W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
stick a 500mm/5.6 pf on a Z camera, you can use TCs as well if you want to actually compare the FF route, personally i use a Nikon 1 for telephoto as i get more "reach" out of a lens
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Uhhh.. Olympus is doing a FREE E-M1X offer right now..
- Thread starter Terrible Photographer
- Start date
James Stirling
Forum Pro
The 300mm with 2tc will give you equivalent results to a 1200mm F/16 , here is the Sony 200-600mm with 2tc giving a 400-1200mm F/11-12.6 and you can stick it on a body with up to 61mp. The Sony is a zoom lens covering a wide range with a larger aperture there is no FF lens slow enough to be equivalent to the 300mm + TC .
Even with its advantages in being a zoom , larger aperture and better total light gathering the Sony lens +tc is considerably cheaper here in the UK at least
300mm F/4 + MC-20 £2098 + 355 = £2453
https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk...ympus-M.ZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-300mm-f4-IS-Pro-Lens
https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk...lympus-2x-M.ZUIKO-DIGITAL-Teleconverter-MC-20
200-600mm F/5.6-6.3 + 2x TC £1597 + 499 + £2096
https://www.harrisoncameras.co.uk/pd/sony-fe-200-600mm-f56-63-g-oss-lens_sel200600g
https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Sony/Sony-E-Mount-Lenses/Sony-2x-Teleconverter-E-Mount-SEL20TC
On the mirrorlesscomparison .com BIF test the Sony A7III outperformed the E-M1X while being £200 cheaper
https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/
--
Jim Stirling:
It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom. David Hume
James Stirling
Forum Pro
Sony has a 200-600mm that works with the 2xtc , handheld no less
The bottom line is that the "performance " of a the 300mm F/4 with 2TC is what a 1200mm F/16 lens would offer . That is same DOF control, same diagonal AOV and critically same total light gathering
--
Jim Stirling:
It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom. David Hume
John W H
Leading Member
I'm sure some will. I got my G9 (+12-60) last year at the photography show as part of the deal with the Pany 200F2.8. On it's own the camera wasn't that attractive a deal but to get it all for not much more than the retail of the lens that swung it for me.
John
John
James Stirling
Forum Pro
I agree , size and weight is stated as the prime reason for adopting m43 in every single new user/ potential user thread and . No matter how you look at it the harsh bottom line is that size and weight is the system's core selling point.
W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
the thing is with all these comparisons i use my telephotos wide open unless i want to get motion blur for panning or aircraft props, anything over f/5.6 is pretty much of no interest to meSony has a 200-600mm that works with the 2xtc , handheld no less
The bottom line is that the "performance " of a the 300mm F/4 with 2TC is what a 1200mm F/16 lens would offer . That is same DOF control, same diagonal AOV and critically same total light gathering
--
the computer says no
You totally missed the point: size. That 200-600mm while impressive, is still huge compared to the 300mm. It is no news that FF does (depending on the circumstances, a lot) better than MFT with the larger lenses.Sony has a 200-600mm that works with the 2xtc , handheld no less
The bottom line is that the "performance " of a the 300mm F/4 with 2TC is what a 1200mm F/16 lens would offer . That is same DOF control, same diagonal AOV and critically same total light gathering
James Stirling
Forum Pro
That is a good point if you are shooting action in anything but brilliant daylight. The consequences of needing a fast shutter speed means that slower lenses are going to force you to up the ISO and impair AF performancethe thing is with all these comparisons i use my telephotos wide open unless i want to get motion blur for panning or aircraft props, anything over f/5.6 is pretty much of no interest to meSony has a 200-600mm that works with the 2xtc , handheld no less
The bottom line is that the "performance " of a the 300mm F/4 with 2TC is what a 1200mm F/16 lens would offer . That is same DOF control, same diagonal AOV and critically same total light gathering
--
Jim Stirling:
It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom. David Hume
W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
