Olympus should make better midrange options..

[String]

The E-M1 is not much bigger than most M43 bodies, it just has a larger grip. Compare it to a typical camera body (like most DSLRs) and it's quite small, and definitely compact.

I agree and it's the dumbest argument ever.

I have a friend who shoots NHL professionally with the Canon 1D. He was over the other night and he thinks the E-M1 is tiny. My son, who only uses his iPhone, thinks the E-M1 is huge. They are both right and they are both wrong, it's all about perspective.

 

[markus9]

In short, I agree.

But we are comparing just released cameras to older models (with the exception of gx9).

Wait til e-m5 III launches in the next 6 months or so. It’s not that long - no need to panic.

 

[kolyy]

Most people do not understand that chasing market share, especially in a shrinking market, is not a solid path to profitability. Margins are more critical now than ever, and developing cameras is an expensive undertaking -- even if the camera doesn't have a lot of new features.

I completely disagree. When the market will bottom out, only those manufacturers will survive, who will have enough market share to fund the development costs. Going for margins now is a grave error, in my opinion. Sony and Fuji saw the light a few years back, I think, and started to fight for market share. Canon and Nikon now strike back, trying to protect their large pieces of the pie.

Nikon actually has the same strategy as Olympus. They see that the reality is that the camera market is largely stagnant (meaning the units being shipped are not growing significantly). The way to profit is higher margin cameras. So you see that for their entry level they largely do minor refreshes. Most of their resources are focused on the more profitable FX cameras and protecting the market share there. They cut the size of their company to run more lean.

Great arguments, I'll try to counter. As for Nikon, it really seems like they invested little into the their APS-C line in the last couple of years. But they did introduce the D7500 just 1,5 years ago, which was more than just a cosmetic upgrade. More importantly, I think it is reasonably to assume that the Z-system gobbled most of their R&D budget in that timeframe.

If we are to believe Tom Hogan's insider sources, there was some fierce discussion inside Nikon whether to introduce mirrorless at high- or low-end first. They decided on FF and it will be extremely interesting to see what will they do next. Maybe you are right and they will gradually abandon the APS-C market. But given their enormous user base I find it pretty hard to believe. There are several other options - they might introduce APS-C MILC either on F-mount, or on Z-mount or move FF to entry level as well.

I am very curious to see what will happen, but I think it is a bit too early to declare they stopped serious development of their APS-C lineup.

I don't think they will abandon the APS-C line, just that it gets even less priority than it did before. They can keep offering the refreshed budget DSLRs indefinitely, and I do hope they will make a APS-C mirrorless. But for entry level APS-C body they probably won't put much effort into it. APS-C flagships (like the D500) they probably will still be interested in making, but it may only get tech trickled down from the FF cameras.

By abandoning I meant exactly what you say - offering mildly refreshed DSLRs indefinitely, or more precisely, until they still sell. That would not stop the bleeding, especially when it becomes apparent to everybody that the F-mount is legacy stuff with no real future.

if Nikon wants to keep its customer base, I see no other way than to pour some real money into it and develop a low end to midrange MILC products.

Meanwhile, Olympus and Panasonic only seem to develop high margin products without any effort to grab market share or at least protect the position of M43. Is their management idiotic? Or have they already given up.

While you can argue they aren't making a strong effort to grow market share, I don't think you can argue they aren't protecting the market share of M43. Both brands are employing the strategy of offering older cameras at good prices to hold on to market share: E-M10 II and E-M5 II still available at discounted prices, GX85 2 lens kit is a great deal and selling really well (#11 in Amazon).

Yes you are right, they defend the market share by lowering the prices of their existing cameras, especially in the case of Panasonic. My point was more about investing R&D and filtering down the technology from high-end to low-end. The very low end seems ok to me, actually. Where I see a hole is a step higher - the E-M10 III was a very mild refresh and the E-M5 III is missing in action. The GX9 was a mild refresh and the G90 is MIA. The technology package introduced by both manufacturers at the high end in 2016 was not reused in more mainstream products to this day.

I think E-M5 III is really the only one that is really overdue given the E-M5 II came out in early 2015. The GX9 was a reasonable refresh, especially for the price (a lot of people would be happy if G80/G85 had a similar refresh). The G80/G85 only came out late 2016 (plus G90/G95 is rumored).

The GX9 just reused the tilting EVF from the GX7 and the sensor from the GX8. Some really old stuff. It even led to a comeback of the inconvenient 1,25x crop in 4K. They barely used anything from the G9 (jpeg engine and menus?), first of all not the sensor+processor combo, which would allow for a fast e-shutter, no crop 4K (or even 4K/60p) and better video AF. No improved IBIS either, And most importantly, they did not address the most prevalent user complaints about the GX80/85 - the EVF and the grip (though not such a big deal for me). And they did not add the mic-jack either, which the competition has. Truly, the GX9 has only one strength now and that's the IBIS. But if you really care about that more than the rest, then you can just buy the GX80/85 for a much lower price.

I don't think the G90 is seriously rumored. I am pretty sure the G9 is the would be G90, just with an unsuccessful effort to push it higher. The problem is that it is conceptually wrong for a midrange M43 camera (too big), so price cuts, which are already ongoing, will not save it.

G90 like GX9? I hope not, what would be the point? What should Panasonic really do, in my opinion, is to introduce PDAF across the range as fast as possible, as everyone now knows that their AF in video sucks. And that hurts them big time, given their emphasis on video. The next best choice is to at least reuse the improvements in their flagships. And they should Implement 4K/60p throughout the lineup as well, like they did with 4K/30p, to have some significant advantage. It would be pretty funny if Fujifilm beat them with 4K/60p in a X-T30.

Also, my argument was not only about bodies. Both manufacturers poured a lot of R&D into developing premium priced lenses (Leica and PRO), while stopping any activity at the mainstream or low-end. These lenses were not positioned to capture market share at all.

I think this is more a reflection that there really aren't a lot of gaps in the lineup in the lower/mid end, the 12-60mm in 2016 pretty much filled in one. Olympus perhaps needs a successor to the 12-50mm. The premium lenses are the profit generators.

But those profit generators can only work if you are inside the M43 bubble.

 

[dinoSnake]

In short, I agree.

But we are comparing just released cameras to older models (with the exception of gx9).

Wait til e-m5 III launches in the next 6 months or so. It’s not that long - no need to panic.

It's already late. And 6 months means that they'll be missing the important, and very large, holiday selling season.

Let's hope they have/get a clue and either introduce the EM5III at Photokina, or at least show a mockup/prototype.

 

[kolyy]

In short, I agree.

But we are comparing just released cameras to older models (with the exception of gx9).

Wait til e-m5 III launches in the next 6 months or so. It’s not that long - no need to panic.

It's already late. And 6 months means that they'll be missing the important, and very large, holiday selling season.

Let's hope they have/get a clue and either introduce the EM5III at Photokina, or at least show a mockup/prototype.

Precisely. I had my doubts about it, but Fujifilm did that right, to announce the X-T3 immediately after the big boys were done. They appeared at the party when all the lights were on, they caught the attention, they showed they exist and that they are serious. I am pretty sure they immensely reinforced the loyalty of their customers in the face of the FF tide.

M43 did precisely the opposite - silence. M43 does not exist at the moment. The result is doubts of the users which we can see flourishing in this forum.

 

[JakeJY]

The E-M1 is not much bigger than most M43 bodies, it just has a larger grip. Compare it to a typical camera body (like most DSLRs) and it's quite small, and definitely compact.

I agree and it's the dumbest argument ever.

I have a friend who shoots NHL professionally with the Canon 1D. He was over the other night and he thinks the E-M1 is tiny. My son, who only uses his iPhone, thinks the E-M1 is huge. They are both right and they are both wrong, it's all about perspective.

Yeah, I once looked at the BestBuy display of M43 cameras. Everyone here seems to complain about the size of the E-M1 II and GH5, but seeing them in person next to DSLRs (even the smaller crop sensor ones) they really aren't big. They also are slimmer too (doesn't have the chunk from the mirror box).

So it's all relative.

 

[JakeJY]

I don't think they will abandon the APS-C line, just that it gets even less priority than it did before. They can keep offering the refreshed budget DSLRs indefinitely, and I do hope they will make a APS-C mirrorless. But for entry level APS-C body they probably won't put much effort into it. APS-C flagships (like the D500) they probably will still be interested in making, but it may only get tech trickled down from the FF cameras.

By abandoning I meant exactly what you say - offering mildly refreshed DSLRs indefinitely, or more precisely, until they still sell. That would not stop the bleeding, especially when it becomes apparent to everybody that the F-mount is legacy stuff with no real future.

if Nikon wants to keep its customer base, I see no other way than to pour some real money into it and develop a low end to midrange MILC products.

I think they will have a APS-C MILC, but it'll probably come with tech trickled down from the FF Z-mounts.

I think E-M5 III is really the only one that is really overdue given the E-M5 II came out in early 2015. The GX9 was a reasonable refresh, especially for the price (a lot of people would be happy if G80/G85 had a similar refresh). The G80/G85 only came out late 2016 (plus G90/G95 is rumored).

The GX9 just reused the tilting EVF from the GX7 and the sensor from the GX8. Some really old stuff. It even led to a comeback of the inconvenient 1,25x crop in 4K. They barely used anything from the G9 (jpeg engine and menus?), first of all not the sensor+processor combo, which would allow for a fast e-shutter, no crop 4K (or even 4K/60p) and better video AF. No improved IBIS either, And most importantly, they did not address the most prevalent user complaints about the GX80/85 - the EVF and the grip (though not such a big deal for me). And they did not add the mic-jack either, which the competition has. Truly, the GX9 has only one strength now and that's the IBIS. But if you really care about that more than the rest, then you can just buy the GX80/85 for a much lower price.

For me the biggest negative of the GX9 is the 1.25x 4K crop. Otherwise, the features (updated sensor, tilt EVF, more controls, higher res LCD, bluetooth, new JPEG engine and menu features) are welcome for the price with the bundled 12-60mm lens. They did address the grip issue by changing the thumb grip, and with a new official add-on grip (only negative is the battery access).

I don't think the G90 is seriously rumored. I am pretty sure the G9 is the would be G90, just with an unsuccessful effort to push it higher. The problem is that it is conceptually wrong for a midrange M43 camera (too big), so price cuts, which are already ongoing, will not save it.

Nope, from their CP+ display the G9 is a completely new line. They had different line for the G80/G85. While there was the trade in deal (also was available for GH5/GH5S previously), the regular discounts were only $200 for G9. So hard to judge (trade in deals are hard to track among competitors given not all retailers do camera trade-in; in particular Amazon doesn't and they are easiest to track discounts).

G90 like GX9? I hope not, what would be the point? What should Panasonic really do, in my opinion, is to introduce PDAF across the range as fast as possible, as everyone now knows that their AF in video sucks. And that hurts them big time, given their emphasis on video. The next best choice is to at least reuse the improvements in their flagships. And they should Implement 4K/60p throughout the lineup as well, like they did with 4K/30p, to have some significant advantage. It would be pretty funny if Fujifilm beat them with 4K/60p in a X-T30.

I've seen quite a few people who are considering the G80/G85 that just want one with the 20MP sensor (and perhaps a few of the latest software features). The G80/G85 was already pretty well speced (had all the ports, weather sealed, and even UHS II slots).

I don't think they will bother with PDAF for the entire range. DFD still has a lot of room for improvement. For video there are a decent amount of people who don't use continuous AF in the first place, especially as you get closer to the professionals. They just need to get to to good enough for casual use, which the latest firmware for G9 and GH5 is already there or pretty close. Eventually they will have to trickle this down the line (just like they did with DFD originally), but they don't need PDAF.

Also, my argument was not only about bodies. Both manufacturers poured a lot of R&D into developing premium priced lenses (Leica and PRO), while stopping any activity at the mainstream or low-end. These lenses were not positioned to capture market share at all.

I think this is more a reflection that there really aren't a lot of gaps in the lineup in the lower/mid end, the 12-60mm in 2016 pretty much filled in one. Olympus perhaps needs a successor to the 12-50mm. The premium lenses are the profit generators.

But those profit generators can only work if you are inside the M43 bubble.

Maybe, but all camera makers pretty much rely on the lens upgrade ladder and M43 did not have those options in the top end. It actually did stop some possible conquest sales (people who would have been forced to go to larger formats if the lenses did not exist).

 

[VBLondon]

The E-M1 is not much bigger than most M43 bodies, it just has a larger grip. Compare it to a typical camera body (like most DSLRs) and it's quite small, and definitely compact.

I agree and it's the dumbest argument ever.

I have a friend who shoots NHL professionally with the Canon 1D. He was over the other night and he thinks the E-M1 is tiny. My son, who only uses his iPhone, thinks the E-M1 is huge. They are both right and they are both wrong, it's all about perspective.

Yeah, I once looked at the BestBuy display of M43 cameras. Everyone here seems to complain about the size of the E-M1 II and GH5, but seeing them in person next to DSLRs (even the smaller crop sensor ones) they really aren't big. They also are slimmer too (doesn't have the chunk from the mirror box).

So it's all relative.

The comparison now is to other MILCs in APSC and FX formats. They are all a similar size to the M1.ii and G9.

That's fine, because for controls and handling and comfort with larger lenses etc, this is a good size for a camera, irrespective of sensor format.

If I were an m43 system user, I'd love to have one of those flagships. But I'd also want a high performing compact body too, to take full advantage of the smaller lenses in m43.

 

[kolyy]

I don't think they will abandon the APS-C line, just that it gets even less priority than it did before. They can keep offering the refreshed budget DSLRs indefinitely, and I do hope they will make a APS-C mirrorless. But for entry level APS-C body they probably won't put much effort into it. APS-C flagships (like the D500) they probably will still be interested in making, but it may only get tech trickled down from the FF cameras.

By abandoning I meant exactly what you say - offering mildly refreshed DSLRs indefinitely, or more precisely, until they still sell. That would not stop the bleeding, especially when it becomes apparent to everybody that the F-mount is legacy stuff with no real future.

if Nikon wants to keep its customer base, I see no other way than to pour some real money into it and develop a low end to midrange MILC products.

I think they will have a APS-C MILC, but it'll probably come with tech trickled down from the FF Z-mounts.

But they also have to introduce APS-C lenses, at least on Z-mount.

I think E-M5 III is really the only one that is really overdue given the E-M5 II came out in early 2015. The GX9 was a reasonable refresh, especially for the price (a lot of people would be happy if G80/G85 had a similar refresh). The G80/G85 only came out late 2016 (plus G90/G95 is rumored).

The GX9 just reused the tilting EVF from the GX7 and the sensor from the GX8. Some really old stuff. It even led to a comeback of the inconvenient 1,25x crop in 4K. They barely used anything from the G9 (jpeg engine and menus?), first of all not the sensor+processor combo, which would allow for a fast e-shutter, no crop 4K (or even 4K/60p) and better video AF. No improved IBIS either, And most importantly, they did not address the most prevalent user complaints about the GX80/85 - the EVF and the grip (though not such a big deal for me). And they did not add the mic-jack either, which the competition has. Truly, the GX9 has only one strength now and that's the IBIS. But if you really care about that more than the rest, then you can just buy the GX80/85 for a much lower price.

For me the biggest negative of the GX9 is the 1.25x 4K crop. Otherwise, the features (updated sensor, tilt EVF, more controls, higher res LCD, bluetooth, new JPEG engine and menu features) are welcome for the price with the bundled 12-60mm lens. They did address the grip issue by changing the thumb grip, and with a new official add-on grip (only negative is the battery access).

That's still just a very mild update. Look at previous versions, which brought IBIS, 4K or the EM shutter.

I don't think the G90 is seriously rumored. I am pretty sure the G9 is the would be G90, just with an unsuccessful effort to push it higher. The problem is that it is conceptually wrong for a midrange M43 camera (too big), so price cuts, which are already ongoing, will not save it.

Nope, from their CP+ display the G9 is a completely new line. They had different line for the G80/G85. While there was the trade in deal (also was available for GH5/GH5S previously), the regular discounts were only $200 for G9. So hard to judge (trade in deals are hard to track among competitors given not all retailers do camera trade-in; in particular Amazon doesn't and they are easiest to track discounts).

We'll see, let's hope you are right and there will be a G90. I am a bit sceptical though. I am very curious to see how much R&D is Panasonic diverting to their FF effort. That will be more clear in a few weeks and it might suggest how seriously they take M43 at this point.

G90 like GX9? I hope not, what would be the point? What should Panasonic really do, in my opinion, is to introduce PDAF across the range as fast as possible, as everyone now knows that their AF in video sucks. And that hurts them big time, given their emphasis on video. The next best choice is to at least reuse the improvements in their flagships. And they should Implement 4K/60p throughout the lineup as well, like they did with 4K/30p, to have some significant advantage. It would be pretty funny if Fujifilm beat them with 4K/60p in a X-T30.

I've seen quite a few people who are considering the G80/G85 that just want one with the 20MP sensor (and perhaps a few of the latest software features). The G80/G85 was already pretty well speced (had all the ports, weather sealed, and even UHS II slots).

Would these people want the 20Mpx sensor, even if it meant a significant crop in 4K? Were they aware of the poor AF in video? I agree that the G80/85 body is great, but it needs updated tech. I understand that "20Mpx" is an important marketing message, but it is not enough anymore, IMO. M43 is fighting a neverending uphill battle with its smaller sensor and thus the products can't have any more glaring weaknesses. That's the only strike they can efford, I think. Smaller sensor and poor video AF (Panasonic) or smaller sensor and poor AFC in general (Olympus) and I doubt these products have much chance to capture any significant market share. The message should be "it has a smaller sensor, but everything else is great." Including price, of course.

I don't think they will bother with PDAF for the entire range. DFD still has a lot of room for improvement. For video there are a decent amount of people who don't use continuous AF in the first place, especially as you get closer to the professionals. They just need to get to to good enough for casual use, which the latest firmware for G9 and GH5 is already there or pretty close. Eventually they will have to trickle this down the line (just like they did with DFD originally), but they don't need PDAF.

DFD is a flawed system for video AF, as it has to move the lens in order to have any idea about depth. It can never be as good as PDAF as it has to hunt at least a little. I find it hard to believe that it can be good enough. Barely acceptable, maybe.

And as I said, I don't think M43 can afford core features which are subpar. The sensor is good enough. The rest has to be great.

Also, my argument was not only about bodies. Both manufacturers poured a lot of R&D into developing premium priced lenses (Leica and PRO), while stopping any activity at the mainstream or low-end. These lenses were not positioned to capture market share at all.

I think this is more a reflection that there really aren't a lot of gaps in the lineup in the lower/mid end, the 12-60mm in 2016 pretty much filled in one. Olympus perhaps needs a successor to the 12-50mm. The premium lenses are the profit generators.

But those profit generators can only work if you are inside the M43 bubble.

Maybe, but all camera makers pretty much rely on the lens upgrade ladder and M43 did not have those options in the top end. It actually did stop some possible conquest sales (people who would have been forced to go to larger formats if the lenses did not exist).

Yes, it might stop some conquest sales, but not all. For example, the price of the Panasonic 8-18mm, in comparison with the Sony 16-35/4, prompted me to reevaluate my willingness to invest further in M43. I'd like the lens, but not nearly for as much. So, these lenses might limit the bleeding somewhat. But is that enough? Shouldn't the lenses actually attract buyers?

 

[Aberaeron]

Well, the mid-range options are plenty: E-M10-III, E-M5-II, Pen-F, many Panasonic...

What I miss the most are very light / small bodies. There was the GM5 at ~200g. There are many options in the 400-500g range. What I really want is a GM5++ around 300g.

That $999 for Pen F is a great deal. Unfortunately where I live (Europe) it still sells for about $1500 body only which is hardly midrange. And that is quite a long time after release date. They need a good cheaper midrange model IMO

In the UK today, Sept 15th 2018, the silver PEN F body only is available in the UK from official dealers for £939, which is €1050 or $1227.

Expensive but still mid-range, because it just is precisely that. I recently bought a new E-M10 MkII for only £350 after cashback, which is really good value, but many of my friends who are not into photography with proper cameras, would consider that much money, plus at least another £150 on a kit lens, to be very 'top of the range' and 'expensive'.

What I'm trying to say is that where people consider something to be in value terms, depends very much on where they stand. On their personal circumstances. On their 'perspective'.

 

[gary0319]

I wonder if producing all these $1500-$2000 bodies is really that great a strategy for Olympus (and Panasonic too..). It might be ok short term because it brings them more money but it also scares people from buying into the format and they are going to loose customers to Sony, Fuji, and now Canon and Nikon also have mirrorless..

The current midrange models from Oly aren't very good. Especially that they "dumb down" these cameras on features like control dials and interface and advertise them as cameras for selfie crowd. The e-pl9 and em10 mk iii both have this problem. I would instantly buy a new Olympus if it was just a compact body, modern sensor and at least two dials and a touchscreen. They can save other features for the flagships like weather sealing, better autofocus, high framerate, bigger battery life etc. But the cheaper options should also have appeal for real photographers.

Currently to have a noticeable upgrade from my e-p3 I would have to drop big dollars on a Pen f. And the competition at this price point is fierce, I could buy a Fuji, a sony a7, a Pentax Kp, sony a6500, a high end Panasonic etc. That are all compact and have great IQ.

Panasonic have more choice there but their most appealing gm line is getting older and older and annoyingly they reserve better jpeg processing for more expensive models

Your thoughts?

I suggest you consider an E-M10 II. Even though I've had the E-M5 II and currently have the Pen F, the E-M10 II is my go to second (backup) body to my E-M1 II. Great little cam with all your boxes checked and not "dumbed down" as put it. Currently on sale or $499 with the 14-42 EZ, which is a super little pancake.

https://www.getolympus.com/us/en/digitalcameras/e-m10-mark-ii.html