Pound Coin
Horatio Nelson
- Messages
- 4,296
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Did you?? Really? No way???!?!I did wonder was there a bit of sarc in their
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...)
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.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.
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/
1: Which is pretty much reflected in e.g. the RX100, X100 and GR series, Highend P&S cameras for PhotographersQuite. 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.
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.Well, my kit still works and I don't care about video so hopefully it will last a long time.....
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.
Whereas you are...?If nothing else at least your entertaining
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
And an uninformed one too 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.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.
No that's what I said; strip all that out. Read, then comment.And an uninformed one too Olympus does have scene modes and lots of bells and whistles. The real time long exposure view is quite interesting, just to mention one
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 problemsProbs 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.
Well it's how I interpreted what you said so stick with itNo that's what I said; strip all that out. Read, then comment.
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.Well it's how I interpreted what you said so stick with it
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
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.
What about Fuji, I was under the impression that the Fuji-X range makes very little profit for them if any?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!
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.
What about Fuji, I was under the impression that the Fuji-X range makes very little profit for them if any?
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?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.
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.
Mostly yet more twaddle, balh blah blah...
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 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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 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.
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.What about Fuji, I was under the impression that the Fuji-X range makes very little profit for them if any?
It would seem that selling stills cameras is indeed a very difficult business to be in :-(
Or even the top models of any makeMostly 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.
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 thatFuji 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 :-(
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.
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.
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
I didn't need to read that
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.
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.