Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 22, 2013, 11:25 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Now that's interesting. Are there any FULL TIME event photographers that switched from non-olympus to m4/3? I'd like to read their accounts.
http://www.ryanbrenizer.com/2012/08/...pus-om-d-e-m5/


Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
I'm surprised if many full time pros are willing to trade the focus performance.
Focus performance issues found in first generation m4/3 cameras has long since been resolved. The latest iterations are as fast to focus if not faster than the latest iterations of DSLRs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
There are lots of "event photographers" but normally forums like this one are dominated by people who, at most, make a little money on the side.

I'd really like to read some of those testimonials from full time pros who have gone m4/3. For example, there was a really good write up a year or so ago from a full time pro on the benefits of Oly, Canon, Nikon and Sony. That was a very good read.
Steve Huff did a pretty good review, from which I will provide this quote to back up the whole AF thing.

Quote:
The AF is faster than any mirror less camera I have shot with to date…in fact, faster than just about any camera I have shot with.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/0...by-steve-huff/

that's two for your to peruse, another photographer I really like who's work shows what the OM-D is capable of is Bryce Bradford (from CO not the fashion photog of the same name).
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 11:28 AM   #22
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
From a practical viewpoint, it doesn't really make sense to put all the eggs into the FF basket. The trend in the mass market has been toward smaller and easier to carry cameras.
Absolutely agree. Here's what we've seen so far: Canon and Nikon have moved their professional cameras to full frame. The pros are thrilled. No one is clamoring to go back.

Now we're seeing Canon and Nikon test the waters to see what the next market segment wants. Canon had huge success with the 5d classic. That opened the door to more investigation by both companies. Subsequent full frame models from both companies: D700, 5dII and now d600/5diii/6d all seem to be doing quite successful. And both companies still are producing aps-c dslrs along with it.

I really see aps-c DSLR getting bit from both ends. For the smaller, lighter, cheaper crowd APS-C crowd they value those attributes over performance as long as performance is "good enough' - they'll go mirrorless/digicam.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 11:29 AM   #23
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
that's two for your to peruse, another photographer I really like who's work shows what the OM-D is capable of is Bryce Bradford (from CO not the fashion photog of the same name).
cool! Thanks!
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 11:41 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

one more point, we can talk all day about full frame cameras costing $2000 now while crop sensor DSLRs are $1000 and under but this ignores the cost of lenses which typically run $1000 and up for current full frame offerings.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 11:54 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

I guess it's been a while since we've had an argument here that nobody could win. Thanks, marktester.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 11:56 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

BTW, I still can't finish the survey on #7 when I answer "I'm not interested at all". Why do I still have to answer #8 and #9?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 12:01 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
I guess it's been a while since we've had an argument here that nobody could win. Thanks, marktester.
lol - yeah it's almost as bad as starting a discussion about the next E-series DSLR among Olympus die hards...

as for the future of photography I think we need to also consider wet plate collodion as the size of the image produced by the lens on the medium is much larger than full frame it is in my opinion the real future of photography
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 12:07 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

Dump the FF entirely, and let's all go out and get 645Ds.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 12:19 PM   #29
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
one more point, we can talk all day about full frame cameras costing $2000 now while crop sensor DSLRs are $1000 and under but this ignores the cost of lenses which typically run $1000 and up for current full frame offerings.
OK. Here we go again - back to business. Canon produces a 70-200 2.8 IS II lens. The pros buying their 1D and 5d cameras love the lens. You can't use an EF-S (crop lens) on these cameras. Can we agree on that?

So, as a business, what does Canon want to do - create an EF-S lens? If so, do they make it a 43-125mm lens? Or do they just make a 70-200 lens in EF-S mount?

What have they done prior to 2012 when they didn't have the number of full frame cameras they have now? What comparable EF-S lens did they make?

We can go on and on if you like.

I get you would PREFER they had made EF-S lenses that were less expensive but comparable but they didn't. Neither did Nikon. They both made just a couple of high end crop-sensor lenses.

So, now that both companies have even MORE full frame cameras would you expect them to change their behavior? That's precisely one of the reasons why they want to move their high end APS users to full frame - one form factor for people that want, and are willing to pay for, professional optics.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 12:38 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
OK. Here we go again - back to business. Canon produces a 70-200 2.8 IS II lens. The pros buying their 1D and 5d cameras love the lens. You can't use an EF-S (crop lens) on these cameras. Can we agree on that?

So, as a business, what does Canon want to do - create an EF-S lens? If so, do they make it a 43-125mm lens? Or do they just make a 70-200 lens in EF-S mount?

What have they done prior to 2012 when they didn't have the number of full frame cameras they have now? What comparable EF-S lens did they make?

We can go on and on if you like.

I get you would PREFER they had made EF-S lenses that were less expensive but comparable but they didn't. Neither did Nikon. They both made just a couple of high end crop-sensor lenses.

So, now that both companies have even MORE full frame cameras would you expect them to change their behavior? That's precisely one of the reasons why they want to move their high end APS users to full frame - one form factor for people that want, and are willing to pay for, professional optics.
Actually my point is not that I want a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS II to be cheaper so that I can afford it. My point is that we can't discuss merits of full frame vs. crop sensor without mentioning the lens and costs associated. Even if the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS II was $1000 I'd still point out that it looks huge and heavy.

70-200mm f2.8 ~ $2,200 and 3.28 lbs
EOS 6D ~$2100 and 1.7 lbs
----------------------------
~$4300 and 5 lbs


Alternately I could get a Panasonic Lumix 35-100mm f2.8 for right around $1000, which would be an equivalent focal length and put it on an OM-D EM-5 for half the cost of the 6D and 70-200mm combo while maintaining the same bright aperture and also saving at least 50% weight and size.

OM-D EM-5 ~ $900 and 0.94 lb
Lumix 35-200 ~$1300 and 0.75 lb
-----------------------------------
~$2200 and under 2 lbs


So yeah equivalent setups in focal length terms, half the price and more than half the weight. If the IQ meets your needs with the m43 why would you go bigger and spend more?

Honestly I think the scam here is that they will get people to buy full frame cameras and then use their existing APS lenses in "compatibility" mode.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:50 AM.