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

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Cell-Phones-Accessories-Phone-Lens-Attachments/zgbs/wireless/15124502011

Tom Caldwell wrote:

..................However periodic shortages, followed by plenty of stock, hint at a number of top-up smaller production runs at what became a pretty stable and affordable price. There was non sign of a fire sale to clear stock so I would be very sure that Panasonic were still making money at these prices...................

IMO that is highly unlikely. I rather think that the "periods of plenty stock" were due to excess stock in some countries being re-shipped to other countries that had ran out of stock. The only "production" in this, may have been re-flashing the firmware from Japanese only to multilingual and re-printing the warranty form.

The numbers in question are so low, that it would have been highly uneconomical to set up a manufacturing line for those. Particularly at the very low sell-out prices for these cameras. And even if sufficient components (in the form of spare parts) were still in stock. Instead we see spare parts, particularly for the GM1, and accessories being sold off at discounted prices.

BTW, the pure components and assemblies cost of cameras is somewhere in the order of 25-30% of the initial camera release price. The rest are R&D, assembly labor, marketing, financing, stocking, warranty and shipping cost... plus the profit margin for manufacturer and dealer. And since dealers do not want do anything without a margin, there likely was no profit margin in it at all (or likely a negative one) for Panasonic when liquidating their old stock.

I still think it was only that crappy GM1 multi-function wheel, that thoroughly destroyed any hope of success for the entire GM line.

cba_melbourne wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

..................However periodic shortages, followed by plenty of stock, hint at a number of top-up smaller production runs at what became a pretty stable and affordable price. There was non sign of a fire sale to clear stock so I would be very sure that Panasonic were still making money at these prices...................

IMO that is highly unlikely. I rather think that the "periods of plenty stock" were due to excess stock in some countries being re-shipped to other countries that had ran out of stock. The only "production" in this, may have been re-flashing the firmware from Japanese only to multilingual and re-printing the warranty form.

The numbers in question are so low, that it would have been highly uneconomical to set up a manufacturing line for those. Particularly at the very low sell-out prices for these cameras. And even if sufficient components (in the form of spare parts) were still in stock. Instead we see spare parts, particularly for the GM1, and accessories being sold off at discounted prices.

BTW, the pure components and assemblies cost of cameras is somewhere in the order of 25-30% of the initial camera release price. The rest are R&D, assembly labor, marketing, financing, stocking, warranty and shipping cost... plus the profit margin for manufacturer and dealer. And since dealers do not want do anything without a margin, there likely was no profit margin in it at all (or likely a negative one) for Panasonic when liquidating their old stock.

On the subject of fire sale, the launch price of GM5 kit was $900, price at end of life was $470. GM1 kit launch price was $750 and ended with $390 with free grip. I don't know if that qualifies as fire sale or not, but it's certainly huge gap.

The GX85 launched at $750 and never ended up that low. The GX850 is at $550 and practically never had discounts.

I have a GM1, did not go for the GM5 because I had had that little auxiliary EVF for the GF1 years before and hated it.   I have had a number of bodies from the first G1 but though I have a GX85 I think my favorite is the GX8 which I recently bought used.  Its also as large as I will go in m4/3 (I came from FF Canon).  The GX85 is my favorite size and I really prefer the RF body style (though I really did like my EM5) but a good EVF is important to me so I find the GX8 (rather than the GX9) my choice.  Consequently I know I would not buy a smaller body.

Son Of Waldo wrote:

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”.

you sure do spend a lot of time (and energy) talking about camera sizes and 'proper cameras' (whatever those are).

A few days ago you made these comments:

"the constant churn-over of expensive dslr bodies became a chore"

this would somehow be different if using M4/3 bodies professionally or as a serious hobby?

"So with the photography scene we have an endless supply of would-be photographers and most of it is a financial morass where the guy with the biggest shiny new truck is king of the heap. It also helps immensely to be good at marketing oneself"

are the Sony, Canon & Nikon FF mirrorless the 'biggest shiny new truck'?

"So there is a certain status that the true professional must have and that is big-camera-body and M4/3 mimics this by insisting that the M4/3 body must be larger than it truly needs to be"

Really? And this correlates with true professionals picking up a Nikon-Z or Canon-R?

"The other thing is the image of the dslr as a “proper camera” so if someone camera unsophisticated were to walk into a store and ask for “a good camera” then they are a lay down misere to be sold a kit dslr and lens. They were half sold already by seeing the dslr gear that true professionals are using. But it is all a staus “lie” as when lined up at the barriers with a bunch of other enthusiast photographers who know the gear the tell tale number on the camera bodies show how old the bodies are and how much they cost - and of course a kit lens looks like ... well a kit lens. Therefore for serious situations the pecking order is quickly sorted out. But no doubt the unsophisticated with entry level dslr gear is a bit of a “wow” among their friends"

or perhaps they took a second look at their friend's D3400 files shot with better than a kit lens?

"So we cannot ever under-estimate the status provided by the “proper” dslr camera kit - a lot depends on where you hang out with it"

So the 'status symbol' effect only applies to 'proper DSLRs'?

"I wonder just what will happen to those dslr kits once the FF ML camera body is adopted by obvious working professionals? There is not going to be much difference in look between any FF ML faux-dslr than even a large M4/3 faux-dslr but the real dslr owned by those that wish to look serious is suddenly going to look what it really is - far too large and old fashioned"

probably about the same thing that is going to happen to 'obsolete' M4/3 kits.

I can sum up pretty quickly why I wouldn't ever spend much $$ building up a M4/3 'kit': that 4:3 aspect ratio. It's easier (and more efficient, pixel wise) to crop an image from 3:2 > 4:3 than the other way around.

Why would you want to? I always hated 3:2. Awful for portraits. 4:3 has been my favorite aspect ratio for 30+ years, and now I finally have it after compromising with 3:2 and 6:7 for decades.

And as we visit our local electronics shop we are also reminded that viewing screens of all types have trended towards wider, not 'less wide'.

Yeah, and they're lousy for portraits and other vertical shots, too.

As for trends, I don't follow them. I know what I want.

JakeJY wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

..................However periodic shortages, followed by plenty of stock, hint at a number of top-up smaller production runs at what became a pretty stable and affordable price. There was non sign of a fire sale to clear stock so I would be very sure that Panasonic were still making money at these prices...................

IMO that is highly unlikely. I rather think that the "periods of plenty stock" were due to excess stock in some countries being re-shipped to other countries that had ran out of stock. The only "production" in this, may have been re-flashing the firmware from Japanese only to multilingual and re-printing the warranty form.

The numbers in question are so low, that it would have been highly uneconomical to set up a manufacturing line for those. Particularly at the very low sell-out prices for these cameras. And even if sufficient components (in the form of spare parts) were still in stock. Instead we see spare parts, particularly for the GM1, and accessories being sold off at discounted prices.

BTW, the pure components and assemblies cost of cameras is somewhere in the order of 25-30% of the initial camera release price. The rest are R&D, assembly labor, marketing, financing, stocking, warranty and shipping cost... plus the profit margin for manufacturer and dealer. And since dealers do not want do anything without a margin, there likely was no profit margin in it at all (or likely a negative one) for Panasonic when liquidating their old stock.

On the subject of fire sale, the launch price of GM5 kit was $900, price at end of life was $470. GM1 kit launch price was $750 and ended with $390 with free grip. I don't know if that qualifies as fire sale or not, but it's certainly huge gap.

The GX85 launched at $750 and never ended up that low. The GX850 is at $550 and practically never had discounts.

And many of those kits were bundled with the highly regarded, expensive and rarely discounted 15mm f/1.7.

Many bought these kits, only for this lens alone. And sold the body on, unused.

Tom Caldwell 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.

Exactly right - no argument here from me.

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

I think that the GM series probably cost too much to develop and simply followed the usual practice of trying to recover all the development costs over the first proportion of the sales (guess 20-25%). This made the opening RRP far too high.

However periodic shortages, followed by plenty of stock, hint at a number of top-up smaller production runs at what became a pretty stable and affordable price. There was non sign of a fire sale to clear stock so I would be very sure that Panasonic were still making money at these prices. I used the plenty of stock bursts to top up my own stock of bodies at prices which I think that these cameras could be sold profitably.

The GX80/85 with a stack of extra features had a lower opening RRP than both the GM1 and GM5.

Much is made of some Panasonic Rep saying that Panasonic did not make money out of the GM series. Probably correct, but should have been recast as “not as much money as they would have liked to make”. .... ie: at that price they would expect a higher volume, if the settled longer term price was not enough they would not have continued making batches.

In the end it is a harder type to add features to without making the body larger and as such was, and remains, a hard act to follow and this is probably more of the issue.

But I think a more reasonably $600 GM7 can succeed in today's marketplace. @$600,

I think that an updated GM series body would be more profitable and could be sold closer to the GX950 pricing - simply because a lot of the R&D would not have to be repeated and that previous costs would be “sunk costs” and not necessarily have to be repeated. Just as much as the GX80/85 must have drawn upon much of the sunk costs of developing the GX7.

Why the GX950? I think that the GX950 simply makes more money for Panasonic as it has a lower general build quality. If it is selling why bother with a GM5 update when so many more experienced M4/3 users think that it represents a pocketable, backup, toy camera?

Gm7 would be competing against the likes of 1" Sony RX100 and 1" Canon G7x with bigger sensor

I don’t think that these cameras are true competitors to the GM series - only for those that are looking for a pocketable camera (and there are quite a few of them as this thread is good evidence). The GM series is a systems camera and is one part of a wide system of camera bodies matched to an even wider system of lenses that can be attached to them. To limit the GM series bodies to a handful of smaller lenses is to deliberately cripple a systems camera that is capable of much more.

Even then, I do not see much of a limitation. My basic 2+2 (15, 45, 12-32, 35-100) or 2+1 (15, 45, 14-140) travel kit is almost as good as it gets, if you do not need faster lenses. I could replicate that kit (but nothing beyond that kit) with 1" cameras, but I would need two of them (RX100VA for speed plus RX100VI for range); not quite a bargain at over two grand, and you still can't go beyond replicating the basic GM5 travel kit .

I don’t see it as a “pocketable” limited function, camera, but a fully versatile smallest body within the M4/3 system. It is not the type of camera for everyone but it has its place. Not to make a GM type cameras is to deliberately limit one of the M4/3 greatest advantages not just smaller lenses but smaller overall camera + lens kit with any given size lens attached.

+ 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.

No matter whatever they do with a smartphone (which will easily satisfy the “pocket-camera market) there will never be a systems smartphone capable of being used with the equivalent of a Noticron 42.5/1.2 lens or 35-100/2.8 lens and still fit in a pocket.

Smartphones will only “wedge” cameras that are restricted to only having simple small lenses that some insist on trying to stuff into a pocket.

I have read the most part of your angry assey without real objections.

But the end part about aspect ratio made is disputable:

While you're right about about TV screens with their AR growing horizontally, do not forget about those who print. In the world of printouts traditional ARs are common. I guess it is because there is something how mankind look at himself. Maybe in a deep future humans transform themself into different kind of species, but for now on expect all images not connected to TV to stay in traditional ARs (go visit art galleries).

s_grins wrote:

I have read the most part of your angry assey without real objections.

But the end part about aspect ratio made is disputable:

While you're right about about TV screens with their AR growing horizontally, do not forget about those who print. In the world of printouts traditional ARs are common. I guess it is because there is something how mankind look at himself.

Maybe in a deep future humans transform themself into different kind of species, but for now on expect all images not connected to TV to stay in traditional ARs (go visit art galleries).

There are many common UK print sizes that fit the 3x2 ratio { 6x4 , 9x6 , 12x8 , 18x12, 30x20 , 36x24 etc} even basic printers such as Costco provide all these sizes. A book page is typically of the long rectangle , at art galleries shapes and sizes come in all types of aspect ratios including circles.

Given the nature of the human binocular field of view wider is more natural . The horizontal saccades{ the rapid movement of eyes following a point of fixation } give us a perception of a wider field of view. If I recall correctly vertical saccades are slower in reaction this favouring the wide rather than the tall aspect of our view

For everything bar perhaps portraits I much prefer a wider field of view. As I take few portraits these days probably 95%+ of my m43 shots are taken at 3x2 or 16x9. For a brief spell Panasonic with the true multi-aspect ratio sensor in the GH2 gave everyone what theY wanted

James Stirling wrote:

s_grins wrote:

I have read the most part of your angry assey without real objections.

But the end part about aspect ratio made is disputable:

While you're right about about TV screens with their AR growing horizontally, do not forget about those who print. In the world of printouts traditional ARs are common. I guess it is because there is something how mankind look at himself.

Maybe in a deep future humans transform themself into different kind of species, but for now on expect all images not connected to TV to stay in traditional ARs (go visit art galleries).

There are many common UK print sizes that fit the 3x2 ratio { 6x4 , 9x6 , 12x8 , 18x12, 30x20 , 36x24 etc} even basic printers such as Costco provide all these sizes. A book page is typically of the long rectangle , at art galleries shapes and sizes come in all types of aspect ratios including circles.

Given the nature of the human binocular field of view wider is more natural . The horizontal saccades{ the rapid movement of eyes following a point of fixation } give us a perception of a wider field of view. If I recall correctly vertical saccades are slower in reaction this favouring the wide rather than the tall aspect of our view

For everything bar perhaps portraits I much prefer a wider field of view. As I take few portraits these days probably 95%+ of my m43 shots are taken at 3x2 or 16x9. For a brief spell Panasonic with the true multi-aspect ratio sensor in the GH2 gave everyone what theY wanted

I'm a cropper, I'd shoot wide and crop no matter what aspect ratio my camera used.  I like the 4:3 A.R. but I also like 1:1 and I use it quite a bit!  Personally, I don't think the aspect ratio is a huge deal maker or breaker for me.  So many more things steer me towards m43.

Glen Barrington wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

s_grins wrote:

I have read the most part of your angry assey without real objections.

But the end part about aspect ratio made is disputable:

While you're right about about TV screens with their AR growing horizontally, do not forget about those who print. In the world of printouts traditional ARs are common. I guess it is because there is something how mankind look at himself.

Maybe in a deep future humans transform themself into different kind of species, but for now on expect all images not connected to TV to stay in traditional ARs (go visit art galleries).

There are many common UK print sizes that fit the 3x2 ratio { 6x4 , 9x6 , 12x8 , 18x12, 30x20 , 36x24 etc} even basic printers such as Costco provide all these sizes. A book page is typically of the long rectangle , at art galleries shapes and sizes come in all types of aspect ratios including circles.

Given the nature of the human binocular field of view wider is more natural . The horizontal saccades{ the rapid movement of eyes following a point of fixation } give us a perception of a wider field of view. If I recall correctly vertical saccades are slower in reaction this favouring the wide rather than the tall aspect of our view

For everything bar perhaps portraits I much prefer a wider field of view. As I take few portraits these days probably 95%+ of my m43 shots are taken at 3x2 or 16x9. For a brief spell Panasonic with the true multi-aspect ratio sensor in the GH2 gave everyone what theY wanted

I'm a cropper, I'd shoot wide and crop no matter what aspect ratio my camera used. I like the 4:3 A.R. but I also like 1:1 and I use it quite a bit! Personally, I don't think the aspect ratio is a huge deal maker or breaker for me. So many more things steer me towards m43.

Glen , It is not the end of the world but i do wish that the multi-aspect sensor had been evolved . I suspect the particular AR we prefer relates to what we like to photograph most, I just do not like 4x3 ratio landscapes . At least with digital it is an easy choice to do as you like I misread the start of your post and thought it said "I'm a copper" I did wonder how that related to aspect ratios

perry rhodan wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

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.

Another way of looking at the dinosaur DSLR styled bodies is: they mostly handle like a dream compared to the hipster styled soapbar formed "stylish" bricks. But, hey What do I know🤣🤣. For me a camera is a tool and less so a fashion statement. YMMV

I agree the DSLR style bodies are a case of form meeting function rather than some retro design fluff

perry rhodan wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

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.

Another way of looking at the dinosaur DSLR styled bodies is: they mostly handle like a dream compared to the hipster styled soapbar formed "stylish" bricks. But, hey What do I know🤣🤣. For me a camera is a tool and less so a fashion statement. YMMV

Unfortunately I don't think most people shop this way. The DSLR bodies that sell the most are the basic one or two lens kits that really don't require anywhere near as big a grip. And when talking about mirrorless, even less so especially with pancake lenses.

I find my M1.2 with grip to be very comfortable, although not as good as my E5 with grip.  On the other hand, I do appreciate the lighter rig in my hands.  I have no interested in a small body.