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

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,806
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
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?
You would if your kid was playing middle/high school basketball or volleyball.
High school gyms are DIM, then couple that with a FAST moving sport.

Maybe even outdoor sports.
My local HS plays football, soccer and lacrosse after school, so while the first game is in the late afternoon sun, the 2nd game (usually varsity), is at NIGHT under lights.
No sunny Saturday games, like back when I was in high school.
Swimming and water polo also go into the night under lights.

Baseball, softball and tennis do not have lights, so they have to be played in the sunlight.

If your kid is in the band, the theater is another DIM venue.
But at least you don't have to use a FAST shutter speed like when shooting sports.

If you don't have kids in these sports/music, then the above does not apply.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,103
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
@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?
Olympus went m43 on the premise that the smaller sensor would lead to an inherent cost advantage over FF. Now that FF systems of like size and weight are bearing down or are even below m43 price points, Olympus has a value problem. It also means they veered off the original premise. Charting out esoteric shooting situations that don’t appeal to the middle of the consumer curve further reduces the market, it doesn’t increase it. It’s counter-productive to say “HHHR against a wall in a hurricane is what m43 is all about”. That kind of technical statement actually sells LESS units. The “over engineered” bragging when the EM1.2 came out made for the easy retort of “over priced” and “over sized”.

When a brand loses the value argument and it’s adherents paint the format into a niche, it winds up in exactly the situation Olympus finds itself. Olympus is losing money precisely because of these positions. They don’t sell systems. By far most persons will buy on sensor size, autofocus, warranty, and ergonomics. Everything else is fluff.

Thom Hogan nailed it when he spoke about how Olympus proponents will argue that an extra 1.5 stops of stabilization in 10% of the potential shooting scenarios justifies not only m43 as a system, but equal prices. Those sentiments work against m43 because the other 90% of shooting scenarios demand a lower price from m43 than larger sensors. The rest of the market sees that. Very shallow DOF sells cameras and lenses. We knew that in the 1970s! Nothing in the Olympus tech arsenal comes anywhere close to matching that desired aesthetic.

Olympus tech and design is excellent. It’s just getting priced out. They aren’t competitive on price per pixel and per stop. To stay in production they will have to cut both prices and costs. The competition has forced them into a corner. They tried to throw many a kitchen sink worth of added tech like ProCapture at the sensor gap deficit, and it’s not working. That’s left a Olympus unable to finance a new, boutique sensor with only 3% market share. The JIP sale is openly under discussion because the current approach has failed.

Look at my images to see what I shoot. Photography is part of my work.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
587
Location
Finland
Olympus went m43 on the premise that the smaller sensor would lead to an inherent cost advantage over FF. Now that FF systems of like size and weight are bearing down or are even below m43 price points, Olympus has a value problem. It also means they veered off the original premise. Charting out esoteric shooting situations that don’t appeal to the middle of the consumer curve further reduces the market, it doesn’t increase it. It’s counter-productive to say “HHHR against a wall in a hurricane is what m43 is all about”. That kind of technical statement actually sells LESS units. The “over engineered” bragging when the EM1.2 came out made for the easy retort of “over priced” and “over sized”.

When a brand loses the value argument and it’s adherents paint the format into a niche, it winds up in exactly the situation Olympus finds itself. Olympus is losing money precisely because of these positions. They don’t sell systems. By far most persons will buy on sensor size, autofocus, warranty, and ergonomics. Everything else is fluff.

Thom Hogan nailed it when he spoke about how Olympus proponents will argue that an extra 1.5 stops of stabilization in 10% of the potential shooting scenarios justifies not only m43 as a system, but equal prices. Those sentiments work against m43 because the other 90% of shooting scenarios demand a lower price from m43 than larger sensors. The rest of the market sees that. Very shallow DOF sells cameras and lenses. We knew that in the 1970s! Nothing in the Olympus tech arsenal comes anywhere close to matching that desired aesthetic.

Olympus tech and design is excellent. It’s just getting priced out. They aren’t competitive on price per pixel and per stop. To stay in production they will have to cut both prices and costs. The competition has forced them into a corner. They tried to throw many a kitchen sink worth of added tech like ProCapture at the sensor gap deficit, and it’s not working. That’s left a Olympus unable to finance a new, boutique sensor with only 3% market share. The JIP sale is openly under discussion because the current approach has failed.

Look at my images to see what I shoot. Photography is part of my work.
Yes I have read your opinions about M43 and Olympus many many times, and you have some good points.

Where can I see your images?

You didn't answer my question. 🙂 I really am interested on your reasons to have or use M43 gear, when you talk like that.

It makes absolutely no sense to me why you have not sold your M43 gear long time ago, and especially now. What M43 gear do you have?
 

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,261
Thom Hogan nailed it when he spoke about how Olympus proponents will argue that an extra 1.5 stops of stabilization in 10% of the potential shooting scenarios justifies not only m43 as a system, but equal prices.
Nikon definitely does not have the claimed (CIPA) IBIS capabilities that they market. If you're shooting something like a 14mm FL lens on a Z6, you can push it down to 1/4 to 1/2s sure - but the moment you mount something like a 50mm, try 1/10 to 1/20 or faster if you consistently want to nail shots. At least it isn't like the excuse of a system in an A7RII where 50mm means you need to shoot above 1/50 by a little for a sharp shot.

1/2 at 25mm on the E-M1II? Reliably, with 66-80% of the shots while standing around without any support complete with shallow breathing.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,806
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
. . .

Thom Hogan nailed it when he spoke about how Olympus proponents will argue that an extra 1.5 stops of stabilization in 10% of the potential shooting scenarios justifies not only m43 as a system, but equal prices. Those sentiments work against m43 because the other 90% of shooting scenarios demand a lower price from m43 than larger sensors. The rest of the market sees that. Very shallow DOF sells cameras and lenses. We knew that in the 1970s! Nothing in the Olympus tech arsenal comes anywhere close to matching that desired aesthetic.

Look at my images to see what I shoot. Photography is part of my work.
Not really.
I was there in the 1970s.
We wanted and needed FAST lenses, because the film back then was comparatively slow, vs. today's sensors.
Tri-X at ASA/ISO 400, was the fastest non-specialized B&W film.​
I personally use Plus-X at ASA 125.​
High Speed Ektachrome at ASA/ISO 160, was the fastest color film.​
Standard slide film was Kodachrome II at ASA 25, and Kodachrome-X and Ektacrhome-X at ASA 64.​
Standard color negative film was ASA/ISO 80.​
We used FAST glass and shot at f/1.4 because of the LOW light and comparatively slow flim, NOT to get a shallow DoF.
Though some did shoot for the shallow DoF.​
Frankly I did not care about "very shallow DoF." If I could not get the exposure, the DoF did not matter.
In fact, for many of us, the shallow DoF at f/1.4 was an unwanted side effect of shooting at f/1.4.

Example, shooting Tri-X at ASA 400, 1/30 sec, f/1.4. There is no room to play with DoF, it is all about exposure.
OK, you can try to shoot at 1/15 sec at f/2, or 1/8 sec at f/2.8.​
But remember, there was no IS back in the 1970s. At 1/15 and 1/8 sec, you are on a tripod.​

Aside from the 50/1.4, we were struggling with the f/2.8 prime lenses, both wide and tele.
Anything slower than f/2.8 was a "day time" lens.
 

Stanga

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
1,271
I have to add a little finding. I have two vet's dog collars, but the other I had not used as it is made from clear material - which is a shame as it is firmer and seemingly more robust.

However, on a hunch yesterday, I turned the clear one into a decent diffuser material by simply sanding one side with some 600 Wet&Dry sandpaper. In fact, after repeated sessions, I was able to approach something of a perfect diffusion. Emboldened, I tried the same technique on a piece of clear 2mm acrylic I had in the workshop, and lo and behold, that worked too. So my selection of diffuser materials has suddenly got somewhat larger!
Not really.
I was there in the 1970s.
We wanted and needed FAST lenses, because the film back then was comparatively slow, vs. today's sensors.
Tri-X at ASA/ISO 400, was the fastest non-specialized B&W film.​
I personally use Plus-X at ASA 125.​
High Speed Ektachrome at ASA/ISO 160, was the fastest color film.​
Standard slide film was Kodachrome II at ASA 25, and Kodachrome-X and Ektacrhome-X at ASA 64.​
Standard color negative film was ASA/ISO 80.​
We used FAST glass and shot at f/1.4 because of the LOW light and comparatively slow flim, NOT to get a shallow DoF.
Though some did shoot for the shallow DoF.​
Frankly I did not care about "very shallow DoF." If I could not get the exposure, the DoF did not matter.
In fact, for many of us, the shallow DoF at f/1.4 was an unwanted side effect of shooting at f/1.4.

Example, shooting Tri-X at ASA 400, 1/30 sec, f/1.4. There is no room to play with DoF, it is all about exposure.
OK, you can try to shoot at 1/15 sec at f/2, or 1/8 sec at f/2.8.​
But remember, there was no IS back in the 1970s. At 1/15 and 1/8 sec, you are on a tripod.​

Aside from the 50/1.4, we were struggling with the f/2.8 prime lenses, both wide and tele.
Anything slower than f/2.8 was a "day time" lens.
I remember it well. That's why I don't get this modern day thing about fast lenses for shallow DoF.
 

John King

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
807
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
I started 'serious' photography in the early 1960s. All the books of the time talk about the "DoF problem", and refer to how to get *more* DoF ... not less ...

I generally want more DoF rather than less. I will often shoot my 12-100 at (e.g.) f/8 to f/11 to get it, and/or more context for a shot. Fortunately, this lens is not yet noticeably impacted by diffraction softening at f/11.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,103
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
Yes I have read your opinions about M43 and Olympus many many times, and you have some good points.

Where can I see your images?

You didn't answer my question. 🙂 I really am interested on your reasons to have or use M43 gear, when you talk like that.

It makes absolutely no sense to me why you have not sold your M43 gear long time ago, and especially now. What M43 gear do you have?
I shoot an EM1X and pro zooms. Have an EM5.2 as well.

I live in the Arctic in Canada. I spent this afternoon photographing potential Thule gravesites along Hudson Bay. I require tough gear. I fly in bush planes and helicopters.

No camera brand in the history of photography has ever succeeded in marketing their product as gathering less light than the competition, and priced it the same as the competition. Many have tried, and those systems never lasted (Pentax Auto 110, ILC APS film systems). Some dragged their companies down, like Minolta in APS betting big on Vectis.

That‘s why m43 is not profitable at the same price points as larger sensors. Olympus didn’t foresee entry-level FF eating it’s lunch. JIP coming in is the equivalent of the entire senior management team being fired for their inability to understand the market.

Price scales with sensor size, not IBIS, not ProCapture, not HHHR, not keystone, not Art filters (PEN F), not all the other $0.99 little tech apps Olympus puts in. Every other manufacturer does this. Olympus tried to scale with ”features” (like the EM5.3 losing tethering) and it’s failed.

BlackMagic’s mounts scale in price with sensor size despite having pretty much identical feature sets:

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/ca/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera/techspecs/W-CIN-12

The smaller sensor needs lower prices to survive.
 

John King

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
807
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Yes I have read your opinions about M43 and Olympus many many times, and you have some good points.

Where can I see your images?

You didn't answer my question. 🙂 I really am interested on your reasons to have or use M43 gear, when you talk like that.

It makes absolutely no sense to me why you have not sold your M43 gear long time ago, and especially now. What M43 gear do you have?
His images are available via his profile.

However, his answer to your post is completely irrelevant to what you asked.

His answer is also 'philosophical', in that it is theoretical, and crystal ball gazing. He does not address what else he would be able to achieve with another specific kit that he can already achieve with what he has.

And not by playing the old mix-n-match game of a specific (e.g.) Nikon lens on some incompatible body ...

This current angst is too much like the BS at DPR for my liking - just bashing mFTs for mostly imaginary deficiencies.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,103
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
His images are available via his profile.

However, his answer to your post is completely irrelevant to what you asked.

His answer is also 'philosophical', in that it is theoretical, and crystal ball gazing. He does not address what else he would be able to achieve with another specific kit that he can already achieve with what he has.

And not by playing the old mix-n-match game of a specific (e.g.) Nikon lens on some incompatible body ...

This current angst is too much like the BS at DPR for my liking - just bashing mFTs for mostly imaginary deficiencies.
Market price is hardly ‘philosophical’. Gathering less light is a deficiency.

Prices in the UK at the moment:

Olympus E-M1.3 body only £1599

Olympus E-M1.3 with 12-40mm 2.8 £2199

Nikon Z6 body only £1499

Nikon Z6 with 24-70mm 4.0 and FTZ adapter £1999

Source:

https://www.parkcameras.com/bc/33-1602/nikon/mirrorless-cameras

https://www.parkcameras.com/bc/35-1602/olympus/mirrorless-cameras
 

John King

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
807
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
So? Subarus cost (much) more than Kias. Hondas cost more than Subarus. Hyundais cost somewhere between Kias and Subarus.

Your statement has no relevance in either the marketplace or elsewhere in the real world. Therefore it is 'philosophical'

Price was just one consideration in my decision making, as I am certain is the case for most other people.

As I said before, the sweetness of low price never makes up for the bitterness of low quality (or unsuitability for purpose).

If you cannot make decent images in low light with any modern camera, the fault does not lie with the camera.

And, just BTW, how much is that Nikon f/2.8 24-70 again?

[Edit]

Now I see why you didn't include like for like ...
The Nikon f/2.8 24-70 is 1,819 pounds just by itself ...

https://www.parkcameras.com/p/32432...-nikkor-z-24-70mm-f28-s-zoom-lens-for-z-mount

That's with 180 quid off RRP ...

Sort of ruins your narrative ... :(
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,103
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
So? Subarus cost (much) more than Kias. Hondas cost more than Subarus. Hyundais cost somewhere between Kias and Subarus.

Your statement has no relevance in either the marketplace or elsewhere in the real world. Therefore it is 'philosophical'

Price was just one consideration in my decision making, as I am certain is the case for most other people.

As I said before, the sweetness of low price never makes up for the bitterness of low quality (or unsuitability for purpose).

If you cannot make decent images in low light with any modern camera, the fault does not lie with the camera.

And, just BTW, how much is that Nikon f/2.8 24-70 again?

[Edit]

Now I see why you didn't include like for like ...
The Nikon f/2.8 24-70 is 1,819 pounds just by itself ...

https://www.parkcameras.com/p/32432...-nikkor-z-24-70mm-f28-s-zoom-lens-for-z-mount

That's with 180 quid off RRP ...

Sort of ruins your narrative ... :(
Uh.....the Nikon 24-70/4 has a superior DOF envelope from shallow to diffraction limited, meaning it has more creative optics and options at higher quality.

That is the narrative difference for the lens.

And the body...well...I’ll let Ming Thein speak to that:

And like it or not, whilst there was some size justification for M4/3 before FF mirrorless matured, I think that doesn’t really exist anymore. A Z6 or Z7 will give you easily three to four stops (or more) wider shooting envelope, and pack to almost the same size with some judicious lens choices. Not to mention more dynamic range, resolution, color acuity etc. Worse still, a Z6 is about the same price as an E-M1 III.

https://blog.mingthein.com/2020/06/25/the-beginning-of-the-end/

Olympus has an uncompetitive price problem for its cameras. There is no way the aforementioned price dynamic is sustainable. It’s an uncompetitive product and it’s not selling.

Film format to sensor format, in photography and cinematography, has always scaled the size of the capture medium to price. Super 35 is costlier than 43. Super 8 cheap. 65mm not. ARRI 2.8k is cheaper than ARRI 6k. It’s baked into the video market, even with Panasonic. If you walk into a videography rental warehouse, the gear is all lined up by format and as you walk up the format size you go up the price ladder. You pay more for more image information. And always more image information means higher quality. Smaller sensors and their camera bodies are cheaper. That’s relentlessly how the market works.

Somehow Olympus thinks its other “features” overcome that dynamic. That they alone can charge the same as larger sensors offering superior IQ. Olympus doesn’t have to be cheaper—management has concluded—because they wrap the bodies in clever terms like ProCapture and hope it makes up the difference. When larger sensors march down that price ladder Olympus has problems with both consumers and investors. Those managers have effectively been fired and JIP will be making those decisions. That’s the ultimate vote of no confidence in Olympus Imaging product direction.

The Imaging division is being sold. Somewhere in the Olympus position lies its own undoing. What could that be? I say pricing relative to sensor size.

BTW Panasonic has far saner pricing. They “get it”. The EM1.3 should be G9 priced, not Z6 priced. The G9 is US$1200, the EM1.3 is US$1600 via today’s B&H. I suspect that’s a discussion JIP is getting into.

It is possible to wrap a small sensor in tech and charge more, so long as you are a niche and no one else plays in your space and the commodity price for your small sensor is the same as the other guy. And no large sensor is at or near that price either.

The Olympus TG-6. It has the TruePic VIII processor, ProCapture, GPS, and a bunch of other tricks. It owns the underwater dive shop compact market. It is by far the best rugged compact camera on the planet. It’s THE camera one takes when you wouldn’t dare go with your smartphone. No one has made a 1” sensor at the same price point and compactness to compete. The Olympus strategy actually relies on the dynamic of the sensor being “good enough” with no competition above taking market based on IQ. That’s not what is happening with m43. APS-C is commodity priced at or below m43 with “good enough” features, and FF is getting there at the exact same price points.
 

John King

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
807
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Sorry, but there is far more to photography than having a super narrow DoF ...

And you very neatly avoided answering my question - with the f/2.8 24-70 (exactly equivalent for exposure and IQ to the Panasonic f/2.8 12-35, just 3x the size/weight and more than 4x the price - or slightly less FL range than the Olympus f/2.8 12-40, and much bigger/heavier than the Olympus f/4 12-45 ... ).

I understand the point you are trying to convince us of, but reject it after a lot of consideration.

The Z6 + f/2.8 24-70 is around 3,400 quid - hardly in the same price bracket as the E-M1 MkIII + 12-40 ...

That's extremely disingenuous of you.
One could say "irrational".

You are getting close to being the first person here on my ignore list. Hopefully the only one here.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,103
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
Sorry, but there is far more to photography than having a super narrow DoF ...

And you very neatly avoided answering my question - with the f/2.8 24-70 (exactly equivalent for exposure and IQ to the Panasonic f/2.8 12-35, just 3x the size/weight and more than 4x the price - or slightly less FL range than the Olympus f/2.8 12-40, and much bigger/heavier than the Olympus f/4 12-45 ... ).

I understand the point you are trying to convince us of, but reject it after a lot of consideration.

The Z6 + f/2.8 24-70 is around 3,400 quid - hardly in the same price bracket as the E-M1 MkIII + 12-40 ...

That's extremely disingenuous of you.
One could say "irrational".

You are getting close to being the first person here on my ignore list. Hopefully the only one here.
You dodged the title...”equivalence”.
You’re conveniently leaving out the 2-stop FF advantage.
The equivalent aesthetic envelope lens for m43 is 2.8 vs FF 5.6. Therefore for creative composition and higher IQ the FF lens is superior as it is f/4. It hits diffraction 2 stops later and has almost 50% shallower DOF.
The design ethos of the f/2.8 Olympus Pros is to claw back that loss of 2 stops to, say the Canon L glass, by 1 stop.
In theory, there is a 1 stop IBIS advantage on some lenses at certain FLs.
That’s to get the equivalent exposure.
You can’t just compare the lenses without looking at the ISO of the sensors.
Put another way, the 2 stops less light the m43 sensor gathers due to its being 1/4 the area.
There is no equivalent lens in m43 to the 2.8s of FF. The closest is the 10-25/1.7.
And it isn’t just shallow DOF. It’s also diffraction. The m43 smaller sensor hits visible, diffraction at f/5.6 (20MP) for 100% crop and f/11 for FF (26MP). 2-stop difference.

These are solid reasons why the m43 market struggle is “severe” to use the Olympus word. They have trouble using their tech to be “equivalent” at the same price points. The sensor has an inherent 2 stop disadvantage and all FF has to do is make f/4 lens and just enough stabilization to bake in a distinct advantage. It then falls to Olympus to correct their prices. Over to JIP to sort the mess.
 
Last edited:

John King

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
807
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
You are confusing aesthetics and exposure, playing mix-n-match to suit your argument. Even the most egregious equivalence troll on DPR had to finally admit that one simply cannot have "equivalence" both ways. What one wins on the swings, one loses on the roundabouts.

The "theoretical" one stop advantage of the extremely effective IBIS in Olympus bodies you refer to is actually 4 to 7 stops in practice, depending on the user, circumstances, etc, etc. Even I, at 73 y.o. and in lousy health, can routinely manage 5+ stops better than the 1/(FL x 2) rule as it applies to a 2x "crop" camera.

Your understanding of "equivalence" (a photographic abomination, in many ways) appears to be lacking. Your argument is almost entirely theoretical, and has little to no application in practice. Like the endless diffraction arguments at DPR, they are mostly lacking in real world substance. I can show images with noticeable diffraction blurring as low as f/7.1 with my 14-54 MkII, but in almost all normal circumstances it is undetectable at f/11 with the same lens and camera. Nikon warn about diffraction softening with the D800 at apertures as wide as f/8 (see the Nikon Technical advisory in the PDF here: https://canopuscomputing.com.au/Dow..._TechnicalGuide_En + diffraction-pps_i+13.pdf.

You have STILL avoided answering my questions about your very questionable cost comparisons (and originally that of another). There is simply put a £1,100 difference (about 50% more expensive for those who find simple arithmetic challenging ... ) between the E-M1 MkIII + 12-40 at £2,199 and the equivalent optical speed Nikon Z6 + f/2.8 24-70 at £3.498 (this difference becomes £1,300 at MSRP, or about 60% more expensive).

Your inability to address this simple fact is breathtaking!

You have also been requested to show some images where any of these "advantages" demonstrate any practical differences. You have so far failed to do this.

This is the sort of blind adherence to theoretical constructs that caused me to ditch DPR.
There, as here, the adherents could never produce any actual evidence to support their theories ...

And just BTW, sensors do not have an ISO ...

Further BTW, no one here is contesting that in some extreme shooting situations FF can have an advantage for noise and DR. DoF is aesthetic, and nothing whatsoever to do with exposure parameters. It can be as narrow or as deep as one wishes if one understands simple shooting techniques involving camera to subject and subject to background ratios, and how to use different FL lenses to achieve the result one desires. Not rocket science, but it does require SOME knowledge of photography ...

And just for completeness, here is a low light shot of one of our cats, Rosa, at ISO 6400 with the old and noisy Panasonic 16 MPx sensor in my E-M1 MkI and the "crappy" 12-50 macro kit lens (pretty much an OoC JPEG ... ):

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

pake

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
2,245
Location
Finland
Real Name
Teemu
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.
But didn't you get the memo? Sensor size is the only thing that matters with cameras. :whistling:
 

John King

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
807
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
DoF is aesthetic, and nothing whatsoever to do with exposure parameters. It can be as narrow or as deep as one wishes if one understands simple shooting techniques involving camera to subject and subject to background ratios, and how to use different FL lenses to achieve the result one desires. Not rocket science, but it does require SOME knowledge of photography ...
A couple of examples to illustrate this statement. Note the apertures and FLs that these were shot with ...

At f/8

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


And at f/11

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

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
587
Location
Finland
@Aristophanes Okay, thanks for the information. So you have the most expensive and biggest M43 camera, and the biggest lenses. Those "over-priced" and much critiqued stuff that Olympus put out, which some people say were part of their undoing (not in my opinion, I think they were logical way to develop the system for a while).

So trying to understand what I have seen from you here & in other forums.. As an example, to me you seem to be like a father who constantly criticizes their son for being a failure, thinking it will help him. Never giving any compliments for even successes. Because thats what I have seen from you, never complimenting what you yourself even use, only criticize Olympus. To me it is very very weird behaviour.

Are you trying to help Olympus to realize they need to sell their gear for cheap? Keeping repeating the same stuff over and over in different forums so they hear you at some point?

Do you realize what this kind of behaviour will help do? It certainly doesn't help Olympus in making people understand what benefits the system has, which seem to be why you use the system too. It will help spread the doom & gloom about Olympus. In my opinion there are better ways to criticize than non-stop bashing with no positives.

So if I understood correctly, you use the system because it is light (for planes), has enough quality for a professional and has the best weatherproofing in the market?

Okay, so as you say, for the price you could get much better. You say for the the weight you could get much better. You say for quality you could get much better. Only in weather-sealing you could't get better, but I would think Nikon or Canon for example might have good enough weather-sealing.

So could you maybe still explain why haven't you changed systems, especially now? Why do you have such a new Olympus camera and big Pro lenses if you could get much better stuff for similar price from FF manufacturers? It doesn't make much sense?

Btw. What is the advantage in diffraction? If for example I use f/13 (I need it for moving insects) with M43, I get f/26 (FF) DoF for my macro photography. How good are FF lenses at f/26, do they have diffraction? Olympus 60mm is still a bit above the "decency" mark with f/13 in Lenstip review and I like the quality even for bigger prints, because I don't crop much.
 
Last edited:

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
587
Location
Finland
Market price is hardly ‘philosophical’. Gathering less light is a deficiency.

Prices in the UK at the moment:

Olympus E-M1.3 body only £1599

Olympus E-M1.3 with 12-40mm 2.8 £2199

Nikon Z6 body only £1499

Nikon Z6 with 24-70mm 4.0 and FTZ adapter £1999

Source:

https://www.parkcameras.com/bc/33-1602/nikon/mirrorless-cameras

https://www.parkcameras.com/bc/35-1602/olympus/mirrorless-cameras
You are comparing a non-pro lens with a pro lens. Why not compare apples with apples? Pro-lenses have many qualities that basic lenses don't.

It also has an adapter, haven't used one, but I'd think it's not as great as using a native lens especially if you change many lenses, native and non-native.
 

dimap

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Feb 10, 2020
Messages
11
And the winner is.... the one with better pictures. Let’s stop arguments, good people, it’s just cameras.
 
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