Mirrorless system camera sales in UK (Source: Amateur Photographer)
–
Over at MirrorlessRumors I summed up the five possible reasons why Mirrorless struggles to become popular in North American and European countries. Amateur Photographer interviewed Mr. Sykes from Panasonic who explains the main problem was that companies were too much focused on trying to sell a certain volume instead of focusing on educate the customer about advantages of the new mirrorless cameras. That’s why Panasonic is “imploring photography journalists to conduct reviews of CSCs ‘against DSLRs’, rather than testing like with like.”
Last year mirrorlesss camera sales in UK dropped by 46,000 units. But there is also a good news reported by Sykes: “Compact system camera is now returning to a period of growth which is really pleasing“.
99 Responses
They are too expensive.
You don’t need to write an article, study sales figures or educate anyone. As much as you lot like to talk and come up with reasons so you can ignore the obvious.
Cost.
I don’t think so, especially when you look at models like the new E-M10. Even a set of the E-M1 and a few primes is often less expensive than a classic dslr counterpart. Personally I feel like the classic dslrs are getting too expensive because they innovate less in that area
But I would agree that they need to market its advantages better. .At least for Olympus the sales climbed and I think that they’re doing a better job than Panasonic. Theyre doing a couple of tours with the OM-D demonstratig it and just recently they started a new programm here in Germany where you can rent one for 2-3 days for free to try it out. That’s the right direction.
Olympus sales have climbed? Not what their reports say.
One can get an excellent name brand DSLR and lens for well under $500. It will be fast and deliver excellent image quality and value. A consumer says, sure, hit me. An EM-1 body only for three times the price? No thank you, please.
Tell the retail consumer that the EM-1 is a less expensive TCO.
True they are, but with more demand prices will drop.
But there is no more demand. And in any event, more demand will encourage them to keep their prices high; will reinforce the manufacturers’ pricing model such that future products are even higher priced.
Camera sales do well when there is a feel good factor in the economy, which no matter what the politicians tell you, there isn’t in the UK.
“They are too expensive.”
This is (unfortunately) intentional.
In the interviews, both Oly and Panny reps keep repeating that they want to establish higher end position in the market.
Anyway. I do think that in few years that would change. Lens prices keep falling. Body (new) prices keep falling. It is only matter of time when the magic $400 price point would be challenged by the mirrorless. Because even DSLRs managed to get to the price point only thanks to the IQ plateau: there are very little development costs involved; the entry-level DSLRs are pretty openly used by CaNikon to recycle the old parts from higher tier models.
It’s true, the manufacturers want to sell a higher-end, hence higher margin product. That’s not unusual. Every manufacturer of every kind of consumer product would love to do the same.
Unfortunately, wanting to succeed in that is not the same as succeeding. Very few brands are successful in that.
In the case of Panasonic and Olympus, they are saying this because their previous strategies were not successful. Compacts? Unsuccessful, drop them. DSLRs? Not a chance. The only strategy left? Let’s overprice and make it up in volume.
m4/3 very popular. Oly already sell 5,000-10,000 12-40 zooms since recent release.
I agree with the cost issue – nothing really low level, entry available than “outdated”, generation older models to compete with Canon 1200 D for example.
But I see a second thing:
I’m in sales and I know (it is proven) that some words simply don’t sell: small, compact, saving, …
And by calling our systems mirror-LESS or COMPACT system cameras, these names are true show stoppers.
The question is not new but again: anyone any idea of a name that would sell?
It took BMW years to develop “efficient dynamics” for their marketing.
Price, absolutely. All the Panasonic and Olympus bodies are too expensive out of the gate! I went to B&H a couple of weeks ago to help a friend find her first “real” camera. She wanted something for $500 – $700. It’s pretty stunning to see that there was NOTHING NEW in that range from either Olympus or Panasonic, while there were numerous choices from Nikon and Canon.
BTW, she bought a GX7 kit and LOVES it!
But, you’re really onto something about the language used.
Even MICRO Four Thirds isn’t great.
Actually, Four Thirds isn’t great either.
Four Thirds? WTF is that?
M4/3 marketing language needs to morph into something dynamic, using ADDITIVE language, NOT as though we LOSE anything by choosing M4/3
What do we GAIN with a totally electronic camera?
M4/3 is a natural EVOLUTION from the 20th Century norms of photographic tools.
Yes, M4/3 cameras are lighter, faster, more progressive than big, fat bloated anachronistic DSLRs that are carry overs from the past. Forward thinking!
The DSLR is the big, ugly, clunky Dell PC, while a M4/3 camera is, sleek, sexy MacBook Air.
And yes, drop the list prices… start with 10%, at least.
One thing should be obvious. With the “global shutter” looming and current electronic cameras obtaining 12 – 20 frames per second, the mirror box in “anachronistic DSLRs” is not long for this world. Within just a couple of years most electronic cameras will repeat faster than even the most expensive, “fat bloated” DSLR with a mirror.
A decrease in prices would help, at least during the downcycle.
For me smaller is not always better. I have both, EM1 and D610 and I like the D610 more for longer shooting sessions, it fits my hand much better. I don’t find it heavy and bulky, too, I like the button layout and I think there is a minimum size a camera should be to comfortably hold it and customise it. I rarely use the 10-11 FPS on the EM1. It’s nice to have, but I can’t imagine to bring 20FPS to a good use. I don’t want to spend hours separating good from bad shots later in post over and over again when shooting bursts only. What’s so bad about complement systems? Use m43 for portability, street work with small and fast primes and FF or DSLRs for shallow DOF work, for example. But I agree to the points made above that language in advertising is important to the average Joe. People here on the forum are “usually” well informed. I would welcome a larger ergonomically better mirror less camera along smaller models.
All of what you’ve stated here makes perfect sense to me.
A close friend of mine has a press pass at all Ohio State games and is right there where the action is. He uses ONLY Nikon gear, (top shelf) would NEVER consider switching but could definitely use a higher frame rate at times.
But you are right, a camera is such a personal tool and is judged by many subjective criterion, the plethora of choices only makes it all more fun.
So she bought a GX7 kit for about $959.00 even though she only had the intention of spending $500 – $700, to me that’s a marketing win for Panasonic?
I did see the GX7 not so long ago…around Christmas at B and H for 710 US Dollars
There was a special deal for around $850 with a 14-42mm II and a bunch of accessories tossed in.
Actually, even though she initially mentioned a Canon, when it came to handling APSC DSLRs she hated the size.
I asked how much she wanted to take photos…. A lot.
Do you want to carry something this big all the time? NO!
She want he’d a built-in EVF, but didn’t like the PENs, G6 or OMDs. She liked NEX 6, but then I showed her the lens size. Lens size of the APSC was the biggest negative. When I compared an 18-55mm to a 14-42mm II, she was astounded.
She LOVED the GM1… too small. So, the GX7 checked all the boxes for her!
I tried very hard NOT to sell M4/3 and leave it up to her! She did the right thing and went M4/3! 😉
Whenever it gets brought up that m4/3 is “too expensive” I find it highly amusing, as the reason I have got m4/3 gear is because it is by far the *CHEAPEST* system to get into!! 😀
(Sony E mount being the second best: http://rungunshoot.com/the-350-docu-filmmaking-kit-depreciation-is-wonderful/ )
But then again I do follow keenly for the best deals and sales (such as ones which are a generation two older, that you can pick up for a song), and pick up amazing second hand bargains. (for my two most recent purchases: a G3 for $150, and a GF3 including a kit lens with it for US$150)
If you are to walk into a retail store which is only stocking their most current models, you will get a huge sticker shock over the prices for m4/3!
Maybe Panasonic & Olympus needs to introduce a new ultra budget line. Which is simply their current bottom range models (so the Panasonic GFx & Olympus PEN E-PLx) that when they get replaced by the next year’s model the previous model year’s model gets rebadged as as their new and “current” ultra budget model.
So for instance the “old model” GF5 gets sold instead as a rebadged “current model” GE6 (E for “entry level”, or whatever) and when the GF7 comes out the GF6 transforms into a GE7! Thus consumers when they buy a cheap GE6 (or later on the GE7) still feel like they’re buying the “latest model” (but an entry level one).
Maybe though if you want to drive the entry level model price down even lower, the GE6 should really be like the GF3 instead of the GF5. Might be what I’d suggest Panasonic (and Olympus) does instead.
Exactly;
Western Consumers typicaly don’t want mirrorLESS they don’t want “less” especially for more money they want MORE and they don’t want “MICRO” 43 (Japan loves micro mini etc) they want BIG/MEGA/GO LARGE 50% extra etc MEGA 43 would probably have sold better. I think marketing has a lot to answer for I have friends who still think a big camera = a better camera -it is human nature unfortunately!
Yes, let’s use our superior psychological wisdom and tired stereotypes to blame the consumer for not buying our product. It’s their fault they don’t want to pay a higher price for lesser performance albeit in slightly smaller packaging.
Good idea, let’s start advertising that micro 4/3 are “faster.” Once consumers find out they are not, there goes the category.
Better yet, let’s start advertising that micro 4/3 are “more progressive.” That ought to really grab consumers.
Yes, we can also claim that micro 4/3 is a “natural EVOLUTION of norms,” which the consumer will quickly find out is a trait shared with any digital camera, even a compact.
Sure, we can try to dazzle the consumer with words and claims. No one’s ever tried that before.
Maybe it will work. Until our consumer sees the price tag. Then it’s game over. Sayonara mickey-four-three. DSLR here I come.
*really* good point about language!
For instance, Canon and Nikon have accomplished a *HUGE* marketing success by making “full frame” enter the mainstream language of discussion.
It makes every newbie with their “crop sensor” camera feel inadequate and lust over a D610 or D800 when even a D7100 would be total overkill for them! (just to pick out the Nikons as an example)
You are 100% right : “mirrorless” means castrated DSLR !!!
Should possibly be MLTI for Multiple Lens True Image… Just my 2 cents.
Admin, there is matter of poll !!!
Once you are compelled to call your product “True” the consumer knows it’s anything but. Nobody shops for “True” bread or “True” toilet paper.
An optical viewfinder shows the true image. Reflex viewing shows the true image. A little tv does not show a true image, it shows an electronic rendering.
You would need to hedge and call it Multiple Lens Tru Image, with a trendy spelling of “True” to protect you from false advertising lawsuits.
1. Price: unfortunately for average Joe Blogs, he doesn’t care about size/weight advantages… My ‘professional camera’ (read 100D or D3300) with kit lens is cheaper.
2. Lenses and accessories support: where are the ‘pro friendly’ teleprimes? Or third party support (from sigma/tamron/tokina)? This keeps the price down with competition (tbh adapting apsc sized lens with mft mount doesn’t really count…)
3. Not ‘with the masses’: in Europe, big retailers push a DSLR (with kit lens) to people who want a pro looking camera, only enthusiasts and people who want a mirrorless will get one.
DSLRs were down 28% in the same report (shared by 2 players ie could be 14% drop each) CSCs were 35% in Q4 (shared by 7 players ie could be a 5% drop each)
Big retailers in the UK have stopped selling cameras or reduced their range – supermarkets no longer selling cameras, Comet Jessops and Jacobs went bust, Argos and Dixons have reduced their bricks and mortar stock but have increased their online stock and there Micro Four Thirds and Fuji look like they are doing well.
If 7 players drop 5% sales each, overall sales drop is 5%. If sales dropped 35% that means the average drop is 35%, some more, and others less, it’s not the sum of all the drops.
OK % was the wrong value to use but yes it still works.
DSLR decline was shared by 2 players, CSC were shared by 7 players.
The figures from GfK as they stand tell us nothing about the state of the individual players, mounts or systems although GfK could break them out…
HUH?
Obviously you failed math in school.
Example
£400 DSLRs (£400 because DLRs are outselling CSCs by 4 to 1) -28% drop £112 =£288, £112 divide by 2 players (canikon maybe Sony) = £61 each drop in sales
CSC £100 (the smaller market share) -35% drop £35 = £65 £35 divide by 7 players = £5 each drop in sales
or can you show us how it’s done????
First, the reported sales drops were in terms of value, not units sold. In other words, that DSLRs outsell CSCs by 4:1 does not mean that the value of sold DSLRs are four times the value of sold CSCs.
Secondly, you can’t add up percentages that way. If every company drops say 10% on average, then total sales drops 10%. Take away one tenth of each slice of the cake, and you have taken away one tenth of the entire cake.
It’s easy to see the absurdity of your math, if you think like this: let’s say that there are 10 companies in the market. Each company’s sales drop by 10%. Does that mean that total sales have dropped by 100%, i.e. that nothing were sold? Of course not, total sales dropped by 10% too.
Proverbs 26:4
“Answer not a fool according to his folly, Lest thou also be like unto him.
how did you work that out? my workings out are plausible.
1. Price: E-PL5, E-PM2, G6, etc. are cheap. The G6 is more feature packed than a D3300 because it has wifi, articulated touch screen, wireless flash control, etc.
2. Lenses and accessories support: m4/3 uses the same flashes as the old 4/3 DSLRs and the number of mirrorless lenses are growing at a faster rate than DSLR lenses. e.g. there are more m4/3 primes from Panasonic/Olympus than there are EF-S primes from Canon. Heck, upon release Fuji had more primes (3) than number of EF-S prime Canon made (1). But, if you’re into FF, then yea, DSLR is the was to go.
3. Not ‘with the masses’: it’s a circular thing isn’t? Retailers push DSLRs because that’s what the average Joe knows, and the average Joe doesn’t know CSC because retailers don’t push them. Then there’s the notion of ‘bigger is better’, which isn’t always the case because a small NEX body has a bigger sensor (1.5x crop) than a Rebel (1.6x crop), and current m4/3 (E-PM2) has slightly better IQ than the current Rebel (T5i), but “it’s no Canon”. Sigh…
LOL! The person who made the figure should be ashamed. The figure makes the drop from 128 000 units to 100 000 units look like a drop from 128 000 units to 40 000 units. If you straighten the “bars”, you see that their lengths are not relative to the actual sales. I just wonder what was the interest to make the figure look like that…
and so i do not buy a BMW…because the marketing opens the mouth….
and i runn…and run…and run….. a paper-tiger for city-chineese never
droven a BMW in old days ( 2003 last M3…) when drive was drive not
12000 tons of blabla bla and a design you fall from the seat.
today a outsourced liveless drama in 2 tonns made in horibliestan.
one designer please not 1000.000 marketing-slaves… please.now.
second is::: not one good in 23 models one good 1-2 years and a real price.
( if a BMW is about 130.000 euros and you will ged for same LAMBORGHINI..
understand…not?)
third:: START with f 2,8 lenses…simple
Are you using a dialect of gibberish? 😉
Maybe a bot?
Why release a camera or lens with all the attendant “free” publicity, but then have it in very short supply for the first 3 months – the OM-D EM1; or not yet available – the OM-D E-M10. That’s been the situation in Europe.
Of course, the pricing situation doesn’t help – release with crazy high prices but no supply, and then when it comes available sell at 15-17% discounts
FROM THE ACTUAL REPORT GfK
“Photo
The first nine months of 2013 were tough for the photo sector. This
was then exacerbated by an even more negative Q4, where there was a 29%
decline in value compared to Q4 2012.
Superzoom cameras (fixed lens cameras) with more that 10x optical
zoom) and bridge cameras declined by 45% and 38% respectively in value
year on year.
As for changeable lens, CSC (compact system cameras) fell by 35% in
value, whereas DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras) declining by
28% in value compared to Q4 2013.”*
so DSLRs fell by 28% in value
and CSCs fell by 35% in value
and bridge cameras fell by 38% in value
and superzoom compacts fell by 45% in value
mind you I did by a brand new Nikon 1 at 90% discount for £40 in Q4 of 2013
In the accompanying video by Chris Cheeseman at Amateur Photographer you can tell he is being misleading in his interview questions by the respondents answers – Richard Gregory, GfK at 3:20 “it’s a little wrong to point to CSCs on their own” he also went to qualify the figures. Furthermore the customers he interviewed owned both including one who had also recommended to his neice.
Chris Cheeseman hates Oly and Panny and uses any opportunity to paint them in a bad light.
I dont understand why we should keep busy about this if it sells well or not, we are just consumers.
Because the continued existence of m43 and Olympus and Panasonic as makers of m43 photographic equipment affects the value of our current gear and influences my decisions about future purchases.
i guess that is true, but I see many times people here claiming to know how to do it better then the manufacturer’s sales experts. And the only impact we can make is by buying/using it rather then to talk about it.
No, the talking here is part of the manufacturing effort. And many manufacturers engage companies to ‘talk up’ their product in fan blogs. Such planted sock puppets are sometimes easy to spot in their over-the-top gushing about how this product will take over the world. The hope is that these just-talking-about-it promotions will boost sales.
Or haven’t you noticed that most ‘reviewer’ websites contain directly links to retailers of products that benefit the ‘reviewer?’
Interesting that you mention “planted sock puppets” . . . “to ‘talk up’ their product in fan blogs”.
In my experience, (being a blood-hound politico for 40+ years), I’ve noticed more the opposite phenomenon; where “planted sock puppets” are used more to exaggerate the negatives of foes rather than to tout the positives of one’s candidate.
If Micro Four Thirds stays strong I can keep on buying more m4/3 gear to supplement all the stuff I have already which is m4/3. But if m4/3 weakens, and disappears….. then I can’t!! 😮
Anyway, the good news is Micro Four Thirds is easily the most dominant and strongest of the mirrorless systems, so I’m not too worried 🙂
It’s good for consumers for CSC to sell well because the companies that make them (Panasonic, Olympus, Sony, etc.) will continue to invest in them, which will result in more options to choose from, improved competition among brands, faster innovations, etc.
If there is no demand for CSC, then the companies will just discontinue making them, and worse yet, these companies go under and/or get acquired by bigger companies like Canon and Nikon.
Because the viability of more manufacturers and product and product differentiation means more consumer choice, more competition, lower prices all around, advancement of technology, etc etc.
I agree. Customers don’t understand what CSC are about. Uncertain buyers tend to take the “pro-camera”, a D3300 or 700D.
Then we see them in foto-forums weeping: “I bought a big camera instead of my NEX 5, a Nikon D5100 – and the pictures are worse” or “help! my new DSLR doesn’t make sharp fotos..” (on request: in liveview mode with slow AF).
A CSC or DSLM has several advantages. You can permanently use the full power of sensor processing, for eye detection, smile detection, AF in liveview, AF in video… and so on.
Since the new A6000 oder GH4 also advantages of PDAF might be history. The last killing argument of DSLR will be an optic view finder.
So it is all marketing, features and sexyness.
So the advantages of mirrorless are that “you can permanently use the full power of sensor processing…” Whatever that means.
The only real advantage of mirrorless is somewhat smaller size and weight. The disadvantages are inferior performance, image quality, performance, high fidelity viewing, but most of all price.
DSLR checks all the main boxes, especially price, except the portliness one.
Additionally, the consumer is confident that the DSLR manufacturer will be around in two years.
Why on earth would a consumer want to pay more for less? I’m not saying it is right or wrong, I’m asking a real question. How would you convince your consumer it’s in her own self-interest to pay more for less? That’s marketing’s challenge.
The marketing for mirrorless is failing because the value proposition is not compelling. Consumers are not stupid, and they vote with their dollars.
So manufacturers blame the consumers for not buying the product. We just need more marketing. Without ever looking at themselves to ask why they failed, when the answer is staring them in the face. You are charging more for less. Whatever made you think that was a good idea? And you think wasting more money on advertising will help do anything but compound your failures?
You make a lot of good points but you might be missing something in your own down-playing of m4/3 advantages, namely video.
The video advantage of m4/3 is vast and will only become more so. The m4/3 frame size and ratio is much better suited to consumer video. Then there is that mirror problem in the 135 format products. Nikon and Canon will have to lose the mirror-box or redesign their cameras to have dual viewfinders to keep the subject visible while filming to be a true competitor in the video arena.
Your posts often refer to this amorphous term “performance”, yet without specificity.
Performance as a function of a buyer’s decision making will ultimately depend upon his/her camera requirements. You may not need video, I may not shoot sports. She might not want to lug 40 lbs. of gear to do the work of a Lumix GX7. Different strokes for different folks.
You make an excellent point that the m4/3 user base might be nearing “consumer purchase exhaustion” which of course applies to FF or anything else. Micro 4/3 manufacturers will have a bigger challenge weathering the shakeout due to their inept marketing of their products, but in the long haul, Canon and Nikon have some serious design/price issues of their own.
I don’t usually comment on sales figures because they are so terribly beside the point. The point being image making and the shear enjoyment of the art form, photography.
A trip to Best Buy yesterday, partially explained these anemic sales figures and lack of market penetration of CSC and Mirrorless cameras. There is no presence of m4/3 at Best Buy. Barely a rattling last breath of Sony cameras, (a Sony NEX-3n and a RX100 mII). The only digital cameras at Best Buy were the Nikon D3200, D3300, D5200, D5300 (all with standard kit zooms), and three entry level Canon Rebels (with standard kit zooms).
How is the public supposed to become aware of the benefits of micro 4/3 cameras?
Most camera customers worth having buy their cameras online or in independent stores, supermarkets in the UK have vastly reduced their electrical tech stock except for tablets (which are turning over very fast). I bet you in practice that canikon isn’t turning over their DSLR stock at Best Buy as fast and on the margin they would like…
I don’t dispute what you are saying. I came away with the feeling that the stale Nikons and Canons at Best Buy weren’t doing all that great despite their obvious advantage. Most likely newbies buy the best model (Nikon or Canon) they can afford at the time and never really consider upgrading, adding lenses etc.
I “stumbled upon” m4/3 cameras while turning away from Sony bridge cameras that I used for years. But I am outside the box. Most people who buy their Canon-Nikon camera at Best Buy want to remain comfortable within the herd.
And frankly, even if they did stumble upon m4/3 camera systems on the internet, how likely is it that they will purchase one while their friends are telling them to “stick with the proven leaders . . . Canon and Nikon), while at the same time there is no real entry level price advantage for them go against prevailing wisdom.
Marketing of m4/3 products has basically been a flop.
Your Last paragraph sums this whole topic up. No further need for debate, unless you want to bring up that ugly word…
PRICE.
I agree that m4/3 have to do a better job of marketing their advantages.
I am a fellow ‘stumbler.’ I had Canon SLRs starting in the ’70’s, then went with digital P&S Canons for many years. I then decided to get serious about photography again and was in the market for a dSLR.
During a motorcycle trip last summer, I ‘stumbled upon’ another rider who was a pro photographer. He was shooting with an E-M5. That made me aware of m4/3. I researched for months and recently acquired an E-M10. Love it!
I’m just another anecdote, a sample of n=1. But neither Panny nor Oly had gotten through to me. If it hadn’t been for that serendipitous encounter, I would now probably own a new Canon dSLR. Marketing should not depend on chance encounter.
Great anecdote! It’s true! At least in the U.S., micro 4/3 cameras are strictly word of mouth, and “serendipitous encounter”, as you say.
Apparently if you live in NYC near the camera dealers, you can actually walk into the store and handle the m4/3 cameras. No so in the heartland.
There is no evidence of “marketing” of m4/3 cameras in the U.S.
In Minneapolis metro you can try them out at one of the several National Camera stores. But most people become acquainted with systems cameras at Target and Best Buy, where M43 is missing.
“I agree that m4/3 have to do a better job of marketing their advantages. ”
What exactly are those advantages? Somewhat smaller size, somewhat lower weight. Check.
Tradeoffs? Lesser image quality, slower performance, questionable battery life, inferior viewing, higher price.
That’s a huge amount of marketing. Like they haven’t been trying.
Really, I have checked your “work”, anyone can do that crap with a compact. I guess your friends call you some funny name…
show us your “work” then…
“Most camera customers worth having”? Everybody has to start somewhere. Yes most camera savvy customers may buy on-line or research where they can buy locally. But most customers aren’t knowledgeable enough to know how many choices there actually are, DUE to marketing. I’m sure most of the sales figures are new customers that don’t know much other than what they see in the stores and what the sales people try to sell them, which is the more expensive dslr, or in best buy’s case, what they have on the floor.
Yes, your failures in marketing and getting your product into consumer channels is a mark of success. The very fact that my product is not in front of prospective customers and therefore is not selling is proof that those customers are not having. Your lack of sales is therefore a mark of your success.
Maybe last year was slow because their weren’t so many interesting M43 cameras about? Hopefully with the EM1, EM10, G1 and GX7 about, things will be better this year
More of the same in different drag. The EM1 is a bloated EM5 with minor feature changes; the EM10 is a decontented EM5. Their results are indistinguishable as a result. More and more too-expensive cameras that are variations on the same old technology do not spell salvation, but rather consumer purchase exhaustion.
Crazy idea: maybe if they “small size” of m4/3 is holding back some consumers from buying because they reach for the “biggest” camera (thinking it is “more professional”) the answer then is to sell a m4/3 camera kit that includes with it a battery grip, supertelezoom, and flash as standard kit for it.
Imagine for instance an Olympus E-M10 with a Olympus 14-150 + lens hood + external flash + battery grip, it would look like a BEAST of a camera! I can just imagine a newbie shopper reaching for this beefed up E-M10 over a puny skinny looking Nikon D610 😉
On the contrary, the so-called ‘portrait grip’ would have been just a bad dream for a while. If a square sensor was adopted as standard for all mirrorless cameras the portrait grip would’t have much sense as shooting in both portrait and landscape modes would be possible without rotating the camera. This woud be a complicated issue for DSLRs but not for CSCs. Even if the grip does look sooooo professional!
It is not about the functionality (though it does add longer battery life, a useful bonus!), but is entirely about *looks*!
As sadly it is often looks rather than performance that makes cameras fly off the shelves and sell.
So this “Even if the grip does look sooooo professional!” is exactly the reason that perhaps it should come with camera kits more often!
This is an entirely false approach, and does exactly the opposite: sustain the false statement that the bigger the camera, the greater the performance. This battle cannot be won in this way against DSLRs!
(BTW the longer battery life issue should be solved by making better and better batteries.)
DSLRs are also boxed in by their own hype. With mirrorless and m4/3 cameras, frame rates FPS are increasing at an alarming rate. The GH4 shoots 12 FPS and faster repeat rates are surely coming. The much ballyhooed and long awaited “global shutter” will boost FPS even more! All of which can be accomplished in “silent mode”.
A mechanical mirror-box which will not repeat at such high frame rates and certainly could not do it “silently” will probably become obsolete.
Even though it is plainly evident that change is coming, Nikon and Canon are basically stuck with huge cameras with loud, performance limiting mirror-cages. To appear to switch gears towards mirrorless would be a public admission that they have been behind the curve and might even be interpreted by their loyal fan base as a sort of betrayal.
Ultimately the mirror is dead. It was there to provide a view of what the film sees, something that has become unnecessary with digital image sensors. It’s like the buggy whip, which was still around for a while after cars appeared but ultimately became a niche product.
Sure you fight it on one hand, but on the other you cater to those who haven’t been converted yet. A multi-pronged attack 😉
Usually, Enthusiasts buy what they want without being influenced by marketing and will take risks buying items online because they are more knowledgable about their needs.
In the states! there is simply no presence of this system. The average buyer are most likely not even a part of these these charts and percentages we have been reading about.
Another possible problem is price. Regardless of how good a camera is, most people have a threshold for price. The em-1 looks fantastic but why in the world would an average consumer buy it when, they can’t pick it up in a store and don’t understand why it costs $1000 more than the dslr sitting next to it that has been imbedded in their brains as a very good camera as opposed to a small point and shoot type of camera.
Of course there’s a lot more to m43 than the E-M1! Plenty of lower priced bodies.
On the contrary, enthusiasts are arguably the MOST susceptible to marketing and to what anonymous posters and internet blogs tell them. Their denial of that makes them all the more susceptible.
I’ve used 4/3, then switched to Aps-C from Canon, then switched to m4/3, and now I use a Fuji x100. I still own m4/3 gear, the basic E-PL1 and kit lens and a m42 adapter for some vintage glass. I am not a pro, I’m just a guy that likes photography. I don’t even post them online, I just print the ones I like and keep the rest in my external drive netherland. Let me tell you my experience with Dslr Vs m4/3. When I used my e-p2, and later my e-p3, I got comments like “nice looking camera” and such. When I used my canon 20D or my 40D, I got comments like “now THAT’s a real camera” one friend of mine actually told someone else right in front of me, “Canon is always canon” when holding my old 20D. To me this represent what most consumers think. They don’t care about the output, simply because they can’t see the minimal difference between IQ on the systems. The quality in most cameras is good enough for 99% of casual users. So the issue is not quality, it’s quality PERCEPTION! When this friend of mine was holding the 20D I know what he was thinking, because I used to think the same way. The camera feels solid, well constructed, ergonomic, it oozes quality. You press the shutter button and hear an almost instantaneous clack. LOUD, but reassuring. Above all, it’s fast when compared to the compacts they are used to use. To the average consumer, the DLR provides instant results. You look through the hole and press the button. It’s done. If you have good eye you can take nice looking candids of the kid running around to show grandma. Also if they have one on their neck , they don’t feel inferior to the guy holding a bazooca camera next to them in the park while shooting in auto mode. It’s about perception. The way to solve it is spending money on marketing. A lot of money. Make advertising with one guy walking around with a big bag of lenses, sweating and taking photos with a “tank like” full frame DSLR, that needs to stop and set everything down, just to take one photo, and put next to him a young family with kids that have all their stuff with them, and the tiny m4/3 shooting at 6fps without interruption on their hand, sharing between mom and dad (high fps in my experience makes people say WOW), or a backpacker walking around with a full pack and tiny fast camera. Or a guy climbing a mountain, or whatever. Make it look cool, sleek, slim, light and High tech. The advantage is weight and size. Don’t make it about IQ, because it’s not a battle that can be won.
I agree. The smartest marketing video I’ve come across is the Nikon AW1. It’s a pretty good series of videos aimed at families and outdoor types. Now if only they would play them on tv instead of youtube…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qblMeibCFQA
I’d buy one for the water resistance alone! Great video!
Nice. Pretty good cameras!
This is the sort of thing Panasonic and Olympus should collaborate on!
I’m thinking of getting an AW1 to replace an Oly TG1.
In 1976 I was a photographer on the Dakota Photo Documentary Project. Most of the other guys were shooting with Nikons and carrying heavy camera bags around. I had an OM-1 and kept my lenses in my coat pocket. It was easier for me to take candid photos because I wasn’t frightening my subjects with a big heavy noisy object clacking away. I didn’t look like a photographer, just a guy with a camera who was talking to them while snapping away.
I think P&O need to run a joint promotion campaign. Not about Oly. Not about Panny. But about m43.
The most annoying non-question I (and other m43 owners) still get very often is: the Oly/Panny lens works on Panny/Oly body?!!?
I think Oly & Panny (& Sigma) need to advertise together the *system* to raise the awareness. Because most people still believe that “brand name” equals “another incompatible system”.
Micro FourThirds malaise
We know our micro 4/3 sensors must have some cred
It’s plain from all the hoopla, and all that’s been said.
Apoplectic Full-Frame diehards living in dread,
Hulking, high-priced cameras living under the bed.
Now Oly . and Pany and Sony too, of course
Are starting to show signs of Manufacturer’s remorse
They stare at sales charts, and lament their latest loss
Then have another Saki – play another round of golf.
They say, let’s make it bigger, and more expensive too
We’ll be like the just Big Boys – only “tiny and new”.
Video schmidio, . . . IBIS . . . “who needs that?”
“U.S. fans can’t have the GX7 in black”?!?
The micro 4/3 user base is fractured and dismayed
they’re starting now, to question the decisions they have made.
Should we have bought a Fuji, APSc or Full Frame
We should be the winners in the Great Camera Game!
We need to take a chill; . . . kick back, and relax,
Wait and see what the camera boffins conjure up next.
12 plus frames per second, ergonomics, and 4K
more IBIS, better lenses, and Spring is on the way.
^ this is the most wonderful thing that i’ve seen in the comment section.
Thank YOU, my friend. Cabin fever is beginning to take it’s toll. . . . . But Spring IS just around the corner!
Isn’t it because the market becomes saturated? No one replaces a camera every year. Especially when there are no giant leaps in technology in the newer models.
I would expect to see a peak in sales occurring every 2-3 years.
As a laymen, I would think the money is now in lenses rather than camera. No?
Sounds reasonable. Only enthusiasts (like myself) replace camera models regularly every year. All my relatives and friends use cameras for 3-5 years minimum.
Canon and Nikon have colossal marketing machines. Go to any Football, Baseball sports arena and what do you see? Either huge NIkon or Canon ads and banners. You don’t see olympus, panny, sony-camera ads.
aside from that I believe there was a boom in the last 5 years where everyone graduated from a point and shoot to a big cadillac DSLR. The market is usually a few years behind innovation, so now that everyone has a Canon D60 or Nikon 3100 etc collecting dust, it might take a few years before people re-route funds that now go for electronics into phones, and pads, TV’s, taxes 🙂 . So many DSLR’s were sold and not used that the boom is over. Can’t expect it to keep booming. Also, there is plenty of room for innovation, long overdue. If Olympus or Panny, Sony come out with something that changes the game, the sales will follow.
The OM-D series wasn’t a game changer, or the GH3 either? Most people don’t know what a “mirrorless” camera is because of ignorance, due to lack of marketing, they just buy a “dslr” because they think those are the only cameras that can take good pictures.
Even if they do a little research, as soon as they get to any FF forums, any hint of malice they read about the “measly m43” sensors, it’s over. They have it imprinted in their brains m43 sensor quality is terrible and FF is the only way to go.
Around 2 years ago I became interested in smaller, innovative mirrorless cameras after being a Canon shooter for decades, from film to digital. There was so much noise about M43’s “small sensor” that I shifted my focus and fell for the hype and amazing (on paper) allure of Sony’s NEX7, and jumped into the system, grabbing a bunch of lenses and accessories. I loved the size and grip, but hated the menus, non standard hot shoe, general handling, overheating sensor during video, and lack of lenses so much that I sold it all and slowly came back to M43. After using a PEN5 and loving the tiny primes and IQ, I took the plunge and wish I’d done it sooner. I can’t imagine how a non enthusiast could navigate through all of that noise. Oly and Panny have great gear and advantages. But they need to find a way to get the word out.
A HUGE Thank you to Nikon for taking responsibility for the oil-splatter/dust issue with the Nikon D600. Full story featured on DPReview:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/02/26/nikon-to-offer-d600-shutter-replacement-to-address-dust-issue?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_2
I realize that this post is somewhat misplaced but I don’t know where else to post it. If our admin removes it for that reason, I’ll not be upset.
My son has a Nikon D600 which was Refurbished by Nikon and then sold at a discount by Cameta. The oil splatter returned and his warranty has expired.
This is a major league, first class response by Nikon to a festering problem and to loyal owners fears of being abandoned with the introduction of the D610. There is much to be learned from Nikon’s handling of this “spill”. All camera manufacturers should copy this play from Nikon’s playbook.
Nikon is still a Leader and this level of corporate responsibility demonstrates that.
You can’t become popular in the U.S. if you’re not selling in Best Buy and Target.
Agreed, but Panasonic’s problems go even deeper than that. They don’t have a distribution network, period. You either buy from a national mail-order chain or you don’t buy. Essentially, if you even want a hands on feel, rely on the 30 day return policy. I am fortunate that I have 2 dedicated local photo shops, one of which I can actually put a Leica in my hands – including the Panasonic twins. They carry Oly and Sony – competing with a Sony Store in the mall. But when asked both stores about Panasonic, it is not as if they had not tried. Both stores had sought to carry the line, but were turned down. Curiously, I went to Panasonic’s web site and searched for authorized dealers – none in the entire State of Florida!
Oly and Panny gotta do some marketing. And as noted they need to get their product into more stores, especially the big boxes. But they also need more presence in the remaining camera stores too. We’ve got Calumet in the DC area after they took over Penn Camera but they don’t stock any m43 equipment. They do have some Fujis though. But mainly they are Canon/Nikon and to a lesser extent Sony.
Yea, Calumet is the only known store here. I see Rebel and Nikon’s Kutcher. Not one Lumix or PEN commercial on a national channel yet…
Someone said it yesterday, the squabbling and infighting displayed on this and other m4/3 related forums would be sufficient to turn off any newcomer who might “stumble into” m4/3 .
Camera squabbling & Brand bickering amongst our community is perhaps the worst on the internet. (Fanboyism is NOT just a camera related phenomenon but it is so intense on these forums as to drive away even our own users). We are, actually, our own worst enemy. Let the Full-Framers Flame-on; they don’t damage the credibility of the m4/3 products nearly to the extent that m4/3 pinheads do.
It’s true, that the marketing divisions for Panasonic and Olympus are flat on their ass. It’s TRUE that m4/3 products are over-priced compared to their market penetration and brand recognition. It’s also true that if we can’t support these companies efforts with more than rotten eggs and brand-boy, spit-wads on these fora we will undercut the ONLY outreach m4/3 has.
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
most of the divisive posts are by troll pretending to be extreme Oly or Panny fan boys to stoke the fires/cause trouble, you would also be surprised to learn that most of the trolls outed on 43rumors have been in their 60’s and should know better.