Olympus to sell off camera division

[ricohflex]

Must commend Leica for making M8 in 2008. Leica M8 has a APS-H (27 x 18 mm) sensor and it is not full frame.
Crop factor is 1.33. M8 had problems as it was a first step by Leica to make mirrorless digital ILC.
1 year later in 2009 Leica introduced M9 that was its first full frame mirrorless digital but still rangefinder based.
Then in 2017 Leica introduced M10. The full frame M10 camera body is small and light.
But the price of M10 is high. Leica M users could use many (except for a few) of their wonderful + expensive M lenses on M9 and M10.
Put an Leica M10 next to the Olympus E-M1X that has a sensor that is 3.8 times smaller.
Shocking when you observe difference in body size relative to sensor size.

https://www.apotelyt.com/i3c/leica-m10-p-vs-olympus-e-m1x-front-a.jpg

Also look at the thickness of the bodies.

https://www.apotelyt.com/i3c/leica-m10-p-vs-olympus-e-m1x-top-a.jpg

So why did Olympus not go into full frame in 2013? Guess Olympus was not in the mood in 2013.
In October 2011 the Olympus USD$1.7 Billion fraud scandal was discovered.
In 2014, six banks sued Olympus for accounting fraud (Olympus issued false financial statements from 2000 to 2011) seeking 28 Billion Yen in damages. (USD$258 million).
The whole Olympus company almost collapsed and was rescued by Sony.

Agreed that now in 2020 the barrier to entry into full frame for Olympus is higher than it was in 2013.
If the full frame bar is now too high for Olympus to jump over, then Camera Imaging Division has to die a slow death clinging on to MFT.
Probably by the end of the 2020's decade, Olympus MFT cameras would be history.
Maybe a lot sooner.

 

[tommyk]

Summary of our opinions so far :

1. Olympus MFT has a group of loyal followers (also this thread is in Olympus section and naturally will attract Olympus loyal users)
2. Non-Olympus users will likely not adopt olympus MFT system.
3. Olympus won't have a competitive advantage going into FF.
4. Outlook for Olympus MFT is bleak due to many reasons industry wide as well as specific to the company.
5. Outlook for Olympus camera company is not much better and they have not adapted to the changing trends and threats.

Collective wisdom is something very accurate at times. Based on our opinions, the writing is on the WALL. The Olympus camera division is waiting to be killed, sold or die a slow and painful death. There is nothing to rejoice, as Olympus camera was once an industry leader, with innovative products and marketing ability to reach new segments. Just like Blackberry for smartphones. Just like Saab for luxury cars. And nearer home, just like Borders Book store that was once the ultimate and classy book store.

Its only how long Olympus executives will persevere to sustain this camera division and the MFT mount.

 

[SNAG]

Chiming in on this discussion, being a user that recently moved from Oly m4/3 to Z6.

I started out with Nikon F, but expanded into m4/3 for a lightweight, 'rangefinder' travel setup. Was an early adopter and went all-in with fast glass, but kept both F mount and m4/3 systems.

I've shot many keepers with m4/3. Do agree it's not just absolute performance - if not for its compact size, I would not have lugged a camera along. However, Oly has stagnated especially in sensor technology. The sensor struggles in low-light even with f/1.8 primes. Investing in f/1.2 glass starts to break the economics. Video capability was poor but wasn't a big deal for me. The last few camera releases (even the EM1-3) showed no real innovation.

Meanwhile, competitors advanced on. Nikon 1 was a absolute disaster. But they kept at it, addressed their weak points and released the Z-system. Canon introduced EOS-R. Even mobile phones continue to innovate and nibble at this shrinking market.

As above comments, Oly is in a precarious situation - either to keep innovating, or burn cash in another race (where they are a clear laggard). From a consumer's POV, they have been on the fence for far too long. I can't get visibility on m4/3's future, and that was my rationale to move out.

My humble 2 cents worth.

 

[Castor Troy]

This perfectly describes Olympus's predicament.
"It's Teeny!"
From "Bedazzled"
The basketball player wish.
Big body but small s*****

 

[swifty]

As I wrote earlier, it would seem Olympus has a loyal core following.
They made their bet to go all-in with m43 a long time ago or perhaps the decision was made for them as the financial fraud disaster and subsequent years of unprofitability left them no room to pivot.
But their bar to aim for for survival is low. They just need to stop loosing a lot of money. Break even or thereabouts so it’s a rounding error in their financials and the investors will leave them alone.
They need to really understand their core users and cater strongly to them. Though they might not attract many new exclusive m43 users, I think they can pick up a few multi system users with some of the same highly refined products catering to their core users.
Pixel density for any effective angle of view will always favour the smaller sensor. This extends to the macro field where it’s more or less an even playing field as a deeper DOF is desired and pixel density is also an advantage.
What they are also good at are small and tough.
If they’re going to try something not done before why not try something they’re good at. Like a tough large-sensor compact, akin to an X100 but tough.

Their possible biggest issue is sensor procurement imo. They are likely still stuck with sensor volume commitments of past sensors as they keep missing shipping volume targets. Getting the 20MP E-M1.2 sensor into the E-M5.3 is a good start to move that sensor in higher volumes. It’s probably why the upcoming E-M1.3 is highly rumoured to still use the same 20MP sensor. If they are done with the older 16MP sensor commitments, then get the 20MP sensor into as many volume models as possible.
But why do they even need a new sensor, after all IQ levels have more or less stagnated. Scene DR rarely even exceed the maximum capabilities of m43, let alone FF unless you’re a specialist sunrise/sunset photographer or similar and even then there are other aids available to deal with the issue which I’m sure landscape specialists already have.

It’s because sensor bandwidth is the driver of most technology gains in mirrorless, from AF to the EVF feed to video.
So they need to get their sensor procurement in order before they embark on anything too ambitious. Some cooperation with Panasonic here might be helpful for both companies, after all they’re better at different things in their lineup but somehow I doubt it would happen, which is a shame.

 

[Pitachu]

It’s because sensor bandwidth is the driver of most technology gains in mirrorless, from AF to the EVF feed to video.
So they need to get their sensor procurement in order before they embark on anything too ambitious. Some cooperation with Panasonic here might be helpful for both companies, after all they’re better at different things in their lineup but somehow I doubt it would happen, which is a shame.

I think if it can be easily done, Olympus or Panasonic would have increase the resolution of its sensor.

I am not a sensor expert, but I believe that there is going to be a compromise in other factors like Dynamic Range if they were to increase the resolution of the M43 Sensor. Already the dynamic range of its current sensor is slightly lower than FF, though not very critical.

Some Mobile phones has 48 MP with very small sensors. Surely Olympus users do not want 48MP but Mobile Phone quality

Anyway, I personally prefer resolution to be about 16MP to 24MP, which is why even Sony introduce lower resolution models eg. A7S series and A7 (without R) either to increase ISO limits or for cost reduction. Not every photographer need 42 MP.

 

[swifty]

I think if it can be easily done, Olympus or Panasonic would have increase the resolution of its sensor.

I am not a sensor expert, but I believe that there is going to be a compromise in other factors like Dynamic Range if they were to increase the resolution of the M43 Sensor. Already the dynamic range of its current sensor is slightly lower than FF, though not very critical.

Some Mobile phones has 48 MP with very small sensors. Surely Olympus users do not want 48MP but Mobile Phone quality

Anyway, I personally prefer resolution to be about 16MP to 24MP, which is why even Sony introduce lower resolution models eg. A7S series and A7 (without R) either to increase ISO limits or for cost reduction. Not every photographer need 42 MP.

I think you may be confusing pixel density and total resolution.
A 20MP m43 sensor already has the pixel density of a theoretical 80MP FF sensor. Currently the highest FF sensor arrives at 61MP but I suppose if you wanted to put a bit of extra room between m43 and upcoming sensors you could marginally raise it to say, 25MP which then has the pixel density of a 100MP FF sensor.
And you’d be right that not everyone wants a very high total resolution sensor because of everything else that comes with it ie. handling large files (computing strain), storage and backup costs. If your aim is pixel density, buying a large resolution FF sensor for the dominant reason to crop to the central portion because you’re angle of view (AOV) limited makes no sense. Hence why pixel density is a niche important to certain genres of photography.
A 20MP 1” sensor has the pixel density of a 145MP FF sensor.

But of course going higher in pixel count is not without penalties. But things like DR is dictated by the maximum signal and the noise floor which is incredible low on all current Sony sensors. Which means the DR is pretty much dictated by the sensor size due to total light collection area (the signal part) and resolution doesn’t have a large effect as long as sensor tech is roughly equal.
What happens is when you increase resolution, you have more data to offload so it becomes slower. Making it faster again adds read noise hence most sensor improvements these days are being made to increase speed without adding much additional noise. But this makes the sensor more complex, which decreases sensor yield and makes them expensive and why it’s not a simple decision for manufacturers just to get the best. But sensor DR isn’t likely to be impacted much.

Sony’s A7s series are video specialist models as is the GH5s. Their resolution are what it is because of 4K video in 16:9 which translate to whatever their total pixel count is in their respective aspect ratio so that every pixel is used in their video feed rather than line-skipping when sub-sampling from a much higher MP count sensor.
It’s got nothing to do with reducing costs. In fact most of the video specialist models are priced much higher.

 

[ricohflex]

A friend of mine happens to be an ah beng. He used a Canon 1DX Mk2 which he sold off in anticipation of better new models.
Upon confirming that the new Canon 1 DX Mk3 has only 20.1 MP (no improvement from Mk2) he immediately struck it off his list of potential buys.
Don't tell him that the number of MP does not matter in a top model. He is not interested to listen to strange theories why.
[By the way this is like (once upon a time) 3.2MP camera owners insisting that 3.2 MP is more than enough and that you do not need 8MP cameras]
Fortunately the world has progressed technologically.
In 2020, he cannot tolerate a new Canon 1DX Mk3 with 20.1MP.
Not when Sony A7 R4 has 61 MP, Nikon Z7 has 47 MP and Leica SL2 has 47MP.
And one more thing, he will NOT consider buying any camera that is not full frame. A Red Line. NO MFT or APS-C for him.
Now he is looking at Leica SL2. He can afford any of the new top models.
Is he representative of the typical buyers of new top model cameras in 2020? Yes, I think so.
If a top model camera has "only" about 20 MP in 2020, they will not even want to look at it in the camera shop.
Worse if it is not full frame.
So why did Canon shoot themselves in the foot? Probably Canon 1DX Mk3 was made for Tokyo Olympics 2020.
Canon reserved the big megapixels for the EOS R Mk2 or EOS R Pro in RF mount which Canon sees as the future.

Just viewed some of the Youtube videos on leaks about Canon EOS R5 specifications.

 

[SNAG]

I think if it can be easily done, Olympus or Panasonic would have increase the resolution of its sensor.

I am not a sensor expert, but I believe that there is going to be a compromise in other factors like Dynamic Range if they were to increase the resolution of the M43 Sensor. Already the dynamic range of its current sensor is slightly lower than FF, though not very critical.

Some Mobile phones has 48 MP with very small sensors. Surely Olympus users do not want 48MP but Mobile Phone quality

Anyway, I personally prefer resolution to be about 16MP to 24MP, which is why even Sony introduce lower resolution models eg. A7S series and A7 (without R) either to increase ISO limits or for cost reduction. Not every photographer need 42 MP.

As I wrote earlier, it would seem Olympus has a loyal core following.
They made their bet to go all-in with m43 a long time ago or perhaps the decision was made for them as the financial fraud disaster and subsequent years of unprofitability left them no room to pivot.
But their bar to aim for for survival is low. They just need to stop loosing a lot of money. Break even or thereabouts so it’s a rounding error in their financials and the investors will leave them alone.
They need to really understand their core users and cater strongly to them. Though they might not attract many new exclusive m43 users, I think they can pick up a few multi system users with some of the same highly refined products catering to their core users.
Pixel density for any effective angle of view will always favour the smaller sensor. This extends to the macro field where it’s more or less an even playing field as a deeper DOF is desired and pixel density is also an advantage.
What they are also good at are small and tough.
If they’re going to try something not done before why not try something they’re good at. Like a tough large-sensor compact, akin to an X100 but tough.

Their possible biggest issue is sensor procurement imo. They are likely still stuck with sensor volume commitments of past sensors as they keep missing shipping volume targets. Getting the 20MP E-M1.2 sensor into the E-M5.3 is a good start to move that sensor in higher volumes. It’s probably why the upcoming E-M1.3 is highly rumoured to still use the same 20MP sensor. If they are done with the older 16MP sensor commitments, then get the 20MP sensor into as many volume models as possible.
But why do they even need a new sensor, after all IQ levels have more or less stagnated. Scene DR rarely even exceed the maximum capabilities of m43, let alone FF unless you’re a specialist sunrise/sunset photographer or similar and even then there are other aids available to deal with the issue which I’m sure landscape specialists already have.

It’s because sensor bandwidth is the driver of most technology gains in mirrorless, from AF to the EVF feed to video.
So they need to get their sensor procurement in order before they embark on anything too ambitious. Some cooperation with Panasonic here might be helpful for both companies, after all they’re better at different things in their lineup but somehow I doubt it would happen, which is a shame.

Size/MP limitations aside, does feel there's scope to improve IQ. BSI seems to be a popular option. Oly seems to have gone for image processor improvements but I wonder how much can they do. For me, it was a noise issue rather than DR.

Apart from prior sensor commitments, I suspect they can't get the big boys to sit down and work with them. But just my conjecture...

Separately, an interesting article here (apologies if I'm not allowed to x-post):

Interview: Aki Murata of Olympus - 'Full-frame isn't for everybody'

Among the topics of discussion with Mr. Murata were the new OM-D E-M5 III and his company's strategy to attract professional photographers.

www.dpreview.com

 

[tommyk]

This interview is full of "ambigous" statements, including the ultimate one - the 150-400mm will change the world.

There are no definites about market share, numbers successful adoption of em1x among professionals etc.

If i am an investor or shareholder in the camera division, i'll be very very worried. Fortunately this is really a casual interview with a sales guy.

 

[Pitachu]

For me, it was a noise issue rather than DR.

Yes, noise is an issue with smaller sensors, the smaller, the noisier.
Just take a photo in the dark with your mobile phone and you know
what I mean.

I have been attending quite a few workshops with my local Olympus Club
and most of them usually mention setting a low ISO eg. 200 to 800.

The trainers have also encouraged us to go beyond our comfort zone
and set lower shutter speed than usual as the IBIS on Olympus
bodies are pretty good (3 to 5 stops below 1/zoom length formula.)
I have shot 1200mm outdoor handheld with ISO200
and 600mm Indoor Handheld at ISO200 and the shots are pretty decent.

Also, Olympus has tried to minimize the noise issue with built in
noise reduction in some of its functions like Live Composite.

Sorry, this is not related to the topic but just sharing on
noise issue with smaller sensors

 

[swifty]

A friend of mine happens to be an ah beng. He used a Canon 1DX Mk2 which he sold off in anticipation of better new models.
Upon confirming that the new Canon 1 DX Mk3 has only 20.1 MP (no improvement from Mk2) he immediately struck it off his list of potential buys.
Don't tell him that the number of MP does not matter in a top model. He is not interested to listen to strange theories why.
[By the way this is like (once upon a time) 3.2MP camera owners insisting that 3.2 MP is more than enough and that you do not need 8MP cameras]
Fortunately the world has progressed technologically.
In 2020, he cannot tolerate a new Canon 1DX Mk3 with 20.1MP.
Not when Sony A7 R4 has 61 MP, Nikon Z7 has 47 MP and Leica SL2 has 47MP.
And one more thing, he will NOT consider buying any camera that is not full frame. A Red Line. NO MFT or APS-C for him.
Now he is looking at Leica SL2. He can afford any of the new top models.
Is he representative of the typical buyers of new top model cameras in 2020? Yes, I think so.
If a top model camera has "only" about 20 MP in 2020, they will not even want to look at it in the camera shop.
Worse if it is not full frame.
So why did Canon shoot themselves in the foot? Probably Canon 1DX Mk3 was made for Tokyo Olympics 2020.
Canon reserved the big megapixels for the EOS R Mk2 or EOS R Pro in RF mount which Canon sees as the future.

Just viewed some of the Youtube videos on leaks about Canon EOS R5 specifications.

Canon didn't shoot themselves in the foot. They made the 1DX3 for a specific purpose and unfortunately for your friend, he's not their target market for that model.
I have no idea what the typical high end buyer looks like but he doesn't resemble any photographer I know buying high end equipment.
But numbers sell, sure. And there are models from virtually every manufacturers catering to the higher MP market.
If that's what'll make him happy, perhaps suggest the Fuji GFX100 to him.
He's certainly not the target market for the m43 system.

 

[swifty]

Size/MP limitations aside, does feel there's scope to improve IQ. BSI seems to be a popular option. Oly seems to have gone for image processor improvements but I wonder how much can they do. For me, it was a noise issue rather than DR.

Apart from prior sensor commitments, I suspect they can't get the big boys to sit down and work with them. But just my conjecture...

Separately, an interesting article here (apologies if I'm not allowed to x-post):

Interview: Aki Murata of Olympus - 'Full-frame isn't for everybody'

Among the topics of discussion with Mr. Murata were the new OM-D E-M5 III and his company's strategy to attract professional photographers.

www.dpreview.com

There's always scope to improve, but you need to know where those improvement will come from.
In terms of improving signal by moving to BSI from a FSI design, it is about improving sensor fill factor. The thing is with large sensors, the fill factors are already pretty good even with FSI designs due to gapless microlens designs. So a move to BSI doesn't net you a large improvement.
Now when you have a very high pixel density sensor, then BSI does make a larger improvement because the fill factor was poorer to begin with.
So as an example, if they maintained the 20MP total pixel count on a m43 sensor but changed from FSI to a BSI design, you'd expect a guestimate of around 1/6-1/3 stops in noise improvement. If you raised the pixel count higher, your fill factor if it was a FSI design would have gone down, so BSI only claws back some of that deficit. So a higher pixel count m43 with BSI will likely get you about the same IQ performance as the current FSI 20MP sensor.
BSI moves the supporting electronics to the back of the sensor and is largely about bandwidth improvements.

Noise and DR are inter-related issues and it comes back to signal and noise. Everyone is trying to maximize the signal part and minimize the noise part but when you're already adding so little read noise from the electronics, as the latest Sony sensors are doing you can really only increase the signal part. But what happens when your quantum efficiency (QE) of the sensors are already above 50% (meaning less than a stop from a theoretical perfect sensor), there's little you can improve on the signal part too. Hence why sensor IQ for Bayer sensors have largely stagnated and the total sensor area (sensor format size) more or less dictates the noise and DR performance.

The future improvements are going to be bandwidth. It needs to maintain today's sensor IQ parameters whilst increasing both bandwidth and read speeds. The so called holy grail of global shutter sensors already exists but that level of bandwidth to read all pixels at once comes at a read noise cost so are yet to be implemented in sensor intended for consumer cameras because IQ will drop from current levels.

 

[swifty]

Yes, noise is an issue with smaller sensors, the smaller, the noisier.
Just take a photo in the dark with your mobile phone and you know
what I mean.

I have been attending quite a few workshops with my local Olympus Club
and most of them usually mention setting a low ISO eg. 200 to 800.

The trainers have also encouraged us to go beyond our comfort zone
and set lower shutter speed than usual as the IBIS on Olympus
bodies are pretty good (3 to 5 stops below 1/zoom length formula.)
I have shot 1200mm outdoor handheld with ISO200
and 600mm Indoor Handheld at ISO200 and the shots are pretty decent.

Also, Olympus has tried to minimize the noise issue with built in
noise reduction in some of its functions like Live Composite.

Sorry, this is not related to the topic but just sharing on
noise issue with smaller sensors

I'm sure you already understand the point but to be pedantic, it's not that smaller sensors are noisier, they generally are not. It's that they have less surface area to collect light or signal. So they have less S in the SNR equation, not that they have more N.
If you think of it this way, then it makes perfect sense why you'd want increase your exposure either by lengthening your shutter speed (with the aid of IBIS but at the cost of motion) or opening up your aperture (increasing the light intensity per unit area but at the cost of reducing DOF). This is the case for all sensor sizes of course, but if you feel noise is a limiting factor on m43 sensors, you'd want to do anything you can to increase the light falling onto that smaller sensor.
ISO is NOT an exposure parameter though.

 

[ricohflex]

About the Aki Murata interview. He is an employee of Olympus and a sales VP. What do you expect him to say?
The 150-400 with built-in teleconverter is not a new concept.
Canon made a telezoom with with built-in teleconverter long ago in 2011.
Nikon made one in 2018.
Olympus is rehashing an old concept that others have done donkey years ago.
Murata the salesman, is making it sound like as though Olympus innovated a ground breaking "new" idea.

After 1 year on the market at time of interview, Olympus refuses to say how many E-M1X have been sold.
This is practically an admission of failure.

Quote { the company is confident that 'technology will develop' such that the current advantage of full-frame in some situations will eventually vanish. } UnQuote.
This reasoning is wrong. Fundamentally, any invention that improves the image quality of a small sensor, will be even more pronounced in a full frame sensor that is 3.8 times bigger.

Quote { Full-frame isn't for everybody. } UnQuote
Everybody means 100%. That is a non-statement. This kind of non-statement is useless. Anyone can say, "Not everybody likes hambugers" or "Char Kway Teow is not for everybody". Making meaningless statements in an industry interview reflects a wish to dodge the REAL issue.

Now what if 60% of the people want full frame? And 39% want APS-C, 0.9% want medium format and 0.1% want MFT?
I think that kind of breakdown is more useful information.

The idea of MFT being small and full frame being large is not true, as proved in the M10 vs E-M1X body size comparisons.

 

[tplongsg]

I have been lurking around reading your commentaries about M43. I am a sony user.

Olympus and Panasonic did a fantastic job with M43 and i recalled people derided me for buying a sony DSLR (everybody makes a better DSLR) and later a NEX5 (its a toy). I bought A7R without hesitating as i thought it was a great product albeit the teething issues.

Here is my 2 cents thought. Sony is an electronic company. It makes good electronic products. It can make a make many iterations of it and tries the market.

A7 series was a body for adapting lenses. So thats the bait in my opinion. Its marketing.

True they make good sensors. But it took them years to keep improving to meet what others knew is important.

I would think cameras on phones quality will keep creeping up. More software improvements will enhance images. Cameras need to move upping the capability to stay relevant

Olympus must improve their products. As long as IQ and low light capability is ahead of handphone cameras, its good enough.

 

[tommyk]

How many years before the phone makers can put a sensor that is as large as MFT.in the phones?

 

[ricohflex]

Today I saw many big prints up to one door panel size, of photos (claimed to be ) taken by Apple iPhone 11. The names of each photographer was printed. It was an advertisement. The adline goes something like "This photo was taken by iPhone11". They did mention Ultra Wide Angle lens. I think it was at the Down Town Line platform at Bugis MRT.

It was not stated whether software such as Genuine Fractals was used to digitally manipulate the process to make big prints from a VERY SMALL sensor in the iPhone11.

Not impressed. Pictures are flat, no "3 dimension". Colours are lousy. The prints have no life. Actually they are horrid.

Talking about the image quality and print reproduction. Not about the composition and content of the photos. i.e. it is a comment on the iPhone11 camera and not about the photographers who contributed the pictures to Apple.

When general public see these iPhone11 advertisements, they may be misled into thinking what a good camera it has.

If one wants to make such big size prints and retain high quality, maybe get a full frame or medium format camera (and not a smart phone).

 

[Pitachu]

I have been lurking around reading your commentaries about M43. I am a sony user.

Olympus and Panasonic did a fantastic job with M43 and i recalled people derided me for buying a sony DSLR (everybody makes a better DSLR) and later a NEX5 (its a toy). I bought A7R without hesitating as i thought it was a great product albeit the teething issues.

Here is my 2 cents thought. Sony is an electronic company. It makes good electronic products. It can make a make many iterations of it and tries the market.

A7 series was a body for adapting lenses. So thats the bait in my opinion. Its marketing.

True they make good sensors. But it took them years to keep improving to meet what others knew is important.

I would think cameras on phones quality will keep creeping up. More software improvements will enhance images. Cameras need to move upping the capability to stay relevant

Olympus must improve their products. As long as IQ and low light capability is ahead of handphone cameras, its good enough.

Yes, Olympus and every company including Apple needs to keep improving its products, or it will the last sale it made to their customers, then the company will die off.

As a M43, I am trying to be understanding that they are now working very hard against the constraint of the small footprint of their sensor, which is also their strength. (compact size, light, 2x zoom etc etc). Within the constraint of M43 sensor size, I dont think any manufacturer can come up with a sensor that can match FF sensors within these few years.

A lot of photographers keep banging on M43 IQ as do not understand that different cameras for more suited different uses and users. There is really no point in harping on the Image Quality and Hope that Olympus can come up with something. For me, I will keep my Olympus for Trekking, Travel and probably Birding.

For me, once I am going into taking landscapes or photos with extreme dynamic range, I will probably get a FF camera like the Sony A7R.

 

[sadwitch]

Summary of our (by who do you mean our?)opinions so far :

1. Olympus MFT has a group of loyal (I'll rather say what works for them) followers (also this thread is in Olympus section and naturally will attract Olympus loyal users)
2. Non-Olympus users will likely not adopt olympus MFT system.(Personally I've meet many people who have chose Olympus specifically understanding its benefits as a fun system through buying and selling equipment citing all other systems being too unwieldy)
3. Olympus won't have a competitive advantage going into FF. (No they won't until it materialise, then we can compare)
4. Outlook for Olympus MFT is bleak due to many reasons industry wide as well as specific to the company. (Only the execs can forecast that, us users just use)
5. Outlook for Olympus camera company is not much better and they have not adapted to the changing trends and threats. (trend is mobile photography for bulk user numbers, system cameras are only for the traditionalist who like to engage, enthusiasts and pros, unless they going into mobile and computational photography, all photographic companies are on the same shrinking boat)

Collective wisdom is something very accurate at times. Based on our (by who do you mean our?) opinions, the writing is on the WALL. The Olympus camera division is waiting to be killed, sold or die a slow and painful death (does that make you happy?) . There is nothing to rejoice, as Olympus camera was once an industry leader, with innovative products and marketing ability to reach new segments. Just like Blackberry for smartphones. Just like Saab for luxury cars. And nearer home, just like Borders Book store that was once the ultimate and classy book store. (Do you laugh or do you cry?)

Its only how long Olympus executives will persevere to sustain this camera division and the MFT mount. (Only the execs can forecast that, us users just use)