The biggest mistake Micro Four Thirds players did was trying to beat the full frame big boys by making larger, heavier, ridiculously overpriced cameras with bloated tech and features that 98% of the consumers do not even use or need. Everyone is fighting the latest and greatest tech war, better AI computational features, faster burst rate, faster sensor readout, global shutter, advanced pro video features like internal RAW recording, which honestly do not make much of a difference for an average hobbyist, besides having more bragging points when owing such "flagship level" products. When you fight against the larger players with deeper pockets and much spare resources to burn for R&D and affording a few failures in their trial-and-error process along the way, you lose. Instead of fighting head on making bigger, bloated cameras, why not go back to basics, rediscover what makes Micro Four Thirds so great and amazing in the first place, the philosophy and art of making really small yet powerful cameras. You don't need to be the best to beat the rest. You just need to play smart and listen to what the people want.
I am sure not everyone can afford USD2000-3000 flagship level cameras, but a sub USD1000, stripped down compact cameras with the right balance of stylish design, build quality, imaging capabilities and modern features can be an effective killer in the market.
Look at what Fuji is doing with their X100 series and Ricoh with their GR III series, these cameras have gained cult-following status and are constantly being sold out everywhere in the world. Micro Four Thirds players, both Panasonic and OM Digital Solutions sort of abandoned their affordable, smaller-sized form factor cameras which I believe is a grave mistake. While these cameras may be lower in profit margin, if you can move them by sheer volume, you can still generate a significant healthy income. Why did the previous budget compacts fail, that needs a deeper dive into lazy product strategy and the biggest issue of all - not understanding market needs and responding quickly enough.
If you look at the second hand, used market everywhere in the world, there is a consistently high demand for smaller sized Micro Four Thirds cameras, such as Olympus PEN Mini or Panasonic GM1/5. These cameras sell at higher price in the used market than their original retail price, should this not tell us something about where the market trend is going? Even the BCN sale data in Japanese camera market indicated strongly that E-PL9/10, E-M10 IV and E-P7 from Olympus/OM System continue to do extremely well, though some of these cameras are considered outdated. A refreshed version of such smaller compacts with updated features and imaging capabilities will surely turn things about for the Micro Four Thirds companies.
Micro Four Thirds sits at less than 5% market share in 2023's BCN report. That is the quantities of cameras being exported out of Japan, so we don't know how many cameras were actually sold at the retail end, but still a good enough estimate of the market situation. OM Digital Solutions after 4 years of operations can only hold 2.5% of the market share, and Panasonic about 3.6% (both full frame L mount and Micro Four Thirds products combined). Realistically, Micro Four Thirds consists of maybe 4% of the overall market, and that is being generous, yet the numbers look pessimistic.
I want a future for Micro Four Thirds, I still believe in the format. However, both Panasonic and OM Digital Solutions need to wake up and not continue to make the same mistakes they have been making the past several years. Whatever strategy they were banking on to work obviously did not work, they would have worked by now if they were effective. Admit the mistake, swallow the past failures, and re-strategize. It is not an easy road ahead, but if they still continue to make bigger and more expensive cameras at this point, it will be the end of Micro Four Thirds.
I hope that does not happen. It is time to revisit the past smaller, more affordable cameras, that could just be the answer.
Please support me & keep this site going:
I urge them to rethink their stance on compact cameras. The challenge with micro four-thirds systems is that new lenses are often comparable in price, size, and weight to those for larger sensor systems. For instance, a 20MP micro four-thirds body paired with a 100-400mm lens delivers image quality on par with the Canon R7 and RF100-400, yet the Canon comes in a similar size and weight for potentially less cost.
ReplyDeleteThe key lies in advancing compact cameras like the LX100, which feature built-in lenses specifically tailored for their design and functionality. Personally, I don’t typically set out to capture wildlife, portraits, and street scenes all at once, so I often rely on different cameras or lenses for each scenario. I believe the focus should be on enhancing compact and bridge cameras with advanced features like improved autofocus and stacked sensors, rather than trying to compete directly with larger sensor formats. This approach could reignite interest in compact systems while leveraging their unique advantages.
I would also like a future for M43, but it is certainly possible that it may already be too late for any significant strategic changes, especially for OM, who so far has introduced mostly recycled (and FF derived) products or those already in development by Olympus. A camera like the Pany DC-G9II, with good AF tracking and somewhat better image quality than the latest OM cameras, would do quite well if it wasn't stuck into the same body as Pany's FF cameras. A new LX100 (with a straight 25mp sensor/no multi aspect) and a good EVF may also sell well, given the Fuji X100 success (with 40 mp and good AF tracking). I really don't believe there is sizable market for small interchangeable lens cameras without an EVF and having rudimentary AF performance. At the end of the day, only people really into photography are buying dedicated cameras, and the performance of smartphones will continue to improve, especially with the $ billions Apple, Samsung, and Google are putting into R&D.
ReplyDelete