GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?
- Thread starter filmguy123
- Start date
NorBro
Major Contributor
Actually, I was thinking of a G3 - so yeah, probably.
But I also think that if you ask people which they think is faster, a computer the size of a book or a computer the size of a mini fridge, they might think about why you're asking that question and then think about their answer.
But I also think that if you ask people which they think is faster, a computer the size of a book or a computer the size of a mini fridge, they might think about why you're asking that question and then think about their answer.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Do we really still associate size with speed? Don't a lot of consumers view desktops like their crappy Dell computers at work and laptops as typically much better?
There is the perspective of desktops being fast from video editor or gamer perspectives but then there is the 99% of other people impression which are the crappy computers at work from Dell or HP. In my experience if I walk into a company and they have a desktop sitting in a cubicle its probably a hunk of junk.
Those that actually know the MP know it was a higher end expensive machine and are basing their assumption of speed on the price and target market more so than the size of it.
There is the perspective of desktops being fast from video editor or gamer perspectives but then there is the 99% of other people impression which are the crappy computers at work from Dell or HP. In my experience if I walk into a company and they have a desktop sitting in a cubicle its probably a hunk of junk.
Those that actually know the MP know it was a higher end expensive machine and are basing their assumption of speed on the price and target market more so than the size of it.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I would also like to know how much these charts include lens shipments? In the past we bought new point and shoot cameras because we wanted a 6x zoom vs the 3x zoom we had to better reach a kids recital. When we shifted to DSLRs we stopped buying new bodies but we started buying new glass instead to overcome new challenges. Its another example of a shift and not so much a huge loss of revenue. Compared to 2003 I see people buying a ton of lenses today and I would say that market is much larger. Even used lenses are now kind of hard to find. When I first started buying Canon FD lenses people were practically giving them away. Now they go for high premiums and sold out in a lot of places. The shift from integrated to changeable lenses shifted a lot of the market. Canon may only sell a body for $2k to a user every five or more years but they are likely selling a lot more in glass to that user. Thats why I think just looking at camera sales today is a rather inaccurate and pointless view of data.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Yes but apple will put 4 m1 max chips in a mini fridge tower and it will run circles around the MBPs. If the internals are matched, then the size is indicative of greater power (and cooling power). So, the size = power bias holds water. You just need to know something about the internals
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Dunno. I've never worked in an office. The towers have higher power budgets and cooling capacity, so they have structural advantages. The company probably updates them as infrequently as possible. But the age of the machine is probably recognizable by the aestheric design. Just like with cars. Trends in arbitrary fashion/design choices date the machinery
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I'd have to ask a n00b. My guess is the trash can still wins. But the reason I reached for the g5 was that it is larger and older/slower, so an even clearer example imo
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Are we also sure we are not being fedf BS about camera sales decline to inflate the prices of cameras? Sort of the supply chain BS we hear now so companies don't have to cut executive bonuses or pay people more. Camera companies want to sell less for more and thats precisely what they have done. Those of us buying cameras started out at $500, then it was $1,000 and then $2,000. We are now perfectly ok forking over $2,500 to $3,500 for a body and no longer freak out that a f2.8 zoom is $2,500. That kind of seems like inflated prices so camera companies could focus on selling quality over quantity which may make better sense for them.
Thats why I question a lot of the doom and gloom articles and these pointless charts. They are only telling us units shipped. Not revenue of each company vs their costs. If a company like Panasonic can now design and sell two or three killer models vs a dozen lower end models that means lower manufacturing and R&D cost for the company. Each product variation adds to assembly line costs. Its always better to make a profit on a few great products vs a bunch or products.
I think we have all been herded into this mindset that camera companies are suffering and that justifies the higher costs. We accept it because we still want these new cameras. GH prices sure have jumped since the GH1. Why? Is the sensor and DSP suddenly that much more expensive for Panasonic to make? Are they simply charging more now because the industry is?
Of course camera units shipped are down. Companies have stopped making bottom feeder cameras and therefore ship less products that each earn more profit. Seems like a much better position to be in.
Perhaps I'm wrong wit hall of this and thats fine. Happy to be wrong. I worked for a manufacturing company however and its not cheap to manufacture dozens of different low cost products. Part of the inflation problems we have now are manufactured. Companies want to ship less thats wasted and produce less with less raw materials. They get to drive up costs to consumers because of this and continue earning record profits. All while telling people they can't have a raise.
If BMD can innovate and constantly grow as an only 350 mil/year company then they can all do that.
Thats why I question a lot of the doom and gloom articles and these pointless charts. They are only telling us units shipped. Not revenue of each company vs their costs. If a company like Panasonic can now design and sell two or three killer models vs a dozen lower end models that means lower manufacturing and R&D cost for the company. Each product variation adds to assembly line costs. Its always better to make a profit on a few great products vs a bunch or products.
I think we have all been herded into this mindset that camera companies are suffering and that justifies the higher costs. We accept it because we still want these new cameras. GH prices sure have jumped since the GH1. Why? Is the sensor and DSP suddenly that much more expensive for Panasonic to make? Are they simply charging more now because the industry is?
Of course camera units shipped are down. Companies have stopped making bottom feeder cameras and therefore ship less products that each earn more profit. Seems like a much better position to be in.
Perhaps I'm wrong wit hall of this and thats fine. Happy to be wrong. I worked for a manufacturing company however and its not cheap to manufacture dozens of different low cost products. Part of the inflation problems we have now are manufactured. Companies want to ship less thats wasted and produce less with less raw materials. They get to drive up costs to consumers because of this and continue earning record profits. All while telling people they can't have a raise.
If BMD can innovate and constantly grow as an only 350 mil/year company then they can all do that.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Cars are not slower if they are bigger and older however. In fact I can probably go faster with my Dads old 65 Chevy Impala SS than I could with my 2017 Subaru Outback. Computers are really bad at holding value no matter the size or how pretty they are. They are practically outdated the moment you open the box. Desktops are also associated with old school computers. The way it used to be.
NorBro
Major Contributor
I think overall I will agree with you but only to the point of millennials (maybe some of Z) being the last generation to be this kind of noob.
I just don't see most of Z and Alpha and beyond being unaware after being born into what they were and will be born into.
If they don't live secluded without access to a network of information - or simply people, friends - they will constantly, on a daily basis 24-7 have access to information and technology campaigns and be exposed to data and will know about computers.
Meaning...instead of asking to guess which one they think is more powerful, faster based on the size of the enclosure, they will ask about the specifications of the hardware (like their iPhones; people know the models, are aware of the improvements over the years).
Now I might be giving people too much credit but Apple and YouTube and social media have trained enough minds in the world to be much more tech savvy than previous generations.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I agree with this. Its getting much harder to sell older computers. Younger people don't buy used stuff anymore. I'm trying to sell a 2018 Mac mini I7 wit ha Vega 56 eGPU and nobody wants it. Most young people want a M1 MBA. They don't want a desktop, period. They want fast, sleek and portable and brand new.
Finally had a guy reach out to me on Marketplace about my Mac mini today. He wanted to do a trade for a PC gaming laptop. He can't sell that either. Was hoping to do a trade but I already have a PC gaming laptop that sits here collecting dust.
Young people today understand enough about specs to know if something is older and no longer as nice of an experience.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I think the size association is really about strength. And the strength of the computer is really about speed
If you know what you're looking at, like you know that ssds are smaller and faster, then you're well-informed and not going to be fooled. But a n00b would probably assume that a larger hard drive can hold more data, at least
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Sure but show them 2 trucks and ask which has more hauling capacity. They'll probably say the bigger one. (Which is probably true? I mean, there you go.)
A millennial or maybe even gen z waiter at a wedding last year was really impressed by my a7siii and asked me what the specs were and if it shot 4k. I don't think that shooting 4K in itself is a very impressive spec anymore. And the a7siii isn't a very impressive looking camera, besides being a camera and not a phone.
Actually - I had a 95mm variable ND filter on my 24mm at another wedding last year (with a step-up ring) and a groomsman commented that it was a very impressive lens. He was looking at it head-on, so I'm sure it was the large diameter filter thay impressed him and that he thought it was part of the lens
I've had people give my 28-135 a double take, which is the lens with the 95mm thread I needed that filter for
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Sure but I'm talking about a situation where they know nothing but the size of the tool, and you want their impression regarding its speed.
A laptop, like a phone, is useful to them because it's small and portable. But if you show up with a big camera and you're doing the heavy lifting...
Or look at the Ps5. I looked up "how large is ps5" and you see headlines like "
Nobody knows what to do with the big, honkin' PS5 - Polygon" "
PS5 size comparison: is the PlayStation 5 too big? | TechRadar"
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I get it but how many are out there buying a used MP vs a new M1 Mac? Likely not very many or any at all. As cool as the MP tower is it only seemed to ever attract those in the know and not noobs. That tower largely sits dead at this point no matter how cool it looks. A few nerds buy them to gut them out for a PC build or the true nerds to house a Mac mini and eGPU but seriously the thing is dead.
I believe that CIPA numbers are official and confirmed via all sources, including the various manufacturer's income statements.
As to the smartphone onslaught, it's a continuous and undeterred advance. The smartphone makers don't care about the stand-along camera market. Their competition are other smartphone makers. And, as I had mentioned, that forces a continuous improvement on all fronts. Insofar as the camera modules go, the performances are catching up with the ILC's, while having an added advantage of always being in its owner's pocket/purse.
One could make this assumption - every year the mobile cameras make a $50 advance. Today, they're like a $500 camera; next year, like a $550; the year after, like a $600. And so on and so forth. New 200 MPX sensors from Samsung and Omnivision may not be as good as Sony A7RIV's 61 MPX one but, at a point blank/portrait range, the vast majority of shooters won't mind. And then ILC's get left over for the pros only. Like Slim Aarons and Barry Feinstein.
As to the smartphone onslaught, it's a continuous and undeterred advance. The smartphone makers don't care about the stand-along camera market. Their competition are other smartphone makers. And, as I had mentioned, that forces a continuous improvement on all fronts. Insofar as the camera modules go, the performances are catching up with the ILC's, while having an added advantage of always being in its owner's pocket/purse.
One could make this assumption - every year the mobile cameras make a $50 advance. Today, they're like a $500 camera; next year, like a $550; the year after, like a $600. And so on and so forth. New 200 MPX sensors from Samsung and Omnivision may not be as good as Sony A7RIV's 61 MPX one but, at a point blank/portrait range, the vast majority of shooters won't mind. And then ILC's get left over for the pros only. Like Slim Aarons and Barry Feinstein.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Well, he didn't say, "what a big lens! It must be old and shitty"
Of course, waves have been made with the miniaturization of good lenses
but still,, if you want a really high-performing zoom with a large focal length range, it's going to be huge by comparison to a shitty lens or a lens with a smaller range or a prime. So, the bias is not without merit. Fast primes are larger than slow primes, etc
NorBro
Major Contributor
I think the analogies and anecdotes about and between cameras/lenses and computers have to be separated because they just don't apply the same way, with the same people.
Computers and screens and similar devices are more a part of everyday life than photography, filmmaking lenses.
Computers and screens and similar devices are more a part of everyday life than photography, filmmaking lenses.