M43 seems more and more overpriced compared to NEX

Started Aug 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
Abrak Veteran Member • Posts: 4,064
Re: Get some fact right first ...

peevee1 wrote:

wolfie wrote:

peevee1 wrote:

wolfie wrote:

peevee1 wrote:

Dennis wrote:

If you want to extend the argument, then it's fair to point out that NEX has nothing at all to compete with the excellent and fairly priced 45/1.8 and 75/1.8

No, 75/1.8 is NOT fairly priced, you can get plenty 85/1.8 covering twice the image circle at less than half the price. It is in fact one of the most overpriced m43 lenses, along with 12/2 and Pana 12-35 and 35-100 pair, at least at their prices on the US market.

Of course that's just your opinion about the price. Plenty of people have voted with their wallets and would disagree.

However you justify this opinion a on a totally flawed comparison!

First remember the fact that a FF 85mm is not an equivalent to the M43 75mm, (that would be a nearly a 42.5mm in M43),

First of all, you can put 85/1.8 on m43 and get very similar picture to what 75/1.8 gives you.

???- So you want to compare a manual focus Nikon lens on an adapter to a native AF lens??? No contest for operational performance and 99% of people would never do it - so a non starter for a comparison in reality.

What manual focus? 85/1.8G is AF, with AF motor in the body, just like 75mm Oly. And has more glass because of longer FL and covering twice the diameter (4 times the area) of image circle = more expensive to make.

So why not compare m.zuiko 45mm to the 85mm nikon?

Why would I? Totally different costs, 85mm nikon has like 4 times the glass of the 45mm Oly.

They also have very similar design constraints, except the focusing group of m43 lens should be lighter (or focusing motor stronger), but it should not worry about quality/coverage beyond 22mm image circle while FF lens should.

And if you bring equivalence, then m32 75/1.8 is like 150/3.6 FF, and 85/1.8FF is like 42.5/0.9 m43.

No - exposure is exactly the same, not interested in DOF, this is about lens speed.

Between f/1.8 for FF and f/1.8 for m43, exposure time is the same, exposure intensity is the same (number of photons hitting each sq mm in a second, simply speaking), area of the circle is 4 times bigger on FF so 4 times more photons are hitting it in a given time, each of those photons has to be captured/transmitted/focused before hitting the sensor, so more glass is needed (they come from different angles). 4 times the photons captured and transmitted into a sensor mean 4 times higher signal from the sensor, with the same amount of read noise (which is not true in practice, but close enough) meaning 4 times higher signal-to-noise ratio, or 2 stops advantage (in theory, before the difference in technology manifests).

But I prefer to operate real FLs because that is what they are and very comparable in design constrains above the system's flange distances (obviously, design of FF lenses on Nikon F and Canon EF below 40mm gets complicated than the same FLs on m43).

so try the comparison to a 150mm f1.8 lens from the FF crowd (if you can find one) and see how the price, size and image quality compare.

150 f/3.6 in light gathering, with different real group distributing the same light (as 75/1.8 m43) over larger circle.

The same red herring: Exposure is exactly the same, f1.8 is f1.8 on any format. The exposure triangle doesnot alter for the same EV.

And FL is FL on any format, 75mm does not suddenly become 150mm and is not designed like 150/1.8, does not need as much glass as 150/1.8 and does not cost as 150/1.8, it is the same 75/1.8, you just through away 3/4 of the circle by cropping to lower format (which, if you design for a smaller format from get go, you do not even provide, making the lens even cheaper than 75/1.8 for bigger format). Sheesh, what is so hard to understand?

Sure, quality costs extra, that is why I do not suggest it should cost $200. But not $900 either. A little below Canon and Nikon 85/1.8 (given smaller FL and much smaller image circle) would be fair, $400 or so. 45/1.8 should be $150 though (see FF 50/1.8 at $99).

Please spare us the pontifications when you cant even the basic facts straight.

Which are those?

Your proclamation that the lens is NOT worth its price.

I am talking about facts. Which YOU cannot get straight.

Here we go! Here we go! Here we go!

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow