-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
GX850/GF9 worthless, nice job again Panny
Harold66
Forum Pro
I am surprised by the many comments about a GM successor. I clearly remember last year reading an article about the products line panasonic intended to keep and develop and the name convention and clearly the GM line was dropped
this new GF9/ GX850 is clearly an entry level product aimed at a specific market audience.the rear back dial and the choice of micro sd cards clearly put it in a " mainstream device for selfies" product.
H
R
Raist3d
Guest
... even though there was space for more
indeed
amen to that.
And I hope that if we keep our mouth open and our wallet shut eventually they will get the message:-x
... or, maybe, marketing reined in the engineers: the GX85 hits the price sweet spot; a miniature version of it never would - particularly since Panasonic is already on the record (interview at imaging resource) that putting a pop-up evf (a-la-Sony) in the unibody of the GM series, posed daunting problems of structural rigidity.
peppermonkey
Veteran Member
So Panasonic could finally see the light that selling small cameras that nobody buys is what they should do? That selling a camera that loses them money is what they should do? How does that make any sense?
Okay, so we then all troll GH, EM1 and GX8 threads so no one buys those cameras. What good does that do? So no one buys Panasonic flagship cameras, no one buys GM cameras...do you really want everyone to just not buy any more M43 cameras? Is that what you want? Wouldn't that make you a troll? It certainly doesn't make you a fan of M43.
From your perspective it seems you think M43 should ONLY make small cameras...no matter if it actually sells or if it makes money or not. I highly doubt that makes any economic sense. Or am I misunderstanding your stance?
peppermonkey
Veteran Member
and they produce the GR's with that in mind. Small batches at high prices. With the long historical cult following, they have the buyers to money off of it. Panasonic has absolutely no photographic history nor do they have any cult following to speak of. They need the volume in sales to compensate their expenses, and obviously they didn't receive those volume sales or else the GM series would still be alive. It's not a maybe. If Panasonic made as much money as they liked, the GM series would be alive. It's not. So obviously they didn't. Therefore, the line was a failed line.
Exactly what parts of the GM series is being re-used that hasn't already been used from their prior GF line or any other Panasonic camera that came before it?
Umm...alright. Not a lawyer, not smart enough but I don't see where the confusion is...
Alright, lets do that.
Of course the touch screen intereface is nearly identical. The touch screen interface has been pretty much comparable between ALL Panasonic cameras (that had touch screens). It didn't start with the GM series, nor did it start with the GX7.
Same with the menu system which has been pretty much comparable from the very beginning with the G1/GF1/GH1 all the way to the current models. Sure, things were added, some things were tweaked but by and large the menu system has been consistent.
I'm sorry but the GX85, no matter how you may look at it looks like a direct update to the GX7. What part of the GM line went into the GX85 that the GX7 and GX8 didn't already have? Not the menu system as we know it's been shared between all of them. Same with the touch interface. Shutter system is totally new. EVF is directly from the GX7 (minus the tilt). Body style is directly from the GX7 (or LX series, or GX8 etc.). Size is pretty much identical to the GX7. I don't see what DNA part from the GM made it into the GX85 that wasn't part of the DNA of other cameras. What 'half-way' compromise?
Naming wise, again, GXx is the highend (GX8), GXxx the mid-range (GX85) and GXxxx the low end (GX850). I don't see any confusion with the naming.
Err, the GF line may have been a dud in the western world (as most of the Panasonic cameras) or even Europe but it's Panasonic's best seller in the south east, specially Japan. Take a look at Amazon Japan, or Yodobashi camera (one of the largest if not the largest camera chain in Japan). It's pretty common knowledge.
Well, okay, you are right, I don't know if every GM sold at drastic discount loses Panasonic money. What I do know is that selling the GM's at those drastic discounts didn't make them enough $$$ to compensate their investment in the GM line. I.e. GM line wasn't a money maker.
Alright, let me clarify. And it doesn't really need hard numbers to be understood. GF line is one of Panasonic's best selling line. If the casual users weren't buying the GF line, then it would be a failed line. If the GF line is a failed line, Panasonic m43 division would take a huge hit. Other than the GH line, nothing else has been much of a hit. I believe the GX7 did alright and the G's did...well, not bad but not particularly good either. So what is left for Panasonic M43 line? They simply need the GF line to succeed.
Well, directed at the selfie crowd is the right thing to do in my mind. The GF line is directed at the casual entry level camera user. They are rife with the selfie crowd. The selfie crowd is huge in Japan, look at the Casia selfie cameras in Japan. Directing the GF9 towards the selfie crowd is probably the best direction they could make.
As for the merging of the GM line into the GF9...yeah, well, that part does sound like direct marketing spiel. Panasonic seemed to have styled the GF9 to look more higher-end (without making it high-end) and has stayed relatively small...that's pretty much all I get that resembles the GM line.
What would be the use of dominating an empty niche? If the niche was big enough, then the GM line would have sold enough and the line would live on. It didn't. Should Panasonic continue to pump new investment and new products into that niche? In your mind, what would have been the 'good' judgement call?
peppermonkey
Veteran Member
the third biggest camera brand.
The 4/3 format died because it offered no size advantage over APS sensors; Nikon1 died because it offered no size advantage over m4/3. Now, m4/3 already has a user base and a comprehensive lens system, so it cannot die so easily. But it is still a niche. Do you seriously believe that it will survive in the long term, if it offers no advantage in terms of size and weight over its mirrorless APS competitors, particularly now that Canon is joining the fray? I don't. And, since I have already invested in the system, shouting loud and clear that overweight oversize bodies (and lenses - but that's a different story) are not the way to go is, as far as I am concerned, the only way to protect my investment. Premium or not premium, there is no excuse for bodies bigger than the GX85 or the EM5, it's as simple as that. So far there has been no m3/4 camera as successful as these (certainly not as successful as EM5), the GX8 seems to have been a vastly bigger failure than the GM line and the GH line sells reasonably well simply because there is no smaller alternative - so where is your proof that bigger is better?
But have it your way. The future will show whether you are right or I.
Last edited:
Not the first time I've seen anti-photographer design from Panasonic, and it won't be the last. Panasonic isn't a camera company, they're a consumer electronics company—they push gadgets with features, and whether or not it's actually a useful tool for the target market is quite beside the point. I accept many of their cameras including the GH series as generally useful for most photographers, and Panasonic's video is world class, but no matter how much fancy processing they shoehorn into their cameras, no matter how much they push the technical envelope to make the spec sheet read better, their most basic photographic functions are limited compared to what even an entry level Olympus camera can do. For more info see this nearly 6 year old thread on limitations on flash operation in Panasonic cameras, absolutely none of which has been addressed in subsequent models: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/39049745
--
http://www.photoklarno.com
--
http://www.photoklarno.com
Last edited:
peppermonkey
Veteran Member
I never once said so.
4/3 died because it couldn't compete with APS sensors from an IQ point of view. Simple as that. If it did compete, size wouldn't matter as long as it wasn't 'bigger' than APS sensored cameras. The fact that the lenses were huge and the cameras not that much smaller (if at all) was just the nail in the coffin.
But that's besides the point. The point I was making was that the GM line simply did not sell, so why shouldn't they shut that line down? What economic sense is there to continue a line that simply was not bringing any return on investment? GM1 didn't sell so they revamped and brought out GM5 and that didn't sell either...so they should continue and bring out GM7? GM9? Does that make sound business sense?
The ONLY way continuing the GM line makes sense is if, from the beginning, the line was to be Panasonic's statement/showcase line. One that they know is going to lose money but they make it anyway, just to say, this is how good a Panasonic M43 camera can be, this is how small a Panasonic camera can be. Otherwise, there is no sense to continue a line that is not making money.
GH line will continue, not only because there is no smaller alternative but because it's also drastically (ridiculously) cheaper alternative to anything out in the market. The Gxx line seems to be doing alright so I see that continuing. And who knows, we may never see another camera like the GX8. The GXx line may continue but it may be quite different from GX8.
In general, yes M43 line needs to be smaller than the competition but not ALL models needs to be smaller. As long as enough models of worth is smaller and M43 generally can continue with the perception of smaller bodies/lenses, it can survive. I would LOVE for the GM line to continue as I would love to get one that size. That doesn't mean I don't understand why Panasonic stopped that line.
Harold66
Forum Pro
You can shout as much as you want. It does not make it right. Ok two simple facts :
For some people, small means GM size or something similar.
For others, they prefer a bigger size because they have bigger hands, they want more controls and dials on the camera, they use large lenses for which a tiny camera body is an odd fit just to list A FEW reasons why small camera bodies may be ignored
different people have different needs. One same photog may also like the idea that he or she can alternate using in the same brand or system two bodies of different sizes based on the occasion.
All of the above brings about the other FACT : Having A CHOICE IS ALWAYS BETTER.
having so many options means you get more clients, mire brand recognition and other advantages
Ok stated like that it is simply ridiculous !
NO again you are so entangled in your twisted logic that you are misinterpreting the facts.iam quite certain that most people who use the GH cameras do not want them to be much smaller
Finally one should look at both Panasonic and Olympus lens line up to see that both brands have understood this marketing logic even if you are unable to do so. Indeed both brands have a developed lens offer to fit BOTH size ranges of their bodies offering.Meaning whichever way your preference lies ( smallish bodies or larger ones) you have enough references to work with in both cases
Showing again that having a choice is ALWAYS better
H
Harold66
Forum Pro
Hubert
Very well put. Lots of common sense injected in this thread and it looks like it needs it
I do not know that for a fact but I am quite confident that we will see a GX9 this year with the new shutter from the GX80/GX85 and other improvements seen in recent models
I remembered reading a series of interviews from Panasonic execs early last year saying that they were renaming and developing FOUR models lines
GHx (like in GH5)
GXx (like in Gx 8)
Gx (like in G80)
GXxx (like in GX85)
GXxxx (or apparently GF for some markets)
That s already a LOT and most people would agree that it is the most they can reasonably do
Harold
I don't see much choice for those who prefer small cameras. There was no choice at all before the GM line and there is no choice now. And no, the GF line is no substitute. So, yes, I will shout as loud and clear as I can. If you like it bigger and heavier, feel free to attach a brick to it.
...btw - what makes you so sure that GH buyers would not be even happier if it were the size of, say, the EM5 (which, by the way, is more or less the same size with a Nikon FE/FM - a classic loved by pros and enthusiasts alike, back in the old days); and, sorry, but the "big hands" argument is just a lame excuse - I cannot recall anyone using it back in the film days and I fail to see why going digital makes a difference.
Harold66
Forum Pro
So you say but mahy reasonable people will disagree. Such cameras as Olympus em5 or em10, panasonic gf of gx80 are small cameras..
Sure you may prefer even smaller but there is a time where size prevents having enough room for controls and dials. On this subject, i think this is also why the GM is being dropped:
At launch , the GM was attractive for 2 audiences :
the yuppies crowd who wanted a camera for their travel snap and selfies small enough to be carried in a ladies purse ( asia market for women, hence the colored bodies)
the enthusiastic crowd which wanted something better than a smartphone but are not willing to carry a normal size m4/3 body even a small one.
The problem is that the GM line got old very quickly for BOTH these targets. The Gm was not friendly enough for the selfie crowd , hence the GF line with the selfie designed Lcd screen
For the enthusiastic most realized that the controls were too limited. The rear wheel is very clumsy and unpractical REGARDLESS of the camera brand and model ( this is why it is disappearing for lost serious calera models) and the diminutive height of the GM models was leading to very unnatural choices like a 16:9 LCD screen on a 4:3 sensor ratio camera or a very tiny, almost useless evf on the Gm5
You cannot have it both ways by saying that all m4/3 rds models should be around GM size or around that size and use the em5 size to speak of the GH. I have met or read over 100 people using a Gh camera and none of them listed the calera size as a problem
if you had big hands, you would not say that regardless of film or digital.
For me a camera size like a GM is useless and it feels clumsy, maybe because I shoot mostly in manual mode. And have normal size hands. The optional grip of the gm as i remember did not make a big difference for le and it would not have solved the lack of physical controls
for you it works. Maybe you have tiny hands, or do not need to access controls much, or use mostly small lenses.. whatever it works for yoy
it does not mean that this should be the experience of others
Harold
Exactly which other manufacturer offers a miniaturized high end camera? Who has the option to buy a very high end camera that you can carry in your pocket?
And why don't they?
Panasonic tried it and failed. So they reinvented their mini cam as an entry level value cam, and packed it with lots of features. This may or may not work for them, but we know for certain they didn't sell very many GM1 and GM5 cameras at full retail price.
This latest version is better than their GF8, and priced lower too. If the GF8 was a hit, this one should be an even bigger hit.
Of course you are right about that. The whole point of having a system with a smaller sensor is smaller bodies and lenses. If you don't have smaller bodies and lenses, then you have compromised for no gain.
But I think you are wrong when you say there isn't much choice. We have plenty of choices. You just can't have a flagship camera that fits in your pocket. If you need pro level build quality, weather sealing, lots of dials and buttons, and blazing fast processors, then you are limited to a GH5 or an EM1 II.
If you want a Nikon FE sized camera, then M4/3 has some pretty good ones, including the GX8, EM5 II, and Pen F. M4/3 currently offers models ranging from 269 grams up to 725 grams. With quite a few in between.
And I also think you are wrong if you say lenses are too big. SOME of the high end lenses are very big, but so are everyone's highest end lenses. But there also are some incredibly small lenses too.
Having choices is a good thing.
Agreed - but there is actually room for more controls, if only Panasonic chose to put them there (for example: a 2nd wheel, instead of the focus mode selection dial)
Agreed again - but Sony has proven that you can fit a pop-up evf in a tiny body; not easy to implement (Panasonic conceded that they tried and failed), but not impossible
As far as I am concerned the pro models could easily be EM5-sized (there is a heat dissipation problem, after all, if you wish to shoot 4k video) and the semipro/enthousiast models GM sized
I would consider my hands as normal sized. I prefer to shoot in A or S mode with exposure compensation (I concede used to shoot manual back in the film days, and I guess I might do the same, if there were any digital cameras with 3 control wheels, but only Fuji and Nikon Df offer that option). And the GM cameras suit me just fine.
Manual focus is a different story; focus peaking barely replaces the split prism/microprism of my beloved Nikon FE2 (remember it?), never mind the useless OVFs of contemporary DSLRs, and, besides, my eyesight is not what used to be, thanks to presbyopia, so I prefer autofocus these days.
As for lens size, granted, I have never used anything bigger than a Panasonic 14-140ii (well, once, I have played with a friends Zeiss manual cinema lenses, but that's a different story), so I have no opinion how it would work with a Pansonic 100-400. But I can assure you that a GM works just fine with a 14-140.
Of course not; but since I am the one losing out by the death of the GM line (incidentally: I bought it full price, because it was the camera I was waiting years for) you will excuse me for finding those different experiences irrelevant.
Harold66
Forum Pro
First of all it depends on what you call a high-end camera ? I do not think of the Gm1 as a high-end camera
It is well built , provides good image quality but this does not make it a high end camera
What are YOUR factors to decide what is a high end camera
Maybe because there is not a market for it nowadays, at least not for the cameras WITH interchangeable lenses
and it certainly calls for larger clientele base
Harold
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum