Reading mode: Light Dark

Are they trolls or what?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Go to last post
What happened to Kodak?

As a film photographer Kodak was photography as far as materials were concerned.
 
For those of use who use the M43 system, this camera seems to go against anything the M43 system does well for us.


I like lots of others bought into this system because it provided compact light bodies and lenses that literally took a lot of weight off our shoulders. Think back a to a couple of years ago when this forum was full of DSLR owners “jumping ship” and praising the fact that their new powerful kit did not weigh a ton and break their back.


I would say the vast majority of us use our cameras for “free time photography”, tourism, hiking and family occasions. M43 is the perfect match for this sort of photography in my opinion. Another important factor is that M43 gear is/was affordable if not cheap in relative terms.


There are many good reasons for accepting a small hit in IQ when compared to FF if you chose M43.


But Olympus seem to be going in another direction of late, first with big heavy super-fast primes and now with this monster. The affordability factor is also disappearing from their latest offerings.


They also seem to have forgotten the low mid-market sector of M43, the EM5ii is starting to look very stale.


Sorry but the Nikon Z series of cameras is starting to look very attractive, the size difference if I stick to lenses under 200mm is not so off-putting and IBIS and other useful things can be found on these cameras too.


I caught a post by “Bluelemmy” aka David Thorpe who notoriously has championed M43. He is very critical of this camera too. Is he now a Troll?
 
Some are trolls, some aren’t.

I shoot sports for local teams (professional and high end amateur) on a now informal basis. Several years ago I moved from Nikon FF to Olympus and currently own only olympus kit. Em1 mkii is my main camera.

I strongly support what Olympus has been doing with the top end m43 kit over the past few years, bringing high quality, durable and compact equipment up to a level of performance suitable for quality sports photography. It is a real usp... quality, performance, durability and innovation in a small and portable form factor.

I have eagerly anticipated the next installment of their progress towards sports photography nirvana. The 100th anniversary flagship camera to be released with the benefit of 3 year’s development time since the release of the EM1 mkii. I am the target market. Sports photographer with a high disposable income and a high desire for durability and dependability.

I wouldn’t have thought that would class me as a troll, but releasing a new sports targeted camera body which is significantly larger and heavier and relies on the core hardware of their 3-year old em1 mkii does not encourage me to do anything but criticise. The camera erodes the USP of compact size and low weight without apparently bringing many genuinely useful performance gains to the sports and wildlife photographer.

Yes, the promise of a deep learning AF system is wonderful... but at the moment that is all it is, a promise, unless you shoot planes, trains and automobiles (and even then there are reports starting to emerge that suggest the old failure of olympus caf+tr still remains - failing to actually get consistently sharp focus on what is being successfully tracked).

Trolling... no.

Fan boy... no.

Experienced and honest... yes.

--
Have Fun

Photo Pete
 
Last edited:
tomhongkong said:
I think to most open minded forum members, the jury must still be out on the M1X. There are mixed reviews from the early users, with those who are more familiar with EM-1ii generally positive (but some can be dismissed as possibly biased) and some negative reports from others. Then we get a detailed report from Imaging Resource which I take as being unbiased and positive, and some other views which reflect personal, and subjective, negative opinions.

A few forum members who do not so far as I know have personal experience have decided to mount personal campaigns criticising the camera. Frankly I have read what they have to say in a number of posts, and there is no need for them to keep repeating it.

Is the repetition deliberate trolling? I find it hard to believe as some are regular contributors. I can believe that the camera does not meet their personal needs for street or whatever, but hopefully they can take a wider view.

I probably won't buy an MX1, but I do recognise that it may suit some very well, and that it certainly moves mainline photography in the computational direction, which must ultimately be good for all of us. (High time we caught up with smartphones)

My cameras are Olympus, Panasonic, Nikon and Fuji, so I hope I have an objective view.

I wish that those forum members (you know who I mean) had as well

Good shooting

tom
Click to expand...
This seems to be one of the most sensible posts on the M1X from Kirk Tuck via Theonlinephotographer blog.


kirk Tuck: "So. Deep breath. Not every camera is designed and purposed for walking around Downtown Austin with the instrument draped over my shoulder, sporting a nice, smallish lens and being unobtrusive. Some photographers, especially those who photograph all kinds of sports (think Olympics) wildlife and other pursuits that require long, fast lenses, spend hours holding up said long lenses in their hangs, anchored by a camera body. If you have ever done this kind of work you have probably found out that a larger camera with more gripping space helps to hold the entire package more comfortably. In the same pursuits having a robust body is also a good thing. As is a fast frame rate. In the "old days" when everything revolved around print photographers convinced themselves that they needed big (think V12) sensors. Now some prefer smaller sensors in order to reduce the size and weight of those long lenses while still delivering ample image quality. They are helped in this pursuit by the current target media: electronic screens. About 60–70% of Internet content goes to cellular phone screens.... This means that the final results from a smaller sensor camera will seem identical to big sensor cameras when viewed in the medium of choice for the majority of audiences. But the small sensor camera users still want the robustness of the larger body as well as the comfort afforded by the larger contact area for their hands.

"And since I keep saying hands I would also mention that these working photographers (Olympus' target market for a camera like this) will appreciate image stabilization that is head and shoulders above competitors' offering.

"So, what we have here is a well-considered specialists tool that can also be a 'halo' product for Olympus. It was never intended to be an 'all-around' much as a Ferrari was never meant to be used pulling stumps on the farm. We need to get into our heads that all cameras are not all purpose. Heavy-duty users will see the advantages in this new camera and buy one if the advantages align with their very real needs. I think it would be a good choice for theater photography when paired with the Olympus 40–150mm ƒ/2.8. I hope Olympus reads this and sends me the new body for a long, long test run."
 
NCV said:
For those of use who use the M43 system, this camera seems to go against anything the M43 system does well for us.

I like lots of others bought into this system because it provided compact light bodies and lenses that literally took a lot of weight off our shoulders. Think back a to a couple of years ago when this forum was full of DSLR owners “jumping ship” and praising the fact that their new powerful kit did not weigh a ton and break their back.

I would say the vast majority of us use our cameras for “free time photography”, tourism, hiking and family occasions. M43 is the perfect match for this sort of photography in my opinion. Another important factor is that M43 gear is/was affordable if not cheap in relative terms.

There are many good reasons for accepting a small hit in IQ when compared to FF if you chose M43.

But Olympus seem to be going in another direction of late, first with big heavy super-fast primes and now with this monster. The affordability factor is also disappearing from their latest offerings.

They also seem to have forgotten the low mid-market sector of M43, the EM5ii is starting to look very stale.

Sorry but the Nikon Z series of cameras is starting to look very attractive, the size difference if I stick to lenses under 200mm is not so off-putting and IBIS and other useful things can be found on these cameras too.

Icaught a post by “Bluelemmy” aka David Thorpe who notoriously has championed M43. He is very critical of this camera too. Is he now a Troll?
Click to expand...
If a camera is not for you, then keep quiet about it. I mean, who do you think is interested in whether it is the one for you: your personal fan club of 15 million Justin Bieber Fan Club refugees?

If you want to say it's not for someone else, then MYOB and let them speak for themselves. Hopefully by focusing on what does suit them, unlike you.

Clearly you are not 'getting it': even the title of this post shows the difficulty you are having with not bashing a camera, or grasping that there is something wrong with bashing a camera in its own forum.
 
IanYorke said:
tomhongkong said:
I think to most open minded forum members, the jury must still be out on the M1X. There are mixed reviews from the early users, with those who are more familiar with EM-1ii generally positive (but some can be dismissed as possibly biased) and some negative reports from others. Then we get a detailed report from Imaging Resource which I take as being unbiased and positive, and some other views which reflect personal, and subjective, negative opinions.

A few forum members who do not so far as I know have personal experience have decided to mount personal campaigns criticising the camera. Frankly I have read what they have to say in a number of posts, and there is no need for them to keep repeating it.

Is the repetition deliberate trolling? I find it hard to believe as some are regular contributors. I can believe that the camera does not meet their personal needs for street or whatever, but hopefully they can take a wider view.

I probably won't buy an MX1, but I do recognise that it may suit some very well, and that it certainly moves mainline photography in the computational direction, which must ultimately be good for all of us. (High time we caught up with smartphones)

My cameras are Olympus, Panasonic, Nikon and Fuji, so I hope I have an objective view.

I wish that those forum members (you know who I mean) had as well

Good shooting

tom
Click to expand...
This seems to be one of the most sensible posts on the M1X from Kirk Tuck via Theonlinephotographer blog.

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html

kirk Tuck: "So. Deep breath. Not every camera is designed and purposed for walking around Downtown Austin with the instrument draped over my shoulder, sporting a nice, smallish lens and being unobtrusive. Some photographers, especially those who photograph all kinds of sports (think Olympics) wildlife and other pursuits that require long, fast lenses, spend hours holding up said long lenses in their hangs, anchored by a camera body. If you have ever done this kind of work you have probably found out that a larger camera with more gripping space helps to hold the entire package more comfortably. In the same pursuits having a robust body is also a good thing. As is a fast frame rate. In the "old days" when everything revolved around print photographers convinced themselves that they needed big (think V12) sensors. Now some prefer smaller sensors in order to reduce the size and weight of those long lenses while still delivering ample image quality. They are helped in this pursuit by the current target media: electronic screens. About 60–70% of Internet content goes to cellular phone screens.... This means that the final results from a smaller sensor camera will seem identical to big sensor cameras when viewed in the medium of choice for the majority of audiences. But the small sensor camera users still want the robustness of the larger body as well as the comfort afforded by the larger contact area for their hands.

"And since I keep saying hands I would also mention that these working photographers (Olympus' target market for a camera like this) will appreciate image stabilization that is head and shoulders above competitors' offering.

"So, what we have here is a well-considered specialists tool that can also be a 'halo' product for Olympus. It was never intended to be an 'all-around' much as a Ferrari was never meant to be used pulling stumps on the farm. We need to get into our heads that all cameras are not all purpose. Heavy-duty users will see the advantages in this new camera and buy one if the advantages align with their very real needs. I think it would be a good choice for theater photography when paired with the Olympus 40–150mm ƒ/2.8. I hope Olympus reads this and sends me the new body for a long, long test run."
Click to expand...
Yep, well-spotted.

What I don't understand is, if KT is saying this camera is not for him, why doesn't he launch into bitter and repetitive rants against Olympus for even offering it? How can KT even accept a camera's right to exist, if it doesn't suit him personally?

Is KT some sort of different animal from all the self-centred trolls here?
 
IanYorke said:
IanYorke said:
About 60–70% of Internet content goes to cellular phone screens.... This means that the final results from a smaller sensor camera will seem identical to big sensor cameras when viewed in the medium of choice for the majority of audiences. But the small sensor camera users still want the robustness of the larger body as well as the comfort afforded by the larger contact area for their hands.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Beg to differ. Appealing to the lowest common denominator (cellphones). Arguments like “most people don’t notice this or that”, “most people don’t have a 4K TV”, “ordinary people don’t object to onion ring bokeh”, “only photographers care about such-and-such” have no validity unless all you shoot for is instagram.

The fellow also implies that most m43 shooters want or need a 2-pound $3,000 body that can endure temperatures of 40 below zero and withstand being sprayed with a garden hose for hours on end.

--
http://jonpais.wordpress.com
 
Last edited:
jonpais said:
IanYorke said:
jonpais said:
About 60–70% of Internet content goes to cellular phone screens.... This means that the final results from a smaller sensor camera will seem identical to big sensor cameras when viewed in the medium of choice for the majority of audiences. But the small sensor camera users still want the robustness of the larger body as well as the comfort afforded by the larger contact area for their hands.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Beg to differ. Appealing to the lowest common denominator (cellphones). Arguments like “most people don’t notice this or that”, “most people don’t have a 4K TV”, “ordinary people don’t object to onion ring bokeh”, “only photographers care about such-and-such” have no validity unless all you shoot for is instagram.

The fellow also implies that most m43 shooters want or need a 2-pound $3,000 body that can endure temperatures of 40 below zero and withstand being sprayed with a garden hose for hours on end.
Click to expand...
Ian Yorke seems clearly to be quoting from and referring to KT's article.

If you take the trouble to read the last paragraph of that quote again you will clearly see that he says that the camera is for a specialised group of users, and he does not imply anything about 'most m43 shooters'

Your views on the camera have been clearly expressed enough times for those of us with even moderate comprehension to understand them. You are entitled to your own opinions but I for one don't need to read them again.

Have a good day

tom
 
tomhongkong said:
jonpais said:
IanYorke said:
tomhongkong said:
About 60–70% of Internet content goes to cellular phone screens.... This means that the final results from a smaller sensor camera will seem identical to big sensor cameras when viewed in the medium of choice for the majority of audiences. But the small sensor camera users still want the robustness of the larger body as well as the comfort afforded by the larger contact area for their hands.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Beg to differ. Appealing to the lowest common denominator (cellphones). Arguments like “most people don’t notice this or that”, “most people don’t have a 4K TV”, “ordinary people don’t object to onion ring bokeh”, “only photographers care about such-and-such” have no validity unless all you shoot for is instagram.

The fellow also implies that most m43 shooters want or need a 2-pound $3,000 body that can endure temperatures of 40 below zero and withstand being sprayed with a garden hose for hours on end.
Click to expand...
Ian Yorke seems clearly to be quoting from and referring to KT's article.

If you take the trouble to read the last paragraph of that quote again you will clearly see that he says that the camera is for a specialised group of users, and he does not imply anything about 'most m43 shooters'

Your views on the camera have been clearly expressed enough times for those of us with even moderate comprehension to understand them. You are entitled to your own opinions but I for one don't need to read them again.

Have a good day

tom
Click to expand...
I did read it, and at the very end of his intolerably obsequious article, he implores Olympus to send him a complementary body.

It doesn't get any more transparent than that. 😂

--
http://jonpais.wordpress.com
 
Last edited:
I would not be surprized if there exists trolls paid by the 2 mayor companies .

Its a hard game nowadays ..... and by influencers (trolls) they can keep the unknown and average camera buyers to the 2 major companies .
 
Tom Caldwell said:
Albert Valentino said:
I feel for all the people at Olympus that put their heart and soul into this project. They likely know the camera is not a fit for most m43 shooters but it must be hard for them to read constant critism of their project - to show what can be done with in their niche system on their 100th anniversary. Hopefully in the months to come, when people shoot with it, there will be some positive feedback for their edicated efforts
Click to expand...
Simple really. M4/3 needed to produce something to compete with the Nikon and Canon (finally made) move into serious mirrorless (ML) camera bodies.
Click to expand...
I disagree a little bit here. I think they need to create a space along with Panasonic to do something different from what the others are doing.

Create something that people did not know they wanted. The EM5 and the first 16MP M43 cameras did this to some degree with IBIS and such.

There must be a big space to sell cameras to people who do not want honking big cameras. A bit of good marketing is all that is needed.

The first camera maker that manages to convince the younger generation that they can do much better with a real camera rather than a cell phone is on to a winner.

Do not tell me it cannot be done. As somebody old enough to have been glad to see the death of those warped easily damaged things we called LP’s, the person who managed to bring the Vinyl record back from the well deserved technological cemetery is a genius and a good demonstration that with good marketing you can sell anything to the sheeple.
Tom Caldwell said:
This truly should be a more limited high end market for those that can afford to be in it. But it seems to have created more heat than it truly deserves.

Panasonic chose to get involved in the L-Mount Consortium and to take the “fight” (if that is a suitable word) right up to the high-end dslr market converting to FF ML bodies.

Olympus chose to give the M4/3 a high end body that could possibly compete in the small volume pro-shooter market. Unlike the new FF ML mount systems many of the necessary lenses for the high end of M4/3 have already been made and can be bought.

That the E-M1x is not exactly what every M4/3 users considers their dream camera is not really the point but it might have been exascerbated by the recent drought of significant new camera bodies from Olympus. Any new serious Olympus body was likely to attract quite a lot of attention - so the E-M1x gets it in spades. But the vast majority of Olympus camera body users are not in the target market and can be offended. Those who really want the very best camera body that M4/3 has ever produced now have the chance to dig deep and buy one.
Click to expand...
I cannot agree it is the best M43 body ever produced. It is too big.
Tom Caldwell said:
However it is reasonable comment that the G9 offers better value. Not that a serious Olympus camera owner would ever be that interested in crossing that ditch .... :)
Click to expand...
The G9 is on my radar. It is falling in price quite quickly and will soon be a bargain.

I feel the conception of the Panasonic 2.8 primes was far better than the Olympus 2.8 zooms which are much heavier.
Tom Caldwell said:
Besides ... Olympus has another two camera bodies under development ... a GM5 beater and the E-M1 IV .... only joking .... please don’t hit me ..... :)
Click to expand...
As my mother always says, “tomorrow never comes”. We will believe this when we see it.
 
At least most of them are.
 
tomhongkong said:
I think to most open minded forum members, the jury must still be out on the M1X. There are mixed reviews from the early users, with those who are more familiar with EM-1ii generally positive (but some can be dismissed as possibly biased) and some negative reports from others. Then we get a detailed report from Imaging Resource which I take as being unbiased and positive, and some other views which reflect personal, and subjective, negative opinions.

A few forum members who do not so far as I know have personal experience have decided to mount personal campaigns criticising the camera. Frankly I have read what they have to say in a number of posts, and there is no need for them to keep repeating it.

Is the repetition deliberate trolling?
Click to expand...
I would say it was bashing rather than trolling, but both are against forum rules, so you could just report the posts.
tomhongkong said:
I find it hard to believe as some are regular contributors. I can believe that the camera does not meet their personal needs for street or whatever, but hopefully they can take a wider view.

I probably won't buy an MX1, but I do recognise that it may suit some very well, and that it certainly moves mainline photography in the computational direction, which must ultimately be good for all of us. (High time we caught up with smartphones)

My cameras are Olympus, Panasonic, Nikon and Fuji, so I hope I have an objective view.

I wish that those forum members (you know who I mean) had as well
Click to expand...
Part of the problem with etiquette on DPR is that people fall into name calling too much and there is little room for coming to civil agreement once the name-calling breaks out.

For instance, if someone comes up with something unfounded and generally negative about a product I've used and quite liked, I could:

1. Call them a troll.

2. Reply that their opinion goes against my experience and is overly negative.

Now, the person I've called a troll has no real way back - to give any ground is pretty much to admit to what I've accused them of - however the person I've disagreed with and said was over negative can actually come my way (even if they don't end up throwing bouquets...)
tomhongkong said:
Good shooting

tom
Click to expand...
 
NCV said:
But Olympus seem to be going in another direction of late, first with big heavy super-fast primes and now with this monster. The affordability factor is also disappearing from their latest offerings.
Click to expand...
It's really fascinating how you keep ignoring the fact that all smaller bodies and lenses are still there, and more affordable then ever on top of that. You can get a E-M10 II with two kit zooms for under € 550. Or a E-M1 II for € 1500 or even less.
 
jonpais said:
The fellow also implies that most m43 shooters want or need a 2-pound $3,000 body that can endure temperatures of 40 below zero and withstand being sprayed with a garden hose for hours on end.
Click to expand...
It's seems you have some problems with a basic reading comprehension. Because he doesn't imply anything remotely similar.

Let me help you - he only implies that such photographers exist.
 
Bob Janes said:
For instance, if someone comes up with something unfounded and generally negative about a product I've used and quite liked, I could:

1. Call them a troll.

2. Reply that their opinion goes against my experience and is overly negative.

Now, the person I've called a troll has no real way back - to give any ground is pretty much to admit to what I've accused them of - however the person I've disagreed with and said was over negative can actually come my way (even if they don't end up throwing bouquets...)
Click to expand...
It's very easy, actually. When you first encounter such a post from a particular individual, you start with #2. You repeat #2 after his or her next half a dozen negative posts. But when you realise that he or her is not interested in a civilised discussion, and just keeps posting negative comments, you use the #1. You repeat #1 a couple of times and than use #3 - put him or her on the ignore list.
 
Okapi001 said:
jonpais said:
The fellow also implies that most m43 shooters want or need a 2-pound $3,000 body that can endure temperatures of 40 below zero and withstand being sprayed with a garden hose for hours on end.
Click to expand...
It's seems you have some problems with a basic reading comprehension. Because he doesn't imply anything remotely similar.

Let me help you - he only implies that such photographers exist.
Click to expand...
that's funny, because that's the word I used - 'implies'. hehe
 
jonpais said:
Okapi001 said:
jonpais said:
The fellow also implies that most m43 shooters want or need a 2-pound $3,000 body that can endure temperatures of 40 below zero and withstand being sprayed with a garden hose for hours on end.
Click to expand...
It's seems you have some problems with a basic reading comprehension. Because he doesn't imply anything remotely similar.

Let me help you - he only implies that such photographers exist.
Click to expand...
that's funny, because that's the word I used - 'implies'. hehe
Click to expand...
Let me help you again. The key word here is "most". He didn't imply most m4/3 shooters need such a camera, as you insinuates, but only that such shooters exist. If you cannot see the difference I can't help you any more.
 
I always compare camera prices with Leica, if you think the new Olympus is expensive you could buy a Leica TL2 body for $2,200 and a manual focus 50/1.4 lens for $4,000 then compare the features of both cameras. Oh and did forget the FF SL body for $6,000.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top