Panasonic losing shares in Japan. Olympus on first place.


BCNranking (translation here) released the mirrorless market shares of the current year. I don’t speak Japanese and google translation tool isn’t good enough. So dear Japanese readers correct me quickly if I say something wrong!

As you see from the graph on top Olympus leads the market with 28.6% closely followed by Sony (23.5%), Panasonic (17.3%) and Nikon (12.8%). Panasonic managers won’t be happy to see that their shares dropped from 30% to almost the half during this year!

One more news: In October these were the most sold cameras in Japan: E-PL3 (10.6%), NEX-5N (10.3%), EOS-M (9.2%), GF5 (8.9%).

There are no such analysis for EU and US countries. Only some purely indiciative and constantly changing popularity rankings by Amazon:
US ranking (Click here): NEX-5n on top followed by the GF3.
DE ranking (Click here): NEX-6 on top (E-M5 on pos. 6).
UK ranking (Click here): Nikon 1 on top followed by the G3.
FR ranking (Click here): GF5 on top.

  • Olympus probably won’t stay in first place once Sony’s new NEX-6 has been on sale for a month. But they’ll still be in the top tier which must mean that Olympus cameras resonnate with Japanese consumers – unlike Panasonic models. Panasonic’s downward moving market share makes the release of a model which entices consumers to choose a Lumix over other brands imperative. Towards that end, they’d better release a very strong competitor in the GX2.

    • I may be wrong, but it seems that the market for mirrorless photography, especially in East Asia, is more interested in lifestyle than in technicalities. Olympus and Sony cameras are perceived as cool and fashionable (as is the Pentax Q). Panasonic cams – not so much (the GF3 and GF5 might be an exception).
      Us gear heads will never acknowledge it, but those sales data have little to do with EVFs, IBIS, sensors, optics, user interface etc. They have a lot to do with style, fashion and cultural perception. Perhaps Panasonic can do a little better if they employ a few ladies in their product design team?

      • lorenzino

        I think you are only partially correct. Yes, cameras here are something trendy, or at least the trendy part of owning a brand over another one (or a color over another color) is part of the buying decision. But the other important aspect is that Olympus cameras, especially micro 43, have been heavily discounted since the Epl1s saw the market.
        It is possible to find epl2 (or variants of it) and even epm1 for under 20000 yen (roughly 220 dollars), lens included. This means that many people buy m43 olympus because they are a steal, for the price. But this does not imply a profit for Olympus, and many of these buyers will never upgrade to better models (many of them would have never bought an interchangeable lens camera, if not for the price).
        As for being trendy, I have the impression that here the Sony cameras are more trendy than Oly’s. But also more expensive…

  • Panasonic need to be more exciting/aspirational, at the moment they just want their cameras to be as good as canikony, also they need to do better market research and targeting, if they are just trying to convert canikon consumers that’s a long and expensive process which Olympus and Sony have found out to their cost… they need to find and target new consumers and markets.

    Oly look like they are doing well
    Sony pretty good
    Panny must try harder (more thinking)
    Nikon sold in well, now have reached a plateau
    Canon too early to tell from that graph.

    • I bet Oly and Pannny are pulling a lot more lens and accessories sales out of consumers and that mft users are upgrading their cameras more frequently :-]

    • smileblog

      In terms of “Design”. Oly’s and Sony’s one are more popular than Panny’s in Japan.
      Honestly Panny’s camera is not so popular for women, and getting worse in some models such as GX1 and G5.. maybe GH3 as well.

      Also, other problem of Panny’s camera is that they dose NOT have some sort of “a special catching phrase” for sales like a large-sensor or In-body Image Stabilization.. etc.

      Unfortunately 90% of customers dose not care a complex video specs talk of GHs.

      • @smileblog
        yes you are correct, Panny needs to make some of their models and marketing more female orientated, it’s actually the same in the UK in terms of their marketing…

  • Recently, Sony and Oly are bringing innovation. Pana is rather making excuses like lack of resources and enginneers.

    • Hmm… I think G5 and especially the GH3 are among the most innovative cameras…

      • Vlad

        I disagree completely.

        • Well, just show me some guidelines about what you consider innovation for a mirrorless camera and G5/GH3 doesn’t have it.

          • G5, and the same goes for GH3, are rather refined products. No one denies their capabilities, but as the innovations goes they are not on the same boat. E-m5 5-axis IBIS is a innovation, rangefinder style and extreme compact bodies of SONY is another innovation.

            • Hmm…
              – E-m5 5-axis IBIS is a innovation, but Power O.I.S. isn’t.
              – Rangefinder-styled body and small size is an innovation, but high contrast OLED display/LVF, touchpad emulation, far the fastest AF speed with 0.07 sec etc. aren’t.

              Interesting approach…

              • inis16

                So, why Power O.I.S is not in all lenses by Panasonic? Or 3rd party lenses? I can’t imaging to use let’s say 100mm 3rd party lens on Panasonic body. So, Panasonic approach is rather limitation than innovation.

                • As OIS is far better than IBIS on telephoto lenses all 3rd party lenses above 100 mm should have it. By example Tamron, Sigma etc. telephoto lenses regularily have some kind of optical image stabilisation.

                  • bart

                    OIS is only ‘better’ in the sense that it needs smaller movements to compensate for ‘camera shake’, making it easier to compensate for camera shake with long lenses indeed. However, OIS cannot compensate for rotation properly, it can only compensate for 1 of the 2 components when the camera/lens rotates around a single axis, and consequently will cause nasty effects outside the center of the image, and this will get worse with longer lenses.

                    Hence I think your statement is a bit of an over-simplification to say the least,
                    both have their own distinct advantages.

                    • Tron

                      Wow, 5-axis stabilization!! I guess I’ll consider it if I get a job shooting pics on a roller coaster.

                    • bart

                      Well tron, rotation is actually the most common form of camera shake, not just in a roller-coaster.

          • bart

            What you try to do here is claim something and then suggest others should demonstrate how your claim isn’t true. However, it first of all is upto you to substantiate your claim.

            See, being innovative is about having new things, not about ‘not lacking’ things others have.

            So, tell us, why are the G5 and GH3 such innovative cameras?

            • 1. User interface: far the best implementation of touchscreen usage, possibility of fast AF selection even using EVF (big step against “recomposing”);

              2. AF speed (no CDAF can match currently the 0.07 sec of GH3 + 12–35 combo), various AF modes (pinpoint AF), Eye-sensor AF, different manual focus magnification modes, etc.

              3. Best full auto mode (iA) to date.

              4. Electronic shutter.

              5. Far the best video, professional features (wifi, mic jack, etc.)

              • Digifan 1

                Sorry but an electronic shutter is also in the E-M5.
                It’s not that therew is a global shutter in the GH3.
                And Pana can claim fastest AF with 12-35mm but this could be true for E-M5 as well, a manufacturer only addresses it’s own product so Olympus will never claim fastest AF with a Pana lens.
                These situations need to be tested by indepentent reviewers.
                As also E-M5 uses 240fps for fcussing like the GH3 it could be very interresting to test.

              • bart

                Nice, but the only innovative feature in that list is the touchpad feature, and you are rather mistaken about ‘focus and recompose’ being the only alternative.

                On the E-M5 and many other ‘2 control dial’ cameras it is very easy to select any available focus area, without having to use arrow buttons, and without having to take your eye off the viewfinder. Actually, this works slightly better then the touchpad because this can be done without any significant hand movements, which means your camera will be more stable.


                Regardless, it is an innovative feature.

                All the others you mention are evolutionary refinements of long-existing features, and not innovative as such.

        • Vlad

          Well, I am not going to narrow it down to mirrorless cameras for obvious reasons.
          Here’s innovation: OVF/EVF from Fuji, sensor from Fuji, SLT from Sony, the rather tiny RX1 and RX100 again from Sony, Tri-Navi from Sony (probably the most innovative interface we have seen in quite some time), phase-detection on sensor on the new NEX, the IBIS from Olympus, Live bulb from Olympus, etc…
          There’s plenty going on currently and not much of it from Panasonic. Obviously, that doesn’t make their cameras bad.

          • bart

            New about Sony’s SLT is combining it with an EVF, but the idea itself is actually decades old, was first pioneered by Canon, and used later by Olympus in the e-10/20.

            The ‘innovative’ bit of the rx1 is it having a digital sensor, but 135 format compacts with a fixed lens have existed for over half a century.

            So I don’t think those are really that innovative.

            But of cource that is also a matter of perspective.

      • Tim

        Well-both cameras were not for sale during the time period of this graph…
        and the G3&GX1 are good cameras, but not innovativ -just updates, or even downgrades (G3) of prev Models…

        I really Like the G5 and the GH5 looks really good to- so prob they can make some market share on those-in the future

    • agachart

      i don’t think that panny lack resource and engineers(but they lay of) ,i guess you knew in case of
      new image sensor,they ‘ll develop new lens more than new sensor because lens has valuenation than
      camera body.the result is wrong.
      (last they are first mirrorless and top on market)

  • robygoof

    Which of the lines is Canon? The red one or the light blue?

    • MJr

      clue nr1 – This graph is for mirrorless shares.
      clue nr2 – Canon’s first mirrorless was announced end of July.

      • MAFAv8r

        It’s obvious, the first character is the canon, the second character is the man with the broken arm from the canon ball. What’s the matter with you.

    • Vlad

      Red one.

  • Miroslav

    A large part of the sales total is made of older models that have the lowest prices because of various discounts. Remember which model topped mirrorless charts for a long time? E-PL1.

    I suppose Panasonic has stopped selling GF2s, G3 and GF3s, now that they’re not produced and thus their market share dropped a bit. Yeah, they lack the ‘wow’ model like E-M5 or NEX-7/6, but those do not raise market share as much as end of life models.

    BTW, which line is for Canon, red or green? And who is the grey line for?

  • Grey = Fuji Film
    Red = Canon
    Green = Pentax Ricoh

    • MJr

      Thanks. Makes sense.

    • Do

      Does that mean Samsung doesn’t even try to sell NX cameras in Japan? Because they are a Korean company?

      • I’ve never seen a Samsung DSLR in Japan, though I Know Samsung sells them in Europe and the US.
        I don’t think they have any distribution channel for DSLR here in Japanese market.

        • Taylor

          Forget Samsung’s camera is Japan. People don’t and won’t consider Samsung’s camera. That’s the fact.

          • Anonymous

            I saw NX models somewhere in Akihabara.
            But sure the market is not a large one (not that differently than anywhere else in the world…)

      • Chez Wimpy

        They are not for sale in Japan… and yes, the racism here plays a huge part of that (there weren’t Samsung TVs either last time I checked, and a friend commented he would never buy a camera with a “kimchee sensor”). I am sure it is ostensibly Samsung’s “choice” to stay out, but I wonder how high the bar has been made in this protectionist economy.

      • pll

        Not many manufacturers/sales branches/import distributors are ready to accept consignment stock, payment terms >90 days, subsidizing in-shop displays/shelf space/advertisements, providing manpower to shops for the sales seasons.

    • Thanks, surprised how poorly Fuji is doing in Japan…

      • Fuji is doing incredibly well in forums and blogs, but without some plastic slow zooms it does not stand a chance of grabbing a significant share of the market in the real world.

      • MJr

        If you put Leica on it it would be even lower.
        Low volume specialty products does not mean doing poorly.

      • Worthy Cause

        Fujifilm doesn’t want to sell well. They want to be well regarded. Like Leica.

  • Jen

    Ok, we had this discussion before, but I think Pana and Oly have to think more about m43s than on theirselfs, since Nikon and Canon entered the mirrorless market finally. So, having half of the body’s and a third of the bodes with image stabilisation doesn’t make sense. Imagine Sony selling cameras with and without IBIS in addition to some lenses with and without. Nobody would understand that, since it is waste of resources. I guess there is no Pana-user out there who has a 75-300 lens for example. And if Oly is going to develop some high level zooms without IS, it wouldn’t help Pana to sell bodies and the sells for that Oly aren’t as high as possible, too. Which is not good for m43s all together. Especially when Users already invested in Canikon are buying those mirrorless cams, even if they are (slightly) worse than m43s or NEX. And there are these new autofocus enabling adapters for Canon2NEX…

    • Llamaman

      I agree that it’s a shame that the M4/3 standard didn’t specify this when they started. The issue of IS keeps rearing it’s ugly head and is a fissure in the system. I’m still not entirely convinced of the usefulness of IS for primes, but judging from online fora it appears to be an issue for consumers. It is a big issue for lenses like the 14-140 / 14-150 and the 70-300 / 100-300. Panasonic users are pretty much excluded from the Oly lenses and Olympus users are paying for features and bulk on the Pannys they don’t need.

      The ideal would be IBIS in all bodies and ILIS for longer focal length lenses (if it is better than IBIS for long lenses). The electronic contacts of MFT lenses could then allow automatic disengaging of IBIS where there is ILIS. But it’s probably too late to add this to the MFT standard and we’ll all have to live with it.

      • The usefulness of IS on primes is self-evident in video applications.

        When I’m covering family events, I shoot with one camera and one prime (Panny 25mm f1.4 and Oly E-M5). With this combo (and of course IBIS), I’m able to hand-hold during video capture—as though it were on a tripod.

        Try any of Pannasonic’s bodies with this prime and then compare, and you’ll quickly arrive at the same conclusion.

    • Dannecus

      Agree – the stabilisation issue is a major problem for Panasonic. Could they persuade Oly to make stabilised lenses? – no. Could they introduce a body with IBIS and not upset their user base – yes. But they would have to still make all their longer lenses with stabilisation for the user base with older bodies. This is going to keep coming back to haunt them until they fix it, and by that I mean add IBIS to their cams. We’ve had all the debate, no matter if lens stabilisation is better, the market has decided it wants IBIS, they are fighting a loosing battle.

    • Will

      I really don’t think IS is a big issue, you really think Pana users are excluded from Oly lenses? How new are you too photography? IS is helpful but it’s not anything groundbreaking, Fuji didn’t even implement it on any but their new kit zoom for the X series.

      The fact there is IS means people squabble about it, but not using an Oly lens on a Panasonic body is crazyness, it only helps in certain situations, doesn’t stop movement in the scene either, and now with ISO being great, it’s really just icing on the cake.

      • bart

        Will, first of all, I agree that IS isn’t always helpful, and actually is unhelpful in some cases. Its not magic, and its quite possible to take pictures without it. Not using Olympus lenses on a Lumix body due to no IS is often just nonsense.

        However, IS is way more useful then you suggest here and lets you do things that cannot be solved with higher iso levels.

        There are situations where shutter speed is simply dictated by how you want to show motion in a picture. 2 prominent examples:
        – Panning shots. A too high shutter speed will cause too little motion blur on the background. You’ll want to set IS to only deal with vertical camera shake in this case.
        – Wanting to ‘smooth’ water by using a longer exposure (often 1/3 to 1/2 sec is about the shortest you’ll get away with). You still want all the non-moving things to not show motion blur. A tripod can do the job here, but do you always carry a tripod around?

        Those are also 2 examples of using IS to deal with moving subjects. Its correct that IS cannot stop motion, but stopping motion isn’t always what you want to begin with.

      • QBNY

        You know what I find very funny here?? Panasonic owners/users aren’t the ones crying and moaning about IS… OLYMPUS users/owners are!!

        I have a 45mm Olympus lens, IS? Don’t even think about it on my GX-1, just shoot.

        • Anonymous

          In every thread about an Olympus lens there are always people demanding lens based IS so they can use it on their Panasonic body.

          But oh well, such little facts just get in the way of a nice rant, don’t they?

    • Miroslav

      IS is a big deal for me as well, but manufacturers seem to get away with not putting it in body or all the lenses. So, if Canon or Nikon can sell all those cameras and lenses that are only partially stabilized, why can’t Panasonic do the same? Nikon and Samsung even sell kit zooms without IS. I won’t buy a non stabilized camera/lens combo ever again, but as long as there are those who are buying such cameras, the manufacturers won’t be changing their strategies. So, since Panasonic obviously thinks that is no big deal, we should make them change their mind by voting with our wallets. There’s no other way.

      • QBNY

        But, it ISN’T a Big Deal. It really isn’t. Y’all make it a big deal.

        Answer me this: if there wasn’t a camera out there with IS, would you just give up Shooting? Would you?

        I’m not gonna cry and complain because camera “B” has things that my “A” camera doesn’t have. I shoot with what I got, not what I wish I had. Cameras have been around for a very long time. I’m not gonna let a Crutch decide my choice of camera.

        • bart

          You are totally correct that it is totally possible to take pictures without IS, and people have been doing so for a long time. That shows that it isn’t strictly needed.

          But that doesn’t say in any way if it is a useful tool or not, and it seems you are rather underestimating how useful a tool it can be.

          Its totally valid to determine if some tool is worth your money based on if and how you’ll use it, but it is silly to dismiss the usefulness of a tool ‘because we could do without it in the past’. If we’d follow that line of thought, we could do without fancy digital cameras, zoom lenses, through the lens viewfinders, exposure meters, automatic aperture and so on.

        • Miroslav

          There were cars around before ABS brakes were introduced. There were TVs around before remotes started appearing. But, I’m not going to use a TV without a remote or switch off ABS brakes just because once people used those devices without them.

          I shot with both film and digital cameras that had no IS and felt a huge improvement when I purchased my first camera with IS. I’m not giving that up, ymmv. And no, I wouldn’t give up photography, if there wasn’t a camera out there with IS. But I’m not going to give up e-mail just because my father wrote letters for most of his life.

  • So, Micro 4/3 is down from around 60% in the first half of the year to 45% these days. I suspect this trend reflects the adoption of mirrorless technology by consumers who are only interested in slow zooms, but it’s a bit worrying nonetheless. Canon is doing surprisingly well with its (arguably) pathetic entry. Sony is establishing the NEX line despite the unimpressive optics and Nikon is just treading water. On another level, Olympus seems to attract a lot of attention with its retro designs, Sony sees success with its hyper-modern approach while Nikon and Panasonic cameras are somewhat boring (externally). Those things matter if we consider that most users of mirrorless cameras in Japan are young women.

    • Very well spotted. I would just add that Fuji is growing very fast from zero sales.

      For medium to top tier models I wish O&P took notice of their no-nonsense approach.

      True that Oriental women were their initial target, but m4/3 has matured past that, and they have to cover the other half of the population :)

  • Visitor

    Looks like it says red is Canon The light blue/green says Pentax Ricoh. Not sure about the kanji for the gray line.

    • Anonymous

      grey is fuji

      • Oh, I see. I thought that the grey line was turning to red, to show the sudden increase.

        What is the blue-green line?

  • Jørgen

    First of all this is rather shortterm. I don’t know if you can draw any cnclusions as on such short terms on brandhaving an introduction and the other not may easily distort the reality. Nikon 1 seems a clear example of this.

    Having said that i am convinced that if the GX1 would have had an EVF and that would really be all it would take, this graph would look different. GX2 needs to have a GH3 sensor and an EVF in my view.

    Also: the lack of IBIS is felt but the most important thing seems to be brand-related and design related I think. Oly camera’s have a very distinctive look which appeals to most and the name Olympus is more familiar and is a wel known camera brand. Panasonic is not. Once Oly came out with the OMD, people could get a second, different styled Oly cam that was also better in IQ than anything Panny did.

    Gh3 won’t be helpfull at all, g5 clearly is not helpful.

    What I am always missing here is the lens side of the story. I think panasonic is really doing well there and earnings are good. But I am not sure. I wonder if there are any numbers on that.

    If I look at my personal situation. I will buy the EPL5. If Oly comes out with a new weathersealed OMD2 I think I ‘ll go for that one. GH3 is not too expensive, but for me it is too large, still offers no IBIS and the video is nice but not that important to me. Hacked GH2 will do fine.

    If Panny wants to sell a faux DSLR styled cam they’d better had made oin the size of G5, weathersealed, Sony sensor and G5 video and controls for 800-900 euro or so. GH3 really does not compete with OMD. OMD has the market to itself still…..

  • Dannecus

    This is interesting data, if you add Olympus and Panasonic together, shows that M43 as a system is totally dominant. M43 is at 46%, roughly double where Sony are.

    What about Samsung, don’t they even get a line? I’m not a fan, but surprised to see them nowhere on the chart.

    • Vlad

      Like someone said above, here in Japan you don’t really see much of Samsung. Computers or cameras.
      As for Sony’s share, I’d say it is pretty impressive, given they came in later.

  • Anonymous

    You should definitely read the translated article.
    There are a few interesting tidbits apart from the graph.
    Like that mirror-less share of the total exchangable lens market is rising steadily, and is currently just short of 50%.
    And there is a top-10 list of mirror-less sold. All the top-10 cameras are from the affordable end of the scale. I am surprised the Pentax Q can grab the 7th spot with 5.9% share. Draw your own conclusions from that !

    • I think the Pentax Q is only doing well in the Far East.

      “Like that mirror-less share of the total exchangable lens market is rising steadily, and is currently just short of 50%.” who’d thought :p

      • Freddie

        I think the Pentax Q is only doing well in the Far East.

        Like mFT lol

        “Like that mirror-less share of the total exchangeable lens market is rising steadily, and is currently just short of 50%.” who’d thought :p

        This is the kind of logic that makes folk wonder about the biased views of “SOME” over the top Olympus fans .Olympus’s share of the mirrorless market in 2011 was 37.95% now in 2012 it is now 28.6 % in a market that is actually growing. If you look at the results of the Nikon 1 gear {the stuff you slag off constantly} which managed to capture 12.8% of the mirrorless market, that’s only 4.5% behind Panasonic! It shows you the real power of brands. Regardless how good MFT is for our needs, I really think that mFT could well be reduced to being a bit player if Canon or Nikon decided to make a real effort.

        Between them Olympus and Panasonic have 45% of the mirrorless market in the first half of May 2011 they had between them 68.2%, so it is no surprise what is happening to Olympus and Panasonic imaging profits { or lack of }. I assume that a lot of these statistics are based on volume of sales as opposed to any monetary data. It looks like Olympus Mft sales are in large part down to low price deals. The BCN data {link below} in the top 20 selling models the only Olympus in the list is the discounted e-pm1 kit which is the cheapest camera in the list. The higher grade E-M5 is in 63rd position behind many higher priced DSLR models.

  • ArKersaint

    Pana’s marketing has been clearly too self centered :
    – not enough care for jpeg engine
    – not enough care for RF demand
    – conservative DSLR style
    – initial “small is everything”

    Looks better since GX1 and GH3 though

    Not so difficult for them to come back since they have very good technology !

  • Dr. P.

    I will buy an M43 Olympus camera anytime over a Panasonic. Reasons?

    1. Olympus has multilingual menus. This is only an issue when living in Japan (like me), where Panasonic only sells Japanese-language cameras at competitive prices. Though I am very able to read Japanese, it is a PITA to operate a Japanese-language camera.

    2. In-Body Image Stabilization

    3. Good sensor, fast AF, smallish cameras, and innovative.

    Look at that E-PL5, which is a very nice, yet small, camera. No unnecessary features that only make the body bigger, like viewfinder and flash. Some more buttons would have been nice though…

    • 1. Not an issue outside Japan. BTW I’m a Romanian, my native (and primary) language is Hungarian, but I prefer nothing else but English on my camera.

      2. Right, definitely an advantage.

      3. GH3 (and the upcoming GX2) also has good sensor, Pana claims that GH3 has the fastest ever AF and G5/GX2 is a perfect combination of small body and ergonomy. Speaking about E-PL5: the lack of viewfinder and rotating LCD is a definitely no-no for me. And the innovation called touchpad emulation makes G5 perfectly workable using just EVF.

      • lorenzino

        For me problem number 1, Japanese-only menu, is the deal-breaker here.
        I could stand everything else, but not a menu full of KANJI (btw, Dr P: can you REALLY read all photography-related kanji? Then I have to envy you!).
        I really can’t understand why Pana (and Sony) can’t sell normally-priced english menu cameras in Japan…

    • 2e2r

      A very large part of the market for mFT considers little things like flash and viewfinders as damn important, I would never consider buying another mFT without either a built in EVF or an add on option { which is another for me unavoidable expense}
      Olympus are like a cheap airline sure you can have the basic product at x price but they play the feature game you can have a flash but you can’t have a whatever. $900 lens no problem what you want a hood? here you go that will be another $80 { Nikon, gives a hood with every lens bar the absolute cheapest kit lens}.
      For the $650 E-PL5, you need to add in a flash immediately unless you only shoot in bright light, and the EVF which to a lot of buyers is a must buy throw in another £200 makes the Panasonic G5 with flash and EVF built in look like a good deal.

      • bart

        Which describes exactly why I bought a G2 a few years ago.

  • here I come

    to rescue Panny:

    1. PannyLeica 10mm f/1.2 OIS T 1.4 filter 58mm, priced $1000
    2. Panny 9mm f/2.8 pancake $300
    3. put mar sensor back_! into GX3 and make it mini GH3.
    4. lower the price for medicore 12-35 and 35-100
    5. bring both PannyLeica 43/1.2 OIS and 150/2.8 OIS asap
    6. design a h. quality zoom lens for (GH3) birders.
    7. finally fix color cast
    8. talk with Oly on jpeg ca correction_finally!
    9. global shutter_need I say more?
    10. don’t change batteries from old to new model_!

    • WT21

      A high quality birder lens will rescue Panasonic?? The entire corporation?

    • QBNY

      Panasonic needs RESCUING? Really??

      Wow. Thought it was Oly/Sony that had limited funds.

  • WT21

    I Canon is the bottom red line, who is the bottom blue line? Fuji?

    Also — do the Sony Alpha cameras count in “mirrorless”? (no one commenting here can answer that)

  • woof woof

    I find it amazing that some people don’t think IS isnecessary, but I suppose it depends what you shoot… Personally I love IS. I have one Panasonic body and nine lenses and only one of them has IS, so I may well switch to Olympus in the future.

    As I’m also a Canon user I suffer there too as I have seven lenses and only one has IS.

    • Anonymous

      I think there is a huge difference between ‘really helpful in quite a few cases’ and nesseczry. The lster says that you can’t do without, and there really is a lot of evidence that you can do without.

      • Anonymous

        “there really is a lot of evidence that you can do without.”

        I really have a lot of evidence that I need IS as the focal lemgth increases and I fully expect many others to be in the same position. The fact is that IS is always something nice to have available and once most people have it they’d only need to turn it off in very specific instances.

        IS is IMVHO a massive plus and if you are a Panasonic user the fact is that you simply can not but IS lenses at some focal lengths but with Olympus you simple always have it available should you wish to use it.

        I’ll buy what’s best for me and how I shoot and I see IS as a big advantage.

        • Anonymous

          What you describe is still just ‘really helpful’, and I agree, it is really helpful. Always having it available is also very nice and a good selling point, BUT:

          There is over a century worth of photography that couldn’t take advantage of any form of IS, because it didn’t exist.

          That alone simply proves that it is not strictly needed, regardless of how helpful it might be.

  • Ragnarok

    Nikon and Canon are already catching Panasonic even though their current offerings are a joke. I can’t even imagine what will happen when these two companies get serious about mirrorless (what they still don’t have to do considering how much more DSLRs they still sell). And with the new cameras and lenses Sony is going to eat Olympus. Most of the M4/3 is thanks to old heavily discounted models and to one or two video oriented ones… What a bright future ahead!

    • thethirdcoast

      The most depressing bit of information on this chart is the fact that Canon has managed to capture a 9.2% share with a mirrorless entry that is basically garbage.

      • tryy

        Sadly brand power sells Nikon and Canon have a lot more kudos as camera companies. Panasonic to many people is a TV maker

    • hyrt

      I tend to agree with you Ragnarok , Nikon with a “system” consisting of two cameras and a couple of lenses managed to capture 12.8% of the mirrorless market. I think that the 1 system is just a test run to try out the technologies needed when they decide to make a larger sensor model. Getting in bed with Sony could turn out to be a real bad move in the long run, though a bit schadenfreude it would at least shut the plague of Olympus fanboys up

      Looking at the mFT thing dispassionately as you say the only high ranked mirrorless in the various lists [BCN etc} are the low end give away models. Which may well explain the states of both Panasonic and Olympus’s imaging divisions. I can’t remember the previous numbers but is this not a lower percentage of market share for Olympus..

  • When one speaks of system cameras in mirrorless one should be careful. It probably means a camera with the kitlens, and another lens, probably without an EVF.
    That does not mean that the market is not growing even by features, but it depends on how fast the companies can leave the downturn behind. If they sold PL1 they will sell PL5 at some point and it is a better camera. Probably better than a V1 or an EOS M (?) too.

    So in time O&P will build their own brand recognition. I think it is quite a feat to go from niche player to global actor, or better, market leader in Japan.

    What I can’t understand is how they still declare losses. If they are restricted to the camera divisions, then it might be due to the replacement of P&S by iPhones.

    All this points to how unrealistic are the continuous demands forums make of companies, especially in the matter of expensive lenses. Didn’t 4/3 ever teach them a lesson? They are a negligible part of the market.

    • bart

      You make a number of good points, amalric.
      Compacts being replaced by phones is one thing that puts a lot of pressure on all camera manufacturers, but those without a succesfull line of dslrs are hit more then others. Pioneering a ‘new’ market is often expensive, especially when it also involves new technology and fuzzyness about what that new market looks like.

      I think both Olympus and Panasonic have not done the best job possible to get some feeling for how this ‘new’ market works, but especially in the last year or so have both shown a lot of improvement.

      Oh, and I totally agree with you on people in forums often making totaly absurd demands, but I don’t think the high-end 4/3 lenses serve as a very good example. Margins on those are such that even with low volumes those can be profitable, they just won’t do much for market share. I don’t think it is right to see them as the key factor for the lack of succes of the 4/3 system, but neither do I se them as key for the success of m4/3 when looking at market share.

    • To be fair, bart, I think that Oly couldn’t defeat C&N at their own game so 4/3 lenses were doomed no matter their quality.

      What I am very curious about is to see how the Fuji case story in mirrorless will develop.

      They have good proprietary lenses, some third party support and innovative sensors. Most of all, contrary to O&P who tried to expand in all directions, they seem to concentrate on the upper tier, as a Leica substitute.

      It’s too soon to see it in the graphs, and perhaps they will stay niche, but I doubt that they are going to declare losses.

      What I find v, confusing and annoying in m4/3 is that you never know if the prices one pays are fair. Sometimes lenses keep their value, but often they must be discounted. Cameras are throaways.

      This has forced me to be into lagging technology. By comparison the X100 has kept its value, and if the updated X Pro 1 keeps its present value, then getting Fuji lenses which are not too expensive and well built, might become a much better deal.

      By comparison O&P are still caught in a consumerist model with constantly falling profit margins. Perhaps that might explain the losses. You can’t play Russian roulette al the time with consumers’ money. It’s not even that they have worse technology, it’s really the marketing model which seems very fuzzy.

      • Anonymous

        Define ‘doomed’. If becoming market leader is the only standard then this wasn’t just an uphill battle, but an ‘up-mount-everest’ one. If making a proffit is the standard then sufficient mzrgin and relatively low numbers will do the job just as well.

        My understanding is that the shg lenses are actually the only part of Olympus’ 4/3 line-up that did not lose them money, whereas the various attempts to get a foothold in the consumer and ‘advanced amateur’ market never really worked and have been expensive.

        Regardless, I think that for market share, the high-end market matters for image, but the mid/low-end market is where the big numbers are.

        Marketing is a huge factor indeed, and with both pana and oly not knowing really what their market was, this marketing was a mess. In some ways it stil is.

        Fuji knows what they want, and what customers they are looking for, which is rather important.

        • bart

          Whoops, forgot to fill in my name.

        • DRWWILS

          The SHG lenses were a major mistake for Olympus , far too large and heavy for the formant and wildly expensive in many areas of the world. I cannot see why anyone would choose to carry lenses that are as big as FF on a camera with a sensor a quarter the size. The old how good they are doesn’t add up as the FF lenses when mounted on a FF camera easily outperform them. The old corner sharpness chestnut is only relevant when you directly compare am FT lens to a FF lens that has half the DOF and as such pretty pointless.

          Seriously, if you crop the FF image to 4X3 {assuming you want a fair comparison!} as if by magic you have excellent corner . performance. Its pretty easy to claim amazing corners when the 4×3 ratio uses far less of the extreme edges of the image circle, or did you think Olympus had some magic fairies working for them.

          • bart

            A native 4:3 sensor (which implies having the exact same diagonal as the 3:2 sensor it is compared to) will get exactly as close to the corners as that 3:2 sensor and its extreme corners will be affected in exactly the same way. However, its left and right side will stay further away from the edge of the image circle, while its top and bottom will get closer to the edge of the image circle. The result is that the 4:3 sensor indeed suffers somewhat less from ‘corner issues’ (actually edge of image circle issues) when compared to a ‘native’ 3:2 aspect ratio sensor, but noticeably more then cropping the output of that ‘native’ 3:2 sensor. Hence your comparison is invalid, it does show that center sharpness is generally better then edge sharpness, but it nowhere demonstrates what the output of a different aspect ratio sensor with the same image diagonal would be.

            Beyond that, good luck finding a 600/5.6 that anywhere approaches the 300/2.8 fourthirds in quality, and lets see how large and heavy it is.

            Are the 14-35 and 35-100 needlessly big? Absolutely, they are as big as they’d have been if they were f1.4 instead of 2.0, bad implementation with regards to that.

  • gsty

    The previous poster is correct in his assumption; the native 3×2 image will experience significantly more impact on its corners. Due to using more of the extreme edges of the image circle this is a well-known phenomenon and indeed one of the reasons why a 4×3 ratio was chosen by Olympus in the first place. If I was to use my D800 and wanted to improve the results from every single lens wide open { extreme corners}, cropping to a 4×3 ratio is by far the cheapest and easiest way to do so. As to matching AOV there are FF lenses from as wide as 8mm all the way to 1200mm so matching an AOV with FT is hardly an issue. A D800 image cropped to the largest 4×3 ratio that can fit in its frame still ends up with a file larger than 30mp. So while it does not show a like for like comparison with a real 4×3 sensor in effect you would have , much improved extreme corner performance , same AOV by simply using a focal length on the FF model that is slightly wider than the one on the FT body, far better image quality , DR, DOF control, and resolution.

    There is no need to find a 600mm F5.6 simply put a 2xTC on the 300mm F2.8 lenses { the 2X TCIII is excellent}, Nikon and Canon have an excellent range of long telephoto lenses. The 300mmF2.8 FT lens is no better though it is often more expensive as Olympus have convinced the gullible that they are buying a 600mm lens when obviously they are not. Any 300mm F2.8 lens from any maker when mounted on an adapted FT body, will have the same result minus AF. Considering just how far behind the loop the current FT body the E-5 is behind the sensor loop. At base ISO the D800 has 4 stops more DR any point in comparing is worthless. The Olympus fanboys nonsense claims about the lenses are really rather absurd for any given lens on FF will easily outperform a similar FT lens when actually mounted on their respective cameras and used at the same DOF , the comparisons between lenses with the same nominal aperture are totally flawed as FT simply cannot match the shallow DOF at these wide apertures. So theoretically { when not mounted on a body} the FT lenses are only “better” when compared to a FF lens at the same nominal aperture , an aperture on FF that FT has no match for .

    None of this changes the fact that Olympus have an excellent selection of FT lenses . My only problem is with the inane compaisons to other systems.

    • Anonymous

      Also for you, a 4:3 crop from a 3:2 sensor output is NOT the same as the output from a 4:3 sensor.

      That is, unless that 3:2 sensor tries to use as much of the image circle as possible while the 4:3 sensor doesn’t.

      Its really really really simple.

      Assume an image circle with a diameter of 25mm, and 2 sensors with a 21.6mm diagonal, one with a 3:2 aspect ratio and the other with a 4:3 aspect ratio.
      For both sensors, the closest they’ll get to the edge of the image circle is (25-21.6)/2=1.7mm. Their extreme corners will be affected in exactly the same way.

      However, the 4:3 image will be better, because on average it does stay further away from the edge, mostly noticeable at the left and right side of the image. The top and bottom will actually be a bit worse.

      That does not at all compare to your 4:3 crop, as that crop will:
      1. stay away further from the corners
      2. show a more extreme improvement at the left and right sides
      3. not show the slight degradation at the top and bottom

      So surely making a 4:3 crop from your 3:2 sensor output helps dealing with ‘bad edge performance’, but it does not at all demonstrate how a native 4:3 aspect ratio sensor will perform with that same lens.

      You can however make 2 predictions:
      – a native 4:3 aspect ratio sensor will show less ‘edge badness’ then a native 3:2 sensor
      – a native 4:3 aspect ratio sensor will show more ‘edge badness’ then a 4:3 crop from a 3:2 sensor.

      All provided that the sensors indeed have the same image diagonal.

      • guy e

        I know you Olympus girls like to rant , but seriously the previous poster was talking about using a damn D800, the sensor is almost four times the area cropping its native file to a 4x3ratio gives you 30 mp and is still 3.6x the size so it will be better in every single way.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website,, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps:
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: Addthis cookies:
Disqus cookies:
Vimeo cookies:
Youtube cookies:

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.