> I'm sure it is a fabulous lens in performance. But it does change the whole
> small, light and compact quality of m4/3 into something else, more akin to
> DSLRs.
I am a firm believer that the "small, light and compact" aspects of
m4/3 (as well as most mirrorless camera systems) is a limited
marketing aspect. It certainly pleases the retired people on the list,
but the cameras have arguably become too small, too light and too
compact for many professionals and serious photographers.
Panasonic did a good job with the GH4 in right-sizing it. It's not too
small and not too large. It balances well with the bit bigger and
heavier glass.
While it is certainly true that Nikon and Canon went way overboard
with the 1-series professional cameras where it's like holding a
humpback whale up to your face, the cameras that are sized and
weighted like the SLRs from the late '80s and early '90s ended up
about where we really wanted them to be. Look at the new Nikon D-750.
Yummy!!!!
A case in point is the battle for light and small. The OM series was a
nice fit and the OM-1,2,3,4 bodies were about as small as you could
comfortably go. Pentax went even smaller and most people thought that
they were actually too small. So, now, we have the m43 cameras, which
are sized like the Pentax cameras of old and for people like me, they
are still too small.
Mirrorless is NOT about size and weight. Mirrorless is about
technology advancement in viewfinders and shutters. No need to
completely reinvent the wheel. We trash-talk Sony, but Sony is selling
a whole lot of cameras and they've not played the size/weight game.
Olympus made m43 about size and weight and they'll pay the price in
the long run.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|