yeah, he's been using multiple olympus cameras over the years for astro.Another man's opinion. OM1 Sensor. It's really more capable than the hardware can make use of..wow!
yeah, he's been using multiple olympus cameras over the years for astro.Another man's opinion. OM1 Sensor. It's really more capable than the hardware can make use of..wow!
One person's opinion.
fAnother person's opinion. Robin.
I think Nikon (Malaysia) or Canon (Malaysia) or Sony (Malaysia) should consider offering Robin an ambassadorship for their brand.
He has a following within Malaysia and perhaps overseas.
OMDS is basically a sinking ship where the Captain of the Ship (Skipper/CEO) has abandoned ship (Olympus Camera Division) to save himself - and left the sailors (ex-workers of Olympus Camera Division) under his watch to an inescapable terrible fate. This is NOT leadership.
Exemplary skippers go down with their ship.
Existing pool of users/owners have poured in big amounts of money into MFT bodies, accessories and lenses.
>>> Interestingly, MFT is my 3rd camera system. With my 7 lenses to play around with, they still costs less than my Canon system with 2 lenses.
They will be the buyers of new offerings from OMDS.
That is until they change systems or lose interest in the hobby.
What this means is the theory of Sunken Costs will cause existing owners to buy OMDS product offerings.
>>> Your facts are so distorted. A Sony system with the same 4 primes and 3 soom lenses like my MFT lenses will cost a few times more. The pain is not writing off my MFT system. The pain is paying for the new Sony System. Did you even do the sums before making such a silly statement.
But this is a stagnant pool.
In the sense that the pool will NOT grow.
As time passes, the pool will reduce in size due to natural attrition, change of systems or simply loss of interest in the hobby.
As for young generation of NEW camera buyers presently and into the distant future. There is nearly zero chance of MFT making inroads into their buying decisions.
>>> But this is a problem for cameras in general, as everyone is switching to mobile phones.
Many are aware the closure of Olympus Camera Division. It has a stigma.
Now and in the future, young generation of NEW camera buyers have a wide array of competing products to choose from.
>>> Interestingly, my 21 year son leaves behind his Sony A7R3 and want to bring along my Olympus EM5 Mk3 for our last holiday as we are going for a long hike around Bali. Every camera format has their application!
Fuji with its APS-C bodies.
Canon, Leica, Sony, Nikon - now adopt the 1 lens mount concept.
That is their APS-C bodies share the same lens mount as their Full Frame bodies.
Meaning if a NEW camera buyer buys into a (Canon, Leica, Sony, Nikon) system with an entry level body. Later on he may progress to full frame within the same camera manufacturer's system.
>>> I have many photographers friends. None of them use Sony A7R series with APS lenses and none of them use their Canon R series with older generation lenses. You must be NUTS to pay so much for a high end Full Frame body and pair it with APS lenses to degrade the quality.
In other words, MFT is locked out in the wilderness.
To die a certain business death.
>>> Frankly, I do not know which camera brand will survive and which we die.
As mobile phone photo quality improves, more and more casual photographers are using their phones for most of their photographic needs, including myself.
I have viewed many ambassador/visionary/influencer YouTube videos where they usually insist (with words to the effect):
{ My Clients find nothing wrong and are satisfied with my photos taken using Olympus/Panasonic MFT. Therefore MFT cameras are good and I will not give up MFT or change camera brands/systems. }
Somehow I am not convinced.
When a professional photographer takes money from clients, he should use the best equipment he can afford.
It is a once-off purchase to buy a better brand/system.
No one is expecting professional photographer to change brands/systems every month.
It is also a matter of consumer/client education.
Consumer/client should be educated that they can demand baseline conditions.
For example to specify that for the proposed job, the client will NOT accept professional photographer using MFT equipment to cover the event.
If the professional photographer is not willing to use better equipment (and insist on using MFT), then do not waste his own time and do not waste the client's time by applying/tendering for the job.
Your kind of comment only amplifies your ignorance.Using an expensive FF lens on the APS_C body that use 60% of the glasses. It’s good for the business. But not for me as a consumer. This is sunken cost.
Those heavily invested in the old DSLR mount lenses has more sunken costs as these DSLR mount are dead and are progressively replaced by the new mirrorless mount.
Which camera system can appreciate in value? Pls let me know. LOL.
Panasonic has so far insisted that they will NOT make APS-C cameras.
>>> Panasonic make a choice between the 2 and decided that Full Full as their next target market
Panasonic has so far insisted that they will continue to make MFT cameras and Full Frame L mount cameras.
>>> Of course, their GH series are still quite popular with videographers. Why kill it if it is still generating some revenue?
Continuing MFT is a terrible mistake by Panasonic.
Many other brands such as Sony, Leica, Canon, Nikon have introduced APS-C bodies with the same mount as their respective Full Frame bodies.
Namely E mount, L mount, RF mount and Z mount.
>>> I am one of the victims of Canon APS format. I had invested in a Canon 90D in 2019 and several of the APS lenses, and what happened?
without warning, Canon desided to follow Sony and went mirrorless and come up with a new Mirrorless APS format.
Suddenly, no secondhand shop want my previous generation APS format lenses anymore!!!!
And Ricohflex keeping talking about Sunk Cost for MFT users? Don't kid yourself, if you choose Nikon or Canon,
your gear may be obselete too. Just be happy if you can use it for 3 years or more.
A Panasonic Lumix APS-C L mount body will help bring their users into the Panasonic L mount Full Frame bodies.
>>> Even as a MFT and Panasonic supporter, I dont think Panasonic will ever succeed with APS-C! The market is just too small now
It is 2022 -2008 = 14 years. MFT has outlived its usefulness as a sensor format.
Time to Panasonic to let go of a concept that was good during its time/era of 2008.
>>> From all your post, we knew you never understood the use of MFT. So for yourself, just write it off and don't get it since you will never see any benefits.
You can continue to use your big expensive hammer to nail every photo in every situation! LOL
For some of us, we just love to have a 2x factor to have smaller long tele lenses for certain photo opportunities.
In 2022 and beyond MFT will eventually become obsolete.
>>> Maybe, but who cares, seriously. All other formats may become obsolete too.
When the time comes, I will just change to the next most suitable format available.
See this.
The person claims that just because pixel density is about the same (about 15)
apsc camera of 24 MP 23.1 x 15.4 = 355.74 / 24 = 14.8225
MFT of 16 MP 18 x 13.5 = 243 / 16 = 15.1875
Because pixel density is roughly the same, he says --- MFT and APSC should have more or less the same performance (other than resolution) in :
• high iso
• dynamic range
• colour depth
And that they should deliver the same quality of image.
Sorry I don't agree.
The abundance of BS on Internet purported to insist that MFT is "as good" as bigger sensors is ridiculous.
If what the YouTube uploader is saying is true, then consider a fictional 1 MP camera with a 1/3.2inch sensor
1 MP with 15.485952 square mm sensor size
1/3.2" is 4.544 x 3.408 mm = 15.485952 square mm
15.485952 square mm / 1 MP = 15.485952 pixel density (about 15 as above)
Can people seriously expect a 1 MP camera with a 1/3.2inch sensor to match image quality of a 24MP APSC camera?
Of course not.
It is this kind of reckless misleading BS that is spread on Internet - masquerading as FACTS.
Just to prop up a dead/dying sensor format that is MFT.
See this.
The person claims that just because pixel density is about the same (about 15)
apsc camera of 24 MP 23.1 x 15.4 = 355.74 / 24 = 14.8225
MFT of 16 MP 18 x 13.5 = 243 / 16 = 15.1875
Because pixel density is roughly the same, he says --- MFT and APSC should have more or less the same performance (other than resolution) in :
• high iso
• dynamic range
• colour depth
And that they should deliver the same quality of image.
Sorry I don't agree.
The abundance of BS on Internet purported to insist that MFT is "as good" as bigger sensors is ridiculous.
If what the YouTube uploader is saying is true, then consider a fictional 1 MP camera with a 1/3.2inch sensor
1 MP with 15.485952 square mm sensor size
1/3.2" is 4.544 x 3.408 mm = 15.485952 square mm
15.485952 square mm / 1 MP = 15.485952 pixel density (about 15 as above)
Can people seriously expect a 1 MP camera with a 1/3.2inch sensor to match image quality of a 24MP APSC camera?
Of course not.
It is this kind of reckless misleading BS that is spread on Internet - masquerading as FACTS.
Just to prop up a dead/dying sensor format that is MFT.