Reading mode: Light Dark

EM1X - how much has/does it actually cost to produce?

Go to last post
Okapi001 said:
Richandhiscat said:
Now don't lets get into any arguments - if it's off the shelf from Epson or any other manufacturer, then that's another cost that's lowered.
Click to expand...
Lower in comparison to what? Older, less sensitive gyros, are less expensive, these newly developed cost more. And they are not "off the shelf", they are custom developed according to Olympus specification.
Click to expand...
I did say if it's off the shelf. It doesn't really matter, because as I originally said, that's a cost that will (hopefully) be shared with future cameras, it won't be unique to this camera. It would have been a natural development.
 
bobn2 said:
Okapi001 said:
bobn2 said:
Okapi001 said:
bobn2 said:
Okapi001 said:
bobn2 said:
Richandhiscat said:
The newly developed parts appear to be the stabilization giro
Click to expand...
I would doubt very much that the gyro is 'newly developed'. The gyros in cameras are generally off-the-shelf automotive parts, and don't cost a lot. Olympus has just selected a more recent one for this camera. Even if you count that as 'newly developed, the development cost Olympus nothing.
Click to expand...
So once more you knew better and the Olympus is lying.
Click to expand...
Did I say that Olympus was lying? No I didn't. That would be you.
Click to expand...
LOL, you just did.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't. Nothing I said contradicted anything Olympus has said.
Click to expand...
You said the gyros are not newly developed, and Olympus said they are.
Click to expand...
I said 'Even if you count that as 'newly developed, the development cost Olympus nothing'. Check it out. I never accused Olympus of lying, I simply noted their usual cute marketing, which as usual pulls the wool over the eyes of their more gullible fans. Not news. In any case, even had I accused them of lying, it would have been no great shakes, because Olympus has been proven to have lied before, over thing much more serious than the specs of a new camera.
Click to expand...
Hold on thar, bubba louie. (That was Quickdraw McDraw's horse, in case the cultural reference is a little obscure.)

Oly's corporate meltdown in the 2011 era was a scandal that rocked the company right to the core. Since that time they have undergone significant change emerging as a pretty solid company.

Check out the financial and various investor reports. By jettisoning the garbage companies they acquired during a period of pretty substantial malfeasance, they've raised their gross profit to 60%+, and solidified their number 1 position in endoscopy. Their debt to equity is down from close to 90% to about 50% now. Short sellers are basically non-existent.

Whether or not you like their cameras, they're looking pretty solid on a corporate basis. I see them as a superior investment to, say, Nikon, Fujifilm, or Canon corporations.

Imaging is 7% of their business, but a significant internal technology driver. So we'll see what the future holds for cameras. Imo, as long as they continue to hold 25% or more of their domestic market and show at least some profit, the imaging division is there to stay.
bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:
We are not talking about who actually developed them.
Click to expand...
Or why they developed them.
bobn2 said:
And testing part of the development process, which Olympus conducted, is not without expenses.
Click to expand...
Normal expenses in any product development.
bobn2 said:
But once again, you are simply not able to admit that you are just wrong. Nothing new.
Click to expand...
Once again, you are simply not able to admit that Olympus has had you again.
Click to expand...
--
Jeff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jck_photos/sets/
 
Last edited:
Richandhiscat said:
All the negative talk about it being a disaster for Olympus (and yes, marketing dept does deserve a kick up the ---- for the 'sports' hype), and yet, how much has it actually cost?

Unique parts seem to be limited to the body chassis and shell.

The newly developed parts appear to be the stabilization giro and the sensor cleaner (plus a few other sensors, gps etc, which may well be off someones shelf). All these can be used in future cameras, along with the new firmware features (processor power allowing). Everything else of any significance seems to be out of the parts bin.

I seem to remember the rumour merchant Simon saying that Oly regarded this camera as a 'demonstrator' - maybe that is exactly the case (while providing wildlife photographers etc. with a very rugged tool), and the intention (hope) is that sales of future cameras (maybe with a new sensor) with the new features will be boosted by the results from the EM1X.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...
If the object was to sell cameras with a new sensor, then the EM1X should have had this new sensor in it.

Would anyone buy a $3,000 camera with an old sensor when they could buy one with a much improved sensor for half the price?

OK, perhaps some would. But only those who really need all of the other features that the EM1X has. The other 95% would jump on the camera with the newer (and presumably better) sensor.

I really understand what is happening here.

Olympus is heading straight for the very high end, because the rest of the market is rapidly disappearing. That market segment has the highest profit potential, even if it means selling a lot fewer units.

But there is some pretty stiff competition at the very high end. And while Olympus certainly can provide better build quality, better weather sealing, and lots of cool new features, those high end users really do want better image quality too.

And that is where the problem lies. It might be impossible to provide better image quality with a sensor so much smaller that was designed six years ago. So despite all the wonderful new features and world class weather sealing, the EM1X will be a very hard camera to sell.

Unless all you want to do is shoot trains during category 5 hurricane....
 
Marty4650 said:
Richandhiscat said:
All the negative talk about it being a disaster for Olympus (and yes, marketing dept does deserve a kick up the ---- for the 'sports' hype), and yet, how much has it actually cost?

Unique parts seem to be limited to the body chassis and shell.

The newly developed parts appear to be the stabilization giro and the sensor cleaner (plus a few other sensors, gps etc, which may well be off someones shelf). All these can be used in future cameras, along with the new firmware features (processor power allowing). Everything else of any significance seems to be out of the parts bin.

I seem to remember the rumour merchant Simon saying that Oly regarded this camera as a 'demonstrator' - maybe that is exactly the case (while providing wildlife photographers etc. with a very rugged tool), and the intention (hope) is that sales of future cameras (maybe with a new sensor) with the new features will be boosted by the results from the EM1X.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...
If the object was to sell cameras with a new sensor, then the EM1X should have had this new sensor in it.

Would anyone buy a $3,000 camera with an old sensor when they could buy one with a much improved sensor for half the price?

OK, perhaps some would. But only those who really need all of the other features that the EM1X has. The other 95% would jump on the camera with the newer (and presumably better) sensor.

I really understand what is happening here.

Olympus is heading straight for the very high end, because the rest of the market is rapidly disappearing. That market segment has the highest profit potential, even if it means selling a lot fewer units.

But there is some pretty stiff competition at the very high end. And while Olympus certainly can provide better build quality, better weather sealing, and lots of cool new features, those high end users really do want better image quality too.

And that is where the problem lies. It might be impossible to provide better image quality with a sensor so much smaller that was designed six years ago. So despite all the wonderful new features and world class weather sealing, the EM1X will be a very hard camera to sell.

Unless all you want to do is shoot trains during category 5 hurricane....
Click to expand...
they may be charging high end prices but they are cutting costs in those products by using stock parts or older established technology
 
Marty4650 said:
But there is some pretty stiff competition at the very high end. And while Olympus certainly can provide better build quality, better weather sealing, and lots of cool new features, those high end users really do want better image quality too.
Click to expand...
Or not. If you work for a media outlet and your output are 2 mpix large photos, published online, or 8 mpix large, published in a glossy magazine, you really don't need better image quality. Faster camera, better AF, better wifi for faster transfer to computer, better jpgs, to minimise post-production, better ergonomics, more reliable camera ... are things that you should be interested in, because they will make your life easier and will have positive impact on your earnings.
 
Richandhiscat said:
bobn2 said:
Okapi001 said:
bobn2 said:
Okapi001 said:
bobn2 said:
Richandhiscat said:
The newly developed parts appear to be the stabilization giro
Click to expand...
I would doubt very much that the gyro is 'newly developed'. The gyros in cameras are generally off-the-shelf automotive parts, and don't cost a lot. Olympus has just selected a more recent one for this camera. Even if you count that as 'newly developed, the development cost Olympus nothing.
Click to expand...
So once more you knew better and the Olympus is lying.
Click to expand...
Did I say that Olympus was lying? No I didn't. That would be you.
Click to expand...
LOL, you just did.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't. Nothing I said contradicted anything Olympus has said. It didn't even contradict your quote, but that wasn't from Olympus, it was from Dave Etchells, the man who let Nikon pull the wool over his eyes about them having designed the D850 sensor. He's easy prey to smart marketing people.
Richandhiscat said:
it's just Olympus' marketing once again fluffing it up so the fans think it's something special. Good on them, it keeps them going.
Click to expand...
'Fluffing it up' isn't lying. It's just doing what marketing people do, spinning things so the gullible read them as something different to what they actually mean.
Click to expand...
Now don't lets get into any arguments - if it's off the shelf from Epson or any other manufacturer, then that's another cost that's lowered.
Click to expand...
But if the quote from the Olympus tech is true than it is not off the shelf. If Olympus went to all the trouble to do a development with Epson (pay Epson in cash or tech know-how) for a new gyro, you can bet that there is a legal contractual agreement that precludes Epson from selling this gyro to anyone other than Olympus, at least for some period of time.....so not "off the shelf",
 
Last edited:
gary0319 said:
Richandhiscat said:
bobn2 said:
Okapi001 said:
bobn2 said:
Okapi001 said:
bobn2 said:
Richandhiscat said:
The newly developed parts appear to be the stabilization giro
Click to expand...
I would doubt very much that the gyro is 'newly developed'. The gyros in cameras are generally off-the-shelf automotive parts, and don't cost a lot. Olympus has just selected a more recent one for this camera. Even if you count that as 'newly developed, the development cost Olympus nothing.
Click to expand...
So once more you knew better and the Olympus is lying.
Click to expand...
Did I say that Olympus was lying? No I didn't. That would be you.
Click to expand...
LOL, you just did.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't. Nothing I said contradicted anything Olympus has said. It didn't even contradict your quote, but that wasn't from Olympus, it was from Dave Etchells, the man who let Nikon pull the wool over his eyes about them having designed the D850 sensor. He's easy prey to smart marketing people.
gary0319 said:
it's just Olympus' marketing once again fluffing it up so the fans think it's something special. Good on them, it keeps them going.
Click to expand...
'Fluffing it up' isn't lying. It's just doing what marketing people do, spinning things so the gullible read them as something different to what they actually mean.
Click to expand...
Now don't lets get into any arguments - if it's off the shelf from Epson or any other manufacturer, then that's another cost that's lowered.
Click to expand...
But if the quote from the Olympus tech is true than it is not off the shelf. If Olympus went to all the trouble to do a development with Epson (pay Epson in cash or tech know-how) for a new gyro, you can bet that there is a legal contractual agreement that precludes Epson from selling this gyro to anyone other than Olympus, at least for some period of time.....so not "off the shelf",
Click to expand...
That is what I said in my post an hour ago, for two years this newly developed gyro sensor is exclusively Oly.

RL
 
Member said:
Member said:
And that is where the problem lies. It might be impossible to provide better image quality with a sensor so much smaller that was designed six years ago. So despite all the wonderful new features and world class weather sealing, the EM1X will be a very hard camera to sell.

Unless all you want to do is shoot trains during category 5 hurricane....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That would make a brilliant picture!
Member said:
they may be charging high end prices but they are cutting costs in those products by using stock parts or older established technology
Click to expand...
My point entirely.

If a new sensor isn't available till next year then why not produce a new niche camera, as cheaply as possible, but with some new features that will be included in later models.

Nobody has to buy it, but if it's as rugged as it looks I can certainly see a market for it.
 
R Liewenberger said:
gary0319 said:
Richandhiscat said:
bobn2 said:
Okapi001 said:
bobn2 said:
Okapi001 said:
bobn2 said:
Richandhiscat said:
The newly developed parts appear to be the stabilization giro
Click to expand...
I would doubt very much that the gyro is 'newly developed'. The gyros in cameras are generally off-the-shelf automotive parts, and don't cost a lot. Olympus has just selected a more recent one for this camera. Even if you count that as 'newly developed, the development cost Olympus nothing.
Click to expand...
So once more you knew better and the Olympus is lying.
Click to expand...
Did I say that Olympus was lying? No I didn't. That would be you.
Click to expand...
LOL, you just did.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't. Nothing I said contradicted anything Olympus has said. It didn't even contradict your quote, but that wasn't from Olympus, it was from Dave Etchells, the man who let Nikon pull the wool over his eyes about them having designed the D850 sensor. He's easy prey to smart marketing people.
R Liewenberger said:
it's just Olympus' marketing once again fluffing it up so the fans think it's something special. Good on them, it keeps them going.
Click to expand...
'Fluffing it up' isn't lying. It's just doing what marketing people do, spinning things so the gullible read them as something different to what they actually mean.
Click to expand...
Now don't lets get into any arguments - if it's off the shelf from Epson or any other manufacturer, then that's another cost that's lowered.
Click to expand...
But if the quote from the Olympus tech is true than it is not off the shelf. If Olympus went to all the trouble to do a development with Epson (pay Epson in cash or tech know-how) for a new gyro, you can bet that there is a legal contractual agreement that precludes Epson from selling this gyro to anyone other than Olympus, at least for some period of time.....so not "off the shelf",
Click to expand...
That is what I said in my post an hour ago, for two years this newly developed gyro sensor is exclusively Oly.

RL
Click to expand...
Sorry, I missed your post, as apparently did some others. Good catch.
 
Okapi001 said:
Marty4650 said:
But there is some pretty stiff competition at the very high end. And while Olympus certainly can provide better build quality, better weather sealing, and lots of cool new features, those high end users really do want better image quality too.
Click to expand...
Or not. If you work for a media outlet and your output are 2 mpix large photos, published online, or 8 mpix large, published in a glossy magazine, you really don't need better image quality. Faster camera, better AF, better wifi for faster transfer to computer, better jpgs, to minimise post-production, better ergonomics, more reliable camera ... are things that you should be interested in, because they will make your life easier and will have positive impact on your earnings.
Click to expand...
that being the difference between a "Professional" photographer and a hobby photographer who produces "Professional Quality" images

The former wants the most effective and efficient tools to help make their living, the other wants the best technology available to produce images of the highest possible quality

Two different markets
 
Richandhiscat said:
All the negative talk about it being a disaster for Olympus (and yes, marketing dept does deserve a kick up the ---- for the 'sports' hype), and yet, how much has it actually cost?

Unique parts seem to be limited to the body chassis and shell....
Click to expand...
Parts are a relatively small part of the cost. Other costs include...

• Paying highly educated people for years to design the camera, programming software, testing prototypes

• Paying people to assemble and test the parts

• Marketing the camera (including multiple press junkets)

• Transporting products to retailers

• Inventory management

• Warranty service

• Retailer's cut

• Losses due to theft

• All the other miscellaneous items like legal fees, management overhead etc

• Finally, Olympus actually needs to make a profit

I'd add that any adult who has any interest in any products should know that the first buyers will almost always pay top dollar. This is mostly because the company is paying off the initial R&D costs, and wants to get some profit when demand is high.

Those same adults should also understand that in a market economy, the price is based largely on "what someone is willing to pay," not "what do the parts cost?"

I.e. it kind of astounds me that people seem to think it costs $0 to develop, program, build, warranty, market and sell a camera.
 
gary0319 said:
Richandhiscat said:
bobn2 said:
Okapi001 said:
bobn2 said:
Okapi001 said:
bobn2 said:
Richandhiscat said:
The newly developed parts appear to be the stabilization giro
Click to expand...
I would doubt very much that the gyro is 'newly developed'. The gyros in cameras are generally off-the-shelf automotive parts, and don't cost a lot. Olympus has just selected a more recent one for this camera. Even if you count that as 'newly developed, the development cost Olympus nothing.
Click to expand...
So once more you knew better and the Olympus is lying.
Click to expand...
Did I say that Olympus was lying? No I didn't. That would be you.
Click to expand...
LOL, you just did.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't. Nothing I said contradicted anything Olympus has said. It didn't even contradict your quote, but that wasn't from Olympus, it was from Dave Etchells, the man who let Nikon pull the wool over his eyes about them having designed the D850 sensor. He's easy prey to smart marketing people.
gary0319 said:
it's just Olympus' marketing once again fluffing it up so the fans think it's something special. Good on them, it keeps them going.
Click to expand...
'Fluffing it up' isn't lying. It's just doing what marketing people do, spinning things so the gullible read them as something different to what they actually mean.
Click to expand...
Now don't lets get into any arguments - if it's off the shelf from Epson or any other manufacturer, then that's another cost that's lowered.
Click to expand...
But if the quote from the Olympus tech is true than it is not off the shelf.
Click to expand...
Well actually the quote from Olympus allows quite enough wiggle room for it to be off the shelf and still be substantially true. You forget just how cute Olympus marketing is
gary0319 said:
If Olympus went to all the trouble to do a development with Epson (pay Epson in cash or tech know-how) for a new gyro, you can bet that there is a legal contractual agreement that precludes Epson from selling this gyro to anyone other than Olympus, at least for some period of time.....so not "off the shelf",
Click to expand...
Lots of assumptions there. You have no idea how much trouble Olympus went to, or whether this part is freely available in Epson's catalogue.
 
Okapi001 said:
bobn2 said:
Richandhiscat said:
The newly developed parts appear to be the stabilization giro
Click to expand...
I would doubt very much that the gyro is 'newly developed'. The gyros in cameras are generally off-the-shelf automotive parts, and don't cost a lot. Olympus has just selected a more recent one for this camera. Even if you count that as 'newly developed, the development cost Olympus nothing.
Click to expand...
So once more you knew better and the Olympus is lying.

From the interview with Olympus technical staff.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/ne...zing-tech-underlying-new-OM-D-series-flagship

"The key to getting to this new level of performance was that Olympus and the gyro manufacturer [Epson] cooperated to jointly develop the new level of technology. It was apparently an iterative process that initially began with a set of specs from Olympus stating what they needed. From there, the gyro maker would produce some more advanced units, Olympus would test them in camera/lens systems and report the results back. The gyro company would then refine the underlying tech and send another batch to Olympus for testing, and the cycle would repeat. Eventually they ended up with sensors capable of the remarkable 7.5 stops of IS improvement seen in the E-M1X."
Click to expand...
You're quote partially confirms what Bob said. Olympus asked for an improved gyro and Epson kept making modifications or sending different models until it met Olympus' needs. Calling that a joint development is a bit of a stretch; it's like saying that my customer jointly develop the software I write because they constantly ask for performance improvements.
 
Last edited:
SpinOne said:
I'd add that any adult who has any interest in any products should know that the first buyers will almost always pay top dollar. This is mostly because the company is paying off the initial R&D costs, and wants to get some profit when demand is high.

Those same adults should also understand that in a market economy, the price is based largely on "what someone is willing to pay," not "what do the parts cost?"

I.e. it kind of astounds me that people seem to think it costs $0 to develop, program, build, warranty, market and sell a camera.
Click to expand...
You don't understand my post.

Those development costs will be low because the parts have already been developed for other models. It's likely that the only unique part of this camera to design will be the body. Everything else that's new should share development costs with future models, unless Oly chooses to heap all the development costs onto this one camera (in which case it will lose money but future models would likely be highly profitable.) I think this camera is a stopgap, filling a niche until a better sensor comes along.
 
bobn2 said:
gary0319 said:
Richandhiscat said:
bobn2 said:
Okapi001 said:
bobn2 said:
Okapi001 said:
bobn2 said:
Richandhiscat said:
The newly developed parts appear to be the stabilization giro
Click to expand...
I would doubt very much that the gyro is 'newly developed'. The gyros in cameras are generally off-the-shelf automotive parts, and don't cost a lot. Olympus has just selected a more recent one for this camera. Even if you count that as 'newly developed, the development cost Olympus nothing.
Click to expand...
So once more you knew better and the Olympus is lying.
Click to expand...
Did I say that Olympus was lying? No I didn't. That would be you.
Click to expand...
LOL, you just did.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't. Nothing I said contradicted anything Olympus has said. It didn't even contradict your quote, but that wasn't from Olympus, it was from Dave Etchells, the man who let Nikon pull the wool over his eyes about them having designed the D850 sensor. He's easy prey to smart marketing people.
bobn2 said:
it's just Olympus' marketing once again fluffing it up so the fans think it's something special. Good on them, it keeps them going.
Click to expand...
'Fluffing it up' isn't lying. It's just doing what marketing people do, spinning things so the gullible read them as something different to what they actually mean.
Click to expand...
Now don't lets get into any arguments - if it's off the shelf from Epson or any other manufacturer, then that's another cost that's lowered.
Click to expand...
But if the quote from the Olympus tech is true than it is not off the shelf.
Click to expand...
Well actually the quote from Olympus allows quite enough wiggle room for it to be off the shelf and still be substantially true. You forget just how cute Olympus marketing is
bobn2 said:
If Olympus went to all the trouble to do a development with Epson (pay Epson in cash or tech know-how) for a new gyro, you can bet that there is a legal contractual agreement that precludes Epson from selling this gyro to anyone other than Olympus, at least for some period of time.....so not "off the shelf",
Click to expand...
Lots of assumptions there. You have no idea how much trouble Olympus went to, or whether this part is freely available in Epson's catalogue.
Click to expand...
No, I don't have any first hand knowledge, nor do you, I suspect.

But this additional piece of information kind of helps (unless you assume, as seems to be your habit, that it is more Olympus falsehoods).

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62236950
 
Last edited:
bobn2 said:
Well actually the quote from Olympus allows quite enough wiggle room for it to be off the shelf and still be substantially true. You forget just how cute Olympus marketing is
Click to expand...
I'd say it's pretty inept, marketing this as a sports camera (when it actually makes quite a good wildlife/trekking in the rough camera), wouldn't you?
 
Dan_168 said:
Richandhiscat said:
All the negative talk about it being a disaster for Olympus (and yes, marketing dept does deserve a kick up the ---- for the 'sports' hype), and yet, how much has it actually cost?
Click to expand...
Call Olympus and ask them instead.
Click to expand...
Tell you what, you call them, then you can actually take part in the debate with some inside information...
 
whumber said:
Okapi001 said:
bobn2 said:
Richandhiscat said:
The newly developed parts appear to be the stabilization giro
Click to expand...
I would doubt very much that the gyro is 'newly developed'. The gyros in cameras are generally off-the-shelf automotive parts, and don't cost a lot. Olympus has just selected a more recent one for this camera. Even if you count that as 'newly developed, the development cost Olympus nothing.
Click to expand...
So once more you knew better and the Olympus is lying.

From the interview with Olympus technical staff.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/ne...zing-tech-underlying-new-OM-D-series-flagship

"The key to getting to this new level of performance was that Olympus and the gyro manufacturer [Epson] cooperated to jointly develop the new level of technology. It was apparently an iterative process that initially began with a set of specs from Olympus stating what they needed. From there, the gyro maker would produce some more advanced units, Olympus would test them in camera/lens systems and report the results back. The gyro company would then refine the underlying tech and send another batch to Olympus for testing, and the cycle would repeat. Eventually they ended up with sensors capable of the remarkable 7.5 stops of IS improvement seen in the E-M1X."
Click to expand...
You're quote partially confirms what Bob said. Olympus asked for an improved gyro and Epson kept making modifications or sending different models until it met Olympus' needs. Calling that a joint development is a bit of a stretch; it's like saying that my customer jointly develop the software I write because they constantly ask for performance improvements.
Click to expand...
And you are wrong too. Bob didn't say anything about who developed new gyros, and neither did OP or I. He just said this is not a newly developed gyro. And Olympus clearly said it is newly developed. And as for the Olympus' involvement, Bob said they just selected one from the catalogue, which is not true. They provided specifications, they tested prototypes and samples and provided feedback to Epson.
 
gary0319 said:
bobn2 said:
gary0319 said:
Richandhiscat said:
bobn2 said:
Okapi001 said:
bobn2 said:
Okapi001 said:
bobn2 said:
Richandhiscat said:
The newly developed parts appear to be the stabilization giro
Click to expand...
I would doubt very much that the gyro is 'newly developed'. The gyros in cameras are generally off-the-shelf automotive parts, and don't cost a lot. Olympus has just selected a more recent one for this camera. Even if you count that as 'newly developed, the development cost Olympus nothing.
Click to expand...
So once more you knew better and the Olympus is lying.
Click to expand...
Did I say that Olympus was lying? No I didn't. That would be you.
Click to expand...
LOL, you just did.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't. Nothing I said contradicted anything Olympus has said. It didn't even contradict your quote, but that wasn't from Olympus, it was from Dave Etchells, the man who let Nikon pull the wool over his eyes about them having designed the D850 sensor. He's easy prey to smart marketing people.
gary0319 said:
it's just Olympus' marketing once again fluffing it up so the fans think it's something special. Good on them, it keeps them going.
Click to expand...
'Fluffing it up' isn't lying. It's just doing what marketing people do, spinning things so the gullible read them as something different to what they actually mean.
Click to expand...
Now don't lets get into any arguments - if it's off the shelf from Epson or any other manufacturer, then that's another cost that's lowered.
Click to expand...
But if the quote from the Olympus tech is true than it is not off the shelf.
Click to expand...
Well actually the quote from Olympus allows quite enough wiggle room for it to be off the shelf and still be substantially true. You forget just how cute Olympus marketing is
gary0319 said:
If Olympus went to all the trouble to do a development with Epson (pay Epson in cash or tech know-how) for a new gyro, you can bet that there is a legal contractual agreement that precludes Epson from selling this gyro to anyone other than Olympus, at least for some period of time.....so not "off the shelf",
Click to expand...
Lots of assumptions there. You have no idea how much trouble Olympus went to, or whether this part is freely available in Epson's catalogue.
Click to expand...
No, I don't have any first hand knowledge, nor do you, I suspect.

But this additional piece of information kind of helps (unless you assume, as seems to be your habit, that it is more Olympus falsehoods).

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62236950
Click to expand...
Old news. And you're falsely accusing me of accusing Olympus of putting about falsehoods (although they certainly have in the past). What they do is put out elliptical statements that can be interpreted to mean something, but have enough ambiguity that they don't necessarily mean that. Everything there is consistent with a perfectly normal procurement process for an off the shelf item. You tell your supplier what you want, and they provide samples of their items which appear to fit your spec. You select the best, and if you find that the performance spread of the item can't always meet what you need, ask them to bin it for you, or characterise it better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top