Is there really room for another FF format?

TN Args said:

Johan Borg said:

D Cox said:

TN Args said:

D Cox said:

mikeodial said:

Tom Caldwell said:

Andrea Crema said:

Its going to be tough for Panasonic, even if you apply the logic of the above canon users. Is that how all current canon users feel?

Panasonic is a solid company and have proved themselves in M43. However this is a different ball game. Even with a superb product, it does not guarantee success or market share.

Myself I'd be going Fuji MF. However on FF I'm really not sure what I'd do. Possibly Nikon as I used to be a Nikon shooter with D800. I'm not a fan of Sony.

Click to expand...

I think that Panasonic would be quite happy with a reasonable size slice of the very small high end professional market.

This might be contrary to what many think as “success” and would not necessarily mean Panasonic S1/SR1 camera bodies “everywhere” but just to be seen and discussed as high end capable kit.

The market onslaught comes later once Panasonic gets accepted as a maker of market-leading camera bodies.

Therefore they are not necessarily taking on Canon, Nikon, Sony head to head in the mass market.

But in due time we will know with more certainty.

If Fuji can make a few Medium Format bodies into a very small sector of the market I cannot see why Panasonic might not end up doing something similar with high-end FF camera bodies.

Nor can comparing prices be regarded as a viable test of potential market success.

Click to expand...

I do believe there will be room for a FF sigma. As this will likely give superb quality, a film like experience and a close to today's medium format sensor performance. That is my hope at least

Click to expand...

It all depends on the sensor. If they can go back to 1:1:1 (same number of pixels in each layer), then they will have a very good camera for serious photographers.

Click to expand...

Why drop back to a second-rate solution? (Wrong forum for this, but you started it.) If Sigma continue to progress in the direction that they are going, then they will have a very good camera for serious photographers who restrict themselves to good light.

Click to expand...

The sdQH is already a very good camera, but the image quality is not quite as good as in the Merrill models, in my experience. It isn't a dramatic difference, just enough that the Quattro images look slightly less natural. The point of the Quattro design was to increase speed of operation, and this is at the expense of image quality.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Incorrect. The point of the Quattro sensor is to allow greater image quality, via higher resolution, better signal to noise ratio in both luma and chroma, less colour shading, and cleaner colours.

A stock APS-C Quattro easily demonstrates this.

In addition to the IQ gains, the sensor is more efficient and allows the operational improvement that you mentioned. As ex-Foveon Chief Scientist Richard Lyon, one of the co-authors of the Quattro patent along with Richard Merrill,explains, the areas of IQ improvement are easy perceived by eye, whereas the only area of IQ compromise is, by the nature of human perception, not amenable to perception.

The Quattro layout, invented by Lyon, Hubel, Bagula and Merrill, is the better use of any amount of sensor real estate. Lyonwrote that the Quattro sensor may well be Richard Merrill's best legacy.

The real battle that the Quattro sensor has to overcome, as correctly identified by Lyon in 2014 (probably after 5 minutes reading the bashing in DPR forums before the camera was even released -- and today being repeated in 2019 in this forum), is marketing. Not technology. Indeed, he must have recognised the evangelistic marriage of many Foveon users to the 1:1:1 principle, to the point where they could never fall in love with any deviation from that principle, results be damned. If Sigma ever revert to a 1:1:1 sensor, it will be a concession to marketing over IQ, and a sad day for true IQ believers, but will make numerous technically-ignorant fanatics very happy.

TN Args said:

TN Args said:

Either sensor is better than the ones currently used by Leica, except in the Monochrom.

Click to expand...

Luckily, both of you will likely unite in complaining about the next generation Foveon that likely finds its way to the full frame camera ;-)

Meanwhile, I'll get one and enjoy it like I enjoyed the strengths of both Merrill (clouds!) and Quattro (colors!).

Click to expand...

You won't see me complaining. I'm no Quattro-basher.

And may I just add this: I think it is pathetic, and miserably poor, that the Quattro-bashing that so infected the Sigma Cameras Forum, and took years to clear up, and also took up the time of moderators, is likely to take its poisonous and incorrect root in this forum, at least 9 months before we see an actual camera. It's because of the trashing, bashing, fighting nature of the internet forums, thatI recommended against having an integrative name for this forum in the first place. So doing would have contained the spread of the rash, and we could have discussed the new Sigma camera in the Sigma Camera Talk Forum, where the moderators won't be caught unawares.

So, welcome, L-Mount readers, to the evangelistic heartland of Foveon fanaticism. Courtesy of D Cox. But I won't put this on him: he will not be the last.

Click to expand...

Tom Caldwell said:

James Stirling said:

Georgeee said:

That way, all new lenses can be used on all new bodies. customers are in paradise.:-D

Click to expand...

I think the way adapters are evolving that day may be sooner than you think. At least for Canon EF lenses which seem to be the easiest to adapt to other mounts . A lot of folk in the Sony forum already claim near native AF performance

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Tom Caldwell said:

That is why I intend to stick with the EF mount. A huge investment in EF left me stuck between an EF mount lens collection and Canon’s determination to keep selling me more dslr bodies. What seemed a tragedy unfolding has been around the circuit and come back as the apparent univesal mount system for FF ML camera bodies.

Not only that but they can be used on aps-c bodies to an extent and also on the M4/3 mount. Made for aps-c image circle lenses (eg: Sigma DC lenses in EF mount) can be used on M4/3 as focal reduced using the full aps-c image circle that they were made for. Just as much as EF lenses can be mounted focal reduced on select aps-c sensor bodies at full FF image circle.

Contrast any of the new mount systems - even Sony FE will lock the user into the mount system of that particualr brand.

I am looking forward to being able to use my EF collection on an L-Mount body - which one? I will like to see what is on offer first.

Click to expand...

flbdig said:

When camera companies made 35mm and medium format Film cameras, I don't think there was ever a concern if to many companies were making film cameras. Lol.

Click to expand...

flbdig said:

I don't understand why every new release of a full frame digital, people have conversations about whose switching brands. When in reality new releases don't lead to a lot of switching, no matter how YouTube reviewers make it seem like that's the important topic. Switching IMHO, is when a photographer has a current sensor size and leaves to another companies same sensor size. Or if a person completely gets rid all their current gear for new company or sensor size. I really don't think that's what happens. People add new gear to their existing gear to enhance or increase something they want to accomplish with their photography that they can't currently achieve with their existing gear.

Click to expand...

flbdig said:

In reality, how many companies are actually selling Full Frame mirrorless digital cameras? Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica and now Panasonic. How is that too many?

Click to expand...

flbdig said:

Plus we know that mirrorless bodies allow lens to be adapted and we know competition leads to innovative technology and features and lowered pricing to consumers

Click to expand...

Tom Caldwell said:

flbdig said:

When camera companies made 35mm and medium format Film cameras, I don't think there was ever a concern if to many companies were making film cameras. Lol.

Click to expand...

Smaller volumes and hand built with lower cost labour and they did not have competition from mobile phone cameras, M4/3 and the residual Canon and Nikon dslr mount systems.

I say “M4/3” becasue it is indeed a mount system that is well provided already with oem mount lenses.

Medium Format was not as well supplied with lenses as the better supplied 135 film formats came to be - obviously the 135 film formats came to be popular becasue of the huge variety of lenses produced ... or was it because they were popular the lenses were made to supply a burgeoning market?

Tom Caldwell said:

I don't understand why every new release of a full frame digital, people have conversations about whose switching brands. When in reality new releases don't lead to a lot of switching, no matter how YouTube reviewers make it seem like that's the important topic. Switching IMHO, is when a photographer has a current sensor size and leaves to another companies same sensor size. Or if a person completely gets rid all their current gear for new company or sensor size. I really don't think that's what happens. People add new gear to their existing gear to enhance or increase something they want to accomplish with their photography that they can't currently achieve with their existing gear.

Click to expand...

Switching formats is easier for those that have not invested heavily in lenses for that format. For those that have invested heavily then there is much more incentive to stay with the system they have adopted.

Tom Caldwell said:

In reality, how many companies are actually selling Full Frame mirrorless digital cameras? Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica and now Panasonic. How is that too many?

Click to expand...

Well there is plenty of “jollies” going on about new oem lenses for all the new mount systems as if the more lenses the merrier. In truth new systems users will treat the lens offerings as a sort of smorgasbord from which to cherry pick the lenses that suit them. Nothing wrong with that but it is obvious that the more lenses on offer the more potential users will be cherry picking.

This is the potential problem - there is no doubt that both Nikon and Canon will have more than 100 lenses in their current catalogue and we must include others that can still be bought. Sony is up and running making FE lenses but it will still be quite a while before they could match what Canon and Nikon have already provided in dslr mounts. The L-Mount consortium has to start from (almost) scatch and has the combined efforts of the three companies involved to get as many lens choices up and running on their smrgasbord of choices.

Smorgasbord is a very good example of how hard it might be. If most users never have more than about three lenses then a huge variety of lens choices that will be requested will mean that many of the more exotic types will either have to be adapted or made in small volumes to market demand. Canon and Nikon have a head start as their existng lens stocks that can be adapted on to new mounts. Canon EF is likely to be capable of being adapted to all the new mounts eventually.

For quite a while the more exotic types will only be available as adapted lenses. Which seems to be at odds with comments that adapting will fall short on the performance of new oem FF ML mount formatted. I tend to agree that adapting will not be quite as good as oem however my thoughts are that the differences will not be major and may not be much more than the disincentive of the adapter itself.

Tom Caldwell said:

Plus we know that mirrorless bodies allow lens to be adapted and we know competition leads to innovative technology and features and lowered pricing to consumers

Click to expand...

But competition is being driven by the number of new lenses to be offered - each company will strive to get the biggest smorgasbord to choose from and only a relative small number of new FF ML users will buy more than a few lenses from the smorgasbord. Anything out of the very mainstream are likely to be hand-built on the bench in small volumes and I stuggle to see how these lenses can be made and sold cheaply.

Canon and Nikon can rely on their old dslr mount lenses filling up the smorgasbord by being adapted and we can guess that Sony and the L-Mount may well be (unofficially) leaning on Canon EF lens supply to cover the exotic lenses that they are not able to immediately supply.

In the long term camera bodies and lenses play a sort of chicken and egg game. Lots of camera bodies sold will provide a market for a wide range of lenses, but maybe lots of camera bodies will not be sold until a great variety of lenses is available.

This is why traditionally the abilty to adapt lenses not avaialble in oem mount has always covered the shortfall.

I suggest that four new(ish) mount systems looking to create a wide range of oem lens stocks is a big ask in the short term and will need a huge investment in lens variety that will often be of lower volume sales.

Click to expand...

flbdig said:

Tom Caldwell said:

flbdig said:

When camera companies made 35mm and medium format Film cameras, I don't think there was ever a concern if to many companies were making film cameras. Lol.

Click to expand...

Smaller volumes and hand built with lower cost labour and they did not have competition from mobile phone cameras, M4/3 and the residual Canon and Nikon dslr mount systems.

I say “M4/3” becasue it is indeed a mount system that is well provided already with oem mount lenses.

Medium Format was not as well supplied with lenses as the better supplied 135 film formats came to be - obviously the 135 film formats came to be popular becasue of the huge variety of lenses produced ... or was it because they were popular the lenses were made to supply a burgeoning market?

flbdig said:

I don't understand why every new release of a full frame digital, people have conversations about whose switching brands. When in reality new releases don't lead to a lot of switching, no matter how YouTube reviewers make it seem like that's the important topic. Switching IMHO, is when a photographer has a current sensor size and leaves to another companies same sensor size. Or if a person completely gets rid all their current gear for new company or sensor size. I really don't think that's what happens. People add new gear to their existing gear to enhance or increase something they want to accomplish with their photography that they can't currently achieve with their existing gear.

Click to expand...

Switching formats is easier for those that have not invested heavily in lenses for that format. For those that have invested heavily then there is much more incentive to stay with the system they have adopted.

flbdig said:

In reality, how many companies are actually selling Full Frame mirrorless digital cameras? Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica and now Panasonic. How is that too many?

Click to expand...

Well there is plenty of “jollies” going on about new oem lenses for all the new mount systems as if the more lenses the merrier. In truth new systems users will treat the lens offerings as a sort of smorgasbord from which to cherry pick the lenses that suit them. Nothing wrong with that but it is obvious that the more lenses on offer the more potential users will be cherry picking.

This is the potential problem - there is no doubt that both Nikon and Canon will have more than 100 lenses in their current catalogue and we must include others that can still be bought. Sony is up and running making FE lenses but it will still be quite a while before they could match what Canon and Nikon have already provided in dslr mounts. The L-Mount consortium has to start from (almost) scatch and has the combined efforts of the three companies involved to get as many lens choices up and running on their smrgasbord of choices.

Smorgasbord is a very good example of how hard it might be. If most users never have more than about three lenses then a huge variety of lens choices that will be requested will mean that many of the more exotic types will either have to be adapted or made in small volumes to market demand. Canon and Nikon have a head start as their existng lens stocks that can be adapted on to new mounts. Canon EF is likely to be capable of being adapted to all the new mounts eventually.

For quite a while the more exotic types will only be available as adapted lenses. Which seems to be at odds with comments that adapting will fall short on the performance of new oem FF ML mount formatted. I tend to agree that adapting will not be quite as good as oem however my thoughts are that the differences will not be major and may not be much more than the disincentive of the adapter itself.

flbdig said:

Plus we know that mirrorless bodies allow lens to be adapted and we know competition leads to innovative technology and features and lowered pricing to consumers

Click to expand...

But competition is being driven by the number of new lenses to be offered - each company will strive to get the biggest smorgasbord to choose from and only a relative small number of new FF ML users will buy more than a few lenses from the smorgasbord. Anything out of the very mainstream are likely to be hand-built on the bench in small volumes and I stuggle to see how these lenses can be made and sold cheaply.

Canon and Nikon can rely on their old dslr mount lenses filling up the smorgasbord by being adapted and we can guess that Sony and the L-Mount may well be (unofficially) leaning on Canon EF lens supply to cover the exotic lenses that they are not able to immediately supply.

In the long term camera bodies and lenses play a sort of chicken and egg game. Lots of camera bodies sold will provide a market for a wide range of lenses, but maybe lots of camera bodies will not be sold until a great variety of lenses is available.

This is why traditionally the abilty to adapt lenses not avaialble in oem mount has always covered the shortfall.

I suggest that four new(ish) mount systems looking to create a wide range of oem lens stocks is a big ask in the short term and will need a huge investment in lens variety that will often be of lower volume sales.

Click to expand...

Tom you make some very good points.

But in my humble opinion, the handful of FF camera manufacturers is very small, and I am elated that Panasonic and whomever else is going to enter this segment.

For me, I did not want the Sony a7 or a9 series or the Nikon or Canon ff offerings. Panasonic has created a new ff camera that is exciting to me, and I am sure that it will be a great camera for a lot of others.

I personally feel, when it's available to purchase, I will have invested in the Right system for my style, needs and workflow So Panasonic should be applauded for the belief that there was room for another ff camera system.

Click to expand...

flbdig said:

When camera companies made 35mm and medium format Film cameras, I don't think there was ever a concern if to many companies were making film cameras. Lol.

Click to expand...

flbdig said:

I don't understand why every new release of a full frame digital, people have conversations about whose switching brands. When in reality new releases don't lead to a lot of switching, no matter how YouTube reviewers make it seem like that's the important topic. Switching IMHO, is when a photographer has a current sensor size and leaves to another companies same sensor size. Or if a person completely gets rid all their current gear for new company or sensor size. I really don't think that's what happens. People add new gear to their existing gear to enhance or increase something they want to accomplish with their photography that they can't currently achieve with their existing gear.

Click to expand...

flbdig said:

In reality, how many companies are actually selling Full Frame mirrorless digital cameras? Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica and now Panasonic. How is that too many?

Click to expand...

flbdig said:

Plus we know that mirrorless bodies allow lens to be adapted and we know competition leads to innovative technology and features and lowered pricing to consumers

Click to expand...

• Today, any digital camera is a niche product
• any digital ILC is a niche within that niche
• any digital MILC ILC is a niche within that niche
• any digital MILC ILC with Adapters is a niche within that niche

Tom Caldwell said:

bokehmon22 said:

Tom Caldwell said:

CanonSharpShooter said:

Absolutely, an alliance of manufacturers is exactly what this industry needs. We don’t need more fragments of alphabet lens mount being locked down to one company. Nikon S and Canon EOS R mounts are perfect examples of being locked into a mount. I’m honestly shocked that they are trying to do this in 2018. Canon EF and Nikon F was from the past where it’s common practice. At least Sony’s e mount is open to other lens manufacturers.

Click to expand...

Well it is true and not true at the same time - I know Canon best but Nikon was much the same thing - there were many third party EF lenses but they only fitted on Canon bodies and Canon wanted to keep upgrading expensive dslr bodies on a regular basis. So if you had EF lenses from any source you had to constantly upgrade your Canon (dslr) body if you wanted to stay state of the art. I doubt if any spots have been changed - and of course Z and R (and FE .... and L) lenses will only be useful on the oem bodies.

Nothing has changed really - invest heavily in one or other of the new mount systems and the pain of changing mount systems is directly proportional to the size of the investment.

This is what I found with my sizeable investment in quality EF lenses and found myself stuck there at Canon’s dslr (only) body roll-over pleasure - that is until Metabones broke the lock with its range of EF to whatever electronic adapters.

Once burned I am not so keen to place myself a the caprice of an individual excluding lens mount system.

As noted by the title of this thread it will be a long time - if ever- before all of the four new mount systems are fleshed out with a full range of systems oem lenses. They will get there in steps and stairs over 10-20 years (if at all) and there is no guarantee that every one of these mount systems will be a complete lensed one. Those needing something a bit out of the ordinary will have to adapt anyway for the interim.

Oh ... I err ... twice burned - but the seond time only singed as I have no intention of moving away from the M4/3 mount system? For why - well at least there is a very wide range of sizes and styles of camera bodies available. Furthermore M4/3 has not emphasied the updated like with better like same style body as the dslr manufacturers were past masters of doing.

I am interested in FF ML cameras for my now aged stock of EF lenses via adapters and on a present guess all four of the new mount systems will be capable of mounting adapted EF lenses. Wild horses are not going to drag me into buying native Z, R, FE or L mount lenses.

Click to expand...

Tom, I absolutely agree with you. That's what I'm planning to do too. Once there is a significant advantage to native lens (dual IS, significant better image quality) and one camera manufacture pulling way ahead in tech and features, then I'll consider buying native lens.

What camera manufacture capture your interest the most?

Click to expand...

Well Nikon and Canon from past history have tried very hard to lock devoted users into their own lens mount systems and refused to make FF ML bodies whilst the could continue to milk the market for regular dslr body upgrades for years. When they could easily killed off the dslr at any time in the last 10 years. Now they are offering middle of the road FF ML bodies as their entree into that segment in the obvious pious hope that they can keep their premium pro-level dslr market inviolate for some time to come and would do so if left to their own devices.

This is their corporate marketing culture and as someone who 10 years ago was looking at having to continue to buy upgrade dslr bodies or sell off my EF lenses I did not like it. As a result I kept using my 5D for years (it did a good job) but this resulted in a form of “mothballing” my EF lenses which were under-utilised. So no matter what these companies do I am not really into playing that game any more. I doubt if their corporate culture has changed.

They will expect to be able to sell updates to their present FF ML camera for many years to come as they work their capability up to Pro-level by degrees. Another 10 years of stately progress is not impossible.

Therefore Panasonic and the L-Mount consortium are effectively forcing the pace by going for the Pro-market jugular which will force Canon and Nikon to release their FF ML Pro-level camera bodies ahead of schedule. By doing so they will effectively kill off the dslr as a type very quickly. The main issue there is that this will be before they have their new range of oem Z and R mount lenses ready - so the L-Mount is steaming ahead to out-lens them.

No doubt many if not most Nikon and Canon users will meekly accept watever their favourite camera company is going to do for them and partiently wait and adapt dslr-mount lenses in the meantime. However it is impossible not to believe that the L-Mount consortium will not grab a significant share of the FF ML market along the way. The S1/SR1 will be a slow selling premium model but the wow factor is likely to sell the more affordable next generation when released very well.

Sony spoiled my hopes by releasing he A7 FF ML body before it was ergonomically ready for prime time. I am a bit different from those who will “get used to” bad ergonomics - I hate it. In my book by series III the A7/A9 is much improved ergonomically but it still has use-ergonomic problems that need to be workshopped out. But most Sony user are accepting the interface offered. So the existing Sony market share is safe and most likely it will be increased.

Panasonic on the other hand has been more subtle - they have more obviously properly workshopped their interface (on all their camera bodies). Furthermore via M4/3 Panasonic (and Olympus to a point) has shown that they are interested in selling many body shapes and sizes. Hopefully Panasonic will carry this into the L-Mount as well and that the S1/SR1 which apes the shape of the pro-level dslr that it hopes to replace will be joined with other body sizes and shapes soon enough.

No so sure that Canon and Nikon will be able to tear themself away from the faux-dslr body shape and Sony has made one-body-suits-all since the first A7.

So from where I sit - I am not sure if I really need a huge S1/SR1 body shape or capabilities of Pro-level shooting. I don’t really wish to play the Nikon/Canon vending games and I am happy to wait out a few models from Sony in the hope that they might eventually come up with perfect ergonomics.

Maybe Panasonic, Sigma or Leica will offer the camera that I want? A FF ML compact RF-style body that will happily adapt my EF mount lenses?

Wait and see is where I am - but I think that the corporate marketing culture of Panasonic is more to my liking.

Hah! And we are supposed to be taking 100% interest in the current camera systems on offer and not how our finances are impinged by corporations that want to dribble out product and keep their loyal customers updatiing forever - not such a huge bad thing - but this gear is going to be expensive and a customer should really be more interested in product that stays state of the art for much longer.

Meanwhile my “more affordable” G9 drives my EF lenses very well via Metabones adapters. No rush.

Click to expand...

Andrea Crema said:

I'm curious as to whether there is room for yet another FF manufacturer? It's looking rather crowded and competition is fierce.

Will L-Mount make a dent in the Sony express train?

Click to expand...

Marty4650 said:

flbdig said:

When camera companies made 35mm and medium format Film cameras, I don't think there was ever a concern if to many companies were making film cameras. Lol.

Click to expand...

But there was plenty of concern.

After all, the first film SLR was made around 1936 and the last one around 2004, and in between those two years there were as many as 36 different companies making them. The number ebbed and flowed based on demand.

You cannot sell things by pushing them out and thinking "someone will buy it." The only method that works is producing what the market demands, or making something better or cheaper so you can displace someone else who is meeting market demand.

Right now, the industry is selling a lot of ILC cameras, since the P&S segment is virtually gone. And a large part of that market is for full frame models. And the market for full frame cameras seems to be growing. More importantly it is probably the most profitable segment of the market.

Click to expand...

Marty4650 said:

Whether the market can sustain seven different brands (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Leica, Panasonic, and Sigma) remains to be seen, but it certainly is possible. Moreover, full frame MILC is one of the few growing market sectors, and any manufacturer who plans to be around ten years from now needs to seriously consider being in this group.

Marty4650 said:

I don't understand why every new release of a full frame digital, people have conversations about whose switching brands. When in reality new releases don't lead to a lot of switching, no matter how YouTube reviewers make it seem like that's the important topic. Switching IMHO, is when a photographer has a current sensor size and leaves to another companies same sensor size. Or if a person completely gets rid all their current gear for new company or sensor size. I really don't think that's what happens. People add new gear to their existing gear to enhance or increase something they want to accomplish with their photography that they can't currently achieve with their existing gear.

Click to expand...

Well... some people actually think they need the latest and greatest stuff, even though plenty of pros make a pretty good living using cameras that are "years old." And for some others acquiring gear is a hobby unto itself. But the reasons don't matter, as long as customers want something then someone has to sell it to them.

Marty4650 said:

In reality, how many companies are actually selling Full Frame mirrorless digital cameras? Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica and now Panasonic. How is that too many?

Click to expand...

I don't think it is too many, but remember the market for anything isn't without limits. When too many companies are making more goods than the market demands then someone ends up losing. It happened to film SLRs in the 1970s long before the advent of digital SLRs. There were just too many companies making film SLRs for the market, so some dropped out or went out of business.

The reason you see so much concern is because people are married to their lens mounts due to their financial stake in lenses, and they want that company to stay in business. So you hear things like "Olympus needs a full frame camera" or "Pentax needs a MILC camera" because their customers are worried about their needs rather than the needs of the company to be competitive and survive.

Marty4650 said:

Plus we know that mirrorless bodies allow lens to be adapted and we know competition leads to innovative technology and features and lowered pricing to consumers

Click to expand...

Yes, they do. But using adapters is a pretty small market, albeit an important one for the adapter makers.

Look at it this way:

• Today, any digital camera is a niche product
• any digital ILC is a niche within that niche
• any digital MILC ILC is a niche within that niche
• any digital MILC ILC with Adapters is a niche within that niche

This means that if a company like Olympus has a 4% market share, that only a few of their customers are using adapters rather than buying native lenses. This explains why every new system is pushing native lenses out as fast as they can. This is where the real money is. You sell blades to people who own razors.

Continuing with the Olympus example, ten years ago when there were only two native lenses for M4/3, adapters were selling pretty well. Today, with over 90 native lenses available, the only adapters that offer good profit potential are high priced speed boosters, made expressly for people who already own great lenses with other mounts.

And that is a niche, within a niche, within a niche, within a niche, within another niche.

Best regards,

Click to expand...

Scottelly said:

Panasonic is a much bigger company though, with more employees and technology than the Canon monster, which is bigger than the Sony monster. Ultimately, if Panasonic wants to, they can conquer the entire market, but I don't think that is their ultimate intention. I think they're happy to just play a part, and have maybe 5% to 10% of a profitable market. Some day they may grow that to 20% of the market, but I think that would take at least ten to twenty years.

Click to expand...

007peter said:

007peter said:

Andrea Crema wrote: I'm curious as to whether there is room for yet another FF manufacturer? It's looking rather crowded and competition is fierce.

Will L-Mount make a dent in the Sony express train?

Click to expand...

I'll be brutally honest, there is NO ROOM, and I'm saying this as long time Panasonic M43 shooter.

• Canon can count on millions of loyal EF mount users since 1980
• Nikon can count on millions of F-mount user since 1960
• Sony can count on thousands of E/FE mount users since A7 release in 2013

But Panasonic cannot count on any M43 users, because M43 lens are NOT adapter compatible with L-mount. Without a [ M43 → L-mount bridge ] M43 users like me looking for a FF upgrade might as well consider Sony Canon or Nikon since my lens cannot be used anyways. Then there is this problem

What is Panasonic Unique Selling point (USP) I can't seem to find one

Click to expand...

007peter said:

• Sony A7-III is well-establised & cheaper $2000
• Sony A7-II is around $1000 - locked up the Value FF market
• Sony A7-I is around $700 - locked up the Value FF market
• Sony A7-S 1/II/III is well regarded FILM camera (replacing Gh4/Gh5)
• Nikon Z6/Z7 locked up the Nikon users from deflection
• Canon EOS-R (lack IBIS, but full EF lens compatibility) guaranty its survival

As much as I prefer Panasonic, I cannot find any USP. Making it worse is that

S1 body is rather Big, Bulky, and very UGLY compare against smaller Sony A7

Click to expand...

007peter said:

S1 lack Articulating LCD that is in Gh4/Gh5 (what is panasonic thinking?)

Click to expand...

007peter said:

Why not just release a fullframe Gh5 that panasonic shooter like me want?

Click to expand...

007peter said:

Why take a risk with an unproen (yet UGLY) big S1 body without an articulating LCD.

Click to expand...

007peter said:

Rumor suggest S1 will be a premium product, to me, its already DOA.

Click to expand...

007peter said:

Keep in mind that Sony A7-S3 will be release soon, and when S1 is finally release, Sony will already have a A7-IV in the pipeline.

Click to expand...

007peter said:

Sony also enjoy full Sigma, Tamron, and Toknia 3rd party support, making it the most afforable Fullframe platform today. I want to stay Panasonic, but unless its price competitive, I don't see any reason to buy a Panasonic S1 when I can't reused my M43 lens anyways.

Click to expand...

Scottelly said:

They don't have to put an articulating LCD on the camera, if nobody else does, right? Who makes a full-frame mirrorless camera with a fully-articulating LCD?

Click to expand...

Scottelly said:

I don't think anyone says Sony is a miserable failure. Panasonic is likely taking a page from the Sony book. Like I said previously though, there are people who would rather buy a product from someone other than Sony, whether it be because they're unhappy with Sony ergonomics or service or something else. Some of those people will buy the new Nikon or Canon, and some will buy the new Panasonic. Panasonic m4/3 buyers who are very happy with their m4/3 camera, but have wished for a full-frame camera from Panasonic, will buy the Panasonic. There will be plenty of customers for Panasonic's L-mount cameras.

Click to expand...

Georgeee said:

That way, all new lenses can be used on all new bodies. customers are in paradise.:-D

Click to expand...

flbdig said:

When camera companies made 35mm and medium format Film cameras, I don't think there was ever a concern if to many companies were making film cameras. Lol.

I don't understand why every new release of a full frame digital, people have conversations about whose switching brands. When in reality new releases don't lead to a lot of switching, no matter how YouTube reviewers make it seem like that's the important topic. Switching IMHO, is when a photographer has a current sensor size and leaves to another companies same sensor size. Or if a person completely gets rid all their current gear for new company or sensor size. I really don't think that's what happens. People add new gear to their existing gear to enhance or increase something they want to accomplish with their photography that they can't currently achieve with their existing gear.

In reality, how many companies are actually selling Full Frame mirrorless digital cameras? Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica and now Panasonic. How is that too many?

Plus we know that mirrorless bodies allow lens to be adapted and we know competition leads to innovative technology and features and lowered pricing to consumers

Click to expand...

Scottelly said:

flbdig said:

When camera companies made 35mm and medium format Film cameras, I don't think there was ever a concern if to many companies were making film cameras. Lol.

I don't understand why every new release of a full frame digital, people have conversations about whose switching brands. When in reality new releases don't lead to a lot of switching, no matter how YouTube reviewers make it seem like that's the important topic. Switching IMHO, is when a photographer has a current sensor size and leaves to another companies same sensor size. Or if a person completely gets rid all their current gear for new company or sensor size. I really don't think that's what happens. People add new gear to their existing gear to enhance or increase something they want to accomplish with their photography that they can't currently achieve with their existing gear.

In reality, how many companies are actually selling Full Frame mirrorless digital cameras? Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica and now Panasonic. How is that too many?

Plus we know that mirrorless bodies allow lens to be adapted and we know competition leads to innovative technology and features and lowered pricing to consumers

Click to expand...

I agree, except for the switching thing. I am a switcher. When something new comes from a competitor, I watch closely. If more good things come, then I consider switching. I considered switching when I saw the first full-frame DSLR camera with a tilt screen and GPS, from Panasonic. Before that I already switched to Nikon from Canon. When Nikon dropped the ball and did not make a full-frame camera with a tilt screen, I switched to Sony. I fully intended to get an A99, until the A99 II came out, but it didn't have GPS or 4K video capability, and that turned me off. Unfortunately the Panasonic S1R will not have GPS, but it will have IBIS, weather seals, a tilt screen, and 4Kp60 video capability. Its high-resolution sensor and excellent viewfinder are just the icing on the cake. I will be buying one ASAP, and I'll use my Sigma SA-mount lenses. I will eventually get the Sigma full-frame camera too, because it will offer better image quality, but for a while I will just use my Sigma SD Quattro H and the Panasonic S1R. Eventually I will probably sell the SD Quattro H to get the full-frame Sigma, and I'll only use the Panasonic S1R for high-ISO and video shooting.

People DID talk about switching back in the film days. When I had my Canon T-90, the Minolta Maxxum came on the market. I considered switching back then, but I wasn't convinced that Minolta was good enough. Many were though, and Minolta became a popular brand, with their auto-focus capability. I was stuck with manual focus, and I never did get an auto-focus film camera. Eventually I got an auto-focus camera, but it was digital. I now finally have a Minolta auto-focus SLR, but I have a Sony A65 digital camera too, which I think is one of the best cameras ever made. I just wish Sony had made it with weather seals (and a whole slew of weather sealed lenses to go with it), and I wish Sony had developed an A65 II with GPS, Wi-Fi, and a 30 MP sensor. Oh, well. I am now a Nikon, Sony, and Sigma shooter, and eventually I'll be shooting Panasonic too.

I realize I am not the normal photographer, but I do believe that more and more photographers in the future will have more than one system. I believe that's the way of the future. More and more electronic gadgets and cameras. Maybe some day I'll even have a Leica camera too . . . and some Leica lenses.

Click to expand...

• If you want a full frame MILC camera with a Foveon sensor, then Sigma is your only option.

• If you want a well made, high quality full frame MILC camera that can double as a status symbol or fashion accessory, then Leica is your only option.

• If you want something like a Sony FE, Canon EOS R, or Nikon Z, but want better ergonomics, better video, better features, and better menu system, then Panasonic is your obvious choice.