The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Panasonic: A "Fly By Night" Camera Company?

clay stewart

New member
After about a year and a half in the DSLR business and promises of lots of quality bodies and lenses, Panasonic bails out and leaves it's customers holding the camera bag.http://www.photokina-show.com/0476/panasonic/information/panasonicinterview/

So, here were are about four years later and Panasonic has a couple years of EVIL bodies under its belt. What has changed? Personally, I found their DSLR's to be priced roughly twice as high as I figured they were worth and that holds true for most of their lenses. I think most people would agree, though not all - mostly those with more money than sense - no offense, but you know who you are:ROTFL:

The M4/3 are more in line, but still a bit high, compared to more experienced camera makers models, with similar features, even though they still have mirrors. I mean they still haven't figured out how to get a vertical image to automatically rotate and their auto ISO still lacks a user defined minimum setting.

I guess that the price of the 45 2.8 macro, got me thinking and looking back over their history, to try and figure out why they would price a macro lens nearly four hundred dollars more than what other more experienced lens makers would charge for a similar lens - camera makers with decades more lens making experience. Well, I can't figure it out, so it leads me to believe that the marketing dept. is just stupid - but I mean that in a good way, sort of.:D I know some will say: "But it's a Leica" Leica Schmeika, it isn't any better than Nikon's, Canon's or Olympus's macro lens and maybe worse than all of them.

Back in the L1 days, they said they were not really planing on selling a lot of those cameras, but they were just trying to break into the DSLR market. Did they sell more than a few hundred of those for 1999.00$? Regardless, they broke in, then broke right back out again and left a few dozen people holding their L1's and L10's in disbelief.:wtf:

Now I have to admit, that the M4/3 seems a bit more promising, but I have to wonder about a company that doesn't lead off with a wide angle, a normal and a portrait prime lens from the get go. I'm not talking about a fisheye and a macro. I'm talking about bread and butter lenses, like a 12 or 14 2.0 or 2.8 and a 40 1.8 or 1.4 to go along with the 20 1.7. I know there are promises of lenses in the future, but, that's what they said with regular 4/3 and that's a distant memory now.

So, maybe if they started pricing their stuff in the realm of mortals, like Canon, Nikon and Olympus, or lower, where it belongs, then they would be able to sell enough, to sustain themselves as camera and lens makers. This try and sell high, and then bail out, when the idiots in the marketing departments plan doesn't work out, is getting old already.:deadhorse::angel:
 
Last edited:

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I get what you're saying but there's a market for what they sell and everyone who buys their stuff doesn't have too much money and isn't stupid for spending the money on Panasonic stuff. It's all personal to each individual. I personally own the 20mm, 14-45, 45-200, and 45 Macro with plans to get the 7-14 as well. Yes some of the lenses are a bit more that I'd like to spend but it's what I like and I don't HAVE to adapt legacy lenses to fill voids in my lineups. There are times when I'd like to have faster Micro 4/3 lenses but I believe that will come in time. 4/3 didn't catch on for many reasons - high cost and unfamiliarity being the largest reasons. I didn't pay attention to 4/3 personally until about a year before Micro 4/3 was introduced as I was looking for a smaller replacement for my older Digital Rebel. I probably won't go back to DSLR unless I go Full Frame or Leica M but that being said Micro 4/3 is more than adequate for most of my needs.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Clay

I hear what you are saying and I still don't understand what happened with respect to Panasonic's foray into the 4/3rds market. Let's face it though, the 4/3rds market itself is hardly the most frothy of all the camera markets. Which is why when I first saw m4/3rds my initial reaction was why bother?

In fact, I only bought a m4/3rds camera as a 'platform' for my M-lenses, and then discovered the convenience and possibilities of the format in its own right.

I think you are missing the fact that Panasonic do sell loads of P&S cameras and are very successful in that market - mainly I think thanks to the tie-up with Leica.

LouisB
 

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
BH prices
7-14/4 lens Olympus $ 1.468,--
7-14/4 lens Panasonic $ 999,--
So, who is $ 468,-- cheaper and 40% smaller and tested as good?

Oh watch out :shocked: I am getting into one of those what is better/who knows better discussions. STOP :deadhorse:

Michiel
 

Riley

New member
you think thats bad, what did the Leica Digilux 3 market for again ? Im amazed, and I mean really amazed they sold any, but believe it or not there are people around that have 2

Pretty much, camera companies are clueless, Panasonic made a big effort with L1 with a team obviously headed by someone who knows what photography is about and they were very proud of it. Then they saddle it with pricing befitting FF bodies with lenses available at a fraction of the price.

We can surmise what happened at the corporate desk when it didnt sell, but Panasonic did flat out lie to us when a German publication declared Panasonic were getting out of four thirds.

All that is done and dusted, so whats happening with Olympus....
 
Last edited:
V

Vivek

Guest
you think thats bad, what did the Leica Digilux 3 market for again ? Im amazed, and I mean really amazed they sold any, but believe it or not there are people around that have 2

Pretty much, camera companies are clueless, Panasonic made a big effort with L1 with a team obviously headed by someone who knows what photography is about and they were very proud of it. Then they saddle it with pricing befitting FF bodies with lenses available at a fraction of the price.

We can surmise what happened at the corporate desk when it didnt sell, but Panasonic did flat out lie to us when a German publication declared Panasonic were getting out of four thirds.

All that is done and dusted, so whats happening with Olympus....
I couldn't read through Clay's post, so, Riley, I think I will quote yours (is that a summary? Looks good. :)).

Panasonic have no credible competition at the moment.

That is the problem.:(
 

Riley

New member
well they did have credible competition in 4/3rds, still they priced their gear way too high.

Although their gear was well designed, in some ways superior to the average Olympus products, I think they had this philosophy that better bodies and lenses means more money, which on the face of it seems fair but their pricing was still way out of the box.

Its well known to Industrial Engineers that Panasonic are leaders in batch production, and they seem to under-supply their products to keep the price expectation on demand quite high.

IMO ts a strategy that wont ever see them go 'big' in photography equipment supply though, people are too price concious where other options exist, even (as Vivek aptly points out) if that means going for another format.

But Im also sure Panasonic know all this, so I would expect a continuation of somewhat desirable cameras (its important they arent perfect) in low number batches where prices can be held at a premium, only to be cleared at realistic prices when the successor product comes along that is 'slightly more perfect' hence more desirable.

We see that same strategy in play more evidently in lenses, except that they never refresh the range, where stupidly it holds them back to system oriented buyers. But I guess you dont find that out until you get there.
 
Last edited:

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Not sure how serious Panasonic take their DSLR - 43 or even M43 journeys. I had expected them to grow these businesses more and be more leading, they have lot of prerequisites, like they can design and build their own sensors, similar like Sony. But they seem (at least for me) to be sleeping WRT groundbreaking new cameras in these areas.

The rather seem to lean towards the small sensor products, their pocket and low cost models. They never really made the attempt to move into the high end or even Pro market. Maybe this is just a totally uninteresting segment for them - at least they give this impression.

After all I am pretty disappointed with their approach, had really expected much more from them in the mid range and high end segment. Ok - did not happen - now my last Panasonic camera purchase is some years back, guess that tells everything ......
 
Last edited:
V

Vivek

Guest
Its well known to Industrial Engineers that Panasonic are leaders in batch production, and they seem to under-supply their products to keep the price expectation on demand quite high.

But Im also sure Panasonic know all this, so I would expect a continuation of somewhat desirable cameras (its important they arent perfect) in low number batches where prices can be held at a premium, only to be cleared at realistic prices when the successor product comes along that is 'slightly more perfect' hence more desirable.

We see that same strategy in play more evidently in lenses, except that they never refresh the range, where stupidly it holds them back to system oriented buyers. But I guess you dont find that out until you get there.
Riley, Allow me take parts of your post.

I do not see any problems with batch productions or having an unique product as long as it is done well.

Contrast the Pana m4/3rds with that of Samsung's attempt. The difference is day and night. Sony's NEX-7 or 9 might be worth looking at as being something useful. It is unlikely that Pana are going to sit around doing nothing in the mean time.

I do not have complaints about the Pana range of lenses. The cam is usable with thousands of lenses.

Only difficulty lies in the wide and ultrawide sector. Here also, I do not see any problem in Pana pricing their 7-14 (though the optics- glass isn't comparable to the 4/3rds Oly equivalent) high (I am not going to buy one at these prices at all.) As for the 45/2.8 Panaleica, not for me, as it is redundant in my lens line-up.

Besides their use in video, I think the NMOS sensor has lots of potential that goes beyond regular use. For my use- the CMOS, CCD sensored cams, etc none comes close to Pana's NMOS.

Let them go for better quality sensors and larger ones as well. They will be pricey, but I am willing to pay for it.
 

Riley

New member
I dont know who runs Panasonic's camera div, but its clear someone in there just loves cameras. Just look at LC1 and L1, even some of the P&S have that look about them that speaks old world camera, hence 'real'.

They proved theyre getting on their game with GH1, which rivals 7D at the pixel level, but the sensors too small to compete with APSC at every level

Despite the improvements in nMOS the word is that Oly will go with a Kodak's, Im hoping its a pMOS with a gapless microlensed Truesense layer. That will pick up something in the order of 1 to 1.5 stops, add another 0.5 stops if they get gapless microlenses, and another 0.5 stops if they increase the sensor size. A larger sensor at 20x15mm can keep the same pixel density as E30 at 16Mp. This might be the last gasp for Olympus SLRs, so I want it to be a good one.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
It will be interesting if Olympus would go back to Kodak.

BTW, anyone has any clear indication if Pana use any microlenses in their NMOS sensors (m4/3rds)?
 

Terry

New member
well they did have credible competition in 4/3rds, still they priced their gear way too high.

Although their gear was well designed, in some ways superior to the average Olympus products, I think they had this philosophy that better bodies and lenses means more money, which on the face of it seems fair but their pricing was still way out of the box.

Its well known to Industrial Engineers that Panasonic are leaders in batch production, and they seem to under-supply their products to keep the price expectation on demand quite high.

IMO ts a strategy that wont ever see them go 'big' in photography equipment supply though, people are too price concious where other options exist, even (as Vivek aptly points out) if that means going for another format.

But Im also sure Panasonic know all this, so I would expect a continuation of somewhat desirable cameras (its important they arent perfect) in low number batches where prices can be held at a premium, only to be cleared at realistic prices when the successor product comes along that is 'slightly more perfect' hence more desirable.

We see that same strategy in play more evidently in lenses, except that they never refresh the range, where stupidly it holds them back to system oriented buyers. But I guess you dont find that out until you get there.
While their lenses are certainly expensive and they don't do 4/3 bodies anymore, I have both their 25 lux and the 14-150 zoom and both are very good lenses. I think they compare very favorably to lenses from other manufacturers. The nice thing about both of them is also the manual aperture ring which still feels good to me when shooting.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I have seen those but are those technologies in the current m4/3rds sensors?

The ones you link are for tinier sensors and the micrograph showing the microlenses seems to imply a gap-less microlens design.

What makes you say they are not efficient (if they are present that is)? In comparison to older Kodak sensors that Oly were using, for example, the current crop of m4/3rds sensors are far better, IMO.

IIRC (reading some posts somewhere), Kodak ditched Oly....
 

Riley

New member
Vivek said:
The ones you link are for tinier sensors and the micrograph showing the microlenses seems to imply a gap-less microlens design.
yes thats true, I meant to demostrate that they used microlenses. Most of their compacts and videos use CCD. There are references around for microlenses 4/3rds chips

http://www.dphotojournal.com/the-new-live-mos-sensor/
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Panasonic-Adds-First-DSLR-Lumix-DMC-LZ1-.htm
http://www.dcviews.com/press/Olympus-Panasonic-MOS.htm
all mention microlenses

Vivek said:
What makes you say they are not efficient (if they are present that is)? In comparison to older Kodak sensors that Oly were using, for example, the current crop of m4/3rds sensors are far better, IMO.
just the difference between gapless and non gapless microlenses, gapless being the more efficient

Vivek said:
IIRC (reading some posts somewhere), Kodak ditched Oly....
well Im not feeling positive about how accurate that might be but, I figure that at the time E2 was cancelled Kodak held Olympus to a contractually based minimum buy for the 10Mp CCD, which Olympus then disposed of in the E400.

At that time, Kodak had little in the way of better sensor technology

One can dream up a 100 scenarios about what happened first last or next, but Kodak are after all in the business of selling sensors, and I cant imagine any new negotiation being any more difficult that the contract for the M9 sensor..... if you know what I mean
 
V

Vivek

Guest
At that time, Kodak had little in the way of better sensor technology
I have given up looking at their site on what new sensors they make after having spent a bit on their M8 sensor details.

I doubt that innovations related to small (35mm and lens) sensors are there though.

Currently, the NMOS sensored cams have the best liveview, IMV.
 

Riley

New member
Yes its a mess attempting to find reliable detail, especially from Panasonic. About CCD sensors, they need to be of the Interline Transfer type (as opposed to Full Frame Transfer) to be able to provide liveview. As a type pMOS is quite new and the technology is unique to Kodak, and Truesense is just a variation on Bayer layer that anyone could commit to given licensing from Kodak (as we all know they hunt down infringements on their patents).

I do note this about Truesense and pMOS
http://www.dpreview.net/news/0802/08020602kodaktruesense.asp
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?img...truesense&um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&tbs=isch:1


and the rumour, which might have been triggered by things I wrote anyway
http://www.photographybay.com/2009/07/07/could-olympus-dslrs-be-getting-a-new-pmos-sensor/
 
Last edited:

clay stewart

New member
I couldn't read through Clay's post, so, Riley, I think I will quote yours (is that a summary? Looks good. :)).

Panasonic have no credible competition at the moment.

That is the problem.:(
Vivek, I gota love you, if nothing else you're predictable.:ROTFL:
 
Top