Panasonic seems to be putting all its eggs into the video basket. Like many other camera manufacturers they perhaps see the opportunity for new stills oriented camera bodies having diminishing room for improvement.
Whilst they see video as having a long way to go yet and plenty of room to sell exciting extra (video) features. Rah, rah ... tish, boom, crash ....
The only real benefit of video captures speeds for (stodgy) mainly still-image shooters is higher burst capture speeds and their use for hi-resolution captures.
I would argue that M4/3 users are mainly stills-oriented shooter who may do some occasional video. There is no doubt that there are users whose prime object is good video but I suggest that they might be a minority with a strong voice. I give them the GH6 and G100 for their close consideration and pleasure of use.
Furthermore RF-Style bodies with side hinged lcd units simply do not sell well. Examples are the GX8 and Pen-F - both acknowledged as great cameras but never repeated because they did not set the market on fire as they should have. RF-style bodies are the least video-oriented style of camera body made so why do they need a side hinged lcd?
The G100 as a sort of poor-man's Vlogging camera is so video oriented as to put off potential still shooting buyers who might decide that its relative compact dimensions were attractive. But a camera made firstly for stills that did a bit of video is not the same as one optimised for video that can also do stills. We might consider the GH6 as a standout but would a still shooter buy a complex video capability as something that can be overlooked when an OM-1 is winking at them?
The relative excitement on the forum for the OM-1 and lack of it for the GH6 (both impressive cameras) obviously shows that as far as the interested market lies you can lead a stills shooter to a camera specialised for video but you cannot make them buy one.
"Hey", says someone in Panasonic marketing, "sales are down, I wonder why ...."
Whilst they see video as having a long way to go yet and plenty of room to sell exciting extra (video) features. Rah, rah ... tish, boom, crash ....
The only real benefit of video captures speeds for (stodgy) mainly still-image shooters is higher burst capture speeds and their use for hi-resolution captures.
I would argue that M4/3 users are mainly stills-oriented shooter who may do some occasional video. There is no doubt that there are users whose prime object is good video but I suggest that they might be a minority with a strong voice. I give them the GH6 and G100 for their close consideration and pleasure of use.
Furthermore RF-Style bodies with side hinged lcd units simply do not sell well. Examples are the GX8 and Pen-F - both acknowledged as great cameras but never repeated because they did not set the market on fire as they should have. RF-style bodies are the least video-oriented style of camera body made so why do they need a side hinged lcd?
The G100 as a sort of poor-man's Vlogging camera is so video oriented as to put off potential still shooting buyers who might decide that its relative compact dimensions were attractive. But a camera made firstly for stills that did a bit of video is not the same as one optimised for video that can also do stills. We might consider the GH6 as a standout but would a still shooter buy a complex video capability as something that can be overlooked when an OM-1 is winking at them?
The relative excitement on the forum for the OM-1 and lack of it for the GH6 (both impressive cameras) obviously shows that as far as the interested market lies you can lead a stills shooter to a camera specialised for video but you cannot make them buy one.
"Hey", says someone in Panasonic marketing, "sales are down, I wonder why ...."
