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

Started Mar 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
papillon_65
Forum ProPosts: 19,039Gear list
Like?
Can't say I'd noticed....
In reply to Great Bustard, Mar 26, 2013

Great Bustard 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.

...but the 17-40 / 4L on a 5D2 is not anything special, unlike a 14-24 / 2.8G on a D3X, which would be essentially the same performance as on a D600 (both are 24 MP FF).

I understand it's not the best but it'll do a job and I've seen some very nice results from it. I think I could make it work, Ken Rockwell likes it so it must be good 

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.

On the other hand, you are right on the money, there. Outstanding performance and value. That said, were it me, I'd recommend taking a look at the new 24 / 2.8 IS and 35 / 2 IS. Myself, I prefer the 24 / 1.4L and 35 / 1.4 (Sigma), but that's 'cause I'm all over ultra shallow DOF, and given that f/2.8 and f/2 on FF is equivalent to f/1.4 and f/1 on mFT, the 24 / 2.8 IS and 35 / 2 IS should be "good enough" for most in that regard, but smaller, lighter, and with IS.

I pulled those lenses out from the top of my head, I'm looking at other options and the Sigma 30mm caught my eye as well, thanks for the heads up.

Alternatively, give the 40 / 2.8 pancake a hard look in place of the 35mm and 50mm lenses, if size and IQ are both a priority. That is, there's something to be said for 24 / 2.8 IS, 40 / 2.8 pancake, and 100 / 2 (or 85 / 1.8).

I thought the 40mm was an EF S lens, great that it isn't and it makes another compelling choice.

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.

I'd say the EM5 closes the 2 stop gap between FF and mFT to 1 stop.

It looks that way from what I've seen.

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, 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.

Well, it depends on the particular lenses being compared, of course, and just how narrow of a DOF you want.

Not much point making the change if I'm not going to take advantage of it.

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.

I was very seriously considering an EM5 system, but, for sure, the prices of the lenses I wanted most certainly influenced my decision to stay FF, as well as to not complement FF with mFT (I'm looking to complement FF with a G2X, if Canon releases such a camera and it's similar to what I'm hoping it will be).

That said, I still have a strong interest in mFT and think it's a great system.

I will always have a strong interest in it and I intend to keep a couple of lenses and maybe pick up an EPM2 when the prices drop.

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.)

To be perfectly honest, I think size/weight considerations are, by far, the dominant reasons people choose mFT, and would still do so even if mFT were more expensive than FF.

I think so too, however I'd like to try FF and it's now at a price point where I can justify doing so. Thanks for the pointers on lenses.

-- 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/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Fujifilm XF1 Sigma DP3 Merrill +4 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