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

Started Mar 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP papillon_65 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,030
Re: Food for thought - FF vs M4/3's cost

JamieTux wrote:

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).

Thanks James, 9-18mm quality is no bad thing, I used to have the 4/3's version so I hear you on that one. I know the lenses I mentioned are not in the top class but they represent good value from what I have seen, and I have looked at many images from all of them. The OMD does indeed have better dynamic range but the 5D2 also has a number of advantages as well. I never pay much heed to autofocus complaints, it's the most common complaint of all and I've never had a camera that I couldn't work with on that score, but you never know 

-- hide signature --

For the person who is good with a hammer, everything in life tends to look like a nail.....

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V +7 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