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

[pake]

It will be interesting when these new mirrorless cameras like Z6, A7III or R6 will be 500-700 € in price. That might take "a while", but at that point I might be interested in testing FF if my photography has evolved/changed so there would be some more use for it.

Ditto. Assuming at least one of the brands had a small, lightweight, weathersealed, corner to corner sharp 24-70mm f/4 lens available that doesn't cost an arm AND a leg. Plus a similar telephone zoom lens to compete with my 40-150mm f/2.8. Until that day... Bye bye FF. (I think I might be waiting a few decades for that to happen.)

EDIT: Not even remotely interested in R6 because of it's huge size.

 

[Mike Wingate]

No need to wear gloves if shooting videos with the R5 and 6. Built in hand warmers.

 

[RS86]

No need to wear gloves if shooting videos with the R5 and 6. Built in hand warmers.

Hahah, chainsaw makers rob you 100 € for that feature, maybe Canon too? I too have read that there might be some overheating issues with the R5.

 

[MichailK]

revisiting my original hypothesis (hey, I am entitled to talk like this, I am Greek )

now that the (kind of) slow(er) & small(er) FF assault has started, has anybody a list of slower FF lenses and smaller FF bodies combinations that can go against the pro m43 combos?

can any people who do shoot pro m43 share any personal assessment on IQ and handling of these comparable FF combos?

just out of curiosity since I am well planted into m43, ability wise (not that I could afford migrating anyway)

 

[ac12]

Equivalent but not equivalent
Nikon Z6/7 with the 24-200 lens, vs. EM1-mk3 + 12-100/4.

Not equivalent because the 24-200/4-6.3 is not a pro level lens, and is a slower variable aperture lens.​

Nikon Z6/7 + 70-300/4.5-5.6 AF-P, vs. EM1-mk3 + 40-150/2.8

Not equivalent because the 70-300 is not a pro level lens, and is a slower variable aperture lens.​

​

The longer pro zooms are not small.

 

[Pluttis]

slower FF lenses and smaller FF bodies combinations that can go against the pro m43 combos?

Which of those slower FF lenses offer fixed aperture, same build and weather sealing?

Regardless mount/brand the picure quality between modern non "pro' and "pro" lenses are generally verry small, the differences is more often in build quality, aperture etcetera.

 

[MichailK]

so, so far the FF attack on m43 is a dud?

 

[Pluttis]

Attack on m43...There have more or less always been "small" non pro, slow variable aperture lenses available for FF and APS-C so its not something thats really new.

 

[RS86]

Which of those slower FF lenses offer fixed aperture, same build and weather sealing?

Regardless mount/brand the picure quality between modern non "pro' and "pro" lenses are generally verry small, the differences is more often in build quality, aperture etcetera.

I'd also think coatings, bokeh or rendering, MFD etc. are things people don't remember to compare against pro lenses.

Any other similar features come to mind?

 

[ac12]

so, so far the FF attack on m43 is a dud?

I would not say it is an attack, but the standard lower cost variable aperture non-pro lens.
If it does the job, good.

But m4/3 vs. FF will always have the focal length issue.
A m4/3 40-150 will always be smaller and lighter than a comparable FF 70-300.
Just as the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 is TINY compared to a FF 70-200/2.8.

 

[MichailK]

About $1000 difference, similar enough size, less than a stop? performance difference, close enough reach range, each body has its own strong points,
I wonder how do the lenses, IS, weather sealing compare...

https://camerasize.com/compact/#852.944,840.444,ha,t

 

[pake]

About $1000 difference, similar enough size, less than a stop? performance difference, close enough reach range, each body has its own strong points,
I wonder how do the lenses, IS, weather sealing compare...

https://camerasize.com/compact/#852.944,840.444,ha,t

I'd say the ONLY strong point for the Canon is the bigger sensor and that's it. Look at the other specs (burst modes etc.) and Oly wipes the floor with the Canon. And I'd replace the E-M1 with the E-M5III since it's the best camera when considering quality/size -ratio.

 

[NCV]

Equivalent but not equivalent
Nikon Z6/7 with the 24-200 lens, vs. EM1-mk3 + 12-100/4.

Not equivalent because the 24-200/4-6.3 is not a pro level lens, and is a slower variable aperture lens.​

Nikon Z6/7 + 70-300/4.5-5.6 AF-P, vs. EM1-mk3 + 40-150/2.8

Not equivalent because the 70-300 is not a pro level lens, and is a slower variable aperture lens.​

​

The longer pro zooms are not small.

This is the sort of post than annoys me to a certain degree.

Firstly "Pro" labelled lenses are just lenses that a manufacturer has labelled as such. They are the top of that makers range, but any lens from the most plastic fantastic kit lens can be used by a "Pro". I preferred the top of the range Panasonic 2.8 zooms over the Olympus ones as they were more compact and did not suffer from the lens hood problems present with the Olympus 2.8 zooms.

It was the Nikon 24-200 lens that finally broke my bond with Olympus gear. I wanted a one lens hiking/travel solution and the choice was between a Z6 or Z7 +24-200 and an EM1iii + 12-100. These two combinations from a practical point of view do the exact same job, and so for me are equivalent.

The setup weighs about the same and the bulk is not that much different, so in the end I went for a Z7 and the 24-200, plus a couple of other Z lenses. My three Z lenses: 14-30, 24-70F4 and 24-200 are built to the same quality level as the Olympus "Pro series".

It is interesting too that my Z14-30 weighs less than the Olympus 7-14. It is also interesting that on some Nikon Z lenses, the lenses collapse down to a smaller size when not in use, just like my old Olympus 9-18 did, a concept that was sadly never used again in M43 lens design.

The optical quality even on a high resolution Z7 is more than good enough and the variable aperture of the 24-200 has had no downsides for my photography.

One interesting thing I have found is that Nikon and Olympus seem seem to have a different idea about ISO. to get the same "lightness" in my shots F4 Nikon Z seems to give the same results as Olympus F2.8. This is welcome when I shoot inside dark old monuments at 1/15 second I can use my F4 lenses and get the same results as F2.8 Olympus.

 

[Pluttis]

About $1000 difference, similar enough size, less than a stop? performance difference, close enough reach range, each body has its own strong points,
I wonder how do the lenses, IS, weather sealing compare...

https://camerasize.com/compact/#852.944,840.444,ha,t

The Canon R6 + RF 70-200 F4 combo is slightly lighter than Olympus E-M1 MarkIII + Oly 40-150 F2,8.

The Canon R6 is noticable bigger than the Olympus E-M1 MarkIII

Yes its basically same length at 70mm as the Oly 40-150 F2,8. but gets longer as it extends and its noticeable thicker (77mm vs 72mm filter diameter).

The Oly combo is equivalent to 80-300mm lens on FF, to get same reach with the canon combo you have to crop.

Canon RF 70-200 F4 cant be used with teleconverters which Oly 40-150 F2,8 can

That Canon R6 + RF 70-200 F4 cost around $1600 more than Olympus E-M1 MarkIII + Oly 40-150 F2,8.

 

[MichailK]

The Canon R6 + RF 70-200 F4 combo is slightly lighter than Olympus E-M1 MarkIII + Oly 40-150 F2,8.

The Canon R6 is noticable bigger than the Olympus E-M1 MarkIII

Yes its basically same length at 70mm as the Oly 40-150 F2,8. but gets longer as it extends and its noticeable thicker (77mm vs 72mm filter diameter).

The Oly combo is equivalent to 80-300mm lens on FF, to get same reach with the canon combo you have to crop.

Canon RF 70-200 F4 cant be used with teleconverters which Oly 40-150 F2,8 can

That Canon R6 + RF 70-200 F4 cost around $1600 more than Olympus E-M1 MarkIII + Oly 40-150 F2,8.

That is why I said “similar” - the big difference as I see it is the teleconverters option plus the 1$ higher price which is very high for my scales. I do not know if cropping the 70-200 FOV results in overly degraded IQ vs the 40-150 FOV.
If we consider these combos a crossroad of the systems, it is pretty obvious that you move towards different directions expanding each one with more lenses.

 

[Pluttis]

The setup weighs about the same and the bulk is not that much different, so in the end I went for a Z7 and the 24-200, plus a couple of other Z lenses. My three Z lenses: 14-30, 24-70F4 and 24-200 are built to the same quality level as the Olympus "Pro series".

It is interesting too that my Z14-30 weighs less than the Olympus 7-14. It is also interesting that on some Nikon Z lenses, the lenses collapse down to a smaller size when not in use, just like my old Olympus 9-18 did, a concept that was sadly never used again in M43 lens design.

The optical quality even on a high resolution Z7 is more than good enough and the variable aperture of the 24-200 has had no downsides for my photography.

Personally i dont think the Nikon z 14-30, 24-70 f4 and 24-200 are that close to Olympus Pro lenses when it comes to build quality...24-70 f4 feels quite cheap. But optically 14-30 and 24-70 is great.

I was not that impressed with performance of the 24-200 when i tried it, it was OK.

 

[Pluttis]

That is why I said “similar” - the big difference as I see it is the teleconverters option plus the 1$ higher price which is very high for my scales. I do not know if cropping the 70-200 FOV results in overly degraded IS vs the 40-150 FOV.
If we consider these combos a crossroad of the systems, it is pretty obvious that you move towards different directions expanding each one with more lenses.

Yeah the price difference between the lenses are quite steep.

Dont know exactly how to calculate it but i guess that it want be many mp left when cropping from 200mm to 300mm on R6...maybe 7-9mp left?

 

[MichailK]

maybe 7-9mp left?

Don’t 4mpx get out a perfect A4 print and a very good A3 one? That is good enough for me if the lens IQ affords cropping

 

[gwydionjhr]

About $1000 difference, similar enough size, less than a stop? performance difference, close enough reach range, each body has its own strong points,
I wonder how do the lenses, IS, weather sealing compare...

https://camerasize.com/compact/#852.944,840.444,ha,t

The Oly 8-25mm f/4 PRO was the lens that made me ask "why can't FF systems have some compact AND high IQ lenses? As sensors and software get better at high ISOs, big heavy fast glass becomes less and less important. And as pixel density in FF cameras goes up as well, having a crop sensor camera also seems to make less sense to me, why not just do the crop in the camera?

I'm hanging in with my G9 for now, but I really do want to go wider than 8mm of m43 (with AF) and FF might end up being the only way to get there.

 

[John King]

Don’t 4mpx get out a perfect A4 print and a very good A3 one? That is good enough for me if the lens IQ affords cropping

I have printed excellent A4 prints from my 5 MPx Blackberry phone.

However, my 5 MPx E-1 will print with better IQ at A2 size. FWIW.