Discouraging article by Thom Hogan about m4/3

[Dennis]

I'm not surprised about the article and about Sony's number claim. Their latest is a nice piece of equipment, but falls a bit short on a "system". Given Sony's track record on their other "systems", they have a ways to go to convince me and others of the longevity of it.

I'm honestly surprised that Thom says he'd look at Sony, other than the lure of FF (he says it's the FE system and not APS-C that interests him). Fuji and Sony aren't remotely in the same league when it comes to building and supporting a system. Fuji is building a system while Sony is building products. But also, maybe he doesn't mind doing some manual focus landscape work with adapted lenses.

But the thing is, even though entry level DSLR sales have been falling off, entry level kits still sell a lot more than high end systems. Which is good & bad for both parties when comparing Sony to Olympus or Panasonic. Good for Olly/Panny because it suggests to me, anyway, that they might be selling more to people who are buying bigger systems, where Sony probably sells far more $500 entry level kits to people who won't buy much more. On the other hand, the entry level sales don't demand a lot from Sony and can continue indefinitely with modest investment. Model year updates to bodes and maybe an occasional refresh of the kit zoom and that's about it. The bigger problem for Olympus & Panasonic is getting cameras in front of eyeballs and on store shelves.

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

 

[Marty4650]

...[Trim]

I know money is tight but Panasonic and Olympus needs to step up the marketing and get their cameras into big box stores.

IMO, this is what they really need to do. Run TV ads, sponsor events, and get your product into Best Buy, Costco, and Sam's Club.

One hopes that they actually read Thom and forums and so on ... because it's not like their Achilles' heel has not been identified for years now ... sheesh ... it's like pulling teeth to find them in camera stores ... never mind the big box stores ...

The truth is... it is almost impossible to find a M4/3 camera in any retail store. The only exceptions being the biggest and most well stocked camera shops. But this really isn't unusual. It is also hard to find a Nikon D4s or a Canon 1Dx in any mass market outlet.

Aside from the largest cities, there are no stores that specialize in in advanced cameras. Try finding a high end DSLR in a Costco or Best Buy.... you will see plenty of entry level Digital Rebels, and Nikon cameras, and an occasional Canon D70 or Nikon D7100, but it will stop there.

Is this a bad thing?

It seems like retail stores specialize in impulse purchases for less informed buyers, while the online vendors serve the buyer who knows exactly what he wants and has carefully researched his purchase in advance. The informed buyer will generally prefer to order online and save 20% or so, and often avoid sales tax. MILC or DSLR, it makes no difference.

The product that is missing from mass market stores is the entry level base model MILC cameras, sold at rock bottom prices. These are needed to bring in new users, who will buy lenses, and future upgrades from internet vendors. MILC needs the equivalent of the Digital Rebel $499 kit that can attract impulse purchases in stores, especially around the Christmas holiday.

But here's the problem.... price and perceived value. If you go to Best Buy you will find the Nikon 1 V2 two lens kit, bundled with the optional EVF, selling for $2,034 .

In the same store you will find the Nikon D3200 two lens kit selling for $550. And by every possible measurement except size and weight, the D3200 is a better camera that will produce better images. So the Nikon 1 is just there to help sell more D3200 cameras, when the buyers realize it costs almost four times more.

The ordinary customer sees the DSLR as a "better value" and "more impressive" to other uniformed people.

 

[Chad Hardy]

to die out soon. My wife is using her HTC phone most of the time now, discarded the Olympus EPL1

https://plus.google.com/photos/110955796927925538104/albums/6054805364663857889?banner=pwa

I agree the compact P&S cameras behind someone that just wants to record events for historical purposes (family parties, vacation, etc) are gone. All of these amateurs that used to be forced to carry a big camera, then P&S now just use a phone. My wife is one of them as well. However they remain in awe of the kids of photos we can get with our SLR like cameras with all manner of lenses.

There will always be a place for photography with quality lenses because we can do so much more with them than you can with a smartphone. Yes smartphones are great for very general use, but once you need reach, bokeh, macro, rear sync flash, zoom, action sports, etc etc they quickly fail. Maybe someday we will have an adapter that makes the Smartphone work with our lenses (Sony etc) but I don't see it yet.

 

[Hen3ry]

But the camera industry as a whole

This year 's Photokina may be the most boring of them all

There's not a single outstanding offering from any manufacturer, not even the highly rumored and anticipated LX100

I agree on the LX100.

Problem is the digital camera market has matured or even have plateau'ed

Pretty much.

The camera you own 3 years ago can still take pictures as well as those just announced today at Photokina

Not true. I had a G1 three years ago. My G6 today is significantly superior.

There're not a single ounce of innovations, just more clever re-packaging of the same old stuff

I would have to reluctantly admit that the Panny GM5 is pretty good.

Canikon leads the pack in this game, trying to sell you the same sausage in different sizes

This is not unlike the personal computer market, whereby your 3 year old laptop is good enough for 95+% of your tasks

Huh? My laptop is a 2010 MacBook Pro and it does EVERYTHING!

What the camera industry needs is a iPad, a completely new and innovative solution to the digital capture process, or we'll see more camera manufacturers going the way of Kodak, and more consolidation

The camera-phone looks like the iPad of cameras to me. And didn't you notice the Panny phone with the 1" sensor?

This has happened before during the death of the rangefinders, then of the manual focus cameras, then of the film cameras, and it will happen again soon if the current trend continues

Totally different market these days. During the death of the (high end) rangefinders, the principal rangefinder makers simply shifted (at various speeds) to SLRs to feed a sellers' market voracious for product. Today we have a buyers' market sated with product.

As the owner of many mirrorless cameras, I'm not ready to plunge my hard earned dollars into any of this year's announcements; at best, into another lens if I'm in the mood

Well, you have already bought one new camera this year.

I'm sure I'm not the only one, nor am I in the minority here

If I were the CEO of any of these camera manufacturers I'd press very hard on innovations. on searching for that Holy Grail

Easy to say. What are innovations?

Either that or wait for a slow death

I'm not denying that can occur but talking about "innovation" is like talking about perpetual motion that relies on a magic box where stuff goes in and comes out re-energized without any input. Innovation means everything and nothing.

In a sated buyers' market, it means fads and fancies, bells and whistles, which in fact is happening but you are criticizing it. I actually agree with you, but that's the kind of market we are in.

Cheers, geoff

 

[Le Frog]

point a ...

It seems like retail stores specialize in impulse purchases for less informed buyers, while the online vendors serve the buyer who knows exactly what he wants and has carefully researched his purchase in advance. The informed buyer will generally prefer to order online and save 20% or so, and often avoid sales tax. MILC or DSLR, it makes no difference.

and point b ...

In the same store you will find the Nikon D3200 two lens kit selling for $550. And by every possible measurement except size and weight, the D3200 is a better camera that will produce better images. So the Nikon 1 is just there to help sell more D3200 cameras, when the buyers realize it costs almost four times more.

... seem like two sides of the same coin to me: in theory, point be could be interpreted as an argument for not discontinuing the PM2 - two lens kit 100$ cheaper than the D3200, quality roughly the same. But the less informed buyer will automatically assume that the Nikon is the better camera. Then, he will, most of the time, leave it at home, because of its size and weight - and wonder why on earth he did not stick to compact superzooms, like his brother, cousin, or neighbour; or to his smartphone or 7" tablet, like his girlfriend or his mom; or curse his luck when he first comes across an RX100, a GM1, an EM10... The example, by the way, is not theoretical.

 

[Hen3ry]

Even the O 2.8/40-150mm is small for what it does. For Samsung NX or Sony FE, such a lens would be a real monster.

The equivalent lens (approximately 60 - 200 f/4 on NX, or 80-300 f/5.6 for FE) would be roughly the same size. However there seems to a problem marketing a pro quality lens that is a mere f/5.6 on full frame, so they may not make one.

To market a FF f/5.6 they'd have to explain equivalence to their customers, and we know how those discussions go.

Also, they've already matched APS-C f/2.8 lens sizes with their f/4 zooms

It refers to exactly one factor -- depth of field.

And 99.9% of users don't care a damn, frankly.

Talk about flogging a dead horse (that wasn't even much use when it was alive).

What counts for them is exposure of their sensor, and in that respect, they get the full value of their f-stop.

Cheers, geoff

 

[Hen3ry]

to die out soon. My wife is using her HTC phone most of the time now, discarded the Olympus EPL1

https://plus.google.com/photos/110955796927925538104/albums/6054805364663857889?banner=pwa

Weren't they almost always a minority?

And a small minority as well.

If my memory serves me right, it was the Kodak Instamatic that was the camera of the masses between the 60ies and the 80ies (before that I don't think cameras were a mass product at all).

hey, hey, hey!!! Don't forget the Box Brownie!

Dinosaurs learned to fly -- well, some of them.

Cheers, geoff

--
Geoffrey Heard
Down and out in Rabaul in the South Pacific
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2011/10/return-to-karai-komana_31.html

 

[Dennis]

The truth is... it is almost impossible to find a M4/3 camera in any retail store. The only exceptions being the biggest and most well stocked camera shops. But this really isn't unusual. It is also hard to find a Nikon D4s or a Canon 1Dx in any mass market outlet.
Aside from the largest cities, there are no stores that specialize in in advanced cameras. Try finding a high end DSLR in a Costco or Best Buy.... you will see plenty of entry level Digital Rebels, and Nikon cameras, and an occasional Canon D70 or Nikon D7100, but it will stop there.

That comes & goes. In the Poughkeepsie NY Best Buy (not a big city, by any means), I saw both the D610 and D810. Nothing for lenses, of course. Certainly the high end APS-C bodies are there and have generally been in stock for years. And plenty of mirrorless offerings compete with those.

But aside from those bodies (which, I agree, most people are NOT going to buy at Best Buy) they need to get their entry level stuff in stores. I remember seeing a few early m43 models in Best Buy years back, but nothing since.

But here's the problem.... price and perceived value. If you go to Best Buy you will find the Nikon 1 V2 two lens kit, bundled with the optional EVF, selling for $2,034 .
In the same store you will find the Nikon D3200 two lens kit selling for $550. And by every possible measurement except size and weight, the D3200 is a better camera that will produce better images. So the Nikon 1 is just there to help sell more D3200 cameras, when the buyers realize it costs almost four times more.

The ordinary customer sees the DSLR as a "better value" and "more impressive" to other uniformed people.

Very true. I've believed for a while that the mirrorless systems need decent entry level bodies with EVFs that compete with entry level DSLRs on price. The Panasonic G series comes close. The A6000 comes close. I think Oly's low end body is in that range. But I think that $500 +/- is where the volume is. Sony tried with the A3000, but that was a piece of cr*p that would turn anyone off of mirrorless. (Now, volume isn't necessarily critical if there are no profits in it, but the business world seems to love volume).

- Dennis

 

[s_grins]

to die out soon. My wife is using her HTC phone most of the time now, discarded the Olympus EPL1

https://plus.google.com/photos/110955796927925538104/albums/6054805364663857889?banner=pwa

Cheap disposable cameras existed during film era too. there is nothing new, and I do not see the reason for whining

 

[Guy Parsons]

Dinosaurs learned to fly -- well, some of them.

Ah, that's why the dinosaurs went extinct, once up in the air they discovered that they were too heavy to fly so crashed and died. ;-)

Anyway, many of the cheap end DSLRs are sold to tourists. I see many Chinese tourists carrying camera that are too big (Chinese are 2nd biggest tourist numbers in Australia after New Zealanders)- probably because like most tourists anywhere they walked into a shop and asked for "a good camera, as we have a big holiday".

After the big trip it rots because it's too big to tote everywhere and the smartphone is used.

We need to realise that photography is only important to us in this forum, it is not so important to the other 99.999% of the population.

Regards.... Guy

 

[Kim Letkeman]

...[Trim]

I know money is tight but Panasonic and Olympus needs to step up the marketing and get their cameras into big box stores.

IMO, this is what they really need to do. Run TV ads, sponsor events, and get your product into Best Buy, Costco, and Sam's Club.

One hopes that they actually read Thom and forums and so on ... because it's not like their Achilles' heel has not been identified for years now ... sheesh ... it's like pulling teeth to find them in camera stores ... never mind the big box stores ...

