JIP— take on Fuji Locked

BluenoseNS wrote:

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

My Panasonic has this and apparently it has been a feature a long time ago. Does Olympus not?

mring1 wrote:

Re: the Z5, the marketing starts with the name on the camera. Then, they integrated stuff from higher end cameras in their line. Continuity.

Then they focused on what 80-85% of their defined market wants. IOW...they didn't build an E-M1X.

Oly made a conscious decision to not meaningfully leverage the advantages of the smaller sensor. And we've been talking about that on the forum for years. I use and love my GM5. And it's replacement is...where?

Doesn't matter much now. My Oly/Pany bodies and lenses will get me thru the foreseeable future. Really too bad, but this outcome was, at some level, preventable.

Life will go on.

You won’t find a GM5 replacement.
Panasonic has been clear that the small, stripped down models, lost money.
They play in the smartphone category on size and convenience.

JakeJY wrote:

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".

Don’t get into t-stops.
Most FF lenses have superior ratings over MFT.
And “sensor efficiency” another FF advantage.
The FF advantage is absolute. It’s 2-stops, superior DR, larger shooting envelope from shallow DOF to diffraction limit, and correspondingly larger creative envelope.
The professional market has spoken.

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.

Olympus was skewered by the reviewers for the ridiculous over-pricing of the EM1ii.

Within 3 weeks they dropped the MSRP by $200. Some Japanese retailers (who are responsible for unsold stock, unlike the US usually) refuses to stock the item, or made it a special order.

Doug Janis wrote:

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.

Perhaps, then, Oly should have introduced the 150-400 at the same time as the em1.2.  

JakeJY wrote:

BluenoseNS wrote:

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

My Panasonic has this and apparently it has been a feature a long time ago. Does Olympus not?

Nope

I was musing just now that I bought my em1.2 + grip at full msrp in Dec 2016, so around $2400 if I recall.  I wasn't tempted at all by the m1x upon its release because I already had a camera that met my needs.  But if the m1x had arrived at the same time as the em1.2, but priced a little closer--say $2500 to $2700--I would have jumped all over it because I always shoot with a grip and have done so since my E-1 days back in 2003/4.

When my em1.2 goes belly up (hopefully not for quite some time) and if my lenses are still functioning, then I'll check out the used market for an em1.2 or em1.3 or the m1x.  If my lenses are also failing, then I guess I'll have to evaluate my needs at that time.

Since I have never shot with FF, I have no idea what I might be missing in terms of IQ.  But that doesn't really matter.  I still sell prints as large as poster size and clients still pay for portraits that I shoot with my inferior sensor.

Doug Janis wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

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".

Don’t get into t-stops.
Most FF lenses have superior ratings over MFT.
And “sensor efficiency” another FF advantage.
The FF advantage is absolute. It’s 2-stops, superior DR, larger shooting envelope from shallow DOF to diffraction limit, and correspondingly larger creative envelope.
The professional market has spoken.

Keep chasing after it Doug. You’ll catch it just as Xeno did I’m sure. What a pleasant journey it must be for you.

BluenoseNS wrote:

If JIP will actually make more m4/3 cameras and lenses and not just sell everything off, 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.

I don't think there would be many buyers except - maybe - in China. Either Olympus paid JIP to take the albatross off their necks or JIP will attempt to make a profit.

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?

A perfect match, like K-mart and Sears!

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.

Hey, watch it! I have an E-M5 III !

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

How many comments about a Pen F2 or ep6 exist on various forums? Olympus kept churning out epl bodies which are well and good, but they apparently are really for the Japanese market and have the lowest features.

Yeah, what are they up to E-PL99?

Fuji seems to have embraced this style and people know if they want such a look that Fuji has it in multiple models, and also with DSLR style as well.

My nephew has a Fuji - I love the button and dial functions and layout. With Olympus' IBIS and fancy shooting modes, they could combine for some great cameras.

It is difficult to try to be everything to everyone, and if you are a tiny player, I think it is better to focus on one style message for the consumer.

Maybe this would have made zero difference, and I think the time to do it should have been the moment they got the good 16mp sensor upgrade from the 12mp— no more epl models with minimal dials— epls, ep’s, omd’s all retro looking with blatant dials etc

Doug Janis wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

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".

Don’t get into t-stops.
Most FF lenses have superior ratings over MFT.
And “sensor efficiency” another FF advantage.
The FF advantage is absolute. It’s 2-stops, superior DR, larger shooting envelope from shallow DOF to diffraction limit, and correspondingly larger creative envelope.
The professional market has spoken.

Missing my point here, just stating the amount of light captured is a factor of many variables. The lens playing a big part which you missed. You have to be shooting lenses at the same T-stop for there to be an advantage, whereas they may be the same if you use "equivalent" lenses. Can't just look only at the sensor.

For example back then the people buying the popular A7 II 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 kit isn't getting 2-stops better than someone shooting with MFT f/2.8 lenses or primes.

JakeJY wrote:

Doug Janis wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

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".

Don’t get into t-stops.
Most FF lenses have superior ratings over MFT.
And “sensor efficiency” another FF advantage.
The FF advantage is absolute. It’s 2-stops, superior DR, larger shooting envelope from shallow DOF to diffraction limit, and correspondingly larger creative envelope.
The professional market has spoken.

Missing my point here, just stating the amount of light captured is a factor of many variables. The lens playing a big part which you missed. You have to be shooting lenses at the same T-stop for there to be an advantage, whereas they may be the same if you use "equivalent" lenses. Can't just look only at the sensor.

For example back then the people buying the popular A7 II 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 kit isn't getting 2-stops better than someone shooting with MFT f/2.8 lenses or primes.

That just makes the difference even greater.

To get "equivalent" t-stop on MFT against FF you need a faster, costlier lens.

It doesn't change the math that FF captures 4x the light over MFT.

Doug Janis wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

Missing my point here, just stating the amount of light captured is a factor of many variables. The lens playing a big part which you missed. You have to be shooting lenses at the same T-stop for there to be an advantage, whereas they may be the same if you use "equivalent" lenses. Can't just look only at the sensor.

For example back then the people buying the popular A7 II 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 kit isn't getting 2-stops better than someone shooting with MFT f/2.8 lenses or primes.

That just makes the difference even greater.

To get "equivalent" t-stop on MFT against FF you need a faster, costlier lens.

It doesn't change the math that FF captures 4x the light over MFT.

Not really, plenty of relatively inexpensive primes available like the 14mm f/2.5, 20mm f/1.7, 25mm f/1.7, 19/30/60mm f/2.8. Again you are ignoring the lens part of the equation in making comparisons.

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Doug Janis wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

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".

Don’t get into t-stops.
Most FF lenses have superior ratings over MFT.
And “sensor efficiency” another FF advantage.
The FF advantage is absolute. It’s 2-stops, superior DR, larger shooting envelope from shallow DOF to diffraction limit, and correspondingly larger creative envelope.
The professional market has spoken.

Doug,

One might wonder who on the M4/3 forum truly cares whether the professionals have spoken, or any other twiddle bit that makes FF sensor bodies so exciting.

I wonder why we all should be contemplating our navels whilst we get lectured on the disaster the M4/3 seems to be.

If professionals had spoken through the dslr body it would always have been Canon 1D (Whatever it happened to be at the time - or its NIkon equivalent) and yet quite big slab of actual dslr users could not give a proverbial damn and used aps-c sensored dslr bodies without the snow melting their boots. In fact they were sublimely happy to use the aps-c sensor for the extra reach it gave their FF capable lenses with the crop sensor. Nor did they seem to particularly care to necessarily use EF-S lenses for a tiny size/weight improvements and resolutely mostly continued to use full size lenses without any senses of shame in doing so.

IBIS? What is IBIS? Real pros use don’t need that - they use lens IS with their 1D whatever.

FF has become “a fashion” where its undoubted benefits are touted like totally bald heads save on the expense of a comb. But owners of hair simply put up with the bother of of combing them. They don’t care ....

The FF phenomenon is the short back and sides gone mad - cut it all off, polish it all up and make mine FF like the rest of the mob - and the manufacturers lap it up. Cannot blame them for making/cutting for the new fashion. (My apologies to those who choose that hair style - but in the swinging sixties it wasn’t cool to see fully see your ears - fashions change).

So why is it necessary to pander to the sensor-size cringe? Because it is an argument that FF sensor proponents must always win and get the continued satisfaction of proving it.

M4/3 cameras, aps-c sensor, FF sensor, are all camera systems which people use and get enjoyment out of using - I don’t really see why it is so important to continually have to “prove” what is the best one.

But I think that this might just be the “photography condition” - a sort of disease that afflicts someone just as soon as an image making device is thrust into their hands - it manifests itself in the form of an intense longing to buy something that is better than the actual gear held in the hands - repeat.

In the remote possibility that if we are happy with what we have, it seems that we have to defend our choices against all sort of “logical arguments” That somehow our lives are diminished because it all has been a mistake ....

Then of course we are told that the schoolmaster really likes M4/3 gear, has loads of it, and all the lectures are only to “set the record straight”?

FF is just the dominant format from the last 80 years reasserting itself as sensor manufacturing scales up.

It's the most bang for the buck.

Th FF sensor *always* wins at absolute light-gathering. We NEVER used to have this discussion with film. 120 shooters *always* gathered more usable photons and translated that into a superior image.

Somehow in digital, first in on smaller sensors try to use the inter web to justify their purchase against the facts. It made sense when smaller sensors were cheaper and delivered decent IQ, but that decent IQ was replicated by smartphone sensors so bye-bye P&S market, and larger sensors got cheaper.

It's a very recent phenomenon that people in photography would argue that their smaller format could capture "equivalent" to larger formats, against physics!

In film era 135 stalwarts would point out they had far more portable lenses and much cheaper processing, but none (NONE) would argue "equivalence". They knew it didn't exist on the capture medium.

That these arguments persist discredits the MFT forums members. As FF marches up in IQ and down in price it puts smaller sensors into the box as having to be discount formats based on sensor size. There might be a light premium for marginal compactness now that errorless is everywhere (sorry Pentax).

MFT lost the equivalence war. It's a rout. Panasonic went FF and Olympus cannot stay in their 84 year business. Arguing "enjoyment" isn't the same as arguing market fundamentals.

MFT users can get excellent photos. But FF can get superior ones at almost the same price. So either MFT has to price down to match the inferior output or go away as a format, maybe lingering as a video sensor only.

Dozens of formats have come and gone and MFT is no sacred cow. Olympus bet their biz on one format (except for Tough).........and lost.

If people really want MFT to succeed they need to accept that their format delivers lower IQ and take their "good enough" argument to the manufacturers and demand lower prices reflecting that reality. Failure to do so based on the economics will mean you may in the future have only FF to choose from, or maybe some dumbed-down APS-C like the Z50. All true hobbyist gear will be FF or larger format, as it was in film era (APS and 110 being failures).

Doug Janis wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Doug Janis wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

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".

Don’t get into t-stops.
Most FF lenses have superior ratings over MFT.
And “sensor efficiency” another FF advantage.
The FF advantage is absolute. It’s 2-stops, superior DR, larger shooting envelope from shallow DOF to diffraction limit, and correspondingly larger creative envelope.
The professional market has spoken.

Doug,

One might wonder who on the M4/3 forum truly cares whether the professionals have spoken, or any other twiddle bit that makes FF sensor bodies so exciting.

I wonder why we all should be contemplating our navels whilst we get lectured on the disaster the M4/3 seems to be.

If professionals had spoken through the dslr body it would always have been Canon 1D (Whatever it happened to be at the time - or its NIkon equivalent) and yet quite big slab of actual dslr users could not give a proverbial damn and used aps-c sensored dslr bodies without the snow melting their boots. In fact they were sublimely happy to use the aps-c sensor for the extra reach it gave their FF capable lenses with the crop sensor. Nor did they seem to particularly care to necessarily use EF-S lenses for a tiny size/weight improvements and resolutely mostly continued to use full size lenses without any senses of shame in doing so.

IBIS? What is IBIS? Real pros use don’t need that - they use lens IS with their 1D whatever.

FF has become “a fashion” where its undoubted benefits are touted like totally bald heads save on the expense of a comb. But owners of hair simply put up with the bother of of combing them. They don’t care ....

The FF phenomenon is the short back and sides gone mad - cut it all off, polish it all up and make mine FF like the rest of the mob - and the manufacturers lap it up. Cannot blame them for making/cutting for the new fashion. (My apologies to those who choose that hair style - but in the swinging sixties it wasn’t cool to see fully see your ears - fashions change).

So why is it necessary to pander to the sensor-size cringe? Because it is an argument that FF sensor proponents must always win and get the continued satisfaction of proving it.

M4/3 cameras, aps-c sensor, FF sensor, are all camera systems which people use and get enjoyment out of using - I don’t really see why it is so important to continually have to “prove” what is the best one.

But I think that this might just be the “photography condition” - a sort of disease that afflicts someone just as soon as an image making device is thrust into their hands - it manifests itself in the form of an intense longing to buy something that is better than the actual gear held in the hands - repeat.

In the remote possibility that if we are happy with what we have, it seems that we have to defend our choices against all sort of “logical arguments” That somehow our lives are diminished because it all has been a mistake ....

Then of course we are told that the schoolmaster really likes M4/3 gear, has loads of it, and all the lectures are only to “set the record straight”?

FF is just the dominant format from the last 80 years reasserting itself as sensor manufacturing scales up.

It's the most bang for the buck.

Th FF sensor *always* wins at absolute light-gathering. We NEVER used to have this discussion with film. 120 shooters *always* gathered more usable photons and translated that into a superior image.

Somehow in digital, first in on smaller sensors try to use the inter web to justify their purchase against the facts. It made sense when smaller sensors were cheaper and delivered decent IQ, but that decent IQ was replicated by smartphone sensors so bye-bye P&S market, and larger sensors got cheaper.

It's a very recent phenomenon that people in photography would argue that their smaller format could capture "equivalent" to larger formats, against physics!

In film era 135 stalwarts would point out they had far more portable lenses and much cheaper processing, but none (NONE) would argue "equivalence". They knew it didn't exist on the capture medium.

That these arguments persist discredits the MFT forums members. As FF marches up in IQ and down in price it puts smaller sensors into the box as having to be discount formats based on sensor size. There might be a light premium for marginal compactness now that errorless is everywhere (sorry Pentax).

MFT lost the equivalence war. It's a rout. Panasonic went FF and Olympus cannot stay in their 84 year business. Arguing "enjoyment" isn't the same as arguing market fundamentals.

MFT users can get excellent photos. But FF can get superior ones at almost the same price. So either MFT has to price down to match the inferior output or go away as a format, maybe lingering as a video sensor only.

Dozens of formats have come and gone and MFT is no sacred cow. Olympus bet their biz on one format (except for Tough).........and lost.

If people really want MFT to succeed they need to accept that their format delivers lower IQ and take their "good enough" argument to the manufacturers and demand lower prices reflecting that reality. Failure to do so based on the economics will mean you may in the future have only FF to choose from, or maybe some dumbed-down APS-C like the Z50. All true hobbyist gear will be FF or larger format, as it was in film era (APS and 110 being failures).

I’m still not sure I understand what you are saying. Could you say it again with more paragraphs please?

JakeJY wrote:

Doug Janis wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

Missing my point here, just stating the amount of light captured is a factor of many variables. The lens playing a big part which you missed. You have to be shooting lenses at the same T-stop for there to be an advantage, whereas they may be the same if you use "equivalent" lenses. Can't just look only at the sensor.

For example back then the people buying the popular A7 II 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 kit isn't getting 2-stops better than someone shooting with MFT f/2.8 lenses or primes.

That just makes the difference even greater.

To get "equivalent" t-stop on MFT against FF you need a faster, costlier lens.

It doesn't change the math that FF captures 4x the light over MFT.

Not really, plenty of relatively inexpensive primes available like the 14mm f/2.5, 20mm f/1.7, 25mm f/1.7, 19/30/60mm f/2.8. Again you are ignoring the lens part of the equation in making comparisons.

Compare t-stops for FF vs MFT and MFT will lose almost all the time.

By design it's MUCH easier to get a higher t-stop value for a larger optic.

It's also cheaper.

Read Falk Lumo.

Doug Janis wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

Doug Janis wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

Missing my point here, just stating the amount of light captured is a factor of many variables. The lens playing a big part which you missed. You have to be shooting lenses at the same T-stop for there to be an advantage, whereas they may be the same if you use "equivalent" lenses. Can't just look only at the sensor.

For example back then the people buying the popular A7 II 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 kit isn't getting 2-stops better than someone shooting with MFT f/2.8 lenses or primes.

That just makes the difference even greater.

To get "equivalent" t-stop on MFT against FF you need a faster, costlier lens.

It doesn't change the math that FF captures 4x the light over MFT.

Not really, plenty of relatively inexpensive primes available like the 14mm f/2.5, 20mm f/1.7, 25mm f/1.7, 19/30/60mm f/2.8. Again you are ignoring the lens part of the equation in making comparisons.

Compare t-stops for FF vs MFT and MFT will lose almost all the time.

By design it's MUCH easier to get a higher t-stop value for a larger optic.

It's also cheaper.

Read Falk Lumo.

Are you a full frame missionary? What is your drive here?

Will you not rest until the m4/3 masses capitulate and acknowledge that they were foolish to have m4/3 kit?

Are you like a hyper-vigilant error seeking robot on a quest to correct every single wrong statement you see in the forum?

Are you on a quest to see how many ways you can say the same things again to an audience who is tired of hearing from you?

Maybe you have the goal of being the number one blocked person in the forum?

BluenoseNS wrote:

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.

How many comments about a Pen F2 or ep6 exist on various forums? Olympus kept churning out epl bodies which are well and good, but they apparently are really for the Japanese market and have the lowest features.

Fuji seems to have embraced this style and people know if they want such a look that Fuji has it in multiple models, and also with DSLR style as well.

It is difficult to try to be everything to everyone, and if you are a tiny player, I think it is better to focus on one style message for the consumer.

This seems to make sense but the opposite seems just as reasonable. If you only have a small niche you might not want to bet all your chips on one particular style, for if that style fails you go under completely.

Maybe this would have made zero difference, and I think the time to do it should have been the moment they got the good 16mp sensor upgrade from the 12mp— no more epl models with minimal dials— epls, ep’s, omd’s all retro looking with blatant dials etc

Im not convinced it isn't just down to sensor size, Fuji is only 1 stop removed from the most popular and glamorized FF format, while MFT is two away. We of course know that doesn't matter much but to a layman, it might sway them away from MFT.

Panasonic has been able to ride the videocentric niche for a while and perhaps that's why they have seemed more successful in MFT. Either way, im hoping this new company can take Olympus farther than Olympus could, and that's very possible.

This seems to make sense but the opposite seems just as reasonable. If you only have a small niche you might not want to bet all your chips on one particular style, for if that style fails you go under completely

this is a good point and may very well be correct. Unlike others her I don’t pretend to completely understand the economics and marketing involved.

My thinking was more in lines of a stereotypical American business style of confronting your competition directly and quickly and winning or dying and not drawing things out half heartedly.