Panasonic says nothing for 30 minutes at CP+ 2026

[John Matthews]

My take: Panasonic’s Head of Imaging practices a rare art: saying almost nothing with exceptional stamina. The translator deserve a standing ovation for turning sprawling verbal marathons into neat, meaningful summaries. I read each phrase 3 times before moving on to the next.

 

[Ilkka Nissila]

On 3/2/2026 at 7:40 PM, John Matthews said:

My take: Panasonic’s Head of Imaging practices a rare art: saying almost nothing with exceptional stamina. The translator deserve a standing ovation for turning sprawling verbal marathons into neat, meaningful summaries. I read each phrase 3 times before moving on to the next.

 

On the cined web site, there is a text version summarizing the interview - much less time-consuming to digest.

[mtol]

Agree this is a waste of time. They should say "a cinema camera is coming" or "the S1ii is our cinema camera". Either would help a lot of consumers decide what their next move is.

[MrSMW]

Yes, I don’t get it either.

You are in the full-frame LUMIX ecosystem and are considering a new camera and on your interest list is the latest options from Nikon and from Sony. You are increasingly tempted to jump ship even though it’s a big move.

Which one of the below options do you wish to hear?

A: We are working on a new flagship camera that will be launched in the Summer.

B: Expanded horizons, creative direction, global market strategies, Operation Epic Bullshit, waffle waffle waffle, blah di blah di blah.

I didn’t watch it and haven’t read a single word of it but 100% sure it wasn’t A:

A perfect example of how not to retain customers.

There is a saying which applies to all business and that is no matter the size, small, medium or large/international, just because you are in business, doesn’t mean you are any good at business.

Some companies are more clueless than others…

[Andrew - EOSHD]

"Tsumura-san confirmed that photographers who compose through viewfinders “strongly request the inclusion of an EVF,” and that Panasonic is considering the balance between compact size and EVF inclusion as they work to “meet the expectations of as many customers as possible.”

LOL. GM5 anyone?

[Andrew - EOSHD]

Lots of diplomatic non-answers.

TLDR:

S1H Successor — Panasonic acknowledged the demand, but gave no timeline or product confirmation CineD, only saying they're listening to feedback from video creators.

Cinema Cameras — Panasonic hinted at future growth in this space, noting that merging its consumer and professional AV divisions will allow cinema cameras to "evolve even further," CineD but stopped short of announcing anything specific like a Sony FX3 competitor.

MFT is Not Dead — Tsumura-san pushed back on concerns about MFT being sidelined, pointing to recent releases like the GH7, G9II, and new LEICA MFT lenses, framing the dual L-mount/MFT strategy as one of LUMIX's core strengths.

S9 EVF — Panasonic is aware that photographers strongly want an EVF on the S9, and is weighing that against keeping the camera compact.

What's Coming — Panasonic teased "numerous exciting products and new workflow proposals throughout the year" L Mount System but gave no specifics.

[John Matthews]

On 3/5/2026 at 10:29 AM, Andrew - EOSHD said:

MFT is Not Dead — Tsumura-san pushed back on concerns about MFT being sidelined, pointing to recent releases like the GH7, G9II, and new LEICA MFT lenses, framing the dual L-mount/MFT strategy as one of LUMIX's core strengths.

Why would anyone use MFT today?

1. They want a small, capable camera setup (under 500g with lens);
2. They want high-end telephoto quality without the extreme weight.

Almost everything else can be done with a larger sensor without too much weight penalty, which is the point. You'd think in this interview he'd at the very least mention that there's a small MFT camera in the pipeline. Instead, they say they're committed to MFT (and simultaneously discontinuing lenses like the 20mm f/1.7). They've had that G100/D since 2021, using the same tech as from 2015, only worse (no real IBIS). Meanwhile, the now old and abuse GM5 is poised to pass up cameras like the GH6 on MPB. Does anyone need more proof than that to know there's a serious want for consumers today? Come on Panasonic! Get your $hit together!

[Ilkka Nissila]

17 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Why would anyone use MFT today?

1. They want a small, capable camera setup (under 500g with lens);
2. They want high-end telephoto quality without the extreme weight.

Almost everything else can be done with a larger sensor without too much weight penalty, which is the point. You'd think in this interview he'd at the very least mention that there's a small MFT camera in the pipeline. Instead, they say they're committed to MFT (and simultaneously discontinuing lenses like the 20mm f/1.7). They've had that G100/D since 2021, using the same tech as from 2015, only worse (no real IBIS). Meanwhile, the now old and abuse GM5 is poised to pass up cameras like the GH6 on MPB. Does anyone need more proof than that to know there's a serious want for consumers today? Come on Panasonic! Get your $hit together!

No manufacturer is going to reveal a future product before it is ready to be sold unless they are in dire straits and their current products have zero chance of selling.

 

To me it seems that manufacturers consider small cameras more entry-level and make a progression so that in each level up, most aspects of the next higher-level camera is better than the level below, except for size and weight, and the cost increases along with weight, features, performance, and quality. Since Panasonic have (more expensive) 35mm full-frame cameras, they have incentive to make the micro four thirds products less in most ways, to motivate people who can afford the FF to go with it instead of the MFT. Sony does emphasize small size and low weight throughout their stills/hybrid camera lineup. A small camera is more difficult to make more powerful (in terms of performance, image quality, high end video codecs etc.) and people will invariably complain about whatever its flaws may be, be it lack of efficient codecs, overheating, operation etc. 

 

IBIS makes the camera significantly more expensive. In the small sensor class, IBIS would be useful (just as it is with larger cameras) but it would increase the camera size, weight, and cost, all three factors noticeably, hence reducing the advantages of small size, light weight, and moderate to low cost.  And this class of cameras is competing with smartphones as well, due to their pocketability and communications abilities. It's just a tight place to be in. Probably this is why Nikon discontinued the 1 series and Canon their M system. 

 

Full-frame telephoto lenses have also gotten much smaller and lighter in recent years. 

[John Matthews]

On 3/10/2026 at 9:10 AM, Ilkka Nissila said:

No manufacturer is going to reveal a future product before it is ready to be sold unless they are in dire straits and their current products have zero chance of selling.

That's a rather absolute statement and probably easy to debunk. Also, hinting progress isn't making an announcement of any kind. You'd probably agree that it shouldn't be expected that Lumix would make a announcement with CINED either. But, saying there's development is certainly doable.

On 3/10/2026 at 9:10 AM, Ilkka Nissila said:

IBIS makes the camera significantly more expensive.

Does it? This is mature tech now and certainly not on the cutting edge. I think the cost is more in weight than anything else. Although, the E-P7 is only 337g and has proper 5-axis IBIS.

On 3/10/2026 at 9:10 AM, Ilkka Nissila said:

To me it seems that manufacturers consider small cameras more entry-level and make a progression so that in each level up, most aspects of the next higher-level camera is better than the level below, except for size and weight, and the cost increases along with weight, features, performance, and quality.

I agree with this, except the new market could easily accept premium compacts too. There's also room for in-between products similar to the GX9, which wasn't really a bottom feeder either. A newer version of that camera would be exactly what I want, perhaps even smaller and lighter and even more premium. My feeling is that if they can do stuff in a phone, they could also do it in a camera. @Andrew - EOSHDwas right in saying that there's been an "Americanization" of these cameras, meaning bigger, chunkier cameras and seemingly without too much consideration for how components could be miniaturized. (I believe he said something like this in his GH6 review). The difference in size between the GH6/7 and a GH1 is massive; unapologetically ignoring all advancements in smaller components. I want smaller with M43, not more capable if it means massive bodies.

 

On 3/10/2026 at 9:10 AM, Ilkka Nissila said:

ull-frame telephoto lenses have also gotten much smaller and lighter in recent years. 

Yeah, that really depends on the manufacturer. They're always giving up something, with a few exceptions.

[eatstoomuchjam]

3 hours ago, John Matthews said:

I agree with this, except the new market could easily accept premium compacts too. There's also room for in-between products similar to the GX9, which wasn't really a bottom feeder either.

I'd also be totally OK with them releasing an entry-level M43 camera based on modern-day "entry-level" specs.  Give me a GM5 that can do good-quality 10-bit 4K at 24 frames per second with a log profile and price it at $600 and I'll come sprinting back to Micro 4/3.  Fuji was able to put more of than in the X-M5 which is $900 new - the only thing that's kept me from picking one up and playing with x mount is that the used prices are still at a "just buy it new, I guess" $870. 

Anyway, just give it a GH5 sensor from 2017 or a GH5s sensor from 2018.  It's a great sensor and I know people who are still happily shooting with their GH5.  For that price, I wouldn't even pitch a fit if it didn't have IBIS ($700 with IBIS would be about equally tempting, though!).  It overheats after 10 minutes?  Fine by me!

3 hours ago, John Matthews said:

I want smaller with M43, not more capable if it means massive bodies.

100% this.  When I could go spend $2.2k and get either a GH7 or a Nikon ZR - when the ZR is much smaller than the GH7, I'd better really care about IBIS because otherwise it's not even close.  Though the GH7 is on sale right now for $1,800 which I guess makes it more competitive, but...

4 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Yeah, that really depends on the manufacturer. They're always giving up something, with a few exceptions.

That is somewhat true, but sometimes the trade-offs in full frame terms just kind of end up making the lens feel micro 4/3sy.  Like the Canon 800/11 which is probably the most "giving something up" of FF lenses basically ends up like a 400/5.6 on Micro 4/3 - and it's surprisingly good/sharp?  The EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L is pretty decent and doesn't weigh all that much.  The slower aperture matters less on a modern body.  I'd also keep in mind that if shooting 8K on a FF body, you can crop in a bit before matching the resolution of even the best Micro 4/3 body which is 6K.

Anyway.  Regardless of trade-offs or which system can be micro-optimized to have the absolute best telephoto performance at the minimum weight, shooting micro 4/3 for telephoto reasons is likely to stay a niche use case for the foreseeable future.

For me, it seems like the future of M43 almost has to be in small/light bodies.  If I were buying one today, I'd be so much more likely to pick up an OM5 II than a GH7.  The GH7 may be the pinnacle of Micro 4/3 technology, but it's also bigger and heavier than the EOS R5 that I already own.

[Ilkka Nissila]

That's a rather absolute statement and probably easy to debunk. Also, hinting progress isn't making an announcement of any kind. You'd probably agree that it shouldn't be expected that Lumix would make a announcement with CINED either. But, saying there's development is certainly doable.

 

There is always development. My point is just that mentioning an upcoming product too much before its launch can negatively affect the sales of current products and could be seen as acting against the interests of the company's owners. Obviously if the current products are not competitive, then this is an issue, but still, I think most companies would prefer to promote to consumers what they have rather than what they may have in the future. Of course, when trying to get investment into the company, then future products become critical. 

 

Does it? This is mature tech now and certainly not on the cutting edge. I think the cost is more in weight than anything else. Although, the E-P7 is only 337g and has proper 5-axis IBIS.

 

IBIS was originally developed by Konica-Minolta and later Sony bought the camera division and got this technology. Olympus developed improvements to the technology. Other companies probably need to pay license fees to use this technology, including Panasonic. The least expensive Canon camera with IBIS is the R7 which costs $1,549.00 at B&H; for Nikon it is the Z5II ($1,596.95); Sony A6700 is $1,598.00. These manufacturers all have much less expensive camera models which do not feature IBIS. Since it requires motors and sensors, and in case of Nikon, they also use a separate locking mechanism to avoid the sensor moving while the IBIS is not active, these all add to the cost and complexity and make the camera slightly bigger. There is also heat dissipation to consider (it is more difficult to transfer heat from the sensor if it is mounted on a lightweight moving platform). Since the E-P7 is also micro four thirds, it could be used with the same lenses as the Panasonic MFT cameras, so why not use that for situations requiring extremely small size and low weight? Or does that camera miss something that Panasonic could offer without making the camera larger?

 

My feeling is that if they can do stuff in a phone, they could also do it in a camera.

Cameras are sold at most in a hundred thousand copies (or so) per model, whereas a phone can sell a hundred million copies, so the phone has the advantage of a 1000x larger scale of production. The camera manufacturers certainly cannot do all the things that phone manufacturers can do because of the cost of development of a camera or a lineup of cameras is divided among several orders of magnitude smaller number of units. 

 

there's been an "Americanization" of these cameras, meaning bigger, chunkier cameras and seemingly without too much consideration for how components could be miniaturized.

 

For me small cameras don't work as I have fairly large hands and it's not possible to hold a camera like many of the smaller Olympus/OM-D models comfortably in my hands, I'd be holding the camera in my fingertips, and the controls are too small and difficult to use. A camera like the Zf is just about the smallest I can handle (with added grip) and consider it a comfortable experience. Miniaturization requires development of custom integrated circuits which is very expensive. Sony can do it because that's their main thing and they make so many electronics products they have the special knowledge on how to do that, and it seems they've made it the overwhelming priority (high performance in the smallest possible size). 

[John Matthews]

@Ilkka Nissila, I think you're chasing a very different camera than me. Just because a camera is small doesn't necessarily mean it must have bad ergos. Panasonic has said nothing at CP+ 2026, except a stupid microphone that supposedly someone wants. In this interview, they said virtually nothing, a feat in itself. Really, I think they should have been a little more reassuring to the customers. No investor would have watched this anyway.