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

Status
Not open for further replies.

RS86

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
253
Location
Finland
As far as I can see the whole notion of mFT having a "too limited shooting envelope" is very much artificial. I have not been in a situation where mFT hasn't given me a shot that I would have got with a larger format. This is also echoed by most other mFT shooters I talk with, and that includes working professionals.

Among working professionals who have switched from a full frame Canon or Nikon rig the general consensus seems to be that mFT offers them 99 % of the image quality at a significantly lower price, while being much more portable. They usually say that they may get technically better image quality, but you have to look at 100 % crop in LR and compare side by side to see it. Which is what the YouTube photography talking heads like Jared Polin and the Northrups always seems to turn to every time they feel that they feel that they need to justify the additional weight, bulk and cost of full frame. Then there is the cost, the days where photographers were employed by an agency that just issued them with gear they needed for the job are long gone. They are now self employed and have to pay for their own gear, and they still have to lug it around. With this in mind, the E-M1X and Olympus Pro lenses makes a lot of sense being 1/2 the price of a Nikon D(x) or Canon 1D with the respective top tier lenses. When you take all of this into consideration, it's very quickly apparent that by going full frame you are just chasing diminishing returns. The (relatively small) improvement in image quality is plainly not worth the extra cost, bulk and weight.

I also think it's good for Olympus/mFT that "everyone" is moving into full frame and spend all of their resources fighting it out with each other there. It also helps that they have an excellently mature system with several lens choices for most focal lengts, and a set of very competent camera bodies.

Unless your shooting style is dependent on shallow DoF with wide angle lenses, then you need full frame, for everything else, mFT will do. Well, that is my opinion anyways.
Here is the follow-up on the earlier Ming Thein article. Maybe this is what Aristophanes was begging for with his "legit discussion". Bolded text is my emphasis. I recommend reading the whole article, there are many things to consider.

40551953731_a3447178aa_c.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

"So which one has the biggest practical shooting envelope? They’re all the same; read on to find out why***."

"***First image: H6D-100c and 100/2.2; X1D and 90/3.2; GX85 and 12-32/3.5-5.6. What the H6D-100c gains over the X1D in lens speed and sensor size, it loses in weight and practicality; what the GX85 gains in weight, dual lens and sensor stabilisation over the MF gear, it loses in sensor and lens performance. We haven’t even considered subject tracking and AF. But the MF guys will have more print potential in a given light condition. I have uses for all three, depending on my creative and output objectives. Don’t underestimate opportunistic photography and carrying something just in case, either – I’ve made a lot of images I like with my phone, simply because I had it and nothing else. Composition does not and should not change with hardware."

...

"Here’s my take on all of this: there is no free lunch, from an engineering standpoint or a commercial one. Different formats have different creative strengths, and this is generally how I choose on a given day (all other factors being equal and non-liming): the small formats are great for punchy, contrasty, all-in-focus compressed scenes and portability; the larger ones for printing, subtlety and nuance. Low light sits somewhere in the middle, with either M4/3 or FF as the best all-round compromise. Factor in size, and you start to prefer M4/3. Having used all of these formats extensively, and with output requirements perhaps a bit more demanding than most – I tend to steer towards FF or MF, with (fortunately) a unicorn as the ‘compact’. It’s definitely easier to shoot at the edge of the envelope with a smaller format, but if you can make it work, larger formats can deliver something special. We all want that magic single camera solution, and there’s nothing wrong with chasing it – but remember to keep the creative objective first, or else you’ll never be in that contented place where the hardware becomes a transparent tool and you can just shoot. MT "

https://blog.mingthein.com/2018/05/22/format-equivalence-engineering-and-practical-envelope/#more-17072
 

RS86

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
253
Location
Finland
And actually he answered the IBIS question too. Smaller formats have and likely will have the advantage. Like I said, in battery department at least. Ming Thein from above article:

"What isn’t a wash (and is a hot topic) is the question of stabilisation – sensor shift, optical, or in some cases, both. The new systems are really superb – you can really leave your tripod behind, and hit silly slow shutter speeds with pixel level perfection. Before somebody asks why we don’t have it on all cameras – you need to understand that effective stabilisers must move both quickly and precisely; the higher the resolution, the more precise the movement required. And the heavier the thing being moved, the more power is required to move itand non-linearly so, since all of these systems work with electromagnets. Basically, bigger things require more power than you might think.

...

Bottom line: the smaller the format, the more effective stabilisation – whatever type – will be..."
 

Aristophanes

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
735
Location
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Yea, no I don't think so. I've been to a lot of day games at Wrigley, and they are not lighting the field, not even when its a heavily overcast day.



And again where is the proof to back up your statements about the "Japanese media has been very critical and analytical of Olympus" ?
They are STILL investigating the accounting scandal. Most Westerners aren’t aware as to just how deeply Olympus shamed corporate identity. The company is at least another decade away fro regaining respect. Olympus was very close to total collapse and is perhaps Japan’s most closely analyzed company after the nuclear and train behemoths.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/11/21/national/olympus-lawyer-blasts-firm-failure-change-corporate-culture-seven-years-scandal/#.XdyLEi9E2hA

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/11/21/national/olympus-lawyer-blasts-firm-failure-change-corporate-culture-seven-years-scandal/#.XdyLEi9E2hA


https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/11/21/national/olympus-lawyer-blasts-firm-failure-change-corporate-culture-seven-years-scandal/#.XdyLEi9E2hA
It's not really "legit discussion" when you don't discuss, but parrot same things over and over.

E-M5 III is pretty good video camera, "almost gimbal-like".

Aristophanes: "The 2 EV m43 gives up to FF alongside fewer MPs and less DR is the “shooting envelope”."

No it isn't, only a part of it. Dude, you're turning me into a parrot! Is this the third or fourth time?

"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/"

Anyway you didn't address how it would be wise from Olympus to go into the very competitive bigger sensor market with their limited funds. There must be huge costs involved in such a move and the returns are not likely very good at all.

In my view it's totally good idea to focus on their strenghts when M43 shooting envelope is so good for most people.
The core of your assumption is the “most people”.
Well, the market isn’t that, is it? People buy more house, car, lattes, and camera than they “need”.
And this is where Panasonic went smart. They saw that, as with the video market, larger sensors with superior IQ will command a per unit premium margin.
This gives Panasonic high-end and mid to low-end products, nicely tiered, like their competitors.
Bonus = excellent stills cameras.
Olympus has, at this time, no such strategy. There is no high-margin m43 sensor that can compete for the higher-margin market. That’s all going to larger sensors.
Right now Olympus is the one optical company with a small sensor-only platform, a single TG-6 compact using the 1/2.3” sensor (low pixel count, too) and m43.
Every other manufacturer has compact, 1”, m43, APS-C, FF, or MF as well.
And the competition pricing reflects. Olympus CEO states outright they want “pro profits” but they don’t have the sensor to get there. The TG-6 sensor barely makes 4k and the 20mp m43 sensor is really the only game left. It’s 1-3 stops worse than even consumer grade sensors from the competition. No one, no DP, would even argues that in video. They’d just rent more lights. Here people argue against physics. Funny.
Sony, Canikon, Fuji, and even Leica have more variety at sensor level and can price where needed responding to market demand. Panasonic, too.
Olympus is trying to price 60fps and HHHR as substitutes for base sensor capacity, but since they started doing that, they’ve only seen market share and sales erosion.
Existing price tiers are a consensus of the market based largely on sensor size.
Frankly I think Panasonic saved m43 by going FF. They established that format as a viable video staple with a huge following, and they buffered their market exposure by stepping up a higher-margin FF sensor for those higher IQ shooting requirements. A multi-media studio, stills and video +, can grab a Panasonic for every shooting scenario from run and gun to low light super wide angle all within the same brand, from 20mp dB and EV limited m43 sensor with lightweight versatility and huge lens retrofits up to high resolution, post-ready clean file S1 output. That dual capacity means a dual revenue stream complementing each other and the FF investment solidifies m43s financials. The big $$ in video always goes to larger formats. Margins vs costs are so large that’s why most video and filmmaking equipment is rented. Kudos to Panasonic for a well thought out tech and revenue strategy. Olympus? They get the rumours.
 

Ross the fiddler

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
3,889
Location
Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Real Name
Ross
They are STILL investigating the accounting scandal. Most Westerners aren’t aware as to just how deeply Olympus shamed corporate identity. The company is at least another decade away fro regaining respect. Olympus was very close to total collapse and is perhaps Japan’s most closely analyzed company after the nuclear and train behemoths.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/11/21/national/olympus-lawyer-blasts-firm-failure-change-corporate-culture-seven-years-scandal/#.XdyLEi9E2hA

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/11/21/national/olympus-lawyer-blasts-firm-failure-change-corporate-culture-seven-years-scandal/#.XdyLEi9E2hA


https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/11/21/national/olympus-lawyer-blasts-firm-failure-change-corporate-culture-seven-years-scandal/#.XdyLEi9E2hA


The core of your assumption is the “most people”.
Well, the market isn’t that, is it? People buy more house, car, lattes, and camera than they “need”.
And this is where Panasonic went smart. They saw that, as with the video market, larger sensors with superior IQ will command a per unit premium margin.
This gives Panasonic high-end and mid to low-end products, nicely tiered, like their competitors.
Bonus = excellent stills cameras.
Olympus has, at this time, no such strategy. There is no high-margin m43 sensor that can compete for the higher-margin market. That’s all going to larger sensors.
Right now Olympus is the one optical company with a small sensor-only platform, a single TG-6 compact using the 1/2.3” sensor (low pixel count, too) and m43.
Every other manufacturer has compact, 1”, m43, APS-C, FF, or MF as well.
And the competition pricing reflects. Olympus CEO states outright they want “pro profits” but they don’t have the sensor to get there. The TG-6 sensor barely makes 4k and the 20mp m43 sensor is really the only game left. It’s 1-3 stops worse than even consumer grade sensors from the competition. No one, no DP, would even argues that in video. They’d just rent more lights. Here people argue against physics. Funny.
Sony, Canikon, Fuji, and even Leica have more variety at sensor level and can price where needed responding to market demand. Panasonic, too.
Olympus is trying to price 60fps and HHHR as substitutes for base sensor capacity, but since they started doing that, they’ve only seen market share and sales erosion.
Existing price tiers are a consensus of the market based largely on sensor size.
Frankly I think Panasonic saved m43 by going FF. They established that format as a viable video staple with a huge following, and they buffered their market exposure by stepping up a higher-margin FF sensor for those higher IQ shooting requirements. A multi-media studio, stills and video +, can grab a Panasonic for every shooting scenario from run and gun to low light super wide angle all within the same brand, from 20mp dB and EV limited m43 sensor with lightweight versatility and huge lens retrofits up to high resolution, post-ready clean file S1 output. That dual capacity means a dual revenue stream complementing each other and the FF investment solidifies m43s financials. The big $$ in video always goes to larger formats. Margins vs costs are so large that’s why most video and filmmaking equipment is rented. Kudos to Panasonic for a well thought out tech and revenue strategy. Olympus? They get the rumours.
Do you ever stop with the same story, repeated ad nauseam!?
 

RS86

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
253
Location
Finland
They are STILL investigating the accounting scandal. Most Westerners aren’t aware as to just how deeply Olympus shamed corporate identity. The company is at least another decade away fro regaining respect. Olympus was very close to total collapse and is perhaps Japan’s most closely analyzed company after the nuclear and train behemoths.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/11/21/national/olympus-lawyer-blasts-firm-failure-change-corporate-culture-seven-years-scandal/#.XdyLEi9E2hA

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/11/21/national/olympus-lawyer-blasts-firm-failure-change-corporate-culture-seven-years-scandal/#.XdyLEi9E2hA


https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/11/21/national/olympus-lawyer-blasts-firm-failure-change-corporate-culture-seven-years-scandal/#.XdyLEi9E2hA


The core of your assumption is the “most people”.
Well, the market isn’t that, is it? People buy more house, car, lattes, and camera than they “need”.
And this is where Panasonic went smart. They saw that, as with the video market, larger sensors with superior IQ will command a per unit premium margin.
This gives Panasonic high-end and mid to low-end products, nicely tiered, like their competitors.
Bonus = excellent stills cameras.
Olympus has, at this time, no such strategy. There is no high-margin m43 sensor that can compete for the higher-margin market. That’s all going to larger sensors.
Right now Olympus is the one optical company with a small sensor-only platform, a single TG-6 compact using the 1/2.3” sensor (low pixel count, too) and m43.
Every other manufacturer has compact, 1”, m43, APS-C, FF, or MF as well.
And the competition pricing reflects. Olympus CEO states outright they want “pro profits” but they don’t have the sensor to get there. The TG-6 sensor barely makes 4k and the 20mp m43 sensor is really the only game left. It’s 1-3 stops worse than even consumer grade sensors from the competition. No one, no DP, would even argues that in video. They’d just rent more lights. Here people argue against physics. Funny.
Sony, Canikon, Fuji, and even Leica have more variety at sensor level and can price where needed responding to market demand. Panasonic, too.
Olympus is trying to price 60fps and HHHR as substitutes for base sensor capacity, but since they started doing that, they’ve only seen market share and sales erosion.
Existing price tiers are a consensus of the market based largely on sensor size.
Frankly I think Panasonic saved m43 by going FF. They established that format as a viable video staple with a huge following, and they buffered their market exposure by stepping up a higher-margin FF sensor for those higher IQ shooting requirements. A multi-media studio, stills and video +, can grab a Panasonic for every shooting scenario from run and gun to low light super wide angle all within the same brand, from 20mp dB and EV limited m43 sensor with lightweight versatility and huge lens retrofits up to high resolution, post-ready clean file S1 output. That dual capacity means a dual revenue stream complementing each other and the FF investment solidifies m43s financials. The big $$ in video always goes to larger formats. Margins vs costs are so large that’s why most video and filmmaking equipment is rented. Kudos to Panasonic for a well thought out tech and revenue strategy. Olympus? They get the rumours.
So you had to put even that link 3X in your reply? You really like repeating! :rofl:

Yeah it was okay move from Panasonic, they have much financial muscle in electronics. They have a great reputation in video and with that a path to go into mirrorless FF which is very competitive nowadays.

But they also have had to drop their pricing of FF a lot already and with all these mirrorless FF coming into market the drop in overall camera sales continues.

So.. what is Olympus' "video path" to go into FF? They would risk probably their whole business with such a move? It would be stupid, and that's what you advocate.

I understand your point about higher margin products and it won't be easy for Olympus. The 150-450mm will be interesting at Olympics if they can find some market share in that area. No other format can do what it can in nearly similar size from what I understand.

And please don't repeat what you have said 10x already, "ad nauseam" from Ross is a good description. I have couple of questions and points here again that could rather be answered.
 

DanS

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
1,760
Yeah it was okay move from Panasonic, they have much financial muscle in electronics. They have a great reputation in video and with that a path to go into FF which is very competitive nowadays.

But they also have had to drop their pricing of FF a lot already and with all these mirrorless FF coming into market the drop in overall camera sales continues.
Not to mention FF mirrorless is not the money maker for video, its the varicam line.
 
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