Olympus should make better midrange options..

Dunsun wrote:

NO! Get the PenF for 850 EU new.

Where exactly in EC you get such a price for a new PEN F ??

In Czech Republic they sell it for 34 000 Kc which is something around 1300 EUR !

Pen F is and was the most over priced mirrorless camera ever produced.

Same here, except for about a year now it has had regular 50% off deals so I got one for 650 € brand new (Estonia). And agreed that the original price was absolutely ridiculous.

jeffharris wrote:

Belgarchi wrote:

Well, the mid-range options are plenty: E-M10-III, E-M5-II, Pen-F, many Panasonic...

I was at B&H today playing with cameras (messing with A7xx's and hoping to see a Nikon Z6), while picking up a few things for a trip to the South of France in a couple of days. I must say, the Olympus M4/3 camera body line-up looks pretty forlorn, stuck in some kind of sad and fussy time warp.

😜

What I miss the most are very light / small bodies. There was the GM5 at ~200g. There are many options in the 400-500g range. What I really want is a GM5++ around 300g.

Why does it have to be an Olympus?

The GX850 isn't bad at all (messed with one at B&H today). Except for the weird flip UP ONLY selfie screen and lack of an EVF (or even an option to have one). The screen is a bigger issue. AND micro-SD? Really? BUT, it's only 269g with battery and memory card.

I could kind of see using one with a 15mm and 42.5mm

No viewfinder and no flash shoe. Nope, not for me.

SpinOne wrote:

Not every decision by every manufacturer is genius. But I'm fairly confident they have more information than we do. If they aren't making tiny bodies, or tiny lenses, or frequently refreshing camera bodies, they're making decisions based on information we don't have -- but can guess at, based on what they're making.

I agree with much of what you say above in detail and point-by-point (didn't quote it all, but referring to above para and all prior). The market is mature and all manufacturers have slowed down refreshes, especially "in the middle".

My point wasn't that between them Oly and Pany should do everything "in the middle". Nor am I saying they are "wrong" and I am a marketing genius who's caught them out. Your point by point defence of each individual element is fair, and it may well be that the market no longer sustains investment in premium features sets nearer the $1000 price point. Mine are just observations as a camera buyer in a gear discussion forum, that there is nothing that firmly ticks the 3 boxes of premium, compact and fully up-to-date. I am not saying they should do everything - update the Pen and 5.ii, relaunch GM etc etc, just something, one would be nice

Olympus I think has had a full range of interesting bodies, and is just behind the curve with refreshes in the middle. I am sure they will catch up. It's actually Panasonic I am more disappointed with. Their top bodies look great (G9, GH5) but their rangefinder style GX/GM/GF range feels like it's a bit of a mess. I owned a GF1 when they first came out (also an LX100) and have followed the line since. They never manage to hit the premium & compact spot with these. GX8 - too big. GX9, lots of features but (and I admit I am a bit fixated on this) the same cheap FS EVF they've been using for years.

But compactness is the most unique advantage of the system, so under-serving it seems a loss to me.

As I have mentioned before: Have you looked at the new competition? To put it mildly, Z and RF lenses are not emphasizing portability; I think the RF 28-70 is as big as my head! M43 practically has that locked up by default.

Like all these comparisons, the outcome depends on what comparison you choose. Yes they have some enormous "halo" lenses announced (I think the Nikon f0.95 and the Canon 50/1.2 are even more excessive than the 28-70). But look at the rest of the Nikon lenses. The 24-70/4 and f1.8 primes are similar in size to the Oly f2.8 zoom and f1.2 primes. The Z6 is a similar size and weight to the M1.ii. I think the Nikkors are a bit cheaper and they are, in equivalent terms, about a stop faster. For me personally it's no contest for the M1.ii and Pro lenses. (I'm not here to argue about this stuff, I totally accept many others will have differing views, needs and preferences).

Of course, the great thing with m43 is that there are much more compact lenses than the f2.8 zooms and f1.2 primes. I am only saying that there isn't a state-of-the-art, premium and compact body to pair those smaller lenses with. It might be a niche preference (you can always pair smaller lenses with the G9 or M1.ii and still save weight, or you can complement them with a smaller m43 body) but it's what I think. I don't claim there is any deep truth in that, just a view based on my preferences!

Belgarchi wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

Belgarchi wrote:

Well, the mid-range options are plenty: E-M10-III, E-M5-II, Pen-F, many Panasonic...

I was at B&H today playing with cameras (messing with A7xx's and hoping to see a Nikon Z6), while picking up a few things for a trip to the South of France in a couple of days. I must say, the Olympus M4/3 camera body line-up looks pretty forlorn, stuck in some kind of sad and fussy time warp.

😜

What I miss the most are very light / small bodies. There was the GM5 at ~200g. There are many options in the 400-500g range. What I really want is a GM5++ around 300g.

Why does it have to be an Olympus?

The GX850 isn't bad at all (messed with one at B&H today). Except for the weird flip UP ONLY selfie screen and lack of an EVF (or even an option to have one). The screen is a bigger issue. AND micro-SD? Really? BUT, it's only 269g with battery and memory card.

I could kind of see using one with a 15mm and 42.5mm

No viewfinder and no flash shoe. Nope, not for me.

I use the hot shoe to add a thumb grip.

The GX850 is one of those near-miss cameras. There are some really good things about it, but the glaring omissions and half-steps … no EVF, selfie screen, no hot shoe… kind of kill it.

SpinOne wrote:

Erk? Pen-F has a 20mp sensor, excellent EVF, 5-axis IBIS, single-shot AF that's hard to beat, and a ton of features. Neither Pen-F nor E-M5 ii has an outdated EVF, certainly not for a midrange camera. It is only C-AF that is behind.

It's not just C-AF. The PEN-F is uncompetitive when it comes to shooting moving objects and video. Those are two major areas where many of the current advances occur. So it's a camera for shooting stills of static subjects, but given its smaller sensor, this is not a competitive strength either. The only stand out feature is design. And most of the Olympus' lineup is in a similar position and need an overhaul fast.

Most people do not understand that chasing market share, especially in a shrinking market, is not a solid path to profitability. Margins are more critical now than ever, and developing cameras is an expensive undertaking -- even if the camera doesn't have a lot of new features.

I completely disagree. When the market will bottom out, only those manufacturers will survive, who will have enough market share to fund the development costs. Going for margins now is a grave error, in my opinion. Sony and Fuji saw the light a few years back, I think, and started to fight for market share. Canon and Nikon now strike back, trying to protect their large pieces of the pie.  Meanwhile, Olympus and Panasonic only seem to develop high margin products without any effort to grab market share or at least protect the position of M43. Is their management idiotic? Or have they already given up.

Not every decision by every manufacturer is genius. But I'm fairly confident they have more information than we do. If they aren't making tiny bodies, or tiny lenses, or frequently refreshing camera bodies, they're making decisions based on information we don't have -- but can guess at, based on what they're making..

Maybe. But then it seems to me that the M43 manufacturers are more interested in protecting they mid term financials than in the long term survivability of the system.

MaciekPruski wrote:

I wonder if producing all these $1500-$2000 bodies is really that great a strategy for Olympus (and Panasonic too..). It might be ok short term because it brings them more money but it also scares people from buying into the format and they are going to loose customers to Sony, Fuji, and now Canon and Nikon also have mirrorless..

The current midrange models from Oly aren't very good. Especially that they "dumb down" these cameras on features like control dials and interface and advertise them as cameras for selfie crowd. The e-pl9 and em10 mk iii both have this problem. I would instantly buy a new Olympus if it was just a compact body, modern sensor and at least two dials and a touchscreen. They can save other features for the flagships like weather sealing, better autofocus, high framerate, bigger battery life etc. But the cheaper options should also have appeal for real photographers.

Currently to have a noticeable upgrade from my e-p3 I would have to drop big dollars on a Pen f. And the competition at this price point is fierce, I could buy a Fuji, a sony a7, a Pentax Kp, sony a6500, a high end Panasonic etc. That are all compact and have great IQ.

Panasonic have more choice there but their most appealing gm line is getting older and older and annoyingly they reserve better jpeg processing for more expensive models

Your thoughts?

They should just keep the older cameras in production longer and reduce the price like Sony does.  The EM-1 mark i is still compentatve with the Panasonic g85. Just charge $800-900 for it and call it a day.

kolyy wrote:

Meanwhile, Olympus and Panasonic only seem to develop high margin products without any effort to grab market share or at least protect the position of M43. Is their management idiotic? Or have they already given up.

Or perhaps they know full well what they are doing and you are just another case of Dunning–Kruger effect? I wonder which of the two options is more probable?

MaciekPruski wrote:

I wonder if producing all these $1500-$2000 bodies is really that great a strategy for Olympus (and Panasonic too..). It might be ok short term because it brings them more money but it also scares people from buying into the format and they are going to loose customers to Sony, Fuji, and now Canon and Nikon also have mirrorless..

It's not going to work. There are now more than ever mirrorless options that now it's really about price vs performance. Olympus and Panasonic need to seriously rethink their strategy in M43 and reduce pricing throughout their lines.

The current midrange models from Oly aren't very good. Especially that they "dumb down" these cameras on features like control dials and interface and advertise them as cameras for selfie crowd. The e-pl9 and em10 mk iii both have this problem. I would instantly buy a new Olympus if it was just a compact body, modern sensor and at least two dials and a touchscreen. They can save other features for the flagships like weather sealing, better autofocus, high framerate, bigger battery life etc. But the cheaper options should also have appeal for real photographers.

Canon introduced the AE-1, which had some decent bells & whistles, and had a lower price than its rivals and sold over a Million cameras.
Granted, they cant compete with IQ, so they have to use Price and size as their advantage, but they Won't...

Currently to have a noticeable upgrade from my e-p3 I would have to drop big dollars on a Pen f. And the competition at this price point is fierce, I could buy a Fuji, a sony a7, a Pentax Kp, sony a6500, a high end Panasonic etc. That are all compact and have great IQ.

Trust me, you're not the only one thinking like that. There are a lot of photographers, money in hand looking at Canikon, Fujifilm and Sony mirrorless options. The only time they look at M43 now is for video.

Panasonic have more choice there but their most appealing gm line is getting older and older and annoyingly they reserve better jpeg processing for more expensive models

Your thoughts?

DLBlack wrote:

The size definition and grouping is what you think it should be. Other people have other definitions and groupings.

Sorry, but this is utter rubbish. I can define the G9 as a "micro-compact" camera and that's OK, because that's "what I think it should be"?  Contrary to what a certain leader of a certain party in a certain government says, there are no alternative truths. The G9 is a large m43 camera, the GM5 is a small m43 camera, and these truths are not subject to opinion or whimsy.

Scary, the world we're living in today . . .

MaciekPruski wrote:

I've thought about it. Of course, it is a good bargain now. I'd prefer a pen body but the em10 ii is a solid camera.

It is an older 16mp sensor though. I wish they just made a cheaper pen f without the viewfinder and some other bells and whistles

Get the Pen-F with 20mp sensor and fun features - like nice b&w options.

Okapi001 wrote:

kolyy wrote:

Meanwhile, Olympus and Panasonic only seem to develop high margin products without any effort to grab market share or at least protect the position of M43. Is their management idiotic? Or have they already given up.

Or perhaps they know full well what they are doing and you are just another case of Dunning–Kruger effect? I wonder which of the two options is more probable?

Of course, I might be completely wrong and their current strategy is fine. But I do observe that M43 manufacturers do not seem to be interested in securing market share for the system (do you disagree with that?), while the rest of the market is wrestling for it. Companies do make strategic mistakes from time to time. But they might know fully well what they are doing indeed - for example, they might have already decided to limit their investment in M43. I really hope this is not the case. I think the situation might be more clear in a few months.

MrALLCAPS wrote:

MaciekPruski wrote:

Currently to have a noticeable upgrade from my e-p3 I would have to drop big dollars on a Pen f. And the competition at this price point is fierce, I could buy a Fuji, a sony a7, a Pentax Kp, sony a6500, a high end Panasonic etc. That are all compact and have great IQ.

Trust me, you're not the only one thinking like that. There are a lot of photographers, money in hand looking at Canikon, Fujifilm and Sony mirrorless options. The only time they look at M43 now is for video.

M4/3 is an excellent choice for small camera and smaller lenses with excellent image quality. Sure, it's not a 48MP full-frame sensor, but very capable. Not everyone wants to carry a big bag with massive zoom lenses.

The Nikon Z6 interests me, but only using my little pile of adapted primes.

Panasonic have more choice there but their most appealing gm line is getting older and older and annoyingly they reserve better jpeg processing for more expensive models

Your thoughts?

Yes, it's a bummer there's no GM7 (or whatever) with a 20MP sensor, improved EVF and tilt screen. I suppose Panasonic thinks that's the GX9. Or the GX850, which has too many shortcomings to bother with?

tjuster1 wrote:

DLBlack wrote:

The size definition and grouping is what you think it should be. Other people have other definitions and groupings.

Sorry, but this is utter rubbish. I can define the G9 as a "micro-compact" camera and that's OK, because that's "what I think it should be"? Contrary to what a certain leader of a certain party in a certain government says, there are no alternative truths. The G9 is a large m43 camera, the GM5 is a small m43 camera, and these truths are not subject to opinion or whimsy.

Scary, the world we're living in today . . .

I agree that the GM5 is a small MFT camera and the G9 is a large MFT camera.  The size grouping for the cameras between is very debatable.  You had your grouping and think it is the correct grouping others have different size groupings.  I personally don't care and I wonder why so many people on this forum is so fixated on camera size.  Once a camera is too big to fit in a pocket then a few more millimeters can give one a vast improvement in ergonomics and camera features.

kolyy wrote:

Most people do not understand that chasing market share, especially in a shrinking market, is not a solid path to profitability. Margins are more critical now than ever, and developing cameras is an expensive undertaking -- even if the camera doesn't have a lot of new features.

I completely disagree. When the market will bottom out, only those manufacturers will survive, who will have enough market share to fund the development costs. Going for margins now is a grave error, in my opinion. Sony and Fuji saw the light a few years back, I think, and started to fight for market share. Canon and Nikon now strike back, trying to protect their large pieces of the pie.

Nikon actually has the same strategy as Olympus. They see that the reality is that the camera market is largely stagnant (meaning the units being shipped are not growing significantly). The way to profit is higher margin cameras. So you see that for their entry level they largely do minor refreshes. Most of their resources are focused on the more profitable FX cameras and protecting the market share there. They cut the size of their company to run more lean.

Meanwhile, Olympus and Panasonic only seem to develop high margin products without any effort to grab market share or at least protect the position of M43. Is their management idiotic? Or have they already given up.

While you can argue they aren't making a strong effort to grow market share, I don't think you can argue they aren't protecting the market share of M43. Both brands are employing the strategy of offering older cameras at good prices to hold on to market share: E-M10 II and E-M5 II still available at discounted prices, GX85 2 lens kit is a great deal and selling really well (#11 in Amazon).

Not every decision by every manufacturer is genius. But I'm fairly confident they have more information than we do. If they aren't making tiny bodies, or tiny lenses, or frequently refreshing camera bodies, they're making decisions based on information we don't have -- but can guess at, based on what they're making..

Maybe. But then it seems to me that the M43 manufacturers are more interested in protecting they mid term financials than in the long term survivability of the system.

This seems more like a case where you feel that the long term survivability of the system depends on the certain bodies and lenses that you want, but the management is seeing differently. But the management has data that we don't have (like units sold of each line, how profitable each are, etc). I think they will have a better idea of what sells and what doesn't.

jeffharris wrote:

Belgarchi wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

Belgarchi wrote:

Well, the mid-range options are plenty: E-M10-III, E-M5-II, Pen-F, many Panasonic...

I was at B&H today playing with cameras (messing with A7xx's and hoping to see a Nikon Z6), while picking up a few things for a trip to the South of France in a couple of days. I must say, the Olympus M4/3 camera body line-up looks pretty forlorn, stuck in some kind of sad and fussy time warp.

😜

What I miss the most are very light / small bodies. There was the GM5 at ~200g. There are many options in the 400-500g range. What I really want is a GM5++ around 300g.

Why does it have to be an Olympus?

The GX850 isn't bad at all (messed with one at B&H today). Except for the weird flip UP ONLY selfie screen and lack of an EVF (or even an option to have one). The screen is a bigger issue. AND micro-SD? Really? BUT, it's only 269g with battery and memory card.

I could kind of see using one with a 15mm and 42.5mm

No viewfinder and no flash shoe. Nope, not for me.

I use the hot shoe to add a thumb grip.

The GX850 is one of those near-miss cameras. There are some really good things about it, but the glaring omissions and half-steps … no EVF, selfie screen, no hot shoe… kind of kill it.

For a GM user those are omissions. For the main GF market (GX850 is actually a GF9), which is largely in Asia, a selfie screen is mandatory, EVF doesn't matter and not having a popup flash can be a deal killer (while a hotshoe has limited utility to them since they are unlikely to use a big flash). This was enough so that Olympus finally added a pop-up flash to the E-PL9 (eliminating attachable EVF option).

I think Panasonic has pretty much banked on:

1) GM users continuing to use their old camera or buy from leftover stock

2) Buy a GF/GX850 and accept the compromises

3) Buy a GX85/GX9 and just deal with the camera being bigger.

The amount of people who will do none of these and really leave the system is probably really small, especially given the existing GM cameras still seem to be going strong.