I think that the GF9 is probably built to the price point where Panasonic can make a good profit on such a camera.
Pity that most users want something like a GM1 or GM5 at this price point not a camera such as the simplified larger bodied GF9 made for less involved users.
Therefore I predict that the GF9 will be no more success world wide than the previous GF models and probably relegated to the same market as the GF8 - the domestic Japanese market.
--
Tom Caldwell
I talked at length with a Panasonic rep a few weeks back. He said outside of Japan NO ONE bought the GM cameras. It was there worst selling model.
That made me kind of sad, but I completely understand.
I think this new model is mostly for females in Japan and their larger models are for the US and Europe.
--
One of the last Samsung Zombie system users. And still waiting for something to come close.
Interesting. I must have cornered the Australian market
I admit that I had to buy mine via the internet as I never noticed them being stocked by retailers. But the fact is that retailers just sell stuff and they simply will not stock items that they think are priced to high to easily sell. So if your retailer will not stock them then what chance has any product in the "everyman" market?
Retailers also like to sell multiple units of what gives them a good margin. A sophisticated tiny camera at the high end of the price spectrum was always going to be a hard slog and tight margin for the retailer. Too complex an idea to sell when the punters were simply wanting a good buy price and a camera that would satisfy their simple photographic requirements. It is easier to sell a systems camera with a larger body to those who have ambitions of owning the best gear.
The main problem with the GM is that most buyers in a class of people see that the physical size is a disadvantage and it gets dismissed as a toy. Which is a big problem for M4/3 as it means that they cannot leverage the full benefit of the potential for M4/3 to provide a truly compact system. Smaller lenses are only part of the deal. I wonder what the advantage of a smaller lens might be when the popularity of cameras seems to be associated with the size of the camera body.
If the M4/3 bodies have to be as large and almost undistinguishable from larger sensor bodies then what is the point? A certain class of lenses might be physically smaller made for M4/3 but quite often if the lens has to be of very high quality the size grows exponentially to be almost as large as the equivalent in larger sensor imaging capacity.
Panasonic made he GM series physically smaller or as small as cameras that used even smaller sensors - a considerable achievement. Besides these cameras are pocket rockets and I confess to not recognising this initially myself.
That the GM series was first priced at a higher RRP than many other cameras that Panasonic have been released recently was also not a very good start. A GM5 first sold at the expected RRP of the GF9 would have walked out the door. As it was it was priced higher than the initial RRP of the GX85. (Which I still believe is the GM7 by another name).
Hence the cheaper made GF9 which might get some traction from those not in the know - but they are more likely not "systems camera" buyers and are looking for an all in one fixed lens zoom camera. Therefore are we stuck with a great idea, great camera, but one that simply cannot be marketed?
The GF9 is no substitute for those that might accept a GM5 and if I do ever need to replace my GM series then the current price/performance of the GX85 makes it a whole lot more attractive than the GF9.
--
Tom Caldwell
