What's up with the g100 specs?

Samuel Dilworth wrote:

What worries me about this camera is that the specs are really terribly off – not by a little – and yet Panasonic must have believed otherwise.

And here’s my point: if sales are poor as they surely must be, Panasonic may wrongly blame the failure on Micro Four Thirds generally rather than the botched marketing of this specific camera.

Agreed - if was made to be a failure - and it is hoped that it is regarded as a failed attempt rather than a failure of the M4/3 system per se.

I presume that there was a worry that not enough new camera bodies were being released for M4/3 since the S5 was being developed.  Something had to be done, but one might have argued that simply fitting a 20mp sensor into a GM5 frame and waving a bit of stardust over it might have been a better approach and far less demanding on resources.

As the R&D cost of such a GM5ii would be minuscule then they could have sold it at a very attractive price and still made money.

But of course “video” has become the new watchword for any new camera as it would seem that it is getting very hard to find new stills features enough to make any new camera exciting enough to sell. “Video” has become the new sell-word.

So they make a stop gap brand new camera out of parts on the shelf and it is too large for the GM market, too close in size to the GX9, too side hinged for still shooters to even consider ignoring the rest of the video crazy design.  Too underperforming for the real video users.

No IBIS which is now de jure obligatory for any camera larger than a GM5.

”FAILURE” written all over it specifications even before production was started.  But a “nice” camera no less - I am sure that it will sell really well when the street price meets the market expectation.  Destined to be sold off like the GX8 and to develop a small crazy band of loyalists.

When we seriously look at this camera then surely it must be designed to be GX8-Lite.

The GX8 mob wanted an update - this surely is it.