If Not a New Pen F Then What?

cba_melbourne said:

rashid7 said:

cba_melbourne said:

Sergey Borachev said:

I'm afraid you are not convincing that many people. To me, the GM5 is only really good for one thing - for a M43 user to put in a camera bag as an emergency backup.

Click to expand...

The nice thing about the GM5 (and the GM1) is that yes, you indeed can put it in an m43 camera bag as an emergency backup. You cannot do that with the GR.

You can also put several GM cameras in the same bag, each with a lens attached. You cannot do that with the GR.

cba_melbourne said:

It's not so small for carrying all the time, or for unobstrusive street shooting, but it is too small and limited for use as a camera you want to use as an iLC for any length of time.

Click to expand...

https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/panasonic-gm5-vs-ricoh-gr-iii

With the 14mm lens attached, the GM is pocketable in a denim shirt pocket. Roughly same weight and size as the GR. So, which of the two did you say is not small enough?

cba_melbourne said:

A tiny pocketable camera like the GR however has a real purpose and is actually sought after by many more photographers. It's also limited, eg poor AF, but people are happy to accept the limitations because they use zone focusing with higher ISO and f/8 to capture the moment and they can have it on them all the time, ready for shooting within seconds. For its purpose, the fixed lens is not a big deal, as they bought it to shoot mainly things that are fairly close, not wildlife, sports, ...

Click to expand...

The GM's can use any m43 lens, ANY.

All you can do with the GR, is to buy an expensive wide angle clip-on converter.

cba_melbourne said:

The latest GR III or even the cheap Fuji XF10 has 24MP sensors and they are APSC sensors with better ISO performance. So, they can be used very effectively as 35mm equiv cameras by pressing one button. The resultant image though cropped still has 15.5 MP. It's like having 2 lenses on the GM5. Similarly, the lack of IBIS is not significant, as they will be shooting people, strangers and the need to freeze motion with higher shutter speed is the main challenge. In short, I believe there is a clear case for the GR type of cameras and they will continue to sell, unlike the GMs.

Click to expand...

Yes, the GR is indeed very small and light for an APSC sensor.

The GM5 is roughly same size, but is a true ILC system camera, and has a real EVF.

Have you checked the prices of the purely optical hotshoe viewfinder GV-2 for the GR? US$250. The GW-4 wide angle converter is US$219. It quickly becomes an expensive camera, when you consider those accessories are useless on any other cameras you may own.

Click to expand...

i appreciate how nice a gm5 is (i had the gm1, and UI was impossible). But be real. Even the GM1 w/ 14mm is in no way as pocketable as a GR! Not even close

Click to expand...

- The 14mm lens adds 55g to the GM1, making it 259g, or 2 gram heavier than the GR3

- The 14mm lens adds 20mm to the depth of the GM1. If you just look at the volume of a box that encloses the cameras, that makes the GM1 0.27 liters, and the GR3 0.223 liters. So yes, you can say it is 22 % larger. If however you take the irregular shapes into consideration, it is actually smaller.

And don't forget, the GM1 is a true ILC system camera, not a single purpose point and shoot.

Click to expand...

cba... your last photo tells the story! GM=fat GR=slim (pants pocket)

--
Keep it fun!

Tom Caldwell said:

Bob, I think that we are agreed that it costs almost as much to make a small camera as a large one.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, I can't see why size will affect the cost very much either way. So, it looks like we reached agreement on this.

Tom Caldwell said:

Now lets stand this on its head and the larger camera costs not much more than the smaller one to make but the punters can be convinced to pay quite a lot more for the larger body.

Click to expand...

Some punters. I think that's the key. The idea that the buying market is monolithic is wrong, if it was mFT would be completely dead.

Tom Caldwell said:

A great way to be when the sales of camera bodies are declining.

Click to expand...

Not if the market was truly monolithic and you are competing against cameras that offer both the larger size and what comes with a larger sensor - then you won't sell many. The argument for the smaller sensor is that it provides the opportunity for a smaller size. If you throw that away, you've thrown away your USP.

Tom Caldwell said:

They can then get by with lower sales as every body sold contributes more proportionately to the bottom line. Conversely if smaller bodies have lower margins then why might they make them if they don’t sell like proverbial hot cakes. The need to sell a huge number more of lower priced cameras to make the same bottom line return.

