4/3 has no focal length advantage-correct him if he is wrong

Started Nov 15, 2008 | Discussions thread
genotypewriter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,846
Re: Well, when you have 40MP

fldspringer wrote:

genotypewriter wrote:

And to say that the smaller sensor isn't a viable option is just
plain wrong.

If I said it's not viable then I wouldn't say "there's a place for
everything", right?

You seem to be marketing snake oil. Isn't that the purpose for your
visit here?

You're missing the point... let me reiterate till me and everyone else gets dizzy: saying that a fourthirds can do everything that a 35mm FF can do is wrong.

You seem to be shooting a smaller format as well.
I shoot 4/3 because it suits me well. There are times that the 35mm FF
models would be nice (bad light) but the DOF thing is a non issue for
me. I'm looking to stopping long lenses down to get DOF as light
allows. Why carry something with twice the focal length when no
benefit is realized from the extra hassle?

Well as I said there will be times when more DOF is better but when I
upgraded to a DSLR I wanted to get away from the P&S-look as much as

You went right around the question. I'll copy and paste it again.

I'm looking to stopping long lenses down to get DOF as light
allows. Why carry something with twice the focal length when no
benefit is realized from the extra hassle?

You were stating your preferences and I was stating mine... a question mark at the end of a line doesn't make a real question.

Both canon (100-400 IS) and nikon (80-400 VR) options are not much
more heavier or more expensive even with the in-lens stabilisation.
I'd take one of those any day for their stabilised viewfinder at the
narrower AOVs. I think there are sigma options that are even cheaper.
Also the olympus gives a f/5.6-7 equivalent DOF and the f/2.8-3.5 is
needed for the smaller sensor.

Compare at f8 and 400mm

to f4 at 200mm

That's the rap on the 100-400 lens from those that shoot it also.

The Nikon on crop body is no better, and likely to get worse in the
corners of a D3 or D700.


Both are heavier by more than a little

Around 300g or so... which in my books isn't much. Still doesn't explain why the oly lenses with the supposedly smaller image circle and no in-lens stabilisation isn't lighter because I expect more than 300g difference if I'm compromising image quality, low light performance and in-lens stabilisation.

and more expensive and require the AF to operate with less light.

Price difference is subjective so I'll leave it aside...

Now you are also back pushing equivalence when I'm talking the need
to stop down with longer 4/3 lenses. I don't get it. Tell me what
advantage when I stop a 4/3 lens down to gain DOF. Why would I want
to use 100-400 lens on a FF body.

I wasn't trying to brainwash you in to getting another format. For your requirements you might be better off with your choice but, to go back to my point, a fourthirds can't do everything a 35mm FF can do... that's all.

And if money is no object, why not go Red? Soon $55,000 will get you
an enormous sensor that you can configure just about however you
want. At which point, the D3 (and every other FF DSLR), will become
just a toy.

That's just impractical gear-head talk...

And your comments were????

Do you have any idea about how big that modular red camera is? That's
what makes it impractical gear-head talk when we're talking about
DSLRs. The Oly cameras are no different in size compared to other
DSLRs... why is the E3 chunky if small is the in thing? Aren't there
enough big DSLRs? Why did Oly make it so big and go against their own

Just blowing smoke here. E-3/12-60/50-200. Find a weather sealed
kit that's lighter for similar FOV. Lotsa luck.

The 12-60 is a f/2.8 to f/4 which acts like a 5.6 to 8... yikes! What's wrong with the 24-105 IS for example? It's only a 100g heavier and the E3 is heavy as a 5D... and you get a stabilised view finder and better low light performance.

Want a light kit? E520/14-42/40-150/70-300 all stabilized. Can you
find similar FOV lighter/smaller?

None of those lenses have SWD and are slow in aperture... If you want to go lighter maybe you can do as well with a film camera and some manual focus lenses.

Carry in a couple pockets. E420/25 f2.8 pancake in one pocket and
the 14-42 and 40-150 in another. Try it with any other DSLR with
such FOV coverage.

I think you're failing to see the compromise you make in various other aspects for this "pocketability".

Also why are some Oly lenses a lot heavier than they should be?

The top pro series isn't made to be cheap, nor are they made to be
light. They are just that way.

Are you saying the other manufacturer's pro lenses are made to be cheap? LOL

And what sort of an answer is "They are just that way"? lol I've tried the 300 2.8... it's almost 1Kg heavier than the canon one (300mm is 300mm and 4/3 image circle is supposed to be smaller!) and it doesn't even have SWD or stabilisation. If you call it a 600mm equivalent lens then it's still creates a 600mm f/5.6 equivalent shot. There's no 600 f4 in oly land.

I've also tried the 150 f/2... nice lens but again no SWD or view finder stabilisation and 400g heavier than the canon one (300 f/4 IS) with in-lens stabilisation and IS LOL

I tried the 90-250 2.8 too... nice lens but same story goes... no SWD, no VF IS even in such a long lens... the Nikon 200-400 f4 VR is the same weight and price... why bother with the oly when the nikon is a much better lens?

Looks like Oly has been selling snake oil all along...


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow