Panasonic Puzzles Me (UPDATED)

Panasonic is going to be announcing two new lenses in a short time. Whatever the final specs, rumor sources are positive that they are going to be very cheap, compact lenses.

I am assuming that this is Panny putting some muscle behind its little GF3, which is so comically small that even many m4/3 lenses make it look silly. Again, I am assuming that they are doing this because they feel the heat from the Samsung NX and the Sony NEX systems, and thus want to focus on their smaller-sensored strength: tiny-ass lenses.

I find this puzzling because I don't know the details of Olympus and Panasonic sales. I think that they are wrong to try and aim their system cameras at point-&-shoot users who are upgrading, and instead focus on extant SLR users who want something different. This seems logical, and is somewhat backed up by lots of anecdotal evidence, because SLR camera buyers are predominantly male, and those males want to feel special. Thus, they want cameras that ape the features and designs of the high-end cameras.

Meanwhile, the P&Sers will NEVER be lured away since they want their cameras to be ultra-compact and stylish beyond all other variables. Olympus, Panasonic, and also Sony with their NEX cameras, are chasing a market segment that doesn't exist.

But still, here we are, with two new, cheap, tiny lenses. Are Panasonic and Olympus actually selling more of these cameras? Am I wrong? I just don't think so.

Point-&-Shoot buyers make up the vast majority of the market in both revenue and sheer numbers. The two biggest reasons, I think, are changes in stylistic tastes and physical abuse. I still have a Canon EOS 20D from 2004. My Panasonic GF1 has not a scratch upon its pretty little head. Point-&-shoot cameras do not receive such kind treatment.

So, if these people were actually interested in upgrading, the market would be huge. So I can understand why Panasonic and Olympus are obsessed with this demographic, but I contend that it is a specter. The Top-30 SLR cameras on Amazon are all Canon or Nikon. Even camera bags are more popular than Panasonic's most popular current camera, the GF2.

We have to go all the way down to #47 to find another Panasonic camera, the now-obsolete G2, which costs a scant $298. The entire list is so hilariously dominated by Canon and Nikon, that whatever Panny and Olympus are doing, it's not working. The Point-&-Shoot market is so large, that if even a small percentage did what Olysonic thinks they should be doing, they should have multiple cameras in the top 50.

But no. We don't have that. We have Olympus and Panasonic struggling to make a dent in this phantom market that they think exists. Instead, we have Fuji, selling a $1,200 point-&-shoot to enthusiasts, the market that our dynamic duo should be targeting, and becoming the #5 camera on Amazon. That ranking includes SLRs and point-&-shoots. It's current price? $1,800.

I'm left to wonder if both Oly and Panasonic, being Japanese, are unable to look past their Japanese perspective and see the global market. Because as far as Japan goes, Oly and Panny seem to know what they are doing. They have multiple cameras in the top 50 according to BCN. But everyone already knows this. Japan is very interested in small size and big features. In fact, it's an aspect of the Japanese mentality that pisses off serious photogs who want beefy parts and abilities with a minimum of features.

Regardless of how well they know their home market, they're falling flat in other markets. They had one bona fide success, the GF1. They have got to shift their philosophy if they hope to succeed anywhere else but home.

UPDATE:

Ok, apparently this post is now out-of-date. I just read the newest rumors over at, surprise, 4/3 Rumors, and these new lenses coming out of Panasonic are going to be part of a new line of lenses called the X-Series. Their purpose is to provide very high image quality in compact sizes. I'm skeptical. There are limitations to optics.

As focal lengths grow, the sensor requires a larger piece of front glass to keep F-stops low. Even the small-sensored 4/3 standard requires some pretty hefty glass at 175mm, which is one of the lenses' zoomed length. Just look at the Olympus 150mm F2.0 to see the size that would be required.

Favorite Photo: Fading Away (1858)

Fading Away: Henry Peach Robinson (1858) - From fō-tō-gră-fē

My favorite photo of today is again from the first era of photographic art, Pictorialism. It is from 1858 and depicts a girl dying from tuberculosis. Even more amazing is that it was composed of multiple negatives. It is the most famous photo of Henry Peach Robinson, and was actually a rather pioneering endeavor.

It wasn't the very first photo to chop together multiple negatives, but it may as well have been. You can see the lines where he cut most prominently around the left side of the small table.

This provided a number of advantages. First, from the perspective of the pictorialists, it gave them immense compositional control, which allowed them to better imitate painters, which was their stated goal. Second, it also gave photographers their first taste of close-up deep focus. Film at the time was not terribly sensitive, thus necessitating wide open lenses for anything except for bright sunshine. This of course resulted in a razor-thin depth of field. By taking multiple photos at different points along the Z-axis, then stitching them together, deep focus could be faked.

Sunflower Reaches For The Sky

From fō-tō-gră-fē Photographs

Is APS-H the future?

I made an off-handed mention about Sony, and by connection the entire industry, ditching APS-C except for their entry-level cameras.

The more that I thought about that idea, the better it became. Canon makes two, TWO, lenses worthy of an enthusiast's attention for their APS-C cameras. At most, they make three. Those are the 60mm F2.8 macro, which is excellent, and the 17-55mm F2.8. The 10-22mm F3.5 is pretty good, so I'll play my own Devil's advocate and include it.

Three lenses. They make over sixty. It's obvious that APS-C is not something that they care about. It's obviously something that NONE of the companies care about. The only company out there who's wholly behind APS-C is Pentax, which is, regardless of the quality of the new K5, a bit player at best.

One of the major advantages to APS-C is the decreased size of the optics and the increased depth of field at any given aperture. If I am forced to use full-frame lenses, all advantages are eliminated. The only remaining advantage is increased pixel-density, which is only kinda'-sorta' an advantage.

There will be an increase in price, since sensors of larger size will obviously have smaller yields and thus higher prices. But Canon and Nikon alike both makes APS-C cameras that are just as cheap as 4/3 cameras, so with the advantages of scale, the price increase might be negligible.

Enthusiasts would jump all over this. No one has a lens set that they want to keep for APS-C, so by shifting formats, the companies aren't doing any harm to customers. Instead, the well-heeled customers are given a big boost in image quality and access to lenses that their format can actually use to their potential.

This potential should also be of great interest to the marketers and bean-counters at the various corporations. Sales of SLR cameras, after climbing by huge percentages for the past ten years, are flatlining and starting to decrease. The market is becoming saturated and the best that can be hoped for is selling upgrades to those who already have cameras. Everyone who wants a camera has one.

By introducing a new format to a wide audience, the companies net three benefits. One, they can sell new cameras as upgrades, generate new interest, and possibly lure new enthusiasts into the market. Two, they also lure more people away from cheaper APS-C lenses into their respective systems of full-format lenses, which will then lead to increased sales of their full-format cameras. And three, they finally have some real differentiation between cameras, as opposed to engineered differences where one camera is inferior to another simply because it needs to be, not for an financial reason.

Think about how great that would be. APS-C cameras cost up to $1,000. APS-H goes from there up to around $2,000. And from there on up, it's full-format. It would be a beautiful thing.

APS-C will always have a place for those who want cameras that cost well under $1,000, but for those who want more, give them something worth wanting. Sony was able to do the A850 for under $2,000. Everyone else can sure as hell manage a 1.3x sensor for a lower price.

A White Hibiscus Flower

From fō-tō-gră-fē Photographs

Olympus E-P3 Leica M9 Comparison

Steve Huff has posted a comparison of the Olympus E-P3 with the new 12mm lens against the Leica M9 with the Summilux 24mm lens. I remain terminally unimpressed with Leica. I see it as a toy for people who want to feel self-important. But using Leica as the bar is a great idea since, even though the cameras and lenses are all hilariously overpriced, the quality is certainly excellent.

A few interesting notes. First off, the Olympus 12mm represents itself wonderfully. It is sharper across the frame than the Leica at F2, but while the Leica would likely gain a huge boost from further stopping down, the Oly is performing around its best at this aperture.

Second off, the depth of field differences that make determining sharpness so difficult also provide a great example of the amazing difference between the 2x, Micro 4/3 sensor. The Leica shots have a great deal more texture and complexity, simply because more of them is blurred.

Third... off. The differences between even a bad full-format sensor, like the Leica, and the m4/3 sensor in the Olympus is quite large. One doesn't realize this until presented with full-resolution examples of real world shots. The noise levels out of the Olympus are quite noticeable, especially in the way that they negatively effect the rich colors in the sky.

And finally, I don't understand those who say they never encounter moire in their shots when using cameras without a low-pass filter. Now let it be known that I would always prefer a camera with no low-pass filter. I post-process every photo that I take and removing moire is easy. But still, every medium format picture I see has significant moire somewhere, and the first Leica shot, of the donation bins, has moire dead-center. Look at the sticker just above "RECYCLING CENTER." The letters are very discolored.

So the lens is great. And on an Olympus body, it focuses like crazy. But that THREE-YEAR-OLD sensor wasn't terribly good when it came out, and it's even worse now. And like I said, the Leica's sensor is the worst full-frame sensor on the market. As far as noise levels go at base, the Olympus looks even worse in comparison to the Pentax K5, Nikon D7000, and downright ugly in comparison to other full-frame cameras.

I love the lens, the sensor is needs to be ditched.

Sony A77 Looks Amazing

Sony has self-leaked a video of the A77, their upcoming APS-C ubercamera, and my first thought is Goddam that's huge!

I don't know what the final specs will be, but from the video, I'd guess that it's larger than the EOS 7D, which I believe is the current size queen, er, king.

If the specs are all true, this camera is going to be an absolute, total, unbelievable beast. I'm very excited to try one out.

It also got me thinking about APS-C in general. Sony makes few APS-C lenses, and most of them are decidedly low-quality. The A77 will likely cost north of $1,500, and those willing to lay down that kind of coin will also be buying high-end lenses, of which Sony only makes full-frame models.

Don't limit yourselves to the APS-C format. Better noise levels can be easily had with a small increase in sensor size, like with Canon's EOS 1D, which sports an APS-H sized sensor. Frankly, Canon has shown a similar disinterest in their APS-C models, so just screw it! Forget the sensor size and make all pro-sumer models APS-H.