Imaging Resource posted a double interview with Olympus and Panasonic!
First they had a small talk with Peter Ewen, Katie Roseman, and Sally Smith-Clemens from Olympus USA. Olympus underlined their commitment to the 12 Megapixel “Philosophy”. And honestly I do agre with what they say 🙂 . They also talk about the [shoplink 17163]E-5[/shoplink] (huge success!) their Four Thirds plans and the movie and 3D trend. There are plenty of interesting info but no details about future products.
The second interview has been made with Darin Pepple from Panasonic USA. He said “We’re finding that the compact system camera is not really stealing business (in USA) or cannibalizing in any way the SLR business right now. What’s really happening is we’ve identified about 23 million users that would love to be in an SLR“. And that is what he says about the APS-C sensor mirrorless competition: “With the Micro Four Thirds system, we are a little bit smaller than an APS-C sized sensor that you’d find in any one of our competitors, for example. But at the same time, they’ve corrupted the lens quality to try and get it down so small, that the edge detail — they’ve sort of blurred out the image. Especially in the zooms, not so much in the fixed focal-lengths, but the zoom lenses.”
Take time to read both (very long) articles and let us know what you think about them!
72 Responses
Those two interviews were nothing but corporate doublespeak from PR hacks. The interviewer did a good job, but they weren’t interested in distributing any genuine information – just telling us all how wonderful everything is and how awesome they are.
The Panasonic guy was especially irritating. It’s like he was told “just work the term ‘Compact System Cameras’ into the conversation as often as you can!”
Darin Pepple: “In America, smaller is not necessarily seen as better. So, the large SLRs were sort of interpreted as; well if it’s bigger, it must take a better picture. So bigger is better was always the philosophy there. But as compact cameras got smaller and smaller, and they got more resolution, more features, touch control, these types of things, people were thinking, “Hey, this is good enough. It takes a great picture and it’s small. Can’t I have now an interchangeable lens on that?” In Europe, this happened faster than in the United States.”
When I see people around here (the US) with SLRs, 90% of the time, it’s an entry-level camera with a kit lens attached. It seems to me – judging partly by the buying rationales from people I know – that making the move to a system camera has been mostly about image quality and camera responsiveness, rather than wanting to have interchangeable lenses. The kit lens might as well be cemented onto the mount. However, size *is* a factor, and people seem to gravitate towards Rebels and D40s for that reason.
“SLRs, 90% of the time, it’s an entry-level camera with a kit lens attached.”
But they can later upgrade to FULL FRAME!!! [/sarcasm]
That’s what I did. Started with a Canon 300D and 18-55. Now I use a 5D2 and 300/2.8IS.
“DE: So it sounds like on the standard Four Thirds platform, that you’re seeing such a strong response with the E-5 that it’s probably a safe bet that that line will continue? Manufacturers respond to what the market’s asking for, and it seems like the market’s asking for continued evolution on that platform?
Ewen: I agree with that statement, 100 percent.”
Well, the related quote:
“Ewen: I think inventories at the retail level are a little heavier than anticipated. I think sell-through is a little lower than the manufacturers anticipated.”
gives some cold shower onto the optimism. Translation: “lots of stuff gathers dust at retailers; stuff doesn’t sell as fast as anticipated, driving prices down.”
Despite later saying, quote, “We’re all in this together.” it affects small vendors (like Olympus) most, as they are more dependent on selling their products timely.
Thanks, admin, for the link. Both articles are mainly on marketing, not on products and as such I found them fairly boring. It’s nice to see that Panasonic considers making quality lenses a good strategy, in contrast to Olympus who seem to believe that µ4/3 does not deserve top-flight lenses.
I thank also.
It is good that they present marketing point of view. It is good to know that the only problem with m43 adoption is ordinary people education – finally somebody started to address this problem.
With no people education they still prefer more megapixels, bigger zoom .. which reflect current situation in small comapact cameras: now they have 16 megapixels, but they create worse pictures like cameras which had 3 megapixels…
Well, unfortunately, it seems to me that Olympus doesn’t quite “get it”. I mean, it’s nice that they don’t plan to participate in the stupid megapixel race, but… *no*, the new kit plus the converters *are not* the equivalent to three new lenses. *No*, I don’t need another (!!) fisheye lens for micro four thirds as long as there aren’t enough decent fast primes / portrait lenses. *Yes*, there’s the need for a more ‘professional’ m43 body… and so on…
Regarding Olympus – I agree: sometimes it does seem like these people do not really know what they’re doing. I hope they pull themselves together before it’s too late.
Agreed. And sadly the same of Panasonic. They are proud of their “good quality up to the edges of the frame” compared to others, but I’m sure they will be seriously beated by Samsung NX, since Samsung is releasing a really amazing set of photographically useful lenses
> it’s nice that they don’t plan to participate in the stupid megapixel race
What a load of … misguided optimism.
Oly doesn’t have a damm say in the megapixel race since (1) they do not produce sensors themselves, (2) do not even have an in-house sensor R&D and (3) they would buy whatever 43 sensor is available at good (for them) price.
If Pannay decides to adopt the 18MP variant and would produce only the sensor, then Oly would simply have no choice but to adopt it. (Pannay, as it is at the moment unlikely that anybody would start producing 43 sensors exclusively for niche player Olympus is.)
True.
Besides, the 12MP mantra (calling it a philosophy is very kind indeed, admin) is not based on anything other than Panasonic’s technology 3 years ago. Sony (and others in its path) has shown that as sensor technology evolves they can be made more dense without any detrimental effects. I don’t know what the theoretical limit is, but it has to be greater than 12MP on a four thirds sensor.
Nothing but old, tired and meaningless marketing fabrications. Saying it over and over again, as you suggest, is not good enough. Technology evolves and Olympus has to adapt itself to a changing commercial and technological reality if it wants to survive.
Katie Rossman, you may remember, is the Olympus rep that claimed that the E-5’s performance is on par with FF (what a load of bovine manure).
Disclamer:
I love my G1, it produces *stunning* RAW files when used with a good lens (such as the ZD 50mm macro) and will still do so in a few years – there is nothing objectively ‘wrong’ with it. However, give me a (even a little) more resolution, higher dynamic range and sensitivity and I will gladly upgrade.
The only limits are those of our perception and those are subjective and subject to change (they can improve the more you train your eye or deteriorate with age?). Nevertheless, I doubt anyone here will not be able to appreciate superior imagine technology.
Please Olympus, how about treating your customer with respect?
err imaging technology
Erm…, more pixel will give less light sensitivity. Sony’s own 24MP for FF is theoretically the same density as 4/3 sensor with 12MP, and it also suffers from “anything ISO 800 and above is not that great” problem. Canon’s 18MP for APS-C also suffers from ISO noises. More pixels won’t give you better photos, just more room to crop. Better photos come from better technique and using a tripod helps. Many high-end FF DSLRs use 12MP sensors for a reason….
Well the D3x has 24MP, that’s 100% increase over the D3S and D700, without giving up much in high ISO performance (less than 1 stop difference). The D3x sensor, as far as I know, is manufactured by Sony to Nikon specs. The same goes for the 5DMKII with its 22MP sensor that was introduced in feb 2009.
I am not saying m43 cameras need this much of an in crease in resolution to remain competitive (anyway this is not going to happen this year). I am saying that what the Olympus reps are telling us holds no substance.
I’m personally in the “12MP is enough” camp. Though I’m no professional – just an amateur.
I’m probably not so sensitive to the MP count as to the RAW file size AND time it takes for raw development to open the file. If they would manage to keep it lean and fast, then I’m OK with it. But something tells me that such things to the manufacturers are the least of priority.
If RAW development, thanks to high MP count, would become more of a chore than it is already is, then I would simply stop shooting RAWs (nor would I need a RAW capable camera anymore).
I want ff mirrorless
Get this:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Leica/leica_m9.asp
Do you know any site which reviews banks with low security? I’d like to buy the M9, but seem can’t find a bank which I’m capable of robbing.
Though the M9 has competition too – e.g. Hasselblad H3D-39II – if the review to be trusted: http://www.amazon.com/review/R29E5CSUUDK6F4/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B000Z0JZ74&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=
Ah, choices, choices.
I want the Pentax 645D without the mirror. A large frame (no full frame nonesense!) “compact” camera. I would be robbing convenience stores now (figuratively speaking) to get one…
I think Panasonic is incorrect when they think that the LX5/LX3 crowd will eventually move to the Mm43/GFx lines. When they offer a f2.0 (or better) zoom for m43, then I’ll pay more attention.
I may be the only one (I don’t think so based on what I read on dpreview) but I had a Pana P&S (FX07) then an LX3 and then the GF1… It’s an evolution and I wouldn’t go from a P&S to a M43. With my LX3 I learned everything about PSAM and everything and now I can fully enjoy my GF1 for one and a half year.
There is a market here !
How many other systems offer f/2.0 or better zooms?
That’s why Jammur doesn’t pay attention to any systems. 😉
Both interviews are full of PR junk, and the Olympus one is the more offensive. “3D TV is really hot right now” – really? HD broadcasts are all in 720p?–well, maybe if you’ve got Comcast where they throttle it down to fit in their coax, but it’s capable of (visibly) better. And so on. All adjectives and adverbs like “incredibly.” They’ll be out with 1080p and 16mP in a year.
And I just don’t understand this, from Panasonic:
“they’ve corrupted the lens quality to try and get it down so small, that the edge detail — they’ve sort of blurred out the image.”
That has nothing to do with the sensor; is he just accusing them of designing cheap zooms?
Obviously (not incredibly, either) interviews with PR people are a waste of time.
He didn’t say who, but I pictured Sony NEX. Everyone appears to agree that their APS-C sensor is terrific, but the consensus seems to be that their lenses are one of the weakest points in the system (aside from the user interface). Not just the poor selection, but the not-so-compact size, as well as mediocre optics – even with the “prime” glass.
If anyone else has thoughts on what compact APS-C cameras he might be talking about, I’m curious.
I will focus my comments on the interesting and to me revealing interview with Panasonic rep.
First in explaining why mirrorless has not caught on as well in the US as in Japan and Europe he seems to be missing the point of very bad marketing practices here or should I say non marketing or non availability in most places?
Second our review sites in the past have done too good a job in convincing us that bigger is better etc. promoting the DSLRs over the compacts especially with the overemphasis on 100% blowups rather than at normally viewed size on computer screen or print size. And I would agree the problem also lies with the ignorance of the managers & salesmen of the wonderful products Pany & Oly engineers and technitians have developed.
Inspite of the reference to overwhelming preferance in US to obtaining DSLRs in US I find many of the reps remarks very revealing.
For one he estimates that the rangefinder style will dominate the mirrorless market with 75% of the mirrorless market and continue to be the most popular style as is presently the case. On the other hand he sees only 15-20% of those requiring a viewfinder. My take – there will be a new GF3 soon, an upgrade from GF1 but it will not have an inbody EVF rather a higher definition hotshoe mounted optional one?
Next he mentions that the G2 is for those who want a camera want a smaller DSLR with capable viewfinder and good performance and IQ. I see the new G3 being that camera probably in existing body.
He mentions that the GH2 camera designed for video will be a niche market within m4/3 and estimated 10-15% of that market and would be stand alone ie a new body. My projection this will be the pro video oriented model in all new body probably rangefinder style like mini L1 Pany patent one with electronic shutter and the high end lenses we have been hearing about or similar L1 look but raised EVF in middle? This will be a metal body with integrated EVF larger size to accomodate the larger high quality lenses.
Another very interesting point raised by rep was the comment that most buyers of DSLRs never take their interchangeable kit zoom lens off their cameras and the hint that Pany was looking into how to make these lenses smaller and mentioned the collapsing design. That can possibly mean very broad hint that Pany is also maybe planning to produce a m4/3 product with a fixed fast zoom much like that used in either the LX5 or XZ1 in my estimation. This could come in either rangefinder style or small digital SLR style.
Reading too much into the tea leaves? Maybe, but it does bring up interesting possibilities and I wouldn’t expect the rep to be letting these tidbits out of the bag unless the Pany engineers not working hard on it and soon to deliver? Sweet dreams!
I have no problem with Olympus staying at 12 megapixels until they manage to get very clean ISO1600 from a m4/3’s sensor, but it does make me wonder where they plan on getting their sensors from. Panasonic has already moved up to 16mp with the GH2, and all their other cameras use the same old 12mp sensor they’ve used since the G1. As much as I like where m4/3’s is going as a system, Sony is really kicking their @ss when it comes to sensor quality. The 16mp sensor used in the Pentax K-5, Sony A55, and Nikon D7000 is pretty amazing.
The pixel density is very close between 16mp APS-C and 12mp 4/3’s, so there’s more to it then just sensor size. If Panasonic can’t produce a 12mp 4/3’s sensor that’s on par with that 16mp Sony sensor I’d love to see Olympus change vendors.
+1. thats what amazes me. Why cant Oly and panasonic make a camera with very clean high iso and better DR?
> but it does make me wonder where they plan on getting their sensors from.
+1
The 16mp sensor used in the Pentax K-5, Sony A55, and Nikon D7000 is pretty amazing.
“Amazing” mainly to the extent that the sensor is bigger than m4/3, and an evolution from the 12MP D90/a700 sensor. In the land of APS-C the resolution increase from 12mp to 16mp is somewhat marginal; generally speaking you need a 20% change in pixel count across a dimension to have clear visual differences and 16mp doesn’t quite make it there.
There is a bigger, clearly obvious improvement in switching from CCD to CMOS (Nikon D80 to D90, for example) that is much, much more obvious than simply going from a Sony 12MP CMOS to a Sony 16MP CMOS chip.
Would a downsized Sony 16mp chip made for m43 (14MP?) be any better than the ship in the GH2? Possibly, but I wonder by how much and if anyone would notice. The sensor size is making a real difference here — it’s a matter of physics.
I was disappointed to read how little importance Panasonic places on the rangefinder-style bodies having a viewfinder, saying the SLR-styled models fill the need for those old-school users who want a viewfinder merely because that’s how they “learned” to use a camera.
I use the viewfinder attachment on my GF1 and find that it gives me about a full stop of image stabilization versus holding the camera in front of me. I also like how much more discreet it is when taking photos (versus having a huge glowing LCD that attracts attention), as well as being able to review my photos privately.
I guess having the viewfinder be detachable isn’t the end of the world, but they’ve GOT to increase the quality the next go ’round. It’s decent for the price-point, but its low-res specs are another reason I’ve got my eye on Olympus.
> I use the viewfinder attachment on my GF1 and find that it gives me about a full stop of image stabilization versus holding the camera in front of me.
Stop right there!
Let me highlight you a thing: most people who are used to compose in live view (and do not understand the viewfinders) have not a slightest idea what the “full stop” you are talking about is.
Haha! You’re right – how are the decision-makers at Panasonic going to understand, if I talk in code? 😀
Curious to read Panasonic talking about cheap zooms. The 14-42 is a cheap zoom with a plastic mount and only ok edge detail that they package with their flagship m43 camera in the GH2. Panasonic charges at least twice what the lens is worth but that does mean it is not a cheap zoom.
I can’t believe the topic of a dedicated portrait lens – F 2.0 or faster – didn’t come up. Makes me think, not only the interviewer is an idiot, but also the Panasonic guy. Maybe they are waiting for 4/3 size sensor twenty-fifth anniversary to announce a portrait prime. Doesn’t seem like interviews come along all that often, maybe next time they could get someone with some brains to do one. Did that sound negative? Well, good, I meant it too! 😉
While there was definitely a lot of information given, I was also frustrated in how few tough questions there were, and how some obvious issues were avoided. The interview seemed to follow a formula:
Q: You’re awesome. Tell us how awesome you are.
A: We’re totally awesome.
Hehe, there was definitely more than a hint of craven bootlicking in those interviews.
Especially when the interviewer praised Panny for its initiative in pushing 3D lenses even despite admitting that most people do not (and may not ever) own a 3D TV or other display.
Move along, nothing to see.
I admit now that we are finally getting wide angle and standard primes it is high time we get a portrait prime. However, I do think they were correct in making portrait primes a lower priority since there are so many 50mm lenses out there that can cheaply be adapted and produce great results. In-fact, even after they finally do come out with a portrait prime it is going to have to be really really special in order for me to play $500+ for it when my $130 Pentax 50mm + $30 adapter works just fine.
When Panasonic came out with their Pana/Leica 45mm f/2.8, their press release claimed that it excelled at portraits as well as macros. As we all know, that’s not bright enough when paired with a 4/3 sensor.
They may just still be mistakenly thinking they’ve got the portrait lens covered.
I came to the conclusion you did, and have been using a Canon FD 50mm f/1.2 or a Voigtländer 35mm f/1.4 for portrait-length shots.
IMO they have a pretty good portrait lens in the 45mm F2.8. Sure, if you’re after extremely shallow DOF then you’ll need something faster, but for portraits were you want most of the head in focus you’ll need to stop down at least to F2.8 anyway.
At f/2.8 with a 4/3rds sensor, you just might be getting the background in focus too. 😉
It’s the DOF equivalent of f/5.6 on a full-frame, and I can’t imagine many photographers would feel that would be adequately fast for a “portrait lens”.
I’m not saying you need razor-thin depth of field for portraits – what you need is flexibility and control. Not every lens must be shot wide open in all situations.
But I’d think about f/1.4 (f/2.8 compared to a full-frame) would give you the *ability* to control your depth of field when your subject is slightly further away, or when your background is a little closer.
Yeah, photogs shoot portraits at 5.6 all the time. But only cause they chose it for that situation. Sure isn’t because they bought a f 5.6 portrait lens. lol
Pure marketing speak. Especially when it came to the E5. It’s not even in the top 70 of DSLR cameras sold last month in Japan:
http://bcnranking.jp/category/subcategory_0008_month.html
And it’s currently ranked 3,483 in Camera & Photo on Amazon US.
The scary thing about the japanese ranking is how high the nex cameras are.
@Safaridon : Very sensible analysis…
I would add that they could be scared about rangefinder with EVF GF3 cannibalizing G(H) series
Difficult to figure where GF3 would really dig it’s place ? IQ, yes but not visible enough on the shelves !
Another point lies in the ergonomy which was one setrengh wiith Panasonci… weakened by lack of PSAM dial on GF2 : Where would figure the GF3
Pity that Gx serie does not stand for integrated EVF in rangefinder style !
Pany was only looking at existing sales of add-on EVF on the Pens and GF1 as an indication but those add a lot more to the cost. I think the significant favorable response to the announcement of the Fuji X100 might having them rethink whether or not to go that route. I personally think there is room for both a smaller high rez version of EVF in a GF3 and well as the larger EVF one in the G3/GH3 but my comment was just based on what the rep said. I think the GF3 will be based on the GF1 body not GF2 and so naturally would have the same dial controls. One concept I have seen for the new rangefinder had a swivel screen on back and that would be a step in between as less need for a EVF and would be very attractive for video use.
These interview are pure crap. As hd72 told, they usually goes like
Q: You’re awesome. Tell us how awesome you are.
A: We’re totally awesome.
When they try to go somewhere deeper or more technical, both Oly and Panny rep just spit vomit out of their mouth. Take for example HD. Or 3D (really? I should shoot in 3d just because in the future I might like it? I like 3D now, and there are cameras serious about it, and they are not panasonic – see here: http://blog.javacorner.net/2010/12/fuji-real-3d-w3-review.html just for one example)
Let me stop here before I start crying. Just mention a (possibly) good point: stick to 12Mpix. Yes, if they’ll stick to 12Mpix but with a new-generation sensor, with improved ISO and DR, it’ll be good, or possibly great. Unfortunately, I believe that they’ll stick to 12Mpix from the same 4 years old sensor. Shit.
Agree, the interviews are pretty embarrassing, but that’s nothing new from IR. They know how to review cameras, but never disagrees with the the people they interview.
The Olympus one was worst IMO, the E-5 comments seemed really inane, and the “720p is enough” was even worse. In some sense 720p is fairly good, but it’s a marketing harakiri when the whole world is moving rapidly towards full HD.
His understanding of video production and distribution is lacking to say the least. This notion that something broadcast at 720 should be acquired at 720 is way off. Its like saying still photos should be shot at 2 mega pixels because at some point later its size will be reduced. Virtually all productions are shot at 1080, 4k, or at 35mm film resolutions so that they can be scaled, which we all know allows an image to retain the inherent sharpness and clarity of a larger image.
I really hate it when marketing people try to tell image makers what they need and don’t need.
Hi Megapixel lovers out there!
You need the megapixels huh?
Ready for a little math?
E5 / 4:3 = 4032 x 3024 = 12.2 Mp
D7000 / 3:2 = 4928 x 3264 = 16.1 Mp
So you think you have 32% more cropping power right?
Wrong!
You win only 8% in height pixels with the Nikon and a “whopping” 22% in width pixels. It’s more like comparing a 4/3 Tv with a widescreen 16/9 set, horizontal lines are the same.
In other words, if you crop a 3/2 sensor to 4/3 to make a real comparison, you end up with 3264 x 4351 = 14.2 Mp, not such a big difference imho.
Personally I like 4/3 7/5 and square crops, so 4/3 12mp is great for me. 21mp + will really make a difference, but in that case I’m afraid I’ve made a bad picture…:-)
Happy shooting!
I love Marilyn Monroe. She still looks great.
Anyway… I see the nattering nabobs of negativism are still alive and well. Be nice if some of you could say something nice some of the time…
So go back to your bars, your massage parlors, your Canikon scripted photo safaris.
I’ll go my way, I would invite you, but the cameras I use wold not excite you.
A chess player by any chance?
+1
this site needs a ‘like’ button 🙂
LOL
Panasonic compact cameras not selling very well in the USA? I’m not surprised
G1/G2/G10/GH1/GH2(Soon G3) All are very similar in shape to the DSLR so they are not really “compact” people are interested in the real compacts (GF1/ and NEX is selling pretty good in the usa)
So really the only interesting camera is GF1 and that cost 899$ so most casuals rather get a nikon or canon which cost less,
Sony NEX sell for 499$ Canon XS goes for 499$ Nikon 3100 cost 599$ etc yet GF2 will properly cost 899$ again, Mirrorsless cameras suppose to be cheaper to build too.
The GF1 is no longer in production, so the price has gone up, but was selling for between 600 and 700 since last August when I picked it up for $650. The Nikon 3100 sells for about the same amount with some great lens deals, but is much larger. I bring my GF1 everywhere with my 20mm and have a lot of fun without the flash (funny how impressed everyone is that you can take indoor pictures without flash) Only thing that would be better is noise in higher ISO ranges, which I will probably wait for what will probably be the GF3. The kit lenses with those listed above are also less than impressive compared to the 20. The NEX may be $499, but good luck with accessories and variety of lenses, it just can’t compete with M43.
Teo very different company cypriers: Olympus selfcontent “everything we do is the fight thing”. Oansenlig on the other hand inbjudit more interfaces in what customers/idets think and prefer. Subsequenly Panasonic sells a lot and Olympus less. Olympus is for their believers, Panasonic is for those who sangs to take good photos.
I own an Olympus p1 since 1.5 years. HHoping for a high end camera with16 Mpixel and the E-5 processing engine. Sems like Olympus ha got stuck with 12Mpix -utterly stupid! History shows clearly a delelopment where increased no of pixels and image quality gods hand in hand!
take for instance Canon G-series: They have from G1and onwards had and improved image quality at the same time as the number of pixels . Some time ago They reversed from 14 to 10Mp. At Luninous Landscape it was clearly shown: The improvements in image quality was barskt visible
…continuing My comment: The Canon G with 14 Mp has significantly better resolution than the newer 10mp! Noice-wise and in ISO sensitivity difference was so little you really bredes to pixel-peep to see à difference.
by the way: DXO test methodology has very los quality! Do not look for measurements – look for real life image quality!
Are you certain? Canon was widely applauded for going back to 10mp and noise levels have dropped significantly when light gets poorer. You may be able to get some more information in bright light landscapes, but for anything else more Mp on the sensor is often detrimental for image quality. The fact that image quality has improved is more in spite of rather than because of the Mp increase. Look also at the Panasonic TZ10 (ZS7) compared to the TZ7. Better image quality of the older model.
Unfortunately, the majority of people still equal more Mp with better while this is not necessarily the case. 12 Mp is more than enough, particularly for the moment. In a year or two when technology has moved along again, it may be worth moving on but for the moment it’s a good decision imho from Olympus.
Compare nikon d200 and d300 – big difference, from 10 to 12 mpix. Many said 12 to 13mp was The soft spot for APS-C. Now we have them at 16 – 18Mpix and image quality is better in every sence!
A FF with 25 Mp tames better quality images than à 12 Mp FF except for High ISO.
Why do medium format increase Mpix àll the time? Why did Leica not stat with 13Mpix.
Provided same pixel quality more Mpix are better
1. More nuanses in the image
2. Can crop image wo qualty go down so much
3. Better prints
> Provided same pixel quality more Mpix are better
That is, if your optics can resolve that much.
Talk to people who do macro or long tele. They can tell (and show) a few things about how real amount of details mostly depends on optics.
More pixels != more information/more details. Most of the time more MP means more of the same pixels.
If you think that the main difference between the D200 and D300 lies in the sensor resolution, you’re mistaken. Also, the quality of an image is not solely determined by the number of pixels it contains.
The main fault of Olympus’ alleged plan to stick to 12mp is from a marketing standpoint; specifically, people still associate “more” with “better” and would rather buy a camera with more megapixels, regardless of the fact that most people would do just fine with a 3mp camera (because posting uncropped photos on Facebook of their dogs/kids doesn’t require a Hasselblad). Advanced users expect to see improvements in other ways (e.g. E-5 processing).
On a side note, last night I saw a couple of people trying to taking photos with a Rebel T2i. One had the lens cap on for the longest time, and kept alternating between shooting and looking confusedly at the screen. The other shot without a flash with the kit lens (of course). Their blurry/blacked out photos probably didn’t benefit much from having 18 megapixels.
My take is that everything is being developed all the time, sensors, pixel and image processing. It is sad that Olympus sort of believe they arrived at Shangri-la with 12 Mpix. Panasonic shows with their GH2 18/16 Mpix that things developes and becomes bettter and better.
I suspect the actual senson/processor has something to do here as well, because my GH2 just smokes my GH1 above ISO 800. It’s no longer a blanket statement that less Pixels equals better noise control, the game has changed apparently.
Well, if Panasonic is only offering Olympus 12 meg sensors, that that would be a good reason for them to stick with 12 megs, rather than some magical properties of the number twelve. It sounds like a crock of bull to me and I think Oly should seek a different supplier, LIke Kodak, so they don’t have to tell lies about wearing hand- me downs. After using the GH2, I can’t see any good reason to want to stay at 12 megapixels. Less noise and more resolution, what’s not to like?
I was appalled by the logic of the Panasonic representative. To paraphrase his line, since there is a market for people moving from point and shoot cameras, we must make our mirrorless cameras as much like them as possible and still have removeable lenses. Even the name of the category should identify them with point and shoot cameras. M43rds cameras should be “improved” to make them more like point and shoots – like power zoom, or more importantly by doing away with the view finder.
The perverse logic is that people don’t have viewfinders on point and shoot cameras,and therefore only those who have had them in the past will like them – “a generational thing.” That assumes that if you don’t give people something,they would prefer not to have it, even if they could. The hip youthful photographer really prefers to hold his or her camera at arms length. Really? How do the hip youth know?
Have grown fond of my G!, would like a GF1 – with a view finder. I find the future prospects of Panasonic m43rd cameras very dismal indeed if this kind of argument prevails.
I recently moved from point and shoot, and want dials and manual controls to learn as time goes by – and a viewfinder because I prefer it and it helps create better pictures – I want to be a better photographer and not just take snapshots with a fancier camera.
I was surprised the representative from Panasonic didn’t mention what, in my opinion, are the two biggest reasons for a viewfinder.
Viewfinders offer a third point of contact between you and the camera to take out more shake. Pretty useful for video and slower exposures.
Viewfinders are also easier to see when shooting outside on a sunny day since the sun won’t be reflecting off them.
I fear perceived market preferences of the kind I described are driving Panasonic m43 design and not such sensible considerations. Certainly the GF2 reflects this philosophy. And Sony doesn’t have an EV for NEX cameras, so perhaps Panasonic is following suit. Read somewhere (sorry about the lack of a reference)that apparently the Gf2 does not function well with the optional EVF because of its menu structure and touch screen. Lets hope that Panasonic creates a GF camera with a built-in EVF for the GF1 enthusiast niche market they admit to having. Good design has good functionality as well as form, and it is design that will set Panasonic apart from Sony.
Milt,
I was appalled too. I spent 14 years in professional sales and marketing. After 5 years in sales, I switched to marketing. And then learned how LITTLE I knew about marketing!
Most people think “marketing” is just a fancy word for sales. Or that it’s just promotion and hype. Or “education” as the Pany uhmmm person stated. That is a FAILURE scenario!!!
True marketing means:
1) Understanding your customer – who they are and what they want.
2) Defining products that meet their needs and work well.
3) THEN, promote the product.
Virtually all of my success in marketing came from the first two. Virtually all of my failures came from the third – being forced to promote products that did NOT meet customer needs.
My first reaction to that Pany rep was “AMATEUR!!!” People who are not true marketing professionals (like that person) make two huge mistakes…
First, they use their own opinions in place of marketing research. I.e. that what they like or dislike is representative of a marketing demographic.
Second (and somewhat similar to the first), they look at surface evidence and make unproven assumptions about the underlying factors.
The average person and the vast majority of marketing people make these assumptions. True marketing professionals do NOT.
When I went into marketing I realized that my own biases would get in the way of good decisions. So I threw them out. I talked to customers. I read or created marketing research to find out what customers wanted. I kept digging until I understood what drove customers buying decisions!
Going back to this Pany person, his whole discussion about younger vs older generation is full stupid biases. If you take a cursory, amateur-level look at the marketing data then you could draw those conclusions. As any amateur would.
OTOH…
It’s far more likely that there are other factors involved – like knowledge, experience, and interest.
If age was the primary driving force, then only younger consumers would be using iPhones and older ones would choose Black Berries and the old Windows Mobile phones. I’m 64. When I first looked at an iPhone three years ago, it took me about 30 seconds to “get it”. After I got my iPhone3g, it took me about an hour to become comfortable with the UI and a few days to start thumbing message efficiently. Virtually all of our extended family from the teenagers to the older family members use iPhones. OTOH, a few just like regular phones or blackberries. And NONE of those are at our age level.
The message? It’s not age. It’s knowledge, experience, and interest. Some see the benefit and some don’t. The UI? There are preferences, but it’s based on knowledge, experience, and interest. The iPhone UI works very well. That’s why, even at my ADVANCED years, I bought it.
Regarding Pany, rather than a simplistic young/old viewpoint, IMO it would be better to look at it as a growth path:
1) Entry-level P&S newb
2) More knowledgeable user (photographer/videographer)
3) Very knowledgeable user who knows what he/she wants.
Some people progress through all those stages. Some don’t. Most will never get out of first (entry level) stage because they simply don’t care. They have a simple P&S that gives them good pics that’s that.
The problem for Pany is stage 2 and 3. Pany
Sorry, hit the wrong button. To continue…
The problem for Pany is stage 2 and 3. At stage 2, where users become more knowledgeable, they start to define what they want/don’t want and like/don’t like. As they become more knowledgeable, they start seeing the limitations of their cameras. The still want ease of user, but they want more.
IMO, the GF2 will meet those users needs to some extent. While naming the GF2 was a MASSIVE marketing blunder, the camera itself looks decent and will meet the needs of Stage 2 users.
And I don’t see age having much to do with people moving into stage 2. IMO, you will see more younger people choose the GF2 (or Nex) because on average they don’t have as much experience as someone older. I.e., the average 20 year old will not have as much photography experience as the average 60 old. Age may not bring wisdom, but it does bring experience. Would you make the same choices now that you would when you were 20? I certainly wouldn’t.
The people who move into stage 3 (like me) KNOW what they want. IMO, it is those people who buy the GF1s, Gx, and GHx cameras. You KNOW that you prefer or don’t prefer an EVF, and you know WHY. You KNOW the importance of speed and how it affects or does not affect YOUR photography. These are the people who give up their bulky, heavy DSLRs to get something lighter (aka me). Or choose the GF1 for it’s compact profile. Or choose the GH2 for it’s advanced video features (also me).
IMO, Pany’s marketing has been extremely poor and this fellow is an example of why. I don’t think they understand their market. Their simplistic age bias gets in the way of defining what’s really behind purchasing decisions. They don’t provide a clear growth path for the beginning users, to the more advanced users, to the stage 3 users. And they don’t provide clear product choices for the people in the different stages.
In summary, Pany needs to get better quality info about their customers and spend less time irritating customers (as this fellow most certainly did.)
Regards,
Dan.