View Single Post
  #31  
Old 11th July 2018
drmarkf's Avatar
drmarkf drmarkf is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 4,299
Thanks: 273
Thanked 388 Times in 329 Posts
Likes: 1,433
Liked 996 Times in 566 Posts
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.
__________________
Regards,
Mark

------------------------------
http://www.microcontrast.com
Too much Oly gear.
Panasonic 12-35, 15. Samyang 7.5 fisheye. Laowa 7.5.
Assorted legacy lenses, plus a Fuji X70.
Reply With Quote