Image courtesy: DSLRmagazine
Good Sunday Morning! There were a couple of new Lens reviews and here is one post to rule them all. Enjoy!
Can the Panasonic 35-100mm X challenge the Superb Canon 70-200mm lens? DSLRmagazine (translation here).
Lens in Stock and Price check: [shopcountry 33626].
Pekka Potka posted the full 60mm macro lens reivew: “As a lens for general photography it is better than any Olympus mFT zoom which has the same focal length. But it also is not as good as Zuiko M. 45mm f/1.8 or 75mm f/1.8. While it has practically no vices, it still falls somewhere between those two groups because of its weaker corners.”
Lens in Stock and Price check: [shopcountry 33616].
Steve Huff posted a short 75mm lens review. Zuikoholics posted the 17.5mm Nokton review. Thoughts on Olympus SHG Four Third Lenses, Including Video Usage at Diglloyd.
75mm Lens in Stock and Price check: [shopcountry 31284].
The Nokton 17.5mm cheapest price I found is on an “Austellungstück” at [shoplink 34348 ebay]Fotomundus Germany (Click here)[/shoplink].
74 Responses
I would have liked to be and the third competitor,ZD 35-100
Oh well, they did it again. If I had a 5D Mark-something and wanted to sacrifice light-gathering and shallow-DOF ability for size and weight, I could just as well buy a 70-200 f/5.6 lens – it’s just that nobody builds one, although it would be easily possible to construct something like the Sigma 50-200 f/4-5.6 or the Canon 55-200 EF-S to cover full-frame which would probably still rather resemble the Panasonic 35-100 than the Canon 70-200/2.8, in terms of size and weight.
But the camera is still a brick. The advantage of m4/3 is the package as a whole.
Let’s not feed the troll.
Good grief! Are you suggesting the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 has F5.6 of light gathering? If you are, then you’ve blown your argument already with your ignorance. Apologies if that is not what you meant.
Given the same lighting and shutter speed, with a lens at F-stop 2.8 a Four Thirds sensor indeed receives roughly the same amount of light (the same number of photons) as a Full Frame sensor with a lens at F-stop 5.6.
And for photography brightness matters, which is light/area, not total amount of light.
Exactly. Too many over emphasize on equivalent DoF and total light gathering. Like you said, it’s about intensity; that’s why lenses are measured in f or t stops, not in photons/s, lumens, or what ever.
Obviously, the larger the format is the more light it needs to have proper exposure. Taking Hubertus’s example further, set at the same shutter speed and ISO, the FF at f/5.6 will underexpose the same scene as the m4/3 at f/2.8 even though same number of photons hit the both sensors.
I suppose Hubertus is more interested in counting photons than taking properly exposed photos.
For photography, light matters. If what you are saying was real and not the sheer ideology it is, if it was only aperture that would matter, that would have to be true for your compact camera, for your camera phone, and for your tiny-sensor camcorder, too. As it isn’t true for either of them, it isn’t true for the comparison between Four Thirds and Full Frame, either.
Your example is false, because in the physical reality, contrary to your ideology, an FF camera on a comparable technological level delivers the same output quality at 2 EV stops higher ISO. And at 2 EV stops higher ISO, it doesn’t underexpose at all.
And guess what, it is true for all of those.
DOF is not the same as aperture, it is a function of entrance pupil, distance and magnification, and hence does not tell you anything useful. DOF will indeed be different for different medium sizes, but that is totally unrelated to exposure.
If you take a number of sensors in different sizes, but all implemented with the exact same technology AND pixel size, then you will end up collecting exactly the same number of photons per pixel.
Focal ratio, or relative aperture, is defined as the relation between size of the entrance pupil and focal length. This is totally independent of the medium you use, it always means exactly the same thing. For that matter, its meaning and definition aren’t even related to photography, this is optics 101 really.
ISO is a difficult beast, it is based on subjective judgment of brightness of the developed image, not on noise levels, and in the way it is being used in photography, not on sensor output directly (as that is an undeveloped image). There is a second standard that defines it by sensor output, but that one is barely used. But regardless, all variations are based on PHOTONS PER AREA, and not on total amount of photons.
If it were different, and worked as you are suggesting, then making a 1/4 size crop of an image made at ISO 100 on a 135 format camera would magically change the ISO level to 400 because you are only using 1/4 of the light when compared to the full size image.
If it were different, then a D800 at ISO 1600 would be equivalent to a D700 at ISO 800 because the pixels of the D800 only have half the size in area, and so in absolute terms only get half the amount of light. Again this is not true because brightness and not total light is what counts.
Thanks a lot! And enjoy looking at the other ones taking landscapes in 1:1 macros on square miles big sensors 😉
You’ll be performing all this week?
Very funny! 🙂
And that’s what everyone cares about, right? No. What people *do* care about is the f2.8 aperture and 1/60th @ f2.8 is 1/60th @ f2.8 regardless of the camera you’re using. Being able to gather more light because the sensor is bigger is really only relevant when you’re comparing sensors with similar technology. I have a Canon 5D 12MP, whilst that has a sensor twice the size of my OM-Ds the OM-D is better at higher ISO’s and has more resolution. So the perceived advantage of having more light hitting the sensor doesn’t stand up.
The benefit for me, is I can have a m43 equivalent of my Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS, which is smaller than my wife’s 17-85 EF-S and has a greater depth of field than the Canon! Win, Win!
I fly to China (from the UK) tomorrow for two weeks, and am taking my m43 kit rather than my Canon kit. The weight saving is considerable.
So, please stop the whole light hitting the sensor equates to better image quality, it just doesn’t for 90% of the time. If you truly do believe that, then I’m not sure why you’re on a m43 site, stick to Canon Rumours!
Just my thoughts,
Colin
@Colin
“So, please stop the whole light hitting the sensor equates to better image quality, it just doesn’t for 90% of the time. If you truly do believe that, then I’m not sure why you’re on a m43 site, stick to Canon Rumours!”
The best FF sensors compared to the best mFT show the advantage that the extra light gives them very clearly. It is not just about high ISO noise; look at the D800 vs the E-M5 even at base the D800 has a very clear advantage in DR and shadow noise along with resolution. This may not matter to you but the same could be said by a P&S user against our mFT cameras, even smaller, even lighter even more DOF etc. It is funny how many mFT users have no problem determining the advantages that their cameras have over a small sensor users .While failing to accept the advantage a FF sensor at nearly four times more area has over mFT. Those who claim F2.8 is F2.8 are so far off the bat it is not even funny, if this was true the we would all be using P&S cameras with some having crazy lens options like that Panasonic that is F2.8 throughout its range up to an equiv 600mm now do you honestly believe that F2.8 on this superzoom is the same as F2.8 on mFT or FF
All camera systems are compromises, INCLUDING those using the 135 format.
Following your argument, you really must upgrade to Leica S or bigger, because it gives a larger sensor area, which has absolute advantages, who cares if they matter, they are there. You didn’t upgrade to such a larger format, so you compromised on quality and could as well be using a P&S according to your own argument, I hope you realize that is total and utter bullshit.
What people like you simply fail to understand is that every camera system is indeed a compromise, and one should be looking for the best compromise for the photography one does. Yes, that can be a small compact with tiny sensor, it can also be a Pentax 645, or something else. Arguing that the system that gives the absolute best quality, and ignoring all arguments of practicality is exactly why certain people in the past argued that the 135 format (35mm, or ‘full-frame’) is really just an amateur format and as a pro you really should be using ‘medium format’ at least. The technical argument isn’t incorrect as such, it is just not the only argument, and not even the most important argument.
If you are a pro and interested in actually doing business, you will be looking for the most economical tool that can give you sufficient results. Going beyond ‘sufficient results’ means that you will be wasting money and resources without any increase in profit, and that is simply bad business. What makes for ‘the most economical tool giving sufficient results’ totally depends on the job at hand, and not on some absolute metric that totally disregards real-world considerations.
“look at the D800 vs the E-M5 even at base the D800 has a very clear advantage in DR and shadow noise along with resolution.”
Fine, look at the Canon 1Ds MK1 then, which is also a full frame! My point was just because a full frame sensor gets more light for the same exposure, which is expected, you also have to factor in sensor technology, otherwise just stating that more light/bigger sensor is best just doesn’t work.
“Those who claim F2.8 is F2.8 are so far off the bat it is not even funny”
So if my flash meter says to set my Canon 1Ds MKII to 1/60th @ f4, and I swap to my OM-D, what f-stop should I use? f2.0? f2.8? f1.8?
I’m not talking DoF, or light falling on the sensor here, just simple exposure. It doesn’t matter what camera I’m using, 1/60th @ f2.8 is the same. Sensor size makes no difference.
“It is funny how many mFT users have no problem determining the advantages that their cameras have over a small sensor users .While failing to accept the advantage a FF sensor at nearly four times more area has over mFT.”
I also own 2 full frame Canons, so I’m well aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each.
+1
Some people indeed do care about more that F-stop and aperture, they care about ISO as well.
By the way, why should I visit Canon forums? I own no Canon camera, in fact I am one of the last five or six people on this planet clinging to their Four Thirds DSLR gear, and I do that for a reason. Yes, there are advantages. But file quality under the same lighting circumstances is not one of them, nor is the ability to produce shallow depth of field.
I know what I have with my Four Thirds gear, I don’t need to whitewash it with lies defying the laws of physics.
Then don’t lie to defy the laws of physics.
If we strictly apply ‘equivalence’, you end up with the following:
4/3 camera at ISO 200, 50mm, f2.8, 1/100
135 camera at ISO 800, 100mm, f5.6, 1/100
According to ‘equivalence’ that gives exactly the same thing, and neither camera has an advantage, so no, the ‘full frame’ (rubbish marketing jargon) camera will NOT have a low-light advantage when applying equivalence.
It will if you can use a more shallow DOF, but then you do no longer end up with a strictly equivalent picture.
So, given all other things being equal, in 100% equivalent cases both give 100% equivalent results. There will however be situations where a 135 format camera will still be able to produce decent results while a 4/3 format camera can’t, but that is only because lenses to achieve ‘equivalence’ do not exist in those cases.
If you do want to argue that 135 format has a real world low-light advantage in all cases then you’ll have to give up the equivalent DOF part of the argument, else you are indeed lying to defy physics.
“What people *do* care about is the f2.8 aperture and 1/60th @ f2.8 is 1/60th @ f2.8 regardless of the camera you’re using”
No, not correct. In terms of image quality the larger, technologically comparable sensor will be ahead at any given shutter speed and ISO level. This happens because a great deal of noise is produced irrespective of sensors size, but larger sensors simply dissipate it over a larger area. A bright lens can negate this by allowing faster shutter speeds because exposure to noise does not depend on f-number unlike exposure to light, but both do depend on shutter speed. In practice not all noise is so evil, so the full 2-stop benefit of an FF sensor versus 4/3 is rarely realized, but some significant advantages are always seen. These advantages will provide room for better shutter speeds or ISO levels compared to the smaller sensor, without degrading IQ – which is the ultimate base for comparison.
Sufficient image quality is a useful metric, absolute image quality isn’t. If absolute image quakity was actually what it was about you’d be arguing in favor of the largest format that exists.
There is no universal objective measure of “sufficient image quality”. For certain uses a 6-year old 2 megapixel phone camera is enough, for others even medium format is limiting. However since FT/mFT, APS and full frame cameras continue to be more or less direct competitors, noise level is a fair universal metric of “sufficient image quality” for them, and the only objectively measurable one I know of.
You are correct that sufficient image quality is subjective, and what is more, it depends on the application as well, actually more then anything else.
You are wrong about noise. First of all it is still as subjective because measuring noise says totally zero about what is sufficient, and second because it is not the only metric.
The M5 has a better High ISO sensor than the 5D or 5DII.
@ E-1 the 5D is 7yrs old and looking carefully at the NR off RAW samples the E-M5 is not as good as the 5DMK2. Though, it is a lot closer than it is to the Nikon FF models, which are pretty amazing whether you want the speed and ISO performance of the D3S/D4 or the amazing resolution of the D800. I don’t know what happened to Canon at one time they led the sensor race now Sony dominate it.
@Hubertus: Your argument only makes sense if (1) the sensors have a single pixel (or exactly the same pixel size), (2) is made using exactly the same technology, (3) you use exactly the same amplification, (4) you don’t compare ISO curves, etc., etc.
However: if you use the same combo of shutter speed, aperture, and ISO number, the exposure is the same irrespective of the sensor size (+/- calibration of ISO). Of course, the smaller sensor then suffers wrt noise, DR, etc as a function of ISO. But everyone knows about that!!
—
For your argument to make any sense at all, it is also necessary to shift the ISO curves that dpreview etc publish (to the benefit of the m43 cameras). But you never say that. Why not? Could it be that you really are not interested in a fair comparison?
@ Hubertus Bigend “Given the same lighting and shutter speed, with a lens at F-stop 2.8 a Four Thirds sensor indeed receives roughly the same amount of light (the same number of photons) as a Full Frame sensor with a lens at F-stop 5.6.”
That just shows that your argument is absolutely pointless.
The same exposure with a given light is the same on any format at a given aperture & ISO (with some variation between manufacturers & models). What does change is the Depth of Field between different sized formats. Don’t confuse the two.
Please get your facts straight before spreading them on the forum, because they stay here for all to see forever after. One day you might look back at a web search that shows your embarrassingly wrong comments.
So we should compare with something that doesn’t exist? good call.
Not to mention that you are wrong. A 35/2.8 is by definition smaller then a 70/5.6 because of its shorter focal length, so no, even if Canon were to build a full-frame 70-200/5.6 it would be bigger then the 35-100/2.8
Both cameras have their place….but MFT is more and more compelling as the camera to go to! The comparison on DSLRMagasine is intriguing to say the least.
Pekka Potka’s post includes a most interesting examination of the Olympus 60 as a slide converter. He concludes that it is more useful, faster and produces better results than a dedicated scanner. I have been looking for an inexpensive and reliable method of converting negatives to high quality files (I still shoot film occasionally). This might be it.
And with this lens all you need is a suitable slide mount & backlighting. In the mean time I’ll use my Canon Multifunction Printer that does slide & film scanning (I wish it wasn’t Canon though 😉 ). I’m still very impressed with this lens & hope to get one soon.
I have been copying my 35 mm chromes and negs for years with a 60 mm Nikon Macro lens attached to my E-620 mounted on a crosslide, with a medium format color enlarger head as light source. Works great!
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/42644009
Thanks. Looks good.
Any cheap slide copier, like these
http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Slide-Copier-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000FA76JS/ref=pd_cp_p_0
will do.
They are usually included with a close-up lens which you must NOT use. Take it off. Then you need a step up ring from 46mm to adapter´s thread size, which usually is 52mm. The included tube is probably not the right length but it is easy to shorten or have a longer one made at a camera repair or machinery shop. I have a Dörr copier with a 78mm long tube for my “four quadrant” capturing and a 117mm long tube for single shot capturing. These lengths give just an idea of what is needed, because the actual length is dependent of copier´s design.
-p-
Thanks for the advice. Wouldn’t it be simpler to use some sort of bellows with adjustable length?
There were “double” bellows systems from Pentax, Nikon and Olympus. Search ebay. But those tubes are cheap, sure and simple…
-p-
Hey look, the equivalence depth of field trolls are already here on schedule… Oh how everyone shoots all day long at f2.8 or larger and probably at ISO 6400, while you’re at it. Why even have lenses that stop down at all, obviously all of us just need to shoot wide open for the thinnest depth of field possible.
For example, today on a road trip, I shot a landscape with my 12-35mm on my OM-D, but I really wish I had a F1.4 equivalent 12-35mm for minimum depth of field, who ever needs anything more than 2″ of sharp focus?
While you are all rejoicing about this, you do all understand that in order to even compete with a FF lens mounted on a FF camera; an mFT lens must have double the resolution. That is why LW/PH is a more reliable indicator of the end results, as it is more reflective of camera + lens = end result, these type of lens tests in isolation show nothing.
To put this into perspective
The 12-35mm F2.8 highest resolution at any setting :centre = 3112 extreme edge 2591 tested on a GX1
http://www.photozone.de/m43/766_pana1235f28?start=1
The 24-70mm F2.8 Nikon highest resolution at any setting : centre = 3988 extreme edge 3276 tested on the D3X at 24mp so the D800 at 36 would be higher still.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/456-nikkor_afs_2470_28_ff?start=1
And do you understand that most of us are more interested in making photographs than arguing equivalence? And that today’s best m43 camera can make photographs which, when viewed as photographs, and not pixels, are every bit as good as those made by most FF cameras?
the problem with the old it’s about the photograph arguement is that very few P&S users make the idiotic claims that quite a few mFT users do. Though for some unknown reason it is almost always the chip on the shoulder Olympus users who are most full of it. If it is all about the photo why waste money on expensive heavy gear like mFT when there are smaller lighter P&S. cameras , for sensor size doesn’t matter , f2.8 is always f2.8 and more DOF is always better .
Pop into any aps or FF forum in the likes of DPReview and you will see pretty much no one gives a damn about mFT while in the mFT forum there is always some whole comparing mFT to other systems. I guess all those pro shooter 99.9% of whom don’t shot with mFT are all dumb asses . I am. great fan of mFT and recommend it to all my friends but the crap that gets posted in the forums by the fanboys is actually embarrissing . No matter how much BS you all spout you cannot defy the laws of physics
Wow same predictable equivalencence arguments over and over. Im pretty sure weve all heard both arguments over and over….
Not found any contribution mentioning how amazing DSLRMagazine seems to have found this little lens.
However I think it deserves stars !
I realize that many of you are hobbyists so perhaps this post is not of much concern. As a photojournalist I am pretty intrigued with what is developing. Currently I usually carry two 5DIII bodies with 70-200 and 24-70 and battery grips. This is pretty standard kit that is heavy and often awkward to carry. I also find the high end DSLR’s difficult to use for video without extra eye-pieces and such. Again even more weight.
I have a GH3 on order that I will try with the new 12-35 f2.8. I plan on using this camera in the field when I know flash will not be needed. Prior to the GH3 I would never have considered this a viable option but I have a feeling between the pro-level build, ergonomics, ability to control remotely and “good enough” image quality we may have a winner. Time and a few thousand shots will tell but I can tell you lighter more inconspicuous gear has it’s place in a fire fight or nasty demonstration. As for replacing the Canon 5DIII 70-200 combo. This will be a more difficult trick especially given the DOF and focusing advantage on a a 5DIII or 1DX body. It is also my bread and butter combo that has a bit of magic that is hard to explain .
Was the test normalized? In a sense that resolution tests were done according to the sensor density?
Because, if both lenses have similar resolution, FF sensor has much bigger pixels allowing for significantly more real life resolution and/or future higher density sensor allows for even more resolution growth as opposed to Panasonic lens which reached it’s peak at the same density as a 70-200mm lens for a FF.
No, looks like they tested with a 5DMkIII which have a bit higher vertical number of pixels than a 16MP mFT-sensor. The expected result is smoewhat higher resolution. A test with a Nikon 70-200 and a D800 would have been much more interesting for resolution tests.
they fairly concluded in the test, that higher resolving power on the Canon is due to higher resolution on the camera – not due to less optical performance on the lens.
Exactly, they didn’t test the resolving power of the lenses, they testet a combination of two camera and two lenses. Interesting enough, but that type of test don’t say too much about the absolute resolving power of teh lenses. This is exactly why sites like Photozone warn about comparing results between systems.
Lens tests that do not compare the results from lens Plus camera/sensor performance are worthless to most people. Taking photos by mounting lens on camera is all that matters. The test results that do not use LW/PH [ the best way to find out what your set up will be capable of} end up being very skewed our mFT lenses need to have double the resolution of a FF lens just to compete. I don’t get all the comparison angst , sure FF can deliver better results than the best mFT , but Jesus you need to carry a load to do so. For me the only comparison that matters is the weight vs image quality balance which for me is best achieved by mFT. Who knows what will be coming down the pipe, the 1inch {why is it called that? when it isn’t lol} senor format looks interesting .
GeoT
Very few test the lens by itself as it require a special equipment in stead of a low cost solution like a chart and Imatest (or similar software). And it’s nothing wrong with that as long as it’s clear how it’s tested and people are aware that the results are for the whole package and not neccessarily a very good indication of how the lens will perform on their camera.
“they fairly concluded in the test, that higher resolving power on the Canon is due to higher resolution on the camera – not due to less optical performance on the lens.”
Actually, that conclusion isn’t justified. here’s no way to know how much of the improved performance is due to the lens and how much to the higher resolution sensor. Maybe on an even higher res sensor the Canon would do even better. Maybe the Panasonic would do better with a higher res sensor, but maybe not. We simply don’t have the facts to determine.
I would expect they have compared photos of barcharts and counts on same size results, so that the comparison is fair whatever size is the sensor and pixels density : just the results on paper !
@JMS. I found your contribution very refeshing.
I recall speaking to a Journalist who told me that he had approximately £8000 pounds worth of gear stolen when he was covering the riots in Birmingham, England. My initial thoughts were… Why was you going with so much kit into such a hostile situation. I personally believe that Cameras such as the OMD, GH3 et al. Have their place and wil be utilised in ways which will enable the photojournalist to get the desired story.
As for me. I have a analogue Canon 1v and when I qualify from my Photography Course I will have to invest in a 5D Mark III as I think it’s an amazing piece of kit but it’s nothing without my brain behind it.
In the meantime I have an Olympus OMD. It’s great machine and I love the technology in it. But I still love fullframe and understand that magic which you speak of. Thank you for your encouraging insight.
Excellent review and comparison.
The conclusions that I draw would be the same as that of the author:
1) Though the Canon lens surpasses the Panasonic in IS (hardly surprising considering Canon ‘defined’ IS in lenses), IS in the Panasonic is acceptable and considering the additional camera shake introduced by the bulkier/heavier Canon package, they are about equal in the filed in real use.
2) The Panasonic package is a value leader when one considers weight, bulk and price-point. This is important, not only for serious amateurs but also for pros as most pros will be obliged to take multiple bodies into consideration and a cheaper. smaller and lighter bodies help keep the total weight/cost equation within tighter budgets.
3) Mirrorless/Micro43 has reached the point where it becomes a serious option for serious shooters.
I can’t wait for the MFT consortium to break out of the ‘Leica’ body form-factor and give us pros a diminutive camera system that puts a new category in the running.
Neither Panasonic or Olympus have given us a Leica body at this point… that is, a true rangefinder form factor with a built-in viewfinder. See NEX 6 and 7.
There are the G/GH series and OMD, but all the rest are essentially glorified point & shoot style bodies.
To augment my GH2, I’d like a slightly smaller body to use with my shorter primes and would prefer a M4/3 body for maximum versatility, and for my few native M4/3 lenses, but demand a built-in viewfinder. Unfortunately, M4/3 falls short, while the NEX 6/7 fit my requirements pretty well… except for the M4/3 part. Oh well, let’s see what the GX2 and EP5 bring to the table.
And what the heck does that have to do with this story, which is about the two telephoto zooms? Neither Canon nor Nikon have given us the rangefinder style camera you want, either.
Maybe because not that many people really want one?
The 50 mm f/2.0 is better than the new 60 mm f/2.8 macro. Unfortunately, the MFT lens was not able to beat the FT lens in this battle. However, the 12 mm f/2.0 is maybe the best 12 mm out of the entire FT/MFT lineup.
Depth of field control. Canon f/2.8 give us more. It’s very simple: If you shoot a lot where sending background out of focus is important, then there is no contest.
I have both Canon ful frame and a Panny GH2. I use them for different applications in the same way that I use a socket wrench for a different application than a screwdriver.
Thanks for bringing this valuable point up. No one has mentioned the fact that f/2.8 on m4/3 provided a wider depth of field than f/2.8 on FF.
You’re doing us all a real service here.
Sigh. Another meaningless test.
Resolution figures may have more do do with the difference in sensor pixel count than anything else.
Distortion comparisons are meaninless, because the Panasonic does in-camera correction, and in the Canon you need to PP. That’s an advantage of the Panasonic system, but it doesn’t tell us anything about the optical performance of the lens.
Vignetting may well be corrected in-camera, too, invalidating that test.
I despair of ever finding a web site that actually knows how to test the optical performance of lenses.
Actually, since what I’m interested in is what the photos these camera/lenses produce will look like, this test was fine thank you. If you want abstract performance figures for your lenses, go to it – but I won’t be waiting for the findings.
This comparison is pointless, better would be to use a Canon 70-200 F4, or 70-300 F 5.6. Even better would be to talk about image quality, responsiveness, tracking autofocus… OK, most writers here are bad marketing ppl and most readers are clueless gadget geeks; but someone has to tell you guys.
Are you, like, an echo of the other equivalence trolls? It’s like Groundhog Day around here …. Blah, blah, blah …. Over and over.
Meaningless blabla… Perhaps
But more likely true sign of panic from trolling ones scared to see a nice breakthrough acknowledged by a fair test and clever pros looking for convenient gear !
Ach you got me, I am panicking, you are so clever. And the test is so clever and fair… Instructions for you:
1) stop taking drugs
2) wait until balls drop
3) get through school
Is this ‘equivalence’ debate a m43 only phenomenon, or does it happen as much on nex, fuji, crop sensor dslr, etc forums. Perhaps it is because m43 has this easy to calculate x2 formula?
Olympus has suffered from previous Pansonic sensors limited performance (& with the smallest sensor for an interchangable lens camera was a target from the critics), but now enjoy the greater performance of the Sony sensor & the bias from some of the Big Two users continue as if they need to justify why they spent so much on their gear as well as having to lug around the enormous weight & are unwilling to accept that something in a small package can quite often be a better option without sacrificing the quality of the output.
I think you’re right Ross, it’s not usually *this* bad, but the reviewer dared to put it up against a Canon lens, so everyone and their dog seems to have come out of the woodwork to post the same tired criticism that everyone is aware of.
“But I need 1.5 inches DOF for all of my shooting! 3 inches won’t do! These m4/3 cameras are useless!”
We’re in straw grasping territory now.
I have never seen CaNikon turds debate about how crappy CaNikon APS cameras are compared to FF.
Or how crap a lens designed for a FF sensor is on an APS-C body.
Which Canon lens on an APS-C can compete with that 35-100 on 4/3?
The phenomenon of making ridiculous claims about small sensor cameras being as good as far larger sensors is almost exclusively done by Olympus mFT users and their now dead system compatriots in FT. In the vast majority of forums from Canon and Nikon no one gives a damn about mFT , perhaps because the cameras are just options within the same system, who knows . The only advantage of mFT is its size and weight while still delivering good results. Only P&S user claim it is image quality that drives their interest in mFT for all DSLR user buying into mFT the size and weight is by a long way the major factor.
mFT may not be doing quite as well as you all think , have a look at the various market sales figures indicators , bubble burst or bursting? Even in its home market.
Japan only 6 of the top 40 selling cameras are mFT with no high end options
http://dslrphoto.com/dslr/space.php?do=jranking
I guess mFT is getting closer to the target, if so many Canikon adapts need to spill their gall over mFT.
As a professional photographer I have seen the light of the (m)FT years ago. It’s not only smaller and lighter, you have to realize that with smaller AND lighter comes versatility and comfort.
@ digifan , it is only smaller and lighter that’s it no other reason for mFT , now I am not being glib smaller and lighter are obviously very important to lots of people. But let’s not kid the troops on the percentage of pros using mFT is absolutely miniscule. Most but not all are low end snappers , the pro market is probably 99% Canon and Nikon ergo 99% of the best imagery is being done by Canon and Nikon shooters , it is BS to say that the mFT users are somehow better.
With smaller and lighter comes poorer sensors,poorer ergnonics , poorer battery life and no real pro support system
“The phenomenon of making ridiculous claims about small sensor cameras being as good as far larger sensors is almost exclusively done by Olympus mFT users ”
Can you cite who did this affirmation on this page?
Still, quality is much better than most of Canikons thinks, the difference against APS-C is probably negligible, and the m4/3 is driving the evolution of modern cameras.
This is the reason because 43rumors is being overwhelmed by trolls instead of being simply ignored.
This is all so silly. The question is not who provides the “better” image… for the extra $3,000+ I should hope the Canon setup does a better job over a GH3/35-100 combo. The questions is, is the little extra bump in image quality really worth the weight, bulk, and extra $3,000+?
There is no right or wrong answer to that, only what makes the most sense for the individual.
It’s a lot like the m4/3 vs S35 argument many of us on the video side often get too bogged down on (and the calls for whatever eventually replaces the AF100 be S35). I get so tired of hearing folks say S35 is *the* superior choice, because “Superior” and “Inferior” are inherently subjective terms based solely on one’s own criteria. The benefits of shooting on an AF100/m4/3 camera far outweigh the benefits larger sensor choices, both in dedicated video cameras or HD-SLRs… *for me*. I don’t dare assume what makes business sense for me makes business sense for anyone else.
Buy the system/format that makes the most sense *for you*, but recognize that what makes sense for you doesn’t somehow inherently make sense for everyone else.