WRONG WAY - GO BACK !!!

[CharlesB58]

Last I checked (which was just now) all those smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses are still available and still work. What else should be done besides release lenses that cater to pros. Incidentally, pros don't place value on lenses "by the pound" but ob the return on investment a lens offers based on what it can do.

Same with camera bodies. A pro invested in the m4/3 system may wish the price of the EM1.2 to be lower, but will still base a purchase on whether the camera will offer advantages that turn into profits.

Enthisiasts will either complain about the prices (for gear they want but don't really need) or buy the gear.

And many will try to reduce the appeal of gear to what they like, but not what the market as a whole will sustain.

I've been watching tgis sort of arm chair marketing gping on in the industry for 40 years. The Canon AE-1 was supposed to be a falure according to the "experts" of that time.

 

[jwilliams]

Last I checked (which was just now) all those smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses are still available and still work.

The f1.7-1.8 lenses are definitely the jewels of the system.

All the smaller cameras have old sensors in them, aren't competitive with other camera makes and overpriced for what they are.

What else should be done besides release lenses that cater to pros.

Maybe keep the whole system up to date?

Incidentally, pros don't place value on lenses "by the pound" but ob the return on investment a lens offers based on what it can do.

and by that measure the latest m43 lenses loose terribly compared to other systems.

Same with camera bodies.

Yes the bodies fail there also.

A pro invested in the m4/3 system

How many of those have you seen? I have never seen a paid photographer using m43. I'm sure there are some, but in the pro market m43 is but a drop in the ocean.

may wish the price of the EM1.2 to be lower, but will still base a purchase on whether the camera will offer advantages that turn into profits.

Enthisiasts will either complain about the prices (for gear they want but don't really need) or buy the gear.

And many will try to reduce the appeal of gear to what they like, but not what the market as a whole will sustain.

I've been watching tgis sort of arm chair marketing gping on in the industry for 40 years. The Canon AE-1 was supposed to be a falure according to the "experts" of that time.

I shot one of those. I never said it would be a failure. You must have been listening to the wrong group of people.

--
Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed. Quote by Garry Winogrand
http://eyeguessphotography.com
http://livegigshots.com

--
Jonathan

 

[cjb]

Well, if I read your thinking correctly, maybe Canon is not so dumb after all with the M50?

 

[bofo777]

Ya know, there is a Buy/Sell board here where you can give away your Olympus and Panasonic gear. Would help your time management too because you won't have to post endlessly about how Olympus is dead because Sony released yet another new camera that uses bits and parts of the one they released 3 releases ago, or the 2 and 3 year old ones.

--
Dale

Does it matter whether the new Sony camera is made from 3 releases or 3 year old parts, if it can give you 15 stops of DR, much better DOF control, higher ISO performance, superior PDAF+CDAF, video features ... .... ... for about the same size, weight and price as your E-M1 II?

But does it make coffee?? ..you trouble maker you...

 

[samtheman2014]

Ya know, there is a Buy/Sell board here where you can give away your Olympus and Panasonic gear. Would help your time management too because you won't have to post endlessly about how Olympus is dead because Sony released yet another new camera that uses bits and parts of the one they released 3 releases ago, or the 2 and 3 year old ones.

 

[bofo777]

I'll agree with you that I would NEVER buy the high dollar prime lenses from Panasonic or Olympus with the exception of olympus flexible trinity lenses. The 40-150 is as small as a 70-200mm on any other system and it gives me more reach so I'm happy with it.

The reason I won't invest in the primes? I have a Sony FF for shallow DOF and low light performance.

What do you think they should do to remain relevant? I honestly don't know.

I think they should focus on the E-M5 line, give it the same nice features as the E-M1, like PDAF, their best sensor, processor, IBIS, etc and make EM5 the flagship, a compact, affordable but very high quality camera selling at $1700. Update it every 2 years and get the best possible sensor each time. The E-M1 line should be a niche line, to let those refugees from 43 use their lenses. Update it only once every 8 years, and only with minimal improvement each time. Don't waste resources on it. It can have a big body for better handling of 43 or the heaviest M43 lenses, that a small minority of users would buy and use. Stop all development of the f/1.2 lenses because they do nothing in terms of competitiveness, they are mainly jewellery.

Should I hang my Lumix 42.5 1.2 on my left or right ear or maybe an ornament hanging from my nose....??

Release some good UWA primes instead, 8 or 9mm with reasonable speed and size. The E-M5 can be very big and mainstream, selling to millions, like what the original E-M5. The E-M1 will never be a high volume seller, and especially now with Sony totally blocking any chance of a high priced M43 becoming significant. Olympus needs to do something. Stop dreaming about making the best lenses in the world (which is stupid for a small sensor). There's no glory when the business collapse again, even if you have lenses that best the best Leica. You will just look stupid, for not having learnt your lesson from 43. Know your limitations.

 

[DLBlack]

Unfortunately, especially for Olympus, it's going the wrong way.

I am enjoying the direction that Olympus is heading.

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. 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? The X-H1 and the A7 III clearly shows how silly the high-price strategy is, for a smaller format system. 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). 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...

Olympus with the direction they are heading is finally letting the company make a profit, which is tough in a declining market.

I am really enjoying my E-M1 Mkii and also my three F1.2 primes. Yes, they are expensive but they are a joy to use and produces great images.

How much can the next $2000 E-M1 III improve, and will it be able to compete with the A7 IV?

This is a question for 2 or three years from know. By then Sony will be on the A7 Mk VI.

Olympus please keep going the direction you are going, but remember that in addition to expanding the photo gear up to a high-end (Pro-level) that there are the Low-end (introductory-level) and mid-level (enthusiast-level) that needs to be maintained with new products.

--

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3380136992_7c5a0986ea_m.jpg

 

[samtheman2014]

so who knows what really went on but the imaging division has lost money for a long time and even with m43 it is only in the last 18 months that even a small profit has been made.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about because you only claim that last 18 months has been profitable.

And again, you are only talking Olympus as it is only a camera manufacturing company, rejecting that it is far more than that and understanding that companies actually even keep some of their divisions in negative as they can be more profitable and operational that way!

Take a look at the annual figure Tommi Olympus publishes them every year , just a heads up if you make a profit one quarter and lose the other three resulting in a yearly loss you have not made a profit . So go on an check the numbers

just to help you out here is their May 2016 published result loss

Loading…

www.43rumors.com

So the next yearly statement would be spring 2017 { less than 18 months ago you may notice }

 

[3dwag]

Unfortunately, especially for Olympus, it's going the wrong way.

I am enjoying the direction that Olympus is heading.

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. 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? The X-H1 and the A7 III clearly shows how silly the high-price strategy is, for a smaller format system. 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). 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...

Olympus with the direction they are heading is finally letting the company make a profit, which is tough in a declining market.

I am really enjoying my E-M1 Mkii and also my three F1.2 primes. Yes, they are expensive but they are a joy to use and produces great images.

How much can the next $2000 E-M1 III improve, and will it be able to compete with the A7 IV?

This is a question for 2 or three years from know. By then Sony will be on the A7 Mk VI.

Olympus please keep going the direction you are going, but remember that in addition to expanding the photo gear up to a high-end (Pro-level) that there are the Low-end (introductory-level) and mid-level (enthusiast-level) that needs to be maintained with new products.

--
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3380136992_7c5a0986ea_m.jpg

Well said, Dave.

And May This Thread Rest In Peace.

--
-Dennis W.
Austin, Texas

http://www.pbase.com/3dwag/image/97156660.jpg

 

[samtheman2014]

And you can use FT lenses with impaired AF compared to native lenses on the E-M1I/II or with very impaired AF on every other m43 camera, Canon lenses on metabones adapters work just as well.

First of all. There was no such thing as metabones adapter for Canon lenses when Olympus updated 4/3 mount to m4/3 mount.

We are talking about today Tommi try and keep up

The reason why you can still buy lenses for a system that died years ago is because they were sitting on shelves and will be doing so for a few years to come due to low demand.

Again you are totally wrong. Olympus was manufacturing those lenses as there was a demand! They only stopped manufacturing last year and sold rest out with the special sales.

BS they have been sitting on shelves for years and will be for years to come

You clearly have no idea how great those Olympus DIgital Zuiko lenses are and how people were ready to pay for them!

Tommi I am fully aware how good the SHG lenses were I was an Olympus DSLR owner and I am familiar with the system. They were also every bit as large , heavy and expensive as high grade lenses on other systems with larger sensors

The folk with SHG lenses are folk who already had them when they used FT or former FT shooters who lusted after them but could not justify the original prices.

