As another pointed out, you are making a big deal out of nothing and reading way too much into a niche Japan-only product. OMDS is still selling a ton of cameras with the Olympus logo on it and featuring it prominently too (as I linked)! If the top plate mattered so much, they wouldn't be doing that. I would see a little bit of logic in your point if this camera was the only camera they are selling with the Olympus top plate, but it's very much not.
As for the 2022 announcement, I highly doubt much if any of the camera buyers know about or even care about it to the extent you do. This is just a minor modification of an existing camera (they didn't even have to necessarily add the Astro sticker; they didn't for the IR versions). It changes nothing about their plans to convert the line going forward. Wasting money on useless changes that the rest of the industry wouldn't do either is not how a company would survive (especially true if they were using old parts stock).
But I guess there isn't much else to discuss, I've made my point which you clearly disagree (as I disagree with yours).
Ok, that's fine. I think OMDS are reluctant to invest money in producing a new camera of their own. They simply want to rehash/refresh what Olympus passed onto them or already developed because it's a cheaper route to make money. I have no good reason to believe they have any real long term plans.
As for this latest 'Olympus' camera release, it's pretty easy to get a camera modified for astrophotography. In fact someone can buy a used E-M1iii or even an E-M1x, have it modified and save themself a bag of money instead of buying the OMDS Olympus version. There's even DIY options available. What a pointless release. It's simply a cheap route to a quick buck. Why not direct the resources to something that existing customers may actually want. There's plenty of people that have expressed they would like a mid-range camera that has a compact form factor and a premium metal construction. It's not that OMDS don't know that a premium metal bodied mid-range camera is desirable, they just don't want to spend the money to produce it; plastic is cheaper. In fact, they even express how nice premium metal construction is on their website. Look at the screenshot from OMDS' website below!
"Beauty of metal and leather". "The solid feel of premium metal construction". "sophisticated finishes". Then you click and you get the plastic bodied E-P7!!
Talk about rubbing it in people's faces! You express that you find what I say funny, we'll have a good laugh now because this is certainly a joke!!
Canon released the same type of camera, it's not pointless if they have buyers and it costs little to offer it. You are again putting a negative spin when it's a positive thing to be able to put out a profitable camera! Olympus got in trouble because they failed to do so near the end. There's no long term survival if the company loses money!
As for the whole narrative that OMDS can only survive by having a metal mid-range camera, that sounds once again like wishful irrational thinking. Olympus was on record Pen-F didn't quite meet their sales expectations. Olympus only got a few quarters of profit over the E-M1 II and under OMDS, similarly OM-1 was their big success.
As for the E-P7, it seems to be doing quite well too.
In Japan, yes. Anywhere else?
And also, that "doing well" in Japan is relative. Pen-class camera sales are down compared to previous years. They are only doing well compared to similar class competition. But not well enough to prevent m43 losing market share overall.
Well, yes I'm talking about within its own market class. The compact type camera have been declining which is why the camera makers are focusing on larger bodies, with higher margins.
That's part of my point also, the compact cameras that some people here claim will be the savior simply isn't selling as much volume as in the past.
Most people don't care about what material the camera is made of, they care more about the price, and the sales are proving that. By using plastic and being able to offer the camera at a more affordable price, OMDS was able to get a larger market.
The overall camera market has shrunk by 3/4 in the past 5 years. The m43 market share has halved in the past 5 years. Panasonic has now a higher market share than Olympus/OM (just a few years ago it was the other way around).
Even Panasonic has long abandoned their GF series in markets outside of Asia. Compact cameras are on a decline. Panasonic has a new FF line which they invested a decent amount in, so they would be in trouble if they didn't gain some market share from that vs Olympus which stuck to one mount. (There's a lot of talk on that in regards to fear Panasonic will focus primarily on L-mount and MFT will become the second favorite child, but that's a discussion for other threads).
Now, how exactly was OMDS able to get a larger market by using plastic?
A larger market than they otherwise could have with a metal camera.
I obviously do not like plastic. But with respect to the very unique E-P7 target market (which is Japan and some select Asian countries, and specifically targeting very young and mostly female customers), you are right. Plastic was the right choice to keep it affordable. And styling it to resemble the Pen-F was a winner too. The EP-7 was/is a success in Japan, much more so than the also plastic OM5.
That may not match your personal preferences, but you are not the sole buyer in the market.
https://www.43rumors.com/olympus-japan-halts-e-p7-and-e-m10iv-orders-because-of-high-demand/
I’m pretty happy my OM5 plus 12-45/4 kit cost me £950, partly because it’s plastic. It’s just a tool. Shame about the socket, but I don’t use it.
I am pretty happy with my identical body EM5.3 too with regards to value for money. But the point is, neither of these two cameras did or do sell well, in any market. Neither for old Olympus, nor for OM. I doubt they made any profits for their makers. And I think the plastic build plays a major role in this.
Just curious.....what information is there that either the OM-5 or the E-M5 III didn't meet the company's sales expectations. I've not seen that, but I may have missed it.
BTW I have been happy with the E-M5 III and even more so with the OM-5, as long as I stay within its designed use cases.
You won't get any such information from secretive OMDS.
Go by what is available. How many other users have you seen walking around with those bodies?
Look at gear lists on this site. They won't show accurate market figures, but they certainly can show the worldwide trend:
Only 96 members say they own an OM5. Whereas 580 say they own the OM1.1. The Pen-F was famously singled out by the Olympus CEO to have not met sales expectations, yet 543 members say they own it. If 543 is the benchmark for a barely missed sales target, then 96 has to be a sales flop, no?
Only 324 members say they own the EM5.3. but 1139 members own the EM5.2, and 1822 members own the EM5.1.
Another hint: the EM5.3 was released in 2019, coincidentally the first year that Olympus was replaced by Panasonic on rank 5 globally:
2019 global sales all digital cameras
Today, OMDS has about half the global market share of Panasonic. You cannot drop that much in market share, if you had more than one product that sells well (the OM1 line), do you?
