Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 3, 2013, 11:23 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
But all that stuff is taken care with the inherent correction of m4/3. So those issues are not a problem. And only the wide 14 2.8 and the 17 2.8 suffer form those problems as they are older design lenses. The newer msc lenses and leica ones are very very good lenses.
In some cases, yes, but in those cases, they cost a lot more than equivalent APS-C dSLR lenses.
__________________
  • 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.

Last edited by TCav; Jan 3, 2013 at 12:25 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 12:47 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

The 45 1.8 is about the same range as the Nikon 85mm g and the Nikon is more expensive. Nikon 24mm 1.4 is way more then the oly 12mm f2. While the 24 2.8 is cheaper it will not focus on a d5xxx body. And 24mm is way more useful for indoor shooting and nights capes. It is cheaper or more expensive is all relative to what you need it for.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 5:51 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krichton View Post
If $300 is your budget then e-pl2 is the way to go. I saw a refurbished one for $225. You can't beat that. My personal choice would be a NEX but that costs more.
i can get a nex.c3 with spare.battery.2.kit.lenses.case etc around 450 aus dollars. I juggling that up with older but cheaper 2nd hand pl1 or e-pm1.
vxcalais is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 7:27 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
The 45 1.8 is about the same range as the Nikon 85mm g and the Nikon is more expensive. Nikon 24mm 1.4 is way more then the oly 12mm f2. While the 24 2.8 is cheaper it will not focus on a d5xxx body. And 24mm is way more useful for indoor shooting and nights capes. It is cheaper or more expensive is all relative to what you need it for.
First of all, three of the m4/3 primes you mentioned didn't exist. Of the ones that did exist, most had some serious flaws with regard to field curvature, vignetting, chromatic aberration and distortion (according to objective tests by SLRGear.com and/or PhotoZone.de.) m4/3 cameras compensate for vignetting, chromatic aberration and distortion, but the method for compensating for distortion further blurs the corners which might not be very sharp to start with. So, I forgot about CA and vignetting, and ignored the lenses you listed that were too soft and/or had too much distortion. I dropped the Olympus 12/2 and 17/2.8, and the Panasonic 14/2.5, 20/1.7 and 25/1.4 from consideration. That left the Olympus 45/1.8 ($399) and 75/1.8 ($899), and the Panasonic 45/2.8 OIS Macro ($679).

I chose to look for lenses with approximate DX equivalent focal lengths and within a stop of aperture.

For the Olympus 45/1.8 ($399), I selected the Tamron SP 60mm f/2 Di II ($424) (available for either the Nikon or Sony mount). The Tamron is as good as the Olympus, plus it's a macro lens.

For the Olympus 75/1.8 ($899), I selected the Nikon 85/1.8G AF-S ($497) for the Nikon. It's as good and costs a lot less. For both the Nikon and the Sony, there's the Sigma 85/1.4 ($894). It's not quite as sharp as the Olympus, but for the same price, it's got a 2/3 stop larger maximum aperture.

For the Panasonic 45/2.8 OIS Macro ($679), I selected the Nikon 85/3.5 VR ($527). It's a little too long, but stabilized macro lenses for the Nikon mount are not in abundance. And while many people say that image stabilization isn't necessary for macrophotography, I wanted this to be as close as possible to a fair comparison. For the Sony, however, since stabilization is in the body, that isn't an issue. I could have gone with any of several lenses, but to make this as fair as possible, I went with the Sigma 70/2.8 macro ($499).

There are few direct equivalents, but equivalent lenses for Nikon and Sony bodies are either cheaper, or offer more, so I believe I've illustrated my point.
__________________
  • 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.

Last edited by TCav; Jan 3, 2013 at 7:32 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 7:43 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vxcalais View Post
i can get a nex.c3 with spare.battery.2.kit.lenses.case etc around 450 aus dollars. I juggling that up with older but cheaper 2nd hand pl1 or e-pm1.
If you can afford a nex then get the nex. It's the better camera. Plus, if you purchase a $200 adapter then you can purchase much cheaper minolta, sony and third party dslr lenses to use instead of buying the super expensive nex lenses like the 18-200mm.
Krichton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 8:01 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krichton View Post
If you can afford a nex then get the nex. It's the better camera. Plus, if you purchase a $200 adapter then you can purchase much cheaper minolta, sony and third party dslr lenses to use instead of buying the super expensive nex lenses like the 18-200mm.

Thats what i wanted to here. Earlier reports gave the Nexc3 poor upgradability to different lenses, which is where the Pen excelled. But i think i start off with a better low light camera even with the basic lenses that i will with the Pen series. If i buy the pen series, then i would be wanting to get the Panna f1.7 20mm lense as well which is not cheap for me for low light benefits.
vxcalais is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 8:58 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

The nex are great sensor camera, but have poor lens selection. While using dslr lens is possible. You will have very slow af speed with the adapter. Not an issue with static shots. And night scapes. Also they add much larger size to the system. So you are not going to be as compact at native nex lenses.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Last edited by shoturtle; Jan 3, 2013 at 9:25 PM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 9:24 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Tcav,

thanks for pointing out my typos it is 25 1.4 and 14 2.5. while you want to go on and on about pixel and paper numbers. It really comes down to need, the dslr size camera are great and has a ton of cheap lenses. But compare to the ilc camera like the pen they are huge. And having 24-28mm in ff eq is much better for indoor shooting. And to get the 24mm range on apsc you need to be down at 15mm, and there is not to many dslr prime that wide. None of the primes you select address the indoor shooting need in low light.

With m4/3 you have the 12 f2 and it does the job for the 24mm range, the 14 2.5 for 28mm range and the the 17 2.8 and 17 1.8 in the 34mm range, the 20 1.7 for 40mm. All these are much better ranges for low light indoors.

Need determines whether it is cheap or expensive.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Last edited by shoturtle; Jan 3, 2013 at 9:30 PM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 5:43 AM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
The nex are great sensor camera, but have poor lens selection. While using dslr lens is possible. You will have very slow af speed with the adapter. Not an issue with static shots. And night scapes. Also they add much larger size to the system. So you are not going to be as compact at native nex lenses.
There are two adapters. The first one is slow and has had alot of complaints, but I believe the second is much better. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard too many complaints about the second.
Krichton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 6:02 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

All adopters to dslr lens are slow. The first one was super slow. The second one is still no where near native lens speed, but much better then the first. Even with 4/3 lens adopted to m4/3, the AF is slow. Only lens I uses form 4/3 is the 35mm macro. As AF speed is not a concern.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle 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 10:57 AM.