Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

Started Mar 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
Alumna Gorp Senior Member • Posts: 1,531
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

richarddd wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

SDPharm wrote:

But when equivalent lenses do exist in both systems, such as the 35-100 / 2 on 4/3 vs the 70-200 / 4L IS on 35mm FF, the lenses for the larger sensor systems are  usually lighter <

I'm not sure what world you live in, but here's a real world example of the 'equivalent lens' comparison:

Panasonic 35-100/2.8: 360 g

Canon 70-200/2.8 II: 1490 g

Both are expensive, excellent lenses.  The FF lens is more than 4x the weight.

Not quite. Forpetessake is an equivalence troll. This means that he's using a very specific meaning of equivalence, to browbeat anyone he can. Not sure why, as he also uses small sensor mirrorless (APS-C Sony).

Anyway, true equivalence requires that the image taken by both systems is equivalent, with same amount of light captured, same depth of field, etc.

So, if a shot was taken on 35mm, 1/100, f4, ISO100 on m4/3s, on FF the equivalent image would be  70mm, 1/100, f8, ISO 400. Theoretically these images should end up being the same with similar noise levels, etc. In practice, it's not quite so clear cut.

So, the "equivalent lens" would be a 70-200 f5.6.

His argument only works if:

1) You consider equivalence theory to be important, rather than what it really is - a useful comparison tool across camera systems.

2) You are happy to compare m4/3s lenses with FF lenses that don't exist.

Best thing to do is just ignore him. I think he's just compensating (look at his gallery :D).

The reason I compare against lenses that do exist, and since its the lenses light gathering properties, not the by-product dof that I am interested in I would only compare one F2.8 against another f2.8

So the full frame equ of the 35-100 is 4x the weight and cost almost twice as much.

An f/2.8 on a FF sensor gathers 4x as much light as an f/2.8 on a m43 sensor.

Perhaps you want to revise your statement to say you don't care about DOF, light gathering or noise?  Even in that case, you could get the Canon 70-200/4 at only twice the weight.  B&H sells this  for $710, less than half the cost of the Panasonic 35-100/2.8. Nowhere near 4x the weight.

Not in my studio it wont, f2.8 is f2.8.

 Alumna Gorp's gear list:Alumna Gorp's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +4 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow