tdekany Loc: Oregon

Hey shutterbug - you seem to be reading what you want to read, not what is actually written.

First of all if you look in the Nikon catalog, there is no 35mm 1.2 lens available. Only f1.4 and up.

Nikon 35mm 1.4 - 601gr

Olympus 17mm 1.2 - 390gr

So where did you get your info that they weigh about the same?

The Olympus lens is also weatherproof. Didn’t see that in the Nikon specs.

Shutterbug57

I just read what you posted and recapped it. But to answer your question - from the article.

“The lens may look huge in the product images, but it does not feel unbearably large in the hand. I am used to handling the Olympus M.Zuiko 12-40mm F2.8 lens, so the 17mm F1.2 (similar size and weight) felt right at home. A genuine concern, however, is the diminishing benefit of Micro Four Thirds systems having smaller, more portable lenses. These new F1.2 PRO lenses are no smaller or lighter than their DSLR counterparts. I can’t deny that the size advantage is questionable now, but before we jump to conclusions, let’s take a pause and look at what the lens can do. After reviewing the results from this F1.2 lens, I can safely say I don’t wish the lens to be any smaller or lighter if it means a compromise in image quality.”

And on perspective distortion-

“If you are thinking of shooting portraits with subject isolation using the 17mm F1.2, simply because it has an F1.2 aperture, I’d caution you to manage your expectations. Do not overestimate the capability of the F1.2 lenses, you can only create sufficient background blur if you are close enough to the subject. Being so close to the subject also creates another problem – perspective distortion that will result in disproportionate looking human subjects. Therefore, the 17mm lens is suitable for mostly half body or more coverage when shooting portraits. If creating shallow depth of field is a priority, I highly recommend the 45mm F1.8, 45mm F1.2, 75mm F1.8 and 40-150mm F2.8 (you’ll notice that they’re all on the telephoto end).”

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Heck, my Ektachromes faded in archival dark storage conditions!

I have no doubt your comments about Lumix gear are on the money! It’s very capable now, and will only get better. The folks at Panasonic really listen to their customers.

Shutterbug57

Mine too. I have some Velvia that has turned orange too.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Check DXO, check DXO check DXO......

Do you know what DXO doesn’t tell you?

1 - How to find a winning subject matter

2 - the best moment to shoot to get the right lighting

3 - how to get a pleasing composition

The reason why I wrote the above is to make sure that you understand what makes a great photo. From the few posts I have seen from you, I’m not sure if you knew it.

In any case, no one will argue that a larger sensor will have better low light and more DR. My issue is the way that you downplay m4/3. It is simply not true. Let me give you an example.

When a very well established pro displayed much larger prints from his EM1 than his D810 and D7200 in a gallery, everyone assumed the large prints were from the D810. He could hear the visitors (mostly amateur photographers) complementing the amazing detail the D810 sensor was capable of. Not realizing that they were looking at photos from ththe EM1.

So you see, it isn’t as cut and dry as you make it sound like. In prints or especially on line, you will rarely see a difference. Of course shooting at night will clearly be better with FF, although your D810 isn’t known for excellent high iso either, the Sony A7SII is clearly superior to any other camera.

Do I also have to remind you, that you WILL see terrible snapshots from even the D850 cameras, while at the same time, you WILL see work of art from m4/3. But at the same time, the opposite is just as true. It is the person behind the camera that is responsible whether the result is a snapshot or an award winner.

The reason why I mentioned this, is because of your derogatory comment about those
2 photographers. I guess you have never seen their work, or aware that like Jay, also runs workshops around the country and of course sells prints.

So I challenge you to post any of your photos from your FF Nikon, that is superior to Jay’s that were taken with his m4/3 setup. (I tried to see if you had anything posted on this site, but I only saw one photo and I’m not even sure if that is you in the picture on the bike and someone else took the photo, or you took it of your friends, but in any case, that shot looks like a phone picture.

Now, as far as your lenses for the gm5? Technically speaking, not too many people would be happy with the results from those kit lenses. Put some quality lenses in front of the camera and see what you get. Or better yet, visit some m4/3 specific forums to see what is possible with m4/3 in the right hands.

Always remember that you are the weak link, not the gear.

Happy 2018 to you!

tdekany Loc: Oregon

M4/3 is no different from what FF is doing.

You can keep your kit extremely small with amazing small prime lenses. You can also get top of the line lenses and somewhat larger bodies. But even getting the largest m4/3 there are, they are still much much smaller and lighter than FF.

I’m asking you again, where did you get the info that the Olympus 17mm 1.2 Pro lens is as heavy as a 35mm equivalent lens?

The Oly weighs in at 390gr. The Nikon comes in at 609gr.

Are they the same weight?

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Fyi, not everyone needs to shoot at f1.2. Even with my faster lenses I usually stop down a bit. I’m quite happy at f2 or 2.8. There for I’ll stick with my smaller/lighter f1.8 lenses.

Shutterbug57

Did you read my last post answering this question? The article may not be right, but read what I excerpted from it and you will see that my comment was a faithful interpretation of what the author stated in the article you posted.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I gave you the weight of a ff 35mm 1.4 and the weight of the Olympus 17mm 1.2.

The Nikon is nearly twice as heavy.

Please try to do some type of research and post correct info. Between your “m4/3 being a new system and no weight savings” etc ...

You are getting an F!

Sometimes it is better not to say anything. You know?

And for god’s sake, please stop blaming others for your mistakes. Take responsibility for your actions if they are false.

Before you run into another late night tv show or another review to blame, m4/3 is going to be much lighter than FF.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Gee, I wonder which one is bigger and heavier?

(Download)

JPL

Most new digital cameras are multiformat and can be the new 6x4.5 if you want them to. All you have to do is select the format in the menu.

Shutterbug57

I guess I flunked your M43 entrance exam. Good for me. Saves me money.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Indeed you did. Btw, I could care less what you or anyone else uses. All I care about is pleasing photos to look at. Snapshots from FF sensors are still snapshots.

You have a good 2018! Hopefully you get to see/read the same useful info most others get to view. Not misinformation.