Food for thought - FF vs M4/3's cost

Started Mar 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
JamieTux Veteran Member • Posts: 3,964
Re: Food for thought - FF vs M4/3's cost

The 17-40L is a nice lens, but it's closer to the 9-18 than the 7-14 in optical quality (and coverage) and the 24-105 is OK, but it's not top of the range, nor are the primes you mentioned (especially the 35 f2).

So it's not really a like for like - and in studio conditions I actually resolved more detail with the OMD and 45mm f1.8 than I did with a 5D mark ii and the 100mm f2.8 Macro.  It was a real eye opener for me and ended with me selling my FF gear a month or so ago - the OM-D also has higher dynamic range.

But for images in less optimal conditions and for the choice of lenses - I can see the attraction for the Canon still (by the way the metering of the Canon is about the least reliable of any camera I've ever used - but the AF is a lot better than it's given credit for by most people).

 JamieTux's gear list:JamieTux's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon 1 J5 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G Nikon 1 Nikkor 18.5mm f/1.8 Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 PD-Zoom +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow