Thought provoking article

Abrak said:

Abrak wrote:

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...

Click to expand...

except that they already did something about the price. not everyone has to have an OM-D or a GH3. there are older bodies available which as almost as good. yes, within 90% I would say. of course, on internet forums people will throw a fit if any other camera is sold without "the beautiful olympus colors and the sony sensor", but, really, there are viable alternatives to these. every product range must have a top level item, with a premium price. asking Olympus and Panasonic to reduce the price tag on these two cameras is like seeing the European car market take a nose dive and asking Bentley and Rolls Royce to drop prices.

I think that, if we are discussing price, Panasonic should have kept the GH2 in production a little more. maybe they just don't have the capacity to do so (the GH3 has had supply issues), but as far as lower spec bodies are concerned, there is no shortage of offerings. As a comparison, one of my sisters bought a Canon T3i last Christmas with money she received from the family. as far as i know, her research was based mostly on what her wedding photographer friend told her. so people will buy older DSLR models because they are cheap. by the way, did you know that the Nikon D90 is still being sold?

the price is not the issue. the issue is marketing and brand awareness. when you can see Nikon and Canon on sale everywhere, from p&s to FF DSLRs, and not much of any other brands, guess what you will be most inclined to buy?

Abrak said:

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.

Click to expand...

Same here, showed a work colleague my OMD as he was wanting a decent camera but once I told him how much I paid he almost dropped to the floor. Said he could get a dslr for that price, tried telling him that the quality I was getting from the OMD was much better than my old Canon but he wouldn't believe me. I think thats something both Olympus & Panasonic need to work on in there marketing as people look at the size and think it can't be as good as a 'bigger' dslr and if not educated would always choose the latter.

The Samsung NX 300 advert hits the nail on the head, they put the NX 300 in a dslr case and asked people to compare pictures between this and a uncased NX 300. Everyone choose the dslr pics as being better when they were exactly the same.

The author fails to understand that a m43 camera is just another tool in a photographers tool box. I wonder if he drives in a tack with a sledge hammer?

KarlSalt said:

KarlSalt wrote:

KarlSalt said:

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.

Click to expand...

Same here, showed a work colleague my OMD as he was wanting a decent camera but once I told him how much I paid he almost dropped to the floor. Said he could get a dslr for that price, tried telling him that the quality I was getting from the OMD was much better than my old Canon but he wouldn't believe me. I think thats something both Olympus & Panasonic need to work on in there marketing as people look at the size and think it can't be as good as a 'bigger' dslr and if not educated would always choose the latter.

The Samsung NX 300 advert hits the nail on the head, they put the NX 300 in a dslr case and asked people to compare pictures between this and a uncased NX 300. Everyone choose the dslr pics as being better when they were exactly the same.

Click to expand...

Tell your friend that he would use the E-M5 far more than any DSLR, gain more enjoyment out of it and wouldn't have to spend his valuable time rescuing(post processing) photos on a computer...

There is the value.

agentul said:

agentul wrote:

agentul said:

except that they already did something about the price. not everyone has to have an OM-D or a GH3. there are older bodies available which as almost as good. yes, within 90% I would say. of course, on internet forums people will throw a fit if any other camera is sold without "the beautiful olympus colors and the sony sensor", but, really, there are viable alternatives to these. every product range must have a top level item, with a premium price. asking Olympus and Panasonic to reduce the price tag on these two cameras is like seeing the European car market take a nose dive and asking Bentley and Rolls Royce to drop prices.

Click to expand...

I think that, if we are discussing price, Panasonic should have kept the GH2 in production a little more. maybe they just don't have the capacity to do so (the GH3 has had supply issues), but as far as lower spec bodies are concerned, there is no shortage of offerings. As a comparison, one of my sisters bought a Canon T3i last Christmas with money she received from the family. as far as i know, her research was based mostly on what her wedding photographer friend told her. so people will buy older DSLR models because they are cheap. by the way, did you know that the Nikon D90 is still being sold?

the price is not the issue. the issue is marketing and brand awareness. when you can see Nikon and Canon on sale everywhere, from p&s to FF DSLRs, and not much of any other brands, guess what you will be most inclined to buy?

Click to expand...

If you choose to believe that the OMD and GH3 are the Bentley and Rolls Royce of cameras that is up to you.

But it is very simple really.

M43 has 2 competitive advantages over DSLRs

1) It is smaller

2) It is lower cost both the 'sensor' and the 'mirroless'

If their business plan doesnt take advantage of its inherent competitive advantages it will fail. Oly and Panny have already tried one business plan with 4/3 that failed to take advantage of either of its competitive advantages and it failed dismally. This time they have succeeded in taking advantage of its size but not its cost which is incredibly foolish.

As for brand awareness - a lot of people are perfectly aware of all the advantages of say the EP-5 and what a good camera it is but they are simply not buying it because it is too expensive. Trying to sell a purse as a Gucci handbag isnt too smart.

Abrak said:

Abrak wrote:

Abrak said:

agentul wrote:

except that they already did something about the price. not everyone has to have an OM-D or a GH3. there are older bodies available which as almost as good. yes, within 90% I would say. of course, on internet forums people will throw a fit if any other camera is sold without "the beautiful olympus colors and the sony sensor", but, really, there are viable alternatives to these. every product range must have a top level item, with a premium price. asking Olympus and Panasonic to reduce the price tag on these two cameras is like seeing the European car market take a nose dive and asking Bentley and Rolls Royce to drop prices.

Click to expand...

If you choose to believe that the OMD and GH3 are the Bentley and Rolls Royce of cameras that is up to you.

Click to expand...

please read my post again. let me rephrase my idea: the OM-D and the GH series are the top of the m4/3 cameras. premium products, that have all of the features. not everyone needs these, and not everyone can afford them. and that's OK, because there are cheaper m4/3 bodies. expectations that if the GH3 were to sell for $500 more people will buy m4/3 cameras are misplaced. well, ok, you'll be able to get it at that price the month before the GH5 hits retail. but not before.

Abrak said:

But it is very simple really.

M43 has 2 competitive advantages over DSLRs

1) It is smaller

2) It is lower cost both the 'sensor' and the 'mirroless'

Click to expand...

except that the lens are probably more complicated to design and produce. oh, and the fact that the bodies sell for about the same as a Nikon D7100 must mean something. we are talking about cameras with much smaller sizes and sensors and similar image output. this sort of thing doesn't just happen. smaller does not always equal cheaper, with electronics it's usually the other way around.

so, maybe now you're thinking "but cell phones have been getting smaller and cheaper". well, yes, but did you look at the sale volumes? same for laptops. with cameras you will not have the same market size as these, so the R&D costs will always take longer to recover, both in time and number of units sold. that's why DSLRs are now a lot cheaper: the main R&D costs have been recovered, and new innovations are not that significant. not to mention the amount of cameras that have been sold since they were introduced on the market.

Abrak said:

If their business plan doesnt take advantage of its inherent competitive advantages it will fail. Oly and Panny have already tried one business plan with 4/3 that failed to take advantage of either of its competitive advantages and it failed dismally. This time they have succeeded in taking advantage of its size but not its cost which is incredibly foolish.

As for brand awareness - a lot of people are perfectly aware of all the advantages of say the EP-5 and what a good camera it is but they are simply not buying it because it is too expensive. Trying to sell a purse as a Gucci handbag isnt too smart.

Click to expand...

everything has a price. expecting high quality for free just because "m4/3 should gain market share" is unrealistic. go try a T3i and see how the Live View behaves. try sticking it in your pocket, then. convenience costs.

for every "it should be cheaper" argument you can find a "these price drops make m4/3 look like a low end product" post on the internet.

The market is in flux. That makes it unsettled.

Things will settle out more in the near future, and by then the technology will have coalesced into clear winners for all involved. Or at least clear enough.

Maybe a little sensitive?

hindesite said:

hindesite wrote:

That article is wrong on so many levels, and in ways that I really despise.

For example: condescending arrogance -

hindesite said:

"On the one hand you have prominent photographers like Trey Ratcliffe who are opening shelving their full frame Nikon systems and switching to more portable Sony NEX systems. The claim is that the image quality is good enough for his purposes and that the freedom afforded by the weight and bulk savings makes photography life so much simpler as to negate the downsides of a small sensor. In Trey's case, a man who spends more than half of his life traveling and who's main outlet for images is web, I don't doubt for a minute that it's a good choice for him. For now."

Click to expand...

Trey is an extremely popular photographer who knows how to promote himself and his vision, clearly loves what he is doing, and he uses whatever gear he needs to to get the job done. He's used DSLRs in the past and has used various mirrorless cameras as well.

Click to expand...

The author stated everything you repeated.

hindesite said:

To condescendingly suggest that mirrorless is good enough for him now, because as he grows as a photographer he'll see the error of his ways and move to a larger format is just incredibly arrogant.

Click to expand...

Not good enough is not the same as the originally choice of words--a good choice. You put in the condescending. You put in the arrogance. What I heard was that IF mirrorless doesn't sell, and doesn't keep up, it MIGHT not provide everything he needs in the future.

hindesite said:

Then we have:

hindesite said:

My main problem with all of this is that I am a lens man. I put my money in lenses first and cameras second. Good lenses have the potential to last a whole career and some of the best hold their value incredibly well. When I buy into a system I want to invest in a set of top quality lenses that are going to last me a very long time. Right now I simply can't justify doing that with any confidence. Zeiss have a pair of lovely Touit lenses for Fuji and Sony systems but if Sony go full frame in September that would be money well wasted on those Zeiss lenses because you can guarantee Zeiss will make FF versions and then the value in the originals is all but gone.

Click to expand...

For me, photography is about getting the tools to do the job, not about investment as such. This kind of thinking is an anachronism in a era when lenses are so complicated and require hardware and software compatibility that they will have a very short lifespan compared to lenses in the past.

Click to expand...

Lenses are no more complicated or different that they have been in the past. To suggest they are more complicated or short lived than they used to be is to imply a flaw w/the format - because who wants to replace $5000 worth of lenses every few years?

If a vendor can't assure a long life for their lenses, they should get out of the business, for it becomes cheaper to invest in another system where you can use your lenses for 25 years.

Think about it. You're paying double what you should for a smaller lens w/less performance, but now you have to replace it every few years as well? How can you turn that into a selling point?

The innovation of the mirrorless system, particularly m4/3, is obviously a nuisance to the big dsrl manufacturers ... without m4/3 they would happily continue presenting their 50 years old system with little improvements year after year.....

so, when I read an article of this sort, my question is, is the guy writing in good faith? is he writing as part of a strategy to put down a competitor (m4/3)?

just forget it.

I agree that the cost of lenses is the main issue affecting m43 at the moment. For adventure travel, I've found the OM-D to be the perfect setup. I've got a small bag that chest mounts that holds the OM-D, with the 12-50, 40-150, and the 14mm. Even has room to take my 25 (or theoretically the 45, the 9-18, or the Samyang 7.5) if I don't mind a little extra gear shuffling.

However, having sold my D90 I haven't really turned the OM-D into the ideal beast for other types of Photography. It's pretty good with the 14mm or the 25mm for street. I'm sure with the 45 or the 60, it's will work in a pinch if you're doing portraits. I like to do a degree of urban exploring and architectural detail work and would really benefit from adding the 7-14 and 75 to my kit, but that would explode my budget and bring me into that uncomfortable area of could get a FF for that (not with equivalent lenses of course, but would get me in the door).

Been pretty tempted to give a shot to adding the Samyang 7.5 and maybe the Sigma 60 and seeing how it goes. I'm always really happy with the rendering out of the 40-150 in the 60-75 range, but having played with the Olympus 75, it's always at the back of my mind what I might be able to accomplish with that much extra speed.

If the more premium M43 lenses where priced closer to 1:1 that of their equivalent FF or APS-C lenses, or even better 25% lower (which doesn't seem unreasonable given there must be cost savings given how much less glass we are dealing with). Would make the decision to go 'all-in' with M43 that much easier.

I like the 12mm, but not to the point that I'd pay 3x as much as I did for the 14mm (ebay special).

I love the 75mm, and it would have been in my bag on day one at $500, but at $900 I'm going to think twice about an unusual focal length (although I did convince myself it's probably ideal for cat portraits... they should really market it as such). Too bad Sigma didn't make the 60mm f/2, even it that pushed it into the $350 range.

larsbc said:

larsbc wrote:

IMO micro four-thirds is all about "good enough" image quality combined with a smaller and lighter overall system. It's not a matter of mirrorless for mirrorless' sake. Nor is it a matter of full-frame being too expensive. Anyone who bought a micro four-thirds camera because they couldn't afford a "full frame" camera please raise your hands. Yeah, I thought so.

Click to expand...

I actually bought my 1st DSLR (olympus 330) back in 2007 because I couldn't afford FF and found no lens in APS comparable to the 11-22.

Abrak said:

Abrak wrote:

From a purely personal perspective I still find that M43 is pretty much the perfect trade off between sensor size and lens weight. I have felt that for a long while but the larger sensor mirrorless cameras have had plenty of time to 'catch up' or 'prove me wrong' and they havent.

Click to expand...

I agree. I can get shallow DOF and more DOF is easier. I love the small size of long zooms. In between, the quality is fine. I love my new Oly EM-5. I also have a Sony A77 but I'm happy to be back with one of my cameras a M43. (OK, make that two cameras -- my Panasonic G1 has been converted to infrared and does a great job of that.)

It is most interesting that the dinosaur pundits are attacking M43. Not Fuji X, not Sony NEX, the other two strong mirrorless systems. They attack M43. That tells me it is viewed as a very serious threat.

Let's take them one at a time.

First off, not everyone bows down to the Great God FF. Sensor tech has evolved to the point where the only practical advantage of FF today is shallower DOF. Otherwise, current APS and 4/3 sensors already provide enough resolution, DR and PP headroom, that the FF version isn't much better in terms of results you actually see in the final photo. That's not me, that comes from DPR reviews, by the way.

And shallow DOF can be a major drawback, if you go to close macro or long telephoto. Some of us shoot photos that aren't portraits or 'garbage can on NYC street' artsy shots.

So here is the Sony R1. It's a very good platform. But, aside from shallow DOF, what can it do that you can't also do by getting an EP5, gluing a PL25 onto it, disabling the 5 axis IBIS, getting rid of the VF, and flushing $1400 down the toilet?

By the way, an R1 with a removeable mount would need all new glass. Expensive, large glass.

The EOS-M and to a lesser degree, the N1. This is priceless. If C/N don't make it, it must not be any good. In this case, it's more like: if C/N make it, it isn't any good. They did what to the pooch?

Just because They Who Shall Not Be Criticized screwed up, doesn't mean the companies that are serious about this new design can't build a good mirrorless system. It means that Canon and Nikon are incapable of building a good one.

So yes, the EOS-M and N1 might prove that mirrorless is mediocre, were it not for the OMD, GH3, GX7, EP5, XE1, XM1, NEX7, NEX6, G6, EPL5... what have I missed? And here comes the OMD-Pro... in sports terms, coming on the heels of the C/N debacle, that would be running up the score after the other team fumbled twice in a row. Normally, that would be considered poor form... Ah, go for it.

Public knowledge of mirrorless. There's a real marketing strategy for you. The authors assert it's not as good because a lot of people believe it's not as good. Much as the horse buggy makers bet on the public viewing those noisy, smelly automobiles as not being as good as the tried and true horse and carriage. And that strategy worked... for maybe a decade. The tech world, long accustomed to seeing market leaders deposed from old thinking, will probably cut that time considerably.

Thanks for the link. I needed a good laugh.

TrapperJohn said:

That tells me it is viewed as a very serious threat.

Click to expand...

There's a serious threat that, in a few years, neither Olympus nor Panasonic will still be making digital cameras.

Any concrete evidence, or just the usual buzz from people with alternate agendas?

Don't know about Panasonic, but Oly uses M43 to accelerate the design cycle for its very profitable medical imaging business. The 5 axis IBIS? When it hits their endoscope line, Oly will have an advantage that no other medical imaging company can even come close to... stabilized video for minimal invasive surgery. Their M43 division doesn't have to survive on operating profit alone - Oly profits in other, less measurable ways from it.

There is also a strong possibility that the smaller mirrorless systems will eat into dslr sales. The tech is there, the DSLR has a physical size roadblock that can't be removed. And this is a market where Oly is a leader, not a niche player. That is worth betting a few years of zero profit on. It will take more than a few months of shipments declining slightly more than DSLR shipments to dent that.

Now that C/N have failed and given themselves a bad name in this new market, the chances of Oly remaining a leader in mirrorless have just increased dramatically.

Of course not every photographer needs FF (full-frame). Wants is a different matter, as Mick Jagger knows about when singing "Can't get no satisfaction..." Ditto for camera marketing and ad departments.

Abrak said:

Abrak wrote:

If you choose to believe that the OMD and GH3 are the Bentley and Rolls Royce of cameras that is up to you.

Click to expand...

But that is exactly how Olympus should be marketing them. Everyone can see the size difference between m43 and FF, and for some, that will be reason enough to buy into m43. But price is a hindrance for a very large swath of the market and Olympus is not going to sell many cameras at a higher price point if the word on the street is that they're "good enough" or "almost as good IQ as FF." People identify personally with their purchases (as any reading of this or any other forum will make clear!), so they want to know they're buying the best, because who among us wants to think of ourselves as second rate or out of date?

Accordingly, Olympus should be marketing their cameras as the most technologically sophisticated, cutting edge cameras available today. That means positioning full frame cameras as dinosaurs, with outmoded, 50-year old flapping mirror technology that adds size, weight and complexity. Put Canon and Nikon on the defensive. There's now a better way thanks to advanced technology, the future of photography is here today, etc. Our cameras are smaller and lighter because they can be, due to technological breakthroughs, and so forth. It will give the casual buyer a reason to be skeptical of the large FF cameras, and feel good about buying into m43. "One day, all cameras will be mirrorless -- you can have that today."

Besides, new technology and premium products always costs more, don't they, so you can use that argument to justify the fact that many m43 cameras cost more than FFs. Apple seems to have done pretty well despite significantly higher prices than the competition.

I see mainly two issues with this marketing approach. One, Olympus still makes the E5 DSLR, so you're undercutting your own premium camera. But if rumors are correct that this line is going out of production, problem solved -- Olympus is all in for mirrorless from this point forward. Two, the OM-D is retro styled. Me, I love the look, but some casual buyers might equate that with old school, low tech film days rather than cutting edge technology. So maybe they need at least one camera in their line that looks like a smaller version of the melted blob people have come to expect from Canon and Nikon.

eques said:

eques wrote:

eques said:

I found this article something to think about:

Click to expand...

https://medium.com/click-the-shutter/e71244c657d8

The thoughts of Marc Sallee can easily applied to Panasonic as well.

Peter.

Click to expand...

A lot of interesting thinking in that article. I don't agree with all of it, but I hope someone at Olympus is paying attention.

KarlSalt said:

KarlSalt wrote:

Said he could get a dslr for that price,

Click to expand...

He is completely correct.

KarlSalt said:

tried telling him that the quality I was getting from the OMD was much better than my old Canon but he wouldn't believe me.

Click to expand...

whether he believes you is irrelevant because you are comparing OMD to an old Canon, which might as well cost less than 1/5 the price of a new OMD.

How about you compare OMD to D7000? who has better IQ? or AF performance?

KarlSalt said:

I think thats something both Olympus & Panasonic need to work on in there marketing as people look at the size and think it can't be as good as a 'bigger' dslr and if not educated would always choose the latter.

Click to expand...

Funny you should say that... Because that is exactly what both Olympus & Panasonic has been doing - trying to convince the world that smaller sensor is just as good as larger sensors that are living inside Canikon APS-C DSLRs. Unfortunately for them, physics says otherwise and too many people in this world are educated.

TrapperJohn said:

TrapperJohn wrote:

It is most interesting that the dinosaur pundits are attacking M43. Not Fuji X, not Sony NEX, the other two strong mirrorless systems. They attack M43. That tells me it is viewed as a very serious threat.

Click to expand...

Can you define what you mean by attack?

TrapperJohn said:

Let's take them one at a time.

First off, not everyone bows down to the Great God FF. Sensor tech has evolved to the point where the only practical advantage of FF today is shallower DOF. Otherwise, current APS and 4/3 sensors already provide enough resolution, DR and PP headroom, that the FF version isn't much better in terms of results you actually see in the final photo. That's not me, that comes from DPR reviews, by the way.

Click to expand...

What is enough DR? or colour depth? or low light IQ?

TrapperJohn said:

And shallow DOF can be a major drawback, if you go to close macro or long telephoto. Some of us shoot photos that aren't portraits or 'garbage can on NYC street' artsy shots.

Click to expand...

Is there a FF lens that does not allow F16?

TrapperJohn said:

So here is the Sony R1. It's a very good platform. But, aside from shallow DOF, what can it do that you can't also do by getting an EP5, gluing a PL25 onto it, disabling the 5 axis IBIS, getting rid of the VF, and flushing $1400 down the toilet?

Click to expand...

How about equally good IQ at 4 times lower lighting level? How about 2 stops better DR? how about massive more resolution at F8? how about 2 bit extra colour depth? how about massively sharper image wide open?

TrapperJohn said:

By the way, an R1 with a removeable mount would need all new glass. Expensive, large glass.

Click to expand...

Why must it have large glass? why can it not have a tiny 40 F2.8?