I think the biggest issue with crop sensor as a whole, including apsc and MFT, is that they are trying to compete in the same pro space as established full frame brands, that being in specifically professional photography. These camera bodies have REAL size and weight benefits IF you are willing to make some compromises. The price, size and weight comparisons start getting closer to full frame if you are trying to get top of the line image quality. Bodies with IBIS, glass with OIS, high quality EVF, tack sharp images at all apertures and focusing distances, etc. By the time you pack all these features into your camera you might have saved a bit of money on the overall setup but it's probably not much smaller than an equivalent FF setup. I have tried a couple of brands between MFT and APSC (I haven't tried FF at all yet due to the cost), but I have noticed that if you purchase gear for your crop sensor system and it's compact nature, you need to accept some drawbacks. I think if Lumix and Olympus had a return to form on their smaller and more compact bodies and focused on making their lenses smaller and not "perfect", they could probably share in some of the success that Fuji and Ricoh are enjoying right now
A Pen F with compact lenses would be an absolute banger. I think the success of Fuji and Ricoh shows how blatantly the market is carved up (one brand doesn’t tread on another too much). Fuji basically exists to sell marked up APS-C sensors and make it some premium “experience”. Their GFX line has no other Japanese competitor as well.
The OM-1 Mk II is a great camera but, for that price I can see it as hard to justify for most people, same w/ the G9 Mk II. UNLESS, you are a sports/wildlife/adventure/travel photographer, then the size and weight factor comes into play. Bodies aren't getting cheaper because manufacturing isn't getting cheaper, margins are pretty thin, and the market is shrinking (except in China). Where MFT gives you cost savings is in the lenses, it's a mature system, tons of options and tons of glass on the used market. All gear today is able to produce fantastic results and anyone telling you otherwise is full of it. Ultimatly they only deciding factor between FF, ASPC, and MFT is your usecase and shouldn't be about the price. Thinking of MFT as somehow lesser than FF so it must be cheaper is illogical IMHO. I am a pansonic shooter, I like the ergos and menu systems. I have an S1, G9, and GX85. They all have pros and cons. When I am doing asto landscape, indoor work, or need the best quality for printing of course I grab my S1. When I am traveling internationally I am almost always going to take the G9 or GX85 because I can pack my full kit in the same space as the S1 and two lenses.
MFT also makes perfect sense for street, family and everyday fotography. My 14mm(28) and 15mm(30) can almost be hidden inside my hand. With my OM-5 it's tiny compared to my old Nikon gear (both FF and aps-c). And it cost a fraction of Ricoh or Fuji cameras and i can change my lens when needed. The stabilization is amaaazing. I would even go so far as to pay a premium to avoid carrying a FF body and the Bazooka lenses that is requires when out and about with my playing children. And i only payed like $900 for a used Om5 with a 15mm Leica lens included. When my kids are playing outside the IQ is basically the same as it was with my old FF gear. (i am no dof fiend, so thats not a big factor)
I think the current value for MFT is in the used market. You can get a used body and 3-4 really good lenses for the same price as a griii - it's definitely not as compact but you get interchangeable lenses and flexibility, not to mention the surprisingly good video capabilities that are perfectly suitable as a travel/everyday camera. The innovation seems to be dying though, there's some on the fringes but the larger brands just aren't giving it much attention right now.
Actually kind of interested to see what Yongnuo is starting to offer and at what price. The main OEMs aren’t offering much new for the price. Used is huge value with people starting to leave the system.
Nothing gets cheaper. I use to own Canon dSLR and in 2019 went to m4/3 and no regrets. I personally do not care with how Canon is doing things. All companies do stupid stuff. I do mainly bird photography with a bit or architecture, floral and macro. I am getting excellent results from my current gear. I am not or have been a fanboy or brand loyal. I make my own prints and love the quality of prints. For wildlife, I really like the m4/3. Each to his own.
It’s not the size and weight of the bodies - it’s the lenses. Try getting the equivalent of my 9-18, 12-40 f2.8, 40-150 f2.8 and 300mm F4 in FF equivalents into a 15L backpack. And carry it for a hike. I’ve been a Canon shooter for 25 years (since the D3) and I simply can’t lug that stuff any more. Let alone put it all in the overhead. The IQ is not so different for most situations and print size. And computational gains and IBIS give me good shooting options usually. So yeah. Keep saying MFT is dead and then look at sales.
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D Simply, if a photographer has committed to the format for portability and the price / performance of the Olympus lenses then the OM1 makes perfect sense. Why are so many FF bigots keen to foretell the demise of MFT ? It’s a choice not a zero sum equation. Give it up.
It's too expensive for me, but I already have a good used Olympus OMD EM-1 mk !!. I think it's meant for mostly pros and enthusiasts. I think the prices are going up because so many people just use their phones for pictures today (supply&demand).
IMO crop bodies should have a price incentive to buyers, I can't really see why "near" full frame prices make crop systems more appealing? Maybe the lenses are cheaper but many bodies are right up there with FF body prices.
Yeah the “it’s just different, not better or worse” arguments really have people convinced they should pay the same as FF. But then they recognize MF is more expensive because it’s marginally better image quality lol. Very odd
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D I never worked on me! I have no problems with crop be it APS-C of Micro 4/3, but clearly there is a difference (low light/DR etc). Crop is certainly good enough, but it has to offer better prices to entice people. I just see no reason for dumping down the best part of 2 grand on a crop body camera. Going to 40mp with X Mount, was marketing again, almost nobody can see the difference (which is tiny at best)
100%. Instead of going for volume to get more users, they’ve simply increased rent on photographers already in the systems. Sad because someone starting with a more affordable crop body will likely end up a longer term fan, getting into FF, etc.
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D Look at how many Micro 4/3 people suddenly started using full frame when Pannie came out with L mount! One brand ambassador spent years telling people about FF and how they didn't need it, only to buy Sony E mount FF system when he was dropped/left the Olympus Ambassador program. Mix in the bargain DSLR stuff out there and it's hard to justify the prices.
I was about to comment my dissense to your statement, then I remembered Sony FX30 is actually cheaper than a OM-1II. So you're absolutely right, we need cheaper and feature packed MFT cameras or you start seeing how old the system is.
I've never tried the FX line, but yeah something like that is perfect for someone that wants a cinema camera. I might dog it in certain aspects, but even the Sigma fp is a killer body for people focused on video and that's full frame. MFT makes less and less sense
I'm really in two minds about so much of this debate. Is the comparison with FF really valid? 16MP/20MP that M43 can deliver seems to be ample for most people's needs. Are the FF cameras that people are comparing to the OM system professional grade i.e. on stabilisation, dual card slots, weather sealing, high-res? The M43 lenses (Olympus Pro and Panasonic-Leica) are first class - are the FF equivalents competing on price and size/weight? It's fine to say the OM system cameras are targeted at sports and wildlife photographers but that's kind of missing the point that they do every other form of photography pretty well too! The one reservation I have is the low-light performance - there will be noise at higher ISO. Personally, I'll accept that compromise for all the other benefits M43 provides. (Although I use Fuji, Sigma and Ricoh GR as well....).
Can't disagree with much of that, I like the low weight of lenses and the huge selection available at low prices on eBay, MPB etc. Watched a couple of interesting videos recently about printing and how people really can't tell what sensor (MFT, APS-C, FF, MF) was used to take a photo due to the way printers work. They use DPI not pixels to print an image and as the image gets bigger people stand back to see it. Sitting close to the screen and zooming in, sure you can see it pixelate eventually, but you can print any of these at any size and Joe Public will always go for best image. The one that captures the scene best and tells a story.
I think the low sales requires higher price for the company to survive. As owner of FF and MFT, I saw the biggest differentiation between the two system is image quality. Looks like the gap between FF and MFT is closing in terms of focusing , tracking, i can see how much they improve since my EM1X, by the way, Olympus has a lot of guts charge $3000 USD for a camera like EM1X and call it a top of the line sports camera, i really tried to love it but it's not even close to my dinosaur 1DX. anyways, sensor size is something they can't do anything about it. full frame sensor is still 4X larger, with whatever improvement they do on MFT, the same can happen on the FF, so the gap remains the same no matter how OM system sugar-coated it. I see the same old 20MP MFT image over and over again.
That makes sense. However , I’m not sure that strategy by OM systems will bear any fruit. We already have apsc in many cases challenging the likes of FF and just not being able to beat physics unless OM has something up their sleeve with computational photography we haven’t seen ?
@@fred4859 Agree, to me from day one the biggest advantage of this system is size and weight, well, at least that's why I got my first Panasonic and then the OMD 10 II..... but they stated making bigger and bigger camera, and trying to compete with the big boys, to me that's where they start failing, speaking for myself, if I can deal with EM1X size cameras, why don't I just get a R3 and Z9, yes, I know, there is cost and crop factor..... but image quality wise, I saw such huge difference. those computational " stuffs" will not be enough to make up for the IQ, not for me anyway.
Costs for all camera systems seems arbitrarily high anymore. Olympus and now OM Systems are a bit hard to swallow when they don't seem to have done much to improve or add value features to the new cameras. Has there been a new or even improved sensors for the micro 4/3rds? Really the biggest drawback in the system is their low light lack of sensitivity. I really fail to see how a global shutter would help for anything other than video or large burst shots when shooting wildlife or sports. To my mind only a new and improved sensor would make me look at upgrading from the Olympus cameras I already have.
Olympus designed themselves in the corner by limiting themselves just to the smaller sensor. They want to survive economically and while competition can move at least within FF and crop, they're now stuck. All they can use from the OM times is the name.
I am thinking about dropping $5K for a Pany G9 Mark II with three Lumix lenses plus some extras. Something to get me away from photographing birds and mountain landscapes with my Samsung 2023 Ultra (phone). My questions are: How well does all that fit in my daypack and how will it handle bad weather and an occasional tumble on the trail? I am surprised with what I have photographed in the last year with my Samsung which essentially relies on a 'Space Zoom' and an 'NPU' to 'interpret' reality. But still...the advantages of a cell phone (for a trail hiker): easily insured, light weight, functionally waterproof in Otter Box, survives a 'trail tumble'...can't possibly beat a decent camera. Anyway, I have many questions...
Think it just depends how often you can make the dedicated time for that,if you’re doing it professionally, or you fully expect to get a lot of use out of that gear in general. DSLR era stuff would likely get a lot more bang for buck and are well built. Any of those options, I think, far surpass the cheap (but capable) experience of a phone.
I don’t claim to be an expert on the market but it seems like they are pricing themselves out of the market in an attempt to bridge the move from old to new while trying to make up the cost of restructuring. This prompts a second question knowing that Sony had been working on a m4/3 sensor some time ago . How long have they had these “improvements “ in their back pocket ??
its not getting cheaper because A. the company failed trying to market to the masses B. older photographers (wildlife) have deeper pockets the industry decided you dont make money with free feature firmware updates, just offer a new model with the 2 extra 'features' everyone else can buy secondhand or move on. I upgraded both my OM-1 bodies to mark ii as a last ditch effort to stay on brand. My 150-400 lens is halfway thru its useable life now, and AF performance wasnt wowing me, I had to eek out any gains. The big brands are catching up with lens reach now and its probably only a year until a good apsc camera will surpass the OM-1.2 Last note: you decide on the lens system you want to be in, the bodies come and go
With full frame and APS-C format you see new better sensors periodically. When did that last happen with M43 and when will a new sensor be released? It’s not the best all and end all but seems to be a dead end if there’s no development in M43 sensors. I’ve got the original M10 with a bunch of lenses originally as my small Bikepacking camera to supplement my full frame Pentax DSLR but it just feels too limited by the sensor and toy like ergonomics so years back I decided not to invest any more into M43. I started using Fuji X system and while a bit bigger, is a much more satisfying system and great images
Same here. I sold my EM10mk3 and lenses, as I found the sensor too limited, especially in lower light. Right now, started with XT20 and some lenses, expanding in the coming years. I do like the EM10, but only in better daylight.
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D I have the Pentax K-1 and took the option to send it in for the upgrade to K-1 ii hardware when Pentax offered. It’s a beast of a DSLR with big tough weather resistant body compared to modern mirrorless but ergonomically is still the best camera I’ve used out of the Fuji, Canon and Olympus OM I’ve used. I feel confident using it in any weather, sub zero rain, sleet and snow and the sensor delivers great wide dynamic range images. But as I said, it’s heavy to lug around if you are travelling for an extended period for instance. Although the AF is outdated in this age, the images and a robust body is so good I’ll keep using it for some of my shooting for many years.
OM Digital System is a company that no one wanted and only JIP wanted to buy or take over. So OM System is trying to get more revenue from Olympus. Lets see the will get it. Nikon cheapest bodies does not have the best AF as their competitors but with Z8 and Z9, Nikon fanbase did everything to buy this 2 expensive cameras. So Nikon got a lot of revenue from their fanbase. Those which are not fanbase they will move to other system if they can.
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D My answer was refering that both OM Systems and Nikon are trying to get the most revenue of their fanbase. So what OM Systems is doing is not bad or only done by them. Canon is also restricting third party lenses into ther RF-mount, which pushes those into the RF-mount to by Canon expensive lenses.
I think the biggest issue with crop sensor as a whole, including apsc and MFT, is that they are trying to compete in the same pro space as established full frame brands, that being in specifically professional photography.
These camera bodies have REAL size and weight benefits IF you are willing to make some compromises. The price, size and weight comparisons start getting closer to full frame if you are trying to get top of the line image quality. Bodies with IBIS, glass with OIS, high quality EVF, tack sharp images at all apertures and focusing distances, etc. By the time you pack all these features into your camera you might have saved a bit of money on the overall setup but it's probably not much smaller than an equivalent FF setup. I have tried a couple of brands between MFT and APSC (I haven't tried FF at all yet due to the cost), but I have noticed that if you purchase gear for your crop sensor system and it's compact nature, you need to accept some drawbacks.
I think if Lumix and Olympus had a return to form on their smaller and more compact bodies and focused on making their lenses smaller and not "perfect", they could probably share in some of the success that Fuji and Ricoh are enjoying right now
A Pen F with compact lenses would be an absolute banger. I think the success of Fuji and Ricoh shows how blatantly the market is carved up (one brand doesn’t tread on another too much). Fuji basically exists to sell marked up APS-C sensors and make it some premium “experience”. Their GFX line has no other Japanese competitor as well.
The OM-1 Mk II is a great camera but, for that price I can see it as hard to justify for most people, same w/ the G9 Mk II. UNLESS, you are a sports/wildlife/adventure/travel photographer, then the size and weight factor comes into play. Bodies aren't getting cheaper because manufacturing isn't getting cheaper, margins are pretty thin, and the market is shrinking (except in China). Where MFT gives you cost savings is in the lenses, it's a mature system, tons of options and tons of glass on the used market. All gear today is able to produce fantastic results and anyone telling you otherwise is full of it. Ultimatly they only deciding factor between FF, ASPC, and MFT is your usecase and shouldn't be about the price. Thinking of MFT as somehow lesser than FF so it must be cheaper is illogical IMHO.
I am a pansonic shooter, I like the ergos and menu systems. I have an S1, G9, and GX85. They all have pros and cons. When I am doing asto landscape, indoor work, or need the best quality for printing of course I grab my S1. When I am traveling internationally I am almost always going to take the G9 or GX85 because I can pack my full kit in the same space as the S1 and two lenses.
MFT also makes perfect sense for street, family and everyday fotography.
My 14mm(28) and 15mm(30) can almost be hidden inside my hand. With my OM-5 it's tiny compared to my old Nikon gear (both FF and aps-c). And it cost a fraction of Ricoh or Fuji cameras and i can change my lens when needed. The stabilization is amaaazing.
I would even go so far as to pay a premium to avoid carrying a FF body and the Bazooka lenses that is requires when out and about with my playing children. And i only payed like $900 for a used Om5 with a 15mm Leica lens included.
When my kids are playing outside the IQ is basically the same as it was with my old FF gear. (i am no dof fiend, so thats not a big factor)
I think the current value for MFT is in the used market. You can get a used body and 3-4 really good lenses for the same price as a griii - it's definitely not as compact but you get interchangeable lenses and flexibility, not to mention the surprisingly good video capabilities that are perfectly suitable as a travel/everyday camera. The innovation seems to be dying though, there's some on the fringes but the larger brands just aren't giving it much attention right now.
Actually kind of interested to see what Yongnuo is starting to offer and at what price. The main OEMs aren’t offering much new for the price. Used is huge value with people starting to leave the system.
Nothing gets cheaper. I use to own Canon dSLR and in 2019 went to m4/3 and no regrets. I personally do not care with how Canon is doing things. All companies do stupid stuff. I do mainly bird photography with a bit or architecture, floral and macro. I am getting excellent results from my current gear. I am not or have been a fanboy or brand loyal. I make my own prints and love the quality of prints. For wildlife, I really like the m4/3. Each to his own.
Absolutely. Content over gear always. They haven’t advanced in meaningful enough ways to justify the same or greater price though.
It’s not the size and weight of the bodies - it’s the lenses. Try getting the equivalent of my 9-18, 12-40 f2.8, 40-150 f2.8 and 300mm F4 in FF equivalents into a 15L backpack. And carry it for a hike. I’ve been a Canon shooter for 25 years (since the D3) and I simply can’t lug that stuff any more. Let alone put it all in the overhead. The IQ is not so different for most situations and print size. And computational gains and IBIS give me good shooting options usually. So yeah. Keep saying MFT is dead and then look at sales.
You are justifying why you don’t want one - rather than the positives of the system - not the body.
I believe I mentioned the size advantages in the video. It’s not really dead, and it’s still capable, but where is the innovation for the price?
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D Simply, if a photographer has committed to the format for portability and the price / performance of the Olympus lenses then the OM1 makes perfect sense. Why are so many FF bigots keen to foretell the demise of MFT ? It’s a choice not a zero sum equation. Give it up.
@@michaelknibbs we seem to be talking past each other on this. Still wish you the best with your photography
It's too expensive for me, but I already have a good used Olympus OMD EM-1 mk !!. I think it's meant for mostly pros and enthusiasts. I think the prices are going up because so many people just use their phones for pictures today (supply&demand).
Certainly them trying to stay alive in an ever contracting market
IMO crop bodies should have a price incentive to buyers, I can't really see why "near" full frame prices make crop systems more appealing? Maybe the lenses are cheaper but many bodies are right up there with FF body prices.
Yeah the “it’s just different, not better or worse” arguments really have people convinced they should pay the same as FF. But then they recognize MF is more expensive because it’s marginally better image quality lol. Very odd
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D I never worked on me! I have no problems with crop be it APS-C of Micro 4/3, but clearly there is a difference (low light/DR etc). Crop is certainly good enough, but it has to offer better prices to entice people.
I just see no reason for dumping down the best part of 2 grand on a crop body camera. Going to 40mp with X Mount, was marketing again, almost nobody can see the difference (which is tiny at best)
100%. Instead of going for volume to get more users, they’ve simply increased rent on photographers already in the systems.
Sad because someone starting with a more affordable crop body will likely end up a longer term fan, getting into FF, etc.
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D Look at how many Micro 4/3 people suddenly started using full frame when Pannie came out with L mount! One brand ambassador spent years telling people about FF and how they didn't need it, only to buy Sony E mount FF system when he was dropped/left the Olympus Ambassador program. Mix in the bargain DSLR stuff out there and it's hard to justify the prices.
I was about to comment my dissense to your statement, then I remembered Sony FX30 is actually cheaper than a OM-1II. So you're absolutely right, we need cheaper and feature packed MFT cameras or you start seeing how old the system is.
I've never tried the FX line, but yeah something like that is perfect for someone that wants a cinema camera. I might dog it in certain aspects, but even the Sigma fp is a killer body for people focused on video and that's full frame. MFT makes less and less sense
I'm really in two minds about so much of this debate. Is the comparison with FF really valid? 16MP/20MP that M43 can deliver seems to be ample for most people's needs. Are the FF cameras that people are comparing to the OM system professional grade i.e. on stabilisation, dual card slots, weather sealing, high-res? The M43 lenses (Olympus Pro and Panasonic-Leica) are first class - are the FF equivalents competing on price and size/weight? It's fine to say the OM system cameras are targeted at sports and wildlife photographers but that's kind of missing the point that they do every other form of photography pretty well too! The one reservation I have is the low-light performance - there will be noise at higher ISO. Personally, I'll accept that compromise for all the other benefits M43 provides. (Although I use Fuji, Sigma and Ricoh GR as well....).
Greatest advantage may be deeper depth of field at wider apertures. If you need that. I’m good in my systems now though
Can't disagree with much of that, I like the low weight of lenses and the huge selection available at low prices on eBay, MPB etc. Watched a couple of interesting videos recently about printing and how people really can't tell what sensor (MFT, APS-C, FF, MF) was used to take a photo due to the way printers work. They use DPI not pixels to print an image and as the image gets bigger people stand back to see it. Sitting close to the screen and zooming in, sure you can see it pixelate eventually, but you can print any of these at any size and Joe Public will always go for best image. The one that captures the scene best and tells a story.
Always comes back to content for sure. We all need more prints in our lives too
I think the low sales requires higher price for the company to survive. As owner of FF and MFT, I saw the biggest differentiation between the two system is image quality. Looks like the gap between FF and MFT is closing in terms of focusing , tracking, i can see how much they improve since my EM1X, by the way, Olympus has a lot of guts charge $3000 USD for a camera like EM1X and call it a top of the line sports camera, i really tried to love it but it's not even close to my dinosaur 1DX. anyways, sensor size is something they can't do anything about it. full frame sensor is still 4X larger, with whatever improvement they do on MFT, the same can happen on the FF, so the gap remains the same no matter how OM system sugar-coated it. I see the same old 20MP MFT image over and over again.
That makes sense. However , I’m not sure that strategy by OM systems will bear any fruit. We already have apsc in many cases challenging the likes of FF and just not being able to beat physics unless OM has something up their sleeve with computational photography we haven’t seen ?
Yeah I think there’s awesome value to be had with older MFT bodies that people are offloading though. And a new Pen F would rock
@@fred4859 Agree, to me from day one the biggest advantage of this system is size and weight, well, at least that's why I got my first Panasonic and then the OMD 10 II..... but they stated making bigger and bigger camera, and trying to compete with the big boys, to me that's where they start failing, speaking for myself, if I can deal with EM1X size cameras, why don't I just get a R3 and Z9, yes, I know, there is cost and crop factor..... but image quality wise, I saw such huge difference. those computational " stuffs" will not be enough to make up for the IQ, not for me anyway.
Costs for all camera systems seems arbitrarily high anymore. Olympus and now OM Systems are a bit hard to swallow when they don't seem to have done much to improve or add value features to the new cameras. Has there been a new or even improved sensors for the micro 4/3rds? Really the biggest drawback in the system is their low light lack of sensitivity. I really fail to see how a global shutter would help for anything other than video or large burst shots when shooting wildlife or sports. To my mind only a new and improved sensor would make me look at upgrading from the Olympus cameras I already have.
100%. Maybe the most on point comment so far
Olympus designed themselves in the corner by limiting themselves just to the smaller sensor. They want to survive economically and while competition can move at least within FF and crop, they're now stuck. All they can use from the OM times is the name.
I’d say they were always meant to manage that section of the market, and most people are looking at full frame and crop Fujis now.
I am thinking about dropping $5K for a Pany G9 Mark II with three Lumix lenses plus some extras. Something to get me away from photographing birds and mountain landscapes with my Samsung 2023 Ultra (phone). My questions are: How well does all that fit in my daypack and how will it handle bad weather and an occasional tumble on the trail? I am surprised with what I have photographed in the last year with my Samsung which essentially relies on a 'Space Zoom' and an 'NPU' to 'interpret' reality. But still...the advantages of a cell phone (for a trail hiker): easily insured, light weight, functionally waterproof in Otter Box, survives a 'trail tumble'...can't possibly beat a decent camera. Anyway, I have many questions...
Think it just depends how often you can make the dedicated time for that,if you’re doing it professionally, or you fully expect to get a lot of use out of that gear in general. DSLR era stuff would likely get a lot more bang for buck and are well built. Any of those options, I think, far surpass the cheap (but capable) experience of a phone.
Thanks for that advice!! @@LIGHTHUNTER.D
I’m glad someone said it.
More and more need to be
I don’t claim to be an expert on the market but it seems like they are pricing themselves out of the market in an attempt to bridge the move from old to new while trying to make up the cost of restructuring. This prompts a second question knowing that Sony had been working on a m4/3 sensor some time ago . How long have they had these “improvements “ in their back pocket ??
its not getting cheaper because
A. the company failed trying to market to the masses
B. older photographers (wildlife) have deeper pockets
the industry decided you dont make money with free feature firmware updates, just offer a new model with the 2 extra 'features'
everyone else can buy secondhand or move on.
I upgraded both my OM-1 bodies to mark ii as a last ditch effort to stay on brand. My 150-400 lens is halfway thru its useable life now, and AF performance wasnt wowing me, I had to eek out any gains. The big brands are catching up with lens reach now and its probably only a year until a good apsc camera will surpass the OM-1.2
Last note: you decide on the lens system you want to be in, the bodies come and go
Agreed. Increasing costs instead of going for volume is a massive mistake. Do you plan on leaving the MFT system eventually?
With full frame and APS-C format you see new better sensors periodically. When did that last happen with M43 and when will a new sensor be released? It’s not the best all and end all but seems to be a dead end if there’s no development in M43 sensors. I’ve got the original M10 with a bunch of lenses originally as my small Bikepacking camera to supplement my full frame Pentax DSLR but it just feels too limited by the sensor and toy like ergonomics so years back I decided not to invest any more into M43. I started using Fuji X system and while a bit bigger, is a much more satisfying system and great images
Same here. I sold my EM10mk3 and lenses, as I found the sensor too limited, especially in lower light. Right now, started with XT20 and some lenses, expanding in the coming years.
I do like the EM10, but only in better daylight.
Pentax has always interested me too. Images from the K-1 and II look crazy sharp
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D I have the Pentax K-1 and took the option to send it in for the upgrade to K-1 ii hardware when Pentax offered. It’s a beast of a DSLR with big tough weather resistant body compared to modern mirrorless but ergonomically is still the best camera I’ve used out of the Fuji, Canon and Olympus OM I’ve used. I feel confident using it in any weather, sub zero rain, sleet and snow and the sensor delivers great wide dynamic range images. But as I said, it’s heavy to lug around if you are travelling for an extended period for instance. Although the AF is outdated in this age, the images and a robust body is so good I’ll keep using it for some of my shooting for many years.
@@shred3005 that’s awesome 😎 Yeah they’re one of the toughest out there
OM Digital System is a company that no one wanted and only JIP wanted to buy or take over. So OM System is trying to get more revenue from Olympus. Lets see the will get it. Nikon cheapest bodies does not have the best AF as their competitors but with Z8 and Z9, Nikon fanbase did everything to buy this 2 expensive cameras. So Nikon got a lot of revenue from their fanbase. Those which are not fanbase they will move to other system if they can.
I might be biased but I think we’re about to see a Nikon revival. A Nikonaissance if you will. Where they become a favorable brand again
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D My answer was refering that both OM Systems and Nikon are trying to get the most revenue of their fanbase. So what OM Systems is doing is not bad or only done by them. Canon is also restricting third party lenses into ther RF-mount, which pushes those into the RF-mount to by Canon expensive lenses.