The truth is... it is almost impossible to find a M4/3 camera in any retail store. The only exceptions being the biggest and most well stocked camera shops. But this really isn't unusual. It is also hard to find a Nikon D4s or a Canon 1Dx in any mass market outlet.

Not valid as a comparison. Canon and Nikon flood these retail outlets with their consumer gear right up through prosumer stuff. I've seen the 6D at Future Shop.

There are a few of the smaller m4/3 cam kits in the big box stores, but nothing serious. And the camera chains seem weak too.

Aside from the largest cities, there are no stores that specialize in in advanced cameras. Try finding a high end DSLR in a Costco or Best Buy.... you will see plenty of entry level Digital Rebels, and Nikon cameras, and an occasional Canon D70 or Nikon D7100, but it will stop there.

There are plenty of advanced cameras in the bog box stores here.

Is this a bad thing?

Both Oly and Panny are really suffering and their lines are contracting ... or will be.

So yes, it is a very bad thing that it is no hard to find the cameras. And more importantly, you never see them on TV ... ever. No such problem with Canikon ...

It seems like retail stores specialize in impulse purchases for less informed buyers, while the online vendors serve the buyer who knows exactly what he wants and has carefully researched his purchase in advance. The informed buyer will generally prefer to order online and save 20% or so, and often avoid sales tax. MILC or DSLR, it makes no difference.

I have bought twice from Future Shop ... both m4/3. I buy a lot from Henrys, but never m4/3 because they don't really have any.

The product that is missing from mass market stores is the entry level base model MILC cameras, sold at rock bottom prices.

They are sold at Future Shop now and again. Not as many this year though.

These are needed to bring in new users, who will buy lenses, and future upgrades from internet vendors. MILC needs the equivalent of the Digital Rebel $499 kit that can attract impulse purchases in stores, especially around the Christmas holiday.

But here's the problem.... price and perceived value. If you go to Best Buy you will find the Nikon 1 V2 two lens kit, bundled with the optional EVF, selling for $2,034 .

In the same store you will find the Nikon D3200 two lens kit selling for $550. And by every possible measurement except size and weight, the D3200 is a better camera that will produce better images. So the Nikon 1 is just there to help sell more D3200 cameras, when the buyers realize it costs almost four times more.

The ordinary customer sees the DSLR as a "better value" and "more impressive" to other uniformed people.

North America in general is obsessed with the dSLR ... because Canikon has a strong marketing presence.

Chicken and egg ... and m4/3 has almost failed to hatch in North America.

 

[MichaelKJ]

The product that is missing from mass market stores is the entry level base model MILC cameras, sold at rock bottom prices. These are needed to bring in new users, who will buy lenses, and future upgrades from internet vendors. MILC needs the equivalent of the Digital Rebel $499 kit that can attract impulse purchases in stores, especially around the Christmas holiday.

I don't see this happening. In fact, Olympus and other companies appear to be shifting their MLIC emphasis to more expensive cameras.

The E-PL7, at $799 with kit lens, may turn out to be Oly's lowest priced model going forward. The fact that Olympus officials think they will be successful in marketing a camera at this price point to "young fashion-conscious women" indicates they are clueless.

 

[Mark Thornton]

The E-PL7, at $799 with kit lens, may turn out to be Oly's lowest priced model going forward. The fact that Olympus officials think they will be successful in marketing a camera at this price point to "young fashion-conscious women" indicates they are clueless.

Those comments may not relate to your country. May be it does work in Asia.

Mark

 

[Olymore]

Out of the three markets you mentioned the Americas (inc Canada, Mexico etc) is the smallest market (for all cameras)

Europe is about 12% bigger and Asia and Japan combined is about 10% bigger than Europe.

 

[MichaelKJ]

The E-PL7, at $799 with kit lens, may turn out to be Oly's lowest priced model going forward. The fact that Olympus officials think they will be successful in marketing a camera at this price point to "young fashion-conscious women" indicates they are clueless.

Those comments may not relate to your country. May be it does work in Asia.

Mark

Does this look like Asia is the target market?

 

[tarsus]

M43 never delivered on price. I would have switched long ago from my DSLR to M43 if it wasn't for the stupid money for tiny bodies and lenses. I believe this is one of the primary reasons for lack of sales, especially lenses.

 

[Le Frog]

hey, hey, hey!!! Don't forget the Box Brownie!

Missed it by a few years. Unfortunately I am old enough to remember the Instamatic. I even had one as a kid, before my father could trust me with his Zenit (just about the only SLR we could afford, due to import duties and consumption taxes...)

 

[Tom Caldwell]

"Sony is the one playing King of the Hill at the moment"

Unfortunately looking down on a $2.15 billion loss and skipping its dividend for the first time since 1958. Good chance it will have to sell off the camera division to keep going

--
http://www.panoramio.com/user/50820

Imaging division is one of the few profitable business for sony. Their mobile phone division is in trouble.
In fact the Olympus imaging is in deeper trouble than Sony imaging.

But I hope they both survive. Otherwise the Canikon will kill mirrorless and we would be forced carry heavy dslr.

There is some sort of starry eyed attitude that digital camera technology will keep going at some sort of exponential rate. Few, if any, technologies do and to me digital camera technology is off main-stream development and exploring the by-roads already. Many new good-ideas pop up from time to time but most of the issues necessary to make good-enough imaging devices are already solved. There are remaining areas that still are not optimum and can continue to be improved. However I think we have to agree that there is a camera body somewhere that will be good enough to suit most users. That they can be improved is taken for granted but in our heart of hearts there is a camera/lens combination that already can do precisely the job we each need it to do.

Not so long ago the ethernet was going ape over 4mp tiny sensors. Things are much more sophisticated these days but that old camera that delighted then is still capable of making the same images today.

Where we are now is into buying market share. The company with the deepest pockets or highest overdrawn funds is buying market share either by extensive R&D or in marketing. Once locked into a system it gets harder for users to switch to another brand. Nothing changes and that has been the culture since some companies tried cross brand lens mounts and others quite deliberately made swapping mount systems difficult once the investment was made. Think of Canon valiantly trying to keep its EF lens owners wedded to the dslr body.

So trouble is averted as long as the bankers hold off but as some of these companies are larger than an average country's entire economy and perhaps that big that the thought of them failing is horrific. Think of them as running budget deficits as a stimulus for their "economy" knowing that the cash flow will pull them through whilst at the same time deep enough pockets will cause more trouble with the smaller players. Run the financial legs off your competitors - nothing new in business. Very large international consortiums work more like nation's economies rather than more easily understandable household budgets.

Sometime way back when digital was younger the 4/3 consortium decided that this size sensor would be "good enough" and happily it seems to be so - along with its sometime rival "aps-c". There will always be some who neeed FF sensors but maybe it will not be as big as some might like to predict. After all the dslr has not gone 100% FF - something that would seem to have been the natural way to go.

If 4/3 sensor cameras are not selling well, and Olympus and Panasonic are rapidly snuffing out the limits of what a digital camera can achieve then it goes without saying that camera owners will hold on to their good enough gear for longer. It is a natural maturing of the market. Once it settles down to new camera users and replacing broken or worn out gear then there will be even less R&D cost and with market share known and rusted-in there will be less need for extensive marketing. Then the companies have to adjust to making into their established market and repaying the acccumulated debt.

Happy is the company that has judged the cost of acquiring that market share "just right".

--
Tom Caldwell

 

[rovingtim]

Let me tell you a little story. Back in 2007, I predicted that 4/3rds would cease to exist. Users decided I was a doom and gloomer who knew nothing. When m4/3rds came out, I said Oly couldn't support both systems. The consensus was I was dooming and glooming.

Guess what? Oly couldn't afford both systems. 4/3rds has ceased to exist in stores.

If Thom is right, so what?!?! The problem is if m4/3rds contracts too far, companies won't be able to invest and the system will enter the slow rot stage or it will cease to exist.

That is 'so what'.

 

[Lab D]

How about you explain...

Instead why don't YOU explain why you do NOT follow the simple rules of rounding most people (except maybe you) learned in 3rd grade??

The simple fact is we use 1/3rds when referring to partial stops. Instead of rounding to the nearest 1/3rd YOU go the other way to make a fanboi style point. I am not calling you that, but your actions sure are pointing to it.