In contrast - the ridiculous notion that...

Started 2 weeks ago | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Forgottenbutnotgone Contributing Member • Posts: 601
Re: ...

DonParrot wrote:

Forgottenbutnotgone wrote:

That is kind of a poor example. The difference is that for your cash, you will get an ultra high performance vehicle that compromises utility for world class handling, There are plenty of vehicles that have the limited towing capacity and utility of a Ferrari without the commensurate acceleration, braking and handling. They also don't have the Ferrari price tag.

For most of its life, the Four Thirds system traded superlative anything, other than toughness, for general mediocrity.

The sentence that I was responding to read, "It was fast and responsive, the C-AF performed on a solid level, solid like a brick.

Sorry, but that's BS. GB just couldn't stop rubbing it in again and again and again and again. The reaction was logical and well deserved.

Sorry, but what is BS is for you or anyone else to slander GB for simply having the nerve to repeat the truth in a forum where certain truths are unpopular. What is also BS is the statement that many people's reactions have been logical or deserved.

That has been an issue here for years. Many of the most popular contributors to this forum, often brilliant photographers, seem to have no problem substituting propaganda for plain truth. Then when someone stands up to them, they start hitting below the belt. You and I had an exchange within the last few months that somewhat fit that description. I can pm you a link of if you want.

A comment or statement or discourse, if you will,  about equipment or gear, doesn't give anyone the right to be abusive toward the person just because they don't have a better argument. That's been the case here forever, against nearly anyone who champions an unpopular opinion, however true it may be.

The same stupid treatment was aimed at Ricardo and his take on the E-5 sensor, Jim Pilcher when he had focus problems with the E-3, and countless others.

GB gets misquoted more than anyone I've ever heard of. When he defends himself or when he challenges an "alternative" comment, people accuse him of trying to educate the unwashed masses or of forcing his opinion on the whole forum, something that anyone who posts here is guilty of.

This exchange has been much more civil and meaningful because the focus has been kept on the issues.

As a result, even though I don't agree with you from MY experience, I see where you are coming from and I can appreciate your perspective.

GB isn't guilty of anything more than standing up for the truth, the same truth that has eventually come to be, if not common knowledge, at least more widely accepted. This especially so after dpreview started publishing articles explaining exactly the same thing.

What you call rubbing in people's faces is actually his diligence in calling out the propaganda when it arises, such as the f2=f2=f2 argument, or the Olympus propagated "300mm 2.8 equivalent to 600mm 2.8 on FF", or even the truth that the exposure triangle is really only composed of two angles. That last one is especially important to mft users because our image begins with less light in the first place.

What could Olympus do with the Panny sensor deal signed and no other potential sensor supplier available?

Your question partially illustrates my point.

People act like there was nothing wrong with the system but give reasons for what they say wasn't wrong  The E-5 was a too little, too late correction of problems that most people denied existed until they were fixed somewhat in the introduction of the E-5.

The OMD MKII is more of the same, EXCEPT for the "tiny"  fact that THIS time the body is commendable  in most every way.

If only we could see mft lenses made in the true spirit of the Four Thirds era lenses. Let the current Pro lenses be HG series and pull out the stops on the SHG.

There was no way out and anybody interested knew about it. So you had do cope with the mediocre low-light performance - if you did mind at all - or switch to another system.

- due to its massive advantages in other areas such as the lenses.

The advertised advantages were often not advantages. In order to get the advertised portability, you had to sacrifice image quality. In order to get the advertised image quality, you sacrificed portablility. The lenses that gave a massive advantage in image quality were, well, massive and expensive, plus they were handicapped by the sensor.

None of this is to say that you could not get decent pictures out of the system. I'm just saying that wasn't as revolutionary as all the hype made it seem.

Amazingly, if I look at the pics shot with my E-30

Isn't that the camera that Raj Sharma and others got rid of because of the noisy sensor?

and my E-5 I still regard the IQ as outstanding.

If enough people shared your sentiments, this thread would have never been started.

And I only shot them with HG lenses that already outperformed anything available in the other camps.

Excellent point. If only the OMD MKII was available then....

So I massively benefited fom the FT advantages. Great cameras, stellar lenses that could produce fantasticpictures if you knew what to do.

It was simple. Wait for a bright sunny day. Yeah if you knew what to do, in some conditions, conditions that competitively priced  offerings flourished in, you could produce photos in spite of the camera's performance. If you could find a significant point of contrast, say a tie on a white shirt or perhaps an earring, you could get the E-5 to stop hunting and giving up at the opposite end of the the focal range that corresponded with the subject. I'm not saying that the camera was all bad but the good has been well represented, much to the neglect of the bad.

Yes, it did, and its market was mainly people who were made captive by their lenses. People who lost enough faith in Olympus to sell those precious lenses at a huge loss in many cases.

Made captive?


In the (still) free western world it's absolutely up to you how and what for you are spending your money.

So basically it's the consumer's fault for believing that after waiting three long years, Olympus would have given us a better product. Gotcha.

Furthermore, after making a good faith investment in highly expensive lenses, people were perfectly free to sell them to other people who would gladly pay a premium price for....wait a minute....if I don't want them because there isn't a decent body for them....who else is going give me a decent price for them?

If you regard your lenses as so great that you are ready to cope with a - according to you - mediocre camera, the benefits seem to still be big enough. Otherwise you would switch. Nothing captive from my point of view.

Ok. You are absolutely correct. Most of the E5's sales were to those NEW to Four Thirds. Only a small percentage of buyers were current Four Thirds owners. There was such a proliferation of new buyers that the system flourished in a way not seen in the history of digital photography. As a matter of fact, the influx of sales was so overwhelming that Olympus....NEVER made another Four thirds body or lens.

I'm sure that version sounds better than the bargain-basement fire sale of used HG and SHG glass that resulted from Olympus' "timely" transition to One Beautiful System.

The fact is that many broke free of their captors but lost a whole lot of money, and faith in Olympus in the process.

Well. You begin to repeat a well known fact as GB did for years.

That well known fact was never widely ADMITTED as a well-known fact, any more than what GB was saying about total light.

Again, people in this forum as TYPICAL, regarded any use outside of the cameras' limited capabilities to be abuse of the equipment. The black cat in a coal mine phrase is a prime example. As I said at the time, if something as routine as a black tux in a church, or a child blowing out their birthday candles is considered a black cat in a coal mine, the bar of expectation has been definitely lowered.

The same "blinders over the eyes" attitude exists here today. Look how people in this thread try to put a different spin on the fact that the Four Thirds system is dead. Even my son made the observation that the date a product ceases to be manufactured is typically termed EOL. Care to hazard a guess what that stands for? A small hint...End Of Life.

The good, you can still use the stuff. The bad, it AIN'T being made any more and apparently the rest of the desirable glass at Olympus has pretty much been sold out just this past week.

Not very enlightening

I agree with you on that, not because the subject was agreed with and moot, but rather because there was constant denial of plain facts propagated here

Listening to you one is tempted to believe that the competition was able to offer you clean ISO 6400 or even 12,800, in these days. But that's not the case. FT was mediocre in those days but the competition wan't so much better.

The competition offered better low light performance period. Not just image quality, but focusing as well, and without the complimentary useless  arc welder focus illuminator Olympus offered as a solution.


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