E-PL9 leads Japanese mirrorless market... for some reason

Your numbers are better because they show the percentages.   These lists are more for fun and have less meaning.

1) Canon X9i DSLR

2) Nikon D5600 DSLR

3) Fujifilm X-A5

4) Canon X9

5) EM10 mark III

6) EPL9

7) Canon M

8) Nikon Z50

9) Canon M kit

10 GF9

Not a bad showing for M4/3, but that's only for 1 week. How about last Month?

1) Canon X9i

2) Nikon D5600

3) Olympus EPL9

4) Canon M kit

5) A6400

6) EM10

7) Z50

8) Canon M kit

9) Canon X9

10 D3500

11) EPL9 kit

and

14) EPL9

16) GF9

generikku wrote:

We have one in our household, which was a present. They're considered good for taking family pics. Easy to use, no viewfinder, excellent touch implementation, great SOOC JPEG images, Bluetooth implementation. So, pretty much like a smartphone with a protruding lens. I suspect the target are Instagrammers too, or for those who sell things online, which is popular in Japan. Basically, operates like a smartphone, but with the size trade off, one gets better image quality.

I took an old EPL1 on vacation because I thought of it as expendable.   At the time I was happy with pictures but not impressed with the IQ.  Today when I look back IQ is not the best, but they are some of the best looking stills I've ever taken.    My wife has printed a series on 24x24 inch canvas.

Another reminded IQ is nowhere near as big a deal as we make it.   Color, content, composition all are infinitely more important.

maggiemole wrote:

I've always thought that was a result of bigger pixels. I have the E-PL3 now which has the same pixel size. Sometimes the old things are better!

There's truth in the pixel size story.

Way back early days of Ricoh pocket cameras we went through the series of 5MP R3, 6MP R4 and 7MP R5 and it turned out that the 5MP R3 delivered the best quality of the lot, with the 6MP model falling a minute whisker behind and the 7MP failing because too much noise reduction started intruding and the images started to get that "plastic look".

In my opinion in those days it was the pixel size making the difference. DPR used to quote the pixel size for every model but that habit died some time back and by now I've forgotten what pixel dimension was the best compromise.

Now of course BSI and in-sensor noise reduction tricks have altered the scene somewhat, but it's still a case of bigger pixels are better.

bluevellet wrote:

I'm guessing very agressive pricing is the reason. And the camera's good looks don't hurt.

A lot of market fluctuations for camera manufacturers. Olympus seemed to have been lagging and slowly rising up lately.

That’s only 3 months of data, so can’t read too much into it.

I had the E-PL5. Nice camera if you don’t mind the lack of viewfinder, although the ergonomics were bad with anything other than the 17/1.8 on it.

generikku wrote:

Yes, the 17mm 1.8 fits its dimensions very well.

Maybe so, but I added the 12-40/2.8 and turned my E-PL5 into a really nice camera. Then of course migrated the lens to an E-P5 and much better again.

Japan's market means nothing.  If you don't have the U.S. you have nothing.

I will say the EPL9 is better than its specs would suggest at first. I could really have used the e-shutter in PASM modes like EPL10- which is identical in hardware to EPL9 though.

The sensor characterization for color and DR are extremely well done. Wished Olympus didn't use an AA filter, but alright

LoneTree1 wrote:

Japan's market means nothing. If you don't have the U.S. you have nothing.

Zenophobes are us!