Rob Trek Forum

This was written as part of a discussion about current camera news.

I am not the target for a camera that will expand the camera market to new photographers. I think it has to be an easy transition from cellphones. Millions of people are posting cellphone photos and want something better. The camera market is too complicated for many of them. I have worked with many of them with my mentor program and at a community college where I had an evening class. They buy a camera (usually a Canon Rebel because that is all they know or their friend has one) and then are lost and put it in a closet. Or they post a photo they took in auto mode and it does not look good compared to the other photos posted. So they seek what to do next and get so much contradictory advice they give up. They all end up at the same place - waiting for a new cellphone that takes better photos. They end up with high end cellphones they update every time a new one comes out just to take photos. These people would love something like Olympus art filters (although I do not use them or want them) to start with and then they could have something while they were learning. Positive feedback during the learning curve and ease of use are important to bring new people into photography. The process from taking a photo to posting it online also needs to be easier for new people. The more they will have to do the less likely they are to do it. So all the "gimmicks" we don't need are (imo) needed to expand the market. And promotion so people know they exist. Especially by Olympus. I used to be asked whether a Canon or Nikon was better to start out years ago. Now I get asked if Canon or Sony is better for someone who wants a first camera. The high end cameras are great and they are selling to those of us who are into photography. But they do nothing to expand the market. The brands are busy competing with each other in limited market of existing camera uses. New users means more camera sales which lowers costs, makes companies more profitable to continue making cameras and lenses, and provides us more options as not each of us wants the same thing. A smaller market with less sales at higher prices is a short term gain for camera companies. It leads to products aimed at pros who can afford the best and leaves the majority of us with what we have. Canon and Nikon are creating more pro lenses for their mirrorless cameras. Sony's big thing is the A1 which will make them a lot of money. Olympus has the 150-400 pro lenses. Now of which most of us will buy. OMD in its interviews has even said they will concentrate on the pro or high end market. Where does that leave the average hobbyist in the future?

I will gladly pick up the debris when most consumers leave 'Olympus' in time.

The market nor the advances of newer camera's will have an appeal to me. Most going forward will be in the editing of photo's, rather than taking them.
So going pro will perhaps bring some gain to 'Olympus' leaving the consumer-market open for I guess Sony and Canon for mirrorless.
Its indeed a very open market at the moment, where the battle is onto phones/dslr/mirrorless, which will ultimately will be size and portability. If I see a real camera nowadays, I directly fear, its the IRS or police or press, so my own reaction onto camera's is already eroded, even when I still do use them.

The race for more pixels will never stop, my expectation is the software of the camera's will remain a focus as people seemingly are demanding more and more that the camera set to automatic, has to deliver that ultimate color and sharpness and white-balance correctness. The other day I did a short stroll in some woods here nearby, and was surprised by the amount of woman with heavy guns firing away on anything moving, while I noticed all was set to automatic, and machine-gun shutters. I fail to see why though, apart from showing off they had to much time and money. My wife with her om-d 10.1 and 12-50 mm was frowned upon, I kid you not.

As you state, where will it leave the hobbyist, I think we will see much more deviation, like the return of 35 mm.
Assuming the market is over saturated and slowly people are not feeling any reason to update/upgrade onto newer camera's unless you are eager to throw in money for minor features ( starry night focus ), the market will seek out more niches, like big guns for birders, as indeed the 100-400 is not something a lot of people buy. Unless you fit that niche or collect lenses.

Thank you for your reply. Although I have a couple EM1s (the originals), most of my shots are taken with my EM10II which I prefer over the mk 3 or 4. My cameras and lenses have to pay for themselves and with modest gear, this is still easy even in my retirement. Eventually, I want to get some better lenses (4 primes and 2 zooms) as I like to work with 2 cameras and lenses and have a pouch with 2 other lenses. One lens combination for daylight, 1 for inside or low light. I would like the handheld hi res of the EM1 III just because it lowers noise and I can then take it back to 20mp and not need AI programs to denoise or sharpen it. However my budget has gone for programs to improve my processing the past year.
I see all the high end cameras used the way you say and then resulting photos posted on social media where all those mp are reduced to less than 2mp usually. Just for fun (and to make a point) I posted a photo of a Blue Jay taken with a 2mp Oly point and shoot in some Olympus forums. I for comments about how well focused it was and about the sharpness. With a 1600X1200 sensor. Although I like cropping. If I ever change cameras, I will be happy with a 20 or 24 mp one. Since my prints are not 2X3 like full frame cameras, all I care about is vertical resolution so 20 and 24 work out the same with the different formats. Although you can find plenty or calendars, postcards, 11X14 photos in gift shops and visitors bureaus around the country that I took with a 12mp and 16mp mr3 camera. I see in the forums on facebook people posting photos of their new cameras and lenses. Then when I look at their photos, I am left wondering if they used all the gear they showed or their cellphones. I see some cameras and programs will now pick out your best photos for you and even process them so you just have to push the shutter. In the past there was a camera that you could wear around your neck and it would take all the photos for you. Then when you got home you could see your shots (or before if you wanted). It failed, but I expect it back someday. At least photos of people's feet blocking the scenery has gone out of popularity. Now the fad seems to be to use all those mps to blur them away and make your selfies look like mannequins. With that type of consumer, I have no idea what will happen to cameras and can see partly why the high end emphasis by the companies. Still I think if Olympus pushed the EM10 or Canon the M50 with lenses for $1000 there would be a market if it was easy for the cellphone users to pick up and take photos their phones cannot. Back in the day, Kodak understood markets and there was always a Kodak add showing the joys of taking photos. Which lead to both film and camera sales. If there was a Super Bowl add or a sports event add showing someone in the stands getting neat photos with a long zoom, I missed it. It is like the companies do not care to push sales except to camera owners to get the new thing. That many will not use. I think cameras are becoming a niche market because the companies want it that way. Although Sony advertised for a while and surprised Canon and Nikon by their results. I have people come in my house, see a print on the wall and want to know where I bought it. They are unbelieving when I tell them l took it with my camera. I used to have some loaned EM10IIs to get people started. But covid kinda ended that. If everyone who is an active photographer at any level got one other person started (since the companies do not want to) then the camera market would be doing great again.
Just my opinion and I appreciate you sharing yours. Thank you again.