jbent1
Well-known member
The "reveal" of the new prof Oly body gets me head scratching. It is really about the possible physical size and price. Currently a Nikon D750, admittedly old school tech, sells for $1900C (and cheaper in the US) with a 50/1.8mm lens and 128 gig Sandisk memory card. It is a very competent camera. OK, I live in a birder centric area and three of my birder crazy neighbours gave up their Nikons and associated lenses for an EM1ii and the 40-150 and 300m Oly lenses.
Why, because Oly was making a camera/lenses of good quality, a smaller size in combination with the lenses, a major deciding factor, and satisfactory imaging. The smaller size was significant, as was the fact that the price and quality of the lenses were at least competitive with comparable Nikon and third party lenses. In discussion with them, they are generally happy. I asked them if a camera like the MX-1, being larger and costlier, would they consider them? The flat response was no, with no hesitation whatsoever. They cited the Nikon D500 and D750 as examples of cameras that simply do what they do very well and likely cheaper in combination with competent Nikon or third party lenses.
If they are representative of that level of serious photographers, which they are, then the camera would have to be attractive to the next level, the professionals using the truly prof grade cameras and lenses. Price and size are less of a consideration for them than output. That brings up the M4/3 vs FF conundrum.
So why? Is this to show off Olympus's technical skills? Is it a last gasp effort to push M4/3? Panasonic with their FF road to travel will be challenging for them. For me Oly's road has me head scratching. I bought into M4/3 for the compact size and progressively better user and pic quality but I am very aware of its limits. I accept them. Do larger, costlier cameras and lenses in an M4/3 format have a future in such competitive times. Not for me. Hardly relevant. But what is the rest of the world, those fewer people who actually have an interest in a acquiring or upgrading to a good camera system, thinking and how will they react to this new product? I am very skeptical.
How are G9 sales going? I notice the price keeps dropping.
Ok assail away....
JDW
Why, because Oly was making a camera/lenses of good quality, a smaller size in combination with the lenses, a major deciding factor, and satisfactory imaging. The smaller size was significant, as was the fact that the price and quality of the lenses were at least competitive with comparable Nikon and third party lenses. In discussion with them, they are generally happy. I asked them if a camera like the MX-1, being larger and costlier, would they consider them? The flat response was no, with no hesitation whatsoever. They cited the Nikon D500 and D750 as examples of cameras that simply do what they do very well and likely cheaper in combination with competent Nikon or third party lenses.
If they are representative of that level of serious photographers, which they are, then the camera would have to be attractive to the next level, the professionals using the truly prof grade cameras and lenses. Price and size are less of a consideration for them than output. That brings up the M4/3 vs FF conundrum.
So why? Is this to show off Olympus's technical skills? Is it a last gasp effort to push M4/3? Panasonic with their FF road to travel will be challenging for them. For me Oly's road has me head scratching. I bought into M4/3 for the compact size and progressively better user and pic quality but I am very aware of its limits. I accept them. Do larger, costlier cameras and lenses in an M4/3 format have a future in such competitive times. Not for me. Hardly relevant. But what is the rest of the world, those fewer people who actually have an interest in a acquiring or upgrading to a good camera system, thinking and how will they react to this new product? I am very skeptical.
How are G9 sales going? I notice the price keeps dropping.
Ok assail away....
JDW
