The new Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 is around 3100 euro

JakeJY · Oct 19, 2016

sportyaccordy said:
JakeJY said:

Arizona Sunset said:

You are right, only 2.5 stops between between the D500, more for the D810 of course.

Anyways, how about some napkin math?

An f2.8 m43 zoom is $1,000, a kit lens is $200. Five times as much for one to two stops and better sharpness across it's range. The Nikon, on any modern Nikon sensor, is two to three stops better, too. Is it five times more than the f2.8 m43 zoom? At $3100 retail, it's a better technical value, if I care about it's usefulness vs. alternatives in the m43 world. It also replaces the primes in m43 easily, something the existing m43 f2.8's cannot hope to do to any comparable system. The Nocticron can do things that the f2.8's can't dream of doing, of course.

I won't be buying the new Nikon lens, but I can justify it's price easily if I were a professional. It would, ultimately, save me money owning it, vs anything that m43 has to offer across it's range (and the way that I shoot, right at that threshold).

Fortunately, I like m43 for more than it's "pro" f2.8 lenses.

Click to expand...

Moving from the 40-150mm f/4-5.6 to the f/2.8 for $800 more, you gain a lot more than just simply the stops. You gain:

-constant aperture

-silent focus motor (both important for video)

-internal focus and internal zoom

-all metal construction (vs plastic)

-weather sealing (11 seals)

-clutched focus ring for true manual focus (vs fully electronic)

-shorter minimum focus distance (70cm vs 90cm)

-more magnification (0.21x vs 0.16x)

-included tripod collar and lens hood

When you move to the 70-200mm for $2000 more, you gain only the extra stops and pretty much nothing else (the PRO lens already have almost all the features).

I think most people would consider the PRO lens a much better value.

Click to expand...

Nikkor lets you shoot on a 36 MP sensor that lets you crop down cleanly and gives you more DR/color depth

More DoF control too... this is a legitimate portrait lens whereas an MFT 2.8 kind of isn't

That's gotta count for something

Those fall under the "stops" part. Not saying that's worth nothing (it obviously is worth something or people won't be buying), just that there's a much bigger gap in terms of generic lens features between the $200 kit lens and $1000 PRO lens than the $1000 PRO lens to the $3000 Nikon lens. This has to do with PRO and Nikon lens both being essentially professional quality, so they share a lot of features naturally.

If Olympus made a f/2.8 that was essentially the same as the kit lens in all the other characteristics, then Arizona Sunset might have a case about value, but at that point, I don't think it would cost $800 more either.

Tasslehoff · Oct 20, 2016

leendertcv said:
The m.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 is only 1400 euro

It's not only Nikon, Canon 5D Mark IV is 4000 Euros, Olympus 25/1.2 is 1300 Euros (compare this to the Nikon 50/1.8 G which is 200 Euros and which is a good lens), Olympus 7-14/2.8 is 1200 Euros (my Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 which was quite a good lens was 400 Euros new). The rumored price of the em1-II is 2000 Euros...

I shoot both Nikon and mFT. I used to buy new stuff, but I think prices are so ridicolous nowadays that I basically only buy used gear now.

DonParrot · Oct 20, 2016

Arizona Sunset said:
You are right, only 2.5 stops between between the D500, more for the D810 of course.

Anyways, how about some napkin math?

An f2.8 m43 zoom is $1,000, a kit lens is $200. Five times as much for one to two stops and better sharpness across it's range. The Nikon, on any modern Nikon sensor, is two to three stops better, too. Is it five times more than the f2.8 m43 zoom? At $3100 retail, it's a better technical value, if I care about it's usefulness vs. alternatives in the m43 world. It also replaces the primes in m43 easily, something the existing m43 f2.8's cannot hope to do to any comparable system. The Nocticron can do things that the f2.8's can't dream of doing, of course.

I won't be buying the new Nikon lens, but I can justify it's price easily if I were a professional. It would, ultimately, save me money owning it, vs anything that m43 has to offer across it's range (and the way that I shoot, right at that threshold).

Fortunately, I like m43 for more than it's "pro" f2.8 lenses.

You are arguing as if the f stop was the only factor turning a lens into a good or outstanding lens. That's utterly wring and you know it. Therevare horrible 1.8 priimes on the msarket and very good 4.0-5.6 lenses. For instance.

And: if we are talking about raws, the 2.5 steps advantage of the 500 D are a joke and if we are talking JPEGs, the E-M1 MKII apperently will close the gap to a large extent.

And: the 70-200 2.8 easily replaces the µFT primes, you say? Well, I don't know how the knre lens delivers but I fear it won't be able to provide the througout-the-frame sharpness of µFT budget lensens such as the m-Zuiko 40-15R or the Lumix 45-175. And don't forget the weight? Who's gonna take the weight? So usefulness is a two-way-road.

Great Bustard · Oct 20, 2016

dmanthree said:
Arizona Sunset said:

dmanthree said:

Arizona Sunset said:

Playing devil's advocate, it sounds like a bargain if you are willing to carry it.

In m43 land, I have the following to replace it:

Nocticron

Olympus 75

Olympus 40-150

And then I've lesser CAF, tracking, DR, resolution, low light (3-4 stops against Nikon's best), and handling for these larger lenses.

Click to expand...

I replaced it with the Panny 35-100 f2.8. It's lighter.

Click to expand...

Weight is more important for a lot of folks.

For others, it's IQ, focus speed, stabilization, etc.

I like both lenses, but I'm not going to suggest that the 12-35 is a replacement given all factors. It's a major compromise.

Click to expand...

How is it a compromise? The image quality is excellent, it offers the same angle of view, AF is quick (though not quite as quick as the Nikon), and it has the advantages of being much smaller and lighter. Honestly, for me it's a tossup.

...the two systems were the same size, weight, and price, I'm pretty sure no one but a fanatical minority would choose the 35-100 / 2.8. If you then consider size, weight, and price, what's being compromised for what now becomes plainly obvious.

tt321 · Oct 20, 2016

Great Bustard said:
dmanthree said:

Arizona Sunset said:

dmanthree said:

Arizona Sunset said:

Playing devil's advocate, it sounds like a bargain if you are willing to carry it.

In m43 land, I have the following to replace it:

Nocticron

Olympus 75

Olympus 40-150

And then I've lesser CAF, tracking, DR, resolution, low light (3-4 stops against Nikon's best), and handling for these larger lenses.

Click to expand...

I replaced it with the Panny 35-100 f2.8. It's lighter.

Click to expand...

Weight is more important for a lot of folks.

For others, it's IQ, focus speed, stabilization, etc.

I like both lenses, but I'm not going to suggest that the 12-35 is a replacement given all factors. It's a major compromise.

Click to expand...

How is it a compromise? The image quality is excellent, it offers the same angle of view, AF is quick (though not quite as quick as the Nikon), and it has the advantages of being much smaller and lighter. Honestly, for me it's a tossup.

Click to expand...

...the two systems were the same size, weight, and price, I'm pretty sure no one but a fanatical minority would choose the 35-100 / 2.8. If you then consider size, weight, and price, what's being compromised for what now becomes plainly obvious.

You don't need to be fanatical. You could regard the button layout of one to be vitally superior to the other to make a choice. Or you could be like me, being lured by manufacturer promotion cashback more than anything else on both occasions when I bought a system camera, and on all occasions when I bought system camera lenses.

The 35-100/2.8 is essentially apo, with no noticeable LoCA. Is the new 70-200/2.8 also the same in this regard?

Your if condition does not work as a matter of physics. A better if would be if an FF body is constructed to the same size and weight as an M43 one, which has some hope of happening and one could argue has more or less already happened, if an f/5.6 FF lens is constructed to the same size and weight as an f/2.8 m43 lens with no worse IQ, which does not violate physics, and if price parity exists, which does not violate physics, then what should we choose? And would there be any real application trade-offs in the choice or would it just be down to I like the button layout of one more than the other and deals?

sportyaccordy · Oct 20, 2016

Tasslehoff said:
leendertcv said:

The m.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 is only 1400 euro

Click to expand...

It's not only Nikon, Canon 5D Mark IV is 4000 Euros, Olympus 25/1.2 is 1300 Euros (compare this to the Nikon 50/1.8 G which is 200 Euros and which is a good lens), Olympus 7-14/2.8 is 1200 Euros (my Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 which was quite a good lens was 400 Euros new). The rumored price of the em1-II is 2000 Euros...

I shoot both Nikon and mFT. I used to buy new stuff, but I think prices are so ridicolous nowadays that I basically only buy used gear now.

There is no reason to buy new in the first place. You can get a warranty/insurance for old lenses, and if a lens is so new you can't get it used.......just wait. This is one reason I kind of laugh at people complaining about brand new prices. Manufacturers almost always drop prices and the used market does the rest

b0k3h · Oct 20, 2016

leendertcv said:
The m.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 is only 1400 euro

that's 2800 EUR, which isnt too far off from 3100

dmanthree · Oct 20, 2016

Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:

How is it a compromise? The image quality is excellent, it offers the same angle of view, AF is quick (though not quite as quick as the Nikon), and it has the advantages of being much smaller and lighter. Honestly, for me it's a tossup.

Click to expand...

...the two systems were the same size, weight, and price, I'm pretty sure no one but a fanatical minority would choose the 35-100 / 2.8. If you then consider size, weight, and price, what's being compromised for what now becomes plainly obvious.

Honestly, I don't really compare components from different systems. It's useless. I have a FF system I use alongside my m4/3 system, and simply choose the right tools for the job. Beyond that, all discussions of "E" make no sense whatsoever to me.

I just don't see the m4/3 system as a compromise if it can produce the results you want. And 90% of the time, it can.

dmanthree · Oct 20, 2016

tt321 said:
You don't need to be fanatical. You could regard the button layout of one to be vitally superior to the other to make a choice. Or you could be like me, being lured by manufacturer promotion cashback more than anything else on both occasions when I bought a system camera, and on all occasions when I bought system camera lenses.

The 35-100/2.8 is essentially apo, with no noticeable LoCA. Is the new 70-200/2.8 also the same in this regard?

Your if condition does not work as a matter of physics. A better if would be if an FF body is constructed to the same size and weight as an M43 one, which has some hope of happening and one could argue has more or less already happened, if an f/5.6 FF lens is constructed to the same size and weight as an f/2.8 m43 lens with no worse IQ, which does not violate physics, and if price parity exists, which does not violate physics, then what should we choose? And would there be any real application trade-offs in the choice or would it just be down to I like the button layout of one more than the other and deals?

Photo Pete · Oct 20, 2016

sportyaccordy said:
sportyaccordy wrote:

Tasslehoff said:

leendertcv said:

The m.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 is only 1400 euro

Click to expand...

It's not only Nikon, Canon 5D Mark IV is 4000 Euros, Olympus 25/1.2 is 1300 Euros (compare this to the Nikon 50/1.8 G which is 200 Euros and which is a good lens), Olympus 7-14/2.8 is 1200 Euros (my Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 which was quite a good lens was 400 Euros new). The rumored price of the em1-II is 2000 Euros...

I shoot both Nikon and mFT. I used to buy new stuff, but I think prices are so ridicolous nowadays that I basically only buy used gear now.

Click to expand...

There is no reason to buy new in the first place. You can get a warranty/insurance for old lenses, and if a lens is so new you can't get it used.......just wait. This is one reason I kind of laugh at people complaining about brand new prices. Manufacturers almost always drop prices and the used market does the rest

There wouldn't be a used market if the people you laugh at didn't buy new.

sportyaccordy · Oct 20, 2016

Photo Pete said:
There wouldn't be a used market if the people you laugh at didn't buy new.

Photo Pete · Oct 20, 2016

sportyaccordy said:
Photo Pete said:

There wouldn't be a used market if the people you laugh at didn't buy new.

Click to expand...

Great Bustard · Oct 20, 2016

tt321 said:
Great Bustard said:

dmanthree said:

Arizona Sunset said:

dmanthree said:

Arizona Sunset said:

Playing devil's advocate, it sounds like a bargain if you are willing to carry it.

In m43 land, I have the following to replace it:

Nocticron

Olympus 75

Olympus 40-150

And then I've lesser CAF, tracking, DR, resolution, low light (3-4 stops against Nikon's best), and handling for these larger lenses.

Click to expand...

I replaced it with the Panny 35-100 f2.8. It's lighter.

Click to expand...

Weight is more important for a lot of folks.

For others, it's IQ, focus speed, stabilization, etc.

I like both lenses, but I'm not going to suggest that the 12-35 is a replacement given all factors. It's a major compromise.

Click to expand...

How is it a compromise? The image quality is excellent, it offers the same angle of view, AF is quick (though not quite as quick as the Nikon), and it has the advantages of being much smaller and lighter. Honestly, for me it's a tossup.

Click to expand...

...the two systems were the same size, weight, and price, I'm pretty sure no one but a fanatical minority would choose the 35-100 / 2.8. If you then consider size, weight, and price, what's being compromised for what now becomes plainly obvious.

Click to expand...

You don't need to be fanatical. You could regard the button layout of one to be vitally superior to the other to make a choice.

I don't think many would choose, say, an E1 (5 MP 4/3 DSLR) over an EM1 (16 MP mFT body), even if they liked the layout better on the E1.

tt321 said:
Or you could be like me, being lured by manufacturer promotion cashback more than anything else on both occasions when I bought a system camera, and on all occasions when I bought system camera lenses.

However, I said *if* size, weight, and price were all the same.

tt321 said:
The 35-100/2.8 is essentially apo, with no noticeable LoCA. Is the new 70-200/2.8 also the same in this regard?

I imagine it's at least as good as the 70-200 / 2.8 VR II:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/511-nikkorafs7020028vr2ff?start=1

LoCAs (non-coinciding focal planes of the various colors) are a common issue with relatively fast glass. As you can notice below the halos have different colors - magenta (red + blue) in front the focus point and green beyond. Truly "apochromatic" lenses don't show LoCAs but these lenses are very rare. Unlike lateral CAs LoCAs cannot easily be fixed during post processing.

At it longest focal length of 200 mm (which we used for the shots below) the lens shows a moderate amount of LoCAs wide open, which is considerably reduced by f/4 [f/2 mFT equivalent] already and no longer field relevant at f/5.6 [f/2.8 mFT equivalent] and beyond.

tt321 said:
Your if condition does not work as a matter of physics. A better if would be if an FF body is constructed to the same size and weight as an M43 one, which has some hope of happening and one could argue has more or less already happened, if an f/5.6 FF lens is constructed to the same size and weight as an f/2.8 m43 lens with no worse IQ, which does not violate physics, and if price parity exists, which does not violate physics, then what should we choose? And would there be any real application trade-offs in the choice or would it just be down to I like the button layout of one more than the other and deals?

I was merely addressing your question, "How is it a compromise?" The answer being that you sacrifice resolution, noise, and DOF options for a smaller size, weight, and price. This is not to say, of course, that the smaller size, weight, and price is not well worth the differences in resolution, noise, and DOF options. Rather, it's simply to answer your question as to what compromise is being made.

Arizona Sunset · Oct 20, 2016

Photo Pete said:
Arizona Sunset said:

You are right, only 2.5 stops between between the D500, more for the D810 of course.

Anyways, how about some napkin math?

An f2.8 m43 zoom is $1,000, a kit lens is $200. Five times as much for one to two stops and better sharpness across it's range.

Click to expand...

Or $800 more expensive

Photo Pete said:

The Nikon, on any modern Nikon sensor, is two to three stops better, too. Is it five times more than the f2.8 m43 zoom?

Click to expand...

No. but it is $1700 more expensive

As I said elsewhere, the premium you pay for robustness, weather sealing and optical quality with the Olympus pro lenses is good value compared to some other systems.

Photo Pete said:

At $3100 retail, it's a better technical value, if I care about it's usefulness vs. alternatives in the m43 world. It also replaces the primes in m43 easily, something the existing m43 f2.8's cannot hope to do to any comparable system. The Nocticron can do things that the f2.8's can't dream of doing, of course.

I won't be buying the new Nikon lens, but I can justify it's price easily if I were a professional. It would, ultimately, save me money owning it, vs anything that m43 has to offer across it's range (and the way that I shoot, right at that threshold).

Fortunately, I like m43 for more than it's "pro" f2.8 lenses.

Click to expand...

--
Have Fun
Photo Pete

I agree, they are "unique" value proposition, the f2.8's, but they are in no way competitive.

Let's try a prime for a different concept of pricing.

Folks pay $1400 for a Nocticron for a stop of light at 42.5mm, vs the Pansonic at $300. $1100... just one focal length. What would it cost at two and half stops better? What if the system, with this lens, were that much better, at 70, 85, 100, 135, 150, and 200 FOV's?

It's priced perfectly for those that desire such performance, and nothing in m43 world can be close to it at that price point. Not in terms of gross price, size, weight, sealing, IQ, or otherwise.

Giiba · Oct 20, 2016

I feel like fanning the flames a bit.

First, the comparable lenses are the Oly 40-150/2.8 and Pany 35-100/2.8. No if and or buts really.

Thing is f/2.8 is f2.8 in regards to the brightness of the image circle, yes the Nikon casts a larger image circle and more 'total light'. But if you mounted the Nikon on a m4/3 body the exposure variables would remain the same, ie full open is f/2.8. The theoretical 70-200/5.6 is only comparable in dof, mount it on a m4/3 body and it will still be a f/5.6 lens; frankly I find the way m4/3 lenses are put down mind boggling, as these theoretical lenses would be inferior except in minimum dof available.

Yes f/2.8 on the Nikon results in shallower dof than the m4/3 equivalents but that is because it is a longer lens (mm) the different image circle changes the fov.

Noise performance is a sensor characteristic, and has nothing to do with the lenses except insomuch as you need a larger image circle on a larger sensor. Theoretically mount a f/2.8 m4/3 lens on a FF camera and to properly expose the image (in the obviously circular image) you would still calulate with f/2.8.

Yes f/2.8 on a 1" sensor is f/2.8 but the shorter focal length will increase the dof and the smaller sensor will have more noise.

The m4/3 lenses are less expensive because they need less glass to project an smaller image circle, hence the size advantage of smaller sensors.

Point is anybody thinking of changing systems and comparing a FF camera and kit 70-300/4-5.6 zoom to a m4/3 body and the Oly 40-150/2.8 is deluding themselves.

Great Bustard · Oct 20, 2016

Giiba said:
I feel like fanning the flames a bit.

Indeed.

Giiba said:
First, the comparable lenses are the Oly 40-150/2.8 and Pany 35-100/2.8. No if and or buts really.

Depends on what you mean by "comparable".

Giiba said:
Thing is f/2.8 is f2.8 in regards to the brightness of the image circle, yes the Nikon casts a larger image circle and more 'total light'.

Yep.

Giiba said:
But if you mounted the Nikon on a m4/3 body the exposure variables would remain the same, ie full open is f/2.8.

Yep. But now we're talking about a radically different field of view.

Giiba said:
The theoretical 70-200/5.6 is only comparable in dof

No, it is also comparable in the total amount of light projected on the sensor.

Giiba said:
...mount it on a m4/3 body and it will still be a f/5.6 lens;

With a radically different angle of view than the "no if and or buts" lenses you named above.

Giiba said:
frankly I find the way m4/3 lenses are put down mind boggling...

People just find them "overly expensive" with respect to their DOF options and light gathering. Then again, no one seems to mind when a laptop is less capable than a desktop with regards to processing power yet still costs more.

Giiba said:
, as these theoretical lenses would be inferior except in minimum dof available.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. They would put more light on the sensor for a given exposure and, more than likely, have [significantly] greater resolution for the same DOF.

Giiba said:
Yes f/2.8 on the Nikon results in shallower dof than the m4/3 equivalents but that is because it is a longer lens (mm) the different image circle changes the fov.

It's because the aperture diameter is wider for the same AOV and relative aperture.

Giiba said:
Noise performance is a sensor characteristic, and has nothing to do with the lenses except insomuch as you need a larger image circle on a larger sensor.

Again, you are mistaken. Noise performance is primarily a result of how much light falls on the sensor. The next most important factor is the proportion of that light the sensor records, which is typically very close for sensors of the same generation. Lastly is the electronic noise (the noise added by the sensor and supporting hardware), but this noise matters only for the portions of the photo made with very little light.

Giiba said:
Theoretically mount a f/2.8 m4/3 lens on a FF camera and to properly expose the image (in the obviously circular image) you would still calulate with f/2.8.

Yes, but the same exposure on different formats results in different amounts of light falling on the sensor, just as the same focal length on different formats results in different angles of view.

Giiba said:
Yes f/2.8 on a 1" sensor is f/2.8 but the shorter focal length will increase the dof and the smaller sensor will have more noise.

The aperture diameter will be smaller resulting in the deeper DOF and less light falling on the sensor.

Giiba said:
The m4/3 lenses are less expensive because they need less glass to project an smaller image circle, hence the size advantage of smaller sensors.

And the reason they are at a light gathering disadvantage.

Giiba said:
Point is anybody thinking of changing systems and comparing a FF camera and kit 70-300/4-5.6 zoom to a m4/3 body and the Oly 40-150/2.8 is deluding themselves.

Except that the size, weight, price, and performance of a 6D + 70-300 / 4-5.6L IS and a 40-150 / 2.8 on an EM10 are more than a little similar, and that's not a coincidence.

samtheman2014 · Oct 20, 2016

leendertcv said:
The m.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 is only 1400 euro

Here is a nice simple comparison , the Nikon 70-200mm F/2.8 on FF gives the same DOF control, AOV and gathers the same total light as a 35mm-100mm F/1.4 on m43. What do you think a m43 35-100mm F/1.4 would cost and weigh?

The Nikon is also designed to cover a sensor with almost 4x the area. The Panasonic FZ330 has a 24-600mm { effective FF AOV} lens with a fixed F/2.8 aperture , it costs about £450 . So how come the Olympus 300mm { 600mm effective FF AOV} F/4 costs almost 5x the price of the Panasonic { with no camera thrown in ! } . It also weighs double the Panasonic , and the Olympus is huge in comparison , I wonder if it could be something to do with the major difference in sensor size ?

Bhima78 · Oct 20, 2016

sportyaccordy said:
leendertcv said:

The m.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 is only 1400 euro

Click to expand...

The Nikkor 70-300 4-5.6 (MFT 35-150 F2-2.8) is $350.

The Nikon isn't as sharp of a lens (though still great for $500) and will rely on using a Nikon with a high MP count and downscaling to make up for it (use the blur map and set it to 300mm):

Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR AF-S Nikkor - Imaging Resource

(From Nikon lens literature) A high-performance telephoto zoom lens that combines Nikon’s most advanced features and specifications with remarkable value. Main Features: 4.3X telephoto zoom (picture angle, when used with Nikon DX format digital SLRs is equivalent to a 105-450mm on a 35mm format...

www.imaging-resource.com

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro M.Zuiko Digital ED - Imaging Resource

To follow up on our hands-on look at the new Olympus 40-150mm Æ’/2.8 M.Zuiko Pro telephoto zoom lens, our full, in-depth review is now complete, including test results, sample test-chart images and our final conclusion! Officially announced this year just prior to Photokina in September, this...

www.imaging-resource.com

Still, those blur map results for a $500 zoom aren't bad at all. Better than Canon's 70-300.

samtheman2014 · Oct 20, 2016

DonParrot said:
DonParrot wrote:.

And: the 70-200 2.8 easily replaces the µFT primes, you say? Well, I don't know how the knre lens delivers but I fear it won't be able to provide the througout-the-frame sharpness of µFT budget lensens such as the m-Zuiko 40-15R or the Lumix 45-175. And don't forget the weight? Who's gonna take the weight? So usefulness is a two-way-road.

Don , could you point me to the 35-100mm F/1.4 m43 lens that would give me the same DOF control , AOV and total light gathering of the Nikon 70-200mm F/2.8 on a FF camera. If you are interested in huge DOF { corner to corner sharpness etc} then there are much smaller lighter and cheaper alternatives to m43.

The only are where m43 has better corner performance is when you compare lenses at hugely different DOF . Worse still the comparisons are typically made at a DOF that m43 cannot match. So from a DOF , AOV and total light gathering perspective the Nikon will indeed comfortably outperform nearly all m43 lenses within the 35-100mm focal range. The only exception being the 42.5mm F/1.2 Panasonic which is of course an £1100 lens on its own.

sportyaccordy · Oct 20, 2016

Giiba said:
I feel like fanning the flames a bit.

Yes f/2.8 on a 1" sensor is f/2.8 but the shorter focal length will increase the dof and the smaller sensor will have more noise.

Ha ha

So like I said to someone else, lower noise is irrelevant and shallower DoF is a problem for FF vs MFT, but lower noise is an advantage and shallower DoF is irrelevant for MFT vs 1"

And you wonder why MFT zealots are such a popular troll target :-D

Giiba said:
The m4/3 lenses are less expensive because they need less glass to project an smaller image circle, hence the size advantage of smaller sensors.

Point is anybody thinking of changing systems and comparing a FF camera and kit 70-300/4-5.6 zoom to a m4/3 body and the Oly 40-150/2.8 is deluding themselves.

The only one deluding themselves is you, cherrypicking how and when differences are beneficial/detrimental/irrelevant to present M43 in the best light possible

The new Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 is around 3100 euro

Veteran Member

Tasslehoff

Guest

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts