Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras  (Read 48208 times)

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #80 on: July 30, 2008, 03:28:05 pm »

Unfortunately, Foveon seems to be dropping the ball on this one.  I'd love to see a full-frame Foveon sensor.  They don't need tighter pixels - they just need to change the ratio and make more of the same. - say, add another 1500-2000 pixels in each dimension and presto - full frame or close to it.  

The current one is 20.7x13.8mm.  Making this 36x24mm would mean an increase from 2652x1768 to ~4630x3075 = very close to the optimal numbers you'd need for a film replacement.  Optimal is about 8-12 million true full color locations, and 14 would be a bit of gravy - not going to hurt anything - it would be close to 3600dpi scanned.  Be a bit of a thick and heavy camera though...    

It's a bit frustrating, because the technology really does look superb.  But it's just not enough detail to satisfy any serious photographer.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #81 on: July 30, 2008, 03:51:59 pm »

Quote
But 4/3 has few advantages over DX, and plenty of disadvantages.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211806\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How are the advantages few yet the advantages many? (And as an aside, why has "APS-C" become "DX" lately? Did Canon drop EF-S?!)

The idea seems to be that the size difference is big enough to be very significant in performance (it offers about a 1/2 to 2/3 stop difference in theory) yet it is small enough that the size, cost and weight advantages of the smaller format are not significant. This to me seems like trying to have it both ways on the same facts.

On market share: what counts for viability is market share for a system of interchangeable components, not for a particular choice of sensor dimensions. So the main comparisons are Canon vs Nikon vs Olympus+Panasonic vs Sony vs Pentax+Samsung. Of course Canon and Nikon dominate, as they have since every brand used the same "sensors" in the same format (35mm film); no evidence of format being a factor there, since Sony and Pentax share DX format with Nikon. Amongst the remaining "second tier" systems, FourThirds has done about as well as any so far.

If format market share were really a useful measure, we would be predicting doom for 35mm and MF, which continue to sell far fewer units than 4/3 and are vastly outsold in numbers and revenues by DX, EF-S, etc.


I am by the way skeptical that most people choosing an entry level DSLR system will achieve much compatibility with 35mm format (or care about it), since entry level lens choices are dominated by "digital format only" lenses like DX and EF-S, and zooms whose focal length range and quality are a poor fit for use with a 35mm format DSLR.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #82 on: July 30, 2008, 04:01:42 pm »

Quote
The comment about tiny sensors is a red herring. Such P&S cameras offer a good solution for the mass market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211806\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I overlooked this comment, to which response is obvious:
a FourThirds kit like E-520, 14-42 and 40-150 likewise offers a good solution for the interchangeable lens mass market,
much of which is not the slightest bit interested in upgrading to a kit like D700, 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, no matter how much it makes our hearts race. The trade-off of speed for size and weight is a milder version of what makes compacts sell so much better than SLRs, and keeps the interchangeable lens advantage that a compact loses.
Logged

Er1kksen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #83 on: July 30, 2008, 04:38:09 pm »

I can think of one serious advantage to four thirds at this moment: The lenses. Who cares about the bodies? They're just going to be replaced. Most don't have any need for more than 10mp, myself included, and those who do are even more of a "niche market" than the market for 4/3 consumer slrs. The lenses, however, consistently score as best-in-class, and as far as the "small range of often expensive lenses" goes, it covers everything from 14mm to 1200mm equivalent, and there are very well-built, high-performing, and yet inexpensive lenses to cover most of that for those who don't want to pay a lot.

Other makers like Canon and Nikon have more lenses available, but many of them do the exact same thing, such as an updated version of an old lens, or a manual focus version and an AF version, or several lenses covering only marginally different ranges and aperture ranges. I'm sure that after 4/3 has been around for as long as, say, EOS mount, it will have just as many outdated, redundant lenses to choose from alongside its better lenses of the future.

As for people "voting with their feet" against 4/3, it's interesting to note that Olympus has increased sales, and there were quite a few people who switched to Olympus with the E-3 announcement. Of course, there are always people who switch systems for a new camera, but if it was all bad over here, there wouldn't have been nearly as many... hardly suggests the system is fizzling out.

The comparison of 4/3 current position to that of APS film back in the day seems a little erroneous as well; with APS film, you had several different brands trying to sell poorly designed products to be used with a more expensive film format, alongside their more established, superior 35mm products. You didn't get outstanding lenses thrown into the mix, you didn't get less expensive cameras, and you certainly didn't get image quality comparable to even the cheapest current Olympus DLSR. It was a really bad set of circumstances for APS. 4/3 has it quite a bit better, and they're doing quite well for it.

Always a niche? Possibly. Dead? I don't think so.
Logged

Cartman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #84 on: July 30, 2008, 04:59:01 pm »

Quote
The idea seems to be that the size difference is big enough to be very significant in performance (it offers about a 1/2 to 2/3 stop difference in theory) yet it is small enough that the size, cost and weight advantages of the smaller format are not significant. This to me seems like trying to have it both ways on the same facts.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211835\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Olympus E-3 based on the 4/3 sensor:
Width 5.6 in. (142.5 mm)
Height 4.58 in. (142.5 mm)
Depth 2.9 in. (74.5 mm)
Weight 28.64 oz./810 g

Nikon D80 with DX sensor:
Width 5.2 in. (132mm)
Height 4.1 in. (103mm)
Depth 3.0 in. (77mm)
20.48 oz. (585g)

Um, so I might want the 4/3 system because it is smaller and lighter?  Uh, I guess I just don't get it.

Regarding the quality of the lenses, it is my position that the proportion of 4/3 buyers that are concerned with the quality of the lenses is so infinitesimal as to be insignificant to the market.
Logged

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #85 on: July 30, 2008, 05:24:02 pm »

Quote
Optimal is about 8-12 million true full color locations, and 14 would be a bit of gravy - not going to hurt anything - it would be close to 3600dpi scanned.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bogus.  My D300 matches film resolution for most 135 format films, and has more accurate colors.  The DR of the "lowly" D300 using ETTR and a CC40M filter is excellent and exceeds slide film.



100% Crop with some capture sharpening
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #86 on: July 30, 2008, 06:29:22 pm »

Quote
I overlooked this comment, to which response is obvious:
a FourThirds kit like E-520, 14-42 and 40-150 likewise offers a good solution for the interchangeable lens mass market,
much of which is not the slightest bit interested in upgrading to a kit like D700, 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, no matter how much it makes our hearts race. The trade-off of speed for size and weight is a milder version of what makes compacts sell so much better than SLRs, and keeps the interchangeable lens advantage that a compact loses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So if it's so good, why hasn't it taken off?
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #87 on: July 30, 2008, 06:40:58 pm »

Quote
I can think of one serious advantage to four thirds at this moment: The lenses. Who cares about the bodies? They're just going to be replaced. Most don't have any need for more than 10mp, myself included, and those who do are even more of a "niche market" than the market for 4/3 consumer slrs. The lenses, however, consistently score as best-in-class, and as far as the "small range of often expensive lenses" goes, it covers everything from 14mm to 1200mm equivalent, and there are very well-built, high-performing, and yet inexpensive lenses to cover most of that for those who don't want to pay a lot.

Other makers like Canon and Nikon have more lenses available, but many of them do the exact same thing, such as an updated version of an old lens, or a manual focus version and an AF version, or several lenses covering only marginally different ranges and aperture ranges. I'm sure that after 4/3 has been around for as long as, say, EOS mount, it will have just as many outdated, redundant lenses to choose from alongside its better lenses of the future.

As for people "voting with their feet" against 4/3, it's interesting to note that Olympus has increased sales, and there were quite a few people who switched to Olympus with the E-3 announcement. Of course, there are always people who switch systems for a new camera, but if it was all bad over here, there wouldn't have been nearly as many... hardly suggests the system is fizzling out.

The comparison of 4/3 current position to that of APS film back in the day seems a little erroneous as well; with APS film, you had several different brands trying to sell poorly designed products to be used with a more expensive film format, alongside their more established, superior 35mm products. You didn't get outstanding lenses thrown into the mix, you didn't get less expensive cameras, and you certainly didn't get image quality comparable to even the cheapest current Olympus DLSR. It was a really bad set of circumstances for APS. 4/3 has it quite a bit better, and they're doing quite well for it.

Always a niche? Possibly. Dead? I don't think so.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211844\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would disagree about the lenses. Where are the high quality macro/micro lenses corresponding to Nikon's 60mm, 105mm and 200mm lenses? I don't count Sigma et al. Or the affordable quality equivalents to the 300mm F4 and 400mm F5.6 lenses for birding? Or the equivalent of tilt shift lenses? Sure, a lot of people won't want/need these, but why buy into a system with a limited number of lenses, and a limited number of stockists. Oh, and I think that many third party manufacturers do not make 4/3 versions of their lenses. I checked Warehouse Express and saw a very limited range, from Oly and Sigma.

"I'm sure that after 4/3 has been around for as long as, say, EOS mount, it will have just as many outdated, redundant lenses to choose from alongside its better lenses of the future."

But it doesn't. That's the point. I only know the Nikon system, and the older lenses are not outdated or redundant. In fact many are first rate performers, and cheap. My 200mm micro is an old design, but with superb optics. Many older lenses outperform newer ones. I have many old lenses bought cheap and with excellent optics.

As to whether or not 4/3 will dies, I think it is a question of whether or not it remains commercially viable, and I cannot answer that one. But I would rather not buy into a niche system. I suspect an awful lot of people buy a camera by reading magazines and online reviews, and choosing on the basis of features and cost. I think most of the time reviewers do not favour 4/3.
Logged

Er1kksen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #88 on: July 30, 2008, 08:01:46 pm »

Quote
Olympus E-3 based on the 4/3 sensor:
Width 5.6 in. (142.5 mm)
Height 4.58 in. (142.5 mm)
Depth 2.9 in. (74.5 mm)
Weight 28.64 oz./810 g

Nikon D80 with DX sensor:
Width 5.2 in. (132mm)
Height 4.1 in. (103mm)
Depth 3.0 in. (77mm)
20.48 oz. (585g)

Um, so I might want the 4/3 system because it is smaller and lighter?  Uh, I guess I just don't get it.

Regarding the quality of the lenses, it is my position that the proportion of 4/3 buyers that are concerned with the quality of the lenses is so infinitesimal as to be insignificant to the market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211850\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're contrasting the E-3 to the D80 in size and weight, despite the fact that they're completely different classes of camera? Considering the exceptional build quality of the E-3, that's remarkably close. Still, the D300 is a much better comparison in this case, whereas a camera better to compare to the D80 would be the E-510 or E-520.

But as much as bodies are easy to compare, again, it's about the lenses. Generally smaller than similarly-speced DX lenses? Check. Smaller than similarly speced full-frame lenses? Double check.

Slough: There's the 50mm macro currently, corresponding to the nikon 60mm, and there's a ~100mm macro coming out shortly (the only lens on the roadmap that hasn't been unveiled yet). Both are f2 and of the highest optical and build quality.

400mm f5.6? Well, there's always the 70-300 f4-5.6, which is equivalent to 140-600 on ff, and the same at the long end as that 400mm on DX. It works quite well for me, and it even does macro. At $300, it's pretty darn affordable.

atm, sigma's the only third-party lens supplier, but there's some talk of tamron joining in. Either way, I don't see the point in "not counting" sigma. They're lenses, with often very good performance, which fit on a 4/3 body. Thus, they're 4/3 lenses.

T/S will hopefully come at some point, but the extra dof with 4/3 makes that slightly less urgent.

Oh, and it has taken off: The E-510 saw unprecedented sales for Olympus and has done quite well, especially the 2-lens kit. Now that Olympus has actually started marketing and getting their gear into stores (definite weak points that don't detract from the cameras themselves) they're doing even better.
Logged

Cartman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #89 on: July 30, 2008, 08:12:21 pm »

With the E-510 or 20 I would probably be inclined to compare them to the D40x, which is still smaller.  But the D300 is still about the same as the E-3.



Quote
You're contrasting the E-3 to the D80 in size and weight, despite the fact that they're completely different classes of camera? Considering the exceptional build quality of the E-3, that's remarkably close. Still, the D300 is a much better comparison in this case, whereas a camera better to compare to the D80 would be the E-510 or E-520.

But as much as bodies are easy to compare, again, it's about the lenses. Generally smaller than similarly-speced DX lenses? Check. Smaller than similarly speced full-frame lenses? Double check.

Slough: There's the 50mm macro currently, corresponding to the nikon 60mm, and there's a ~100mm macro coming out shortly (the only lens on the roadmap that hasn't been unveiled yet). Both are f2 and of the highest optical and build quality.

400mm f5.6? Well, there's always the 70-300 f4-5.6, which is equivalent to 140-600 on ff, and the same at the long end as that 400mm on DX. It works quite well for me, and it even does macro. At $300, it's pretty darn affordable.

atm, sigma's the only third-party lens supplier, but there's some talk of tamron joining in. Either way, I don't see the point in "not counting" sigma. They're lenses, with often very good performance, which fit on a 4/3 body. Thus, they're 4/3 lenses.

T/S will hopefully come at some point, but the extra dof with 4/3 makes that slightly less urgent.

Oh, and it has taken off: The E-510 saw unprecedented sales for Olympus and has done quite well, especially the 2-lens kit. Now that Olympus has actually started marketing and getting their gear into stores (definite weak points that don't detract from the cameras themselves) they're doing even better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211896\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Er1kksen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #90 on: July 30, 2008, 10:28:09 pm »

Quote
With the E-510 or 20 I would probably be inclined to compare them to the D40x, which is still smaller.  But the D300 is still about the same as the E-3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211899\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The problem with that is that the features of the E-510 and E-520 don't line up with the D40x; there's more control and responsiveness, similar to the D80. The D40x is more similar to the E-410 and E-420, which have similarly dumbed-down user interfaces.

D40/D40x/D60>D80>D300

roughly corresponds to

E-410/420>E-510/520>E-3

As far as feature set is concerned.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #91 on: July 31, 2008, 05:44:04 am »

Quote
But I would rather not buy into a niche system. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It should be a mandatory duty for all photographers to buy a 4/3 camera every 2 years.

That would give these manufacturers the means to push the enveloppe and show the real potential of the format based on evolving sensor technology.

The key to understand the value of this approach is that 4/3 is one natural step in the evolution towards smaller capturing device. The same evolution that started with 8x10 and ended up stabilizing with 35 mm film.

35 mm film was the right format for the typical applications of most people in terms of output media considering the limitations of film. 4/3 is already close to 35 mm film, and will probably overtake it easily with the next generation cameras/sensors.

Shoot a Olympus E-420 with a 25 mm lens... that package weights 475 gr...

Cheers,
Bernard

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #92 on: July 31, 2008, 06:56:40 am »

I suppose that we on this forum are probably the last people who should be debating the value of the Oly format - we are too interested in quality at the higher print sizes: I feel slightly behind the game on an A3+ printer but will the general Oly buyer be interested in such a size?

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, but I´d suggest that the Oly appeal (in digital) will lie in the arms of the amateur who is NOT willing to spend big bucks, hence, the exotic glass they also produce might well be little more than a status flag for the company, a device to fly whenever questions might arise about other parts of the format rationale. If you can sell many units with cheaper optics, why bother if the top range of lenses isn´t moving fast? You simply hold to the just-in-time idea of production.

Rob C

Er1kksen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #93 on: July 31, 2008, 08:35:09 am »

Quote
I suppose that we on this forum are probably the last people who should be debating the value of the Oly format - we are too interested in quality at the higher print sizes: I feel slightly behind the game on an A3+ printer but will the general Oly buyer be interested in such a size?

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, but I´d suggest that the Oly appeal (in digital) will lie in the arms of the amateur who is NOT willing to spend big bucks, hence, the exotic glass they also produce might well be little more than a status flag for the company, a device to fly whenever questions might arise about other parts of the format rationale. If you can sell many units with cheaper optics, why bother if the top range of lenses isn´t moving fast? You simply hold to the just-in-time idea of production.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211995\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, the people I talk to on my favorite Oly forum have a habit of printing posters on occasion, and many of them use and love the high-end glass... Zuiko glass is kind of like an addiction. Sure, you start out as the amateur who's not willing to spend money for the top-end glass, but then you get to thinking, and plunk! There goes some cash, but look at those beautiful images!  And I mean, the 50mm macro is one of their best pieces of glass, and it's only about $500, not rediculously expensive, and then there's the 11-22 for not much more, which people who own consider to be one of the best lenses they've ever used... it's not like there's a jump in expenses, it's a step system that sucks you in... If you eventually reach that 14-35 f2 and 35-100 f2 it's hard not to be satisfied, though.

Perhaps they're not representative of the majority of 4/3 users, but neither are 1Ds owners who print A3+ all the time and own L glass representative of the majority of Canon owners.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #94 on: July 31, 2008, 11:51:52 am »

A few replies to the idea that 4/3 format will disappear entirely from the SLR market.

1. The great majority of SLR sales are in the mainstream of prices (US) under $1000 for a complete kit of body and or two lenses. The main 4/3 options to consider are thus the E-420 and E-520 with lenses like the 14-42 and 40-150.

2. I have already mentioned that the smaller format size advantage has a lot to do with lens size, not so much body size (sensors are a tiny fraction of the total size and weigh of a DSLR body), so the comparisons that matter are of total kit size and weight.

Thus I see no point in responding further to comparisons based on the E-3, or based on body weight only, ignoring lens size and weight.


3. Predictably, Canon and Nikon continue to dominate the SLR market as they have for decades, now with EF-S and DX bodies and lenses. Given that the FourThirds system is doing about as well or better than the Pentax/Samsung and Konica-Minolta/Sony systems , the only way to declare FourThirds a failure in DSLR's is to declare everyone except Canon and Nikon to be failures. The alleged failures would include all of digital MF, since the entire DMF sector is outgrossed by FourThirds, through unit sales about 100 times greater.

But instead there has always been room for some successful (i.e. fairly consistently profitable) lower sales volume alternatives to the big two SLR systems, and it seems that the most successful alternatives are the ones that distinguish themselves most from the top-selling systems, for example by offering a larger or smaller format and kit, to fit customers seeking different size/price/performance trade-offs.
Logged

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #95 on: July 31, 2008, 04:37:06 pm »

Quote
Bogus.  My D300 matches film resolution for most 135 format films, and has more accurate colors.  The DR of the "lowly" D300 using ETTR and a CC40M filter is excellent and exceeds slide film.

That's a 12MP camera, which as I *said*, was about what you needed to replace 35mm film, given that it's a Bayer type design.

Besides, my argument wasn't about DR at all - it was that Foveon doesn't need an entire new technology or sensor - they just need to make their current one stretched to full-frame physically.  Or better yet, make it 8MP full-frame with huge DB sized "pixels".    That's all you would actually need - 14MP would be approaching 645 quality.(5290x3290 @2400dpi or 17.4MP)

*I know a LOT of people lurk here, so I added the numbers.  This is full color "real" pixels, though - no pattern at all.  Adding a pattern type sensor to this easily doubles the MP needed.  More MP means more AA, filtering, and tweaking as well in software to get an actual print, plus of course, the huge file sizes aren't any fun to deal with, either.

But 4.6 as it is now(Bad Foveon!  No biscuit!) is more like 110 pocket camera film vs 35mm - same quality for small prints, just it has about *this* much ability to be enlarged before it starts to look like crap.  IME, the Sigma/Foveon cameras don't even do 7*5 prints very well - they look quite a bit grainier than even normal 35mm film. At a D-Lab, no less.(let alone anything decent)
« Last Edit: July 31, 2008, 04:51:06 pm by Plekto »
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #96 on: July 31, 2008, 06:49:38 pm »

Quote
3. Predictably, Canon and Nikon continue to dominate the SLR market as they have for decades, now with EF-S and DX bodies and lenses. Given that the FourThirds system is doing about as well or better than the Pentax/Samsung and Konica-Minolta/Sony systems , the only way to declare FourThirds a failure in DSLR's is to declare everyone except Canon and Nikon to be failures. The alleged failures would include all of digital MF, since the entire DMF sector is outgrossed by FourThirds, through unit sales about 100 times greater.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would consider Pentax a disappointment, if not a failure, given how respected they were 20 years ago. Sony is also somewhat of a disappointment, compared to Minolta 20 years ago.

Digital MF cannot be compared, as it targets a different market, with different margins, and unit sales.
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #97 on: July 31, 2008, 06:55:35 pm »

Er1kksen: Yes you can find some lenses, but the range is limited, so the choice is not there. For example a ~70-300mm zoom usually does not match a prime telephoto, and I could not find details of the 100mm macro lens. I doubt it will have the tripod collar (which is important to me). Still, I do think the lack of success of 4/3 is more of a marketing/review/perception issue than performance, for the average consumer.

You seem to be predicting a sales spurt for Olympus et al. I still think it will remain niche. Let's wait and see if you are right.
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #98 on: July 31, 2008, 06:57:44 pm »

Quote
Thus I see no point in responding further to comparisons based on the E-3, or based on body weight only, ignoring lens size and weight.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can't argue with that, but I'm not sure Joe Public when in the camera shop realises that advantage, which is real.
Logged

Er1kksen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
« Reply #99 on: July 31, 2008, 07:48:40 pm »

I'm predicting a growth in sales with Olympus' newer, better advertising and publicity, but I'm not so optimistic as to think it'll overtake Canon or Nikon. Olympus and other 4/3 partners will probably always be one of the smaller companies (don't know if I would quite call that a niche). I don't disagree with that. I'm disagreeing with the people spouting doom and gloom for an excellent system that's not only getting better but posting better sales numbers.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Up