Pentax Reportedly Considering Micro 4/3 Style Camera

[ruben]

Dear Bill,

I don't think that the definition "big sensor/small camera" is broad enough to encompass the m4/3. Thus for exjample the system lems exchangeability, is part and parcel of he package which Sigma's DPs are not, nor any of the Canons you mentioned. The G10 with its toy viewfinder is no match for the Panasonic G1. And the G1 manual focusing for legacy lenses puts to shame the bigger boys too.

Nevertheless I am interested in your opinion about a broad question. Why the market that was able to absorb so many slrs and AF slrs will not be able to absorb a similar amount of m4/3 ?

I am not stating nor insinuating nothing here, but my feeling is that the high prices of dslrs, with the tax of being bigger and heaier than their mechanical ancestors, AND the speedy advance by which the industry has been evolving, has kept a lot of "enthusiasts" on the fringes. So much of the folks have been playing with the minipocket flat undercameras, but what next ?

On the other end, my feeling is that many folks must start being tyred of carrying digital speed graphics and may converge into th em3/4 too.

Unfortunately both Panasonic and Olympus seem to be going backwards from their start m3/4 models. Panasonic by diminishing its G1 size by 35% and the camera performance by much more, while Olympus, I am highly suspictious will mock themselves with a tunel viewfinder ten times less able than the one on the G1.

But if instead of these stupidities, another company could offer an m3/4 with further extended capabilities, then the desertion from dslrs will start being fast.

Lastly I strongly disrecommend the new Panasonic GF: smaller size at higher price and half capabilities is no for intelligent people.

Once Olympus disclose the measure of their gap between its new model and the G1, then we may have some rest.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[bmattock]

Ruben,

With regard to the price disparity, I have three dSLR cameras. None cost more than $400 USD each for the body - new - and one only cost $249 USD new. I don't think m4/3 is going to sway my choices based on low price - they cost nearly three times each what I paid for my dSLR cameras, which are much more capable (at the moment).

With regard to why I don't think the m4/3 will carve out a similar niche as the dSLR, it's because the niche has to come from somewhere. If people buy a m4/3, they're going to buy it instead of a top-end digicam like the G10 or a low-end dSLR like the entry-level Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc. They're eating their own sales, and I don't think it will go on for very long.

I am not comparing the superiority of the m4/3 - I agree it's a very capable standard and cameras are quite nice. I'm saying there isn't much room for a lot of m4/3 or m4/3-like cameras in this niche. Just an opinion.

 

[Kin Lau]

The enthusiast uses higher-end point-and-shoot cameras with manual controls and good lenses, as well as dSLR cameras. The more esoteric of the enthusiasts use digital rangefinder cameras and the like, but they are a minority - a subset within a subset.

The professional uses dSLR cameras pretty much exclusively. There are always exceptions, but for the most part, they're hauling around Canon or Nikon digital SLR bodies and big expensive lenses. They have a lot invested in their equipment and they are not likely to dump what they're using unless it just doesn't work for them. The annual sales of dSLR cameras have not plateaued, according to the latest sales figures I'm privy to. They continue to rise, even with increasing competition and a bad economy.

The way I see it, four-thirds and micro four-thirds is aimed at the enthusiast market.

I would suggest the m4/3 will appeal to both the enthusiast _and_ the pro market. The enthusiast for the reasons stated. Many pro's aren't just sticking with med fmt or pro dslrs, they also carry a P&S, especially the higher rates models like the G10 or LX3. The cost of a G10 or LX3 is not far from the cost of m4/3. Many photogs whol already have a DSLR system are also interested in m4/3 as a backup or a carry-around when they don't want to slug the big iron around, the video features don't hurt either. I have about 7 DSLR's in the family right now, but if the price creeps down on a m4/3 body to the G10 or LX3 range, then I'd get one for sure.

As for the regular 4/3 system, I think that's just going to fade into the background. Given that you can now buy a used full-frame 35mm DSLR for the same price as the top of the line 4/3 body... I think it's days are numbered.

 

[aizan]

the market for m4/3 and similar cameras will grow for a very simple reason: because there is a demand. meanwhile, demand for p&s digicams and dslrs is slowing down or falling.

 

[bmattock]

the market for m4/3 and similar cameras will grow for a very simple reason: because there is a demand. meanwhile, demand for p&s digicams and dslrs is slowing down or falling.

I base my educated guesses on facts. Digicam sales are falling. dSLR sales are not. As to demand, that's debatable, and my best guess is that there isn't enough demand to cover multiple entrants into this market. I think it will become saturated quickly and then there will be some retrenchment.

As I've stated, we're not the market. The fact that 'we' like m4/3 cameras means diddly-squat. We are not even a drop in the bucket.

 

[aizan]

last i head, dslr sales are slowing down. it's only a matter of time before they decrease.

i don't think olympus and panasonic are really targeting us at all. i mean, i don't want an e-p1, gf1, dp2, or x1. i think they're targeting another kind of customer entirely.

take my mom, for instance. my mom went on a trip overseas. she didn't take her entry level dslr, a canon 450d, because it was too big. she took a p&s instead. this is a pretty common situation, i'd say.

the number of people who bought a p&s, were dissatisfied by the image quality and handling, then bought an entry level dslr and didn't like the bulk...how many millions could that be?

i have no doubt that every camera maker will soon be in the small camera big sensor market. olympus, panasonic, sigma, and leica are in it. that already counts as multiple entrants. samsung is working on the nx. sony and pentax have expressed their intentions. it would be surprising if ricoh didn't join the fray. that leaves canon and nikon to make their move. so if you like the cameras we've seen so far, you're in luck!

i'm burnt out already. the e-p1, gf1, dp2, and x1 are "me too" cameras. all of the new cameras are going to be more of the same, unless a miracle happens.

 

[bmattock]

i don't think olympus and panasonic are really targeting us at all. i mean, i don't want an e-p1, gf1, dp2, or x1. i think they're targeting another kind of customer entirely.

take my mom, for instance. my mom went on a trip overseas. she didn't take her entry level dslr, a canon 450d, because it was too big. she took a p&s instead. this is a pretty common situation, i'd say.

the number of people who bought a p&s, were dissatisfied by the image quality and handling, then bought an entry level dslr and didn't like the bulk...how many millions could that be?

The film market did not go that way, and I don't think the digital market will, either. The happy snapper of the 1970's and 1980's was not dissatisfied with the image quality of the average plastic craptastic 35mm point-and-shoot, and they didn't move up to SLR cameras - interchangeable lenses are lost on them and they just don't care. All they wanted was zoom and auto-everything convenience. This is no different now, just with digital point-and-shoot bars of soap.

I do not see any 4/3 or m4/3 cameras in Best Buy. Therefore, I posit that the happy snapper is not their audience.

The film camera makers also tried to carve out a niche in-between the traditional SLR and the point-and-shoot, and they also got nowhere. The Minolta Vectis, for example. Or the Olympus IS series (mildly successful).

No, the m4/3 and similar small-camera/big-sensor cameras are aimed at the enthusiast market. Happy snappers just don't care about quality, they never have. They like cell phone cameras, for God's sake.

Now that I think about it, the market does resemble that of the late 1980's and the Olympus IS and Minolta Vectis cameras. Manufacturers scrambling about, trying to find an unexploited niche. There is room for a few there, but not many and not that many sales either. Olympus did it well with the IS series cameras, but Minolta screwed the pooch with the ugly Vectis that no one wanted. That's the market I think these m4/3 and me-too cameras are in now.

 

[count_zero]

I do not see any 4/3 or m4/3 cameras in Best Buy. Therefore, I posit that the happy snapper is not their audience.

Actually, Best Buy does stock 4/3 and m4/3. The reason why you don't see them on the floor is because someone bought it.

 

[aizan]

The film market did not go that way, and I don't think the digital market will, either. The happy snapper of the 1970's and 1980's was not dissatisfied with the image quality of the average plastic craptastic 35mm point-and-shoot, and they didn't move up to SLR cameras - interchangeable lenses are lost on them and they just don't care. All they wanted was zoom and auto-everything convenience. This is no different now, just with digital point-and-shoot bars of soap.

so how do you explain the entry-level dslr market? also, i've been going through a pile of vintage natgeos from the 70s to the 90s, and all of the camera ads are for slrs. pentax me, pentax spotmatic f, olympus om1 and 2, minolta srt101 and 102, maxxum 7000, canon ftb, a1, f1, new f1, nikon fe, nikkormat, etc. etc. doesn't look like nobody cared about image quality back then, either.

I do not see any 4/3 or m4/3 cameras in Best Buy. Therefore, I posit that the happy snapper is not their audience.

i saw a g1 and e-p1 at fry's the other day, though i admit i haven't been to best buy recently. they were right there along with the dslrs. the point and shoots were down the aisle.

The film camera makers also tried to carve out a niche in-between the traditional SLR and the point-and-shoot, and they also got nowhere. The Minolta Vectis, for example. Or the Olympus IS series (mildly successful).

apples and oranges. there's more than one way to carve a niche between slrs and p&s cameras, and i don't see many similarities between those film cameras and the digital ones that we've seen so far.

No, the m4/3 and similar small-camera/big-sensor cameras are aimed at the enthusiast market. Happy snappers just don't care about quality, they never have. They like cell phone cameras, for God's sake.

i'm confused. i thought we were talking about people who bought entry level dslrs, i.e. the "enthusiast" market, people who care about image quality. how do happy snappers factor into the discussion?

Now that I think about it, the market does resemble that of the late 1980's and the Olympus IS and Minolta Vectis cameras. Manufacturers scrambling about, trying to find an unexploited niche. There is room for a few there, but not many and not that many sales either. Olympus did it well with the IS series cameras, but Minolta screwed the pooch with the ugly Vectis that no one wanted. That's the market I think these m4/3 and me-too cameras are in now.

were there other companies making things like the olympus is series and minolta vectis? 2 then vs. 4 now (and you can probably add 3 more in a year or two). sure, history repeats itself. only it's different every time.

 

[bmattock]

so how do you explain the entry-level dslr market? also, i've been going through a pile of vintage natgeos from the 70s to the 90s, and all of the camera ads are for slrs. pentax me, pentax spotmatic f, olympus om1 and 2, minolta srt101 and 102, maxxum 7000, canon ftb, a1, f1, new f1, nikon fe, nikkormat, etc. etc. doesn't look like nobody cared about image quality back then, either.

The ads for SLR cameras were placed in magazines that were likely to be read by enthusiasts and professional photographers, not happy snappers. National Geographic is a magazine read by the affluent, not Joe Schitt the Ragman.

i saw a g1 and e-p1 at fry's the other day, though i admit i haven't been to best buy recently. they were right there along with the dslrs. the point and shoots were down the aisle.

Fry's is great. They also cater to the uber-geek. Best Buy has a different market, they cater to the numbskull. Note the 'Geek Squad' for their customers who don't know how to turn on a PC.

apples and oranges. there's more than one way to carve a niche between slrs and p&s cameras, and i don't see many similarities between those film cameras and the digital ones that we've seen so far.

OK. I do, but there you go. The film cameras I mentioned were attempts to carve out new territory between point-and-shoot cameras and SLR cameras, and so are m4/3 and similar cameras, to my mind.

i'm confused. i thought we were talking about people who bought entry level dslrs, i.e. the "enthusiast" market, people who care about image quality. how do happy snappers factor into the discussion?

I said that the average person (happy snapper) who owns a camera does not care about image quality. They're pleased with the images they get from cell phone cameras. They don't bitch about the images they get from digital point-and-shoot cameras. So they are not likely to want a m4/3 camera.

were there other companies making things like the olympus is series and minolta vectis? 2 then vs. 4 now (and you can probably add 3 more in a year or two). sure, history repeats itself. only it's different every time.

Sure, there were lots of them. Canon tried a ZSLR style camera, it bombed. Chinon had one too. The list goes on.

I'm just offering an opinion here. I could well be wrong. Time will tell.

But I'm generally right. I can't help it, I'm just smart like that.

 

[Trius]

Bill: What is small in terms of the "small" enthusiast Market segment, and on what hard data do you base that statement? I'm not disagreeing with you , just trying to understand how you got to that conclusion.

 

[Trius]

"The ads for SLR cameras were placed in magazines that were likely to be read by enthusiasts and professional photographers, not happy snappers. National Geographic is a magazine read by the affluent, not Joe Schitt the Ragman."

That's just flat out incorrect. And irrelevant.

 

[bmattock]

"The ads for SLR cameras were placed in magazines that were likely to be read by enthusiasts and professional photographers, not happy snappers. National Geographic is a magazine read by the affluent, not Joe Schitt the Ragman."

That's just flat out incorrect. And irrelevant.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/advertising.html

Male/Female Ratio: 56% / 44%
Median Household Income: $60,078
Attended/Graduate College: 66%
Professional/Managerial: 27%
Median Age: 45.6 years

I think I'm right. And the only relevance it has is in relation to the post made by aizan, in which he claimed that advertisements for SLR cameras in old issues of National Geographic prove that the average Joe was interested in SLR cameras. I said it proves that SLR cameras were marketed to the affluent enthusiast. A travel magazine with loads of photos in it? Hmmm. Sorry, not the usual choice of reading material for the average hod carrier.

 

[bmattock]

Bill: What is small in terms of the "small" enthusiast Market segment, and on what hard data do you base that statement? I'm not disagreeing with you , just trying to understand how you got to that conclusion.

I see it in terms of proportion, not in numbers of cameras. If the entire market for digital cameras is 100%, and dSLR cameras represent less than 15% of that market (I use CIPA figures for rough estimates), then I see the potential m4/3 market as something less than either point-and-shoot or dSLR markets, neither of which the m4/3 is going to supplant, but might carve a small chunk out of.

http://www.cipa.jp/english/

Here are the latest numbers (July 2009):

http://www.cipa.jp/english/data/pdf/d_200907.pdf

Camera with Built-in Lens: 7,124,137
SLR with Interchangeable Lens: 832,582

Like I said, I am guessing, but I do base my guesswork on solid information.

 

[Kin Lau]

The DSLR market is _dominated_ by Canon and Nikon. Any of the other makers would be happy to get just a small chunk of that. The P&S market is still huge for the number of units, but that covers sub-$100 basic units to the high-end G10, LX3 and bridge-cameras which are priced at the lowend of the DSLR market.

BTW, all the Best Buys in Ottawa carry the Oly E620.

Futureshop, which is owned/bought-out by Best Buy, carries and advertises the same items, even has the Canon 5Dm2 and Nikon D700.

Interesting to note that neither carries Pentax DSLRs.

 

[sevo]

I see the potential m4/3 market as something less than either point-and-shoot or dSLR markets, neither of which the m4/3 is going to supplant, but might carve a small chunk out of.

Well, MFT is just one EVIL candidate. And in the past, related paradigms for high-value cameras certainly had a hard time gaining acceptance. The Contax G (which brought AF to the interchangeable lens viewfinder camera) or the Fuji GA645 series (the film equivalent of large sensor compacts) both were loved by its few niche users and still have a growing cult following, but they were a failure on the mass market (at least outside Japan) back when they could be bought new.

But it is not safe to say that EVIL will end in the same niche. Consumers have done away with the viewfinder since then, and might shed other old habits as well.

 

[bmattock]

But it is not safe to say that EVIL will end in the same niche. Consumers have done away with the viewfinder since then, and might shed other old habits as well.

The major selling points of the m4/3 and similar cameras are that they have a small form factor and a large sensor - some also have interchangeable lenses.

Consumers do care about small form factor. They do not care about large sensors or interchangeable lenses. The fact that the larger sensor results in better images is lost on them; they just do not care.

A more-expensive point-and-shoot that also sports removable lenses that they do not have any particular interest in? I'm still thinking no.

I am not saying m4/3 cameras will fail. I am saying I think the market is limited and the niche is small. The average consumer won't fall into this particular niche. And if everyone and their brother starts rushing into this niche, it will saturate pretty quickly, then there will be a shakeout. What remains will be sustainable, but the numbers will be low in comparison to the overall market.

It's like the market for ruggedized or waterproof digital cameras. Yes, there is a market for them. And a few manufacturers make them, at a couple different price-points (but all are more expensive than the typical point-n-shoot). But if everyone decided to make one? They'd mostly fail. There just isn't enough market space for all of them.

Niche markets are there to explore, and every manufacturer is seeking to differentiate themselves and gain market share.

Some do it by trying to stake out claims in areas where there is no competition and the niche doesn't steal from their own other segments. For example, the aforementioned rugged or waterproof cameras - if you need a waterproof camera, a typical p-n-s won't do, so the waterproof market niche doesn't steal from the p-n-s market.

Some do it by trying to exploit a segment within an existing segment, like Casio with their high-frame-rate cameras. By touting the appeal of machine-gun-like still frame rates to parents with kids who play sports, they hope to divert some traditional p-n-s buyers into their own cameras. But they don't sell a monster amount of traditional p-n-s cameras anyway, so they're not cannibalizing their own sales.

Olympus, on the other hand, has a nice dSLR lineup, and sells a lot of p-n-s cameras too. Will their m4/3 cameras steal share from themselves as well as from competitors?

 

[ruben]

Dear Bill,


Nevertheless I am interested in your opinion about a broad question. Why the market that was able to absorb so many slrs and AF slrs will not be able to absorb a similar amount of m4/3 ?

......

Cheers,
Ruben

Hi Bill,

Since you are being challenged from many corners now, I will come with this latter.

Cheers and good luck at Pamplona !
Ruben

 

[HansDerHase]

I don't think the market for this type of camera is that big.

In my opinion the market for that kind of camera is actually going to be one of the biggest in the near future.

Reasoning:

a) The big market of "el cheapo" tiny-sensor cameras gets more and more saturated and may even collapse due to cell-phone-cameras getting better.

a) Ambitioned photographers with digicams start to get pissed by the weak performance of tiny and small sensors in respect to tonality, color and noise. That's why Canon finally backed off on pixel-count for their latest G-Model, even though the G11 allready has one of the bigest tiny-sensors on the market.

b) Photographers with DSLRs start to get pissed by the huge bulk in body and lens. Especially when they are old enough to think back to the days of the Olympus OM or Pentax ME - small, light, sturdy, and nontheless great viewfinders - which outperform any of todays DSLRs in the handling-department.

c) Tiny-sensors with their almost unlimited depth-of-field (macro aside) are useless for making portraits. It just doesn't work. Unless you have a studio-background or the background is *realy* far away.

That said I think camera manufactures better get into that market of compact big-sensor cameras ASAP. And that seems to be what they are about to do. No matter if it's Micro-4/3 or some more proprietary direction.

[Sony might even blow it again by going their own way as they unsuccessfully tried with the memorystick ].

 

[Trius]

Bill,

The NatGeo demographic data you quoted is from 2003, but the period you referenced was 80s-90s ...

But be that as it may, I'm not sure the demographics (from MRI, whatever that is, don't have time to look at that right now,) are for subscription data or readership. That was part of my point. Given that during that period Nat Geo was probably the most dog-eared publication in a gajillion libraries, I'd say the demographic data is likely irrelevant.

Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras could define a new Market segment. I'm not predicting it, just have a hunch. Ole George's box cameras that promised "we do the rest" had a non-existent market, too.

PS: Pop over to Windsor soon. We'll quaff a beverage and dosome walkabout shooting.