[Rondec]

Last year my family and I went on a trip to Europe and my sister- and brother-in-law went, too. They had their phones, I had a K-3ii and a K-30 and an assortment of lenses. When we got back I made up a nice 75-page, 18x11" photo book and had some copies printed. There are ILC pictures intermingled with phone pictures. In most cases you'd have a hard time distinguishing which is which, at least for the situations where the phone can hold its own. Casual people shots, decent lighting, etc. There are a handful of shots where I'd argue the phone did better than the camera might have, such as a very low light photo of my kids late at night in Munich, where auto frame stacking night sight worked pretty well. Of course there were many shots the phones didn't attempt, like the falconry show in Austria, or far off landscapes with a 300mm lens.

Most people aren't going to spend the money and invest the time to get what they see as incrementally better photos from an ILC.

Micro 4/3rds loses because (as you said) it's not pocketable, sensors are smaller than APS-C and FF, and they don't usually have the processing and connectivity of the phone. All they bring is that they're usually somewhat smaller than APS-C and have somewhat better image quality than phones. That niche is probably too small now to thrive.

It depends on what you shoot and how big you print. For narrow depth of field, high dynamic range, single shot high iso images, there is no competition.

Of course phone cameras are good enough for most people. So were Kodak Brownies, once upon a time. At the same time, if you post process at all, my i phone 8 shots just look bad in Lightroom. There is a lot of magic going on when a phone shoots an image and when you see the RAW images, they just don't look so great, whereas the RAW images on my K-1 look great with minimal tweaking.

[ThorSanchez]

It depends on what you shoot and how big you print. For narrow depth of field, high dynamic range, single shot high iso images, there is no competition.

Of course phone cameras are good enough for most people. So were Kodak Brownies, once upon a time. At the same time, if you post process at all, my i phone 8 shots just look bad in Lightroom. There is a lot of magic going on when a phone shoots an image and when you see the RAW images, they just don't look so great, whereas the RAW images on my K-1 look great with minimal tweaking.

I briefly played around with shooting RAW on my Google Pixel, but gave up because without the frame stacking and other processing it's useless. Processed RAWs are noticeably worse than the out-of-phone jpegs.

[Flubber]

Many of the youngsters who grow up today have _never_ held a "real" camera in their hands, and many probably never will. To them, a phone is synonymous with a camera. Among the younger generations I think real cameras are a bit of a curiosity, like a remnant of past times, whereas they see phones as the present and the future. They also never pixel peep, and are more interested in applying various filters to their selfies to make themselves look better (not sharper..)

With that said, the news of Olympus selling their imaging division saddened me for very personal and nostalgic reasons. The very first camera that I have any memories of whatsoever was my mother's Olympus OM-1. Gorgeous camera - and because it belonged to my mother and features in my fondest childhood memories, it will always hold a special place in my heart.

[ThorSanchez]

Many of the youngsters who grow up today have _never_ held a "real" camera in their hands, and many probably never will. To them, a phone is synonymous with a camera. Among the younger generations I think real cameras are a bit of a curiosity, like a remnant of past times, whereas they see phones as the present and the future. They also never pixel peep, and are more interested in applying various filters to their selfies to make themselves look better (not sharper..)

With that said, the news of Olympus selling their imaging division saddened me for very personal and nostalgic reasons. The very first camera that I have any memories of whatsoever was my mother's Olympus OM-1. Gorgeous camera - and because it belonged to my mother and features in my fondest childhood memories, it will always hold a special place in my heart.

How many kids in 1980 had ever held a 35mm film camera in their hands? I certainly never did. My parents had a Canon something or other in that timeframe but I think they used it a handful of times and put in the closet where it's been for 35 years. When they took pictures it was the 110 instamatic. The only camera I had as a kid was a Brownie hand-me-down that I probably took 2-3 rolls with. I didn't know anyone who regularly used a "good" camera. Lots of people had Polaroids.

[Flubber]

I don't live in the US, so perhaps it was a bit different here compared to the States, but even in my childhood disposable film cameras were incredibly common. We would often buy these for school trips and so on, and get the film developed when we got home. I was born in 1988. So at least where I'm from, cameras were pretty prevalent back in the day, even among children. But not so anymore. Of course, those weren't quality cameras, but with 'real camera' I didn't mean a good camera, just something closer to a classic camera compared to a phone.

[texandrews]

How many kids in 1980 had ever held a 35mm film camera in their hands? I certainly never did. My parents had a Canon something or other in that timeframe but I think they used it a handful of times and put in the closet where it's been for 35 years. When they took pictures it was the 110 instamatic. The only camera I had as a kid was a Brownie hand-me-down that I probably took 2-3 rolls with. I didn't know anyone who regularly used a "good" camera. Lots of people had Polaroids.

Yeah, I was born in '56, graduated high school in '74, college '79. My best friend in high school had a Rollei tlr, and he was the photographer for the yearbook. Only one guy I knew in college had an slr. First time I encountered 35mm, and I went to a private school. My wife had an old Voigtlander 120 that was her grandfather's.


My mom had an Instamatic from 1966/7 (or was it mine? Never could tell with my mother...), and a Brownie from the '50's before that.

Cameras, good ones, were pretty exotic at that time, I'd say. My first good one was a Rollei LED I got in 1978.

[jersey]

I come from Poland, and in 80s (I was born in late 70s) 35mm cameras were "the stuff" that every kid was carrying around. Developing points (manly Kodak and Fuij) where flourishing and some lucky bastards (like me) were developing B&W with their parents. Also diapositives were a big hit those days, at least here. Well, 80s in Poland were neither happy nor rich years. Disposable cameras were a luxury, most kids were shooting with Zeniths, 120mm Druh cameras (polish middle format) or, if someone had rich parents and (or) influential enough to get passport and travel to DDR (communistic Germany) then Praktikas

So 35mm was widly used, even middle format - among kids. Depends on country, it seems.

[Flubber]

jersey - I agree with you. I'm from Denmark. 35mm film cameras were very common here. It seems like they were less prevalent in the US.

[ThorSanchez]

I don't live in the US, so perhaps it was a bit different here compared to the States, but even in my childhood disposable film cameras were incredibly common. We would often buy these for school trips and so on, and get the film developed when we got home. I was born in 1988. So at least where I'm from, cameras were pretty prevalent back in the day, even among children. But not so anymore. Of course, those weren't quality cameras, but with 'real camera' I didn't mean a good camera, just something closer to a classic camera compared to a phone.

Phones are the new disposable cameras, the new Polaroids, the new 110. And they're waaaaay better. The phone I'm typing this on takes pictures better than 99.9% of the family pictures I have from the film era.

[reh321]

As someone who spent decades of my life working for Eastman Kodak I can honestly say I have heard that speech many, many.................... times. After awhile all we listened for were layoff announcements. Those speeeches management had no problem making come true.

I worked for a 'defense contractor' at one time. Our management didn't make speeches, but layoff lists came on occasion, complete with histograms to show that they were non-discriminatory. Eventually it was my turn, including a histogram which showed me as the only entry on the 55-65 part of the list.

[reh321]

How many kids in 1980 had ever held a 35mm film camera in their hands? I certainly never did. My parents had a Canon something or other in that timeframe but I think they used it a handful of times and put in the closet where it's been for 35 years. When they took pictures it was the 110 instamatic. The only camera I had as a kid was a Brownie hand-me-down that I probably took 2-3 rolls with. I didn't know anyone who regularly used a "good" camera. Lots of people had Polaroids.

I was raised in the 1950's; I used an Instamatic 100 through High School and College - the shutter broke during April of my Senior year of College, so I used Graduation money to purchase my first 35mm camera. It was a good camera, but I still miss my Instamatic - I learned about while using it.

[Flubber]

Phones are the new disposable cameras, the new Polaroids, the new 110. And they're waaaaay better. The phone I'm typing this on takes pictures better than 99.9% of the family pictures I have from the film era.

I wasn't trying to speak on the quality of cameras vs phones. What I was trying to express was merely that in my eyes, "camera" means your phone to the people born and growing up nowadays, regardless of any quality differences. They wouldn't even know that there's a quality difference, because they've never tried anything other than their phones. So it's hard to convince them to buy a separate device. You can just hear them going: "But I already have a camera.."

[Lord Lucan]

I think the younger generation sees people using DSLRs in the same way as people using (D)SLR sized cameras would see people using large bellows cameras.

[Flubber]

Exactly. It's more of a curiosity and remnant of the past to them.

[Rondec]

I just think that for anyone who is serious about photography, a phone camera gives limited options. It isn't easy to change aperture or shutter speed. The ergonomics aren't great for anything more than occasional snaps and if you use it too much for snaps, it won't be available for calling and texts when you need that.

Obviously, I am already convinced of a the need for a dedicated camera, but I think there are lots of others like us here out there. The issue from Olympus' standpoint (and other camera brands too) is that there aren't enough first time purchasers entering the marketplace and the existing customers aren't replacing their gear as often.