FULL STEAM AHEAD, LUMIX

jalywol wrote:

Everything you say is completely correct. But, you left out one really huge factor: SENSOR tech.

I have a GX8. I have had zero reason to upgrade it as the sensors that M43 uses now are an iteration of the same one the GX8 has.

Great camera...

What they need to do is introduce an updated sensor with better DR, better noise performance, and PDAF on ALL of them (their competition has outrun them at every turn in all of their bodies at this point on this feature).

Hear hear !

Then, go with your suggestions: Keep body size and price down, offer value, not bloat. Emphasize the strengths of the medium, don't try and mimic FF in size and price...not going to work with how cheap some FF bodies are now out there....and even the worst FF mirrorless crushes the best M43 sensor output once you get even one click above base ISO....(Trust me on this, I have an RP...) . Publicize how exceptional the lens choices are...which is why I am using M43 again along with the RP. It's a big deal.

Frustrating, frustrating....I wish they would listen to M43 users, not their marketing departments...

-J

YES !!!

MrALLCAPS wrote:

jalywol wrote:

Everything you say is completely correct. But, you left out one really huge factor: SENSOR tech.

I have a GX8. I have had zero reason to upgrade it as the sensors that M43 uses now are an iteration of the same one the GX8 has.

What they need to do is introduce an updated sensor with better DR, better noise performance, and PDAF on ALL of them (their competition has outrun them at every turn in all of their bodies at this point on this feature).

Then, go with your suggestions: Keep body size and price down, offer value, not bloat. Emphasize the strengths of the medium, don't try and mimic FF in size and price...not going to work with how cheap some FF bodies are now out there....and even the worst FF mirrorless crushes the best M43 sensor output once you get even one click above base ISO....(Trust me on this, I have an RP...) . Publicize how exceptional the lens choices are...which is why I am using M43 again along with the RP. It's a big deal.

Frustrating, frustrating....I wish they would listen to M43 users, not their marketing departments...

-J

In my opinion, Sensor Tech will always be an issue with M43. And I don't think they need to play in the race for more megapixels.

I got some amazing pics from my 12mp GF2/20mm combo. And I will stick to my guns that compactness is going to be thier strength.

Size and feature rich is the way to move forward.

Agreed. Panasonic has already made the choice that their FF line - The DC-S1H - would be their flagship video / stills camera; even Jordan agrees. Let the µ4/3 group focus on ease of use, size, weight, DR and bang for the buck and leave the MP race to FF.

brentbrent wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

When one walks in a camera store, especially these days a camera like the G9 or EM1 will simply be overlooked against a Z6, X-T4 or Canon RP. There are not enough features to set it apart from the competitors, which is why M43 is falling behind.

Now you're talking features, not size.

I'm talking both. The G9 and EM1 are too big and less of a deal to performance aginst those other cameras I mentioned.

And to the extent that size is what sets MFT apart, there are small, well-featured cameras. I can't say what will pop out to anyone who walks into a camera store without any idea of what to buy, nor what a salesperson is going to push on them. But for people who do value small size and good IQ and actually do some research on their options, the MFT system has appeal, including a lot of small bodies and small lenses. I don't get why you seem to ignore that simple fact. I guess it is inconvenient to the theory you are trying to push.

Part of the appeal of the MFT system is that it DOES offer a full range of lenses, including the bigger ones, which are more comfortably used on a bigger body. So maybe the G9 isn't the typical gateway into MFT, but it sure is an attractive option for many of us who have bought into the system already.

In the system already, true. -But what about new buyers?

Full frame, APS-C are getting smaller, while M43 is getting larger.

MFT has matured as a system in terms of both bodies and lenses, including small options and big options. Panasonic is still making the smaller cameras. You ignore this and ignore this and ignore this, but that doesn't make that fact go away.

I didn't ignore this, you're getting past my point, M43 needs smaller Premium, yet affordable bodies and lenses. G9 is great, but too big. Where's the GX camera with the same features aside from the FAS? They need a smaller G6 sized camera with the guts of a G9.

The mistakes of Four Thirds have already hit Olympus.

The mindset of wanting larger M43 cameras and that they should exist, will doom M43. Mark my words

It's not that I "want larger cameras." But when I first held the G9 I thought it was fabulous in my hand, and I knew it was neither too big nor too heavy for me. Many here feel the same. Why on earth should that "doom M43?" I'll "mark your words" as not making any sense.

Look up four thirds.

It's like saying "Honda is an economy car and the company will be doomed if it continues to make 7-passenger SUVs like the Pilot. It should make 5-passenger SUVs like the CRV!" You know what, Honda DOES make a 5-passenger CRV, and even a smaller HRV. There's no reason that making the bigger model as well should doom the company.

I'm sorry, but I don't do or dabble in car analogies. No offense, I don't entertain them.

-- hide signature --

Brent

MrALLCAPS wrote:

Remember, I seen the writing on the wall with Olympus making the same mistakes they made with Four Thirds and I called it out and got the typical snide "Haha!" Back then too.

But my, my, my, look where we're at.

So keep laughing. I'm Laughing too...

Soooo, I take it that way back when you predicted that Oly would fail if they made big bodies/lenses, and now that they have failed, you are proclaiming that your analysis of what Oly had to do to survive was correct?

There's a leap of (il)logic in your thinking. There could be many different reasons why Olympus has failed. The fact that they have failed certainly does not prove that your reasoning was correct.

By analogy, let me here and now predict that Trump will definitely lose the 2020 election unless he follows my sage advice. The only way that Trump can possibly win is if he gets an overwhelming majority of the male vote by having Melania do a brand new nude photoshoot. That's it, my prediction. If Trump loses in November without that new Melania photoshoot, I'll come back here and crow about my prediction, "Remember, I seen the writing on the wall," and "my, my, my, look where we're at."

Donald, you better be listening. I called it out.

[edit to add: Oops, you don't do analogies. Convenient for you.]

glassoholic wrote:

The EM5 mark 1 was radically smaller and lighter than the typical entry level DSLR, even APSC, at the time. That alone gave it a wow factor for new buyers or those with aching wrists who had had enough of heavy, big cameras. Today, a new buyer would not be as impressed when comparing m43 body size against the competition (FF and APSC included as competition today). Plus, most new buyers don't think ahead about a system of 8 or so lenses in their bag.

The EM5 was a hit for Olympus, then they followed it up with the arguably most bodies sold EM10.

Then they went Big with the EM1.

The EM5 should've been Olympus's flagship camera, but someone over there though bigger camera and lenses was the "in" thing to do, in order to compete with the FF/APS-C Cameras of the world.

They were wrong, like a lot of these analogies thrown about 'round these parts.

-- hide signature --

Addicted To Glass
M43 equivalence: "Twice the fun with half the weight"
"You are a long time dead" -
Credit to whoever said that first and my wife for saying it to me... Make the best you can of every day!

MrALLCAPS wrote:

glassoholic wrote:

The EM5 mark 1 was radically smaller and lighter than the typical entry level DSLR, even APSC, at the time. That alone gave it a wow factor for new buyers or those with aching wrists who had had enough of heavy, big cameras. Today, a new buyer would not be as impressed when comparing m43 body size against the competition (FF and APSC included as competition today). Plus, most new buyers don't think ahead about a system of 8 or so lenses in their bag.

The EM5 was a hit for Olympus, then they followed it up with the arguably most bodies sold EM10.

Then they went Big with the EM1.

The EM5 should've been Olympus's flagship camera, but someone over there though bigger camera and lenses was the "in" thing to do, in order to compete with the FF/APS-C Cameras of the world.

They were wrong, like a lot of these analogies thrown about 'round these parts.

The available data doesn't suggest that. They did not make profit when they released the E-M5.

They had 2 quarters that was profitable coinciding with the E-M5 II release (4-6/2015, 10-12/2015). Then 3 quarters (and one financial year) that coincided with the "overpriced" E-M1 II (10-12/2016, 4-6/2017, 7-9/2017)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62140066

It is the recent success with the E-M1 II that likely drove their current strategy.