An a7r II is currently $1200 used on KEH, and the a7r III will no doubt slip below $2000 when the IV ships. You've got to want the new one pretty bad, or have a whole lot of cash.

This whole discussion also helps explain why the camera industry can't sell cameras. Most of us have long reached satisfaction in megapixel terms, and camera workflow hasn't improved much in two decades. Video improvements may still be driving some sales, but even video quality will reach satisfaction shortly, if it hasn't already.

Anybody know what's going on there? The camera market is still shrinking and the EOS R is not a terribly desirable camera; while it has a couple of strong points, especially in the price and compatibility with existing Canon lenses, the negatives are well known too.

There are Drobos, too. https://www.drobostore.com

This review: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62471078 intelligently compares a Sony RX100 III to a modern smartphone.

I hadn't noticed. Just write about whatever seems most valuable, interesting, or notable at any given time. If you do that, I think you'll interest readers, regardless of the subject.

"Canon had a whole slew of good but small and cheap SLR lenses you could stick on it. I'm left wondering what the point of a small, light, inexpensive body is when you're more or less obligated to buy large, heavy, expensive lenses to put on it." I guess people who value those things have moved to other systems: M43, Fuji, Sony e-mount (I've been shooting an a6500). Who are Canon's remaining customers? The ones who want large, heavy, and expensive, as those of us who want something else, like small, light, inexpensive have moved elsewhere—as have those of us who value video.

"Gunna Disease" is part of the reason I don't understand the full-frame obsession that seems to be afflicting many in photography. Modern APS-C cameras (Sony, Fuji) are incredibly capable. They're also less expensive than FF equivalents. Very few people are maxing out their Fuji X-T2 or Sony a6500 capabilities.

I have never paid more than $1,000 for a camera and probably won't. Ever. Unless you're a working photographer or have "f*k-you money" https://ask.metafilter.com/47531/What-would-be-a-good-way-to-calculate-f*kyou-money, you should probably not be paying 1.5x, 2x, or 3x as much money for what is realistically a 5 or 10% improvement. Today's new hotness will in one to two years cost 50 - 70% of the original price. So why not buy yesterday's new hotness at a steep discount?

Just wondering what you're thinking of Olympus's thinking here. Not only that, but some reports say it still uses the EM-1 II's sensor and AF systems. A camera this expensive should have top-notch video capabilities, too. So yeah. I had an original EM-5, which seemed like the hottest thing in its class when it was released. Today, Olympus seems to have been lapped by Panasonic in video and Sony in just about every way, including price.

"I don't understand the reasons. Maybe it's just not selling well. I guess it does come across as being rather, ah, unfocused, from a marketing and product-lineup perspective." My guess is slightly different from most of those posted so far: I suspect Fuji knows Sony is on the verge of dropping the A7000, or whatever it might be called. And that will probably cost $1400-$1500 and not have some of the 4K video limitations the X-H1 has. For stills shooters, any recent camera is great. For video, the X-H1 feels like it is almost, almost there but the 10-minute 4K time limit is odd. Older Panasonics like the G85 don't have it.

I get it: I think FF is too expensive and heavy. For stills shooters especially, it seems like differences in real quality at normal resolutions and viewing distances in most conditions between FF and crop are small. But I also think the G9 is too expensive. At $999 it would be an amazing camera. At $1,300, it's still too dear, in my view (and for what I do).

Waved off by the major sites and forum mavens, it's drawing rare raves from people who actually use it. And at the current price it's a real bargain over its main competition, the Olympus E-M1 Mark II, which is also a great camera but costs $300 more. Great camera. Too expensive. Even at $1,300, it's presently $200 more than a soon-to-be-replaced Sony a6500. I don't think it was waved (waived?) off by review sites for being a bad camera; I think it was dismissed for being out-of-whack in price terms. There are many great cameras right now, but fewer great prices.

"One could argue that FF and APS-C was a historical accident, and there wasn't enough real-world advantage to separate them once FF became viable." I'd argue the current price delta between equivalent cameras is too small. The A7III and similar high-quality, $2000 cameras means that very few if any APS-C cameras should be more than $1,200 or maybe $1,300. Yet manufacturers keep making them. We're also not seeing the proper integration of phones and cameras (a common Thom Hogan theme). Modern cameras ought to have APIs, app stores, etc., and they don't. So who is going to buy them? People obsessed with image quality, or perceived image quality, and that drives the FF market.

Have you read Bryan Caplan's book The Case Against Education? https://jakeseliger.com/2018/03/12/the-case-against-education-bryan-caplan/ It may be that boredom is really part of the signaling process: if you can tolerate it, you're likely unusually conscientious.

"'Serious' interchangeable-lens cameras are going to have to flee from the smartphone juggernaut if they aren't already." I've seen some incredible shots from the iPhone X and similar, dual-camera phones. If one pixel-peeps, the differences between an iPhone X and Sony RX-100 are there, but for most purposes the iPhone X is really impressive. I'm guessing even the RX-100 will end up fleeing from the smartphone juggernaut. And I say this as someone who has been shooting with and liking RX-100s for years.

Thanks to the Sony A7 III, I can't imagine it has many users: it's overpriced. The top of the crop market is probably about $1,400, video-first cameras perhaps excluded.

Given the sticker price of the XT2 and Sony A7 III, I can see why Fuji can't move them. At $1,100, the two cameras are at least playing in different (price) leagues.

This looks like a great but absurdly priced camera, even with the discounts and finagling, though I'm glad you like it. >The G9 was the right design given the “contemporary” pro offerings from Sony and Olympus. It looks like the right camera but the wrong price.

WRT the E-M10 Mark III, the Olympus looks to have image stabilization, so there is that. I'm curious about the video implementation on the Fuji. If it's still worse than a Sony A6000 or similar, which now sells for $475 - $575 new, that would be disappointing.

Any of these look more than "good enough." All are probably great. So let's look at prices: there's a huge spread and I think the GX8 may be the cheapest. So get that and invest the rest. Or blow it on champagne. The gap between a $900 camera and $2K camera is big.

"the market would not have embraced a $2,000 Micro 4/3 body in 2013" Has the market embraced those bodies? I mean, camera sales have been falling since 2012, as you note; I've never seen good sales data on those $1,500+ Micro 4/3 bodies. The GH5 makes some sense in comparison to pro video cameras, but the rest of them? Are they being embraced, or just marketed? I've never bought a camera that expensive and likely never will.

Consider "Twilight of the Books" http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/24/twilight-of-the-books if you want more confirmation bias (or as I call it, evidence). This link is of course coming from someone who primarily writes about books ( http://jakeseliger.com ) rather than cameras, photos, or video, so I should lay my own biases out too.

I think this camera primarily shows that anyone who doesn't follow camera news and models carefully will have no idea what's going on. The weird blizzard of names and numbers will make it impossible for normal people to understand how all these cameras compare.

"The G9 appears to be a very nice camera. But, it is a "we, too" camera. The technology and updates have, mostly, been done. The 16 months since the introduction of the E-M1 Mk II is a long time in the technology universe" That is my thinking. It's way too expensive. It's hard to imagine how many people want a stills-focused, $1700 camera that doesn't have great continuous autofocus and has (let's face it) a two-stop disadvantage compared to FF. I say this as someone who has and likes a Panasonic camera. The argument for the GH5 is simple: the best video you can get in that price class and form factor, period. I don't see the G9 argument. It's extremely expensive and in many dimensions worse than an a6500 (now $1,200). Yeah, someone with a bunch of m43 lenses might want one and not have an E-M1 body already, but that's got to be a very small group. So yeah, I'd call it a me-too body at best. There are no bad cameras right now, only bad price points. At $999 or $1,099, a G9 might be attractive. At its present price it's ridiculous.