win39: Olympus has been an occasionally innovative company with interesting ideas, but has never been run well even going back to the film days when they ignored autofocus and raised their prices comparing themselves to Leica. Upgrades came in decades so seldom got reviewed. They dumped all that and went for years without product to develop their first digital SLRs. The recent announcement that they are dumping their DSLR customers formalizing the reality of the last several years is history repeating itself while a newcomer like Sony surges ahead. This is just another segment being abandoned by Olympus.
"The recent announcement that they are dumping their DSLR customers"
Where did you get this? All rumors say a new E-series will be released this year.
PhotoHawk: Lets see now - the camera division lost 23B Yen - that's about $230M dollars (1 dollar = 100 yen) So if they stop making low end P&S cameras they still won't stem the loss. They may pare it down by about $20-25M but not outright eliminate it. And that savings is predicated on losses of $10 for every PS camera they eliminated assuming that loss on average for the 2.4M cameras they will take from their forecast (5.1M to 2.7M units). So clearly they will need to do something else. And they already have made some fairly severe cuts. And they have already curtailed R&D dollars to the Imaging Division. Unfortunately without some surprising products, something that will disrupt the market, Olympus's imaging division may be another future Kodak story.
PhotoHawk, your calculations are completely arbitrary. Nobody loses "$10 on every camera", you invest, say, $10M in new camera development and tooling (including overhead costs) and then sell cameras with some margin, if the number of cameras sold is big enough, you start showing the profit. For my example, if your margin is $10 and you sold a million of them, you are breaking even, if you sold just half a million, you just lost $5M. And that is what happened. And you basically have no space to lower price to generate more sales because margins are already so thin.
devlin2427: Olympus should've gone the Apple/Leica way a long time ago: very few high quality products priced at the limit of affordability/snobbism.
Trying to compete with giants with giants like Canon and Sony in the lower end of the market was going to be troublesome. I'm still surprised Fuji, Pentax and Samsung haven't abandoned this bracket.
marike6, Sony and Canon are basically the only ones who sell any P&S, the other sales are just blip, including Nikon. If Nikon camera division made any profit, it is from D800/D600/D7200/D5200/D3200/Nikon 1 and maybe bridge cams, not from sub-$100 P&S Olympus is eliminating here.
Just Having Fun: Smart move. P&S is a money losing sector. Others won't mind selling at a loss to keep name recognition, and Olympus can't compete that way.
marike6, and who get profit selling them? Margins on them always were thin, and now everybody reports drastic fall in their sales (meaning the fixed costs of their development are shared between fewer bodies, leading to losses) - see Canon statement for example too.Although when Olympus and a few others exit the market, there will be a little more breathing room there.
I understand the VG-160 etc, not use. But, say, VR-340, 10x 24-240mm optical zoom in the package just of 125g, with stabilization, and all under $100. Smartphones cannot do that yet, although shows what is possible.
HowaboutRAW: And still no Samsung NX cameras.
And still nobody cares. :)
NZ Scott: The pricing sucks because the best deal is clearly the body + 17/1.8 lens and VF4. However, if you already own a viewfinder or the 17/1.8 (as I do) then that option is a no-go.
There's just no way I'm going to spring $1000 for a body only when $450 more would get a lens and viewfinder worth $800+.
The lens and viewfinder cost (don't know about worth) $450+279=$729.
raincoat: That's amazing. How does the extender flip out with just a switch?
"just a few lens elements in a bracket inside the barrel"
Not so few in fact, 8 extra elements in 4 groups. Some full lenses are simpler.
Old Ed: Has anyone else noticed that there is STILL no "portrait prime" for DX, THIRTEEN YEARS into the format??? Please forgive me if I don't get excited that one has been announced for the "m43 wannabe" format.
Maybe... because there are plenty of small FF 50mm lenses?
peevee1: So, this $900 lens on $700 Nikon 1 J3 works about as well as $600 60/2.4 on $1000 Fuji X-E1 or $350 Oly 45/1.8 on $400 Oly E-PM2. Well, except the Oly has much higher DR and color depth than any Nikon 1 camera, and stabilizes every lens, including the 45.
Let me think... Nikon thinks their customers are idiots? Well, they are probably right.
"Olympus having the same DR and color depth of a 5 year old DSLR (or the Sony RX100) is meaningless for a photographer who wants to, say, shoot their kids football match or BIF. "
Plenty of people shoot sports and BIF with m43. Longer dof and fast S-AF help. Now, in low light, indoor or in the evening, Nikon 1's AF does not work as well as Oly's. Have you seen how horrible the light in those gyms is sometimes? Of course, bad 1's ISO performance does not help either (I sometimes have to use ISO 16,000 on OM-D in those damn gyms, try it on a 1).
peevee1: Nikon does not really play to the small sensor strengths.What they need is an ultrafast zoom. Just take the lens from Panasonic LX7 - f/1.4-2.3 24-90 mm equiv. for 1/2" image circle, and scale it up for 1" image circle. How much glass is in LX7? 50-70g? That would be 200-300g for Nikon 1, quite reasonable, and a great kit zoom. Or look at what Sony did in RX100 - small and light for the same size of sensor.f/3.5-5.6 zooms? f/4-6 zooms? OK for FF, a joke for 1".
Another advantage - possible zoom range. 20x zoom can be made for 1" quite compact, and for no other ILC system. Play to it too. Beer can of 10x 10-100 PZ is a joke, when 16x is available for MUCH bigger APS-C - from Nikon itself.
Another one? Macro. Nothing can compete in macro with small sensors. Where is Nikon 1 macro (which could be macro zoom for those pesky insects, say, 2x, again to play to the unique strengths).
Of course the smaller sensor can be stabilized better and easier (less mass=less inertia) - what is wrong with them choosing in-lens stabilization again?
Nikon does not really play to the small sensor strengths.What they need is an ultrafast zoom. Just take the lens from Panasonic LX7 - f/1.4-2.3 24-90 mm equiv. for 1/2" image circle, and scale it up for 1" image circle. How much glass is in LX7? 50-70g? That would be 200-300g for Nikon 1, quite reasonable, and a great kit zoom. Or look at what Sony did in RX100 - small and light for the same size of sensor.f/3.5-5.6 zooms? f/4-6 zooms? OK for FF, a joke for 1".
panos_m: A question about the price. At 30-35mm and f/1.2 is there anything cheaper independent of format?
Treeshade: $900. For IQ, get a DSLR. For pocketability, get GR/CoolpixA. For a balance between size and IQ, get M4/3. You can even get more lens choices with M4/3.
In fact, the only Nikon 1 that I've seen people holding are those pink body+pink kit lens...
"Coolpix A blows every m4/3 camera out of the water in terms of IQ"
What a BS. It is just one single FL (cropping for proper composition will kill IQ, and you cannot even do it if proper composition is wider), and it is just f/2.8, it cannot hold a candle to m43 lenses in f/0.95-f/2 range (there are many of them) in dim light even for the off chance that 28mm eq. is EXACTLY what you need.
So, this $900 lens on $700 Nikon 1 J3 works about as well as $600 60/2.4 on $1000 Fuji X-E1 or $350 Oly 45/1.8 on $400 Oly E-PM2. Well, except the Oly has much higher DR and color depth than any Nikon 1 camera, and stabilizes every lens, including the 45.
Yau KW: I wonder it is heavier than Fujifilm's X-E1 (420g vs 350g), remember the latter should be a bigger camera with APC-S size sensor and built-in EVF (and built-in flash too).
Body quality (plastic back on X-E1), IBIS, 3" tilting screen vs 2.8" fixed.
Cal22: The E-P5 seems to be a fine MFT-camera, indeed. But the only significant advantage to the E-PL5 is an even better image stabilizer, IMO. Are the other differences important enough (if you're not keen on Wi-Fi), to justify the camera's much higher price? Wouldn't you better buy - for the same money - a weathersealed OMD with its built-in EVF?
For people who shoot mainly outdoors, of course OM-D is better - for built-in VF and for the sealing (not only for rain, but for dust too).WiFi is a gimmick - transferring pictures through USB3 reader is an order of magnitude faster in practice, and remote shooting does not make sense on a compact.
RichRMA: Those considering this, the OM-D or the NEX-6. If you have a chance to hold the NEX before buying, do it. The word, "trifle" comes to mind. The OM-D is in another class build-wise.
Well, build of NEX-6 might not be up to the standard of E-M5, but not a bad build considering some other plastic competition.
DavinaG: I love Olympus cameras, they are great tools for photography and I will continue to wait for an E system replacement. However, what I really want is a mirrorless system such as this camera for travel. But with wi-fi that does only a fraction of what the Samsung NX-300 will, GPS integration that is laughable, and a price that makes me shriek, I think I will continue to wait. Great pictures are not enough anymore, I want a system that truly embraces the latest in technology after the picture is taken.
What else do you need from WiFi? Full manual control? Why do it over WiFi when you can do it right on the camera, with convenient physical controls?And how are you going to control the compact camera from your phone - put on on a tripod? Why buying a compact then, if the tripod kills all the compactness?