-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Wasn't m43 lens supposed to be $ cheaper?
- Thread starter pedronicoli
- Start date
zkz5
Leading Member
- Messages
- 666
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 281
No...
Exactly, and Olympus's is even cheaper, sharper, with more range.Er, the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 costs $2300, while the Lumix X 12-35mm f/2.8 costs $1100.
Micro 4/3rds Photography
m43photo.blogspot.com
--
Follow me on Flickr at http://www.flickr.com/photos/96692550@N07/
G Rash
Senior Member
It really depends on the lens. Compare my 45-90 to my Nikkor 80-400. The Panasonic lens is a small ion of the cost, but it also isn't nearly as sharp as my Nikkor.
You have to do your homework. If you do, then you'll know up front that some lenses will cost you as much or more than the corresponding full frame lenses as far as field of view.
You have to do your homework. If you do, then you'll know up front that some lenses will cost you as much or more than the corresponding full frame lenses as far as field of view.
sparklite
Senior Member
When Olympus introduced the Fourthirds system it was built ground up as a digital system and wasn't based heavily on previous camera designs. The intent was always to work towards minuturizing and lightening the photos load. A 300mm lens was now a 150mm lens and the weight and size could be shrunk. Quality however still requires investment. Of course Oly eventually realized that to go small they had to eliminate the mirror and launched the PEN line of mirror less cameras, again, a full redesign. What we have is a light, small camera package with lenses with twice the reach (trade off being less DOF control). Optical quality and build quality of cameras is still reliant on R&D, and good materials - both cost money. In fact, Olympus has done well given the innovation they drive -- likely why the other very innovative camera company, Sony, was interested in teaming up with them.
So no, in short, M43 was never about cost savings. It was about weight, size and innovation.
So no, in short, M43 was never about cost savings. It was about weight, size and innovation.
HyperCypher
Senior Member
Oly 12-40 2.8 = $1,000 and on an M1 has superior IS and is sharper wide open to boot
vs
Nikon 24-70 2.8 = $1700 no IS (still a great lens)
vs
Nikon 24-70 2.8 = $1700 no IS (still a great lens)
E
Erik Magnuson
Guest
Huh? Obviously, the amount of noise seen depends on what you view. Most people view entire images; perhaps not the entire frame (if cropped) but usually a fixed percentage of the frame. If you only view images by pixel peeping at 100% (independent of the number of pixels) then per unit area might matter.
lolopasstrail
Forum Enthusiast
You are right, OP, one of the promises of micro 4/3, besides being smaller and lighter, was lower cost. Leaving aside for a minute the high price (and short shelf life) of its bodies, the lenses as a rule are indeed too expensive. The manufacturer costs are reduced through a reduction in volume of materials, but also in the incompleteness of the optical quality. The glasses tend to be sub-standard, with imperfections corrected in software to get a very nice image. This too allows for reduction in manufacturing costs. Those cost reductions were not passed on to the consumer, and I worry that that has cost micro 4/3 its chance for success.
I think the high cost of micro 4/3 is what killed it in the consumer space. Why not get a DSLR with likely better image quality, faster focusing, and two kit zooms for the price of an EM1? Millions of consumers are voting with their wallets every day. The high cost is killing the camera industry as a whole, and I fear micro 4/3 is only the first that has lost the mainstream consumer market as a result.
OP asked, and that's my opinion, and I say that as an owner of a couple high end micro 4/3 cameras and a handful of lenses.
I think the high cost of micro 4/3 is what killed it in the consumer space. Why not get a DSLR with likely better image quality, faster focusing, and two kit zooms for the price of an EM1? Millions of consumers are voting with their wallets every day. The high cost is killing the camera industry as a whole, and I fear micro 4/3 is only the first that has lost the mainstream consumer market as a result.
OP asked, and that's my opinion, and I say that as an owner of a couple high end micro 4/3 cameras and a handful of lenses.
Don Karner
Senior Member
They are cheaper than equivalent Canon name brand lenses.
Canon 24-70 F2.8 II $2299
Panasonic 12-25 F2.8 $1119
Both prices today from B & H in New York City.
Looks cheaper to me.
Canon 24-70 F2.8 II $2299
Panasonic 12-25 F2.8 $1119
Both prices today from B & H in New York City.
Looks cheaper to me.
According to your theory.... a smaller lens SHOULD cost less, because it needs less materials.
So lets look at a system with a sensor much smaller than M4/3... the Nikon 1 which uses a 1" CX sensor. And lets look at the most common lenses purchased by users.... in the closest equivalents available.
28mm f/2.8 EFL
Why are the Nikon 1 lenses more expensive than M4/3 lenses? The sensor is LESS than half as large.
OK, at this point, someone will say we shouldn't be comparing "cheap lenses" and we should be looking at high end lenses. Because that is where M4/3 costs a lot more. So lets try that too, and see what happens.....
24-70mm f/2.8 EFL
--
Marty
my blog: Decent Exposures
So lets look at a system with a sensor much smaller than M4/3... the Nikon 1 which uses a 1" CX sensor. And lets look at the most common lenses purchased by users.... in the closest equivalents available.
28mm f/2.8 EFL
- FX - Nikon 28mm f/2.8D.............................$268....205 grams
- DX - ...............................................no such lens exists
- M4/3 - Panasonic 14mm f/2.5.....................$220......55 grams
- CX - Nikon 1 10mm f/2.8............................$247......77 grams
- FX - Nikon 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 G.................$199.....196 grams
- DX - Nikon 18-55mm f/4.0-5.6 VR...............$197.....265 grams
- M4/3 - Olympus 14-42mm f/4.0-5.6.............$152.....112 grams
- CX - Nikon 1 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 VR.............$190.....115 grams
- FX - Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 G.............$1,049......800 grams
- DX - Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G VR... .......$847......560 grams
- M4/3 - Olympus 14-150mm f/4.0-5.6...........$599......280 grams
- CX - Nikon 1 10-100mm f/4.0-5.6................$547......298 grams
- FX - Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR..............$600......425 grams
- DX - Nikon 55-200mm f/4.0-5.6 VR..............$185......335 grams
- M4/3 - Olympus 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6...........$199......190 grams
- CX - Nikon 1 30-110 f/3.8-5.6.....................$299......180 grams
Why are the Nikon 1 lenses more expensive than M4/3 lenses? The sensor is LESS than half as large.
OK, at this point, someone will say we shouldn't be comparing "cheap lenses" and we should be looking at high end lenses. Because that is where M4/3 costs a lot more. So lets try that too, and see what happens.....
24-70mm f/2.8 EFL
- Canon EOS 24-70 f/2.8.........................$1,935......805 grams
- FX - Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G....................$1,887......900 grams
- Tamron 24-70 f/2.8..............................$1,299.......825 grams
- DX - Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G....................$1,299......764 grams
- M4/3 - Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8.............$1,299......305 grams
- Pentax K - 16-50 f/2.8...........................$1,025......565 grams
- M4/3 - Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8.................$999......382 grams
- Tokina - 16-50 f/2.8.................................$910......610 grams
- Sigma 24-70 f/2.8....................................$824......790 grams
- Sony A - 16-50mm f/2.8...........................$748......577 grams
- CX - ................................................no such lens exists
- Fuji X - ............................................no such lens exists
- Samsung NX - ...................................no such lens exists
--
Marty
How did this become an equivalency debate thread when the OP was discussing price? That is a big fail right there. LOL
You want the best Canon pro standard zoom, go buy the 24-70 f/2.8 mk2. You want the best m4/3 pro standard zoom that covers a similar focal range, there are two options in the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 or the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8. These are the ONLY 3 lenses you'd be comparing if you're discussing Canon vs m4/3 (Panasonic/Olympus together) as they are the BEST standard pro zooms for their respective systems (stop bringing the Canon f/4 zoom into the equation as it is not the best standard zoom they offer). The most expensive of the 3 is the Canon by several hundred dollars. If several hundred dollars is not considered that much cheaper to you then I don't know what to tell you.
You want the best Canon pro standard zoom, go buy the 24-70 f/2.8 mk2. You want the best m4/3 pro standard zoom that covers a similar focal range, there are two options in the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 or the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8. These are the ONLY 3 lenses you'd be comparing if you're discussing Canon vs m4/3 (Panasonic/Olympus together) as they are the BEST standard pro zooms for their respective systems (stop bringing the Canon f/4 zoom into the equation as it is not the best standard zoom they offer). The most expensive of the 3 is the Canon by several hundred dollars. If several hundred dollars is not considered that much cheaper to you then I don't know what to tell you.
I'm pretty sure Leica dispels this statement. Their FF lenses are much smaller than their Nikon/Canon equivalents yet cost a LOT more.
E
Erik Magnuson
Guest
Because how you compare price depends on which lenses you think are equivalent.
Why is it then that the "best" MFT lenses are relatively slow? It's not like Olympus can't make fast zooms (e.g. 14-35mm f/2.0) but such lenses are more expensive precisely because they are more challenging to make and can command a premium price.
I just posted which lenses are equivalent. Don't know how much more straightforward I need to be.
I have absolutely no doubt that Olympus could build a M4/3 version of the 14-35mm f/2.0 lens. And it might even be a little bit smaller and lighter than the 4/3 version, but I doubt it would be any cheaper.
But I believe they have wisely decided to go a different route by creating a 12-40mm lens that has numerous advantages over the 14-35mm, even if it is slower and isn't optically as superb.
- A 12-40mm range is much more useful than a 14-35mm range
- A constant f/2.8 is still pretty fast for a zoom lens
- It costs less than half as much
- It weighs less than half as much
- It is just as weathersealed
- It makes much more sense for a smaller body format
And lets be honest for a moment. If we didn't care about money, size and weight, then all of us would be lugging around Canon 6D cameras and L series lenses. You have to remember what drew us to M4/3 in the first place.
For example.... why would anyone want to use a 4/3 35-100mm lens when you can buy a very similar M4/3 lens for half the price and one third the weight? OK, I realize some folks will want the better lens, but for me at least, the M4/3 lens is the better lens for my EM5.
Oh.. I forgot to add in the $300 optional grip, and the extra weight involved. You pretty much need the grip for a 3 pound lens.
--
Marty
E
Erik Magnuson
Guest
And you are the ultimate authority? This is why so many MFT threads devolve into debates on equivalence - the idea that your most favorable definition is the only one worth considering.
Why leave your ISO the same when you have a noise advantage with FF? You can argue if it's one vs. two stops, but there is a noise difference at any ISO where noise matters. FF lenses collect more total light at the same f-stop and so tend to be more expensive for similar designs and similar introduction years. Medium format lenses are even bigger and more expensive for the same f-stop vs. 35mm lenses even back when MF was somewhat common. There are some exceptions: as pointed out Nikon CX lenses collect less light for the same f-stop but are not always less expensive.
E
Erik Magnuson
Guest
You can argue Sony feels the same way and their premium zoom for the new FF cameras will be f/4 for many of the same reasons.
The same applies f/2.8 vs. f/4 lenses for FF.
Equivalence debates are not a value judgment on why anyone would prefer M4/3 - it's a judgment on how some like to rationalize that decision w/o understanding the issues. M4/3 is a useful and desirable system even if you make the more pessimistic assumption on equivalence, so defending it with unrealistic assumptions just makes some M4/3 advocates look a bit desperate.
Sean Nelson
Forum Pro
Here's the thing: M43 shooters have accepted the limitations of the format in exchange for the size and weight benefits of the system. They understand that they can't shoot in the same conditions or get the same DOF flexibility as is possible with an FF system.
If you can take a shot with your M43 equipment where noise isn't an issue at the size you intend to display the image, then the extra light gathering capability of the FF lens and sensor is irrelevant.
Yes, an FF system will pull acceptable images out of more adverse conditions. But if shooting in those kinds of conditions was important then you wouldn't choose the M43 system in the first place. For M43 users who aren't shooting in those kinds of conditions the fact that the FF system can gather more light is completely beside the point.
That's why a lot of M43 users are deaf to the "total light gathering equivalence" argument. It's not because they don't believe that more light is gathered by the FF system, it's because they simply don't care.
Similar threads
- User review
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum