Would we pay more for a tiny M4/3 body?

As a GM camera body “freak” I love to use multiple GM camera bodies each with a lens.

This saves changing lenses in the field and also makes carrying more than one lens as “cameras” much easier than carrying larger “cameras” as a GM camera body is only the size of a pack of cards larger then any lens it is attached to.  The Olympus Air tried to address the same problem but was not a complete camera in its own right - but only “part camera” and it had also only had a built in battery.

Objections to the GM series were that it was too small for clumsy hands and short on user conveniences.  This of course is simply user choice and those that cannot fit a GM in-hand or need their user “extra conveniences” such as tilt/flip screen, larger dials, big grips, high prformance video, IBIS, etc, etc can stop reading here  Similarly those who regard such size cameras as “unbalanced” with other than tiny lenses atached to it.

The GM series seemed to offer what M4/3 was all about - compact kit (all round) it was a serious attempt to produce a full function camera (aka as one with all the essential abilities to make good images left in) and it was designed for serious use by thinking photographers.

There was never any doubt that the GM series (especially the GM5) were designed as full systems cameras for the entire M4/3 system.  Not just as horses for the smallest lenses only.

However here we reach the impossible divide.

The notion that all small cameras are “entry level” for new users, backup, pocketable, toys, etc.  And as such should not cost much.

The result of this notion is:

1) that M4/3 = small lenses and large camera bodies.

2) Olympus and Panasonic have responded by producing and supplying “cheap” cameras such as the E-PL9 and GX950 marketed at entry level users.

Gone is the serious attempt at making the ultra compact serious systems camera.  Now cameras such as the GX9 are the serious compact camera for M4/3 and even the E-M10iii has overtures of being suitable for entry level only.

And yet many complain that M/3 bodies are becoming too large and we might as well buy a similar sized compact FF ML camera body quite forgetting that longer and more sophisticated M4/3 lenses can still be more compact than FF capable lenses - the more so when it is considered that FF ML systems will have to rely on ex-dslr lenses adapted for many years to come.  This is not an open invitation to get into an equivalence argument.  This is more about whether or not we can recognise that a “sophisticated compact BMW” might be worth paying a bit more for than a large SUV that seems to provide more metal weight for the money.   There is no equivalence in thes ame size and capable sensor in different size bodies.

Are we willing to see past our camera size blinkered notion that all small cameras are of lesser standard simply because user-conveniences have been omitted to make them smaller?  A small well built camera that thrives on intelligent user input rather than all the user convenience aids and props must be worth more than the smaller camera pitched at entry level users only.  A GM5 “type” with similar sensor can be quite competitive image wise with a larger format M4/3 system body.

In cameras we tend to get what we see them as.  Larger capable cameras assume the identity of the faux-dslr because that is what we imagine proper cameras to look like. And to further this argument - what proper photographers should be holding.

Well we might complain that cameras do not suit the profile of our needs but the reality is that those that make cameras closely study the profile of what cameras look like that sell.

This seems - “look like a dslr, but slightly smaller will do ...”.  Too small and it is definately a pocketable/toy/backup and surely will not fit in my hand and therefore cannot be worth very much at all.

If this is really true it is hardly surprising that the well-considered GM5 is no more and the GX950 might be its entry-level cousin and the “last hurrah”.

I agree, Tom, that larger doesn’t automatically mean better, but for me personally, there’s a certain minimum physical size of camera below which it becomes awkward and uncomfortable to hold. Comfortable physical placement of buttons and control dials, a decent-size EVF to look through and screen to view your pictures on all require a body of a certain size.

I’m not familiar with Panasonic cameras, but on the Olympus side of things the EM10 is, for me, a little on the small side to comfortably hold without an added grip to give me something more to hold on to. I far prefer the slightly larger bodies of the EM5 and EM1.

Cheers,

Chris

Couple of factors going on.

1) small camera usually fits less features, and people expect to pay less if there are less features

2) if there is an attempt to cram in the same amount of features, it may cost more (miniaturization typically does) and it may still end up compromised (for example smaller buttons/dials, EVF).

3) ergonomics means that shrinking everything to the smallest possible size doesn't always make sense.

But even if you throw all that out the window, assume the camera has exactly the same features and that ergonomics are no concern, it's an interesting thought experiment on what dollar value people place on size (and solely size).

For example, what if Olympus makes the E-M5 III with exactly the same features as E-M1 II, but just a smaller size. Current street price is $1600 for E-M1 II. How much would people be willing to pay for a E-M5 III like that? Less than E-M1 II (whatever street price it is at the time/market), same or more? And to take it more extreme, what about shrinking it to a camera like the E-PL series?

The gist I'm getting is a vast majority of people would expect to pay less for the smaller camera, and few would be willing to pay more or even the same. So in the shoes of the manufacturer, if most consumers place close to zero value (or even negative value) on a smaller body, they have little incentive to cramp all the features in the smaller body, but rather put what matches the expected price point of a body of that size.

That's kind of what happened to the GM series (at least in US market). Most people seemed unwilling to pay more than the GF series for a camera of that size and they had to drop prices of the GMs to that level to move them. Other markets of course may be different.

A good example of a high-end small camera is the Sony RX100 range. Pocket cameras that cost more than a good many DSLRs and m43 cameras do. Sony have made them for years (I think they’re currently up to the Mark 6 or 7?) which suggests that they sell reasonably well.

Chris

Yes, if the camera has outstanding build quality, like a Leica.

Maybe a bit larger than GM5 - I am OK with M10 or GX9 size, but not larger.

But I would pay more for robust weather-sealing, new-generation sensor, seamless smartphone / tablet connectivity, excellent viewfinder, good IBIS, built-in flash and a hot shoe, and shock-free shutter.

Now, we just need to find at least two more people who want such a camera to make it economically feasible

My second system is Sony FF (A7R2). I want my 2 systems to be as far apart, size and weight-wise, as possible - otherwise I will just keep and expand the Sony, and let M4/3 go...

Cheshire-Chris wrote:

A good example of a high-end small camera is the Sony RX100 range. Pocket cameras that cost more than a good many DSLRs and m43 cameras do. Sony have made them for years (I think they’re currently up to the Mark 6 or 7?) which suggests that they sell reasonably well.

Chris

Pocket cameras are a different category. There's a difference in convenience when you can put a camera in your pants/shirt pocket vs jacket pocket vs not pocketable.

The GM cameras, although small, were not pants/shirt pocketable once you add a lens (other than body cap ones). So even though Panasonic likely was targeting that market with the GM series, they failed to really hit the mark. And once you are in the "jacket pocket" category, the GX line is available.

To make a camera that matches the convenience of the 1-inch cameras, the lenses need to be designed to retract significantly into the body. Maybe this may become a possibility in the future with a global shutter sensor and elimination of the shutter mechanism. Then maybe a dedicated lens can be made that does that. But even in that case, I'm not sure how much more people would pay.

The Sony price may have to do with branding too, similar cameras from Panasonic don't command nearly as high a price.

This ain't gonna make me a lot of friends, but here we go:

In the grand scheme of things, it's not the bodies that add up the weight, it's the lenses.

And on this front, m43 has been missing the mark lately.

m43rds has been putting out lately overweight (40-150mm f2.8, 300mm f4, 45/42.5 f1.2, 200mm f2.8) and/or overpriced lenses (300mm f4, 45/42.5 f1.2, 200mm f2.8, 50-200mm f2.8-4). There's nothing that these lenses can do that can't be had for lighter and cheaper in another mount.

Compared with things like the 12mm f2.0, the 45mm f1.8, the 60mm f2.8, the 75mm f1.8, even the PL 8-18, the 12-35/12-40mm f2.8 and 35-100 f2.8 that have roughly no equivalents in other mounts when it comes to the price/performance/weight ratio, and I for one find that m43rds is too focused on "running with the big boys" and not enough on some original core values.

It's ok to build bigger bodies as this allows more hard control points, better viewfinders, better lcds and so on. But when the lenses add up to weigh more to the comparable APS-C or FF kit, somebody dropped the ball.

I had a GM5 and I sold it because it was too small to operate properly, or comfortably.

In addition to that, with a 12-60 or 14-140 mounted on it, it was too big to go in a pocket so it had absolutely no advantage whatsoever over the G7 I owned alongside it. In fact it was disadvantaged because the G7 was much more comfortable to operate.

Dave

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Take cars for example - small were underpowered, skinny tyres and basic internal finish - large were thought beautiful even if the best were out of financial reach.

Then (I use as an example only) BMW (and others) made small highly refined powerful cars and people actually paid more for them. It might take some sort of revolution for the same thing to happen with camera bodies.

I put the example of the Pro-shooter who turned up at the wedding with two GM5 cameras on his belt and made a good fist of the images for the bride. Unfortunately several of the guests died laughing and he is still trying to extract his reasonable fee from the Bride’s father who in his own mind figured that the guest’s mobile phone pics were surely better.

A similar mentality is also likely why DSLRs have such an extreme stronghold in the USA. People think of cameras that look like that as the "serious" cameras. When they see a camera that looks like a point and shoot, they think it's a toy camera. It's hard to turn that perception around.

That is the real issue. Nobody laughed at the guests who turned up in BMW, Audi and Mercedes compact cars.

I think this may be regional too. The US values bigger cars, but Europe and Asia seem to be more receptive of smaller cars. The smallest BMWs here are relatively cheap entry level models.

Similar thing with phones. Apple once tried very hard to convince people that smaller phones were better and more premium, but even they gave into the trend for larger and larger phones.

Osa25 wrote:

Cheshire-Chris wrote:

I agree, Tom, that larger doesn’t automatically mean better, but for me personally, there’s a certain minimum physical size of camera below which it becomes awkward and uncomfortable to hold. Comfortable physical placement of buttons and control dials, a decent-size EVF to look through and screen to view your pictures on all require a body of a certain size.

I’m not familiar with Panasonic cameras, but on the Olympus side of things the EM10 is, for me, a little on the small side to comfortably hold without an added grip to give me something more to hold on to. I far prefer the slightly larger bodies of the EM5 and EM1.

Cheers,

Chris

In none of these cameras can one say that Olympus or Panasonic offered the best ergonmic solutions or layouts possible, even within the size limitations of those specific camera bodies.

In the case of the GM1 for example we had a scroll wheel that Panasonic has executed better in even their 1" camera bodies, but then they ask for blood and tears price and they dont even make the scroll wheel as good as they know how to?

Similarly the GM5 needed another control wheel and it could have been included but wasnt. Grip not done right, purely for specs chasing..

I agree completely. Small camera bodies have some inherent limitations when it comes to ergonomics, but GM handling was worse than it needed to be. The GM1 has the worst control wheel I've used on any camera.

I went from a Nikon 1 J1 to GM1, mainly for the touch screen and wider range of lenses. The J1 had significant flaws and was a little bigger, but it was also significantly cheaper, and managed to fit on two usable controls.

I don't mind paying extra for a small body, but if I'm paying more money I expect better design.

At a concert this evening I used a PEN F with 17 & 45 1.8's, I don't think I would be comfortable with anything smaller - but lighter, that's a different matter!

All at 1.8, 1600 ISO, 1/30-1/50 sec. No tripod.

Peter Del

Tom Caldwell wrote:

ZodiacPhoto wrote:

Yes, if the camera has outstanding build quality, like a Leica.

Maybe a bit larger than GM5 - I am OK with M10 or GX9 size, but not larger.

But I would pay more for robust weather-sealing,

My GM1 got very wet in Milford Sound NZ over four years ago - carefully dried out it hasn’t missed a beat since.

new-generation sensor,

do-able

seamless smartphone / tablet connectivity,

It works already but it drives me mad - more work necessary there - but should be possible

That's why I am asking for "seamless"

excellent viewfinder,

I have no issues with the evf used by the GM5 - not all will agree - but if we need “very small” and “works” then the GM5 evf does the job

good IBIS,

I doubt if this could happen in a body this small - but all Panasonic lenses that needed stabilisation had it and still do. Even Olympus has IS in its remarkable 12-100/4.0

I would go for just a tad larger body with IBIS.

built-in flash

No room for flash and evf

My backup camera, Sony RX100Mk3, has both. No hot shoe, tho.

and a hot shoe,

GM5 has one

and shock-free shutter.

electronic shutter is shock free and global sensor renders it not necessary

Now, we just need to find at least two more people who want such a camera to make it economically feasible

It is not really feasible in my book as my needs are multiple tiny camera bodies and I have shot myself in the foot by suggesting that they be small and expensive. As it was perchance I picked up my GM5 stock at GX950 prices.

As far as I am concerned I don’t really care the proverbial as I already have my camera selection of choice in the form of GM series bodies GM85 and G9 with a near retired EM1.

My second system is Sony FF (A7R2). I want my 2 systems to be as far apart, size and weight-wise, as possible - otherwise I will just keep and expand the Sony, and let M4/3 go...

I might end up with L-mount body myself but I will have no truck with made for L-mount lenses - only to adapt the EF lenses that I already own.

One factor in the equation is that although this little wonder more expensive camera might be “more expensive” it will not be nearly as expensive as keeping up with FF ML camera bodies and lenses to suit.

I sold my GX8 when GX9 release was "imminent". I would be happy with GX9 if it had decent weather sealing...

Tom Caldwell wrote:

To make a camera that matches the convenience of the 1-inch cameras, the lenses need to be designed to retract significantly into the body. Maybe this may become a possibility in the future with a global shutter sensor and elimination of the shutter mechanism. Then maybe a dedicated lens can be made that does that. But even in that case, I'm not sure how much more people would pay.

All retracting lens cameras tend to suffer form dust on sensor and of course are limited to the focal capabilities of their fixed lens. The fixed lens makes removing the dust outside a specialised repair shop nigh on impossible.

My idea actually is not a fixed lens camera, but rather an ILC.

I'm talking about a specially designed MFT lens that retracts into the body, using the space that would have been taken up by the shutter mechanism. Then maybe the section sticking out can be made half the thickness (roughly 0.5 inches thick) vs a 12-32mm or 14-42 PZ. Then a GM camera with such a lens attached would truly be pocketable.