Your take on value proposition of MFT in 2025?

Tom Caldwell said:

The first series A7R that I thought the way to the future was a d-o-g even if that the US use of that word is very derogatory. The rest of the English speaking world sees the expression as indicating a device that was not really properly finished for market - in fact was worse than Beta release. Just hopeless for anything beyond basic photography. Among other issues like placing oft used buttons in styled ledges off the top plate. The difficult grip when your little finger slipped off the bottom ot the grip and cocked finger on shutter button left the body basically in two finger and thumb grip. Very uncomfortable to use and death to low light photography. They had to rush out the lower populated A7S to disguise the failings of its A7R sibling.

I don't ever buy more stuff from a business that sells not well conceived product rushed to market by letting them sort out the issues with a fully paid up copy of that item. My our house rules. I have shunned Sony product ever since - and see how many series of updates of the same thing they have had to sell to willing upgraders since.

So I agree that the A7RII was a much better camera but Sony did the wriong thing with the A7R and got away with it because the idea of the first FF ML body in the A7 series caught the wave of those trying to escape the locked in duopoly of the dslr makers who frankly and commercially were going to milk the "prestige" of the dslr as a "Proper camera".

It was Canon and Nikon that eventually killed the dslr market all in their good time whn the gloss started to come off the profits of the dslr as a type.

Click to expand...

I liked the ergonomics of the A7R. It was the shutter shock and some of the odd functional mistakes that put me off. The AF system was very odd.

I think that the OM3 would probably work for me too.

A

Metabones adapters for EF-M4/3 work quite well over an almost complete range of EF mount lenses. Metabones have put many hard firmware yards into getting the full advantage of firmware optimised. Many go for cheap adapters to be good enough. But they general work on a more limited range of lenses. Metabones adapters now seem very expensive but you get meaningful free firmware updates for the life of the adapter as a reward.

As far as I know Metabones is the only adapter manufacturer who has offered a firmware update to optimise pdaf on the G9II body.

Viltrox is a suitable cheaper alternative but firmware updates are few and far between. We tend to get what we pay for in one way or another.

Tom Caldwell said:

Metabones adapters for EF-M4/3 work quite well over an almost complete range of EF mount lenses. Metabones have put many hard firmware yards into getting the full advantage of firmware optimised. Many go for cheap adapters to be good enough. But they general work on a more limited range of lenses. Metabones adapters now seem very expensive but you get meaningful free firmware updates for the life of the adapter as a reward.

As far as I know Metabones is the only adapter manufacturer who has offered a firmware update to optimise pdaf on the G9II body.

Viltrox is a suitable cheaper alternative but firmware updates are few and far between. We tend to get what we pay for in one way or another.

Click to expand...

I bought MBIV for EF to FE for my 24mm TSE II and EF to MFT for a 300/4. The 300/4 is long gone and the MBIV won’t mount on an OM1. It still does a decent job with the Tamron 35/1.4 SP but that is really for my FE bodies.

Andrew

ahaslett said:

Tom Caldwell said:

The first series A7R that I thought the way to the future was a d-o-g even if that the US use of that word is very derogatory. The rest of the English speaking world sees the expression as indicating a device that was not really properly finished for market - in fact was worse than Beta release. Just hopeless for anything beyond basic photography. Among other issues like placing oft used buttons in styled ledges off the top plate. The difficult grip when your little finger slipped off the bottom ot the grip and cocked finger on shutter button left the body basically in two finger and thumb grip. Very uncomfortable to use and death to low light photography. They had to rush out the lower populated A7S to disguise the failings of its A7R sibling.

I don't ever buy more stuff from a business that sells not well conceived product rushed to market by letting them sort out the issues with a fully paid up copy of that item. My our house rules. I have shunned Sony product ever since - and see how many series of updates of the same thing they have had to sell to willing upgraders since.

So I agree that the A7RII was a much better camera but Sony did the wriong thing with the A7R and got away with it because the idea of the first FF ML body in the A7 series caught the wave of those trying to escape the locked in duopoly of the dslr makers who frankly and commercially were going to milk the "prestige" of the dslr as a "Proper camera".

It was Canon and Nikon that eventually killed the dslr market all in their good time whn the gloss started to come off the profits of the dslr as a type.

Click to expand...

I liked the ergonomics of the A7R. It was the shutter shock and some of the odd functional mistakes that put me off. The AF system was very odd.

I think that the OM3 would probably work for me too.

A

Click to expand...

They fixed most of the glaring issues of the A7R with the next cab off the rank. But I set convenience of use very highly and the controls of the first A7R were designed by tractor mechanics not by photographers (even amateur ones). Sold on the cusp of FF mirrorless revolution I think that it was rushed to market far too early.

Sony's cdaf in the A7R was pathetic and when I switched to Panasonic CDAF the performance was so much better than the A7R at the time that I was not going to reward Sony by meekly re-buying their more mature product after suffering their weak-kneed A&R early try a premium ML FF camera body.

Metabones adapters EF-M4/3 were relatively flawless on even the GM1 (for S-AF) whereas despite many tries Metabones never managed to get the Sony CDAF to work well. It is obvious that Sony had to go PDAF as their CDAF was very poorly enacted.

The OM-3 might be a OMS camera I would buy, but the OM-1 (type) is surely better except for the more RF-style hybridisation not quite one or to-other base type. But it seems an excllent camera and will probably sell well especially when it finds its vendable street price. I hope OMS makes good money from it and will continue to make more stuff to delight those that like what they do.

I would have bought more Olymous bodies except that I use multiple cameras in my necessarily rush to get good moments in live dress rehearsals. Using cameras with such different user interface in semi dark by touch memory made me choose to stick to one camera when I was switching bodies to save loss of time and mistakes in the darkness.

No disrespect to Olympus/OMS but they had their own way to be learned and the Panasonic interface was much easier and they have kept it very consistent over many succeeding modules - they have always provided a very useful touch interface from as far back as the GM1 where the Olympus touch was excellent and was a useful was to prevent the control structure to be cramped. The E-M1 touch screen on the that camera needed two very accurate taps on its very crowded but otherwise useful SCP to operate. Not too good when under capture stress in a hurry. Panasonic also managed to condense much of its buttons into double duty quite seamlessly whilst whilst Olympous/OMS seems to make more independent utility buttons that seem to be overkill. Strangely I can make the D-Pad on my Panasonic bodies act somewhat like the D-Pad on Olympus but I cannot adjust the D-Pad of the Olympus to work the same as the Panasonic D-Pad leaving me frustrated when under pressure in the dark.

ahaslett said:

Tom Caldwell said:

Metabones adapters for EF-M4/3 work quite well over an almost complete range of EF mount lenses. Metabones have put many hard firmware yards into getting the full advantage of firmware optimised. Many go for cheap adapters to be good enough. But they general work on a more limited range of lenses. Metabones adapters now seem very expensive but you get meaningful free firmware updates for the life of the adapter as a reward.

As far as I know Metabones is the only adapter manufacturer who has offered a firmware update to optimise pdaf on the G9II body.

Viltrox is a suitable cheaper alternative but firmware updates are few and far between. We tend to get what we pay for in one way or another.

Click to expand...

I bought MBIV for EF to FE for my 24mm TSE II and EF to MFT for a 300/4. The 300/4 is long gone and the MBIV won’t mount on an OM1. It still does a decent job with the Tamron 35/1.4 SP but that is really for my FE bodies.

Andrew

Click to expand...

I once had about 20 EF lenses when I counted them years ago. it gives me great versatility when choosing a ML body mount system. The range from an very early stupid investment in a Canon EF 400/2.8L which (all 5.5kg of it) was weightless on a gimbal head large tripod. Brilliant for individual artist performances from the back of the hall to get higher than stage height perspective. Such was my over-commitment to EF and dslr I needed something that I could adapt these lenses to other mounts with good S-AF utility. Metabones versatility over a wide range of EF lenses adapted to M4/3 is much highewer than any others. They also take bug fixes and firmware enhancements very seriously.

Never any fit problems on any Panasonic shaped body.

Since then I have acquired more Canon EF lenses when the price was right and I fearlessly expect them all to work and they do. I buy them primarily for use with M4/3 and there are some beauties among them which I really enjoy using. We all have some silly expenses where we over-spend. I find it cheaper than regularly updating expensive cars.

If I decide to change brands and mount systems they are only an adapter or three away - I might even forgive Sony eventually for selling me that awful A7R.

I did not buy any Sony FE mount lenses luckily preferring to use legacy MF lenses and adapted EF ones. I have a very useful flirtation with L-mount without buying any native L-Mount lenses. Not quite as versatile as the oem lenses but it does save me another mistake in investing in oem that since mirrorless leaves these purchase one-brand one-mount specific.

Moose in Oz said:

I'm curious about people's opinions on the value proposition of MFT versus the competition in 2025, particularly from those who shoot MFT alongside a bigger sensor system (I only have MFT cameras myself). Two things have caused me to contemplate this question:

1. The launch of the Sony A1ii, which in Australian currency is priced by Sony for body only at $10,989 (versus manufacturer pricing of $3,899 for GH7, $3,799 for OM1ii and $3,299 for G9ii).

2. Online reactions to the OM3's pricing, which overwhelmingly seem to be that it costs too much. I've seen lots of comments along the lines of "who would pay that much for a MFT camera" and "why would anyone buy this when they can get a [insert larger sensor competitor] for a similar price". (I acknowledge that a portion of the MFT community also thinks the OM3 is too expensive.)

For many a camera's value seems to be dictated by sensor size. I can appreciate why that might be, but I would suggest that the high-end MFT cameras give users plenty of tools to help get a shot, coupled with image quality that, as best I can tell from those who do such comparisons, is mostly difficult to distinguish from that of larger sensor cameras at common viewing outputs. That said, I also suspect that many people wouldn't or don't appreciate what MFT cameras can offer until they've actually used one (which I think is one of MFT's principal marketing challenges).

What say you?

Personally, when it comes to buying new I find the whole photography enterprise expensive regardless of what path one takes, and prices for some of the bigger sensor camera and lens offerings ridiculously prohibitive (e.g. I am sure the Sony A1ii is a fantastic camera but $10,989!). Ultimately, I think if a camera or lens is worth it to you, ignore the naysayers and go for it.

Click to expand...

There are very few choices for a camera that does live view highlight/shadow display, or even live view zebras for stills, and that does pro capture (or pre release capture, or whatever they want to call it) in RAW, or does one-button bracketing. Let along live ND or live GND, or allows you to really use custom settings by recalling them back to a PASM mode so you can use the custom settings as a baseline for different shooting scenarios.

These are my requirements for operability.

Moose in Oz said:

What say you?

Click to expand...

I don't see any value in paying more than 900 Australian dollars for a M43 or APS-C camera today, unless it has some really unique features that blow me away (none do). To me the biggest strengths of the M43 system are some of the lens offerings, but every manufacturer offers some excellent lenses for the price, it's just that none completely dominate in this area.

MJ_Photo38 said:

Mark P Thornton said:

> The market was calling for an updated PEN-F

But was it really, to be sure some noisy forums were but the real market is another matter.

When I got my GX9, the Pen-F seemed relatively poor value for money.

Click to expand...

That's exactly the thing. The Pen-F is not exactly a great camera : autofocus is very poor,

Click to expand...

That is a gross exaggeration. AF is slightly worse - in low light only - compared to the EM5.2. The reason for this is simple, the EM5.2 is 16MP and the Pen-F is 20MP. That affects low light AF, everything else in the cameras being pretty much the same.

MJ_Photo38 said:

video is non-existent, there is no weather sealing, and it has a bit of a schizophrenic relation with it "retro" heritage : on one hand the camera looks adorably vintage from the front, but it full of buttons, with a PSAM mode dial and a fully articulated screen in the back. The cheaper E-M1 mark II has a better sensor a considerably better performance.

Click to expand...

Ah no. The EM1.2 was released 9 months after, and did cost 25% more. It had a very closely related sensor, the only difference is the faster readout speed.

If you mean used prices, then yes EM1.2 is a very cheap bargain, it has had a normal and steep depreciation. Whereas Pen-F prices by far exceed it's release price today for well kept samples.

MJ_Photo38 said:

Even when the camera was released, the Pen-F was a pretty bad value.

Click to expand...

Bad value for its technical specifications, I agree.

But fair/good value for it's timeless design, finish and build quality.

And fantastic value for it's value retention (it's actually a value appreciation).

MJ_Photo38 said:

Cameras released at high prices that are not popular are generally crashing on the used market and you can find them for a fraction of their orginal price rather quickly. Ask the Fujifilm X-H1.

That is not the case of the Pen-F because there is still huge demand for it. No matter how "bad" the camera is, some people are ready to pay a pretty large amount of money to get one, just like Fujifilm X-Pro cameras : it's a halo product, which has a cult following.

On platforms like MPB, the Pen-F is the 3rd most expensive Olympus / OM camera, being more expensive than cameras like the OM-5, E-M1 mark III. It's only about 40€ less expensive than the OM-1.

The same thing happens with the X-Pro, with the X-Pro3 Dura being more expensive than the flagship X-H2S, and the "regular" X-Pro 3 not being far behind, still more expensive than the semi-flagship X-H2. And looking at the number that MPB has in stock, the X-Pro actually sells while the X-H2s don't.



The market is, in fact, calling for a new Pen-F, just like it's calling for a new X-Pro.

Click to expand...

MJ_Photo38 said:

Neither of those cameras are great value.

Click to expand...

Not if you are only interested in technical specifications, I agree.

But nobody buys them to take pictures, in the same way you buy a hammer do drive nails

You buy them to enjoy taking pictures, like a lady buys earrings to enjoy wearing them

MJ_Photo38 said:

Both of those statements can be correct.

Click to expand...

For you, yes

For me or the lady with earrings, no

I am convinced that I take better pics with a camera I particularly like, regardless of technical specs. I do not shoot things like birds in flight though.

To each his/her own, there is no right or wrong here

But for travel Sony APS-C has become a slightly better value for money alternative and for street/portraits/events Fuji is doing it better.

Needs better marketing to get some points across...

gary0319 said:

I don’t recall a single newly introduced Olympus/OM camera that was not panned as being “too expensive”, at least in the last 8 years that I have been buying them.

I think it’s almost become tradition on this forum and if it didn’t happen I would worry the camera was underpriced.

Click to expand...

Yep, my impression too. E-M1 II was called overpriced too and it was one of the cameras that helped Olympus reach the few quarters of profitability that they got. It's a long running strategy where they launch high and do discounts later as demand wanes.

If the price is too high, just wait it out. As a recent example, the OM-1 launch price was $2199, just recently they were running a promo for $1,100:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68057508

It's still possible to get it for $1,400 on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/OM-System-OM-1-Camera-Black/dp/B09S5JBX56/

JDR1429 said:

The value prop is becoming less and less for sure. The market was calling for an updated PEN-F, and they delivered the OM-3. Which seems like a great camera but was a let down. There are other retro style cameras with bigger sensors for less $$. Nikon Zf and Zfc, X-T5, X-T50.

I would have considered a new PEN-F if it had a 25-30mp sensor. OM needs to get off the 20mp sensor (just saying). Pany already has done it in the G9ii.

Click to expand...

Question is how many people would be willing to pay $2000 for that? Judging from history I would say not many. The people calling for that are expecting to pay around $1000 and the market is relatively little even at that. Olympus said Pen-F didn't meet sales expectations, so can't exactly blame OMDS for not bothering to try.

jjbinx said:

[…]

Member said:

The other issue with Canon is the divide between excellent but very expensive lenses and affordable ones outclassed by modern Sigma or Tamron lenses at lower equivalent new cost.

Click to expand...

wouldn’t it be just the same in the m4/3 world if Sigma and Tamron were building lots of m4/3 lenses ?

Click to expand...

Some Olympus and OM lenses were designed by Sigma (going by patents and the fact they are made in Japan), and are likely also made by Sigma for them. Like the 75/1.8, 17/1.2, 25/1.2, 45/1.2, 100-400, 150-600. You do not bite the hand that feeds you.

Member said:

Member said:

Fortunately I traded in my EF mount lenses while they still had value. The current price of a used 16-35/2.8 or 8-15/4 fisheye is shocking. Decent buys if you don’t need native AF.

Click to expand...

Isn’t that the same as Fourthirds System lenses now

Member said:

Andrew

Click to expand...

jj

Click to expand...

Moose in Oz said:

I'm curious about people's opinions on the value proposition of MFT versus the competition in 2025, particularly from those who shoot MFT alongside a bigger sensor system (I only have MFT cameras myself). Two things have caused me to contemplate this question:

1. The launch of the Sony A1ii, which in Australian currency is priced by Sony for body only at $10,989 (versus manufacturer pricing of $3,899 for GH7, $3,799 for OM1ii and $3,299 for G9ii).

2. Online reactions to the OM3's pricing, which overwhelmingly seem to be that it costs too much. I've seen lots of comments along the lines of "who would pay that much for a MFT camera" and "why would anyone buy this when they can get a [insert larger sensor competitor] for a similar price". (I acknowledge that a portion of the MFT community also thinks the OM3 is too expensive.)

For many a camera's value seems to be dictated by sensor size. I can appreciate why that might be, but I would suggest that the high-end MFT cameras give users plenty of tools to help get a shot, coupled with image quality that, as best I can tell from those who do such comparisons, is mostly difficult to distinguish from that of larger sensor cameras at common viewing outputs. That said, I also suspect that many people wouldn't or don't appreciate what MFT cameras can offer until they've actually used one (which I think is one of MFT's principal marketing challenges).

What say you?

Personally, when it comes to buying new I find the whole photography enterprise expensive regardless of what path one takes, and prices for some of the bigger sensor camera and lens offerings ridiculously prohibitive (e.g. I am sure the Sony A1ii is a fantastic camera but $10,989!). Ultimately, I think if a camera or lens is worth it to you, ignore the naysayers and go for it.

Click to expand...

I am getting enough paid jobs that most of my M43 gears have already been fully paid for. Small and light enough that my FF system can be utilised for fun projects. Value proposition is great for me.

Life is good.

Cafe Racer said:

gary0319 said:

I don’t recall a single newly introduced Olympus/OM camera that was not panned as being “too expensive”, at least in the last 8 years that I have been buying them.

Click to expand...

What's your take on Popular Photography's summary?

Cafe Racer said:

I think it’s almost become tradition on this forum and if it didn’t happen I would worry the camera was underpriced.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Slightly off-topic, I used to have the OM-4 and loved it (lusted after the Ti version) and I loved the multi-spot metering. That could be added to the OM1/OM3 by a firmware upgrade - please OMDS.

--
Alan Scott
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth" - Marcus Aurelius

Moose in Oz said:

That said, I also suspect that many people wouldn't or don't appreciate what MFT cameras can offer until they've actually used one (which I think is one of MFT's principal marketing challenges).

What say you?

Click to expand...

I think even people here that do use MFT would find it difficult to name the systems advantages.

Sam Bennett said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

Sam Bennett said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

JNK 100 said:

photoholiko said:

Think about Leica, Rebadged Lumix for twice the price eg: SL3

Click to expand...

• Funny. Which Lumix is the rebadged SL3 please?

Click to expand...

Prety sure he meant SL3S... which is basically a (worse) rebadged Lumix S5 mark II (with a better EVF and IP54 body)

So far the SL3 has no equivalents, but if you look at the previous gens, the S1R was basically a rebadged SL2, and the S1 was basically a rebadged SL2S.

Click to expand...

"Rebadged" is disingenuous, at best. As you noted it's a (completely) different body with completely different ergonomics, better viewfinder and also has a top LCD panel, it's own operating system, etc. Leica has intelligently leveraged their partnership with Lumix to re-use the commoditized parts of a camera but have thoroughly made it their own.

That's not to say that I think the differences are worth it, but it's unfair to call it "rebadged".

Click to expand...

If the difference between those two cameras matter to you, that's en entirely new debate.

What I see is that it's the same sensor, with basically the same AF performance (actually slightly worse), with the same burst rate and with an interface that is cleaned up compared to what Lumix does, but less versatile with way less parameters that you have access to as a result (especially in regard to audio) and no active cooling.

You think it's disingenuous to say that it's a rebranded Lumix, I don't agree with that.

Click to expand...

It's like saying the Lotus Elise was a "rebadged" Toyota because they use the same engine with the same torque and horsepower numbers. It's a very narrow-minded view of what makes a camera a camera, IMO.

Click to expand...

That comparison doesn't hold. An engine has horsepower and torque numbers, but this isn't what says how fast a car is. The power to weight ratio does. A lotus Elise has a Toyota engine, but it also has a super lightweight, rigid chassis which gives it a considerably better cornering ability and much better acceleration and top speed than let's say... the Camry that uses the same engine. The Elise is more expensive than the Camry, because it's more focused, requires more hours to get assembled and tuned, and as a result is substantially faster and nimble. In short : it has capabilities and performance that isn't even in the same league as the Camry.

The SL3-S? It's exactly the same as the S5IIX.

The car comparison that would hold better in our case is when you have a company that owns two different brands and sells the same car with two different badges on the front at two different prices.

Typically, a Volskwagen Passat and an Audi A4 have the exact same chassis, exact same engine. They have a different interior, different seats, the Audi feels more premium so they charge 10k€ more for the same specs. But ultimately, both cars perform the same.

Sam Bennett said:

Sam Bennett said:

It's a Lumix in fancy clothing, which is close to be the same as rebranded.

Click to expand...

Not really. "Rebadged" is referring to a "badge" or a "label" that is put on products. In some cases this means literally just swapping the logo - you see this a lot with commoditized electronics such as charging bricks, etc. Sometimes it means changing the name on a car and little else. Sometimes it means having some superficial changes to body paneling, etc on a car. This is not the same thing, IMO.

Click to expand...

You're playing with semantics here. I'm talking about spec sheets. The SL3-S doesn't provide anything more than a red badge logo on the front, an IP rating, and a full metal body. And it's not like the S5II was a cheaply built camera either, it's still a metal build which is weather sealed (only not IP rated like 95% of the market).

On the subject of capabilities, the SL3-S is identical to the S5IIX. But it's in a fancy body. As I said, it's an S5II in fancy clothing. Feel free to disagree.

DP Review seem to have a similar issue with the SL3-S : good camera in a vacuum, but the existence of the S5IIX at 1/3rd of a price really makes it a tough sell, even if you love the body, design etc









I'm not syaing that the SL3-S is a bad camera, that would be silly. It's a pretty good product.

But capabilities wise, it's an S5IIX for 2.5 times the price.

You might say that the user experience is important, I'm not sure it's worth 3500 USD when the end result is the exact same with both cameras. That's down to each person's requirements of course. If you're down to pay 5.2k for an SL3-S I'm no one to say that you shouldn't, as long as there is no misunderstanding on what the camera is.

--
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)

Andrew,

your last paragraph sums it (and me) up nicely.

cba_melbourne said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

Mark P Thornton said:

> The market was calling for an updated PEN-F

But was it really, to be sure some noisy forums were but the real market is another matter.

When I got my GX9, the Pen-F seemed relatively poor value for money.

Click to expand...

That's exactly the thing. The Pen-F is not exactly a great camera : autofocus is very poor,

Click to expand...

That is a gross exaggeration. AF is slightly worse - in low light only - compared to the EM5.2. The reason for this is simple, the EM5.2 is 16MP and the Pen-F is 20MP. That affects low light AF, everything else in the cameras being pretty much the same.

Click to expand...

Well, I have an E-M5II and I consider the autofocus on that camera to be very poor

So if you say that it's slightly worse than the E-M5II, that only confirms my impression that the AF is very poor. It's basically AF-S 99% of the time.

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

video is non-existent, there is no weather sealing, and it has a bit of a schizophrenic relation with it "retro" heritage : on one hand the camera looks adorably vintage from the front, but it full of buttons, with a PSAM mode dial and a fully articulated screen in the back. The cheaper E-M1 mark II has a better sensor a considerably better performance.

Click to expand...

Ah no. The EM1.2 was released 9 months after, and did cost 25% more. It had a very closely related sensor, the only difference is the faster readout speed.

Click to expand...

That's not the only difference. The E-M1ii has the second generation of that 20MP sensor, leading to slightly better DR and slightly better noise levels as well.

As far as I know, only the Pen-F and Lumix GX8 were fitted with that first gen 20MP sensor.

cba_melbourne said:

If you mean used prices, then yes EM1.2 is a very cheap bargain, it has had a normal and steep depreciation. Whereas Pen-F prices by far exceed it's release price today for well kept samples.

Click to expand...

Yes I mean what it costs you to geet one today, so used prices. Also, when I was talking about performance I wasn't only talking about the sensor performance, but also the burst rate, autofocus and video capabilities.

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

Even when the camera was released, the Pen-F was a pretty bad value.

Click to expand...

Bad value for its technical specifications, I agree.

But fair/good value for it's timeless design, finish and build quality.

And fantastic value for it's value retention (it's actually a value appreciation).

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm not denying that. I'm strictly taking the "spec sheet" perspective here. You can get a much better camera for cheaper, but if what you want to shoot with is a Pen-F, well you pay Pen-F prices. No way around it.

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cameras released at high prices that are not popular are generally crashing on the used market and you can find them for a fraction of their orginal price rather quickly. Ask the Fujifilm X-H1.

That is not the case of the Pen-F because there is still huge demand for it. No matter how "bad" the camera is, some people are ready to pay a pretty large amount of money to get one, just like Fujifilm X-Pro cameras : it's a halo product, which has a cult following.

On platforms like MPB, the Pen-F is the 3rd most expensive Olympus / OM camera, being more expensive than cameras like the OM-5, E-M1 mark III. It's only about 40€ less expensive than the OM-1.

The same thing happens with the X-Pro, with the X-Pro3 Dura being more expensive than the flagship X-H2S, and the "regular" X-Pro 3 not being far behind, still more expensive than the semi-flagship X-H2. And looking at the number that MPB has in stock, the X-Pro actually sells while the X-H2s don't.



The market is, in fact, calling for a new Pen-F, just like it's calling for a new X-Pro.

Neither of those cameras are great value.

Click to expand...

Not if you are only interested in technical specifications, I agree.

But nobody buys them to take pictures, in the same way you buy a hammer do drive nails

You buy them to enjoy taking pictures, like a lady buys earrings to enjoy wearing them

cba_melbourne said:

Both of those statements can be correct.

Click to expand...

For you, yes

For me or the lady with earrings, no

I am convinced that I take better pics with a camera I particularly like, regardless of technical specs. I do not shoot things like birds in flight though.

To each his/her own, there is no right or wrong here

Click to expand...

I sold my X-T2 to get an X-Pro2. The Pro2 was about double the price of the T2, yet is worse on about every single spec. I get all of this.

But I also recognize that even though I enjoy the camera more, it's objectively a worse camera when it comes to performance.

And that was the whole point of my forum post : the value of a camera isn't always dictated by its performance, but rather its desirability, and how much people are ready to pay for it.

A camera that is extremely performant will be desireable for that specific thing. A camera that is extremely nice to shoot with, looks nice and makes you feel good when you do will also be desireable, even if it performs worse than the first one.

And that's okay, that's how supply and demand works.

--
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)

The camera bodies have more features, less limitations and/or better specs than any FF cameras at their respective price ranges - at the cost of more noise.

The lenses are smaller and cheaper - at the cost of a deeper DoF.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

--
Confrontation beats confirmation.

alan scott said:

Andrew,

your last paragraph sums it (and me) up nicely.

Click to expand...

I like your “must get out more” too.

There are lots of photogenic places in and around Leeds.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post