Panasonic announcements

cba_melbourne said:

JakeJY said:

Personally, I'm just glad both are still selling M43 cameras and lenses despite many years of naysayers saying the format will die in a short while.

Click to expand...

It should be obvious to everyone: once established mount systems like m43, never "die in a short while". Invariably, they slowly and gradually fade away.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on how you define it.

Samsung NX died fairly quickly, was on market 2010, died in 2016. (6 years)

Nikon 1 started 2011/2012, died in mid-2018. (6 years)

Pentax Q started in 2011 died in 2017 (6 years)

So there's a graveyard of mirrorless formats that died in roughly 6 years, and naysayers have been saying for a while that M43 would be no exception.

Micro four thirds was released in 2008, I remember in around 2016 (around the time when I was shopping for a camera and ended up with my GX85) people were wondering if M43 is dead already or circling the drain.

For example, one of the most popular camera shows back then DigitalRev TV had this video:



It's been 9 years since then and many M43 cameras have come out since then that are far more capable than what was available back then (while not focusing on the smaller cameras, instead the opposite).

JakeJY said:

JakeJY wroteersonally, I'm just glad both are still selling M43 cameras and lenses despite many years of naysayers saying the format will die in a short while.

Click to expand...

It should be obvious to everyone: once established mount systems like m43, never "die in a short while". Invariably, they slowly and gradually fade away.

JakeJY said:

I guess it depends on how you define it.

Samsung NX died fairly quickly, was on market 2010, died in 2016. (6 years)

Nikon 1 started 2011/2012, died in mid-2018. (6 years)

Pentax Q started in 2011 died in 2017 (6 years)

So there's a graveyard of mirrorless formats that died in roughly 6 years, and naysayers have been saying for a while that M43 would be no exception.

Micro four thirds was released in 2008, I remember in around 2016 (around the time when I was shopping for a camera and ended up with my GX85) people were wondering if M43 is dead already or circling the drain.

It's been 9 years since then and many M43 cameras have come out since then that are far more capable than what was available back then (while not focusing on the smaller cameras, instead the opposite).

Click to expand...

The thing is, in 2016, M43 had two competitors in the mirrorless realm; Sony's F mount APSC and their first gen FE FF's, and Canon's M mounts. Both of the lens offerings for the APSC bodies in these mounts were....anemic. And the FF A7 bodies were sparse on the lenses, yet, and kind of beta level efforts. So, M43 had a great niche to fit in, with the excellent lens selection and their recently developed 20MP bodies.

Fast forward to today, though, and the entire market has shifted. Canon, Nikon, and Sony, all now have much more advanced options in their mirrorless lines, including well priced and well accessorized APSC models, and a path for common mounts within their systems for APSC users to interchange with FF if they want in the future. And, third party lens developers are deep in the mix, too.

OM has some unique offerings, along with the name recognition, that give it a chance to stay in the game in M43. And, they have been releasing interesting cameras with capabilities that are competitive, and lenses that are really unique. So, they are carving out a niche that may be able to stick around.

Panasonic, however, has stepped back, and offered "refreshes" of most of its cameras, and kited the body of the G9II from their FF line. They have not done what they have needed to in terms of AF of their more basic models, and, while the 20MP sensor in the models below the G9II is very competent, it's showing its age, certainly by comparison to the APSC competition out there.

The only area that Panasonic has been genuinely busy in in the M43 realm is with their GH cameras. But for photography? They are not staying competitive. They have introduced 8 FF models since 2020, and only two new non-GH M43 models (the G100 and the G9II) in the same time frame. And that's why the gloom and doom is hovering around here about this now.

So, stiff competition from the big 3, Panasonic putting its development eggs into L-mount, and market obsession with FF, are genuinely worrisome for the format's long term health, now, vs 9 years ago.

-J

jalywol said:

The thing is, in 2016, M43 had two competitors in the mirrorless realm; Sony's F mount APSC and their first gen FE FF's, and Canon's M mounts. Both of the lens offerings for the APSC bodies in these mounts were....anemic. And the FF A7 bodies were sparse on the lenses, yet, and kind of beta level efforts. So, M43 had a great niche to fit in, with the excellent lens selection and their recently developed 20MP bodies.

Fast forward to today, though, and the entire market has shifted. Canon, Nikon, and Sony, all now have much more advanced options in their mirrorless lines, including well priced and well accessorized APSC models, and a path for common mounts within their systems for APSC users to interchange with FF if they want in the future. And, third party lens developers are deep in the mix, too.

OM has some unique offerings, along with the name recognition, that give it a chance to stay in the game in M43. And, they have been releasing interesting cameras with capabilities that are competitive, and lenses that are really unique. So, they are carving out a niche that may be able to stick around.

Panasonic, however, has stepped back, and offered "refreshes" of most of its cameras, and kited the body of the G9II from their FF line. They have not done what they have needed to in terms of AF of their more basic models, and, while the 20MP sensor in the models below the G9II is very competent, it's showing its age, certainly by comparison to the APSC competition out there.

The only area that Panasonic has been genuinely busy in in the M43 realm is with their GH cameras. But for photography? They are not staying competitive. They have introduced 8 FF models since 2020, and only two new non-GH M43 models (the G100 and the G9II) in the same time frame. And that's why the gloom and doom is hovering around here about this now.

So, stiff competition from the big 3, Panasonic putting its development eggs into L-mount, and market obsession with FF, are genuinely worrisome for the format's long term health, now, vs 9 years ago.

-J

Click to expand...

But Panasonic have always focused more on video because that is their strong suit. The G9 was an experiment and I was surprised that they even bothered with a successor (given it didn't sell that well until they dropped the price by a lot). As mentioned up thread, it's hard to tell how well Panasonic is doing without knowing their profits or losses. Having a fleshed out lineup doesn't mean you are profitable nor does having a focused lineup mean you are not.

The forum needs a constant stream of new product to keep the gearhead flushes strong. But it should be obvious that there are fewer and fewer exciting improvements that can be introduced for stills photography to result in product that is worth revolutionary updating.

The big three keep trickling out new models of much the same thing but improved. Those that like the upgrade cycle find enough in each new model to be worth an exchange upgrade whist M4/3 has been more a mount system where multiple shapes, sizes, and types of camera bodies has seemed preferable. Some of us have seen it as an excuse of sorts to have several quite differently diverse camera bodies on our shelves that can be kitted up at will for different use purposes. All can feed off the same large pool and variety of lenses.

As we worry-wart away about the lack of eye-popping new camera body kit and shrivel at the thought that the three majors are going to squeeze out our niche mount system. We must bear in mind that as long as there are some new M4/3 mount camera bodies to be bought and existing ones keep astonishing us on how good their image output actually is then there is a happy market to sell lenses into.

Rarely does Panasonic, and to a lesser extent, Olympus/OMS resort to serially upgraded camera bodies such as "II", "III" etc - more often it is a new niche style camera body which once launched and sold off is not repeated. We moan a lot about this but M4/3 is littered with carcasses of pseudo failures that, in retrospect, seem to have been very popular after being sold into a limited market. Such as the GM series, GX8, Pen-F and E-M1x.

We can rant about these "abject failures" that have never been repeated because they did not sell well enough. But at least they were made and we can enjoy one of them if we bought one new or summoned enough courage to buy one second hand later.

The majors make a shape that they make popular by market clout and then update it continuously. I have made my point before that the larger firms, in a way, have a bigger issue in the declining still-capture camera body market. Their business model is based on huge volume of sales and the natural instinct of the human soul to to upgrade product if they can afford to do so - all they need is the comfort of a shape they already know fitted up with enough new-tech to be worth yet another perhaps unnecessary upgrade. But surely if their market stops wanting the latest upgrade they have a huge problem in keeping their existing production and distribution machine turning over.

Smaller, niche and profitable, seems more flexible to me.

Recently even Panasonic has run out of model names and we have a G9II to replace the G9 and simply a G100D to replace the G100. They might be wise to hold back IBIS for the G100/D so as to be able to have something new and exciting to offer in the more compact end of the M4/3 market. After all the G100/D is a pretty slick little thing even if it is not the pinnacle of high-tech as of yet. The platform has promises and surely, once perfected, there is nowhere left to go?

I don't have any issues with the G9II body being "borrowed" from Panasonic's L-Mount series. It is a fine M4/3 camera and only thoughtful ownership over some time lets us realise just how good it really is.

Note also that the latest surge of Panasonic's new models has produced a cacophony of model numbers in a most confusing manner. Unable to out niche the majors it seems that Panasonic is about to join them with a flood of very similar cameras sold into various price points on the market. If you can't beat them then perhaps join them?

I think that we are premature in looking at the death of a handy niche mount system - unassailed by direct competition. Only Fuji has its own niche mount system as well whilst the majors battle it out for hearts and minds for FF sensors and throw in a little aps-c genuflection that is basically poorly served with native lenses in the hope that newbie aps-c owners will gravitate up to the premium FF lens market.

Yes I am interested in FF sensor systems but the reality is that I am heavily invested in M4/3 kit and that kit can still make images that make me quite satisfied.

JakeJY said:

cba_melbourne said:

JakeJY said:

Personally, I'm just glad both are still selling M43 cameras and lenses despite many years of naysayers saying the format will die in a short while.

Click to expand...

It should be obvious to everyone: once established mount systems like m43, never "die in a short while". Invariably, they slowly and gradually fade away.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on how you define it.

Click to expand...

I would think to qualify as an "established" mount, that mount needs to have had some serious worldwide market share at it's peak when it was still alive. I would think something like at least 2%.

In it's best days, m43 had something like almost 9% global market share as I recall. It's highest market share in any single country was in 2021 in Japan with 21.7%.

JakeJY said:

Samsung NX died fairly quickly, was on market 2010, died in 2016. (6 years)

Nikon 1 started 2011/2012, died in mid-2018. (6 years)

Pentax Q started in 2011 died in 2017 (6 years)

Click to expand...

Those mounts did not die suddenly. They never took off in the first place. One could argue they started dying slowly pretty much right after release. Not enough people did buy into in the first year.

JakeJY said:

So there's a graveyard of mirrorless formats that died in roughly 6 years, and naysayers have been saying for a while that M43 would be no exception.

Micro four thirds was released in 2008, I remember in around 2016 (around the time when I was shopping for a camera and ended up with my GX85) people were wondering if M43 is dead already or circling the drain.

For example, one of the most popular camera shows back then DigitalRev TV had this video:
It's been 9 years since then and many M43 cameras have come out since then that are far more capable than what was available back then (while not focusing on the smaller cameras, instead the opposite).

Click to expand...

If we are honest with ourselves, we all love new equipment, and having the latest and greatest. We also know that, in some areas, micro four thirds is lacking. Speaking personally, for me the sensors being stuck at 20 megapixel (or 25 for Lumix) is a perceived problem, even if In reality it's not an actual problem. APSC and FF all have much higher capacity sensors available, right up to 60 megapixel if required.

Another truth which we are loath to admit is that changing systems is high on cost but low on return. Once you "invest" in one system (I use the word invest loosely) the cost of changing is such that you get "locked in". I've mentioned here before that I'm considering adding a used S1R to my bag, to take advantage of the 47 megapixel sensor using legacy lenses. This got me thinking...

Many FF cameras have an APSC crop mode, engaged when an APSC lens is mounted. I've not looked at flange distances but could Panasonic produced a FF body with such a mode, and offer a micro four thirds to L adapter? The crop mode could engage automatically, and we could continue to use our micro four thirds lenses on a FF body.

I think Samsung made a mistake in the design of the NX mount which made the whole effort a bit of a bind going forward. The mount system is critical and Samsung just took the loss write off sooner rather than later.

Both the Nikon 1 mount and the Pentax Q mount required a whole series of new "for purpose" lenses in those mounts. Always a big ask. Good lenses were expensive and few in number. Sales were never enough to support a big investment in a single type mount structure. A classic chicken or the egg situation - lenses first? or camera bodies first?

On the other hand hand the GM series cameras already had access to a wide range of M4/3 mount capable lenses from day one. Investing in a GM series body meant that any extra lenses bought from those currently and prospectively available for M4/3 could be used in a wide range of M4/3 camera bodies beyond the GM series.

But the GM series did not sell well as the popular belief was that they were only "pocketable" cameras and therefore were self-use limited to only a few compact lens types. Therefore effectively ignoring much of the richness of lens variety that the M4/3 system offered.

cathal gantly said:

If we are honest with ourselves, we all love new equipment, and having the latest and greatest. We also know that, in some areas, micro four thirds is lacking. Speaking personally, for me the sensors being stuck at 20 megapixel (or 25 for Lumix) is a perceived problem, even if In reality it's not an actual problem. APSC and FF all have much higher capacity sensors available, right up to 60 megapixel if required.

Another truth which we are loath to admit is that changing systems is high on cost but low on return. Once you "invest" in one system (I use the word invest loosely) the cost of changing is such that you get "locked in". I've mentioned here before that I'm considering adding a used S1R to my bag, to take advantage of the 47 megapixel sensor using legacy lenses. This got me thinking...

Click to expand...

I have tinkered with a number of FF images cropped by 1/4 giving an effective doubling of focal length . I feel that the results are competitive with m43. The L mount flange distance is longer than the flange distance of m43 so an adapter would be improbable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

Nikon Z mount can adapt almost any mount there are m43 to Nikon Z adaptors though I have no idea how well they work

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/254290912162

My typical m43 print size is 18x12" and I shoot in 3x2 this is a quarter crop from a Nikon Z 100-400mm with 1.4X tc = 560mm cropped x 2 gives an effective 1120mm. Output at 18x12" 300ppi

Sample gallery link to raw file

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-gal...400mm-f4-5-5-6-vr-s-sample-gallery/9128435097

Size of area cropped



Original size vs crop to show magnification



1/4 crop output at 18x12"



This is a 1/4 crop from the Sony 61mp sensor using the 200-600mm at 512mm giving an effective 1024mm

Sample from Imaging Resource who thankfully are starting to come back to like

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7r-v/Y-JG-A7R-V-0329.ARW.HTM



Obviously with distant living subjects and tele lenses the results would be more challenging. I used raw sample files with links so folk can try themselves . Closer subjects shot optimally will give better results

Though there are no shortage of m43 camera now and the will last me a long time. I occasionally use my Sony 24mm GM on the Z7II /Z9 . For my use case which is typically S-AF and nothing too fast The adapter works very well

cathal gantly said:

Many FF cameras have an APSC crop mode, engaged when an APSC lens is mounted. I've not looked at flange distances but could Panasonic produced a FF body with such a mode, and offer a micro four thirds to L adapter? The crop mode could engage automatically, and we could continue to use our micro four thirds lenses on a FF body.

Click to expand...

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

cathal gantly said:

chipman02 said:

All I wanted was a longer MFT lens.

MFT has no prime lenses over 300mm, only one zoom over 400mm, and that's a full frame modified to work on MFT. Compare those choices to other brands.

Click to expand...

The longest MFT zoom goes to 600mm, which is similar to a FF lens going to 1,200mm. How far away are you from your subjects?

Click to expand...

At those distances, air diffraction becomes a serious limitation that no lens, no matter how clinically sharp, can fix.

Bobapingu said:

cathal gantly said:

chipman02 said:

All I wanted was a longer MFT lens.

MFT has no prime lenses over 300mm, only one zoom over 400mm, and that's a full frame modified to work on MFT. Compare those choices to other brands.

Click to expand...

The longest MFT zoom goes to 600mm, which is similar to a FF lens going to 1,200mm. How far away are you from your subjects?

Click to expand...

At those distances, air diffraction becomes a serious limitation that no lens, no matter how clinically sharp, can fix.

Click to expand...

Refraction caused by differing air temperatures (densities) close to the ground

jj

Tom Caldwell said:

The forum needs a constant stream of new product to keep the gearhead flushes strong. But it should be obvious that there are fewer and fewer exciting improvements that can be introduced for stills photography to result in product that is worth revolutionary updating.

The big three keep trickling out new models of much the same thing but improved. Those that like the upgrade cycle find enough in each new model to be worth an exchange upgrade whist M4/3 has been more a mount system where multiple shapes, sizes, and types of camera bodies has seemed preferable. Some of us have seen it as an excuse of sorts to have several quite differently diverse camera bodies on our shelves that can be kitted up at will for different use purposes. All can feed off the same large pool and variety of lenses.

As we worry-wart away about the lack of eye-popping new camera body kit and shrivel at the thought that the three majors are going to squeeze out our niche mount system. We must bear in mind that as long as there are some new M4/3 mount camera bodies to be bought and existing ones keep astonishing us on how good their image output actually is then there is a happy market to sell lenses into.

Rarely does Panasonic, and to a lesser extent, Olympus/OMS resort to serially upgraded camera bodies such as "II", "III" etc - more often it is a new niche style camera body which once launched and sold off is not repeated. We moan a lot about this but M4/3 is littered with carcasses of pseudo failures that, in retrospect, seem to have been very popular after being sold into a limited market. Such as the GM series, GX8, Pen-F and E-M1x.

We can rant about these "abject failures" that have never been repeated because they did not sell well enough. But at least they were made and we can enjoy one of them if we bought one new or summoned enough courage to buy one second hand later.

The majors make a shape that they make popular by market clout and then update it continuously. I have made my point before that the larger firms, in a way, have a bigger issue in the declining still-capture camera body market. Their business model is based on huge volume of sales and the natural instinct of the human soul to to upgrade product if they can afford to do so - all they need is the comfort of a shape they already know fitted up with enough new-tech to be worth yet another perhaps unnecessary upgrade. But surely if their market stops wanting the latest upgrade they have a huge problem in keeping their existing production and distribution machine turning over.

Smaller, niche and profitable, seems more flexible to me.

Recently even Panasonic has run out of model names and we have a G9II to replace the G9 and simply a G100D to replace the G100. They might be wise to hold back IBIS for the G100/D so as to be able to have something new and exciting to offer in the more compact end of the M4/3 market. After all the G100/D is a pretty slick little thing even if it is not the pinnacle of high-tech as of yet. The platform has promises and surely, once perfected, there is nowhere left to go?

I don't have any issues with the G9II body being "borrowed" from Panasonic's L-Mount series. It is a fine M4/3 camera and only thoughtful ownership over some time lets us realise just how good it really is.

Note also that the latest surge of Panasonic's new models has produced a cacophony of model numbers in a most confusing manner. Unable to out niche the majors it seems that Panasonic is about to join them with a flood of very similar cameras sold into various price points on the market. If you can't beat them then perhaps join them?

I think that we are premature in looking at the death of a handy niche mount system - unassailed by direct competition. Only Fuji has its own niche mount system as well whilst the majors battle it out for hearts and minds for FF sensors and throw in a little aps-c genuflection that is basically poorly served with native lenses in the hope that newbie aps-c owners will gravitate up to the premium FF lens market.

Yes I am interested in FF sensor systems but the reality is that I am heavily invested in M4/3 kit and that kit can still make images that make me quite satisfied.

Click to expand...

Well put! I might add two points:

• Leica invented the 35mm film camera. A number of Japanese camera manufacturers jumped on the band wagon and mass produced 35mm cameras. It was thought that that would be the end of Leica. However, Leica stuck to it's business model of producing low volume, high quality products. It refused to compete on volume. Still going strong as a niche producer. Olympus tried to compete on market share but failed. It looks like OMS is favouring the Leica niche model and developing interesting high quality product using the m4/3 mount as its definitive product differentiation.
• Pana, is taking the other road, which may be best for it. It has the resources to take on the big boys in FF and seems to be making inroads. If Pana were to drop m4/3, some of the brand faithful will follow to FF. The rest will simply switch to OMS, increasing OMS's market.
  I've not mentioned video. That's another thing entirely, for me anyway.

jjbinx said:

Bobapingu said:

cathal gantly said:

chipman02 said:

All I wanted was a longer MFT lens.

MFT has no prime lenses over 300mm, only one zoom over 400mm, and that's a full frame modified to work on MFT. Compare those choices to other brands.

Click to expand...

The longest MFT zoom goes to 600mm, which is similar to a FF lens going to 1,200mm. How far away are you from your subjects?

Click to expand...

At those distances, air diffraction becomes a serious limitation that no lens, no matter how clinically sharp, can fix.

Click to expand...

Refraction caused by differing air temperatures (densities) close to the ground

jj

Click to expand...

Quite right, it's refraction. I should have known.

Bobapingu said:

jjbinx said:

Bobapingu said:

cathal gantly said:

chipman02 said:

All I wanted was a longer MFT lens.

MFT has no prime lenses over 300mm, only one zoom over 400mm, and that's a full frame modified to work on MFT. Compare those choices to other brands.

Click to expand...

The longest MFT zoom goes to 600mm, which is similar to a FF lens going to 1,200mm. How far away are you from your subjects?

Click to expand...

At those distances, air diffraction becomes a serious limitation that no lens, no matter how clinically sharp, can fix.

Click to expand...

Refraction caused by differing air temperatures (densities) close to the ground

jj

Click to expand...

Quite right, it's refraction. I should have known.

Click to expand...

I've been reading a lot on Refractor telescopes for a couple of days (looking for a photographic guide scope), so it’s fresh in my mind. Otherwise I usually need to think about it for a moment to get it right :-D

jj

JakeJY said:

I guess it depends on how you define it.

Samsung NX died fairly quickly, was on market 2010, died in 2016. (6 years)

Nikon 1 started 2011/2012, died in mid-2018. (6 years)

Pentax Q started in 2011 died in 2017 (6 years)

So there's a graveyard of mirrorless formats that died in roughly 6 years, and naysayers have been saying for a while that M43 would be no exception.

Micro four thirds was released in 2008, I remember in around 2016 (around the time when I was shopping for a camera and ended up with my GX85) people were wondering if M43 is dead already or circling the drain.

For example, one of the most popular camera shows back then DigitalRev TV had this video:
It's been 9 years since then and many M43 cameras have come out since then that are far more capable than what was available back then (while not focusing on the smaller cameras, instead the opposite).

Click to expand...

It's a bit ironic but Lok Leung was the self-proclaimed "big m43 user" back then but somehow left the mount altogether (doesn't shoot videos with it, doesn't cover any new m43 release, might have some old gear left but doesn't talk about it).


Kai Wong was more of the m43 sceptic back then, covered it anyway while it was "hot" but until at least 1 or 2 years ago, still shot most of his videos with a Panasonic GH series camera.

cathal gantly said:

If we are honest with ourselves, we all love new equipment, and having the latest and greatest. We also know that, in some areas, micro four thirds is lacking. Speaking personally, for me the sensors being stuck at 20 megapixel (or 25 for Lumix) is a perceived problem, even if In reality it's not an actual problem. APSC and FF all have much higher capacity sensors available, right up to 60 megapixel if required.

Another truth which we are loath to admit is that changing systems is high on cost but low on return. Once you "invest" in one system (I use the word invest loosely) the cost of changing is such that you get "locked in". I've mentioned here before that I'm considering adding a used S1R to my bag, to take advantage of the 47 megapixel sensor using legacy lenses. This got me thinking...

Many FF cameras have an APSC crop mode, engaged when an APSC lens is mounted. I've not looked at flange distances but could Panasonic produced a FF body with such a mode, and offer a micro four thirds to L adapter? The crop mode could engage automatically, and we could continue to use our micro four thirds lenses on a FF body.

Click to expand...

I’ve shot MFT and FE both for more than 10 years. Two large lens systems with a range of bodies. When my budget allows, I buy whatever seems to add to my capabilities most.

For example, when finally replacing my Zuiko 50-200 SWD with something that could focus reasonably fast, I started with the PL 50-200mm top, the Sigma 100-400mm next, and the OM 40-150/2.8 last. The end result was a 100-400 GM. I was going to add a used PL 35-100/2.8 to my MFT kit. They had one and a used 40-150/2.8 in the shop the day I went to pick up the GM. There was a big discount on a new 40-150/2.8. Weird outcome, but a happy owner.

A

Bobapingu said:

Tom Caldwell said:

The forum needs a constant stream of new product to keep the gearhead flushes strong. But it should be obvious that there are fewer and fewer exciting improvements that can be introduced for stills photography to result in product that is worth revolutionary updating.

The big three keep trickling out new models of much the same thing but improved. Those that like the upgrade cycle find enough in each new model to be worth an exchange upgrade whist M4/3 has been more a mount system where multiple shapes, sizes, and types of camera bodies has seemed preferable. Some of us have seen it as an excuse of sorts to have several quite differently diverse camera bodies on our shelves that can be kitted up at will for different use purposes. All can feed off the same large pool and variety of lenses.

As we worry-wart away about the lack of eye-popping new camera body kit and shrivel at the thought that the three majors are going to squeeze out our niche mount system. We must bear in mind that as long as there are some new M4/3 mount camera bodies to be bought and existing ones keep astonishing us on how good their image output actually is then there is a happy market to sell lenses into.

Rarely does Panasonic, and to a lesser extent, Olympus/OMS resort to serially upgraded camera bodies such as "II", "III" etc - more often it is a new niche style camera body which once launched and sold off is not repeated. We moan a lot about this but M4/3 is littered with carcasses of pseudo failures that, in retrospect, seem to have been very popular after being sold into a limited market. Such as the GM series, GX8, Pen-F and E-M1x.

We can rant about these "abject failures" that have never been repeated because they did not sell well enough. But at least they were made and we can enjoy one of them if we bought one new or summoned enough courage to buy one second hand later.

The majors make a shape that they make popular by market clout and then update it continuously. I have made my point before that the larger firms, in a way, have a bigger issue in the declining still-capture camera body market. Their business model is based on huge volume of sales and the natural instinct of the human soul to to upgrade product if they can afford to do so - all they need is the comfort of a shape they already know fitted up with enough new-tech to be worth yet another perhaps unnecessary upgrade. But surely if their market stops wanting the latest upgrade they have a huge problem in keeping their existing production and distribution machine turning over.

Smaller, niche and profitable, seems more flexible to me.

Recently even Panasonic has run out of model names and we have a G9II to replace the G9 and simply a G100D to replace the G100. They might be wise to hold back IBIS for the G100/D so as to be able to have something new and exciting to offer in the more compact end of the M4/3 market. After all the G100/D is a pretty slick little thing even if it is not the pinnacle of high-tech as of yet. The platform has promises and surely, once perfected, there is nowhere left to go?

I don't have any issues with the G9II body being "borrowed" from Panasonic's L-Mount series. It is a fine M4/3 camera and only thoughtful ownership over some time lets us realise just how good it really is.

Note also that the latest surge of Panasonic's new models has produced a cacophony of model numbers in a most confusing manner. Unable to out niche the majors it seems that Panasonic is about to join them with a flood of very similar cameras sold into various price points on the market. If you can't beat them then perhaps join them?

I think that we are premature in looking at the death of a handy niche mount system - unassailed by direct competition. Only Fuji has its own niche mount system as well whilst the majors battle it out for hearts and minds for FF sensors and throw in a little aps-c genuflection that is basically poorly served with native lenses in the hope that newbie aps-c owners will gravitate up to the premium FF lens market.

Yes I am interested in FF sensor systems but the reality is that I am heavily invested in M4/3 kit and that kit can still make images that make me quite satisfied.

Click to expand...

Well put! I might add two points:

• Leica invented the 35mm film camera. A number of Japanese camera manufacturers jumped on the band wagon and mass produced 35mm cameras. It was thought that that would be the end of Leica. However, Leica stuck to it's business model of producing low volume, high quality products. It refused to compete on volume. Still going strong as a niche producer. Olympus tried to compete on market share but failed. It looks like OMS is favouring the Leica niche model and developing interesting high quality product using the m4/3 mount as its definitive product differentiation.
• Pana, is taking the other road, which may be best for it. It has the resources to take on the big boys in FF and seems to be making inroads. If Pana were to drop m4/3, some of the brand faithful will follow to FF. The rest will simply switch to OMS, increasing OMS's market.
  I've not mentioned video. That's another thing entirely, for me anyway.

Click to expand...

The sole m43 camera of the top ten for the month of April 2025 at Japan's MAP Camera was the OM-1 ii. OM-3 already gone from the list. Their write-up below the list (which is fascinating reading aside from any brand or model) does note in glowing terms a $2K camera that made 11th place a hair from #10. But it was the Sigma BF. Not the OM-3.

If your thesis is to bear out for OM Systems beyond high-performance wildlife/birding, looks like it will need another try with a different smaller camera.

https://news.mapcamera.com/maptimes/2025年4月-新品・中古デジタルカメラ人気ランキング/

Bobapingu said:

Tom Caldwell said:

The forum needs a constant stream of new product to keep the gearhead flushes strong. But it should be obvious that there are fewer and fewer exciting improvements that can be introduced for stills photography to result in product that is worth revolutionary updating.

The big three keep trickling out new models of much the same thing but improved. Those that like the upgrade cycle find enough in each new model to be worth an exchange upgrade whist M4/3 has been more a mount system where multiple shapes, sizes, and types of camera bodies has seemed preferable. Some of us have seen it as an excuse of sorts to have several quite differently diverse camera bodies on our shelves that can be kitted up at will for different use purposes. All can feed off the same large pool and variety of lenses.

As we worry-wart away about the lack of eye-popping new camera body kit and shrivel at the thought that the three majors are going to squeeze out our niche mount system. We must bear in mind that as long as there are some new M4/3 mount camera bodies to be bought and existing ones keep astonishing us on how good their image output actually is then there is a happy market to sell lenses into.

Rarely does Panasonic, and to a lesser extent, Olympus/OMS resort to serially upgraded camera bodies such as "II", "III" etc - more often it is a new niche style camera body which once launched and sold off is not repeated. We moan a lot about this but M4/3 is littered with carcasses of pseudo failures that, in retrospect, seem to have been very popular after being sold into a limited market. Such as the GM series, GX8, Pen-F and E-M1x.

We can rant about these "abject failures" that have never been repeated because they did not sell well enough. But at least they were made and we can enjoy one of them if we bought one new or summoned enough courage to buy one second hand later.

The majors make a shape that they make popular by market clout and then update it continuously. I have made my point before that the larger firms, in a way, have a bigger issue in the declining still-capture camera body market. Their business model is based on huge volume of sales and the natural instinct of the human soul to to upgrade product if they can afford to do so - all they need is the comfort of a shape they already know fitted up with enough new-tech to be worth yet another perhaps unnecessary upgrade. But surely if their market stops wanting the latest upgrade they have a huge problem in keeping their existing production and distribution machine turning over.

Smaller, niche and profitable, seems more flexible to me.

Recently even Panasonic has run out of model names and we have a G9II to replace the G9 and simply a G100D to replace the G100. They might be wise to hold back IBIS for the G100/D so as to be able to have something new and exciting to offer in the more compact end of the M4/3 market. After all the G100/D is a pretty slick little thing even if it is not the pinnacle of high-tech as of yet. The platform has promises and surely, once perfected, there is nowhere left to go?

I don't have any issues with the G9II body being "borrowed" from Panasonic's L-Mount series. It is a fine M4/3 camera and only thoughtful ownership over some time lets us realise just how good it really is.

Note also that the latest surge of Panasonic's new models has produced a cacophony of model numbers in a most confusing manner. Unable to out niche the majors it seems that Panasonic is about to join them with a flood of very similar cameras sold into various price points on the market. If you can't beat them then perhaps join them?

I think that we are premature in looking at the death of a handy niche mount system - unassailed by direct competition. Only Fuji has its own niche mount system as well whilst the majors battle it out for hearts and minds for FF sensors and throw in a little aps-c genuflection that is basically poorly served with native lenses in the hope that newbie aps-c owners will gravitate up to the premium FF lens market.

Yes I am interested in FF sensor systems but the reality is that I am heavily invested in M4/3 kit and that kit can still make images that make me quite satisfied.

Click to expand...

Well put! I might add two points:

• Leica invented the 35mm film camera. A number of Japanese camera manufacturers jumped on the band wagon and mass produced 35mm cameras. It was thought that that would be the end of Leica. However, Leica stuck to it's business model of producing low volume, high quality products. It refused to compete on volume. Still going strong as a niche producer.

Click to expand...

By revenue, Leica is not that niche as you think.

- We always look at CIPA statistics. But CIPA is only the Japanese camera makers. Leica is a German maker and not represented in the CIPA ststistics.

- CIPA statistics are conveniently in units sold. Not in revenue, not in profit. Because unit numbers is where the Japanese camera industry is and always was strong.

- Leica has half as many employees as OM. But they make more revenue than OM. And Leica is highly profitable, whereas OM is still making red figures. Each Leica employee brings in vastly more money, than each OM employee.

Bobapingu said:

• Olympus tried to compete on market share but failed. It looks like OMS is favouring the Leica niche model

Click to expand...

I don't think so. The Leica business model is the luxury camera market.

I do not see OM opening up their own luxury boutique stores in every large city like Leica - ever.

OM is consumer cameras bread and butter business. Distributed by dealer stores.

You should visit a Leica store near you, to get a feel for the Leica business model. It is about the shopping experience for high and ultra-high net worth individuals, those that buy Rolex watches and the like. Apropos watches, that is an excellent analogy: 99% of Swiss watches sold are low price consumer grade watches, but 98% of income is generated by luxury watches.

Bobapingu said:

• and developing interesting high quality product using the m4/3 mount as its definitive product differentiation.

Click to expand...

But isn't that exactly what Canon, Sony, Nikon, Fuji do too, just using their own mounts?

Bobapingu said:

• Pana, is taking the other road, which may be best for it. It has the resources to take on the big boys in FF and seems to be making inroads. If Pana were to drop m4/3, some of the brand faithful will follow to FF. The rest will simply switch to OMS, increasing OMS's market.
  I've not mentioned video. That's another thing entirely, for me anyway.

Click to expand...

Bobapingu said:

Tom Caldwell said:

The forum needs a constant stream of new product to keep the gearhead flushes strong. But it should be obvious that there are fewer and fewer exciting improvements that can be introduced for stills photography to result in product that is worth revolutionary updating.

The big three keep trickling out new models of much the same thing but improved. Those that like the upgrade cycle find enough in each new model to be worth an exchange upgrade whist M4/3 has been more a mount system where multiple shapes, sizes, and types of camera bodies has seemed preferable. Some of us have seen it as an excuse of sorts to have several quite differently diverse camera bodies on our shelves that can be kitted up at will for different use purposes. All can feed off the same large pool and variety of lenses.

As we worry-wart away about the lack of eye-popping new camera body kit and shrivel at the thought that the three majors are going to squeeze out our niche mount system. We must bear in mind that as long as there are some new M4/3 mount camera bodies to be bought and existing ones keep astonishing us on how good their image output actually is then there is a happy market to sell lenses into.

Rarely does Panasonic, and to a lesser extent, Olympus/OMS resort to serially upgraded camera bodies such as "II", "III" etc - more often it is a new niche style camera body which once launched and sold off is not repeated. We moan a lot about this but M4/3 is littered with carcasses of pseudo failures that, in retrospect, seem to have been very popular after being sold into a limited market. Such as the GM series, GX8, Pen-F and E-M1x.

We can rant about these "abject failures" that have never been repeated because they did not sell well enough. But at least they were made and we can enjoy one of them if we bought one new or summoned enough courage to buy one second hand later.

The majors make a shape that they make popular by market clout and then update it continuously. I have made my point before that the larger firms, in a way, have a bigger issue in the declining still-capture camera body market. Their business model is based on huge volume of sales and the natural instinct of the human soul to to upgrade product if they can afford to do so - all they need is the comfort of a shape they already know fitted up with enough new-tech to be worth yet another perhaps unnecessary upgrade. But surely if their market stops wanting the latest upgrade they have a huge problem in keeping their existing production and distribution machine turning over.

Smaller, niche and profitable, seems more flexible to me.

Recently even Panasonic has run out of model names and we have a G9II to replace the G9 and simply a G100D to replace the G100. They might be wise to hold back IBIS for the G100/D so as to be able to have something new and exciting to offer in the more compact end of the M4/3 market. After all the G100/D is a pretty slick little thing even if it is not the pinnacle of high-tech as of yet. The platform has promises and surely, once perfected, there is nowhere left to go?

I don't have any issues with the G9II body being "borrowed" from Panasonic's L-Mount series. It is a fine M4/3 camera and only thoughtful ownership over some time lets us realise just how good it really is.

Note also that the latest surge of Panasonic's new models has produced a cacophony of model numbers in a most confusing manner. Unable to out niche the majors it seems that Panasonic is about to join them with a flood of very similar cameras sold into various price points on the market. If you can't beat them then perhaps join them?

I think that we are premature in looking at the death of a handy niche mount system - unassailed by direct competition. Only Fuji has its own niche mount system as well whilst the majors battle it out for hearts and minds for FF sensors and throw in a little aps-c genuflection that is basically poorly served with native lenses in the hope that newbie aps-c owners will gravitate up to the premium FF lens market.

Yes I am interested in FF sensor systems but the reality is that I am heavily invested in M4/3 kit and that kit can still make images that make me quite satisfied.

Click to expand...

Well put! I might add two points:

• Leica invented the 35mm film camera. A number of Japanese camera manufacturers jumped on the band wagon and mass produced 35mm cameras. It was thought that that would be the end of Leica. However, Leica stuck to it's business model of producing low volume, high quality products. It refused to compete on volume. Still going strong as a niche producer. Olympus tried to compete on market share but failed. It looks like OMS is favouring the Leica niche model and developing interesting high quality product using the m4/3 mount as its definitive product differentiation.
• Pana, is taking the other road, which may be best for it. It has the resources to take on the big boys in FF and seems to be making inroads. If Pana were to drop m4/3, some of the brand faithful will follow to FF. The rest will simply switch to OMS, increasing OMS's market.
  I've not mentioned video. That's another thing entirely, for me anyway.

Click to expand...

It is rather amazing that the forum regularly talks about sales volume as if volume alone will keep the good times rolling and regular release of happy updates to keep us smiling.

The issue with ML camera bodies is not that the Mobile Phone Camera (MPC) onslaught will kill off the mount system bodies that we know and love today. In that regard FF and aps-c camera systems are just as vulnerable as will do the M4/3 system is. For if a MPC snap can do the job we don't need any systems camera (of any persuasion).

However sales x profit margin = profit. Declining sales mean that more profitable margin kit has to be sold. The larger sensor formats offer a higher margin product that is more likely to be updated less frequently. No matter how many times we are told that we can get into a larger sensor mount system for reasonable pricing the tale hangs in the premium lines. The bulk of the market will stick to near entry level priced gear but a certain number will get carried away and get into the premium "big bucks" lines of not only superior bodies but also lenses at eye-watering prices.

Sony, for example - the A7RV might be desirable for most as their pinnacle of their current ambition - but they offer the A9 and A1 models for those where big spend is no issue to get the premium best.

Whilst we argue over the performance of the latest M4/3 bodies the big three in FF offer "special" bodies that are priced out of the reach of most that are presumably reserved for the real professionals but happily sold to the aspirational that can afford them.

But of course we can buy excellent performance in lenses for M4/3 if we choose to do so.

However lenses such as the PL 200/2.8 are no longer offered. There are others which are pretty good but they presumably only sell in small numbers.

So we have to consider the business model of the camera manufacturer in consideration. Increasingly the industry has become dominated by huge Japanese conglomerate companies. The largest volume producers have world-wide marketing and play the sub-distributors game which basically means a fairly wide range of product and big discounts for large orders. Easier to fulfil if their is a that wide range of product allows a big display in the showcases or the catalogue.

Those manufacturers with few current products don't get the same amount of exposure to customer attention. Cameras such as the Ricoh GRIII have to be sought out by those who have done their research and not those amazed by the variety of choice offered.

Therefore the business model that Panasonic seems to use is - make a good product and build it to a pre-determined batch and sell it at a prime price that is adjusted to keep monthly sales targets flowing. With a minimum price also pre-determined below which they will not budge. If it takes too long to move then they try something else.

Whether they will adapt to change this is to be seen.

Companies like Leica who build bespoke products thrive on a market where prestige ownership is determined and the price is not an inconvenience such that a would be buyer has to wait for the next sale or "Black Friday". However the margins are such that high volume sales are not necessary.

That leaves OMS as a sort of niche player somewhere in between where they are not just a division of a huge Japanese corporate. They are more than bespoke and need some volume, but their margins are probably not boosted by luxury product lines - at least in the camera body side.

I would not rely on rusted in Panasonic users to switch to OMS any more than I might see OMS users switching to Panasonic bodies if only OMS were to exit M4/3. M4/3 needs bought manufacturers to remain interested.

As a side ramble - once upon a time a Canon 5D type dslr was pretty good, but their 1D type was the very best and pro-level if it could be afforded. Despite all this I was surprised at just how cheaply you could buy a superseded 1D type on the second hand market. But I suppose that the prestige cars that are bought for very high prices also depreciate enormously.

bluevellet said:

JakeJY said:

I guess it depends on how you define it.

Samsung NX died fairly quickly, was on market 2010, died in 2016. (6 years)

Nikon 1 started 2011/2012, died in mid-2018. (6 years)

Pentax Q started in 2011 died in 2017 (6 years)

So there's a graveyard of mirrorless formats that died in roughly 6 years, and naysayers have been saying for a while that M43 would be no exception.

Micro four thirds was released in 2008, I remember in around 2016 (around the time when I was shopping for a camera and ended up with my GX85) people were wondering if M43 is dead already or circling the drain.

For example, one of the most popular camera shows back then DigitalRev TV had this video:
It's been 9 years since then and many M43 cameras have come out since then that are far more capable than what was available back then (while not focusing on the smaller cameras, instead the opposite).

Click to expand...

It's a bit ironic but Lok Leung was the self-proclaimed "big m43 user" back then but somehow left the mount altogether (doesn't shoot videos with it, doesn't cover any new m43 release, might have some old gear left but doesn't talk about it).

Kai Wong was more of the m43 sceptic back then, covered it anyway while it was "hot" but until at least 1 or 2 years ago, still shot most of his videos with a Panasonic GH series camera.

Click to expand...

Jordan Drake on PetePixel seems to use Lumix a lot for his videos also.

UsherFellig said:

Bobapingu said:

Tom Caldwell said:

The forum needs a constant stream of new product to keep the gearhead flushes strong. But it should be obvious that there are fewer and fewer exciting improvements that can be introduced for stills photography to result in product that is worth revolutionary updating.

The big three keep trickling out new models of much the same thing but improved. Those that like the upgrade cycle find enough in each new model to be worth an exchange upgrade whist M4/3 has been more a mount system where multiple shapes, sizes, and types of camera bodies has seemed preferable. Some of us have seen it as an excuse of sorts to have several quite differently diverse camera bodies on our shelves that can be kitted up at will for different use purposes. All can feed off the same large pool and variety of lenses.

As we worry-wart away about the lack of eye-popping new camera body kit and shrivel at the thought that the three majors are going to squeeze out our niche mount system. We must bear in mind that as long as there are some new M4/3 mount camera bodies to be bought and existing ones keep astonishing us on how good their image output actually is then there is a happy market to sell lenses into.

Rarely does Panasonic, and to a lesser extent, Olympus/OMS resort to serially upgraded camera bodies such as "II", "III" etc - more often it is a new niche style camera body which once launched and sold off is not repeated. We moan a lot about this but M4/3 is littered with carcasses of pseudo failures that, in retrospect, seem to have been very popular after being sold into a limited market. Such as the GM series, GX8, Pen-F and E-M1x.

We can rant about these "abject failures" that have never been repeated because they did not sell well enough. But at least they were made and we can enjoy one of them if we bought one new or summoned enough courage to buy one second hand later.

The majors make a shape that they make popular by market clout and then update it continuously. I have made my point before that the larger firms, in a way, have a bigger issue in the declining still-capture camera body market. Their business model is based on huge volume of sales and the natural instinct of the human soul to to upgrade product if they can afford to do so - all they need is the comfort of a shape they already know fitted up with enough new-tech to be worth yet another perhaps unnecessary upgrade. But surely if their market stops wanting the latest upgrade they have a huge problem in keeping their existing production and distribution machine turning over.

Smaller, niche and profitable, seems more flexible to me.

Recently even Panasonic has run out of model names and we have a G9II to replace the G9 and simply a G100D to replace the G100. They might be wise to hold back IBIS for the G100/D so as to be able to have something new and exciting to offer in the more compact end of the M4/3 market. After all the G100/D is a pretty slick little thing even if it is not the pinnacle of high-tech as of yet. The platform has promises and surely, once perfected, there is nowhere left to go?

I don't have any issues with the G9II body being "borrowed" from Panasonic's L-Mount series. It is a fine M4/3 camera and only thoughtful ownership over some time lets us realise just how good it really is.

Note also that the latest surge of Panasonic's new models has produced a cacophony of model numbers in a most confusing manner. Unable to out niche the majors it seems that Panasonic is about to join them with a flood of very similar cameras sold into various price points on the market. If you can't beat them then perhaps join them?

I think that we are premature in looking at the death of a handy niche mount system - unassailed by direct competition. Only Fuji has its own niche mount system as well whilst the majors battle it out for hearts and minds for FF sensors and throw in a little aps-c genuflection that is basically poorly served with native lenses in the hope that newbie aps-c owners will gravitate up to the premium FF lens market.

Yes I am interested in FF sensor systems but the reality is that I am heavily invested in M4/3 kit and that kit can still make images that make me quite satisfied.

Click to expand...

Well put! I might add two points:

• Leica invented the 35mm film camera. A number of Japanese camera manufacturers jumped on the band wagon and mass produced 35mm cameras. It was thought that that would be the end of Leica. However, Leica stuck to it's business model of producing low volume, high quality products. It refused to compete on volume. Still going strong as a niche producer. Olympus tried to compete on market share but failed. It looks like OMS is favouring the Leica niche model and developing interesting high quality product using the m4/3 mount as its definitive product differentiation.
• Pana, is taking the other road, which may be best for it. It has the resources to take on the big boys in FF and seems to be making inroads. If Pana were to drop m4/3, some of the brand faithful will follow to FF. The rest will simply switch to OMS, increasing OMS's market.
  I've not mentioned video. That's another thing entirely, for me anyway.

Click to expand...

The sole m43 camera of the top ten for the month of April 2025 at Japan's MAP Camera was the OM-1 ii. OM-3 already gone from the list. Their write-up below the list (which is fascinating reading aside from any brand or model) does note in glowing terms a $2K camera that made 11th place a hair from #10. But it was the Sigma BF. Not the OM-3.

If your thesis is to bear out for OM Systems beyond high-performance wildlife/birding, looks like it will need another try with a different smaller camera.

https://news.mapcamera.com/maptimes/2025年4月-新品・中古デジタルカメラ人気ランキング/

Click to expand...

That's one source, another is the DPR "Most Popular Camera" list where the OM-3 is still just hanging on despite small market share and fierce competition from all the large FF players.