JIP— take on Fuji Locked

JakeJY wrote:

mring1 wrote:

but that would require knowledgeable discussions about how to compete and JIP doesn't have the skills to do that. More to the point, they don't have any interest in making Oly Imaging a competitor of anyone. Their job is to make as much money as they can by selling off the entity.

As an aside, the new consumer level Nikon Z5 and the little 24-50 is one more reason why Oly Imaging was a dead man walking. Anyone notice the release price for the Z5 and kit lens? Yup...same price as an M1 Mk III without a lens

I know...apples and oranges comparison, right? Sad to say, but dollars speak louder than water resistance.

The RP sells for even less ($1000 body, $1300 with 24-105mm) yet E-M1 III is still selling better at $1700 according to B&H.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/Mirrorless-System-Cameras/ci/16158?sort=BEST_SELLERS

Also, even when the E-M1 II launched at $2000, the A7 II was selling for only $1500, A7 only $1000. The E-M1 II was their only visible recent success (coincided with 3 quarters of profit and 1 financial year). Aiming at the lowest price stripped FF and comparing never was the route to profit, and I doubt it'll start being that way either. Panasonic was the biggest competition by far (the G9 at a less expensive price and able to use all the same lenses).

The problem with Olympus isn't "overpriced" cameras. It's unprofitable cameras. It's fine to sell "overpriced" cameras if it made a profit. I see JIP cutting a lot of lines from Olympus and trying to streamline things.

Prices are high— especially in Canada. But the determining factor for me is that o have zero desire for a full frame kit because of the size.

even if I could get a similar full frame kit for cheaper (you can’t I’ve crunched the numbers several times), I wouldn’t because the footprint of many of the setups is simply too big.

i know I know I know cue the pictures of exceptions to the rule. But with the generic  photography that I do using wide angle, regular angle (?), kit zoom, telophoto and stupid macro converter, it is cheaper and smaller than any full frame option. Plus Olympus has features I use that I don’t think are offered in the canon RP.

BluenoseNS wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

mring1 wrote:

but that would require knowledgeable discussions about how to compete and JIP doesn't have the skills to do that. More to the point, they don't have any interest in making Oly Imaging a competitor of anyone. Their job is to make as much money as they can by selling off the entity.

As an aside, the new consumer level Nikon Z5 and the little 24-50 is one more reason why Oly Imaging was a dead man walking. Anyone notice the release price for the Z5 and kit lens? Yup...same price as an M1 Mk III without a lens

I know...apples and oranges comparison, right? Sad to say, but dollars speak louder than water resistance.

The RP sells for even less ($1000 body, $1300 with 24-105mm) yet E-M1 III is still selling better at $1700 according to B&H.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/Mirrorless-System-Cameras/ci/16158?sort=BEST_SELLERS

Also, even when the E-M1 II launched at $2000, the A7 II was selling for only $1500, A7 only $1000. The E-M1 II was their only visible recent success (coincided with 3 quarters of profit and 1 financial year). Aiming at the lowest price stripped FF and comparing never was the route to profit, and I doubt it'll start being that way either. Panasonic was the biggest competition by far (the G9 at a less expensive price and able to use all the same lenses).

The problem with Olympus isn't "overpriced" cameras. It's unprofitable cameras. It's fine to sell "overpriced" cameras if it made a profit. I see JIP cutting a lot of lines from Olympus and trying to streamline things.

Prices are high— especially in Canada. But the determining factor for me is that o have zero desire for a full frame kit because of the size.

even if I could get a similar full frame kit for cheaper (you can’t I’ve crunched the numbers several times), I wouldn’t because the footprint of many of the setups is simply too big.

i know I know I know cue the pictures of exceptions to the rule. But with the generic photography that I do using wide angle, regular angle (?), kit zoom, telophoto and stupid macro converter, it is cheaper and smaller than any full frame option. Plus Olympus has features I use that I don’t think are offered in the canon RP.

+1 this  ^^^

BluenoseNS wrote:

, PERHAPS they should do what I now think Olympus should have done many years ago— recognize that Fuji is their closest direct competitor, and work to take them on and take over Fuji’s market share.

Olympus was at 3% and Fuji at 5% (roughly).

Olympus was never a direct competitor to the big makers for multiple reasons. It is and was unrealistic to think they could ever reach the status of the big makers— how can you realistically plan on going from 3% to 20% in they shrunk camera industry?

But Fuji makes retro looking rangefinder style and DSLR style cameras, just as Olympus does. To most observers, both companies make retro camera styles instead of the ubiquitous plastic injection mould look of the big makers.

It seems that Olympus attempted to market towards many markets and obviously it did not work.

Exactly. Olympus (fancy) itself as a Canon competitor, dream that it can overcharge people with a ridiculous $3000 EM1X to attract Canon birds shooter. Not realizing that any Canon shooter who spend $6000 for an EF 600mm F/4 will not switch system, let alone a mirrorless system with EVF that most traditionalist dslr shooter hates.

Mean while Fuji has stolen Olympus User base with Superior XT3, Super High IOS, faster focusing for just $14999, ½ price of Olympus EM1X.

If you go to Fuji Forum, it's full of Ex-M43 shooter you used to see here.

Had Olympus concentrate on competing against $1499 Fuji XT3 rather than $3000 EM1X against Canon, Olympus wouldn't have bleed so many users to Fuji.

1. Fuji share Anti-FF attitude of most Oly users
2. Fuji share Rich Photography history with Oly
3. Fuji & Olympus are both famous for its color science 
4. Fuji & Olympus both makes Retro Style camera
5. But Fuji enjoy better Dynamic Range 
6. Fuji has have greater 26mp sensor over 20mp
7. Fuji have better high iOS
8. Fuji XT3 @$1499 was cheaper than Olympus Em1ii
9. it's not surprising many ex-M43 deflect to Fuji rather than Canon or Sony.

007peter wrote:

BluenoseNS wrote:

, PERHAPS they should do what I now think Olympus should have done many years ago— recognize that Fuji is their closest direct competitor, and work to take them on and take over Fuji’s market share.

Olympus was at 3% and Fuji at 5% (roughly).

Olympus was never a direct competitor to the big makers for multiple reasons. It is and was unrealistic to think they could ever reach the status of the big makers— how can you realistically plan on going from 3% to 20% in they shrunk camera industry?

But Fuji makes retro looking rangefinder style and DSLR style cameras, just as Olympus does. To most observers, both companies make retro camera styles instead of the ubiquitous plastic injection mould look of the big makers.

It seems that Olympus attempted to market towards many markets and obviously it did not work.

Exactly. Olympus (fancy) itself as a Canon competitor, dream that it can overcharge people with a ridiculous $3000 EM1X to attract Canon birds shooter. Not realizing that any Canon shooter who spend $6000 for an EF 600mm F/4 will not switch system, let alone a mirrorless system with EVF that most traditionalist dslr shooter hates.

Mean while Fuji has stolen Olympus User base with Superior XT3, Super High IOS, faster focusing for just $14999, ½ price of Olympus EM1X.

If you go to Fuji Forum, it's full of Ex-M43 shooter you used to see here.

Had Olympus concentrate on competing against $1499 Fuji XT3 rather than $3000 EM1X against Canon, Olympus wouldn't have bleed so many users to Fuji.

1. Fuji share Anti-FF attitude of most Oly users
2. Fuji share Rich Photography history with Oly
3. Fuji & Olympus are both famous for its color science
4. Fuji & Olympus both makes Retro Style camera
5. But Fuji enjoy better Dynamic Range
6. Fuji has have greater 26mp sensor over 20mp
7. Fuji have better high iOS
8. Fuji XT3 @$1499 was cheaper than Olympus Em1ii
9. it's not surprising many ex-M43 deflect to Fuji rather than Canon or Sony.

I don’t think the em1x is inherently absurd, but it is quite absurd to create that in a company that was failing. That was never going to sell big, and how much resources did it take away from focusing on better ideas and products?

If Olympus was healthy, then yeah pull out all the stops with the em1x who cares. It’s like if your kid is doing well in school and wants to stay up late on a school night for some stupid reason— yeah go ahead Jimmy.

But seeing that expensive puffed up camera when their entire rangefinder line was neglected and consisted of rehashed low-spec epl’s and just the 2016 pen F after the 2013 ep5– come on.

BluenoseNS wrote:

007peter wrote:

BluenoseNS wrote:

, PERHAPS they should do what I now think Olympus should have done many years ago— r*ecognize that Fuji is their closest direct competitor*, and work to take them on and take over Fuji’s market share.

Olympus was at 3% and Fuji at 5% (roughly).

Olympus was never a direct competitor to the big makers for multiple reasons. It is and was unrealistic to think they could ever reach the status of the big makers— how can you realistically plan on going from 3% to 20% in they shrunk camera industry?

But Fuji makes retro looking rangefinder style and DSLR style cameras, just as Olympus does. To most observers, both companies make retro camera styles instead of the ubiquitous plastic injection mould look of the big makers.

It seems that Olympus attempted to market towards many markets and obviously it did not work.

Exactly. Olympus (fancy) itself as a Canon competitor, dream that it can overcharge people with a ridiculous $3000 EM1X to attract Canon birds shooter. Not realizing that any Canon shooter who spend $6000 for an EF 600mm F/4 will not switch system, let alone a mirrorless system with EVF that most traditionalist dslr shooter hates.

Mean while Fuji has stolen Olympus User base with Superior XT3, Super High IOS, faster focusing for just $14999, ½ price of Olympus EM1X.

If you go to Fuji Forum, it's full of Ex-M43 shooter you used to see here.

Had Olympus concentrate on competing against $1499 Fuji XT3 rather than $3000 EM1X against Canon, Olympus wouldn't have bleed so many users to Fuji.

1. Fuji share Anti-FF attitude of most Oly users
2. Fuji share Rich Photography history with Oly
3. Fuji & Olympus are both famous for its color science
4. Fuji & Olympus both makes Retro Style camera
5. But Fuji enjoy better Dynamic Range
6. Fuji has have greater 26mp sensor over 20mp
7. Fuji have better high iOS
8. Fuji XT3 @$1499 was cheaper than Olympus Em1ii
9. it's not surprising many ex-M43 deflect to Fuji rather than Canon or Sony.

I don’t think the em1x is inherently absurd, but it is quite absurd to create that in a company that was failing. That was never going to sell big, and how much resources did it take away from focusing on better ideas and products?

If Olympus was healthy, then yeah pull out all the stops with the em1x who cares. It’s like if your kid is doing well in school and wants to stay up late on a school night for some stupid reason— yeah go ahead Jimmy.

But seeing that expensive puffed up camera when their entire rangefinder line was neglected and consisted of rehashed low-spec epl’s and just the 2016 pen F after the 2013 ep5– come on.

Olympus’s financials clearly demonstrate that unless they get the average buying price up to well above US$1200 per unit, even with JIP, there won’t be an Olympus or anything remaining.

There is no market for a small, inferior sensor at the current price points. So they had no choice but to ask (demand) hard core users buck up for an all-in item like the EM1X to pay the bills.

Every camera selling under US$1200 loses money. Some, like the EM10, are costing the company close to 50% loss per unit.

n3eg wrote:

Felice62 wrote:

i'd rather have olympus disappearing than fuji.

Fuji has absolutely nothing for me. Big rangefinder APS-C cameras? Overpriced lenses? Trouble with video and IBIS? I don't think so. Nikon, Sony, Canon FF before Fuji.

AS far as you're happy ...

007peter wrote:

BluenoseNS wrote:

, PERHAPS they should do what I now think Olympus should have done many years ago— recognize that Fuji is their closest direct competitor, and work to take them on and take over Fuji’s market share.

Olympus was at 3% and Fuji at 5% (roughly).

Olympus was never a direct competitor to the big makers for multiple reasons. It is and was unrealistic to think they could ever reach the status of the big makers— how can you realistically plan on going from 3% to 20% in they shrunk camera industry?

But Fuji makes retro looking rangefinder style and DSLR style cameras, just as Olympus does. To most observers, both companies make retro camera styles instead of the ubiquitous plastic injection mould look of the big makers.

It seems that Olympus attempted to market towards many markets and obviously it did not work.

Exactly. Olympus (fancy) itself as a Canon competitor, dream that it can overcharge people with a ridiculous $3000 EM1X to attract Canon birds shooter. Not realizing that any Canon shooter who spend $6000 for an EF 600mm F/4 will not switch system, let alone a mirrorless system with EVF that most traditionalist dslr shooter hates.

Mean while Fuji has stolen Olympus User base with Superior XT3, Super High IOS, faster focusing for just $14999, ½ price of Olympus EM1X.

If you go to Fuji Forum, it's full of Ex-M43 shooter you used to see here.

Had Olympus concentrate on competing against $1499 Fuji XT3 rather than $3000 EM1X against Canon, Olympus wouldn't have bleed so many users to Fuji.

1. Fuji share Anti-FF attitude of most Oly users
2. Fuji share Rich Photography history with Oly
3. Fuji & Olympus are both famous for its color science
4. Fuji & Olympus both makes Retro Style camera
5. But Fuji enjoy better Dynamic Range
6. Fuji has have greater 26mp sensor over 20mp
7. Fuji have better high iOS
8. Fuji XT3 @$1499 was cheaper than Olympus Em1ii
9. it's not surprising many ex-M43 deflect to Fuji rather than Canon or Sony.

While I will agree that the E-M1 X was an adventure that should not have been embarked upon, I'll submit that  it was the members of this forum that spent more time trying to discuss how Olympus was trying to be a competitor to Canon or Nikon than Olympus ever fancied itself to be. Even after Olympus specifically announced that it was not going to get into the pro sports market , but was targeting "high margin specialty markets" as a niche, folks around here were convinced they needed to compete against those pro sports Canon and Nikon shooters.

gary0319 wrote:

007peter wrote:

BluenoseNS wrote:

, PERHAPS they should do what I now think Olympus should have done many years ago— recognize that Fuji is their closest direct competitor, and work to take them on and take over Fuji’s market share.

Olympus was at 3% and Fuji at 5% (roughly).

Olympus was never a direct competitor to the big makers for multiple reasons. It is and was unrealistic to think they could ever reach the status of the big makers— how can you realistically plan on going from 3% to 20% in they shrunk camera industry?

But Fuji makes retro looking rangefinder style and DSLR style cameras, just as Olympus does. To most observers, both companies make retro camera styles instead of the ubiquitous plastic injection mould look of the big makers.

It seems that Olympus attempted to market towards many markets and obviously it did not work.

Exactly. Olympus (fancy) itself as a Canon competitor, dream that it can overcharge people with a ridiculous $3000 EM1X to attract Canon birds shooter. Not realizing that any Canon shooter who spend $6000 for an EF 600mm F/4 will not switch system, let alone a mirrorless system with EVF that most traditionalist dslr shooter hates.

Mean while Fuji has stolen Olympus User base with Superior XT3, Super High IOS, faster focusing for just $14999, ½ price of Olympus EM1X.

If you go to Fuji Forum, it's full of Ex-M43 shooter you used to see here.

Had Olympus concentrate on competing against $1499 Fuji XT3 rather than $3000 EM1X against Canon, Olympus wouldn't have bleed so many users to Fuji.

1. Fuji share Anti-FF attitude of most Oly users
2. Fuji share Rich Photography history with Oly
3. Fuji & Olympus are both famous for its color science
4. Fuji & Olympus both makes Retro Style camera
5. But Fuji enjoy better Dynamic Range
6. Fuji has have greater 26mp sensor over 20mp
7. Fuji have better high iOS
8. Fuji XT3 @$1499 was cheaper than Olympus Em1ii
9. it's not surprising many ex-M43 deflect to Fuji rather than Canon or Sony.

While I will agree that the E-M1 X was an adventure that should not have been embarked upon, I'll submit that it was the members of this forum that spent more time trying to discuss how Olympus was trying to be a competitor to Canon or Nikon than Olympus ever fancied itself to be. Even after Olympus specifically announced that it was not going to get into the pro sports market , but was targeting "high margin specialty markets" as a niche, folks around here were convinced they needed to compete against those pro sports Canon and Nikon shooters.

yep, olympus visionaries did....

BluenoseNS wrote:

[...] Doesn’t the Nikon Z5 top off at 5fps?

If it's c-af with focus priority then 5fps is good enough for birding - like with my ultimate BIF machine, the Pen-F.

That said, last time I looked into the Nikon manuals the fps drops if you want c-af with focus priority.

JIP could do worse than to offer a rangefinder with the guts of the E-M1iii or omd em5iii.

Pen-F II

And for gods sake get a proper panorama mode.

What's wrong with the existing panorama scene mode? (serious question)

cf782 wrote:

I am going to keep my mFT for awhile, even I have a FF Lumix S1R and APS-C Fujifilm X-Pro2 with 23mm F2.0. It's hard to find a system camera as mFT to cover 14mm to 400mm in a bag. I love mFT, APS-C and FF, and I don't like to have heavy lens on my FF sensor bodies. I do not plan to buy telephoto lenses for my FF bodies.

Nikkor Z 24-200 F4 - 6.4 VR, but I don't think it is weather sealed.

BluenoseNS wrote:

Doug Janis wrote:

BluenoseNS wrote:

DLBlack wrote:

mring1 wrote:

but that would require knowledgeable discussions about how to compete and JIP doesn't have the skills to do that. More to the point, they don't have any interest in making Oly Imaging a competitor of anyone. Their job is to make as much money as they can by selling off the entity.

As an aside, the new consumer level Nikon Z5 and the little 24-50 is one more reason why Oly Imaging was a dead man walking. Anyone notice the release price for the Z5 and kit lens? Yup...same price as an M1 Mk III without a lens

I know...apples and oranges comparison, right? Sad to say, but dollars speak louder than water resistance.

I would much rather have the E-M1 MkIII than the Z5 and that kit lens. Still I guess the bottom line price talks to people, just not to me.

Doesn’t the Nikon Z5 top off at 5fps? Em1iii has some pure madness burst mode at 60fps I believe and that pre-capture ability.

These inexpensive full frame cameras are nice and all, but people are lusting after them as if they are more than just a great sensor packaged in a bare-bones feature set to get people into a system.

They are obviously better in image quality, but there are many features in m4/3 that just don’t exist in these entry point models.

JIP could do worse than to offer a rangefinder with the guts of the E-M1iii or omd em5iii.
And for gods sake get a proper panorama mode.

Do we even need 60fps?

It’s a market appeal for maybe 0.0000001% of shooters. Maybe.

The larger sensor with superior IQ may count for 80% of the feature weighting of the camera in competitive comparison. All other features save for AF (Olympus is near the bottom) and stabilization (Olympus is at the top), add up to zero if sensor performance overrides all else.

Olympus doesn’t have a tech problem. They have a price problem. Their products are vastly over-priced compared to FF.

Tell me again how the m4/3 sensor has inferior image quality to a full frame sensor, and how because of that the prices for m4/3 equipment should be priced dramatically lower than what they are, and how their high price for such poor quality led to their downfall.

Can you please rephrase that concept because I don’t think I quite understand.

How long after the burial are you going to bring up the deceased’s poor health habits?

How about photography being the collection of light for capture and quality derives form quantity (it does).

MFT captures 75% less light than FF.

Only the ignorant debate this.

Memoochi wrote:

cf782 wrote:

I am going to keep my mFT for awhile, even I have a FF Lumix S1R and APS-C Fujifilm X-Pro2 with 23mm F2.0. It's hard to find a system camera as mFT to cover 14mm to 400mm in a bag. I love mFT, APS-C and FF, and I don't like to have heavy lens on my FF sensor bodies. I do not plan to buy telephoto lenses for my FF bodies.

Nikkor Z 24-200 F4 - 6.4 VR, but I don't think it is weather sealed.

F6.4 at long side is too slow for me. I am fine with constant aperture F4.0. When I need fast, I use my F1.2 prime instead.

Oly chased way too many windmills, the most obvious of which was the M-1X. Self satisfaction is an acceptable ROI if you're in the black but not when you've lost money ten years out of 12.

All of us nerds could scratch our technological itch in this forum, but Oly really only needed to get back to Maitani-san. Small, elegant, superbly made. It wasn't rocket science. Outside of the measurebators, they didn't even need to cram more pixels into the sensor.

The  M5 Mk I was on the right path as was the Pen. As beautiful as the M1 is, that wasn't the right path although I'm sure I'll take some heat for that statement.

In a year, we'll look back on this thread and see how it went. Maybe the glass really will have been half full.

Doug Janis wrote:

BluenoseNS wrote:

Doug Janis wrote:

BluenoseNS wrote:

DLBlack wrote:

mring1 wrote:

but that would require knowledgeable discussions about how to compete and JIP doesn't have the skills to do that. More to the point, they don't have any interest in making Oly Imaging a competitor of anyone. Their job is to make as much money as they can by selling off the entity.

As an aside, the new consumer level Nikon Z5 and the little 24-50 is one more reason why Oly Imaging was a dead man walking. Anyone notice the release price for the Z5 and kit lens? Yup...same price as an M1 Mk III without a lens

I know...apples and oranges comparison, right? Sad to say, but dollars speak louder than water resistance.

I would much rather have the E-M1 MkIII than the Z5 and that kit lens. Still I guess the bottom line price talks to people, just not to me.

Doesn’t the Nikon Z5 top off at 5fps? Em1iii has some pure madness burst mode at 60fps I believe and that pre-capture ability.

These inexpensive full frame cameras are nice and all, but people are lusting after them as if they are more than just a great sensor packaged in a bare-bones feature set to get people into a system.

They are obviously better in image quality, but there are many features in m4/3 that just don’t exist in these entry point models.

JIP could do worse than to offer a rangefinder with the guts of the E-M1iii or omd em5iii.
And for gods sake get a proper panorama mode.

Do we even need 60fps?

It’s a market appeal for maybe 0.0000001% of shooters. Maybe.

The larger sensor with superior IQ may count for 80% of the feature weighting of the camera in competitive comparison. All other features save for AF (Olympus is near the bottom) and stabilization (Olympus is at the top), add up to zero if sensor performance overrides all else.

Olympus doesn’t have a tech problem. They have a price problem. Their products are vastly over-priced compared to FF.

Tell me again how the m4/3 sensor has inferior image quality to a full frame sensor, and how because of that the prices for m4/3 equipment should be priced dramatically lower than what they are, and how their high price for such poor quality led to their downfall.

Can you please rephrase that concept because I don’t think I quite understand.

How long after the burial are you going to bring up the deceased’s poor health habits?

How about photography being the collection of light for capture and quality derives form quantity (it does).

MFT captures 75% less light than FF.

Only the ignorant debate this.

Still not clear.

thought experiment for you:

1. Do you enjoy being in the right more, or proving others to be wrong?

2. In conversation do you find yourself listening more, or talking more?

3. In conversation, do you wait until the person is done talking In order to say what you have to say, or do you tend to stop talking to think about what the other person is saying?

4. Do you frequently have the right answer to questions or problems much quicker than others?

5. Have you ever changed your mind based on evidence provided by someone?

7. Do you tend to not understand why others have such complicated problems when you see things as black and white?

8. do you find in conversation there are too many jerks or unintelligent people?

9. Are you able to think about the perspective of others— even if that contradicts your own?

acfo wrote:

BluenoseNS wrote:

[...] Doesn’t the Nikon Z5 top off at 5fps?

If it's c-af with focus priority then 5fps is good enough for birding - like with my ultimate BIF machine, the Pen-F.

That said, last time I looked into the Nikon manuals the fps drops if you want c-af with focus priority.

JIP could do worse than to offer a rangefinder with the guts of the E-M1iii or omd em5iii.

Pen-F II

And for gods sake get a proper panorama mode.

What's wrong with the existing panorama scene mode? (serious question)

I’d just like the option to do a sweep in camera like the iPhone could do back in 2010

Doug Janis wrote:

How about photography being the collection of light for capture and quality derives form quantity (it does).

MFT captures 75% less light than FF.

Technically it doesn't. Ignoring special cases (like multi-aspect), MFT actually has 25.6% the active sensor area of FF due to the aspect ratio difference. Then the amount of light that hits that sensor depends on the T-stop of the lens and how long your exposure is. You can certainly have the same amount of light hitting the both sensors depending on which lenses you were comparing and your shutter speeds (which IBIS also plays a role in determining). That's the whole point of the "E" argument.

Then you also have to figure in sensor efficiency also to figure how much of that light is "captured".

mring1 wrote:

Oly chased way too many windmills, the most obvious of which was the M-1X. Self satisfaction is an acceptable ROI if you're in the black but not when you've lost money ten years out of 12.

All of us nerds could scratch our technological itch in this forum, but Oly really only needed to get back to Maitani-san. Small, elegant, superbly made. It wasn't rocket science. Outside of the measurebators, they didn't even need to cram more pixels into the sensor.

The M5 Mk I was on the right path as was the Pen. As beautiful as the M1 is, that wasn't the right path although I'm sure I'll take some heat for that statement.

In a year, we'll look back on this thread and see how it went. Maybe the glass really will have been half full.

Olympus had said Pen-F sales didn't quite meet expectations, so not sure that is the right path forward. Seems like that is a subjective favorite of people largely due to styling, but not sure that necessarily translates to profit (which is what Olympus really needs now).

E-M5 II was a success somewhat (1 quarter of profit), but the E-M1 II seemed to be a bigger one (3 quarters). Would love to see the sales breakdown of Olympus models. I think the closest we will see is what JIP does in terms of cutting models. The ones cut would likely be the under-performing ones.

I thought by 'take on', you meant 'acquire'.

I think acquire, resulting in owning both companies under one umbrella, would be a clearer path to success, and potentially even at lower cost than winning the market currently owned by Fuji through other lots of marketing dollars etc,

From an outsider perspective, it seems more feasible to make profits from restructure of a few players under one umbrella than to just work with Olympus.

mring1 wrote:

Oly chased way too many windmills, the most obvious of which was the M-1X. Self satisfaction is an acceptable ROI if you're in the black but not when you've lost money ten years out of 12.

All of us nerds could scratch our technological itch in this forum, but Oly really only needed to get back to Maitani-san. Small, elegant, superbly made. It wasn't rocket science. Outside of the measurebators, they didn't even need to cram more pixels into the sensor.

The M5 Mk I was on the right path as was the Pen. As beautiful as the M1 is, that wasn't the right path although I'm sure I'll take some heat for that statement.

In a year, we'll look back on this thread and see how it went. Maybe the glass really will have been half full.

The smaller models all lost money.
All of them.
They have a feature set and target market that is priced too low to make a profit and is too close to smartphones both in IQ and price.
The EM1 series is designed to create a profitable higher end.
The PEN-F was heavily criticized for its price. Too few could may the actual cost, so it was cancelled.
The PEN-F, EPL, EPM, EM5, EM10, and EP models all lost buckets of money. They don’t make a return on cost to develop, manufacture, market, and distribute.
Maitanai-san is a limited ethos. Go to a crane-watching field north of Tokyo (near Fukushima) and see hundreds of bird photographers sporting big glass from the Big 3. Their hundreds of thousands on that equipment is what subsidizes all lower end products by those same manufacturers. Olympus has been desperately trying to capture some of that cash flow to keep the models you want alive at all.