Re: I'm not convinced one way or another by Panasonic interviews.
uniball wrote:
Impulses wrote:
uniball wrote:
brentbrent wrote:
. But if I did want to replace it, I'd get a GX9, pretty clearly a better camera in my opinion, particularly in terms of shutter, sensor, and IBIS.
The 4 advertised stops for IBIS are coupled with the 12-60 kit zoom. Shoot primes and it’s the same 2 stops you have with your GX7. While I never had a 7, I can’t tell any difference between my now departed GX85 IBIS and my GX9 when shooting non-stabilized lenses. While 2 stops is certainly useful, it’s nothing like what OM did with my E-P7, a good bit smaller body.
I'm also not convinced. Offering “compact” FF bodies with slow, yet still huge, lenses isn’t going to attract back smartphone users. The industry continues to shoot itself in the foot and I count on that far more than it developing compelling products. It’s an inbred group of companies, resistant to change.
What FF lenses are those? Genuine question here, FF teles definitely tend to be relatively large no matter what (zooms specially), but at UWA thru normal FLs and for primes in particular I'm seeing a ton of size overlap between M4/3 and FF options, so the push for some smaller body options like the A7C seems reasonable to me. Those smaller FF lenses often still have an equivalent speed advantage at a given size (eg my Oly 12/2 vs Sony 24/2.8, or my PL25/1.4 vs SY45/1.8).
Teles aside (<3 the Oly 75/1.8), IBIS and much more compact bodies are where I still see M4/3 having a key advantage when it comes to compact kits... It's unfortunate that the smallest M4/3 bodies aren't seeing as much development, the E-P7 was somewhat encouraging compared to what Oly had done (or rather hadn't done) with the last several E-PLs, but the fact that it's not readily available everywhere tempers my optimism.
I really really hope at least one of the two big players in M4/3, if not both, find a way to keep a relevant but small model line around (the recent PENs before the E-P7 weren't it! PEN-F aside)... If for nothing else because I'd rather keep shooting my M4/3 teles for years to come, heh, I could find a less excellent ~112-135mm equivalent replacement for the Oly 75/1.8 but there's nothing else quite like the 42.5/1.7 & 35-100 (either one), at least not at their size.
All that being said, I don't think anything is really gonna attract smartphone users in droves. ILC manufacturers could still offer some much more compelling options, but even at it's height the mass market for ILCs usually bought maybe 1 prime and seemed to flock to superzooms over all else, and those are still around (heck M4/3 has some solid ones at different sizes). MILCs missed the chance to really make a dent in the market before smartphones got "good enough".
Somewhat more attractive or smaller bodies, or even cheaper ones, aren't gonna dramatically alter that equation. The smartphone users that want something with more advanced controls and/or more extreme FLs will continue finding their ways to ILCs, but the majority of them likely have no reason to ever look at dedicated cameras again just like they aren't looking at dedicated PDAs or calculators.
Body form factor variety used to be a strength of M4/3 but unless they start updating some model lines soon I think Fuji will have lapped M4/3 in that regard, and they've got more small WR primes to pair with small bodies too. They've carved out a nice niche. Could be worse tho, CaNikon aren't doing anything much more interesting with their crop lineups, and Sony comes out with attractive lenses every couple years but keeps recycling bodies so...
One can’t make exceptions with the zooms.
Sure I can, that's why I decided to keep shooting both systems.
As you point out, new users “seemed to flock to superzooms over all else”.
Premium FF UWA zooms aren't any larger (at all) or much heavier than stuff like the PL8-18 (which itself is barely any longer than the 7-14/4), and the Tamron 28-200 is about the size of the 12-100. You can get similarly sized 28-75 f2.8s too. It's really FF teles that will kill the camel's back.
Obviously there's barely any FF zooms quite as small as say the 14-140, let alone the 12-32 (there's some small collapsible 28-60 & 24-50 tho); but where things really get out of hand vs smaller formats is the teles. Even APS-C has some clear advantages in that regard with stuff like the 70-350G, far smaller than the smallest FF 100-400.
Never-the-less, having forgotten about the Sammy, though it’s on my list if I ever return to FF, small, reasonably fast primes are the few and far between. I haven’t looked recently but I'll assume it’s still quite difficult to put together an FF prime lens kit that offers the optical quality, speed and reliability of m4/3 at a comparable size.
You ought to look again, I'm not sure what "the Sammy" you're alluding to (the 45/1.8 I mentioned?) but they came out with a whole range of so called "tiny" f1.8s, the 18/2.8 & 45/1.8 are the smallest (size of the PL25) but the 24, 35, and 75 f1.8 aren't much larger (the size of the Sigma 56/1.4 or thereabouts, and lighter).
Sigma has put out some really compact options as well like the 24/3.5, 45/2.8, and 90/2.8 in addition to the 24, 35, and 65 f2. Sony came out with that small G trio (24/2.8 & 40/50 f2.5) in addition to their 35/1.8. Virtually all that stuff has come out within the last 2 years, most of it is in the 150-300g (the Sigmas are metal and tend to be heavier) and are usually 1.8-2.7" long. That's firmly in M4/3 territory, often with an equivalent speed advantage or weather sealing which is hard to find on small M4/3 primes.
Solid yet compact FF primes really aren't as few and far between as you seem to think they are... In fact all these releases are what made me do a double take and ultimately convinced me to shoot both formats. Back when the only attractive compact options were the pricey 35/2.8 & 55/1.8 ZAs and the ho hum 28/2 it was a much tougher sale. Things changed a lot.
FF pancakes aren't as common and nothing is replacing my Oly 75/1.8 (the 42.5/1.7 has a place too for it's MFD if not it's size), but as primes in general go it's a whole new world. I've only touched on the E/L mount stuff too, Nikon has that 28/2.8 and the 40/2 at prices that rival 3rd party E mount stuff, their f1.8s area bit larger but they do have some smaller f4 zooms.
I certainly can’t speak for anyone other than myself but I shoot m43 because I’m willing to sacrifice ultimate pixel peeping IQ for the sake of having an easy frequent carry that gets used far more often than my long gone D800.
I believe smartphone users will return for a compelling option. My RX100’s are frequent sources of conversation with my younger extended family. On account of the captures I get of their kids with an RX100 versus theirs with a phone. The techies tell me that will change with smartphone improvements. That’s too late for those who didn’t wait for the advent of a better phone to have children. There's 2 messages here 1), on account of those discussions, 2 former smartphone photographers purchased 1” sensored cameras (not many but better than none) and 2), the 1” sensored market continues to be dominated by Sony while Panasonic, with better ergo’s and UI, sits with poor glass and does nothing about it. Maybe moaning they’re losing market share, or maybe they just don’t understand/have no interest in the non-Japan camera market.
Its somewhat difficult for OM and Panasonic to sell the merits of their system (size being a significant one) when all they do is release larger and larger bodies. While my E-P7 is a nice exception, I had to import it from Japan, no USA warranty. And they sit there bewildered that the USA flocks around larger cameras, which in a rational world, implies larger sensors. I suspect JIP will ease into a Japan only/Viao model once the $300 million they received from Olympus runs out. Panasonic will do nothing until they, in turn, go knocking on JIP's door.
That's a pretty grim outlook, I agree there's been marketing failures but the previous PENs and GXs didn't exactly set the market on fire. I'd love for the E-P7 to be available stateside as well (might actually be cheaper by now) but it wouldn't turn the tide IMO. I don't think a majority or even a sizeable chunk of smartphone users will ever be converted, that's just not realistic.
That being said, ILC manufacturers can still carve out their own niches and continue to attract users from that camp, smartphones have raised the general interest level in photography higher than ever so just because they ate up the low end and the market of soccer moms that would pick up a $500 DSLR at Costco every few years doesn't mean there's no market at all.
I've stopped pruning my camera collection. Bought the E-P7 and another m43 lens this month. I believe I now have sufficient inventory to hold me through OM and Panasonic abandoning m43 and me not having to scramble to find an alternative.
I'm not that worried, tho Fuji or Sony APS-C would've been my alternatives if M4/3 cratered that badly. I like Fuji's body variety far better, which now rivals M4/3's, but 3rd party stuff makes the Sony lens lineup interesting (tho a chunk of it is showing up on Fuji X as well) and since I've now got a foot in E mount...
