A large lens line-up?

[OzRay]

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:

Now, if it comes to Fuji XT-1 or the Olympus then that is another story. I really like both systems. The Fuji certainly has the advantage of a large lens line-up with more scheduled to arrive soon.

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?

 

[Talanis]

He clearly did not do his research or does not know what he's talking about when he mentions that it relies on old 4/3 lenses and a bunch of lenses from other manufacturers. In fact, having a bunch of lenses from different manufacturers shows how many companies are committed to micro 4/3 and how many good choices you have. I guess he missed the boat in one of the advantage micro 4/3 offers.

 

[OzRay]

Yes, his comments are so off the mark that I'm surprised his statements haven't been challenged. But then again, if it's not about medium or large format, 'minor' errors of fact don't seem to matter

 

[Luckypenguin]

A paragraph from near the beginning of the article makes more sense than the one previously quoted from the end, even though it is based on the erroneous assumption that a non-Olympus branded Micro 4/3 lens isn't a "dedicated" lens. You could also argue that while Fujifilm currently has a good prime lens line-up they have yet to come out with their own fast zooms, super-telephoto and superzoom.

These are both excellent cameras producing amazing image quality. I have to admit though, that the Fuji XT-1 really has found its way into my hands more than the Olympus. Mainly because the XT-1 has a dedicated lens line where the Olympus lens offerings are kind of hodge-podged together from other brands and / or the original 4/3 lens line with a micro 4/3 adapter. This will all change soon with the introduction of the 40-150mm and 7-14mm Pro lenses. The Olympus 12-40mm Pro lens is to-die-for and that is the lens I would mainly use on this trip.

 

[SeanKelleher]

Did he mean that his lens collection was largely made up of adapted 4/3 and other brands, rather than talking about the full set one can buy?

Otherwise it's just too implausibly wrong, surely.

 

[OzRay]

A paragraph from near the beginning of the article makes more sense than the one previously quoted from the end, even though it is based on the erroneous assumption that a non-Olympus branded Micro 4/3 lens isn't a "dedicated" lens. You could also argue that while Fujifilm currently has a good prime lens line-up they have yet to come out with their own fast zooms, super-telephoto and superzoom.

He clearly implies that Fujifilm has a larger selection of lenses to choose from, compared to m4/3. He uses words such as 'dedicated' when referring to Fujifilm, buy 'hodge-podge' when referring to m4/3, implying a deficiency in m4/3 lenses.

I used the sentence from the end of the article, because it expressed succinctly what I believe that he meant.

 

[pellicle]

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

I've always found LL to be more marketing oriented than factually oriented. For instance way back when they were showing how the Canon EOS D60 was better than 6x7 film ... then somehow years later they were saying how the EOS1Ds was just about equal to scanned 4x5 ... although no mention that the poor old D60 was quite under-spec of the 1Ds

"torture the data and it will confess"

Its a bit like the way dpreview has now cut off comparison between older cameras and newer cameras with their new "tool"... you could once compare the old against the new (and notice that nothing much was improving significantly except pixel counts)...

 

[OzRay]

I agree, I've always had a sort of love/hate relationship with that site, even though I go there just to see if there's something of interest as it is a 'different' site. It's certainly, of late, become a more a marketing site as you say, just trying to sell their photo trips or whatever. Hell, I'd conduct photo trips to the High Country for no profit, just be prepared to camp out and rough it for a few days.

 

[zathras]

I think I figured it out. He is talking about pro lenses. Apparently he is too good to use regular mft lenses. If it's not constant 2.8 he turns his nose up at it. Which also explains why his camera bag is comically large.

 

[OzRay]

I think I figured it out. He is talking about pro lenses. Apparently he is too good to use regular mft lenses. If it's not constant 2.8 he turns his nose up at it. Which also explains why his camera bag is comically large.

I don't think that's it, because he shows plenty of shots taken with the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F/4.0-5.6 OIS Lens.

 

[zathras]

Bugger.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

He clearly implies that Fujifilm has a larger selection of lenses to choose from, compared to m4/3. He uses words such as 'dedicated' when referring to Fujifilm, buy 'hodge-podge' when referring to m4/3, implying a deficiency in m4/3 lenses.

I used the sentence from the end of the article, because it expressed succinctly what I believe that he meant.

He doesn't imply that actually, read closer and you'll notice he doesn't say anything about m4/3.

Mainly because the XT-1 has a dedicated lens line where the Olympus lens offerings are kind of hodge-podged together...

He's directly comparing the Fuji lens line-up with that of Olympus, not m4/3..

This doesn't the article any smarter, especially when you get to this comment later on...

What really amazed me is the quality of the Panasonic lenses I brought with me.

So clearly the 'hodge-podge' is working for him...

 

[OzRay]

I completely fail to understand his logic or what he is trying to convey. What exactly are these two statements supposed to mean:

Mainly because the XT-1 has a dedicated lens line where the Olympus lens offerings are kind of hodge-podged together from other brands and / or the original 4/3 lens line with a micro 4/3 adapter.

The Fuji certainly has the advantage of a large lens line-up with more scheduled to arrive soon.

Is he talking about the Olympus current lens line-up or the past one? In either case, Olympus has 2x or 3x the number of lenses available depending whether you're talking about m4/3 or 4/3. Also, it's completely stupid to put down Olympus and praise Fuji, when every Panasonic m4/3 lens works natively on an Olympus camera.

No matter how much benefit of the doubt I give him, it simply comes across as stupid and ill-informed, as well as providing ill-informed opinion on a reasonably widely read photography website.

 

[zathras]

Why don't we ask him? I volunteer to ask

 

[OzRay]

Why don't we ask him? I volunteer to ask

Please do, it would be interesting to see what he says.

 

[zathras]

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

 

[OzRay]

So with 45 dedicated m4/3 lenses available (and only nine Fuji), he thinks the m4/3 numbers are limited? Does this guy visit us from another planet?

 

[zathras]

Seems like it mate

 

[nstelemark]

So with 45 dedicated m4/3 lenses available (and only nine Fuji), he thinks the m4/3 numbers are limited? Does this guy visit us from another planet?

The breadth of the lens lineup has to be the main attraction to m43 in this market segment. It doesn't have the biggest sensor but it certainly has the broadest range of bodies and lenses that are compatible. Oly does not make any really interesting pancakes, but Panasonic sure does, etc etc.

In a very narrow sense I do see what he means but only if you compare the SHG lens lineup to the Pro Lineup you can certainly find it lacking. With 6 SHG lenses and only one Pro lens shipping I can see the discrepancy but this assumes that all the Fuji glass is at the SHG level. But this totally ignores the Panny 12-35, 35-100, 25 1.4, 7-14, 42.5 1.2, etc etc. I suspect like most posts this is written to draw controversy...

 

[OzRay]

The thing is, both Olympus and Panasonic have produced lenses to suit a wide variety of users, from consumer to pro, and most of those lenses all work quite well. The range is far more extensive than it ever was for 4/3s and has been built up quite rapidly. And they have produced lots of prime lenses, which people have been clamouring to own.

Without explaining himself properly Raber has left himself open to criticism and certainly lost credibility. What he has stated is plainly wrong and misleading, something that any professional photography website should strenuously avoid.