If Not a New Pen F Then What?

[DLBlack]

I just read Jim Chang's blog and he does have some interesting ideas. He thinks Olympus should come out with an ultra compact MFT camera that could serve as a small camera for the OMD users. Think Panasonic GM1 or GM5. Anyhow the link to this blog is: https://jimchungblog.com/2020/05/28/if-not-a-new-pen-f-olympus-body/

Dave

 

[pdelux]

I just read Jim Chang's blog and he does have some interesting ideas. He thinks Olympus should come out with an ultra compact MFT camera that could serve as a small camera for the OMD users. Think Panasonic GM1 or GM5. Anyhow the link to this blog is: https://jimchungblog.com/2020/05/28/if-not-a-new-pen-f-olympus-body/

Dave

havent they already tried this before and didnt work out so well (E-PM1), thus discontinuted? I think Phones have made it hard to sell on the basis of ultra compactness, and ultimately there's only so small you can go with the body--- where the lens becomes the bigger contributor to size.

My preference for an auxiliary camera is the opposite - go bigger - i.e. an FF Fixed lense with 35mm F2.0 Lense. This would be not much bigger than a PEN-F with a Pro prime on it in my limited estimation considering how small sony and Nikon mirrorless FF are. Integrated lenses can have some size reduction. Olympus will have my money.

 

[Sergey Borachev]

The competition is too strong in the tiny cameras sector, eg the top phones and RX100s. A M43 ilc even with a small lens is too big while offering too little IQ advantage, since Olympus use old tech sensors. It's hard to see Olympus doing well. However, there's a chance it can succeed with a GR type of camera. With a M43 size sensor, it will be either smaller than the GR or it can have better dials or faster lens on a body with the same size as the GR. IBIS can also be better. Features can be better too if it can include a tilt screen, WR and/or a 35mm equiv lens. Make a better GR than the GR.

 

[Xcelent]

The competition is too strong in the tiny cameras sector, eg the top phones and RX100s. A M43 ilc even with a small lens is too big while offering too little IQ advantage, since Olympus use old tech sensors. It's hard to see Olympus doing well. However, there's a chance it can succeed with a GR type of camera. With a M43 size sensor, it will be either smaller than the GR or it can have better dials or faster lens on a body with the same size as the GR. IBIS can also be better. Features can be better too if it can include a tilt screen, WR and/or a 35mm equiv lens. Make a better GR than the GR.

I suspect a 35mm equivalent lens will make it too large and also compromised in quality in a GR sized camera. It should be more practical to make it a 28mm equivalent but with f2. I will be very happy with that, if it is sharp, and have a quick crop mode to give me 35mm. So, yeah, a camera having all the GR features but also WR, tilt screen, and also effective IBIS should be very attractive.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Great idea from Jim but he then goes and falls into the same trap as most do: That the camera must be pocketable. This becomes the kiss of death for the true compact-rockets.

Maybe he should look at a Ricoh GRIII?

It is hard to fit any camera with a lens mount into any pocket except perhaps big coats worn in cold countries - even then this cuts out for summer use.

Then there is the need to curtail the versatility of such a camera by only fitting a limited range of exceptionally small lenses to it.

If this is the formula then such a camera is dead in the water before it even gets to the shops.

Small camera? ... huh. Fits in pocket? ... huh. Tiny lenses only? ... huh ... has to be cheap for such a small camera of such limited use, my RX100 does this and it has a super-diddly zoom as well. End of story. Otherwise: make it cheap and sell it as entry level for new m4/3 converts. That is exactly what happens as the end result of all previous attempts to make a very capable tiny camera for the M4/3 mount. And yet “big” camera bodies sell - they appear to be better value simply because you get more camera bulk and features for your money.

Making quality into a tiny camera body could not be a cheap exercise.

Now what might work? It is the realisation that the GM5 was and is a very capable very small systems camera. The body is only a pack of cards larger than the lens it is attached to. Very much smaller than the usual accepted single camera body that we all accept as “a proper camera”. It can be very small with a very small lens, but with any lens it is a much smaller outfit. Whatever bag you need to carry it in will be a very much smaller bag than usual.

The GM series failed presumably because it was seen by far too many as a tiny pocketable camera only suitable for a small range of tiny lenses. If we cannot cast that impression aside then no matter how capable a camera is produce - make it small and it will fail unless it is vey cheap - then it will fail anyway as because it is cheap it will not be capable of competing with “free” mobile phone cameras (which are of course pocketable).

The GM5 was the result of a very obvious design brief. Make a camera body with all the necessary features for good stills photography but “you” can leave out all the features (user conveniences) that are not absolutely necessary to make such a camera work properly. Hence we get a tiny full systems camera body with all the necessary controls that is not obviously marketed to entry level use. Near perfect - only trouble it is so near perfect that those that own one are not likely to need another one until the present one breaks or otherwise wears out.

Sometimes known as “a hard act to follow”.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

The competition is too strong in the tiny cameras sector, eg the top phones and RX100s. A M43 ilc even with a small lens is too big while offering too little IQ advantage, since Olympus use old tech sensors. It's hard to see Olympus doing well. However, there's a chance it can succeed with a GR type of camera. With a M43 size sensor, it will be either smaller than the GR or it can have better dials or faster lens on a body with the same size as the GR. IBIS can also be better. Features can be better too if it can include a tilt screen, WR and/or a 35mm equiv lens. Make a better GR than the GR.

I suspect a 35mm equivalent lens will make it too large and also compromised in quality in a GR sized camera. It should be more practical to make it a 28mm equivalent but with f2. I will be very happy with that, if it is sharp, and have a quick crop mode to give me 35mm. So, yeah, a camera having all the GR features but also WR, tilt screen, and also effective IBIS should be very attractive.

There you go - already designed to be too large for a pocket.

The Ricoh GRIII sells into a tiny niche market that Ricoh “owns” there is no room for another and Ricoh does its “GR” very well. The GM5 was a Ricoh GR size body that not only included a full systems mount but also a quite usable evf. The GR needs to pack a collapsed lens into its body and that has required the flash unit to be left out (like the GM5) to save a few square millimetres of bulk - but this does not extend to including a useable evf. Big issue with me these days as I am comfortable with my GM5 evf.

If Panasonic (or Olympus) went the GRIII way they would either crush the GR or have their own version crushed. Ricoh is a very large company and are proud of their remaining GR model foot in the camera business door - it would be hard to crush by something coming from the M4/3 neck of the woods. They would probably sell them at a loss to prove it. Ask Nikon about their “A” debacle.

It also fails the “serious user” test - tilt screen instead of evf and you are getting into “casual user” and casual users are not going to pay the entry price for a tiny camera aimed at enthusiasts. GRIII users are enthusiasts and will forgive Ricoh almost everything, even the price.

Catch-22 - the GM replacement is very unlikely to happen until the GM1 and GM5 cameras in circulation simultaneously reach their use-by date at which point there will be a sizeable bunch of the converted wanting to have Another one just like they had loved for so many years before.

 

[n3eg]

Great idea from Jim but he then goes and falls into the same trap as most do: That the camera must be pocketable. This becomes the kiss of death for the true compact-rockets.

The GM series failed presumably because it was seen by far too many as a tiny pocketable camera only suitable for a small range of tiny lenses. If we cannot cast that impression aside then no matter how capable a camera is produce - make it small and it will fail unless it is vey cheap - then it will fail anyway as because it is cheap it will not be capable of competing with “free” mobile phone cameras (which are of course pocketable).

And it also failed because it was a good second camera, but never a first camera.

 

[Xcelent]

The competition is too strong in the tiny cameras sector, eg the top phones and RX100s. A M43 ilc even with a small lens is too big while offering too little IQ advantage, since Olympus use old tech sensors. It's hard to see Olympus doing well. However, there's a chance it can succeed with a GR type of camera. With a M43 size sensor, it will be either smaller than the GR or it can have better dials or faster lens on a body with the same size as the GR. IBIS can also be better. Features can be better too if it can include a tilt screen, WR and/or a 35mm equiv lens. Make a better GR than the GR.

I suspect a 35mm equivalent lens will make it too large and also compromised in quality in a GR sized camera. It should be more practical to make it a 28mm equivalent but with f2. I will be very happy with that, if it is sharp, and have a quick crop mode to give me 35mm. So, yeah, a camera having all the GR features but also WR, tilt screen, and also effective IBIS should be very attractive.

There you go - already designed to be too large for a pocket.

The Ricoh GRIII sells into a tiny niche market that Ricoh “owns” there is no room for another and Ricoh does its “GR” very well. The GM5 was a Ricoh GR size body that not only included a full systems mount but also a quite usable evf. The GR needs to pack a collapsed lens into its body and that has required the flash unit to be left out (like the GM5) to save a few square millimetres of bulk - but this does not extend to including a useable evf. Big issue with me these days as I am comfortable with my GM5 evf.

If Panasonic (or Olympus) went the GRIII way they would either crush the GR or have their own version crushed. Ricoh is a very large company and are proud of their remaining GR model foot in the camera business door - it would be hard to crush by something coming from the M4/3 neck of the woods. They would probably sell them at a loss to prove it. Ask Nikon about their “A” debacle.

Olympus should be able to crush the GR IMO, if it want. Olympus has an advantage in size and probably also in cost. A M43 sensor (already in use in other Olympus cameras) probably cost Olympus less than Ricoh's sensor in the GR, since Olympus still sells more cameras than Ricoh/Pentax and therefore should have ordered in larger quantities. A smaller M43 sensor means it's possible to make the camera smaller or better, given more space flexibility. For street shooters, the small difference between M43 and APSC sensor performance is not as important as capturing the moment. A faster lens can help to do that. The extra space gained with the smaller sensor can let Olympus put in a faster lens. Even f/2.5 is good. I think it would be nice to have a tilt screen, as it is good for candids or street. It would be a good differentiating feature. WR is also a nice differentiating feature. Olympus also has a better IBIS. The main challenge seems to me to be in the user interface, and Ricoh GR is the best there, at this time.

It also fails the “serious user” test - tilt screen instead of evf and you are getting into “casual user” and casual users are not going to pay the entry price for a tiny camera aimed at enthusiasts. GRIII users are enthusiasts and will forgive Ricoh almost everything, even the price.

Catch-22 - the GM replacement is very unlikely to happen until the GM1 and GM5 cameras in circulation simultaneously reach their use-by date at which point there will be a sizeable bunch of the converted wanting to have Another one just like they had loved for so many years before.

 

[cba_melbourne]

Great idea from Jim but he then goes and falls into the same trap as most do: That the camera must be pocketable. This becomes the kiss of death for the true compact-rockets.

The GM series failed presumably because it was seen by far too many as a tiny pocketable camera only suitable for a small range of tiny lenses. If we cannot cast that impression aside then no matter how capable a camera is produce - make it small and it will fail unless it is vey cheap - then it will fail anyway as because it is cheap it will not be capable of competing with “free” mobile phone cameras (which are of course pocketable).

And it also failed because it was a good second camera, but never a first camera.

The GM5 was/is the best "second camera" there is. But too few users were prepared to spend $US1k on a second body. Most use their "free" previous camera for this, after upgrading to the latest and best.

 

[cba_melbourne]

The competition is too strong in the tiny cameras sector, eg the top phones and RX100s. A M43 ilc even with a small lens is too big while offering too little IQ advantage, since Olympus use old tech sensors. It's hard to see Olympus doing well....

This is very true. The latest phone generation is now seriously beginning to eat into entry level m43.

The GM5 however never was (and still today isn't) an entry level camera.

 

[Xcelent]

The competition is too strong in the tiny cameras sector, eg the top phones and RX100s. A M43 ilc even with a small lens is too big while offering too little IQ advantage, since Olympus use old tech sensors. It's hard to see Olympus doing well. However, there's a chance it can succeed with a GR type of camera. With a M43 size sensor, it will be either smaller than the GR or it can have better dials or faster lens on a body with the same size as the GR. IBIS can also be better. Features can be better too if it can include a tilt screen, WR and/or a 35mm equiv lens. Make a better GR than the GR.

I suspect a 35mm equivalent lens will make it too large and also compromised in quality in a GR sized camera. It should be more practical to make it a 28mm equivalent but with f2. I will be very happy with that, if it is sharp, and have a quick crop mode to give me 35mm. So, yeah, a camera having all the GR features but also WR, tilt screen, and also effective IBIS should be very attractive.

There you go - already designed to be too large for a pocket.

The Ricoh GRIII sells into a tiny niche market that Ricoh “owns” there is no room for another and Ricoh does its “GR” very well. The GM5 was a Ricoh GR size body that not only included a full systems mount but also a quite usable evf. The GR needs to pack a collapsed lens into its body and that has required the flash unit to be left out (like the GM5) to save a few square millimetres of bulk - but this does not extend to including a useable evf. Big issue with me these days as I am comfortable with my GM5 evf.

If Panasonic (or Olympus) went the GRIII way they would either crush the GR or have their own version crushed. Ricoh is a very large company and are proud of their remaining GR model foot in the camera business door - it would be hard to crush by something coming from the M4/3 neck of the woods. They would probably sell them at a loss to prove it. Ask Nikon about their “A” debacle.

Olympus should be able to crush the GR IMO, if it want. Olympus has an advantage in size and probably also in cost. A M43 sensor (already in use in other Olympus cameras) probably cost Olympus less than Ricoh's sensor in the GR, since Olympus still sells more cameras than Ricoh/Pentax and therefore should have ordered in larger quantities. A smaller M43 sensor means it's possible to make the camera smaller or better, given more space flexibility. For street shooters, the small difference between M43 and APSC sensor performance is not as important as capturing the moment. A faster lens can help to do that. The extra space gained with the smaller sensor can let Olympus put in a faster lens. Even f/2.5 is good. I think it would be nice to have a tilt screen, as it is good for candids or street. It would be a good differentiating feature. WR is also a nice differentiating feature. Olympus also has a better IBIS. The main challenge seems to me to be in the user interface, and Ricoh GR is the best there, at this time.

It also fails the “serious user” test - tilt screen instead of evf and you are getting into “casual user” and casual users are not going to pay the entry price for a tiny camera aimed at enthusiasts. GRIII users are enthusiasts and will forgive Ricoh almost everything, even the price.

Catch-22 - the GM replacement is very unlikely to happen until the GM1 and GM5 cameras in circulation simultaneously reach their use-by date at which point there will be a sizeable bunch of the converted wanting to have Another one just like they had loved for so many years before.

A fixed lens special purpose camera should be easier to sell than a GM1 or GM5, as it does not need one to change systems or buy new lenses. A smiliar camera to the GR made with Pentax mount would not be of interest to most. So, I would forget any GM7 or any E-PM4.

 

[Sergey Borachev]

The competition is too strong in the tiny cameras sector, eg the top phones and RX100s. A M43 ilc even with a small lens is too big while offering too little IQ advantage, since Olympus use old tech sensors. It's hard to see Olympus doing well. However, there's a chance it can succeed with a GR type of camera. With a M43 size sensor, it will be either smaller than the GR or it can have better dials or faster lens on a body with the same size as the GR. IBIS can also be better. Features can be better too if it can include a tilt screen, WR and/or a 35mm equiv lens. Make a better GR than the GR.

I suspect a 35mm equivalent lens will make it too large and also compromised in quality in a GR sized camera. It should be more practical to make it a 28mm equivalent but with f2. I will be very happy with that, if it is sharp, and have a quick crop mode to give me 35mm. So, yeah, a camera having all the GR features but also WR, tilt screen, and also effective IBIS should be very attractive.

There you go - already designed to be too large for a pocket.

The Ricoh GRIII sells into a tiny niche market that Ricoh “owns” there is no room for another and Ricoh does its “GR” very well. The GM5 was a Ricoh GR size body that not only included a full systems mount but also a quite usable evf. The GR needs to pack a collapsed lens into its body and that has required the flash unit to be left out (like the GM5) to save a few square millimetres of bulk - but this does not extend to including a useable evf. Big issue with me these days as I am comfortable with my GM5 evf.

If Panasonic (or Olympus) went the GRIII way they would either crush the GR or have their own version crushed. Ricoh is a very large company and are proud of their remaining GR model foot in the camera business door - it would be hard to crush by something coming from the M4/3 neck of the woods. They would probably sell them at a loss to prove it. Ask Nikon about their “A” debacle.

Olympus should be able to crush the GR IMO, if it want. Olympus has an advantage in size and probably also in cost. A M43 sensor (already in use in other Olympus cameras) probably cost Olympus less than Ricoh's sensor in the GR, since Olympus still sells more cameras than Ricoh/Pentax and therefore should have ordered in larger quantities. A smaller M43 sensor means it's possible to make the camera smaller or better, given more space flexibility. For street shooters, the small difference between M43 and APSC sensor performance is not as important as capturing the moment. A faster lens can help to do that. The extra space gained with the smaller sensor can let Olympus put in a faster lens. Even f/2.5 is good. I think it would be nice to have a tilt screen, as it is good for candids or street. It would be a good differentiating feature. WR is also a nice differentiating feature. Olympus also has a better IBIS. The main challenge seems to me to be in the user interface, and Ricoh GR is the best there, at this time.

It also fails the “serious user” test - tilt screen instead of evf and you are getting into “casual user” and casual users are not going to pay the entry price for a tiny camera aimed at enthusiasts. GRIII users are enthusiasts and will forgive Ricoh almost everything, even the price.

Catch-22 - the GM replacement is very unlikely to happen until the GM1 and GM5 cameras in circulation simultaneously reach their use-by date at which point there will be a sizeable bunch of the converted wanting to have Another one just like they had loved for so many years before.

A fixed lens special purpose camera should be easier to sell than a GM1 or GM5, as it does not need one to change systems or buy new lenses. A smiliar camera to the GR made with Pentax mount would not be of interest to most. So, I would forget any GM7 or any E-PM4.

Agree on all points. I think Olympus should name this new camera XA-5.

 

[Sergey Borachev]

The competition is too strong in the tiny cameras sector, eg the top phones and RX100s. A M43 ilc even with a small lens is too big while offering too little IQ advantage, since Olympus use old tech sensors. It's hard to see Olympus doing well....

This is very true. The latest phone generation is now seriously beginning to eat into entry level m43.

The GM5 however never was (and still today isn't) an entry level camera.

The Olympus XA-5 I am thinking of won't be an entry level camera. It will be an enthusiast camera costing around $999, I think. Given how much the RX100 and GR III cost, that should not be a big problem, as long as Olympus can make it better than the GR.

 

[tenthwashfree]

Fixed Lens Olympus Tough with M4/3 sensor. A tough Richoh GR with Pen F colour and BW profiles and IBIS that does not overheat. Take Anwhere without worry.

 

[Adam-T]

an Up to date EP with built in EVF - so an EPL11 / EP6 pair with 20Mp and the EP6 having an EVF in would do the trick, doesn`t need to be as poncey as the PEN-F, just an EP5 style with an EVF in ....

make both cams EPL size too , any smaller and I fear the IBIS would be compromised and bring back the screw on grip from the EPL5 , you get to choose whether you want it or not and even what size of grip , they could make one really deep as an option

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[Sergey Borachev]

Fixed Lens Olympus Tough with M4/3 sensor. A tough Richoh GR with Pen F colour and BW profiles and IBIS that does not overheat. Take Anwhere without worry.

Good point about fixing the overheating problem in the GR III. Also need to fix GR's poor battery life problem. Using a smaller sensor than the GR should mean less power consumption or longer battery life. The smaller sensor also should mean less heat generated by the IBIS as well as less heat from the processor (less work for it to do), if everything like body size being the same.

It seems the GR has hit a performance plateau. It can't provide new features that are now demanded by users, eg stabilisation and higher MP, and still maintain the same small size without sacrificing some features like the built-in flash (which was in the older GR models) and without heating or battery life issues. A M43 size 20MP sensor could be the answer going forward.

 

[tenthwashfree]

nobody makes a larger sensor tough, a crush proof water resistant GR with fixed lens, throw it in the bag and take anywhere, with pen colour profiles too

 

[Day Hiker]

My preference for an auxiliary camera is the opposite - go bigger - i.e. an FF Fixed lense with 35mm F2.0 Lense. This would be not much bigger than a PEN-F with a Pro prime on it in my limited estimation considering how small sony and Nikon mirrorless FF are. Integrated lenses can have some size reduction. Olympus will have my money.

Interesting idea because Olympus patented a number of FF lens designs a few short years back. A fixed-lens FF (not µ4/3) makes some sense because Olympus does not have to design a system of lenses around it. I'm interested!


Jim Pilcher
Bonita Springs, Florida, USA
Life is a breeze by the sea

 

[Marty4650]

Great idea from Jim but he then goes and falls into the same trap as most do: That the camera must be pocketable. This becomes the kiss of death for the true compact-rockets.

The GM series failed presumably because it was seen by far too many as a tiny pocketable camera only suitable for a small range of tiny lenses. If we cannot cast that impression aside then no matter how capable a camera is produce - make it small and it will fail unless it is vey cheap - then it will fail anyway as because it is cheap it will not be capable of competing with “free” mobile phone cameras (which are of course pocketable).

And it also failed because it was a good second camera, but never a first camera.

The GM5 was/is the best "second camera" there is. But too few users were prepared to spend $US1k on a second body. Most use their "free" previous camera for this, after upgrading to the latest and best.

I never had a GM5, but I loved my GM1 but gifted it to my wife the day I realized I had too many cameras (EM1, EM5, GM1, GX85, and LX100). She uses it a lot, and I will admit she takes better photos than I ever did with it.

I think your take is absolutely right. The GM1/GM5 was a great second camera for some high end M4/3 enthusiast. There was nothing cheap about it. Well made, well balanced and priced accordingly at $800/$900 when first released. It was essentially a miniaturized Panasonic GX7 (itself a very high end camera at the time) minus several nice but not necessary features.

Just remember that the entire M4/3 market is a very small part of the overall market, and the demand for a GM (or even for the Olympus EPM) models were "a small niche within a small niche."

I think the GM series succeeded in being the perfect second camera, but was a commercial failure because there simply aren't enough people willing to pay a premium price for a high end small camera. Even Tom Caldwell, who is widely known as a GM proponent didn't buy them at full list price. But he sure did scoop up every copy he could get his hands on when the price was cut in half. And who could blame him? :-D

The problem is a camera cannot be a financial success if the maker needs to cut the price in half to start moving them in quantity. At best, it becomes a break even proposition, and those never sustain a corporation for very long.

There are some people who would pay $1,200 for an updated GM7. In effect, the same camera with the latest sensor, processing engine, and better EVF and LCD screen. For me at least, it would make more sense than a $1,200 Pen-F does. The problem is that there just aren't enough people who would pay that much for it.

Most of us would want a GM7 for the price of a GF10. And that will never happen.

--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/

 

[bobn2]

Great idea from Jim but he then goes and falls into the same trap as most do: That the camera must be pocketable. This becomes the kiss of death for the true compact-rockets.

Maybe he should look at a Ricoh GRIII?

It is hard to fit any camera with a lens mount into any pocket except perhaps big coats worn in cold countries - even then this cuts out for summer use.

Then there is the need to curtail the versatility of such a camera by only fitting a limited range of exceptionally small lenses to it.

If this is the formula then such a camera is dead in the water before it even gets to the shops.

Small camera? ... huh. Fits in pocket? ... huh. Tiny lenses only? ... huh ... has to be cheap for such a small camera of such limited use, my RX100 does this and it has a super-diddly zoom as well. End of story. Otherwise: make it cheap and sell it as entry level for new m4/3 converts. That is exactly what happens as the end result of all previous attempts to make a very capable tiny camera for the M4/3 mount. And yet “big” camera bodies sell - they appear to be better value simply because you get more camera bulk and features for your money.

I think that the point is, the option of tiny lenses on a tiny body. Put tiny lenses on a big body and you don't have a tiny package, and a tiny package demands that both the lens and body be tiny. At least with the tiny body, you can have tiny when you want, and when you want something else you can fit a bigger lens without needing a big body just for the big things. As for what 'seems' to be better value, I think it's about marketing. The tendency has always been to market small cameras as toys, or sometimes, in a rather sexist way, as women's cameras. It doesn't have to be like that. Olympus success as a camera company is about selling high quality cameras smaller than the competition, and convincing the market that they weren't losing anything for the small size. Think OM-1.

As to whether an interchangeable lens precludes a camera being tiny, I wouldn't think so. It restricts what can be done with the lens design, by restricting its diameter in some key locations and not allow it to come close to the sensor plane, but I don't think that means no tiny lenses, just restricts their specification a bit.

Making quality into a tiny camera body could not be a cheap exercise.

I also don't think that it's obvious that there is a cost penalty for quality in a small package. The materials cost is smaller, and I can't see what would cost more, except perhaps that the small size might require non-standard components such as shutters and the like.

Now what might work? It is the realisation that the GM5 was and is a very capable very small systems camera. The body is only a pack of cards larger than the lens it is attached to. Very much smaller than the usual accepted single camera body that we all accept as “a proper camera”. It can be very small with a very small lens, but with any lens it is a much smaller outfit. Whatever bag you need to carry it in will be a very much smaller bag than usual.

The GM series failed presumably because it was seen by far too many as a tiny pocketable camera only suitable for a small range of tiny lenses. If we cannot cast that impression aside then no matter how capable a camera is produce - make it small and it will fail unless it is vey cheap - then it will fail anyway as because it is cheap it will not be capable of competing with “free” mobile phone cameras (which are of course pocketable).

The GM5 was the result of a very obvious design brief. Make a camera body with all the necessary features for good stills photography but “you” can leave out all the features (user conveniences) that are not absolutely necessary to make such a camera work properly. Hence we get a tiny full systems camera body with all the necessary controls that is not obviously marketed to entry level use. Near perfect - only trouble it is so near perfect that those that own one are not likely to need another one until the present one breaks or otherwise wears out.

Sometimes known as “a hard act to follow”.

I think the big issue with tiny cameras is the viewfinder. Most serious photographers want a good quality eye-level finder. Sony manages to fit one is some very small cameras, so I don't think that's undoable.