Andy Westlake... superhero!

[beuler]

Quite right, the optimum balance of size/weight/cost/IQ will be different for each user. For me it would be an E-420 + 9-18mm + 70-300mm + 35mm. Missing from this combo is weather sealing, SWD, IS and a fast lens, of which SWD would be top of my list, but barring setting up my own camera company I just have to accept what the market has to offer. At the price being charged for this type of kit build quality really isn´t an issue - break one buy another.

 

[D Q E]

Poor lens - not really what was indicated. It is certainly a lens
where come compromises have been made. It maintains the 'standard'
level performance, while focusing on compactness and brightness. It
doesn't pretend to be any more than that. In some ways it is a
typical Olympus product - focus on one or two outcomes even to the
detriment of others.

I can understand the compromise reached by Olympus with this lens, but it really needs to be considered as part of the wider 'standard' lens market. I used to own a Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS and still do own a CY Zeiss 45/2.8 Tessar - both offer superb performance, extreme compactness and were still priced reasonably. This Olympus pancake seems to offer mediocre performance at a criminally slow aperture for quite a bit of money.

I seem to remember paying £59 for my old Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS brand new, and I still believe it's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used - shame the bokeh never matched the Zeiss Planars that I replaced it with.

--
--
mumbo jumbo

 

[D Q E]

performers.

I have no idea why people want slow, soft primes, but apparently it
is selling well so good luck to them...

My old Tessar 45/2.8 would disagree with that - but I never saw much of a size advantage over a 50/1.7 or 1.8 anyway. So what if it's 10mm shorter, is that possibly worth losing over a stop of speed?

--
--
mumbo jumbo

 

[Louis_Dobson]

that's pretty much what I have in mind...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[Louis_Dobson]

But the reviews would be most useful if they cover what the reader is actually likely to buy!

Yes, the D700 is the FF D300, due RSN, between $2000 and $3000 apparently. I sish they'd launched it first, it would probably suit me better than the D3 and would have saved me a packet. Still, never mind, I'm enjoying what I've got.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[Louis_Dobson]

but I agree that losing a stop for 10mm is daft.

I mean, I am a huge fan of smaller, lighter kit, but you hit diminishing returns. I want smaller and lighter without losing quality and flexibility, and in my view an E3 or E420 and the pro lenses (depending on whether you need speed as well as quality) is the sweet spot, although at the UWA end you have to choose between the 7-14 (good, but heavy) and the 9-18 (I have high hopes...).

Being stuck walking around with a slowish, CA-producing 50mm equivalent would be my idea of photographic Hell.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[reds10]

will this actually work?

i was surprised to see some lenses work better on FF sensor than the corresponding smaller sensor format.

so if 4/3's is even smaller ........

granted, the quality should show through on any mount, but maybe it's better or worse on 4/3's?? if it better yay! if it's worse, i would like to know.

I won't be reviewing the Sigma 70-200mm in Four Thirds mount (our
test sample is actually in Nikon F), but the performance will be easy
to predict as a subset of the DX results (or perhaps more easily take
the FX results out to 50% of the frame, and divide MTF50 by 2).

The 50/2 macro is also on the cards for the near future.

--
Andy Westlake
dpreview.com

 

[Rob MacLennan]

What is obvious to us, isn't to the buying public at large. Testing a bunch of standard grade lenses doesn't do much to show what the Olympus cameras and lenses are capable of and you can bet that it won't be a bunch of kit zooms that are tested from the other camps.

The 14-42 and 25mm pancake have been tested already. Let's see some more of the GOOD glass.

50-200 SWD, as the man says.

Why, simply to confirm what anyone can see after shooting with it -
that it's outstanding? What's the use in that?

Test the controversial or unknown entities please (the 28 pancake was
a GREAT choice). I'd like to get some VALUE out of these tests and
not just back slapping.

Oly

--
D620L -> D540 -> C750UZ -> E-500 -> E-510 -> E-3

 

[Julian_K]

I highly doubt they would review Top Pro lenses without reviewing the Pro lenses first, don't you?

-------------------
http://www.jkaesler.zenfolio.com

 

[Andrew Westlake]

will this actually work?

Yes.

i was surprised to see some lenses work better on FF sensor than the
corresponding smaller sensor format.

Actually, this is a general rule, and the 'sweet spot' concept beloved of APS-C shooters using FF lenses is something of a misunderstanding. Lenses will always look sharpest on the largest format they cover; however on smaller formats they'll have less falloff/vignetting and often lower distortion. CA behaviour is likely to be about the same across formats, but depends upon the specific profile of the lens in question. The only question is what happens in the corners of FF, but the problems here are often rather less than some people like to make out.

so if 4/3's is even smaller ........

Yes, sharpness results will be worse. To be honest I wouldn't expect any lenses which are designed for full frame to work brilliantly on Four Thirds, aside perhaps from top notch primes.

--
Andy Westlake
dpreview.com/lensreviews

 

[ljmac]

so if 4/3's is even smaller ........

Yes, sharpness results will be worse. To be honest I wouldn't expect
any lenses which are designed for full frame to work brilliantly on
Four Thirds, aside perhaps from top notch primes.

This sounds like something that would be very interesting to test, to see how well the theory works out in practice.

In theory though, I agree with you - I've never considered buying any lenses that aren't made for 4/3rds from the ground up. There have been some good reports on the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 on 4/3rds though, which surprised me.

 

[Big Ga]

Yes, the D700 is the FF D300, due RSN, between $2000 and $3000
apparently.

I am awaiting this camera and all it brings with great interest. I will probably end up getting one to be honest, unless fuji brings out an S6 in the same body, in which case the latter will probably be a better camera for me.

However the reduced price of the D700 will certainly put the cat among the pigeons on this forum when people start pointing out the price comparison of an E3 with 14-35 and 35-100 kit compared to the equivalent FF nikon option, which now is artificially skewed by the inclusion of the much greater spec'ed D3.

Also interesting to note a rumour, apparently by a Nikon rep, that future Nikon SLR cameras are proposed to all be 35mm FF and the APSc sensors will be relegated to consumer type cameras.

I'm not going to be particularly happy if this is the case as I happen to really like having the focal length multiplier option that the smaller sensors give you, but if its true, it certainly sends a very strong message out.

 

[Juergen Hahn]

"Also interesting to note a rumour, apparently by a Nikon rep, that future Nikon SLR cameras are proposed to all be 35mm FF and the APSc sensors will be relegated to consumer type cameras."

If this were true then the strongest message that I am seeing is that this argument that concept xxx is more future proof because it sells more is proven untrue.

NVM, I never believed this anyway, but it seems that the majority of the people on these forums do.

 

[Louis_Dobson]

the 35 instead of the 25 (though I would, I hate the 50mm EFL perspective), I'm just pointing out how little size and weight is being saved for a whopping great drop in quality.

You forgot the back cap. With back cap and lens on the 25, the difference between it and the 35 is tiny. I'm all for travelling light, but that difference isn't worth having, in my opinion.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[Andrew Westlake]

I'd expect good APS-C optimised lenses to do reasonably well on Four Thirds, where they'll have similar 'sweet spot' characteristics to FF lenses on APS-C (low falloff, low distortion, but softer). As to whether the focal length ranges make much sense, well that's a different question.

Interestingly (but only mildly), all Sigma's lenses will be designed for longer registration distances than Four Thirds, so unless they do serious re-engineering, they'll probably be more 'telecentric' than Olympus's.

--
Andy Westlake
dpreview.com/lensreviews

 

[Louis_Dobson]

35mmFF chip prices are falling, and sooner rather than later most cameras aimed at enthusiasts will be 35mmFF, with APS-C for people who want a better P&S.

Leaving a niche for Oly to sell smaller cameras to the discerning.

I have a Cunning Plan to get Eva a D700, and get my blasted E3 back. However I have a nasty recollection of blurting it out tactlessly at a drunken bike rally last weekend, and getting torn off a strip...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[Juergen Hahn]

"I have a Cunning Plan to get Eva a D700, and get my blasted E3 back. However I have a nasty recollection of blurting it out tactlessly at a drunken bike rally last weekend, and getting torn off a strip..."

This plan would be particularly "secret" as you post it on a message board before you implement it .

 

[Big Ga]

"Also interesting to note a rumour, apparently by a Nikon rep, that
future Nikon SLR cameras are proposed to all be 35mm FF and the APSc
sensors will be relegated to consumer type cameras."

If this were true then the strongest message that I am seeing is that
this argument that concept xxx is more future proof because it sells
more is proven untrue.

Sorry, I'm a little unclear as to what you mean here.

If you are trying to say that the D100/200/300 DX cameras sell more and therefore should be more future proof, then I guess I would agree, but I'd have to consider that the REASON they are selling more is that they are significantly cheaper because of the cost to date of 35mm FF sensors is a lot more.

Some say that the larger sensors will ALWAYS cost significantly more, however my observations in the electronics industry is that once something reaches a critical mass in terms of development time/expertise and volume of sales, prices come plumetting down far in excess of what one might have anticipated years previously. I personaly believe this will happen with 35mm sensors. But I'm not quite certain of the timescales. However with companies like sony and samsung apparently gunning for this segment of the market, I expect it to happen sooner rather than later. Something like MF might be a long time behind (if ever) simply due to the volume, however I can see the 35mm DSLR market becoming the norm and as mainstream as 35mm film was years ago.

 

[Juergen Hahn]

My comment was mainly directed at posts which try to make a point along the lines "4/3 is doomed because everyone is going to move to FF" or "4/3 is doomed because the major players focus on APS-C, ergo Olympus should also move to APS-C".

If your post is true (and for now I am just going to treat it as a rumor), then this would show that the posts that I am referring to are wrong. It would essentially mean that Nikon has given up on APS-C as far as "professional" (whatever that means) cameras are concerned. They would put in APS-C for the consumer level DSLRs and FF for the professional DSLRs (which also means that you would have to carry a bunch of big heavy lenses around if you want them ). In short, these types of systems ,i.e., APS-C, are no more (or no less) future proof than others. Sure, they would still sell APS-C, but it would be the red headed stepchild system for them that is "only" good enough for the mass market. That was my point.

P.S.: I do not agree with your statement that large sensors will become very cheap. While they will become cheaper, this is not how semiconductor manufacturing works. The yield does not scale linearly with the size and therefore it will always be much more expensive to produce larger sensors.

 

[BJL]

Also interesting to note a rumour, apparently by a Nikon rep, that future Nikon SLR cameras are proposed to all be 35mm FF and the APSc sensors will be relegated to consumer type cameras.

Relax: if any Nikon sales rep. said that, it is ill-informed speculation with no basis in reality. Increased FX offerings are likely, but that that not begin to mean a decline in the quality of the best DX format gear.

Firstly, in case it needs to be said yet again:

sales rep's have no inside knowledge about any such long term plans, and none of the people high enough in Nikon management to know about such plans have said any such thing. (Such plans, if true, would not be announced as that would hurt sales of higher level DX lenses, so I am sure that Nikon has not stated any such plans.)

Sales rep's at best hear about coming products a few weeks or months before they are announced. So if a sales rep. said this, it is pure speculation, maybe passing on rumors that the rep. read in forums like this one.

Secondly, look at the facts instead of the speculations:

1) Prices of 35mm format DLSRs are not getting down near advanced amateur models in smaller formats [heavy end-of-life discounts excluded], let alone anywhere near "consumer type" DSLRs. The D700 is expected at about US$3000 and the Sony flagship probably that or more, and the 5D replacment at about 5D prices according to a Canon statement.

2) Even after then 5D greatly reduced the cost of entry to full 35mm format, each of Canon and Nikon have released two new top of the line APS-C models, each better in performance and in sales volume than previous high-end APS-C models, and greatly outselling the 5D in both unit sales and gross sales revenue. (Canon's 30D, then 40D; Nikon's D200 then D300).

There is a big and persistent gulf in price and potential sales volume between "consumer type" DSLRs and 35mm format DSLRs, where DLSR makers continue to vigorously compete with models up to advanced amateur/professional level in the smaller DSLR formats, from 4/3 to EF-S to DX.

Thirdly, it goes against all history to expect that there will be a decline in the maximum performance level offered by the best models in a well-established format: instead technological progress almost inevitably increases the performance possible in any given format. There is always a healthy market for advanced amateur/pro level gear in the smallest, lightest, least expensive format that gets the job done (even if pros also use larger format gear for other tasks) and the dominant sub-35mm DSLR formats will always have this advantage over 35mm, at least for a kit with significant telephoto reach.

--
I want all my lenses to be f/4 or brighter.

Bigger pixels are useless if they mean I need longer, slower telephoto lenses to get the same resolution with the same weight and cost.