More statements from JIP

[NCV]

Yep. It seems the full frame bodies are getting smaller & lighter and gaining IQ while the m4/3 ones are getting bigger and IQ stays the same BUT... The lenses. The fact is that the lenses still are way too big for me to even consider switching.

I just read about the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4 that was praised for being lightweight at ~700 grams. Well, the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 still weights half of that and is internal focusing - unlike the Canon. And my Oly 40-150mm has way more reach at that weight + has the brilliant lens hood and manual focus clutch. Yeah... You need to do better Canon to gain my interest. And while on the topic... Canon might have the smallest lenses for FFs but the bodies are way too big (and the burst speeds are weak).

When my EM5 was coming to the end of its useful life, I wanted a one lens hiking/travel solution.

The EM1iii + 12-100 weighs about the same as the Z6 or Z7 + 24-200. I went for the Z7 +24-200 and could not be happier.

The Z14-30 weighs much less than my old Olympus 7-14 and the 24-70 does not weigh too much either, even though my old 12-35 2.8 was a super light piece of glass.

With the Z system at least, I do not see a weight or bulk problem with lenses up to 200. The F4 lenses are a great choice for compactness. This is bad news for APCS and M43 in my opinion.

For my architectural photography weight is not an issue and I use a D810 with heavy old Nikon metal shift lenses. With the FTZ adaptor I can swap F lenses onto the Z7, which let me halve the size of my lens collection.

Quite frankly the only lens I miss is my old Panasonic 100-300 which was highly portable compared to FF equivalents. I might pick up a cheap EM5 + 100-300 for long lens stuff.

 

[spdavies]

Like the EM1x grip being designed by an award winning endoscope designer.

Well, that explains that!

 

[RS86]

When my EM5 was coming to the end of its useful life, I wanted a one lens hiking/travel solution.

The EM1iii + 12-100 weighs about the same as the Z6 or Z7 + 24-200. I went for the Z7 +24-200 and could not be happier.

The Z14-30 weighs much less than my old Olympus 7-14 and the 24-70 does not weigh too much either, even though my old 12-35 2.8 was a super light piece of glass.

With the Z system at least, I do not see a weight or bulk problem with lenses up to 200. The F4 lenses are a great choice for compactness. This is bad news for APCS and M43 in my opinion.

For my architectural photography weight is not an issue and I use a D810 with heavy old Nikon metal shift lenses. With the FTZ adaptor I can swap F lenses onto the Z7, which let me half the size of my lens collection.

Quite frankly the only lens I mis is my old Panasonic 100-300 which was highly portable compared to FF equivalents. I might pick up a cheap EM5 + 100-300 for long lens stuff.

FF can easily be the best choice if you only need wide-angle to normal focal lengths. But that isn't what pake was talking about, and why FF wouldn't fit me either. Not to mention my main photography area, which is macro.

There is no competition to the cheap lightweight cameras & the Olympus 60mm Macro in FF world. While there is the crop factor.

Regarding your Olympus 12-100mm & Nikon 24-200mm comparison, I'm sure both are good lenses. But there are no miracles here. Looking at reviews, it seems the Olympus is designed to match the system's primes' sharpness, being great almost throughout the range, and Nikon is designed towards small size combined with good range.

I would say Olympus 12-200mm is more fitting comparison in terms of design goals to the Nikon, as both have great size & range, but not the best sharpness etc. According to Lenstip, the 12-100mm is as good or better in sharpness as 12-40mm, and that is something.

Lenstip doesn't have a review of the Nikon 24-200mm f/4.0-6.3, but they have for 24-70mm f/4.0. This lens performs pretty well with Nikon's crop sensors on the edges, but not on FF. Lenstip gives "sensible image quality on the edges for crop sensors" for the Nikon 24-70mm, while for Olympus 12-100mm they give "good image quality" on the edges.

We can only assume the longer lens which costs about the same, is worse.

Even Thom Hogan (who is long time Nikon user/reviewer, also M43) says this lens does not match the other Z lenses in quality.

"But I'd be remiss not to point out that this lens is not up to the extremely high optical standards Nikon has been setting with most of their Z mount lenses."

...

