Food for thought - FF vs M4/3's cost

Started Mar 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,828Gear list
Like?
Re: Food for thought - FF vs M4/3's cost
In reply to papillon_65, Mar 25, 2013

papillon_65 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Before I start this is not a "this is better than that" post nor a post about "equivalence". Both formats have their compromises and both do something the other can't, nuff said.

Anyway, due to the current nuclear winter hanging over the UK there has been little opportunity to get out and shoot. This has led me to generally surfing and reading up on various gear and looking at lots of images. Whilst doing this I stumbled on several Canon 5DMk2's for sale on ebay. They were bundled with the 24-105mm F4 L lens and priced at £1699. Now this seemed like an extremely good deal for a well respected, tried and tested full frame camera with a decent lens.

I currently use the OMD mainly with the 12-35mm and 7-14mm and comparing the cost of the OMD and just the 12-35mm would take me past £1699. I also looked for a replacement for the 7-14mm and came across the 17-40mm F4 L lens, which is actually quite a bit cheaper than the 7-14mm. So if I wanted a full frame rig to replace my current m4/3's set up I could actually do it cheaper. The caveat being that I'd take a hit on size and weight.
I also looked for some prime lenses for the 5DMk2 and was surprised to find some very nice (and fast) prime lenses such as the 35mm F2, 50mm F1.4 and 100mm F2 which are also very reasonably priced.

Now the 5Dmk2 is getting quite long in the tooth in modern terms and the OMD sensor is pretty close to it in terms of performance, not withstanding the inherent advantage of the larger FF sensor and light gathering etc etc. However, there is not doubt that the Canon will produce IQ that the OMD can't in terms of resolution and shallow depth of field effects,

Resolution? No. Shallow DoF? Yes.

21mp FF vs 16mp M4/3's?

If you look at test data that factor in everything that matters (lens, AA filter, pixel density) and are comparable across platforms (for camera-lens combos), I have seen nothing to suggest that an E-M5 would be inferior, on average, to a 5DII as far as resolution is concerned. That would be particularly true if you start comparing the "nice (and fast) ... very reasonably priced" prime lenses you said you found. None of those lenses are exactly new in terms of design and they perform accordingly.

You need to look at some actual images, if you don't see a difference then you are very much in the minority and I'm sure if you told the 5D2 users that there would be stifled laughter. I own the OMD and even I can see it without looking too hard. As for the lenses, go and look at some images from them and tell me they're dated and not up to snuff, because that's obviously not true.

I know exactly what I need to do and do not hesitate to trust my own judgment regardless of whether I happen to be in the minority or the majority. If you need to hold hands, feel free to join your new-found friends over on the Canon FF forum.

As to looking at images, did you see this recent quiz about the E-M5 versus the D800?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/51155394

Links to full-size images as well as an answer to the quiz further down the thread.

whilst the OMD can do it's stuff a lot lighter and smaller. Those are the obvious differences and the main reasons why I'd choose one over the other anyway.

I guess the point of my post is that if you want to go full frame there has never been a better time to do it. You can also get a Canon 6D plus the 24-105mm for £1829. I make no comment on which is better because that is a purely subjective thing dependent on what you need, but I have to say full frame is very tempting these days if you're happy to keep to shorter focal lengths and wide angle (which I generally do). Having looked at many images from the lenses I mentioned then FF can definitely be cheaper than M4/3's, this came as quite a surprise to me, you can even get a Tamron 28-75mm constant F2.8 zoom for less than £400 (not a bad lens by all accounts and not that big either). Maybe Panasonic and Olympus need to be a bit more aggressive on their pricing as I can see some people being tempted away to full frame.

Anybody else getting tempted? (I'm not really interested if you think it's big and heavy and you've "been there done that",I get the point, I'm more interested if you are tempted over to the dark side by these kind of prices and value.)

No. Not tempted. I thought this through before switching from APS-C to MFT and in the end decided that the question of whether to FF or not to FF was no longer primarily a matter of money to me. What counts is that I get more IQ per kilo with MFT, based on my usual shooting wants/needs. How much I am ready to carry remains about the same but I can pack more versatility with MFT than I can with FF at the same weight.

I understand that Anders, as I said, no argument on the size/quality benefits

I just answered your question about whether I am tempted. Hard to answer that question in the negative, as I did, without bringing in the arguments that actually matter.

I get it, you're not tempted, I understand the reasons, even if they are not necessarily applicable to myself.

-- hide signature --

For the person who is good with a hammer, everything in life tends to look like a nail.....
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
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