——————-
43rumors now posts articles written by our readers. Just send me the text and pictures at 43rumors@gmail.com.
Today’s article has been written by Mark Ryan Sallee from Medium.com. Text and pictures are under copyright by Mark Ryan and published on 43rumor with his agreement.
—————–
Olympus makes and sells cameras. They do the first part well. They do the second part not so well.
I enjoy photography as a hobby. I’d owned a modest bit of DSLR kit for many years, but over the past two have hardly used it. Thanks to iPhone.
Shooting on iPhone for the past couple of years has reignited my interest in photography, but it’s also limited the photos I can produce. I miss the flexibility of interchangeable lenses, the quality of a lovely prime, and the reach of a telephoto zoom. But my DSLR camera gear was too large and conspicuous to go with me with any frequency. And so I was attracted to the micro 4/3 camera system.
To anyone outside of enthusiast photography, the name micro 4/3likely means nothing. It sounds small. And…mathematical.
But micro 4/3 branding is only the start of the confusion consumers are likely to experience when shopping compact, interchangeable-lens cameras. It shouldn’t be this complicated.
Micro 4/3 branding is only the start of the confusion consumers are likely to experience when shopping compact, interchangeable-lens cameras
After a lot of research, talking to camera people I know, reading message boards and watching YouTube reviews, I have a solid understanding of micro 4/3 and a grasp of its alluring benefits. I’ve bought in, acquired an Olympus PEN camera and assembled a kit of five lenses. I now have a vested interest in the success of Olympus, one of two main manufacturers of micro 4/3 cameras.
However, my research has also revealed that Olympus — and by proxy the micro 4/3 camera system — is struggling in the market (source one, source two). Sure, the entire compact camera market has imploded in a post-iPhone world, but DSLR camera sales are still strong and that success proves to me there’s room for a more compact, mirrorless camera standard like micro 4/3. But consumers are deciding to buy DSLR cameras instead. And I am doubtful that such purchase decisions are educated by how effectively each camera system meets real consumer needs.
Consumers are deciding to buy DSLR cameras instead of mirrorless
Expensive advertising campaigns may help with the education, but that’s not what I recommend. There’s lots Olympus needs to do before hiring Ashton Kutcher. (Bonus: It’s cheaper and more productive.)
- Branding: Simplify
- Camera models: Reduce
- Lens line: Rename
- Merchandizing: Organize
- Workflow: Evolve
1. Branding: Simplify
Olympus’ current branding is a mess. Branding should communicate marketing messages and purpose of products, but their current brands and product labeling do not effectively communicate much.
These are the brands currently adorning Olympus’ mirrorless camera products:
- Olympus / Olympus Digital
- PEN
- O-MD
- M. Zuiko
- Micro 4/3
Only Olympus enthusiasts can explain their current brands. Olympus is the company name. PEN and O-MD are camera lines. M. Zuiko is a brand for Olympus lenses. Micro 4/3, or M43, is a standard lens mount / sensor size shared with Panasonic.
Only Olympus enthusiasts can explain their current brands
These are the brands Olympus should refocus on:
- Olympus Micro
- PEN
- OMD
- +Plus
Olympus Digital → Olympus Micro:
The Olympus brand isn’t especially strong in the US, so plastering it on marketing material doesn’t say much to consumers. If Olympus is to double-down on mirrorless camera systems, they should consider updating the brand to reflect the benefits of mirrorless.
The benefit of the micro 4/3 standard is small size compared to other interchangeable-lens camera systems. This should be clear to consumers when they see the brand, much like seeing the brand Minion a car. Olympus says nothing to most US consumers. Olympus Microsays “this is small.”
PEN and O-MD → PEN and OMD:
Both the PEN and OM brands have some heritage with Olympus. And while Olympus’ brand and heritage isn’t particularly strong in the US, leaning on their heritage and delivering classically-styled cameras is a strong differentiator for Olympus among other camera brands like Sony, Nikon and Canon.
The hyphen in the O-MD name is sterile and confounding. It also prevents consumers from easily seeing parallels in PEN and O-MD(three-letter, all-caps) as camera line branding. They should remove the hyphen, leaving PEN and OMD as their camera lines.
M. Zuiko → Olympus Micro:
The M. Zuiko name appears to have no special meaning, as it is applied to all Olympus-produced lenses (excepting from the 15mm Body Cap Lens). It could potentially stand in for Carl Zeiss, or Summilux as a premium brand, but M. Zuiko loses that potential when it’s applied to every lens.
Olympus should ditch the M. Zuiko branding and simply stick withOlympus Micro, which helps message two important facts about the lenses: 1) The lenses are smaller than normal lenses, and 2) the lenses are compatible with Olympus Micro cameras.
Micro 4/3:
Micro 4/3 is a shared standard between Olympus and Panasonic (as well as a number of other camera and lens manufacturers). It is a very dry and technical brand which, in my experience, confuses most people. However, I don’t suggest changing this (at this point, it is out of Olympus’ control anyway).
I do, however, suggest down-playing it as a brand in marketing. The existing M43 mark should accompany branding material, but be placed apart from Olympus-specific branding to avoid confusion. The inter-compatibility of M43 hardware is a huge benefit for the system, but the branding of the standard is confusing to most consumers. The Olympus Micro branding is simpler and conveys a similar message — this is asmall camera system.
+Plus:
Olympus needs a simple, monosyllabic brand to differentiate their high-end products from their standard. At a glance, a consumer doesn’t understand why an E-PL5 costs less than an E-P5.
If they were branded PEN and PEN+ instead, the +Plus branding easily differentiates one PEN as better than the other. This simple context will shape the way the consumer internalizes the specific differences when comparing cameras.
2. Camera models: Reduce
These are the camera models currently listed on Olympus’ US website.
- O-MD E-M5
- PEN E-P5
- PEN E-PL5
- PEN E-PM2
- PEN E-PM1
- E-PL3
- E-P3
Olympus currently lists seven micro 4/3 camera models. To the average consumer, the differences in model numbers and pricing are, at best, unclear.
To the average consumer, the differences in model numbers and pricing are, at best, unclear
Suggestion: Olympus should reduce the number of available models to four, leaning on the strength of two brands — PEN and OMD, enthusiast and pro respectively — and using clear branding to distinguish base-level models and top-of-the-line models (+Plus) for each line.
This should be Olympus’ camera lineup.
- PEN
- PEN+
- OMD
- OMD+
3. Lens line: Rename
Current camera lens naming conventions make sense only to camera enthusiasts, and only to those that already understand that M43 systems introduce a 2x crop factor that effectively doubles the focal length in the naming. Even if you explain that the M. Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 has an effective focal length of 90mm, most consumers will not understand the significance of 90mm. As well, the M. Zuiko branding doesn’t mean much to US consumers and doesn’t identify the cameras the lens is made for. It is confusing.
Current camera lens naming conventions make sense only to camera enthusiasts
Suggestion: As previously suggested, Olympus should drop the M. Zuiko branding and replace it with Olympus Micro to strengthen the messages that 1) these lenses are smaller than average, and 2) they are compatible with Olympus Micro cameras.
As well, each lens should be named in a manner that describes the type of photography enabled by that lens. The 45mm f/1.8 should be called the Portrait Lens. The 60mm f/2.8 should be called the Portrait Macro lens. Etc.
The naming of the lenses should follow these conventions:
Adjective (Optional) +
Photography type +
Unique function (Optional)
Adjectives: Super, Toy
Photography types: Street, Landscape, Portrait, Telephoto
Unique functions: Macro, Zoom
As can be seen in the new given lens names, photography types can be combined (e.g. Street ~ Telephoto) to message the functional range of a zoom lens.
0 – 29mm: Landscape
30 – 49mm: Street
50 – 150mm: Portrait
151+mm: Telephoto
Adjectives differentiate lenses that overlap in function. For example, Olympus sells two different Portrait ~ Telephoto Zoom lenses, but “Super” implies that one is more telephoto than the other. Similarly, “Toy” differentiates the Body Cap Lens from other street lenses (and sets realistic expectations for the $50 lens).
This naming convention gives clear purpose to each lens. Clarity of purpose and utility gives consumers more interest and reason to buy new lenses, rather than sticking with standard kit lenses which, anecdotally, many consumers never move on from.
Clarity of purpose and utility gives consumers more interest and reason to buy new lenses
Further, the +Plus branding from the camera lines is carried over to Olympus’ premium lenses, including on the pricey 12mm and 75mm lenses. Most consumers will not intuitively know why a 75mm portrait lens costs more than double the 45mm portrait lens, but applying a premium brand to the 75mm lens succinctly suggests that it is inherently better.
Not that +Plus branding is not a complete stand-in for specific facts that explain differences — consider it an equivalent to BMW’s M, or Apple’sPro. As well, the simplified lens names do not mean that specific focal length and aperture stats should be hidden. These numbers should instead be communicated via standardized iconography.
Here’s a list of Olympus’ current lens line and names, matched to their new names.
Olympus Digital M. Zuiko ED 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 →
Olympus Micro Landscape ~ Street Zoom Lens
Olympus Digital M. Zuiko ED 12mm f/2.0 →
Olympus Micro Landscape+ Lens
Olympus Digital M. Zuiko ED M. 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 →
Olympus Micro Landscape ~ Portrait Macro Zoom Lens
Olympus Digital M. Zuiko 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 II R →
Olympus Micro Landscape ~ Portrait Zoom Lens
Olympus Digital M. Zuiko ED 14-150mm f/4.0-5.6 →
Olympus Micro Landscape ~ Telephoto Zoom Lens
Olympus Digital Body Cap Lens 15mm →
Olympus Micro Toy Street Lens
Olympus Digital M. Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 →
Olympus Micro Street Lens
Olympus Digital M. Zuiko ED 40-150mm R f/4.0-5.6 →
Olympus Micro Portrait ~ Telephoto Zoom Lens
Olympus Digital M. Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 →
Olympus Micro Portrait Lens
Olympus Digital M. Zuiko ED 60mm f/2.8 Macro →
Olympus Micro Portrait Macro Lens
Olympus Digital M. Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 →
Olympus Micro Super Portrait+ Lens
Olympus Digital M. Zuiko ED 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II →
Olympus Micro Super Portrait ~ Telephoto Zoom Lens
4. Merchandizing: Organize
Olympus’ current merchandizing strategy can’t be effective. I know this because I never see their micro 4/3 cameras in stores.
That’s a bit of an exaggeration — I saw Olympus cameras scattered in the boutique camera shop where I bought my EP-5, but never in a more mainstream electronics section. I’m sure it’s very expensive to get there, and the value of Best Buy floor space in 2013 is certainly debatable. I don’t have the data on consumer shopping habits for high-end camera gear to properly support this recommendation.
Olympus should rethink their merchandizing and invest in mainstream representation
But assuming the data supports it, Olympus should rethink their merchandizing and invest in mainstream representation. Without the streamlined branding and models described above, I can’t imagine retail presence being very effective. But with these suggestions applied to the products, I give Olympus cameras a good chance at converting shoppers at retail.
Suggestion: A compact display stand that showcases Olympus Micro’s four camera models, surrounded by their 12 lenses. Clear branding and iconography to explain the products to novices and enthusiasts alike. Basic chart columns comparing features between models. And a pricing strategy that aims to make profits not on camera bodies, but on lenses.
The camera body portion of the display should position the four cameras next to each other, with the OMD models slightly elevated behind the PENs, establishing a clear hierarchy of professional- and enthusiast-grade cameras. At the center of the display, a table chart with rows for each of the four models, and columns for the key differentiating features; built-in Wi-Fi, megapixel count, built-in view finder,number of axes in stabilization,sensor generation, etc.
The lens portion should display each lens and its model name alongside a sample photo taken with the lens. As well, to better explain focal length to novices, a standard graphic that illustrates the field of view each lens allows. Further, next to each lens should be a QR code that, when scanned by a smart phone, brings consumers to an online gallery of images taken with the lens, allowing them to peep pixels in detail and better comprehend the difference between a kit zoom and a fast prime.
Let shoppers build their own kits
Speaking of kit lenses, I suggest getting rid of them. Or rather, get rid of camera kits and simply sell the camera bodies and lenses independently. Kits complicate retail, requiring shops to stock multiple SKUs. Instead, Olympus should let shoppers build their own kits. New policy: Buy a camera body and lens together, knock off $200 from the price of the lens. This strategy asks consumers to explore the lens options up front and make very personal decisions. And it will break the ice on future lens purchases. No better way to encourage an obsession with lens collection than to get consumers involved in lens choice from the start.
(I’d recommend my friends and family start with an E-PL5 and 45mm f/1.8 — or rather an Olympus Micro PEN and Portrait Lens — for $699, a retail combo and price that’s only a dream today.)
5. Workflow: Evolve
Up to this point, my marketing suggestions are targeted at photography novices, or at least people that don’t keep up with camera manufacturers and trends. In other words, most people.
But photography professionals need not be alienated. To the contrary, I consider enthusiast adoption and loyalty as vital to Olympus’ viability as mainstream success.
First and foremost, image quality attracts enthusiasts and professionals. Olympus already does this well and continue to impress me with advancements in IQ. But the company can further lock in enthusiast loyalty by solving other photography-related problems. Photo editing workflow is a significant opportunity for Olympus to solve.
Anyone that’s done a significant amount of photo work will know the challenges of workflow
Typical workflow
Anyone that’s done a significant amount of photo work will know the challenges of workflow. Take pictures with the camera, go home and transfer to a computer, import into Lightroom, make changes, make backups, transfer JPEGs to a mobile device to share digitally. Specially, the problems are this:
- Unable to do anything with photos until at a computer.
- Having two unsynced copies of the image, one on the camera and one on the computer.
- Extra, often-forgotten step of making manual backups in case of hard drive failure. A third unsynced copy.
- Extra step of transferring images to mobile, creating a fourth unsynced copy.
My new camera, an Olympus E-P5 (Olympus Micro PEN+), solves issue #1 with built-in Wi-Fi, but this then creates another set of issues.
- I end up dealing only in JPEGs, as RAW images won’t transfer wirelessly.
- Mobile photo editing in Snapseed is pretty good, but is destructive — Lightroom changes can be done and undone ad infinitum, but Snapseed changes are saved in flat files.
- Once I’ve chosen a mobile workflow, I’m essentially stuck with files on mobile. I choose between mobile and desktop workflows, there is no way to choose both without doubling editing work.
Evolved workflow
My ideal workflow requires deep connections between camera software, both desktop and mobile editing software, and cloud storage. (It also requires faster wireless transfer speeds than what my new camera can muster.)
Ideal workflow requires deep connections between camera software, both desktop and mobile editing software, and cloud storage
First, photo files are stored and synced in once place, either on the camera or in the cloud. Freshly-snapped shots are, naturally, written to memory cards. These files can be accessed and edited via mobile or desktop editing software without first requiring that the image files be copied off of the memory card.
Photo edits are applied and remembered in steps that can be undone, like Lightroom edits. As soon as the camera is in range of a Wi-Fi connection (either home or mobile), it automatically transfers the photos — and their related history of edits — to cloud storage which can then be access by mobile, desktop or the camera itself. Any changes made in one place are synchronized globally.
As a Lightroom user, I’d love for Olympus to partner with Adobe and make these camera integrations with Lightroom software. (I don’t have much faith that a hardware manufacturer like Olympus can create its own editing software on par with Adobe.)
Workflow is a largely unsolved problem. Hobbyists and professionals have devised workarounds to the challenges outlined above, but none of it is simple and straight-forward.
When many competing camera systems are capable of comparable IQ, the shooting and editing experience becomes the primary differentiation
A streamlined workflow integrated tightly with Olympus cameras becomes a significant selling point for heavy-shooters and an effective loyalty program. When many competing camera systems are capable of comparable IQ, the shooting and editing experience becomes a primary differentiator.
I’m not particularly qualified for this advice. I don’t work in marketing. I don’t know Olympus’ financials or margins. And I don’t know the value of merchandizing in 2013.
But I now own a lot of Olympus gear. And friends and family ask about it, conversations usually instigated by my Instagram feed. People want to take great photos, and tend to agree that mirrorless cameras can take those shots. But only after a lengthy and clumsy education.
It shouldn’t be this complicated. It doesn’t have to be, Olympus.
—
Courtesy of Mark Ryan Sallee from Medium.com.
254 Responses
My advice to Olympus: trash this pathetic micro four thirds nonsense and start making proper cameras like you used to a very long time ago.
Good joke.
They won’t do anything like FT again. They’re just to small and can’t throw money down the drain just to please you.
But they could make very pro M4/3
I think he’s talking about FF, not FT.
MICRO 4/3 is the future!!!! anything else is a joke or for studio work.
Hahahhahahahah
lool 😉 Did you use a other camera/system than m43?
Pro tip: engage brain before typing.
But what if, as in this case, there’s no brain to engage?
Agree with No 1. Olympus should NOT discontinue the E series: they should make DSLRs! Why don’t they do it, for God’s sake? And it will not interfere with their micro-FT efforts! Who wants a DSLR, will buy a DSLR. Mirrorless customers there will be.
Why should they?
No one needs a mirror anymore. Do you know why there was a mirror in the first place?
To get AF with analog film!
With todays sensor tech and EVF there is no need for fragile mechanical part like mirror. With global shutter not even for a mechanical shutter.
They just have to manage that 43 lenses work great on the pdaf pro OMD and everybody should be happy.
What matters is IQ and maybe lens compatibility, not some ‘medieval’ mirror 😉
Spot on.
Agree. It even goes to the much-hyped viewfinder issue. A natural way of framing the photo is by looking through a frame at arms length, much like the movie directors do. Or you do on an LCD screen. Or the way you look at a final photograph, printed or displayed in your hand. Since it is impossible to do with chemical film cameras, the peep-through viewfinder was invented. Now that the technology allows the more ergonomic solution, having viewfinders is really not a must anymore.
The mirror must go, the viewfinder may remain as a niche solution.
Wow! I promise, I will never laugh anymore at people taking pictures with their IPad now that I know they are just “movie directors” taking shots :p
Just joking 😉
More natural? No way, far better with viewfinder. Especially if you go for more demanding areas, not simple family or party snapshots. Btw, do you realize that camera is much more stable when you use viewfinder rather than stretching your arms?
Let me guess, smartphone generation? Why do you even bother with milc’s then?
Without mirror and mecanical focus-plane shutter my camera will be much more stable that’s what I know so far from my transition from portable digital to dslr
Which mirrorless camera do you recommend for sports photography?
With my tripod I take my high speed train photos with a remote shutter, I don’t even look into viewfinder. I don’t sport will be a little complicated beause man move but you can open another you eye to overcome the delay of EVF.
@Mr Chainsaw. Good thoughts, but do try to get your facts right. The mirror came into being to allow for interchangeable lenses that could view through the taking lenses in a compact format. AF and all forms of automation, were just add-ons that came many years (decades) later. The very first mirrored cameras didn’t even have pentamirrors or pentaprisms, but simply reflected the image from the lens onto a frosted glass viewing screen that was viewed from the top down. And yes, the very first film SLR’s were ridiculed by “professionals” for their small film size and inferior image quality. But the “new” SLR allowed photojournalists to travel lightly, quickly and capture images that the old and larger cameras couldn’t. Images that changed the world, not due to their technical quality but their visual and emotional impact.
As I said several posts ago. If the DSLR did not exist and anyone invented it today with mirrors, people would think the designers nuts and no one would buy them. Their design has been overtaken by technology. One does not put a propeller on a jet engine nowadays, so why persist with mirrors?
Can’t agree anymore. But need to point out that the mirror was born to have a viewfinder exact with film.
+1
The mirror was allready present decades before AF was born.
It’s not about the mirror. Let the mirror go. It’s about the better grip of the DSLR and the much better handling. It’s also about the viewer. The electronic viewer is currently a JOKE – and will remain so for some time (or more). Quality-wise, it has nothing to do with the optical viewer. Framing on the LCD for me is OK only as alternative, when necessary. And, of course, framing on the LCD – however good – is a terror in bright sunlight. Alright, mirrorless can be made with optical viewers and with DSLR-grips. And why (barring some exceptions, eg Panasonic) do they not make it? I do not know why and I do not understand. For me, having a mirrorless camera is worthwhile for ONE single thing: to be able to carry two or three simultaneously with two different lenses. Facing the difficulties of handling, bad EVFs, etc. I do it with two DSLRs – or with two DSLRs AND one mirrorless (with Leica 25mm).
Suggest you try a new optician. EVF will look better then.
EVF has a wider usage range than optical and current ones are absolutely no handicap. After using slrs for 50 years I find the EVF fine and it corresponds to what I want to do. However holding the camera out in front of me like a dork to use the LCD (which cannot be seen) is a no no.
LOL! Nice try, but no. Cameras had mirrors long before AF came along. The purpose of mirrors is to look through the lens, as opposed to a rangefinder or even just a simple frame. First there were TLRs (twin lens reflexes), but there was a bit of parallax as the shooting lens was not the same as the viewing lens. Then SLRs (single lens reflexes) came along, and now you’re actually viewing the image through the shooting lens.
“No one needs a mirror anymore. Do you know why there was a mirror in the first place?
To get AF with analog film!”
Huh?
The mirror was added so you could see THROUGH THE LENS. Autofocus had NOTHING to do with it.
In fact, AF didn’t appear until YEARS after the first SLRs appeared.
In fact, auto exposure wasn’t built into built into SLRs until YEARS after they first appeared.
I’m not even sure when light meters started being built into cameras.
Why do you need the pentaprism and the mirror? …. The EVF and on-sensor AF have surpassed the old DSLRs in many ways – and with the new one – it clearly will – otherwise – they would have made the E-7.
Pentaprism and mirror are just remains from the good-ol-times when 35mm film was the shit.
Yeah right wanker did u know the canon 1dx?
Yes, I have, you f***er, and I said “in many ways” – and I truly believe that the new EVF surpasses ALL previous OVFs from Olympus due to it’s size, resolution AND degree of display information.
… and I also believe that Canon COULD have made a EVF that would be better than the OVF in the 1Dx if they wanted to. Maybe not today, but after some R&D.
idiot.
Shure they are better starting for the good of the gh3. Yeah right. …… The only idi t. Is u here
Agree. Canon moves slowly just because they can’t be revolutionary they need to keep customers like some here who don’t have vision with new tech, 70D proves thier strategy and look at what Canon said when LiveView was born and what they have in their camera it can’t be no more clear. I am sure 800D or 80D even 750D will drop the mirror away with their dual-pixel sensor.
Yea it’s that camera that stays at home because it’s huge.
Canon 1Dx? Wow what a behemoth of a camera. Does it come with snap on wheels and a tiny engine, or is a porter included?
http://camerasize.com/compare/#152,289
Nikon D4 isn’t much smaller
http://camerasize.com/compare/#243,152
Put those two together and they will take up as much room as a small 2-room flat.
So check pro sports photographers and wildlife shure they shoot gh3 Play dolls if u can’t hold camera
EVF is good until you try it at night you can’t see anything you can’t focus or compose, maybe when EVF can reach clean 512000 iso it will replace pentaprism
Well at night I can’t see anything in my optics viewfinder of my E5 but I can use the LV mode.
I recently did a comparison between an OM-D with the 20mm 1.7 versus a 5D mkII with the 40mm 2.8 and I could not see much through the Canon at night. It did lock focus eventually but it wasn’t clear what was in shot. The OM-D on the other hand showed me a noisy but bright image through the EVF. Admittedly it also has trouble with focus but I could easily switch it into MF and have a nice bright way to focus. Different strengths but the EVF is the future and ideally if there’s a way to mix it optically like the Fujis than all the better.
You could say the same things about all of the camera manufacturers. FX, DX, APS-C, EF, EF-S, SLT, NEX, Fuji X, etc. Even most of us enthusiasts don’t understand it all. The average consumer will only understand simple things like iPhone 1,2,3,4, and 5. Even the ‘S’ is a bit much for some folks.
+1
M. Zuiko → Olympus Micro？ SHUT UP & GET OFF, M. Zuiko mean nothing? this is not funny at all.
Maybe he doesn’t know that the “M” in front of the brand Zuiko states the number of elements inside the lens (at least 10).
Defining a lens “portrait” or “landscape” is silly in my opinion: I take landscapes even with 75mm.
Thats not true for new lenses. Olympus stopped using that terminology way back during OM times. ‘M’ here just means its Micro four thirds. Four thirds lenses don’t have a ‘M’ before Zuiko.
Thanks for clarifying it, I didn’t know it. Anyway,Zuiko is an old brand, with a background, and I think it would be wrong to drop it in favour of a more generalized “Olympus”.
Agree there Marco. Look what happened to Minolta when they dropped Rokkor from their lenses and now its spelt Sony.
You’re you are such a pro photographer !
You’re probably a nothing that no one gives a sh!t about. That IS why you’re here after all, isn’t it? You’re a small, small man.
Like you ? Too
I’m here because I’m actually interested in the format. You’re here to be a dickhead, nothing more.
Can you please tell me your definition of Pro photographer?
And please read again, I wrote “in my opinion”: and I can support my opinion with this, taken with Zuiko75mm.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcosartoriphoto/8293186293/in/photostream
Just open your mind and eyes, that’s simple. Or not?
I’ve been meaning to say this for some time now, and I hope you see this among all this noise. You sir ARE a professional photographer. I could give you a broken camera with a Coke bottle for a lens and you’d come back with a great picture.
I enjoy all your picture posts, and they inspire me.
BUT PLEASE (EVERYONE) STOP FEEDING THAT STUPID TROLL!
Thank you Eric! I don’t feel like a pro, I simply love photography and taking pics is something “zen” to me.
I like doing it the best way I can.
