Oly 300 f4 pricing

[Tony8232]

I can't use an adapted Canon with fast AF in my bodt and a lot of other people can't. I'm not going to buy a new body, the adapter and a Canon lens. The cost would be a deal breaker.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/90891174@N04/

 

[0MitchAG]

Then the price will be no object. Consider the people that have paid $1600usd for the 42.5 Nocticron. I don't think there was as much fuss about that price... maybe because the focal length is more 'usable'? Or is it really just worth the price? ;-)

Yes, I paid the price ... maybe the wounds still show, but I have no regrets ... it was worth the loss of blood (money).

A supplier told me that the Nocticron was "hand built" (whatever that meant) but I am sure that the 300/4 will be "even more hand built" if that is possible. Hand built of course is code for "expensive" and usually means a team of Santa's little gnomes working on benches with their tiny screwdrivers and polishing cloths dressed in gaily coloured outfits singing Disney songs in harmony as they work. Hardly surprising that they are expensive as the QC reject rate must be high ....

No robot assembly gear in sight.

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

Oh man, if it is June next year, I am going to migrate to a different system for my birding.

this just sucks, the Nikon 7200 and the 300 f4 pz is beginning to look more and more attractive.

dont care about the cost, love my em1, but missing tomany shots with old, mf lenses. The only 75-300 don't really satisfy me.

i hope it still comes in November.

--
"Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly until you learn to do it well."
-- Zig Ziglar
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126558841@N07/

I've probably got this wrong. The Nikon D7200 is APS-C format, so that a Nikon 300mm would be the same as a 200mm on M43. The Nikon would need a 450 to equal the new 300!

Peter Del

The D7200 is 24mp which should also be considered since you could crop to 16mp to equal the E-M1.

It doesn't actually work like that ... ;-)

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
.
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
Galleries: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Bird Control Officers on active service.

you could use D7200's 1.3x crop mode instead

 

[Phocal]

I said this moons ago at $1495.99 its a winner and anything approaching $2,000 it's a dud.

Of course the lens needs to perform...you can't sell garbage just because it's cheap especially when it's labeled PRO.

Anyhow, time will tell...at $1495.99 I probably order one within a week of it's release at $2000 I am probably buying something for my Nikon system.

The 200 - 500 f5.6 Nikon seems to be getting very favorable reviews and costs even less than $1495.99...maybe I should just get that and crop a little or crop a lot and have 1500 mm lens like folks like to think this 300 is a 600.



Dan

If I mount this and take a photograph with my EM1 and I put a Canon 600mm ƒ4 on a Canon 1D and take the same photograph...........the view from both shots will be identical with the only difference being more DOF in the EM1 photo.

While some may like super narrow DOF, when it comes to wildlife photography with super telephotos.....a little more DOF is not always a bad thing.

So.......angle of view it performs the same as a 600mm lens. If we are talking DOF.......on a full frame it would be like ƒ8 or on a APS-C it would be like ƒ5.6

In terms of light gathering and associated shutter speed vs ISO, it is ƒ4.0.

There is not a full frame camera and 600mm lens that I would want to crawl thru the swamps trying to photograph alligators with. But this, is the perfect compromise of size vs IQ vs weight.

 

[Colin K. Work]

M43 Rumours are saying a "spring" (June ) release for the 300 at between 1799 - 1999 euros.

If true, I think Olympus have got the pricing wrong. That's about 50% more than a Canon 300 f4 LIS ... that would pay for an adaptor; and of course there are plenty of good used Canon 300s to be had.

Can't see the justification - both (presumably) use exotic glass as required and the Canon has the added cost of incorporating IS.

Of course this delay could mean Panasonic will beat Olympus to launch, which will put further pressure on Oly.

 

[Psychobabble]

M43 Rumours are saying a "spring" (June ) release for the 300 at between 1799 - 1999 euros.

Now the question is, which hemisphere we're talking here? :-D

If true, I think Olympus have got the pricing wrong. That's about 50% more than a Canon 300 f4 LIS ...

