Thoughts from the "Recliner of Infinite Wisdom".

[NCV]

What is needed are social media 'influencers' concentrating on fashion and culture, not photography influencers. Photography influencers are a bunch of old guys with bad teeth, who smell of pipe tobacco, and who use words like "copacetic".

Sorry guys, but this has GOT to be done.

The main benefit rises from the crop factor 2, which really kicks in from about 100mm M43 focal length (200mm FF equiv). THIS is the last and only benefit of M43 to this point in time.

This is definitely not true, should be obvious to anyone, especially who has looked at recent discussions here.

Why say such strict "truths" which anyone can dismiss when they think about it for a second.

Ok, I recently renewed my camera gear cupboard radically.

I spent quite some time weighing up the pros and cons of M43 verses other alternatives. I sold all my M43 and replaced it with a system which I felt was more suited to my photography.

You made the decision to carry more weight, more bulk and spend significantly more money for something "more suited". I don't think anyone would be surprised that a larger, heavier, newer, more expensive camera produced better results than your old one.

So I am well versed in the pros and cons of M43.

I would be interested to know your reasons for preferring M43 compared to the FF and APCS mirrorless systems which are gaining popularity.

I realize this question wasn't asked of me but as someone who shoots multiple systems - the short answer is the deliverables of modern cameras easily meet client demands which are increasingly more about timely turnaround (instant really) and videography. The shooting envelope of M43 is fairly large for stills and video. It's not as large as other formats, but the reality is, it doesn't have to be to produce excellent results. So then it becomes a matter of selection, packaging and pricing - all of which are favorable in M43.

Te comparison you show is flawed. The plastic bottomed EM5iii is no match to the Z6 regarding construction quality and the Panasonic zoom is a cheap consumer grade lens no were near the 24-200 for optical quality.

My choice boiled down to the Z6/7 + 24-200 for a one lens solution or the EM1iii + 12-100. We are taking about similar build quality and performance levels

Nikon Z6/7 655g + 24-200 570g = 1225g Cost Z6II = €2190 + €970 = €3160

Olympus Em1iii 580g + 12-100 560G = 1140G Cost = €1780 + €800 = €2580

A tiny difference of 85g The heavily discounted Olympus setup saves just €580

Shopping around and buying as a kit gets the price closer and 87g is no big deal.

It's truly a great combination, I'm sure of it. Gives the Olympus tough competition.

Differences between lenses are at least the constant aperture of Olympus for video. Nikon can acquire more light with that lens, Olympus has better IBIS. Obviously Nikon has better DR, but much worse frame rate for exposure bracketing etc.

Olympus has 12mm MFD at 0.15m, and at 100mm 0.45m. Nikon has at 24mm 0.5m and at 200mm 0.7m. This is important for some shooters without needing to change lenses.

Anyway, I compared those charts in the links. There aren't much better options to compare these lenses currently, but links are welcome. One shouldn't compare different tests, but we have no choice here, and many of those numbers seemed okay to me, similar curves etc.

What I found out, is that the Nikon has much better center sharpness, especially at 24-50mm when counting lw/ph. On the other hand what I found out, was that the Olympus has similar or better corner sharpness from 50-200mm.

Also one should note the earlier thread comparison where we found out that when shooting at f/8, the difference with the best Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is about 200 lw/ph, so with this lens Olympus could be equal or better.

I don't have time now to explain how I got these conclusions (which are not exact for sure because of different testers), but I can later when I have time if someone wants, and can't see it themselves.

Strange thing in that 24-200mm chart is the corner sharpness at f/16-f/22, where it is actually the same or even better for 50-200mm focal lengths. My logic says that this is not possible considering diffraction being a factor?

Btw. Only issues people I have seen thus far with E-M5iii being "plastic", is that it cannot be used with certain straps that use the tripod mount. I have seen nothing else related to build quality, other than some people wanting the heavier metal for the "feel". Which I can undestand, but Olympus opted for less weight.

The EM5iii was also on my list to replace mt EM5, but when I saw several instances of the tripod mount breaking out on this forum, the EM5iii was eliminated swiftly from the list. I use a tripod whenever I can. Cost cutting corners were made with this camera.

The Lens Tip graphs need to be factored to take into account sensor size. Factoring this in makes the 24-70 far and away the better lens.

The big advantage for me is the fact that the FF sensor has far smoother colour and tonal separation. You lose that "gritty" M43 file look. We must look beyond specifications sometimes.

https://www.lenstip.com/591.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_Z_24-70_mm_f_2.8_S_Image_resolution.html

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...28-s-review#section-performance-and-lab-tests

https://www.lenstip.com/497.4-Lens_...ED_12-100_mm_f_4_IS_PRO_Image_resolution.html

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/nikon-z-24-200mm-f4-63-vr-review#section-lab-tests

 

[gRounded spAce]

What is needed are social media 'influencers' concentrating on fashion and culture, not photography influencers. Photography influencers are a bunch of old guys with bad teeth, who smell of pipe tobacco, and who use words like "copacetic".

Sorry guys, but this has GOT to be done.

The main benefit rises from the crop factor 2, which really kicks in from about 100mm M43 focal length (200mm FF equiv). THIS is the last and only benefit of M43 to this point in time.

This is definitely not true, should be obvious to anyone, especially who has looked at recent discussions here.

Why say such strict "truths" which anyone can dismiss when they think about it for a second.

Ok, I recently renewed my camera gear cupboard radically.

I spent quite some time weighing up the pros and cons of M43 verses other alternatives. I sold all my M43 and replaced it with a system which I felt was more suited to my photography.

You made the decision to carry more weight, more bulk and spend significantly more money for something "more suited". I don't think anyone would be surprised that a larger, heavier, newer, more expensive camera produced better results than your old one.

So I am well versed in the pros and cons of M43.

I would be interested to know your reasons for preferring M43 compared to the FF and APCS mirrorless systems which are gaining popularity.

I realize this question wasn't asked of me but as someone who shoots multiple systems - the short answer is the deliverables of modern cameras easily meet client demands which are increasingly more about timely turnaround (instant really) and videography. The shooting envelope of M43 is fairly large for stills and video. It's not as large as other formats, but the reality is, it doesn't have to be to produce excellent results. So then it becomes a matter of selection, packaging and pricing - all of which are favorable in M43.

Te comparison you show is flawed. The plastic bottomed EM5iii is no match to the Z6 regarding construction quality and the Panasonic zoom is a cheap consumer grade lens no were near the 24-200 for optical quality.

My choice boiled down to the Z6/7 + 24-200 for a one lens solution or the EM1iii + 12-100. We are taking about similar build quality and performance levels

Nikon Z6/7 655g + 24-200 570g = 1225g Cost Z6II = €2190 + €970 = €3160

Olympus Em1iii 580g + 12-100 560G = 1140G Cost = €1780 + €800 = €2580

A tiny difference of 85g The heavily discounted Olympus setup saves just €580

Shopping around and buying as a kit gets the price closer and 87g is no big deal.

It's truly a great combination, I'm sure of it. Gives the Olympus tough competition.

Differences between lenses are at least the constant aperture of Olympus for video. Nikon can acquire more light with that lens, Olympus has better IBIS. Obviously Nikon has better DR, but much worse frame rate for exposure bracketing etc.

Olympus has 12mm MFD at 0.15m, and at 100mm 0.45m. Nikon has at 24mm 0.5m and at 200mm 0.7m. This is important for some shooters without needing to change lenses.

Anyway, I compared those charts in the links. There aren't much better options to compare these lenses currently, but links are welcome. One shouldn't compare different tests, but we have no choice here, and many of those numbers seemed okay to me, similar curves etc.

What I found out, is that the Nikon has much better center sharpness, especially at 24-50mm when counting lw/ph. On the other hand what I found out, was that the Olympus has similar or better corner sharpness from 50-200mm.

Also one should note the earlier thread comparison where we found out that when shooting at f/8, the difference with the best Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is about 200 lw/ph, so with this lens Olympus could be equal or better.

I don't have time now to explain how I got these conclusions (which are not exact for sure because of different testers), but I can later when I have time if someone wants, and can't see it themselves.

Strange thing in that 24-200mm chart is the corner sharpness at f/16-f/22, where it is actually the same or even better for 50-200mm focal lengths. My logic says that this is not possible considering diffraction being a factor?

Btw. Only issues people I have seen thus far with E-M5iii being "plastic", is that it cannot be used with certain straps that use the tripod mount. I have seen nothing else related to build quality, other than some people wanting the heavier metal for the "feel". Which I can undestand, but Olympus opted for less weight.

The EM5iii was also on my list to replace mt EM5, but when I saw several instances of the tripod mount breaking out on this forum, the EM5iii was eliminated swiftly from the list. I use a tripod whenever I can. Cost cutting corners were made with this camera.

The Lens Tip graphs need to be factored to take into account sensor size. Factoring this in makes the 24-70 far and away the better lens.

The big advantage for me is the fact that the FF sensor has far smoother colour and tonal separation. You lose that "gritty" M43 file look. We must look beyond specifications sometimes.

https://www.lenstip.com/591.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_Z_24-70_mm_f_2.8_S_Image_resolution.html

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...28-s-review#section-performance-and-lab-tests

https://www.lenstip.com/497.4-Lens_...ED_12-100_mm_f_4_IS_PRO_Image_resolution.html

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/nikon-z-24-200mm-f4-63-vr-review#section-lab-tests

The problem was only with those straps, not with tripods. At least I have never seen such, and the complaints have vanished after people realized that you don't use don't straps with this camera. Your choice seems like a great one for you.

Yes I counted lw/ph numbers comparing those charts, which takes into account the sensor size.

I have never thought M43 files looking "gritty", and last year I got acclaim for couple macro photos from an international photo competition, with a 16MP camera, so I think the judges didn't realize it either. But yes, FF sensor has better.

 

[Pedagydusz]

Interesting, that is the first picture I remember seeing of Phil Askey! :-O

 

[NCV]

What is needed are social media 'influencers' concentrating on fashion and culture, not photography influencers. Photography influencers are a bunch of old guys with bad teeth, who smell of pipe tobacco, and who use words like "copacetic".

Sorry guys, but this has GOT to be done.

The main benefit rises from the crop factor 2, which really kicks in from about 100mm M43 focal length (200mm FF equiv). THIS is the last and only benefit of M43 to this point in time.

This is definitely not true, should be obvious to anyone, especially who has looked at recent discussions here.

Why say such strict "truths" which anyone can dismiss when they think about it for a second.

Ok, I recently renewed my camera gear cupboard radically.

I spent quite some time weighing up the pros and cons of M43 verses other alternatives. I sold all my M43 and replaced it with a system which I felt was more suited to my photography.

You made the decision to carry more weight, more bulk and spend significantly more money for something "more suited". I don't think anyone would be surprised that a larger, heavier, newer, more expensive camera produced better results than your old one.

So I am well versed in the pros and cons of M43.

I would be interested to know your reasons for preferring M43 compared to the FF and APCS mirrorless systems which are gaining popularity.

I realize this question wasn't asked of me but as someone who shoots multiple systems - the short answer is the deliverables of modern cameras easily meet client demands which are increasingly more about timely turnaround (instant really) and videography. The shooting envelope of M43 is fairly large for stills and video. It's not as large as other formats, but the reality is, it doesn't have to be to produce excellent results. So then it becomes a matter of selection, packaging and pricing - all of which are favorable in M43.

Te comparison you show is flawed.

Are you saying you didn't move from a EM5 with 14-140 mkI to a Z7 + 24-200, because that's exactly what that comparison shows.

Yes. I was using the EM5 with Panasonic 2.8 zooms and the Olympus 2.8 7-14

I wanted a one lens solution which was a change of direction.

The plastic bottomed EM5iii is no match to the Z6 regarding construction quality and the Panasonic zoom is a cheap consumer grade lens no were near the 24-200 for optical quality.

Oh my! You didn't move to a Z6, you moved to a Z7. Perhaps the EM5III bottom plate is less robust, but at 1/3 the price of your Z7, I suspect won't be an issue for most. Besides, it's not like the Z cameras launched without problems...

Less robust! We have seen on this forum several cases of the tripod mount ripping out on the EM5iii. This is a clamorous design error born out of savage cost cutting

I am not aware of anything major with the Z series. I see no complaints of stuff breaking or malfunctioning on the Z forum.

A few bodies had a VR problem and with great honesty Nikon did a recall on the few bodies affected. No recall was ever made by Olympus for the lug and dial failures on the EM1 or the tripod mount on the EM5iii

https://www.diyphotography.net/nikon-issues-recall-for-some-z6-z7-mirrorless-cameras/

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62666762

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64164069

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64260282

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63277389

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63826708

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4470649

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4384295#forum-post-63930291

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63616425

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64302001

My choice boiled down to the Z6/7 + 24-200 for a one lens solution or the EM1iii + 12-100. We are taking about similar build quality and performance levels

If you were satisfied with a single card slot and low burst rate, weather sealed body like the Z7 then the EM5mkIII offers the same IQ as the EM1's in a more portable package. I don't see anything about your style of photography that requires high-speed bursts and dual card slots. If you were happy with a variable aperture travel zoom like the Z 24-200 then the Oly 12-200 offers twice the range in a smaller, package and is also weather sealed.

Just as I was happy with a single roll of film in my FM" and 801's that I used professionally for many years, having one card slot is a non issue for most sane people.

I bought the Z7 + 24-200 for hiking and travel. The 24-200 range is all I need and burst speeds are of no interest to me. The variable aperture is no great disadvantage, I do not even think about it I also have other Z lenses for more focused photography and I can adapt F glass without any problems.

This setup is weather sealed too. But not being a masochist, I tend to avoid when possible hiking in the rain. When it does rain my camera goes into a waterproof rucksack.

At the end of the day i have files that have better colour and tonal transitions, have better malleability in post and suffer less noise. This is what really counts for me.

--
http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/
https://momenti-indecisivi.blogspot.it/

 

[Raist3d]

I think there’s some interesting ideas in your post but the whole doreview flame wars - those still keep going - and that “we all know that a FF camera doesn’t make a better photographer” I am not sure are quite right

Maybe more than a FF camera being a better photographer belief is the constant upgrading to anything new that has this knowledge Of course that’s partially promulgated by camera makers because they want to sell you new stuff

I find interesting the idea of selling / marketing to not obvious photographers but on the other hand those markets that would professionally buy equipment *are* photographers so jot quite sure how that would work

maybe the most important thing more than say- having a dude showing a video with how this works and some shots here and there is to have a pro photographer using the equipment ina real world customer/ client / industry situation and the results

 

[jalywol]

The big advantage for me is the fact that the FF sensor has far smoother colour and tonal separation. You lose that "gritty" M43 file look. We must look beyond specifications sometimes.

One thing: You were using the first gen EM5, and are basing your comparisons of M43 with your current gen FF on that EM5 M43 sensor with that generation image processor.

Now, bear this in mind: Current FF technology is exceptional, and DR, tonal and color gradation, are excellent. I would never say otherwise, and, indeed, I have made the foray into FF land twice in the past 6 years. In fact, one of the big reasons I left M43 was exactly the same as you have; and that is with the 16MP sensor, there are just things lacking if you are looking for subtle color and tone representation and better resulting dimensionality of the images, not to mention shadow noise and detail improvement.

Here's the thing, though. If M43 had stayed with that 16MP sensor, I would never have even looked at it again. However, once they had come out with the 20MP sensor in the GX8, I tried it, and it was enough better in the exact areas that I (and you) found flawed and frustrating in the 16MP output, that I started to reconsider my paean to FF. And, most recently, after going ahead and spending a year in Canon FF and APSC-land anyway, I came to the realization that yeah, there were still differences, but they sure as heck weren't deal breakers for me.

In my case, what was of greater importance to me was the ability to have high quality glass in a smaller package (the Canon M's are a great small system..but with dreadful lenses, so that was a frustrating experience), and to be able to shoot long tele without needing to hire someone to carry my gear for me. The Canon RP was a really nice small FF, but to shoot long with it, I would have have been carrying expensive glass bricks all the time, and that, for me, takes all the joy out of going out and shooting flora and fauna in the wild.

Last summer I got the PL 50-200 and a GX9, and holy cow, that setup is small; AND it's exceptional glass, and Panasonic really did a great job with the sensor and image processor in that camera. I would venture to guess that if you spent a little time with that kit as a comparison to your Nikon, you would perhaps need to temper your evaluation of M43 as being....primitive...in terms of rendering capabilities.

So, my point is, that the current generation of M43 bodies is not as Neanderthal as the one you are basing your comparisons on, and yes, indeed, there are absolutely going to be differences, and yeah FF is going to do a better job in a number of situations, but no, it's not an absolute anymore...and M43 is not a "poor stepsister" of compromises at this point, but has reached "good enough" for many, many, shooting situations.

No, black cats in coal mines aren't going to do it. But most normal shooting situations are pretty darn good with it now....

-J

 

[gRounded spAce]

Less robust! We have seen on this forum several cases of the tripod mount ripping out on the EM5iii. This is a clamorous design error born out of savage cost cutting

I am not aware of anything major with the Z series. I see no complaints of stuff breaking or malfunctioning on the Z forum.

A few bodies had a VR problem and with great honesty Nikon did a recall on the few bodies affected. No recall was ever made by Olympus for the lug and dial failures on the EM1 or the tripod mount on the EM5iii

Please provide evidence for this stuff you claim here. The only issues I have seen were with the straps that used the tripod mount, nothing else. I haven't seen these complaints for a long time.

I really want you to stop this misinformation on this M43 forum about the build quality of E-M5iii. It was made of composite plastic to make it lighter for hiking and otherwise, and can be cheaper to make in addition.

I have even read that Olympus manual said that the tripod mount is not to be used in that way in this camera.

 

[victorav]

Ok, I recently renewed my camera gear cupboard radically.

I spent quite some time weighing up the pros and cons of M43 verses other alternatives. I sold all my M43 and replaced it with a system which I felt was more suited to my photography.

So I am well versed in the pros and cons of M43.

I would be interested to know your reasons for preferring M43 compared to the FF and APCS mirrorless systems which are gaining popularity.

While the entry level camera market is probably going to die. However, Mft is the only system that offers great features under $1000.

5 axis image stabilization, being the big on for me.

So far only fuji has been able to deliver these features at lower prices.

For both nikon and canon I have to pay a premium for something as common as IBIS.

I think we all know the ff has better image quality. I hate to say it, and I know many will disagree, but I find very hard to tell the difference between many different camera formats.

 

[victorav]

Less robust! We have seen on this forum several cases of the tripod mount ripping out on the EM5iii. This is a clamorous design error born out of savage cost cutting

I am not aware of anything major with the Z series. I see no complaints of stuff breaking or malfunctioning on the Z forum.

A few bodies had a VR problem and with great honesty Nikon did a recall on the few bodies affected. No recall was ever made by Olympus for the lug and dial failures on the EM1 or the tripod mount on the EM5iii

Please provide evidence for this stuff you claim here. The only issues I have seen were with the straps that used the tripod mount, nothing else. I haven't seen these complaints for a long time.

I really want you to stop this misinformation on this M43 forum about the build quality of E-M5iii. It was made of composite plastic to make it lighter for hiking and otherwise, and can be cheaper to make in addition.

I have even read that Olympus manual said that the tripod mount is not to be used in that way in this camera.

The tripod mount issue is a well documented issue. I can't remember seeing the whole mount ripped out, but I definitely recall seeing the plastic plate around the mount being nearly completely ripped off.

 

[Martin Ocando]

Resurrecting a post I made on a deleted thread, which was not going to end well, but I think the logic is relevant to this one as well:

For the past few months, this forum has been getting flooded with former m43 users or users of other formats who has never laid a hand on the latest generation of m43 cameras, and the attitude of "look how my great FF system is better than your lame m43" will never yield good things.

Some say that m43 users are overly sensitive, but I think we are not. Maybe some are, but in reality, any camera user will try to defend our investment or the joy it gives us against people arguing that their other system is better.

We have accepted the compromises, and are well aware of its limitations, and the advantage and disadvantages of the other formats. I think this is the point that the FF advocates are missing. They can try to shove their ideas down our throat all they want, but we are very happy with our system as it is.

In a nutshell: It works for us. Period.

m43's demise has been prophesied for years, and is still here. Maybe with the pandemic this will be its final blow, and we will be forced to make a decision, but that's a subject for another time. We'll cross the bridge when we get there.

 

[gRounded spAce]

Less robust! We have seen on this forum several cases of the tripod mount ripping out on the EM5iii. This is a clamorous design error born out of savage cost cutting

I am not aware of anything major with the Z series. I see no complaints of stuff breaking or malfunctioning on the Z forum.

A few bodies had a VR problem and with great honesty Nikon did a recall on the few bodies affected. No recall was ever made by Olympus for the lug and dial failures on the EM1 or the tripod mount on the EM5iii

Please provide evidence for this stuff you claim here. The only issues I have seen were with the straps that used the tripod mount, nothing else. I haven't seen these complaints for a long time.

I really want you to stop this misinformation on this M43 forum about the build quality of E-M5iii. It was made of composite plastic to make it lighter for hiking and otherwise, and can be cheaper to make in addition.

I have even read that Olympus manual said that the tripod mount is not to be used in that way in this camera.

The tripod mount issue is a well documented issue. I can't remember seeing the whole mount ripped out, but I definitely recall seeing the plastic plate around the mount being nearly completely ripped off.

I said it is known for the straps that use tripod mount to attach it. I haven't seen those complaints for a long time.

NCV is telling us that it is a bigger problem with build quality.

I want evidence, or him to stop this, which is propaganda if it is not proven. He keeps repeating it in this thread.

It is not looking good, when he claims M43 files look "gritty" etc. It's possible to tell facts and experiences about one's own system without putting the other system down more than it really is.

 

[victorav]

Resurrecting a post I made on a deleted thread, which was not going to end well, but I think the logic is relevant to this one as well:

For the past few months, this forum has been getting flooded with former m43 users or users of other formats who has never laid a hand on the latest generation of m43 cameras, and the attitude of "look how my great FF system is better than your lame m43" will never yield good things.

Some say that m43 users are overly sensitive, but I think we are not. Maybe some are, but in reality, any camera user will try to defend our investment or the joy it gives us against people arguing that their other system is better.

Their are people who are overly sensitive but it exists in any brand/format, it is not limited to this forum.

We have accepted the compromises, and are well aware of its limitations, and the advantage and disadvantages of the other formats. I think this is the point that the FF advocates are missing. They can try to shove their ideas down our throat all they want, but we are very happy with our system as it is.

In a nutshell: It works for us. Period.

m43's demise has been prophesied for years, and is still here. Maybe with the pandemic this will be its final blow, and we will be forced to make a decision, but that's a subject for another time. We'll cross the bridge when we get there.

 

[Arek Halusko]

Less robust! We have seen on this forum several cases of the tripod mount ripping out on the EM5iii. This is a clamorous design error born out of savage cost cutting

I am not aware of anything major with the Z series. I see no complaints of stuff breaking or malfunctioning on the Z forum.

A few bodies had a VR problem and with great honesty Nikon did a recall on the few bodies affected. No recall was ever made by Olympus for the lug and dial failures on the EM1 or the tripod mount on the EM5iii

Please provide evidence for this stuff you claim here. The only issues I have seen were with the straps that used the tripod mount, nothing else. I haven't seen these complaints for a long time.

I really want you to stop this misinformation on this M43 forum about the build quality of E-M5iii. It was made of composite plastic to make it lighter for hiking and otherwise, and can be cheaper to make in addition.

I have even read that Olympus manual said that the tripod mount is not to be used in that way in this camera.

I don't even know why this guy bothers posting about m43 anymore as he's Nikon now. Dood move on...

 

[NCV]

Less robust! We have seen on this forum several cases of the tripod mount ripping out on the EM5iii. This is a clamorous design error born out of savage cost cutting

I am not aware of anything major with the Z series. I see no complaints of stuff breaking or malfunctioning on the Z forum.

A few bodies had a VR problem and with great honesty Nikon did a recall on the few bodies affected. No recall was ever made by Olympus for the lug and dial failures on the EM1 or the tripod mount on the EM5iii

Please provide evidence for this stuff you claim here. The only issues I have seen were with the straps that used the tripod mount, nothing else. I haven't seen these complaints for a long time.

I really want you to stop this misinformation on this M43 forum about the build quality of E-M5iii. It was made of composite plastic to make it lighter for hiking and otherwise, and can be cheaper to make in addition.

I have even read that Olympus manual said that the tripod mount is not to be used in that way in this camera.

The tripod mount issue is a well documented issue. I can't remember seeing the whole mount ripped out, but I definitely recall seeing the plastic plate around the mount being nearly completely ripped off.

I said it is known for the straps that use tripod mount to attach it. I haven't seen those complaints for a long time.

NCV is telling us that it is a bigger problem with build quality.

I want evidence, or him to stop this, which is propaganda if it is not proven. He keeps repeating it in this thread.

It is not looking good, when he claims M43 files look "gritty" etc. It's possible to tell facts and experiences about one's own system without putting the other system down more than it really is.

I did a simple Google search.

Here you are:

Another case of the E-M5iii tripod mount failing: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

E-M5iii tripod mount/bottom plate failure: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

EM5.3 tripod mount broken: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 

[gRounded spAce]

Less robust! We have seen on this forum several cases of the tripod mount ripping out on the EM5iii. This is a clamorous design error born out of savage cost cutting

I am not aware of anything major with the Z series. I see no complaints of stuff breaking or malfunctioning on the Z forum.

A few bodies had a VR problem and with great honesty Nikon did a recall on the few bodies affected. No recall was ever made by Olympus for the lug and dial failures on the EM1 or the tripod mount on the EM5iii

Please provide evidence for this stuff you claim here. The only issues I have seen were with the straps that used the tripod mount, nothing else. I haven't seen these complaints for a long time.

I really want you to stop this misinformation on this M43 forum about the build quality of E-M5iii. It was made of composite plastic to make it lighter for hiking and otherwise, and can be cheaper to make in addition.

I have even read that Olympus manual said that the tripod mount is not to be used in that way in this camera.

The tripod mount issue is a well documented issue. I can't remember seeing the whole mount ripped out, but I definitely recall seeing the plastic plate around the mount being nearly completely ripped off.

I said it is known for the straps that use tripod mount to attach it. I haven't seen those complaints for a long time.

NCV is telling us that it is a bigger problem with build quality.

I want evidence, or him to stop this, which is propaganda if it is not proven. He keeps repeating it in this thread.

It is not looking good, when he claims M43 files look "gritty" etc. It's possible to tell facts and experiences about one's own system without putting the other system down more than it really is.

I did a simple Google search.

Here you are:

Another case of the E-M5iii tripod mount failing: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

E-M5iii tripod mount/bottom plate failure: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

EM5.3 tripod mount broken: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I don't have time to read all those threads, but three is all you found? I have read that most if not all complaints came from those straps. All provided threads are a year old.

So please prove that there are more build quality issues with E-M5iii than with certain straps that use the tripod socket. If you can't please stop spreading this.

We already know you talk about M43 files being "gritty" apparently based on E-M5 files, while I have got acclaim from international photo competition with E-M10ii, last year. No need to put down other systems unnecessarily imo.

 

[victorav]

I think there’s some interesting ideas in your post but the whole doreview flame wars - those still keep going - and that “we all know that a FF camera doesn’t make a better photographer” I am not sure are quite right.

A ff camera may give you the opportunity to expand your photography or improve the image output. These things don't nesessarily mean "better photographer".

Maybe more than a FF camera being a better photographer belief is the constant upgrading to anything new that has this knowledge Of course that’s partially promulgated by camera makers because they want to sell you new stuff

I find interesting the idea of selling / marketing to not obvious photographers but on the other hand those markets that would professionally buy equipment *are* photographers so jot quite sure how that would work

maybe the most important thing more than say- having a dude showing a video with how this works and some shots here and there is to have a pro photographer using the equipment ina real world customer/ client / industry situation and the results

--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

 

[NCV]

I provided you with three links which prove a grave manufacturing defect.

Just read them.

My vision is still very good. I can see what I am seeing.

I am finished here.

 

[Arek Halusko]

I think there’s some interesting ideas in your post but the whole doreview flame wars - those still keep going - and that “we all know that a FF camera doesn’t make a better photographer” I am not sure are quite right.

A ff camera may give you the opportunity to expand your photography or improve the image output. These things don't nesessarily mean "better photographer".

Maybe more than a FF camera being a better photographer belief is the constant upgrading to anything new that has this knowledge Of course that’s partially promulgated by camera makers because they want to sell you new stuff

I find interesting the idea of selling / marketing to not obvious photographers but on the other hand those markets that would professionally buy equipment *are* photographers so jot quite sure how that would work

maybe the most important thing more than say- having a dude showing a video with how this works and some shots here and there is to have a pro photographer using the equipment ina real world customer/ client / industry situation and the results

To gear heads pixel quality = skill.

 

[gRounded spAce]

I provided you with three links which prove a grave manufacturing defect.

Just read them.

My vision is still very good. I can see what I am seeing.

I am finished here.

Yes but you very likely provided links which show exactly what I'm talking about.

You're the one claiming there are more problems with E-M5iii build quality, so naturally you need to prove it.

Not just say "google it" or "read through hundreds of messages".

"I can see what I am seeing" <- To me this looks like you only see the photos, and have not read the threads, concluding that E-M5iii has build quality issues, because it's "plastic" (what a downplaying word to use).

 

[Martin Ocando]

Resurrecting a post I made on a deleted thread, which was not going to end well, but I think the logic is relevant to this one as well:

For the past few months, this forum has been getting flooded with former m43 users or users of other formats who has never laid a hand on the latest generation of m43 cameras, and the attitude of "look how my great FF system is better than your lame m43" will never yield good things.

Some say that m43 users are overly sensitive, but I think we are not. Maybe some are, but in reality, any camera user will try to defend our investment or the joy it gives us against people arguing that their other system is better.

Their are people who are overly sensitive but it exists in any brand/format, it is not limited to this forum.

Can't agree more

We have accepted the compromises, and are well aware of its limitations, and the advantage and disadvantages of the other formats. I think this is the point that the FF advocates are missing. They can try to shove their ideas down our throat all they want, but we are very happy with our system as it is.

In a nutshell: It works for us. Period.

m43's demise has been prophesied for years, and is still here. Maybe with the pandemic this will be its final blow, and we will be forced to make a decision, but that's a subject for another time. We'll cross the bridge when we get there.

As long as the cameras and lens continue to work the format will not be dead.

Infact if you wanted, you can still go out and shoot with film.

Indeed. There are many film shooters. In fact, I heard there are wedding photographers that charge a huge amount of money when their customers ask the wedding to be shot in film.