Switching System Analysis

[Regor250]

OK, before I invest deeper into the M43 system, I am going through an analysis of what I would need if I were to switch to either Nikon or Sony FF. Interesting, and not easy finding a comparable system I must say. Just thought it might be of interest. Here's what I came up with, there may be other options I missed:

The reality is, total system-wise, you're going to end up with a larger, heavier, more expensive system, even if you're going with slower glass.

As someone who uses both MFT and FF (L-Mount), I cannot say that the "benefits" of FF (for me, better DoF control) are significant enough that I'd flesh out my kit any more than I already have.

As others have already noted, the 40-150/2.8 still has no peer in FF in any system, and for my tele work it's on the OM-1 Mark II most of the time, so moving to FF for tele work is simply a non-starter. At tele lengths, DoF control is less important for me since the "compressive" effect of being further away and more zoomed in and the narrow FoV that comes with that results in an inherently less cluttered background, so there's really no reason to move now that the OM-1 Mark II has the AF system I needed.

One of the things not apparent in your comparison is that not only are the Nikkor f/1.8 primes unnecessarily large, they are also relatively slow focusing and noisy. As a former Nikon user, I was very disappointed after using these lenses and it was pretty much the death knell for switching back to Nikon. Very disappointing.

My quick analysis was by no mean the result of an exhaustive research and indeed you and others have also made the very valid observation that a significant amount of home work also ought to be done to build an entirely new system. There are so many possible permutations and lens selection possibilities, and whatever system one has, directly impacts one's experience. I really like the system I have built over time and invested a lot of effort (not to forget money) into building a system that really works for me, hence the reason for trying to duplicate it in my FF system analysis. The reality is, what I have currently for a system is just not easily feasible with FF without compromises and I would have to start all over with all new premises and ways to work with it. In the end it would be a very diffent photographic experience; perhaps better or worse hard to say. I may one day have no choice to, but by then most likely will have very different needs.

--
Roger

 

[Sam Bennett]

OK, before I invest deeper into the M43 system, I am going through an analysis of what I would need if I were to switch to either Nikon or Sony FF. Interesting, and not easy finding a comparable system I must say. Just thought it might be of interest. Here's what I came up with, there may be other options I missed:

The reality is, total system-wise, you're going to end up with a larger, heavier, more expensive system, even if you're going with slower glass.

As someone who uses both MFT and FF (L-Mount), I cannot say that the "benefits" of FF (for me, better DoF control) are significant enough that I'd flesh out my kit any more than I already have.

As others have already noted, the 40-150/2.8 still has no peer in FF in any system, and for my tele work it's on the OM-1 Mark II most of the time, so moving to FF for tele work is simply a non-starter. At tele lengths, DoF control is less important for me since the "compressive" effect of being further away and more zoomed in and the narrow FoV that comes with that results in an inherently less cluttered background, so there's really no reason to move now that the OM-1 Mark II has the AF system I needed.

One of the things not apparent in your comparison is that not only are the Nikkor f/1.8 primes unnecessarily large, they are also relatively slow focusing and noisy. As a former Nikon user, I was very disappointed after using these lenses and it was pretty much the death knell for switching back to Nikon. Very disappointing.

My quick analysis was by no mean the result of an exhaustive research and indeed you and others have also made the very valid observation that a significant amount of home work also ought to be done to build an entirely new system. There are so many possible permutations and lens selection possibilities, and whatever system one has, directly impacts one's experience. I really like the system I have built over time and invested a lot of effort (not to forget money) into building a system that really works for me, hence the reason for trying to duplicate it in my FF system analysis. The reality is, what I have currently for a system is just not easily feasible with FF without compromises and I would have to start all over with all new premises and ways to work with it. In the end it would be a very diffent photographic experience; perhaps better or worse hard to say. I may one day have no choice to, but by then most likely will have very different needs.

Totally get it. I just mentioned that since I feel we sometimes get a little too focused on size/weight. That's important, but there's a lot of other important factors. One of the things that I think gets ignored about MFT is that not only is the glass smaller/lighter but some of the lenses are just really nice all the way around - great build quality, quick and silent focusing, etc. This is especially true of Olympus/OMDS "Pro" line. They are just fantastic lenses. You can't even begin to compare the Olympus 17/1.2 to the Nikkor 35/1.8. This is reflected in their new prices with the Olympus being significantly more expensive, but on the used market (where I almost exclusively buy) they're much closer.

 

[NowHearThis]

... One last purchase remains, I think I might have found the perfect bag for my camera and lenses - or at least the perfect hiking/out and about bag - Tenba Solstice v2 12L. I don't need it now, that can wait until February just before I go on a vacation trip I've got planned.

That Tenba sling is awesome, FYI

That's good to know, I've really got something to look forward to now!! I like the grey - seems to have a slight green tint to it - looks good, Maybe I can try and sneak on a Benro Cyanbird CF tripod to my order in a few months and hope the misses doesn't notice. ;-)

 

[Dick Dastardly]

Obviously, not all systems are identical, that's not a reason to say one is better than the other.

I for one don't understand why M43 is probably the only system that doesn't have a competitively priced f2.8 zoom lens. Either i use a kit lens or i have to pay $600 for a 12-40mm, there's nothing in between those. Ridiculous!

 

[Tim200]

Obviously, not all systems are identical, that's not a reason to say one is better than the other.

I for one don't understand why M43 is probably the only system that doesn't have a competitively priced f2.8 zoom lens. Either i use a kit lens or i have to pay $600 for a 12-40mm, there's nothing in between those. Ridiculous!

In which systems have you seen f2.8 zooms for less? Least expensive I've seen are sigmas which are almost $600.

 

[NowHearThis]

Obviously, not all systems are identical, that's not a reason to say one is better than the other.

I for one don't understand why M43 is probably the only system that doesn't have a competitively priced f2.8 zoom lens. Either i use a kit lens or i have to pay $600 for a 12-40mm, there's nothing in between those. Ridiculous!

In which systems have you seen f2.8 zooms for less? Least expensive I've seen are sigmas which are almost $600.

And it starts at 18mm

 

[Mark P Thornton]

Second hand 12-35 f2.8 works for me.

 

[plantdoc]

The 12-45mm is a Pro Lens with a higher optic and build quality. It has been available for a bit under $600. I would not see the general market appeal for a consumer grade 2.8 zoom lens for maybe $200 cheaper with lower build quality and reliable IQ. I had a couple of 2.8 APSC consumer grade general zooms that were never completely satisfactory. For the desire of 2.8 or faster and low price, there are prime lenses that fit and offer much higher IQ.

Greg