[vinzer]

How is it equivalent to 300/4? FOV is 300 but the f/4... DOF?

Yeah, I think it is equivalent in DOF, aside from focal length. It's a constant point of contention in 4/3 forums, or at least in DPReview's Olympus SLR Talk it is. Here's a write-up about it.

[soccerjoe5]

ah yeah, DOF-wise yeah but still having an f/2 lens with that FOV is still awesome. that's great light-gathering power at a smaller package, plus it's super sharp til the corners and sealed.

i like the oly zooms.

[er1kksen]

I'm more interested in the shutter speeds involved than the dof, so no, f2 is f2 regardless of format.

But if you want to play that game, which could be justified by the idea that a FF body would have 2 stops less noise and allow you to use a higher ISO to get the same shutter speed with the same noise levels; the current 300mm f4 available from Nikon weighs about 5 pounds and looks quite long (and doesn't even have VR, whereas the Oly 150 does on almost any Oly body) and the Canon equivalent (which does have IS) is 12 inches long and weighs 2 pounds. The Oly is 7 inches long and one and a half pounds. While they are cheaper than the Oly, they are certainly not smaller, and while they are undoubtedly very high-performing lenses, the Oly 150 recieves accolades from every lens test site I've ever seen it tested on, not to mention its actual users. And let's not forget that it's weathersealed, while who knows if the Nikon or Canon are? The 300mm f4 lenses are, however, cheaper. This is offset by the high cost of FF bodies. As far as I'm concerned, the Oly demonstrates a clear reduction in size in this comparison whether comparing to 300mm f2 (a theoretical lens) or 300mm f4.

The Oly 150mm is the kind of lens that would make me want to run two systems. That and maybe the 7-14, if we never get a K-mount version of the 11-16. If only they'd shoehorn an E-3 into an E-620 sized body... not that I'd have the money to buy anyways.

[lol101]

I'm more interested in the shutter speeds involved than the dof, so no, f2 is f2 regardless of format.

But if you want to play that game, which could be justified by the idea that a FF body would have 2 stops less noise and allow you to use a higher ISO to get the same shutter speed with the same noise levels; the current 300mm f4 available from Nikon weighs about 5 pounds and looks quite long (and doesn't even have VR, whereas the Oly 150 does on almost any Oly body) and the Canon equivalent (which does have IS) is 12 inches long and weighs 2 pounds. The Oly is 7 inches long and one and a half pounds. While they are cheaper than the Oly, they are certainly not smaller, and while they are undoubtedly very high-performing lenses, the Oly 150 recieves accolades from every lens test site I've ever seen it tested on, not to mention its actual users. And let's not forget that it's weathersealed, while who knows if the Nikon or Canon are? The 300mm f4 lenses are, however, cheaper. This is offset by the high cost of FF bodies. As far as I'm concerned, the Oly demonstrates a clear reduction in size in this comparison whether comparing to 300mm f2 (a theoretical lens) or 300mm f4.

The Oly 150mm is the kind of lens that would make me want to run two systems. That and maybe the 7-14, if we never get a K-mount version of the 11-16. If only they'd shoehorn an E-3 into an E-620 sized body... not that I'd have the money to buy anyways.

You're welcome to get those high shutter speeds by buying large aperture lenses (without even getting the same DoF control) but I'd prefer to use higher ISO and keep the DoF control... to each its own I guess.

Small sensors with large aperture lenses or big sensors with moderate aperture lenses... the overall bulk and price looks about the same to me (I bought a 5D last year for the same amount of money as an E-3 would have cost me and my 70-200f4 surely have cost me much less than a 35-100f2 would have) but I can't clearly see any advantage of 4/3 vs FF since I can't spot one thing a 4/3 can do and a FF can't...

[vinzer]

I'm more interested in the shutter speeds involved than the dof, so no, f2 is f2 regardless of format.

But if you want to play that game, which could be justified by the idea that a FF body would have 2 stops less noise and allow you to use a higher ISO to get the same shutter speed with the same noise levels; the current 300mm f4 available from Nikon weighs about 5 pounds and looks quite long (and doesn't even have VR, whereas the Oly 150 does on almost any Oly body) and the Canon equivalent (which does have IS) is 12 inches long and weighs 2 pounds. The Oly is 7 inches long and one and a half pounds. While they are cheaper than the Oly, they are certainly not smaller, and while they are undoubtedly very high-performing lenses, the Oly 150 recieves accolades from every lens test site I've ever seen it tested on, not to mention its actual users. And let's not forget that it's weathersealed, while who knows if the Nikon or Canon are? The 300mm f4 lenses are, however, cheaper. This is offset by the high cost of FF bodies. As far as I'm concerned, the Oly demonstrates a clear reduction in size in this comparison whether comparing to 300mm f2 (a theoretical lens) or 300mm f4.

The Oly 150mm is the kind of lens that would make me want to run two systems. That and maybe the 7-14, if we never get a K-mount version of the 11-16. If only they'd shoehorn an E-3 into an E-620 sized body... not that I'd have the money to buy anyways.

True, it's really more down to one's shooting preferences. As you said, light transmission is still f/2 any which way you look at it. I don't see why there are detractors and fanboys making 150-post threads in DPReview with most of the posts forcing one to adopt the preference of another, when there really is no one correct answer in approaching a shot. You value light gathering ability, lol101 values DOF control better, and both are valid reasons for choosing one over the other.

I suspect a lot of conflicts in this world, big and small, can be avoided if only people could respect each other's choices, as long as it doesn't trod on other people's rights.

Personally, I really don't need razor-thin DOF, so I tend to gravitate towards light-gathering ability more, though not at the price Olympus wants for their f/2 lenses, wonderful as they may be. If I went Olympus, I'd probably be happy with a 12-60 and 50-200 kit.

[soccerjoe5]

Killer combo > 12-60 + 50-200. You've got 24-400mm FOV with apertures of 2.8-3.5/4.0. REALLY fast AF and sharp til the edges.

[er1kksen]

True, it's really more down to one's shooting preferences. As you said, light transmission is still f/2 any which way you look at it. I don't see why there are detractors and fanboys making 150-post threads in DPReview with most of the posts forcing one to adopt the preference of another, when there really is no one correct answer in approaching a shot. You value light gathering ability, lol101 values DOF control better, and both are valid reasons for choosing one over the other.

I suspect a lot of conflicts in this world, big and small, can be avoided if only people could respect each other's choices, as long as it doesn't trod on other people's rights.

Personally, I really don't need razor-thin DOF, so I tend to gravitate towards light-gathering ability more, though not at the price Olympus wants for their f/2 lenses, wonderful as they may be. If I went Olympus, I'd probably be happy with a 12-60 and 50-200 kit.

I have no interest in trodding on the rights of others, I just get irritated when one or another poster just dismisses the validity of something (such as the 4/3 system or the advantages it offers to some shooters) based on their personal preferences. Yes, lol101 may prefer the dof control, and that's just fine, but that doesn't negate the fact that on the lens front, 4/3 has indeed delivered on the "smaller" promise in many ways. I could also bring up the fact that Olympus lenses are designed to be as close to telecentric as possible, which is pretty much standard for teles but for wider lenses, well, the newest 24-70 f2.8 for Nikon was designed with telecentricity in mind and it shows in the fact that it's much larger than some other 24-70 f2.8 designs, some of which aren't much bigger than a digital standard zoom. Oly's commitment to telecentricity results in their lenses being a little larger than they might otherwise be, but it shows in the image quality.

One thing 4/3 can offer that FF can't? Let's try finding something equivalent to the 7-14 on the E-620... closest I can think of in cost is the old Canon 5D with the newer Nikon 14-24 attached via adapter, which will still be about twice as costly, not to mention very bulky and it loses the full functionality of the lens. If you want to keep lens functionality, the D700 is the lowest you can go, and that brings the price way up... not to mention being relatively huge. Then again, you get a much nicer viewfinder and better AF (inasmuch as that's necessary with an ultrawide), a more rugged body, high ISO capability, etc. Tradeoffs-- they're all over the place, but you can't dismiss the validity of the 4/3 choice there.

If someone showed up and started saying that FF had absolutely no advantages and that its basic premises for existence were flawed, I would argue with them too. Or APS-C. Hell, there are advantages to compacts. Your choice is your choice, but it's not grounds to condemn the other options.

[vinzer]

You're welcome to get those high shutter speeds by buying large aperture lenses (without even getting the same DoF control) but I'd prefer to use higher ISO and keep the DoF control... to each its own I guess.

Small sensors with large aperture lenses or big sensors with moderate aperture lenses... the overall bulk and price looks about the same to me (I bought a 5D last year for the same amount of money as an E-3 would have cost me and my 70-200f4 surely have cost me much less than a 35-100f2 would have) but I can't clearly see any advantage of 4/3 vs FF since I can't spot one thing a 4/3 can do and a FF can't...

If one is geared more towards telephoto shooting, I see the advantage with their consumer telephoto lenses, but not so much with their high-grade and pro lenses. One Olympus forum regular suggested that maybe Olympus over-engineers their lenses to make them perform wonderfully across all apertures and focal lengths. Someone found a hack for one of their lenses (not sure if it's the 12-60 or 14-54) that makes said lens work with a larger max aperture, though of course the lens exhibited the usual problems people found with other 2.8 zooms, which is the basis of the conspiracy theory. If true, then Olympus isn't doing itself any favors with regards to placing the 4/3 system as the system of choice for people who want a more portable DSLR system.

They seem to get it right with their upcoming m4/3 camera, though (image from 43rumors.com):


It is my hope that there would be an EVF add-on accessory since I'm really used to the DSLR way of doing things, i.e. looking through the viewfinder and seeing for the most part the resulting framing of the image at the focal length I'm using.

[vinzer]

I have no interest in trodding on the rights of others, I just get irritated when one or another poster just dismisses the validity of something (such as the 4/3 system or the advantages it offers to some shooters) based on their personal preferences. Yes, lol101 may prefer the dof control, and that's just fine, but that doesn't negate the fact that on the lens front, 4/3 has indeed delivered on the "smaller" promise in many ways. I could also bring up the fact that Olympus lenses are designed to be as close to telecentric as possible, which is pretty much standard for teles but for wider lenses, well, the newest 24-70 f2.8 for Nikon was designed with telecentricity in mind and it shows in the fact that it's much larger than some other 24-70 f2.8 designs, some of which aren't much bigger than a digital standard zoom. Oly's commitment to telecentricity results in their lenses being a little larger than they might otherwise be, but it shows in the image quality.

Just to be clear, I never implied that you trod on other people's rights (nothing in your posts can even be misconstrued as such). It's my general take on the flame wars going on at Oly forums.

By and large, the Olympus system is perfectly capable of performing at my admittedly modest, hobbyist level of photography, and I do feel that only their sensor (not the size, but the quality) brings them down. I'm sure that if someone else developed the sensor they're using (say, Sony), then Olympus cameras could be closer to D90/300 output than people make them to be now. I have no problem with the lenses, as I have the utmost respect for their zooms, which I feel are among the best, if not *the* best.

[vinzer]

Killer combo > 12-60 + 50-200. You've got 24-400mm FOV with apertures of 2.8-3.5/4.0. REALLY fast AF and sharp til the edges.

That 12-60 is something I wish had an equivalent in Pentax's system (that would be a 16-80 for us APS-C users, and weather-sealed to boot). I'm currently hacking with a Tamron 17-50, and while I got a very good copy of the lens, there are times when I wish I had gone with the Sigma 17-70 for the extra reach, instead, and makes me think twice about saving for the DA* 16-50. A sealed Pentax 17-70/4, at a price lower than the 16-50, would be tempting for me.

I suddenly realized that Sony has a Zeiss 16-80 specifically for their APS-C cameras.

[mattdm]

Hah, they have people in their forums whining about it not being full-frame too. Cracks me up.

[Rondec]

It is quite ironic that there are dualing four thirds and full frame threads going on concurrently. It just shows that there is no specific camera that will meet everyone's needs. Each system offers certain strengths and certain weaknesses. The grass may be greener on the other side of the fence, but I wonder what his water bill is?

[johnmflores]

Has any other camera had a kevlar/carbon fiber composite shutter?

IIRC, carbon fiber has electrical properties that aren't compatible with sophisticated electronic equipment.

Are these unsubstantiated rumors?

[Pentaxor]

why would I spend a couple of hundred bucks for features that I don't really intend to use at all or most times?

if the K-7 has already the features which satisfies the taste and needs of customers for a decent price, what is the sense of paying more money for the sake of buying a camera (with almost identical features) because of it's brand name and features that aren't even practical?

caviar on a plate versus caviar on a plate with a name tag?

I don't want to shoot the other brands for their features, but the Kevlar/carbon fibre body composite is somewhat ridiculous. is extra bucks for extra body armor/protection worth it? KEVLAR? are you serious? like as if you are going to shoot your camera with a pistol or strike it with a knife?

maybe they made it ideal for places like IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, etc... if that's so, they might as well offered to sell or give for free a KEVLAR body armor for the photographer. it doesn't make any sense if the camera survives but not the photographer. lol

anyway, FWIW, basing from the features that the competition has offered, I dont see them competiting for the same price as the Pentax K-7 as that would be illogical. I'm sure that those added features cost a lot to build and the materials are expensive as well. my estimate for those cameras would be around 2.5K and up.

even if they'll bring it down to 2k, I still wouldn't buy it. the Pentax lenses got me all sold-out.

[GaryM]

It is quite ironic that there are dualing four thirds and full frame threads going on concurrently. It just shows that there is no specific camera that will meet everyone's needs. Each system offers certain strengths and certain weaknesses. The grass may be greener on the other side of the fence, but I wonder what his water bill is?

We want bigger, more powerful cameras. We want smaller, easier to carry cameras. We like buying new toys. I think that photographers just like changing up their gear from time to time, to stimulate creativity and new approaches. But this sure makes it an expensive passtime if you're not a paid professional.