M43 seems more and more overpriced compared to NEX

Started Aug 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
peevee1
Senior MemberPosts: 6,247Gear list
Like?
Re: Get some fact right first ...
In reply to wolfie, Aug 29, 2013

wolfie wrote:

peevee1 wrote:

Dennis wrote:

If you want to extend the argument, then it's fair to point out that NEX has nothing at all to compete with the excellent and fairly priced 45/1.8 and 75/1.8

No, 75/1.8 is NOT fairly priced, you can get plenty 85/1.8 covering twice the image circle at less than half the price. It is in fact one of the most overpriced m43 lenses, along with 12/2 and Pana 12-35 and 35-100 pair, at least at their prices on the US market.

Of course that's just your opinion about the price. Plenty of people have voted with their wallets and would disagree.

However you justify this opinion a on a totally flawed comparison!

First remember the fact that a FF 85mm is not an equivalent to the M43 75mm, (that would be a nearly a 42.5mm in M43),

First of all, you can put 85/1.8 on m43 and get very similar picture to what 75/1.8 gives you. They also have very similar design constraints, except the focusing group of m43 lens should be lighter (or focusing motor stronger), but it should not worry about quality/coverage beyond 22mm image circle while FF lens should.

And if you bring equivalence, then m32 75/1.8 is like 150/3.6 FF, and 85/1.8FF is like 42.5/0.9 m43. But I prefer to operate real FLs because that is what they are and very comparable in design constrains above the system's flange distances (obviously, design of FF lenses on Nikon F and Canon EF below 40mm gets complicated than the same FLs on m43).

so try the comparison to a 150mm f1.8 lens from the FF crowd (if you can find one) and see how the price, size and image quality compare.

150 f/3.6 in light gathering, with different real group distributing the same light (as 75/1.8 m43) over larger circle.

The fact is that m.zuiko 75mm has got universally very good reviews and DXO scores.

But not as good as $450 85/1.8 for FF.

The lens rental guy pulled one apart and said the all metal internal construction was as good if not better than canon L glass or nikon pro range lenses. Quality costs extra, and as most of us know, the price line to better build can only go up.

Sure, quality costs extra, that is why I do not suggest it should cost $200. But not $900 either. A little below Canon and Nikon 85/1.8 (given smaller FL and much smaller image circle) would be fair, $400 or so. 45/1.8 should be $150 though (see FF 50/1.8 at $99).

Please spare us the pontifications when you cant even the basic facts straight.

Which are those?

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