4/3 system query

[mrtoad]

olympus e-420

i was reading in the hand book that the lens i have which is 17.5-45 is equivalent to a 35mm 35-90...2x crop factor
it went on to make some reference to the stop values as well being 2x
am i right to thinking that my f2.8 end is really f5.6 and the f22 is f44
IN 35MM TERMS?
someday of course i hope to go up a size...as a lot of the stuff here taken on even the most basic...canon lets say...seems more crisp
or is it the lenses
cheers
geof

 

[Almost_Invisible]

olympus e-420

i was reading in the hand book that the lens i have which is 17.5-45 is equivalent to a 35mm 35-90...2x crop factor
it went on to make some reference to the stop values as well being 2x
am i right to thinking that my f2.8 end is really f5.6 and the f22 is f44
IN 35MM TERMS?
someday of course i hope to go up a size...as a lot of the stuff here taken on even the most basic...canon lets say...seems more crisp
or is it the lenses
cheers
geof

The lens is still a F2.8.
The field of view of the lens at 17.5mm is equivalent of a 35mm on full frame.
Advantage of that is the perception of increased reach.
Disadvantage is more depth of field.

Regarding crispness .. it's most likely the lens. It depends what you are comparing with. What you state is a basic Canon with an L lens will have sharper images. A basic Canon with a kit lens probably has less sharp images as Oly kit lenses are pretty good considering.

Going "up a size" will not necessarily get you better images. It all depends what it is you are after.
Low light photography - go up a size (or 2) .
Wafer thin DOF - go up.
Nature photography where reach is important - no need to go up.
Anything else ... matters not really.

The E420 is not the best 4/3 camera but that does not make it a bad camera.
You will want to move on from that camera with a kit lens eventually.
Buying a higher grade lens will improve things significantly but as you only have a 420 + kit lens I would suggest that you don't do that but move to a manufacturer that produces more than a single expensive DSLR body (i.e. Olympus).
Investing in a different system just appears more sensible as you have a relatively low investment in lenses. I love my Oly gear but the company is at least "confused" about where it is going re: DSLR or worse simply does not know.

 

[HoppyUK]

olympus e-420

i was reading in the hand book that the lens i have which is 17.5-45 is equivalent to a 35mm 35-90...2x crop factor
it went on to make some reference to the stop values as well being 2x
am i right to thinking that my f2.8 end is really f5.6 and the f22 is f44
IN 35MM TERMS?
someday of course i hope to go up a size...as a lot of the stuff here taken on even the most basic...canon lets say...seems more crisp
or is it the lenses
cheers
geof

Field of view is equivalent to 35-90 on FF. Depth of field is equivalent to f/5.6-45 (f/44 rounded) on FF. But aperture values for exposure stay the same at f/2.8-22.

 

[mrtoad]

ALMOST INVISIBLE SAID
The lens is still a F2.8.
The field of view of the lens at 17.5mm is equivalent of a 35mm on full frame.
Advantage of that is the perception of increased reach.
Disadvantage is more depth of field.

Regarding crispness .. it's most likely the lens. It depends what you are comparing with. What you state is a basic Canon with an L lens will have sharper images. A basic Canon with a kit lens probably has less sharp images as Oly kit lenses are pretty good considering.

Going "up a size" will not necessarily get you better images. It all depends what it is you are after.
Low light photography - go up a size (or 2) .
Wafer thin DOF - go up.
Nature photography where reach is important - no need to go up.
Anything else ... matters not really.

The E420 is not the best 4/3 camera but that does not make it a bad camera.
You will want to move on from that camera with a kit lens eventually.
Buying a higher grade lens will improve things significantly but as you only have a 420 + kit lens I would suggest that you don't do that but move to a manufacturer that produces more than a single expensive DSLR body (i.e. Olympus).
Investing in a different system just appears more sensible as you have a relatively low investment in lenses. I love my Oly gear but the company is at least "confused" about where it is going re: DSLR or worse simply does not know.

HOPPY SAID
Field of view is equivalent to 35-90 on FF. Depth of field is equivalent to f/5.6-45 (f/44 rounded) on FF. But aperture values for exposure stay the same at f/2.8-22.

thanks both...on reflection i think i will try an olympus 4/3 'other' kit lens..the 14-42
i really dont want to escalate un-necessarily
will consider all you both said
cheers
geof

 

[AJQS]

The 14-42 is a much better lens Geoff, but if you can stretch, it's definitely worth hunting out one of the pro lenses.

 

[mrtoad]

The 14-42 is a much better lens Geoff, but if you can stretch, it's definitely worth hunting out one of the pro lenses.

thanks Richard
this sort of steers me on the right track as i dont have a really wide angle lens and find times i could use it...and the better optics hopefully will benefit me as well
keeping the budget low you see and there are 14-42 on ebay for 50 ish
cheers
geof

 

[AJQS]

I was going to suggest the 11-22mm in my last post but it's pricey.

 

[mrtoad]

I was going to suggest the 11-22mm in my last post but it's pricey.

thanks again Richard
but i am not needing so wide a range of views
14-42 should do for general use
and i only want 1 lens total
cheers
geof