Well, that's part of what I was saying -- I certainly haven't seen this "amount" of problems in any forum I've ever frequented since I've been on DPReview -- I have not seen "plenty of hardware problems" being described in these forums. In fact, I've found hardware problems to be a really quite rare subject matter in these forums.
fermy,
Ummm ... Everdog ... I don't know where you are pulling that from but image stabilization does not give "image quality"
fermy,
1. Image stabilization does not boost image quality
2. Have you ever handled any Leica RAW file? Ever been within 100 yards of one? No? Thought so. So how then you can claim DXOMark's measurement of M9's performance is incorrect? And BTW, according to DXOMark's measurement NEX5 measures better than M9 in every category.
... except when your subject moves even a little. Then you are SOL with your "IS makes up for lousy high ISO" dream.
If you don't compare a NEX with another camera where NEX is in absolutely disadvantage (taking a picture of a running mouse in a dark room with AF for example) that's not a real test to show what this camera can do!
fermy,
1. Image stabilization does not boost image quality
2. Have you ever handled any Leica RAW file? Ever been within 100 yards of one? No? Thought so. So how then you can claim DXOMark's measurement of M9's performance is incorrect? And BTW, according to DXOMark's measurement NEX5 measures better than M9 in every category.
Oh, I don't have to wait for announced lens. NEX5 + ZM 25/2.8 is incredible, plus is both lighter and smaller than EP2 + 17/2.8 (first one can slip in pants pocket, later can not). NEX5 + ZM 35/2 or 25/2.8? Incredible. NEX5 + ZM 50/1.5 or CV 50/1.5? Incredible. NEX5 + Zeiss 90/2.8? Incredible.
... and BTW Everdog, don't forget NEX lens has image stabilization. Bellow is shot from 5N with kit lens at ISO 1250 .
I am not claiming anything. Moreover, DXO measurements are correct, their interpretation is an issue.
Bad thinking, sorry. It only shows that we didn't have an M9 to compare with the NEX, and therefore couldn't answer your question and, unlike you, couldn't reach any conclusions about what we don't know.
Good for you though I truly do wonder why your peeping 'n posting on a NEX board coming on with such a biased point of view? Love/hate the NEX so much (secretly) you couldnt stay away?
)really? as a (former?) user of Canon compacts you must be aware of the countless cases of 'lens error' (sticky lenses etc.) with these cameras. I know plenty examples of 'known problems' from other companies (even with very expensive cameras). I'm pretty sure what you see as an Olympus specific problem is nothing unusual; there is a strong reporting bias in the forums that makes it really difficult to say how frequent such problems occur for the average user.
I second your opinion, and it is sad how the typical fanboys jump on everyting that doesn't follow the gospel they are preaching here. Both systems have their pros and cons and an open discussion can be valuable; fanboyism only benefits the marketing departments (and probably some peoples ego).
That didn't stop you from reaching a conclusion that NEX-5 with kit lens has greater IQ than any PEN with any lens, despite not owning all pens and all m4/3 lenses to compare. It also didn't stop you from claiming that DXO score accurately measures IQ. A lot of bad thinking, indeed.
Measurements are correct yet interpretation is an issue? ROFLMAO Yeah, sure, you make "lots" of sense.
I already answered your question but you don't seem to be able to comprehend answer that is not in simplest possible form so here it is just for you:
Only one delusional around here is person that has to use such convoluted "reasoning" as you to come up with something that will stroke his fanboism. Don't try to pass your lack of understanding or refusal to accept non-simple though direct answer as something you could build your house of cards on. It's the wind season for you.