"The 24-200mm f/4-6.3 matches up best with the Z5 owner, methinks. The Z5 isn't quite as good as the Z6 in low light (in all aspects), so someone buying a Z5 is probably more a "fair weather shooter." And not likely one to quibble about smallish differences. Well, the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 isn't as good in low light as the 24-70mm f/4, either, it has some small differences in optical quality, so we have a match: Z5 + 24-200mm."

https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount...t-lens-reviews/nikon-24-200mm-f4-63-lens.html

This is just to show that eventhough both lenses are similar in size, the other one will give better all-round performance.

Usually there are some other differences too. Something that is often forgotten in comparisons, is Olympus' tendency to have great minimum focus distances. In this case it is at wide-end 15 cm vs 50 cm. At long end it is 45 cm vs 70 cm. I'm pretty sure this affects lens size.

https://www.lenstip.com/392.4-Lens_...l_12-40_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/497.4-Lens_...ED_12-100_mm_f_4_IS_PRO_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/585.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_Z_24-70_mm_f_4_S_Image_resolution.html

 

[NCV]

FF can easily be the best choice if you only need wide-angle to normal focal lengths. But that isn't what pake was talking about, and why FF wouldn't fit me either. Not to mention my main photography area, which is macro.

There is no competition to the cheap lightweight cameras & the Olympus 60mm Macro in FF world. While there is the crop factor.

Regarding your Olympus 12-100mm & Nikon 24-200mm comparison, I'm sure both are good lenses. But there are no miracles here. Looking at reviews, it seems the Olympus is designed to match the system's primes' sharpness, being great throughout the range, and Nikon is designed towards small size combined with good range.

I would say Olympus 12-200mm is more fitting comparison in terms of design goals to the Nikon, as both have great size & range, but not the best sharpness etc. According to Lenstip, the 12-100mm is as good or better in sharpness as 12-40mm, and that is something.

Lenstip doesn't have a review of the Nikon 24-200mm f/4.0-6.3, but they have for 24-70mm f/4.0. This lens performs pretty well with Nikon's crop sensors on the edges, but not on FF. Lenstip gives "sensible image quality on the edges for crop sensors" for the Nikon 24-70mm, while for Olympus 12-100mm they give "good image quality" on the edges.

We can only assume the longer lens which costs about the same, is worse.

Even Thom Hogan (who is long time Nikon user/reviewer, also M43) says this lens does not match the other Z lenses in quality.

"But I'd be remiss not to point out that this lens is not up to the extremely high optical standards Nikon has been setting with most of their Z mount lenses."

...

"The 24-200mm f/4-6.3 matches up best with the Z5 owner, methinks. The Z5 isn't quite as good as the Z6 in low light (in all aspects), so someone buying a Z5 is probably more a "fair weather shooter." And not likely one to quibble about smallish differences. Well, the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 isn't as good in low light as the 24-70mm f/4, either, it has some small differences in optical quality, so we have a match: Z5 + 24-200mm."

https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount...t-lens-reviews/nikon-24-200mm-f4-63-lens.html

This is just to show that eventhough both lenses are similar in size, the other one will give better all-round performance.

Usually there are some other differences too. Something that is often forgotten in comparisons, is Olympus' tendency to have great minimum focus distances. In this case it is at wide-end 15 cm vs 50 cm. At long end it is 45 cm vs 70 cm. I'm pretty sure this affects lens size.

https://www.lenstip.com/392.4-Lens_...l_12-40_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/497.4-Lens_...ED_12-100_mm_f_4_IS_PRO_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/585.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_Z_24-70_mm_f_4_S_Image_resolution.html

I was aware that the 12-100 is a good lens and I had a lot of self debate before choosing Nikon ( this incidentally, was before Olympus announced the offloading of their camera division).

We need to get beyond test charts and actually use a lens and understand what we are going to do with the output. We also need to consider the camera we are using it with. This is why on forums and such, there is a lot of love for the 24-200 as opposed to lens tests. Even Hogan tells us that a bit of sharpening and such in post will improve the actual results.

I have this lens and the actual output I produce with a bit of good PP is quite stunning for a superzoom, better than I expected.

I wanted this lens for a single solution hiking or travel lens. I am never going to make huge exhibition prints from shots I take during my hikes or trips to some city. I mostly post the results on my blog and make a Blurb book sometimes. I have other lenses for when shear quality is needed. The light weight of this lens makes a tough day hike doable with a FF sensore camera. The camera does not become a pain on a day out wandering about some Italian historic city.

Where my 24-200 + Z7 makes up and overtakes the 12-100 + EM1 combination is in the malleability of the Raw files, I can recover far more from the shadows before the file falls apart and looks artificial. The tonal transitions are much smother and creamier with the Z7 file compared to the EM1 file. Differences clearly visible on screen and useful and at least the shadow recovery differences are visible when even used to make a Blurb book.

One needs to look at the whole picture, and not be tied down to lens tests. Most modern lenses produce excellent results in the real world, even when they get mediocre results in lens reviews. People are much too anal these days about lens "sharpness" and such.

 

[RS86]

I was aware that the 12-100 is a good lens and I had a lot of self debate before choosing Nikon ( this incidentally, was before Olympus announced the offloading of their camera division).

We need to get beyond test charts and actually use a lens and understand what we are going to do with the output. We also need to consider the camera we are using it with. This is why on forums and such, there is a lot of love for the 24-200 as opposed to lens tests. Even Hogan tells us that a bit of sharpening and such in post will improve the actual results.

I have this lens and the actual output I produce with a bit of good PP is quite stunning for a superzoom, better than I expected.

I wanted this lens for a single solution hiking or travel lens. I am never going to make huge exhibition prints from shots I take during my hikes or trips to some city. I mostly post the results on my blog and make a Blurb book sometimes. I have other lenses for when shear quality is needed. The light weight of this lens makes a tough day hike doable with a FF sensore camera. The camera does not become a pain on a day out wandering about some Italian historic city.

Where my 24-200 + Z7 makes up and overtakes the 12-100 + EM1 combination is in the malleability of the Raw files, I can recover far more from the shadows before the file falls apart and looks artificial. The tonal transitions are much smother and creamier with the Z7 file compared to the EM1 file. Differences clearly visible on screen and useful and at least the shadow recovery differences are visible when even used to make a Blurb book.

One needs to look at the whole picture, and not be tied down to lens tests. Most modern lenses produce excellent results in the real world, even when they get mediocre results in lens reviews. People are much too anal these days about lens "sharpness" and such.

Sure, I just pointed out that your comparison needs some more information not to misguide people. I'm sure there are good reasons why such a person as Thom Hogan recommends this lens for crop sensor Z5. Sharpening can be used for any combination.

I'm also wondering if these tonal transitions are a bit overblown as you say about sharpness. I just got two honorable mentions in IPA 2020 macro category (the only two participations I put there) with my E-M10 II & 60mm Macro lens. I'm sure there were FF cameras against my photos. I haven't experienced much problems with these transitions people talk about.

For people like me who want 18-600mm in their camera bags in FF terms (plus a small macro lens), FF is not an option at all. Image quality is plenty for my purposes, which seem a bit similar to yours.

I think your choice of lens can be compared a bit to my choice in Olympus 9-18mm. Surely the corners are not very good, but they're good enough for me. And in any case, I would not want to carry a bigger wide-angle lens with me as I don't use it so often.

Better to get the photo than complain about (corner) sharpness and not get the photo. Same goes for my focal lengths of 18-600mm in FF terms. The lenses might not be the best, but I have them with me and get the photos when opportunity needs them.

 

[RS86]

It seems to be how I thought. JIP has to do similar streamlining moves as Nikon is planning. I read that these are easier/more cheap to do when you sell the company, rather than fire people straight away?

What I'm talking about is an email I got from Olympus Finland today. They said that service & technical support will move to internet. And they will only answer in English through email.

On the other hand they will do "camera clinic" events in Finnish with Visionary photographers and product managers.

It looks like JIP is reducing the running costs in a way that Olympus didn't dare to do, by firing people and reducing costs around the world. Just what Nikon is doing as they are in a similar bad spot as Olympus regarding profitability.

Someone might take this as a bad sign, but for me it tells that it is possible for JIP to make the business profitable. While they focus on enthusiast & professional products, just like Nikon said they will.

 

[shreebles]

It seems to be how I thought. JIP has to do similar streamlining moves as Nikon is planning. I read that these are easier/more cheap to do when you sell the company, rather than fire people straight away?

What I'm talking about is an email I got from Olympus Finland today. They said that service & technical support will move to internet. And they will only answer in English through email.

On the other hand they will do "camera clinic" events in Finnish with Visionary photographers and product managers.

It looks like JIP is reducing the running costs in a way that Olympus didn't dare to do, by firing people and reducing costs around the world. Just what Nikon is doing as they are in a similar bad spot as Olympus regarding profitability.

Someone might take this as a bad sign, but for me it tells that it is possible for JIP to make the business profitable. While they focus on enthusiast & professional products, just like Nikon said they will.

A lot of truth in this, these news also speak of the massive layoffs and reduced head count especially in Japan.
On the other hand, the numbers look like JIP has a huge challenge ahead of them if they really want to turn the ship around.

 

[RS86]

A lot of truth in this, these news also speak of the massive layoffs and reduced head count especially in Japan.
On the other hand, the numbers look like JIP has a huge challenge ahead of them if they really want to turn the ship around.

From earlier page about Nikon's plans:

"The goal of the changes would be to reduce the company’s operating costs by more than 80 billion yen (~$758,708,000)."

From your link:

"They recorded an operating loss of ¥46bn in Q2 (July – September) and ¥48.6bn in H1 (April – September) and forecast a total operating loss of ¥53bn ($500m) until divesting the business to JIP (thus meaning an additional ¥4.4bn in Q3)."

So Nikon seems to think they're able to reduce operating costs by ~250 million dollars more than Olympus would need, and still remain in business focusing on enthusiast & professional areas? But Q4 is not included in this number from Olympus?

 

[pdk42]

I was aware that the 12-100 is a good lens and I had a lot of self debate before choosing Nikon ( this incidentally, was before Olympus announced the offloading of their camera division).

We need to get beyond test charts and actually use a lens and understand what we are going to do with the output. We also need to consider the camera we are using it with. This is why on forums and such, there is a lot of love for the 24-200 as opposed to lens tests. Even Hogan tells us that a bit of sharpening and such in post will improve the actual results.

I have this lens and the actual output I produce with a bit of good PP is quite stunning for a superzoom, better than I expected.

I wanted this lens for a single solution hiking or travel lens. I am never going to make huge exhibition prints from shots I take during my hikes or trips to some city. I mostly post the results on my blog and make a Blurb book sometimes. I have other lenses for when shear quality is needed. The light weight of this lens makes a tough day hike doable with a FF sensore camera. The camera does not become a pain on a day out wandering about some Italian historic city.

Where my 24-200 + Z7 makes up and overtakes the 12-100 + EM1 combination is in the malleability of the Raw files, I can recover far more from the shadows before the file falls apart and looks artificial. The tonal transitions are much smother and creamier with the Z7 file compared to the EM1 file. Differences clearly visible on screen and useful and at least the shadow recovery differences are visible when even used to make a Blurb book.

One needs to look at the whole picture, and not be tied down to lens tests. Most modern lenses produce excellent results in the real world, even when they get mediocre results in lens reviews. People are much too anal these days about lens "sharpness" and such.

I have a dog in this race since I swapped from an EM1.2 to a Z7 this summer but subsequently decided to swap back! My primary use is landscape. I used the 12-100 extensively with the EM1.2 and bought the 24-200 on the Z7 to give me much the same capability. The lenses are about the same size and weight. I also had the 14-30 and the 24-70 f4 lenses for the Nikon. The 14-30 and 24-70 I found to be absolutely superb. Very sharp over very nearly all the frame, even wide open. The 14-30 did suffer from some loss into the corners, but it was not a deal-breaker.

However, I was a bit disappointed in the 24-200. It's by no means a bad lens, but it's not as good as the other two, esp near the long end, and it feels like a cheap lens in comparison. In fact, compared to the Oly Pro lenses, none of the Z lenses felt as good (but of course this is just subjective and counts for nothing in the final result). There is also a lot of purple fringing on the 24-200. On top of all that, the Sync IS on the Nikon is a long way behind that on the EM1.2 + 12-100. Looking at other alternatives at 200mm with the Nikon, there was only the 70-200 f2.8, but that's just huge (and expensive)!

On top of all that, I missed the Oly camera's features, speed, and ergonomics. And although the NIkon files are certainly better, I didn't find it was making that much practical difference to the output I was producing (mostly on-line with some A2-sized prints).

So, whilst I thought the Nikon was a very nice camera, it wasn't the silver bullet I thought it might be and that actually I just preferred shooting with the EM1.2.

 

[RS86]

I have a dog in this race since I swapped from an EM1.2 to a Z7 this summer but subsequently decided to swap back! My primary use is landscape. I used the 12-100 extensively with the EM1.2 and bought the 24-200 on the Z7 to give me much the same capability. The lenses are about the same size and weight. I also had the 14-30 and the 24-70 f4 lenses for the Nikon. The 14-30 and 24-70 I found to be absolutely superb. Very sharp over very nearly all the frame, even wide open. The 14-30 did suffer from some loss into the corners, but it was not a deal-breaker.

However, I was a bit disappointed in the 24-200. It's by no means a bad lens, but it's not as good as the other two, esp near the long end, and it feels like a cheap lens in comparison. In fact, compared to the Oly Pro lenses, none of the Z lenses felt as good (but of course this is just subjective and counts for nothing in the final result). There is also a lot of purple fringing on the 24-200. On top of all that, the Sync IS on the Nikon is a long way behind that on the EM1.2 + 12-100. Looking at other alternatives at 200mm with the Nikon, there was only the 70-200 f2.8, but that's just huge (and expensive)!

On top of all that, I missed the Oly camera's features, speed, and ergonomics. And although the NIkon files are certainly better, I didn't find it was making that much practical difference to the output I was producing (mostly on-line with some A2-sized prints).

So, whilst I thought the Nikon was a very nice camera, it wasn't the silver bullet I thought it might be and that actually I just preferred shooting with the EM1.2.

This is in line with what Thom Hogan said in the review. Personally I have always thought it is best to buy a cheaper camera and a better lens, than vice versa.

Does anyone have information how does over 40MP camera react on the corners vs 24MP camera on FF? I mean if the lens is not the best on the corners, does more MP help? Or how does it react?

 

[hoodlum]

A lot of truth in this, these news also speak of the massive layoffs and reduced head count especially in Japan.
On the other hand, the numbers look like JIP has a huge challenge ahead of them if they really want to turn the ship around.

Keep in mind that much of that latest loss is not related to operating loss but rather writedowns of fixed assets and inventory along with severance pay. Olympus is also providing working capital for the new company and continuing advisory expenses after the transfer. Below is from Olympus's Q&A on the financial report.


Q: The company posted ¥47 billion in 2Q as the expense associated with the divestiture of discontinued operation. Can you give us the breakdown of the expense? And out of the expense, what is the ¥3.3 billion recorded in continuing operation (in Corporate and Elimination) about?

A: The breakdown of the ¥43.7 billion recorded in discontinued operation includes the impairment loss of fixed assets and inventories, and the working capital of the new company (the ratio of the two is approximately 4:6). And it also includes one-shot costs such as extra severance payments and expenses for establishing the new company and initial funding. Advisory fees of ¥3 billion were recorded as expenses for continuing operation.

 

[Mack]

As to Nikon's downsizing, they may be going back to their old plan of letting some 3rd party distributor carry what they make rather than having a corporate office and warehouse in each country.

In the USA, Nikon was carried through EPOI for decades (60-80's). When our store had a customer that needed a rewind knob, we'd call their parts girl and she'd look up all the stuff needed and send it to us just from our description on the phone. When Nikon corporate took over from EPOI in the USA market, they killed off that plan and refused to sell parts (Staff cutbacks.), or even look them up even, and we'd have to ship the entire thing to them instead which angered the pros.

Olympus may have saved their imaging department by taking on Nikon's 3rd party distribution plan instead of killing it off completely. Olympus has ramped up their fire sale marketing lately given the daily sales emails I get from them, but it's too late to keep them viable, imho. Olympus seems to want to wipe their hands clean of the consumer camera market area fast, and what stock they have made up until now may carry JIP over for a few years (e.g. 150-400mm f/4.5 lens.). Beyond that, who knows.

Okay. I'm still pissed some salesperson talked me into buying a $1,500 Quantum Trio flash. Looked nice all boxed up in the store's showcase, but thing was last made in 2009 and carried through PromarkBrands and sold as new to me in 2018 (Nine years is still new merchandise?). Damn thing's old plastic cracks just sitting in the case with the reflector and needs a shot of CA glue every now and then to hold it together. PMB had firmware updates until they shut down that several years after Quantum died and was sold off to them in 2012/2013 and lived on as still new (ahem!). To fix is to refurb, or gut something else for parts at a high cost. I see a lot of what JIP (or GYP [sic]) may do could be similar to PMB where archaic photo stuff goes out to die.

 

[pdk42]

Does anyone have information how does over 40MP camera react on the corners vs 24MP camera on FF? I mean if the lens is not the best on the corners, does more MP help? Or how does it react?

I'm pretty sure that more MP will deliver better results on the final image no matter what. Even a less sharp lens will do better on a higher Mp sensor.

 

[PakkyT]

I used the 12-100 extensively with the EM1.2 and bought the 24-200 on the Z7 to give me much the same capability. The lenses are about the same size and weight.

I was a bit disappointed in the 24-200. It's by no means a bad lens, but it's not as good as the other two, esp near the long end, and it feels like a cheap lens in comparison. In fact, compared to the Oly Pro lenses, none of the Z lenses felt as good (but of course this is just subjective and counts for nothing in the final result).

To be fair, the 24-200 is about the same size and not as good as the Oly PRO because the Nikon lens is a standard variable superzoom lens that was made primarily to have a lot of focal range and adequate quality. Make it is a constant f4 and put the same level of quality Oly put in there's and it would be a different story. It would also be a much bigger and more expensive story. The same argument holds true for the Oly 12-200 which if you compare it to the 12-100 PRO for quality, it just isn't there but that is the trade off you get when you want smaller and cheaper. Maybe a more fair comparison would be the Nikon 24-100 vs the Oly 12-200 but only through the same focal range.

Personally I have always thought it is best to buy a cheaper camera and a better lens, than vice versa.

Ya like the above example.

I also kind of feel this way about people who own interchangeable lens cameras and buy cruddy lenses because they can the have a single lens on the camera all the time and not change lenses. If you ask them why not instead just buy a fixed lens super zoom camera with the same equivalent focal range sometimes you will get the answer that they want the quality of the bigger sensor and the fixed lens camera all have smaller sensors. This makes little sense if you are just defeating larger sensor gains with a terrible lens. The fixed lens camera, while having a much smaller sensor probably puts out as good or better photos since the lens can be much more well matched to the camera and the camera FW fine tuned for all focal lengths of that lens to fix any issues since the camera knows everything about that lens and doesn't need to know about any other lenses.

I also buy lenses with the idea that I will use them forever and so try to buy the best I can get in my budget. Because of this even dating back to my 4/3rds days I have had very little lens turn over. While spending more on better lenses I have probably saved a lot of money in the long run not buying & selling a lot of lenses. Buy quality once rather than cheaper over and over.

 

[doady]

The obsession with the effect of sensor size on image quality combined with the denial of the effect on lens size on image quality never made sense to me. Of course, a 24-200mm full frame lens the same size as 12-100mm is going to require a lot of sacrifice. I'm not a pixel peeper (I used only C-7070 for 15 years) but I always thought 12-200mm was a bit much too. Likewise, there is probably good reason why Fuji GFX system focuses more on primes.

People focusing so much on the electronic and computing aspect of cameras and ignoring the optical aspect probably makes it hard for traditional companies like Nikon to compete. Maybe that was Olympus' biggest mistake too, choosing a smaller sensor for 4/3 for the sake of the optics.

 

[JonSnih]

A lot of truth in this, these news also speak of the massive layoffs and reduced head count especially in Japan.
On the other hand, the numbers look like JIP has a huge challenge ahead of them if they really want to turn the ship around.

