Gary from Seattle
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,770
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 11,570
Good because you lose.Im not going to argue with you.It looks like "kit zoom" is the operative word. But apparently about 1/2 of B&H customers do not. And they state their reasons.I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about “not pro grade”? Perhaps because the Oly has “pro” in the description and the Nikkor doesn’t?You could have chosen the EM-10 or EM-5I agree with and it’s very sad. To me the strength of m43 was ultra compact yet high quality cost effective systems. I can also see the benefits for birders and wildlife folks at the ultra telephoto lens end.It is really quite simple.
Back in about 2013, Olympus released the EM5.
It was a camera that people wanted to buy and it had a certain success. I bought one in preference to yet another DSLR after my D300 came to the end of its useful life for me.
Here in a very small package, coupled with the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100, I had a wonderful little compact camera in my hands that opened new doors for me thanks to the 5 stop IBIS.
It was the perfect companion for hiking and travel.
The image quality was very good compared to APSC. Remember FF was not for the masses back then.
Olympus produced a camera that I and many others whished to buy.
From then on the thrust seemed to drift towards making bigger cameras culminating in the EM1x and ever more big and weighty lenses. My Nikon Z14-30 weighs less than the 7-14 for example.
They did not produce a camera after the EM5i that I thought was a worthwhile upgrade for my photography. It is hard to tell the difference between a picture taken with an EM5 (2013) and a EM1X.
In other words they went in a direction, producing cameras and lenses that not many people, or more accuracy too few people, wanted to buy, hence the current 3% market share of ILC cameras.
In the end I kept the LX100 that I bought for work duties, but which turned out to be the perfect camera for casual photography and even some "serious" projects. A camera with a M43 sensore camera that fits almost into a pocket. It was the LX100 that decided me to sell my m43 gear.
Olympus failed because they produced products that too few people wanted to buy.
That said, I finished a year long flirtation with Olympus towards the end of last year and went back to Nikon with a Z6. I just didn’t get the value proposition of Olympus pro orientated stuff over a FF equivalent.
Out of curiosity I’ve just popped onto Park Cameras (one of the biggest and most respected dealers in the UK) and priced up my current kit vs the equivalent in Olympus for both cost and weight. Plus all kit weather sealed.
The results are truly mind bendingly shocking!
OLYMPUS KIT
EM1-III with 12-40 2.8 Pro £2199 weight 504g plus 382g
Nikon 24-70 F4, not Pro Grade
Or Panasonic 7-14 F4 Olympus 9-18, or Panasonic 8-18, personally I use the 8mm FE@315g7-14mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 534g
Very popular top of the line lens, but heavy for me. Sharp enough for a 2x40-150mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 760g
The 35-100 F2.8 by Panny was already out.
see above.25mm 1.2 Pro £1199 weight 410g
TOTAL SYSTEM COST £5596
TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2590g
NIKON KIT
Z6 with 24-70mm 4.0 and FTZ adapter £1199 weight 675g plus 500g
How is the weather sealing an optics on the following - you know customer reviews?
14-30mm 4.0 £959 weight 485g
70-300mm AF-P 4.5-5.6 £535 weight 680g
50mm 1.8S £429 weight 415g
TOTAL SYSTEM COST £3922
TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2755g
In equivalence terms the Nikon kits equals or betters the Olympus alternative.
And that’s why I think the Olympus approach of going “bigger and pro” has failed.
The Nikon Kit is all of 5% heavier but the Olympus kit is OVER 40% MORE EXPENSIVE
--
My Instagram
Both are weather sealed. Many reviews of the Nikkor largely describe it as the best kit zoom of all time.
Equivalence is BS. A zoom has advantage in out door use; in that realm you will not be shooting a small aperture. Not if focus matters to you. In m4/3 I seldom shoot wider than 5.6 because I'll miss focus on a good number of shots. In fact F7.1 is the sweet spot after 6 years with the 12-40. In m4/3 you lose very little in IQ up to that aperture, and even F8 is not really noticeable. My rating of the 12-40 5*. The snap ring itself has great value as most of the time I will use MF to know assuredly that I have DOF.Many pros use it, it’s that good. In equivalence terms the Nikkor bests the Oly.
Or just show the consistent results I (and others) get with the Olympus/Panny.Refer back to the post I made, detailing system costs and comparison weights. Show that to anyone who is investing in a new system.
Yes you are, interesting signature.Then show me anyone, aside from......
Delusional!
My largest hiking kit would be 950+315+330+182 grams and would include coverage from 8mm to 100mm + a 1:1 macro. So that is hardly 5% less. I paid over the years $999 +699 +899+499 +3100 dollars, not 3100 pounds.You clearly have set views. Which is fine. Carry on paying 40% more for a lesser system that only weighs 5% less if you want to.
You are indeed Delusional!Any neutral reading this....... blah blah blah....
