Cancelled my E-M1 order

Started Sep 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
Sergey_Green Forum Pro • Posts: 11,394
Not true ..

boggis the cat wrote:

You need to understand that the second part you emphasise goes with the first part: "... maximizes the image sensor performance to ensure outstanding image quality while also being smaller than 35 mm film SLR camera lens systems."

They all maximize image sensor performance, 35 or smaller, what is your point here?

Size size size. They lost the plot with the SHG and E-3.

No, they didn't. The SHG lenses are smaller than equivalent EFL lenses on 135 (much smaller) and also a stop faster.

From the trio, 14-35/2 is not smaller or lighter than say Nikon 24-70/2.8. And note, it is not 24-70/4, it is an f/2.8. Just like 14-35/2 is not an f/1.4 lens either, which it should have been to be equivalent.

Same goes for 35-100/2, it is bigger and heavier than again Nikon 70-200/2.8. Luckily there is an equivalent on the other side, 70-200/4, which turns out to be smaller, half the weight, half the price, and at least with the same or better output.

I did not miss 7-14/4 (from the three) as there is simply no equivalent f/8 FF lens for it. The f/2.8 is way beyond the f/8 comparison. And the difference in weight is not that great still.

This provides an option for people who want a system that can yield a different size to performance ratio -- an optimisation based on designing an entirely new system.

Notice how they are *NOT* doing F2.0 zoom lenses with m4/3rds.

The 'PRO' line so far has two constant f/2.8 lenses.

But they are *NOT* f/2.0 zoom lenses.


-- hide signature --

- sergey

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