noone

When the market shrinks to one tenth its current size, yes, more expensive because the cost per unit to make anything will be dearer and in order to make a profit it will just have to be. While there is lower stuff to sell in volume they can make higher end stuff a bit cheaper than it otherwise would be but once that lower stuff is swallowed up by phones ...well look at Leica....otherwise it will be cheap rubbish. Makers will also take longer to put out new stuff at the lower end to keep it cheaper or have to put up prices and either way, phones (or devices that have both a phone and camera in them more like) which will just be on an even faster track comparatively.

I kind of do agree but put it this way.....Look at where phone cameras were five years ago and where they are now and do the same for real cameras...Now project five years from now! Sure there will be a place for pro and serious amateur cameras for some time yet but the market will get smaller and smaller (and more expensive too). Used to be an award winning professional photographer who used medium format and had a main street studio here...last i saw him he had sold up and retired after not being able to sell his studio as a going concern and was using a tiny sensor camera and very happy with the results though his pro work was fantastic. Me, I hardly ever use my (very cheap) phone as a PHONE and never use its "camera" but I know that good phone cameras take better photos than the small old P&S cameras i have....I have a lovely little Panasonic point and shoot that has tons of control and is fantastic in every way except one ...I hate the photos it takes! I think phones do better than first generation APSC DSLRs and the 12mp M43 cameras and in five years who knows!

I would not say stalled but not huge improvements just in image quality terms (other things sure but not IQ). Just looking at DXO (not to be taken as gospel but seems reasonably right to me as a guide having used quite a few cameras they list), older cameras of particular sensor size do score slightly lower than newer ones generally though it also depends on the companies sometimes recycling older sensors in newer but often lower sensors. Older larger sensor cameras still have better IQ than the better newer smaller sensor cameras to a point too. The top ten cameras on DXO are all MF or FF and came out 2014 (2) , 2015 (2). 2016 (1 but the highest overall scoring), 2017 (2), 2018 (1) and 2019 (2).....Numbers one and two are MF from 2016 and 2014.... The Canon R sits at 34, just behind a MF camera from 2008 (yes 2008). The highest scoring APSC camera is the Nikon D7200 from 2015 and sits ahead of some older FF and MF cameras. Your D5200 (2012) still rates very highly and a head of some older MF and even some FF cameras from the same year. What i like about the little RX100 iv i am getting is that its image quality matches the Panasonic GX7 I had (if you stick a good lens on the GX7) and I LIKED the GX7 for good light IQ, it is AHEAD of the Canon 7D I had and within a couple of points behind the Sony Nex 3n I had and cameras like the first gen Oly EM1 (i want) and Pentax KX I used a lot and it leaves some others i have had for dead. Phone technology is advancing MUCH faster than normal camera tech so five years in phone terms is probably more like ten in camera terms which is why ALL the camera makers are doomed unless they switch to "phones with cameras" Funnily enough Olympus HAD a mobile phone division but sold it off years ago and sold it to the same company now going to buy Olympus camera division....i guess that says it all really).

Maybe ALL of the major old style imaging companies are in danger of disappearing (especially if they just have gentle udates). I have just purchased a five year old Sony Rx100 iv for very cheap. I will get it in a week or two but just comparing its sensor on DXO against many of the other cameras I have had, it is only the FF Sony's that have had much better sensors ...all the others have been pretty much around the same or worse (APSC DSLRs from Canon, Pentax and Nikon, 4/3 DSLR from Olympus, M43 mirrorless from Panasonic and Olympus and a Pentax Q as well as a Canon G10 high end P&S from my late Dad...A five year old camera with a one inch sensor as good as some not THAT much older much larger sensors. Imagine what high end phones will be like in five more years! Only reasons for my A7s will be really low light, my tilt shift, 1:1 macro and really isolating a subject but for most normal shooting the little Rx100 will do for stills and same with video (i also have an old superzoom when i want THAT....I am getting old and a 300 2.8 is starting to be a pain to carry on a walk). Olympus may well not be the only one (I stil llike to think there is hope for them). M43 will survive for quite a while yet even without Oly in part because video is not necessarily what many users want and a LOT of older photographers want to carry smaller lighter gear while still having a choice of lenses.

Is the Zoom H1N a big improvement over the H1 in ease of use ? What about quality? All I need is the quality of the original H1 and I need a new one but would spend the few dollars extra for the N version if it is worth it. Just recording live music at pub and club gigs.

So how come you can fully use Sony FE/E made for mirrorless lenses on Nikon mirrorless cameras? Most of the FF mirrorless systems are too new for adapters but they are coming along fairly rapidly. It is also still easier to adapt the vast numbers of DSLR lenses too and especially Canon EF to mirrorless (except the short lived Pentax K mount mirrorless of some years ago that used the same long K mount with its long flange). The issue will be as always, those with longer flange distances will be able to adapt to systems with smaller flange distances without using glass in adapters. The camera makers will not want you adapting other system lenses to their cameras (though Sony seemed to at least for a while with Canon DSLR EF lenses, probably to get people interested and it worked).

Well regular people are not buying old type compact cameras anymore so Companies HAVE to either capture a larger share of the existing market (at the expense of others) or find new markets. I have several small point and shoot cameras I hardly ever use and have thrown a couple into the bin that were working perfectly recently and will probably throw a couple more out very soon. I guess this camera was made on the cheap and while it is not great, maybe it WILL sell to enough people to justify its existence. Some of you are GREATLY underestimating the Youtube market (not just those who call themselves Vloggers but anyone who wants to put even one video is in need of a capture device). For many it will be a phone, for lots of others it will still just be a cheap point and shoot (sometimes still with just SD). Even ONE percent of the You Tube market would still likely be profitable for a camera company as long as it is only catering to that (which is what cameras like this and the recent little Sony pretty much are doing). There are probably ENOUGH Sony haters who would not buy the ZV1 no matter how much better that will buy this anyway to justify its existence.

I will wait until they put that large format sensor into the I-phony 36! I would love it if Olympus survived as a going progressive photography company.

There used to be around a half dozen actual camera stores here in Wagga (I used to haunt all of them) but now, the nearest real camera store is hours away. For many Australians, Harvey Norman and JB-HiFi are "the" camera stores now (Harvey Norman is actually doing VERY well this year with a lot due TO the virus and I suspect JB is as well). Both companies are also doing ok on-line I think. I have purchased camera related stuff recently on-line from Sony and Ebay and with Ebay it has been from a large photo related mega store (that may well just be a bloke in a basement) as well as private sellers. I do wish there were real camera stores still here but I fully understand why there "ain't none".

After reading Thom Hogans take on this I am thinking there is a bit more hope on Oly surviving as a camera brand than before. It may well disappear from most parts of the world and may make fewer products in longer cycles but still might be something there. There is no certainty it will happen but if it doesn't I think their future will be bleaker than if it goes ahead. Many employees will be the losers either way I fear.

I was kinda hoping this would be a great little camera for live music (pub and club gigs), something I think the new little Sony will also be good for but nah, this will quickly disappear for most people with just the odd post on various forums saying how someone surprisingly likes it. Guess I will stick to my A7s as my main camera and just look for a older gen Rx100 (iv or v) as my pocket camera or wait until I can get a cheap ZV1 to try. For vloggers (not me) Sony 1 Pansonic nil I think.

Sad but I guess while there is some life, there is some hope! I have a soft spot for Olympus, my very first 35mm SLR was an Oly Om1n and I have had a Oly 4/3 DSLR (was my dads) and an E-PL2 as a test of the M43 waters. All their stuff has been great except Dads two HG 4/3 zooms developed known issues (I still have them though dunno what to do with them). I keep thinking I should buy an Em-1 first version just to play with (and maybe try the two 4/3 zooms in whatever way I can). Dad had a couple of very special Oly OM lenses I wish he had kept...I never talked about them to him but I swear I saw a 250mm f2 once (or was it a 350 2.8?). I sold his 180 2.8 (a lovely little lens but not something i needed). Ahh well, I hope it rises from the ashes.

Thanks. I will see how i go living with things as it is but if I do find it irritating, I will give it a go.

My FD to EF adapter turned up. Could not be very good for its designed purpose because it did not have any glass so would have lost infinity anyway. In any event, it seems even two mm (which it should be but is probably only aprox) is a bit too much and loses infinity a bit more than i want. At 60mm it is no use for portraits as focus is now very close and at 120mm It might be ok for kids portraits and small adults at best. The only mounts I know of that are between FD (42mm flange distance) and EF (44mm flange) are Minolta SR and Fujica X (both 43.5) which would be better but i would need to find adapters for FD to either of those and then one of those to Sony E and how much better remains to be seen. Guess I just have to learn to live with it being a little long for minimum focus and use this way for rare times I have a few kids or smaller women to shoot.

I have come to love using Sony Clear image zoom for both jpeg stills and video. Very little loss of quality and more so if you only use a little zoom but works well as variable zoom to 2x (using digital zoom from 2x to 4x though gets noticeable). I have not used it a lot for video because my video use is mostly just shooting live bands/soloists/duos but I do want to give it a go and should be a bit easier for video with a remote control (I got a very cheap remote recently but I need a better one). I accept that all things being equal optical zoom SHOULD be better but then again all things being equal a high quality prime is better than even a good optical zoom. In any case if you start with a good lens you still have a good lens. For example I would MUCH rather use a lens like my Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 with clear zoom than many of the old optical zooms i have had at 100mm It also means I can zoom lenses like my 17mm tilt shift lens while shifted/tilted and other lenses that have no zooms. Having recently got a wonderful old Tokina 60-120 2.8 manual focus lens I thought i would give it a try with both 120mm optically and 60mm with 2x clearzoom. This is an ancient zoom but is actually quite sharp and probably the sharpest zoom I have owned and better than many old primes but obviously not as sharp as a modern prime (there is a sharpness test somewhere online where someone compared about 50 lenses with this and two other zooms and the rest primes and this actually beat many of the primes...I do not disagree). Like many zooms, this lens is supposed to be better at the short end too which means it may well be BETTER to use it at 60mm and 2x. My Takeaway is the lens is clearly either not 60mm really or not 120mm really or both as there is a difference between 60mm at 2x and 120mm and even though I see little difference between these really, i guess i will keep using it mostly at 120mm optically (and then can zoom digitally to 240mm). Given it was designed and sold as a portrait lens, it does not need to be the absolute sharpest. I need to use it more and especially for portraits (I just am having trouble finding "victims"). I did not mind Panasonic ETC either when I had a GX7 but just wish it was variable too.

I still have not used it for any serious portraits though have taken a couple of quick snaps of people but mostly too quick to get focus right (one woman was fine for me to shoot her and her kid but the kid wanted to do other things). As I said, the minimum focus is a bit long so I have been thinking about using a very short extension tube with it. The Sony Tubes i have include a 10mm one but that is too long. That got me looking for shorter extension tubes and all i can find are 7mm and 8 mm but none in either FD mount or Sony E mount. Next thought was to look for one of these lenses in a mount that there ARE shorter tubes available (Nikon has a 8mm tube as do some others) so I started looking for other copies of the lens in different mounts (there is a Pentax one in Germany listed as good and there is one in the US but i think it is also FD and the condition is unknown). Another reason for a different mount is I am a bit wary of the older FD mount being easier for a lens to fall off (not the New mount) and my lens is the older type. Given how good my copy is (and how cheap it was) though I guess I should stay with it so my latest idea is to buy a FD lens to EF adapter and remove the glass from that and mount it in a EF to E adapter so that should give me something like a 2mm extension tube which might be pretty close to perfect for me (IE just a bit shorter minimum focus and not losing too much for distances I am likely to use it at). The lens is ok at infinity but not something I would really want to use it for and it is a portrait lens for me Anyway, i have just ordered the FD to EF adapter so shall see how it goes when it gets here.

IF all lenses were equal, it would. A really good prime used with in camera digital crop is going to be better than most old optical zooms with the crop methods of some companies now and many optical zooms are better at the short end so it depends how MUCH better. Also depends on how much of a digital crop you use. Another topic for the lens forum later I think to try a few experiments.

First article is on cine cameras/lenses. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2020/06/the-great-flange-to-sensor-distance-article-part-1-cine-cameras/

While not cheap, I would expect all of the Canon TS-E lenses would work great on the camera without vignetting.

Look at some of the older EF lenses sounds like a good idea. How about the 20-35 2.8 L? Replaced by the 17-35 2.8 L which was replaced by the 16-35 2.8 L which was replaced by the 16-35 2.8 L ii which was replaced by 16-35 2.8 L iii. Mine is falling to bits but i still like it (for a zoom...not a huge user of zooms).

Andrew, I just had a quick look at a couple of lenses. I recently got a cheap near mint ancient Tokina 60-120 2.8 manual focus lens. Now my all time favourite zoom lens and will be fantastic for portraits if I am not rushed I think. I just tried it with 60mm 2.8 and 2x clear zoom VS 120 2.8 and I think I actually prefer the 60 with 2x. I would use it mostly AT 120mm optically for portraits. I really have to look at this more though. No more from me here as I don't want to hijack the thread any more.

I think there is very little loss just using clear zoom especially if using HD rather than 4k (though have never used it with 4k). Above 2x and regular digital zoom it does show. It also comes in handy with Sony APSC lenses used FF and even MFT lenses on Sony (though MFT to E adapters are thin sharp metal rings and no use with electronic lenses). If you start with a really good lens, the end result at 2x clear zoom will still be better than if you used a lesser lens (IE a really good 50mm lens with 2x would be better than a crappy 100mm lens). I use it for stills with a 55 1.8 and it (almost) makes me no longer want another 100mm AF lens. Works great with fast primes and tilt shift too. I just wish it worked for RAW.

I had one of the first Kipon EF-MFT adapters and it did not have an aperture ring. It was terrible until they updated it via firmware and then it was great (especially wit a lens like the 135 f2 L on a GX7 ..for stills anyway). Non focal reducer adapter.

The Sony can actually use a 35mm prime lens as a variable 35-100mm lens if you use clear zoom. (35-200 if you use digital zoom but above 2x it shows). I wish all companies would do this as it would be a killer feature on a higher/more modern spec camera than an A7sii

What I mean is I would like to see them side by side with similar from other cameras (same time and place and conditions).. I still think that the A7s cameras are right up there for ISOs above 25600 but the OP will probably be better off with a newer camera like the Panasonic FF now for his use. I use crazy high ISOs fairly often for stills with my A7s (first version) and it is just fine. I would prefer auto ISO could be set at intermediate levels as I would then probably have something like ISO 80000 as my top instead of 102400 but even 102400 is ok and i have had normal shots in newspapers at those sort of ISOs (IE nothing particularly special like Elvis partying with bigfoot). In a pinch I am happy to go with in between 102400 and 204800 if I HAVE to. A7s has greater DR at ISO 25600 than some cameras I have had at ISO 800. MOST pub and club gigs with the little video i shoot does not need to go quite so high but i often like to use my Canon 17mm TS-E at night and I use it just as I do in the day time (IE stopped down when shifted) which requires sometimes very high ISOs and it is as i like it. Rarely, I would also shoot sports at night and use higher ISOs with my old MF 300 2.8 in order to get a usable shutter speed