On the other hand, it would be cheaper than the new Nikkor 300/4. Admittedly, this Nikkor is smaller and lighter, possibly being a better fit for an MFT body, than the Oly

that would pay for an adaptor; and of course there are plenty of good used Canon 300s to be had.

Well, there's not such thing as free launch. That combo will be inferior in every way to the Oly lens.

Can't see the justification - both (presumably) use exotic glass as required and the Canon has the added cost of incorporating IS.

Yeah, but economy of scale is on Canon's (and Nikon's) side. For every 300/4 that Oly will ever sell, Canon already had sold a 1000 or more. And I imagine the costs of R&D and setting up manufacturing are in the same ballpark. But Olympus has to pay for it with a lot fewer sales.

It's really not surprising that a specialty lens for a niche system is expensive. It's totally expected. With a pricing like that, I actually think it's pretty good. Provided it's optically superb, like their 150/2 for 4/3 system was. And Oly has a pretty good track record with their PRO line, so I'm pretty sure this one will be a masterpiece.

Yet (and this is what confuses me) all this applies to any of the PRO lenses (just how many of the 8mm fisheye will they sell?) and to date all have been very competitively priced.

Of course this delay could mean Panasonic will beat Olympus to launch, which will put further pressure on Oly.

I wonder about that. Quite a bit different lenses, aimed at different customers.

 

[absoluutbeginner]

M43 Rumours are saying a "spring" (June ) release for the 300 at between 1799 - 1999 euros.

If true, I think Olympus have got the pricing wrong. That's about 50% more than a Canon 300 f4 LIS ... that would pay for an adaptor; and of course there are plenty of good used Canon 300s to be had.

Can't see the justification - both (presumably) use exotic glass as required and the Canon has the added cost of incorporating IS.

Of course this delay could mean Panasonic will beat Olympus to launch, which will put further pressure on Oly.

--
Colin K. Work
www.ckwphoto.com
www.pixstel.com

Where are you getting June? The rumor says spring and June is summer. Spring would be April, May at the latest.

Well you'll note the ... a little joke, but as they say 'many true things are said in jest'

To be strictly accurate, the rumour says "planed to start for production in Spring" which I think means that's when they start building the things - that does not mean when they'll be in the shops. If the 40-150 is anything to go by, that could be end of summer ... though in fairness, Oly did a better job with the 7-14mm.

And of course its just rumour. When I bought my EM-1, the Oly rep told me June 2014!

--
Colin K. Work
www.ckwphoto.com
www.pixstel.com

I get a bit :-( of all the delays ...whatever reason is liggit ! Dear Santa ... can you tell those guys at Oly to speed it up a bit ;-)

 

[Day Hiker]

Psychobabble wrote: I think $800.00 would be a competitive price for the Oly fisheye, not $1000.00

Yes, that will bring its price into line with all of the other weather-sealed f/1.8 fisheye lenses in the world.

Good grief.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Life is good in the woods

 

[neil holmes]

I can't use an adapted Canon with fast AF in my bodt and a lot of other people can't. I'm not going to buy a new body, the adapter and a Canon lens. The cost would be a deal breaker.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/90891174@N04/

Maybe not the Metabones, but I think the Kipon adapter would work.

Again, not for everyone and more for if you have the lenses already.

It is not as good as using native lenses in many cases and more issues than with native lenses.

That said I am amazed at how well the 40 2.8 STM works on a GX7and love the 135 f2 L on it as well.

 

[drj3]

It was refurbished, but I got an extra 4 year warranty on top of the 3 month warranty it came with!

The IQ is quite nice. With the 1.4x and the 2x TC are great, and the rear polarizer is great too.

Did you get a return with full refund warranty? That photo is soft and would end up in my trash bin, there is nothing sharp about the eye at all.

You are correct, the eye is not sharp. However, there is nothing wrong with the camera or lens. The focus point is on the wing (very fine white feathers on black for a downy or hairy woodpecker) and the eye is simply somewhat out of focus (very shallow depth of field). Also the image is not sharpened nearly as much as the majority of images I see on DPR.

--
drj3

 

[Tony8232]

Absolutely if I had some Canon lenses and the proper M43 body it would be a good investment. I would imagine Sony Panasonic and Olympus aren't happy about it. I guess in the short term it's a good way to introduce some Canon owners into M43. I wonder how long it will be until there is an adapter for Nikon, or is there one already?

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/90891174@N04/

 

[John King]

Oh man, if it is June next year, I am going to migrate to a different system for my birding.

this just sucks, the Nikon 7200 and the 300 f4 pz is beginning to look more and more attractive.

dont care about the cost, love my em1, but missing tomany shots with old, mf lenses. The only 75-300 don't really satisfy me.

i hope it still comes in November.

--
"Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly until you learn to do it well."
-- Zig Ziglar
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126558841@N07/

I've probably got this wrong. The Nikon D7200 is APS-C format, so that a Nikon 300mm would be the same as a 200mm on M43. The Nikon would need a 450 to equal the new 300!

Peter Del

The D7200 is 24mp which should also be considered since you could crop to 16mp to equal the E-M1.

It doesn't actually work like that ... ;-)

If you can find a lens with a decent MTF 60 score, etc, as already pointed out by another poster ...

While all the different formats will (mostly) magnify to produce (say) A2 prints, the amount of magnification one can achieve for a given format is heavily dependent on factors other than the sensor and how many megapixels it has.

This severely limits the ability to just crop away in order to attempt to achieve the "same" result as one can achieve with a different combination of camera, sensor and lens. Specially if the principal subject lies in (say) zone 2 ...

And this leaves the particular photographer out of the equation entirely - not a sensible thing to do IMHO.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
.
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
Galleries: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Bird Control Officers on active service.

 

[Clayton1985]

Oh man, if it is June next year, I am going to migrate to a different system for my birding.

this just sucks, the Nikon 7200 and the 300 f4 pz is beginning to look more and more attractive.

dont care about the cost, love my em1, but missing tomany shots with old, mf lenses. The only 75-300 don't really satisfy me.

i hope it still comes in November.

--
"Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly until you learn to do it well."
-- Zig Ziglar
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126558841@N07/

I've probably got this wrong. The Nikon D7200 is APS-C format, so that a Nikon 300mm would be the same as a 200mm on M43. The Nikon would need a 450 to equal the new 300!

Peter Del

The D7200 is 24mp which should also be considered since you could crop to 16mp to equal the E-M1.

It doesn't actually work like that ... ;-)

If you can find a lens with a decent MTF 60 score, etc, as already pointed out by another poster ...

While all the different formats will (mostly) magnify to produce (say) A2 prints, the amount of magnification one can achieve for a given format is heavily dependent on factors other than the sensor and how many megapixels it has.

This severely limits the ability to just crop away in order to attempt to achieve the "same" result as one can achieve with a different combination of camera, sensor and lens. Specially if the principal subject lies in (say) zone 2 ...

And this leaves the particular photographer out of the equation entirely - not a sensible thing to do IMHO.

You're making a bunch of assumptions about my comments. I didn't say anything about the two setups being equal in every way.... of course the lens, the photographer and the sensor and many other things not mentioned matter but the ability to crop and maintain similar resolution is also a factor, does matter and should be considered..... it is totally wrong to say it doesn't.

 

[John King]

Oh man, if it is June next year, I am going to migrate to a different system for my birding.

this just sucks, the Nikon 7200 and the 300 f4 pz is beginning to look more and more attractive.

dont care about the cost, love my em1, but missing tomany shots with old, mf lenses. The only 75-300 don't really satisfy me.

i hope it still comes in November.

--
"Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly until you learn to do it well."
-- Zig Ziglar
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126558841@N07/

I've probably got this wrong. The Nikon D7200 is APS-C format, so that a Nikon 300mm would be the same as a 200mm on M43. The Nikon would need a 450 to equal the new 300!

