The missing M4/3 camera

Marty4650 said:

Tom Caldwell said:

The GM series proved that the market is not ready to pay premium prices for premium bodied truly compact cameras.

Click to expand...

It is sometimes said that the GM series was an experiment. One that must have failed, since we haven't seen a successor from Panasonic or anyone else for a long while.

But we both know this is how markets work. A manufacturer tries something, and if it is a hit they keep the line going and expand it, if it falls flat it just dies. And then they try something else.

Who remembers New Coke, Nikon 1, Pentax K01, Blackberry, Sony Betamax, Four Thirds or Sony SLT?

All were essentially decent products that simply failed to attract a sufficient number of customers to make them commercially viable. It might have been due to poor marketing, or other factors like poor design or poor utility..... or simply due to lack of real demand for these things, but they failed nonetheless.

Panasonic deserves credit for simply trying to offer us a new product type. The failure of that product says more about the market than it does about Panasonic.

The absolute record holder for innovation and market failure has to be Sony. They tried more things that failed than anyone else did. But they also had quite a few hits too, which is why they are a successful and admired company.

Click to expand...

James Pilcher said:

Hi Marty,

Once you move to a fixed lens camera, sensor size is unimportant. The camera does not have to conform to any of your current systems; it is a system unto itself.

I think the Fuji X100 serves that purpose very well for most photographers. I personally do not necessarily want a 4/3 version of the X100. I do, though, own a Fuji X70 in all of it's APS-C glory. It complements my Olympus gear quite well.

With a fixed lens camera, it comes down to a rather different set of choices than a full system camera. Cost, rendering, control layout are more important than the embedded sensor, IMO.

Cheers,

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Life is good in the woods

Click to expand...

WhiteBeard said:

Bhima78 said:

So they could use Microsoft's novel way to curve a conventional sensor. This would allow Panny to create a 15mm f1.0 lens with less elements/cheaper/smaller and sharper than the current F1.7.

https://petapixel.com/2017/06/01/microsoft-develops-curved-sensor-greatly-improves-image-quality/

Click to expand...

Very interesting. Obviously, the curved sensor approach makes a lot of sense even if it needs ironing out. Perhaps within the next 5 years for reliable / affordable applications? The downside of course is that a whole new lens family has to be developed for it...

Click to expand...

Bhima78 said:

bobn2 said:

Bhima78 said:

So they could use Microsoft's novel way to curve a conventional sensor. This would allow Panny to create a 15mm f1.0 lens with less elements/cheaper/smaller and sharper than the current F1.7.

https://petapixel.com/2017/06/01/microsoft-develops-curved-sensor-greatly-improves-image-quality/

Click to expand...

That assumes that the major problem is field curvature, and also the 'using Microsoft's novel way' was feasible commercially and with respect to design and production capability.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

bobn2 said:

WhiteBeard said:

Bhima78 said:

So they could use Microsoft's novel way to curve a conventional sensor. This would allow Panny to create a 15mm f1.0 lens with less elements/cheaper/smaller and sharper than the current F1.7.

https://petapixel.com/2017/06/01/microsoft-develops-curved-sensor-greatly-improves-image-quality/

Click to expand...

Very interesting. Obviously, the curved sensor approach makes a lot of sense even if it needs ironing out. Perhaps within the next 5 years for reliable / affordable applications? The downside of course is that a whole new lens family has to be developed for it...

Click to expand...

It really doesn't make much sense with respect to interchangeable lens cameras. Designing for so arbitrary section of a sphere isn't much less of a problem than designing for a plane. In the end, using aspherics in the lens is probably easier.

Click to expand...

bobn2 said:

Bhima78 said:

bobn2 said:

Bhima78 said:

So they could use Microsoft's novel way to curve a conventional sensor. This would allow Panny to create a 15mm f1.0 lens with less elements/cheaper/smaller and sharper than the current F1.7.

https://petapixel.com/2017/06/01/microsoft-develops-curved-sensor-greatly-improves-image-quality/

Click to expand...

That assumes that the major problem is field curvature, and also the 'using Microsoft's novel way' was feasible commercially and with respect to design and production capability.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

MShot said:

Curved adaptor?

Click to expand...

jwilliams said:

for one issue ... the Fuji X100. That camera dominates that space which really isn't all that big anyway. A m43 similar camera would offer no benefits and would be probably be just as expensive. So why would anyone buy a smaller sensor camera for the same money? Also I'm sure Fuji has patents all wrapped up on their viewfinders so it just another strike against the m43 camera as it couldn't offer anything to compete.

Nice idea, but isn't gonna happen.

Now if Panasonic had kept the GM series alive and produced one really compact prime for it then we would have had something similar, but even more useful. Unfortunately that one is never going to happen either.

if you really want a camera like you described just go buy he Fuji.

Click to expand...

Tom Caldwell said:

captura said:

Tom Caldwell said:

DangFoo said:

I thought the Coolpix A lost because it was more expensive at launch. I had a GR and loved it to bits for what it was, but it could never be the be-all, do-all camera I wanted it to be. Mainly because of the lack of quality video and the fact I had to take it apart on occasion to blow dust off the sensor.

Click to expand...

Gets back to economics. Ricoh had been developing its niche market GRD for years with a smaller series of sensors. The GRDIV is a very sophisticated little beast. More sophisticated than the GR is in some ways but something had to give when they opted to go “aps-c”.

Extreme close-up and the newly introduced IBIS were the two most obvious.

Unfortunately collapsing lenses and linty pockets don’t fit terribly well together. I have had all major types of Ricoh GRD/GR from the original and none of them were ever pocketed except my GR which might have been into the pocket twice and only the GR has ever shown any sign of a bust bunny and that has not gone further as I immediately stopped pocketing it. There lies the conundrum - the ideal pocketable camera has a collapsing fixed lens - the most susceptable to dust on sensor and the hardest to clean sensor is the camera with a collapsing fixed lens.

Back to the Coolpix A. Brand new territory for Nikon and they must have thought themself very clever to gazump the Ricoh product with an aps-c sensor when Ricoh post-Pentax acqisition was shedding product like the incomparable GXR system.

Don’t know whether Ricoh “got wind” of the Nikon A under development or whether they actually had the GR under development anyway. In any case the R&D for the GR must have been much less for Ricoh than the complete start up R&D for the Nikon A1. So Ricoh simply waited for the A1 to be released and then made sure that the GR was way way cheaper and it still is very attractively priced for what it is. The GR has a very fine lens and makes exceelent images. As a result Ricoh made darned sure that the A1 was not profitable and Nikon stayed away from this niche in future.

Ricoh also has treated its cameras as “old fashioned” stills cameras made specifically for still-image shooters and optimised as such. Video is an afterthought. They don’t even fit a dedicated video button (merde!) If you wish to use video on a Ricoh you have to set it on the dial ... Once even .... Ricoh hid their video away as a subset routine under “Scene” selection ... (crazy?).

I find that refeshing in this day and age - but I don’t do video anyway and can understand that those who revere the ability to do video might find a Ricoh camera falls short in that department. But the camera does well and can be set to autocrop to longer fields of view to extend several fields of view to the single focal length lens.

But the Ricoh camera is not following conventional paths but more interesting making what it does (still photography in a very compact package more enjoyable). Pity that short of a built in evf there is not a lot that Ricoh could add in a GRIII.

But of course if the GRIII does happen it will be another radical change if it follows the traditional Ricoh pattern.

In any case all Marty hs done is to clearly describe the Ricoh GR which has been around for quite a while - it is a high performance camera and very reasonably priced for what it is.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Marty4650 said:

This post may seem odd to many, since M4/3 has so many great camera bodies available in so many different styles and types. Rangefinder or DSLR style. With or without an EVF. Big or small. Weather sealed or not. We seem to have every type of camera we could possibly want.

Except one.

A small fixed lens compact with a fast prime lens. Something like a four thirds sensored compact camera designed like a Sony RX1, Leica Q or Fuji X100. A high end camera with high end features that would be ideal as a travel cam or street shooters, with a fast wide lens.

You could achieve the same thing by supergluing a 14mm, 15mm or 20mm lens to a Panasonic GM5, but I think I'd want something a little better. A little bigger, with better ergonomics, better controls, much thinner, higher build quality, and a much better EVF.

I would love to see something like a weather sealed LX100 with a permanently affixed 15mm f/1.7 lens. But the lens would collapse into the body.

It would look something like this, but it would have a self closing lens cover, like the LX10 does. And it should be a stunning little camera.



The camera should cost around $1,000, which seems about right considering the Leica Q costs $4,500, the Sony RX1 costs $3,200 and the Fuji X100 costs $1,400. The camera with the smallest sensor should cost the least. In it's class, it will be a bargain, and Leica will probably rebrand it as a Leica Q-Mini for twice the price.

What do you think?

Would you want one of these, or am I just dreaming out loud and spewing hot air?

--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

Tom Caldwell said:

captura said:

Tom Caldwell said:

captura said:

Tom Caldwell said:

DangFoo said:

I thought the Coolpix A lost because it was more expensive at launch. I had a GR and loved it to bits for what it was, but it could never be the be-all, do-all camera I wanted it to be. Mainly because of the lack of quality video and the fact I had to take it apart on occasion to blow dust off the sensor.

Click to expand...

Gets back to economics. Ricoh had been developing its niche market GRD for years with a smaller series of sensors. The GRDIV is a very sophisticated little beast. More sophisticated than the GR is in some ways but something had to give when they opted to go “aps-c”.

Extreme close-up and the newly introduced IBIS were the two most obvious.

Unfortunately collapsing lenses and linty pockets don’t fit terribly well together. I have had all major types of Ricoh GRD/GR from the original and none of them were ever pocketed except my GR which might have been into the pocket twice and only the GR has ever shown any sign of a bust bunny and that has not gone further as I immediately stopped pocketing it. There lies the conundrum - the ideal pocketable camera has a collapsing fixed lens - the most susceptable to dust on sensor and the hardest to clean sensor is the camera with a collapsing fixed lens.

Back to the Coolpix A. Brand new territory for Nikon and they must have thought themself very clever to gazump the Ricoh product with an aps-c sensor when Ricoh post-Pentax acqisition was shedding product like the incomparable GXR system.

Don’t know whether Ricoh “got wind” of the Nikon A under development or whether they actually had the GR under development anyway. In any case the R&D for the GR must have been much less for Ricoh than the complete start up R&D for the Nikon A1. So Ricoh simply waited for the A1 to be released and then made sure that the GR was way way cheaper and it still is very attractively priced for what it is. The GR has a very fine lens and makes exceelent images. As a result Ricoh made darned sure that the A1 was not profitable and Nikon stayed away from this niche in future.

Ricoh also has treated its cameras as “old fashioned” stills cameras made specifically for still-image shooters and optimised as such. Video is an afterthought. They don’t even fit a dedicated video button (merde!) If you wish to use video on a Ricoh you have to set it on the dial ... Once even .... Ricoh hid their video away as a subset routine under “Scene” selection ... (crazy?).

I find that refeshing in this day and age - but I don’t do video anyway and can understand that those who revere the ability to do video might find a Ricoh camera falls short in that department. But the camera does well and can be set to autocrop to longer fields of view to extend several fields of view to the single focal length lens.

But the Ricoh camera is not following conventional paths but more interesting making what it does (still photography in a very compact package more enjoyable). Pity that short of a built in evf there is not a lot that Ricoh could add in a GRIII.

But of course if the GRIII does happen it will be another radical change if it follows the traditional Ricoh pattern.

In any case all Marty hs done is to clearly describe the Ricoh GR which has been around for quite a while - it is a high performance camera and very reasonably priced for what it is.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Marty4650 said:

MShot said:

Why only 16MP if they use an ASP-C sensor?

Click to expand...

I can think of two good reasons.

1. To have multi aspect ability
2. To keep the lens smaller

Marty4650 said:

I would be a huge deal if Panny used an ASP-C sensor, built a body around it. Very disruptive for customers who bought into the M43 system. A huge R&D project for one camera. Could they make the R&D cost back on one camera and not disturb their M43 customer base?

I doubt it.

Click to expand...

I agree that it seems like a waste of an APSC sensor. Why wouldn't you want better image quality and more resolution?

But by cropping the sensor Panasonic can keep the camera and lens much smaller than cameras that use the full APSC sensor like the Fuji XT100. This is the same reason Panasonic chose to not use all of the four thirds sensor when they created their LX100. So I suppose the same logic would apply to any other sensor size too.

If you want to keep it small, and you want a "multi aspect" sensor, then you don't use the whole sensor.

Click to expand...

jwilliams said:

for one issue ... the Fuji X100. That camera dominates that space which really isn't all that big anyway. A m43 similar camera would offer no benefits and would be probably be just as expensive. So why would anyone buy a smaller sensor camera for the same money? Also I'm sure Fuji has patents all wrapped up on their viewfinders so it just another strike against the m43 camera as it couldn't offer anything to compete.

Nice idea, but isn't gonna happen.

Now if Panasonic had kept the GM series alive and produced one really compact prime for it then we would have had something similar, but even more useful. Unfortunately that one is never going to happen either.

if you really want a camera like you described just go buy he Fuji.

--
Jonathan

Click to expand...

jaeae said:

jwilliams said:

for one issue ... the Fuji X100. That camera dominates that space which really isn't all that big anyway. A m43 similar camera would offer no benefits and would be probably be just as expensive. So why would anyone buy a smaller sensor camera for the same money? Also I'm sure Fuji has patents all wrapped up on their viewfinders so it just another strike against the m43 camera as it couldn't offer anything to compete.

Nice idea, but isn't gonna happen.

Now if Panasonic had kept the GM series alive and produced one really compact prime for it then we would have had something similar, but even more useful. Unfortunately that one is never going to happen either.

if you really want a camera like you described just go buy he Fuji.

--
Jonathan

Click to expand...

I think Fuji's x100 could have real competition from a weather sealed, EVF- and IS-equipped m4/3 model with slightly smaller size and price than x100.

Click to expand...

Marty4650 said:

Jorginho said:

LX200 would be nice though and come close to your preferences or at least it could if they use the full sensor.

GM7 is what is missing now. As usual my prefered specs:
1) 20 MP sensor latest greatest
2) EVF if possible better
3) Screen if possible tilting (keeping size the same)
4) DFD2, 10 sot RAW buiffer, 4 fps with CAF.
5) 12 bit eshutter
6) smart battery use like G80
7) If possible IBIS
8) If possibel 4K video

If possible = keeping the size and weight in the same range as GM5.

Click to expand...

After reading all the posts here I have reevaluated my own position. My desire for a high end compact based on a 4/3 sensor really didn't make much sense. It was primarily due to my irrational affection for "all things Four Thirds." As many have pointed out a compact camera is a closed system, so the four thirds sensor only brings one advantage.... the potential of smaller and lighter. But it also brings the disadvantage of older sensor technology, lower resolution (the LX100 used a cropped 4/3 sensor to keep lens size down) and being less useful in low light.

So I probably would be better off with an upgrade for my GM1. And everything on your list makes sense. Except, I would want IBIS definitely, and I wouldn't require 4K video. The truth is 2K video is pretty darn good for most amateur users. And 4K forces your camera to be larger and heavier due to the need for heat dissipation. I've noticed that most of us are still using DVD players even though BluRay is technically better. This is a compromise I am willing to make, since video just isn't that important for me.

And I already own many small M4/3 lenses (12mm, 14mm, 17mm, 25mm, 45mm, 12-32mm and 35-100mm.) So a GM7 makes the most sense for me. Just make it weather sealed, add IBIS, add a tilt screen, add a 20MP sensor, and try to improve the EVF and I am in. And then I can start wishing for some weather sealed small lenses! It can be bigger, but still smaller than a GX85 (which DOES have IBIS and a tilt screen) and I will be thrilled.

So now I am back to square one. Waiting for a GM7 that will probably never happen.

Lord help me! :-(

Click to expand...