[mrNewt]

And another point goes to the cellphones... the beast is rising and is set to kill the compact cameras market...

[Rondec]

Actually, I think it's more that m4/3 has actually come fairly close to APS-C performance...it's at the "it's good enough for the size" level that they promised so long ago and some people have gotten tired of heavy systems (glass+body).
Close enough = decent ISO1600/ISO3200 that'll look good blown up to 11x14 or shrunk down to screen resolution.

I've actually been debating Oly EM-1 vs. K-3 as an upgrade for my K20D/GX1 setup now. They're both "good enough" for what I do. They're not FF level where you can go to ISO6400 w/o problems, but I don't think I've ever needed ISO6400. The only definite survivors of the coming digital contraction are probably Canikon and Sony.

And the difference in 110 film is you can't buy it or develop it any more. Digital cameras are basically good until they the body dies off because cost to repair is higher than cost to replace usually...

Isn't there a stop difference in performance between four thirds and APS-C and another stop between APS-C and full frame? I agree that they are all pretty good at this point, most depends on what you are "invested" in with regards to glass.

As to Olympus' problems, unfortunately, I do think there will be a contraction in the number of camera companies out there and some of the smaller players could be the ones squeezed out. Their medical imaging department is clearly making good money, but they aren't big enough to keep dropping money into a digital camera market without a clear end in sight. I hope they keep making cameras, because it is better for the market as a whole to have more companies putting pressure on Nikon/Canon, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[kenyee]

Isn't there a stop difference in performance between four thirds and APS-C and another stop between APS-C and full frame? I agree that they are all pretty good at this point, most depends on what you are "invested" in with regards to glass.

Depends on how you use it. With up to 11x14 prints and screen resolution stuff people normally do, I'd say 2/3 a stop between each. But the GX1 (previous gen sensor) can do an ok ISO1600. The OM-D (Sony sensor) and GX7 can do a decent ISO3200. APS-C is slightly cleaner at ISO3200, but can't do a clean ISO6400 like FF can. Some FF people have even switched to m4/3 for the weight savings and have been happy (though I'm sure they're the ones who don't print 20x30 or shoot high ISO)...

[richmondthefish]

I wouldn't blame most of this sales drop on smartphones either. The middle class economic group is disappearing around the world and with increased living costs and increasingly unstable employment (particularly for the younger generations of would be ILC buyers) having an expensive camera is the last thing on the consumers mind right now and in the future. Smartphones are definitely killing the point and shoot market, but it's a drop in disposable income that's killing the ILC market.

I actually disagree this is a major reason. Until I see electonics like Apple rapidly decline in sales or ultra expensive videogame systems like the PS4/xBox One drop majorly in sales, I can't buy that the economy is the reason for the camera sales decline.

I think the simple fact is people don't want them.

[Parry]

I actually disagree this is a major reason. Until I see electonics like Apple rapidly decline in sales or ultra expensive videogame systems like the PS4/xBox One drop majorly in sales, I can't buy that the economy is the reason for the camera sales decline.

I think the simple fact is people don't want them.

I live in SE Asia and even the poor who really can't afford these smartphone things buy them. Put themselves in terrific debt because of it. I knew a labourer on one of my UK sites who told me all about how he'd been saving all year to buy his daughter a smartphone for Christmas. It was a very big deal. I also found it very sad.

Then there's the cases in China where kids have sold organs to buy an Apple itelephone thing.

No, it's the economy. The middle class is getting seriously squeezed and it was was the middle class who were buying ILC's.

EDIT: Although add to that, market saturation in mass produced products. Could well be they're just making too many of the things and the manufacturers are trying to force a market the size of which was never there in the first place. I still think consumers are skint though.

[Christine Tham]

Both of you are sort of saying the same thing, or different sides of the coin.

Smartphones are perceived as a necessity, and often the price of the phone is disguised in the contract. I see everyone using them - even little kids.

A smartphone also takes pictures, which makes the camera redundant.

Buying a DSLR was fueled by people who wanted to upgrade from compacts, and were sold the idea that a better camera will help them take better pictures. As we know, it doesn't - the majority of people who bought these cameras have no idea how to use them and even if they do their composition lets them down.

So now the disenchantment sets in. Because if your photos still look ordinary after you've bought a D800, what do you do?

And a lot of people have lost their jobs - in the group that I cycle with, at least 25% have left their jobs recently - and many of them I would never have imagined would have any issues with career security. Suddenly, buying a new camera isn't all that important. But a smartphone is required to help you find another job - or so people think. The thing is - when you lose your job in your forties and fifties, the chances of finding an equivalent permanent position aren't great - some people look for years.

[Parry]

Both of you are sort of saying the same thing, or different sides of the coin.

Smartphones are perceived as a necessity, and often the price of the phone is disguised in the contract. I see everyone using them - even little kids.

A smartphone also takes pictures, which makes the camera redundant.

Buying a DSLR was fueled by people who wanted to upgrade from compacts, and were sold the idea that a better camera will help them take better pictures. As we know, it doesn't - the majority of people who bought these cameras have no idea how to use them and even if they do their composition lets them down.

So now the disenchantment sets in. Because if your photos still look ordinary after you've bought a D800, what do you do?

And a lot of people have lost their jobs - in the group that I cycle with, at least 25% have left their jobs recently - and many of them I would never have imagined would have any issues with career security. Suddenly, buying a new camera isn't all that important. But a smartphone is required to help you find another job - or so people think. The thing is - when you lose your job in your forties and fifties, the chances of finding an equivalent permanent position aren't great - some people look for years.

This is it. It ain't good out there kids!

[nickthetasmaniac]

Isn't there a stop difference in performance between four thirds and APS-C and another stop between APS-C and full frame? I agree that they are all pretty good at this point, most depends on what you are "invested" in with regards to glass.

All else being equal there should be about a 1-stop difference between a Four Thirds sensor and APS. But then all else is rarely equal and as it stands the 16mp Sony chip found in the better current MFT bodies is an excellent performer. It's very close to the Sony APS sensors (Sony, Pentax, Nikon) and has actually been tested as better than Canon's recent efforts.

[philbaum]

I don't disagree with the comments so far given for the market contraction, but there are "layers" to the situation.

Photography does not exist as an isolated activity in our culture, IMO. Its one of many activities that folks can choose from to participate in and devote their time to. We are lucky enough in our small town to have a film festival. But there is no "photography festival", if you get my drift. What drives people to do photography - thats what eventually gives value to cameras. One can share photos with relatives, share photos on forums, share photos on facebook, sell books of photos, sell journalism with photos, sell NFL shots to media, etc. Thats what underwrites a 4/3, aps or FF system investment.

[Rondec]

All else being equal there should be about a 1-stop difference between a Four Thirds sensor and APS. But then all else is rarely equal and as it stands the 16mp Sony chip found in the better current MFT bodies is an excellent performer. It's very close to the Sony APS sensors (Sony, Pentax, Nikon) and has actually been tested as better than Canon's recent efforts.

Not to argue a lot, but I just looked at the K5 II versus the OM-D 1 on DXO Mark and there are nine points that separate the two cameras in overall score. Dynamic range is a little over 1 EV better on the K5 II (at base iso), sports iso on the K5 II is 1235 and 757 on the OM-D 1. I understand that Olympus has a great jpeg engine -- probably a lot better than Pentax's, but if you are shooting RAW, they aren't as close as people are making out. The same things apply for four thirds versus APS-C that apply for APS-C versus full frame -- in most situations you won't have trouble getting the photo you need with either format, but in certain situations, the larger sensor will be helpful.

I think it is understood that for whatever reason, Canon has not shown much improvement in their sensor lines in the last four or five years. Even their 5D Mk III sensor doesn't look that much better than the 5D Mk II sensor did.

I have not shot an OM-D camera, but I do think there would be more lee way with processing with a (Sony sensored) APS-C camera.

An interesting article from Korea Times on Olympus's troubles:

Olympus in trouble

[Miguel]

An interesting article from Korea Times on Olympus's troubles:

Olympus in trouble

Smells like Olympus is a goner. Over to Sony.

M

[kenyee]

One can share photos with relatives, share photos on forums, share photos on facebook, sell books of photos, sell journalism with photos, sell NFL shots to media, etc. Thats what underwrites a 4/3, aps or FF system investment.

So just to review:
share photos: smartphone (iphone/galaxys3/nokia41mp were the turning points when the cameras didn't totally suck)
sell books of photos: books are 8x10 or 11x14...16MP is plenty
sell journalism w/ photos: everything is on the web...chicagotribute fired all their "pros" and want reporters to use their iphones
sell NFL shots to media: media is on the web or TV...long lenses are useful here as is narrow DOF and fast AF so it's DSLR territory still

So of the reasons listed, one is still DSLR territory...the other can be done w/ m4/3 w/ a tripod.
That's why the DSLR market is contracting

The same things apply for four thirds versus APS-C that apply for APS-C versus full frame -- in most situations you won't have trouble getting the photo you need with either format, but in certain situations, the larger sensor will be helpful.

No doubt at all...makes sense for bigger photosites to have more DR and better high ISO. People gripe about having to haul a DSLR around because it's too heavy/bulky. The question is to most people: "is m4/3 enough?" This question is to not to the people who appreciate extra quality...it's to today's people growing up...your teenage kids or college kids. They're the ones who grew up taking photos w/ smartphones/tablets and listening to music on MP3. They'd probably give you the same weird look people give me when I show them my preamp/amp/tuner separates setup and ask me why I don't just get a receiver then say they only hear a bit of difference when I fire it up and make the lights dim

[richmondthefish]

I live in SE Asia and even the poor who really can't afford these smartphone things buy them. Put themselves in terrific debt because of it. I knew a labourer on one of my UK sites who told me all about how he'd been saving all year to buy his daughter a smartphone for Christmas. It was a very big deal. I also found it very sad.

Then there's the cases in China where kids have sold organs to buy an Apple itelephone thing.

No, it's the economy. The middle class is getting seriously squeezed and it was was the middle class who were buying ILC's.

EDIT: Although add to that, market saturation in mass produced products. Could well be they're just making too many of the things and the manufacturers are trying to force a market the size of which was never there in the first place. I still think consumers are skint though.

Explain how both xBox and PS4 sold over 1 million units in a 24 hour period?

[stevebrot]

Olympus in trouble?

Pentax (Ricoh) is DOOMED


Steve


(...sorry...could not resist...)