Why do I need a G9

hindesite wrote:

TBH, on casual inspection I haven't seen many images taken with a G9, that are better than the same subjects I've taken with the E-P1. I don't think you can blame the G9 for that.

I think in terms of IQ we are facing diminishing returns on expenditure - probably not so when considering features and ergonomics.

You think a G9 might help you win photo challenges or something?

The conceit that a "better" camera/tool/instrument/pair of shoes will make me a better [whatever] is as old as time. It probably will not--master the fundamentals then go ahead and match the tool to the task when it's really warranted.

But.

For somebody at the cutting edge of their craft it may well do just that. The newest generation are phenomenal tools and can in fact do things the earlier ones did not. Each has to decide whether their task can benefit from the tool.

Over at the Oly SLR forum are quite a few E-1 fans. A camera announced almost exactly fifteen years ago at the nosebleed price of $1,700 (what's the G9 go for, again?) it had the brand new 4/3 sensor from Kodak at 5 MP. And today it still takes quite nice images; unique in some ways because of the Kodak CCD and Oly color processing.

I'd imagine Trevor could wrangle airshow photos out of an E-1 and his choice of 4/3 lenses (how about a nice 90-250/2.8?). I'll bet he'd still prefer a G9 or E-M1ii.

Back at the computer, the 20MP images will shine. 5MP still looks pretty good by comparison after going through the DPR detail blender, but lacking that....

cheers,

Rick