1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

DSLR v m4/3 thoughts

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by swampduck, Apr 26, 2013.

  1. swampduck

    swampduck Mu-43 Veteran

    334
    Mar 29, 2013
    Taneytown , MD
    Dan
    I originally switched to m4/3 for the smaller, more compact size compared to DSLR. A number of things since the switch have convinced me more and more that it was the right decision. The image quality is superb, the medium has grown leaps and bounds in a short amount of time leading to better and faster camera bodies. This brings me to what has become my favorite reason for switching.

    Canon EF 14mm 2.8 = $1700!!!!!
    Panasonic Lumix 14 2.5 = $250 (I paid $120 for mine used)

    To put it in perspective a little more, I had a Canon T2i body, when purchased was $500. That makes this body/lens combo $2200.
    I purchased the E-PL1 body for $300. That makes this body/lens combo $550.

    I know that the Canon lens + T2i body is a better setup in terms of overall handling, accessories(notably remote release), final image ouput(large size prints) then Panasonic Lens + E-PL1, but is it almost $1700 better? If we changed it to EM5 + 14mm, which makes it a better setup then the DSLR, the price point still comes in around $1200 less then the DSLR setup.
    In my opinion, absolutely not! I would have never owned a 14mm 2.8 with my Canon body. For the average consumer/enthusiast, m4/3 is certainly the way to go in my humble opinion.
     
  2. Liamness

    Liamness Mu-43 Veteran

    375
    Apr 20, 2011
    Of course it's $1200 more, it's a full frame lens, and a very well regarded one at that. M43 is competitive with aps-c cameras and lenses, but full frame is still quite a step up in quality. If you are a professional the extra bulk and cost is very to be worth it.
     
  3. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    14mm on a FF is not the same FOV on a 2x crop sensor.

    Completely different.
     
  4. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    You're comparing apples and oranges here - focal length is the same, but the field of view (and thus optical demands) are entirely different. The lens choices for DSLRs are broader and cheaper and in most cases have at least as good of a selection for less money.

    An equivalent to the Lumix 14/2.5 on the T2I would be Canon 40/2.8 STM, in terms of size and angle of view (or a 28mm lens for a full frame Canon), which is cheaper than the 14 (200 bucks) and not much bigger. MFT doesn't have anything like the 14/2.8 available (that would be a 7mm/2.8 prime lens, a true exotic. Witness the price).

    One more thing: The Canon T2i has worse high ISO perforamnce (significantly) than the E-M5, worse dynamic range, than the modern Oly and Panasonic sensors, which are neck and neck with current crop DSLRs for almost all intents and purposes. Particularly with the added IBIS advantage for non-action photographs.

    Let's put this in another perspective, full frame Canon kit with good glass vs. an E-M5. The 5D mark II has slightly less dynamic range but better high ISO and cleaner low ISO output than the E-M5.

    Bodies:
    Canon 5D mark II: 1500
    Olympus OM-D E-M5: 900

    Lenses:
    Panasonic 7-14: 900
    Canon 17-40: 600

    Panasonic 12-35: 1100
    Canon 24-70 mk I: 1000 (double for the mk II)
    Tamron/Sigma: 700-800

    Panasonic 35-100: 1100
    Canon 70-200/2.8: 1100 (or the F4 for less, 500-600 without IS)
    Sigma: 700

    Oly 75/1.8: 800
    Canon 135L: 1000

    ...and so forth. And that's comparing some seriously high-end Canon glass to some of the best of what Panasonic/Oly have to offer. I haven't tried the 75/1.8, but the 135L is a dead-on favorite. And there's the fact Tamron and Sigma have (particularly for crop) some seriously high quality, fast zooms available at less than the cost of the higher end MFT gear. The MFT competes strongly on quality, has a really great assortment of lenses (more than any other mirrorless system), and hits a sweet spot for size in my book.
     
  5. AceAceBaby

    AceAceBaby Mu-43 Veteran

    249
    Jan 21, 2013
    Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 $100. If you start getting into the APS-C Canon and Nikon options also, you start to see some fantastic lenses from Sigma, Tamron etc that just have no price/performance equivalents in mu43.

    The Canon 14mm is an "L" lens, the absolute best that Canon offers. The PL 14mm is a "cheap" kit lens that still costs almost double (new-old-stock split from kits) what the Canon kit prime goes for new.

    You can get a new T3 and 50mm f/1.8 for under $450 on Amazon right now. It's a goofy FoV to be stuck with maybe, but then so is 28mm 35mm-e.
     
  6. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I hate it when people compare the 50mm f/1.8 Canon to prove a price point. Its stupid.

    That's one of the first lenses Canon made in EOS mount. The R&D is well expired and paid for. Its great for a beginner prime on a budget. It has a micro motor ZIPPY! Its slow. Its even worse than when I bought mine more than two decades ago... the MkII version has a plastic mount and is cheaply made. At least mine, was made of better quaity plastics AND a metal mount. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 at $100 is not the typical it is the EXCEPTION.

    I wouldn't expect ANYONE to make a modern 50mm f/1.8 at that price point....

    One could argue there are little options for DSLRs for a 200-600mm equivalent of the Panny 100-300mm... at the same price point. You can pick and choose comparisons to prove either point.

    I've said this a few times... Olympus and Panasonic have never marketed the micro 4/3 to be the "cheaper" alternative to DSLRs.


    Quality wise, I'd still go back to my Canon EOS. The micro 4/3rd's value is in its balance of quality and packaging. Put the 75mm f/1.8 next to the 135L (which is awesome). There is a big difference there in size but not a big difference in image quality... hence the value of micro 4/3rds.
     
  7. swampduck

    swampduck Mu-43 Veteran

    334
    Mar 29, 2013
    Taneytown , MD
    Dan
    I agree, but I was referring to the not professional, enthuisast crowd
     
  8. kponds

    kponds Mu-43 Regular

    93
    Mar 18, 2013
    Tennessee
    apples to oranges.


    one thing i am pleased with however, coming from canon, is the standard prime.

    i had tried all of Canon's 50mms, and each had issues.

    the 1.8 soft until 2.2 and terrible build quality, awful focusing

    the 1.4 sharpness is actually worse than the 1.8

    even the legendary 1.2L, not as sharp as the 1.8. and the size becomes an issue, and the focusing is a little slow (though not as bad as the 1.8).

    so i tried sigma, the 1.4 was better than anything canon had, but it ran into focusing issues that MFA couldn't really correct.

    the best was the zeiss, not the sharpest but at least consistent and had a unique rendering. but no autofocus.



    comparing to the 25mm on the OM-D, this lens is like nirvana. it's sharp at all (non diffraction-limited) apertures, it focuses faster than i can think and nails it every time. i couldn't hope for anything more. and as a bonus, you get IS. you will never see IS in a fast prime with lens-based IS systems. Canon has just started introducing IS into primes and they have one F/2 and some F/2.8s.
     
  9. kinlau

    kinlau Mu-43 Top Veteran

    836
    Feb 29, 2012
    The Canon 14/2.8 also doesn't sell very well, they sell way more L series ultra wide zooms. As mentioned, it's also full frame. There is no m43 equiv for this lens, the Panny 7-14/4 is the closest @ $1000-


    If you're using a Rebel, the Tokina 11-16/2.8 or Canon 10-22 is a much better choice and a lot cheaper and wider too.
     
  10. swampduck

    swampduck Mu-43 Veteran

    334
    Mar 29, 2013
    Taneytown , MD
    Dan
    The thought I was conveying was the price point in comparison to full size DSLR over ,4/3 as it pertains to the camera enthusiast crowd.

    I realize that this is apples to oranges in technical specs, but it isn't really that far away when considering in the consumer light. Professional photographers aside.
     
  11. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    No you are missing the point... the confusion is steaming from your choice of focal length to compare to prove your point.

    If you wanted to compare 14mm focal length on a full frame you should be comparing it to a 7mm on micro 4/3rds.

    If you wanted to compare the 14mm focal length on a micro 4/3rds camera you should be comparing it to a 28mm on a full frame.

    14mm on a full frame of quality with all the optical correction is going to be hard and difficult not to mention a niche product... thus expensive. Far more expensive than the great value people found in the 14mm panasonic. THis is the reason why people are calling your comparison an apples to oranges comparison.

