the most basic of all questions .... is M 4/3 getting more popular ?

[gary0319]

I am not sure. However many here think of m43rds as Panasonic and Olympus.

Notable Body producers alone include:

• Olympus
• Panasonic
• Z-Cam
• blackmagic
• Yongnuo

lens makers are even more prolific with the complete options from Olympus and Panasonic, then all the other lens makers from voigtlanders at the higher end though a quality produces like Laowa, then the video centric lens makers etc.

It is hard to know the size of this system overall. In a shrinking market being a small player isn’t the best spot, but being a small player where your major investments are made and where you can focus on Body technologies could be a lot worse.

i looked at getting an 8-25, and here in Canada it is stated to ship late august. So there must be some demand coming from somewhere.

Having said that I think with the right marketing and communication strategy this system still has potential.

Regarding your last sentence it seems to me that smart marketing is leading us by the noses to buy new gear that is way over specified for most amateur use, and certainly for the Flickr/Instagram/camera club projected image comps folk. My personal observation is the my M4/3 gear does not cut the mustard with camera enthusiasts and group think is that 35mm or MF are the only way to get decent projected images.

Higher prices should mean higher profits per unit and in the face of phone cameras is probably the only way to sustain profitable businesses for the time being.

I think your last two comments combined make for interesting thought. Consider all IKC makers have been increasing prices dramatically, while there is some parity at the low end, at the high end the differences become more clear.

As to your photography group, that is exactly why a better communication strategy is needed. I, and everyone else here is well aware there are better cameras out there on pure IQ measurements, yet we chose this format. If the why can be cleaned up, bottled, and presented Coherently it improves sales, and business forecasts.

When my wife and I joined our club, we were numbers 2 and 3 in the mirrorless shooters. Fast forward about 4 years and mirrorless is about 80-90%.... and predominantly Olympus, by a large margin.

I'm not wanting to blow our horn here (wife and me), but every week we showed images on the large screen that were the best we could do, if they weren't good enough to outshine the majority of presenters, they were never shown. Soon we were asked to lead some club discussions on mirrorless vs DSLR, and having shot both, we tried to be completely objective. Also, there were the discussions of m4/3 vs APSC, and FF. Again we needed to be brutally honest, after all these were, by now, our friends.

This was all before Canon or Nikon had made there initial mirrorless offerings. By then the pump had been primed, and the big turn to M4/3 came when Canon introduced its first mirrorless, to a very luke-warm reception. Most club members were Canon DSLR shooters and had waited for Canon to wow the industry; a lot were disappointed. The flood gates opened, and a lot of members began buying Olympus as an adjunct system for travel, keeping their Canon gear for "real" photo outings. Most times, I never again saw those Canon APSC and FF kits in the field.

Anecdotally, Most members would submit that the quality of their weekly projected images have improved substantially, and I would agree. Actually, even those members that switched to any mirrorless system besides Olympus have shown marked improvement, especially if the chosen system has a Sony sensor. It should be said that M4/3 particularly fits our club profile of retired old farts, with some disposable income that travel and shoot birds and insects.

 

[Mr Giggles]

who knows ? who cares ?

are you telling us you would choose one brand of camera over another just based on the global sales figure ?

I don t mean to be criticizing but who would choose its camera based on its popularity.. unless you are planning to rent equipment all other the world

Harold

Hroldd66 -

why do I need to justify my curiosity to you ?

if you would prefer I will pre screen my posts with you and obtain your approval before posting them to this public forum

 

[Harold66]

who knows ? who cares ?

are you telling us you would choose one brand of camera over another just based on the global sales figure ?

I don t mean to be criticizing but who would choose its camera based on its popularity.. unless you are planning to rent equipment all other the world

Harold

Hroldd66 -

why do I need to justify my curiosity to you ?

Oh come you you don t need to do anything ...

You created a post and I am just wondering what it matters . But not to worry , you don t need to reply if you don't want /

if you would prefer I will pre screen my posts with you and obtain your approval before posting them to this public forum

you are being ridiculous and you know it

Harold

 

[Marty4650]

I think M4/3 appeals to a certain kind of photographer, and everyone who is in this category already has one (or two, or three) M4/3 cameras. In other words, the system has been around for a while, and already has more body and lens options than any other MILC system has. There aren't very many gaps in the lineup.

And since there seems to be no new "gee whiz" sensor on the horizon, all we will see is more of the same. The same cameras and lenses, just slightly better versions, with a few more features we may never need.

There are not enough good reasons to replace a three or four year old camera with a new one, especially if image quality is essentially the same.

What would motive a large number of users to upgrade?

It probably won't be a "slightly better version of an existing camera or lens." You would need one full stop of improvement in light gathering ability, or a 36MP sensor, or some exceptionally great values to lure new users from APS-C. And I just don't see that happening.

Meanwhile the conventional wisdom is that the full frame sensor is "always the best" for "all users" so there has been a stampede to that format. Even though most amateur photographers won't get any benefit from it.

(Of course, a few surely will. But most won't.)

 

[gary0319]

I think M4/3 appeals to a certain kind of photographer, and everyone who is in this category already has one (or two, or three) M4/3 cameras. In other words, the system has been around for a while, and already has more body and lens options than any other MILC system has. There aren't very many gaps in the lineup.

And since there seems to be no new "gee whiz" sensor on the horizon, all we will see is more of the same. The same cameras and lenses, just slightly better versions, with a few more features we may never need.

There are not enough good reasons to replace a three or four year old camera with a new one, especially if image quality is essentially the same.

What would motive a large number of users to upgrade?

It probably won't be a "slightly better version of an existing camera or lens." You would need one full stop of improvement in light gathering ability, or a 36MP sensor, or some exceptionally great values to lure new users from APS-C. And I just don't see that happening.

Meanwhile the conventional wisdom is that the full frame sensor is "always the best" for "all users" so there has been a stampede to that format. Even though most amateur photographers won't get any benefit from it.

(Of course, a few surely will. But most won't.)

I'm not so sure...

From my experience, I saw a huge difference in image quality from my E-M1 to my E-M1 II and than the mark III. I attribute this to the move to the Sony sensor from the Panasonic sensor of the original. Additionally, later advancements means that I can now shoot my E-M5 III and E-M10 IV at ISO 1000 and never have a fear of noise (E-M1 II still needs ISO 640). I'll not even go into the advances in image stabilization and continuous auto focusing.

But if some are convinced that these advances cannot make a difference in their photographic experience, or the resultant image quality, and they6 want to continue shooting the same stuff, in the same way, you are right .... all these "little" advances will not do anything to move that credit card from it's hiding place.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Based on sales is not the whole of the issue. Cameras still being used regularly is harder to measure.

Another method of measurement is the popularity of forums on dpreview. If this is any measure worth accepting then M4/3 is still alive and kicking quite strongly.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

And you cannot buy a new GM5 camera body (for example) if there are none made - so we just keep using what we have as there is no real replacement alternative.

The G9 has been around for a while - I doubt if G9 owners are presently about to give up on these excellent camera bodies.

Etc.

 

[Marty4650]

Another method of measurement is the popularity of forums on dpreview. If this is any measure worth accepting then M4/3 is still alive and kicking quite strongly.

Of the 76 discussion forums here at DPR, the M4/3 forum ranks at the top in terms of daily activity. In fact by a very large margin.





And if you are curious, here are the ones that get the least daily traffic:



And you might be happy to hear that the Adapted Lens Talk Forum ranks somewhere in the middle of the pack at #43, getting around 40 new posts per day.

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

 

[Raist3d]

Those were the latest reports. That said, I think there will be some video niche with Panasonic since they are doing that so well.

More than likely the Full frame stuff , the S5 seems to have been a hit for them.

Sure seems like it has though I wonder about sustained hit. But I think the Gh5 in some circles already has a name so...

 

[chorleyjeff]

I am not sure. However many here think of m43rds as Panasonic and Olympus.

Notable Body producers alone include:

• Olympus
• Panasonic
• Z-Cam
• blackmagic
• Yongnuo

lens makers are even more prolific with the complete options from Olympus and Panasonic, then all the other lens makers from voigtlanders at the higher end though a quality produces like Laowa, then the video centric lens makers etc.

It is hard to know the size of this system overall. In a shrinking market being a small player isn’t the best spot, but being a small player where your major investments are made and where you can focus on Body technologies could be a lot worse.

i looked at getting an 8-25, and here in Canada it is stated to ship late august. So there must be some demand coming from somewhere.

Having said that I think with the right marketing and communication strategy this system still has potential.

Regarding your last sentence it seems to me that smart marketing is leading us by the noses to buy new gear that is way over specified for most amateur use, and certainly for the Flickr/Instagram/camera club projected image comps folk. My personal observation is the my M4/3 gear does not cut the mustard with camera enthusiasts and group think is that 35mm or MF are the only way to get decent projected images.

Higher prices should mean higher profits per unit and in the face of phone cameras is probably the only way to sustain profitable businesses for the time being.

I think your last two comments combined make for interesting thought. Consider all IKC makers have been increasing prices dramatically, while there is some parity at the low end, at the high end the differences become more clear.

As to your photography group, that is exactly why a better communication strategy is needed. I, and everyone else here is well aware there are better cameras out there on pure IQ measurements, yet we chose this format. If the why can be cleaned up, bottled, and presented Coherently it improves sales, and business forecasts.

When my wife and I joined our club, we were numbers 2 and 3 in the mirrorless shooters. Fast forward about 4 years and mirrorless is about 80-90%.... and predominantly Olympus, by a large margin.

I'm not wanting to blow our horn here (wife and me), but every week we showed images on the large screen that were the best we could do, if they weren't good enough to outshine the majority of presenters, they were never shown. Soon we were asked to lead some club discussions on mirrorless vs DSLR, and having shot both, we tried to be completely objective. Also, there were the discussions of m4/3 vs APSC, and FF. Again we needed to be brutally honest, after all these were, by now, our friends.

This was all before Canon or Nikon had made there initial mirrorless offerings. By then the pump had been primed, and the big turn to M4/3 came when Canon introduced its first mirrorless, to a very luke-warm reception. Most club members were Canon DSLR shooters and had waited for Canon to wow the industry; a lot were disappointed. The flood gates opened, and a lot of members began buying Olympus as an adjunct system for travel, keeping their Canon gear for "real" photo outings. Most times, I never again saw those Canon APSC and FF kits in the field.

Anecdotally, Most members would submit that the quality of their weekly projected images have improved substantially, and I would agree. Actually, even those members that switched to any mirrorless system besides Olympus have shown marked improvement, especially if the chosen system has a Sony sensor. It should be said that M4/3 particularly fits our club profile of retired old farts, with some disposable income that travel and shoot birds and insects.

That's a different experience to that of the club where I was recently a member where the move to 35mm has now moved to MF with M4/3 a small niche. It is a highly competitive club where people perceive M4/3 as obviously inferior to 35mm and MF - which it is in many respects but not, I think, in areas that matter much to me.

Outings with a national photo organisation show the same recent trend. It is difficult to be taken seriously using M4/3 which I find annoying. But I remember film days when Leica and Rolleiflex users were more highly regarded followed by Nikon and Canon shooters.

 

[Mr Giggles]

Another method of measurement is the popularity of forums on dpreview. If this is any measure worth accepting then M4/3 is still alive and kicking quite strongly.

Of the 76 discussion forums here at DPR, the M4/3 forum ranks at the top in terms of daily activity. In fact by a very large margin.



Of course, this means that M4/3 is very popular on this particular website. If it was equally popular in the real world it's market share would be twice as high. And the gearlist ownership claims show that M4/3 is behind only Fujifilm X, at least on this website.



And if you are curious, here are the ones that get the least daily traffic:



And you might be happy to hear that the Adapted Lens Talk Forum ranks somewhere in the middle of the pack at #43, getting around 40 new posts per day.

thats great news

 

[Harold66]

Outings with a national photo organisation show the same recent trend. It is difficult to be taken seriously using M4/3 which I find annoying. But I remember film days when Leica and Rolleiflex users were more highly regarded followed by Nikon and Canon shooters.

May I ask why you think it matters ... I mean if people are so snob and/or shallow to judge someone photographic skills on its equipment versus its pictures , that make their opinion irrelevant anyway :-O

Every time I have a photo exhibit , I always got one or two losers who want to tell me what camera I used (or should use) for one image they saw in the gallery .

I don't even pretend to care what they want to tell me afterwards

Harold

 

[olrett]

And you cannot buy a new GM5 camera body (for example) if there are none made - so we just keep using what we have as there is no real replacement alternative.

The G9 has been around for a while - I doubt if G9 owners are presently about to give up on these excellent camera bodies.

Etc.

Re folks flocking to FF because they are being convinced that it's the bee's knees. I am sure there is a slice of the public for whom having camera model X is a matter of principle. Like driving a certain car.

I am no professional, I suppose I wouldn't even qualify as an enthusiast; enthusiasts, as I see it, are much better at photographing that I am or will ever be or even care to be.

I'm out photographing almost every day, but picture-taking is not an end to itself for me. I am physically unable to discern some of the minuscule differences in... whatever... that members here can go on about for days. I am fascinated and read those threads, yet often I don't get some of the critiques. It's like discussing about the gender of angels. Post-processing is a tool when I need it -- I don't get a kick out of it. Most often tweaking shadows will do for me.

For me, photography helps me identify insects, plants, etc. That's much more exciting and useful for me (it all started when I realized that some of the plants growing on my property are poisonous for my animals, and I needed to be able to identify them so I could fence them out). Now, taking a neat picture of a life form is a great satisfaction, and I enjoy getting better at it, but without at least trying to identify that life form down to species is only half of the fun. For other 'non-enthusiasts' it's all about recording their kids' antics and them growing up, and/or producing memorabilia during holidays.

What I am trying to get across: DPREVIEW habitues are not 'normal people'. It is not 'normal' for the average person to have more than one camera.

MFT is ideal for 'normal people' who like to take pictures, for whom a point-and-shoot doesn't cut it, who like to have a degree of control over what they are doing, and if need be they can always use the AUTO mode when they're not in the mood for thinking. For people who feel that a smartphone can't do it all, especially if they aren't into buying a new smartphone with yet another additional camera every 18 months. For people who are unwilling/unable to invest in steep learning curves or huge amounts of money into gear and are even less likely to take huge camera trolleys on trips. For people who shoot handheld and can't be bothered with tripods.

I am sure there are many more MFT owners out there than we can infer from the data in this forum.

 

[Ab Latchin]

That's a different experience to that of the club where I was recently a member where the move to 35mm has now moved to MF with M4/3 a small niche. It is a highly competitive club where people perceive M4/3 as obviously inferior to 35mm and MF - which it is in many respects but not, I think, in areas that matter much to me.

Outings with a national photo organisation show the same recent trend. It is difficult to be taken seriously using M4/3 which I find annoying. But I remember film days when Leica and Rolleiflex users were more highly regarded followed by Nikon and Canon shooters.

You have to show them with the quality of your work. Unfortunately in photography people blame the tools as much (if not more) than the photographer. If they see poor photography (and I am not saying you produce poor work) then they will prescribe a certain percentage to the gear, as they do great photography.

I always remember a member of the olympus forum years ago called Marc Rogoff who is a fashion photographer, and at the time using an E-3. The quality of the work he produced was lovely, this shoot always stuck in my mind (to this day)

I believe he moved on to Nikon eventually, but the quality of the work produced in the video would hold its own today. It also reminds me the art happens the moment before the shutter is pressed, and has little to do with the camera technology (however better equipment can make life easier).

 

[Trevor Carpenter]

Have you noticed the one stand out feature of m4/3s users is that that take pictures. I think it's because the joy of taking pictures and using your camera is so much better with an m4/3s camera.

 

[Mr Giggles]

Outings with a national photo organisation show the same recent trend. It is difficult to be taken seriously using M4/3 which I find annoying. But I remember film days when Leica and Rolleiflex users were more highly regarded followed by Nikon and Canon shooters.

May I ask why you think it matters ... I mean if people are so snob and/or shallow to judge someone photographic skills on its equipment versus its pictures , that make their opinion irrelevant anyway :-O

Every time I have a photo exhibit , I always got one or two losers who want to tell me what camera I used (or should use) for one image they saw in the gallery .

I don't even pretend to care what they want to tell me afterwards

Harold

I ask why a Man who has post 11 thousand times on a gear forum

states what what people should care about or be curious about ?

its like the pot calling the kettle black

 

[Harold66]

Outings with a national photo organisation show the same recent trend. It is difficult to be taken seriously using M4/3 which I find annoying. But I remember film days when Leica and Rolleiflex users were more highly regarded followed by Nikon and Canon shooters.

May I ask why you think it matters ... I mean if people are so snob and/or shallow to judge someone photographic skills on its equipment versus its pictures , that make their opinion irrelevant anyway :-O

Every time I have a photo exhibit , I always got one or two losers who want to tell me what camera I used (or should use) for one image they saw in the gallery .

I don't even pretend to care what they want to tell me afterwards

Harold

I ask why a Man who has post 11 thousand times on a gear forum

states what what people should care about or be curious about ?

its like the pot calling the kettle black

I am not sure I follow you. are you commenting on my reply to chorleyjeff here , or my initial reply to your post ?

I assume it is the latter. In this case , I am happy to tell you. Because I am allowed to share my opinion on any subject in the forums like you and everyone else is ... regardless of how many or how few one person posts

 

[gary0319]

I am not sure. However many here think of m43rds as Panasonic and Olympus.

Notable Body producers alone include:

• Olympus
• Panasonic
• Z-Cam
• blackmagic
• Yongnuo

lens makers are even more prolific with the complete options from Olympus and Panasonic, then all the other lens makers from voigtlanders at the higher end though a quality produces like Laowa, then the video centric lens makers etc.

It is hard to know the size of this system overall. In a shrinking market being a small player isn’t the best spot, but being a small player where your major investments are made and where you can focus on Body technologies could be a lot worse.

i looked at getting an 8-25, and here in Canada it is stated to ship late august. So there must be some demand coming from somewhere.

Having said that I think with the right marketing and communication strategy this system still has potential.

Regarding your last sentence it seems to me that smart marketing is leading us by the noses to buy new gear that is way over specified for most amateur use, and certainly for the Flickr/Instagram/camera club projected image comps folk. My personal observation is the my M4/3 gear does not cut the mustard with camera enthusiasts and group think is that 35mm or MF are the only way to get decent projected images.

Higher prices should mean higher profits per unit and in the face of phone cameras is probably the only way to sustain profitable businesses for the time being.

I think your last two comments combined make for interesting thought. Consider all IKC makers have been increasing prices dramatically, while there is some parity at the low end, at the high end the differences become more clear.

As to your photography group, that is exactly why a better communication strategy is needed. I, and everyone else here is well aware there are better cameras out there on pure IQ measurements, yet we chose this format. If the why can be cleaned up, bottled, and presented Coherently it improves sales, and business forecasts.

When my wife and I joined our club, we were numbers 2 and 3 in the mirrorless shooters. Fast forward about 4 years and mirrorless is about 80-90%.... and predominantly Olympus, by a large margin.

I'm not wanting to blow our horn here (wife and me), but every week we showed images on the large screen that were the best we could do, if they weren't good enough to outshine the majority of presenters, they were never shown. Soon we were asked to lead some club discussions on mirrorless vs DSLR, and having shot both, we tried to be completely objective. Also, there were the discussions of m4/3 vs APSC, and FF. Again we needed to be brutally honest, after all these were, by now, our friends.

This was all before Canon or Nikon had made there initial mirrorless offerings. By then the pump had been primed, and the big turn to M4/3 came when Canon introduced its first mirrorless, to a very luke-warm reception. Most club members were Canon DSLR shooters and had waited for Canon to wow the industry; a lot were disappointed. The flood gates opened, and a lot of members began buying Olympus as an adjunct system for travel, keeping their Canon gear for "real" photo outings. Most times, I never again saw those Canon APSC and FF kits in the field.

Anecdotally, Most members would submit that the quality of their weekly projected images have improved substantially, and I would agree. Actually, even those members that switched to any mirrorless system besides Olympus have shown marked improvement, especially if the chosen system has a Sony sensor. It should be said that M4/3 particularly fits our club profile of retired old farts, with some disposable income that travel and shoot birds and insects.

That's a different experience to that of the club where I was recently a member where the move to 35mm has now moved to MF with M4/3 a small niche. It is a highly competitive club where people perceive M4/3 as obviously inferior to 35mm and MF - which it is in many respects but not, I think, in areas that matter much to me.

Outings with a national photo organisation show the same recent trend. It is difficult to be taken seriously using M4/3 which I find annoying. But I remember film days when Leica and Rolleiflex users were more highly regarded followed by Nikon and Canon shooters.

True, if one is concerned with being looked down upon because you can’t stand in the line of tripod gorillas draped over their camo-clad white lenses, M4/3 is a poor choice.

 

[one blind eye]

No,

 

[Raist3d]

Based on sales is not the whole of the issue. Cameras still being used regularly is harder to measure.

Another method of measurement is the popularity of forums on dpreview. If this is any measure worth accepting then M4/3 is still alive and kicking quite strongly.

I wouldn't use dpreview as a sample of the market. You could argue this could have become an echo chamber.