The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

  • We are looking for a committed forum member who would like to help with administration and moderation of our forum. Good communication and writing skills would be appreciated. Please message Olaf if you are interested.

Two new M.Zuiko lenses

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
As if we needed more great lenses for this system... or maybe we do. That 20 mm is tempting. Actually, the zoom is too. Wonder if it takes the 1.4x TC...

"Announcing the The Latest M.Zuiko Digital Lens Roadmap

We are proud to announce the development of two new lenses that conform to the Micro Four Thirds System standard:
the M.Zuiko Digital ED 20mm F1.4 PRO compact large-diameter single-focal-length lens,
and the M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4.0 PRO compact telephoto zoom lens.
Both lenses are from the M.Zuiko PRO series,
which features compact and lightweight lenses that offer excellent resolution and make the most of the unrivaled portability
and image quality that is the hallmark of the Micro Four Thirds System.
In conjunction with this, The M.Zuiko Digital lens roadmap has been updated.
OM Digital Solutions will continue to leverage the characteristics of the Micro Four Thirds System
to enhance its lineup of lenses and broaden the scope for photographic expression."


I guess this is the 40-150 mm:


... and this the 20 mm:


 
Last edited:

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I think like so much these days price and perception of value is going to likely determine commercial success even when critical praise is earned. I can’t help but think that it behooves Olympus to maybe jump in with another company like Sony E-mount to provide some great E-mount APS-C lenses and bodies… or perhaps a FF flagship for the company too.

I think a premium Micro 4/3 body is becoming a harder sell for those that aren’t already within the system and it seems user install base is part of the problem of why they were bleeding money for years. Ultimately they have to put out a product that people want, that can compete in the marketplace, and can do so at a price that makes sense. People are going to cross shop when they’re putting out $2k+ Micro 4/3 cameras and see they can get entry level FF bodies of a current generation or last generation bodies for less. It’s just the fact of the matter that once FFcameras started approaching that magical $1000-1500 threshold it would eat into the crop sensor market a bit.

Now what Fuji did was incredibly smart in providing products that can compete in the APS-C And Digital Medium Format space. They’re not competing directly while still kinda competing directly with the FF cameras. What L mount dod was sorta smart as well though Panasonic holding onto Micro 4/3 makes you wonder with their struggling Lumix brand if that’ll be the cord cut if they choose a “one mount philosophy” that everyone is slowly going to given the success of Sony.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I dunno ... A premium quality, top of the line body is a very different thing from a bargain quality, entry level body, regardless of format.

G
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Main issue with Olympus has always been that their market was a niche market and still is even more today. Thus they could not get new sensors in time as needed and while on one side very innovative with new groundbreaking technologies they were lacking innovation on the other side for long time. It is absolutely a failure that they do not have BSI sensors or better stacked BSI sensors till today, that are meanwhile a kind of quasi standard for modern fast action cameras - and this is what Olympus claims.

So this lack of innovation, wrong product policy (aka EM1X) and slowness overall contributed to their downturn.

Remains to be seen if that new WOW camera they are speaking of can change this - I have my doubts - think it is too late.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
It's a good thing that my clients don't know about the failure of MFT. I have once again today finished a major shoot, this time with a 6 years old GX8 and a 5 years old G85, with Zuiko 12-40mm, Zuiko 12mm, Panasonic 7-14mm and Panasonic 14-42mm lenses. The only component that sometimes fails to deliver is my brain, and there's no new model of that one on the horizon, neither backside illuminated nor stacked.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
It's a good thing that my clients don't know about the failure of MFT. I have once again today finished a major shoot, this time with a 6 years old GX8 and a 5 years old G85, with Zuiko 12-40mm, Zuiko 12mm, Panasonic 7-14mm and Panasonic 14-42mm lenses. The only component that sometimes fails to deliver is my brain, and there's no new model of that one on the horizon, neither backside illuminated nor stacked.
I think there are two different arguments being made. No one (I don’t believe) is questioning the capability of the product. People are questioning the long term viability of the brand and how it will continue to be perceived as a market failure due to managerial decisions to not adjust and adapt to the direction the market is clearly going if they ever want to be anything more than a niche brand. Olympus has neither the prestige of say a Leica or Hasselblad and I don’t know that they even have the widespread fan following of a Fuji or even Panasonic GH user loyalty. I think we see that even Panasonic is adjusting and positioning their Micro 4/3 cameras to focusing solely on their enthusiast niche markets going forward… namely the GH lines and keeping the EOL products until they can no longer supply them as the discounted/value proposition like say the G9 or first generation GH5. I don’t know that we will see new GX or GM cameras from Panasonic unless they are in specific markets where they sold relatively well and even then I don’t know that would justify the cost of development.

So it’s not an insult or attack on Olympus (from me at least) and I don’t know that they need stacked sensors, BSI sensors, or other marketing buzz words as much as they need to clearly communicate value on the M43 lineup and leave the premium market to the larger sensor segment because most people (of western culture at least) are “programmed” that “bigger is better.” I don’t know that there’s an easy way to get around that psychology to make a large enough difference to their bottom line.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
It's clearly a marketing failure, but also quite a bit the market itself. The strong side of MFT is the lenses, the quality and the size (most of the time). The problem with that is that since the early days of digital, most focus has been on camera bodies and the constant stream of new, "revolutionary" technical innovations that will "change photography forever". When millions are spent on telling us that we don't have a life unless we go "full frame", and a choir of pixel peepers all over the internet answer with a resounding "YES!", that is what Average Joe will aim for, not some tiny, ancient Four Thirds sensor that hasn't seen a major revision for seven years.

That makes Panasonic's move towards more video even more logical, since video shooters are always forced to look for "real" qualities rather than marketing gimmicks. Most stills photographers have gear that exceed their capabilities by several hundred percent. Marketing and GAS is what decide what they will buy, not need, and the larger the sensor and longer the lens, the stronger the GAS.

I wouldn't mind a full frame setup, but every time I'm out on a challenging shoot, I re-discover that most of my shortcomings are located at the top of my neck, not in my camera bag. If anything, I need a better video camera (like a GH5/6), a better slider, a better fluid head, better video lights etc. long before I need a stills camera with a larger sensor.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
It's clearly a marketing failure, but also quite a bit the market itself. The strong side of MFT is the lenses, the quality and the size (most of the time). The problem with that is that since the early days of digital, most focus has been on camera bodies and the constant stream of new, "revolutionary" technical innovations that will "change photography forever". When millions are spent on telling us that we don't have a life unless we go "full frame", and a choir of pixel peepers all over the internet answer with a resounding "YES!", that is what Average Joe will aim for, not some tiny, ancient Four Thirds sensor that hasn't seen a major revision for seven years.

That makes Panasonic's move towards more video even more logical, since video shooters are always forced to look for "real" qualities rather than marketing gimmicks. Most stills photographers have gear that exceed their capabilities by several hundred percent. Marketing and GAS is what decide what they will buy, not need, and the larger the sensor and longer the lens, the stronger the GAS.

I wouldn't mind a full frame setup, but every time I'm out on a challenging shoot, I re-discover that most of my shortcomings are located at the top of my neck, not in my camera bag. If anything, I need a better video camera (like a GH5/6), a better slider, a better fluid head, better video lights etc. long before I need a stills camera with a larger sensor.
I don’t disagree that bodies are becoming good enough that it makes sense to not upgrade at each revision (and I’ve personally have operated this way for years now) but there was a lot of maturity that had to happen with digital as the market shifted.

As for Panasonic, the Lumix division is clearly under a lot of scrutiny from company HQ to turn larger profits. There has been a clear change in tone over the last year along with some drastic strategic changes in messaging. I’m left wondering what the Cinema division will do as well. They lost a lot of long term key people and their newest product is over 4 years old now. Their flagships are approaching 10 years without any real updates, and many have looked for their answers to their competition… so I’m not sure what will happen on their pro video side… and their Lumix brand seems to have more critical success than sales success. Personally I’m considering a return to Leica for my L-mount bodies if Panasonic doesn’t get their stuff together. I actually kinda hate their disjointed tiered strategy where they software upgrade their entry cameras to nearly the same spec as their flagships due to what I presume is pressure… and it seems like they all but abandoned their S1R in relevant future support.
 
Top