T
Thorgrem
Guest
Indeed. But if it was doom almost nobody would write about it. So apparently one/a lot of people think it's a threat to the existing systems (Canikon).
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Thought provoking article
- Thread starter Neurad1
- Start date
ntsan
Veteran Member
In asia there is advertisement on mirrorless everywhere, why can't they do the same on Europe and America?
T
Thorgrem
Guest
I've seen advertisement for Panasonic m4/3, Olympus m4/3, NEX, NX in the Netherlands on TV. And a lot advertisement for Nikon 1.
Yep.
The whole point of M43 is the small sensor, not small bodies.
The marketing issues are valid, however. I suspect Olympus and Panasonic (and Sony probably too) were hoping that Canon and Nikon would be developing the mirrorless segment now that they have cameras of their own. But it looks like they'd rather let them starve to death than risk cannibalizing their SLR market. And you can't really blame them. Looking at it from that angle, the Nikon 1 was a rather smart move because Nikon can still sell SLRs to those customers afterwards.
The whole point of M43 is the small sensor, not small bodies.
The marketing issues are valid, however. I suspect Olympus and Panasonic (and Sony probably too) were hoping that Canon and Nikon would be developing the mirrorless segment now that they have cameras of their own. But it looks like they'd rather let them starve to death than risk cannibalizing their SLR market. And you can't really blame them. Looking at it from that angle, the Nikon 1 was a rather smart move because Nikon can still sell SLRs to those customers afterwards.
Andrew Butterfield
Veteran Member
Full frame is obviously the ultimate aim for everyone. No, wait, in fact it's not full frame, it's medium format! Full frame is only a stop-gap until medium format makes the big time. If we want big, why not the biggest? Then the manufacturers just have to work out how to make a medium format camera with a 12x f/2.8 zoom lens fit into your shirt pocket.
So I'll wait for the end of M43 along with the end of the laws of physics.
I'm about to switch from a Canon DSLR to M43. I don't care if anyone thinks I'm not using a 'proper' camera any more. Strangely it doesn't seem to matter when the photo is printed and on the wall.
--
Androo
So I'll wait for the end of M43 along with the end of the laws of physics.
I'm about to switch from a Canon DSLR to M43. I don't care if anyone thinks I'm not using a 'proper' camera any more. Strangely it doesn't seem to matter when the photo is printed and on the wall.
--
Androo
I agree that the marketing could be improved (or rather there could be marketing to begin with).
I somehow doubt that renaming products will do the trick, however. I fear that proper marketing requires money to be spent on advertizing. And money might be a bit tight for Olympus and Panasonic at the moment.
I somehow doubt that renaming products will do the trick, however. I fear that proper marketing requires money to be spent on advertizing. And money might be a bit tight for Olympus and Panasonic at the moment.
I very purposely didn't invest into a mirrorless APS-C system, because the primary reason I moved away from SLRs was NOT the bodies. It was the lens size/weight. In fact SLR bodies can be found very small, light, and extremely ergonomical (e.g. Canon's 100D). I would happily buy a m43 body which was the same size/weight as an SLR equivalent.
Now, yes, some mirrorless systems have saved lens weight by reducing the flange distance which allows you to take one set of focal elements out of the lens and also makes it shorter. But as you get more zoom-y the savings become less and less prominent.
I would post a bunch of 70-300mm equiv' lenses and their respective weight/size, but someone will just turn up and rip it apart for some inane reason (e.g. "but at 250mm the aperture is f/5 on this one and f/5.6 on that one THESE CANNOT BE COMPARED"). So, yes, it is hard to compare lenses like for like across systems, but broadly speaking m43 lenses weigh half as much.
Is m43 a compromise? Yes. It is "good enough." The fact I can still shoot ISO 3200 without noise ruining my shots and get shallow enough depth of field for some pretty bokeh makes me happy.
To be honest my biggest discontentments with m43 right now are:
Now, yes, some mirrorless systems have saved lens weight by reducing the flange distance which allows you to take one set of focal elements out of the lens and also makes it shorter. But as you get more zoom-y the savings become less and less prominent.
I would post a bunch of 70-300mm equiv' lenses and their respective weight/size, but someone will just turn up and rip it apart for some inane reason (e.g. "but at 250mm the aperture is f/5 on this one and f/5.6 on that one THESE CANNOT BE COMPARED"). So, yes, it is hard to compare lenses like for like across systems, but broadly speaking m43 lenses weigh half as much.
Is m43 a compromise? Yes. It is "good enough." The fact I can still shoot ISO 3200 without noise ruining my shots and get shallow enough depth of field for some pretty bokeh makes me happy.
To be honest my biggest discontentments with m43 right now are:
- No cost/quality equivalent to Canon's "nifty fifty." 50mm f/1.8 @ £75 new! The body cap lens (14mm f/8 fixed, manual focus) is almost that much...
- The single super-wide lens is too expensive for what it is. £500 on EF-S, £850 on m43. No third party offerings in that arena either.
- I wish Olympus/Panasonic would work more closely together on accessories. They can either work together and be strong or work apart and be weak. By releasing incompatible flashes, external EVFs, and other accessories they're making the whole system weaker and more disjointed.
Last edited:
I love my OMD but the main problem I see with the m43 is the pricing. The e-p5 and gx-7 are way overpriced for the target market and the lens pricing is getting ridiculous. I'd really like the new Panasonic 14-140 but in the UK it is £599!! Don't know what the production cost is but I guess its not a lens a professional would use and to someone that just likes to take pictures for pleasure its way too much. I'm hoping the upcoming Tamron 14-150 will be realistically priced but I still think we will be paying a premium for it.
I dread to think what panasonic will charge for the 42.5mm F1.2 and a 150mm F2.8, although these are more geared to professional use.
I dread to think what panasonic will charge for the 42.5mm F1.2 and a 150mm F2.8, although these are more geared to professional use.
I opened the link and without even reading most of it........ Hello Sony NEX fan right there.
Hits you right in the face and when you read, its even more obvious. Heck I use NEX and its blatant. As for FF NEX, yep all for it, but not at the cost they are rumoured at. Absolutely perfect for us MF legacy users and there is a lot of us in the NEX forum.
I have no idea why different formats are compared so much in the m4/3 forum and lens sizes. Lens size I couldn't care less about, but its obvious its important to so many in here.
m 4/3 is m 4/3
APS-C is APS-C
FF is FF
Its not complicated to see why they need different lenses and people just pick what ever sensor size and format they need.
All the best and that article is just plain silly IMO.
Danny.
I think this is all a case of The Empire Strikes Back.
drcPhoto
Leading Member
I really can't take this guy too seriously as he talks through both sides of his mouth. On one sidhide is talking about the potential demise of mirror less and MFT cameras and why would anyone invest in one, and yet if you go to his own web site and read about his own gear you'll see he says hit his about his own Fuji X100:
"The little Fuji X100 is the first camera that really stole my heart. My other cameras are simply tools but there is something about the X100 that just puts a smile on my face. At first I was worried that a fixed lens would be prohibitive but in fact I find it liberating and challenging. It forces you to really think with your feet to create the right image. For me it’s a near perfect travel camera and the f2 lens is just right with the equivalent 35mm field of view. The only thing that would make it better is if it was full frame. The X100 has recently been superceded by theX100s which adds a world class AF system and improved sensor design but thankfully maintains an identical physical design. I haven’t yet used the new X100s but I’ve no doubt that one will find its way into my bag at some point in the near future. I just can’t get enough of the gorgeous design!"
It seems he plans on investing in another mirror less camera and understands some benefits of why we own them, plus will soon buy (get) another too.
And judging by his extensive volume of large, heavy, and yes very good quality lenses, I am certain he is a little concerned at times the efforts and hassle of lugging so many lenses out on the road (or even some of them). My backpack of currently five lenses (2 great zooms and 3 primes plus two cameras) is sure a heck of a lot lighter than what he would have to do with any of the comparative same gear he has and his backpack....
I for one don't really care all that much how much controversy he attempted to try and stir up. He says one thing and quite simply does himself what he can't understand others would do. Own mirror less now and planning soon another.
Dale
"The little Fuji X100 is the first camera that really stole my heart. My other cameras are simply tools but there is something about the X100 that just puts a smile on my face. At first I was worried that a fixed lens would be prohibitive but in fact I find it liberating and challenging. It forces you to really think with your feet to create the right image. For me it’s a near perfect travel camera and the f2 lens is just right with the equivalent 35mm field of view. The only thing that would make it better is if it was full frame. The X100 has recently been superceded by theX100s which adds a world class AF system and improved sensor design but thankfully maintains an identical physical design. I haven’t yet used the new X100s but I’ve no doubt that one will find its way into my bag at some point in the near future. I just can’t get enough of the gorgeous design!"
It seems he plans on investing in another mirror less camera and understands some benefits of why we own them, plus will soon buy (get) another too.
And judging by his extensive volume of large, heavy, and yes very good quality lenses, I am certain he is a little concerned at times the efforts and hassle of lugging so many lenses out on the road (or even some of them). My backpack of currently five lenses (2 great zooms and 3 primes plus two cameras) is sure a heck of a lot lighter than what he would have to do with any of the comparative same gear he has and his backpack....
I for one don't really care all that much how much controversy he attempted to try and stir up. He says one thing and quite simply does himself what he can't understand others would do. Own mirror less now and planning soon another.
Dale
I agree entirely.
And before everyone chimes in with how x is good value, it goes without saying that most M43 users dont think it is too expensive because if they did - they wouldnt have bought it in the first place. I own a lot of M43 kit - I just dont think it is priced low enough to appeal to the mass market.
And really I think this is very important. The general opinion is that Oly and Panny dont spend enough on marketing. Well Canon outsells Oly 15:1 globally and 40:1 in the US, so they cant compete. More to the point, people are educated, 'the rubbish product - put Ashton Kucher in front of it' strategy isnt brilliant. We all know just about everything about the E-P5 or the GX7 already. It is simply naive to believe that the majority of people dont have a clue what they are buying and need to be advertised kicked.
Olympus projected 61% gross margin last year for imaging and 2/3rds of the business is in compacts. Its SG&A expense was 52% of sales. It has massively high margins on product so doesnt need to sell at high prices.
I find it crazy that Oly is taking all the sales, goodwill, lack of price collapse etc generated by the reasonable initial pricing of the E-M5 as an excuse to add 50% to its price in the follow up (and do the same with the E-P5) in what appears to be an attempt to achieve exclusive obscurity.
Oly could spend US$10m on an advertising campaign in the US or it could knock US$100 off the price of all its mirrorless cameras - same cost.
Corkcampbell
Veteran Member
access to news, such as Reuters, New York Times, Wall Street Journal... Referring to the comment about Nikon's big success in mirrorless, of course.
No, it is simply naive to think that it is naive to think most people don't have a clue.
Because they really don't. Most other people I know, if a smartphone or a compact doesn't give then what they need, they don't want to spend any time deliberating or researching all the options. They don't have the time to do that. They just want "something that works", and they want to make the decision quick, usually to ask someone else to make most of the decision for them and give them 2 or 3 options, then the only choice they have to make is on price.
The article writer is suffering from a fallacy that blows the whole article out of the water. "It's inevitable that at some point in time, sensor production cost will have gotten to a point where full frame is viable in any SLR". Er, no. The cost of chips is based on just 3 things, how much a wafer costs, how many chips you can cut out of one wafer, and how many of the chips fail due to defects. In the last 20 years, wafer costs have been going up not down. The reason chips have got cheaper is because they have got smaller, so you can get more chips out of one wafer. This does not work for image sensors, they must be a set size, so you cannot shrink them, and you will always get the same number of chips out of a wafer.
The reason that bottom of the range DSLRs have come down in price is because of the cost of the ancillary chips (the image processor etc) have come down. But Full Frame 135 sensors are still way more expensive to make than a Four thirds sensor (around 6 times as much).
I dont disagree with you really. As you say most people look at what is around, ask someone else, give themselves 2 or 3 options and then make a decision based on price.
I find that a lot of people ask me about the OMD, they like the look of it, they like the output but when they start looking into it they dont like the price. Admittedly those who dont care about price are quite attracted to it.
But what those people are reacting to is 'word of mouth' not advertising. If Oly and Panny want to get more people buying M43, they actually need to get more M43s in peoples hands. And to do that they need to do something about price - then the system will feed on itself...
....or they can stick to Honduras mahogany grips and bespoke painted bodies with a Vespa thrown in...
YouDidntDidYou
Veteran Member
...so ill informed, Nikon are on the verge of admitting that the Nikon 1 has been a fail.
And no the whole point of m43 is not a different size sensor, m43 brings lots more to the table...
YouDidntDidYou
Veteran Member
word of mouth is advertising, doh! Word of mouth doesn't happen by accident it always starts off by advertising at some point.
YouDidntDidYou
Veteran Member
Knocking off US$100 off the price of it's mirrorless cameras would have a big fat zero on sales in the USA (the USA already has the cheapest mirrorlesss prices subsided by the rest of the world!), spending US$10m would not bring the return on investment and would be better spent elsewhere.
Is the USA mass market worth appealing to?
"The general opinion" huh, who's? Oly and Panny spend plenty on marketing...where it's effective and worthwhile.
Olympus have to look after net margins and cashflow....that's what is most important.
Last edited:
The only thought this article provoked was the thought how shallow and narrow is the thinking of writer. He even does not understand that if E mount really allows FF image circle, than NEX the way it known is doomed
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum