Sony sells entire 5% stake in Olympus but continues its business alliance

Yes. Just recently. I'm a big fan of compact size. When you need to carry on your back everything for multi-day trip and camera too, it undoubtedly advantages. I had Canon APS-C Camera and It ended-up covered in dust and 500 pictures per year. I hadn't pictures from my trips.
I was looking for some travel-compact camera but none was fitting my needs. I had Olympus as the last choice. But I bought one. The cheapest one. And the image quality exceeded my expectations. I sold my Canon, bought Pro Lens for MFT and I'm super happy. I have no complaints about image quality, bokeh or what so ever.
I'm not Pro. I just want to tell stories to my friends and family and have a joy of image creation.
I bought the second one month ago. It's outdated OMD EM5-ii. But I have been asked for using my images for commercial purposes. No one was complaining about image quality.
If there would be a Full-Frame market only, I would have troubles to find my next camera.

I remember one of my high-school teachers was a keen photographer (maybe she was the school photographer? So long ago now...) and she was an Olympus user, logically she told me she preferred them to other brands mainly due to their compactness, which was more suitable to a woman’s hand size (even in the film days they were relatively small) Also a friend of my dad was also an Olympus user. One of the first instances I had as a kid to play around with a serious camera and lenses!🙂 I still have a B&W portrait of myself he took with said camera on a shelf at home.

...add shares buy-backs.

In US share buy-backs are one of the big reasons for the stock market to triple in value. As you may guess that value is hollow - it is not based on long term prospects, competitive advantages etc.

Buy-backs also increase executive bonuses in 2 ways - share price raises and the bonus value raises as bonuses for execs are paid in stock, On the other hand the raising price means that the executives met their goals and hence they get bigger bonuses.

What happens is executives are highly overpaid and they basically invest back the billions in bonuses in the stock market raising the prices further.....

none of this is sound economics like stronger sales, improvements in technology etc. Some economists predict that the share buy backs will lead to the next big recession in not too long.

Sony got that very performant IBIS from Olympus.
Olympus has the best IBIS from the market.
This is about the most performant IBIS, not about any IBIS.

The minolta 7d was the first ilc with ibis. 15 years later Canon still working on it.

Lots of companies have IBIS, Olympus made 5 axis IBIS with a floating sensor, they were the only ones, until Sony came out with one exactly like it.

your presence ... caring enough to speak on behalf cameras giants olympus and sony , is all i resally need to get thru the say

you caring enough to comment ? ....priceless

dont know what you do or who you "play" with over at the apple forums or pewdiepie fan sites .... but you warm contributions and insights here at DPR
and your lovely thoughts about sony and olympus ..... [ did you even have any?]
are appreciated to the very heavens .....

please post again soon!
[youve squeezed out 2 posts saying nothing .... im sure you have a third in ya!]

Zxaar. Was merely saying the truth, they are two cold businesses not interested in your opinion, Olympus in particular doesn’t seem to care whether people find their offerings attractive or not.

what on the green earth give you to mensa applicants the idea that my sensible comment was ever meant for the ears of any camera corporation ?

you are also wrong about the aesthetic worth of Olympus, they have arguably made the most attractive camera of the last few years , the pen F

The experience to be able to make a good camera

everything sony is today is the owed to the groundwork laid down by olympus pentax canon nikon contax leica and even kodak in the last 50 years and especially minolta........they are simply standing atop the shoulders of giants ... how long is anyones guess

Looks like, a lot of people don't know the history of Sony.

"The experience to be able to make a good camera" hahaha like their mirrorless FF the failed to even match what Sony already had on the camera for a while?? Seems you have missed the last couple of years of the camera world development.

@Yxa hahaha there is nothing to dream about...its REALITY and it is happening right now whether your like it or not.
But I get it, its hard for you to see it behind such thick fanboysim veil....its ok, some people just take longer. ;)

@Yxa, hahaha sorry to burst your bubble but I have had every brand out there. Unlike YOU, I use what works for me because I pay for every piece of gear I own thus I owe no company loyalty. I sold my RX100 V to get the Canon G5Xii as my travel camera because it fits my needs better. I have a P1000 because its the best super zoom in the market.
I am selling my Sony APS-C because I wanted 4k60P which the 6600 does not have so I am going to try the XT-3.
I shoot Sony A7R3 and getting an A9 because they are by far the best Full Frame cameras out there.
So yeah, you silly "fanboysim" attack falls flat. Remove your fanboyism blind fold and take a good look so you can see ALL that you are missing for your misguided loyalty to one company...unless you have stock with them or something that is.
Enough wasted time on you..get back to me when you mature.
Regards and welcome to my ignored list.

Almost anything is for sale at the right price. Nothing prevent Olympus from making the offer to buy back their shares.

And Oly stayed in business. No stealing, a life preserver. Without it, their tech patents would have sold for pennies on the dollar.

@BrightTiger
I hope you do understand that camera sales revenue makes minor part of Olympus earnings and Olympus is a profitable company overall. It's medical division is a huge money maker, and the company is worth more today than it was when Sony invested. That's why Sony made a profit on this deal.

lancet what is hard to understand here is that why Olympus that makes lots of money and profit doesn't help Olympus that does not make money. why Sony needed to help them?

I have posted here, in this thread, a comment from the Olympus US product manager stating that the Sony 5 x IBIS was not from Olympus . But lets keep repeating the same garbage.

@zxaar
Lancet is correct about Olympus. Their medical equipment business far overshadows their imaging business both in revenue and profits (around 630 billion yen in revenue compared to around 46 billion in revenue).
The reason Sony invested in Olympus is that Olympus needed cash in 2012 and Sony wanted to diversify into the medical field due to the persistent weakness in the consumer electronics division, that weakness continues today (see Sonys latest finacial report).
They are pulling out in part because they want to free up cash to invest in other areas.

They quite do go together. Apple had in several instances sold part of it stocks because it needed pure cash, and then bought them back in a later stage.

All that didn't mean Olympus was in such dire straits that their patents would have been sold for pennies, since they were overall still a healthy company, just involved in a scandal that hurt their reputation most.

If Sony didn't buy the shares, I have no doubt there were other Japanese companies that would have.

I think they somehow invested in Olympus giving them cache to survive the shock of the management corruption scandal

@ Tommi K1 - My understanding back then was that the shares Sony purchased were owned by Olympus; thats how they got the cash infusion.

That means either Olympus sold some asset, or used retained profits, or borrowed more money to finance the re-purchase of their own shares.

Um, no. Sony cashed in. Read the report.

unlike the japanese the western investor cares only about money .. not the moral implications of their greed

the sony olympus deal underscores the different business philosophy of the
western investors who would gladly pillage an american company forcing thousands to lose jobs for a cash grab
and the japanese approach which is capitalism without the vampiric aspect
....where a cooperative approach would benefit all financially without leaving a trail of pain and destruction

you know thats bull.. sony wanted the Ip (intellectual property) from olympus to get it they flashed some cash at oly in exchange for the "investment" oly agreeed to share Ip

Yes Sony needed IP in medical and may be cameras and Olympus needed saving.

The thing is US companies or any other but Japanese companies would never do what Sony and Olympus did. In US Sony would have waited for Olympus to close shop and then buy assets on the cheap. Thousands of people would have lost their jobs elsewhere while medical and camera consumers would have had to cope with the losses of warranty, support etc.

So I think Japan is setting very very high moral bar. They put people and common sense first ahead of short term savings. This happens despite Sony and Olympus being rivals in the market......

It's almost always cheaper to buy a company than invent the technology from scratch, especially if the company needs money.

LoneTree1 one can buy a company just as Google did buy many companies to kill them and get their IP. The biggest example is Motorola - one of the hallmark companies of the computer & mobile telephony revolution. Google bought them, reduced them to phone maker and sold the brand.

Now there is a bit of difference with Sony Olympus partnership. Olympus were not reduced to hollow brand name sold to the Chinese for pennies. Instead Olympus are again a profitable company on their own.......

Do you see the small difference?

Well, Olympus' digital camera business was never in good shape. So if you look at their financial performance, Micro 4/3 not only should have died many years ago, it should have never even been created.

So it's kinda hard to predict anything. Against all the odds, they are still in the camera business. But there is no doubt the market situation got a lot tougher for them.

But entering FF market might just be a waste of resources. Why on earth would you enter a super competitive market with three 800 pound gorillas fighting over the scraps of the market? How can you do that and somehow survive and improve your financial performance?

It's not hard to argue that CAMERA business of any company does not look rosy. If the company relies mostly on their camera business, they are in trouble and should diversify as soon as possible.

I don’t think FF is the future, the problem is still lens size.

on the contrary m43 is a sensible size with great lens size to performance ratios
it serves its audience well , and is good enough for professional work

full frame at this juncture in history is 2 things a format size with great iq
and lenses growing in size exponentially , with nifty fiftys looking like bazookas
and a religion by its congrigation with a fervor bordering on applethink

i think the name itself .."full frame " convinces its fans that want the whole magilla , and that full somehow means complete.... when in fact, for those who know a bit of camera history , remember full frames past nickname was
...........wait for it ........"the miniature format"

Wonderful debate on formats, but my original question (about Olympus survival) seems to be falling through the cracks :)

Will Olympus camera division survive just by making m-4/3 cameras?
Would they be swallowed by Panasonic?

they compliment each other the llenss alone.....

Olympus is the real Mirrorless platform. what makes sense when you have lenses that weight exactly the same like in DSLR. its pathetic.

""Will Olympus camera division survive just by making m-4/3 cameras?
Would they be swallowed by Panasonic?""
The Olympus camera division feeds technology into their medical imaging division; pretty slim chance of that either being bought out by Panasonic or going under.

@sh10453
2018-19 finacial year for Olympus (imaging only) saw a 19% drop in revenue (23% drop in mirrorless revenue) from 60 to 49 billion yen and an operating loss of 18.3 billion yen. The previous year the operating loss was 1.2 billion.
I haven't seen their Q1 result for this finacial year.
All of the imaging divisions of the camera companies are facing the same contraction in the market. Canon is down, Nikon is down, Sony is down, not sure about Fuji and the others but I would assume the same.

@KZ7,
Thanks. That's why I believe that Oly cannot survive for long if they continue to stubbornly rely on their m4/3 only.
I know they have a couple other small/rugged cameras, but those don't add much, even if they're profitable, to keep Oly afloat.
They really need to diversify their product line while they can.
At a minimum, they need an enthusiast-grade APS-C based camera that would compete with Nikon 500, Canon 7D line, ..., Sony's, Fuji's, etc.
They would not benefit from a low-end APS-C (Canon & Nikon are flooding the market with those).
There were lots of Oly loyal photographers out there in the film days, but I have no idea how many have decided to stick with them when the best they can offer is m4/3.
M4/3 maybe good enough for some people, but not for many others.

There is a big difference between "losses" in the billions and a drop in sales (while still profitable).
No entity can survive while losses accumulate year after year.
They need to simplify their "naming" too.

Here it sais, in their fiscal year 2019, their imaging division made a loss of -18.3 billions of Yen.
https://www.smartkarma.com/home/daily-briefs/brief-healthcare-olympus-key-businesses-continue-to-grow-shares-are-fairly-valued-and-more-4/

They hope about recovering from that to -7 billions of Yen, which would be a loss reduction by +11.3 billions.
I just wonder, from which products or strategies they think such turnaround could come from?
I have a bad feeling, that Olympus may become the Pentax of the mirrorless world.
Pentax didn't make important moves in the past, so they are stuck now, and can only sit there waiting for their slow but inevitable death, with no escape route option open any longer.

What about Olympus?
They still could go the route "good but cheap" route, not following the overpricing craze everywhere else. But they could rather follow the Canon M tactics a little. This could be Olympus' death escape route. But it doesn't look like they are taking that.

pentax mad a mirrorless camera but with a long flange distance ... which was both bold and stupid

Their common mistake is, that even though their traditional customer base is amateur/hobbyist, they still want to play with the big guys, want to go "professional" and very expensive. Pentax failed in doing so (with their K-1, which is essentially dead now). However, Olympus makes the very same mistake now. Not with going full frame like Pentax, but also Olympus strives for joining the expensive markets, and becoming "professional". This will not work out for Olympus, as it didn't work out for Pentax.

Yep!!!
Sony saw the writing on the wall, and decided to sell before the shares become classified as "junk" grade.
I do hope, and wish that Olympus wakes up and do something in the right direction before it is too late.
They should learn from the demise of Kodak, Polaroid, Pentax, Minolta, ..., etc.

I've stated this same thing about Panasonic in the MFT forum years ago and was mocked...
Fast forward today and that's exactly what happened and they look even stronger doing so.
They're releasing a FF GH camera that is a sure to be a hit with videographers.
Meanwhile, Olympus doesn't have the money in the Imaging Division to make anything outside of MFT.
Maybe they'll pull a Sony and split the Imaging Division away from them or get rid of the Imaging Division altogether and that way, hide their losses.
They can't afford another scandal.

""Oly cannot survive for long if they continue to stubbornly rely on their m4/3 only"" They dont and never have. They rely on their medical division and since their camera division feeds imaging tech to their medical division, its all good. The company to be worried about is Nikon who relies solely on their camera division.
For Olympus to start making a FF and/or APSC would be the dumbest thing they ever did; design/manufacture/introduce a whole new system of bodies and lenses in an ever shrinking market with yet more "me too" products... what on earth could that possibly buy them?

I don't think Sony is after cash.
This is much more of a risk analysis and we have seen that Olympus has lost it completely over the last years. Scandals over management and cleaning up sales and turnover figures first (basically fraud), then a decline in demand of m43 cameras has set in since 2015/2016.

I am not implying Olympus doesn't make good cameras - They do!
However the demand of m43 has now reached new lows and Olympus seem to be stuck in their development and innovation.

Personally I think m43 is the first sensorsize that will throw in the towel and won't be around any much longer.

That makes me wonder what direction Olympus is thinking over for the short and long future. They are among the brands that has many challenges ahead to overcome.

We will see and time will tell.

Olympus hold the #4 position within this market up to 2016.
Then they gave it to Fujifilm who has managed to strengthen its position.

Only those in denial will say that m43 and Olympus is still going strong. But facts tell a whole other story. Not only Olympus is bitten by the market shrinkage but they also got bitten by Panasonic who now have a strong position in the video segment.

Olympus is currently falling further and further behind and they seem to have no answer to the changes within this market either. Everybody had expected them to come out with a Full Frame camera in early 2019. But up until now the pace of innovation has been extremely slow. Rumors are dying out.

Then they pulled the Pen series.
Lens development has become slow.
Their flagship model is not the high volume seller they expected it to be.
Their marketshare is falling.
Their annual turnover is down.

But sure Olympus is doing very well we don't need to worry...

Sony says so in their financial result report. Maybe you know better than Sony.

There are no separate "medical service" shares.

I think you have your timeline wrong. The 20MP IMX269 was released in April 2015, that's 4 years (not 5 yet), first camera rumored to use it was GX8 (8/2015). The IMX270 (in E-M1 II) was released in late 2016, that's 3 years (not 4 yet). IMX272 (in GH5) was released in early 2017, again 3 years. The IMX299 was released with GH5S in early 2018, so only 1 year ago (not even 2 years yet).

Meanwhile, Sony fills the cutting edge A6600/A6100 full of state of the art components, including the newly minted....errr the 8 year old 24mp apsc sensor (with horrendous rolling shutter...) also found in 27 other cameras. Hmm....

Sony released 20+ bodies in the last 3y; Olympus only 3 ... and guess what those are selling. so who is in a panic ?

Max Iso: Your nonsense is a mirror image of the nonsense 007peter writes. The sensor in the A6100/6400/6500 is not 8 years old. It was introduced in A6300 in 2016. Not all 24MPx APS-C sensors are the same, you know? This one has copper interconnects, gapless microlenses and dual gain ADC.

And don't forget, rolling shutter congruent with tech from 2006...

It's funny, i remember hearing a lot of people singing from the rooftops when the A9 came out with it's very fast readout. Same with the newest RX100 ect with stacked sensors, oh that wonderfully fast readout now allows these new Sonys to best the competition.

Suddenly rolling shutter performance became super important, at least for that moment. Now it's not showing up in the newest models and we are supposed to just forget about that measure of performance. Well my G9 has very fast readout, Olympus' newest as well. Canon seems to have figured it out too.

We are only continuing the standards set in the last couple of years. Can't say im lying either, i've been talking about using E shutter since i bought my first GX7 in 2014, it's one of the best improvements of my G9. Bad rolling shutter and no IBIS means using E shutter for stills is crap, and video will have issues too.

Readout speed lives matter.

DPR member should develop their own self-centric website.

we should pay twice the cost of a camera to keep these companies in business!!!

/s

Sony should develop their own buttons and plastics. I guess beavertown also thinks Sigma, Tamron, Samyang and Zeiss should stop making products for Sony systems?

These fanboys who think Sony is the only self contained entity are very naive.

Olympus has its own sensor design and research department, they just don't have sensor fabrication facilities.

Olympus does lots of prototyping in sensors.

Given the Sony A6100, A6400 and A6600 that lack new sensors I guess getting a new sensor is not free. Fuji seem to have taken the hit and enjoy the Sony made 26MP BSI......So one cannot blame the sensor division of any but financial bias.....

I think you're reading too much into this...is just a case of buy low, sell high and make $$$.

Probably 4/3 is the least popular format.
Their priority is to make new sensors for FF, security and cellphones.

"Even Canon uses Sony sensors in their 1" sensor cameras"
Canon has been using Sony sensors in many of their PowerShot cameras for years. Including the faulty Sony sensors with a faulty bonding that plagued several camera manufacturers about 15 years ago...

Sony / Minolta had diaper IBIS not the 5 axis quality Oly IBIS. Sony spent a fortune on buying from Oly, for good reason bozo. They aren't stupid at Sony.

Sony IBIS was the worst.
They had to switch to digital IS for video in A mount because it was so bad.

Olympus 5 axis IBIS is today still the best while Sony lags behind.

@mferencz, BostonC

Sony didn't get IBIS from Olympus, that's an internet myth. The sharing agreement was in medical imaging technology.

The first Sony DSLR with IBIS was the A100 in 2006. Olympus didn't get IBIS until the E510 - a year later Minolta pioneered IBIS and Sony had it before Olympus as Steelhead says.

Nikon also invested in Olympus stock - what happened to their IBIS? :)

This is the common wisdom re: IBIS and it makes obvious sense. It does leave me wondering why Olympus 5-axis IBIS is class leading while Sony's is commonly considered class-trailing. Yes, larger sensors are harder to stabilize but other FF manufacturers seem to be doing it better.

@RubberDials, the medical thing is actually a myth. The two formed a joined adventure w grand investment of ... 50milion JPY.
Oly is not going to teach Sony how to squeeze its life out ;)

@steelhead3 To think Sony/Minolta's IBIS is nearly the same is like saying little golf carts already had Tesla's technology. Ofc, YMMV.

@BostonC
"the medical thing is actually a myth."
Nope :
https://www.sony-olympus-medical.com/somed/en/

@tlinn

"It does leave me wondering why Olympus 5-axis IBIS is class leading while Sony's is commonly considered class-trailing."

What's more of a wonder is how far people think it's reasonable to bend the truth to have a dig at Sony.

Sony's IBIS is not considered 'class-trailing' by anyone. The A7rIII IBIS is rated at 5.5 stops by CIPA, the Panasonic S1 is 6 stops in both flavours and the Nikon Zeds are 5 stops, so Sony has the second best IBIS, Panasonic the best and Nikon the 'class-trailing' one.

Get your facts straight.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dc-s1-review/12
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z7/13
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z6/11
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dc-s1r-review/11

Anyone who has used Sony IBIS and compared it comes away admitting Sony is lagging. They always are last in comparisons.

https://youtu.be/0Sj_mCInMsc

Captura: Sony A100 A900 etc.

Thanks.

@rubberdials - true - Sony inherited IBIS from Minolta, the first IBIS DSLR being the Dynax-7D , first IBIS compact I know of (a Bridge cam) being the A1 back in 2003 ...... Prior to that it was all lens based Image stabilizers . Pentax even beat Olympus to the punch with IBIS by almost a year in the K100D (2006)

Well mirrorlesscomparison.com has done more detailed analysis than peeps here. They found:
"with the Z6 I got 4 sharp images at 1s, whereas only one came out fine with the A7 III. I even managed two sharp shots at 1.6s with the Nikon."
The very first FF Nikon mirrorless beats the mighty Sony.

Olympus didn't invent IBIS, they made it perfect with 5-axis stabilization.

Olympus started small, my EM-10 has 3 axis IBIS. Just like the first Sony IBIS in modern times, in the A7-II.

I think one can safely ignore any rating a camera manufacturer puts on their own IBIS. They do lie you know. We know they lie about ISO and dynamic range. They have been found out. To say an IBIS gives 5EV is just notional on the part of the manufacturer. Was it in a lab or in practice, who held the camera, how old is the tester, did the tester just have a coffee or a cigarette? Ignore these figures and glean what you can from different reviewers.

Fair to say that Olympus' IBIS works really very well, even the 3-axis version.

Yes, I really think it's getting there... not because of any optics or sensorsizes, just plain with AI and effects. An iphone can create a bokeh better than a MFT. If not yet perfect, it will evolve. 8 or more smartphonelenses together can create a Zoom better than what you would expect. We're not there yet, but the market will proof it soon. The cellphone-CPUs are faster than the image processors and if not, the cloud will take it.

Yes, I used MFT cams. the EM10 M2 and the EM5 M2. I have nothing against MFT apart from the lousy ISO-performance (if you ask me directly) but the quality is nothing to a Sony A7R4 or D850. Not even close. Therefor I would never take a MFT on a journey along with my phone. Maybe my fullframe or mediumformat, but not aMFT.

I would definaltely buy a GH-5 for videos, but that's it. For stills it will always be a compromise, soon surpassed by phones. Sadly. And again, this is only my believe, not beaf on MFT.

MFT's advantage remains in the manageable size of super-telephotos and flexibility in video. Not much for anything else.

Panasonic recently came out with the innovative 10-25mm f1.7 and even the PL25 II, TBH they seem more committed to the system's overall health than Olympus is... The GX9 & G95 were tame updates with mild price hikes compared to their previous iterations but at least they put them out.

Oly has been heavily focusing on the high end for several years now while their low end and midrange models languish and fall further behind Sony, Pana, and Fuji; and I shoot a midrange Oly body FWIW so I'm not blindly hating on them.

I don't see M4/3 in any more trouble than any APS-C mount is, and I don't see smartphones matching the versatility of ILCs anytime soon. Not everyone that wants to shoot an UWA, fisheye, or a tele longer than 50-80mm is interested in shooting FF.

Yes but the size thing is a pretty big advantage. I've waiting for the E-M5 Mk III to decide whether to bail out of MFT. I've already shed my FF Nikon gear because it was so damned bulky and heavy. Time to look at Fujifilm?

What holds back the MFT (or any other sensor) system, to develop in that direction, and use similar processors and AI, like the mobile phones? Actually nothing.
What holds back the mobile manufacturers, to use bigger sensors, and better optics? Actually physics?
Dont overestimate mobile phones, and underestimate camera manufacturers.

you guys have no idea, went to a musical last night. took my 5 yold em52 and my daughter had her new iphone xr. phones will never compete not even close to the m43 camera. dont care how much AI they bring . and some of the images shot with the em52 were at iso 8000.

MFT vs phone debate never ends. While I love MFT , always take during my trips. Infact I own Fuji XT2, Nikon D7500+sigma2.8, Oly OM5ii. Pro glass is awesome on Olympus. I also have Iphone +S9+ . Thats a GAS problem. Anyway Cell phones are Not coming near MFT in the next 5 yrs. If cell phone is as good as MFT its time to say good bye to APSc as well.
MFT night performance is decent for me (perhaps I use pro glass , so better quality and images)
Atleast for me the more the choices, merrier. so companies Keep releasing stuff.

Cellphone are not on pair with RX100. Let alone 4/3..

Cellphones have crap bokeh. If you crop the photo will you see that the blur covers part of hair , shoulders and ears. Also there is always problems between fingers.

Anyone wonder if the same software that advances cell phones won't also advance m4/3? I don't. I'm sure it will. Olympus is a minnow in a big pond. That doesn't mean they expect to die there. They are putting out some awesome optics, same as ever. I am confident they'll do what it takes to stay alive. If not, I'll shoot my 20MP sensor until it dies. The damn thing takes great photos. Funny, that's why I bought it. So, I guess I'll just keep suffering in mediocraty.

@Sir Reginald
"Yes but the size thing is a pretty big advantage"
Really? The Sony A7 line is smaller than some of the MFT-cams... and even if they would be smaller than those fullframe-cams the ergonomics will be bad. There is no sizeadvantage anymore as you can use slower lenses on fullframe with the same lightgatering alltogether.

@captura Not really, 1" quality is somewhat less than acceptable for professional video and 1" video would have to rely heavily on C mount lenses, most of which may be considered too old. In contrast MFT mixes relatively easily with S35 gear, and has a much bigger ecosystem of its own anyway.

“An iphone can create a bokeh better than a MFT.”

I would like to express my polite disagreement with that statement.

https://cdn.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/HelloMoving_AppleiPhoneXSMax_DxOMark_05-00crop.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/9077521352/iPhone_F1p4_Full.jpeg

Or maybe it’s somewhat convincing as long as your subject does not have hair or other unfavorable features.

" There is no sizeadvantage anymore as you can use slower lenses on fullframe with the same lightgatering alltogether. "

Oh that's perfect, where's my f2.8 FF ML short tele prime that's no larger than 2x2"? Or how about a premium internal zoom f5.6 70-200mm that's no larger than some kit zooms? Oh they don't exist? Hmm... Guess there's a reason for crop formats to exist after all.

You have to read correctly. You'll find a f5.6 zoom with the double focallength for sure. Just use the double iso and you gain the same results, or better.

(It’s four times the ISO, not two.)

But why would the results be better? Off the top of my head, the only difference would be that readout would be slower on the full-frame camera (unless it’s a Sony A9), so you would get more rolling shutter effect if using the electronic shutter. Also no 60fps shooting (even with the A9).

And sorry but no, using DPReview’s lens comparison tool, I could not find a FF 70-200mm as light and high-quality as the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8. The closest I found was the old Canon 55-200mm, but it’s not weather-sealed and reviews seem to suggest that it’s rather mediocre.

I believe vscd refers to having to stop down a stop on the FF side for any comparison, which is a significant advantage.

But I believe the fundamental issue is that this particular example is an outlier, it delivers half the light at exactly half the weight of a typical FF 70-200/4, which is almost never the case. In fact if all MFT lenses were this efficient the system would be much more compelling.

Take the Voigtlander 25/0.95 against any 50/2 or even 50/1.8 for example, the 25/0.95 is often twice as heavy.

Take even the same FoV, Olympus 35-100/2 against any 70-200/4, a fair comparison, the Olympus is twice the weight.

" You have to read correctly. You'll find a f5.6 zoom with the double focallength for sure. " -vscd

Nope, you'll have to read more carefully, the FLs I cited were already FF/35mm equivalents and no such lens exists. Slow FF zooms tend to be cheap, extending, and even when retracted they're not as small as the M4/3 tele I was alluding to (35-100), same for the M4/3 and APS-C primes I was alluding to. A direct equivalent simply doesn't exist, just like a direct equivalent of any f1.8 or faster FF lens doesn't exist on those smaller formats.

You can argue that higher MP sensors can span the gap, just shoot a shorter FL and crop right? But that's only really true if the subject is small and/or I'm overly concerned with resolution. Once again, where can I buy a short tele prime for FF that's f2.8 or f3.5? I'm not interested in carrying larger glass than I need and stopping down, I wanna carry roughly what I need and smaller formats serve that role.

I'll give you that at wider focal lengths there isn't as much of a portability advantage even if you start pushing equivalence by the wayside, but each format still has a performance/size envelope they excel at. /shrug If all possible lens permutations existed for all possible mounts then sure, it'd be another story, that's not reality.

" Take even the same FoV, Olympus 35-100/2 " -S Yu

Uhh, that's a 4/3 lens (DSLR mount), not a M4/3 lens. There's quite a few teles for which there isn't really an equivalent in both directions. Take the 100-300 or 75-300, heck the miniature 35-100 f4-5.6 serves my needs in a lot of cases and there's nothing really like it cause no one is gonna make a FF zoom that slow. PL50-200 f2.8-4 is another interesting example... Pana tends to have more interesting examples that leverage the sensor size than Oly does TBH.

APS-C has a fair advantage over M43, particularly in ISO performance. The next step is to see if Sony actually steps up to the bat to challenge the Fuji XT-3 for APS-C domination? Maybe yes, maybe no.
But they could easily do it if they choose to do so.

One of my favourite 80s films with a tremendous Stewart Copeland score that epitomised New York in the 80s.

Glad I invested in Anacott Steel.

Don't be so keen to write off Nikon, Canon and Panasonic. In a couple of years the cameras from these 4 brands (Sony included) will all be on par when it comes to specifications and performance.

Then the only things that will separate them are ergonomics, durability, service facilities and value. Competition will become much fiercer, prices will drop, and choosing between brands will be much harder.

Best advice is to stick with whichever brand you currently use. If you are desperate to spend money now, spend it on lenses. Have a bit of patience - all camera bodies will very soon become equal..

Profits are significantly down, but Canon and Nikon still have profitable Imaging divisions.

Entoman - the problem is that the number of consumers willing to spend big sums on these new cameras or upgrade every two ywars is diminishing. Something has to give.

One day in the future, there will only be Sony cameras. And Tesla cars.

capture - only Sony cameras, how awful that would be. At least if we end up with only one brand, let it be Canon

yes, I'm joking

OLYMPUS, "5% is your investments if value goes up you got your interest if value goes down, sorry"

SONY, "No problem, we're selling our entire investments because 4/3rds is a goner. Lumix is going full bore on full frame the only competitor we have right now. Not Canon. Not Nikon. Lumix. Oh, by the way, Oly, your M1x is one stunning camera unfortunately tiny down inside"

OLYMPUS, "it is not how small the sensor it is how photographers use it."

You know that Sony (Minolta) had IBIS in an ILC before Olympus?

@panther fan - yes but the minolta-inherited IBIS they had in the A700/A900 days was a simple 2-axis design, nowhere near the 5-axis that Pentax and Olympus later designed. And Sony proposed 5-axis after they partnered with Olympus. At the time it was ackwnowledged that Sony's 5-axis was a fruit of this partnership.

It wasn't acknowledged by anyone, to be honest, but the implication has always been there.
What is curious, however, is that Sony probably licensed their pixel-shift implementation from Pentax (it works just like that one), which could suggest that they licensed 5-axis IBIS from them as well. It would explain why Panasonic's implementation is so good on the S1/R, whereas Sony's is more limited.

Unfortunately, Sony's IBIS can't even compare to what Olympus has had for years..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p689c3wnwdg

You know that camera stabilization was in military, aviation, marine, survey, aerospace, and medical systems before it appeared in consumer cameras?

SHood - You seem to have missed the *reason* why Olympus has the most effective IBIS.

It's not because there is anything fundamentally better in their implementation, it's simply that the Olympus has a much smaller sensor, which can be moved much more rapidly to compensate for camera movement.

You can be pretty sure that if Olympus made an APS or FF, or if Sony made an M43, that they would have pretty similar IBIS capabilities.

Actually, the smaller sensor and a larger sensor can all be moved without he same rapidity. The smaller sensor can travel a little farther is all based on the design of the actuator system.

entoman - I thought so too, but Panasonic's implementation on the S1/R is even slightly better than on their MFT cameras, which were already quite competitive with Olympus'. So no, I do believe they have some "secret sauce" that they use to make their stabilization more effective.

Pana caught up, so to speak, on IBIS pretty quick too... I always found that kinda impressive. People forget the first Pana body with IBIS was the GX7, just a couple generations ago (or about 6 years IIRC), and it still had a pretty crude implementation... Even the GX8 after it didn't have IBIS enabled for video.

They made pretty great strides with the GX85, G85, and G9 in a matter of 3-4 years; even copying/matching high res mode. Oly had IBIS for what, like twice as long? They both ended up arriving at OIS+IBIS at about the same time and Pana has it implemented across more lenses (because they had way more lenses with OIS obviously but still).

You would think it's Pana that would spread thin between L mount and M4/3, but they've been more aggressive on the latter than Oly has been IMO.

From the US Olympus Product Manager :Mr. Pelkowski confirmed that Sony’s 5 Axis IBIS technology is their own unique iteration of the technology, and that they didn’t work with Olympus on its creation.

“Sony’s 5 axis IS unit is similar to Olympus’ in that it is housed in the body as opposed to a lens, and that it compensates for camera movement in 5 directions.” Mr. Pelkowski wrote.
https://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/12/17/comparison-olympus-sonys-5-axis-stabilization-work/

I know this is a camera site but Olympus and Sony for that matter produce far more than just cameras and in both cases cameras are not their main source of revenue / profits. Olympus dominates the flexible endoscope market and the imaging technology used there is outstanding. I don't see them shutting up shop anytime soon.

KZ7 - Olympus pulled out of the camera business once before to concentrate on medical equipment, so they would certainly do so again if their camera business hit difficulties.

Likewise, Samsung pulled out of cameras a while back to concentrate on other aspects of their business.

I think it's exceedingly unlikely that Nikon or Canon would drop their camera businesses, but both have other highly profitable businesses, as do Sony, Panasonic and Ricoh.

All can subsidise the camera side for a while to see them through hard times. Long term, no one knows. Cameras as we know them will probably cease to exist altogether within 50 years.

Entoman - All of the camera companies are having to rethink their product lines because of the ever increasing quality of smartphone cameras and the effect that has had on the size of the market. I agree that the big companies won't leave the market soon, I also think that so long as they continue to make money companies like Olympus will stick with cameras. There is a cross-over for them in the medical field with image processors and optics.
As for 50 years from now, I won't be around to see, but my bet is that eventually digital zoom and other enhanced features will replace many of the lenses we see today. Whether that is good or bad is a different thing.

Thanks to Nikon too, who also invested and bailed out Olympus.

Its not like olympus was asking for it back, Sony sold it back to them. This is gonna hurt their bottom line. That and possibly the poor sales of the EM1X. It may even mean less bodies in the future.
Tume will tell.

@MrALLCAPS: Please elaborate further (with links or proof - that would be ideal) regarding poor or less than expected EM1X sales?

Couldn't they have sold the shares to anyone? Olympus purchasing them back at x3 the price must surely be a sign of confidence no?

There is an activist shareholder group working hard to influence Sony into dumping or spinning off all non-entertainment related assets. They seem to have got their way with this deal. From the business-focused articles on the matter, it appears the stake in Olympus largely involved leveraging partnerships related to their medical imaging products and had little to do with the respective photo- imaging divisions at either company. Either way, it appears to be a win-win for both parties, Olympus got a much-needed cash injection at a critical time and Sony has profited on the investment.

If the E-M5 III disappoints it's gonna be pretty bad for Oly IMO, and for M4/3 in general (to an extent)... Pana can afford a slightly underwhelming GX9 or G95 after some really aggressive GX85 & G85 models tbh, their stuff still looks competitive with APS-C Fuji, Sony, Canon, etc. Even the lowly and 2+ year old GX850 still looks more attractive than Oly's most recent E-PL.

Oly has literally not touched the midrange in a good 4.5+ years now tho, the E-M5 II predates all four of the Pana models I alluded to and the GX8 as well... Fuji went thru the X-T20 and T30 in the same interim (along with additional lower end models), Sony has had a whole bunch of ever evolving a6xxx. In those 4.5+ years Oly put out the E-M10 III which was like a dumbed down side grade of the Mk II w/4K and pretty much everything else has been directed at the high end market.

@BenH I said "Possibly".

"possibly the poor sales of the EM1X"

But we'll find out sure enough when they release their next earnings report. The Camera Division will be horrible as usual, they STILL might blame moving factories and then mention sales of the EM1X Were not as expected.

Tune in next episode.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1133758.shtml

The Olympus Imaging Division has lost money for Olympus for Years. They actuall sold the plant to the Chinese and moved to cheaper manufacturing. Olympus medical is the only division keeping the lights on for them.