imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, I am afraid your head is buried in the sand on this .....
.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

My "head is buried in the sand"? I when back through the post to look for the links you and Canisdirus feel are important, there were none. I have provided three links including one that showed some cross lab testing showing a comparable Panasonic lens, abet an older non pro design, was better than the Nikon lens. The lens testing at Image Resource is all done on the same equipment so when they say a lens is sharp, it is sharp compared to all lenses, not just 4/3rds. At Image Resource, they take the lab found items and then compare the field test shots to see if what they found in the lab can be seen, or how much it really affects, the real life shots. That means the results are comparable to all formats for the lenses.

I am fairly certain Tony does none of this. If he is not using the same equipment just for the lenses, he is comparing "apples and oranges". This is also why Image Resource uses only a Panasonic body to do field testing of Olympus and Panasonic lenses. Tony is using different camera bodies to do his testing. While it will offer a comparison, it will not show what a lens will do with a change of body. My 16mp E-M5 does not produce the same image as the image on my 20mp E-M1 mkII. The images are not exactly the same although the lens is the very same lens.

So, since you want me to see what Tony has produced, put forth the links. I will do my best to get to them ASAP.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

My Two links from page 3 of this posting that you conveniently "missed" .......but don't strain yourself !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tf9NYyDMtM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsJI35bxif4
.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

You still have not given us any other source other than Tony Northrup that supports your point of view. And lenses do operate better in some ways on larger sensors than on smaller sensors. Otherwise there would never be any APS-C lenses produced. APS-C lenses are optimized for APS-C sensors. And the perceived lens' image quality, via the camera, changes every time with pixel density and/or pixel size. This is why the image quality coming out of the lens must be measured at the lens first and not necessarily at the sensor. Image Resource does a better job at showing what a lens can do over the full sensor size for the full aperture and zoom ranges than DXO in my opinion. I have no doubts that DXO's correction software is as detailed or more so as the the imaging information at Image Resource. They just package the site data in a different way than Image Resource.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Thank you for posting them. I am sorry I missed them in my search for them and will get to them hopefully today or tomorrow.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

And, no, I did not "conveniently" miss them. As I have said, I work for a living even at 71 years of age. I did a late 3:00 last night and will be going to work at 1:00. Unfortunately, a very typical day. At least I no longer have my morning job. But now all the 25 years of house projects have moved into that morning spot. I have already taken enough time from things I need to get done. As soon as I can, I will review the links.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Please post some of your links too please .....

It is very difficult to find objective/comparison real world testing of Oly stuff ....! - like by NON OLY user/promoters.
.

Canisdirus

What more do you need to see? Tony lays it all out in one video using not one but two copies of the Oly300mm pro.
Yes they are sharp...but every modern lens fits that description.
But how sharp are they to their counterparts? Not very sharp at all.
When two zoom lenses beat out a prime lens and are cheaper to boot...it's a red flag.
You state you are still working at the age of 71...so I'd suggest you stretch your hard earned dollars somewhere else.
The fact that you started this thread saying you were saving up for Oly's last boondoggle lens at $7500...is worrisome.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Sorry, Tony's shooting style and "apples and oranges" comparison didn't impress me the first time I saw it before I purchased my 300 f4 and it still does not impress me with his system comparison.

Tony shoots with a tightly controlled aperture and wants a higher megapixel sensor so he can crop if he needs to. I do not shoot that way. If I shot the way Tony shoots, I would never consider Olympus or Panasonic either. But the only mode I use less than Aperture Mode is I-Auto.

Even before high school I was taught to "fill the frame" in art. The professional I learned photography from also taught me to "fill the frame". I have shot nearly 50 years "filling the frame". Most of the time I never crop. I have shot mostly primes all my life. So it makes me laugh that he doesn't use tools made for finding sports and wildlife with long primes. You learn how to get close enough to be able to use your prime lenses. Unless it is an alligator, bear, bull elk, or other dangerous creature, one gets close to get the shot. With the dangerous creatures one uses the safest techniques and longest lenses possible that one has at their disposal.

The second video shows that he will only compare focal lengths that have the same depth of field. Well, anyone choosing 4/3rds knows going in that there will be a difference in depth of field for apertures between any other format, larger or smaller. If the 4/3rds depth of field does not match what they want or need, they need to consider a different format. Aperture is usually one of my least concerns for my shooting. I usually shoot Program Mode watching shutter speed, exposure compensation, and ISO and do not care where the aperture goes unless it is above f11. If shot right, aperture takes care of itself.

Look through the first video again. If you really watch, you realize he is showing format differences in sensor resolution, not true lens sharpness. I even watched this very same video while researching whether to buy the 300 f4. Knowing what I needed and wanted from a lens and format, this video was not impressive then or now. Also, if I wanted or needed higher resolution, I would choose a format larger than 4/3rds, like my Hasselblad.

I chose 4/3rds so I could travel light, no tripod, and with a system as a personal carry-on, not a regular carry-on, and still shoot sharp. Tony's options cannot do that regardless of how sharp it is. One cannot do that with any other system other than Panasonic.

Again, it comes down to the right tool for the right job. Tony's tools don't work for for my job.

Canisdirus

Lol...apples and oranges. It's a direct comparison.
But you go ahead and blow 7500 dollars of your hard-earned money.
A serious investment into a dead-end system...that's the ticket.

Urnst Loc: Brownsville, Texas

This is the response a carefully written piece setting out the member's point of view gets?

Canisdirus

Yes, after several other well-intentioned posts by several other members, which are wished away.

When you can buy a BETTER camera body and a BETTER lens for less money than a lens by a company that sold off its imaging division (because it was doing so well?)

We are all trying to convince him to not jump from the frying pan into the fire.
Especially since he still needs to work at the age of 71.
That lens...which isn't what it should be at 7500 bucks (it should be 3000 or less) is a serious hit on the poster.

If he is desperate to spend his hard-earned coin... does it or does it not make more sense to buy a Canon R5 or Sony FF WITH a better lens for LESS money?
He would have a road map to the future that way.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Still looking for YOUR links ! ? ......
.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Yes, "apples and oranges". Image Resource test the lenses without a sensor attached. Does Tony do that? No. Therefore, it is the is a comparison of the format system, not the lenses themselves. imagemeister implies that Image Resource gives or favors Olympus because they are an Olympus user/promoter. Do the two of you truly believe that Image Resource provides favorable reviews and testing for Canon, Carl Zeiss, Fujinon, Kenzo, Konica, Laowa, Leica, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, Samsung, Samyang/Rokinon, Sigma, Sony, Tamron, Tokina, and Vivitar because they are "user/promoters" of those brands? Do you really think everyone should choose Tony's non-lab lens review over the impartial lab tested review of Image Resource?

Tony does provide a good system review with each system's best comparable lenses. And one must decide which system fits their needs the best. But if he really wants you to see how sharp his 600 f4 lens is compared the the 300 f4, he should grab one of his 4/3rds cameras he is using for his videos, grab a full frame to 4/3rds adapter, and shoot and compare the lenses. I personally suspect the results would be very close to each other. That would be "apples to apples", not "apples to oranges".

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

LINKS ?? .......Yes, Tony's intent was to test SYSTEMS vs COST vs performance - the way everyone should be judging .
.