Wilbus
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Pavel wrote:
Of course neither can I disagree that the idea of balance can mean different things to different people with different needs and standards - sort of like nobody can disagree that all pictures are equally good, since someone will find one far from the average viewpoint superior to the consensus driven "great" photo. I concede the point.
Come to think of it my iPhone is much superior an image maker when considered on a per gram, multiplied by units of convenience. So in that sense Olympus is just one small dot on the continuum, between great image quality versus great convenience. Not at all on one end.
But just the same, I wont be mounting a four inch teleconverter on it. If the need arises that I need to get a picture of an eagle far away - I'll just go get the appropriately sized gear. Sometimes small is good, sometimes large is superior. And once in a while the middle compromise suits, and that's where the Olympus shines. It shines brightest with it's small primes. The rest is a kludge. But yes, that's just my standard. Your's can be whatever your wallet, carry ability, IQ trade-offs and other plot points happen to be.
Yes, it's all personal. But then that was a given from the get go, was it not, that everyone speaks from their perspective, with their preferences, biases and limits? But what opinion can be trusted when anything goes, if it's from the mothership Olympus - less fallible than the Pope it would seem, to the standards of some....Show more →
Well written! 
Well, that is the thing, isn't it? Everything, every system, every camera, every lens, is a compromise. Zeiss said they would build the best DSLR lenses in the world with the Otus series, no compromises. And they did, part from the fact that size was quite an obvious freaking compromise. All fine and dandy, if you want the ultimate quality, you pay for it in money and size.
The same really goes for other glass but perhaps most notably long glass where it is very obvious you pay for the quality in size, weight and price. I for one don't have the money for a 600mm Nikon or Canon prime, neither would I want to carry it around with me on multi day hikes together with food, tent, sleeping bag, clothes, water etc for 5-7 days. Add to that another few lenses like a super wide angle zoom and a normal zoom and it's just no fun. Not to mention what freaking backpack would I choose? I have trouble enough with that part as it is 
There is zero dispute that a Nikon or Canon will do the job "better" in terms of picture quality from the larger sensor, not only in good light but even more so in the lack of light. But it does so at the price of cost, size and weight.
I have never understood why people bash m43 for getting larger and faster glass. In the beginning they were bashing m43 for the lack of fast glass. Now it's the opposite. I think you are helping me understand it a little bit as it does seem you're upset with the fact they are throwing most of what they got in to fast-ish zooms and fast primes with larger size, thus spending less on small primes where you think the system shines.
While, for many, m43 may be a small system and only a small system, I like choice. I know I can go larger, heavier and pricier with great quality in using their PRO series but I also know that I could (thinking about it actually) pick up a PEN-F and a 12,17,25 and 45mm set of primes and put it all in a pocket or two. That's choices for you.
I would be the first to agree that Olympus, or m43 rather, is no less fallible then the pope. On the other hand, as a non believer, or a believer of religion being rather silly, I would also be the first to agree that the pope, and those surrounding him, are all quite fallible
I am even thinking of adding a larger frame system again but Sony doesn't do it for me and I want mirrorless which means I am eagerly awaiting Nikons (hopefully) announcement. I am no fan-boy of no system, they all have their pros and cons and that's the beauty of choice. I have chosen to invest in m43 for whatever reasons. Just like someone chose to invest in Nikon and their large lenses, or smaller lenses.
But yes, m43 is a compromise and a good enough compromise for me and many others. It's possible for me to carry it with me on longer hikes, with a setup of high quality zoom from 12-150mm and a 300mm prime in the future.
Just like I have chosen that to be a good compromise, many others would say it's too heavy and either go with cheaper and much lighter zooms. Others would say, still too heavy, and go with a Nikon 1 system (R.I.P.) while others would say, still to heavy and go with a superzoom like a Panasonic FZ-300.
However, and this is in the defence of those large, heavy dinosaurs we call DSLRs, things have changed a little bit as of lately.
First of all, take the release of the D850, while expensive it offers high speed and a lot of pixels, add that to the best AF and tracking AF in the world it makes for a glorious wild life camera, not only that but it's smaller then a D5 and still does 7fps a second, or as large as one and does 9fps. You can add the little marvellous 300mm F4 PF to that camera and crop heavily and still maintain high quality and a weight that is actually lower then a Olympus E-M1 and 300mm F4. You can't quite crop it the same scale and maintain the same amount of pixels but then again, the pixel quality in it self should be higher. Not to mention better tracking AF and low light performance.
So yes, unless m43 can throw in some new magic in their lenses and challenge the size of new PF-type glass, they may have an even harder time in the future.
The price of course, would still be higher but not enough so that it's not reachable by someone who is already throwing down that amount of dough.
|
Criticism is important and it's in short supply sometimes.
