4/3 better?

[lsisaxon]

Thanks for the samples.
Many lenses are actually sharp in the centre but soft at the edge especially wide opened though.
The fact that lenses like Nikon 17-55mm f2.8Dx is so expensive is actually quite funny to me as people don't blink an eye when they go all out to buy such lenses and then others would scream bloody murder when they hear that Olympus ZD lenses can cost $1.6k to $2.6k for super high (pro) grade and high grade lenses which are critically acclaimed and pin-sharp. :dunno:

Yes, that's true. But now you do see many lenses with straight line MTF thanks to aspherical optics which corrects the spherical aberration which is the main cause of corner blurs.

I'll have to agree with you that Nikkors are bloody expensive..

Certain Olympus lenses has a wierd complex distortion which can be hard to correct. I will also have to admit that in each camp there are good and bad optics. Even Carl Zeiss and Leica are no exception.

 

[lsisaxon]

Don't kid yourself, there are focal lengths where nikon is superior (wide angle mainly) but others where canon is superior.... the reason why you don't see ppl using canon glass on nikon bodies is because they can't....

Almost all canon and nikon primes nowadays perform superbly wide open... you would be hard press to tell 1 from the other so don't go around implying that nikon is superior...

There are certain lenses in the nikon camp that are great value but some that are overpriced, the 17-55 is 1 of them.... canon only charges 15xx for it's version and it comes with IS... and before you say "but but but nikon's 1 is better than the canon 1" maybe you should read some independant reviews....
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1755_28/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1755_28/index.htm

And while we're at it... I would rate Olympus optics ahead of Nikon's.

I'm not kidding myself.. Maybe I haven't kept up with Canon's development that much but results tell me that generally Nikon's optics are sharper and have better contrast than Canon's. I'm sure there are a few better ones and a few terribly bad ones from each camp but that's the general trend I observed.

I still think Nikon's is ahead of Olympus, simply because I have used microscope objectives from both but Oly is catching up really fast, I'm very impressed with their latest range of objectives! Maybe because software is so powerful now, anyone can optimize optical construction at the click of a mouse! Nikon's optics is no longer that far ahead of the other competing Japanese optics. I would still rate Leica the best. That's probably one more plus point to the 4/3 system.. but they are bloody expensive also.. Also, it's easier to achieve better quality with a smaller image circle.

From the review, the MTFs are pretty similar, Nikon optimized the performance for the extreme ends while Canon optimized the performance midway. However, once stopped down by a stop, both are very similar. Distortion is similar but in terms of vignetting at wide open, Nikon still has an edge. Construction wise, Nikon's is more solid, but the value for money goes to Canon because of the price and IS.

 

[psychobiologist]

sorry me cheapo.. can only compare nikon and canon kit lenses

anyone have a good comparison of the 18-55mm II nikon vs the canon version?

 

[ricohflex]

4/3 has a smaller dimensional design concept for the body and lenses.
It claims to be universal among a few brands.
How truly universal we do not know, as the lens electrical contacts and camera body of each brand/model may have their own special features.

Because it represents a few brands, comparisons inevitably descend into an ugly quarrel among forumers as they defend their favourite brand/s and attack others brand/s.

The 4/3 also has another aspect that is done for money reasons.

It forces the world's users to buy a complete new set of lenses.
Bearing in mind that 35mm photography has been around for a very long time and photo hobbyists may have numerous expensive lenses.
This will certainly enrich the 4/3 lens manufacturers.
This is very environment-unfriendly and promotes nonsensical wastage. Because energy and materials used to make the millions of 35mm lenses is deliberately wasted in the purported move to 4/3.

It has a small sensor. With inherent noise and top resolution capability limits.

The weakness of this will be glaringly shown when more manufacturers can produce full frame digicams like the 5D and sell them cheaply.

 

[zj2000]

I'm not kidding myself.. Maybe I haven't kept up with Canon's development that much but results tell me that generally Nikon's optics are sharper and have better contrast than Canon's. I'm sure there are a few better ones and a few terribly bad ones from each camp but that's the general trend I observed.

