And yes. It's hard to notice immediately without a direct comparison, but having shot with the 45mm for a couple of years now, I know what to expect from that lens in any scenario, and the Nocticron virtually always outdoes it. I did try comparing them directly several times just giving a look through live view, but it wasn't worth posting without matching things meticulously for every variable. This is also apparent if you compare the 45mm to the 75mm F1.8, but despite the superior contrast and overall quality of the 75mm, the two lenses still manage to render very similarly and give that "Olympus look". The Nocticron feels like a completely different type of lens, although which is better can be subjective. I also don't think a simple contrast/clarity adjustment in LR does the trick either; there are more subtleties to a lens' rendering than can be managed by simply manipulating things quickly in post.
Your photography is a class act Napier, I'm sure you could make a disposable point and shoot 'sing'.
This is your living, I take it, its your 'day time' job. Can I ask, do you use what's termed 'professional' cameras, i.e. full frame Nikon or Canon, or do you use M43 exclusively? I think there's a perception that pro means the large plastic systems mentioned, and M4/3 due to its diminutive size is something less. Do you encounter this at all with your clients?
Exactly my observation too, which is why I returned Nocticron. The extra weight and price (though it wasn't a consideration) wasn't worth over 45/1.8.
It might be if you are shooting professionally.
For my purpose I could live with slightly less contract OOC with 45/1.8, could increase that later in LR.
Glad to hear you're studying the purest of sciences. Although I read electronics many years ago, my interest is very much Physics - for interest I bought the 'red books' written by one of the best physicists of all time, Richard Feynman I'm sure your familiar with the great man's work, he's my all time hero.
OT, my wife's father was actually in Feynman's original undergraduate lectures (Feynman actually only taught them once, the same poor souls of one class had him for freshman and sophomore physics and he never taught that material again). Apparently it was quite awful, disorganized and not well presented.
Fortunately a whole lot of other folks in the department put great effort into taking his unique presentation and refining into the books in a more organized and presentable way. And that's the red books we have today! Still few places use them for courses, when I took the freshman class at Caltech it was being taught by someone who was such a huge fan of Feynmann he's published multiple books on various lost lectures. And even he decided he didn't want to use the Feynmann lectures as the text for the class!
But for reading on your own, a unique and wonderful thing.