Looks like enthusiasts craftsmen_technicians have no place on the DSLR planet. One can have customised car in any flavour (I am talking about the internals not just the appearance) and at various price levels but there are no sensor transplants I am aware of. Not to mention transplanting other camera components.
I think its imperative that they do price it low, just to make it sound attractive to people considering it. I'm still not happy with some of their strategy though. Olympus would do themselves some favours if they got the WHOLE package right. Lens pricing is a topic of some debate and has been discussed/argued many times, but there are other indisputable points.
For instance, the twin flash kit costs AU$1800. It doesn't fit on a 50mm macro lens, so the adapter costs AU$150... $1950 total. The same twin flash kit for the Nikon (and somewhat better kit) costs AU$1200, and less if you have a D200/D80 and don't need the SU-800 commander unit.
Olympus make me think they take their marketing from the printer manufacturers.... the printer costs $99..... and the cartridge to refill it with 8 inks costs $399.
on lenses 12-60 is thought to be $900. No prices on Zuiko Digital 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 SWD (its predecessor is $830)
IF it where the same price, or IF you were happy with the current 50-250 lens, Im not sure where that stands with other systems for 12-250mm 24-500 EFL coverage for $1630.
The 300mm f2.8 however is AU$13,500. Any Nikon or Canon 300mm f2.8 lens is something like AU$7500. Oly will back this up with... "but its a 600mm effective".
No, its a 300mm lens. Just because Olympus choose to crop the sensor and make it small, does not justify marking up the price. Something the Oly rep and myself won't ever see eye to eye with.
nikt wrote:
The 300mm f2.8 however is AU$13,500. Any Nikon or Canon 300mm f2.8 lens is something like AU$7500. Oly will back this up with... "but its a 600mm effective".
No, its a 300mm lens. Just because Olympus choose to crop the sensor and make it small, does not justify marking up the price. Something the Oly rep and myself won't ever see eye to eye with.
the 300mm is US$6,000, it is the second most expensive Olympus lens (coincidence?)
which canon and nikon F2.8 lenses are you comparing ?
yes its a 300mm lens, BUT its 600mm on the system
and thats what you would need to compare with on another system
and thats what i was querying with 24-500mm EFL
rendra wrote:
Is it fair to compare 50-200 mm on 4/3 vs 100-400 mm on FF sensor ?
Totally different magnification ratio and show us different picture qualities on both of them.
I stand to be corrected but a quick check shows the above is simply false.
ZD 50 - 200 2.8 -3.5 on 4/3 angle of view 24 to 6; max. magnification 0.21; GBP 699
Canon 100 - 400 4.5 - 5.6 on FF angle of view 20 to 6.10; max. magnification 0.20 GBP 1039
Sorry guys but if I am on the market for a given lens the only thing that matters to me is not theoretical considerations but how much I have to pay for the the respective zoom range/ reach in case of primes, providing lenses quality is the same. Olympus win hands down.
P.S. Sorry, for ZD should be max. magnification on 4/3 0.21x/ on 35mm 0.42x
Yes, its fair to compare qualities of lenses with the same angle of view. My point is, they make a 300mm lens, it costs them whatever... to make a 300mm lens... and then charge for it like it cost them to make a 600mm lens....
Oly Australia have the 300mm lens listed for over 13 grand (part of the problem right there, though they may have changed the cost already). The Nikkor 300mm f2.8 is $7500. d-d-photographics.com.au have it for AU6,500 but thats grey important with no local warranty.
Back to my original point, what about their twin flash kit and other items that are priced much higher than they should be. If Olympus want to sell their accessories and lenses at the stated prices, then thats their market strategy. I think its a poor one and not a holistic approach to sell and marketing their products to the best of their abilities.
nikt wrote:
Yes, its fair to compare qualities of lenses with the same angle of view. My point is, they make a 300mm lens, it costs them whatever... to make a 300mm lens... and then charge for it like it cost them to make a 600mm lens....
With a crop factor 2x to achive the same quality the Olympus lenses should be twice as good as "ordinary" FF lenses. For example if a FF lens can resolve 100 lp/mm an equivalent 4/3 lens should resolve 200 lp/mm. I know too little about Olympus to state that they are up to this standart, but if they are it is going to be expensive.
just to add
i guess everyone has lenses from other systems
but the limitation to 4/3rds is that the lens must necessarily be good
therefore good primes etc work more successfully than zooms, particularly cheap zooms
Rob Riley wrote:
just to add
i guess everyone has lenses from other systems
but the limitation to 4/3rds is that the lens must necessarily be good
therefore good primes etc work more successfully than zooms, particularly cheap zooms
Even expensive zooms are mostly problematic. My Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S, an amazingly sharp lens on my Fuji S3, is only able to achieve less than mediocre results on my Olympus E-1. The Micro Nikkor 105 on the other hand, works without flaw.
