4/3rds vs m4/3rds lens reviews?

[Still_Togging_Along]

We now have a situation where we have similarly-specified lenses available in both these formats and there is the MF2 and R adaptors which enable 4/3rds lenses to be used on m4/3rds bodies, I have to say that I would very interested to see what difference the 20mm variation in lens-mount between these makes on the design and optical quality. Since the m4/3rds format brings the rear element closer to the sensor, one has to wonder if on wide angle optics, and therefore increases the angle at wich the exiting image imacts against the sensor, it is going to make for VERY interesting reading!

4/3rds lenses were also very rarely tested against their APS-C and FF counterparts, and I suppose I have often wondered why this occurred. Maybe this was because getting optics off Olympus has always been a problematical, or the other manufacturers just didn't like the idea?

So, just when will we be seeing these in-depth tests?

[mike_j]

It would be interesting as an academic exercise but I think that testing lenses in isolation on these cameras is going to be misleading in a way. More and more, particularly on MFT the lens/camera is a closed system with firmware correction as an integral part of the design. For example the 14-45 panasonic kit lens gives horrible distortion tested by itself but on a MFT camera is exceptionally good in its class. As it can only be used on such a camera is the purely optical performance an issue?

[Still_Togging_Along]

I don't think it is at all academic; As for 4/3rds being a 'closed system', with the 4/3rds to OM adaptor, you can also fit any T mounted lens and there are 4/3rds for many other manufacturers lenses. The m4/3rds range of adaptors for other camera makers lenses, will become even wider. It is true that 4/3rds (and probably also m4/3rds) lenses can be electronically upgraded, but that is held within the lens on a chip, not the body. I still think these tests need to be published, so that users know what the 'differences' are.