Not really, the quality of the glass has to be far superior for the bit of lens that is used for u4/3

Surely the difficulty in making lenses is around the edges? So by not using the edges they made it easier to make good lenses rather than harder?

Every Olympus 4/3 lens review I read said they were very good or amazing for the price. Mainly because 4/3 is a new system designed for digital.

Grantway – sorry but those pics do look a bit amateurish. If you are near South Wales I might be able to help you do a little better 🙂

4/3rds is an odd one. Simultaneously new and obsolete. I don’t doubt you can get good lenses at reasonable prices, but you can’t get a modern body to use the on.

There are growing rumours that they are working on one, based on the OM-D sensor.

Yeah, I noticed. Looks like an adapter based solution. I wonder if Sony buying a chunk of Olympus is related? The slt adapter that Sony use on the nex to use alpha mount lenses would be the obvious solution.

Adapter based? As opposed to the actual adapter you can buy?

They say they want to make something to support the top pro lenses, which must mean it has to have PDAF.

Maybe E-5s will come down in price on ebay 🙂

From what I’ve read it will accept m43 and 43 lenses. As they have different flange distances you need an adapter. As contrast detect doesn’t really work with lenses designed for phase detect they either need a big breakthrough in on-chip phase detect or they need to licence their new partners phase detect via translucent mirror, which sits in the flange spacer/adapter.

This must have been what I read…

Surely the difficulty in making lenses is around the edges? So by not using the edges they made it easier to make good lenses rather than harder?

Well, when the 7d came out with (then) one of the most pixel-dense sensors on the market, most reviewers reckoned that was actually a sterner test of lenses than the higher resolution (but FF) 5d2

Olympus have always made cracking lenses though. Most of my lenses i use on my 5d2 are OM with an adapter, and most stand up pretty well

Which ones zokes? There is a page online somewhere where a guy has tested all his OM lenses on a 4/3 camera. Some were good and some were quite poor.

The only one I carry around usually is my 18mm f/3.5, which to my eyes on some test photos I took using it vs the canon 17-40L was superior

I also occasionally use a 135mm and 200mm, both of which are pin sharp

The two I’ve been unimpressed with are a 28mm f/3.5, which just seems very soft with lots of ca, and a very old 50mn f/1.4, which is soft wide open, but sadly not much use for digital at all as you get reflections off the sensor.

The best camera is the one you have with you. Its a well known phrase, but absolutely true. Prior to questioning crop or ff, consider whether you want a portable camera or one that requires a medium-large bag to carry the gear. You may decide both makes sense. I don’t believe one makes you more creative – thats a state of mind and approach to your photography. One will give you better image quality – but both can give you photos you cherish.

If you are serious about getting into photography, dont stew on the choice now. Its highly likely you’ll change your gear after a while to something that fits you better.

The best camera is the one you have with you.

What if I’m carrying two cameras? 🙂

I’m going away for a couple of days, I think I’m going to take the pancake 25mm lens. I need a smaller better bag for it.

consider whether you want a portable camera or one that requires a medium-large bag to carry the gear

Absolutely right, and the choice of camera and consequently bag is actually quite important if you are going to combine photography with other activities. Having kids for instance, one think I quite fancy is a bag like the Lowe one that’s a normal day trip bag with a small camera compartment in it. Easy to bring a cam and a lens along with other junk you end up bringing.

Big cameras are most useful when you are making a special trip to take pictures. If you are combining then a small one that’s quick to get out and use is what you need.

Another thing I did was get a very small wrist strap instead of the neck lanyard. I can reach into the bag, grab the cam and get shooting without messing with straps and without worrying about dropping it 🙂

What if the camera you have with you simply won’t do what you need it to? What if your aim is to have pin sharp prints in large formats for your drawing room? In that case your pocket point’n’shoot won’t do, unless it’s something like the new Sony, at 2500 quid.

“drawing room”
Lol, maybe print smaller and hang them in the library?

What if the camera you have with you simply won’t do what you need it to? What if your aim is to have pin sharp prints in large formats for your drawing room? In that case your pocket point’n’shoot won’t do, unless it’s something like the new Sony, at 2500 quid.

Well, in that case, you’re obviously always on the look-out for *that* photo, and subsequently will always have your best camera and lens with you at all times, just in case.
Most people, on the other hand, are just out and about, and like to capture a moment, rather than be looking for something big to hang on a wall. For most, with average homes, an A3 print would be as large as could be managed.
And I’ve managed to take photos with my iPhone 5 that would easily go to A3. A quality compact, with a decent pixel count, will go to A3, probably A2.
Another consideration is where are you going to use the camera? A DSLR is great, until you want to take photos inside a venue where such a camera is considered professional equipment, and its use prohibited. That’s when a quality compact, like a Sony NEX5 or 7, or the Lumix equivalent, comes into its own. You have a nice, small, pocketable body, with a good size sensor, and interchangeable lenses, that will shoot video too. I might well look at getting a NEX7 when the next model comes out, and the price of the 7 drops.

What if your aim is to have pin sharp prints in large formats for your drawing room?

Fine, but if it’s a good photo the difference in sharpness between a FF and crop sensor won’t make any difference even blown up large.

I wonder what kind of printing equipment you’d need to show up the extra quality at poster sizes? Something pretty serious I’d expect.

Molgrips
The answer to your question is extremely expensive

Stick your pics up here

To Much Camera Than Needed

Fine, but if it’s a good photo the difference in sharpness between a FF and crop sensor won’t make any difference even blown up large.

Sure 🙄

By that logic a point and shoot will replace a 43 system. You’d never notice the difference. As you can’t tell the difference between an iPhone and a point and shoot you may as well just not bother…

My largest print is 6 feet across. I did design the extension so I could have print that big though.

What if the camera you have with you simply won’t do what you need it to? What if your aim is to have pin sharp prints in large formats for your drawing room? In that case your pocket point’n’shoot won’t do, unless it’s something like the new Sony, at 2500 quid.

If you have a specific session in mind, then you’d naturally use the equipment you have access to that fits the job best. This is obvious. For your example, any numb nuts could establish a pocket P&S isn’t the right fit.

The point I was making is – if you buy a large camera and take it out less often due to the weight/size/inconvenience/whatever then you may be getting less value from it than a smaller camera that makes it easier to use more. Its a very common scenario that photographers come by. At the beginning, photography is often about trying everything and enjoying everything – so a tool that allows that is best – whatever it may be (dslr/p&s/rangefinder/etc).

Btw the RX1 requires pretty large pockets.

By that logic a point and shoot will replace a 43 system.

Not much in terms of IQ no, for most home printed stuff. However the usability of P&S is way down.

had a play with a NEX5R

Boy have they moved on. The handling and AF much better than they were.

It could be the solution for me…

The ‘3’ verions of Olympus Pens (ie E-PL3) are also way way better than the older 2 versions for AF speed. Try one of those too.

Would also recommend the Sony RX100.