WHATS NEXT FOR M43, after Olympus, what future is left?

[Pitachu]

Pentax do make Full Frame cameras and their market share is also less than 4.2%.

Canon did capture lots of market share when Nikon was weak and Sony was not around.
When Sony took over Minolta, their initial Full Frame A-Mount was a failure.
Lots of Photographers I know did not bother to move to other brands and remain with Canon or Nikon.
Olympus did find a niche when they introduce 4/3 and later M43 but unfortunately, did not capture a significant market share.

All the big boys already have full frame. Even with OM Systems introduce Full Frame, at best its market share is going to be like Panasonic 4.2%.
And provided it can get funding for its R&D to really introduce some cool useful features to attract users. Otherwise why would a current camera user
take another look at a new brand for Full Frames.

P.s. Small Market share does not necessary mean not able to survive. Just look at Leica, it has been around for a long time and probably will continue to survive.

Robin discusses why OMDS should make a full frame product now, while still making MFT bodies. Like Panasonic.
See what he says from 45:05 to 46:30.

 

[JW73]

If OMDS going make full frame, I believe it will be more risky to them to die faster. The Fullframe system will be an entire new system unless they join in the L mount alliances. There are so many FF mirrorless to chose from nowadays and if i am going FF, it will not be OMDS unless they have something special feature where the rest don’t have.

 

[Pitachu]

If OMDS makes Full Frame, it will be great if they make it compatible with M43 lenses, just like Sony allowing APS lenses to be used on their FF bodies.
This may make it difficult for OMDS to join the L mount alliance.

Anyway, I have let me imagine ran wild and cannot think of anything OMDS can put in a FF body what will sway me from using Sony whenever I need a FF camera. I am not against OMDS coming up with FF BUT they better beef up their R&D and marketing and get a super white knight to back them up. Otherwise, it is okay to me for OMDS to remain as what they are catering for a niche market. I dont need OMDS to keep releasing new models like Sony and Canon.

The last thing we want is for OMDS to channel all their resources into FF and ignore their M43 niche

 

[ricohflex]

This is not a camera/lenses/format/photography issue.
It is a Mis-Management issue.
Very low quality leadership team that brought the ex-Olympus Camera Division to a corporate death.
And now the OMDS management team is clueless.
If they continue + repeat what led the former company to failure for the last 10 years, then the result is as expected.... failure.

 

[Pitachu]

@ricohflex you were saying Olympus Mgt took the wrong direction by not going into Full Frame.

Contax, Kodak, Pentax, Zeiss, Yashica, Minolta and even Sony with A-Mount all have gone into Full Frame.
Where are they now?

Olympus did made couple of bad mgt decisions (just like Sony, Nikon and Kodak etc),
but I felt NOT going into Full Frame to compete when one is not ready is NOT a bad decision.

And why keep hammering this for years and missed the strengths of a M43 camera?
And if the strengths of M43 is not for you, just go and get a Full Frame Camera.

The active members here all have chosen M43 because there are some features which they like and benefits them.
@ricohflex you seems to be the only one who owned a M43 camera in the past and did not understand its benefits LOL

This is not a camera/lenses/format/photography issue.
It is a Mis-Management issue.
Very low quality leadership team that brought the ex-Olympus Camera Division to a corporate death.
And now the OMDS management team is clueless.
If they continue + repeat what led the former company to failure for the last 10 years, then the result is as expected.... failure.

 

[Limberg]

Not easy to be in Olympus and now OMDS' shoes. Allow me to offer my take.

As time passes, users preference evolves. The stats quoted by Robin in the video, I went in and confirmed my doubts.

70+ Photography Statistics 2023: Explore The Most Interesting Stats

Imagine a world without photographs – no way to freeze a moment in time, capture memories, or share experiences visually. It's difficult to fathom because photography has become so ingrained in our daily lives. But have you ever wondered just how...

cameraprism.com

It is about the whole camera sale, both built-in and interchangeable lens segments. In the whole spectrum, we've users leaving the market due to handphone, which is easier to use and all-in-one. That left a very small segment of interchangeable lens.

Unless the stats reveals more or I missed out some detail, I can't tell if OMDS interchangeable lens segment is really losing the games.

So my own conclusion is:
1. the market is losing the majority of the users, who migrated to handphone
2. those who stays in interchangeable lens segment, are serious users, who either need higher end camera or "might as well" go higher end, e.g. FF.
3. between FF and handphone, between FF and "automatic" camera aka built-in lens, is M43.
4. I agreed with Olympus back then and in future to not chasing megapixel but improve on sensor and lens quality. Reasons being, higher megapixel means bigger the file, more storage, slower processing speed in uploading and viewing on computer.
5. I agreed with the descriptions that this is a niche segment, a choice of not carrying bigger and more expensive gear and accessories.

Btw, just to share why then I never switch to handphone fully like the majority:
1. handphone prime lens create barrel effect. I try to take at x3 optical zoom (I'm with Samseng) whenever I can.
2. access to handphone camera settings is slower and sometimes not possible, e.g. aperture
3. no external flashlight to call upon, but I find handphone HDR is very power and useful

Let me know if you could get around with these constraints that I face.

 

[Pitachu]

1. I use iPhone. The 3 lenses are approx 13mm, 26mm and 70. 13mm definitely have barral distortion so I only use it when I need extra wide. Most of the time I use the main 26mm lenses, taking care to put subjects like human in the center (I know, it sucks sometimes when you want rule of thirds

2. I am using the Fjorden grip to let me access to the features more easily.

3. Godox actually makes a flash for smart phones, the Godox A1. You can check it out here to see if it suits you

As you can see, I have tried a lot of things to try to use my iPhone as a lighter setup as that is my priority on certain occasions. On my last trip to Japan, I concluded that the compromise is too much. I still prefer a small camera body (eg. Olympus Pen) with a small zoom or prime lenses as a travel / street photo camera. My iphone is great as a photo/video daily life recorder but on occasions eg. travel / street where I want to have more creativity options eg. shoot in manual / aperature priority, flash and in RAW etc, a tiny Interchangeable Lens Camera (ILC) is my top choice.

Btw, just to share why then I never switch to handphone fully like the majority:
1. handphone prime lens create barrel effect. I try to take at x3 optical zoom (I'm with Samseng) whenever I can.
2. access to handphone camera settings is slower and sometimes not possible, e.g. aperture
3. no external flashlight to call upon, but I find handphone HDR is very power and useful

Let me know if you could get around with these constraints that I face.

 

[one eye jack]

My take... Everyone or rather the camera companies compete on the basis for survival on what is good for the professional market to gain a measure of competence and respect and ultimately hopefully market acceptance. Make sense on one level but what is good for professionals is not what normal photography consumers want , at least not the complexity and price tag in the thousands that professionals pay..they want to earn their mum mum in local parlance. Hence the dominance of smartphones, whether one wants a camera or not it is bundled into the device and it is tuned to be idiot proof in terms of autofocus and exposure. But it still leaves much to be desired by serious or enthusiast photographers given the limitations of size and portability.

Enter the current photo formats, Fullframe, apsc , m43 and medium format. Understandably m43 offers a smaller package overall for it's usage in most genre of photography same for the other formats. For the sake of discussion about the viability of m43, OMDS as a business I think the way forward is to re-examine the the product offerings at the present moment. It is based on past technology and thinking but what is not fully appreciated is what the ordinary consumer want. If I were to step into OMDS ceo's shoes my first task or duty is to increase market share into the mass market not pro segment. What would this mean, that a consumer camera should be cheap, affordable but packed with enough technology to allow an average photographer
to make photographs and videos that wow himself or herself and their intended audience. But sadly through the introduction of various cameras by OMDS and Panasonic this simple and wow factor has not been achieved because the designers and marketing people have been given a set of outdated ideas of what is photography supposed to be. Right tool for the right job comes to mind.

Here I bring to attention what the hype of global shutter and the state of the art of camera technology still have to grapple with...data processing. There are pros and cons of global shutter, not the solution to current photographic problems with digital.

What each camera format is good for. M43 could be used now but on a smaller scale so fullframe offered a better choice. I think m43 can do the job adequately as a billboard size photo only need 2mp. Mind you this was canon's flagship then DS series 16 or 21 megapixels sensors so the sweet spot is still 20mp to 24mp. Mind you Fujifilm's medium format did not exist then. Although this is a stitched panorama photo it does the job of illustrating the scale of a giant tree. Look.. Do note also M43 did not exist then!
Viewership has passed 76k.

 

[one eye jack]

To be fair other camera makers did try to make as simple a camera like Sony, canon, Fuji,etc. but it still is complicated. Then Panasonic Lumix introduced it's GF series starting with GF1 and ending with GF10. It removed the anti- alias filter so it is sharp and shoots 4k video . It has one mechanical shutter speed and the rest is auto. Looks wise it copied the Leica range finder style which is German industrial looking as usual plus a little beautifying by Lumix. Now look at the video output and do you think it is cinematic or wow factor? To me it looks digital. Panasonic even marketed the GF series to women to show how easy it is to make photos and videos.

Now if I were in Panasonic or OMDS ceo shoes I would aim for a cinematic look of the old obsolete Canon C100 or 200 cinema camera look. It cost usd$8000 when it came out. Do you think it is achievable at such low cost as the mass market camera? I think it can be done. Do people like the cinematic look of canon? Look at the pretty girl in the clip. The lens is sigma 70 - 200 f2.8.

 

[ricohflex]

The transition from Film to Digital was tough for camera manufacturers.
It was a sea change. A paradigm shift.
In the beginning the difficulty was compounded by the backwardness of various technologies utilized in cameras.
• Battery technology
• LCD display technology
• Sensor technology
• Autofocus technology
• Memory Card / Storage media technolgy
• Computer technology - Image Processor
• Bluetooth, Wifi, etc

When Kodak staff Steve Sasson developed Kodak's first prototype digital still camera in 1975.
It was ugly and ungainly.
With a Fairchild 100 x 100 CCD sensor.
No wonder Kodak management ridiculed it at that time.

For a digital camera to succeed, all of the above (and more) technologies need to be advanced enough to make it work.

In digital camera manufacture, TIMING is Everything.
If a company goes in too early, it will fail.
It spends too much making the product.
Like the Kodak DCS 420 based on a Nikon N90 body and only 1.2 Megapixel.
Like the Mamiya ZD.
Because the component technologies were not yet ready.
And sensors were horribly expensive.

If a company goes in too late, it will fail. Because others had surpassed the brand and it cannot catch up.

Maybe Sony got the timing right making their A7 the mirrorless full frame digital ILC, in 2013.
Very lucky.
And yes, Olympus handed the prize on a silver platter to Sony, (by refusing to go full frame) although it had a head start of 5 years from 2008.

In 2013, Canon and Nikon were doing well selling DSLR (with mirror) to consumers.
They did not react to the Sony mirrorless full frame digital ILC, and thought they could continue selling DSLR for many decades to come.
Within 5 years, Sony ate Canon's and Nikon's Lunch and rapidly gained market share.
Canon and Nikon panicked and to their credit, were humble enough to admit their terrible mistake and concede defeat.
Finally Canon and Nikon ate humble pie and adopted mirrorless full frame digital ILC in 2018.

This was something Olympus could not bring itself to do (admit that it was WRONG) and do something to rectify.

 

[Pitachu]

Do bear in mind that Sony A-Mount and NEX failed.
Sony as the new kid in the block has done well because it has the resources to do R&D, trail and error and marketing, which most companies like Olympus and even Nikon is not able to.

Also bear in mind that about 15 to 20 years ago, the number of units of Compact Cameras and Range Finders sold are much higher than SLRs. At that time, it only make sense to choose a smaller foot print camera and target that market. I remembered the Olympus was so popular at one time that I had a few friends in a tour using it.

Unfortunately, Mobile phones came and able to take reasonable good photos for the mass market and swipe away smaller format cameras, leaving behind the professionals and serious enthusiasts who have been using Full Frame cameras. It is probably too late for Olympus to start coming up with Full Frames as current FF users probably will not change brands. Even a strong player like Sony only converted a small percentage of Canon and Nikon users. Panasonic only converted even a smaller percentage of its GH series and video cameras users.

Given its limited resources compared to Sony and Panasonic, Olympus may have died even faster if it has done into Full Frame.
It is better to embrace one's own strength then to try to fight with the giants.
OM Systems and even Panasonic may have a insignificant Market share on SLRs, but currently the volume is still large enough to keep them going.
Just look at the huge professional video cameras Panasonic is selling and look at the amt of Leicas being sold. They are very small in numbers but still profitable enough to be manufactured. As long as OM and Panasonic keep releasing new products, it is likely that they have some profits.

I am actually more worried on brands like Pentax. Haselbrad where there is hardly any news for a long time.

The transition from Film to Digital was tough for camera manufacturers.
It was a sea change. A paradigm shift.
In the beginning the difficulty was compounded by the backwardness of various technologies utilized in cameras.
• Battery technology
• LCD display technology
• Sensor technology
• Autofocus technology
• Memory Card / Storage media technolgy
• Computer technology - Image Processor
• Bluetooth, Wifi, etc

When Kodak staff Steve Sasson developed Kodak's first prototype digital still camera in 1975.
It was ugly and ungainly.
With a Fairchild 100 x 100 CCD sensor.
No wonder Kodak management ridiculed it at that time.

For a digital camera to succeed, all of the above (and more) technologies need to be advanced enough to make it work.

In digital camera manufacture, TIMING is Everything.
If a company goes in too early, it will fail.
It spends too much making the product.
Like the Kodak DCS 420 based on a Nikon N90 body and only 1.2 Megapixel.
Like the Mamiya ZD.
Because the component technologies were not yet ready.
And sensors were horribly expensive.

If a company goes in too late, it will fail. Because others had surpassed the brand and it cannot catch up.

Maybe Sony got the timing right making their A7 the mirrorless full frame digital ILC, in 2013.
Very lucky.
And yes, Olympus handed the prize on a silver platter to Sony, (by refusing to go full frame) although it had a head start of 5 years from 2008.

 

[one eye jack]

According to this report ,
Toyoshima, the president of Panasonic, says that the company is shifting away from some existing television and camera businesses that are not showing signs of growing significantly moving forward.

These divisions are not faring as well as others due to what Toyoshima says is the rapid progress of Chinese and Korean companies and the spread of smartphones. The company did not disclose specific figures.

We are noticing Chinese not only making lenses but may introduce a m43 camera. Nonetheless Panasonic had previously stated that they will concentrate on fullframe and m43 but more to the video centric side like GH series so will not be innovating on the stills photography leaving OMDS to continue to innovate the stills photography and improve the video side. In this tough business climate it remains to be seen which camera company can survive.
But like I said a mass consumer camera is the way to go. Will time prove right? Panasonic said, there are two types of camera users, one that values mobility that is small and light. The other is high quality stills and video which is fullframe. It does not make sense for Panasonic to introduce an L mount apsc camera like Canon and Nikon have.

 

[ricohflex]

The ever improving mobile phones have taken away many potential customers of MFT.
Leaving a smaller segment of serious photography fans who still wish to buy a separate camera, even though they own a mobile phone.

Those NEW potential customers are unlikely to consider buying MFT. Which explains the very low market share of OMDS.

They may be attracted to the likes of Sony A7C II a compact full frame digital mirrorless ILC.
Or if they like bigger full frame bodies, then Nikon Z series or Canon RF cameras.

Leica is a phenomenon. Rich consumers buy it because it is expensive. There is a whole psychology to this.
It is a statement that the buyer wishes to make to his friends. Small sales volume but extreme high prices.
Demand for Leica is more or less inelastic. Leica can increase price without much decline in sales.

 

[Pitachu]

Each sensor format has its pro and cons. Watch this for M43.

 

[one eye jack]

@ricohflex, I can understand your fullframe bias but you conveniently ignore photographic history. How fullframe 35mm film format came about is also because the masses needed something small when the normal photography film back then is large format like 8 X 10 inch negative and then later the square 120 , 6 X 6 cm. size medium film format.

So M43 or micro four third is just another format but this is not the point. I mention Leica design of camera and you point out that Leica camera is expensive and consumers buy it to show off as personal statement or status symbol..bragging rights simply. This may be one of the phenomena but ultimately for certain professional photographers it is that "Leica" look that they find artistically appealing and mostly in black and white or monochrome.

Professional photographers do not any how buy and use camera equipment if the result does not justify the cost. In short the photographic output must give them the monetary return and clients want the artistic advantage that the photographs can sell to potential consumers no matter the product. Below hear 2 photographers why they use Leica. I'm not going to highlight the key points as if people are interested to listen through the 2 parts for interesting information such as typically only 6 megapixels are needed for a magazine cover so 24mp. sensor is more than enough.

The ever improving mobile phones have taken away many potential customers of MFT.
Leaving a smaller segment of serious photography fans who still wish to buy a separate camera, even though they own a mobile phone.

Those NEW potential customers are unlikely to consider buying MFT. Which explains the very low market share of OMDS.

They may be attracted to the likes of Sony A7C II a compact full frame digital mirrorless ILC.
Or if they like bigger full frame bodies, then Nikon Z series or Canon RF cameras.

Leica is a phenomenon. Rich consumers buy it because it is expensive. There is a whole psychology to this.
It is a statement that the buyer wishes to make to his friends. Small sales volume but extreme high prices.
Demand for Leica is more or less inelastic. Leica can increase price without much decline in sales.

 

[one eye jack]

Interestingly there are ways to get that Leica look.

Or get a Olympus 35 SP ?

But game has changed.

 

[ricohflex]

Size of popular digital formats in any era is a function of the cost of sensors over time.
As the cost of sensors decrease over time due to improvement in technology or manufacturing processes.
This will impact what camera manufacturers make to sell and what consumers buy.
If the camera product is extremely costly, it is aimed only at luxury market with a minute customer base.
That can work if the brand is Leica or Alpa.
For ordinary mass market consumers, they will go for what they perceive as value for money.
In 2008, MFT made a bit of sense.
But by 2023, MFT no longer makes any sense for NEW photography fans to buy.
MFT will still have die-hard fans from a bygone era. The overwhelming reason is SUNKEN COSTS.
Not because MFT is so fantastic or wonderful in the year 2023 and beyond.
There is no doubt MFT is a dying / dead format whose glory days are long past.
MFT is a bit like the Seagate ST-225 MFM 5.25 inch 20MB Hard Disc Drive made in 1984.
That is Megabyte. Not Gigabyte or Terabyte.
In its era, it was a good thing.
But time and technology moves on to better things and concepts.

 

[Pitachu]

By focusing of resolution, you missed the opportunity of utilizing each camera format strengths.
Ask yourself, why is the latest Sony A9 iii have only 24mp?
Is Sony releasing a thing of the past?

Sunk Cost?
Do you know I lost more in the drop in value of my 2 Canon L Senses than the total value of my M43 7 lenses?
And the value I lost in the drop of value of my Canon 1DS I can buy a few times of my M43 7 lenses and bodies?
Canon did try to make an adapter but why is everyone selling Canon DSLR L lenses at steep discounts?

My point is not to put down Canon.
My point is that no matter what brand or format you are using, there is always a risk of being obsolete.

Just focus on using the Camera or format you use most suitable instead of keep bitching on MFT.
Attend some local OM Systems Photowalk and workshops and feel how many OM Systems people are happy wiith their gear
and at least one third of them has other brands of cameras too

Size of popular digital formats in any era is a function of the cost of sensors over time.
As the cost of sensors decrease over time due to improvement in technology or manufacturing processes.
This will impact what camera manufacturers make to sell and what consumers buy.
If the camera product is extremely costly, it is aimed only at luxury market with a minute customer base.
That can work if the brand is Leica or Alpa.
For ordinary mass market consumers, they will go for what they perceive as value for money.
In 2008, MFT made a bit of sense.
But by 2023, MFT no longer makes any sense for NEW photography fans to buy.
MFT will still have die-hard fans from a bygone era. The overwhelming reason is SUNKEN COSTS.
Not because MFT is so fantastic or wonderful in the year 2023 and beyond.
There is no doubt MFT is a dying / dead format whose glory days are long past.
MFT is a bit like the Seagate ST-225 MFM 5.25 inch 20MB Hard Disc Drive made in 1984.
That is Megabyte. Not Gigabyte or Terabyte.
In its era, it was a good thing.
But time and technology moves on to better things and concepts.

 

[Pitachu]

Guess the most popular item of OM-Systems that Canon, Nikon and Sony users are craving for?

Canon, Nikon, and Sony Users, Please Stop Buying the OM System EE-1 Dot Sight. We Review.

Much to the dismay of OM System camera owners, other camera brand users have been buying up all the OM System EE-1 Dot sights and the stocks have disappeared. Don’t tell anyone, but they are available again for now. Canon, Nikon, and Sony readers, please ignore this article about how useful they...

fstoppers.com

 

[one eye jack]

It's because they think branded one is better but this old bird say his one only cost $25 cheep cheep from china.

Guess the most popular item of OM-Systems that Canon, Nikon and Sony users are craving for?

Canon, Nikon, and Sony Users, Please Stop Buying the OM System EE-1 Dot Sight. We Review.

Much to the dismay of OM System camera owners, other camera brand users have been buying up all the OM System EE-1 Dot sights and the stocks have disappeared. Don’t tell anyone, but they are available again for now. Canon, Nikon, and Sony readers, please ignore this article about how useful they...

fstoppers.com