Why m4/3rds is declining in the US.

Started Apr 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
bosjohn21
Senior MemberPosts: 2,610Gear list
Like?
Re: Adding to that...
In reply to howardroark, 11 months ago

howardroark wrote:

Richard wrote:

I have been thinking it over. After seeing rattymouse post some figures how m4/3rds was declining in the US and how DSLRs crushed m4/3rds, I contemplated why. I came up with a good answer.

For a Canon t4i body price on B&H is $650
For the Oly OMD it is $950

Weight Canon 1.2 lbs
Oly just under 1lbs (15oz)

Standard lens Canon 50 1.4   $400 on sale right now $310  10 OZ

Zuiko 45 1.8  $400 on sale right now $350   4 OZ

A savings of $340 and 9 OZ more weight, neither fit in your pocket.

For the average use the Canon is the better deal. Sure a niche market person may pay extra for the oly but not the masses. This is not to say the masses are the smartest consumers but I know the canon works well enough for the average user.

I am thinking this is a good reason for the decline.

How many people buy a 70-200 2.8? Many only purchase the kit lens. Both can take great photographs on vacation, of the kids just about anything accept pro level stuff.

The term many people use is "mirrorless" to describe these cameras.  What a foolish way to label a thing when that label will be part of the marketing used to promote its sale.  There may be some things like "fat free" or "low carb" or "No trans fats" that state something bad is missing, but I doubt many people know whether or not to think of a mirror in a camera as a bad thing.  In fact, for decades fast cameras always contained a mirror, and most of the best cameras today still do have a mirror.  Defining something by what it is missing risks the chance of people seeing a negative term as a negative attribute.  A market segment is just like a brand in that it carries with it a reputation.  If you put a word like "disposable" in front of the name then people aren't deluded into thinking they're getting anything all that good.

Mirroless isn't a word that defines a segment by what it is or what its major selling point is or what it's good at, but instead defines itself as different from something that is very good and, here's the real kicker, as "less" than something that we all know is good.  Call me crazy, but a negative term can't help but raise questions and plant a seed of doubt.

More to the point, it's a really stupid term.  If used with ILC it makes MILC and an acronym that sounds like milk makes me sick to my stomach unless there's cereal nearby.  A Compact System Camera is a small camera and who knows how capable it is.  An interchangeable lens camera has the great feature of being able to swap lenses.  A Mirrorless camera is....wait, where's the mirror?  Why'd they take the mirror out?  Oh wait, there are awesome cameras that are cheap and have mirrors?  Why didn't you tell me?!  Yeah, that's small enough!  See, you're advertising for the competition.  Just like tablet makers saying "Apple is more expensive" or "you're iPhone sucks" tells people that maybe they should check out whatever this company is so afraid of that they'd attack it directly.

how about delr as in digital electronic finder lr or maybe mirror challenged or how about electronicslr as apposed to electronicviewfinder. It boggles the mind.  But I do understand your point. it gives the impression that its lacking something. electronicslr works we can drop the d for digital as all new cameras are digitil these days and insted ad f to film slrs as in fslr for filmslr. Or maybe digitalless slr. hehehe

but eslr and evf are good discriptions without giving the impression something is missing.

-- hide signature --

John aka bosjohn21

 bosjohn21's gear list:bosjohn21's gear list
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm F3.5-4.5G ED VR
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
NEXNew
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow