PDA

View Full Version : AP article


MargaretR
24th October 2015, 12:47 PM
A 7-page article in the latest AP (Oct 31st issue) about "Ditching your DSLR" for CSC, written by Steve Gosling, Olympus photographer. It's basically a hymn of praise to the OM-D EM series, and why you no longer need DSLR to be a serious landscape shooter. Nothing we here don't already know, but Olympus UK must be thrilled! *chr

Imageryone
24th October 2015, 01:49 PM
Although 4/3rds is already dead as far as Olympus is concerned, this is just another slap in the face for us who still use and value the system.
For this very reason, if I ever decide to change formats, it will never be Olympus.
Such a shame after over 50 years as a dedicated Oly user.

Graham_of_Rainham
24th October 2015, 03:23 PM
They previously wrote about those that ditched the DSLR for an iPhone:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/articles/5-pro-photographers-who-ditched-a-dslr-for-an-iphone-5832

There are always those that like what they like and will stick with it. However there are advantages to be gained from embracing the new and if you happen to have some megabucks laying about there is the new Leica mirrorless that is as big as a DSLR :rolleyes:

PeterBirder
24th October 2015, 08:04 PM
The same issue of AP has an article about Leica announcing a Full Frame mirrorless CSC. http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/

I believe that this is the way all brands will go. DSLR sales are falling and CSC sales are rising. Nearly all the major brands now have a CSC offering but are playing "catch up" to match Olympus' capability. Not for the first time Olympus have been the innovators and others have followed, think of Liveview and ultrasonic sensor dust removal (SSWF) etc. All things Olympus have pioneered which were initially decried by competitors who eventually ended up "copying" them.

Regards.

pdk42
24th October 2015, 08:50 PM
Although 4/3rds is already dead as far as Olympus is concerned, this is just another slap in the face for us who still use and value the system.
For this very reason, if I ever decide to change formats, it will never be Olympus.
Such a shame after over 50 years as a dedicated Oly user.

I can understand your feelings, but the logic of what they did makes a lot of sense:

- The 4/3 system wasn't competitive with other DSLR systems from Nikon and Canon. Despite the great lenses, the sensor wasn't competitive and there was no size benefit at all. Olympus are a business and pumping more and more cash into a failed system isn't a good idea financially.

- m4/3 offered smaller bodies and lenses and in its early days played well to both the "second camera" and "hipster" markets. At least it had a niche where it could compete well.

- With the E-M5 and the new 16Mp sensor, the OMD line could offer an alternative to DSLR users from other systems who wanted excellent IQ AND a smaller-sized system. Thus is what brought me and many others into Olympus. I would never have swapped from Canon to Olympus 4/3 - there was absolutely no compelling reason to do so.

- Oly did provide a route for 4/3 users to migrate by building PDAF into the E-M1. They also provided some financial incentives at launch (e.g. Free MF3) to ease the pain. I now have a 50-200 4/3 lens and it works pretty well on my E -M1.

If you look at Oly's financial situation over the last 5 years it's nothing short of a miracle that they are still in the photography business at all - to be there and have offered an olive branch to their 4/3 users does, I think, show them to be a forward-looking company with an ethical approach to their existing customers. If they had stuck with 4/3 (backward-looking) I think they'd be gone now and all your 4/3 kit would be completely obsolete.

Naughty Nigel
24th October 2015, 09:49 PM
Although 4/3rds is already dead as far as Olympus is concerned, this is just another slap in the face for us who still use and value the system.
For this very reason, if I ever decide to change formats, it will never be Olympus.
Such a shame after over 50 years as a dedicated Oly user.

I can understand your feelings, but the logic of what they did makes a lot of sense:

If you look at Oly's financial situation over the last 5 years it's nothing short of a miracle that they are still in the photography business at all - to be there and have offered an olive branch to their 4/3 users does, I think, show them to be a forward-looking company with an ethical approach to their existing customers. If they had stuck with 4/3 (backward-looking) I think they'd be gone now and all your 4/3 kit would be completely obsolete.

I understand too, but I fully agree with PDK that it was the right way for Olympus to go.

I was a great fan of the E1, but the E5 was a disappointment for me, and was far too heavy. I'm not saying the E5 was a bad camera, but there was certainly no competitive advantage over other mainstream brands, and for Olympus to have continued with Four Thirds system in its current guise would have been suicidal.

I switched to the 43 system about two years ago with the OM-D EM-5, and have never regretted it. It is a fantastic system. Sure full frame systems offer almost unbeatable image quality (if not quite a match for medium format), but the IQ from the EM-5 is amazing, whilst the camera and lenses are small, light and of very high quality.

I therefore firmly believe that Olympus did the right thing in moving to the CSC system. I appreciate it is difficult for those of us who sunk a lot of money into the Four Thirds system (as I did - including the Ring Flash system), but I buy a camera for what it is worth to me today and what it will do for me in its lifetime, not for the length of time that the manufacturer will continue to manufacture and support it.

Look on the bright side; if you are happy with the Four Thirds system you can buy lenses and accessories for E-System cameras at giveaway prices now, whilst the bodies will continue to work for at least the next ten years. (My E1 is still going strong after eleven years!)

And if you fancy a nice, low mileage E5 I have just what you want. *yes

David M
24th October 2015, 09:53 PM
What I find hard to believe is a 7 page article in AP.

Naughty Nigel
24th October 2015, 10:02 PM
What I find hard to believe is a 7 page article in AP.

........ including adverts no doubt. :(

David M
24th October 2015, 10:58 PM
........ including adverts no doubt. :(

When I was a lad Jessops ads in AP were 7 pages, you tell someone that today and they wouldn't believe you.

Zuiko
24th October 2015, 11:39 PM
What I find hard to believe is a 7 page article in AP.

I only managed 4.5 pages when I wrote about the OM4Ti. :(

OM USer
25th October 2015, 03:50 PM
... the E5 was a disappointment for me, and was far too heavy ... I switched to the 43 system about two years ago with the OM-D EM-5, and have never regretted it.

My sentiments entirely. When I looked at switching from my OM system to digital there was only the E-5 and that was much to big and bulky (and I was never going to get the SHG lenses). The 12-60mm and 60-200mm might have persuaded me into a E-620 but the E-M5 with its much better sensor and image stabiliation won the day when I saw it announced and I pre-ordered it before it was released.

MargaretR
25th October 2015, 05:05 PM
........ including adverts no doubt. :(

No, actually. But including lots of images, so the actual text wouldn't be more than a couple of pages' worth. I guess they had space to fill.....

pdk42
25th October 2015, 05:21 PM
No, actually. But including lots of images, so the actual text wouldn't be more than a couple of pages' worth. I guess they had space to fill.....

If they had space to fill, it's probably lack of advertising copy. I'm amazed that AP is still going TBH. The internet has killed off a lot of the specialist magazine business - and given the dreadful quality of material that's usually found in AP, I'm surprised it hasn't happened to them!

David M
25th October 2015, 07:42 PM
I only managed 4.5 pages when I wrote about the OM4Ti. :(

At least AP survived your contribution, Camera Weekly and Creative Photography both folded once I contributed. :rolleyes:

Zuiko
25th October 2015, 08:09 PM
At least AP survived your contribution, Camera Weekly and Creative Photography both folded once I contributed. :rolleyes:

Ha! I know what you mean, I was the kiss of death to a number of other mags! :D

byegad
26th October 2015, 05:21 PM
I read it with interest, having heard a professional photographer sing the praises of the EM 5 a couple of years ago for brochure work (His main business is photographing products from cars to 'gubbins'.) I stopped worrying about image quality from my m4/3 cameras and concentrated on getting to be a better photographer. There's still a long way to go, but boy, am I having fun.

Homer Simpson
27th October 2015, 08:52 PM
The same edition had an article about dealing with dust on the sensor it appears it's a common problem :confused:
Never encountered it :cool:

Naughty Nigel
27th October 2015, 09:38 PM
The same edition had an article about dealing with dust on the sensor it appears it's a common problem :confused:
Never encountered it :cool:

I've never encountered that problem myself, but a Nikon owning friend is forever having to have his cleaned. :D

drmarkf
27th October 2015, 10:58 PM
I've only ever had dust on a 4/3 or m4/3 sensor once, quite a sizeable chunk, at Castle Donington while changing lenses in a stiff breeze during a race. I switched on and off a few times and it shook off the sensor. End of problem.

Zuiko
27th October 2015, 11:55 PM
The same edition had an article about dealing with dust on the sensor it appears it's a common problem :confused:
Never encountered it :cool:

You won't - Nikon and Canon have patented it and Olympus aren't allowed to use it. :D:D:D