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.So if a brand starts out in one market it can't expand in to another, is that what you're saying?
I wish my Nikon and Sony kit was made as well and robust as that?
This is because you still clearly don't understand how marketing works.I don't ever recall Panasonic and Olympus making M4/3 for hobbyists tbh.
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 obviously don't understand how marketing works...
You do post some twaddle.
No you did, cos I can't be arsed arguing with anything else you said. You've also missed the point.I'll waste some time posting a reply
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?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.
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.Can't speak for Sony, but after handling loads of Olympus cams, my Nikon gear still feels better made. Sorry about that.
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?This is because you still clearly don't understand how marketing works.
I don't think anyone's ever argued anything differently have they? FF isn't the holy grail either though.Larger sensors produce better image quality. Scientifically provable fact. Unless you don't believe in Science?
.
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.
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.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?
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?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?
I don't think anyone's ever argued anything differently have they? FF isn't the holy grail either though.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it is 'twaddle'.Your posts often include a grain of truth among the twaddle, I just wish you'd dial the twaddle down.
Oh dear.The fact is that most people don't use an interchangeable lens camera without mounting a lens on it
Because I'm right. And arguing with truth and fact, is, as you say; pointless. I'm glad you've finally understood this.Arguing with you is next to pointless
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.
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.you've got such a weird and bullish aurora!
Of course not. But please see my comment above.I don't think anyone's ever argued anything differently have they? FF isn't the holy grail either though.
Yet; here you are. Like a moth to a flame...Snerkler, you really are wasting your time with his guy. Believe me.
Tbh I still don’t see any evidence just an opinion?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.
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 evidenceWell, 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 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.”
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.
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>SNIP
This is because you still clearly don't understand how marketing works.
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.Tbh I still don’t see any evidence just an opinion?
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.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.
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’
This, pretty much. Soeren gets it.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
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 breatheThe 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.
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.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. ;-)
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 ContaxWell, 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<
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
Now that is interesting.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
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.
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]
It's about how much I care.I suppose now you're going to argue that it was a typo that your laziness missed...
This, pretty much. Soeren gets it.
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 stuffLordy. 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 can. I'm off to get an ice lolly.We can go round and round in circles all day on this
A link would be useful Mike.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.
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....
Erm...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 pointNonsense, 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]
that was my point