-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
OM-5 or Pen-F
- Thread starter GutiWong
- Start date
cba_melbourne
Veteran Member
Camera body color serves both practical and emotional purposesDefinitely. And what function does all-black offer?True, but that's for function, not form. Originally that was to minimize the effects of expansion on long lenses that are often sitting in the sun on the sidelines of sports games or in the savannah. Now you could argue its a bit of both, since it's become an iconic look for Canon.I gues, for bodies anyway. But then if you look at the most expensive supertelephotos from pretty much any brand, they are always white or pearl!They certainly could, and there were even silver versions of the E-M1 Mark I and Mark II. If I was to guess, these models didn't sell particularly well - likely since people perceive these cameras as the "pro" or more "serious" models in the lineup, and for better or worse that translates to an all-black camera for Sony, Canon and Nikon.
Nothing as far as I know. All-black bodies will heat up faster in direct sun compared to silver ones. Same with orher all-black telephotos like the 300 f4.
Why reserve non-black for just a few options? The OM5 is less premium than the OM1 but is silver. The OM1 is marketed for wildlife photography, a situation in which it will likely be exposed to sun… It makes no sense
The only explanation is that these colors are not assigned by function but for branding. For lenses the pearl signifies bragging rights. For bodies, for some reason, all black signifies it is premium and feature packed. Or that their marketing researchers thought they couldnt sell enough silver to justify making it.
Fuji does a better job on aesthetics. I think if oly did better on that I would not be torn between the two as I consider my next system.
Emotional, means that a buyer is more likely to buy a new camera, if it comes in a color and design that she/he particularly likes.
There is also an argument to be made, that some individuals do indeed take better pictures with a camera whose external design and color and ergonomics they particularly like. As opposed to gear they do not like. It is a very personal thing, but there definitely is a minority of people that are very susceptible to this. They cannot see a camera as a mere tool like a hammer, they need to like it as an artistic object. It is often very creative, arts oriented and highly talented people that fall into this minority.
There are also purely Practical reasons to choose a color. Street photographers will often prefer black, because it makes them less visible. So may some wildlife photographers, because they can approach their prey closer without being spotted. There is a reason hunting guns and their sights are black.
In today's time of plastic, I personally prefer black because scratches and dents in the top paint will not reveal the black plastic underneath.
Black heating up faster in the sun is IMO a purely marketing argument. It will not affect small surfaces like camera bodies. On the contrary, black will help video centric cameras to radiate their own heat off. And white lenses, why do you think wildlife photographers spend money to put a camo skin on them? White tele lenses make sense for sports reporters, being out in the sun at the stadium or field all day and don't need to care to be seen. Almost everybody else is better served with black unless there are emotional reasons. Besides, an insulating jacket around the lens would be more effective than color against the sun.
Last edited:
unhappymeal
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,178
- Reaction score
- 4,679
Aesthetics, yes. Tactile experience, no. I've had an X-T30, X-T3, X-T4, X-S10, X-Pro2 and X-Pro3. Olympus and Panasonic do physical machining, dampening and calibrating of dials and buttons better than anyone in the industry. Fuji makes pretty stuff, but it feels poor. I always hated taking my X-Pro2 out of my bag and finding the dials had shifted from just being jostled around.Definitely. And what function does all-black offer?True, but that's for function, not form. Originally that was to minimize the effects of expansion on long lenses that are often sitting in the sun on the sidelines of sports games or in the savannah. Now you could argue its a bit of both, since it's become an iconic look for Canon.I gues, for bodies anyway. But then if you look at the most expensive supertelephotos from pretty much any brand, they are always white or pearl!They certainly could, and there were even silver versions of the E-M1 Mark I and Mark II. If I was to guess, these models didn't sell particularly well - likely since people perceive these cameras as the "pro" or more "serious" models in the lineup, and for better or worse that translates to an all-black camera for Sony, Canon and Nikon.
Nothing as far as I know. All-black bodies will heat up faster in direct sun compared to silver ones. Same with orher all-black telephotos like the 300 f4.
Why reserve non-black for just a few options? The OM5 is less premium than the OM1 but is silver. The OM1 is marketed for wildlife photography, a situation in which it will likely be exposed to sun… It makes no sense
The only explanation is that these colors are not assigned by function but for branding. For lenses the pearl signifies bragging rights. For bodies, for some reason, all black signifies it is premium and feature packed. Or that their marketing researchers thought they couldnt sell enough silver to justify making it.
Fuji does a better job on aesthetics. I think if oly did better on that I would not be torn between the two as I consider my next system.
Bassam Guy
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,890
- Solutions
- 15
- Reaction score
- 7,581
Which is which? Neither "reflect the light" or both?
I was on the steps of the highly reflective Lincoln Memorial in DC two weeks ago for four hours with two black bodies: an E-M5 III and an E-M1 III. Both got quite hot but the more heat conductive metal bodied E-M1 III was nearly too hot to touch a couple times after dangling idly from a neck strap for short periods. Perhaps silver bodies (which still have a lot of black) might have stayed cooler but not by much. No inordinate noise up to ISO800 which is the highest ISO I used.
I believe the person who told me meant stray light reflecting from a silver body into the lens. That was given as the reason why true professionals must prefer black bodies. That was back in the film days.
I seldom use a lens hood, so I do not count myself as one of those professionals who thinks he needs a black body. We have a black and a silver Pen-F purely to keep them apart and because we can.
Cafe Racer
Veteran Member
Olympus/OMS do plastic bodies for premium cameras really badly!Aesthetics, yes. Tactile experience, no. I've had an X-T30, X-T3, X-T4, X-S10, X-Pro2 and X-Pro3. Olympus and Panasonic do physical machining, dampening and calibrating of dials and buttons better than anyone in the industry.Definitely. And what function does all-black offer?True, but that's for function, not form. Originally that was to minimize the effects of expansion on long lenses that are often sitting in the sun on the sidelines of sports games or in the savannah. Now you could argue its a bit of both, since it's become an iconic look for Canon.I gues, for bodies anyway. But then if you look at the most expensive supertelephotos from pretty much any brand, they are always white or pearl!They certainly could, and there were even silver versions of the E-M1 Mark I and Mark II. If I was to guess, these models didn't sell particularly well - likely since people perceive these cameras as the "pro" or more "serious" models in the lineup, and for better or worse that translates to an all-black camera for Sony, Canon and Nikon.
Nothing as far as I know. All-black bodies will heat up faster in direct sun compared to silver ones. Same with orher all-black telephotos like the 300 f4.
Why reserve non-black for just a few options? The OM5 is less premium than the OM1 but is silver. The OM1 is marketed for wildlife photography, a situation in which it will likely be exposed to sun… It makes no sense
The only explanation is that these colors are not assigned by function but for branding. For lenses the pearl signifies bragging rights. For bodies, for some reason, all black signifies it is premium and feature packed. Or that their marketing researchers thought they couldnt sell enough silver to justify making it.
Fuji does a better job on aesthetics. I think if oly did better on that I would not be torn between the two as I consider my next system.
E-M5iii/OM5. They should go back to using the metal of the E-M5ii.Bassam Guy
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,890
- Solutions
- 15
- Reaction score
- 7,581
Oh yeah, I remember that. I never gave it much credence.
But I do have a black E-M5 III because my E-M5 II was silver/black and a black E-M1 III because the friend that I bought it from only had one
NZ Scott
Veteran Member
The main advantage of black is that the camera is less noticeable.Definitely. And what function does all-black offer?True, but that's for function, not form. Originally that was to minimize the effects of expansion on long lenses that are often sitting in the sun on the sidelines of sports games or in the savannah. Now you could argue its a bit of both, since it's become an iconic look for Canon.I gues, for bodies anyway. But then if you look at the most expensive supertelephotos from pretty much any brand, they are always white or pearl!They certainly could, and there were even silver versions of the E-M1 Mark I and Mark II. If I was to guess, these models didn't sell particularly well - likely since people perceive these cameras as the "pro" or more "serious" models in the lineup, and for better or worse that translates to an all-black camera for Sony, Canon and Nikon.
Nothing as far as I know.
bluevellet
Veteran Member
The OM5 is the newer, more well rounded camera. Weather-sealing, PDAF, computational features. Mini DSLR design (EVF on the middle top).
Pen F looks physically dope. Slightly smaller range finder design (EVF in the top left corner). Caters more to the JPEG still shooter.
Choose the right camera depending on your wants/needs
bluevellet
Veteran Member
I like my GM5, really small, but you have to accept some pretty big compromizes to enjoy it.
mring1
Senior Member
Pen autofocus is.... leisurely. If you are shooting anything that moves in the slightest, the OM5 is your camera. I have and love my Pen, but I also have two grandchildren. For them, I have my M1Mk III.
Horses for courses...
Horses for courses...
Bassam Guy
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,890
- Solutions
- 15
- Reaction score
- 7,581
My E-M5 III with a lightweight and comfortable body is "premium"? And all this time I thought the 5 series were 2nd rate.Olympus/OMS do plastic bodies for premium cameras really badly!Aesthetics, yes. Tactile experience, no. I've had an X-T30, X-T3, X-T4, X-S10, X-Pro2 and X-Pro3. Olympus and Panasonic do physical machining, dampening and calibrating of dials and buttons better than anyone in the industry.Definitely. And what function does all-black offer?True, but that's for function, not form. Originally that was to minimize the effects of expansion on long lenses that are often sitting in the sun on the sidelines of sports games or in the savannah. Now you could argue its a bit of both, since it's become an iconic look for Canon.I gues, for bodies anyway. But then if you look at the most expensive supertelephotos from pretty much any brand, they are always white or pearl!They certainly could, and there were even silver versions of the E-M1 Mark I and Mark II. If I was to guess, these models didn't sell particularly well - likely since people perceive these cameras as the "pro" or more "serious" models in the lineup, and for better or worse that translates to an all-black camera for Sony, Canon and Nikon.
Nothing as far as I know. All-black bodies will heat up faster in direct sun compared to silver ones. Same with orher all-black telephotos like the 300 f4.
Why reserve non-black for just a few options? The OM5 is less premium than the OM1 but is silver. The OM1 is marketed for wildlife photography, a situation in which it will likely be exposed to sun… It makes no sense
The only explanation is that these colors are not assigned by function but for branding. For lenses the pearl signifies bragging rights. For bodies, for some reason, all black signifies it is premium and feature packed. Or that their marketing researchers thought they couldnt sell enough silver to justify making it.
Fuji does a better job on aesthetics. I think if oly did better on that I would not be torn between the two as I consider my next system.
Cafe Racer
Veteran Member
Olympus got me used to their dense feeling metal premium camera bodies that have a good heft for their small size; E-M5, E-M1 & E-P5. Then I guess their financial woes likely forced them to cut costs and make the E-M5iii out of plastic. I doubt they wanted to use plastic that looked and felt cheap but that's the impression I was left with. It looks very 'plasticky' and feels cheap.My E-M5 III with a lightweight and comfortable body is "premium"?Olympus/OMS do plastic bodies for premium cameras really badly!Aesthetics, yes. Tactile experience, no. I've had an X-T30, X-T3, X-T4, X-S10, X-Pro2 and X-Pro3. Olympus and Panasonic do physical machining, dampening and calibrating of dials and buttons better than anyone in the industry.Definitely. And what function does all-black offer?True, but that's for function, not form. Originally that was to minimize the effects of expansion on long lenses that are often sitting in the sun on the sidelines of sports games or in the savannah. Now you could argue its a bit of both, since it's become an iconic look for Canon.I gues, for bodies anyway. But then if you look at the most expensive supertelephotos from pretty much any brand, they are always white or pearl!They certainly could, and there were even silver versions of the E-M1 Mark I and Mark II. If I was to guess, these models didn't sell particularly well - likely since people perceive these cameras as the "pro" or more "serious" models in the lineup, and for better or worse that translates to an all-black camera for Sony, Canon and Nikon.
Nothing as far as I know. All-black bodies will heat up faster in direct sun compared to silver ones. Same with orher all-black telephotos like the 300 f4.
Why reserve non-black for just a few options? The OM5 is less premium than the OM1 but is silver. The OM1 is marketed for wildlife photography, a situation in which it will likely be exposed to sun… It makes no sense
The only explanation is that these colors are not assigned by function but for branding. For lenses the pearl signifies bragging rights. For bodies, for some reason, all black signifies it is premium and feature packed. Or that their marketing researchers thought they couldnt sell enough silver to justify making it.
Fuji does a better job on aesthetics. I think if oly did better on that I would not be torn between the two as I consider my next system.
