while that Scandal and the company definitively impacted, Olympus by themselves shot themselves in the foot by then.
They tried to compete with Canikon FF cameras on their terms, pursing big bodies, big (however good) expensive fast lenses. This is how the 4/3rds format ended.
And why I keep mentioning size and weight being the unique selling propositions of m43rds, they need to keep that in check or face the same fate.
But sure, the scandal and financial shenanigans didn't help.
While I agree their choice for product development played apart I think it's an understatement to say the scandle "didn't help". Its a clear indication of organizational problems and mismanagement.
I am certainly not countering that, but the 4/3rds system happened much earlier than that. So I am saying that doesn't explain everything.
That will kill a company regardless of how good the products may be. So I'm confident the imaging divison would have been sold off either way.
But you are also underestimating the failed strategy. 4/3rds attempted to compete with FF with no size benefit- big mistake given the sensor difference. This is why I keep banging on that for m43rds, even though it's not quite in the same situation.
Sure but I'm saying even if they focused on what you think they should have, and were successful, they still would have failed.
Not necessarily, even if likely.
Product strategy is only one peice of the puzzle.
Of course, but as far as putting the product out and getting marketshare, failed product strategy gets you out of the market.
Remember it's not always the product that makes the most sence or is even the best one that is most successful. It's the one people want to buy.
Sure, and when your strategy is to compete vs Canikon on their terms by making a big body, and big expensive weighty fast lenses to counter the inherent disadvantage of the sensor, people start asking themselves why are they buying a 4/3rds system.
i.e. people stop wanting to buy it. That's the point!
I think we keep talking past each other. I think the reason the 4/3 system failed was because it was dslr based.
No. DSLR's continued to be quite quite profitable way past the demise of 4/3rds. Eventually sure, everyone needed to move to mirrorless but you don't leave the system abruptly and fast when DSLR"s were still selling.
Oh no I didn't mean dslr's weren't selling. I meant that the 4/3's system was doomed because it was dslr based and not because of dslr's wouldn't sell.
My point is that Nikon, Canon, Sony were selling DSLR's for much longer as they were profitable even more so than mirrorless. Had 4/3rds been successful as a product, it would have been in that position to come out with the E-7, keep going for a bit while the transition to mirrorless happened.
If you look at the 4/3 bodies, they really weren't that much smaller then ff dslr's at the time.
Yup but that is missing my point- they could be. Take a look at the E-620, E-420, E-520 models.
The lenses certainly didn't help.
They didn't, and my point is that when they released the E-3 they focused on a strategy that would compete against bigger sensors. The result: release a trio of very nice expensive big heavy zooms that took away that size proposition.
Not mention ff dslr lenses are not really that big compared to their mirroless partners (especially the pancakes). Pentax also made (and still do) alot of nice small apsc dslr's.
Correct.
The cameras themselves could not be that small because they were still trying to accommodate a mirror system, it was doomed for the start.
But the cameras could sure be smaller than FF cameras they were competing against. Compare an E-520 or E-420 to an E-3/E-5. And then look at the F2.0 constant zooms and the one that went with it at F2.8. It was absurd- the 35-100 F2.0 in particular turned out bigger than the counterpart in FF. All to try to "catch up" in sensor image quality disparity.
They were smaller but not much and like you said paired with the large lenses...
I am not sure I you have held an E-420 or even E-520. They were notably smaller than a FF DSLR.
it was doomed on arrival. Remember ff dslr's have many lenses that weren't that big, and really bodies aren't that big. So you don't save that much on size body (and definitively not with lenses).
Sure, you are just sort of adding evidence to the point
This is why I called it "trying to compete with Canikon on their terms." That was a big mistake.
All you have to do is look at how much the smaller the system became when they moved to mirrorless.
That applies to all camera brands.
The mirror box was preventing the system from becoming truly compact.
You need again to check the e-420, e-520, E-620 models. Yes, we are smaller now but back then those were definitively smaller bodies in DSLR form. You still can do a smaller mirror/shutter chamber because the sensor is smaller. But if you don't... then you go extinct
That was the mistake.
Again what I'm saying is there's a bigger picture.
There is, and I am not denying that. Note that it was my post that complemented the story on the scandal.
Product strategy is definitely part of the problem, but regardless there was and probably still is an inherent problem within olympus, which meant the camera division was always going to be sold off regardless.
There were multiple problems, but had the imaging division been profitable I am not sure it would have been necessarily sold off. But I want to make clear, I do agree that Olympus problems were definitively a problem for Olympus Imaging. It is a set of problems that in the end led to where we are.
The switch to mirrorless was completely hastened by the fact the Imaging division was losing money quarter after quarter towards the end of 4/3rds (sort of like m43rds recently, but now we can' know if they are profitable as they are not reporting anymore as a public company).
Well we will know if they close shop
.
Well, lol. yeah. I think they are in a slightly better position on the end that they are more lean, more focused. I just wonder how much cash they really have on hand for new R&D and finance sensors.
But anyway I think we agree I just think the points you bring up are directly related to the organization, management, reinvestment and corporate culture.
I think that's a part of it, but I stand by what I said on failed product strategy/focus on what they thought they needed to be in the market.
I mean look at nikon, they did a restructuring and it seems to have put them on a better path then before.
Sure, but Nikon is still Nikon owned. Not JIP owned.
For whatever reason Olympus could never (or more likey never wanted to) effectively adjust.
Well they did adjust- they went m43rds mirrorless. But took them a while, I still think they could have focused more on smaller 4/3rds first until the techs were around to make the full mirrorless jump.
