It cost's more than a Nikon D5000, but it isn't as good. What exactly is it's purpose. I have the same question about all of these 4/3rds cameras. They're far too expensive for what they are: DSLR's but not quite as good.
@Carlos: The idea is that you get DSLR-quality photos in a *much* smaller and more portable package. All the photo mags last year seemed to think this was the future. I have to say they don't particularly appeal to me - I can't live without a proper optical viewfinder - but maybe they really do appeal to the sort of people who're dissatisfied with the image quality and shooting limitations in a compact, but would still like something they can slip into a pocket.
The "purpose" of these mirrorless cameras should be to make smaller camera than a DSLR. That's the basic advantage in removing the mirror. However, manufacturers still couldn't understand that once you attach a zoom to these cameras the size advantage becomes irrelevant. They should first be providing a good lineup of small, fast primes (so that users would see the advantage in switching to such system) and after introduce zooms for those who already bought into the system and sometimes don't mind the size and prefer the comfort.
I get the impression that in a way Samsung have missed much of the true appeal of the 4/3rds cameras, which is that they look good in a retro sort of way and have nice names like Olympus and Leica adding to that certain 'retro-quality'/ designer value. Samsung may even have produced a better camera, but in the fashion and name-dropping stakes they are a non-starter, and as the fate of a lot of the resulting photos is to be seen on computer screens rather than A3 prints, it's probably not the point really. It will be interesting to see how Sony get on - from the few pistures I've seen i can't tell if they have used the Zeiss brand on the lenses.
Luis is absolutely right: small, fast primes (plus combination with HD video)with smaller body at the price of an entry level DSLR would make mirrorless a reasonable choice. Add fat zooms and 50 percent to the price, and you wind up with an inferior product: as big or bigger (or one hundredth of an inch smaller) as a DSLR, more expensive, more limited choices, with more compromises in image quality... Nothing to get enthusiastic about, or rather disappointing, really.
We're sorry. We were unable to report abuse at this time.
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try resubmitting your abuse report again later.
Comment is too long. Enter 500 characters or less.
Comments
User reviews
There are currently no reviews for this product.
Read more reviews >
To add your own review log in or sign up