Should I move from Olympus to either Canon or Nikon?

Started Dec 15, 2012 | Questions thread
MoreorLess Veteran Member • Posts: 4,340
Re: Should I move from Olympus to either Canon or Nikon?

SirSeth wrote:

2. 4/3rds is a terrible format for full size SLRs. That is why they are supporting them. because no one is buying them. because they are a bad idea. You may like the quality of olympus lenses but dont dismiss quality of the best optics for the canon nikon cameras. Its just as good sometimes better sometimes cheaper. To hold the lens "quality" as a value higher than the creative control it offers just doesnt makes sense. The greater control over DOF you will get by switching to aps c or FF is by itself enough reason to switch. Add to that the high iso capability you will get and it a no brainer.

Just my contrary opinions on this point. 4/3rds is not a terrible format for full sized SLRs. The format alone is not why they are not supporting them (it's also that their marketing sucks and many other reasons), but 4/3rds was not a bad idea. You can dismiss the quality of the best optics by Canon and Nikon if you think that HG Zuiko lenses are just too expensive. They are not just as good, nor sometimes better because there is often no direct equiv. For certain SHG lenses like the 300mm f2.8, they are sometime cheaper. Canon and Nikon don't offer more creative control by switching to APS-C or FF. FF does offer higher ISO, higher resolution, and shallower depth of field--but creativity are not bound by those preferences and strengths. DOF control with APS-C is marginal and so is higher ISO on the newest 4/3rds sensors (like the OM-D). Are my comments more true than the above? No, just a different perspective.

As I said I think the major problem was that 4/3rds was before its time, in the past I think the resolution and ISO limates fell below the desires of the majority of users so the extra performance of ASPC was always a greater draw.

ASPC today may still have an advanatge but the extra performance it offers is now I'd guess less desireble to many users to the extent that the advantages of 4/3rds maybe considered a worthwuile trade off.

Now I don't personally see regular 4/3rds ever being a system thats favoured by many landscape or studio users(not that isnt incapable of those uses of course just that the tradeoff seem worse although m43 obviously makes a good ultralightweight landscape option) but for those wanting range and versitility in there lenses at a smaller size the appeal seems pretty clear.

If Oly were to release some more DSLR's I personally think they'd be well advised to release not just an E-7 but also a smaller body with similar build. I can see the appeal of the E-5 matched with the larger ultra high end Zuiko lenses like the f2.0 zooms but you've also got smaller high speced lenses(11-22mm, 12-60mm, 14-54mm, 50-200mm) that I think would match very well with a K-5ish DSLR.

Pentax's weakness to me seems to be the relative lack of well built weather sealed lenses to go with the K-5 aswell as the size of those lenses that limates its potential as a size saver over say the 7D.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow