Are m4/3 cameras too expensive when you…

Started Apr 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
marike6 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,088
Re: Any system is expensive

Anders W wrote:

marike6 wrote:

Art_P wrote:

if you go on a buying frenzy.

Basic needs are usually covered by the kit lens... or maybe the two kit lenses.

Most of the better lenses in m43 are the faster f1.7 or f1.8 primes.

But yes you can cover from 28-400 with two zoom lenses as long as you are not expecting the ultimate IQ or DOF control that m43 can provide.

Photography is an expensive hobby.  I do think that m43 gear has gone a bit crazy with pricing in recent times compared to what's available with APS-C DSLRs considering that a Nikon 35 1.8 is $196 and a 50 1.8G $225.

While the 20/1.7 and 45/1.8 cost about a hundred bucks more than the two Nikons, they are also better lenses optically speaking.

How do you figure that two software corrected lenses are better optically than two Nikkors?  The Nikon 50 1.8G is a FF lens designed to cover a much larger sensor.  A 50 1.8G on any Nikon FF or APS-C body for that matter with resolve more than a 45 1.8 on any m43 body.  This is a fact.

The 20 1.7 and 45 1.8 (like ALL m43 lenses) use software correction for distortion, CA, vignetting, etc.  Nikon optical engineers have corrected ALL aberrations with OPTICS, not software.

Aside from that, focus-by-wire is simply not pleasant to use if manual focus is important to you.

For AF, the two Nikkors have AF-S motors that are silent and fast, unlike the Panasonic which is very slow.

Besides that f1.8 on m43 in not all that interesting in terms of DOF control.  I like the 45 1.8, but let's be real.  $400 for a 90 f3.6 equivalent lens or in the case of the 75 1.8, $1000 for a 150 f3.6 lens is expensive no matter how you look at it.

What you are paying for in m43 is small size. But m43 vendors don't seem to factor in the fact that it cost less to manufacture lens meant to cover a m43 sensor vs a FF lens.  There is no way in the world that the Panasonic 35-100 2.8 should cost $1500, close to the price of many FF 70-200 2.8 lenses.  And the 75 1.8, and great, but overpriced specialty lens.

I don't consider the 75/1.8 overpriced for what it delivers. The 12/2, on the other hand, could do with a price cut.

See my last paragraph above.

There is no doubt that you can spend thousands on a decent lens collection of reasonably fast short primes in m43, and you still will not have a single long telephoto lens with faster than f5.6 max aperture.  That is unless you want to purchase the 35-100 2.8, a $1,500 lens that doesn't take teleconverters like a Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR or 70-200 f4 VR, and is not as good optically.

And if you want an UWA zoom, you'll need to shell out $959 for the Panasonic 7-14 f4.  It doesn't take filters and it's f4, yet it's more expensive than the wonderful Tokina 11-16 2.8 or Nikon 10-24 3.5-4.5G.

The big problem is that these lenses are designed for a much smaller sensor, but vendors don't seem to be taking this fact into account in pricing.  APS-C DSLR lenses are less expensive than FF lenses. So too should m43 lenses.  Sadly they are not.

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow