It reads as a sales pamphlet. Regarding, "A constant f/2.8 100–400mm equivalent is the kind of lens no one else would attempt." This is because they don't need to, outside the mFT! For example, a f/5.6 100-400mm full-frame lens shall produce equivalent to mFT 50-200mm f/2.8 photos, while using the same SS on the camera.
FF photographers would just love to have a 100-400 f2.8 lens if it would not weigh a ton and cost a fortune. Who does not want more light on their sensor?
The benefits of an f2.8 lens over a f4 or f5.6 lens are rather obvious, be it attached to a M4/3 or FF body.
The Canon 100-300 f2.8 is an awesome lens, but costs $10,000US and weighs 5.7 pounds.
it's all really quite strange (I am saying this as a FF user who also uses m4/3).
so many FF zealots (who do not use m4/3, never have, and never will [in their own words]) claim that m4/3 users are completely deluded regarding everything that they like about using their m4/3 equipment.
FF zealots state that everything about the m4/3 system that m4/3 users like is scientifically proven to be nothing but a figment of m4/3 users' imaginations, namely great AF performance and great image quality.
FF zealots profess that m4/3 users' only purpose is to troll the internet with ridiculous/rubbish claims that m4/3 is now pretty good vs FF.
FF zealots state that m4/3 users are deluded into unjustly defending the m4/3 system with lies and rubbish claims.
...thing is...lately...there are numerous professional FF shooters that are using/testing m4/3 equipment, showing their work and explaining out everything that proves to them (professional FF shooters) that m4/3 is really good and some completely switching over to m4/3.
so...those plenty FF shooters are FF shooters making claims and detailing exactly how they arrived at their very positive opinions in favor of m4/3.
and what do we all see, yes, the FF zealots commenting at those posts stating how m4/3 never has and never will be as good as FF and m4/3 users need to stop with rubbish claims defending m4/3. seems the FF zealots are the ones doing all the defending (of FF against the coming of m4/3).
why? why are FF zealots so afraid of and upset with a dead camera system they will never use? wierd.
another FF user YT content creator (Wayne Robertson Photography) yesterday released a video explaining that he is switching completely over to m4/3 from FF. He explained that he bought m4/3 to complement his photography but after seeing the results from his own (not loaned) m4/3 gear he knew he could (and did) switch completely over to m4/3. I wonder how many FF zealots will be there telling all m4/3 users to stop defending m4/3 and that m4/3 is not as good as FF?
My comment was about an assertion incorrectly implied by "A constant f/2.8 100–400mm equivalent is the kind of lens no one else would attempt."
The article refers to the 50-200mm f/2.8 lens as a "f/2.8 100-400 equivalent". Thus, the above qouted statement incorrectly implies that the 50-200mm mFT lens has optical properties unmatched by the camera systems with larger sensors.
Obviously, a FF camera with a 100-400 f/5.6 lens can take images that are going to be photographically equivalent to those taken with an mFT and the 50-200mm f/2.8 lens, with the SS being the same on both systems. This is a matter-of-fact technical statement that is not emotionally charged and doesn't mean anything more than I have written above.
I owned and extensively used the Sony 100-400 mm GM lens, also with 1.5 and 2x TC, and eventually sold it as I didn't like it. The new mFT lens may possibly offer superior USER experience and can be a better lens from this particular point of view. However, optically it is not an unmatched lens that is "the kind of lens no one else would attempt."
Paul_100A wrote:
another FF user YT content creator (Wayne Robertson Photography) yesterday released a video explaining that he is switching completely over to m4/3 from FF. He explained that he bought m4/3 to complement his photography but after seeing the results from his own (not loaned) m4/3 gear he knew he could (and did) switch completely over to m4/3. I wonder how FF zealots will be there telling all m4/3 users to stop defending m4/3 and that m4/3 is not as good as FF?
I watched this earlier today, that shot of the tree in the heather was a cracking shot
wastedimages wrote:
I watched this earlier today, that shot of the tree in the heather was a cracking shot
Indeed.
I was skimming so when I stopped on the tree image print I assumed he had taken that shot using one of the High-Res options. I was surprised when he mentioned, after gushing about all the crisp sharp detail everywhere, that he did not capture the image using either of the High-Res options.
I don’t worry about what is equivalent, which is better, m4/3 is useless etc.. prefer to just get out and take pics. Guess am just getting old and tired of all the noise.
Paul_100A wrote:
it's all really quite strange (I am saying this as a FF user who also uses m4/3).
so many FF zealots (who do not use m4/3, never have, and never will [in their own words]) claim that m4/3 users are completely deluded regarding everything that they like about using their m4/3 equipment.
FF zealots state that everything about the m4/3 system that m4/3 users like is scientifically proven to be nothing but a figment of m4/3 users' imaginations, namely great AF performance and great image quality.
FF zealots profess that m4/3 users' only purpose is to troll the internet with ridiculous/rubbish claims that m4/3 is now pretty good vs FF.
FF zealots state that m4/3 users are deluded into unjustly defending the m4/3 system with lies and rubbish claims.
...thing is...lately...there are numerous professional FF shooters that are using/testing m4/3 equipment, showing their work and explaining out everything that proves to them (professional FF shooters) that m4/3 is really good and some completely switching over to m4/3.
so...those plenty FF shooters are FF shooters making claims and detailing exactly how they arrived at their very positive opinions in favor of m4/3.
and what do we all see, yes, the FF zealots commenting at those posts stating how m4/3 never has and never will be as good as FF and m4/3 users need to stop with rubbish claims defending m4/3. seems the FF zealots are the ones doing all the defending (of FF against the coming of m4/3).
why? why are FF zealots so afraid of and upset with a dead camera system they will never use? wierd.
another FF user YT content creator (Wayne Robertson Photography) yesterday released a video explaining that he is switching completely over to m4/3 from FF. He explained that he bought m4/3 to complement his photography but after seeing the results from his own (not loaned) m4/3 gear he knew he could (and did) switch completely over to m4/3. I wonder how many FF zealots will be there telling all m4/3 users to stop defending m4/3 and that m4/3 is not as good as FF?
There’s the exception of Andy Rouse, though. He’s a pro UK wildlife photographer who loved his MFT setup, but was told by his agent that his clients were complaining about IQ, so he switched to Sony. Now, we do know that the need for cropping in wildlife can provide a challenge for the MFT sensors.
johnvanr wrote:
Now, we do know that the need for cropping in wildlife can provide a challenge for the MFT sensors.
Except when a FF and MFT photographer are both standing at the same spot with 300mm lenses, the MFT one already has a cropped image on his sensor that the FF photographer does not. No
Imagemaster wrote:
Except when a FF and MFT photographer are both standing at the same spot with 300mm lenses, the MFT one already has a cropped image on his sensor that the FF photographer does not. No
True, and he knows that too. He now uses the 200-600mm Sony and for his work apparently that leaves him with enough megapixels to sell double-page spreads in magazines. He couldn’t do that with MFT after the cropping needed.
He posted a long video on his Patreon about his switch and how he wished he could have stuck with MFT because he loved everything about it, but couldn’t ignore his agent.
Like you, personally, I find MFT perfect for my wildlife uses. Where I have doubts is low light, studio and my desire to use older FF lenses on a FF body.
johnvanr wrote:
There’s the exception of Andy Rouse, though. He’s a pro UK wildlife photographer who loved his MFT setup, but was told by his agent that his clients were complaining about IQ, so he switched to Sony. Now, we do know that the need for cropping in wildlife can provide a challenge for the MFT sensors.
I followed Andy Rouse for a good long while.
I thought he explained the reason why he switched to FF was simply because his client(s) suddenly decided that they wanted higher resolution images. I thought he explained the reason he was upset about having to switch systems was because his client(s) had no complaints about the image quality from his current system.
Am I remembering it differently or incorrectly?
as far as me cropping with my m4/3 goes…no, i do not know that I have any more or less issues cropping files from my m4/3 equipment than anyone with FF format. I’ll say the reason being is I don’t have to crop files from a 2x crop body as much as FF has to crop files for the same result.
I crop plenty of my m4/3 files and I am very much satisfied with the results to post them online and/or print them.
the ‘FF can crop more than a 2X crop body rationale’ is silly to me. It’s not even an argument to me.
I realized that when I realized that I was shooting my FF wildlife set up in crop mode most of the time, and/or having to crop (even further in many cases) in post.
FF must crop in order to keep up with m4/3 is the way I see it because of my own experience shooting FF wildlife and m4/3 wildlife.
I’ll just add this.
A few years back, my Nikon friend (birding long before me) went full m4/3 (two OM-1s and a 150-400, plus other lenses) when he started birding with me and we were doing exactly what Imagemaster described…standing shoulder to shoulder shooting the same subject. He saw he simply couldn’t compete with m4/3 results. I wasn’t trying to compete. I was just taking pictures.
So…just a few days ago he says to me (again) that OM simply has to make a high resolution sensor camera.
I asked (again) why.
Marketing he says. They have to because other companies have high resolution sensor cameras so OM should too to stay in business.
I said no thanks to the idea of 53.3% smaller pixels on a more densely packed sensor. which means the cameras processor is simply going to be purposed to ‘Ai’ all the images to look better before even outputting from the camera…just like cellphones. No thanks.
BUT…my main point to him was that if m4/3 made a high resolution sensor then folks would simply rely/depend on cropping files (same as FF) and I suspect the image quality results would generally become poorer and poorer for m4/3.
-I’ll use my trusty 12-40mm lens to take a picture of that small bird 120 yards away and then crop it because I have so many pixels to throw away.-
same as they do with cellphones.
johnvanr wrote:
True, and he knows that too. He now uses the 200-600mm Sony and for his work apparently that leaves him with enough megapixels to sell double-page spreads in magazines. He couldn’t do that with MFT after the cropping needed.
He posted a long video on his Patreon about his switch and how he wished he could have stuck with MFT because he loved everything about it, but couldn’t ignore his agent.
Like you, personally, I find MFT perfect for my wildlife uses. Where I have doubts is low light, studio and my desire to use older FF lenses on a FF body....Show more →
I've followed Andy for many years, and I remember he made a big deal about why he switched to Canon, and Nikon, and Olympus, too. I guess the more you publicize a system change, the farther you have to go in justifying the next change...
I'm not a famous "professional wildlife photographer", and as much as I liked my Sony, Canon, and my current Nikon gear, my bird photos shot with m4/3 outsell all the bird images shot with the other brands combined, several times over - so I guess none of those clients are concerned about the small sensor image quality.
OMDnext wrote:
I don’t worry about what is equivalent, which is better, m4/3 is useless etc.. prefer to just get out and take pics. Guess am just getting old and tired of all the noise.
the real reason is there is no reason to worry about any of that stuff when you like the results you get from your equipment.
you are golden when you like the results you get from your equipment and all the ‘scientific evidence’ that demands you mustn’t like the results you get from your equipment is meaningless or humorous depending on how you like.
the utterly useless and ridiculous equivalency ‘debate’ 😝 is the largest and longest running defensive manoeuvre of the FF zealots.
For a slightly different perspective, well-known medium format landscape photographer Timothy Poulton has been using m4/3 gear for some of his landscape work (alongside Fuji GFX and full-frame gear):
Cliff L. wrote:
I've followed Andy for many years, and I remember he made a big deal about why he switched to Canon, and Nikon, and Olympus, too. I guess the more you publicize a system change, the farther you have to go in justifying the next change...
I'm not a famous "professional wildlife photographer", and as much as I liked my Sony, Canon, and my current Nikon gear, my bird photos shot with m4/3 outsell all the bird images shot with the other brands combined, several times over - so I guess none of those clients are concerned about the small sensor image quality....Show more →
I am admittedly talking out of my arse as I have no idea…but…when I watched Andy’s ‘I don’t want to, I HAVE to switch to Sony’ announcement, the idea that Andy was now more a content creator and deriving (or hoping to) more income from YouTube publicity (sponsor-Sony, photo tours) than taking/selling photos was a thought. If that was the case then he was simply making efforts to retain his following numbers (hoping to not lose his m4/3 followers) while adding FF followers.
Cliff L. wrote:
For a slightly different perspective, well-known medium format landscape photographer Timothy Poulton has been using m4/3 gear for some of his landscape work (alongside Fuji GFX and full-frame gear):
In particular, he praises the mobility afforded by the smaller OM-1 II and 8-25mm f4 lens.
funny, FF pro photographer content creators’ YouTube channels see a massive uptick when they release their “my gosh…look how good m4/3 is vs my FF stuff” videos. click bait triggering the eternal ‘FF against 4/3’ crowd’s non-stop arguing in their comment section.
I was shocked, yesterday, to see Mark Smith (Nikon-Sony) released an OM-1II w/50-200Pro YT video.
Now…I may have skimmed and missed it but as far as I know Mark stated he liked the OM stuff/results (which any decent camera operator should with any decent camera equipment) but what shocked me was I don’t recall him specifically saying ‘wow…it’s just as good as my FF stuff’. So…cudos to Mark for not resorting to click bait tactics.
Paul_100A wrote:
funny, FF pro photographer content creators’ YouTube channels see a massive uptick when they release their “my gosh…look how good m4/3 is vs my FF stuff” videos. click bait triggering the eternal ‘FF against 4/3’ crowd’s non-stop arguing in their comment section.
I was shocked, yesterday, to see Mark Smith (Nikon-Sony) released an OM-1II w/50-200Pro YT video.
Now…I may have skimmed and missed it but as far as I know Mark stated he liked the OM stuff/results (which any decent camera operator should with any decent camera equipment) but what shocked me was I don’t recall him specifically saying ‘wow…it’s just as good as my FF stuff’. So…cudos to Mark for not resorting to click bait tactics. ...Show more →
I watched Mark's video, too. He expressed no actual objective personal opinions about the lens or the m4/3 system - it was more like he was just reading from an advertising brochure. Better to say nothing than risk alienating his existing fanbase, I suppose.
On a related note, OM System seems to have had enough of these lenses available to provide one to every single photographer on YouTube - so they must have thousands of them ready to ship. Keep an eye on the used equipment listings at B&H - a lot of these demo units seem to end up there once the influencers are finished with them.
