Thinking of swapping from MFT to full DSLR - Advice?

Started Mar 29, 2013 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 3,325
Like?
Factors in lens cost..
In reply to Pebbleheed, Mar 29, 2013

Pebbleheed wrote:

Anyone else feel a little cheated on the MFT lens prices?

I think there are a couple of issues here...

1.Your paying for size with MTF, compaired to most SLR lenses MTF obviously have more effort put into size saving and this likely adds to cost.

2.Your often looking at products of a different level, MTF generally only tends to have 1-2 options for most lens types and sometimes this maybe high end in terms of performance and build. DSLR's on the other hand normally have the option of high medium and low end lenses of each type. For example your stuck with the Panny 12-35mm f2.8, the SLR version would be the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 but theres also the much lower cost Tamron 17-50mm 2.8.

Personally my opinion is that you always tend to get a better deal selling off lenses rather than bodies, maybe keep the G1X and the 14mm pancake, sell off anything else you have and buy a DSLR.

My opinion is that today running two systems is not the handicap it was in the past as digital was devolping. Even MTF's has really matured as a system and your not likely to see a radical improvement in body performance so less likely to want to upgrade either body.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,329
Like?
Re: Good advice
In reply to Martin.au, Mar 29, 2013

Mjankor wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Canon just announced 100D. Being 17 grams lighter and a friction bigger than OMD, one may say there is almost no compromise.

That is until you try to match the longer telephoto's on m4/3's. The compromise is still size and weight of many of the lenses. If you shoot only primes then it isn't much of a big deal.

My take is if you have to use telephoto lens, you are serious about what you are shooting, the "size and weight" benefit of m43 drops to the bottom of priority list. YMMV

This is on top of the fact that when you shoot action PDAF is always better than CDAF.

Ahh, so if you use m4/3s you aren't serious about your photography.

Get a clue mate.

What you 5 and can't read? where does it say "f you use m4/3s you aren't serious about your photography"?

Ok, so if you use any of the m4/3s telephotos, then you're not serious about photography.

Wrong again, read one more time see if you can get it. this time take a pill for the camera version of the small man syndrome before attempt.

Ok. Proposition - size and weight decreases in priority, when you're "serious about what you're shooting".

Lets put it this way. If you are very serious about what you are shooting, you use the best gear for the job. size and weight are secondary consideration.

Where you got it wrong is you think "serious about what you are shooting" means the same as "photography". No it does not. m43 users are generally serious about photography that is why they want to have have a good camera even though they do not want extra weight and size - clearly something else is the priority.

Ergo: If you're "serious about what you're shooting" there's better options than m4/3s as size and weight "drops to the bottom of the priority list".

Correct

Ergo: If you're using a lightweight m4/3s system, then you're not "serious about what you're shooting"

That is harsh and is beyond what I was saying. seriousness is a continuum, not merely a yes or no.

How many PJ, architectural photographer, magazine shoots, or wild life pros use M43? they are very serious about their work so they do not use M43.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Scott Spain
Regular MemberPosts: 146
Like?
Re: Thinking of swapping from MFT to full DSLR - Advice?
In reply to Pebbleheed, Mar 29, 2013

There is no perfect camera for everyone or we'd only have one forum! Get what you like and don't worry about what other people think.

My advice: Borrow or rent the gear you're thinking of purchasing. Use it as long as you can. Make sure it's what you want. Switching is one thing. Switching back and forth gets insanely expensive!

To address your question of whether or not we feel cheated by lens prices, I do not... At all... In fact, I feel rewarded if anything. 24-70 and 70-200 (both of the f/2.8 variety) are my main Canon lenses. The Panasonic counterparts are about half the price. And in the case of the longer of the two, half the size and 1/4 of the weight. I use mine for travel, so that's a concern for me.

-- hide signature --

Scott

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tgutgu
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,427Gear list
Like?
Re: Thinking of swapping from MFT to full DSLR - Advice?
In reply to jquagga, Mar 29, 2013

jquagga wrote:

You are allowed to have more than one camera system.  I have a GF5 and I have a Nikon D5100.  I use them for different things.  But I don't think that DSLR lenses are any super bargins compared to m43 lenses.  Oh you can find cheaper DSLR lenses, but they're often built cheaper.  Of course there's also a larger pool of 3rd party manufacturers and that helps a lot.

Macro is a notable weak spot in m43 to me though.  The Oly 60 or the Panny 45 are extremely expensive.  My DSLR has a "macro" (but not a real 1:1 macro) standard zoom on it that gets me far closer than the Panny X lens.

Extremely expensive? Come on, get real. The 60mm sells for about 550€ whereas the Canon EF competitor, the EF 2.8/100mm L is about 800€. Its non L sibling (no IS, no focus delimiter, probably more production units) sells for 480€. Only the EF-S 60mm Macro is with 400€ notably cheaper, but not extreme. You really want to call the pricing of the 60mm extreme? The same is valid for the P 2.8/45mm. Both lenses are very reasonably priced.

And why is macro a weak point? You have two excellent macro lenses at your choice, a 90mm and a 120mm equivalent. The 60mm has superior handling (clever designed focus limiter) to most available original and third party macros in a fraction of size and weight (especially compared to the Sigma macro monsters).

On one hand, we want excellent quality, on the other hand everything needs to be cheap.

It has been discussed and shown here in numerous threads, that m4/3 is by no means more expensive than traditional DSLR systems. Usually, you get better quality at about the same price.

It is pointless to repeat the same myth over and over again.

On the other hand, the DSLR kit is bigger and heavier than the m43 kit by far.  It needs a bag to transport; my m43 camera goes in my pockets.  Often times I decide before I go out if I want to carry the bag o' gear or not.

I can't get, what all the fuss is about m4/3 pricing as a motivation to switch to entry DSLR. You can get a m4/3 flagship, the E-M5 for only 300€ more than a Canon EOS 650D body. If you reduce your requirements a little, you can have with the Panasonic G5 a ergonomically better body than a 650D for 450€. So m4/3 is more expensive? Kit lenses for m4/3 cameras have - according to numerous reviews - better IQ, especially the new Panasonic 14-42mm II receives good ratings.

Even if due to some ridiculous rebates you can get an entry DSLR for, say, 300€ less than your m4/3 kit of choice, the size and weight saving will pay off very soon, actually with every day of usage.

And then we have the myth of more DOF control. In which direction, shallower or deeper DOF control? Based on experience I can tell, that more images suffer from not enough DOF than vice versa. This super shallow DOF becomes such a boring stereotype, that it is more used as an argument against m4/3 than actually appropriately used in the field. m4/3 has excellent glasses, which can be used at max aperture, that provide enough DOF control with a smooth bokek (the cheap 1.8/45mm and the 1.8/75mm).

-- hide signature --

Thomas

 tgutgu's gear list:tgutgu's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-PL7 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tgutgu
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,427Gear list
Like?
Re: Thinking of swapping from MFT to full DSLR - Advice?
In reply to Scott Spain, Mar 29, 2013

Scott Spain wrote:

There is no perfect camera for everyone or we'd only have one forum! Get what you like and don't worry about what other people think.

My advice: Borrow or rent the gear you're thinking of purchasing. Use it as long as you can. Make sure it's what you want. Switching is one thing. Switching back and forth gets insanely expensive!

To address your question of whether or not we feel cheated by lens prices, I do not... At all... In fact, I feel rewarded if anything. 24-70 and 70-200 (both of the f/2.8 variety) are my main Canon lenses. The Panasonic counterparts are about half the price. And in the case of the longer of the two, half the size and 1/4 of the weight. I use mine for travel, so that's a concern for me.

-- hide signature --

Scott

This often quoted comparison tells everything one reasonably thinking person needs. Add to the size and weight advantages of the E-M5 its inconspicuous appearance, you have the clear winner. Street and travel photography have new (smaller) dimensions with a set like E-M5 plus 7-14mm, 12-35mm, and 35-100mm.

-- hide signature --

Thomas

 tgutgu's gear list:tgutgu's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-PL7 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tgutgu
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,427Gear list
Like?
Re: Factors in lens cost..
In reply to MoreorLess, Mar 29, 2013

MoreorLess wrote:

Pebbleheed wrote:

Anyone else feel a little cheated on the MFT lens prices?

I think there are a couple of issues here...

1.Your paying for size with MTF, compaired to most SLR lenses MTF obviously have more effort put into size saving and this likely adds to cost.

2.Your often looking at products of a different level, MTF generally only tends to have 1-2 options for most lens types and sometimes this maybe high end in terms of performance and build. DSLR's on the other hand normally have the option of high medium and low end lenses of each type. For example your stuck with the Panny 12-35mm f2.8, the SLR version would be the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 but theres also the much lower cost Tamron 17-50mm 2.8.

Personally my opinion is that you always tend to get a better deal selling off lenses rather than bodies, maybe keep the G1X and the 14mm pancake, sell off anything else you have and buy a DSLR.

My opinion is that today running two systems is not the handicap

Unless you want to invest heavily in FF, with the current state of m4/3, there is no need for a second system. Maintaining two systems is the most costly solution anyway. People should rather sell their older equipment if they want to switch to or quit m4/3. Very often with many users only one system is used mostly while the other catches dust. And I bet the dust catching system is the larger and heavier one in most cases.

it was in the past as digital was devolping. Even MTF's has really matured as a system and your not likely to see a radical improvement in body performance so less likely to want to upgrade either body.

-- hide signature --

Thomas

 tgutgu's gear list:tgutgu's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-PL7 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 8,106Gear list
Like?
Re: Good advice
In reply to ultimitsu, Mar 29, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Canon just announced 100D. Being 17 grams lighter and a friction bigger than OMD, one may say there is almost no compromise.

That is until you try to match the longer telephoto's on m4/3's. The compromise is still size and weight of many of the lenses. If you shoot only primes then it isn't much of a big deal.

My take is if you have to use telephoto lens, you are serious about what you are shooting, the "size and weight" benefit of m43 drops to the bottom of priority list. YMMV

This is on top of the fact that when you shoot action PDAF is always better than CDAF.

Ahh, so if you use m4/3s you aren't serious about your photography.

Get a clue mate.

What you 5 and can't read? where does it say "f you use m4/3s you aren't serious about your photography"?

Ok, so if you use any of the m4/3s telephotos, then you're not serious about photography.

Wrong again, read one more time see if you can get it. this time take a pill for the camera version of the small man syndrome before attempt.

Ok. Proposition - size and weight decreases in priority, when you're "serious about what you're shooting".

Lets put it this way. If you are very serious about what you are shooting, you use the best gear for the job. size and weight are secondary consideration.

Where you got it wrong is you think "serious about what you are shooting" means the same as "photography". No it does not. m43 users are generally serious about photography that is why they want to have have a good camera even though they do not want extra weight and size - clearly something else is the priority.

Ergo: If you're "serious about what you're shooting" there's better options than m4/3s as size and weight "drops to the bottom of the priority list".

Correct

Ergo: If you're using a lightweight m4/3s system, then you're not "serious about what you're shooting"

That is harsh and is beyond what I was saying. seriousness is a continuum, not merely a yes or no.

How many PJ, architectural photographer, magazine shoots, or wild life pros use M43? they are very serious about their work so they do not use M43.

So, following on from that, you do realize that people who are serious about photography use telephoto lenses (a lot)?

So it was only you're initial premise ("if you have to use telephoto lens, you are serious about what you are shooting") that was wrong.

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tgutgu
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,427Gear list
Like?
Re: Some thought (as ex-canon owner) have you try Olympus 45mm f/1.8?
In reply to ultimitsu, Mar 29, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

007peter wrote:

There is a dramatic difference in Thin DOF/bokeh going with FF.  Unfortuantley, so is the Big Bulky Body and 5d/6d lack build-in flash which add even more bulk

Get D600, it is lighter than APS-C 7D, and it has a flash!

3. Expensive Fast Prime is M43 only weakness

...M43 has a razor-blade marketing strategy - selling camera body for a dime then make it back on the lens.

It is for this exact reason I do not recommend any of my friends to buy into m43 or Pentax system. bodies often look like a good deal but as soon as you want something other than kit lens the prices just go beyond reasonable for what you get.

Don't repeat a false myth. m4/3 glass is not generally more expensive than comparable DSLR glass. It is usually just in the center of the price range you have to pay for equally specified DSLR lenses, but usually has better IQ. With perhaps a little more money invested than the cheapest DSLR lens alternative, you gain a tremendous size and weight advantage and better IQ.

How about the long overdue $249 Olympus 25mm f/1.8 that was long rumored.  Or a cheaper $500 Sigma/Tamron alternative to the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 fast zoom.

M43 would be unstoppable with these cheaper alternatives.  Without them, m43 will likely remain the small enthusiast camera without mass appeal.

Given than image circle is smaller and glass used is smaller, there really is no reason why they are as expensive as they are. a 25mm F1/8 for m43 should be half the diameter and half the length  as 50 F1.8 for FF. Material cost should be roughly 1/8th. Yeah I know the marketing cost and channel cost is the same etc, but surely, one would think  it should at the least be half the price, not twice the price?

-- hide signature --

Thomas

 tgutgu's gear list:tgutgu's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-PL7 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Scott Spain
Regular MemberPosts: 146
Like?
Re: Factors in lens cost..
In reply to tgutgu, Mar 29, 2013

tgutgu wrote:

Unless you want to invest heavily in FF, with the current state of m4/3, there is no need for a second system. Maintaining two systems is the most costly solution anyway. People should rather sell their older equipment if they want to switch to or quit m4/3. Very often with many users only one system is used mostly while the other catches dust. And I bet the dust catching system is the larger and heavier one in most cases.

Keep in mind, though that everyone's financial means are different. I'm with you. I can't afford the best of both worlds, but some people can.

I have had both (high end Canon body/lenses and E-P3 with just a few lenses) for the past 4 months, though. I wanted to be sure I'd be happy with MFT before selling off my Canon pro gear. Now that my stuff is listed I'll be able to afford the MFT lenses I covet.

-- hide signature --

Scott

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MAubrey
Senior MemberPosts: 1,597Gear list
Like?
Re: Good advice
In reply to ultimitsu, Mar 29, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

Canon just announced 100D. Being 17 grams lighter and a friction bigger than OMD, one may say there is almost no compromise.

If they continue their tradition, the compromise in getting the Canon will be:

(1) less DR and color depth

(2) awkwardly thicker

(3) no wide angle primes beyond 24mm (38mm equiv). And without primes, your size advantage is essentially gone. And then you have to choose between really fast and huge (f/1.4) and slow and compact (f/2.8). All the while getting little to no improvement in the sensor. There's real value for having lenses that are actually designed for the sensor size you're using.

The only real improvement is in shooting action with PDAF...though Canon's CDAF is likely still slower.

-- hide signature --

--Mike

 MAubrey's gear list:MAubrey's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Sony Alpha 7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 Nokton +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
illy
Forum ProPosts: 12,160Gear list
Like?
Re: Good advice
In reply to papillon_65, Mar 29, 2013

papillon_65 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Depends on what you class as "serious". Some people only have one system, shoot telephoto occasionally and want that capability when they need it. M4/3's fills that need pretty well. Any m4/3's camera is capable of capturing telephoto action shots if the user knows what they are doing. If you want a camera specifically for telephoto then there are better options.
M4/3's is a pretty good one size fits all option, not perfect but it fills that need for plenty of people.

I am certainly not advocating that m43 users should ditch m43 gear if they want to shoot telephoto. What I am saying is if telephoto is your priority, then maybe you would not care too much about size and weight (within reason), thus m43's appeal is a lot less for someone who is contemplating on buying into a system,

People who have specific telephoto needs don't buy m4/3's, it's a swiss army knife not a specialist tool. The average user tends to prefer a Swiss Army knife to a machete, they're smaller and do lots of things well rather than excelling at one thing in particular. That being said you'll get an m4/3's camera into far more places than a DSLR in my experience.

-- 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/

hopefully none that need lubrication either.

I use a kit lens for a normal zoom on my Dslr because it's good enough for what i need, if i intended to improve the I.Q. i'd buy something better, i spend all my money on telephoto

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

 illy's gear list:illy's gear list
Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D5100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MAubrey
Senior MemberPosts: 1,597Gear list
Like?
Re: FF is the way to go.
In reply to Chez Wimpy, Mar 29, 2013

Chez Wimpy wrote:

the-dude-75 wrote:

and a 550d with a 50 mm 1.4 will not give you any advantages in case if Dof, you have to stop down to get a aquivalent sharpness then a panaleica 25 mm at 1,4

In the case of crop Canon, its the Sigma 30/1.4 or else forget it.  The new version should be interesting, but either way the lens "only" gives 2/3 a stop more DOF control than the 25/1.4 on m43... not much, and certainly not a good trade given the bulk increase.

Half a stop and most of that is negated by μ43's smaller circles of confusion.

-- hide signature --

--Mike

 MAubrey's gear list:MAubrey's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Sony Alpha 7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 Nokton +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
papillon_65
Forum ProPosts: 22,868Gear list
Like?
Re: Good advice
In reply to illy, Mar 29, 2013

illy wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Depends on what you class as "serious". Some people only have one system, shoot telephoto occasionally and want that capability when they need it. M4/3's fills that need pretty well. Any m4/3's camera is capable of capturing telephoto action shots if the user knows what they are doing. If you want a camera specifically for telephoto then there are better options.
M4/3's is a pretty good one size fits all option, not perfect but it fills that need for plenty of people.

I am certainly not advocating that m43 users should ditch m43 gear if they want to shoot telephoto. What I am saying is if telephoto is your priority, then maybe you would not care too much about size and weight (within reason), thus m43's appeal is a lot less for someone who is contemplating on buying into a system,

People who have specific telephoto needs don't buy m4/3's, it's a swiss army knife not a specialist tool. The average user tends to prefer a Swiss Army knife to a machete, they're smaller and do lots of things well rather than excelling at one thing in particular. That being said you'll get an m4/3's camera into far more places than a DSLR in my experience.

-- 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/

hopefully none that need lubrication either.

Coming to a Thai bar near you shortly.

I use a kit lens for a normal zoom on my Dslr because it's good enough for what i need, if i intended to improve the I.Q. i'd buy something better, i spend all my money on telephoto

If I was a sports or bird nut I'd be shooting a 7D plus one of those not so discrete white lenses.

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

-- 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 Sigma DP3 Merrill Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
illy
Forum ProPosts: 12,160Gear list
Like?
Re: Good advice
In reply to papillon_65, Mar 29, 2013

papillon_65 wrote:

illy wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Depends on what you class as "serious". Some people only have one system, shoot telephoto occasionally and want that capability when they need it. M4/3's fills that need pretty well. Any m4/3's camera is capable of capturing telephoto action shots if the user knows what they are doing. If you want a camera specifically for telephoto then there are better options.
M4/3's is a pretty good one size fits all option, not perfect but it fills that need for plenty of people.

I am certainly not advocating that m43 users should ditch m43 gear if they want to shoot telephoto. What I am saying is if telephoto is your priority, then maybe you would not care too much about size and weight (within reason), thus m43's appeal is a lot less for someone who is contemplating on buying into a system,

People who have specific telephoto needs don't buy m4/3's, it's a swiss army knife not a specialist tool. The average user tends to prefer a Swiss Army knife to a machete, they're smaller and do lots of things well rather than excelling at one thing in particular. That being said you'll get an m4/3's camera into far more places than a DSLR in my experience.

-- 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/

hopefully none that need lubrication either.

Coming to a Thai bar near you shortly.

I use a kit lens for a normal zoom on my Dslr because it's good enough for what i need, if i intended to improve the I.Q. i'd buy something better, i spend all my money on telephoto

If I was a sports or bird nut I'd be shooting a 7D plus one of those not so discrete white lenses.

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

-- 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/

i think the best telephoto body right now is probably the D7100, love to stick my 500mm on that and engage the 1.3x crop mode.......then watch the buffer disappear in 1 second......bugger!

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

 illy's gear list:illy's gear list
Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D5100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
niekirk
Forum MemberPosts: 67
Like?
Re: Good advice
In reply to papillon_65, Mar 29, 2013

papillon_65 wrote:

People who have specific telephoto needs don't buy m4/3's
 
--
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/

I guess I must be bucking the trend then.

I was using Olympus DSLR and PEN, and was on the verge of switching, probably to Nikon FF.  Then came, in short order, the 45mm f/1.8, the OM-D and the 75mm f/1.8.  I also find the Panasonic 100-300mm useful.

Music photography was my specific telephoto need.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MAubrey
Senior MemberPosts: 1,597Gear list
Like?
Re: Factors in lens cost..
In reply to tgutgu, Mar 29, 2013

tgutgu wrote:

Unless you want to invest heavily in FF, with the current state of m4/3, there is no need for a second system. Maintaining two systems is the most costly solution anyway. People should rather sell their older equipment if they want to switch to or quit m4/3. Very often with many users only one system is used mostly while the other catches dust. And I bet the dust catching system is the larger and heavier one in most cases.

-- hide signature --

Thomas

Its only costly if you buy new. You can pick up a Canon 5D classic for $450 and add a 35mm f/2 for $250mm and a 85mm f/1.8 for $350.

-- hide signature --

--Mike

 MAubrey's gear list:MAubrey's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Sony Alpha 7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 Nokton +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tgutgu
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,427Gear list
Like?
Re: Whether you like it or not....
In reply to ultimitsu, Mar 29, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Given than image circle is smaller and glass used is smaller, there really is no reason why they are as expensive as they are. a 25mm F1/8 for m43 should be half the diameter and half the length  as 50 F1.8 for FF. Material cost should be roughly 1/8th. Yeah I know the marketing cost and channel cost is the same etc, but surely, one would think  it should at the least be half the price, not twice the price?

You are paying for R&D costs and smaller economies of scale. Canon and Nikon have been churning bodies and lenses out for a much longer time now and have a huge customer base backed by powerful marketing strategies, that's the reality of it all.

RD cost aye? Well, Nikon released an all new 50 F1.8 two years ago, brand new design and even has an aspherical element, priceed at just 219 USD. their all new 85 F1.8, currently ranked number 1 in all lenses tested in DXO, cost only 499 USD. So this RD cost argument doesnt really fly for me.

The R&D cost is for the emerging m4/3's mirrorless technologies, the cameras are improving all the time. Lens design hasn't changed a whole lot in years, just better coatings and manufacturing.

So the golden question is why cant they sell lenses are more palatable prices?

m4/3 glass is more palatable than most FF glass.

As for economy of scale, it is understandable that m43 lenses are not 1/8th price of FF lenses, but not understandable when m43 lenses are more expensive than FF lenses.

Ultimately market forces drive the price, if they're too expensive then they won't sell. Clearly Panasonic and Olympus don't think they are yet so they must be selling.

At any price there will be buyers, but the higher the price the less the buyers, basic economics, demand curve, I am sure you know it.

At their current price, M43 lenses are not selling as many as they should, and thus attachment is not as strong as canikon. What proportion M43 owners own more than 3 prime lenses?

What evidence do you have? The excellent 1.8/45mm and 1.7/20mm, 2.5/14mm are cheap. The 1.8/17mm, 2.8/45mm, 2.8/45mm, 2.0/12mm, and 1.4/25mm are mid range, but with very good quality. The only lens, which can be considered expensive, but has unmatched build quality, is the 1.8/75mm, one of the best rated lenses. m4/3 caused a renaissance of prime lenses and is the driving force that DSLR manufacturers turned their face again towards prime lenses. So what proportion of DSLR owners do more than three primes?

In my DSLR times I did not buy a lot of lenses not because of the prices, but simply because they where too large and heavy. Now, especially the primes are so small that I own more lenses than I ever had during my SLR and DSLR eras. It is vice versa, probably never owned so many people so many primes than now with m4/3 and mirrorless in general.

Also at its current price, there are plenty of people asking the same question as OP but havent taken the first step, they are not buying into m43 system because lens cost too much.

Nonsense. Look at the small but fairly good tele zooms in the range of 40-150mm, you have enough of cheap alternatives. The small Olympus 9-18mm (18-36mm equiv.) costs 510€ whereas a EF-S 10-22mm (16-35mm equiv.) is about 700€, a comparable Sigma sells for around 430€, and a Tokina for around 500€. So, for these minor differences, you think someone does not buy into m4/3? You are making something up here.

-- hide signature --

Thomas

 tgutgu's gear list:tgutgu's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-PL7 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tgutgu
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,427Gear list
Like?
Re: Factors in lens cost..
In reply to MAubrey, Mar 29, 2013

MAubrey wrote:

tgutgu wrote:

Unless you want to invest heavily in FF, with the current state of m4/3, there is no need for a second system. Maintaining two systems is the most costly solution anyway. People should rather sell their older equipment if they want to switch to or quit m4/3. Very often with many users only one system is used mostly while the other catches dust. And I bet the dust catching system is the larger and heavier one in most cases.

-- hide signature --

Thomas

Its only costly if you buy new. You can pick up a Canon 5D classic for $450 and add a 35mm f/2 for $250mm and a 85mm f/1.8 for $350.

-- hide signature --

--Mike

And you can buy used m4/3 gear for even cheaper.

-- hide signature --

Thomas

 tgutgu's gear list:tgutgu's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-PL7 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
papillon_65
Forum ProPosts: 22,868Gear list
Like?
Re: Good advice
In reply to niekirk, Mar 29, 2013

niekirk wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

People who have specific telephoto needs don't buy m4/3's
 
--
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/

I guess I must be bucking the trend then.

I was using Olympus DSLR and PEN, and was on the verge of switching, probably to Nikon FF.  Then came, in short order, the 45mm f/1.8, the OM-D and the 75mm f/1.8.  I also find the Panasonic 100-300mm useful.

Music photography was my specific telephoto need.

I was generalising of course, it'll do a job for sure, I've shot telephoto on it myself.

-- 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 Sigma DP3 Merrill Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
IrishhAndy
Contributing MemberPosts: 868
Like?
Re: Thinking of swapping from MFT to full DSLR - Advice?
In reply to Pebbleheed, Mar 29, 2013

Pebbleheed wrote:

I'm still relatively new to photography. I bought a Panasonic GX1 a short while back and I'm pretty happy with it. I love the small size of it while enjoying using interchangeable lenses. However there are some points that are annoying me.

The main point with the GX1 is that lenses are expensive. I look at my friends with their Canon EOS 550D cameras as they pick up lenses for a fraction of what I pay for MFT lenses. They can in some cases get 2 or 3 lenses for just 1 of mine and to be honest I've not noticed a difference in quality that would justify the price difference.

Secondly is the depth of field. To get decent bokeh type backgrounds on my shots I have to be close up to my subjects. I have to be low down on the aperture. The DSLR cameras appear to be able to beat this in every way without having to get as close and without having to go as low on the aperture.

I enjoy taking my GX1 out with the 14mm pancake lens on to get some street shots, but when it comes to other shots such as macro or portrait I'm feeling a little let down to be honest. I'm starting to wonder if it's time to trade the GX1 in and go for a 550D in it's place?

Anyone else feel a little cheated on the MFT lens prices?

I accept that the small size we enjoy has to have let downs in other areas, but I'm trying to make up my mind to see if I can live with a little bigger a camera to get more benefits of a full DSLR.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating...........

-- hide signature --

A solution looking for a problem !

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads