Last updated:- 17th January 2026
A personal experience with M43 cameras changes everything. Marketers don't want that because sales are more important. For example, why should one buy an OM-5 II or the OM-3 if they offer inferior image quality? I saw several videos showing OM System high-resolution RAW files with softer image results than 40MP or higher full-frame photos. Why would people think OM Workspace is inferior to commercial RAW converters like Lightroom or DxO PhotoLab? Shouldn't the logical alternative be to convert your high-resolution RAW files with Workspace or the TruePic image processor?
The E-M5 III (OM-5) with the M.Zuiko 12-45mm f4 pro, 17mm f1.8, and 75mm f1.8 lenses is an excellent day or low-light option.
Considering ongoing social media conversations and comments posted on forums, I can only conclude that Olympus and OM System failed to develop and communicate sufficient sales arguments for Micro Four-Thirds cameras. It's concerning to think that most photographers assume M43 cameras have less dynamic range, more noise, and inferior image quality. The only benefit is smaller M43 lenses. Doesn't this weirdness remind us of marketers turning a product weakness into a must-have feature? One can write several books about modern marketing ethics and the photography segment.
How would you define 10 good sales arguments for M43 cameras?
Goto my Page Menu or this link for the full article.
No comments:
Post a Comment