GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

Most YouTubers use $500-$1000 Canons. Or even the $800-$1200 Sonys. With kit zooms or cheap primes.

So the total cost isn't as high as mentioned, but there's no denying that using a phone which you may already have (especially a new one since many people upgrade every year) is very tempting for those looking to start some video work, and that potential option will continue to hurt camera companies.
 
Most YouTubers use $500-$1000 Canons. Or even the $800-$1200 Sonys. With kit zooms or cheap primes.

So the total cost isn't as high as mentioned, but there's no denying that using a phone which you may already have (especially a new one since many people upgrade every year) is very tempting for those looking to start some video work, and that potential option will continue to hurt camera companies.

Maybe. I think many of those people were likely not going to buy a camera anyway. I think phones shooting video ate into the potential new market for camera companies but I think its inaccurate to say it hurt them directly. I don't know many people that compare a phone to a real camera and then choose to just use the phone. In most cases its people that never considered doing video and now that they can they start experimenting and doing stuff.

I think camera companies like to use it as an excuse and in regards to a new market they will never get to tap into. I doubt however many people on this entire website would ever consider no longer buying a better camera. Every single one of us still wants to buy real cameras. Many have not due to a lack of updates that we can justify for the cost.

Realistically I think its more like the P4k killed DSLR sales and an already over saturated market and cameras that are all really good today. We went through a solid decade of massive video changes. We went from analog to DV to HD to 4k in a very short span and that was a big incentive to keep buying cameras. Now we sort of hit a plateau we what we have for many of us are still very solid cameras that do what we need them to do. I didn't upgrade from my GH4 to a GH5 because I felt the GH4 was still la very solid 4k 8bit camera. By the time I would have considered moving to a GH5S the P4k came along and I went that route. After that I wanted better stills so I started exploring larger sensor cameras. If it wasn't for the added value of a larger sensor I would have never upgraded to the M6 mk2 or the R6. On the m43 side there just isn't a whole lot that many of us felt was a must have.

Panasonic focuses too much energy on their S series. Very nice camera line but there was zero upgrade path for Lumix m43 users. Panasonic is struggling no because of the iPhone. They are struggling because most of us just did not feel we had good options to upgrade to yet. Same for the existing Sony and Canon users out there. Sony has had small incremental updates for too long and there has been little incentive for users to keep constantly upgrading. Once they finally got to good looking 4k they reached a level that worked well for them visually.

Canon is seeing a bit of a boost now because they are finally starting to do 4k well. So for many Canon users there is finally a reason to upgrade. Plus Canon is finally moving to mirrorless and they can perfectly adapt EF lenses. Canon is finally after over a decade making wise choices and its helping.
 
I think phones shooting video ate into the potential new market for camera companies but I think its inaccurate to say it hurt them directly.

Which planet are you from...because I want to be there, too. lol

Point-and-shoots and camcorders pretty much disappeared, so you can't get more direct than that, lol.

Phones hurt the companies badly. Not because they are better, but because they are convenient and something someone already owns.

Anyone who had plans on purchasing a $3K-$4K-$5K+ camera is mostly irrelevant [for now] and that's the group you're talking about, which is a very small percentage of the camera sales that could have existed if the rest of the world continued to operate like it was 2005 and was still looking for a new camera for the holiday season.
 
Most YouTubers use $500-$1000 Canons. Or even the $800-$1200 Sonys. With kit zooms or cheap primes.

So the total cost isn't as high as mentioned, but there's no denying that using a phone which you may already have (especially a new one since many people upgrade every year) is very tempting for those looking to start some video work, and that potential option will continue to hurt camera companies.

I did say people making films, and YouTubers. I'm guessing they use all kinds of cameras . I did made a 3 min short for the Rode Microphone contest with my iPhone 12 Pro Max. It was actually a lot of fun using it and I will use it again too. Directors have used iPhones like Sean Baker, Soderbergh, Zack Snyder and others. TV production as well. Is it good for everything? No, but it's hard to say it isn't good to use.



The problem is camera corps, nickel and diming everyone for years. Panasonic could have came out with a great camera after the GH5. They chose to tweek it, and call it a mark II, and then overcharge for it. The big camera companies are living in the past. They have an old business model. I'm still waiting to see what Panasonic does someday.
 
Yeah...I think it's complicated.

You have to keep in mind that all of the cameras are being exported from one country so the business model is the way it is for a reason.

And the industry will become more complex if Apple, Google, Amazon and/or Microsoft decide to make serious cameras. Even if they continue/start with phones, tablets, or a variety of smart home devices and living/life accessories.

Trust if Panasonic was Japan's only camera company they would make perfect cameras because no one else would be around in Japan sticking out their hands.
 
Phones hurt the companies badly. Not because they are better, but because they are convenient and something someone already owns.

Right, the marginal cost of paying an extra $500 over a basic phone (like I own) to get a phone with an excellent camera is a much sweeter deal than spending $1k for a separate camera purchase. And like they say, the best camera is the one you have with you... smartphones killed consumer cameras, no doubt. That cash cow is dead. But at least camera companies seem more squarely focused on power users now
 
They have an old business model.

Think about it this way in terms of business...[and this is a hypothetical example and not describing anyone's business practices]:

___

If you and I made up [or once did] 99% of the world's chocolate chip cookies and we were both in the United States, it's probably best if we talked.

After our chat, maybe we've decided that you make your cookies a little sweeter while I make mine a little bigger.

And then maybe we could call up Bob from the southwest to start a cookie company and he could offer more cookies for the same price.

___

Some people are going to like the sweeter cookies...some will like the bigger cookies...and some will like having more cookies.

And what if Canada wants to make cookies, too? Or maybe England?

Nope...they don't know how to make cookies like we do.

___

So what do we do? We control our chocolate chip cookies for as long as we can.
 
I wanted to end the post above dramatically, but there's more (lol):

___


So we're going to make cookies and the rules are very simple (although sometimes flexible): I can't make my cookies sweeter than yours, you can't make your cookies bigger than mine, and we both have to have less cookies than Bob.

Once that is understood, we monitor profits and may adjust accordingly after some internal discussions. [Miscellaneous wire transfers may or may not exist.]

___

Now you may think..."But why wouldn't I just make my cookies bigger and offer more cookies?"

And that's a good question...but if you did do that then the repercussions would be significant. In ways that you may not be imagining at this point in time, but they would surely force you to end your business or exit and stop making chocolate chip cookies.
 
Think about it this way in terms of business...[and this is a hypothetical example and not describing anyone's business practices]:

___

If you and I made up [or once did] 99% of the world's chocolate chip cookies and we were both in the United States, it's probably best if we talked.

After our chat, maybe we've decided that you make your cookies a little sweeter while I make mine a little bigger.

And then maybe we could call up Bob from the southwest to start a cookie company and he could offer more cookies for the same price.

___

Some people are going to like the sweeter cookies...some will like the bigger cookies...and some will like having more cookies.

And what if Canada wants to make cookies, too? Or maybe England?

Nope...they don't know how to make cookies like we do.

___

So what do we do? We control our chocolate chip cookies for as long as we can.

Or it is like my cookie has 10 chips in it. The next year I add one more chip and make a big deal about it. Funny thing is you really can't taste the difference. Not to mention all the people on the internet who count all of the chips. Then the other company puts in 15 chips, but they are all smaller chips and not much difference than the cookie with 11 chips. Then they both charge more for their cookies. A few days later the cookie rumors website is talking about the cookie with 20 chips in it.

I say just make a good cookie and people will buy it.
Now it is no one wants to work at the cookie factory, or unload the ships. So the cookie will cost even more!
 
That's actually a good example because I personally like the cookie part and not the chocolate chips, and the chips could be considered the best part of a cookie for someone, or a feature someone really wants or wants more of.

But as far as making a good cookie, we're there...there are many really good, great cookies out there. Just not perfect cookies.

You would like a perfect cookie - or a more perfect one than you have now - from a certain company and I don't know if you'll ever get it.

If someone starts making perfect cookies, the other people that are a part of the business that control where the cookies go, and the ones that sell the cookies for us, and the ones that talk about the cookies for us and the ones that possibly help us with the sugar and flour and other ingredients might be really upset there's a perfect cookie out there.
 
But honestly, even with these kooky analogies (you like that?), I don't understand why other countries don't try to make cameras or computers.

I assume it's the knowledge and R&D but it's just hard to believe; although viewing a few companies as having monopoly-like businesses isn't, so maybe it's just not worth it.

Personally, thinking about what Apple will do with cameras is the most exciting for me.
 
That's actually a good example because I personally like the cookie part and not the chocolate chips, and the chips could be considered the best part of a cookie for someone, or a feature someone really wants or wants more of.

But as far as making a good cookie, we're there...there are many really good, great cookies out there. Just not perfect cookies.

You would like a perfect cookie - or a more perfect one than you have now - from a certain company and I don't know if you'll ever get it.

If someone starts making perfect cookies, the other people that are a part of the business that control where the cookies go, and the ones that sell the cookies for us, and the ones that talk about the cookies for us and the ones that possibly help us with the sugar and flour and other ingredients might be really upset there's a perfect cookie out there.

You right not even wants or needs the chips. It's good to have a choice.

Apple could probably make a killer camera for sure.
 
Chocolate chips are definitely the best part of the cookie

if Apple made a camera, I'd be worried that they would focus more on how it looked than how it functioned
 
I don't run around holding my M1 in front of me and pushing its buttons

like, doesn't the iphone only have 1 button? i always have to wrap my head around that when someone hands me one. my samsung has 3 virtual buttons. can't imagine why i'd want fewer
 
Last edited:
IMO, the newest iPhones from the past few years are the most beautifully engineered gadgets in the history of anything humans have ever made. And so enjoyable to use every day.
 
Both, but mostly functional.

Although the iPad Pros could be more beautiful than functional because they are so nice-looking and you can see & feel how powerful they are when you're holding and using one (but then that goes back to functional).

Maybe 50/50 then?

It depends on the mood.
 
I also feel like it sort of undercuts their iphone marketing to sell a pro camera. like, "the iphone is as good as any professional camera on the market. there's no reason to buy a real camera instead...


...BUT, if you want to give us $4K, we'll sell you an even better camera"

and can you imagine how expensive their cables, batteries, accessories would be?

but hey, I'm open to being proven wrong. I'm sure they'd make an interesting camera and that it would record prores internally. maybe they'd pull off what they did with the M1 and leverage the tech they designed for phones into a large-sensor beast
 
But honestly, even with these kooky analogies (you like that?), I don't understand why other countries don't try to make cameras or computers...

Because of the lens mounting. Samsung tried it with NX1, beat everyone's pants on pure specs ... and realized that people had too many EF/G/E/MFT pieces of glass out there to even bother. And then they came to a conclusion that the stills-video market was too small for them to begin with and was going die off anyway (one has to assume that, when NX1 went under development, the market was riding its peak of 120 million units of 2012 or so but, when Samsung dropped out of the business entirely at the end of 2015, the downward slide was evident).

And the stills-video consumers paid dearly for Samsung (and Kodak several years earlier) exiting because it left the industry with the Japanese state controlled cartel. But its demise wasn't all due to the smartphones. It was also a lot of miscalculation in their HQ's, which went like this:

They felt - more or less legitimately, to be fair - that the smartphones could not compete with the MFT-APS-C-FF-MF sized sensors and so they throttled the small sensors point & shoots and priced the large sensor models significantly above of the competitive levels. And that resulted in the P&S sales completely falling off a cliff, taking with them a lot of the R&D funding and corporate overhead.

The second miscalculation was regarding the pace of the engineering progress on the smartphone front. With high resolution sensors, periscope zooms, etc., the smartphones became more than sufficient for even the stills and video aficionados. That left the ILC niche to the hardcore junkies and the pros.

The third variable that the Japanese understood quite well was that they couldn't trail the smartphone cameras in innovation too far and for too long and so they had to come out with slight improvements or simply disappear ... but a pace of improvement took cameras to the point of near perfection, with a very long replacement cycle. And that places them in the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation. From which, there's no way out.

PS. What disqualifies a model for being a "state of the art" - lack of features and performance that is already present at a given price range. When GH-4 came out, the lowest priced 4K camera was 1D C at $12,000 and so it was a giant leap forward. When GH-5 came out, it was still a solid value for the MFT glass owners but no longer exclusive in its feature set. The bandied about specs and the price point for GH-6 take it out of a good value category altogether. That is probably why there's a delay in its release. 6K-into-4K is too 2019.
 
Back
Top