Originally posted by Ivan Why did you decide that Olympus would be visually worse?
I never made any such decision. In comparing the Oly 300 to the DA* 300, I said it was a matter of personal preference which one the individual preferred and left it at that. But I would say this: in comparing m43 in general with say, Pentax APS-C, through the years I've consistently gotten better results — better results aesthetically — with the Pentax than with the m43 stuff. And this is further verified by which images sell: my m43 stuff just doesn't sell at anywhere the same rate as my Pentax stuff. And it's not necessarily because I'm taking better images, from composition or content standpoint, with my Pentax, because I've won just as many awards with my m43 images. But people who buy my images online clearly prefer my Pentax stuff, I think that says something.
Originally posted by Ivan when the guys were calculating the 4/3 system from scratch, apparently drinking heavily and a lot of alcohol, or smoking grass, did not understand that they had created an unviable system.
It's not necessarily an unviable system; the issue with Olympus is that they're trying to complete with larger sensor systems on those larger system's terms, rather than trying leverage the advantages of m43 (which is overall size and weight). Which is why some of us have criticized some of the bigger Oly lenses. I can only justify using m43 on grounds of smaller size and weight. But if I'm forced to shoot with lenses just as heavier as with my APS-C and FF gear, it doesn't make any sense to me, because I'll tend to get better images with the larger formats.
Originally posted by Ivan The DFA150-450 contains 18 elements in 14 groups, so I'm not sure what this remark is intending to imply. I judge lenses by the images they produce, not by how much glass they have in them. Now I have looked at literally thousands of images taken and posted on flickr with the Oly 300, the Lumix 100-400, and the DFA 150-450, and the images from the Pentax too my eyes just looked better, and it really wasn't that close.
Photography, like life itself, is about trade-offs, and so even though I saw better images with the DFA150-450, I've decided, as my wildlife solution, to go with this new Oly 100-400, because I think it's significantly lighter, features better stabilization, and will therefore work better for hand-held wild-life photography than the Pentax behemoth. But I'm not going to lie to myself and say I'm going to get just as good images out of the Oly lens as I would from the Pentax. I'm giving up some image quality to get something that will provide a more comfortable and better shooting experience.
Apparently, I'm not the only one that thinks this way, because the Oly 100-400 has been sold out almost since it was released last September, and now word has come out that the Oly 150-400 is going to be delayed because of unexpectedly strong demand for it. Making wildlife lenses (and compact travel lenses like 12-45/4) is something Olympus should've been doing at least since the release of the E-M5, because such lenses play to the strength of the system (smaller size, less weight), while many other pro lenses (e.g., 1.2 primes and 2.8 zooms) just don't.