Absolute best value

lumen64 wrote:

I recently purchased an Olympus om-d e-m5 mark II, a 40-150 f2.8 Pro, a 12-40 f2.8 Pro, and a Sigma 19mm f2.8, all of which cost me around $3,300. I consider this a fairly complete package as far as focal lengths, and image quality are concerned. I have priced out different full frame and APSC (Sony, Canon, Nikon, Leica, Fujifilm, etc.) systems, and discovered that in order to get the equivalent of what I have in my Olympus m43 system would cost me at least $8,000, if I was very careful and wiling to cut some corners.

I do not see how it could be argued that m43 wins when it comes to value, convenience, and fun.

I don't think I am fooling myself, as I realize that there are limitations to whatever format or system one chooses. I do not do the type of photography that would benefit from APSC or FF systems.

I think your last sentence is the key point.  For YOUR purposes, the M43 is the best value and choice.  For me as well, at least so far.  I've just been looking at some videos of David Alan Harvey (a well-known Magnum photographer) and for him, it looks like the Fuji X100 S is the best choice and it's more compact and less expensive than your system AND  he's doing internationally famous work with it.  So, yeah, M43 can be a great choice for some people, and the same can be said for other systems as well.

Well reminded.

If we set up a gallery where is needed to have like 30-40 photos, biggest being about 2x3m size and most common about at 40-50cm size, then there really isn't much benefits to get any larger sensor camera for almost anything than very very special purpose work like a action photography where not even 7D II qualifies but requires something like D4 or 1D X with best possible optics.

Still the weakness is in telephoto area and partially in architecture. Panasonic-Leica 100-400mm is good start but just 1.3EV too slow at worst case. And we don't have any tilt-shift that would offer some benefits in architecture (because shift) or product/close-up photography (because shift and tilt).

We need to go to very special kind photography to hit the limits of current gen cameras. Even astrophotography isn't outside of limit zone, especially now when we have 8mm f/1.8 fisheye to even increase the possibilities. And anyways there are way more important tools than camera for that job, like tracking platforms.

Yet we can hear and see pixel peepers and 35mm fans to come in and try to say all the time how the difference is so big and meaningful that m4/3 cameras are just underperformer and bad compromises by image quality. Sure there are difference if we look at 400% magnification ratios over common display PPI, even a 100% is like throwing those few metres size prints that people then pixel peep with magnifying glass in other hand that small 400x400px area how there is such a difference, forgetting that rest of hundreds of centimeters is left away from comparison.

Same time people forget that best photographs are not those that are sharpest, perfectly freezed action, lowest noise or grain, or that has most accurate white balance or colors.

It is always the photo content itself and it can be done so many times "wrong" or "correct" that camera gear doesn't matter.

Gear heads just easily forget the context and goes to extremes where the 5% difference in technical merits in sharpness or noise is like life and death.

I've been thinking the same (comparing Oly pro lenses to Canon), but $8000 must be the top/max value.

Canon D70 = $1000?

17-55 F2.8 lens = $600?  Is that weather sealed?  Can't recall..it's a pretty good lens.

Their excellent 70-200 F2.8 (the stabilized version) lens is $2000?

My prices might be low?  But not $1000's low...

Would be interesting to tally up the weight difference (or "cheat" and use the Rebel T6s instead for the body - who would buy the D70 if they care about weight...but not much choice in lenses if the person wants F2.8 zoom).

It was just something I did as a real quick calculation. I didn't approach it scientifically or anything. I just compared equal quality  ff body/ and ff pro lenses to what I got and came up with the approximate $8000 figure.

But here's the thing : if I had the budget,  and if there was a premium that we had to pay for the weight/convenience of m43, I would probably pay the $8000 for my m43 gear since I would personally gain no advantage shooting ff.

as soon as you consider DOF equivalency (sorry for mentioning that term) the FF lenses to compare to are getting a bit smaller and most probably a lot cheaper. so i take your price comparison with a grain of salt.

that said, i too think that m43 hits a sweet spot, a very nice balance between performance and size (i wouldn't mind if some of the lenses were a bit cheaper, though). another sweet spot is in my view full frame while i see APS-C as a moot compromise since the advent of the EM5 and the IQ that came with it and the newer m43 models.

cameron2 wrote:

If thinner DOF is your target, you shouldn't compromise and get m43 or APSC or 35mm; you should get a Pentax 845 or a Leica S (etc.)

That is the thing. Those who want thinner acceptable depth of field can't make compromise and get 35mm but they need to invest to pseudo-medium format.

Just in few years we actually might see a real medium format cameras, with 6x7cm sensors instead these pseudo ones with 53.7x40x4mm and that is not even worth of 6x4.5 what was consider as "crop format" among medium format cameras (film being 60x45mm).

One when we finally get the 6x9cm sensors (60x90mm) the landscape photographers will move on that arena and every lasting 35mm fan will be defending their gear by being "lighter, cheaper, smaller".

And there is always the one happy man (Mitchell Feinberg) who is saving lots of money and time shooting with his two 8x10 Large Format digital backs...

iPhone next to 8x10 FULL FRAME digital back.

And as funny it can sound, He got that just to replace the polaroids. And captures the final image on film....

Format ratio 15 when compared to 35mm sensor.... The format ratio 2 between 4/3" and 35mm doesn't sound so meaningful anymore, doesn't it?

Having a 60 times larger surface than 35mm sensor has, is the nightmare to every 35mm fan who wants to talk about DOF and "Total light gathering" being the points to own the "full frame".

Dillon Frazier wrote:

lumen64 wrote:

I recently purchased an Olympus om-d e-m5 mark II, a 40-150 f2.8 Pro, a 12-40 f2.8 Pro, and a Sigma 19mm f2.8, all of which cost me around $3,300. I consider this a fairly complete package as far as focal lengths, and image quality are concerned. I have priced out different full frame and APSC (Sony, Canon, Nikon, Leica, Fujifilm, etc.) systems, and discovered that in order to get the equivalent of what I have in my Olympus m43 system would cost me at least $8,000, if I was very careful and wiling to cut some corners.

Canon doesn't need to do anything else than take 5D III and remove the mirror and prism, add there great EVF like in E-M1 (but in GX8 size, but optics from E-M1) and then copy most features from Olympus and Panasonic and call the day.

No need to change the camera body, nothing like that. Canon users would run to swap their bodies to new mirrorless or buy a second body. And then the game is over for others.

cameron2 wrote:

Wilu wrote:

as soon as you consider DOF equivalency (sorry for mentioning that term) the FF lenses to compare to are getting a bit smaller and most probably a lot cheaper. so i take your price comparison with a grain of salt.

You're not going to ever get "equivalency". At pretty much any size sensor, there is a larger sensor and there is a smaller sensor. The larger sensor will tend to have less DOF, will tend to handle a lack of photons more graciously, will tend to have a heavier body, and will tend to have larger lenses. The smaller sensor will tend to have more DOF, will tend to handle a lack of photons less graciously, will tend to have a lighter body, and will tend to have smaller lenses.

i really didn't want to start the equivalency discussion - it seems there are people who care about it and others who don't. that's fine with me.

let me try to put in other words what i meant: if one wanted to compare FF and m43 gear that can produce images with a similar field of view and a similar depth of field and a similar IQ noise wise, then the price difference would not be as big as the OP suggested.

If thinner DOF is your target, you shouldn't compromise and get m43 or APSC or 35mm; you should get a Pentax 845 or a Leica S (etc.)

Everyone's gotta have their priorities ...

mine is to find and use systems with a nice balance between IQ, DOF, cost, portability (weight, size), ergonomics, functionality, fun to use and probably many more that don't spring to my mind right now. i really don't have the money to use the camera with the largest available sensor and i'm really not keen on using a camera that is so small that i can not hold it properly in my hands.

every sensor format is a compromise. you are right, with bigger sensors than the so called full frame you get even shallower depth of field. but when we talk about such cameras and lenses the terms affordability and portability inevitably come to mind. i consider full frame to be a nice compromise, or in other words a sweet spot. another sweet spot is in my opinion m43. but i repeat myself:

Wilu wrote:

that said, i too think that m43 hits a sweet spot, a very nice balance between performance and size (i wouldn't mind if some of the lenses were a bit cheaper, though). another sweet spot is in my view full frame while i see APS-C as a moot compromise since the advent of the EM5 and the IQ that came with it and the newer m43 models.

lumen64 wrote:

I recently purchased an Olympus om-d e-m5 mark II, a 40-150 f2.8 Pro, a 12-40 f2.8 Pro, and a Sigma 19mm f2.8, all of which cost me around $3,300. I consider this a fairly complete package as far as focal lengths, and image quality are concerned. I have priced out different full frame and APSC (Sony, Canon, Nikon, Leica, Fujifilm, etc.) systems, and discovered that in order to get the equivalent of what I have in my Olympus m43 system would cost me at least $8,000, if I was very careful and wiling to cut some corners.

I do not see how it could be argued that m43 wins when it comes to value, convenience, and fun.

I don't think I am fooling myself, as I realize that there are limitations to whatever format or system one chooses. I do not do the type of photography that would benefit from APSC or FF systems.

My understanding is that the bigger sensor cameras are more suited for certain types of photography than m43, such as certain low light and sports photography. I don't know if this is accurate, but I do know that my m43 gear was never what prevented me from getting the image I was trying to capture.

I have taken many nighttime pictures with my m43 system. The quality of the images was very good to excellent, unless I did something to mess up the shot.

What always prevented me from getting the image I was trying to capture was my lack of skill and eptitude, not the "limitations" of my m43 gear.

Just shows we are all different.

The best value lenses to me are mostly Canon EF lenses as I can use them on FF E mount AND M4/3.

One of my best value lens is probably my most expensive (that eats up a fair amount of a $3300 budget)....another is the ultra cheap EF 40 2.8 STM...a nice portrait lens on M4/3 and a good near normal lens on FF (and can be used in APSC mode on the FF cameras too.

My Sony's are in the same size/weight range as larger M4/3 cameras and like the GX7, just right for me with full controls and an EVF.

I choose the lenses I want from across systems....some are huge and some are tiny .....the difference does not need be big (and especially if using the SAME lenses on each, it isn't).

I DO shoot a lot in low light and the A7s is simply superb for that......for general use, the GX7 is a nice camera and I love the tilting EVF (amongst other things).

I prefer primes to zooms too so those Pro zooms are not of much interest to me.

I don't see any special value in M4/3 over other systems for ME but am happy as a dual user to have both (but am now pretty much done with DSLRs).

Choice is good.

Messier Object wrote:

Fri13 wrote:

Dillon Frazier wrote:

lumen64 wrote:

I recently purchased an Olympus om-d e-m5 mark II, a 40-150 f2.8 Pro, a 12-40 f2.8 Pro, and a Sigma 19mm f2.8, all of which cost me around $3,300. I consider this a fairly complete package as far as focal lengths, and image quality are concerned. I have priced out different full frame and APSC (Sony, Canon, Nikon, Leica, Fujifilm, etc.) systems, and discovered that in order to get the equivalent of what I have in my Olympus m43 system would cost me at least $8,000, if I was very careful and wiling to cut some corners.

Canon doesn't need to do anything else than take 5D III and remove the mirror and prism, add there great EVF like in E-M1 (but in GX8 size, but optics from E-M1) and then copy most features from Olympus and Panasonic and call the day.

No need to change the camera body, nothing like that. Canon users would run to swap their bodies to new mirrorless or buy a second body. And then the game is over for others.

I agree. But to get my money they would need to have a very good PDAF capability so that I could use my existing EF lenses. And no lens adapter.

... Considering that everything else would stay same, from AF performance to non-required adapters (because bodies are exactly same).