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

Started Mar 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
MatsP Senior Member • Posts: 2,275
Re: Food for thought - FF vs M4/3's cost

Navegador wrote:

Surely Nikon and Canon have better glass than Sony/Minolta, if nothing else then for the sheer number of lenses, but I rather like my old Minoltas. Every now and then I'm tempted by the 28-75 f/2.8, but this year's treat has been the rather expensive Pana 35-100 for m4/3 so Alpha lenses are something for 2014 now.

Back to topic, both small and large cameras have their places. I just happen to use m4/3 a lot more, but I still wholeheartedly recommend 35mm for those who don't need to pack up light.

Still, Olympus has excellent glass, but unfortunately not so much for m4/3. We will see what future brings. The success of the OMD EM5 should encourage them to do something to give us equivalents to their 4/3 lenses I hope.

Sometimes I still can feel a desire for a FF camera, but as soon as I realize the cost for good glass and the weight and bulk and that the differences in IQ are so small as they really are, the desire transforms into a really good m4/3 lens instead...

 MatsP's gear list:MatsP's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +3 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