For example there are no adapters for Pentacon-six or Kiev66-lenses I have ever seen in fourthirds mount. But that can be an old information and sure its not the "killer-feature" for everybody ;-)
Thats right but the price is a big lack on the wide side. You have to use expensive lenses to get a "all days" field of view on fourthirds and the small sensor only uses the inner half of the glass. In other words a crop you can do easyly in every picture later by software, too.
Sure that all are points to remember when planning to step in one or the other system. There is no general worse or better.
The trigger for me to post in this thread was the marginal difference in the size of the bodies from E-4xx and EOS3/4xx (and some others, too).
Regards, Axel
Axel, first of all let me say that I enjoy discussing this with you. Unlike some "discussions" that degenerates into an emotional argument, you presented your points well and check your attitudes at the door
🙂
Secondly, let me mention my intention with this discussion, it's not to establish the general "better" or "worse", but more as a dissemination of information. Why? because you can find lots of information about adapting lenses to a Canon system *anywhere*, but there are fewer people who know about 4/3rd system being a valid alternative (with the plus and minus we've discussed so far).
With that, I'll go back to responding to your points above:
- Yes, apparently there's no commercially available Pentacon-six lens adapter for the 4/3rd system
🙂
- Price-wise, again it depends on what kind of photography you're talking about. For wildlife and outdoor, in general, you won't get much complain about the availability of extreme wide-angle lenses, but they will care if they can get a fast, telephoto lenses without having to pay through their nose. Admittedly, I'm talking about probably a very minor portion of this type of photographers who still relies on manual focus lenses
😛
I don't think you'll find too many 170mm/f1.8 lenses (or similar) out there that is not super-expensive, if existed at all. But that's exactly what I've been using by attaching my 85/1.8 OM Zuiko lens on the E-300.
And let me add another emphasize on bulk. You just won't be able to carry around a 140-420mm/f3.5 zoom lens in a camera bag pouch, all day long at the Grand Canyon. But that's exactly what I did using the tiny RMC Tokina 70-210mm/f3.5 lens on the E-300.
- Cropping-wise. Cropping using software is *not* the same as using a longer focal length. Unlike software, using a longer-focal length records the same amount of information as when you use wider lenses, including different DOF effects. Let me put it this way: If you can *always* simulate longer focal length with software cropping, there will be no one using a telephoto lens, correct?
- Something we haven't discussed yet. The longer mirrors on Canon DSLR's are prone to problems with some lenses (including some desirable Zeiss and Leica R lenses). 4/3rd mirror box is much smaller, so this is a non-problem.
Now I'm going to the subjective territory:
Color rendering. I do think that Olympus overall did a much better job than Canon when it comes to reproducing colors (Both through the lenses and through the sensor's factory adjustments). But again, this is subjective, but I am not alone in this, talk to any Olympus users, most likely they will agree with me on this.
