Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

Started Mar 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 5,839
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to forpetessake, Mar 31, 2013

forpetessake wrote:

SDPharm wrote:

But when equivalent lenses do exist in both systems, such as the 35-100 / 2 on 4/3 vs the 70-200 / 4L IS on 35mm FF, the lenses for the larger sensor systems are  usually lighter <

I'm not sure what world you live in, but here's a real world example of the 'equivalent lens' comparison:

Panasonic 35-100/2.8: 360 g

Canon 70-200/2.8 II: 1490 g

Both are expensive, excellent lenses.  The FF lens is more than 4x the weight.

How many times should the equivalence be explained here that people may finally learn? The equivalent lenses result in the same image on different size sensors. You are again comparing apples and oranges. If you want compare Panasonic 35-100/2.8 to equivalent FF lens then find 70-200mm/5.6. Nobody does such lens, because FF lenses traditionally much faster, but it's not difficult to understand that such lens wouldn't be any heavier than its m4/3 equivalent.

B.t.w. I provided educational links, it makes sense to read them, otherwise people keep rehashing the same misinformation again and again.

Hey, Forpetessake

Couple of questions. Why are you so perturbed by people's lack of understanding (or interest) in equivalence? You do realise it really doesn't matter much in practice.

Given that you are such a proponent of equivalence, DSLRs, optical viewfinders, etc, why are you using a small sensor mirrorless?

Are you unsatisfied with your equipment or photographic skills? Why else would you keep visiting a forum for a camera format you don't own?

Here's a tip. You can take good photos with any camera system, even a cellphone (Well, a lot of people can, perhaps not you).

Here's a second tip. Knowing something and using that to educate others is noble. Knowing something and using that to belittle others is the opposite. Guess which side of the line you're on.

PS

SDPharm actually has a point. FF has the advantage of a sensor that's 4x the size. What's the point of buying into FF, and then using crappy lenses so that you can only approximately equal m4/3s capabilities? If you're going to buy FF, then you should also buy quality glass. I obviously can't talk for everyone, but If I were to buy into FF, then I'd be doing so for excellent IQ. I sure as hell wouldn't compromise that with average lenses.

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