it's something you really need to think of, OK ibis mitigates the loss of shutter speed to help reduce camera shake but does nothing to stop subject motion, the Oly deal is really nothing special as you can source the same deal with an X body for £6k, that money goes a long way for getting a decent rig for other systems, take your pickThat is a good point if you are shooting action in anything but brilliant daylight. The consequences of needing a fast shutter speed means that slower lenses are going to force you to up the ISO and impair AF performancethe thing is with all these comparisons i use my telephotos wide open unless i want to get motion blur for panning or aircraft props, anything over f/5.6 is pretty much of no interest to meSony has a 200-600mm that works with the 2xtc , handheld no less
The bottom line is that the "performance " of a the 300mm F/4 with 2TC is what a 1200mm F/16 lens would offer . That is same DOF control, same diagonal AOV and critically same total light gathering
--
the computer says no
James Stirling
Forum Pro
You telephoto guys are screwed price wise whatever system you look atit's something you really need to think of, OK ibis mitigates the loss of shutter speed to help reduce camera shake but does nothing to stop subject motion, the Oly deal is really nothing special as you can source the same deal with an X body for £6k, that money goes a long way for getting a decent rig for other systems, take your pickThat is a good point if you are shooting action in anything but brilliant daylight. The consequences of needing a fast shutter speed means that slower lenses are going to force you to up the ISO and impair AF performancethe thing is with all these comparisons i use my telephotos wide open unless i want to get motion blur for panning or aircraft props, anything over f/5.6 is pretty much of no interest to meSony has a 200-600mm that works with the 2xtc , handheld no less
The bottom line is that the "performance " of a the 300mm F/4 with 2TC is what a 1200mm F/16 lens would offer . That is same DOF control, same diagonal AOV and critically same total light gathering
--
Jim Stirling:
It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom. David Hume
Ergellegre
Senior Member
You're trying to discuss field use with armchair/spreadsheet photographers. It won't work
--
Just birds
Flickr
Last edited:
Frankly I think I could undersell it and still have money left from my next purchase...
The m1x is not for me but given the marketing campaign would not hesitate to choose it over the reminder of the offered bodoes
This has got nothing to do with one's preferences it's simple convenience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If only closed minds came with closed mouths..
The m1x is not for me but given the marketing campaign would not hesitate to choose it over the reminder of the offered bodoes
This has got nothing to do with one's preferences it's simple convenience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If only closed minds came with closed mouths..
James Stirling
Forum Pro
You missed my point the "performance " of the 300mm plus 2xTC is not what most FF shooters would be aiming at . If there was a 600mm F/8 prime for FF I don't think there would be much of a market for it , while not all super-telephoto shooting is action related an awful lot of it is .You totally missed the point: size. That 200-600mm while impressive, is still huge compared to the 300mm. It is no news that FF does (depending on the circumstances, a lot) better than MFT with the larger lenses.Sony has a 200-600mm that works with the 2xtc , handheld no less
The bottom line is that the "performance " of a the 300mm F/4 with 2TC is what a 1200mm F/16 lens would offer . That is same DOF control, same diagonal AOV and critically same total light gathering
The Sony combo is bigger because it is zoom lens with a larger aperture , it is however cheaper than the Olympus . Just as within m43 if you want a lens with a larger aperture you pay more and carry more .no free lunches
--
Jim Stirling:
It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom. David Hume
FingerPainter
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,593
- Solutions
- 37
- Reaction score
- 13,643
LOL!
You should read the second page of this site's article on equivalence, You might learn something. Here's the link .
It is not the only differnce, The shot noise and the diffraction blur also vary with the crop factor of times f-stop.
Nope.
FingerPainter
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,593
- Solutions
- 37
- Reaction score
- 13,643
You've got a point. However, at 600mm, I don't often need a focus point other than the centre one.
Not sure where you got the Oly 300mm+TC either, because I didn't talk about that. ;-)You missed my point the "performance " of the 300mm plus 2xTC is not what most FF shooters would be aiming at . If there was a 600mm F/8 prime for FF I don't think there would be much of a market for it , while not all super-telephoto shooting is action related an awful lot of it is .You totally missed the point: size. That 200-600mm while impressive, is still huge compared to the 300mm. It is no news that FF does (depending on the circumstances, a lot) better than MFT with the larger lenses.Sony has a 200-600mm that works with the 2xtc , handheld no less
The bottom line is that the "performance " of a the 300mm F/4 with 2TC is what a 1200mm F/16 lens would offer . That is same DOF control, same diagonal AOV and critically same total light gathering
The Sony combo is bigger because it is zoom lens with a larger aperture , it is however cheaper than the Olympus . Just as within m43 if you want a lens with a larger aperture you pay more and carry more .no free lunches
But I'm pretty sure there would be market for smaller, darker aperture long teles for FF, after all there is a market for long MFT lenses. It is just that in the past you couldn't really do that because the AF performance would take such a big hit on DSLRs.
James Stirling
Forum Pro
I think given the desperate attempts to push size and weight whilst blatantly ignoring the consequences of larger aperture lenses on larger sensor cameras. That the perspective most posted here is from those who are old , disabled , lazy or just simply prefer a lighter set-up . Just as it works within m43 you pay more and carry more for a larger aperture it is an unavoidable fact . Olympus fan kool-aid sadly for them does not change reality though they surely do tryYou're trying to discuss field use with armchair/spreadsheet photographers. It won't work
James Stirling
Forum Pro
Sorry crossed lines, Just throw away the TC partNot sure where you got the Oly 300mm+TC either, because I didn't talk about that. ;-)You missed my point the "performance " of the 300mm plus 2xTC is not what most FF shooters would be aiming at . If there was a 600mm F/8 prime for FF I don't think there would be much of a market for it , while not all super-telephoto shooting is action related an awful lot of it is .You totally missed the point: size. That 200-600mm while impressive, is still huge compared to the 300mm. It is no news that FF does (depending on the circumstances, a lot) better than MFT with the larger lenses.Sony has a 200-600mm that works with the 2xtc , handheld no less
The bottom line is that the "performance " of a the 300mm F/4 with 2TC is what a 1200mm F/16 lens would offer . That is same DOF control, same diagonal AOV and critically same total light gathering
The Sony combo is bigger because it is zoom lens with a larger aperture , it is however cheaper than the Olympus . Just as within m43 if you want a lens with a larger aperture you pay more and carry more .no free lunches
The Sony 200-600mm does the same job as a m43 100-300mm F/2.8-3.2 . iT is also happens to be cheaper than the 300mm F/4 The brutal bottom line is that Olympus has at last reckoning just 2.8% of the entire interchangeable lens market Panasonic have an even smaller share. But may just sneak m43 up to 4% of interchangeable lens market . Ergo 96% of the photography market is not jumping on board the smaller aperture smaller lens bandwagon with gusto . There have been FF mirrorless since 2013 and there are now 4 brands with FF mirrorless { Sony, Canon, Nikon and of course Panasonic} .
--
Jim Stirling:
It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom. David Hume
Adam-T
Forum Pro
they wouldn`t - or the Mk3 come to that .... it`s a Psychological ruse to rid the inventory of a high level of EM1Xs and 300 primes is my guess ........ they need to shift poor selling high end items and rake in some cash
If they gave away EM1Xs with a 7-14 / 12-40 / 45-140 set it`d make more sense as a kit but that`s not the idea ...
in a few months they may give it away with the 7-14 / 12-100 pair to get rid of the things , who knows
--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **
Last edited:
rashid7
Veteran Member
seems pretty smart... to 'dump' a slow-moving camera while making loads on hi-end lenses. Surly the profit on those 3 would handsomely cover their cost to make the X !
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum