Very sad news indeed

[PHAER]

It would be interesting to segment this into different groups to see if sales are growing for any branch of the digital camera market?

You can check the CIPA reports: https://www.cipa.jp/e/stats/dc.html

If not small sensor cameras with large zoom lenses, what about 1" sensor cameras, M4/3? APS-C? Full Frame? Medium Format lol? Are sales growing for any segment of the digital camera market?

Full frame is the leader, it is apparent given the camera and lens options. APS-C is dead, except of Fuji and MFT is still good for video (GH6).

I would like to see APS/DX dead.

But I can see a place for 1/2.3, 1", m4/3, and FF, (and then 6x7/9 MF).

APS/DX only happened because FF-sensors were too expensive to produce, and were the minimum size practical for OVF.

1/2.3 is the smallest/cheapest and allows L-O-N-G (equivalent) lenses.

1"-type is the largest size practical for full-range non-interchangeable lenses, (with "leaf" shutter for unlimited flash-sync).

The smallest allowing (requiring) ICL is m4/3.

FF has been established as "standard" and is best for low-light & shallow-DOF.

If they can achieve (economical) MF @ 6x7 (or 9) cm, it would have the ultimate IQ, and highest-resolution when that is necessary. (current MF is too-much for too-little)

Assuming readout speed and battery are limiting factors on that sense for bigger sensors, I think 1" with modern processing would make for great dedicated compacts, being pocketable with shorter focal lenght range or non pocketable, but long zooms. Both being relevant step ups the telephoto cameras on phones and their smaller sensors.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/11117239@N08/

 

[Fujiuseruk]

Pocket cameras are really popular, especially 1" models and to the degree that any shipment gets sold out almost instantly.

But in total the demand is so low to make it profitable. 99.9% of former users have moved to mobile phones. I still keep my LX15, got it repaired recently, but I don't expect any new model (except something for vlogging like Sony ZX).

I dont know man, I'm not sure people who use camera phones even know what a real camera is, every time I see them holding one straight up and down I think they believe it's just a phone with a camera app on it.

Every time I see that, (on a landscape-type scend), I want to run-up and grab their phone to re-orient it to horizontal, (and often I have done exactly that).

People seem to only have "selective" vision to a singular subject.

You need to be able to see the shot from both perspectives as sometimes one works better than the other







--
It’s all about the zoom

https://www.dpdiscuss.com/

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

Sad news indeed, just another segment of the P&S camera industry throwing in the towel and shutting down. I still have 9 P&S cameras, several of them newer and bought to protect myself from news like this.

However, if we go back and review the history of photography, the number of people who have been serious about their photography has always been small. In the past, the majority of pictures were taken with box Brownies. Later, disposable cameras were popular. And eventually, there were quite a number of good quality film cameras that sold well in the late 80's and on into the 90's and the early 2000's. Small, convenient, and really pretty good.

We traveled a lot in the 90's and well into the 2000's, and it seemed everyone had a small point and shoot digital camera. And now, starting about 15 years ago, Cell phones began to have decent quality cameras, and soon everybody had a cell phone with a decent camera in it. And on my cruises and land vacations, I was seeing fewer and fewer cameras, and more and more cell phones being used.

So, if you're not "into" serious photography, a cell phone is a convenient way to get a decent camera at little extra cost, since we all need a cell phone anyway. Right!

So, what to do? I personally have stocked up on models with 1" sensors. Some bought used, or "open box" to save some money. And I bought a second copy of one I use a lot and put it away as insurance. I'm 85 now, and I believe I have all the cameras I'll need for the rest of my life. Will I buy any more? Maybe. I still have GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) and if something comes along that floats my boat, I'll probably buy it.

I just wish for "1" more camera, with all the best/combined features of both the (existing) FZ1000-II and the RX10-IV.

I could be happy with that ... ... ...

I want:

24-600mm-EFL @ f/2.4-4

24fps with 9-34ms shutter-AF/lag (albeit the newest technology of A1/Z9 is "5"ms).

1000fps video

-4EV-AF (but I think -5EV is now possible)

1/4000s with flash-sync @ both f/2.8 & f/16 (via either "leaf" or "global" shutter)

FULLY-Articulating (REVERSIBLE) LCD

Post-Stacking Focus

Pre/Pro-Capture

Hand-Held NIGHT-shot mode

8X digital-zoom

AND: The "long-compose" time-exposure feature from OLYMPUS cameras.

Note that none of the above is "new", I just want them combined in a single camera.

Haha this is exactly why I have 5 cameras in use right now, it's inconvenient but what can you do?

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

Just guessing; but I think a lot of contributors here are a lot younger than I am, and don't come from the film generations, where 35 mm was the norm, and by the 80's was even showing up in mass market P&S models.

Digital cameras used smaller than FF sensors because the manufacturing processes for making sensors was not economical for making the larger FF sensors. That issue is now behind us. So that professionals and amateurs can now afford FF bodies, if they so choose. For example the Nikon Z5, the Canon RP, or the R8.

Conversely, there are some very nice APS-C sensor bodies from Nikon, Canon, Fuji, & Sony to choose from if you want a smaller and lighter body, 50% to 60% longer equivalent focal lengths, and a bit greater depth of field.

APS-C could work for me (although I really dont like the 3:2 aspect ratio), but my main issue with FF is the lens that I would want to use would be way too heavy. I need something that can get me to 600mm at least at under 1 kg.

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

You've got a couple of decades on me, Jerry, but I still remember when 35mm was considered sub-standard. And i cringe at today's "full frame" marketing moniker that implies that I'm somehow not using the full frame of my FZ200 when I always do!

For years we had to put up with 35mm equivalents when it came to digital cameras. Long enough that the majority of those being sold the equivalent bill of goods had never used a 35mm camera. They really had no reference point other than bigger is better in most cases.

But bigger isn't really better because in most cases bigger will be used much less. I found that to be true the hard way lol.

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

It would be interesting to segment this into different groups to see if sales are growing for any branch of the digital camera market?

You can check the CIPA reports: https://www.cipa.jp/e/stats/dc.html

If not small sensor cameras with large zoom lenses, what about 1" sensor cameras, M4/3? APS-C? Full Frame? Medium Format lol? Are sales growing for any segment of the digital camera market?

Full frame is the leader, it is apparent given the camera and lens options. APS-C is dead, except of Fuji and MFT is still good for video (GH6).

I would like to see APS/DX dead.

But I can see a place for 1/2.3, 1", m4/3, and FF, (and then 6x7/9 MF).

APS/DX only happened because FF-sensors were too expensive to produce, and were the minimum size practical for OVF.

1/2.3 is the smallest/cheapest and allows L-O-N-G (equivalent) lenses.

1"-type is the largest size practical for full-range non-interchangeable lenses, (with "leaf" shutter for unlimited flash-sync).

The smallest allowing (requiring) ICL is m4/3.

FF has been established as "standard" and is best for low-light & shallow-DOF.

If they can achieve (economical) MF @ 6x7 (or 9) cm, it would have the ultimate IQ, and highest-resolution when that is necessary. (current MF is too-much for too-little)

Assuming readout speed and battery are limiting factors on that sense for bigger sensors, I think 1" with modern processing would make for great dedicated compacts, being pocketable with shorter focal lenght range or non pocketable, but long zooms. Both being relevant step ups the telephoto cameras on phones and their smaller sensors.

Yes 1" with 24-600mm lens would be ideal, but I would want 1" sensors with a 4:3 aspect ratio.

Otherwise M43 would be better with that combo

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

Thanks for a nice reply. I don't disagree with anything your said. I'd also like to bring up a theme I've held for several decades (you know you're old when you count time in decades, and I'm 85 now), and that is the difference between "taking pictures" and "doing photography". The latter being a combination of subject selection, composition, timing, lighting, processing etc.

For a long time, I thought of Ansel Adams as this sort of rustic guy with a battered old Hasselblad that took some really nice pictures. Later, I discovered he was a college professor who taught photography at Stanford and who had broad influence on technique, processing, and gear. But he's just one of my idols. Later, I discovered Galen Rowell, and Henri Cartier-Bresson and his concept of "the decisive moment". And those three together have had the most influence on the way I think about "doing photography"; or at least trying to.

Finally, having a decent camera started for me in 1955, when I was 17, and got a little money for graduation gifts. The next day I was at the local camera shop, which was owned by our neighbor. He sold me an Argus C4 kit at his cost.

I often think about the simplicity of that C4 compared to the complexity of nearly any modern digital camera; and how being a "camera operator" detracts from "doing photography".

Your post resonated with me – there is definitely a difference between “just taking pictures” and “doing photography”.

Way back when I used my 35mm cameras, I “did photography” as a creative break from my technical detail-oriented work. I only had a few settings to worry about (ASA, focus, and aperture) so I could concentrate on capturing the moment and the impact of the scene. And my photos were far better than those I now take with digital. Why? Because with digital I feel compelled to stop and consider whether or not the umpteen possible camera settings are optimal for the occasion (I counted and the FZ1000 has 70 settings in the Record and Custom menus and about 8 important dial/knob settings!). And that kills my “being in the moment” so I end up “just taking pictures”.

For me, 35mm photography was an enjoyable artistic endeavor, and digital photography is a technical challenge. Sometimes I wonder if I would be better off using iA+ mode and letting the camera software handle all the technical aspects so I could concentrate on “doing photography”. The bottom line: I can appreciate why most people have deserted digital cameras in favor of smart phones that are convenient and that can handle all the technical aspects of taking a picture.

P.S. Galen Rowell’s photography was my inspiration back in my 35mm camera days.

There is a happy medium....have 3 or 4 custom settings and program your favorite combos for different types of photography into these custom settings and then you don't have to think about it after that Just set it to the custom setting of your choice!

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

Pocket cameras are really popular, especially 1" models and to the degree that any shipment gets sold out almost instantly.

But in total the demand is so low to make it profitable. 99.9% of former users have moved to mobile phones. I still keep my LX15, got it repaired recently, but I don't expect any new model (except something for vlogging like Sony ZX).

I dont know man, I'm not sure people who use camera phones even know what a real camera is, every time I see them holding one straight up and down I think they believe it's just a phone with a camera app on it.

Every time I see that, (on a landscape-type scend), I want to run-up and grab their phone to re-orient it to horizontal, (and often I have done exactly that).

People seem to only have "selective" vision to a singular subject.

You need to be able to see the shot from both perspectives as sometimes one works better than the other

I hope we get square sensors and square camera phones one day ;-)



--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 

[JSim]

Thanks for a nice reply. I don't disagree with anything your said. I'd also like to bring up a theme I've held for several decades (you know you're old when you count time in decades, and I'm 85 now), and that is the difference between "taking pictures" and "doing photography". The latter being a combination of subject selection, composition, timing, lighting, processing etc.

For a long time, I thought of Ansel Adams as this sort of rustic guy with a battered old Hasselblad that took some really nice pictures. Later, I discovered he was a college professor who taught photography at Stanford and who had broad influence on technique, processing, and gear. But he's just one of my idols. Later, I discovered Galen Rowell, and Henri Cartier-Bresson and his concept of "the decisive moment". And those three together have had the most influence on the way I think about "doing photography"; or at least trying to.

Finally, having a decent camera started for me in 1955, when I was 17, and got a little money for graduation gifts. The next day I was at the local camera shop, which was owned by our neighbor. He sold me an Argus C4 kit at his cost.

I often think about the simplicity of that C4 compared to the complexity of nearly any modern digital camera; and how being a "camera operator" detracts from "doing photography".

Your post resonated with me – there is definitely a difference between “just taking pictures” and “doing photography”.

Way back when I used my 35mm cameras, I “did photography” as a creative break from my technical detail-oriented work. I only had a few settings to worry about (ASA, focus, and aperture) so I could concentrate on capturing the moment and the impact of the scene. And my photos were far better than those I now take with digital. Why? Because with digital I feel compelled to stop and consider whether or not the umpteen possible camera settings are optimal for the occasion (I counted and the FZ1000 has 70 settings in the Record and Custom menus and about 8 important dial/knob settings!). And that kills my “being in the moment” so I end up “just taking pictures”.

For me, 35mm photography was an enjoyable artistic endeavor, and digital photography is a technical challenge. Sometimes I wonder if I would be better off using iA+ mode and letting the camera software handle all the technical aspects so I could concentrate on “doing photography”. The bottom line: I can appreciate why most people have deserted digital cameras in favor of smart phones that are convenient and that can handle all the technical aspects of taking a picture.

P.S. Galen Rowell’s photography was my inspiration back in my 35mm camera days.

There is a happy medium....have 3 or 4 custom settings and program your favorite combos for different types of photography into these custom settings and then you don't have to think about it after that Just set it to the custom setting of your choice!

I set up my 4 custom "modes" back when I first got the camera. It was the process of figuring out which of the many possible settings were best for each custom mode that was somewhat painful.

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

Thanks for a nice reply. I don't disagree with anything your said. I'd also like to bring up a theme I've held for several decades (you know you're old when you count time in decades, and I'm 85 now), and that is the difference between "taking pictures" and "doing photography". The latter being a combination of subject selection, composition, timing, lighting, processing etc.

For a long time, I thought of Ansel Adams as this sort of rustic guy with a battered old Hasselblad that took some really nice pictures. Later, I discovered he was a college professor who taught photography at Stanford and who had broad influence on technique, processing, and gear. But he's just one of my idols. Later, I discovered Galen Rowell, and Henri Cartier-Bresson and his concept of "the decisive moment". And those three together have had the most influence on the way I think about "doing photography"; or at least trying to.

Finally, having a decent camera started for me in 1955, when I was 17, and got a little money for graduation gifts. The next day I was at the local camera shop, which was owned by our neighbor. He sold me an Argus C4 kit at his cost.

I often think about the simplicity of that C4 compared to the complexity of nearly any modern digital camera; and how being a "camera operator" detracts from "doing photography".

Your post resonated with me – there is definitely a difference between “just taking pictures” and “doing photography”.

Way back when I used my 35mm cameras, I “did photography” as a creative break from my technical detail-oriented work. I only had a few settings to worry about (ASA, focus, and aperture) so I could concentrate on capturing the moment and the impact of the scene. And my photos were far better than those I now take with digital. Why? Because with digital I feel compelled to stop and consider whether or not the umpteen possible camera settings are optimal for the occasion (I counted and the FZ1000 has 70 settings in the Record and Custom menus and about 8 important dial/knob settings!). And that kills my “being in the moment” so I end up “just taking pictures”.

For me, 35mm photography was an enjoyable artistic endeavor, and digital photography is a technical challenge. Sometimes I wonder if I would be better off using iA+ mode and letting the camera software handle all the technical aspects so I could concentrate on “doing photography”. The bottom line: I can appreciate why most people have deserted digital cameras in favor of smart phones that are convenient and that can handle all the technical aspects of taking a picture.

P.S. Galen Rowell’s photography was my inspiration back in my 35mm camera days.

There is a happy medium....have 3 or 4 custom settings and program your favorite combos for different types of photography into these custom settings and then you don't have to think about it after that Just set it to the custom setting of your choice!

I set up my 4 custom "modes" back when I first got the camera. It was the process of figuring out which of the many possible settings were best for each custom mode that was somewhat painful.

I tried to read the manuals of the each of the cameras I was interested in before buying to see which cameras have how many custom modes, but the manuals don't clearly give that information.

I'm still not clear how many custom modes there are in the FZ80 vs FZ300 vs FZ1000

 

[JSim]

Thanks for a nice reply. I don't disagree with anything your said. I'd also like to bring up a theme I've held for several decades (you know you're old when you count time in decades, and I'm 85 now), and that is the difference between "taking pictures" and "doing photography". The latter being a combination of subject selection, composition, timing, lighting, processing etc.

For a long time, I thought of Ansel Adams as this sort of rustic guy with a battered old Hasselblad that took some really nice pictures. Later, I discovered he was a college professor who taught photography at Stanford and who had broad influence on technique, processing, and gear. But he's just one of my idols. Later, I discovered Galen Rowell, and Henri Cartier-Bresson and his concept of "the decisive moment". And those three together have had the most influence on the way I think about "doing photography"; or at least trying to.

Finally, having a decent camera started for me in 1955, when I was 17, and got a little money for graduation gifts. The next day I was at the local camera shop, which was owned by our neighbor. He sold me an Argus C4 kit at his cost.

I often think about the simplicity of that C4 compared to the complexity of nearly any modern digital camera; and how being a "camera operator" detracts from "doing photography".

Your post resonated with me – there is definitely a difference between “just taking pictures” and “doing photography”.

Way back when I used my 35mm cameras, I “did photography” as a creative break from my technical detail-oriented work. I only had a few settings to worry about (ASA, focus, and aperture) so I could concentrate on capturing the moment and the impact of the scene. And my photos were far better than those I now take with digital. Why? Because with digital I feel compelled to stop and consider whether or not the umpteen possible camera settings are optimal for the occasion (I counted and the FZ1000 has 70 settings in the Record and Custom menus and about 8 important dial/knob settings!). And that kills my “being in the moment” so I end up “just taking pictures”.

For me, 35mm photography was an enjoyable artistic endeavor, and digital photography is a technical challenge. Sometimes I wonder if I would be better off using iA+ mode and letting the camera software handle all the technical aspects so I could concentrate on “doing photography”. The bottom line: I can appreciate why most people have deserted digital cameras in favor of smart phones that are convenient and that can handle all the technical aspects of taking a picture.

P.S. Galen Rowell’s photography was my inspiration back in my 35mm camera days.

There is a happy medium....have 3 or 4 custom settings and program your favorite combos for different types of photography into these custom settings and then you don't have to think about it after that Just set it to the custom setting of your choice!

I set up my 4 custom "modes" back when I first got the camera. It was the process of figuring out which of the many possible settings were best for each custom mode that was somewhat painful.

I tried to read the manuals of the each of the cameras I was interested in before buying to see which cameras have how many custom modes, but the manuals don't clearly give that information.

I'm still not clear how many custom modes there are in the FZ80 vs FZ300 vs FZ1000

The FZ1000 has 4 possible custom modes. Mine are set up for C1 (aperture priority), C2.1 (shutter priority), C2.2 (macro), and C2.3 (panorama).

 

[PhotoTeach2]

With the big push on for FF, I think a lot of people are going to discover "depth of field".

I can remember taking long shots at Yosemite at f/16 to get enough DoF with a 35 mm Nikon FE2.

I do find, even APS-C helps for wildlife to get just a little more DoF and 50 to 60% more focal length. Well that, and 1" sensors.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to both FF and 1/2.3", both are compromises.

Either can be necessary for specific situations/applications, (as can MF also).

But I feel the 1"-type is a "perfect-compromise", (or m4/3 if you need ILC).

Too-shallow DOF was the bane of FF, and now it is treated as the ultimate-goal.

There were even 'half'-closeup filters where the top-half was "clear" (no-filter), but the bottom was a +1, +2, or +5 diopter. I used them often as essential for deeper-DOF.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

Sad news indeed, just another segment of the P&S camera industry throwing in the towel and shutting down. I still have 9 P&S cameras, several of them newer and bought to protect myself from news like this.

However, if we go back and review the history of photography, the number of people who have been serious about their photography has always been small. In the past, the majority of pictures were taken with box Brownies. Later, disposable cameras were popular. And eventually, there were quite a number of good quality film cameras that sold well in the late 80's and on into the 90's and the early 2000's. Small, convenient, and really pretty good.

We traveled a lot in the 90's and well into the 2000's, and it seemed everyone had a small point and shoot digital camera. And now, starting about 15 years ago, Cell phones began to have decent quality cameras, and soon everybody had a cell phone with a decent camera in it. And on my cruises and land vacations, I was seeing fewer and fewer cameras, and more and more cell phones being used.

So, if you're not "into" serious photography, a cell phone is a convenient way to get a decent camera at little extra cost, since we all need a cell phone anyway. Right!

So, what to do? I personally have stocked up on models with 1" sensors. Some bought used, or "open box" to save some money. And I bought a second copy of one I use a lot and put it away as insurance. I'm 85 now, and I believe I have all the cameras I'll need for the rest of my life. Will I buy any more? Maybe. I still have GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) and if something comes along that floats my boat, I'll probably buy it.

I just wish for "1" more camera, with all the best/combined features of both the (existing) FZ1000-II and the RX10-IV.

I could be happy with that ... ... ...

I want:

24-600mm-EFL @ f/2.4-4

24fps with 9-34ms shutter-AF/lag (albeit the newest technology of A1/Z9 is "5"ms).

1000fps video

-4EV-AF (but I think -5EV is now possible)

1/4000s with flash-sync @ both f/2.8 & f/16 (via either "leaf" or "global" shutter)

FULLY-Articulating (REVERSIBLE) LCD

Post-Stacking Focus

Pre/Pro-Capture

Hand-Held NIGHT-shot mode

8X digital-zoom

AND: The "long-compose" time-exposure feature from OLYMPUS cameras.

Note that none of the above is "new", I just want them combined in a single camera.

Haha this is exactly why I have 5 cameras in use right now, it's inconvenient but what can you do?

LOL ... but I saw "7" on your (gear) list ... which are your most used ???

 

[PhotoTeach2]

It would be interesting to segment this into different groups to see if sales are growing for any branch of the digital camera market?

You can check the CIPA reports: https://www.cipa.jp/e/stats/dc.html

If not small sensor cameras with large zoom lenses, what about 1" sensor cameras, M4/3? APS-C? Full Frame? Medium Format lol? Are sales growing for any segment of the digital camera market?

Full frame is the leader, it is apparent given the camera and lens options. APS-C is dead, except of Fuji and MFT is still good for video (GH6).

I would like to see APS/DX dead.

But I can see a place for 1/2.3, 1", m4/3, and FF, (and then 6x7/9 MF).

APS/DX only happened because FF-sensors were too expensive to produce, and were the minimum size practical for OVF.

1/2.3 is the smallest/cheapest and allows L-O-N-G (equivalent) lenses.

1"-type is the largest size practical for full-range non-interchangeable lenses, (with "leaf" shutter for unlimited flash-sync).

The smallest allowing (requiring) ICL is m4/3.

FF has been established as "standard" and is best for low-light & shallow-DOF.

If they can achieve (economical) MF @ 6x7 (or 9) cm, it would have the ultimate IQ, and highest-resolution when that is necessary. (current MF is too-much for too-little)

Assuming readout speed and battery are limiting factors on that sense for bigger sensors,

But that is no longer true (aka A1/A9, Z9, R3).

I think 1" with modern processing would make for great dedicated compacts, being pocketable with shorter focal lenght range or non pocketable, but long zooms.

True, (aka RX100-xx & RX10-IV), but 1/2.3 still allows longer (equivalent) zooms (aka P950/1000).

Both being relevant step ups the telephoto cameras on phones and their smaller sensors.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

It would be interesting to segment this into different groups to see if sales are growing for any branch of the digital camera market?

You can check the CIPA reports: https://www.cipa.jp/e/stats/dc.html

If not small sensor cameras with large zoom lenses, what about 1" sensor cameras, M4/3? APS-C? Full Frame? Medium Format lol? Are sales growing for any segment of the digital camera market?

Full frame is the leader, it is apparent given the camera and lens options. APS-C is dead, except of Fuji and MFT is still good for video (GH6).

I would like to see APS/DX dead.

But I can see a place for 1/2.3, 1", m4/3, and FF, (and then 6x7/9 MF).

APS/DX only happened because FF-sensors were too expensive to produce, and were the minimum size practical for OVF.

1/2.3 is the smallest/cheapest and allows L-O-N-G (equivalent) lenses.

1"-type is the largest size practical for full-range non-interchangeable lenses, (with "leaf" shutter for unlimited flash-sync).

The smallest allowing (requiring) ICL is m4/3.

FF has been established as "standard" and is best for low-light & shallow-DOF.

If they can achieve (economical) MF @ 6x7 (or 9) cm, it would have the ultimate IQ, and highest-resolution when that is necessary. (current MF is too-much for too-little)

Assuming readout speed and battery are limiting factors on that sense for bigger sensors, I think 1" with modern processing would make for great dedicated compacts, being pocketable with shorter focal lenght range or non pocketable, but long zooms. Both being relevant step ups the telephoto cameras on phones and their smaller sensors.

Yes 1" with 24-600mm lens would be ideal, but I would want 1" sensors with a 4:3 aspect ratio.

I personally prefer 3:2, for a "choice" of either horizontal or vertical orientation situations.

Otherwise M43 would be better with that combo

I used to HATE the Hasselbald's 6x6, (and 4:3 is not much different).

 

[PhotoTeach2]

Pocket cameras are really popular, especially 1" models and to the degree that any shipment gets sold out almost instantly.

But in total the demand is so low to make it profitable. 99.9% of former users have moved to mobile phones. I still keep my LX15, got it repaired recently, but I don't expect any new model (except something for vlogging like Sony ZX).

I dont know man, I'm not sure people who use camera phones even know what a real camera is, every time I see them holding one straight up and down I think they believe it's just a phone with a camera app on it.

Every time I see that, (on a landscape-type scend), I want to run-up and grab their phone to re-orient it to horizontal, (and often I have done exactly that).

People seem to only have "selective" vision to a singular subject.

You need to be able to see the shot from both perspectives as sometimes one works better than the other

I hope you are not suggesting that "vertical" was the best orientation for that image !!!

I am willing to bet horizontal would have been MUCH better for this shot ???

The tree-limb on top serves no purpose to the image !!!

 

[PhotoTeach2]

Pocket cameras are really popular, especially 1" models and to the degree that any shipment gets sold out almost instantly.

But in total the demand is so low to make it profitable. 99.9% of former users have moved to mobile phones. I still keep my LX15, got it repaired recently, but I don't expect any new model (except something for vlogging like Sony ZX).

I dont know man, I'm not sure people who use camera phones even know what a real camera is, every time I see them holding one straight up and down I think they believe it's just a phone with a camera app on it.

Every time I see that, (on a landscape-type scend), I want to run-up and grab their phone to re-orient it to horizontal, (and often I have done exactly that).

People seem to only have "selective" vision to a singular subject.

You need to be able to see the shot from both perspectives as sometimes one works better than the other

I hope we get square sensors and square camera phones one day ;-)

No No No !!! ... A thousand times NO !!! (or at least a "hundred" times)

The above shot would be great horizontal ... ... ... (only "ok" now, IMHO).

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

Sad news indeed, just another segment of the P&S camera industry throwing in the towel and shutting down. I still have 9 P&S cameras, several of them newer and bought to protect myself from news like this.

However, if we go back and review the history of photography, the number of people who have been serious about their photography has always been small. In the past, the majority of pictures were taken with box Brownies. Later, disposable cameras were popular. And eventually, there were quite a number of good quality film cameras that sold well in the late 80's and on into the 90's and the early 2000's. Small, convenient, and really pretty good.

We traveled a lot in the 90's and well into the 2000's, and it seemed everyone had a small point and shoot digital camera. And now, starting about 15 years ago, Cell phones began to have decent quality cameras, and soon everybody had a cell phone with a decent camera in it. And on my cruises and land vacations, I was seeing fewer and fewer cameras, and more and more cell phones being used.

So, if you're not "into" serious photography, a cell phone is a convenient way to get a decent camera at little extra cost, since we all need a cell phone anyway. Right!

So, what to do? I personally have stocked up on models with 1" sensors. Some bought used, or "open box" to save some money. And I bought a second copy of one I use a lot and put it away as insurance. I'm 85 now, and I believe I have all the cameras I'll need for the rest of my life. Will I buy any more? Maybe. I still have GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) and if something comes along that floats my boat, I'll probably buy it.

I just wish for "1" more camera, with all the best/combined features of both the (existing) FZ1000-II and the RX10-IV.

I could be happy with that ... ... ...

I want:

24-600mm-EFL @ f/2.4-4

24fps with 9-34ms shutter-AF/lag (albeit the newest technology of A1/Z9 is "5"ms).

1000fps video

-4EV-AF (but I think -5EV is now possible)

1/4000s with flash-sync @ both f/2.8 & f/16 (via either "leaf" or "global" shutter)

FULLY-Articulating (REVERSIBLE) LCD

Post-Stacking Focus

Pre/Pro-Capture

Hand-Held NIGHT-shot mode

8X digital-zoom

AND: The "long-compose" time-exposure feature from OLYMPUS cameras.

Note that none of the above is "new", I just want them combined in a single camera.

Haha this is exactly why I have 5 cameras in use right now, it's inconvenient but what can you do?

LOL ... but I saw "7" on your (gear) list ... which are your most used ???

well right now it is EM10 Mk 2, EPL6, HS50, S9900W, P900 (when it returns from being repaired). When I start using my FZ300 it will be my first 4K capable device. The FZ80 will be given to my sister. I just posted a thread about izoom and TC being useless with the FZ80 and she doesn't care about that stuff, and I will be using my FZ300 with izoom and compare my long zoom shots with hers. I also have a Sony DH1758 1.7x TC I want to use with my FZ300 (with and without izoom). I need to find a 52-58mm step up ring for that (not sure if I will use an adapter or screw it right onto the lens, as I will use a filter on the lens.)

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

With the big push on for FF, I think a lot of people are going to discover "depth of field".

I can remember taking long shots at Yosemite at f/16 to get enough DoF with a 35 mm Nikon FE2.

I do find, even APS-C helps for wildlife to get just a little more DoF and 50 to 60% more focal length. Well that, and 1" sensors.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to both FF and 1/2.3", both are compromises.

Either can be necessary for specific situations/applications, (as can MF also).

But I feel the 1"-type is a "perfect-compromise", (or m4/3 if you need ILC).

Too-shallow DOF was the bane of FF, and now it is treated as the ultimate-goal.

There were even 'half'-closeup filters where the top-half was "clear" (no-filter), but the bottom was a +1, +2, or +5 diopter. I used them often as essential for deeper-DOF.

That is why in camera focus stacking is so good for larger sensors. I question it's use in a camera like the FZ80 with such a small sensor, small DOF isn't an issue.

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

It would be interesting to segment this into different groups to see if sales are growing for any branch of the digital camera market?

You can check the CIPA reports: https://www.cipa.jp/e/stats/dc.html

If not small sensor cameras with large zoom lenses, what about 1" sensor cameras, M4/3? APS-C? Full Frame? Medium Format lol? Are sales growing for any segment of the digital camera market?

Full frame is the leader, it is apparent given the camera and lens options. APS-C is dead, except of Fuji and MFT is still good for video (GH6).

I would like to see APS/DX dead.

But I can see a place for 1/2.3, 1", m4/3, and FF, (and then 6x7/9 MF).

APS/DX only happened because FF-sensors were too expensive to produce, and were the minimum size practical for OVF.

1/2.3 is the smallest/cheapest and allows L-O-N-G (equivalent) lenses.

1"-type is the largest size practical for full-range non-interchangeable lenses, (with "leaf" shutter for unlimited flash-sync).

The smallest allowing (requiring) ICL is m4/3.

FF has been established as "standard" and is best for low-light & shallow-DOF.

If they can achieve (economical) MF @ 6x7 (or 9) cm, it would have the ultimate IQ, and highest-resolution when that is necessary. (current MF is too-much for too-little)

Assuming readout speed and battery are limiting factors on that sense for bigger sensors, I think 1" with modern processing would make for great dedicated compacts, being pocketable with shorter focal lenght range or non pocketable, but long zooms. Both being relevant step ups the telephoto cameras on phones and their smaller sensors.

Yes 1" with 24-600mm lens would be ideal, but I would want 1" sensors with a 4:3 aspect ratio.

I personally prefer 3:2, for a "choice" of either horizontal or vertical orientation situations.

Otherwise M43 would be better with that combo

I used to HATE the Hasselbald's 6x6, (and 4:3 is not much different).

6x6 is a square sensor? I wonder why they did not call it 1x1 lol