If Not a New Pen F Then What?

[Skeeterbytes]

I'd like such a critter and suspect there's no market to back me up for providing one. Oly discovered on creating the OM-D system that the majority of people buying discrete cameras want them to "look like cameras" and that cements the mini-SLR as the standard to follow. Just look at the evolution of their product mix since February 2012.

Pocketability is basically irrelevant to sales in ILC-world. When's the last time we saw a new pancake m4/3 lens?

Cheers,

Rick

 

[faunagraphy]

IMO there's already a good variety of form factors in m43. Everything from the G9 to ... anyone still remember Olympus Air?

What we are lacking is affordable telephoto primes. Something like a 400mm f5.6 or 500mm f5.6 under $2,000 would be a real blessing. It doesn't have to be as sophisticated as the 300mm Pro.

 

[bobn2]

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.

A fixed lens camera isn't a micro Four Thirds camera, by definition, and therefore outside the remit of this forum.

 

[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.

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.

That could be marketed as a "Lens Cap Camera"

 

[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....

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.

You are looking at a tiny niche market and one might wonder why the “tiny” Olympus Corporation might want to stare down “very large” Ricoh Corporation when Ricoh already saw off the challenge from the “100% camera manufacturer” Nikon with their “A” and left the “reasonable sized” Corporation licking the wounds so much that they have never tried again.

Basically there was nothing wrong with the Nikon A but to succeed it had to win over the rusted in Ricoh users. Ricoh made sure that there was no financial incentive for their fans to desert to Nikon as the price of the GR was pretty keen and every price reduction of the Nikon A was met with a corresponding one from Ricoh until there was no need to take it further as the A was no longer profitable and so Nikon took a fire sale and looked elsewhere in the future.

There is no reason why Ricoh would not again defend its patch and the only users who might buy your projected “XA-5” would be rusted in Olympus acolytes who would not alone be in the numbers necessary to make such a venture possible.

If Olympus could not find the market good enough for the fine Pen-F to continue the money-bleed then chances are that they would not succeed with the XA-5 either.

If Olympus buyers are rusted in to “my company or the highway” we must also realise that Ricoh fans are just as loyal to their chosen camera supplier and are never unlikely to swap just because it is an Olympus. Ricoh might only treat the camera business as a hobby but Olympus is far more on the financial edge than Ricoh might be and as a result need more “ignore” by other manufacturers than make viral enemies fighting over a niche product market.

No matter how good the camera might be Olympus could not win if Ricoh decided to contest the issue.

Don’t forget that Ricoh has has spent donkeys years developing and refining the GRD/GR concept and “we” think that Olympus could research, develop, tool up for and sell a product that would sweep the niche from under Ricoh’s feet in so many months? Well before Olympus had developed this “cracker” camera for release Ricoh would have upped the ante and their next even more highly specified model would be ready for release and hit he market running.

That “I and my best friend” might buy an XA-5 is not a guaranteed crowd funding.

Any company that decided to take on Panasonic directly on its “GM type” patch would quickly bring on a similar response from Panasonic who might rightfully now consider the GM-type as their niche product. Panasonic may be only resting The “GM” and that might become “forever” but any opposition has a huge hurdle to overcome that is known as R&D and required specialised tooling to do so. Therefore any hint that Panasonic’s mothballed patch was going to be infiltrated would bring forward any plans for re-introduction of the GM and such product would only take a fraction of the effort any newcomer might have to make - so the product could be launched cheaper and quicker than any opposition could get there.

So “go your hardest” to any opposition - Panasonic might not think it quite worth their time but if they did decide to contest it the result would be bloody for any competitor that did not have very deep pockets.

Happy days for Olympus fans if Olympus dared but it could be that such cheap-priced product might be the last straw.

 

[Henry Richardson]

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!

Back in the film days I had the Olympus Stylus (mju) 35mm f3.5 bought in 1992 and Epic (mju II) 35mm f2.8 bought in 1996 that were tiny 35mm cameras. I still have both packed away in the States. I also have the larger Olympus Infinity Twin that I bought in 1986 that has 2 lenses: 35mm f3.5 and 70mm f6.3 -- not a zoom -- and it was weatherproof.

Olympus Infinity Twin

https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Olympus_AF-1_Twin

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Wise words Marty and you read my mind well. I would not have bought them at the release prices and thereby is the financial rub.

But I do draw the line at them being considered “second cameras” they are my “first cameras” and make more sense when they are seen a multiple cameras each with their own lenses and therefore eliminate changing lenses in the field - which they can do admirably after the style of the professional photographers who have not been shy of using multiple dslr “cameras” when on assignment and changing lenses is a significant chore. Just change cameras - this is the role that the size of the GM5 fit admirably. Of course the amateur photographic world is not yet ready for this and the GM5 as a camera is relegated to second sting backup and if you carry a larger camera body by rote then why have a second string - just carry a few extra lenses and swap them. Then the GM5 come up against the last line of defence - pocketability - and of course then fails miserably. It is in fact an excellent all round camera for serious use being sold into a perceived idiom that can only see and accept restricted types of use.

My second cameras are legion - lets see GX7 and derivatives and G9. I use them where appropriate and more when they will be more comfortable to use for extended periods with larger lenses. I even have an S1 these days but only for the extended use of Canon EF mount lenses which of course can also be used for less extended periods of use and quite happily on M4/3 bodies including my first choice cameras - the GM5.

So if there are no further GM5 I remain as happy as the pig in the sty with my very capable GM5 camera bodies in the sure knowledge that I probably could not afford to replace them body by body with such an upgrade camera body.

 

[Raist3d]

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.

I think you hard this before from me but I find this reason extremely weak. First because GM1 / GM5 have had problems with their rear wheels. Second because they are quite clearly at this point dated, and for many there's a lot of people that would love a more modern version of them.

In fact, you can make the case that people have been "upgrading" to GX9, Fuji X-A, Fuji X-E3, Olympus EPL9/10 - simply because they are more modern and is the closest to small they can have. Obviously not the same thing - but then

I think simply put, it seems that the ultra compact camera like these, to my chagrin, doesn't get taken seriously by the market. So it doesn't sell enough.

I think there may be a marketing challenge that could be overcome here, but that seems to be the fundamental issue.

--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Thanks for a very thoughtful post.

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.

Agreed, but I tend to think that they play to the market perception - that the market will not yet pay good money for anything that small. Maybe the RX100 may eventually change this. But I would hazard an opinion that it might be quite “niche” as well.

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.

I really think that the M4/3 consortium should play harder the fact that smaller camera bodies are an area that they could do well in. Unfortunately the camera as a status symbol still has to be fairly large and look like a faux dslr. Of course some of us don’t care for the status and are quite comfortable in our photographer’s skin.

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.

Smaller packed tighter (design and assembly) and more effort needed to keep the user interface acceptable. This is where the GM1/5 benefits greatly from such a well designed touch screen interface. Build materials - probably little difference between any camera no matter what size it is. Therefore make the camera body three times as large and charge twice as much for it and the buyer thinks it a bargain.

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.

I am a serious photographer and find that the evf in the GM5 is more than acceptable to the point that I could argue that the need for ever larger and brighter evf units might be a symptom of the less serious photographer. I find that all I need is an evf to check focus and compose which for my own style of photography happens very quickly on most occasions. Some landscape situations might take longer for precision but I fail to fully recognise just how long we need to agonise over “the view” when all we need to know is that it is suitable to record and wait for the camera to catch permanently the view that was only temporary.

The evf is not a substitute for a monocular.

 

[april fox]

The Sony RX100 series with a iphone in the pocket just blow the opposition away,

As for the Fuji EX series they are a big camera in comparison once coupled with a lens which are designed for their XT series, their 18mm and 27 mm don't count as there is no progress there

ps I own a overpriced Pen F but that's because I enjoy using it , there are far more practical cameras on the market but I just didn't enjoy them and that includes the OM series

 

[cba_melbourne]

I just checked the dpreview "I own it" statements for some models. Not necessarily representative, but gives an approximate idea how good or bad certain models sell/sold to enthusiasts (assuming that all members of dpreview would qualify as enthusiasts):

EM1.1 - 2212 say 'I own it"

EM5.1 - 1838

EM1.2 - 1205

EM5.2 - 1066

EM10.1 - 788

EM10.2 - 551

Pen-F - 468

GM1 - 393

GM5 - 292

EM10.3 - 146

EM1.3 - 123

EPL-7 - 122

EM5.3 - 112

TG6 Tough - 52

EPL-8 - 24

EPL-9 - 15

 

[Franz Weber]

What I want is a Stylus 1 with the internals of the EM1.3 or EM5.3, but tailored as a compact zoom camera.

The lens could be a motorized collapsible 12-45 Zuiko Pro lens, IBIS, inbuilt flash, QI wireless charging, hasslefree wireless image transfer, HEVEC and HEIF formats, weather sealed, tilting display.

 

[Harold66]

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.

There are many silly suggestions in this thread already but this is easily the worst one

Producing a camera with a 35mm sensor for Olympus would amount at shooting themselves in the foot . Before you know and regardless of the sales of such model, you would have even more whiners asking for Olympus to move to the already crowded 35mm sensor

I hope they are never foolish enough to consider going this road :-|

 

[Harold66]

Thanks for a very thoughtful post.

or

Hello Tom

First I have to admit that after reading your hundreds of posts on the GM cameras , I did not think that I would disagree so much with the things you wrote on this thread

Agreed, but I tend to think that they play to the market perception - that the market will not yet pay good money for anything that small. Maybe the RX100 may eventually change this.

Eventually ? the sales of the rx100 already prove that this perception is grossly inaccurate

But I would hazard an opinion that it might be quite “niche” as well.

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.

I really think that the M4/3 consortium should play harder the fact that smaller camera bodies are an area that they could do well in. Unfortunately the camera as a status symbol still has to be fairly large and look like a faux dslr.

No again there are several manufacturers that produce camera without the hump and in fact the so called rangefinder look is probably more popular that it ever was in this digital age

quire non-standard components such as shutters and the like.

Smaller packed tighter (design and assembly) and more effort needed to keep the user interface acceptable. This is where the GM1/5 benefits greatly from such a well designed touch screen interface.

Here is the rub. Not everybody who wants a serious camera want to have a touch screen designed camera

One of the main reasons that the gm1 and gm5 did not succeed as well as they could is that their design was sending a mix message

Build materials - probably little difference between any camera no matter what size it is. Therefore make the camera body three times as large and charge twice as much for it and the buyer thinks it a bargain.

partially true but exaggerated

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.

T

I am a serious photographer and find that the evf in the GM5 is more than acceptable to the point that I could argue that the need for ever larger and brighter evf units might be a symptom of the less serious photographer.

Really ? this seems like a very narrow-minded statement :-x. I guess me and hundreds of thousands photographers are just not as serious as a photographer than you are :-O

. Some landscape situations might take longer for precision but I fail to fully recognise just how long we need to agonise over “the view” when all we need to know is that it is suitable to record and wait for the camera to catch permanently the view that was only temporary.

the last sentence is both pompous and when read carefully makes no sense whatsoever:-O

The evf is not a substitute for a monocular.

I never heard that one before:-D

 

[bobn2]

Thanks for a very thoughtful post.

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.

Agreed, but I tend to think that they play to the market perception - that the market will not yet pay good money for anything that small. Maybe the RX100 may eventually change this. But I would hazard an opinion that it might be quite “niche” as well.

I think the market tends to segment. Surely, there is the part of it that inextractibly thinks that 'good' equals 'big', but micro Four Thirds really shouldn't be playing to that market, it is not playing to its strengths. There has always been a segment that will pay premium prices for 'small and precision'. The Minox cameras in film days were an example. They aren't ever going to dominate, but this is really about finding niches and filling them.

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.

I really think that the M4/3 consortium should play harder the fact that smaller camera bodies are an area that they could do well in.

Remember that the 'consortium' doesn't really share any common marketing strategy. They haven't even managed full inter-operability in AF and IS systems. It's really just a name for Olympus' licensees. So it's not something that's likely to see a common push - it is something that inidividual mFT companies will pursue if they want. This one is a conch carried by Panasonic, but somewhat abandoned. Maybe that's an opportunity for Olympus or one of the others that come and go to take it up. Xaiomi is a pretty big company, has the resources to develop something and has the mFT licences. Maybe it could step up and have a go.

Unfortunately the camera as a status symbol still has to be fairly large and look like a faux dslr. Of course some of us don’t care for the status and are quite comfortable in our photographer’s skin.

That's a pretty bling view of the status symbol thing. In fact, the whole 'camera as status symbol' thing doesn't work well at all. For the vast majority of the population, it's just a camera, whatever size. It's more about proness signalling to other photographers. 'I've got a huge camera so treat me as a pro.' But again, mFT is never going to sell much to those people (EMIX notwithstanding). I think a bit more clear minded product positioning is called for.

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.

Smaller packed tighter (design and assembly) and more effort needed to keep the user interface acceptable.

Yes, it requires more careful design, which might take some more design time, but won't result in much greater manufacturing cost.

This is where the GM1/5 benefits greatly from such a well designed touch screen interface. Build materials - probably little difference between any camera no matter what size it is. Therefore make the camera body three times as large and charge twice as much for it and the buyer thinks it a bargain.

You've put your finger on another issue - many photographers are very conservative about user interfaces. Just think about the continued re-invention of the shutter speed dial on top of the camera. Ergonomically that is a hopeless place to put the shutter speed. It only ended up there because it was where the speed control shaft came out on a rolling blind focal plane shutter. Olympus and Nikon both worked out a simple mechanism to put the control somewhere sensible on the OM-1 and Nikomat (it was actuially just a piece of cord and a pulley arrangement) but UI conservatism meant that it didn't catch on, and even with metal blade shutters the control stayed in that silly place. (as a not on this the Pen F, original film one, had a rotating blind shutter and it's shutter speed control was on the front plate, which works better than the top plate).

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.

I am a serious photographer

I did say 'most', not 'all'.

and find that the evf in the GM5 is more than acceptable to the point that I could argue that the need for ever larger and brighter evf units might be a symptom of the less serious photographer.

I'm not sure about that. I get on OK with the VF on my GX80, even though it's often derided, but the one on my Z6 is really much nicer. And there aren't many situations in which 'nicer' is worse, even if 'nastier' is acceptable.

I find that all I need is an evf to check focus and compose which for my own style of photography happens very quickly on most occasions. Some landscape situations might take longer for precision but I fail to fully recognise just how long we need to agonise over “the view” when all we need to know is that it is suitable to record and wait for the camera to catch permanently the view that was only temporary.

I think that composition is less taxing with a good, big, clear viewfinder.

The evf is not a substitute for a monocular.

What ho, Jeeves!

 

[rashid7]

"Olympus should be able to crush the GR"

I'm so tired of hearing the word "crush"!

And i think you greatly underestimate how good the GR is; especially for a pocket camera.

 

[Harold66]

"Olympus should be able to crush the GR"

I'm so tired of hearing the word "crush"!

Once again we are in agreement ;-)

All of these sentences like one camera would "crush" or "destroy" or "eat"

it is also people who only think in terms of competitions and that in order to thrive one must destroy the competition or something like that...

having MULTIPLE choices is ALWAYS better :-D. different people have different needs , priorities . If you got the camera system that works for you, why would one wish the other ones to disappear ? always a mystery to me

Sometimes I admit , I am tempted to think that people who have this kind of reasoning for cameras probably have the same narrow-mindedness for other things more important in life than cameras :-(

And i think you greatly underestimate how good the GR is; especially for a pocket camera.

yes although my own opinion on the latest version of the GR is likely very different from you and many other people :-O

Harold

 

[Belgarchi]

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

To beat without controversy compact cameras, we also need light, high quality, mid-level aperture lenses. It means an aperture of f/4.0 or f/3.4-4.8, not f/2.8 or f/5.6.

The new Olympus 12-45/4.0 is perfect for the wide-angle to small tele range. Now, we need compact and light 60-120/4 and 60-180/4.0 tele zooms.

 

[pattymeboy]

The mythical GX10

 

[Belgarchi]

What I want is a Stylus 1 with the internals of the EM1.3 or EM5.3, but tailored as a compact zoom camera.

The lens could be a motorized collapsible 12-45 Zuiko Pro lens, IBIS, inbuilt flash, QI wireless charging, hasslefree wireless image transfer, HEVEC and HEIF formats, weather sealed, tilting display.

The big plus of the Stylus 1s was is zoom, that was able to reach 300mm equivalent at f/2.8. What you suggest goes only to 90mm equivalent FF.....