That nobody makes compact micro four thirds cameras anymore. Some of the models I can forgive them for not attempting to remake because of technical difficulties in terms of energy requirements where upgrades would be impossible (GM1, GM5, Pen-F etc), but the other non-niche cameras as well? They used to make new models quite often. Even the E-PL line seems to have been discontinued. This trend follows with digicams as well. Sony for instance haven't updated their RX line in ages.
Isn't this kinda gay? What's the holdup? Are we at a point in camera history where improvements are impossible?

>>4443415 (OP)
m43 doesn't sell much. Lumix only really cares about their FF. OM is a zombie rereleasing old stuff forever. Batteries are good enough to do it. People love the Ricoh GR

>>4443415 (OP)
It's because while the difference between size between say a 5D and something like an PEN EPL8 is quite large if you measure it by percentage volume, it doesn't really matter in the real world. There's not many scenarios where you can fit an Olympus pen with a lens but not a canon 5D with a lens. There are pretty much no mirrorless cameras that fit in a pocket when you have a lens attached other than some m43 bodies with the toy lenses. That means you're either using a bag, a strap, or just holding the camera. For an adult the difference between a 300g mirrorless and a 1.5kg DSLRnosaur is basically nothing, especially when using a strap or a bag.

>>4443415 (OP)
Why is this board talking so much about m43. Literally WHY. Nobody cares about m43, nobody buys this shit. My only explanation is OP is like 1 anon with an autistic hyperfixation on it. Cannot be explained otherwise

>>4443415 (OP)
>OM is a zombie rereleasing old stuff forever
I feel like this is true for all camera manufacturers these day. It is probably the only thing they can do. The reluctance to make anything "new" is that when compared to the previous models the value proposition is horrendous thus causing bad publicity.

>>4443419
I don't use m43 personally, but I think they are neat. They are popular cameras regardless of what you think.

>>4443421
That's not really true. New lenses are always coming out with new optical formulas. I know that doesn't blow your mind but OM is literally not creating anything new

>>4443419
He got mindbroken by two dogs and is now trying to run this shitty board into the ground fir some reason.

It could be the german that said he sold his m43 stuff for bitcoin so he could buy a gfx100, but I'm not 100% sure.

>>4443426
Yeah but OM's problem isnt their lenses. Their lesnes are really good, their problem is the bodies and stupid crop format.

>>4443433
same applies for bodies. They just rerelease the exact same thing in a different color

>>4443418
the rare logical 4chan post

>>4443418
>There's not many scenarios where you can fit an Olympus pen with a lens but not a canon 5D with a lens
yes there are you fucking retard, such as going on a trip and just tossing the camera in a bag without it taking up 1/4 of its space

Despite all sensor sizes being fine for hobbyists, m43 threads get immediately pruned

>>4443439
Bros got small bags. Lmfao

>>4443415 (OP)
>Sony for instance haven't updated their RX line in ages.
Digital cameras are dead and completely replaced by cameras on smartphones now. Basically anything that isn't Medium Format will suffer the same inevitable fate.

>>4443463

35mm film cameras will live on.

>>4443463
>under expose by a stop
>wow look how bad this real camera is

how can dedicated cameras stay afloat? with more AI and software patches?

>>4443492
Considering how bad auto white balance is on a Sony, it probably automatically underexposed the shot

>>4443439
If had actually ever went on the trip you'd know that any bag you want to bring on anything you'd call a "trip" would be more than 4x bigger than a canon 5d. Therefor you haven't gone on a trip probably because you haven't got a license, probably because you're a massive fucking pussy and everyone who's ever met you hates you. I would spray liquid shit through your sunroof but you're never going to have a sunroof ahahahaha

>>4443492
Assuming they didn't just take the same picture, drop exposure in post, and claimed it was from a Sony.

>>4443525
>>4443447
>the only trips that exist are multi day vacations that require huge sacks
>you can't simply bring a small camera with you on a day trip to take a walk in the mountains

m4/3 would probably be pretty good as sloptuber cameras if AF was better. so many sloptubers use FF cameras for talking head videos which seem stupidly overpriced.

>>4443832
lol linus tech tips uses red cameras shooting raw for videos that could be made on iphone

>>4443834
linux and markass are peak sloptubers. they compensate for garbage content with production quality.

>>4443835
yeah that's my point. Sloptubers need the most expensive gear

>>4443834
the massive slop producers have basically filmmaking gear, really goes to show you how much they're raking in.

>>4443838
all of that just just to film a flat shot of the newest iphone in flat lighting

>>4443839
Monetization on YouTube still doesn’t make a whole lotta sense to me. Marques probably is watched mostly by pajeets and children neither who can buy anything, how is anyone profiting?

>>4443869
You must be one of those watchers if you don't remember that Google is primarily an AD company.

>>4443869
The advertisers have a large budget, they don't care. Often it is just money they have to spend. The content creator gets paid for the "quality" of the traffic, but the advertiser pays a flat rate for views. Something like that. It is run by Jews after all.

>>4443869
poor people like to look at rich peoples things

>>4443415 (OP)
Sony's a7c line killed micro four thirds, and then the a6700 killed it even deader with the huge build quality upgrade their APS-C line was overdue for. MFT fanboys are still seething to this day, calling people who go for the camera that produces better looking pictures "gearfags" while seething about how sony didn't include all of the gear gimmicks olympus did, and making up FUD/total bullshit about sony to pretend actually, sony did not literally kill olympus by releasing a noticeably better camera that was about the same size and in the same price ballpark, and it was actually a yakuza conspiracy that caused them to exit the camera market.
>you gearfag! besides, you dont even have pixel shift to maximize your pixel peeping! -micro four thirds people STILL coping

>>4444022

>>4444022
lol panasonic is literally afraid to release a good ff compact because no one would buy micro four thirds again. they cut the shutter and hot shoe from the s9 specifically so it wouldn't be absolutely superior to every mft they sell at 99% of the shit 99% of people care about.
>inb4 what about doing super casual macro and birds with an EDC camera? what about super slow compact zooms?
99% of people do not care about that. it's almost a separate hobby. most photography is editorial and people go for fast lenses so their photos stand out from phones at any size.

>>4444026
A few people care about slow compact zooms

enter lumix 18-40, sony 28-60, and nikon 24-50

>>4444023
>pictures taken immediately before disaster

>>4443415 (OP)
M43 lost its value proposition in two strokes:
>when APS-C became just as compact or more
>when normies realized their smartphones are good enough
The gap between phones and APS-C is still very wide, so APS-C is the new M43.

>>4444023

>>4444343
Blackpill time. This isn't actually surprising. iPhones AI enhanced photography is getting very close to generating camera-like results. It's kind of like if you used topaz and capture one in tandem with a 1" PNS, but with automated generic editing totally devoid of taste. Only turbo-spergs have the pattern recognition abilities to reliably spot better cameras without zooming if the tech gap is less, like iphone vs aps-c or iphone vs old low res ff dslr.

The sony a7rv plus a sharp lens like a GM or the viltrox f2 is actually the bare minimum to noticeably edge ahead of an iphone for most people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2X2NVBlpYw

>>4444383
unless you use focal lengths and apertures an iphone literally can't, of course, these people always compare the iphones main 24mm prime to 24mm lenses. the digital zoom and the secondary cameras look turbo shit.

>>4444343
Sonysisters...

>>4444475
If a 61mp camera just barely edges a phone in daylight with a wide angle what does that mean for everything worse

the iphone >>4444383 literally has better resolution and dr than a fujilm xt5. you must avoid 24/28mm like the plague and always have bokeh or you might as well use a phone. its over once phones get better secondary cameras or the large sensor one comes in 35mm and 50mm

>>4444484
This is true if you use photography as a way of communicating how much of a gearfag you are instead of anything remotely artistic lol, aka 90% of this board and 100% of the posters in this thread
>THEY MIGHT THINK I SNAPPED THIS BUILDING CORNER WITH AN IPHONE
The problem is that your photos lack anything else worth paying attention to. Get a grip.

>>4444487
All photos lack anything worth paying to. It’s not art. Get a grip. Photography is just idle preservation. Go all the way up to the actual artists in photography, they’re past street photography, and what you find is sculptors, directors, and other real artists. to them the camera is merely a tool to preserve the perfect state of their creation. just a reality scanner. a machine eye. cameras preserve not vision, but the experience of looking at something. for many things recording the finest detail and every variation in tone has immense value to preserve the emotion of that moment.

Read photography: a middle brow art.

>>4444383
Good to know that dogshit photos look dogshit regardless of platform.

>>4444489
Using a camera is not art, duh. The art is in the print.

>>4444489
Okay, and they could shoot their shit with an iphone and it'd still be interesting. Are you even paying attention to the conversation or is this just your doomer crab in a bucket soapbox? I'm saying if the only notable thing about your photo is that you used a $3000 camera to take it it's worthless.
I still disagree with your retarded spectrum of NOT ART to ART photography but it's completely irrelevant.

>>4444496
sorry you dont understand the concept of having standards m8.

>>4444498
Sorry you lack the attention span to coherently follow an argument m8, your brain's likely fried from reading too many spec sheets and shitposting in too many 4chan threads

A good picture requires several ingredients:
1. A competent camera with a 1" or larger sensor. Unfortunately, these are expensive to produce, and require massive volume to offset costs
2. Quality glass. There is no one size fits all here, so an assortment is often required, which requires a cursory understanding of apertures and focal lengths.
3. A user that has a reasonable understanding of the exposure triangle to properly expose a picture, the creative mindset to frame it correctly, and composure to time the shutter release.

Taken in aggregate, photography is a high IQ hobby for the wealthy. Individuals with above average IQ, but lack of financial means (poorfags) were afforded gear outside their means for a brief aberration in time, subsidized by low IQ normies that threw money at gear that they lacked the IQ to use correctly.

The entry of the smartphone changed that. When the normies switched to smartphones and stopped spending money on camera gear they didn't need nor knew how to use, the economies of scale required to sustain mass production of mid-tier gear collapsed. Previously subsidized gear suddenly became expensive to manufacture. Manufacturers responded by trimming their product lines, and concentrating on the high margin top end, which continued to remain sustained by professionals. The mid and bottom fell out, leaving the poorfags once again without gear that they could afford. What we are witnessing is not an anomaly, but a reversion to the historical mean.

The path forward for both normies and poorfags lies in the smartphone. The only gear the poorfags can afford in the future will be accessories that simulate an authentic photographic experience on a mass produced slab of glass and plastic. The normies will continue doing what they've always done, which is to push / touch a button and expect a picture. They'll still lack the skill, but the AI will predict their expectations, and offer them a result that they will be happy with.

If the best thing about your photo is the quality and using a shit camera would ruin it, it's still a good photo.

Ignore woke right anti-consumerists. They hate prosperity and wealthy societies. They'll seethe any time anyone buys anything that hasn't been certified as required for survival or getting money, cars, and bitches.

>>4444503
>high IQ
>basic math and thumb rules

All things considered, photography is pretty low-skill art.

>>4444508
You're confusing the act of capturing an image(focus, set exposure, press shutter button) with photography as a whole.

No shit pressing a button is low IQ.

>>4444508
>buy nice camera
>receive nice photo
steven shore made millions of dollars because he took vacation snapshits on 8x10 film and paid to get marginally nicer prints

welcome to photography

>>4444511
photography is empty. you create in front of the camera or you capture a readymade. i dont think its narcissistic to think what you created in front of the camera should be preserved with a better camera. but i do think it's narcissistic to think looking at something that was already there elevates it to art.

the latter describes a shocking amount of so called photographers.

>>4444508
Taking a photograph correctly is a skill. Making a photograph is art (Ansel Adams). Learning the skill requires average IQ. Practicing the art requires above average IQ.

>>4444516
>ansel adams aka the founder of HDR rocks and leaves
lmaoing @ photography is art people

>>4444514
All photography is interpretive no matter how good your camera is. There is no way around it.

>>4444511
No, I mean photography in general is very simple.

Do you really think that capturing a photo is anywhere near as complex as something like painting? It's the exact same compositional and conceptual skills with a practically nonexistent technical floor. Don't even have to come up with your own original ideas, just notice things. Using writing to conjure a coherent and repeatable image in the head of your readers is a complex skill. There's a reason cyberpunk is so heavily influenced by and channeled through music, much of it is straight up just engineering.

Snapshitting and retroactively attaching some pretentious bullshit isn't super complex.

>>4444534
> photography in general is very simple
No it isn't. Understanding basic exposure is one thing. Applying it correctly to a given scene is another thing entirely. And that's before factoring intangibles like "good" framing and composition.

But that's entirely irrelevant, because the average normie that bought a camera in the past had no desire to understand, let alone master and apply exposure, composition or lighting. They wanted to push a button and get a picture that was correctly exposed. They never made it past "auto" on their cameras, and their phone cameras are permanently set to auto at the factory.

>>4444534
Depends what kinda painting you're doing and what kinda photography you're doing, really.
Can you take a picture that evokes strong emotion with ease? Or one that has a beautiful and timeless aesthetic? Is that something easy?

There's splatter painting, which is kinda like snapshitting, and then you can do stuff like composing still lifes, or setting up entire scenes that, for example bring you back in time, or create a fantasy world. Photography is the inception/idea of an image, the actual photograph, printing it, and everything in between, so you could argue that it is actually more difficult than simply conjuring an image with brush and paint.

Lets say you wanted to create a great old western scene to photograph. You would need to be skilled with costuming, set design/building, lighting, photographing, historical knowledge, and maybe other skills such as period accurate printing methods. I know this isn't your average photographer's desire, but it is realistically within the realm of photography as a visual media.

>>4444546
Composition and lighting aren't exactly rocket science. Not like you don't have to also learn how to do that in any other visual medium. It's basic visual fundies crap.

>>4444547
I get what you're saying. But that kind of thing is the great exception for photography, especially in the digital era. Yet, it remains the default that an illustrator does all the costuming and the set design, and the lighting, and the historical research. And if they want to be extreme about it, even does all those things physically AND photographs it to use as a reference. Not to mention needing to know how to off-hand invent physically accurate lighting, perspective, form, anatomy -for every object too, not just people, and break all of those rules in interesting ways specifically so your painting DOESNT just look like a basic bitch photo.

The fact of the matter is, a basic illustration takes a lot of skill and work. A basic photo just does not. If a normie with an iPhone can take half decent food pictures for Instagram with zero training or effort, it's just not a very difficult medium.

>>4444496
Genuinely bad quality is genuinely enough to make a photo uninteresting.

>>4444547
> Lets say you wanted to create a great old western scene to photograph. You would need to be skilled with costuming, set design/building, lighting, photographing, historical knowledge, and maybe other skills such as period accurate printing methods. I know this isn't your average photographer's desire, but it is realistically within the realm of photography as a visual media.
No you go to a re-enactment or themed tourist town

Its painters that NEED skill

>>4444650
This. EVERYONE has a shitty good enough for insta camera. Photos are low value and have been since mass produced 35mm+1hr photo. Your gear is unironically the most important part. An 80 IQ black teenage girl can intuit composition and content. It takes absolutely no skill. You do not stand out from the monkeys at typewriters unless your photo could not have been shot on a phone. This is just reality. There is no cope to counter it. Your blurry fuji snaps at 24mm are unimportant because everyone with an iphone 16 pro xiaomi galaxy phablet took them already.

>>4444651
>>4444564
So both can be very difficult ir very easy. Nice. I don't think it's useful to consolewar over the difficulty of the various arts. They can all be appreciated.

>>4444671
Very difficult photography is called cinema.
Moderately difficult photography is called portraiture.

If a flash didn't fire and no orders were given it's safe to say it has a low chance of being art.

>>4443415 (OP)
compacts are only being sold new in asia and europe now

there is but one simple reason
north americans do not wear jackets, except for when it is so cold, your coat could fit a real camera regardless
therefore americans, mexicans, and canadians only need 2 cameras:
their phone or a ricoh GR
a real camera

in asia and europe, it is normal and convenient to wear a jacket almost every day of the year (especially in asia where it randomly rains for 2 weeks straight) and micro four thirds compacts do not fit in pants pockets. but they do fit in jacket pockets.

>>4444673
Yeah, I think scene creation is a great way to create art photography.

>>4444673
put your trip back on, cinefag