But the reasons why I purchased into 4/3rds are currently available in
4/3rds and nowhere else.
You:
What are those strong points exactly?
It's just that I don't see any inherent 4/3 advantages so far.
More DOF for Macro maybe? Size isn't much of a factor.
I don't know what else could be an advantage of a smaller sensor.
Precisely! If you think of 4/3rds
only as a different sized
sensor (slightly smaller, but not really much smaller than 1.6
crop), then the advantages are not clear. The reasons that I
purchased are due to package benefits reguardless of the precieved
compromises of the smaller sensor. I really value the dust buster,
the complete weather sealing, pixel mapping, the quite E-1
shutter/mirror, the rugged build, the second to none external WB
sensor, the very accurate, even if slowish by today's standards AF,
the ergonomics and over all size of body and 2 lenses that give
28-400mm coverage, the out of camera colors (and in camera
perameters), the way mirror lock up is handled, Oly innovation that
isn't a "me too" system, digital specific lenses, and the fantastic
price I paid for my E-1 kit. Nothing else compares to the total
package for the price. Any sealed pro built body from any other
company costs at least triple (if not 6x) the cost. Nikon dosn't
have a truely weather sealed system at any level. I like to shoot
in foul weather. No one had done away with the dust problem as of
yet. Pixel mapping does matter because as sensors age they have
pixels that go out. A friend of mine dumps his Nikon regularly for
a new one due to this. Canon has FF. So what, it's really
expensive, collects dust like no other, and has no real wide angle
solution without vignetting and softening at the edges. IS isn't
that big a deal for me, and neither is having twice the resolution
I need. When I shoot events with Canon I spend nearly twice the
time post processing. That matters. I think the depth of field
issue and noise issue with 4/3rds is very overblown. Most Canon and
Nikon users I shoot with don't go over 200 ISO. So basically, for
real life, what 4/3rds has is much more important that what it
lacks, and I can afford it. If I had unlimited money, I would be
shooting medium format digital, but for now, my E-1 system meets my
expectations over and over again.
Besides the reasons I just listed, I also believe in the future of
the system. The ideas makes more sense to me than retrograding 35mm
equipment. I am quite certain that noise will become less and less
an issue as technology increases (it's not a huge issue on my E-1).
I also believe that price for the bodies could be affected by
sensor size. That's
one reason I think I was able to purchase an
E-1 system a year ago for a killer price. I also believe in the
consortium idea and the benefits of being able to buy a Panasonic,
Oly, or (possibly) fujifilm body for my current lenses. Or I can
buy Leica or Sigma lenses (and I'm betting that more options will
follow). None of these ideas are really advantages yet, but they
are showing promise to be a strong advantage.
Plus, I like the Oly community. A bunch of folks that are willing
to look past the spec sheets to the pictures. Lots of folks say,
"it's not about the equipment, but who uses it." But most of us
still act like it's all about the equipment. I think "it" is about
the equipment we can afford and dosn't get in the way of the
pictures.
Cheers, Seth
--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
--
http://www.wallygoots.com
