skip to Main Content

Updated image circle lens test by Diglloyd.


Image courtesy:

Lloyd Chambers created a sort of a camera obscura to make a more accurate measure of the image circle of FT and MFT lenses. As you may know Four Thirds sensor have a diagonal of 21,6mm while APS-C sensors have a diagonal of 28,2mm. The question is if current FT and MFT lenses would cover a larger than FT sensor. He first tested the superb 14-35mm f/2.0 FT zoom lens. Wide open the lens has a circle of 26mm which increases up to 32mm on the tele end.

He also tested some MFT lenses:
Panasonic 25/1.4 has a 27mm image circle
Panasonic 45/2.8 macro has a 25mm image circle
Olympus 45/1.8 ED has a 31mm image circle
Olympus 75/1.8 ED has a 29mm image circle

In theory the two Olympus MFT prime lenses would cover the full APS-C sensor. Doens’t necessarily mean Olympus did it intentionally. But it’s interesting to know!

  • spam

    The image circle needs to be slightly larger than the sesnor diagonal for IBIS to work optiamlly.

    • Riley

      no it doesn’t,IS will hold the image steady,
      the size of the image circle has no impact provided it is adequate for ordinary use

      • rob57

        You seem pretty sure that you’re right

      • spam

        IBIS moves the sensor and can’t guarantee that the sensor is perfectly centered when the picture is taken. The movements aren’t large, and (I assume) the algorithms try to keep it centered, but movements are unpredictable so they need a margin to work with.

      • Ronan

        Riley you are 100% wrong.

        • then explain why the Kodak sensor was larger than the Panasonic (fractionally) instead of the other way around.

          IS and image circle are unrelated factors

          • bart

            Riley, please go take a look at how IN-BODY image stabilization works.

            That the kodak xensor was a bit bigger doesn’t say anything at all as long as it was small enough to not move outside the image circle.

            IBIS works by moving the sensor, I suppose you didn’t know that, judgung from your comments.

            • oh freakin please, I know how IS works
              the point is just how far do you people think it moves
              this is a nonesense, be done with it

              • Anonymous

                Seemingly you don’t.

                “IS and image circle are unrelated factors”

                Obviously not, as the image circle needs to be big enough to facilitate the sensor movement. Stupid blanket statement Riley.

                “the point is just how far do you people think it moves”

                That depends on focal length, but for long lenses the required sensor movement can be upto a few mm,

                • a few mm is massive movement in a sensor that the IS mechanism itself is unable to cover, one only has to look at it and the sensor connections to figure that out.

                  We will examine E5 specs and deduce what we can. The imaging part of the sensor itself records 4032 x 3024 = 12,192,768 pixels and the spec reveals it has 13,100,000 pixels available. It is important to note that while not all of these ‘spare’ pixels are used for IS.

                  With a remainder of 907,232 pixels at 54,691 pixels a sq mm gives us 16.59 sq mm to distribute across the 60.6 mm perimeter of the sensor, that gives 0.2737 mm wide boundary around the sensor.

                  Given the IS mechanism can be +/- that brings us up to 0.547 mm, or just over half a mm total.

                  Realistically all sensors have a margin for proper functionality so some, actually much of that margin is shared for those tasks so its actually considerably less than 0.5mm, and by a ways at that. IOW when you claim several mm you are talking out of your ass.

                  IS and image circle are unrelated factors

                  • rob57

                    When 5 people tell you that you are wrong, you should at least start by not insulting them. Unused pixels in sensors is irrelevant. You can take a peak at the OM-D sensor while in movie mode to see by how much it moves.

                    To take it one step further, video stabilization is even more demanding (as the sensor can’t be re-positioned in the middle “just before taking a photo”), which is why an even smaller portion of the sensor is used (again in the case of OM-D in video mode).

                    • I really dont care who or what tells me Im wrong.

                      First you have to get over the fact that there arent the pixels to support this specious claim,

                      Second, you probably need to figure out how far a sensor moves to offset shake in a shutter duration, this is also true to video which has shutter speed control.

                      Third, you need to figure out that 0.5 mm or less is actually a long way across an image.

                      I say again, you dont know what you are talking about, but you do have the opportunity to prove me wrong, so lets hear it.

                  • Anonymous

                    So according to you, a sensor with a 21.60000000000mm diagonal (active area) can be covered by a 21.60000000000mm image circle, and IBIS will work fine?

                    Again, you seem to have no idea how IBIS works. The point of moving the sensor is to keep the image centered on the sensor in the way it was positioned at the start of activating IS. Extra pixels do not help for that, they are however needed for other reasons, like dealing with geometric distortion.

                    Also, you don’t seem to realize that cameras like the e-3 and especially the E-M5 can activate IS before shutter release, and having to reset IBIS at the start of exposure would introduce some significant delay. The sensor movement possible in those cameras has enough latitude to prevent that issue in virtually all casrs.

                    That resetting IBIS takes significant time is totally obvious from why you can disable IBIS during continuous shooting. Doing so gives a quite noticeable imprlovement of the framerate.

                    Not to mention, the reset is pretty easy to observe both from sound and from a very slight repercussion.

                    • alsoAnonymous

                      LOL it’s bobn2
                      watch Riley go off!

    • Rutrem

      ???IBIS??? if u mount the MFT orFT Olympus lens on Nikon or Canon body, here is no IS of anykind to count in.

    • Rutrem

      what is the point to use MFT or FT lens on Canon,Nikon,Pentax or Sony APS-c cameras? Similar lens for APS-c sensor cameras already exsist…so i dont get the point?
      I can understand the use of c-mount primes and zooms because of their proprieties, parfocal zoom, fast apertures, small size, low cost…. but to use this kind of combination is useless?

      • uberzone

        The point of this test is to determine if the M43 format can support a larger sensor with the existing lenses. It is not at test to see if you can use these lenses on Canon or Nikon cameras.

        • Rutrem

          why? why would Panasonic and Olympus made a APS-c or FF camera… if they base their camera philosophy on portability. At least Olympus have always place the size of their cameras and lenses as a high priority from the beginning…1960 from first PEN and OM line…

  • Why is this interesting? Those lenses were designed to produce their best performance on a 4/3 sensor. Honestly, I don’t see the point (except that the circularity of the image proves the feasibility of a 17.3 X 17.3 sensor without loss of quality).

  • Miroslav

    Is he working for Sony ;) ?

    Some of those lenses could cover APS-C sensor, but the quality of the glass in corners is questionable, since it wasn’t meant to be used for photographs.

    Interesting read, anyway.

    • Indeed. I am surprised to see people oblivious of one of the main reasons of the 4/3 choice: same (good) resolution across the frame.

      It becomes even more apparent in m4/3, with a shorter distance to flange. Sony had to use mircrolenses in the edges. Fuji’s WA have problems in the edges.

      APS’ advantage is just a crass marketing lie. If you need a bigger sensor, go FF. It’s not even as expensive as before.

      So why all this hype about the image circle?

      • Mike

        APS-C’s advantage is bang for buck.

        $450 bucks gets you a D5100 that obliterates every MFT camera including OM-D.

        Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 $350 vs. Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 $1000
        Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 $500 vs. Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 $1300
        Nikon 35mm f/1.8 $180 vs. Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 $600
        Nikon 85mm f/1.8 $500 vs. Olympus 75mm f/1.8 $1000

        bang for buck.

        Not saying one is better than the other, just saying that’s why APS-C is so popular.

        All these sensor sizes are a joke to me anyway. The difference in DoF between full frame, APS-C and MFT is not worth bothering about (just use a longer lens). Whatever differences exist in DR and high ISO noise will be eliminated in the near future.

        Notwithstanding, an APS-C setup these days is half the price of a similar MFT setup.

        • Two

          ..and have less quality, and weight the double of m43 lenses

        • homer

          The d5100 is nowhere near the om d. I can tell you don’t have either, otherwise you’d know this.

        • Jon

          Haven’t went from using high end APS-C and FF cameras to the E-M5 I gotta disagree. No APS-C camera is really “obliterating” that new sensor. The differences between my old 5Dii and the Em-5 are nill. Fuji’s X line could have an argument but otherwise? Nah.

          That said, you are right that one can get a really capable APS-C camera for far cheaper than a capable m43. The older m43 cameras are good but it’s really only been recently that they approached parity. Frankly cameras don’t really matter anyway, what you decide to put in the frame is all that counts.

          • Jon, Jon,
            “Frankly cameras don’t really matter anyway, what you decide to put in the frame is all that counts.”
            Jon, You can’t say that here. Your supposed to come to this site with charts and graphs and BS. I just have to tell you that you are seriously misguided. Take pictures! put things in the frame! What will people think of next. Yuk.

        • Then spend all your money on gym training so you can carry them and the rest on doctors bills to fix your back because you did.
          No thanks, M43 will do fine and present better quality.

        • Anonymous

          Because my 20kg desktop PC obliterates my < 2kg notebook/tablet, I'll take that out instead from now on… so I won't be missing out on its obliterating qualities. Just got to remember to hire a wheelbarrow, or a trailer, or something. Might as well take the pipe organ and grand piano along as well. I'm sure I have a spare bag for them somewhere.

          • Anonytrackball

            Ahh American.

          • Miroslav

            Excellent analogy.

        • Steve

          “obliterates every MFT camera”

          Why do you people engage in pointless hyperbole like this? Does it obliterate a MFT camera when it’s dropped from a height or something? They are different tools to take pictures, that’s all.

          If you don’t like MFT then don’t shoot MFT and certainly don’t waste your time posting on an MFT enthusiast site. That’s called “trolling”.

    • * indeed that is the nub of the question, what are the corners like

      But then we aren’t seeing a great growth in sensor size (presumably), just 1.7mm further into each corner, or beyond each corner as the case may be.

      Then again, what happens when you stop the lens down 1/2 stop, you ought be right back were you where before the sensor size increase.

      Properly used the system would have slightly more utility for dof, and actually have higher MTF (lens performance) not lower, yet comparable noise performance on the same sensor technology.

      IOW it would be better not worse. Thats the whole point to it

  • Bronica

    Does it mean, that this lenses could be build even smaller?

    APS-C is rubbisch, the IQ-differences are to small. And Body and lenses are to big. Yes – Sony NEX-Body is small – but without IBIS.

    FF makes sense in on respect: It’s todays Mamiya 645 or Bronica ETR – easy to handle.

    But for now, I go with the original: Kiev 60 (named Arax) with lenses from Fish Eye to 500mm and a Bronica GS1 (Lenses from 50-250). Beautiful stuff! But I need a trolley to move it. These are the big brothers of my OM-D.

    • Yes, the GS1 is nice, have mine in a padded carry case, throw in the car and then assemble what I want when I get there.

  • Camaman

    At what flange distance did he test this?
    If it’s at Nikon flange, it means very little, because Olympus would surely use something completely different

    • Anonymous

      I tried this on my 5D, for which the EOS mount is ever so slightly less than Nikon. I found that lenses at their widest zoom setting had the narrowest image circle, in most cases they were either very close to or exceeding the height of the FF sensor, thats 24mm. At the long end 7-14 almost completely exceeded the FF sensor but for the very ends of the corners, this was true of some other lenses as well.

      Pretty easy to see that the image circle could be usefully larger, certainly not FF, but quite a lot larger than 43rds presently uses.

      The REAL question is what is the quality like in corners and on edges, we cant have this data in the way things are presently being tested. Nor is it particularly useful unless the commonly held inventory of lenses can be tried.

      • Riley

        dont know why I came up an ‘anonymous’ there
        note previous post was mine

    • JHCCAZ

      As long as the subject was at a “normal” distance more than a few feet away, and was in focus on the ground glass (or wax paper or whatever he is using in his test box), then the flange-to-image distance was by definition within the range of a 4/3 camera. Sure, one can get a larger circle by pulling the lens farther out, but the image would then be an out-of-focus glob.

      It would be best if he standardized on infinity focus, but the difference is not too big for a subject at say 10-15 feet.

      The traditional interest in image-circle size comes from view camera work, where the users want to know how much they can shift and tilt with a given lens without cutting off the corners. Image circle usually broadens at small aperture openings, so that is part of the quoted spec. The spec should also quote infinity focus, or at least specify the distance.

  • Anonymous

    It is also worthwhile to note that all these tests were only performed at a single focal distance, mostly infinity. Image circles do vary over the focal range, though the formerly typical decrease in close focus position has become much less pronounced in the times of internal focussing.

  • piew

    If that’s the case, all lenses tested will fix if Olympus choose to use a canon APS-C sensor, which is a tad smaller than sony APS-C, but still larger than 4/3.

    • nugat is advocating a native image circle diameter 26mm
      Ive been a little more circumspect in the past with 25mm
      not much difference,

      26mm gives 20.8 x 15.6: 324.5 sq mm
      25mm gives 20.0 x 15.0: 300.0 sq mm
      Canon APSC has varied a tiny bit over the years presently 332 sq mm
      Nikon APSC 373 sq mm

  • Anonymous

    I think that a 1.75 crop would make the most sense.. for 4/3 lenses; since 12-60 would be a 21-105 and the 14-54 would be a 24-90 equiv.; the 50mm macro would be a 87.5mm equiv. the 25mm f1.4 would be a 43.75
    the 7-14 would be a 12-24 and the long telephoto lenses wouldn´t be much affected like a 50-200 would be a 87-5 to 350mm and a 300mm f2.8 would be a 525mm. All would have acceptable focal lenghts even odd ones like 11-22 would be a 19.75 to 38.5

    that means it will have at least 1/3 more of a stop in low light and 1/3 more resolution without penalty to compete with 18mp sensors and 20/21/22mp sensors… and a little more shallow dof that is really needed

  • brod1er

    Sounds like a load of old cobblers to me! The fall off and lack of sharpness at the edges is why they don’t use the full image circle. Can’t see Panny or Oly changing the format. Proper multi aspect like te Gh1/2 is useful however and works within the existing image circle. There is a big and useful difference in FOV between 16:9 and 4:3

    • spam


    • real old cobblers and cods wallop, yes.

  • rpm40

    And does the image circle on most FF lenses EXACTLY match the size of the sensor? …Or is there a little breathing room there as well? Can anyone find an example of such a lens matching the sensor exactly like this? I doubt it.

    If you’re going to compare m4/3 image circles to FF sensors, it may be enlightening to also compare FF image circles to FF sensors.

    • spam

      There is almost always, you can’t design a mechanical device like a lens without some breathing room. The image cricle will vary with focal length usually with distance to subject, and even at it’s smallest there need to be a margin as alignments aren’t always perfect, sensor sizes vary slightly etc.

      • ArKersAint

        @admin : more and more injurious troll !

      • breathing room
        my 7-14 at 14mm fills the entire sensor of my FF 5D
        I posted examples on DPR forum in 1022
        it *IS* a lot less so at 7mm largely b/se the fixed lens shade is in the way. Not too surprising when it is after all a 7mm on FF

        • spam

          I don’t understand how you can test a 7-14 on a 5D (or any (Canon) dSLR) if you’re talking about the Panasonic 7-14. To test it you need to get the lens in excatly the correct distance from the sensor. You can’t do that on a dslr without sticking the lens several millimeters into the lens mount of the dSLR. And i wont fit.

          The image circle can even fill a medium format sensor if you just move it far enough away, the downside being that it wont focus.

  • Adriaantie

    Those lenses are build for tiny sensors. They bring nothing new and do not work on adult sensors like apsc an ff. Test is a waist of time. But i understand that people who bought à lot of m/ft stuff would love to see that those lenses fits the apsc sensor. So that they can make the jump to apsc and forget the iPhone style of picture taking.

    • Anonymous

      Seeing you don’t know the difference between waist and waste…..

      • He only comes here to practice his English. He just throws in words they don’t make any sense, he has not yet got that far. But he has an obsession with smallness.

  • MP Burke

    What a load of nonsense. It is not about how well illuminated the images is, it is also a matter of how much the lens quality declines towards the edge of the image circle. If you look at the MTF curves for the four thirds lenses, such as the 12-60mm or 14-35mm zooms, it can be seen that there is a fall off in contrast and resolution that becomes quite significant at 8-9mm from the centre of the frame. This will result in low corner performance on APS-C.
    Longer lenses such as the 300mm f2.8 may well be perfectly good on large sensors, but plenty of such lenses are available that are no bigger than the Olympus one and often much cheaper.

  • I think it’s pure nonsense, anachronistic nonsense to dream of future use of legacy lenses like 4/3.

    If Oly leaked an interest in s bigger sensor, we saw that it takes relatively little time to issue a new lineup of lenses specific for the new sensor.

    It is even more true in mirrorless. You start with a fixed lens, and then introduce a new camera with a couple of lenses and you are in business. Why get entangled with old lenses, old motors, obsolete AF systems?

    This morbid interest in making obsolete systems compatible with FF, is akin to mental illness, IMHO.

    It’s like those who spend all their lives discussing online Equivalence problems, shooting one or two pictures a year to prove to themselves they are still alive :)

    • its about the business opportunity it presents

      under what circumstance would you find an entire lens system, much of it rather good, going wanting for up to date bodies. Of course it makes less sense to keep 43rds going in the face of micro four thirds, unless it can be differentiated against micro there just isn’t a need for 43rds to exist.

      It would be a waste to let 43rds go, when with the system redefined and reshaped the existing lens system presents opportunities to market product that has been undersold for 4 years. If Olympus don’t do it, somebody else should.

      • Riley, there is no business opportunity lost. 4/3 lenses are wasted not because they are not optically excellent, but because the technology that surrounds them, notably AF is dated.

        Perhaps there is a desperate faction at Oly Inc. floating these rumors, in order to justify past choices, and their seats.

        The only eternal system is Leica, because it’s MF. But not Leica R. That and 4/3 are irretrievably dated. One might as well revive OM lenses, they have a better chance. So il Oly wants to do a Leica, let it go FF.

        • go look at the lenses designed for APSC then come back and talk to me
          the longer I look at the darned things the more disenchanted with APSC I get
          these 43rds lenses are better than that

          and Olympus needs to come through with their promises they made to 43rds users
          whether you like it or not

  • petra

    The 4×3 ratio is one of the major reasons for the edge performance of FT lenses, as it utilises far less of the extremes of the image circle than a3x2 ratio does. So obviously stretching the image circle which the lenses are designed for would not come without a penalty. I read this recently in a post I thought was a negative rant, but I tried cropping 3×2 samples with some of the worst lenses around { thanks Sony Nex} and it is true sometimes the difference is spectacular.
    At a time when with the E-M5 it finally looks like we are getting to kind of sensor performance we have lusted after for years , why would Olympus or Panasonic want to go larger. This is totally against the logic of FT and especially mFT. The factors that Olympus should be dealing with are getting decent C-AF , and please a couple of long primes , it would be nice if they could also come up with a solution for the guys with the excellent and expensive SHG lenses to get the best out of them.

    • Anonymous

      If you cropped a 3/2 image to 4/3 then your test was worthless.

      A ‘native’ 4/3 image is a bit higher and less wide then a ‘native’ 3/2 image from the same image circle, and will get as close to the corners. This will be both higher and wider then taking a 3/2 image and cropping it. The diagonal will be the same for both.

      • I believe its about determining the usable diameter of the image circle, not especially 3×2 or 4×3
        not that anyone has figured that out yet

      • dannyth

        No, the previous poster is correct a 4×3 ratio uses a far smaller percentage of the extreme edges of the image circle Google is your friend… Olympus made a smart decision choosing this format it was not random. I also tried the cropping of poor quality lenses designed for a 3X2 ration sensor and there is a very significant gain in in image quality even with some truly terrible lenses. It is a lot easier to have better corners if your format does not delve into the extreme edges of the image circle, to the extent that a 3×2 ratio sensor does. I was genuinely surprised just how big a difference it made, in fact if I was not an mFT user I would crop my NEX, APS or FF to this ratio for the very clear gains it allows.
        I would love to see a lens test comparison using the 3×2 native lens cropped to a 4×3 ratio compared to a 4×3 ratio, I am not sure that the Nex lenses in particular would score anywhere near as badly under this test. Not that it matters really Olympus made the right choice and so did I.

        • Anonymous

          Cropping will get you an imagevthat is furthervaway from the edges and will not show you what a sensor with a different aspect rationwill do.

          Given a 21mm image diagonal, the corners of a 4/3 image will be as close to the edge of the image circle as a 3/2 one with the same diagonal.

          In area percentage it is slightly different indeed.

          • Iain MEP

            @ anonomous
            “In area percentage it is slightly different indeed”

            @ anonymous
            “In area percentage it is slightly different indeed”

            It is actually quite a substantial difference, certainly more than enough to make a significant difference on lens test graphs. The difference in AOV is not as large as you may be imagining by cropping a 3×2 ratio image to a 4×3 crop factor. The D800 for example, will with the maximum size of 4×3 image crop that will fit into the frame give you an image size of 6550×4912 With an AOV loss of around 6% making a FF 14mm lens work as a 14.7mm or the same AOV as a 7.35mm lens on Mft.

            • Wow there will be some biting here, changing a lens AOV and introducing new thoughts that will need comments from all about the possibility, impossibility or whatever. You are on dangerous ground here, the stuff of a real adventurer.

            • Anonymous

              You create an image with a 3/2 aspect ratio image sensor and crop it to 4/3 ratio. This means you crop away the left and right sides of the image, and hence your left and right now stay much further away from the edges of the image circle.

              A ‘native’ 4/3 aspect ratio sensor will produce an image that is closer to the edge of the image circle then your crop, on all sides: top, bottom, left and right.

              So a 4/3 aspect ratio sensor will produce slightly worse top and bottom then a 3/2 aspect ratio sensor and slightly better left and right.

              Consequently, the output of your crop test does not represent the output of a native 4/3 sensor that fully uses the image circle, the result of the crop will always be further away from the edges, and hence is less affected by ‘edge badness’. Especially, your crop test cannot show how the top and bottom deteriorate. Additionally, your crop test causes you to make a center crop, which stays further away from the corners then a ‘native’ 4/3 aspect ratio sensor would, which makes the result of your crop test better then the reality of a 4/3 aspect ratio sensor.

              But but.. the differences are very small!!!!!
              Sure, and if they were so small as to be irrelevant then the difference between the 3/2 sensor output and the 4/3 crop would also be irrelevant.

              So, stop with the ‘crop test’ bullshit and show us the area difference pictures if you want to demonstrate something.

        • Esa Tuunanen

          Olympus didn’t crop image from bigger image circle but simply decided format with smaller diagonal and image circle than film era legacy formats!
          4:3 aspect ratio wasn’t chose to crop anything but to give little more image area for same diagonal/image circle and because of being closer to most film formats.

          Full size of image projected by lens is simply always larger for every format and different than its image circle which is defined by diagonal size of format.
          It’s only question of manufacturer’s tolerances for quality and other goals which define how bad corners of image are.
          Bigger format simply needs bigger optics to retain image quality throughout image circle and many APS-C/35mm lenses are simply underdesigned and optically undersized. (4/3 lenses weren’t big but competion had undersized optics)

          • srr

            @ esaThe poster you are responding to in typical fan boy mode never said that they did. He said Olympus made a smart choice by using a ratio that excludes more of the extreme edges of the imaging circle thus improving the lens test results.

            And the best FT lenses were not only big but huge in comparison to the format . There was even a suggestion that the 35-100 was a FF lens with a built in reducer. True or not it is certainly big enough.

            The reason why so many compacts use a 4×3 ratio is ease of lens design not aesthetics.

            • the 35-100/2 ‘built in reducer’ is a myth
              it was always a myth

              • SRR

                It may be a myth I mentioned this but the fact is it is huge for the format

                • Anonytrackball

                  Myths are not facts and viki-verka. You need to go and tell your teachers that they got it wrong and left you handicapped for life. Or did you just not listen?

            • Anonytrackball

              You missed the original release and all the info put out by Oly, now you want to discover some parts as if they happened by mistake and pick up the rubbish put out by the BS people. Read about it from Oly and Pany. Go on I dare you!

        • the difference between 3×2 & 4×3 sensors of the same diagonal is 6%

          these sensors have the same diagonal but different areas
          3×2: 18.0(W) x 12(H) 21.6(DIAG) 43.3/21.6 = 2.0, Area 216sqmm
          4×3: 17.3(W) x 13(H) 21.6(DIAG) 43.3/21.6 = 2.0, Area 225sqmm

  • avds

    Oh dear, no luck with APS or FF? Why not try using 4 of these fine lenses side by side to cover medium format. And while this might not work entirely as desired, at the very least it would serve as another small reason to see Adriaantie perform for us here :)

  • Dude1

    Perhaps a silly question… but could these areas OUTSIDE the actual image sensor be used for a phase-detection pixels (either as a part of a larger “m43” sensor or as a separate unit altogether… I realise the complexities of this being close to the edge, BUT we only need the PD to give a direction for the CD to catch up! Any comments?

    • homer

      Not really, phase detection pixels need to be in the center, they can’t really see enough light on the corners to work. That’s why phase detection points are always at or near the center

      • Esa Tuunanen

        And use in which phase detection is really needed is tracking moving targets like animals and birds, which you basically keep centered.
        (+phase detection is only sure way to keep track of moving target)

        And even if it were technically possible to put focus dectection spots outside image it wouldn’t make any sense because it would focus only to something which isn’t even captured in image.

  • All this is after the fact justification. 4/3 was a good decision, and it is even better with a smaller distance to flange mirrorless. Fuji and Sony despite all their marketing do have problems at the edges, especially with WA, as shown by mere MF voigtlanders 12 and 15mm.

    However it would be continued suicide to invent a new format with a few mm. advantage, just to throw a bone to 4/3 diehards.

    Instead O or P might want to try their luck with FF. Just ask Sony and try your luck, I say :) Issue a couple of native lenses and and adapter for OM legacy, and you are in business.

    I wonder how many marketing lemmings here will throw their m4/3 stuff to their dogs, and start a new investment cycle, given they are not going to see many different results.

    Format wars – reminds me of the Shogun wars that torched Japan in the XVI century :)

  • Why are so many commentators here wanting what the car makers do? They make a new small car, next model it gets bigger, next model it gets even bigger and so on. They then have to make a new car to fit the small category and so it goes on. Honda Civic and even more so with the Accord come to mind.
    Cameras don’t need the car discussion.
    Just buy what fits the budget and the size requirement. If you buy a mini its for a reason, If you need to put six people in it then buy something else.
    On second thoughts I want Oly to fix the EPL6 so it will take one of my Bronica film backs. Well, its as sensible as some of the other discussions here.

    • Anonymous

      Because previous model’s cup holders are too small. Because last year’s Large coffee is now a Medium, the Medium is now a Regular, the Regular is now a Small, and the Extra Large is just $1.00 extra. A bigger coffee cup shows that you’ve made it in life. A Corolla the size of a previous generation Camry shows the relatives back home that you aren’t a pushover, that you’re taking on the world, that you can handle whatever life throws at you, that you are the maker of your own destiny.

      A big camera like a big car tells the world to back off. You’ve got so much camera power in your hands, you can blur away solar systems and galaxies at the turn of a dial. You can record the entire world’s history in 5 seconds on a memory card. You can capture so much light that the stars will cease to shine at the press of your shutter.

      “The road is mine!” “The universe is mine!” “Watch out! Or I’ll blur you out of existence, you small sensor fools!”

      • Anonytrackball

        Ahh, you American?
        Must be, rest of world not obsessed with size. American spend money on what already have. Divorced wife sample, you want smaller one next. But cost more and do no more, all comfort gone. Other things you want big and big and big.
        Soon China make you small.

        • Anonymous

          Your sarcasm detector must be switched off.

          • Anonytrackball

            all mine ok. yours?

      • nikku

        +1 well done good sir.

  • What is the motivation of this Lloyd person’s experiment? There have been discussions about multi format before. Some, like TOP have proposed a square format. One could then crop the required format, depending on the lenses.

    But as Jim says above about cars the Industry finds more expedient to issue new models and new formats according to perceived needs.

    APS fanboys always gloat about their infinitesimal advantage in bokeh, convieniently forgetting that they have worse edges in the 3:2 aspect.

    To me the whole concept of wanting a 4/3 uber camera, perhaps a hybrid one, in order to justify the survival of 4/3 lenses reeks of the Tower of Babel. Perhaps the early mistake was to make such heavy lenses for a smaller format.
    m4/3 has avoided that early mistake.

    Now if there is a competitive pressure towards FF 135 one might as well reconsider the OM line of lenses which were orphaned even before, LOL.
    One might even have the wet dream of running against Leica!

    I think that makers are constantly running into market saturation and limits to growth. One answer if product differentiation, but purses being what they are, people won’t buy 3 systems each!

    Look at biological evolution. Species prosper in rich niches, but then the axe of natural selection falls as soon as an environment gets harder. So only a few species are left. In the process some species are left with dead ends.

    Mirrorless has carved itself a great market share like dSLR before, but none have infinite growth ahead. So the answer is specialisation. Do what you are best at. Excellent portable IQ was m4/3 answer. 4/3 in comparison never really answered. So all the rescue plans seem far fetched, including bigger sensors.

    Does really Oly believe that it could sell more of those technologically old lenses by increasing the sensor’s size? Run against the latest APS dSLR, which are losing ground themselves at present? It all seems very odd.

  • jake

    so what’s new about it ?

    Diglloyd is a Nikon-Leica-Zeiss fanboy and his test is always biased against other brands cameras than NLZ.

  • Jim

    Please note that the 14-35 f/2 is a SUPER High Grade and not a High Grade. Big difference. The Super High Grade is in a class by itself. Unsurpassed.

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.