"This is from the Japanese BCN association for camera sales for 2023.

1.Sony ZV-E10
2.Sony A6400
3.Canon R50
4.Canon R10
5.Canon M2
6.Olympus E-P7
7.Nikon ZFc
8.Olympus E-PL10
9.Olympus E-M10IV
10.Sony A7IV"

I have no doubt looking at the professionals and professional cameras that Sony will be at top. And even with all the camera sales in Japan for 2023, Sony has the top spot even if they are not the professional end of Sony. I think it is impressive that the professional oriented A7 mkIV did make 10th on the list. This camera had to compete with all the cameras bought by people wanting something better than their phones and still not have to sell their first born to get it. Sony, when they entered the camera market, said they wanted to be number one. And as far as I can see, they are definitely number one to the chagrin of Canon and Nikon. But based off the BCN, not everyone is willing to go as high as the professional level. And this would be as expected considering what I would expect the ratio of general public to professional photographers.

As far as what I would expect at concerts and sporting events, covered by professional photographers, it will most likely be seriously dominated by Sony.

gwilliams6, I have no reason to doubt your information. Yes, the 8 stops can be found in both the A7 mkIV and A9 mkIII (8 and 8.5 are basically the same in my opinion). And as many manufactures as can, they tie in their lens's IS to their body's IS. I personally think it has been one of the best technical advances for cameras.

Although most of the optical design came from Sigma, the "tweaks" were from OMDS. The Sigma lens has 4 stops IS while the OM lens has 7 stops IS (with 7 stops ILIS, Panasonic 4/3rds can also use the lens). The Sigma lens is listed as "dust and splash-resistant structure" with no rating. The OM lens is rated as IP53 and truly weatherproof. How much did these design changes and quality upgrades cost (they were not free). The OM 150-600 may or may not be "way overpriced". But I am not surprised by some of the sharing of one company's product. Sigma makes more profit on a design and sale of parts and OMDS only needs to modify the design to meet OMDS's upper end non-professional lens requirements. This becomes a win-win for both companies.

Part of the problem is that the chips have changed in the OM-1 mkII plus the firmware software has changed. The buffer in the mkII is twice the size of the original OM-1. And the operational chips have changed basically the same amount. This means that stuff that one would normally hope to upgrade in the original will not upgrade because it would require more space than is available in the original OM-1. The push by OMDS to put more computational software in their cameras is amazing and very useful. How many full frame cameras have a density filter system, a variable density system, and three choices for the line sharpness? And how many of the other features can be found in a full frame camera at the $2400 price. "None" comes to my mind. I can spend $2400 and get more than spending $6500. Plus the system is still smaller, lighter, and less costly in many other aspects. It is innovations like these that will push OMDS and 4/3rds into the future. Yes, the eventual 25mp or 30mp sensor will help. But having all the "computer" and what were post-processing features to use live while shooting is more important to me.

Canisdirus is just jealous that we have now what his camera will only have sometime in the future. Both OMDS and Panasonic will push the technology that the other brands will eventually copy.

Some of the bigger professional organizations that require more consistency from their photographers have indicated they need to use Sony. And there are good reasons for such. But that is for the professionals. The sales in Japan to the public is a different story. A collection of the sales records of over 50% of the camera stores showed only one Sony and it was not the top seller. There were three Olympus/OMDS cameras and not one was the OM-1. And Fuji's APS-C I believe was ahead of both the Sony and Olympus/OMDS cameras. This takes nothing away from Sony which is considered one of the best professional cameras. Different levels of cameras for different levels of photographers.

But there will be some photographers that will buy a Sony and there will be some "photographers" that will show you that they own a Sony. It is the same for any other brand. I know there are photographers that even buy the latest and greatest 4/3rds Panasonic or OMDS just because they can.

Primes are still sharper for their focal length than a zoom. The difference in sharpness is not nearly as much as it was in the film days. Of course, one has to "zoom" with their feet with a prime to get closer to the subject. And if one is already at the edge of the cliff with a prime, the photographer standing next to them with more zoom gets the shot. I still will use my long prime. But when I win the lottery and have an extra $8K, I will get my sharp, fast, long zoom.

Not a "stupid, useless" poll. Some are very adamant about the issue though. I use a filter for polarization and very extreme environments (welding shop with hot sparks, crosive fumes, etc.). Ordinary weather conditions (rain, wind, dust, salt spray, snow, etc.) do not require a filter. As advanced as my camera system and my cameras are, neutral density and variable density filters are not going to be needed any more.

But not everyone owns a system like mine. And there are others that prefer more or extra protection for their equipment. Will a filter actually provide the extra protection the photographer desires? Sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. Would the lens be better without a filter? Sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. Would a lens be better protected with the lens shade? Sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. Would the lens be better protected with a filter and a lens shade. Again, sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. There is no one solution that will protect a lens perfectly. The least protection is no filter with the most protection being a filter and a lens shade. But, again, sometimes it will protect and sometimes it won't.

Panasonic and OMDS will continue to push 4/3rds forward. The G9 mkII will push the video side of 4/3rds even more and be even more competitive with other formats. I know some photographers are disappointed that OMDS is not keeping up with Panasonic's video. But it is hard enough for other formats to keep up at the 4/3rds price and features - let alone OMDS.

Base off this site and other sites, 4/3rds is pushing in as a second camera for travel. And then some replace their full frame prime camera with the 4/3rds. It will take a longer time, but eventually 4/3rds will make a bigger impact in the camera industry in manufacturing and sales.

IS has increased to 8.5 stops, buffer is 2X bigger, ND has both in-camera and live changes (full ND, graduated ND, 3 choices of line, etc.), and other changes.

Does the Sigma lens have 7 stops of image stabilization like the OM 150-600? The lens is designed to take the 2X teleconverter and be handheld (2400 in 35mm terms). Can one do that with Sony, Canon, and Nikon? Does the Sigma have IP53 weatherproofing like the OM 150-600? How certain is everyone that the two lenses are that identical in true design?

Actually the real news is not the renaming but the new and upgraded features. Increased IS, specialized in-camera and live ND, better autofocus, better object recognition, and more, are all new. It looks like OMDS will not let the spirit that started with Olympus die.

Even though the first digital OM-1 had "Olympus" on it, it was the last tribute to Olympus Corporation for their camera start. Even though Olympus still has 10% of OMDS and the idea of the OM-1 started at Olympus, OMDS did all the R&D and manufacturing. Olympus Corporation gave OMDS a time limited usage for the use of the logo "Olympus". As we can now see, OMDS is now in charge of the company. We will no longer see "Olympus" and will only see "OM Systems" from here on out. "Olympus" will not be on the OM-1 mkII and future revisions.

That is correct. Even though Olympus still owns 10% of OMDS, it did not give OMDS the right to use the Olympus Company's name forever. There were agreements in the sale governing how long the Olympus name could be used on the products.

There were about 10 interchangeable screens. I had the center split screen / micro prism and an all center micro prism screen. I had the one with the grid lines etched into it for leveling and helping with Rule of Thirds. But I also had the all mat finish screen that I liked the best. It always told you what was in focus across the whole viewfinder with just one look. The mat screen in my OM4ti, with its ability to do up to eight 2.5° spot readings for exposure, was one of the very best slide film cameras ever made. One could easily fit the exposure the best way it could be fit in that narrow slide film range. One felt so less challenged using print film or black and white film with those films extra range.

The minimum trip to do a good job of covering Scotland would be 3 weeks. A longer time would be better. This would allow enough time for some historical sites along with the wildlife and landscapes. And how good are you at driving on the "wrong" side of the road? On the Isle of Skye, when the roads are narrow, do you know how to let a tour bus get by? And there are other narrow places other than Skye.

To give you an idea of what is possible, look at the 14 day Scotland tour at Globus or other tour agencies. My wife (retired travel agency owner) and I did the Globus tour and many of the sights before visiting my wife's ancestral castle. It was a very good tour and offered more than my three week 1975 climbing trip of Glencoe, Fort Williams with Ben Nevis, and Isle of Skye with the Coolins. Needless to say many of the dirt roads of 1975 in Skye are now paved and still narrow. And small villages are now small towns. But Scotland is still Scotland with all of it's castles and rich heritage. It is rich with photographs for the taking.

At about 5000' altitude and up, they become useful to help cut out UV. Otherwise, a UV filter is like you have said, a protection filter. Digital cameras tend to be rather UV insensitive.