IcyVeins: Is there anybody who doesn't immediately jump ahead to the number at the end before reading anything else in the review? I doubt it
True, but I think most of us also jump ahead to read the conclusion and how the camera was rated on the different dimensions.
calmwaters: This is a good time to buy Olympus shares.
Trading was halted before the stock could fall even lower. Once trading is resumed when the market reopens, it is likely that those would wanted to sell but couldn't will do so. No one knows what the company is really worth because of accounting fraud. Buying Oly stock right now is a huge gamble. Many of the institutional investors who own large blocks of stock won't be willing to take that risk.
justmeMN: "Oct 19 (Reuters) - Olympus Corp said in a statement on Wednesday that it paid a total $687 million advisery fee for its purchase of Britain's medical equipment firm Gyrus in 2008, contradicting a previous management statement.
Olympus did not name its financial advisers in the statement, and said it does not know the whereabouts of the adviser."
$687 million to "disappeared companies" - not too suspicious.
The information for Axes is from before it vanished. I tried calling the number listed for it and it is out of service. The company is also no longer in the Manhattan phone directory.
Makes one wonder why the Kikukawa insisted yesterday that the amount was $391 million.
Zvonimir Tosic: The inability of the board of directors has nothing to do with hard work and brilliance of engineers and product designers of Olympus. I'd love crazy stock market world to focus once on real values and assets of the companies, not on tabloid-style stories which are instantly made into quick profit or loss opportunities. But if that were true, and people would focus on where real value is and not where speculative value is, we would't have financial crises ever.
If top management gave away $700 million of the company's assets then the it effectively destroyed $700 million worth of what was created from the hard work and brilliance of the Oly engineers and product designers. Why should the stock market ignore something like this?
Quotes from the latest NYTimes article:
"Responding for the first time to accusations of fraud, the Olympus Corporation said that acquisition fees paid to unidentified advisers amounting to 30 billion yen ($391 million) were not excessive and followed “appropriate” accounting procedures"
“Investors expected that management would deny everything but in fact the chairman started to admit things,” Yuuki Sakurai, president at Fukoku Capital Management, said in a phone interview. “Only the numbers are different. They admitted the payment even though several years ago they didn’t disclose it. It makes you wonder if there’s more out there.”
"Potential offenses by Olympus include false accounting and breaches of duties by the board, according to the Oct. 11 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers that Mr. Woodford provided to Bloomberg News."
whtchocla7e: Disgruntled employee.
A justifiably disgruntled employee.
taintedcamera: Michael C. Woodford is a Corporate Shark... nothing less. He stands brave in Britain, but let him go back to Japan to spout his rhetoric, and face indictment.
Japan has just as fair of a judicial system... Maybe more so!
He's looking to line his pockets, one way or another.
If he is nothing more than a "corporate shark" why did he bother to rock the boat? He was well paid and just two weeks ago was made CEO and was praised by Oly's Board. I've never heard of a CEO who hadn't been granted stock in his/her company, so I assume the decline in Oly's stock has affected him too (unless he sold everything immediately after he was fired). He could have kept quiet and continued to live the good life. Now he the center of controversy, threatened with a lawsuit and unemployed. If you think he is looking to "line his pockets" please indicate how and why you think this will make him better off than he was before.
IMO this represents Nikon's initial move into the mirrorless future. It currently doesn't make sense to bring out a competitor to its DSLRs because they continue to be very profitable. However, I think it is likely that much of the technology developed for these cameras can be ported into a DSLR replacement when Nikon feels that it makes sense financially.
Patman888: A good example of why the M43 and NEX fanboys are deluded to think that Canikon is losing market share by not jumping into mirrorless right away. They simply do not need to. Just a mere rumor about a mirrorless Nikon raised their stocks.
Just imagine how badly a mirrorless D5100, regardless of lens size or body size, would outsell all current mirrorless cameras. A mirrorless rebel? It would win in sales in North America by a long shot regardless of the quality of the camera.
The market share data are only # of units sold. The vast majority of mirrorless sales are for cameras in the $400-$600 range (many models have been heavily discounted). The average DSLR sells for quite a bit more. Nikon's and Canon's imaging division were profitable for the most recent fiscal year, while Olympus had a 25% decrease in sales revenue.
goloby: I sure hope that the rumor of the 2.7x sensor crop is a bad joke. I'm waiting for a FF mirrorless, not a compact with interchangeable lenses.Do you even get any DOF with that small sensor???
As for Sony's lack of lenses, that is a non issue, those cameras work brilliantly with any lenses trough adapters
A FF mirrorless would still require the same size lenses as current FF DSLRs. Thus, the weight difference would be negligible.
Cyril Reif: Don't underestimate the mirrorless cameras...I've been a Nikon SLR/DSLR user since 1968 (I still have my original Nikon F from 1972), but I have almost exclusively been using my GF1 since I got it in 4/2010.
Canon and Nikon can wait and let the other manufacturers establish the global demand and then jump in because they still "own" the brands that everyone knows and wants to buy. If I look at me experience, I can see a scenario that every serious DSLR photographer will also be carrying a mirrorless camera, one for every Canon and Nikon DSLR sold.
Getting it right when they enter the market is much more important than when they enter. Sony quickly caught up with Olympus and Panasonic in mirrorless sales, despite entering almost two years after them.
Nikon was getting trounced by Canon in the professional DSLR market and turned things around overnight with the D3.
Market share data can be misleading because they say nothing about profits. While the article noted that both DSLRs were very profitable for both Canon and Nikon last year, it failed to provide information about mirrorless revenue/ profits for any of the companies selling mirrorless cameras. Olympus had a 25% decrease in imagaing division revenue for the 2011 fiscal year (which ended March31, 2011). Its compacts probably account for much of that decline, but the fact remains that mirrorless has yet to make make its camera division profitable.
I assume "Click here to read our group test of travel zoom compact cameras" is left over from a previous review.