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

joerg bergmann wrote:

• 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 agree completely. A tilt display doesn't significantly add to the size of the camera, but makes it more usable in different situations. I'd certainly consider a tilt screen to be more important than a tiny EVF. Others have certainly implemented more usable controls on little point and shoot compacts, so Panasonic really had no excuse.

I'd add the GM1's tiny buffer to the list too. It's just large enough to shoot a bracketed exposure without running out of space. Performance when writing to the card is quite slow, so it can take a good few seconds before another shot can be taken.

I don't expect it to be a high speed sport camera, but even cheaper Nikon 1 cameras and some phones had a larger buffer at the time. It's just another thing that stopped it really feeling like a "high-end" small camera that could compete with the larger bodies.

joerg bergmann wrote:

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".

Yep, someone with teeny tiny hands

James Stirling wrote:

joerg bergmann wrote:

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

Yep, someone with teeny tiny hands

Assisted by someone with hands like tennis rackets. So everyone gets something out of it.

G1Houston wrote:

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.

The GX85 and GX850 is Panasonic's entry model (both can be had for $550 with kit lenses).

The GX9 is a midrange model (akin to D5600 or D7500) and the lens it comes with kind of reflects that too (a 12-60mm similar to the more expensive 18-140mm kits).

Great post, Tom.  And you bring up a lot of things I have wondered or obsessed about over the years. Incidentally I'm currently a GM1 owner and user - it replaced my GM5 with which I had an on-again off-again love/hate relationship for years, the hate coming from the insultingly tiny EVF which always bugged the hell out of me - and the reduced size of the rear screen (partially to allow Panasonic to squeeze in the EVF and the control wheel I believe). My GM1 has a much better rear screen and no annoying EVF - so in many ways, it for me is, was and has been the perfect small digital reincarnation of my old Rollei 35 compact camera, another small jewel-like gem which was quite pocketable (though it didn't have either interchangeable lenses or any form of focusing, per se, for that matter). The GM1 and GM5 are and were great modern interchangeable-lens versions of the Rollei 35 -

But, that said, the Rollei 35 was always a niche camera and never adopted by large numbers of photographers. Coming back to your original question - would we pay more for a tiny m4/3 body? - my answers are No...Probably Not...and maybe, sometimes, Yes.  No because tiny cameras usually can't compete, ergonomic-wise or handling-wise or in many other areas, with slightly larger one.  Though my Rollei 35 was my carry-everywhere-pocketable camera, my old Pentaxes (Spotmatics and MX's) were, probably, a hundred times more thoughtfully photographer-friendly than a tinier Rollei.  Ditto in our present era: my GX8, with its astoundingly wonderful EVF eyepiece (the best I've ever used on a mirrorless camera), its solidity and simple physical logic, is more satisfying for old-school put-your-eye-to-the-viewfinder-and-compose-and-shoot style of photography than either my GM1 or my GM5 was. Shooting with the GM1, I've learned to use touch-screen features and a different framing and photographic approach which I've come to love - but it ain't quite the same as old-school photography.  The Maybe part ---

These days, I would have have paid more for a tiny, brilliantly made, semi-pocketable camera, though alas it wasn't an interchangeable-lens one: I recently bought the newest generation of Canon's semi-pro compacts - the G1x Mark III - a tiny, beautifully made camera that's slightly larger than my GM1 but definitely smaller than the so-called small micro 4/3 bodies like the EM10 and the GX85 - it's much closer in size to the diminutive smaller E-PL5 series - or to my late, lamented Lumix LX7.  Not quite the faux-rangefinder form factor I like - and without the luxury of using some tiny low-light primes - it nonetheless is a good example of the question: will enough photographers pay for a truly small but brilliant camera - and will they pony up the higher purchase price necessary to make these cameras?

Good questions.

Your post also made me think of...the (relatively) new Pentax KP. For many Pentaxians and DSLR shooters in general, the KP seems (and seemed) impossibly small. Ironically, too, Pentax has charged a higher price for this, its small premium camera body, than they have for what arguably was and still is their best APS-C camera, the K-3.  Too much has been written about what Pentax was thinking and why they did it - or who they hope or hoped the camera would appeal to - but clearly with a number of its design and technical points and traits, it's almost like a 'tiny' (everything is relative) midget version of their much, much, much larger full-frame flagship camera, the K-1.  Would it be necessary to add a few more bells & whistles to a modern iteration of the GM series, to make them seem worth paying a premium for?  Obviously Panasonic doesn't think so (or hasn't thought so, to date), no matter what its more serious photographers (like those on this board and participating in this discussion) might opine. To date, the KP has not been a financial success for Pentax but many theorize that Pentax simply priced it too high, and when or if they reduce prices by a few hundred bucks, the many virtues of their 'baby' new-gen DSLR will attract more buyers.

I still love my GM1 and, honestly, for what it does, don't think it really needs much updating, if any.  I've never seen it as a toy.  But I never saw my Rollei 35 as a toy either.

SpinOne wrote:

Tiny entry-level models sell well enough to continue, whereas tiny high-end do not.

They don't sell well - because they don't exist. Once they can be pre-ordered, they will sell well. Even some of the naysayers in this forum will buy them.

joerg bergmann wrote:

SpinOne wrote:

Tiny entry-level models sell well enough to continue, whereas tiny high-end do not.

They don't sell well - because they don't exist. Once they can be pre-ordered, they will sell well. Even some of the naysayers in this forum will buy them.

Do you think Panasonic stopped moving forward with the fiddlysorry lovely wee GM series and did not provide an update to my beloved GX8 . On a whim  "let's screw with these guys with little hands " and " this will be funny we will announce a GX9 and give them an update to a lower level camera " . Or more realistically because these models were not doing good business for them . At the moment there is not a m43 model that attracts me enough to part with cash . I want a GX8 size body with excellent EVF, 4K IBIS and pixel shift would be nice, now is that too much to ask for

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Take cars for example - small were underpowered, skinny tyres and basic internal finish

except the Mini - but it was a niche car

- 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

VW Golf, circa 1975

powerful cars and people actually paid more

... for the GTi

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.

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

I am not nitpicking. Just a reminder that what you need is a legacy (like the Beetle) and the ability to think out of the box; and of course you must know thy customer (eg - post 1968 urban professionals).

Funny you mention the Rollei 35S. It was the the first real camera I bought as a teenager in the early 70's. It followed me many times around the world. I never ceased to love it. It was the ideal small travel camera for me. Tiny, simple, intuitive, all metal build, yet had all the manual controls at the finger tip - focus, aperture, time. The Zeiss designed Sonnar lens was excellent. For those that do not know it:

My dream camera... but as an ILC with a digital sensor....

When I bought into MFT, it was with this Rollei "ideal" in mind. It was 97w, 60h, 32d and 325g (with the lens retracted). My GM1 and GM5 come very close. The GM1 is 99w, 55h and 30d (without lens attached, with the 12-32 its 55d).

Yes, I would pay US$1,000 for a GM10. But only if they get the ergonomics right. That wheel on the GM1 is a constant source of frustration. It is designed for exclusive use by tender lady fingers with a baby skin. I have the hands of a worker, with rough and abused skin. My fingers slip on that wheel. And if I apply more pressure to get a grip the 4-way buttons get activated. I thought of glueing a clock gear onto it with sharp teeth... I thought of cutting the wires for the four way switch.... I thought of adding a strong spring under that wheel.... I tried changing my technique (as Tom suggested in an earlier GM1 thread). Apart from this, I love the GM1, but that $%!* multi-function wheel drives me nuts. The GM5 wheel is a great improvement though, but not perfect.

For me, they could leave everything as is, even the sensor. Just add two large, grippy wheels at the front, like on the Rollei, with positive clicks, dedicated for time and aperture. And I would be in heaven.

EDIT: I even thought of getting the 15mm lens, just for the GM1, just because it has an aperture ring so I would need to use the multi-function wheel less often....

AN INTERESTING COMPARISON:

There are currently 35 GM1 and only 3 GM5 for sale on worldwide eBay.

There are currently 439 Rollei-35 for sale on worldwide ebay, 241 are over USD200, and 103 are over USD500, 68 are over US$1,000. Looks like the Rollei is far more popular despite it's age (introduced in 1966). Sure, part reason is nostalgia and collectors. But it also shows how many of these were made (2 million in 30 years, probably more than all MFT cameras from all makers put together).

There was and is a market for small & basic & high quality & premium price - as long as it is made to also meet human ergonomic requirements. To sell in quantities to make it affordable, it's not enough to demonstrate it can be done that small. I am afraid, but showcasing Panasonic's engineering skills was the core motivation for the GM1/5. They are not practical enough for most everyday users.

AJakeJY wrote:

G1Houston wrote:

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.

The GX85 and GX850 is Panasonic's entry model (both can be had for $550 with kit lenses).

The GX9 is a midrange model (akin to D5600 or D7500) and the lens it comes with kind of reflects that too (a 12-60mm similar to the more expensive 18-140mm kits).

Interestingly, the GX9 is available body-only for the UK. Amazon UK sell it for £717, so it's a little cheaper than the mid-range Olympus offering, the EM5 Mk II at £799.

Chris

Tom Caldwell wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

joerg bergmann wrote:

SpinOne wrote:

Tiny entry-level models sell well enough to continue, whereas tiny high-end do not.

They don't sell well - because they don't exist. Once they can be pre-ordered, they will sell well. Even some of the naysayers in this forum will buy them.

Do you think Panasonic stopped moving forward with the fiddlysorry lovely wee GM series and did not provide an update to my beloved GX8 . On a whim "let's screw with these guys with little hands " and " this will be funny we will announce a GX9 and give them an update to a lower level camera " . Or more realistically because these models were not doing good business for them . At the moment there is not a m43 model that attracts me enough to part with cash . I want a GX8 size body with excellent EVF, 4K IBIS and pixel shift would be nice, now is that too much to ask for

I think that you are right Jim.

The resonses have not changed and despite my pleas the GM series is still thought of as a pocketable second-rate backup camera and not just a small capable camera body that it would be stupid to cripple it by only fitting the very smallest lenses to and then trying to cram this in a pocket as if in some vain effort to appear excited about something.

Won’t work, cannot work. Blinkers are on and we are well-told by those that mostly have never used one (GM5 and GX8) that they are simply not suitable outside a small range of purposes that are indeed very limiting if that were true.

Not a lot of original thinking there only the perception that a proper camera has to be larger and small cameras have to be pocketable.

Global shutter maybe - this would seem to be a great idea for such a small camera body - couple it with a great sensor and it might be worth a rumble - but such innovations are reserved for the premium (large) camera bodies and take quite a while to trickle down to the smaller bodies as they are “always” cheaper, entry level and never ever coupled to serious lenses and become self fulfilling prophesy.

Strangely I would have had a GX8 except for the (fiddly) every-which-way lcd hinge. Needs and appreciatons vary.

Every time I use my G9 I feel that I am “putting up with” that every-which-way lcd screen that it also sports.

I also do a good bit of video Tom and FAS can come in handy for stills not so much . The announcement of the GX9 that turned out to have little in common with the GX8 was mean of them I wonder if the rise of the 1" compacts has had anything to do with the GM5 not going forward , the GM5 has a clear advantage in being an ILC but when it comes to pocketable  the 1" cameras win out. I don't want to be selfish so I hope they announce a GM6 the day before a real GX8 update I will not be holding my breath waiting though