On the apparent upcoming high end OMD that will "dub" as the 4/3rds hybrid

Started Aug 12, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP Raist3d Forum Pro • Posts: 38,273
Re: More 3 year old quotes & forum decorum

dave gaines wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

dave gaines wrote:

What I object to is the negative comments about 4/3 DSLRs, as if a m4/3 could replace an E-5. No one here knows if and when there will be another E-x. Most of us regulars here are hoping for one this year.

That depends on what you call a "negative comment." Someone who says that 4/3rds failed in the market and what Olympus could do making m4/3rds support 4/3rds lenses - why exactly is that "negative" and why they can't bring that up? Simply because it's different from what you want?

The first point is a matter of opinion.

Well, part of the reason why you deciding who should post and not here is a bit ludicrous.

Most DSLR owners who post here like their E-5 just fine. We don't think it's failed, to the contrary, we still like the affordable camera, high IQ lenses and telephoto lens advantage. We only wish to confirm that Olympus will continue with the 4/3 system.

Who is most. I mean, there are several 4/3rds owners that have posted from time to time the so called "negative opinion." Point is you are a nobody to say they can't post here just like they can't tell you you can't post you are pretty happy with your E-5.

The second point is a good subject for the m4/3 forum. Micro 4/3 adopters would love to have lenses as good as the HG and SHG. They're interested in seeing the OM-D develop into an Enthusiast's advanced camera.

Which 2nd point exactly are you referring to? Sorry but I don't see clearly which 2nd point you mean since the text is taken out. If you are talking about the discussion of the next OMD, once again, I brought up this model in the context of the E-5 successor/a camera that can use 4/3rds lenses well. As such, I believe it belongs here. We can agree to disagree on this- I continue talking about this here with those interested and you can just skip those threads.

Those guys on m4/3 are brutal. They keep trying to convince everyone that their system/brand is the best. Why don't you go over there and tell them when and where to post.

Why shall I do that? That's not what I am doing. You are the one one who brought up what someone should post here or there, not me. Do you realize that? I am not telling anyone what they should or should not be posting- you are.

Seriously, those guys could use some peer pressure to act civilized. I can understand why you and your buddies here don't want to post over there.

You are making some rather ridiculous assumptions there. For once, I have posted there. For two, as I mentioned I am discussing a next OMD in a 4/3rds context. So I post here. But see what you are doing? You are the one telling who should post where - you.

As a comparison to my comments, try going to the Canon APS forums and telling all those folks their system is dead, Canon is not making any more lenses to support it and they ought to come over to the Canon M camp. Or go to the Nikon APS forums and say the same thing and suggest they all adopt Nikon 1 or Sony NEX instead. See how much they appreciate your opinion on their forums. They have a right to expect those forums are freindly to their system and that other-brand-trolls go post on the forum for their brands. Here at Olympus SLR Talk forum we have the same expectations.

Actually Canon has more than all the lenses they could want for that system pretty much. I brought up very specifically the telephoto macro because it was a (i) a type of lens missing and still missing in 4/3rds world, (ii) several people in this forum said they wanted it and (iii) Olympus decided to can it. And what I am saying is, that very decision speaks volumes after being on the roadmap for at least a couple of years.

And once again, I am not talking about Canon, I am talking about what comes after an E-5, a discussion about 4/3rds.

You and others in this thread want a better OM-D and you're repeating what 4/3Rumors is speculating.

I think your reply proved this point.

Which reply is that? How exactly?

I posted them back then. Here are they again.


Thanks, I had a look. That is a rumor/blog site. The story is over 2 years old, about an interview that is over 3 years old. I read that interview a long time ago. The speakers were so guarded there's little you coud learn from it.

The link did not allow me to scroll down. I only saw 3 slides. You can't tell anything from those images (unless you saw an uncut audio/video).

That's really strange. I have no problems scrolling down but here are some key slides:



Yes, the site may be a rumor site but those slides sure look pretty legit, considering some of that very material has been repeated elsewhere.

... That interview is almost 3 years old! Geeze Louise!

Yes! And it was said not once but many times and not just 3 years ago!

I haven't heard Corporate Olympus say that. Lots of rumors but no oiffical news that I know of. Do you have any links?

Oh Olympus Corporate only said that if by 2015 the imaging division wasn't profitable, it was time to cut it off. But then that was before the executive shuffle before the scandal.

Olympus also has mentioned in their strategic documents for the company how the future is m4/3rds and premium compacts (xz-2, etc.) with ZERO mention of the DSLR.

As for links, go ahead and google it up - or go to Olympus own official worldwide website and look for the financial reports.  I gave you legit links and you just decided to ignore, so I am not doing that homework for you anymore.

And I could say you're making stuff up. But I didn't. You're just reading rumor sites.

No, BIOFOS *is not* a rumor site.  Apparently it doesn't strike you that there's a difference between a rumor site, and a legit slide/presentation.

Yup, and apparently, and E-7 was one of the decision changes they had made since they started m4/3rds only to change their mind again. ...

That is a very dim view for 4/3. No one knows that but Olympus and they're not saying anything. They're going to tell us all in mid-September. Instead of all this hoopla, argument and angst we could just wait until then to comment, critique and evaluate systems.

The issue is not whether I think 4/3rds is good or not or doesn't have good lenses, etc. The FACT is that 4/3rds did not succeed for Olympus financially.  You can see this from their financial reports and where they decided to focus on.  So the question is- what can Olympus do to jump start 43rds again to be financially viable for them? I honestly don't see at this point how they would do that when they have a more reasonable financial proposition in m4/3rds.

This has nothing to do with inherent (or lack of) merits of 4/3rds as a system.

This is from Feb 2013 (that's this year):


Zero mention of a DSLR body. That's not the only point Olympus has done this. Connect the dots.

No mention of any camera type. That's what's so mysterious about it. We'll all know in a few weeks. He does talk about the seperate needs of DSLR shooters and m4/3 adopters, ad Olympus's interest in satisfying those needs.

Yup, and they have been saying that non commital talk for a very long time. Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd? Haven't you read the different press releases where they pretty much dance around it?

And does it strike you as very odd that the telephoto macro 4/3rd lenses that several people wanted, that is a hole missing in the line up was completely canned (which Olympus officially admitted) with no further development to the market?

More than a few people still want that lens. But Sigma filled that niche with the 105 and 150 macro lenses. How many could they sell?

That's not the reason why they canned it.

Again, the question is, how profitable is the 4/3rds market? This is the point that it seems to me every 4/3rds lover avoids- how profitable can 4/3rds be? ...

In the recent past they have sold more m4/3 than E-5. Not surprising since the market for the E-5 is saturated. But they are dissatisfied with m4/3 sales - they are way off projections. That was here in a news story very recently.

How exactly is the E-5 market saturated? If that is so, then more reason to move away from 4/3rds! (for Olympus)

You bet if 4/3rds could be made profitable it would all come back. Why did they leave it? ...

No one knows that they have left 4/3. A 3 year cycle for an E-x Pro body is normal for Olympus and most top of the line bodies from other manufacturers, including Canon and Nikon.

Lacking in the E-30 and e-420/620 line is not.

If Olympus exits the 4/3 system, how secure can you be in adopting m4/3?

Certainly that's a question that several people have brought up from time to time.

You could be right about all these spec's in the 4/3rumor site. Or the spec's could be wrong. I could be right to believe in a future 4/3 DSLR. Or I could be wrong. We'll all know soon enough.

So let's mark that calendar now. When would it be enough for you? November? December? Jan 2014? When?

I try to be fair and honest and just stick to what we know, not what has been speculated. I also try to avoid personal attacks.

That's fine, me too!

Let's leave it on that note.

.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...l

Now that is funny!

-- hide signature --


-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow