Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2014 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...

  
 
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


kavu wrote:
What didn't you like about the x-t1? Just curious...


These are my SUBJECTIVE impressions from spending about two hours or so at B&H.

1. Build quality of the doors were atrocious for a $1300 camera. Puzzling since the E1/E2 are fine in this regard.
2. The finish they used for the top plate reminded me of linoleum or other plastic floor tiling. Yes, I know it's metal.
3. Back cursor buttons were astonishingly crappy. This might be resolved in later production models.
4. EC dial should have the lock, not the aperture. It's much more likely to be moved and it's not as adjusted as often.
5. EVF eye piece doesn't provide enough protection against ambient light
6. Dial feel not as good as E-M1, grip feel/material not as good as E-M1
7. Almost all Fuji cameras seem to have this problem that I've owned/used but the alignment between panels don't seem laser perfect.

Overall, the camera looked better in pictures than in person.

And coming into it, I knew these things but didn't help
1. No touch screen AF, I use this for 99% of my shots. Either to directly focus on something or to preset my focus point instantly. Using a poorly made cursor pad was a deal breaker.
2. X-Trans needs a 24mpx sensor to alleviate some of it's detail and false color problems
3. I did not want to spend more time in front of the computer using a different RAW converter then importing that into LR, etc.
4. Questionable if worth it relative to A7 system in terms of overall size reduction.



Mar 22, 2014 at 11:00 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


On price differences sometimes m4/3rds is more expensive and sometimes FF is more expensive. You point to two examples where m4/3rds is more expensive. The 45 f/1.8 is more expensive than Canikon's 50 f/1.8 lenses, and the 75 f/1.8 is more expensive than Canikon's 85 f/1.8 lenses. But there are lot of examples that go the other way. How about the PL 25 f/1.4 vs Cankon's 24 f/1.4 lenses. Here Canikon lenses are about triple the price. How about the 14 f/2.5 vs. Canikon's 14 f/2.8 lenses. Here Canikon lenses are about 5 times the price. Even the PL 42.5 f/1.2 is almost exactly the same price as Canon's 50 f/1.2 (the Canon is right now $20 more at B & H). And even the 75 f/1.8 is very similar in price to the most similar FF lens, the Pentax 77 f/1.8 (the Pentax is actually about $100 more). So if we keep aperture and focal length (not focal length equivalent) at about the same, then there are actually quite a few more examples where m4/3rds is cheaper than FF, and the only example in which the FF lenses are consistently cheaper is the thrifty fifties. In my view they are cheaper because they are built down to a price (especially the Canon) and they may well be loss leaders to get people who have bought a kit lens to buy a prime without much investment. Zooms are harder to evaluate this way because basically none of them match up.

What if we consider focal length equivalent. This is harder because how do you deal with the difference in depth of field and noise performance? Well if you only focus on focal length equivalent and keep aperture roughly equal the m4/3rds lenses are almost always cheaper.

The OLy 12 f/2 is significantly cheaper than the Sony/Zeiss 24 f/2 and Canikon's 24 f/1.4's (they don't make 24 f/2's). It is $200 and $270 more expensive than Canikon's 24mm f/2.8's

The Panny 14 f/2.5 is a couple hundred dollars less than the NIkon 28 f/2.8 Ais and about $280 less than the Canon 28 f/2.8 IS or the Nikon 28 f/1.8G.

The Oly 17 f/1.8 is way less than Canikon's 35 f/1.4 and even $100 less than the Canon 35 f/2 IS, but about $100 more than the old Nikon 35 f/2D. There really aren't Canikon 35mm f/2.8 lenses (in AF to compare to the Oly 17 f/2.8)

The Panny 20 f/1.7 doesn't have a FF equivalent at the same aperture, but is about $175 more than the Canon 40 f/2.8.

The PL 25 f/1.4 is the exception to the rule. It is $130 more than Canikon's 50 f/1.4s and about $300 more than Canikon's 50 f/1.8s.

The PL 42.5 f/1.2 is $600 less than the Canon 85 f/1.2 and the same price as the Nikon 85 f/1.4, but about $1,200 more expensive than Canikon's 85 f/1.8s.

The Oly 75 f/1.8 is reviewed above and I will skip the macro lenses because the same pattern pretty much holds. When the aperture is the same and either the focal length or the focal length equivalent is the same the m4/3rds lens are cheaper. But, (and it is a big but) FF frame lenses with apertures that are 2/3 to a whole stop slower are significantly cheaper than m4/3rds lenses. The exception is at 50mm on FF, in which the FF lenses are cheaper even at the same aperture than m4/3rds lenses.

In this way it looks like m4/3rds represents a middle ground between the fastest FF lenses which are very expensive and the slightly slower FF lenses that are much much cheaper.



Mar 22, 2014 at 12:34 PM
bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


FWIW, and price being about equal, I would choose m43 over either APS-C or a FF DSLR simply because of size and weight. Of course IQ is extremely important to me. m43 has not let me down in that regard and I am confident that it will get even better. Is the IQ from a FF DSLR better? Of course! But size and weight savings to me is far, far more important to the enjoyment factor than slightly more IQ. So I would rather spend $5,000 on m43 gear than FF gear any day, as m43 = FUN. FF ... not so much.

Steve Spencer wrote:
On price differences sometimes m4/3rds is more expensive and sometimes FF is more expensive. You point to two examples where m4/3rds is more expensive. The 45 f/1.8 is more expensive than Canikon's 50 f/1.8 lenses, and the 75 f/1.8 is more expensive than Canikon's 85 f/1.8 lenses. But there are lot of examples that go the other way. How about the PL 25 f/1.4 vs Cankon's 24 f/1.4 lenses. Here Canikon lenses are about triple the price. How about the 14 f/2.5 vs. Canikon's 14 f/2.8 lenses. Here Canikon lenses are about 5 times the price. Even the PL
...Show more



Mar 22, 2014 at 12:53 PM
Wilbus
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


Agree Bobbytan, as would I.

Actually, I went from a D700 to m43 with the arrival of the Em-5, like I said in another thread, what it really comes down to is quality on print and there m43 is more then good enough. No one will see a difference between the formats on screen unless zoomed to 100% or more.
The weight and size of m43 gives so many advantages, the Em-5 and three lenses still weight less then the D700 alone.

Anyway, I am straying for the subject.



Mar 23, 2014 at 03:19 AM
ZoneV
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


For crop 1 and ~1.6 DSLR lenses most normal lenses are (~tensed) Double Gauss designs.
For a crop 2 camera image-side (near) telecentricity is needed (see 4/3 spec). This is not achieved with classic Double Gauss designs.
Without telecentricity lenses could be build cheaper, but likely with much more vignetting on these 4/3 sensors.





Mar 23, 2014 at 11:45 AM
AhamB
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


Steve Spencer wrote:
The Panny 20 f/1.7 doesn't have a FF equivalent at the same aperture


Sigma 20/1.8.



Mar 23, 2014 at 12:44 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...




AhamB wrote:
Sigma 20/1.8.

For FF equivalent it would need to be a 40 f/1.8



Mar 23, 2014 at 12:58 PM
Beni
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


Don't forget the pricing of the FE 55mm 1.8 lens...


Mar 23, 2014 at 01:05 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.