OP
- Messages
- 16,750
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Still researching 200mm vintages, so many out there ... guy selling a Nikon 80-200 F4 AIS locally is tempting me, I hear that's a good 'un
M4/3 is "doomed" unless ....
- Thread starter Cagey75
- Start date
Still researching 200mm vintages, so many out there ... guy selling a Nikon 80-200 F4 AIS locally is tempting me, I hear that's a good 'un
- Messages
- 10,866
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I thought we were talking about the death of M43 because they are becoming too big, isn't the Olympus an M43 camera? The EM1 MKII is smaller lighter and thinner than the G9 so in that respect Oly are still making smaller cameras.That is one Pugly lens! wow ..It's also a bit of an extreme example, and STILL it's FF. This doesn't make the M43 any smaller, and it's still not one of the larger bodies the thread started about. There's no point you doing comparisons unless you use the bodies the thread is actually about, the Em5 mkII is the last bite-sized camera Oly have made. It's more aimed at Panasonic bodies and Olympus primes, the last things they have done. The Em5 has been out donkey's years
Because the 12-40mm is a 2.8 lens
OP
- Messages
- 16,750
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
It's not just about size, it's about them beginning to neglect the system also. We're also talking the latest bodies and lenses, not bodies from almost 4 years back - Would you prefer they continue to get bigger? Would you not like them to update the Em5 to a mkIII which would be a nice upgrade for you in future? You'd feel that bit more secure I'm sure. Olympus have done nothing in quite a while outside of the 1.2 primes.
- Messages
- 10,866
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm not sure what Olympus could do with the EM5 range to make it better other than putting the new sensor in it, and to be honest, I'm not sure the increase in IQ would be enough to make me want it.
- Messages
- 7,597
- Name
- Riz
- Edit My Images
- No
Smaller lens sizes which are generally cheaper and smaller...... The M4/3 system still has the size and weight advantages I think.
For example compare the following...
Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 priced at £999 - 80mm to 300mm in FF
Fujinon 50-140mm f2.8 £priced at 1298 - 75mm to 210mm in FF
- Messages
- 2,249
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't use m43 so correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't you be comparing it to a f/4 full frame lens for the comparison to actually be valid?
Doing that you end up with almost the same sizes overall.
- Messages
- 767
- Edit My Images
- No
Olympus have been quiet this year and the rumour mills suggest this is because they're holding things for their 100th anniversary in 2019.
A new flagship camera has been rumoured for over a year
https://www.43rumors.com/ft5-olympus-special-100th-anniversary-om-d-works/
https://www.43rumors.com/ft5-the-ne...nced-in-january-and-feature-a-new-mft-sensor/
A recent announcement from the group described the "highly-profitable OM-D series cameras and PRO series lenses"
https://www.43rumors.com/olympus-re...-document-focus-on-omd-camera-and-pro-lenses/
As a smaller, lighter, cheaper m43 user this isn't great news for me but to second guess their product strategy without knowing their numbers is just that - guessing.
If the PEN line was where the money was then we'd see more than incremental minor improvements to the E-PLx line and more low end lenses.
Perhaps a E-PL9 becomeing an E-PL10 is enough to satisfy the demand in that area?
As it stands I'm very happy with my E-M10 Mkii and don't see enough advantage to go to the Mkiii or any of the larger bodies.
Even the PEN-F doesn't attract me enough to spend so much more.
The lens line up is more than adequate - I'd like the 12-40 PRO but I know it's really a bit big for the tiny E-M10 so I'll stick to primes and the excellent entry level zooms
A new flagship camera has been rumoured for over a year
https://www.43rumors.com/ft5-olympus-special-100th-anniversary-om-d-works/
https://www.43rumors.com/ft5-the-ne...nced-in-january-and-feature-a-new-mft-sensor/
A recent announcement from the group described the "highly-profitable OM-D series cameras and PRO series lenses"
https://www.43rumors.com/olympus-re...-document-focus-on-omd-camera-and-pro-lenses/
As a smaller, lighter, cheaper m43 user this isn't great news for me but to second guess their product strategy without knowing their numbers is just that - guessing.
If the PEN line was where the money was then we'd see more than incremental minor improvements to the E-PLx line and more low end lenses.
Perhaps a E-PL9 becomeing an E-PL10 is enough to satisfy the demand in that area?
As it stands I'm very happy with my E-M10 Mkii and don't see enough advantage to go to the Mkiii or any of the larger bodies.
Even the PEN-F doesn't attract me enough to spend so much more.
The lens line up is more than adequate - I'd like the 12-40 PRO but I know it's really a bit big for the tiny E-M10 so I'll stick to primes and the excellent entry level zooms
Baloo
Pleurodelinae and proud
- Messages
- 4,212
- Name
- Roger
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Did you actually read the article before putting up your headline, Thor points out and ridicules exactly what you have done with your silly headline!
