Crazy to sell the Olympus 12-40mm?!

Alien from Mars wrote:

Your problem is that you are translating your own vision onto everyone. Everybody's different with different needs.

You are doing that. Clearly you didn't notice.

Fri13 wrote:

The whole point in m4/3 isnt it being small and light, in contrary.

Really? Why are you so sure that this is true for EVERYONE? Is this stated in some official documents?

Where did I claim that the m4/3 vision is to be huge and ultra heavy? No where. I just said that the m4/3 idea is to have big and small sizes, light and heavier weights. It is UP TO THE USER to have a possibility and go and choose what to buy and use. If you want 300mm f/4, then sorry you can not get it in size and weight of 20mm f/1.7.

If you want big and sturdier, you have choices. If you want small and lighter, you have choices.

Its idea is to be smaller and lighter than 135 format with a same field of view and 2-stops benefit for same depth of field.

No. For you - maybe. For many others - not that specific. A lot of people don't care about 135 format or MF or any other format. They want small, light AND good enough IQ AND good enough ergonomics AND many other things. And their desired combination of properties might not be offered by bigger or smaller systems or cameras.

That is what I said.... Next time don't try to misread.

The Olympus PRO line objectives are smaller and lighter than 135 format combos with near same characters.

If you want small and light, stick to smartphone.

"don't tell me what to do... " - you know what follows?

Erh.... You are trying to tell me what to do.... So what follows is that you get answer that you can go and buy smartphone if wanted ultra light and small camera with image quality good enough, or you can go and buy a large format and sheets of film and start developing film yourself. It is up to you what you want. Don't try to enforce idea that m4/3 gear needs to be small and light or it isn't following the "idea of the m4/3".

Sorry that you cant get changable objectives or adjust settings so easily and so on, but after all you are after small and light, right?

No. Small and light AND good enough IQ (and that "good enough" really vary for different people) AND good choice of glass AND ... (on and on). So who are you to decide for everyone?

Do you have some kind a problem? I didn't do any decision for others (or anyone). Just pointing out that it is wrong to try to hammer the idea that m4/3 idea is to be only small and light or it isn't 'following spirit of the m4/3'. I only said that it is up to everyone individually to make the decision what they want, if they want 150mm f/2.8 then they need to get the heavier and larger objective, if they want larger grip and good handling, they need to get something else than GM1. But there are options to get what they need and want from m4/3 system and yet everything is still having the m4/3 benefits and reasons to be.

For some people small and light is D810 with 150-600mm because it offers them what they need. As if the comparison is something even heavier and larger....