“The US$399 DSLR” from Thom Hogan (Click here): “Olympus made no in-roads to beating the Canon/Nikon duopoly with their 4/3 DSLRs and about three years ago put their eggs instead into the m4/3 basket. Every now and again we see older m4/3 cameras on clearance hitting the US$399 kit price, but interestingly, even at that price those cameras don’t climb to the top of the interchangeable camera sales list. What sits up there? The low-end Nikon and Canon models most of the time. Even in mirrorless-happy Japan that’s the case.”
Thom analyzes the price war between DSLR and Mirrorless and explains why the DSLR price didn’t drop at all. The only ongoing change is that you have more margins on Mirrorless cameras than you have on DSLR’s: “So prepare for more mirrorless cameras. As I’ve noted previously, it’s been a mirrorless summer already (Olympus with three, Panasonic with two, Sony with three, Samsung with one new model announced and/or shipping). But don’t prepare for the US$399 interchangeable lens camera. The camera makers haven’t been pressured to get there yet. The price of entry is pretty much US$599, same as it ever was.”
I am sure the future is “Mirrorless” but it will probably be a slow change at least in “western” countries. There is no single m43 camera that are inside the top 40 of the Amazon rankings 🙁
Click here for the US ranking.
Click here for the UK ranking.
Click here for the DE ranking.
Click here for the FR ranking.
[poll id=”90″]
226 Responses
People just aren’t as familiar with other brands. When I tell people I have a Panasonic, they always ask me why I didn’t get a Canon or Nikon?
Did anyone read what Thom said. Nikon objective 3 years ago was to sell a camera at 399 with a profit. I assume that in that time Nikon has developed that ability to build a camera that cheaply however they are able to sell it for 599 because the market allows it. Nikon is happily making the extra 200 dollars a camera while Olympus is trying to gain market with a small camera at a low price but they have at least 100 less profit. Nikon and Cannon are still selling their low end cameras at a order of magnitude more than everyone else making $200 dollars more profit than they originally forecasted years ago. If M43 does make a big inroad they can lower their price and kill the competition. Be careful what you wish for.
This. I get annoyed when people who think they know about cameras ask me why I use Panasonic, as if I just randomly picked something that they haven’t heard of. They think Nikon and Canon are the best and that you have to get an SLR. They don’t realize that SLRs aren’t the be all and end all for everyone.
I guess self-image could be another reason. If people are buying something considerably more expensive than a compact camera, they want the camera to look impressive to give them that exclusive “pro photographer look” rather than just a tourist with (what looks like) another compact.
Only trouble is that everyone now has a DSLR so it’s just not exclusive anymore.
Yep…
Every chimp can now have a DSLR… Gosh, how many “average Joes” have I already seen with some black brick with a kit lens on in their hands at weddings, or in the forrests doing tourism… Not very practical, neither original, but so they are… Sheeeple.
When my university choir was singing at the graduation ceremonies me and one of my friends used to take some pleasure in counting the surprisingly high numbers of “average Joes” who also had bought a battery grip.
Oh please, get off of your high horse. Are they sheeple when they all had compact cameras too? Are they sheeple because they have smart phones and tablet computers?
It’s got nothing to do with being sheeple and everything to do with prices being low and affordable. Get real.
When I look at Canon and Nikon quality optics, and they could very well be worth every penny, they are *not* cheap at all!
How the hell are you supposed to tell an ‘average Joe’ by looking at him?
I’d like to see Thom Hogan’s source for the idea that mirrorless cameras have a higher profit margin- in the post he seems to be basing it simply on simpler construction. However, Canikon have the advantages of massive economies of scale and long-established technology. EVIL MILF cameras (if you will) were at 0% market share merely 3 years ago and massive amounts of R&D has got to be required. Look at the strides O&P have individually made in contrast autofocus. Not long ago people would have said such CD-AF speeds were impossible. The questionably competitive price points of the Pentax Q and Nikon mirrorless system (as rumour has it) seem to show it’s currently very expensive to launch a mirrorless format. There may not yet be a big profit margin in them.
I expect that in the next iteration of m43 the cameras will be mature (just add faster tracking AF for video, faster EVF refresh rates) and from that time the price of an m43 camera that’s of a competitive standard should drop substantially.
If O&P can sort out a global shutter then they can really start to make having a mirror in the way of the sensor look a bit awkward, and then we might see m43 becoming rather more than competitive with DSLRs…
I did a tear down awhile back for a client, which I unfortunately can’t share. As I have long noted on my site, an m4/3 sensor produced at the same volume as an APS sensor has a significant cost advantage, and it’s typically the most expensive part in the mix. This alone is likely one of the reasons why we have so many of the 12mp Panasonic sensors in various models.
The “massive R&D” premise is flawed. First, companies are doing that R&D whether or not they actually launch a product. Nikon has had mirrorless R&D as long as Olympus has, for instance, but no product to write that down against. Camera R&D expenses run high in these companies, and they prototype a lot more than they ever bring to market.
Canon and Nikon certainly have economies of scale, but it might not be as much as you think it is. I don’t think there’s even an order of magnitude involved for any given part. Once you’re above a certain volume bar, discounts get smaller and require substantially more volume commitment to obtain. I believe that Olympus is over that bar with most of the parts they use. Not all–the touch screen is a good example of one that isn’t–but enough that the economies of scale don’t contribute any large amount to margin differential.
One might also point out that Canon/Nikon’s cost of sales might be higher. I won’t go into the details, but Nikon especially has more invested here in the US in push/pull sales, and uses price as one of the (constant) ingredients.
As for “no profit margin” in mirrorless, I’d disagree, and just the fact that you’ve got most of the camera companies already there with only the big two remaining. In my experience, the Japanese companies always rush into areas that they think have higher margins. It’s one of the problems, actually. By the time the last one gets there, the margins usually have shrunk again. I don’t think that’s the case for mirrorless, as the high prices the companies are charging are certainly still clearing good margin. Tear down a Coolpix S9100 and a Pen Mini. You’re going to find that the parts/assembly costs aren’t as different as their list prices suggest. Guess which one has the higher margin?
Thom, aren’t you neglecting prototyping and at what stage a bigwig may cancel of change direction of a product?
no matter which way you slice it, a company selling 3 other companies it’s sensor, will have more R&D funding than a company which can’t even get their gear to market. “The sensor is the most expensive part” – right? Wouldn’t that also include R&D for that part?
Even if nikon is doing their own sensor – they have more capital to start it. And above all,it depends on management’s allocation of funds.
Basicly all manufactures make EVILS but without the IL bit… just with m4/3 the sensor is bigger… canon, nickon, oly, pana, sony, kodak all make cameras with EVf and CDAF… resurch done!
m4/3 is milking it a fair bit !!!
You’re mixing Sony Semiconductor with Sony Imaging. Be careful about that. While Sony Imaging obviously can have a close relationship with Sony Semi, Sony Semi still has to make a profit. They don’t do so by just doing what Sony Imaging says to do. Indeed, I’ll be that Sony Semi makes more money from Nikon Imaging than they do from Sony Imaging. One thing I pointed out years ago was that Sony DSLRs were actually benefiting from Nikon’s investment in Sony Semi’s sensors.
But the same thing happens to a lesser degree elsewhere. Oly/Panny have a similar relationship. The R&D cost of the current sensors is probably mostly paid for at this point (notwithstanding Oly’s recent small changes).
@Thom Hogan
I would say marketing is the most expensive part of the mix then the sensor…
You have three basic cost centers in a business:
* the product (gross product margin)
* cost of sales: sales and marketing costs (net product margin)
* corporate and admin (net profit)
I’m writing about gross product margin here. That said, I doubt that Oly’s cost of sales per m4/3 unit much exceeds Nikon’s for DSLRs.
yeah me knows,but you didn’t say gross product margin originally, anyways net product margin is important too 😀
“Best bring the battery grip to the auditorium, the battery only lasts for 400 shots, you know?”
most Canon and Nikon wedding photographers only proof 15-20% of the photos they take to their customers that’s why they need the battery grips…
Yes, that’s why _professionals_ use battery grips.
@AndersN
thats why they waste their time taking 80% of their photos
Battery grips! I see more and more of those.
Lately, I’ve noticed the open pop-up flash phenomenon.
It’s all very funny!
Lighten up Rob! I live in a touristy area of Manhattan and see the clueless Canon/Nikon w/ kit zoom lens, battery grip, pop-up flash crowd every goddam day!
Can’t kill ’em, so may as well laugh at them! 🙂
And what do they do with the open pop-up? Do they actually use the flash? Use it for fill? Or does it just stay open like that?
They usually use it to annoy bystanders while snapping a photo of the Empire State Building/Times Square/Rockefeller Center/something else not remotely within the range of their flash.
Also sad and funny is watching someone with a battery grip not use it when taking a portrait shot.
Quote “Also sad and funny is watching someone with a battery grip not use it when taking a portrait shot.”
How are they using it? I need to use the battery grip on my E3 just to use the wrist strap. And its more comfortable to keep my hand in the wrist strap and turn my hand and shoot the portrait. So the battery grip is only used for a strap and not a hand. I am still using it.
I partially agree with Rob, but not so angry. People can use what ever tool to get the job done. The what makes them funny is if they know how to use the tool.
David – You would be an exception, as you actually consider the purpose of what you have attached to your camera 😉
That’s in contrast to, say, someone I once observed shooting with a lens cap on while chimping after every shot, for more than 5 minutes, without understanding what was wrong with her stupid camera.
You’d be supprized at the number of flash photos taken when i last saw an eclips…. the vally filled with camera flashes!!!
lol
like this http://youdidntdidyou.com/forum-images/guests_with_cameras.jpg 😀
It happens. Working at the WTC site you see tourists with large SLRs all the time. It’s amazing how many have them now.
Lot of em on auto though, or doing strange things like using flash to take a picture of the new wtc tower being built a block away on a sunny day. Almost all with kit lenses.
It must be the kind of flash god uses when photoing storms 🙂
+1 !
couldn’t have said it better!
@Andy
true!
I specifically bought into µ4/3 to *avoid* standing out in situations with other people around. I feel incredibly self conscious and a little ridiculous dragging a huge DSLR around to take tourist shots or snapshots – now I can fit my entire µ4/3 kit into a manpurse and nobody’s the wiser.
Bingo! Granted I am a little self conscious about carrying a man-purse around, but you can’t have it all! 😉
I personally find using Olympus cameras very economical. Yes, it’s true that when you initially buy them, they cost a lot. But after a while, there is always (unfortunately) very cheap second hand ones around. For my 43 cameras, I can just invest on the lenses alone. The tragic fact that there’s no significant sensor improvement among new models meaning I can buy whichever camera accordingly to their each respective ergonomics or my preference.
The G3 has a very nice sensor that’s bound to come in the GF-Pro or whatever that is going to be called.
I prefer his “DSLR is dead post” makes more sense apart from the bit where he says Olympus and Panasonic would have you believe that DSLR is dead message… I think what they are saying is as good as for most people’s needs.
His “The US$399 DSLR” post is too shallow as to why the canikon duopoly couldn’t be broken
“On the good side, it means that Nikon retained product margins” that was actually the problem for themselves and the competition, so not really on “the good side”.
“Will every household have a DSLR?” No, but they will more likely have a mirrorless in various forms (eg compact for the teens, pro for the mum or dad who is the enthusiast, video if the dad is a real enthusiast and a mobile phone mirrorless type for the social geek of the household)
This is a good point. CSC (or MSC, according to B&H) are just a subset of mirrorless cameras. The dominant camera is the cell phone. Many folks also don’t really think about interchangeable lenses so the E-P3 and the XZ-1 occupy the same place in their minds. I’ve been solicited recently for a lot of camera-buying advice, and I’ve noticed that many non-enthusiast classified the interchangeable lens compacts and the fixed lens compacts in the same group and DSLRs in the other.
> His “The US$399 DSLR” post is too shallow as to why the canikon duopoly couldn’t be broken
This is rather obvious. To get to the point where you can lower price to the level, manufacturer has to have the large sale volumes. To get the volumes, manufacturer has to have the price point.
It is the catch-22, and only well established players (with deep cache reserves) like Canon and Nikon can allow themselves to play such expensive gambles. Smaller conservative players like Olympus try to avoid risks like that: if the gamble fails, it would easily drag the whole company under. But obviously, as long as the small players remain conservative, they would never trump the CaNikon duopoly.
P.S. IMHO, it is not duopoly anymore, it’s triopoly: CaNikONY. Sony appears to be pretty successful at dismantling the duopoly. Not at the $399 price point yet, but they are getting closer and closer.
Sorry, but it’s far from a triopoly still. First, I think Bloomberg’s 35% decline number is not supported by any statistic I’ve seen. The worst case scenario–and this occurred only in Japan–was a drop from about 80% to 60%, which is only a 25% decline. Nikon is the only company that openly publishes its numbers. Their trailing market share for interchangeable lens cameras (which includes mirrorless and DSLRs and is based on CIPA numbers) is 30%. In recent years, it’s ranged from 29 to 34%. So the worst case hit to them would be about 14%. But…they forecast returning to 34% in the forward year (probably partly because of their mirrorless entry). So, in other words, business as usual at Nikon. Canon still remains ahead of Nikon in market share (both in compacts and in interchangeable lens cameras), so you have two companies dominating two-thirds or more of the market. Sony, meanwhile, hasn’t proven they’ve sustained double digit market share. We’ll see in the coming year what happens, as Sony has their best shot at making some inroads with the upcoming lineup.
I’d also point out that Nikon/Canon successfully dealt with a technology maverick once before: Minolta. It’s not surprising that Sony has chosen to follow the same strategy, but they appear to be expecting a different outcome. We all know what Einstein said about that.
In terms of cameras out there I agree it’s duopoly, but nowadays, whenever nikon or pentax sells a camera, Sony profits through sale of sensors. Would you still consider that a duopoly?
See what I wrote higher up. Sony Semiconductor is not Sony Imaging. Likewise, Panasonic Semiconductor is not Panasonic Imaging. Things are even more interwoven than that. For some time, Pentax made parts that were used in Nikon and camera brands (focus sensors, etc.).
You see similar things in the computer/tablet/phone business. Everyone’s using Intel or Arm processors, some of which are actually customized for a client. For example, Apple’s A4 processor is made by Samsung using Arm licensed capabilities modified by Apple. So does that make a Samsung’s tablet business more profitable than Apple’s? ;~)
Sony has chosen to follow the same strategy, but they appear to be expecting a different outcome. We all know what Einstein said about that.
False attribution. Einstein never said it, nor did Ben Franklin as some have claimed. Rita Mae Brown did, in 1983. Do a search and see for yourself.
I work in a camera shop, as I have for over 3 years now, and I have a few musings about this.
1) Definately Canon and Nikon do not want this competition, they know they can sell more compact cameras with fixed lenses and small sensors and make more profit from them, especially since the technology used in compact cameras is very dated and hence cheap to manufacture.
2) The response to “have you ever considered a mirrorless camera?” is always the same: *dumb look* what’s that? People not involved with photography enough to know how a camera works do not even know SLR’s have mirrors in them, hell, they don’t even know why you would want to have a larger sensor or better lens…. Simply enough the public knows nothing about cameras, especially groundbreaking ones like mirrorless cameras.
3) My personal belief is within 4 years I will see half of my compact camera lineup disappear and several mirrorless cameras will take their place, and why the hell not? They’re just about as small as compact cameras, in fact several compact cameras are larger than the GF3, you can customize lenses with these cameras which is amazing news for when someone drops their camera on their lens. Size and large sensors be damned, not a day goes by where someone doesn’t come in with a bent lens that they dropped and they have to throw away a whole camera, at least now they can replace a lens.
Long story short, people not into photography know next to nothing about cameras and they’re kept under the mass marketing thumb of the two big guys…. As a Canon user, and lover of my 5dII I can honestly say I look forward to companies like Panasonic, or even Fuji daring to be different, to find a new niche, refine it, and take over from Canon and Nikon. I know Olympus saw this and tried to confront the issue recently with a brilliant ad campaign of stickers on sidewalks that say “so your camera is a phone? that explains the bad photos.” It’s too bad it’s too late for people to turn their heads at Olympus anymore….
Right you are. Most people do not have very enquiring minds and are just part of the herd. It is the inquisitive enthusiasts in photography who are leading the conversion away from DSLR. The herd will come around in time. We have been in the game 3 years now and critical mass has been forming at an accelerating rate. Another 2 years and consumer DSLR will be dead.
I don’t agree that the price of DSLR doesn’t fall.
The brands need to meet their targets for 2011. This is what i have heard.
For example: Nikon Netherlands target for the D3100 for 2011 was 40000 camera’s. Because of many reasons (incl. tsunami and economy) they have only sold 15000 in the first 3 quarters of the year. The only way they can sell 25000 D3100 in the last qaurter is by dropping the price to say €299.
(i’m not sure if the numbers are correct but it’s an example)
So i expect an huge price fall for entry DSLR in the Netherlands
US$599 ? Pah. Thom needs to get his facts straight. The new E-PM1 is US$499 in stock at B&H and the GF3 street price here in HK is just above that.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&N=0&A=endecaSearch&InitialSearch=yes&Q=&Ntt=Olympus+E-PM1
That’s two models out of 9 that came out this summer. If you average out those prices it’s probably around $599 or even a bit higher.
Two models are still two models, and if you consider the fact that they constitute the new entry point for m4/3, it’s a huge omission from Thom’s (otherwise fine) observations.
Besides, averaging isn’t the most useful tool when considering a minimum value. Averaging anything with the E-P3 is going to be overpriced, by default.
come on! the “new” models hardly changed anything other than the looks, they’re basically refurbished epl2 and gf2. I’m sure they’ll drop to $350 after half a year.
You are correct, the Mini is indeed below the basic price I noted. The question I have for you is “which camera do you think Olympus thinks/wants to sell the most of?” I’ll give you a hint, it don’t think it’s the Mini.
But in some ways this just is a replay of the 4/3 game. Olympus tried to have a model (or two) that was priced below the entry DSLR of Nikon/Canon. This is tricky territory. It’s very easy for Nikon/Canon to say their entry DSLRs are far more capable than the Mini. Is that worth US$100? I can’t say for sure as I’m not on the sales floor any more, but I’ll bet you I can make that upsell 8 times out of 10. Worse still, if Olympus thinks that they’re going to upsell from the Mini to the Lite, the problem is that now they have to show that the Lite is better than a D3100 or Rebel. This is exactly the problem with mirrorless in the US: we’re not small conscious for the most part, so the primary selling point–size–gets discounted fast.
They make money on every camera and with every camera they increase market share, so the basic truth is that every camera they sell is good news for them. So no need to upsell; just sell is fine.
For me, I see Nikon and Canon falling behind the times, and Sony being the innovators. The NEX are selling very well so this is not just IMO.
You don’t run a business, do you? ;~) Your notion isn’t very far from “we’ll make it up in volume.”
If I have US$1 million to invest in something new at my company, do I invest it in something that pays back US$1.1 million or US$2 million? And which would make for a long-term successful venture?
Olympus may still have a profit margin on E-PL1s still being sold, but it is far lower than what another company, such as Nikon, is getting by not having to carry inventory for almost two years.
What’s actually happened at Olympus should worry everyone. It worries me. They tried to make 4/3 stick and it didn’t. They ended up in a position where their entire imaging business was losing money. They’ve been trying to turn that around with different product (m4/3, XZ-1, etc.), but they’ve barely cleared the profit bar. So what’s been happening most of this year appears that they’re dramatically cutting costs, as in letting go sales and marketing personnel, cutting back ad budgets, etc. They have no “people momentum” at the moment. They have a little product momentum, which will likely be dulled by Nikon’s announcement and Sony’s NEX shipping.
What I see is an imaging group under stress and not making progress against all the fights on their card. We’ve seen this pattern before, and the results aren’t pretty.
@Thom Hogan
“So what’s been happening most of this year appears that they’re dramatically cutting costs, as in letting go sales and marketing personnel, cutting back ad budgets, etc.”
I’m hoping you can back this up and that personnel and budgets are not being redeployed elsewhere where they will be more effective… and that this isn’t just your USA experience?
Easy. Olympus had to go to war with the United States Tennis Association to reduce their 5 year advertising contract to 2 years. They said they could not afford to fulfill the contract. They were allowed out of the contract after this year. They used commercials from 2 years ago that were not very good back then. This was considered a wierd move by Olympus since they recieved so much US and International exposure from the sponsorship.
Outside of the camera division Olympus is top of their field in the medical and industrial divisions making excelent products with very high margins. Wonder where Olympus priority is?
I never understood the tennis relationship thing. It seemed too much like Canon envy to me (the old film Rebel commercials): “hey, if it worked for Canon, it’ll work for us.”
I agree but it was the only Olympus ads I had seen in the last 10 years. They did sponsor cars in Formula 1 a while before that. Where would the average person see ads?
Is it the average person you want to see ads, and if so, what’s the message you want to give them?
The reason why Canon picked tennis and football has to do with demographics as much as anything else. As I’ve written before, their ads tend to overpromise what the cameras could actually do, but the implication was that a basic Canon SLR/DSLR could match the toughest sports covered by pro photographers.
Here’s my problem with the Olympus tennis thing: Canon already claimed that position. At best, Olympus would be saying “our cameras can do that, too.” “Me too” advertising isn’t nearly as effective as “us only” advertising. m4/3 is unique. Where is the unique advertising that speaks to that uniqueness?
I live next door to OlympusUSA. Their layoffs definitely make the local paper. Twice this year. But I hear about them in other ways too. I get word from dealers about reps that are let go, people that they used to deal with at corporate that are no longer there, etc., too.
You may remember that the new President of Olympus was known as a cost cutter and said it would be one of his priorities.
Difficult for me to speak to outside the US, as I just don’t have many sources that can tell me what’s happening in the Olympii offices in Europe or elsewhere.
ah OK it seems the USA isn’t high on the list of Olympus or Panasonic’s priorities, maybe that’s not where the end profit lies.
Anyway Olympus have already said which of the global markets they were going to concentrate on…
Confused. How do you right off 40% of your market(USA)? The European market is very lukewarm about your product(another 25%) and not that much different than the USA. So you think targeting 35% of your market with a niche product. How do you win large share without giving a simple system that does what the picture taker wants? No camera company has a clue in this regard with their proprietary sofware and interfaces. Only apple with their telephone figured this out.
M43 is a nice product but nothing that will make people have to run out and buy it. They will already be posting their pictures on facebook with their iphone. Take M43 add the ablity to customize and easily distribute the pictures where you want them and you might have something to differentiate – small customizable and easy to share with your friends.
1. the USA isn’t 40% of the current market
2. it’s even much less of the potential market*
3. Olympus have seen high single digit growth in the USA
* Olympus have stated that will be concentrating their efforts on large emerging economies (can’t find the link)
from imagine resource
DE: On a related front, mirrorless cameras have been hugely popular in Japan, it seems like less so in Europe and much less so in this country. Do you see that changing? How do you see that evolving with the U.S. consumer in the mirrorless, interchangeable cameras like the PENs?
Peter Ewen (Olympus): Well, while in the U.S. we’re at a high single-digit market share, in Japan, I’ve seen NPD numbers that apply a 40 percent market share.
DE: Wow.
Peter Ewen (Olympus): Yeah, amazing. Less than that, but still a high number in Europe. We’ve always seen the European and the Asian numbers higher and ahead of the U.S. market. The challenge is that the U.S. is a big country, and it’s very hard to do a nationally broadcast campaign on what the PEN products are about. As you know, we ran a television commercial in the May-June timeframe. The cool thing about the commercial — and the punchline — was that the commercial was “filmed and shot with the PEN.” We then followed it up with our presence at the U.S. Open in August. At the U.S. Open, we were all pleasantly surprised to be milling around the Olympus booth, and to hear people come into the booth saying, “Do you have the camera that shot that TV commercial?” http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/ICES11/1294942091.html
I see no evidence of the 40% share in Japan claim that is claimed (and I think you mean “imply” not “apply”; indeed, if the word is imply, that means that there weren’t actually any numbers that said 40%, but numbers that someone interpreted might mean 40%). I suspect that this is a rounding of a single month’s worth of data when m4/3 peaked in Japan.
But it still begs the point: 40% of 10% of the market is 4%. Ignoring 35% of the market (US) won’t raise that number much, will it? I consistently get the feeling that Panny and Oly are congratulating themselves on a “success” when in actual fact said success has a ton of footnotes associated with it. And isn’t actually a success.
The “we’ll sell lots in emerging markets” is an unproven assertion, made less impressive by the fact that Nikon already has subsidiaries in those countries and was actively marketing before the m4/3 companies got there (ditto Canon). It’s a lot like watching politicians say nonsensical things that sound good and believing their own rhetoric actually equates to action.
Moreover, the notion that India/China/Brazil/Russian/et.al. will be larger markets than the US for cameras or different than the US is unproven. China, for example, mimics high-end US so far (they want DSLRs). I would also suggest that if the goal of getting more sales is to find someone that hasn’t previously been exposed to cameras, they’ll eventually run out of possibilities there, unless Olympus knows of a colony on Mars.
As for the US Open story, really? They were surprised by people asking them if they had the camera that shot the commercial AFTER they made a big deal of the point that it shot the commercial? Basically, Ewen said “we were surprised the marketing message worked.” Now that’s confidence building.
@Thom Hogan
at the weddings and social events I attend about 1/3 of the cameras I see amongst guests/attendees are mirrorless (excluding mobile phones and compact point and shoots).
Membership of micro four thirds groups on flickr outnumber Sony Nex by about 4 to 1, as well as there being more groups.
Same goes for comparing Olympus ep3 groups with Sony nex5n groups (about 9 to 1) even though they were created at the same sort of time.
Panasonic said they had sold 112,000 mirrorless cameras in the UK (as of June 2011).
Why oh why are you so skeptical of Olympus and Panasonic on the world stage, have they made many big mirrorless mistakes so far?
Ok 38% is the last figure I could find.
The commercial would have been better if it was not 3 years old using a E-P1! Sorry but you cant find one of those! Sony also said they would get 20% of the market 3 years ago when they made a big splash with their Alpa cameras which bombed. Since there is no strategy for the US how do they intend to do it. Be a little realistic and I just hope they stay in the camera business for the next 10 years. The camera business is a very small part of their overall business.
@YouDidn’tDidYou: I’m skeptical because many of the claims that have been made turned out to be not backed up by data that can be verified, and Panasonic and Olympus continue to have poor financial results in their imaging division. The fact that we’re still seeing Olympus selling E-PL1’s and E-PL2’s and E-P2’s, and at fire sale prices, points to some problem in assumptions. In the recent past, the older models are still outselling the new in the one market where we know that mirrorless has taken share.
There are things that you look for in initial run-up that indicate high degree of success. I’m not seeing them in m4/3. This isn’t the same pattern as iPods taking over the MP3 player market, for example. What that means long term is that competitors have a chance to blunt the attack. If I’m reading Nikon’s forecasts correctly, it appears as if they think they’ll sell as many of their mirrorless cameras as Olympus or Panasonic within the first six months of its appearance. We’ll see if that’s true. But with a two+ year head start, that’s not what should happen with a truly successful new product category.
I worry more whether Olympus has a strategy for the long run. Short term cuts will increase profits for a short time but do they want to invest in the future? The contract with USTA US Open was a huge platform to advertise cameras in the US and around the world to it’s perfect demographic (rich people who like toys). The market segment is limited and the competition is just warming up. Can Olympus stay in the camera business for the long term. I want to hope my investment has been smart.
Olympus will continue to grow in the medical and industrial sectors but there is little said about the imaging sector in financial forecasts 🙁
haha… well that’s where you’re wrong yet again. I DO run a business (ladies bags and accessories) and the most money comes from the small mark up on high volume stuff. The stuff at the top of the range doesn’t sell but it creates the high-end image. It’s actually remarkably similar to what happens for some camera manufacturers.
I’m starting to realise that you are obsessed with marketing and haven’t worked out the real economics of manufacturing goods; number one is to keep the factory churning out stuff that doesn’t sit on the shelf waiting to be sold. That’s how you bring in the money.
The XZ-1 and E-PM1 are, imo, the right move and pricing the E-P3 sky high and sitting it on the shop shelf next to the others, adds value to the others and makes them seem like bargains.
Oly are doing things right. You seem to be a fearmonger.
You agree with Thom. You invest in what will make you 2 million on 1 million investment. By all accounts Olympus is investing 1 million to make 1.1 million. Thom does not see how Olympus strategy will ever get a return of 2 million on a million investment. Thom was in the computer industry for a long time and has seen how tight the returns on investment is and how a slight wobble can be difficult to return from. Example HP tablet
Let’s assume you’re correct for a moment. You would be arguing that the Pen lineup is really the high-end “build the brand” stuff. So what’s the low-end sell a butt load? It isn’t the Olympus compacts. The XZ-1 and E-PM1 are not high volume products.
One problem with your scenario, is you need a dealer that has the XZ-1 through E-P3. Said dealer almost surely has the P300 through D700 and the S100 through the 5DII. But finding that dealer here in the US is getting harder. Just talked to another one who’s dropping their Olympus sales because it’s not working.
I’m a marketing and product guy. That’s what I did in Silicon Valley for 20+ years: design products and market them. Of course I’d be obsessed with marketing and product.
Oly also closed their West Coast repair center. Last time I shipped a camera back for repair it sat in their facility for a week without even being logged into the system.
@Thom:
The recent Olympus lineup seems so very similar to me. They’re using the same tech in all three of these bodies, with only minor differences other than UI and form factor.
I have a lot of trouble looking at these bodies and *not* thinking that the PM1 is the best value. Is a tilt screen worth a $200 upsell? Are more controls, built-in flash, and a touchscreen worth an additional $200 more than that?
As a consumer I have to commend Olympus for not crippling the PM1, but I find the higher end models to be off in some kind of no-man’s-land from a pricing perspective. It really seems like the E-P3 slot should be filled by a camera with a major differentiating feature, like a better sensor, to encourage upgrading.
@JeremyT
I’m sure Olympus have more cameras in the works, probably 2-3 high end micro four thirds cameras for 2012/13
1. a high end Pen
2. a E30 replacement (demographics wise)
3. an E5 successor which will probably come with a free micro four thirds adapter
I’d tend to agree with you. Moreover, you’ve got your own products competing with one another. When I start to hear the list of things on the higher end models, the Mini starts to sound like a real stripper model and will give me hesitation. At which point the salesman pitches you over to a D3100 or a Rebel for an extra US$100.
Somewhere in the thread someone wrote that they thought that management was the problem and that the engineering was fine. The engineering itself–i.e., the underlying tech–is fine, but the final design decisions are not. Someone isn’t holding a hot enough iron over those decisions, IMHO.
@Thom Hogan
sales people in stores are playing a smaller part in the purchaser’s decisions, most people have already made up their mind because of word of mouth or web research/marketing when and if they reach a store.
Most people think/realise a lot of sales staff are clueless…
True in one sense. But for products that carve new territory, they need more than just Internet searches to sell. The more “different” your product is, the more it will rely upon seeing it in action with an advocate. Whether that’s at a store or in the field doesn’t matter, but there aren’t all that many m4/3 users in the field yet, either.
I could not find your comment about the sales staff being clueless until now. I had made an inquiry to Olympus USA about the availability of the E-P3 with the 14-42 and 40-150 lens which I know is available in Australia. The response which I thought was funny was that they would not have the kits in the USA and the older model 40-150 lens was readily available and no different than the newer lens (only cosmetic change). This is even though the R lens should “incorporate the MSC (Movie & Still Compatible) mechanism and achieve fast, quiet AF using the inner focus method”. I assume there is little difference between the R and non R model however I would like to see them and make my own mind up about them. My local dealer called Olympus for me and could not get a clear answer either. These were Olympus clear words of marketing that made me lose a lot of faith what Olympus deliver in the USA. I have an E-P3 with the 14-42 and a 45 f1.8 on order. I would like the 40-150 however I can wait. I would also like the 9-18 however my dealer is not able to get the lens for a few weeks which will put it after my vacation. Olympus lost sales because they could not answer questions or deliver goods. That is why I have a hard time beleiving Olympus really has a good plan to gain market share.
I agree that Olympus has made some poor product planning decisions in the past (everybody does), but I strongly disagree that they are still getting it wrong. Indeed, recent sales figures show Nikon/Canon losing market share and it is they that are failing to move with trends, not Oly.
Frankly, making 10% is no bad thing, and yes, we’d all like to make 100% on our investments, but honestly, do you ? Best I’ve done is buying BP at 3.3 and selling at 5, but this is the exception, not the rule.
Only GF1 is getting more and more expensive…
lets see what happens with GF7
I think one reason could be the following logic: If the camera is not small enough to fit it my pocket and I have to carry a bag, why NOT get a small dSLR?
A small dSLR brings with it brand familiarity and *seemingly* more lens choices/availability with Canon or Nikon.
Well you need, a more large bag. 😉
this is 100% right. NONE of the micro 4/3 cameras fit in a pocket and they never will. If you count baggy coat pockets, the small DSLRs fit in those, too. Why settle for smaller sensor, when a bigger sensor costs less money? And don’t Canon and Nikon have a TON more lenses? And aren’t they the brands that all the pros use?
These are the questions your “average Joe” asks and all the answers lead to buying a camera with a mirror in them. Period. I’ll stick with the quirky format that doesn’t take photos as good as the ones with mirrors, but for most people, it just doesn’t make sense.
No, there’s a still a size advantage of m4/3 over DX/APS. The black mark on Olympus and Panasonic is that they haven’t actually managed to make that point in their marketing sufficiently enough. They count on people seeing the product and making the “small” connection too much, IMHO. But that assumes that someone actually gets to a store and that the store isn’t already incented to sell Nikon or Canon ;~).
Basically, there are tons of questions that Olympus and Panasonic have to answer in a possible purchasers’ minds (“aren’t they the brands pro use?” is one of them, as you point out) that they just are not answering. Bottom line, Olympus marketing has again failed them. They had two years to make their case. Now Nikon is about to enter the market and claim the “smaller” distinction from them. What’s left? Best possible compromise? Yeah, that resonates in a marketing message, doesn’t it?
@Thom Hogan
“Basically, there are tons of questions that Olympus and Panasonic have to answer in a possible purchasers’ minds (“aren’t they the brands pro use?””
Only older conservative men are interested in this question (photographers don’t have that cache anymore Joe Public use to be able to name the likes of David Bailey, Ansel Adams etc), most other people will go for price, looks, aspiration, creativity and also a large amount of sales are done over the internet or in non camera chain stores ie not Bestbuy USA or Jessops UK(which are now both struggling)…
Olympus marketing is doing a pretty good job with the limited budget they have against entrenched competition>
Sorry, but I don’t think your thoughts are held up by the evidence. When you do brand awareness and what does a brand mean surveys amongst the customers Olympus is supposedly targeting, the Canon brand certainly comes up high and the Nikon brand is fairly solid, as well. Beyond that, Olympus is also selling against Panasonic, Samsung, and Sony, three well known diversified brands that are well liked and trusted.
You have to rise well above “doing a pretty good job [considering]” to survive in that kind of game.
Look, we’ve got lots of m4/3 supporters here on this site, and I’ll bet you that THEY can’t come up with a solid, clear, convincing reason to buy an E-PL3. Try it. Give me the marketing message that makes me run to a store to see and try it.
Here’s your ad slogan to sell the E-PL3 (and the rest of ’em).
It will take photos that are NEARLY as good as the entry level DSLR your neighbor bought that is made by the big name camera company.
It has a pretty good selection of lenses (although not nearly as many as the other 2 brands) that are a little bit smaller.
And it won’t cost you a TON more. And it’s a little bit smaller too.
……you’re right. not very compelling.
Look, we’ve got lots of m4/3 supporters here on this site, and I’ll bet you that THEY can’t come up with a solid, clear, convincing reason to buy an E-PL3. Try it. Give me the marketing message that makes me run to a store to see and try it.
—
@Thom:
No problem, there nearly are too many to be all mentioned.
Size and weight: I’ve got an E-5 with 12-60 SWD, 50-200 SWD, 50 2.0 and 9-18. Used to take the entire gear with me every single day when walking my dogs but a few months ago I suffered a slipped disc and just can’t take the weight any longer. But even before this incident, I nearly never took the camera with me when I was just makin a shopping trip to the city.
Now I’ve got the E-P Lite 3 with Zuiko 14-42 IIR, Lumix 14-45, Lumix 45-200 (still owning the latter two lenses from a first µFT stint with the G1 two and a half years ago), Lumix 20 1.7, Zuiko 45 1.8 (hopefully soon) plus EFV2 and the small flash in one lightweight bag and am carrying it around wherever I go. And in all areas apart from sports/action, this combo gives me pictures that are just as good as the ones I can shoot with my E-5. And things will become even better next year with the fast zooms that have been pre-announced by Panasonic. Or maybe µFT versions of the Zuikos 12-60 and 50-200?
Technical advantages: Due to being fully liveview, shooting with a mirrorless cam offers you the chance of full pre-shooting control via the EVF. The consequences of exposure changes are displayed in the EVF, you’ve got the live histogram and and and…
And the possibility to make your picture control also represents a huge advantage – not only but even more so for wearers of glasses. Everybody will benefit from having the chance of controlling his pictures without being disturned by the impact of ambient light. And if you are wearing glasses, you now can put them away (if your diopter figures aren’t too high, thast is) as you don’t have to put them on to check your pictures on the display. (That’s huge advantage, lost already two pairs of glasses during outdoor dog-action shootings.
And don’t forget the flip-out display:
While the swivel displays of DSLRs use to flip out sideways, the flip-out displays of the E-PL3 and the NEXes flip out up or down, with the latter allowing you to use these cameras in the waist-level finder style. For me, this opportunity adds a new level of fun and pleasure to my photography.
Sexyness: These small high-tech devices are just sexy. Who wants to carry a dull, black, clumsy machine around with them if they can get the same performance in a small, colourful sexy package?
Inconspicuousness: I purchased my E-PL3 in red to add to this factor. If you do street photography with such a device everybody will think you are just one of these tourists and won’t bother – while a DSLR pointed at them makes people A) nervous or B) beginning to pose.
And would you bring your DSLR to a social gathering or party just for the fun of it?
I wouldn’t – as long as I wouldn’t fear that there might be a fight and I need a weapon. 😉
But the E-PL3 with the Lumix 20 1.7 and the Zuiko 45 1.8? Most definitely I would. Particularly as they provide sharp pictures throughout the frame if shot wide open, thus allowing me to ignore the flash most of the time.
So yes, there are loads of arguments to go for mirrorless as long as you don’t shoot action or sports. And I do firmly believe that the C-AF issue (the only reason why I’m keeping my E-5 for the time being) also will be solved in the foreseeable future.
And then it will be farewell to DSLR, for me.
I didn’t say there weren’t arguments for m4/3. Remember, I use m4/3 cameras all the time. What I wrote is that Olympus has not (nor did you) come up with a marketing message that gets across why someone should buy it.
You couldn’t run what you wrote as an ad. Most people would have quit reading a few words in. THAT’S the problem: the message has to be concise and clear. We’ve not yet seen that from Olympus. We’ve not yet see it from a m4/3 user.
How about;
Oly gives quality, lowlight, low weight …and oh yes, less costly prime lenses. Hmmm, what it doesn’t give are the neck strain and back aches of SLRs.
I mean really folks, do I need 20 or 25 megapixels? Do I want to take Advil after a day of shooting? Do I want to spend thousands on prime lenses? Do I want to leave the camera at home because I just can’t tolerate lugging the darn thing?
Instead, how about a camera which, through it’s diminutive size and sheer fun factor, incents you, not only to bring it everywhere, but all your lenses too! I go everywhere with my E-PL1. My entire, limited setup of two extra lenses, mini tripod, electronic viewfinder, filters and extra batteries fits into a tiny case, half the size of a kid’s lunch box, including the padding! Try that Canon, try that Nikon.
You ever tried hiking all day with a backpack AND an SLR around your neck? You ever tried walking around the city, the countryside, sightseeing, almost anywhere, but all day long with an SLR hanging off you? How many would actually try that with an SLR? …how about with a PEN camera – no problem. Frankly, I can afford the SLRs, but won’t even consider one for the above reasons.
The pics my PL1 takes, including low light shots, are fantastic! Sure, it doesn’t have the high ISO capability, but it does have in-body stabilization, which compensates very nicely for the more limited high ISO.
Yes – I will definitely get the EP3 – for the quick focus alone.
And here come my catch Phrases:
The PEN: Takes the fun back into your photogrphy.
Or:
The PEN: A lightweight camera for heavyweight pictures.
Or: You replaced your old gas guzzler by one of those agile compact cars and it delivers even better? Why not use the same approach for your photography? Get your PEN and increase the fun.
I think the second is so good that I should sell it to Oly right away, but then… I’m not in the marketing/advertising business.
It strikes me that there are two conflicting messages that need to be made:
Size DOES matter: smaller means convenience and less to carry
Size DOESN’T matter: just because it’s small doesn’t mean it doesn’t take great pictures
It’s the contradictions of those two opposing things that have to be resolved in a marketing message.
amongst consumers that message will be harder to convey with the likes of the Pentax Q and the new Nikon mirrorless (if rumoured specs are to be believed) as their size is too much a leap of faith/imagination from either point and shoot upgraders or DSLR downgraders/2nd camera walkabout…
But that’s exactly my point. Olympus has had over two years to establish that message. They have not done so yet. Now they’re getting competitors that make the simplest of their messages not unique enough.
The one thing m4/3 still has going for it is that it has basically good products with a wide range of lenses. Will they play THAT advantage up now? Doubtful given their track record.
“We’ve been doing small forever, and we’ve got the lenses and system to back it up. Does Nikon?”
I’m pretty sure Olympus and Panny’s next steps are twofold: to make apps for cameras and also to release more pro-like models, the Nikon mirrorless won’t be hitting shelves in any numbers until early 2012 at which point Oly/Panny will be announced their ep-4, gh3 etc as well as Panasonic and third party companies announcing specialist third party lenses for the likes of the AF100 giving more kudos to micro four thirds.
btw the Olympus Pen Kevin Spacey ad campaign was pretty successful.
If you want to Nikon Olympus pick up a Pen and see the Pen is mightier than the Canon.
That and few various things.
While I currently have GH2 Oly and Pana are making it very hard to justify staying in m4/3 for long term unless there will be serious cameras at the latest before next spring: From my main camera I’ll always want full direct controls and ergonomy which isn’t in the way of getting things done.
And as such camera will never be pocketable there will be very little reason to stay in these unergonomically small (+ plain bad design choises), consumer control-less but non pocketable bodies in the face of likes Sony A77 which offers important features I’ve expected from fully digital system camera.
One commenter mentioned about Canon and Nikon having their biggest advantage in their big and well known brand names when so many professional and enthusiasts have their equipment giving lots of free advertising and for correcting that inbalance m4/3 is going to need all possible help from current customers.
And here we now have a system with some about pocketable bodies and some not so pocketable but greatly lacking in features/handling bodies and talk about claimed to be quality lenses starting with “we’ll use software to fix flaws in optical design”.
So guess how much I can recommend m4/3 over Canon, Nikon, Pentax DSLRs or Sony SLTs to anyone wanting system with quaranteed space for growth of hobby and not just compact/casual shooting camera?
>> “we’ll use software to fix flaws in optical design”
This is bullshit. The lenses were designed to be small. The smallness of the lenses requires software correction. If you’re not happy with it, then go carry around the huge lenses they have designed for the NEX.
>> quaranteed space for growth of hobby
This is a meaningless phrase when it comes to Canon and Nikon. There is no growth from Powershot to S95 to the Canon DSLR line, or in the comparable line of cameras from Nikon. You can’t re-use flashes, EVFs, lenses and accessories. You can’t re-use the lenses on the new Nikon mirrorless to Nikon DX.
There is growth from the GF3 -> G3 -> GH2/3.
There is growth from the XZ1 -> EPM1 -> EPL3 -> EP3.
Panasonic and Olympus present a complete system that allows growth. Canon and Nikon stifle growth.
posted at the wrong position and erased
Again.
Yeah, a translucent mirror is the way to go ?! If I’ve ever seen a dread-end road that is one. Why should anyone wish to combine the disadvantages of two systems and add a third:
Although the picture-rendition lag of the EVF is reduced generation by generation it’s still there.
The PDAF is far less precise than the CDAF.
And the semilucent mirror costs you about half a step of light.
So, if I have to cope with the disadvantages of the PDAF as I need a fast C-AF for sports and action, could please somebody explain me why I shouldn’t buy a real DSLR instead of this weird hybrid?
Ah, forgot one:
Your fed up with front and back focus issue?
Get your PEN and never look back.
Isnt’t a big camera better?
I’m confused!
If I compare my E-1 with my G1, I’m pretty sure which one is going to win^^
n/a
I think price is the key to adoption of mirrorless cameras by the masses.
Most people buying a camera still fall into 2 categories – compact or DSLR.
Many who go down the compact route want something affordable &/or pocketable.
Many who are going down the DSLR route want a quality product & don’t know what to make of mirrorless.
I think mirrorless is getting there though – what we need are cheaper mirrorless cameras similar in size to compacts – that will remove the argument for choosing upmarket compact cameras, and in time even the cheaper ones. So give us a GF3 with the new x14-42mm lens for £299 not £599 !
In the upper market dominated by DSLR, the “pro” mirrorless cameras will continue to be niche for a while yet. Technically, mirrorless needs to get a better EVF across the board & with a good range of lenses – at competitive pricing. If, as the article suggests, there are bigger margins in mirrorless then drop the prices & make the decision easier !
Let’s fast forward a bit into the not-too-distant future. You’ll have five choices of cameras:
* 8-13mp camera phone
* 10-16mp compact
* 12-24mp mirrorless
* 16-24mp crop DSLR
* 18-36mp full DSLR
What are you going to take your pictures with and why? In theory, compact and crop DSLR should be highly squeezed by the others. In practice it might not work out that way (consider the Fujifilm X10: bigger sensor in a compact puts pressure on low-end mirrorless).
The problem I have with Olympus is that they’ve basically made a bet on compact and mirrorless. Compare that to Nikon, which will have everything but a camera phone. This gives Nikon more flexibility to shift resources to whatever wins the question I asked up front (while still continuing to serve its traditional customers). If Olympus doesn’t win their bet, then what?
Compact is definitely getting squeezed, but I’d say crop is squeezing full frame if anything.
It may be manufacturer’s stubborn nature to keep prices high >$2500 for entry into (new) full frame cameras.
Plus developments to these cameras are slow. More people seem satisfied with D7000s, d300s, 7d than 5dII’s and D700s – especially when looking at AF. This just seems to be the gist from forums, and from the little camera club at work, only one person has a full frame (5dII).
I don’t think consumers are squeezing out crop – manufacturers and squeezing our wallets on full frame making us buy crop instead.
NB: I’ve responded to 3 of your posts now. Not targeting you. I’d only respond if I were interested 🙂
Well, DX exists and survives because FX is too expensive. The question has always been whether FX could drive sensor costs down by 80%. I suspect they can, but the camera companies are reluctant to do so because they can keep the pros happy at high margins and still win consumers/prosumers with the lower-priced DX. Put another way, they have little incentive to drive FX down right now.
Nevertheless, I’ll stick by my words. FX forms a pretty solid ceiling that DX is slowly being pushed up towards.
Olympus didn’t make a bet: they lost the game and started over on a different playing field.
The Olympus DSLR E Series lost the game, they were destroyed on the field of battle, plain and simple. While the E Series had its innovations, the sensor and R&D that Canon Nikon and Sony could wield in the DSLR space was destroying Olympus.
So rather than quit, Olympus and Panasonic took the ball and moved over to the next field.
Picking the field to play on is a bet. Panny/Oly bet that they could get a solid position in mirrorless before any of the big boys moved. We’ll see soon enough if that actually happened.
I’d say Olympus’ viral marketing is not too bad. I’ve read plenty of blog entries of pro- and semi pro photographers on the E-P3 and the new 12 and 45mm lenses. Nearly all of them were extremely enthusiastic. A few halfheartedly negative remarks on DR and lowlight capabilities, o.k.. Still the verdict was most of the time: great IQ, and even greater fun to use.
I think the new Pens (especially the E-P3) have an “emotional” appeal that lacks most of Panasonic’s and Sony’s EVIL models – and that lacks definitely the big DSLRs. (Fuji has nailed this aspect even better, at least design-wise.) I’ve hardly come across any negative comments of people that actually *own* the E-P3. They all seem to, well, just like the cam. I’ve read so many times “well, in harsh or low light it may not be as good as my Canon or Nikon pro model; still it’s the cam I use 90 percent of my time now because it’s so much fun.”
After I had heard that the new models have the same old (or slightly tweaked) sensor as my E-30, I was halfway ready to change the brand. But the more enthusiastic comments I read in blogs like Kirk Tuck’s, Robin Wong’s, Lawrence Kim’s, …, the more I change my mind.
I’ve just found another example:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=39369040
Really “Fraenzken,” you “found” another example from someone named “Franzen”? What a lucky coincidence!
Technically, it’s not viral marketing, it’s guerrilla marketing. But I don’t see anyone back at the Oly end actually doing anything much to encourage that or more importantly, amplify that. OlympusUS, for instance, had a chance to get me a new lens prior to my most recent Africa trip. They didn’t. So it’ll be awhile before I write about that lens, obviously (still not quite home yet).
2 main reasons for begginners and enthusiasts:
Beginners:
It does not give PRO look and status that P&S upgrades look for, but at the same time they cost as much as DSLRS that do
give that “status”, begginers wont really accept mirrorless unthil the enthusiasts do, which leads us to 2:
Enthusiasts:
The mirrorless systems are not truly up to DSLR standards:
a.M43 would always be a “step-down” for someone who comes from DSLR world,
Yes, it is a small price to pay i agree, but when your paying premium money for a camera that is supposed to replace a DSLR the step-down in IQ is unnecaptable
b.Sony does not provide almost any attractive and viable lens options, the E-System is useless if one does not use Legact glass (a niche)
> Yes, it is a small price to pay i agree, but when your paying premium money for a camera that is supposed to replace a DSLR the step-down in IQ is unnecaptable
I could have swallowed the step-down of IQ, if it was compensated with better ergonomics. Yet…
@frosti7
word of mouth, distribution and marketing along with practical, attractive design of micro four thirds will drive up their sales.
Remember mobile phones use to be the size of bricks? Computers too use to be large!
then when camera apps come along it will be even better 😀
(Nikon and Canon DSLR’s won’t be getting apps till 2020, where as mirrorless will have them 2012-13)
All camera designs are the same and have not changed for 30 years since autofocus came about. Look at the Olympus line which is trying recreate a feel from years ago. Not sure that high of percentage of people like the retro design. My daughter thinks the camera is just old and clunky to use. She uses a Cannon S90 and can shoot rings around me (sorry).
The apps is something they should have a had this year. This is the year of facebook, twitter etc and you missed it!
Step down in IQ? Where?
Lets take E-P3..
SNR at base ISO (200) – 33.9 dB
DR at base ISO – 9.81 eV
Then, maybe different mirrorless, NEX C-3
SNR at base ISO (200) – 35.4 dB (cause its APS-C, NEX 5N will be even better)
DR at base ISO – 11.72 eV
Now that dreadfull dSLR – Nikon D7000
SNR at base-ish ISO (100) – 38 dB (thats same sensor as NEX C-3 and 5N btw.)
DR at base ISO – 13.35 eV (whoaa)
So, is it step down in IQ? Sure it is..
Pretty much every mirrorless is noisy even at base ISO, and maybe except NEX 5N, all have pretty lousy dynamic range. Colors are starting to be somewhat ok with NEX C3, and I guess NEX 5N is better in that respect too. Rest of mirrorless has pretty lousy colors, not mentioning color accuracy, that simply sux.. (though thats true for most modern dSLRs too). One exception is Samsung NX, that actually has very pleasing colors (though no way accurate).
Get 1Ds MK2 instead of D7000 and you will see what IQ means.. (and its not that expensive today).
Yea and in regard to that SNR, for noise not being visible, 38 dB is barrier, though something like 39-40 dB is much better.
For most people. IQ equals sensor+lens. And if your argument for IQ is DXO then i don’t see you could posibly get happy without at least a FF camera.
Well, FF is pretty much what I like. 😀 Though not for IQ part, but for look. Ideal would be MF camera, unfortunately, only film is available for some “sane” price. Though scans from Contax 645 looks really amazing..
Sure its about lens, and m4/3s are quite well at that department now (Sony NEX much less, but hey, theres always adapter.. ehm). As I said somewhere, whole idea of 4/3 was great.. unfortunately sensor size isnt, it should be bigger than 35mm, not smaller.
I had m4/3 cameras, so I kinda know how much you can squeeze from them, and its a lot, if you know how to shoot (and PP). But its just so much easier with professional dSLR. Easier shooting, easier PP, files can withstand a lot of torture, while m4/3 files generaly cant even lift shadows a bit.
But you’re leaving out some key elements in the equation.
First, if it were simply all about IQ, mirrorless wouldn’t have a chance. The relevant question is what is the IQ/Convenience/Price balance? You can give up a little bit in one for a gain in another. Which is one reason why a D7000 sells more than a D700.
But Olympus is making two mistakes. First, IQ on the Mini/Lite/P3 is basically the same. So now we’ve got a couple hundred dollar difference in prices to be explained by what? Not really convenience, so it’s all about features. But this puts the P3 at a disadvantage to the D5100. Meanwhile, the Lite is at a disadvantage to the D3100 in terms of features/performance. So what Olympus really has to market and sell is convenience/size. Are they doing that?
And who will notice the difference? 98% of images are OOC jpegs, no PP and displayed on a badly calibrated TV screen.
I do.
Eizo screen with 95% aRGB and calibrated. RAW only shooter. PP as needed.
Hmm, 1%er — oh that’s already used somewhere else
Actually, it’s difficult NOT to notice a difference in Olympus JPEGs over many of the competitors. There’s more contrast and saturation, both traits that most non-PPers like. One reason why I like the Oly over the equivalent Panny is that the JPEGs are usable out of the gate as proxys.
Bigger cameras with larger sensors like 1DsMK2 or similar of course have better IQ. – But that does not mean other cameras are “lousy”. Daemonius, with your logic the Canikon FF cameras are also shit! Go for the Phase One IQ180 – that is far better than any CaNikon!
Every camera is a compromise and you buy the quality you need and can afford.
m43 outperforms DX and FF (and above) with better portability – The best camera is the camera you bring along!
Of all the most famous photos taken, IQ is NOT the decisive factor. If you take bad photos with an m4/3 the problem is yourself and lack of competense and/or artistic sense, not the camera!
@Daemonius: Most people seem to love the ooc colors of the E-P3. And many people seem to hate Nikon ooc colors. In the tests I’ve read about the E-P3, color fidelity wasn’t much of an issue either. DR and Noise are another thing; I’m with you there.
1. Westerners have larger finger and palm size. They will find the m4/3 body too small to grip.
2. Olympus have different market segment and target group of customers.
3. In general, westerners don’t have the strong interest to take as much photos as the Asians. They have yet to discover the amazing benefits of the m4/3!
@fax2nelson
1. You be surprised, mirrorless is taking off everywhere apart from North America
2. Olympus is turning around and doing OK for itself the customers aren’t too different, there are also a lot of interchangable customers between Oly and Panny
3. We are catching up to the amazing benefits of the m4/3 😀
Mirrorless arent exactly popular in EU, at least not where I live. Though fortunately for them, we are just small country (with probably highest concetration of photographers tho :D).
I agree with one, miniaturization should stoped with GF-1. Anything smaller is just very uncomfortable to use. Though, I think that size around Leica M9 is ideal.. unless you are girl.
In Italy you see m43 in the hands of Japanese tourists only. Ok, there is someone who experiments, but even in last months I met many many amateur photogs who were renovating the talk about Nikon vs Canon, Canon vs Nikon, etc. There is simply no perception of the alternatives, if not as low cost less value alternatives. Mirrored or not (and many here who would easily spend 2000 euros in a Nikon D7000 plus a set of lenses do not know what a mirrorless camera is).
Mirrorless isnt unpopular, just check NEX-7 pre-orders. m4/3 format is something else. Main issue is simple, it has small sensor. Idea behind 4/3 was pretty good, when you see results from E-3 paired with 35-100mm f2, you see that it actually worked well. But..
4/3 sensor even when its capable of getting great lens is simply small, and in photography, size matters. Otherwise we wouldnt have ability to eventually upgrade to digital backs for MF cameras.
If you take a look at M9, you see that mirrorless fullframe doesnt mean that it must be big..
Think of it from Sony’s viewpoint. They thought the A65/A77 would be the comeback of their DSLR line. But the NEX-7 pre-orders are outstripping the A77 pre-orders. Oops. I suspect (well, I’ve heard it pretty directly) that Sony Imaging internally is having a lot of squabbles over resource allocation. Be interesting to see how this plays out.
people do just not understand enough about the technicalities of photography to make an informed decision, so they average joe sticks with what he perceives as either the best or otherwise “no risk of looking like a fool”
I found it funny to see people take flash pics with their DSLR and f3.5 kit zoom lens whereas at that indoor venue I walked around with my GF1 and 20/1.7 taking some really good pics. Only when they saw them on Flickr, they became aware that their setup wasn’t optimal. But they still don’t understand why, so they’ll make the same uninformed mistake again unless there are retailers that really inform their customers.
I think you are missing the point of m4/3. Some people like a more portable package than possible with APS-C or FF (M9 is not exactly tiny).
I don’t think Bloomberg agrees with the premise of Thom’s article…
And I don’t agree with Bloomberg. I see no support for their assertion of a 35% drop in share by Nikon and Canon.
Despite many interesting hypotheses, I think it just comes down to Canon and Nikon being the best known brands, especially for DSLRs. Olympus, Pentax, etc. are just not as well known. As for Panasonic, folks still think of them as making TVs or DVD players not cameras.
that’s why they are pushing Lumix branding and Olympus are pushing Pen 😀
yes, I thought most people don’t use m4/3 because they are just stubborn.
HOWEVER, when I bought a pentax k5 last week, it clearly shows iso3200 better than iso800 out of pany g1, and its iso800 looks clearer than iso200 of ep2, then I realized why.
I own those 3 models. I love the concept of m4/3 but the pany’s sensor is left far behind.
People always think my EPL-1 + 20 mm f1.7 as a P&S compact camera….and yet many of my friend who look the result surprise that such a P&S compact camera can create great picture. Even so most of them still choose DSLR over mirrorless due to the recognition of look and brand regardless they never put anything other than lens kit in their DSLR. For average people photography still more about tool and specification rather than great picture.
Lots of people I know in Germany use Canon or Nikon as a word for “photo camera”.
My experience in the US is that Canikon retailer influence is significant. Six months ago I went to a retailer to see if I could look at Sony and Panasonic cameras. The clerk said Canon or Nikon. I said, well, you have these in stock, can I see what they are like. He couldn’t even find a battery for the A55, so no luck there. He did have a G2 that I was able to try. (ended up getting a GH1 for $399 online …)
US doesn’t seem to be a Panny/Olympus priority… Bestbuy aren’t doing too good,Ritz cameras went belly up owing a lot of money to certain camera companies and the dollar isn’t looking too good against the Japanese Yen.
Panasonic seems to think the US is a fourth-world nation. 35% of the camera sales worldwide, and Panasonic’s last market of choice. Go figure.
Olympus used to do okay in the US dealer networks. But during the past couple of years its been constant cuts in reps and support staff in the US headquarters (which is a couple of miles from where I live). They just went through another small cutback last month. The problem is that the dealers see this pretty directly, so they start backing off from making any commitment to inventory. It’s a circular problem: the lack of inventory commitment leads to more layoffs, and…well, the end result won’t look good.
Once you again you ignore the Ritz camera and Bestbuy points I make, me wonders why?????????????????
Maybe the USA is where the smallest margin is or the most conservative customers?
I ignored your BB and Ritz comments because they’re basically irrelevant to the thing that was being discussed. In the case of Ritz, Nikon pulled the inventory back and refurbished it. Lowered their margins, but the final “loss” number was actually relatively small. But more to the point, a smart company would have insurance for such problems, or at least some alternative for recovering as much as possible. And I’ll counter your point by noting that one company I worked for that distributed to Japan had seven figures EMBEZZLED from us by our distributor there. This didn’t stop us from continuing to sell in Japan, but it did change the way we looked at, due diligenced, and protected ourselves against future distribution there. Put another way, those are just excuses, not reasons, for not doing something.
No doubt that selling in the US is tough on margins. We’re probably one of the harder countries in which to control margins (though every Japanese company tries their hardest to do so, including some things that are probably illegal). But let’s put some numbers on that, okay? Japan is maybe 10% of sales, the US is 35%. If your net product margin in Japan is 40%, how far does it have to fall before you’d not prioritize the US market as equally or more important? Three times the sales is a powerful incentive. At least it should be.
The E-System wasn’t “driven” right. It could have been object driven and in some areas of photography it held all the aces – but they didn’t push those areas.
The extra depth of field is actually an advantage for macro & small product shooting. Back when they had the only SLR with a tilt/swivel screen was perfect to promote this system for studio/macro work. Even produce more macro primes and bellows. They have a good name in the professional field in this area, but didn’t capitalize on it.
A good relatively compact 200-400 lens would have made good use of the 4/3s telephoto advantage and drawn in wildlife & travel shooters looking to get “different” shots than the competition.
A couple of inexpensive fast portrait primes instead of huge & expensive zooms. Many studio photographers liked the easy jpegs from the Olys. Less work.
The points in photography where the format had an advantage weren’t pushed. On top of that they lost their “halo” Pro photgraphers by taking too long in upgrading the E1 sending mixed messages inbetween with “experiment” cameras. And trying to shift boxes of cheaper plastic cameras against companies with better economies of scale. And when the E3 finally came, people thought it was a Canon in disguise.
They are doing the same faults with Micro – yes, the PENs are nice, but the range is not complete. They are missing a model with integral VF and more manual controls.
Good engineers, but Olympus management is Clueless.
Yes.
+1
+1
If I were to think about the biggest drawbacks of my DSLR for m43 marketing purposes, I’d ask the customers:
— Do you wish your DSLR could quickly identify and focus on a face, rather than random objects closer to the camera? Then buy a MILC/CLC/EVIL.
— Do you wish your DSLR could tell the difference between a landscape and portrait? Then buy a MILC/CLC/EVIL.
I guess that doesn’t account for Sony’s SLT cameras, but they’re hard to fit in this discussion, too.
Great Points! Yes, they blew it with the E-System when they had something that was so close. If they screw up m43 they will be OUT.
I really love my m43 kit, but honestly the performance isn’t there yet. AF continuous on a CDAF system isn’t even up-to-par with entry level DSLRs. It’s near impossible to shoot decent movement such as fast moving kids.
@Gundam
pretty easy with practice actually, I don’t see any many fast moving kids pictures taken by DSLR owners that couldn’t of been taken by a practiced micro four thirds or E5 owner…
While true, the majority of users want the camera to “make photos magically.” Thus, if the “magic” hit rate of an m4/3 camera is 40% and that of a DSLR is 60%, they’ll see the DSLR as what they need to buy.
My hit rate for photographing kids playing at weddings or my social events is 90%, if I have to give my micro four thirds camera to someone else to photograph my kids playing I switch my GH1 to Auto Intelligent mode and that does a superb job of getting sharp pictures of kids playing 80%+(although the composition won’t be so good).
Speaking to a few beginner Lumix owners in the field quite a few start off in Intelligence Auto mode, so there you go…
You must be the greatest photographer ever. I don’t think Ansel Adams was above 90%. I think you need to relook at your photographs and see whether they could have come out better. Some of my perfect pictures leave a lot to be desired on a clear 30 inch monitor.
I have never had a photo that I was satisfied with when someone else used my camera. At my godsons wedding I took 140 pictures (D300) as a favor in addition to the hired photographer. 25 of my pictures were used for 8×10 or larger pictures and zero for the hired photographer whose pictures were all blown out due to the white dress. I thought I had done great at 18% usage.
The reason I have a m4/3 camera is because I had a heart attack this February at 51 years old. I am in shape and healty now (crappy genes). Lugging my big camera around is not fun. My D300 will beat my e-p3 without trying. I have to think a lot more with the e-p3 to get equivalent quality. Not sure many consumers want to have to think before taking a picture. Thom’s point is that there is nothing magical about these cameras. There is nothing that will differentiate them from other cameras other than their size. The m4/3 crowd needs to differentiate themselves from other cameras or they will go down like the hp tablet.
@chaz the bad photographer
I have my own kids so it’s not like I’ve not had practice photographing them, you can use lots of techniques for playing kids like panning, focusing on the spot they are about to move into,shoot wide angle for deeper field of focus, interact with them, get on their level etc…
If it’s not going to be the right shot don’t press the shutter down, 5 seconds later there will be another opportunity to photograph them playing…
At weddings I make a point of photographing children as many couples now have their kids before they get married, so I’m well practiced 😀
Your hired photographer was obviously not using live view with exposure compensation as it’s very difficult to accidentally blow out highlight detail with micro four thirds mirrorless (bet he was using a Canon or a Nikon?)
Why bother take photos that you would delete anyway?
You must be the greatest photographer ever. I don’t think Ansel Adams was above 90%.
Adams once said that if he got 12 good photographs a year he was a happy man. So I am equally dubious about people who claim 90% hit rates, unless they have a strange definition of the term.
@Chick
My photos have to be good enough for my customers, just like you I suppose?
Not many photographers would stay in business if they could only produce 12 good photos a year…
+1
A professional videographer I know who shoots skiers and snowboarders for a living now only uses the GH2. You are not using the camera properly – check EOSHD.com.
For the average person…any of the EVIL cameras have MORE than what they need for their use to take great photos…especially given that 99% of the photos will be viewed on an electronic device in jpeg format. Nuff said.
If you want to get in deeper and have a full quiver of tools to choose from to solve visual problems (professionally, artistically, etc) you cannot beat Canon or Nikon DSLR’s. Not only do you have their wells to draw from to solve visual needs when you buy one of their bodies, you have a plethora of third party, rental, used, etc. available to you that no other systems can give you, in the abundance and pricepoint that is available out there today.
Will that change …probably..but right now …that still holds true. They have a tough show to beat!!!!
I love running out the door with my GF1…but sometimes that just isn’t going to cut it for what I am trying to achieve visually and from a IQ standpoint.
I LOVE both!!!!!!!
Another division of potential customers who know something about cameras:
1. New adopters: buying their first serious camera,
moving up from a compact, etc. These people are good
potential customers and all the discussion above,
esp. about the market dominance of Canon and Nikon
applies.
2. Existing SLR owners. Perhaps the group best suited appreciate the advantages of a mirrorless camera. However, once you’ve accumulated a body and set of lenses switching to *anything* else is expensive. I fit in this category and just made the switch but suspect that this is not the richest vein to mine for new customers.
from m4/3 point of view, they are still doing better than how 4/3 fared. it should be viewed as how much m4/3 has gained and not why it havent touched nikon/canon’s fanbase. i dont think that was their plan. while it might not have swayed much of those entry-level dslr buyers, it at least gained some with advanced p&s upgraders.
People want to look like they are a professional so they buy a camera that looks like the ones they see professionals carry. I have a client who wanted me to suggest a camera for him to take to paris. I said depends on budget but I would get one of the new olympus ep models. I showed him a pic of it and he said “I will not look like I know what I am doing. It looks like an ameture camera” I said then go buy a Nikon d3x. If you want to look good spend 5,000 if you want good solid images spend 600. he came in with the epl2 and I played around with it. Awesome camera in my opinion.
For me, the move to m4/3 really had to do with the affordability of a good UWA lens. I bought into the system for the 7-14…anything comparable would have cost me twice as much and I really have no desire to carry around thousands of dollars worth of equipment.
Awesome lens for architectural, document copying, and UW landscape work.
One thing that wasn’t taken into account is the decline of the US dollar versus the Yen. I’m not saying this is an argument argument against Hogan’s analysis. Thom’s been on the past couple of weeks, and I agree with him. A weaker US dollar works against the $400 DSLR category.
>> But don’t prepare for the US$399 interchangeable lens camera.
This statement makes no sense. You can already buy the E-PL1 brand new for $320.
When Olympus sells all of the E-PL1s they have, then the E-PL2 will drop to the $399 price point or lower, after the E-PL4 is released.
In 2 years time, the EP3 will cost $399 or lower just as the the EP1 does now, after the EP5 is released.
Yes, the E-PL1, which is two generations old, is selling new for US$399 with lens typically. That Olympus still has inventory of them is an indication of a problem, though. (Nikon doesn’t have inventory of models two generations old.) The interesting thing is that Olympus is now competing against themselves. Frankly, the E-PL1 is a better choice than the E-PM1 at US$100 more. If you’re not careful, you just pile up the E-PM1 inventory while you’re remaindering the E-PL1 inventory so you just repeat the cycle. In effect, you’re establishing a lower product margin over a long period. Worse still, the dealer, who wasn’t really supported in the first place, wants to move his E-PL1 stock before committing to new E-PM1 stock. It’s not a good cycle to be in.
The E-PM1 and the GF3 were created as a result of both Panny and Oly seeing that they should bifurcate the m4/3 models that they make available (due to increased demand).
Panny and Oly are dividing the models towards the high end and the low end. The EP3 -> EPL-3 -> EPM1.
This phenomena is an indication of demand in this market.
The speed at which they are pushing new models out is also an indication of the health of the m4/3 market. Nikon is notoriously slow in its traditional DSLR full frame market. Of course, they don’t have to replace 1 year old models. That market is stagnant.
The E-PL1 was also a market seeding product, with potentially too much of a retro look and feel to appeal to the wider market (although I like how it looks). And while it isn’t a large camera compared to DSLRs it is significantly larger than the most generation of PENs. They didn’t have the time to shrink the design.
It shouldn’t be forgotten that Panny and Oly (and Sony) have been CREATING A MARKET.
Creating a market for a new product category is immensely difficult. There is tremendous competitive, consumer mindset and status quo inertia to overcome.
And finally, the E-PM1 is faster and smaller than the E-PL1. For some users that makes all the difference.
> The E-PM1 and the GF3 were created as a result of both Panny and Oly seeing that they should bifurcate the m4/3 models that they make available (due to increased demand).
You were doing okay up until the parenthetical clause, which is not supported by any evidence. It seems clear that m4/3 should try to straddle compact to DSLR. Doing that with one model would be a big risk, though one I might be willing to take if I could completely define the product ;~). Panny made that clear from the beginning with the GH1/GF1 bifurcation, which happened BEFORE there was any evidence of demand, by the way. They’ve pressed the GF1 down and the GH1 up giving them space for other things in between. It’s called a “blanketing strategy.” And it’s been there from day one.
> The speed at which they are pushing new models out is also an indication of the health of the m4/3 market.
No, it is not. It’s an indication of the perception that they’d better iterate and get it right before the Big Two come in and spoil their party. Nikon themselves have used the same strategy, with faster iteration of certain cameras they felt needed to establish a beachhead (the D40 to D3100 progression was on 12-month update cycles).
> Nikon is notoriously slow in its traditional DSLR full frame market. Of course, they don’t have to replace 1 year old models. That market is stagnant.
No, the full frame market is not stagnant. If anything, Nikon has been on a roll since the D3 intro and stolen share from Canon to the point of near panic at Canon. Canon’s about to change their strategy in that market, I think. But the SIZE of the market isn’t all that large, and it doesn’t grow fast. If that’s what you mean by stagnant, I’ll agree with you.
> It shouldn’t be forgotten that Panny and Oly (and Sony) have been CREATING A MARKET.
Creating a market is not the same as owning a market. Apple creates and owns markets. The story so far in mirrorless is that Panny and Oly created the market, but they not only don’t own it, there are signs that others may own it.
> Creating a market for a new product category is immensely difficult.
No dispute from me there. Having done it a few times in my career, I know exactly how hard it is. However, I also know that if I’m even remotely successful, I’ll have a buttload of competitors chasing me over my shoulder. Thus, you not only have to create a market, but you have to position yourself so you appear to be the owner of that market and you have to move faster and better than your competitors. It’s one of the toughest games in town. I’d rather be given an underperforming asset and make it perform than try to build an overperforming asset from scratch, at least in terms of how much energy I’d need to put into it.
> There is tremendous competitive, consumer mindset and status quo inertia to overcome.
I’ve tracked technology intros since back before the radio. Basically you learn something from plotting those things: the slope of the adoption tells you whether you overcame inertia well enough. The slope on mirrorless isn’t steep enough–it’s not breaking inertia fast enough. Now, we may get more competitors and products that eventually steepen the slope, but the point is that Panny/Oly weren’t the ones to do that. They did okay, but not great. Which means that they’d better have far better in their labs or else they could find themselves no longer leading the parade.
> And finally, the E-PM1 is faster and smaller than the E-PL1. For some users that makes all the difference.
It’s not enough smaller than the E-PL1 to make a substantive difference. I just tried that with my mom ;~). Thus, it starts to boil down to whether the faster AF is worth spending more than US$399 for one of those still remaining E-PL1s. Oops.
I don’t think Apple creates many new markets. The iPod may be the #1 MP3 player but I had a Diamond Rio MP3 player back in 1998. There were tons of competitors after that and the iPod only came out in 2001.
Before the iPad there were Windows based tablet computers since the early 2000’s.
Smart phones have existed for a long time before the iPhone. Boxes like Apple TV and of course desktop and laptop computers have been around for a long time.
What Apple is great at is seeing an existing market and then taking the time to develop a great product without all the flaws of the competition and not just rushing out crap as quickly as possible like so many other tech companies.
>> It’s an indication of the perception that they’d better iterate and get it right before the Big Two come in and spoil their party.
This is bogey man nonsense. The big bad CanonNikon baddie is going to swoop and in one feel swoop stamp out m4/3!
Neurotic pure and simple.
And no, no no. The size difference between the E-PL1 and E-PM1 firmly brings the E-PM1 into the G12/XZ1/(almost S95) space when paired with a pancake.
Well… This discussion and article was kind of useless.
Truth be told, I just bought a PM1 to replace my PL1. (What does that say about me? I wanted the AF and am desperate for any sensor improvements.) The size…sucks. I personally don’t happen to mind, but the PM1 feels just plain bad in the hands compared to the PL1. It’s like a compact with large lenses bolted on. Oly’s decision to make the PM1 and PL3 without a grip is, to put it kindly, idiotic. The P3 is a CSC. The PM1/PL3 are price points. With the addition of a stick-on rubber grip, the PM1 is acceptable for me. But the only size reduction worth anything was weight. The PL1 conveys much more of a sense that it’s a real camera, and I’d much rather have a PL1 with the gen3 guts than any of the things Olympus is actually trying to sell me.
Putting myself in the shoes of an uncommitted, largely uneducated customer: if I was given the choice of a PL3 or a D5100 in the flesh, I’d be laughing at the idea that the PL3 is worth anywhere near the price tag. Maybe if the P3 was at 700 USD, but that’s not the case.
Thom, you said something way back: “So far, it’s difficult to see where Sony is going with NEX. Really small camera but pretty large lenses?” That’s exactly what the PM1, PL3, GF2, GF3 are. Really small cameras, but pretty large lenses. And they’re going to get slaughtered if the Nikon 2.7x shows up next week with compact lenses and similar bodies at similar prices (and higher margins thanks to a smaller sensor!). They haven’t delivered the kind of sensor improvements the enthusiasts are looking for. And they’re going to get slaughtered if Sony delivers big on the lens roadmap. The pro PEN and GF cameras are little more than wish list entries.
Looks, people mostly think that a big DSLR is profession their for giving them the best images.
If you put a Cannon Rebel or a similar entry level Nikon on a table next to a Hasselblad, I bet 9 out of 10 of the general camera buying US public will select the Rebel as the “real” camera. I do think however, their is an increasing market for the m43s; and other “mirrorless”. Mirrorless is a really bad name, as mention above, the general camera buying public does not know that DSLR have a mirror.
As far as Olympus and Pannys entry into the DSLR market they went two low end with most of their bodies (the low price was received as second tier, even though not true at the time); generally who people who buy low end bodies do not buy a bunch of lens and other stuff for their camera.
Olympus had very good financial success with its compact and bridge cameras previously. They also sold some cameras like the “o” camera for a lot and seem to think that was good; I think it made them strange. They seem to think that they could build on that, but it did not work out. Then the bottom fell out of the compact camera market ad did the small camcorder market for Panasonic.
Their current market view seems to understand that they have to make money when they sell a camera, not rely on future lens and other item sells. This should work for them financially, but maybe not in market share.
Tom is right that the US market sees DSLR selling for 599, and that it is the striking price.
If I want to look like a photographer I would carry a DSLR. Looking like a photographer has its plus and minus. You will be the one expected to document every event; expect to get the expected shots etc. This can be nice, but I have found it a drag. If you are in another profession and they realize that you are a photographer you will be expected to do that as well as your “real” job; this could be detrimental to your career as you may not be seen as “serious” or spend the time doing what you should be doing. Funny how taking pictures of fashion shows, landscapes, and still life equities to taken picture of office events or making videos in the minds of the non-photographer.
With that said I have to say that overall I have found my photography background an overall plus. It has given me a common ground many times with clients and adversaries; as well as helping in my ability to “see” problems and conflicts in a different perspective.
“If you put a Cannon Rebel or a similar entry level Nikon on a table next to a Hasselblad, I bet 9 out of 10 of the general camera buying US public will select the Rebel as the “real” camera.”
If you line up the complete Pen and Lumix series these people would see P&S like cams (EPM1, GF3) up to DSLR one (G3, GH2) with lots of opportunities. Do the same for entry Nikon to high end, separate APS from FF, tell not every lens is working on every body. The customers choice should be obvious.
But it takes longer time to tell than an average customer will listen or a salesman can invest. This has to accumulated over time. Currently Canon and Nikon can use this accumulated knowledge. But they have to refresh (by products and marketing) to keep the status quo.
Getting newbies from P&S where Oly and Panasonic are known at let them spread the word is the way to go for mFT. This also the point where FT failed.
ADMIN – These Amazon rankings are very misleading to say the least as not at all representative of actual sales in any given country. For starters just go to Amazon.com and you will find that when all digital camera sales are combined that in the top 40 models only 8 are DSLRs the highest ranking being #8 and 7 of these DSLR rankings are in decline! I have followed these Amazon rankings and believe them to be very unreliable as an indicator. Over the last year Pany has gone from some high Amazon rankings in US to none while their actual production and availability has increased, Oly also non-existant and even earlier in the year none of the Sony NEX products even showed? Worldwide Pany has been reported to have +/-30% of the MILS market of over 2 million cameras sold at current annual basis. Point in case at present neither Pany or Oly are apparently providing their m4/3 products to Amazon but marketing them elsewhere. Hence it is entirely misleading to assume that these Amazon rankings are representative of overall camera sales in any one given country.
According to manufactures real statistics compact camera sales outnumber DSLRs by a factor of over 10 to 1. DSLR sales worldwide this year are up 12-20% primarily because of the popularity of the smaller mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras while compact cameras are level because of competiton from cell phones & possible MILS?
I believe that the m4/3 products may not be doing as well in the US is more attributable to the the fact of the popularity and ready availability of the smaller digital compacts and cell phones which are more portable, much less expensive, and no need to buy expensive lenses and people find the IQ is adequate for their needs. Yes I think that a majority of people think the recent travel compacts with anywhere from 8X to 16X zoom from wa to tele are all they need while others go from a combo of same and DSLR to compliment each other with fewer using the mirrorless ILS to complement their higher end DSLRs or as a replacement or alternative to DSLRs and that will require a lower price combined with improved higher resolution EVF options and/or better or swivel viewing screens to permit use in bright conditions in my opinion.
It is the camera forums like DPR and others which with similar popularity posts have over the years brainwashed the public into believing that bigger is better at least when it comes to sensor size but face it the current latest sensors for m4/3 have better IQ then the average DSLR offerings of 12mp of only a couple years ago and the sensors of all sizes are getting much better because of backlight ellumination BI etc, while at last the AF and high speed operation of the compacts have been vastly improved.
I think many people are buying dslrs because they have had them ever since the period in around 2003 to 2005 when the dslrs started to become cheap enough to appeal to the mass market. They will tend to upgrade every couple of years and have become used to APS-C slrs.
Quite a lot of the mirrorless cameras being sold are second cameras for people who already have an slr, but don’t want to carry it around all the time.
I regularly visit the British Museum and I am always interested to see what cameras people are using. The only occasions I have seen people with a NEX, it is with the flash unit on top. I have seen more Pen’s than any other type, but recently I have seen several other people with Panasonic G type cameras. Despite them being on sale at many dealers in the UK, I have never seen a Samsung NX.
Thus, in the UK, where the cameras are widely available, mirrorless cameras are becoming more and more common. Thom Hogan’s comments are only relevant to the US, where the “bigger is better” attitude is probably an advantage for dslrs.
First came the mpx race and then the high iso race. 4/3 and m4/3 has a disadvange there.
4/3 were not smaller as they promised. Only the e-4xx w/ 25mm 2.8 but no IS, no direct access buttons, no focusing light, horrible VF, lack of help for manual focus.
Against that, lots of customers -the young enthusiastic like me- came from SLRs like K1000 or OM-1: 50mm 1.8, big focusing screen, manual focus.
In that case dslr were disapointing: big and slow standar zoom, small focusing screen without any help for mf…
Because most people buying a DSLR still uses flash in full daylight even when shooting subjects far away…(just been on holiday in France). In other words – they use the auto mode and do not know and do not want to know anything about cameras…
I think the primary reason is the lack of stability. New mounts keep appearing, systems aren’t very big yet, and people generally don’t all want to be early adopters of new technology. That is understandable, as we are seeing big leaps in elatively short time – just check the development of CDAF in tha past 12 months.
Furthermore, I would assume quite a few potential buyers are waiting to see what Canon and Nikon will bring to the game.
None of these reasons was an option in the poll, surprisingly…
Kind regards,
beelzebot
Just a quick comment on Amazon sales rankings – not many m4/3s are even available for sale there. For example, just recently have the new Oly bodies shown up (otherwise were 3rd parties at huge markup). No reason to expect them to be in the charts if most people purchased elsewhere.
People who do not know much about a product always tend to buy “secure”, chose well known brands minimising the risk for doing the wrong purchase.
The Olympus brand has been around longer than Panasonic and is a bit of “cult” camera brand. But compared to Leica, CaNikon booth are weak.
@ Thom Hogan
Look at the situation in the compact camera market and see how different market share is, it is a historical fact that this division doesnt follow SLR market share rules. In your own words, mirrorless are the bridge between the two markets.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean. Given that Nikon, Canon, and Sony are three of the top four firms in compacts, things are remarkably similar. Olympus has consistently lost share in compacts, despite making decent ones. It’s one of the things that’s at the heart of the Olympus Imaging division’s problems.
But it’s just more of the same. Despite having very competent, and in some cases, superior, compacts, Olympus has been losing share. They’ve been losing dealers in the US. They have little or not marketing presence. What I’ve been writing for some time now is that we’re seeing an exact replay of the film years. Companies that had decent products were slowly marginalized by better marketing and sales from what became the two leaders: Canon and Nikon. Ironically, that “better marketing” wasn’t exactly world class, it was merely competent at best.
Ask yourself this: what are the primary traits of Olympus Imaging? The traits that distinguish them from the rest of the camera world.
Olympus should have owned “big quality in small packages.” They do not. The minute you have to start competing on price and feature lists and shelf space, the big companies start with and retain an advantage. They slowly marginalize you, and your margins go down to the point where the ROI doesn’t look so great. An American company–say Kodak–would be looking for an out (and they are–they’ll be out of the camera business soon). The Japanese companies will stick it out and keep trying to iterate their way out of their problem, with good ones like Olympus every now and again coming up with a technology that gives them a shot. But if you keep wasting your shots and getting the same results, what the heck are you doing?
Admin: are you sure that µ4/3 bodies are counted as “DSLRs” in that category? I don’t see any on that list anywhere, which is very odd when you look at lenses. Consider that there are three µ4/3 lenses out of the top 20!
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Camera-Lenses/zgbs/electronics/499248/ref=zg_bs_nav_e_2_502394
I am pretty sure that the micro four thirds cameras are classified as “point and shoot” on amazon – look at the G3, which is the #93 best selling… point and shoot!
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Four-Thirds-Interchangeable-Free-Angle-Touch-Screen/dp/B005058BTW/ref=sr_1_16?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1316192472&sr=1-16
People are not going to buy them until 1. They market it correctly 2. They see other photographers going that route
Why people don’t buy MILC camaeras? Simple:
1) This whole market is a research lab. Tweaks to design happens every few months. Do I want to look like an idiot a few months after I bought the GF2/EPL2 that the GF3 or the EPL3 is now released? No! The manufacturers don’t know what the hell they are doing. One day there is flash, gone the second day. One day there is EVF, gone another day. I recommended the EPL2 to a friend 3 months ago, he must be hating me because of the new relases. So until the companies figure out what they want, I am not buying another compact system camera.
2) The term compact is misused in many cases. The body, yes. The lenses, hell no! Maybe marginally smaller but has anyone compared the 18-200mm from Sony vs the one for Nikon DSLR? Compact my foot. The 18-55 kit from Sony sucks big time. It performs even worse than the 18-200mm at equivalent length… Besides, the NEX 3/5 series may seem very small, but add the flash, EVF, lens, it is not really that much smaller, is it? The NEX 7 may have everything and seem small (,about the same as the EPL2), but I use the same “Cirrus 100” pouch for a 550D or EPL2, so what is the diff? Luckily, the Panasonic X is a actually a step in the right direction, but again the pricing is a little steep without buying it in a kit.
3) Yes pricing. Can you imagine the price of the NEX7? People who wants to spend that much typically are more critical about the image quality. And when they care about image quality, greater weight and size could be more bearable. The 600D has very similarly good image quality compared to the 7D but at a lighter weight and smaller body and lower price tag … hmmm. Yes the D5100 or 600D is cheaper than the NEX7.
4) Threats from improved PnS. The compact market is a market of compromise in terms of image quality vs size. The CSCs are a in sandwiched class. Be a little tolerant on size, you get the excellent DSLRs. Forgo a little image quality, you get the really compact PnS. With the release of better compacts, such as the CMOS based S100 from Canon, I feel that people may forgo a little image quality for a truly pocket-able size and great zoom range. The Powershots has been not very far behind m4/3 in terms of image quality. If major improvements can be made, we may be looking at a real threat to the m4/3. I know someone will pull some pixel peeping comparison and say there is actually some noticeable difference in IQ. I believe this difference, especially to the less discerning members of the public, would be tolerable.
In summary, I am looking for a camera to be dumped into my compact laptop bag when I go for business trips. Barring the X series lens + GF3, no m4/3 combinations can fit. I know they don’t because I have the EPL2 and a DSLR. Buying the x lens alone would be quite expensive but the GF3’s noise level is only marginally better than the Powershots and costs about 50% more. So considering all the 4 factors above, I would probably go for a point and shoot.
>> GF3′s noise level is only marginally better than the Powershots and costs about 50% more
This is silly.
Go to dpreview and compare ISO noise at 800 – 1600 on any m4/3 versus powershot.
m4/3 wipes the table with powershots.
I did check the dpreview images. Here are some RAW samples between GF3 and Powershot G12 at ISO 1600. The GF3 is ofcourse better, but I feel the difference, especially when not pixel peeped, may not be as much as one would expect. Definitely not wiping the floor, especially given the price difference.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6086/6154689575_6672a9c898_o.jpg
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6072/6154689453_03b841f52d_o.jpg
Also note that this was last year’s Powershot vs this year’s latest GF model. With the Fujifilm X10’s bigger sensor and the new CMOS powershot sensor and Digic V, I am not surprised if the gap between Advanced PnS and m4/3 closes a bit more.
Actually, if you read and really understand Thom’s article, it is not about Why Olympus didn’t succeed against Nikon and Canon… It is about why mirrorless and DSLR price is not going to be lower than $599.
But this point of his article makes no sense.
The E-PM1 just released, first run hot off the assembly line, is available at $499. In 6 months it will be selling for $400 – $450.
The NEX3 is selling for less than $500.
These are small cheap cameras to make. The complexities of the DSLR assembly line and # of parts is not there.
Hi Brian, I think you should read Thom’s articles better. He is basically saying the same thing: the so called mirrorless cameras are easier to make, and they are currently cheaper than basic DSLR. His article is about the fact that few years ago a Nikon rep promised entry-level DSLR for 399 dollars or less. But it did not happen, as Canon and Nikon where never pressured to lowered the price bar by the contenders. Among them: Olympus. Olympus is mentioned in the article only for not having pursued with 43 the low-cost mirrored alternative to the big two, instead shifting to m43. Which is not, at the moment, selling as much as the entry level Canikons.
So, this is it. It is not really about “why Oly did not make it vs Canikon”, nor it says anywhere that m43 or in general mirrorless cameras cannot cost less than 399 dollars (in fact they do, at least the older models). The article intends to explain why the basic DSLR cost 200 bucks more than mirrorless cameras, and why.
American consumers just aren’t aware of what m4/3rds has to offer.
I recently purchased a Canon FD 50mm f1.2 for my Oly e-pl2 and showed to my friend how purchased a Canon T2i.
First off, he knew not one single thing about m4/3 cameras when he bought his Canon.
I gave him the camera with the f1.2 lens and he started shooting away. Within minutes, he figured out how to zoom-to-focus, quickly dial through the shutter-speed, switch between EVF and LCD screen and took a nice group of awesome photos.
Then, he said stuff like:
“You know, I really like how my camera (the Canon) has 9-point auto-focus and I can quickly dial through the focus points…”
The Oly has that too…
And so it went on with light metering, manual options, filters, the video etc.
Everything he mentioned was something the e-pl2 also did, but, by looking at the e-pl2 and American consumer just wouldn’t get it. “But it’s not a DSLR!”.
Bottom line: It comes to to marketing.
Bottom-bottom line: It *always* comes down to marketing, but in Oly and Panasonic’s case (with m4/3) the point is REALLY driven home here.
I don’t care, really.
I know what kind of equipment I carry with my in my tiny Oly backpack. My only concern is that Oly and Panasonic keep doing well so my system can have a healthy, long future.
At this point, if I ever went DSLR, it would have to be full frame because otherwise, what’s the point?
And another thing…
I don’t want *ultra-cheap* m4/3rds. What’s the point of that? That’s what the Canon G12, Canon S100 or LX5 (maybe even LX7) are for, anyway.
I’m a m4/3 shooter using a Pany G3. I feel Panasonic carries over the DSLR experience over to mirrorless better than all the other manufacturers. But seriously, mirrorless is competitive only in the $800 and below bracket, but after that DSLRs are far superior. Better battery life, customization, lens choices, etc. I use both and each have their applications. I dislike it when mirrorless advocates always spout that DSLRs are dying, blah, blah.
What I do hope is that mirrorless tech improves and also allow Olympus to port over their standard 4/3 lenses to micro 4/3 so they don’t have to keep reinventing the wheel.
That´s because of Panasonic. Why Olympus, when you can have the best. I wanted too, so I´ve bought GHtwooo:)
I’m sticking with DSLR because live view, even for an EVF, heats up the sensor and increases noise. A DSLR, even with the 4/3 sensor, can do better than a mirrorless with the same sensor because the sensor stays cooler.
A mirrorless 4/3 is at a serious disadvantage to an SLR APS-C, and sits WAY behind a full frame/FX sensor DSLR.
But micro four thirds makes a fantastic street camera, so I will buy one as a backup/incognito rig.
Most people don’t even know what mirrorless or ILCs are. DSLRs have been around for a decade, and yet the masses are just starting to be aware of them. We’re only 2 years into the mirrorless phenomenon… it will take a couple more years before the masses catch on.
Correction, 3 years (and I have owned since fall ’08). I reckon that MILC, at the entry level, will totally eclipse DSLR within 2 years. For professional stills photography, 5 years and DSLR will be dead. For professional “indie” filmakers MILC already has ascendency. So Canon and Nikon have to get the lead out, but quick.
Is this scare mongering or timely nikon marketing?
The Nikon D300/D7000 is my main DSLR camera. As much as I like smaller cameras there are a few things that is hard to change.
– MFT has smaller sensors
– My Nikon DSLR has a better selection of lenses
– Better ergonomics (and I don’t feel the need to replace any DSLR with a GH2-like MFT)
– Better built
I have used the GF1 quite a lot. At the time I only have the GF3, but that’s so I can play around with MFT lenses. Not anything serious. Olympus looks ok, but does not offer much beside Panasonic. Sony’s NEX cameras are not sold with any decent lenses and they are so huge that I might as weel use my DSLR. It’s the DSLR lenses that I feel are getting too big, with all the built in VR, AF-S and whatever else takes up the space (so I often use manual glass).
A Leica mirrorless with AF in the same price range as the pro-consumer DSLR ould be nice.
I had to choose between Nikon D7000 and Panasonic GH2. After considering the price of Nikon system lenses(DX) and the Panasonic/Olympus lenses, i had opted for m4/3.
Nikon is just to pricey for what it offers, u r mainly stuck with standard lenses, nice fast primes, but any specialized standard lens is basically pricier than what u can get from Pana/Oly.
Not to mention the size and the weight of those lenses.
Hogan has already buttered his bread on one side so it all sort of hard to take his opinion too seriously
What are you talking about?
Olympus missed a big chance with the E-P3.
An excellent camera in many respects, including the availablility of high class lenses from the FT group (just think of the Panasonic 20mm or the Leica 25mm, or of the Olympus OM heritage), but low light capabilities are just not good enough. Reasonable IQ at ISO 6400 is a must for a camera with the E-P3’s current pricing.
Now Olympus are virtually forced to alienate part of their customer base by soon bringing out a next model, this time with a decent sensor.
I am convinced an E-P3 with an up-to-date sensor would have scored a triumphant win in the world wide market.
Bigger *IS* better. Better ergonomics, better stabilization, more easily accessible buttons and dials, actual ability to use telephoto lenses, bigger battery, better sensor cooling, etc.
That will change when they make a mirrorless camera the size of an E-3/5, but for now – the m4/3 bodies are basically snapshot cameras. On the plus side, if you carry one, the people won’t look at you like you’re a terrorist.
isn’t it obvious? sensor size is important and 2x crop is unacceptable for people with their own lens collection
Interesting discussion. From my perspective, I don’t see much evidence of CSCs being bought and used, although they are widely available in stores here (Switzerland). Even my pro-photographer friends (who take photos and sell them rather than wasting time on forums 🙂 ) have little awareness of m43 etc. Just looking around me – I live a high tourist traffic area – I see pretty much what everybody else says: people are using entry / mid level Canikons or compacts. Even Asian tourists. I don’t know what you can extrapolate from that, but the appearence is that CSCs are a solution looking for a problem. For people who care about the subtleties, I would argue that CSCs are simply not good enough to replace pretty much any DSLR. For people who don’t care, well why on earth would they buy an E-PL3 with a 14-42 zoom that has to be “extended” rather than a Lumix FXnn with a 28-500mm zoom which is immediately ready for action ?
Personally, I think that the E-P2 is the worst camera I’ve ever used (http://www.snowhenge.net/pblog/article/frustrating_photograph). I don’t see much improvement happening either.
@David Mantripp. Some incomplete messages in your observations – let me try and complete them for you.
1. Lumix FX__ superzooms. Were an excellent choice for travel 5 years ago, but small sensor really limiting when the light was poor, and Leica superzoom optics had the limitations of all such lens designs. So, that market will inevitably decline.
2. Little awareness of m43 and MILC. Most of the herd are not enquiring and inquisitive, so until critical mass is formed they will remain ignorant. However, critical mass is forming (look at Japanese MILC penetration of market over last year), and the Nikon CX system will catch the attention of popular media, which is all that the majority of the herd read (if they read at all).
3. CSCs (MILC) are a solution looking for a problem. Well, there is a problem with the bulk and weight of DSLRs, so hence the robustness of the compact P&S camera market (despite poor IQ). MILC are the solution for adequate IQ at lower weight and bulk, and this is the appeal that will drive growth in the market. P&S compact market on rapid decline due to rapid growth in smart ‘phones with integrated cameras.
4. Pro stills photographers are not interested. Well, pro videographers certainly are, and there has been widespread adoption of MILC by independent film makers, especially the GH2. Nikon CX is certainly going to be looked closely at by this segment, so knowledge of MILC technologies will continue to grow in the larger photography market, and pro stills photographers will become interested.
Frankly, you are just wrong, and there is a sea change upon us.
I read most of the comments here and I have to say a few things.
While I can’t say whether Olympus and Panasonic will win their bet, I will say that if they don’t its their own fault. This is a marketing issue, pure and simple. There are, in my mind, 3 types of buyers who will buy SLRs or m4/3//NEX cameras. There are pros, enthusiasts, and people who buy them because they want to look like pros and know nothing about cameras. In truth, this last category is often just a stepping stone to enthusiast. If I were Olympus or Panasonic, I would be marketing my product squarely at the third group. Here’s why.
Pros as probably always going to go with Canikon. The reasons are numerous: better IQ, better build, better pro service, availability or replacement, and the best lenses. When you are being paid by a client, size and weight aren’t the most important issues. Quality and durability are. More importantly, pros (usually) have the knowledge to maximize the differences between a D3 and a D7000 or D3100. Pros may well also use cropped sensor products for personal use, because frankly they are more fun, and in most situations more practical. But you don’t have to market to them. They will figure this out on their own.
Enthusiasts. This is a really broad group which in my experience is composed mostly of people who want to look like pros, and know the technical features of the camera they bought. They often don’t know much about making great photos — hence the over-occupation with technical features and IQ. What separates this group, for the most part, is that they care as much about the equipment as they do the final product. There are a lot of exceptions to that rule in this group — people who know what photography is about and who use the right tool for the job. Often, the very best IQ isn’t the most important factor, and they know this. The problem with marketing to this group is that those who are obsessed with technical features will always find fault with m/43, and those who are inclined to make the correct compromises (the exceptions) don’t need to be told because, like the pros, they will figure this out on their own.
The third group of people is where marketing efforts should be focused. These people often know nothing about cameras, and honestly don’t care. The complaint I hear from friends in this category usually involves high speed photography of kids or pets, or the fact that party photos look blurry. They don’t know how to take photos, and feel that buying a DSLR will fix that. It won’t, but the salesperson has no interest in telling them that (and in cases like Best Buy no actual knowledge to know better). For these people, and DSLR could be a great choice. It can take photos of fast moving targets, and has better flash and metering capabilities for party photos. BUT, a m4/3 could also meet their needs, in a much more svelte and practical way. Honestly, who is going to take a D3100 + kit lens out for a night on the town? And would it perform better than a GF3 with kit lens? Not really. (Actually, for this situation I would recommend the 20mm, but I don’t think this group would be able to get over not having a zoom lens).
What Panapus should do is roll out a marketing campaign of side-by-side comparison shots of situations the third group is actually buying the camera for. Except in very low light, or very high speed shots, there is almost no difference. The autofocus on m4/3 is fast enough now that taking crappy photos of your kid running after a soccer ball isn’t a problem anymore, and while low light still isn’t the best, it’s not bad. How many people in this group are going to make large prints of the inside of a cathedral?
The size and weight difference is a huge one, and the IQ isn’t that much different. (Disclaimer, I don’t mean to be either sexist or bias to a particular sexual orientation with this example…it’s just an example). Show me a commercial comparing two fathers: one with an slr and two lenses taking shots at Disney World, unable to ride the rides without having to turn his equipment in, unable to carry a kid on his back because all of his equipment is in a backpack; then show me a father with an E-Pl2 with kit lens, a 9-18 in one pocket, and a 20mm in another. Riding the rides, carrying the kids. Then show me the comparison between the shots the first father got, and the shots the second father got. Not to mention the shots the wife got of the father playing with the kids because she wasn’t intimidated by the camera. That’s a winning commercial. I can’t see too many mothers and fathers in that third group buying a dSLR.
So true, so true, David.
I like what you wrote. A couple of comments.
> Pros as probably always going to go with Canikon. The reasons are numerous: better IQ, better build, better pro service, availability or replacement, and the best lenses.
Pros need reliability, flexibility, and quality. No real reason why m4/3 can’t provide that.
> The problem with marketing to [enthusiasts] is that those who are obsessed with technical features will always find fault with m/43
Well, they’ll incessantly argue over the details, yes. But that doesn’t mean you can’t have an answer for the questions. Product-wise, many of the m4/3 cameras and lenses do reasonably well for this group. But there are glaring omissions, which is problematic, as that seems to indicate that Oly/Panny don’t see pros or enthusiasts correctly. Leaving the group you point out.
You could, for example, use a message along the lines of “Tired of getting blurry pictures or missing the moment? Don’t want to spend a fortune to buy and carry a bulky and heavy camera? We’ve got the answer: m4/3.”
The problem with that is that if it turned out to be effective, it could be easily countered. You pointed out one of the weaknesses yourself: “…except in very low light.”
But I think Davids point was more about the experience of holding and using m43rds compared to an entry level DSLR. Show them what using the product is about and they will get it. Davids example of Disney Land is perfect.
I was showing a friend the EPL1 the other day. It was going for $399 🙂 at Henrys in Mississauga. He was also looking at the Rebel T3i and Nikon D5100.
He initially showed no interest in the EPL1, he wanted a DSLR. So as i am a regular at the store, they let me keep all the models in front of us. He played and played with the T3i and D5100. When he was done i pointed out to him how much easier it would be to take travel pictures (why he was buying the DSLR) with a smaller kit, how much money he would save, and how much smaller and less obtrusive it would be.
I had the same experience with my mum, who was visiting from the UK, she played with the DSLR, admitted laughingly that she wanted the “look” then after some playing bought the EPL1 for $399 🙂 as it fit in her handbag.
Visuals sell, David has described compelling visuals that would sell the product. Olympus should call him 🙂
Ab
@Thom Hogan
you can shoot low light with micro four thirds all night long with the right lenses and technique, just like I wouldn’t expect to get great low light shows with a Canon ,Nikon or Sony camera with the standard kit lens and poor technique, it’s just a misconception. In some respects Micro Four Thirds is better in some low light situations…
Not quite so fast. I’ve been doing some experiments with long exposures (star trails, etc.). I’ve not found a m4/3 body that does what my DSLRs can do.
That said, I think you just mean low light. And yes, as long as you have the f/1.4 to f/2 lenses and stick to ISO 800, you can get very nice results out of an m4/3 camera in low light. That’s actually about as good as we were with film in the 90’s, maybe a bit better.
@Thom Hogan
star trails like this http://www.flickr.com/photos/voreas/6160081356/in/pool-27146050@N00/ shot with Olympus ep-2 (the guy has more long exposures, it’s not my thing at the moment and this was just the 1st I found in the flickr star trails group), what exactly is it you think your DSLRs can do that micro four thirds can’t do regarding long exposure???
Yes I wanted to gofor the type of night star shot only say 10sec – 15sec – so no star trails – but showed the milkyway…. even with my F1.4 and ISO 800 – (1600 creates too much noise and loses fine stars) I can not get a proper shot! I would have to stack – I guess a 5D2 could crank up to 3200 ISO and make it work!
@Jim
stacking and heavy post processing is common for star trails photos…
You DO realize the amazon ranking lists are linked to DSLRs right? There’s a separate category for compact system cameras. Of course m4/3 wouldn’t show up in the first list!
WOW just what I was searching for. Came here by searching for home based business for moms