06-08-2014, 01:16 PM
Hi Klaus, thank you for your reply. Although I'm "newbie" in this forum, I read your reviews long enough in order not to expect any sugarcoating 
- and that's of course ok.
However, your argument concerning lenses below is indeed only valid if you compare equivalent depth-of-field. It is not valid if you just compare equivalent zoom capabilities. Although I know that pros hate to hear this, let's face it: Not many non-pro photographers (and that's the vast majority) are hugely concerned about depth-of-field. For me personally, it's an important issue when shooting portraits. Ok, then I better use my Pentax K-3 with DA*55 f1.4, and at f1.4 the focal plain is so narrow that if you focus on the person's eyes the nose will be unsharp and vice versa.
But: If I do landscape shooting, or if I go with my children to the zoo to capture some animals, I couldn't care less about depth-of-field. For the zoo, I take my Olympus E-M5 with the Olympus 75-300 II, and get a pretty light and still reasonable small set with 600mm(!) full frame equivalent zoom, so that one can nicely capture every detail of that bear 200m away. In reasonable light, image quality is pretty good with this set. Ok, I could take the Pentax K-3 with Sigma 100-300, which gives "only" 450mm full frame equivalent zoom, and sure this gives better image quality, especially when it comes closer to sunset. But size and weight of the total set is something like a factor 3-4 larger. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Fuji doesn't even offer a lens for their X system in this zoom range.
So this is one example where MFT is very useful, in my opinion. And image quality is certainly far better than what a "pocket zoom" with 1/2.3'' sensor would give.
Quote from Klaus' post:
"As for the lenses - when comparing lenses of EQUIVALENT depth-of-field capabilities, there's no size difference across the board no matter whether you take a 1 Nikkor system or medium format (plus/minus a little). e.g. Take the Olympus 12-40/2.8 vs the Zeiss/Sony 16-70/4.
<div>
I knew that this sentence in the review would cause some uneasy feelings but just like over at Sony I will not do any sugarcoating."
</div>
- and that's of course ok.However, your argument concerning lenses below is indeed only valid if you compare equivalent depth-of-field. It is not valid if you just compare equivalent zoom capabilities. Although I know that pros hate to hear this, let's face it: Not many non-pro photographers (and that's the vast majority) are hugely concerned about depth-of-field. For me personally, it's an important issue when shooting portraits. Ok, then I better use my Pentax K-3 with DA*55 f1.4, and at f1.4 the focal plain is so narrow that if you focus on the person's eyes the nose will be unsharp and vice versa.
But: If I do landscape shooting, or if I go with my children to the zoo to capture some animals, I couldn't care less about depth-of-field. For the zoo, I take my Olympus E-M5 with the Olympus 75-300 II, and get a pretty light and still reasonable small set with 600mm(!) full frame equivalent zoom, so that one can nicely capture every detail of that bear 200m away. In reasonable light, image quality is pretty good with this set. Ok, I could take the Pentax K-3 with Sigma 100-300, which gives "only" 450mm full frame equivalent zoom, and sure this gives better image quality, especially when it comes closer to sunset. But size and weight of the total set is something like a factor 3-4 larger. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Fuji doesn't even offer a lens for their X system in this zoom range.
So this is one example where MFT is very useful, in my opinion. And image quality is certainly far better than what a "pocket zoom" with 1/2.3'' sensor would give.
Quote from Klaus' post:
"As for the lenses - when comparing lenses of EQUIVALENT depth-of-field capabilities, there's no size difference across the board no matter whether you take a 1 Nikkor system or medium format (plus/minus a little). e.g. Take the Olympus 12-40/2.8 vs the Zeiss/Sony 16-70/4.
<div>
I knew that this sentence in the review would cause some uneasy feelings but just like over at Sony I will not do any sugarcoating."
</div>