Tedolph can save Olympus!

acfo wrote:

victorav wrote:

acfo wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

acfo wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

acfo wrote:

tedolf wrote:

victorav wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Now that the dust has settled with the Olympus spin off Tedolph freely gives his plan to Olympus. The plebeians here correctly asses that m4/3 is just not competitive with other larger formats unless it takes advantage of its reduced size potential. Right now this plays out in wildlife photography mostly. Others have noted that Fuji has carved out a niche even without any real advantage in the APS world probably due to the control layout. Leica (and now Nikon) play the retro card and that seems to succeed.

So, here is the plan: Olympus uses the old E-p5 body, takes out the flash and drops in the optical rangefinder from the Voigtlander Bessa rangefinders and makes three lenses with rangefinder cams on the back, the 17mm f/2.8, the 20mm f1.7 and a 42.5mm f1.7. In every other regard it is just the old e-p5 with the EVF accessory port.

Checks all the boxes: Retro, Rangefinder, Compact but still can use all the m4/3 lenses.

Done.

Tedolph

Maybe just stick an evf on the ep5.

They did. It was called the Pen F.

Then they stopped selling it.

Tedolph

Actually, that is a debunked rumor that Olympus stopped selling the Pen F. Olympus never stopped selling the Pen F.

It's not being promoted on OMDS marketing materials, so that's 'stopped selling' after a fashion. I suspect none have been manufactured for a good while, but there are still some in the distribution chain.

Olympus != OMDS

When OMDS took over, they removed the Pen-F from the Olympus online shop. Olympus never stopped selling the Pen-F.

OK. I suspect that they stopped making it some time ago, and whether you can get it or not depends on whether there are any left in the distribution chain where you are.

Yes, but that is a different matter. Here in Germany we expect 10 years of spare parts supply after the product has stopped being sold so the exact date is significant to us.

Well both Olympus and omds stopped selling it in Canada, and was market as discontinued.

Olympus and OMDS cannot have both stopped selling the Pen-F in Canada because they where not concurrently in charge of the sales process.

I can see that I wasn't clear. When the Olympus camera division was owned by Olympus corp, they marked the penf as not available (on the Canadian site). Soon after, retailers started listing it as discontinued, and only used model were available.

After the transfer to JIP the pen f remained discontinued. So maybe in certain regions, they were still selling it, but not everywhere.

Sorry the previous post was not clear.

You are pretty right Guy - I wonder if Henry Ford would approve? “You can have any shape camera body you like as long as it is rendered something like a dlsr”.

But I do think that there will always be a market for camera bodies with interchangeable lenses.

Just as soon as you put a mount system for interchangeable lenses on a mobile phone the whole mobile phone camera concept falls apart.

The phone camera is good for many things but depends entirely on being-there. And “bring there” means small, sleek, pocketable, rugged, and fully sealed so that gremlins cannot get at the sensor.

A mount system alone makes pocketing harder and no longer dust-gremlin proof.

But I will wear that digital systems cameras are running out of things to improve other than to pursue video as if this is the ultimate of all what those interested in photography secretly desire to do.

I will accept that video is an important branch of imaging but insist that it is just a branch that some decide is quite important. Nothing wrong with that, but the fact is that there are many, who are not eyes-riveted at a wonderful video future and are quite satisfied to mosey along with still-shooting.

If this still-shooting rump means anything then there comes a time when the camera in hand is quite good enough and future video improvement alone is just “a shrug”.

But where to then the camera body market? It is already happening when so many users decide to keep their present shutter squeeze for a while longer as “quite good enough”.

But camera companies have to change their business model - they are not going to be able to keep spinning out camera body updates which offer wonderful features and impossibly good sensors in future. The camera market has become used to the pace of change and seems to think that camera bodies will continue to offer huge improvements. My point is simply that they have identified video as the next frontier and that is good if video is our choice but some are content to settle in the pleasant plains of still photography rather than push on to videofornia, video improvements alone no longer cut the mustard.

But we all still buy lenses - no matter which type of photography we prefer.

Looking at other high tech innovations we can see that after a time the tech peaks. Then the market can either go for cheap disposable or a smaller volume of very high quality type that lasts effectively “forever” but is costly. We only need to look at the history of film cameras and we can see the cheap consumer models for everybody and the high quality expensive stuff was used forever, almost becoming a family heirloom.

Every family had their cheap family clicker and the best lifetime camera in a drawer for the time when only the best image might do.

The mobile phone camera is the cheap everyday camera that comes “free” with the “very essential” phone. We have some excellent ILC camera bodies about. I think that we will increasingly keep them longer and their replacement will be more from wearing out than because of some exciting new non-video improvement.

Guy Parsons wrote:

The truth appears to be that the larger more prosperous markets want less cameras but they want them in the shape of old 1960's SLRs - it's mostly nostalgia for the older generation.

Funny, Nikon just said they designed the Zfc to try to reach younger buyers.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Dennis wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

The truth appears to be that the larger more prosperous markets want less cameras but they want them in the shape of old 1960's SLRs - it's mostly nostalgia for the older generation.

Funny, Nikon just said they designed the Zfc to try to reach younger buyers.

- Dennis

Second childhood ….

-- hide signature --

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Dennis wrote:

Funny, Nikon just said they designed the Zfc to try to reach younger buyers.

- Dennis

Second childhood ….

I was actually surprised at the number of people I've seen say they can't wait to buy the Zfc because it's like <some_camera_they_owned>.

I just bought an X-T30 and one lens as a carry-everywhere camera. I was open to a couple other less retro models and didn't choose it specifically for the retro controls, but I've always liked the retro X models since I first tried an X-T1.

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

acfo wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

acfo wrote:

tedolf wrote:

victorav wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Now that the dust has settled with the Olympus spin off Tedolph freely gives his plan to Olympus. The plebeians here correctly asses that m4/3 is just not competitive with other larger formats unless it takes advantage of its reduced size potential. Right now this plays out in wildlife photography mostly. Others have noted that Fuji has carved out a niche even without any real advantage in the APS world probably due to the control layout. Leica (and now Nikon) play the retro card and that seems to succeed.

So, here is the plan: Olympus uses the old E-p5 body, takes out the flash and drops in the optical rangefinder from the Voigtlander Bessa rangefinders and makes three lenses with rangefinder cams on the back, the 17mm f/2.8, the 20mm f1.7 and a 42.5mm f1.7. In every other regard it is just the old e-p5 with the EVF accessory port.

Checks all the boxes: Retro, Rangefinder, Compact but still can use all the m4/3 lenses.

Done.

Tedolph

Maybe just stick an evf on the ep5.

They did. It was called the Pen F.

Then they stopped selling it.

Tedolph

Actually, that is a debunked rumor that Olympus stopped selling the Pen F. Olympus never stopped selling the Pen F.

Debunked? Where and when by who? Its discontinued - even they stopped selling it here new

Olympus was selling the Pen-F up to the takeover by OMDS on their online shop.

OMDS decided to stop selling the Pen-F for whatever reason they had. That may have been due to lack of stock, lack of capability to produce stock or maybe the upcoming ep7 or a mixture thereof.

It was a camera they said didn't meet expectations so it was on an end of line.  Which makes sense, the tech got older and older as time went by, losing some market competitiveness. And it had - for some reviewers and us, some issues out of the gate.

If it was due to lack of stock, the rumor that it wasn't a profitable venture would be debunked as well. However we have no way to tell.

That's not a rumor, that's something Olympus themselves said in an interview.

If you would push me to voice an opinion I'd say that if they were able to sell the existing production they would have met their business target.

I find that a faulty conclusion. You can cut off a line and just sell the remaining stock at a discounted price - which they did.   That doesn't mean in any shape or form necessarily they met their business target (which they didn't as they admitted).

victorav wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

victorav wrote:

Alexis D wrote:

red pencil wrote:

Alexis D wrote:

It should help to analyse why Fuji can continue releasing the XE1, 2, 3, and 4, and apparently doing well, compared to M43 equivalents, e.g. GX8, GX9... PEN F, PEN F 11, E-P7...

Bigger sensor makes people feel more comfortable with their purchase

Bigger sensor essentially the same size bodies. The X-E4, and also the X-S10, is also very small, about the same as the GX9 and PEN F. People feel more comfortable with purchasing brands that show more commitment and that have a clearer future. What M43 has is a lot of diehard fans.

The x-e4 is a very tempting camera, but not weather resistant (so weather resistant lenses don't matter) and no ibis. Ep7 basically the same size but has ibis. :/

But the X-E4 has vastly better AF and better image quality. It share the same image quality

As current fujin apsc, not gfx.

Yes and? You were talking about the X-E4 and that's what I am talking about. Why do you feel the need to invoke the GFX?

of the top of the line and same AF of the top of the line. I can't say that about the E-P7 as much as I like it.

You should read the first line: "very tempting" for the reasons you described.

I did read the "very tempting" - but what came after seemed to justify cons against, it so just mentioning some advantages it has over the EP7.

Ep7 issues the 20mp sensor, so current best sensor available in MFT cameras, not so much on the af side.

Yes.

While IBIS is nice to have. Better fast accurate AF is better.

Depends on what you shoot. Em10 mkiii af is mediocre at best, but I have yet to be in a situation where s-af fails me.

Doesn't change the X-e4 has a vastly better AF.

Every brand has diehard fans, but if you spend too much time in forums you'll think everyone who owns a particular brand is a die-hard fan.

No, not everyone.

That's my point...

Sorry, we are in agreement there then.

Guy Parsons wrote:

The truth appears to be that the larger more prosperous markets want less cameras but they want them in the shape of old 1960's SLRs - it's mostly nostalgia for the older generation.

The idea of the Pen Lite and Pens was nostalgia for a simpler compact body and seemingly aimed at upgraders coming up from compact cameras, or later hopefully transitioning from smartphones.

That upgrader and compact camera market vanished overnight as smartphones managed to get a bit smarter and deliver image quality that was good enough for the vast numbers of users.

So we are left with nobody much wanting that upgrader class of camera, and an ever more aging population of older users who like the old SLR look bodies. Now for the younger ones I see the rule seems to be "if it doesn't slide into the rear pocket of my jeans then it is not carried", so large, flat, awkward smartphones rule there.

Thus in my view in the short term any new non-SLR shaped cameras will have poor sales numbers, and even the SLR shaped cameras sales will suffer more in the slightly longer time-frame as the older users fade away. That plus of course that most cameras of any shape, made in the last say 5 or so years are good enough, so why change.

The "E-P7" looks like a last ditch attempt to satisfy the small number of users who like the screen only format and time will tell if they sell enough to make it worthwhile to continue that line. The writing on the wall was with the Pen-F and its "almost met sales expectations" status, so I guess they were very hesitant about further development in that area.

The EP7 is effectively a super EP10 or EP11. That's 3 models in a row (EP9/Ep10/EP7). So if this form factor wasn't meeting expectations they would have stopped at EP10 I would think?

I say "E-P7" as for me it still looks like it really is an E-PL11 that has front/rear dials plus a modified front knob borrowed from the Pen-F. No MySets or Custom Modes so is aimed somewhere lower in the market than some of us expected for an E-Px model.

It is indeed an "EP11" or sorts or super EP10. Shares some things from PenF.

You also have to ask if the PenF was a camera that wouldn't sell or if it didn't sell not because the core concept was a mistake, but the execution/implementation of it was.  I subscribe to the later.

tedolf wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Dennis wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

The truth appears to be that the larger more prosperous markets want less cameras but they want them in the shape of old 1960's SLRs - it's mostly nostalgia for the older generation.

Funny, Nikon just said they designed the Zfc to try to reach younger buyers.

- Dennis

Second childhood ….

And that indeed is the core of my proposal: basically a poor man's Leica M9 for everyone who ever wanted one but couldn't justify it, while still providing all the practical advantages of the m4/3 system. However, as someone upthread already said, wasn't that what the Pen F was supposed to do?

Well the PenF isn't a real range finder for one- and two, I'd say the PenF overall concept was right but the implementation was wrong.

A camera aimed at street but tilt screen, no PDAF, slower response in UI/settings that some competitors on release date, no weather seal, a bit of unnecessarily confusing UI (Ep7 has a notably better UI for the JPEG profiles), and knob that could get physically in the way, an external grip sold that completely destroyed (imho) its looks.

Picture that same camera with the UI for profiles of EP7, tilt LCD, fast CPU, PDAF AF, fast response, fast turn on/off.  I'd say it would have sold better.

Tedolph

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Dennis wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

The truth appears to be that the larger more prosperous markets want less cameras but they want them in the shape of old 1960's SLRs - it's mostly nostalgia for the older generation.

Funny, Nikon just said they designed the Zfc to try to reach younger buyers.

- Dennis

Second childhood ….

You mean second childhood of older people. The question is why Nikon is allegedly marketing to younger buyers. My guess is that in the world of digital, analog like is a novelty again.

See the resurgence of Polaroid and the outstanding success of Fuji Instax.

Raist3d wrote:

The EP7 is effectively a super EP10 or EP11. [E-PL10 or E-PL11]

Yes, they merged some available features into a Pen Lite body.

The name E-P7 follows from the missing E-P6, which in my uneducated guessing was probably the intended project name for what turned out to be the Pen-F. It seems like marketing got into the act (in my opinion) to turn what could have been an E-P6 into a Pen-F. All at a time when the form factor was losing ground to the mock SLR shaped bodies plus falling market overall, so the Pen-F sadly was doomed to "not quite meet sales expectations".

That's 3 models in a row (EP9/Ep10/EP7). [E-PL9/E-PL10/E-P7]. So if this form factor wasn't meeting expectations they would have stopped at EP10 [E-PL10] I would think?

Probably by the time they released the E-PL10 the E-PL11/E-P7 would have been already well on the way to a firm design, ever hopeful that the traditionally strong sales of the Pen Lite (in Asia at least) would carry on for a while. To simplify things in Pen-land then merging what they had into one model probably made sense to someone. It could very well be the last gasp of the Pens, I would love to be wrong though.

[Guy] I say "E-P7" as for me it still looks like it really is an E-PL11 that has front/rear dials plus a modified front knob borrowed from the Pen-F. No MySets or Custom Modes so is aimed somewhere lower in the market than some of us expected for an E-Px model.

It is indeed an "EP11" [E-PL11] or sorts or super EP10 [E-PL10] Shares some things from PenF.

You also have to ask if the PenF was a camera that wouldn't sell or if it didn't sell not because the core concept was a mistake, but the execution/implementation of it was. I subscribe to the later.

Timing was bad as the sales of cameras were falling faster than expected at release time. They maybe two years earlier froze the design and decided to manufacture and market it. The market moved downhill faster than they reckoned it would. That timing of course plus the camera was not quite a performance demon and left some disappointed (AF etc).

Aside: Sorry to be pedantic and keep inserting corrections to names above, Olympus went to the trouble of naming their lines so it's nice to stick to the real names. "E-" denotes system cameras, "P" denotes the Pen line with the brick shape, "L" denotes Pen Lite. The "Pen-F" name was some marketing strategy to hark back to famous days of their half frame film Pen-F and Pen-FT cameras.

acfo wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

If it was due to lack of stock, the rumor that it wasn't a profitable venture would be debunked as well. However we have no way to tell.

That's not a rumor, that's something Olympus themselves said in an interview.

"almost meet expectations" (interview) does not equal "not profitable" (rumor).

If it didn't meet expectations it wasn't profitable enough to continue - therefore not profitable.

The OP has asked me to stop this discussion which I will now do.

Ok.

Guy Parsons wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

The EP7 is effectively a super EP10 or EP11. [E-PL10 or E-PL11]

Yes, they merged some available features into a Pen Lite body.

The name E-P7 follows from the missing E-P6, which in my uneducated guessing was probably the intended project name for what turned out to be the Pen-F. It seems like marketing got into the act (in my opinion) to turn what could have been an E-P6 into a Pen-F. All at a time when the form factor was losing ground to the mock SLR shaped bodies plus falling market overall, so the Pen-F sadly was doomed to "not quite meet sales expectations".

That's 3 models in a row (EP9/Ep10/EP7). [E-PL9/E-PL10/E-P7]. So if this form factor wasn't meeting expectations they would have stopped at EP10 [E-PL10] I would think?

Probably by the time they released the E-PL10 the E-PL11/E-P7 would have been already well on the way to a firm design, ever hopeful that the traditionally strong sales of the Pen Lite (in Asia at least) would carry on for a while. To simplify things in Pen-land then merging what they had into one model probably made sense to someone. It could very well be the last gasp of the Pens, I would love to be wrong though.

If the EPL9/10 line was doing bad, there's no point to put out the EP7 *even if it was already designed* because that work is a sunk cost.

[Guy] I say "E-P7" as for me it still looks like it really is an E-PL11 that has front/rear dials plus a modified front knob borrowed from the Pen-F. No MySets or Custom Modes so is aimed somewhere lower in the market than some of us expected for an E-Px model.

It is indeed an "EP11" [E-PL11] or sorts or super EP10 [E-PL10] Shares some things from PenF.

You also have to ask if the PenF was a camera that wouldn't sell or if it didn't sell not because the core concept was a mistake, but the execution/implementation of it was. I subscribe to the later.

Timing was bad as the sales of cameras were falling faster than expected at release time.

I think the competition also got better. They should have waited for the next Turbo Pic.

They maybe two years earlier froze the design and decided to manufacture and market it. The market moved downhill faster than they reckoned it would. That timing of course plus the camera was not quite a performance demon and left some disappointed (AF etc).

Aside: Sorry to be pedantic and keep inserting corrections to names above, Olympus went to the trouble of naming their lines so it's nice to stick to the real names. "E-" denotes system cameras, "P" denotes the Pen line with the brick shape, "L" denotes Pen Lite. The "Pen-F" name was some marketing strategy to hark back to famous days of their half frame film Pen-F and Pen-FT cameras.

The EP7 is effectively in line more with EPL9/10, or somewhere between PenF and EPL10 (more EPL10 than PenF).

Grimstod wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

tedolf wrote:

red pencil wrote:

Alexis D wrote:

It should help to analyse why Fuji can continue releasing the XE1, 2, 3, and 4, and apparently doing well, compared to M43 equivalents, e.g. GX8, GX9... PEN F, PEN F 11, E-P7...

Bigger sensor makes people feel more comfortable with their purchase

Once you crop the image to fit most common print sizes, e.g. 5x7", 8x10", 8.5x11", 11x14", 16x20" an APS sensor is putting about the same number of pixels on print as a 4/3rds sensor. So effectively, the APS sensor is no bigger than the 4/3 sensor especially if it is Canon.

Not really

The highest resolution commercial mFT sensor is 20MP and 3888 pixels high. Most APS-C sensors are 24MP and 4000 pixels high, but there are also 26MP ones (Fujifilm) which are 4160 pixels high. The Canon 90d is 32.5MP and 4640 pixels high.

Any of those will put more pixels on the print than an mFT camera, especially if they are Canon (90D, at least).

In terms of sensor area, it is whatever is the long side and 13mm high for mFT, 14.8mm for Canon and 15.6mm for the rest. All will give a larger used sensor area than mFT.

Incorrect. Maybe even face news. The IMX492 is the highest and it is 44mp. It has been used in a number of both Comertial and proprietary cameras.

OK. By 'commercial mFT' I meant one included in an mFT general photographic camera. That was a bit of a mouthful, so I just said 'commercial'. Maybe a poor choice of word.