for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower Locked

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 25,926
Dear Diary...

VideoPic wrote:

I am pro MFT and like to encourage MFT owners to enjoy, believe in, trust their equipment, hobby, share, plus plus.

By misinforming?

-- hide signature --
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,740
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

richarddd wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Because there are NO standard, anyone can slap an IBIS logo on a camera and claim its like an Olympus camera.........

In reality, no gets close to what Olympus and now Panasonic achieves......

Excuse me?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

You say "there are NO standard", I give you a link to the standard.

Mark, I did not read that document in every detail, just had a very quick browse through it. So i may be wrong....

But... it looks to me, this is only about optical and electronic image stabilization systems. Not sensor shift systems like IBIS.

The test setup only moves the camera in pitch and jaw. Optical IS systems can not correct rotation, hence they do not test this. But this standard would make optical IS look better than it is, compared to IBIS..

Is there a separate CIPA standard for sensor shift stabilization? Or did I overlook something?

Olympus uses the CIPA numbers in its marketing. If the standard was understating the benefits of Olympus's IBIS, I'd think they'd find a way to say so rather than just touting its own results.

The real problem with this kind of standard is that products end up getting designed to get good scores according to the standard's tests, rather than doing a good job. Ironically for our friend, Olympus is a past master at this, and has worked out how to extract the last EV from CIPA ratings. I have my own issues with the CIPA test, I don't think it looks well related to the effectiveness of IS in real practice.

There are also very few people who have rigorously enough tested their IS to say definitively that X is better than Y. There's a whole load of confirmation bias going on.

I'm ok with everything you've written except when it gets to the highlighted comment. Can you add some specificity to this claim, or is it speculation on your part?

The evidence is simply that Olympus has extracted the last EV. Commercial secrets being what they are, they're never likely to let the information out. It just wouldn't be sensible, would it? It's about as likely as VW telling the world in advance that they were gaming the emissions standards. Just not ever likely to happen.

It gets to be the same in all these discussions, if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not. Just to remind you, Olympus is presently paying out millions of dollars for downright lying in its medical business, where the lies can have fatal consequences. Thankfully, in hobby photography it's not so serious.

-- hide signature --

Ride easy, William.
Bob

cba_melbourne Senior Member • Posts: 1,010
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

richarddd wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Because there are NO standard, anyone can slap an IBIS logo on a camera and claim its like an Olympus camera.........

In reality, no gets close to what Olympus and now Panasonic achieves......

Excuse me?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

You say "there are NO standard", I give you a link to the standard.

Mark, I did not read that document in every detail, just had a very quick browse through it. So i may be wrong....

But... it looks to me, this is only about optical and electronic image stabilization systems. Not sensor shift systems like IBIS.

The test setup only moves the camera in pitch and jaw. Optical IS systems can not correct rotation, hence they do not test this. But this standard would make optical IS look better than it is, compared to IBIS..

Is there a separate CIPA standard for sensor shift stabilization? Or did I overlook something?

Olympus uses the CIPA numbers in its marketing. If the standard was understating the benefits of Olympus's IBIS, I'd think they'd find a way to say so rather than just touting its own results.

The real problem with this kind of standard is that products end up getting designed to get good scores according to the standard's tests, rather than doing a good job. Ironically for our friend, Olympus is a past master at this, and has worked out how to extract the last EV from CIPA ratings. I have my own issues with the CIPA test, I don't think it looks well related to the effectiveness of IS in real practice.

There are also very few people who have rigorously enough tested their IS to say definitively that X is better than Y. There's a whole load of confirmation bias going on.

I'm ok with everything you've written except when it gets to the highlighted comment. Can you add some specificity to this claim, or is it speculation on your part?

The evidence is simply that Olympus has extracted the last EV. Commercial secrets being what they are, they're never likely to let the information out. It just wouldn't be sensible, would it? It's about as likely as VW telling the world in advance that they were gaming the emissions standards. Just not ever likely to happen.

It gets to be the same in all these discussions, if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not. Just to remind you, Olympus is presently paying out millions of dollars for downright lying in its medical business, where the lies can have fatal consequences. Thankfully, in hobby photography it's not so serious.

Every camera manufacturer will surely extract the last EV they can. The CIPA standard gives some flexibility.

Emission standards are a different thing. These are set and enforced by governments.

CIPA standards are not international standards. They are not even Japanese standards. CIPA is just a Japan based Camera and Imaging Producs Association. Funded by it's members, solely to serve the interests of it's members - manufacturers. The testing is not done by an independent body, but by each manufacturer themselves.

 cba_melbourne's gear list:cba_melbourne's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus PEN-F Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 +11 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,740
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

cba_melbourne wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

richarddd wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Because there are NO standard, anyone can slap an IBIS logo on a camera and claim its like an Olympus camera.........

In reality, no gets close to what Olympus and now Panasonic achieves......

Excuse me?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

You say "there are NO standard", I give you a link to the standard.

Mark, I did not read that document in every detail, just had a very quick browse through it. So i may be wrong....

But... it looks to me, this is only about optical and electronic image stabilization systems. Not sensor shift systems like IBIS.

The test setup only moves the camera in pitch and jaw. Optical IS systems can not correct rotation, hence they do not test this. But this standard would make optical IS look better than it is, compared to IBIS..

Is there a separate CIPA standard for sensor shift stabilization? Or did I overlook something?

Olympus uses the CIPA numbers in its marketing. If the standard was understating the benefits of Olympus's IBIS, I'd think they'd find a way to say so rather than just touting its own results.

The real problem with this kind of standard is that products end up getting designed to get good scores according to the standard's tests, rather than doing a good job. Ironically for our friend, Olympus is a past master at this, and has worked out how to extract the last EV from CIPA ratings. I have my own issues with the CIPA test, I don't think it looks well related to the effectiveness of IS in real practice.

There are also very few people who have rigorously enough tested their IS to say definitively that X is better than Y. There's a whole load of confirmation bias going on.

I'm ok with everything you've written except when it gets to the highlighted comment. Can you add some specificity to this claim, or is it speculation on your part?

The evidence is simply that Olympus has extracted the last EV. Commercial secrets being what they are, they're never likely to let the information out. It just wouldn't be sensible, would it? It's about as likely as VW telling the world in advance that they were gaming the emissions standards. Just not ever likely to happen.

It gets to be the same in all these discussions, if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not. Just to remind you, Olympus is presently paying out millions of dollars for downright lying in its medical business, where the lies can have fatal consequences. Thankfully, in hobby photography it's not so serious.

Every camera manufacturer will surely extract the last EV they can. The CIPA standard gives some flexibility.

Sure, and Olympus extracts the best.

Emission standards are a different thing. These are set and enforced by governments.

That makes it different in terms of consequence of gaming them. It doesn't make it different in principle.

CIPA standards are not international standards. They are not even Japanese standards. CIPA is just a Japan based Camera and Imaging Producs Association. Funded by it's members, solely to serve the interests of it's members - manufacturers. The testing is not done by an independent body, but by each manufacturer themselves.

It doesn't make any difference to the principle whatsoever. There is a set of standards, used in advertising to promote the product and the various manufacturers game them. Some do it better than others.

-- hide signature --

Ride easy, William.
Bob

cba_melbourne Senior Member • Posts: 1,010
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

bobn2 wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

richarddd wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Because there are NO standard, anyone can slap an IBIS logo on a camera and claim its like an Olympus camera.........

In reality, no gets close to what Olympus and now Panasonic achieves......

Excuse me?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

You say "there are NO standard", I give you a link to the standard.

Mark, I did not read that document in every detail, just had a very quick browse through it. So i may be wrong....

But... it looks to me, this is only about optical and electronic image stabilization systems. Not sensor shift systems like IBIS.

The test setup only moves the camera in pitch and jaw. Optical IS systems can not correct rotation, hence they do not test this. But this standard would make optical IS look better than it is, compared to IBIS..

Is there a separate CIPA standard for sensor shift stabilization? Or did I overlook something?

Olympus uses the CIPA numbers in its marketing. If the standard was understating the benefits of Olympus's IBIS, I'd think they'd find a way to say so rather than just touting its own results.

The real problem with this kind of standard is that products end up getting designed to get good scores according to the standard's tests, rather than doing a good job. Ironically for our friend, Olympus is a past master at this, and has worked out how to extract the last EV from CIPA ratings. I have my own issues with the CIPA test, I don't think it looks well related to the effectiveness of IS in real practice.

There are also very few people who have rigorously enough tested their IS to say definitively that X is better than Y. There's a whole load of confirmation bias going on.

I'm ok with everything you've written except when it gets to the highlighted comment. Can you add some specificity to this claim, or is it speculation on your part?

The evidence is simply that Olympus has extracted the last EV. Commercial secrets being what they are, they're never likely to let the information out. It just wouldn't be sensible, would it? It's about as likely as VW telling the world in advance that they were gaming the emissions standards. Just not ever likely to happen.

It gets to be the same in all these discussions, if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not. Just to remind you, Olympus is presently paying out millions of dollars for downright lying in its medical business, where the lies can have fatal consequences. Thankfully, in hobby photography it's not so serious.

Every camera manufacturer will surely extract the last EV they can. The CIPA standard gives some flexibility.

Sure, and Olympus extracts the best.

Emission standards are a different thing. These are set and enforced by governments.

That makes it different in terms of consequence of gaming them. It doesn't make it different in principle.

CIPA standards are not international standards. They are not even Japanese standards. CIPA is just a Japan based Camera and Imaging Producs Association. Funded by it's members, solely to serve the interests of it's members - manufacturers. The testing is not done by an independent body, but by each manufacturer themselves.

It doesn't make any difference to the principle whatsoever. There is a set of standards, used in advertising to promote the product and the various manufacturers game them. Some do it better than others.

But, isn't it true that this so called "set of standards" was created for no other reason than advertising? I mean, it serves no other purpose I could think of.

All Japanese camera manufacturers jointly own CIPA. If one member was abusing (or gaming as you say) IS figures, don't you think the other members would find ways to stop that? Or is it maybe so, that all are perfectly happy to play the same game?

 cba_melbourne's gear list:cba_melbourne's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus PEN-F Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 +11 more
Jeff Veteran Member • Posts: 5,750
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

richarddd wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Because there are NO standard, anyone can slap an IBIS logo on a camera and claim its like an Olympus camera.........

In reality, no gets close to what Olympus and now Panasonic achieves......

Excuse me?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

You say "there are NO standard", I give you a link to the standard.

Mark, I did not read that document in every detail, just had a very quick browse through it. So i may be wrong....

But... it looks to me, this is only about optical and electronic image stabilization systems. Not sensor shift systems like IBIS.

The test setup only moves the camera in pitch and jaw. Optical IS systems can not correct rotation, hence they do not test this. But this standard would make optical IS look better than it is, compared to IBIS..

Is there a separate CIPA standard for sensor shift stabilization? Or did I overlook something?

Olympus uses the CIPA numbers in its marketing. If the standard was understating the benefits of Olympus's IBIS, I'd think they'd find a way to say so rather than just touting its own results.

The real problem with this kind of standard is that products end up getting designed to get good scores according to the standard's tests, rather than doing a good job. Ironically for our friend, Olympus is a past master at this, and has worked out how to extract the last EV from CIPA ratings. I have my own issues with the CIPA test, I don't think it looks well related to the effectiveness of IS in real practice.

There are also very few people who have rigorously enough tested their IS to say definitively that X is better than Y. There's a whole load of confirmation bias going on.

I'm ok with everything you've written except when it gets to the highlighted comment. Can you add some specificity to this claim, or is it speculation on your part?

The evidence is simply that Olympus has extracted the last EV. Commercial secrets being what they are, they're never likely to let the information out. It just wouldn't be sensible, would it? It's about as likely as VW telling the world in advance that they were gaming the emissions standards. Just not ever likely to happen.

It gets to be the same in all these discussions, if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not. Just to remind you, Olympus is presently paying out millions of dollars for downright lying in its medical business, where the lies can have fatal consequences. Thankfully, in hobby photography it's not so serious.

In other words, this is speculation on your part.

The comparison to VW is interesting. Their unethical behavior was uncovered by a lab at the University of West Virginia that found a huge discrepancy between field and lab emissions testing. It turned out the VW firmware for diesel engines was intended to defeat lab testing. The firmware turned on emissions control devices when test circumstances were detected, otherwise left them off in the field where they would detract from performance. VW was caught, heads rolled, penalties paid, and presumably, everything is back in order.

Extending that standard to evaluating claims Olympus has made about IBIS, one of the distinguishing bits of the camera culture is the testing done by third-party reviewers. If Olympus was engaging in the unethical behavior you're suggesting, wouldn't that be obvious by now?

I've been around long enough to be skeptical of just about everything but my dogs' loyalty. Oly is claiming to be the performance champ with IBIS using the CIPA testing protocol. That may or may not be true, and it's fair to be skeptical, but wouldn't it be better to cite actual evidence before making scurrilous accusations of unethical behavior?

 Jeff's gear list:Jeff's gear list
Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 150mm 1:2.0 +9 more
OP Jefftan Veteran Member • Posts: 3,158
Re: Anecdotes VS testing

one don't need CIPA to told u only olympus (maybe Panasonic) can do multi second handheld shote at wide angle

2-5 seconds or even longer

dream with other ibis

u trust this or CIPA?

James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 4,845
Re: Anecdotes VS testing

Jefftan wrote:

one don't need CIPA to told u only olympus (maybe Panasonic) can do multi second handheld shote at wide angle

I have seen lots of claims about that unfortunately actually sharp results are rather thin on the ground. I put them in the amazing for the shutter speed but far from acceptably sharp for me category

2-5 seconds or even longer

dream with other ibis

u trust this or CIPA?

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Nikon Z7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 +8 more
MEDISN
MEDISN Contributing Member • Posts: 812
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

richarddd wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Because there are NO standard, anyone can slap an IBIS logo on a camera and claim its like an Olympus camera.........

In reality, no gets close to what Olympus and now Panasonic achieves......

Excuse me?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

You say "there are NO standard", I give you a link to the standard.

Mark, I did not read that document in every detail, just had a very quick browse through it. So i may be wrong....

But... it looks to me, this is only about optical and electronic image stabilization systems. Not sensor shift systems like IBIS.

The test setup only moves the camera in pitch and jaw. Optical IS systems can not correct rotation, hence they do not test this. But this standard would make optical IS look better than it is, compared to IBIS..

Is there a separate CIPA standard for sensor shift stabilization? Or did I overlook something?

Olympus uses the CIPA numbers in its marketing. If the standard was understating the benefits of Olympus's IBIS, I'd think they'd find a way to say so rather than just touting its own results.

The real problem with this kind of standard is that products end up getting designed to get good scores according to the standard's tests, rather than doing a good job. Ironically for our friend, Olympus is a past master at this, and has worked out how to extract the last EV from CIPA ratings. I have my own issues with the CIPA test, I don't think it looks well related to the effectiveness of IS in real practice.

There are also very few people who have rigorously enough tested their IS to say definitively that X is better than Y. There's a whole load of confirmation bias going on.

I'm ok with everything you've written except when it gets to the highlighted comment. Can you add some specificity to this claim, or is it speculation on your part?

The evidence is simply that Olympus has extracted the last EV. Commercial secrets being what they are, they're never likely to let the information out. It just wouldn't be sensible, would it? It's about as likely as VW telling the world in advance that they were gaming the emissions standards. Just not ever likely to happen.

Are you suggesting that Olympus only achieves 5+ stops during the CIPA test?  Despite most hands-on reviews achieving that and more?  Conversely, should I sue Sony because my 5-stop CIPA rated A9 barely achieves 3 stops in actual use?  Or that the 20fps CAF they advertise for the A9 is really only 16fps with a static subject?

It gets to be the same in all these discussions, if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not. Just to remind you, Olympus is presently paying out millions of dollars for downright lying in its medical business, where the lies can have fatal consequences. Thankfully, in hobby photography it's not so serious.

That wasn't misleading marketing, it was allegedly failing to disclose a defect which made endoscopes "difficult to clean" at some institutions.

golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 10,169
Re: Anecdotes VS testing

Jefftan wrote:

one don't need CIPA to told u only olympus (maybe Panasonic) can do multi second handheld shote at wide angle

2-5 seconds or even longer

dream with other ibis

u trust this or CIPA?

My trust list

1. Myself

2. Testing

3. Anecdotes

The problem with anecdotes is they are often shared by those without a baseline.

In three out of three of these the better stabilization on m4/3 comes out ahead. Generally about a stop but will vary depending on model focal length, testing method, etc.

Only in one of those do gross exaggeration s of differences come out. I have tested and seen plenty of multi second wide angle exposures. The claims here overstate the reality

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
OP Jefftan Veteran Member • Posts: 3,158
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

MEDISN wrote:

Are you suggesting that Olympus only achieves 5+ stops during the CIPA test? Despite most hands-on reviews achieving that and more? Conversely, should I sue Sony because my 5-stop CIPA rated A9 barely achieves 3 stops in actual use? Or that the 20fps CAF they advertise for the A9 is really only 16fps with a static subject?

i am surprised u get 5 stop

my A6500 ibis is almost useless with 10-18mm OIS

i wonder if it is because OIS is fighting with ibis or mine is defective

just don't work, no better than OIS alone or even worse

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,740
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

MEDISN wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

richarddd wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Because there are NO standard, anyone can slap an IBIS logo on a camera and claim its like an Olympus camera.........

In reality, no gets close to what Olympus and now Panasonic achieves......

Excuse me?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

You say "there are NO standard", I give you a link to the standard.

Mark, I did not read that document in every detail, just had a very quick browse through it. So i may be wrong....

But... it looks to me, this is only about optical and electronic image stabilization systems. Not sensor shift systems like IBIS.

The test setup only moves the camera in pitch and jaw. Optical IS systems can not correct rotation, hence they do not test this. But this standard would make optical IS look better than it is, compared to IBIS..

Is there a separate CIPA standard for sensor shift stabilization? Or did I overlook something?

Olympus uses the CIPA numbers in its marketing. If the standard was understating the benefits of Olympus's IBIS, I'd think they'd find a way to say so rather than just touting its own results.

The real problem with this kind of standard is that products end up getting designed to get good scores according to the standard's tests, rather than doing a good job. Ironically for our friend, Olympus is a past master at this, and has worked out how to extract the last EV from CIPA ratings. I have my own issues with the CIPA test, I don't think it looks well related to the effectiveness of IS in real practice.

There are also very few people who have rigorously enough tested their IS to say definitively that X is better than Y. There's a whole load of confirmation bias going on.

I'm ok with everything you've written except when it gets to the highlighted comment. Can you add some specificity to this claim, or is it speculation on your part?

The evidence is simply that Olympus has extracted the last EV. Commercial secrets being what they are, they're never likely to let the information out. It just wouldn't be sensible, would it? It's about as likely as VW telling the world in advance that they were gaming the emissions standards. Just not ever likely to happen.

Are you suggesting that Olympus only achieves 5+ stops during the CIPA test?

No, I'm not saying that. I wonder where you could have got that idea from what I wrote.

Despite most hands-on reviews achieving that and more?

The real question is what '5+' stops actually means. For the CIPA test, its referred to 'bokeh amount', that is the 'bokeh amount' is the same as uncorrected shots with a shutter speed 5+ stops higher. One of the problems is it doesn't say that that 'bokeh amount' is acceptable.

Conversely, should I sue Sony because my 5-stop CIPA rated A9 barely achieves 3 stops in actual use? Or that the 20fps CAF they advertise for the A9 is really only 16fps with a static subject?

Up to you. Sounds like misleading advertising, so in many jurisdictions you could sue. the real question is what would you be suing for. What damage have you suffered as a result of having succumbed to the misleading advertising?

It gets to be the same in all these discussions, if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not. Just to remind you, Olympus is presently paying out millions of dollars for downright lying in its medical business, where the lies can have fatal consequences. Thankfully, in hobby photography it's not so serious.

That wasn't misleading marketing, it was allegedly failing to disclose a defect which made endoscopes "difficult to clean" at some institutions.

And all the time putting out marketing material advertising the cleanability of the product (which they were). In fact, the idea that this endoscope was easily sterilised was one of its major sales points versus the competition. So it was precisely misleading advertising. Not only did they know that the product couldn't meet advertised claims, they took active steps to prevent that information getting out.

-- hide signature --

Ride easy, William.
Bob

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,740
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

cba_melbourne wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

richarddd wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Because there are NO standard, anyone can slap an IBIS logo on a camera and claim its like an Olympus camera.........

In reality, no gets close to what Olympus and now Panasonic achieves......

Excuse me?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

You say "there are NO standard", I give you a link to the standard.

Mark, I did not read that document in every detail, just had a very quick browse through it. So i may be wrong....

But... it looks to me, this is only about optical and electronic image stabilization systems. Not sensor shift systems like IBIS.

The test setup only moves the camera in pitch and jaw. Optical IS systems can not correct rotation, hence they do not test this. But this standard would make optical IS look better than it is, compared to IBIS..

Is there a separate CIPA standard for sensor shift stabilization? Or did I overlook something?

Olympus uses the CIPA numbers in its marketing. If the standard was understating the benefits of Olympus's IBIS, I'd think they'd find a way to say so rather than just touting its own results.

The real problem with this kind of standard is that products end up getting designed to get good scores according to the standard's tests, rather than doing a good job. Ironically for our friend, Olympus is a past master at this, and has worked out how to extract the last EV from CIPA ratings. I have my own issues with the CIPA test, I don't think it looks well related to the effectiveness of IS in real practice.

There are also very few people who have rigorously enough tested their IS to say definitively that X is better than Y. There's a whole load of confirmation bias going on.

I'm ok with everything you've written except when it gets to the highlighted comment. Can you add some specificity to this claim, or is it speculation on your part?

The evidence is simply that Olympus has extracted the last EV. Commercial secrets being what they are, they're never likely to let the information out. It just wouldn't be sensible, would it? It's about as likely as VW telling the world in advance that they were gaming the emissions standards. Just not ever likely to happen.

It gets to be the same in all these discussions, if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not. Just to remind you, Olympus is presently paying out millions of dollars for downright lying in its medical business, where the lies can have fatal consequences. Thankfully, in hobby photography it's not so serious.

Every camera manufacturer will surely extract the last EV they can. The CIPA standard gives some flexibility.

Sure, and Olympus extracts the best.

Emission standards are a different thing. These are set and enforced by governments.

That makes it different in terms of consequence of gaming them. It doesn't make it different in principle.

CIPA standards are not international standards. They are not even Japanese standards. CIPA is just a Japan based Camera and Imaging Producs Association. Funded by it's members, solely to serve the interests of it's members - manufacturers. The testing is not done by an independent body, but by each manufacturer themselves.

It doesn't make any difference to the principle whatsoever. There is a set of standards, used in advertising to promote the product and the various manufacturers game them. Some do it better than others.

But, isn't it true that this so called "set of standards" was created for no other reason than advertising? I mean, it serves no other purpose I could think of.

It was provided as a common reference point for product claims.

All Japanese camera manufacturers jointly own CIPA. If one member was abusing (or gaming as you say) IS figures, don't you think the other members would find ways to stop that? Or is it maybe so, that all are perfectly happy to play the same game?

Of course they are happy to play the same game. That's what the game is. It happens in every industry, where there is some standardised quantitative metric which consumers use to judge products. You'll find it in they automotive industry with respect to fuel consumption, power, tyre life. You'll find it in the white goods industry with respect to power efficiency, noise and so on.

-- hide signature --

Ride easy, William.
Bob

golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 10,169
Lesson 2

i think the premise of this post is somewhat valid. Evaluating the marketing claims of manufacturers. Of course it is kind of odd how ALL FF manufacturers are lumped together even though they aren't some sort of collective.

What is really strange with this conversation is the popular attitude that all 4/3 marketing claims(particularly Olympus) are true and every other manufacturer is a liar.

Odd.......

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
MEDISN
MEDISN Contributing Member • Posts: 812
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

bobn2 wrote:

MEDISN wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

richarddd wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Because there are NO standard, anyone can slap an IBIS logo on a camera and claim its like an Olympus camera.........

In reality, no gets close to what Olympus and now Panasonic achieves......

Excuse me?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

You say "there are NO standard", I give you a link to the standard.

Mark, I did not read that document in every detail, just had a very quick browse through it. So i may be wrong....

But... it looks to me, this is only about optical and electronic image stabilization systems. Not sensor shift systems like IBIS.

The test setup only moves the camera in pitch and jaw. Optical IS systems can not correct rotation, hence they do not test this. But this standard would make optical IS look better than it is, compared to IBIS..

Is there a separate CIPA standard for sensor shift stabilization? Or did I overlook something?

Olympus uses the CIPA numbers in its marketing. If the standard was understating the benefits of Olympus's IBIS, I'd think they'd find a way to say so rather than just touting its own results.

The real problem with this kind of standard is that products end up getting designed to get good scores according to the standard's tests, rather than doing a good job. Ironically for our friend, Olympus is a past master at this, and has worked out how to extract the last EV from CIPA ratings. I have my own issues with the CIPA test, I don't think it looks well related to the effectiveness of IS in real practice.

There are also very few people who have rigorously enough tested their IS to say definitively that X is better than Y. There's a whole load of confirmation bias going on.

I'm ok with everything you've written except when it gets to the highlighted comment. Can you add some specificity to this claim, or is it speculation on your part?

The evidence is simply that Olympus has extracted the last EV. Commercial secrets being what they are, they're never likely to let the information out. It just wouldn't be sensible, would it? It's about as likely as VW telling the world in advance that they were gaming the emissions standards. Just not ever likely to happen.

Are you suggesting that Olympus only achieves 5+ stops during the CIPA test?

No, I'm not saying that. I wonder where you could have got that idea from what I wrote.

Then what is this about misleading marketing practice??

"if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not."

If they haven't "publicly told the world"...as in they are hiding data about CIPA tests?  I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.

Despite most hands-on reviews achieving that and more?

The real question is what '5+' stops actually means. For the CIPA test, its referred to 'bokeh amount', that is the 'bokeh amount' is the same as uncorrected shots with a shutter speed 5+ stops higher. One of the problems is it doesn't say that that 'bokeh amount' is acceptable.

We've agreed (now and in the past) on the real-world translation of these tests.  It strikes me as strange that two cameras can be rated at 5-stops stabilization when one clearly achieves this with a frequency the other can only dream of.

Conversely, should I sue Sony because my 5-stop CIPA rated A9 barely achieves 3 stops in actual use? Or that the 20fps CAF they advertise for the A9 is really only 16fps with a static subject?

Up to you. Sounds like misleading advertising, so in many jurisdictions you could sue. the real question is what would you be suing for. What damage have you suffered as a result of having succumbed to the misleading advertising?

Right, marketing is just that.  Does it always translate to actual results?

It gets to be the same in all these discussions, if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not. Just to remind you, Olympus is presently paying out millions of dollars for downright lying in its medical business, where the lies can have fatal consequences. Thankfully, in hobby photography it's not so serious.

That wasn't misleading marketing, it was allegedly failing to disclose a defect which made endoscopes "difficult to clean" at some institutions.

And all the time putting out marketing material advertising the cleanability of the product (which they were). In fact, the idea that this endoscope was easily sterilised was one of its major sales points versus the competition. So it was precisely misleading advertising. Not only did they know that the product couldn't meet advertised claims, they took active steps to prevent that information getting out.

None of the lawsuits allege misleading marketing.  Failure to educate users, failure to notify FDA of changes to design, failure to disclose internal communications appear but nothing related to marketing.

golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 10,169
links

The real question is what '5+' stops actually means. For the CIPA test, its referred to 'bokeh amount', that is the 'bokeh amount' is the same as uncorrected shots with a shutter speed 5+ stops higher. One of the problems is it doesn't say that that 'bokeh amount' is acceptable.

We've agreed (now and in the past) on the real-world translation of these tests. It strikes me as strange that two cameras can be rated at 5-stops stabilization when one clearly achieves this with a frequency the other can only dream of.

many possible reasons. That the CIPA test needs improved. I have seen detailed explanations regarding the frequency of shake they use and type.

Another is that though the test is detailed perhaps the manufacturers know how to game it with certain lenses that help the test. Either due to weight, balance, best FL I don't know

FWIW myself nor DPR nor amny other people that have tested various IBIS systems would overall say

"one clearly achieves this with a frequency the other can only dream of."

I would say the best from 4/3 is definitely better . but outside of video I don't know that they have such an overwhelming lead. At UWA I haven't found them to be far apart at all. DPR seemed to concur

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
MEDISN
MEDISN Contributing Member • Posts: 812
Re: links

golfhov wrote:

The real question is what '5+' stops actually means. For the CIPA test, its referred to 'bokeh amount', that is the 'bokeh amount' is the same as uncorrected shots with a shutter speed 5+ stops higher. One of the problems is it doesn't say that that 'bokeh amount' is acceptable.

We've agreed (now and in the past) on the real-world translation of these tests. It strikes me as strange that two cameras can be rated at 5-stops stabilization when one clearly achieves this with a frequency the other can only dream of.

many possible reasons. That the CIPA test needs improved. I have seen detailed explanations regarding the frequency of shake they use and type.

Another is that though the test is detailed perhaps the manufacturers know how to game it with certain lenses that help the test. Either due to weight, balance, best FL I don't know

FWIW myself nor DPR nor amny other people that have tested various IBIS systems would overall say

"one clearly achieves this with a frequency the other can only dream of."

I suppose I am not "other people".    I can only relay my results from years of use across FF Sony and mFT as well as individual direct comparisons I've taken the time to report.

IBIS Real-World Use: 4 MILC Cameras

A7II IBIS

A9 IBIS

I would say the best from 4/3 is definitely better . but outside of video I don't know that they have such an overwhelming lead.

2+ stops stabilization in stills may not be overwhelming to be honest.  By the same token 2-stops total light gathering may not be overwhelming either.   Different photographers, different needs, different priorities.

At UWA I haven't found them to be far apart at all. DPR seemed to concur

Can you show some examples at similar UWA focal lengths, same day, same scene?  I would love to do multi-second handheld exposures with my Sony and 15mm Voigt.  I am lucky to get 1/2s which is my personal best with Sony.

golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 10,169
Re: links

MEDISN wrote:

golfhov wrote:

The real question is what '5+' stops actually means. For the CIPA test, its referred to 'bokeh amount', that is the 'bokeh amount' is the same as uncorrected shots with a shutter speed 5+ stops higher. One of the problems is it doesn't say that that 'bokeh amount' is acceptable.

We've agreed (now and in the past) on the real-world translation of these tests. It strikes me as strange that two cameras can be rated at 5-stops stabilization when one clearly achieves this with a frequency the other can only dream of.

many possible reasons. That the CIPA test needs improved. I have seen detailed explanations regarding the frequency of shake they use and type.

Another is that though the test is detailed perhaps the manufacturers know how to game it with certain lenses that help the test. Either due to weight, balance, best FL I don't know

FWIW myself nor DPR nor amny other people that have tested various IBIS systems would overall say

"one clearly achieves this with a frequency the other can only dream of."

I suppose I am not "other people". I can only relay my results from years of use across FF Sony and mFT as well as individual direct comparisons I've taken the time to report.

This is what we call anecdotes. I am not familiar r one second saying the individual giving the statement is "wrong".  Just the old YMMV.

IBIS Real-World Use: 4 MILC Cameras

A7II IBIS

A9 IBIS

I would say the best from 4/3 is definitely better . but outside of video I don't know that they have such an overwhelming lead.

2+ stops stabilization in stills may not be overwhelming to be honest. By the same token 2-stops total light gathering may not be overwhelming either. Different photographers, different needs, different priorities.

Different lenses, different expectations, etc. Oddly enough the UWA is where most of the claims come from and yet my own and DPRs testing don't put things very far apart there. Normal focal length a stop give or take depending. At the telephoto side 4/3 does seem to outperform. Here I probably wouldn't argue two stops

At UWA I haven't found them to be far apart at all. DPR seemed to concur

Can you show some examples at similar UWA focal lengths, same day, same scene?

Nope. I could circle back to random shots but nothing scientific. Therefore pointless

I would love to do multi-second handheld exposures with my Sony and 15mm Voigt. I am lucky to get 1/2s which is my personal best with Sony.

Somewhat where I fall too. Then again I couldn't match the 2-10sec claims that get thrown around here. Almost every example I have seen posted has been pretty soft. I don't know if that is part of it is that a lot of people here are ok with good enough since they are just happy to be free of a tripod or what.

I can circle back to links of the IBIS testing that DPR now features. Or a quick search will pull them up. Not as scientific as CIPA. Which out of curiousity I looked up and it seems the em1ii claims 5.5 while Sony claims 5. Both "up to" instead of a hard number. So there is a half stop already.

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
MEDISN
MEDISN Contributing Member • Posts: 812
Re: links

golfhov wrote:

MEDISN wrote:

golfhov wrote:

The real question is what '5+' stops actually means. For the CIPA test, its referred to 'bokeh amount', that is the 'bokeh amount' is the same as uncorrected shots with a shutter speed 5+ stops higher. One of the problems is it doesn't say that that 'bokeh amount' is acceptable.

We've agreed (now and in the past) on the real-world translation of these tests. It strikes me as strange that two cameras can be rated at 5-stops stabilization when one clearly achieves this with a frequency the other can only dream of.

many possible reasons. That the CIPA test needs improved. I have seen detailed explanations regarding the frequency of shake they use and type.

Another is that though the test is detailed perhaps the manufacturers know how to game it with certain lenses that help the test. Either due to weight, balance, best FL I don't know

FWIW myself nor DPR nor amny other people that have tested various IBIS systems would overall say

"one clearly achieves this with a frequency the other can only dream of."

I suppose I am not "other people". I can only relay my results from years of use across FF Sony and mFT as well as individual direct comparisons I've taken the time to report.

This is what we call anecdotes. I am not familiar r one second saying the individual giving the statement is "wrong". Just the old YMMV.

Which is why I continue to look for others experience. Ultimately, the only experience that matters to me is my own. What others can (or cannot) do have no bearing on my work. If there is something that can be learned, or done differently, I am all ears.

IBIS Real-World Use: 4 MILC Cameras

A7II IBIS

A9 IBIS

I would say the best from 4/3 is definitely better . but outside of video I don't know that they have such an overwhelming lead.

2+ stops stabilization in stills may not be overwhelming to be honest. By the same token 2-stops total light gathering may not be overwhelming either. Different photographers, different needs, different priorities.

Different lenses, different expectations, etc. Oddly enough the UWA is where most of the claims come from and yet my own and DPRs testing don't put things very far apart there. Normal focal length a stop give or take depending.

Examples? What are we calling "normal", 35mm? A quick look at Lightroom shows my longest 35mm Sony handheld shot is 1/5s (A7RII). Several 1/10th sec shots with the A9. PEN-F shots down to 1s, EM5 shots at 1s and EM1mkII shots at 2s. SYNC-IS shots down to 8 seconds with the 12-100. It's really not even close to what Sony provides at 35mm.

At the telephoto side 4/3 does seem to outperform. Here I probably wouldn't argue two stops

At least. With SYNC-IS even DPR achieved 7-stops with the 300/4.

At UWA I haven't found them to be far apart at all. DPR seemed to concur

Can you show some examples at similar UWA focal lengths, same day, same scene?

Nope. I could circle back to random shots but nothing scientific. Therefore pointless

Try it sometime - your A7III and whatever other IBIS cameras you shoot with. You might be surprised at the difference compared back-to-back.

I would love to do multi-second handheld exposures with my Sony and 15mm Voigt. I am lucky to get 1/2s which is my personal best with Sony.

Somewhat where I fall too. Then again I couldn't match the 2-10sec claims that get thrown around here.

With what camera/lens/focal length have you tried?

Almost every example I have seen posted has been pretty soft. I don't know if that is part of it is that a lot of people here are ok with good enough since they are just happy to be free of a tripod or what.

"Soft", "good enough", are rather subjective. Perhaps all my shots are soft - tripod or otherwise! Here are some recent handheld examples at slower shutter speeds. You decide.

I can circle back to links of the IBIS testing that DPR now features.

Different people testing on different days. Makes it hard to compare across cameras/lenses.

Or a quick search will pull them up. Not as scientific as CIPA. Which out of curiousity I looked up and it seems the em1ii claims 5.5 while Sony claims 5. Both "up to" instead of a hard number. So there is a half stop already.

Sony claims 5.5 stops on the A7RIII *depending on lens*. I have no issue with the claim. Just curious to understand if/how people are achieving this.

MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 38,055
Camera bodies priced by the kilogram

bobn2 wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jefftan wrote:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2019/03/15/fujifilm-qa-cpplus-2019-af-tidbits-lenses-100-mp

TI: Yes, yes. I think the customers should have different options. We don't believe that all of the customers will go to full-frame. At the moment, I think the proportion of full-frame is probably one-third of the market by value.

DE: Oh, by value actually. So in terms of unit sales, it would be much lower.

TI: Yes, so two-thirds of the market is non-full frame, which is predominantly APS-C, Micro Four Thirds, and some medium-format as well.

TI: We really just cannot believe that projection of Canon's.

DE: Yeah. What are your projections, what do you think the market will do overall?

TI: I think it all depends on what innovation and what influence comes from the manufacturers. It's our mission to make the market viable. So I think our projection is there's a lot of room even to grow further in the camera market.

DE: It might even grow? (!)

TI: Yeah, yeah, yeah. If we look at the Asian market, there's a huge population over there. Some countries may decline, but some countries soon will change to growth. I think overall, the global camera market, you know...

DE: ...is actually going to grow as well. Wow, that's interesting. Yeah, certainly I hear from everyone that China is a huge market, and it's got to be pretty low penetration for cameras there still, so there's a lot of opportunity there.

TI: Yes.

I'm not sure what this thread has to do with micro Four Thirds, or why it's on this forum, but here goes anyway.

The specialist photographic market is on the cusp of a major change. The market is declining. The compact cameras which formed the huge majority a few years ago have been wiped out. In another few years the market will look very different from what it does now. The bet that most camera manufacturers seem to be making is that there will still be profits in the market, but with higher value, lower volume products. So, that is where the action is. The question is, not what will dominate in today's market, but what will in this new market. Simplistically, it is the lower end that get wiped out first. It's probably unlikely that the size of that 30% will change much, but in a few years it could be closer to 70-90%. Which is also not to say that there is not still potential life in the remaining 30-10%.

In that context, you can understand the game Panasonic is playing.

My thoughts exactly.

But I think that there is room for high performing compact cameras as well.

Mobile phones are a basic camera device that are more than good enough for more casual users and appears free. No basic capability compact camera can compete with this.

But I that it is a mistake for manufacturers to effective retreat into larger camera bodies.

The only benefit is the “pricing by kilogram weight” theory where larger cameras and larger lenses can be sold for higher prices. This theory flows from the adulation of the dslr as a “proper camera” and all this stems from perceived status whereby most will pay more for a camera that reeks of status.

Not that smaller camera bodies cannot be very capable - the GM5 is a good example of what can be done. It will be criticised for lack of features but the reality is that the GM5 can actually do all the basic things that are expected of a camera - gee-whizz misses out.

The GM5 was not a success - in my mind it was simply because it was classified as “a toy” by much of the market on the basis: small compact cameras are not capable and therefore they are cheap - the GM5 hit the market at a price where it was not cheap enough. It did sell reasonably well at prices that were less than Panasonic had obviously intended. So what did Panasonic do - thinking that this was a price point at which they could still sell entry level compact cameras if they rolled much of the technology form the GM series into a cheaper to make body and marketed it as a fun camera for newbies. Of course they end up downgrading a very serious attempt to make a very small fully functional M4/3 camera body into “the toy” that “everyone” expected it to be.

So there is a bit of love-hate going on in M4/3 system - it has been proved that the 4/3 sensor can be used quite well as a systems camera in a body the size of a Pentax Q or Nikon J1 and yet M4/3 buyers prefer more “features” whether they use them or not in larger camera bodies. Whilst the industry continues to shun smaller cameras as larger camera gear can elicit both higher prices and the higher margins that flow from this.

To be sure I am not saying all M4/3 cameras have to be smaller - just that M4/3 can make fully functional cameras smaller than FF cameras could ever be. The camera body size diversity that M4/3 is capable of achieving is a big plus for M4/3 and to ignore the capable tiny size is a mistake as the system needs a full range of (very capable) camera body sizes to difference it from other sensor size mount systems.

The issue in my book is the theory widely held that “compact” cameras are “entry level toys” and that they should not be expensive. So the only ones that are marketed are dumbed down to the price that the market will pay. As a result mobile phone cameras (being “free”) can likely out-perform the compact camera for “basic duty” - so what is the point?

The GM series are fully functional state of the art cameras (somwhat lacking in the gee-whizz department but not in the image capture area) which can use <<all>> the lenses that can be mounted on the M4/3 mount and it is self restriction of their use to entry level “toys” that made them look expensive.

Until the general thinking of the camera user market can appreciate that compact cameras <<can>> be made to out-perform mobile phone cameras by being “systems cameras” then we are doomed to being given ever larger and more feature laden camera bodies as the manufacturers thrash around trying to out-status their full frame sensor cousins.

This theory came to a head with me when I first made a truly good dslr/EF-lens kit and realised that this great kit was not suited to be packed for airline travel.

The one camera body - many lenses theory still reigns supreme so a single larger camera body and multiple small lenses might still seem a good idea. But consider that the GM5 is only “a pack of cards” larger than a lens it is attached to then a series of GM5 bodies each attached to a lens can be pro-like used and also easily fit inot one carry on bag that might struggle with one “large” camera body and just a couple of spare lenses.

... and so multiple expensive tiny camera bodies get to be a $ hill to climb over - so they might become “pro-level” tinies and a joke for anyone to use if they have any appreciation of status-value. The very public preception of “toy camera” will assuredly kill off the use of multiple GM5 size bodies except for the fringe area of photography - even a large expensive lens on a GM5 cannot change perceived opinion that the dslr size/shape is king.

Anyway - “won’t work” as long as “compact cameras” are considered “toys” and large cameras still radiate “status” and reflect the “professional intent” of the user.

Maybe “one day” the very small camera body will be sold as a premium product but I am not holding my breath

Meanwhile if mobile phone cameras somehow came free in a compact car body it might make things tough for compact BMW and Audi cars where you had to actually buy your own camera.

I think the problem in this kind of market is maintaining the volume that the lower end needs to be profitable. I think you're quite right, there will continue to be demand for compact cameras, the question is whether there is sufficient demand at a price which will make money. These compact cameras will be expensive by today's standards, which is,why they'll get squeezed by FF cameras. However, if they find a niche which justifies the purchase for enough people to make money, they'll work. My own view is,that mFT already has such a niche, so long as,they don't make it so big it doesn't fit in there any more.

Agreed. I think GM5 because it suits me. But we could also think Pen-F and GX9 - or the GX8 ramped up in another lifetime - just as well.

But there is a fashion statement about that is saying that if it isn’t looking like a dslr then it still isn’t a proper camera.

But things might change - I suspect that there might be a boutique, expensive, truly small, camera down the track but it might have to wait for a global shutter and an ultra compact IBIS system. It has to be as few holds barred as possible as the market is not going to buy a tiny camera unless it is cashed right up with features as well.

I think we're close to being in complete agreement. 'Small and loaded' is probably where that particular nice is, which is why it's frustrating that we seem to get the choice between small and loaded. I don't believe the idea that IBIS must be big, either. Nikon and Sony both seem to put IBIS with FF sensors in bodies the same size as mFT bodies with IBIS (smaller than some) so it should be possible to put an mFT sensor with IBIS in a smaller body.

I think it is almost like cameras being sold by the kilogram and therefore small cameras should be cheap - because they are cheap they cannot be as capable ....

However, made small does not mean that they can be made cheaper as the same amount of assembly work goes into any camera body and miniaturisation is expensive.

Therefore a small camera with the same amount of features could conceivably cost more than a larger one to make.

In some ways it is like costing a window.  Smaller windows need all the same fittings, cuts and assembly procedures as larger ones.  The only real difference is the larger ones require more material and they are more awkward to handle.  In the case of camera bodies a smaller format might (and probably would) actually require more difficulty in assembly.

So take it from there - larger camera bodies sell for more money and might even be slightly cheaper to make.  So unless a tiny camera body is standout over its larger peers it cannot be sold for more or even equivalent price - so small cameras get built and sold to be profitable the build standard and price point the market will pay - catch-22.

Mobile phones on the other hand have a huge marketing advantage as to extent and purposes they come with a “free” camera.

I once had visions of the GM series becoming something like the “Model-T Ford” of the camera world.  One simple design that was a basic but quite capable camera in its own right.  Made and sold in much the same format over a long period of time.  Once the R&D was amortised it could be made and sold much cheaper.

Therefore “everyone” could have (say) a GM5 in their kit as a supplementary camera (I hate to call it “backup” as it is worth more than that).

Unfortunately it could have ended up as “a legend” and detracted from higher margin more sophisticated camera bodies.  Maybe a whole section of M4/3 format users might have found that a long-running GM5 might be all that they needed.  That in itself would have been bad news for a corporation trying to win a place in the market for its advanced camera engineering skills.  Despite short shrift being given to the camera type by many in my opinion the GM series was a masterpiece of technical ingenuity to pack such an amount of capability into such a small space.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads