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

Started Mar 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: More expensive/heavy to get the advantage...

papillon_65 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

kenw wrote:

I've done this calculation about every year or so. FF body cost does keep getting lower - which is nice. However, for the main thing I care about - landscape - things aren't so simple. The 17-40 is not an impressive lens at all - you'd need something more expensive to give a noticeable advantage over the 7-14. Similar story for mid-range zoom. Weight of telephoto becomes very significantly larger with FF. So when I look at what it takes to go FF from 14-300 (the FLs I use in landscape) things get pricey and quite heavy. And don't forget the tripod becomes heavier and bulkier as well as do all the bags and their additional padding to handle the heavier lenses.

From what I've read the 17-40mm works for many and not for others, typical lens really. I loved my 7-14mm but the blooming killed it for me,

Blooming with the 7-14? What are you talking about here?

I'm talking about the purple blotches I get every time I shoot the interiors of historical buildings. They're a nightmare and almost impossible to remove completely. It makes my 7-14mm unusable in many places so I have to forget UWA.

I thought that might be what you are referring too. They are not due to blooming though. The filter that I hope will eliminate them should arrive any day now.

were it not for that I might have stayed m4/3's. I'll give the 17-40mm a go and see how it works for me.

My kit doubles from about 7 lbs to 14 lbs in the comparison and the volume more than doubles. I've got comparable experience with this on the Canon side as I hauled an APS-C landscape setup of L glass around for a few years before doing m43.

I think for what you mention, some decent quality but bargain priced primes, the comparison is much more favorable in price. The bulk difference is still very significant when you have a set of primes. If you just want a camera over your shoulder and maybe one more prime along a FF setup is quite workable and as you point out does not break the bank at all compared to the higher end m43 stuff.

I intend to keep it FF lite, no big telephotos or F2.8 zooms for me

Really what my annual comparisons always illustrate to me is just what a no-man's land APS-C DSLRs are now. I'll caveat that for a sports/bird shooter they are probably just the thing, but otherwise if you are going DSLR just go FF and otherwise go m43/NEX/Fuji depending on your taste.

This is true

Anyway, not trying to be contrary at all. I actually agree with your post - certain FF kits are even slightly cheaper than m43. I think that surprises people some of the time.

No probs Ken, I'm pretty much on the same page, I just need to give the FF thing a go and see how it works out for me.

-- hide signature --

Ken W
See profile for equipment list

-- hide signature --

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

-- hide signature --

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

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 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