Click to expand...

As I said earlier, the key to survival for mFT is exploiting niches. The niche 'is as big as APS-C and FF but doesn't perform quite as well' isn't a great one. The niche 'covers practically everything you're likely to want in a package that's smaller than the competition' is a much better one. I think there is a problem here:

Tom Caldwell said:

Furthermore if push comes to shove then Panasonic can sell the G9 at a substantial discount and still make money.

Click to expand...

I still think that in terms of packaging, the E-M1 line is better.

Tom Caldwell said:

But of course they can always trim the build cost of the cheaper lines from top quality to consumer level and I suppose that is obviously the reason why the cheap compacts failed against mobile phone cameras. So in essence - sell larger high margin camera bodies and no smaller margin smaller type cameras that might kill a sale of a larger margin one.

That theory does not help our understanding of the Pen-F - or the GX8, for that matter.

Click to expand...

Understanding exploitation of niches explains that. The market is not monolithic. Not everyone wants the same thing. Find a niche that has enough customers in it, and you can add to the bottom line. It depends on ringing the changes of your parts bin and technology base, producing variants which provide what different sets of customers want without sinking big R&D costs. Small and high spec is likely to bring enough buyers to make worthwhile, in my opinion.

--
Things became much easier since I stopped confusing profundity and profanity.

bobn2 said:

Ruairi said:

bobn2 said:

Ruairi said:

Your point about m43 cameras getting bigger to play to the status symbol crowd. I feel sure that played no part in the physical design of the top tier cameras and that they satisfy the mission statement.

Click to expand...

I wonder on what that surety is based. Have you seen the mission statement? The marketing guff around the EMIX definitely did give the impression that it was aimed at people who wanted the 'status' associated with the big Canons and Nikons. The G9 seems to do much the same (with a broad brush) as the E-M1 III, but is a lot bigger. So, has Olympus got some magic shrinking juice that panasonic doesn't or Did Panasonic make a conscious decision to make the camera big?

Click to expand...

I am aware of Olympus' cameras mission statement, Panasonic seem pretty much on board with it too.

'...to make cameras as small as comfortably possible, while keeping the controls full-sized.'

Click to expand...

Really? Please provide a link to that.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why this would be surprising. Here's where I found that specific wording, but almost every interview with Maitani* and his successors about the design principles of Olympus cameras accurately echo this sentiment. *He's the 'M' in 'OM-D'.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

I'm sure you'd agree that a G9 is about as small as you'd want an all-weather camera that will handle a lens like the 200mm f2.8 well.

Click to expand...

Your surety is misplaced again, because I wouldn't agree that. I'm not sure why 'all weather' would change the size of a camera.

Click to expand...

It makes the camera easier to operate wearing gloves. There is a minimum size of camera body before it becomes inhibitive. A G90 cannot be easily used with winter gloves, a G9 is much better for this - and that is far more reasonable an explanation for the dimensions of the G9 than for status-elevating purposes as Tom wrote.

bobn2 said:

I also have never understood why this thing goes around that a big lens needs a big camera behind it. I have a Nikon FM2n. It was a response to the Olympus OM-1. It's a good size for a camera, was then, is now. It's a whole load smaller than a G9.

Click to expand...

You've got like 8 controls on the FM2n, the G9 etc are much more complicated machines. It would not be comfortable to hold an OM-1 or FM2n with a 1.2kg 200mm lens without using the add on grip, which then probably makes them as large as a G9.

bobn2 said:

It's about the same size as my Z6, which in turn is much the same size (maybe a little bigger) than an E-M1. They are all a bit bigger than my GX80, which works quite nicely with a big lens in front of it.

Click to expand...

It might work nicely, but it will not handle nicely with either the 200 or 300mm primes. My GX8 is good with the 100-400, anything larger than that and it becomes unwieldy.

bobn2 said:

My D810 is a lot bigger than any of them, and in many circumstances it's just too big. So, what we're talking about her is not wiping out the big cameras, but having a small one as an option. As Tom points out, Panasonic used to do it, then they stopped. So why not start again?

Click to expand...

I hope they do and am keen to see what the GX10 is like. I'm grateful to have a GM5 (with a little stick-on grip) and find the concept of it hugely valuable. I just disagree that the bigger bodies are puffed up for the sheer vanity of it.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

The E-M1s are a bit too small imho as my fingers fall off the bottom and it's difficult with thick gloves, but it's big enough to handle the biggest m43 lenses well. I guess my surety comes from trying the larger lenses on other smaller bodies.

Click to expand...

Which isn't a problem I've ever felt. As I said, I've never felt that a camera body being small makes it less usable on a big lens. It makes the overall package smaller, which is a win.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you've heard and seen many others express experiencing handling difficulties with small bodies and bigger lenses? Or are you saying that's all a myth?

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

You don't agree that the status-elevating effect of baring an m43 camera is as useful as owning a plain-jane VW Golf?

Click to expand...

I think that the whole idea of cameras for status is a load of tripe.

Click to expand...

We'd be a more level-headed society if that were the case, but it isn't.

bobn2 said:

In any case, mFT cameras are by and large not status baring. They don't get any recognition at all from those not already in the club.

Click to expand...

I find they're well respected (not status-elevating) by the larger photographic community. David Bailey shot them FCOL. But if you're sure they don't get any recognition, I'm going to need some more convincing, and potentially a brain-wipe.

--
Just birds
Flickr

All the Ricoh chat got me to check what they've been up to the last few years. Not much, waterproof P&S mostly and the last GR was released 2018. Still no evf. On the other side of the aisle, the last Pentax was released the same year.

Hope they survive this recession.

Rick

Ruairi said:

bobn2 said:

Ruairi said:

bobn2 said:

Ruairi said:

Your point about m43 cameras getting bigger to play to the status symbol crowd. I feel sure that played no part in the physical design of the top tier cameras and that they satisfy the mission statement.

Click to expand...

I wonder on what that surety is based. Have you seen the mission statement? The marketing guff around the EMIX definitely did give the impression that it was aimed at people who wanted the 'status' associated with the big Canons and Nikons. The G9 seems to do much the same (with a broad brush) as the E-M1 III, but is a lot bigger. So, has Olympus got some magic shrinking juice that panasonic doesn't or Did Panasonic make a conscious decision to make the camera big?

Click to expand...

I am aware of Olympus' cameras mission statement, Panasonic seem pretty much on board with it too.

'...to make cameras as small as comfortably possible, while keeping the controls full-sized.'

Click to expand...

Really? Please provide a link to that.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why this would be surprising. Here's where I found that specific wording, but almost every interview with Maitani* and his successors about the design principles of Olympus cameras accurately echo this sentiment.

Click to expand...

I think a marketing blurb around one man's design philosophy doesn't mean that the company has stuck to it. Olympus has made some really massive cameras, for wha they do.

Ergellegre said:

*He's the 'M' in 'OM-D'.

Click to expand...

Strictly, he's the M in the Olympus 'M-1', which became the 'OM-1' after Leica threatened legal action. But that's a long time ago, and you can see many instances where Olympus hasn't followed that design philosophy.

Ergellegre said:

Ergellegre said:

Ergellegre said:

I'm sure you'd agree that a G9 is about as small as you'd want an all-weather camera that will handle a lens like the 200mm f2.8 well.

Click to expand...

Your surety is misplaced again, because I wouldn't agree that. I'm not sure why 'all weather' would change the size of a camera.

Click to expand...

It makes the camera easier to operate wearing gloves. There is a minimum size of camera body before it becomes inhibitive. A G90 cannot be easily used with winter gloves, a G9 is much better for this - and that is far more reasonable an explanation for the dimensions of the G9 than for status-elevating purposes as Tom wrote.

Click to expand...

OK, I get that. So, we're not talking here about a camera you can use in winter wearing gloves.

Ergellegre said:

Ergellegre said:

I also have never understood why this thing goes around that a big lens needs a big camera behind it. I have a Nikon FM2n. It was a response to the Olympus OM-1. It's a good size for a camera, was then, is now. It's a whole load smaller than a G9.

Click to expand...

You've got like 8 controls on the FM2n, the G9 etc are much more complicated machines. It would not be comfortable to hold an OM-1 or FM2n with a 1.2kg 200mm lens without using the add on grip, which then probably makes them as large as a G9.

Click to expand...

The design can be considerably simplified to advantage. And really, your fingers have so much facility of movement, there is no point putting controls where you can't reach them.

Ergellegre said:

Ergellegre said:

It's about the same size as my Z6, which in turn is much the same size (maybe a little bigger) than an E-M1. They are all a bit bigger than my GX80, which works quite nicely with a big lens in front of it.

Click to expand...

It might work nicely, but it will not handle nicely with either the 200 or 300mm primes.

Click to expand...

Why not?The lens in front doesn't affect the camera conrols.

Ergellegre said:

My GX8 is good with the 100-400, anything larger than that and it becomes unwieldy.

Click to expand...

Don't see that. How does it become unwieldy. I find that may GX80 and Z6 on the back of big lenses are more wieldy than the D810, to be honest.

Ergellegre said:

Ergellegre said:

My D810 is a lot bigger than any of them, and in many circumstances it's just too big. So, what we're talking about her is not wiping out the big cameras, but having a small one as an option. As Tom points out, Panasonic used to do it, then they stopped. So why not start again?

Click to expand...

I hope they do and am keen to see what the GX10 is like. I'm grateful to have a GM5 (with a little stick-on grip) and find the concept of it hugely valuable. I just disagree that the bigger bodies are puffed up for the sheer vanity of it.

Click to expand...

I don't think that either Tom or myself has suggested that. What we both suggested is that there is a vanity market, in addition to those that have some sensible reason for wanting a big camera (and it is, after all, a case of personal preference).

Ergellegre said:

Ergellegre said:

Ergellegre said:

The E-M1s are a bit too small imho as my fingers fall off the bottom and it's difficult with thick gloves, but it's big enough to handle the biggest m43 lenses well. I guess my surety comes from trying the larger lenses on other smaller bodies.

Click to expand...

Which isn't a problem I've ever felt. As I said, I've never felt that a camera body being small makes it less usable on a big lens. It makes the overall package smaller, which is a win.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you've heard and seen many others express experiencing handling difficulties with small bodies and bigger lenses? Or are you saying that's all a myth?

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying it isn't a problem I've ever felt. We're all different.

Ergellegre said:

Ergellegre said:

Ergellegre said:

You don't agree that the status-elevating effect of baring an m43 camera is as useful as owning a plain-jane VW Golf?

Click to expand...

I think that the whole idea of cameras for status is a load of tripe.

Click to expand...

We'd be a more level-headed society if that were the case, but it isn't.

Click to expand...

The sort of society that we are doesn't change what is and isn't a load of tripe. It just affects how many tripe-heads there are around.

Ergellegre said:

Ergellegre said:

In any case, mFT cameras are by and large not status baring. They don't get any recognition at all from those not already in the club.

Click to expand...

I find they're well respected (not status-elevating) by the larger photographic community. David Bailey shot them FCOL. But if you're sure they don't get any recognition, I'm going to need some more convincing, and potentially a brain-wipe.

Click to expand...

That was the club I was talking about. More serious photographers recognise that gear choices are very personal, and don't try to characterise people's photographic worth by the gear they use.

march hare said:

By the time ricoh bought Pentax the GXR had lost the game

Click to expand...

Maybe so - not enough fanatics

It seems that the GM series seem to inevitably get lost in the “pocket” argument as if this were the only advantage of a very small camera body. When the size of “the kit” is compared the GM5 + any M4/3 lens is smaller than any other M4/3 format camera body plus the same lens. It sacrifices user conveniences to get that small and for those that like their user conveniences then the GM5 is not for them. But the camera still provides all the facilities needed to be used as a full-function camera.

Furthermore I believe that the new GRIII is actually made smaller than its predecessor. I came to the GM1 from the Ricoh GR (its build contemporary) the reason being that I could see the advantage of choosing the lens that I mounted on it. The first two lenses that I bought for it beyond the kit zoom were the Olympus 12/2.0 and the Panasonic 42.5/1.2 Nocticron. Hardly waltzing down the pocketing aisle. But when I went on an overseas holiday I took seven lenses (rather stupidly) and the GM1 in a small shoulder bag. In the end I only used three of them - the three M4/3 mount lenses I had.

Ricoh, as it so happens, has now found it necessary to launch their third version of the GR when during the same period of time there has only been the GM1/5 twins from Panasonic.

In all the time I had my GRRD/GR bodies (at least 10 years) I only pocketed the GR version a couple of times when I needed both hands and there was nowhere else to put it. I had done this because the GRD/GR was slightly notorious for dust on sensor which could most likely come from pocket lint - although many of those whose cameras were afflicted claimed their pockets were squeaky clean. My only dust bunny fixed permanently inside my GR seems to have come form one of my two pocketing exercises. My squeaky clean was obviously not squeaky enough. Thankfully only truly visible at tiny apertures in blue sky images.

I have never tried to pocket a GM camera body but appreciate it as a very compact systems camera - I have a few and can use them to backup each other and carry any them of them or multiple cameras in very small shoulder bags.

I do this because it suits me and not because I am in any way trying to start a new trend. In fact there will be no new trend as you cannot buy these camera bodies any more.

But I am not stupid - I have a GX9 and G9 as my real backup camera bodies. However when out and about it is much easier to just take a GM5 ......

I remember one person on the Ricoh forum confessing that a key in his pocket shared with his then GRD had passed through the leaves of the closed lens cover and scratched the surface of his lens.

rashid7 said:

cba_melbourne said:

rashid7 said:

cba_melbourne said:

Sergey Borachev said:

I'm afraid you are not convincing that many people. To me, the GM5 is only really good for one thing - for a M43 user to put in a camera bag as an emergency backup.

Click to expand...

The nice thing about the GM5 (and the GM1) is that yes, you indeed can put it in an m43 camera bag as an emergency backup. You cannot do that with the GR.

You can also put several GM cameras in the same bag, each with a lens attached. You cannot do that with the GR.

rashid7 said:

It's not so small for carrying all the time, or for unobstrusive street shooting, but it is too small and limited for use as a camera you want to use as an iLC for any length of time.

Click to expand...

https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/panasonic-gm5-vs-ricoh-gr-iii

With the 14mm lens attached, the GM is pocketable in a denim shirt pocket. Roughly same weight and size as the GR. So, which of the two did you say is not small enough?

rashid7 said:

A tiny pocketable camera like the GR however has a real purpose and is actually sought after by many more photographers. It's also limited, eg poor AF, but people are happy to accept the limitations because they use zone focusing with higher ISO and f/8 to capture the moment and they can have it on them all the time, ready for shooting within seconds. For its purpose, the fixed lens is not a big deal, as they bought it to shoot mainly things that are fairly close, not wildlife, sports, ...

Click to expand...

The GM's can use any m43 lens, ANY.

All you can do with the GR, is to buy an expensive wide angle clip-on converter.

rashid7 said:

The latest GR III or even the cheap Fuji XF10 has 24MP sensors and they are APSC sensors with better ISO performance. So, they can be used very effectively as 35mm equiv cameras by pressing one button. The resultant image though cropped still has 15.5 MP. It's like having 2 lenses on the GM5. Similarly, the lack of IBIS is not significant, as they will be shooting people, strangers and the need to freeze motion with higher shutter speed is the main challenge. In short, I believe there is a clear case for the GR type of cameras and they will continue to sell, unlike the GMs.

Click to expand...

Yes, the GR is indeed very small and light for an APSC sensor.

The GM5 is roughly same size, but is a true ILC system camera, and has a real EVF.

Have you checked the prices of the purely optical hotshoe viewfinder GV-2 for the GR? US$250. The GW-4 wide angle converter is US$219. It quickly becomes an expensive camera, when you consider those accessories are useless on any other cameras you may own.

Click to expand...

i appreciate how nice a gm5 is (i had the gm1, and UI was impossible). But be real. Even the GM1 w/ 14mm is in no way as pocketable as a GR! Not even close

Click to expand...

- The 14mm lens adds 55g to the GM1, making it 259g, or 2 gram heavier than the GR3

- The 14mm lens adds 20mm to the depth of the GM1. If you just look at the volume of a box that encloses the cameras, that makes the GM1 0.27 liters, and the GR3 0.223 liters. So yes, you can say it is 22 % larger. If however you take the irregular shapes into consideration, it is actually smaller.

And don't forget, the GM1 is a true ILC system camera, not a single purpose point and shoot.

Click to expand...

cba... your last photo tells the story! GM=fat GR=slim (pants pocket)

Click to expand...

Ok, ok, you are right on that. But it's not an ILC

Skeeterbytes said:

All the Ricoh chat got me to check what they've been up to the last few years. Not much, waterproof P&S mostly and the last GR was released 2018. Still no evf. On the other side of the aisle, the last Pentax was released the same year.

Hope they survive this recession.

Rick

Click to expand...

Come hell or high water Ricoh will keep making and selling GR cameras - it is a “face” thing with them as they are one of the traditional camera makers and now a huge corporation that make many things and few of them are cameras.

Even if they only can sell 100 per year. The Ricoh forum were regularly worried that the GRD/GR might be canned but when the rationalisation after the Pentax purchase every other model except the GRD disappeared.

This is a sentimental thing based on the apparent successful design of their “GR” film cameras - which now sell for quite considerable prices.

Panasonic has quite a lot of camera bodies marketed and don’t need to be sentimental about the GM series.

Whatever Ricoh did the purchase of Pentax assets does not seem to have had any lasting favourable effect.

Must take my GXR with the zoom module out for another walk.

At least M4/3 is still making a variety of camera body styles and sizes. But I sense that this variety is being eroded. But there might be some wisdom in making a niche design - selling into it until the market seems saturated then “pick another niche type” and sell into it for a while - repeat. If you wanted a Sony FE body then there is the A7 and A9 shape in many variations. Make a horror user interface and gradually improve on it over many models to create a continuing upgrade market. Hold features back for the next model off the stocks?

Other companies seem to be capable of making best of the breed first hit and then we get anxious because the update cycle collapses.

One might think that the buying public needs a shopping “fix” every few years. In fact the world market for camera bodies might have plateaued - especially with the new depressed market outlook emerging. Buy well and keep has been something I like to do but is a hard act to keep up when technical change is rampaging. Easier when the change gets reduced to fiddling with the firmware.

This maybe is one of the attractions of the GM series - no fancy firmware trick - its just a basic camera “ennit” ? No party tricks can be fitted in ....

I'm perfectly happy with the Pen F I already have.

ata3001 said:

I'm perfectly happy with the Pen F I already have.

Click to expand...

Me too....

bobn2 said:

Ruairi said:

bobn2 said:

Ruairi said:

bobn2 said:

Ruairi said:

Your point about m43 cameras getting bigger to play to the status symbol crowd. I feel sure that played no part in the physical design of the top tier cameras and that they satisfy the mission statement.

Click to expand...

I wonder on what that surety is based. Have you seen the mission statement? The marketing guff around the EMIX definitely did give the impression that it was aimed at people who wanted the 'status' associated with the big Canons and Nikons. The G9 seems to do much the same (with a broad brush) as the E-M1 III, but is a lot bigger. So, has Olympus got some magic shrinking juice that panasonic doesn't or Did Panasonic make a conscious decision to make the camera big?

Click to expand...

I am aware of Olympus' cameras mission statement, Panasonic seem pretty much on board with it too.

'...to make cameras as small as comfortably possible, while keeping the controls full-sized.'

Click to expand...

Really? Please provide a link to that.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why this would be surprising. Here's where I found that specific wording, but almost every interview with Maitani* and his successors about the design principles of Olympus cameras accurately echo this sentiment.

Click to expand...

I think a marketing blurb around one man's design philosophy doesn't mean that the company has stuck to it. Olympus has made some really massive cameras, for wha they do.

Click to expand...

I guess it's healthy to be cynical. From a design PoV, I think there's merit.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

*He's the 'M' in 'OM-D'.

Click to expand...

Strictly, he's the M in the Olympus 'M-1', which became the 'OM-1' after Leica threatened legal action. But that's a long time ago, and you can see many instances where Olympus hasn't followed that design philosophy.

Click to expand...

Which cameras are you thinking of? Some of the Stylus cameras certainly didn't have full-size controls, and the XA shrunk in the wash a bit too, but none of them have the 'M' moniker.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

I'm sure you'd agree that a G9 is about as small as you'd want an all-weather camera that will handle a lens like the 200mm f2.8 well.

Click to expand...

Your surety is misplaced again, because I wouldn't agree that. I'm not sure why 'all weather' would change the size of a camera.

Click to expand...

It makes the camera easier to operate wearing gloves. There is a minimum size of camera body before it becomes inhibitive. A G90 cannot be easily used with winter gloves, a G9 is much better for this - and that is far more reasonable an explanation for the dimensions of the G9 than for status-elevating purposes as Tom wrote.

Click to expand...

OK, I get that. So, we're not talking here about a camera you can use in winter wearing gloves.

Click to expand...

I was only challenging the oft-repeated notion I picked up from Tom's comment that the bigger m43 cameras are only so large to provide some ego-girth for the vainer customer. No intention to disrupt the potential micro-m43 camera chat.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

I also have never understood why this thing goes around that a big lens needs a big camera behind it. I have a Nikon FM2n. It was a response to the Olympus OM-1. It's a good size for a camera, was then, is now. It's a whole load smaller than a G9.

Click to expand...

You've got like 8 controls on the FM2n, the G9 etc are much more complicated machines. It would not be comfortable to hold an OM-1 or FM2n with a 1.2kg 200mm lens without using the add on grip, which then probably makes them as large as a G9.

Click to expand...

The design can be considerably simplified to advantage. And really, your fingers have so much facility of movement, there is no point putting controls where you can't reach them.

Click to expand...

The design of a new m43 compact camera? Personally I think Lumix specifically should make a cash cow, content-creation camera, but do it really well from their parts bin, I wrote a thread about that. Something to get the money coming in (optimistic I know) to fund development of the really good stuff.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

It's about the same size as my Z6, which in turn is much the same size (maybe a little bigger) than an E-M1. They are all a bit bigger than my GX80, which works quite nicely with a big lens in front of it.

Click to expand...

It might work nicely, but it will not handle nicely with either the 200 or 300mm primes.

Click to expand...

Why not? The lens in front doesn't affect the camera controls.

Click to expand...

It affects my fingers, lactic acid and so on. But I'm not raising complaints about that and it's unimportant with regards to potential new generation of micro m43 cameras.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

My GX8 is good with the 100-400, anything larger than that and it becomes unwieldy.

Click to expand...

Don't see that. How does it become unwieldy. I find that may GX80 and Z6 on the back of big lenses are more wieldy than the D810, to be honest.

Click to expand...

Ah, I tend to consider it the other way around. I hope you don't handle knives this way.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

My D810 is a lot bigger than any of them, and in many circumstances it's just too big. So, what we're talking about her is not wiping out the big cameras, but having a small one as an option. As Tom points out, Panasonic used to do it, then they stopped. So why not start again?

Click to expand...

I hope they do and am keen to see what the GX10 is like. I'm grateful to have a GM5 (with a little stick-on grip) and find the concept of it hugely valuable. I just disagree that the bigger bodies are puffed up for the sheer vanity of it.

Click to expand...

I don't think that either Tom or myself has suggested that. What we both suggested is that there is a vanity market, in addition to those that have some sensible reason for wanting a big camera (and it is, after all, a case of personal preference).

Click to expand...

^^

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

The E-M1s are a bit too small imho as my fingers fall off the bottom and it's difficult with thick gloves, but it's big enough to handle the biggest m43 lenses well. I guess my surety comes from trying the larger lenses on other smaller bodies.

Click to expand...

Which isn't a problem I've ever felt. As I said, I've never felt that a camera body being small makes it less usable on a big lens. It makes the overall package smaller, which is a win.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you've heard and seen many others express experiencing handling difficulties with small bodies and bigger lenses? Or are you saying that's all a myth?

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying it isn't a problem I've ever felt. We're all different.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

You don't agree that the status-elevating effect of baring an m43 camera is as useful as owning a plain-jane VW Golf?

Click to expand...

I think that the whole idea of cameras for status is a load of tripe.

Click to expand...

We'd be a more level-headed society if that were the case, but it isn't.

Click to expand...

The sort of society that we are doesn't change what is and isn't a load of tripe. It just affects how many tripe-heads there are around.

Click to expand...

Oh, yes, I agree, cameras for status is tripe.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

In any case, mFT cameras are by and large not status baring. They don't get any recognition at all from those not already in the club.

Click to expand...

I find they're well respected (not status-elevating) by the larger photographic community. David Bailey shot them FCOL. But if you're sure they don't get any recognition, I'm going to need some more convincing, and potentially a brain-wipe.

Click to expand...

That was the club I was talking about. More serious photographers recognise that gear choices are very personal, and don't try to characterise people's photographic worth by the gear they use.

Click to expand...

That's something to aspire to.

gary0319 said:

ata3001 said:

I'm perfectly happy with the Pen F I already have.

Click to expand...

Me too....

Click to expand...

That makes three of us.