Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
See my post on the G100 thread.Why the G100? What exactly the G100 has over say a GX9 for stills?
I don't see it.
- Ricardo
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
See my post on the G100 thread.Why the G100? What exactly the G100 has over say a GX9 for stills?
I don't see it.
- Ricardo
There are often times when I also want greater DOF at moderate apertures and when I do, it is usually a mFT camera that I take along. :thumbup:I always find the comparisons between sensor sizes a bit problematic, but .. here we go .
I like images with a lot of depth-of-field. In order to get the same DOF with my M1.3 and my Z 7, I need to close the aperture of the Z 7 lens by two stops more, which negates the 2-stop advantage of the full-frame cameras as my ISO for a given shutter speed must also increase by 2 stops.
Which is one of the reasons why a small MFT camera with the fantastic PL 45mm f/2.8 Macro is almost always in my bag.I always find the comparisons between sensor sizes a bit problematic, but .. here we go .
I like images with a lot of depth-of-field. In order to get the same DOF with my M1.3 and my Z 7, I need to close the aperture of the Z 7 lens by two stops more, which negates the 2-stop advantage of the full-frame cameras as my ISO for a given shutter speed must also increase by 2 stops.
Sure, if you're willing to overlook the fact that the Nikon is a f/4-6.3 lens while the Olympus is f/4 constant aperture.Here's some of the reason for it:
LOL!! My iPhone 11 Pro camera is a superb performer for sure....
The world's closets are already filled with full-frame cameras and fast, high-performance lenses while much of the actual shooting gets done using mobile devices.
1. Yes, I overlooked that. I also overlooked the fact that the smaller 4/3 sensor needs 2 stops more light to perform as well as the fullk frame sensor. Those who worship equivalence would claim that the Zuiko lens is a 24-200mm f/8 equivalent, and they are partly right.Sure, if you're willing to overlook the fact that the Nikon is a f/4-6.3 lens while the Olympus is f/4 constant aperture.
The comparison starts to look very different if you compare Nikon 24-200 to Olympus f/3.5-6.3 12-200. Yes, 24-200 versus 24-400 equivalent. That longer Olympus lens is a bit lighter, about 17 mm shorter than the Zuiko Pro lens shown, and 400 USD cheaper than the Pro lens.
The world's closets are already filled with full-frame cameras and fast, high-performance lenses while much of the actual shooting gets done using mobile devices.
Hi Jørgen, I find this hard to believe, perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying here. If you said the 4/3 sensor provides twice the DoF I'd have agreed.1. Yes, I overlooked that. I also overlooked the fact that the smaller 4/3 sensor needs 2 stops more light to perform as well as the fullk frame sensor.
The comments on DPR suggest that the Nikon Z 24-200 is actually an f/8+ lens (needs to be stopped down for quality reasons). If true that would mean that you lose two stops to Olympus 12-100/4.1. Yes, I overlooked that. I also overlooked the fact that the smaller 4/3 sensor needs 2 stops more light to perform as well as the fullk frame sensor. Those who worship equivalence would claim that the Zuiko lens is a 24-200mm f/8 equivalent, and they are partly right.
2. I have only found one serious review of the Nikkor 24-400mm, but that review clearly demonstrates that the lens is more or less as sharp as the Zuiko 12-200mm at all focal lengths. The Zuiko 12-200mm doesn't even come close, and again, "equivalists" would claim that it's a 24-400mm f/7-12.6 equivalent.
<snip>
Under controlled tests, the Nikon Z6 sensor is more or less as noisy at ISO 6400 as the E-M1 III sensor at ISO 1600 when the Z6 image is reduced to 20MP. Too me, that doesn't matter too much, since I mostly shoot at low ISO anyway, but when marketing cameras to the general public, it matters a lot. The "full frame is better" claim does have some substance, and it's used for all it's worth. That's where Olympus have been losing, not in general photography. I can take just as good photos with an Olympus as I can with a Nikon or a Habelsad.Hi Jørgen, I find this hard to believe, perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying here. If you said the 4/3 sensor provides twice the DoF I'd have agreed.
Even if the Nikkor were an "f/8-lens", it would be on par with the Zuiko for all practical purposes and still cheaper. I don't know what dpr members base their comments on though, since the lens isn't available yet other than to a few, selected reviewers. They seem to agree that it's an unusually good lens.The comments on DPR suggest that the Nikon Z 24-200 is actually an f/8+ lens (needs to be stopped down for quality reasons). If true that would mean that you lose two stops to Olympus 12-100/4.
Can you point me to the serious review of Nikon Z 24-200? I am only aware of the one by Ricci, who is a Nikon employee, AFAIK.
It may be that the Z 24-200 is a 'miracle' lens like the 12-100/4, but I have not seen yet enough critical reviews or willingness to replace 24-70/2.8 with Z 24-200.
Keeping finger crossed that the Z 24-200 is on par with image quality of Zuiko 12-100. That would give the Z mount quite a boost. Sony does not have anything comparable.Even if the Nikkor were an "f/8-lens", it would be on par with the Zuiko for all practical purposes and still cheaper. I don't know what dpr members base their comments on though, since the lens isn't available yet other than to a few, selected reviewers. They seem to agree that it's an unusually good lens.
This is highly off topic, but the Nikkor is apparently shipping now. Reaction from a dpr poster today:Keeping finger crossed that the Z 24-200 is on par with image quality of Zuiko 12-100. That would give the Z mount quite a boost. Sony does not have anything comparable.
M1.3 solved the issue of UI complexity: they added MyMenu . Frankly, to me, it is one of the major advantages of M1.3 vs M1.2. They also have, IMO, the best method to add items to the MyMenu (press VideoRec button while in any menu). Also, hand-held High-Res is really cool, especially since an m43 camera is mostly used hand-held. Only Sony beats Olympus in the complexity of menus .This is highly off topic, but the Nikkor is apparently shipping now. Reaction from a dpr poster today:
"Ordered it day 1. It showed as back ordered a day or so ago.
A few quick test shots show it's another Z stunner!!!!!!
Small, light and sharp.
I'm more than happy.
Mel"
Yeah, Nikon could use a boost. Like Olympus, they make great cameras and lenses, and there aren't many of the "historic" camera makers left. They have one more thing going for them: Most current F-mount lenses can be used for SLR, DSLR and mirrorless, full frame and APS-C going 60 years back. Again, this is not relevant for the majority of users, but it is for me. My Zuiko OM lenses work on MFT, but even with a Speed Booster, they are cropped.
Olympus has always been the "Odd Bird Out", and often technologically ahead of the pack. The problems with digital cameras are that it relies on big corporations for much of the technology and that those same corporations are also competitors with all their monies and marketing clout. Staying with a user interface that has been heavily criticised by many, also by long term Olympus users like myself, probably hasn't helped either, although Sony seems to get away with a quirky interface. I would have been an Olympus user hadn't it been for that interface, but I chose Panasonic, since the user interface is similar to that of Nikon, which I also use.
That's because in part, it is the Japanese companies trying to divest themselves of another, choosing them. Read that it's a way to go around Japanese laws for employment too.For what it's worth, the web site for Japan Industrial Partners is here: https://jipinc.com/
If JIP were only seeking to monetize trademarks and intellectual property, they surely could have chosen easier targets than Olympus Camera and Sony's VAIO division. So for now, I shall not consider the fate of Olympus's camera division a foregone conclusion.
But what if you were just about to buy the Mark III ?If you just got a shiny new em5 mark iii - nothing has changed right now that justifies not going for it as far as a tool with enough features , speed , image quality - it fulfilled your requirements as it did when it just came out and these news didn’t hit - you decided to buy it back then after all.
- Ricardo