Sad Used Prices for EM-1 first edition

LoneTree1 wrote:

mmartel wrote:

LoneTree1 wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

LoneTree1 wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

LoneTree1 wrote:

geoson wrote:

The GX7 has held more value because in many people’s opinion, Panasonic didn’t make a proper replacement. Remember the howling over the size of the GX8? I have it now and only wish I had bought it sooner, but I listened to the chatter. I think the size of the G9 has made the GX8 more acceptable. Then Panasonic launched the GX85 which seen as a downgrade in some aspects, and now the GX9, which is still not a flagship class camera the way the GX8 was.

Cameras which have been downgraded in some fashion:

Olympus E-M10III, Panasonic GX9, Olympus E-M5III.

I hardly think the EM-5III is a downgraded camera. It is said to be much more effective in C-AF and has numerous software capabilities. It appears to be an excellent mid-grade camera that would make most photographers very happy.

Any others?

Physically downgraded. Downgrades cover a lot of things.

You mean smaller?

More plastic.

I know I'm a rare case. But I prefer plastic/composite (+metal frame) vs all/mostly metal for cameras and lenses. I'll take the scratch and dent resistance along with the weight savings (and, perhaps, cost savings).

It's a near-fetish for some to have things that are all metal, and perhaps it's what "the pros prefer."

Personally, I don't get it. 🤷‍♂️

But hey, different strokes for different folks.

Plastic is ok as the shell of a camera, but not for internal parts to any extent. I don't know anyone who was for example going to spend $2000 on a camera who would want a plastic shell though.

You mean like a Tesla?