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

joerg bergmann wrote:

• 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.

Finally somebody who gets it. Though I am sure there are many others who feel the same ... for me the lens becomes the grip (if it is larger). Otherwise (small lens) I have no problem operating the LX100.

• 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.

Seconded!

Cheers

Sjwilliams 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.

Sony manages to sell tiny RX 100 series cameras north of $1K. I agree that many think like you mentioned, but obviously you can sell a small expensive camera or Sony would not be on the sixth iteration of the series.

Maybe the real reason Panny didn't continue the GM, series is that Sony has pretty much owned the small and expensive camera market.

I know you can't change the lens on the Sony but the RX100 VI could replace a GM5 with both the 12-32 and 35-100. You would not have to change lenses either.

So I think there is a market for small premium cameras, but it is small and one company already pretty much owns it.

Sony RX100iii is my backup camera.

Sony managed to pack a viewfinder and a tilting flash in such a tiny body.

I wish they would make an interchangeable lens system with the same sensor and body. I seriously considered Nikon 1 system just before it was discontinued.

That's why I'm hanging on to my 1st gen E-M10. I love that thing.  Also, I don't care about 'pocketability'.   I have always hung my cameras around my neck, it's just that a tiny body hurts my neck less, and a light body hurts my back less!  I find the E-M10 Mk 1 (almost) perfect.  But I would most definitely buy a version that is closer to state of the art.

Why should I pay more for less? Smaller body means less of real estate for dials, switches, controllers, etc. Small body is less convenient than bigger one.

Small body is not for me. I'd probably refuse to buy it even for less.

That would depend on the package of camera and carry. Right now, my only need for smaller is to compress my E-P5 + 14-150 into an easier carry while urban touristing. But since camera and clothing require a shoulder bag, I'm not sure a smaller form factor would give a net gain.

s_grins wrote:

Why should I pay more for less?

Because you are not really paying more for less, but for more. With smaller and lighter gear, you can carry more bodies, lenses, accessories ... Which means, more chances to get that winning photo.

Okapi001 wrote:

s_grins wrote:

Why should I pay more for less?

Because you are not really paying more for less, but for more. With smaller and lighter gear, you can carry more bodies, lenses, accessories ... Which means, more chances to get that winning photo.

The problem for me with small cameras is the hit you take on ergonomics . I do have large hands and find the size of the GM5 for far too small. I am not happy with the ergonomics of my Sony FE cameras due to the poor grip and too tight spacing between lens mount and grip.

Whatever else you can complain about the ergonomics of the Z7 which I will be getting soon, are far superior to Sony or in fact any mirrorless camera I have owned or tried. Again I am a long term Nikon user and when at the hands-on day the grip,feel of the camera , menus etc really felt like coming home. I have some Sony lenses I really love , if Nikon had more native glass ready { apart from the 24-70z I will mainly be using my F-mount lenses } I would sell off my Sony kit.

James Stirling wrote:

The problem for me with small cameras is the hit you take on ergonomics . I do have large hands and find the size of the GM5 for far too small.

Provided that the hardware controls are well made, there are no disadvantages in ergonomics.

All you have to do is adapt your technique. It even works with hands like tennis rackets.

Okapi001 wrote:

s_grins wrote:

Why should I pay more for less?

Because you are not really paying more for less, but for more. With smaller and lighter gear, you can carry more bodies, lenses, accessories ... Which means, more chances to get that winning photo.

Dear, when I want smaller gear I take with me smaller gear (LX100, TZ90, or my smartphone. One 43 at a time is more than enough for me

All these arguments about smaller pocketable body are old times moot topic when Olympus could not make anything better than countless humpless PENs.

joerg bergmann wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

The problem for me with small cameras is the hit you take on ergonomics . I do have large hands and find the size of the GM5 for far too small.

Provided that the hardware controls are well made, there are no disadvantages in ergonomics.

All you have to do is adapt your technique. It even works with hands like tennis rackets.

Joerg, there is an unavoidable hit to ergonomics when a camera is too small for comfortable use . One could "adapt" { seriously compromise } ones technique to any size of camera . However I would not be buying a camera that forced me to use uncomfortable compromised controls

There are sound reasons why my m43 camera are the GX8 and GH4 It is good to have choices though and I am only expressing my experience of these size of cameras. For me the GM5 is not a toy in function or ability , but it is very much in the toy category for me regrading ergonomics and handling. The issue being that any attempt to improve this , better EVF, a small grip ,IBIS , better controls etc would inevitably increase the size of the camera

s_grins wrote:

Why should I pay more for less? Smaller body means less of real estate

Do you really think that the price of a camera must be based on its total surface area? That sounds almost as crazy as the idea that larger sensors are better.

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.

The smart people in Panasonic force us to buy this with an expensive kit lens and you cannot get it body only here in the US.  Even so, I doubt it will be cheaper than the D3500 that comes with a kit lens for about $550.  How can you charge people $1,000 for a "feeder" camera, unless, of course GX9 was not intended to be an entry model.  If not, what is?  In today's market place, an entry level camera should be price no more than $600 to have a chance to survive in the market place.

M4/3 has to control its cost but unfortunately the smaller overall market share means relatively higher cost for manufacturing and R&D.  This is not because m4/3 are "better" in quality, as some here may dream of, but because the inherited burden of a smaller player.  By going all pro with overbuilt bodies and lens will only make the cost problem worse.

joerg bergmann wrote:

s_grins wrote:

Why should I pay more for less? Smaller body means less of real estate

Do you really think that the price of a camera must be based on its total surface area? That sounds almost as crazy as the idea that larger sensors are better.

No, I do not think that price of the camera must be based on total surface area ( I guess you mean sensor size).

I believe we pay for performance first, convenience second, and then the rest follows. For me convenience includes size, handling, feel, and personal relation (kind of relation with dog). Convenience includes EVF - I'll never ever buy my prime camera without top quality EVF - that is me. I love cameras with humps

s_grins wrote:

joerg bergmann wrote:

s_grins wrote:

Why should I pay more for less? Smaller body means less of real estate

Do you really think that the price of a camera must be based on its total surface area? That sounds almost as crazy as the idea that larger sensors are better.

No, I do not think that price of the camera must be based on total surface area ( I guess you mean sensor size).

I believe we pay for performance first, convenience second, and then the rest follows. For me convenience includes size, handling, feel, and personal relation (kind of relation with dog). Convenience includes EVF - I'll never ever buy my prime camera without top quality EVF - that is me. I love cameras with humps

Who doesn't love a hump

James Stirling wrote:

joerg bergmann wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

The problem for me with small cameras is the hit you take on ergonomics . I do have large hands and find the size of the GM5 for far too small.

Provided that the hardware controls are well made, there are no disadvantages in ergonomics.

All you have to do is adapt your technique. It even works with hands like tennis rackets.

Joerg, there is an unavoidable hit to ergonomics when a camera is too small for comfortable use . One could "adapt" { seriously compromise } ones technique to any size of camera . However I would not be buying a camera that forced me to use uncomfortable compromised controls

There are sound reasons why my m43 camera are the GX8 and GH4 It is good to have choices though and I am only expressing my experience of these size of cameras. For me the GM5 is not a toy in function or ability , but it is very much in the toy category for me regrading ergonomics and handling. The issue being that any attempt to improve this , better EVF, a small grip ,IBIS , better controls etc would inevitably increase the size of the camera

Jim, i can understand anyone who prefers a big camera. There are as many good reasons for large cameras as there are for small ones. But the perception that small cameras are less ergonomic is wrong. They're not worse, they're different.

As I've written before:

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.

Maybe someone should finally make a youtube tutorial: "How to operate a small ILC".