Last edited:
Bassam Guy
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,890
- Solutions
- 15
- Reaction score
- 7,581
It is easy to get used to.Olympus got me used to their dense feeling metal premium camera bodies that have a good heft for their small size; E-M5, E-M1 & E-P5. Then I guess their financial woes likely forced them to cut costs and make the E-M5iii out of plastic. I doubt they wanted to use plastic that looked and felt cheap but that's the impression I was left with. It looks very 'plasticky' and feels cheap.My E-M5 III with a lightweight and comfortable body is "premium"?Olympus/OMS do plastic bodies for premium cameras really badly!Aesthetics, yes. Tactile experience, no. I've had an X-T30, X-T3, X-T4, X-S10, X-Pro2 and X-Pro3. Olympus and Panasonic do physical machining, dampening and calibrating of dials and buttons better than anyone in the industry.Definitely. And what function does all-black offer?True, but that's for function, not form. Originally that was to minimize the effects of expansion on long lenses that are often sitting in the sun on the sidelines of sports games or in the savannah. Now you could argue its a bit of both, since it's become an iconic look for Canon.I gues, for bodies anyway. But then if you look at the most expensive supertelephotos from pretty much any brand, they are always white or pearl!They certainly could, and there were even silver versions of the E-M1 Mark I and Mark II. If I was to guess, these models didn't sell particularly well - likely since people perceive these cameras as the "pro" or more "serious" models in the lineup, and for better or worse that translates to an all-black camera for Sony, Canon and Nikon.
Nothing as far as I know. All-black bodies will heat up faster in direct sun compared to silver ones. Same with orher all-black telephotos like the 300 f4.
Why reserve non-black for just a few options? The OM5 is less premium than the OM1 but is silver. The OM1 is marketed for wildlife photography, a situation in which it will likely be exposed to sun… It makes no sense
The only explanation is that these colors are not assigned by function but for branding. For lenses the pearl signifies bragging rights. For bodies, for some reason, all black signifies it is premium and feature packed. Or that their marketing researchers thought they couldnt sell enough silver to justify making it.
Fuji does a better job on aesthetics. I think if oly did better on that I would not be torn between the two as I consider my next system.
Cafe Racer
Veteran Member
Perhaps for some people. I believe Olympus understood the value in they way a camera looks and feels, which is why they designed them the way they did. I doubt the use of metal for the E-M5 and E-P5 was about durability but instead was a way to communicate a 'premium' product. Removing that is to remove a large part of the what made those cameras desirable to me.It is easy to get used to.Olympus got me used to their dense feeling metal premium camera bodies that have a good heft for their small size; E-M5, E-M1 & E-P5. Then I guess their financial woes likely forced them to cut costs and make the E-M5iii out of plastic. I doubt they wanted to use plastic that looked and felt cheap but that's the impression I was left with. It looks very 'plasticky' and feels cheap.My E-M5 III with a lightweight and comfortable body is "premium"?Olympus/OMS do plastic bodies for premium cameras really badly!Aesthetics, yes. Tactile experience, no. I've had an X-T30, X-T3, X-T4, X-S10, X-Pro2 and X-Pro3. Olympus and Panasonic do physical machining, dampening and calibrating of dials and buttons better than anyone in the industry.Definitely. And what function does all-black offer?True, but that's for function, not form. Originally that was to minimize the effects of expansion on long lenses that are often sitting in the sun on the sidelines of sports games or in the savannah. Now you could argue its a bit of both, since it's become an iconic look for Canon.I gues, for bodies anyway. But then if you look at the most expensive supertelephotos from pretty much any brand, they are always white or pearl!They certainly could, and there were even silver versions of the E-M1 Mark I and Mark II. If I was to guess, these models didn't sell particularly well - likely since people perceive these cameras as the "pro" or more "serious" models in the lineup, and for better or worse that translates to an all-black camera for Sony, Canon and Nikon.
Nothing as far as I know. All-black bodies will heat up faster in direct sun compared to silver ones. Same with orher all-black telephotos like the 300 f4.
Why reserve non-black for just a few options? The OM5 is less premium than the OM1 but is silver. The OM1 is marketed for wildlife photography, a situation in which it will likely be exposed to sun… It makes no sense
The only explanation is that these colors are not assigned by function but for branding. For lenses the pearl signifies bragging rights. For bodies, for some reason, all black signifies it is premium and feature packed. Or that their marketing researchers thought they couldnt sell enough silver to justify making it.
Fuji does a better job on aesthetics. I think if oly did better on that I would not be torn between the two as I consider my next system.
addlightness
Veteran Member
I have both the EM5.ii and EM5.iii. Honestly, I prefer the 'plastic' EM5.iii over its predecessor. I know I'm probably in the minority. To me, the EM5.ii is noticeably heavier. In fact it's my heaviest camera out of my 5 bodies - EM5.iii, EM5.ii, PEN-F, GX85 and GM1.Perhaps for some people. I believe Olympus understood the value in they way a camera looks and feels, which is why they designed them the way they did. I doubt the use of metal for the E-M5 and E-P5 was about durability but instead was a way to communicate a 'premium' product. Removing that is to remove a large part of the what made those cameras desirable to me.It is easy to get used to.Olympus got me used to their dense feeling metal premium camera bodies that have a good heft for their small size; E-M5, E-M1 & E-P5. Then I guess their financial woes likely forced them to cut costs and make the E-M5iii out of plastic. I doubt they wanted to use plastic that looked and felt cheap but that's the impression I was left with. It looks very 'plasticky' and feels cheap.My E-M5 III with a lightweight and comfortable body is "premium"?Olympus/OMS do plastic bodies for premium cameras really badly!Aesthetics, yes. Tactile experience, no. I've had an X-T30, X-T3, X-T4, X-S10, X-Pro2 and X-Pro3. Olympus and Panasonic do physical machining, dampening and calibrating of dials and buttons better than anyone in the industry.Definitely. And what function does all-black offer?True, but that's for function, not form. Originally that was to minimize the effects of expansion on long lenses that are often sitting in the sun on the sidelines of sports games or in the savannah. Now you could argue its a bit of both, since it's become an iconic look for Canon.I gues, for bodies anyway. But then if you look at the most expensive supertelephotos from pretty much any brand, they are always white or pearl!They certainly could, and there were even silver versions of the E-M1 Mark I and Mark II. If I was to guess, these models didn't sell particularly well - likely since people perceive these cameras as the "pro" or more "serious" models in the lineup, and for better or worse that translates to an all-black camera for Sony, Canon and Nikon.
Nothing as far as I know. All-black bodies will heat up faster in direct sun compared to silver ones. Same with orher all-black telephotos like the 300 f4.
Why reserve non-black for just a few options? The OM5 is less premium than the OM1 but is silver. The OM1 is marketed for wildlife photography, a situation in which it will likely be exposed to sun… It makes no sense
The only explanation is that these colors are not assigned by function but for branding. For lenses the pearl signifies bragging rights. For bodies, for some reason, all black signifies it is premium and feature packed. Or that their marketing researchers thought they couldnt sell enough silver to justify making it.
Fuji does a better job on aesthetics. I think if oly did better on that I would not be torn between the two as I consider my next system.
Matthew39
Forum Enthusiast
Years ago, there were pop-up shops in Oxford Street, selling all manner of stuff (e.g. £5 for a "lucky dip" bin bag). They used to sell these 35mm cameras, branded "Nikan" or something. The cameras were of the cheapest possible construction, with plastic lenses but in the bottom of each body they had glued a big metal weight, to give it "professional" heft.
pipituni
Leading Member
the EM5ii is a premium body with strength and looks to match
the plastic body in the EM5iii and OM5 is a big disappointment and lets the side down, and that plastic tripod mount is an issue
but the price tag is still premium so there's that
pipituni
Leading Member
i'll take the extra ~55g in return for the extra strength and durability
not much more weight than a USB stick is saved and to achieve that they sacrificed one of the key differentiators and selling points of the OM series
cba_melbourne
Veteran Member
Most people use an aftermarket baseplate or L-plate to make the EM5.3 more stable on a tripod. And to prevent damage to the fragile tripod nut. Such plate adds between 130 and 230g weight, depending on model and price range you choose.I have both the EM5.ii and EM5.iii. Honestly, I prefer the 'plastic' EM5.iii over its predecessor. I know I'm probably in the minority. To me, the EM5.ii is noticeably heavier. In fact it's my heaviest camera out of my 5 bodies - EM5.iii, EM5.ii, PEN-F, GX85 and GM1.Perhaps for some people. I believe Olympus understood the value in they way a camera looks and feels, which is why they designed them the way they did. I doubt the use of metal for the E-M5 and E-P5 was about durability but instead was a way to communicate a 'premium' product. Removing that is to remove a large part of the what made those cameras desirable to me.It is easy to get used to.Olympus got me used to their dense feeling metal premium camera bodies that have a good heft for their small size; E-M5, E-M1 & E-P5. Then I guess their financial woes likely forced them to cut costs and make the E-M5iii out of plastic. I doubt they wanted to use plastic that looked and felt cheap but that's the impression I was left with. It looks very 'plasticky' and feels cheap.My E-M5 III with a lightweight and comfortable body is "premium"?Olympus/OMS do plastic bodies for premium cameras really badly!Aesthetics, yes. Tactile experience, no. I've had an X-T30, X-T3, X-T4, X-S10, X-Pro2 and X-Pro3. Olympus and Panasonic do physical machining, dampening and calibrating of dials and buttons better than anyone in the industry.Definitely. And what function does all-black offer?True, but that's for function, not form. Originally that was to minimize the effects of expansion on long lenses that are often sitting in the sun on the sidelines of sports games or in the savannah. Now you could argue its a bit of both, since it's become an iconic look for Canon.I gues, for bodies anyway. But then if you look at the most expensive supertelephotos from pretty much any brand, they are always white or pearl!They certainly could, and there were even silver versions of the E-M1 Mark I and Mark II. If I was to guess, these models didn't sell particularly well - likely since people perceive these cameras as the "pro" or more "serious" models in the lineup, and for better or worse that translates to an all-black camera for Sony, Canon and Nikon.
Nothing as far as I know. All-black bodies will heat up faster in direct sun compared to silver ones. Same with orher all-black telephotos like the 300 f4.
Why reserve non-black for just a few options? The OM5 is less premium than the OM1 but is silver. The OM1 is marketed for wildlife photography, a situation in which it will likely be exposed to sun… It makes no sense
The only explanation is that these colors are not assigned by function but for branding. For lenses the pearl signifies bragging rights. For bodies, for some reason, all black signifies it is premium and feature packed. Or that their marketing researchers thought they couldnt sell enough silver to justify making it.
Fuji does a better job on aesthetics. I think if oly did better on that I would not be torn between the two as I consider my next system.
That makes the EM5.3 a considerably heavier camera than the EM5.2, which does not need such plate. I have both cameras, and the old EM5.2 flexes much less on a tripod than the EM5.3 with an L-plate attached. My EM5.3 has it's L-plate permanently attached, I never take it off. That makes it by far the largest and heaviest camera I own out of my current bodies - EM5.2, EM5.3, Pen-F, GM1, GM5.
Cafe Racer
Veteran Member
I prefer the additional heft and feel of the E-M5ii metal body.I have both the EM5.ii and EM5.iii. Honestly, I prefer the 'plastic' EM5.iii over its predecessor. I know I'm probably in the minority. To me, the EM5.ii is noticeably heavier.Perhaps for some people. I believe Olympus understood the value in they way a camera looks and feels, which is why they designed them the way they did. I doubt the use of metal for the E-M5 and E-P5 was about durability but instead was a way to communicate a 'premium' product. Removing that is to remove a large part of the what made those cameras desirable to me.It is easy to get used to.Olympus got me used to their dense feeling metal premium camera bodies that have a good heft for their small size; E-M5, E-M1 & E-P5. Then I guess their financial woes likely forced them to cut costs and make the E-M5iii out of plastic. I doubt they wanted to use plastic that looked and felt cheap but that's the impression I was left with. It looks very 'plasticky' and feels cheap.My E-M5 III with a lightweight and comfortable body is "premium"?Olympus/OMS do plastic bodies for premium cameras really badly!Aesthetics, yes. Tactile experience, no. I've had an X-T30, X-T3, X-T4, X-S10, X-Pro2 and X-Pro3. Olympus and Panasonic do physical machining, dampening and calibrating of dials and buttons better than anyone in the industry.Definitely. And what function does all-black offer?True, but that's for function, not form. Originally that was to minimize the effects of expansion on long lenses that are often sitting in the sun on the sidelines of sports games or in the savannah. Now you could argue its a bit of both, since it's become an iconic look for Canon.I gues, for bodies anyway. But then if you look at the most expensive supertelephotos from pretty much any brand, they are always white or pearl!They certainly could, and there were even silver versions of the E-M1 Mark I and Mark II. If I was to guess, these models didn't sell particularly well - likely since people perceive these cameras as the "pro" or more "serious" models in the lineup, and for better or worse that translates to an all-black camera for Sony, Canon and Nikon.
Nothing as far as I know. All-black bodies will heat up faster in direct sun compared to silver ones. Same with orher all-black telephotos like the 300 f4.
Why reserve non-black for just a few options? The OM5 is less premium than the OM1 but is silver. The OM1 is marketed for wildlife photography, a situation in which it will likely be exposed to sun… It makes no sense
The only explanation is that these colors are not assigned by function but for branding. For lenses the pearl signifies bragging rights. For bodies, for some reason, all black signifies it is premium and feature packed. Or that their marketing researchers thought they couldnt sell enough silver to justify making it.
Fuji does a better job on aesthetics. I think if oly did better on that I would not be torn between the two as I consider my next system.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum