Unfortunately, especially for Olympus, it's going the wrong way.
The high-$ strategy is clearly not working. The E-M1 II had its moments, but it had to compete with the cheaper D500 and the G9, and then with X-H1, and now the super-spec'ed A7 III.
Clearly it is otherwise as Olympus managed to pull very nice OM-D line and their PEN line does very well.
E-M1 II was possible to be bought for 1299€ with the standard 5 year warranty without their Pro service in year change, now it is back to 1850€ what is just 150€ lower from year old body.
And you need to calculate in full system price. Full system weight. Full system size. Full system capabilities. Full workflow time consumption. And put it all in the context of the image quality in the final product.
If you look at the E-M1 II performance as body only, you are doing it wrong. As body is just a body, you can't take a single photo with it unless you pair it with a lens.
Unlike Panasonic, it cannot rely on superior video to justify its high price. So, it tries to do that with superior lenses like the f/1.2 lenses, but there is a basic problem. These super fine lenses are great for collectors, those who want to own rare, expensive products that make one feel good and proud, but do they actually produce better images compared to other products costing and weighing as much, with a M43 sensor?
Yes. Those are not collector items. Olympus PRO line is not a Leica, nor try to be one. They really have designed those lenses the specific professional job in mind. Not for everyone, not fore few individuals. Their collectors item is PEN F. That is their anniversary body in spirit of street photographers and travelers like how original PEN was designed to be with Half Frame.
Look the Olympus PRO lens line. What do you see?
- 7-14mm f/2.8
- 12-40mm f/2.8
- 40-150mm f/2.8 + 1.4x TC to 56-210mm f/4
- 12-100mm f/4
That is their zoom lens collection. What would you add there? What is missing in that range? What they could do to fit between 7mm and 210mm?
Now their PRO line as well includes prime lenses.
- 8mm f/1.8 fisheye
- 17mm f/1.2
- 25mm f/1.2
- 45mm f/1.2
- 300mm f/4
And there are coming a 12mm f/1.2.
That is their prime lens collection. What would you add there between 8mm and 45mm?
Now, think what would happen if Olympus would come out with one of their patents like:
- 300-500mm f/4 PRO
- 400mm f/4 PRO
- 500mm f/4 PRO
Do you think that they would be filling their PRO line zooms and primes well?
The X-H1 and the A7 III clearly shows how silly the high-price strategy is, for a smaller format system.
It is not about the sensor size. It is what you can produce with it.
And clearly there are too many 35mm sensor lovers and fanboys who are incapable to use their cameras to create good looking photographs with other means than just blur their subjects out of focus and call it great skill and talent!
(and check out 31:20 position as well from 2013)
This is starting to smell like the same problem contributing to 43's failure, bigger and bigger lenses and cameras at higher and higher costs, in pursuit of the very best optical and mechanical quality (but using a small sensor that put a restricting upper bound on its IQ).
The problem was there that Canon and Nikon people was jumping from SLR to DSLR. They had collection of lenses and they were not interested to swap. You didn't see so many Canon <-> Nikon as neither Canon -> X or Nikon -> X. You saw Canon -> Canon and Nikon -> Nikon.
Where was Olympus at SLR era? Where? No where really. Regardless how amazing at the time their OM-1 was and how great their OM-4Ti was, they weren't popular!
4/3 system (4/3 mount, 4/3" sensor, 4/3 flash system etc) was designed from ground up to match a 80% of the photographers image quality requirements. Based to the statics and empirical research what is the IQ that is required. That was then matched with the silicone industry development and possibilities, and predictions what the future likely makes possible.
Some say that 4/3 failed because large bodies and lenses. Yet that is false. As there were small lenses and small bodies that performed very well in that era! Difference is that Olympus pushed the mirrorless further with Panasonic, by transforming the 4/3 mount to m4/3 mount, yet same 4/3" sensor, same system etc, only mount change and new digital possibilities in goal to remove the mirror and use that possibility to make smaller bodies.
That doesn't mean 4/3 failed, as all that talk is from doom praisers from 35mm fanboys, just like how m4/3 is dead, that is repeated every single year.
It's like a boxer only 5 feet tall aiming to fight for the heavyweight title by perfecting every imaginable martial skills, bulking up, wearing gimmicky shorts, hair style...
Sounds like you are saying that 4/3" is Cassius Clay Jr...
How much can the next $2000 E-M1 III improve, and will it be able to compete with the A7 IV?
It is not there to compete with that.
Why everything must be competition who has longest manhood?
If that Sony A7 line is so amazingly great... Why does Sony A6000 line sell more?
Some people claim that m4/3 Pro bodies are going to wrong way that they are too big.
Well, ergonomics is revenge, because you need to go after the human hand. And Canon or Nikon is doing that with their "soap box" designs. Even Sony has been required to go small body, but Canon and Nikon can't do that because they are using old technology. They are as well locked to their fanbase who are too old to learn new things. They are slaves to their success. Like tell what happens if Canon and Nikon will abandon their F and EF mounts and make their mirrorless bodies require a new line of lenses and maybe just an adapter for old lenses? Do they really need to go and keep current large bodies even when it is mirrorless body?
Olympus has OM-D line that comes with three models.
Many here are gear heads, they think that the newer and bigger gear will make them better. That they magically take better photographs "if they just could get that one stop more DR!" or "If it just would have a PDAF!". E-M10 is excellent body for most people. E-M5 is for those who need something more special. And E-M1 is for professionals who need fast sequence rates and more accurate AF for very fast moving subjects coming toward or away (less often happening situations btw).
And so does the live pass by. Time will go and these people are just whining about the wrong direction and the missing "great features".
Like what is the typical age range here? I estimate it is around 55-70 years now among most common commenters. So many talks about their life savings, their seniority etc. How many has previous history with the latest Canon or Nikon gear as their professional tools? How many is out there running, crawling, jumping etc with all that fancy 35mm sensor gear if not every day, then weekly? How many is walking with their full day camera setup >20km and third or half of that running? How many here is doing over 75cm/30" wide prints? How many is every day spending 8-10 hours out doing news reportage? How many is here doing custom assignments and photoshoots?
I have seen few to say they have done big prints and they are very pleased about the quality of the prints from 16Mpix sensor.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4048446
And yet we see so many "But it is so puny sensor!" "It is so tiny format for so big camera" "It is just so awful!" "It is not full frame" "It is not as good as Sony".
If Olympus or Panasonic would take their E-M1 II and GH5 and fit it all in a GM5 body... I wouldn't buy it. Because that body size and design is terrible by ergonomics! It is awful really! And it is smaller body than any Nikon 1 body was!
There is a reason why E-M1 II is slightly larger than E-M1. It was to improve the ergonomics!
There is as well reason why Olympus decided to make their PRO line primes same size, with same filter thread size etc. As when you need to carry those 12-17-25-45mm f/1.2 lenses, you get to use one filter set, one pouch size with you, you have size and ways to grab for that lens and handle it easily.
In the future Olympus and Panasonic are going to eliminate the shutter. Olympus already has 16Mpix 4/3" CMOS BSI sensor with global shutter. Panasonic is coming up with Fuji for organic sensor. That even more allows to shrink the body, but as the flange distance is already chosen, you would need a new flange distance, a adapter to make body even smaller. Or simply remove the rear LCD. But making a thin tiny body is not worth it as you lose good ergonomics!
Olympus has as well for consumers the great lens collection (some apertures can be wrong as I don't recall those correctly).
- 9-18mm f/4-5.6
- 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3
- 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6
- 40-150mm f/4-5.6
- 14-150mm f/3.5-5.6
- 75-300mm f/4-6.3
Like what you need to add to that range? All from 9mm up to 300mm is there for consumers, all small and light!
Prime collection is as well there.
- 9mm f/8
- 15mm f/8
- 12mm f/2
- 17mm f/2.8
- 17mm f/1.8
- 25mm f/1.8
- 30mm f/3.5
- 45mm f/1.8
- 60mm f/2.8
- 75mm f/1.8
Like what you need to add that range from 12mm to 75mm that consumer would be missing?
I can tell you what I would like to see Olympus to do, here few my personal likings:
- Redesign 9-18mm to look like a 40-150mm R.
- Add a 120mm f/4 macro and look and act like 60mm f/2.8 Macro by design.
- Improve 12-50mm with little better optics but otherwise keep same design.
- Add 100mm f/1.8 portrait lens
- Add 150-400mm f/4 PRO zoom
- Release 2x teleconverter
- Add a 9mm f/2 prime to Premium line
- Re-release PEN F and E-M1 II with tilt screen and update to new battery.
