In article ,
RichA wrote:

On Saturday, 11 November 2017 08:26:53 UTC-8, android wrote:
In article ,
Rich A wrote:

On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 11:35:44 PM UTC-5, android wrote:
In article ,
Rich A wrote:

On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 4:08:53 PM UTC-5, Alfred Molon
wrote:
In article ,
Rich
A says...
The body is around $2000.00.

You mean Canadian dollars? Should be 1700 USD/Euro.

The body is indeed big & heavy.

It's magnesium (to its credit) and like a DSLR so yes, heavy. IMO,
this
divergence from the original promise of the m4/3rds system
(compactness)
is
probably a mistake. Sony has even kept their FF bodies compact.

The sensor size of the m4/3 is inherited from the 4/3 that made the
same
promise... I had an Olympus Evolt-E300 and it was not compact at all! I
turned out that if yu wanted the same brightness, noise and DOF as
achieved by larger sensor cams then you had to make and use big lenses
with a lot of glass. Lot's of pain but no gain...
--
teleportation kills

The E-510/410 were the first arguably compact Olympus DSLR's, the E-410
especially.

The point is that the 4/3 and m4/3 have the same silly small sensor size
and you don't gain anything with it if you want to maintain IQ. In my
opinion APS-C is the smallest sensors for serous photography.

Some would argue FF is the smallest. But it's B.S.

My 1D2, APS-H 8MP takes way better picture than my EOS M, APS-C 18MP.
There are newer cameras out there but you still have to shoot within
their envelopes! The curves are raver similar actually...

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...-EOS-M-versus-
Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-II___819_431

The big win for the 1D2 is color sensitivity and separation, but you
have to study the cams separately to see that in the DxOMark.com data

"Serious" photography?

You know it when you see it!
--
teleportation kills