Panasonic Lumix GH4 ...
- Thread starter Sella174
- Start date
Samsung continues to "out-spec" Apple, yet iPhones are still very strong in the market and don't show signs of slowing down. Sometimes it's more than specs alone. I use Canon DSLRs without magic lantern for video and continue to get footage that holds up in "today's standards". Build quality, lens choices, ergonomics, reliability, robustness of firmware, support, these things all matter too.
Upvote
0
Sella174 said:
Does that answer my question?
Again, why exactly do you foresee problems for Canon if you say they keep outselling Panasonic 20 to 1?
First it was about features, then about marketing, now it is about “long-term sustainability”?
If the masses really are that fickle, please tell me why Canons market share hasn’t changed more than a view percent over the last decade? Quit sustainable I would say. If you want to talk about sustainability you have to look beyond single bodies. Look at the system, the variety of lenses, the Cinema EOS line, all those third party manufacturers creating specific products for Canon gear, etc.
Upvote
0
100 said:
It's obvious we do not agree. It's obvious you have some vested interested in maintaining the status quo. It should also be obvious that I am tired of Canon, just as I am of the opinion that most of their products are tired or fundamentally wrong. So, we'll never see eye to eye on anything. Leave it there.
Upvote
0
Sella174 said:
Just out of curiosity, what is it about the canon ecosystem that is stopping you from producing the images you want/need? Or the other way to look at the question could be in what ways is canon gear getting in your way when picture making? Honestly not trying to be antagonistic and would really like a genuine response.
My other curiosity is in your list of gear. If those specific items are not enough, it doesn't appear as though you have given a shot to any of the updated/higher spec'd stuff to be able to make the types of assessments or blanket generalizations about the company that have been made.
Upvote
0
Sella174 said:
I understood your post quite well enough. Quite frankly, I am unable to understand your constant moaning that Canon is not offering the camera specced the way you want it at the price you want.
Sella174 said:
Canon products are used by thousands of professionals who create awesome images. In the above quote, you fairly concede that the Canon products that you own also work well enough for you but still you end up on this forum constantly whining and complaining and predicting doom for Canon. You also conveniently ignore all facts and figures that are thrown in your face by various posters.
The market never lies, if you think it does it is entirely your own problem.
Another one of the ABC brigade that joins my ignore list ...
Upvote
0
JohnDizzo15 said:
Fair enough, so here goes nothing ...
I do not feel that my current Canon equipment "gets in the way" of my photography; in fact, most of it works quite well and the deficiencies are compensated for by other methods. However, technology is moving forward and, as you've probably noticed, all of my gear is pretty old. This has led to the situation where some of it needs to be replaced due to simple wear and tear taking its toll. But this is the rub ... do I replace it with the same old (in terms of time and/or technology) item or do I purchase the latest equivalent offering from Canon?
If, for example, I go with the former option - which, incidentally, is sometimes the only option, as with the 50mm macro - and I cannot help but feel that Canon has somehow relegated photographers like me to the fringe of their business model, as in we're not very important anymore. It makes me feel neglected within the Canon "ecosystem" - yes, I need a hug! It also means that any deficiencies with the item will still be there, in spite of technological advances overall. In a way, technologically, Canon is then keeping me back twenty years.
For the latter option of purchasing the latest, the obvious question is whether or not the latest in fact represents an actual improvement within my field/interest of photography. It is a well-known fact that Canon is really pushing the video functionality of their DSLR cameras. Great, if you want it. I am a stills only photographer; video holds very little fascination for me. So, honestly, what has Canon recently done to truly advance stills photography? Sure, the newer cameras have more megapixels and stops more dynamic range than my sorry relics, but personally I am not pushing the envelope and half a stop of more DR would be totally lost on me. Hey, I am that guy for whom sharpness isn't everything. (To others: Yeah, pounce on this one.)
One of the accusations flung my way by fellow CR members, is that I want everything for nothing. But that is not true. I have no problem with what Canon is asking for their new non-L, IS enabled primes. What I would like is a non-IS version as well, so that I do not end up paying for functionality that I do not need or want. My reason for this is first of all choice, but second and in my opinion very important is the fact that these days companies tend to use the inclusion of features as a means to increase the profit margin - coupled with an all-or-nothing product. In my opinion, this is wrong ... but, hey, sheep are there to be sheared.
Only, alas, no new 50mm macro with IS ... which I probably would have bought without question, gripe or reservation. Seems this focal length is not important to Canon anymore. Hey, know what? I bought both the 50mm f/1.4 and the 40mm f/2.8 in the past. Only, since none of my cameras feature AFMA, both lenses were pretty much useless.
So why do I gripe? I gripe because I have invested somewhat in the Canon "ecosystem" back then and now it has evolved in a direction I do not wish to travel. I gripe because Canon is ignoring the advances digital has brought to stills photography. I gripe because Canon is the only choice in photographic equipment for us here in Africa and thus I gripe because I'm kind of stuck with the brand ... for the moment.
As an aside, but still with Canon ... and my "blanket generalizations". In my business I require medium volume printers. Canon does make some that fit the bill, but they're also all multi-function devices ... which I do not need. The next jump up are those really huge high volume machines which are truly overkill. I see a definite parallel between the camera side and the printer side of Canon's business. OK, so it's just me ... and I still need a hug!
Upvote
0
Sella174 said:
You ran out of arguments so now I have “some vested interested in maintaining the status quo”?
I’m just stating facts. Canon is market leader, has been market leader for a long time and their market share has been about the same for the last decade or so.
You’re not happy with what Canon has to offer at this moment in time. That’s fine. We all have different wants, needs and budgets. If Canon doesn’t offer what you want/need, jump ship to a manufacturer that that does. Just don’t project your personal opinion on other Canon customers because the facts up till now show no significant shifts in market shares between brands.
The only logical conclusion is Canon does enough to keep their customers, both professional and non-professional. They could do better from the customers point of view. Most of us would like more and better features for less money. Canon has the technology, but it would cut into their profit margins, so as long as their customers don’t run away in large amounts they have no need to do so.
I would be happy if other brands gain market share at the expense of Canon because it would force Canon to give us more for less. If only all those unhappy customers would start buying other brands instead of complaining about Canon on internet fora.
Upvote
0
Just got an email from B&H with the price for Panasonic GH4 - US$ 1699 - that's US$ 1869 with shipping and customs (for me) for body only ... and if you also want the interface unit with 2-Channel XLR Inputs, than the price is US$3299 (i.e. US$ 3603 with shipping & customs) 
Last week when I had severe GAS (before I knew about its price tag), I was thinking about pre-ordering the GH4 ... but now, no way ... freaking quarter size sensor (of my Sony a7 or the 6D), costs the same as a full frame camera ... the Sony a6000 which will be released around the same time (with some awesome features and a much bigger sensor), is costing only US$648.
But this is a worrying sign, coz if a micro four thirds camera like the GH4 is going to cost this much, what will Canon/Nikon charge for 7D MK II/D400 :-\
Last week when I had severe GAS (before I knew about its price tag), I was thinking about pre-ordering the GH4 ... but now, no way ... freaking quarter size sensor (of my Sony a7 or the 6D), costs the same as a full frame camera
... the Sony a6000 which will be released around the same time (with some awesome features and a much bigger sensor), is costing only US$648.But this is a worrying sign, coz if a micro four thirds camera like the GH4 is going to cost this much, what will Canon/Nikon charge for 7D MK II/D400 :-\
Upvote
0
tron said:
Yup, that's one big factor keeping me away from Fuji (or any compact system really), a good telephoto lens is the other. (Since telephoto applications work well with crop sensors all I need is a high quality 400mm lens to go with the XT-1 and I'm sold on that setup.)
Bottom line, I know they're going to have to upgrade to full frame to stay competitive eventually, and when they do it's not going to be compatible with their current lenses, so the whole system is just a bad long term investment.
Upvote
0
Rienzphotoz said:Just got an email from B&H with the price for Panasonic GH4 - US$ 1699 - that's US$ 1869 with shipping and customs (for me) for body only ... and if you also want the interface unit with 2-Channel XLR Inputs, than the price is US$3299 (i.e. US$ 3603 with shipping & customs)
Last week when I had severe GAS (before I knew about its price tag), I was thinking about pre-ordering the GH4 ... but now, no way ... freaking quarter size sensor (of my Sony a7 or the 6D), costs the same as a full frame camera
But this is a worrying sign, coz if a micro four thirds camera like the GH4 is going to cost this much, what will Canon/Nikon charge for 7D MK II/D400 :-\
Had the same feeling when I opened up that email this morning. I would've actually considered it just out of value and curiosity had it been lower.
Upvote
0
+1 ... if it was about or under $1000, I would have bought it, coz I recently came across a small camera store in our local mall, there are lots of used lenses for the micro four thirds cameras, for really cheap prices ... so I was thinking about messing around with a few of those lenses, especially since the GH4 has inbuilt image stabilization and some very good features ... but despite its very good features, I don't think it is worth $1869.JohnDizzo15 said:Rienzphotoz said:Just got an email from B&H with the price for Panasonic GH4 - US$ 1699 - that's US$ 1869 with shipping and customs (for me) for body only ... and if you also want the interface unit with 2-Channel XLR Inputs, than the price is US$3299 (i.e. US$ 3603 with shipping & customs)
Last week when I had severe GAS (before I knew about its price tag), I was thinking about pre-ordering the GH4 ... but now, no way ... freaking quarter size sensor (of my Sony a7 or the 6D), costs the same as a full frame camera
But this is a worrying sign, coz if a micro four thirds camera like the GH4 is going to cost this much, what will Canon/Nikon charge for 7D MK II/D400 :-\
Had the same feeling when I opened up that email this morning. I would've actually considered it just out of value and curiosity had it been lower.
Upvote
0
Good point re the m43 lens prices. I was actually considering it since speed boosters have been surfacing for EF to m43 on eBay.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
