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

LensRentals.com: Roger Buys a Camera System

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by pake, Feb 8, 2013.

  1. pake

    pake Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 14, 2010
    Finland
    Teemu
    So, I've read these two blog entries at lensrentals.com.

    The first part: LensRentals.com - Roger Buys a Camera System: Screening for Candidates
    The 2nd part: LensRentals.com - Roger Buys a Camera System: So What’s This Going to Cost?

    The writer, Roger Cicala, currently has an E-M5 and is convinced he needs a better system. Why? Well, you can read all about it yourself. :biggrin:

    Anyways, I just finished reading the second part of the article and it made me think about the E-M5 vs the other cameras. IMO, the article is great and it can be used to promote the m4/3 format. How? Well, Roger chooses three similar camera sets from 2 different classes (APS-C and FF) plus the E-M5. What this articles says is that the E-M5 is the cheapest of them all. This doesn't prove anything yet but when you think about the specs of these sets it gets pretty clear...

    The E-M5 is the cheapest, lightest and smallest system of them all. Sure, the FF cameras outperform E-M5 but when considering the size difference and price (~$6800 vs ~$12000), is it REALLY worth it? IMO, no. Not at all.

    My g/f has a 5Dmk2 and I've compared our pictures many times and I can honestly say that E-M5 produces better pics more often. Sure, 5DII wins in some situations hands down, but I'd say the ratio is around 1:15 to 1:20. She has only one L-lens so she's not using the full potential but then again... I don't have the stellar Oly 12mm or 75mm lenses either. :wink:

    In general I'd say that E-M5 is in the same IQ league as the APS-C cameras so the difference comes with specs (form, size, weight, price). And the funny thing is that when you take out some of the zooms and replace them with primes (e.g. 12mm/14mm/20mm/45mm) the differences between the systems grow (in favour of E-M5). And in addition to this, there's other m4/3 cameras (E-PL5 and E-PM2) that can produce identical IQ to the E-M5 but comes in an even smaller size and price! :thumbup:

    What do you guys think, am I on to something? :biggrin:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    It strikes me as a pretty accurate telling of these various systems. Maps to my experience. If weight and portability was a strong criteria, that would put the OMD farther up the scale. The fact that it's the low cost option really did surprise, though.
     
  3. robbie36

    robbie36 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2010
    Bangkok
    rob collins
    Yes lets take the weight of the systems....
    OMD System 2535g
    Nikon crop system 6105g
    Nikon Full Frame 7519g

    Actually the OMD system is really a wash with the crop systems in terms of cost. The OMD system is lacking a 'quality lens' covering 300mm (having to make do with the US$500 Pana 100-300mm) all the other systems have US$1500 lens there.

    Still that is one of the main reasons that Roger wants to upgrade. What is striking though is how little extra performance you would get out of the Nikon crop system for all that extra weight.

    Incidentally the M43 system is the most expensive system on a US$ per gram of photographic equipment!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    Cost can be lower or higher depending on the job at hand.

    Roger needs a high end, fast telephoto for what he shoots, which is a limiting factor for the system. This is contrary to the weight/portability criterion, since all these lenses are quite hefty.
     
  5. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    Roger is a very thoughtful person and these are good reading, but they are based on Roger's needs and preferences, which don't mirror (sorry 'bout that pun?) other individuals' needs. The weights you cite below have become more important to me in recent years.

     
  6. pake

    pake Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 14, 2010
    Finland
    Teemu
    The difference is just ridiculous!!! I had previously guessed it (E-M5) would be 2-3x lighter and now your calculations proved me right. Thanks. :cool:
     
  7. rklepper

    rklepper Mu-43 Top Veteran

    733
    Dec 19, 2012
    Iowa, USA
    Robert
    I have both and each has their uses. I love my 5DIII, but when I travel it is such a pain in the you know what to carry that it. Takes some of the fun out of it. That is really why I love my EM-5. Carries well and I sacrifice little.
     
  8. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    I haven't read Roger's musings yet, just this thread, but the above is the cornerstone for my decision to jump into µ4/3.

    The IQ differences between µ4/3 and FF, (my other camera system is FF), is not significant for what I shoot, how I shoot and my expectations of the final image/print.

    Of course a FF has shallower DOF, has a touch more dynamic range, has a smidgen more of shadow detail ... but none of that is significant to me.

    A while back I determined it was time to upgrade, my 1DsMKII and 5D were getting a little long in the tooth and I acquired a 1D-X. After many sleepless nights, (nothing to do with cameras ... I'm just a light sleeper), I decided that µ4/3 was the future ... or at least my future and I returned the 1D-X and used the monies to fund two OM-Ds and associated lenses.

    Yes, the µ4/3 lacks fast long lenses. Yes, the OM-D lacks fast UWA lenses. Yes, the OM-D lacks a viable CAF ... but they're coming. And for the here-and-now, when I need a fast long lens or viable CAF, I'll dust off my FF's. So far, I haven't felt that need and I've been giving away my FF system to friends and family.

    To me size/weight and money are not as important as the final image. (Well, size/weight certainly doesn't matter ... money always matters. But I have this "it is what it is attitude". If I have to carry 20 pounds of camera gear around all day to capture an exceptional image which equates to my expectations ... then that's what I gotta do. If the camera I need to attain the exceptional image costs $7,000, then I'll figure a way to gather those funds. It is what it is.) BUT, the big but, if I can as easily capture the exceptional image, an image which matches my personal expectations, an image which is similar and not significantly different than a similar image captured with a FF camera, at 1/7th of the cost and 1/3 of the weight ... those are significant factors which I truly appreciate.

    This is the end of my rant, I'll return you back to your normal programing and I'll go read what Roger says.

    Gary
     
    • Like Like x 4
  9. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    Must be those expensive Oly lens hoods.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    Interesting read.

    I guess I would have to think 300mm + primes are kind of anti smaller/lighter m4/3.
     
  11. robbie36

    robbie36 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2010
    Bangkok
    rob collins
    Well maybe...

    What is interesting about Roger's 2.5kg M43 setup is that it is about the heaviest M43 system he could buy. He has the 6 'heaviest' 'autofocus' lenses that M43 has to offer.

    7-14
    12-35
    35-100
    60
    75
    100-300

    Now we could replace the 100-300 (530g) with a quality zoom (I assume it is anyway) - the 50-200 2.8-3.5 4/3 lens (995g). Well if it focused properly on the OMD that would cover his bases. And at 995g it is pretty small for its speed and focal length (and probably could be smaller).

    You know it seems to me that since the OMD arrived with a much better sensor, there has been a lot more 'demand' for top quality optics and people have been prepared to accept rather larger lenses (say compared to the pancakes.)

    And when you see the size and weight of FF lens you realize that 'rather large' M43 lenses are in fact still incredibly small.
     
  12. elavon

    elavon Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 1, 2012
    Tel Aviv Israel
    Ehud
    I just hope that articles like this will give :43: lens manufacturer the motivation to close the product gap of long telephoto lenses.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    I often carry most of that (sub the 45 for the 60) and compared to an equivalent FX kit it's still astonishingly easier to carry and, as Gary said so well a few posts earlier, very often, for what I need to do and get, it's just fine. I could wish for an upgrade for the 100-300, but otherwise, it's hugelly flexible and capable. :2thumbs:

     
  14. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    Roger positions the OM-D, from a IQ and performance perspective, just outside his selection zone. My observation is that I'd consider it better, in that regard, to the Sony a77 which he does include and I'm sure other would agree. Lets just say it's in the ballpark for a huge variety of users, and consider these parameters somewhat irrelevant.

    May I, once again, be the guy that states the obvious...

    So, concerning lens selection which is the main argument, let's please remind ourselves again that this is a 5 yo system. Competing against systems that were already established and mature before it was even conceived. I consider the Sony Alpha such a system because of the plethora of Minolta AF lenses that can be readily used. Just think what would mean if it was possible to use Four Thirds lenses at "native" AF speed.
     
  15. pake

    pake Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 14, 2010
    Finland
    Teemu
    I went through the pictures from our trip to Singapore & Australia yesterday (to select pics to put online) and now I have to take back something I said... :redface:

    It WAS true previously that maybe half of the pics looked better when taken with E-M5 but I guess my g/f has learned to use the 5D better and I've learned to process her pics better in Lightroom since now the ratio has turned around. (And yes, I process every photo in this family since my g/f doesn't want to spend time on computer processing the pics and the 5D's ooc-jpegs look HORRIBLE... :biggrin:). In most cases, the 5D does produce better pictures (as it should!). Especially landscape pictures look better.

    The difference isn't THAT big though - and disappears nicely when pictures are resized to web size (e.g. 1620 x 1080). But I do admit that now I'm wishing my E-M5 had a less noisy, over 20Mpx sensor as well... :biggrin: But at the same time, I'm not willing to sacrifice the size/weight advantage to get to the same level as FF. And I'm pretty sure that the next OMD sensor is once again one step closer to FF quality so the future looks good.


    PS. Looking at the pictures really showed me that we need a quality telephoto for m4/3. I shot many pics with my Tamron 90mm +2x teleconverter and the quality is awful when compared to pictures taken with 5DII + Tamron 70-300mm. I recently bought the Lumix 100-300mm but the first tests haven't shown enough improvement in IQ. I need a fast, quality 300mm prime. And I want it NOW! :tongue:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. datagov

    datagov Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 2, 2012
    New York
    There are lots of legacy 60-300 and 70-300 zooms that work well on the OM-D. Even some 200, 300, 400 legacy primes work well. Many are affordable and produce excellent results.
     
  17. blue

    blue Mu-43 Veteran

    280
    Jun 1, 2010
    UK
  18. zapatista

    zapatista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    668
    Mar 19, 2012
    Denver, Colorado, USA
    Mike
  19. zapatista

    zapatista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    668
    Mar 19, 2012
    Denver, Colorado, USA
    Mike
    @Pake...yeah really good "super" telephoto seems to be the only hole left in m43...I'm still stuck with an 85-300mm Fd Canon. Damn nice (rather heavy) lens for around $300 that outresolves the Panny or Olympus zooms.
     
  20. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Most people who use long telephotos want to shoot wildlife or sports. In both cases, lack of AF is usually a non-starter.