E-M5, Panasonic 12-35, CA and Fringing (The Fiasco)

Started Aug 23, 2012 | Discussions thread
Andy Crowe
Senior MemberPosts: 1,550Gear list
You can't fake sharpness
In reply to Jim Boutilier, Aug 27, 2012

Well from an optical perspective, they were right. - most m4/3 lenses are crap and will likely never see use as "legacy glass" on other future systems. Without the software correction, they are not lenses anyone would buy or use.

More nonsense. You can't fake sharpness, and any corrections done by the camera can done in post too. Optical correction introduces its own softness, so by tailoring the final image to be sharper but distorted you can use digital correction to get a better final image. Plus no-one is going to use m4/3 as legacy, or any focus by wire lens from any other system, because without a digital connection there is no focus or aperture control.

And you are right, that after correction, they often score very well on the objective measurements in common lens tests for lenses of their class. But the class is mostly kit or standard class. About 19 of today's 29 native m4/3 native lenses clearly fall in the kit lens class and really can't compare with premium glass in this or any other system.

Which makes a lot of sense for the cameras target market. Pros are still mostly sticking to DSLRs so why waste money developing large premium zooms that the market won't buy? Olympus fell into that trap with the original 4/3rds system, releasing mostly pro-grade lenses for a system they couldn't get pros to buy into.

I'm interested in the quality of the Panasonic 12-35, but they're pretty compact compared to other systems premium zooms so wouldn't be surprised if they took a hit on quality with that.

If you can't see the difference between a shot taken with a HG 50-200 and say a m4/3 40-150 or 45-175, or 45-200, you should look into a format called 110. I hear it's small, convenient, and is capable of fantastic image quality.

Now I know, that's not a fair comparison, as we should consider like for like price points. But I submit even when being fair Say a 4/3 Oly 50mm f2 and a m4/3 PL45mm or Oly 45 the m4/3 lenses usually fall short in a number of objective areas that overall don't make them winners. And don't even get me started as to how they perform subjectively in a variety of areas that a typical lens test never delves into.

Exactly, comparing an £800 lens to a £180 sure makes a lot of sense eh? As for the PL45mm I'm glad you brought that up, because it doesn't use any kind of digital correction, maybe if it did they'd have got a little more quality out of it.

Also the Olympus 50mm, despite being as old as 4/3rds, is over £500 while the 45mm f1.8 is £230, shock horror the 50mm has better sharpness!

I'm not trying to poo poo the m4/3 system. It's really quite good at a lot of things. But it's just delusional (at least so far) to put its glass against the best much more established systems offer (particularly those not having the size and weight constraints designed into m4/3 products).

Well duh, if you put the midrange glass these more established systems offer against the their best glass the best glass also wins, so what's your point? If you put the midrange glass of other systems against these digitally corrected midrange m4/3 lenses the m4/3 lenses consistently come out better, which is my point.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow