Hacker News Reader

Comment by tormeh | Hacker News Reader

I have to say I'm a bit unimpressed with the efforts of the MFT consumer system camera manufacturers. Panasonic creates excellent cameras, they're so big it lessens the appeal of the smaller mount. OM makes cameras of the right size, but it's releasing new models really really slowly, with mediocre sensors. The OM-5 mark II is a lame rehash. Only the OM-3 is somewhat exciting, but it sacrifices too much in terms of ergonomics to achieve an aesthetic I don't care about.

On the other hand there's no other class of camera that really works on vacation/travel and is meaningfully better than a smartphone. Oh, well.

View on HN

I think people really underestimate how nice it is for the lenses to be smaller and not just for the camera to be.

I wonder if there's a marketing reason for not shrinking the lenses. A big lens screams "better" more than a smaller lens at a casual glance for the uninitiated user.

It's an engineering reason really, the entire reason why MFTs were so popular when they came out was because people were tired of lugging around their Full-Frame camera's zoom lens, and were sick of missing moments when using a prime lens.

The marketing gimmick for awhile was ultra-zooms which allow for smaller lenses via fixing distortion using DSP, but this degrades the image quality, and so never became a solution for RAW shooters.

I think it's directly related to sensor size and given the shape of lenses (cylinders) that means bigger sensors should probably have a non linear relationship to lens size.Though it is probably not quite that simple. In any case, bigger lenses allow for smaller f stops with a given focal length, and people really do love bokeh...

I doubt it. I don’t think anyone is spending $2k on Canon L-series (red ring) lenses based on the size. On the high end, photographers are pretty discerning about equipment’s capabilities. If they made my Canon EF 35mm f1.4L USM II half the size and weight I’d be thrilled.

The RF version of that lens is a bit lighter.

Bigger lenses tend to gather more light and that means better images in darker moments.

The volume for physical cameras is low and shrinking. The companies can't justify putting nearly the same investment as smartphone companies selling 100x the units can.

The volume for cameras like this was always low. Even in the days before you had a camera on your smartphone, people were buying Polaroids, compact cameras with a small lens built in, or disposable cameras. They weren't buying something more complicated unless they were hobbyist photographers.

Not hobby. Taking photo is always key to life for many.

Before phone for major event like graduation, wedding and baby birth people do buy one camera with one lens for the occasion and keep it as a family heirloom like. And even students gala and performances. Whilst a lot of point and shot, slr and later dslr are common. The key it is not a hobby to them but a life even to record.

Unlike people like us canon and nikon found it hard to sell the second lens or even second body.

Those compact cameras with a built in lens still funded the R&D for the expensive cameras. They can all run the same OS and software, etc. Smartphones have continuously chipped away at the bottom tier of cameras to the point where even hobbyist photographers use smartphones. And only the absolute top tier of very expensive cameras still exist.

The OM-3 is fine ergonomically, for me at least. The thumb pad on the back is very comfortable and balances the body very well. I held off buying one for a while because of ergonomic concerns but in practice it’s been great.

I'm super happy with my OM10 mark3 and z9. the first is super fun to use and gives a really satisfying shitter kachunk when you shoot and the z9 though a chonker makes adjusting stuff easy having a billion buttons

>On the other hand there's no other class of camera that really works on vacation/travel and is meaningfully better than a smartphone.

My a6500 is serving me well, though I guess it depends what you mean by "meaningfully better than a smartphone". I do end up with a lot more photos that I like when I go on vacation with a camera than with just a smartphone

Edit: also applies to commuting, but I'm always a bit uneasy about having my camera with me when comutting.

Olympus is one of the few camera (I literally have hundreds as this is my side hobby) I love to use. Until every time I want to change anything. As a guy who can do 8x10, gfx, 907x, z9 etc I still find the menu system totally confusing.

It is not the hardware, it is the software …

I don't know, man. They're very customizable, and some models have memory banks. I never need to go in the menus of my pen-f. And The OM-1 has a much improved menu system, with a customizable "my menu" page, which opens directly, on which you can stick your most used menu items (but, sadly, it's not included in the saved memory banks).

Furthermore, I find the physical buttons on the om1 are so customizable and can do so many things, that I never go in the menu, either. I haven't tried new models from the other makers, but the olympus models I have are much nicer to use than my old canon 40d and nikon d80.

I had to think about this a while since my Olympus is my go to camera just because I love using it but I agree some of the menus are mildly confusing....though leaps ahead of sony

I'm very happy with my thoroughly behind-the-curve E-M10, and I'm secretly glad the newer ones aren't all that great because I don't have to spend money on upgrading.

> Only the OM-3 is somewhat exciting, but it sacrifices too much in terms of ergonomics to achieve an aesthetic I don't care about.

I was very disappointed with the om3. I love the aesthetic, but I feel it's half-assed. The faux-pentaprism bump is the specific point I hate. If it had the body of a pen-f, I would have been all over it. As it is, it's just a prettier om-1 with worse ergonomics.

I should note that I already have a pen-f, and don't have any issue with its ergonomics (I used it yesterday on -5ºC with big gloves, it was fine). Since I don't lug around foot-long lenses, the lack of grip isn't a problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com