Read this before you buy a Fuji X.

Started May 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
ultimitsu
Senior MemberPosts: 5,422
Like?
Re: Jocachim... why I think you're wrong
In reply to Marty4650, May 8, 2013

Marty4650 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Marty4650 wrote:

Simply put... the cheapest MILC camera made is better than the most expensive fixed lens enthusiast compact with a small sensor. Yes, you read that correctly. A $400 Olympus EPM1 beats the pants off a Sony RX100 at half the price and with twice the versatility.

Actually your example proves the exact opposite. RX1 is over twice as versatile and thus rightfully still commands twice the money.

  • RX100 is half the weight of EPM1 + kit lens. about half the volume too.
  • RX100 has twice the resolution
  • RX100 has a twice the fps
  • Rx100's lens is 2 stops faster (f1.8 vs F3.5). 
  • RX100's inch sensor is in fact superior than epm1's 43 sensor, over stop more DR and 1 stop more colour depth
  • RX100 is only 1/3 stop behind epm3 in iso performance despite the sensor is half the size.
So, if one is not so stretched with extra 350 bucks, why would one go for the much less versatile EPM1?

Perhaps you didn't notice, but I was comparing the EPM1 to the RX100, and not to the RX1.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but I was comparing the EPM1 to the RX100, and not to the RX1

The RX1 is in an entirely different league, being a $3,000 camera.

no one said anything about RX1. read again please.

I was comparing compact low priced cameras to each other. And the RX100 is the more limited model, and does cost twice as much.

I know, and as I said, it rightfully still commands twice the money

  • The EPM1 is the exact same weight as an RX100 and around the same volume.
  • The RX100 does NOT have "twice the resolution." Your math is just wrong.
  • The EPM1 has a 5 fps drive rate. The RX100 is 2.5 fps, with 10 fps in low quality mode
  • What makes you think the EPM1 cannot use an f/1.8 lens? Or even an f0.95 lens?

1, EPM1 is the same size without a lens. it is twice the weight and size if you put on the 14-42 lens.

2, 20mp vs 12mp, yu really want get into it?

3, you are wrong about fps. it is 12jpg or 10 raw in in fps. but no AF and AE between shots.

4, I did not say epm1 cannot use these lenses, i am saying for the price you quoted it does not have fast lens.

Bottomline being you comparison in fact shows just how crappy the 400 bucks epm1 is when compared to 650 bucks RX100.

The problems you describe will primarily affect the last group, but only if they need those things that MILC is missing. Clearly, MILC is NOT a good choice for sports and action shooters. But DSLRS are also not a good choice for some other purposes.

Lets examine your objections:

  1. Insufficient lens options. While this is true right now for Pentax Q, Nikon 1 and Fuji X, it certainly isn't true for M4/3, Sony NEX, or Samsung NX. There are over 40 native AF lenses available for M4/3 right now, with more coming every day. And the others will eventually catch up in time. Plus these cameras can use literally THOUSANDS of legacy lenses in manual mode with cheap adapters. Can a Nikon or Canon DSLR do that? Exactly how many types of lenses do most people need?
  2. Poor value for money. On top of everything else, you seem to demand that these cameras be bargain priced. Well, it just doesn't work that way. This is a niche market with lower volumes, so costs will be relatively high. And despite this there are many people willing to pay a premium price to get the things they want, but you apparently don't want.

1, regarding lens, NEX system have very poor lenses, none is worth discussing. m43 has some good lenses but all are over priced. Nikon 85 F1.8G is the best lens in its class and only sells for 499, while oly 75 F1.8 sells for 899. As for legacy lens usage, some people like it, but most arent interested.

Why are you comparing a FF 85mm lens to a M4/3 equivalent 150mm lens?

Because there is no such thing as a "FF only lens". You can use 85 F1.8 on D5200, which result in 128mm equavlant, but if you crop it a little, you get 150mm equivalent. only it is faster than 75 F1.8 on m43.

It seems to me the closest M4/3 equivalent would be the 45mm f/1.8, which sells for $100 LESS.

45mm F1.8's quivlant is 50 F1.8, which is faster, and cost 99 bucks for an old model or 219 for an aspherical SWM model.  again, M43 is way too expensive.

I think you are trying too hard to make a case for FF, which is your right, but you are selectively distorting your facts to suit your case.

I am not making a case for FF, I am making a case for canikon in general, FF or aps-c.

why dont we try some other lenses? like 85 F1.4? or 135 F2?

OK... if you insist on throwing the $900 75mm f/1.8 into the mix, then I will compare it to it's closest Nikon equivalents.... the $1200 Nikon 135mm f/2.0 or the $900 180mm f/2.8 since there is no 150mm Nikon prime lens for FF.

they are not equivlaent. they are much faster lenses.

2, on the value for money issue. the argument OP makes (or seems to make) is that many people may not realise that mirrorless will end up become an expensive option, they are often lured into it by bargain basement body + kit pricing such as epm1 you mentioned. OP's post alerts people of this.

So you are saying that the customers are essentially stupid.

I didnt say that, but are you?

They get "lulled" into buying things without realizing how expensive they are. I give the customers a lot more credit than that.

Who gives you that right?

I think the folks buying the cheapest discontinued M4/3 cameras are looking for high quality small camera, and will probably never be shopping for any $1000 lenses for it.

how do you know? and it does not take a 1000 dollar lens to make it a bad deal, three 400 dollar lenses will do.

The people who buy OM-D and GH-3 cameras are well aware of lens prices, or they wouldn't be shopping for a high end camera.

but you are advocating for that crappy epm1. right?

Different strokes for different folks. It's good to have all these choices available to us. What you call a problem really isn't a problem at all. It is just having more options.

I think they are actually a problem. Why? because mirrorless makers are not making money and not taking over the market and they are scratching their heads and asking why.

Why is it necessary to "take over the market" to make money?

because japanese mirrorless do not own a profitable niche like leica, they are in the same market for the masses as canikon.

Leica has a tiny market share.

leica is actually struggling, but they are private so you do not see many financial reports. do you want to guess how well S2 product line is doing financially? why do you think 1 year after D800 had been on the market they havent annouced any future plans or new products for S2 system? if it werent for the success of M9 (which partly was built on the past popularity of M lenses) leica would have died a few years ago.

So does Porsche, BMW and Audi. Rolex has a miniscule share of the watch market. These are all very profitable companies.

they dominate in their niche market. there is social status behind their brand. m43 do not have that. But if they did, OP's post is equally valid - do not get m43 if you want bang for buck.

I have yet to see any proof that MILC cameras are losing money.

which rock  have you been living under? It is so comical you should say that because it is in fact almost impossible to see a report which says any mirrorless is making any money. Every report there is tells you almost every camera maker is losing money and demand overall is declining. The only two companies made any money last year were Canikon.

All we get are statements saying so by folks like you.

No, you get lots and lots of reports and news around you, whether you refuse to read them I cannot say.

There must be some good reason that Canon and Nikon felt the urge to create MILC cameras.

Apparently not. Canon waited for 4 years before joining and didnt put in much effort at all. Nikon  waited for 3.5 years and after less than 9 month off loaded a bunch of J1 at 1/3 the price.

Either they woke up and realized that DSLRs have dropped from 100% of the ILC market to 80% in a relatively brief period of time, or they feel they are just investing in the future.

You are arguing against a point I never made - I never said there is anythign wrong witht he mirrorless concept, I am saying current mirrorless are too expensive for what they are.

You are just helping me make my point that different cameras have different purposes, and MANY people own more than one sort.

that is not the point I or  OP rebutted.

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