Panasonic will not quit m4/3

[Turbofrog]

And yet people here seemed to ignore Sony is making money with the Sony A7 and lens for $998. Hmmm! Explain please?

And Olympus was making money selling the E-PL6 with kit lens for $159.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Everyone's making money. The question is how much, and is it sustainable.

 

[Telonson]

DXO Labs has under 200 employees total.

Perhaps not the best example. They filed for Bankruptcy in April.
DxO Labs Files For Bankruptcy Protection But There's Good News

they also designed and sold their $500 DXO ONE accessory camera that did in-camera multi-image RAW stacking and merging.

Yet the Google implementation is miles ahead of that and similar efforts by the ILC manufacturers.

Google's process doesn't merge full frames. It chops each of the images into discrete, small tiles, throwing away any tiles with motion blur or other issues. It then stacks the remaining good tiles to dramatically increase dynamic range and decreases noise.

Most importantly, it's all done with the press of a button and happens in a matter of a second or two. And with this latest version, even creates a RAW file. It all happens in-camera without requiring a cloud connection or post processing on a computer.

Google's process is objectively better, faster, and more flexible than simply stacking frames.

 

[bye]

Why own anything besides a $1000 A7 then?

If Sony can sell a Sony A7 + lens for $998; that means the body is less than $998. I don't think it matters who's buying it as BH Photo stocks it. It means that wafer yield talk is simply absurd if Sony can sell a full frame mirrorless that low.

 

[Reflector]

We could see a race to the bottom, especially on full frame mirrorless bodies, as the competitors each try to secure a foothold for their formats. Those who aren't winning the fight could become ever more desperate. So an under $1k well featured full frame mirrorless could be possible within the next year. Maybe without dual card slots or magnesum frame, but with IBIS and a quality sensor.

A camera so featured and priced could see impacts up and down the market.

I can't wait for that $1000 full frame Sony to make me jump systems because the sensor is the only thing I should buy it for since my lack of photographic competence requires me to shoot birds at ISO 6400 and up. Would you rate that rumor a 4 or a 5 because I gotta start getting rid of my gear no matter what to buy this Super-Sony.

 

[Reflector]

If Sony can sell a Sony A7 + lens for $998; that means the body is less than $998. I don't think it matters who's buying it as BH Photo stocks it. It means that wafer yield talk is simply absurd if Sony can sell a full frame mirrorless that low.

You can sell something at a loss to get someone into the system and then recoup the losses by getting them to like platform.

Also you could totally make something with a very flawed design and then fix it in the "II" model...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Turbofrog]

Perhaps not the best example. They filed for Bankruptcy in April.
DxO Labs Files For Bankruptcy Protection But There's Good News



Yet the Google implementation is miles ahead of that and similar efforts by the ILC manufacturers.

Google's process chops each of the images into discrete tiles, throwing away any tiles with motion blur or other issues. It then stacks the remaining good tiles to dramatically increase dynamic range and decreases noise.

Most importantly, it's all done with the press of a button and happens in a matter of a second or two. And with this latest version, even creates a RAW file. It all happens in-camera without requiring a cloud connection or post processing on a computer.

Google's process is objectively better, faster, and more flexible than simply stacking frames.

I wasn't saying that DXO sold a great product, or had a good business model. I'm simply saying that the technology involved is hardly a tough nut to crack for these camera companies.

Anyway, it sounds like you're not familiar at all with DXO's SuperRAW I was referring to (and linked an explanation for). It also detected motion within the image and threw out the associated local sections of the image to remove artifacts.

Olympus, Pentax, and Panasonic already do similar local processing for their pixel-shift High-Res Mode to remove motion artifacts, though the resulting images have a much higher standard for fidelity than the images from the Pixel.

Google does a good job, to be sure. But to suggest that no one else is capable of achieving something similar is absurd.

 

[Telonson]

I can't wait for that $1000 ful l frame Sony to make me jump systems because the sensor is the only thing I should buy it for since my lack of photographic competence requires me to shoot birds at ISO 6400 and u

No one is saying that. It's a straw man.

Just because it's not for you doesn't mean it wouldn't be for others and wouldn't get an incredibly amount of attention. A well featured full frame Sony with IBIS and a high quality sensor for under $1k would shake the market to its core.

 

[Turbofrog]

No one is saying that. It's a straw man.

Just because it's not for you doesn't mean it wouldn't be for others. Doesn't mean it wouldn't get an incredibly amount of attention. A well featured full frame Sony with IBIS and a high quality sensor for under $1k would shake the market to its core.

Applying the same logic of yet-to-be-discovered cost savings on sensors, don't you think people would be pretty excited about a $500 E-M1 III, too? Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say...

 

[Reflector]

No one is saying that. It's a straw man.

Just because it's not for you doesn't mean it wouldn't be for others and wouldn't get an incredibly amount of attention. A well featured full frame Sony with IBIS and a high quality sensor for under $1k would shake the market to its core.

I heard $1k from the last goal post of fully-featured-super-flagship-etc-etc in the past. Now we're at $1k for "more features"?

With a full frame mirrorless war now fully underway, there will be immense pressure to drive prices ever downwards. If Sony releases a full frame A7 with all the bells and whistles for $1k, where does that leave APS-C and M43?

 

[Reflector]

Applying the same logic of yet-to-be-discovered cost savings on sensors, don't you think people would be pretty excited about a $500 E-M1 III, too? Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say...

Not if you listen to The Consultants, only one sensor size may be allowed to benefit because the fabs that make them only benefit that one sensor size. Even medium format will be left behind apparently.

I also happen to include Thom Hogan into this as he's said some silly things about how the price of sensors will only go down for one format before.

 

[Telonson]

Applying the same logic of yet-to-be-discovered cost savings, don't you think people would be pretty excited about a $500 E-M1 III, too?

The M43 crowd, sure. But let's be honest. Full frame mirrorless is sucking all the oxygen out of the room. It's getting all of the attention.

Doubt a $499 GH5 would get nearly the attention or buyer interest of a $999 Sony A7 III.

 

[Telonson]

Now we're at $1.5k for "more features"?

$1.5k? Where is that from?

Not me.

 

[Telonson]

Not if you listen to The Consultants, only one sensor size may be allowed to benefit because the fabs that make them only benefit that one sensor size.

Consultants?

More straw men.

Over and over you're arguing against positions that no one here is actually making. No doubt there's someone somewhere saying all sorts of silly things. But on this board, in these threads, haven't seen those claims.

Enough already.

 

[Turbofrog]

The M43 crowd, sure. But let's be honest. Full frame mirrorless is sucking all the oxygen out of the room. It's getting all of the attention.

Doubt a $499 GH5 would get nearly the attention or buyer interest of a $999 Sony A7 III.

In the world of gear hound photographers, typically whatever product was announced most recently gets all the attention, let's be honest...

 

[Reflector]

$1.5k? Where is that from?

Not me.

$1k, a mental fart on my part.

The M43 crowd, sure. But let's be honest. Full frame mirrorless is sucking all the oxygen out of the room. It's getting all of the attention.

Doubt a $499 GH5 would get nearly the attention or buyer interest of a $999 Sony A7 III.

Why are you even here then? These inferior camera systems with their inferior sensors are going to be dead in the Upcoming Mirrorless Wars. Best sell them at peak value for those Super Sonys.

 

[Telonson]

Why are you even here then?

Come on. That's a silly argument. No one sells a car because the manufacturer has discontinued the make. The car still works fine.

Liking and using ones current gear doesn't (necessarily) blind from seeing it's eventual diminishing status.

Fully believe M43 will continue to lead in price / performance with video for some years yet. It will also continue to have a special place for telephoto and macro. And while Olympus's future plans are not yet clear, believe that Panasonic will sharply reduce their resources applied to M43 going forward, despite their protests to the contrary.

After all, Panasonic has 10 L-Mount lenses coming out in the next 18 months. It not difficult to guess where those engineers came from and what they're no longer designing.

 

[Turbofrog]

Anyway, I guess the very fundamental premise that I'm arguing against is the idea that FF sensors are in some way a technology in and of themselves that will somehow drastically reduce in price, and somehow reduce its relative price compared to its other competitors in the market.

The analogies to early digital cameras (i.e. those wildly expensive Kodaks and Nikons) are not relevant, because in that context the immature technology in question was literally the basic fabrication of CCD and CMOS imaging sensors themselves.

But now CMOS chips are an incredibly mature technology. Full-frame sized CMOS sensors are an incredibly mature technology. They've been making them for more than 16 years now!

The relationship between FF sensors and M4/3 or APS-C (or 44x33 medium format) sensors is not the relationship between different eras of computers. It's the same relationship that exists between modern internal combustion double overhead-cam car engines that have 4 cylinders, 6-cylinders, 8-cylinders, and 12-cylinders.

V8 cars still cost more than V6 cars, which still cost more than cars with inline-4s. And medium form- I mean, V12s are still unjustifiable luxuries consigned to a niche portion of the market that is more concerned with prestige than real world improvements to performance.

 

[bye]

You can sell something at a loss to get someone into the system and then recoup the losses by getting them to like platform.

Also you could totally make something with a very flawed design and then fix it in the "II" model...

View attachment 686736

My impression of the A7 is what can happen if you make a really cheap product, but while it may not serve you as a camera of choice, it serves some others who would otherwise be willing to overlook certain deficits. Some of the cheaper Nikon D3200 and Canon Rebels aren't without their own certain deficits as well.

 

[Reflector]

Come on. That's a silly argument. No one sells a car because the manufacturer has discontinued the make. The car still works fine.

Liking and using ones current gear doesn't (necessarily) blind from seeing it's eventual diminishing status.

Being a prophet of doom to everyone who uses their soon to be dead gear tends to come off as annoying and obnoxious.

I still don't understand why there is this club of "only one image sensor format may exist and it sure can't be any other size but this one specific film format."

Fully believe M43 will continue to lead in price / performance with video for some years yet.

Why? Magical full frame lenses will shrink down to the size of Micro Four Thirds ones is the latest trend known as the "DPReviews." They'll even cover 200 megapixel sensors which will make all other sensor sizes irrelevant because they can be magically cropped and they'll also blow away medium format.

It will also continue to have a special place for telephoto and macro. And while Olympus's future plans are not yet clear, believe that Panasonic will sharply reduce their resources applied to M43 going forward, despite their protests to the contrary.

After all, Panasonic has 10 L-Mount lenses coming out in the next 18 months. It not difficult to guess where those engineers came from and what they're no longer designing.

If they didn't make 10 new L-Mount lenses I'm pretty sure L-Mount users would be screaming bloody murder.

It isn't difficult to guess that Micro Four Thirds is dead once Panasonic pulls out from this single datapoint. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. I can just cite Four Thirds and project the trends.

 

[Telonson]

Everyone's making money. The question is how much, and is it sustainable.

Given the premiums Sony demands for their lenses, they could sell the bodies at cost and come out well ahead with a single lens sale.

Insiders have reported that Sony makes no lenses themselves, contracting it all out to the usual suspects in China. Guessing 200% to 300% margins at the low end.