1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Scott Bourne on Six Months with the E-M1 X, and some suggestions on birding settings

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by Ranger Rick, Jun 12, 2019.

  1. Retief

    Retief Mu-43 Regular Subscribing Member

    95
    May 14, 2019
    Marysville, WA
    Bill Dewey
    Just over a month ago I was at a presentation that Scott did at one of our local stores, My first M1x/300f4/MC14/40-150 arrived on the 21st of May, the second will arrive this coming Friday. Making a switch of camera systems is not something I do lightly, that said I did it for many of the same reasons as Scott. My "normal" kit to carry into the field was 1 Nikon D500/600mm-f4 and 1 Nikon D500/500PF. All told with tripod, head and a few miscellaneous bits this was carting around about 30lbs. Now with 2 M1X, 300f4, 2-40-150's (only 1 if my wife is not with me) and TC's I am looking at less than 15 lbs. While this is nice for someone getting a bit older, it would not be possible if the AF was not pretty darn close to the D500.

    My wife's first comment when I started talking about this was "I thought you would die a Nikon man …"

    So far I concur completely with Scott.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. runner girl

    runner girl Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    403
    Nov 26, 2011
    Funny... some of my Nikon friends are now complaining that the resale value of their gear has tanked with all of the viable mirrorless alternatives.
     
  3. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    I've not noticed that at all, at least when it comes to lenses. F-mount glass is basically the same price it was before the Z bodies were announced. I've recently bought and sold some high-end F-mount lenses, and the prices were generally about what they were a year ago (bought an 85/1.4 for $950, sold a 17-55/2.8 for $500).

    I don't track body prices too much, because I'm not looking to buy or sell any of mine in the near future. However, bodies tend to depreciate significantly quicker than glass.

    I tend to find that people who track pricing are those "on the fence" about wanting to get rid of equipment. If your friends are in that position, then tell them to simply sell the equipment. It's a sunk cost at this point. However, if they were already considering selling their equipment months ago and were smart, they would've sold it all before the Z announcement.
     
  4. KBeezie

    KBeezie Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Sep 15, 2012
    Grand Rapids, Mi
    Karl Blessing
    I can somewhat concur that this may be true more so on the body side, and usually under a particular price point. If it's one of the sub-1200$ Nikons, it's natural for the resell value to suffer because Nikon's lower models were pretty crippled compared to their higher in models as of 10-15 years ago. And it's easy to compete against a crippled camera body, especially when it comes to adaptability/etc. Like some of the higher in Nikon glass won't work on lower end to mid-range bodies, least not with all the functionality you'd hope. Whereas you can mount most of those lens on a mirrorless, and even if you don't have autofocus, the camera will still for the most part continue to give you accurate meter readings and allow you to tweak some camera-controlled options without complaining.

    And the fact that you can take your Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Etc etc glass and put them on most mirrorless cameras now days is one of the main reason why those options continue to stay high (plus good glass is what you want to carry from body to body).

    *some* bodies will hold their value for a little bit especially if they serve a useful purpose within a certain market. The Panasonic GH4 for example, hasn't dropped in price as much as say the Olympus E-M1 Mk1 (which is of course discontinued, so that's going to tank it further), because it's still considered by many to be a valuable filmmaking tool on a relative budget without hacking. Thus why even used it's still trailing a mere 200 cheaper than what they are selling for new. But also much the same reason why the old Panasonic GH1 doesn't go completely dirt cheap because the hack keeps it viable (used to be around $100, then hovers around $200 when the hacks were made more user friendly).

    Nutshell : Viability. Good lens are more viable than bodies, likewise bodies that serve a decent niche market still stay viable.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.