Cancelled my E-M1 order

Started Sep 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
boggis the cat
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,295Gear list
Like?
Obviously true -- stop misquoting
In reply to Sergey_Green, Sep 30, 2013

Sergey_Green wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

You need to understand that the second part you emphasise goes with the first part: "... maximizes the image sensor performance to ensure outstanding image quality while also being smaller than 35 mm film SLR camera lens systems."

They all maximize image sensor performance, 35 or smaller, what is your point here?

That you are taking partial quotes out of context in order to support your position that Olympus were only concerned about size -- and that is not true.

Size size size. They lost the plot with the SHG and E-3.

No, they didn't. The SHG lenses are smaller than equivalent EFL lenses on 135 (much smaller) and also a stop faster.

From the trio, 14-35/2 is not smaller or lighter than say Nikon 24-70/2.8. And note, it is not 24-70/4, it is an f/2.8. Just like 14-35/2 is not an f/1.4 lens either, which it should have been to be equivalent.

That Nikon is 8.38 (D) x 13.21 (L) cm, 900 g, and costs US$1890.

The ZD 14-35 f/2 is 8.61 (D) x 12.29 (L) cm, 900 g, and costs US$2300.

OTOH, does that Nikon yield as good an image?

From the SLR Gear conclusion for the Nikon:

Performance on a subframe sensor is exquisite, given that the lens isn't really put to the test. On the full-frame D3, it's sharp pretty much at all focal lengths and apertures, with a slight exception at 35mm. Chromatic aberration isn't an issue on the D200, but does show up on an uncorrected (ie., film) image. On the D3, CA issues are ironed out handily in software. The lens does vignette on full-frame, hard to avoid given its focal range, but even so it's not the worst performance we've seen for a lens that covers this kind of range. Finally, distortion is a bit of an issue - more so on full-frame than sub-frame - but again, it's not extreme, just a little complicated.

From teh SLR Gear conclusion for the Zuiko:

If you need this lens for professional purposes it will deliver unquestionably. If you want this lens because your standards are very high, they will be met. Olympus has clearly invested a lot of time and energy into producing this lens: the results speak for themselves.

Seems to be a slight apples and oranges comparison here. The Nikon appears to do best on an APS-C body, and comes closest to the Zuiko when used as such -- but then you have the crop to contend with which moves the EFL out. So either way you aren't really getting an equivalent result.

Same goes for 35-100/2, it is bigger and heavier than again Nikon 70-200/2.8. Luckily there is an equivalent on the other side, 70-200/4, which turns out to be smaller, half the weight, half the price, and at least with the same or better output.

The SHG zooms are a higher class than the older Nikon (and Canon) zooms -- although I think that the gap has closed a lot on the ZD 35-100 f/2 with the newest 70-200 f/2.8 designs, for example.  But the f/4 variants?  Well, the systems (assuming a new 135 body) may be comparable, but then cost and weight are also comparable.

I did not miss 7-14/4 (from the three) as there is simply no equivalent f/8 FF lens for it. The f/2.8 is way beyond the f/8 comparison. And the difference in weight is not that great still.

This provides an option for people who want a system that can yield a different size to performance ratio -- an optimisation based on designing an entirely new system.

Notice how they are *NOT* doing F2.0 zoom lenses with m4/3rds.

The 'PRO' line so far has two constant f/2.8 lenses.

But they are *NOT* f/2.0 zoom lenses.

Yes -- Olympus have made a lot of compromises in order to get the size and weight down.  Notice that the cost has also dropped.  It appears that they have decided to go with constant aperture zooms one stop slower for the 'PRO' line compared to the SHG line; and have shaved a lot of size, weight and cost off by doing so.

As the SHGs are still available and should now work fully on the E-M1 and successor bodies (at least from Olympus) I don't see that as an issue.  It is also possible that they may retire the SHGs and replace them with a faster native MicroFT line at a later date.

Also, it appears that the 'PRO' line is more of an in-between HG / SHG effort -- the M.ZD 12-40 f/2.8 is as at least as good as the ZD 12-60 f/2.8-4 from current reports.  (I will be able to test this myself in a couple of weeks.)

 boggis the cat's gear list:boggis the cat's gear list
Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow