Our latest article about the (bad) financial results from Olympus caused a very long discussion. Thom Hogan commented the results and I wanted to highlight his arguments.
Key points of the Olympus article:
– The imaging division is continually loosing money while the whole company is doing good (see medical division). Thom: “The problem in imaging is progressive: they’ve lost more money in each successive quarter during the past year. This, too, is not a good sign without anything in sight that would reverse that trend. Neither the [shoplink 18844]E-PL2[/shoplink] nor XZ-1 are going to change that overall trend. I’ll get to the problem in a moment.”
– Overseas digital imaging are down in the rest of the world (-30% in the US and Europe) but not so the japanese sales (only -1%)
– The new Olympsu chief will be a non japanese person which comes form the medical division.
Thom Hogan explains why Olympus is doing that bad:
Can’t say that any of this is unexpected. Olympus continues to lose market share in compact camera sales, and they don’t seem to be able to handle the sales price reductions as well as Nikon, Canon or Sony. They don’t market those cameras well, at all, and certainly nowhere near as well as NikonUSA is marketing Coolpix (with weekly Instant Savings advertisements in virtually all US markets). Couple this with mis-guessing the yen/dollar relationship and things get tough. Meanwhile, Olympus has basically continued the “we don’t really know what we’re doing” trend that started way back after the [shoplink 14878]OM-4[/shoplink] in the film world. Olympus gets on these “this is the new standard” kick and produces something that doesn’t completely stick, then abandons it instead of fixing it. We went from “small SLR” to “ZSLR” to “4/3″ to “m4/3.” Where’s the continuity of direction? After putting a lot of energy into developing some great 4/3 lenses we now have only one 4/3 body being sold that uses them, and we’ve been told that might be the last 4/3 body. Great, so what did that do to 4/3 lens sales? Zonk. Meanwhile, it’s unclear where Olympus is going with m4/3. So far we seem to be back-pedaling to catering to the lowest end (E-P2 -> E-PL1 -> E-PL2, plus the lenses are catering more mass market, too). Meanwhile, the bluetooth widget is nowhere to be found, let alone apps on smartphones to take advantage of it. I see randomness in Olympus camera offerings, and have for quite some time. That’s not to say they can’t make a good camera–they do–but the potential customer doesn’t get a clear picture of where Olympus is or where they are headed. That’s a marketing problem.
To me the issue is that they seem to be pursuing random ideas trying to find the one that resonates and sticks. This, too, is a marketing failure. If you really knew your customer and related to them correctly, you’d know what would work in the marketplace. To me, this is one of the big failures of ALL the camera companies, but the smaller you are the more vulnerable you are to it, especially when you change course like Olympus has.
The whole E-P1/E-P2, E-PL1/E-PL2 thing was a big mistake in almost every respect. First we have the similar names, which has already been discussed. Next we have the “we’re iterating every six months (but not really)” factor. Unless Olympus is getting better manufacturing margins out all this iteration, they are pointless. An E-PL2 is not really all that different from the [shoplink 16885]E-P1[/shoplink]. We’ve got engineers moving buttons, changing shapes, altering minor components, but the user is getting the same performance while being confused over where Oly is headed. Panasonic at least managed to move a bar with the [shoplink 16254]GH2[/shoplink] (though they made the same mistake with the [shoplink 17361]GF2[/shoplink] as Oly is making with their 1/2 iterations).
But I’m going to be much more critical here: in the now 20 months we’ve had m4/3 bodies from Olympus, we’ve gotten four iterations of the same thing. This does not look like progress on a clear direction. It looks like “trying to figure out how to make it more cheaply.” That Panasonic is now doing the same thing is not a hugely reassuring thought. What we haven’t seen yet is PARALLEL development pushing m4/3 forward. Okay, I’ll stand slightly corrected, the GH2 does push forward from the [shoplink 14826]GH1[/shoplink] in a number of clear ways. But Olympus isn’t there yet. The longer the time between the four look-alikes and something significantly new, the bigger the problem for Olympus.
Oh, one more thing. Olympus seems to think (along with Panny) that one of their key customers is the so-called Camera Girl (young Japanese woman). If so, they’ve failed to deliver (so far) the one thing that customer would want, which is no-brainer workflow to social sharing of images. The bluetooth module may be targeted at that, but it’s not here yet and I’m not convinced that they got the “no-brainer” part right, either.
The risks:
…”The other businesses are reasonably healthy, so the risk is that you let an unhealthy division pull down the entire company. Smart leaders don’t let that happen. The fix the problem, spin it out, or shut it down.”
“Olympus is not going broke. Losing money in a division is not the same thing as going broke. However, Olympus’ financial position as a full company is not such that they’ll be able to sustain continued loses in the imaging division. The alternatives are pretty clear: (1) fix it, (2) sell it, or (3) close it. It being the imaging division. Given that Olympus is mostly a medical and instrument company these days, they won’t spend a lot of time on (1). If things don’t turn in the next year, they’ll have to look at (2) and (3).”
What they need to do:
“Olympus needs to prune lines, establish clear customer goals, build products that actually solve those customer’s needs, communicate what they’re doing better, and do it all faster. Sounds simple enough to me.”
Prediction:
“Panasonic will at some time in the future buy what’s left of the Olympus imaging division. For Panasonic, it would give them more engineering and better sales relationships in the US and Europe with camera dealers. They’d also get more lens designs to add to the lineup and tweak. But that’s about all they’d get, so it won’t be a large transaction.”
Dear readers feel free to add your comment. Please try to rationalize your arguments. No fanboy comments please.
P.S.: I vote for Thom Hogan becoming the new Olympus CEO! 🙂
Useful links: The popular [shoplink 14878]OM-4 at eBay[/shoplink]. Thom Hogan’s website bythom.com.
[poll id=”41″]
204 Responses
That would be fine with me. Hell, if Panasonic would have been smart enough to go with IBIS I would be using their cameras now instead of Olympus anyway.
Great piece, highly recommended read.
I sure hope Oly can fix it, but the ‘sell it to Pana’ option sounds good as well.
Thom is basically right. A couple years ago, Olympus had a clear market niche and a clear position.
Their cameras were robust and well made.
All their lenses were sharp wide open.
They were somewhat eccentric, always on the leading edge of development.
Now – the E-5 is isolated. An E-650 and E-750 should have been no-brainers. Can you imagine how good a camera that combined the best of the E-520, the E-620 and the current sensors would have been?
They haven’t produced a single ‘sharp wide open’ lens since the 14-35. Four years. Their lens designers have utterly lost their mojo.
There isn’t a single robust camera in the µ4/3 range.
There has been no clear path from 4/3 to µ4/3 for anyone who used anything other than a e-4xx series camera.
Basically Olympus has demonstrated a complete lack of respect and honour for their customers.
Instead of taking them on a journey, they have ditched them on the side of the road, confused and disappointed.
> A couple years ago, Olympus had a clear market niche and a clear position.
The problem with Oly that they stop thinking/innovating as soon as they find a profitable niche.
That might work for medical market, where competition takes quite different shapes, but it does not work for crowded photo market: you have to innovate (aka more fads and buzzwords) constantly. Because every niche gets immediately filled by competing vendors.
I still think that biggest mistake m43 camp has made is not to release $400 kit. MSRP of $600 for E-PL2 kit is simply not convincing, compared to e.g. D3100 kit. (Now de facto EOLed Pannay G10 kit started at $550.) “Smaller form factor” alone isn’t going to convince the mass market.
> Basically Olympus has demonstrated a complete lack of respect and honour for their customers.
Yes. I get that impression often too. But actually I found how to interpret their actions: simply remove the competition and what Oly says and does suddenly doesn’t look that bad. It is in presence of competition that they lose immediately: they do not like to be compared.
The most disrespectful to customers IMO is that Oly has tendency to tell us what the cameras we buy are for and what we should do. This is such a failure of marketing.
You DO ask customer “what would you pay money for?” – you do not command them “upgrade to m43!”, “upgrade to E-5!” Customers like to have choice, and they like to feel that they have made the right choice, they do not like to be *openly* treated like a herd of sheep.
> The problem with Oly that they stop thinking/innovating as soon as they find a profitable niche.
I don’t think that’s it. In Japanese engineering, there’s a common drive towards consensus and in particular, iteration by consensus. It’s not the societal norm to be entrepreneurial nor to have a clear leader with clear ideas that others the follow. A few companies, Toyota and Sony come to mind, have had that at times in their history, but those are exceptions.
> I still think that biggest mistake m43 camp has made is not to release $400 kit. MSRP of $600 for E-PL2 kit is simply not convincing, compared to e.g. D3100 kit.
I suspect that’s why we got an E-PL1 and now an E-PL2 in the first place. If you look at what’s changed, it’s clear that manufacturing efficiencies and costs came first. Note the E-PL2 doesn’t have an orientation sensor, a silly mistake, but one that is consistent with trying to drive costs out. The problem for Olympus is that they are not going to win, ever, the low-cost provider award. Their volumes just aren’t high enough in the DSLR/SLIC market, so they’re paying more for components, amongst other things. I personally think it’s delusional to try to be the low-cost player. Olympus would be better served by going the opposite direction, I think. Even Kodak has come to the conclusion that they need to get out of the volume business and emphasize margin.
> But actually I found how to interpret their actions: simply remove the competition and what Oly says and does suddenly doesn’t look that bad.
Really? Sorry, but I don’t buy that. For several years the message was “buy 4/3 and our great lenses.” Now it’s “buy m4/3 and our less-great lenses.” How does that not seem like a step backwards?
>> simply remove the competition and what Oly says and does suddenly doesn’t look that bad.
> Really? Sorry, but I don’t buy that.
That was my poor attempt at sarcasm. Fundamentally, a corollary to their looking-for-a-niche behavior.
If you put what they say into isolation, then it kind of makes sense.
E.g. “Oly didn’t leave the E-xxx customers – they provided the m43 as an upgrade path.”
If I didn’t know any alternatives, that would have been OK: I switch to a smaller camera. Something’s lost (bright lenses) – but something of interest gained too (overall more compact system).
Yet we know that there are alternatives, we know that companies are capable of producing upgrades even in such harsh economic conditions (look at the Pentax) – and such messages from the Olympus in the end simply make them look (very) bad.
Interesting comments and I believe the lack off competition Olympus has offered in certain areas is being addressed this year with new releases being more competitive , Olympus our in a transition between ft and mft and our not quite there yet , I agree on the marketing front and I believe without the brand marketing resource available to them in the same way as it is to the likes off Sony panasonic and samsung the only way to improve on that is to make the products more competitive accros the board , the epl2 is much more comparable to gf2 than epl1 was to the gf-1 and before the xz-1 Olympus did not have a high end compact at all.
The sale to another company will not happen regardless. There are issues but they are not a million miles off track , no one wants to see any company with heritage go down in any sector.
I like the brand and want them to be more competitive but they have to deliver and so far this year I think the products are going in the right direction just hope it’s a sign off things to come
I agree that the naming of the Olympus bodies is confusing. Even I being interested in this can’t really tell what’s the difference and the lineup. With Canon it it simple: the shorter the type number, the more expensive the camera (in Europe that is). That’s simple 🙂
I would not be good if Panasonic would buy Olympus without there being a 3rd company making bodies I think. Although all other camera bodies are non-interchangeable, so history has shown that concept to be working. Maybe they can make Olympus the pro brand and Panasonic the consumer brand, or vice versa. BTW, I own a panasonic GF1 and am waiting for the 12-55/1.5 🙂 I’d buy it for 1000$.
@Chris, Canon once left their FD customers on the side of the road when they moved from FD to the EOS mount where no FD lens would fit on without compromising optics or focus. Being able to use my FD lenses on m4/3 whereas the EOS lenses won’t work fully on m4/3 gives me a certain sense of justice.
Whats with not linking to the original source you got the quote from??
He commented on 43rumors! So it’s not on his website 🙂
Wow. So critical but so true!
Despite all problems that are addressed in a clear manner in this article, I would be sad to see Olympus going out the m43 market. This segment has chances like no other in the digital camera market in the next years and this market needs competition to bring prices to a more affordable level and still more fast lenses.
Instead of producing a NEX system with disappointing lenses and a lack of serious flash options, Sony should better participate in the m43 competition even if it were only sensors manufactured for Olympus in order to be able to keep up with the GH2.
PERFECT……….nothing to comment……..
Hey,
Good article. Your comments about marketing failures are true! But one question: you’re talking about loosing money in one division. BUT: Are they loosing money? The former article about bad financial results says: “operating profit falls by 46% to 8.9 billion yen (about € 78.7 million)”
–> They are NOT loosing money but they earn much less! Aren’t they? To me this is an important difference. Or are the costs of the division higher than 80 Million €?
I have to admit, I’ve had a soft spot for Olympus since my OM-2N all those years ago. The 4/3 lens system really rocked. No other manufacturer offered comparable lenses like the 14-54mm (at the time), 11-22mm (I still think that is one of the most underrated lenses in history) and the 50mm macro. And I should add the 90-250mm/2.8. The 43 will probably go the way of the dodo, which is sad, but Olympus has been hobbled by sensors, IMHO. Even with similar density, Kodak and Panasonic sensors seems always lag behind Canon, Sony and Fuji sensors (what the heck are they doing in the 4/3 club?) when it comes to noise and dynamic range.
Don’t get me wrong, these sensors are ‘good enough’, and especially Kodak sensor with Olympus processing give beautiful results.
But with their announcement that they might have an CDAF system that is good as PDAF, the end might be in sight for the 43 system. It might be a good thing, I might grab an E-5 + 90-250mm at a bargain in the future. But *IF* Olympus is going to axe the 43 system, they better have a rugged, compact and reliable m43 camera and lenses to replace it.
Is it too much to ask for a weather sealed camera, bright primes, and redesigned, weather sealed 50, 7-14, 11-22, 12-50mm lenses? And perhaps 35-100/2.8? Can we please stick with 12-16mp sensors and improve high ISO and dynamic range?
If I were a lens designer at Olympus with aforementioned lenses on my resume, my morals would not be very high these days…
I hope Maitani spirit lives on somewhere at Olympus.
/end rant
“Even with similar density, Kodak and Panasonic sensors seems always lag behind Canon, Sony and Fuji sensors…” Agree, DR and ISO performance of whole 4/3 sensor is almost the same like that ones 5 years ago, only image processing is getting better. The multi-aspect 4/3 sensor seems using different formula. You nail it with that “good enough” phrase – that is the problem. Why they don’t want best sensors, not just good enough? The mFT is not currently in pro market, FT is dying so current 4/3 sensor is completely fine for the mainstream users.
“I hope Maitani spirit lives on somewhere at Olympus.”
I hope so, but reality speaks otherwise.
101% agreed.
The stupid communication of Oly shows only one thing: They have no idea what to do. This sort of habit leads nowhere in business life but sudden death.
> They have no idea what to do.
How hard it could be to ask their customers what features and cameras they would pay for?
> This sort of habit leads nowhere in business life but sudden death.
Or in other words: “Look after the customer and the business will take care of itself”
“I vote for Thom Hogan becoming the new Olympus CEO!”
Why not make a poll and send it to Olympus 🙂 ?
It’s a real marketing disaster. They offered the smallest DSLRs with the 420 and 620, as well as one of the most rugged ones. Outstanding pro lenses as well as some of the best kit lenses of the competition. Stable user base. They killed of this business completely.
Introduction of the E-P1/2 with pro-level button controls made one hope for soon-to-be-released higher quality lenses and rugged camera bodies. They killed it off by keeping the engeneers busy with replicating low-quality lenses an stripped-down bodys, leaving the customer clueless.
I often wonder why Oly and other photo companies don’t take Apple as a marketing role model: They do not need 50 versions of iPhones and 25 different Macbooks. They focus on their customer and put all relevant features into one product, instead of offering one product per feature, including the lack of other features. I also never got the point why companies have to add multiple numbers and letters to their product names. Why not have a PEN and a PEN PRO and phase them out once a new model is introduced…
While I agree with most of the Thom Hogan’s comments, it appears to me that the situation with Olympus should be considered in comparison with entire digital market. In fact he has a nice evaluation of the 2010/2011 market here: http://www.bythom.com/2011predictions.htm
True, Olympus made a few mistakes, the most recent one is the release of E-5 instead of the µ4/3 “advanced” one. However, look on the Thom’s 2010 list of the definite Companies Falling: Canon, Fujifilm, Kodak, Sigma, Samsung. BTW, another interesting read to understand how good companies, such as for example Canon, mislead themselves is here: http://fakechuckwestfall.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/who-the-fuck-needs-a-rebel-t3i-or-a-rebel-t3/
I still hope that the recent change of the Olympus CEO means that they are aware of the serious problems in their imaging division.
> it appears to me that the situation with Olympus should be considered in comparison with entire digital market.
I’m a fan of Ries and Trout. I think they nailed it many, many years ago: you’re either #1 or #2 in your market, or:
a. You need to see a clear path that gets you there
b. You need to create your own, new niche market that you can be #1 or #2 in
To some degree, Olympus tried to do that with 4/3 and then again with m4/3. The problem, of course, is that 4/3 didn’t achieve a clear, useful (b). And now m4/3 may have the same problem. It sort of depends upon how you define your niche, but that goes back to the failure of Olympus’ overall marketing. The message isn’t clear, therefore the niche isn’t clear, therefore others, like Sony’s NEX are expanding the niche in ways that Olympus won’t be able to compete with.
I suspect that 2011 will be the year that saves or sinks Olympus as an imaging company. I believe there WILL be a weather-sealed m43 body before the end of the year, but if the r&d begins and ends with weather sealing, Olympus will sink. If there are some true developments on offer, Olympus will survive. If even half of what m43 users are screaming for (fast AF, HD EVF etc etc), Olympus will grow. My heart screams for innovation but my head suggests that weather proofing is about all i should hope for to avoid disappointment.
It’s not just a body that they need to save their m4/3 effort. They’re missing lenses, too. This is actually one of the problems that all the mirrorless companies are facing, but why is it that I keep putting Panasonic lenses on my Olympus bodies? Olympus can’t thrive just selling bodies: they need to be selling an entire system, and it has to match well.
1) Olympus should declare the death of 4/3 ASAP and concentrate its resources on m4/3. A high-end mirrorless body which fully supports 4/3 lenses should be top priority. If it’s good and priced competitively it may begin to change the momentum.
2) They should play on their strengths, which are mechanical engineering and optics. Perhaps make high quality bodies and lenses for other manufacturers if the current situation is indeed that dire.
3) They should consider buying sensors from someone other than Panasonic. Kodak, Foveon and even Sony all seem more advanced at the moment.
4) Thom is right about the need of a clear direction in development and marketing.
> A high-end mirrorless body which fully supports 4/3 lenses should be top priority.
Yet, no technology like that was ever yet incorporated into a camera. Does the Oly has resources and technologies to pull that off?
> If it’s good and priced competitively it may begin to change the momentum.
OMG. That’s Oly we’re are speaking.
They launch camera highly overpriced, wait till everybody say “great camera, but not at the price” and turn away. Then while nobody’s watching anymore lower the price.
“F*** up the free PR, internet gives; pretend that how it supposed to be” seems to be their modus operandi.
> Perhaps make high quality bodies and lenses for other manufacturers if the current situation is indeed that dire.
Most have to outsource sensor production. That makes lots of manufs nervous. Now you propose also outsourcing the camera production?
That might happen only after Olympus Imagining would be dissolved so that others wouldn’t perceive the outsourcing as a competitive threat.
> Does the Oly has resources and technologies to pull [A high-end mirrorless body which fully supports 4/3 lenses] off?
Yes. Engineering is the least of the concerns in any of the Japanese companies. It’s decision making above engineering and leadership in what they’re doing and why that’s the problem.
> They launch camera highly overpriced, wait till everybody say “great camera, but not at the price” and turn away. Then while nobody’s watching anymore lower the price.
Nothing wrong with being a high-priced provider. But you also have to have the goods to justify the price. That’s why the E-PL2 to me is a big serious warning sign. US$599 with no orientation sensor and a host of other compromises is not the correct price for the product. You risk alienating people who do buy it at that price when they find out that other equally priced or less expensive products do more.
> “F*** up the free PR, internet gives; pretend that how it supposed to be” seems to be their modus operandi.
The Japanese have yet to figure out how the “new marketing” works. They’re still working on playbooks from the old HiFi component days, and even then they’re not getting it all right.
> Yes. Engineering is the least of the concerns in any of the Japanese companies. It’s decision making above engineering and leadership in what they’re doing and why that’s the problem
The good old “adminisphere”… Not that Japanese would have any slightest monopoly in that.
Have to wonder how engineers in product development manage to keep sane when it’s plain painfull to just watch from outside how sense making products rarely get into production considering what’s mainly coming out of production.
Please add a link to the original article by Thom. Many times you forget to do this and it is not fair to Thom.
Hi Sean! There is NO ORGINIAL article from Thom! This are comments he left on 43rumors!!! Check out for yourself: http://www.43rumors.com/olympus-will-become-less-japanese-bad-financial-results/
P.S.: Many times? Please tell me where…
If I may add to my rant. Olympus did make some very nice entry level cameras. The E-4xx and E-6xx lines were fantastic. The E-30 was great value for money.
Meanwhile Canon (and somewhat Nikon) crippled their entry level cameras. Every time I pick up a Canon 300/400/3000D camera, I cringe. it feels like a toy. Like it was designed by Playmobil. E-600 is fantastic, I even considered it to replace my large E-3.
“Olympus did make some very nice entry level cameras.” Jón, I got your point, even cheap E-4xx series have great built quality, decent performance…
The E-6xx series should be still in development, form factor of these are fantastic and it would be a huge mistake if Olympus abandon this line (FT cannot live on the only one single model, the E-5).
Excellent article. Thom Hogan could be the Steve Jobs figure that Olympus needs! I’ve been here before with Olympus and their film cameras. The OM-1n and OM4Ti I had were great cameras (okay, with the odd annoying quirk) but then all of a sudden there was no support and the system shrunk to nothing. I ended up with Nikons and I have a horrible feeling history might repeat itself pending the expected announcement form Nikon soon. I have an E-P1 and I love it. It’s a handy size it is nice to use, produces prints as big as I’ll ever want and I have some sense of security that the system will be around for a while – even if Olympus don’t figure in it. BUT, the E-P1 is just a starting point. I don’t want 25MP, I don’t need them – I don’t even need 18 or 14, I’d like to be able to frame a shot in low light though. I’d like to be able to take it out in the rain too! I’d definitely like the tripod bush to be in the camera body not just the baseplate which flexes and bends when I do macro work. The system will (with some nice lenses) function as a pro system – but not until there’s a pro-quality body to go with it. Olympus is the best placed Japanese manufacturer to produce a relatively small production quality camera with niche-market appeal and I’m pretty sure they could do it for half the price of a Leica M9. So why not Olympus?
The OM-1n and OM-4Ti are STILL good cameras.
I wonder if Fujifilm might have an interest in buying Olympus Imaging, rather than Panasonic, should the worst happen and they are put on the market?
Why? They’re doing okay with their compacts, doing well in the niche market with the X100 and the Bessa III, and are manufacturing lenses and bodies for Hasselblad. I think buying Olympus would be more of a risk than a benefit.
Fujifilm has some of the same problems Olympus has: basically you’ve got a smallish imaging division trying to live within a much bigger company that’s mostly centered on different businesses and even different customer relationships (business instead of consumer). Thus, when those small divisions lose money, they get looked at very closely and pressure brought to bear. That usually doesn’t mean closing them, it usually means reductions in resources, which of course, often just produces more problems.
The problem is now prevalent in many of the “camera companies.” Fujifilm, Kodak, Olympus, Panasonic, and Pentax all share similar attributes: small division in larger company, losing money, not in #1 or #2 position in market and thus can’t use economies of scale to compete.
This is different than Nikon, Canon, and Sony. In Nikon’s case, cameras are the larger part of the company now, so they have to make cameras work to stay in business. In Canon’s case, the imaging division is reasonably healthy and enjoys #1 market share advantages. In Sony’s case, they’re somewhere between Canon and Olympus, but getting closer to being able to clearly grab that #3 slot. Plus they have economies of scale working for them.
Dear M. Hogan,
big respects for your fine analysis, but to the fact that you did not explicitly mention Pentax – limited means but praised DLSR cameras – with clear, though risky, orientations (645D). How does this fit in your views?
To my opinion, Olympus started to be entirely wrong with the E-3 : the E-1 was acclaimed for its original ergonomics and building construction but was not successful because of an insufficient image quality for
professionals, mainly because of the size of the sensor. It took them four years to get a replacement with a much more standard approach to ergonomics, etc., the only key factor that was not adjusted was the size of the sensor.
PS : on a personal basis, big applause for for S5 Pro manual…
The size of the sensor in Four Thirds cannot be changed. The lenses are not designed to cast a larger image circle than the sensor already occupies.
Dear Nathan,
this I know, but I basically think Olympus started to be entirely wrong when they decided on this incredible F2 glass with a inappropriate sensor size. Just think about what* what they could have done while introducing by that time a 4/3 equivalent to 24*36. It was already clear by these years (circa 2006) that Panasonic would never achieve – the same is true for Samsung – the mastering of Sony or Kodak or Fuji, amongst other things because they have no tradition in photography. They should have kept on their reduced size lines (420/520/620) but added an advanced amateur/pro line with a greater sensor size. From the very beginning, it was obvious that you cannot argue about a ”pro” line based upon such as the E-3 where the size advantage advantage disappears and the image quality is not on par with, e.g., the Nikon D300.
Again, look at Pentax : limited means but reduced size DSLRs and a much more consistent approach to photography. At the moment, their biggest problem is to fit the demand for the 645D (no marketing is needed, quality speaks by itself)…
The 645D isn’t going to change Pentax’s destiny. The estimated market for MF cameras/backs of all types is about 10,000 units a year. Even if Pentax takes half of that (they won’t), it isn’t enough to fuel the camera division. That’s part of the problem these days: cameras are commodities and ubiquitous. The companies that produce them have to capture size and growth, and with Nikon shipping 14 million+ cameras a year and Canon and Sony doing more, that’s a big bar to get over. You won’t do it with a 645D ;~). And don’t tell me that’s okay. Hoya, who owns Pentax, is a larger company than Nikon. They want that size and growth.
Samsung’s camera division seems to have the advantage of being part of a very well-capitalized, large electronics company that seems to take its foray into the system camera market somewhat seriously, which is reflected by its strong offerings so far. Just how much it can make a dent in Canon/Nikon/Sony sales is questionable, however, but the lens roadmap looks promising.
The μ4/3 companies, on the other hand, seem too schizophrenic (Olympus) and focused on video/consumer products (Panasonic) to please enthusiasts. Instead of offering a solid prosumer μ4/3 flagship camera (GH2 doesn’t count, because no one in North America can walk into a store and buy one), we get left with a trickle of cameras that don’t fully please anybody and two lens lineups that mirror one another, with few lenses that are really notable (e.g. the wide angle zooms and the 20mm f/1.7).
Astute analysis by Mr Hogan – should save Olympus a few million in management concultancy fees!
I’m not sure if Olympus will abandon the imaging market entirely. It may well be a point of pride for them. But, they also need to release some pro-level equipment soon, and moving beyond that old 12mp sensor would be a good idea as well.
We only have to look back at the film market to see what happens. We’ll have two or three clear leading players who basically continue iterating to the point where none of the smaller players can keep up with that and thus start being marginalized. As they’re marginalized, they downsize, try producing things that their installed base find meaningful or perhaps introduce niche and small market products, and then they go into a long, slow death spiral. At least until a complete market disruption comes along (in the case of film it was digital), at which time they make a renewed effort to “get back in the game,” do well for awhile during the initial surge (high tides float all boats), then get marginalized again when they don’t manage to knock off the bigger players.
Great point of view, and as a result i stuck in thinking that the current Oly situation seems to be quite similar to the one with Nokia, which is declaring the longterm partnership 🙂 with Microsoft…
A sort of a trend…… (looking forward that no)!
Some insightful analysis! But by what you’re saying, it sounds as though we’d all have to go and invest in some Nikon/Canon/Sony equipment :(. If it weren’t for the innovators like Olympus, we would likely all still be lugging around huge, clunky DSLRs. It’s disappointing that they aren’t having success with a format that addresses some of the major problems photographers encounter (size, weight, mirror slap etc.) I’m really rooting for them and the m43 team to keep a firm foot in the market. I do hope it picks up.
We would’ve had the small mirrorless cameras one way or another.
Where do you see the innovation at Olympus? From an innovative point of view the EP-1 was only disappointing. The Panasonic bodies were better in all respects and technically Olympus could nver fill the gap. The company thought that retro design and playing the PEN mythos is enough to thrill the market.
Hey I’m the one guy that didn’t agree! Its lonely over here…
My view is that Olympus are now on the right track and the financials will follow once the market sees some stability in their strategy. After some mistakes with 4/3rds announcing prematurely that it was dead, they are now taking the right approach and producing two tiers of m43, entry level and enthusiast. I like the EPLx range and think they are continually improving it and getting it out to customers as fast as their production facilities can. The latest EPL2 is very desirable and probably the best choice of entry level IL camera going at the moment.
When they release an EP3 then the picture will look more clear. Two very competitive m43 cameras, with the EP3 able to leverage the 43 lenses and give existing 43 users a place to take their great lenses.
In future when the technology allows, then produce a compact Pro version of M43 to replace the E5 / E7 and with compact high grade lenses continually developed. The pro part being a long term strategy to suppliment CaNikon rather than compete head on. I like it. I just wish Olympus could articulate a firm strategy so we can all stop guessing.
> they are now taking the right approach and producing two tiers of m43, entry level and enthusiast.
Really? There’s differentiation between an E-P2 and E-PL2? An E-P2 sells for US$670 and the E-PL2 sells for US$599 at B&H. Tell me exactly why I’d buy one over the other. Be explicit now, I really want to see how you see them as different.
> The latest EPL2 is very desirable and probably the best choice of entry level IL camera going at the moment.
I would disagree. The NEX-3 probably is. Olympus has pretty much stayed where they were. The bar has moved.
> When they release an EP3 then the picture will look more clear.
No doubt. But they’ve got a lot of ground to make up now. Leaders lead, not follow.
> Two very competitive m43 cameras, with the EP3 able to leverage the 43 lenses and give existing 43 users a place to take their great lenses.
Read what I wrote above about “producing things that their installed base find meaningful.” No doubt Olympus needs to placate their 4/3 owners, but the problem is that 4/3 lenses are big. They add an offset to the mount that eliminates the advantage of going mirrorless in the first place. Thus, as someone who doesn’t own 4/3 bodies but owns m4/3 bodies, the 4/3 lenses aren’t exactly what I want. Given Sony’s opening of the NEX mount, there’s a good chance that we’ll get what we want on that mount faster now.
> In future when the technology allows, then produce a compact Pro version of M43 to replace the E5 / E7 and with compact high grade lenses continually developed. The pro part being a long term strategy to suppliment CaNikon rather than compete head on.
You need to define the niche more than just say “supplement.” The problem for Olympus is that there’s nothing they could do at the mirrorless pro end that Canon and Nikon can’t. If the pro market really demands smaller cameras, it would be difficult for Olympus to defend the turf. They are at a sensor disadvantage, amongst other things.
> I just wish Olympus could articulate a firm strategy so we can all stop guessing.
So you DO agree with me ;~).
>Really? There’s differentiation between an E-P2 and E-PL2? An E-P2 sells for US$670 and the E-PL2 sells for US$599 at B&H. Tell me exactly why I’d buy one over the other. Be explicit now, I really want to see how you see them as different.
The fact that their low end model is now as good (if not better) then their high end model from last year pretty much disproves your whole argument. Olympus is making improvements to their models, and most of those improvements were requested by end users and camera review sites alike. Or is it your opinion that companies should always ignore their end users?
>I would disagree. The NEX-3 probably is. Olympus has pretty much stayed where they were. The bar has moved.
Please. No serious photographer would consider the NEX3. No external controls, a menu system aimed at amateurs, and a limited selection of native lens (all of which are sub-par in quality).
You contradict yourself here: serious photographer and entry level IL camera.
> The latest EPL2 is very desirable and probably the best choice of entry level IL camera going at the moment.
> Please. No serious photographer would consider the NEX3. No external controls, a menu system aimed at amateurs, and a limited selection of native lens (all of which are sub-par in quality).
>You contradict yourself here: serious photographer and entry level IL camera.
You’d be surprised how many serious photographers want a small, portable camera with great IQ and easily accessible manual controls. The NEX fails on both the IQ (due to the lenses, not the sensor) and the control.
@tim. The lenses are the same issue as they were in the beginning of the m43. After a year that will be fixed with some nice Zeiss, not to mention you can already put almost any lens you wish.
Also, you are just twisting the point about the entry level/pro. It doesn’t work. You said:
“The latest EPL2 is very desirable and probably the best choice of entry level IL camera going at the moment.”
Thom responded to this:
“I would disagree. The NEX-3 probably is. Olympus has pretty much stayed where they were. ”
There’s nothing to discuss here about serious photographers.
Where do you see a significant improvement from, say EP-2 to EPL-2 or EPL-1 to EPL-2? The IQ has only marginally improved. The body ergonmomics on the other hand have constantly getting worse from EP-2 over EPL-1 to EPL-2. The new lens is no bummer either. A bit faster, but nothing stellar in terms of build-quality (plastic mount, quite sluggish mechanics).
Thom, and how great is the differentiation between Nikon’s D7000 and D300s? Ah, you say that is just a temporary thing, a question of leap-frogging.
Or the differentiation between the D70 and the D50?
You are missing the point. The D7000 and D300s are a part of bigger lineup. The E-P2 and E-PL2 are Olympus’ whole lineup.
Even without that the D7000 is a bigger improvement to the D300s than any two m43 bodies between themselves.
>not to mention you can already put almost any lens you wish.
Of course, those legacy lenses won’t work as well on the NEX, since there is no IBIS, nor (optional) electronic viewfinder.
>There’s nothing to discuss here about serious photographers.
Serious doesn’t mean PRO, it means anyone who wants to take control over their own photos. If you’re just going to point and shoot, then NEX is clearly aimed at you, but then you might as well buy a compact “point and shoot” and save $300!
@tim My point is that Thom answered you in the frame you defined, i.e. “best choice of entry level IL camera”. The NEX provided largely enough control for that level, considering the firmware update.
About the lenses – no, they won’t work as well, but they do work and they do give excellent results.
You clearly haven’t used a NEX. I have, extensively. The minimal controls take a little bit of getting used to, but once you’ve programmed them for what you need most, it’s fine. Meanwhile, the image quality outshines the Olympus. Despite the fact that Olympus had a year-and-a-half to improve it.
Thing is, I’ve been using ALL the mirrorless cameras. I went from preferring the Olympus to it being the least preferred. A lot of that is because Olympus has now iterated essentially the same camera four times. Feels like I’m treading water with Oly.
>You clearly haven’t used a NEX. I have, extensively. The minimal controls take a little bit of getting used to, but once you’ve programmed them for what you need most, it’s fine.
Sorry, I don’t want a camera with a menu based system aimed at amateurs. I want one with external controls for the functions photographers most frequently use.
>Meanwhile, the image quality outshines the Olympus.
With the larger sensor it should, but the sub par lenses are holding it back.
>Despite the fact that Olympus had a year-and-a-half to improve it.
Perhaps you should take a closer look at the Olympus models. The EPL1 improved on the image quality of the EP1/2, and early reports say the EPL2 has further improved IQ, particularly at high ISO (where it competes well against the NEX until around 3200 iso).
>Thing is, I’ve been using ALL the mirrorless cameras. I went from preferring the Olympus to it being the least preferred. A lot of that is because Olympus has now iterated essentially the same camera four times. Feels like I’m treading water with Oly.
Seems to me some people are too concerned with having the latest/greatest toy.
I think Thom, that it’s not that simple. Olympus probably
could not produce different cameras. Why? – it’s simple:
– they didn’t get a new sensor from Panasonic. They
can only buy sensor, and if nobody sells it to them, they are dead. So the biggest and only issue they need to solve is sourcing the sensor.
As for m4/3 concept – I think it’s alive and will be well. Yes, you can buy NEX which is as small – or is it?
Nex and NX systems will never have substantially small zooms – which negates the whole system. Just look at Sony E18-200mm – it’s a joke. The same goes for Samsung lenses – they are as big as APS-C lenses. So why would I buy Samsung camera instead of Canon/Nikon/Pentax entry APS-C if it’s not really smaller?
In fact, m4/3 idea seems to be the perfect one, and in addition 3rd party vendors (Sigma, etc.) will be able to produce the same lenses for m4/3rds and Nex.
Even if Olympus division was sold to Panasonic, that doesn’t mean that the m4/3rds mount is dead. In fact, it would be probably for the best – Olympus brand would stay (for cameras), and know-how of both companies could be reused (IBIS). Of course, in the long-term other companies with large marketing budgets may convince customers that old, heavy APS-C lenses on tiny body is the way to go – who knows..
Sensor is only one small part of the problem. The E5 is receiving accolades no?
The heavier bodies and extra scroll isn’t enough to really distinguish a higher end model. You need enthusiast features and enthusiast accessories – which the current sensor can already provide, or which isn’t even reliant on the sensor.
Let’s see multiple SD cards, weather resistant bodies and lenses. Ok – they finally announced some lenses are coming – but until it’s here, this statement stands. How about a mini replacement to the FL36/50R without too much of a compromise on power, but can deliver close to the same recharge/brightness performance? A better implementation of bracketing? Faster writes to memory? Built in EVF? An EVF that won’t block the flash port? 1/8000 shutter? Audio input jack? Instead of a bluetooth friendface uploader, a wireless device to upload the full jpeg/raw (as what canon and nikon already have) to a PC (ftp?) would be on my wishlist.
M43 has the current best selection of lenses for mirrorless, but why lack speed for so long? The gem of the lot is the 20mm f1.7. How long does it take for them to wake up and smell the fstop that the enthusiast craves to go along with their enthusiast camera?
All enthusiast class features that don’t really rely on sensor.
>So why would I buy Samsung camera instead of Canon/Nikon/Pentax entry APS-C if it’s not really smaller?
Because an APSC may make better use of legacy glass and receive more sensor updates. I have my epl1 with me now – sporting a 28mm f2 vivitar FD 😛
Tom, dont you think that the sensor is a problem also? we see improvements on the FF and APS-C sensors and 4/3 sensors are almost the same way they were at the beggining…..
The sensor is both a problem and not a problem. There’s nothing particularly wrong with the current sensor for most uses. It struggles a bit in low light, but that’s also because the lenses aren’t helping it (f/5.6 at 42mm is a long way from even f/2.8). That’s one reason why I strongly suggested that Olympus execute a full prime lens set when they first announced m4/3. They needed (equivalent focal lengths) 24mm, 36mm, 50mm, and 85mm f/2.8 or faster. We got 34mm and of course Panny’s 40mm.
Sensors are easy, though. You can pretty much buy whatever you want once you start talking about 1m units. I suspect even Sony would make you one. One problem is that you either have to be one hell of a negotiator or you end up paying a price. The current sensor is shared across so many cameras that it has a price advantage to Oly. But that’s one of the things about what I see from Oly right now: EVERYTHING is about cost to THEM, right down to taking out things like orientation sensors. NONE of these things is about delivering the right product to USERS. It’s okay to be tight with component costs, but not if it starts to make the product not quite right.
And that brings me to another point: Olympus shot themselves in the foot with their “12mp is enough” statement. While I don’t disagree with the notion behind it (who really needs more? not many), the problem is that Olympus’ competitors are still executing and marketing “more is better.” So Oly looks like they missed a turn to most people looking for a sophisticated camera.
Your hope is currently based only on vaporware, rumors, vague announcements. It is not even clear, if the awaited EP-3 will be really such a big difference we are all hoping for, or if it will be just that waht Olympus alwys did with their m4/3 line: a small incremental update of the EP-3, with slightly better performance, but nothing which could take it ahead of the competition.
>Really? There’s differentiation between an E-P2 and E-PL2? An E-P2 sells for US$670 and the E-PL2 sells for US$599 at B&H. Tell me exactly why I’d buy one over the other. Be explicit now, I really want to see how you see them as different.
Thom, retail on the EP2 was twice the price of the EPL1 ($599). The fact you can get just as much camera now for half the price is something to rejoice. The EP3 should be aiming for a price point of $1000 body and $1200 with good kit lens (and make it worth every dollar).
>I would disagree. The NEX-3 probably is. Olympus has pretty much stayed where they were. The bar has moved.
For photographers with a lot of gear the NEX might seem a good choice. It doesn’t need to do everything. But the EPL2 has arguably the best IQ under ISO 800, best JPGs, a hot shoe, built in flash, best optional EVF going and is still compact when it needs to be. If you have no other cameras, that is compelling even for a user stepping up from a point and shoot.
>Thus, as someone who doesn’t own 4/3 bodies but owns m4/3 bodies, the 4/3 lenses aren’t exactly what I want.
I have some wonderful 43 lenses and still want to use them. And not all situations require the lenses to fit in my pocket.
>You need to define the niche more than just say “supplement.”
I have read a number of articles now from some pros that say they can benefit from a smaller form factor in many situations. For example, journalism, personal use or simply a second body. If Olympus can make a Pro (weather proof, high shutter speed, fast focus, high IQ) camera that is also of the dimensions of say the EPL2, then they will find a place in the kit bag of many pros. The trick here is to leverage the size of the sensor to create what cannot be created from larger sensored formats, and built to the quality that Olympus are renouned for.
Couldn’t agree more with Thom.
Unfortunately. 🙁
An enthusiast m43 model should have been out already! One year ago!!! 🙁
They aren’t producing two lines really yet.
Rather the way most probably look at the epl1/2 is, they have features the ep1/2 missed, so most would just go for those instead. Especially with the epl2 out.
Really though – what enthusiast features exist on the ep1/2 that the epl* doesn’t have? the epl1/2 even do wireless flash, and have more recent image processing systems.
You can’t comment on a device they haven’t even announced yet. The EP3 could be the steaming pile or end all be all of mirrorless. Not only have they not announced the EP3, but you’re also commenting on its ability to utilize 43 lenses – I’ll assume you’re referring to the non-cdaf lenses? How do you figure a new CDAF camera without a PDAF sensor will perform better?
Weird – this was in reply to MAL, not you Duarte.
No worries. I hit the wrong reply button all the time 😉 and it’s very clear that it’s a reply to MAL.
All of us have hit the wrong reply button at one time or another… I wrote admin many months ago suggesting several improvements (including adding more whitespace and highlighting, but nothing came out of it :/
Olympus has a long tradition with photography, and Oly optical products have a good reputation.
People know, if something comes from Olympus, it has good quality, it will work for a very long time and it has a low repair rate.
That is also an advantage for the Company as a whole.
If Oly sells the division, then Oly is not anymore a company with a long tradition with long-living optical products.
So a way could be, keep one type of photography product going for a long time even if it eventually makes a loss.
Other companies are engaged in Formula-1 racing depite they do not make a direct profit out of Formula-1 racing.
But to cut losses, it might be possible that Oly photography engagement will be restricted to one type of product in the foreseeable future.
Because I do not think that a good reputation can come from selling P&S’s, its likely that one type of m4/3 product ( more likely than a 4/3 product) may continue to be made by Oly for a long time no matter if it results in limited losses or not.
But some parts of the imaging division which are are not involved in that product X could perhaps be sold.
Oly also has a long tradition of making high quality medical optics. Do you really think companies in the health care field will be less likely to buy products from Oly’s medical division if it eliminates its imaging division?
The problem is that the current m4/3 line of Olympus really does not spread the message “I am a quality, high-end product”. With the demise of 4/3 their reputation is going straight downwards.
I really hope it turns good for Olympus mFT this year. Now they have produced all the crap (e.g. slow Telezooms) and they can concentrate on the right stuff now, what is for mFT at the moment the focal range up to 50mm in high quality and big apertures. I don’t understand why Olympus is unable to release fast primes / pancakes. The Panasonic 20mm ist the must have lense for mFT at the moment and Olympus doesn’t earn a cent with it. The are doing the same mistake as with FT. The E420 and E620 were proned for a little fast walkaround pancake, but f2,8 was just not fast enough.
Come on Oly!
The basic point is: where are the fast/small primes? Ww have been waiting for them for almost two years, now, and the best one we have at the moment is still the pana 20mm, i.e. the very first prime they (=Pana) produced.
Plus: where is the fully manual, friendly UI camera everybody has been waiting for two years?
And Oly… after four nearly-identical cameras… was not able to fit a second wheel on the epl-2… I mean… c’mon! They already have the epl-1 for that market segment, the only reasonable thing to do now would be to LOWER its price, and make it the best deal in the market, not to make a very similarly spec’d sister with the same price (still beaten ny the Sonys). Is it possible that in producing four cameras they did not manage to differentiate the offerings, even slightly?
Panasonic did it! Think about it: GH2 is quite different from GF2! Even Samsung did it! Sony will do it soon, apparently, and they came last to the game!
Let’s say it: Oly imaging management is very lucky that none of the others figured out a sound product yet, otherwise the entire Oly line would be gone…
You mention another problematic fact: Even PEN owners shop for Panasonic lenses. They are either better or there is no equivalent available from Olympus at the right time.
Agree on the issues.
However, Thom’s “solution” is so simplistic, it’s laughable.
So it won’t work? Or what? Japanese companies have proved time and time again their crappy marketing. Just look at Sony, and I am not talking only about the imaging division.
A good example here is Apple – do you think they are really innovative? Are they cheap? No and no. They aren’t the most reliable on the market either. Many of their products can be considered as missing essential features spec-wise for the current trends. Yet they sell like crazy. Good marketing – simple as that (though I don’t deny they do make good products).
Not so fast with your Apple slams.
Apple solves customer problems, often problems the customer didn’t know they had. The innovation is in the way they think about the design problem, not necessarily in the product engineering.
Second, no Apple is generally not the lowest cost provider. Yet they continue to grow while many of their direct competitors don’t or grow more slowly. That should tell you something about how their products resonate with the customer. And yes, better marketing is part of that.
Third, you are incorrect about “not most reliable.” Survey after survey seems to indicate not only are they more reliable, but they provide better customer service.
Fourth, the whole “missing essential features” complaint is usually something slightly different than what you suggest. Apple is aggressive about removing legacy items that no longer have a real place. They’ll remove the CD drive from many of their computers soon, is my guess. That’ll be talked about as “missing essential features,” but if you can load apps from the app store and download them from the Internet, buy music and videos from iTunes/Amazon/et.al., just why do you need the CD drive? Why would you want to pay the extra money to have one? Like I said, Apple has been ahead of the curve on most of these things, but they’ve been correct. When was the last time you bought a computer with a floppy drive?
Thom, I have no idea what “slam” means, probably something negative. I am an Apple user and to a big extent a fanboy. I was making a point, so I concentrated on the marketing.
“The innovation is in the way they think about the design problem”
100% agreed. It is amazing how often people miss that. Every time I point this out in a conversation it is followed by blank stares and/or spec sheets recitals.
Yet, sometimes they solve a problem – easy cleaning for the iMac screen, and give you a bigger headache – mirror instead of a screen. I don’t even want to talk about my MBP, it is unusable at some places, like the airport for example.
Apple are very reliable, the biggest problem I ever had was a dead HDD in a Performa, after that it was a DVD drive that stopped writing in a G5 and third place is for a noisy fan in an MBP. All that in more than 15 years of using Macs, and I switch at every release. Yet I can show you a laptop survey, for example, that puts Asus, Sony and Toshiba before Apple. In customer service they are unequaled.
I do not suggest anything about the “missing essential features” and I agree with you. I addressed a common complaint often seen on the forums, that is why I stated “can be considered”. Because, let’s not kid ourselves, very often it is.
Again, my point was to show how much can be done with correct marketing. Apple are the kings in that area. Now, I don’t know what definition you use for “marketing”, but the way I was taught, it has to see with all 4 of your points.
I think if they make a strategy to refine and improve micro four thirds, and continue to produce four thirds, they’ll succeed, but they MUST advertise. They have completely failed to push their product. Nikon and Canon saturate the airwaves with ads.
A concise, clear message is needed. Quality Photographic tools, full featured from the bottom of the line up, and the features that allow you to grow. Wireless flash control, built in stabilization, the ability to mount virtually any manual focus lens, and lots of autofocus choices too.
They have the product and have failed to show the world what it can do. Forget about pixel peeping, show people actual shots. It’s not the product that’s lacking. We hesitate because we don’t know if Olympus is sticking with us or going some other direction.
When a company chose to go down the path of single sourcing a key component (sensor), you’ve got to question their business acumen. Panasonic’s history of innovation in sensors should have given them pause, but Oly were not to sharp over the last several years.
When I travel, I never see anyone with a m43 camera. Of the mirrorless, I see mostly NEX and a few Samsungs. It seems the only people buying m43 are alternative lens enthusiasts and video enthusiasts. Regular consumers aren’t touching these.
Yep, agree. There is a whole world of consumers out there who do not read rumour sites or have even heard of Thom. 🙂
That’s amusing, because I don’t see anyone walking around with a NEX or Samsung, instead it’s all still DSLRs or compacts/cellphones. Olympus should ditch 43rds (what is the point of it anymore with m43rds); clearly delineate their high end from their mass market m43rd – high end having weather tight sealing, very bright high end kit lens, and new Panny or other sourced sensor; while having a low end matching the low end Panny built for compactness and mass market appeal. They should also stop mirroring Panny’s lens lineup and produce some knockout high end weather sealed lenses.
Depends upon where you visit. In Japan, mirrorless is a rage. You’ll see more mirrorless than DSLRs these days. There are pockets like that in many places now.
And while you’re correct in your assessment–mostly see DSLRs and cell phones–you need to be careful, because you’re making a statistical mistake. Something more than 50 million DSLRs have been sold, while probably only somewhere between 1 and 2 million mirrorless cameras have sold to customers to date. You SHOULDN’T see more mirrorless than DSLRs. If you did, that would tell you something really important.
Ditto with cell phones, by the way. Did you know that there are 5 billion cell phone contracts extant on the planet (and we only have 6+ billion people)? Haven’t done a full analysis lately to see how many of those have cameras, but cell phones with cameras passed camera sales a long time ago.
Don’t make him the CEO. Read carefully: he says he’d sell the camera division or just kill it off. Remember that the CEO runs the entire company, not just the camera division.
I also think that Olympus needs a better run R&D department; one that delivers the goods in time and up to standard. But the company already took a risk going into the m4/3 development. It seems like they’re bootstrapping their way back in the ILC market.
Biggest problems for Olympus in terms of camera division performance are in the compact segment. Not only are the compacts being replaced by camera phones, the company itself has produced unattractive, low-margin and sub-par products in the compact segments. The XZ1 (and other recently released compacts) signal a change in direction there.
We don’t know where it’s headed, but Olympus clearly realise they need to make changes.
Sadly, I disagree. Oly accidentally releases good products from time to time, but they never seem to know how to build on this. The XZ1 is just “business as usual” — an accidentally intriguing product, that’s likely to see three more non-upgrade iterations.
yes it’s so simple. 3 pancakes: 12/2, 17/2, 25/2 and a fast body, smaller than nex-5. add hd-video with a suitable codec (avchd or h264). that way oly was back in game.
+1
Everyone seems so hung up on wides. Where’s the tele love!
I want my 50mm since the system has a 20mm 🙁
all any company needs is to use a bit of common sense…
1) learn marketing
that’s it.
it’s THE biggest thing for any business. PERIOD.
and Olympus fail so hard at it! they make (or used to make) good products and had no marketing behind it…
think ipod: the most mediocre and overpriced mp3 player ever! and the most successful…
why? marketing.
Not quite. Know your market, produce for the market, sell to the market. None of which Oly have hit on the head. Ironically I’d say the closest they have got to doing this recently is the E5 which they’ve also signalled might be the last in line. Doh.
“Know your market, produce for the market, sell to the market.”
Uhmm. That IS marketing.
In the context of the post I was replying to the poster emphasising the sell bit, or at least that’s how I read it. Apple’s recent success is based on getting all three aspects right first time. Not necessarily the best product, but the right well focussed product.
Hmmmm… don’t like “best product”, “highest spec’d technology product” instead?
The latest set of m4/3 zoom lenses are really fine. All 3 (9-18, new 14-42, and 40-150) have greatly improved fast focus compared with the original 14-42 and the 4/3 40-150 (plenty good enough for most uses; it’s not important that they are not the absolute fastest out there). Their compact size is just remarkable and shows the value of in-body stabilization.
If Olympus comes out with a body with EVF built in, followed by its promised pro-level body, and then some fast primes, it will have a good set of products.
This is just so frustrating!
I need an m43 or NEX-sized mirrorless, interchangeable lens camera. I’e also come to appreciate LCD framing. I would like a good set of wide angle options and a portrait lens. All in fast primes. If I had the equivalent of 24mm, 35mm and 50mm with a 100mm portrait, I’d be pretty happy. I could also make do if I didn’t have the 50mm, and just the 35m, 24 and 100.
Toss in a travel/light weight super zoom and I’m very happy.
Instead, I’ve got three cameras — NEX for the wide angle prime, Oly EP1 for the 20/1.7 and 14-150 and 5D for the AF portrait needs. I don’t care who makes the camera (well, I don’t like Panny colors — so Sony, Canon, Nikon, or Oly are all fine. Even Fuji!)
18 months ago, it was a bright future for enthusiasts. Now it’s all muddy and grey.
I got one noob question. wonder… why not olympus build one super camera that in term of “features” like no others offer. It may be lose in term of highest quality but at least features attract others.
If the business was so desperate, why not put ALL-IN-ONE in a camera, get at least A580 like ISO perfromance, 1080p60 28Mbps, FastAFTracking, 24P, (what other not offer olympus put in) sell it for $1000, kill those mid range video camcorder (not sure Olympus own any camcorder) mean gain those beginner, film collegge students.
At least sell it like D90 for a few decade lol … Dont shoot me, just a noob question (=.=)”
I fully agree with this article. Alot was put into the SHG and HG line up and now its in the dark.
All they had to do in my opinion was make a good sensor with low MP and good DR….. is it that hard for panny to make one???
I mean the 24mp D3x has pretty good DR. You can make a sensor with DR just as good, just crop the size by about half and keep the MP pitch. It would turn into a 10-12 MP sensor but the DR would still be as good as the 24mp D3x, just at a lower MP count.
And drama that PLAGUES 4/3 and m4/3 in the DSLR world would be put to rest.
No one would argue the low mp issue because the be DR king nikon d3s has is the 12mp if im not mistaken. And it seems to suit professionals just fine at 12MP
Then the real low light king would be olympus with those f2 zooms and DR as good as FF & APSc cameras, just at a lower MP (which we all know does not really matter once your above 10mp)
Maybe that makes to much sense to work
I get the feeling that Olympus wants to keep selling new cameras to Oly users instead of selling them lenses. I am a 4/3 user and also own an EPL-1. I love being able to use a few quality OM lenses on each system, but – like others have said here – I’d love some good, fast primes for the EPL-1. I’m no pro, but I love that camera’s flexibility. I just wish there were some better Zuiko lenses I could purchase for it. Instead, I use my E-420 for more “serious” stuff, and have left the EPL-1 to be the family point-and-shoot/video camera that just sort of sits on the countertop.
Now I’m in a position to get some new lenses – do I spend the money on a good 4/3 lens? Do I get a higher-quality, Panasonic m4/3 lens? I’m lost – and here’s where I can see Tom’s points. Oly doesn’t make it easy to decide – either buy another vendor’s products for our tiny camera, or buy and older-format lens that can work with our tiny camera but adds significant bulk, and you also need an adapter.
I have a similar problem: Panasonic GH-2 + 14-42/3.5-5.6 + 20/1.7 as a family photo/video camera that’s always with us, E-500 + 14-54/2.8-3.5 + 50-200/2.8-3.5 for events, sports and studio.
The E-500 still takes nice pictures (go figure), but
1. at some point I’d like a new camera body to go with my 2 zuikos.
2. I’d even like to invest in some higher quality glass
But honestly I don’t know what to do at the moment.
1. Ok the body is not really a problem, I could (and probably will get) an E-5. Bodies become obselete, not a big deal.
2. The problem is the lenses: should I further invest in FT? At the moment MFT does not provide lenses of the quality of the Zuiko HG and SHGs. It might in the future (but we don’t know). Then I might be happy with just MFT bodies and lenses.
The bottom line: even people that WANT to buy MFT/FT are put off because they simply don’t know what to buy or where FT/MFT is going.
I chose the FT system because it best suited my needs (and still does) and later the MFT system to replace both my P&S and Camcorder.
Well, the article describes my thoughts I have expressed here already in several comments. Olympus marketing and product strategy is flawed. They only have one single body concept, which faced small, nearly irrelevant iterations, with increasing quality problems (red dot issue) and worse user interface. Even if one would think that each iteration would have brought significant improvements, many people are disappointed to what has been achieved.
Olympus thought that it is enough to play around a mythos, the PEN mythos, which isn’t a mythos for most of its customers. Instead, customers want solid products with choices of different body concepts. This is the really advantage, which m4/3 is able to offer: different body concepts – same lens system. Olympus did not take this big chance.
If they are not prepared to make some siginifcant, ground braking product announcements in a very few months, I think cases 2 or three are inevitable.
it has been crazy to stop the development of the 4/3 on which they have invested till a couple of years ago and with a 5% mkt share and completely to switch to a new standard without an optical viewfinder…crazy…
I agree with what Thom says. Another problem I see with m4/3 is the fact that it is almost impossible to find them in real life. I live in Atlanta, and have yet to be able to find any Panasonic m4/3 cameras, or lenses at a local retailer. Olympus is available in 1 or 2 shops, but they usually try to push Sony when you ask to see an Oly product.
Not good for a city of almost 6 million.
Panasonic will never buy Olympus. This would be crazy.
Besides, I think epl2 and xz1 may be real successes. The only question is will it be enough?
By themselves, no. Not even close.
Bingo. Major cost cutting will also be required, as well as rationalization of the compact line.
By the by, Thom, how does it feel to get drafted for the new head of marketing at Olympus Imaging? Drop us a a line after you settle in ;-).
Get real. Olympus doesn’t even know I’ve been shooting with their cameras for a year-and-a-half now, yet their US headquarters are just over the hill from me, literally three/four miles as the crow flies.
I told myself that I would not buy another Oly camera when they switched from screw thread lens mount to bayonet mount. Well I did and got myself an EP2 to use my old nikon manual glass with . A good combo and suits my needs better than Nikon digital . I can also use my Pentax and Leica glass with differnet adaptors. So may be just an accident but Oly gave me the camera that I have been looking for many years as I can live with the crop factor. I agree with the author that Oly should have had a strategy in the past and should have stuck with it. Small body and good glass is always a good start but I forgot Oly did that with the OM series..
I agree that Thom Hogan immediately should be appointed CEO of Olympus, or some other camera company. Because of his unequalled superior insight, that company instantly would become the most successful in the industry.
Or not. And then people would realize that a photographer, even a really smart, business-savvy photographer, isn’t necessarily the best person to run an imaging company. (On the other hand, such a person might be ideally positioned to be the outsider who intelligently and constructively critiques management decisions, as Thom almost invariably does.)
Within the photography cosmos, Olympus always has been a quirky “alternative” choice that appeals to photographers who like to see themselves as more discerning than the herd. The problem with that positioning is that there aren’t enough of them to sustain an R&D-intensive business. Unless a brand name has enough snob appeal to support luxury pricing (yes, I’m talking Leica here) it needs to grind out popular, high-volume products to support the esoterica. And it’s there, not in the “serious-photographer” sector, that Olympus has been losing its way.
“Within the photography cosmos, Olympus always has been a quirky “alternative” choice that appeals to photographers who like to see themselves as more discerning than the herd. The problem with that positioning is that there aren’t enough of them to sustain an R&D-intensive business.”
Apple survived for years as a niche (80% of graphics and publishing) computer manufacturer specializing in more usable machines and commanding a 5% total market share. Eventually, their strengths made them a leader in smartphones, portable players, and tablets. And they still make Macs.
M43 is doing very well (25% of Japanese market), and may yet prove to be Oly’s iPod, and they can still make SLRs.
Apple was phenomenal from its inception to their loss of Steve Jobs. They struggled horribly and were on the brink of extinction because of missteps and loss of direction until they acquired NeXT and Jobs was back on board as CEO.
One of the things Jobs did, as Thom suggests Oly does, was he trimmed the line-up. Jobs is also ahead of the curve, and looks at ways to innovate through simplification (remember how flabbergasted everyone was because the iMac didn’t have a floppy drive or serial ports?) and comes up with ways to make computing easier, whether that’s through the scroll wheel or multi-touch.
Olympus is an innovator, for sure, but they lack focus. Their camera lines are bloated in the worst possible way (FOUR m43 models that are virtually identical? TWENTY-TWO compact camera models?!) and they do not know who to cater to.
My suggestion: Olympus should focus solely on the pros who are looking for a portable second camera first as opposed to trying to capture the upgrade market. Having a pro-level camera, that pros actually use and endorse, will have an impact on the lower markets as well. I mean, seriously, how many people buy Canon and Nikon simply because they’re what the pros use?
You do realize I RAN a camera company, right? ;~) Sold that startup after two years to Logitech, and it’s still going strong.
I can tell you stories about the early days of Quickcam. I was told I was wrong and would fail by pretty much everyone in the industry. Funny how fast some of those folk decided they needed to copy us.
I also think it’s funny how Canon have copied features from Olympus cameras; art filters, the same articulation display, digital level meter that was in the E30 & of course, the old ones of sensor cleaning & live view.
Copying is easy once someone shows that there’s something users want. It’s figuring out what users want in the first place that’s so hard.
I agree with a lot of things but we must say the things they along with a Panny had done right and that is Mirrorless just becouse in a digital age we dont need prism with EVF and LCD. So the right thing to do is to stick it to mirrorles, incorporate EVF in body, make global shutter (making it silent), and drop the m4/3 sensor couse it is just not enough and go aps-c and ff in pro line.
Global sutter is the way to go in terms of totaly silent camera and smooth video (i dont even know why they make focal plane shutters or other phisical shutters anymore in this age). So i would tell them to make 35-SP digital with interchangable lens and EVF.
Oh, and btw their recent lenses are just plain crap. We need speed OLY.
Olympus camera division does not know how to do marketing and differentiate products.
Olympus is messing around with the release of new product lines (m4/3) and not paying to much attention to the other (4/3). They did the same in the film days. It leaves their customer base confused again. Usually this is the death of a company. Olympus should do something that makes a huge step forward and defines the future. To bring back trust and confidence. If they do not succeed this time they will be out of camera business within 5 years.
Some comments:
1. Thom Hogan did in this post more for Nikon and against Olympus m43 than all competing brands together tried before: show that system future may be death. Nikon should thank him.
We should not forget that he thinks Nikon has the best professional system and maybe he is right, but I really do not think that he’s trying to put Olympus down.
It will affect sales and hold people at least for Pro line (I was already waiting for it).
2. He is really right in many things
3. It seems “simple” to solve issues but requires money:
. better marketing, better web presence, forums, collect user feedback, etc
. better sensor and probably several sensor offers (E-Px with Sony grade sensor and E-Pxf with Foveon sensor)
sensor is probably number one issues
. integrate EVF (at least on pro line), ideally hybrid EVF
. faster AF (GH2 level on pro level) – requires 120Hz sensor data retrieval
. articulated screen on pro line
. weather sealed on pro line
. better lenses for pros
. simpler menu system
. orientation sensor on all cameras
. integrated bluetooth in camera or able to connect 3G USB+wifi dongle to share/send pics
4. they did some things right (probably not on purpose)
. right sensor size for good IQ and smallish lenses (now imagine how IQ can increase with a Sony grade sensor
. open standard
. gathered many lenses manufacturers
I think they have one bullet left: the PRO line. They should spare no excuses.
greyhat
Nikon doesn’t listen to me ;~) Well, not much.
Simply put: when you are the small fry in a market, you have to produce better products, connect with your customers better, iterate faster, and not make mistakes. In the interchangeable lens world, Olympus has never broken 10% market share that I know of. They are the small fry. The don’t have a lot of room to make mistakes or be slow to the right trends.
As a longtime Oly user I still regularly use an OM4 with a 35 f2 for film work. This has lasted for 20 yrs and is still showing no signs of wearing out. I also use one of the original Pen FT’s that I originally bought cheaply for fun and then found the lenses were razor sharp and I could take great with them. The common theme is threefold – both cameras feel right in your hand, both take great pictures and both were designed by Mr Yoshihisa Maitani. Since those days Oly seem to have struggled to find a designer to replace him and have produced some dreadful cameras (OM 101 etc). At least the E series of 4/3 cameras were better and at last the E5 is a decent camera. m4/3 shows a lot of promise. I have an EP1 which is the first camer Oly have produced in years that does feel right in the hand – but the lenses are not good enough for it.
I hope before they dump camera production for good Oly will look back at their old designs and get a designer who can translate what was so right about the Pen F and OM film cameras into a digital equivalent. By this I mean
Small and robust bodies with a decent heft and feel.
A genuine pro m4/3 body with decent fast lenses
A built in viewfinder – surely the VF 2 can be fitted into a camera?
Frankly I doubt this will happen. Oly is letting 4/3 wither away as they did with the OM series and showing no sign of marketing m4/3 as anythimg other than a low end product. Anyone for a Pentax?
A year ago, I told myself my first digital interchangeable lens camera would be an Olympus. I’m squarely in the Pentax camp now.
I guess that the Sony sensor in K5 and D7000 cant be bought by a third company because of an Sony, Nikon, Pentax deal/agreement??
Why not just cut out m43 sensors from the Sony 16mp aps-c wafer? Can it be done?
Why not make the camera that everyone is waiting for? To expensive for Olympus?
And I agree with what someone stated above, the EPL2 is waaaay overpriced when you can get a Nikon D3100 for less money!(at least in Sweden) Size is important, but image-quality is more important.
> Why not just cut out m43 sensors from the Sony 16mp aps-c wafer? Can it be done?
It doesn’t work that way. You can fairly quickly design a sensor of pretty much any size up to about APS-H using existing sensels, though. You can even scale the sensels pretty easily (e.g. take a 16mp APS-C sensor down to m4/3 and have it still be 16mp–it would have different noise tendency due to the change in efficiency, though). But the problem is one of cost. Right now Olympus uses perhaps half of the sensor volume that Panasonic is making at 12mp. Costs go down with volume. If Olympus were to use a unique sensor, their costs would go up. As I’ve noted elsewhere, almost everything about what Oly has done to date seems to be targeted at driving costs down.
> Why not make the camera that everyone is waiting for? To expensive for Olympus?
Probably comes too close to “betting the farm.” Of course, if they had closer and better customer relationships driving engineering, they wouldn’t be betting the farm.
The E-P1 created a big splash (remember that?), and since then they have been like Motorola with the RAZR- churning out new variations with none of the inspiration of the original. 4 different models with the same exact sensor and largely same image quality, in fact they are all similar rangefinder style as well.
Well, the good news is that the E-P1 is an incredible used bargain now…
I hate to say it, but with all of the iterations on the same camera, Olympus lost me as a customer. The E-P2 was the first and last Oly camera I will own. Plus, the lenses are too expensive for their quality.
…. who the hell is Thom Hogan?!
That would be me. Who the heck is Geronimus? Or should I say Anonymous #6,293,301,385 on the Internet.
A good answer. Thanks Thom for your very insightful article with it being food for thought. I hope Olympus can do the #1 option & I would buy more 4/3 lenses if there seemed to be sure continuaty in it but as my pocket won’t stretch too far, I will have time to think before I make any rash decisions. If in the future I end up going for a different brand system, I tell myself, I can at least use my R flashes in slave mode. 😉
It will be interesting to see what the new CEO will do for Olympus Imaging but in the mean time I think I will try not to worry about the what ifs & just enjoy taking photos with what I have (E30 with a few lennses & flashes). I know that is the ostrich response but hopefully the future will brighten.
Thanks again.
The MFT killer product would be a body that has the controls and styling of the Fuji X100 — especially the dials and EVF (no optical, it doesn’t make sense with interchangeable lenses). Give it 720p minimum video with 24, 25, and 30fps options, and it would be a killer in the market. The MFT system that everyone would want to own.
Make it available, too. What’s turned me off to the system is the general unavailability of what look like great cameras. In December I was in line for a GH2. In January I gave up trying. Panasonic has soured me on them for that reason, Olympus because of their wishy-washiness (despite me being a happy E-P2 user).
A m43 killer would be a camera with the sensor quality of the last 16mp sony, the movie mode of the Gh2, the UI of the Ricoh, and a serious set of small quality lenses.
Mind that none of the items I mentioned is still to be invented: they exist. And many photogs can easily compromise on them: you do not need high isos, many mp, too many lenses, etc.? Well, as no camera line is perfect, one of the features could be missing in the camera. But, what the heck, ALL of them missing… I mean: mediocre high isos, not up-to-date movie mode, no lenses, under average UI…
and this spread all over all mirrorless cameras..
As I said before: How come there is no sigle decent choice in this market segment?
People are drooling over the X100. Just make an interchangeable lens X100 and you would solidify the market. It would be the “rangefinder” camera that everyone wants from the MFT market (and when I say “killer,” I mean “thing that everyone wants,” not thing that will push everyone away from MFT.
I really hope the fuji is a good camera. We will see…
While I agree with pretty much everything thom has been saying, just wanted a clarification, as i always thought that ILC be they slr or mirrorlesss where always pretty small beer, and the big money was from compacts. Could be wrong as i have never look at finacial reports, but if that is the case wouldn’t oly’s first concern to be sorting out that side of imaging before looking at m4/3? btw i like most others on here am far more intersted in whats going on with m4/3 🙂
as someone that has invested a lot of money in the Olympus brand (E3, E30 and three lens including the F2 35-100, two FL50) I was disappointed when the E5 came out…I was expecting a lot more…
I was drawn to Olympus cause of the weather-tight construction, in body image stabilization, articulating display, the 4/3 format and the fact that the 4/3 format was marketed as being designed for digital. I enjoy the hell out of the lens…especially the F2 35-100 and would love to get a wider lens (f4 7-14) but I am trying to wait to see if Olympus or someone else will make the camera that the E5 should have been
my wishlist?
same construction but with
higher ISO with lower noise
faster FPS
get rid of the shutter
I am fine without video
wireless flash command that doesn’t use the flash
Thom, CEO of Olympus? That would be quite a promotion from disguised Nikon salesman.
Well, for the next several years, my E-30 will work just fine, I’m happy with it.
Sure, I’d like video, but for that, I’ll snag a Panny GH2.
Considering Thom is wrong consistently, about almost everything he says, I would say this is a great thing for m43 users and Olympus.
Considering you’ve offered no evidence of your assertion (and wouldn’t be able to prove it anyway), I would say your post is meaningless and has no value to m4/3 and Olympus users.
If you want to debate, debate. But anonymous slander is not debate.
Great article. Just a few thoughts:
1. I believe that Oly stated that they would close the division if they did not have 20% of the high-end market and 10% margin by 2015.
2. It seems Oly is being run by the CFO and that has been the ruin of many a good company. Oly needs to let Sales and Engineering make the decisions. The new CEO needs to get the CFO back on the sidelines where they belong.
3. They really need to come out with a E-650 that has an EVF and a semi-transparent mirror like the Sony A55V.
4. At the same time they should consider opening up the image circle and increasing the sensor size since the whole telecentric lens thing isn’t that necessary.
> 1. I believe that Oly stated that they would close the division if they did not have 20% of the high-end market and 10% margin by 2015.
Yes, I remember that statement, though it wasn’t quite that IF/THEN. In my view, Oly has no hope of hitting 20% market share of the overall market. It’s also a long way from getting to a healthy 10% GPM. What usually happens when you don’t meet goals like this in Japan is that the goal is redefined (e.g. “we meant 20% of the high-end mirrorless market”). Outright admission of failure is not something that happens much in Japanese culture, as it carries with it shame.
> 2. It seems Oly is being run by the CFO and that has been the ruin of many a good company.
True and untrue. A lot of big companies get very out of balance and need financial discipline to bring them back to reality. But you’re correct in that CFOs rarely have product and customer insight. When you manage ONLY to bottom line, there’s this tendency to go into a slow downward curve.
> 3. They really need to come out with a E-650 that has an EVF and a semi-transparent mirror like the Sony A55V.
Unfortunately, I think Oly made a mistake in the first place, and just iterating better 4/3 models was not going to ever help them rectify that mistake. I’m famous for writing at the announcement of 4/3 that Oly was bringing a knife to a gun fight, and that’s exactly what happened: they produced smaller sensor cameras that were as large and as expensive as bigger sensor cameras. They squandered one of their two prime advantages of using the smaller sensor in the first place. m4/3 made more sense to me, but as we’ve already seen with the NEX and NX lines, again there is no size advantage being made. (Yes, I know there can be with lenses, but you need a stop faster aperture to be fully equivalent and you end up pretty much back in the same spot.)
> 4. At the same time they should consider opening up the image circle and increasing the sensor size since the whole telecentric lens thing isn’t that necessary.
Oh, it’s necessary. Especially with the Panasonic sensor, which doesn’t seem to have the microlens efficiency that others have achieved.
Personally, I’d disagree with just nudging higher. The whole Olympus history is full of “we did the same thing only smaller and high end” types of successes. They need a similar mantra riding every design decision. I’d argue that they should do a full frame OM-4, an m4/3 frame OM-1, and target the glass high, not low.
We’re in complete agreement about the high-end glass. If some mfg would just get it right they would sell all they could make the first year. A Fuji X100 or Panny L1 like body with EVF, robust build and 3-4 fast primes in the classic FL would shock the producer with its popularity. Of course pricing it right would help also 🙂 I think a $1000 body with $500-$800 lenses would be close. Maybe Oly will pull the proverbial rabbit from the hat. We should know by June-July.
Why would Panasonic want to buy Olympus for extra production when Olympus are already manufacturing some products for them anyway. To purchase Olympus would involve more cost.
Also even with low camera sales at the moment it still gets the Olympus name out there which gains them sales in other areas. Anyone who has worked in the photographic industry rather than just take photos will tell you Olympus have never wanted to be another Canon or Nikon. Yes I imagine they would like to increase their sales but this plan would never work. Also one years of poor sales is not the end of the world. Nikon go in and out of profit all the time. Sony are still not in good shape overall. Their TV division has failed to make a profit in the last 7 years for a start. Their games machines are taking a hammering from the iPhone, iTouch and iPad which they are now trying to fight back but that looks like it will be another fail.
Olympus need to get their marketing back on track and insure their products get decent reviews which quite often has nothing to do with how good they are in the first place. They also need to ditch Panasonic as their sensor supplier for M4/3 and 4/3 and go to someone who knows what they are doing.
> Why would Panasonic want to buy Olympus for extra production when Olympus are already manufacturing some products for them anyway. To purchase Olympus would involve more cost.
It would increase cost short term to reduce cost long term.
> Also even with low camera sales at the moment it still gets the Olympus name out there which gains them sales in other areas.
The crossover is very tough now. Olympus’ largest divisions are medical and instrument related. Selling low end cameras doesn’t enhance the perception of high end instruments.
> Also one years of poor sales is not the end of the world.
No, it’s not. But look at the Oly Imaging sales for the past ten years and then tell me that’s a healthy division.
> Nikon go in and out of profit all the time.
Nikon went out of profit mostly because they shut down much of their non-imaging business. They took write-offs to cover that. The imaging side has been profitable for some time now.
> Sony are still not in good shape overall.
True. But you need to distinguish between a company’s overall health and the health of the imaging divisions of those companies. There are two extremes that are being exhibited by the Japanese “camera” companies: (1) Overall company slightly unhealthy with imaging showing health; and (2) Overall company healthy with imaging being unhealthy. Nikon and Sony fit #1, Panasonic, Olympus, Fujifilm and Pentax fit #2. Canon is healthy both overall and in its imaging. Kodak is unhealthy overall and especially in its imaging.
> Olympus need to get their marketing back on track and insure their products get decent reviews which quite often has nothing to do with how good they are in the first place.
Really? You mean reviews can be bought? ;~)
Why would Panasonic want to buy Olympus for extra production when Olympus are already manufacturing some products for them anyway. To purchase Olympus would involve more cost.
It would increase cost short term to reduce cost long term.
Not really. Panasonic can call on Olympus as and when they need to at present. So if they need to reduce production it’s a simple phone call. When you own the factories and demand goes down it starts costing you money. This is why out sourcing is popular.
> Also even with low camera sales at the moment it still gets the Olympus name out there which gains them sales in other areas.
The crossover is very tough now. Olympus’ largest divisions are medical and instrument related. Selling low end cameras doesn’t enhance the perception of high end instruments.
It still gets them brand awareness and it is something Olympus have done for decades and have successfully used for their medical and instrument related sales.
> Also one years of poor sales is not the end of the world.
No, it’s not. But look at the Oly Imaging sales for the past ten years and then tell me that’s a healthy division.
> Nikon go in and out of profit all the time.
Nikon went out of profit mostly because they shut down much of their non-imaging business. They took write-offs to cover that. The imaging side has been profitable for some time now.
Their photographic division has gone in and out of profit as well.
> Sony are still not in good shape overall.
True. But you need to distinguish between a company’s overall health and the health of the imaging divisions of those companies. There are two extremes that are being exhibited by the Japanese “camera” companies: (1) Overall company slightly unhealthy with imaging showing health; and (2) Overall company healthy with imaging being unhealthy. Nikon and Sony fit #1, Panasonic, Olympus, Fujifilm and Pentax fit #2. Canon is healthy both overall and in its imaging. Kodak is unhealthy overall and especially in its imaging.
Yes I am well aware of the differences.
> Olympus need to get their marketing back on track and insure their products get decent reviews which quite often has nothing to do with how good they are in the first place.
Really? You mean reviews can be bought? ;~)
My point is when Olympus get their marketing right, which they have done in the past they are a very dangerous company even to Canon. At it’s best Olympus can out market any of the other camera companies because they can think out of the box and come out with surprises. What they need to do is look at the past marketing to learn what they have currently forgotten.
“It still gets them brand awareness and it is something Olympus have done for decades and have successfully used for their medical and instrument related sales.”
Disagree. That would mean that professionals buy high-quality expensive equipment because Olympus sells some low-end cameras. Nonsense.
in frankfurt you can`t find any shop selling oly 4/3 anymore. just the lenses they didn`t sell until today and a few e-5.
the most customers think, they need a bigger sensor – until the e-5 was launched. but where is the e-650 or e-720? a small kamera for less than 1000€?
in germany nobody dreamed about an old pen kamera. why should they buy a e-p1, e-p2, e-pl1?
i have a friend with a nikon d700 and he don`uns his old lenses because the quality isnt good enough. another friend has a D3s and he don`t like his mikro nikkor 55 anymore. i mean, the idea of 4/3 was wery good, but the reality was faster, everyone likes a bigger sensor without having a chance to present the quality, neither with a beamer nor monitor.
Sorry But I disagree with Mr Hogan. A CEO must belive in his company.I dont think Tom belives in Oly at all. By the moment the big lenses manufactures are junping to m4/3. A big succes I think. Probably they belive in Oly&Pana more than Mr Hogan. Lets wait, things can change. A big mistake is Leica not going into m4/3, Canon, nikon (the same thing).But Oly&Pana have developed a formidable system. I have plenty confidence in both companys……sure bad results today will be profits in a near future.
> A CEO must belive in his company.
Yeah, Thom should have given us more of the pep-talks! I can’t have enough of them – our management brainwashes us only once a month!!
“Believing in the company” unfortunately often means “think positive” what later is interpreted as “ignore problems.” And ignoring problems, not taking decisive actions (why?! we have no probs!!), is what sends company into a death spiral.
Being bit more critical inside the company, while delivering consistent and bit optimistic long-term strategy to customers – is how it is supposed to work.
> I have plenty confidence in both companies.
What is the point? If none of them next year might produce no product for you??
> A CEO must belive in his company.I dont think Tom belives in Oly at all
People just seem to love to kill the messenger. Doesn’t matter if the messenger actually likes or doesn’t like the thing he’s delivering a message about. I happen to think Olympus makes excellent products (for the most part) and bad decisions. It executes marketing and sales poorly. It exhibits no clear thinking about where they are and where they’re going to be, as they keep dreaming up new things and then killing them. The parts may be there, but the continuity, clarity, and discipline is not.
Are we fickle or just pragmatic? Olympus have been a good second tier camera company, as have been Pentax and Minolta. Four Thirds was a gamble from the start – same form factor, smaller sensor than APS-C, slightly smaller glass – nothing really innovative other than an open standard. Panasonic failed badly on that gamble, as did Leica. Olympus fared better, but their success was based more on brand loyalty than a better mousetrap. Then came Micro Four Thirds, and it is a better mousetrap, with Panasonic’s execution far more successful than Olympus – really, if you have been a DSLR user, why would you find the E-Px compelling, other than as an adjunct camera to a more prosumer system? The G1, then the GH1, showed the real innovations in MFT – fast contrast detect AF, a live view electronic finder that is almost as good as an optical DSLR finder system, and a more compact and portable system. So Olympus’s rendition of MFT missed the mark, but that does not mean they can’t make it yet – but they won’t with E-Px – the E-5 is a fine camera, but wasted R&D, FT is a dead end, and MFT leads the way for mirrorless ILC systems, despite what Samsung and Sony are doing with APS-C. So if Olympus is to stay in the game they have to go with Panasonic’s formula. As an old Nikon guy (that’s the Nikon, not the guy, at least on good days), the G1 really tickled my fancy, and I have had 2 1/2 good years with it. Now, with the GH2, I’m really drawn to video, and have put my money down, as there is just no equal. For stills, I really do want higher IQ much of the time, and if that can be delivered in time with MFT, I’m a happy camper. If not, I’ll be looking to Nikon or someone else to give me more professional results, BUT IT MUST NOT BE DSLR!! The future is high resolution electronic live view, and in the longer run electronic (global) shutter with high frame rates. Unless Olympus head down that path, they are done as a supplier of “enthusiast” cameras, and they had better find a future in some other part of their business.
+1
Strong analyses – sophisticated thinking!
+1
Apple are consummate iterators. But they do that so well because they start from the simplest base possible. It’s easy to add features once you have the core platform right, and Apple takes the time to get that right first. Others try to do everything at once and end up with stuff that simply doesn’t have the polish and finish that Apple is renowned for.
Olympus is in a mess because they took a good idea (µ4/3), executed on it, and then started making it worse. In doing so they have utterly failed to deliver on the promise it held out.
The biggest issue is Olympus has failed to develop their story.
+1
Don’t worry … Olympus will rise like a phoenix. The “burn-out turnaround” will be finished this year. The cyclical slump has already passed the economic depression. I hope you will not mind but in my opinion in the Olympus case study “Nikon guy” Thom Hogan is not a “leading indicator” of the product or business cycle.
By creating the Micro four Thirds system (MFT) Olympus and Panasonic enforced a paradigm change in the whole industry. Anyway with MFT – nothing is the way it is anymore. MFT is an industrial revolution not just an evolution. It is the pure “creative destruction” of the archaic DSLR-technology as the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter might have said. Over a period of two years DSLRs will be almost substituted in the consumer and semi-pro segment of the new business production. Only the Professionals with their high investments in expensive lenses and bodies, the need for a matured technology and the imperative to earn a living cannot swap to the new created mirror less systems in a minute.
I feel certain that a DSLR will look like a relic of the natural history museum in a few years.
Insofar Olympus and Panasonic can be qualified as true innovators. But will they also be the winners? Innovation often leads to crises and radical restructuring. Olympus has not the resources to phase-out the old DSLR-technology unhurriedly like the Canikons perhaps may do. Olympus has to combine the imaging capacity into a bundle and cooperate with partners in the industry. Olympus did very well with Schneider and Zeiss – establishing MFT as a new world standard finally.
Michael C. Woodford, the new president of Olympus has an admirable CV and track record in the Olympus Medical Systems Corp. He was also leading the company to grow rapidly as a Managing Director of the sales department of KeyMed Ltd, a British subsidiary of Olympus.
Current experienced Representative Director and President, Tsuyoshi Kikukawa will assume the position of Representative Director and Chairman as of April 1, 2011.
http://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2011a/nr110210corpe.html
With the potential of the new Micro Four Thirds system there is no room for the “Tom Hogan’s options” (1) fix it. (2) sell it, or (3) close it. Establishing Micro Four Thirds (MFT) is a “wow” entrepreneurial challenge and a chance for gaining a considerable market share of the world imaging industry.
I guess the Professional High End Olympus MFT camera will be next – a compatible but all new designed Olympus E-System with industry leading communication abilities (Bluetooth, wireless LAN, gps …) optimized for the Internet age with its need of just in time production will follow.
The condemned live longer. Canikons will have to wrap up well!
What an optimistic comment…
If you look at Oly history, and I’m among the first to dream about them delivering the right lens lineup in MFT (fast lenses for video and fast primes – they would be relatively smaller than any other mount anyway) and the right body lineup for the FT… It just won’t happen…
Because we’ve been expecting long and the FT downfall just mirrors the way they abandoned previous OM series…
A great bit of positive, and well informed, thinking. It will be great if it plays out. My over-riding concern is IQ – can we get it from the 4/3 sensors? If Panasonic can’t deliver, can someone else? With a Voigtlander 25/0.95 on the way, to add to my substantial investment in Panasonic lenses and adapters for my Nikon, Canon and Leica glass, I’m betting that someone will. Olympus depends on that happening.
There is no 4/3rd in Ottawa either. u4/3rd is in the corner of the stores. They say the E-5 is in short supply… I agree that we need another line of 6xx.. To support 4/3rd. For the E-5 and an upgrade to 1080p would be nice . Can they do it by firmware? It would help sales.
Sure they created a paradigm shift with mirrorless, but keep in mind that Apple wasn’t the first to market with a hard drive based mp3 player either. They took the concept, made it better, and ran with it with the iPod.
Sad thing is that Nikon may do the same with the mirrorless concept.
“I hope you will not mind but in my opinion in the Olympus case study “Nikon guy” Thom Hogan is not a “leading indicator” of the product or business cycle.”
I don’t think anybody minds. But, in my opinion, your opinion is much less well based than his opinion.
The whole first part of your comment is about PanaOly bringing the innovation to the market. Nobody argued otherwise. The problem is that for a company to survive innovation alone is largely insufficient.
“Innovation often leads to crises and radical restructuring.”
What do you mean by that? PanaOly were first on the market and all they needed to do is keep that advance they had. Mostly through goo marketing. Olympus certainly didn’t and the big players even though moving slowly are now coming.
“With the potential of the new Micro Four Thirds system there is no room for the “Tom Hogan’s options” (1) fix it. (2) sell it, or (3) close it”
There’s no room to fix it? Or are you saying they are doing ok?
“I guess the Professional High End Olympus MFT camera will be next…”
As you said – you guess. I am sure such a camera would change the game, but I am afraid it can be also a bit late.
Dear Vlad!
Thank you very much for your time replying my comment!
You do me the great honor of comparing me with the established “authority” Thom Hogan.
I agree with you to a certain degree:
” I don’t think anybody minds. But, in my opinion, your opinion is much less well based than his opinion.”
I support your advocacy for value-free analyses and discussion. I’ m also pretty sure that Thom Hogan has no interests and is bringing forward only well based objective arguments – no speculation/no guesswork – only fact … /see Thom Hogan predictions, especially to Olympus – and his additional blue explanatory notes – http://www.bythom.com/2011predictions.htm (for instance the interesting news about the internally called Super4/3 sensor [to replace the old 4/3 sensor …”].
By the way – I found “guess…” six times in Thom Hogan “predictions-article”
“The problem is that for a company to survive innovation alone is largely insufficient.”
This is a commonplace. For this reason I asked: But will they (Olympus and Panasonic) also be the winners? In my opinion you have to distinguish between quality of products/innovation and force/resources. How many good ideas failed due to a lack of resources and “monopoly or oligopoly”?
“With the potential of the new Micro Four Thirds system there is no room for the “Tom Hogan’s options” (1) fix it. (2) sell it, or (3) close it. There’s no room to fix it? “Or are you saying they are doing ok?”
Yes – Generally speaking I think they (Olympus) are doing ok. Because of their limited resources they had no option to act in many different ways. The success of Micro Four Thirds in that dimension was a surprise – even for Olympus. It is obvious that they changed strategy late 2009 and 2010.
“I guess the Professional High End Olympus MFT camera will be next…” “As you said – you guess. I am sure such a camera would change the game, but I am afraid it can be also a bit late.”
I agree with you – they have to come out with the high end MFT camera soon – there is no reason to take one’ s holiday before July.
Best regards
Paulus
Dear Paulus,
“You do me the great honor of comparing me with the established “authority” Thom Hogan.”
“I support your advocacy for value-free analyses and discussion.”
I have no idea if that is sarcasm, so if it is, please, do state so (my english isn’t bad, but not that great either) 🙂
Anyhow, I think a well-made argument can stand for itself.
“By the way – I found “guess…” six times in Thom Hogan “predictions-article””
I don’t see your point. As I said, I find his opinion better based. Or if you wish his guesses better informed. That’s just my opinion, of course.
About that article:http://www.bythom.com/2011predictions.htm
I certainly wasn’t commenting on this. I haven’t read it, but making a wrong argument in the past doesn’t mean that this somehow destroys a current one.
“How many good ideas failed due to a lack of resources and “monopoly or oligopoly”?”
Many. Mostly because companies didn’t know how to build on the momentum. Which would be done through good marketing mostly.
“Yes – Generally speaking I think they (Olympus) are doing ok.”
I really don’t think so. They surely aren’t dying though.
“Because of their limited resources they had no option to act in many different ways.”
When you have limited resources you should know how to use them to their best potential. If you see you can’t pull something off, then don’t put your money there. For me 43 is a failure. It is early to say that for the m43, but it seems as a possibility now.
Many of the things that customers ask for are in fact easy to implement even with limited resources – rugged body, better LCD, better interface, etc.
“The success of Micro Four Thirds in that dimension was a surprise – even for Olympus. It is obvious that they changed strategy late 2009 and 2010.”
I don’t find it surprising at all. You put an interesting innovative product on the market without any real equivalent from your competition and it will sell. Look at what is going on with the NEX. The problem is, if you do not use the momentum, you will get caught up by said competition very quickly. Oly should’ve introduced some pro models, for example. That would’ve put them in real advantage.
Or lowered their prices. Frankly, the E-Ps are completely overpriced in my opinion. Between Pana’s offerings and the lower-end of DSLR’s, they somehow didn’t fit, except with the E-PL to some extent. Now, with the introduction of the cheaper NEX, they again fit nowhere.
Best regards.
Dear Vlad!
Thank you for your second comment!
“For me 43 is a failure. It is early to say that for the m43, but it seems as a possibility now.”
To the momentum of Olympus please visit amazon.co.jp – bestsellers of today:
Ranking:
01 – 20: 05 – Olympus E-PL1
07 – Olympus E-PL1
09 – Olympus E-L1 Kit
13 – Olympus E-PL1Kit
20 – Olympus E-P2
21 – 40 21 – Nikon D700
22 – Nikon D3100
23 – Canon EOS 60D
24 – Olympus E-5(4/3)
25 – Nikon D3s
35 – Olympus E-P2
36 – Olympus E-P2
37 – Olympus E-PL1
38 – Olympus E-PL2
39 – Olympus E-620
http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/bestsellers/electronics/387464011/ref=pd_ts_pg_2?ie=UTF8&pg=2
Conclusion (based on figures from amazon-co.jp): Ranking 1 – 20:
5 Olympus MFT cameras
8 Micro Four Thirds cameras
= 40 % of the 20 best selling cameras are MFT! Ranking 1 – 100: 26 Olympus cameras
Ranking 1 – 100: 38 Micro Four Thirds cameras
= 38% of the 100 best selling cameras are MFT!
New Olympus E-PL2 with improved kit-lenses – starting climbing the charts!
Japan is a trend setter market!
Paulus, I have no idea how Amazon calculates those numbers. If it is like the weekly BCNrankings then it surely doesn’t mean much to me.
I also disagree that Japan is a trend setter market. For some things maybe, not for cameras.
they should lauch two new kameras:
1. a bigger m4/3 wiht rangefinder
2. a cheaper new 4/3 kamera, maybe with good design
I have a pretty comprehensive selection of Olympus 4/3 products including 5 bodies, a large selection of lenses. flash and macro flash systems, etc. Until they show much more in the way of future support for 4/3 I see no reason to support Olympus any more as they’ve shown no inclination to support the system I’ve purchased.
I do a fair bit of photography involving action and panning. The m4/3 systems don’t seem to me to be in anywhere near the same league for that type of photography. Unless Olympus changes course and shows more support for the systems they’ve already sold I see no reason for anyone to support them in any product as they don’t appear to worry about the customers they’ve already developed. m4/3 is obviously the next system they’re going to drop when they decide to go another direction.
My reply was to Pete in Germany. Sorry about that.
I’d rather have control over ISO, and everything else usable in video mode in addition to 720 @ 60fps. Currently, its just point and shoot.
if the next model doesnt have a different sensor and 1080p they are doomed… all players high end cameras have better high iso and 1080p except samsung..
Well, I think that m4/3 will survive but may just go on as a niche market thing. If you want quality then the bigger sensor wins. Whatever magic or voodoo comes to the m4/3 sensor can just be applied to a bigger sensor.
Now the mirrorless design options has some great possibilities in the photo market. I see a huge future for it with bigger sensor cameras. Imagine a full frame (35mm sized) sensor camera with a mirrorless design, better yet a medium format sensor camera mirrorless? The reduced weigh and bulk would be near priceless. I have a Phase One camera and I have flashback of my days when I owned a Bronica SQ. Reduced the bulk and give me a digital Mamiya 6 and now I become a really happy camper.
My 2 cents.
Mark
Thanks for a thoughtful piece Thom.
I share many of the same frustrations as others here, but I dome from a different perspective. I don’t have a DSLR or a MFT camera. I am still using compact cameras. I do what I can with what I have, and I know the limitations, but every time I have tried a DSLR, it doesn’t work. Just too big. Taking pictures with a DSLR is a totally different experience than with a compact camera. I cannot just take a DSLR with me like I can even a sizable compact. I can stash a compact in a coat pocket, but don’t dare leave a DSLR on the ballfield at little league.
Size matters a lot to me. Maybe too much, but for my purposes, it is critical. The problem is that my Panasonic FZ 100 has a sensor that is 0.27 square centimeters. A Pentax K-r is 3.72 square centimeters, or almost 14 time the size. Somewhere in the middle should be a system that is small enough for my needs but way better than my compact.
Average the two, and you get 2.0 square centimeters. MFT is 2.24 square cm, so close enough. I don’t care that the quality will not be as good as the Pentax. That is not my point of reference. My point of reference is the compact, and the MFT sensor is more than 8 times larger. The Pentax is 1.7 times larger than the MFT, which is far less compelling.
So MFT is in theory about the perfect camera for me. But for many of the reasons you point out, it is not working. Although I am replacing a compact camera, the MFT is a substitute for a DSLR, not for a compact. I don’t want a compact camera with interchangeable lenses. I want a smaller DSLR.
It is not so much a price point that Olympus needs to hit as a quality point. My price comparisons are not to compacts but to the T3i, E-5 and K-r. But instead, the focus is on the low end, which needs to be included, but with a path for improvement.
There are other differences in wants and needs. Olympus does not have a built-in flash on the EP models, and many DSLR photographers don’t want one. But people who don’t want to carry around a DSLR also don’t want to carry around a flash.
And a built-in EVF is critical. Looking through a viewfinder focuses the view and eliminates the background. I don’t mind taking snapshots with an LCD screen, but it does not feel like composing a photograph.
In the end, there still will be a quality difference between MFT and better DSLRs, but it is a sweet spot thing. Given the boisterous defense of MFT cameras by advanced photographers here, it seems clear that MFT is good enough for not only me, but also for lots of other people. At some point, the limitations of printers comes into play.
It really is too bad that Olympus is drifting. If they would figure out what the market actually is, things should fall into place. Same as a DSLR but smaller. Include the components needed to keep it compact and complete. Compete with the K-r, 60D and D7000, not the entry level stuff. It really should not be rocket science.
I would be curious about your take on the upcoming Pentax mirrorless. I have almost given up on MFT, and have hopes for Pentax. Oddly, on a dimensional basis, the K-r is smaller than a GH2, and the K-5 is only 10% larger. In fact, for those of us looking for small and quality, Pentax seems to stack up well. Using the GH2 as the basis, size and weight of the candidates look like this
Camera Dimension Weight
GF2 0.30 0.93 (with 14 mm lens)
EP2 0.36 0.90
K-r 0.97 1.51
GH2 1.00 1.00
K-5 1.09 1.88
D7000 1.26 1.98
60D 1.43 1.91
I realize that different lens size affects real world numbers, but it is hard to get all excited about the GH2 when it is the same size as a Pentax DSLR.
If you have any thoughts on this, I would love to hear them.
A great perspective on the issues. Based on what you need and want the MFT standard should have delivered the product for you, but it hasn’t to date – G2/GH2 too big, GF2/E-PL2 too limiting. The sensor size should produce the kind of quality you will appreciate – the Pentax NC-1 at 1/2.33 won’t. Stay tuned until at least April. By then we will know Nikon’s moves (and expect some surprises there), and the Panasonic/Olympus responses to user feedback. What you don’t mention are lenses – if you want auto-focus, low-light performance and telephoto you are going to be dealing with bulk that simply will not fit in your pocket, so you are likely going to have to compromise on image quality if you must have a pocketable camera system.
What the…? I’ve been reading this guy’s name all over the camera blogs and thought I’d give him a read. Again, what the…? he writes like a blog poster so I will respond like one. There’s a lot of BS in there. ‘… Olympus has basically continued the “we don’t really know what we’re doing” trend…’ Ok so you don’t like olympus but now how can anyone trust what you have to say? ‘Olympus gets on these “this is the new standard” kick… ‘. he’s writing about Olympus’ 35mm OM cameras. New standard!?! ‘… abandons it instead of fixing it’. OM bodies started in 1972 and stopped being made in 2002. that’s 30 years. I’m sorry I can’t read anymore of this. I have nothing to learn from this guy. Over 2 dozen books to his name and I’ve lived this long not reading one. I will find a way to make it though. To those that made it through the whole article, Good on you-I couldn’t. I’ll just keep waiting for that going out of business sale and the I told you so’s.
Tom Hogan’s article was largely negative. Any article that is biased in any direction is not intelligent. Olympus’s design aesthetic and quality are superior to any mirror-less camera currently available.
–Lenses largest highest quality 4/3, m4/3 lens lineup available
–Body quality(EP-1 best body design, functionality)
So, what above would a photographer not like? Olympus is not making poor quality cameras. Compared to Panasonic, it’s plastic verse steal. Plastic = cheap.
Naming confusion: Panasonic is the poster boy for this. How many camera names does Panasonic have, and how many cameras are they ALREADY killing? Panasonic is already on 2nd iteration for all camera models. Tom, please open your eyes and read these forums.
Sell: Tom, such bold statements. You are alienating all Olympus forum readers.
Sorry, Tom has lost some credibility in these eyes.
–thenewbie
> Tom Hogan’s article was largely negative.
Learn to read. It wasn’t an article I wrote. It was SOMEONE ELSE collecting a number of things I’ve written and putting them in one place. It’s not all the things I’ve written about m4/3.
> Any article that is biased in any direction is not intelligent.
That’s equivalent to saying that anyone with an opinion is not intelligent. You have an opinion, so…
> Olympus’s design aesthetic and quality are superior to any mirror-less camera currently available.
That’s debatable. Personally, I’d say Panasonic’s designs have been better, though Olympus’ image quality in JPEGs from the same sensor is better.
> Compared to Panasonic, it’s plastic verse steal. Plastic = cheap.
You might want to disassemble your Olympus. You’ll be very surprised to find that the “metal” on the E-P1/2 is actually just a veneer and not structural. Moreover, that veneer dents very easily, as I found out more than once so far. In about the same amount of use, my GF-1 looks to be in better condition than my E-P2. You might also want to take a closer look at the GF-1 body. Just as much metal on it as on the E-P2, and thicker.
> Naming confusion: Panasonic is the poster boy for this.
No doubt. But saying “the other guy is inept, too” is not exactly a great debating tactic. The points being made here are centered on Olympus, not what anyone else is doing. Most of Olympus’ problems are Olympus caused, after all.
> Tom, such bold statements. You are alienating all Olympus forum readers.
The statistics say otherwise, but you’re entitled to your opinion.
> Sorry, Tom has lost some credibility in these eyes.
Given your statements on “steel,” you’re not showing much credibility in mine, either.
Did you just state that the article is biased because it is negative?
You know what ? I am just switching to Nikon. What a reliability !! If Olympus had something better than noisy cameras I would totally stay with Olympus but I want something that is going to be there when I need it, specially now that I am getting into professional photography.. Sorry Olympus ! Use your ideas to keep your customers faithful.
I had an EP2 for a few months and liked quite a few things about the camera. But the sensor just isn’t that good, most notably the dynamic range. I sold the camera off (luckily) just before the price plummeted.
Since then, I keep hoping Olympus will release something with a better sensor, only to find they just keep using the same old one. There’s always some incremental improvements, mostly because of better image processing, but nothing that can overcome the limited dynamic range of the sensor. The resolution isn’t really a problem, I don’t think. Look how much buzz Fuji has gotten with their 12 megapixel compact.
I’d also really like a regular 4/3 body to use with some of the great lenses Olympus came up with it. They release one new body, a high quality professional camera.. with that same damn sensor.
It’s maddening.
I disagree with the doom and gloom outlook. I think Olympus m4/3 will hit a home run when they release a high-end body. Something like the IQ of E5 with an EVF and cool Pen styling. IF Fuji can do it why can’t Olympus, but with interchangeable lenses? Even if the high-end sales aren’t great it will give credibility to the whole PEN line.
4/3 was never quite small enough to outweigh the problems of the smaller sensor. M4/3 has that potential. Yes, they need to get out of their sensor agreement and work with Kodak, but that will happen with time.
After a success with a pro m4/3 I would expect to see a full frame Olympus camera with OM mount. Or am I just dreaming?
For a company that will “hit the home run”, they sure are losing lots of money. Let us all face the one empirical fact: If Olympus is doing well, why are they using money?
Well, to play the devil’s advocate, the E-PL2 seems to be selling okay, as are the m4/3 lenses. Maybe not a home run, but a solid single.
The problem is that you have to execute across all products. Even with the E-5 it appears that 4/3 is mostly history. In talking to large dealers, they’re not moving many 4/3 lenses any more. So Olympus’ top end is jammed. And there’s still plenty of 4/3 inventory in the pipe line, too.
At the low end, their compacts have lost ground to even the miserable things that Nikon produces.
Bottom line is you can’t keep an imaging division going on two cameras (the E-PL2 and the XZ-1). It doesn’t matter how good those two cameras do (and neither is a home run that I can see), you need breadth and depth and a consistent story to customers.
I think everyone here see the same problem with Oly, which can also be extended to Pana and m43. Outside the initial introduction of m43, there has been nearly zero innovation in m43. Every 6 month, Oly and Pana repackage the same camera, add a new art filter, touch screen, or auto-this and that. In the same time period, Nikon has released the D7000 and Pentax released the K-5 and Sony released the a33 and a55. Each and every one of those cameras featured vastly improved dynamic range, better ISO, and loads of new unique features to each camera such as next gen metering systems, pellicle mirror, pro level focusing.
Consumers are not dumb. Camera stores and sales people are not dumb. They see the same trend that everyone on this forum sees but are afraid to admit it. Oly and Pana are just going through the motions right now. Some may cite the addition of Schneider and Zeiss. Sorry, that’s all about business. Both those glass makers see m43 being bought by alternative lens fans. They both see a market to make some money. It’s not any indication they see m43 as the new standard in mirrorless.
Go into any Best Buy in the US. Sales people will steer you away from m43 towards NEX. The same goes for Wolf, Ritz, etc. My younger sister bought a NEX because the Wolf salespeople actively pushed her away from m43 towards NEX. I’m currently traveling through Asia. NEX and Samsung’s mirrorless are in many stores. I’ve only found one store that sells ONE m43 camera. Among tourists, I see 60% carrying DSLRs, 39% carrying P&S (including ultra-zooms), 1% carrying NEX. 0% carrying m43. This is just a survey of what I saw in HK, Macau, Thailand, Myanmar. I’m sure the mix will change once I get to Japan where the majority of Oly’s and Pana’s targeted market (teenage Japanese school girls) resides.
Perhaps Oly can improve their financials if they started selling those trinkets that Japanese school girls like to stick on their cellphones and cameras. Perhaps along with the inevitable EPL-3 (with newly added art filter), they can sell EPL-3 sock cases.
Sorry guys, I won’t reply to anyone, I cannot keep up with this number of comments :). I’ll read all in the next few days, so I may say something somebody else already did.
Thom is mainly right as far as I’m concerned and I think he should work for Olympus :). Or just consult them from time to time :).
Although we didn’t see the numbers broken up by camera type, the problem with their bad 2010 is caused by many factors. Don’t forget the ongoing economic crisis and currency instability. It stopped many people, me included, from buying more photo gear. Olympus also has too many P&S models that are known for bad processing engine and that do not follow competition fast enough – where are fullHD video, AVCHD, touchscreens, stacking and panorama modes – to name just a few features? The transition from 4/3 to m4/3 has been poorly executed as well. Many 4/3 models were discontinued but were not replaced with corresponding m4/3 versions. Lens roadmap is not informative enough and changes often. There are no concrete assurances to people who have invested in 4/3 gear that they’ll be able to use it on new bodies.
The solutions?
-less P&S models, their better differentiation, better image processing and more up to date features
-market m4/3 cameras as “smaller than DSLR, but with same image quality” or “all this goes into this”. That’s the essence of mirrorless, together with proper WYSIWYG live view and video implementation. Explain that to people, so that I don’t have to :).
-a promised body/adapter that will be able to utilize fully those excellent pro 4/3 lenses. There is no need to make m4/3 versions of SHG lenses. They will be big anyway. Sony has shown the way: make adapter with semi transparent mirror that enables PDAF on mirrorless bodies and the story about “pro” m4/3 lenses is finished. They exist, they just have to be adapted to mirroless bodies.
-a DSLR-lookalike mirrorles body. For common folk ( people not reading stuff like this :)), it’s synonymous for “serious” camera. It’s how you sell 1000 USD camera to people who know nothing about them and buy based on price and look.
-a rangefinder mirrorless body ( PEN ) with EVF. That’s how you please enthusiasts who then spread the word and recommend the system to novices.
-make a clear strategy. It doesn’t have to be published by the media, but when looking back someone says “Olympus were right to do this”, then others will know they did have a strategy.
Of course, I hope they won’t sell their imaging division just because of one bad year. That’s not serious business thinking.
Lastly, Thom could do us all a favor and tell what Nikon is up to, so that admin can tell us what Panasonic and Olympus are up to so we could go shopping or save for new spring models :). It’s just tiring waiting for April :).
Finally Oly got it right with E-5. Finally we can see a vast improvement with lenses which have around for years. Punch these lenses in E-5 and they autofocus better. Image quality is significantly improved. And after a few years let’s toss everything to the dust bin since 4/3 has a bleak future.
Company runs on sales. This is driven by marketing. For years Olympus has idiots running their marketing strategy. That department runs inefective ads- silly commercials which not only uninteresting but also do not pust their products’ strength. They are clueless to what that is. Pick an Oly DSLR box and see what are the highlights there- mostly rubbish. They don’t know why people buy camera and they don’t know who normally buy their camera.
That is a good thing in a way. I always buy stuffs from such company which has great engineering and lousy marketing such as AMD and Suzuki. I get good stuffs at cheap price. The problem is, Oly is overdoing it to the point they are shooting themselves in the foot. You don’t cancel 4/3 and tell the world you are abandoning people you believed in you. You did that once with OM and (at the verge of) doing it again. Does reputation has any meaning to Oly?
Let’s look at the wonders of the E-5xx cameras. Those days we have a flagship E-1 or E-3 and a line up of excellent entry level DSLRs. With lousy marketing, this line still sells and making marks in the industry. Then came E-4xx which offers something below par at just a few bucks less. Dumb.
Solution?
1. Fire the whole imaging marketing team. Everyone. In every country except Korea.
2. Define your market. Leave Canon and Nikon to serve the professionals. Focus on the amateurs. I kept on telling my local Olympus people this but they seem to live in a fantasy where profesionnals hang Oly strap around their necks. This is also a person who should be fired.
3. 4/3 is great for macro and birding. But the lenses speak otherwise. Where is the 100mm macro and can’t you build a reasonably priced 400mm f4?
4. Oly flashes are great but can we have a cheap version which uses 4 AAs hence will recycle much faster than the sluggish FL36? We don’t mind same appearence (yeah, everyone knows you recycle the mould) to keep price reasonable.
5. Check if there is anymore marketing people not being fired, then fire them. Some cockroaches tend to escape housekeeping.
6. Slow down m4/3. Yes the make money. But it is apparent Oly is running out of ideas and innovation. They throw something in for the sake of containing NEX. This might work 3 decades ago, not today. OK, fire the fellow who came with this kind of competitor counter strategy as well.
7. Sponsor the right thing. Tennis tournaments are hardly beneficial nor even remotely related. Again, this must have been the works of the marketing people.
The key in this industry is too see the money put in RnD grows. You put it in the wrong concept, you’ll die. You do that right but fail to market it well, you’ll still die.
Thom,
If Olympus Imaging Division folds by 2015 maybe some of the engineers can go and work for Nikon and teach them about how to produce accurate colour rendition. I cannot understand why Nikon reds still look orange. JPEG or RAW?
Every time I go to a F1 GP. I laugh at how orange the Ferrari images look from Nikon cameras!
By the way. Olympus being an innovator in the D-SLR industry didn’t guarantee large profit margins. Sigma also come to mind.
When you are first to market, you bare all the costs and the competitors can steal the innovations, re-engineer them and apply them to their product line.
Live View and Articulating LCDs in a D-SLR. Effective Image Sensor Dust Reduction. Biaxial AF system. Pixel Mapping. Environmentally sealed body and lenses. Digitially optimised bodies and lenses with firmware for upgrades… All Olympus innovations.
Canon and Nikon have survived by transitioning to digital through conservate upgrades of 35mm film cameras and stealing ideas from lesser sized competitors too. They include incremental upgrades every 18 months or so for new products to test the market appepite as they go.
For example the video function in the Nikon D90 was a joke and looked like an after thought… Now the D7000 has improved to be in-line with Canon 7D, because of market appepite for that function. Call it clever marketing or staggered release strategy. It is what helped them succeed.
And only more recently have Canon and Nikon started to replace film optimised lenses for digitial ones.
As you are aware the electronic industry in Japan survives on partnerships and market share agreements.
After all where would Nikon be if it wasn’t for Sony supplying them with CMOS image sensors?
Even their flagship D3X model which costs about 10,000 USD has the same image sensor as the consumer model Sony Alpha 900! Just a different image processing engine gives it the edge in IQ.
If Olympus and Sigma were to join forces it could offer some interesting semi-professional D-SLR alternatives.
Thom sure knows how to stir the pot.
One aspect in all of this that has not been discussed enough are the R&D relationships between companies. What can Olympus offer co-operative R&D, and how can this influence the future direction and success of their imaging division? Perhaps those wanting to jump tne MFT ship should hang in for awhile yet (at least until April).
A fascinating blast from the past is described here:
http://www.nikonweb.com/svc/
If Olympus would manage to integrate a 3 x 12 MP Foveon sensor, a lot of press/P.R. problems would be solved
“I laugh at how orange the Ferrari images look from Nikon cameras!”
Is that an excuse for Olympus or are you just going off-topic?
“Olympus being an innovator in the D-SLR industry didn’t guarantee large profit margins.”
Guess who suffers?
Nobody argues the innovations that Olympus brought. The whole discussion is about marketing. And you seem to agree with this. >
“Call it clever marketing or staggered release strategy. It is what helped them succeed.”
Improving your models continuously certainly isn’t staggering. It is following the evolution of technologies.
“After all where would Nikon be if it wasn’t for Sony supplying them with CMOS image sensors?”
No idea. What is your point?
“If Olympus and Sigma were to join forces…”
With IFs we can reconstruct the world. But we are here and now.
you know my name
2 days ago | Reply
I would think if Olympus got four thirds right, they could get micro four thirds right. Problem is they didnt, and they failed to fix it when that was always possible.
We had E400 E410 E510 E420 E520 E620 all pretty much the same with 2/3rds of a great lens lineup that capitalized on nothing, and the same crappy sensors. Now the same pattern appears for micro four thirds.
So if it was you what would you do, would you gently brush Four Thirds under the rug which is what is happening, or would you stand and fight? There were rumours that Four Thirds lenses could take bigger sensors than they use, so why not redevelop a body to use a slightly bigger APSC sensor and add the lenses that Four Thirds always needed.
The investment they must have made in lenses much be quite large, I can’t believe they want to throw all that away and migrate to micro four thirds, and make all the same mistakes all over again.
I guess that my biggest problem with Oly is that they are completely missing a huge target market for their existing products. The E-PL1 and E-PL2 are perfect cameras for fitting in-between the “point and shoot” that my wife throws in her purse and my friends DSLR that he takes “real” pictures with. For my dollar, I don’t want to lug a DSLR with lenses the size of my leg around Europe when I go with the family this summer. But I sure do want a camera with interchangable lenses and good low-light performance that I can use to take beautiful vacation pictures. I don’t have $1k+ to spend, and again, I don’t want a heavy huge camera. I’m an educated adult male, who’s done the research and understands the difference between MP and sensor size, and I don’t give a hoot about uploading my party pictures to facebook. There is a need for what Oly is producing, they’re just not in tune with who actually needs it enough to market it properly.
First you have to be aware of the Japanese Culture. The companies are lead with a strong hierarchic structure. It´s not accepted in the Japanese world to criticize a manager.
In this dictatorship environment it is hard for marketing employees to convince the upper management more to hear the market than their own feeling. You find this effect in many big Japanese companies. Let´s see if the Britpower may force some habit change.
Like lawyer from Seattle I also came to m43 from pocket cameras. I like to carry camera along all the time because opportunities come when you expect them least. Couple of years ago I decided it is time to ditch my MiniDV Canon camcorder since it was not handy to carry it along with camera, so after some research I bought Kodak pocket camera. Kodak at that time was a pioneer in HD video in still cameras and it had 720x30fps HD video capability, stereo mikes and CCD sensor slightly larger than typical compact. It made decent 12mp jpegs with excellent colors. I was able to print pretty large pictures which nobody believed were made by compact. But after while I get tired of mediocre video quality, no manual conrols and with Kodak’s inability to produce good quality stills so I started looking around again. And I could not find a decent compact camera with superzoom lenses which made both high quality video and stills. I decided that I need a bigger sensor and better lenses and of course I wanted also manual controls. That is how I came to E-P1. It makes very good 720×30 videos with stereo sound in correct format (MJPEG which is easy to edit), very good stills, has all manual controls and good superzoom 28-600mm which can be replaced with good fast lens when necessary (you cannot do it with compact). And it is compact too, when I go somewhere I always carry it with me and do not even notice.
Now there is my wish list for next model:
1. Built-in EVF.
2. Built-in flash. I normally disable flash on compacts because it make photos look harsh and go for more noise. But sometime turning on flash is the only option.
3. Faster zoom.
Now it is ironic that Kodak announced so called MAX – compact DSLR style camera with fast super zoom 28–840 mm/f2.8 and fast CMOS sensor
http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsus/en_US/pd/MAX_Camera/productID.221644300. But knowing Kodak’s habit to cut costs by using lousy CPU and low quality SW I do not have much faith in video and/or still quality of this camera, even if lens are actually so good, and it still has smallish sensor – why not put just m43? I am not talking about Kodak only but also about other makers who makes compact super-zooms, including Olympus.
I think the biggest mistake Olympus made was in not making the E3 as small as the E1. I had an E1 for years. It was inadequate from the resolution/ISO point of view but was an ergonomic delight. The finest camera ergonomics I’ve ever used.
Along comes this camera as big as a Canon. Why??
I use big Canons as well but the small Olympuses were a delight to use in their stead.
The problem with M2/3 is the AF is USELESS for action. I know, I have Panasonic G1’s as well (for cycletouring).
I agree the E1 is the best handling camera i have used..fits better than a glove–why not just use a better sensor in that body and more prime 43 lens…
after using Oly for 25 years its sad if they throw in the towel now…but it is true about Japanese firms and their management(I know from my dealings in the music instrument business) they have no idea of the ‘real’ market out there…at least not in the west…
1) The success of Micro Four Thirds does not cause the dead of Four Thirds! Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds have still the same sensor size. But Olympus is claimed to publish a clear roadmap for future camera and lenses for one integrated Olympus-System (4/3 and MFT in one system)
2) Some of the future Micros Four Thirds Cameras will better and better manage existing SHG and HG Four Thirds lenses.
3) The form factor advantage of M.Zuiko lenses compared to Four Thirds lenses is basically given for wide angel and certain super zoom lenses. There is no need to redesign many of the excellent Zuiko telephoto lenses.
4) A possible selective update for some of the SHG and HG 4/3 Zuiko-lenses will be beneficial for 4/3 and MFT (SWD/MSC, Software Updates, 11 contacts and compatible adapters as well for the Four Thirds Zuiko lenses [compatible with the 4/3-mount with 9 contacts as well]).
Conclusion: There is no need to pit Micro Four Thirds against Four Thirds. Quite contrary – there is a chance that they grow together!
I recently declined an offer at Olympus in Center Valley, PA (Olympus US headquarters) for these exact reasons… It is funny to see it “published” by someone else on the net though. I even offered my opinion in the interview and voiced some concerns… they looked at me like a deer in headlights.
The cameras are an afterthought… Olympus USA still has the EPL1 on their homepage. I would be shocked if the camera division is still there in 2015.
That said, their OOC jpegs really are the best.
I think many have made some great points about Oly. The discussions regarding Japanese business approach etc has nothing to do with the camera in this market and all speculation. The possibility of a weak economy may have something to do with this and worthy of discussion. Many of these camera manufacturers are struggling and I think Dslr market has reached a saturation point or peaked? The recent news of lens manufacturers such as Carl Zeiss and others to adopt 4/3 is a great addition. Micro 4/3 is a different market and not to be seen as Oly abandoning their product or vision. We can all have our opinions. They are just that opinions with limited vision of what truly is the situation. I am confident Oly is on pace to create wonderful products. Love or hate the organization they are here to stay.
Cheers
Olyfan