bmattock
Veteran
Well, you've contributed a lot. Have a nice life.
bmattock
Veteran
First you said you didn't understand how a company could hurt their own market, now you say that they could, and probably would in this case. Whatever.
People say I like to argue. Perhaps. However, I tend to stick with a position, not shift it all around to avoid ever having to be 'wrong'.
No, the ZLR cameras were not mostly APS. Even if they were, I wasn't arguing that they were or were not compact. I was arguing that they were an attempt to create a new niche in between compact cameras and SLR cameras, which ultimately failed.
I understand that my logic is hard to defeat, but I am only offering an opinion - I fully realize I could be wrong. I see also that it is very important to you that you find some imagined chink in my armor so you can claim victory. Whatever, dude. I'm not trying to 'win', I'm positing a position and defending it with logic. If you can't use logic or even hold the same position from post to post, it isn't about the topic, it's about beating 'me'. I was unaware that it was so important for you to defeat 'me' instead of my logic. I think we're all done here.
count_zero
Established
My thoughts exactly. I just got back from a sporting event in a small venue, and the local news "pro" brought his full rig, Nikon D300 + every lens known to man. I was surprised he could walk with all of junk strapped to him, especially since he is twice my age. Here am I with my Pen and 50mm lens, any bigger lens and I would have been taking photos of snot from the nose not the actual athletes. The 2x "crop" factor does come in handy sometimes.
bmattock
Veteran
Are you 'most people'?
R
ruben
Guest
Bold by me, Ruben.
To my opinion, the most basic question at the order of the day, put almost unintentionaly on the table by the micro 4/3 new format, is if the market as we appreciate it today -each of us with his own byass- will remain more or less stable in its requests, or is in the verge of a radical change.
I would answer - it depends. If the micro 4/3 remains at the irresponsible hands of Olympus and Panasonic, there is a good chance they themselves will bury the new format due to their own narrowness, proven long ago in the case of Olympus, or in the case of Panasonic - out of their absolute foreign status in the camera industry, proven by the fact that after designing such a delikatessen like the G-1, they go backwards to the new GF, which will satisfy the illusions of those in pursue of a pocket camera, but enrage them in all other aspects.
Furthermore, in the case of Olympus, if you are not convinced, give a glance to their new prospective camera with which they are supposed to compete with the G1....
BTW, future buyers of the Panny GF, be warned that I will remind you this each time you start to cry, like with the EP1. And without mercy.
It is not a fatal prognosis that Olympus and/or Panasonic will bury the m4/3, but a danger. Luck may play in favour of photography progress, and any of the two, or both, or a third one may accidentally be the agent of photographic progress.
=======================
The second basic issue we should address is the consumer identity of "mom and pop at the family picnic", like Bill put it so bluntly.
That historically there have been always a great segment of moms and pops that wanted the most simple-stupid-and high price cameras - that is not new.
That historically they have been the bread and butter of the photographic industry - this is not new even for today.
But in the past, let's say when I went to photograph my daughter at her kindergarden feast, I found several moms and pops with cameras like the OM3, costly Nikons and Canons, etc.
For sure all these cameras looked new from the box, signaling that those moms and pops hardly use them beyond their families.
And therefore I ask you where that layer of moms and pops with a good budget has gone at the digital era. This is the crucial question, the question of questions, the mother of all battles.
If we look around, and believe that what we see is what we will continue to see - then this lawyer of moms and pops has disappeared. They have dissapeared because they are tired to carry their Speed Graphic dslrs resting at home, they are also ashamed to do it in view of the massive ultra powerfull small garbage cameras they see everywhere, and finally they are disoriented by the low quality (vis a vis the high end dslrs) of what is called the top quality compacts, i,e, the Canons G series, the Sigma DP series, the Lumix series, etc. etc etc.
However much of these moms and pops work at jobs requiring them computer skills of the most variyed level - but in every case enabling them to command any digital camera, like they are able to command a lot of digital personal devices being sold nowadays.
Hence the unique actual position of the micro 4/3 system, which is also at its infancy. But I advice not to disdain the main achievement of the micro 4/3 so far: the shrinking of the exchangeable lens camera through the elimination of the mirror. And if you are true to yourself, you know that with due quality - compactness is the winner.
Some RFF member, hardly castigated me weeks ago for associating sensor size to picture quality. But he was right. According to what I have had to learn to avoid he lashes me again, digital picture quality depends on a lot of factors and processes taking place within the camera.
And if this means anything, it means that a really high end m4/3 has not been seen around already. Otherwise, from the point of view of size and weight, the actual m4/3 format is actual forerunner candidate to win the Olympics and turn over all the game.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Do you accept that "market" is not something universal formed by what's in the head of moms and pops? Do you accept that "market" is strongly influenced, if not created, by what is hype, hyped, and what gets most publicity in the media?
If you think it's rubbish, and commercials change diddly-squat, which would be very strange since companies spend billions on commercials, then you are consistent in your arguments. If you agree with me that people's idea on what they "need" can be strongly manipulated, then the whole discussion has no point since the future of the format will be decided by the producers.
If you think it's rubbish, and commercials change diddly-squat, which would be very strange since companies spend billions on commercials, then you are consistent in your arguments. If you agree with me that people's idea on what they "need" can be strongly manipulated, then the whole discussion has no point since the future of the format will be decided by the producers.
bmattock
Veteran
Yes, marketing has quite a bit to do with what the masses buy.
So does price.
The overwhelming majority of digicams sold in the US cost less than $200 USD. There is a reason for that.
Even if we were not in the middle of a recession, the average Joe does not spend big bucks on a digital camera. You and I, sure. Not them, and there are a LOT more of them than there are of us.
Of course people's buying habits can be influenced by advertising. However, GM still sells more Chevrolets than Cadillacs, even though they advertise both.
I also never said that marketing doesn't affect sales. I said that enthusiasts like ourselves do not influence the market, because all our purchases put together don't amount to diddly-squat. We're not the market, we just like to think we are.
R
ruben
Guest
Hi Pherdinand,
Thank you for your comment. Well I do accept that commercial promotion and propaganda may make me (mom and pop) to buy an unpractical device, let say a Speed Graphic dslr, but at the same time I also accept that mom and pop practice will lead them to reckognize at due time that they need something lighter and smaller.
Historically, as a matter of fact and within its gross contradictions, the camera industry has developed the brownie to what is today, I think Kodak would have been the happiest company if film format would have remained that one required by the Brownie, but it did not worked and a more advanced format did appeared. It was not just propaganda, there is also a place to long term people's judgement.
Cheers,
Ruben
Thank you for your comment. Well I do accept that commercial promotion and propaganda may make me (mom and pop) to buy an unpractical device, let say a Speed Graphic dslr, but at the same time I also accept that mom and pop practice will lead them to reckognize at due time that they need something lighter and smaller.
Historically, as a matter of fact and within its gross contradictions, the camera industry has developed the brownie to what is today, I think Kodak would have been the happiest company if film format would have remained that one required by the Brownie, but it did not worked and a more advanced format did appeared. It was not just propaganda, there is also a place to long term people's judgement.
Cheers,
Ruben
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Easy. Example: Build an expensive complex model for professionals, a cheap model for amateurs, and watch professionals buy the amateur model instead. (The Leica M5/CL story.)
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Yawn....
Yawn....
No.
U4/3 format is half the size of a motion picture frame, which itself is half the size of a 135 format still camera frame. APS-C is the closest to the motion picture "half frame" sized format. Thus, u4/3 is one quarter the area of a 135 format still camera frame.
Yawn....
~Joe
Yawn....
No.
U4/3 format is half the size of a motion picture frame, which itself is half the size of a 135 format still camera frame. APS-C is the closest to the motion picture "half frame" sized format. Thus, u4/3 is one quarter the area of a 135 format still camera frame.
Yawn....
~Joe
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
The "average joe"s you brought up a few times are already snapping away with their camera phone, or have a cheap soapbox digital that they won't change, thus don't represent such a huge market. Sure they still outnumber the ones that go for more expensive stuff, but i'm not sure they are and will be spending in total that much.
I say, this is my image of a camera store in a few years: Ultra-pocketable simple cameras, the ones that fit in pants or shirt pockets and are shiny jewelry; large sensor compacts with decent zooms, interchangeable or not, maybe all m4/3 maybe not, and serious amateur+professional dslr's.
The 200 to 600 $ "prosumer" point-and-shoots with fixed megazooms but small sensors will be all gone, just like the entry level reflexes below 1000$.
This is my idea, and i have a right to it
I say, this is my image of a camera store in a few years: Ultra-pocketable simple cameras, the ones that fit in pants or shirt pockets and are shiny jewelry; large sensor compacts with decent zooms, interchangeable or not, maybe all m4/3 maybe not, and serious amateur+professional dslr's.
The 200 to 600 $ "prosumer" point-and-shoots with fixed megazooms but small sensors will be all gone, just like the entry level reflexes below 1000$.
This is my idea, and i have a right to it
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
ruben, i don't see the point of your comparison.
A speed graphic dslr, don't know what that would be, but sounds scary and complicated eough.
That's exactly my point. Moms and pops and average people who need a camera occasionally to record events or bring them to holidays won't buy and carry a big complicated and expensive dslr-like system thing, but can be persuaded to choose the middle route between a small sensorcrappy image megazoom and a dslr, why not if the price is right?
Sure, the m4/3 prices right now are sky high, but remember how dslr prices were a few years ago, and how low they got now.
A speed graphic dslr, don't know what that would be
, but sounds scary and complicated eough.That's exactly my point. Moms and pops and average people who need a camera occasionally to record events or bring them to holidays won't buy and carry a big complicated and expensive dslr-like system thing, but can be persuaded to choose the middle route between a small sensorcrappy image megazoom and a dslr, why not if the price is right?
Sure, the m4/3 prices right now are sky high, but remember how dslr prices were a few years ago, and how low they got now.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Hurt their own market????
KEEP A CUSTOMER!!!
I'm hoping that the market is flooded with good used DSLR so I can pounce --(;->
b2 (;->
KEEP A CUSTOMER!!!
I'm hoping that the market is flooded with good used DSLR so I can pounce --(;->
b2 (;->
bmattock
Veteran
I quoted the most recent sales figures for digital cameras from CIPA a few posts ago. I'm not going to post it again - go read it. The average Joe's are the market - period. My opinion on the future market share of the m4/3 camera is just that - an opinion. Sales figures are facts. Sorry, you can't dispute them with what you 'think' about the sales figures, they are what they are.
Never happen. Camera stores are a thing of the past, for one thing. In a few years, there will be only a couple large stores left. In the Detroit metro area, we've dropped from five good-sized stores to one. And the biggest, Ad-Ray, is gone.
This is my idea, and i have a right to it
You certainly do. Shall we compare notes in a couple years?
bmattock
Veteran
The reason companies make a variety of models and sell them at a variety of price points is to appeal to the widest range of potential customers. When they make two cameras that appeal to the exact same market, they are spending double the R&D, double the manufacturing, and double the marketing costs to reach the same customer and then confuse them.
Companies strive to send a clear message to consumers about what they should buy - that's the nature of marketing. If they strive to steal market share, they want to steal it from competitors, not themselves.
That will continue regardless, so you're in luck. I see used dSLR cameras now going routinely on eBay for less than $200 USD, and I have never paid more than $400 USD for any of the three that I have.
Some of the primary accusations of the anti-digital crowd is that the dSLR camera is huge (my Pentax *ist DS is small), can't be set to operate manually (I use mine that way most of the time), and cost thousands (my K200D cost $249 USD body only). You're in luck, prices on dSLR cameras continue to drop, sales remain high, life is good. Luddite digital haters are teh suck.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
yea we shall compare them notes
By camera store i don't mean exclusively camera store. I mean a large store that sells also a lot of cameras, and even online stores.
Here in Europe we have general electronics stores like Mediamarkt, Saturn, and some more, which are everywhere and have a huge stock of cameras too. Practically anybody who wants to buy a camera but first wants to see it touch it, goes to such a store. Currently there are zero m4/3s on their shells, but that's because people don't know about m4/3 and such. Lately people don't get informed about the new products in the shop, they get informed through the media and the commercials, and then go to the store and ask for it. So what's on the shells right now means diddly squat for the market of the (close) future.
The sales numbers are of course right and objective. Nevertheless, they always represent the past and you know that. I'm not saying by the end of 2009 epople will buy big sensor compacts, i'm saying as soon as camera makers will decide to do a proper marketing and brainwashing the people will drift into that direction.
This is my vision.)
Yes, the real old mom and pop camera stores went mostly belly up (although not all, at least not in Europe - here every city of a 20-30 000 people or more has some kind of camera/photo store, even more than one, the luckier cities), but it's obvious why that is, and maybe not necessarily a bad thing, it's just that the times are changing.
By camera store i don't mean exclusively camera store. I mean a large store that sells also a lot of cameras, and even online stores.
Here in Europe we have general electronics stores like Mediamarkt, Saturn, and some more, which are everywhere and have a huge stock of cameras too. Practically anybody who wants to buy a camera but first wants to see it touch it, goes to such a store. Currently there are zero m4/3s on their shells, but that's because people don't know about m4/3 and such. Lately people don't get informed about the new products in the shop, they get informed through the media and the commercials, and then go to the store and ask for it. So what's on the shells right now means diddly squat for the market of the (close) future.
The sales numbers are of course right and objective. Nevertheless, they always represent the past and you know that. I'm not saying by the end of 2009 epople will buy big sensor compacts, i'm saying as soon as camera makers will decide to do a proper marketing and brainwashing the people will drift into that direction.
This is my vision.
)Yes, the real old mom and pop camera stores went mostly belly up (although not all, at least not in Europe - here every city of a 20-30 000 people or more has some kind of camera/photo store, even more than one, the luckier cities), but it's obvious why that is, and maybe not necessarily a bad thing, it's just that the times are changing.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Bill, I usually agree with a lot of what you say, but not here, in this forum. I have worked in the industry and still do for over 30 years. I know of no photographer who wouldn't give up their big dSLRs and lenses for something that was more compact, equally as durable, and produced a high IQ. I was working recently for the largest photo/media company. This is something I heard all the time from working pros. Pros might drive the market, but camera manufacturers certainly do listen to them.
RFF does not drive the market. I usually do not read "gear threads". I can't stand them. I do believe that 4/3s will certainly develop further and introduce innovations that camera manufacturers might not have introduced and developed earlier.
RFF does not drive the market. I usually do not read "gear threads". I can't stand them. I do believe that 4/3s will certainly develop further and introduce innovations that camera manufacturers might not have introduced and developed earlier.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
Your photographer friends are not the market. Joe Average is.
And as far as professional photographers go, let's see what happens. dSLR sales are currently in much better shape than compact digicam sales, which are in general decline. How many working pros have shifted their equipment to the micro four-thirds standard? I have trouble believing it will happen (again, just opinion). m4/3 is currently slower than dSLR cameras, have a smaller sensor than even APS-C sensors, and have a much lower burst rate than the current top-end dSLR cameras. They're not 'pro' gear at the moment.
Will that change? I don't know, but I do not see the manufacturers aiming m4/3 at pros at the moment - except perhaps as the ubiquitous backup camera.
Yes, I agree with all of that. I also believe m4/3 will continue to develop and make inroads. I've said that. What I said was that I think it is a limited niche and with all these manufacturers deciding to jump in and test the waters, they'll overload the niche and there will be a shakeout. I'm not just referring to m4/3 here, I'm referring to everyone making a small body/large sensor camera, from Sigma to the new rumored (in this thread) Pentax. I think there is a limited market - that's all.