The "heavy price" one pays for full frame

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,674
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
And the 24-240 is hardly comparable to the 12-100 ...
More like the 14-140 class of lens, without the weather/dust sealing ...
Yes. I have no experience with the 24-240, but since when have 10x zooms ever given high IQ? I pretty much don't even consider buying such animals, even for convenience. it's just too much, IMHO.
 

dwkdnvr

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
142
Location
NM
And everything else stripped back to minimum, not just the headline features you mention.

Shutter rating, shutter speed, IBIS, frames/second, build quality, to name but a few things.
Yeah, the Rp is barely a Rebel. Not something likely to be the primary body for someone serious enough to buy into the FF system. The system I laid out is more likely to be along the lines of something an existing Canon shooter would consider as a 'lightweight second system' than one that would be a reason to migrate from another system. Upgrade the body to the original R or the R6 and it starts looking better. Adds $700 or $1500 to the price tag, and ~200g to the weight though.

Still, this is as light as I could make a reasonably complete system so in the context of the idea that "FF has gotten smaller/lighter", this is what you get. I guess I should look at the A7C, but without an EVF it's really not a directly comparable body.

And the 24-240 is hardly comparable to the 12-100 ...
More like the 14-140 class of lens, without the weather/dust sealing ...
I am curious as to whether the IQ of the 24-240 might well be comparable to the 12-100 on an E-M5II when paired with say the 30MP R sensor - the increased resolution and the lower demands of the larger pixels helps lenses out a fair bit (although it won't do anything for the corners). OTOH, the entire premise of this type of lens is for a 'one lens kit' which has to go anywhere - I just don't see how a non-weather-sealed version of this type of lens makes much sense. Certainly it's integral to how I use it - hiking, traveling etc. - and I wouldn't be terribly comfortable using a non-sealed version as a replacement.

Fuji does have a WR version in their 18-135, but once again it's not a premium lens and only APS-C. With an X-T body though, it does provide a reasonably weather sealed kit comparable to what the 12-100 does.

I'm comparing with the E-M1 MkII, which is still available new AFAIK.

Comparing like with like is always useful, IMHO.

You have to go a long way up the tree in 135 format land before you get to even the E-M5 MkIII level of overall functionality. And that costs, in both size and weight, let alone dollars!
I'd have preferred to build a setup around an S5 since I think that is actually a body that represents a viable alternative to the higher-end M43 bodies. It's likely going to be a somewhat heavier system than the Rp based one though, and L-mount just isn't quite there yet on the lens front. The 85mm/1.8 is here, and the 24/35/50 budget primes are coming (pick any 2), but the release schedule is unclear. L-mount doesn't have a 1-lens replacement for the 12-100, but they do have the 20-60 + 70-300 pair that are dust/splash sealed and IMHO represent a valid alternative that gives you both wider and longer range. But, the 'extra' lens really puts the system up a step in both weight and cost - S5 + 20-60 + 70-300 + 35 +50 +85 is $5k and 3000g (assuming the 35 and 50 are the same price as the 85. we already know they're 'the same size'). Unlike the Canon system above this seems like a pretty viable 'primary' setup, although at 2x the weight of my M43 kit you've kinda lost the 'lightweight' designation.
 

dwkdnvr

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
142
Location
NM
Yes. I have no experience with the 24-240, but since when have 10x zooms ever given high IQ? I pretty much don't even consider buying such animals, even for convenience. it's just too much, IMHO.
Well, it was included specifically due to the discussion around the Oly 12-100 and how that offers a pretty unique capability for assembling an M43 system - it also happens to be my 'do everything' lens and so I was looking to put together a 'comparable' setup and it's one of the few options. Lack of at least dust/splash sealing makes it something of an odd duck though - it would seem to be a pretty valuable characteristic of a 'go everywhere, do everything' lens. But, obviously Canon seems to think they're selling it to a different audience.

Feedback on the lens itself though seems to be reasonably decent at least in the context of superzooms - for example it seems to be better than the kit 24-105/4-7 across the shared range, and Canon users seem to be very surprised at the quality for a superzoom. Maybe that's damning with faint praise, though.

As I said in my previous post, there are likely 24-70 and 70-200/300 combos that cover the same range at higher quality, but that completely undermines the original point that FF has gotten to the point of closing the size/weight gap with crop sensors to a significant degree.

So, maybe the conclusion is that the 12-100 + a weather sealed body is simply something that can't really be provided by any other system at the moment, and that is going to skew any attempts to evaluate 'comparable' systems since it won't be apples-apples.
 

JensM

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
947
Location
Oslo(ish), Norway
Real Name
As screename
Well, there are options that match the 12-100, but only if you're willing to accept lower tier/consumer lenses in the FF lineup. Canon has an RF 24-240 f/4-6.3, and Sony has a 24-240 f/3.5-6.3. Both are under $1k USD and so are cheaper than the 12-100, but only the Sony claims any type of environmental sealing (dust and moisture). I think it would be a very interesting comparison to see whether these cheaper lenses can come close to equaling the 12-100 output in absolute terms when paired with a 20-24MP FF sensor.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#840.613,851.842,777.755,ha,t

I think these lenses illustrate the flexibility that FF systems are starting to make available. If you're willing to compromise on absolute image quality and 'give back' some of the resolution and 2-stop advantage that FF theoretically offers over M43, you can come up with something that is pretty comparable in size. So, if you can identify one or 2 use-cases where you're willing to pay the price in both $$$ and size to get good FF glass and take full advantage of the system, I think you're getting close to being able to round out the rest of the system with things like these consumer zooms and f/2.8 (or even slower) primes for the 'rest of the time' when size/weight matter more than absolute IQ. If you 'need' 2.8 zooms though, you're just never going to get there.

Well, if one brings the kit zooms to the table, the 12-32 and 35-100 from Panasonic should also be brought forth, those two combined will give you 205 grams or 7,23 Ounces to carry around and 24-200 ff range. :whistling:
 

doady

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
300
Location
Canada
Back in the day, all the P&S cameras with 10x lenses has a 1/2.3" sensor while those with 4x or 5x zoom lenses had the larger 1/1.8" sensors. And among the 8 megapixel 2/3" sensor cameras, the Olympus C8080 was regarded to have the best image quality, and it happened to have the smallest zoom range.

That's why it's hard to understand the point of full frame 8x or 10x lenses. Even 12-100mm, despite its large size relative to other m4/3 lenses, needs to rely on software correction. Imagine how big would a 24-200mm full frame lens have to be to provide even near the same level of image quality.

If someone mostly uses primes, full frame or medium format makes sense, but if they mostly use zooms, especially superzooms, then m4/3 or APS-C is the obvious choice. So much obsession with sensor sizes these days, but people don't even understand what it really means.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
34
Well, Pentax has a weather sealed APSC 18-135 and weather sealed bodies (roughly to Olympus levels). It's a pretty decent lens, and half the cost of the 12-100. But it's variable aperture and not nearly as high quality as the 12-100. But that might be the closest equivalent I can think of. But at FF sensor size, there's not really much you can do to get around the size of the optics required. Maybe eventually AI will be good enough to compensate for that, but I think it's a ways off.
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,674
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
Only since the Olympus 12-100 PRO came out (well 8.33x zoom).
Yeah, actually I didn't mean to include the 12-100. I didn't do the math before I wrote my post, not realizing it is pretty close to 10x. I don't doubt that the 12-100 is a very good lens and as such is somewhat unique in this category (IMHO). I actually haven't paid much attention to it since I am happy with my PL 12-60 and don't really feel the need for the extra 40mm at the expensive of the size and weight. I mean if I wanted to get more reach (say, um, well perhaps 40-150 you think??), I'd carry a 2nd camera with that very lens. :) I usually don't want the extra reach, which is the point for me. So 12-60 is fine.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,134
Location
Massachusetts, USA
But, compare the 12-200 to it. 16x zoom.

My response was to @RAH 's comment that super zooms in general don't give high IQ to which I responded about the 12-100 PRO being an exception with great IQ. While I don't own it, to my eyes all the sample shots I have seen with the 12-200 look soft and details muddled, so that the 12-200 photos looks worse than the other super zooms (e.g. 14-140/150) produce that are at least rated to be "good".
 

Robstar1963

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
3,446
Location
Isle of Wight England UK
Real Name
Robert (Rob)
The versatility of the 12-100 is unrivalled
It also makes a surprisingly good Motorsports lens !
5C6F6668-B71B-4F5D-885D-198EF8FA8CD2.jpeg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

John King

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
2,656
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
As I understand it, Olympus made the 8.33x zoom 12-100 as a 'statement product' - i.e. to show that they could make an essentially perfect lens with a zoom range from UWA to medium telephoto that was excellent across the frame at all FLs and apertures when no one else could.

Firmware correction is part of their formula.

They succeeded.

It is still unequalled IMNSHO.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,024
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
My response was to @RAH 's comment that super zooms in general don't give high IQ to which I responded about the 12-100 PRO being an exception with great IQ. While I don't own it, to my eyes all the sample shots I have seen with the 12-200 look soft and details muddled, so that the 12-200 photos looks worse than the other super zooms (e.g. 14-140/150) produce that are at least rated to be "good".

I read someone say on another thread that the 14-150 II was much better than the 12-200. I believe them. Olympus tried to make a consumer grade super all-in-one lens and might have stretched it too far. You responded there too.
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/what-are-your-lens-choice-when-backpacking.110649/page-2#post-1455856
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,134
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Olympus tried to make a consumer grade super all-in-one lens and might have stretched it too far. You responded there too.
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/what-are-your-lens-choice-when-backpacking.110649/page-2#post-1455856

Ya and on this thread, when that lens came up again today I went and looked for sample photos again to see if I was remembering correctly. Yep, they still look soft with mushed-out details. I have reconfirmed (to myself) my opinion of that lens. And I am usually a lot more forgiving about lens performance than many others.
 

retiredfromlife

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 15, 2016
Messages
4,729
Location
Sydney, Australia
Ya and on this thread, when that lens came up again today I went and looked for sample photos again to see if I was remembering correctly. Yep, they still look soft with mushed-out details. I have reconfirmed (to myself) my opinion of that lens. And I am usually a lot more forgiving about lens performance than many others.
I seem to remember when Peter Forsgard (spelling ?) did a review and posted his images. Far to soft for me. Shame as it would have made a great travel lens. I still have them somewhere to to view when i rethink this lens every so often.

I also wish the Fuji 18-135 was a little better. If it was I think i would have one of the small Fuji bodies with that lens by now. So i ended up with the Oly 12-100, that i have not used much now i cant travel
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,024
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
Ya and on this thread, when that lens came up again today I went and looked for sample photos again to see if I was remembering correctly. Yep, they still look soft with mushed-out details. I have reconfirmed (to myself) my opinion of that lens. And I am usually a lot more forgiving about lens performance than many others.

Getting a bit OT, but here's some reviews of the 12-200 and 14-150 II. Couldn't find a head to head comparison.

Robin Wong reviewed the 12-200 on Ming Thein's blog. It doesn't look bad here. I think he was trying to be kind.
https://blog.mingthein.com/2019/02/27/review-the-2019-olympus-zd-12-200-f3-5-6-3/

Here's another review.
https://unlockingolympus.com/2019/08/olympus-12-200mm-review-one-lens-to-rule-them-all/

Robin reviews the 14-150 II.
https://robinwong.blogspot.com/2015/07/shooting-with-olympus-mzuiko-14-150mm.html
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,455
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
I remember Dennis Mook posting back in the early days of the 16Mp m43 sensors and doing large (3ft wide) print comparisons between the EM5 and the Nikon D800. His conclusion was that he couldn’t tell the difference. I wonder why he’s gone and bought a Z7?
 

John King

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
2,656
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
I remember Dennis Mook posting back in the early days of the 16Mp m43 sensors and doing large (3ft wide) print comparisons between the EM5 and the Nikon D800. His conclusion was that he couldn’t tell the difference. I wonder why he’s gone and bought a Z7?
Who knows, Paul.

I feel the same way as he used to. I've seen some excellent photos taken with all manner of cameras, but I've never seen one that even whispered to me that I had made wrong choices, let alone the screaming differences that some claim to see.
 
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
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom