Aristophanes Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Imagemaster wrote:
Really? And if the Oly zoom is really the same size or larger than the Nikon 200-500, what makes you think the EM1X & 150-400 is a smaller combo than a Sony AP-C or FF body with the Sony 200-600?
And as far as reach goes, more important than the 35mm equivalent focal-length reach is how many pixels you have on your subject. i.e. How many pixels do you have on your subject shooting with the Oly sensor compared to a FF Sony sensor when your subject is the same distance away?
Maybe I am wrong on price, but things are stooopid silly in mirrorless land with pricing these days. Comparing to a legacy DSLR or adapted lens is problematic. Just look at the price on the 70-200/2.8 for the EOS RF to gauge where the margins are coming from now. They will up-price all mirrorless products compared to legacy DSLR. I expect Olympus and Panasonic (see their FF pricing for example) to ride that trend.
The future-proof friction buying new DSLR glass is, in and of itself, the competition.
And for pixels, yes, m43 needs (requires...demands) a better sensor. It makes little sense to offer such a lens on the current 20mp sensor and AF and EVF.
Also, would not the Olympus 150-400/4.5 with TC be closer to the Nikon 180-400/4+TC at $12k? The Olympus will have serious reach, and still be considerably more portable than any FF or even APS-C lens with this magnification factor, especially when the TC is factored in.
Let's says it adds 50% to the 300/4 mass, so 2200g. That's still less than the 2300g of the Nikon 200-500 and multiples less in mass and bulk any other FF or APS-C tele-zoom with that reach and magnification.
Judging by the relative sizes of the 300 and 100-400, this seems ballpark reasonable. We will have to see. And as for price, I don't think we can compare mirrorless to DSLR. SLR lenses are not the long term competition.
http://j.mp/2YkSyWr
|