Who to blame for Olympus...

[JakeJY]

The market is tough but

t this is argument is pretty absurd

here’s a much more reasonable argument and insight

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/2020-mirrorless-camera/so-why-did-olympus-fail.html

That's still blind speculation as there are no sales figures to support the arguments. How many of each model did they sell? Which models were profitable and which were not? With current sale to JIP perhaps we will find out (see which models they cut).

It's suggesting a 4/3" compact would have saved the day, but compacts were the ones that lost the most sales in the camera market. Also it even pointed out when Olympus was exclusively selling smaller M43 cameras, the sales were plateaued and started dropping. They were also losing money during that time (only FY2010 had a modest profit of 1.89%). That contradicts the notion that small cameras would have saved the day. From the outside, the only two camera releases that coincided with profits was the E-M5 II and the "overpriced" E-M1 II.

The GM series seemed instructive that people weren't going to pay a premium for smaller cameras.

 

[Droster]

My point was build and MARKET where the largest group people of potential buyers are. There are not enough pros nor enthusiasts out there buying cameras to sustain a camera company if you market only for them. Sure have some high tech, high dollar cameras, but also build and market where most of the potential buyers are - small, simple, good. Going head to head with the Canons, Nikons, and Sonys with a high dollar, high tech camera with a smaller m4/3 sensor is "swimming against the current" anyway. Based upon the ads, I'd feel I had an inferior camera if I chose less than a flagship model.

Yeah, most of my family uses phones, but they sure as heck are not going to spend $1500 or so on a camera and maybe another $1000 on a couple of lenses, and why should they? - and then send a BUNCH of time learning how to use them when a phone is so easy. Photography became elitist. If you want to sell cameras, you have to compete - even against phones.

Peace.

John

That’s the reality of the situation. The camera is something else we have to carry. The phone, something that we already have, is good enough.

You’re not going to convince the average person who thinks what they have is good enough to pick up a camera, much in a similar fashion, m43 is good enough for some and it’s nigh impossible to convince to get a larger format, same for convincing APS-C like Fujifilm users to get full frame and full frame to medium format.

That’s not to say photography and cameras are dead. The eventual fate of cameras is becoming tools to accomplish specific tasks. Tasks that will still be done in the future by photographers like sports and weddings. And of course video.

You’re right. In that regard it has become elitist. We’ll see cameras designed for those different professional fields and then with a few lower tier cameras to feed people who want to try out photography into their system. We’ll see cameras designed with video first.

The rest of us will just have to settle for those cameras.

 

[Donald B]

No one is to blame. I was in a camera store yesterday having a look at some Sony ef lens and all the sales team shot Olympus even for there pro work. I came out of the shop not buying a new lens because my em12 and a few oly primes cover the look I’m after. Great having a play, but the truth is the em12 is a classy piece of kit for most people.

Don

 

[TOCM]

The market is tough but

t this is argument is pretty absurd

here’s a much more reasonable argument and insight

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/2020-mirrorless-camera/so-why-did-olympus-fail.html

Yep, I totally relate to his insight.

My main system at the time was and still is Nikon. I wanted a small RF style camera on the side and EM5 fit the bill then. After that, it went with how Thom had described.

I just wanted a second system, small (RF style) and relatively cheap. I have no need for it to compete with my main system. When things get more expensive and you get nothing substantial back for it, I quickly lost my interest to invest more money in m43 system.

"The thinking that 6.5 stops of IS is going to sell more systems than 5 stops of IS is another."

This is the exact same mentality of some of the posters here.

Someone just tried to use that as a point yesterday against my Z6! -Like having 7 stops is great but 5 stops isn't shabby, but to him it was!

They have no one to blame, but themselves.

Yeah exactly. Someone made an argument how the price justified the improvements, then he sums up bunch of points like quick menu, starry sky, 1 extra stop of IBIS (what you just mentioned, 6.5 instead 5.5 oh wow), build in ND and what not. All got nothing to do with IQ.

That with ND I can see some merit but I have high quality ND filters, and I think it's much better then software based.

 

[april fox]

boring as

 

[Lepewhi]

I have seen these threads and thought that this was speculation, not facts, but now I'm wondering if it isn't true. I don't have an Oly, I have 2 Panas. If Oly goes down, Pana is probably right down the street. Could it be that people are getting interested in FF cameras? I know that the phone cameras have bitten into camera sales, and some of them take decent pictures, not mine. It would be sad to see Oly go out of business, if it's true.

 

[absoluutbeginner]

No one is to blame. I was in a camera store yesterday having a look at some Sony ef lens and all the sales team shot Olympus even for there pro work. I came out of the shop not buying a new lens because my em12 and a few oly primes cover the look I’m after. Great having a play, but the truth is the em12 is a classy piece of kit for most people.

Don

I think on promotion they have made some mistakes ...too less hands on and only on restricted places.

The amount of places where these cameras are sold ..... not on the big electronics consumer stores but only at camera stores available.

Next is that low pricing of Canon ...and availability (every store) is a huge issue ..... it is overfeeding al public with one brand , pushes Olympus aggressively out of the market.

The last item is m4/3 is not known enough by the public ....and thats the fault of both Oly and Pana ......they sould have teamed up for promotion of the size .... !

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

The market is tough but

t this is argument is pretty absurd

here’s a much more reasonable argument and insight

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/2020-mirrorless-camera/so-why-did-olympus-fail.html

i got out of 4/3rds when they introduced the E3 and another version of the 50-200mm, i scratched my head and thought they are not going where i want them to, so i bought Nikon and the difference was night and day, a couple of years later i bought a E600 as i wanted some small for travelling, the camera was brilliant to use and the handling great....the sensor was terrible, i sold it within 6 months due to the crappy sensor, it feels as Oly just repeated the same mistakes that led to 4/3rds finishing, nice cameras but the actual company is terrible

 

[j tokarz]

1000 euro for your phone. Still using my LG3 which cost 150GBP. Does everything i want.

 

[j tokarz]

Managers are to blame, they always have, they always will be. They are paid big bucks to do well, in this case they wern't too clever. They (managers) were also embroiled in a scandal recently. I feel sorry for all the workers.

 

[Chris Mak]

First it was compact cameras that took the hit, and now the small 2x crop 4/3 sensor has taken the hit.

Olympus took a huge gamble in 2003, when they started a digital camera/lens line from scratch and chose the 4/3 sensor. I used the Zuiko SHG lenses for years, exclusively for the superb lenses, but always felt the lenses were a whole lot better than the available cameras like the E3 and E5. I vividly remember the eleborate Olympus stories on why the 4/3 sensor was thé ideal sensor format for the digital camera. :-(

Olympus did not do well, and was temporarily saved by (finally) sourcing a decent Sony sensor and switching to mirrorless with the EM-5. But when Sony hit the market with mirrorless FF, you could see that Olympus' gamble on a small sensor in a time when cmos sensors were still very expensive, was finally going to backfire on them.

Olympus should have made the jump to FF when they still could, Panasonic was very late but did, Pentax was late but also finally made the jump. Olympus stuck with the 4/3 sensor and unfortunately went under with it. The few that actually preferred the small sensor could not save them.

 

[Kristoff_EM5]

It's been discussed to death on these boards since the announcement, but my view is the Olympus clearly had the wrong strategy.

They should have produced cameras with the following features:

• Small - with optional grips to make more comfortable with longer lenses
• Weather sealed across the range - make that an Olympus brand standout feature
• Weather sealed f1.8 primes and kit zooms
• Have the best video in the business. m43 sensors and IBIS is a great starting point, add top notch preamps, in camera audio monitoring and easy to use video controls to become the vloggers choice of camera brand
• make cool lifestyle cameras like a new Pen -F
• Pack the camera with fancy tech (HHHR, AI focus tracking etc...)

My summary is, the sensor is the sensor, you arn't going to design a new one, so stop chasing full frame sales and work on the easy to do stuff, the software, the processors, the weather sealing. No other brand has that offering.

The EM1X was a joke of a camera and showed Olympus had lost the plot. It was marketed as an alternative to full frame for pro birders and sports shooters? The latter being a particularly daft strategy as indoors at fast shutter speeds is where the micro 4/3 sensor is at its most vulnerable. And how many pro birders do you know??

Their customers were telling them the above is what they wanted for years, but they didn't listen.

 

[AllFlawed]

Not Olympus.

In April 2020 there were only just under 300k ILCs shipped according to CIPA. Fewer in March, and maybe less in May too.

Look at the average prices of this stuff also and the idea that high end kit dominates which you would think from these forums is just not the case.

A few years ago Companies like Olympus were shipping near 200K ILCs a month by themselves.

The fact is Canon makes up between a third and half of ILCs sold so that brings the monthly numbers down to near 150K per month for everyone else.

No one can say if these numbers will come back close to what they were just a year ago or if this is where they were already going only getting there earlier than expected.

It will be very difficult to earn back what is spent on R&D for a new camera without huge markups with sales numbers so low.

So when people ask, why isn't Olympus designing a whole new camera at a time when sales for everyone are nonexistent, all I can do is shake my head. Maybe Canon can do it because of their market share, but for everyone else expect more new cameras that look like the old ones with FW updates and some marketing hype.

Samsung was criticized for leaving the camera industry even though they were the largest company in the industry with the deepest pockets. They also made their own sensors. But they were smart and made the right choice.

I can't blame Olympus for not taking a gamble that looks like it may never payoff. And honestly others, some big names, are going to follow or cut back drastically. Its not over folks.

 

[BurnImage]

It is really quite simple.

Back in about 2013, Olympus released the EM5.

It was a camera that people wanted to buy and it had a certain success. I bought one in preference to yet another DSLR after my D300 came to the end of its useful life for me.

Here in a very small package, coupled with the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100, I had a wonderful little compact camera in my hands that opened new doors for me thanks to the 5 stop IBIS.

It was the perfect companion for hiking and travel.

The image quality was very good compared to APSC. Remember FF was not for the masses back then.

Olympus produced a camera that I and many others whished to buy.

From then on the thrust seemed to drift towards making bigger cameras culminating in the EM1x and ever more big and weighty lenses. My Nikon Z14-30 weighs less than the 7-14 for example.

They did not produce a camera after the EM5i that I thought was a worthwhile upgrade for my photography. It is hard to tell the difference between a picture taken with an EM5 (2013) and a EM1X.

In other words they went in a direction, producing cameras and lenses that not many people, or more accuracy too few people, wanted to buy, hence the current 3% market share of ILC cameras.

In the end I kept the LX100 that I bought for work duties, but which turned out to be the perfect camera for casual photography and even some "serious" projects. A camera with a M43 sensore camera that fits almost into a pocket. It was the LX100 that decided me to sell my m43 gear.

Olympus failed because they produced products that too few people wanted to buy.

I agree with and it’s very sad. To me the strength of m43 was ultra compact yet high quality cost effective systems. I can also see the benefits for birders and wildlife folks at the ultra telephoto lens end.

That said, I finished a year long flirtation with Olympus towards the end of last year and went back to Nikon with a Z6. I just didn’t get the value proposition of Olympus pro orientated stuff over a FF equivalent.

Out of curiosity I’ve just popped onto Park Cameras (one of the biggest and most respected dealers in the UK) and priced up my current kit vs the equivalent in Olympus for both cost and weight. Plus all kit weather sealed.

The results are truly mind bendingly shocking!

OLYMPUS KIT

EM1-III with 12-40 2.8 Pro £2199 weight 504g plus 382g

7-14mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 534g

40-150mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 760g

25mm 1.2 Pro £1199 weight 410g

TOTAL SYSTEM COST £5596

TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2590g

NIKON KIT

Z6 with 24-70mm 4.0 and FTZ adapter £1199 weight 675g plus 500g

14-30mm 4.0 £959 weight 485g

70-300mm AF-P 4.5-5.6 £535 weight 680g

50mm 1.8S £429 weight 415g

TOTAL SYSTEM COST £3922

TOTAL SYSTEM WEIGHT 2755g

In equivalence terms the Nikon kits equals or betters the Olympus alternative.

And that’s why I think the Olympus approach of going “bigger and pro” has failed.

The Nikon Kit is all of 5% heavier but the Olympus kit is OVER 40% MORE EXPENSIVE
--
My Instagram

 

[Wigelii]

Personally I think Oly and m43 in general priced themselves out.

Ultimately sensor size determine your price. *Most* shooters aren't willing to pay equal or more for smaller sensor regardless of how well featured it is.

Quite a few of my FF friends are still saying what's the point of shooting m43? Might as well use a smartphone lol

Anyways m43 shooters will obviously disagree with what I said above, but that's the reality and thoughts of most non-m43 shooters shooting larger sensor.

So here we are.

Olympus is not the only to blame I think. The main reason why some people think the OMD are overpriced is because thousands of gear reviewers state that only image quality provided by FF is sufficient. And everybody believes them.

I don't say that FF image quality isnt better than m43 but I ask since many years "image quality not good enough? Not good enough for what?" And I have never got an answer.

DPreview does it to and the reviewers aren't even consequent. If you read their latest "best camera under 2000 dollars" review, than you read in the Olympus cons that image quality is not good enough but in the cons of the Pana equivalent the same argument is not in the cons.

By the way, I know several FFers who claim that m43 image quality isnt good enough but 2minutes later they are raving about the fantastic quality of a phone camera with a tiny sensor.

 

[Pbvascon2]

It is interesting to compare a somewhat similar situation of big company betting on downsizing with completely different outcome: the Nintendo Switch hybrid portable/home console. When it was lauched in 2017, I was skeptical that this would work because I though it couldn't compete against mobile phones in portable convenience and against the PS4/XBox/PC for stationary gaming. But the effective marketing campaign and game exclusives carved it's own niche and made it one of the most successful consoles launches.

I think this is what Olympus was trying to achieve with m43. More than sensor size, I am inclined to blame the outcome on marketing/management.

 

[aerondight]

Not Olympus.

Why not?

When I wanted to start photography, I seriously looked at the EM10 mkII. It was a smaller camera, but reviews of the sensor noted it was bad in low light. I looked at the EM5 mkII & GX-8 when I wanted something more from my a6000 - the GX-8 was much bigger and the Fujis felt/worked better than the EM5 mkII in store. The lenses for APS-C were better and comparably priced when I looked at them...

So the rhetorical question I have is, why didn't Olympus go APS-C?

Some (very!) quick thoughts:

- When Sigma and Panasonic joined the L mount, that should have been the final nail on the coffin to change direction. Olympus probably knew something was happening before the public did.

- Olympus having IBIS in all their camera bodies would be in direct competition against Sony & Fuji APS-C cameras without IBIS.

- Until the X-T4, neither Fuji nor Sony had fully articulating screens. Sony's 180 flippy screen doesn't fully count.

- Fix the AF-C, video, & menus and the E-M 5 could be a good seller. Lower the price a bit though....

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

- Olympus PEN possibly competes directly at Fuji's X-Ax, X-Ex, & maybe the X100x lines

- Olympus competes with Fuji on the reto look...

- Ignoring the 1x, Olympus line appears to be simpler than Fuji's (X-T4 & 3, XT-30, X-T200, X-PRO3, X-E3, X-A7 for ILC). In some ways, simpler than Sony (a6000 is still being sold....)

- Big question is lenses. Can they make lenses quick enough to cover the needs of users?

- Minor. I like the sound of E-M1a, E-M5a, E-M10a.

 

[s.seng]

One of the reasons why Oly failed because both Panny and Oly were just competing with each other and not with other manufacturers. Both companies duplicated the same lens line-up and two or three version of the same range lens. On top of that after the initial 5 years both concentrated on bigger and heaver cameras and more heavy exotic expensive lens which don't sell in volumes. In addition they also introduced incompatible AF/IS systems with began to restrict cross lens purchases.

As a Panny user from G1 to G80, I now find that no upgrade path available for me as the current models are too heavy. So now trying out Sony RX100M7.

Most m43 users initially joined from other systems for size/weight advantage and not for best quality money can buy. Now m43 has lost it's appeal for many loyal followers and wonder how long Panny will support this system. They have wisely got a foot in the FF camp.

Seng

 

[Dennis1972]

Personally I think Oly and m43 in general priced themselves out.

Ultimately sensor size determine your price. *Most* shooters aren't willing to pay equal or more for smaller sensor regardless of how well featured it is.

Quite a few of my FF friends are still saying what's the point of shooting m43? Might as well use a smartphone lol

Anyways m43 shooters will obviously disagree with what I said above, but that's the reality and thoughts of most non-m43 shooters shooting larger sensor.

So here we are.

Olympus is not the only to blame I think. The main reason why some people think the OMD are overpriced is because thousands of gear reviewers state that only image quality provided by FF is sufficient. And everybody believes them.

I don't say that FF image quality isnt better than m43 but I ask since many years "image quality not good enough? Not good enough for what?" And I have never got an answer.

What's good enough is highly subjective.

For example m43 is good enough for large prints viewed from a distance.

Personally I never print. I view my images on my 32" 4k screen. I like to zoom in and admire the wonderful and noise-free fine details. That's how I consume my digital images. Therefore FF is better for my purpose and m43 is not good enough.

Does that answer your question finally?

DPreview does it to and the reviewers aren't even consequent. If you read their latest "best camera under 2000 dollars" review, than you read in the Olympus cons that image quality is not good enough but in the cons of the Pana equivalent the same argument is not in the cons.

By the way, I know several FFers who claim that m43 image quality isnt good enough but 2minutes later they are raving about the fantastic quality of a phone camera with a tiny sensor.

Phone photo is meant to be viewed on a phone screen only. Therefore it's good enough for its intended purpose. Whereas photos that was taken with a dedicated camera system needs to be decent when viewed at 100% for me to be worthwhile, and m43 isn't quite up to that task for me.

YMMV

 

[s.seng]

Personally I think Oly and m43 in general priced themselves out.

Ultimately sensor size determine your price. *Most* shooters aren't willing to pay equal or more for smaller sensor regardless of how well featured it is.

Quite a few of my FF friends are still saying what's the point of shooting m43? Might as well use a smartphone lol

Anyways m43 shooters will obviously disagree with what I said above, but that's the reality and thoughts of most non-m43 shooters shooting larger sensor.

So here we are.

Olympus is not the only to blame I think. The main reason why some people think the OMD are overpriced is because thousands of gear reviewers state that only image quality provided by FF is sufficient. And everybody believes them.

I don't say that FF image quality isnt better than m43 but I ask since many years "image quality not good enough? Not good enough for what?" And I have never got an answer.

What's good enough is highly subjective.

For example m43 is good enough for large prints viewed from a distance.

Personally I never print. I view my images on my 32" 4k screen. I like to zoom in and admire on the wonderful and noise-free fine details. That's how I consume my digital images. Therefore FF is better for my purpose and m43 is not good enough.

Does that answer your question finally?

DPreview does it to and the reviewers aren't even consequent. If you read their latest "best camera under 2000 dollars" review, than you read in the Olympus cons that image quality is not good enough but in the cons of the Pana equivalent the same argument is not in the cons.

By the way, I know several FFers who claim that m43 image quality isnt good enough but 2minutes later they are raving about the fantastic quality of a phone camera with a tiny sensor.

Phone photo is meant to be viewed on a phone screen only. Therefore it's good enough for its intended purpose. Whereas photos that was taken with a dedicated camera system needs to be decent when viewed at 100% for me to be worthwhile, and m43 isn't quite up to that task for me.

YMMV

I disagree about phone photos. The reason the phone photos are popular has to with it's ease to upload in to social media, but these imported photos also in some cases end up on 32" 4k monitors and get criticised.

I do agree that 90% of SM contents are viewed in a phone.

So it must take a very long time to review a single photo as you analyse each pix in it. It's. you than me

Seng