Comparison of A7 and EM5 with lenses

Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by emptysensor, Oct 16, 2013.

  1. emptysensor

    emptysensor Mu-43 Veteran

    435
    Dec 8, 2011
    Virginia
    Joe
    I was curious how the size of the two cameras compared with lenses. The EM5 has the 12-35 and the two A7's have the 24-70 f/4 and 55 f/1.8. The difference is really not that great, less than I would have thought. The A7 with 55 is nearly the same as the EM5 with 12-35.

    Camera Lens Comparison.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. daum

    daum Mu-43 Veteran

    340
    Aug 26, 2011
    as soon as someone releases an EP-5 like camera with full frame for $1500. I'm jumping ship.
     
  3. emptysensor

    emptysensor Mu-43 Veteran

    435
    Dec 8, 2011
    Virginia
    Joe
    That may not be too far off.
     
  4. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    $1000 for the 55mm 1.8 is expensive. The Nikon 50mm 1.8 G cost $200 and is razor sharp on a D800/E and D600.
     
  5. emptysensor

    emptysensor Mu-43 Veteran

    435
    Dec 8, 2011
    Virginia
    Joe
    Yeah I agree. The 50 1.4 I had for my D7000 was about $400, I believe.
     
  6. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    Honestly, while Zeiss is good for bragging rights they sure inflate the prices of lenses that shouldn't be very expensive.
     
  7. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    The f/4 constant zoom on FE, while a little better as far as shallow DoF result is concerned versus f/2.8 on m4/3, still only has the light gathering abilities of an f/4, which is quite a bit less than at f/2.8. Different beasts really, if you want the same light gathering power on FE it will be bigger.
     
  8. New Daddy

    New Daddy Mu-43 Regular

    193
    Jan 24, 2011
    While that price comparison is not inaccurate, I think it actually backfires against the existential purpose of our beloved m4/3 gears. What do we say when naysayers object to the high premium on flagship m4/3 bodies and quality primes while pointing to DSLR body/lens combos that will cost only half as much? Weight, size, portability, quality, etc...

    It may not be quite the same case, but people who live in glass house...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Serhan

    Serhan Mu-43 Top Veteran

    533
    May 7, 2011
    NYC
    Most probably Sony combo will replace the e-m5+pana 12-35mm for me though I prefer the smaller sizes. So m43 will stay for the tele side...

    Nothing w/ Zeiss name is cheap like Leica price addition to Panasonic, but the quality is there with diminishing returns as w/ Zeiss 55mm and here is a 100% crop whether we need this much resolution or not:

    http://briansmith.com/sony-a7r-field-test/

    Sony-a7r-Haiti-2008v2.

    Sony-a7r-Haiti-2008-100pct-CROP.
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 2
  10. hookgrip

    hookgrip Mu-43 Regular

    150
    May 21, 2013
    I think it's a valid comparison for Sony and Micro 4/3 (though with the new FE lenses it seems like Sony is going even more extreme with the pricing).

    A couple of examples:

    The Olympus 17mm f/1.8 costs $500, twice as much (or more) compared to DSLR counterparts like the Canon 35mm f/2 (FF).

    The Panasonic 20mm pancake costs more than twice as much as the Canon 40mm pancake...and comes with free high ISO banding on many newer M4/3 bodies.

    The PL25 costs more than 2x as much as the Nikon 50mm 1.8G which is sharper than the PL25 (I've owned and used both).

    The Nikon 85mm f/1.8 G costs about 60% as much as the Olympus 75mm f/1.8.

    Panasonic's upcoming 42.5mm f/1.2 Nocticron is probably going to cost close to $1k, if not more, despite the fact that even at f/1.2 the lens's effective DOF is only that of a f/2.5-2.8 lens on FF. If the 42.5mm Nocticron is $1.5K as some rumors have suggested...that's basically into Canon 85L territory.

    At the end of the day, I just don't think lenses for a much smaller sensor should cost more than their full-frame counterparts. Sure, maybe a few of the Olympus lenses like the 75mm are slightly better than DSLR equivalents like the Nikon 85G, but it seems to me that many MFT shooters on here say they don't pixel peep or print huge (e.g. in the thread comparing 5D2 to MFT), so making slightly worse optics at half the price seems like a better way to go.
     
  11. neofx19

    neofx19 Mu-43 Regular

    76
    May 16, 2012
    Vancouver
    The 24-70 f/4 is obviously not that much bigger than the 12-35 but I'm curious to see how big the telephoto version of Sony's full frame mirrorless lenses are going to be compared with mu43rds. In the end I think all this competition is a good thing that hopefully will force companies to innovate. Who knows maybe the next iteration of a micro four thirds camera will be even smaller now that sony's proved they can produce a camera at equal size.
     
  12. Livnius

    Livnius Super Moderator

    Jul 7, 2011
    Melbourne. Australia
    Joe
    Well we need to just wait and see...if these Zeiss lenses perform even REMOTELY like the Zeiss on the RX1 then LOOK OUT.

    The 35mm/f2 Zeiss Sonnar lens on the RX1 has been put up against the al manner of equivalent lens.....including $5000+ Leica lenses and has came out on top in EVERY case in essentially every matter of optical comparison from sharpness to Bokeh and whatever else you'd care to measure....is it any wonder then that some have called it perhaps the greatest 35mm lens EVER built ???

    There is still a hell of a lot to figure out and a hell of a lot of reviews to read.....but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss anything just yet. I've had a look at full size image samples from the kit zoom...which can be had for $200 when bought in the kit.....and I tell you what, it looks stunning good.....and to think the A7 with that kit zoom will cost about $100 less than the EM1 + and new 12-40 zoom combo when bought as kit. I spent a fair bit of time with the Pana 12-35 and have owned for a while the Pana 35-100....from all reports the new Oly 12-40 is maybe only FRACTIONALLY better tha the 12-35....what I was seeing from this new Sony kit zoom left what I was getting from the Pana 12-35 some way behind. I know...good enough is good enough, and I agree with that sentiment.....just saying.

    Best part about all of this is, unlike with their NEX system, Sony has come out and clearly stated 15 lenses before the end of 2015....on top of the almost endless array of both AF and MF options available right now. I hope that in time we will see excellent and less expensive non-Zeiss options...Sony, Sigma, etc.
     
  13. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    505
    Jul 2, 2010
    Arizona
    astonishing detail ... Zeiss glass, like Leica, is superb. Call it what you want, but I have extensively used Leica M, R and Contax G and there is a difference.
     
  14. New Daddy

    New Daddy Mu-43 Regular

    193
    Jan 24, 2011
    Well, I think you and I are probably on the same page.

    I was just reacting to Jonathan's comment when our own gears are over-priced. In other words, I just think we have little to be proud of facing A7 in terms of premium pricing.
     
  15. Livnius

    Livnius Super Moderator

    Jul 7, 2011
    Melbourne. Australia
    Joe

    Something like that will always depend greatly on a particular shooter needs and compromises he/she is willing to make. What may be overpriced for one given their needs...may be a fair price for someone else with a whole other set of needs and acceptable compromises.

    With every year that passes we are seeing more options to chose from.....and there is still the Fuji XE2 to be announced later this month !
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. hookgrip

    hookgrip Mu-43 Regular

    150
    May 21, 2013
    I would have to agree. I tried out MFT for about 6 months, and once I had gotten a few of the "good" MFT lenses (14/2.5, 20/1.7, PL25, 45/1.8, etc), I found that I had probably spent just as much on these MFT lenses as I did on my FF lenses at the time (17-40L, Sigma 50/1.4, Canon 100 Macro). And another thing I discovered when I sold my MFT gear...it depreciates a lot more quickly than Canon DSLR stuff!
     
  17. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    And the Canon 50mm 1.8 is sharper than the Canon 50mm 1.2L. More than sharpness doth a lens make....


    Gordon
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. robbie36

    robbie36 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2010
    Bangkok
    rob collins
    Personally I think there is a degree of 'confusion' over Sony's strategy here.

    They have priced the A7 and A7r pretty aggressively presumably to compete head on with Canikon and take significant market share. They are looking at perhaps not the highest margin but decent volume.

    At launch, the A7 and A7r appears to be paired with Zeiss glass. Now Zeiss is a low volume, premium priced lens manufacturer.

    So the potential buyers of the A7 and A7r are either put off by the Zeiss offerings or they are thinking about whether the 'good value' they are getting for the camera justifies them buying premium priced Zeiss glass. (And theoretically, the natural buyers of Zeiss glass are actually wondering whether they should wait for the A9 next spring.)

    Actually all Sony is doing is subsidizing Zeiss but given they own them, it is called cross pricing.

    But all this is at launch. It doesnt actually make sense as a long term strategy. So it is pretty much inevitable that Sony will introduce glass that matches the pricing strategy of the underlying camera.

    Which all brings me to an interesting conclusion. Dont you think it is incredibly likely that Sony has changed its pricing strategy on its mirrorless FF? Dont you remember there were rumors that mirrorless FF would be priced at US$3k or even US$4k? Now if that had been their strategy to go low volume/premium pricing/high margin then the Zeiss lenses would have made a lot more sense.
     
  19. hookgrip

    hookgrip Mu-43 Regular

    150
    May 21, 2013
    The Canon 50L is f/1.2 and much of its look is due to the ultra-creamy bokeh that is possible at that aperture. The Zeiss is still a f/1.8 lens. Sure, maybe it's an ultra-sharp, ultra-well corrected f/1.8 lens, but they aren't going to sell many at that price.
     
  20. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Telephoto is where the size and weight difference really starts to become apparent. Compare the 35-100 f/2.8 on E-M5 versus 70-200 f/4 on A7:
    http://j.mp/1aPT2RC
     
    • Like Like x 4