Olympus selling its Camera Division

AZ6

Messages
884
Edit My Images
No
I did wonder was there a bit of sarc in their :D
Did you?? Really? No way???!?! ;)

(It's ok; it's the heat. I got Olympus Cameras mixed up with the 11th century Norman invaders to Britain, earlier. That's one in the Eye AF for Harold...)
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,496
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Did you?? Really? No way???!?! ;)

(It's ok; it's the heat. I got Olympus Cameras mixed up with the 11th century Norman invaders to Britain, earlier. That's one in the Eye AF for Harold...)
You really never know these days, only I figured Pound Coin is a decent enough sod - it can oft depend on who's posting on here

Here's an interesting thing, More people are talking about Olympus this week than over the past year
 
Messages
2,308
Name
Clive
Edit My Images
Yes
With Olympus announcing today that they are selling off their imaging business and the new owners unlikely to continue with m43 and with Panasonic moving towards focusing on full frame is m43 on its way to being gone for good?
Just wondering where the new owners not likely to continue with m43 comes from? Why else would they buy it? Do Olympus makes any cameras that are not m43? They havnt bought it to lose money so they must have plans to sell cameras.
 
Messages
23,121
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
Just wondering where the new owners not likely to continue with m43 comes from? Why else would they buy it? Do Olympus makes any cameras that are not m43? They havnt bought it to lose money so they must have plans to sell cameras.
Not necessarily. And there's even a suggestion that Olympus will be effectively paying JIP to take the whole steaming financial mess off their hands. Olympus makes excellent cameras, but their management has been shown to be both incompetent and corrupt.

There's a quote posted over the page here, post #73, that is taken from this thread on DPReview https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64075472 In fact there are a number of seemingly well-informed posts on DPR, and the more you read, the murkier it gets - and with an unpleasant smell, too.
 
Messages
570
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/
Quite. Phones have killed pretty much all consumer cams, not just the point and shoots. Only just the enthusiast and pro markets left, and stills tech for most matured a while ago. Hence the constant push of video features on new camera launches.
 
Messages
1,814
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
Quite. Phones have killed pretty much all consumer cams, not just the point and shoots. Only just the enthusiast and pro markets left, and stills tech for most matured a while ago. Hence the constant push of video features on new camera launches.
1: Which is pretty much reflected in e.g. the RX100, X100 and GR series, Highend P&S cameras for Photographers
2:
Where Olympus has failed misserably, Even worse considering the pricepoints
 
Last edited:

AZ6

Messages
884
Edit My Images
No
Well. It doesn't seem to be good news. Would be a real shame if Olympus left the camera industry. They've never been the biggest player, but they have made some important cams. But they've failed to anticipate change, and move with it. Not having a finger in as many pies as others, was the key factor. Panasonic can pull out of MFT and still have viable products. Olympus kept doggedly plodding along with MFT, and have nowhere else to go. Smacks of crap management and leadership, and poor decision making at the top.


Well, my kit still works and I don't care about video so hopefully it will last a long time.....
Hopefully it will. But things change fast in the digital world; if there is no software/firmware support, the equipment may fast become useless (unless you're also using older computers). Sony bought Minolta, and dropped support for Minolta products almost immediately (like my film scanner, which could easily still work with new software, if any was made). I wonder if that potential impending lack of support will trigger a loss in brand confidence panic, and see loads of Olympus gear dumped at silly low prices? I know if I owned any Olympus stuff, I'd be selling it asap.
 

sirch

Official Forum Numpty 2015
Messages
9,472
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
There is a market for small, light weight, easy to carry interchangeable lens cameras with full manual and I see quite a lot of Olympus MFT used by people who take photos as part of their work in field. I.e. professionals in non-photography fields taking photos for scientific journals, lectures, etc. I'm not saying its a vast market but if your employer or research grant is covering the costs then price might not be the first consideration.
 
Messages
4,914
Name
mike
Edit My Images
Yes
Well. It doesn't seem to be good news. Would be a real shame if Olympus left the camera industry. They've never been the biggest player, but they have made some important cams. But they've failed to anticipate change, and move with it. Not having a finger in as many pies as others, was the key factor. Panasonic can pull out of MFT and still have viable products. Olympus kept doggedly plodding along with MFT, and have nowhere else to go. Smacks of crap management and leadership, and poor decision making at the top.



Hopefully it will. But things change fast in the digital world; if there is no software/firmware support, the equipment may fast become useless (unless you're also using older computers). Sony bought Minolta, and dropped support for Minolta products almost immediately (like my film scanner, which could easily still work with new software, if any was made). I wonder if that potential impending lack of support will trigger a loss in brand confidence panic, and see loads of Olympus gear dumped at silly low prices? I know if I owned any Olympus stuff, I'd be selling it asap.

If nothing else at least your entertaining
 

AZ6

Messages
884
Edit My Images
No
1: Which is pretty much reflected in e.g. the RX100, X100 and GR series, Highend P&S cameras for Photographers
2:
Where Olympus has failed misserably, Even worse considering the pricepoints
Probs gonna annoy even more people now, but personally, I always saw a lot of the MFT stuff as 'lifestyle' products, rather than serious photographic tools*. A 'proper' cam for someone who wants to look like they know what they're doing. I think there's always been a bit of a niche for simpler, stripped down cams, with just basic features like we used to get with many film SLRs, so just Manual and praps A, AF of course but better manual focussing, but strip out all the fancy 'scene' modes, video etc. Make the cams a bit sturdier and more weather sealed. Manual controls. Bit like Fuji, but in a smaller form factor. Leave all the instagramming type crap to 'phones.

*Ok, keep yer knickers on ffs. It's just an opinion.
 
Messages
1,814
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
Probs gonna annoy even more people now, but personally, I always saw a lot of the MFT stuff as 'lifestyle' products, rather than serious photographic tools*. A 'proper' cam for someone who wants to look like they know what they're doing. I think there's always been a bit of a niche for simpler, stripped down cams, with just basic features like we used to get with many film SLRs, so just Manual and praps A, AF of course but better manual focussing, but strip out all the fancy 'scene' modes, video etc. Make the cams a bit sturdier and more weather sealed. Manual controls. Bit like Fuji, but in a smaller form factor. Leave all the instagramming type crap to 'phones.

*Ok, keep yer knickers on ffs. It's just an opinion.
And an uninformed one too :LOL: Olympus does have scene modes and lots of bells and whistles. The real time long exposure view is quite interesting, just to mention one. The Digital Pen F is an awesome retro looking instahipstercam, just to darned expensive.
 
Last edited:

AZ6

Messages
884
Edit My Images
No
And an uninformed one too :LOL: Olympus does have scene modes and lots of bells and whistles. The real time long exposure view is quite interesting, just to mention one
No that's what I said; strip all that out. Read, then comment.
 
Messages
9,648
Name
Jeff
Edit My Images
No
Probs gonna annoy even more people now, but personally, I always saw a lot of the MFT stuff as 'lifestyle' products, rather than serious photographic tools*. A 'proper' cam for someone who wants to look like they know what they're doing. I think there's always been a bit of a niche for simpler, stripped down cams, with just basic features like we used to get with many film SLRs, so just Manual and praps A, AF of course but better manual focussing, but strip out all the fancy 'scene' modes, video etc. Make the cams a bit sturdier and more weather sealed. Manual controls. Bit like Fuji, but in a smaller form factor. Leave all the instagramming type crap to 'phones.

*Ok, keep yer knickers on ffs. It's just an opinion.
actually thats the most sensible thing you have posted in a long time ,and you pre-empted my own line of thought , the market IS THERE for a basic camera without the video crap added , but it would be a small market and I doubt the price would be reflect the development costs . by pandering to the many you exclude the enthusiasts . another one would be a medium tele prime lens without the big end glass . i.e the canon 400mm f5.6 produced some of my best images , no i.s , no zoom , no close focus , but coupled with a fast body it was simply superb... another was the nikon 300mm A-FS f4 which also took 1.4,1.7.and 2.0 Tc's without batting a eyelid . good close focus to let down by its focus motor problems
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,814
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
No that's what I said; strip all that out. Read, then comment.
Well it's how I interpreted what you said so stick with it :exit:
No. Sorry I've apparently lost the ability to read :banghead: will go and redo elementary school now, be back in 12-15 years. Doing it thoroughly this time :)
 
Messages
6,595
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
There are far too many truly excellent cameras available on a falling market.
Only those that can maintain profitability can survive
Even niche markets are subject to market forces and the need to be profitable.
The overheads of some of the best manufacturers are unsustainable at historic levels.
There will be even more contractions and brands falling by the wayside.

The DSLR market and manufacturing processes are probably unsustainable beyond the lifespan of existing tooling.
 

AZ6

Messages
884
Edit My Images
No
Well it's how I interpreted what you said so stick with it :exit:
No. Sorry I've apparently lost the ability to read :banghead: will go and redo elementary school now, be back in 12-15 years. Doing it thoroughly this time :)
:LOL: Lol! No worries. My brain farted loads in the heat, yesterday. I've managed to conflate the demise of the camera industry, with the fall of the Roman Empire.

Or something.
 
Messages
6,695
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
Probs gonna annoy even more people now, but personally, I always saw a lot of the MFT stuff as 'lifestyle' products, rather than serious photographic tools*. A 'proper' cam for someone who wants to look like they know what they're doing. I think there's always been a bit of a niche for simpler, stripped down cams, with just basic features like we used to get with many film SLRs, so just Manual and praps A, AF of course but better manual focussing, but strip out all the fancy 'scene' modes, video etc. Make the cams a bit sturdier and more weather sealed. Manual controls. Bit like Fuji, but in a smaller form factor. Leave all the instagramming type crap to 'phones.

*Ok, keep yer knickers on ffs. It's just an opinion.
You're entitled to have that opinion but it doesn't seem to tally in any way to the products on offer. Cameras like the GH5, EM1x, G9, EM1 aren't toy cameras. They're feature packed and aimed quite high in terms of capability. The GHx range in particular have been an almost default choice for serious film makers for years.

There are lower end M4/3 cameras that suit your narrative just like other manufactures offer or have offered but that certainly doesn't define the system.

Clearly it's not worked whatever the intention but then the market has shown that a stripped down camera doesn't work either. Enthusiasts like the idea but nobody buys them. The tough reality is that it's a dangerous market to be in full stop right now and Olympus as a bit of an outlier are among the first to drop but it's no fun for Canon and Nikon either and even Sony who have put so much effort into gaining huge market share but it's a share of a market that is shrinking all the time. It's tough out there!
 
Messages
9,930
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
You're entitled to have that opinion but it doesn't seem to tally in any way to the products on offer. Cameras like the GH5, EM1x, G9, EM1 aren't toy cameras. They're feature packed and aimed quite high in terms of capability. The GHx range in particular have been an almost default choice for serious film makers for years.

There are lower end M4/3 cameras that suit your narrative just like other manufactures offer or have offered but that certainly doesn't define the system.

Clearly it's not worked whatever the intention but then the market has shown that a stripped down camera doesn't work either. Enthusiasts like the idea but nobody buys them. The tough reality is that it's a dangerous market to be in full stop right now and Olympus as a bit of an outlier are among the first to drop but it's no fun for Canon and Nikon either and even Sony who have put so much effort into gaining huge market share but it's a share of a market that is shrinking all the time. It's tough out there!
What about Fuji, I was under the impression that the Fuji-X range makes very little profit for them if any?
 
Messages
24,327
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Probs gonna annoy even more people now, but personally, I always saw a lot of the MFT stuff as 'lifestyle' products, rather than serious photographic tools*. A 'proper' cam for someone who wants to look like they know what they're doing. I think there's always been a bit of a niche for simpler, stripped down cams, with just basic features like we used to get with many film SLRs, so just Manual and praps A, AF of course but better manual focussing, but strip out all the fancy 'scene' modes, video etc. Make the cams a bit sturdier and more weather sealed. Manual controls. Bit like Fuji, but in a smaller form factor. Leave all the instagramming type crap to 'phones.

*Ok, keep yer knickers on ffs. It's just an opinion.
Mostly yet more twaddle, IMO, but as above you are entitled to say these things.

The Oly range tends to IMO be more consciously stylish perhaps more like the Fuji range in this respect whereas the Panasonic range always looked for more modern and anonymously styled to me. There's nothing wrong with either approach.

The "proper' cam for someone who wants to look like they know what they're doing." comment is just silly but I suppose things like this could be said about any item that isn't strictly necessary and is perhaps equally valid when aimed at some who buy entry level DSLR and kit lens packages.

I think any stripped down versions would sell in even smaller numbers and surely wouldn't be viable unless made by Leica in tiny numbers (or rather made by Panasonic, shipped to Germany and badged and sold as Leica) and sold for three times the price but as you haven't noticed it is possible to use MFT cameras fully manually and ignore just about every modern automated bell or whistle.
 
Messages
24,327
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
What about Fuji, I was under the impression that the Fuji-X range makes very little profit for them if any?
I read a while ago that those instamatic type cameras they make (I can't remember what they call them) are very popular and pay for the digital cameras.
 
Messages
9,930
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I read a while ago that those instamatic type cameras they make (I can't remember what they call them) are very popular and pay for the digital cameras.
Yeah the instax are apparently very popular, my granddaughter got one for xmas last year, but can you prop up a digital division with sales of a £50 instant camera?
 
Messages
23,121
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
There are far too many truly excellent cameras available on a falling market.
Only those that can maintain profitability can survive
Even niche markets are subject to market forces and the need to be profitable.
The overheads of some of the best manufacturers are unsustainable at historic levels.
There will be even more contractions and brands falling by the wayside.

The DSLR market and manufacturing processes are probably unsustainable beyond the lifespan of existing tooling.
Very true. Too many people are saying that if only Olympus had done this or added that feature, all would be well. It would not be. Olympus has made some very serious management blunders but the real problem is that the world market for camera sales now stands at one tenth of where it was a decade ago, it is still falling and there is no sign of any upturn. That is not Olympus' fault, nor any reflection on its products.

All the major players are restructuring and rationalising as fast as they can, striving to remodel their businesses to the new shape of a dramatically smaller market. Some will succeed, some might not, and some may conclude that the size of the prize is just not worth fighting for. We are all in for a very bumpy ride over the next few years.
 

AZ6

Messages
884
Edit My Images
No
Mostly yet more twaddle, balh blah blah...
Bless. Didn't you get an ice lolly?


You're entitled to have that opinion but it doesn't seem to tally in any way to the products on offer. Cameras like the GH5, EM1x, G9, EM1 aren't toy cameras. They're feature packed and aimed quite high in terms of capability. The GHx range in particular have been an almost default choice for serious film makers for years.
But how many of those cams sell per year in any given national market? A few thousand? Compared to other models from other brands? And I never mentioned anything being a 'toy' camera, what I said was I see a lot of MFT (and indeed other formats) cams as 'lifestyle' products. The various Pen models in different colours, for example. I'm not saying that such things are only used as fashion accessories, but I do think that there was a market for such, and that market has now disappeared thanks to 'phone tech getting so good. I think it's important to understand things outside of the context of just photography. Most people who buy 4x4s seldom, if ever, drive off road. That kind of thing. When 'phones were crap, and compacts didn't quite cut it, MFT cams were perfect for the instagrammers/bloggers etc. NOT EVERYONE WHO BOUGHT AN MFT CAM WAS AN INSTAGRAMMER BLOGGER.

There are lower end M4/3 cameras that suit your narrative just like other manufactures offer or have offered but that certainly doesn't define the system.
But they sold in far greater numbers than the 'flagship' models. It's volume of sales that generates profit. No good sinking billions into R+D for an amazing cam, if only a few thousand units are ever sold. Sure, Ford might have the GT40 at the top of their range, but they cost eight hundred and fifty seven million pounds each; Ford make their money selling Fiestas and Focuses (Focii?). Bread and butter.


I think any stripped down versions would sell in even smaller numbers and surely wouldn't be viable unless made by Leica in tiny numbers (or rather made by Panasonic, shipped to Germany and badged and sold as Leica) and sold for three times the price but as you haven't noticed it is possible to use MFT cameras fully manually and ignore just about every modern automated bell or whistle.
I think you missed my point a bit; I KNOW cams can be used fully manually; this is how I take pics (apart from AF). My point was that the bells and whistles create clutter in menus and buttons etc, which distract from the important bits of aperture and shutter selection, and ISO/WB. Stripout all the fancy guff, and you'd be left with a very basic, stripped down cam that would be a pleasure to use. OK so maybe this idea hasn't worked, but that only means such things didn't sell in sufficient numbers, rather than there being no demand at all for such products.
 
Messages
17,033
Edit My Images
No
Well. It doesn't seem to be good news. Would be a real shame if Olympus left the camera industry. They've never been the biggest player, but they have made some important cams. But they've failed to anticipate change, and move with it. Not having a finger in as many pies as others, was the key factor. Panasonic can pull out of MFT and still have viable products. Olympus kept doggedly plodding along with MFT, and have nowhere else to go. Smacks of crap management and leadership, and poor decision making at the top.



Hopefully it will. But things change fast in the digital world; if there is no software/firmware support, the equipment may fast become useless (unless you're also using older computers). Sony bought Minolta, and dropped support for Minolta products almost immediately (like my film scanner, which could easily still work with new software, if any was made). I wonder if that potential impending lack of support will trigger a loss in brand confidence panic, and see loads of Olympus gear dumped at silly low prices? I know if I owned any Olympus stuff, I'd be selling it asap.
TBH I think Olympus were between a rock and a hard place. Were they ever really going to be able to break into the FF market and make decent sales when that market is already dominated by the big boys? From what I can see Panasonic FF hasn't been a success so far, and with Canon finally getting their mirrorless FF in shape I think they will continue to dominate the market for years to come. It has shown that people aren't interested in what's the best, or best bang for buck at times but brand name carries far more weight. I don't think going into the FF market would have saved Olympus, and I think it probably made sense to try and stick it out with m4/3 as at least it was a different market, and one that they produced very good equipment for.

I do have more fears for Nikon now. When they along with Olympus announced significant losses etc I never thought that they would pull the plug and the parent company wouldn't continue to subsidise them. Now that it's happened to Olympus I wonder if Nikon will end up going a similar way? I hope not.
 
Messages
334
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Very true. Too many people are saying that if only Olympus had done this or added that feature, all would be well. It would not be. Olympus has made some very serious management blunders but the real problem is that the world market for camera sales now stands at one tenth of where it was a decade ago, it is still falling and there is no sign of any upturn. That is not Olympus' fault, nor any reflection on its products.
Oly and Panasonic seemed to be forced to push the features and pricing of their top end cameras up. And add bigger and heavier glass.

My assumption has been that this is about increasing the value of a smaller number of sales. Trouble is that larger heavier more expensive gear starts to raise the question 'why not go APS-C?' and 'why not go FF?'. Panasonic jumped to the L Mount and FF - but also had the advantage that the GH5 in particular had made its mark in video and meant theys till had strong identity in M43 at the time they made that move.

Oly have left it too late. The products as they stand are still OK. There's some nice glass. But how much will the market pay for a M43 camera vs APS-C or FF when the accepted wisdom is that bigger is always better. And the market is squeezed. The customer for a low end M43 camera these days will complain it's not like their phone - and the sort of person who might go for a EM1 will also consider Fuji, Canon, Nikon, Sony, and perhaps Panasonic. When Panasonic jumped to FF - with hindsight - Olympus should have done the same.

All that aside - M43 is very capable - an EM10 or EM5 body with the F1.8 primes or F2.8 zooms are IMO the sweet spot of the M43 system - and underappreciated for what they offer.
 
Messages
3,508
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
All that aside - M43 is very capable - an EM10 or EM5 body with the F1.8 primes or F2.8 zooms are IMO the sweet spot of the M43 system - and underappreciated for what they offer.
Indeed, and I suspect in reality that a well chosen M43 system is more than enough for a significant percentage of hobbyist photographers. Had it not been for weddings I'd be a fully paid up member of the M43 club, no question. Marketing sales though, and with high ISO and dynamic range seemingly being the two big things these days M43 was never going to compete with the other systems.
 
Messages
1,359
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
What about Fuji, I was under the impression that the Fuji-X range makes very little profit for them if any?
Fuji have said a few times that their Fuji cameras are a sort of "hobby" for them to reflect their history and passion for photography, and that they don't make enough money from them to justify keeping them going from a purely business point of view.

And I've also read more than once that compared to their other products, the Sony cameras don't make enough money to justify keeping them going from a business point of view either and there is steady pressure from inside Sony for them to dump their still camera business.

It would seem that selling stills cameras is indeed a very difficult business to be in :-(
 
Messages
334
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
It would seem that selling stills cameras is indeed a very difficult business to be in :-(
They maybe also built their businesses on a bubble.

My first camera lasted me amost 10 years. The second lasted 14 years (plus I used a compact as a second camera). The third lasted about 7 years. Then digital. The technology curve rose and they were lasting about 3 years and I'd keep two main bodies. Then I started buying better glass. Spending went up. The technology curve flattened. That new glass doesn't really wear out. No reason to buy a new body every two or three years.

So between 2006 and 2015 I probably bought more kit (lenses and bodies) than I had in the preceeding 35 years.

I would say my feeling was that the DSLR/mirrorless market reached a turning point when the Sony A7iii was launched it was described as 'entry level' by many reviewers. Somehow we got the point where the market and its commentators seemed to forget that DSLRs used to be available at £1000 or less and that implied there was an expectation among them that it is reasonable that amateurs should cough at least £2000 for an FF camera and then add some expensive glass as well if they want to participate.
 
Messages
1,814
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
Mostly yet more twaddle, IMO, but as above you are entitled to say these things.

The Oly range tends to IMO be more consciously stylish perhaps more like the Fuji range in this respect whereas the Panasonic range always looked for more modern and anonymously styled to me. There's nothing wrong with either approach.

The "proper' cam for someone who wants to look like they know what they're doing." comment is just silly but I suppose things like this could be said about any item that isn't strictly necessary and is perhaps equally valid when aimed at some who buy entry level DSLR and kit lens packages.

I think any stripped down versions would sell in even smaller numbers and surely wouldn't be viable unless made by Leica in tiny numbers (or rather made by Panasonic, shipped to Germany and badged and sold as Leica) and sold for three times the price but as you haven't noticed it is possible to use MFT cameras fully manually and ignore just about every modern automated bell or whistle.
Or even the top models of any make
 
Messages
23,121
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
Fuji have said a few times that their Fuji cameras are a sort of "hobby" for them to reflect their history and passion for photography, and that they don't make enough money from them to justify keeping them going from a purely business point of view.
Agree, but Fuji cameras are very well regarded, have decent market share and are more than holding position. And cameras are still seen as high-profile consumer products that enhance an otherwise rather dull Fujifilm brand of mostly industrial stuff. Fuji has also shown serious commitment by launching into medium-format.

Much the same could be said of Panasonic, though how its more video-centric M4/3 cameras will fare without Olympus is a valid question, while the full-frame S1 cameras have hardly set the world alight. And Pentax-Ricoh is in the same boat - a (very) small part of a big company, except that the Pentax brand has lost its gloss...

And I've also read more than once that compared to their other products, the Sony cameras don't make enough money to justify keeping them going from a business point of view either and there is steady pressure from inside Sony for them to dump their still camera business.
Agree again, and if Sony could turn the clock back I'm not sure they'd have bothered in a shrinking market. That's the conclusion Samsung came to, even after launching the acclaimed NX1. On the other hand, Sony now has a very successful sensor business with a bright future and Sony cameras are great marketing vehicles for that.

It would seem that selling stills cameras is indeed a very difficult business to be in :-(
 
Messages
17,033
Edit My Images
No
Fuji have said a few times that their Fuji cameras are a sort of "hobby" for them to reflect their history and passion for photography, and that they don't make enough money from them to justify keeping them going from a purely business point of view.

And I've also read more than once that compared to their other products, the Sony cameras don't make enough money to justify keeping them going from a business point of view either and there is steady pressure from inside Sony for them to dump their still camera business.

It would seem that selling stills cameras is indeed a very difficult business to be in :-(
I didn't need to read that :eek: :runaway: ;)
 
Messages
9,648
Name
Jeff
Edit My Images
No
given a couple of days to calm down and mull it over and having looked at alternatives .. we then have to weigh up the pros and cons of what we still have even if nothing new was produced again .
I bought in to olympus for a few reasons , weight , fast focus , good buffer ,ibis, and flexibility . I currently have a 1-mkii body a omd1 body a PL100-400 ,45 f1.8 , a plethora of adaptors that allows me to use four thirds 14-42 , 50-200 f2.8 SWD, 1.4 tc . and the just acquired 300mm f4.5 manual focus .. plus flash guns ,ring flash etc

to sell that lot in the current climate would give me very little to play with financially

and any other system I bought into would be a been there done that solution, plus adding expense and the dreaded equipment weight problems,my health is fair but I dont like pushing it to the limits these days having had the gypsies warning last year .

best solution carry on as is for now ,look for forthcoming bargains on the used market and just enjoy what I have within its known limitations .. a 300mm f4 + tc is next on the desirable list but prices have gone up and down this year like a barmaids apron
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,359
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
The market and its commentators seemed to forget that DSLRs used to be available at £1000 or less and that implied there was an expectation among them that it is reasonable that amateurs should cough at least £2000 for an FF camera and then add some expensive glass as well if they want to participate.
But equally, relative to wages, I suspect even those prices are lower than they were for equivalent quality cameras a few decades ago. And I fear that as the camera market declines we may well have to look forward to increases in prices.
 
Messages
1,359
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
Agree, but Fuji cameras are very well regarded, have decent market share and are more than holding position. And cameras are still seen as high-profile consumer products that enhance an otherwise rather dull Fujifilm brand of mostly industrial stuff. Fuji has also shown serious commitment by launching into medium-format.
No disagreement with that, but if a company comes under financial pressure, then the lower profit products might be the first to go. Having said that , if Fuji see their cameras as a good way of spending their marketing budget that "pays for itself" even if not making the profit they might like, it might still make them a long term safer bet than the alternatives.

With Sony, making cameras might be a good advert for your sensors, but it also means you are in direct competition with your customers. And I'm sure I've read that sensor sales for stills cameras is a relatively small part of the sensor market.
 
Messages
3,508
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
best solution carry on as is for now ,look for forthcoming bargains on the used market and just enjoy what I have within its known limitations .. a 300mm f4 + tc is next on the desirable list but prices have gone up and down this year like a barmaids apron
Absolutely, and the system has sold well enough that there will continue to be plenty of used gear on the market for a long, long time. The cheaper travel zooms and E-PL bodies etc will bottom out pretty hard, but the Olympus Pro glass and Panasonic equivalents will be fine for some time.

The Sony Alpha (Minolta) system has been 'dead' for some time now but used gear is holding on remarkably well, particularly the higher end stuff.
 
Messages
23,121
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
No disagreement with that, but if a company comes under financial pressure, then the lower profit products might be the first to go. Having said that , if Fuji see their cameras as a good way of spending their marketing budget that "pays for itself" even if not making the profit they might like, it might still make them a long term safer bet than the alternatives.

With Sony, making cameras might be a good advert for your sensors, but it also means you are in direct competition with your customers. And I'm sure I've read that sensor sales for stills cameras is a relatively small part of the sensor market.
Sony is into all kinds of image sensors - cameras, phones (now with multiple cameras), cars, security. Huge potential.

I don't think any make is "safe". It is all rumours after all, even if I try to mainly listen to spokes people from the actual company.
Company representatives* are the last people to tell the truth. They never own up to bad news - believe what actually happens, not what they say will happen. Olympus is a shocking example and it's now clear they've been cooking the books and spinning us lies for a decade or more.

*Edit: and those company reps will not know the truth anyway - they will have been fed a line from Japan too. And then they get liberally splattered when the crap hits the fan. Events like this are not pretty and are often downright brutal.
 
Last edited:
Top