tedolf
Veteran Member
Francis Carver wrote:
nuts:
Tedolph
nuts:
How many FF zooms are faster than f/2.8 (constant)?
Tedolph
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why does M4/3 have 6 slow kit zooms ?
- Thread starter Kopend05
- Start date
tedolf
Veteran Member
Oly 40-150mm: $99.00;
Oly 17mm, less than $200.00;
Pany 14mm, lens than $250.00;
Panny 14-45mm; about $275;
should I go on?
No one would want it as part of a kit-too big.
tEdolph
tedolf
Veteran Member
As well as with Pentax dSLRs.Re. the pancake lenses.... are those the ones that some of the better coffee shops serve with their morning cup of coffee?
why? The Voightlanders are more expensive.
What poor focusing issues?
Now that one really takes the cake.
Tell all the Canon L glass users about that one.
You really are a nutter, arn't you?
Over one dozen primes.
Over one dozen zooms.
Six different manufacturers.
Two year old system.
How conveniently you forget about all the excellent M and M39 screw mount lenses.
Your ignorance is impressive.
Tedolph
tedolf
Veteran Member
Francis Carver
Veteran Member
Why, just what are YOU talking about, tedolf? Anything at all?
Which ones?
You don't "read" lens chart, comrade.
You do read those, yes indeed. The ones written in simplified Chinese seem to work the best for me. How about you?
I can't say I am particularly surprised at hearing that, actually.
Francis Carver
Veteran Member
Good question, finally on your part, tedolf. I did a quick count, and there are 178 such lenses. Why, how many did you count?
NOW -- what you gonna do about that one, I wonder?
Francis Carver
Veteran Member
Well, are these toy lenses or real lenses, tedolf? For toy lenses they are priced just about right. For real lenses they seem to be priced way too cheap. I guess you'll get what you pay for one, anyhow.
You just can't get good quality lens for little money, my friend. It's just not going to happen.
Francis Carver
Veteran Member
Well, I seem to recall the first digital sensor 4/3 camera came out in 2003, followed by Micro 4/3 in 2008. I am not sure when exactly will the Micro 4/3 system reach its "maturity," but if it takes as long as for the 35mm camera system, then it won't happen until around the year 2075.
Okay, time out, papi. Your Panasonic 14-45mm zoom is so good, you also had to get the Olympus 14-42mm zoom? Or was your Olympus 14-42mm zoom so outstanding, that you quickly had to get the Panasonic 14-42mm alongside of it as well?
Reason I'm asking, you see, these two lenses seem to be doing pretty much the same work in my book, so why even get both? Which one is the usable one and which one is the one that isn't?
Francis Carver
Veteran Member
Appreciate that, papi, but since I am not really a professional photographer, that probably would be a mismatch.
Anyhow, i have basically decided NOT to get into the whole mess of Micro 4/3 camera bodies and Micro 43/ lenses. Main reason was that I think these are rather rip-off priced at the moment, especially considering what you would be getting for your money. Maybe when the M4/3 system matures whenever, prices will come down, or maybe when there will be more than just two players in the Micro 4/3 industry.
Also, the M4/3 users seem to be rather rude and apparently feel that anybody not using Micro 4/3 already is a total idiot. Let alone daring to question anything about M4/3. The dreaded 'Napoleon Complex,' maybe?
All in all, if I was physically handicapped in not being able to hold a slightly larger, slightly heavier camera and lens in my hands, I might consider the M4/3 route as a lightweight alternative, but again, with just these two players right now "competing" against each other in the M4/3 mini arena, this is indeed an immature camera form factor to get into IMO. Maybe one day?
Anyhow, i have basically decided NOT to get into the whole mess of Micro 4/3 camera bodies and Micro 43/ lenses. Main reason was that I think these are rather rip-off priced at the moment, especially considering what you would be getting for your money. Maybe when the M4/3 system matures whenever, prices will come down, or maybe when there will be more than just two players in the Micro 4/3 industry.
Also, the M4/3 users seem to be rather rude and apparently feel that anybody not using Micro 4/3 already is a total idiot. Let alone daring to question anything about M4/3. The dreaded 'Napoleon Complex,' maybe?
All in all, if I was physically handicapped in not being able to hold a slightly larger, slightly heavier camera and lens in my hands, I might consider the M4/3 route as a lightweight alternative, but again, with just these two players right now "competing" against each other in the M4/3 mini arena, this is indeed an immature camera form factor to get into IMO. Maybe one day?
Francis Carver
Veteran Member
Two manufacturers, you mean? I guess a company making a single lens with M4/3 mount and nothing else for the M4/3 form factor is now considered a "different manufacturer?" Sounds rather desperate to make something small look colossal, doesn't it?
I am not sure what is a "two year old system," but if you are talking about 4/3rd in general, well digital 4/3 cameras came out in 2003, and Micro 4/3 followed in 2008.
I guess in some circles, that is actually the same as "two years." Wow, perhaps Micro 4/3 is still wearing its first diapers then, who even knows for sure?
Yeah, I also just love those screwy-type M4/3 cameras and lenses myself, tedolf. Very homey stuff! So convenient, too. Bayonet mounts are for sissies, after all.
Anyhow, if anyone should wish to learn why NOT to get into Micro 4/3 cameras and lenses in the future, I'll be certain to send them to this here blog straight away. You'll straighten them out real good, won't you then, tedolf, old buddy?
The smaller mirrorless cameras including both NEX and M43 can adapt nearly any manual focus lens. Which is why my DSLR sits on my shelf most times..Yes there are benefits to full frame, but not as much from APS-C in my mind...and the size and weight differences are a lot in most cases. Some of the M43 primes and some of the zooms seem to be very good lenses. But guess this getting a bit off track from the OP.
--
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/
Like the Joker said: Why so serious?
Granted that there are way more full frame and APS-C lenses of all sorts. But for some of us, the ability to adapt fast/not fast legacy primes is crucial. Where can a person buy a 135mm 2.8 for 45.00? for example...or some of the fast primes in M43...I'm in no way comparing this format to Leica, but Leica and other rangefinder systems were based on primes. Granted that most of the zooms in M43 have been slow...but the show ain't over yet. Yeah it's not exactly a mature system, but for now quite a few are using legacy glass and filling in the blanks...and saving a heck of a lot of loot, with a great amount of choice.
--
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/
Like the Joker said: Why so serious?
One of the most highly regarded lenses of all time. Granted a constant F4 but not exactly fast, and not exactly cheap. So there are different strokes for different folks? Is there a reason that a zoom needs to be fast? Sure it's nice, sure you could limit DOF, and shoot in lower light (how many of your average shots are in low light?) big, heavy most likely and expensive. OK a manual fast lens (like a macro) is nice fast, so you can stop down, but...Not everyone needs limitation of DOF, and sometimes low F numbers are counterproductive to need...not everyone cares if their lenses are slow. I'm more concerned that there's no real native macro lens, or no third party lenses to speak of. I am glad that there do seem to be some nice fast primes. It gives the system a more serious intent.
--
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/
Like the Joker said: Why so serious?
--
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/
Like the Joker said: Why so serious?
papillon_65
Veteran Member
Same sized sensor, different mounts, different format.
Well I originally bought the 14-45mm to replace the original Oly 14-42mm mk1 kit lens. I didn't like the design of that lens although it wasn't a bad performer IMHO. The Oly 14-42mm mk2 kit lens came with the E-P3 when I bought it. They are both usable although I prefer the 14-45mm because it has OIS and a switch on the lens body. In terms of performance there is not much in it at all. I will probably sell one of them, I haven't decided which one yet. The new Oly version does have it's plus points, it's nice and small and light and is good enough for a kit lens.
--
It's a known fact that where there's tea there's hope.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
papillon_65
Veteran Member
If you choose wisely and don't pay retail you can build up a kit pretty cheaply now, with lenses.
More a case of non-users telling us that our chosen system is inadequate, expensive, poor performing etc etc. Nobody likes strangers pi$$ing in their own back yard, it's human nature. No other forum is different in this respect, it just happens a lot here.
That's your perogative of course, it's always a good idea to remain open-minded about different formats, they all have their respective strengths and weaknesses.
--
It's a known fact that where there's tea there's hope.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
mfbernstein
Veteran Member
No, other way around. 4/3 lenses are almost entirely electronically controlled, unlike old manual focus lenses. Without the Panasonic or Olympus m4/3 adapter, 4/3 lenses will not focus (MF or AF) and the aperture cannot be changed at all.
So if you want to use your 4/3 lenses, you need an adapter with contacts.
None of the adapted lenses work as well as the native ones.
--
MFBernstein
'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey
markintosh13
Veteran Member
Seriously guys, why are you still feeding this troll?
First the lenses are too expensive. Then when specific lenses are priced out, he derides them as being too cheap, etc.
Etc.
Etc.
He doesn't use M4/3.
He has no intention whatsoever of using M4/3.
I'm not even sure he's a photographer.
What I do know is that he likes to troll here.
First the lenses are too expensive. Then when specific lenses are priced out, he derides them as being too cheap, etc.
Etc.
Etc.
He doesn't use M4/3.
He has no intention whatsoever of using M4/3.
I'm not even sure he's a photographer.
What I do know is that he likes to troll here.
Francis Carver
Veteran Member
Okay, that sounds quite fair. Of course, APS-C sensor camera can be bought for right around the same money as what some of the better M4/3 camera bodies go for. And when you use a FF or APS-C glass on an APS-C sensor camera, you do not need a lens mount adapter. One reads too many negatives about these M4/3 lens adapters, anyhow.
I guess I probably want to have the reassurance of a "mature camera and lens system" above anything else. Not that APS-C sensor digital cameras have been out that much longer.
Francis Carver
Veteran Member
Yeah, thank you for the pointers. But like I said, papi, I looked into the M4/3 possibility for a few weeks, and after looking at it long and hard, decided to pass on this particular form factor for now. It's just too off-beat and proprietary for my taste, there are really only two players in this M4/3 game -- Olympus and Panasonic. And both companies seem to be handling M4/3 as a side-business.
And there way Olympus is doing, it could be none other but Panasonic that will buy up Olympus soon. Then there would be just one. But the M4/3 system may mature one day quite nicely, but of course by that time there probably will be other form factors out there. Again, thanks for the help, but I guess M4/3 just doesn't have the allure for me. I guess I'm not getting what the big deal is with it.
And there way Olympus is doing, it could be none other but Panasonic that will buy up Olympus soon. Then there would be just one. But the M4/3 system may mature one day quite nicely, but of course by that time there probably will be other form factors out there. Again, thanks for the help, but I guess M4/3 just doesn't have the allure for me. I guess I'm not getting what the big deal is with it.
Instead of developing fast zooms, they took the money for developing one body after the other with more or less the same sensor ( in the case of Olympus ). And they developed one Compact Camera after the other to be part of the pixel race or to start the pixel race
themselves.
I think the most of these compacts don´t have a good lens, something that the previous Olympus cams mostly had. Perhaps there wasn´t enough money to push the m43-system like they should do and offer fast zooms and fast primes from the beginning.
There are many replies saying: fast zooms are big, heavyweight, and high priced.
The question is: what do you feel as big, heavy or high price?
For me a fast zooms should be f 2,8. That´s a standard which becomes " normal " in film days and for FF. There are enough examples of f2,8 zooms for APS-C : like the
Tamron 17-50, Sigma 17-70, 17-50, 18-50, Canon 17-55, Pentax 16-50, Pentax 50-135,
Sigma 50-150. All of these zooms are not really big or heavy or high priced. And they are all for a system with a mirror and with a bigger sensor.
Therefore for me it´s absolutely clear: all of these lenses could be made for m43 even smaller and lighter! Perhaps not at a lower price because of lesser market demand.
But until now there wasn´t the will to produce it....
--
bert
themselves.
I think the most of these compacts don´t have a good lens, something that the previous Olympus cams mostly had. Perhaps there wasn´t enough money to push the m43-system like they should do and offer fast zooms and fast primes from the beginning.
There are many replies saying: fast zooms are big, heavyweight, and high priced.
The question is: what do you feel as big, heavy or high price?
For me a fast zooms should be f 2,8. That´s a standard which becomes " normal " in film days and for FF. There are enough examples of f2,8 zooms for APS-C : like the
Tamron 17-50, Sigma 17-70, 17-50, 18-50, Canon 17-55, Pentax 16-50, Pentax 50-135,
Sigma 50-150. All of these zooms are not really big or heavy or high priced. And they are all for a system with a mirror and with a bigger sensor.
Therefore for me it´s absolutely clear: all of these lenses could be made for m43 even smaller and lighter! Perhaps not at a lower price because of lesser market demand.
But until now there wasn´t the will to produce it....
--
bert
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum