(FT5) New weather sealed adapter coming along the OM-D


The current MMF-2 adapter

I am now pretty sure that Olympus will also launch a new weather sealed MMF 43 to m43 adapter. This will allow us to use the amazing weather sealed Four Thirds lenses like the 14-35mm f/2.0 the 35-100mm f/2.0 and the almost $6.000 300mm f/2.8 Zuiko lens.

There should be other accessories too. Sounds like we are going to see a nice bunch of OM-D related accessories too!

  • Ronbot

    Nice, but the question now is: will 4/3 lenses AF fast on the OMD

    • Agent00soul

      I very much doubt that Oly would bother with a new adapter if they won’t.

      • spam

        How much work can it be to redesing an empty tube to be weatherresistant?

        • Digifan

          Not much, there needs to be a rubber seal in/around the mount, and the housing must be more robust, the MMF-1(silver)/-2(black) were plastic.

        • efwee

          This adapter could have the OM inspired shutterspeed ring (and other functions of course, in this digital age)…

          • @Admin
            just who could have predicted a new weather proof adapter ;-)

            • Narretz

              You didn’t, didn’t you? (Please refrain from using “could of”, this is a course upon the English language)

              • BLI

                “course upon the English language” = ??. I guess “could of” should be “could have”??

                • twoomy

                  @Narretz: Since we’re on a correcting spree, I suppose you meant “curse” and not “course.” I’m not taking a language course from any of you guys.

                  Note: I don’t bother to correct anybody’s grammar unless they are bothering to correct somebody’s grammar and fail. :)

                  • Narretz

                    Well, one is a typo, the other one is blatantly ignoring what makes sense in a language.

              • oops *embarrassed* slapped wrist – edited :D

              • Berneck

                Why do people feel so compelled to trash someone for a misspelling or grammatical error? You realize there are a lot of people who comment on this site whose native language is not English.

                • MJr

                  Pleeze right me when Englich not good, help will make learn.

                • spam

                  I like being corrected. Maybe not for simple spelling errors, but it’s useful to get comments on incorrect use of words and grammar.

                • On the other hand, if you’re not a native English speaker, incorrectly spelled English will be even harder to read.

                  • TheEye

                    There are plenty English speakers, native and foreign-born, who can’t read or write. :-P

                    • spam

                      The ones who can write, but not read are the worst.

                • In English it’s ‘realise’ not ‘realize’ :D

                  • TheEye

                    You should have written, “In British English… .” :-P

                    • Nathan

                      Is there another kind of English?
                      (American guy here)

                  • Ross

                    Please don’t get me started on how Spell Check can’t give us true Australian English (it should be as UK but with dollars & metric symbols), but tries to make it the American way instead. Let’s have some more great rumours. ;)

                • Narretz

                  This is not a mistake that is typical of second language speakers. English is not my mother tongue, and I really want to speak and write good English, so it annoys me very much if people type stuff like “could of” just because it sounds similar to “could have”.

                  • Nathan

                    Are you kidding? I love it when people in the US do that. There has to be something to separate the literate from the illiterate in the USA. Education here has sunk from marginal to abysmal. How could my resume stand out if there were no grammatical errors in others’?

            • Curiousburke

              Please, in future posts use the true vulgar term “coulda” instead

      • EXACTLY! Lots of dSLR diehards at DPR never bothered to buy the MMF, so there must be a motive to make a new adapter, and WS wouldn’t be enough if the 4/3 lenses focus slowly.

        Also why mention it, when there are apparently more important things? It seems like a coded message referring implicitly to PDAF.

        Oly never made as many lenses as Panny, so possibly they worked all this time to find a PDAF system which was not too clumsy and expensive.

        Now logically a leak should follow about the VF. Does it have an optical reflex component in it? That’s the holy grail…

        • MJr

          Interesting hypothesis. But a mirror is highly unlikely.

          • Don’t you know the December patent? It’s only the PDAF sensors which need their light path, and tiny mirrors.

            • TheEye

              I see you are wearing your prophesying googles, Abe Sapien! Can you see how much such a mirrored-EVF hybrid finder would drive up the cost?

          • Harry H

            Well they only have one dog slow weather sealed kit zoom for mFT so maybe it is just to allow the lovely selection of weather sealed FT lenses to be used this way. There seems to be some kind of masochistic tendency of some Olympus guys to super hype the alleged features of an upcoming camera then bitch about it when it doesn’t deliver , what are often ridiculous expectations anyway [ FF ? really } .

            I am hoping for a well built, stylish, well performing camera with a built in EVF and better sensor anything else will be icing on the cake but I fancy I will be a lot happier and less disappointed than the guys expecting, a larger sensor, with super duper AF for the FT lenses, magic EVF .Come on guys what is more likely a solid camera with all the things Olympus does well { build quality , ergonomics, great JPEG engine } or some absolutely revolutionary option filled with a huge host of new technologies, I think it will be a far better built rival to the Panasonic GH series .

        • Mal

          Your on the money. Why would they bother if there was no improvement in the use of the 43 lenses. This is a deliberate leak to let us know in a coded message. :)

  • pamoria

    What about the possibility of new lenses to be announced alongside the OM-D beauty?

    • Would like to see that too. Olympus has the nice 12 and 45mm lenses, one or two lenses between those would be nice.

      There are the Panasonic 20 and 25mm, but I would love to see 17 and 25mm lenses from Olympus similar to the 45mm.

  • Ross

    “This will allow us to use the amazing weather sealed Four Thirds lenses like the 14-35mm f/2.0 the 35-100mm f/2.0 and the almost $6.000 30mm f/2.8 Zuiko lens.”

    Don’t forget the SWD 12-60 & SWD 50-200 too, but the 14-54 II will work just perfectly on this model, with it’s weather sealing.

    • Agent00soul

      And by the way, admin, the lens is 300 mm, not 30.

    • alvaro

      btw, did anybody tried 14-54 mkI on latest pens?

  • Mike

    It would be fantastic if with this adapter lenses could autofocus.

    • spam

      They can with the old one too. The problem is AF-speed.

      • Mal

        Yeah. The 12-60 is wickedly fast on an E620, but virtually useless (AF) on the PENs. If they get PDAF or similar tech in the OMD its gonna be a riot…

        • Tom

          The 12-60mm isn’t designed for C-AF is it? The 14-54 II is however so that’s the lens to try on the PEN models!

  • Kasteel

    My dream was “in body” adapter :(

    • How would that be physically possible?

      • Boooo!

        PDAF on sensor. Nikon 1 has that, and it’s great.

        • Yes, but you will still need an adapter to mount the 4/3 lenses physically.

          • Baha

            if they only supplied this in the kit, in an optional kit ya know for people with old 4/3 lenses would be a great choice. om-d with an adapter or without an adapter. problem solved. of course price will be different but not that expensive compared to when u buy it separately.

            • Ross

              I think I read they may be supplying the adapter for free with the kit for existing 4/3’s owners. That would be nice if they do, but I would imagine it may only be the MMF-2 & it will probably cost for the sealed one. That’s my guess anyhow.

              • @Ross
                adapters unlikely to supplied free as people who didn’t need them would order them ayway and resell them, more like a 30-40% discount to people who register with Olympus their old camera serial model numbers (this would give a marketing opportunity to Olympus)….

            • Kasteel

              Is it impossible to build a switch that moves back few millimeters the sensor?

              • Nathan

                Not impossible at all, but they would have to make the adapter thinner than the current one.

                But, if you could make it a lot thinner, you could move the sensor back with a motor when it was attached, and you could drop down a mirror. Such a camera could transform between micro four thirds and Four Thirds with a small, thin adapter.

                The difference between the two flange focusing distances is 20mm. If you figure on 7mm for the adapter, you would have to move the sensor 13mm- but this would give you more than enough movement to drop a mirror.

                In addition, if it were a stepper motor, you could macro focus with micro four thirds lenses by moving back 10mm or less.

                • flash

                  Stepper motors have no place in cameras IMHO, to much vibration etc.

                  There however are other ways to move a sensor back and forth that might work.

        • @Boooo! My fingers are crossed for you. It might be my turn to be let down though, because then perhaps the m43 lenses won’t work as well as the 43 lenses.
          Worth noting that the CDAF on the Nikon 1 is apparently slow in low light.

          • reverse stream swimmer

            Re: Worth noting that the CDAF on the Nikon 1 is apparently slow in low light.

            But the MFT sensor is almost one aperture stop better than the Nikon CX sensor, due to it’s larger area. Therefore expect the CDAF to be 1 EV better in low light.

          • Anonymous

            Well, I believe that it is possible that the camera chooses if PD or CD-AF is to be used, depending on the light level (as Nikon 1 does) and on the type of lens monted (FT/mFT).
            The not so good CD-AF of the Nikon 1 also bothers me but let’s see what Olympus did create this one.

            • Digifan

              CDAF is used when light levels drop. PDAF doesn’t work well in low light at all.

              • Anonymous

                neither AF can work good without light.

        • nikon started PDAF with light condition decide for user, it is not selectible by user :D not good

        • Riley

          actually it sucks in low light where it reverts to CDAF, not unlike anyone elses. In any event they use the Fuji system for phasing

  • 6.000 USD for a relatively slow 30 mm prime ?? That’s Leica price territory :-)

    • Pixnat

      it’s 300mm f/2.8, not 30mm :-)

  • OllieS

    Well there’s little point using the pro lenses if they don’t focus fast. Their ‘pro’ kit in the past has had weather sealing, build quality, fast lenses and… fast focus. Thumbs up :)

    PS: admin – when do you sleep?!?

  • L.S

    Thank you admin

    Following ny thread yesterday this rumor is half of the answer to the 3rd question.
    There is an adapter and it’s weather sealed , doeS IT ALLOW TO USE THE 12-60 , 50-200 SWD and other top grade zuiko lenses properly on the promising new OM-D ?

  • Mikey

    If they can do PDAF I will pick up the OM-D, weather sealed adapter, and the 12-60 4/3rds lens. That would be a pretty wicked combo.

    I don’t know about the 14-35F2.0 though. As nice of a lens as it is, it may just be too big and heavy for the OM-D.

    The 12-60 I think would be the limit.

    Go to http://www.four-thirds.org/en/special/matching.html

    And see for yourself how those lenses look on a PEN. The OM-D won’t be that much bigger than the current PEN.

    • Reza

      Indeed IF they do fat AF on 4/3 lenses, the OM-D line would be a very good reason for consumers to buy regular 4/3 lenses again, and healthy demand for Olympus to manufacture more lenses.

    • Dannecus

      Mikey, fun website, thanks for sharing.

    • Mal

      The 12-60 is big on the EP3 but handles surprisingly well. The left hand cradles the lens and under the camera, which can leave the right hand free to operate the dials and touch shutter. Would be absolutely awesome if it could just focus faster.

  • KI

    Admin: How about the Legacy (OM) – m43 adapter with focal length reducer? They (oly) patented it a couple of years ago… It would be the perfect accessory for the OM-D. … letting my 24mm “act as 24mm”. Any rumors on that one?

    • +1000 ;-)

    • Reza

      Would such an adapter, if it existed, increase the effective F number of the lens by one full stop? (Concentrating a FF image on a m4/3 sensor would increase the illumination per sensor area).

      • pingflood

        Google “telecompressor”, these exist already–mostly for use with telescopes.

      • KI

        Yes. Example lens OM Zuiko 24mm f/2.8. On m43 it’s as a 48mm f/2.8 with DOF like f/4. With this adapter, it would give you the FOV as a 24mm on FF, with the DOF like 2,8 …, but it would also be 1-stop faster; 24mm f/2!

        I’d like that …… VERY much.

        • Brod1er

          Ignoring light losses owing to the extra glass, It would actually be two stops faster. =24mm f1.4. For light gathering. Nice!

        • Reza

          Well it’s all hypothetical anyway, but I think the DoF would change too, as in a 24mm F/2? The combination would be a new lens after all?

        • Geoff

          In a sense we already have such an adaptor, though as to how many serious photographers would want one remains to be seen. What you are effectively asking for is a wide angle convertor, many of which are available on E-Bay, here is one branded Olympus for a specific lens. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Olympus-WCON-P01-Wide-Converter-M-ZUIKO-14-42mm-f-3-5-5-6-II-Lens-/360427910017?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item53eb2d7381 I would imagine any form of adaptor added between lens and body would lose light, efectively making the lens slower.

          • Reza

            I believe the more suitable example would be teleconverters, because they are high quality and sit between the lens and the body, unlike the majority of the cheap wide adapters. (although functionally we need a wide adapter as you mentioned not a telephoto).

            A traditional wide adapter cannot be put behind the lens since it changes the flange distance. But an OM to m4/3 wide adapter can utilize the shorter flange distance of m43.

            One practical problem is that the adapter needs frequent cleaning.

          • Nathan

            Those front-of-lens adapters don’t concentrate the light path to the sensor by reducing the image circle and are thus entirely separate from the patented 0.5x teleconverter.
            The reverse teleconverter sits between a lens of larger image circle (OM) and reduces its image circle to the dimensions of m43. In doing so, it increases the light density at the sensor and preserves the lens’ original depth of field characteristics.
            This means that a nifty fifty OM lens of 50mm f1.8 would look just like it should, except exposure would be faster due to the density of light striking the sensor. So, you could say it would be a 25mm f1.2 or f1.4.

            Interestingly, this is how lenses like the 35-100 f2 and 11-22 zoom. They are built like prime lenses with a reverse teleconverter at the rear- but this teleconverter is integrated and perfectly matched to the rest of the lens.

            What remains to be seen is whether a reverse teleconverter could be made such that it would function properly with a variety of lenses. It is for this reason, I believe, that Olympus has SWD motors within the converter for AF. I believe that by moving the elements in the teleconverter they allow it to match better, and focus more effectively than even manually focusing the adapted lens itself.

            But it hasn’t been announced. Perhaps it doesn’t work, or perhaps it needs some tech in the body. If Olympus builds such a thing, I will definitely buy whatever it takes to use it.

        • Ralentizeur

          a 24 2.8 will will be a 48mm f/2.8 with DOF like f/5.6 (35mm equiv.), with or without adapter

          • KI

            *sigh* … no. if you “compress” the light that would fill a 35mm frame into a 4/3 sensor; Example: 24mm f/2.8: the FOV would be like 24mm on FF; 24mm. The DOF would also be exactly the same as it would be on FF; 24/2.8 because the optical construction is excactly the same, it’s just compressed to match the sensor; it (the sensor) “appears” larger. The light gathered into the sensor would then increase; you take the light what would fill FF and compresses it into the 4/3 sensor. As some of you already have said; it would acctually give you a complete 2-stop extra! A 2.8 lens would become effectively 1.4 (because of the 4/3 sensor size compared to FF).

            As some of you know; the 35-100 f/2 FourThirds lens is acctually a 70-200 f/2.8 with a focal lens reducer at the back – providing the compression needed to achieve 35-100, but it’s limited to f/2 (it should actually be f/1.4, but why it’s limited… I don’t know).

            So it’s acctually used, but I want it incorporated into an adapter.

            • grang

              Total BS!

              • KI

                Says you and what science? …. I’d like to hear some arguments claiming I’m wrong.

              • KI

                Here’s a drawing of the design; (see the three red elements in the rear); http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Planar_50_0,7_ancetres/25.gif

                • grang

                  Absolute BS!

                  • Nathan

                    Please add to the discussion. What you are doing now is naysaying without the necessary supports.


                  • pingflood

                    Go read up on it before posting more nonsense. Telecompressors / focal length reducers have been in use a very long time.

                    As for why the 35-100 is not an f/1.4, it is because the mount physically does not have room for the proper size telecompressor elements, even though the lens should theoretically allow for it.

                    • grang

                      Perpetuated myth BS!

                    • Riley

                      ok heres where this goes wrong.

                      To get your 2 stops you need a 0.5x focal reducer, so far nobody has been able to get this to work within the given lens registers, 1 stop clear sharp images are ok, 2 stops milky fuzzy crapola, sorry.

                      add to that, you cant just plug these things on like a 2x TC, they have to be designed for each lens

      • They should, according to physics laws.

        • Martin

          If it would be easy to make a 0,5x telecompressor that turns a 50/1,4 into a 25/0,7 we would have seen those 25/0,7 lenses long time ago.

          Especially with non telecentric lenses (OM lenses) this is next to impossible to make for -any- lens, don’t even think about making this for a bunch of different lenses.

          Maybe in combination with very heavy processing of the RAW files?

      • @Reza, YES the can be up to two stop.!

    • Nathan

      It’s the Holy Grail.
      If they build THAT, I cannot hold onto my $1100 any more. Such a device would force me to move from 4/3 to micro four thirds, and force OM lenses’ prices up dramatically. Olympus would have to build some new ones to satisfy demand- and image quality would be nearly equivalent in all respects to full 135 cameras.

  • Alfons

    Don’t want to know the retail price, considering how much Olympus asks for non-weather sealed adapters.

    • Let’s hope the old non-sealed adapter is functionally equivalent.

    • spam

      It would add $1 in production cost, and the sales price will depend on how Olympus want to position it.

    • MJr

      Better hope the first edition goes half-price.

    • OllieS

      Saw a rumour they will be given out free with the OM… for existing 43 users to persuade them to change to m43 body.

  • Anonymous

    I wish Oly bring this lens to the table;
    25mm F 0.95
    35mm F0.95
    42mm F0.95,..
    just wish,..would it be possible?,..also re-make
    17mm F1.2,..I don’t mind about all the sizes,.+ aperture ring

    • come on…lets be half realistic when dreaming :)

    • Neonart

      All for $99!

  • herbsn

    Any word about a underwater case?

    • @herbsn
      for cameras or photographers? ;-)

    • Mr_Pyro

      Yes Please!
      An underwater housing for the new OM would be much apreciated.

  • This sounds good, it will help Olympus lenses hold their value and maybe see some of them go back into production :D

    • The is not FT lens is wind up.

  • bilgy_no1

    Like most of the reactions above: the most important thing is to know whether the new adapter allows for PDAF. That would really unleash the potential of a great series of HG lenses. Not so sure the SHG lenses would be that good for use on a relatively compact body. They (14-35, 35-100, 90-250, 150, 300) are a better match in terms of weight, size and price for the E-5 or its successor.

    But lenses like the 14-54, 50-200 are excellent optics at great value and still pretty compact. They only need fast AF on m4/3.

    • Reza

      The dream of “one beautiful system”!

      • bilgy_no1

        YESSSSS! Not only a dream, but actually an implied promise by Olympus…

    • The large FT lens can use on tripod.

      • TheEye

        Just hold the lens in the left and aim the camera with the right hand. That’s why mother nature gave us two hands.

    • Ross

      Those larger lenses would (at least in my opnion) require a battery grip for a more sure hold, but I know I’m just showing what I’m dreaming for but, an additional grip piece to the side as part of the battery grip (in an “L” shape) would make this a larger camera system that could make handling large lenses a good physical possibility.

      I know it is only a dream, but am I the only one who thinks this way?

    • reverse stream swimmer

      Might need a power battery holder, in order to feed enough current for the AF in 90-250mm/2.8 & 150mm/2.0 & 300mm/2.8 to respond fast enough.

  • Camaman

    those lenses were seriously overpriced, I mean like 100% to much.
    No wonder OLY is putting the development on the sidelines…

    Prices are like they have god given perfection… And they only needed to cover a small 4/3 sensor…

    • I have (used) lenses like 90-250mm, 150mm, 300mm and they really seem to have a god given perfection. You can use e.g. 300m f/2.8 with 1.4X converter wide open with top notch result. In lenses the price goes exponentially higher with quality, it simply can´t be avoided. Relying on software corrections helps a little but actually only for CA and some vignetting.

      • rootkit


        I do astrophotography, which is the most demanding test of any optic. I’ve used a very wide variety of telescopes and lenses. Normally lenses are very, very poor optically, especially when compared with a suitable telescope-based astrophoto setup. This includes many so-called “legendary” lenses.

        The 150/2 is *by far* the best camera lens I have ever tested/used for AP. It is stunningly good. However, it’s usefulness is limited by the rubbish sensors in (m)4/3rds. With other lenses, I can attach them to highly sensitive astro CCDs.

        Anyway, as far as optical quality goes, it is truly excellent. Taking this into consideration, it doesn’t seem that over-priced.

        • reverse stream swimmer

          Are the FT versions of the 150mm/F2 & 300mm/F2.8 the last species we’ll ever see?

          Maybe newer super telephoto lenses will not be optically optimized the old Leica way, rather it’s a co-optimization of optical properties together with software correction, thereby getting a more compact and cheaper lens product.

          Certainly hope and think the original SHG lenses will receive a collectors item status like the Leica lenses.

          P.S. Even the old HG & SHG lenses can be profiled using Adobe & DXO software, in order to further enhance their future outputs.

          • Esa Tuunanen

            > Maybe newer super telephoto lenses will not be optically optimized the old Leica way, rather it’s a co-optimization of optical properties together with software correction, thereby getting a more compact and cheaper lens product.
            Only good optimization of lens which can be done in software is during optical design.

            Software corrections turns optics itself into generic Sigma/Tamron level garbage.
            And I apologize for Sigma and Tamron because that software corrected Lumix G 14-140mms makes same purpose Sigma and Tamron travel zooms look optically well balanced with it’s insane distortion and heavy vignetting at every setting.
            Leica D 14-150mm which does the job properly and without major deficiencies isn’t even that much bigger and heavier: (L x W) 84 x 70mm & 460g VS. 90x79mm & 535g
            Only same purpose travel zoom getting even remotely into same optical performance with Leica is Canon’s full frame EF 28-300L which weights 1.7kg.

            And physics requires telephoto lenses to have big front elements making lens big and heavy so they can’t be small unless you want some dimmer than dead glow worm lenses.
            They can make (and I allow it) some lower quality software corrected lenses for cheap consumers but they better not to pretend that those are actually high quality optics and can be priced like one.

    • Rchard

      100% to much?? So you are saying that they should be given away for free?

  • Werda

    Would be so great if the new Sensor would be from Sony!


  • reverse stream swimmer

    The new splash & dustproof adapter is certainly welcome to the MFT system, preserving the weather resistance of the old HG & SHG prime & zoom lenses.

    But, when launching a new camera line, one would also expect new dedicated lenses to go with the NPI.

    Therefore I don’t expect a MFT version of the well reputed 50mm/2.0 Macro for FT, rather a new 17mm/2.0 and perhaps 10mm/2.8.

    The 45mm/1.8 & 45mm/2.8 Macro are curently the longest focal length primes for MFT. Is there any realistic need for longer then that? 85mm/1.4? 100mm/2.0?

    In old OM times Olympus proudly presented the:
    180mm F/2.0
    250mm F/2.0
    350mm F/2.8
    Even with one aperture stop slower, these would still be attractive to a MFT system.

    Not yet time for the EX-25, EC-14, EC-20 counterparts in the MFT world, since the FT versions can be reused?

    • Nick

      A 65/f2 or thereabouts (135mm equivalent) would be a fantastic prime. That for a very popular length in the film days, and for good reason!

      • Hmm… Back in the day I never understood what made the 135s so popular. I think it mostly had to do with cost. It was the best reach you could have for a cheap price. Therefore it was in the two lens kits of the day.
        Personally, I always preferred a 100 (for the size and for portraits) or something longer for the reach.

        • reverse stream swimmer

          I also think mass production made the 135mm popular.

          I always wanted more tele, and the 65-200mm/F4 was a perfect match for my OM-4.

        • A 135mm gives good working distance for a head & shoulders portrait with good subject isolation.

      • oops wrong place for my post

      • oh yes! Indeed i love my 135/ƒ2.5 Canon FD (this is where i meant to post) sigh never mind… i’m a doofus

        • JimD

          We would not deem to insult you by disagreeing! Sorry could not resist.

  • Alan

    Have any of you considered the following scenario….
    if it is in the style of the OM series, like my OM1 I still have, maybe it will be about the same size, rather than Pen size.

    Then what if they make it so that the 4/3 lenses fit directly (without adaptor) and focus fast while still mirrorless. That size body woud be quite ok with the 14-54 or even 12-60, and the 50-200 SWD and we can then use these wonderful FAST weather-sealed lenses again with a more compact weather-sealed body than the E5.

    how about that?

    • Narretz

      so you would need an adapter for m43 lenses? Sorry, this is completely out of question.

    • Geoff

      That would be a Four Thirds body, Which I doubt anyone seriously expects to see, the reason for the adaptor is to increase the back focus distance required by Four Thirds lenses and I don’t see any u43 lens which would physicaly fit inside the mmf adaptor.

    • Mal

      The new adapter could be styled like it was a part of an old OM camera, and it wouldn’t look like an add-on.

  • Oliver

    This adapter does not already work very well. it is very very slow. The AF looks for the focus with small jerky motions. Theses lenses (tried with 14-54 and 50-200mm) are not adapted with a contrast AF. better (if possible) to use new m43 lenses.

    • That’s not a function of the adapter, but the camera. The adapter only provide a mechanical and electrical connection between camera and lens. If the new camera’s AF system supports PDAF, it should work with both the old and new adapter, unless the new adapter actually contains parts that are needed for the new AF system.

      • Oliver

        Of course. But what is the usefullness of a such system if the “old” lenses don’t work correctly with the m43 cameras ? I said only that it is a waste of money to buy it and hope to have the same results with a contrast AF and a PDAF. Weather sealed or not.

  • dude

    would be nice to have the 12mm and 45mm introduced in black

  • Berneck

    Forgive my lack of knowledge here, but isn’t focusing done in camera, and then translated to the lens? Is is possible that the CDAF can be properly translated to a PDAF optimized lens?

    • Yes it can. The current Pen cameras does it. But it works more or less slowly.

    • Esa Tuunanen

      > Is is possible that the CDAF can be properly translated to a PDAF optimized lens?
      No because they work too differently.

      After selecting focusing point CDAF first needs to determine to which way focus is wrong meaning one movement of focusing elements just to see does that worsen contrast of selected detail or increase it, after that it knows the correct direction and starts moving focus in continuous small steps while checking focus every time until achieving highest contrast. (probably first overshooting at least tiny bit)

      In comparisong after focus point selection PDAF sees instantly how much focus is wrong and to which direction and tells lens to move focus approriate amount and direction to correct that. Probably there’s focus check after that but if PDAF sensor is accurate there’s no need for further adjustments.

      • Trouble with PDAF is that there are a lot of places where focus can go wrong: the lens may (ok, will) move a different distance than the camera tells it, the pick-off mirrors will be out of alignment, the AF sensor distance from the mirror will be different from the imager distance. There are likely to be more areas where PDAF fails, but I don’t feel like coming up with them right now.

        CDAF has the potential to be much more accurate than PDAF. I can think of some predictive algorithms for CDAF that could help PDAF lenses work better with CDAF, but I’m not well-enough versed in the technology to know whether I actually have good ideas or I’m just blowing smoke ;-).

        • Esa Tuunanen

          Lens focus mechanism variation causes accuracy problem also to predictive CDAF so that’s even.
          And focal plane PDAF would get rid of causes of possible systematic back/front focus problem.

          No matter how much prediction CDAF algorithm has it’s still limited by its need to first find out the right direction of focus move and then monitor some movement to estimate how much focus should be moved further to get roughly correct focus.
          So the way I see it future has to belong to some sort of hybrid AF.
          That’s unless you want moving target tracking/focusing to be always shaky.
          Possibly CDAF could be used also for camera to do automatic fine adjustment to PDAF.

      • Berneck

        Ahh that’s interesting. Is that why CDAF has a harder time with moving subjects? It’s deciding which way to move the lens, and now the subject has moved, so it needs to decide again?

  • Bob B.

    Oh….I think I may have come here by mistake….I thought this was an MFT website….not the Olympus marketing center. :-( Where is all of the chatter about those hot new Sigma MFT upcoming lens offerings??????? LOL!

    • The is 43rumors by out or M and maybe also OM i think…………. ;-)

  • Ralentiezeur

    As some of you know; the 35-100 f/2 FourThirds lens is acctually a 70-200 f/2.8


    nope wrong again, it corresponds to 70-200 F4 in FF, i had the lens, so i know what i’m talking about here..

    • Yes, you talk if DOF, is like F4 on FF.

    • KI

      Inqo-M; You’re talking about DOF, not lens design.

      The 35-100 f/2 is a 70-200 lens WITH a focal lengh reducer … thus also giving it its speed; f/2.

    • reverse stream swimmer

      Then you you’re aware of that most Olympus fixed aperture lenses, actually can present a brighter aperture than the nominal. So the 35-100/F2 actually can open up further, which supports here the claim it’s based actually on a design 70-200mm/F2.8 with a focal reducer added.

    • pingflood

      The lens is a 70-200/2.8 with a focal length reducer (0.5x), it “only” reduced to f/2 because of physical limitations of the mount; without that limitation the optics would allow for a 35-100/1.4 which would be a hell of a lens.

    • He’s referring to how the lens is built, not to “equivalence,” whatever that means. Internally, its 70-200/2.8 with a 0.5x converter.

  • jacek

    Finally all this “full frame” and “four thirds mount” yelling will stop.

    • Boooo!

      It won’t, because even if the OM-D magically has some kind of PDAF implemented, it is still not good enough for most 4/3 lenses. The camera is going to be too small and too lightweight.

      • Nathan

        The original OM bodies this camera is supposedly mimicking were quite small and yet photographers used them with large lenses quite often.

        Right hand on body, left hand on lens. It’s just that easy.
        What makes it rough is when the body is very skinny. This body looks to be thicker than the E-PM1 and right around the same ballpark as the E-P3. Sure, I would prefer it to be a bit thicker still, but perhaps they’ll make a grip for it. There wouldn’t be much point in making a body that handles 4/3 glass unless they build a grip that surrounds the body and adds some heft and additional battery capacity.

        • Rchard


          Test an OM-2 with a 350/2.8

          • Drool! I’ve wanted one of those for years. Maybe someday I’ll buy one of those instead of a car.

        • Boooo!

          “The original OM bodies this camera is supposedly mimicking were quite small and yet photographers used them with large lenses quite often.”

          A Mercedes Smart is also small. That doesn’t mean it’s comfortable to sit or drive in it for anything but the shortest of trips. (Yes, I made a car analogy. I don’t care.)

          (note that the OMs are all much bigger and heavier than the upcoming OM-D, and even the 14-54 is heavier than almost all manual Zuiko lenses)

          “Right hand on body, left hand on lens. It’s just that easy.”

          It’s not, because you will look like an idiot if you walk around holding your camera with both hands.

          There is also the issue of the lens being heavier than the body; since most people are right-handed, that’s a very uncomfortable combo.

          This. Does. Not. Work.

          There is a physical, ergonomic and engineering reason why E-30/E-3/E-5 were made to be big and “heavy”.

          I’m getting tired of repeating this stuff to people who just don’t understand or refuse to.

          • Ab

            Huh? You would look like an idiot walking around holding your camera with 2 hands… Do you mean while shooting or just strolling?

            If you mean while shooting then even point and shoot users use both hands, and so do canon users with big lenses, and so do sony users with big lenses… If you mean while walking but not shooting hold the lens, not the body with one hand.

            You are really creating an issue here where it doesnt exist. A small well built body with an adapter that included both a thicker grip for landscape shooting and a vertical grip would give all the purchase you need to use a long lens.

            Holding the lens with your left hand isnt uncomfortable, good shooting stance should be hand on lens, elbow tucked into body… And the most heavy lenses cant be hand held with any body for any period of time.

            There are also many lenses that are heavier than the bodies, the E620 was a light body, people managed.

            Again, you are making an issue where one doesnt exist.

          • Fish

            “It’s not, because you will look like an idiot if you walk around holding your camera with both hands.

            There is also the issue of the lens being heavier than the body; since most people are right-handed, that’s a very uncomfortable combo.”

            I am getting tired of this oft repeated fallacy. The only thing that will make you look like an idiot, is if you shoot one-handed instead of using proper technique.

            The downside to m4/3 and bigger lenses has been the lack of a substantial grip – it has nothing to do with the weight. Having a camera that weighs more does not make the system “balance” better… it just gives more weight that you have to hold up – which you seem to think is already a problem for people who are right handed. With heavy lenses, the balance point is somewhere along the middle of the lens/camera length, and it is your left hand that is holding that balance point, not your right hand on the camera.

            The SHG 300mm 2.8’s tripod mount is already balanced for the weight of the lens. Even throwing my E-PM1 on that lens is not going to suddenly “unbalance” it. With larger lenses (the ones that always prompt people to start rehashing this stuff), you are carrying the lens with the body hanging off of it – not carrying the body with the lens hanging off of it.

            • Boooo!

              I’m not talking about SHOOTING one-handed :)

              Here, a very quick drawing of what happens when the lens is heavier than the body, as 4/3 lenses are, and when the grip doesn’t quite do it:


              I have an E-3 (well, okay, two of them) and an E-510. I cannot use the 12-60 as a walkaround lens on the E-510 because my wrist hurts like hell after an hour. The camera is too lightweight and the grip isn’t big enough. I _can_ do that with my E-3 because the camera is heavier and the grip is bigger. The OM-D is smaller than the E-510, and for an aftermarket grip to work and be good enough, it would have to be taller than the camera body, at least 10 cm tall.

              Again, shooting is not an issue. Walking is, unless you’re one of those people who carry their camera in a bag, take a shot or two and place it back.

              • Mr. Reeee

                I hope that drawing isn’t your day job. ;-)
                Use a longer camera strap and sling it.

                I see people carrying DSLRs with one hand all the time and simply do not get it. All I can figure is it’s some sort of dorky macho thing.

                I carry my GH2 at my left hip and can shoot from the waist with the LCD or use the EVF, with equal ease, yet I manage not to fall over or snap a wrist.

              • TheEye

                I carry my E-620 with battery grip and 12-60 often for a few hours. My wrists don’t hurt. Then again, I used to carry a Nikon F4s with 80-200 f/2.8 lens…

                Lovely stickman drawing. I suppose walking through a door lens first is favorable compared to an embarrassingly limp lens dangling from the chest. :-P

                • Boooo!


                  E-620: 475g
                  HLD-5: 200g
                  BLS-1: 45g (x2)
                  Total weight: 765g

                  OM-D: ~420g

                  12-60: 575g

                  A 765g camera with a 575g lens is VASTLY different than a 420g camera with a 575g lens. It’s heavier, for one, and is also bigger and has a bigger grip.

                  • Fish

                    It appears to me that your stickman is trying to prove my point to help you understand it.

                    As I said: you could complain that m4/3 cameras need a bigger grip BUT – that has nothing to do with the concept of “balancing” because it isn’t heavy enough.

                    If you are walking around one handed like your drawing, a 756g camera body is going to cause MORE wrist strain than 420g body will because it is more weight that needs to be supported – but to be perfectly honest the difference between the two is not that great that you are going to struggle over it (its about a 1/2 lb).

                    The 12-60mm was perfectly fine with my E-PL2 (except for the focusing). I never found myself looking up the weight on the spec sheet and then fretting that my camera was un-balanced! And when it comes to my Tamron SP 300mm f2.8 it never made a difference whether I used it on one of my PENS or with my 4/3 body… you are not holding a lens like that with the camera body… any camera body. You are holding it by the lens.

                    • Boooo!

                      Nope – wrist strain is caused by rotation, not weight. Let me do another stickman drawing for you :D


                      Okay, this is VERY poorly drawn (for a change!), but nevermind.

                      Take a DSLR if you have one, hold it one-handed like that with a lightweight lens, see how your wrist and fingers are positioned, then attach a much heavier lens that tilts the camera (due to the moved centre of mass) and repeat.

          • JimD

            The new 12-50mm has power zoom so the left hand can hold the lens without turning a zoom ring at the same time. Most people, NO, make that all people I know use both hands to take a picture. A nice hand grip/battery holder would give a replacement for my E330 and E30 and provide a smallish walk around camera in the same body. use mft lenses for walk around and ft for more serious work. There is no way I could part with my 12-60mm. So I will have to see what happens with this new body and system.

      • jacek

        I don’t mean discussions about using 43 lens. I mean yelling that OM-D should be full frame or 43 camera. It’s m43.

        • 43shot

          Consumer- “I want a camera with lower IQ then my DSLR but please show me the largest one you have!” Sales person- You may wish to wait a bit more because these fine cameras are getting more costly and adding pro features as they get larger, soon they will be the same size as your DSLR and perhaps even the same IQ!” Consumer- “Wow, you mean I can have a m43 label on something the size of my DSLR? Salesman- Yes, and as a bonus it will take any lens on the market. It’s called the m43 do everything model.”
          Consumer- “Great, I was afraid at first it might be small like those original m43 models, how dumb are those!” Salesman- “Yea, what were they thinking with that small crap!” Consumer- I’ll take two, unless it does not have psychic exposure compensation. Salesman- That’s next years model, it has a double sealed body and is only $500 more and is even larger!

        • Please delete this ;-)

  • Guy McLoughlin

    Hopefully these new adapters will be all metal. I was quite PO’d when I saw that the lens mount in the replacement MMF-2 was no longer metal. ( the Panasonic adapter is still all metal )

  • st3v4nt

    Yay….another expensive accesories….I wonder how much it cost to make current adapter to become weather shield…the only let down is if there’s no improvement (read: same performance of 4/3 lens in current m4/3 or PEN lines) AF…

    • st3v4nt

      Actually Olympus MMF-2 is still made from metal even tough it’s aluminum with plastic case outside to cut the cost and weight, while Panasonic still use metal alloy for it’s 4/3 to m4/3 adapter. They say both made in the same factory.

  • Zetton

    weather proofing adapter will be just for synmetricity for OM-D feature (weather proof), i. g. least condition.
    But most I hope is and wanted by many should be “phase AF assisted” adapter (Sony took over Olympus).
    I have ED 50mm macro, but even the macro lens (so most case, used for a static object), super slow AF hurts the shooting feeling.

  • compositor20

    Could someone explain why the 35-100 f2 needed to be f2 and what is the biggest f-stop that m43 has since it has lower register distance?

    COuld they launch that m43-OM adapter with autofocus if you set your OM lens at infinity? Ist it possible to have space for the wide 0.5 converter and focus element moving back and front?

    That way Olympus would shut some mouths and it would have FF lenses too for shallow DOF and low light penalty

    • Riley

      A lot of lenses are fitted with FR’s so that lens makers can offer a couple of lenses that are the same basic internal design. Once you get to a fairly severe 0.5x necessary to take a lens from 70-200 to 35-100 you have to throttle back the aperture as IQ just disappears.

      These things are lens specific, you cant just plug them into any lens group like you can a 2x TC. For one there wont be adequate IQ anywhere near wide open, and for two they likely wont fit in the register space between a lens and the sensor.

  • Miroslav

    Let’s put couple of statements together…

    admin: “new weather sealed MMF 43 to m43 adapter … will allow us to use the amazing weather sealed Four Thirds lenses”

    Terminator (source), speaking about OM-D autofocus system: “Normally it’s p or c, but I will hint to the possibility of both p & c.” (P=PDAF; C=CDAF)

    O (source), speaking about OM-D sensor: “As for the sensor, it’s not Pany.”

    unnamed source: “AF is not faster … it is MUCH faster than on the Olympus E-P3.”

    So, I’d say it’s highly probable, FT4, OM-D will have PDAF on sensor ( like Nikon 1 ) enabling: (1) extremely fast auto focus (2) AF with all 4/3 lenses, weatherproof ones included, hence the need for weatherproof 4/3 to m4/3 adapter. As for sensor manufacturer, Aptina, the maker of Nikon 1 sensor, is the likeliest candidate IMO.

    • spam

      You forgot to subtract the “wishful thinking” and “marketing department” factors which usually account for at least 95% of expected new features.

      • Mr. Reeee

        Isn’t it amazing what people manage to glean from a fragment of an advertising photo and a sketchy list of rumored specs. A-effin-mazing!

        • spam

          It would be nice if they were right for once though. Olympus really need a break.

        • I’m always amazed at how people sometimes seem to believe the impossible could happen, full frame sensor, 17mm f/1.2, etc..

          Too bad, because I think realistically speaking this OM-D will turn out to be a very nice m4/3 camera. There should be no reason for disappointment once it’s shown in full. Simply remember it is an m4/3 camera with m4/3 limitations.

          I basically expect it to be an improved, Olympus version of the G3. If it is that, I might trade in my 7D because I would like a well built, compact camera with a viefinder built in.

  • JimD

    Can I have a digital back for my pen FT and one for my Bronica GS and a film insert for my E30 and a 5 x 4 sheet film adapter for my ep2. and an adapter to make my tamron AH19 into a 70-210 1.2
    Please. Oh please.

  • BLI

    How to get fast autofocus?
    * one or more sensors/ways of detecting when in focus, and when not in focus
    * one or more actuators to reposition the lens elements wrt sensor in order to make the selected point of interest to be in focus
    * the combination of sensors should enable accurate information with the least lag/delay possible, and with the least possible energy consumption
    * the combination of actuators should enable quick movement of lens elements and/or sensor without using exsessive energy; this implies moving bodies with as little weight as possible, avoid moving bodies against friction, and making shure that energy is not used *when in focus*

    The Nikon 1 cameras combine two sensors — smart, because you get more information than from only one sensor.
    When it comes to actuators, the Contax approach of moving the sensor is smart because the sensor is light (fast action is possible) and moving it implies little friction work. But if piezoelectric actuators are used, moving the sensor out of the relaxed position will imply increased energy consunption, and the stroke of such actuators is small. Piezoelectric motors partially solve this problem (avoid use of energy when in focus, but are bulkier, has more lag, and more friction). By combining piezoelectric actuators with servo motors to move lens elements, the p. actuators will perhaps enable quick focus, and then the servomotors moving lens elements (slower) can gradually move the elements such that the p. actuators are returned to a relaxed position ==> avoid static energy consumption.

    I assume PDAF vs CDAF is related to *sensing* when the chosen object is in focus. If so: this does not explain *why* 43 lenses focus slowly with CDAF, while m43 lenses focus fast. The correct explanation must be related to the actuators, or how the actuators use the sensor information (e.g if the actuators only are compatible with PDAF signals, etc).

    Anyone that knows why 43 lenses focus slowly with CDAF?

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

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

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

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

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