.8 (internal!))?

    price will be between 1000-2000€ imo.

  • A pro camera with a dedicated HDR hard button! Haha!

    Anyway, the camera appears to be wastly better than the E-M5 in terms of ergonomics, based on the pictures I’ve seen so far.

    I’m unhappy that the lens has such a glossy, smooth surface. In the good, old days, pro lenses were made with a matte, knurled surface, for better grip. Since the Apple Iphone revolution, all consumer electronic products have to be glossy, which is too bad for us consumers.

    • MJr

      It’s a shooting mode button which merely includes HDR.

      Also the lighting makes the lens look more reflective than it is, looks pretty matte to me, it certainly isn’t glossy and purple tinted like the 12-35 .. i don’t know how you still manage to complain.

      • Cyril

        Look matte for me too…

  • Anonymoose

    Too bad we’re only a couple of years away from m4/3 being abandoned, like everything else before it that Olympus was involved in.

    • Narretz

      Too bad your cameras and lenses will magically stop working then

  • H E L P : L E N S

    Somebody can explaine me why I Need a 2.8 fast lense these days?
    For Portrait i will use a 1.8 Lens . For the rest ( landscape) i could Switch up the iso a bit. No Probleme this days.

    Thanks already!

    • Anonymous

      Many people won’t need such a fast zoom lens for their general photography.

      Me? I use the 12-35/2.8 for indoor wedding and corporate event photography, as it means not having to change lenses as often. For such situations I do have a second body with either the 45/1.8 or 75/1.8 mounted. Could solve all of this with fast primes, and when needed I will, but the convenience and speed of not having to change lenses can be worth the price of such fast zooms (and a second camera body) for some of us.

    • Street photo, where background blurring may be also a welcomed feature?

      • Anonymous

        Which can generally be done much cheaper and better with a fast prime. A wide to short tele at f/2.8 on m4/3 is not going to give you much background blurring capability over the lower half of its range really for street situations.

  • Enzojz

    I am sure Olympus leaked these photo on purpose because the last one looks just ugly, in fact with that wide lens that takes video, no camera looks beautiful.

  • rfuret

    The “PRICE” I read already here in the forum someone had pre-ordered this combo for 2,199 € or about $ 2,941.58 or £ 1,888.79

    Anonymous17 hours ago | Reply
    E-M1 + 12-40-Kit = 2.199€
    admin17 hours ago | Reply
    Anonymous17 hours ago | Reply
    Ordered a Kit + one additional body some days ago.
    Bought all my Olympus gear since E-1 with this one, so I trust it. ;D

  • On these new images the E-M1 looks extremely sexy! Almost giving me GAS again just like when Nikon released the D3 :)

  • jf

    Damn, I have a G.A.S !!!
    I can’t wait to see how the lens compete to the panny 12-35 and a size comparison of the two lenses, the 12-40 doesn’t look that much big on E-M1…

    • tom

      Based on the filter sizes, we can guess that it is about 4mm wider in diameter. The length is harder to estimate, but a hand is about 3 inches wide. The hood obscures the end of the lens however. I guess the 12-40 is between 0 and 5 mm longer than the 12-35. Weight is harder to guess, worst case based on volume I would say 20% more, but with no OIS motor I don’t think that is likely, probably no heavier than 12-35.

  • peevee

    want want want

  • kl

    GAS Indeed. I’ve put off my lust for the 12 F2 now waiting to see how this sweet 12-40 performs.

    • Damn Oly


      i think i just have to wait for the review of this lens,.and curious about the price,.because i already have the F2/12mm zuiko and 14-54mm F2.8-3.5 mkII 43 version the combo of 12mm and 14-54 mkII is worth like $800+$500 =$1300,.i could not afford more than $1300 just for a 1/3 stop of light @40mm,.when the 14-54 @40mm the aperture is about F3.0 or 3.2 i’m not sure,.but have a longer end at 54mm. for the 12 mm is also can not be replace for now,.because it has zone focus scale and also 1-stop more faster which is F2,.the good news is i can be able use the 14-54 mmii in full force support PDAF

  • Mr D800e, 70-200mm f2.8

    You could buy a top of the range full frame system for the price of the 12-40mm f/2.8 and the E-M1. How anyone would choose this overpriced piece of plastic is totally beyond me.

    • Anonymous

      you are probably right, you dont get the point.

    • Anonymous

      Full Frame system is exactly not what I want. Just too big & heavy to carry around.

    • Cyril

      Full frame was good until now ,but it’s not the future…wake up

    • EL Aura

      Try to walk into a venue where taking picture is forbidden and there entrance controls, with people checking ladies’ handbags, carrying a D800 + lens. You won’t get in. Take a compact m43 (GF-1,2,3,5, GX-1,7, P1,2,3,5, PL-1, E-M5, etc.) with a pancake prime, hide as much as possible by putting your hand around it and then throwing a thin sweater or jacket, and you’ll get in.

      • Damn Oly


        Yup you are right, .if did not bring my O-MD instead my D700,.i would not be able to make photo at Steve vai concert last year ,as some of the people. Who brought they DSLR had to seized by the event organizer,.they thought my E-M5 was a Point and Shoot camera.

      • kevitra

        I just had this happen last week. I was able to bring in my OM-D and 12-35 2.8 into a concert because it was not ‘professional’. A camera like the D7000 was not let in.

    • Yes! A perfect troll! You’re a bit late today. :-)


      (This one goes out to Oilymouse.)

      For years and months I have saved and toiled,
      While dreams of R10 were shattered and spoiled,
      Hoping to hold in my stiff, aching hand
      A box to make my images grand.

      I didn’t flinch at Leica’s dumb prices,
      But large sensor promises never came true.
      So here’s my new family–that’s all of you!–
      And µ43 catalog well satisfices.

      Some trolls are sweet, like bowl-fulls of pluots,
      but sometimes they write like they’re Canikon robots.
      Some folks may find our subtotals daunting,
      But this is a team that is worthy of flaunting.

      Sigma and Leica we count as dear friends;
      Schneider and Tamron are waiting in line,
      While Konica’s cooking up something divine,
      And Cosina’s marvels beat all other trends.

      Sony has brought Oly back from the dead,
      Though we had to give up our 5-axis cred.
      Truly we all make a wonderful team,
      An engine that never will run out of steam.

      So, the trolls can,

      Dis Panny’s IQ with uninformed comments,
      Put Oly down for their yakuza finance,
      But I won’t be a slave to Canikon bromance…
      Though, I admit,
      I drool on their specs in my weakest of moments.


      Here is a glossary of some Americanisms I had to use:

      to satisfice = to satisfy + to suffice
      To be good enough.

      pluots = plum + apricot
      A cross-bred fruit that is like a large and soft plum, with reddish, mottled skin and yellow flesh.

      cred <- credentials
      Reputation and qualification, especially for being street-wise and/or formidable.

      bromance = brother + romance
      Brother-like, very close, and loving friendship between men, especially when describing a movie plot.

      to dis <- to disrespect
      To say something disrespectful, usually something cutting, sarcastic, and/or hurtful. Could be malicious, unintended, or in good humor, like in a friendly banter.


      A note to fans of other mirrorless brands: I think of µ43, Sony, Fuji, and Samsung all being in the same mirrorless "team". As Ben Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

      • em5 forever

        I think you forgot to take your daily Valium

      • The Real Stig

        Thank you for that, excellent!

      • Though I reside in N. America, and get around quite a bit, I’d not encountered the “Americanisms” listed (except cred, dis, and once or twice, pluot). But what the hey, neologism is rampant.

        Nonetheless, very clever and funny verse, its message right on target.

        Only difference for me is the last lines: Canikon specs evoke as much envy as a ponderous 8×10 would have enticed a Leica user in film days of yore.

      • Oilymouse

        I may be exaggerating when I say this is Internet history in the making, but not only fits the sheer freshness of this poetry nicely with a forum for alternative system cameras, it is – more importantly – a constructive and positive approach to dealing with trollism in general.

        We probably all tried ignoring trolls and/or hacking to bits their reasoning at one time or another, but this inspires me to save my energy and repay their ugliness with beauty.

        Shame I’m not much of a poet… :-)


      • Thanks everyone!

        In the U.S., we have this trend of playing classical music in certain public areas, sadly, because it chases the teenagers away. So, I’m thinking, these brief moments of culture could scare the trolls away? Also, this could be a soothing alternative to a flame war.

        em5 forever: No, no, Valium is not effective for crazy, and can in fact be counterproductive. What I need is Thorazine, which is an excellent suppressor of creativity. :-)

        Oilymouse: Saw your entry below. My partner, who is a Hip-Hop aficionado, confirmed my impression that it was very good rap poetry; mine is more nursery-rhyme. I hope it was more relaxing than a feud!

        Anyone else who wants to try: It does not have to be good poetry, just something interesting. Maybe even sweet and pretty. I’m thinking references to My Little Pony, rose petals, and snowfalls in Hokkaido would work just as well as clever disses.

    • Daav

      Oh really? And just which top of the line full frame system is this that you are talking about? Hmmm! Oh wait, you’re Mr D800E and 27-200 F2.8. Is that the one? Let’s see… D800E body only prices: $3,297. Nikon 70-200 F2.8 $2,385…. that’s FF system for $5,782.

      Oh, dear, that can’t be right, you must’ve meant with a more affordable 24-70 since we are talking comparing to the Zuiko 12-80 F2.8 and maybe you meant a Canon 6D or Nikon D600… So let’s see Canon 6D with Canon 24-70 F2.8 = $4299. :(0 Let’s try the D600 with Nikor 24-70 F2.8 = 3889. Well thats better but quite a bit more still then the new m43 system. I know, let’s put a third party lens on it, to save money. Looks like the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM, is the most affordable, so that would be about $2885 for either 6D or D600. Now there’s the ticket…. Wahhh, this can’t be… Have to stop down to F8, just to get the corners to almost look sharp? But surely that must be what you’re talking about. 2000 plus $825 mediocre lens = CRAP.

      • The Real Stig

        Nice one.

        The truth will out.

      • Oilymouse

        You got him, and he’s going down hard! :-)

        Anyway, I wonder why we only get these FF-only wankers lately… Have the APS-C crew given up already? What’s next? Phase One fanboys? It almost seems too easy.

    • peevee

      What top of the line full frame system can you get for $2,200? D1X – $6,800, 24-70/2.8 II (a little short, but ok) – $2,100, $8,900 together (4 times+ more than E-M1+12-40 kit), and it is not a SYSTEM yet.

    • OM-D body made with Magnesium Alloy and may dare to the Bad Weather better than your D800 either… ^^

      Full Frame just good… but not the absolute answer.

    • Michael White

      Size and weight baby, size and weight. Also autofocus accuracy is excellent. It sucks on full frame ‘professional’ DSLR cameras. I sold my D800 with two top primes for the OM-D and two equivalent primes. Never looked back. A complete high quality kit with primes or a top zoom lens weighs less then the D800 body alone!

      By the way, the remark about the OM series and lenses being cheap or plastic is rubbish. Many of the good primes for full frame cameras are plastic. The OM-D feels solid and is made of high quality metal. The Fuji X series, now those cameras do feel cheap, not the Olympus OM series.

  • Whatever way you look at it, its overpriced!

    • Anonymous

      You know the prices already? Genius!

    • OMD James

      Looks like someone forgot their meds today

  • Scott

    You know what that say about people that want big cameras

    • Daav

      Quote: “You know what that say about people that want big cameras”

      Mmm… It’s not the size of your tool but how you use it that matters?

  • Microfail

    WOOOOOW! A 24-80 F5.6 equivalent. Yes, equivalent, because you’ll get the same pictures as a FF with an hypothetical 24-80 F5.6 (which doesn’t even exist! all FF zooms are faster! LOL!). IMPRESSIVE!

    I hope this marvel of innovation won’t cost above $300…

    • Anonymous

      How come people recommending Full Frame equipments are all ignorant?
      This Olympus lens is 24-80mm F2.8 equivalent, NOT F5.6 equivalent in terms of speed and light collecting capability.

      • Microfail

        The fact is: with this 12-40 f2.8 for M4/3, you will get the SAME image, with SAME image characteristics, FOV, DOF, and noise, as a 24-80 F5.6 on FF. This is what is important, image characteristics. ISO100 on M4/3 vs ISO400 on FF? It doesn’t matter, both will get the same noise level.

        Therefore, paying more than $300 for a 24-80 f5.6 equivalent, is an abomination

        • Not quite.

          The FF shutter speed would be 4 times as long as the one for the MFT camera. So the “image characteristics” of the FF image of a moving object would relatively blurry compared to the MFT camera. That “image characteristic” is the tradeoff for the sensor size. And as long as the sensor is excellent (or good enough) on MFT, the MFT image sharpness will be higher than that of the FF. So if you want sharp sports pics at telephoto range, MFT will eventually have the advantage (modulo focusing speed, 3D focus, and object tracking which are currently lacking in MFT).

          E-M1 PDAF will start to change the balance with its more sophisticated focusing for sports caliber (43) lenses and, possibly, with the first effective focus tracking for MFT.

          So, no, not all “image characteristics” are identical between FF and MFT. The tradeoffs co-exist: take here, give there. Choose the system that’s best for you or your project.

        • BLI

          *Finally* an FF fan approaching honesty: every other “DOF” promoter I have seen *fails* to state the obvious — that one needs to compare an m43 camera at low ISO number (e.g 200) with an FF at high ISO number (800 in this exampe) for the statement to have any truth.

          However, every test I have seen fails to use such a shifted ISO curve when comparing the sensors of m43 vs FF. And if you compare such shifted ISO curves, the m43 sensors suddenly get at least as good as the FF sensors. Thus, in my view, it is more practical/honest to say that FF cameras have better sensors and that the aperture only affects the DOF — simply because the signal gain from the sensor is calibrated this way.

          Still, your point of view is incorrect because you neglect (1) pixel density, (2) sensor generation, (3) sensor manufacturer, (4) signal processing expertise, (5) electronics design, (6) optics quality, etc., etc., etc.

          Of course: for me, the key thing is portability so that I actually use the camera, and a quality that is good enough for me. With this in mind, m43 wins hands down! For me.

          • Oilymouse

            This forum is becoming a free online open university… accepting any prioer “level” of education. Good thing people still have the patience.

          • deadlock

            Yes, in simplified terms, you could think of larger but noisier image (say, four times the area) as four individual images that are being stacked on top of each other (averaged out). This increases signal-to-noise ratio proportionally to the square root of number of stacked images (samples) – note the non-linearity and gradual decrease. In this case it’s by a factor of 2. So you could say that full frame has an advantage in f-stops, all things being equal, as it can “afford” more noise.

            This comparison gets messy very soon though with different input signals to begin with (lens), different levels of noise (sensor), different pixel densities, different low-pass and resampling filters etc. Naive downsampling filter can ruin even a perfectly sharp hi-res image coming from a high-end camera as is often the case on web. Hell, even naive use of bilinear or bicubic filter in Photoshop can introduce high-frequency artifacts that weren’t originally present in your image.

            So, ultimately, the “best” camera is the one you carry and make photos with. With MFT you really don’t give up much fidelity except for the really demanding scenarios, in which case there are other tools for the job. But I’m happy to be able to cover the rest with a lighter and sexier camera. Btw, I find it amusing how people loved the analog film grain, yet today we all pixel-peep.

        • The Real Stig

          Given the same amount of light falling on the subject

          Will an M43 camera set to ISO 200, with a 12-40mm f2.8 lens set to 12mm and f2.8, require the same shutter speed as a FF camera set to ISO 200, with a 24-70mm f2.8 lens set to 24 mm and f2.8? Yes or No?

          • Timmilo


          • Yes, the fov and ss (as stated) will be the same, but the dof will be much shallower on FF.
            To get the same depth of field, you have to stop down the FF to 5.6, but then you have to compensate for the exposure shift by decreasing the SS of the FF by 2 stops.
            In this case, if you need fast shutter speed and a deep dof, mft > FF. If you need shallow dof, FF > mft.

          • Steve

            From the net for ie:

            Indeed comparing the size of
            the Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 to the Canon 24-70mm F2.8 there is an advantage in having compact optics. The problem is, F2.8 on Micro Four Thirds is equivalent to about F5.6 on full frame in terms of depth of field control and low light performance, so the 12-35mm F2.8 and Canon 24-70mm F2.8 is not really a like-for-like comparison, and a 24-70mm F5.6 for full frame would be much smaller than the Canon 24-70mm F2.8.

            • Anonymous

              That low light performance has to do with the sensor (and on much more then its size) and not with the lens, and consequently will depend on the exact cameras being compared. For (a silly) example, a 5Dmk1 will not get you the kind of advantage you claim, rather the opposite actually, despite its ‘full frame’ sensor. Through silly, I know quite a few people holding on to such outdated ‘full frame’ cameras because they can only afford upgrading to a modern aps-c body, claiming that their outdated device will be better because it is ‘full frame’, 10 years of development and pictures clearly demonstrating the opposite not withstanding.

            • deadlock

              If you have a 2.8 lens on either system, the intensity of light hitting the sensor will be the same. Yes, the same number of photons per square unit. So, it’s a fallacy to multiply F numbers. We must strip F numbers from this equation and compare only sensor tech. Also, except for large prints the image will be downsampled anyway for typical use. More initial samples generally means less noise but this doesn’t scale linearly and depends on particular reconstruction filter. Additionally, more samples means nothing if what we sample is a blurry or otherwise distorted image rendered by the lens. There are just too many variables.

              As for depth of field – yes, given the same focal length but different fields of view (crop factors), you can multiply F number by crop factor to get an idea of the resulting depth of field. But it is a fallacy to use this calculation for the amount of light hitting the sensor.

        • peevee

          “ISO100 on M4/3 vs ISO400 on FF? It doesn’t matter, both will get the same noise level.”

          You suppose they are made using the same technology and equivalently efficient per unit of area, but you are wrong – smaller sensors are usually made on better tech, and the Sony m43 sensor is not an exception (although FF and APC-S sensors are usually made on the same tech).

    • Well, you wouldn’t use it for shallow DOF applications, would you?

      • Anonymous

        He obviously wouldn’t use it at all, through the same is probably true for any other camera he comments on.

    • Anonymous

      are you idiot?lol

    • arthur

      Physical nonsense! Back to school troll.

    • F5.6? No. Only the focal length gets multiplicated by 2, not the aperture.

      The aperture stays at F2.8 – this means the amount of light trough the lens.

      But: the deep of field gets multiplicated with 2. So: thats a plus for nearly everything.

      Who makes portraits with an aperture of F2.8 with a FF system? If u want to get a sharp nose and unsharp eyes, u could do :)


      FF photo with aperture F5.6 (portrait or what ever) is the same as a photo with FT F2.8.

      • The Real Stig

        You can’t embed, unfortunately, you have to provide links and only one of those per post unless you want your message to go into moderation for a while.

        • I haven’t linked a image. Also i know WP and the comments functions in detail at code level very well :-)

          • The Real Stig

            Ok, I misinterpreted your post, as I am sure others might well do too.

            The case you were trying to present would be better if you did provide a link to a pictorial example.

      • Ragnarok
        • The Real Stig

          Ok, here is the IQ difference between a Nikon D800 at ISO 400 and an E-M5 at ISO 200:

          Now, I’m actually being more than kind, because I could have legitimately set the D800 to 6400, given the E-M5 IBIS is good for 5 stops stabilisation.

          Bring along a tripod, the D800 wins, no tripod, the E-M5 wins.

          This bogus lens equivalency mantra FF fundamentalists preach is tiresome. In dim light, an E-M5 user with steady hands can pick an ISO several stops slower than A D800 user.

          • You are being generous, since we should be looking at D800 at ISO 800.

            Why? See:


            Why do I like wide depth of field? Here is a shot that would have been junked, had it been any shallower:


            I had thought that D800 at ISO 800 was equivalent to E-M5 at ISO 200, and that is clearly not the case here. I’d say it’s even call at ISO 400, but scaling down the resolution might solve that. Cool. Thanks for bringing this up.

          • Rolypoly

            Bullshit check on your reading of that DPreview test:

            1. Lenses used: Nikkor 85mm 1.8 vs. Olympus 50mm 2.0
            Conclusion: That sharp Olympus lens is not native to m43.

            2. Aperture: F11 on D800 vs. F 6.3 on OMD
            Conclusion: You should look at images of same ISO since those images are already equivalency corrected by focal length and aperture

            3. Resolution: 36MP vs. 16MP
            If you truly continue your comparison and scale down those ISO 800 D800 images (which, as shown in 2., are two stops away from equivalent settings in favor of OMD) and compare them to ISO 200 OMD images, you’ll notice they are just as good. This actually surprised me. At that point you have discarded 20MP of image information from the D800 for sake of getting an equivalent 100% view.

            You are threefold wrong, FF is vastly superior.

            M43 is never equivalent, it is just less – less weight, less sensor, less battery, less size, less glass, less light. Some of those characteristics are very desirable, but in the end the price should be less as well.

            • Anonymous

              Throwing away 20mp of data? Being surprised about what you see? Well, that you think the first makes it easy to understand the second. You aren’t throwing away that data at all, you are using it to overage out pixels which inherently reduces noise.

              You do a good job at repeating the 135 format sales pitch, but do you understand it?

            • deadlock

              You are not throwing away any data in this case. Using more samples per output pixel helps to increase signal-to-noise ratio as noise gets “averaged out”, therefore the original image can “afford” to be noisier in order to obtain the same downsampled result. This is an inherent advantage of any high resolution signal. Even if both sensors produced the same level of noise per pixel, the grain would be finer on a high-res image, therefore more likely to get filtered out and be less disturbing. This is assuming an idealized case, all things being equal. In typical real-life scenarios though the difference has become negligible and is outweighed by overall portability of the system and high-quality glass, which is possible precisely because of that reason. It just depends where your “sweet spot” is for a given task.

        • Oilymouse

          Shocking but true: shutter time is very important when making an exposure.

          Infinite shutter time -> infinite photons.

          In practice, we only care about S/N ratios (i.e. image quality), not actual photons.

          I sometimes wonder about the knowledge regarding “practical photography” available to some forum warriors here.

          I shoot medium format. It makes FF 135 look like a compact. The image plane receives a lot of photons (depending on shutter count, of course). Big freakin’ deal.

        • Daav

          WOW, in the first paragraph of that linked article ( the author uses the word “fanboy” Clearly NOT an unbiased or technically sound piece from the get go as the author already demonstrates an unscientific bias and possible lack of knowledge.

          Let’s clear up a few things. The badly distorted concept of of “equivalent focal length” comes from the history of comparing “angle of view differences” between formats evolved by amateurs and some enthusiasts for the sake of simplicity because general users found it easier to relate angle of view to the full frame 35mm focal lengths which they could visually associate with. It is technically incorrect, but become a popular form of expression that most people understood. Keep in mind you really had very few formats to compare against at that time.

          Unfortunately with the advent of digital photography, and a significant increase in variety and size of formats, it brought about pseudo optical experts who continue to focus on the word focal length rather then the correct term of “angle of view” and decided that equivalent focal length meant a change in focal length and therefore decided that if the focal length changed, the aperture had to change. Thing is, the focal length never changes. It is only the “Angle of view” that changes relative to the different format/sensor diagonal sizes and shapes.

          For instance, a 100mm F2.8 for m4/3 has a diagonal angle of view of 12°. Likewise a 200mm Nikon F2.8 will have a 12° angle of view on a Full Frame sensor. At no time does any physical focal length change or is modified so therefore the actual aperture’s never change either. It is only that to maintain the same angle of view as the 100mm m4/3 sensor, the larger sensor requires a longer focal length. But the aperture is already computer optically for that focal length.

          For accuracy sake “equivalent focal length” should be changed to “equivalent angle of view” but it is harder for the human mind to conceptualize, angle of view then the long established “visual” use of equivalent focal length as 35mm format was established as a standard for several decades. In reality when we talk about equivalent focal length we are saying in simper terms that the a 100mm m4/3 lens, has the same angle of view as a 200mm FF format. (FF= the visual impact of 35mm film)

          100mm F2.8 is always 100mm F2.8 for the format it is intended for. If you use it on a smaller format, the angle of view is decreased because the sensor diagonal is decreased. If you use it on a larger format, the angle of view is increased, up to the limits of the circle of coverage/illumination designed into the lens or the diagonal of the format if it fits within the designed circle of coverage/illumination. Also let us clear up something about digital FF. It is not a solid standard in itself. Based upon the full frame (vs half frame) 35mm standard which is 36x24mm, many so called FF sensors vary from that precise standard, but not to a large extent. Hence the angle of view will remain within .1 to .2 of a degree, which is functionally insignificant except for precise scientific work.

    • deadlock
Back To Top

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,, 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:
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: Addthis cookies:
Disqus cookies:
Vimeo cookies:
Youtube cookies:

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.