MrALLCAPS
Senior Member
Another cool story.... Where was this at?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Who to blame for Olympus...
- Thread starter Kyle Style
- Start date
Sergey Borachev
Veteran Member
To shoot a stationary owl at night using a shutter speed of 3s? Everybody does that, right?
Last edited:
Maybe because the 300mm f/4 pro is significantly sharper even against the bare 300mm f/4 PF, much less with TC-1.4E attached, especially when you stray from the center of the image?
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr/3
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-300mm-f-4e-pf-ed-vr-lens-review-27097
(ephotozine seems to use 2500 = excellent, 2000 = very good, 1500 = good for earliest review with lw/ph numbers)
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-600mm-f-4-e-fl-ed-vr-review-29033
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-300mm-f-4-is-pro-review-28917
Goes to show just looking at aperture equivalence doesn't tell you the whole story.
From what I can tell also, the TC in the Nikon also lowers your keeper rate.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4127480
Last edited:
People like the ones that are now on the DPreview site talking about slow FF lenses and compare it to the Olympus lenses are to blame.
They give wrong information, deliberately.
The claim the mZuiko 12-100mm and the 300mm lenses are f8 and never they state clearly that it are F4 lenses with the DOF of FF F8.
If I didn't know Olympus cameras and lenses, I would never consider them after hearing (and believing) these statements.
This kind of layers are to blame.
They give wrong information, deliberately.
The claim the mZuiko 12-100mm and the 300mm lenses are f8 and never they state clearly that it are F4 lenses with the DOF of FF F8.
If I didn't know Olympus cameras and lenses, I would never consider them after hearing (and believing) these statements.
This kind of layers are to blame.
R
Raist3d
Guest
The reason the claim of F8 is made is basically because you can step up that ISO in FF and match at F8 for exposure purposes and image quality. That's why "equivalence."
Lol, saying that it’s the image that ultimately matters not the camera brand and that m43 kit can deliver outstanding images (just like any other brand) has become the fastest way to cause outrage and get yourself voted down on this forum.
A
AllFlawed
Guest
People think the focal ratio is aperture which shows how shallow the knowledge is and just buying a full frame camera does not make people the experts they assume they are. The whole idea of the f number is to make it entirely format independent as anyone who has had to rely on a light meter with a manual camera knows.
These format war games which are a very nasty aspect of photography nowadays with people tending to move down sensor sizes and preach as though the smaller sensor users know nothing rely on this sort of pick and choose obfuscation. Gear selling sites like this one encourage it with an equivalent focal ratio also described as aperture.
Describing a fixed focal ratio lens as constant aperture is a sure sign of ignorance if ever there was. I doubt if there are many zoom lenses where the aperture does not increase with focal length to some degree.
Last edited:
Jon555
Veteran Member
I don't think they exceeded 1M, but if they did it was some time ago. Per Thom Hogan ILC sales (2012-2019) were:
590k, 510k, 500k, 510k, 550k, 450k, 420k, 340k
Sarman 2525
Active member
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 45
As bad as March, April, and May were, CIPA just announced June was even worse.
Like the OP said, you have 6 or 7 companies fighting to sell only about 200 thousand ILCs a month now.
Almost everyone is going to lose money until most drop out, And the market is not going to get it better. It will get worse.
Its called math, It makes perfect sense.
Too many here would rather get emotional rather than look at the math and the facts
FingerPainter
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,593
- Solutions
- 37
- Reaction score
- 13,643
Thank you. I deliberately chose the 300mm PF and TC combo knowing it was likely a little less sharp than the 300mm f/4 PRO, because I wanted to see If I could get an MFT fan to admit it was OK to buy heavier and more expensive gear to get better IQ. We usually hear the opposite.
Having accomplished that, let's now consider substituting the AF-S 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR for the 300mm PF and TC combo. As you can see, ephotozine rates the 500m PF as sharper than the 300mm F/4 PRO.
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-500mm-f-5-6e-pf-ed-vr-review-33044
The substitution adds $1,100 to the price and 515g to the weight, and provides 25% more reach then the Oly. The price and weight adjustment makes the Nikon combo 14% more expensive and 5% heavier than the Oly combo. If it was worth spending 16% more and carrying 24% more weight to get the extra sharpness of the Oly, wouldn't it be worth spending 14% more and carrying 5% more weight to get the extra sharpness and reach provided by the 500mm PF combo?
The chart on the right certainly doesn't seem to agree with the chart on the left. On the whole I'm leery about comparing performance of a lens tested by one site against performance of a different lens tested by a different site. The significant differences between the left chart and right chart for the 300PF should tell you why. Above I compared the performance of the 500mm PF against the 300mm f/4 PRO as tested at the same site.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr/3
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-300mm-f-4e-pf-ed-vr-lens-review-27097
(ephotozine seems to use 2500 = excellent, 2000 = very good, 1500 = good for earliest review with lw/ph numbers)
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-600mm-f-4-e-fl-ed-vr-review-29033
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-300mm-f-4-is-pro-review-28917
Photography Life don't seem to have gotten around to measuring the performance of the 300mm PRO. If they did, I think we should expect it to be less than the ephotozine results by about as much as the 300mm PF on PL is lower than the ephotozine results, due to systematic differences as to how they test.
He was using the older TC II on an old lens. AF performance with the 300PF and TC 1.4E III is much improved. I expect keeper rate with the 300 PF and TC-1.4E III will be better than with the Oly combo due to the Nikon's far superior tracking.
Last edited:
W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
i've messed with both the PF lenses on DX and CX bodies, nice handling and fun to use, very sharp as well although the 300mmpf isn't much if any sharper than my 300mm/4 AFS, but the AF is way better and it has VRThank you. I deliberately chose the 300mm PF and TC combo knowing it was likely a little less sharp than the 300mm f/4 PRO, because I wanted to see If I could get an MFT fan to admit it was OK to buy heavier and more expensive gear to get better IQ. We usually hear the opposite.
Having accomplished that, let's now consider substituting the AF-S 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR for the 300mm PF and TC combo. As you can see, ephotozine rates the 500m PF as sharper than the 300mm F/4 PRO.
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-500mm-f-5-6e-pf-ed-vr-review-33044
The substitution adds $1,100 to the price and 515g to the weight, and provides 25% more reach then the Oly. The price and weight adjustment makes the Nikon combo 14% more expensive and 5% heavier than the Oly combo. If it was worth spending 16% more and carrying 24% more weight to get the extra sharpness of the Oly, wouldn't it be worth spending 14% more and carrying 5% more weight to get the extra sharpness and reach provided by the 500mm PF combo?
The chart on the right certainly doesn't seem to agree with the chart on the left. On the whole I'm leery about comparing performance of a lens tested by one site against performance of a different lens tested by a different site. The significant differences between the left chart and right chart for the 300PF should tell you why. Above I compared the performance of the 500mm PF against the 300mm f/4 PRO as tested at the same site.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr/3
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-300mm-f-4e-pf-ed-vr-lens-review-27097
(ephotozine seems to use 2500 = excellent, 2000 = very good, 1500 = good for earliest review with lw/ph numbers)
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-600mm-f-4-e-fl-ed-vr-review-29033
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-300mm-f-4-is-pro-review-28917
Photography Life don't seem to have gotten around to measuring the performance of the 300mm PRO. If they did, I think we should expect it to be less than the ephotozine results by about as much as the 300mm PF on PL is lower than the ephotozine results, due to systematic differences as to how they test.
He was using the older TC II on an old lens. AF performance with the 300PF and TC 1.4E III is much improved. I expect keeper rate with the 300 PF and TC-1.4E III will be better than with the Oly combo due to the Nikon's far superior tracking.
--
the computer says no
Sarman 2525
Active member
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 45
So you are comparing apples to oranges. The FF lenses are made for a larger image sensor and obviously a similar aperture needs to bring in about 4 times as much light.
So is the lens bringing in more light and using a much larger imaging sensor going to have more detail? It should.
But if the lens was used with an 80MP sensor would a crop of the center 20MP equal what we see from the M43 lens? Very doubtful.
Can the M43 lens get more detail and resolution with the 80MP High res mode than any Nikon today? Probably. Is the combo smaller? Yes.
So is the lens bringing in more light and using a much larger imaging sensor going to have more detail? It should.
But if the lens was used with an 80MP sensor would a crop of the center 20MP equal what we see from the M43 lens? Very doubtful.
Can the M43 lens get more detail and resolution with the 80MP High res mode than any Nikon today? Probably. Is the combo smaller? Yes.
Last edited:
Sarman 2525
Active member
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 45
Those are ILC units shipped numbers for June of the past couple years.
Last month 7 or so large corporations were fighting to ship only 215,000 units. Just 2 years ago it was considered a bad year and the number was 1 million, It now almost 80% less.
Canon and Fujifilm , at least in Japan are said to be holding their own. Nikon has been hit hard, but I doubt they have the option of getting out. Panasonic is doing well selling ILCs as video cameras, but who knows. Everyone else has a good chance of following Olympus.
Last month 7 or so large corporations were fighting to ship only 215,000 units. Just 2 years ago it was considered a bad year and the number was 1 million, It now almost 80% less.
Canon and Fujifilm , at least in Japan are said to be holding their own. Nikon has been hit hard, but I doubt they have the option of getting out. Panasonic is doing well selling ILCs as video cameras, but who knows. Everyone else has a good chance of following Olympus.
R
Raist3d
Guest
olymous imaging was losing money quarter after quarter well before COVID nothings being said here of the Olympus scandal which also affected its balance sheet or the endoscope scandal - less money for all divisions etc
no it’s not called math it is ignoring math in its history
Now that’s something I can agree with you on, though not the conclusion you are making ;-)
I think an Ed animation of historical events at least necessarily invites the possibilities of other conclusions and they are pretty math sound
Sarman 2525
Active member
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 45
Nor did you mention their moving of a factory to cut costs.
They were profitable for a few months just over a year ago. Moving their factory led them to believe they could still turn a profit. No one could predict COVID-19.
I don't know if they could be profitable, but optimistic people did, and they had some facts to back them. I also don't know if it was true that used losses in Consumer R&D to help medical imaging, No one can say.
I put you at the head of the "emotional" pack. You leave out facts and seem every upset.
W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
Last edited:
Sarman 2525
Active member
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 45
Fair enough.
1,000,000 ILCs shipped globally in June 2018. 214,000 in June of 2020. I would think everyone is thinking of consolidating now if they were not two years.
W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
i don't think the situation will improve after the pandemic is over, many camera companies will struggle to survive
Gary from Seattle
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,770
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 11,570
But I showed you my pro kit weighs 1700-1900grams (with macro) for hiking. All those Pro lenses are sharp edge to edge. And no tripod unless I shoot MW. I probably won't do that much more in the future because those images are kind of all the same. I have plenty of them.The argument towards hikers etc stood up a couple of years ago, but no longer. FF mirrorless is basically a similar size and weight, and CHEAPER, unless you get into the ultra long lens stuff, which I’ll say again m43 shines at.You are kind of unhinged on this one point. Again, I'd bet those primes have a good margin. And some folks like you want a prime for indoors use and probably don't want to buy another body because they like and know the body they have, Pen F, EM-5's, or EM-1's. Or perhaps you shoot on the street at night.I like M43, Panasonic seem to understand the format better than Olympus. Smaller, good quality, reasonable prices.yesIf you read my post I never criticised M43, I simply highlighted where Olympus went wrong, which is what the OP was asking. As for “carefully selected gear” are you really being serious? My example showed a standard zoomAll of this was from a Dealer at Olympus matched prices. What on earth are you talking about? The only non-weather sealed lens is 1:1 macro.And none of which is from Olympus like for like, unless you’ve now excluded weather sealing to fit your narrative.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-5
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@315g
Very popular top of the line lens, but heavy for me. Sharp enough for a 2x
The 35-100 F2.8 by Panny was already out.
see above.
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.
Or just show the consistent results I (and others) get with the Olympus/Panny.
Yes you are, interesting signature.
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 are indeed Delusional!
Horsepucky. The top end is the EM-1 II or III for most and even if matched with the 300 - for birding - is way lighter and better than any quality Canon or Nikon set. Perhaps folks like you can't recognize this although of late the above combos were gaining a lot of proponents - until Covid.
My guess is Olympus corporate is most concerned about the pandemic and what it might do to both retail sales, but more importantly to capital purchases. Other companies will do the same. This is not happening in a vacuum.
On your carefully selected examples of gear that I would never carry.
The largest in the system, but popular. The 8mm FE is a better alternative for several reasons
The heaviest in the system. Olympus probably did not build something like the 35-100 because Panasonic released on 2 years previous.
Not necessary for out of doors. besides, the cost of development for the primes was likely no great.
Wouldn't be for me. Do you live on planet Earth like me?
Whatever. If you just bought this I would assume you saved money - like 1% cash back on your CC. I've only got into birding and bought the II and 300 this year. Everything else I've owned for years.
A zoom replaces the primes out of doors. That is more of a specialty lens with a wide aperture.
So, get real.
Meanwhile,, back in Olympus land , over £1000 each for a pro prime? When Nikon equivalents are like £600 each and are optically superior.
It also makes sense for hikers and outdoor active landscape shooters. The best stabilization, small form, and weather sealing, in addition to feautures like focus stacking.
This last point may be true. They may have missed in aim on that particular market, as weather sealing lenses is probably not that expensive, depending on warranty mostly. I have traveled to Nepal and Sikkim and carried a suite of lenses on 26 day and 8 day treks. The lenses were not sealed but I protected them.
For hiking I’d not pay a 40% price premium for a 5% weight saving for Olympus over Nikon Z today for FL’s up to 300mm equivalent.
Show me the difference between 24 and 20MP. I've looked at Bambousek's lot's of times and some of my best images also and I don't need a larger sensor, even for printing to 20x24.
If you argue dynamic range, I'll laugh. I do sometimes shoot into the sun and like shooting partial backlit images that look like they come from the real world.
Gary from Seattle
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,770
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 11,570
But not IBIS. I read Thom's reviews and he said that despite the 200-500's VR, he found that his shots at longer focal lengths were not sharp unless he got to 1/250 sec. On the 500, he found the weight caused his arm to drop losing focus. He also said that the 200-500 is not particularly fast at acquiring focus. The 300 is.And a much superior sensor, DR, ISO, megapixels, and AF.Yep. 3 pounds and 100mm less reach and 5 pounds and 100mm less reach.Nope. The Nikon 500/5.6 PF and 200-500 have both been outstanding, back-ordered sellers for Nikon combined with the D500 for long and say a Z6 for for shorter FLs.All of this was from a Dealer at Olympus matched prices. What on earth are you talking about? The only non-weather sealed lens is 1:1 macro.And none of which is from Olympus like for like, unless you’ve now excluded weather sealing to fit your narrative.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-5
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@315g
Very popular top of the line lens, but heavy for me. Sharp enough for a 2x
The 35-100 F2.8 by Panny was already out.
see above.
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.
Or just show the consistent results I (and others) get with the Olympus/Panny.
Yes you are, interesting signature.
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 are indeed Delusional!
Horsepucky. The top end is the EM-1 II or III for most and even if matched with the 300 - for birding - is way lighter and better than any quality Canon or Nikon set. Perhaps folks like you can't recognize this although of late the above combos were gaining a lot of proponents - until Covid.
Those bodies have much better AF for that target market. The D500 in particular wastes anything Olympus brings to market. They are cost-effective, compact, high quality, outstanding glass.
Thats why they are routinely sold out and Olympus is being sold.
Similar threads
- Locked
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum