[juu]

The difference is that Sony makes APS-C sensors and Panasonic makes m43 sensors and Panasonic is behind and is not really showing any signs of catching up.

Sony makes APS-C sensors and Samsung makes APS-C sensors and Samsung is behind and is not really showing any signs of catching up.

Therefore, APS-C is a doomed format!

Seriously though, I think GH1 and GH2 have good sensors and show what m43 is capable of. And it will only get better.

And who knows perhaps the next generation of Panasonic sensors come and they've made some technical breakthrough and leapfrog Sony. Or not. Noone knows what's around the corner.

[thibs]

Seriously though, I think GH1 and GH2 have good sensors and show what m43 is capable of. And it will only get better.

And who knows perhaps the next generation of Panasonic sensors come and they've made some technical breakthrough and leapfrog Sony. Or not. Noone knows what's around the corner.

Yep. The problem with such discussion (43 vs APS-C, APS-C vs FF etc.) is that the sensor size is important so is the amount of pixels but this is comparable only at similar tech.

The K5/D7000 has an excellent APSC sensor almost as good as FF ones. But those FF sensor are older designs. Same for FF vs MF etc. It is very hard to compare those sensors.

In the end, the only thing which matters quality wise is: does the camera/sensor gives acceptable quality for you and does the quality lets with a margin of improvement if you change slightly of shooting style ?
If so, sensor size really is for specs sheets. Who cares?

[eurostar]

There is an aspect to be considered: APS-C sensors are built and sold in a volume vastly larger than m4/3 and FF ones, so the evolution is much quicker. It's true that FF sensor of the cameras of today are old design, as the most recent FF DSRL camera was presented sixteen months ago. When soon FF cameras will be revamped, they will have the edge again for some months... but they, then, will be frozen in time for another couple of years, while the APS-C will experience at least two new generations, and the time APS-C will be ahead of FF will be longer.

[Aristophanes]

You seem to be confusing limitations of sensor size (not that relevant) and limitations of the old EP1 sensor (yes, it's not that good, as it's quite old).

Yes, the EP1 sensor isn't stellar. EP1 was the first m43 camera and came out 2 years ago, what do you expect?

Try the GH2 and then comment on what you think of the IQ.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man...

Someone might as well argue that m43 is the sweet spot between compactness and IQ. In fact, one of my friends is a big proponent of that opinion.

Are you arguing Canikon massively increased their volumes last year?

Also, I agree Canikon is leveraging their sunk costs and old sensor designs. But Panasonic and Oly are just about starting to do that now about m43 too so their margins should only improve year after year (while Canikon might have hit that particular wall already).

The trend here has been to compare the more recent Panny's to a K20D.

Objective, empirical testing from DP Review and DxO demonstrate that M4/3 has DR and ISO lag compared to larger sensors of similar pixel density. I'll let them do the talking as they consistently rate IQ for M4/3 below that of APS-C with sensors of equivalent generation.

Compactness can also be a detriment to sales. Form factor is critical, but many people like more physical products than diminutive plastic boxes. There's a wide range of consumer opinion here.

And yes, sales for Canikon's low-end models keep surging. Why? Price. Those $375 DSLR's are volume machines. 5 years ago there was not DSLR below $600. Price and value are by far the biggest determinants in this market.

[eddie1960]

The trend here has been to compare the more recent Panny's to a K20D.



And yes, sales for Canikon's low-end models keep surging. Why? Price. Those $375 DSLR's are volume machines. 5 years ago there was not DSLR below $600. Price and value are by far the biggest determinants in this market.

Which is why i personally think the Kx should stick around as should the k7, maybe spiff em up with an inconsequential feature and call them mk2 models
the kx still kills all the entry rebel models and the kr kills the rest (though I haven't really looked at the new one just announced)

[Art Vandelay II]

I've owned an original PEN. It was crap, frankly. I got it used from a friend who also thought it was crap.

