Olympus UK E-System User Group

Olympus UK E-System User Group (http://e-group.uk.net/forum/index.php)
-   General photography discussion (http://e-group.uk.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=75)
-   -   Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3 (http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=48290)

Pistnbroke 9th July 2018 07:08 AM

Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Interesting points.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/...try-point.html

My M5 with the 15mm is doing a great job

MJ224 9th July 2018 08:27 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Yawn...…………….*zzz

Pistnbroke 9th July 2018 08:33 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Well I don't think he points out the great pixel density on the 20 MP sensors making it ideal for bird photography with the right lens.

TimP 9th July 2018 08:44 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
He also misses out the fact that not everyone wants to lug around a huge Canikony DSLR and lens. I moved to M43 from Canon (7D2 & 100-400L2) purely because of the loss of bulk and weight and so far have no regrets (other than perhaps they evf!). Loving it, below the bar or not.

AMc 9th July 2018 09:09 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Quote:

Okay, there was no official announcement, just a clear trend: the bottom end of dedicated cameras is now 24mp. Moreover, with the likely upcoming mirrorless announcements from Canon and Nikon, the true consumer bottom the big makers really want to establish is 24mp full frame (EF, FE, FX) at a price point of around US$2000 initially.
??? US$2000 is the consumer entry point ???
Nope, not even close. I've never spent and probably never will spend that kind of money on a body and I consider myself a keen amateur not a general "consumer".

Otto 9th July 2018 09:14 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Pointless pixel-chasing. What matters is not the number of pixels you have, but the quality of those pixels. For the vast majority of people, the snapshooters, a phone camera is good enough. For the more serious photographers who have more understanding it's not down to pixel count. It's using the kit you're comfortable with and which gets you the results you want. I have no wish (or ability!) to lug a huge camera around and that's the major reason why I bought into Olympus back in the 70s. When I used film I chose Agfa APX25 and Kodachrome 25 for their quality but would sacrifice quality for ISO when I needed it because ISO25 is, let's be honest, a bit limiting!

MJ224 9th July 2018 09:23 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Feeding the troll...…………….:eek:

Phill D 9th July 2018 09:28 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Pretty much what I'd expect from an obviously pro Nikon guy. Just set the bar at a point so that you can make an argument and be very black and white about it. He is right about one thing though where is the long zoom (1" or M4/3s?) compact to replace the Stylus 1. Definitely a hole I feel Olympus should fill and could fill easily with their existing tech just rebundled.

MJ224 9th July 2018 09:31 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Phill D (Post 450658)
Pretty much what I'd expect from an obviously pro Nikon guy. Just set the bar at a point so that you can make an argument and be very black and white about it. He is right about one thing though where is the long zoom (1" or M4/3s?) compact to replace the Stylus 1. Definitely a hole I feel Olympus should fill and could fill easily with their existing tech just rebundled.

Another hole is the Long zoom equivalent to the Pany 100-400...…..:(

Pany lens is great, but lacks the compatibility with the body. Which makes the 40-150 pro really work well.

Phill D 9th July 2018 09:38 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Yep I agree with that too Mark, that Panny lens is on my potential shopping list unless Oly do bring one out. Interesting comment actually I only thought it was the pro capture L setting that wasn't compatible are there more issues?

Olybirder 9th July 2018 09:59 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Oh well, if what he says is true and Olympus really is doomed it solves the problem of how to fund this site. There will be no demand for an Olympus users' forum. Every cloud ..... ;)

Ron

benvendetta 9th July 2018 11:01 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
He seems to equate success with numbers (the higher the better) when it should be results.
At least he acknowledges that mirrorless is the future, which we have believed all along.

mik 9th July 2018 11:04 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
That's a relief, at least I now know it's my gear that's below the bar and not my ability :)

MikeOxon 9th July 2018 11:53 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by benvendetta (Post 450679)
He seems to equate success with numbers (the higher the better) when it should be results.
At least he acknowledges that mirrorless is the future, which we have believed all along.


Sadly, for the manufacturers, sales numbers are rather important and, if the sales charts show that pixels matter, they will play to this market. Most manufacturers have to make their profits away from those products that appeal to discerning users - these are a minority. A few, like Leica, can work on 'prestige brand image' but that's a very long game, only accessible to a few and not easy to maintain.


It used to be lens aperture. A basic 35mm film camera had to have an f/2.8 lens - quality was almost irrelevant but f/3.5 simply would not sell.

CJJE 9th July 2018 01:59 PM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Life is always a compromise... many people are quite happy using their mobile phones as cameras, while others sneer at anything less than medium format.

I've used many film formats over the years, from 110, to 35mm to 120/620, with cameras from a Box Brownie to Mamiya 654s to Canon EOS. When I went digital I put my toe in the water with a Canon Powershot, before selling my Mamiya 645 gear and Canon EOS bodies to adopt Canon Digital EOS.

But eventually I decided the size and weight of my outfit was putting me off actually taking it with me and using it fully, so I moved to M4/3. It's the right compromise for me at my time of life, others might have different needs or fashion statements to make. But if it's good enough for professional photographers then I'm happy to be committed to the format!

Chris

MJ224 9th July 2018 04:32 PM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Phill D (Post 450667)
Yep I agree with that too Mark, that Panny lens is on my potential shopping list unless Oly do bring one out. Interesting comment actually I only thought it was the pro capture L setting that wasn't compatible are there more issues?

Won't do the focus Stacking, although it does Bracketing. But that's a function of the body rather than the lens. With bracketing you can bracket very many shots, but need computer power to do the stacking. I am lazy, and like to stack at the time of the photo...

Mark j

MikeOxon 9th July 2018 04:46 PM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ224 (Post 450700)
Won't do the focus Stacking, although it does Bracketing. But that's a function of the body rather than the lens. With bracketing you can bracket very many shots, but need computer power to do the stacking. I am lazy, and like to stack at the time of the photo...

Quite a few Oly lenses won't do focus stacking either. I tend to find 8 steps rather too few, so am moving towards more steps followed by computer stacking. Perhaps Olympus could add more stacking steps with a firmware update?

Ricoh 9th July 2018 07:46 PM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
I think it was 'Uncle' Ken Rockwell who said shoot 'real' RAW. Sounds good to me!

pdk42 9th July 2018 11:34 PM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
For what it's worth, I think Hogan's right. There's no good technological reason why m43 should be languishing at 16 or 20 Mp. The Sony 1" BSI sensors (RX100 et al) are at 20Mp but have an area approx 55% of m43. The same tech on a m43-sized sensor would give us approx 36Mp. That would be nice :) . And before someone says that more Mp means more noise, I'll just add a few points:

- The RX100 is scarcely any worse than m43. The same pixel density, with the same per-pixel noise, but scaled up to a 36Mp m43 sensor would mean equivalent enlargements would show notably less noise than today's m43 sensors.

- The 42Mp A7Rii delivers very similar image-level noise on real-world enlargements as the 12Mp A7Sii.

Truth be known, progress in m43 sensors since the EM5 of 2012 has been very slow. I personally would really like a significant improvement in m43 sensor performance. Can I make decent images with what I have today? - yes, I think so. Does the overall m43 system today offer things that other systems don't - yes, but you have to take a detailed look to realise it. Does m43 look competitive against other systems - I think increasingly less so; which is the point Hogan is making.

Phill D 10th July 2018 07:27 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pdk42 (Post 450729)
- The RX100 is scarcely any worse than m43. The same pixel density, with the same per-pixel noise, but scaled up to a 36Mp m43 sensor would mean equivalent enlargements would show notably less noise than today's m43 sensors.

Interesting Paul. If what you say would translate into say a 30Mp sensor with less noise than todays sensor then that sounds like the way to go. If it mean's even slightly more noise though then it would be a disaster in sales/marketing terms. I suspect the slower development in m4/3s sensors probably has a lot to do with the fact that Sony doesn't use that size.

MJ224 10th July 2018 08:55 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Bigger and bigger files...…………..Unsure of the optimum, but I was always very pleased with my Pentax Ist 6Mp...…..But of course I could not do half as much cropping with that size.....My present 20Mp seems PDG....How far do we go. I guess progress in 10 years time might have an almost infinite sensor, things we dare not dream about...………….:confused::confused:

Ricoh 10th July 2018 11:16 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ224 (Post 450746)
Bigger and bigger files...…………..Unsure of the optimum, but I was always very pleased with my Pentax Ist 6Mp...…..But of course I could not do half as much cropping with that size.....My present 20Mp seems PDG....How far do we go. I guess progress in 10 years time might have an almost infinite sensor, things we dare not dream about...………….:confused::confused:

You should crop with your feet, to mis-quote Ernst Haas, but the same sentiment non the less.

MJ224 10th July 2018 11:34 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricoh (Post 450757)
You should crop with your feet, to mis-quote Ernst Haas, but the same sentiment non the less.

Yes understand your drift, but my blackbird does not, and the moon definitely has cloth ears...………..*chr

angelpaaul 10th July 2018 11:57 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Here we go - 'My camera has more pixels than yours'. Didn't we have this years ago when we used film? 'My Canon is better than your Nikon', '35mm!!, medium format is far superior', etc..... I've used many different systems and makes over the years, bought with a specific job in mind. Medium format for weddings, 35mm for when I was hill walking, compacts for a 'carry everywhere' camera and so on. When the bride and groom were looking at their wedding photos, they never asked what camera or film did I use, the results said it all. I use olympus m43 and it suits me just fine. In fact, if people bought a camera they needed and not wanted, there'd be a lot more compacts around.

pdk42 10th July 2018 05:23 PM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by angelpaaul (Post 450765)
Here we go - 'My camera has more pixels than yours'. Didn't we have this years ago when we used film? 'My Canon is better than your Nikon', '35mm!!, medium format is far superior', etc..... I've used many different systems and makes over the years, bought with a specific job in mind. Medium format for weddings, 35mm for when I was hill walking, compacts for a 'carry everywhere' camera and so on. When the bride and groom were looking at their wedding photos, they never asked what camera or film did I use, the results said it all. I use olympus m43 and it suits me just fine. In fact, if people bought a camera they needed and not wanted, there'd be a lot more compacts around.

I sort of agree Paul - but cameras are not sold because they're "adequate"; they're sold because they are competitive with alternative offerings. It's a ratchet and it's Darwinian. That's the way the Western World works!

Pistnbroke 10th July 2018 06:32 PM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
I think PDK 42 makes realistic comments but I do notice that many move to 4/3 as they get older and want smaller gear . I go that way myself using the larger Nikons when the punter pays but using the oly when I am relaxing.

pdk42 10th July 2018 10:35 PM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Pistnbroke - I agree! I think the benefits of m43 tend to become apparent to experienced photographers who understand a few important points:

- They understand that ultimate image IQ is not the only parameter when comparing camera systems. If their m43 cameras deliver "very very good" IQ, then that's good enough for nearly all of what they do. It's the image that matters.

- They value the wider features of the camera system as a whole. They value compactness, a huge range of excellent lenses, class-leading image stabilisation, superb feature set, and excellent support from two active and innovative manufacturers.

- They have the experience and skills to work around what IQ limitations remain. This could be knowing how to use image stabilisation well, how to stack images, or how to expose and process raw files properly.

- They appreciate that the ergonomics and usability of a camera is a huge part of making them WANT to take images. They know that big and heavy kit tends to get left on the shelf, and that fancy cameras with great IQ lose their appeal if the usability and ownership experience isn't right.

However, relative newcomers find these arguments too subtle and not readily understood since they are hard to measure objectively and their true value needs experience to properly appreciate.

Olympus and Panasonic need to attract these photographers and unfortunately that means they need to keep up in the sensor race since that measure is what is easily marketed and what newbies will look to when they are comparing systems.

Truth be known, the four thirds system was dead by 2012. The E-M5 changed the game and size was only a part of that. The Sony 16Mp sensor lifted mage quality to the equal or better of APS-C at the time. But there has been too little evolution since then. All the subsequent 16Mp sensors add essentially nothing to the E-M5's raw handling. The 20Mp sensors add a little - but it's marginal. I personally think this IS a big challenge for Olympus and Panasonic - which is Hogan's point.

drmarkf 10th July 2018 10:49 PM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pistnbroke (Post 450641)
Interesting points.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/...try-point.html

My M5 with the 15mm is doing a great job

Hogan’s lost the plot. Zero facts quoted in that article, which is entirely based on preconceived prejudice.

It’s a shame, because 8 years ago he wrote and thought well for Nikon owners.

pdk42 10th July 2018 11:11 PM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by drmarkf (Post 450791)
Hogan’s lost the plot. Zero facts quoted in that article, which is entirely based on preconceived prejudice.

That's true Mark - but his prejudice is reflecting a wider prejudice. And that's not an issue that facts or reason can easily counter.

shenstone 11th July 2018 06:20 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Quote:

as 24mp full frame is enough for a two-page magazine spread, even at high ISO values.
Sadly he clearly does not know publishing as much as he thinks he does or the 12Mp image I took with my E-30 would not have been able to be used as a 2 page spread in a book would it!


It's good that people comment to correct misunderstandings like his here because he does not permit comments - at least if people see this thread they can see that all he has offered is an opinion - not a fact at all

Regards
Andy

drmarkf 11th July 2018 08:39 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Yes, mis-perceptions die hard, that is true.

However it’s very difficult to form a mis-perception of the weight differences among different brands and sensor sizes once you’ve tried them, and as has been said already, a lot of enthusiasts (in what is a grey and ageing population) are willing to give m4/3 a try. Such people are influential on their less enthusiastic friends, of course. I know of 12 M1ii sales in the past 18 months in our camera club of 190 people, and there may be more.

No, my main criticism of Grumpy Old Git Hogan’s article is that he’s done no research on anything relevant - for example, he’s done nothing on camera sales among the manufacturers, and selectively quotes vague, ballpark figures that (strangely enough) support his argument. These data are indeed hard to find, but they are out there in the manufacturers’ financial statements, but he couldn’t be bothered to dig them out (neither can I, but I’m not pretending to be an expert). What’s actually happening to Oly/Sony/Fuji etc CSC sales in the past 12 months?

BTW the Sony RX100 series do indeed produce very usable 20mp images in low light and are marketed heavily on that, but anyone who’s used one and who likes shooting in contrasty light knows that their dynamic range in real life usage is pretty woeful compared to even the most basic 16mp m4/3 sensors. Another triumph for marketing over reality, of course: once your highlights have gone they’ve gone.

Walti 11th July 2018 11:29 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by drmarkf (Post 450805)
over reality, of course: once your highlights have gone they’ve gone.

Unless you use peroxide?

pdk42 11th July 2018 11:59 AM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by drmarkf (Post 450805)

BTW the Sony RX100 series do indeed produce very usable 20mp images in low light and are marketed heavily on that, but anyone who’s used one and who likes shooting in contrasty light knows that their dynamic range in real life usage is pretty woeful compared to even the most basic 16mp m4/3 sensors. Another triumph for marketing over reality, of course: once your highlights have gone they’ve gone.

My biggest gripe about the RX100 wasn't its IQ, but its handling. Hated it. If they could find a designer who is a *real* photographer, I'm sure they could make it appeal to a much broader audience. As it is, it's almost impossible to use except in full auto mode.

Ricoh 11th July 2018 12:34 PM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pdk42 (Post 450813)
My biggest gripe about the RX100 wasn't its IQ, but its handling. Hated it. If they could find a designer who is a *real* photographer, I'm sure they could make it appeal to a much broader audience. As it is, it's almost impossible to use except in full auto mode.

One would be forgiven for thinking that all the designers with an understanding of photography, or better still being practitioners, changed occupations when digital came into being.

Watched the Time Machine programme on Horizon last night. If I could travel to the past Digital Cameras would instantly disappear from the present.

drmarkf 11th July 2018 12:57 PM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Walti (Post 450812)
Unless you use peroxide?

That gives you nothing BUT highlights, squire :D

Jim Ford 11th July 2018 01:03 PM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pdk42 (Post 450813)
My biggest gripe about the RX100 wasn't its IQ, but its handling. Hated it. If they could find a designer who is a *real* photographer, I'm sure they could make it appeal to a much broader audience. As it is, it's almost impossible to use except in full auto mode.

The RX100 mk1 had a major problem of 'self starting'. The camera would switch on spontaneously and the lens extend. Unless the user noticed, it would then run the battery flat. This would happen repeatedly. Sony initially said that it couldn't happen, then said it was the users fault. When someone posted a Youtube video of it happening they sunk into a sullen sulk and ignored further reports. There's a long thread about it on a Sony forum.

For the above appalling customer service, I'd never buy a Sony product!

Jim

pdk42 11th July 2018 04:15 PM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
There are a number of alarming Sony stories. The one about their cameras being "weather resistant" when actually they leak water like the Titanic is about the worst.

sapper 11th July 2018 05:41 PM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Who is Thoms Hogan? Forget it, I don't want to know, the footy is on soon:-)

Graham_of_Rainham 11th July 2018 07:38 PM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
There are photographers and those that write articles that slag off whatever it is they are paid to do...

Fortunately those on this site have broad shoulders and duck like backs, which comes from having lightweight and waterproof kit... :D

Ian 13th July 2018 03:45 PM

Re: Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AMc (Post 450648)
??? US$2000 is the consumer entry point ???
Nope, not even close. I've never spent and probably never will spend that kind of money on a body and I consider myself a keen amateur not a general "consumer".

Nobody pays $2000 for an E-M1 Mark II; $1600 or less is the market rate.

Ian


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:30 PM.


© The Write Technology Ltd, 2007-2018, All rights reservedAd Management plugin by RedTyger