When I read the reviews of the GH1, it seems this is a pretty sweet video camera for the price (except with for light). But for stills, it is inferior to Nikon and Canon DSLR's costing $600 less.
I'm wondering what's going on with the marketing here. It's looking like this camera is really for video -- for stills, the consumer would do better for much less money. And it seems like this camera would be much easier to operate as a video camera if it had a video camera body.
So why is it packaged as a stills camera? Is this is a step to later introducing a video camera body that uses interchangeable micro four thirds lenses?
I'm not whining, just wondering what the people here think is going on with the current marketing.
I'm wondering what's going on with the marketing here. It's looking like this camera is really for video -- for stills, the consumer would do better for much less money. And it seems like this camera would be much easier to operate as a video camera if it had a video camera body.
So why is it packaged as a stills camera? Is this is a step to later introducing a video camera body that uses interchangeable micro four thirds lenses?
I'm not whining, just wondering what the people here think is going on with the current marketing.