A counter to ilfinger: Is 4/3rds weak because of its lenses?

Started Sep 26, 2010 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
rovingtim Veteran Member • Posts: 8,872
A counter to ilfinger: Is 4/3rds weak because of its lenses?

warning: equivalence is mentioned

Before I start, I want to mention that I started 4/3rds with the 14-54 and 50-200 and they are still great lenses that I still use for everything from macro to event shooting and birding. I really like them and they are one of the reasons I got Olympus in the first place. Well, that and the E1.

However, pretty much everything pro that came after was huge, much bigger than equivalent 35mm lenses. This is most obvious with the f2 zooms.

I would like to suggest that one of the reasons that 4/3rds failed to make an impact on the market was they made their zooms too bright (and thus too big) while making no bright primes at all (nothing less than f2 from Oly). Primes are small. Zooms are big.

Oly's unique selling point has always been size so why make large bright zooms (big) instead of wide ranging slower zooms (smaller) complemented by very bright primes (smaller)?

Starting from scratch, a 5DMII with a 70-200 f4L lens is considerably smaller and cheaper than the Oly E5 + 35-100 F2. Oly promised small. Where is it? In fact, where is the value at all?

I'm wondering if Oly's sin was they tried to compete directly with 35mm instead of plowing their own field and making unique cameras (E1) and unique lenses that fit that system?

Note that the E3 and E5 are practically clones of the Canon 1 series cameras.

Anyone have any thoughts?

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