On putting money into 4:3 gear ...

Started May 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
Rriley Forum Pro • Posts: 21,846
Re: Adding another 4 cents to the discussion ...

Stacey_K wrote:

veroman wrote:

There is no "problem." No hardware upgrade path is needed if the E-3 satisfies one's requirements as a photographic tool. You don't seem to understand that. No sure why.

Of course if someone feels the results an E system camera is capable of is all they (or their clients) will ever need, they would never need to upgrade.  That would be true of a cheap P&S as well. For that matter an iPhone is all many people need as far as a photographic tool. It doesn't mean any of those are the best IQ options available.

When the day comes that digital photography in general provides a quantum leap in IQ and everything else that matters in a camera, then maybe it would be time for just about everyone to move on and upward.

For some people and their types of photography, this has already happened. Why do you think reviews rave about the OMD and the sales of them went thru the roof? It's not really any smaller than the E410 so it's not the compact size. It's the improved IQ. If I was buying into an olympus system, it would be m4/3 and -later- if and when they make a 4/3 compatible model, look at investing in some used 4/3 glass if I needed it.

did sales really go through 'the roof'

I would like to see these statistics that describe how cameras with better IQ sell better. I mean if this were true, given that 43rds is no longer a part of Olympus stats in any meaningful way, why does Olympus still find itself in financial trouble. I can furnish you with some starter facts.

One of the largest selling cameras for Olympus has been the diminutive 12Mp EPL1 (very similar sensor performance to E5), which managed several times the sales performance of OMD. Presently the volume is with E-PL3, still with the 12Mp sensor, and again many times the volume of OMD. You might explain to me why that is so if your theory is to hold true.

The best sales go to the lower common denominator, within an individuals limits to access those models. IQ even if we could describe it isnt the sole determinant supporting good sales statistics, moreover I doubt it makes more than a minor consideration even 'if' we could numerically support that idea.

The true volume providers in SLRs are the low end budget models, some of which happen to use sensors available to them made by a third party company that are presently the darlings to some. Yet the lesser standard of sensor presented by Canon still has a very large place in the game and model for model as an individual concern, likely more profitable too.

In the meantime, "old" beauties like the E-3 and/or E-5, Canon 1Ds II, Nikon D200 and D2x, Epson RD-1s, etc. will continue to come down in price and bring much satisfaction to those who learn how to use them.

So we are back to the -If you can't make great images in any situation with an E system camera, you need to simply learn more about photography- argument? The suggestion you make above could also be made about buying OM film gear.

just to pull another difference veroman pointed out. The RD1 is by specification somewhat similar to Leicas almost disastrous and expensive problematical APSH M8. So what became of the RD2? ....  Epson finished the run and that was the end of it, while Leica have pulled themselves solidly back into the black. Leica stubbornly adhered to their plan and eventually squeezed Epson out of the RF game.

-- hide signature --


-- hide signature --

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

 Rriley's gear list:Rriley's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Olympus E-3 Olympus E-5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow