Correlated behavior is not, in itself, evidence for coordination or collusion.
As a baseline case, I would assume that RAM manufacturers are simply responding to the same market forces and signals that determine their expectations.
In this particular moment, it looks like they are counting on demand for new RAM (particularly the server/datacenter lines) peaking in the medium run, so they don’t invest in new capacity. This expectation does not require AI to be a bubble, simply that its demand for servers will not grow forever; note that some analysts also expect consolidation among AI providers, in which case the market would be flooded by used, but high spec’d RAM.
Similarly, what we are seeing as shrinking output in laptop/desktop/gaming RAM lines could simply be capacity being diverted for server/datacenter lines, which currently pay more due to high demand.
Yes. Though I’d love to see a new M4/3 rangefinder style body with the latest sensor tech and features, and there are loads of people calling for something like that on forums, reddit and YouTube, if it does eventually happen, I could easily seeing it flopping in the the real world. Or at least not making a decent return.
It’s actually sad that articles like this need to spell that out. Even though brands sometimes miss the mark with their products, there’s usually a good reason why the product was made in the first place. Any marketing department worth its salt has identified a market opportunity before releasing a product. So it should be common sense that a product that isn’t “for you” is not necessarily a bad product but just made for a different consumer.
Still, it’s annoying when you feel you are no longer the target audience and that you have to wait for more niche products. When I was more into gaming, I hated the fact that single-player games were being replaced by MMOs and multiplayer. And now the younger generations apparently want video in all of their cameras and no EVFs
I know that there should still be plenty of choice for people like us, but when you are no longer the mass market, the chances of the “perfect” product shrink.
Though I am sure that marketing departments in these major companies did their homework, I am skeptical about measuring demand for a feature most people who were not exposed to a real camera may not have ever used.
Cameras are full of features that one recognizes as useful only after having used them. A viewfinder is one of those. Ask people who have not used an EVF whether they would pay extra for it, and they would probably say no.
One cannot base product design entirely on surveys. There has to be a vision.
They are also full of features that seem like they will be very useful, indeed necessary, when we are choosing, but turn out not to be.
One reason that I bout my full-size Sony a7iv, rather than a more compact model, was the number of customizable buttons. I even prepared a plan of how I was going to use them. For most of the past 2.5 years, I’ve actually used just one on an every-day basis (plus one dial, which I changed to kelvin white temperature) plus one more which I use occasionally.
I agree completely, and I guess it raises the question of whether these marketing departments truly know what they are doing.
In the case of the EVF, I assume there has been lots of research into what the latest generation of camera buyers are accustomed to and what they want. As you say, an EVF may not be high on the wishlist of the smartphone generation, but how can these users have a valid opinion on EVFs if they have no experience with them? I would bet that most users would like one after using one for a while in a variety of conditions, including bright sunlight and with telephoto lenses.
This seems obvious to us, but all I read about from the latest interviews with big manufacturers is how the new generation of camera buyers wants video and doesn’t care about EVFs. So, are these marketing departments full of mediocre employees who don’t truly understand product design? Or are the manufacturers shaping user expectations to save costs and maximize their profits? If they can skip the EVF, they can save some money…
My suspicion is that these departments have smart people in them, and that they know that EVFs are a useful tool, but they have decided that it’s a feature to sacrifice faced with pressure on a couple of fronts, namely saving costs and creating more compact bodies for hybrid content creation. They have decided that EVFs are for professionals and enthusiasts, so they are reserved for bodies marketed at these users.
Personally, I would put an EVF or OVF on every single camera I made because I consider it an essential part of a proper camera. The tiny little OVF on my Canon IXUS is still a valuable creative tool for putting me in the “zone”, for want of a better expression.
I’d rather have the option of lots of customizable buttons and not use them, than the alternative of forever wanting more options.
I hate menu diving, so the more options the merrier for me. I find my OM-5 frustratingly short of 1 or 2 buttons, but the worst offender is not being allowed to map a certain function to one of the buttons. I don’t know why OM System (and Fuji for that matter) won’t let us map “Auto ISO minimum shutter speed” to a button, but I really wish they would.
FWIW, in the past Panasonic used to include a lot of features in every second release of a particular line, eg tilting screen, then fixed screen, then tilting again, etc. I guess this makes sense because they can (1) cut costs, so reach a wider audience, and (2) those who insist on a particular feature just skip an incremental upgrade, which many people do anyway. But this was at the time when camera releases were much more frequent.
I find Panasonic to be the most confounding brand in terms of direction and predictability. I really can’t tell where they are going, unlike the other brands. Other than the fact that they are a very video-focused brand, they seem to throw lots at the wall and see what sticks. And when they try something innovative, like the S9, it’s still not 100% clear who it’s for. Then there are the well-loved cameras that they’ve seemingly abandoned, such as the GM and GX lines…
It will be interesting what effect this has. The hope of course is that someone with such a long history with Olympus will remain faithful to the brand’s legacy and will be deeply invested in its success. Let’s hope so.
I really want the brand to thrive. I know they have found their niche to a certain extent, but the innovation has stagnated somewhat with their latest cameras.
Here I disagree, from my perspective (which is, admittedly, very subjective) they are among the most innovative camera manufacturers (along with Fujifilm).
I love what they are doing on the computational front; I think that the live GND is a game changer. Their cameras are full of little conveniences for wildlife and outdoor shooters. And the OM-3 looks gorgeous.
Yes, I realize they are not for everyone, if one is shooting the Olympics or weddings or video or something similar it is best to go for a different brand. But they really cater to the their niche audience, no wonder OM is very popular in Japan. As long as they can make profits doing this they are fine.
Note that I said that innovation has stagnated somewhat; not that they aren’t an innovative brand. I agree that they are among the most innovative in general, certainly historically with mirrorless, but I feel this innovation has stagnated with recent cameras (e.g. OM-5). The sensor has barely changed in 10 years (certainly compared to other brands), and the computational innovations have just been minor iterations recently. Even the OM-3, which I think is great, is basically the OM-1 in a different body. I have never tried Live GND, but in general I’m not convinced by GNDs because of how situational they are.
What I’m seeing is that they innovated massively and were pioneers between 2010 and 2020 (IBIS, pixel shift, Live ND, etc.), but things have slowed down with the switch to OM System. Arguably innovation has slowed with other brands too, so maybe I’m being unfair to OM System. But the next couple of cameras from them will be very interesting to see where they are going. I still think they can do a lot more with computational features (e.g. a proper HDR RAW option, improved focus aids, DoF maps), and of course there’s the PEN F line they could revive.
I find that for me, the most important areas of innovation are somewhat mundane: camera body ergonomics and UI, because they have a direct effect on how much I enjoy shooting. OM has revamped their menu system with the OM-1ii/OM-3, now it is not unlike Canon, which a lot of people consider a huge improvement.
I think where micro 4/3 is currently lacking in innovation is lenses. Sure, they have a lens for literally everything, often at competitive prices, but recent improvements in optics design are trickling down very slowly. I am particularly missing the pancake primes and zooms from the lineup, a lot of the older pancakes got no updates, are practically not available new, or are officially retired.
At 67 I will take that as a compliment, but please I still want an EVF. The new mirrorless cameras can equally do still and video in the same piece of equipment so why not?
BTW, if there was a wish list for new release camera for me it would be a 2026 updated version of the Canon G16. Change nothing except put in a more modern sensor with more ISO, less noise and more pixels. It is still one of my favourite cameras that I have ever bought. Please, no scoffing from you full frame die hards.
Hear, hear! I loved that line of cameras: ergonomic controls, small, built line a tank. If I recall correctly the G15/G16 even had focus peaking and a clever little OVF.
I think that with a lens redesign Canon could squeeze in a 1" sensor; Sony and Panasonic did that with their travel zooms.
