Read this before you buy a Fuji X.

Started May 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: Jocachim... why I think you're wrong

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.

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.

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.

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.

5 years ago when I first saw the m43 concept I said I wanted one, I think it will over take SLR. 5 years later I still use my SLRs. Why? because every time I looked M43 presents poor value for money. photography gear are not cheap so we all want more bang for the buck. M43 should do that in theory, but not so in practice.

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