I still think Nikon's is ahead of Olympus, simply because I have used microscope objectives from both but Oly is catching up really fast, I'm very impressed with their latest range of objectives! Maybe because software is so powerful now, anyone can optimize optical construction at the click of a mouse! Nikon's optics is no longer that far ahead of the other competing Japanese optics. I would still rate Leica the best. That's probably one more plus point to the 4/3 system.. but they are bloody expensive also.. Also, it's easier to achieve better quality with a smaller image circle.

From the review, the MTFs are pretty similar, Nikon optimized the performance for the extreme ends while Canon optimized the performance midway. However, once stopped down by a stop, both are very similar. Distortion is similar but in terms of vignetting at wide open, Nikon still has an edge. Construction wise, Nikon's is more solid, but the value for money goes to Canon because of the price and IS.

I get the feeling that you're not really that familiar with canon / olympus lenses and i'm sure you're more than experienced enough with nikon's... i don't get why you keep posting sweeping statements when your experience with anything other than nikon is limited.... 4/3, microscope... wat? is there a connection? canon not sharp? contrast bad? you must have used a cheap consumer lens then.... try posting this in the canon forum :flame:

good that you feel happy with your system but do you need to keep professing / are you qualified to profess to the world that "nikon is the best, everything else is inferior"?

btw, i don't think you read the review right, nikon is the 1 that shows poor corner sharpness wide open

 

[tomcat]

their favourite brand/s and attack others brand/s.

The 4/3 also has another aspect that is done for money reasons.

It forces the world's users to buy a complete new set of lenses.
Bearing in mind that 35mm photography has been around for a very long time and photo hobbyists may have numerous expensive lenses.
This will certainly enrich the 4/3 lens manufacturers.
This is very environment-unfriendly and promotes nonsensical wastage. Because energy and materials used to make the millions of 35mm lenses is deliberately wasted in the purported move to 4/3.

It has a small sensor. With inherent noise and top resolution capability limits.

The weakness of this will be glaringly shown when more manufacturers can produce full frame digicams like the 5D and sell them cheaply.

Don't you think this this statement made no sense at all? Every brand's lenses are exclusive to it's own brand. A Canon lens can only be used on a Canon camera, a Sony lens on a Sony camera, etc. Every new brand that comes into the market forces it's users to buy a new set of lens. At least a 4/3 user has the option to choose amongst the different 4/3 brands eg. an Olympus user can buy a Panasonic or Leica 4/3 lens and are not restricted to only Olympus lenses.

If you meant whether old 35mm manual lenses could be reused or not on the new camera bodies... well, they can be used on the new Olympus 4/3 camera bodies also with an adapter as well.... just like with the other brands.

Though the 4/3 sensor may be smaller than other brands', it has not reach the limit of its capabilities yet. Have you used the latest Olympus E410 or E510? The noise level and image quality from these cameras have been compared favourably by reviewers with those from other brands. I have been using Canon DSLRs for years and if the image quality from the Olympus DSLRs has not up to par, my Canon gears would not be in cold storage today.

 

[ricohflex]

I did not mean being able to use Brand X lens on Brand Y camera body without any adapter.

What I mean is that within respective brands, the manufacturers can design full frame digital cameras that can continue to use the same 35mm lenses sold previously that fit their 35mm film cameras.

But for obvious $$$$$$ reasons, some of the manufacturers want the millions of photo hobbyists all over the world to spend money to buy lenses all over again by creating another system. Called 4/3.

Well, the Kodak mini-disc, the 110, 126 and APS cartridge all bit the dust. And deservedly so.
We shall see what happens to 4/3 when major brands start selling full frame digital cameras at reasonable prices.

A feat that so far Canon seems to have achieved. (for full frame).
Also Hasselblad (but the digital back is expensive)
Pentax, Nikon and maybe others also allow users to use their lenses previously bought for film cameras, but with some multiplication factor.



By the way, Tamron Adaptall 2 (but with adapters) was an ingenious system to partly achieve universal use of a lens on various film cameras.

 

[schon]

But for obvious $$$$$$ reasons, some of the manufacturers want the millions of photo hobbyists all over the world to spend money to buy all over again by creating another system. Called 4/3.

if you're that hard on abt this issue on the company's malicious intent to earn an obscene amount of money from consumers, i bet C and N users pay more for the company's advertising efforts than olympus users pay for 4/3s lenses.

i mean like, which company doesn't want to make a profit? :dunno:

 

[zj2000]

if you're that hard on abt this issue on the company's malicious intent to earn an obscene amount of money from consumers, i bet C and N users pay more for the company's advertising efforts than olympus users pay for 4/3s lenses.

i mean like, which company doesn't want to make a profit? :dunno:

i think you should check out the pricelist.... olympus lenses are not exactly cheap... consumer grade ones cost the same as big C and N, pro grade ones can be more ex than the market leaders.... 3rd party lenses also sell for a small premium for the 4/3 mount.... the reason C and N can bombard the market with advertisements is because they have reached critical mass

 

[schon]

i think you should check out the pricelist.... olympus lenses are not exactly cheap... consumer grade ones cost the same as big C and N, pro grade ones can be more ex than the market leaders.... 3rd party lenses also sell for a small premium for the 4/3 mount.... the reason C and N can bombard the market with advertisements is because they have reached critical mass

that's because you pay for what you get. can you list examples?

critical mass or not, fact is that you are still paying for the advertisements.

 

[zj2000]

that's because you pay for what you get. can you list examples?

critical mass or not, fact is that you are still paying for the advertisements.

sure:
Zuiko Digital ED 70-300mm F4.0-5.6 $600
AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED - $680

Zuiko Digital ED 90-250mm F2.8 $9,000
Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F2.8 $11,000
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM $7,800
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM $2860

olympus also has advertisements, who is paying for them? Thing is if C and N can generate $100m in sales a year and spend 10% on marketing that's already $10m.... olympus might generate $10m in sales a year and spend 10% on marketing, that's only $1m.... this is what i mean when i say critical mass...

 

[tomcat]

i think you should check out the pricelist.... olympus lenses are not exactly cheap... consumer grade ones cost the same as big C and N, pro grade ones can be more ex than the market leaders.... 3rd party lenses also sell for a small premium for the 4/3 mount.... the reason C and N can bombard the market with advertisements is because they have reached critical mass

I'm wondering who are the people who have been spurging $2k+ to $3k+ for Canon and Nikon lenses. The bulk of Olympus and other 4/3 lenses do not cost that much. Yet people are making sweeping statements about how costly 4/3 lenses are. This is not withstanding the fact that the optical quality of the Zukio Digital lenses are really superb and great value for money in their respective category. :dunno:

 

[schon]

sure:
Zuiko Digital ED 70-300mm F4.0-5.6 $600
AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED - $680

Zuiko Digital ED 90-250mm F2.8 $9,000
Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F2.8 $11,000
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM $7,800
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM $2860

i think you're looking at the wrong comparable lenses.

AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED - $680
Zuiko Digital ED 70-300mm F4.0-5.6 $600

EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM $7,800
Zuiko Digital ED 150mm F2.0 $3,600

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM $2860
Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 $1,620

FYI, the 90-250 and 300 are in a different league altogether.

olympus ZD lenses may cost more than 3rd party options like sigma, but when compared to own-make brand lenses, they're certainly cheaper.

 

[tomcat]

sure:
Zuiko Digital ED 70-300mm F4.0-5.6 $600
AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED - $680

Zuiko Digital ED 90-250mm F2.8 $9,000
Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F2.8 $11,000
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM $7,800
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM $2860

olympus also has advertisements, who is paying for them? Thing is if C and N can generate $100m in sales a year and spend 10% on marketing that's already $10m.... olympus might generate $10m in sales a year and spend 10% on marketing, that's only $1m.... this is what i mean when i say critical mass...

These lenses are not directly comparable as you did not take into consideration the multiplication or crop factor. We have to compare 'apple for apple'.... if you want to include full frame body in the comparison, then the cost of the full frame body would have to be factored into the equation.
Example, for a Canon lens to be equivalent to the ZD 300mm, it would have to be about 400mm for their 1.6x sensor. And what's the cost of their 400mm f/2.8 lens? List price $15,999.

 

[zj2000]

i think you're looking at the wrong comparable lenses.

AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED - $680
Zuiko Digital ED 70-300mm F4.0-5.6 $600

EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM $7,800
Zuiko Digital ED 150mm F2.0 $3,600

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM $2860
Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 $1,620

FYI, the 90-250 and 300 are in a different league altogether.

olympus ZD lenses may cost more than 3rd party options like sigma, but when compared to own-make brand lenses, they're certainly cheaper.

These lenses are not directly comparable as you did not take into consideration the multiplication or crop factor. We have to compare 'apple for apple'.... if you want to include full frame body in the comparison, then the cost of the full frame body would have to be factored into the equation.
Example, for a Canon lens to be equivalent to the ZD 300mm, it would have to be about 400mm for their 1.6x sensor. And what's the cost of their 400mm f/2.8 lens? List price $15,999.

No, a 300mm is a 300mm whether on FF, 1.6x or 2.0x... however on the 2.0x, your subject will fill the frame to a greater extent because the sensor is smaller. DOF and background compression is the same on all 3... in other words you're only getting the "illusion" of a longer focal.... if I have a FF and a 300mm I can capture whatever the 4/3 can capture using a 300mm simply by shooting first and cropping out my subject in photoshop.... tomcat, i assume you still have your canon body, just do an experiment and you'll know what i mean...

it's not fair to compare a 400mm on a FF and 200mm on 4/3 either since the cost to manufacture the lens differ greatly, the diameter of the front glass element for 1 is a function of focal length / aperture so a 400mm 2.8 will have much much larger glass elements than a 200mm 2.8.... again I can simulate the 200mm on 4/3 by shooting and then cropping.... only downside i think is that i have less pixels leftover....

edit: i just did some math and 10mp on a 1.6x is approximately 6mp if I crop it to a 4/3 image size... not too bad...

 

[tomcat]

No, a 300mm is a 300mm whether on FF, 1.6x or 2.0x... however on the 2.0x, your subject will fill the frame to a greater extent because the sensor is smaller. DOF and background compression is the same on all 3... in other words you're only getting the "illusion" of a longer focal.... if I have a FF and a 300mm I can capture whatever the 4/3 can capture using a 300mm simply by shooting first and cropping out my subject in photoshop.... tomcat, i assume you still have your canon body, just do an experiment and you'll know what i mean...

it's not fair to compare a 400mm on a FF and 200mm on 4/3 either since the cost to manufacture the lens differ greatly, the diameter of the front glass element for 1 is a function of focal length / aperture so a 400mm 2.8 will have much much larger glass elements than a 200mm 2.8.... again I can simulate the 200mm on 4/3 by shooting and then cropping.... only downside i think is that i have less pixels leftover....

edit: i just did some math and 10mp on a 1.6x is approximately 6mp if I crop it to a 4/3 image size... not too bad...

Until the day that Canon produce a EF-s 300mm, using a 400mm lens is the only way to produce an equivalent size image to the ZD 300mm without resorting to digital resizing in post-processing. If you want to bring digital resizing into the discussion, then there is really no point in discussing any more isn't it since the image from any lens can be digitally resized to match that of any other. :dunno:

 

[ricohflex]

i mean like, which company doesn't want to make a profit? :dunno:

Every entrepreneur wants to and should make a profit if he is making a product that users want and that serves the users well.
No problem with companies making a profit. The problem lies in how they go about it.

(deleted)

 

[drakon09]

We shall see what happens to 4/3 when major brands start selling full frame digital cameras at reasonable prices.

In the same light, I would like to see what happens to 35mmFF when digital 645 becomes reasonably priced as well. :dunno:

It is not a "mine is bigger than yours" issue.

 

[zj2000]

Until the day that Canon produce a EF-s 300mm, using a 400mm lens is the only way to produce an equivalent size image to the ZD 300mm without resorting to digital resizing in post-processing. If you want to bring digital resizing into the discussion, then there is really no point in discussing any more isn't it since the image from any lens can be digitally resized to match that of any other. :dunno:

Well if you want to see it that way then there's no point comparing 4/3 with anything since 4/3 vs FF is like comparing 35mm vs MF / LF

ef-s 300mm is still a 300mm btw, ef-s is only the mount... there is already an ef 300mm so there's no need for an ef-s 300mm

 

[drakon09]

But for obvious $$$$$$ reasons, some of the manufacturers want the millions of photo hobbyists all over the world to spend money to buy lenses all over again by creating another system. Called 4/3.

Oh and another thing, via adapters FourThirds accept most other lens mount.

Except EF. :bsmilie: