Did anyone download the raw samples that are provided by the French reviewer linked a few pages back?
There are a few real world direct comparisons with the fe200-600G.
Based on the samples, the 400-800 is a good step up in resolving power wide open at 800mm compared to the 200-600G wide open cropped. It is not a small difference i.m.o.
Also, the bokeh is better.
The stories about the 200-600G being f6.3 at 600mm are irrelevant in two practical ways: the 200-600G never actually reaches 600mm, ánd when I had it (two times I owned it) I was forced to stop down to f7.1 because it was not truly sharp at f6.3.
At f7.1 it was distinctly better, and actually a very nice lens, but the new 400-800mm appears better in every regard, and I may add one to the 600GM as a travel lens.
AGeoJO wrote:
^ ^ Price comparison between the 2 lenses at B&H: Olympus $7,500 vs. Sony $2,900. Plus, the Olympus is a M 4/3 lens and the Sony is a full frame lens.
No kidding? You could have fooled me.
Maybe the Olympus is a better-built lens with F4.5 and a built-in TC. I only posted for a JFYI, and don't need a debate.
I prefer lugging a 4 lb. lens, not a 5.45 lb. lens. Go buy the Sony if it makes you happy.
Imagemaster wrote:
No kidding? You could have fooled me.
Maybe the Olympus is a better-built lens with F4.5 and a built-in TC. I only posted for a JFYI, and don't need a debate.
I prefer lugging a 4 lb. lens, not a 5.45 lb. lens. Go buy the Sony if it makes you happy.
Sure, I know you are not here to debate, Tony 😜. You just posted in a specific Sony lens thread, comparing that lens to an Olympus lens. And that thread is in Sony forum, too. Oh, just FYI, according to you. But, who as Sony users that visit the Sony forum, minding their own interest, would consider getting an Olympus lens? Even if that lens would weigh only 2 lb. I would be happy to lug around the heavier Sony lens since I know that it will work on my Sony camera while the Olympus lens won't.
AGeoJO wrote:
Sure, I know you are not here to debate, Tony 😜. You just posted in a specific Sony lens thread, comparing that lens to an Olympus lens. And that thread is in Sony forum, too. Oh, just FYI, according to you. But, who as Sony users that visit the Sony forum, minding their own interest, would consider getting an Olympus lens? Even if that lens would weigh only 2 lb. I would be happy to lug around the heavier Sony lens since I know that it will work on my Sony camera while the Olympus lens won't.
Boo hoo, get over it. You can compare any brand of camera other than Sony on the Sony Forum, just like you can do on the Canon, Nikon, and M4/3 Forums. Unless of course there is some rule saying you can't, or you are the Moderator.
Look on the Micro Four Thirds Forum and you will see comparisons with FF cameras, and nobody there is getting their panties in a knot.
It must be nice that you speak for all Sony users and know that not a single Sony user considers getting another brand, or M4/3 camera as a second camera, or changing brands. And most of them can figure out they would get a M4/3 body for their M4/3 lens.
There are also some using both FF and M4/3 systems at the same time. God forbid, eh?
AGeoJO wrote:
^ ^ Price comparison between the 2 lenses at B&H: Olympus $7,500 vs. Sony $2,900. Plus, the Olympus is a M 4/3 lens and the Sony is a full frame lens.
The problem with the Olympus lens is that you can't stick a great sensor on it. I do really like m43 for travel, but I gave up shooting birds on that platform due to the inability to crop and still have an acceptable image. Now, I acknowledge what is acceptable is subjective and varies from person to person, but for me it finally became too frustrating to shoot with a 20 MP sensor. Plus, the 300mm GM and 2xTC makes a lightweight combo so the weight advantage for m43 has started to disappear somewhat.
Douglas L wrote:
At 5:06 of this video, you could see the image size comparison between 400-800 at 800mm, at 3.5 meters (MFD) and 200-600 at 600mm, 2.4 meters (MFD).
Interesting. I didn't expect the 400-800 to have higher magnification at MFD. That's good news!
galenapass wrote:
The problem with the Olympus lens is that you can't stick a great sensor on it. I do really like m43 for travel, but I gave up shooting birds on that platform due to the inability to crop and still have an acceptable image. Now, I acknowledge what is acceptable is subjective and varies from person to person, but for me it finally became too frustrating to shoot with a 20 MP sensor. Plus, the 300mm GM and 2xTC makes a lightweight combo so the weight advantage for m43 has started to disappear somewhat.
Sure, it all depends on each individual's needs and wants. So if it is subjective, why do some people complain about what gear other photographers use?
OM-1MarkIIOM 150-400mm F4.5 lens400mmf/4.51/2000s2500 ISO0.0 EV
Imagemaster wrote:
Boo hoo, get over it. You can compare any brand of camera other than Sony on the Sony Forum, just like you can do on the Canon, Nikon, and M4/3 Forums. Unless of course there is some rule saying you can't, or you are the Moderator.
Look on the Micro Four Thirds Forum and you will see comparisons with FF cameras, and nobody there is getting their panties in a knot.
It must be nice that you speak for all Sony users and know that not a single Sony user considers getting another brand, or M4/3 camera as a second camera, or changing brands. And most of them can figure out they would get a M4/3 body for their M4/3 lens.
There are also some using both FF and M4/3 systems at the same time. God forbid, eh?...Show more →
Of course you can and you did post that already anyway. There is no rule for that and right off the bat you said, that you didn't to debate but what was the reason then? Are you bored maybe? I am seriously curious and trust me, I am not upset, not the slightest. I know that you are not getting paid by Olympus or are you? Yes, we live in a free world and you can switch brands as often as you like and choose your gear whatever gear to your linking. I don't care what gear people use or even multiple gear systems. Why would I?
I was messing around with PhotoPills this morning as I was curious about the depth of field while shooting the 400-800 at the 800mm end. I have an A1, this what the chart goes off of as a base camera. I included the 1.4xTC and the 2.0xTC. Maybe someone will find this useful? It's interesting to me at least, you don't hit the 1 foot DOF mark until around 100 ft from the subject. Lots of videos being shared and a number of sharp, detailed images as well. I think this is going to be a fun lens to shoot with, fingers crossed.
hatch1921 wrote:
I was messing around with PhotoPills this morning as I was curious about the depth of field while shooting the 400-800 at the 800mm end. I have an A1, this what the chart goes off of as a base camera. I included the 1.4xTC and the 2.0xTC. Maybe someone will find this useful? It's interesting to me at least, you don't hit the 1 foot DOF mark until around 100 ft from the subject. Lots of videos being shared and a number of sharp, detailed images as well. I think this is going to be a fun lens to shoot with, fingers crossed.
AGeoJO wrote:
Of course you can and you did post that already anyway. There is no rule for that and right off the bat you said, that you didn't to debate but what was the reason then? Are you bored maybe? I am seriously curious and trust me, I am not upset, not the slightest. I know that you are not getting paid by Olympus or are you? Yes, we live in a free world and you can switch brands as often as you like and choose your gear whatever gear to your linking. I don't care what gear people use or even multiple gear systems. Why would I? ...Show more →
Not my fault if you don't get it. Did someone force you to look at my posting or click on the links?
Even on the Sony Forum there are members other than you that may be interested in other gear and formats. What is your problem with what other members want to read? Maybe you should let them decide what they want to read or not to read.
It was posted because Sony owners (other than you) may be interested. Seems to me you really care about what gear other members use, otherwise you would not have started the debate on gear that you don't care about.
Imagemaster wrote:
Not my fault if you don't get it. Did someone force you to look at my posting or click on the links?
Even on the Sony Forum there are members other than you that may be interested in other gear and formats. What is your problem with what other members want to read? Maybe you should let them decide what they want to read or not to read.
It was posted because Sony owners (other than you) may be interested. Seems to me you really care about what gear other members use, otherwise you would not have started the debate on gear that you don't care about.
greeneggs wrote:
Interesting. I didn't expect the 400-800 to have higher magnification at MFD. That's good news!
I don't know how you determined that.
The photos are aligned quite differently.
If you look at those red shoulder doohickeys, there is space above them in the 400-800 shot.
Look at the bottom area of the photo though.
Doesn't anyone have a rule, or a tape measure? That would provide an accurate result, requiring just some basic arithmetic for the viewer to determine the actual size of frame coverage.
The 400-800 spec is 0.23X at 400mm. We don't know the 800 spec but do know it is less.
The 200-600 is 0.2X at 600.
So 200-600 frame is 175mm across and 400-800 is 152mm across, both at max mag.
The 400-600 max mag reduces (from 400) at 600mm and then increases again at 800, but does not reach 0.23X.
To summarise, other factors may affect max mag achieved than the lens. ie, tape measures don't get spooked if you approach, birds often do.
