Originally posted by falconeye You may realize how much this is true if you jump across APSC right to FourThird. The equivalent Zuiko 35-100/2 sells for $2100, 3x the price. And no, it is not better.
Well, I am with you here. I have been looking into micro 4/3 lately. Idle curiosity, mainly, but it's also been the case that I've been looking at the greener grass over in one neighbor's yard (Canon/Nikon) that I thought perhaps I'd take a break and starting feeling envious about the grass of the folks living in the smaller house on the other side of my yard. These fits come and go. I'm almost over it this time.
Anyway, metaphors aside, I have found myself wondering what the point of micro four-thirds is. Smaller cameras. That seems to sum it up. But they aren't MUCH smaller. They aren't any cheaper, as far as I can tell. And while they may take some really good photos, if the light is cooperative, overall, I don't see how anybody could claim that they take BETTER photos.
But the thing that really gets me is how expensive they are. I thought one of the original claims about four-thirds and then even more so, micro-four-thirds, was that smaller would translate into less expensive. Hasn't happened, as far as I can see.
Quote: You would have to make a map of all available equivalent lens pair combinations to turn this argument into a scientific one. But you get a feeling that, if a FF body is only $200-$400 more expensive, the FF system suddenly becomes the more affordable alternative.
Sorry, Falk, I still think it's a somewhat convoluted calculation. However, for the record, notwithstanding my fairly consistent pooh-poohing of 36x24 in this forum over the last several years, IF AND WHEN a full-frame camera is available new for just $200 more than I paid originally for my current bodies, I'm selling my APS-C gear and going full-frame. IF AND WHEN.
Will