I have a solution for M43 - RED35 VLOG 100
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- Opinion post. While many think that the world is heading full frame and there's no other alternatives or options, the truth is, different photographers have different needs. Hence there's always a place for larger or smaller formats to exist. But as the market is shrinking, I thought of a way for the micro four thirds sector, how the alliance can flourish in this challenging environment. Your say too :) #microfourthirds #olympus #photography
Support me and this channel
buymeacoff.ee/j...
paypal.me/jimmy...
For more information about #Olympus gear. Visit shop.olympus.eu
Claim your 2-month extra music subscription from our music provider "Artlist". Visit the website here: tiny.cc/artlist
Remember to also follow us at the following links:
FB - / red35photography
Instagram - / red35photography
Twitter - / red35photo
Web: www.red35photog...
Jimmy, I began my career in art & design and photography. I then added technical writing skills and a technical knowledge of IT, before these combination of skills made took me into product Research & Development (R&D), where I added technical R&D to my creative repertoire.
The most frustrating thing about R&D is that new product development is usually driven by the Marketing department. (Yes, sometimes you do see real 'blue sky' innovations, such as IBIS, but that's usually only a small part of the overall package.)
The vast majority of new product "design" involves selecting existing technology components off the warehouse shelf, then bolting them together. The BIG problem being that someone will own the Patent on every feature you wish to add.
Take your simple kettle. It's job is to boil water. But it's a kitchen appliance and people want their kettle to look different - styling, if you like - so you add a light to make the kettle glow. And you have a base power supply, so there's no power lead getting in the way. Each of those features is a protected design, with patent licensing fees attached. You'd be amazed how many patent licences you need to make a kettle design.
Getting back to your idea about cameras, Jimmy. You can easily make a very long list of the "must have" features that buyers will demand of any new camera. Including each of those features will require you to pay a patent licensing fee. Those fees soon add up. Even things like a thumb grip of the eylets to attach the strap or the way the lens cap is held on with a quick-release mechanism will cary a design patent.
Only once you've accounted for those patent licences can you begin real Research & Development to add something 'blue sky' to your product. I've spent many hours writing contract proposals for major corporations to acquire patent licensing.
And there's another gotcha. Businesses make their money from "cash cows". Products they already make and sell in the market. Will your new idea damage the sales value of any of your cash cows? If it will, then the Marketing department will kill it immediately. I've seen it done.
The sad fact is that Research & Development is as much about politics as everything else in life. This is why when we hear our friends asking, "Why oh why didn't they add or improve ... ?", the ultimate answer is it didn't fit the Marketing department's agenda. The new OM-5 is likely a good example.
As you see, Jimmy, almost all new products are a form of collaborative design; but where we reuse ideas through patent licensing. It's one reason why these companies often have such large legal departments. Think about the number of camera sensor manufacturers. There aren't many. Buying and assembling existing technology in different ways (new configurations) is what we're typically seeing in any "new" camera. Again, these would be the constraints when the Marketing team designed the new OM-5.
Frustrating, isn't it?
Rick
As for fitting a bigger sensor. Sure, it sounds simple. But that would have a huge impact on a camera's market pricing. It'd break the company's Marketing-Mix for starters. Then there's changes to the software (which was likely not developed in-house, so fees to the third-party company who wrote it + inevitable tweaks to assure compatibility). Don't forget, the flaws in today's lenses aren't corrected by careful design engineering, but by software processing. It's why you'll get the best from an Olympus lens on an Olympus body, rather than on a Panasonic body.
I could go on, but I'm sure you're getting the idea.
Rick
Absolutely, in fact, OM or Olympus or any camera companies are businesses, they need to make profit. When they first started as a company, it was driven mostly with their passions and interests, as they grow big (worst when they go public as listed companies), they were then dedicated by numbers. Yes, marketing is hugely influential at that point. It is sad that while we know (and their engineers know) that they can make a hugely capable camera in tiny package, but given the number constrains, and their marketing directions, it's hard or near impossible to implement. That all being said, my video simply highlights some areas that they can still do without such problems, group sourcing is a great way to bargain for cheaper prices and in the tech world, can get better and newer techs too.
At one point, I was so frustrated with the process, I said, "Screw patents altogether. Let the best brand win by quality alone." Man, my boss sure didn't like that idea. He explained that patent protection provides the avenue for investment security and without it there'd be no money. "Screw them, too!"
Full compatibility for Panasonic lenses on OM bodies and vice versa (including dual AF, lens corrections) would be a good start.
i also hear a lot of people are selling out the olympus camera due to over expectation of OMDS, or only looking for latest features or bigger megapixel, but for me most important is understanding your machine pro & con and work along with it after all we are human and human are always will find the way to work on it. It just like we love our wife, we have to accept all her goods and bads about her, so that i will last long in our relationships. Peace !!
Bravo Alex. Well said. I would not disagree anything you just said.
But you can't simply swap out your wife?
@@stephenmason5682 i so agree about u
I just think they need to lean heavily into size. Make a ton of Panasonic GM1 sized cameras and tiny ass lenses.
That being said, I think you're right. I also think they can work with smartphone companies to get these sensors into specialized smartphones to use their computational photography features. Ford did great with their Microsoft collaboration in Ford Sync, for example.
I like what you're saying regarding the camera companies getting back to optical design. They should.
@@VictorVonVulfgang I use mine over my good cameras all the time because it fits in my pocket and I'm not shooting for hours at a time usually.
I like your ideas, but I question whether Panasonic really intends to spend much more on the mft format. It might be better for OM Systems to seek a partner outside of the camera space, like Google or Apple, to work on its computational photography and chip development, and then combine that with its far superior lenses. Imagine a camera with the computational capabilities of an iPhone, but with the optics of Olympus. Olympus tried this once, but it never really meshed because it depended on a Bluetooth connection. But built into the camera itself? That would be killer.
I would love to see that happen, yet how likely is that depends on what OM's executive believes would be the best direction for the company. I do want to see more and better computational features though, in both stills and videos.
Yes!
@@Red35Photography samsung used to produce camera and smartphone. currently sony is one of the few if not only camera company which concurrently produce smartphone. they are using the technology on camera on phone and via versa. a lot of innovative idea came and gone without being well developed.
What camera companies have long not understood is that software beats hardware every time. Computer companies learned this the hard way in the 1990s. It's crazy to see the companies hold their hands over their ears regarding this.
I have to completely disagree, at least in OM systems computational case!
@@witssen9954 😂 that’s so 1990. Haha😅 whether camera companies collaborate more or not, the small sensor and computing capabilities will continue to eat away at the shrinking market for bulky dedicated gear like ours. It won’t go away. It’ll just be more niche like film cameras today. It’s a gradual evolution.
It seems like an alliance between OM Systems, Panasonic and Leica would lower the financial burdens and give them options for areas of specialization. With a shrinking camera market it would be nice to have a lower cost, but sophisticated, camera option like M43. I have no wish to see full-frame go away but I think from the standpoint of portability and cost MFT provides a valuable alternative that doesn't break the bank or a person's back.
Good thinking! Thums up!!
I watched this video now three times.. for a minute it carried me back to the early 2010s when Panasonic and Olympus were innovating and you could see where the companies playing were off each other (sharing lens and flash standards) was driving micro four thirds to be the most highly developed and diverse line of gear at the time. By 2015 they were running all over the other brands for interface design, stabilization and "color science". Now.. I feel like the recent introduction of the OM 1 and the GH 6 was like going through another US presidential election and I'm thinking.."after 4 years this is the best we can do??". The OM1 is a competent and encouraging update.. but nowhere near the WOW camera we had been told to believe in. The GH6 is simply 2-3 years too late.. almost all of the GH 5 users have either switched to other brands or like myself got sick of waiting and bought a Panasonic full frame system. It's not like they couldn't do it.. Panasonic is a giant electronic firm and should be pushing sensor technology.. and Olympus has their... "Mystique" and brand loyalty like almost no other. With the new L squared.. Leica + Lumix union, you have to wonder if Panasonic isn't going to be lured into developing mostly full frame product. A new co-development pact would be a perfect situation for micro four thirds... I'm just not sure we live in a world where that's going to happen.
I think micro 4/3 manufacturers need a basic "low end" camera body (
Honestly I don't think most regular consumers are interested in ILCs at all anymore. Smartphones cameras are now good enough for 95% of the population's needs. Entry level ILCs worked in the past due to low margin, high volume. I just don't see the volume being there anymore. ILCs have transitioned into the realm of professionals and hobbyists, so I only see the retail price going up as the volume decreases.
I agree with you
Agreed!
Good luck with that Jimmy. The old self sacrificing thing called ‘Pride’ would get in the way of any collusion I think. I’ve had a couple of Yashicas in the past, one a 2 1/4 square camera. (remember those) wonderful cameras.
Here is an idea worth exploring
A true and in-depth spatial connection between the SMARTPHONE and digital camera. The smartphone can become an assistant to the camera under the direction of the user. So settings, time and objectives are directed to the camera with intelligent communication passed back to the smartphone for user awareness.
A very good opinion.
Hi Jimmy,
Companies will cooperate whenever it makes logical sense for them to do so. As various brands strive to survive in an increasingly cutthroat market there is little motivation to share technology that may hurt a specific company's opportunity to differentiate its products. The camera market peaked in 2012 and has been in a pretty steady decline ever since. Declining camera volumes, even when purchasing power is combined, still represent a very small percentage of the global image sensor volume. So, I don't see any potential for substantial cost savings if the various camera manufacturers tried to combine their sensor purchases. There are simply too many sensor sizes and differences in resolution to combine purchases.
When I decided to buy Olympus M4/3 camera gear I specifically chose M.Zuiko PRO lenses as it made logical sense to me that Olympus would only make its leading edge computational photography technology compatible with its own, higher end lenses. There is precious little margin in entry level camera bodies and lenses so I couldn't see Olympus wasting its time making various computational photography features compatible with inexpensive lenses. This would only serve to cannibalize higher end lenses that represent the bulk of the company's revenue and margin potential. All revenue is not equal. The only revenue worth having is revenue that also generates good contribution margins.
In a similar way there is no upside for Olympus to allow its computational photography technologies to be compatible with M4/3 lenses from other manufacturers. Generic compatibility typically works with vanilla 'same as' inexpensive products targeted at low end markets. In the longer term I don't see OMDS continuing to compete in the entry level, price oriented markets where inter-brand compatibility is the norm. I just don't see this as a viable route to build and maintain a differentiated market position and generate sufficient profits to succeed. In the not too distant future I wouldn't be surprised if most camera companies exited the 'entry level' camera market, and left this first step in photography to smartphone manufacturers.
If OMDS was going to cooperate with other companies with R&D to have access to leading edge technologies it makes no sense that they would waste their time working with other camera companies which are also miniscule players when it comes to image sensor purchasing power. OMDS would be far better off to seek out cooperative R&D agreements with smartphone manufacturers and makers of surveillance networks. These markets are where the lion's share of image sensors are sold and where a lot of new technology is emerging.
Canon's latest move of not allowing third party lens manufacturers to copy their latest lens mount is something that we will see from more and more camera companies in the future. At least from the smart ones. I never understood why camera manufacturers licensed the use of their lens mounts to third party manufacturers... other than the potential that behind the scenes a lot of 'name brand' lenses are actually produced by these same third party manufacturers.
As an owner of Olympus/OMDS products I wouldn't want the proprietary computational capabilities of my cameras/lens being made available to other M4/3 manufacturers. That doesn't help my preferred brand grow its sales and margins, or contribute to its longer terms survival. OMDS will grow and prosper when it continually differentiates itself in the market and is able to command a larger 'share of wallet' with its customers. Someone who buys an OMDS body and then puts a non M.Zuiko lens on that body does not help OMDS build share of wallet or strengthen the competitive position of the company. I wholeheartedly support OMDS not making its computational photography technologies compatible with off brand lenses, or with lower end M.Zuiko lenses. Doing those kinds of things strikes me as illogical and counterproductive to OMDS brand growth and financial health.
Tom
A serious advancement for smaller formats would be the development of hexagonal array sensors (perhaps with ternary processing), but like you said, this would require the power of collaboration between M4/3 manufacturers.
The hi-res feature avoids Bayer interpolation, but hexagonal cells would improve photon efficiency and noise slightly. I would like to see an octagonal sensor to allow multi-aspect choices and maximize the usable optical area of the lens. This may be less efficient to manufacture than a rectangular sensor though. Also an ETTR shooting mode with an ISO-invariant sensor would be nice. These features would not require changes to the m43 spec (sensor diameter) or collaboration AFAIK
Fuji tried that with the old Nikon based S pro series ( super ccd),needless to say that they got away from it and went conventional sensors with the X series of cameras which is a shame as I loved using them all those years ago.
cool
well said Jimmy, thanks so much.
Camera development reminds me a little of HiFi tower systems that were replaced by smart speakers.
Of course they should work together more - but why only within m4/3 or FF?
The image processor e.g. can be developed across brands, as Intel and AMD and NVIDIA do it for virtually all computer manufacturers.
I think all OMDS has to do is keep up with the others at least in the basics. Eg. 4k 60 as a minimum. 10bit video files, USB C. Etc etc. No one is expecting them to exceed every other brands specs. At this point every camera company is struggling to innovate and that's ok because cameras and lenses are so good now.
People keep expecting one camera to do everything? I use a video camera to shoot video. I use a still camera to shoot still images.
@@besperus4475 it's worse than that. A lot of people want every camera launch to WOW them. I've found camera enthusiasts are worse than spoilt children.
Good points on increased collaboration for research and buying power. But they're (OM and Panasonic) missing a few basic items as well. Eg - the Em5 / Om5 lines. Why build the smallest and most rugged/sealed bodies, and promote them heavily on this, but not weatherseal the smallest 1.8 primes? For a decade now, this has made no logical - or business - sense. MFT is a niche corner, so play to that niche's strengths. Go harder on the "retro" feel , but make it a complete package. Weather seal a PenF or Gx9 and build a line of small primes with working aperture rings. Give them more than adequate EVF's . Don't skimp on lesser ibis systems. It feels like both companies continue to remove certain features from new models, when they might actually be better off building simply what is currently the best they can. An OM5 with the running gear and operating system of the Om-1 , and a set of small primes to suit, may have been close to this. The system will always be behind on extreme-use IQ and/or resolution against FF and Fuji aps-c , so maximise instead on the strengths - compactness, toughness , feel and heritage. Even if that means reducing to one or two product lines.
I would be interested in learning how many components are designed in house, and how many are developed and designed by suppliers.
It's time for micro fourth third company to work together, first by making their lens 100% compatible, working on new technologies in adware, software, lens, and sensors. Imagine the systems having pretty much the same users interface and menu system. Panasonic and Leica have announced a new joint venture in sharing technology and is time to Panasonic and Om Systems to work closer. Cooperation is the key to success.
That would be fine but making the lenses "100 percent" compatible would mean making - at least - the IBIS and the autofocus system compatible which seams unlikely.
Nah, fuck Panasonic. They can keep their crappy dfd joke for themselves
I think the horses are already out of the barn with this issue. They had this opportunity years ago when the format was new. Panasonic doesn't seem committed to the format any longer and I just don't see this happening, especially with the shrinking camera market. In fact, with the recent OM5, it doesn't seem like OM Systems is all that committed either. There's been no real innovation with M43 systems the past few years other than a few tweaks with some computational tricks. It's too bad, really.
I admit that there's been some disappointments in the M43 lands. Panasonic is committed but is lost in terms of direction and too distracted with FF endeavour, yet, now, they are not too great in either, but time will tell. Olympus was pushing hard and indeed made some ground yet, they missed some of the key market needs (namely video features) and while they started the AI subject tracking, they quickly lagged behind because of the transition to OM System after the sales of the camera department. Literally all the development came to a halt. It's unfortunate but I have high hope that OM will rectify this over the next couple of generations of cameras. OM-1 shows promises that almost all major reviewers agreed, so it's there. My video is hoping to reach someone who can help eventually to change the practice to allow for faster and better developments.
Some excellent thoughts in your video. Recent stats show that Sony produces approx 50% of all camera sensors followed by Samsung, so both combined account for over 70% of one of the key components. I agree that the camera shell, image processing and aesthetics can be unique to each brand. Certainly to software, AI and computational aspects can be a key feature to enable better comparisons with the recent mobile camera developments.
Software is the key in modern digital cameras and in fact, it's the future. There's so much that hardware can do and at this point, I can't see much quantum leap forward. It's down to AI to other computational features to enhance the camera, very much like what smartphones do these days (iPhone is prime examples for that).
@@Red35Photography IMO, the future is to reduce the dependence of the camera and lenses via computing. Although there will be other hardware at play. It will leap from today's 'Straight Photography' era to the next. Also, it can branch out to other forms, such as 3D hologram. Thus, history repeats itself and imagery creators will be more like an artist. What we see on smartphones today is just the beginning of the next level up from the basic of doing things faster and has not reached the 'they haven't seen anything like it yet' level. Thus, relating the future with the smartphones is similar to what Henry Ford had said about asking what people want, a faster horse, while the future is similar to the introduction of the microcomputer to the consumers. 🙂
👍👍
Intelligent progress in M4/3 is difficult do to the fact that there is no unified technological
development. Supporting the technology by all those using this format for whatever use: video, still imaging, cctv, UAV…can only make the mark “healthy”. This is much like having a belt, each belt has a different buckle. Even with a working belt & buckle some need suspenders (braces? to you Brits). I liken that
to Full Frame and Medium formats. Using a cell phone camera is like not using a belt to hold up your trousers.
OMD solutions and Panasonic are direct competitors. They don't produce their sensors , chips, screen, EVF. They have many subcontractors. They have their own production lines in their own factories. Regarding AI , there are absolutely no reasons to limit synergies in R&D to the micro 4/3 world.
Olympus ( photography) was a sick company , unable to make a profitable business during a decade, not an attractive partner for synergies. Let's see what JIP can do and if it becomes a company with future for long term partnerships. Conclusion, I don’t see any reason or opprtunity for a cooperation between Pana and OMD S.
Solution is gx9 with a mic input.
The difference in price between a good full frame body and a MFT body is not that far apart. The trend has shifted to full frame and mobile computational photography. MFT will keep going as there are so many units already in the market, but as a system itself may not continue to grow as the market may not be there anymore, and the chances of converting full frame owners is unlikely. 😢
Camera companies have been traditionally slow to upgrade and innovate out of fear of hurting sales between their own camera models. In my opinion the future of most of the camera manufacturers is not looking very bright and I include Nikon in that discussion.
The future of photo and video capture will continue to evolve, and so will we. I’m personally excited for what the future holds.😊
The competition is not another camera manufacturer, it is the cellphone. The camera mfgr have to get together and find better ways to compete.
I like this.
These days photography became such a big part of smartphones, that many chip makers work rigorously on their photography power. And with the pace in smartphone world, we know how last years processors drop in price fast. So, why the camera companies don't use the smartphone processors which are much more advanced technologically than camera processors? Using these chips, they can also add lte connection to the cameras too. They can also improve AI capabilities.
Couple years ago this was not possible. But today, all smartphone chips are supporting very high resolution camera with both phase and contrast detect auto focus and ibis. So, I don't think there is a real obstacle in using one of those chips.
If you have more resources, would you investigate on this?
I appreciate your thoughts, but what you propose makes little sense.
1.) Panasonic, OM Digital Solutions and other Micro Four Thirds companies are competitors. They contribute towards the bottom line of different owners and stakeholders. What you propose (common chassis approach) only makes sense where different brands are owned under the same roof (e.g. Volkswagen Group, owning VW, Audi, Skoda and more). Competitors need to create differentiation and unique selling points.
2.) Even if a common chassis approach made business sense, it would not make engineering sense. Image sensors and image processors are optimized at Panasonic for very different purposes than for OM Digital Solution. Panasonic cares about video, processing signals with video encoding in mind, dual-native ISO on sensor with video in mind - and so on. That does not apply to OMDS. There is less common ground than you think there is - as a one size fits all approach is the opposite of cost savings to provide a competitive price point for consumers. With the same sensors, circuitry and processing, competitive differentiation is impossible. You could just as well say: we don't need both Panasonic and OMDS and Panasonic should just buy out OMDS. Less differentiation and product choice would be the result for consumers.
OMDS is doing the right thing. They identified a core brand value of their products (outdoor, wildlife, birding, adventure) and they're targeting marketing in that area. Their marketing strategy is thought through. They need to be able to develop products for that niche with differentiation Panasonic will never care about.
That said, other than furthering the development of the GH line, Panasonic seems to have mostly abandoned their Micro Four Thirds line of products. The G9 is older than the E-M1 III and has not gotten updated with a new product release. The same for the GX line of cameras. There hasn't even been a LX100 type product update. All the recent Panasonic lens releases were 100% focused on lenses suitable for video work primarily. My prediction is that Panasonic may introduce a "light" version of the GH6 to bring the price point down a bit, allow for professionals to have b cameras at lower prices to their GH6 and create an entry point at lower cost into MFT for video, that may very well be a camera in the G line, repurposing the G line for video centric cameras at a lower price point - effectively abandoning MFT for stills photography focused products.
For stills photography, most manufacturers are doubling down on full frame (or larger in Fuji's case with the GFX line). Leica killed the CL line, they haven't cooperated with Panasonic on any new premium compacts. General purpose photography is anchored around "full frame" now. That trend is irreversible.
Bottom line is, there is no more focus on general purpose still photography camera products in Micro Four Thirds. Micro Four Thirds stills photography is now exclusively associated with outdoors, adventure, wildlife and birding - personally, I am a little disappointed about this, but I understand the need for this from a business perspective. We won't be seeing another Pen camera for example. I also think that the line of small, fast primes without weather sealing at low price points will not be extended or refreshed over the years (does not fit the OMDS niche), there will be more like the 20mm f1.4 instead.
None of this matters by the way. Everything we need from Olympus and Panasonic already exists and is widely available on the second hand market at discount prices. You can pick up the excellent 12mm f2 at $300 in mint condition. Pen bodies sell for peanuts. All of the cameras released in the past years are more than capable enough for almost any use case - it's just that OMDS does not service any of the older models anymore. E-P5 broken? Bad luck. I didn't ask for the Pen F but I assume that also is not serviced anymore. I can live with what I invested into MFT for a looooooong time and not have the need for anything new.
I think development and compatibility can happen. Toyota and Subaru sell the same car under different names. Additionally the new Toyota Supra is a BMW with some Toyota refinements. They can partner but that doesn’t mean that money won’t change hands in shared research and dev.
if you have noticed, digital films impact on design has generated quite large cameras. 4/3rds actually struggled to be the same size and weight in its final years. If we were to have a common 'film' as we did with 35mm film cameras, we would logically have cameras around the same size. You can perhaps see the issue, as the sensor would be much larger than the image circle, much of the sensor wasted. At the same time Olympus never tried hard enough to benefit from its size, we didnt get cameras half the size, it simply went retro which could only work for so long. Not enough thought was put into frame design ergonomics, or we might have experienced a version of the Leica R10 which Leica never made. Innovative yes, but they didnt 'feel' or look innovative, the 4x3 format isnt popular, and that sensor is smaller.
If it were me I would give in to the wind, I would hook up with Leica and Lumix and go FF with a strong wide video format focus. And my interests would be in autofocussing either by mechanics or HUD information some of the vast suite manual lenses. You immediately place yourself as the platform above Canon, Nikon and Sony, just dont call your system after the acronym of Leica Olympus and Lumix. Yes Im an engineer
I think it is a fallacy that sensor size dictates the body dimensions and then conversely there is the fact that human fingers and hands have not reduced in size since the advent of digital photography. For a system camera you need to have multiple control surfaces and a shape and size that will work with wide and telephoto lenses, plus a decent sized LCD and an eye level EVF. With a fixed lens camera you can make dramatic reductions because compactness is the driving priority - so simpler shape, less controls and smaller sensor are prerequisites.
There is the evidence that the Lumix GM series didn't last long and the Olympus EP series were aimed squarely at (Japanese) females and designed to fit in a handbag. I sometimes put my 40-150 f2.8 Pro lens on EP-3 body and the handling is awful.
@@markhoffman9655 yet having come from the compact E300 (I still have mine) we followed up with E3 and E5 (yes I have those too), as heavy as 5D and massive by any measure. Then somewhere in there Leica appeared with its M digital rangefinder. Unable to deal with reality the second time 4/3rds was killed off and we all went out with the tide on some retro bent. Retro can be fun but less so when its silver plastic. Now after signs of failure yet again the system risks being alone with Panasonic drifting off, and on the 3rd reality check, is there any other manufacturer that isnt fielding full frame choice?
Let me put it this way, in a world where every phone has a camera built in, if you wanted to make money on camera systems, what would make sense? High end best that you can do, or cheap and cheerful entry level?
Hey Jimmu, interesting thoughts. We see this now to some degree, Panasonic is working with Leica in m4/3 and they have L-Mount Alliance for FF and they even announced a new collaboration with Leica. Pana is using its lens design experience while Leica uses processors and general electronics. Leica also did sell rebranded Panasonic cameras as Leica, also Hasselblad was selling rebranded Sony cameras. Of course, this is not a sharing of R&D and expertise, but it's happening to some degree. Most camera manufacturers are using Sony cameras that are tweaked to their preferences.
If camera companies were countries you're talking about EU, big market, shared knowledge, experience, procedures, common purchases etc., yet the UK left it 🤭
LOL, don't mention #brexit
@@Red35Photography ok, ok. your camera company doesn't like other camera companies. Maybe you're Ricoh/Pentax. 🤭
even smartphones makers are facing huge competition. when LG smartphone division was shut down, olympus and panasonic should form a company to buy LG's phone division to make use of many of its technology especially in AI photography and laser autofocus.
Hmm, I don’t know much about the tech side of things. I just want the best gear to suit my needs.
I do wonder if cameras themselves will eventually reach a zenith upon which they can not innovate any longer.
I’d like to see what the best sensor on MFT could be and to see if they could include even more computational photography/ videography stuff into the camera
A short answer is, yes, they can do more. Sensor wise, they are limited to what sensor manufacturers have at the time of their camera development. Don't always expect the latest generations of sensor to make way into the latest cameras as their R&D would have started a few years before you see them on the shelves. So they are always one to two generations behind in terms of sensor tech, most manufacturers are the same, apart from perhaps Sony as they make their own sensors.
@@Red35Photography hmm, I see. Well since you have more experience in the field of photography from me, what kind of sensor enhancement would benefit you the most in your own work?
I will say that I would appreciate it if OM would make a video focused camera that’s really rugged and with a form factor distinctly different from their current line-up. Not necessarily an action camera, but like an action-cinema camera.
Lastly I’d like them to make the manual focus clutch standard across all lenses, because I dislike the infinity ring.
For now though my OMD EM5 III is good enough.
If OMDS would pull out all the stops and build the most fantastic camera body, cost not being an option, whatever format…pro photographers would stand in line to buy. Or, not. LUMIX is doing it by linking other manufacturers in the L mount system. (Leica is also in on lens development in 4/3).
The reason Olympus sold the camera division is more complicated. Some of it goes back to internal issues dealing with financial mismanagement combined with falling markets in general. With vision and drive it could be the equal to Leica, the Japanese version. As a medical equipment company
the optical precision has always been superior
to most manufacturers. Now, going it “alone” has hurt them. Sure Olympus is helping develop lens designs ( the last I heard).
That’s OMDS. Stuck, moving slowly? They can go into obscurity by rehashing medium cheep
cameras and add cheap lenses as they turn to dust. Their choice. Forge a path. Go forward with excellence and be the best they can be.
For me OM System is the best option for wildlife photographers period. Full Frame lenses will always be bigger and heavier than a M43 counterpart for any given field of view and cropping full frame images is stupid you loose all the advantages of that format when you do it. Close focusing, greater depth of field and faster readout (for hand held stacking) from smaller sensors make them preferable in macro situations. That is where their marketing dollars are going and quite rightly. I'm onboard and I can afford whatever gear I choose, the format just makes the most sense as demonstrated by the likes of Mike Lane who ran an OM-1 and Sony A1 head to head for 3 months and chose the OM-1. (ruclips.net/video/Ap-azoSgt90/видео.html)
I agree these ideas would help camera companies avoid un-necessary competition to lower cost so they could focus on their individual strengths, but I doubt they will take these suggestions. Imagine Ford, GM, Chevrolet and Chrysler all sharing the same engines?
Saying that, VW group has Lamborghini, Audi, Seat, Skoda, and of course VW, they all share components (and engines). Toyota now in collaboration mode with Subaru (and they of course own Lexus) Nissan is collaborating with Renault and shared many components including chassis design and engines.
@@Red35Photography So there is hope!!
Ford and GM shared an automatic transmission. Honda and GM shared an engine. Chrysler, the K car had parts from almost everywhere and many European manufacturers.
@@besperus4475 Good to know, thanks
All everyone wanted in the GH6 was pdaf and it would have killed the game.
@RED35 Thank you for thinking out of the box!
I would like to add my suggestion (to OM System at least):
Don't offer different models (M1, M5, M10) to the market if the demand is low. If the developing costs are the reason for high sales prices make only the premium model in bigger quantity and lower the price. Thus every OM-buyer would feel "premium" and has to pay less which may convince new buyers. Customers with lesser needs can be served through the second hand market, which on the other hand would allow buyers of factory fresh OM cameras to upgrade to new generation models more often. This again would shorten the generation cycles and thus help to keep new models close to the state of the art technology.
I want the m10 because it's smaller and much cheaper, an m1 a bit less cheaper but much more expensive than m10 won't please me.
@@cristibaluta Ok, I see. I'm glad I'm not in the marketing department or a financial shareholder of OMDS and have to make decisions...! But figure this:
YOU want a rather cheap and lightweight camera, ok. But will you be the future customer who invests in several high grade lenses and therefore attach yourself to the brand? Will you buy a second body to not have to switch lenses in the field? Will you buy each new generation of bodies to get better features? -- I guess, probably not! -- So how will you be able show to OMDS that you will be a loyal customer to the brand and help them finance their future R&D?
Canon is locking down RF and Nikon is world class in bottom tier customer support (I sent in a trade-in during the event over a month ago, and they never even confirmed they received it despite me showing support proof of delivery who then ignored me and just wanted me to return the order, they basically stole my trade-in and wanted their lens back as well). As far as I'm concerned, both companies are dead when it comes to my business because of those factors. I prefer MFT/APS-C, not APS-C that's forced to used FF lenses that are larger, heavier, and more expensive for no reason other than they don't want to spend money on APS-C specific lenses and would rather use the marketing of, "you can use the FF lenses and when you "upgrade" to FF you can still use them!" I don't want to "upgrade", I like the crop factor and smaller size all around that a smaller sensor has the ability to give. I won't applaud Fuji here, their prices have gone down somewhat in some areas, but that doesn't matter when most of their stuff is always out of stock, even before the pandemic, driving up the price for retail and second hand through the roof (looking at you X100V and even X-E4).
I prefer rangefinder style bodies too; I primarily use a GX8/GX85 combo. If the Pen-F were weather sealed I would probably replace my kit with one TBH, but since it isn't I have chosen not to buy one (I do have an E-P5 I love, really hard not to just get the Pen-F anyway to go with my film Pens). I'll probably give into SLR-style and get an OM-5 to keep the smaller size while having the EM1.3's improved HiRes mode (I do have an EM5.2 for photoscanning with HiRes, the improvement alone is enough for me to buy). That said, I could just get an EM1.3 used from a reputable vender like KEH and save like 300-400 bucks easily.
As for cars from collaboration. The BRZ/86/FRS is a solid platform, but it's crippled by the naturally aspirated Subaru engine. For my first 86 project I went with a 1GR V6 swap, and even before I finished the turbo build it was a better experience. I'm building another with a 1UZ V8 as a side project for fun and expect it to be just as good if not that much better. I'm tempted to also do a 2AZ I4 turbo build too, but the other two only happened because I came into rolling chassis 86 with cosmetic damage and had the engines laying from my ST204 Celica RWD V6 and V8 projects as extra engines and said 2AZ is going into an AE86 notchback Corolla coupe.
I agree with you on the rangefinder size bodies. I have a GX9 and a Sony A7C (which isn't much bigger) and their compactness is great when traveling with just a single lens - usually a 12-60 f2.8-5.6 or 14-140 f3.5-5.6 on the GX9 or the 24-105 f4 or 24-240 f3.5-6.3 on the A7C. It is in the lens department that M4/3 has the huge size advantage - the 14-140 is literally 3/5 the size and 1/3 the weight of the 24-240, not to mention 1/2 the price. It is even more striking when you get to the longer telephoto lenses - the 100-300 Panasonic is 2/5 the size and 1/4 the weight.
Solution: Pen-F mk II
Hi! As an owner and fan of the mft system, i have stumbled upon one thing , only one thing that can ,by its own, elevate the whole system. It has been mentioned in forums and youtube videos (most recently by @Tudor Mateescu ruclips.net/video/tkpdN6MdEhs/видео.html . @Camera Conspiracies has mentioned something similar ) : Give the system a DECENT SENSOR! Take a sony 60MP sensor and crop it to mft size? Do something with the bsi technology?
I'm in no way an expert on engineering sensors , but i can't accept that my 8 year old Nikon D7200 has a faaaaaar superior noise performance than anything ever put out by the mft system, and nothing can be done about it! It has NOTHING to do with marketing etc. It is just an inferior sensor. Nothing done in the marketing department will help the system. On the contrary, giving the system a decent sensor (NOT high Mp count! Just beter performance) will undoubtedly increase the sales.
We all love the body and lens size! We all love the ibis performance! We all love the prices! Just change the sensor.
I don't think they have better noise performance on a per pixel level.
OM Sonic
What the bokeh is?
It's something MFT doest't offer.
(Just joking)
How about change the paradigm from 1 lens + 1 large sensor to multiple lenses + multiple small sensors using computational AI to control DOF & noise?