Why m4/3rds is declining in the US.

Started Apr 29, 2013 | Discussions
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,574
Like?
Why m4/3rds is declining in the US.
Apr 29, 2013

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.

Canon EOS 650D (EOS Rebel T4i / EOS Kiss X6i)
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Cailean Gallimore
Senior MemberPosts: 6,082
Like?
Re: Why m4/3rds is declining in the US.
In reply to Richard, Apr 29, 2013

I don't know or care how well or badly Canon are doing compared to m43, but I gave up after 3(!) m43 cameras, because of the poor dynamic range. The sensors just aren't big enough.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,574
Like?
Re: Why m4/3rds is declining in the US.
In reply to Cailean Gallimore, Apr 29, 2013

Cailean Gallimore wrote:

I don't know or care how well or badly Canon are doing compared to m43, but I gave up after 3(!) m43 cameras, because of the poor dynamic range. The sensors just aren't big enough.

I have never owned one but that is good information and that could be yet another reason.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Glen Barrington
Forum ProPosts: 12,515
Like?
Re: Why m4/3rds is declining in the US.
In reply to Cailean Gallimore, Apr 29, 2013

I don't think the average purchaser of cameras in that price range knows about, or gives a rip, about DR.   I think it is because m4:3 cameras are funny looking. And to top it off they are afraid they won't impress their friends who want to see you lugging around HUGE WHITE lenses for them to be properly impressed.

In Japan, "Hello Kitty" reigns supreme, in the US, it's big white lenses.  Its all good.

-- hide signature --

I still like soup. . .
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JosephScha
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,210Gear list
Like?
Re: Why m4/3rds is declining in the US.
In reply to Glen Barrington, Apr 29, 2013

I figured I should join in as someone who actually does own a m43 camera.  It's not the OMD.  It's the significantly older Panasonic DMC-G10, the slightly defeatured cheaper version of the G2.  When I bought it, it was $399 with the kit lens from B&H. I couldn't resist. So there may be some validity to your first point, that OMD is priced high.

As for dynamic range, it depends where you're coming from.  My previous digital camera was a Panasonic DMC-FZ7 superzoom, with a 1/2.5"  6.2MP sensor.  Dynamic range was pretty horrifying.  It did not shoot "raw", only jpeg.  Base ISO was 100, and even at ISO 200 there was some visible noise.  ISO 400 was as high as that camera would go at full resolution.   I was looking for a similar size (and weight) camera that would improve on that situation.

Compared to the FZ7, the G10 is tons better.  It does shoot raw, and I mostly use that. Up to ISO 800 there is no problem cleaning up noise - almost entirely luminance noise - in ACR.  It can be done at ISO 1600, but it loses more detail than I want to lose.  So I tend to stick to ISO 100 to 800.  Dynamic range is clearly better.  This performance does not compare to current (or even 3 year old) DSLR performance, but it is enough to enable me to shoot in situations where my FZ7 could not cut it.  I'll probably annoy many people even on the m43 forum by upgrading to a G6 if they sell it body only, not to an OMD, and certainly not to anything with a swinging mirror and without the ability to accurately show me histograms BEFORE I take the picture. I kind of like the EVF.

Before I went digital I had a Pentax K1000.  I know what optical viewfinders look like.

-- hide signature --

js

 JosephScha's gear list:JosephScha's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G10 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm F4-5.6 OIS Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 5,407
Like?
Re: Why m4/3rds is declining in the US.
In reply to Richard, Apr 29, 2013

Richard wrote:

Cailean Gallimore wrote:

I don't know or care how well or badly Canon are doing compared to m43, but I gave up after 3(!) m43 cameras, because of the poor dynamic range. The sensors just aren't big enough.

I have never owned one but that is good information and that could be yet another reason.

First, why the obsession with m4/3s Richard?

Second, you know that the OM-D is intended to compete against the D7000 and similar class of DSLR. We've covered this in the past. Did you "forget".

Third, you know the current M4/3 cameras have better DR than all Canon APS-C sensor cameras. Did you "forget" that too?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 22,356
Like?
I take it you are aware...
In reply to Richard, Apr 29, 2013

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.

...that there are smaller, lighter, and less expensive mFT bodies, yes?  I also take it you are aware that many of the mFT lenses are smaller and lighter than their APS-C counterparts, making the mFT system smaller and lighter, still.

That said, I think the greater the diversity, the better it is for everyone.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,574
Like?
Re: Why m4/3rds is declining in the US.
In reply to Martin.au, Apr 30, 2013

Mjankor wrote:

Richard wrote:

Cailean Gallimore wrote:

I don't know or care how well or badly Canon are doing compared to m43, but I gave up after 3(!) m43 cameras, because of the poor dynamic range. The sensors just aren't big enough.

I have never owned one but that is good information and that could be yet another reason.

First, why the obsession with m4/3s Richard?

No obsession, just wondering why the decline in the US but not other countries.

Second, you know that the OM-D is intended to compete against the D7000 and similar class of DSLR. We've covered this in the past. Did you "forget".

Nope, but this isn't a discussion about which camera does what, it is why the decline.

Third, you know the current M4/3 cameras have better DR than all Canon APS-C sensor cameras. Did you "forget" that too?

I don't think the masses who buy $1000 cameras really care that much about DR if they even know about it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,574
Like?
Re: Why m4/3rds is declining in the US.
In reply to Glen Barrington, Apr 30, 2013

Glen Barrington wrote:

I don't think the average purchaser of cameras in that price range knows about, or gives a rip, about DR.   I think it is because m4:3 cameras are funny looking. And to top it off they are afraid they won't impress their friends who want to see you lugging around HUGE WHITE lenses for them to be properly impressed.

In Japan, "Hello Kitty" reigns supreme, in the US, it's big white lenses.  Its all good.

-- hide signature --

I still like soup. . .
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos

Yes, the mine is bigger than yours and it is white syndrome, could be a reason but do the people in the $1000 price range camera really know about Pro cameras and big white lenses?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,574
Like?
Re: I take it you are aware...
In reply to Great Bustard, Apr 30, 2013

Great Bustard 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.

...that there are smaller, lighter, and less expensive mFT bodies, yes?  I also take it you are aware that many of the mFT lenses are smaller and lighter than their APS-C counterparts, making the mFT system smaller and lighter, still.

That said, I think the greater the diversity, the better it is for everyone.

I agree with you. I actually want m4/3rds to succeed, competition drives the industry forward and makes it better for consumers, m4/3rds, APS-C, and FF.

I am more curious as to why in the US there is a decline and why not in other countries. there must be a reason. Hopefully it is not the mine is bigger than yours reason.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RichRMA
Contributing MemberPosts: 743Gear list
Like?
Re: Why m4/3rds is declining in the US.
In reply to Richard, Apr 30, 2013

Comparing that weatherproof, magnesium OMD to that consumer plastic, non-weatherproof Canon is a joke.

 RichRMA's gear list:RichRMA's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Pentax K-01 Olympus OM-D E-M5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mgd43
Senior MemberPosts: 3,157Gear list
Like?
Re: I take it you are aware...
In reply to Great Bustard, Apr 30, 2013

DSLR and m4/3 cameras each have their advantages. It's up to the individual to decide what's most important to him/her. I was considering a m4/3 system to save weight as I got older and feebler, but to me the difference in size and weight between a m4/3 and the Nikon D3100 that I bought wasn't that great. The Olympus system (camera and 3 lenses) that I was considering would have saved about 2 pounds compared to the comparable Nikon system. I may be old and feeble, but 2 pounds wasn't enough to get me away from the Nikon system that I preferred for other reasons.

I just replaced the D3100 with a D5200 as my main camera. The D5200 weighs 2 or 3 ounces more than the D3100. That's still not enough to make the switch. Someday maybe a couple of pounds difference in weight may push me into a m4/3 system. Just not yet, but it's nice to have the choice.

 mgd43's gear list:mgd43's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7800 Nikon D5200 Nikon AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mgd43
Senior MemberPosts: 3,157Gear list
Like?
Re: I take it you are aware...
In reply to Richard, Apr 30, 2013

Richard wrote:

Great Bustard 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.

...that there are smaller, lighter, and less expensive mFT bodies, yes?  I also take it you are aware that many of the mFT lenses are smaller and lighter than their APS-C counterparts, making the mFT system smaller and lighter, still.

That said, I think the greater the diversity, the better it is for everyone.

I agree with you. I actually want m4/3rds to succeed, competition drives the industry forward and makes it better for consumers, m4/3rds, APS-C, and FF.

I am more curious as to why in the US there is a decline and why not in other countries. there must be a reason. Hopefully it is not the mine is bigger than yours reason.

I think that one reason for DSLR's popularity compared to m4/3 is familiarity. Newbies know that Nikon and Canon make good cameras. They see pros and friends using them, and they are promoted on TV and in the media in general. But to many people Panasonic makes TV's and Olympus is where the Greek gods live. Familiarity is a very important factor in marketing.

 mgd43's gear list:mgd43's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7800 Nikon D5200 Nikon AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,574
Like?
You are being too reasonable.
In reply to JosephScha, Apr 30, 2013

JosephScha wrote:

the slightly defeatured cheaper version of the G2.  When I bought it, it was $399 with the kit lens from B&H. I couldn't resist. So there may be some validity to your first point, that OMD is priced high.

But isn't that a reasonable statement? You saved money and got a good camera and lens. It works great, you like it. I don't see you coming onto the forums telling us how much better this camera is that DSLRs. Even if it wasn't the price was justification enough.

 This performance does not compare to current (or even 3 year old) DSLR performance, but it is enough to enable me to shoot in situations where my FZ7 could not cut it

Hey if it works then great, take pictures. Everything you said is reasonable, You are not defensive unlike some here which I have commented on.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dennis
Forum ProPosts: 13,229
Like?
An explanation for part of it
In reply to Richard, Apr 30, 2013

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.

Personally, my take is that few retail outlets offer m43 gear.  Obviously, big cities have more, but when you look at where people go to buy their cameras, from Target to Best Buy to Staples and Office Max to Sears, Walmart and so on, even small town camera stores, I'm betting that a pretty significant percentage of people who walk into a store to buy a camera never see a m43 camera.

Everybody knows that Nikon and Canon make the best cameras (I'm not saying that I agree; just a generalization about brand recognition) and Sony is a household name.  It's an uphill struggle for everyone else.

- Dennis

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,574
Like?
Bad marketing possibly
In reply to mgd43, Apr 30, 2013

mgd43 wrote:

Richard wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

I am more curious as to why in the US there is a decline and why not in other countries. there must be a reason. Hopefully it is not the mine is bigger than yours reason.

I think that one reason for DSLR's popularity compared to m4/3 is familiarity. Newbies know that Nikon and Canon make good cameras. They see pros and friends using them, and they are promoted on TV and in the media in general. But to many people Panasonic makes TV's and Olympus is where the Greek gods live. Familiarity is a very important factor in marketing.

Perhaps poor marketing for Oly. I thought I remember a commercial with Kevin Spacey, they shown several different versions of it.

I thought it was stupid because it is the same thing I see in many 4/3rds people here. The commercial is defensive, it tries to say look at me but at the same time put down DSLR, just like here.

http://youtu.be/_Ilh78Mw7Jc

First thing he does is put down DSLR owners.. "I don't want to be the camera guy" well guess what Kevin, you are the camera guy, you pull out lenses from your pocket and swtich them (but we know you really aren't a camera guy because you just put a bunch of pocket lint in your camera and the lens you just put on was from your back pocket after you sat down for your break)

Oly users are cool, DSLR camera guys are geeks. "I don't want to be that guy" but there you are changing lenses, just you don't have a selection of 16 lenses because back then there weren't 16 lenses you could buy.

"I want to be something different"  like owning an Oly will change your status, personality? Maybe people don't buy Oly because of this commercial.

Then the final blow to every human that has ever taken a camera on vacation with them. "Don't be a tourist" Like because you have a smaller camera but you still are standing there swapping lenses is going to make you look any less like a tourist.

This may be the decline or perhaps the end of 4/3rds, or maybe just Oly.

But good point, could be bad marketing, trying to appeal to the timid people that don't want to be the camera guy switching lenses and gets a point and shoot.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,574
Like?
Re: Why m4/3rds is declining in the US.
In reply to RichRMA, Apr 30, 2013

RichRMA wrote:

Comparing that weatherproof, magnesium OMD to that consumer plastic, non-weatherproof Canon is a joke.

Do I care or more importantly do consumers in the $1000 price range care about weather proofing. I can say I don't bring my cameras into rain unless I am standing under a covering. So really is that important. Do they care about magnesium? I think they care more about the $340 and they get a pretty big bang for the buck with a canon rebel that is almost as light a little bigger.

So price could be the reason declining sales in the US. Overpriced that is.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jcharding
Senior MemberPosts: 1,983Gear list
Like?
Marketing and such
In reply to Richard, Apr 30, 2013

M43 differs in the US as opposed to elsewhere due to a complete lack of marketing, the decline of brick and mortar stores, the lack of a presence in big box stores, and seriously screwed up US structuring. For example, for that last point Panny is often months late to the US with new products and different parts of Panny supply  and sell camera bodies and batteries for said camera bodies.

combine all that with traditional American preference for bigger is better.... I would hesitate to say m43 is declining though.

-- hide signature --
 jcharding's gear list:jcharding's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Olympus PEN E-P2 Olympus PEN E-P3 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 22,356
Like?
Re: I take it you are aware...
In reply to Richard, Apr 30, 2013

Richard wrote:

Great Bustard 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.

...that there are smaller, lighter, and less expensive mFT bodies, yes?  I also take it you are aware that many of the mFT lenses are smaller and lighter than their APS-C counterparts, making the mFT system smaller and lighter, still.

That said, I think the greater the diversity, the better it is for everyone.

I agree with you. I actually want m4/3rds to succeed, competition drives the industry forward and makes it better for consumers, m4/3rds, APS-C, and FF.

And, hopefully, mirrorless FF!

I am more curious as to why in the US there is a decline and why not in other countries. there must be a reason. Hopefully it is not the mine is bigger than yours reason.

That, too, strikes me as curious, and I've no idea why.  For me, the idea of a camera as a "status symbol" is alien.  I've had lots of people comment on my camera and lenses, seemingly with a sense of "reverence", and it's always made me uncomfortable.  I dunno, I guess it makes me feel like a kamara-otaku.  Still, I suppose the same comments make others feel good.

I'm of the opinion that mirrorless is the [near] future, and I'll be happy to join it.  However, being the shallow DOF whore that I am, I'm looking forward to mirrorless FF, although I'm not looking forward to how much that system will end up costing since I'll have to buy all new lenses (that won't be cheap) if I am to take advantage of the smaller size of the system (at least for the wider angle lenses).

In the meantime, what I'm looking for, to complement my FF system, is the next version of the G1X (G2X?) with a sensor at least as efficient as modern sensors, and operation at least as good as the G15.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,574
Like?
Re: I take it you are aware...
In reply to Great Bustard, Apr 30, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

Richard wrote:


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.

...that there are smaller, lighter, and less expensive mFT bodies, yes?  I also take it you are aware that many of the mFT lenses are smaller and lighter than their APS-C counterparts, making the mFT system smaller and lighter, still.

That said, I think the greater the diversity, the better it is for everyone.

I agree with you. I actually want m4/3rds to succeed, competition drives the industry forward and makes it better for consumers, m4/3rds, APS-C, and FF.

And, hopefully, mirrorless FF!

I am more curious as to why in the US there is a decline and why not in other countries. there must be a reason. Hopefully it is not the mine is bigger than yours reason.

That, too, strikes me as curious, and I've no idea why.  For me, the idea of a camera as a "status symbol" is alien.  I've had lots of people comment on my camera and lenses, seemingly with a sense of "reverence", and it's always made me uncomfortable.  I dunno, I guess it makes me feel like a kamara-otaku.  Still, I suppose the same comments make others feel good.

For me when I do sports, I often have to break out the 400 2.8 IS  .. If I have to mingle with the crowd, I have some people say wow, that is a big lens, and it is almost a little embarrassing, I say stuff like, it is to compensate for lacking physical attributes to joke around. Some people (women will say) oh take a picture of me with that lens and I have to explain to them they have to be down on stadium floor for me to get the picture.

Sometimes I will get a photographer who will say, wow I wish I had that lens, I have a 70-200 2.8 and thought that was expensive. Then if I have time we have a good chat about stuff. I too even after going to many events feel a little embarrassed. Not around the other pro photographers, they have the same stuff but when I have to mingle with the people in the stands.

I'm of the opinion that mirrorless is the [near] future, and I'll be happy to join it.  However, being the shallow DOF whore that I am, I'm looking forward to mirrorless FF, although I'm not looking forward to how much that system will end up costing since I'll have to buy all new lenses (that won't be cheap) if I am to take advantage of the smaller size of the system (at least for the wider angle lenses).

I see FF and APS-C getting the same functions as mirrorless (except both PDAF and CDAF) in live view, The APS-C cameras are pretty small, FF would remain the same and I don't see pro cameras getting any smaller, they are huge and honking expensive, but the size never gets smaller, only semi pro DSLRs do not include ability to host extra batteries or side grip.

In the meantime, what I'm looking for, to complement my FF system, is the next version of the G1X (G2X?) with a sensor at least as efficient as modern sensors, and operation at least as good as the G15.

I look for smaller. I was looking at the Pan Lx7 because of the better high ISO performance and at a price of 300 buck around black friday. I find the DSLR (non pro) small enough but I would like a better pocket camera.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads