A large lens line-up?

mattia

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
2,391
Location
The Netherlands
His reply:

Hello,

In the article I said that the dedicated micro 4/3 lenses were limited. I did mention that you could use adapters etc. The Fuji line of lenses dedicated to X series has grown significantly. In the Olympus line I consider the like of the Pro lens line the ones that really matter. Fast, sharp, well built and excellent image quality. My old 4/3 lenses while working on the MFT are just not as fast as I would like to see.

Best Regards,

Kevin Raber
kwr@luminous-landscape.com
Even if we're talking fast, sharp and well built we have the Oly 12-40, 40-150, 12/2.0, 17/1.8, 75/1.8, and Panasonic 7-14, 12-35, 35-100, 25/1.4, 15/1.7, 45/2.8 macro, 42.5/1.2...that's 12 high quality (not just glass but also construction).

What am I missing? Not to say Fuji doesn't have a very nice (prime) lineup, and Zeiss Tuoit to round things out, but the breadth of choice favours MFT.
 

Ramsey

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
745
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
I've read the article a few days ago and was surprised by that sentence. Guess 75mm, 60mm macro and 45mm are not worthy, due to them not having a PRO mark. Equivalent of saying: Canon has only a few lenses (and taking only L glass into account).

Also, as pellicle and Oz said, marketing oriented site...

sent from my Xperia Z
 

nickthetasmaniac

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
1,581
Hello,

In the article I said that the dedicated micro 4/3 lenses were limited. I did mention that you could use adapters etc. The Fuji line of lenses dedicated to X series has grown significantly. In the Olympus line I consider the like of the Pro lens line the ones that really matter. Fast, sharp, well built and excellent image quality. My old 4/3 lenses while working on the MFT are just not as fast as I would like to see.

Best Regards,
Right...
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
I sent Raber an email as well following the earlier one posted here and it becomes even more disjointed.

The pro lens line up is the only one that focuses fast, has continuos f-stops through zoom range and has the best build and image quality. I think my statement clearly spells out the parameters. The Fuji line is completely dedicated to the Fuji X camera. I also believe I have said as I have else where that when the 3 new Olympus Pro Lenses are delivered as well as the tele-extender that they will have a very good lens line up. If you want primes there are options but Olympus unlike Fuji has opted to develop zoom lenses first. The tests on these lens are very good.
I went back to him (not really wanting to start a debate), but pointed out that his statements fall apart when you compare (his) perception with reality. The m4/3 line of lenses are also fully dedicated to m4/3 cameras, that there are five Olympus (not counting Panasonic) fast primes already available vs six from Fujifilm and that you have to also take into account lenses from Panasonic, as they are the same as Olympus in form, fit and function. Also, the Fujifilm zooms don't match what he apparently expects from Olympus zooms (fast, constant f stop).

He then went on to talk about how many cameras and what type of cameras he owns, that he was a VP of Phase One etc; as if that excuses his deficit of logic and cogent debate.
 

pellicle

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
3,955
Location
Killarney, OzTrailEYa
Real Name
pellicle
Does this guy visit us from another planet?
Probably he is from the Kingdom of Wang. And well ... you know what those Wangers are like.

I did a little post on King Wang and the wangers one day when I was "tear d off" about the new how it feels in your hand promotion of the Pana 20mmf1.7 ... among other stuff (here).

turns out King Wang has a sister called Fanny ... she does headphones it seems in the FannyWang style.

Fanny HeadFi

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


ya just can't make up funnier stuff than wangers do

:)
 

gryphon1911

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
3,742
Location
Central Ohio, USA
Real Name
Andrew
I've had some "interesting" conversations with at last 2 of the writers over at Luminous Landscape...needless to say, I don't read their blog anymore. Way too self absorbed, a lot of misinformation and it seems they only care about blogging and not so much photography. I stopped wasting my time over there long ago.
 

zathras

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
161
Location
Waikato, New Zealand
Real Name
Chris Nielsen
I had a browse of the forums and read a thread about the E-M1 article that the OP said nobody who shoots full frame would ever want to sacrifice their 'raw image quality' for the portability of a m43. Yeah right is all I could think
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
Another odd thing was that he was making comments about my post on the forum regarding the 100-300mm lens and I said to him that I believe that he has me mixed up with someone else, as I'm not on the LL forum, nothing more than an outside observer. I just discovered that there is a 'Ray' on the LL forum and clearly he has me confused with that individual.
 

bikerhiker

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
2,005
Location
Canada
Real Name
David
I was just reading an article on Luminous Landscape (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras/two_weeks_with_the_olympus_e_m1.shtml) on the E-M1 and this sentence struck me as somewhat odd:



So I went to both manufacturers websites and did a lens count:

Fujifilm: 9 native lenses (AF etc)

Olympus/Panasonic: 45 native lenses (and not counting the 23 x 4/3 lenses or TCs)

Fujifilm has a large lens line-up compared to m4/3? :confused:
He did state he shoots with his big boy medium format and his Nikon DSLR; probably a D800 or now D810 for sure, so you need to look at it at his point of view. That is, his elite point of view. The view of someone's who is used to good equipment. If you examine his gear and his filters; they ARE NOT CHEAP to begin with.

He is entitled to his opinion and I know Fuji stuff is really good. I've played with them myself through a pro person who shoots with Fuji X. It's a capable camera and has capable glasses especially the fast pro lenses that Olympus is starting to catch up -- the 40-150 f/2.8 and the upcoming 7-14 f/2.8 which I don't mind having.

The sad reality in the world of photography is that, if you don't have a good pro lens line, then sometimes you aren't looked upon as a serious system. If you look at any products you buy these days; they are ALWAYS promoted by pros. Honda with their own Honda racing team and Trek Bicycles with their own Trek sponsored racing athletes, although Lance Armstrong was a sad SAGA in their sponsorship. Canon and Nikon promoted their pros via CPS and NPS and talk about guys with big egos as large as a 18 wheeler!! This writer is nothing compared to some of the people I have to work with and how they shame Olympus cause they know I shoot with it. But of course, there are cheaper cars and cheaper bicycles I said and Olympus as a whole is cheaper and lighter. You don't have to buy a Honda. You don't have to buy a Trek either. I'm not sure what's the point debating with a guy who's obviously like to spend lots of money on good gear. That's his choice and that is his agenda. That's his ability to spend money to get pictures, to me at least, are not all that special either. I've been around enough that some people with less equipment and cheaper systems take better photos than him. Most of the readers like anyone else idolize him like gods so whatever he says is the BIBLE?

Unfortunately though, there are people out there who do believe LL is the bible for most things. Olympus makes capable products, but like any company out there, they can not make any product that will win everybody. As long as you are happy with yours and get fantastic photos, who cares about XYZ Joe says at LL.
 

zathras

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
161
Location
Waikato, New Zealand
Real Name
Chris Nielsen
If you go read the post by that other Ray on the forum you'd be amazed at how far these people go to deny that a 300mm lens on mft is equivalent to 600 on ff.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
I have no problem with anyone stating an opinion of what they think is best for them, what they think are shortfalls in equipment, or even the quality of equipment. What I don't sanction, are fundamental errors of fact and that's what has happened here. Fujifilm do not have more lenses, faster zooms, constant f stop zooms, or significantly more primes than Olympus and, taking into account the entire m4/3 lens repertoire, m4/3 makes Fujifilm look like a start-up. Also, are Fujifilm lenses better than what's available for m4/3s?

It's completely irrelevant what other equipment he uses, when he's writing an article about a specific brand of camera and making errors of fact about that camera system. That's the only beef that I have with his article. And his replies to two different people are somewhat contradictory.

From his email to Chris:

In the article I said that the dedicated micro 4/3 lenses were limited.
From his email to me:

If you read it all the way through it says, 4/3 and other brands. Not dedicated Micro-4/3rds lens of the Pro Quality made by Olympus.
So what is he actually talking about? We need a translator to convert 'LuLa' Language into English.
 

Carbonman

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
2,340
Location
Vancouver BC
Real Name
Graham
The sad reality in the world of photography is that, if you don't have a good pro lens line, then sometimes you aren't looked upon as a serious system. If you look at any products you buy these days; they are ALWAYS promoted by pros. Honda with their own Honda racing team and Trek Bicycles with their own Trek sponsored racing athletes, although Lance Armstrong was a sad SAGA in their sponsorship. Canon and Nikon promoted their pros via CPS and NPS and talk about guys with big egos as large as a 18 wheeler!! This writer is nothing compared to some of the people I have to work with and how they shame Olympus cause they know I shoot with it. But of course, there are cheaper cars and cheaper bicycles I said and Olympus as a whole is cheaper and lighter. You don't have to buy a Honda. You don't have to buy a Trek either. I'm not sure what's the point debating with a guy who's obviously like to spend lots of money on good gear. That's his choice and that is his agenda. That's his ability to spend money to get pictures, to me at least, are not all that special either. I've been around enough that some people with less equipment and cheaper systems take better photos than him. Most of the readers like anyone else idolize him like gods so whatever he says is the BIBLE?
The sad reality is that there will always be a large contingent of self-professed 'expert' that have cost-no-object equipment that gets grossly underused. These folks spend too much time stroking their own egos and not getting out and developing their skills, whether those skills are cycling (takes LOTS of miles, week after week, year after year) or photography (takes mountains of pictures and painful assessment of composition, exposure and timing of shutter release).
Riders have a saying, "you can't buy speed" and I coined one for photography, "you can't buy talent". It's not the gear, it's the work.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
I must admit that many of the photos I see taken by these eminent chaps don't inspire me all that much, be it with m4/3 or Phase One, a lot of it is pretty average, but that's just a matter of taste. I'm sure that shots taken with the likes of the Phase One will show incredible detail, but detail on its own doesn't make for a moving or inspiring photograph.
 

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,097
I must admit that many of the photos I see taken by these eminent chaps don't inspire me all that much, be it with m4/3 or Phase One, a lot of it is pretty average, but that's just a matter of taste. I'm sure that shots taken with the likes of the Phase One will show incredible detail, but detail on its own doesn't make for a moving or inspiring photograph.
Who are we to judge the superior ruling class of nomenklatura in their intrinsic superiority that can only be shown at 650x450 px websized images formed by 80MP sensosr of superior volumetric size and girth? Directly viewing those at 100% would fry our inferior, second class citizen type sub-creative brains that could not understand the sensor's requirements for living space. We should bow down beneath them, for what they say is absolute truth. They are the 97% of the experts that agree on something vaguely together. For they are defined as experts by an expert in expertology minoring in photography. We're merely peons to anything they say, for we cannot understand true photographic art, as we shoot on cameras with sensors that are too small and do not desire living space. All hail the superiority of owning photographic gear of higher value and larger sensor volume, independent and irregardless of the sensor characteristics and properties. For their gear defines their very skill and intrinsic capability, not the actual skill they they demonstrate...

Why after all, they publish written material, that validates them even further more.

Better add this:
< /sarcasm>
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
I think that you are correct. I keep forgetting that all of their work is peer reviewed, by that exclusive circle of those who work/write for Luminous Landscape, so it must be true.
 

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,097
I think that you are correct. I keep forgetting that all of their work is peer reviewed, by that exclusive circle of those who work/write for Luminous Landscape, so it must be true.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1photo-pages/kevin_rabers_published_hoe_page_images.shtml

For one must walk around with at least close to $10,000 USD or more in gear to achieve such shots at websized resolutions. Such things like a Nokia 5500 used properly with some post processing could not even dare to challenge the output of 36MP and 80MP class sensors in all their giant massiveness screaming for more space. Why even at ISO 2000 at sub-800px, they are so clean they would cream anything but sensors and cameras of their class. We must bow down and lie beneath the soles of their shoes in genuflection to apologize for our shameful disgrace of ever challenging them over electronic mail while having in possession cameras with sensors small as postage stamps.

Better add this again:
< /sarcasm>
 

zathras

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
161
Location
Waikato, New Zealand
Real Name
Chris Nielsen
I did like his photo of the fireworks because if you look closely there are several brand new Jaguars in the photo. As a Jag owner of course I am going to like that :)
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom