[Aristophanes]

If you want to do this with micro four third most of the time you wind up not saving anything in weight or cost and most of the time it winds up costing you more with the smaller format
You have to look no further than Pentax D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 ED DC, if you want something similar in performance its going to cost you 90-250mm 1:2.8 at $6000 and nearly twice the weight.
Even with the pentax 70-200 F2.8 you really never save anything going with a smaller format when you compare the Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 35-100mm 1:2.0, its slower and not much cheaper or lighter
If pentax comes out with a 70-200 F4 you would be further ahead with weight and cost to the 35-100mm

What?

The Pentax 70-200/2.8 is ~US$1,800
Filter Thread Front:77 mm
Dimensions (DxL) ~3.60 x 7.99" (91.5 x 203 mm)
Weight 3.86 lb (1755 g)

The Olympus 40-150/2.8 is ~US$1,400 (and goes on sale for $200 less)
Filter Thread Front: 72 mm
Dimensions (DxL) ~3.13 x 6.30" (79.4 x 160.0 mm)
Weight 1.67 lb (760 g)

The latter works on a sensor 1/4 the size, but as a package is much smaller, less than half the weight and in volume is much smaller, especially with the built-in, retractable hood. The Oly also has a closer min. focussing distance (70 cm to 1.2m) and is 25mm wider the wide end. It also has screaming fast AF and no lesser build quality.

In fact, you can get it and the 12-40/2.8 in the same kit and STILL weigh less than the Pentax 70-200/2.8 alone as the 12-40/2.8 adds only another 14 oz (382g).

In general, with m43 you can get 2 lenses @/2.8 and a camera (GX8 or EM5) for the weight and volume as a single FF 70-200/2.8 lens, going from 24-300/2.8 with IBIS that brings performance up to at least APS-C for aperture and SS. The sensor is not on par with DR and low-light, but not that far off, even from FF, and the size of the kit is a considerable advantage for what is "pro" glass. Add in a second Panasonic body with excellent 4k video and compactness, and a few primes a notch smaller than the DA Ltds, and the system is very competitive on price and decidedly compact for ILC system glass and bodies.

---------- Post added 08-14-17 at 09:05 AM ----------

I dont have first hand experience with the kp, but as far as the m43 depending on the situation i would have no issue with the iq using it at 6400 iso and printing it on an 8x10 photo. Maybe even a little bit larger as well.

Not to mention that while we go on about low light and ISO performance, a huge chunk of the market even at these price points is going to turn to the one equalizing device: the flash.

---

Last edited by Aristophanes; 08-14-2017 at 05:32 AM.

[dafbp]

I Buffer is decent but clears slowly due to the use of SD cards.

Nothing wrong with using SD cards, they can easily write at 70MB/s (and more) without being expensive (marketed as Pro). That's what I've got (and probably many others here) and I still have the buffer clearing problems you mention.
My cards are able to write faster than my camera (K5iis) can shoot [in jpeg], so the problem is upstream, be it the interface or the image processing, or (most likely) both.
They shouldn't change card format, just upgrade their image processor and card interface.

[Aristophanes]

So the answer is to stop worrying about equivalence and check out what is available. Does it pass one's personal test, both lens and sensor performance? If so, no problems.

Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 vs Pentax D FA* 70-200mm f2.8 = 357g vs 2030g
Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.7 vs Pentax D FA 150-450mm f4,5-5.6 = 985g vs 2325g
Olympus 300mm f4 vs Canon 600mm f4 = 1270g vs 3920g

That's what's available to use, today. The same calculations apply to any other format. Of course the smaller format isn't going to do some things as well as the larger one. That is a given. But does the smaller one cut it for whatever one's own interests are? In many cases, a large saving in cash won't go unappreciated either at long focal lengths. The Olympus 300mm costs just over 2000 notes. The Canon 600mm is about 10,000 notes.

In answer to a couple of other posts, my guess is that today camera-makers may well be asking themselves of many models not how the result looks in print but along the lines of "Will this look fantastic on a 4K monitor or TV and is the video great?" If the answer is yes, job done. For the overwhelming majority of images, that's already a higher bar than they'll ever be subjected to.

It's about the sweet spot in the middle. Not smartphone P&S sensor size, but larger sensors, at least 1" up to MF.

Almost every viewing platform these days is 4k, or will be soon. This is having a greater effect on video than stills, which reached their apogee somewhere around 12 MP.

Smaller formats do worse at the extremes, mostly low light, sans flash, the great equalizer. But they are killing it in the middle ground where the smaller form factor leads to a smaller kit, even if the $$ savings are marginal. This is why I own a GR, but bemoan the lack of a Pentax mirrorless option using that pedigree. It is so obvious.

And for PP, yes, it is either a loved opportunity to increase the artistry of the photographic process, or a tedium of repetitive drudgery.

[Rondec]

What?

The Pentax 70-200/2.8 is ~US$1,800
Filter Thread Front:77 mm
Dimensions (DxL) ~3.60 x 7.99" (91.5 x 203 mm)
Weight 3.86 lb (1755 g)

The Olympus 40-150/2.8 is ~US$1,400 (and goes on sale for $200 less)
Filter Thread Front: 72 mm
Dimensions (DxL) ~3.13 x 6.30" (79.4 x 160.0 mm)
Weight 1.67 lb (760 g)

The latter works on a sensor 1/4 the size, but as a package is much smaller, less than half the weight and in volume is much smaller, especially with the built-in, retractable hood. The Oly also has a closer min. focussing distance (70 cm to 1.2m) and is 25mm wider the wide end. It also has screaming fast AF and no lesser build quality.

In fact, you can get it and the 12-40/2.8 in the same kit and STILL weigh less than the Pentax 70-200/2.8 alone as the 12-40/2.8 adds only another 14 oz (382g).

In general, with m43 you can get 2 lenses @/2.8 and a camera (GX8 or EM5) for the weight and volume as a single FF 70-200/2.8 lens, going from 24-300/2.8 with IBIS that brings performance up to at least APS-C for aperture and SS. The sensor is not on par with DR and low-light, but not that far off, even from FF, and the size of the kit is a considerable advantage for what is "pro" glass. Add in a second Panasonic body with excellent 4k video and compactness, and a few primes a notch smaller than the DA Ltds, and the system is very competitive on price and decidedly compact for ILC system glass and bodies.

---------- Post added 08-14-17 at 09:05 AM ----------



Not to mention that while we go on about low light and ISO performance, a huge chunk of the market even at these price points is going to turn to the one equalizing device: the flash.

I don't think you understand. The dynamic range of a K-1 at iso 400 is 12.86. That is better than the dynamic range for the Olympus EM-5 MK II at iso 100 (measured at 12.44 EV). The SNR for the K-1 at iso 400 is 39.3 Db and for the Olympus at iso 100 is 39.2 Db. The point is that a full frame lens shooting at iso 100 is going to have a major, major advantage over a four thirds lens shooting at iso 100.

If you have a four thirds lens and you are shooting 100mm and f2.8 and iso 200 and you take a full frame camera and shoot 200mm and f2.8 and iso 200, the noise and dynamic range of the full frame image will blow away that of the four thirds image. f2.8 is f2.8 but the performance is not the same at all.

[mecrox]

I don't think you understand. The dynamic range of a K-1 at iso 400 is 12.86. That is better than the dynamic range for the Olympus EM-5 MK II at iso 100 (measured at 12.44 EV). The SNR for the K-1 at iso 400 is 39.3 Db and for the Olympus at iso 100 is 39.2 Db. The point is that a full frame lens shooting at iso 100 is going to have a major, major advantage over a four thirds lens shooting at iso 100.

If you have a four thirds lens and you are shooting 100mm and f2.8 and iso 200 and you take a full frame camera and shoot 200mm and f2.8 and iso 200, the noise and dynamic range of the full frame image will blow away that of the four thirds image. f2.8 is f2.8 but the performance is not the same at all.

I'm interrupting, I know. One of the best landscape photographers at work today (imho - you might like his work) tends to avoid any scene with more than five stops of DR (or so he said in 2013). He uses film and still does so far as I know. See his article. Obviously most of us don't use film, but I've not found a relatively smaller DR a hassle on smaller formats. In most cases, the camera's DR is enough anyway. In other cases, and there aren't many, I bracket exposures and combine in PP. Or I could use a grad filter. Of course FF will give a better shooting envelope but it's a numbers game here largely, I think. If a camera company can do well on the old 80/20 principle, they don't need to put themselves out with a super sensor of some kind to appeal to the high-end minority. They simply leave that to another outfit or model in the range. Presumably Canon must have thought alone these lines before issuing the 6D Mark II with an older sensor on board. And if the output all ends up on a monitor anyway, there might not really be as big a difference as some think. Welcome to the future, lol. I'm seriously thinking of trying film again.

[Rondec]

I'm interrupting, I know. One of the best landscape photographers at work today (imho - you might like his work) tends to avoid any scene with more than five stops of DR (or so he said in 2013). He uses film and still does so far as I know. See his article. Obviously most of us don't use film, but I've not found a relatively smaller DR a hassle on smaller formats. In most cases, the camera's DR is enough anyway. In other cases, and there aren't many, I bracket exposures and combine in PP. Or I could use a grad filter. Of course FF will give a better shooting envelope but it's a numbers game here largely, I think. If a camera company can do well on the old 80/20 principle, they don't need to put themselves out with a super sensor of some kind to appeal to the high-end minority. They simply leave that to another outfit or model in the range. Presumably Canon must have thought alone these lines before issuing the 6D Mark II with an older sensor on board. And if the output all ends up on a monitor anyway, there might not really be as big a difference as some think. Welcome to the future, lol. I'm seriously thinking of trying film again.

I guess five stop of dynamic range is the difference in dynamic range between, say, iso 100 and iso 3200? That's probably accurate. I would say, that DXO Mark actually overstates the amount of dynamic range available for sensors. If they say 14 EV, you may be able to 11.5 -- just because you can push the shadows hard doesn't mean that they will look good.

But my point is more that this all scales. Your iso 200 on an Olympus will have same dynamic range/SNR as an image at iso 800 on a K-1 and so on. If you are just shooting snap shots for Facebook it probably doesn't matter.

As for Canon's decision process with the 6D II, they probably were more focused on figuring out how to make sure it wasn't good enough to steal any sales from the 5D MK IV.

[Aristophanes]

I don't think you understand. The dynamic range of a K-1 at iso 400 is 12.86. That is better than the dynamic range for the Olympus EM-5 MK II at iso 100 (measured at 12.44 EV). The SNR for the K-1 at iso 400 is 39.3 Db and for the Olympus at iso 100 is 39.2 Db. The point is that a full frame lens shooting at iso 100 is going to have a major, major advantage over a four thirds lens shooting at iso 100.

If you have a four thirds lens and you are shooting 100mm and f2.8 and iso 200 and you take a full frame camera and shoot 200mm and f2.8 and iso 200, the noise and dynamic range of the full frame image will blow away that of the four thirds image. f2.8 is f2.8 but the performance is not the same at all.

I do understand.

The "real world" performance is negligible in 95% of photography environments and consumer uses. That's why FF is so darn costly, large and bulky, and was trounced to market by APS-C.

The "advantage" you state is like saying a car going 100 MPH can get to 150 2x faster than the other brand.

but in the "real world" going that fast at all is a rare occurrence. The base of the market and its uses matter more than the plain vanilla tech specs. FF bursts onto the scene in a big way and the market.......declines.

Part of the issue is the standard print reference is almost non-existent. We measure all this on the 135 basis, but final DR and resolution were always in print. The yardsticks have moved and what we now perceive of as IQ is also moving because we can't "see" it in the way the mass market fro total amateur to even many longtime pros see it, has moved as well. As with megapickles, the ISO and DR bump for FF hits a wall of diminishing returns when vernacular use is factored in, and even with the majority of prosumer use is dominant.

The term" good enough" for cropped sensors is now at the point of outstanding in historical pure tech terms. You can take a K-30 or m43 16 MP sensor and get "pro" results consistently. The demonstrative uses for FF in this new reality is at the extremes, not the mainstream.

So the "blow away" part of your assertion is difficult to prove without extreme (and I mean extreme) pixel peeping. In fact, I've seen almost no credible reviewer or pro use the term "blown away" as if the images from a crop sensor are noticeably inferior in most shooting situations. In fact, quite the opposite. They are snapping up RX100s and Fuji XT-20s as main cameras precisely because what you are stating as a "blow out" is, in fact, hardly noticeable 95% of the time. Even the mission critical photojournalists are switching.

[Rondec]

I do understand.

The "real world" performance is negligible in 95% of photography environments and consumer uses. That's why FF is so darn costly, large and bulky, and was trounced to market by APS-C.

The "advantage" you state is like saying a car going 100 MPH can get to 150 2x faster than the other brand.

but in the "real world" going that fast at all is a rare occurrence. The base of the market and its uses matter more than the plain vanilla tech specs. FF bursts onto the scene in a big way and the market.......declines.

Part of the issue is the standard print reference is almost non-existent. We measure all this on the 135 basis, but final DR and resolution were always in print. The yardsticks have moved and what we now perceive of as IQ is also moving because we can't "see" it in the way the mass market fro total amateur to even many longtime pros see it, has moved as well. As with megapickles, the ISO and DR bump for FF hits a wall of diminishing returns when vernacular use is factored in, and even with the majority of prosumer use is dominant.

The term" good enough" for cropped sensors is now at the point of outstanding in historical pure tech terms. You can take a K-30 or m43 16 MP sensor and get "pro" results consistently. The demonstrative uses for FF in this new reality is at the extremes, not the mainstream.

So the "blow away" part of your assertion is difficult to prove without extreme (and I mean extreme) pixel peeping. In fact, I've seen almost no credible reviewer or pro use the term "blown away" as if the images from a crop sensor are noticeably inferior in most shooting situations. In fact, quite the opposite. They are snapping up RX100s and Fuji XT-20s as main cameras precisely because what you are stating as a "blow out" is, in fact, hardly noticeable 95% of the time. Even the mission critical photojournalists are switching.

Full frame is hardly expensive any more. You will pay more for top end Olympus camera than you will for a K1 or a D610. As for bulky, they are larger, but certainly NEX cameras with variable aperture lenses aren't that big. For that matter, stick a FA 31 on a K-1 and it is reasonably sized. Somehow people focus on size of a camera when combined with f2.8 zooms, which is something, but not the way you always have to shoot an ILC.

[Aristophanes]

Full frame is hardly expensive any more. You will pay more for top end Olympus camera than you will for a K1 or a D610. As for bulky, they are larger, but certainly NEX cameras with variable aperture lenses aren't that big. For that matter, stick a FA 31 on a K-1 and it is reasonably sized. Somehow people focus on size of a camera when combined with f2.8 zooms, which is something, but not the way you always have to shoot an ILC.

For less $$$ (as I demonstrated) you can get a full 24-300 (135 equiv.) constant 2.8 that has less weight than just FF 700/2.8 from ANY brand. That's 2 pro lenses and a pro camera with room to spare in weight and mass just against one FF zoom.

This includes body and 2 lenses. EM5 Mk ii or even a Panasonic GX 85. The EM1.2 is not cheap, but blows away the AF/FPS of the K-1 with 4k video, is 2/3 the weight, and with equivalent glass falls to 50% the volume and almost 40% the mass.

Primes barely budge that metric. In fact, an argument can be made that the extra space and mass you'd save on mirrorless allows for more primes as part of an extended kit. Both Olympus and Panasonic use this point in marketing.

Generally with top gear, you'll save 20% volume with bodies and 30% on glass, with the difference increasing with zooms to almost 40% volume adjustment, and well over 50% in favour of cropped in mass alone. And the pricing starts to favour cropped considerably, as demonstrated above (600mm lens for FF gets to $10k, but in cropped can be $2,600). And the video is starting to dramatically favour cropped sensors, at a time when video is taking off as a core feature.

Fuji's mirrorless bodies fit the small (and lighter, even) parameters, but their lenses are bulkier, but still much lighter than FF. The Fuji 50-140 is 40% lighter than the Pentax 70-200, and $200 cheaper with about 15% less volume.

Smaller, lighter tripods follow all these calls as well.

The cropped sensor, mirrorless form factors are why Panasonic, Sony, Fuji, and Olympus are doing well financially and mirrorless is picking up steam, especially in Asia. Within 3 years it will dominate all ILC sales worldwide by a considerable margin, all pretty much crop sensor. The DR/ISO whole IQ "thing" of FF has been blown up to meaning so little, not in visually measurable results for most photography, even at this multi-thousand $$$ outlays.

[mecrox]

The cropped sensor, mirrorless form factors are why Panasonic, Sony, Fuji, and Olympus are doing well financially and mirrorless is picking up steam, especially in Asia. Within 3 years it will dominate all ILC sales worldwide by a considerable margin, all pretty much crop sensor. The DR/ISO whole IQ "thing" of FF has been blown up to meaning so little, not in visually measurable results for most photography, even at this multi-thousand $$$ outlays.

My goodness, sir, a bold prediction! I looked at CIPA figures the other day and noticed that for Jan-Jun this year mirrrorless shipments by value are more than twice what they were for the same period in 2014 whereas DSLRs were down by about a fifth. Like any business, I guess the camera companies are going to gravitate to where the growth is in an otherwise contracting market. I'd imagine the outcome of what happens in Asia will be what we get in Europe and North America soon afterwards. Still, what I guess most want is a market where there is plenty of room for both kinds of camera. The Ricoh brand is there waiting ...

[Aristophanes]

My goodness, sir, a bold prediction! I looked at CIPA figures the other day and noticed that for Jan-Jun this year mirrrorless shipments by value are more than twice what they were for the same period in 2014 whereas DSLRs were down by about a fifth. Like any business, I guess the camera companies are going to gravitate to where the growth is in an otherwise contracting market. I'd imagine the outcome of what happens in Asia will be what we get in Europe and North America soon afterwards. Still, what I guess most want is a market where there is plenty of room for both kinds of camera. The Ricoh brand is there waiting ...

I think Nikon, Canon, and Pentax, the core of the mirror industry now, always saw cropped factors as a kludge and mirrorless as a complement to their (eventual) FF dominance.

Now, mirrorless sales are replacing sales. It's pure cannibalization as the ILC market contract. It is stuttering and and halting in progress, but the writing is on the wall. Ricoh/Pentax has no viable mirrorless option. their video is terrible comparatively, a growing sub-filed of both prosumer and Joe Avg. consumer use, and the age old problem of big glass weight is still hampering FF formats, and MF, too.

[timw4mail]

I think Nikon, Canon, and Pentax, the core of the mirror industry now, always saw cropped factors as a kludge and mirrorless as a complement to their (eventual) FF dominance.

Now, mirrorless sales are replacing sales. It's pure cannibalization as the ILC market contract. It is stuttering and and halting in progress, but the writing is on the wall. Ricoh/Pentax has no viable mirrorless option. their video is terrible comparatively, a growing sub-filed of both prosumer and Joe Avg. consumer use, and the age old problem of big glass weight is still hampering FF formats, and MF, too.

Mirrorless is just fancier point-and-shoot until you have mass-market EVFs. I've tried mirrorless, and have been less than impressed.

I don't think full-frame DSLRs will ever really die out, much like film hasn't really died out.

[Fcsnt54]

Mirrorless is just fancier point-and-shoot until you have mass-market EVFs. I've tried mirrorless, and have been less than impressed.

I don't think full-frame DSLRs will ever really die out, much like film hasn't really died out.

So does that mean that a dslr is just a fancy bridge camera?

[monochrome]

No one knows what will sell going forwards. All I'm saying is that if something meets someone's personal goals, then it will sell to them. For all we know, in ten years there may be a market for 2-3 million FF cameras from a couple of outfits and that's all - the rest is smartphones. I'd have thought Aristophanes' key point isn't video particularly, but the implications of taking out "workflow" and PP because for the vast majority of people everything has moved to mobile devices. Output has to be good enough to move straight from camera to 4K or more K, or at least on a monitor, with minimum additional input required unless special effects - colour grading, grunge/retro, lens effects, etc - are wanted. This also means better comms, of course.

In answer to another post, I don't care for marketing materials and very rarely look at them ... because they are marketing materials.

In my view, Ricoh are in a stronger position than many think because they already have a big in with the Theta, if they want to stay in consumer-type devices at retail. Now Ricoh have established a presence it would be easier for them to expand it with other new devices. They've obviously got some clever folks on board who are thinking carefully about a world post conventional box-type cameras. Pentax is the legacy brand, I'd imagine, so they won't be the vehicle for any very advanced new fireworks.

That 360O Theta camera tech is going to be on top of your car, like the shark fin radio antenna, in three years. Your car will interact with all the other cars around it (most of them parked) to create a neural network for advanced decision making using machine vision. Radar-based smart cruise control and emergency braking monitors are already being replaced by cameras in front of the rear-view mirror.

Ricoh Imaging will be just fine. We just have to hope Ricoh allows the optical, electrical and process engineers to throw a bone to Pentax every once in a while.

[mecrox]

That 360O Theta camera tech is going to be on top of your car, like the shark fin radio antenna, in three years. Your car will interact with all the other cars around it (most of them parked) to create a neural network for advanced decision making using machine vision. Radar-based smart cruise control and emergency braking monitors are already being replaced by cameras in front of the rear-view mirror.

Ricoh Imaging will be just fine. We just have to hope Ricoh allows the optical, electrical and process engineers to throw a bone to Pentax every once in a while.

Thanks, I'm sure you are right. Very good points.