Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-13-2020, 05:36 PM - 1 Like   #3436
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 37
I've been shooting with a g9. I was initially attracted do to the video features and also the inexpensive lenses available for it. I will say even though a great camera. It's a pretty big body for m43. I realized most of the weight savings is in the lenses and not the bodies.

I've heard some argue that there is no advantage body wise to apsc or full frame.

My favorite is pre boost capture. The camera will fire off pictures while I'm focusing. This helps so you do not miss the shot.

S

12-14-2020, 02:55 AM   #3437
Pentaxian
Ivan's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Moscow
Posts: 627
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
It's really more about trade-offs than saying one is better than the other. I've always believed that the Oly 300 was one of the pro lenses that made sense for the system, despite it's weight and cost. The top m43 lenses are intentionally made sharper to try to make up for the smaller sensor size, so the Oly pro lenses (and the earlier SHG lenses for the 4/3rds system) are among the sharpest lenses on the market; but to make these lenses sharp, especially wide-open, Oly had to pack them with lots of glass and so they became large and rather heavy (that's particularly the case with Oly f1.2 primes). Now I would not be all that surprised if Oly 300, when shot on a 4/3rds sensor, will capture more detail than the DA* 300 when shot on an APS-C sensor. Does that make the Oly better? No, because there's more to image quality than just detail captured. There's also how the detail is rendered. The DA* 300 renders detail in way that's very natural looking and that works very well at large print sizes. I have images taken with the DA* 300 on a 16 MP APS-C sensor that have been used as floor to ceiling murals in restaurants and even on an electronic billboard, and they look great.



I regard the idea that camera gear that's only 12 years old is somehow "outdated" is itself outdated. The camera and lens industry has probably maxed out what can be done in terms of sensor and lens performance (at least on technical grounds), so denigrating any piece of gear because it's considered "old" is no more rational than denigrating something on the grounds that it is new. Rational judgment uses a pragmatic yard stick: does this piece of gear, regardless of how old or new it is, satisfy what I'm aiming for? The Oly 300/4 aims for technical excellence. It's a high-performance lens. The DA* 300 aims for aesthetic excellence. It's an "art" lens. Everyone can choose what they prefer, but neither is absolutely better than the other.
We agreed to taste. I don't know if this will sound right. Beautiful is not beautiful. Why did you decide that Olympus would be visually worse? Are there comparison photos in RAW? And how will the assessment be given? Many are delighted with the 5-7 petal diaphragm (seven is still good), and I get covered with a nervous rash at the sight of bolts and nuts. The same situation with bokeh. Olympus was the first to mass-produce lenses that worked well with open apertures. I emphasize that we are not talking about single samples, but about mass production. In part, this measure is forced, since there is no margin for sensitivity, but the form factor itself dictates the depth of field and so sufficient, values ​​greater than 5.6 are essentially unnecessary. If we look at what is happening now, you will see that all the leading manufacturers have come to the same thing. With a few exceptions. Even cheap lenses work open. The only difference is that they provide good resolution up to f11-16. Since the full-frame sensor requires it. And what do we see? Fix 50mm weighs almost a kilogram. And it costs money. But let's leave the Olympus, 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.
What the resource we all trust says about sharpness is https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-hd-d-fa-150-450mm-f45-f56/sharpness.html
I gave examples above. Why are the lenses of direct competitors more complicated, heavier, more expensive? When I see a lightweight cheap lens, I get alarmed because I understand that something is wrong, a simple circuit, the lenses are plastic, the body is made of renewable materials, or both? 300mm was obsolete at the time of release. I'm really not happy that I started this conversation, I have to read and wet, nothing depends on my voice, with the persecution that I observe. If the office gurgles, what it has done will be enough for a long time. If I have to explain that wandering around the city at night with a micro is a pleasure. How is she making noise !? For all the time, since 2015, I only once ran into a person who also noted that handheld night photography is very convenient. Or the fact that you don't need to close more than f5.6, and if you close, you should know exactly why ... Such simple things ... In this situation, the micra is doomed.
12-14-2020, 05:24 AM - 1 Like   #3438
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Northern Michigan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,155
QuoteOriginally posted by Ivan Quote
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.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ivan Quote
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.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ivan Quote
What the resource we all trust says about sharpness is HD Pentax-D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 Review - Sharpness | PentaxForums.com Reviews
I gave examples above. Why are the lenses of direct competitors more complicated, heavier, more expensive?
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.
12-14-2020, 08:09 AM   #3439
Pentaxian
Ivan's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Moscow
Posts: 627
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
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.



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.



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.
What is more popular is not a quality criterion. If your business is successful with Pentax, great, but no more. By referring to the DFA 150-450, I wanted to point out that sharpness is important for more than just me. Quote pentaxforums reviews - 'Sharpness, or the ability to resolve small details, is an important measure of the performance of a lens. Sharp images let the viewer concentrate on the composition, color and light. On the other hand, soft images (except when looking that way on purpose) distract the viewer and decrease the perceived quality of the picture''. I remain on the fact that if we compare products of similar quality, then the Olympus even has a professional line that is lighter and cheaper. They slipped me a lens that resembles the behavior, pattern and layout of lenses from the last century. Considering all of the above, there is no point in continuing, those who want to figure it out will figure it out for themselves. But this unpleasant discussion has a positive side. I want to buy myself a 36mm mirrorless camera, I had two options, and after learning more about the new telephoto lenses, I seem to have decided. So thanks.

12-14-2020, 08:52 AM - 1 Like   #3440
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Patrick Co. Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,531
I looked into the M43 telephotos earlier this year but decided that my old manual 400mm/5.6 vivitar with an m43 adapter did the trick for so much less money that I couldn't justify the cost, and the weight/size issues put me off too. I have also had decent closer in results at the bird feeder using the 40-150mm olympus zoom and digital crop in the omd e-m5ii. Have to see if I can scare up some shots to share from the "Big Kahuna" setup when I get time.
12-18-2020, 06:43 PM - 5 Likes   #3441
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,722
Winter birding around sunset in a local park. Pana g95 and pana leica 100-400, jpegs from the camera with some cropping. First time I'm using this camera with warmer gloves and it handles well.




12-19-2020, 05:16 PM - 2 Likes   #3442
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,722
Again g95 and 100-400, no birds to be found this time






12-19-2020, 09:27 PM - 2 Likes   #3443
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Seattle
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,751
12-19-2020, 09:33 PM - 1 Like   #3444
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Mbaez's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: NY
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,726
QuoteOriginally posted by aaacb Quote
Winter birding around sunset in a local park. Pana g95 and pana leica 100-400, jpegs from the camera with some cropping. First time I'm using this camera with warmer gloves and it handles well.



Great details in your pictures, congrats!
I always wondered about the quality of that lens, I have the 100-300 but it isn't that sharp.
12-20-2020, 12:27 AM - 1 Like   #3445
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Toledo, OR
Posts: 851
QuoteOriginally posted by aaacb Quote
Again g95 and 100-400, no birds to be found this time



I really miss snow.
12-20-2020, 05:44 AM - 1 Like   #3446
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,722
QuoteOriginally posted by Mbaez Quote
I always wondered about the quality of that lens,
Thanks! I like this lens, can't compare it with anything similar but I'm happy with how it works and handles. I got mine used, seems to be quite common.
12-20-2020, 07:09 AM   #3447
Pentaxian
jschoonj's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Leuven
Posts: 620


Olympus OM-D E-M1 III
M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO
SOOC JPEG
12-21-2020, 04:19 PM - 6 Likes   #3448
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Clarkey's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brampton, ON, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,456
Processing some older pictures. I used to travel to Montreal at least 2-3 times per year for fun and work.


Winter light, Beaconsfield waterfront
by Aaron, on Flickr


St. Lawrence, near the Lachine rapids
by Aaron, on Flickr
12-21-2020, 09:50 PM   #3449
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,183
QuoteOriginally posted by Clarkey Quote
Processing some older pictures. I used to travel to Montreal at least 2-3 times per year for fun and work.


Winter light, Beaconsfield waterfront
by Aaron, on Flickr


St. Lawrence, near the Lachine rapids
by Aaron, on Flickr
The buoy shot is really nice.
12-22-2020, 09:44 AM   #3450
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Clarkey's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brampton, ON, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,456
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
The buoy shot is really nice.
Thank you very much!
Reply
« Fuji X series club | - »

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
20mm, aaron, andrew, camera, communities, couple, dec, e-p5, eddie, equiv, filter, flickr, flores, focus, gear, ii, john, lens, lenses, m43, macro, oct, olympus, omd, panasonic, pentax, pm, post, smith, version
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
comparing adapters for Micro Four Thirds (MFT) rparmar Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 25 08-09-2011 10:01 PM
Kr/Kx or Micro Four Thirds snowfreak Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 16 07-18-2011 01:12 PM
Leica 25mm f/1.4 for Micro Four Thirds jct us101 Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 3 06-13-2011 05:46 AM
Pentax seriously considering joining Micro Four Thirds? iht Pentax News and Rumors 2 04-30-2010 11:49 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:27 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top