-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why doesn't anyone make small photo-oriented ILC cameras anymore?
- Thread starter raiden78
- Start date
jalywol
Forum Pro
Not cost effective.
Cell phones have the bulk of that market now. ILCs are a specialist product, and the tiny camera ILC market is vanishingly small. And, video is a necessity for many (most?) of the folks who might be new ILC users, so a tiny camera for just photo enthusiasts? Nope.
Sorry...
-J
Cell phones have the bulk of that market now. ILCs are a specialist product, and the tiny camera ILC market is vanishingly small. And, video is a necessity for many (most?) of the folks who might be new ILC users, so a tiny camera for just photo enthusiasts? Nope.
Sorry...
-J
Last edited:
EP7 is the closest you are going to get. Only sold in regions where there is demand, like Japan and Europe. The segment wants low cost and a popup flash, so no EVF. Goes with tilting LCD to compose.
Stills only photographers are a rapidly shrinking market.
Andrew
Stills only photographers are a rapidly shrinking market.
Andrew
WilyKit
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 1,314
It just failed, for several major companies. Nikon also had the "Nikon 1" series, with J1 to J5, very small cameras, very nice, and very capable lenses like the 10-30mm VR PD-Zoom, which although is a relatively "slow lens", has remarkably good quality. A quite small and light combination. But the problem? It's not "pocketable". The "just barely" pocketable (I personally don't consider 4 CM depth pocketable, 3 CM is) Sony RX100 series with a fixed lens is obviously very successful. Some other fixed lens cameras are also relatively successful, surprisingly even Fuji's X100 series with a prime lens, definitely not "pocketable" cameras but still quite small and lightweight and "premium feeling" and fun to use, and of course the Ricoh GR series, cameras which ARE "pretty pocketable" (3.3 CM depth for example), so people really like that.
You're just not going to get cameras with such depth if it's an ILC system, and most people don't WANT to switch between lenses. Many people buy a "kit" and stay with that one "kit lens". Some good deals can be found for Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Sony, and other ILC camera + lens kits, so people get that cheap deal but don't become "system enthusiasts", they just consider what they got "a camera", not "a kit" or a part of "a system". Then there are "enthusiasts" like most of us, some "professionals", and the few people who want a very small and lightweight ILC system. But you're just not going to get a "pocketable" camera. Even GM5 + 20mm is thicker than 6 CM. What's the point? It's not "weather sealed" either. Even Nikon 1 failed, and I'm telling you, J5 + some very nice zoom and prime lenses is very fun. Only a few lenses in the system, but they did a great job, and it still failed.
What I think is that nowadays we want reliability on top of everything, and we're not getting it. I want some proper dust and water resistance. Some. It's mainly smartphones that offer that. Almost all small camera offerings have none of that, some very very low quality cameras like TG-7 do (purple fringing from hell, flare extravaganza, soft image), the fine ones are "premium" priced and almost always not cameras you can carry in your pocket. Pocketable ILC is not going to happen. Fixed lens cameras, yeah maybe there's still hope, but I don't see it becoming common any time soon.
You're just not going to get cameras with such depth if it's an ILC system, and most people don't WANT to switch between lenses. Many people buy a "kit" and stay with that one "kit lens". Some good deals can be found for Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Sony, and other ILC camera + lens kits, so people get that cheap deal but don't become "system enthusiasts", they just consider what they got "a camera", not "a kit" or a part of "a system". Then there are "enthusiasts" like most of us, some "professionals", and the few people who want a very small and lightweight ILC system. But you're just not going to get a "pocketable" camera. Even GM5 + 20mm is thicker than 6 CM. What's the point? It's not "weather sealed" either. Even Nikon 1 failed, and I'm telling you, J5 + some very nice zoom and prime lenses is very fun. Only a few lenses in the system, but they did a great job, and it still failed.
What I think is that nowadays we want reliability on top of everything, and we're not getting it. I want some proper dust and water resistance. Some. It's mainly smartphones that offer that. Almost all small camera offerings have none of that, some very very low quality cameras like TG-7 do (purple fringing from hell, flare extravaganza, soft image), the fine ones are "premium" priced and almost always not cameras you can carry in your pocket. Pocketable ILC is not going to happen. Fixed lens cameras, yeah maybe there's still hope, but I don't see it becoming common any time soon.
Last edited:
High quality tiny/small cameras must cost much the same price to make as the larger versions. However camera buyers tend to buy their kit by the pound/weight and will only buy if they are cheaper. Cheaper small camera bodies are not well regarded compared to the ubiquitous mobile phone camera (MPC).
This makes the smaller bodies harder to market - they have to be good and competitive performing with their larger bodied siblings, but cheaper to buy. Not a good marketing formula.
These days video/high-speed-capture and IBIS are demanded even if not really necessary* but are harder to fit into the smallest body styles.
* The G100 is a good example - a smallish camera selling in a reasonable price bracket. They probably could have re-engineered IBIS into the body but chose to re-use the shutter module that historically dates back to the GM series - presumably to keep the G100/D affordable and selling at a price where Panasonic can be happy with the profit margin.
But the lack of IBIS gets many pecks as any camera that does not offer IBIS these days is well down the pecking order to the point of borderline unsaleable. It seems that the market wants full house tiny camera bodies but only at the price getting close to the much compact cameras that are no longer made. Even though the G100/D can be bought for arguably less than a powerhouse MPC.
But the whole thing is compounded by the blinkered idea that the very smallest powerhouse camera bodies are only useful to match up with the smallest tranche of M4/3 lenses that are available. So why might we buy a tiny camera at close to the mainstream larger camera body prices without IBIS only to use it with a limited number of very small lenses?
There are many that would as can be seen by the high prices of second hand GM5 bodies, but not enough market to make it worthwhile to make another batch of similar sized bodies.
Those who wish for a smaller camera bodies should rush out and buy a G100/D or Olympus E-M10 (type) and prove that there is a market for this type of camera despite the limitations. Not buying (for any particular reason)? Then why should Panasonic/Olympus get any confidence that an even more compact, high quality, expensive ,camera body would sell well.
This makes the smaller bodies harder to market - they have to be good and competitive performing with their larger bodied siblings, but cheaper to buy. Not a good marketing formula.
These days video/high-speed-capture and IBIS are demanded even if not really necessary* but are harder to fit into the smallest body styles.
* The G100 is a good example - a smallish camera selling in a reasonable price bracket. They probably could have re-engineered IBIS into the body but chose to re-use the shutter module that historically dates back to the GM series - presumably to keep the G100/D affordable and selling at a price where Panasonic can be happy with the profit margin.
But the lack of IBIS gets many pecks as any camera that does not offer IBIS these days is well down the pecking order to the point of borderline unsaleable. It seems that the market wants full house tiny camera bodies but only at the price getting close to the much compact cameras that are no longer made. Even though the G100/D can be bought for arguably less than a powerhouse MPC.
But the whole thing is compounded by the blinkered idea that the very smallest powerhouse camera bodies are only useful to match up with the smallest tranche of M4/3 lenses that are available. So why might we buy a tiny camera at close to the mainstream larger camera body prices without IBIS only to use it with a limited number of very small lenses?
There are many that would as can be seen by the high prices of second hand GM5 bodies, but not enough market to make it worthwhile to make another batch of similar sized bodies.
Those who wish for a smaller camera bodies should rush out and buy a G100/D or Olympus E-M10 (type) and prove that there is a market for this type of camera despite the limitations. Not buying (for any particular reason)? Then why should Panasonic/Olympus get any confidence that an even more compact, high quality, expensive ,camera body would sell well.
Being "pocketable" was one of the reasons why all these attempts at very small ILC bodies failed. I never saw them as being truly pocketable but they were easily-packable and made for a smallish bagged package. Especially when the GM series was only a pack of cards larger than the lens it was attached to.
I am not upset by any reliability issues on my Panasonic bodies from the GM series upwards. I guess that dust and water resistance have always been good enough when used for my own personal purposes.
I do pocket my MPC but all my camera bodies have always been bagged when carried.
The trouble with the Nikon 1 and the Pentax Q was that they needed a completely new suite of lenses before they could be considered a rounded system. The Panasonic GM series landed with a pre-existing suite of M4/3 lenses. Then the M4/3 market could not categorise what they were. The M4/3 people in general decided that they were to be pocketable or used as backup for their larger camera bodies then wondered just why these high quality little offerings were so relatively expensive. So they did not sell well until Panasonic dropped the price (considerably). Ever since Panasonic has been trying to find a combination of reduced performance/build bodies that they could market at the street price the GM bodies sold - ie: GF7-GF10(GX850) and now the G100/D models.
I don't pocket camera bodies of any size.
I don't think that the Sony RX100 (type) is as successful as its reputation for being successful. It is just that Sony has kept marketing it in small numbers as a premium price market hole plugger. Panasonic could have chosen to do this with the GM5 should they have chosen to do so. I suspect that there would be a continuing handy small market for such a camera body at a premium price (forever). But Panasonic chose to drop the price hoping that the market for the GM5 might roar - I don't think that the price made for a roar and once the then market was sated even a lower price could not move them at all. So the model sold out over quite a few years and was never directly replaced.
I agree that many would simply use a GM5 (or G100/D) as a kit and rarely if ever use them with the best lenses that M4/3 could offer. Might as well buy a compact camera zoom - or a Sony RX100 (type).
But three GM5 bodies each with a lens attached will fit easily in a shoulder bag - how close does such an outfit resemble the Pro-shooter's outfit where there is no time or facility to swap lenses in the field? Ah, but I am one of those enthusiasts that you mention and not looking for a pocket camera, just for a light in weight compact extended system. Not forgetting that I have other camera bodies that use he same lenses right up to a present day G9II. They all use the full range of the same lens stocks.
Yes, very nice and required many more than the few lenses that Nikon provided before it became a system. Likewise the Pentax Q.
You mentioned the Ricoh GR somewhere - this can be pocketed at one's own risk as it is notorious for getting dust on the sensor which can only be removed by home disassembly or back to base service.
I am not upset by any reliability issues on my Panasonic bodies from the GM series upwards. I guess that dust and water resistance have always been good enough when used for my own personal purposes.
I do pocket my MPC but all my camera bodies have always been bagged when carried.
buratino
Leading Member
G100 is nearly as big as EM5 III/OM-5. And of almost identical weight. Does it offer a better video? I do not need GM1/5 updates, but I would love an updated GX800.
jalywol
Forum Pro
No, it is not. It's two ounces lighter (352g vs 414g), and it's a half inch less wide. The body is also shorter top to bottom, although the EVF sticks up to almost the same height on both.
(Some of the comparison sites have the G100 weight as 412g, but that's the weight WITH the kit 12-32mm lens....)
OM5 is (sale price) $1100, body only
G100D is (sale price) $597 with kit lens.
Apples to oranges, for real.
-J
jlsturbo
Well-known member
I think the OM-5 is a fantastic small photo-oriented camera. Yes, it's not pocketable but most cameras aren't. Even those compact ones are "pocketable only if you wear cargo pants or a photo vest with deep pockets".
So give up the pocketable dream and you see new possibilities.
The OM-5 is small and light enough that I take it with me literally everywhere. I also own the Z6II and it's a real difference to the point that 90% of my images nowadays are shot on the OM-5.
So give up the pocketable dream and you see new possibilities.
The OM-5 is small and light enough that I take it with me literally everywhere. I also own the Z6II and it's a real difference to the point that 90% of my images nowadays are shot on the OM-5.
GrahamB52
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 410
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 284
My GX85 and E-P7 are not pocketable (though the E-P7 was in the rather large pocket in my coat yesterday for a walk along the canal) but my carry all the time very capable camera is pocketable, the Fuji XF10 and Fuji have missed a trick there with used copies fetching £5/600 now!
Isola Verde
Forum Pro
Just for the record - with the G100D perhaps being only very slightly different - specs per Panasonic UK shop website, in Nov 2022...
An ounce or so heavier than the EVF-less, but 5 axis IBIS-equipped, E-P7 !
Peter
jalywol
Forum Pro
Pick your poison ..I'd rather have the EVF.Just for the record - with the G100D perhaps being only very slightly different - specs per Panasonic UK shop website, in Nov 2022...
An ounce or so heavier than the EVF-less, but 5 axis IBIS-equipped, E-P7 !
Peter
-J
Isola Verde
Forum Pro
Very probably (based on recent sales of the E-PL series, maybe), exactly the response that led the new Oly company to pick those markets that they did for selling the camera?Pick your poison ..I'd rather have the EVF.Just for the record - with the G100D perhaps being only very slightly different - specs per Panasonic UK shop website, in Nov 2022...
An ounce or so heavier than the EVF-less, but 5 axis IBIS-equipped, E-P7 !
Peter
-J
Peter
[PS My mistake, the weight difference is only some 8g,,, ]
Last edited:
I must admit that I don't do video but I had to try the G100 "miracle" 5-axis Hybrid IS (promoted above) with a few test video shots and it seemed rock steady enough for me. But I am hardly video enough oriented enough to do a proper evaluation.Just for the record - with the G100D perhaps being only very slightly different - specs per Panasonic UK shop website, in Nov 2022...
An ounce or so heavier than the EVF-less, but 5 axis IBIS-equipped, E-P7 !
Peter
Of course most Panasonic lenses that need it and an increasing number of Olympus/OMS lenses have in-lens stabilisation and they work stabilised and work well. How many stops of stabilisation is provided is a bit of a moot argument when the images captured in one's routine stills photography are quite stable enough for one's personal purposes.
I also admit that I would not deny myself any stabilisation assistance that is on offer. The more the merrier - the next frontier will be freezing motion blur ....
But are they not working on this for high definition captures?But to say that the G100 is not stabilised at all is not quite true. It can be stabilised by design. Furthermore even the tiny aging GM5 was and remains a stabilised camera body when used with OIS lenses. The GM5 and the Olympus 12-100/4.0 IS is a very handy stabilised combination. Especially when it is considered that when this lens is mounted on any Panasonic IBIS body it supplants the IBIS with its lens-OIS and the result is just as stable as when used on the GM5 (or G100) camera body - which is pretty good even though the same lens can offer dual stabilisation on an Olympus/OMS body.
--
Tom Caldwell
Bassam Guy
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,887
- Solutions
- 15
- Reaction score
- 7,575
I have a little camera that I use occasionally, an E-PL5. It would be a great sized camera if I was one meter tall with hands commensurately sized but I am not. I have average male sized hands with reasonably good dexterity but my fingers turn to thumbs and fumble and fret over the too few buttons and the one impossibly tiny pseudo-dial. It would be nothing but frustration to use for anything else but a spare happenstance camera that lives in my car's glovebox (with a P. 12-32mm).
Smallest camera I've felt comfortable with is an E-M5 II. Perhaps a Pen-F, so perhaps some kind soul could gift me one so I can confirm.
Last edited:
Well, Tom, I have the Panasonic GM1 (1 had 2), the GM5 (2), plus the G100 and GX85 (with m4/3 lenses - lots), the Nikon 1 system, cameras (3) with lenses (6) (that have a plastic gear that wears out without warning), and the Pentax Q S1 and lenses (3).
Sold the GX7 and regret it.
and the RX100 series (3), and the G5Xii, the ZS 200, and the ZS100, and the Stylus 1s (2) for when I don't want to change lenses.
These are all pretty small. Certainly no need for anything more. I consider myself lucky.
John
Sold the GX7 and regret it.
and the RX100 series (3), and the G5Xii, the ZS 200, and the ZS100, and the Stylus 1s (2) for when I don't want to change lenses.
These are all pretty small. Certainly no need for anything more. I consider myself lucky.
John
Last edited:
All these camera companies have been around for long time, so they know what kind of camera they can sell and what can't, since they are here to make profit, so they will only make product they can sell. I am the minority here and no fan of small camera, sold all my E-M10 and E-M 5, the very last two piece of MFT product I have is at the moment is the EM1X and 300F4. I would have upgraded already if they make another pro model with integrated VG. I am one of those either big camera or iPhone guy, not much in between, my so called " travel camera" is the best camera I own, it goes everywhere when I want to have a camera, after all, I bought "that camera" because I like that and want to use that.
Last edited:
pipituni
Leading Member
then maybe - just maybe - they shouldn't make cheap small bodies then?
maybe - just maybe - they should make premium compacts instead?
2nd hand market for compact bodies is thriving, with models like the Pen series, incl. the Pen F, and Lumix bodies such as the GX80, GX9, GX800 far outperforming large bodies in terms of maintaining price (e.g. EM1x)
every other day there's a vlogger (young and old) on YT highlighting the glaring lack of compact premiums in m43, followed by dozens of comments confirming the same
see points above
and see success of other cameras - X100 series, GR series, X-Txx, X-E, A7C and other compact premiums enjoying great success
just because Lumix and Olympus/OMS fumbled the ball, doesn't mean the game isn't still being played
even the OM5 is well regarded despite the plastic body and laughable tripod socket. the extensive features make it the only real m43 option for a compact, weather sealed, more rugged body (tripod socket aside)
the demand for premium compacts is real
S
Sonyshine
Guest
Most old people ( I include myself ) already own a good enough camera.
The growth market is in content producing devices why can load straight to social media.
The big market for compact cameras is in devices like the DJI Osmo Pocket, Go Pros and small vlogging cameras.
My grandson loves his DJI and posts constantly to Tik Tok and You Tube etc. I am tempted to get one myself.
The growth market is in content producing devices why can load straight to social media.
The big market for compact cameras is in devices like the DJI Osmo Pocket, Go Pros and small vlogging cameras.
My grandson loves his DJI and posts constantly to Tik Tok and You Tube etc. I am tempted to get one myself.
MFT has to produce small cameras because that would be the only reason that would separate them from the competition. This is what made them market leaders a few years ago. And the market needs small camera because there is nothing like that these days. Since they make cameras as big as the competition that has FF sensors and the same price, they have absolutely no chance to survive. MFT producers must return to their origins, all MFT lovers are waiting for the sequels to the GM, GX, Pen, OM-D series, small cameras that can be taken anywhere, not huge bodies of the caliber of FF cameras.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum