Crazy to sell the Olympus 12-40mm?!

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

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. 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?

Tell ya what, I will buy it from you.

traveler_101 wrote:

Well, well . . . the alien-from-Mars took care of Friday the 13th.

To Friday-the-13th:

Rather than asserting what m43 is, why not try arguing for what you think is its best use, admitting that not everyone will agree but seeing if you can convince some of your readers/listeners.

I don't need, I already proofed that the "AFM" wants to force his vision to everyone else and only his needs are the correct ones.

Yet Olympus continues making large objectives and large bodies AND small objectives and small bodies. Because there is physical requirements for both. If something like Panasonic makes body like GM1 or GM5, you can not expect it to have grip like E-M1, it is just law of physics.

If Olympus makes 40-150mm f/2.8 objective, it can't be made as small and light as 40-150mm f/4-5.6, it is just law of physics.

Yet no m4/3 camera manufacturer is claiming that m4/3 mount idea is to make smallest and lightest camera as possible, what they claim is that the m4/3 allows them to deliver smaller and lighter camera than usual 135 format cameras are.

There are always those who whine that a specific m4/3 objective + body is too large and too heavy and it isn't following the m4/3 vision / idea. While they just don't get that it never was that m4/3 cameras and objectives should be like GM1 + 20mm f/1.7.

Some people just get that idea and try to enforce it to everyone else when ever someone say that larger and heavier follows the m4/3 mount idea.

Edit:

The OM-D is significantly smaller and lighter than a DSLR that produces similar image quality. Combined with compact and lightweight M.Zuiko lenses, this camera system lets you take a wider variety of shots at any destination.

The OM-D and M.Zuiko PRO lenses are tactically built to withstand harsh conditions like sand, dust, rain and snow. No matter what environment you’re in, you can concentrate on the shot without being distracted by possible damage to your gear.

The M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO Lens is a multi-purpose, dustproof and splashproof telephoto zoom lens. Combined with the OM-D, it provides ultimate imaging performance in a compact and mobile form.

That is what Olympus states about their OM-D bodies and PRO line.

And who challenges that official statement?

Maybe some people should read this:

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4821964954/microfourthirds

a new standard that extends the benefits of the Four Thirds System standard for interchangeable lens type digital camera systems by enabling dramatic reductions in size and weight. Under the terms of an agreement between the two companies, they will work jointly toward commercial production of significantly lighter and more compact interchangeable lens type digital camera systems.

The global market for interchangeable lens type digital SLR cameras is growing steadily, but still only accounts for a 7 percent share of the total digital camera market. Considering the much larger share held by interchangeable lens type SLR camera systems when film was the dominant imaging medium, it seems that there is still ample room for sales growth in the category. But compact digital cameras continue to offer an expanding range of features and performance, and market surveys indicate that customers choose compact models because they find digital SLR cameras to be "big, heavy, and difficult to operate."

So should we again list similar setups with similar image quality and features from DSLR and m4/3?

Like where is the DSLR that is like GM1 + 20mm f/1.7 or how large and heavy is the DSLR that has same capabilities as E-M1 + 40-150mm f/2.8? Or how about the 4K etc?

I believe everyone can see that m4/3 standard was not designed to make everything smallest and lightest as possible with compromises. Instead make no compromises in image quality for customers and get same possibilities in smaller and lighter packages that are easy to operate.

And who wants to argue against that? (Yes, we have still people arguing that OVF is better than EVF, that PDAF is always better than CDAF and the sensor size and so on).

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....