Equivalence (hypothesis): Could future FF mirrorless F/8 and F/5.6 lenses (ever so slightly press upon) the m43 pro system?

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
6,281
Location
Southwest Virginia
Real Name
Steve

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,781
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
quote
could, say, an hypothetical Nikon Z 24-80/5.6 VR be the same size and weight as the Oly 12-40/2.8?​
or an Nikon Z 24-200/8 VR be the same size and weight as the Oly 12-100/4?​

From another thread, this idea makes sense WHEN the sensors get better.
When sensors have a normal HIGH ISO of 51,200 or 102,400 with good IQ, then you can use the slow lenses where you can't use them now.
As well as good HIGH ISO performance, the camera has to be able to autofocus with that dim light coming through the slow lens.
So in the future, yes it could/will happen. But again, it is the sensor technology that will allow this to happen.
 

Stanga

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
1,264
quote
could, say, an hypothetical Nikon Z 24-80/5.6 VR be the same size and weight as the Oly 12-40/2.8?​
or an Nikon Z 24-200/8 VR be the same size and weight as the Oly 12-100/4?​

From another thread, this idea makes sense WHEN the sensors get better.
When sensors have a normal HIGH ISO of 51,200 or 102,400 with good IQ, then you can use the slow lenses where you can't use them now.
As well as good HIGH ISO performance, the camera has to be able to autofocus with that dim light coming through the slow lens.
So in the future, yes it could/will happen. But again, it is the sensor technology that will allow this to happen.
How many of us shoot at those high ISO figures on a regular basis? One moment people are complaining about noise in m43 at 1600 ISO, and the next minute others are happy to use FF at a far higher ISO. What's wrong with using the denoise feature in DxO etc?
 

John King

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
758
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
How many of us shoot at those high ISO figures on a regular basis? One moment people are complaining about noise in m43 at 1600 ISO, and the next minute others are happy to use FF at a far higher ISO. What's wrong with using the denoise feature in DxO etc?
And getting the exposure correct in the first place minimizes a lot of potential problems ...
 

MichailK

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2017
Messages
728
Location
Thessaly, Greece
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #125
For me the main caveat and sad point is that these extra wide FF mounts (big IBIS sensor and wide light circle) means no more E-M10/E-M5 size bodies available in the future to caress

it looks like most m43 strong points vs the dslrs were there due to it being mirrorless and not smaller sensor - now that FF is becoming mirrorless at last, and without talking about video, the only real m43 advantage in the future would be the nice small condensd bodies like the E-M5/10 but Oly/Pany have had an established roadpath to bigger bodies and the 12-45/4 came too late to steer the boat towards compactness again - such compact lenses along just 1 stop of computational enhanced DoF (on demand) would be very intriguing for me!!
 

Stanga

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
1,264
If the FF brands are so worried by the size of m43 lenses, why are so many m43 users walking round thinking that FF and narrow depth of field is best? Exactly what percentage of prize winning shots used a narrow DoF?
 

dimap

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Feb 10, 2020
Messages
11
Nikon released 24-200, Tamron released 28-200 with the size comparable to 12-200 f4. There’s no advantage to Olympus. Same goes for m43 1.2 primes vs FF 1.8 primes. Soon there will be lots of smaller 2.8 primes for FF as well.

I personally enjoy smallish m43 primes like Oly 45 1.8 and Pana 20 1.7 on my EM5. I would never buy a set of big expensive pro primes as it doesn’t make sense to me. There is FF for this at similar size and not more expensive.
 

pake

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
2,238
Location
Finland
Real Name
Teemu
Nikon released 24-200, Tamron released 28-200 with the size comparable to 12-200 f4. There’s no advantage to Olympus. Same goes for m43 1.2 primes vs FF 1.8 primes. Soon there will be lots of smaller 2.8 primes for FF as well.

I personally enjoy smallish m43 primes like Oly 45 1.8 and Pana 20 1.7 on my EM5. I would never buy a set of big expensive pro primes as it doesn’t make sense to me. There is FF for this at similar size and not more expensive.
FF 28-200mm vs m4/3 12-200mm is apples and oranges. The 2mm (4mm in FF) in the short end makes a huuuge difference. Well... Actually so does the 200mm (FF) in the long end too. Yeah. Apples, oranges, pears and pineapple. All fruits but...
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
576
Location
Finland
FF 28-200mm vs m4/3 12-200mm is apples and oranges. The 2mm (4mm in FF) in the short end makes a huuuge difference. Well... Actually so does the 200mm (FF) in the long end too. Yeah. Apples, oranges, pears and pineapple. All fruits but...
Like someone stated earlier, this forum is moving towards DPR nonsense, which is very sad.
 

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,256
Nikon released 24-200, Tamron released 28-200 with the size comparable to 12-200 f4. There’s no advantage to Olympus. Same goes for m43 1.2 primes vs FF 1.8 primes. Soon there will be lots of smaller 2.8 primes for FF as well.

I personally enjoy smallish m43 primes like Oly 45 1.8 and Pana 20 1.7 on my EM5. I would never buy a set of big expensive pro primes as it doesn’t make sense to me. There is FF for this at similar size and not more expensive.
Lens image/optical quality and stabilization matter too. I got to see the stabilization performance of a Z6 and A7IIR. Not even 1/FL levels on the A7IIR and the Z6 was good only for wide angle lenses. and not to the level of the E-M1II with the 12-100.
 
Last edited:

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,256
A remark: The 12-100 which I own is one of my favorite lenses - not because of the convenient zoom range but because it is a wide open sharp lens with insane stabilization so pardon this sequential post. I'm fairly sure my like is also controversial relative to when it was released when it was decried as being too big and ruining the entire point of Micro Four Thirds. As an owner of a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 and Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 that are mounted on focal reducers most of that flies over me. I however appreciate having the option of mounting smaller, lighter lenses.

So this leads me to an example of particularly slow lenses on 135 format sensors on mirrorless cameras: I read The Digital Picture review and watched Christopher Frost review video on one of the new RF mount lenses with an incredibly slow f/7.1 on the long end. Surely, this is a good example of that "slow aperture 135 format lens that can be optically pretty okay" - it even comes at a pretty alright price of around $400. Sounds like a winner for this concept.

Not so fast, pardon the pun.

We'd be looking at a 12-52.5mm f/2-3.5 for an equivalent lens - which sounds close enough to the Olympus 12-45mm f/4 or alternatively the 12-40mm f/2.8 (by aperture for DoF and "total light" purposes):

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-24-105mm-F4-7.1-IS-STM-Lens.aspx

In general, lenses are not as sharp in the periphery where light rays must be bent more strongly than in the center. This lens' 24mm corners are somewhat soft, but not bad considering the distortion issue that I'll discuss in more depth later in the review. The corners throughout the balance of the range have decent image quality. Stopping down decreases peripheral shading but has little other effect.

Basically, use this lens at any focal length or aperture desired with little bearing on image quality except for the 24mm corners.
Samples taken from the outer extreme of the image circle, full-frame corners in this case, can be counted on to show the worst performance a lens is capable of, and the corner results are obviously soft at 24mm. Again, the distortion discussion will shed more light on this issue. The corner results from the balance of the focal length range are decent, with details being readily discernable.

Corner sharpness does not always matter, but for some disciplines, including landscape photography, corner sharpness is important. On the other hand, videos captured at typical wide-aspect ratios completely avoid use of the extreme corners.

When used on a camera that utilizes a lens's entire image circle, peripheral shading can be expected at the widest aperture settings. Expect relatively strong wide-open aperture peripheral shading at the wide end of the focal length range – about 3-stops. The shading is slowly reduced as the focal length is increased with about 1.2-stops of shading remaining at the long end. As usual, corner shading decreases as the aperture is reduced with about 1-stop of shading remaining at 24mm f/16. A shading reduction is again seen at longer focal lengths with stopped-down apertures. Practically no shading remains at 70mm f/11.
The sharpness is only in the middle of the lens and it becomes diffraction limited at f/11 for the 30.3mp EOS R (which likely explains why the rumored Canon's f/11 telephotos are around here.) I can't say I'm exactly "impressed" by the image quality at 50-105mm either. In my experience looking down at the RAWs for the 12-100 on the E-M1II produced far superior results. That's to not even mention the crazy barrel distortions that are fisheye levels for the Canon at wide angle which obliterates the corners along with the dark, dark corners that are -3EV from the lens barely forming a complete image circle at 24mm. So much for total light too on the wide end, the vignetting means less light is going to the edges and corners which is a pretty significant part of the sensor and it means those areas will be lacking when it comes to the shadows.

So yes, slower optics can be designed and they can even be pretty inexpensive too - just don't ask for miracles. It'll suck for high MP sensors because they can't be stopped down any further and will be diffraction limited for optical performance. For sensors >50MP... good luck, f/5.6-8 is already the territory where center resolution is traded for off center resolution in the first place. They're already f/5.6 like the 16MP sensors because for 135 format, 64MP is the equivalent for density. If the lens isn't designed to be wide open sharp and needs to be stopped down far it'll be pointless on high MP sensors because the system is already diffraction limited for performance.

Putting a lens like that on a high MP body doesn't yield "shoot and crop": It'd be like putting the cheapest set of tires on a F1 car. All the sensor in the world but with a lens doesn't really let it achieve full potential.

Compare and contrast: The Olympus 12-45mm f/4, which is a 24-90mm FoV lens, seems to beat the 12-100 f/4 according to Lenstip's charts.

Camerasize doesn't have the 24-105mm f/4-7.1 but given the scaling off the mount, cutting, pasting and scaling it for a comparison isn't too far off:
a size comparison.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


And okay, I'll be "fairer" and "nicer" to that 24-105, we'd need an aperture of f/2-3.5 to match DoF right? Here's the 12-40mm f/2.8 for a closer aperture match:
aperture similarity.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I'm fairly sure the 12-40mm f/2.8 doesn't have the extreme vignetting or mediocre optical characteristics given it beats the f/1.8 and f/2 primes when it comes to optical performance at f/2.8-4. Granted this isn't the fairest comparison as the 12-40mm is a 24-80mm for FoV.

The closest lens to the 12-100mm f/4 I can think of for the superzoom conveinence range combined with optical performance is the Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L which is a kind of weak performer at 200-300mm but it is a fairly older design. It is however a decent performing lens stopped down at f/11 if the website formerly known as Photozone.de (Optical Limits). f/11 sounds awfully close to f/5.6 on the 12-100 anyways...

That or there are some good APS-C lenses like the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 and the little less impressive Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.0. Respectively 12-35.5mm f/2 and 12-50mm f/2-2.8 when focal reduced. The 17-70 being less impressive on the wide end due to it never really sharpening up. Always liked APS-C lenses and I'll continue to focal reduce them to enjoy the excellent IBIS we enjoy on Micro Four Thirds along with the relative stagnation of APS-C sensors versus the fast readout we enjoy on the 20MP sensor with the computational photography benefits from that.
 
Last edited:

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
576
Location
Finland
A remark: The 12-100 which I own is one of my favorite lenses - not because of the convenient zoom range but because it is a wide open sharp lens with insane stabilization so pardon this sequential post. I'm fairly sure my like is also controversial relative to when it was released when it was decried as being too big and ruining the entire point of Micro Four Thirds. As an owner of a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 and Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 that are mounted on focal reducers most of that flies over me. I however appreciate having the option of mounting smaller, lighter lenses.

So this leads me to an example of particularly slow lenses on 135 format sensors on mirrorless cameras: I read The Digital Picture review and watched Christopher Frost review video on one of the new RF mount lenses with an incredibly slow f/7.1 on the long end. Surely, this is a good example of that "slow aperture 135 format lens that can be optically pretty okay" - it even comes at a pretty alright price of around $400. Sounds like a winner for this concept.

Not so fast, pardon the pun.

We'd be looking at a 12-52.5mm f/2-3.5 for an equivalent lens - which sounds close enough to the Olympus 12-45mm f/4 or alternatively the 12-40mm f/2.8 (by aperture for DoF and "total light" purposes):

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-24-105mm-F4-7.1-IS-STM-Lens.aspx





The sharpness is only in the middle of the lens and it becomes diffraction limited at f/11 for the 30.3mp EOS R (which likely explains why the rumored Canon's f/11 telephotos are around here.) I can't say I'm exactly "impressed" by the image quality at 50-105mm either. In my experience looking down at the RAWs for the 12-100 on the E-M1II produced far superior results. That's to not even mention the crazy barrel distortions that are fisheye levels for the Canon at wide angle which obliterates the corners along with the dark, dark corners that are -3EV from the lens barely forming a complete image circle at 24mm. So much for total light too on the wide end, the vignetting means less light is going to the edges and corners which is a pretty significant part of the sensor and it means those areas will be lacking when it comes to the shadows.

So yes, slower optics can be designed and they can even be pretty inexpensive too - just don't ask for miracles. It'll suck for high MP sensors because they can't be stopped down any further and will be diffraction limited for optical performance. For sensors >50MP... good luck, f/5.6-8 is already the territory where center resolution is traded for off center resolution in the first place. They're already f/5.6 like the 16MP sensors because for 135 format, 64MP is the equivalent for density. If the lens isn't designed to be wide open sharp and needs to be stopped down far it'll be pointless on high MP sensors because the system is already diffraction limited for performance.

Putting a lens like that on a high MP body doesn't yield "shoot and crop": It'd be like putting the cheapest set of tires on a F1 car. All the sensor in the world but with a lens doesn't really let it achieve full potential.

Compare and contrast: The Olympus 12-45mm f/4, which is a 24-90mm FoV lens, seems to beat the 12-100 f/4 according to Lenstip's charts.

Camerasize doesn't have the 24-105mm f/4-7.1 but given the scaling off the mount, cutting, pasting and scaling it for a comparison isn't too far off:
View attachment 833201

And okay, I'll be "fairer" and "nicer" to that 24-105, we'd need an aperture of f/2-3.5 to match DoF right? Here's the 12-40mm f/2.8 for a closer aperture match:
View attachment 833202
I'm fairly sure the 12-40mm f/2.8 doesn't have the extreme vignetting or mediocre optical characteristics given it beats the f/1.8 and f/2 primes when it comes to optical performance at f/2.8-4. Granted this isn't the fairest comparison as the 12-40mm is a 24-80mm for FoV.

The closest lens to the 12-100mm f/4 I can think of for the superzoom conveinence range combined with optical performance is the Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L which is a kind of weak performer at 200-300mm but it is a fairly older design. It is however a decent performing lens stopped down at f/11 if the website formerly known as Photozone.de (Optical Limits). f/11 sounds awfully close to f/5.6 on the 12-100 anyways...

That or there are some good APS-C lenses like the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 and the little less impressive Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.0. Respectively 12-35.5mm f/2 and 12-50mm f/2-2.8 when focal reduced. The 17-70 being less impressive on the wide end due to it never really sharpening up. Always liked APS-C lenses and I'll continue to focal reduce them to enjoy the excellent IBIS we enjoy on Micro Four Thirds along with the relative stagnation of APS-C sensors versus the fast readout we enjoy on the 20MP sensor with the computational photography benefits from that.
This is a bit similar as when I got into an argument in one forum where a person asked for best landscape+portrait photography camera+lens for under 2000 €. Some people said M43 is never a good landscape camera, while my suggestion was 12-40mm, 45mm f/1.8 plus some Olympus camera. Especially if one hikes etc.

They said one should buy Sony A7II and Tamron 28-75mm (great combination no doubt and gives better DR). Anyway people usually seem to miss the quality of the lenses, or even that the camera is not 24mm which is very important for landscape photography.

One poster went even to say it would be best to buy A7RII and the Tamron (didn't even fit the budget), which I never understand. Tamron is not good in the edges of high MP camera, which is important for landscapes.

Like you said why buy an expensive camera (with bad ergonomics in those II-models) and a lens that doesn't give justice to it. I do understand the Tamron with A7II etc. which are 24MP.

So this whole thing seems to be that some don't take into account the quality of some Olympus lenses and just compare the price, size and "aperture equivalency whatever" etc. And quality is not only sharpness, but other lens characteristics as well. I'm pretty sure the Tamron is not a "pro" lens (although great budget lens) while Olympus one is.

This similar issue comes up with cameras. The comparison seems to go with entry level FF compared to maybe similar sized pro level cameras with all the features it brings. Many seem to just look at sensor size and claim that is what makes a camera, and smaller sensor always loses if priced similarly.

One can compare the edge performance, there is a big difference. (I'm not comparing the lpmm straight against each other, you can read what they say about the lenses.)

https://www.lenstip.com/564.4-Lens_review-Tamron_28-75_mm_f_2.8_Di_III_RXD_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/392.4-Lens_...l_12-40_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Image_resolution.html
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
1,004
Location
Spitfire Bluff, Velen
One poster went even to say it would be best to buy A7RII and the Tamron (didn't even fit the budget), which I never understand. Tamron is not good in the edges of high MP camera, which is important for landscapes.
Besides the Tamron shows almost uncorrectable levels of vignetting from 28-40mm which is 100% of its wide angle capabilities. The things improve somewhat but not entirely. At 75mm you still have uncomfortable levels of vignetting.
Good luck with doing a stitched vertical pano.

I'm surprised not many people talk about vignettes on that lens and generally blind side it. I believe the lens rose to its fame purely on the basis of undercutting price (because Sony wriggles your arm and flushes out every penny out of you for similar OEM lens).

I had that lens and the same camera and despite internet's obsession with that lens, it is hardly a great lens like 12-40 pro.
Heck, Sony's 24-105 f4 lens which is an everyday lens shows better performance than Tamron 28-75 and has much more usable focal length on both ends at somewhat higher price - $900 used vs $700 used for Tamron.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
576
Location
Finland
Besides the Tamron shows almost uncorrectable levels of vignetting from 28-40mm which is 100% of its wide angle capabilities. The things improve somewhat but not entirely. At 75mm you still have uncomfortable levels of vignetting.
Good luck with doing a stitched vertical pano.

I'm surprised not many people talk about vignettes on that lens and generally blind side it. I believe the lens rose to its fame purely on the basis of undercutting price (because Sony wriggles your arm and flushes out every penny out of you for similar OEM lens).

I had that lens and the same camera and despite internet's obsession with that lens, it is hardly a great lens like 12-40 pro.
Heck, Sony's 24-105 f4 lens which is an everyday lens shows better performance than Tamron 28-75 and has much more usable focal length on both ends at somewhat higher price - $900 used vs $700 used for Tamron.
Ah, great points from a person who has owned it.

At 28mm for landscapes stitching would be a solution, but apparently it isn't with this lens. But even then personally I'd really rather have 24mm lens for high MP camera than stitch with it. Makes no sense to me, but another lens like a prime would be a good solution too.

But yeah, basically you confirmed even more what I tried to say there and why the Olympus Pro lens is a great choice, especially if found used for cheap like I did.
 

dimap

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Feb 10, 2020
Messages
11
I believe new Nikon S 24-200 won’t be less sharp on a FF body than Oly 12-100. It doesn’t make sense to use only slow lenses on FF (and it bears no advantage to m43), but FF system gives you unique opportunities on those occasions when you are ready to shoot with faster glass.

Another point is that we are obviously stuck with sensor development in m43 with slim hopes for the future. 1-2 extra stops of performance, some IPhone tricks and FF would be mostly for for purist bokeh junkies.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
1,004
Location
Spitfire Bluff, Velen
The reviews for 24-200 aren't out yet, or at least I didn't see anything else apart from overviews. Purely judging by Z lenses so far, it should be a strong performer but who is to say. 12-100 is a proven, stunning sharp lens which for many replaced 12-40 pro/12-60 PL, that is quite a feat in itself. If 24-200 is to better 12-100, it has to work rather hard.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,081
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
The Olympus 12-100 is $1299 and $1199 on sale.

That’s $300-200 more expensive than the Nikon MSRP at launch at $899.

Let’s say the Nikon also drops $100 which is reasonable.

Is the constant lower aperture for exposure, but still deeper and more diffraction limited DOF of the Olympus, with a bit more weather sealing, worth a $300 premium when also paired with a camera 2 stops less ISO capable?

A Z6 with 24-200 will actually be cheaper by $100-200 than the EM1.3 with the 12-100. And that’s before Nikon drops it’s Z6 price comparable to the existing EM1.3 drop.

The smaller sensor is too close in price to that Nikon combo.

Olympus has a pricing problem.
 

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,256
Olympus has a pricing problem.
I've gotten a brief amount of exposure to a Z6 and I'm very unimpressed by it. Does it offer better performance above ISO 6400? Yeah. Does it do all the things that the E-M1II can do that I take full advantage of and am able to better leverage for computational photography/handheld brackets/HR? Does it have the ability to shoot normal or telephoto lenses at ridiculously low shutter speeds? Can it do 8-15 second exposures when braced against a wall with a high chance of a blur-free (aside from moving elements) image?

...No and the E-M1II is a great value preposition alone for that because it does all these things. I like being able to have more light gathering capability per second and to be able to bracket 5EV in a moment. I like being able to keep the camera held for a fraction of a second to capture as much light as a medium format. I like being able to blend a perfectly exposed sky with a highly overexposed-and-post-pulled foreground so my shadows have more detail than a 135 format camera. I like having HR mode because it lets me produce huge panos of landscape.

I'd wait for a Nikon 24-200 to come out before passing judgement. That Canon lens is a bit of a snooze when it comes to optical quality. If you end up with a f/4 lens that's mushy and soft all around up until it is f/8-11 then you're not really ahead of the 12-100 beyond having a slight ISO advantage which is arguable. A soft image lacking in detail versus an extremely crisp image with a little bit of grain in post makes a big difference. The crisp one can take a little bit of NR and it'll look far better as an output ultimately. The 2 stops difference disappears when your optics are crummy because you end up with a file that looks as soft as if heavyhanded NR was smeared all over it. Especially when everything outside of the dead center of the image gets all mushy.
 

mumu

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
540
it looks like most m43 strong points vs the dslrs were there due to it being mirrorless and not smaller sensor - now that FF is becoming mirrorless at last, and without talking about video, the only real m43 advantage in the future would be the nice small condensd bodies like the E-M5/10 but Oly/Pany have had an established roadpath to bigger bodies
Panasonic continues to make the GX and Gnn series, both of which are quite compact.

and the 12-45/4 came too late to steer the boat towards compactness again
Yet the 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8 are very compact, great performers and have always been available.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
576
Location
Finland
The Olympus 12-100 is $1299 and $1199 on sale.

That’s $300-200 more expensive than the Nikon MSRP at launch at $899.

Let’s say the Nikon also drops $100 which is reasonable.

Is the constant lower aperture for exposure, but still deeper and more diffraction limited DOF of the Olympus, with a bit more weather sealing, worth a $300 premium when also paired with a camera 2 stops less ISO capable?

A Z6 with 24-200 will actually be cheaper by $100-200 than the EM1.3 with the 12-100. And that’s before Nikon drops it’s Z6 price comparable to the existing EM1.3 drop.

The smaller sensor is too close in price to that Nikon combo.

Olympus has a pricing problem.
@Aristophanes I'm interested what M43 gear do you have? Why do you still have them?

Reading your comments in this forum I would think you would have switched systems long long time ago. Your replies always seem to say FF is better and cheaper.

What are the reasons you have not switched or sold your M43 gear? Isn't now at least the time when there are so big uncertainties on Olympus' future? And it is not competitive at all in price in your opinion?
 
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