Tom,
Thanks Jan,
But I could not be bohered reading the article fully - it lost my attention fairly quickly for the follwing reasons:
1) “Olympus is historically into compact cameras” then suddenly this is out the window and it is into big weather sealed cameras and lenses for outdoor use (?)
The MFT cameras and lenses ARE small, compared to their direct FF counterparts. For example, I used to own and carry a Nikon F5 and AFS 600mm f/4 lens, so I do think the E-M1X and 300mm f/4 (for me, the corresponding MFT) alternative is very small, and not big at all.
The alternative (often called 'equivalent', lol.), a FF cam with a more compact, smaller aperture 600mm lens, is not even remotely interesting! Not to me, at least. Nor are the apsc slr' and lenses, I mean, wow, really? Sure they perform...but I'm here, because I like it done another way, lol!
IMO, Olympus has consistently been very clear on this subject, saying essentially, 'we like to approach the problem of, a design balance between quality and portability, in our own unique, and when possible, proprietary way. This (at least to me) has been consistent and clear over my years using the products.
My gear in 1988, an OM-4 and Motor Drive 2, a 5 fps drive with power rewind and the first to have a lcd display. The multi-spot metering system was from another planet.
I got my first OM in middle school (my very first SLR camera was a Ricoh, but the plastic bottom plate broke off when I had a zoom lens mounted on a tripod. I said, never again a cheap camera.) , had an OM-2n in art school and got an OM-4 after moving to the west coast in the mid 80's. Had an OM-4T along with the F5 into the nineties. Came upon DPR a while before buying an E-10 new for about $2,000, if I remember. I do consider myself very fortunate to have had the opportunity to use such fabulous gear from an early age.
I recommended this article, because I shared an opinion, summed up here:
........................................................
"At the end of the day, I have to say that Olympus has the most clearly articulated product strategy of any manufacturer that I've talked to, and in some ways the greatest market security, given that they're addressing the needs of a huge swath of photographers in ways that no one else is doing."
.........................................................
I agree with the above, in the sense that I think Olympus does their own thing, with products that are (again, to me) quite clearly differentiated from the nearest other products I might consider. In a way I very much like right now, if not so much in the 4/3 era.
I think Olympus has a unique value system, that is reflected in the unique products it produces.
Its not an just an personal opinion, but also a fact, that I have benefitted directly from the 'Olympus Way' of technical innovation and quality over the years.
This history has built my respect, trust and loyalty.
The way some other people often talk here (I don't mean this topic, but in general), frankly, makes me wonder why they are here, because they sure don't seem to belong.
My 2c.
Jan
2) The Pen-F is arguably Olympus’ small camera offering but it could hardly be described as a camera for large lenses for outdoor use. I will admit it as being an extremely competant camera, but my comment stands.
3) It is blandly accepted that Panasonics stated promise to keep supporting M4/3 is only “lip service” and that they are off on the FF mount tangent. That R&D dollars will be diverted to the FF effort as if Panasonic R&D allocation is a fixed amount. There is no consideration for the possibility that Panasonic presumably could easily find completely additional dollars to fund its FF mount foray. In fact I doubt very much that re-allocating all of the M4/3 previous R&D to FF efforts would be sufficient. M4/3 is a quite mature system these days and their FF effort has started from (almost) square one. Why should Panasonic run away from a successful M4/3 position where in recent times they have almost made 100% running in new interesting camera bodies? Olympus could be seen to be substantially the one that was dragging the chain here. In fact if Panasonics (lack of) new camera product in recent times had matched that of Olympus then the knives would surely be out and sharpened for the future of M4/3. My view is that it has only been Panasonics obvious support for its investment in M4/3 that has kept the mount format in recent times both relevant and vibrant.
4) Why would Olympus not view their supposition that Panasonic is leaving M4/3 at some time in the future with extreme trepidation instead of what seems to be reported as something along the lines of “we are better off without them” attitude.
5) Panasonic did try and make a high quality tiny systems camera body in the form of the GM1 an GM5 but by all accounts this was a failure. Whilst Olympus answer as the E-PL9 might closer resemble an entry level body and to compare that camera even to the GX950 might be considered a mild insult.
Maybe there is more to it than what I found in the article but it sounded more that an “Olympus feel-good” exercise. I hasten to add that I really like Olympus product - especially their lenses - and that Panasonic needs an involved Olympus to help keep M4/3 alive and it may just be some sort of despair on Panasonics part over the recent dearth of new Olympus camera body product that may have prompted the safety valve of getting involved in the L-Mount consortium - something that could not be a decison made lightly - only one where the huge expenditure involved was justified by the good chance of market share in the lucrative FF ML was on offer.
