Who to blame for Olympus...

[justmeMN]

Olympus' camera division managed to lose money during the camera industry good times, before the downturn. That's on management.

 

[mcshan]

For my M4/3 tastes the cameras got too large. A lot changed from my E-PL1.

--
"Soylent Green is people!"

 

[mrwho27]

In my opinion, Olympus did not turn the disadvantage of a small sensor enough around and make it an advantage.

Yes, m43 sensors are smaller than APSC and FF and hence have less beneficial light gathering capabilities that show in low light situations.

But the sensor being smaller makes it also much easier to handle the sensor and its outputs.

Image stabilization, heat control and data management are easier than with bigger sensors.


So imo, they should have invested in these areas earlier. Some ideas below:

* Image stabilization: use it as a star tracker. Hand held high res is already going into the right direction

* Computational Photography. I feel that is where most improvements will come from. Improving noise patterns and bokeh capabilities that compensate for the physical limits of a smaller sensor.

But with smaller sensors, less CPU and cooling (= smaller bodies) would be needed.




Of course Olympus is a smaller camera manufacturer in comparison to others, so R&D budget might have been maxed out for what they have been doing already.

 

[Isabel Cutler]

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.

I've been shooting digital since the late 90's, starting with a Kodak DC120.

Of all the form factors I've used, including full frame (the Sony A7iii) I prefer and LOVE my micro43 equipment - Olympus more than Panasonic, both of which whose bodies I have. They continue to take great pictures no matter how old they are.

It's been hard to get used to full frame after so many years of crop sensor cameras. I really appreciate that 2X reach of micro43.

I recently got an EM1 iii and have had quite a time getting used to all its new and improved features, favorite of which is the improved stabilization, BUT, my two EM10 ii bodies remain my favorites. They are extraordinarily capable instruments for making beautiful images and I appreciate their simplicity.

Yesterday, I ordered two Olympus BLS 50 batteries and one BLH 1 so I can keep my cameras going as long as possible. I have one Olympus battery that's 11 years old and it's still working.

I'm too busy taking pictures to waste any time worrying about what's going on with Olympu's demise and the world situation. This is my only life and at 80 I'm not going to use any of it stressing over things I cannot change.

Isabel

 

[Gary from Seattle]

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

You could have chosen the EM-10 or EM-5

Nikon 24-70 F4, not Pro Grade

7-14mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 534g

Or Panasonic 7-14 F4 Olympus 9-18, or Panasonic 8-18, personally I use the 8mm FE@315g

40-150mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 760g

Very popular top of the line lens, but heavy for me. Sharp enough for a 2x

The 35-100 F2.8 by Panny was already out.

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

see above.

How is the weather sealing an optics on the following - you know customer reviews?

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

 

[Gary from Seattle]

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 agree, that is a jewell of a body. There is nothing it doesn't do well, and is nearly free of defect bodies. It is a steal at today's prices.

 

[AllFlawed]

Sorry Isabel. Was replying to the Dennis1972 and got in the wrong level.

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.

Olympus were falling over anyhow at the low cost end anyhow and I have just bought a G90 for £499 and it is the classiest camera I have ever owned. Absolutely love it. This haggle over relative quality is amongst people shelling out large amounts of money but for anyone wanting an affordable IBIS camera m43 is the only place. The fact that Nikon cannot produce a full frame camera and lens for less than in the region of £2,000 really makes it this an argument amongst rich boys and their toys.

The big problem with full frame is what it seems to do to the people who use it as they come over in such a competitive and pushy way in this forum. Very much a big SUV mentality if anything rather than any wish to be in a general each to their own photographic community. I think this is a bleed over from the heavy marketing of the 'full' format in a do or die push by the industry stoking up all this unpleasantness in a group mesmerised by the name and size.

Formatting lost not me: 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.

Reality? No your opinion. When people think their view is reality you know there is no real subjective open thought going on at all.

So here we are.

I've been shooting digital since the late 90's, starting with a Kodak DC120.

Of all the form factors I've used, including full frame (the Sony A7iii) I prefer and LOVE my micro43 equipment - Olympus more than Panasonic, both of which whose bodies I have. They continue to take great pictures no matter how old they are.

It's been hard to get used to full frame after so many years of crop sensor cameras. I really appreciate that 2X reach of micro43.

I recently got an EM1 iii and have had quite a time getting used to all its new and improved features, favorite of which is the improved stabilization, BUT, my two EM10 ii bodies remain my favorites. They are extraordinarily capable instruments for making beautiful images and I appreciate their simplicity.

Yesterday, I ordered two Olympus BLS 50 batteries and one BLH 1 so I can keep my cameras going as long as possible. I have one Olympus battery that's 11 years old and it's still working.

I'm too busy taking pictures to waste any time worrying about what's going on with Olympu's demise and the world situation. This is my only life and at 80 I'm not going to use any of it stressing over things I cannot change.

Isabel

 

[CharlesB58]

Olympus management and marketing are to blame for thinking that photographers would actually be smart enough to choose cameras based on more than sensor size. Whether beginner or advanced enthusiast, too many people only think in terms of sensor size, and after that AF performance, when deciding if the price of a camera is worth it. The funny part of that is I'd say 75% of photographers barely manage to take adequate advantage of what their sensor can do, and many would be just as well off with a smartphone.

the real issue is what you do when your size and price approaches the size of bigger sensor options - at that point what becomes a differentiator? Sensor size well of course - and no one can be really blamed at that but but Olympus

Also that geek over complex menu that many pride themselves in mastering - not the way to attract new customers

I think Thom’s analysis is pretty solid

I see the "sensor wars" as much the same as the VHS vs Betamax "war" of the early days of home video recorders. Betamax offered demonstrably better video and audio quality in a smaller package. But VHS offered more recording time. I sold TVs and VCRs at the time, and would show people the difference in how the same movie looked and sounded on betamax vs VHS. It seldom made a difference. People would ask "How many hours can I record on betamax?" Answer: 2. "How+ many hours with VHS?" Answer: 6. All the other advantages of betamax didn't compare to the idea that a person could record an entire week worth of their favorite soap opera on a single VHS cartridge.

Olympus was forward-thinking to a fault, foreseeing a day when milc 4/3 sensor cameras, with features such as computational photography and HHHR, would compete closely in IQ with FF for most situations. Unfortunately reaching that point had to deal with an overall downturn in camera sales that left too small a pie for Olympus to rely on for maintaining solvency and future development.

Then again, WHY play the blame game? Any business involves certain gambles. I don't know of any major manufacturer that hasn't had failure along with successes. Olympus will continue to thrive in the medical and industrial field, just as Konica Minolta did (as well as office equipment). Far more important than laying blame is seeing how people who appreciate Olympus m4/3 gear can influence JIP to keep the brand alive and continue to develop new products.

 

[CharlesB58]

Perhaps egos were stung by some people dismissing the early m4/3 cameras, and even the EM5, as "toys" that no professional would use? This is what happened when the OM series was introduced, and Olympus responded by hyping up what they viewed as professional capabilities in a small package. Some of their marketing hype even implied that some of the features of the big, professional flagships, were unnecessary. Yet Olympus still enlisted the endorsement of some pros who did use the OM system (even if it was not the only system they used).

The thing is, the OM series caught on so well in part because other 35mm slrs were either much larger and heavier, or didn't offer the features set the OM-1m and OM-2 offered. After a couple of years, though, the other manufacturers came out with their downsized alternatives and Olympus again found itself struggling to make a case for OM cameras. They did so by concentrating on features that more skilled photographers might want (like the multispot metering capability of the OM-4). They were late to the parade on autofocus.

Deciding to introduce a new sensor size and format may have been good for "old school" executives and engineers who lionized Maitani, but was short-sighted from a sales appeal and marketing standpoint. But it was also an Olympus tradition. Lightning didn't strike twice.

 

[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

You could have chosen the EM-10 or EM-5

Nikon 24-70 F4, not Pro Grade

7-14mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 534g

Or Panasonic 7-14 F4 Olympus 9-18, or Panasonic 8-18, personally I use the 8mm FE@315g

40-150mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 760g

Very popular top of the line lens, but heavy for me. Sharp enough for a 2x

The 35-100 F2.8 by Panny was already out.

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

see above.

How is the weather sealing an optics on the following - you know customer reviews?

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

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about “not pro grade”? Perhaps because the Oly has “pro” in the description and the Nikkor doesn’t?


Both are weather sealed. Many reviews of the Nikkor largely describe it as the best kit zoom of all time.

Many pros use it, it’s that good. In equivalence terms the Nikkor bests the Oly.

Let’s talk about the 50mm 1.8S whilst we are at it. Many reviews describe it as the best “nifty fifty” of ANY brand, ever. It’s also weather sealed.

It’ll smoke the 25mm Oly Pro out out of the park, especially given it’s mounted on a superior sensor. For way less than half the cost.

I actually bought mine on sale for £349. About one third the cost of the Oly!

Refer back to the post I made, detailing system costs and comparison weights. Show that to anyone who is investing in a new system.

Then show me anyone, aside from an Oly fan, who would pay over 40% more for the Oly kit over the Nikon?

Delusional!

--
My Instagram

 

[hikerdoc]

People don't buy cameras based on reviews. It is not the reviewers who cursed Olympus. People read reviews because they want to see positive comments on the gear they have already purchased. Reviews are considered valid only if they agree with one's preferences. Negative reviews are generally seen as flawed or biased by those who have already purchased the equipment. Read the positive closing statement on DPR review of the latest Olympus and explain how that is steering people in another direction:

"We can have a discussion about how much the E-M1 III 'should cost' only if you can name another camera that offers a comparable combination of excellent IS, video AF performance, shutter life, weather sealing, usable high-res mode and shooting rate."

 

[Gary from Seattle]

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

You could have chosen the EM-10 or EM-5

Nikon 24-70 F4, not Pro Grade

7-14mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 534g

Or Panasonic 7-14 F4 Olympus 9-18, or Panasonic 8-18, personally I use the 8mm FE@315g

40-150mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 760g

Very popular top of the line lens, but heavy for me. Sharp enough for a 2x

The 35-100 F2.8 by Panny was already out.

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

see above.

How is the weather sealing an optics on the following - you know customer reviews?

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

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about “not pro grade”? Perhaps because the Oly has “pro” in the description and the Nikkor doesn’t?

Both are weather sealed. Many reviews of the Nikkor largely describe it as the best kit zoom of all time.

It looks like "kit zoom" is the operative word. But apparently about 1/2 of B&H customers do not. And they state their reasons.

Many pros use it, it’s that good. In equivalence terms the Nikkor bests the Oly.

Equivalence is BS. A zoom has advantage in out door use; in that realm you will not be shooting a small aperture. Not if focus matters to you. In m4/3 I seldom shoot wider than 5.6 because I'll miss focus on a good number of shots. In fact F7.1 is the sweet spot after 6 years with the 12-40. In m4/3 you lose very little in IQ up to that aperture, and even F8 is not really noticeable. My rating of the 12-40 5*. The snap ring itself has great value as most of the time I will use MF to know assuredly that I have DOF.

Refer back to the post I made, detailing system costs and comparison weights. Show that to anyone who is investing in a new system.

Or just show the consistent results I (and others) get with the Olympus/Panny.

Then show me anyone, aside from......

Delusional!

Yes you are, interesting signature.

 

[Gary from Seattle]

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.

Wasn't that in about 2011, a decade ago?

 

[Gary from Seattle]

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.

Like Petr Bambousek, or most on this forum?

 

[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

You could have chosen the EM-10 or EM-5

Nikon 24-70 F4, not Pro Grade

7-14mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 534g

Or Panasonic 7-14 F4 Olympus 9-18, or Panasonic 8-18, personally I use the 8mm FE@315g

40-150mm 2.8 Pro £1099 weight 760g

Very popular top of the line lens, but heavy for me. Sharp enough for a 2x

The 35-100 F2.8 by Panny was already out.

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

see above.

How is the weather sealing an optics on the following - you know customer reviews?

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

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about “not pro grade”? Perhaps because the Oly has “pro” in the description and the Nikkor doesn’t?

Both are weather sealed. Many reviews of the Nikkor largely describe it as the best kit zoom of all time.

It looks like "kit zoom" is the operative word. But apparently about 1/2 of B&H customers do not. And they state their reasons.

Many pros use it, it’s that good. In equivalence terms the Nikkor bests the Oly.

Equivalence is BS. A zoom has advantage in out door use; in that realm you will not be shooting a small aperture. Not if focus matters to you. In m4/3 I seldom shoot wider than 5.6 because I'll miss focus on a good number of shots. In fact F7.1 is the sweet spot after 6 years with the 12-40. In m4/3 you lose very little in IQ up to that aperture, and even F8 is not really noticeable. My rating of the 12-40 5*. The snap ring itself has great value as most of the time I will use MF to know assuredly that I have DOF.

Refer back to the post I made, detailing system costs and comparison weights. Show that to anyone who is investing in a new system.

Or just show the consistent results I (and others) get with the Olympus/Panny.

Then show me anyone, aside from......

Delusional!

Yes you are, interesting signature.

Im not going to argue with you. You clearly have set views. Which is fine. Carry on paying 40% more for a lesser system that only weighs 5% less if you want to. Any neutral reading this, once they strip out brand emotion, will see the futility of your argument. It simply doesn’t stack up. Not even close. But I wish you well. This is why Olympus failed.

--
My Instagram

 

[JakeJY]

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.

Sorry, don't by the argument FF would have saved the day. It would have cost Olympus much more money to switch, and those that even released a very decent lineup (like the Nikon Z lineup you have) have seen poor sales.

 

[Skeeterbytes]

Im not going to argue with you. You clearly have set views. Which is fine. Carry on paying 40% more for a lesser system that only weighs 5% less if you want to. Any neutral reading this, once they strip out brand emotion, will see the futility of your argument. It simply doesn’t stack up. Not even close. But I wish you well. This is why Olympus failed.

40% of statistics are made up.

 

[BurnImage]

Im not going to argue with you. You clearly have set views. Which is fine. Carry on paying 40% more for a lesser system that only weighs 5% less if you want to. Any neutral reading this, once they strip out brand emotion, will see the futility of your argument. It simply doesn’t stack up. Not even close. But I wish you well. This is why Olympus failed.

40% of statistics are made up.

And the 40% I gave came from prices from the leading UK retailer today.

Hard facts, hard cash. No spin. No statistics.

Are you really that entrenched in Olympus worship not to see that?

You really wanna spend 40% more on an Oly system over a Nikon FF eqivalent system for a 5% weight advantage? Or advise somebody else to do so?



Seriously ? I mean really seriously?

 

[Raist3d]

Olympus management and marketing are to blame for thinking that photographers would actually be smart enough to choose cameras based on more than sensor size. Whether beginner or advanced enthusiast, too many people only think in terms of sensor size, and after that AF performance, when deciding if the price of a camera is worth it. The funny part of that is I'd say 75% of photographers barely manage to take adequate advantage of what their sensor can do, and many would be just as well off with a smartphone.

the real issue is what you do when your size and price approaches the size of bigger sensor options - at that point what becomes a differentiator? Sensor size well of course - and no one can be really blamed at that but but Olympus

Also that geek over complex menu that many pride themselves in mastering - not the way to attract new customers

I think Thom’s analysis is pretty solid

I see the "sensor wars" as much the same as the VHS vs Betamax "war" of the early days of home video recorders. Betamax offered demonstrably better video and audio quality in a smaller package.

yes it was also demonstrably kore expensive and proprietary but the analogy doesn’t apply because it’s the FF sensor and not the other way around, the one that has the higher image quality - ditto for apsc

But VHS offered more recording time. I sold TVs and VCRs at the time, and would show people the difference in how the same movie looked and sounded on betamax vs VHS. It seldom made a difference. People would ask "How many hours can I record on betamax?" Answer: 2. "How+ many hours with VHS?" Answer: 6. All the other advantages of betamax didn't compare to the idea that a person could record an entire week worth of their favorite soap opera on a single VHS cartridge.

I don’t understand how your analogy applies it would only if m43 had the higher image quality as a sensor but it does not and Betamax had other issues

Olympus was forward-thinking to a fault, foreseeing a day when milc 4/3 sensor cameras, with features such as computational photography and HHHR, would compete closely in IQ with FF for most situations.

No it wasn’t The 4/3 sensor was decided from 4/3 era one key reason back then was cost - you get better yields ratio with a smaller sensor particularly back then
High resolution was not done first as a concept by them either not hand held enhancements and you have to be careful with movement and even medium format has sensor shift for higher resolution techniques

and computational photography on phones predates whatever Olympus was trying to do - which applies to all cameras

Unfortunately reaching that point had to deal with an overall downturn in camera sales that left too small a pie for Olympus to rely on for maintaining solvency and future development.

thisnisnt the only reason that things got tough nits certainly a key one but not the only key one

Then again, WHY play the blame game?

ask that to the OP

Any business involves certain gambles. I don't know of any major manufacturer that hasn't had failure along with successes.

true but you make it sound like there weren’t signs of going the wrong direction

Olympus will continue to thrive in the medical and industrial field, just as Konica Minolta did (as well as office equipment).

Well sure non fact Olympus medical is doing quite well Divesting from Imaging is a step to be even more profitable

Far more important than laying blame is seeing how people who appreciate Olympus m4/3 gear can influence JIP to keep the brand alive and continue to develop new products.

again - ask the OP

But imho I think it’s important to see what and how it happened if only kit to make the same mistake again I guess Olympus didn’t quite learn it’s lessons from 4/3 days

 

[Raist3d]

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).

theres plenty of data out there to know the em1x isn’t a hit seller, the em5 first sold well

It's suggesting a 4/3" compact would have saved the day,

Indont see that in the article at all

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.

They sure did for the good em5 and they sure didn’t for the em1x