1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

'Is Micro Four Thirds Really Cheaper?'

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by RT_Panther, Jul 12, 2011.

  1. KVG

    KVG Banned User

    May 10, 2011
    yyc(Calgary, AB)
    Kelly Gibbons
    I've pondered this as well. I have concluded that no it is not cheaper as you pay for the portability and the newness of the platform. And its 100% worth it to me.
     
  2. mclarenf3

    mclarenf3 Mu-43 Veteran

    243
    Nov 23, 2010
    Canada
    That's exactly it. The size difference of the overall system is where the benefit lays. Sure, the bodies (especially the GH* series) are only marginally smaller than the entry level DSLR, but they have the feature set of the prosumer bodies and come with a set of lenses which are FAR smaller than any comparable ones out there.

    The fact that I can easily get a complete camera system (one body, 4 lenses, and flash) into a bag as small as the Domke F-5XC is all the justification that I need for the cost.
     
  3. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    don't think panasonic or olympus have ever pitched the platform as cheaper... cheap is never a good marketing message

    smaller than a DSLR and better than a P&S is their message

    K
     
  4. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    Luke
    If I wanted cheap, I'd get a Sony :wink:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    If I'm not mistaken, MFT was first advertised as a cheaper alternative to DSLRs...
     
  6. duke

    duke Mu-43 Veteran

    420
    Dec 4, 2010
    Tulsa, moving to Houston
    Duke
    more expensive than my 5d and mf lenses...wait, what? I like it though :)
     
  7. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    Luke
    The E-P1 was released in kit form with a list price of $899......quite a bit higher than similarly spec'd DSLR kits. I remember because I couldn't justify the price. Why would I want a smaller sensor that performed worse for MORE money. I just sat on the sidelines until used prices came down to $500. I think they're terribly overpriced when comparing performance alone. The only way they compete is when you factor in weight (and LOOKS!)
     
  8. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I haver thought of them as cheaper. I think competitive is probably more accurate. Lik everything there is a tradeoff. M43 is smaller, easier to adapt to glass glass and IMHO has good enough to IQ to make the tradeoffs worth it. Then again I HATE carrying around heavy gear so maybe that's why I see the tradeoff as worth it.

    I also rarely buy new gear. My G2 cost me under $300 new (someone bought the kit just to get the lens) and my E-P1 came to me in a trade for gear I wasn't using. When I look at new m43 stuff I find the list prices a bit spendy. That said, after my last trip lugging a big DSLR around the thought of doing it again was so repugnant to me that price may not have been an issue.
     
  9. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010

    Look at the success Apple, BMW, Audi, etc. had selling premium products. They don't typically sell on price (or specifications). That RIM tablet for example might indeed play Flash and have better hardware (although that's debatable) but I still bought an iPad.
     
  10. Warren T.

    Warren T. Mu-43 Veteran

    338
    Mar 10, 2010
    San Francisco
    After doing my own research in early 2010, I concluded that the format was expensive. So I found a used G1 (already discontinued by then) w/14-45mm for $525. I used it and liked it, so I was willing to spend the $$$ for new native lenses (20mm and 45-200mm).

    I later found an as-new GF1 body for $400.

    The combination of IQ and compactness are the benefits that keep me in the format. However, the high prices of new gear are keeping me from buying any more MFT equipment at the moment.

    I must have missed the early ads that pitched the format as "cheaper alternative to DSLRs". :)
     
  11. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    Good hear most of you feel this way & that MFT is NOT a cheaper alternative to entry level DSLRs...
     
  12. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I don't recall ads that pitched the MFT system against DSLRs.

    I've always seen the message that pitched MFT as the better alternative for the typical P&S'er.
     
  13. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
  14. carpandean

    carpandean Mu-43 Top Veteran

    827
    Oct 29, 2010
    Western NY
    Funny thing is that you can buy -- well, pre-order -- a brand new G3 kit for only $100 more than that.

    I, too, have never thought of :43: as a cheaper alternative to a digital SLR. I've always seen it as a system that gives you close (sometimes better) performance to (than) a DSLR, but in a much smaller package. The price of the system is coming down as it matures, which is certainly welcome, but it is not "cheap" by any means. We're also seeing a greater stratification of models (GF3/G3/GH3 vs. GF2/G2/GH2) with high end pro-ish, consumer compact SLR-like, and true compact bodies. Those high-end cameras will definitely not be cheap.
     
  15. Pelao

    Pelao Mu-43 Top Veteran

    959
    Feb 3, 2010
    Ontario, Canada
    Exactly.

    Also, it's cheaper (or more precisely better value) for me because I use it more than I did my DSLR. My GF1 and 3 lenses is lighter and less bulky than my 5D with one lens. There are compromises, as with anything.

    Also, I know it can be a challenge to be precise, but the lens comparisons in particular are a bit off. The Pana 20 and Nikon 50 might be close(ish) in focal length, but the Pan is a much better lens - so in fact much better value.

    The 45 and 50 are do not make for a good comparison either.
     
  16. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
  17. Pelao

    Pelao Mu-43 Top Veteran

    959
    Feb 3, 2010
    Ontario, Canada
    I have to wonder how useful it really is. Better to let the photographs do the talking, I say. Reviewers are so far very positive of the G3 compared to the 3100, 5100, and the 60D. My eyes agree, and I look at photographs, not graphs. I suspect that their methodology is not keeping pace with actual results.

    According to DXO, the 3100 and M9 are pretty much equals.
     
  18. linkedit

    linkedit Mu-43 Top Veteran

    649
    Aug 6, 2010
    New Jersey, USA
    Even though I feel that I would probably get better high ISO and better low light images with a dSLR, I realize that the size of that camera would prevent me from always taking it with me.

    I carry my E-PL1 almost everywhere I go. I probably wouldn't be able to do that with something like a T2i. That was pretty much the main reason I chose m43.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    +1 On you getting the used gear :smile:
    -I understand your concern about the high prices though....:redface: