Where the heck is Olympus? 3 cameras in 2+ years?

Maybe some "gunnysacking" or maybe just the gap in manufacturing due to moving manufacturing from China to Vietnam.   It does make some sense in starting production kn the new factory with a limited run on a camera with expected low sale volume.

petreluk wrote:

There are two different questions here.

The first is what do you do to maintain your position in the market.

The second is what do you do to develop and produce products at an acceptable return on your investment.

The answer to the second question can be guessed, at least. Olympus have had the Japanese earthquake to content with (sensor and parts shortage), they've had a factory closure (China) to contend with, they've hinted at a long rethink of their whole E-M line, they've not actually had much new to put in their cameras since tech has moved slowly in the past two or three years. And finally, Olympus have probably altered "normal scheduling" to ensure a suitably impressive 100th anniversary.

If the result has been fewer new cameras then I don't think it matters very much.

The answer to the first question is one only Olympus can really answer. They have the sales and financial data; we don't. And "throw money at the problem" isn't an answer. I can say that Olympus have stepped up their marketing where I live in the past couple of years. So long as that means products are continuing to sell, and therefore Olympus are maintaining their position in the market, then things are probably fine from the company's POV.

And 2019? Well, that's the test. If Olympus don't refresh their middle market offerings, the 800-1500 notes level, then they will have nothing to offer to someone like me. My cameras are both pretty knack'd and old, and if there is nothing from Oly in 2019 then I know I can get better elsewhere by now, in that market segment. I'm looking at you, Fuji, for a start. So I'll be off. It's not complicated.

Have you tried a Panasonic body? I was all Oly at first, but since the GX85, I've found the colors good enough, the sharpness better, and performance overall better, unless you need a lot of AF-C (I don't, but I understand it if others do).

MShot wrote:

Makes me think about the hypocrites who buy or lease a new hybrid car every two years and claim to be saving the planet, but take no consideration of all the carbon burned to mine the materials and make the cars and recycle the old ones.

Turns out the Jeep Wrangler (in America) is the most environmentally friendly car/SUV. Even though it isn't fuel efficient, its stays on the road longer than any other vehicle in the US. If well maintained, It can last forever. Avoiding replacement is the most environmentally friendly/conservation strategy.

If the production of a car typically accounts for 10-15% of CO2 equivalent emission of its life cycle that doesn't allow for very much higher emissions on a double life span car. An example comparing two cars of 200 000 km with one of 400 000 km gives

CO2 150g/km
200 000km > 30 000 000g + production 4 500 000g
= 34 500 000 x 2 = 69 000 000g

CO2 160g/km
400 000km = 64 000 000g + production 4 500 000g
= 68 500 000g

So even assuming equal CO2 cost of production, CO2 emissions can be less than 10% higher to break even. Reduction in emissions due to technological advancement within Otto engines would be rather more within the life span of a car not to mention switching to a hybrid. I drive a Ford Fiesta model 2005 going on 360 000 km. Corresponding cars emit significantly less nowadays so not environmentally friendly but unfortunately the cheapest solution. Saving the planet can be very expensive if you must drive.

Please correct if my premises or calculations or conclusions are wrong.