“Compact” is a fluid category. For some people, only the Sony RX100 line would be compact, for others the Olympus PENs fit that category, and for some people “anything smaller than a DSLR” is compact.
It seems like you don’t want to make any compromises, yet you are looking in the lowers price segment. I don’t think that those two requirements are compatible.
I doubt you will get cameras like that below 1000 €. That was never a thing, these were always expensive cameras for a niche market. Yes, the Panasonic GM was a little marvel, but if it was released today people would complain about lack of PDAF, IBIS, whatever, like you complain about cameras being from 2019, even though they are still perfectly capable machines. The Sony RX100 line was never exactly cheap, neither was the GR.
Frankly, I think you are wishing for something that has never existed, and I doubt that it will happen in the medium run. Cameras are precision instruments and require sophisticated R&D and manufacturing capability. Making something compact usually results in a price premium.
On a brighter note: it seems like the Canon G7Xiii is coming back, hopefully:
I’ve mentioned it before but I think camera size matters only steps. Size within a “step” doesn’t matter. It’s not so simplistic but conceptually it’s like: a size you can bring without noticing, a size you’re comfortable carrying around whilst doing other stuff, a size you only bring for dedicated photography and then if you shoot large format it’s about transport etc.
An interchangeable lens camera can switch category by switching lens (but never fit the first category). I’ve found myself to be very sensitive to lens size for the “not photo centric” outings. I much rather bring my 55mm long lens than my 75mm long lens. (I only shoot primes)
This sounds a little personal, as if you’re getting a bit frustrated with me. There are some assumptions about me there and I don’t want my musings/wishes to be misinterpreted as complaints or not willing to make compromises.
As I said in a previous post, I think the industry as a whole is in a healthy state and I’m not necessarily expecting the market to bend to my will. I’m really just having a “pub chat” among friends, as I also said before.
I’m not complaining that some cameras are from 2019, and I would have absolutely no problem buying one. And I’m certainly willing to make compromises with my purchases. In all likelihood, my next purchase will be one of these older cameras in the coming weeks and I’m going to be very excited about it.
I’m not actually asking for an RX100VII for less than $1k. I’m simply hoping for more compacts of this size at different price points as a general market shift, knowing full well that cheaper ones will have fewer features. I think that there could be a market there for brands like Panasonic and OM to revive some of their older lines. I’m seeing a lot of enthusiasm for this trend for smaller cameras online at the moment, and I understand why.
Maybe the market isn’t there at all. But I’m still hopeful that we will see more compact cameras at more affordable prices than they currently are. It’s simply a wish, and a personal one at that. Nothing more.
Maybe it’s just one of those online/cultural differences, and I’ve misinterpreted your own comments. In which case, sorry. But I feel that me “not willing to make any compromises” and “complaining” is really not what I want anyone to think based on my comments in this thread. Cheers!
I am not, and I am sorry if my replies conveyed that impression. I enjoy the conversation, I think we care about more or less the same things in a camera.
Amen to that. I would buy a modernized GM5 immediately. It’s just that I am more pessimistic than you are and don’t think it will happen. But Panasonic has surprised the market many times before.
I did try a bunch of these cameras, including the GM1, Q7, J3, LX100, TZ100 and X-M5.
One thing I noticed is that a bad EVF is not worth the effort to me. If it’s too small, or too far, it’s just wasted space. The TZ100’s EVF, for example was useless.
Another thing is that ergonomics do not correlate with size. The Q7, for example, is perfectly usable. The GM1, however, was fiddly and annoying.
At the end of the day, I found that no small camera except the GR has had any staying power with me. The tradeoffs were just too severe.
As such, I’m actually sceptical if I’d buy a GM5 Mark II, although I’m a huge fan of the genre. A modern Q7, though…
Thanks! Yes, I’m sure we probably agree on more things than not. I’m really just trying to champion the smaller, more affordable end of the market because that’s the market I shop in, and because a lot of the attention is always on the big boys with their big systems. Although I have noticed that several mainstream photography sites have really started to talk about compacts and micro 4/3 recently. Anyone else noticed that? Here’s the front page of fstoppers right now:
Is this a marketing push from OM System/Panasonic? Is it just jumping on influencer trends? Or is it a real shift in the industry because innovation has slowed in terms of image quality?
Interesting to hear you say that as I’ve often thought that a crappy EVF or OVF is better than none at all. It has always been a bit of a dealbreaker for me, although I’m wondering whether to relax that rule because of how many small cameras now omit any kind of viewfinder. It would open up more possibilities, but I’m still wary of those occasional times when it’s really hard to see the screen. Also, is a screen good enough with telephoto lenses, or is it only useful for primes and wider angle focal lengths? Just some things I’m wondering about…
Maybe it’s that I’m wearing glasses? But at any rate, I’m only ever using a screen/evf for quickly checking my composition. The hard work of spotting scenes and detail is something I like to leave to my naked eyes.
Thus I’ve never been bothered by the back screen, even in bright sunlight. The common adage that you need an EVF in bright sunlight, is not something I can relate to. But focusing up close is also getting harder with age, which might make the EVF a necessity eventually.
For me, using the LCD is a poor substitute. A EVF/OVF with a diopter gives me a crystal clear view. I have reading glasses, which I need to use with the LCD, but which I normally forget at home when I go out shooting. Plus the glare on the LCD. To be clear, my reasons for requiring a EVF/OVF are based on my own failings, not the camera’s.
But what about checking focus? I find focus peaking and/or zooming in using the EVF to be much clearer and easier than the back of an LCD screen. Do you just use and trust the autofocus? Or do you find the screen good enough for focus checks?
That has been my experience too. It’s a lot clearer and more immersive. Although I did notice that I used the screen a lot more when walking around Paris with my 27mm Fuji prime. So maybe it also depends on what you shoot e.g, street snaps vs wildlife/sports, etc.?
I see something, take the shot, and move on. I don’t tend to linger and refine. Fun fact, I usually only switch on the camera right before I raise it to take the shot. Fast startup is therefore essential to me, while battery life is not. Batteries last me for ages.
This is the X100V experience While you can pop up a tiny screen (Like sub-evf, on the bottom right of the OVF) using the OVF with the frame lines is often enough. It also projects the focusing square and it’ll even turn green once it’s in focus, of course it’s not as detailed as when using the EVF. When I need more accuracy, I often just press the switch at the front, and the EVF pops up and allows me to focus “properly” if that makes sense.
This is my favorite feature of the X100V, it’s really cool and gives you a lot of flexibility. My least favorite feature is the lens being fixed. Should’ve bought an X-Pro…
Most often, I see this in the context of wildlife photography though, where the OM1ii is considered “compact”, especially when you consider lenses. Which is true, and it is a great system, especially if you need a lot of tele. But not something I would consider compact in the context of street photography, and definitely not pocketable.
I think that OM is pushing the image that their typical customer is a rugged hiker/wildlife photographer. And Panasonic is typically silent. Let’s see what happens.
Regarding EVF: since it is impossible to please everyone in every context, I think the best solution is an optional viewfinder that goes into the flash mount, since you are unlikely to need both flash and an EVF at the same time. Olympus had these earlier for their cameras without EVF, but now those are gone.
Yes! When I first heard about this, I remember thinking how it’s pretty much what I always wanted. It helped persuade me to buy into the Fuji ecosystem (wanting an X-Pro one day), and I was really hoping the hybrid VF would make it into more models. Sadly, that hasn’t been the case so far, and if/when it does, I’m sure it will only be on higher end models. But I may well have loved just the OVF functionality on the X-M5 instead of nothing at all.
Yes, agreed. There would always be the occasional article about M4/3 and how good it is for wildlife. But recently I’ve noticed lots of articles popping up in my daily feed about smaller systems in general and why M4/3 is an exciting platform in general. In that screenshot of the Fstoppers homepage, the 3 main articles were all about smaller systems, and not just about wildlife. It was uncanny actually because they are talking about many of the themes we’ve been discussing over the last year. Are we unwitting influencers?!
Incidentally, Fstoppers and Digital Camera World are not publications I tend to read because I feel like those mainstream sites are designed to get you to buy from their affiliate links, so not exactly unbiased advice. But it’s still interesting to see what they’re talking about because it can give some insight into trends.
Agreed on all points about the OM-1 (and older E-M1 models). It’s actually the body I think I will buy at some point to be my main “serious” camera. Its size is definitely something I have thought a lot about because it’s essentially the same size as most serious SLR style bodies regardless of sensor size. But the lens ecosystem does make the system more compact in general, which is what appeals to me. (I’m also interested in the computational features.)
But as you said, it’s not exactly compact for something like street photography, which is also something I dabble in on occasion. So what I’m wrangling with now is what direction to go in from among these options:
OM-1 + compact M4/3 (e.g. GX85/Oly PEN)
OM-1 + phone
OM-1 + cheapish P&S (e.g. TG-7, Pana ZS70)
OM-5 instead of OM-1 for now as a more compact general-purpose option
To be clear, I’m the kind of person who does lots of research and takes a long time to make these decisions. I’m not an impulsive buyer usually. But I also enjoy the research and due diligence. So this is a “nice” problem to have, not something causing me any grief.
I had been leaning towards option 1 above, but the other options have started to appeal to me more and more for different reasons. Everyone’s opinions welcome!
.
While you can pop up a tiny screen (Like sub-evf, on the bottom right of the OVF) using the OVF with the frame lines is often enough. It also projects the focusing square and it’ll even turn green once it’s in focus, of course it’s not as detailed as when using the EVF. When I need more accuracy, I often just press the switch at the front, and the EVF pops up and allows me to focus “properly” if that makes sense.