Olympus / Panasonic announce Micro Four Thirds

[theITguy]

I thot u were mentioning about the img quality & not the FL or FOV in the initial post? I also made it clear juz for argurment sake, ignore the FL FOV for awhile. In reality, there r people using the 24-70 on the crop body. Reason? See next para. Please bear in mind, no matter how hi quality the lens we perceive to be, they r still classified under consumer grade products. That means they r made juz enuf for the particular usage, anything exceeding that threshold wud result in much higher cost.

I am not a nanny, but I did mention similar lens reach and class. Are 24-70 used on DX and 12-60 comparable? The 12-60 is sold on 3 main points - (i) 5x Range, (ii) 12mm on the wide and (iii) incomparable by similar lens reach and class. You want to see how Canon-like pictures can be produced, razor-sharp with details?

I bet to differ ur differ (ok, lame joke :sweat People who use the 24-70 on crop bodies r users aiming to go FF with their brand (Sony, Nikon or Canon) in the future. Very much like why u wud invest in a $3k or more lens for the future better bodies. I dun see any diff, do u? In case u r wondering what i'm blabbing about, we r still at the topic of hi end lenses which produce technically superior imgs, i wudn't rate the 12-60 as hi end, speaking from personal hands on experience.

I disagree. Now I can use and afford a 12-60 fully. People who bought a 24-70 on a D80 will have to wait until the FX can come out with an affordable body. I see a difference, and you need another wide lens to cover that wide range. I am a user, not a comparer. I use what I can afford to take what I need to. Ask anyone if I need a 12-60, will a 24-70 on a DX body satisfy my needs? Only pure equipment collectors who do not want to take decent pictures compare this way. I still aim to be a decent picture maker.

Ur comparison with 12-60 against 24-70 is ...... (fill in the blank also, a bit of copycat but...) Comparing a E520 against D80 is also ..... (pls fill in again) Think a better comparison wud be a D40x with 16-85 or 400D with 17-55 (tele range a little short though) Img quality is pretty darn good too.

You started with 12-60 against the 24-70 first (which is crappy comparison from a picture maker POV), please pointed out where I started it (other than to point out the mismatch comparison). E520 is a decent cam. Technically not having the edge over 450D/D80. Heck, I can use with with my E-3.

Maybe true with the quality factor against the 16-85 but by how much better? Significant to how many percent of users? Like i mentioned, majority of users dun mind about technical superiority, esp those lower end users. Those who mind wud have gotten the higher end stuff. u4/3 is compromising the same, so i might say the playing field now becomes similar?

This left behind light weight factor. Sadly, light weight alone doesn't sell cams. Yet again the reality sets in. Users dun mind the weight as long as the sys is light enuf for them irregardless of brand.

I agree with u totally that Oly/pana needs to market this new u4/3 quickly & aggressively. The way i see it, its in a very fragile situation & is a hi risk bet. What i see is other companies will soon produce P&S with APS-C size sensors. Throw in a mega zoom with built in IS & sell it at the price point of the u4/3. Very hard to fight P&S weight. What's next? Consumers wanting better quality will go straight to an entry level DSLR, & consumers wanting light weight will likely be swayed to the P&S. The hole u4/3 is supposed to fill becomes "void", & Oly might eventually produce P&S with 4/3 sensor in order to stay competitive.

Finally, dun misinterpret my words. I'm not bitching about 4/3 or bashing u4/3, juz pure discussion of what this new format might be. Think of it as analyst POV.

The discussion on 4/3 is based on facts and views. The discussion on u4/3 is based on views only and is different and separate from facts.

 

[theITguy]

Well, I have both the ZD 12-60mm and the Nikon 24-70mm and from my own personal experience, I certainly don't find the image quality of the so-call professional grade 24-70mm to be that much better than that of the 12-60mm to warrant 2x the price. :dunno:

Do not forget forget limited zoom range (2.9x vs 5x) which cannot be cropped as it is at the wide end and weight (900g vs 600g).

 

[nightpiper]

I am not a nanny, but I did mention similar lens reach and class. Are 24-70 used on DX and 12-60 comparable? The 12-60 is sold on 3 main points - (i) 5x Range, (ii) 12mm on the wide and (iii) incomparable by similar lens reach and class. You want to see how Canon-like pictures can be produced, razor-sharp with details?

U talked about corner to corner sharpness right? Sorry i only found it to be so if its from the SHG range. Is the 12-60 in that class? My comparison with the 24-70 is merely for sake of the corner to corner sharpness comparison, my point being using the higher end lenses, u can also get corner to corner sharpness. Maybe u dun agree with this way of comparison, how about the nikon 16-85 or the Sony SAL 16-80? Wud that make it fairer? The only comparison i find wud be the adv of having 2.8 at wide for the ZD. Is it corner to corner sharpness? Perhaps the copy i tried is faulty but it isn't.

Not quite sure what u mean by the last sentence. Is it good or bad? My experience with a 40D & 17-55 is very positive so far. Dun mind i tag a 40D pic here for demo:


Original pic. Pardon the WB a bit off (not the purpose of discussion here).

Bottom right corner 100% crop

Center 100% crop, can buy lottery liao

I disagree. Now I can use and afford a 12-60 fully. People who bought a 24-70 on a D80 will have to wait until the FX can come out with an affordable body. I see a difference, and you need another wide lens to cover that wide range. I am a user, not a comparer. I use what I can afford to take what I need to. Ask anyone if I need a 12-60, will a 24-70 on a DX body satisfy my needs? Only pure equipment collectors who do not want to take decent pictures compare this way. I still aim to be a decent picture maker.

Range for range comparison, DX users can use the 16-85 or the FX user can use the 24-120 VR. Althou 12-60 has the speed adv, but like i said earlier on, users dun care for technical nirvana. Like u, they r also pic maker. As long as its good enuf for them, cheap enuf & light enuf, thats all. Contrary from u, I'm not a pic maker, i'm a memory collector. I shoot crap for mem sake, even if corner sharpness not there, i dun care. How often does corners softness affects the main subject attention? My style? Not much. dun mind another demo pic

At max 2.8, corner sharpness & vignetting not a concern

Center 100%. As long as main subject stands out, nothing else matters.

You started with 12-60 against the 24-70 first (which is crappy comparison from a picture maker POV), please pointed out where I started it (other than to point out the mismatch comparison). E520 is a decent cam. Technically not having the edge over 450D/D80. Heck, I can use with with my E-3.

As explained above, 24-70 is compared to hi end lenses for corner sharpness only. Not comparing FL or FOV as already mentioned, juz like how we did physics lesson, for sake of calculation, friction is 0. Other brand users who wants corner to corner on their smaller sensor cams can always use a lens with bigger image circle, in fact, it need not even be hi end lenses to achieve that (i use hi end lenses simply becos only the SHG series can pull it off).

There'll be an argument here again. 4/3 lenses r design with 4/3 format only, 35mm lenses shud be used to compare with FF size sensor instead of the crop. However the physical dimension is real for both cases. Much like a 50mm lens has FL of 50 no matter which cam body it adapts. In reality, users dun care as long as they can use it. So the way i see it, having achieve technical superiority is not the starts all ends all situation. Oly can claim their SHG lenses r superior with corner to corner at wide & faster speed, but as long as other brand users can achieve the same range using 35mm lens, pump up ISO for speed, affordable & usable, none wud be bothered.

Dun get me wrong. I like hi quality lenses (esp the primes in the ZD) & i'm sure u appreciate them too. Again this is juz for discussion sake, nothing more than that.

The discussion on 4/3 is based on facts and views. The discussion on u4/3 is based on views only and is different and separate from facts.

Thats what makes it so interesting LOL

 

[nightpiper]

Well, I have both the ZD 12-60mm and the Nikon 24-70mm and from my own personal experience, I certainly don't find the image quality of the so-call professional grade 24-70mm to be that much better than that of the 12-60mm to warrant 2x the price. :dunno:

Interestingly, I find it excellent, its like the 2nd best zoom lens Nikon built. Even downloaded a few pic to pixel peep :bsmilie::bsmilie: i thot u were having fun with the Sigma SD14. Dun mind i ask which Nikon body u bot?

 

[nightpiper]

Well, the 24-70mm FX was a effectively a ground-up design to accommodate the FX sensor; very much what ZDs are all this while.

What is does is effectively demonstrate the cost difference against performance factor between FX/135FF and FourThirds.

FourThirds is a cheaper system; regardless of the spin others may weave.

Dun mind i ask, how much does the ZD14-35 cost?

 

[tomcat]

Interestingly, I find it excellent, its like the 2nd best zoom lens Nikon built. Even downloaded a few pic to pixel peep :bsmilie::bsmilie: i thot u were having fun with the Sigma SD14. Dun mind i ask which Nikon body u bot?

I bought the D700 to play play.

 

[marky]

Dun mind i ask, how much does the ZD14-35 cost?

Roughly $3.2k

 

[theITguy]

Truely, truely

 

[FooFighter]

I have been thinking about getting a second camera since its really hard to bring my E330 for my overseas working trips (plus kit lens and 50mm F2.0)

Have been tempted by the GX-200 & LX-3, but come to think about it, the upcoming m4/3 is tailor made for Olympus 4/3 consumers like me... I am as excited as everyone here and their left-handed brother.

I hope Pana/Oly spring some surprises for us. But come to think about it, wouldn't a m4/3 from Pana eat into their Lx-3 sales? :dunno:

 

[microcosm]

I hope Pana/Oly spring some surprises for us. But come to think about it, wouldn't a m4/3 from Pana eat into their Lx-3 sales? :dunno:

LX-3 is in the region of S$700-750 for a complete package without interchangable lens. Whereas m43 is a DSLR nevertheless... so they are of a different class... sort of like saying Canon G9 is threatened by a 450D. Something like that...

 

[Mikefellh]

But come to think about it, wouldn't a m4/3 from Pana eat into their Lx-3 sales? :dunno:

Well, it's other company's sales mFT is aimed to eat!

The dSLR market is only 7%...some people want more capability but they don't like the dSLR size and weight...that's who they are going after.

 

[coffee3in1]

Well, it's other company's sales mFT is aimed to eat!

The dSLR market is only 7%...some people want more capability but they don't like the dSLR size and weight...that's who they are going after.

7% is by units ?

Yup, i'm one of those people. Monitoring the development closely.

 

[FooFighter]

LX-3 is in the region of S$700-750 for a complete package without interchangable lens. Whereas m43 is a DSLR nevertheless... so they are of a different class... sort of like saying Canon G9 is threatened by a 450D. Something like that...

My bad, what I meant is I was looking at LX-3 and was tempted by the F2.0 lens, but with m4/3 coming, I rather wait since I already have F2.0 lens. The eating into market share comment came when I realised its happening to me

Its good that m4/3 allows users to change lens, but for me, I rather have a small compact with good optics (something like the LX-3 & GX-200) when I need to travel light.

 

[shengliang1981]

Now that Nikon has released D90 with video recording capability, hopefully Olympus will introduce this function too in the mFT. :dunno:

 

[headfonz]

My bad, what I meant is I was looking at LX-3 and was tempted by the F2.0 lens, but with m4/3 coming, I rather wait since I already have F2.0 lens. The eating into market share comment came when I realised its happening to me

Its good that m4/3 allows users to change lens, but for me, I rather have a small compact with good optics (something like the LX-3 & GX-200) when I need to travel light.

m4/3 is going to take some time have a range of dedicated lenses so it won't eat into LX3s market for now.

if panny is leading m4/3s, then i won't be surprised if they will introduce an LC1 / L1 in-between camera with 1 solid lens to launch m4/3s.

the summicron on the LC1 was a beauty....

 

[Mikefellh]

7% is by units ?

It was never specified, it could be of all units, or of current sales. It was stated in the original Oly-Pany mFT press release I believe.