02-06-2012, 10:47 PM
[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1328563435' post='15572']
They have 1 to 2 years of a head start over the rest and two companies are doing the core pieces of the system. Other companies catering for more exotic needs (like Voigtländer). That gives momentum.
When using an EVF or the camera screen for framing, the differences between an APS-C and a 43rd sensor are not as significant as they are in an SLR with optical finder.
Bases on that I think that being able to buy the pieces you need now instead of having them promised for the next year is more important that a few 100 lines in the MTF, or another half stop in the ISO. Roadmaps always carry the risk of vapourware.
[/quote]
Beyond the headstart and the strategic advantage it offered, I think MFT also must have hit the sweetspot technologically wise as it seems that this sensor size, mount size & flange distance was indeed very well thought out : quite early, we have seen sound ultra wide angle designs (7-14, 9-18), an excellent kit lens (Panasonic 14-45, yes it is THAT good for a kit lens; regardless of the software corrections), a truly surprising 20mm f/1.7 and, at least to me, a very good body size to image quality ratio (thus not only "noise & DR" but the whole system) from the start. One could argue about that for hours but the E-P1 really had something to show beyond the reviews and beyond Panasonic cameras and I ditched the 40D without looking back (well, not entirely true). And it mostly kept evolving beautifully (except for one or two "strange decisions" and pointless kit lenses iterations).
Also very exciting as it clears some uncertainties for the consumer.
They have 1 to 2 years of a head start over the rest and two companies are doing the core pieces of the system. Other companies catering for more exotic needs (like Voigtländer). That gives momentum.
When using an EVF or the camera screen for framing, the differences between an APS-C and a 43rd sensor are not as significant as they are in an SLR with optical finder.
Bases on that I think that being able to buy the pieces you need now instead of having them promised for the next year is more important that a few 100 lines in the MTF, or another half stop in the ISO. Roadmaps always carry the risk of vapourware.
[/quote]
Beyond the headstart and the strategic advantage it offered, I think MFT also must have hit the sweetspot technologically wise as it seems that this sensor size, mount size & flange distance was indeed very well thought out : quite early, we have seen sound ultra wide angle designs (7-14, 9-18), an excellent kit lens (Panasonic 14-45, yes it is THAT good for a kit lens; regardless of the software corrections), a truly surprising 20mm f/1.7 and, at least to me, a very good body size to image quality ratio (thus not only "noise & DR" but the whole system) from the start. One could argue about that for hours but the E-P1 really had something to show beyond the reviews and beyond Panasonic cameras and I ditched the 40D without looking back (well, not entirely true). And it mostly kept evolving beautifully (except for one or two "strange decisions" and pointless kit lenses iterations).
Also very exciting as it clears some uncertainties for the consumer.