Given it's all open source and literally anyone can develop

>>2737824
come back when you made a diploma in marketing and economics and have 30 years work experience in an established company in the electronic products branche.

thank you.

>>2737828
Wow you must be a real expert! Why don't you explain for me with the knowledge of the camera industry you have picked up during your marketing and business degree and your 30 years working in the camera industry?

>>2737828
Stop pulling everyone else down to your miserable level. If you don't have anything of value to say just don't, and if you can't make yourself feel good but through being condescending guess what, it'll only make yourself more and more miserable because all you see is misery in others and in yourself.

Sincerely, the good therapist

>>2737824
Pooping into your hand and then smearing it in you your eyes is also open source, and literally anyone can do it. But that doesn't mean it's desirable.

Companies don't develop and produce products because they can, or because it's fun. They do it because they see money in it. They don't see money in M4/3.

>>2737828

you are everything wrong with /p/

>>2737845
Blackmagic and Veydra certainly do

>>2737835
That's the difference between us, moron. I don't have that experience so I'm not scattering my brain shit everywhere with my recommendations how companies should better do their job, without having the slightest clue what their decisions are based on.

>>2737842
Yeah, you say me to just shut up when somebody is talking bullshit. you sheep. you may shut up whenever you want, but I will show the apes their place.

>>2737850
funny, I thought the same.

>>2737845
please support the ShitSmear Foundation with your donation and help us keeping libshitsmearing.retard.gz open-source also in future.

>>2737867
I don't see anywhere I recommended these companies did it - only asked why they didn't consider it you shit eating mouth breathing mongoloid

>>2737887
implying you weren't implying ...

>>2737890
Implying I wasn't implying you were implying that I was implying implying implications
>implying

>m43
>crop:2
It's dead already.

>>2737891
you did imply that I wouldn't imply that you were implying that you haven't implied. so what are implying?

>>2737887
>I don't see anywhere I recommended these companies did it - only asked why they didn't consider it
$$$

>>2737895
And yet Olympus and Panasonic are doing pretty well in a stagnant camera market and the lens mount has become a favourite with videographers. Nowhere did I suggest that m43 was the best camera system at anything except maybe for a 4k video camera under £1000 - only that as an open source platform for mirrorless camera technology it's a decent avenue for camera, optics or accessories manufacturers who don't have the resources to fund their own system.
>>2737897
You really think Ricoh make any money off the GR or the pentax acquisition? It's a vanity project. Similarly the only skill vivitar has is undercutting the competition on price and quality - making cheap as shit compacts and action cams. They could feasibly do the same in the mirrorless market as well.

I had a Kodak EasyShare that was made almost a decade ago that was pretty good at grabbing sharp detail with little noise or grain. The color balance was shit, but that was an easy fix in any computer imaging software. Some of the alternate modes were actually nice to use.

I sometimes want Kodak to make a return. They can still jump back in.

>>2737907
I miss Kodak. Their film stock seems to be going surprisingly well, that subscription thing they have is a good idea. They can make a return yet.

>>2737824
> Given it's all open source
On that one Olympus camera, you mean?

> try their hand at making cameras and lenses for Micro Four Thirds
Let's not forget it's still M43. Most users want APS-C or FF sensors.

>>2737920
>On that one Olympus camera, you mean?
Use of the lens mount or firmware is non royalty protected. Hence why other companies besides oly and panny can use it.

> Let's not forget it's still M43. Most users want APS-C or FF sensors.
Which is why m43 is still the most widely used mirrorless system of course. The bulk of its users don't care about sensor sizes, they just want something better than their compact and smaller than a DSLR.

>>2737953
>Which is why m43 is still the most widely used mirrorless system of course
Source?

File: mirrorlessjapan.jpg (112KB, 640x573px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 640x573px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:01:31 10:07:07
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	640
Image Height	573

>>2737961
Looks like no.

M4/3 is the mos exciting thing in the camera industry at the moment, followed by Fuji's X system.

Sensor size is becoming less relevant as sensor tech progresses. You can get amazing high ISO shots from a 1 inch compact camera nowadays. The 'full frame advantage' will always be there, but how many people REALLY need clean shots at ISO 51,200? Lens selection on M4/3 is pretty much complete. Olympus alone covers 8mm fisheye, 7-150mm, and 300mm with pro grade lenses now. There are f/1.2 portrait lenses available. f/0.95 quartet available. An array of affordable and impressive primes in the f/1.8~ range. There are many bodies to suit any level of photographer or videographer. Hell, with firmware 4.0, the E-M1 can go head to head with $8000 pro bodies from Canikon in the sports realm. Sure, the $8000 camera will make cleaner shots at ISO 6400, but the E-M1 still keeps up, for under $1000. If shallow DoF is the only thing you care about, smaller sensor systems like M4/3 and APS-C aren't going to be your thing anyway. You'll have to deal with the much higher prices and larger lenses of full frame and medium format. But for those of us who like things in focus, but still enjoy some shallow DoF when we need it, we have M4/3 and APS-C to give us everything we want.

>>2737961
Sony sales have started to drop, now that everyone has an A7 body. Seems like sales are dropping on the newer bodies that they release every 6 months. Olympus is on a steady rise, however. This is just a 12 months sales chart. Olympus still has more bodies out there in the wild.

>>2737982
of course, but there is reason why Olympus is not wildly used, cameras before 4/3 were fucking awful.

>>2737961
None of this is labeled. This chart is completely useless.

>>2737999
Sales in millions of units by month. Months are labeled in Japanese.

>>2737993
Before 4/3, Olympus had the OM system, which was absolutely fantastic, and arguably the best enthusiast photo system out there at the time.

>>2738004
For what year? What cameras are included in the measurements? Does it include lenses?

The chart is saying that Sony sold 43 million mirrorless cameras in February? That seems... high.

>>2737824
>Seriously, can you imagine how great an X-Pro 1 style micro four thirds rangefinder with a sigma foveon sensor would be? Sigma; get on this
>http://www.mobile01.com/newsdetail.php?id=17817
They are at least aware that people want this. Not sure if it's happening soon cuz I think he (sigma CEO) said he would prefer to expand the SD-whatever dslr line or something.

Only slightly relevant to this thread but I've been wondering for a while: if you put a 3 megapickle sensor on the same area as a modern small 12 megapickle sensor, would it give better quality pictures than the 12mp pics downscaled to 3?

>>2738027
It depends on the quality of the pixels. You'd lose resolution (obviously) and therefore detail, but you have the potential to gain dynamic range and ISO range.

>>2738008
It's 2015 according to petapixel

>>2738094
So Sony, Oly, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, etc. have collected all data regarding every camera they sold in a year, 6 days after it happened? That sounds real. I'm sure all the resellers like Amazon, Best Buy, and every other retailer out there have sent their reports right over.

>>2738099
Because it is completely inconceivable that companies keep count of how many cameras they make

>>2738099
I see no reason why Amazon and Best Buy wouldn't send info to manufacturer on how much was sold.

seems to me like a common practice.

>>2738099
These are -shipment- statistics. As in how many cameras the company shipped to resellers and suppliers. Not actually how many cameras were purchased by end users.

File: Image002 (2).jpg (231KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1024x768px

Is m43 even actually open source?

I thought you had to join the m43 consortium to get access to the actual tech, and that's why poorfags like Mitakon don't go farther than mechanical mount compatibility.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nokia
Camera Model	6500s-1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1536
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2011:12:08 17:43:47
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	768
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: JUST.jpg (34KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 800x533px

>>2737824
Kodak already have and it was shit

File: IMG_0510 (Custom).jpg (128KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1000x667px

>>2737824
>why don't smaller, or ambitious camera companies like Vivitar, Polaroid, Ricoh, GoPro, Moultrie, Yamaha, Schneider-Optik or Kodak try their hand at making cameras and lenses for Micro Four Thirds?

1. Market is saturated
2. Only so many niches left to cater to
3. Decades or even centuries behind established brands in terms of experience and manufacturing capability.

Combine that with having to find people who know what they're doing, acquiring the machines to be used for design, testing, and production, finding land to build a factory to put it all in, etc.

On top of all that, a company still has to determine how to make what for whom, why they would want it, and how much to sell it for, all while preventing a bigger and more capable company from beating them to the punch. Then there are distributors to negotiate with, market research to do, ads, hiring shills and reviewers, convincing shareholders that this is a good idea, all that shit.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS D60
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	1980:01:01 00:01:11
Exposure Time	1/180 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	-1/2 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	135.00 mm
Image Width	3072
Image Height	2048
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2738422
Mitakon, Samyang and the like are just optics manufacturers. They don't do electronics in the slightest to keep costs down.

>>2738472
You'd think they could produce a halfway decent camera nowadays. They're not completely hopeless are they? Can't they just nick a load of other people's tech?

>>2738004
The y axis is market share according to units shipped to vendors. Also remember Panasonic makes m43 cameras as well - if you add their figures to Olympus they more than compete with Sony.

>>2738510
>Mitakon, Samyang and the like are just optics manufacturers. They don't do electronics in the slightest to keep costs down.
It's not to keep costs down, they're for the most part unable to.

>>2738546
>They're not completely hopeless are they?
They are.

>Can't they just nick a load of other people's tech?
A lot of it was Kodak's, but they cucked themselves and now they would have to pay out the ass to use shit they developed (kek) themselves.

>>2738546
>They're not completely hopeless are they?
They went bankrupt.
The name was licensed to some shady company that peddles bargain bin cameras developed and made in China.

>>2737824
>why don't smaller, or ambitious camera companies like [...] try their hand at making cameras and lenses for Micro Four Thirds?

They do, but mostly with niche stuff because you can't really compete with Oly/Pana directly.
On the camera side you have the aforementioned Kodak S1 (although it's not actually Kodak), DJI X5 and Blackmagic Pocket, and on the lens side there's a dozen companies making them - just usually without AF, as it's much more difficult.

>>2737824
A sigma rangefinder actually sounds like a great idea. By not having the sensor on all the time like on a Merrill you'd have way better battery life and noise performance, which desu is all that's stopping me from buying one. I'd happily sacrifice sensor size for those 2 problems being fixed

>>2739610
Don't let battery life stop you, at least. For me it's not nearly as much of an issue as I thought it would be reading all them dramatic reviews. I get by just fine with 3 batteries (bought 1 extra).

>>2739654
Does it already come with 2? That's not bad then. Which of the wide angle ones is the best?

>>2739679
It comes with 2 yeah. I wouldn't know which is the best, I only have the dp3 merrill (75mm equiv.). You can choose between dp1 merrill, dp1 quattro and dp0 quattro, I think the idea of the quattro sensor was to get better high iso performance but some like the look of the merrill files better.