So who was 4/3 originally aimed at?

Started Nov 16, 2013 | Discussions thread
rovingtim Veteran Member • Posts: 8,644
Re: So who was 4/3 originally aimed at? - Original press release

bobn2 wrote:

iii) Related to (ii) they really failed to give options which took advantage of the size and weight advantage. The first several FT DSLRs were as large or larger than the competition, right up until the D400.

This may not have been so much of a problem if the bodies were competitive, but they were not.

The same with the lenses.

It didn't help that Olympus was misrepresenting the lenses -- ie. a 150mm f2 = 300mm f2 -- sparking the 'equivalency wars'. Compare the 35-100 f2 to Canon's 70-200 f4, for example, and things did not compare well at all. The Oly was bigger and more expensive and could only be attached to bodies that seriously lagged behind in performance.

Optically, it was excellent.

The question really was not so much whether photographers wanted bigger or larger gear, if you have a USP, you might as well use it and secure the part of the market that wants that.

I would suggest that if Olympus bodies were competitive to the competition, and they were honestly representing the lenses, the point you make at the beginning of you post may have been evident.

However, Olympus made a point of emphasising size as their USP. Because the performance of 4/3rds bodies lagged, all Olympus had left was size. The E3 and SHG lenses destroyed that.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow