Thom Hogan slams Olympus M 4/3

[Pistnbroke]

Interesting points.

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

My M5 with the 15mm is doing a great job

[MJ224]

Yawn...…………….

[Pistnbroke]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Feeding the troll...…………….

[Phill D]

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]

Originally Posted by Phill D

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]

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]

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]

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]

That's a relief, at least I now know it's my gear that's below the bar and not my ability

[MikeOxon]

Originally Posted by benvendetta

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]

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