Olympus selling its Camera Division

Messages
17,033
Edit My Images
No
duplicate
 

AZ6

Messages
884
Edit My Images
No
So if a brand starts out in one market it can't expand in to another, is that what you're saying?
No. Yamaha make motorbikes, and pianos. Lamborghini started out as a tractor manufacturer. But MFT was a format AIMED at 'hobbyists'. Not at 'professionals'. There was never any law stating that MFT cams could never be used for 'professional' use.


I wish my Nikon and Sony kit was made as well and robust as that?
Can't speak for Sony, but after handling loads of Olympus cams, my Nikon gear still feels better made. Sorry about that.

I don't ever recall Panasonic and Olympus making M4/3 for hobbyists tbh.
This is because you still clearly don't understand how marketing works.
 
Messages
24,327
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Yes it's dead. It's always been an inferior format, aimed at hobbyists, but 'phones are the new compacts, and full frame mirrorless cams aren't far off MFT size now, let alone APS-C. So there's no longer a place for tiny sensored cams when alternatives are the same size, yet give better results. APS-C is the new MFT.
You do post some twaddle.

I'll waste some time posting a reply, just once, if only for the sake of providing some balance to your comments on size.

If you look at the size of mirrorless mini SLR styled cameras of different formats there's nothing in it if comparing for example a Sony A7 with a Panasonic Gx and even when comparing RF style cameras the bulk saving is only really the EVF hump and the grip but it's when you start mounting a lens that the differences should become obvious, even to you.

Look at a Sony A7x and something like a 16-35mm or 70-300mm v a GX9 and equivalent focal length lenses. The MFT kit is suddenly a lot more compact, lighter and very possibly cheaper too plus some of the MFT cameras operate at warp speed. Ditto v APS-C and assuming that the lenses are there for APS-C as with some systems the only option is sometimes a FF lens so you'll be carrying and will have paid for glass you can't use. And no, MFT doesn't have a tiny sensor, if you want a tiny sensor look at your phone and the quality you get from that compared to MFT. I'll give you a clue, MFT is better.

You obviously don't understand how marketing works...
I'm sure we all know people with DSLR's, APS-C usually but possibly FF ones too, who never move away from green square mode and jpeg, have no clue about exposure triangles, apertures, ISO or depth of field and only own the one or maybe two lenses that came with the camera. For those people the kit still has some advantages over a phone but the reason they bought a Canon DSLR rather than an Olympus MFT will probably be down to marketing, public perception (pros use Canon DSLR's, I want one too) and what the bloke in Jessops showed them. Price probably will be a part of it too as you can possibly get a Canon DSLR and two lens kit for less than an Oly MFT set up. The Canon lenses may arguably be a pile of poop but most people wont know or care and the sometimes inconsistent DSLR focus will be hidden in the kit lens Dof at f5.6.

We are where we are and the market prefers Canon APS-C DSLR's to Olympus MFT kit but I don't think that proves that Canon APS-C DSLR's and their sometimes pretty poor kit lenses are intrinsically significantly better. Some are possibly still behind Oly MFT for DR and ISO performance before we get into dubious kit lenses.
 
Messages
17,033
Edit My Images
No
No. Yamaha make motorbikes, and pianos. Lamborghini started out as a tractor manufacturer. But MFT was a format AIMED at 'hobbyists'. Not at 'professionals'. There was never any law stating that MFT cams could never be used for 'professional' use.
I'm sure if you go back far enough a lot of stuff was aimed at a different market. Were Canikon always aimed at professionals?



Can't speak for Sony, but after handling loads of Olympus cams, my Nikon gear still feels better made. Sorry about that.
No need to apologise, it's only opinions. But I've always said that I wish that Nikon lenses were built as well as Olympus, barring the 70-200mm VRII as that's a really great well built lens.
This is because you still clearly don't understand how marketing works.
Well please enlighten me, marketing to me is what I see in, well marketing. Olympus EM1's and the EM1x, as well as the Pro lines of lenses have always been marketed as Pro gear. I've gone back through the history of m4/3 and see no mention of which market m4/3 was originally aimed at?
 
Last edited:
Messages
17,033
Edit My Images
No
Larger sensors produce better image quality. Scientifically provable fact. Unless you don't believe in Science?
.
I don't think anyone's ever argued anything differently have they? FF isn't the holy grail either though.
 
Messages
9,599
Edit My Images
No
Didn't Sony start post WW2 with only making and selling a rice steamer.......................my how far they have come.

But Olympus started(?) in the field of optics and microscopy....................with some new direction with the JIP investment..................what new things will come to the fore!
 
Messages
24,327
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Larger sensors produce better image quality. Scientifically provable fact. Unless you don't believe in Science?


No you did, cos I can't be arsed arguing with anything else you said. You've also missed the point.
Your posts often include a grain of truth among the twaddle, I just wish you'd dial the twaddle down.

The fact is that most people don't use an interchangeable lens camera without mounting a lens on it so it's really the size of the camera and lens package that we need to look at and looking at the size of the cameras in isolation is next to meaningless. Surely you can see that.

Arguing with you is next to pointless as much of the time you seem to post more for shock factor and to cause a reaction than anything else and I'm not interested in that. Be the Ken Rockwell of the thread if you want. I've provided an alternative and IMO much more balanced view to your factually dubious semi rant so my work here is done :D
 

AZ6

Messages
884
Edit My Images
No
I'm sure if you go back far enough a lot of stuff was aimed at a different market. Were Canikon always aimed at professionals?
Well, I spose so, yes. Or at least; wealthy hobbyists. Photography was a relatively very expensive activity, in the days CaNikon were starting out. Early CaNikon equipment was very expensive.

Well please enlighten me, marketing to me is what I see in, well marketing. Olympus EM1's and the EM1x, as well as the Pro lines of lenses have always been marketed as Pro gear. I've gone back through the history of m4/3 and see no mention of which market m4/3 was aimed at?
MFT/M43 was a development of the Four Thirds format, to produce a smaller, lighter system that would appeal more to hobbyists and travelers, who didn't want to lug big, heavy 'professional STYLE' kit around. People who wouldn't be so bothered about ultimate IQ, or low light performance, or AF speed, or buffer size, etc. At that time, such things were much better in DSLRs. Hence the first Panasonic G1, GF1, Olympus Pen etc. Ooh look; tiny pretty 'proper' cams! Cams that were a significant step up from the compacts available at the time, and with greater versatility than the generally quite nasty 'bridge' cams. So these appealed to the same kind of people who would have made up the market which consumed stuff like the Pentax ME Super, Nikon EM, Prakticas etc. As time went on though, advances in cam design led to smaller, lighter APS-C DSLRs, and then APS-C and then full frame mirrorless cams. Which, ignoring lens size for a moment, were better than many of the MFT cams, hence that sector of the market getting further confused and muddied. Like with me; why bother with a fiddly cam with a TECHNICALLY (don't get upset now) inferior sensor, when I can have a cam that's nicer to use, for very little weight and size penalty? The smaller MFT lenses were the slower lenses, the faster ones weren't far off APS-C DSLR lenses. Sony really shook things up, with some fantastic smaller (A5xxx-6xxxx series) cams, then the A7 FF range. Then along came Fuji as well. Where were Olympus? Where was their place in the market, now?

As for 'pro gear'; as I said earlier; labelling something as 'Pro' doesn't mean it will automatically be bought by professionals. Why buy an EM1x when a Sony, Canon or Nikon FF cam is significantly better, in most respects? That range is a gamble that hasn't paid off for Olympus. Obvs.
 

AZ6

Messages
884
Edit My Images
No
Your posts often include a grain of truth among the twaddle, I just wish you'd dial the twaddle down.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it is 'twaddle'.


The fact is that most people don't use an interchangeable lens camera without mounting a lens on it
Oh dear.

I wonder who those people are, who DO use an interchangeable lens camera, WITHOUT mounting a lens on it? People who enjoy pinhole photography, praps...


Arguing with you is next to pointless
Because I'm right. And arguing with truth and fact, is, as you say; pointless. I'm glad you've finally understood this.
 
Messages
1,414
Edit My Images
Yes
Yes it's dead. It's always been an inferior format, aimed at hobbyists, but 'phones are the new compacts, and full frame mirrorless cams aren't far off MFT size now, let alone APS-C. So there's no longer a place for tiny sensored cams when alternatives are the same size, yet give better results. APS-C is the new MFT.
you've got such a weird and bullish aurora!
 

AZ6

Messages
884
Edit My Images
No
you've got such a weird and bullish aurora!
Well, that's your perception (maybe it's an 'Aurora BOREialis! Geddit??! Good, weren't it?!?), but my original statement has been taken somewhat out of context, by those who are getting a bit too emotional about things, it seems. But I will clarify by saying; MFT is no more 'inferior' for creativity, than any other format. Is that better? All I meant was that it's inferior in technical terms.


I don't think anyone's ever argued anything differently have they? FF isn't the holy grail either though.
Of course not. But please see my comment above.


Snerkler, you really are wasting your time with his guy. Believe me.
Yet; here you are. Like a moth to a flame...
 
Last edited:
Messages
17,033
Edit My Images
No
Well, I spose so, yes. Or at least; wealthy hobbyists. Photography was a relatively very expensive activity, in the days CaNikon were starting out. Early CaNikon equipment was very expensive.


MFT/M43 was a development of the Four Thirds format, to produce a smaller, lighter system that would appeal more to hobbyists and travelers, who didn't want to lug big, heavy 'professional STYLE' kit around. People who wouldn't be so bothered about ultimate IQ, or low light performance, or AF speed, or buffer size, etc. At that time, such things were much better in DSLRs. Hence the first Panasonic G1, GF1, Olympus Pen etc. Ooh look; tiny pretty 'proper' cams! Cams that were a significant step up from the compacts available at the time, and with greater versatility than the generally quite nasty 'bridge' cams. So these appealed to the same kind of people who would have made up the market which consumed stuff like the Pentax ME Super, Nikon EM, Prakticas etc. As time went on though, advances in cam design led to smaller, lighter APS-C DSLRs, and then APS-C and then full frame mirrorless cams. Which, ignoring lens size for a moment, were better than many of the MFT cams, hence that sector of the market getting further confused and muddied. Like with me; why bother with a fiddly cam with a TECHNICALLY (don't get upset now) inferior sensor, when I can have a cam that's nicer to use, for very little weight and size penalty? The smaller MFT lenses were the slower lenses, the faster ones weren't far off APS-C DSLR lenses. Sony really shook things up, with some fantastic smaller (A5xxx-6xxxx series) cams, then the A7 FF range. Then along came Fuji as well. Where were Olympus? Where was their place in the market, now?

As for 'pro gear'; as I said earlier; labelling something as 'Pro' doesn't mean it will automatically be bought by professionals. Why buy an EM1x when a Sony, Canon or Nikon FF cam is significantly better, in most respects? That range is a gamble that hasn't paid off for Olympus. Obvs.
Tbh I still don’t see any evidence just an opinion?

Labelling is somewhat irrelevant though tbh, Nikon billed the D750 (as they do the Z6) as an enthusiast camera yet was/is used by many professionals.

A professional camera for me has to be one that has the performance and build to handle the professional environment, for which Olympus fits the bill for both. But if you want to go by marketing then Olympus hits the pro category with that too.

If sensor size was everything then we’d all be shooting large format and visiting the chiropractor every week ;)
 
Messages
17,033
Edit My Images
No
Well, that's your perception (maybe it's an 'Aurora BOREialis! Geddit??! Good, weren't it?!?), but my original statement has been taken somewhat out of context, by those who are getting a bit too emotional about things, it seems. But I will clarify by saying; MFT is no more 'inferior' for creativity, than any other format. Is that better? All I meant was that it's inferior in technical terms.
To be fair you said that m4/3 was created and intended for the enthusiasts and not professionals, but I’m still yet to see any evidence :p

Anyway you should be thanking Panasonic and Olympus, if it wasn’t for them you might not have your Z6 as mirrorless might not have even been a ‘thing’ (y)
 
Messages
8,097
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
I think this quote would suggest otherwise tbh. Why would you buy an R&D dept if you're not interested in developing new products?

“NewCo will succeed and maintain the research and development functions and manufacturing functions globally as reformed under the contemplated structuring reforms to continue to offer high-quality, highly reliable products; and also continue to provide supports to the imaging solution products that have been distributed by Olympus.”
You take the tech and incorporate into other business that you think will make you more profit, you buy the patent essentially.

The best case scenario it will be like Sony buying Minolta.
 
Messages
8,097
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
Have you seen the Fuji APS-C lens roadmap? It's been incredibly sparse since they introduced the GF lenses as well. The system desperately needs a refresh in terms of the key fast primes but there is nothing planned apart from the 50mm 1.0 (the only lens on the roadmap) which has been 'announced' in one way or another for nearly 3.5 years now.

The M4/3 lens system is pretty 'complete', the system isn't exactly wanting for any specific lenses right the way from entry zooms up to the Olympus Pro lenses etc. In terms of cameras, both Olympus and Panasonic have announced new cameras recently, Panasonic just yesterday in fact.
The Canon EF system is pretty complete (the most complete system in the history of cameras probably) too but you can't tell me that's not dead now. Being complete and whether the system is dead are not the same thing, they can be mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,814
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
>SNIP
This is because you still clearly don't understand how marketing works.
Marketings sole purpose is to fool people into spending more money on features and stuff they dont need, with (among other tricks) inflated promises and not least playing on peoples FOMO syndrome. With come of the WWW now often helped out by people feeding their confirmation biased thinking only the (seemingly) absolute best is good enough for them and everybody else................if youre a "serious photographers" that is: Why deal with stuff like composition, light, moment and mood when we can boil great imagery down to DR, ISO and DOF. We need profesional results and they only happen @100-200% zoom in PS :wave::LOL::exit:
Interestingly Ive never seen a direct connection between gear used and how good the pictures really are
Ive on the other hand seen a connection between desire for absolute best gear, technical image quality, the need to talk and defend that and how boring the images are
 
Last edited:

AZ6

Messages
884
Edit My Images
No
Tbh I still don’t see any evidence just an opinion?
The fact early MFT cams were nowhere near similar in spec to 'professional' cameras, is evidence enough. But you're getting far too hung up on labels; my point was simply that Olympus lost its market niche through other companies developing their own ranges, and Olympus not looking to diversify or anticipate new trends, as Panasonic has done. of course SOME professional photographers use Olympus equipment, but most use other brands. But that is still missing the point; the early MFT cams were AIMED at 'hobbyists'. I really don't know why you're struggling with this, it's obvious. That was a market niche which at the time MFT was launched, wasn't as well catered for as it is now. Hence MFT enjoyed a period of popularity. Which has now waned, somewhat. Mainly because of the advances in 'phone technology. All those who might have bought MFT for the superior (YES! SUPERIOR!) quality over compacts, some will have switched to a 'phone cos it's even lighter and smaller and more convenient, and some will have migrated to other brands/types of cam. Leaving a much smaller market sector.

Panasonic were savvy enough (and, with their association with Leica, having access to full frame technology) to be able to develop a FF range, which by all accounts is excellent. Fuji have brought out a medium format range. Sony, Nikon, Canon and Pentax all have APS-C and FF ranges. Where are Olympus? Still stuck with MFT, with nothing else. In a rapidly shrinking market niche. That wasn't good planning. Their demise was on the cards for a while. Will they survive? Hard to say. They definitely need a new gimmick; simply making a 'pro spec' cam and shouting 'but but professional!', isn't really enough.

Labelling is somewhat irrelevant though tbh, Nikon billed the D750 (as they do the Z6) as an enthusiast camera yet was/is used by many professionals.
Exactly. But the D750 was AIMED at the 'enthusiast' market. Enthusiast, Hobbyist, Keen Amateur, whatever. All marketing waffle anyway. But a bit easier to say than 'someone who enjoys photography and is willing/able to spend quite a bit but doesn't necessarily have to try to earn a living from it so doesn't really need pro spec but better than snapper level'. Which is most of us, let's face it. The next stage of marketing is to aim stuff at particular budgets; plenty in the 'willing to spend £300-500' type range, less in the £500-1000, range, and diminishing numbers as you go up the scale.


Anyway you should be thanking Panasonic and Olympus, if it wasn’t for them you might not have your Z6 as mirrorless might not have even been a ‘thing’
TBH loads of different manufacturers have had a hand in developing tech, so you could argue that MFT wouldn't have existed without the compact cam market; after all, MFT was essentially a compact with an interchangeable lens system. ;-)
 

AZ6

Messages
884
Edit My Images
No
Marketings sole purpose is to fool people into spending more money on features and stuff they dont need, with (among other tricks) inflated promises and not least playing on peoples FOMO syndrome. With come of the WWW now often helped out by people feeding their confirmation biased thinking only the (seemingly) absolute best is good enough for them and everybody else................if youre a "serious photographers" that is: Why deal with stuff like composition, light, moment and mood when we can boil great imagery down to DR, ISO and DOF. We need profesional results and they only happen @100-200% zoom in PS :wave::LOL::exit:
This, pretty much. Soeren gets it.
 
Messages
1,414
Edit My Images
Yes
[QUOTE="A TBH loads of different manufacturers have had a hand in developing tech, so you could argue that MFT wouldn't have existed without the compact cam market; after all, MFT was essentially a compact with an interchangeable lens system. ;-)[/QUOTE]

Indeed, even Kodak, although sadly didn't produce any, unless you count the 2014 PixPro S1..
 
Messages
9,648
Name
Jeff
Edit My Images
No
The EM1 came out well after MFT had been launched as a format. To entice the 'pro' market in. And it may be 'billed' as a 'pro' cam, but how many actual professional photographers use it, compared to other brands? You can slap a 'pro' label on anything; it's meaningless. There's loads of crappy bikes with 'Pro' this that and the other emblazoned on them, being ridden about; doesn't mean the TdF boys are gonna use them.

You're still not understanding how marketing works.
err Andy rouse is the first that springs to mind followed by tesni ward , both earn a living from there photography which I do believe fits the description.. there are undoubtedly lots more spread around worldwide . stop being such a boring idjit yesterdays announcement was to satisfy Japanese legal requirements ,, no one but the board of directors knows what comes next and maybe even they dont ... your precious nikons are actually owned by Mitsubishi I think and I'll bet covid is impacting on them as well so dont hold your breathe
 
Messages
23,121
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
The problem is not Olympus per se, the whole camera market is in severe long-term decline. Camera unit sales are down 87% in ten years, they're still falling and something major has got to give. Olympus is just at the thin end of the wedge, but no manufacturer is safe. They are all restructuring and rationalising like mad but Olympus has run out of ideas and been forced to sell to JIP who are experts in the inevitable dirty work.

Cameras sales down 87% since 2010
https://www.statista.com/chart/5782/digital-camera-shipments/
 
Last edited:
Messages
17,033
Edit My Images
No
The fact early MFT cams were nowhere near similar in spec to 'professional' cameras, is evidence enough. But you're getting far too hung up on labels; my point was simply that Olympus lost its market niche through other companies developing their own ranges, and Olympus not looking to diversify or anticipate new trends, as Panasonic has done. of course SOME professional photographers use Olympus equipment, but most use other brands. But that is still missing the point; the early MFT cams were AIMED at 'hobbyists'. I really don't know why you're struggling with this, it's obvious. That was a market niche which at the time MFT was launched, wasn't as well catered for as it is now. Hence MFT enjoyed a period of popularity. Which has now waned, somewhat. Mainly because of the advances in 'phone technology. All those who might have bought MFT for the superior (YES! SUPERIOR!) quality over compacts, some will have switched to a 'phone cos it's even lighter and smaller and more convenient, and some will have migrated to other brands/types of cam. Leaving a much smaller market sector.

Panasonic were savvy enough (and, with their association with Leica, having access to full frame technology) to be able to develop a FF range, which by all accounts is excellent. Fuji have brought out a medium format range. Sony, Nikon, Canon and Pentax all have APS-C and FF ranges. Where are Olympus? Still stuck with MFT, with nothing else. In a rapidly shrinking market niche. That wasn't good planning. Their demise was on the cards for a while. Will they survive? Hard to say. They definitely need a new gimmick; simply making a 'pro spec' cam and shouting 'but but professional!', isn't really enough.


Exactly. But the D750 was AIMED at the 'enthusiast' market. Enthusiast, Hobbyist, Keen Amateur, whatever. All marketing waffle anyway. But a bit easier to say than 'someone who enjoys photography and is willing/able to spend quite a bit but doesn't necessarily have to try to earn a living from it so doesn't really need pro spec but better than snapper level'. Which is most of us, let's face it. The next stage of marketing is to aim stuff at particular budgets; plenty in the 'willing to spend £300-500' type range, less in the £500-1000, range, and diminishing numbers as you go up the scale.




TBH loads of different manufacturers have had a hand in developing tech, so you could argue that MFT wouldn't have existed without the compact cam market; after all, MFT was essentially a compact with an interchangeable lens system. ;-)
I'm not struggling with anything, but you've accused me of not understanding marketing etc etc, yet your only reasoning is your own opinion of what the launch bodies were like which has nothing to do with marketing and nothing to do with who or what m4/3 was aiming for. If you read the launch statements then you will see that m4/3 was simply a smaller alternative to big DSLRs, no mention of a market.

OK so Olympus' fist mirrorless was the EM5, not a bad model but certainly not up to the highest standards. But what was their next model? The EM1 which was built to high end 'pro' standards. So they developed a completely brand new system, and by their second release they had created a 'pro' level body. Doesn't suggest to me that their aim was only at the enthusiast market to me.

You clearly have your own opinion which is fine, but it's just that. It's your interpretation of the market, and your opinion on the cameras. Until I'm provided with some hard evidence to the contrary I'll stick with my opinion (y)
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,814
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
Well, I spose so, yes. Or at least; wealthy hobbyists. Photography was a relatively very expensive activity, in the days CaNikon were starting out. Early CaNikon equipment was very expensive.
SNIP<
In the case of Nikon it's actually a quite interesting story. Lenses went from being ridiculed as all Japanese products directly into documenting the Korean War without any marketing. And not nearly as expensive as Leica and Contax
https://www.nikon.com/about/corporate/history/oneminutestory/1950_nikkor/
But now that story has become part of Nikon marketing;)
 
Last edited:

AZ6

Messages
884
Edit My Images
No
I'm not struggling with anything, but you've accused me of not understanding marketing etc etc, yet your only reasoning is your own opinion of what the launch bodies were like which has nothing to do with marketing and nothing to do with who or what m4/3 was aiming for. If you read the launch statements then you will see that m4/3 was simply a smaller alternative to big DSLRs, no mention of a market.

OK so Olympus' fist mirrorless was the EM5, not a bad model but certainly not up to the highest standards. But what was their next model? The EM1 which was built to high end 'pro' standards. So they developed a completely brand new system, and by their second release they had created a 'pro' level body. Doesn't suggest to me that their aim was only at the enthusiast market to me.

You clearly have your own opinion which is fine, but it's just that. It's your interpretation of the market, and your opinion on the cameras. Until I'm provided with some hard evidence to the contrary I'll stick with my opinion (y)
Lordy. I'm actually pretty bored with this 'discussion' now, which I'm sure many others are too. You can think what you want, but if you're going to continue as an Olympus 'brand ambassador' (I'm assuming you're getting paid for this, right?), then it would be worth doing your research properly. The M1 was actually Olympus' 14th (fourteenth) MFT digital mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. It was released in 2013, 5 years after the first MFT cams appeared. I spose now you're going to argue that the others weren't 'mirrorless'; don't bother. They had no mirrors. Ergo - mirrorless. [mic drop]

And you still really don't understand how marketing works. Which is fine; it's actually a pretty complex field, which involves myriad forms and strategies.

FFS. All this over a simple misunderstood comment. It's too hot for this s***.

Laterz.
 
Last edited:

AZ6

Messages
884
Edit My Images
No
Messages
1,108
Name
Malcolm
Edit My Images
Yes
Lordy. I'm actually pretty bored with this 'discussion' now, which I'm sure many others are too. You can think what you want, but if you're going to continue as an Olympus 'brand ambassador' (I'm assuming you're getting paid for this, right?), then it would be worth doing your research properly. The M1 was actually Olympus' 14th (fourteenth) MFT digital mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. It was released in 1013, 5 years after the first MFT cams appeared. I spose now you're going to argue that the others weren't 'mirrorless'; don't bother. They had no mirrors. Ergo - mirrorless. [mic drop]

And you still really don't understand how marketing works. Which is fine; it's actually a pretty complex field, which involves myriad forms and strategies.

FFS. All this over a simple misunderstood comment. It's too hot for this s***.

Laterz.

Jeepers creepers, I didn't realise cameras were even about in 1013!
 
Last edited:

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
35,320
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes
It was released in 1013, 5 years after the first MFT cams appeared. I spose now you're going to argue that the others weren't 'mirrorless'; don't bother. They had no mirrors. Ergo - mirrorless. [mic drop]

Mind your back picking up that dropped microphone. 1013 is a bit early, as Malcolm has pointed out. I suppose now you're going to argue that it was a typo that your laziness missed...
 

AZ6

Messages
884
Edit My Images
No
:LOL::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::LOL:

I told you it's too hot!


I suppose now you're going to argue that it was a typo that your laziness missed...
It's about how much I care.
 
Last edited:
Messages
17,033
Edit My Images
No
This, pretty much. Soeren gets it.
Lordy. I'm actually pretty bored with this 'discussion' now, which I'm sure many others are too. You can think what you want, but if you're going to continue as an Olympus 'brand ambassador' (I'm assuming you're getting paid for this, right?), then it would be worth doing your research properly. The M1 was actually Olympus' 14th (fourteenth) MFT digital mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. It was released in 2013, 5 years after the first MFT cams appeared. I spose now you're going to argue that the others weren't 'mirrorless'; don't bother. They had no mirrors. Ergo - mirrorless. [mic drop]

And you still really don't understand how marketing works. Which is fine; it's actually a pretty complex field, which involves myriad forms and strategies.

FFS. All this over a simple misunderstood comment. It's too hot for this s***.

Laterz.
You keep referring to misunderstanding marketing and then agree with Soeren that he gets it when he says that marketing is pretty much smoke and mirrors to get you to buy their stuff :thinking:

I go back to what was said originally. You said that Olympus and Panasonic aimed the whole m4/3 format at enthusiasts yet I am still waiting for evidence of the case. All you say is that I don't understand marketing. I am not naive to the marketing strategies and am quite capable of making informed opinions of my own and am not taken in by marketing strategies or hype.

We can go round and round in circles all day on this, but I will say it one last time. Unless you can show me otherwise, all of what you have said regarding the aim of the m4/3 format and "the marketing" are your opinions, that is all. Your opinion is that Olympus cameras are not good enough for Pros and therefore any marketing that suggests otherwise is BS trying to 'fool' people into buying their gear. I disagree, it's as simple as that. And no it's not that I don't understand. I believe Olympus bodies are right up there with some of the best in terms of performance. OK they've not reached the levels of the A9, D5 or 1Dx-II but they hold their own against pretty much everything else in terms of performance.

Don't get me wrong, you're perfectly entitled to your own opinion but it's not fact unless you have evidence to back it up (y)
 
Messages
4,914
Name
mike
Edit My Images
Yes
Interesting reading

JIP is worth US$150 million.
YoY Olympus Imaging (its camera wing) is losing US$156 million.
JIP specializes in taking under-performing assets and parsing them out. They are not a turnaround company. In Japan, it’s extremely expensive to downsize employees and pensions and salaries. So companies like JIP exist to take assets and sell them apart from those obligations.
In the last 5 years JIP has sold off assets of over 14 companies. Not one has it ever restructured or continued development. It doesn’t have the capital. JIP exists solely to manage brands for the benefit of shared agreements with shareholders. That’s why VAIO is 10% owned by Sony and why JIP outsources all design and manufacture to Chinese parts bin suppliers for components. JIP has no R&D, no internal development, no engineers, nothing. They are accountants.
They are a vulture fund of privately owned equity partners designed to get around Japanese pension, retention, and servicing laws.
This is very bad news for the Olympus brand and its invested customers. The Japanese news is all over this as well because JIP is notorious for Chinese outsourcing at a time when it’s official domestic policy to onshore key industries. This is another example of Olympus having a tin ear.
In Japan apparently most external sales staff (non-Japanese) have been let go. This started months ago. Most of the software, design, and optical engineers have left or are moving to medical imaging. Overseas assembly plants are being quietly shopped for real estate value alone. The glazing kilns are shutting down for consumer Imaging. The company is preparing to only sell from inventory. New products are technically on hold until Olympus figures out how much to pay JIP to take these losses off their hands. Olympus Visionaries in some countries have already been told they must stick to NDAs and there is no marketing budget nor equipment available.
That’s right. The news out of Japan is that this is NOT a sale, but a divestment at loss. Olympus will have to pay JIP to take Imaging, basically giving them the consumer patent portfolio in exchange. The reason for the press release is Olympus has to divulge now that it will be paying cash for JIP to take the assets. That warns shareholders. This was NOT about the loyal consumer. Anyone who thinks this is a deep pockets investor seeking a new product line, or this is an “under new management” improvement needs to know exactly what JIP is as a company. They exist to help Olympus get rid of their consumer Imaging portfolio entirely.
This is likely the end of Olympus and Zuiko. The Japanese inside information is much more revealing than the web-based stories in English media. You have to go to the accounting and engineering boards in Japan to hear the dirt.
 
Messages
9,931
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Interesting reading

JIP is worth US$150 million.
YoY Olympus Imaging (its camera wing) is losing US$156 million.
JIP specializes in taking under-performing assets and parsing them out. They are not a turnaround company. In Japan, it’s extremely expensive to downsize employees and pensions and salaries. So companies like JIP exist to take assets and sell them apart from those obligations.
In the last 5 years JIP has sold off assets of over 14 companies. Not one has it ever restructured or continued development. It doesn’t have the capital. JIP exists solely to manage brands for the benefit of shared agreements with shareholders. That’s why VAIO is 10% owned by Sony and why JIP outsources all design and manufacture to Chinese parts bin suppliers for components. JIP has no R&D, no internal development, no engineers, nothing. They are accountants.
They are a vulture fund of privately owned equity partners designed to get around Japanese pension, retention, and servicing laws.
This is very bad news for the Olympus brand and its invested customers. The Japanese news is all over this as well because JIP is notorious for Chinese outsourcing at a time when it’s official domestic policy to onshore key industries. This is another example of Olympus having a tin ear.
In Japan apparently most external sales staff (non-Japanese) have been let go. This started months ago. Most of the software, design, and optical engineers have left or are moving to medical imaging. Overseas assembly plants are being quietly shopped for real estate value alone. The glazing kilns are shutting down for consumer Imaging. The company is preparing to only sell from inventory. New products are technically on hold until Olympus figures out how much to pay JIP to take these losses off their hands. Olympus Visionaries in some countries have already been told they must stick to NDAs and there is no marketing budget nor equipment available.
That’s right. The news out of Japan is that this is NOT a sale, but a divestment at loss. Olympus will have to pay JIP to take Imaging, basically giving them the consumer patent portfolio in exchange. The reason for the press release is Olympus has to divulge now that it will be paying cash for JIP to take the assets. That warns shareholders. This was NOT about the loyal consumer. Anyone who thinks this is a deep pockets investor seeking a new product line, or this is an “under new management” improvement needs to know exactly what JIP is as a company. They exist to help Olympus get rid of their consumer Imaging portfolio entirely.
This is likely the end of Olympus and Zuiko. The Japanese inside information is much more revealing than the web-based stories in English media. You have to go to the accounting and engineering boards in Japan to hear the dirt.
A link would be useful Mike.

Edit Its ok, I've found it.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,461
Edit My Images
Yes
Larger sensors produce better image quality. Scientifically provable fact. Unless you don't believe in Science?
and this fact, of course, is why most photographs nowadays are taken on full frame Nikons, Canons and Sonys. Everyone knows that and the stats don’t lie....
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZ6
Messages
14,496
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
and this fact, of course, is why most photographs nowadays are taken on full frame Nikons, Canons and Sonys. Everyone knows that and the stats don’t lie....
Nonsense, most photos these days are taken on mobile phone cameras - the format you choose isn't going to make a crap photo good either. I have seen better [IMO] images by far on here taken with M43 gear over some I've seen shot with FF. The gear can't help some
 

AZ6

Messages
884
Edit My Images
No
Nonsense, most photos these days are taken on mobile phone cameras - the format you choose isn't going to make a crap photo good either. I have seen better [IMO] images by far on here taken with M43 gear over some I've seen shot with FF. The gear can't help some
Erm...

[Backs out of impending s*** storm]
 
Messages
1,461
Edit My Images
Yes
Nonsense, most photos these days are taken on mobile phone cameras - the format you choose isn't going to make a crap photo good either. I have seen better [IMO] images by far on here taken with M43 gear over some I've seen shot with FF. The gear can't help some
that was my point
 
Messages
14,496
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Erm...

[Backs out of impending s*** storm]
Like that ever happes when I post my opinion ... sheesh :rolleyes:

Can't see how anyone would be offended by that though, unless they think I'm refering to their pics ;)
 
Last edited:
Top