Yeah, that camera was total crap, I only managed to get 28 keepers in 2 months with it, one of which was featured on the Flickr blog. I truly horrid machine incapable of taking good photos, you're right. There was/is absolutely nothing wrong with the photo taking abilities for an E-P1 for anyone with an ounce of skill; IQ and even focus speed had nothing to do with why I sold mine; I just missed having a view finder. If the E-P3 has a built-in EVF someone will probably have to pry it out of my cold dead hands to get it away from me.

Sound very nice marketing but I'm sorry to say that based on what I read, there's nothing of interest but a promise of a high end lens.
Fine but ... And then?

That lens mock-up announcement doesn't mention the new body, you're right, but Olympus has been pretty open about the fact that they are working on a high end PEN. My guess is it will be released the same time as those high end primes later this year. If it's built to the same quality as that lens mock-up I'll forget all about the Fuji X100, and probably even the Leica M9.

[juu]

I'll let [DxO reviews] do the talking as they consistently rate IQ for M4/3 below that of APS-C with sensors of equivalent generation.

OK, I'll let them do the talking.

DxOMark K-7 score:
Overall Score 61
Portrait (Color depth) 22.6 bits
Landscape (Dynamic range) 10.6 Evs
Sports (Low-Light ISO) 536 ISO
Launch date: 2009-05-20

DxOMark GH1 score:
Overall Score 64
Portrait (Color depth) 21.6 bits
Landscape (Dynamic range) 11.6 Evs
Sports (Low-Light ISO) 772 ISO
Launch date: 2009-03-03

Conclusion - your above statement is false and therefore you likely don't know what you're talking about.

Also, you own a K-7 right now. Per the site you yourself referred to you'd get better IQ from a GH1, despite the fact that you say "m43 fails the IQ test". This would mean that your K-7 also, in your opinion, "fails the IQ test". Why do you keep it then?

Yes, the best sensors m43 lag behind the best APSC sensors. That's not news, or even surprising. But they don't lag behind a lot, and the difference is small enough that it's not crucial for most people. If it were, then K-7 would have had no sales, as it had a slightly worse sensor than competition.

Compactness can also be a detriment to sales. Form factor is critical, but many people like more physical products than diminutive plastic boxes. There's a wide range of consumer opinion here.

lol. You start with a starting sentence which is true, and continue with your usual hyperbole. If it's a camera you like it is a "physical product" but if it's one that you don't then it suddenly becomes a "diminutive plastic box"?

And yes, sales for Canikon's low-end models keep surging. Why? Price. Those $375 DSLR's are volume machines. 5 years ago there was not DSLR below $600. Price and value are by far the biggest determinants in this market.

Let me repeat my question.

Are you arguing Canikon massively increased their volumes last year?

If you think they have, can you provide any references which would indicate that?

Citing DSLR costs 5 years ago and now means nothing, 5 years ago there was not a ILC below $600 also.

---

Last edited by juu; 02-09-2011 at 08:56 AM.

[wjjstu]

Sony makes APS-C sensors and Samsung makes APS-C sensors and Samsung is behind and is not really showing any signs of catching up.

Therefore, APS-C is a doomed format!

Seriously though, I think GH1 and GH2 have good sensors and show what m43 is capable of. And it will only get better.

And who knows perhaps the next generation of Panasonic sensors come and they've made some technical breakthrough and leapfrog Sony. Or not. Noone knows what's around the corner.

As pointed out by Eurostar, Sony's sensor business moves a lot more which probably helps them invest more and roll newer tech into sensors faster.

That lens mock-up announcement doesn't mention the new body, you're right, but Olympus has been pretty open about the fact that they are working on a high end PEN. My guess is it will be released the same time as those high end primes later this year. If it's built to the same quality as that lens mock-up I'll forget all about the Fuji X100, and probably even the Leica M9.

I can't be the only one that is gun-shy about buying an Olympus after watching them over the past 7 or 8 years.

[juu]

I can't be the only one that is gun-shy about buying an Olympus after watching them over the past 7 or 8 years.

That's the sort of thing you'd expect to read on Canikon forums about Pentax.

[wjjstu]

That's the sort of thing you'd expect to read on Canikon forums about Pentax.

I've seen them drop their Camedia C-series because they decided they didn't want to compete anymore. That turned some things like the flashes that I owned into paperweights. At least I could use them in auto on other cameras heh.

They promised too much with the original 4/3 hype. They eventually delivered on some of it somewhat, years after the fact. Then they decided that couldn't compete in the SLR market and dropped 4/3.

If we're to talk of high end bodies, let's hope they do better than one refresh every 3-4 years like they did with the E-x series or the minor point upgrades every year with the m43 bodies. What happens when Nikon, Pentax, et al enter the mirrorless market? Will they drop m43 too?

[juu]

Well, first, with m43 you also have Panasonic in addition to Olympus. So you need two companies to decide to abandon it at once, as opposed to pretty much every other mount out there. So what if Olympus only refreshes their pro bodies every 3 years - buy whichever the latest Panasonic GHx is in the interrim.

Second, I think companies rarely abandon products simply because they "decide they don't want to compete any more". They simply fail in the market.

So obviously before any investment in any system you have to evaluate if it will be around for as long as you envision using it.

To invest right now in (plain-old non-m43) 4/3 would be fairly stupid, I think. To invest in GXR would likewise not be smart.

However, m43 seems to be the safest mirrorless bet at the moment, because of the widest installed user base and two companies fully supporting it (and more making lenses).

Although this market is developing fast so the situation could be different in a year. Or not.

[Aristophanes]

OK, I'll let them do the talking.

DxOMark K-7 score:
Overall Score 61
Portrait (Color depth) 22.6 bits
Landscape (Dynamic range) 10.6 Evs
Sports (Low-Light ISO) 536 ISO
Launch date: 2009-05-20

DxOMark GH1 score:
Overall Score 64
Portrait (Color depth) 21.6 bits
Landscape (Dynamic range) 11.6 Evs
Sports (Low-Light ISO) 772 ISO
Launch date: 2009-03-03

Conclusion - your above statement is false and therefore you likely don't know what you're talking about.

Also, you own a K-7 right now. Per the site you yourself referred to you'd get better IQ from a GH1, despite the fact that you say "m43 fails the IQ test". This would mean that your K-7 also, in your opinion, "fails the IQ test". Why do you keep it then?

Yes, the best sensors m43 lag behind the best APSC sensors. That's not news, or even surprising. But they don't lag behind a lot, and the difference is small enough that it's not crucial for most people. If it were, then K-7 would have had no sales, as it had a slightly worse sensor than competition.

lol. You start with a starting sentence which is true, and continue with your usual hyperbole. If it's a camera you like it is a "physical product" but if it's one that you don't then it suddenly becomes a "diminutive plastic box"?



Let me repeat my question.

Are you arguing Canikon massively increased their volumes last year?

If you think they have, can you provide any references which would indicate that?

Citing DSLR costs 5 years ago and now means nothing, 5 years ago there was not a ILC below $600 also.

I do not own a K-7 now having sold it. I found it a solid outdoor shooter (same as my prior K200D) but not equal from ISO 400-800 which are sweet spots for much of the indoor candids I do.

I own a K-x which Pentax sent me gratis and a Nikon D700. the K-7 just did not do it for me, but the K-x has an excellent sensor and is infinitely more comparable to the GH1 both in price and pixels. The K-x was released only 6 months after the GH1, but the Panasonic really did not start selling due to constrained distribution until months after its release. I actually had one on hold at Henry's and then I acquired the PEN.

The K-x scores a 72 on DxO, was $220 less expensive than the GH1, smokes it in low-light, AF, IOS latitude, and FPS. That's value.

According to CIPA DSLR sales were up 35.5% from 2009-2010 YOY. Canon's press release:

"Photography news: Inkjet printers and digital SLR sales push income to new heights despite sluggish 4Q 2010
Canon recorded net profits of 246.6 billion yen for the whole of 2010 – an 87% increase over the previous year's figures, the company has announced.

Reporting its Fiscal Year 2010 figures, the Japanese manufacturer revealed the surge in profits for the year came despite a sluggish fourth quarter, which saw net profits tumble 12%. Canon said its net profits slumped to 54 billion yen from October to December 2010, down from 61.6 billion over the same period in 2009.

Operating profits climbed 79% to 387.55 billion for the whole fiscal year.

Looking ahead, Canon forecast further gains in 2011, with net profit rising 25.7% to 310 billion yen and operating profit jumping 21.3% to 470 billion yen.
Canon said its growth in 2010 was down to strong sales of Canon inkjet printers in Asia, along with high sales for Canon DSLRs such as the EOS 500D, EOS 550D, Canon EOS 60D, Canon EOS 7D and Canon EOS 5D Mark II." [Note: read the rest of the report and you see that Canon's profits actually fell YOY due to the rising Yen and biz machine and sales of capital equipment; DSLR and inkjets were stellar]

(Can't compare to credit crunch YOY of 2008-09 as there was no "normal" sales data from vendor or channel from 2007-09 for obvious reasons. These results were on a rising Yen, I might add).

Nikon's net sales were up 48% in 2010. Read Thom Hogan.

Even if they lost a minor amount of market share to M4/3, they still increased volumes and profits substantially. Translation: very large #'s of people are still buying APS-C DSLR's with form factors larger than M4/3. Why?

Price Price Price = Value Value Value = More Customers

That's why the $375 DSLR is so important compared to the $600 DSLR 5 years ago.

All this in the midst of a worldwide fiscal semi-meltdown. Are Canikon "frantic"? With sales #'s and division profits like that given the question marks in the larger economy? Learn a thing or two about market economics and get back to me on that.

[juu]

I do not own a K-7 now having sold it.

Then you need to keep your profile information updated .

I found it a solid outdoor shooter (same as my prior K200D) but not equal from ISO 400-800 which are sweet spots for much of the indoor candids I do.

Let's put it very simple, however. Did the K-7 "fail the IQ test" for you? Yes or no?

According to CIPA DSLR sales were up 35.5% from 2009-2010 YOY.

Where does this come from? As based on my information, interchangeable lens camera shipments were up 30% 2009-2010 YOY. I don't think CIPA tracks DSLRs separately from mirrorless, so please provide your sources for the DSLR 35.5% number.

read the rest of the report

Reading it, and it does seem to overall support the assertion that Canon's DSLR sales grew in 2010, but provides no hard numbers as to how much. Please provide sales volume numbers for Canon DSLRs if you have them.

The relevant parts of the hard data that is available shows:
* Consumer business unit quarterly profit fell 13.5% compared to same period last year and sales being the same.
* Consumer business unit sales grew 7% compared to last year.

Given how bad 2009 was, I'd hardly call it "massive growth", but obviously that is a relative term.

Their overall corporate profits climbing 79% and what not is simple clutter and not very relevant to the discussion on the health of their DSLR division.

Can't compare to credit crunch YOY of 2008-09 as there was no "normal" sales data from vendor or channel from 2007-09 for obvious reasons.

True, after the financial crisis year of 2009 high sales growth in 2010 was to be expected.

Nikon's net sales were up 48% in 2010. Read Thom Hogan.

I'm reading and cannot find the 48% number (nor do I think Nikon's total net sales are relevant to assess DSLR volumes). What I can find is "Nikon sold 1.25m DSLRs, 1.85m lenses, and 4.9m Coolpixes in the last calendar quarter of 2010. That represents a slight increase in DSLR sales, a modest increase in lens sales, and a whopper of an increase in Coolpix units (20% year to year).".

I also read the Nikon financial results and still don't see how you get the "net sales up 48%" number, please advise. Thanks.

If anything, it seems Nikon had 4% growth in DSLR volumes compared to same quarter last year. Given that I think Nikon actually gained market share from Canon in 2010, this contradicts your assertion that they had "massive" growth.

All this in the midst of a worldwide fiscal semi-meltdown. Are Canikon "frantic"? With sales #'s and division profits like that given the question marks in the larger economy?

Is Canikon on the whole "frantic"? No.

That's not what I said, however. I said they are frantically designing their mirrorless system right now. At least I hope they are. For their own sake.

Learn a thing or two about market economics and get back to me on that.

Well, let's see.

It is you who has declared here that Canikon are not interested in mirrorless and continue to believe in continued strong DSLR growth. And that is why they are hesitant to produce mirrorless.

I think that is completely out of whack with both market economics and simply reality and you will be proven wrong in time by the following:
* Nikon releasing their mirrorless system this year
* Canon at least announcing their mirrorless system this year (to try to prevent people jumping to others)
* DSLRs continuing to lose market share to mirrorless

However, since we have to wait for these events which will show your assessment of the situation to be completely and utterly wrong to happen, there is not much we can do for now but agree to disagree, and await further developments.

[Aristophanes]

Then you need to keep your profile information updated .

Let's put it very simple, however. Did the K-7 "fail the IQ test" for you? Yes or no?

Where does this come from? As based on my information, interchangeable lens camera shipments were up 30% 2009-2010 YOY. I don't think CIPA tracks DSLRs separately from mirrorless, so please provide your sources for the DSLR 35.5% number.

Reading it, and it does seem to overall support the assertion that Canon's DSLR sales grew in 2010, but provides no hard numbers as to how much. Please provide sales volume numbers for Canon DSLRs if you have them.

The relevant parts of the hard data that is available shows:
* Consumer business unit quarterly profit fell 13.5% compared to same period last year and sales being the same.
* Consumer business unit sales grew 7% compared to last year.

Given how bad 2009 was, I'd hardly call it "massive growth", but obviously that is a relative term.

Their overall corporate profits climbing 79% and what not is simple clutter and not very relevant to the discussion on the health of their DSLR division.

True, after the financial crisis year of 2009 high sales growth in 2010 was to be expected.

I'm reading and cannot find the 48% number (nor do I think Nikon's total net sales are relevant to assess DSLR volumes). What I can find is "Nikon sold 1.25m DSLRs, 1.85m lenses, and 4.9m Coolpixes in the last calendar quarter of 2010. That represents a slight increase in DSLR sales, a modest increase in lens sales, and a whopper of an increase in Coolpix units (20% year to year).".

I also read the Nikon financial results and still don't see how you get the "net sales up 48%" number, please advise. Thanks.

If anything, it seems Nikon had 4% growth in DSLR volumes compared to same quarter last year. Given that I think Nikon actually gained market share from Canon in 2010, this contradicts your assertion that they had "massive" growth.

Is Canikon on the whole "frantic"? No.

That's not what I said, however. I said they are frantically designing their mirrorless system right now. At least I hope they are. For their own sake.

Well, let's see.

It is you who has declared here that Canikon are not interested in mirrorless and continue to believe in continued strong DSLR growth. And that is why they are hesitant to produce mirrorless.

I think that is completely out of whack with both market economics and simply reality and you will be proven wrong in time by the following:
* Nikon releasing their mirrorless system this year
* Canon at least announcing their mirrorless system this year (to try to prevent people jumping to others)
* DSLRs continuing to lose market share to mirrorless

However, since we have to wait for these events which will show your assessment of the situation to be completely and utterly wrong to happen, there is not much we can do for now but agree to disagree, and await further developments.

With all due respect juu, you need to learn basic econ and how to read an Annual Report or Quarterly Report. Some basic terminology might help as well.

Net sales is revenue, not units. You seem to have this confused the way you ask your questions.

This is what you wrote:

Are you arguing Canikon massively increased their volumes last year?

I'll reference only Nikon for brevity. Form the link YOU supplied:

"In the Imaging Products Business, the digital SLR (single-lens reflex) camera market continued to expand significantly, while the compact digital camera market experienced a downturn in growth." [I'm blaming smartphones for the latter]

Furthermore, if you read the prior referenced 2010 AR that is from the same source: Nikon's 2010 Imaging Unit (cameras) net sales were up about 24% YOY with 7% SLR and 11% compact. And that is coming off the worst year of recession since WW2 (with an AR easily and conveniently spanning the release of the PEN and GH M4/3series). The Imaging Unit's Operating Income was up over 30%.

http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/ar/pdf/ar2010/10annual_e.pdf

That's "massive" growth for a division in a very, very competitive market under adverse world economic conditions.

Thank-you very much for collaborating my points. I appreciate when you make my arguments for me with your information.

The net sales growth for 2010 was again projected to be about 12% YOY, so that would make for a 42% 2-year growth estimate on net sales, but the Yen has made a hash at YOY relative comparison on an AR (which they speak to in notes). My bad on the 1 year 48% because I was double-referencing Thom, but that is still excellent financials. These companies have never had better sales, revenues, and profits from their SLR divisions. This is a very good time to making cameras as the pie keeps getting bigger.

You are the one who used the word "frantic" to describe Canikon. With net sales like that one can hardly be said to be frantic. You seem to be obsessed with this "for their own sake" argument, as if M4/3 is Pacman and the entire market is in its chomping path. The sales and revenue data says otherwise. It's like saying all 4-door cars will be eclipsed by 2-door hatchbacks eventually because there's been so much growth in the latter sector. This is not a zero sum game. What the data YOU supplied says is there is excellent demand for standard DSLR's being bought from stores side-by-side with M4/3 units. Nikon is increasing its customer base while starting from a very strong position already.

And you have a poor habit of putting words in people's mouth when losing an argument. I never said that Canikon had no interest in mirrorless. That was a complete fabrication by you.

I said they will likely try and retain backward compatibility with those 50 million+ lenses each they've each sold and they may try for a smaller sensor variant sort of as a replacement (likely for the declining superzoom category). A Canon G13 would not sell with flawed nomenclature, so that line may morph into a mini-MILC. Lord knows what the cryptic Nikon will do. For Canikon (and Pentax) this will be about evolution. They will come in and eat M4/3's cake.

Thus, it doesn't matter a whole lot that Canikon lose some market share to a niche player like M4/3 for a few quarters. They are still selling DSLR's gangbusters with very profitable after-market lens sales. When they come to market with mirrorless it will be precisely to capitalize on those efforts and leverage their lens base preying on the weaknesses of M4/3 which happens to be sensor size and quality.

So, back to quality argument that started this thread. Let's square off 4 very contemporary models released within days of each other (September, 2010) and widely available in the channel. I'll add in price and leave it to readers to factor in the balance of feature sets for relative value, though I would argue every camera's objective function by design is delivering a quality image. I am of the opinion that most lenses from all manufacturers are excellent. In fact, I have very high praise for the Zuiko lenses I have used, so I trust this all comes down to the only other factor after the glass has done its bit, the sensor:

1) Olympus E5 4/3 sensor/mount
DxOMark = 56
Price = US$1,700

2) Panasonic Lumix DMC GH2 M4/3 sensor/mount
DxOMark = 60
Price = US$1,100

3) Olympus PEN EPL2
DxOMark = 55
Price = US$599

4) Pentax K-r
DxOMark = 72
Price + $US869

Here is what else you wrote:

Yes, the best sensors m43 lag behind the best APSC sensors. That's not news, or even surprising. But they don't lag behind a lot, and the difference is small enough that it's not crucial for most people.

Objectively the best of them lags by about 17%, and by considerably more factoring in the low light "sports" shooting option. Will most people notice the difference? Does it matter? 17% less power than the competitor is a significant problem for the marketing guys at M4/3, and a gift horse to the APS-C mirrorless crowd.

I found the K-7 to have a weak sensor, so this is not about M4/3 per se. It's about the intersection between price, value, and quality. DxOMarks empirically demonstrate quality differences (which will eventually become marketing campaigns) that IMNSHO will favour mirrorless APS-C over smaller sensors. The buzz over the imminent Fuji is a capable hint that mirrorless is coming from all makers, but those with bigger, better sensors will eventually have their triumph. I make a simple prediction that M4/3 will not be able to keep up to APS-C mirrorless just as the standard mount 4/3 could not in the SLR segment. Feel free to make your lens investment wherever, my hope is that Pentax will release a mirrorless K-mount-compatible system.

[Fontan]

It must have taken a long time to write these posts . . . . . Wait, I am going to go shoot with my auto 110.