Lumix is fading out from our mind...

<p>"Lumix is fading out from our mind..."</p>

<p>I think your mind is fading.</p>

<p>I'd assume you were trolling if you didn't have so many posts, so I guess you're just ignorant. Just because Panasonic stopped making organs, what did that mean for you as a consumer? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Stradivarius violins are no longer made, does that mean they're obsolete? Oh wait, it's not, because if you buy a good instrument, you don't have to upgrade every 6 months. Just because Panasonic stopped making organs, that didn't mean that you had to stop playing one. Once you know how to play an organ, the minor differences between companies don't matter. You could continue to send your kids to classes. This is like listening to your GPS, following the results literally, driving your car off the side of a cliff, and then blaming the GPS because it sent you the wrong way. Stop being so hardheaded, live a little. Do you think that the world-famous concert violinists and cellists are playing the same instrument they learned on? Did Yo-yo Ma's mother buy her 4-year old son a 1712 Stradivarius as his first cello, which he uses today? Absolutely not. There is not enough difference between a Panasonic organ and a Yamaha organ to worry about switching.<br>

Please. Look at ANY of the companies, and they've burned their customers one way or another. My dad was a Nikon guy, which is why for my personal equipment, I was a Nikon guy. However, there came a point when Nikon changed its mount enough that if I use lenses from my father's old Nikon F on my D200, I will mess up the mount. Heck, Nikon's lower half of their camera division can't even use over half the lenses out there today. They don't have metering with anything but the newer lenses, and they don't autofocus with any lens that doesn't say AF-S on it. Also, do you remember Nikon's Pronea camera system, or are you selectively remembering history to back your closed-minded point of view? Canon COMPLETELY abandoned their SLR customer base in the late 1980's, during the switch from FD to EOS. They just told everyone, "sorry guys, we have to completely redesign our mount, so all of your generations of Canon equipment is now obsolete." Both of these companies had rangefinder models at one time, but they abandoned those users as well. Minolta switched from their SR mount (Rokkor, MD, MC, etc) to the A-mount.</p>

<p>It's funny that you mention Leica, thinking that they are a more trustworthy camera company than Panasonic. Because, Leica doesn't have the manufacturing capacity or the size, so I'd say somewhere between 6-9 Leica models on the market today are just rebranded Panasonics. Does the fact that Leica trusts Panasonic so deeply, to design and build their cameras help sway your opinion about the company? Does that matter to you at all, that Leica thinks Panasonic cameras are good enough to carry the Leica name? Also, consider why Leica went to them: if you watch TV at all, there's a good chance are that the image is being brought to you from Panasonic, because they are a POWERHOUSE when it comes to motion pictures. Also, what about the Leica R mount users? Do you remember that mount? Guess what happened to it? Dropped like a cheap date, that's what. Leica decided that they didn't want to make any R mount cameras any more, so they stopped. Also, let's not forget the Digilux 3 which was abandoned after less than 5 years, so I hope no one trusted Leica enough to buy one of those, because there's NOTHING left for that camera.</p>

<p>You don't find the GH2, or the G3 to be a good camera? Why not? They are being picked up by serious users, people with decades of experience with professional photography. People that came from film, from large format to 35mm, are picking up a GH2 to use day to day. Actually, don't tell me why, because I don't care. You've shown yourself to be someone whose opinion can't be trusted. I like my Panasonic G2, there are worlds of people that love their GH1's, GH2's, and GF2's, so why don't you keep your opinions to yourself. Good luck finding a camera company that doesn't abandon its customers, I believe that you have a LONG search ahead of you.</p>

<p>Also, take a hint from the fact that NO ONE at photo.net agrees with you.</p>

<p>This is why I've stayed away from digital cameras for now: the market is following the cell phone theme of introducing models every other week, with anything more than a year old totally obsolete.<br>

I'm not sure the comparison to a Stradivari violins is quite complete, because violins improve as they age, and because violins have achieved their final form (only string technology changes). Violins don't become obsolete due to software, performance improvements, lack of spare parts, or paradigm shift by consumers (no one will stop using them because they got a Strad app for their smarty-pants phone). The day WILL come when no one makes a USB or firewire port.</p>

<p>My violin reference is because of peter's idiotic rant about the organ, nothing to do with digicams.</p>

<p><em>This is why I've stayed away from digital cameras ... anything more than a year old totally obsolete.</em></p>

<p>Funny, my seven-year-old Pentax DSLR takes pictures today as well as it did the day I bought it, and haven't felt a strong need to replace it in all that time. No one forces you to upgrade, y'know.</p>

<p>If you're a pro, buy what meets your professional needs today and for the next year or two. If you're a hobbyist, buy what makes you happy. Nobody can predict what will happen after that, and trying to do so is a waste of time.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The day WILL come when no one makes a USB or firewire port.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The day WILL come when no one makes film anymore.<br>

Probably just a bit sooner than the USB port.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>pana is a old fashioned company and senior members of camera factory just fail to follow the new trend of digital camera, not even mentions leading the trend.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, like when they followed the trend of small system cameras with exchangable lenses, by launching one together with Olympus.... pretty much as the first ones. That was a clear example of following the herd!</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with ranting a little, and letting off steam because you feel let down for some reason. But claims that cannot be substantiated by data, arguments that are solely based on sentiments... please admit it's just ranting and nothing more. Don't keep going, it stops being funny.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is why I've stayed away from digital cameras for now... ...anything more than a year old totally obsolete.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? My original digital cameras, purchased in 2004 & 2005, must have come from the future because they work perfectly fine and still get plenty of use.</p>

<p><em>"This is why I've stayed away from digital cameras for now... ...anything more than a year old totally obsolete."</em><br>

hahahahaha</p>

<p>I like my G10 and like my Mark iii.<br>

<img src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6020/6013433176_66108b0a57_z.jpg" alt="" width="480" height="640" /><br>

Movies, books, film ....</p>

<p>Peter Roberts, your writing totally out of school. Neither Nikon, Leica, Zeiss nor Olympus rely totally on cameras for their primary business. They are all major players in microscopy, surveying, medical equipment and many other optical dependent industries. Panasonic is a major partner with Leica in developing sensors and camera systems. I am primarily a MF and LF photographer, but I own a Lumix G1 I bought on the gray market. Its a fine camera and lots of fun to use. Micro 4/3 is a great alternative to lugging my Nikon system around and the Leica lenses developed for it are superb.</p>

<p>I'm not really a fan of the 4/3rds format, but his thread is a load of Shite....with a capital S...<br>

I still have my Lumix T shirts.</p>

<p>Nick, +1 on the BBV pic. lol</p>

<p>I dunno, in the last year I've purchased a GF1 and a G2, and am using my Canon FD lens collection when they're not shooting film. :) </p>

<p>Peter, your name seems English or American but judging from your grammar it does not seem like English is your native language. I don't really know what you are trying to communicate in your second post.</p>

<p>Regardless, here are some links of Panasonic financial results. The division with digital cameras had a sales decrease of 14% from a year ago. You can look through all the tables and draw your own conclusions.</p>

<p>http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fphotoscala.de%2FArtikel%2FPanasonic-stellt-sich-mit-Verlust-neu-auf<br>

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/announcement-of-financial-resultspanasonic-reports-second-quarter-and-six-month-results-2011-10-31</p>

 

 

What I predicted in 2011 comes true now. MoneyDJ reported that Panasonic would be closing the department of digital camera.

Maybe. It's a restructuring. We'll see.

Clearly we are dealing with a genius.

I have an LX-5 as a point and shoot. A very fun camera, talk about a camera that punches above its weight? Love how small and compact this camera is and how many control features for a compact camera. The IQ is good too.

Too much of this is based on hearsay b.s. Panasonic has addressed this explaining it company restructuring of departments. Their cameras will continue to be developed and available. What Peter Roberts predicted is NOT true.

Love the versatility and portability of my FZ1000, and the image quality is just fine for my wants.

Glad to see this thread is staggering on. I have two Panny M4/3 camera bodies, three Panny lenses, plus two each from Zuiko and Samyang. I expect them to all continue to work together regardless of any corporate shenanigans from the Panasonic hierarchy.

As I'm nearly 70 now I don't take a very long term view of photography, or anything else, but I'm fairly sure my photographic needs will be met for as long as I need.

I own many cameras from Panasonic, from the FZ1 to the L1, and I can not complain anything about them, especially since they still work (and look) like new. But you should be allowed not to like, and actually hate the Panasonic cameras. Even if I need a mILC, I would choose Panasonic-Olympus, not a Sony.

I own many cameras from Panasonic, from the FZ1 to the L1, and I can not complain anything about them, especially since they still work (and look) like new. But you should be allowed not to like, and actually hate the Panasonic cameras. Even if I need a mILC, I would choose Panasonic-Olympus, not a Sony.

 

I think all of the Lumix that you own were made in Japan. I checked the LX100 and it's made in China and I think Lumix is fading from my mind.

To Bebu: Yes, I told you that I think all the micro 4/3 are made in China and/or Vietnam, and that's the main reason I don't want to buy them. Even the Olympus 4/3 flagships like the E-1, E-3 are made in China. I bought a used Olympus E-300 (yes, it is made in China), as a throw-in, when I bought two Olympus 4/3 lenses (to be used on my L1) and it does have the common card door broken (and I blame the chinese production for that), but the design is not bad at all and I couldn't stop using it because I feel comfortable using it. But the Sony's, many of them are in great condition and very well-built, are not comfortable to use at all ... for me. I did use adapters to adapt manual lenses to my EOS and 4/3 cameras, but soon after that I quit using adapters because it affects too much to the design of the cameras and my comfort in using them.

Does it matter where a camera is made if it works as expected. Yes I have a Panasonic camera and works for me, I had a Canon 60D and 5 lenses but due to Arthritis I could no longer use them. My current Lumix LX-100 does every thing I need (OK I no longer have a macro or long telephoto lens but then they never got much use anyway). If Panasonic stops making cameras so what I've got mine, If in future I need a replacement i'll choose from what is available.

Camera snobery is even worse than which make of car is best, I can't understand it. Obviously VW is best.

I love the way these forum posts go off subject.

I am sorry Gerald! I should have PM John instead.