How important are changable lenses for the mFT success?

[joachim05]

Hi,

with the cameras doing well, despite limited lens options available, I started wondering, if Olympus and/or Panasonic had come up with a fixed lens design, with a 28-100 equivalent lens, would that have sold equally well? Something like a Canon G11 with a larger sensor. A fixed lens design could have been smaller and/or cheaper.

What are your opinions here?

I could well imagine that Canon and Nikon are going down that route in an attempt to get a share of the mFT cake.

 

[MadsR]

Personally I don't think a fixed lens system will be a success... Too many different users.

A 28-200mm lens for a 4/3 sensor is quite large having a camera with this fixed to it would only cater to a select few, the same that uses the GH1 mainly for video...

All the people that does different things with their cameras would not get such a camera. Say the ones that mainly uses either the pancake lenses or some of the fast old primes... Or all the other uses for a changeable lens system...

So no, a fixed lens system with a large sensor is not a guarantee for success. Same problem with people wanting better glass, you can get very good primes, you can get some good (but expensive) zoom lenses but they are quite small... x2 or x3 zooms... no x8 or x10 zooms are of that good quality...

 

[Erick Lamontagne]

I'm a Nikon user seriously looking at the m43 and wouldn't even consider it if it had a fixed lens.

 

[Anfy]

The best fixed lens camera I had was/is/are the fantastic Sony R1, but its fixed lens, a jewel, could be sometimes seen as its (only) weakness - and yes, I tried the tele and wide converters.

Ciao!

I'm a Nikon user seriously looking at the m43 and wouldn't even consider it if it had a fixed lens.

--
Vegetarians do eat better!

 

[Michael Meissner]

Hi,

with the cameras doing well, despite limited lens options available, I started wondering, if Olympus and/or Panasonic had come up with a fixed lens design, with a 28-100 equivalent lens, would that have sold equally well? Something like a Canon G11 with a larger sensor. A fixed lens design could have been smaller and/or cheaper.

What are your opinions here?

I could well imagine that Canon and Nikon are going down that route in an attempt to get a share of the mFT cake.

Since I shoot with 4/3rds cameras and have a few HG lenses, the m43rds cameras would not have even been on the radar if they did not take my lenses.

 

[kenw]

Super zooms always suffer compared to more sane zoom designs and primes (especially in contrast, flare and bokeh). I know if I want excellent quality from a zoom that 5x is really the upper limit and less is typically better. With that in mind the 7-14,14-45,45-200 is a home run solution for 14-400 equiv. focal range in an amazing size and weight. That is why Panasonic got a bunch of money from me. I don't think I'd buy an expensive large sensor, heavy fixed lens "bridge" camera (though I do own a cheap, lightweight one - FZ28).

Of course it is what the market place decides that matters. In the past couple of years there hasn't been a whole lot of growth in the DSLR or compact markets. Many manufacturers have tried largish sensor bridge cameras and they've sold but never really taken off. m43 on the other hand, especially in Japan, has taken the market by storm - by which I mean it is a new market niche grabbing market share fast and greatly improved the sales of two of the smaller players in the camera market. It is a growing market segment and the bridge cameras really never have been...
--
Ken W

Rebel XT, XTi, Pany G1, LX3, FZ28, Fuji F30, and a lot of 35mm and 4x5 sitting in the closet...

 

[StillHaveMyDiana]

I know if I want excellent quality from a zoom that 5x is really the upper limit and less is typically better.

I don't own a Panasonic 14-140 for my G1, but buyers seem quite happy with it.

M43 appeals to photographers who want a reasonably large sensor. The manufacturers have decided to start their product lines with interchangeable-lens bodies and lenses, because that is the market segment where the most profit lies. But I would be surprised if fixed-lens (not fixed focal-length) versions are far behind. The popularity of the Canon G series shows that there is a substantial market for enthusiast-level fixed-lens cameras.

 

[TrapperJohn]

Sigma DP1 and DP2 - about the same price, slightly smaller, interesting in their own right, but at best a very slow seller. The major difference between them and the small M4/3 bodies is... fixed lens. Yes, there are other differences, but that's the big one.

There is the Leica X1 at a Leica price. A few people will buy it for the red dot, but otherwise it's no more portable, and a lot less flexible. Pity they didn't build it in M4/3 - you think it would have sold better? Think Leica could have sold a few Leica quality pancakes to the M4/3 crowd?

Look back a couple of years to the Sony R1. Darn good camera, except for that fixed lens. Sluggish sales.

In fact, no high quality compact sold well until the EP1 and GF1. In six months, that market went from blip on the sales chart to can't make them fast enough. And the major difference between the previous efforts and M4/3 is replaceable lenses.

Think there's a message in there, somewhere?

 

[Tim F 101]

A fixed lens design would serve a completely different market from the current m4/3 cameras. A large - possibly overwhelming - number of m4/3 buyers make the move at least in part for the chance to use almost any legacy glass on Earth. A good but not great fixed zoom with too much reach and not enough aperture would please some fashionistas but would turn off serious photographers.

To answer your question, watch how many X1 cameras Leica sells. For $2k+ that thing will never be more than a boutique item for wealthy aficionados of the red badge, but Leica can afford that. Other makers can't and almost certainly won't try.

 

[kenw]

Sigma DP1 and DP2 - about the same price, slightly smaller, interesting in their own right, but at best a very slow seller. The major difference between them and the small M4/3 bodies is... fixed lens. Yes, there are other differences, but that's the big one.

Have you tried using a DP1 or DP2? The UI and handling is nothing short of awful. I understand what you are saying, but just to play devil's advocate I'll suggest that the DPs are deeply flawed cameras and their success or failure might have very little to say about the overall merits of a APS-C fixed lens compact. I for one might say the big difference isn't their fixed lenses, but rather the m43 cameras are actually usable as a camera where the DPs are an exercise in frustration!

But yeah, like in my other post I agree completely with following what the market has said so far.
--
Ken W

Rebel XT, XTi, Pany G1, LX3, FZ28, Fuji F30, and a lot of 35mm and 4x5 sitting in the closet...

 

[Stephen Kovac Jr]

Interchangeable lenses is the success to the Micro Four Third system. In the coming years, there will be a lot more Micro Four Third lenses available. Canon and Nikon only had a few lenses available when they first started years ago. I remember looking at a Nikon SLR in Japan, it only had a few lenses, prime lenses at that time as zoom lenses were not available. Now look at all the lenses available for the Canon and Nikon system, a lot. I spend 6 years working in Japan during late 1950 and early 1960, I had a Canon 7 rangefinder camera with only 2 lenses, a 50mm f1.4 and a 135mm f3.5 lens. And that was it. I wish that Canon did not stop making the Canon 7 rangefinder camera. I sold the Canon 7 rangefinder camera in Hong Kong. In the years ahead, I believe that there will be a lot more prime and zoom lenses for the Micro Four Third cameras.

 

[Dennis]

Sigma DP1 and DP2 - about the same price, slightly smaller, interesting in their own right, but at best a very slow seller. The major difference between them and the small M4/3 bodies is... fixed lens.

IMO, a lot of people would have jumped on the DP2 if it didn't suck ! There's been a big pent up demand for a compact large sensor camera; the DP2 didn't satisfy that demand. The EP1 & GF1 with pancake lenses do right now. Personally, I'd be happy with a fixed lens camera IF it had the right lens.

It so happens the GF1's pancake is perfect for my needs. I'd consider settling for the EP1's lens. IIRC, the Sigma is wider. Another reason (aside from poor AF and overall lousy responsiveness) I wouldn't consider it.

I think the GF1 and EP1 are satisfying a market that's been looking for a compact large sensor camera; a market that would have been happy with a fixed lens camera.

But I think there's a whole other market for m43 that demands interchangeable lenses. Whether for compatibility with legacy gear, desire for a compact system, or desire for a mirrorless system, there are plenty of people interested in m43 who would not be satisfied with a fixed lens model.

In fact, no high quality compact sold well until the EP1 and GF1.

You listed all the large sensor fixed lens models. If you're including small sensor compacts, I think the LX3 has done pretty well.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[BillCarr]

Hi,

with the cameras doing well, despite limited lens options available, I started wondering, if Olympus and/or Panasonic had come up with a fixed lens design, with a 28-100 equivalent lens, would that have sold equally well? Something like a Canon G11 with a larger sensor. A fixed lens design could have been smaller and/or cheaper.

Smaller than the G11? Doubtful. Cheaper than the G11? Almost certainly not.

If it's cheaper than typical m43 cameras, how much cheaper? If there's not a sufficient discount it won't be seen as worth it, and right now you can get the G11 for $450-$500, the G1 for $650 and the E-p1 for $750. Unless a fixed-lens camera were priced pretty close to the Canon it wouldn't have much of a chance in the market. And if its AF and metering performance weren't at least as good as the Canon's it would definitely fail. That's a pretty touch line to walk, especially when manufacturers are doing pretty well making profits off bodies and lenses right now.

 

[Diane B]

I don't want a fixed lens. I own the G9--and even with a larger sensor would ot satisfy me for my main system. On top of that, I have quite a few MF lenses that are part of my kit--and would not have been possible with a fixed lens. IOW--for me, I wouldn't have looked at the m4/3rds without interchangeable lenses.

Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic
G1 gallery http://www.pbase.com/picnic/temp_g1

 

[Jay Gloab630253]

Hi,

with the cameras doing well, despite limited lens options available, I started wondering, if Olympus and/or Panasonic had come up with a fixed lens design, with a 28-100 equivalent lens, would that have sold equally well? Something like a Canon G11 with a larger sensor. A fixed lens design could have been smaller and/or cheaper.

What are your opinions here?

I could well imagine that Canon and Nikon are going down that route in an attempt to get a share of the mFT cake.

28-100 equivalent is barely more range than the 14-45 kit lens, which on the G1 body makes a package that's considerably larger than the biggest compact superzoom cameras. And that lens is pretty limited, both in terms of range and aperture (still a nice lens, though, within its limits). So I don't think such a camera would be a success.
--
-Jay

http://flickr.com/photos/48504267@N00/

 

[joachim05]

Hi,

with the cameras doing well, despite limited lens options available, I started wondering, if Olympus and/or Panasonic had come up with a fixed lens design, with a 28-100 equivalent lens, would that have sold equally well? Something like a Canon G11 with a larger sensor. A fixed lens design could have been smaller and/or cheaper.

Smaller than the G11? Doubtful. Cheaper than the G11? Almost certainly not.

I meant smaller/cheaper than the E-P1 with 14-42. It would sit between the E-P1 and the G11 (price & size).

If it's cheaper than typical m43 cameras, how much cheaper? If there's not a sufficient discount it won't be seen as worth it, and right now you can get the G11 for $450-$500, the G1 for $650 and the E-p1 for $750. Unless a fixed-lens camera were priced pretty close to the Canon it wouldn't have much of a chance in the market. And if its AF and metering performance weren't at least as good as the Canon's it would definitely fail. That's a pretty touch line to walk, especially when manufacturers are doing pretty well making profits off bodies and lenses right now.

I am with you that the price needs to be in the G11 to G1 territory. Considering AF, I think the performance levels of the E-P1 would be fine. As I said, I am thinking along the lines of a G11 with a larger sensor and better high ISO performance that goes with that sensor.

 

[joachim05]

In fact, no high quality compact sold well until the EP1 and GF1. In six months, that market went from blip on the sales chart to can't make them fast enough. And the major difference between the previous efforts and M4/3 is replaceable lenses.

I think the Canon G series does pretty well (though I am wondering whether it is now dead with the mFT). In the end it might be a potential thing here. People might want to buy the potential of a changable lens camera to know they could change the lens if they wanted and then they never use it.

To me it seems many people are using their mFT with the standard 14-42 or 14-45 and that's it.

 

[jutzuro]

As far as I am concerned, Olympus would certainly get my money if they released a m4/3 version of the 35RC or RD, with an in-body viewfinder and a fast, fixed 40mm prime. I see many advantages in this design for street and multi-purpose photography. But, of course, this is not realistic price-wise: probably, it will be as expensive as the other m4/3 models and a fixed lens system obviously brings no flexibility (although an important asset: sealed against dust - wont need dust reduction system, maybe smaller design).

Still, if they still managed to lower the price just 50 bucks compared to the E-p1 (or even if they can't) I would personally buy it, because I do not need telephoto or wide lenses at all and prefer the true rangefinder style (which the ep-1 has not, IMHO) and compactness. Now I shoot with the 4/3 25mm pancake almost all the time, but this is just me and probably a few more who cannot compete with the point and shoot crowd as far as marketing is concerned.

I realize that this does not suit the company's commercial point of view nowadays. But, hey, I can keep on dreaming, can't I?

--
-J

 

[nick_webster]

To use MF and occasionally normal 4:3s lenses.

Nick

 

[Dave Lively]

The current m43 cameras are bigger because of the larger sensors. Bigger sensors need bigger lenses. A fixed lens version of the GH1 or EP-1 would not be noticeable smaller than the current models with an equivalent lens attached. While the sensor on a G11/S90 is noticeably larger than other compacts it is much smaller than the m43 sensor. An m43 sensor has 5.2 times the area and is 2.3 times larger measured across the diagonal. This means it needs lenses that are 2.3 times longer to achieve the same field of view. About the only size advantage I can see for a fixed lens m43 would be if they put some sort of motorized collapsing lens on it. Even then I doubt it would be much smaller than an EP-1 with the collapsible 14-42.

The current m43 cameras sell for a high price because they are new and fill a niche that has a lot of pent up demand. I think prices will fall to slightly below entry level DSLRs once things settle down. A fixed lens camera would reduce manufacturing costs a little but camera makers would have to make multiple versions with different lenses since not everyone is willing to live with a wide angle prime as their only lens. Maybe the reduced manufacturing costs would make up for the increased costs of having to make and maintain multiple products, maybe it would not. Either way the added flexibility of an interchangeable lens system is a big selling point.