Who to blame for Olympus...

It is really quite simple.

Back in about 2013, Olympus released the EM5.

It was a camera that people wanted to buy and it had a certain success. I bought one in preference to yet another DSLR after my D300 came to the end of its useful life for me.

Here in a very small package, coupled with the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100, I had a wonderful little compact camera in my hands that opened new doors for me thanks to the 5 stop IBIS.

It was the perfect companion for hiking and travel.

The image quality was very good compared to APSC. Remember FF was not for the masses back then.

Olympus produced a camera that I and many others whished to buy.

From then on the thrust seemed to drift towards making bigger cameras culminating in the EM1x and ever more big and weighty lenses. My Nikon Z14-30 weighs less than the 7-14 for example.

They did not produce a camera after the EM5i that I thought was a worthwhile upgrade for my photography. It is hard to tell the difference between a picture taken with an EM5 (2013) and a EM1X.

In other words they went in a direction, producing cameras and lenses that not many people, or more accuracy too few people, wanted to buy, hence the current 3% market share of ILC cameras.

In the end I kept the LX100 that I bought for work duties, but which turned out to be the perfect camera for casual photography and even some "serious" projects. A camera with a M43 sensore camera that fits almost into a pocket. It was the LX100 that decided me to sell my m43 gear.

Olympus failed because they produced products that too few people wanted to buy.
I agree with and it’s very sad. To me the strength of m43 was ultra compact yet high quality cost effective systems. I can also see the benefits for birders and wildlife folks at the ultra telephoto lens end.

That said, I finished a year long flirtation with Olympus towards the end of last year and went back to Nikon with a Z6. I just didn’t get the value proposition of Olympus pro orientated stuff over a FF equivalent.

Out of curiosity I’ve just popped onto Park Cameras (one of the biggest and most respected dealers in the UK) and priced up my current kit vs the equivalent in Olympus for both cost and weight. Plus all kit weather sealed.

The results are truly mind bendingly shocking!

OLYMPUS KIT

EM1-III with 12-40 2.8 Pro £2199 weight 504g plus 382g
You could have chosen the EM-10 or EM-5

Nikon 24-70 F4, not Pro Grade

4b5ba16631ed4ba2b6cab4ab72678c81.jpg.png
7-14mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 534g
Or Panasonic 7-14 F4 Olympus 9-18, or Panasonic 8-18, personally I use the 8mm FE@315g
40-150mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 760g
Very popular top of the line lens, but heavy for me. Sharp enough for a 2x

The 35-100 F2.8 by Panny was already out.
25mm 1.2 Pro £1199 weight 410g

TOTAL SYSTEM COST £5596

TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2590g

NIKON KIT


Z6 with 24-70mm 4.0 and FTZ adapter £1199 weight 675g plus 500g
see above.

How is the weather sealing an optics on the following - you know customer reviews?
14-30mm 4.0 £959 weight 485g

70-300mm AF-P 4.5-5.6 £535 weight 680g

50mm 1.8S £429 weight 415g

TOTAL SYSTEM COST £3922

TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2755g


In equivalence terms the Nikon kits equals or betters the Olympus alternative.

And that’s why I think the Olympus approach of going “bigger and pro” has failed.

The Nikon Kit is all of 5% heavier but the Olympus kit is OVER 40% MORE EXPENSIVE 😳
--
My Instagram
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about “not pro grade”? Perhaps because the Oly has “pro” in the description and the Nikkor doesn’t?

Both are weather sealed. Many reviews of the Nikkor largely describe it as the best kit zoom of all time.
It looks like "kit zoom" is the operative word. But apparently about 1/2 of B&H customers do not. And they state their reasons.
Many pros use it, it’s that good. In equivalence terms the Nikkor bests the Oly.
Equivalence is BS. A zoom has advantage in out door use; in that realm you will not be shooting a small aperture. Not if focus matters to you. In m4/3 I seldom shoot wider than 5.6 because I'll miss focus on a good number of shots. In fact F7.1 is the sweet spot after 6 years with the 12-40. In m4/3 you lose very little in IQ up to that aperture, and even F8 is not really noticeable. My rating of the 12-40 5*. The snap ring itself has great value as most of the time I will use MF to know assuredly that I have DOF.
Refer back to the post I made, detailing system costs and comparison weights. Show that to anyone who is investing in a new system.
Or just show the consistent results I (and others) get with the Olympus/Panny.
Then show me anyone, aside from......

Delusional!
Yes you are, interesting signature.
Im not going to argue with you.
Good because you lose.
You clearly have set views. Which is fine. Carry on paying 40% more for a lesser system that only weighs 5% less if you want to.
My largest hiking kit would be 950+315+330+182 grams and would include coverage from 8mm to 100mm + a 1:1 macro. So that is hardly 5% less. I paid over the years $999 +699 +899+499 +3100 dollars, not 3100 pounds.
Any neutral reading this....... blah blah blah....
You are indeed Delusional!
 
It is really quite simple.

Back in about 2013, Olympus released the EM5.

It was a camera that people wanted to buy and it had a certain success. I bought one in preference to yet another DSLR after my D300 came to the end of its useful life for me.

Here in a very small package, coupled with the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100, I had a wonderful little compact camera in my hands that opened new doors for me thanks to the 5 stop IBIS.

It was the perfect companion for hiking and travel.

The image quality was very good compared to APSC. Remember FF was not for the masses back then.

Olympus produced a camera that I and many others whished to buy.

From then on the thrust seemed to drift towards making bigger cameras culminating in the EM1x and ever more big and weighty lenses. My Nikon Z14-30 weighs less than the 7-14 for example.

They did not produce a camera after the EM5i that I thought was a worthwhile upgrade for my photography. It is hard to tell the difference between a picture taken with an EM5 (2013) and a EM1X.

In other words they went in a direction, producing cameras and lenses that not many people, or more accuracy too few people, wanted to buy, hence the current 3% market share of ILC cameras.

In the end I kept the LX100 that I bought for work duties, but which turned out to be the perfect camera for casual photography and even some "serious" projects. A camera with a M43 sensore camera that fits almost into a pocket. It was the LX100 that decided me to sell my m43 gear.

Olympus failed because they produced products that too few people wanted to buy.
I agree with and it’s very sad. To me the strength of m43 was ultra compact yet high quality cost effective systems. I can also see the benefits for birders and wildlife folks at the ultra telephoto lens end.

That said, I finished a year long flirtation with Olympus towards the end of last year and went back to Nikon with a Z6. I just didn’t get the value proposition of Olympus pro orientated stuff over a FF equivalent.

Out of curiosity I’ve just popped onto Park Cameras (one of the biggest and most respected dealers in the UK) and priced up my current kit vs the equivalent in Olympus for both cost and weight. Plus all kit weather sealed.

The results are truly mind bendingly shocking!

OLYMPUS KIT

EM1-III with 12-40 2.8 Pro £2199 weight 504g plus 382g
You could have chosen the EM-10 or EM-5

Nikon 24-70 F4, not Pro Grade

4b5ba16631ed4ba2b6cab4ab72678c81.jpg.png
7-14mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 534g
Or Panasonic 7-14 F4 Olympus 9-18, or Panasonic 8-18, personally I use the 8mm FE@315g
40-150mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 760g
Very popular top of the line lens, but heavy for me. Sharp enough for a 2x

The 35-100 F2.8 by Panny was already out.
25mm 1.2 Pro £1199 weight 410g

TOTAL SYSTEM COST £5596

TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2590g

NIKON KIT


Z6 with 24-70mm 4.0 and FTZ adapter £1199 weight 675g plus 500g
see above.

How is the weather sealing an optics on the following - you know customer reviews?
14-30mm 4.0 £959 weight 485g

70-300mm AF-P 4.5-5.6 £535 weight 680g

50mm 1.8S £429 weight 415g

TOTAL SYSTEM COST £3922

TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2755g


In equivalence terms the Nikon kits equals or betters the Olympus alternative.

And that’s why I think the Olympus approach of going “bigger and pro” has failed.

The Nikon Kit is all of 5% heavier but the Olympus kit is OVER 40% MORE EXPENSIVE 😳
--
My Instagram
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about “not pro grade”? Perhaps because the Oly has “pro” in the description and the Nikkor doesn’t?

Both are weather sealed. Many reviews of the Nikkor largely describe it as the best kit zoom of all time.
It looks like "kit zoom" is the operative word. But apparently about 1/2 of B&H customers do not. And they state their reasons.
Many pros use it, it’s that good. In equivalence terms the Nikkor bests the Oly.
Equivalence is BS. A zoom has advantage in out door use; in that realm you will not be shooting a small aperture. Not if focus matters to you. In m4/3 I seldom shoot wider than 5.6 because I'll miss focus on a good number of shots. In fact F7.1 is the sweet spot after 6 years with the 12-40. In m4/3 you lose very little in IQ up to that aperture, and even F8 is not really noticeable. My rating of the 12-40 5*. The snap ring itself has great value as most of the time I will use MF to know assuredly that I have DOF.
Refer back to the post I made, detailing system costs and comparison weights. Show that to anyone who is investing in a new system.
Or just show the consistent results I (and others) get with the Olympus/Panny.
Then show me anyone, aside from......

Delusional!
Yes you are, interesting signature.
Im not going to argue with you.
Good because you lose.
You clearly have set views. Which is fine. Carry on paying 40% more for a lesser system that only weighs 5% less if you want to.
My largest hiking kit would be 950+315+330+182 grams and would include coverage from 8mm to 100mm + a 1:1 macro. So that is hardly 5% less. I paid over the years $999 +699 +899+499 +3100 dollars, not 3100 pounds.
Any neutral reading this....... blah blah blah....
You are indeed Delusional!
And none of which is from Olympus like for like, unless you’ve now excluded weather sealing to fit your narrative. This thread is about why Olympus failed. Not whether you can build a nice kit from m43. Which you can of course.



Olympus failed because it’s 40% more expensive at the top end to compete with FF, despite the Olympus gear having an inferior sensor.



This thread asked why OLYMPUS failed (not m43) and I’ve given a perfectly reasonable, sensible and rational reason why. Backed up with hard prices, facts and weights.

--
My Instagram
 
Im not going to argue with you. You clearly have set views. Which is fine. Carry on paying 40% more for a lesser system that only weighs 5% less if you want to. Any neutral reading this, once they strip out brand emotion, will see the futility of your argument. It simply doesn’t stack up. Not even close. But I wish you well. This is why Olympus failed.
40% of statistics are made up.
And the 40% I gave came from prices from the leading UK retailer today.

Hard facts, hard cash. No spin. No statistics.

Are you really that entrenched in Olympus worship not to see that?

You really wanna spend 40% more on an Oly system over a Nikon FF eqivalent system for a 5% weight advantage? Or advise somebody else to do so?

Seriously ? I mean really seriously?
You seem nice. Bye.
 
The market is tough but

t this is argument is pretty absurd

here’s a much more reasonable argument and insight

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/2020-mirrorless-camera/so-why-did-olympus-fail.html
That's still blind speculation as there are no sales figures to support the arguments. How many of each model did they sell? Which models were profitable and which were not? With current sale to JIP perhaps we will find out (see which models they cut).
theres plenty of data out there to know the em1x isn’t a hit seller, the em5 first sold well
E-M1X wasn't designed to be a volume seller, but did it make a profit? He doesn't know.

Same for E-M5 (he doesn't know sales figures nor profitability). From outside, only the E-M5 II was fairly certain to be profitable (there was one profitable quarter coinciding with its release), as well as the E-M1 II (3 profitable quarters, one profitable year).
It's suggesting a 4/3" compact would have saved the day,
Indont see that in the article at all
Here:

"Olympus missed a turn or two along the way. Why we don't have a Tough camera with the m4/3 sensor plus a pocket compact camera akin to the once seminal XA, but with the m4/3 sensor, I have no idea why."
but compacts were the ones that lost the most sales in the camera market. Also it even pointed out when Olympus was exclusively selling smaller M43 cameras, the sales were plateaued and started dropping. They were also losing money during that time (only FY2010 had a modest profit of 1.89%). That contradicts the notion that small cameras would have saved the day. From the outside, the only two camera releases that coincided with profits was the E-M5 II and the "overpriced" E-M1 II.

The GM series seemed instructive that people weren't going to pay a premium for smaller cameras.
They sure did for the good em5 and they sure didn’t for the em1x
Actually as above, they likely did well for the E-M5 II and E-M1 II based on visibility on profitable quarters. Everything else, no one other than Olympus has an idea.
 
It is really quite simple.

Back in about 2013, Olympus released the EM5.

It was a camera that people wanted to buy and it had a certain success. I bought one in preference to yet another DSLR after my D300 came to the end of its useful life for me.

Here in a very small package, coupled with the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100, I had a wonderful little compact camera in my hands that opened new doors for me thanks to the 5 stop IBIS.

It was the perfect companion for hiking and travel.

The image quality was very good compared to APSC. Remember FF was not for the masses back then.

Olympus produced a camera that I and many others whished to buy.

From then on the thrust seemed to drift towards making bigger cameras culminating in the EM1x and ever more big and weighty lenses. My Nikon Z14-30 weighs less than the 7-14 for example.

They did not produce a camera after the EM5i that I thought was a worthwhile upgrade for my photography. It is hard to tell the difference between a picture taken with an EM5 (2013) and a EM1X.

In other words they went in a direction, producing cameras and lenses that not many people, or more accuracy too few people, wanted to buy, hence the current 3% market share of ILC cameras.

In the end I kept the LX100 that I bought for work duties, but which turned out to be the perfect camera for casual photography and even some "serious" projects. A camera with a M43 sensore camera that fits almost into a pocket. It was the LX100 that decided me to sell my m43 gear.

Olympus failed because they produced products that too few people wanted to buy.
I agree with and it’s very sad. To me the strength of m43 was ultra compact yet high quality cost effective systems. I can also see the benefits for birders and wildlife folks at the ultra telephoto lens end.

That said, I finished a year long flirtation with Olympus towards the end of last year and went back to Nikon with a Z6. I just didn’t get the value proposition of Olympus pro orientated stuff over a FF equivalent.

Out of curiosity I’ve just popped onto Park Cameras (one of the biggest and most respected dealers in the UK) and priced up my current kit vs the equivalent in Olympus for both cost and weight. Plus all kit weather sealed.

The results are truly mind bendingly shocking!

OLYMPUS KIT

EM1-III with 12-40 2.8 Pro £2199 weight 504g plus 382g
You could have chosen the EM-10 or EM-5

Nikon 24-70 F4, not Pro Grade

4b5ba16631ed4ba2b6cab4ab72678c81.jpg.png
7-14mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 534g
Or Panasonic 7-14 F4 Olympus 9-18, or Panasonic 8-18, personally I use the 8mm FE@315g
40-150mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 760g
Very popular top of the line lens, but heavy for me. Sharp enough for a 2x

The 35-100 F2.8 by Panny was already out.
25mm 1.2 Pro £1199 weight 410g

TOTAL SYSTEM COST £5596

TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2590g

NIKON KIT


Z6 with 24-70mm 4.0 and FTZ adapter £1199 weight 675g plus 500g
see above.

How is the weather sealing an optics on the following - you know customer reviews?
14-30mm 4.0 £959 weight 485g

70-300mm AF-P 4.5-5.6 £535 weight 680g

50mm 1.8S £429 weight 415g

TOTAL SYSTEM COST £3922

TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2755g


In equivalence terms the Nikon kits equals or betters the Olympus alternative.

And that’s why I think the Olympus approach of going “bigger and pro” has failed.

The Nikon Kit is all of 5% heavier but the Olympus kit is OVER 40% MORE EXPENSIVE 😳
--
My Instagram
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about “not pro grade”? Perhaps because the Oly has “pro” in the description and the Nikkor doesn’t?

Both are weather sealed. Many reviews of the Nikkor largely describe it as the best kit zoom of all time.
It looks like "kit zoom" is the operative word. But apparently about 1/2 of B&H customers do not. And they state their reasons.
Many pros use it, it’s that good. In equivalence terms the Nikkor bests the Oly.
Equivalence is BS. A zoom has advantage in out door use; in that realm you will not be shooting a small aperture. Not if focus matters to you. In m4/3 I seldom shoot wider than 5.6 because I'll miss focus on a good number of shots. In fact F7.1 is the sweet spot after 6 years with the 12-40. In m4/3 you lose very little in IQ up to that aperture, and even F8 is not really noticeable. My rating of the 12-40 5*. The snap ring itself has great value as most of the time I will use MF to know assuredly that I have DOF.
Refer back to the post I made, detailing system costs and comparison weights. Show that to anyone who is investing in a new system.
Or just show the consistent results I (and others) get with the Olympus/Panny.
Then show me anyone, aside from......

Delusional!
Yes you are, interesting signature.
Im not going to argue with you.
Good because you lose.
You clearly have set views. Which is fine. Carry on paying 40% more for a lesser system that only weighs 5% less if you want to.
My largest hiking kit would be 950+315+330+182 grams and would include coverage from 8mm to 100mm + a 1:1 macro. So that is hardly 5% less. I paid over the years $999 +699 +899+499 +3100 dollars, not 3100 pounds.
Any neutral reading this....... blah blah blah....
You are indeed Delusional!
And none of which is from Olympus like for like, unless you’ve now excluded weather sealing to fit your narrative.
All of this was from a Dealer at Olympus matched prices. What on earth are you talking about? The only non-weather sealed lens is 1:1 macro.
This thread is about why Olympus failed. Not whether you can build a nice kit from m43. Which of course (you did).

Olympus failed because it’s 40% more expensive at the top end to compete with FF, despite the Olympus gear having an inferior sensor.
Horsepucky. The top end is the EM-1 II or III for most and even if matched with the 300 - for birding - is way lighter and better than any quality Canon or Nikon set. Perhaps folks like you can't recognize this although of late the above combos were gaining a lot of proponents - until Covid.

My guess is Olympus corporate is most concerned about the pandemic and what it might do to both retail sales, but more importantly to capital purchases. Other companies will do the same. This is not happening in a vacuum.
This thread asked why OLYMPUS failed (not m43) and I’ve given a perfectly reasonable, sensible and rational reason why. Backed up with hard prices, facts and weights.
On your carefully selected examples of gear that I would never carry.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, Olympus did not turn the disadvantage of a small sensor enough around and make it an advantage.
Yes, m43 sensors are smaller than APSC and FF and hence have less beneficial light gathering capabilities that show in low light situations.
But the sensor being smaller makes it also much easier to handle the sensor and its outputs.
Image stabilization, heat control and data management are easier than with bigger sensors.
So imo, they should have invested in these areas earlier. Some ideas below:
* Image stabilization: use it as a star tracker. Hand held high res is already going into the right direction
* Computational Photography. I feel that is where most improvements will come from. Improving noise patterns and bokeh capabilities that compensate for the physical limits of a smaller sensor.
But with smaller sensors, less CPU and cooling (= smaller bodies) would be needed.
Of course Olympus is a smaller camera manufacturer in comparison to others, so R&D budget might have been maxed out for what they have been doing already.
Sensible reply.

I think Olympus failure was in marketing which is tough for a small company. I don't even see camera ads by the biggest in the market.
 
Im not going to argue with you. You clearly have set views. Which is fine. Carry on paying 40% more for a lesser system that only weighs 5% less if you want to. Any neutral reading this, once they strip out brand emotion, will see the futility of your argument. It simply doesn’t stack up. Not even close. But I wish you well. This is why Olympus failed.
40% of statistics are made up.
And the 40% I gave came from prices from the leading UK retailer today.

Hard facts, hard cash. No spin. No statistics.

Are you really that entrenched in Olympus worship not to see that?

You really wanna spend 40% more on an Oly system over a Nikon FF eqivalent system for a 5% weight advantage? Or advise somebody else to do so?

Seriously ? I mean really seriously?
You seem nice. Bye.
That’s a sensible way to end a debate, throw toys out of Pram and flounce out of the debate. That’s likely what happened in the Olympus boardroom too.
 
It is really quite simple.

Back in about 2013, Olympus released the EM5.

It was a camera that people wanted to buy and it had a certain success. I bought one in preference to yet another DSLR after my D300 came to the end of its useful life for me.

Here in a very small package, coupled with the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100, I had a wonderful little compact camera in my hands that opened new doors for me thanks to the 5 stop IBIS.

It was the perfect companion for hiking and travel.

The image quality was very good compared to APSC. Remember FF was not for the masses back then.

Olympus produced a camera that I and many others whished to buy.

From then on the thrust seemed to drift towards making bigger cameras culminating in the EM1x and ever more big and weighty lenses. My Nikon Z14-30 weighs less than the 7-14 for example.

They did not produce a camera after the EM5i that I thought was a worthwhile upgrade for my photography. It is hard to tell the difference between a picture taken with an EM5 (2013) and a EM1X.

In other words they went in a direction, producing cameras and lenses that not many people, or more accuracy too few people, wanted to buy, hence the current 3% market share of ILC cameras.

In the end I kept the LX100 that I bought for work duties, but which turned out to be the perfect camera for casual photography and even some "serious" projects. A camera with a M43 sensore camera that fits almost into a pocket. It was the LX100 that decided me to sell my m43 gear.

Olympus failed because they produced products that too few people wanted to buy.
I agree with and it’s very sad. To me the strength of m43 was ultra compact yet high quality cost effective systems. I can also see the benefits for birders and wildlife folks at the ultra telephoto lens end.

That said, I finished a year long flirtation with Olympus towards the end of last year and went back to Nikon with a Z6. I just didn’t get the value proposition of Olympus pro orientated stuff over a FF equivalent.

Out of curiosity I’ve just popped onto Park Cameras (one of the biggest and most respected dealers in the UK) and priced up my current kit vs the equivalent in Olympus for both cost and weight. Plus all kit weather sealed.

The results are truly mind bendingly shocking!

OLYMPUS KIT

EM1-III with 12-40 2.8 Pro £2199 weight 504g plus 382g
You could have chosen the EM-10 or EM-5

Nikon 24-70 F4, not Pro Grade

4b5ba16631ed4ba2b6cab4ab72678c81.jpg.png
7-14mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 534g
Or Panasonic 7-14 F4 Olympus 9-18, or Panasonic 8-18, personally I use the 8mm FE@315g
40-150mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 760g
Very popular top of the line lens, but heavy for me. Sharp enough for a 2x

The 35-100 F2.8 by Panny was already out.
25mm 1.2 Pro £1199 weight 410g

TOTAL SYSTEM COST £5596

TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2590g

NIKON KIT


Z6 with 24-70mm 4.0 and FTZ adapter £1199 weight 675g plus 500g
see above.

How is the weather sealing an optics on the following - you know customer reviews?
14-30mm 4.0 £959 weight 485g

70-300mm AF-P 4.5-5.6 £535 weight 680g

50mm 1.8S £429 weight 415g

TOTAL SYSTEM COST £3922

TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2755g


In equivalence terms the Nikon kits equals or betters the Olympus alternative.

And that’s why I think the Olympus approach of going “bigger and pro” has failed.

The Nikon Kit is all of 5% heavier but the Olympus kit is OVER 40% MORE EXPENSIVE 😳
--
My Instagram
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about “not pro grade”? Perhaps because the Oly has “pro” in the description and the Nikkor doesn’t?

Both are weather sealed. Many reviews of the Nikkor largely describe it as the best kit zoom of all time.
It looks like "kit zoom" is the operative word. But apparently about 1/2 of B&H customers do not. And they state their reasons.
Many pros use it, it’s that good. In equivalence terms the Nikkor bests the Oly.
Equivalence is BS. A zoom has advantage in out door use; in that realm you will not be shooting a small aperture. Not if focus matters to you. In m4/3 I seldom shoot wider than 5.6 because I'll miss focus on a good number of shots. In fact F7.1 is the sweet spot after 6 years with the 12-40. In m4/3 you lose very little in IQ up to that aperture, and even F8 is not really noticeable. My rating of the 12-40 5*. The snap ring itself has great value as most of the time I will use MF to know assuredly that I have DOF.
Refer back to the post I made, detailing system costs and comparison weights. Show that to anyone who is investing in a new system.
Or just show the consistent results I (and others) get with the Olympus/Panny.
Then show me anyone, aside from......

Delusional!
Yes you are, interesting signature.
Im not going to argue with you.
Good because you lose.
You clearly have set views. Which is fine. Carry on paying 40% more for a lesser system that only weighs 5% less if you want to.
My largest hiking kit would be 950+315+330+182 grams and would include coverage from 8mm to 100mm + a 1:1 macro. So that is hardly 5% less. I paid over the years $999 +699 +899+499 +3100 dollars, not 3100 pounds.
Any neutral reading this....... blah blah blah....
You are indeed Delusional!
And none of which is from Olympus like for like, unless you’ve now excluded weather sealing to fit your narrative.
All of this was from a Dealer at Olympus matched prices. What on earth are you talking about? The only non-weather sealed lens is 1:1 macro.
This thread is about why Olympus failed. Not whether you can build a nice kit from m43. Which of course (you did).

Olympus failed because it’s 40% more expensive at the top end to compete with FF, despite the Olympus gear having an inferior sensor.
Horsepucky. The top end is the EM-1 II or III for most and even if matched with the 300 - for birding - is way lighter and better than any quality Canon or Nikon set. Perhaps folks like you can't recognize this although of late the above combos were gaining a lot of proponents - until Covid.

My guess is Olympus corporate is most concerned about the pandemic and what it might do to both retail sales, but more importantly to capital purchases. Other companies will do the same. This is not happening in a vacuum.
This thread asked why OLYMPUS failed (not m43) and I’ve given a perfectly reasonable, sensible and rational reason why. Backed up with hard prices, facts and weights.
On your carefully selected examples of gear that I would never carry.
If you read my post I never criticised M43, I simply highlighted where Olympus went wrong, which is what the OP was asking. As for “carefully selected gear” are you really being serious? My example showed a standard zoom, a wide zoom, a telephoto zoom and a fast prime. That’s hardly cherry picking is it? More likely a universal do it all kit for every enthusiast and many pros on the planet.

Mores the point it’s MY kit and please explain why I’d wanna pay 40% more for the Olympus over my current Nikon Z FF system? That’s what my post highlighted.



it’s gets really messy if you start adding in the rest of the primes by the way, weather sealed that is. Olympus starts to look even more ridiculous if you factor all that in, with every WR prime £1000 plus. OMG.....



It’s time to get real, really it is 🙂

--
My Instagram
 
Last edited:
Olympus should have made the jump to FF when they still could, Panasonic was very late but did, Pentax was late but also finally made the jump. Olympus stuck with the 4/3 sensor and unfortunately went under with it. The few that actually preferred the small sensor could not save them.
Sorry, don't by the argument FF would have saved the day. It would have cost Olympus much more money to switch, and those that even released a very decent lineup (like the Nikon Z lineup you have) have seen poor sales.
Nikon wasn’t going to sit on DSLR while Sony are the entire mirrorless market. Same with Canon. They had no choice. They sell little to no profitable crop sensor cameras. Canon’s last briefing on financials was clear on that point.

There are no profits or growth markets right now for any cropped sensor. Panasonic said so when they went FF. Fuji said the same when they went MF. Leica went up-market.

There is not enough market sub-$1200 camera body and resulting system to sustain any dedicated, optical, ILC brand. To keep revenues and profits they must all produce camera up to at least the $2k price point with the attendant market (wildlife, sports, portrait and landscape like Fuji).

This leaves m43 with unprofitable mid and low-end products like the EM5 and EM10 and PEN series competing against high end smartphones. It’s no contest.

So the question is, if FF is now pushing down to $1000 bodies like upcoming Z6, the RP, and the A7ii, how can a crop sensor m43 ever get to a money-making position?

Enter JIP.
 
It is really quite simple.

Back in about 2013, Olympus released the EM5.

It was a camera that people wanted to buy and it had a certain success. I bought one in preference to yet another DSLR after my D300 came to the end of its useful life for me.

Here in a very small package, coupled with the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100, I had a wonderful little compact camera in my hands that opened new doors for me thanks to the 5 stop IBIS.

It was the perfect companion for hiking and travel.

The image quality was very good compared to APSC. Remember FF was not for the masses back then.

Olympus produced a camera that I and many others whished to buy.

From then on the thrust seemed to drift towards making bigger cameras culminating in the EM1x and ever more big and weighty lenses. My Nikon Z14-30 weighs less than the 7-14 for example.

They did not produce a camera after the EM5i that I thought was a worthwhile upgrade for my photography. It is hard to tell the difference between a picture taken with an EM5 (2013) and a EM1X.

In other words they went in a direction, producing cameras and lenses that not many people, or more accuracy too few people, wanted to buy, hence the current 3% market share of ILC cameras.

In the end I kept the LX100 that I bought for work duties, but which turned out to be the perfect camera for casual photography and even some "serious" projects. A camera with a M43 sensore camera that fits almost into a pocket. It was the LX100 that decided me to sell my m43 gear.

Olympus failed because they produced products that too few people wanted to buy.
I agree with and it’s very sad. To me the strength of m43 was ultra compact yet high quality cost effective systems. I can also see the benefits for birders and wildlife folks at the ultra telephoto lens end.

That said, I finished a year long flirtation with Olympus towards the end of last year and went back to Nikon with a Z6. I just didn’t get the value proposition of Olympus pro orientated stuff over a FF equivalent.

Out of curiosity I’ve just popped onto Park Cameras (one of the biggest and most respected dealers in the UK) and priced up my current kit vs the equivalent in Olympus for both cost and weight. Plus all kit weather sealed.

The results are truly mind bendingly shocking!

OLYMPUS KIT

EM1-III with 12-40 2.8 Pro £2199 weight 504g plus 382g
You could have chosen the EM-10 or EM-5

Nikon 24-70 F4, not Pro Grade

4b5ba16631ed4ba2b6cab4ab72678c81.jpg.png
7-14mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 534g
Or Panasonic 7-14 F4 Olympus 9-18, or Panasonic 8-18, personally I use the 8mm FE@315g
40-150mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 760g
Very popular top of the line lens, but heavy for me. Sharp enough for a 2x

The 35-100 F2.8 by Panny was already out.
25mm 1.2 Pro £1199 weight 410g

TOTAL SYSTEM COST £5596

TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2590g

NIKON KIT


Z6 with 24-70mm 4.0 and FTZ adapter £1199 weight 675g plus 500g
see above.

How is the weather sealing an optics on the following - you know customer reviews?
14-30mm 4.0 £959 weight 485g

70-300mm AF-P 4.5-5.6 £535 weight 680g

50mm 1.8S £429 weight 415g

TOTAL SYSTEM COST £3922

TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2755g


In equivalence terms the Nikon kits equals or betters the Olympus alternative.

And that’s why I think the Olympus approach of going “bigger and pro” has failed.

The Nikon Kit is all of 5% heavier but the Olympus kit is OVER 40% MORE EXPENSIVE 😳
--
My Instagram
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about “not pro grade”? Perhaps because the Oly has “pro” in the description and the Nikkor doesn’t?

Both are weather sealed. Many reviews of the Nikkor largely describe it as the best kit zoom of all time.
It looks like "kit zoom" is the operative word. But apparently about 1/2 of B&H customers do not. And they state their reasons.
Many pros use it, it’s that good. In equivalence terms the Nikkor bests the Oly.
Equivalence is BS. A zoom has advantage in out door use; in that realm you will not be shooting a small aperture. Not if focus matters to you. In m4/3 I seldom shoot wider than 5.6 because I'll miss focus on a good number of shots. In fact F7.1 is the sweet spot after 6 years with the 12-40. In m4/3 you lose very little in IQ up to that aperture, and even F8 is not really noticeable. My rating of the 12-40 5*. The snap ring itself has great value as most of the time I will use MF to know assuredly that I have DOF.
Refer back to the post I made, detailing system costs and comparison weights. Show that to anyone who is investing in a new system.
Or just show the consistent results I (and others) get with the Olympus/Panny.
Then show me anyone, aside from......

Delusional!
Yes you are, interesting signature.
Im not going to argue with you.
Good because you lose.
You clearly have set views. Which is fine. Carry on paying 40% more for a lesser system that only weighs 5% less if you want to.
My largest hiking kit would be 950+315+330+182 grams and would include coverage from 8mm to 100mm + a 1:1 macro. So that is hardly 5% less. I paid over the years $999 +699 +899+499 +3100 dollars, not 3100 pounds.
Any neutral reading this....... blah blah blah....
You are indeed Delusional!
And none of which is from Olympus like for like, unless you’ve now excluded weather sealing to fit your narrative.
All of this was from a Dealer at Olympus matched prices. What on earth are you talking about? The only non-weather sealed lens is 1:1 macro.
This thread is about why Olympus failed. Not whether you can build a nice kit from m43. Which of course (you did).

Olympus failed because it’s 40% more expensive at the top end to compete with FF, despite the Olympus gear having an inferior sensor.
Horsepucky. The top end is the EM-1 II or III for most and even if matched with the 300 - for birding - is way lighter and better than any quality Canon or Nikon set. Perhaps folks like you can't recognize this although of late the above combos were gaining a lot of proponents - until Covid.
Nope. The Nikon 500/5.6 PF and 200-500 have both been outstanding, back-ordered sellers for Nikon combined with the D500 for long and say a Z6 for for shorter FLs.
Those bodies have much better AF for that target market. The D500 in particular wastes anything Olympus brings to market. They are cost-effective, compact, high quality, outstanding glass.

Expect to see more of those in mirrorless soon.
 
Olympus should have made the jump to FF when they still could, Panasonic was very late but did, Pentax was late but also finally made the jump. Olympus stuck with the 4/3 sensor and unfortunately went under with it. The few that actually preferred the small sensor could not save them.
Sorry, don't by the argument FF would have saved the day. It would have cost Olympus much more money to switch, and those that even released a very decent lineup (like the Nikon Z lineup you have) have seen poor sales.
Nikon wasn’t going to sit on DSLR while Sony are the entire mirrorless market. Same with Canon. They had no choice. They sell little to no profitable crop sensor cameras. Canon’s last briefing on financials was clear on that point.

There are no profits or growth markets right now for any cropped sensor. Panasonic said so when they went FF. Fuji said the same when they went MF. Leica went up-market.

There is not enough market sub-$1200 camera body and resulting system to sustain any dedicated, optical, ILC brand. To keep revenues and profits they must all produce camera up to at least the $2k price point with the attendant market (wildlife, sports, portrait and landscape like Fuji).

This leaves m43 with unprofitable mid and low-end products like the EM5 and EM10 and PEN series competing against high end smartphones. It’s no contest.

So the question is, if FF is now pushing down to $1000 bodies like upcoming Z6, the RP, and the A7ii, how can a crop sensor m43 ever get to a money-making position?

Enter JIP.
Exactly. When Olympus placed its bets on a 2x crop sensor in 2003, there were benefits in doing so, but to build a complete system around it with no possible way to upgrade was far too risky even then, which showed in the abysmal life span of the superb and over designed Zuiko SHG 4/3 lenses.

What Olympus could not have forseen, was the dramatic rise of the smartphone as a replacement for conventional compact cameras and eventually even lower end dslr cameras. When they were caught at that lower end of compact and pen cameras, there was no way to migrate forwards in order to keep a sound market share.
 
Last edited:
Like I said - there are data pints around if you know where to look but the proof is in the pudding and here we are lining the customer is absurd blaming only the market situation is equally absurd
 
Although the previous post didn't emphasize this point, I will: Panasonic introduced a new m43 camera on the same day Olympus announced they would sell their imaging division to JIP. I don't know exactly what profit (if any) Panasonic makes from Micro 4/3 but perhaps they make more from L mount. In any case, Panasonic said they would continue to support and develop m4/3 and it seems they are doing it. So no, m4/3 isn't going to go away. And, have some optimism, perhaps even Olympus m4/3 will not completely go away.

Disclosure: I have a G9 and really like it. Love it, in fact.

--
js
 
Last edited:
Olympus management is the one to blame. Absolutely. There were so many complaints for years about the wrong direction Olympus was taking, esp since the $2000 E-M1 II was announced. However Olympus did not listen.

WRONG WAY - GO BACK
If I were a CEO today, I would say, get out of the camera business. It is a dying mess. For Olympus, they can make more money selling medical equipment and and other products than they can selling selling cameras with the same investment.

Why risk losing money for a rapidly shrinking "customer base". They have no responsibility to do what you want.

The only mistake Olympus made was not getting out at the same time Samsung did when their portfolio was worth a lot more.
 
It is really quite simple.

Back in about 2013, Olympus released the EM5.

It was a camera that people wanted to buy and it had a certain success. I bought one in preference to yet another DSLR after my D300 came to the end of its useful life for me.

Here in a very small package, coupled with the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100, I had a wonderful little compact camera in my hands that opened new doors for me thanks to the 5 stop IBIS.

It was the perfect companion for hiking and travel.

The image quality was very good compared to APSC. Remember FF was not for the masses back then.

Olympus produced a camera that I and many others whished to buy.

From then on the thrust seemed to drift towards making bigger cameras culminating in the EM1x and ever more big and weighty lenses. My Nikon Z14-30 weighs less than the 7-14 for example.

They did not produce a camera after the EM5i that I thought was a worthwhile upgrade for my photography. It is hard to tell the difference between a picture taken with an EM5 (2013) and a EM1X.

In other words they went in a direction, producing cameras and lenses that not many people, or more accuracy too few people, wanted to buy, hence the current 3% market share of ILC cameras.

In the end I kept the LX100 that I bought for work duties, but which turned out to be the perfect camera for casual photography and even some "serious" projects. A camera with a M43 sensore camera that fits almost into a pocket. It was the LX100 that decided me to sell my m43 gear.

Olympus failed because they produced products that too few people wanted to buy.
I agree with and it’s very sad. To me the strength of m43 was ultra compact yet high quality cost effective systems. I can also see the benefits for birders and wildlife folks at the ultra telephoto lens end.

That said, I finished a year long flirtation with Olympus towards the end of last year and went back to Nikon with a Z6. I just didn’t get the value proposition of Olympus pro orientated stuff over a FF equivalent.

Out of curiosity I’ve just popped onto Park Cameras (one of the biggest and most respected dealers in the UK) and priced up my current kit vs the equivalent in Olympus for both cost and weight. Plus all kit weather sealed.

The results are truly mind bendingly shocking!

OLYMPUS KIT

EM1-III with 12-40 2.8 Pro £2199 weight 504g plus 382g
You could have chosen the EM-10 or EM-5

Nikon 24-70 F4, not Pro Grade

4b5ba16631ed4ba2b6cab4ab72678c81.jpg.png
7-14mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 534g
Or Panasonic 7-14 F4 Olympus 9-18, or Panasonic 8-18, personally I use the 8mm FE@315g
40-150mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 760g
Very popular top of the line lens, but heavy for me. Sharp enough for a 2x

The 35-100 F2.8 by Panny was already out.
25mm 1.2 Pro £1199 weight 410g

TOTAL SYSTEM COST £5596

TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2590g

NIKON KIT


Z6 with 24-70mm 4.0 and FTZ adapter £1199 weight 675g plus 500g
see above.

How is the weather sealing an optics on the following - you know customer reviews?
14-30mm 4.0 £959 weight 485g

70-300mm AF-P 4.5-5.6 £535 weight 680g

50mm 1.8S £429 weight 415g

TOTAL SYSTEM COST £3922

TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2755g


In equivalence terms the Nikon kits equals or betters the Olympus alternative.

And that’s why I think the Olympus approach of going “bigger and pro” has failed.

The Nikon Kit is all of 5% heavier but the Olympus kit is OVER 40% MORE EXPENSIVE 😳
--
My Instagram
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about “not pro grade”? Perhaps because the Oly has “pro” in the description and the Nikkor doesn’t?

Both are weather sealed. Many reviews of the Nikkor largely describe it as the best kit zoom of all time.
It looks like "kit zoom" is the operative word. But apparently about 1/2 of B&H customers do not. And they state their reasons.
Many pros use it, it’s that good. In equivalence terms the Nikkor bests the Oly.
Equivalence is BS. A zoom has advantage in out door use; in that realm you will not be shooting a small aperture. Not if focus matters to you. In m4/3 I seldom shoot wider than 5.6 because I'll miss focus on a good number of shots. In fact F7.1 is the sweet spot after 6 years with the 12-40. In m4/3 you lose very little in IQ up to that aperture, and even F8 is not really noticeable. My rating of the 12-40 5*. The snap ring itself has great value as most of the time I will use MF to know assuredly that I have DOF.
Refer back to the post I made, detailing system costs and comparison weights. Show that to anyone who is investing in a new system.
Or just show the consistent results I (and others) get with the Olympus/Panny.
Then show me anyone, aside from......

Delusional!
Yes you are, interesting signature.
Im not going to argue with you.
Good because you lose.
You clearly have set views. Which is fine. Carry on paying 40% more for a lesser system that only weighs 5% less if you want to.
My largest hiking kit would be 950+315+330+182 grams and would include coverage from 8mm to 100mm + a 1:1 macro. So that is hardly 5% less. I paid over the years $999 +699 +899+499 +3100 dollars, not 3100 pounds.
Any neutral reading this....... blah blah blah....
You are indeed Delusional!
And none of which is from Olympus like for like, unless you’ve now excluded weather sealing to fit your narrative.
All of this was from a Dealer at Olympus matched prices. What on earth are you talking about? The only non-weather sealed lens is 1:1 macro.
This thread is about why Olympus failed. Not whether you can build a nice kit from m43. Which of course (you did).

Olympus failed because it’s 40% more expensive at the top end to compete with FF, despite the Olympus gear having an inferior sensor.
Horsepucky. The top end is the EM-1 II or III for most and even if matched with the 300 - for birding - is way lighter and better than any quality Canon or Nikon set. Perhaps folks like you can't recognize this although of late the above combos were gaining a lot of proponents - until Covid.

My guess is Olympus corporate is most concerned about the pandemic and what it might do to both retail sales, but more importantly to capital purchases. Other companies will do the same. This is not happening in a vacuum.
This thread asked why OLYMPUS failed (not m43) and I’ve given a perfectly reasonable, sensible and rational reason why. Backed up with hard prices, facts and weights.
On your carefully selected examples of gear that I would never carry.
If you read my post I never criticised M43, I simply highlighted where Olympus went wrong, which is what the OP was asking. As for “carefully selected gear” are you really being serious? My example showed a standard zoom
yes
, a wide zoom
The largest in the system, but popular. The 8mm FE is a better alternative for several reasons
, a telephoto zoom
The heaviest in the system. Olympus probably did not build something like the 35-100 because Panasonic released on 2 years previous.
and a fast prime.
Not necessary for out of doors. besides, the cost of development for the primes was likely no great.
That’s hardly cherry picking is it? More likely a universal do it all kit for every enthusiast and many pros on the planet.
Wouldn't be for me. Do you live on planet Earth like me?
Mores the point it’s MY kit and please explain why I’d wanna pay 40% more for the Olympus over my current Nikon Z FF system? That’s what my post highlighted.
Whatever. If you just bought this I would assume you saved money - like 1% cash back on your CC. I've only got into birding and bought the II and 300 this year. Everything else I've owned for years.
it’s gets really messy if you start adding in the rest of the primes by the way, weather sealed that is. Olympus starts to look even more ridiculous if you factor all that in, with every WR prime £1000 plus. OMG.....
A zoom replaces the primes out of doors. That is more of a specialty lens with a wide aperture.
It’s time to get real
So, get real.
 
Last edited:
Olympus should have made the jump to FF when they still could, Panasonic was very late but did, Pentax was late but also finally made the jump. Olympus stuck with the 4/3 sensor and unfortunately went under with it. The few that actually preferred the small sensor could not save them.
Sorry, don't by the argument FF would have saved the day. It would have cost Olympus much more money to switch, and those that even released a very decent lineup (like the Nikon Z lineup you have) have seen poor sales.
Nikon wasn’t going to sit on DSLR while Sony are the entire mirrorless market. Same with Canon. They had no choice. They sell little to no profitable crop sensor cameras. Canon’s last briefing on financials was clear on that point.

There are no profits or growth markets right now for any cropped sensor. Panasonic said so when they went FF. Fuji said the same when they went MF. Leica went up-market.
The problem is Nikon isn't making a profit with FF either and that's even with them being able to reuse their existing FX experience and equipment (like lenses through the FTZ). You can forget about Olympus making a profit from FF, as they would have to start from scratch with none of those things. Panasonic at least was already producing FF mirrorless cameras for Leica, so it didn't cost them much to jump in.
There is not enough market sub-$1200 camera body and resulting system to sustain any dedicated, optical, ILC brand. To keep revenues and profits they must all produce camera up to at least the $2k price point with the attendant market (wildlife, sports, portrait and landscape like Fuji).

This leaves m43 with unprofitable mid and low-end products like the EM5 and EM10 and PEN series competing against high end smartphones. It’s no contest.

So the question is, if FF is now pushing down to $1000 bodies like upcoming Z6, the RP, and the A7ii, how can a crop sensor m43 ever get to a money-making position?

Enter JIP.
Not buying the premise crop bodies can't sell for over $1200 and maintain a profit. There's still a plenty of crop bodies selling above that. It's the sub $500 market that seemed to have been destroyed in terms of volume (cameras like the entry D3500 and Rebel T6).

Again however, this is mostly blind speculation. We'll see what JIP does in terms of cutting models.
 
It is really quite simple.

Back in about 2013, Olympus released the EM5.

It was a camera that people wanted to buy and it had a certain success. I bought one in preference to yet another DSLR after my D300 came to the end of its useful life for me.

Here in a very small package, coupled with the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100, I had a wonderful little compact camera in my hands that opened new doors for me thanks to the 5 stop IBIS.

It was the perfect companion for hiking and travel.

The image quality was very good compared to APSC. Remember FF was not for the masses back then.

Olympus produced a camera that I and many others whished to buy.

From then on the thrust seemed to drift towards making bigger cameras culminating in the EM1x and ever more big and weighty lenses. My Nikon Z14-30 weighs less than the 7-14 for example.

They did not produce a camera after the EM5i that I thought was a worthwhile upgrade for my photography. It is hard to tell the difference between a picture taken with an EM5 (2013) and a EM1X.

In other words they went in a direction, producing cameras and lenses that not many people, or more accuracy too few people, wanted to buy, hence the current 3% market share of ILC cameras.

In the end I kept the LX100 that I bought for work duties, but which turned out to be the perfect camera for casual photography and even some "serious" projects. A camera with a M43 sensore camera that fits almost into a pocket. It was the LX100 that decided me to sell my m43 gear.

Olympus failed because they produced products that too few people wanted to buy.
I agree with and it’s very sad. To me the strength of m43 was ultra compact yet high quality cost effective systems. I can also see the benefits for birders and wildlife folks at the ultra telephoto lens end.

That said, I finished a year long flirtation with Olympus towards the end of last year and went back to Nikon with a Z6. I just didn’t get the value proposition of Olympus pro orientated stuff over a FF equivalent.

Out of curiosity I’ve just popped onto Park Cameras (one of the biggest and most respected dealers in the UK) and priced up my current kit vs the equivalent in Olympus for both cost and weight. Plus all kit weather sealed.

The results are truly mind bendingly shocking!

OLYMPUS KIT

EM1-III with 12-40 2.8 Pro £2199 weight 504g plus 382g
You could have chosen the EM-10 or EM-5

Nikon 24-70 F4, not Pro Grade

4b5ba16631ed4ba2b6cab4ab72678c81.jpg.png
7-14mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 534g
Or Panasonic 7-14 F4 Olympus 9-18, or Panasonic 8-18, personally I use the 8mm FE@315g
40-150mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 760g
Very popular top of the line lens, but heavy for me. Sharp enough for a 2x

The 35-100 F2.8 by Panny was already out.
25mm 1.2 Pro £1199 weight 410g

TOTAL SYSTEM COST £5596

TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2590g

NIKON KIT


Z6 with 24-70mm 4.0 and FTZ adapter £1199 weight 675g plus 500g
see above.

How is the weather sealing an optics on the following - you know customer reviews?
14-30mm 4.0 £959 weight 485g

70-300mm AF-P 4.5-5.6 £535 weight 680g

50mm 1.8S £429 weight 415g

TOTAL SYSTEM COST £3922

TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2755g


In equivalence terms the Nikon kits equals or betters the Olympus alternative.

And that’s why I think the Olympus approach of going “bigger and pro” has failed.

The Nikon Kit is all of 5% heavier but the Olympus kit is OVER 40% MORE EXPENSIVE 😳
--
My Instagram
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about “not pro grade”? Perhaps because the Oly has “pro” in the description and the Nikkor doesn’t?

Both are weather sealed. Many reviews of the Nikkor largely describe it as the best kit zoom of all time.
It looks like "kit zoom" is the operative word. But apparently about 1/2 of B&H customers do not. And they state their reasons.
Many pros use it, it’s that good. In equivalence terms the Nikkor bests the Oly.
Equivalence is BS. A zoom has advantage in out door use; in that realm you will not be shooting a small aperture. Not if focus matters to you. In m4/3 I seldom shoot wider than 5.6 because I'll miss focus on a good number of shots. In fact F7.1 is the sweet spot after 6 years with the 12-40. In m4/3 you lose very little in IQ up to that aperture, and even F8 is not really noticeable. My rating of the 12-40 5*. The snap ring itself has great value as most of the time I will use MF to know assuredly that I have DOF.
Refer back to the post I made, detailing system costs and comparison weights. Show that to anyone who is investing in a new system.
Or just show the consistent results I (and others) get with the Olympus/Panny.
Then show me anyone, aside from......

Delusional!
Yes you are, interesting signature.
Im not going to argue with you.
Good because you lose.
You clearly have set views. Which is fine. Carry on paying 40% more for a lesser system that only weighs 5% less if you want to.
My largest hiking kit would be 950+315+330+182 grams and would include coverage from 8mm to 100mm + a 1:1 macro. So that is hardly 5% less. I paid over the years $999 +699 +899+499 +3100 dollars, not 3100 pounds.
Any neutral reading this....... blah blah blah....
You are indeed Delusional!
And none of which is from Olympus like for like, unless you’ve now excluded weather sealing to fit your narrative.
All of this was from a Dealer at Olympus matched prices. What on earth are you talking about? The only non-weather sealed lens is 1:1 macro.
This thread is about why Olympus failed. Not whether you can build a nice kit from m43. Which of course (you did).

Olympus failed because it’s 40% more expensive at the top end to compete with FF, despite the Olympus gear having an inferior sensor.
Horsepucky. The top end is the EM-1 II or III for most and even if matched with the 300 - for birding - is way lighter and better than any quality Canon or Nikon set. Perhaps folks like you can't recognize this although of late the above combos were gaining a lot of proponents - until Covid.
Nope. The Nikon 500/5.6 PF and 200-500 have both been outstanding, back-ordered sellers for Nikon combined with the D500 for long and say a Z6 for for shorter FLs.
Those bodies have much better AF for that target market. The D500 in particular wastes anything Olympus brings to market. They are cost-effective, compact, high quality, outstanding glass.
Yep. 3 pounds and 100mm less reach and 5 pounds and 100mm less reach.
Expect to see more of those in mirrorless soon.
 
If Olympus would have got out in 2014 just before Samsung, and invested the money made by selling a much more valuable portfolio (than today), they would have come out far ahead vs. all the money they lost.

Investing the money in medical equipment, or ever bonds would have been more profitable.

There is no way making even the most perfect cameras over the past few years with the sensors Sony was making would have yielded more money than what they would have made getting out.

So sorry to say this, but you guys are delusional. The only mistake was not getting out sooner.

And for the record, I really think Olympus has made the best cameras and the most innovative cameras. None of that matters in this dying industry.
 
Last edited:
It is really quite simple.

Back in about 2013, Olympus released the EM5.

It was a camera that people wanted to buy and it had a certain success. I bought one in preference to yet another DSLR after my D300 came to the end of its useful life for me.

Here in a very small package, coupled with the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100, I had a wonderful little compact camera in my hands that opened new doors for me thanks to the 5 stop IBIS.

It was the perfect companion for hiking and travel.

The image quality was very good compared to APSC. Remember FF was not for the masses back then.

Olympus produced a camera that I and many others whished to buy.

From then on the thrust seemed to drift towards making bigger cameras culminating in the EM1x and ever more big and weighty lenses. My Nikon Z14-30 weighs less than the 7-14 for example.

They did not produce a camera after the EM5i that I thought was a worthwhile upgrade for my photography. It is hard to tell the difference between a picture taken with an EM5 (2013) and a EM1X.

In other words they went in a direction, producing cameras and lenses that not many people, or more accuracy too few people, wanted to buy, hence the current 3% market share of ILC cameras.

In the end I kept the LX100 that I bought for work duties, but which turned out to be the perfect camera for casual photography and even some "serious" projects. A camera with a M43 sensore camera that fits almost into a pocket. It was the LX100 that decided me to sell my m43 gear.

Olympus failed because they produced products that too few people wanted to buy.
I agree with and it’s very sad. To me the strength of m43 was ultra compact yet high quality cost effective systems. I can also see the benefits for birders and wildlife folks at the ultra telephoto lens end.

That said, I finished a year long flirtation with Olympus towards the end of last year and went back to Nikon with a Z6. I just didn’t get the value proposition of Olympus pro orientated stuff over a FF equivalent.

Out of curiosity I’ve just popped onto Park Cameras (one of the biggest and most respected dealers in the UK) and priced up my current kit vs the equivalent in Olympus for both cost and weight. Plus all kit weather sealed.

The results are truly mind bendingly shocking!

OLYMPUS KIT

EM1-III with 12-40 2.8 Pro £2199 weight 504g plus 382g
You could have chosen the EM-10 or EM-5

Nikon 24-70 F4, not Pro Grade

4b5ba16631ed4ba2b6cab4ab72678c81.jpg.png
7-14mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 534g
Or Panasonic 7-14 F4 Olympus 9-18, or Panasonic 8-18, personally I use the 8mm FE@315g
40-150mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 760g
Very popular top of the line lens, but heavy for me. Sharp enough for a 2x

The 35-100 F2.8 by Panny was already out.
25mm 1.2 Pro £1199 weight 410g

TOTAL SYSTEM COST £5596

TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2590g

NIKON KIT


Z6 with 24-70mm 4.0 and FTZ adapter £1199 weight 675g plus 500g
see above.

How is the weather sealing an optics on the following - you know customer reviews?
14-30mm 4.0 £959 weight 485g

70-300mm AF-P 4.5-5.6 £535 weight 680g

50mm 1.8S £429 weight 415g

TOTAL SYSTEM COST £3922

TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2755g


In equivalence terms the Nikon kits equals or betters the Olympus alternative.

And that’s why I think the Olympus approach of going “bigger and pro” has failed.

The Nikon Kit is all of 5% heavier but the Olympus kit is OVER 40% MORE EXPENSIVE 😳
--
My Instagram
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about “not pro grade”? Perhaps because the Oly has “pro” in the description and the Nikkor doesn’t?

Both are weather sealed. Many reviews of the Nikkor largely describe it as the best kit zoom of all time.
It looks like "kit zoom" is the operative word. But apparently about 1/2 of B&H customers do not. And they state their reasons.
Many pros use it, it’s that good. In equivalence terms the Nikkor bests the Oly.
Equivalence is BS. A zoom has advantage in out door use; in that realm you will not be shooting a small aperture. Not if focus matters to you. In m4/3 I seldom shoot wider than 5.6 because I'll miss focus on a good number of shots. In fact F7.1 is the sweet spot after 6 years with the 12-40. In m4/3 you lose very little in IQ up to that aperture, and even F8 is not really noticeable. My rating of the 12-40 5*. The snap ring itself has great value as most of the time I will use MF to know assuredly that I have DOF.
Refer back to the post I made, detailing system costs and comparison weights. Show that to anyone who is investing in a new system.
Or just show the consistent results I (and others) get with the Olympus/Panny.
Then show me anyone, aside from......

Delusional!
Yes you are, interesting signature.
Im not going to argue with you.
Good because you lose.
You clearly have set views. Which is fine. Carry on paying 40% more for a lesser system that only weighs 5% less if you want to.
My largest hiking kit would be 950+315+330+182 grams and would include coverage from 8mm to 100mm + a 1:1 macro. So that is hardly 5% less. I paid over the years $999 +699 +899+499 +3100 dollars, not 3100 pounds.
Any neutral reading this....... blah blah blah....
You are indeed Delusional!
And none of which is from Olympus like for like, unless you’ve now excluded weather sealing to fit your narrative.
All of this was from a Dealer at Olympus matched prices. What on earth are you talking about? The only non-weather sealed lens is 1:1 macro.
This thread is about why Olympus failed. Not whether you can build a nice kit from m43. Which of course (you did).

Olympus failed because it’s 40% more expensive at the top end to compete with FF, despite the Olympus gear having an inferior sensor.
Horsepucky. The top end is the EM-1 II or III for most and even if matched with the 300 - for birding - is way lighter and better than any quality Canon or Nikon set. Perhaps folks like you can't recognize this although of late the above combos were gaining a lot of proponents - until Covid.

My guess is Olympus corporate is most concerned about the pandemic and what it might do to both retail sales, but more importantly to capital purchases. Other companies will do the same. This is not happening in a vacuum.
This thread asked why OLYMPUS failed (not m43) and I’ve given a perfectly reasonable, sensible and rational reason why. Backed up with hard prices, facts and weights.
On your carefully selected examples of gear that I would never carry.
If you read my post I never criticised M43, I simply highlighted where Olympus went wrong, which is what the OP was asking. As for “carefully selected gear” are you really being serious? My example showed a standard zoom
yes
, a wide zoom
The largest in the system, but popular. The 8mm FE is a better alternative for several reasons
, a telephoto zoom
The heaviest in the system. Olympus probably did not build something like the 35-100 because Panasonic released on 2 years previous.
and a fast prime.
Not necessary for out of doors. besides, the cost of development for the primes was likely no great.
That’s hardly cherry picking is it? More likely a universal do it all kit for every enthusiast and many pros on the planet.
Wouldn't be for me. Do you live on planet Earth like me?
Mores the point it’s MY kit and please explain why I’d wanna pay 40% more for the Olympus over my current Nikon Z FF system? That’s what my post highlighted.
Whatever. If you just bought this I would assume you saved money - like 1% cash back on your CC. I've only got into birding and bought the II and 300 this year. Everything else I've owned for years.
it’s gets really messy if you start adding in the rest of the primes by the way, weather sealed that is. Olympus starts to look even more ridiculous if you factor all that in, with every WR prime £1000 plus. OMG.....
A zoom replaces the primes out of doors. That is more of a specialty lens with a wide aperture.
It’s time to get real
So, get real.
I give up, clearly Olympus is superior and a roaring success. Luckily there are super fans happy to nit pick every detail and turn in into some story about how superior the Olympus offering is.

Taking each point I made and trying to spin it in a different way smacks of clutching at straws.

That seems to be a trait shared by Olympus fans, the Olympus marketing department and.... erm .... nobody else on the planet,

I like M43, Panasonic seem to understand the format better than Olympus. Smaller, good quality, reasonable prices.

Meanwhile,, back in Olympus land , over £1000 each for a pro prime? When Nikon equivalents are like £600 each and are optically superior.

Good luck, keep paying 40% over the odds.



I said M43 make sense for birders and wildlife folk needing ultra long in a compact form. I stand by that.

At the other end M43 makes sense for street and travel.

Pen F- Mark 2, weather sealed, with full suite of weather sealed 1.8 primes. Yes please

Could have dominated the serious street and travel market. But didn’t really even tickle it.

--
My Instagram
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top