Size comparison of FE 4/2470 on A7 vs Olympus 12-40 f2.8 on GX7

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
Krich13
Regular MemberPosts: 466
Like?
Re: Doesn't work like that
In reply to Erik Magnuson, 10 months ago

Erik Magnuson wrote:

Krich13 wrote:

No, with Pentax Q you run into the empty resolution territory right away.

OK, then the Nikon 1 V2 is best. I think you understand the point I'm making, you just don't want to address it. If the Oly is better than the Sony, the Nikon 1 would be better than the Oly 'cause it's close focus of .27x would fill more of the sensor.

Yes, for macro uses only (provided adequate lenses are available, I was never interested in the Nikon 1 line) Nikon 1 may be superior to both m43 and FF.

As a system however, Olympus (I don’t know anything about the Panasonic side) is doing remarkably well even compared to mighty FF cameras something smaller format cameras such as Nikon 1 just can't do. I am not biased either way for I have both (all three actually: Nikon FF SLR, Sony A7, and Olympus EM-5).

Olympus can compete or even beat the FF setup in macro (a stabilized true 1:1 magnification native 60 mm lens – not bad, eh?) – though for other shots a Nikon 100-mm class lens is preferable for its longer working distance. It can even compete on equal foot in portrait subject isolation (provided you can back off far enough) with its 75/1.8 lens against Nikon 85/1.8! Yes, the Nikkor blurs the background a little more – but the 75 is stabilized, and has much better control of longitudinal CA.

That they do, but usually smaller sensors update earlier.

So any purported advantage is temporary. Eventually both will hit your 'empty resolution' limit and will then be equal. So magnification relative to sensor size becomes useless.

Of course. There is nothing permanent in this world. Once the pixel pitch becomes significantly smaller than a diffraction spot, there is nothing a smaller sensor would do better than a larger one (well apart from being lighter for easier IBIS implementation).

The way I see it, these are two lenses comparable in their performance and size.

Broadly comparable, I agree. But some wanted to make a big deal over the differences in close focus and FOV while ignoring other differences.

The point I’m making hardly needs elaboration, and we actually seem to be in agreement there. The two lenses we are discussing in this thread are comparable. Both have their advantages over the opponent.

Olympus 12-40 is intended for the same kind of use as Zeiss 24-70/4. Both are too slow for indoor use without flash. Both cover the same range for landscape photography. In low-light photography of static subjects Olympus is likely better due to the fantastic efficiency of Oly IBIS -- despite some 2/3 of a stop disadvantage in light gathering. Zeiss is a little better in low light for moving subjects. Both are comparable for portrait subject isolation (Zeiss is (equivalently) a stop faster, but it only goes to 70 mm. Oly would provide the same amount of blue as a 70 mm f/4.9 lens – still worse than f/4 but quite a bit better that f/5.6 equivalent rating would suggest) the Zeiss has an advantage there. Olympus has an advantage at close focus…

Similar lenses of similar sizes, what exactly was the point of this thread?

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