Olympus: End of the line for (full-sized) 4/3?

Started Feb 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
esco
Senior MemberPosts: 1,780
Like?
Re: The "tiny sensor" argument
In reply to Mr.NoFlash, Feb 16, 2013

Mr.NoFlash wrote:

esco wrote:

, nevertheless even think that "trolls" or someone posting their provacative opinion on a forum would even affect the bigger picture.


I was in a camera club.

There were people with Canon APS cameras ( 14.9mm instead of 13.1mm sensor height ), super-proud of their dustprone cameras ( proud if the camera came back cleaned by canon, then they had a professional cleaned sensor ) with extrem big quality-variations is the lenses, producing unsharp pictures you could even see the unsharpness at A4 prints ( at the point of intended focus ), and also those people claimed "oly has a tiny sensor".

Its not so that they ever have read dpreview, BUT that "wisdom" was very widespread.

The "tiny sensor" argument was not only on dpreview, it was everywhere, except at the Point and shooters.

Oly should have made a version with sensor height = canon aps heigth, at least in 8:9 format ( then oly could have stayed in the claimed image circle ). Just for marketing reasons - people cannot badmouth a sensor with the word "tiny" when one dimension is the same as their sensor.

cheers
Mr.NoFlash

Camera clubs. . .once again an area that isn't representative of the overall market.
The leading mirrorless system, micro 4/3's is selling better than it's larger sensor competition because of a decent head start and some serious marketing. Panasonic and Olympus have actually injected a great deal of advertising and prescense with that system ever since the beginning. You see ads on tv, online and out in public and you see far more retail presence than 4/3's ever had and you see them catering to ALL segments of the market. You have bodies that are priced at around the same cost as certain point and shoots, a cheap line of lenses and accessories for example. For the advanced high end stuff it still costs a pretty penny but for entry level amateurs it's far more friendlier on the pocket than 4/3's ever was at first. It's a much more approachable system for those just flirting with photography.

Originally the entry for 4/3's was not cheap at all, I know because I am one of the shooters that got on board early on. The e1 and e300 were very expensive and marketing was nowhere to be found - it almost felt like for the first year of 4/3's that olympus was trying to take more of an elite and or niche route where they'd rely on their name and nothing else and that can actually work if you stay small and smart instead of dropping your higher end image all together and churning out cheap stuff with the feeling that you were going after canikon.
An upgrade from the kit lens at the time was the $500 14-54 at the time. . .a zoom better and or longer than the 40-150? That'll cost you about a grand or more and the problem with that is they lost a lot of sales to canikon and those were sales that truly mattered because these were people that weren't attached to any legacy lenses because for the most part the canikon film shooters went towards the most natural direction.

-- hide signature --

Oldschool Evolt shooter

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow