Words from Toshi on the Mount

every system has their pros and cons. oly system is really not meant for sports and i take it in my stride. The problem with nikon and canon are their non-IS primes & uwa that forces them to use high iso or tripods when we oly users can happily shoot handheld.
Actually, I believe high ISOs are better than tripods or Image Stabilisation as the latter cannot stop subject motion.

You have to use a tripod or IS when the shutter speed is so slow that camera shake becomes a problem. Slow shutter speeds won't stop subject motion like a fast speeds can, as you'll know.

In lieu of an expensive bright aperture lens, the next best solution, imho, is great high ISOs.

I just pick a nit. ;)

p.s we all agree that each brand has it's Pros & cons. You pick the best to suit your own requirements as best as you understand them.
 
Q28. "Where do you see both 4/3rds and m4/3rds in 5 years time? Where would you like to see them?"
A28. "We are convinced both systems will be existing as one beautiful system."
That's a little funny, considering this statement:
"we aim for a 7 year time frame" for support of FT repairs
So, in 5 years there's going to be one beautiful system, with the 4/3 components being serviceable another 2 years? That's hilarious.
Linking these quotes is so obviously just looking for an angle. You must be a journalist?

Damien
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilgy_no1
I am not a fan of vague and potentially contradicting statements.
 
Q28. "Where do you see both 4/3rds and m4/3rds in 5 years time? Where would you like to see them?"
A28. "We are convinced both systems will be existing as one beautiful system."
That's a little funny, considering this statement:
"we aim for a 7 year time frame" for support of FT repairs
So, in 5 years there's going to be one beautiful system, with the 4/3 components being serviceable another 2 years? That's hilarious.
The 7 year time frame is from when they end production. Although people here have posted about getting their e-1 serviced and no-one has mentioned having the service refused.
--
Jon
I hope you are right, but from what I see that's not what Terada-san said. It's merely your interpretation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
First off, thank you for your civil and well thought through response. Your points are well made and well taken. My responses are in yellow below.
Interview with Toshiyuki Terada ...
http://biofos.com/esystem/q&a_terada.html
Some highlights:
  • In Q1 he cites the advantages of the FT line in balancing size and IQ, but then uses the mFT 75-300 as his example.
No: the question was about Olympus choosing the 4/3" format size and its advantage over larger formats, not the 4/3 DSLR system in particular, so the 75-300 for m4/3 is a perfectly relevant example.
Upon re-reading this Q/A, I agree. Terada's use of the term "4/3rd" threw me off. Regarding the 75-300 mFT zoom as an example of the 4/3's format's potential, maybe not the best. At less than 1/2" shorter than my 70-300mm 4/3's lens, slower and 3x the cost, I have to question why they bothered.
  • Dodges the issue of whether Panny stabbed them in the back by not sharing the GH2 sensor, instead saying "We are free and have selected current sensors as the best ones for our products.".
How is this dodging the question? He is saying that Olympus chose that sensor, and even indicates some reasons why it was preferred over the wider 18MP/16MP GH2 sensor in answer A5. Avoiding the need to rework the IBIS and OVF system for the wider sensor are possibilities too.
Every other manufacturer has moved on from 12 MP but Olympus, some quite some time ago. The top-of-Pansonic-line GH1 14 MP (12 MP used) sensor didn't appear in an Olympus product, and now the GH2's 18.3 MP (16 MB used) sensor hasn't as well. We can each come to our own conclusions.
  • On whether 12MP is the max for FT "Olympus has not mentioned about the limit of the pixel count for 4/3rds." Sounds defensive given their lagging APS-C's 14MP minimum in newer mid-priced bodies.
What is defensive there? He is simply refuting yet again a persistent myth by reiterating the fact that Olympus has never said that 4/3 is staying at 12MP forever. But people like the interviewer keep believing that even when Terada has just explicitly aid otherwise: See the drivel in Q5 about that "arbitrary limit imposed on 4/3rds".
Yet they remain at 12 MP while the rest of the competition has moved on. Define "forever" in a competitive market-based context. Let's see how the E-5 fares in DPR's testing against the competition, hopefully we'll all be pleased with the results.
Also states "but we are not sticking to any specific MP", which I interpret as the're looking for a new sensor manufacturer.
Why does it imply a search for a new sensor manufacturer, given that the current sensor manufacturer Panasonic is about to start moving beyond 12MP? Do you believe that Panasonic has said it will never provide a sensor of more than 12MP suitable for use by Olympus?
See my response above, Panasonic certainly gives the appearance of keeping the best for their line.
  • He completely dodges the question on why they've abandoned FT bodies other than the E-X line
Firstly, you mean "other than the E-xx and E-x lines"; only the E-xxx has been announced to be ending after the E-620. (Why no E-50 yet? Maybe because the E-30 already has the 12MP sensor, so is less in need of an update than the E-3.)
I'd appreciate your posting where you read this distinction. What's come across to me (and quite possibly others) is the choce will be the E-5 or mFT.
Secondly, he has not dodged that question, though perhaps you do not like his answer, which is that the E-xxx users (not E-xx or E-x users) are now best served by Micro Four Thirds.
See above on requested clarification on E-xx. Regarding not liking the answer on E-xxx's demise, I of course agree. Having always used OM form-factor SLR's, larger cameras hold no interest for me. The Olympus brand once stood for small, light, high quality SLR's. Should they come out with a GH2 equivalent mFT that also can reasonably balance with HG lenses and at an affordable price point (Panasonic's $900 GH-2 price at B&H fits the bill), I'll get in line.
  • no clear plans for a pro FT body
You mean pro m4/3 I suppose, and his refusal to offer "concrete product plan". The simple if frustrating fact is that, if a company has not announced a particular product or plan, that decision is no going to suddenly change just because an interviewer asks a question. So this sort of question pretty much always gets a "no comment" answer from rep's of all companies.
Yes, my my mistake, meant mFT pro body. My issue, and I'm sure that of many others, is why would Olympus wound their own brand by prematurely announcing the end of their OM-sized DSLR line before they have a GH2 equivalent (or something at least similar, like Sony's A55) ready for announcement? As a very longtime user I like Olympus, I want them to succeed, but this strikes me as not only illogical, but incompetent from a marketing standpoint.
  • States a "we aim for a 7 year time frame" for support of FT repairs
Which refers to a more-or-less industry standard practice (I have read that it is required by Japanese law): 7 years support for each product beyond its discontinuation; he does not mean 7 years counting from today for all FT products, many of which are not discontinued yet so that the 7 year clock has not started on them.
Hadn't heard this before, but you seem well informed so I'll go with it unless I hear otherwise.
--
Sailin' Steve
 
I own a lot of lenses - way to many. I can't disagree with your comment. I just need to look at the cost / advantages of changing brands carefully.

I don't shoot sports so CAF has never been a priority for me.

If Nikon had released a D700x I might be in more of a rush to sell but the differences between 12mp e5 and 12mp D300s is kind of small - especially when CAF is not a big deal.
i would think you would have looked at Sony FF pretty closely then
--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
 
I own a lot of lenses - way to many. I can't disagree with your comment. I just need to look at the cost / advantages of changing brands carefully.

I don't shoot sports so CAF has never been a priority for me.

If Nikon had released a D700x I might be in more of a rush to sell but the differences between 12mp e5 and 12mp D300s is kind of small - especially when CAF is not a big deal.

--
Jon
Like you, I do not have a great need for CAF, but do use it often enough to note just how badly it works.

I have the FE, the 11-22, the 12-50, the 50 macro and the 50-200SWD and the 1.4TC in the HG range an the 14-42, 25mm pancake, 70-150 and 70-300 in the standard range, but even that represents a considerable investment.

Olympus makes such great glass and allows us to make such satisfying images when we achieve its sweet spot. problem is that while that sweet spot may be super sweet, it is also much smaller than competing makes with their superior AF and ISO performance.

--
erichK
saskatoon, canada

http://erichk.zenfolio.com/

http://www.fototime.com/inv/7F3D846BCD301F3

underwater photos:
http://www.scubaboard.com/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/5567
 
Rikke, what I meant is oly AF system can't really track subject movement required for action shots. Not too sure about E-5, but its really much harder compared to those canon and nikon cams with mulitiple AF points.

As for high iso and IS, yes i agree that IS doesn't help in motion freezing shots. But it will come in very handy if you want to take a night scene or slightly longer expose for night actions to capture the colourful motion in a nice trailing blur.

--
Minliang
http://practical-photography.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/market-uncle/
 
years support for each product beyond its discontinuation; he does not mean 7 years counting from today for all FT products, many of which are not discontinued yet so that the 7 year clock has not started on them.
Well, the E-XXX bodies have been discontinued. So the clock is ticking at least for those bodies.
 
The 7 year time frame is from when they end production. Although people here have posted about getting their e-1 serviced and no-one has mentioned having the service refused.
--
Jon
I hope you are right, but from what I see that's not what Terada-san said. It's merely your interpretation. Please correct me if I'm wrong
I have never needed any Olympus service on anything I own. I have read posts from people who have had their e-1 repaired.

Maybe someone else can post their experience with that

-
Jon
 
I own a lot of lenses - way to many. I can't disagree with your comment. I just need to look at the cost / advantages of changing brands carefully.

I don't shoot sports so CAF has never been a priority for me.

If Nikon had released a D700x I might be in more of a rush to sell but the differences between 12mp e5 and 12mp D300s is kind of small - especially when CAF is not a big deal.
i would think you would have looked at Sony FF pretty closely then
Yes very closely
--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
--
Jon
 
Q28. "Where do you see both 4/3rds and m4/3rds in 5 years time? Where would you like to see them?"
A28. "We are convinced both systems will be existing as one beautiful system."
That's a little funny, considering this statement:
"we aim for a 7 year time frame" for support of FT repairs
So, in 5 years there's going to be one beautiful system, with the 4/3 components being serviceable another 2 years? That's hilarious.
Linking these quotes is so obviously just looking for an angle. You must be a journalist?

Damien
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilgy_no1
I am not a fan of vague and potentially contradicting statements.
My point is that these two remarks are neither vague nor contradicting. You connect them where there is no connection. The first remark is about the way he sees the systems merge from a point of view of technology. The second states that if you buy an Olympus product (any camera), they aim for a 7-year period for servicing. i.e. If you buy an E-5 now, there should be parts for it until 2017. If you buy an E-7 in 2013, there will be parts for it until 2020.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilgy_no1
 
How is this dodging the question? He is saying that Olympus chose that sensor, and even indicates some reasons why it was preferred over the wider 18MP/16MP GH2 sensor in answer A5. Avoiding the need to rework the IBIS and OVF system for the wider sensor are possibilities too.
Every other manufacturer has moved on from 12 MP but Olympus, some quite some time ago. The top-of-Pansonic-line GH1 14 MP (12 MP used) sensor didn't appear in an Olympus product, and now the GH2's 18.3 MP (16 MB used) sensor hasn't as well. We can each come to our own conclusions.
Yes, and my conclusions is that (a) the E-5 is so different from any Panasonic m4/3 body that Panasonic would have little to fear from offering Olympus choose the best sensor for it, and something to gain in sales to a market not overlapping much with the GH2 market, and (b) it was probably cheaper and quicker for Olympus to design the E-5 around the same sensor architecture and sensor size as it has already worked with, rather than dealing with the very different electrical design of the GH2 sensor (on-chip ADC etc.) and the mechanical changes needed due to its extra width: the E-5 strikes me as a relatively quick, low cost, somewhat "stop-gap" upgrade effort.
What is defensive there? He is simply refuting yet again a persistent myth by reiterating the fact that Olympus has never said that 4/3 is staying at 12MP forever. But people like the interviewer keep believing that even when Terada has just explicitly aid otherwise: See the drivel in Q5 about that "arbitrary limit imposed on 4/3rds".

Why does it imply a search for a new sensor manufacturer, given that the current sensor manufacturer Panasonic is about to start moving beyond 12MP? Do you believe that Panasonic has said it will never provide a sensor of more than 12MP suitable for use by Olympus?
See my response above, Panasonic certainly gives the appearance of keeping the best for their line.
Apart from my suspicion that Panasonic might be spinning the facts a bit (why do so many people take Panasonic's inference as fact while thus accusing Olympus of lying when it said it had a choice of sensors?), if Panasonic moves in its current direction likely all of its senosrs will have more than 12MP, and then clearly it would be offering higher pixel counts to Olympus! So othe idea of 12MP forever makes little sense.
Firstly, you mean "other than the E-xx and E-x lines"; only the E-xxx has been announced to be ending after the E-620. (Why no E-50 yet? Maybe because the E-30 already has the 12MP sensor, so is less in need of an update than the E-3.)
I'd appreciate your posting where you read this distinction.
I cannot find the one I recall, which basically said
"users entry level like E-620 will be best served by PEN,

users of E-30/E-5 will continue to be served by new DSLRs, such as the E-5, until m4/3 performance improves to a sufficient level."

But here is a similar comment, from http://blog.digitalrev.com/2010/10/12/olympus-future-high-end-pens-scrap-dslrs/
Q: What future for smaller [than the E-5] SLR cameras? Are you going to give them successors?

R: We do not have concrete plans to replace the E-620 and other recent SLRs. The entry level SLR class can be completely replaced by the Pen system in terms of performance.
Here and in every other interview the talk is only of the entry level 4/3 DSLRs (currently just the E-620) being replaced by Pen, and the E-30 is not entry-level. It is possible that "other recent DSLRs" includes the E-30, and that E-30 users are expected to move up in size and cost to the E-5, but another possibility is that the newer E-30 with basically the same 12MP sensor as the E-5 is not in as much need of an update as the E-3 was, so any upgrade will come later ... if market trends justify it. Both Panasonic and Olympus indicate (in different ways!) that the 12MP sensor already in the E-30 was the best available for the E-5, so there is not a lot of room for improvement in an E-30 successor, except by getting too close to the E-5! (Video could be added, and microlenses and processing tweaked, but that does not seem enough to justify a new model in a low volume product line.)

It as also possible that there will never be a Panasonic sensor suitable for an E-30 upgrade or for any FourThirds DSLR, if all further models are in the wider multi-aspect ratio format that does not fit well with the 4:3 shape of FourThirds SLR viewfinders and such. Then, the 12MP trio of E-620, E-30 and E-5 could indeed be the "last wave" for FourThirds before the transition to Micro FourThirds.

And one cynical possibility is that as stocks of the E-3 and the 10MP sensor ran out, Olympus needed a new top-of-the line DSLR model, and simply took the least expensive route to designing it.
--
Smaller lenses, better in low light, more telephoto reach:
you can have any two at one time.
 
And one cynical possibility is that as stocks of the E-3 and the 10MP sensor ran out, Olympus needed a new top-of-the line DSLR model, and simply took the least expensive route to designing it.
--
My take too. One must keep hypotheses as simple as possible, instead of loading with interpretations Oly's rather simple statements. See it in a Buddhist way, ask yourself what delusions you are drawing from them.

In the end only one piece of the puzzle is needed. IF according to 43rumours the E-P3 had pCDAF and therefore full compatibility with all 4/3 lenses, not more than an E-5 would be needed for those who still can't do without an OVF.

BTW I was banned till today, so I had to use another nick. No conspiracy theories :)

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
Apologies, had to blow out a chunk of the earlier posts due to too character limit.
users of E-30/E-5 will continue to be served by new DSLRs, such as the E-5, until m4/3 performance improves to a sufficient level."

But here is a similar comment, from http://blog.digitalrev.com/2010/10/12/olympus-future-high-end-pens-scrap-dslrs/
Q: What future for smaller [than the E-5] SLR cameras? Are you going to give them successors?

R: We do not have concrete plans to replace the E-620 and other recent SLRs. The entry level SLR class can be completely replaced by the Pen system in terms of performance.
Here and in every other interview the talk is only of the entry level 4/3 DSLRs (currently just the E-620) being replaced by Pen, and the E-30 is not entry-level. It is possible that "other recent DSLRs" includes the E-30, and that E-30 users are expected to move up in size and cost to the E-5, but another possibility is that the newer E-30 with basically the same 12MP sensor as the E-5 is not in as much need of an update as the E-3 was, so any upgrade will come later ... if market trends justify it. Both Panasonic and Olympus indicate (in different ways!) that the 12MP sensor already in the E-30 was the best available for the E-5, so there is not a lot of room for improvement in an E-30 successor, except by getting too close to the E-5! (Video could be added, and microlenses and processing tweaked, but that does not seem enough to justify a new model in a low volume product line.)
"Olympus confirmed that they will continue to develop Four Thirds and that Micro Four Thirds will replace the low-mid DSLRs." and "“The E-5 is the only Olympus DSLR in production right now“ - 2 different posts on 43Rumors, for what it's worth.

Also this response from a reader to the second above:
“The E-system is just one “Pro” camera for Olympus from now on as it seems.”

…which is exactly what they did with the manual focus OM system in the 80s, when their flagship OM4Ti remained their only camera.

And a little bit of history:

“The message is Olympus hasn’t forgotten about Four Thirds but you’ll have to trust us on that” – Toshiyuki Terada, manager of Olympus SLR planning team, March 17 2010 ( http://fourthirds-user.com/2010/03/lunch_with_olympus_manager_of_slr_product_planning.php )

We should trust Olympus, indeed…"
It as also possible that there will never be a Panasonic sensor suitable for an E-30 upgrade or for any FourThirds DSLR, if all further models are in the wider multi-aspect ratio format that does not fit well with the 4:3 shape of FourThirds SLR viewfinders and such. Then, the 12MP trio of E-620, E-30 and E-5 could indeed be the "last wave" for FourThirds before the transition to Micro FourThirds.

And one cynical possibility is that as stocks of the E-3 and the 10MP sensor ran out, Olympus needed a new top-of-the line DSLR model, and simply took the least expensive route to designing it.
Not cynical, likely true.

Olympus is I'm sure facing the same economic headwinds as the rest of the world economy, i.e., they're in a batten down the hatches and survive mode. I'm in a different field (planning/engineering) and the now 800 person mid-size firm I'm with has let go 25% of its staff in the past 2 years (which happens to match unemployment in the construction related sector in the US economy) while at the same time buying up 4 other smaller firms that were once the honorable competition.

It's not pretty out there for most companies, and I'm sure the Olympus Imaging Group has its work cut out given the "must make 20% improvement in profits by 2015 (I believe that was the deadline given) or be eliminated" dictum from above.

While we're guilty of sweating whether there will be 4/3's successors (yes, mea culpa on that one!), the Imaging Group is likely just trying to find a way to keep their jobs and being given, I would guess, pretty lean resources to do so.

As for the competition, as I recall Canon and Nikon reported decent profits last quarter, Panasonic is on the march with the GH2 and G2, Sony the same with the NEX and A33/55/77 lines and even Pentax coming out with some good products (Kr and K5) now that they've been bankrolled by a larger company interested in their success (Hoya).

Olympus appears to be struggling and I hope they simply find their way through this rocky time. For none of the above companies has a cam that's a good match for my market niche: small, light, high quality DSLR. Kx? Really promising especially for low light, but still too heavy and their zooms aren't comparable. A55? Same issue with their lenses. Nikon/Canon? No good matches, IMHOP (D3100m too stripped down, D5000 too heavy, 550D, hate the grip and pricey L-glass).

Panasonic comes closest with the G2/GH2, both have grips, are full featured (flash, built-in EVF, excellent 3" articulated LCD, AF assist light, etc.) and, while lighter than my E-620, have the proper form to handle even HG lenses. But...and it's a big but....no IBIS or Olympus color (i.e., Truepic V/V+).

So I'll continue shooting with my E-620, which I still love for its features and IQ (just stay away from low light), and hope Olympus eventually (6 months to a year) comes out with their interpretation of the G2/GH2 series.
--
Smaller lenses, better in low light, more telephoto reach:
you can have any two at one time.
--
Sailin' Steve
 
sderdiarian,

all the actual statements I have seen from Olympus, including the ones quoted in my previous post, talk about the Pen models as adequate repacement for "entry-level" DSLRs, and the E-620 in particular; none refer to m4/3 being already an adequate replacement for mid-level models or the E-30 . Your quotes like the one that "Micro Four Thirds will replace the low- mid DSLRs" are not direct statements form Olympus; they are things said either by the author of 43rumors or worse yet in forum posts at that site. That little addition of "mid" by the 43rumors people seems totally unsupported.

BJL said
I cannot find the one I recall, which basically said
"users entry level like E-620 will be best served by PEN,

users of E-30/E-5 will continue to be served by new DSLRs, such as the E-5, until m4/3 performance improves to a sufficient level."

But here is a similar comment, from http://blog.digitalrev.com/2010/10/12/olympus-future-high-end-pens-scrap-dslrs/
Q: What future for smaller [than the E-5] SLR cameras? Are you going to give them successors?

R: We do not have concrete plans to replace the E-620 and other recent SLRs. The entry level SLR class can be completely replaced by the Pen system in terms of performance.
Here and in every other interview the talk is only of the entry level 4/3 DSLRs (currently just the E-620) being replaced by Pen, and the E-30 is not entry-level.
"Olympus confirmed that they will continue to develop Four Thirds and that Micro Four Thirds will replace the low-mid DSLRs." and "“The E-5 is the only Olympus DSLR in production right now“ - 2 different posts on 43Rumors, for what it's worth.

Also this response from a reader to the second above:
“The E-system is just one “Pro” camera for Olympus from now on as it seems.”
And a little bit of history:

“The message is Olympus hasn’t forgotten about Four Thirds but you’ll have to trust us on that” – Toshiyuki Terada, manager of Olympus SLR planning team, March 17 2010 ( http://fourthirds-user.com/2010/03/lunch_with_olympus_manager_of_slr_product_planning.php )
We should trust Olympus, indeed…"
And indeed Olympus clearly was working a new 4/3 model at the time, the E-5, so the Terada statement seems vindicated!
As for the competition, ... Pentax ... bankrolled by a larger company interested in their success (Hoya).
Hoya clearly acquired Pentax primarily for assets in medical devices, not cameras, so claiming that Hoya has a high priority or inclination to sink a lot of money into Pentax Imaging is a rather optimistic spin. Hoya is still trying to get some profit out of those Pentax camera assets, but since the Pentax camera division has for some years has worse profitability problems that Olympus camera division, I see no reason to claim that Pentax DSLRs have better "head office support" that Olympus DSLRs. Also, I am not sure that Hoya is larger than Olympus (which like Hoya, is far more than just its camera division), if that is what you were implying.

--
Smaller lenses, better in low light, more telephoto reach:
you can have any two at one time.
 
Hoya clearly acquired Pentax primarily for assets in medical devices, not cameras, so claiming that Hoya has a high priority or inclination to sink a lot of money into Pentax Imaging is a rather optimistic spin.
Medical is relatively "immune" to a bad economy. Spending on health is difficult to cut back compared to not upgrading a camera.
Hoya is still trying to get some profit out of those Pentax camera assets, but since the Pentax camera division has for some years has worse profitability problems that Olympus camera division, I see no reason to claim that Pentax DSLRs have better "head office support" that Olympus DSLRs.
A possible motivation: Hoya may well make all of the glass components (and possibly much else) for Pentax, so if Pentax had pulled out of digital imaging it would have killed Hoya.
Also, I am not sure that Hoya is larger than Olympus (which like Hoya, is far more than just its camera division), if that is what you were implying.
Pentax appears to have been nearly bankrupted, so the "merger" with Hoya's cash in hand must have made sense to both companies.

Olympus make their own optical components (or at least the specialised ones) so they likely have no external supplier likely to wish to prop them up by acquiring the digital imaging division.

(Panasonic are happy to have them tag along in order to broaden and strengthen the appeal of micro 4/3, but they clearly hold all of the cards in that system so Olympus isn't a threat. Standard 4/3 is/was a different proposition, with Panasonic struggling far more than Olympus to gain traction -- micro is a reversal of positions.)
 
A possible motivation: Hoya may well make all of the glass components (and possibly much else) for Pentax, so if Pentax had pulled out of digital imaging it would have killed Hoya.
Hoya provides optical glass to many customers; I believe it is the dominant Japanese supplier of optical glass. Pentax is likely to be a customer, but surely is not a dominant customer for Hoya glass. So I doubt that Hoya would have suffered much if Pentax had folded ... for one thing, a lot of the lens sales would have gone to other brands that also use Hoya glass.
Olympus make their own optical components (or at least the specialised ones) so they likely have no external supplier likely to wish to prop them up by acquiring the digital imaging division.
Olympus Imaging does not need to be acquired (and then propped up) by another, larger more diverse company with recession-proof activities like medical devices, such as Hoya: it is already part of such a company, in the Olympus Corporation, which is larger than Hoya. The latest consolidated net sales are 883 billion yen for Olympus Corporation vs 413 for Hoya Corporation. Imaging systems is about 20% of Olympus measured by operating income, while medical is 40%:
http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/profile/outline/
http://www.hoya.co.jp/english/company/company_02.html
http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/ir/summary/

As an aside, Olympus and Hoya's biggest area of direct competition is probably endoscopes, not consumer cameras, and in that sector, Olympus is far ahead.
--
Smaller lenses, better in low light, more telephoto reach:
you can have any two at one time.
 
Which to me is just another pacifying effort with no substance backing the words. Its easy to say what he had said, but dig deep, there's no commitment of any sort, not even an indication that they are going to do more about the sensor choice ( well saying that they choose the best sensor is a satire, as there is only 1 sensor on supply so that got to be the best right )

And M4/3 and 4/3 as a harmonous beautiful system 5 year down the road. I am amazed that they could actually utter that word, when they simply halt R&D on 4/3

And for the part it seems to me another effort just to get people to move to M4/3, not that M4/3 is a bad platform, its just not the replacement for 4/3 ( especially when they refuse to field proper lens )

--
  • Franka -
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top