Does Size really Count?

[Bidkev]

Obviously the major criteria for m43 (amateur) users is size but is there too much emphasis on this at the expense of IQ? Personally, I think not.

Since joining the forum I find that many "which lens" type questions attract more emphasis of people's choice on smaller size with perhaps disregard for IQ? Some opt for larger (pro) size or prime perhaps thinking that they will automatically achieve better results with prime or pro glass. Some opt for size, deferring to that as opposed to the supposed superior IQ of larger (pro) lenses. I'm assuming that their choice of "size" is the result of a prime faster pro lens and not a longer zoom.

Personally, I have found the Olly 12-40 outperforms some primes of people's choice. I also found that my 12-32 was so close to the 12-40 pro, that I sold the pro and also the panny 14mm. My choice really had nothing to do with size but more about the cost effectiveness of minimal higher IQ. Kit/budget lenses in m43 (I have found) are so good (compared to pro) that unless requiring prints above 30" I have to question is the extra cost of pro cost effective? How many owners of expensive pro lenses only show their images on forums such as this or upload to the web?
I personally,can see little benefit in pro glass, (to the amateur) other than the fact that most pro glass is faster or that the amateur is an anal pixel peeper or flushed with cash. If you don't shoot primarily in low light, aren't selling your images above 30" why then as a hobbyist choose pro lenses or primes as opposed to budget primes or zooms? Is it hype that colours your choice?

Personally, I am so pleased with the "amateur" lenses offered by m43 that unless you are a pro attempting to sell a highly enlarged product to a client, why then do we allow ourselves, as amateurs, to be sucked into pro glass? Then again? Nobody is likely to admit to being a sucker, so amateurs will automatically defend their choice of pro glass, which is their right to choose and all I'm attempting to do is to see how they justify it. All this from someone who questioned the validity/quality of m43 and it's IQ when he first came to this forum

 

[Deleted member 20897]

There are times when there are just no substitute for having a wider aperture or having a constant aperture throughout the zoom range. More light just allows you to use ISO closer to the base. You can accomplish this by slowing the shutter speed, getting wider apertures or adding light that supplements the ambient light of a scene. Which ones you can do depend on the situation.

Shooting slower shutters may not fit the situation, nor would using flash or hot lights....so you are now looking at faster aperture in the f/2.8 and wider range.

It is no well kept secret that the m43 ecosystem of lenses are superb. Even the O40-150/4-5.6R lens that can be found for $100 and under produce results that very few could complain about in the IQ arena. However, if you need shallower DOF, or a way to keep your shutter speed up and ISO down...then there is no substitute for switching that same focal length to the 40-150/2.8 PRO.

You also have growth potential. I know a lot of people that are birders. That is 99% of what they do. They do not sell their images, and honestly don't really even share them on forums or social media. They shoot for themselves and they take with them 400 and 800mm lenses that cost more than some of their cars do. Sometimes you just need what you need, and to get the premium IQ, speed, performance, you have to pay the price of entry.

We all start out as amateurs, some of us stay there forever, other grow into something more.

I never judge someone who gets the gear they want, but I've frequently counseled others between a GAS attack versus a want versus a need.

 

[Ross the fiddler]

For indoor musical events etc, the Pro zooms are essential from my point of view. Before I got them I had to resort to whatever means possible, & that included flash. Now I can get photos with the available light at concerts or other events. Mind you, the earlier times also meant I was using limited ISO range cameras too.

 

[mike3996]

I'm all about the size, in all systems. For example, I couldn't ever settle for the big Olympus 1.2 Pro lenses, leaving me only one prime lens in 17-17.5 mm category that's small enough. In my Canon DSLR days I gravitated towards the 40 mm pancake. It didn't last long after that until I moved to mirrorless cameras, for size reasons.

Same goes for zooms. I have nothing against them, they're just too big to be convenient to carry around. M4/3 land is fortunate enough to have Panasonic produce marvelous and TINY zooms, both the 12-32 and 35-100 f/4-5.6 are very compact (compact enough for my taste anyway) for what they do. (Just wish the bodies supported proper zone focus -- I salivate at the thought of a complete street shooter's dream at combining a small body with the Panny 12-32)

Size means so much to me I practically view bodies of comparable dimensions somewhat equivalent or being in same size class.

But that's just what I want from my cameras and what I shoot (almost EDC). The size suddenly means nothing if someone invited me to an event to photograph.

 

[Hypilein]

Size is a subjective thing, which everyone has to decide for themselves. Personally, I've found the camera bag of my dreams (cozyspeed streetomatic plus), and everything that is too large to fit in there (preferably with another lens) is too big. So while I love the idea of the 40-150 PRO I will never buy it. The 35-100 on the other hand fits, and I need the aperture for concert pictures (which is my most regular shooting next to vacation shots).

On the wide angle front needing a pro lens was much less clear cut than on the tele end. I've owned the 7-14 (liked it very much) and my parents own the O9-18 (don't like it). I don't think the difference between them is that big really, but I still preferred the 7-14 except for the filter solution. The PL8-18 seemed the perfect compromise (except on size), but as it still fits in the bag (as I recently found out it even fits with the hood attached) it was ok. Eventually I bought it for a combination of reasons (in no particular order):
1. Weather sealing
2. Wider Aperture in case I ever get to a dark sky location
3. Filter thread
4. I happened to get a good deal on a used Nauticam 7" dome port, so my wide angle lens needed to fit that.

These are all minor reasons, but combined together I felt they were good enough. If I were strapped for cash I think the 7-14 would have been absolutely fine.

Even my 100-300 fits (on it's own) but I would make an exception for a specialist lens.

 

[davidzvi]

While I and SURE that there are many that get suckered into buying more than they need (true for any hobby you can think of really). It is nice that m4/3 really does have a nice selection of quality options across the board.

 

[wjiang]

I have pro zooms for light gathering and DoF control. As for primes, it's about nice bokeh as well as light gathering and DoF control. Sharpness is not the be all and end all.

 

[ionian]

I've always wanted to do a YouTube series titled something like "the frugal photographer" and show what can be done with the most basic of kit. But I always end up eating too many burgers to think about appearing on your screens.

Still, the point stands that most of us probably have more kit than we need. But again, remember, those of us who post on internet forums about photography and cameras are probably not representative of the wider user base. Many are happy with a rebel and a 50mm f1.8 - and why wouldn't they be, it's a lovely portrait lens on a crop, and produces good subject isolation. More than enough for many who want pictures that look better than a cellphone.

More people buying high grade glass (I won't call it pro glass - I hate that term - any glass is pro if it makes you money, it's just a wanky marketing name) means it can be manufactured and sold with a lower profit margin, reducing the cost for us all. Hoorah!

 

[Mountain]

@Bidkev, glad you're a convert, I remember your early skepticism. I have both the 12-32 and 12-40 and much prefer the latter. Mostly because I like the 40-50mm lengths for portraits. 40mm @2.8 means I don't switch to my 42.5/1.7 when just out and about. I am an absolute amateur, photography just fills a hobby gap until my kids are big enough to take climbing regularly. I don't NEED any fancy camera, but I do prefer my nicer lenses (whether or not the IQ improvement is real or perceived). My cell phone is still my most used camera.

 

[comment23]

I have dabbled with larger lenses but the optimum that allows me to enjoy 99% of what I shoot seems to be body with a reasonably-sized built-in grip and a lens no longer than the width of the body. In my case this is the E-M1.2 + 12-40 wanky-PRO + 75/1.8. But I know could probably be happy with a G80/85 + 12-60 kit lens if I hadn’t been suckered by the beautiful OM-D.

 

[Lcrunyon]

Obviously the major criteria for m43 (amateur) users is size but is there too much emphasis on this at the expense of IQ? Personally, I think not.

Since joining the forum I find that many "which lens" type questions attract more emphasis of people's choice on smaller size with perhaps disregard for IQ? Some opt for larger (pro) size or prime perhaps thinking that they will automatically achieve better results with prime or pro glass. Some opt for size, deferring to that as opposed to the supposed superior IQ of larger (pro) lenses. I'm assuming that their choice of "size" is the result of a prime faster pro lens and not a longer zoom.

Personally, I have found the Olly 12-40 outperforms some primes of people's choice. I also found that my 12-32 was so close to the 12-40 pro, that I sold the pro and also the panny 14mm. My choice really had nothing to do with size but more about the cost effectiveness of minimal higher IQ. Kit/budget lenses in m43 (I have found) are so good (compared to pro) that unless requiring prints above 30" I have to question is the extra cost of pro cost effective? How many owners of expensive pro lenses only show their images on forums such as this or upload to the web?
I personally,can see little benefit in pro glass, (to the amateur) other than the fact that most pro glass is faster or that the amateur is an anal pixel peeper or flushed with cash. If you don't shoot primarily in low light, aren't selling your images above 30" why then as a hobbyist choose pro lenses or primes as opposed to budget primes or zooms? Is it hype that colours your choice?

Personally, I am so pleased with the "amateur" lenses offered by m43 that unless you are a pro attempting to sell a highly enlarged product to a client, why then do we allow ourselves, as amateurs, to be sucked into pro glass? Then again? Nobody is likely to admit to being a sucker, so amateurs will automatically defend their choice of pro glass, which is their right to choose and all I'm attempting to do is to see how they justify it. All this from someone who questioned the validity/quality of m43 and it's IQ when he first came to this forum

Neither image quality nor value judgements are yes/no equations. Everyone’s needs are a little different, and so each person’s balance between lens size and lens IQ/performance can vary by degrees. You could extend your argument to ask, "Why doesn’t everyone just use their cell phones?" Or conversely, "Why doesn’t everyone just use medium format?" There is a whole spectrum of in-between, obviously.

Your own story is a good example: Yes, the 12-40mm Pro is only a little better in IQ than the Panasonic 12-35mm (which, by the way, is one of Panasonic's high-end standard zooms, so it isn't strange at all that they are close). Yes, the Oly 12-40mm Pro is almost as good as many of the Oly Premium primes -- to the point that some people might not see the point in switching to those primes (I didn't, either). That's a testament to the Pro quality, however, more so than any failing of those Premium primes. If you just have a kit/Consumer zoom lens, those Premium primes are definitely a step up in IQ and performance. The compactness of those little primes has its own value, too, and that bit of aperture difference might matter for some people.

Where your story leaves off, however, is that the Oly Pro primes are in a different league, just as the Pro zooms are in a different league from Oly's Consumer zooms. The Pro primes are to the Pro zooms what the Premium primes are to the Consumer zooms. Whenever you start looking at higher-end (and more and more expensive) photography gear, you run into the law of diminishing returns. Only you can say where your personal cut-off line is. What many people who have tried the Pro primes have found is that while it's true that the benefit of each individual aspect of IQ is subtle, but with each one of those improved aspects of IQ coming together in these Pro primes, the sum result is greater than its parts. When you consider that those results are then applied to every photo you take with those lenses -- sometimes important or cherished photos -- the price tag and weight penalties are not so easily judged.

Lenses are also much longer term investments. Bodies come and go, but we tend to hold onto our lenses. In a lot of ways, the IQ advantages of lenses make a bigger difference in more pictures than the IQ advantages of a larger sensor. I still would like a little more sensor-based IQ in the next E-M1, and when I (hopefully) get it, my Pro lenses are still going to have the resolution to match. Their size and price tag aren't just a product of a little extra aperture speed, sharpness and other aspects of IQ rendering. It's also the all-metal everything-proof build, the focus clutch with distance scale, the constant aperture, the function button, the focusing speed and smoothness, the nano coatings, the updates that make these lenses compatible with special Oly (mostly E-M1) features, etc. If you don't include all of those extra performance and handling advantages, you are missing half their point.

When we chose µ4/3, we (hopefully intentionally) limited our sensor-based IQ in order to get a more compact system, but also to leverage other advantages made possible by the smaller sensor, including features such as IBIS or Hi Rez, advantages in lens design, etc. That doesn't mean that we don't see there is more IQ to be had. There is a huge amount of flak that µ4/3 users take because of this smaller sensor by people who don't think any level of µ4/3 IQ is enough (sometimes from ourselves in this very forum). While I personally don't want to give up what I have for high-end full frame sensor levels of IQ, which I consider to be overkill for my threshold of IQ needs, I've still sought better IQ and performance than I was getting at first, and found that development path with the E-M1 flagship line and Pro lenses. My kit is still smaller than the larger formats, but the IQ, performance, handling and durability have gotten really high - much closer to where I want them to be. Working within the less forgiving confines of a smaller sensor has made me a better photographer, so I am able to squeeze much more IQ and performance out of both my powerful camera and high-end lenses. So, I have no regrets. I'm not sorry I didn't save my money on cheaper, more compact gear, nor that I didn't jump to another larger and/or more expensive system. I found my personal balance.

 

[Snowonuluru]

Many people don't take photos at all, to them, even contemplating buying a camera is just crazy! Value of pro vs kit, marginal return in IQ vs higher expenditure, just totally irrelevant concepts.

Start with this extreme case, and work your way to the most fussy case finding all categories in between. Then you will find the answer to your question.

 

[tonyturley]

I've bounced back and forth between μ4/3 and Fuji a couple of times in the past few years. Both have appealing features. The GX85 and 12-60 f/3.5-5.6 are just slightly lighter than the X-T1 + 18-55 f/2.8-4. IQ from both is very good, but the 12-60 is weather sealed, where the 18-55 is not. The GX85 itself is actually just a few grams lighter than the X-T1. I presently do not have any Fuji gear, having sold off a bunch of gear over the past year or so. I've tried to reduce my gear to what I feel will minimally allow me to pursue my photo hobby at a "good enough" level. That's the GX85, G80, Olympus 75-300 II, and the 12-60 kit lens. Even when I carry all of that together, my bag is very light.

I've had a few images published by magazines and news sites over the years, but I derive no income from this, so for me, the high grade gear would be over that "diminishing returns" line.

 

[ac12]

I went both ways. I shoot both consumer and pro lenses.
The way I look at it is, lenses are like tools in a tool box.
- I buy the lenses that I need/want for a particular reason. This stocks the tool box.
Then when I have a shoot, I select the best/most appropriate tool for the job.
- For travel and when I want small/light, I take the consumer lens.
- When I want max aperture, I take the pro zoom or O-17/1.8 prime.
- When I need a particular focal length/feature, I take that lens be it consumer or pro.
- If I need/want something that isn't in my tool box, I will consider getting it, IF I can justify it.

 

[ralf-11]

what about the size of the depth of field?

size of the blur circles from diffraction?

 

[ac12]

@Bytesmiths reminded me.
One of the lenses in my tool box is a Nikon 500/8 mirror lenses.
Why, cuz Olympus does not have a m4/3 500mm lens. And even if they did, an AF 500mm lens would cost at least 10x more than what I paid for the Nikon 500 mirror lens. Plus be bigger and heavier.

 

[Bytesmiths]

One of the lenses in my tool box is a Nikon 500/8 mirror lenses.

One of the best mirror lenses, along with the Olympus OM 500/8 Reflex and the Meade 500/8 mirror.

I love that OM 500 Reflex! By all accounts, it's right up there with the Nikon and the Meade, but it is smaller, lighter, and at current evilBay prices, cheaper, as well.

Like all mirrors, it suffers in contrast, but that is easily fixed in post processing. Stick a focal reducer on it, and it gets even better! (Although the Kipon Baveyes below vignettes and is not as sharp as the Viltrox EF-M2 or the Metabones Speedbooster Ultra.)

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

 

[ac12]

I got the Olympus 500 mirror also, after you posted about it.
But I need to get it serviced, to relube. The old dried grease is STIFF to focus the lens.

About contrast.
I think that is due to a too short lens hood. The "hood" of the Nikon is less than 1 inch long.
It is too easy for off angle light to enter the lens.

 

[Bytesmiths]

too short lens hood

If I'm using a tripod, I'll often move my hat back and forth between the sun and the lens, watching for contrast to improve in the viewfinder.

 

[Bidkev]

.
.
Some months since I started the thread and I'm not quite sure what prompted me at the time but I'm pretty sure that it was in the context of cost effectiveness/depreciation and this quote in my OP "How many owners of expensive pro lenses only show their images on forums such as this or upload to the web?" Even from a selling point, I've just gone through my stock sales on Alamy and during the last 10yr period, not one of my sales was shot with pro glass.

Of course, I recognise that sometimes only pro/fast glass will get that particular shot, but I guess at the time of posting, I was musing because, "that particular shot" isn't in my personal brief. I don't shoot concerts, rarely do night shots or sports, portraiture and thin DOF is not of any concern, and quite simply, I've only rarely found myself wishing for more speed. Yes, it would be nice to have that speed for the rare occasion if I was "financially sound" but I'm far from it. I'm guessing that what prompted me at the time of posting, was that I was considering parting with the Olly 12-40 and hoping someone would throw up something that could justify me keeping it. As it is, subsequently, I really haven't missed it as my other lenses seem to have me covered.