Reading mode: Light Dark

On putting money into 4:3 gear ...

Go to last post
That's what I've been doing, ever since I got an OMD about a year ago. M43 has nothing like the better ZD's, and won't be getting them - the fast M43 compact zooms are almost HG ZD IQ, at almost SHG ZD price, with shorter focal length range and vignetting/softness wide open. You simply can't shrink a fast zoom to any degree, without losing IQ.

Not only did I keep all of my beloved ZD's plus my PL25, I've bought three more since getting the OMD, including a mint 35-100 for $1200. Compares well to the MZD 75 1.8 at $1k. That's at least Zeiss IQ at less than Sigma prices.

When the OMD-Pro comes out next fall, with fast ZD AF, demand for these exquisite lenses will rise, as will the price.

I remember how cheap 14-54's got on the used market when it was just the E1 - they got down to around $250 about a year and a half after the E1 came out. When the E300 and E500 came out, with slow kit glass, that price shot back up to almost $500.

Get your ZD's now at the current attractive prices, while you still can. I really want a 150F2, and I have maybe a four or five month window of opportunity to get one at a good price.

I expect the current 4/3 bodies will retain their value for the immediate, for the people who really prefer that form factor. Based on my experience with OMD and ZD... if the AF speed were fixed (which it will be), if the new, larger, sharper VF goes into it (which it will), and if a slightly larger battery grip with slightly larger buttons were added (which it probably will be), the majority of 4/3 owners will probably find the result to be a most adequate upgrade from the E5, putting a state of the art sensor behind their superb lenses.

Nothing replaces HG or SHG ZD, though. Not at the current prices.
 
WhyNot said:
WhyNot wrote:
Click to expand...
WhyNot said:
I must be getting old.. I usually don't respond to these lectures...but honestly, I'm tired of being told how poor a photographer I am and that I don't deserve to use the cameras I've got or those I might want... So maybe I'll just leave this forum to your 25% and return to my A620 and take snapshots... Sorry if I and the others of the 75% have bored and upset you to the point of having to continue to tell us how bad we really are.... I'll leave now or maybe I'll just ignore your tirades in the future..
Click to expand...
I don't know you and don't know if you're a "good" photographer or not, but I do know that the majority of shots I see posted on the majority of forums (here and elsewhere) demonstrate a lack of skill that more often than not verges on the embarrassing.

It's quite true that so very many of these very unskilled if not mediocre shooters are also the ones who chase gear to the point of absurdity ... putting themselves and their families into hock but doing little or nothing to get their skill levels up. They represent many of the people that the manufacturers depend on for sales and growth. I'm afraid it's how the commercial world works with all manner of products, particularly those based on technologies.

The definition of a neurotic applies here: someone who keeps doing the same foolish things over and over again, expecting a different result.

This is not intended to be ... and I hope it doesn't come off as ... a lecture. I hate being lectured as much as the next person. It's meant to suggest something very simple and well-known: if you can't take good to great pictures with ANY camera, you can't take good to great pictures.

That all being said, there's no question that one's pictures can be improved by new developments that affect dynamic range, color, noise, resolution, etc. I am the first to entertain a new camera/sensor/design that will enhance my ability to shoot under a wider range of conditions and environments. But these same new developments cannot improve one's skill. Skill, knowledge of one's tools, a trained eye, a passion for excellence, a thoughtful approach, dedication to the craft, the enjoyment of the craft! ... these and other personal approaches to photography are far, far more important than a new sensor design. An Olympus C-5060 in the hands of a skilled shooter will produce significantly better imagery than an OM-D in the hands of ... whomever.
 
TrapperJohn said:
TrapperJohn wrote:

I expect the current 4/3 bodies will retain their value for the immediate, for the people who really prefer that form factor. Based on my experience with OMD and ZD... if the AF speed were fixed (which it will be), if the new, larger, sharper VF goes into it (which it will), and if a slightly larger battery grip with slightly larger buttons were added (which it probably will be), the majority of 4/3 owners will probably find the result to be a most adequate upgrade from the E5, putting a state of the art sensor behind their superb lenses.

Nothing replaces HG or SHG ZD, though. Not at the current prices.
Click to expand...
All I really care about is the AF speed. Just make my lenses work, that's all. Hell, I'll have a custom grip machined if I think the body is too small :)

A long time ago I posted a reply about a "modular system":
  • Three m/43 base units in the vein of the E-620, E-30, E-5...increasing resolution, features, weather sealing. Something just a tad larger than the new E-P5. Of course, with an adapter that full enabled the ZD glass.
  • Add on EVFs, maybe two, one lower resolution (cheaper) and one very high resolution (more expensive), very fast refresh.
  • Add on grips, maybe two, one smaller with no battery support, one larger to balance the larger ZD glass that has battery support.
You could mix and match what you needed for the lens being used at the time.

Using the ZD50-200? Throw on the EVF and large battery grip.

Want to use a light m4/3 prime? Dump all the extras and just go commando with the base unit.

Maybe that's the "beautiful new system" :)

Maybe I'm a prophet :)

Maybe I'm full of @#$% :)

--

Keith Hatfull - Woodbury, MN
 
Roger Engelken said:
Roger Engelken wrote:
Should technological advancement stop one day, perhaps then an older system can be properly bashed, but until that day, anything bought today will have a limited life as leading edge technology.
Click to expand...
A great example of this was in film cameras. Once they developed coated lenses, there was very little IQ improvement IMHO for most uses. Mostly it was convenience like AF and zooms, more compact etc. When I shot with film, some of my best images were made with a 1950's twin lens rolleicord.

Most of the advances in IQ were in the film. With a digital camera the body is the "film" and I imagine there will always be improvements in this part of the system. Imagine how useful a 1950's rolleicord would have been compared to a 1990's model if the same film couldn't have been used in both?
 
Your rant reminds me of when some film developments happened in the mid to late 1980s.

When I first started shooting with a 35mm in the 1970's, I quickly learned that I had two choices for decent quality, slow slide film or 100 asa print film. Even 400 speed print film at the time was VERY grainy. Then I got a medium format camera and found up to asa 400 print film still looked fairly decent. With a 4X5 camera the film issues were no longer a problem.

The problem was the slow 35mm film created problems hand holding for sports or doing outdoor macro work etc and using a medium format camera has it own limitations. Obviously there are a lot of subjects a 4X5 simple won't work or would be very difficult to deal with. I did work around the limitations and figured out ways to get an image, sometimes it did require many mistakes and testing to get "decent" results. I did miss many opportunities when, like for instance, something happened and I simply couldn't set a high enough shutter speed to stop motion blur etc.

Then Kodak introduced the "PJM multi speed" press film that worked great at 640 asa and the grain looked close to what older asa 100 film did. You could over and under expose it by quite a bit and still get great images. This brought new opportunities to what I could shoot and when. Fuji then released NHG 800. Between these two films I could focus more on my subjects and spend less time trying to resolve the technical difficulties of using the old slow film in many situations. As film improved, the slow films also got better so when I could easily use slower film, the results were better than I got before as well by a good margin. I could capture with a 35mm images that would rival the ones shot with medium format (using the old film, obviously medium format with these new films looked even better!)

The case you seem to be trying to make is I should have ignored this new improved film because a good photographer could make nice images (and make up for?) this new, better film? No one would have refused to use this new improved film back then, why should people do it now?
 
veroman said:
veroman wrote:
An Olympus C-5060 in the hands of a skilled shooter will produce significantly better imagery than an OM-D in the hands of ... whomever.
Click to expand...
But that doesn't mean that a C-5060 is a good camera today. Someone with "vision" can make a compelling image with a 1920's kodak Box camera..
 
dougster1979 said:
dougster1979 wrote:

I liked my E510, and i like my D7000. The D7000 is better, focussing, dynamic range, viewfinder, screen, resolution low light .... Again not to say the 4 thirds cameras arn`t decent, but technology progresses. The fact that the D800e has moved so far beyond the capabilities of 12mp cameras is encouraging for photography. Who cares about branding.
Click to expand...
Right, I honestly don't get why people are so obsessed with a brand.
 
Keith Hatfull said:
Keith Hatfull wrote:
Keith Hatfull said:
TrapperJohn wrote:

I expect the current 4/3 bodies will retain their value for the immediate, for the people who really prefer that form factor. Based on my experience with OMD and ZD... if the AF speed were fixed (which it will be), if the new, larger, sharper VF goes into it (which it will), and if a slightly larger battery grip with slightly larger buttons were added (which it probably will be), the majority of 4/3 owners will probably find the result to be a most adequate upgrade from the E5, putting a state of the art sensor behind their superb lenses.

Nothing replaces HG or SHG ZD, though. Not at the current prices.
Click to expand...
All I really care about is the AF speed. Just make my lenses work, that's all. Hell, I'll have a custom grip machined if I think the body is too small :)

A long time ago I posted a reply about a "modular system":
  • Three m/43 base units in the vein of the E-620, E-30, E-5...increasing resolution, features, weather sealing. Something just a tad larger than the new E-P5. Of course, with an adapter that full enabled the ZD glass.
  • Add on EVFs, maybe two, one lower resolution (cheaper) and one very high resolution (more expensive), very fast refresh.
  • Add on grips, maybe two, one smaller with no battery support, one larger to balance the larger ZD glass that has battery support.
You could mix and match what you needed for the lens being used at the time.

Using the ZD50-200? Throw on the EVF and large battery grip.

Want to use a light m4/3 prime? Dump all the extras and just go commando with the base unit.

Maybe that's the "beautiful new system" :)

Maybe I'm a prophet :)

Maybe I'm full of @#$% :)
Click to expand...
That sounds ideal the only thing extra might be that the 4/3 adapter would be more than a normal "adapter" as far as the mechanical interface to be able to solidly support the larger 4/3 lenses. Maybe some kind of external bayonet like the old exakta cameras had?
 
I have a 12-60mm, 9-18mm, FL-36 flash and an E-3 body.
 
bofo777 said:
bofo777 wrote:
bofo777 said:
Stacey_K wrote:
bofo777 said:
veroman wrote:

The suggestion that this is unwise only holds true for those who believe (as so many do) that the latest is the greatest by the very fact of it being the latest/newest.
Click to expand...
If that was the case, I would still be using my 4/3 gear. Unfortunately, even the newer OMD has IQ much better than any 4/3 body.

Last fall I got a D7000 to replace my 4/3 gear and low and behold something "later/greater" has come out. I have no intention on buying a D7100 as the difference isn't enough to see in my use. But the difference between the sensor in a D7000 and any 4/3 body is huge >in my use<. Don't assume anyone who switched from the abandoned 4/3 system did so simply because they saw some new and shiny.

If you shoot in good light and/or can keep the iso settings low, an older 4/3 body works fine. But please don't pretend in the last 5 years there has been no real improvement in sensor technology. I did keep my 4/3 stuff in hopes that they will release something the glass will work on but that has yet to be seen if and what it will be.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Most people who say they wouldn't invest a penny into 4/3rds right now are functioning on what I believe to be fallacies of logic. They assume that no one wants to upgrade to anything less than the current best (not matter how huge a jump up it would be say from an E-510 to an E-30). They assume that everyone buys new. Also they seem to believe that a camera is not good anymore after a new camera comes along that feels newer. They also neglect the great prices of 4/3rds gear right now, the specific needs it might meet, and that Olympus has repeatedly said straight out that there will be a body for 4/3rds glass. Of course they seem to believe that their individual desires represent what everyone wants, and that every purchase needs to be future proof. And finally, there is a sentiment of "get out now while you still can." While there is nothing wrong with changing systems now, neither is there any real disadvantage with changing systems later if you want to.

There are names for all of these lines of thinking I'm sure. Red Herring, Begging the Question, Perfectionist fallacy, Composition fallacy.... But I'm just learning the names. ;)

Cheers,

Seth
 
SirSeth said:
SirSeth wrote:

And finally, there is a sentiment of "get out now while you still can."
Click to expand...
Heh, as far as I am concerned, it's "get IN while you can" - can get these lenses at these prices. At any other time I couldn't even dream of getting clean very little used 50-200 AND 7-14 for $1,200 total. There is something good resulting from all those logical fallacies, isn't it? :)
 
Stacey_K said:
Stacey_K wrote:



The case you seem to be trying to make is I should have ignored this new improved film because a good photographer could make nice images (and make up for?) this new, better film? No one would have refused to use this new improved film back then, why should people do it now?
Click to expand...
 
You seem to be trapped in a four thirds mantra. Theres nothing wrong with four thirds cameras. But there's nothing wrong with progression. If you have Olympus bodies and want to use them and buy second hand lenses, great. Why do you feel you have to justify it? Image quality has moved on, sensors have improved.
 
Gidday Steve

Just a couple of cents worth from my perspective ...

I get to see quite a lot of different images from a fairly wide variety of cameras, one way and another. Including test shots done by the good folk here at DPR and elsewhere. I often take the trouble to download the RAW files and examine them minutely.

This sort of editing also concerns me:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/10/aesthetics-versus-truth

When all is said and done, I am not all that impressed with images from any camera at over about ISO 1600. Some do somewhat better than others, both above and below this figure, and I do not dispute that; but none do well ... DR suffers; noise suffers; critical sharpness suffers (because of slight misses in focus, noise blurring edges, camera shake, etc).

I will shoot my E-30 at ISO 1250 or 1600 on occasion, and it does much better than film ever did, but the above still applies. Camera shake is mitigated by the IBIS, even when using something like my OM mount f/8 500 mm mirror lens - just dial in the FL for the IBIS, and it works ... The speed of lenses helps to retain some semblance of DR by allowing the ISO to be kept lower for a given shutter speed and aperture setting.

That said, I rarely use higher than ISO 400. Some reasons below.

Things that are extremely important to me are colour correctness and critical sharpness across the frame. This comment applies to perhaps 95%+ of all the images I take. Be they of motorcycles, machinery, landscapes, flowers, cats, people (skin tones / hair colour ... ), etc. I am very sensitive to sky colour and all the myriad different shades of green.

I have seen many people say that if you shoot raw, you can have any colours you want. This is not correct. One is ultimately governed by the colour balance that the particular CFA in a particular camera gives one to work with.
IME, Olympus cameras give one that colour balance.
Even the best of the best using PS cannot keep the colour balance correct if it doesn't start out with some semblance of the correct relationship in the first place. I have tried correcting these things. I have seen those far more expert than I attempting to correct these things. I have yet to see anyone achieve this ...

It is one thing to say that "I am pleased with the colour balance of this picture", and another altogether for one to be able to say "This is an accurate representation of what I saw and photographed". Car and flower colours are particularly unforgiving IME. Many here (as at the photo club I belong to) may be very happy to achieve the first position. I am very unhappy if I cannot achieve the second.

A lot of things that I like to photograph require sharpness across the entire frame, without vignetting. For some this does not matter at all. That's fine by me - but it's not fine for me.

So I want cameras and lenses that will give me colour correctness at about the level of a Pantone colour swatch, and critical sharpness across the frame. Olympus cameras and lenses give me both of these things. I have not yet come across any other brand that does this well enough to satisfy my requirements. YMMV.

There are lots of other things that I take into account, one important one being that I could not stand having to clean the sensor in my camera, or spend time cloning out dust spots ... There are many others. The word 'balance' sums it up for me. I will leave it at that.

Olympus dSLR cameras and lenses tick more of those boxes for me than any other. I look forward to (even) just getting the OM-D sensor and electronics in an E-30 form factor body. If it goes further, and I get some of the goodies in the EP-5, so much the better.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
I am a Photography Aficionado ... and ...
"I don't have any problems with John. He is a crotchety old Aussie. He will smack you if you behave like a {deleted}. Goes with the territory." boggis the cat
.
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

C120644_small.jpg





Bird Control Officers on active service.
 
dougster1979 said:
dougster1979 wrote:

You seem to be trapped in a four thirds mantra. Theres nothing wrong with four thirds cameras. But there's nothing wrong with progression. If you have Olympus bodies and want to use them and buy second hand lenses, great. Why do you feel you have to justify it? Image quality has moved on, sensors have improved.
Click to expand...
I might be trapped in a four thirds mantra. However I use Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic alongside Olympus gear. The camera bodies that impress me are the A77, K5ii, D7100 and E-5 (in the enthusiast bracket). I haven't shot with the G6, but have not used one in person so will reserve opinion on that one. Does that sound like I'm stuck in a four thirds mantra? You are correct, there is nothing wrong with four thirds, and there is huge progression within four thirds for people currently using say an E-520, E-330, E-1, or E-3. And what's wrong with buying second hand lenses? I don't feel I need to justify that decision.

Image quality has moved on, and sensors have improved. That doesn't make it a bad decision to upgrade to a sensor that is better than the one someone is currently using, especially if the going price puts a more professional body in one's hands at the same time (noting of course that they want and value the professional features). Isn't there is more to buying a camera body than getting the newest sensor? If not, then I am stuck in a four thirds mantra. Must everyone come under derision for not buying the newest sensor? If so, I deserve to be put in my place. I guess I owe you thanks.

Best,

Seth
 
dougster1979 said:
dougster1979 wrote:

You seem to be trapped in a four thirds mantra. Theres nothing wrong with four thirds cameras. But there's nothing wrong with progression. If you have Olympus bodies and want to use them and buy second hand lenses, great. Why do you feel you have to justify it? Image quality has moved on, sensors have improved.
Click to expand...
You seem to be stuck in the 43rds forum :D
 
You`re probably right. I`ll leave you guys too it. I was being too judgemental, my point is if you don`t own any 4 3rds gear there are better alternatives.... if buying into a new system
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top