Comparing UWA lens of M4/3 with standard lens of FF

doady

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
395
Location
Canada
Equivalence is probably based on the diagonal field of view rather than the length of longest side only, so I'm not sure there is much difference in practice. Unless of course if someone prefers the 3:2 aspect ratio, in which case, I wonder why they would chose Micro Four Thirds in the first place. That is one of the basic properties of the system, it's in the name after all.

I find that if I ever crop, I almost always crop to 5:4 aspect ratio. The longest side is rarely the constraint, it's usually the shortest side that is the most constraining, or the longest side that is most superfluous. But maybe that's just me, everyone has different style. My preference for 4:3 and 5:4 was why I was looking at Fuji GFX system before I finally made the leap in m4/3.

For years, I shot ultra wide (19mm EFL) with my Olympus C-7070 and its 1/1.8" sensor and took advantage of the wider FOV, the ability to get closer, and the exaggerated distances afforded by ultra wide lenses same as anyone else with ultra wide lenses. It didn't look any "different", not to me, not to anyone else. Wide angle will look wide angle, whether it be medium format, full frame, Four Thirds, or 1/1.8". Don't fall all that full frame hype.

I think if there is disadvantage, it's lack of ultra-wide primes for Olympus system. I'm still hoping for a bright, ultra-wide Pro prime (9mm and 10mm) to complement my 12-100mm F4 Pro, but I will probably have to settle for a darker, heavier, bulkier zoom. I hope that the 8-25mm F4 Pro is still coming and that it will not be too big. Maybe with other systems I would have more options.
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,807
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
I think if there is disadvantage, it's lack of ultra-wide primes for Olympus system. I'm still hoping for a bright, ultra-wide Pro prime (9mm and 10mm) to complement my 12-100mm F4 Pro, but I will probably have to settle for a darker, heavier, bulkier zoom. I hope that the 8-25mm F4 Pro is still coming and that it will not be too big. Maybe with other systems I would have more options.
There is the 8mm f/1.8 Fisheye PRO Lens. You can defish the results and get wider than 7mm, although the edges are kind of funky. You can even produce defished results in jpg directly out of the camera (and still have the RAWs unaltered). So that's not bad. I agree, however, that it's too bad they don't have a regular prime UW.
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
6,517
Location
Knoxville, TN
There is the 8mm f/1.8 Fisheye PRO Lens. You can defish the results and get wider than 7mm, although the edges are kind of funky. You can even produce defished results in jpg directly out of the camera (and still have the RAWs unaltered). So that's not bad. I agree, however, that it's too bad they don't have a regular prime UW.

It exists: https://www.mu-43.com/threads/kowa-prominar-8-5mm-f-2-8.102938/

Not Olympus and not AF, though.
 

abhisheks77

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
101
Why not Olympus 7-14mm f2.8 or 9-18mm f4.0-5.6 ? You would 'wish' prime because of a bright or small lens?
If one has to choose between both, do we have a strong reason to choose 7-14mm f2.8 over 9-18mm f4.0-5.6 ? I know weather-sealing, big aperture, bright, little bit more range. But heavy and expensive.
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,807
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
The 7-14 is sharper. The 9-18 (which I LOVE, by the way, for travel) is excellent for what it does - VERY small UW lens, which is a very rare thing, but if you want excellent IQ, the 7-14 is better. I think the PL 8-18 is a perfect compromise. I have both the 9-18 and 8-18, for different uses. There's no big reason to favor primes, IMHO, but that topic came up so I responded.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,083
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter

Danny_SWE

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 30, 2013
Messages
1,711
Location
Sweden (Gothenburg)
I think if there is disadvantage, it's lack of ultra-wide primes for Olympus system. I'm still hoping for a bright, ultra-wide Pro prime (9mm and 10mm) to complement my 12-100mm F4 Pro, but I will probably have to settle for a darker, heavier, bulkier zoom. I hope that the 8-25mm F4 Pro is still coming and that it will not be too big. Maybe with other systems I would have more options.
If you can live with manual lenses there are some options, you have the Laowa 7.5/2, Laowa 9/2.8, Samyang 10/2.8. (There is also a bunch of cheaper lenses but personally I wouldn't buy any of them when we have these)

Laowa 7.5/2 is small and very nice I think... filter thread also!
_1030224.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
1,949
Location
Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, Canada
Real Name
Jan Steinman
Laowa 7.5/2 is small and very nice I think... filter thread also
It's fairly pricey, for a third-party lens. I managed to find one gently used locally for C$500.

PLUS: Tiny! And one stop faster than the Panympus wide zooms. Scary sharp in the centre.

MINUS: No auto-focus, nor EXIF data. Edge sharpness suffers a bit. Considerable coma in the corners makes it iffy for astro, but perhaps that's just my copy. Seems to have less contrast than the M.Zuiko 7-14 — looks less "punchy." More flare than the M.Zuiko 7-14.

NITS: Lens cap seems to come off easily in your bag, but difficultly when the hood is on and you're in a hurry! Focus and aperture rings rotate oppositely of any other lenses I have. Their rear cap seems to only go on in one rotational position, and generic rear caps don't seem to stay on while in the bag. Almost too tiny, I fumble with the settings!
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
1,949
Location
Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, Canada
Real Name
Jan Steinman
The Meike 3.5 f2.8 fisheye is probably the widest available.
They claim a whopping 210°! That's right — the lens actually "sees" behind itself!

This raises havoc, not only with your feet and fingers, but with other, less mobile stuff, like the built-in hand-grip of the E-M1.2. :-(

This is perhaps not too important, unless you want to do panos, then the grip image confuses stitching software. I would like to crop it to 180°, but I don't know got to do that with precision.

This one is taller than the Laowa circular fisheye, but it still gets the grip in the photo. To make the absolute best of this lens, one needs a grip-less camera, like the Pen F, as well as a tripod grip.
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,807
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
Keep in mind that a difference of two millimetres doesn't seem like very much, but at the wide end, it makes a huge difference in angle-of-view!
Yes, of course, I'm glad you mentioned that. That's another reason why I bought the 8-18 to add to my existing 9-18. Not only was the IQ somewhat better, but it added that silly little extra mm!
 

Growltiger

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
2,161
Location
UK
...Unless of course if someone prefers the 3:2 aspect ratio, in which case, I wonder why they would chose Micro Four Thirds in the first place. That is one of the basic properties of the system, it's in the name after all.
Four Thirds was actually named after the original 4/3 sensors which were designed for video and were 4/3 inches in diameter. Nothing to do with 4/3 aspect ratio.
Of course so many people have jumped to the wrong conclusion about the name that eventually the truth itself alters.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,083
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
They claim a whopping 210°! That's right — the lens actually "sees" behind itself!

This raises havoc, not only with your feet and fingers, but with other, less mobile stuff, like the built-in hand-grip of the E-M1.2. :-(

This is perhaps not too important, unless you want to do panos, then the grip image confuses stitching software. I would like to crop it to 180°, but I don't know got to do that with precision.

This one is taller than the Laowa circular fisheye, but it still gets the grip in the photo. To make the absolute best of this lens, one needs a grip-less camera, like the Pen F, as well as a tripod grip.

Actually, they claim 220 deg! Quite a bit of you could end up in the photo if you aren't careful. :)
https://meikeglobal.com/products/me...sonic-olympus-mirrorless-camera-fast-delivery

You wouldn't do panos with a fisheye anyway. Trying to stitch anything together would be impossible. I think even rectilinear WA or UWA lenses are bad for panos because of perspective distortion around the edges.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,083
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
Four Thirds was actually named after the original 4/3 sensors which were designed for video and were 4/3 inches in diameter. Nothing to do with 4/3 aspect ratio.
Of course so many people have jumped to the wrong conclusion about the name that eventually the truth itself alters.

Well, 4/3 inch on the diagonal, to be precise. They also happened to pick the 4/3 aspect ratio, which is closer to the 8x10 proportion than the 3/2 aspect ratio of 35mm frame cameras.

And, according to this article, 4/3rd originated as a DSLR format by Olympus and Kodak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system Micro-four-thirds developed out of that. Although, you may be right about the sensor itself. Maybe Kodak did develop it for video.
 

Growltiger

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
2,161
Location
UK
Well, 4/3 inch on the diagonal, to be precise. They also happened to pick the 4/3 aspect ratio, which is closer to the 8x10 proportion than the 3/2 aspect ratio of 35mm frame cameras.

And, according to this article, 4/3rd originated as a DSLR format by Olympus and Kodak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system Micro-four-thirds developed out of that. Although, you may be right about the sensor itself. Maybe Kodak did develop it for video.
The Wikipedia article explains it clearly: "The name of the system stems from the size of the image sensor used in the cameras, which is commonly referred to as a 4/3" type or 4/3 type sensor. The common inch-based sizing system is derived from vacuum image-sensing video camera tubes, which are now obsolete. The imaging area of a Four Thirds sensor is equal to that of a video camera tube of 4/3 inch diameter.[3] "
I used the term diameter correctly, the old tubes were circular, so the diagonal is the same as the diameter.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,083
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
The Wikipedia article explains it clearly: "The name of the system stems from the size of the image sensor used in the cameras, which is commonly referred to as a 4/3" type or 4/3 type sensor. The common inch-based sizing system is derived from vacuum image-sensing video camera tubes, which are now obsolete. The imaging area of a Four Thirds sensor is equal to that of a video camera tube of 4/3 inch diameter.[3] "
I used the term diameter correctly, the old tubes were circular, so the diagonal is the same as the diameter.

Well, OK then. :)
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,280
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Or you can set the camera to crop for you, I believe. If the aspect ratio (height to width ratio) is what makes FF look wider to you, try setting your µ4/3rds camera to 16:9, and it will look even wider!
This setting will only affect the JPG. The RAW will always be 4:3 ratio.

Right. I always shoot raw myself but an advantage of setting your camera up into the mode you think you want your final photo to be in (black and white, 3:2 crop, digital zoom, highlight/shadow tool settings, keystone correction, etc.) is that it helps you at the scene frame up and compose your shot as closely as you envision you want it to look like. Back at the computer you can then use the resulting JPG if it is good enough and needs nothing, use the raw if you want to do further work on it but at least you know you framed it properly to get the keystone you are going to correct to work without cutting something off, or you simply change your mind and decide the scene simply looks better in color and decide against B&W after all.


Don't you mean "Your friend's lens is equivalent to 12-35"?

Yes, me wicked sm'aht with dividing by 2. :doh:
 

Lupin 3rd

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2018
Messages
715
Location
MoCo, MD
I do have the option to buy Z6+kit lens. But I want to understand, if I buy 7-14mm f/4 [14-28mm f/8] for my E-M1, will it not beat 24-70mm in covering scene in single frame?

I haven't seen this mentioned so I thought it would be worth noting: a m43 f/4 lens has the "equivalent" dof of an f/8 "full-frame" lens, however the light transmission is still that of an f/4 lens.

So comparing two f/4 lens, one m43 and one FF you'd get:
  • m43 lens at f/4, 1/60 sec, iso 200;
  • FF lens at f/8, 1/60 sec, iso 800;
which is okay for recent/decent FF cameras, but you're in low light then:
  • m43 lens at f/4, 1/60 sec, iso 1600;
  • FF lens at f/8, 1/60 sec, iso 6400;
which isn't ideal.
 

abhisheks77

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
101
which is okay for recent/decent FF cameras, but you're in low light then:
  • m43 lens at f/4, 1/60 sec, iso 1600;
  • FF lens at f/8, 1/60 sec, iso 6400;
which isn't ideal.
Low light seems like a huge difference, which is understood due to the large sensor. But if I think of landscapes with m4/3 lens at f/4, be able to compensate with longer exposure? I m trying to understand if it would make a really big difference in choosing one versus another?
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom