willikampmann

One might argue that Palm built upon Apple’s design to create something original: WebOS shared many design ideas originally pioneered by Apple, but undoubtedly had its own style. This wasn’t surprising considering that at the time Palm had many ex-Apple employees. They had a similar vision, but executed it in their own way.

Samsung has never done that. They simply built phones that looked like iPhones, loaded them up with Android and customized it so that it would look like iOS on first sight. That’s not an original idea, that’s product piracy big-style.

There is a difference between inspiration and copying. Ive aknowledged Rams’ design philosophy (which BTW is heavily influenced by the Bauhaus style) and applied it to completely new products like computers and music players. Rams and Ive think alike and also respect each other.

Samsung on the other hand tried to make its products look as much as possible like Apple’s direct pendants in an effort to profit off Apple’s iconic design and to save an expensive in-house design department.

So Apple shares Braun’s design philosophy, while Samsung "shared" Apple’s designs, period.

Are you going to test the new Loewe AirPlay speaker as well by any chance? It looks kinda similar to the B&O and I think the price isn’t that different, so I’d be interested to know whether the audio quality is comparable. Also the CeraTec CeraAir Two is really interesting!

Sure, a 5.1 setup with miniature satellites is obviously going to sound at least as good as a fully grown stereo speaker at the same price! Because everyone knows, audio quality is determined by the number of speakers you have, right?

For a product to get the “Made in Germany” seal, not even 50% of the product value has to be created in that country. Considering Leica’s high margins, they could probably manufacture the whole camera in another country and just paint the red dot in Germany, and still get to write “Made in Germany” on it.

FWIW: The Voigtländer 25mm f/0.95 on µ4/3 is equivalent to an adapted Voigtländer 35mm f/1.2 on NEX.

It’s simple physics. Simply saying sensor size won’t matter anymore just isn’t true. You can say that a certain sensor size might be "enough" for you and I would agree. For example, for most consumers even µ4/3 is overkill.

However, there remain clear advantages to larger sensors. And the same holds true for megapixels BTW. The Olympus is targeting the prosumer market and as such it competes on IQ for the most part. So it might not have the same audience as the Olympus PEN series which is more of a consumer camera.

It’s funny how quick you are calling others fanboys, even though half the comments on this article are from you, telling people how poor the NEX lens selection is supposed to be and how great µ4/3 is regardless of the sensor size.

Just chill, man.

Well the Samsung NX system has a rather long flange focal distance, so it is not compatible with some mounts like Leica’s. The new Pentax Lego camera has the same problem, obviously.

I’d argue that legacy lenses can indeed be real replacements for native lenses if the camera’s MF system is good enough. The NEX’s is.

First of all: Yes, µ4/3 cameras can use adapted legacy lenses, too. But with their 2x crop factor the use of legacy lenses is much more limited than with the NEX’s 1.5x crop factor. A 35mm lens becomes a 50mm equivalent on the NEX but a 70mm telephoto equivalent on a µ4/3. A 15mm wide-angle lens is equivalent to 23mm on the NEX, but rather ordinary 30mm on a µ4/3 system. So in that regard the NEX is more versatile.

Second: The NEX lenses aren’t that bad and the µ4/3 lenses aren’t that good. The kit-zoom is really decent. The Zeiss is quite good, as is the 50mm prime. The selection is still poor at the moment, but the available lenses certainly aren’t crap. There are indeed great lenses for µ4/3, but there are also a lot which only deliver decent quality in JPEG mode after digital correction of optical flaws. This is something that the first NEX generation didn’t do at all, but the current generation fixes some optical flaws in JPEG processing as well.

The Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 lens for µ4/3 is terrific, but as far as I know it is not better than Sony’s 50mm f/1.8 (it is smaller, though). Leica and Voigtländer offer great lenses, too – but they are manual focus only, so you could just as well use an adapted lens instead. I’m not saying the NEX isn’t at a loss here, but it’s not as unacceptable as you make it out to be.

By the way, the only one of us who is constantly talking about facts is you, not me. I’m just stating my personal opinion: µ4/3 is awesome, but I prefer NEX.

The sensor size doesn’t matter anymore. Ooo~kay, sure!