Thom Hogan: Impact of mFT on Nikon DX line

Started Sep 20, 2013 | Discussions thread
nexlover88 Regular Member • Posts: 100
Re: Thom Hogan: Impact of mFT on Nikon DX line

Dheorl wrote:

nexlover88 wrote:

i feel em1 will not threaten canon and nikon. it is just too expensive and few people can afford it. on this forum we're obviously enthusiasts and we are willing to spend more for the most part.

it is a volumes game. once you get into a system, like canon or nikon, you buy a cheap body, you start buying a few cheap lenses, and you belong to that brand. you may upgrade to better bodies and lenses later, but you stay with the same brand. not only this, if your buddies have a nikon, you can borrrow/exchange lenses to play around with, and the used lenses/accessories market are real big and you don't have to worry about taking a bloodbath if you don't like what you have bought.

This is one thing I agree with is I find it a shame I can't swap lenses with as many of my friends, although at uni photography clubs there certainly seems to be an increase in m4/3 so that's changing.

unfortunately m43 just doesn't have that. there are no cheap bodies that are dslr style (with a grip) that you can comfortably use bigger lenses with. and there's no upgrade path unlike going from DX to FF.

G5/G6? Also I know very few DSLR owners who have actually gone from DX to FX. For one thing half their lenses are designed for DX cameras so they'd have to change all of those anyway.

i'm more familar with canon. i like olympus, it's good, but it's very hard to justify paying for something like the em1 or even em5. with canon, you can buy a 700d/t5i kit for cheap, and then add some nice affordable lenses like the sigma 30 1.4, 17-50 2.8, canon 50 1.8, granted they are more heavy compare to m43, but are they really that much heavier? it's not like with the em1/12-35mm you're carrying a rx100. you still feel it big time.

When comparing the canon to the new m4/3 cameras, it's not only heavier but compared to the high end m4/3 less well featured and not as well built.

right, i forgot about the g6. but its sensor performance lags behind (at least 1 stop?) aps-c competitors. the main point i'm trying to make is the price. yeah, i realize the m4/3 system has selling points. nice quality. but most people are very, very price conscious, once they set a budget, they don't want to get over that line. this is the reason why m4/3 is unable to gain major traction. to gain more volume, they must come up with more affordable dslr style camera bodies.

most people haven't moved to FF since affordable FF cameras only came out recently. but more will be coming. some lenses can migrate to FF cameras, especially primes, such as 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, etc.

the other problem i forgot to mention is if you don't want to buy additional lenses, or move past the cheap kit lenses, the m4/3 photos simply don't look as nice as aps-c due to larger depth of field. we can debate all we want about whether bokeh is good or not, but most people like it, and aps-c cameras with kit lenses are better than m4/3 cameras with kit lenses in this regard. just imagine 2 guys bringing their cameras with kit lenses, 1 guy using aps-c, the other guy using m4/3, and put them into auto modes. i bet the aps-c will have "nicer" photos in most peoples eyes.

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