Technically, four thirds is a full-frame format. All of the lenses are full-frame relative to the sensor. The vast majority of photos today are taken on cell phones. Compared to that, a four thirds sensor is gigantic. Lenses are smaller and cheaper for four thirds, compared to 35mm formats. As a result I believe this format is great and will always have a place in the market. Consumers being subjected to hype and lies surrounding why they need 35mm cameras notwithstanding.

"As a result I believe this format is great and will always have a place in the market."

That's why a (Chinese) company registered in the US to make the MFT camera by using/buying the name from Kodak as below:

http://kodakpixpro.com/Americas/cameras/compactsystem/s-1.php

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&field-keywords=Kodak+S-1

If Oly and/or Pana wants to out of MFT business one day, some other (Chinese) company will pickup what's left, and go on with buying/using Oly and/or Pana name.

Most, if not all of, the MFT cameras and lenses are made in China anyway these days.

It is just like couple of years ago, while Sharp (the world largest big screen LED TV screen maker) was in financial trouble, a Chinese company made an offer to Sharp for buyout all Sharp's big screen LED TV's business as they did for IBM PC, Motorola Phone...

That's the way it is as part of globalization.

Good reply by dark goob.

Franco8;

Tell us something that Oly did not know such as:

"over the past 12 months, with DSLR sales declining approximately 15% over the same period. During this time, Sony has experienced a robust 66% boost in their company's mirrorless camera sales, strengthening their dominant position as the #1 overall mirrorless brand".

This is the market of dog eat dog as you do not know.

The #1 mirrorless position was all MFT camera makers in the past; first was Pana, then Oly in case of you do not know. I think you do not. Yes?

Good reply by dark goob for me as well.

This is a kind of unstopped discussion whether Christmas is more important the Easter or the other way around. In the end the customers are confirming (in their purchasing decisions) whether the company strategy is OK or not. There are customers happy withe their phones photography, there are ones happy with 4/3 portability and the ones that need FF. Price comparisons discussions are (partly) useless, as after buying a cheaper (?) FF you have to attach some lens to it well. If Olympus is starting to make profit (even very small), then it can be a sign of proper product strategy, moving from 'everyone's' darling to more premium strategy.

Mike FL.
Obviously you did not read dark goob comment. I was agreeing to his comment re how full is full. a 4/3 camera has a full 4/3 sensor a 35mm sensor is a full size 35mm sensor a APSC sensor is a full size APSC sensor etc etc. if a lens of equal quality for a 35mm camera is the same price as a lens for the 4/3 system there is still a benefit for people to purchase the 4/3 system.
my gripe is that word "FULL FRAME"

Ironic that Olympus started out with a 35mm camera, the Pen F, that was beautifully made but shot half-frame (1/2 the size of what we now call full frame.) It was a lovely system but the image quality suffered because the film area was too small.

But they learned. They shrunk a "full frame" camera into a small, light body. It was a win-win; no loss of image quality at all, and those great, small Olympus lenses. No one ever beat the size/weight/quality of the OM cameras; it was the lack of autofocus that did them in.

The 8.8 million profit is far better than you say. Because at the same time on last year Olympus was 15 million at negative. That means Olympus managed not to raise profit by 8.8 million but by about 24 million in a year, ending to 8.8 million for positive side.

If they can continue at this rate, then year from now they will make about 33 millions on positive side.

But that will not happen at very high change.

How is the world moving to affordable full frame cameras? The Sony A7II is 2 grand, and to get the best out of it you really do need to stick a thousand Dollar lens on it. That's DOUBLE the price of an EM5 MkII with the 12-40 PRO lens.
The trump card with M43 is that the system has a very attractive sweetspot in terms of size+price+quality. I'm stoked that Oly is back to profitability - that hopefully means more new and exciting bodies and eventually perhaps even some more intermediate lenses.

"That's why a (Chinese) company registered in the US to make the MFT camera by using/buying the name from Kodak"

This is incorrect. JK Imaging, the licensee of the Kodak brand, is an American company, founded by an American. And while the manufacturing is outsourced to Asia Optical in Taiwan, that doesn't mean that JK Imaging is a Chinese company.

However, they did hold a couple of press conferences in China, likely because that's their intended main market.

We don't have and never will the exact tools used to achieve the good result for Q1 2015 and the reasons for bad results for 2014. 3 months is not a long enough time to judge this what will happen until the end of the year. 2 changes are significant - ca. 20% growth on sales and change from losing 10% with every product in 2014 into winning 5% on every product in Q1 2015. Let's now wait until March 2016

LOL, it's a tool, and like any tool it is the user of the tool who makes it horrid or great. I get great results out of my Olympus gear because I know WTF I am doing. YMMV

I see no difference in build quality myself. The low end stuff in FT was not really different from the low end stuff in m43.

I know others have been less fortunate but I never had any Olympus product fail on me, whether FT or m43. Ever.

The last lens I bought was the 75mm f1.8. A Zuiko lens, no lens included, but still made in Japan.

every half year I have to send the Olympus lenses in, to clean them from dust, the front with filter-mount is just sticked with the rest and can fall apart and so on

I would never go to tropical jungle again with Olympus mFT, I had been to India - Panasonic and Canon did fine - but Olympus didn't..

You can just be a fan-boy... but in real life, Olympus is no more good enough for me - the only lens that I still use is 12-40 mm - I don't like the 2.8/40-150 mm at all for the ugly bokeh.
And the 2.8/7-14 mm is heavy, unbalanced and I get much better pictures with bigger sensors like with the Fuji X-T1 with 4.0/10-24 mm for a lower price and weight and at even better results at low light

Lol quarrycat. Love the fact that in your spiel on you profile page you say "– so the first step is to accept other opinions – as strange as they might seem", followed by bagging people out as fanboys because they have a different opinion to you. Methinks thou doth project too much.

@ Martin

Agreed. I've really put my E-M10 through it's paces since I got it last year and it still looks brand new.

woops, starting from older 4/3 series, I have E-520, are way beyond some Nikon D5000 series in quality and materials.

PEN series are state of art in quality and materials as well.

You could say the PRO zooms are not quite up to the standards of the SHG line. Most are certainly not as fast (except for the MZuiko 7-14 f2.8) and the issue of IQ is a bit more muddled. I view the PRO line as something inbetween the HG and SHG lines.

The SHG line was certainly more expensive, too expensive some would say. The Pro line hits a more reasonable line and this is reflected with company profits.

there is nothing ridiculous - it is my experience!
I compare always all systems by trying them out a long time with different photo situations.
I am not talking from a fan base and I am not interested in company names.
I use them every week and use Panasonic and now Fuji too and Olympus is far away from their quality - I don't mean technical gimmicks - but built quality.
Olympus is simply not Olympus anymore, witch I knew for 20 years now.

Nothing wrong with the build quality of Olympus camera's. The higher models are build like tanks just like the E-1/E-3/E-5 used to be. Your experience seems to be not according the reality.

a tank???

funny silly speak!
No digital camera is built like a tank!

If you need a camera for every situation, then Canon EOS 7DII/5DSR or Nikon D810 or even Sony Alpha 99 are the work horses...
and even the Panasonic GH3/GH4 is so much more durable then every mFT camera from Olympus and the energy lasts 3 times longer, the AF is far better - even with Olympus-Pro-lenses, the OIS is more powerful from 100 mm to 300 mm...
(but the colors are not as good)

so YOU can dream on and be a fanboy without a glimpse of reality or just be satisfied with 5th best on the market.

The Olympus primes are excellent; 12/2, 25/1.8, 45/1.8, 75/1.8...

A tank?

Sorry but "a tank" is very broadly used in totally wrong way. Example a M113 is technically a tank, just like a M1 Abrams is a tank. The difference is that while both are tanks, former one is a APC while lateral is a MBT.

And if we would take totally wrong conclusion than only a MBT is "a tank", they are not at all so protective as people way too often believe. The hull and tower includes many very weak spots that can be easily penetrated and blow the whole vehicle up from a good hit.

A digital camera that has full alloy body is build far more protective than "a tank" as it doesn't really have such weak spots as the body is as sturdy from rear as it is from front or from up as it is from bottom. There are always weak spots in almost any design, even in a 10x10x10cm steel cube.

But you are just a fanboy, what you would know.

There goes the fanboy reply, pure and simple from Mike FL.

Thank you to Vanitas Photo for a well rounded postiing.

Roger Engelken

"fanboy reply"? Last Canon, I bought, was 5 years ago. So you are a Fanboy of Olympus?

Stick on the fact, Roger Engelken would you? Or you just can not. Or you do not know facts/camera/....

BTW, my family have bought more Olympus and Panasonic than Canon and Nikon since than.

Canon is a very "interesting" company such as I had used most of the brands' scanners and printers, and now all are Canon in my house.

I can not think Canon are better than other brand BTW, but Canon seems did right thing most of the time.

Exactly the type of reply I would expect from you MikeFL. Not surprising in the least.

I think the companies are selling more pro level cameras bc lot more people are entering into photography thanks to the smart phones. In film era, getting into photography was not easy at all, but people are able to take pictures with smartphones with out any effort. Lots of people are wanting better images and automatically buying photo gear and later upgrading into pro gear. Just a thought.

Yeah Canon does the right thing most of the time
cough XC-10 cough
cough g3x cough
cough 1200d cough
cough elph 340hs cough
cough sx60hs cough

yeah they have an awesome trackrecord lately
edit forgot about the pathetic Eos M system

What Canon does is continue to make more profit on selling photographic kit than everyone else put together. That's their skill-set. Sometimes fan-boys don't like the cameras they sell that achieve this.

Olympus have made horrendous losses for years, so going wild over a tiny profit one quarter (not year!!) and Thom does suggest they hide a chunk of their SG&A expenditure up the food chain to help with this, seems excessive. The profit was $8.8M BTW, although they don't say how that's calculated. Canon made $285M profit in their last reported quarter, after the fall people are talking about (although probably before the new models kicked in).

I'm all for all camera companies continuing and profiting, and don't feel the need to wish ill to any of them. Perhaps I'm in a minority, or so it sometimes seems.

True marty.
And they actually buy shelve space at these stores in order to get this presence.

Mike Canon has the first place in sales however that isn't going to be eternal if they keep doing blunders.

Money in the trash: the EOS M1 and M3 Canon has enough resources and expertise in the field to produce a decent mirrorless camera, however they launched TWICE a camera with mushy, aliased, moired 1080p and didn´t used the dual pixel technology... Reviews are out and people say: MEH!

The same with the 750/760D both feel uninspired and lacking technology (Dual Pixel and a better OVF AF point system) that would help them to mop the competition but they missed the boat.

Heck the 70D has the same 19 af point System... while the D7200 and D5500 have a 39 AF point system in it... They could at least re-use the 1D MKII AF system for the 70D :P

I am a Canon shooter but I'm not blind... Fuji, Panasonic, Samsung, Sony, Olympus and even Nikon try to innovate and offer you more for your money.

Sooner or later these decisions will have impact (and they are since their earnings are down)

Make it a whole lot cheaper.

Tedolph

Why, Tedolph, you’re back! Glad to see you here.

I could see a cheaper version doing well. Use the current m4/3 sensor and put a nice fixed prime 40mm (eqiv) f/2.8 lens and sell it for about $300 bucks. Give it lots of good wireless connectivity and make it kinda small - could sell a boat load.

Flickr stats are almost meaningless. Some cameras are completely left off their database, others are mis-classified, and others seem to be have their uploads combined with previous models.

But I do think your point about the lack of "refurbs" at Cameta is very telling. I always suspected that some of those refurbs were really brand new stock that was in over supply.

I think Olympus would be long gone by now if it wasn't for M4/3. Not so much because of the cameras, but because of the lenses. They have created lots of really nice upgrade lenses that have nice margins on them. And the average M4/3 user seems to own 5 or 6 lenses now. Which is somewhat more than we had when we were 4/3 users.

Whatever makes you happy Mike.

@DLGW;

As far as I can see, you did not get it about "Increasing" and "Decreasing" in net sales. No?

BTW: You are totally wrong on "it's stock listed *only* on the Tokyo exchange".

@Martin.au

AU$ is going down as fast as JPY. Not good.

yes?

@Mike, so what were the recent Sony, Canon, Nikon and Pentax numbers?

Do I understand you right: any of them reporting less than 14% growth has effectively lost market??

The point about thinking in constant currency terms is fair (it's not about reporting in dollars, it's about cancelling out the effect of currency fluctuations).

However, the 12.3% figure is for the company as a whole. The mirrorless figures of +26% by value and +25% by volume are pretty solid, even if some of the value hike comes from a weakening Yen.

Mike...

Currency fluctuations are always a double edged sword. Good for someone, and bad for someone else.

In any case, all corporations report their results in terms of one currency, and not the one that makes them look worst, or the one that makes them look best.

Indeed, or creative accounting. E-Pl6 two lens kits for 330 USD, is basically giving them away wouldn't you say?

No, what it shows is how high the margins must be when these cameras are sold at MSRP!

What did you pay for your EOS M rrccad?

@barn .. I paid more than 330 USD for the camera + 2 lenses... but keep trying

@rrccad... so you paid way too much for it is what you are saying?

troll harder! did your MOM let you out of the basement .. again??!

http://www.amazon.co.jp/OLYMPUS-%E3%83%9F%E3%83%A9%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AC%E3%82%B9%E4%B8%80%E7%9C%BC-E-PL6-%E3%83%AC%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BA%E3%82%AD%E3%83%83%E3%83%88-RED-x/dp/B00CPLQ40M

318 USD. double lens kit.

you're the one that brought up the M.. not me.. go cry somewhere else.

Speaking of trolling, rrccad, maybe post a link to a store where someone can actually buy that in USD? Or are you entirely unfamiliar with the massive disparity in pricing between different countries?

All cameras are cheap in Japan. A D810 costs $2200. An A7S costs $1600. Those are both nearly $1000 cheaper than their US prices. Does that mean that Nikon and Sony are already giving away their flagship cameras on firesale, too?

All those f/1.7 and f/1.8 lenses seem to be working fine. And there are plenty of them!

Once you get to hyper fast lenses you are in a different market. Which is why Panasonic brought out a 42.5mm f/1.7 lens a year after their stunning 42.5 f/1.2 lens.

Something for everyone.

I agree. Based on the 25mm f/1.4, it seems like this can be done at a relatively reasonable cost.

Just going to f/1.2 or f/1.0 puts you in the stratosphere.

...I was thinking more in the lines of how, in the past, their financial statements have been dosed with Yakuza-infused creativity. ;)

Yes, the sensor is still good but for 16:9 shooters the m43 system is a big limitation which I could live better with if it had more MP.
The SS-problem was addressed- 9 months after release! 9 months! The E-P5 was a very expensive top model and on mine 1/3 of all photos suffered badly from SS. I often wonder how people complain about the smallest imperfection in lens corners or slight CA, yet when 1/3 of all photos are totally unsharp that is (for many) no problem. After the E-PL1 which had the same problem with its kit lens, I ask how they could bring such a model to the market and let their most loyal customers, willing to spend so much money, wait 9 months before fixing the problem.
For me, Olympus has lost a lot of its reputation and if I were to invest in a new system today, I'd chose Sony (even if their plans with the E-mount seem rather unclear too).