[LensBeginner]

.....i gave in, i hope i dont end up like what i read in the article mentioned above.

At least you're aware of it!

---------- Post added 11-19-14 at 09:59 AM ----------

*snip*

Reasons why I left m4/3.
1. File broke up too early in PP

Ouch! I wouldn't like that...

3. Adapted lenses not really fun due to 2x crop factor. (so basically stuck with native lenses)

Well... unless you do birding...

[pinholecam]

At least you're aware of it!

---------- Post added 11-19-14 at 09:59 AM ----------


Ouch! I wouldn't like that...


Well... unless you do birding...

Birding... mixed bag... imho.
Bird in canopy, stopped lens for a bit more DOF, ISO goes up, EVF gains up, EVF refresh struggles... , add to that a twitchy brid... just not to my taste. (SEA context, so northern hemispheres may differ)
Also, old long lenses tend not to have the performance under the scrutiny of the high pixel densities of smaller sensors.
Not that it cannot be done, but not for me.
Probably good to just get their native 100-300 zoom.

The rest of the stuff, legacy 28mm, 35mm, were too slow aperture after 2x crop factor (might as well just use the 20/1.8)
The fast 50mm are ok, but with the 45/1.8, why bother..
85mm and up, rather longish a working distance. (maybe birds.... maybe... )

[Sinister]

I more or less made the move to M43, coming from a K5 with 10-20, 17-50, 50-135, 50 and 85. Most of the limiteds were in my possession apart from the 35/2.8 and the 31/1.8.

My M43 Kit consists of the EM5, 9mm, 14mm & wide converter (15mm replacement), 25mm, 45mm, the adapted 85mm, 12-50mm and 40-150mm. With the primes I have more DOF control than with my Pentax-Kit, and in general you'd loose just 1/3 step compared to APS-C (correct me if I am wrong!).

From a weight pespective, 3 primes and the EM5 weigh less than the K5 itself. Quality-wise the differences are negible for me, and I started to really appreciate the EVF. As a result, I take much more pictures now.

I am still attached to Pentax. Pentax taught me to take pictures, great lenses and bodies. Hence, I have not yet decided to sell my gear, but currently it sits on the shelf... in the end it comes down to your preferences (EVF vs. OVF, wheight etc.)

[Aegon]

I'd buy it and sell-off what you don't need.

Approximate resale values:
gh2; $380
14-140; $300
100-300; $400
14 2.5; $160
20 1.7; $240
oly: 45 1.8; $230
Total = $1710

Subtract 10% for paypal and shipping and you are left with $1687, which puts $687 in your pocket today.

From a purely economic point of view, you should buy the kit. However, this isn't a "nice" thing to do for a variety of reasons, for example you are acting as a middle man to take profit from the seller and charge more to the buyer without really adding value. You can decide if that means anything to you.

But you might find that you like the µ43 system. The GH2 is a great video camera. If you don't take video, then sell the GH2 and get something with a modern sensor, such as E-PM2, E-PL5, E-PL7, E-M5, E-M10, E-M1, E-P5, GH3, GH4, GX-7, GM1, or the like. Any modern sensor will give you nearly-APS-C quality, IMO.

A lot of people make a big deal comparing 4/3 to APS-C, but I think of it more as a change in aspect ratio. APS-C is wider, but 4/3 is pretty much a 4:3 cutout of the APS-C 3:2. See this picture to illustrate the difference: http://www2.gol.com/users/cjeastwd/temp/apsVS43rds.gif

I quite often prefer 4:3 anyway, so when you crop APS-C you end up with nearly 4/3. The sides don't matter much to me. I personally find that the difference in headroom compared to APS-C isn't that big. There is a difference, but it isn't an obstacle in most cases. The formats are very similar.

Use the O45/1.8 and you'll get better DOF control than most lenses can provide on APS-C. Plus the O45 costs $230, peanuts compared to equivalent lenses. The O45 also focuses extremely quickly, 99% accurately, and has very high IQ. Throw in the 20/1.7 and you have a competent system that costs very little.

Other systems can offer more, but nothing comes close for value. And the "more" you get with other systems tends to be fractionally better with significant tradeoffs in price, weight, size, and loss of focus accuracy.

So I'd suggest you buy it, keep the O45, keep the P20, sell off the rest, and buy a more modern sensor. An E-M5 can be bought for $400 lightly used and is a crazy bargain with good EVF, extremely good 5-Axis IBIS, WR, fast AF, very good sensitivity, etc. etc.

[Capture Lights]

I'd buy it and sell-off what you don't need.

Approximate resale values:
gh2; $380
14-140; $300
100-300; $400
14 2.5; $160
20 1.7; $240
oly: 45 1.8; $230
Total = $1710

Subtract 10% for paypal and shipping and you are left with $1687, which puts $687 in your pocket today.

From a purely economic point of view, you should buy the kit. However, this isn't a "nice" thing to do for a variety of reasons, for example you are acting as a middle man to take profit from the seller and charge more to the buyer without really adding value. You can decide if that means anything to you.

But you might find that you like the µ43 system. The GH2 is a great video camera. If you don't take video, then sell the GH2 and get something with a modern sensor, such as E-PM2, E-PL5, E-PL7, E-M5, E-M10, E-M1, E-P5, GH3, GH4, GX-7, GM1, or the like. Any modern sensor will give you nearly-APS-C quality, IMO.

A lot of people make a big deal comparing 4/3 to APS-C, but I think of it more as a change in aspect ratio. APS-C is wider, but 4/3 is pretty much a 4:3 cutout of the APS-C 3:2. See this picture to illustrate the difference: http://www2.gol.com/users/cjeastwd/temp/apsVS43rds.gif

I quite often prefer 4:3 anyway, so when you crop APS-C you end up with nearly 4/3. The sides don't matter much to me. I personally find that the difference in headroom compared to APS-C isn't that big. There is a difference, but it isn't an obstacle in most cases. The formats are very similar.

Use the O45/1.8 and you'll get better DOF control than most lenses can provide on APS-C. Plus the O45 costs $230, peanuts compared to equivalent lenses. The O45 also focuses extremely quickly, 99% accurately, and has very high IQ. Throw in the 20/1.7 and you have a competent system that costs very little.

Other systems can offer more, but nothing comes close for value. And the "more" you get with other systems tends to be fractionally better with significant tradeoffs in price, weight, size, and loss of focus accuracy.

So I'd suggest you buy it, keep the O45, keep the P20, sell off the rest, and buy a more modern sensor. An E-M5 can be bought for $400 lightly used and is a crazy bargain with good EVF, extremely good 5-Axis IBIS, WR, fast AF, very good sensitivity, etc. etc.

Wow, thanks a bunch for the effort in the reply!
My original thoughts was to keep the rest and sell the 20 1.7 and 45 1.8, but you're suggestions are totally valid and good!

My thoughts are that i want to try out the videos in the M4/3 system, and since the 14-140 and 100-300 provided O.I.S it could be my gateway into shooting video.
And M4/3 provided that 2x crop, the reach ability to 600mm equi could come in handy if my 70-200 were too short at 300mm equi.
Wide angle has always been an problem for M4/3 so i'm keeping the 14mm, and maybe buy an DMW-GFC1 for that fish eye effect (i dont have fisheye on pentax system).

Again, thank you! and everyone's suggestion in this matter!

[Sinister]

Wow, thanks a bunch for the effort in the reply!
My original thoughts was to keep the rest and sell the 20 1.7 and 45 1.8, but you're suggestions are totally valid and good!

My thoughts are that i want to try out the videos in the M4/3 system, and since the 14-140 and 100-300 provided O.I.S it could be my gateway into shooting video.
And M4/3 provided that 2x crop, the reach ability to 600mm equi could come in handy if my 70-200 were too short at 300mm equi.
Wide angle has always been an problem for M4/3 so i'm keeping the 14mm, and maybe buy an DMW-GFC1 for that fish eye effect (i dont have fisheye on pentax system).

Again, thank you! and everyone's suggestion in this matter!

I'd rather go for the Olympus 9mm F8 Fisheye - a hundred bucks and totally worth it Wide angle is supposingly covered excellent by the 9-18mm, which most likely will replace by Sigma 10-20mm. And there is a 7-14mm F2.8 announced!

I totally support Aegon in his judgement regarding the 45mm - a no brainer. The P20 has great colors, but I actually prefer my newly acquired P 25mm F1.4. The MFT-System offers a lot of lens choices

I personally got used to the aspect ratio very quickly....

[Capture Lights]

I'd rather go for the Olympus 9mm F8 Fisheye - a hundred bucks and totally worth it Wide angle is supposingly covered excellent by the 9-18mm, which most likely will replace by Sigma 10-20mm. And there is a 7-14mm F2.8 announced!

I totally support Aegon in his judgement regarding the 45mm - a no brainer. The P20 has great colors, but I actually prefer my newly acquired P 25mm F1.4. The MFT-System offers a lot of lens choices

I personally got used to the aspect ratio very quickly....

The olympus 9-18 and panasonic 7-14 is just to expensive, lol, i would really need to use it alot to justify if purchased.

On the other hand, the 9mm F8 fisheye sounds interesting. but in comparison to 14mm F2.5 + fisheye converter, i would presume that the 14mm will have better performance than the 9mm at F8? the price of the 9mm fisheye and the fisheye converter are very close.

[Sinister]

There is a thread at Mu-43 about wide angle converters and the Panny 14....
Found a good, very cheap, wide converter for the Panasonic 14mm f2.5 lens

I'd rather use the Oly 9mm FE instead of a fisheye converter... But I'd suggest to start with the Panny 14mm and see if you like the M43 system and invest later in a SWW.