Peter Del

The D7200 is 24mp which should also be considered since you could crop to 16mp to equal the E-M1.

It doesn't actually work like that ... ;-)

If you can find a lens with a decent MTF 60 score, etc, as already pointed out by another poster ...

While all the different formats will (mostly) magnify to produce (say) A2 prints, the amount of magnification one can achieve for a given format is heavily dependent on factors other than the sensor and how many megapixels it has.

This severely limits the ability to just crop away in order to attempt to achieve the "same" result as one can achieve with a different combination of camera, sensor and lens. Specially if the principal subject lies in (say) zone 2 ...

And this leaves the particular photographer out of the equation entirely - not a sensible thing to do IMHO.

You're making a bunch of assumptions about my comments.

No, I'm not ...

I didn't say anything about the two setups being equal in every way.... of course the lens, the photographer and the sensor and many other things not mentioned matter but the ability to crop and maintain similar resolution is also a factor, does matter and should be considered..... it is totally wrong to say it doesn't.

It appears to me that we are in substantive agreement ... :-D .

If one compares an excellent lens such as (say) the Canon f/2.8 100mm macro with a somewhat ordinary lens for mFTs such as the 14-140, I would expect the far better lens to give you that ability to crop and achieve comparable results.

If the lens choices were the other way around, or even equal, I would expect the mFTs image to be better than the cropped APS-C or 135 format image. This has been my experience when I have edited such images.

There is an entirely misplaced idea that does the rounds here often that one can simply crop the centre out of a similar MPx density image of a larger format. Often, this will work acceptably well if one does not print larger than (say) A3 size. IME, getting an image to the next size up (around A2 - or 22x17 inches) is where the problem lies, regardless of the original format.

In order to print at A2 size, the original image must be all but perfect technically IME. It is more than just difficult to conceal imperfections in the image at this sort of print size.

Once one gets to A2 size, any further increases appear to be constrained by viewing distance. Sizes of A1 and up require one to stand back from the print to view the entire print. A2 is the last size where one can actually view the entire print at point blank range (about 500 mm viewing distance).

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
.
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
Galleries: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Bird Control Officers on active service.

 

[Clayton1985]

It appears to me that we are in substantive agreement ... :-D .

If one compares an excellent lens such as (say) the Canon f/2.8 100mm macro with a somewhat ordinary lens for mFTs such as the 14-140, I would expect the far better lens to give you that ability to crop and achieve comparable results.

If the lens choices were the other way around, or even equal, I would expect the mFTs image to be better than the cropped APS-C or 135 format image. This has been my experience when I have edited such images.

There is an entirely misplaced idea that does the rounds here often that one can simply crop the centre out of a similar MPx density image of a larger format. Often, this will work acceptably well if one does not print larger than (say) A3 size. IME, getting an image to the next size up (around A2 - or 22x17 inches) is where the problem lies, regardless of the original format.

In order to print at A2 size, the original image must be all but perfect technically IME. It is more than just difficult to conceal imperfections in the image at this sort of print size.

Once one gets to A2 size, any further increases appear to be constrained by viewing distance. Sizes of A1 and up require one to stand back from the print to view the entire print. A2 is the last size where one can actually view the entire print at point blank range (about 500 mm viewing distance).

Fair enough and all good points.

 

[John King]

G'day again Clayton

It appears to me that we are in substantive agreement ... :-D .

If one compares an excellent lens such as (say) the Canon f/2.8 100mm macro with a somewhat ordinary lens for mFTs such as the 14-140, I would expect the far better lens to give you that ability to crop and achieve comparable results.

If the lens choices were the other way around, or even equal, I would expect the mFTs image to be better than the cropped APS-C or 135 format image. This has been my experience when I have edited such images.

There is an entirely misplaced idea that does the rounds here often that one can simply crop the centre out of a similar MPx density image of a larger format. Often, this will work acceptably well if one does not print larger than (say) A3 size. IME, getting an image to the next size up (around A2 - or 22x17 inches) is where the problem lies, regardless of the original format.

In order to print at A2 size, the original image must be all but perfect technically IME. It is more than just difficult to conceal imperfections in the image at this sort of print size.

Once one gets to A2 size, any further increases appear to be constrained by viewing distance. Sizes of A1 and up require one to stand back from the print to view the entire print. A2 is the last size where one can actually view the entire print at point blank range (about 500 mm viewing distance).

Fair enough and all good points.

Thank you.

I have just had my nose rubbed in the very points I was making to you.

My wife's work has just been photographed by a professional photographer at the Uni she is attending as a final year student. He used a D800e with a Nikkor 24-120 lens (one hopes that it is v.2 of this lens ... ) at f/16 and f/20 and between 80-100 mm. She received 4x 8-10 MB JPEGs from the photog this morning.

While the lens is not exactly cheap at around US$1,400, it is by no means a stellar performer. I would say very average at best! SLRGear tested it here on the D3x and D300:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1358/cat/13

It performs better on the D300, but its performance on the D3x is very average at these FLs and f-stops. The CA is pretty noticeable, even in the PP JPEGs. It is unfathomable to me why he has used such small apertures with this lens and particularly with this body ... He would have been far better using f/8 or f/11 with this lens at these FLs.

Why he would choose to use such a lens on a D800e is utterly beyond me!
This lens (f/2.8 70-200 MkII) would be a far better match for this body, and for the work (check out the testing using the D700. I have also seen images taken using this lens on a D3x - lovely and stunning):

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1280/cat/13

My 6 y.o. E-30 + 14-54 MkII comfortably outperforms the D800e + 24-120 MkII for the same task! See here:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1239/cat/15

Use the widget and sliders to f/8 and 35-54 mm FL. This test is using the E-510 (which I own). My E-30 is just noticeably better than my E-510 with the same lens for this kind of work. Bear in mind that the 14-54 MkII is sharper again at f/5.6-6.3, which is where I mostly use it when photographing my wife's work.

BTW, the same argument I made in my posts above also goes when comparing lenses on a given body. I fully expect my f/2 50 macro to outperform both my f/2.8-3.5 14-54 MkII (it does ... ) and my various kit lenses for my various bodies). However, I can print to A2 size from all these combinations, even from images taken with my f/2 50 macro on my E-1 (5MPx ... ). Just avoid 12 mm on my mFTs 12-50 macro. Apparently the CA is quite shocking ... ;-) .

It really is also a matter of knowing one's gear, whatever that might be, and working to its strengths.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
.
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
Galleries: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Bird Control Officers on active service.

 

[Henry Richardson]

M43 Rumours are saying a "spring" (June ) release for the 300 at between 1799 - 1999 euros.

If true, I think Olympus have got the pricing wrong. That's about 50% more than a Canon 300 f4 LIS ... that would pay for an adaptor; and of course there are plenty of good used Canon 300s to be had.

I think Olympus will use the excess profit they get from the people who must buy this lens to keep the prices down of other lenses that the rest of us want. Sounds like an excellent plan to me!

 

[Sergey_Green]

G'day again Clayton

It appears to me that we are in substantive agreement ... :-D .

If one compares an excellent lens such as (say) the Canon f/2.8 100mm macro with a somewhat ordinary lens for mFTs such as the 14-140, I would expect the far better lens to give you that ability to crop and achieve comparable results.

If the lens choices were the other way around, or even equal, I would expect the mFTs image to be better than the cropped APS-C or 135 format image. This has been my experience when I have edited such images.

There is an entirely misplaced idea that does the rounds here often that one can simply crop the centre out of a similar MPx density image of a larger format. Often, this will work acceptably well if one does not print larger than (say) A3 size. IME, getting an image to the next size up (around A2 - or 22x17 inches) is where the problem lies, regardless of the original format.

In order to print at A2 size, the original image must be all but perfect technically IME. It is more than just difficult to conceal imperfections in the image at this sort of print size.

Once one gets to A2 size, any further increases appear to be constrained by viewing distance. Sizes of A1 and up require one to stand back from the print to view the entire print. A2 is the last size where one can actually view the entire print at point blank range (about 500 mm viewing distance).

Fair enough and all good points.

Thank you.

I have just had my nose rubbed in the very points I was making to you.

My wife's work has just been photographed by a professional photographer at the Uni she is attending as a final year student. He used a D800e with a Nikkor 24-120 lens (one hopes that it is v.2 of this lens ... ) at f/16 and f/20 and between 80-100 mm. She received 4x 8-10 MB JPEGs from the photog this morning.

While the lens is not exactly cheap at around US$1,400, it is by no means a stellar performer. I would say very average at best! SLRGear tested it here on the D3x and D300:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1358/cat/13

It performs better on the D300, but its performance on the D3x is very average at these FLs and f-stops. The CA is pretty noticeable, even in the PP JPEGs. It is unfathomable to me why he has used such small apertures with this lens and particularly with this body ... He would have been far better using f/8 or f/11 with this lens at these FLs.

Why he would choose to use such a lens on a D800e is utterly beyond me!
This lens (f/2.8 70-200 MkII) would be a far better match for this body, and for the work (check out the testing using the D700. I have also seen images taken using this lens on a D3x - lovely and stunning):

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1280/cat/13

My 6 y.o. E-30 + 14-54 MkII comfortably outperforms the D800e + 24-120 MkII for the same task! See here:

On D800e, no kidding!

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1239/cat/15

Use the widget and sliders to f/8 and 35-54 mm FL. This test is using the E-510 (which I own). My E-30 is just noticeably better than my E-510 with the same lens for this kind of work. Bear in mind that the 14-54 MkII is sharper again at f/5.6-6.3, which is where I mostly use it when photographing my wife's work.

What does this comparison tell you, and are these comparisons cross format comparable?

BTW, the same argument I made in my posts above also goes when comparing lenses on a given body. I fully expect my f/2 50 macro to outperform both my f/2.8-3.5 14-54 MkII (it does ... ) and my various kit lenses for my various bodies).

Sure, on the same format, why should not it?

However, I can print to A2 size from all these combinations, even from images taken with my f/2 50 macro on my E-1 (5MPx ... ). Just avoid 12 mm on my mFTs 12-50 macro. Apparently the CA is quite shocking ... ;-) .

It really is also a matter of knowing one's gear, whatever that might be, and working to its strengths.

 

[John King]

The photographs my wife received from the pro are all that's necessary for me.
They do not compare very favourably with my own ...

The results SLRGear got merely explain why ...

As it is often said: a picture's worth a thousand words. 4 pictures, 4,000 words ;-) .

AND, before you ask, I will not be publishing someone else's copyright work here.
Some of us have moral and legal scruples about such things ... ;-)

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
.
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
Galleries: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Bird Control Officers on active service.

 

[bobn2]

My 6 y.o. E-30 + 14-54 MkII comfortably outperforms the D800e + 24-120 MkII for the same task! See here:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1239/cat/15

Use the widget and sliders to f/8 and 35-54 mm FL. This test is using the E-510 (which I own). My E-30 is just noticeably better than my E-510 with the same lens for this kind of work. Bear in mind that the 14-54 MkII is sharper again at f/5.6-6.3, which is where I mostly use it when photographing my wife's work.

According to Lenstip, the 14-54 is giving a maximum of 49 lp/mm MTF50, giving 1054 lp/pd (http://www.lenstip.com/227.4-Lens_r...ital_14-54_mm_f_2.8-3.5_Image_resolution.html) on an E-3. The Nikon is giving 44 lp/mm on a D3X (http://www.lenstip.com/283.4-Lens_r...-S_24-120_mm_f_4G_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html), which is 1892 lp/pd. Given that the Zuiko is unlikely to give a higher score on the E-510 than it does on the E-3, while the Nikkor will yield a higher resolution on the null-AA filter 36MP D800E than it does on the 24MP AA-filtered D3x, it's very hard to see how your speculation can be in any way confirmed.