Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-50mm F3.5-6.3 EZ - review

Olympus E-P2 m.zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom lens

Panasonic GX1 Olympus m.zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom lens

Olympus E-PL3 m.zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom lens

Here's the original Olympus press release on the lens:-

"Olympus adds to its powerfully simple and growing PEN family with the first fully-compatible interchangeable Micro Four Thirds lens to incorporate an electronic motorized zoom. The M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-50mm F3.5-6.3 EZ (35mm equivalent 24–100mm) delivers smooth, quiet zooming that gives you versatility, portability and

maximizes the performance of the Olympus PEN^® compact system cameras.

The sophisticated new lens has a zoom ratio of approximately 4.2x, allowing photographers to capture anything from detailed, wide-angle group shots to medium telephoto-range images so you can get up close and personal for intimate portraits of children and pets – even indoors. The photographer can control the zooming speed by turning the barrel – slowly for drama, quickly for performance, or at an intermediate rate. Manual zooming is also available for those looking to take full control.

In macro mode, which can be set by pushing the zoom ring forward while depressing the macro button on the side of the lens, focusing is possible between 8 and 20 inches for close-up shooting with a maximum image magnification of 0.72X (35mm camera equivalent). The L-Fn (Lens Function) button suspends the autofocusing operation temporarily to avoid unintended focusing on obstacles that appear suddenly between the camera and the subject.

Perfect for brilliant still images and high-definition (HD) video capture, the Movie & Still Compatible (MSC) M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-50mm F3.5-6.3 EZ has also been enhanced with a linear motor that drives smooth and quiet autofocusing for stress-free shooting.

New lens elements and glass materials ensure the clearest possible imaging performance, and the proven dust and splashproof mechanism originally featured in the Four Thirds SHG (Super High Grade) series lenses is now incorporated for the first time in a Micro Four Thirds System lens. Multiple sealing rings, fitted throughout the lens body, prevent water splashes and dust from penetrating, making the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-50mm f3.5-6.3 EZ a versatile zoom lens for the toughest conditions."

Its not a particularly small lens but its very light (212g) and is no problem to carry around all day. Its a lens like the Olympus 12mm f/2 in that it has an "interesting things to do with a lens barrel" feature, which allows the changing between manual and electronic zooming and a (semi) macro mode. All of these work well and the lens is well constructed and actually looks very pretty in reality. The early pictures of it made it look very big, but its not really.

Its primary advantage is its usefullness. Its a good zoom range for a kit lens and the semi-macro is very useful, and works well. It focused pretty snappily on all my m4/3 cameras and the electronic zoom is very smooth for video, for which its primarily intended.

Image Quality.

If you are thinking about the possibility of this being a cheaper solution to the 12mm f/2, think again. Its not the same optically. In fact its quite soft. My copy didn't even seem quite as sharp as the 14-42mm kit lenses from both Panasonic and Olympus. However this is all relative and just me being picky. It has some chromatic aberration and fringing, more so on the GX1 than the two Olympus cameras, but about normal for these kind of lenses. 

It doesn't extend when zooming and is quite slow at the telephoto end. Both of these are, I imagine, to keep it relatively small and light, which is obviously a priority for Olympus here. 

As I said its real virtue is its relative versatility in many picture taking situations. Factor in the image stabilisation in Olympus bodies and you have a lens you can use for different picture taking opportunities. Its the usual kit zoom compromise, the classic "jack of all trades, master of none" but it did everything I asked of it and produced decent files. 

In a situation where I don't want to be changing lenses then it would be of great use, but if I was looking for optimum image quality I would use prime lenses. The 12mm end is certainly very useful and does give an extra dimension (2mm!!) over the normal kit lenses of this type. And 50mm at the long end is certainly more than most will give you. 

Its was nice to see that at the long end there was an excellent across the frame performance and certainly it seems to have been engineered very well. As to the weather sealing, since I have no intention of getting it soaking wet, I'll just have to take that on trust!

So all in all, an unspectacular, but handy lens. For my general landscape / location work it will be very useful, and though it appears I'm a little critical of the sharpness, thats nothing that a bit of sharpening can't fix.

Finally, it does occur to me that this lens isn't particularly the most suitable for getting the best out of the OM-D EM-5 and if you want to see what m4/3 is capable of then the 12mm, 20mm, and 45mm prime lenses from Panasonic / Olympus are better options. However the 12-50mm is a decent enough performer to mean that both my Panasonic and Olympus 14-42mm lenses are heading for ebay.

 

Panasonic GX1 Olympus m.zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom lens

Olympus E-PL3 m.zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom lens + polarising filter  

 

Panasonic GX1 Olympus m.zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom lens + polarising filter

  

Olympus E-PL3 m.zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom lens

Panasonic GX1 Olympus m.zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom lens - in semi-macro mode

   

Interpolation

Does interpolation, the upsizing of digital images, work, is it useful or should it be avoided at all costs?

Anyone who has been involved with submitting images to picture libraries over the years will probably have done quite a lot of it. Certainly in the early days of digital photography, many libraries asked photographers to upsize so as to be on a level playing playing field with film, i.e. to be able to supply the same sizes for print publication. I certainly in the past have upsized many images quite substantially.

One library required 48MB files as a minimum. Using 4MP (11MB) and 6MP (17MB) cameras required a fair amount of upsizing and the images certainly looked somewhat soft and noisy in their blown up state. However I have sold quite a lot of these, including some used at their enlarged size. I've even seen some of them in print, and am always quite surprised at how good they look.

Since I'm currently using a couple of 12MP cameras I was interested to see just what happens when you upsize the files.

Here's a picture I took on my Olympus E-P2 (12MP) Panasonic GX1 (16MP) and Sony NEX-7 (24MP)

Here's the Panasonic GX1 version compared with an upsized version from the E-P2.

Here's the Sony NEX-7 version compared with the E-P2 picture upsized to the same file size as the Sony.

Finally here's the Panasonic GX1 version upsized to the same size as the NEX-7 file.

So the original is "better", but by how much? When the files are reproduced just how much difference will there be? From my experience not that much.

For information, I used an Olympus 45mm f/1.8 on the m4/3 cameras and a 55-210mm zoom on the Sony. Tripod mounted at f/11 and ISO 200. In all examples the upsized file was slightly sharpened as interpolating does slightly soften the image.

On the shelf

Panasonic GX1, Olympus E-PL3, Olympus E-P2, Sony NEX-5, Sony NEX-7 Panasonic GX1, Olympus E-PL3, Olympus E-P2, Sony NEX-5, Sony NEX-7

My camera shelf is looking somewhat different these days. As you can see I have a bit of a thing for silver CSC's. No DSLR / DSLT, and lots of prime lenses.

I am pretty happy with this lot, who wouldn't be? It does what I want and I enjoy using them all. I mentioned in a previous post about how I don't "love" my NEX-7 or NEX-5n, but I do like them a lot!! The Pens are my favourite, and I'm prepared to work a bit harder with them to get what I want just for the joy of using them. I'm actually becoming very fond of the E-PL3, and because of the layout etc. its a lot easier to use adapted lenses on. 

I'm planning to add an Olympus OM-D to this lot and then suffer all kinds of pangs of guilt about how many unused cameras are sitting there. However with this collection I do want to use them all, and whenever I go out its a real battle as to which one to use. 

Its a bit much, but hey its only money and If I don't use it to have a good time with, what else is it good for? I'm seriously boring in everything else I do, don't drink, smoke, eat a lot, go out much or have a fancy car, so this is my indulgence. The fact that its also my passion and my job gives some justification for it all. It may not last in its current form for very long, but at the moment I'm happy with the collection. 

Kirk Tuck came up with a phrase that went something like - "I don't want to eat steak all the time, sometimes I like Chinese or even hamburger" to explain his flitting from camera system to camera system. I'm much the same, each camera and camera / lens combination offers a new opportunity, a different pallette and an alternative way to record the world. I've still got lots of combinations I haven't tried yet and the prospect of giving them all a go is enticing. 

I'm currently in one of my "no-guilt" phases, having seen off a period of trying to rationalise and get myself down to what I "need". However that was a bit too much of a common sense approach for me and I'm back in a more expansive and experimental state of mind. As you will know this can change on a daily basis, so who knows how I'll feel tomorrow.

But then I've always thought that if you're not prepared to change your mind then life can be a pretty rigid and constricting experience. 

My "new" Olympus m4/3 camera - m4/3 "pixie dust"

So not so new after all. I've just bought this from the Olympus Market refurbished ebay store. It cost me the outrageous sum of £148. German manual and lead, but apart from that brand new and unused.

I love the E-P2! My favourite Olympus Pen and therefore my favourite camera ever. Absolutely gorgeous, a joy to look at and hold. Its fitted with the new VF-3, which is fine for me. Not quite as sharp as the VF-2, but good enough. For me it has the great advantage of being polaroid dark glasses friendly, so any loss of resolution is compensated for by the fact that I can actually see through it with my preferred sunglasses. Another advantage for me is that the E-P2 lets me shoot at ISO 100. Yes I know Olympus say the base ISO is really 200 and you're supposed to get reduced dynamic range, but anyone who has ever used one of these at ISO 100, will know what I know, the files look better, with less luminance noise. However Olympus don't let you have that option anymore. Including the new OM-D. Nikon, Canon, Leica and Sony let you have an (artificial) low ISO option, but not Olympus. Ho-Hum!

Had a brief chance to try it out yesterday in dull, freezing cold weather. But the suns out this morning so I can give it (and the E-PL3) a good workout.

m f/2">

Olympus E-P2 12mm f/2

Olympus E-P2 45mm f/1.8

Olympus E-P2 12mm f/2

Olympus E-P2 45mm f/1.8

One things is for sure, that ISO 100 setting certainly shows what the 12mm and 45mm lenses can do. Excellent files, beautifully sharp and very clean. m4/3 is capable of very attractive looking files, if we are allowed to use the best quality settings. (Note to Olympus, please change the firmware in the OM-D to include an ISO 100 option, an ISO 50 option would be nice as well.)

PIXIE DUST

In a recent Dpreview forum, someone quoted from this blog, and also wrote this, which I liked and got me thinking.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&thread=40555632&page=2

"Whatever pixie dust Olympus has "infused" with the E-M5 does seem to be tickling the lizard part of people's brains. I guess it's part marketing, part by design.

Interesting comments about the emotion side of things. That's why I found it intriguing that such a dichotomy exists with those who talk smack about the E-P/L3's shortcomings, yet for some reason still gravitate back to these cameras despite many owning arguably technically superior offerings (NEX/Panasonic bodies etc.)"

So why do I (We) keep coming back to m4/3? Why is the OM-D, easily the most drooled over camera for ages, and apparently has incredible numbers of pre-orders. After all its a 16MP camera (plenty of those about) with this small(er) sensor thats not that great at high ISO and dynamic range. I expect the sensor to be very similar to the GX1, despite Olympus's claims that its not, so a decent performer at low ISO's, but compared to that in the NEX-5n, probably not as good. So why do I want to use that rather than my 5n? Indeed why do I want to use my 12MP Pens rather than the 5n and also the 24MP NEX-7?

Well for me its this.

I just think these things look so "right". The lens to body ratio is right, the design is right, the layout and handling is (mostly) right. These things look good and feel good, and just for good measure they take good pictures too. Not the best maybe, but for those of us who don't want to photograph black cats in a coal mine, freeze a speeding bullet or shoot 12 frames a second of a celebrity embarrassing themselves, they do just fine.

In the 1990's Apple decided to make their computers look more like PC's, with the consequent loss of market share. They almost went under. Whatever you say about Steve Jobs, he knew that to get those lost Apple fans back, something more than just saying how wonderful their product is was required. Style works. Style is appealing. Style makes us buy stuff. We may not know why we like it, we just know we do. Olympus make very pretty cameras. Panasonic do occasionally as well. Sony don't. The NEX-7 may be a great camera but I just don't love it.

When m4/3 started I hoped that it would become what it is turning into now. An attractive, high-end (but not ridiculously expensive) system that would offer benefits in terms of size and weight and not compromise (too much) on image quality. With a series of sensor tweaks Panasonic have achieved terrific stills quality with their sensors, and it should be said almost unbelievably good video capture. They and Olympus have managed to squeeze all sorts of technological goodies into their cameras to satisfy the gadget freaks, while at the same time managing to keep the more traditionally biased photographers happy at the same time. The word harmonious keeps popping into my head. The system seems integrated, thought out, and even though it may have evolved in a somewhat haphazard way, when you put the cameras and lenses together as in the picture above, it looks complementary.

The other phrase I keep thinking about is "democratic leica". By this I mean a Leica sensibility, but one that doesn't need a large amount of disposable income to indulge it. A system that is almost the complete opposite of the large DSLR. Though in the OM-D we may have, somewhat incredibly, the best of both worlds. Plus, whatever we think we should do and despite telling ourselves that it doesn't matter, how many of us would rather take out a camera we think looks good than one which takes better pictures? I'm not ashamed to say that applies to me. After all, as I constantly bang on, there really isn't that much difference between what they all produce anywhere. Put a Nikon D7000 image and a Panasonic GH2 image taken in 3:2 ratio and at ISO 200 side by side in a blind test and ask people to spot the difference. I doubt many could. Print both out or publish them in a magazine and I suspect the differences become less apparent.

I have no trouble whatsoever selling m4/3 shots, for publication, for advertising for all kinds of social and commercial uses. In fact in certain situations people actually prefer the m4/3 "look". If I felt I was compromising my earning potential in any major way, I wouldn't use it, but I don't feel I am, so I can indulge myself happy in the knowledge that I'm able to deliver the goods while still enjoying the experience that goes into that. If I need more pixels then I can always stitch images together anyway.

Reading between the lines of Kirk Tucks post on the OM-D http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2012/02/kirk-tuck-on-olympus-om-d.html I get the impression that, should the camera check out OK, he is planning to use it for his pro work. And why not? Despite all the reservations, all the criticism, all the perceived shortcomings, again and again that small sensor proves itself capable of achieving results, under normal circumstances, that we didn't think it could. If it does this while allowing us to enjoy using the system and yes enjoy the look of it as well, then thats something to be celebrated. I've written some unkind words about Olympus in the past, but the one thing I've consistently made clear is how much I love their designing abilities. Simply the best as far as I'm concerned. And thats something that shouldn't be underestimated, since if we can't take pleasure in what we use, life would be a much less enriching experience.

Another of those "Isn't m4/3 really good" posts.

Panasonic GX1 Voigtlander 28mm f/2 Ultron

A couple of bits of news today made me put my Voigtlander 28mm f/2 Ultron lens onto my Panasonic GX1 and shoot a few test pictures. 

Firstly Dpreview announced that some Australian photograohers have posted some Fuji X-Pro 1 shots. Unfortunately this seems to have crashed their (the aussies) website. This is one of the reasons I use a Google blog and flickr for the majority of my picture hosting, since they have the servers to cope with heavy amounts of traffic.

Secondly, Andrea at 4/3rumors has got a very strong indication that the sensor for the new Olympus OM-D or E-M5 as its apparently going to be called, is the same as the GX1. There seems to be an air of disappointment over that, but thats not a feeling I share, as I think the GX1 sensor is very good indeed, particularly at low ISO's. In terms of sharpness, the ability to show what lenses are capable of and overall "pop", its a sensor that works really well. The test shots I took with the Voigtlander lens are sharper than using the same lens on either of my Sony's (NEX-5n and NEX-7) and are pretty close to what I got from the lens on my Leica M9. 

In fact the files were surprisingly good. This is the first time I've tried the lens on this camera and I was expecting it to produce good results, but in fact the images have exceeded my expectations. Here's a few 100% blowups.

So all nice and sharp, good resolution, virtually no CA. 

I don't know whether its because of all my film scanning or just general overkill with the constant discussion of small differences between cameras, but I'm becoming less and less concerned with the "next big thing" and starting to think that I may go back a bit and work with the cameras I liked working with, irrespective of whether they are "state of the art" or not. I'm actually considering an Olympus Pen again (There's a surprise! Not!) and maybe even a GF1. I've said on numerous occasions, if I used the cameras I really want to rather than what I think I should for my work, it would be m4/3 all the way. 

Tests like the one above make the decision (if I ever get round to making it) a little easier.

Some recent digital excursions

m4/3

Panasonic GX1 Olympus 45mm f/1.8 Multi image panoramic stitch

Panasonic GX1 Olympus 12mm f/2 Multi image panoramic stitch polarising filter

Despite all the advantages of the NEX-7, I still have a preference for the colour and on-screen look from m4/3 files. Also despite having to stitch images together to get a large file size and having to handle the restricted dynamic range, I do very much like the finished result.

Panasonic GX1 Olympus 45mm f/1.8 Multi image panoramic stitch 

Panasonic GX1 Olympus 12mm f/2 Multi image panoramic stitch polarising filter

With careful exposure and processing m4/3 certainly "punches above its weight" and these images, all ending up at between 60-80MB each certainly have the potential for large scale reproduction and heavy cropping. I do have to do some work to get them to this state but after doing it for a few years, I have all sorts of photoshop "tricks" that allow me to produce a clean, sharp, contrasty, artefact free file. 

The reason I've stuck with it for so long is the excellent colour from the Panasonic sensors and the low strength anti-aliasing filters that they use. Sony don't seem inclined as yet to let their sensor "off the leash" and demonstrate exactly what it can do. Samsung seem also disinclined to do that and its going to be interesting to see what the Fuji X-Pro 1 sensor can do.

Its certainly true that this weaker AA filter can cause problems, but I'd rather it was that way than have a soft image. Its often stated that m4/3 has to try and compete with APS-C sensors and DSLR's. I see it the other way round. When you talk about final image quality and how files look when viewed and published, in many ways APS-C sensors and DSLR's have their own catching up to do. Now I wonder if there's anyone who could remove my NEX-7 AA filter?

Panasonic GX1 Olympus 45mm f/1.8 Multi image panoramic stitch

Panasonic GX1 Olympus 12mm f/2 Multi image panoramic stitch polarising filter

f/1.2 lenses

I tried out my Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 lens with the NEX-7 and also for the sake of comparison, borrowed back my Nikon 50mm f/1.2 MF lens.

Sony NEX-7 Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2

Sony NEX-7 Nikon 50mm f/1.2 MF lens

Sony NEX-7 Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2

Sony NEX-7 Nikon 50mm f/1.2 MF lens

Both lenses go some way to negating the effect of the AA on the Sony, and produce very sharp files. (But then they can both be used on m4/3 too) I think the Voigtlander is very marginally sharper but the Nikon has a slightly warmer colour balance. Both are top class lenses and demonstrate yet again that there is really no substance to this "designed for digital" myth that manufacturers come up with to justify the prices of their lenses. m4/3 and Sony NEX cameras now have great systems for using these manual focus gems from the past, and they are difficult to beat for engineering, build and optical quality. 

Whether that difference is enough to justify using them exclusively, I'm not sure. Certainly the 12mm and 45mm Olympus lenses I was using for the pictures at the top of the page are pretty good, and the 45mm f/1.8 in particular is something special. However if you're a sharpness junkie like me, you may think it worthwhile. And you like the feel of beautifully constructed metal lenses in your hand, then they certainly give these modern cameras a real "classy" feel.

Panasonic GX1 review and user experience - Some samples

Some full-size jpg. samples of the processing parameters I've been using for GX1 raw files. There are also links to the raw files. As usual for the jpgs. click on them > flickr > Actions > View all sizes > Original. Images were shot at ISO 160, f/8 (or thereabouts) using the 20mm f/1.7 lens.

As for the raw files, again as usual, these are pretty dull images, but they are copyright and I expect that to be respected. So they are for personal evaluation only and MUST NOT be shared, redistributed or re-posted anywhere, for any use whatsoever. If you want to let let people know they are here please post the link.

To download raw file click here

To download raw file click here

To download raw file click here

To download raw file click here 

N.B. Please be aware that in order to create the .dng files for the raw samples, and make them as compatible with as much software as possible, they are very large, i.e. 50-60MB. This is a consequence of Panasonic files and their compatibility with older versions of Adobe Camera Raw.

Panasonic GX1 review and user experience - Video

Shot with the 20mm f/1.7 lens using the full HD 25 fps mpeg setting. Nice and sharp, and certainly the mpeg setting is less fiddly to work with on a Mac. It means that I can look at the clips without importing and converting them in iMovie.

Incidentally as I think you can hear from the bird song, the built in stereo microphone is actually quite good. Since there's no alternative, thats useful.

Panasonic GX1 review and user experience - More thoughts on dynamic range

I've been having a look again at what I believe is better dynamic range handling from the GX1 as opposed to previous m4/3 cameras. I've worked on another couple of samples, shown above.

Unfortunately since I no longer have the G3, I can't do a direct comparison, but I have looked at some G3 files, and I certainly have been unable to get such a "clean" result by lightening shadows as I can with the GX1. 

Since processing and being very impressed with the results from the GX1 I've been looking at my Sony NEX-5n files, Samsung NX200 and Sony a77 files, as well as previous m4/3 images that I have from other cameras, and I really do believe that there is a significant improvement with the GX1, in terms of "cleaner" images and an increased dynamic range.

I won't claim its easy. It involves all sorts of tweaking in both raw conversion and Photoshop. I use fill light in Adobe Camera raw plus an amended linear contrast curve to avoid highlight burn out, and then in Photoshop I mask off the shadow areas and again use curves to lighten them. However, as I said yesterday, I have done all of these things to previous m4/3 camera files and haven't achieved this level of success. 

So, is this my imagination, something to do with the particular images I took or is it a genuine improvement? I guess once more detailed reviews on production models start appearing, I'll see whether this is just me or if anyone else agrees with me.