Poll: What we want vs what manufactures are doing

Tom Caldwell said:

Bassam Guy said:

Tom Caldwell said:

Guy Parsons said:

zurag said:

a flip screen when using portrait style is as useful as mammary glands on a bull

Click to expand...

OK in my case as I rarely use portrait orientation. Majority horizontal shots and street type better suits tilt screen that sits behind the body.

Click to expand...

Guy if you are not using an evf then no doubt you only need your tilt for low or high shots - which are obviously seen as a bonus for tilt. Normally you would use screen folded flat against the camera body with no tilt for landscape or portrait. So no real bother. I can use the fixed lcd of a GM series body when necessary quite easily to frame at a 45 degree angle.

Without the evf the tilt lcd can also be used to make it easier to see in strong sunlight.

One might wonder if those with side hinge lcd doing most of their captures in portrait mode.

I am actually surprised at just how many of my images end up cropped into square format for better composition - when using square format the use of portrait mode is not necessary.

4:3 becomes 3:3 - not that huge a difference.

Click to expand...

Couldn't a portrait photographer argue with equal veracity that landscape mode is not really that necessary?

Click to expand...

I agree.

When I choose to shoot or crop square 1:1 then landscape and portrait mode are no longer needed and a tilt lcd in landscape mode is all that we need.

It is not as if there is no precedent for this is in film camera usage.

Click to expand...

Yup, years back my old KowaSix 6x6cm camera required no turning for portraits. If I had to do that it would have been seriously awkward to view the screen on the side.

Now that KowaSix was a real camera, a big SLR with in-lens shutter and the clunk of the non-return mirror could frighten horses a mile away.

Guy Parsons said:

Tom Caldwell said:

Bassam Guy said:

Tom Caldwell said:

Guy Parsons said:

zurag said:

a flip screen when using portrait style is as useful as mammary glands on a bull

Click to expand...

OK in my case as I rarely use portrait orientation. Majority horizontal shots and street type better suits tilt screen that sits behind the body.

Click to expand...

Guy if you are not using an evf then no doubt you only need your tilt for low or high shots - which are obviously seen as a bonus for tilt. Normally you would use screen folded flat against the camera body with no tilt for landscape or portrait. So no real bother. I can use the fixed lcd of a GM series body when necessary quite easily to frame at a 45 degree angle.

Without the evf the tilt lcd can also be used to make it easier to see in strong sunlight.

One might wonder if those with side hinge lcd doing most of their captures in portrait mode.

I am actually surprised at just how many of my images end up cropped into square format for better composition - when using square format the use of portrait mode is not necessary.

4:3 becomes 3:3 - not that huge a difference.

Click to expand...

Couldn't a portrait photographer argue with equal veracity that landscape mode is not really that necessary?

Click to expand...

I agree.

When I choose to shoot or crop square 1:1 then landscape and portrait mode are no longer needed and a tilt lcd in landscape mode is all that we need.

It is not as if there is no precedent for this is in film camera usage.

Click to expand...

Yup, years back my old KowaSix 6x6cm camera required no turning for portraits. If I had to do that it would have been seriously awkward to view the screen on the side.

Now that KowaSix was a real camera, a big SLR with in-lens shutter and the clunk of the non-return mirror could frighten horses a mile away.

Click to expand...

I had a few MF cameras over the years still do in fact. For noisy shooting I think my Pentax 67 takes the biscuit. It causes minor earth tremors when firing

Bobapingu said:

Cafe Racer said:

NowHearThis said:

I keep seeing several posts and threads regarding the size of M43 cameras, more so recently with the G9II release. It seems like there's 3 camps here:

Click to expand...

It's not simply matter of size for some of us, it's the body construction. We used to have premium METAL flat top form factor cameras that were smaller by design. Now all the current cameras with this form factor are plastic, the E-P7 doesn't even accept an optional EVF like the previous models. This type of camera has been downgraded by both Olympus/OMS and Panasonic leaving the flagship cameras as the only full metal options. I've got no problem with the size of the flagship cameras, they have their place, but there's no new premium metal flat top cameras for those who would like to replace their old one.

Click to expand...

With all the pain about overheating while shooting video, why are they even considering plastic bodies?

Click to expand...

Because plastic bodies are less expensive to make, and most people are less willing to pay a premium price for a small camera, thus making them in plastic makes the most sense. The GM vs GF lineup at the time is a prime example of this.

People can complain all they want about the G9 II being too big, but how many people would be willing to pay for example $1900 for a smaller camera, especially when compromises in features are likely to be required to miniaturize it? For a lot of people, even $1000 would be too much, so the manufacturers would have to cut costs in ways to make it fit under that price.

The best hope for a smaller or mid-sized magnesium alloy body is if Panasonic makes a smaller L-mount camera and recycles the body like they did for the G9 II (which saves on mold/design costs and gives better economy of scale).

Another issue not discussed is Panasonic doesn't appear to have a more efficient image processor which can trickle down to smaller cameras. Instead they are brute forcing more power and putting them in big bodies or adding active cooling (like in GH6) to deal with the heat. So the hope that for example a baby G9 design can trickle down to a GX10 or G100 successor is slim. That has always been an Achilles heal of camera companies, the image processors are too outdated and no sign that they can get more efficient ones.

JakeJY said:

Bobapingu said:

Cafe Racer said:

NowHearThis said:

I keep seeing several posts and threads regarding the size of M43 cameras, more so recently with the G9II release. It seems like there's 3 camps here:

Click to expand...

It's not simply matter of size for some of us, it's the body construction. We used to have premium METAL flat top form factor cameras that were smaller by design. Now all the current cameras with this form factor are plastic, the E-P7 doesn't even accept an optional EVF like the previous models. This type of camera has been downgraded by both Olympus/OMS and Panasonic leaving the flagship cameras as the only full metal options. I've got no problem with the size of the flagship cameras, they have their place, but there's no new premium metal flat top cameras for those who would like to replace their old one.

Click to expand...

With all the pain about overheating while shooting video, why are they even considering plastic bodies?

Click to expand...

Because plastic bodies are less expensive to make, and most people are less willing to pay a premium price for a small camera, thus making them in plastic makes the most sense. The GM vs GF lineup at the time is a prime example of this.

People can complain all they want about the G9 II being too big, but how many people would be willing to pay for example $1900 for a smaller camera, especially when compromises in features are likely to be required to miniaturize it? For a lot of people, even $1000 would be too much, so the manufacturers would have to cut costs in ways to make it fit under that price.

The best hope for a smaller or mid-sized magnesium alloy body is if Panasonic makes a smaller L-mount camera and recycles the body like they did for the G9 II (which saves on mold/design costs and gives better economy of scale).

Another issue not discussed is Panasonic doesn't appear to have a more efficient image processor which can trickle down to smaller cameras. Instead they are brute forcing more power and putting them in big bodies or adding active cooling (like in GH6) to deal with the heat. So the hope that for example a baby G9 design can trickle down to a GX10 or G100 successor is slim. That has always been an Achilles heal of camera companies, the image processors are too outdated and no sign that they can get more efficient ones.

Click to expand...

I guess nothing stays the same especially when other companies are making competitive products. The days of m4/3 premium metal flat top cameras are probably over. I wonder if Panasonic will make a GX9 replacement or will they drop that line of cameras all together. The G100 seems to signify a different direction.

Cafe Racer said:

JakeJY said:

Bobapingu said:

Cafe Racer said:

NowHearThis said:

I keep seeing several posts and threads regarding the size of M43 cameras, more so recently with the G9II release. It seems like there's 3 camps here:

Click to expand...

It's not simply matter of size for some of us, it's the body construction. We used to have premium METAL flat top form factor cameras that were smaller by design. Now all the current cameras with this form factor are plastic, the E-P7 doesn't even accept an optional EVF like the previous models. This type of camera has been downgraded by both Olympus/OMS and Panasonic leaving the flagship cameras as the only full metal options. I've got no problem with the size of the flagship cameras, they have their place, but there's no new premium metal flat top cameras for those who would like to replace their old one.

Click to expand...

With all the pain about overheating while shooting video, why are they even considering plastic bodies?

Click to expand...

Because plastic bodies are less expensive to make, and most people are less willing to pay a premium price for a small camera, thus making them in plastic makes the most sense. The GM vs GF lineup at the time is a prime example of this.

People can complain all they want about the G9 II being too big, but how many people would be willing to pay for example $1900 for a smaller camera, especially when compromises in features are likely to be required to miniaturize it? For a lot of people, even $1000 would be too much, so the manufacturers would have to cut costs in ways to make it fit under that price.

The best hope for a smaller or mid-sized magnesium alloy body is if Panasonic makes a smaller L-mount camera and recycles the body like they did for the G9 II (which saves on mold/design costs and gives better economy of scale).

Another issue not discussed is Panasonic doesn't appear to have a more efficient image processor which can trickle down to smaller cameras. Instead they are brute forcing more power and putting them in big bodies or adding active cooling (like in GH6) to deal with the heat. So the hope that for example a baby G9 design can trickle down to a GX10 or G100 successor is slim. That has always been an Achilles heal of camera companies, the image processors are too outdated and no sign that they can get more efficient ones.

Click to expand...

I guess nothing stays the same especially when other companies are making competitive products. The days of m4/3 premium metal flat top cameras are probably over. I wonder if Panasonic will make a GX9 replacement or will they drop that line of cameras all together. The G100 seems to signify a different direction.

Click to expand...

The new A7C II is available today or tomorrow. Not indicative of a trend, but my local shop got 4 to sell and all of them are already pre-sold.

Maybe Panasonic realizes most will opt for the bigger sensor and far superior AF in a body barely bigger and a bit heavier than a GX.

JakeJY said:

Because plastic bodies are less expensive to make, and most people are less willing to pay a premium price for a small camera

Click to expand...

and yet...

JKdad said:

The new A7C II is available today or tomorrow. No indicative of a trend, but my local shop got 4 to sell and all of them or already pre-sold.

Click to expand...

so people are willing to pay a premium for smaller, when the tech is advanced and competitive

pipituni said:

JakeJY said:

Because plastic bodies are less expensive to make, and most people are less willing to pay a premium price for a small camera

Click to expand...

and yet...

JKdad said:

The new A7C II is available today or tomorrow. No indicative of a trend, but my local shop got 4 to sell and all of them or already pre-sold.

Click to expand...

so people are willing to pay a premium for smaller, when the tech is advanced and competitive

Click to expand...

It seems so or I highly doubt Sony would’ve released these new, small, high-performance cameras.

JKdad said:

pipituni said:

JakeJY said:

Because plastic bodies are less expensive to make, and most people are less willing to pay a premium price for a small camera

Click to expand...

and yet...

JKdad said:

The new A7C II is available today or tomorrow. No indicative of a trend, but my local shop got 4 to sell and all of them or already pre-sold.

Click to expand...

so people are willing to pay a premium for smaller, when the tech is advanced and competitive

Click to expand...

It seems so or I highly doubt Sony would’ve released these new, small, high-performance cameras.

Click to expand...

agreed, which is why i will never understand why Panasonic and OMS insist on having only 1 premium camera - both versions of which seem to be doing well, and then having a slew of intentionally compromised and cheapened smaller bodies, very few of which seem to appeal (for what to me are obvious reasons)

ahaslett said:

Given that MFT has always been a small part of the ILC market, my view is it was a mistake for Olympus and Panasonic not to agree more lens interoperability. That cannot now be undone, but it weakened the mount as a system with a lot of lenses.

Andrew

Click to expand...

This.

OM & Panasonic need to grow m4/3 and cooperating MUCH better is the clearest way to do that.

A close second is to provide the features we see in new phones and other new cameras that make the cameras easier to use and easier to get good results (better AF, IS, processing to reduce noise but preserve detail, etc.). Eliminating the need for post processing would be HUGE. Hearing someone say "you really get better results processing the RAW file in ACR & PS" makes all the non-photographers run away from that camera (and possibly all ILC) and back to their phone camera. The onboard processing needs to be as good as phones, not constantly playing catch up. The fact that post-processing is such a big market - that makes OM & Panasonic NO money - is a sign the camera output is not good enough, is not doing enough onboard, & needs the user to do more work 99% don't want to do. The 1% that do want to do that work are on here discussing it. The rest of the market is running away from RAW, including the gear lovers who just want the gear to either 1) make them LOOK like they know what they are doing or 2) think their pictures will automatically look better due to the camera itself.

Mark N said:

ahaslett said:

Given that MFT has always been a small part of the ILC market, my view is it was a mistake for Olympus and Panasonic not to agree more lens interoperability. That cannot now be undone, but it weakened the mount as a system with a lot of lenses.

Andrew

Click to expand...

This.

OM & Panasonic need to grow m4/3 and cooperating MUCH better is the clearest way to do that.

A close second is to provide the features we see in new phones and other new cameras that make the cameras easier to use and easier to get good results (better AF, IS, processing to reduce noise but preserve detail, etc.). Eliminating the need for post processing would be HUGE. Hearing someone say "you really get better results processing the RAW file in ACR & PS" makes all the non-photographers run away from that camera (and possibly all ILC) and back to their phone camera. The onboard processing needs to be as good as phones, not constantly playing catch up. The fact that post-processing is such a big market - that makes OM & Panasonic NO money - is a sign the camera output is not good enough, is not doing enough onboard, & needs the user to do more work 99% don't want to do. The 1% that do want to do that work are on here discussing it. The rest of the market is running away from RAW, including the gear lovers who just want the gear to either 1) make them LOOK like they know what they are doing or 2) think their pictures will automatically look better due to the camera itself.

Click to expand...

OMDS have a lot of computational features in their bodies and a lot of jpeg settings. There is certainly a market for highly competent jpeg cameras but there is also a market for people who want to control every stage of the process and use the best tools for each stage. Camera OEMs are never going to be able to compete with phone companies in software given the 20:1 ratio in market value and far more in units. Sony are in an interesting place in the market and they have less onboard computation than OMDS and no in-house RAW processor.

I don't agree with your basic thesis. Actually, phones are pretty good anyway. I was talking to a very enthusiastic and capable photographer on Monday who only uses phones and a P&S. He made the right choice for what he does.

I just don't see high end photographic gear as being close to the mass market. It's a very rare person who moves on from a phone. Today there is a fashion for film. That's hardly easy either. I suspect most of the profit in ILC bodies and lenses comes from a minority of high value purchasers. That's how these markets typically work.

Andrew

zurag said:

a flip screen when using portrait style is as useful as mammary glands on a bull

Click to expand...

Unless you're in an awkward situation and your arm is outstretched, so your argument is somewhat bull

pipituni said:

JakeJY said:

Because plastic bodies are less expensive to make, and most people are less willing to pay a premium price for a small camera

Click to expand...

and yet...

JKdad said:

The new A7C II is available today or tomorrow. No indicative of a trend, but my local shop got 4 to sell and all of them or already pre-sold.

Click to expand...

so people are willing to pay a premium for smaller, when the tech is advanced and competitive

Click to expand...

That's an FF camera, which works on a different price bracket (as an example an A6700 only sells for $1400), plus the fact Sony is a stronger brand than Panasonic (even the equivalent FF camera or camera of same sensor size like 1", Panasonic can't sell at the same price).

How many people are willing to pay $2200 for an small M43 camera? People have a hard time justifying even $1000. Don't kid me.

As I mentioned in the part you cut out:

JakeJY said:

The best hope for a smaller or mid-sized magnesium alloy body is if Panasonic makes a smaller L-mount camera and recycles the body like they did for the G9 II (which saves on mold/design costs and gives better economy of scale).

Click to expand...

Sony is also least affected by the following, given their overall volume:

pipituni said:

Another issue not discussed is Panasonic doesn't appear to have a more efficient image processor which can trickle down to smaller cameras. Instead they are brute forcing more power and putting them in big bodies or adding active cooling (like in GH6) to deal with the heat. So the hope that for example a baby G9 design can trickle down to a GX10 or G100 successor is slim. That has always been an Achilles heal of camera companies, the image processors are too outdated and no sign that they can get more efficient ones.

Click to expand...

pipituni said:

JKdad said:

pipituni said:

JakeJY said:

Because plastic bodies are less expensive to make, and most people are less willing to pay a premium price for a small camera

Click to expand...

and yet...

JKdad said:

The new A7C II is available today or tomorrow. No indicative of a trend, but my local shop got 4 to sell and all of them or already pre-sold.

Click to expand...

so people are willing to pay a premium for smaller, when the tech is advanced and competitive

Click to expand...

It seems so or I highly doubt Sony would’ve released these new, small, high-performance cameras.

Click to expand...

agreed, which is why i will never understand why Panasonic and OMS insist on having only 1 premium camera - both versions of which seem to be doing well, and then having a slew of intentionally compromised and cheapened smaller bodies, very few of which seem to appeal (for what to me are obvious reasons)

Click to expand...

Because they tried and they flopped (GM, PEN-F, GX8) and didn't meet the sales they targeted. The large cameras instead have been a safe bet, which is important for a niche brand. Other smaller cheap cameras also have been a success (GX85 still sells today). Having the smaller camera be a mid/low range model seems to work fine.

Regarding the question "how many people would be willing to pay for example $1900 for a smaller camera", if that's what takes to get a manufacture to create a compact m4/3 ILC flat top metal body camera with electronic view finder; protuberant front grip (e.g. Panasonic GX1); generous thumb grip (e.g., Olympus PEN-F) and pancake zoom lens then I am in.

Wish list:

1. M4/3 with latest 25 MP sensor technology

2. Generously sized electronic view finder (OLED) with rubber eyecup

3. Compact metal body (Panasonic Lumix GX1 is the Goldilocks m4/3 ILC sized camera IMHO) covered in leather

4. Compact pancake zoom lens with manual controls and quality haptics control and feel that accept protective threaded lens filters

5. Protuberant front grip attached to body; not an accessory that screws on, which makes the camera larger overall and less compact (I keep a Joby Micro Hybrid Tripod attached to my compact cameras)

6. Generously sized thumb grip (like the PEN-F)

7. No fake pentaprism housing; flat top (ranger finder look) design instead

8. Compact battery charger with foldable power prong (i.e. NO POWER CORD like Olympus is known for)

9. External physical controls (like the PEN-F)

10. Custom leather case designed to hang lengthwise from one's belt

11, Operable power-on switch on the right side of camera body (not on the left side like the PEN-F)

I chose the Sony a6000 in the first year of its release as my first mirrorless camera. My priority was small & light with good AF. It wasn't too long before I discovered MFT and started admiring the look, feel, external controls and the 5-axis IBIS on Olympus cameras.

The Olympus Pen E-P5 was my first Olympus camera and a great match for the Olympus Pen Primes (12mm f/2, 17mm f/1.8, 25mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8 & 75mm f/1.8). This was my main kit for photography for some time and still works great!

Despite my small & light plus tilt screen preferences, I have gone with a heavier option than the Pens and really like my E-M1 Mk2 + 12-40mm f/2.8 combination. Despite being very content with the E-P5 and its great tilt screen, I couldn't resist the Pen-F and after dragging my feet, I finally purchased one before it went out of production. It still felt awkward pairing it with my Pen Primes but I finally found a good lens match with the Olympus 12-45mm f/4. I had previously added a leather half case for a better grip and with the addition of the zoom lens, I have moved away from the small and light goal.

So, while I like the availability of smaller and lighter lenses than APS-C & FF cameras and somewhat compact cameras, my purchases over the years sometimes favored small and light (Pen E-PM2) and sometimes larger form factors (GH4 & E-M1 Mk2). I have a plethora of cameras and lenses that should last for what remains of my time on this earthly plain and I don't really see myself as a prospective customer for future camera products. I also find that I am not the target audience for many mainstream products.

Jim

ahaslett said:

Mark N said:

ahaslett said:

Given that MFT has always been a small part of the ILC market, my view is it was a mistake for Olympus and Panasonic not to agree more lens interoperability. That cannot now be undone, but it weakened the mount as a system with a lot of lenses.

Andrew

Click to expand...

This.

OM & Panasonic need to grow m4/3 and cooperating MUCH better is the clearest way to do that.

A close second is to provide the features we see in new phones and other new cameras that make the cameras easier to use and easier to get good results (better AF, IS, processing to reduce noise but preserve detail, etc.). Eliminating the need for post processing would be HUGE. Hearing someone say "you really get better results processing the RAW file in ACR & PS" makes all the non-photographers run away from that camera (and possibly all ILC) and back to their phone camera. The onboard processing needs to be as good as phones, not constantly playing catch up. The fact that post-processing is such a big market - that makes OM & Panasonic NO money - is a sign the camera output is not good enough, is not doing enough onboard, & needs the user to do more work 99% don't want to do. The 1% that do want to do that work are on here discussing it. The rest of the market is running away from RAW, including the gear lovers who just want the gear to either 1) make them LOOK like they know what they are doing or 2) think their pictures will automatically look better due to the camera itself.

Click to expand...

OMDS have a lot of computational features in their bodies and a lot of jpeg settings. There is certainly a market for highly competent jpeg cameras but there is also a market for people who want to control every stage of the process and use the best tools for each stage. Camera OEMs are never going to be able to compete with phone companies in software given the 20:1 ratio in market value and far more in units. Sony are in an interesting place in the market and they have less onboard computation than OMDS and no in-house RAW processor.

I don't agree with your basic thesis. Actually, phones are pretty good anyway. I was talking to a very enthusiastic and capable photographer on Monday who only uses phones and a P&S. He made the right choice for what he does.

I just don't see high end photographic gear as being close to the mass market. It's a very rare person who moves on from a phone. Today there is a fashion for film. That's hardly easy either. I suspect most of the profit in ILC bodies and lenses comes from a minority of high value purchasers. That's how these markets typically work.

Andrew

Click to expand...

While I agree with some of your points, I think we are BOTH right about different segments of ILC buyers. I personally picked up a couple of my old zoom compacts after not using one for a couple of years due to the lacking pictures I got at my daughter's band concert. I have a good camera on my phone (Pixel), but it is limited, especially in zoom. It can do a lot computationally - has gotten me into astrophotography, which my old Canon SLR could not do without a lot of effort - but has sensor and zoom limits. Soon, I was buying a new compact because my old ones were exactly that. Then I decided I wanted a better, larger sensor, sealed camera, which led me to the E-M5ii (that plus the Zuiko 14-150ii was perfect for my last UK vacation). Still did not shoot RAW since I usually could edit JPGs to pull out details people said you needed RAW for. I am am only now LOOKING to getting into RAW processing since I finally saw some examples where details were truly lost to noise reduction.

Yes, companies like Google, Samsung, and Apple are huge companies with higher phone sales, but the camera part of their phones is only some % of what they spend time developing (not a pun) and writing software for. And the Pixel like mine is still a low selling phone brand.

Sure, the smaller camera makers probably USED to make more money on the mass market cameras, which has mostly (compacts), but not completely (entry level ILC) gone away. They may make more total (and certainly higher %) profit on the high end cameras now than they used to, but they still know that some small profit on entry level leads to later sale of higher end cameras. Or older used cameras as well.

So yes, I think we are both addressing different people in the same market. But both exist.

At the start Panasonic, and then Olympus were the ONLY "mIrrorless" cameras, followed by Sony and Samsung. Canon, Nikon and Pentax were sticking with flappy mirrors for a bit.

I have no idea why people think Panasonic and Olympus "should have cooperated more" about anything. I don't think Olympus had the finances, resources, or interest to do much of anything with their cameras and they thought MFT was a dead-end. Cooperating, at any level, wasn't going to save Olympus.