Is Olympus going in the wrong direction?

pake

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
2,583
Location
Finland
Real Name
Teemu
Your argument is essentially that a FF lens must be stopped down two stops and that you can not use the wider two stops because m43 exists in the world? :coco:
Wow. How about putting (false) words into my mouth, eh? Fine by me. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
 

BDR-529

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
978
The question should not be “Is Olympus is headed in the right direction”, but whether “Is the micro-four-thirds consortium is headed in the right direction?

Unfortunately it looks like Panasonic and OMDS are going in different directions.

Panasonic is not trying to compete against FF with their new m43 models but target those mythical "content creators" instead. The very last thing panny wants is a mft camera that cannibalizes their paper thin L-mount market share.

When I look at specs and price of latest models it's pretty clear that "content" = (online) video and "content creator" = someone who does not have to pay camera gear from his/her own pocket or gets outright paid for the content.
 

Brownie

Thread Killer Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
4,290
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
Panasonic is not trying to compete against FF with their new m43 models but target those mythical "content creators" instead. The very last thing panny wants is a mft camera that cannibalizes their paper thin L-mount market share.
The statement is correct, but I think the reasoning is different. Panny isn't worried about their M-4/3 line interfering with their FF gear. Instead, I think Panasonic recognized what was happening to the market and developed the FF line as a response. They concentrated their efforts on M-4/3 with video and shifted their stills cameras to FF. This, coupled with recent announcements and firmware updates is why I believe there will be no further improvements in the G-9 line. If you want to shoot M-4/3 with a new Panasonic, it will be with a GH-"X". If you want photo-centric, you will need to buy FF.

This is smart on their part. While the FF line may well end up a failure, there's no doubt Panasonic tried to get ahead of the market while conserving their M-4/3 interests in the best way they could. Conversely, I feel like Olympus has been depending more on their name to see M-4/3 through. That's not to say their cameras aren't top-drawer, they certainly are. I just think they expected the brand to carry itself in a format that many, especially newcomers, have to be convinced is good.

Which takes me back to one of my early posts (#23, to be exact) in this thread. Olympus should develop a FF or APS-C camera that uses their legacy mount. Heck, develop both. The big boys do it successfully. Get back into the multi-format game and keep each within its own strengths. I don't have the figures so someone else feel free to post them and prove me wrong, but I would bet that APSC still holds the largest part of the market.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
45
It's horses for courses.
I have a Pentax 645z and 28-45 lens that I use for landscape photography when I'm not far from the car. Its image output is matched by only a couple of cameras, none of them full frame or smaller, and none of them costing under 5 figures with lens. It's also very durable, and well-weatherproofed. But it's huge and heavy, the AF is slow, the selection of long lenses is not great, and they are giant. Pro sports and wildlife photographers would not consider it for that type of work.
For hiking and wildlife photography, I'm very happy with my M1.3. It's relatively light, the lenses are good and comparably small, the AF is pretty good, and it's quite durable and water-resistant. In other words, a great option for transportability in varying conditions and telephoto distances. The newest Canons and Nikons are a little better in terms of image output, but they are significantly more expensive and the comparable lenses are bigger. The Sonys haven't historically been well-enough weather protected for me to even consider them.
This doesn't make my M1.3 better than the 645z. Or than a Canon R5. But it's better for the things that I use it for.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,460
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
Not cannibalize.

Complement. For video.

That‘s how Panasonic positions their m43 and L-mount products.

FF is necessary for the available light, higher-IQ, shallow DOF shots, at the expense of expensive cages, lack of portability, and big, heavy lenses, especially the primes with focus pull gearing, etc.

m43 is for run ‘n’ gun shooting and superb portability, plus with the 10-25 and new 25-50 lenses its a compact zoom platform. Can also do macro and high speed better.

Even small video production units require redundancy and versatility, either for their own creativity or for whatever the client may need.
 

DeeJayK

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
4,002
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Real Name
Keith
...Which takes me back to one of my early posts (#23, to be exact) in this thread. Olympus should develop a FF or APS-C camera that uses their legacy mount. Heck, develop both. The big boys do it successfully. Get back into the multi-format game and keep each within its own strengths. I don't have the figures so someone else feel free to post them and prove me wrong, but I would bet that APSC still holds the largest part of the market.
I'm not sure I understand what advantage you see in moving to an APS-C sensor. Sure, it's a bit bigger than the m43 sensor, but not enough so to make a worthwhile difference IMO.

Likewise can you elaborate on the advantage of reviving the original OM mount? I suppose it provides some baseline of lenses and so would be preferable in some ways to introducing a completely new mount, but those OM lenses are already easy to adapt to any mirrorless camera. And the number of folks who choose to use them is vanishingly small in the overall market due mainly to the fact that they require manual focus.

While APS-C has long dominated the digital ILC market (and may continue to do so -- I haven't seen recent figures), that's not due to any inherent advantage in the format itself, but simply a consequence of price points and manufacturer name recognition.

IMO, introducing a new APS-C line in today's market would be the nail in the coffin for OMDS. It they're going to introduce a new line, the only way to go would be FF...or larger.

- K
 

Brownie

Thread Killer Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
4,290
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
I'm not sure I understand what advantage you see in moving to an APS-C sensor. Sure, it's a bit bigger than the m43 sensor, but not enough so to make a worthwhile difference IMO.

Likewise can you elaborate on the supposed advantage of reviving the original OM mount. I suppose it provides some baseline of lenses and so would be preferable in some ways to introducing a completely new mount, but those OM lenses are already easy to adapt to any mirrorless camera. And the number of folks who choose to use them is vanishingly small in the overall market due mainly to the fact that they require manual focus.

While APS-C has long dominated the digital ILC market (and may continue to do so -- I haven't seen recent figures), that's not due to any inherent advantage in the format itself, but simply a consequence of price points and manufacturer name recognition.

IMO, introducing a new APS-C line in today's market would be the nail in the coffin for OMDS. It they're going to introduce a new line, the only way to go would be FF...or larger.

- K
Not 'moving' to an APS-C sensor, adding one. The advantage to APS-C is popularity amongst buyers. Nothing more, nothing less. People buy them as a lower cost alternative to FF. They are familiar and well-regarded. And you answered the rest yourself, a consequence of price points and manufacturer name recognition, which, BTW, Olympus shares with other legacy brands. Keep in mind what this discussion is based on, products and marketing that appeal to the masses.

The use of their legacy mount is exactly as you suppose. It gives those who loved the brand before but may have shifted brands for other formats a chance to use their old glass. Yes, we do that now with adapters, but nostalgia sells. Pentax does it. Sony has done it with the A-Mount for years, although I think that's close to the end, it looks like they're dropping A-Mount altogether. Still, not a bad run of 15 years.

As for the FF V. APS-C, I did mention they could produce both. Other companies produce similar cameras in both formats. Cut a few top-end features, change something here or there and sell the APS-C cheaper. Selling to multiple markets/price-points off the same R&D budget makes sense.
 

DeeJayK

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
4,002
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Real Name
Keith
Not 'moving' to an APS-C sensor, adding one. The advantage to APS-C is popularity amongst buyers. Nothing more, nothing less. People buy them as a lower cost alternative to FF. They are familiar and well-regarded. And you answered the rest yourself, a consequence of price points and manufacturer name recognition, which, BTW, Olympus shares with other legacy brands. Keep in mind what this discussion is based on, products and marketing that appeal to the masses.

The use of their legacy mount is exactly as you suppose. It gives those who loved the brand before but may have shifted brands for other formats a chance to use their old glass. Yes, we do that now with adapters, but nostalgia sells. Pentax does it. Sony has done it with the A-Mount for years, although I think that's close to the end, it looks like they're dropping A-Mount altogether. Still, not a bad run of 15 years.

As for the FF V. APS-C, I did mention they could produce both. Other companies produce similar cameras in both formats. Cut a few top-end features, change something here or there and sell the APS-C cheaper. Selling to multiple markets/price-points off the same R&D budget makes sense.
So you contend that there are buyers who walk into a camera store knowing they want an "APS-C camera"? I personally can't fathom such a consumer exists in numbers larger than dozens.

And, yes, I did read your suggestion regarding producing a FF version. That makes some sense to me, but rolling out an APS-C model (even alongside a FF one) strikes me as utter foolishness.

- K
 
Last edited:

Brownie

Thread Killer Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
4,290
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
So you contend that there are buyers who walk into a camera store knowing they want an "APS-C camera"? I personally can't fathom such a consumer exists in numbers larger than dozens.

And, yes, I did read your suggestion regarding producing a FF version. That makes some sense to me, but rolling out an APS-C model (even alongside a FF one) looks to me like compete foolishness.

- K
No, but I contend that counter sales people steer them in that direction once they identify their buyer's price point. Away from FF, and away from M-4/3.

Walk up to a casual photographer and ask what they have. Odds are it'll be APS-C. Now, when his buddy says he's thinking about a nice camera, guess what he'll recommend? More than likely the same camera he's shooting. He doesn't even have to know what kind of sensor it has. That's just people being people.

Of course the other option is for the M-4/3 manufacturers to convince people it's a viable choice, because that's really what this thread boils down to. In order to stay alive, you must sell cameras.
 

jbruce

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Messages
136
Location
Northern Minnesota
Real Name
John
These same sort of arguments, circa 11-1- 2020, about the old Olympus' problems at that time, ran to many pages . I'll repeat my comment from that discussion: "My thought is that much of Olympus' (and M43 in general) problems are that they have failed to advertise their wares in any reasonably public way. The greater public must see the equipment in action i.e..- photos' out there for all the general public to see, and to recognize the positive relevance of the M43 system."
It is not necessarily the product that must be superior to it's competition, it just may be the way it is presented (or not), that sells the product.
John
 

comment23

mu-43 frequent flyer
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
2,003
Location
Hampshire, UK
Real Name
Simon
These same sort of arguments, circa 11-1- 2020, about the old Olympus' problems at that time, ran to many pages . I'll repeat my comment from that discussion: "My thought is that much of Olympus' (and M43 in general) problems are that they have failed to advertise their wares in any reasonably public way. The greater public must see the equipment in action i.e..- photos' out there for all the general public to see, and to recognize the positive relevance of the M43 system."
It is not necessarily the product that must be superior to it's competition, it just may be the way it is presented (or not), that sells the product.
John
They need something like the ‘shot on iPhone’ campaign. But adapted and down scaled to suit the smaller target audience than basically everyone on the planet.

Incidentally, what piqued my interest in the system, being a Nikon DX user previously, were the full page adverts for the original E-M5 I saw in the photography press I was consuming around 2013/14. I eventually got myself an E-M10 to scratch an itch and the rest, as they say, is history.

1627245238441.jpeg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

1627245258759.jpeg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,460
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
No, but I contend that counter sales people steer them in that direction once they identify their buyer's price point. Away from FF, and away from M-4/3.

Walk up to a casual photographer and ask what they have. Odds are it'll be APS-C. Now, when his buddy says he's thinking about a nice camera, guess what he'll recommend? More than likely the same camera he's shooting. He doesn't even have to know what kind of sensor it has. That's just people being people.

Of course the other option is for the M-4/3 manufacturers to convince people it's a viable choice, because that's really what this thread boils down to. In order to stay alive, you must sell cameras.
"counter sales people"?

What are those?

I suspect the vast majority of sales are made online now with compare and contrast via websites.

There's been really good press and online reviews about the f/4 lenses going in the "right direction". I am not sure what the OP referenced article was going on about. For its reach and constant aperture and ruggedness, the 8-25/4 is relatively compact and competitively priced considering the added reach and the given the m43 struggle with WA compactness because off physics. The 12-45/4 is a jewel of compactness and affordability. And the 12-100/4 is the bomb for versatility and IS pairing. OMDS needs a zoom complement in the 45-200mm range similarly compact and affordable to the 12-45 and they've finished off another branch of lenses that complement the EM5 series especially.

12-100/4
12-45/4
8-25/4
45-200/4.5? - maybe no TC or IS to keep it light and affordable

Add in the non-PRO lenses with weather sealing:

14-150/4-5.6 II
100-400/5-6.3

Those are versatile and mature products for zoom prosumer needs. As long as priced below FF and with a few added benefits like weather selling and more FL reach than other brands, they are very appealing. They are particularly appealing for outdoor videography and high FPS stills. With grip, the 12-100 and 100-400 will fit on the EM5 series. They make the best of the small sensor and the legacy system.

It's hard to argue with the current path. There's not room within the smaller sensor to improve IQ, so it has to be other features that make the appeal. I especially like the 12-45/4 and the idea a similarly compact tele zoom to complement may be on the way.
 

Brownie

Thread Killer Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
4,290
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
"counter sales people"?

What are those?

I suspect the vast majority of sales are made online now with compare and contrast via websites.

There's been really good press and online reviews about the f/4 lenses going in the "right direction". I am not sure what the OP referenced article was going on about. For its reach and constant aperture and ruggedness, the 8-25/4 is relatively compact and competitively priced considering the added reach and the given the m43 struggle with WA compactness because off physics. The 12-45/4 is a jewel of compactness and affordability. And the 12-100/4 is the bomb for versatility and IS pairing. OMDS needs a zoom complement in the 45-200mm range similarly compact and affordable to the 12-45 and they've finished off another branch of lenses that complement the EM5 series especially.

12-100/4
12-45/4
8-25/4
45-200/4.5? - maybe no TC or IS to keep it light and affordable

Add in the non-PRO lenses with weather sealing:

14-150/4-5.6 II
100-400/5-6.3

Those are versatile and mature products for zoom prosumer needs. As long as priced below FF and with a few added benefits like weather selling and more FL reach than other brands, they are very appealing. They are particularly appealing for outdoor videography and high FPS stills. With grip, the 12-100 and 100-400 will fit on the EM5 series. They make the best of the small sensor and the legacy system.

It's hard to argue with the current path. There's not room within the smaller sensor to improve IQ, so it has to be other features that make the appeal. I especially like the 12-45/4 and the idea a similarly compact tele zoom to complement may be on the way.
Ok, we can discount the sales person, even though many of us still do business locally. But you cannot discount the recommendation from Joe Camera to use what he's using, which again in many, many cases is APS-C.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,460
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
Ok, we can discount the sales person, even though many of us still do business locally. But you cannot discount the recommendation from Joe Camera to use what he's using, which again in many, many cases is APS-C.

DP Review's video team used m43 Panasonic GH5s until they switched last year to the Panasonic FF S5 for most of their work, with the second unit still m43.

Gordon Laing, who has one of the most comprehensive camera websites and video review channels, uses m43 constantly.

I see very few APS-C models emphasized anymore except for the Fuji aficionados. Nikon, Sony, and even Canon are muted as they strongly push FF above all else, likely due to margins.

Almost every "pro" website or YouTube channel is FF-dominant. Most APS-C product lines have been scaled back considerably as FF mirrorless prices plummeted.

I'd argue m43 pushes well above its weight with market explsoure given its sub-4% market share.
 

Brownie

Thread Killer Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
4,290
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
DP Review's video team used m43 Panasonic GH5s until they switched last year to the Panasonic FF S5 for most of their work, with the second unit still m43.

Gordon Laing, who has one of the most comprehensive camera websites and video review channels, uses m43 constantly.

I see very few APS-C models emphasized anymore except for the Fuji aficionados. Nikon, Sony, and even Canon are muted as they strongly push FF above all else, likely due to margins.

Almost every "pro" website or YouTube channel is FF-dominant. Most APS-C product lines have been scaled back considerably as FF mirrorless prices plummeted.

I'd argue m43 pushes well above its weight with market explsoure given its sub-4% market share.
VIDEO VIDEO VIDEO VIDEO VIDEO PANASONIC PANASONIC PANASONIC PANASONIC PANASONIC.

We've already established Panasonic has positioned themselves well in M-4/3 with video. Did you have anything else to add with regard to Olympus and stills?
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,460
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
VIDEO VIDEO VIDEO VIDEO VIDEO PANASONIC PANASONIC PANASONIC PANASONIC PANASONIC.

We've already established Panasonic has positioned themselves well in M-4/3 with video. Did you have anything else to add with regard to Olympus and stills?
The question was with regards to APS-C.
Panasonic uses all 3 sensor sizes and the advice above was for Olympus to follow Panasonic because that’s where the market is going.
Panny uses APS-C in their broadcast cameras.
It’s not feasible in video to stay to one sensor size. So if Olympus is to follow Panny in that “right direction”, they’d need to do the same.
 

BDR-529

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
978
I see very few APS-C models emphasized anymore except for the Fuji aficionados. Nikon, Sony, and even Canon are muted as they strongly push FF above all else, likely due to margins.

APS-C was never nothing more than inexpensive entry level option for Sony, Canon and Nikon.

They never bothered to design any high end APS-C lenses, just budget options for those who did want something better than the kit lens.

Target was always that customers move up to expensive (read: profitable) FF bodies and lenses as soon as they have financial means to do so and all the "pro" stuff was made for FF.

Fuji was to only major manufacturer who relied on APS-C and did obviously design also "pro" lenses and bodies for it. Just like Olympus did for m4/3.

Now economies of scale are in mirrorless FF and it has become cheaper and easier to fill whatever is left of entry level ILC category with annoyingly competent FF bodies.

(for example S5 and Z6 are selling below 1400€ even in Europe and RP is in sub 1k€ range)

Sony, Canon and Nikon don't need APS-C anymore, it's just eating up their resources and it's too close to FF to be positioned in any special niche like panny is apparently doing with their new m4/3 models
 
Last edited:

Brownie

Thread Killer Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
4,290
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
The question was with regards to APS-C.
Panasonic uses all 3 sensor sizes and the advice above was for Olympus to follow Panasonic because that’s where the market is going.
Panny uses APS-C in their broadcast cameras.
It’s not feasible in video to stay to one sensor size. So if Olympus is to follow Panny in that “right direction”, they’d need to do the same.
No, the question was with regards to how OLYMPUS has positioned themselves, and what OLYMPUS might do. That's what is being discussed.
 

BDR-529

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
978
No, the question was with regards to how OLYMPUS has positioned themselves, and what OLYMPUS might do. That's what is being discussed.
That will be one very short discussion then.

Olympus positioned themselves entirely in medical and scientific imaging and divested that perpetually loss-making camera unit to JIP last year.

It might be more interesting to talk about OMDS instead no matter what the title says because Olympus is already going into right direction. 😁
 
Last edited:

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom