m4/3 was money pit larger than DSLR - things are gonna change

Started Jul 27, 2012 | Discussions thread
Flat view
photo perzon
photo perzon Veteran Member • Posts: 4,627
m4/3 was money pit larger than DSLR - things are gonna change

m4/3 is spelled m o n e y.

I moved from Nikon D40 $ 500 + great lenses such as 35mm 1.8 $ 200 and 50mm 1.8 $ 200 to m4/3 camera $ 1000 + good lenses costing each at least $ 500 and now the 2.8s $ 1000

m4/3 setup cost me $ 4000 up from $ 2000 for the Nikon DSLR

I had $ 6000 in m4/3 and Nikon and for a hobbyist you know what? Marketing kudos to m4/3

Now moved to Sony RX100 as my only camera at 28mm 1.8 for $ 650 and 100mm reach, pocketable at 8 ounces.

I don't know how I was happy with my m4/3 $ 4000 investment in a camera purse that i was still leaving at home. I was brain washed by m4/3 as to "offering a portable take along solution." I wasn't taking my purse with cameras out, I was still taking a P&S.

Even the new Canon seems to offer Nikon DSLR pricing, roughly half of m4/3.

I doubt m4/3 is gonna happily market $ 1000 a pop lenses like they do now the 75mm and the 2.8's much into the future, true photographers do not need the smaller profile and hobbyists do not need the power. Pros need the DSLR advantage and also they need to look pro like, not like they are "on a budget with a small unit." Nikon is pricing good primes at $ 200 now all the 1.8s, while m4/3 is still reaching for $ 500 to $ 1000 per lens.

Of course in a forum like this one is uncool without a m4/3 setup and the obligatory lenses make a $ 2500 to $ 4000 the "normal." That is too much to ask of a soccer dad but m4/3 marketing did it.

 photo perzon's gear list:photo perzon's gear list
Olympus Stylus 1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS50 Fujifilm X70 Fujifilm X100F Apple iPhone X
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow