eow, if sales figures are what that matters... or selling well, then really, Canon simply makes the best cameras. Period. I don't see your point as being valid at all. I thought I share my point of view. I can be wrong though, of course.
No, u are not wrong on that, bro. I agree with you that sales figures, especially for things like cameras, are totally not a good measure of how good the camera is. Sales, is often a function of marketing. The more you throw money into marketing, the more visible, and the more sales u get. Or if u sell mass market stuff. The more mass market u are, eg VW or Toyota, the more sales u are gonna get. Porsche builds fantastic cars, but they are never going to be the #1 car maker of the world. On the other hand, Toyota sells a bunch of mass market cars, including a ton of Corollas, Estimas etc etc. Most people can safely say that there are no cars made by Toyota that can beat cars made by Porsche, but yet, Toyotas are the #1 car maker of the world.
Of course, putting marketing money not always successful. For eg, Olympus, after so many years, cannot still market the 4/3 standard well....well....here is where we stand...misunderstood. But if u are like Canon, market so well, until can convince the whole world, or nearly the whole word, that their 135mm sized digital sensor is called "Full Frame", pulling that word "Full Frame" from out of nowwhere (when the first introduced it, it was tentatively and always in " ")....they really are geniuses. Now FULL FRAME appears without " ", and is considered the bible truth that 135mm IS Full Frame.
Well, hopefully, over the next few years, Oly marketing may become more effective. Because, I am still challenged by this 4/3 standard although I have been a user for some time. But perhaps, all this techno talk is quite irrelevant and is just a way for photographers to pass time and ward off their boredom. Why? Because, no matter what tests we do, we we compare sensor performances etc and etc, at the very very end of the day, it is the picture that counts, and all the other test results are totally moot.
BUT, I did learn something though by going thru the 4/3 website again. Hope you all can bear with me on this :
The 4/3 standard is really a digital full frame standard. There is actually some history / melancholy in this standard. Firstly, the sensor is half the size of the 135 mm film format. I din realize that. This is significant because the wildly successful PEN also had a film format that was half of the 135 mm format.
Secondly, this 4/3 format allowed a simple method for calculating the FOV based on the 135 mm format - ie. multiplication factor of 2x. Unfortunately, to the uneducated, this is considered a crop factor of 2 x. Sigh....
Lastly and most importantly, this is a system that emphasizes the lens OVER the body or the digital sensor. In a way, this is a future proof philosophy. To really understand what Olympus was doing, you had to be an expert in optics. I think, Olympus, being a world class optical company, realized that the limiting factor in camera design was actually the GLASS and not the digital sensor. They probably were aware that in 10-20 years, they do not see lens technology increasing by any large measure. After all, glass is glass and how many which ways can u grind glass or arrange them together? On the other hand, digital sensor technology is advancing every 3-5 years, much like the computer chips. I suppose, and this is just my interpretation, that they were able to see that with time, the digital sensors would get smaller and smaller in size, and at the same time, become more and more effective. This would mean that the so called Canon "full frame" sensors, would one day be obsolete, not because they become less capable, but people will refuse to carry such large cameras in-lieu of smaller cameras that can deliver what they require and more!
Sorry guys if this is not new to you, but this is a new epiphany for me. The more I understand the 4/3 philosophy, the more I respect the wisdom of this company, and the more I feel that they should get my buying dollar than a company that panders and encourages the mindless mass-market consumerism that we see around us. Of course, having a good philosophy is just one aspect of it...the other aspect is of course execution and good corporate governance. You can have the best idea, but if u do not execute it well, all goes to nothing anyways. But whatever, for now, and for this vision, they still got my vote. And although I ooh and ahh everytime I see a big D3 or a 1DsMarkIII, I will never covert them cos I know I will never take these cameras out, unless I am a working photographer.
Sorry, this might seem off-topic, but in a way, it is not. In a long-winded way, I suppose I am answering the TS's question on why I choose the PEN over the Sonic, or more rightly, Olympus over Panasonic, or actually, over the other camera brands. U really really, have to give credit to Olympus for developing that kind of incisive vision on photography. NONE of the other camera brands have that. But at this present time, the marketing of the other brands helps them make up for it, by clouding the vision of the consumers with megapixels and sensor size. In a way, this is really effective because we humans, as simpletons, very easy for us to understand "big is better, more is better" concept. This simple concept is just used so effectively that nearly the world world is conned. Olympus on the other hand, din buy into this "big is better, more is better" concept, obviously....so they lose market share. But perhaps "More is NOT better, and BIG is NOT better". Perhaps the truth is really, "LESS IS BETTER".
At this time, I truely believe that the m4/3 system with the mirrorless system, is the future of digital photography. It is something that I can see myself using. As it is, I am oh so happy with the 5MP of the E1. I am already more than happy with the 10MP of the E3. I have been printing A4 photos from my 5MP C5050 jpegs, and they are still OK. Make them smaller and more stylish....this concept is totally sold! And again, u can see that Olympus is really going the opposite way to the other manufacturers, and then in a way, leading the field when the other manufacturers realize that that is the right way and have to turn around to follow. By cutting out the mirror, again, Olympus is again removing the excess. "LESS IS BETTER". Thinking about it, the mirror should be discarded. With digital sensors, live view technology, increasing battery powers, and increasing circuit efficiency, Olympus is right to remove it. It does not serve any purpose other than a redundant peice of material. And do u realize that without an OVF, what are the possibilities of WYSIWYG? It will be way more than what OVF can do for us. I am not going to say it, but I am sure that Olympus has a bag of tricks with EVF up its sleeve.
