Those figures really mean nothing as they reflect many non-sales issues, as mentioned. To suggest that Olympus is dead or dying is the typical myopic view held by western pundits. The eastern ethos is rarely understood by western companies, who just demand year on year profits.
Isn't that what companies are supposed to do? Make money? I'm confused?
There is no FF equivalent. That would be a 24-200 f8. Nobody makes it, but if they did it would probably weigh about the same as the Olympus.
Now, SLR camera makers don't make F8.0 zooms, because they are too slow for normal use. Sure, they'd work fine outdoors in bright sunlight, but that's about it. The slowest SLR lens is maybe F2.8 equivalent, and that's a $200 kit lens.
Of course companies are in the business of making money. The thing is, western companies rarely have long-term vison, everything must be achieved instantly.
It would be a 24-200 f4 and be somewhat larger.
70D is crop camera so discard that. I have a 6D and as far as viewing your subject it is superior to any EVF I have ever seen. No contest really. Somehow you think a small LCD screen can improve on that? I'm totally baffled.
--
Yes companies can sometimes be short sighted. If you add up Olympus camera division profits for the past decade I'm pretty sure you will end up with a loss. That certainly isn't a short period of time.Of course companies are in the business of making money. The thing is, western companies rarely have long-term vison, everything must be achieved instantly.
How many potentially good/great ideas died in the ditch because they didn't deliver instant profits? That's often the difference between western and eastern companies.
Bloody hell, doesn't my signature indicate where I'm from? Here:
I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror –
The wide brown land for me!
An opal-hearted country,
A wilful, lavish land
All you who have not loved her,
You will not understand
though Earth holds many splendours,
Wherever I may die,
I know to what brown country
My homing thoughts will fly.
My Country – Dorothea Mackeller
Australia - Map and Flag! Oi, Oi, Oi!
--
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au
Are all those BIF photos shown here actually taken with other brand cameras?
How do all those people using big telescopes and digital imaging attachments focus on star clusters etc?
That Oly zoom is F8.0 equivalent. Now, I know M43rds doesn't like equivalence, because it punctures their world view. OUR lenses are small and tiny because we are mirrorless! We are cool, because we violate the rules of optics and light gathering. And let's ignore those pesky cell phone users, who also have F2.8 lenses.
Like removing the mirror makes lenses smaller.
The f-stop is the relationship between sensor size and lens size. That's it. A cell phone camera, M43rds, and medium format can all have F2.8 lenses, meaning the lens has some ratio to the system sensor size.
However, the medium format F2.8 lens performs far differently from a cell phone F2.8. Does anyone, can anyone, really believe differently? Does anyone really believe that the F10 Hubble telescope lens is worse than a F2.8 cell phone lens?
In their hearts, everyone believes and understands equivalence. They just choose to deny it when it comes to defending their system.
What I want is one, just one, M43rds user to state that a F2.8 cell phone lens performs the same as a F2.8 M43rds lens. And once you admit that, you might as well put interchangeable lenses on a cell phone. It would smaller, light, and cheaper. And offer the same performance, right? Then we could argue about why M43drds F2.8 lenses are dinosaurs and use such big and heavy lenses compared to cell phones
Funny though. No one has ever brought this argument up, even though it is the logical conclusion of "F2.8 is F2.8 is F2.8"
Now, SLR camera makers don't make F8.0 zooms, because they are too slow for normal use. Sure, they'd work fine outdoors in bright sunlight, but that's about it. The slowest SLR lens is maybe F2.8 equivalent, and that's a $200 kit lens.
OK, one time and one time only!
Or maybe they were smart and got out while they could get a good price for it. Before divesting Lou Gerstner declared 'The Era of the PC is over". It is a low margin business and no one is making a lot of money from PCs. Look at HP and Dell, the largest PC makers and both are struggling.
So when I take a flash reading for a studio setup with my light meter and it indicates ISO200, 1/320 sec at f4, I need to stop down a FF camera to f8 so that the image is exposed the same (neutral grey) as for a m4/3 camera?
And here is where you, together with all other equivalency evangelists, are wrong. Your statement is true only in some idealised cases, where sensors of the same technology /generation are compared, and the output is of such quality to actually see the difference.
This statement is incorrect. Long term strategic plans are de rigueur with both western and eastern companies/corporations especially the big ones perhaps not so with the mom & pop small family companies. The primary task of the chairman of the board is to seek to ensure that 5 to 10 years down the road all is well rather as a ship's captain when out on the ocean concerns himself with that which is up ahead, way up ahead as in many many kilometers, for obvious reasons.
it would produce less pain than rehashing this argument with people who don't understand science and math.