    THe Canon consumer 28mm is $450 versus the 14mm panny at $324. Still a difference but not as big as you first assumed.
     
  12. kponds

    kponds Mu-43 Regular

    93
    Mar 18, 2013
    Tennessee
    It is very far away. The thing is no one ever, professional or enthusiast, used the 14mm L on a rebel as a moderate wide angle walkaround lens the way that you would use the 14mm on :43: .

    The 14mm is designed to be used as an ultrawide prime landscape and architecture lens on full frame. An equivilent lens on micro four thirds would be a 7mm prime. The closest lens we have is the rokinon fisheye, but it's not rectilinear corrected and is fully manual control, so it's a bit like comparing a bicycle to a harley -- they both get you there, but one is more work than the other.

    On full frame DSLR, the equivilent lens to the panny 14mm is the Canon 28mm F/1.8. It's a pretty equal performer with the panny 14mm I'd say. The canon is soft wide open, but sharp once it gets to F/2.5-2.8 or so.

    To my knowledge, there isn't a walkaround-class moderate wide angle prime for Canon crop DSLR -- sort of a weakness of the system. I wished they would have made the EOS M's 22mm prime lens in EF-S mount as well.
     
  13. Liamness

    Liamness Mu-43 Veteran

    375
    Apr 20, 2011
    The same is true when it comes to crop DSLRs v full frame though. Even more so really; you can buy a used 500D and kit lens, which would give comparable images to your E-PL1 and 14mm f/2.5. You'd be paying about the same or less, plus the lens would have more reach. DSLRs are quite often a better value proposition that m43, we pay a premium for convenience and size.
     
  14. rnagoda

    rnagoda Mu-43 Veteran

    260
    Jun 12, 2012
    Tucson, AZ
    Robert
    There are definitely lenses which would fill this need on a Canon crop sensor. The 20, especially, is a great lens (32mm equivalent) and not expensive (Canon 20mm f/2.8 USM Review).

    Also, Canon/Nikon look to be killing it in this range soon with the new Sigma zoom - 18-35 f/1.8!! Nice!
     
  15. pcnyc

    pcnyc Mu-43 Regular

    198
    Sep 15, 2010
    Well, nikon 1.8gs (50 and 35) are pretty modern, and both can be had for < $200, not as extreme as EF 50 1.8 II, but still significant if we are comparing just on price for the same FOV.

    yeah, but that was a lousy example you picked. There was another thread not too long ago and there were a lot of apple to apple comparisons. I think it's safe to say that comparable m43 lenses are not cheaper to DSLR, actually usually they are more expensive. this is due to a lot of factors which over time Olympus and Panasonic maybe able to catch up on, but even so, right now m43 lenses do have advantages in being small, being modern tech, and having LOTS of fairly modern bodies that are tremendous bargains to pair with.
     
  16. kponds

    kponds Mu-43 Regular

    93
    Mar 18, 2013
    Tennessee
    Wow I've never seen the 20mm. Guess you learn a new thing every day. Still I wouldn't want a F/2.8 prime without stabilization, but it certainly does fill the gap.
     
  17. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    :horse::horse::horse::horse::horse::horse::clapping::clapping::clapping:
     
  18. AceAceBaby

    AceAceBaby Mu-43 Veteran

    249
    Jan 21, 2013
    Congratulations on Getting The Point. As to the 50mm, who gives a fudge when it was made. It exists, it works on today's Canon DSLRs and it costs $100. Its history is utterly irrelevant to anyone's spending decisions.
     
  19. bongestrella

    bongestrella Mu-43 Veteran

    404
    Sep 2, 2011
    Mechanicsburg, PA
    More like apples to orange juice to me actually.

    While it's silly comparing Canon's least expensive lens (50/1.8) to m43's offerings, it's also just as silly comparing m43's least expensive setup (epl1 + 14/2.5) to one of canon's absolute best (14/2.8). In both cases pointing out the price.
     
  20. swampduck

    swampduck Mu-43 Veteran

    334
    Mar 29, 2013
    Taneytown , MD
    Dan
    points taken, it sounded different in my head