My God it's huge

Jay_M

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
549
Location
AZ
As tkbslc said, there's no penalty to using CDAF lenses on a PDAF sensor camera.

No lens in the M4/3 system has motors designed for PDAF-only systems. They are all CDAF compatible. The lenses he was referring to are for Olympus' dead SLR system that are no longer being sold or serviced.

The problem only arises when you use old-tech lenses that are designed solely to be used on PDAF bodies, and you try to use them on CDAF bodies. PDAF lens on PDAF body is fine, CDAF lens on CDAF body or PDAF body is fine.
Right, I got that. So like I thought, spreading FUD to make a better argument

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

narkotix

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
90
I try not to pay attention to these two anymore, but they had a small segment on the EM1X recently (sorry if already posted, starts at 10:25)

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


God youtube is hot garbage these days.
 

caonidayeah

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Oct 7, 2020
Messages
16
The sentiment is ridiculous, but spend a few minutes on the DPReview forum or 43rumors comment section and you'll see that the people he or she is describing absolutely exist. This forum is shockingly sane relative to what you get in some of the other m43 communities.
exactly why I ditched those two and moved to here.
 

wyk

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
225
Location
Ireland
Canon 5DMkIV w/600mm F4
EM1X 300mm F4 about 1/3 the weight and size of the Canon system. The Canon lens is $12-13K, btw.

fcd6e634765c2afb75cbcb0d4ff3f2ef.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

doady

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
155
Location
Canada
I'm not a sports/wildlife photographer, so I personally I don't really care about telephoto, especially super telephoto, but it is arguably the main advantage of Micro Four Thirds. But it's these super telephoto lenses that get criticized the most for some strange reason. Rather than being "completely against the ethos of the system", a combination like EM1X and 300mm or 150-400mm could be the most compelling justification for the existence of Micro Four Thirds in the first place. To be able to reduce the combined weight of body and lens by 1.7kg, even with the built-in vertical grip? My E-M1 mk2 + 12-100mm doesn't even weigh 1.3kg, so I don't even know what a combination that weighs 1.7kg less would feel like.
 

wyk

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
225
Location
Ireland
I have to agree. There are plenty of small bodies out there. One could easily argue they've saturated their own market there.
I am always confused when people react poorly to an m43 camera body being correctly sized for the human hands. I mean, some folks argue the EM1 and GX8 are over sized.
The lenses may have gotten smaller, but my hands are the same size.
Add to this the fact that the compact camera market virtually no longer exists. People who view the world through an iPhone don't care about image quality.
All cameras have now basically gone back to where they came from - the enthusiasts and professional market. So why be surprised when a camera maker targets this market?
And here we can argue the Olympus EM1X perfectly targets this market, and competes very favourably VS an alternative.
Street photographer? M43 has got ya covered. Birds? Check. Skateboards? Video? Check. Landscape? Check(assuming you enjoy sensor shift - but hey, others are doing it, too).
Also, I think something folks are missing here is people aren't just taking photos of birds. They are taking wildlife video.
Video is m43's strongest sector. You want to hump about Yellowstone in the snow with a 600mm F4 full frame lens for up to 3X the cost? F-that if I can do it with m43 now.
Some people wonder why m43 is seriously going after the professional telephoto market. I wonder if they've shot themselves in the foot nearly neglecting it for so long.
 

wyk

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
225
Location
Ireland
What about the IQ though...is the Canon that much better?
I have EM1X and 40-150 and 300 and due to go on safari next June (was meant to be this year but...) and am trying to convience myself not to take my 5d3 and 100-400 Mark 2.
It depends. I just posted a couple of hours ago in the rumours thread about the 'new' high pixel count mft sensor.
The current 20MP one already challenges MFT lenses, and presents cropping issues with 4K. It is the equivalent of having a 75MP FF sensor as far the glass resolution goes. That is how demanding it is on glass. The Canon 5DMK4 that I showed earlier is a 30MP device. Is it higher IQ? I dunno - maybe. Is IQ=MP? So what's going on?
Again - It depends. If you are going to make prints(even big ones) or put it up on the web, the IQ difference won't matter unless you crop often. If you are looking for posterity and 8K or IMAX, then it maybe matters because it gives you the opportunity to crop a lot? Using it for video? 16MP may be fine for several years to come.
If you frame your images well - maybe it doesn't matter.
If you crop like mad(I know I do), then maybe it does in the modern formats we display them on.
This is why folks say pixel peeping is wasting time. It may have more pixels, but your format/medium won't ever display them all any time soon. What you need to do as a pro is fill that medium for now and the immediate future. Are 8K TV's going to be in every household and sports bar next year? That seems unlikely. Right now there are 50X more 4k TVs in circulation than 8K. How many of us here have 4K tvs(vs monitors)? Some claim 8K by 2025 will have 1/2 the market. I know the prices have come way down, but I also know my satellite service had an upcharge just for 1080 as little as 8 months ago, and Eurosport STILL often broadcasts matches in 720!
Ever tried to send a full sized typical 24MP image file in facebook or gmail? Much of the time, you can't. Think it's a coincidence most cameras are 24MP+ now, but most media services force you to down sample? The bandwidth/cost affectiveness isn't there...yet.
There's also the question of whether the IQ makes a difference if you don't ever get the shot in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
116
Location
Inverness, Scotland
It depends. I just posted a couple of hours ago in the rumours thread about the 'new' high pixel count mft sensor.
The current 20MP one already challenges MFT lenses, and presents cropping issues with 4K. It is the equivalent of having a 75MP FF sensor as far the glass resolution goes. That is how demanding it is on glass. The Canon 5DMK4 that I showed earlier is a 30MP device. Is it higher IQ? I dunno - maybe. Is IQ=MP? So what's going on?
Again - It depends. If you are going to make prints(even big ones) or put it up on the web, the IQ difference won't matter unless you crop often. If you are looking for posterity and 8K or IMAX, then it maybe matters because it gives you the opportunity to crop a lot? Using it for video? 16MP may be fine for several years to come.
If you frame your images well - maybe it doesn't matter.
If you crop like mad(I know I do), then maybe it does in the modern formats we display them on.
This is why folks say pixel peeping is wasting time. It may have more pixels, but your format/medium won't ever display them all any time soon. What you need to do as a pro is fill that medium for now and the immediate future. Are 8K TV's going to be in every household and sports bar next year? That seems unlikely. Right now there are 50X more 4k TVs in circulation than 8K. How many of us here have 4K tvs(vs monitors)? Some claim 8K by 2025 will have 1/2 the market. I know the prices have come way down, but I also know my satellite service had an upcharge just for 1080 as little as 8 months ago, and Eurosport STILL often broadcasts matches in 720!
Ever tried to send a full sized typical 24MP image file in facebook or gmail? Much of the time, you can't. Think it's a coincidence most cameras are 24MP+ now, but most media services force you to down sample? The bandwidth/cost affectiveness isn't there...yet.
There's also the question of whether the IQ makes a difference if you don't ever get the shot in the first place.
Good reply sir. I shot some squirrels and swapped between Olympus and Canon.... the Canon looked better...or at least some thought it better. Others not. Still got more testing to do.
 
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