LOL

Tommi given that pretty much every single new m43 owner declares size and weight as the reason why they bought into m43 the market for huge FT lenses is indeed tiny

With same reason it can be said that there is no justification to buy Canon, Nikon or Sony what so ever... Actually there is more reasoning in that, than your claim.

the problem for most as it really goes against the main reason why folk buy into m43.

Oh and what is that? A system that you can use to build your setup to be tiny or to be excellent but larger and heavier than the tiny setup?

In the end regardless of what you put on it you are still limited by a small 20mp sensor. Sticking a huge heavy expensive F/1.2 lens does not close the gap on what smaller lighter cheaper lenses can do in other formats

The problem is people like you, not understanding what you are even talking about 4/3 and m4/3 system as you can't understand the context!

Tommi I use m43 and used 4/3 before the issue in hand is your inability to understand common logic

 

[DLBlack]

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?

Not between but expand upward with a 150-450 lens.

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.

I am really going to love this lens.

That is their prime lens collection. What would you add there between 8mm and 45mm?

What about a rectangular UWA lens like a 9mm/f1.4.

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.

• E-M10
• E-M5
• E-M1

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.

Great want list.

I would love to see a 9-18mm replacement with a range from 9-25.

I would love to see a new Pen F to pair up with my E-M1 Mkii, which means sharing the same battery. A tilt screen would be nice. A small built in front grip would be nice.

 

[trotteritco]

Just because 4/3rds isn’t around doesn’t mean it failed at all. It’s just a line that has been superseded. Just like fashion and cars, marketers have to watch trends and adjust lineups accordingly. With cars, I see it like their power plants. V8s once dominated US autos. These days high powered 6s and 4s rule and soon it’ll be hybrids, electrics or hydrogen power. Eventually, there’ll be no V8s but if a maker held on to outdated engines and ignored the trends, then they would fail. Is the V8 a failure. No way, but is it’s time numbered, too right.

--
Cheers,
John
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9739982393/albums

The difference is John that those V8's made money , FT lost money from start to finish though it is only in the last 18 months that m43 has made any profit for them .

--
Jim Stirling

car analogies so I'll jump in here. Like Jim said the V8s selling today are highly profitable segments of the market. Probably the most profitable actually (high perfromance cars and trucks).

The analogy I like is that m43 is a 4 cylinder and APSC a 6 cylinder and FF a V8. Now each can be made to perform at various levels. You can add turbos, superchargers, electric motors etc to each one and get a range of power.

There is however a range of power where each makes the most sense and the 8 cylinder is always going to have higher power potential than the 4 or 6.

If you think of the camera with a basic lens as the base version of each type of motor then you can add on stuff to increase performance. The stuff with cameras is basically limited to the lenses.

So take a 4 cylinder (m43) add a turbo, supercharger and electric motors to it. You now have something with base V8 (FF) power. It is overly complex, expensive and isn't even lighter anymore due to all the stuff you had to add to get to the base V8 power level. This is exactly the same as adding the big f1.2 lenses to a m43 camera. Expensive, heavy and no more (and often less) IQ than a FF camera with basic lens.

Of course you can add the turbo, supercharger and electric motors to the V8. This is just shelling out the big bucks for a high $ lens.

Me personally, I like doing things the simple way, so if I want to go fast, I'll just get the base V8, save money over the complex 4 and have less maintenance issues.

Right tool for the job. Easy really.

--
Jonathan

I like this, we share same thinking. You can have VW Golf, and tune it.. but it not be Audi A8, or Mercedes S class.

The only advantage that Olympus has now is crop for telephoto lenses, nothing else. IQ is not, and will not be equal to larger sensors, because of the size, it has it's limitations.

If someone thinks this is BS, take photos with mobile phone, and 1 inch sensor, tell us the difference. Same is with m43 vs FF. Olympus with it's current sensor size is for the price range of max 1300$.

I was hard core Oly fan, untill they released E-M1 II, and then it stopped. I went FF, for less money, and I'm happy, much better IQ, dynamic range and tonal range are miles ahead.

I use E-M1 for backup only.

Can you not see hi res mode more useable in the future bet the next olympus becomes handheld which would make your dynamic range factor mute.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/58365044@N05/

No.. because Hi Res mode is to be used for stills, and frankly, I don't want to pay 2000$ or even worse, 2000€ in EU for a product that is much more inferior in IQ than the competition in the same price range.

If you think you will take shots of the birds in flight with Hi Res, good luck with that.