Marty4650

Marty4650

Lives in United States NC, United States
Works as a Retired Industrial Engineer
Joined on May 20, 2005

Comments

Total: 801, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 rumored to be out of production article (202 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: The problem for Olympus is the EM5 is almost three years old now, and is still one of the finest MILC cameras you can find. And as each day passes, they have to sell them for less and less.

So the obvious solution is to create a replacement model, with WIFI and a better EVF, with everything else the same, then ratchet the price back up to $999 again, for another three years.

You will have exactly the same problem with any MILC system.

So your best bet might be to stay with a DSLR. And they will probably still be making them for decades to come.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 15, 2014 at 13:04 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 rumored to be out of production article (202 comments in total)

Very few cameras today can match the success the EM5 has had. It was a full year before you could buy one for less than full list price, and the camera stayed in the top ten most popular (most clicks) camera list here at Dpreview for a year and a half. This is a pretty remarkable accomplishment for a digital camera today.

That camera was so successful that Olympus created two more OMD cameras. One aimed higher, and then one aimed lower.

The problem for Olympus was that the lower model EM10 has a few nice features that the EM5 lacks, so the EM5 desperately needs a replacement model to maintain the three tier pricing strategy.

The one thing Olympus cannot do is to discontinue the EM5 without replacing it with a new model to fill the big price gap between the EM10 and the EM1.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 15, 2014 at 11:31 UTC as 39th comment
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 rumored to be out of production article (202 comments in total)
In reply to:

Raist3d: I don't understand why this is big news. Or why so important. Wow, and older camera model going out of production? Really?! Never heard of that before in the market.

And reporting a rumor? (!) Not that it makes a difference true or not true.

Anyone who thinks cameras are produced like soft drinks is wrong. They do not produce a few every day to meet daily demand.

They are produced in huge batches, based on sales forecasts, just like books are published. And sometimes they might get a second production run if demand is very high, but they are NOT in continuous production.

I honestly doubt that any EM5s have been produced since 2013. Olympus was just selling units left in inventory, and now that there are almost no new inventory left, they are faced with only two options:

1. Fire up the production line again to produce more copies of a 2+ year old camera, or

2. Create a successor model, to fill the huge price gap between the EM10 and the EM1.

Olympus really does need to fill that gap. And they will fill it with an updated version of the EM5. A camera more capable than an EM10, but less capable than an EM1, at a price between the two.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 15, 2014 at 11:22 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 rumored to be out of production article (202 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: The problem for Olympus is the EM5 is almost three years old now, and is still one of the finest MILC cameras you can find. And as each day passes, they have to sell them for less and less.

So the obvious solution is to create a replacement model, with WIFI and a better EVF, with everything else the same, then ratchet the price back up to $999 again, for another three years.

I think PDAF is a feature Olympus must reserve for their flagship camera to justify the $300 price differential. The EM5 II can get everything except that feature.

And the truth is, most M4/3 users don't need the ability to better use 4/3 lenses, because most don't own any 4/3 lenses, and have no plans to buy any.

Would anyone pay $300 more just to have a better handgrip?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 15, 2014 at 11:14 UTC
In reply to:

darngooddesign: The glee shown over people losing their jobs is pretty sad.

Perhaps it is hard to say no to the prospect of a 700% profit margin?

The only problem is, there are no profits if no one buys them.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 15, 2014 at 08:57 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 rumored to be out of production article (202 comments in total)

The problem for Olympus is the EM5 is almost three years old now, and is still one of the finest MILC cameras you can find. And as each day passes, they have to sell them for less and less.

So the obvious solution is to create a replacement model, with WIFI and a better EVF, with everything else the same, then ratchet the price back up to $999 again, for another three years.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 15, 2014 at 02:15 UTC as 61st comment | 7 replies
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 rumored to be out of production article (202 comments in total)

I'm waiting for the close out sales, so I can pick up two more EM5s.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 15, 2014 at 02:11 UTC as 62nd comment | 1 reply
On DJI launches Inspire 1 drone with 4K video recording article (90 comments in total)

This might be useful if it could deliver a few small missiles.

You could get a great portrait of the target's last expression. The NSA might order thousands of them.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2014 at 20:47 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply

The concept was deeply flawed, and the end result is total failure.

Since so many people want to compare Hassleblad with Leica, then lets make that comparison to demonstrate how much execution matters.

Leica creates a really great camera, then charges a fortune for it. Because it is a truly great camera, they can get that very high price from those with the means and the inclination for quality.

Then, they take that wonderful camera, and create a "designer edition" or a "safari edition" or a "titanium edition" and DOUBLE the price again! And they can successfully sell them because they are wonderful cameras that have been further enhanced.

Hassleblad hasn't done anything like that.

They took a few "pretty good cameras" made by someone else, pimped them out in a tasteless way, then asked for ridiculous prices for them.

This concept was destined for failure. Everyone, except apparently Hassleblad, saw it coming.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2014 at 15:43 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Marty4650: Here's why schemes like this fail.

Even though a few wealthy people will always be willing to pay astronomical sums for exclusivity, Hassleblad just doesn't have that sort of brand cache. It isn't Rolex. It isn't Hermes. It isn't Ferarri. It isn't even Leica in that regard.

So in order to sell things for ridiculous high prices, a product must be something that is:

1. very fashionable and exclusive. And this was butt ugly.
2. very useful for high end pros who need it. Not a Sony NEX7.
3. beautiful, that can be used for 50 years. Like a piano.
4. rare and collectible. Not possible when something is in production.

And these Hassleblad rebrands are none of the above.

There is just now way to market a nice midrange camera for more than a Nikon D4s and sell very many copies. It won't take long before you run out of very stupid customers. Then you are stuck!

Yes, they can be expensive, but in order to command those prices they must also be good.

The Sony NEX7 and the Sony RX100 are good cameras. They just aren' t worth thousands of dollars more for Hasselbrad branding.

And I promise you, if you took a Sony NEX7 and called it a Gucci or Dolce or Gabbana, and tried to market it for 8 times the price of a NEX7, then it would suffer the exact same fate as these Hassleblad rebadges did. Even with nicer design, they simply can't command those prices.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 20:16 UTC
In reply to:

darngooddesign: The glee shown over people losing their jobs is pretty sad.

Someone came up with this scheme and pitched it to Hassleblad, and Hassleblad took the bait. The design team were the "innocent victims" because their awful designs had to be approved by someone at Hassleblad.

But, don't feel bad for them. There is plenty of demand for bad designs in other industries too. Ever see a SmartCar?

They will all find jobs.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 19:39 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (392 comments in total)
In reply to:

Master Yoda: The DPR rating scale has truly become a joke. A Silver Award with all those negatives? Thanks to DPR for the honesty in the review but giving this camera the Silver Award after all you disliked about it is laughable.

Two reasons.

One, the review is for the entire camera, not just the sensor.

Two, even the "same sensor" will produce different results in different cameras, because each manufacturer will tweak that sensor, and each will have their own lens, processing engine and other firmware.

For example.... Sony, Pentax and Nikon all used the same 16MP Sony sensors in their DSLRs, and they got three different looking results. All were good, but Nikon and Pentax usually got better results than Sony did... from the same Sony sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 23:12 UTC

Here's why schemes like this fail.

Even though a few wealthy people will always be willing to pay astronomical sums for exclusivity, Hassleblad just doesn't have that sort of brand cache. It isn't Rolex. It isn't Hermes. It isn't Ferarri. It isn't even Leica in that regard.

So in order to sell things for ridiculous high prices, a product must be something that is:

1. very fashionable and exclusive. And this was butt ugly.
2. very useful for high end pros who need it. Not a Sony NEX7.
3. beautiful, that can be used for 50 years. Like a piano.
4. rare and collectible. Not possible when something is in production.

And these Hassleblad rebrands are none of the above.

There is just now way to market a nice midrange camera for more than a Nikon D4s and sell very many copies. It won't take long before you run out of very stupid customers. Then you are stuck!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 10, 2014 at 15:12 UTC as 64th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Craig from Nevada: With the 7-14mm and 300mm lenses, it appears that Olympus has achieved most of what it set out to do with the mircro 43 system. They have a camera with the E-M1 which is competitive with most DSLRs and they have a decent suite of lenses for all users. They have managed overall to maintain the size and weight advantage which was always the big selling point for the system.

Can they make a buck selling this system?

No one denies that these benefits exist.

The question is... how much more are you willing to spend to "develop technology yourself" rather than licensing it from someone else.

I have no idea what this technology is worth, but I do know that if the imaging division was profitable, then all this technology would be "free" for medical devices. A really good bonus caused by synergy.

Even if the imaging division was losing a small amount of money, it would probably still be a good idea. Because the overall savings in one area would justify that small loss in another.

But.... what happens when the imaging division is losing a lot of money? Something like a few hundred million dollars? At some point, an accountant steps forward and asks "why are we losing a lot of money making cameras to save a little money making medical devices? Why don't we just buy that technology from someone else?"

Olympus is the industry leader in endoscopy, but they aren't the only company with the technology.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 10, 2014 at 14:57 UTC
In reply to:

flatrion: It is not too late for Hasselblad, license the brand name to eye glasses, perfume, messenger bags/luggage.

Team with a car company, make a Hasselblad special editiion of a car, similar to Fiat 500 Gucci, Rang Rover Holland&Holland.

Team up with Filippa K or J Lindeberg, they are all Swedish fashion designer and Swedish name. Leica already team up Moncler in fashion.

misha...

I have no doubt you are right about this.

They were BRANDED as Zeiss and Nikon, probably as a result of some licensing deal to use the name for a royalty fee. The effect being, to give the product a premium aura.

Which isn't very much different from taking a Sony camera and branding it as a Hasselblad.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2014 at 15:40 UTC
In reply to:

Craig from Nevada: With the 7-14mm and 300mm lenses, it appears that Olympus has achieved most of what it set out to do with the mircro 43 system. They have a camera with the E-M1 which is competitive with most DSLRs and they have a decent suite of lenses for all users. They have managed overall to maintain the size and weight advantage which was always the big selling point for the system.

Can they make a buck selling this system?

The times really are changing Craig, and I think a lot of it is generational.

The things older people like doing.... like using real cameras, reading books, having land line phones, using checkbooks, sending letters using snail mail, owning a wristwatch, using phones for talking to other people are fading away. Younger people have different preferences.

This downturn in camera sales may not be a temporary thing. It may very well be permanent, and the cameras makers have no good way of coping with it.

Sure, there will always be a few retro folks who prefer the old ways... the Nikon DF users perhaps. But the trends are pretty clear. Real cameras are going away for everyone but the most high end users and enthusiasts.

I don't think camera makers can adapt to this. It's too late for Nikon, Canon, and Olympus to star making cell phones. Others are doing it and doing it much better than they can. The only route left is to go up market. Hence, the trend for Full Frame.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2014 at 15:27 UTC
In reply to:

Craig from Nevada: With the 7-14mm and 300mm lenses, it appears that Olympus has achieved most of what it set out to do with the mircro 43 system. They have a camera with the E-M1 which is competitive with most DSLRs and they have a decent suite of lenses for all users. They have managed overall to maintain the size and weight advantage which was always the big selling point for the system.

Can they make a buck selling this system?

OK... we both accept the fact that Olympus needs certain imaging technologies for their highly profitable medical devices.

There are two ways to get this:

1. Develop it yourself
2. Buy it from someone else

The first method stops making sense if you are losing a few hundred million dollars a year on an imaging division to get that technology. It is far, far cheaper to buy it from someone else at that point.

Of course, if the division was profitable, or even breaking even, then the technology becomes free. An added bonus. But if you have to lose money in one division to make money in another, then there are better ways.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2014 at 03:04 UTC
In reply to:

Craig from Nevada: With the 7-14mm and 300mm lenses, it appears that Olympus has achieved most of what it set out to do with the mircro 43 system. They have a camera with the E-M1 which is competitive with most DSLRs and they have a decent suite of lenses for all users. They have managed overall to maintain the size and weight advantage which was always the big selling point for the system.

Can they make a buck selling this system?

Craig, ironically the fact that Olympus really doesn't need the division to be profitable is a good thing for us M4/3 users.

They say they keep making cameras and lenses because they can apply the technology to their endoscopes. I don't buy it, but I'm glad they think so.

As long as Olympus is primarily an endoscope maker, the digital imaging department might be safe. The profits made selling medical devices are huge, and mask any loses made from selling cameras.

Nikon wishes they were that lucky. Their fate rises and falls on the whims of the camera buyers.

Samsung is probably in the best strategic spot. As camera sales decline, and smartphones sales move upwards... guess who makes around a third of all the smartphones in the world?

Yep, Samsung.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 21:03 UTC
In reply to:

Battersea: I wonder how many they sold. My guess is very very very few. Rich people can sometimes (often?) be tacky but seldom that dumb.

Well, they hit the wall once everyone in Dubai who wanted one, had one. There was no one else interested in buying them.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 20:49 UTC
In reply to:

Glen Barrington: I saw on Game of Thrones, that if you don't burn the bodies, they just come back as White Walkers. We don't need no ice-bound, zombie-like design studios, wearin' fancy shoes and big owl shaped horn-rimmed eyeglasses.

That's absolutely right.

The bodies must be burned. For the sake of society.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 20:47 UTC
Total: 801, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »