Yeah... the title has it.
The optical viewfinder appeals to me but when it comes to shop lenses for this new system I just can't seem to find anything that I'd like.
For example...
I'm visioning an older 70-200 mm lens to play around with Nikon. I'm imagining an old f/2.8 design won't be very costly and they'll be perhaps more lightweight than the current designs. Only their MFDs are bad. There are these "70-200 Macro" zooms from 3rd party manufacturers which sound cool in theory. Only their MFDs are still something like a meter or so. My Panasonic 35-100 can do 90 cm!
So maybe I can't get a good close up capability out of a 70-200 even though that would be my preference. So what are the dedicated macro options out there? The old and affordable SLR designs lack image stabilisation and I'm told it would be a big benefit. Besides, I'm not going to be a serious macro photographer any time soon so I would favor solutions that are easily hand-held and shot on the go.
To every SLR lens review there's also that constant discussion about focus inaccuracies and calibration, focus shift*, whatnot. Things that don't occur in MILC realm, not that much anyway.
The old SLR lens designs are soft anyway, compared to most M4/3 lenses and sensors. The big pixel benefit of FF shrinks away to some part.
I think I could get reasonably much fun out of a small investment of an Olympus 45mm, or Pana 42.5, throw in the Olympus 60mm macro.
Where FF and Nikon would kick ass is the ultrafast wide angle setup where you can play with DOF. But therein lies the problem that while there are cool f/1.4 lenses for 24 and 28 mms there's a whole bunch of pretty awesome Leica M lenses such as the $400 TTArtisan 21mm f/1.5 that just begs to be purchased. In another word, f.ex Nikon + M4/3 would probably work very well for me, but I have currently Leica + m4/3 so that doesn't "allow" such expansion that would make sense to me.
Besides, I can't just shrug off the fact that it's with M4/3 that I shot my best shots with. Can't ignore such a factor
* There's probably only one site out there who mentions this shift in every Nikkor review I've read. We established in a separate thread here that it's not such a big issue anyway.
The optical viewfinder appeals to me but when it comes to shop lenses for this new system I just can't seem to find anything that I'd like.
For example...
I'm visioning an older 70-200 mm lens to play around with Nikon. I'm imagining an old f/2.8 design won't be very costly and they'll be perhaps more lightweight than the current designs. Only their MFDs are bad. There are these "70-200 Macro" zooms from 3rd party manufacturers which sound cool in theory. Only their MFDs are still something like a meter or so. My Panasonic 35-100 can do 90 cm!
So maybe I can't get a good close up capability out of a 70-200 even though that would be my preference. So what are the dedicated macro options out there? The old and affordable SLR designs lack image stabilisation and I'm told it would be a big benefit. Besides, I'm not going to be a serious macro photographer any time soon so I would favor solutions that are easily hand-held and shot on the go.
To every SLR lens review there's also that constant discussion about focus inaccuracies and calibration, focus shift*, whatnot. Things that don't occur in MILC realm, not that much anyway.
The old SLR lens designs are soft anyway, compared to most M4/3 lenses and sensors. The big pixel benefit of FF shrinks away to some part.
I think I could get reasonably much fun out of a small investment of an Olympus 45mm, or Pana 42.5, throw in the Olympus 60mm macro.
Where FF and Nikon would kick ass is the ultrafast wide angle setup where you can play with DOF. But therein lies the problem that while there are cool f/1.4 lenses for 24 and 28 mms there's a whole bunch of pretty awesome Leica M lenses such as the $400 TTArtisan 21mm f/1.5 that just begs to be purchased. In another word, f.ex Nikon + M4/3 would probably work very well for me, but I have currently Leica + m4/3 so that doesn't "allow" such expansion that would make sense to me.
Besides, I can't just shrug off the fact that it's with M4/3 that I shot my best shots with. Can't ignore such a factor
* There's probably only one site out there who mentions this shift in every Nikkor review I've read. We established in a separate thread here that it's not such a big issue anyway.