Olympus to sell off camera division

[Pitachu]

I just got my Olympus EM5 Mk3 a few months ago and join this forum shortly after.
I realized that many non M43 users and ex-M43 users may have misunderstood M43.

1. Why are there so many users bashing M43 saying that it cannot be compared to Full Frame
in terms of resolution, dynamic range etc etc?

> I am sure most Olympus users are aware that the M43 sensor is NOT going to match a FF sensor, just like Full Camera Users do not expect the quality to match medium format cameras in some aspects.

> Some user already said, if ever M43 can match the resolution and DR and IQ of FF sensors, by that time, FF sensors would have improved too. People who want the quality of FF sensors will just get a camera with FF sensor.

> It is also not an apple to apple comparison. Just look at the prices of a system with a few pro lenses.

2. Why are there so many people felt Olympus will be dead if it retain the M43 format?
> The threat is not better formats like FF or APS. The actual threat is Mobile Phone Cameras,
reason being everyone have it with them and it is so easy to share photos from the phone.

Camera buyers (non professionals) are people who are not happy with the limitations of Mobile Phone Cameras. It is up to them to choose a size and format they think most useful to them. Not all these camera
buyers want to jump into a Full Frame or even APS camera systems. There are actually new camera
users who buy a small range finder camera which can change some basic lenses like the Olympus Pen
or Canon M series. Yes, it is a small group, as there are not many hobbyists. Some, after understanding basic photography move to the EM10 or EM5 or Panasonic GX8 etc.

People who buy Full Frame are either
1) Professionals (paid to produce the highest quality)
2) Serious hobbyist that have reached a high level of expertise and willing to spend thousands to get the best quality
3) Super Rich Guys where money is not a concern

So, if you come from the perspective of a Mobile Phone User who wants slightly better quality, M43 make sense to get started. If you are serious photographer going for the highest quality, FF or APS makes a lot of sense.

FF will have a huge user base of professionals continuing to use FF equipment as these are tools to their livelihood.

M43, 1" and Action Cameras will have to think of innovative ways to engage the layman consumers.

 

[ricohflex]

Apart from still photos, manufacturers are now distinguishing themselves in Video capability.
For example the current rumour is that Canon EOS R5 has 8K video.
But video is not just moving images. It must have audio. That means a top quality accessory microphone (bought separately) is indispensable.
The camera built-in microphone will never be good enough for video blogging.
It seems Olympus MFT is not particularly renowned for Video.
Sony has S-Log, Canon has C-Log. Panasonic has V-Log.
Panasonic Lumix GH5 (MFT) is quite popular for video.
Mark Wiens currently uses a Panasonic Lumix GH5 & Leica DG 8-18mm f2.8-4 lens (stepless aperture changes - no clicks) for his food video blogs.

The danger to Olympus MFT also comes from the One Mount concept (for both full frame + APS-C bodies).
Namely, the Nikon Z mount, Sony E mount, Leica L mount and Canon RF mount.

All 4 competitors have entry level (cheaper + smaller) models which make it easier for new users to buy.
This is Very Important. It makes it easy for new users to gain entry into the system.
Once they are locked in to the Nikon Z/ Sony E/ Leica L /Canon RF system, Olympus will have no chance to win them over.
The One Mount concept offers users a ready made upgrade path to Full Frame, should they wish to, whenever they are ready.
And no need to buy another set of lenses. Although if you use Leica TL lens on a SL2 body (47MP), there will be cropping (20+MP).
But now you have IBIS and new Maestro III processor in SL2.
No need to change brands and thus no need to buy another set of accessories like dedicated flashes.

Not forgetting that these 4 rivals can use legacy lenses with suitable adapter.
If on a full frame body, a legacy 20mm remains as 20mm wide angle.
On a MFT body, an adapted legacy 20mm lens becomes 40mm, thus losing its usefulness as a wide angle.
There are many users who own top quality very expensive legacy wide angle lenses.
This is where MFT loses out significantly. Don't under-estimate the importance of this.

 

[sadwitch]

I just got my Olympus EM5 Mk3 a few months ago and join this forum shortly after.
I realized that many non M43 users and ex-M43 users may have misunderstood M43.

1. Why are there so many users bashing M43 saying that it cannot be compared to Full Frame
in terms of resolution, dynamic range etc etc?

> I am sure most Olympus users are aware that the M43 sensor is NOT going to match a FF sensor, just like Full Camera Users do not expect the quality to match medium format cameras in some aspects. (Ditto)

> Some user already said, if ever M43 can match the resolution and DR and IQ of FF sensors, by that time, FF sensors would have improved too. People who want the quality of FF sensors will just get a camera with FF sensor. (It has, but only comparing EM5 MK2 to the original Canon 5D which i have a fair bit of experience with shooting and processing images for magazines, of course people will say its an UNFAIR comparison )

> It is also not an apple to apple comparison. Just look at the prices of a system with a few pro lenses.

2. Why are there so many people felt Olympus will be dead if it retain the M43 format?
> The threat is not better formats like FF or APS. The actual threat is Mobile Phone Cameras,
reason being everyone have it with them and it is so easy to share photos from the phone. (Ditto)

Camera buyers (non professionals) are people who are not happy with the limitations of Mobile Phone Cameras. It is up to them to choose a size and format they think most useful to them. Not all these camera
buyers want to jump into a Full Frame or even APS camera systems. There are actually new camera
users who buy a small range finder camera which can change some basic lenses like the Olympus Pen
or Canon M series. Yes, it is a small group, as there are not many hobbyists. Some, after understanding basic photography move to the EM10 or EM5 or Panasonic GX8 etc. (Ditto and have met many who just enjoys the image making process with OMD and dislikes lugging the overall weight of other formats, i mean who buys a full frame and just use cheap kit lens throughout its life? As for the canon M it's just not a fully formed system in my opinion, Sony probably has better offering)

People who buy Full Frame are either
1) Professionals (paid to produce the highest quality)
2) Serious hobbyist that have reached a high level of expertise and willing to spend thousands to get the best quality
3) Super Rich Guys where money is not a concern (or maybe an ah beng who's sold to the mantra big is better )

So, if you come from the perspective of a Mobile Phone User who wants slightly better quality, M43 make sense to get started. If you are serious photographer going for the highest quality, FF or APS makes a lot of sense. (To me APS now is quite MOR (middle of the road) and only Fuji is developing a real mirrorless system)

FF will have a huge user base of professionals continuing to use FF equipment as these are tools to their livelihood. (Yes, but many professionals also use other formats right down to the 'lowly and tiny' mobile camera to supplement different shooting requirements, in the end it's how you use these as tools)

M43, 1" and Action Cameras will have to think of innovative ways to engage the layman consumers. (and professionals too)

Majority of my snaps now comes from mobile phone when I'm not shooting for work. When i choose my next phone, the camera and imaging capabilities ranks one of the top feature I look for and the top manufacturers knows this and that's why they are constantly pushing boundaries. Its not hard to understand, just ask yourself what's the next most used feature of your phone besides calling, messaging and browsing the web. For fellow photographers, i believe they think the same too. It's another format in their arsenal of tools.

M43 big step is integrating computational imaging to traditional processing and Olympus has its incredible stabilisation system and image stacking and bracketing capabilities with selected lenses as a start. If they or any other camera company can harness it, they can possibly ride the wave

 

[Blu-By-U]

Just because Oly does not flow with the crowd, it gets a bashing from non or former Oly users. Why? Nothing better to do?

 

[sadwitch]

Just because Oly does not flow with the crowd, it gets a bashing from non or former Oly users. Why? Nothing better to do?

And it is exactly that reason I support what Olympus is doing. Going against the grain.

 

[ricohflex]

May not be correct to assume that anyone who criticises the way Olympus is managing its camera imaging business, is a non-user or a former user.
This is the emotive problem. Some are so in love with the brand that any criticism of the company's direction / management / choice of products is considered heresy or "bashing".

When corporations hit the proverbial wall, they either:
1) do more of the same i.e. they double down on what they were doing wrong. (Olympus in 2020 insisting to make more MFT) (Kodak in 1996 spent a mountain of money to launch APS a film based format at a time when film industry was already in serious trouble. APS turned out to be an absolute disaster).

2) do less of the same i.e. they mitigate what they were doing wrong.

It is seldom that a corporation:
3) does something NEW or different or seek a new path.

In 1997 Apple was 90 days away from bankruptcy and they recalled Steven Jobs to be the CEO.
Steven Jobs did (#3). Apple made new genre defining products.
He did not do more of the same (#1).
In Aug 2018, Apple was worth more than USD$1 Trillion.

 

[sadwitch]

May not be correct to assume that anyone who criticises the way Olympus is managing its camera imaging business, is a non-user or a former user.
This is the emotive problem. Some are so in love with the brand that any criticism of the company's direction / management / choice of products is considered heresy or "bashing". (Likewise for everything else you purchase because you 'like' it while others may feel otherwise)

When corporations hit the proverbial wall, they either:
1) do more of the same i.e. they double down on what they were doing wrong. (Olympus in 2020 insisting to make more MFT) (Kodak in 1996 spent a mountain of money to launch APS a film based format at a time when film industry was already in serious trouble. APS turned out to be an absolute disaster).

2) do less of the same i.e. they mitigate what they were doing wrong.

It is seldom that a corporation:
3) does something NEW or different or seek a new path.

In 1997 Apple was 90 days away from bankruptcy and they recalled Steven Jobs to be the CEO.
Steven Jobs did (#3). Apple made new genre defining products.
He did not do more of the same (#1).
In Aug 2018, Apple was worth more than USD$1 Trillion. (And yet most people can only think of Olympus going the SAME SAME FF route?)

People ask why... I prefer to ask why not?

 

[tommyk]

I have taken a look again at Olympus Road Map for its pro-lenses :
12-100mm
12-40mm
25mm f1.2mm
300mm f1.4mm
and soon the world changing 150-400mm

If you just look at the lenses on its own, Its almost better than many other manufacturers eg : Fuji, Pentax etc and probably can hold toe to toe to Sony.
Olympus lens are good.

Looking back at 4/3 lenses especially the 50-200mm SWD and 35-100mm f2, all these are very good lenses.

But then the lenses has to be put on small sensors like these :

(M4/3 is same size as 4/3 refering to above)


If the Olympus pro lenses can be on bigger sensors like APSC and above, I am quite sure the Olympus system would have much better successes.
Maybe in actuality, Olympus camera division has competitive advantage in camera lens only like predominantly lens maker eg Tamron, Tokina.
So, if Olympus chooses to focus on Lens Only, their future could be brighter.

 

[tommyk]

Why are there less and less new m43 bodies in the market?

2015 - 6 new bodies from Olympus & Panasonic
2016 - 5 new bodies from Olympus & Panasonic
2017 - 4 new bodies from Olympus & Panasonic
2018 - 4 new bodies from Olympus & Panasonic

and in 2019 only 3 new bodies from Olympus & Panasonic.

 

[Pitachu]

I have taken a look again at Olympus Road Map for its pro-lenses :
12-100mm
12-40mm
25mm f1.2mm
300mm f1.4mm
and soon the world changing 150-400mm

If you just look at the lenses on its own, Its almost better than many other manufacturers eg : Fuji, Pentax etc and probably can hold toe to toe to Sony.
Olympus lens are good.

Looking back at 4/3 lenses especially the 50-200mm SWD and 35-100mm f2, all these are very good lenses.

But then the lenses has to be put on small sensors like these :
View attachment 70931
(M4/3 is same size as 4/3 refering to above)


If the Olympus pro lenses can be on bigger sensors like APSC and above, I am quite sure the Olympus system would have much better successes.
Maybe in actuality, Olympus camera division has competitive advantage in camera lens only like predominantly lens maker eg Tamron, Tokina.
So, if Olympus chooses to focus on Lens Only, their future could be brighter.

Yes, it will be great if Olympus can make lens for other brands.
But I think within the constraints of Physics, it could be very challenging
to produce the same lens for larger sensors.

That is why Olympus, Panasonic & Leica have not done it yet and
Tamron & Tokina also have not introduced M43 lenses.

 

[Pitachu]

Why are there less and less new m43 bodies in the market?

2015 - 6 new bodies from Olympus & Panasonic
2016 - 5 new bodies from Olympus & Panasonic
2017 - 4 new bodies from Olympus & Panasonic
2018 - 4 new bodies from Olympus & Panasonic

and in 2019 only 3 new bodies from Olympus & Panasonic.

Market Demand determines availability of funds to develop
and launch new models, unless the company feels that
there is a new direction to risk venturing into.

Except for Sony, other brands and formats have also slowed
down in introducing traditional formats. Canon & Nikon
who have missed the Full Frame Mirrorless Boat jumped in
these 2 years so are introducing improved models to catch up.

 

[swifty]

May not be correct to assume that anyone who criticises the way Olympus is managing its camera imaging business, is a non-user or a former user.
This is the emotive problem. Some are so in love with the brand that any criticism of the company's direction / management / choice of products is considered heresy or "bashing".

When corporations hit the proverbial wall, they either:
1) do more of the same i.e. they double down on what they were doing wrong. (Olympus in 2020 insisting to make more MFT) (Kodak in 1996 spent a mountain of money to launch APS a film based format at a time when film industry was already in serious trouble. APS turned out to be an absolute disaster).

2) do less of the same i.e. they mitigate what they were doing wrong.

It is seldom that a corporation:
3) does something NEW or different or seek a new path.

In 1997 Apple was 90 days away from bankruptcy and they recalled Steven Jobs to be the CEO.
Steven Jobs did (#3). Apple made new genre defining products.
He did not do more of the same (#1).
In Aug 2018, Apple was worth more than USD$1 Trillion.

There's a certain amount of irony in your post.

We see you doubling down on your own advice, not sure how many times now in this thread. How many more times is it necessary to repeat it?
It's not as if people missed it the first time, people answered and debated it.
They may just reject your opinion. Repeating it over and over again can easily be seen as badgering, if not trolling or bashing.

And advocating Olympus try something new then suggesting they join what 6 other competitors have already done?

 

[swifty]

Why are there less and less new m43 bodies in the market?

2015 - 6 new bodies from Olympus & Panasonic
2016 - 5 new bodies from Olympus & Panasonic
2017 - 4 new bodies from Olympus & Panasonic
2018 - 4 new bodies from Olympus & Panasonic

and in 2019 only 3 new bodies from Olympus & Panasonic.

Because there needs to be. In a contracting market every manufacturer will need to reduce their model numbers.

 

[tommyk]

Exterior Design & Aesthestic Comparison

Olympus EM1X & EM1 mkII

VS

Sony A7R iv

Based solely on exterior design and aethestic alone, which one of the 3 would you choose?

Is your answer align with the one that is on a high sales growth trajectory or the other one that is has minimum sales?

 

[Pitachu]

Exterior Design & Aesthestic Comparison

Olympus EM1X & EM1 mkII VS Sony A7R iv

1) Based solely on exterior design and aethestic alone, which one of the 3 would you choose?

Is your answer align with the one that is on a high sales growth trajectory or the other one that is has minimum sales?

Your question is actually quite limiting, but I will answer it and expand further.

1. Honestly, based on exterior design and aesthetic, I prefer the Olympus (personal subjective choice)
2. Based on technical capabilities, I definitely would get the Sony A7R iv. I am seriously thinking about it.
3. Below is the most important point.

Based on the system as a whole and my overall area of photography interest at the moment, I have gotten an Olympus system, as it does have lighter lenses for my trekking, a 60mm (tiny but powerful 120mm equivalent macro lens) and fast super teles (600mm F4 equivalent) for wildlife like birding.

But when I am not into activities which require me to move around a lot (eg. portraits and landscape), I really prefer a Sony (provided I also have the budget, as the system really costs a few times more so it is actually not an apple to apple comparison).

 

[swifty]

Exterior Design & Aesthestic Comparison

Olympus EM1X & EM1 mkII

VS

Sony A7R iv

Based solely on exterior design and aethestic alone, which one of the 3 would you choose?

View attachment 70943

View attachment 70944View attachment 70943View attachment 70944

Is your answer align with the one that is on a high sales growth trajectory or the other one that is has minimum sales?

A bit unsure of the relevance of your question but anyways..

Aesthetics of a camera is one of the least important buying decision to me. So my answer there would be, don't care.

As for design, it is often difficult to make an informed opinion until you have owned the camera, or at least try it out extensively.
I have had experience with both the E-M1.2 and A7RIV but not the E-M1X.
Body design wise, the E-M1.2 fits my hands very well. What I have an issue with are some of Olympus' UI decisions that make switching between systems a bit more difficult. I'm sure it's not a problem for an Olympus exclusive user.
The A7RIV fits my hand ok, but my biggest gripe regarding the spacing between grip and mount hasn't been addressed on the mark IV. The A7 series 3 grips were actually fine with me but it's the spacing to lens mount I didn't like. Sony's UI is also not particularly agreeable with me.

Now what's the relevance of the question again?
Can you point me to which company has high sales GROWTH in our current market? All I see are declining volumes, and even the best results are a small uptick in sales value without any breakdowns in where exactly it's coming from.

 

[Pitachu]

Is your answer align with the one that is on a high sales growth trajectory or the other one that is has minimum sales?

No, I don't believe in buying things based on high sales growth trajectory. It is better to look into my own requirements and buy what I need. A popular gadget may have a longer lifespan BUT that does not mean that it will not become obsolete and the manufacturer no longer support (eg. my old Apple TV, after 5 years, Apple stop updating it, prevent it from being used and the service center told me to buy the latest one, which I did).

My point is: Stop thinking what is going to stay and what is going obsolete. I am quite sure whatever I buy will have a lifespan of at least 3 to 4 years and I am happy using the equipment I find most suited to my needs these 3 to 4 years.

 

[sadwitch]

What this discussion reveals is really an interesting social phenomenal or what most call the herd mentality.

If enough online reviews/discussions/people says its Full frame or nothing, most people will just go with full frame or nothing without even testing or experiencing first hand. Few ask WHY must it be full frame?

It's a little like its better to buy a Toyota base on its resale value rather than what the individual really want and need and values and enjoys.

Maybe a question to ask yourself is, do you purchase a format because you enjoy using it or its based on what other people tells you to?

No, I don't believe in buying things based on high sales growth trajectory. It is better to look into my own requirements and buy what I need. A popular gadget may have a longer lifespan BUT that does not mean that it will not become obsolete and the manufacturer no longer support (eg. my old Apple TV, after 5 years, Apple stop updating it, prevent it from being used and the service center told me to buy the latest one, which I did).

My point is: Stop thinking what is going to stay and what is going obsolete. I am quite sure whatever I buy will have a lifespan of at least 3 to 4 years and I am happy using the equipment I find most suited to my needs these 3 to 4 years.

 

[sadwitch]

There are many gems in the Olympus m43 lens system even outside of their pro range which is not my experience with Canons granted they are the older EF L mounts. Most of the time it's a tad soft (to my eyes) when using at maximum aperture even for those L lenses. If you read enough discussions, the mantra is stop down the lens for sharpness. Yes indeed it improves dramatically starting at F4 but then I thought why should I buy a F2.8 lens only to get acceptable sharpness at F4? I prefer sharpness on the get go which many Olympus lens can deliver at maximum aperture. So as a system, Canon to me was a let down which prompted my switch. Besides I'm sick of lugging FF gears around.

Luckily for my work most people will just comment "that's a really sharp image" or "that image looks good" rather than "wow the dynamic range is incredible" or "the file size is so huge"

If you want to talk about sensor tech, I do wish Olympus could somehow make use of foveon with a little clever BSI and multi-shot computational stacking to get usable iso1600 images. Best thing is they don't need to go full size.

I'm always fond of the sigma foveon especially their sigma dp Merrill series. It's a dog of a camera but man under the right conditions, the images it can produce are almost medium format quality at 5 times less weight and 10 times less price.

I don't use sigmas but I don't bash them because of their laughable hi-iso performance.

Instead I hope sigma don't give up on foveon and continue to innovate where they eventually can deliver usable iso1600.

I have taken a look again at Olympus Road Map for its pro-lenses :
12-100mm
12-40mm
25mm f1.2mm
300mm f1.4mm
and soon the world changing 150-400mm

If you just look at the lenses on its own, Its almost better than many other manufacturers eg : Fuji, Pentax etc and probably can hold toe to toe to Sony.
Olympus lens are good.

Looking back at 4/3 lenses especially the 50-200mm SWD and 35-100mm f2, all these are very good lenses.

But then the lenses has to be put on small sensors like these :
View attachment 70931
(M4/3 is same size as 4/3 refering to above)


If the Olympus pro lenses can be on bigger sensors like APSC and above, I am quite sure the Olympus system would have much better successes.
Maybe in actuality, Olympus camera division has competitive advantage in camera lens only like predominantly lens maker eg Tamron, Tokina.
So, if Olympus chooses to focus on Lens Only, their future could be brighter.

 

[ricohflex]

Olympus MFT market share was 2.8% worldwide in 2019. With the emergence of better mirrorless camera models from competitors such as Sony, Panasonic (full frame), Nikon, Canon, Leica and Fuji (APS-C) what will be the likely market share for Olympus MFT in 2020?

Probably less than 1% worldwide.

Even so, Olympus top management may decide to continue and keep Olympus Camera Imaging Division on life support. If for no other reason but as an expensive money-losing hobby for the corporation. That is, until the investors and shareholders of Olympus lose their faith in this approach and demand the winding up or sale of Olympus Camera Imaging Division.

Discussion so far seem divergent in different paths.
(A) is talking about commercial viability of Olympus Camera Imaging Division in view of their fixation on MFT (sustained dramatic fall in world wide sales).
(B) is talking about 1 person's individual personal liking for Olympus MFT due to certain aspects (trekking and weather seal)

As to quality of Olympus MFT lenses. Some may be good. But definitely not all.
Don't forget competitors' lenses are good too. Actually, some competitors' lenses (Zeiss , Leica & Canon RF) are excellent.
Sony had opened up their E mount to Tamron and Sigma. And Sigma made some very good "Art" lenses in Sony E mount.
Sony has their own G Master series.
Zeiss makes lenses for Canon EF mount and Sony E mount.

Some Olympus lenses are made in Vietnam. Initially, some of the better lenses were made in Japan.
But later production location for some of these were later shifted to China.
And probably then to Vietnam in view of US-China trade war and tariffs.

If you think [Made in Vietnam] or [Made in China] is equal to [Made in Japan] or [Made in Germany], then you are entitled to your opinion.

About Olympus insisting to make more MFT in 2020. That may be the corporate equivalent of the Infantry Charge against machine guns.
Which was done in WW1 in Battle of the Somme in 1916 and again by Japanese commanders in WW2 using infantry Banzai charge into American machine gun fire. It is suicidal. Yet it was done because that was the way they always operated and were trained and the commanders (management) were unable to change their mindsets when the battlefield scenario has changed.