But its taking time to get into it again.
Panasonic G80 and 100-400
P1100185 by electric.mike, on Flickr
P1100101 by electric.mike, on Flickr
P1100139 by electric.mike, on Flickr
But its taking time to get into it again.
Panasonic G80 and 100-400
P1100185 by electric.mike, on Flickr
P1100101 by electric.mike, on Flickr
P1100139 by electric.mike, on Flickr
Came away from Nikon because the 150-600 lens was too heavy, went back with the D500 and 100-400 but the lens was too short, adding a longer lens would have made it too heavy again.
Lens size/weight is a major advantage of M43… I hear the PL100-400 is very good. But I'm seeing a disturbing trend with some of the newer glass… really surprising to see lenses for M43 costing equal and even significantly more than other OEM's full frame counterparts, considering they're half the size.
I guess R&D costs the same to cover any size sensor,if the extra cost to us as consumers leads to more R&D and even better lenses ? must be honest though i cant see any lens being more suited to my needs than the 100-400, i dont like primes faster lenses would weigh more so its bodies that interest me.
I was a little disappointed with the cost of the G9 but i guess Olympus set the trend with the 1 mk11.
A couple more to keep my foot in the door.
P1100461 by electric.mike, on Flickr
P1100554 by electric.mike, on Flickr
Still waiting for nikon to get into mirrorless but for now.
P1120611 by electric.mike, on Flickr
P1120706 by electric.mike, on Flickr
P1120689 by electric.mike, on Flickr
Still waiting for nikon to get into mirrorless but for now.
Nikon is really gonna need to pull a rabbit out of their hat to compete with the Sony A73.
Frankly... I don't see it happening, buy here's hoping.
I believe they can do it but they have a habit of going their own way thinking the Nikon name on it will be enough.
Lens size/weight is a major advantage of M43… I hear the PL100-400 is very good. But I'm seeing a disturbing trend with some of the newer glass… really surprising to see lenses for M43 costing equal and even significantly more than other OEM's full frame counterparts, considering they're half the size.
My feeling was that the seeds were there since the beginning. M4/3 has never been cheap. Entry level DSLRs were soundly beating entry level M4/3 prices for years, and the very cheapest new M4/3 lenses seemed to run at least double DSLR offerings. My theory is that the companies accepted trying to compete directly on performance against DSLRs would be fruitless, so they decided to fully embrace the capitalist spirit of boldly charging as much or more than the entrenched competition.
My feeling was that the seeds were there since the beginning. M4/3 has never been cheap. Entry level DSLRs were soundly beating entry level M4/3 prices for years, and the very cheapest new M4/3 lenses seemed to run at least double DSLR offerings. My theory is that the companies accepted trying to compete directly on performance against DSLRs would be fruitless, so they decided to fully embrace the capitalist spirit of boldly charging as much or more than the entrenched competition.
Just seen this, i think you are out on your prices ignoring the FOV aspect a Nikon 80-400 is just over £2000 a Canon 100-400 just under £2000 Leica 100-400 for m4/3 £1300,if you take FOV into consideration its even cheaper for M4/3 lenses.