It turns out that Olympus Imaging never really cared about things such as ROI, cost effective manufacturing, stock management, cash flow management.... What a pity. On the other hand it seems that JIP will do the opposite which gives us fair chance to the future. So it might be the only good move forward. I am looking forward to the next year what tomorrow will bring.

 

[RS86]

I'm pretty sure that more MP will deliver better results on the final image no matter what. Even a less sharp lens will do better on a higher Mp sensor.

I was thinking if the larger MP would somehow be wasted on a worse lens, but apparently that is not true, but more MP is always beneficial?

I'm still wondering why people keep mentioning the diffraction a bigger issue on M43 than FF even though it is physically true. Is it practically?

If you take a look comparing these and the f/5.6 (FF f/11) which is pretty basic DoF for landscape photography (as is need for edge performance).

The Nikon FF below is at the decency level, while Olympus is well above it. To me it seems FF is affected more in practice?

I remember being told by some here that Nikon Z lenses are same as Olympus Pro lenses in quality, so if true, it cannot be because of the lens quality. And even if it is, the FF doesn't seem to be a lot better in this regard like we keep being told.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Edges, decency level 44 lpmm.

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

Nikon 24-70mm f/4 Edges on FF, decency level 42-44 lpmm.

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

Btw. moderators can move these off-topic discussions to some proper thread if there is one. But the Nikon business changes is on topic imo, as it is similar to JIP streamlining.

https://www.lenstip.com/392.4-Lens_...l_12-40_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/585.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_Z_24-70_mm_f_4_S_Image_resolution.html

 

[grcolts]

This is in line with what Thom Hogan said in the review. Personally I have always thought it is best to buy a cheaper camera and a better lens, than vice versa.

Does anyone have information how does over 40MP camera react on the corners vs 24MP camera on FF? I mean if the lens is not the best on the corners, does more MP help? Or how does it react?

I agree the lens is the more important choice.
GQR

 

[ac12]

This is in line with what Thom Hogan said in the review. Personally I have always thought it is best to buy a cheaper camera and a better lens, than vice versa.

Does anyone have information how does over 40MP camera react on the corners vs 24MP camera on FF? I mean if the lens is not the best on the corners, does more MP help? Or how does it react?

If the image is less than sharp at 24MP, I can't see how it will be better at 40MP.
At 40MP you will just have more pixels to display the less than sharp image.

Put a GOOD lens on a 24MP camera, and you will have a sharper image than a so-so lens on a 40MP camera.
To exagerate it, a SHARP image at 24MB beats an unsharp image at 40MP.

As for the corners, it depends on what is in the corners.
If you are copying a painting, you want sharp into the corners.
But if you are shooting a portrait or single subject, the corners may have little value.

 

[Mack]

I was thinking if the larger MP would somehow be wasted on a worse lens, but apparently that is not true, but more MP is always beneficial?

I'm still wondering why people keep mentioning the diffraction a bigger issue on M43 than FF even though it is physically true. Is it practically?

If you take a look comparing these and the f/5.6 (FF f/11) which is pretty basic DoF for landscape photography (as is need for edge performance).

The Nikon FF below is at the decency level, while Olympus is well above it. To me it seems FF is affected more in practice?

I remember being told by some here that Nikon Z lenses are same as Olympus Pro lenses in quality, so if true, it cannot be because of the lens quality. And even if it is, the FF doesn't seem to be a lot better in this regard like we keep being told.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Edges, decency level 44 lpmm.
View attachment 858922

Nikon 24-70mm f/4 Edges on FF, decency level 42-44 lpmm.
View attachment 858923

Btw. moderators can move these off-topic discussions to some proper thread if there is one. But the Nikon business changes is on topic imo, as it is similar to JIP streamlining.

https://www.lenstip.com/392.4-Lens_...l_12-40_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/585.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_Z_24-70_mm_f_4_S_Image_resolution.html

I'd look to the Nikon Z 24-70 f/2.8 which shows more improvement than their slower kit 24-70mm f/4 lens. Ricci in his Youtube channel does a comparison between the f/2.8 and f/4 24-70mm zooms and the f/2.8 really does beat the f/4 overall but at a price.

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

https://www.lenstip.com/591.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_Z_24-70_mm_f_2.8_S_Image_resolution.html