On top you can see the E-7 prototype close to the E-M1.
In an Interview at Amateur Photographer Olympus Manager Terada said:
“Nobody knows 10 years away… once we can get a very nice share [in mirrorless] we may expand the business to DSLR again, but at this moment we are just concentrating on mirrorless and we have no plan to go into DSLR.“
Terada also believes that:
“Olympus has the potential to take a large chunk of the market, in two ways: by winning over existing DSLR users; and by pulling in complete newcomers to system cameras.”
Hmmm, don’t think this will ever happen…Olympus going back to DSLR. Niet.
131 Responses
Yeah, riiiight…
They participate in a mini-revolution, demonstrating brilliantly that you don’t need a clunky mirror and all the awkward trappings of classical SLRs anymore, but they’d go back to it, probably once Canon and Nikon finally make a serious move into the mirrorless arena, of course, that makes perfect sense.
They succeeded with their plan to lure Canon and Nikon to abandon DSLRs so they can make and sell Olympus DSLRs. Makes sense. Behind that are likely Olympus fanboys who desire DSLRs.
This has to be taken out or context somehow. There is no way they would go back to SLRs. He must be talking full-frame, larger cameras….
I wouldn’t trust anything that Chris Cheeseman at Amateur Photographer reports about Olympus.
Terada’s statements are somewhat contradictory. Suppose Olympus somehow got a bigger share of the market by winning over DSLR users, then why would Olympus want to build DSLRs again (and try to win them over again)? Olympus would hang on to that market share for dear life by concentrating even more on mirrorless if it becomes successful, or try to get an even bigger market share with the new winning formula than going back to what has proven by then to be a dead end even for Canikon.
So, it ideas all political talk. There will never be a E-7.
Isn´t it a contradiction to go back to DSLRs if the mirrorless market grows? They should concentrate on mirrorless technology – maybe with different sensor formats in the future but in 10 years I believe that DSLRs will be even more outdated than now.
EVF’s are only going to get bigger and better, mirrorless AF is only going to get better with on sensor PDAF etc.
In 10 years is there going to be any reason to build DSLR’s? A mirror was just the best solution to a design problem that existed at the time, not something to aspire to.
What we need is for Canikon to build a pro sports mirrorless to get the trickle down improvements. The only reason modern DLSR AF performance is so good is decades of refinement and R&D on pro gear.
The definition of an EVF getting bigger and better is how closely it can mimic DSLR viewing.
Pretty sure the SLR has had bigger and better viewing 10 years ago than mirrorless has today.
50 years ago.
Clever thinking, Mr T! So now all folks who prefer to use DSLR cameras will move to Canon, Nikon and Pentax. And they will never forget how Olympus deserted them.
Olympus has deserted markets and customers before.
You mean during the good old OM-4Ti days? 🙂
Uh huh…
Add Four Thirds to the list, too. In every way except admitting it.
Thats garbage. The E-M1 is perfectly fine for the 43rds crowd. How many camera companies do you know that go to such lengths to keep a no longer profitable mount going? Just look at Sony: They ditch old mounts with a shrug and a “shoganai” and move on …
Sure, there’s some support for legacy 4/3 lenses. Lens adaptors and better focus speed. But thinking that Oly is actively supporting 4/3 borders on delusional.
When was the last 4/3 camera released?
When was the last 4/3 lens released?
3 or 4 years on both counts? With numerous “announcements” along the way of undying support with Terada-San making incredibly vague statements that could be interpreted any way you want, just like Bible myth.
They dont need to make many more lenses for 4/3rds sincethey cover pretty much everything right now, with quality to match from kit lenses to pro grade.
I do wish they released a updated dslr with the 16mp sony sensor since that is really the only main desire people wanted, at least that would have the biggest impact to bring it up to date.
Four Thirds evolved into Micro Four Thirds, they’re are plenty of photographers who today are still using both systems side by side…
Canikon DSLRs haven’t and won’t evolve, that will be their undoing.
I have waited a long time for Olympus to put the 16MP sensor in an affordable, modern E-7 type body.
But now I have given up and sold even my stellar Olympus 9-18mm f/4-5.6 ED Zuiko.
Bought a brand new Nikon D5100 body for €379 and couldn’t be happier.
You can keep your E-M1 and 12-40mm for €2199. I will not spend that kind of money on a camera.
Well, it’s just as well they lost you as a customer if you don’t like spending much money on gear.
They need the high spenders to make themselves profitable.
Anonymous wrote:
“Well, it’s just as well they lost you as a customer if you don’t like spending much money on gear.
They need the high spenders to make themselves profitable.”
No, they don’t need a few high spenders. They need many, many average spenders.
APS-C/DX sales are the bread and butter of Canon and Nikon.
I would have been happy to pay the equivalent price of e.g. a D7100 for an E-7 with the 16MP sensor.
Hmm yes, an E-7 for an approx $1000 price tag. Dream on.
Exactly. In order for the Imaging Division to survive, Olympus will have to offer a selection of good quality, affordable cameras.
Apart from the upcoming E-M10, that includes updated DSLR 4/3 models.
They already have an excellent range of 4/3 lenses in place, for pete’s sake.
Cheapskate. Go spout your Nikon propaganda somewhere else.
So, not willing to spend $1499 on an E-M1 body because you don’t want to spend ‘that kind of money’ on a camera, yet you were waiting for a hypothetical E-7? What do you think the price for such a camera would have been? And how would anyone take your comment serious if you don’t want to spend that kind of money on a camera anyway?
Oh, you were looking at the $2199 kit? Why? you have 4/3 lenses, which work quite fine on it, so no need to buy the kit, unless you don’t have a 4/3 lens covering the range of the kit lens already, but in that case, also add some $500+ to the kit price for an E-7.
Btw, in your case, that D5100 was probably the right choice, just don’t claim you were waiting for an E-7 when you are not at all willing to spend the kind of money such a camera would cost.
@hollandre
Photographers end up with the camera they deserve 🙂
Considering that the E-3 was two years late and the E-5 featured technology from three years earlier than when it was released, the company practically deserted their professional users anyway.
Hmmm…let me see, you don’t own these cameras. You don’t know what you are talking about.
with OSPDAF as good as em-1, and EVF just keeps getting better, there is no real reason to go for classic DSLR..
why cant olympus just make e-7 an m4/3 ? make it more modern design with top lcd display and tons of button to make it different to em-1
not everybody likes retro looks..
I suppose they could make an E-7 with native 43 mount. Just increase the flange distance of E-M1, keep EVF and on sensor PDAF and as you say have a LCD on the camera top. The extra volume inside the camera could fit larger or even an additional battery.
I think most 43 users would rather have E-M1 and access to m43 lenses.
Why would 4/3 users downgrade lenses?
I think he means “have 43 AND m43 lenses usable on a body (ie: you can’t use m43 lenses on a DSLR FT body)”: adding choice isn’t to be seen as downgrading lenses.
I was proposing the possibility of a mirrorless E-7, then countering that by suggesting the E-M1 is more capable since it can use lenses for both systems.
Did not know 43 had a 12mm F2 or a 45.5mm F1.2?
The E-M1 is too small to use Four-Thirds SHG lenses without a huge imbalance. Even the HG lenses could use a larger body like the E-1.
Absolute nonsense. You don’t own the E-M1, I do. And I happily use it with my twelve 4/3 lenses.
C. C. seems a bit unbalanced…. to much angry inside. Others can have opinions my friend, you are not the master of truth. Ask mom to put some ointment where is aching….
People are allowed to have an opinion… good call, but that includes people having an opinion on the opinions posted by others. Additionally, the post by bousozoku was stated as fact instead of opinion, so your comment about master of truth applies to both or to neither.
bousozoku expressed his opinion, although he didn’t wrote the word ‘opinion’, don’t you agree? A ‘fact’ is that the grass is green. One my disagree with an opinion, but a little politeness is welcome.
Both state their opinion as fact:
it IS too small
that is nonsense
And both are merely opinions, so your master of truth statement was a bit silly, and not really a good example of the politeness you (imo correctly) asked for.
The statement seems confusing. They should concentrate only mirroless. 4/3 is already history. None of 4/3 bodies and lens is able to compete against nowdays m4/3 gears.
“Maybe, maybe not,” is pretty much all Terada-san ever says about future developments. Not that I blame him or anything…
I have used SLR cameras for 35 years of my life, I have many E system cameras, and now EM-1 too.
EM-1 is nice. But if E-7 is available now, I would get one.
Sure, DSLR systems are more complicated and expensive to build, so manufacturers will tend to build more CSCs in future, to cut costs. But in actual usage, DSLRs and CSCs each have strengths and weakneses. I don’t thing DSLRs will go away very soon, that’s why Mr. Terada leaves door to DSLRs opened. Especially now, when Olympus DSLR lenses have a second life, and will be used well in future…
I am copying what I just wrote at DPR:
“I am not sure Mr. Terada mentions 4/3 at all. I took it to mean FF35.
A path to it might be cooperation with Sony for a joint FF mirrrorless at Photokina, that has been hinted at.
FF mirrorless however has some serious limitations due to limited distance to flange applied to a large sensor.
Therefore why not reconsider longer distances to flange and a mirror?
Olympus after all has FF35, OM in its genes.
4/3 nostalgia OTH is way off. Small sensor + mirror gave no advantage among the grown ups.
I guess Photokina will be the moment to ask further questions.”
As was mentioned there m4/3 might not be enough to return to profit, while the market is contracting. FF35 might offer even better profit margins.
It’s a purely a business consideration, no judgement about which system is better. Oly is just flexing its new muscles.
Good points!
– OM flange distance (FD) is 46mm,
– 43 FD is 38.67mm, and
– m43 FD is 19.25mm
– Leica M FD is 27.8mm
A shorter FD is more flexible in regards to adaptation. If Oly were to make a 135 format OM camera, I think they would likely keep the FD at least a short as M43 so it can be used in crop mode. Imagine the outcry if it was longer than Leica M.
The mount might have to be interchangeable like Ricoh GXR?
Actually, that sounds pretty ideal to me.
A shorter FD also creates problems that need resolving with each new camera version (specialised sensor being one). Both Leica and Sony have discovered this with lens mismatches. It also means that new and future lenses are more expensive to make. A flange distance of about 30-35mm would allow the best for image control and lens construction cost minimisation without being overly long for a mirrorless camera.
+1 for your points.
But don’t expect this to happen anytime soon. As T. says: “Nobody knows 10 years away… once we can get a very nice share [in mirrorless] we may expand the business to DSLR again, but at this moment we are just concentrating on mirrorless and we have no plan to go into DSLR.“
btw: is it a sign that the Captcha for my message is “OM2”? 😉
Yes, I am aware Terada commented “why not”, when asked about FF systems. And this certainly is a possibility (with Sony or without).
However, with current tech available to Olympus, 4/3 camera can be built, which can operate as DSLR, or in mirrorless mode as EM-1 (with 4/3 lenses only of course). True amphibian, E-5 and EM-1 in one body, with all of 4/3 and m4/3 strengths, and none of their weaknesses. No “short flange” weaknesses. Yes, they would need to build some more primes for this (Zooms are well covered)
No manufacturer has efficient DSLR and mirrorless mode available in one camera (albeit EOS 70D is getting close)
Altough I have 5D3 and two older APS Canon bodies too, Olympuses get heaviest usage, due to lenses and versatility. E-5 and EM-1 functionality in one cam, would make it “One camera go everywhere” for me. Maybe I would even sell my FF cam.
And don’t feed me with “you are totaly wrong”. I’m not predicting what Olympus will do in future. I am merely expressing what works for me, and what would work even better. Surely there are other people with similar experiences on this planet…
What do you feel an E5 brings to the party that the EM1 has not already laid on?
Optical VF, and Phase detection AF with optical VF
I should elaborate importance of Phase detection with optical VF and where it might have an advantage.
I have EM-1 for quite short time. Here is what I suspect it is happening. I’m not yet sure about this, please correct me if I’m wrong.
With lots of light available, I have a feeling that EM-1 camera is closing down aperture when observing the motive through EVF (seems to me that for viewing (and AF?) purpose the camera sensor can not handle too much light).
If you want to take a photo with wide open aperture during daylight, this is what I suspect will happen:
– It will focus with closed aperture (wide DOF)
– when you take a pic, aperture will open, and DOF will be much smaller than observed previously through EVF
– It might even happen, that focus will not be on the desired place wit narrow DOF
Generally the camera focuses wide open rather than with is closed down, as better light is always better for contrast, unless the amount of light is so large it needs to stop down to avoid clipping/damage to the sensor. However, you can test this easily yourself: Just look in the lens and try to focus on something, Unless you have a slow lens, it’s very easy to see when it’s stopping down and when it isn’t.
I have the EM5, and working on an EM1 later (probably once my tax return comes, but possibly sooner), but I know on my EM5 it definitely uses wide open focusing whenever it can. The preview image is usually wideopen as well, unless you specifically tell it to close down (DoF preview).
This is not entirely correct, actually it is wrong on one very important point.
For live-view on the rear display or in the EVF, the camera generally keeps the lens wide open unless there is too much light, in which case it will stop down the lens. This is the cause of the ‘rattlesnake’ effect with some lenses with loud aperture mechanisms.
For AF, the aperture is opened up as far as possible for 2 reasons:
– better contrast
– less DOF.
You can verify that by looking into the lens from the front while it is doing AF, and with lenses with a somewhat loud aperture, and when looking at a bright scene, you can hear this happening.
There are currently a few advantages of the E-5 over the E-M1 with regards to PDAF:
– cross type AF points
– AF points are better distributed over the frame
There are also a few advantages of the E-M1 over the E-5 with regards to PDAF:
– AF points much closer to eachother, making C-AF and tracking more reliable
– Imaging sensor can be used for tracking, giving much better color/shape/pattern information
– Imaging sensor can be used for things like face recognition together with PDAF
mmm Oly making a FF would not be objectionable (although I would question it as a good buisness move) – but I would much much rather SONY make a m43!
I have a very good and nice vanity mirror and I haven’t been using it for a long time anyway.
So would somebody help me how to build it im my Lumix G5 in order to keep the pace with the newest trend, that is, returning to cameras with mirrors?
+1 LOL
Yes! Yes! Yes! I told you this hundreds of times, Olympus, but you didn’t care to listen! Or maybe listened with one ear only. 🙂 Make a DSLR and listen to me in the future! 🙂
“Olympus says they will go back making DSLR if Mirrorless keeps growing.”
No, Terada-san said they “may” make again DSLRs. “May” indicates merely the possibility of this happening. “Will” indicates certainty.
Exactly. ‘They may or they may not. 10 years from now. No plan to go into dslr.’ This doesn’t mean anything.
Will they even be around in ten years??
HIGHLY doubtful! At least not in they way they are now. I expect Sony or somebody to gobble up Olympus in less than five years.
As a Canon fanboy you are, I’m quite sure you would say the same five years ago…
I’ve owned 5 M43 cameras, numerous lenses, currently sitting at 3, with the G6 I’m plotting on getting.
Don’t talk what you don’t know… It speaks lowly of you.
Yeah, I’ve owned about 15 Hassleblads, 27 Nikons and at least 100 Canons. Not only that, but I had no less than 42 lenses for each.
Yeah. I had that problem. Had to move to a bigger house and put a trailer on the Range Rover. Can’t afford any more cameras for a while! Maybe next week a…………..?
Exactly. He is just saying ‘never say never’.
I have the same feelings when I contemplate buying a Phase One back.
I don’t discount the idea.
I just need to wait until I win the lottery.
Olympus cameras must evolve into a situation of sustainable profit – otherwise the operation will be shut down.
If the market asks for a product, it is therefore intelligent to develop and market such product.
Mirrorless is still not a great success. Sells best in Japan and Asia. But looking at that top 20 list Japan we saw a while ago, it was dominated by cheap and old cameras. That equals low profit.
Olympus must adopt to reality – and sell a lot better – in order to survive.
It is another question whether Olympus can be competitive in DSLR or not – more competitive than in mirrorless? I have my doubts.
One problem for mirrorless i they should be cheaper than DSLR, but I cannot see that. On the contrary, an EM1 is much more expensive than a Nikon D7100. Both are “high end” in respective segment.
Whether you or me like DSLR over mirrorless or not is another question. As I use both, my take is there is use for both. I reality it is about old and new technology. The new one includes more features but has some weak sides, mainly by being an image of (virtual) reality rather than actual reality.
Why should they be less expensive ?
Sure, they might cost a bit less to produce (that might not be the case, Olympus not being able to benefit from the same economies of scale as Nikon does), but more and fresher R&D money went into the E-M1 than into the D7100 and Olympus has to cover it over a fewer number of units.
You further visualise the problem Olympus has: It is not profitable. Too high price per unit limits the growth in number of units sold. Adding DSLR could mean more units to distribute development costs.
Very few buyers will pay extra just to save a brand.
They should be less expensive because they are less expensive to make. Cheaper, half baked lenses fixed by software, electronic viewing rather than expensive reflex viewing, fewer raw materials.
The market sees no sense in paying more for less. Hence the profitability of DSLRs, the unprofitability of pricey Oly mirrorless.
@Per K
Olympus are selling better. They are nearly at number 3 in market position in Japan.
They have increased market share in Mirrorless.
Micro Four Thirds is doing really well in all developed markets except North America (but where it is still growing)
Micro Four Thirds does not have to be cheaper than DSLRs it can b,e but mft covers a wide range of bodies from PEN to LUMIX G to O-MD to GH to Black Magic to AF100.
Micro Four Thirds uses newer better technology than DSLRS.Some DSLRs are nearly at Point and Shoot desperate territory.
WYSIWYG is the main advantage of Micro Four Thirds.
DSLRS = buyers remorse.
The problem is, Olympus never, ever, after the demise of the OM system, offered continuity for pros or enthusiasts on a semi-pro level.
FT started out as a system for pros with the E-1 but, as such, failed, mainly because the sensor was not good enough and the camera too expensive. Then, Olympus had some success selling more sensibly priced mid and entry-level DSLRs with a somewhat improved sensor, but lost most pro-level customers, because the E-3 took much too long to appear, and when it appeared, the sensor was, again, not good enough.
Then, once more with a somewhat improved and, at the time, at least halfway decent 12 MP sensor, Olympus offered their most attractive mid-range/semi-pro DSLRs ever, the E-620 and E-30. Too bad they were only sold for a short time.
And then, for the third time too little, too late, the E-5 appeared for the few pros still on board, with another incarnation of the then already outdated 12 MP sensor.
When Olympus, much later, finally got their hands on their first really competitive sensor since the E-300’s 8 MP chip, they should have updated the E-5, the E-30 and the E-620 instead of just introducing the E-M5.
By the way, they would have needed to improve and complete the FT lens line-up, too.
And when the E-M1 came out, virtually all Olympus E-System enthusiasts were already happily using Canon or Nikon with no wish or need to ever go back.
Until then, MFT wasn’t enough for semi-pro or pro demands, either, because even if the E-M5 is a decent camera and there are many MFT lenses out there to buy, many of them are too slow (as in aperture), and/or not good enough, and/or too expensive.
Disregarding the fact that Terada didn’t say they WILL make new DSLRs in the future, he just speculated they MIGHT, there wouldn’t be anyone left to buy such a beast then. Not after Olympus permanantly demonstrated that they just don’t care for those customers.
(Me, I’ll probably upgrade my FT gear with an E-M1 some time this year anyway…)
“after the demise of the OM system, offered continuity for pros or enthusiasts on a semi-pro level.”
Not before or during either.
PEN F mount? oh well…
OM 707 and OM AF mount? oh well…
And lets not even get to that very short lived modified p-thread mount on that interim camera when they couldn’t get the OM-1 released in time.
In the 1970-1987 timeframe, they used no less then 4 mounts, only one of which lasted more then a few years.
Continuity was not a strong point for Olympus, and the ‘bridge’ between m4/3 and 4/3 in the shape of the E-M1 is absolutely unique in Olympus history, it is the first time ever they did provide a real migration path that allows for continuity from the end-user point of view.
The substantial part of the message is: “We have no plan to go into DSLR.” The rest is rather hypothetical.
It must be frustrating for Olympus to make such nice products which are accepted in an overwhelmingly positive manner, yet to see a declining trend in sales. I suppose this is the price of going high end. It will take a few more years before mirrorless systems are perceived as valid alternatives to SLRs by the Western public. Patience is a great virtue in this case. I just hope for the sake of Olympus that they don’t attempt anything stupid (e.g. Thom Hogan predicts a full-frame future).
The way to turn to profit is quite simple: keeping the good design work, nourishing the system with regular incremental improvements (sensors, PDAF etc.) and pricing things competitively (albeit not too competitively). Sadly, the market tends to reward stability more than groundbreaking innovation.
More like the price of chrging too much for a simpler to make product!
Sorry I love m43 but we do get charged up the ass for lenses (with less glass then APSC/FF) and bodys with less moving parts and complexity…
@sneye
Hogan doesn’t understand Micro Four Thirds, Olympus, demographics, marketing, inventories and how people are actually using their cameras in todays world.
You keep throwing around these allegations yet when challenged fail to back up your statements – or will I finally get answers to my questions on this topic from December? http://www.43rumors.com/olympus-forecast-says-they-will-return-to-profit/comment-page-1/#comment-2829033
Global Shutter in combination with on sensor PDAF will extinguish DSLR…
But the price is a problem, i could get an d7100 with 18-105 for 1100 CHF the em1 Body only…1700CHF
And Murrica wont go mirrorless so fast… they seem to need super size menus, cars and cams…
WTF!? DSLRs are dead!
Poor stupid Canikon, selling 50 times as many cameras as Olympus, drowning in money, and not realizing they’re selling corpses…
mmm yes they CURRENTLY sell lots – but the technology is dead, redundent, kaput…
Whats the betting that Canon are going to be moving to mirroless within 5yrs… or they will become irrelevent!
They made a KILLER start with the “M”! 🙂
If they are rolling in cash RIGHT NOW selling DSLRs, how exactly is the technology dead?
It’s not.
Once Canikon goes mirrorless (and that will happen *without* switching to tiny cameras and a new set of incompatible lenses, batteries and everything else), only then we can talk about the technology being dead.
For now it’s not, and the mirror still rules the photography kingdom. There are obviously reasons for that.
Canikon’s switch to mirrorless will keep the form factor. Again, there are reasons for that, the most important one being “decades of modern evolution of form factor and ergonomics for a given functionality”.
Small cameras aren’t the future. We already had (and still have) small compact cameras, and that market got annihilated by smartphones.
The same will happen with small mirrorless cameras. There is no point in making a conscious decision to carry a small gadget with you when a different smaller gadget does the job well enough and you never leave home without it.
Don’t believe me? When did the portable music player market die? When phones started playing mp3 files. When did the portable hard drive market die? When thumb drives became fast enough and cheap enough. When did the thumb drive market start dying (it’s almost entirely dead now)? When phones got 8+ GB of storage. When did the compact camera market die? When phones started taking photos of comparable, if not better, quality. “But bigger sensor and lenses!” – well, the vast majority of people don’t care; never underestimate the progress of both hardware and software. Right now, a good phone takes better low ISO photos than the former Olympus flagship DSLR.
In the end we’ll be left with mirrorless cameras in the current DSLR form factor. The smaller ones will disappear.
Canikon already went mirrorless, and guess what, both introduced a new mount, and new lenses specifically for it, and both with smaller cameras.
You are right about the mobile phone…nowadays is 10% phone and 90% gadget (camera, storage, mp3 player, radio, video player, mini-computer etc).
Hovewer all those feats have bean achieved grace to miniaturisation. So maybe in the next 5 to 10 years new sensor technologies (organic maybe?) will make small sensor cameras to be the equals of today’s top ff monsters (like D4). On the other hand big sensors will benefit from the same technologies and we’re going to see some out of this world IQ that we aren’t yet dreaming about yet…
Time will tell what will be the real future of the photo industy…who will survive, what formats will be popular, what will be the evolution of prices etc
@Andy
The Nikon D4 wasn’t the success that Nikon hoped it would be compared to the Nikon D4.
The D4 is only a small step up from the best of Micro Four Thirds in some areas in others not.
New technology has to be relevant to the consumer, client and the producer and has to give a big enough jump and benefit to take off and be adopted.
I’m not expecting any big jumps after 4k that will take off for quite a few years.
They’re certainly not making money until the 5DMkIII and the D800 bodies, unless they’re selling something other than kit lenses.
The article says pretty clearly Oly has zero plans to introduce any DSLR, not sure why the headline implies otherwise.
Sony and Fuji have been boote3d out of the DSLR market. There is no room for anyone else. Olympus has zero chance of going there, as it is fighting hard right now to even turn a profit. Worse-in contrast to last year, Oly has no distribution channel, no support organization, no marketing organization (Sony out of the goodness of its heart promises it will handle all that hard stuff for Olympus…), and most of all no money to fund such a very risky undertaking.
Besides, everyone here has been declaring the DSLR dead. But suddenly if Olympus does it, it’s ok then.
@ronin
Canikon are milking a dying dinosaur just like they are in the Point and Shoot segment.Nikon has made no inroads in the video segment either.What hope?
The Great new mirrorless technology is not selling well because no matter how great it is it is being marketed very poorly or not marketed at all. This is a company failure. why make a good product that may compete and take market share when you can’t make it visible to buyers? you cant’t provide a reason for people to buy your product. Just being great means nothing. Everywhere I look I see Apple products, Apple commercials etc. force fed marketing to the masses. Until this happens dslr swill sell well. If Canon or Nikon get to the point that they are really threatened then they will do this. You will see ads, commercials and products at the drug store on every corner for people to see.
+1
Moreover, Nikon has already demonstrated they can do mirrorless pretty well. The Nikon-1 mirrorless already solve the only problem left in mirrorless: continous focus speed. The Nikon-1 can do birds-in-flight as well as their top DSLR. I suspect many other aspects of the Nikon-1 which aren’t competitive right now (compared to e.g. Panasonic GM1) have been crippled on purpose
In fact, Nikon DSLR factory pipeline is a cash cow, so they don’t want (and will not) kill it until it’s worth that much money. As soon as mirrorless from other manufacturers starts to seriously threaten Nikon’s DSLR sales, they would up their own mirrorless offering and remain the market leader. I wouldn’t be surprised if Nikon already has secret mirrorless prototypes that are as good as the D7100 in every aspect. They just don’t have any need to flood the market with them until the investment in factories and R&D fro the ole slapping mirror tech is fully cashed back.
PS: I am an Oly and Panasonic fanboy, but I’m realistic about the competition.
The smaller the format, the easier it becomes to solve the C-AF problem due to having more DOF, so its no wonder the Nikon 1 cameras were the first to get this working. Yet, do they do a better job then say an E-M1 at this? Possibly, but it does require more then enough light and a dead-center subject.
With regards to Nikon and being prepared to deal with change and ‘out of left field’ competition, maybe you should read up on how Nikon let ASML wipe the floor with Nikon’s lithography business, despite ASML at that time being an upstart with a fraction of the budget and resources that Nikon had. Obviously no guarantee that they will do as badly with their photography business, but it does point at 2 very important things:
– Nikon only started moving when it was waaaaaaaaay too late
– Nikon now heavily depends on its photography business because its other line of business is no longer going to keep them afloat
The simple consequence is that any mistakes in their strategy will have serious impact on the company, as they have no alternative source of income to cover for this.
@dav
all you said was already said 2-3 years ago in 2011 lol.
Birds in flight is a tiny segmentof the market as it’s not who the Nikon 1 was aimed at. The Nikon 1 is a fail, it was suppose to have 50% of the market share of the mirrorless market leader within 6 months…quoted from Thom Hogan.
Nikon will let the Nikon 1 die in 2014-15 as it has no room to pivot.
Nikon will not bring out a successful mirrorless camera ever.
If that was purely a company problem, then it would apply to one or possibly a few companies. Yet, it seems to apply equally well to all participants in the mirrorless market.
What this rather points at is:
– conservatism of the market (for which there is a lot of historical evidence actually)
– no company managed yet to find the ‘magic’ combination of product and marketing to break this conservatism
Terada was just being polite and diplomatic – “in 10 years… who knows…”
The non-polite translation: never going to happen.
The problem is that everything that terada said is analysed to much. He is an engineer, not a marketing Guy. And he is absolute right, nobody knows what’s in 10years, especially in electronic technology. Just think about it, if you would go back in time, just 10 years, and bring a smartphone,a computer and a digital camera from to day, all of this would be pure science fiction. heck, even 5 years ago, nobody knew that tablets would come, or 36mp, in normal 35mm cameras.
I think it’s not to clever to talk to the media, as if it’s a person. Because every bit that could make a story, will end as a story, even if it’s in general, just: “I can’t see the future, I’m not a oracle, everything us possible in 10 years”
What is the point? – The mirror is redundent… Why don’t they make a film camera…
And what has doing well in mirroless got to do with DSLR… reason they did well in mirrorless is because people don’t care for mirrors… So just because they are doing well now they think that means eveyone will buy a DSLR… CRAZY CRAZY hopefully this is just an off the cuff remark or missinterpritation!
Unfortunately, don’t recent mirrorless sales figures bear out the point that “everyone is buying DSLRs?” 🙁
Yes, of course, because 5 years after the introduction of SLRs, TLR were already out of the market…
To put things into perspective, the modern SLR appeared during the 30’s and the TLR remained a dominant force well into the 70’s (and it took 40 years of combined pressure from rangefinders, SLRs and Polaroid instant cameras to bring them down).
@jeffharris
DSLRs suffered steeper drops in sales than mirrorless cameras.
Mirrorless sales figures have also been distorted by the EOS M and Nikon 1 launches and fails, Micro Four Thirds is doing well with Olympus increasing market share.
If Oly remade the OM-1 like Nikon did with the S3 or SP, with a state of the art OM 50mm f/1.2 – I’d consider buying it. That would whip up some hysteria and brand recognition.
Then bring in the new 135 digital OM with modular mount..
I’d even incorporate a motor into the OM mount for full auto diaphragm (i.e. meter and focus wide open, automatically stops down for shot).
People from some cultures are very polite. What if the journalist – off record – has “remembered” the good old days of Olympus with 135/SLR cameras? I take it as a diplomatic answer that DSLR will not happen now. I suspect the cited statement is out of context.
Piffle.
My best guess: if they go back into DSLRs, it will be large sensor ones to compete with high-end models for studio or specialized work. I think it’s very unlikely they’ll re-launch their four thirds system. As for what mount they’ll use, maybe Sony’s? Seems possible. And if they were to make FF mirrorless (as ridiculous as that sounds) I think it’s very likely they’d partner with Sony on it.
This interview is what I don’t want. Very a few people want to buy DSLR from Olympus.
Hasn’t it been rumored that at Photokina we’ll see a Sony-Olympus camera, that would be FF mirrorless?
Then the second rumor, this vague one, about *dSLR*. So perhaps there is an amount of teasing about something which you will see only by third quarter, with no bearing to m4/3.
Same prediction that Hogan makes about other mirrorless brands…
“Olympus has the potential to take a large chunk of the market, in two ways: by winning over existing DSLR users; and by pulling in complete newcomers to system cameras.” A DSLR user of a latest generation APS-C sensor must be incurably mad to let himself/herself be “won over” to a PEN without any grip, ie terrible handling, or to an infuriatingly expensive E-M1 with a rather low ISO rating. The only way to have a DSLR user buy a PEN/E-M1 is for a second body. That’s me – a Olympus DSLR user: three 43 bodies and two PENs. Problem is, actually I am going to partially leave 43/m43 for either a Pentax K-30 or a Sony 7A. A natural move after the stupid Oly decision not to make a DSLR with the latest generation sensor. Just think: a FF latest generation sensor camera (A7) costing less than a m43 thing that is even weaker in ISO terms than the E-PM2 costing four times less. For me it would be sheer stupidity to spend €1500 for an E-M1 and not €1400 for an A7. Not even vanity – because an A7 is the thing to brag around with, not the E-M1.
How about you go buy that k30 and just stfu?
– 1/4 stop diffetence in ‘high iso performance’ is based on dxomark, but somehow you keep ignoring that this same dxomark tells you this is an irrelevant difference
– you ignore a 2/3 stop improvement in DR.
– street prices for the a7 do already drop below that of the e-m1 at times, despite the a7 having a higher mrsp and the e-m1 having been available for some 1 1/2 to 2 months longer. Why would that be?
But please go buy that k30. Its a good camera, and seemingly much closer to what you want. A7? I’d take a very serious look at that camera and the system it is part of. Depending on what you want to use it for, it can be anything from the perfect solution to a total disaster.
If there’s a reasonable argument in there, I can’t find it. The E-M1 has a comparable ISO rating to an APS-C DSLR. It sits between Nikon and Canon’s best APS-C’s in terms of image quality and is very close to both. You’re buying the E-M1 for the features, weatherproofing, build quality, the EVF, the lens selection, and form factor, etc…
If you prefer an optical viewfinder, you want a DSLR. Otherwise, I don’t see the sense in what you’re saying. An optical finder does not make a camera better at taking pictures. It’s just another way to see though the lens, which is something every digital camera can do anyway.
The low ISO rating is a myth. Buy a camera because it has the features you need. Not because it has a mirror or because of some myth that the MFT sensor is “tiny”. It’s within spitting distance of APS-C, so there are more important considerations.
Sometimes those corporate managers seem to have been lobotomized when you hear their statements.
It’s so stupid to dropout a system (DSLR) saying that mirrorless is the future (I agree with that) and the next day saying that we might return to DLRS in 10 years but only if mirrorless is profitable (which isn’t right now but could be in 2014)…
@Andy
see my earlier comment regarding Chris Cheeseman at Amateur Photographer.
“Olympus has stopped DSLR development” That is the core message in this interview. And in case they earn enough cash flows from DSLM sales, they might re-enter DSLR market. But that doesn’t make sense.
This whole discussion is silly…Olympus has moved on in the best direction they could in the market…they did not totally abandon their customers…but the direction is clear. We need to move on with them and mAke our decisions accordingly. Simple. That’ slice.
Nevertheless you should remember this:
http://newcameranews.com/2014/01/08/investigative-report-why-is-micro-four-thirds-doomed/
animals get smaller with m4/3…
“once we can get a very nice share [in mirrorless]”
Haha!
how are they going to do that, when they have been losing market share in mirrorless three years straight?
They need to stop this guy from talking to press… I guess he really means, at the rate they’re going, they’ll never go back to DSLR.
Instead of thinking about possible DSLR development in 10 years, Terada, how about give us better firmware upgrades/updates in your current cameras you offer. I wand better video codecs in my “PRO” E-M1.
Lol! Olympus and their plans!
Havent they heard they are almost gone, extinct!
The financial analists said so! Sony QX is the future!
Hahahah!
All those finacial gurus are equivalent of payed reviewers on the internet.
I wish I knew the perks and their fees.
Probably inside trading info.
The financial analysts (learn to spell, you 12 year-old), are morons just like you. See you here next year, as business continues to grow for the independent Olympus. BTW, you sound suspiciously like MrALLCRAP.
Next time take a big breath and oook up irony.
Google it spellin-nazi grand-paaa!
:-P:-P
Don’t understand the logic behind this…
Olympus back into DSLR? Yeah, I’ll get one of those and use it to photograph flying pigs.
Hey, pigs did fly!
Here’s a haiku
Loss of commitment:
why should we tout mirrorless?
We have lost focus.
Olympus has many E3/E5 parts sitting in the warehouse, how the management is thinking of finding a way to use them.
The article says pretty clearly Oly has zero plans to introduce any DSLR, not sure why the headline implies otherwise.
Sony and Fuji have been boote3d out of the DSLR market. There is no room for anyone else. Olympus has zero chance of going there, as it is fighting hard right now to even turn a profit. Worse-in contrast to last year, Oly has no distribution channel, no support organization, no marketing organization (Sony out of the goodness of its heart promises it will handle all that hard stuff for Olympus…), and most of all no money to fund such a very risky undertaking.
Besides, everyone here has been declaring the DSLR dead. But suddenly if Olympus does it, it’s ok then.
Just maybe he means DSLR style camera, like E-M series. In any case, Olympus can carve a niche market out as second system for all Full Frame DSLR owners. Just as nice a system, but scaled down to half the size.
Pen series is looking weak, but let’s see how the E-M10 goes. Hopefully Oly can find it’s groove with the E-Mx bodies. Perhaps they should call it E-M5 Mark II – that seems to work for Canon.
Despite the discussion I still think that Oly is helping Sony in refining the A cameras, notably in the AF and the IBIS areas, so that perhaps we could see a rebranded Sony-Oly, with one or two new Oly FF lenses.
Problem would be if to use Sony mount or an original Oly FF mirrorrless mount. Terada then might have tried to muddle the track, saying something but not giving up the project in advance.
It felt very queer how similar the A is to the M1. Also having a shorter register it could take Oly m4/3 as a crop of a FF35 sensor, if Sony gave it to them.
With such a camera *added* to m4/3 Oly would cover all bases, and increase profits – while allowing Sony and itself to start nibbling at C&N more profitable markets.
Unfortunately Terada used the word dSLR (did he or the translation?) which is confusing, but he might have meant just that, being a project that we’ll see at the Photokina.
Just a guess, but a guess that makes sense. Competition/cooperation was already at work in 4/3 and m4/3 between Oly and Panny. It makes even more sense in the most expensive tier.
Using an existing 4/3 or m43 mount on a 35mm sensor mirrorless (even 7a) would be a waste of time and doom or handicap the product. The mounts are not wide enough to allow bigger faster lenses. Also the shorter flange distances often require sensor mods that would need to be readdressed every model (eg WA usage). Lens construction is also more difficult/expensive for shorter registration distance on a 35mm sensor.
However this is exactly what Sony is doing. Like Zeiss Oly can adapt lenses to FE. It could also make an adapter for m4/3 since Sony’s register is shorter.
I think Olympus has a lot of sorting to do with their current act, before going on about new or additional product lines. They do not have product or market continuity and their international policies are totally fragmented.
The much mooted World Wide Warranty for example is a figment of their marketing imagination. The ‘World’ being encompassed mainly in the area between the pacific and the north atlantic with participation from some others. However, many full Olympus subsidiaries do not support it. Issues like these need to be sorted out. An International company needs to have a common policy across all its operational areas. A photographer from Texas is not going to be happy when on assignment in Australia is told “hard luck mate” when a camera or lens packs up.
The issue of discounting in the US market also needs addressing at HO level. We live in a world of open communication. Pretending that the EU cannot see the US subsidies is a little dim. Then thinking that they do not believe they are paying more because of the subsidies is dimmer. Then being told its the EU taxes is even dimmer. Its very strange but some of them do know that they pay tax, and they pay tax on the selling price. Some have even worked out that the selling price could be lower by non subsidisation. Amazing!
Chance of this happening? Very slim.
Chance of it happening and being successful? Virtually nil.
Just what innovation or price gap does the dSLR market have that Olympus could fulfil?
DSLR? That’s got to be a mistake. FF with Sony? That seems more possible. Personally, I’d rather see innovation around M43 — better and better ISO performance, faster lenses, sturdier bodies, etc. A second tier of FF would likely split attention and resources, and M43 would suffer
I would love for Olympus to bring out an FF mirrorless. I think it wouldn’t actually hurt their m43 offering, just as FF doesn’t hurt Sony/Nikon/Canon’s APS-C offerings. Gives a way to upgrade. Something that Pentax never got around to. But problem is, they have no lenses ready (unlike the others who keep feeding the old FF AF lenses down into the DX market). May could use some old OM designs, but still no AF. Oh, and all the others keep using the same mount. Heh, looks Oly is in a corner, hard to get out. I started with m43, but once I realized the difference to a bigger sensor (in terms of DOF, couldn’t care less for IQ as that is already plenty for many of years), I used the APS-C camera more and more and stopped using the m43 many moons ago altogether. Afterwards I got a Canon 5D Mark I as well, but it is really too clunky, so it rarely gets a treat. Missing live view is the other reason. So can’t wait to upgrade to a reasonable priced mirrorless FF.