Rumors (now denied): Olympus to shut down camera division in less than 8 months

Status
Not open for further replies.

RS86

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
113
Location
Finland
EM10 Mk2 body, currently available in the UK on a "black Friday" (Friday now lasts 8 days) deal of GBP 229. Bargain!
Thanks for the tip! Might get another because I have 40k shutter count already and would get a new battery. Have been waiting to see if I can find another for cheap at Black Friday eventhough I have GX9 as 2nd body.
 
Last edited:

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,146
IBIS and optical stabilization work very well on other brands. It’s not a tech proprietary to m43. It’s just not. And it appears to be at the point of diminishing returns. EIS (including with the EM1X) is a small sensor advantage, but the tech there is also approaching its limits. We are soon to see a Canon FF mirrorless IBIS paired with their OIS, claiming 7 stops.
Unfortunately IBIS seems to be not as good in other cameras but you can echo that marketing point since it sells on other systems by ticking a checkbox on a feature list.

I was hoping that the X-H1 had particularly good IBIS given how it syncs up with the lens in the way that Olympus and Panasonic does it where the sensor and lens elements cooperatively work. Turns out that while it is "good" it doesn't measure - at least according to someone that briefly had some experience with one. Then we have Nikon and Sony, where they lazily do the "sensor handles roll, lens does rest of stabilization" implementation if you have lens+body and you're in the land of 1-3 stops but they can claim otherwise for their CIPA values. No 1/2 to 1s stabilization capabilities elsewhere, still.

Still waiting myself for better IBIS and the fast readout, the A9 vaguely satisfies the fast readout side but not the IBIS and definitely not other factors (ergonomics). I say this with honesty in wanting Canon to nail down a pro level body but so far I'm left as a doubter.
 
Last edited:

RS86

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
113
Location
Finland
Unfortunately IBIS seems to be not as good in other cameras but you can echo that marketing point since it sells on other systems by ticking a checkbox on a feature list.

I was hoping that the X-H1 had particularly good IBIS given how it syncs up with the lens in the way that Olympus and Panasonic does it where the sensor and lens elements cooperatively work. Turns out that while it is "good" it doesn't measure - at least according to someone that briefly had some experience with one. Then we have Nikon and Sony, where they lazily do the "sensor handles roll, lens does rest of stabilization" implementation if you have lens+body and you're in the land of 1-3 stops but they can claim otherwise for their CIPA values. No 1/2 to 1s stabilization capabilities elsewhere, still.

Still waiting myself for better IBIS and the fast readout, the A9 vaguely satisfies the fast readout side but not the IBIS and definitely not other factors (ergonomics). I say this with honesty in wanting Canon to nail down a pro level body but so far I'm left as a doubter.
Interesting, thanks. I find it weird how some say now IBIS area is now even, and some say it's not. I thought smaller sensors have an advantage here because of physics. At least in the battery drain department I would think?

Meanwhile:
m43_aristophanes.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,146
Focal reducers are a non-native kludge, and very expensive. If so useful, why aren’t Panny and Olympus making them directly?
Because they want you to buy their new production lenses, not a Sigma 18-35/50-100 f/1.8. Why doesn't Nikon make a Sony E to Nikon Z adapter even if one exists? Because Nikon wants you to buy their lenses. If anything, Nikon is notoriously hostile towards third party lens manufacturers and intentionally does things to sabotage the AF performance in firmware updates (rather than just "not caring" in the first place). The little lies that are fed about how "you're at fault and risk for buying a disgusting out of system lens, you deserve to have it brick on you for having inferior AF reverse engineering" that were pushed in the past was part of that marketing campaign.

At least we actually have options right now.

Extreme FPS can be a liability in post.
Having a good thing is not a bad thing. 60 fps allows for computational imaging. If the A9's price dropped to a reasonable point, I'd buy one solely so I could use the 20fps capture on it for computational imaging. I'm more disappointed by a lack of advancement in the field of fast readouts to the point that the sensors can function without a shutter for much of the time.

No Kool Aid. m43 has it advantages but they are not the sensor. This makes it very difficult to price m43 at larger sensor margins. Is the other tech listed equivalent in sum to the advantages of a larger sensor? Probably not. And it’s all over the Japanese criticism about where to place Olympus relative to the other manufacturers. Every comment is prefaced by the “smaller sensor”. No serious investor sees the smaller sensors as having the profitable market traction for higher-end sales as FF and above. Panasonic went to the FF $$. Fuji went to MF $$. The real problem is Olympus.
You're very hellbent on pushing your own narrative, Olympus (already small, quirky and not universally well received for things like their menu (which I happen to like)) trying to punch into 135 format? Good luck, what a suicidal endeavor. Look at the oddities of Panasonic and the L system (as much as I love the body design and yes I prefer the compromises made for good ergonomics), how big is their marketshare there? You're still looking at the Canikon Duopoly with Sony trailing behind. Sigma made a tiny dent, Panasonic made a tiny dent. Now you're suggesting Olympus should pour their R&D budget (limited) into competing with an overcrowded segment? You should offer your consulting services to Olympus and see if they'll hire you.

The Olympus f/1.2 lenses are vastly overpriced and offer less shallow and diffraction limited DOF than. $389 FF 1.8. Fast glass is a very expensive solution for m43 as smaller optics at required quality are much harder to design than larger optics. We see that in uncompetitive m43 pricing. It’s not a good place to be for a manufacturer. The Panasonic 10-25/1.7 is outstanding glass, but price and mass compromises are what it takes to compete.
The most successful niche camera Olympus makes right now is the very popular TG-6 as a dive camera. No action cam has come close to what Olympus has accomplished there with a small sensor. So the question is, how does Olympus do the same with m43? The $1049 1.2s aren’t an answer against a Nikon Z 50/1.8.
Do you own a Nikon 50 1/.8 S? There's design differences between it and the Olympus 25mm f/1.2, let alone any lens. I don't have any skin in the game in regards to the Olympus f/1.2s because I went for a Sigma duo but you should be aware of optical performance at a given aperture along with characteristics. Check the ratio of "edge to center" resolution at aperture on these two lenses and it becomes obvious what each lens was designed for. Olympus could probably shrink that 25mm f/1.2 design (and price) if they wanted to give away the in the corners and edges like Nikon does.

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

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

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

RS86

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
113
Location
Finland
He always has been. Makes one wonder why he even owns m43 stuff since he seems to hate it and is always measurebating to other systems. He is best ignored.
Kind of true, but I think it's better for readers who are learning about m43 for people to show his statements (or similar narratives) false like Reflector did above. Although some here have surely done their part already. I will share my first photos in some time which is even better way, great photo threads here.
 
Last edited:

Aristophanes

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
707
Location
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
The Olympus strategy is to pile all the tech possible into m43 to compensate for the inherent sensor deficiency, then aim for the same price points as larger formats. This in an attempt to to keep margins up. It’s not working and is part of why Olympus is under such scrutiny.

Panasonic read the market tea leaves better. They went high-margin originally with video and the GH series, and then, looking to retain high margin products in the face of declining compact and consumer cameras, came out with their well-received FF models and lenses.

Fuji....same as Panasonic, not with video, but with retro, and then medium format mirrorless, the latter being a huge investment, very well-received by investors. If you’re going to keep a camera assembly line, better to make $1k per unit margin on small batches than have to make and sell 20x that number of EM10s into a market throttled by smartphones.

Canon and Nikon straddle the FF market with super pro DSLR models and Z7s (and soon top tier mirrorless) and Canon’s gone very aggressive in pricing.

BlackMagic is interesting. Their 4k model was introduced as an amateur or small production unit, but their follow-up 6k went straight for the “pro” second shot market. The company pretty much emulates where the m43 format is going: larger sensors will always command more $$ and margins based on outright IQ superiority. Smaller sensors must be priced lower based on IQ.

Olympus has no path to higher margin models. There is intense criticism in Japan about that problem. Olympus is staring into a market where smaller sensors will always have to be priced lower than larger sensors. No amount of other tech can make up for the margin difference.

That doesn’t make m43 poor at taking photos. It just means it’s sensor deficiency means it has to cost less to compensate. That’s why there is so much criticism over Olympus pricing.....everywhere. Market forces are relentlessly shoving their product lines into lower tiers against management expectations. Olympus has a margin problem. Hence the rumours.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
113
Location
Finland
The Olympus strategy is to pile all the tech possible into m43 to compensate for the inherent sensor deficiency, then aim for the same price points as larger formats. This in an attempt to to keep margins up. It’s not working and is part of why Olympus is under such scrutiny.

Panasonic read the market tea leaves better. They went high-margin originally with video and the GH series, and then, looking to retain high margin products in the face of declining compact and consumer cameras, came out with their well-received FF models and lenses.

Fuji....same as Panasonic, not with video, but with retro, and then medium format mirrorless, the latter being a huge investment, very well-received by investors. If you’re going to keep a camera assembly line, better to make $1k per unit margin on small batches than have to make and sell 20x that number of EM10s into a market throttled by smartphones.

Canon and Nikon straddle the FF market with super pro DSLR models and Z7s (and soon top tier mirrorless) and Canon’s gone very aggressive in pricing.

BlackMagic is interesting. Their 4k model was introduced as an amateur or small production unit, but their follow-up 6k went straight for the “pro” second shot market. The company pretty much emulates where the m43 format is going: larger sensors will always command more $$ and margins based on outright IQ superiority. Smaller sensors must be priced lower based on IQ.

Olympus has no path to higher margin models. There is intense criticism in Japan about that problem. Olympus is staring into a market where smaller sensors will always have to be priced lower than larger sensors. No amount of other tech can make up for the margin difference.

That doesn’t make m43 poor at taking photos. It just means it’s sensor deficiency means it has to cost less to compensate. That’s why there is so much criticism over Olympus pricing.....everywhere. Market forces are relentlessly shoving their product lines into lower tiers against management expectations. Olympus has a margin problem. Hence the rumours.
Are you a politician or have you considered going into politics? Your name suggests you might have been in ancient times. Because you seem to dodge my questions totally, although might need some practice because some journalists are not stupid.

What do you answer to my points about your statement about "shooting envelope" with FF vs m43? I give you a hint: sometimes you win when you admit defeat. You can't win in internet with dodging indefinitely because everyone can see how it went until forever.

Did you see the comment how big share Panasonic has in FF market? Or the points why Olympus is better not go there? Can you answer to arguments or do you just state things like a broken record which sometimes stops altogether it seems?

For example E-M5 III is very competent package and every competitor camera has something to give in against it in "shooting envelope". That is a fact. Every shooter is different so its important to know what one needs.
 
Last edited:

Aristophanes

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
707
Location
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Are you a politician or have you considered going into politics? Your name suggests you might have been in ancient times. Because you seem to dodge my questions totally, although might need some practice because some journalists are not stupid.

What do you answer to my points about your statement about "shooting envelope" with FF vs m43? I give you a hint: sometimes you win when you admit defeat. You can't win in internet with dodging indefinitely because everyone can see how it went until forever.

Did you see the comment how big share Panasonic has in FF market? Or the points why Olympus is better not go there? Can you answer to arguments or do you just state things like a broken record which sometimes stops altogether it seems?

For example E-M5 III is very competent package and every competitor camera has something to give in against it in "shooting envelope". That is a fact. Every shooter is different so its important to know what one needs.
It was always acknowledged that the 43 and m43 smaller sensor came with tradeoffs. Lower IQ and more limited shooting envelope in exchange for compactness, easier to implement video, and perhaps cost.

In the face of a market decline, especially for low- to mid-range decimation of product lines, all companies have embarked on the same high-margin development path.

Panasonic went FF. Fuji went MF. Even Pentax went MF. Canikon and Sony went super high res and new mounts. Sigma is now FF. BlackMagic went 4k for the amateurs and larger 6k and 8k format for the pros.

The consensus industry response to the need for higher margins has been higher IQ, larger sensor platforms. They’ve abandoned (Nikon 1) or neglected (DX lens development) smaller formats. Fuji has planted their feet firmly in APS-C and MF as a differentiator.

Olympus has nowhere to go for higher margins using the m43 sensor. If you shoot m43 that may mean the same quality you’re used to for less $. But if you’re an Olympus executive, this is a major issue for their imaging department. Every industry watcher, shareholder, and institutional investor sees and comments on this being the situation. Analysis exists well beyond these types of forums.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
113
Location
Finland
It was always acknowledged that the 43 and m43 smaller sensor came with tradeoffs. Lower IQ and more limited shooting envelope in exchange for compactness, easier to implement video, and perhaps cost.

In the face of a market decline, especially for low- to mid-range decimation of product lines, all companies have embarked on the same high-margin development path.

Panasonic went FF. Fuji went MF. Even Pentax went MF. Canikon and Sony went super high res and new mounts. Sigma is now FF. BlackMagic went 4k for the amateurs and larger 6k and 8k format for the pros.

The consensus industry response to the need for higher margins has been higher IQ, larger sensor platforms. They’ve abandoned (Nikon 1) or neglected (DX lens development) smaller formats. Fuji has planted their feet firmly in APS-C and MF as a differentiator.

Olympus has nowhere to go for higher margins using the m43 sensor. If you shoot m43 that may mean the same quality you’re used to for less $. But if you’re an Olympus executive, this is a major issue for their imaging department. Every industry watcher, shareholder, and institutional investor sees and comments on this being the situation. Analysis exists well beyond these types of forums.
I can repeat, it's a good article in total too:

"Ming Thein: "Every camera/ lens/ system has a range of conditions under which it will work optimally and be able to deliver the best image quality it can. This is its ‘shooting envelope’. It isn’t just the amount of available light, but also takes into consideration other factors such as ease of use, stability, and even to some extent, subject matter. The wider the shooting envelope of a camera, the more versatile it is; however, the tradeoff is almost always that cameras with a very wide shooting envelope in one direction are severely limited in others."

https://blog.mingthein.com/2014/06/11/shooting-envelope-what-does-it-mean/"

"FF has bigger sensor than m43" = "M43 has lower IQ". That is false.

From what I understand, there is no such things as "limited shooting envelope" based on smaller sensor. Shooting envelope is shooting envelope, and for example having FF equivalent 18-600mm lenses in pretty small bag with 2 cheaper and smaller cameras can be part of it.

Can you show me how I would be better served with FF from looking at my signature and gear? Thanks for the help! I can always upgrade my bodies later when their price drops. Lenses are what matters most for basic still photography and maybe overall.

For example, I think moderator Tom Caldwell in DPR forums uses three GM5 bodies in his bag in professional event photography. How would three FF bodies fare? That is ancient tech and sensors you know. He has great lenses and skill I'm sure. The 16MP sensor shows big difference in between kit lens and primes / Pro zoom eventhough kit lens is good enough for many and very small and cheap.

Smaller sensor gives some advantages in "shooting envelope" towards bigger sensors because of physics. That can mean different things to different users and FF is superior in some for sure. For me it isn't, and you still haven't showed me how it is, because you can't. And you still dodged some questions and keep repeating.
 
Last edited:

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,146
Panasonic went FF. Fuji went MF. Even Pentax went MF. Canikon and Sony went super high res and new mounts. Sigma is now FF. BlackMagic went 4k for the amateurs and larger 6k and 8k format for the pros.
Pentax should be, by your (and other "analysts" and "consultants") standards: Dead. They went hard in on APS-C years back on their DSLR line and made wonderful lenses, they have a very competent IBIS implementation (as far as I can tell they're better than Nikon and Sony) but with all the wonderful things they're languishing in market share due to a complexity of reasons. One of those is not sensor size because they certainly were the first to build one of the early mirrorless cameras. Do we remember the Pentax Q and K-01?
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


The consensus industry response to the need for higher margins has been higher IQ, larger sensor platforms. They’ve abandoned (Nikon 1) or neglected (DX lens development) smaller formats. Fuji has planted their feet firmly in APS-C and MF as a differentiator.
These are legacy companies with legacy lineups that are all around 135 format and that is why they all develop around it. If you could somehow improve yields and everyone had a past of making 645 format lenses, we'd see DPR sneering at "the filthy crop format of 135" and continually flaunting their superiority and supremacy of 645.

A second point: If larger is better, why aren't we all in MF land? Fuji actually makes a wonderful small MF body: The GFX100. I'd like one too but I don't think I could ever spend that kind of money, not until it drops to rock bottom prices in the future. Photography as a market is shrinking and not everyone is made out of pure deep pockets in the luxury segment.




Why bother answering all my counterpoints? Simply skip over what's said and start saying the same things again even if they've been countered and keep hammering the narrative like that little specific view is perfect and unchallengable. You want Olympus, a company with a limited R&D budget (that won't rise significantly in the long term given the contracting market) for their imaging division, to compete in an already crowded marketplace. You skipped my post completely - could it be that you're unwilling to even bother to address the points made and continually drum on about a certain narrative you want to shovel down people's throats like from months back? I've already gone over wafers and sensor yields.



Let's look at the new entrants real fast in regards to an overcrowded format size:

Panasonic: CDAF centric system (that leverages video and Micro Four Thirds improvements like HR mode, Dual IS and so on) that's part of the L-Mount alliance with Sigma and Leica meaning that they don't have to cover with as many lenses on L mount. CDAF is Panasonic's thing and they're proud of their CDAF. They're doing this only because they can be part of a big platform (read: less R&D investment). I like the bodies, I like what Panasonic does but they're CDAF and pricey - maybe a few generations out I'd look into them as a system. They'll have a difficult time being competitive in AF from a combination of 135 format sensors reading out slower and being CDAF based meaning they're working uphill here. This makes their new cameras less competitive with the Z6/7 and A7 family on that front but they're massively advantaged in the ergonomics side. They're one of the few cases I cheer for in 135 format mirrorless and yet they're still tiny in terms of marketshare. I wonder why.

Fuji: Don't bother with 135 format, that's one stop away. Skip the CROWDED segment and jump straight into that baby-MF format which is 1.26x larger than 135 format which allows them to experiment with insanely high pixel density. Is it a true, 645, "much bigger" medium format? No. It's a differentator however. If I go onto DPR I can see all the viscious hatred towards "anything not full frame: the one true format" which includes dumping on GFX. I even know of 135 format shooters who sneer at GFX as "rich talentless shooters who need to buy the next big camera up" all while themselves shooting with 36-50mp+ sensors that they claim are "superior to smaller crop formats" in the same strange argument that could be used in a GFX vs 135 format case. Oh look, marketing turned people's minds into mush and they simply need to use the one true format - a pity, Fuji makes some compelling cameras only for the 135 gang to sneer at them.

Sigma: One word: Foveon. They'll have that in 135 format mirrorless in the future. The only thing that comes close in regards to chroma resolution? HR mode on Micro Four Thirds and HHHR from Olympus in the E-M1X. Sigma already makes their own lenses and they sell them for other bodies. They already reverse engineered EF's protocols so for them to be part of L mount? Makes sense to expand out if you have as full of a lineup as Sigma. Sigma even ghost designs many Micro Four Thirds lenses. So for Sigma to start their own system? It makes sense for them.

So where's the mirrorless 135 format Pentax? Poor Pentax can't even enter that marketplace because they're half dead/undying. At least Pentax still cares enough as that Ricoh owned entity to keep releasing cameras and lenses for their DSLR users. Their own little mirrorless experiment in the past that didn't use a short flange was uniquely different but not competitive. If anything, Pentax should be able to easily enter 135 mirrorless: They just provide you with a plain tube and pass through electronics. Do you seriously want Olympus to enter into this slaughter and get massacred? If you want them to do something less stupid: Olympus is better off with joining GFX rather than enter an oversaturated marketplace.
 

Aristophanes

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
707
Location
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
I shot Pentax from K200D through 3 more models. I had/have legacy K-mount glass and still have an ME Super and *ist and great glass. Everyone on Pentax Forums was asking for years for full frame.

If larger sensors didn’t have IQ advantages then we’d all be shooting smartphones and Olympus TG-6s. m43 would have no tradeoffs, except we know that DR, ISO control, low light shooting disadvantages are there in the data and in market choice. Larger sensors utterly dominate professional use.

Panasonic went FF for a reason. Fuji MF. Leica MF, too. Why? More bits, higher resolution, superior IQ. One moderator on DPR does not indicate a counter-trend. The market has spoken and the industry responded. High margins are now larger sensors and Olympus alone doesn’t have a horse in the race. No industry watcher or shareholder analyst has missed this critical factor. This is why there are rumours. Olympus has been trying to eke out higher margins using the smaller sensor but that approach is now the problem as evidenced by the routine pricing criticism. Panasonic is more adroit, prices better, and has clearly hedged its bets.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
113
Location
Finland
I shot Pentax from K200D through 3 more models. I had/have legacy K-mount glass and still have an ME Super and *ist and great glass. Everyone on Pentax Forums was asking for years for full frame.

If larger sensors didn’t have IQ advantages then we’d all be shooting smartphones and Olympus TG-6s. m43 would have no tradeoffs, except we know that DR, ISO control, low light shooting disadvantages are there in the data and in market choice. Larger sensors utterly dominate professional use.

Panasonic went FF for a reason. Fuji MF. Leica MF, too. Why? More bits, higher resolution, superior IQ. One moderator on DPR does not indicate a counter-trend. The market has spoken and the industry responded. High margins are now larger sensors and Olympus alone doesn’t have a horse in the race. No industry watcher or shareholder analyst has missed this critical factor. This is why there are rumours. Olympus has been trying to eke out higher margins using the smaller sensor but that approach is now the problem as evidenced by the routine pricing criticism. Panasonic is more adroit, prices better, and has clearly hedged its bets.
Third time is a charm or what is the saying in English? So you cannot counter-argue that your "shooting envelope" superiority of FF against M43 is totally false. Thanks for clarification for everyone.

Also FF sensor does not mean superior IQ against M43. It depends on the lenses and many other things. What do you shoot, how, where and in what lighting. How big do you print or how much you crop (I don't crop much at all, internet sharing or 4k screens doesn't matter much what MP count nowadays.) If you print most over 1 meter wide then of course you want over 20MP. If you shoot most in low light of course you want larger sensor.

M43 is still very competitive in "shooting envelope", and likely will be. Olympus won't sell their imaging business for 1 dollar like you said in some thread, lol (I don't say lol often, this might be the first time actually).
 
Last edited:

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,146
If larger sensors didn’t have IQ advantages then we’d all be shooting smartphones
And if you look at the current trends, smartphones have eaten up a good segment of APS-C and entry level 135 format with computational imaging for the casual shooter or someone that just needs a very compact camera that can produce sufficiently good image quality. How often do we talk about the Sony RX1 family now?

One moderator on DPR does not indicate a counter-trend
Need context on what you're referencing here.
 

Aristophanes

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
707
Location
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Over a year I ago I predicted problems for Olympus related to their lack of competitiveness. They were over-pricing their products and over-engineering them in order to make up for the smaller sensor’s IQ deficiencies. These rumours and poor PR by Olympus are symptoms of what myself and others noticed about the company.

The recent rumours and speculation came from incidents in Japan. Sony, earlier in 2019, sold their shares back to Olympus directly, an American hedge fund invested heavily in the company (5%), and Olympus did not mention its imaging division in its shareholder releases and dodged questions at the time related to that department. The hedge fund pointedly and openly demanded higher margins from all product lines, as did other investors. And Olympus is actually sitting on a pile of cash, so this is all about margins. Then Olympus released financials showing a hefty loss on imaging, and a loss of market share. Since Canikon were transitioning to mirrorless while still supporting their DSLR systems, that can only mean Olympus is losing mirrorless share and customers to much higher-margin competitors. And Panasonic threw down its gauntlet just before all this with its FF surprise, followed by an unusual defense of m43. Olympus has since done some PR, and it was chaotic. They’d never offer those types of responses based on web speculation alone. It’s come from the intersection between the social media and the shareholder queries. There is undoubtedly boardroom discussions in Olympus about imaging outsize the 6% revenue share it commands.

The same criticisms I posted a year ago and continue to post are the same as are being discussed about Olympus related to its market position. Questions about how Olympus can get high-margin imaging products to market while competing against FF are everywhere.

Panasonic gets a pass because they cleverly made a high-margin, very popular GH5 that almost singlehandedly resurrected the auteur 43 format for entry-level videography. Even cropped as it often is to 16:9, it was a brilliant, foresighted move. They then leveraged that tech to FF for the superior IQ of the larger sensor and greater penetration of the professional filmmaking and especially the combined studio market. I have no doubt they fully intend to keep both formats because each has a place and transition between price tiers, but in the Panasonic business case they created a high-margin videocentric FF platform enabling the necessary in-house subsidy for the smaller 43 format. Furthermore, their market is less consumer based so they are much less susceptible to discount philosophies. Their strategy has been so successful that BlackMagic has pretty much followed their playbook, sans stills photography, but using a dual sensor structure for higher and lower IQ requirements.

Olympus has no similar strategy and are almost totally reliant on consumer, stills photography by market penetration. They’ve released products like the EM1.2, Pro 1.2 lenses, and the EM1X to drive margins higher, using, quite frankly, ridiculous initial pricing, but it is precisely that strategy, a couple of years in now, that has led to sales declines, more losses, and all the online criticism and investor relations problems we see today.

Speaking to the obvious is hardly “disruptive”. I am not so loyal to a brand that it is above criticism.
 

DanS

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
1,757
Regurgitating the same garbage over and over is what is disruptive. Even when you spread it out across multiple years.
 

JonSnih

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
141
Location
CZE
They’ve released products like the EM1.2, Pro 1.2 lenses, and the EM1X to drive margins higher, using, quite frankly, ridiculous initial pricing, but it is precisely that strategy, a couple of years in now, that has led to sales declines, more losses, and all the online criticism and investor relations problems we see today.
The E-M1ii was received quite well despite $2000 price tag but it was the E-M1X which was burried by an exorbitant price. We can only hope that Oly will realize a mistake they did with the EMIX pricing. At least now with all the internet buzz and changes in Olympus corp. there is a chance that marketing department will lose its superiority to set an inadequate pricing policy for the upcoming products. I would think so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

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
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom