You may be right on the first part, that it is Olympus that does not want JIP to continue to use their name on the long term.
However, I must say the rest of your post are bias opinions and prejudice preconceived nonsense.
You had an Olympus Camera before and I am sure you should know which are the High End MFT cameras......
Just go B&H Website and search for Micro Four-Thirds Camera.
Hint: Those above USD$1000 are considered High End for Micro Four-Thirds.
Don't let your imagination run too wild and think that JIP will be looking at $10K cameras!
Where did you get that wild idea from? Even Sony and Canon highest end DSLRs dont cost
that much!
Before JIP even come out with anything, you already accused them of coming out with
low end rip offs! Obviously, you have totally no interest in M43 anymore!
It is also obvious you totally do not understand or appreciate what M43 is about,
by comparing it to A9 Mk3 or R1. You are like a rich spoilt brat with a Ferrari
raining insults on Toyota owners here. Pls move on and buy the Sony A9 Mk3
(Mk2 is already US$ 4498 body only) or the R1 (the R5 is already US$3389 body only).
M43 is not for people like you.
I built my M43 system with 6 lenses and a flash for less than US$4498!
However, I must say the rest of your post are bias opinions and prejudice preconceived nonsense.
You had an Olympus Camera before and I am sure you should know which are the High End MFT cameras......
Just go B&H Website and search for Micro Four-Thirds Camera.
Hint: Those above USD$1000 are considered High End for Micro Four-Thirds.
Don't let your imagination run too wild and think that JIP will be looking at $10K cameras!
Where did you get that wild idea from? Even Sony and Canon highest end DSLRs dont cost
that much!
Before JIP even come out with anything, you already accused them of coming out with
low end rip offs! Obviously, you have totally no interest in M43 anymore!
It is also obvious you totally do not understand or appreciate what M43 is about,
by comparing it to A9 Mk3 or R1. You are like a rich spoilt brat with a Ferrari
raining insults on Toyota owners here. Pls move on and buy the Sony A9 Mk3
(Mk2 is already US$ 4498 body only) or the R1 (the R5 is already US$3389 body only).
M43 is not for people like you.
I built my M43 system with 6 lenses and a flash for less than US$4498!
Petapixel article dated 7 Oct 2020.
Quote the title
[ JIP to Ditch Olympus Name, Focus on ‘High End’ MFT Cameras: Report ]
EndQuote
JIP to Ditch Olympus Name, Focus on 'High End' MFT Cameras: Report
Japan Industrial Partners' (JIP) acquisition of Olympus' imaging division may not have included the Olympus name according to a new report. Additionally,petapixel.com
The title is wrong.
It was Olympus that forbade JIP from using the "Olympus" name in the long term.
JIP could only use it for a short while.
Primarily to sell items already made with the name plate "Olympus" and kept in the warehouse.
Thus JIP was never in any position to "ditch" the Olympus name.
JIP would have loved to keep it for the next 100 years if allowed to do so.
Olympus knew that JIP may fail to make quality products. The subsequent products emanating from JIP may be low quality rip offs that live off the name recognition of OM or Zuiko. Thus there is no way Olympus can allow its name to be associated in the long term, with these embarrassing junk.
Sony knew that too. And the Vaio made by JIP are poor cousins of the original Sony Vaio. Wisely, Sony did not allow JIP to use the "Sony" name.
JIP promise to make the new company OM Digital profitable in 1 year.
I guess this means the usual pay cuts, massive layoffs, retrenchments, firings and culling the manpower costs - to boast an immediate mirage of "returning to profit".
Maybe they all misunderstood JIP when it said it will focus on "High End" MFT cameras.
JIP may be meaning to say, they will make MFT cameras for DRONES which will by their nature fly high in the sky.
Or JIP may make MFT CCTV cameras for surveillance and these will be fixed atop tall poles or high up on the walls of multi-storey buildings.
Thus the nomenclature of "High End".
If instead JIP meant making a USD$10,000 MFT camera body for consumers to buy, then they need to find buyers for this "High End" MFT camera.
When competitors are planning Z9, A9 Mark III, R1 for 2021. How to compete? Zero chance.
JIP seems to be a corporate graveyard for failed and horribly mismanaged companies/divisions.
Last edited:
MFT has its strengths and its weaknesses.
The mistake Olympus made is to want to break out of its advantageous area in a vain attempt to compete with Sony, Canon, Nikon full frame.
MFT should ideally be Affordable, Small, Light.
Is there really a need to make expensive F1.2 lenses for MFT?
It should be a budget set that is affordable and gets the job done reasonably well.
No need to compete with the BEST in the world.
Olympus forgot their market niche.
Most buyers just want a camera they can afford, easy to use, to take photos once in a while.
They may buy maybe, 3 lenses. Not everyone buys 30 lenses of a system.
Use the set for about 5 to 10 years before changing to a newer and improved set of same / or other brand.
MFT has an inherent advantage in long telephoto due to 2x crop.
Some will buy long telephoto MFT lenses.
But not a high percentage of camera users are into Africa safari or bird photography.
In these times of economic hardship due to Covid-19 effect, photography hobby is recognised as a non-essential.
Thus [Cheap and Affordable] is important for the foreseeable next few years.
Olympus cameras and lenses are not cheap if you check the pre-24 Jun 2020 prices.
That is the problem.
Users ask themselves, if they are willing to pay this kind of high price for MFT, then why don't they buy Full Frame?
If Olympus wanted to compete with the big players, it should have gone Full Frame by 2010.
Someone in other website forum commented that Olympus staff pleaded with their management to get into full frame many years ago.
Technically, Olympus is more than capable if it wanted to go full frame.
Some Olympus decisions are strange.
Like purposely making a lens with filter thread of 37mm - so that users are likely to buy the weird sized filter from them.
Or charge separately for lens hoods for some lenses.
When a company makes these money grubbing decisions, it usually ends in failure.
Remember the abnormal Minolta flash hot shoe that forced users to buy a flash from Minolta?
Instead of being a smart money making idea, it killed the company.
The mistake Olympus made is to want to break out of its advantageous area in a vain attempt to compete with Sony, Canon, Nikon full frame.
MFT should ideally be Affordable, Small, Light.
Is there really a need to make expensive F1.2 lenses for MFT?
It should be a budget set that is affordable and gets the job done reasonably well.
No need to compete with the BEST in the world.
Olympus forgot their market niche.
Most buyers just want a camera they can afford, easy to use, to take photos once in a while.
They may buy maybe, 3 lenses. Not everyone buys 30 lenses of a system.
Use the set for about 5 to 10 years before changing to a newer and improved set of same / or other brand.
MFT has an inherent advantage in long telephoto due to 2x crop.
Some will buy long telephoto MFT lenses.
But not a high percentage of camera users are into Africa safari or bird photography.
In these times of economic hardship due to Covid-19 effect, photography hobby is recognised as a non-essential.
Thus [Cheap and Affordable] is important for the foreseeable next few years.
Olympus cameras and lenses are not cheap if you check the pre-24 Jun 2020 prices.
That is the problem.
Users ask themselves, if they are willing to pay this kind of high price for MFT, then why don't they buy Full Frame?
If Olympus wanted to compete with the big players, it should have gone Full Frame by 2010.
Someone in other website forum commented that Olympus staff pleaded with their management to get into full frame many years ago.
Technically, Olympus is more than capable if it wanted to go full frame.
Some Olympus decisions are strange.
Like purposely making a lens with filter thread of 37mm - so that users are likely to buy the weird sized filter from them.
Or charge separately for lens hoods for some lenses.
When a company makes these money grubbing decisions, it usually ends in failure.
Remember the abnormal Minolta flash hot shoe that forced users to buy a flash from Minolta?
Instead of being a smart money making idea, it killed the company.
Last edited:
You really need to look at the overall characteristics of a system before taking that stand point that make it look as if Olympus does not offer other much lighter weight lenses.
My usual travel kit is the EM5 Mk3 with the Panaleica 12-60 F2.8 - F4, Panaleica 8-18 F2.8-4 and sometimes the Pana 45-200.
And I can put this together with a flash all in a waist pouch, including the camera body!
This is a far cry from what i used to carry in a huge backpack with my Canon 5D mk2, 24-70, 16-25, 100-400!!!!!!
MFT do not give very good bokeh effects as the 2.8 lenses bokeh are similar to 5.6 bokey on Full Frame, and I personally believe this is the main reason why Olympus come up with F1.2 or F1.4 lenses. Of course the lenses do offer 1 to 2 stop extra light but I think the application is quite limited.
Also, the Olympus 45mm F1.2 lenses only cost US$ 1149 (on B&H website) and weights only 410g.
The Sony 85mm F1.4 cost US$1798 and weights 820g!!!!!
On the practical side, I bought the Olympus 45mm F1.8 at SGD $200 Brand new when a number of users
got it as some purchase lucky draw and have no use for it
Olympus did not make a mistake making F1.2 lenses. Every manufacturer knows that there are always some users who do not mind spending more to expand their system (including Sony and Canon).
And Olympus needs to find ways to keep its users happy and spend more money when its customers want to spend. Otherwise, its users may move to other systems just to get better bokeh for example.
You just have to be aware and don't buy them if you have no need for them. But there are enough users that bought them and I think it does more help to Olympus during the hey days than brought it down as these are high profit items mentioned in their financial reports.
My usual travel kit is the EM5 Mk3 with the Panaleica 12-60 F2.8 - F4, Panaleica 8-18 F2.8-4 and sometimes the Pana 45-200.
And I can put this together with a flash all in a waist pouch, including the camera body!
This is a far cry from what i used to carry in a huge backpack with my Canon 5D mk2, 24-70, 16-25, 100-400!!!!!!
MFT do not give very good bokeh effects as the 2.8 lenses bokeh are similar to 5.6 bokey on Full Frame, and I personally believe this is the main reason why Olympus come up with F1.2 or F1.4 lenses. Of course the lenses do offer 1 to 2 stop extra light but I think the application is quite limited.
Also, the Olympus 45mm F1.2 lenses only cost US$ 1149 (on B&H website) and weights only 410g.
The Sony 85mm F1.4 cost US$1798 and weights 820g!!!!!
On the practical side, I bought the Olympus 45mm F1.8 at SGD $200 Brand new when a number of users
got it as some purchase lucky draw and have no use for it
Olympus did not make a mistake making F1.2 lenses. Every manufacturer knows that there are always some users who do not mind spending more to expand their system (including Sony and Canon).
And Olympus needs to find ways to keep its users happy and spend more money when its customers want to spend. Otherwise, its users may move to other systems just to get better bokeh for example.
You just have to be aware and don't buy them if you have no need for them. But there are enough users that bought them and I think it does more help to Olympus during the hey days than brought it down as these are high profit items mentioned in their financial reports.
Last edited:
Speaking of Olympus wanting to break out of its advantageous area in a vain attempt to compete with Sony, Canon, Nikon full frame, the ironical thing is that it is actually Sony who wants to step into M43 space with the A7c (tiniest full frame body).
Don't get me wrong, the A7c is a camera with a great sensor, caught my attention and I actually went down to a Sony store to test it out.
Initially, with the 28-60 lenses, I was surprised & disappointed with the image quality. I knew something is wrong and requested the sales person to let me try the A7c with the 24-105 & 24-70 GM Lenses and wow! With the 24-70 GM lenses, the details it capture really blew me away! And with the 24-105 GM lenses, it looks very good as well. You don't have to take my word for it, go down to any Sony shop and test the camera with the 28-60 kit lens and compare it to Sony other FE lenses GM series.
Now, back to the point, Sony trying to woo users who prefer a lighter weight setup, squash up a kit lens which the quality is really below my expectations of a full frame camera. You can't really have a compact lenses for Full Frame (law of physics) without compromising on the image quality. It really do not do justice to its full frame sensor. But if I have to pair the A7c with a GM lenses, then why do I even want the A7c. The Sony A7 or A7R is only very slightly heavier when compared to the weight of GM lenses you are pairing with.
I did not bring my Olympus with my PanaLeica 12-60 lenses, but I have shot similar set up (with toy robots and trees on a table) with my M43 setup and I am quite sure the image quality beats the A7c with the 28-60 kit lenses. And I am also not shy to admit that the A7c paired with the super expensive 28-70 GM lenses is really sharper and more detailed than my M43 setup. But the Sony 24-70 GM lenses (S$3199) with the A7c (S$2499) cost about 2.5x of my EM5 + Leica 12-60, so not really a fair comparison
My conclusion is that as long as I can shoot what I need with my portable M43 system I will stay with it. If I ever need better resolution, dynamic range etc, i would go all the way to get a A7Rx with corresponding GM lenses. The Sony A7c will not work for me.
Don't get me wrong, the A7c is a camera with a great sensor, caught my attention and I actually went down to a Sony store to test it out.
Initially, with the 28-60 lenses, I was surprised & disappointed with the image quality. I knew something is wrong and requested the sales person to let me try the A7c with the 24-105 & 24-70 GM Lenses and wow! With the 24-70 GM lenses, the details it capture really blew me away! And with the 24-105 GM lenses, it looks very good as well. You don't have to take my word for it, go down to any Sony shop and test the camera with the 28-60 kit lens and compare it to Sony other FE lenses GM series.
Now, back to the point, Sony trying to woo users who prefer a lighter weight setup, squash up a kit lens which the quality is really below my expectations of a full frame camera. You can't really have a compact lenses for Full Frame (law of physics) without compromising on the image quality. It really do not do justice to its full frame sensor. But if I have to pair the A7c with a GM lenses, then why do I even want the A7c. The Sony A7 or A7R is only very slightly heavier when compared to the weight of GM lenses you are pairing with.
I did not bring my Olympus with my PanaLeica 12-60 lenses, but I have shot similar set up (with toy robots and trees on a table) with my M43 setup and I am quite sure the image quality beats the A7c with the 28-60 kit lenses. And I am also not shy to admit that the A7c paired with the super expensive 28-70 GM lenses is really sharper and more detailed than my M43 setup. But the Sony 24-70 GM lenses (S$3199) with the A7c (S$2499) cost about 2.5x of my EM5 + Leica 12-60, so not really a fair comparison
My conclusion is that as long as I can shoot what I need with my portable M43 system I will stay with it. If I ever need better resolution, dynamic range etc, i would go all the way to get a A7Rx with corresponding GM lenses. The Sony A7c will not work for me.
Last edited:
1975 Kodak employee Steven Sasson invented first portable digital camera
1990's Kodak stock price US$95 a share. Kodak had 85% market share.
2010 Kodak stock price US$2.50 a share. Kodak had 7% market share.
2012 Kodak stock price below US 50cents.
19 Jan 2012 Kodak filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
It had more than 100,000 creditors, with debts totaling US$6.75 billion.
A succession of Kodak CEOs clung on to film and could not let go.
Very similar to Olympus and Panasonic clinging on to MFT and refusing to let go.
Panasonic finally adopted full frame in 2018, in a small way but continued with MFT
Collapse of a company/division does not happen overnight.
There are many warning signs over a long period of many years, all of which were deliberately ignored.
An American reviewer recalled a Panasonic management rep scolded him very fiercely, when he suggested Panasonic adopt full frame.
Panasonic management rep insisted MFT was good enough and no one needed full frame.
But a few years later, Panasonic joined L alliance and made full frame cameras.
If this was the way Olympus and Panasonic management treated outsider reviewers, then how much worse did they treat their employees who dared suggest that the company move away from MFT and into full frame?
The ROT in the company starts from the head down. Top management is to be blamed.
You may have brilliant engineers in Olympus and Panasonic. Just like Kodak had Steven Sasson.
And in spite of that, what happened to Kodak?
1990's Kodak stock price US$95 a share. Kodak had 85% market share.
2010 Kodak stock price US$2.50 a share. Kodak had 7% market share.
2012 Kodak stock price below US 50cents.
19 Jan 2012 Kodak filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
It had more than 100,000 creditors, with debts totaling US$6.75 billion.
A succession of Kodak CEOs clung on to film and could not let go.
Very similar to Olympus and Panasonic clinging on to MFT and refusing to let go.
Panasonic finally adopted full frame in 2018, in a small way but continued with MFT
Collapse of a company/division does not happen overnight.
There are many warning signs over a long period of many years, all of which were deliberately ignored.
An American reviewer recalled a Panasonic management rep scolded him very fiercely, when he suggested Panasonic adopt full frame.
Panasonic management rep insisted MFT was good enough and no one needed full frame.
But a few years later, Panasonic joined L alliance and made full frame cameras.
If this was the way Olympus and Panasonic management treated outsider reviewers, then how much worse did they treat their employees who dared suggest that the company move away from MFT and into full frame?
The ROT in the company starts from the head down. Top management is to be blamed.
You may have brilliant engineers in Olympus and Panasonic. Just like Kodak had Steven Sasson.
And in spite of that, what happened to Kodak?
Last edited:
1. Kodak did not clung on to film. Did you know that Kodak did introduced the Kodak DCS-14 (Full Frame DSLR) with Nikon Mount and stole some limelight from Canon 1DS. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakdcs14n
2. From the horses mouth, Kodak downfall is because of their pension scheme. One of the managers lamented to me that "1500 staff supporting 20,000 retired kodak employees. After Kodak sold off all it's patents for billions of dollars, it was gone in less than a year paying pension. That is how draining it's pension scheme can be and rob Kodak of funds for further R&D and marketing to forward it's digital technology.
3. Panasonic has introduced Full Frame, and even tied up with Sigma and Leica and L-Mount lenses. How much success did it had? Is Panasonic woes over?
Is Full Frame the solution to every manufacturer's problems?
4. Why did Panasonic continue to release the G100 camera for vlogging and the BGH1 for video professionals (both using M43 instead of Full Frame)? Do you think they spend 100s of millions to invest in 2 new production lines without doing a market survey on market requirements and preference?
Never imagine you are a genius and criticize companies on their directions from your armchair.
Companies did lots of marketing survey to find out what the market want before they began manufacturing.
I was fortunate to have taken part in a few of these surveys and was surprised the manufacturer actually produced so many mockups of their mobile phones for us to try and test before deciding on those models to begin manufacturing. (Just look at all the iphone leaks months before and you realize they are actually bouncing out ideas to the market).
2. From the horses mouth, Kodak downfall is because of their pension scheme. One of the managers lamented to me that "1500 staff supporting 20,000 retired kodak employees. After Kodak sold off all it's patents for billions of dollars, it was gone in less than a year paying pension. That is how draining it's pension scheme can be and rob Kodak of funds for further R&D and marketing to forward it's digital technology.
3. Panasonic has introduced Full Frame, and even tied up with Sigma and Leica and L-Mount lenses. How much success did it had? Is Panasonic woes over?
Is Full Frame the solution to every manufacturer's problems?
4. Why did Panasonic continue to release the G100 camera for vlogging and the BGH1 for video professionals (both using M43 instead of Full Frame)? Do you think they spend 100s of millions to invest in 2 new production lines without doing a market survey on market requirements and preference?
Never imagine you are a genius and criticize companies on their directions from your armchair.
Companies did lots of marketing survey to find out what the market want before they began manufacturing.
I was fortunate to have taken part in a few of these surveys and was surprised the manufacturer actually produced so many mockups of their mobile phones for us to try and test before deciding on those models to begin manufacturing. (Just look at all the iphone leaks months before and you realize they are actually bouncing out ideas to the market).
I used to own the Olympus m43 system a couple of years back. Starting in 2014, got the OMD-EM5 MKI with only a 45/1.8 lens. Sold that away as well as my Sony A7II and lenses as I wanted to purchase the Pentax K1, which we Pentaxians had been waiting for more than 10 years.
Did you know that there were always people saying that Pentax is dead since 2008? Even as recently as last week, my friend was cycling around Punggol Park and he talked to some photographers who told him "Pentax is dead". He laughed and told them, it is very much alive as I a good friend and others are still using and buying into the system.
Pentax under Hoya came out with new and exciting APS-C DLSRs instead. Then Hoya sold the Pentax camera division to Ricoh, BUT kept the Medical and precision glass divisions for themselves. Ricoh then came out with the FF K1 MKI in 2016 and the MKII in 2018. We are also expecting a new APS-C camera this year, BUT with the pandemic, it is also delayed.
Just this year I decided to get the m43 system again for travel purposes. I have the lenses I need to use with the K1 but I will not want to carry that load on a holiday. Most of my lenses are from F1.2 to F2.8, meaning that they are pretty heavy to lug around. I managed to get my hands on a New Old Stock Panasonic Lumix GX8 with a Panasonic G 12-35/2.8 at a cheap price of $990. I even bought extended warranty for both items. This is during May 2020 in the middle of the pandemic mind you.
You all may ask WHY? I also know that Olympus sold the camera division away BUT that does not stop me from buying into the m43 system once more. I also have the Pentax KP, APS-C camera, which my son uses and the Pentax Q7, which my daughter used in her elective class in the Poly. The lecturer was impressed with the photos taken by a small 1/1.7" sensor. This is a crop of approximately 4.5X and here people are complaining that the m43 system at 2X is not professional. To produce wonderful photos, it is basically the skill of the person behind the camera, which is just a tool to present to others what our eyes interpret.
Since when does it say that only professionals use the Big Canikony systems only. I personally know of 2 professionals who use Pentax as their daily workhorse. In interviews on Youtube, Ricoh-Pentax has clearly stated that they are committed to making cameras in the long run but are concentrating on the APS-C model for now.
We all need to take a step back and enjoy photography, and not worry about whether a system is dying or whatever. If we keep on worrying, we WILL NEVER enjoy this hobby we chose, whichever system we are using.
Did you know that there were always people saying that Pentax is dead since 2008? Even as recently as last week, my friend was cycling around Punggol Park and he talked to some photographers who told him "Pentax is dead". He laughed and told them, it is very much alive as I a good friend and others are still using and buying into the system.
Pentax under Hoya came out with new and exciting APS-C DLSRs instead. Then Hoya sold the Pentax camera division to Ricoh, BUT kept the Medical and precision glass divisions for themselves. Ricoh then came out with the FF K1 MKI in 2016 and the MKII in 2018. We are also expecting a new APS-C camera this year, BUT with the pandemic, it is also delayed.
Just this year I decided to get the m43 system again for travel purposes. I have the lenses I need to use with the K1 but I will not want to carry that load on a holiday. Most of my lenses are from F1.2 to F2.8, meaning that they are pretty heavy to lug around. I managed to get my hands on a New Old Stock Panasonic Lumix GX8 with a Panasonic G 12-35/2.8 at a cheap price of $990. I even bought extended warranty for both items. This is during May 2020 in the middle of the pandemic mind you.
You all may ask WHY? I also know that Olympus sold the camera division away BUT that does not stop me from buying into the m43 system once more. I also have the Pentax KP, APS-C camera, which my son uses and the Pentax Q7, which my daughter used in her elective class in the Poly. The lecturer was impressed with the photos taken by a small 1/1.7" sensor. This is a crop of approximately 4.5X and here people are complaining that the m43 system at 2X is not professional. To produce wonderful photos, it is basically the skill of the person behind the camera, which is just a tool to present to others what our eyes interpret.
Since when does it say that only professionals use the Big Canikony systems only. I personally know of 2 professionals who use Pentax as their daily workhorse. In interviews on Youtube, Ricoh-Pentax has clearly stated that they are committed to making cameras in the long run but are concentrating on the APS-C model for now.
We all need to take a step back and enjoy photography, and not worry about whether a system is dying or whatever. If we keep on worrying, we WILL NEVER enjoy this hobby we chose, whichever system we are using.
Sorry Em1 mark2 price was always US $1399 since the past year.($300 off). In June this year ,The US$899 discount was offered but was snapped up very quickly, EM1 m2 is a 2016 model. This month US$899 was offered again but snapped up fast too. G9 panny sometimes will have discount at US$997.
Sony A7ii sometimes will have discount at US999 too if you follow BH photo website.
Nikon FF D610 w battery grip and 50mm f1.8 they sold it at US$899 once. (how much was aD610 when it was launched?)
My point is all digital camera will drop in price no matter what.
Not shocking news.
Sony A7ii sometimes will have discount at US999 too if you follow BH photo website.
Nikon FF D610 w battery grip and 50mm f1.8 they sold it at US$899 once. (how much was aD610 when it was launched?)
My point is all digital camera will drop in price no matter what.
Last edited:
You are not reading right. Why keep pushing your own views? Why do you want mft to fail? What did the system do to you that you harbour so much hate?
Go read the previous post that pikachu and the rest have been writing and not just put your view and your ideas.
Go read the previous post that pikachu and the rest have been writing and not just put your view and your ideas.
Is this a shocking news? FF 50MP DSLR discount up to USD2400...
It shows that the demand of DSLR or digital photography has really gone down.
All digital bodies will and always dropped in price no matter what format or how big you are.
Let’s not whack m43 f
It shows that the demand of DSLR or digital photography has really gone down.
All digital bodies will and always dropped in price no matter what format or how big you are.
Let’s not whack m43 f
There is a lot of misinformation about micro 4/3 even malaysian Mr. Robin defered to the myth of higher resolution and dynamic range of full frame granted there it is evident on closer inspection but m43 small sensor has been bashed by " professionals" as well as reviewers who really don't know what they are talking about. Much like blind men describing an elephant as the cliche said. One of the "beliefs" is m43 cannot print BIG based on the assumption of 300 dpi or ppi as a magazine page view at 15 inches or so but the truth is the bigger the photo it must be viewed at a longer or futrher distance and actually need less than 300dpi. Here is proof that m43 can print big and the biggest print is from a GH4 16mp
file.
file.
Does this prove anything? Big print from iPhone 6S. It is all about viewing distance.
Credit: beta.techcrunch.com
Olympus MFT world wide market share in 2019 was 2%.
Panasonic MFT world wide market share in 2019 is unknown.
Generally can say, not successful.
No business can survive like that.
Both are sub-set divisions with a rich parent company.
If both were Stand Alone companies, they would have been bankrupt long ago and wound up.
In Olympus case, well the parent company lost its patience.
Clearly the majority of the market in general REJECT MFT, and whether it is fair or not fair, is not the point.
The fact is this is the TRUTH.
Criticizing how Olympus & Panasonic had run their companies is not criticizing the die hard fans of MFT.
Those who love MFT can continue to do so.
I still use MFT.
But I can comment that Olympus & Panasonic have made terrible mistakes.
Buyers look at the value for money proposition.
If by paying the same or slightly more, they can have full frame instead of MFT, then why not?
Some full frame are small. Sony A7c.
Not everyone goes for hikes in the mountains with a lot of gear.
Thus the concept of heaviness is depending on how you use the items.
And that's without talking about EM1X.
All the arguments suggesting how great MFT is for big prints apply even more so to prints from a full frame sensor that is FOUR times bigger.
Anyway MFT is being bitten at both ends. With mobile phones having 108MP.
Credit: beta.techcrunch.com
Olympus MFT world wide market share in 2019 was 2%.
Panasonic MFT world wide market share in 2019 is unknown.
Generally can say, not successful.
No business can survive like that.
Both are sub-set divisions with a rich parent company.
If both were Stand Alone companies, they would have been bankrupt long ago and wound up.
In Olympus case, well the parent company lost its patience.
Clearly the majority of the market in general REJECT MFT, and whether it is fair or not fair, is not the point.
The fact is this is the TRUTH.
Criticizing how Olympus & Panasonic had run their companies is not criticizing the die hard fans of MFT.
Those who love MFT can continue to do so.
I still use MFT.
But I can comment that Olympus & Panasonic have made terrible mistakes.
Buyers look at the value for money proposition.
If by paying the same or slightly more, they can have full frame instead of MFT, then why not?
Some full frame are small. Sony A7c.
Not everyone goes for hikes in the mountains with a lot of gear.
Thus the concept of heaviness is depending on how you use the items.
And that's without talking about EM1X.
All the arguments suggesting how great MFT is for big prints apply even more so to prints from a full frame sensor that is FOUR times bigger.
Anyway MFT is being bitten at both ends. With mobile phones having 108MP.
Last edited:
Latest development for M43: Sony has just developed a sensor for M43.
Looks like M43 is not going to be phased out so soon
Looks like M43 is not going to be phased out so soon
Actually Sony has been supplying its sensors to camera and mobile phone manufacturers for several years,
but it has been very busy and overwhelmed with orders the last few years (see article below).
Probably now it has found time to work on a long overdue request from M43 manufacturers
(anyway it is a relatively small volume compared to mobile phone market)
Besides Panasonic, there is no reason why JIP would not put the new sensor in future models of Olympus.
After all, JIP already has plans to introduce video-centric models for OM-D dslrs.
www.gizmochina.com
but it has been very busy and overwhelmed with orders the last few years (see article below).
Probably now it has found time to work on a long overdue request from M43 manufacturers
(anyway it is a relatively small volume compared to mobile phone market)
Besides Panasonic, there is no reason why JIP would not put the new sensor in future models of Olympus.
After all, JIP already has plans to introduce video-centric models for OM-D dslrs.
Sony can't keep up with overwhelming image sensor demands - Gizmochina
Sony Corp is working around the clock to manufacture its in-demand image sensors, but even a 24-hour operation hasn’t been enough.
www.gizmochina.com
Before the 2nd half of 2018, Sony had cornered most of the AF Full Frame ILC mirrorless market.
The sole competitor was Leica SL (announced in 2015).
But by Nov 2020, Panasonic, Canon and Nikon are competitors for AF Full Frame ILC mirrorless market.
Leica has a SL2.
Olympus (MFT) had given up and the market consolidated.
Sony's small E mount had its roots from APS-C origins. (Thus the smallness).
Sony small E mount's potential is like a stunted child that grows to a dwarf-like height and then stops growing.
Canon and Nikon had a total redesign from scratch and both got it right, with BIG mounts.
In the long term future, a manufacturer can make new bodies and introduce new features.
But a manufacturer is unable to progress beyond the limitations of its lens mount design.
In the long term Nikon and Canon AF Full Frame ILC mirrorless will improve beyond what Sony can offer.
The sole competitor was Leica SL (announced in 2015).
But by Nov 2020, Panasonic, Canon and Nikon are competitors for AF Full Frame ILC mirrorless market.
Leica has a SL2.
Olympus (MFT) had given up and the market consolidated.
Sony's small E mount had its roots from APS-C origins. (Thus the smallness).
Sony small E mount's potential is like a stunted child that grows to a dwarf-like height and then stops growing.
Canon and Nikon had a total redesign from scratch and both got it right, with BIG mounts.
In the long term future, a manufacturer can make new bodies and introduce new features.
But a manufacturer is unable to progress beyond the limitations of its lens mount design.
In the long term Nikon and Canon AF Full Frame ILC mirrorless will improve beyond what Sony can offer.
Last edited:
You should not compare a M43 camera with Full Frame, just like you do not compare Full Frame with Medium Format (which is dominated by Fuji, Hasselblad etc).
Just like if I have a need the features of a Medium Format SLR, I will go and get one and not continuing to lament that Full Frame is got good enough. By the way, I just read a review that the Sony A7 R4 (61mp) still cannot compare to the Fuji Medium Format 50mp in terms of noise level. The reason why people are choosing FF vs Medium Format is probably because of portability and range of use.
Ditto for M43. It was not designed to be a match for Full Frame. I just calculated the pixel density of M43 and it is already very close to the pixel density of the Sony 61mp sensor, which is why it is so difficult for M43 to go beyond 20mp within the area of the M43 sensor.
But M43 serves its purpose for its size, just like compact cameras and action cameras.
Olympus has chosen to focus on it's main business of medical equipment because the overall market size of digital SLRs are now a small fraction of what it use to be. This is due to market demographics, just like the case of compact cameras and film cameras. Not because the M43 format was wrong or it was somebody pet's project.
But M43, Panasonic and OM-D will still stay on as long as customers still see the benefits of a smaller format camera
Just like if I have a need the features of a Medium Format SLR, I will go and get one and not continuing to lament that Full Frame is got good enough. By the way, I just read a review that the Sony A7 R4 (61mp) still cannot compare to the Fuji Medium Format 50mp in terms of noise level. The reason why people are choosing FF vs Medium Format is probably because of portability and range of use.
Ditto for M43. It was not designed to be a match for Full Frame. I just calculated the pixel density of M43 and it is already very close to the pixel density of the Sony 61mp sensor, which is why it is so difficult for M43 to go beyond 20mp within the area of the M43 sensor.
But M43 serves its purpose for its size, just like compact cameras and action cameras.
Olympus has chosen to focus on it's main business of medical equipment because the overall market size of digital SLRs are now a small fraction of what it use to be. This is due to market demographics, just like the case of compact cameras and film cameras. Not because the M43 format was wrong or it was somebody pet's project.
But M43, Panasonic and OM-D will still stay on as long as customers still see the benefits of a smaller format camera
MFT may have its place with a VERY LOW % of the market. Those who like MFT for whatever reasons. They are entitled to.
According to Nikkei, Olympus had only 2.7% of world wide market in 2018 and 2.8% in 2018.
Nikkei did emphasise that in 2019, the market share figures will be much worse.
Thus in 2019, Olympus world wide market is "much worse" than 2.8%.
Credit: 43rumors.com (click on link below)
Article referring to Nikkei report for 2018
According to Nikkei, Panasonic world wide market share in 2019 is 4.7%.
But Panasonic makes Full Frame + MFT since 2018. (not counting the compact cameras and video cameras)
So let us say Panasonic world wide MFT market share in 2019 is below 4.7%.
Credit: sonyalpharumors.com (click on link below)
Article referring to Nikkei report on Panasonic in 2019
Credit: mirrorlessrumors.com
As a business, Olympus and Panasonic must be cognizant of the fact that the rest of the market (more than 90%) has rejected MFT overwhelmingly in the last few years before Olympus decided to divest its camera division.
By 2019 MFT is not a brand new concept - such that Olympus & Panasonic need to wait for some years to pass before they know the answer.
More than 10 years had already passed from 2008.
As a business, a manufacturer cannot doggedly keep making something that does not sell.
It does not make sense.
Because Olympus & Panasonic had loving forgiving parent companies, they were allowed to persist in their abnormal tenacious clinging on to MFT.
Panasonic's losses if any is not known.
Olympus lost many hundreds of millions of US$ over at least 3 years.
Hey, this is Ah Kong's money.
The CEO of Olympus Camera Division was losing hundreds of millions of US$ of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.
I would like to see if Olympus & Panasonic would insist on sticking to MFT, if their respective camera division CEO had to foot the bill personally.
That is the losses came out of their personal bank accounts.
Would they be so cavalier about purposely running the business into total failure.
Purposely making something (MFT) that more than 90% of their prospective customers reject and refuse to buy.
According to Nikkei, Olympus had only 2.7% of world wide market in 2018 and 2.8% in 2018.
Nikkei did emphasise that in 2019, the market share figures will be much worse.
Thus in 2019, Olympus world wide market is "much worse" than 2.8%.
Credit: 43rumors.com (click on link below)
Article referring to Nikkei report for 2018
According to Nikkei, Panasonic world wide market share in 2019 is 4.7%.
But Panasonic makes Full Frame + MFT since 2018. (not counting the compact cameras and video cameras)
So let us say Panasonic world wide MFT market share in 2019 is below 4.7%.
Credit: sonyalpharumors.com (click on link below)
Article referring to Nikkei report on Panasonic in 2019
Credit: mirrorlessrumors.com
As a business, Olympus and Panasonic must be cognizant of the fact that the rest of the market (more than 90%) has rejected MFT overwhelmingly in the last few years before Olympus decided to divest its camera division.
By 2019 MFT is not a brand new concept - such that Olympus & Panasonic need to wait for some years to pass before they know the answer.
More than 10 years had already passed from 2008.
As a business, a manufacturer cannot doggedly keep making something that does not sell.
It does not make sense.
Because Olympus & Panasonic had loving forgiving parent companies, they were allowed to persist in their abnormal tenacious clinging on to MFT.
Panasonic's losses if any is not known.
Olympus lost many hundreds of millions of US$ over at least 3 years.
Hey, this is Ah Kong's money.
The CEO of Olympus Camera Division was losing hundreds of millions of US$ of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.
I would like to see if Olympus & Panasonic would insist on sticking to MFT, if their respective camera division CEO had to foot the bill personally.
That is the losses came out of their personal bank accounts.
Would they be so cavalier about purposely running the business into total failure.
Purposely making something (MFT) that more than 90% of their prospective customers reject and refuse to buy.
Last edited:
Similar threads
