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

Okapi001 wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

These 1" point and shoot cameras are very popular and sell well, why not turn 1" into a proper ILS system. A system designed without compromises to be the smallest there is or ever was. Just fantasizing :). It may actually happen...... but unfortunately it will most likely be integrated into a phone.

Nikon already tried, and failed.

I don't think that a 1" ILC can compete with the amazing RX100 & RX10 bridge cameras from Sony. All they lack is an ultrawide angle. The 24-200mm FF equivalent lens on the RX100VI & the 24-600mm FF equivalent lens on the RX10IV are simply amazing. The RX100VI is the size of a pack of cigarettes so much take the prize for portability & smallest there is or ever was for such a great image. A single zoom that covers such wide ranges of foal length means that you always have the right lens on the camera. Never having to change lenses means that you never miss a shot.

Personally a camera the size of the GM is too small because of the compromises in ergonomics made to make it that small.  The GX9 or Pen F is about as small as I would want for a camera to have good ergonomics and good features like dual dials and EVF.  The GX9 misses because of the type of EVF used.

The GM series is too small just like the E-M2X is too big.  Still it will be  great that both size ends have cameras for those that need them.  So yes it will be great to see a new GM camera with good specs.

Very nice images. And yes, it's clear Silent Mode was necessary there.

Good summary and response.

I think you make a good argument, and it's not like you're asking for more AND not willing to pay for it. For you and others with your wants, it would be nice to have a choice to buy what you're dreaming of, even if it costs a bit of a premium.

But it seems to simply be too risky or too small of niche for the major makers to invest in, and doesn't confer enough potential brand halo benefits (like an unprofitable flagship model used to attract interest to the brand and trickle down R&D into other models) to justify indirectly.

Plus the reviews and online chatter would probably be harsh. Imagine: "What was Oly thinking?!! Shrinking a Pen-F just a wee bit more (and it's small already!), tossing out the legendary IBIS to save a measly 60g, using an even tinier battery and micro SD slot, and making the controls and handling harder ruining its perfect ergonomics, and having the nerve to charge the exact same price as the more full featured model! Just confirmed what we knew all along... Olympus has completely lost the plot, and has no idea what they're doing. Calling it now, micro four thirds is dead..."

Etc, etc.

😑

Tom Caldwell wrote:

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”.

Although I found the GM5 appealing, I simply couldn't stand the tiny EVF, and with lens mounted it would fit comfortably only in my largest coat pockets. For me, the GX7/GX85/GX9 EVF is the minimum. I replaced two of my GX7s with GX8s mainly for the larger EVF. I am tempted to get a GX850 or LX100 for casual carry, but I keep coming back to the realization that if I can't carry a camera in a small-ish pocket, I might as well bring my GX85 since I'll be carrying a pouch or shoulder bag anyway. My pocket camera is an LF1.

I came to these conclusions based on my long love affair with Panasonic's LX5 and LX7. Although they were very small, I still needed to carry a pouch because they wouldn't fit in my pockets.

Sergey_Green wrote:

Okapi001 wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

These 1" point and shoot cameras are very popular and sell well, why not turn 1" into a proper ILS system. A system designed without compromises to be the smallest there is or ever was. Just fantasizing :). It may actually happen...... but unfortunately it will most likely be integrated into a phone.

Nikon already tried, and failed.

Failed how, it got no following?

It didn't get the sales Nikon expected and it got discontinued. Nikon got lots of things wrong on Nikon 1 (generally poor marketing effort, fire sales early on that devalued the line, incompatible flash system, crippled F-mount adapter, purposeful crippling when used with other manual lenses) that they luckily didn't repeat with their Nikon Z.

nigelbb wrote:

Okapi001 wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

These 1" point and shoot cameras are very popular and sell well, why not turn 1" into a proper ILS system. A system designed without compromises to be the smallest there is or ever was. Just fantasizing :). It may actually happen...... but unfortunately it will most likely be integrated into a phone.

Nikon already tried, and failed.

I don't think that a 1" ILC can compete with the amazing RX100 & RX10 bridge cameras from Sony. All they lack is an ultrawide angle. The 24-200mm FF equivalent lens on the RX100VI & the 24-600mm FF equivalent lens on the RX10IV are simply amazing. The RX100VI is the size of a pack of cigarettes so much take the prize for portability & smallest there is or ever was for such a great image. A single zoom that covers such wide ranges of foal length means that you always have the right lens on the camera. Never having to change lenses means that you never miss a shot.

Their only downside, to my mind, is the ludicrously short battery life, due to the postage-stamp size battery. I got a good deal on the RX100M4, and it’s a wonderful little camera, but it drains its battery in well under 50 shots!

Chris

SpinOne wrote:

It's that there are not enough camera users who are willing to pay extra for a teeny tiny high-end ILC.

Are you a "teeny tiny" marketing expert or how do you know?

Thanks Joseph, you are correct, picture taking at a classical music concert would not be possible without a silent shutter.

Peter Del

Tom you're preaching to the choir. We (probably the entire m43 forum) ♥ Panasonic GM1/GM5 series and would want to see the line continued with GM7/9/10/11/12 etc..

But we (DPR) are not the problem, the problem is the Mass Market of people do:

• Associate Big Camera = more Professional
• there Big Camera = more Expensive
• Likewise, this means Small Camera = less Professional
• There, it Small Camera = must be less expensive

You can argue til your face is blue, but it won't change the Pubic's Perception of Big = Expensive, and Small = Cheap.

I do think that $900 GM5 introduction price was too high, resulting:

• only M43 diehard are willing to pay $900, while
• Mass Market avoid it like a plague

But I think a more reasonably $600 GM7 can succeed in today's marketplace. @$600, Gm7 would be competing against the likes of 1" Sony RX100 and 1" Canon G7x with bigger sensor + Interchangeable lens advantage.

However, beneath all this camera angst lurks the Smartphone Monster that has stole much of the need for a portable camera.  Going forward, Smartphone will likely eradicated 1" camera and entry-level M43 as well.  The camera world is heading toward a $700 Smartphone & $2000 FF Mirrorless Duopoly, with M43 and APS-C being squeeze in the middle.

I absolutely would. I still use my GM5 (on business trips, for example), and for me size and weight are major drivers in choosing products. That doesn't mean I'm not prepared to carry a bigger camera where appropriate, but there is definitely a place for a small, high end body.

Osa25 wrote:

007peter wrote:

Tom you're preaching to the choir. We (probably the entire m43 forum) ♥ Panasonic GM1/GM5 series and would want to see the line continued with GM7/9/10/11/12 etc..

But we (DPR) are not the problem, the problem is the Mass Market of people do:

• Associate Big Camera = more Professional
• there Big Camera = more Expensive
• Likewise, this means Small Camera = less Professional
• There, it Small Camera = must be less expensive

You can argue til your face is blue, but it won't change the Pubic's Perception of Big = Expensive, and Small = Cheap.

I do think that $900 GM5 introduction price was too high, resulting:

• only M43 diehard are willing to pay $900, while
• Mass Market avoid it like a plague

But I think a more reasonably $600 GM7 can succeed in today's marketplace. @$600, Gm7 would be competing against the likes of 1" Sony RX100 and 1" Canon G7x with bigger sensor + Interchangeable lens advantage.

However, beneath all this camera angst lurks the Smartphone Monster that has stole much of the need for a portable camera. Going forward, Smartphone will likely eradicated 1" camera and entry-level M43 as well. The camera world is heading toward a $700 Smartphone & $2000 FF Mirrorless Duopoly, with M43 and APS-C being squeeze in the middle.

There is no evidencevof this claim. The Sony RX sells like hot cakes at a high price.

M43 marketing is off. And they don’t use what they know about ergonomics. Which gave them nothing to justify the price.

That’s why the GM failed. Not size. It’s busy selling at a lower price in a plastic body as GF and GX xxx

The almost identically sized Sony RX100VI sells for $1200/£1150 but does include an amazing 24-200mm FF equivalent lens.  No smartphone is ever going to have a similar zoom lens.

Yes, we would!

There are so many examples of small, high-priced high-end products, why should it be any different in the camera sector?

• Bicycles cost twice as much if they are particularly light.
• Hikers and backpackers pay double the price for their equipment to save a few grams of weight.
• Notebooks are more expensive the smaller and lighter they are.

Unfortunately, no one has ever attempted to consistently apply this principle to an ILC camera.

The GM series had a high-end purchase price without being a high-end product.
The problem of the GM series was never the price, but

• the absence of a tilt display (elementarily important for small cameras)
• the completely incomprehensible use of cheap components for important hardware controls. With the absurdly bad dial on the back, perhaps 1 dollar in material costs was saved - a catastrophic wrong decision.

I would not hesitate to pay the usual price of a high-end camera for a small and light version.

I very much hope that Olympus and Panasonic will be active in this area again - without repeating the mistakes of the past.

With a small high-end camera three points are especially important:

• Do not try to apply the ergonomics guidelines of DSLR cameras for small cameras. They are different. A small camera - unlike a DSLR - is held in the palm of the left hand. The right hand is only used to operate the camera, not to carry it. That's why you don't need a bulky grip for small ILC cameras. The ergonomics argumentation, which is repeatedly put forward here in the forum against small cameras, ignores this important difference. If someone criticizes the lack of an "ergonomic" grip in a GM, I immediately know that he has never seriously worked with a small camera.
• A tiltable display is a must. With a small camera, the EVF will always be suboptimal for space reasons. With a tiltable display this can be partly compensated. A tiltable Display is also very helpful for the technique described above for holding the camera.
• Hardware buttons, switches and dials should be of uncompromising high-end quality. This would make one more crucial difference to smartphones.
  And please enable the use of all control elements for elementary photo functions!!! It is a waste of space to reserve them for Art Filters, Selfie functions and other questionable features.