The Fan Boy anti-Canikon marketing campaign seems to have disappeared and been replaced with reasonable discussions for the time being. That makes you wonder whether some of those older anti-Canikon messages were Sony-fed FUD via anonymous posters.
Unfortunately, there's a new victim starting to emerge.
The new "you are doomed" format is m4/3.
So funny!
- Messages
- 15,379
- Name
- Jeff
- Edit My Images
- No
I personally like the marketing strategy of olympus , frequent helpful newsletters etc they seem to treat there customers as valued clients rather than the off hand way that other companies seem to treat theres .I will be keeping a careful eye on there next offering , my gut feeling is panasonic will move towards total full frame with there yet to be seen new camera , but like everything its pure speculation on our part .
- Messages
- 5,429
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's all marketing bullocks
My EM5 MK2 will take the same great images as it can now in 5 years time.
Stupid. Who needs more than they have now? It's the person not the box of tricks.
My EM5 MK2 will take the same great images as it can now in 5 years time.
Stupid. Who needs more than they have now? It's the person not the box of tricks.
Baloo
Pleurodelinae and proud
- Messages
- 4,212
- Name
- Roger
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, I was using 4/3rds and Olympus spent a lot of money developing a camera that would work with the 4/3rds lenses. Ironically I only left Olympus because I found the new M4/3rds bodies too small!
Fraser Euan White
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,062
- Name
- Fraser White
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The 180mm f2.8 A-iS ED is better and feels amazing in use
https://matthewdurrphotography.com/2012/06/02/lens-review-nikon-180mm-f2-8-ai-s-ed/
Last edited:
- Messages
- 312
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Given the 2x crop-factor of m4/3 you probably meant f/5.6, but my current understanding is that f/2.8 is f/2.8, it may give the DOF of f/5.6 on FF, but it's not f/5.6, so when you take a shot at f/2.8 on m4/3 you don't get an image 2 stops over-exposed compared to the same shot at f/2.8 on FF. In that sense I believe f/2.8 m4/3 -vs- f/2.8 FF is a valid comparison in performance terms, even though the result is a different image because of DOF.
But I stand to be corrected, as this equivalence thing has always confused me!
- Messages
- 312
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Another thought on this, I'm not convinced they're not hearing what anyone prefers, they could just be doing what any business does, making products that they believe will sell and make them money, and with the advent of smartphones with better cameras, and pocket compacts taking ever better pictures, is there really a market, still, for small ILC cameras? Are Panasonic / Olympus simply moving away from "small" because they're being crowded out of that market from below?
- Messages
- 10,866
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't think so, no. f2.8 on the 12-40 m43 lens is an equivelent to f2.8 on a 24-80 ff, I think.
2.8 is 2.8 regardless of the sensor, although I'm happy to be proved wrong.
Baloo
Pleurodelinae and proud
- Messages
- 4,212
- Name
- Roger
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes the F number is the ratio of the diameter of the aperture opening to the focal length. It is easy to see why the longer the focal length is the wider the lens must be to accommodate a wider aperture.
- Messages
- 1,142
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The last paragraph in the article starts with "Ignore the "m4/3 is doomed" messages."
Yep he got that right, I should have just ignored this thread.....
- Messages
- 15,379
- Name
- Jeff
- Edit My Images
- No
The 180mm f2.8 A-iS ED is better and feels amazing in use
https://matthewdurrphotography.com/2012/06/02/lens-review-nikon-180mm-f2-8-ai-s-ed/
I was recommended by a legacy glass specialist/ dealer to go with a vivitar 200mm f3.5 which I did its turned out to be a super bit of kit and at £24 e/bay worth every penny . all I would suggest is that you read all adverts thoroughly and check photos , discard anything that hints at fungus or skirts round mentioning it
OP
- Messages
- 16,750
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
I had the Em5, it felt slippery in hand, I'd prefer a better grip on it for one, but then many are fine with it as is, other than that 4K video, improved IBIS - this can never bee 'too good' IMO and an over-haul of the complex [to some] menu system, decent touch screen too - these changes alone would sell it.
Yes, I did, my headline is a play on his words silly, hence the quotation marks surrounding "doomed". He goes on to suggest how to save the system, by letting them know what we want - did YOU read it? it's not that long, give it a go then come back with more anal-retentive nit picking, I'll ridicule that too.
We should let them now asap that all is well ... for you!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 5,429
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, yes you should. Thanks
OP
- Messages
- 16,750
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
But you didn't, and that's an extension of it, I was laughing off the doom merchants myself up to now, but that just made me think - what are they doing for the system? F all is what. But since TP regular know it alls, which I also mentioned earlier, say it's fine, then it must be. Job done, end thread, no sense to be discussed here.
The 180mm f2.8 A-iS ED is better and feels amazing in use
https://matthewdurrphotography.com/2012/06/02/lens-review-nikon-180mm-f2-8-ai-s-ed/
That is apparently a very fine lens indeed, more than I want to pay for a legacy lens though, they fetch about £300 in good nick
OP
- Messages
- 16,750
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Here's a funny not-really-related positive - when my cam was in for repair I had suspicion that the camera store I bought from where just sending it to their own in-house repair, as they had stated. It came back no better and was sent off for a second time, I go on to them saying I wanted a replacement at this stage, they hummed and hawed over it saying it would be repaired properly this time - I emailed Panasonic and complained about the camera issue and how the store were dealing with it, they asked for all the details, in particular what repair centre was dealing with it. As soon as I emailed the shop to get this information, telling them it was to pass on to Panasonic, I was told a brand new unit was being delivered to me, had it 2 days later. Panasonic do listen, maybe it's just that nobody complains?
I just thought it would be some light discussion for a boring weds morn, seems there's more M43 heads in here than I thought, which is nice tbh
whether we agree on all this BS or not
Baloo
Pleurodelinae and proud
- Messages
- 4,212
- Name
- Roger
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Go ahead and ridicule the poster the source ridicules you!
I do have some concerns about m4/3: I don't know how you can continue to sell US$2000 m4/3 cameras that are as large as a full frame camera that sells for the same amount, for example. But that's a little different than "you are doomed."
OP
- Messages
- 16,750
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
It's not about being right or wrong here, it's a discussion, you can have a say without nit picking for the sake of it. I was ready to come post that moron Thom is at it again, it's like the first time I agreed with anything he's posted up - so that's a mild positive for a start. He's playing up on the doom merchants, as I oft do, it just made me ponder. What are they doing? are we at a stand still and for how long re: M43? Again - the doomed thing is over exaggerated to make the point. It could end up being in the long run if they don't start showing it some love
Ironically, it's his post that has me pondering the doom, I never really had before.
- Messages
- 15,873
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ah good old equivalence rabbit hole
F2.8 is f2.8 as far as exposure is concerned but for DoF field it's equivalent to f5.6 on FF.
But that's not the end of it... A FF sensor is capable of gathering 4x more light than m43 sensor. This gives it better performance especially in low light. So basically a FF sensor is about 2 stops better performance than a m43 sensor.
So what that means is one could get the same performance i.e. image quality out of a FF sensor by sticking a f5.6 lens on it as they would out of a m43 sensor by sticking f2.8 lens on it, all else being equal.
To compare like of like i.e. similar/same performance you'll need compare m43+12-40/2.8 with FF+24-80/5.6. Using a faster lens on FF would give it an advantage over m43 (possibly at cost of physical size)
Such a lens doesn't exist on FF as far as I know but I am not talking any specifics here, just plain old equivalence discussion
- Messages
- 5,429
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Here's a funny not-really-related positive - when my cam was in for repair I had suspicion that the camera store I bought from where just sending it to their own in-house repair, as they had stated. It came back no better and was sent off for a second time, I go on to them saying I wanted a replacement at this stage, they hummed and hawed over it saying it would be repaired properly this time - I emailed Panasonic and complained about the camera issue and how the store were dealing with it, they asked for all the details, in particular what repair centre was dealing with it. As soon as I emailed the shop to get this information, telling them it was to pass on to Panasonic, I was told a brand new unit was being delivered to me, had it 2 days later. Panasonic do listen, maybe it's just that nobody complains?
I just thought it would be some light discussion for a boring weds morn, seems there's more M43 heads in here than I thought, which is nice tbh
I agree in that if you ask manufacturers for new things in bodies they should listen.
My point is that, for the photography I do, I'm happy with what Olympus have put into the EM5 MK2.
I do wish the sensor was sensitive for low light and astro but if I desperately needed that I'd buy a Sony but I can't justify a 2nd system and I'm not looking to chop all my M43 gear in.
For most of my stuff I'm delighted with the output and control I have.
The Livebulb and livetime features are a superb addition and a great help when taking long time exposures.
Last edited:
Baloo
Pleurodelinae and proud
- Messages
- 4,212
- Name
- Roger
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It is a headline designed to provoke an emotional response, the best way to fight such BS is by simply pointing out what you do. I did, you did not like it. Learn it, live with it!
OP
- Messages
- 16,750
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
I almost bought an em5 mkII, but there just happened to be a great deal on the G80 at the time. They're on par end result-wise I would say, though I do prefer the deeper grip on the Pany. If it was down to me, I wouldn't be asking for too much, don't get me wrong. The system has an abundance of options already, it's just a lot of it is very dated now. Why not have newer models with better tech? It'd be nice to look forward to them as upgrades in future. I'd love to see a G90, but I doubt it'll happen as it'll affect the G9 - there's not a tonne between them as is, certainly nothing in it in terms of output.
- Messages
- 312
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Because the lenses you put on them (for the most part) are not as large, and cost less?
OP
- Messages
- 16,750
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
I think you'll find MY headline is just that, and YOU fell for it, hook, line ... stinker. I'm about as far from emotional as you are from ever knowing anything about me kid - I also pointed out your nit picking BS, do you need it explained in more simple terms? We know you can't read properly so maybe I would, only I don't care enough
Save the effort, he hasn't a bull's notion what he's on about, he's in to troll and nit pick because he fell off the bingo bus
Baloo
Pleurodelinae and proud
- Messages
- 4,212
- Name
- Roger
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I was quoting the article, that is not my opinion.
OP
- Messages
- 16,750
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Ah good old equivalence rabbit hole
F2.8 is f2.8 as far as exposure is concerned but for DoF field it's equivalent to f5.6 on FF.
But that's not the end of it... A FF sensor is capable of gathering 4x more light than m43 sensor. This gives it better performance especially in low light. So basically a FF sensor is about 2 stops better performance than a m43 sensor.
So what that means is one could get the same performance i.e. image quality out of a FF sensor by sticking a f5.6 lens on it as they would out of a m43 sensor by sticking f2.8 lens on it, all else being equal.
To compare like of like i.e. similar/same performance you'll need compare m43+12-40/2.8 with FF+24-80/5.6. Using a faster lens on FF would give it an advantage over m43 (possibly at cost of physical size)
Such a lens doesn't exist on FF as far as I know but I am not talking any specifics here, just plain old equivalence discussion
You don't need to compare at all if shallower DOF isn't your thing, and you're never planning to use FF ... then it is what it is, a 2.8 12-40, on M43.
Absolutely. I bought an original E-M5 body for £140, and it does everything I need it to do very well. I don't need to spend any more money.
It's a problem for the industry as a whole. Digital stills tech is maturing and cameras have long ago passed the threshold that most hobbyists need them for whilst phone cameras eat a little more from the bottom end every year.
Baloo
Pleurodelinae and proud
- Messages
- 4,212
- Name
- Roger
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I never claimed you were emotional, wrong again. And again you have nothing but insults to rebut the argument, your headline was BS, your understanding of the article was BS.
You simply took Thor's argument and lied. Full stop.
OP
- Messages
- 16,750
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
I had the em5 for a bit, great little camera [bar the ergos, for me personally] - I bought it as a tester for M43, always planning to upgrade it if I decided I liked the system - I was still shooting Fuji at the time. It's not just about seeking tech beyond our needs, it is just nice to get even minor upgrades. I almost bought a mkII, because it had a MUCH better evf and better IBIS. Those things alone are worth it IMO
- Messages
- 2,249
- Edit My Images
- No
This started off because of the comparison photo between the Sony GM f/2.8 lens to show how massive the size difference is but my point was the more sensible comparison is surely with the Sony 24-70mm f/4 because that's closest in performance to the m43 lens and then the size difference basically goes away?
OP
- Messages
- 16,750
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
A warning has been given for this post
Where's the lie? ... I linked the f'ing article you dope, if I was lying I would have just said in my own words that he claims M43 is doomed. I thought the average posted on here would know what I meant - you're just too thick, your understanding of this whole thread is BS, nobody else took it the way you have, because they're not in their usual must-anally-challenge-everything mode which you never seem to snap out of. You are what's wrong with this place, dare anyone spark a semi-interesting discussion and the likes of you have to nit pick, try prove nothing points, de-rail threads into a kind of stupid, boring, nothing argument because that is all you have going for you.
It's VERY simple, I used the man's words in the headline, yes it draws attention, see how the thread has remained active? it sparked a discussion, which is healthy. It also got me thinking, the whole thread doesn't have to remain strictly about what Thom Moron thinks or says, it's a starting point. I'm not predicting out right doom like the people he mentions, I'm pondering on what if ... we are allowed to have individual thought, try it some time.
Baloo
Pleurodelinae and proud
- Messages
- 4,212
- Name
- Roger
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Temper temper.
- Messages
- 312
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OP
- Messages
- 16,750
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Depends on what's more important to you, the GM example was just plain ridiculous, that thing would look stupid on any camera
But, if light gathering is more important to the ever over rated shallow DOF side of things, then 2.8 = 2.8 no matter. I mean, why do phone camera lenses claim 'f/1.8' or whatever? does anyone ever calculate what it should be in FF equiv? no, because that would be pathetic. It's 1.8 for that phone. Why should it be any different for smaller sensor cameras?