How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

[Bassman2003]

The handwriting on the wall I would see is that they might not make it at all if market forces are too strong of a headwind. This is quite a change from where a lot of us faithfuls have been in thinking the camera was around the corner.

[DLD]

I still think a $1,500-$1,700 8K/40-45 MPX camera is feasible but it will eat into Panasonic's - and everyone else's - niches in the middle portion of the market at the time when there's a push upward in sensor size, not downward. If that's correct, then there may be more $700-$1,500 MFT models rather than $1,500+.

I am not sure what to make of Olympus's "we will design our own sensors and let Sony make them" claim either. Hereto, they shared sensors with Panasonic that were both designed and manufactured by Sony. Should Olympus dare to compete rather than cooperate with Panasonic, the MFT niche is likely to undergo major changes as well. And Sony won't look favorably toward a high resolution MFT sensor that outperforms its APS-C line either.

[TheDingo]

Panasonic's main problem for the past few years has been C-AF performance. If they can't catch up with Canon and Sony then they are going to slowly fade away...

[Bassman2003]

I have to say, the footage from the A7sIII with S-Cinetone looks very nice. While a little bit more expensive all around, the A7sIII is pretty much the Gh6 performance everybody wants, just a different brand and sensor size. I would say, stopping down to f5.6 or f8 on the Sony is M4/3rds DOF and should be clean enough to work with. Going with f4 glass on the Sony is probably the best way forward. At least for many of us, but not Panasonic.

[Samuel Dilworth]

The α7S III is an impressive camera, maybe the best of its type. But it’s priced accordingly.

The GH5 (and GH5S to a lesser extent) was a hit because it was cheap. The GH6 will have to be a lot cheaper than the α7S III, too.

[Ron Evans]

In Canada one could get a GH5 and a GH5S both with lenses and one XLR unit for $1000 less than one A7S111 plus lens and XLR unit. And would be more for a really good lens. For the difference one could get a Ninja V as well. The only reason I will change from this set up is for an 8K camera that can shoot 60P and is also reasonably priced. Otherwise I will stay with my GH5, GH5S and two Ninja V with sync units for multicam. Don't need continuous autofocus that is useless for theatre ( nothing more amateur than going in and out of focus when the lights go out and back up again. Also true for auto exposure ). Not to knock the A7S111 as it is a wonderful camera. I just do not need its functionality for my projects. Bigger dynamic range and full Vlog would be great. Maybe shoot h265 UHD at 60P 10bit 4:2:2. But using the Ninja V I do not need that anyway.

[DLD]

Panasonic's main problem for the past few years has been C-AF performance. If they can't catch up with Canon and Sony then they are going to slowly fade away...

Panasonic's GH-5 has the same Sony sensor as Olympus OMD EM-1 MKIII. The difference is that Panasonic disabled the phase detect AF and kept only contrast detect, while Olympus kept both. In other words, it's a cripple hammer courtesy of the cartel.

S1, S5, Z6, fp and A7III also use the same Sony sensor and also program it to work differently. Sony has the best AF because they use the max number of contrast detect (425) and phase detect (693) AF points. Nikon gets to keep Phase detect, Panasonic contrast detect, Sigma almost nothing.

[filmguy123]

it's a cripple hammer courtesy of the cartel.

I've seen this mentioned multiple times over the years and I only have a rough understanding of the idea, with short posts or explanations on how how the companies will work together to divvy up features.

Free pizza for anyone who can lay it out in a bit of depth as I'd love to wrap my head around it better. I know it's a bit speculative but in years of observation it does seem to have some truth to it, eh?

[NorBro]

Like in other industries, it's about controlling products to maximize profits.

Excluding ARRI and its longevity (for the 1%), at one point Japan made 99% of professional cameras so they were able to tailor each one to different groups of people.

A feature here, a feature there...I'll take this away, I'll take that away.

Really nothing wrong with it and it's strictly smart business, but just very frustrating for us.

Fortunately other countries' entry (USA - Australia - China) into the landscape forced them to be a bit more honest otherwise we'd still be paying $15,000 for barely 4K/24p cameras.

[Peter C.]

I've seen this mentioned multiple times over the years and I only have a rough understanding of the idea, with short posts or explanations on how how the companies will work together to divvy up features.

Free pizza for anyone who can lay it out in a bit of depth as I'd love to wrap my head around it better. I know it's a bit speculative but in years of observation it does seem to have some truth to it, eh?

Like NorBro said. It happens in other industries but is more in your face because all major players are from Japan.
As simply as I understand it's not smart business to directly compete against each other or themselves. Each company carefully constructs a hierarchy of camera models that takes into consideration the other companies pricing and features. For example if Sony offers full frame camera for $2k with features x,y,z. Canon wouldn't want to offer a camera the same features and compete on price. They would offer it with a different feature set. By far these companies don't want to offer a new camera that undercuts their higher end models. Once you understand their product lines and features, you'll begin to understand their carefully orchestrated game and you can temper your expectations on whether they will improve or include a feature you might want in your current camera.

[NorBro]

They all compete with themselves because of the changing times, but they still have millions of consumers/prosumers/professionals who don't consider the business practices (not that they should because it's also like 'who cares what the companies do'...if you need a camera with a certain specific feature or two you don't have many choices).

So they will all continue to release expensive cameras every single year for as long as they can followed by cheaper ones that are just as good in almost every single way undercutting the expensive ones (usually months later when they think their peak sales for the higher-end models have pretty much dried up), and none of them will ever have everything we know existing in one model.

Nevertheless the companies are all spokes in the wheel; the bigger picture and main goal is to boost the country's economy.

[DLD]

I've seen this mentioned multiple times over the years and I only have a rough understanding of the idea, with short posts or explanations on how how the companies will work together to divvy up features.

Free pizza for anyone who can lay it out in a bit of depth as I'd love to wrap my head around it better. I know it's a bit speculative but in years of observation it does seem to have some truth to it, eh?

There was an article recently in Nikkei about a former head of Olympus, who said almost a decade ago that it made no sense for the companies to compete against each other because that drives margins to nothing. In that sense, he was correct. Since the consumer tier photo-video cameras are rarely revolutionary (R5 excluding), they become a commodity like TV's and the VCR's of old and that market always goes to the lowest cost manufacturer. Which is not located in Japan.

Kodak went out of business in 2012 and that made the cartelization of the industry much easier. All the companies are Japanese and, in Japan, it's legal. As is the "vertical integration" of businesses, which also controls the distribution channels. Which is why you get a pound of beef for $200 (and Kobe beef about $1,100/lb or 5/6 times more than in the US).

As to the manufacturers, they call it "product differentiation". What makes it clever is how there's very little overlap between two "competing" products in the same price range. A7III has great AF but only an 8-bit codec. Z6 has Raw out but it line-skips. S1 only has contrast detect AF. The "competing" Olympus and Panasonic cameras have the same sensors but Olympcs tries to sell itself a photo first camera while Panasonic a video first camera.

The problem with the cartel is that it retards innovation in a modern electronics industry, whereas the smartphone companies leave no stone unturned. The payoffs in the 1.5 billion unit smartphone business are immense and that funds the R&D. And now even YouTubers claim that there's not much difference between the latest smartphone cameras and the ILC's at a point blank range. And that renders hybrid cameras superfluous. And maybe this made the cartel wake up a little and come to a conclusion that, if they're indeed going down, they're going down fighting. Or maybe R5 was an anomaly and everything is back to the status quo.

[Peter C.]

I think the R5 represents that these companies realize the only place where the margins are high enough and aren't effected by smart phones is on the high end lines. Have you noticed all the high end camera releases over the last year? FX9, FX6, FX3, A7S3, A7R4, A1, C70, R5, R6
R5 isn't designed to compete directly against Sony it's targeted at profession photographers who will be transitioning from dsrl to mirrorless. Once a pro invest in a new lens system they're not going change to another brand. Both Canon and Sony identified this are putting the lion share of their effort to secure their position. Where as Panasonic and Nikon were too late to recognize this.

[DLD]

I think the R5 represents that these companies realize the only place where the margins are high enough and aren't effected by smart phones is on the high end lines. Have you noticed all the high end camera releases over the last year? FX9, FX6, FX3, A7S3, A7R4, A1, C70, R5, R6 ...

That's correct. The $2,000-$4,000 portion is where the wide margins are and, simultaneously, the number of units sold is still reasonably high (compared to the Alexa/Venice corner of the planet). The problem, if you can call it that, is that one can buy an 8K camera now for $4,000, whereas in 2007, a 6.6 MPX F 35 was retailing for $250,000. The meat of the market was always on the consumer end but it's now running into the law of diminishing returns. One can look at the computer prices over the years - an average of popular models was $1,500-$2,500 in the mid-90's ($3,500-$5,000 in today's prices) and is around $600 now and units sales went from ~ 350M in 2012 to ~ 260M in 2019.

So, what do photo-video companies make when one can purchase an $8K camera at Best Buy for $1,500, as will certainly be the case within two years?

[Peter C.]

That's correct. The $2,000-$4,000 portion is where the wide margins are and, simultaneously, the number of units sold is still reasonably high (compared to the Alexa/Venice corner of the planet). The problem, if you can call it that, is that one can buy an 8K camera now for $4,000, whereas in 2007, a 6.6 MPX F 35 was retailing for $250,000. The meat of the market was always on the consumer end but it's now running into the law of diminishing returns. One can look at the computer prices over the years - an average of popular models was $1,500-$2,500 in the mid-90's ($3,500-$5,000 in today's prices) and is around $600 now and units sales went from ~ 350M in 2012 to ~ 260M in 2019.

So, what do photo-video companies make when one can purchase an $8K camera at Best Buy for $1,500, as will certainly be the case within two years?

There will always be a line between consumer, pro-sumer and high end pro. Resolution is only one feature. These companies make a living from selling a camera on a feature like 8k then crippling it in a way to slot into their targeted price range customer they want. What has changed is that these companies for first time had to face real competition from smart phones in the consumer end. I don't see them changing their ways they'll still be cartelling but only on the mid to high end.

Maybe the price on an average computer has decreased, but I find for video editing the demands keeping going up and so does the price. I was on the fence a few months ago spending $3,600 for a mid level iMac. I ended up with M1 mac mini but still spent $2,300