Ahender: A score of 77% seems pretty generous.
Same as the Canon EOS 600D and 550D.
You are wrong, hammerhead. See the Conslusion where it says:
Samsung NX200Category: Mid Range Interchangeable Lens Camera / DSLR
Geodesiq: They couldn't decide between OM-D and E-M5 so they went with both? Brilliant! It doesn't have an OM mount so that part is ridiculous. The only thing of interest is the in body stabilization for tele shots.
I think Oly intends for the E-M5 to be the first model in the OM-D series.
AbrasiveReducer: Maybe Canon will buy Olympus' photo business and make the next model the OM-D E-M5 II mark IV. I get the retro thing but I'm a little suprised it resembles the OM-G, the "poor man's" OM camera and I wonder who would want a silver one.
I would be happy to have a silver one sitting beside my OM-1.
Jon Stern: It's silly that we are still calling these cameras "mirrorless". We don't call DSLR cameras "filmless"; film cameras weren't called "glass-plateless"; and glass plate cameras weren't called "portrait-painterless".
Equally, we don't normally name things by what they don't contain. Otherwise my computer would be called a chickenless, pyramidless, stuffed-toyless, Andromeda-Galaxyless, swimming-pooless, 5000-foot-statue-of-Charlie-Chaplinless, Pope Gregory-II-less, etc., etc., etc., ... laptop computer!
I think many would agree with you, which is why several other names have been proposed (EVIL, CSC, etc.). Unfortunately, nothing has been able to supersede mirrorless. If you can improve on it, please feel free to do so.
Pangloss: There are many issues at this moment with Olympus:1) Nobody knows how much the company is worth, since its accounting has been compromised over the last 20 years(!).2) Investors have lost confidence and employee morale is probably pretty low.3) Mr. Woodford should quickly be reinstated as CEO and President and be allowed to form a new management team.4) The company *urgently* needs to complete its financial accounts review in time to submit to the Tokyo Stock Exchange to avoid delisting (by Dec. 14).The 92-year old company is in E.R. at this stage and unless they act very fast, it could disappear in the short term.
There are many interesting things about this scandal and one of them is how polarized people are about Woodford. Despite the fact that he had the guts to stick up to the criminals at Olympus, some people here are intent on demonizing him. Steve Jobs made cut backs when he was reinstated as CEO and ruled Apple with an iron fist. Woodford is obviously no Steve Jobs, but my point is that good CEOs are not someone you would want for a friend.
landscaper1: I realize there are a lot of people who use Olympus cameras. But seriously, this has nothing to do with photography, per se. If Olympus were a major player in the digital camera market, it might be of some interest, but if Olympus were to cease producing photographic products tomorrow, there would be a very small impact on the field of consumer photography and it would be of very limited duration at that.
I'd prefer dpreview focus on the technology and techniques of photography and leave the financial issues of camera manufacturing to the financial pages.
It is of considerable interest to those of us who use Olympus cameras. If you aren't interested in this scandal then don't read about it or waster your time commenting.
erichK: Woodford... The amount of publicity he has managed to gain is incredible. Everything from plots on his life to to the nightmares of his wife.
Woodford rose by slashing staff to maximize profits at the UK, rose to head Oly in Europe and was likelu brought to Japan, to do the same thing.
He used his 2 week CEO position to investigate dubious past acquisitions and the resutling report to demand that he replace as head. Instead, he was fired. He deserves credit for uncovering these transactions,. Olympus heads lied to shareholders and did things that had become illegal. A great deal of money was written off in strange ways. More is unaccounted for and there may even be a Yakuza coonection.
This does not automatically mean that crowing Woodward and firing 20 + directors, some likely technically expert and uninvolved in what was going on is the best way forward.
A week ago, W talked about retiring. Now, he is again gunning for the top. Let's wait for the auditors report!.
Erich K,So how would you classify the level of criminal activity that appears to have taken place at Olympus? Semi-huge, serious, or just an everyday instance of corporate greed? All of us can cite many instances of major criminal corporate activity. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this is is major scandal.
Cy Cheze: Q2 earnings mean September in Japan. The report may contain a "subsequent events" note that, much like other company filings after the quake-tsunami, make blanket reference to potential losses they were not yet able to measure. Perhaps some charges or provisions will be made to cover "assets" related to zero-earnings shell companies. However, a full audit of the multi-year scheme to dodge recognition of losses may take several months. Meanwhile, the "going concern" measure of Olympus is nothing more and nothing less than whether sales cover operating expenses by sufficient margin to cover amortization of debt. Investors may also apply a "haircut" to inventory, if sales are slow and some items require a discount or charge for obsolescence.
Based on what I have read, the auditors are required to state that, to the best of their knowledge, they agree with Oly's restatement of company assets. The TSE requires that Oly's auditors for the past 5 years must sign off by Dec 14--KPMG and Ernst. KPMG was fired by Oly after uncovering fraud, so it has no reason to stick its neck out and certify anything it has doubts about.
photomiser: Hmm. Any chance they'd sell off that "loss-making" camera division? The Olympus name is so iconic, I can't imagine it on a camera not manufactured by them. But then again, IBM sold off the ThinkPad...
>As to the name, it would be strange if they sell off the camera business and it continues to carry the same name as another company that manufactures and sells medical devices.
That is exactly what Hoya did. It sold its Pentax camera division including the Pentax name to Ricoh, but kept the Pentax name for its medical division.
CollBaxter: I think the lady doth protest too much.
Interviews with reference to Comic book hero , Blue capes , David Grisham.
Done just after Olympus said they would meet the JSE December 14 audited report deadline to avoid delisting. As Olympus stock recovers what appears to be well timed releases drive it down again.
Et tu, Brute ?
Mirror , Mirror , on the wall .............
I do not agree with what Olympus did. But something is rotten in the WHOLE state on Denmark.
I think it is now clear that Woodford has been planning this power play for some time.
If the imaging division is regaining profitability it will be more attractive to potential buyers. Oly won't want to sell it but it appears that it is going to have to sell something to meet creditors' demands.
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.