I can't put that lens on my m43 body.
And it really isn't as wide as this one is it?
Also it has a smaller aperture.
Also it isn't as nice of a lens in general.
A dodge can go as fast as an Audi but the Audi is nicer to sit in and drive for me.
To each their own.

@chrissf To be honest, the closest full-frame comparison is Canon 17-40 f/4L at $500 and under 500g. The 10-25 f/1.7 is indeed overpriced but it does pack a lot of features in one lens.

pretty low quality trolling, too obvious.

@chrissf: There are three reasons why the MFT lens is larger, heavier and more expensive:

1. It is a completely different lens, as it equates a 20-50mm f/3.5 'full-frame' lens, which is both wider and faster than a 24-70mm f/4, and thus would, all else equal, need to be a more complex, a larger and a more expensive lens, too.

2. From what I've seen so far, it very well may be a better lens than any run-of-the-mill 24-70, justifying even more complexity.

3. Yes, very fast MFT lenses tend to be bigger and more expensive than their equivalent FF lenses – see also Olympus' f/1.2 primes. That's the price we have to pay if we want 'fulll frame'-like options on a smaller-sensor system, without having to give up the option to use extremely compact gear if we want to. Options we mostly don't have with current 'full frame' systems.

@ImCat: Aperture is meaningless by itself, i.e. without taking sensor size into account.

well the crop for video on many larger sensors brings them down to practically m43 range anyway so I think it's much more able to compete. Another factor is shallow depth of field as well as resolution > 4K are pretty niche video uses, at least compared to stills. Most video you want reasonable depth of field, fairly long shutters (at least compared to shooting action stills), and at least after crop/downsampling probably intending to only output 8mp at most. Video formats on a frame by frame basis don't pack the huge dynamic range and pixel depth of still raw files either, at least in the output.

I wouldn't want a FF 20-50 f2.0, it'd be physically large and expensive. This lens size is perfect too for it's balance of low light, focal range, and handling. 20-50mm f4 would probably be just as small for a modern FF mirrorless. Wouldn't that be awesome?

How dare both of you post such irrelevant comments?! Don't you know how much energy the data centers consume to process your posts?

I use the cat because it was the first time I was successful in doing the trick where you set your camera white balance on tungsten and light your subject with a speedlights gelled with a full CTO. You have to do it in the daytime and the result is that your subject comes out normal, but the background— which is lit with daylight—goes that awesome shade of blue.

so, not only you are a bird hater, you also waste electricity on useless photo tricks...

It is nature though. I look out the window now and can see eighty to one hundred birds but no cats around. I saw a pigeon taken by a hawk the other day so birds hunt each other.

The lens looks good. Gordon Laing also has some tests shots on Flickr.

The cats are all hiding ninja style waiting to pounce on the birdies.

You can't say it's nature, because cats are an introduced species. They are specifically unnatural.

Some regions in New Zealand have banned (new) cats altogether because of their catastrophic impact on local wildlife.

I saw a picture of a bird stealing a fox's food (think of the poor fox), birds are not as helpless as we might think, apart from the Dodo of course.

Cats are programmed to go after birds so it is nature. We don't agree but that is how forums work.

Birds are just as bad as cats. Look what they do to poor insects.

Everything is nature.

Indeed.

Hi,
I agree with Panther fan, ISO 6400 on MFT is just... un-sell-able.
MFT is stuck at 800 ISO, period.
So this 1,7 lens is very useful, the ability to spare light facing a 2,8 lens is good even if $1800 + big and heavy are another story ...
You can say that Sony FE 16-35/f2.8 is $2200, but Sony A73 can decently shoot @ ISO6400 and the body is smaller/lighter than a GH5

If M4/3 can only shoot at ISO 800, then FF can only shoot at ISO 3200.

If FF can shoot at ISO 6400, then M4/3 can also shoot at ISO 1600.

Please at least try and be consistent.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a7iii&attr13_1=sony_a7iii&attr13_2=panasonic_dcgh5&attr13_3=panasonic_dcgh5&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=800&attr16_3=1600&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.881744758849811&y=-0.17868109646494895

It's hard to say whether the colors are Panasonic's JPEG engine or the lens.

C'mon, man, you can get a 20 year old Tokina 19-35 f3.5-4.5 for $100 on ebay so obviously this is too expensive. /S

Said by someone who has obviously never tried to buy a ~20-50 f3.4 lens.

This lens has the size, weight and pricetag of a fullframe beast but really... it's not that hard to make 20 mpix 2x crop images with a fraction of the resolution of FF look great.

Overpriced, overweight, overhyped. IMHO, the small crop sensor is a decent choice for wildlife and macro. Can't see the benefit of the format in anything else any more.

I don't get it. If you're happy with trash image quality, why would you ever buy a full-frame camera in the first place?

You're paying big money for a fancy FF mirrorless body, but you're happy with a $100 lens on the front of it?

And it's an absurd comparison anyway, because a 20-35mm/f3.5-4.5 isn't a 20-50mm/f3.4 in the first place.

It really just seems like you're trolling, here, and I've already spent too much time engaging with your nonsense.

@Androole
20-50F3.4 isn't a 16-35F2.8. It's 2/3 of a stop away from F2.8 and 1/3 of a stop away from F4. So it's twice closer to F4.
Technically, MFT by its 3x4 nature is less wide even at equivalent FLs. You really should compare it to some standard F4 zooms instead of UWA, like 24-70F4 or even 24-105F4. Which are considerably cheaper, stabilized and provide more reach.
Finally, the first thing I notice while looking at these sample images is the MFT noise at base/low ISO. And you can argue about F3.4 advantages over F4 all you want, but you will get more noise regardless of the F-stop. Because the best this MFT setup can do is comparable to FF ISO800. Therefore, for photography purposes, It's just a ridiculous waste of time, money and all the "hot air" you spend defending it online.

@Androole - "I don't get it. If you're happy with trash image quality, why would you ever buy a full-frame camera in the first place?"
- Oh, so that's why you use MFT!? :)) You are happy with its trash image quality? Now it makes perfect sense! :) Thanks for clarifying.

But, please understand that not everyone loves trash image quality and lens prices are not based solely on their optical qualities. No matter how much you pay for MFT toys, the results would still seem like trash compared to what you can get for the same money on FF.

"You're paying big money for a fancy FF mirrorless body, but you're happy with a $100 lens on the front of it?"
- That's the thing ... with FF we don't have to pay big money for fancy bodies OR lenses to have beautiful image quality. Unlike MFT users.

The best m43 can do is much better than iso800. Look at the hires g9 shots. These hires modes will only become more and more useful with faster and faster sensor readouts.

Also, this lens is more directed at video work, where it is essentially peerless when combined with the gh5 or gh5s (where there is no 2.1x horizontal fov crop).

@ecka84
Waste of "hot air" ?
You're clearly not in the slightest interested in this lens, or m4/3, (which you clearly have never even used, and know absolutely nothing about), and you can't even be bothered to download the samples to view them.
I can't understand why people like you post, I wouldn't dream of rubbishing a lens belonging to a system I didn't own, or want to own. I wouldn't even bother to read the reviews of something I wasn't interested in.
Why do you do it, rubbishing other systems?

@ecka84 - If you aren't just arbitrarily rounding, f/3.4 is 0.47 stops away from f/4. So no, it's not anywhere near to "twice closer to f/4." f/3.36 is the exact 0.5 EV half-stop difference between f/2.8 and f/4.

http://imaginatorium.org/stuff/stops.htm

And heck, if you want to get so deep into the weeds, the sensor area difference between FF and M4/3 isn't even 2 full stops.

log2(864)-log2(225) = 1.94 stops.

So f/1.7 * 1.94 = f/3.3, which actually reverses the situation, putting it just 0.47 stops away from f/2.8.

The point is, you are really splitting hairs to make an invalid argument.

Your pricing argument compared to the "standard zooms" also sounds like it would be reasonable, except that it's not. They aren't that much cheaper, except the f/4 kits.

Sony FE 24-70/f4 = $900
Sony FE 24-70/f2.8 = $2200
Average $1550

Nikon 24-70/f4 S = $1000
Nikon 24-70/f2.8 S = $2300
Average $1650

So you're saving about 10% of the price in exchange for the entire ultra-wide angle range.

Yes, I'm sure the kind of people shopping for an f1.7 pro-grade lens for m4/3 are going to be happy with janky old film lenses that have to be stopped down to f11 for sharp corners. Totally the same customer base.

@ecka84 is right on. With a FF body you don’t need to spend thousands to get excellent IQ, high ISO performance or shallow DoF, that’s part of the system benefits. On the other hand you need to spend $4000 for a G9 and this monster just to “compensate” 🤔

This example has surely been posted before, but the assumption that you can put low-quality lenses in front of any old FF sensor and get world-beating results is naive in the extreme.

https://www.christography.com/blog/full-frame-vs-micro-43-revisited-with-pro-olympus-lens

The Canon 6D + 17-40/f4 L is clearly worse everywhere across the frame than the lowly Olympus E-M10 with 12-40/f2.8, despite the L glass (!) being stopped down to its optimal aperture.

If that doesn't represent the cheap and cheerful FF kit that you and ecka84 are describing, I don't know what does. I mean, obviously the example with the Canon L lens is a much better lens than the elderly Tokina, but the point remains.

@s1oth1ovechunk
High-res modes are BS. I'd rather stitch some images instead without needing a tripod or perfectly still subjects or even special cameras.

"video work" - Sigma 18-35F1.8 with a Speedbooster beats this lens since 6 years ago. Get over it.

@Richandhiscat
"... have never even used" - I don't need to use it to see that its results suck in comparison. The question is why can't You see that? Get a larger monitor.

@Androole
Lenses are not exact science, you know. Are you sure that your 10-25mm is not F1.739 or something? Are you sure that your suggested F4 lenses are exactly F4 and not F4.1 or F3.9? Can you even see the difference between F3.4 and F3.5?
It's marketing, it's about nice round numbers and putting price tags on them.
And why on Earth would I use the ancient 17-40L on my 6D!?

@ecka84
Sorry, but if you want fact-peeping: F3.4 is not F3.5, and 20-... is not 24-...
I have an m43 camera, and I'm prefectly satisfied with the image quality. And that's not because I'm blind, I also see the differences, but I don't care. Why? Because I print maximum in A4 size, and I look and share my photos on PC. And there, it's more than enough. I think that many-many people are in the same situtation. Why should they spend more money, for perfection, they dont really need? And there are also other points, for example size, weight, and the show-up factor...
Why is this bothering you? If you are happy with your FF, why do you care for m43?

@ZeBebito
The 6D is fine, but we can use the new fantastic Tamron 17-35F2.8-4 on it instead.

@ecka84
Hi res is bs? You are talking about base ISO. If you have enough light to shoot at base ISO and not worry about shutter speed, you probably can shoot in hi res and get more dynamic range and less noise.

I can see that you are not actually honest in your comparisons, and not honest with yourself about the bias of your worldview, so I see no reason to continue this "discussion"...

You can only get excellent IQ by using an excellent lens, regardless of sensor size, that's for sure.

@ecka84
Why are you still talking about something you know absolutely nothing about?

"High-res modes will get you more failures and artifacts than it's worth"

Utter rubbish. The only failures are if you don't know how to use it, and I've never seen any artefacts...unlike with stitching, where it's quite easy to get artefacts/anomalies.

I will repeat, why do you want to rubbish systems that other people use, like and are happy with?

As for"get a bigger monitor"....what a stupid comment.

A f/1.7 lens is an f/1.7 regardless of the sensor size. Videographers seem to be more conscious of this than photographers. I do understand that the depht of field is "equivalent", which would qualify as "comparable", at most.

@Ecka84, showing more dishonesty about hi res mode. Come back when you can stop lying.

@Emilio TTL saying f/1.7 lens is f/1.7 regardless is like saying ISO200 is ISO200 regardless, sure it's true, but it's also clearly not a meaningful statement in practice. Both statements ignore the fact that for matching depth of field (f/3.4 on full frame) angle of view, and shutter speed, the larger sensor will be running at 4x the ISO, where it will perform almost exactly the same in DR & Noise.

So in practice, ISO200 is not ISO200 across formats, in any meaningful way to IQ (just like f/1.7 is not f/1.7 across formats in any way meaningful to IQ). It's my understanding that vIdeo productions shooting with multiple cameras want to match exposure manually and repeatedly, which is why t/stops are useful. If you're not exposing film, the f/number is not really a useful quantity and I wish we didn't have to keep talking about it.

You all realize that F1. 7 is F1. 7 and not F3. 4 right? Right??

"@'You can only get excellent IQ by using an excellent lens, regardless of sensor size, that's for sure.' - BS"

How is this BS? If the quality of the image projected by the lens on the sensor isn't good, then it doesn't matter what sensor you're using, the image will never have excellent IQ. I have never seen excellent IQ produced by an optically sub-par lens on any camera.

@ecka84
Is it so hard to understand, that in many real life applications, there is no significant IQ difference between FF and m43, because people dont look at the photos in 100% magnification? Yes, there is a difference, but no, in many cases it doesnt matter. For those, whom matters, should use FF, for those, whom dont, are happy with m43. Its so simple... Why are you figthing so agressiv against that "hot air"?

Revenant - "How is this BS?" - Because you can put an excellent lens on a tiny crappy sensor camera and get crappy images. Try putting an Otus lens on a Pentax Q and see for yourself.
What's your definition of excellent IQ anyways? My $100 50F1.8STM can produce excellent IQ, easy.

This lens offers superior image quality vs cheap FF lenses because of:
- lack of color fringing
- lack of longitudinal CA
- smooth out of focus rendition (aka bokeh)
- sharper corners

”This lens offers superior image quality vs cheap FF lenses because of:
- lack of color fringing
- lack of longitudinal CA
- smooth out of focus rendition (aka bokeh)
- sharper corners”

BS.

Sensor also plays a role in image quality. Color depth, DR and ISO performance. So your magic lens will produce inferior images because the inferior sensors.

"Sensor also plays a role in image quality. Color depth, DR and ISO performance. So your magic lens will produce inferior images because the inferior sensors."

That would be true if those super cheap FF wide angle lenses were f1.7. Or even if they were f2.8. But of course, they never are. Or at least cannot produce usably sharp images when shot wide open.

But unless you are shooting in unlimited light conditions (i.e. ability to use base ISO with sufficiently fast shutter speeds to freeze motion as desired) then any FF system with an f/3.5 or slower lens will actually produce less DR, less colour depth, and have more noise.

This is literally Equivalence 101. You don't just get to say equivalence doesn't matter only in those circumstances when it doesn't work out in favour of the system you're cheerleading.

”That would be true if those super cheap FF wide angle lenses were f1.7. Or even if they were f2.8. But of course, they never are.”

You are paying for this PanaLens the same than a G-Master f2.8 lens, and there are several FF wide angles with f1.4 or f1.8 apertures at more accesible prices. (Sorry to inform you F1.7 is not exclusive to m43)

Some very insecure Canon owners here ....

@ecka84: I understand equivalency, but you guys severely overuse the concept! F1.7 is F1. 7, it is not a meaningless number which has to be multiplied with 2 for every discussion. It means you can get away with much higher shutter speeds and/or lower iso than on a FF with an F3.4 lens.
Happy to clarify the basic concepts of photography for you, you're welcome.

@DjangoChained
"I understand equivalency" - No, you don't.
F1.7 really is a meaningless number without the sensor size context.
Same thing with your "lower" ISO.

MFT F1.7 ISO200 (same shutter speed) = FF F3.4 ISO800 (same shutter speed) - that's equivalence. Not what you are preaching. Equivalence is meant for reproducing the same image on different format cameras by utilizing the same amount of light. It also demonstrably clarifies their potential differences.
APS-H 18-35F1.8 = MFT 12-23F1.2 and in terms of horizontal angle, APS-H 12mm and MFT 10mm are similar, believe it or not. And if I'd use a 20F2.8 on A7R2-3-or-4 it would be equivalent to MFT 10F1.4 and I could simply crop the 50mm FoV out of it while still getting image quality comparable to MFT.
You can't win this.

@ecka84: if you don't hit any extremely high ISO values, if you take a photo on two different cameras at the same (equivalent) focal length with the same shutter speed, ISO and F-stop, you get basically the same picture.
The main difference is the depth of field.

Do you happen to be one of the guys who are overly obsessed with depth of field? Then you are in for a rough ride my friend - now that the phones can simulate it on the cheap, it will soon be perceived as the tacky photographic crutch it has always been.

@ecka84 - are you really serious about cropping a 20mm/f2.8 to 50mm? Do you actually believe that you'd get "image quality comparable to MFT?"

You're completely wrong. Let me explain the basics of equivalance.

When you crop a 20mm/f2.8 to a 50mm FoV, you have a 50 / 20 = 2.5x crop factor.

This 2.5x crop factor means that your equivalent aperture will be f/2.8 * 2.5x = f/7.

So you have a 50mm/f7 equivalent lens. Exciting, right? It gets worse.

Also because of that 2.5x crop factor, it means that you are only sampling a very small sensor area. FF sensors are 864 mm^2, but you are only using 864 / (2.5^2) = 138 mm^2 to make your image. That's a little bit bigger than a 1" sensor, and much smaller than an M4/3 sensor.

It gets worse. If you bought a brand spanking new 61 MP A7R IV, of the original 61 MP, you'd now only have 9.7 MP. On an A7R III you'd only have 6.7 MP.

Your example makes absolutely no sense, and shows you don't understand the basics of what you're trying to preach.

@ecka84
So everybody, who is happy with a non-FF system, is an idiot?

@ecka84
Once again, why does it bother you ?
Why are you so obsessed with hatred for a camera system you don't own, and have made quite clear you have no intention of owning ?
Why do other peoples preferences bother you ?
Many people, including professional photographers, are quite happy with the quality they get from m4/3 - why do you think they should be unhappy and miserable (as you clearly are) ?
Have you lost out on pro work, or a competition, to someone using m4/3 ?
If not the above, then what is wrong with you ?

After reading all these posts I don’t get the feeling that ecka84 “hates” any system. He’s actually taking a lot of time to point out facts and limits. Where has he been wrong? Please point it out.

@ecka84
"If you are happy with MFT quality, it doesn't mean that it is as good or better than FF"
But nobody said it did, did they?

"despite being more expensive than FF"
Really? All FF equipment is cheaper than MFT ?

"And I hate when people are being fooled into photographic illiteracy."
In your opinion, but your clear lack of knowledge of MFT shows not only "illiteracy" but intolerance as well, backed up by your continual use of the term "BS" to describe anything you don't agree with. When a photo is on the wall in an exhibition, do you really think it matters to the viewers what system was used to take it?

And, for the last time, why should all this bother you ?

@bicskeiz
"So everybody, who is happy with a non-FF system, is an idiot?"
- So everybody who doesn't care about pictures they take (like you) will just spend $10'000+ on MFT gear, because they have been brainwashed to be afraid of FF, its mythical size and unbearable weight, because they can't learn equivalence principles or maybe even basic math. So, who are those people? Why are they paying big money for fancy meaningless F-numbers on "tiny" overpriced toy lenses?

@ecka84: "But guess what, using MFT (compared to FF) is just like cropping everything and throwing away 75% of every single image."

That's the first not-nonsensical thing that you've said. And it's correct. Well done!

And using a small format (what you call "FF") sensor is like throwing away 41% of every single image compared to a medium format sensor.

Nonetheless, it's not the end of the world that you are throwing away 41% of every single image. In fact, there's nothing wrong with you throwing away 41% of every single image. The remaining 59% of the image that your small format sensor captures is more than adequate, isn't it?

@ecka84
I've just looked at your Flikr pages (like your cat pictures, but then again I am a cat person).

You really do need to broaden your horizons photographically (how old are you?), there's far more to photography than still life, trees, flowers, insects....but if you don't want to, then good for you.
Just don't come on a forum and make out you know all about photography. With your apparently limited range of photographic interests, you clearly don't. And don't take that as an insult, you do take some nice images.

Rishandhiscat - When did ecka84 claim to know everything? The facts he’s pointing out have nothing to do with any photos he’s taken. You’re trying to invalidate his comments by insulting him. Maybe you should try pointing out where, exactly, he’s wrong.

One of the main points is that m43 is good for video and birding but actually not at all an advantage for portrait and wide-angle. The iq offered by full-frame is superior for a comparable price. How is this wrong?

@terkwoiz
I'm not insulting him/her at all. There are good pictures on his/her pages - have you looked ? - but a very limited range of subjects.
There's no point in telling him (we shall assume it's he) where he's wrong, because all he does is reply "BS". He's 'pointed out' that m43 isn't a 'proper system' - how can you deal with anyone who comes out with that nonsense?

If he'd repeated your last paragraph then that would be fine. He hasn't acknowledged that m43 has any good points, just rubbished it.

"You really do need to broaden your horizons photographically (how old are you?)
Just don't come on a forum and make out you know all about photography. With your apparently limited range of photographic interests, you clearly don't."

Pretty nasty comment, don't come and say it is not an insult.

@Terkwoiz - "The iq offered by full-frame is superior for a comparable price. How is this wrong?"

But is that actually true? Because there hasn't been a single bit of evidence in this thread to support that, just a lot of platitudes and bad faith argument that ignores the reality of equivalence.

People here seem to think that equivalent means "FF is better." In reality, it means equivalent. The same. The same field of view, the same depth of field, the same dynamic range, and the same signal-to-noise ratio. That's what equivalence means.

And 20-50mm/f3.4 equivalent is a high-end specification. There are literally no directly comparable single lens solutions that are available for FF or APS-C. None. At any price.

The closest thing that you can get to equivalent for a 20-50mm/f3.4 is a high megapixel (40+ MP) body with a 16-35/f2.8 lens which allows you to crop a 50mm/f4.2 equivalent portion out of the center at roughly 20MP.

How much does that kit cost? At least $4000.

Equivalent.

@Richandhiscat
Why don't you show us your own award winning exhibition gallery that you've managed to shoot on your MFT? I'd love to see some outstanding photos of your cat too. Wait, is the MFT such a terribly bad system to the point that you are not sharing any photos? :) Oh, jeez ... Rich, I told you MFT is not a good idea ...

The thing is, you people always struggle to see any difference, because your image viewing format is simply too small. While size really matters. I can view each (well, most) of my images a meter wide in high definition and flawless quality. Flicker tends to mess things up, of course, but I'm not sharing everything there. There are mostly some nature pictures from weekends. It's not for showing off. I don't post personal stuff or people photos. I'm not an artist or a pro, I'm rarely staging any shots. Photography is not art. It's a tool. And I don't need to please your range of photographic interests too. You are weird :)

@Richandhiscat I completely agree on discussing topics, cameras, etc here, because it is even fun to do so, but when someone starts talking about personal work to use it in a negative way I find it nasty and rude. I didn't catch the "surrounded by zombies" comment.

Androole - I wasn’t even going into specifics and I didn’t mention equivalence.

If I take a ff 24mp body and mount an excellent 85mm lens on it to take a few portraits you’re trying to tell me the dynamic range won’t be better than if I chose an m43 body with an excellent lens such as the m.zuiko 45mm? The dynamic range of the ff files is greater. That’s objective.

Richandhiscat - What is the point of your comments? You’re not addressing the topic at all and are deflecting. People can comment on here with zero images in a gallery and their comment will be taken as seriously as anyone else’s. As they should. Facts are facts and you can disprove something someone says if you feel it’s incorrect.

@ecka84

"There's the whole freaking sample gallery that proves it and clearly shows how bad things really are with MFT."

What utter and total rubbish you type. Get some new glasses, or just grow up.

@Androole

I think it's time for you and me to end this conversation with such an obvious troll, don't you?

So now you tell @Androole when he is supposed to stop writing?

@ecka84
Your world is terribly black and white. Technically you're mostly right. Im not an expert, but I studied about that. Not photography, but the engneering side: optics, sensor technics, semi-conductors, digital technology, etc. This wasnt my main field, but it was enough to know, that simple calculations of equivalency doesnt show the whole true, because imaging is far not that easy. So dont think, that you know everything... But I never wanted to dig deep in this kind of conversations, because its not so important. What I want to say is, that image quality is not the one and only thing that matters. If you dont agree, its ok for me (what isnt ok, is your style, but i try not to care too much about it), luckily your opinion does'nt change the world. You only think about technical prefection, and I think, that is sad. I cant imagine that I could have joy in photography by searching errors on pixel level...

@ecka84
At last, let me tell a story: today I was on an exhibtion. Im not a big fan of such things, but there were all the winners of the world press photo awards from 1955 untill today. If you look only on the image quality, almost every picture was a crap, even on A4 prints. But nobody cared about that, because it was still a stunning experience...
Thats it from my side, beacuse it is getting really senseless timewasting.

You're acting like a cartoon character, ecka.

Can you really tell me with a straight face that a shot like this is lacking detail:

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/4004778046/panasonic-leica-dg-10-25mm-f1-7-sample-gallery/0846718505

But that your aging 6D is capable of breathtaking meter wide prints with flawless detail?

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/4160660606/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f-2-8-di-vc-usd-review-samples/7005439938

You seem to completely lack perspective. If you were comparing against modern high-MP FF cameras with Sony sensors and high-end lenses, I would be happier to grant the point. But you're talking about your old-tech Canon 20MP sensor with an AA-filter (and worse base-ISO dynamic range than M4/3 sensors that are 1/4 the size) combined with cheap lenses, some of which hail from the days of film.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%206D,Panasonic%20Lumix%20DC-G9

Your arguments don't make sense.

@ecka84 "Unfortunately, MF gear isn't optimal for my needs. It's too expensive and lacking any budget options. But if it was better and cheaper than FF (just like FF is better and cheaper than MFT these days), then I would be using MF instead, no doubt."

Sure, cameras have different prices. Different focus systems. Different amounts of DR. Different pixel counts. Different weights. Different sizes. Different grips. Different screens. Different buttons. Different lenses.

I'm glad you've found something that works for you. I'm just surprised that you would so quickly dismiss that others have done the same.

@ecka
- I'm viewing the images on a 24" calibrated Dell desktop monitor. Don't worry about me.

- It's absolutely not an OOC JPEG - it's a conversion from Adobe Camera RAW, as the filename "IMG_1348-acr" should obviously tell you.

- The "poor quality lens" resolves within 6% of Canon's 24-70/f2.8 L II when shot at the same 24mm and f/8 aperture. It resolves within 2% of your precious 28mm/f1.8 IS USM @ f/8. If it's a poor quality lens that's responsible for the image you see there, then almost all Canon lenses - yours included - would also be poor quality.

- You're example tree photo is much more magnified and is heavily, heavily sharpened to the point where many of the edges have developed halos. How is that a fair comparison?

- Please try to be objective and recognize that modern M4/3 gear can match the image quality of your 7-year old Canon FF. It's okay, time marches on. And there's a rumour of a 70MP RF body coming out - you can use that as your new untouchable yardstick.

Here are the lens tests I referred to, since you probably won't believe me if I don't cite my sources. (Though you've never responded to any of objective data I've mentioned so far, so maybe not).

https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff?start=1

https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=1

https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/726-canon28f18eos5d?start=1

(Remember that we're specifically looking at 24mm @ f/8, the aperture the lens was shot at in the example photo).

Here's the $1600 24mm/f1.4 L II for good measure:

https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/514-canon24f14mk2ff?start=1

Why are you still talking to this ecka guy?

He has no experience shooting micro four thirds. You're arguing with a dishonest person's imagination. It's a pointless exercise.

He has zero knowledge or experience to offer you and he will continue to ignore your salient points and lie about your arguments to refute them. Trying to have a productive discussion with someone like that is entirely like wrestling with a pig. He is obviously enjoying it....

[how does your "experience shooting micro four thirds" make any difference when you look at the images?]

It certainly seems to in your case. It appears that you have no ability whatsoever to be impartial when it comes to discussions about the FF gear you shoot with.

Really, I don't have any horse in this race. I don't have a PL10-25/1.7, nor will I ever buy one. I don't really even have any expensive M4/3 equipment at all - my entire M4/3 kit cost me about the same or less than what it would cost me to acquire a modern FF body only.

Switching would be really easy for me, since I don't wrap my identity up in my specific gear. I use small sensors, I use big sensors. I shoot with phones, I shoot with point & shoots, I shoot with M4/3 and with APS-C, and I shoot with 35mm, 6x7, and 6x9 medium format film that I can scan at 30MP or more.

When you don't care about your own equipment being the winner or the loser in a discussion, it's a lot easier to be objective.

Ecka84, you’re like a bad stench that won’t completely disappear, and keeps rearing it’s ugly head within these discussions. Some advice, disspppear!

Counter point, it's not hard to crop a FF 16-35 UWA slightly to get some extra reach and some of the f4 mirrorless UWAs are a little smaller (I don't remember the Sony one being any larger than my PL8-18, which is a little smaller/lighter than this 10-25), plus they don't extend physically as they zoom which I rather like...

'Course $3K for a high res FF body + $1K-ish for an f4 UWA isn't any cheaper than this PL + most M4/3 combos.

I'm not sure it'll really draw anyone to the system for stills purposes (videography - yeah), but I do like that Panasonic took the gamble on it. It's pretty unique and I think it's priced appropriately to what it is, I'll probably stick to what I've got but if it were any cheaper and/or smaller I'd be very tempted...

Selfishly I would've wanted a smaller f2 version but I can see why Pana went for the exact mix they did.

20-50mm (FF equivalent) really is a mold-breaker. I'm sure it suits a lot of people better than 16-35mm or 24-70mm. And for such a small sensor the equivalent aperture isn't bad at all. It's like f3.4 on FF, splitting the difference between f4 and f2.8. And on APS-C it's like f2.3, significantly faster than the standard f2.8 zooms, half-way to the Sigma f1.8 zoom (which only has a 2x zoom ratio, compared to 2.5x for this lens).

The only problem is the price. It's more expensive than f2.8 FF zooms.

16-35mm F2.8 is the only lens that covers this range in one lens. Here is how:

https://ibb.co/nw9DqWD

Realistically the best bet would be an A7r IV with 16-35/f2.8 GM in order to give you an APS-C crop for the long-end. The quality won't be any better from the cropped portion (and low-light / DoF control will actually be worse), but at least it's a single lens and camera solution, as you get here. And you get more wide end.

...but oops, I guess that's the $5700 combo you're thinking of...

Right, a G95 vs an A7Riv 😂😂😂😂😂😂

@ZeBebito

Of course the combination has other advantages. Even with just those lenses the Sony will be much sharper in the 16-35mm range and have the 16mm ability at all. And there are other features like AF etc... were the Sony is better.

But the point is you can't go cheaper in the Sony system and still get the same range. That was my point. I just wished Tamron would make a 20-50mm lens you could put on an A7 III or similar

@s1oth1ovechunk

Wrong thread?

I wouldn't say it is either, but it seems over the last few months that 'video-centric' has been emphasized. To me it's a great low light lens.

Probably because they are working on the g95 review at the same time?
You know what they say, two birds in the bush is better to hit with the one stone in your hand.

I use the GH5, a7r, a6300,NX1 , Pentax K mount DSLR and Canon EF mount DSLR cameras and the GH5 is by far the best hybrid still/video of them all. The Samsung NX1 is amazing for an APS-C mirrorless hybrid that is almost 5 years old but has very few native lenses so I use my DSLR lenses with adapters just like my other mirrorless bodies.

I went through the same thing. I had a GX85 then G85...both were great and the size was fantastic. Issue was when I got "serious" and wanted a decent wide or zoom, the lenses were just as expensive as the FF alternative. Considering that M43 comes at the cost of low DR, low res, and poor low light, I went back to FF. I do miss the size though!

I am waiting for the GH6 , not for another full frame. The DOF is too shallow in many situations with a FF.
"We shot the Panasonic GH5S against the Sony a7S II to see whether the video-centric Lumix can wrest the low-light crown away from its full frame rival. We'll let you draw your own conclusions, but our initial assessment is that the Panasonic comes closer than we expected, and outperforms the Sony when you need to maintain a certain depth-of-field or when you shoot in Log."
https://www.dpreview.com/videos/6914756562/panasonic-lumix-dc-gh5s-vs-sony-a7s-ii-low-light-shootout

You sound perpetually unsatisfied.

@P10004K. Preferred the gh5 over the Sony in that video.Colors looked more subdued over the Sony.Both cameras and lenses excellent.

I think you mean the Mk II, no III yet.

I don't think M4/3 is much cheaper than any other system, but it's not any more expensive either... It does have some solid low budget options in the $150-300 range, and loads and loads of lens choices (specially when it comes to zooms).