[Rondec]

I don't know much about four thirds, but you should definitely compare new (with warranty) prices across systems. To do otherwise doesn't make much sense.

[wildman]

There is a great deal to be said for forgetting...format wars

Because a "format war" sneaks in a unstated, unproven premise: that there is one ideal optimal sensor format for all purposes.
Hypothetical: assume a well designed 1' and APS sensor camera and both taking full advantage of those advantages peculiar to each sensor.
One is not "better" than the other only different.

Logically all anyone who starts a sensor war is saying is: based upon my peculiar needs I have found x sensor best in meeting those needs and everyone else, regardless of their own peculiar needs, should accept my conclusion. "Why do I fell this way?" - because there can only be one ideal sensor format for all purposes and I have found that format based on my own peculiar idiosyncratic needs.

[ChristianRock]

The only 25 f 2.8 Olympus is a 4/3 not m4/3 lens. You continue to show your relative lack of familiarity with this system. The fact that the Olympus costs more than the insanely valued da 35 doesn't make it a premium lens which is what I object to. Used prices (and new Gray market) are quite reasonable and in line with the prices of the m4/3 kit lenses. But you keep cherry picking and trying to justify how "premium " the lens is. It is a fine lens, but not by anyone else's definition premium.

The da 40 is a specious argument. Cross brand pricing doesn't change in brand costs and relative quality. Is Pentax a bargain - yes. What does that have to do with Olympus lenses rankings inside the system? If your point is what's a cheaper lens value that's an entirely different point. But your objection is that this lens is premium and the Pentax isn't. And there you are just plain wrong.

399 dollars for a normal prime and it's not even considered a premium lens? And for a small sensor? That system just sounds worse and worse by the minute!

[UncleVanya]

399 dollars for a normal prime and it's not even a premium lens? And for a small sensor? That system just sounds worse and worse by the minute!

Now that is a rational response. I may disagree, but at least it is a reasonable compliant. The prices recently increased I think to to the yen which I why I suggested looking at used pricing but I agree the prices for m4/3 seem high at times. I personally think the excellent Sigma 19mm or 30mm f2.8 is a more budget friendly lens in that focal length class if buying new. I own the 30 an older Olympus 17mm f2.8 myself. Both of those are image quality equivalent but slower than the 25 f1.8. I wouldn't bother trading up myself at the moment. The cost vs benefit is low.

The reason people may pay more for m4/3 lenses is not a single factor but I think the high quality to size is a large part of it. Also the very modern designs play a role. For super budget use the ease of adapting manual focus film era lenses from nearly everything is a different route that many take to fill in gaps at low cost.

[ChristianRock]

Now that is a rational response. I may disagree, but at least it is a reasonable compliant. The prices recently increased I think to to the yen which I why I suggested looking at used pricing but I agree the prices for m4/3 seem high at times. I personally think the excellent Sigma 19mm or 30mm f2.8 is a more budget friendly lens in that focal length class if buying new. I own the 30 an older Olympus 17mm f2.8 myself. Both of those are image quality equivalent but slower than the 25 f1.8. I wouldn't bother trading up myself at the moment. The cost vs benefit is low.

The reason people may pay more for m4/3 lenses is not a single factor but I think the high quality to size is a large part of it. Also the very modern designs play a role. For super budget use the ease of adapting manual focus film era lenses from nearly everything is a different route that many take to fill in gaps at low cost.

See, the issue here is that you consider a "premium" lens to be so according to the company's marketing speak. I consider that if it's priced like a premium lens, it should be considered one... and that was the intent of my earlier comment, not to discuss marketing BS or semantics... but I digress.

By the way, price increases due to the yen happened to all manufacturers, not just Olympus. Consider that the DA 35 2.4 was actually selling for less than 100 dollars earlier this year...

[mecrox]

Now that is a rational response. I may disagree, but at least it is a reasonable compliant. The prices recently increased I think to to the yen which I why I suggested looking at used pricing but I agree the prices for m4/3 seem high at times. I personally think the excellent Sigma 19mm or 30mm f2.8 is a more budget friendly lens in that focal length class if buying new. I own the 30 an older Olympus 17mm f2.8 myself. Both of those are image quality equivalent but slower than the 25 f1.8. I wouldn't bother trading up myself at the moment. The cost vs benefit is low.

The reason people may pay more for m4/3 lenses is not a single factor but I think the high quality to size is a large part of it. Also the very modern designs play a role. For super budget use the ease of adapting manual focus film era lenses from nearly everything is a different route that many take to fill in gaps at low cost.

There isn't that much correlation between format and the price of a lens from M43 to FF, imho. Maybe MF is different - I don't know.

Some lenses (or brands) benefit from huge advantages of scale while others position themselves as offering superior quality and build for superior prices. Cross comparisons are pretty difficult sometimes. One has to decide what one wants from a whole _system_ and the compromises one is prepared to make. Many folks simply don't want big cameras and lenses. Even if they could put up with the physical problems which ensue or the hassles with airline carry-on regulations and the like, and of course with the expense, they don't print large or even much at all so big high-res sensors are of very limited use to them. But, often, they do want quality. Outfits like M43 or Fuji have gotten adept at delivering it across a range of price points.

Where I live the Oly 25mm is about the same price as a DA 40mm and thus quite a lot less than the other DA prime lenses (the 40mm is the cheapest one). That's a full but still fair price, in my view. I am getting a well-made modern design, sharp wide open, with a fast focus motor. I suspect that a newly designed DA 40mm with those specs would cost quite a lot more, in fact is certain to as we'll see when Pentax release new DFA prime lenses for the K1 in 2017. They are unlikely to cost around 300-320 bucks which is what the Oly 25mm/DA40mm go for here. My guess would be twice that or more.

It's all relative. If a very costly lens delivers the goods for someone then it is doing its job and may offer exceptional value so far as they are concerned. Olympus offer a 300mm prime lens for around 2500 bucks. It is extremely well made by all accounts, offers exceptional image quality and is fully weather sealed. That's quite a cheap lens, in fact - when you compare it to 600mm equivalent prime lenses of a similar build quality on other systems.

Just bear in mind that these days award-winning images can be taken a Go Pro. That puts into some perspective all the nonsense in the camera industry trying to talk people up into spending $$$ on big-sensor bazookas they just don't need.

[reh321]

Because a "format war" sneaks in a unstated, unproven premise: that there is one ideal optimal sensor format for all purposes.
Hypothetical: assume a well designed 1' and APS sensor camera and both taking full advantage of those advantages peculiar to each sensor.
One is not "better" than the other only different.

There is a group which believes that there is a very definite direct connection between sensor area and Image Quality; I don't quite understand their argument, and don't buy it, but I am aware of it.

[wildman]

there is a very definite direct connection between sensor area and Image Quality

As an abstract general statement and speaking narrowly of only image "quality" I believe that also but in the practical real world all else (all else that does not concern IQ) is not and never will be equal and there's the rub.

In any case IQ is not the only quality that defines a suitable camera for any given purpose.

[UncleVanya]

There isn't that much correlation between format and the price of a lens from M43 to FF, imho. Maybe MF is different - I don't know.

Some lenses (or brands) benefit from huge advantages of scale while others position themselves as offering superior quality and build for superior prices. Cross comparisons are pretty difficult sometimes. One has to decide what one wants from a whole _system_ and the compromises one is prepared to make. Many folks simply don't want big cameras and lenses. Even if they could put up with the physical problems which ensue or the hassles with airline carry-on regulations and the like, and of course with the expense, they don't print large or even much at all so big high-res sensors are of very limited use to them. But, often, they do want quality. Outfits like M43 or Fuji have gotten adept at delivering it across a range of price points.

Where I live the Oly 25mm is about the same price as a DA 40mm and thus quite a lot less than the other DA prime lenses (the 40mm is the cheapest one). That's a full but still fair price, in my view. I am getting a well-made modern design, sharp wide open, with a fast focus motor. I suspect that a newly designed DA 40mm with those specs would cost quite a lot more, in fact is certain to as we'll see when Pentax release new DFA prime lenses for the K1 in 2017. They are unlikely to cost around 300-320 bucks which is what the Oly 25mm/DA40mm go for here. My guess would be twice that or more.

It's all relative. If a very costly lens delivers the goods for someone then it is doing its job and may offer exceptional value so far as they are concerned. Olympus offer a 300mm prime lens for around 2500 bucks. It is extremely well made by all accounts, offers exceptional image quality and is fully weather sealed. That's quite a cheap lens, in fact - when you compare it to 600mm equivalent prime lenses of a similar build quality on other systems.

Just bear in mind that these days award-winning images can be taken a Go Pro. That puts into some perspective all the nonsense in the camera industry trying to talk people up into spending $$$ on big-sensor bazookas they just don't need.

Exactly...

---------- Post added 10-24-16 at 02:16 PM ----------

See, the issue here is that you consider a "premium" lens to be so according to the company's marketing speak. I consider that if it's priced like a premium lens, it should be considered one... and that was the intent of my earlier comment, not to discuss marketing BS or semantics... but I digress.

By the way, price increases due to the yen happened to all manufacturers, not just Olympus. Consider that the DA 35 2.4 was actually selling for less than 100 dollars earlier this year...

You have already demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of Micro 4/3 with your 25 mm f/2.8 comments. Why do you continue? As for the DA 35 price - I do not recall it ever being routinely below 100 - but I may have missed it. The other lenses in the Pentax line up don't seem to have gone up but again I pay far more attention to used prices since kit bundling and other means often increase the supply of lenses in the wild. In any case I have moved you to the ignore state at this point. Have a nice life.

[ChristianRock]

Exactly...

---------- Post added 10-24-16 at 02:16 PM ----------



You have already demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of Micro 4/3 with your 25 mm f/2.8 comments. Why do you continue?

I made a mistake and went from memory, it's Panasonic that has the 25mm affordable lens (US$247 dollars), so yes I should have checked before I posted. Still, who died and made you king around here to tell who can and who can't post in a thread that isn't even yours?

As for the DA 35 price - I do not recall it ever being routinely below 100 - but I may have missed it.

It hovered around 100-120 dollars for several months and dropped below 100 dollars at one point.

[UncleVanya]

So yeah. I'm on the fence as far as joining the m43 camp or staying with Pentax. I love Pentax quite a lot, but I also really love the Olympus m43 system. I can't really afford to keep both of them. I'd would unload all my Pentax gear if I jump ship. That would be my 2 K-50 bodies with their respective accessories, 4 lenses, flash, & the wireless remote. It's not much, but given the performance that I'd get out of the E-M1, it would seem kind of pointless to keep my Pentax gear & would rather use the money towards additional Olympus lenses.

On the other hand, I'm still waiting for info on the upcoming Pentax APS-C flagship. I'm now dead set on getting that versus a K-3II if I stay with Pentax. I'm pretty sure that it's gonna be a pretty awesome camera & the IQ is going to be much better than what I can get out of the Olympus.

But yeah. The ability to go a bit lighter & fit more lenses in my bag along with very good IQ with the Olympus m43 system is kind of tempting. Not to mention that I can share & swap lenses with my younger brother. I also know that I give up something for something else like DOF, high ISO IQ, & related. That's something I can deal with. I'd also be on the "cheap" end of it by getting the OMD E-M1 now when it's about to be phased out by the Mark II & then getting the OMD E-M1 Mark II later on when it's being phased out by the following Olympus m43 flagship. Hmmm........

First I own a pair of K-3's and something like 19 autofocus lenses of quality. I also own a GX-1 and some low end m43 stuff. Why? Because I like the size and the IQ isn't bad. I originally dabbled in the m43 world as a result of a trade. A user on PF wanted a K-50 and was not loving the experience of the GX-7. We traded and I picked up some more gear along the way and I ended up with 5 lenses and the body ultimately. My dad who is in his late 70's was struggling to take the K-3 anywhere. He has health issues and the bulk of the gear was the main issue - with a walker or cane it was too hard to lug around a bag full of lenses. So we traded. He got my GX-7 and my five lenses and I got a K-3, a 12-24, my 50-135 back, his DA 70, etc.

Fast forward a few months. Dad has taken to the camera like a fish to water. He likes the wifi control mode and the ability to move the pictures to his phone if he wants. He loves the size. He bought a 35-100 f/2.8 and adores using it. He recently traded out some nice Olympus film era gear and got a 20mm f/1.7 which he likes better than the Olympus 17mm f/2.8 he had been using. In short it is a hit. Recently I couldn't take it because he calls me for advice on his camera and lenses so I grabbed a GX-1 with the VF2 viewfinder. He also had a number of lenses he did not use much (he is a lens snob) and sent them back to me. So now for very little invested (then and now combined) I have a GX-1 16mp camera and a few lenses.

My overall advice to you is to NOT jump in but to grab maybe something like that. The GX-1's on ebay often can be found for $100 or so and I'm sure equivalent Olympus options exist as well. Grab one and a few inexpensive lenses and give yourself a test to see if this is what you want.

In the end you don't have a ton invested in Pentax so switching isn't irrational, but be sure the grass is greener before you jump ship.

[surfar]

I have a GX-1 16mp camera and a few lenses.

YES

My overall advice to you is to NOT jump in but to grab maybe something like that. The GX-1's on ebay often can be found for $100 or so and I'm sure equivalent Olympus options exist as well. Grab one

YES

In the end you don't have a ton invested in Pentax so switching isn't irrational, but be sure the grass is greener before you jump ship.

YES


And the grass isn't greener, but just a bit longer(2x crop)

[UncleVanya]

And the grass isn't greener, but just a bit longer(2x crop)

Good point.

One more thing. Even for an old film hand like myself it was hard getting my head wrapped around the fact that I had gotten used to certain lens focal lengths acting a particular way. When I conceptualized the reach of the system I used the 2x crop but my brain thought about it as APSC. So I would see 200mm equivalent and think wow that's a lot of reach - not really thinking about the fact the 200mm I was thinking of was itself a 300mm equivalent. The same applied to the wider lenses. A 17 is a 34 but that's a lot wider than my 31 on my APSC K-3.

The conceptual basis of full frame works for comparison but mental gymnastics are sometimes needed to remind myself which frame of reference I'm thinking about at any given time.

[reh321]

As an abstract general statement and speaking narrowly of only image "quality" I believe that also but in the practical real world all else (all else that does not concern IQ) is not and never will be equal and there's the rub.

In any case IQ is not the only quality that defines a suitable camera for any given purpose.

Note that the post you were responding to began with the words "There is a group that believes". I never said that I agreed with them nor that I disagree with you.

[wildman]

I never said that I agreed with them nor that I disagree with you.

Fair enough - I misunderstood.