Gear is just gear: 🙂 I’m not sure I could use the camera you suggest, but it’s funny to use lenses in different situations. It helps improve composition and opens the mind.
Thank you for appreciating my posts! M
I think he has a few points right about the marketing and segmentation but his lens rebranding suggestion is plain stupid.
His proposed nomenclature doesn’t say shit about a lens and people who buy extra lenses are informed consumers stepping up to the system.
Current lens kit approach is the right thing to do, thank you very much.
+1,000 on the silly lens rebranding.
GREAT.
What about all those ridiculous arguments about what certain lenses can or should be used for.
17.5mm is only for “street”. 25mm can’t be used for portraits. Macro is only for close-iup shooting.
75mm can’t be used for portraits. Can. Can’t. Can. Can’t…
Blah blah blah
m.Zuiko indeed means micro 4/3 Zuiko. i.Zuiko is for compact format like XZ-1. Zuiko brand name is older than Olympus (since 1919 when the company was founded vs since 1949 to westernize). History of Olympus can be found here:
http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/history/story/about/name/index.html
History of Zuiko is from my copy of The OM System Lens Handbook. Zuiko means the first light, btw. It was unanimously voted by Takachiho (now Olympus) employees to be the brand of every Olympus/Takachiho made lens (Takachiho started out as a microscope company).
Back in OM days (film OM system that is) except for the very last decade of the OM System when Olympus lost its momentum (OM System ran from 1972 to 2002), lenses were made with the name convention of x.Zuiko Auto-y. Where x is the number of elements in alphabet and y is focal length range. For example, the well-known OM 50mm f/1.8 kit lens is officially called F.Zuiko Auto-S 1:1.8 f=50mm. F is the sixth letter of the alphabet, so that lens has six elements. Auto-S means it’s a lens with auto aperture and it’s of standard focal range (35mm to 50mm range by Olympus definition). Auto-W for any FL wider than 35mm, and Auto-T for anything longer than 50mm. The convention was dropped in the late 1980’s to simplify nomenclature, so newer OM lenses (like the legendary Zuiko 50mm f/2 macro for OM) doesn’t follow that convention. And by then all lenses had auto aperture anyways.
Olympus was a very big name in camera. Just because the original author didn’t know about it doesn’t mean it has no history. When OM-1 was launched, Olympus was very poised to surpass Canon as the number 2 maker of Japanese camera company (Nikon has always been number 1) until Canon unveiled its auto focus camera system (first usable AF camera is actually by Minolta, but Canon is the first one to market AF successfully). Olympus, listened to its customers, decided not to invest in AF, and stuck with manual focus, which was considered “more professional.” Nikon, also unveiled its Matrix Metering system (i.e., computerized auto exposure), which Olympus decided to go with Creative Control, by introducing multi-spot metering in OM-4, which put exposure decision in photographer’s hand with moderate automation rather than let computer do all the decisions. Unfortunately the majority of the market is occupied by non-pros who cannot do manual focus effectively nor care to learn about exposure, so Canon and Nikon dethroned OM system as the system of choice among professionals (many pros back in the 70’s used company-issue Nikon or Canon at work, but OM for themselves).
Olympus trumped Leica twice in the history of photography (once with Olympus 35 SP and another one with OM-1). Olympus has always been known for its engineer prowess (though I am not so sure anymore, with most m4/3 lenses inferior than 4/3 counterparts that predate them…), not for its marketing.
OM-D was also the brand name for OM-10. I think the hyphen came from that legacy. In fact, OM-D EM-5 looked more OM-10 than OM-1. For those who don’t known, single digit OMs are pro OMs, and two-digit OMs are amateur OMs. Odd number single-digit OMs have mechanical shutters, and even number single-digit OMs have electronic shutters. That’s why OM-4 was released before OM-3, which doesn’t make sense for most people.
agree. zuiko stays. also agree broadly that oly needs simplification, but found myself disagreeing with the suggestions published. they just sounded like a different kind of complicated. i mean, +plus? (or was it plus+?) how are you supposed to say that? plus plus? ignore one of the plusses? and how would you keep up with the new models year after year? 2013’s pen plus will be different from 2014’s, right? do we say “pen plus 2013” or “pen plus 7”? ridiculous! and, re-branding lenses “portrait” or “landscape” or whatever is just awful. what a way to patronize consumers and cheapen the lenses’ potential.
a re-think of oly’s branding and lineup need to take compacts into account too. i think they just decided to scrap the really small and cheap ones with the acknowledgement that phones have taken over. that’s good but they need to go further.
stylus (e.g. xz-2)
stylus light (e.g. xz-10)
pen (e.g. ep-5)
pen light (e.g. epm-2 … scrap ‘mini’ branding, scrap existing middle option, e.g. epl-5)
OMD (the monolith, the behemoth. no light, no mini, no plus.)
+1
PEN and OM stay because of nostalgia
yet Zuiko gets the boot
Great
Sometimes I’m glad when companies don’t listen to much to their costumers.
Especially not to those who demand less choice.
+1
Brilliant article, kudos! I had very similar thoughts recently and I agree with every single point, except renaming the lenses.
Micro43 is the best format around for travel photography and one of the best for street photography, I hope it will get much more recognition soon.
Funny….the article is written with the whole point being to increase olympus camera awareness and sales to the masses …I think that everything Mr. Sallee has written is positive. …but it is presented on a blog for enthusiasts and most will get all huffy about many of these suggestions…..wait..they already are getting huffy!!!
Hell…I own an OMD (which is the way I always type it cause the hyphen is too confusing to remember! And it is a pain to switch keyboard on my tablet just to put it in the name…), I kinda know what the EP-3 and EP-5 are…but all those other camera designations mean nada to me…too confusing…and guys..unless you are a longtime Olympus fanboy..the name Zuikio really doesn’t mean much of anything to the average camera buyer off this page…it’s just true.
I think Olympus could do well by following these suggestions…it’s very streamlined, simplified and understandable, which is better than what Olympus has going on right now. Muddle.
interesting article but the lens thing it absolutely stupid! i think only Pentax names it’s lenses but also numbers them too. people soon learn what the lens numbers do when they play around with the kit lens and investigate further if they don’t. to treat the customers like idiots would be a bad move.
why he’s listed the older models of camera bodies i don’t know?! it’s still a far less confusing situation when you get a Canon 700D and Nikon D700. or even a Canon 60D and Canon D60 (which i’m sure some people have used to their advantage on eBay).
people need to know what Olympus and Panasonic are doing but over all these ideas are not the way to do it. they are reaching out with social media and experience days to get some attention. also Panasonic really courts the travel photographers and Olympus the trendy ones.
My god, this was painful to read…
Let’s start with this:
Olympus says nothing to most US consumers. Olympus Micro says “this is small.”
And then the customer says “I don’t want small, and I definitely don’t want MICRO. I want a camera that I can grip. Something that inspires confidence and something that has buttons I won’t accidentally push. If I wanted small, well, I already have my smartphone. What’s the point? Why? Who cares about tiny cameras? I mean, they’re nice fashion accessories, but I want something to use to make photos.”
Really gotta love the part where this guy suggests that the world-famous Zuiko name *also* gets rebranded to Micro.
Because, you know, “man, I just bought a kickass MICRO LENS”. “That’s the opposite of MACRO, right?” “Erm, no, it’s just MICRO!!!111ONE”
And sure, let’s drop the numbers and use a plus sign. “I just bought a camera! A PEN!” “Did you buy a pen or a camera?” “PEN camera!” “WTF, are you on drugs?” – or alternatively “I have a PEN. I don’t know which one. Because, you know, this is going to be the only camera ever produced. Or maybe I’ll be sold a PEN ‘2013’ in the year 2016, without being able to tell. Also, I’m an Apple fanboy.”
The lens renaming idea with adjectives and types is so bad that I don’t even want to comment on it.
Mark… No. Just no. Why you got room on this site for your horrible ideas, I don’t know, but the last time I read something as bad as this was when certain people suggested nerfing the MG-42 in Company of Heroes because the concept of flanking and using combined arms was beyond their grasp and abilities.
I will tell you the number one reason for slow sales of M4/3 cameras! In the US anyhow, when was the last time you could walk into a Best Buy, Micro Center, any appliance store or any Camera Shop and pick one up you hands?? Try it out? Talk to a sales person about it? Sure there’s B&H photo but that’s about it. You can do that with, of course Canon & Nikon though! Second biggest reason! Supply hell you can’t even get them online when they first come out with a new model! Oh even Sony is in stores more then Panasonic & Olympus! People like to kick the tires still on big purchases & take a test drive first!
And just look at the prices of m4/3 vs DSLRs, bodies and lenses. No wonder DSLRs are selling way better.
People may leave home with the idea of buying xxx camera. But they mostly end up with the “camera of the day” that could be any low to middle range Canon or Nikon or any run out model DSLR. The only time they get what they want is when it is a bigger mark up than the “camera of the day”
I think I have been noted for saying this before in sales topics.
Yes…
I jus bought a MICRO ZUIKO MACRO lens… That would be a good one.. 🙂
You bought a micro street macro for your micro pen plus…
When in a country where bigger is better, small is a CULTRUAL MISTAKE.
So oly should say : With this you can carry more.
+1
Before I killed myself, I simply stopped reading after like 50,000 words….
Seriously, though, you screwed up your own case with sloppy facts.
It’s called the OM-D, not the O-MD. Duh.
Second, re: workflow, you should do more research on this as well. Photosmith, another iPad app, works WITH Lightroom to avoid all that sync/dupes BS you’re ranting about.
He’s never heard of an elevator pitch eh ? BORING !
but this is exactly the problem with the name … OMD? O-MD? OM-D? EM5? OMD EM5??? 😉
OMG! 🙂
Its OM-D not O-MD. Also the thing about lens branding, most Japanese companies have had it, Nikon has Nikkor, Yashica had Yashinon. Infact Zuiko has got more brand value for me than Olympus has. About the camera body line up, I agree to some extent, but the truth is most companies have a complicated line up for a non-enthusiast. Be it Canon, Nikon, Sony or Panasonic. The problem is that Olympus really is one of the last surviving underdogs in the Japanese camera industry. I consider Sony as new. Minolta is dead. Yashica is dead. Pentax is on the verge of dying. Contax (German brand, Japanese made) is dead. Panasonic is new. Although these were the companies which brought some of the best innovations to the industry. They were just not able to survive the mad market ceated by Canikon.
The “dead” company, Sony, just saved Olympus from deadness by injecting a much needed money.
Oops i mistakenly read you consider Sony as new Minolta. My bad.
“I’m not particularly qualified for this advice”
Indeed. Quite a few reasonable suggestions here, but also an all-American approach whereby brands need to give their products the exact same names from one generation to the next: Americans don’t seem to care if they get an E-PL3 or E-PL5, they just want a PEN. We have seen this any number of times with other manufactured articles. But all it does is introduce further confusion when people end up owning different items with the same name, and I can tell you it doesn’t work in Europe.
Also, in a world where past products’ quality is perceived as an indicator for good quality in a new product in the same line, why would you want to ditch the Zuiko brand?? I agree that loyal Olympus customers/users are not the bulk of Olympus’s target, but even the average purchaser today will do some research on the ‘net before they commit a very significant amount of money, and they want to be reassured by positive reviews that state “M.Zuiko lenses are the same line as those legendary Zuiko lenses”.
I can’t see much in this article about the competition that Olympus faces: do you really want to position Olympus as a single brand defying Canon and Nikon with such a small sensor that they have to call it “Micro” all the way? That would put them in an awkwardly weak position versus Nikon 1. I think that Olympus and Panasonic are absolutely right in presenting a “system” to the market. Granted, they could have chosen a smoother-sounding name for it, but standing each on their side withe their own new branding rules would be detrimental for all those who are looking for a lasting system with lots of lens options.
The “merchandizing” suggestions are simply not realistic, and are simpy ignorant of all the laws of logistics / stock-handling. Again, they might work in a US-based, urban, high-turnover, rich area, but virtually nowhere else in the world.
One final hint to this article’s author: if you want to counsel someone on their work, take a couple of seconds to understand what they have done if you really want to sound credible. The “O-MD” from which you would like a hyphen to be removed doesn’t exist, it’s called the OM-D – I’ll leave you to second-guess where the detached “D” comes from…
Lens line renaming is a move backward. Pentax has simplified their Q lens line-up and look how far did they go? Not to mention “Olympus Micro Landscape ~ Portrait Macro Zoom Lens” might be the tackiest name I’ve ever heard in my life.
Do anything to useless camera names for all I care. But names of lenses for one is very useful, especially where a single mm has a huge difference. Simplifying that in bid for a new “amateurs” will alienate faithful followers and well seasoned photographers who might consider Olympus.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it called OM-D as opposed to O-MD? I’m sorry, but its hard to take any critique seriously if a whole section is devoted to a concept in which the facts aren’t even accurate!
Great Post!!!
I think Olympus can take a lot of suggestions from this
(except for removing focal lenght and aperture from lens 😉 ).
BTW I also agree that a couple of cameras (one hi-end like E5, one smaller like E620) that can use full 4/3 lenses are not such a bad idea.
I’m sorry, but even if Mark does not work in marketing, this is the same marketing bullshit agencies doing all over the day – underestimating people and fool them with buzzwords. Yes, Olympus has an advertisement problem and yes they have a problem with the order of their system. But they will not change anything by giving new names, but by teaching the advantages. Customers are not dumb, they do not need to treat them like babies, they will listen if Olympus tells them about the system, in easy words, but not by fooling them.
Long ago, at least here in europe, every shop had a stack of little free handbooks made by Olympus, explaining the whole basics of photography and their products. They were very attractive, hundreds of thousands being given away. That’s a starting point. Tell the customers the differences between the different lines (in fact, at the moment there are only four!) in easy comparisons, tell them about the Olympus heritage, tell them about the cooperation with Panasonic and why it is an open system, use the media not to place the name “Olympus” somewhere at an tennis court, but to present the cameras and their advantages. That’s the way it works, not with marketing bullshit…
+1
Yes, there are 4 current models, but 3 are almost exactly the same, except for cost and a few minor differences in features.
If the EP5 had a built-in viewfinder it would make much more sense, but it doesn’t.
I better go and feed the cat.
+1
” outside of enthusiast photography, the name micro 4/3 likely means nothing” same could be said for DX, ASPC, CX etc…..
to me “micro 4/3” sounds intriguing
“talking to camera people I know, reading message boards and watching YouTube reviews” that is marketing! (the best kind)
“However, my research has also revealed that Olympus — and by proxy the micro 4/3 camera system — is struggling in the market (source one, source two). Sure, the entire compact camera market has imploded in a post-iPhone world, but DSLR camera sales are still strong and that success proves to me there’s room for a more compact, mirrorless camera standard like micro 4/3. But consumers are deciding to buy DSLR cameras instead.” is a largely USA centric issue and source one says NOTHING about micro four thirds on that graph.
“Only Olympus enthusiasts can explain their current brands.” I can understand ALL the other brands apart from Canon and Nikon, so what gives?
I’m not sure the USA is worth the “on the ground” marketing effort for any mirrorless… seeing as it’s only 16% and declining of the current camera market.
The hyphen is a none issue, it only tends to appear on spec sheets.
Zuiko is a premium name (as such is pushed to beginners) and also used for Four Thirds and maybe any other forthcoming new lines
+Plus:
cameras don’t have to be better than each other , they have to fit into the lifestyle of the consumer….
I will tell you the number one reason for slow sales of M4/3 cameras! In the US anyhow, when was the last time you could walk into a Best Buy, Micro Center, any appliance store or any Camera Shop and pick one up you hands?? Try it out? Talk to a sales person about it? Sure there B&H photo but that’s about it. You can do that with, of course Canon & Nikon though! Second biggest reason! Supply hell you can’t even get them online when they first come out with a new model! Even Sony DLSRs are in stores more then Panasonic & Olympus! People like to kick the tires still on big purchases & take a test drive first!
Easy answer why dslrs sell more better image quality fact !
This guy seems to be an Apple employee! The lens branding was hilarious!
As far as the issue of transferring files via wifi, and being them just JPEGs, I suggest to download PhotoSync. Last update (yesterday) allows to transfer even RAW files and works also in background for 10 minutes. The “problem” is that there’s no RAW editor available on any device (I know of one but it’s useless).
I got 1 tip for m43. Stop making those expensive camera’s. Only a few fanboys are going to buy them. People who going to spend more then 350 euro on a camera are going to want a usuable tool with a good decent size sensor. Pro’s never gonna buy m43. M43 is digging their own grave with those prices. For the same amount of money you can buy superb small apsc or used FF.
Hahaha…
troll much?
I will tell you the number one reason for slow sales of M4/3 cameras! In the US anyhow, when was the last time you could walk into a Best Buy, Micro Center, any appliance store or any Camera Shop and pick one up you hands?? Try it out? Talk to a sales person about it? Sure there B&H photo but that’s about it. You can do that with, of course Canon & Nikon though! Second biggest reason! Supply hell you can’t even get them online when they first come out with a new model! Oh even Sony is in stores more then Panasonic & Olympus! People like to kick the tires still on big purchases & take a test drive first!
I agree with the supply issue. I walked into one of the few remaining camera store chains in the Mid-Atlantic USA area and none of them had any Olympus or Panasonic cameras or lenses in stock. Luckily they did have 1 battery for the OMD which is all I really needed. But would have bought the Panny 25 f1.2 or Oly 35 f1.8 in a heart beat. Meanwhile I see a salesperson selling a young lady going on a trip a Nikon D5xxx series camera. Could’ve been a m43 sale.
He wrote an article about Google+ before. Thats where the Plus+ comes from:
https://medium.com/@MRSallee
2. Camera models: Reduce
erm that’s failing for the iphone who are losing market share outside of the USA (and probably at home too), have lots of models works (it’s working for Android)
“This should be Olympus’ camera lineup.
PEN
PEN+
OMD
OMD+”
oh really and what about when they want to replace these models?
3. Lens line: Rename
lens are a lot more flexible than that and renaming them as you suggest would lose a lot of sales, it’s OK to mention in marketing blurb though….
4. Merchandising: Organize
” I’m sure it’s very expensive to get there, and the value of Best Buy floor space in 2013 is certainly debatable.” Exactly, amongst other important reasons.
“a pricing strategy that aims to make profits not on camera bodies, but on lenses.” a stupid strategy for supermarkets and the like, these consumers are the least likely to buy additional lenses
“Speaking of kit lenses, I suggest getting rid of them.” that would actually be a NO sale.
Lol, what is this article?!
First of all: taking more than p+s pictures requires you to think a bit. So everyone beyond that point should be able to figure out what camera models there are.
Second: DSLR market is only so strong (imo) because every hipster and wannabe nowerdays wants to make ‘cool’ pics with nice bokeh and stuff, you know? DOF is everything!
So they heard you need a big cam for that, and there you go they buy the next canikon.
But canikons cam lineup is as confusing (or not) as any others cam brand. I don’t want an ‘Apple’ camera brand. Not everyone is a stupid american that cant think (sorry, and of course not every american stupid) and need a company do that for him.
What matters for me is (and that could be different for anyone else):
-smallness
-IQ
-price (im not that rich)
I have a used E-M5 with kit, oly 40-150mm, pana 20/1.7, oly 45/1.8 all together for ~1200€. That is pretty much (for me at least), but one could go a lot higher in price. IQ I can achieve is superb and way beyond anything I had before.
havent read the full articel yet(am at work 😉 …but dont agree to M.Zuiko to rebrand to Olympus Micro … Zuiko sign of high quality …could be that kit zooms dont get this brand…but the primes(upcaming zooms) ..mostly those with image quality and build quality had to have to be ZUIKO branded
just not to be only negative …I like the idea of own kits(body & lens per your choice) if the bundle will save a money ( I would say minimum is >100eur/usd)
i would add 1 more point here for Oly/Pana …USD/EUR conversion rates
Yesterday I checked and found on local EU store the sigma 60 2.8 for 167eur …the US price is 230 USD.
When Sigma could do correct conversion usd/eur…why also Oly/Pana cannot do that ???
5. Workflow: Evolve
” Photo editing workflow is a significant opportunity for Olympus to solve.” Oly and Panny are working on this, look at the GX7 and the forthcoming OMD Pro…
Also wi-fi relies on a lot of variables in the real world.
Who is Mr Zuiko?
This is seriously flawed stuff, possibly by an American hairdresser 🙂
The whole thing crumbles, considering the success that Oly has in Asia. One instead wonders if it is not the lack of culture and alertness on the Other Side of the Pond which is the culprit.
Reading O-MD summarises it all. Perhaps he needs to raise from the Neanderthal firecamp , and try to find some more evolved human to tell him the History of Olympus…
Then perhaps… He will also learn the use of a spoon and a fork… 🙂
Here in Asia mostly girls use m43 …
Ha ha. You’re such a looser. Bored much?
Get lost, you self-centered idiot.
ignoring the detail and not jumping on the author for the deliberate OMD typo … the message is right on point: its a mess!
bad luck that shops still stock EPM1 and EPL3 for too long now
the O-MD E-M5 has to be the dumbest camera name in recent history … OM-D EM-5 what a mess if characters – make it OMD1, why was it model 5 already?
personally I like the m.zuiko
Panasonic had it right with GF/GX/G/GH – 4x clear lines … but messed up from GX1 to GX7 skipping 23456!
Nikon D7000 to D7100 why not D70/D71 … will they make a D7157 (probably not)
the UK guy in video explained why Pana jumped from GX1 to GX7 …basicaly due to fact that they didnt wanted to evolve GX1 and wanted to create totaly new form/product.
yep … watched that
it was a remarkably flimsy excuse for a botched model number
GX7 looks like a winner but its the GX2 really, its not evolved that much and if the wanted to show it as a new line then make it a GS1 or GR1 or something (its still the GX2 though)
I must agree in many of the comments since, after iPhone, compact are not profit generating gear. They must reach many more potential buyers with their products to survive as photo makes (microscops and similar gear shouldn’t pay the bill).
Complicated denomination (of course with history in the backyard), loved by enthusiasts, need an extra effort from new buyers, that often are not disposed to make, and leave the possibility of Olympus for an already know brand which is good “for sure”..
Canikon doesn’t need this effort. With the brand, and the advice of the shop (that often are very ignorant about other possibilities) make the rest.
Some proposals may be inadequate, but the concepts are, IMHO, very opportune. The article is envisaged for NEW buyers, not for convinced and very informed ones, like the readers of 43rumors.
About the focals, it would be already time (I know this is completely utopic) to use the degrees. This would show equivalence for all systems. But even in this case, many people wouldn’t know what this means.
Gratly enjoyed these posts by Ming Thein:
http://blog.mingthein.com/?s=If+I+were+CEO%2C+part+one
http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/06/09/i-were-ceo-part-two/
@ganesh
yes many wise and well said words there 🙂 I agree with everything he said….
Thanks for the links. Good articles.
and of course one man’s landscape lens is another man’s street and another man’s portrait
wide
normal
portrait … everyone understands this and knows you can do street or landscape with it
tele
macro
fish
greatly, sorry
17/2.8 normal or standard
20/1.7 or 17/1.8 fast standard
42.5 (gimme a break 43mm) f/1.2 ultra fast portrait
Technical products should be identified by their characteristics. Because of this the current Olympus lens terminology is absolutely necessary. And this is why all DSLR manufacturers use the same terminology. No company would sell a “lens for happy faces in front of a blurred landscapes”.
The same situation exists for cameras. Olympus devides the future cameras into 2 categories: OM-D and PEN – followed by a precise identification. That`s a clear structure. Sony does the same with Alpha and NEX. If you don`t like long names then just leave the category away and you will see that you can clearly identify your camera by using the rest of its name.
A large portfolio of cameras is an advantage for the customers. So they can decide for which camera function they whant to pay.
Olympus merchandising is on the same level with other competitors. Additionally there are workshops and special events offered for OM-D and PEN cameras.
The sad truth is that Olympus (Marketing) America botched seriously some 4 years ago, so that Olympus folded it up. Local market share had fallen so low that it not worth it, and they lust have botched the m4/3 introduction too.
What is even more serious – if the rumor is correct – is that even Olympus maintenance in the US is in disarray.
So all the ‘superstructural’ considerations of the lamer above make me smile. OTH OLympus is a world concern, if they go under in a country they can prosper elsewhere. Each country deserves what it spends for, and surely small lean recipes offered there show only the limited local culture.
The Next London Event however seems quite a massive effort for Europe. That is surely warranted by the UK doubling sales in only one year.
Clearly they don’t share in the ‘big is beautiful’ madness anymore.
BTW let’s say it again for the 1000d time:
– OM-D is the name of the species
– E-M5 is the name of the individual
LOL!
How about a trinomial system (genus – species – subspecies)? Perhaps not 🙂
GET LOST…you selfish fool.
..but don’t you think that:
Olympus marketers are racists?
Olympus customers are racists?
You are a racist?
I am a racist?
God is a racist?
One thing I am sure of Almaric…your mother is a racist!
God?
Which one?
There are so many models to choose from…
I will tell you the number one reason for slow sales of M4/3 cameras! In the US anyhow, when was the last time you could walk into a Best Buy, Micro Center, any appliance store or any Camera Shop and pick one up you hands?? Try it out? Talk to a sales person about it? Sure there B&H photo but that’s about it. You can do that with, of course Canon & Nikon though! Second biggest reason! Supply hell you can’t even get them online when they first come out with a new model!
Oh even Sony is in stores more then Panasonic & Olympus! People like to kick the tires still on big purchases& take a test drive first!
You can’t rename the OM-D as OMD, because Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark (OMD) will sue the ass off of Olympus if they ever did that.
Correction… It should read as “would sue…”
You clearly have no understanding of trademarks or made an unfunny joke
I thought it was funny
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Mark. You get quite a bit of stark criticism form the forum, I would take it a s good sign. People are interested.
I really like your approach: being a knowledgeable hobbyist, like most of us are, are probably the most influential brand ambassadors out there. The M43 community is playing for this audience, and it is clear that there is a place for it in the market.
Selling anything ‘small’ in the US is a hard sell. Think of anything from cars, beds or burgers. US consumers mistake size for quality, so a big plastic DSLR will always be the first choice for them.
Whilst I agree Oly branding is a clusterf*ck…
Your lens branding ideas = bad
Maybe Olympus could simply just use “Zuiko” by itself, i.e. Zuiko 75 1.8
But calling a lens by its likely use is tacky and confusing – Can I use a portrait lens to take a landscape – yes I can.
Olympus Micro? WTF? “Olympus” is fine, why add superfluous shit to the end. When I tell people I used to work for Sun, I cut the Microsystems off the end – why? because it is superfluous.
Yes you could change OM-D to OMD – it is annoying to type I guess.
And yes Olympus OM-D E-M5 is an overly complex product descriptor, they should get rid of the E-M5 component.
Oh and Plus+ is horrible and tacky.
You have one or two good suggestions around brand simplification but your americanised marketing ideas make me want to vomit
Why should Olympus listen to “marketing advice to Olympus, from a hobby photographer”?
In case someone from Olympus is reading this article: don’t.
Olympus should listen to this (read that is). The fact someone has taken time to do it and that so many have read (mostly) and commented should indicate to Olympus that there is something wrong and they have many friends willing to help them.
However the person who “consults” widely cannot implement all the suggestions, therefore upseting those that were “consulted” and their suggestions/advice was rejected.
Yes, Olympus should follow these posts.
If I’m about to invest 500€ or more into a camera system, I don’t want to buy smething aimed to kids. Naming lenses “portrait” or “landscape” seems so childish I would never spend that much for a toy.
Look at what happend to those companies that tried to build computers for people who had never used one (“granny ‘puter” 😉 )… Big specialized keyboards (in alphabetic order), an icon for “mail”, another for “internet”… They all failed bad for the same reasons: customer isn’t retarded, better respect him. On the opposite, tablet PC, despite zillions models and brands, took other PC industry reaching that audience treating respectfully those customer “see, even pro PC users think tablet is easy and enjoyable to use”.
Do the author thinks that ppl who want a “real” camera (not a smartphone) go to Canon or Nikon because their branding and naming strategy is easier to understand? No, they go for Canikon because of popularity of those brands. That’s, in my opinion, the biggest weakness of Olympus at least here (France). Olympus should promote its name, and they don’t even need to “name” a camera model for that, as Nikon does it on TV ads.
Imagine such a commercial, where you would see a great landscape and 2 persons: an old guy and a young one. Each one would have a camera: the old man would have an Olympus 35mm film SLR (like OM-1), the youngest a PEN or and OM-D. The 2 would take the same pic of the sun rising. They would then look at each other and share the emotion of such a landscape. A voice would then say “technology may be changing, emotion will stay – Olympus.”
Buy canon nikon fuji ….. Ppl here say apsc is dead but why many small cameras coming with sensor way bigger now ff mirrorles will come and m43 will happen the same to 43 will die due to smaller sensor
Don’t take it bad dude, but we will all die one day. In the mean time, have fun and don’t loose precious moments on this board if you have better things to do 😉
Clearly, he *doesn’t* have anything better to do. Probably has a hideously expensive FF camera and lenses, but nothing to take pictures of that anyone would care about. No friends. No family. No life. Probably now has buyers remorse because he spent thousands on kit, but has nothing to use it for other than pointless self gratification. So now all that’s left is to come to this board to masturbate about it in some last ditch attempt to feel anything other than a complete and utter failure.
likely doesn’t have a camera at all. Just sitting behind his computer, searching for the perfect camera from spec sheets.
FF is crap. Medium format is for amateurs. Large format is IT!
F 0.01 all the way – I want nothing to be in focus! Bokeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh.
True mate 🙂
Sensor size has little relevance today and that relevance is getting smaller as sensors get larger. A 5 Mp camera can produce a very good A4 image (so where’s the need for 36Mp), likewise 16Mp for A3+, any larger than that (unless you are a pixel peeper) you have to begin to take the distance from the image you view from, into account (then pixels begin to merge). We then must consider the amount of users of all cameras who do no more than upload to their PC’s and do no more than share via social networking or no more than view on their monitors (how many have larger than 15″ screens or view at no bigger than 1000 x XXX pixels).
Then there is the great ability of all digital cameras (the ability to change resolution), come one how many of you readers have seen the guy who buys a Canon 5D or Nikon D3 then set’s it to lowest resolution so that he gets most number of images on his card (then wonders why your point and shoot or Smart Phone sometimes looks better), yes be honest, we’ve all seen that guy. I’ve even seen one store guy set a new camera out of the box to that for a customer for that very reason (he’s only interested in making his sale, another 4,000 buck body is sold), that camera is then never changed in it’s life time, unless picked up by the lucky guy who gets it on ebay for a song, who knows a bit about photography.
So yes lets continue with the 640 x 800 pixel images, some people will never realise the capability of the tool in their hand.
“Sensor size has little relevance today”
Yes it has, and in a rather big way: depth of field control. Low-light sensitivity is gradually becoming less of a reason to go for larger sensors, and pixel count definitely isn’t one anyway. But you will never get the same subject isolation capability with a smaller sensor as you do with a bigger one (until someone manages to make quality f/0.1 aperture lenses for a ridiculous cost, that is…).
“Then there is the great ability of all digital cameras (the ability to change resolution), come one how many of you readers have seen the guy”
Never saw anyone like that in my life, sorry. Saw a few who only used the kit lens on their DSLRs though, but that only happened with low-end DSLRs that they barely paid more for than they would have for an advanced compact camera.
Agree on sensor size. Almost any sensor will give resolution and iq that is perfectly satisfactory for the vast majority of users. People do not want to pay for things they will only use once or twice in a year. If they are into specific things like night shots or DOF shaving then they can buy a specialised camera. But, as Ming Thein points out the camera should have some capability for little used attributes as it can be a prestige thing.
But what has more value a ton of cast iron or a 1/4 ton of gold. Seems people want the bigger load.
Any person who wants to drop the Zuiko name on the lenses is not to be taken serious.
And for all this sponsored s
It’s like will crooked gulio etc they say oh this is so small and all the benefits of smaller camera what about all the lightning thy need to carry etc. if so good Zbd fast why it’s so bad for sports photo What about low light and dynamic range really olympus is ok but panasonic thy shut better dedicated to make headphones and turntables. ….( they never can’t make a decent mixer or pitch able CD player ). Now they try to make cameras , I was yesterday in camera shop already 2 gh3 selling nd plenty of panny who want this. Crap just fanboys
Can you try again in proper English?
Ok very simple m43 sucks
Why are you trashing M43 if you’re so convinced that whatever format you use is far superior? Thruth always win, don’t you think? 🙂
Your name is apt.
You probably own a nice big sensor camera but still take terrible photos. In auto mode. In the same way, you probably bought the big camera to compensate for your tiny penis.
Oh u hurt me 🙁 yes I only use automode why not ?
you should be using P mode
P = Professional
I thought everybody knew this already?
and use f22 all the time bigger is better.
A cheap point-n-shoot sounds like it’d be right up your alley then. Did you know they put cameras in mobile phones these days? Besides it’s not like you’re actually taking any photos anyway – too busy pointlessly trolling these, and likely other forums, and for WHAT? LOL stop breathing our air, nub.
Why Panasonic is still here.. Because they show innovation and they dare to change.
In 2008 on the Photokina everybody was sceptic and now every big brand has a systemcamera. Even Canon, it’s the worst of all, but still they have one.
In Asia they have a bigger marketshare then DLSR and still growing.. But here in the west, europa and the U.S. , we only complain and choose the brand with the most exposure (biggest mouth) :/
Written in Auto Mode, a bit like some Google translations…..
More simple more easy to buy (or marketing)! A fact. So this makes sense.
This should be Olympus’ camera lineup.
PEN
PEN+
OMD
OMD+
a + in a product name is just a bit dumb
remember the Pentax *ist camera?
#Nike+
He who can, does. He who can’t, teaches. Or calls names. I don’t care how things are called, I care what they do or do not do. I repeat: I want a E-520 with the new sensor and stabilization! 🙂 Please…
+1 for in camera raw adjustments. That’s such a brilliant idea. Even just being able to apply RGB curves to an image that’s stored as non-destructive meta data for use in camera raw / Lightroom would be incredible.
@Fost
the new Panasonic GX7 has curves adjustments in post…
I would neverever buy a lens whose name does not include focal lenght and aperture values 🙂 And.. DO NOT TOUCH MY ZUIKO!!
Whatever to use a lens for landscape or portrait is up to ME, and if the camera maker is “suggesting”, well, it puzzles me. Already Nikon suggests me that the “right way to make a bracketing is in 1 stop steps…”
Camera makers do not know our specific needs, nor they care. They do believe they know better than us.
OMD+, ok, which version? Like in good old leica times, you had to know the serial number of tha piece to get any clue of what it is? NO PLEASE!
Ok, that said their selling and marketing needs emprovement.
We, as users, are doing the great part of the job!
Disagree with the naming “advice” here. I find Nikon’s naming scheme much more confusing than Oly’s… And that “+Plus” idea is just not right for Olympus. (It may sound ok with Sony though). I think there’re only 2 things Oly need to fix:
1) Rename or discontinue E-PM series. The meaning of “M” in “E-PM” conflicts with the meaning of “M” in “OM-D/E-M5”.
2) Having both “OM-D” and “E-M5” is kinda redundant and confusing. Simplify them to just one name — such as OM-6, OM-6D, or E.OM-6 — would be neat and clean. And follow the E series convention, single digit for high end, double/triple digits for lower end models.
So why are u here, take your Canon and take snaps of little girls. It seems like your obsessed with little asian girls using m43.
Is it true, that RAW files can not be trasferred from camera? Only JPEGs? If true, that is serious omission.
Where did you get that idea from Yeti? A Llama!!!
That’s what this guy says in his article…
>I end up dealing only in JPEGs, as RAW images won’t transfer wirelessly.
Peoples buy DSLR simply because pro use DSLR, so it’s better than a tiny compact camera. When more and more pro use mirroless for sports event, wedding and all sort of jobs, people start considering those camera as “good for pro, good for me”.
Well done. Not saying I agree 100% with everything, but you have a lot of good advice. They would do well to follow a lot of it.
I just think the biggest problem is brand recognition and product exposure. I understand that Olympus and Panasonic are small companies compare to Nikon and Canon, thus they don’t have the budget for advertisement. However, I have never seen an ad of any kind from each company about their camera ever. At least start a grass root campaign or something. The main selling point of M43 are size and almost equal picture quality of DSLR, of which is good enough for most of the general public. Also, keep the price down a little. If your product is not equal to the competition, at least keep the price down or equal to them. One example is the overly expensive E-P5. For that much money, I rather get an excellent Canon or Nikon DSLR, small size be damned.
Are really bad company’s compare to canikon
Panasonic is bigger than Canon who is bigger than Olympus who is bigger than Nikon. So Nikon is the smalest of them and Panasonic is the biggest.
I’ve just found something interesting to note, needed to check out the Nikon site for some information. What do I find there, well there’s the DSLR’s (Dx, Dxx and Dxxx, wonder when they’ll come out with a Dxxxxxxxxx?) then there’s the Advanced Cameras, so Nikon have something above their Dx range, most interesting.
1dx that skyscraper with less dynamic range than a tiny m43.
What wildlife, ducks in your backyard ?
My cats in the sofa canon1dx beats any43
I dont need 1dx for cat shots, cat is probably scared when he’s confronted with that black container.
I was sceptical when reading the brand renaming stuff, and lost interest when reading the nonsense about renaming lens descriptions, skipped the rest of the article.
Please admin, at least don’t put the whole, HUGE article on the front page unless its quality is without any doubt.
You could argue that the suggestions are provocative, and many thoughts are motivated by important insights, but I think they go well overboard.
Somebody has too much time on their hands…
He probably means well… but what a bunch of crap… sorry…
IMHO
The first dramatic error : The term Hybrid
This term is now every where ..
Of course it is just a “market” term who means nothing like Compact or Bridge.
… ok if this term works for a Toyota Car it can work for a Camera
Except that for Car it is “real” hybrid … it is really something which work with gaz and electricity. For a Camera … Hybrid means nothing .. it is a perhaps a cool word, but it is a non sense. MirorLess Interchangeable Lens Camera is not commercialy acceptable … but hybrid is stupid
There is a lot of desinformation everywhere about Reflex … reflex is only about Mirror and prism .. not about sensor size, resolution, AF, noise … and there is a lack of information everywhere of what is MirrorLess
I have checked Camera sold in Europe for 1 DSLR … 8 Compacts are still sold, so i still beleive marketing guys think they can take the compact market … which is an error. Compact market is taken by smartphone. MirrorLess must fight in their natural category … cameras with interchangeable lens. The simplification wanted by the author would put from a marketing point of view the mirrorless as an advanced “P & S” … error for me.
Mind of everybody
– Reflex : Pro Camera (even if 5% of Reflex sold are only “supposed” Pro Camera)
– Compact : Newbie Camera for kid on FaceBook (even if lot of pro like Compact !)
Hybrid : Something between them .. so it cant have the image quality of a reflex and for FaceBook “IPad with Insta is sufficient”
And i read yesterday a “photo magazine” … undertext was clear .. Hybrid is for those who want interchangeable lens but cannot buy a Reflex.
The only way to activate the market : Education
What you have : Camera with interchangeable Lens with no mirror
What you win : You reduce size, lenght and Weight … you reduce distance between lens and sensor, you reduce so the size of the lens .. and finally “normaly” the global price
What you lost : The possibility to shoot “through” the lens with the eye.
Good products sell themselves. Word of mouth is the best advertising you can get.
These were ideas, but I have to agree, many of the suggestions were not well thought out. Open discussion of ideas is good though.
Olympus is not just a camera maker. In fact, the camera business is just a small part of who they are and what they make. Zuiko is not just an Olympus lens. It is a well established and highly respected optical line that includes camera lenses but is well respected in scientific and industrial circles as well. Changing the name gives up its legacy of quality optics and calling the lenses Olympus implies they are only for Olympus cameras, which to new customers cuts their market in half or more. m.Zuiko however is a lens brand that works with all Micro Four Thirds systems. Micro Four thirds itself is different in that it is a system approach used by more then just one major corporate producer, as opposed to Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. who produce only for their brands.
The problem with the Americas is “Olympus America” which does a good job of marketing the industrial and scientific Olympus lines but really does not understand marketing to the consumer market or how to market a Photographic line. It may also be the same for Europe. Olympus UK however looks to be turning the tide on their part and Olympus Japan is doing well.
Also keep in mind that a new ” m4/3 player” is coming on line this or next year out of China and that stands to impact the Asian market almost immediately and the world market over time. This will further expand markets for Panasonic, Pan-Leica and Zuiko lenses, further expanding m4/3 global appeal. Also people need to get over the idea that there is a war between Olympus and Panasonic. The two form a type of symbiotic relationship what while competitive is also mutually beneficial, and they know it. This drives innovation from both sides. Heaven forbid that either one should dominate completely, as that would destroy m4/3. Bring in the other m4/3 players and it only gets better. When the market demand is there, you will see third party manufacturers lining up to produce more lenses. The only constraint now is market demand, but as we know Sigma is already testing the waters.
I do agree however with some form of simplification of naming conventions for Olympus. It needs more clarity that is obvious to the consumer public. I don’t agree with all of the recommended naming changes though.
I thought the suggestions smacked of idiocy but I nearly fell off my chair laughing at #4 and the suggestion of completely eliminating kit SKUs…
It clearly demonstrate the poor guy has no idea what the hell he is talking about.
Sure Olympus is not doing a stellar job, but they could do worse, they could listen to these wacky ideas.
I posted something earlier in favour of the DSLR – the good grip and the optical viewfinder, in response to people arguing that the mirror is a thing of the past. All right, let the mirror go! But why bad EVFs and no grips (or grips that are almost useless)?
To this here I want to add that there are two other problems, related to lenses. It is almost obvious now that a quality zoom like the 12-60 either cannot be made for mFT or could perhaps be made but at the expense of being large and heavy like the original plus extremely expensive. Look at some of the mFT primes as well! They are not at all so small as was to be expected. So, in my view, the final ditching of DSLR – which appears to be forthcoming, is totally unjustified.
Olympus is good at going out of business
I would suggest all camera producing companies should communicate their lens focal point in 35mm equivalents (or Full Frame equivalents). Most people won’t know Canon’s APS-C is x1.5 and Nikon’s is x1.6, Olympus x2.0 etc.
If they would just and only communicate the 35mm equivalent, so people can easely compare different makes. Let the real focal point be left to the pro’s and enthusiasts.
I mean, they know they would have to devide the 35mm equivalent with 1.5 , 1.6 or 2.0 or 1.0 (FF) etc.
So e.g., if a person is looking for a portrait lens, this person wil look for a focal lenght/point around 100mm
For 90% of users (yes that’s a scientific estimation 😉 ), shooting a potrait is sums up as “point to the subject” and “select the auto-portrait mode”… They really don’t think about the lens they’re using (“Are you sure you can remove the zoom kit lens? wow I didn’t know that!”)
🙂
dumbing things down for america consumers [ im a new yorker] isnt the thing that with endear olympus products to the masses…. i doubt the i phone crowd knows the moniker nikkor , summilux, nokton or even touit ,lol….. not everything has to be made easy
what will help olympus is for it to be a less obnoxious selfish company , and offer , like fuji and ricoh , meanongful firmware update ,, prompt battery availability , and stop nickeliing and diming the faithful an extra 200 dollars for a lens not in silver
or 75 bucks for a simple lens hood … fuji is able to implement peak ing to earlier models thru firmware updates , but my new-ish omdem5 will never peak… i must spend a 1000 bucks and buy the ep5 apparently …. olympus sucks at making its customers feel appreciated , that is communicated just fine .
Interesting thoughts. But in terms of naming I don´t agree with any of your suggestions. Especially your names for the lenses are more confusing than helpful.
I think the problem of mirrorless is: an iPhone is really small enough to take it with you all time everywhere. If you want best quality you need a decent camera (bigger sensor, manual control, special lenses). And that means bulk. So there´s not a really big difference between a dslr and an mft cam. Maybe 30% in weight and size. But that´s no reason to pay 600 euros for a Oly pen without vf instead of 500 euros for a dslr from Nikon or Canon. Or even 1100 euros for an OMD instead of 750 euros for an anyhow comparable dslr.
Good point, Sunny. In my view and experience, the number of people carrying two (or three or more) cameras simultaneously is extremely small, say, 1% of all users. Simply look around if you are in, say, Venice. You get a mirrorless camera and avoid some negligible 200 or 300 grams – at the expense of lower IQ, smaller sensor, more noise, etc. That’s simply ridiculous. However, if you carry around three cameras simultaneously (I am one of those who do this – for tourist photography), you can really save effort (less weight, less bulk) by having two mirrorless cameras or one DSLR and two mirrorless cameras. And especially if you use three mirrorless cameras. Unfortunately, for the moment I can only afford to use one mirrorless camera and two DSLRs.
Honestly and seriously, I really cannot understand why 99% of the tourists around the world carry only one camera and change lenses. Ridiculous – having in mind that two mirrorless cameras normally weigh less or even much less than a single DSLR!
all this Canon talk … shall we talk about the EOS-M mirrorless, um what do I call it to be polite: effort!
not to be confused with the old manual focus EF mount SLR that they also called EOS-M
Oly/Pan have done an amazing thing with m43 and the competition is a joke. a couple of nice bodies from Sony NEX but most are vveryplastic with poor lenses.
Nikon did an odd thing with PEN sized cameras but smaller sensor.
Fuji though – they are the competition! nice line up (forgive them the XM and ignore it)
But no one here is talking about price?
I am a g3 owner, portability is my must. But i like dof and very fast m43 lenses are too expensive (for an not pro like me). I am consideing to go for canikon just because some fast lenses are cheaper. Portability would be worse, but my wallet will thanks me
I agree, it took me long while to understand the difference between E-P5, E-PL5, PEN, OMD bla bla bla. I gave up before I figured out all those names and then ended up bought Lumix to my girlfriend. Now, I finally understand the difference.
I actually think the market is undergoing a correction now, and this advice would be the deathknell for Olympus. Frankly, the mirrorless camera makers need to stop catering to the happy snappers and really focus on the photographers. DSLRs took a big downturn as well recently, and all those who bought their shiny new DSLRs a few years ago have no interest in upgrading them or, frankly, using them. Sure, mirrorless is the best option for most of those shooters, but the market will follow where the high end shooters go, and the areas that ARE selling well in mirrorless is the high end. The OM-D, the Fuji cameras, the NEX-7 and NEX-6. These are the bodies that are selling. I hear more and more serious shooters and professionals adding mirrorless kits to their arsenal, or switching entirely. Heck, TWIP just did an hour long podcast this week with four professionals who have switched to mirrorless, or are using it for a huge portion of their work, and they are just raving and raving. Focus on enticing the serious shooters to your system, and it will flow downhill from there. The dedicated camera market is dead for 90% of the population…they ALL use their phones…there’s nothing to court from there. The ones who care about good cameras are the serious shooters….this is where the marketing needs to be.
Making lenses marked with arbitrary shooting items like a wide angle being termed a ‘landscape’ lens actually perpetuates photographic ineptitude…..I’d seriously jump ship entirely to Fuji if Olympus and Panasonic did that (I have two kits, m4/3 and Fuji, and use both extensively…I’m a former Full Frame Canon shooter) because it would tell me that they no longer cared about catering to the serious photographer.
If the top flight guys start picking up mirrorless cameras, of any brand, (which they are), the stigma of ‘that’s a small camera, it can’t do real work’ will start to fade, and THAT’S when the low end will come flocking…though not at the rate it has been the past few years. Cameraphones are just too good nowadays (not in comparison to mirrorless or DSLRs, but for general use) for most people to bother with a separate camera anymore. The market is shrinking, and the serious photographer is where the money will continue to be.
We’re undergoing a correction in the industry now, where a lot of the Uncle Bobs are going to put away their cameras, the market will shrink. It’s not necessarily bad. If the manufacturers correct with it (and Olympus is already doing that by eliminating their P&S division), they’ll be fine, and we’ll actually be better off for it.
I agree with most points, but…
Branding should not downplay m43, the fact this is a multi-manufacturer standard is its strongest part. Olympus and Panasonic should make advertisements together, sharing the costs and emphasizing that this is the only system for which fore than one manufacturer produce bodies, and lenses and flashes can be shared.
And please don’t invent another “plus”, it means nothing. Just drop codes like E-PL5 (it should have been just PEN Lite 5), drop “Digital” (sheesh, we know), sync numbers (PEN Mini 5 instead of PEN Mini 2 alongside PEN Light 5 – although honestly, there should not be PEN Lite, PEN 5 and PM5 are enough if PEN 5 priced to sell and not like today).
+1
Agreed with Eosphoros. What the author suggests, completely dumbs down the branding, turning what is becoming a mature system into some toyish nonsense that serious amateurs (never mind pros) would feel slightly awkward to use. The average consumers that the author is trying to target, don’t give a shit about the brand names and lens names anyway, whatever they are – most will stick to the kit lens. People only buy extra lenses if they are at least a little aware of what they want to do. I’ve never heard of a random consumer suddenly going “I think I need me a portrait lens!”. The customer goes “My pictures don’t look like I want them to. I think I need a better camera”. Or: “Maybe I need a new lens, I think I need to ask around”. All I’m saying is that the existing lens branding is fine, as long as the accompanying information clearly shows the customers which one’s which and which works best for what. A lot of people buy an interchangeable lens camera without ever intending to buy lenses – they just go for ILC as a synonym of better picture quality. An old fashioned brochure showing which lens is for what, would be good enough. More conscious marketing from Olympus – agree, but not this way. The shop display idea? Simply put, shops try to reduce the number of items on display to reduce cost – you’ll never see a nicely arranged full mu4/3 system installation all lit up in the middle of the shop unless it’s Olympus’ / Panasonics’ stall at some expo. In fact you’ll hardly see any camera shops soon 🙂 And supermarket staff are not competent enough to sell light bulbs, never mind cameras, so for the “unattended sales” the looks of the product are all there is to it.
I think that ultimately for a photography product to sell to regular customers today , the marketing and product itself has to clearly say and show that:
– The product takes nice pictures under all conditions – from bright light to low light
– The product is aesthetically pleasing to the ones who like it, has different visual options, etc, with some minimal personalisation possible,
– The product allows some level of social media integration, for those who want it
– The product has some unique features available only in this product – makes the customer feel special / superior
You can easily have all that without going Mickey Mouse with the whole product line! Vintage and retro is still desirable, so I also think Olympus with the PEN brand should be milking the heritage much more than they are doing it now. What happened to the “since 1959” inscription? It disappeared after the E-P2.
Olympus should stop obsessing with style and focus on making functional photographic tools.
Stupid article, stupid comments. I want my five minutes back.
I agree, mostly bad advice…the Zuiko name means a lot and calling the lenses Micro is just confusing with Macro. I agree that the “equivalent crop” factor is dumb across the board in comparing to FF 35mm film sizes (only us old farts remember film). Like my 9-18… Ultra wide Zoom explains it better than equivalent to 18-36 FF and certainly better than calling it “micro landscape to street zoom”.
All sensor sizing should have changed to a diagonal (like tv) so we could understand better like 22mm vs 27mm but the term MFT is no worse than ASP-C. And Pen+ just conjures up Plus What? Olympus is doing fine, just need to emphasize similar quality with small/light lenses….
+1
snake oil, sounds like every other rebranding marketing scheme. Let’s throw out anything existent and come up with dumbed down concepts that can be spoon fed to idiot consumers …
Why do the micro Four-Thirds users have so much trouble with the hyphen (-) placement?
OM-D series, not O-MD series.
E-P5, not EP-5 because that would be an eyecup, not a camera body. At least, this person got those bodies right.
I really don’t think Olympus should be closer to Adobe. It hasn’t elevated Pentax at all and they embraced DNG years ago. I wouldn’t use an Adobe product unless it was absolutely necessary. Phase One Capture One is much better than Lightroom, and so is Silkypix version 5.
I lost him early when he said that he used an iPhone for his photography and found RAW too hard to use.
But Admin, what is s rant like that doing on y(our) main site?
Wouldn’t it be better to put such posts in an area of their own?
Don’t think that just because there is not much news or there aren’t many rumours that you have to fill the space with just anything. We appreciate what you do but please don’t dilute it.
Actually, in this case you could have just referred us to the link to his site. He did often enough.
Oh dear, I think a calming cup of tea is in order.
The Pro and Anti SLR brigades will fight incessantly, it’s all beside the point. This “marketing” thesis may hit some points but in my view it’s very simple – it all comes down to money. The people you have to attack are the distributors. If the Distributor makes more margin pushing Canon, then Olympus can go fish. Here in UK, OlyPan products are too expensive to attack CaNikon head-on. It’s no good shouting about high tech if your products don’t get onto the store shelves. If I walk into a store here with a grand, chances are the salesman will want to steer me onto a “proper” camera. In USA it must be ten times worse, because CaNikon know its their last bastion and will protect that market with every cent they have. In that situation, you can talk about mirror boxes till you’re blue in the face. CaNikon will push every angle from “professional” to how cool you guys look with your big Penis-Substitute SLR ! If CSC makers want to make progress they have to sell not at parity but below. That’s how Japanese car makers attacked the USA with smaller, efficient but mainly CHEAPER cars. It will take longer, but better to succeed in ten years than crash in 3. OlyPan must face up – (1) Price, (2) Distributor.
This advice is complete BS. Nikon tried the dumbed down marketing approach (Nikon 1) and it blew up in their faces.
Thanks and yes, everybody has right!
But. If the consumers do not find one clear first
we will get more and more sensless MARKETING-BLOBBAS
and not ( you can look at this/oftopic/ the BMW-HOOROR show
since 14 Years/ if you are no driver the BILLION $$$$ MARKETING
SHOW on PAPER AND in TV and WWW will breake you/ but if yo are an
bleeding fan
[i do not wear bmw-porno-sunglasses/ in first is design+real feeling]
and no i do not want to share ido not summary fb-points = I DO NOT WANT
you bleed to dead….
so it is not taht i have no small fingers
not taht it must bee 0.02nm -tampoon-thin
i want the maximim of a PHOTO
the maximum of a FILM.
so taht is waht goes wrong..
ps.. i have ordert new MASERATI GHIBLI..
i am to young to die in a mercedes-audi-sarkophage
in boring
that is für the n s a asholes
that means so much money is wastet
money every scollchild in usa would get
a place in HAWARD..
no
we neeed furthermore idiots….
The best line in the article is:
“I’m not particularly qualified for this advice.”
O-MD? Seriously? OMG! “The hyphen in the O-MD name is sterile and confounding.” It sure is confounding to him. Once I saw “O-MD” I got the feeling that this was going to be a bad article.
Reduce to 4 models? PEN, PEN+, OMD, OMD+ So, will it be like cars now? PEN 2013, PEN 2013 Turbo, PEN 2015 V8, etc.
Build your own kit sounds good, until you realize that it would confuse the heck out of beginners when faced with that many lens choices.
0 – 29mm: Landscape
30 – 49mm: Street
50 – 150mm: Portrait
151+mm: Telephoto
What’s “Telephoto” doing there? Telephoto is not a function. Shouldn’t it be called Voyeur? (Sports, Wildlife, Paparazzi are acceptable too.)
I’m glad he doesn’t work in marketing.
Every once in a while, I don’t wonder why my friends don’t run billion-dollar companies. Now, I don’t wonder why this stranger doesn’t, too.
A waste of time writing. A waste of time reading. Olympus has a marketing department – like a really big worldwide one. If they were to take this person’s or any other person’s advice that means they’d be essentially admitting they’re wasting millions of dollars a year paying their own marketing geniuses. It’s a f**king corporation! They do what they do.
It’s OM-D not O-MD. Perhaps understandable/forgiveable if he didn’t then make a point about the hyphen! It’s inspired by OM… and Digital. OM-D. Not difficult to understand, surely?
I didn’t read the rest of it as I assumed it was going to be as poorly researched/thought-out and I have better uses of my time.
Maybe it was meant to be a comedy piece.
As a casual photographer who mainly uses and E-PL1 and is about to upgrade to the E-PL5 of EP-3 this guy is spot on for the most part (aside from renaming the lens).
The Olympus lineup is a mess and too complicated. Streamline the brand and you have an easier marketing. Marketing is the biggest advantage Sony has over Olympus. Also Olympus is not going to overtake Canon and Nikon, so stop trying to be them and be your own market. Olympus can continue to own and develop the small performance camera market but right now the normal consumer has no idea where to even start, let a lone what micro 4/3s even means.
Also, they need to get back into electronic stores and camera shops, they are almost nonexistent around my area.
+ the user interface of the cameras need to be redone: combining clarity with richness of options, combining a beginners fool proof automatic with professionel fast settings, combining pure photographic creativty with gimmicks.
That’s not easy, but it *needs* to be done, Olympus!
Micro sounds very small to me. Olympus should stay more petite than mini for all times and (photographic) products??
Yeah, so a particular lens length doesn’t translate into the only things it can be used for. That naming scheme for lenses is nuts.
I would say that keeping the numbers equal in the generation and maybe moving away from the letter only designations is a good idea. PEN Mini 5 is much better than E-PM5. That way you could maybe base it off sensor/electronics generation and then differentiate on form factor.
Mark tells some home truths to Olympus, despite the comments of techies above. The most important thing in the USA and Europe is to get across the concept of mirrorless to a much wider audience. Not a single one of my friends and relatives have even heard of it. The next important thing is to put the cameras in the stores, in a coherent way, as Mark says.
The fact that even Mark, an interested and supportive person for Olympus, doesn’t get the hyphenation right tells you that it’s confusing. When I write down the name of my first Olympus digital I have to think every time whether it’s EP-2 or E-P2 (it’s OM-D but it’s E-P2. Huh? Oh, and it’s E-M5 too. Or is it EM-5. What even happened to E-M1…)
Hey guys, the author here. A few things…
1) The specific naming schemes of the cameras and lenses are meant to be clarifying examples of the core point — simplification, human language — rather than exact advice. If you think “Olympus Micro Portrait Lens” sounds dumb, but agree that “Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 45mm f/1.8” is a mess, then we agree on the main point.
The specific naming scheme is certainly not my main point.
2) Some people seem bothered that this is “dumbing down” the existing branding. Yikes. If you started with sane branding and went to Olympus’ current model names, maybe you could calling it “dumbing up.”
The purpose of brands and product names is to communicate with customers. You can still have esoteric model names (printed small) to differentiate one year’s BMW 3-series from the next, but BMW don’t use it to talk to new customers because it doesn’t communicate well.
Apple is incredibly good at this. I understand is a controversial company, but there is no doubt that they are good at selling things.
It is not about making the product dumb, but communicating clearly. Trust me, there are smart people that would need an hour’s explanation to make sense of Olympus’ camera and lens products. You and I have jumped the initial hurdle, but clearly the rest of the US and Europe have not.
3) “Olympus is doing just fine in Asia.” My suggestions are specifically for Western markets where they aren’t doing well. There’s no big issue with having different marketing strategies overseas (see Lexus, Acura, Infiniti in the US).
4) O-MD vs. OM-D. FWIW, I wrote this piece a month ago and have since corrected my mistake at the original source (the Medium blog) but I didn’t mention it to this site’s admin so I guess this version didn’t get the corrections. I guess you could get hung up on it and not recognize the mistake as an example of Olympus’ problem.
Mark, I speak for myself: maybe Digital M.Zuiko 45mm f1.8 sounds strange to you, it’s strange to go to the shop and ask for that lens saying the full name.
I find more weird to ask for a “portrait” lens, since you can take portraits with whatever lens you want.
Focal lenghts and f-stops are things that perhaps newbes don’t know, but it’s better to know what they mean, if they’re going deeper into photography. (And the more you know, the better, of course!)
I get your point but it doesn’t explain why Canon or Nikon sell better than Olympus despite their awful and barely understandable naming scheme (at least as bad as Olympus’ if I base my judgement on your arguments).
Your parallel with BMW is just partial. Sure BMW has “series” from 1 to 6, but each serie has it’s own versions and options. Just check the BMW serie 3, you get the 320d, 330d, 318d, 320i, 330i, 335i and then for each engine e46, e90, e92 and so on… And I don’t even mention production year…
Customer isn’t stupid. He goes for the brand he knows (cause it’s famous, cause it’s hype, cause any other good reason that makes him believe he’s doing the best choice) and then buy the model he can pay, or he’ll go for that specific model cause he knows it’ll fulfill his needs (and he’ll save for years to be able to pay it 😉 ).
You see? Can’t be wrong if you buy an IPhone. Can’t be wrong if you buy a BMW. Can’t be wrong if you buy Nespresso (What else?). The brand sells by itself, the product becomes secondary.
Olympus as a brand needs to be known to a wide audience as “a reference in camera” at least where I live (the same applies to Panasonic I think). One could say the same about MFT interchangeable lens format (it’s not really a brand, but that “standard” would become an evidence: PC vs IBM sort of).
I’d say it’s [Canikon] their size and ability to sell large unit numbers at a narrow price point. Little to do with anything else. They pump out more products and rest of the benefits go in hand.
Olympus’ marketing suffers, and it always has. They tend to make their statement with innovation and design. (Not unlike Apple when they were the underdog) It would be hard to sell that same lifestyle marketing with Olympus, but certainly a stronger pitch would make people aware. That is where they traditionally lack in effort.
Push Olympus. So they should adopt the approach that your doctor uses Olympus when he/she sticks that little lens and tube up your nose or the other end. Or some where in between. When only the best will do.
BTW the “camera of the day” is real, people buy what they are sold, not what they need or even what they want when it comes to cameras, all they need to do is go into the shop, the “camera of the day” sales bods will fill in all the paperwork for you, tick all the boxes you never mentioned. Also, promise that the box is bigger than the one your neighbour came home with last week. The camera of the day can be sold to you almost anywhere. A massive choice of 2 brands and lots of models any of which, it will be explained, is just the solution for you and it so happens that today we have just put this one up as a special.
No, man, nobody agrees on that.
This is the internet, so I’m going to give you a car analogy: go to a car maker and tell them to rebrand their cars as CarMaker Big Vroom Vroom Trailer Pull Gas Guzzler or CarMaker Small No Child Fuel Economy. See how that goes.
The worst part is that your post on this site, signed by your name, is forever going to be on the internet. Archive.org will pick it up even if it goes out of Google’s index somehow. And you are going to be very, very ashamed of it. Trust me on that.
Mark “but agree that “Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 45mm f/1.8″ is a mess” sorry but I can’t agree there specifically. No worse than “Nikon Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR II Lens” or “Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens” Just 2 taken from ebay at random and these people sell their wares.
In reality there are only 2 cameras the Pen and the OM-D. Within these there are variations. The same way as GM makes Chevrolet and then has different models under the chevy banner and has Buick with several models. (often with shared mechanicals)
But you as the writer is correct in the basic assumption that Olympus is doing it wrong with so many things. You as the writer are making suggestions that are being critiqued here. With some agreeing and some decrying. Many will question your right, many will find fault with your general argument. Some will pick on small points. Some will broadly agree with your need to write it in the first place. Should Olympus listen? Should they look at this blog for ideas? Yes and no.
No, because so many are rut stuck and only want what they alredy have. eg. when asked about new lenses so many just repeat m43 versions of 4/3 lenses the 12-60mm an example. Why not something new like a 9-55mm? or 5-25mm?
Yes, because there is enough expertise and passion here to really listen to and get ideas, yours included.
Good for starting the discussion.
Mark: kudos for coming into this discussion despite the sometimes not too diplomatic comments 😉
“If you think “Olympus Micro Portrait Lens” sounds dumb, but agree that “Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 45mm f/1.8″ is a mess, then we agree on the main point.”
The point is, in fact, that with very high numbers of options when you choose a lens, you need to know what you are selecting:
Olympus = maker’s brand (important)
M.Zuiko = compatibility information (essential) + lineage (significant)
Digital = useless indeed
ED = type of glass used (not useful)
45mm = focal length (essential)
f/1.8 = maximum aperture (essential)
A bit of a mess, but not all along. So we can agree that they could have simplified it a bit (e.g. “Olympus m43 45/1.8”, although that would also defeat the purpose of giving the object a “human-readable” name in its broadest meaning), but dropping any of the essential information would make it meaningless.
Comparing interchangeable cameras with a BMW car or with Apple’s products can be deceiving: a car or an Apple product are each sold as a whole. You don’t buy a car from one dealer and its engine from another, or an iPhone’s screen and case from an Apple Store and its innards from a computer shop. And if you go into further details when choosing your new car, do you really think their “option packs” are so much clearer than Olympus’s lens names? I think not.
Buying an interchangeable-lens camera is an involved move that requires an understanding of the principles of photography. For the average purchaser, what has really made the whole field virtually impossible to comprehend over the past few years is the variety of sensor sizes on the market. In this context, there is one thing we can agree on: customer must be educated better, through simple messages. But I don’t think that the actual products’ names should be the chosen support to that education stage…
I started losing interest when I read this:
“The hyphen in the O-MD name is sterile and confounding. It also prevents consumers from easily seeing parallels in PEN and O-MD(three-letter, all-caps) as camera line branding. They should remove the hyphen, leaving PEN and OMD as their camera lines.”
First, if the author wants to be taken seriously, details matter. Get the hyphen in the right place. Second, the OM- name has historical significance: OM-1, OM-2, etc. The hyphen was always part of the name. And anyone who is confused by the presence or absence of a hyphen is probably too stupid to figure out how to use a serious camera. The real issue with the OM-D name isn’t the hyphen, it’s that the full name of the camera is the OM-D E-M5. That’s way too many names for one body.
Olympus sucks at marketing, but the problem isn’t the profusion of names. Canon, probably the top selling camera brand in the world, has Rebel, nnnD, nnD, nD, EF, EF-S, M, EX and more. nD bodies include both full frame and APS–that’s confusing! They even have lenses that aren’t compatible across their own camera line. None of that prevents them from dominating the business.
Olympus sucks at marketing, but the problem isn’t naming. The problem is simply lack of marketing. Olympus has virtually no presence in mainstream media, camera stores, big-box stores, or anywhere else. Even at those few stores that sell m43, employees aren’t educated in the system, and are given no incentives to sell it. Everything said about Olympus applies to Panasonic, too.
I mostly think the advice was bad (the lens name suggestions were the worst)w so I’ll list the two I agreed on:
* M.Zuiko brand shoud be reserved to premium lenses.
* E-P, E-PL and E-PM model names are confusing. I spend way too much time on gear sites every day and I still have trouble remembering which model is which and whether or not a model is old or new. I have no such trouble with Panasonic models.
A simply beautiful essay. Workflow is big issue, I am about to make a transition into photography and I will probably leave the Olympus cameras behind because of workflow. I started with an Olympus point-and-shoot that had a hotshoe and manual control, loved it. I then moved to the Olympus e-510, at the time Nikon and Canon just could not match key features like Image Stabilization and Live View.
Now that I am ready to move beyond a basic DSLR and into commercial production I need to use workflows that allow tethered shooting and full camera control. The other key issue is lack of 3rd party support; support for Olympus among triggers, strobes, software is either absent or very minimal.
Micro 43rds was the absolute worse name ever. In a market where bigger seems better (sensor anyway) you never want to seem like yours is smaller.
agree. I wonder how many actually think that m4/3s and 4/3s are two different sensor sizes… the “m” should have been named “mirrorless”, and that’s that.
*facepalm*
The author makes many valid points. However, he does occasionally go a little too far in the direction of dumbing things down. But, roughly 80% of it makes very good sense.
The main problem is not with Olympus, per se. It is with the Japanese marketing and sales mentality. They do not seem to understand simplicity. It’s as if they feel that complexity is a good thing, and endless model numbers and redundant branding adds value. Or, at the very least, simplicity, and the things that go along with it like ease-of-use, does not enter their minds.
Look at any Japanese web page, for instance. It is a mess of text and images. Try and order something from a Japanese website. It is a complex maze of step after extraneous step. Take a walk down any shopping street in Japan, or wander through a mall or department store. It’s a cacophony of noise and signs and lights and products.
Want a real laugh, check out a remote control that comes with a Japanese TV or HDD recorder. (Not the ones they sell in the Weest, but the ones sold in the JP market.) Buttons, buttons, buttons. And, when they run out of room for the buttons, they add a door that opens with more buttons underneath!!!
Do you think that Japanese brand user manuals are hard to understand because of the translation from Japanese? Think again. My Japanese wife got so frustrated trying to figure out how to reciord a show using the three (THREE!) manuals that came with the DVR (HDD recorder) we keep in Japan.
The authors points (well, 80% of them) would serve almost ALL Japanese companies well to heed.
I’m not sure branding is the problem. Rebranding in such a way as the author has stated, might have the effect of alienating the existing enthusiast user base. If Olympus started renaming components with simplified, cutesy names, I think it would put me off. What would be next by extension? – simplified one-touch, dumbed down controls on cameras?
Nope, the main problem is exposure through marketing and advertising in reaching a wider audience. Some shelf exposure in big box stores, wouldn’t hurt either.
I also think the line could be streamlined a bit, ie get rid of the Mini versions-the lite version is ‘lite’ enough. Slow down the upgrade cycle. Enhanced firmware upgrades for higher end models – I’d even pay a nominal fee for FW which would add a new features or enhancement or 2 to my OM-D.
Renaming things and having the same names with plusses won’t do anything but add to the confusion. How about putting in-body flashes on your lower level models and reducing the price of your upper level models. People are buying SLR’s because SLR’s are faster, genereally have better IQ (bigger sensors) and a lot oftimes are cheaper …forget all the other BS. Hey, Olympus put a half full frame size sensor in their system (which I still say is a really stupid move), now they need to be at least 1.5x better to compete with most SLR’s.
I think the author has a few great ideas, and few not so brilliant ones 😉
The camera naming is spot on. Olympus camera naming is just plain stupid. You can see the difference in it’s main m4/3 rival Panasonic. Panasonic uses GF-x (small low end), G-x (middle), GH-x (video, high end), GX-x (small high end), although I think there are too many models, but the distinction is there.
IMO, the Olympus models could be;
PEN-Lx (lite), PEN-Dx (premium), OM-Dx (premium), OM-DHx (hybrid)
Last year, Olympus named it’s premium camera; “OM-D E-M5”, we all said in unison “Are you kidding me?” 😉 Where in the heck did “E-M5” come from?
In all the forums, even after more than a year, EM-5 / EM-5 are both used to call the camera. And most importantly, after a few months people just called it “OMD”. That should tell you something.
However, the brilliant part of the article is the Image storage/processing after you take the picture. If a manufacture can come up with a workable idea (I really liked his initial idea of Cloud Synced storage), they can take the market.
I thought it was just called E-M5 not OM-D. Yes. I know OM-D is on the camera. But EOS is also on a range of Canon cameras. But they are not called Eos they are called by their individual names when referring to a specific camera.
OM-D is the type and E-M5 the individual camera. Like Nikon have a Coolpix L820 the L820 is the camera, the Coolpix is the camera group used by Nikon. Same as Canon use EOS as the grouping and 5d, 600d etc as the individual camera.
So what is the new camera? OM-D E-M1? You can’t call it OMD try em1 and the old one em5. Or you end up with “omd new” and “omd old” then where will we be in a couple of years with omd 2012, omd2013, omd2014winter, omd2014 fall. ???
I think the current names are fine. just use them correctly.
BTW have you tried buying Olympus stuff from China on Ebay everything Olympus has OM in the title. Finding a OM part is mixed up with Pen, zuiko. omd em5. Finding a Pen ft, well forget it. That’s where we will be if there is persistence with OMD and not the actual name of em5.
Good article except for the lens re-naming. Very dumb idea and completely usless. It implies that you can’t use the 75mm 1.8 for “Street” photography and there is no lens at all for Architecture. Completely subjective names for lenses would just frustrate and confuse everyone with no real benefit. How would anyone know that you can get MUCH greater depth of field with the 75mm 1.8 than with the 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 if you remove all this from the name?
True. Sigma did this very thing with their Art, Sport, and Contemporary. WTF is “contemporary” as it relates to photography? Very stupid bit of marketing.
Kyle Kyle Kyle. You don’t need a special lens for Architecture. You use a silver one. Only black one have names and classifications and are used on people.
I agree with most of the points made, except…
Lenses. If you dumb down the descriptions too much, you will not attract any photo enthusiasts, only point and shoot “iPhonies”. We need side-by-side technical and non-technical descriptions. Also, dropping the kit zoom and raising the price $100 for a 45mm kit prime is going to accomplish what? Let’s take a trip back to 1981 and the Pentax Auto 110, another innovator in small advanced cameras. It came with a 24mm prime and I bought a 50mm tele prime because…that’s all there was. A 14-42 zoom would have been amazing as a $50 option instead.
I agree that Oly advertising is too “tech” oriented – a plus for me, a minus for Joe Android. 12mp cameras should be gone by now. Ease of use should be emphasized more, along with size. Comparison 100% crops between bridge cameras and M43 should be displayed prominently. IBIS means what? Taking a handheld 300mm telephoto without blur means something.
One can only wonder what would have happened if a forward-thinking CEO had lasted more than two weeks before being pre-empted by the “Japanese way of doing business”…
Hard to take the guy seriously when he doesn’t even know that it’s OM-D (D standing for Digital obviously) and he keeps saying O-MD.
Whereby he proves his point. Olympus will fade into oblivion unless they can capture a marketshare outside of nerds and fanboys.
Bingo.
Lots of good points, although the specifics could be discussed. For one, “micro” isn’t a good marketing word. It doesn’t just mean small, but can be further interpreterd as meaning tiny, insignificant, unprofessional, amateurish etc. One of the reasons many amateurs buy dSLRs is that they want to look professional. Olympus biggest fault is that they don’t differentiate where it matters. Successful brands become so because they have areas where people think they excel over others.
This is an old blog story published over a month ago. The person who laid out his master plan to fix M4/3 has little knowledge of the Olympus story or their history. I doubt that he has ever heard the name Maitani or has any awareness of his significance in the world of photography. He attempts to fit the Olympus brand profiles into his own personal box of marketing methods without doing his homework.
The author did make some relevant comments about the failure of Olympus marketing strategies. He simply missed the mark by ignoring the importance of making some changes to the marketing methods and still maintaining the essence of what is the “Olympus” photographic experience and brand relevance. In effect he painted the classic picture of “throwing out the baby with the bath water.”
I do wish that people would do a lot more research and discovery into areas that they are planning to write a blog about before they pull the trigger on publishing something that fails to look at the “big picture.”
Dan
Everything ok, I have the same opinion, except in two points:
– Lenses (names are not good, and I don’t like any less than 25mm for street (maybe I can use a fisheye sometimes…) and it’s better just the basic information in specific lenses this names mess to much lol )
– Will be needed a Pen Lite product line.
The other things Olympus need to innovate/change and keep it simple!
Btw, I can’t understand Panasonic line, maybe it’s worse than Olympus branding 🙂
Thank you Mr. Sallee for the effort you put into thinking through your advice and thinking outside the box. Thank you admin for allowing us the opportunity to brain storm. Here are my thoughts.
1. Simplifying branding:
“Olympus Digital” should become “Olympus” not “Olympus Micro”.
No additional designators are necessary to differentiate high-end equipment. A novice can just glance at a camera to see which ones are the most advanced. Experienced photographs know which lines are which. Additional letters just junk up the names.
2. Reduce number of models
The Olympus web site lists 33 different models with 13 different lines, in 4 different categories. That seems like too many for a small camera company. Olympus would do better to focus their efforts. And it would be less confusing for customers. Be known as the company to make selecting a model easy.
Tough Series: TG-#, TG-# iHS
Are buyers actually impressed by additional letters in the name? I suggest eliminating the iHS designation.
PEN & OM-D: E-PM#, E-PL#, E-P#, OM-D E-#
I suggest combining the E-PM and E-PL lines. I suggest simplifying the OM-D E-# name to OM E-#.
Compact Cameras : SH, SP, SZ, VG, VR, XZ
I’m uninformed on these cameras but it seems to me that 4 lines would be plenty.
Digital SLR: E-#
3. Lens line:
Some names are too long. For example: M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f4.0-5.6.
The word “Digital” should be eliminated. So should “ED” since it is merely company hype.
I understand there are historical for the prefix, but Zuiko should come first., then the letter M to designate the mount type, then the lens spec. Like Zuiko.M 40-150mm f4.0-5.6.
I can see the author’s point of wanting to make choosing a lens simple for beginning photographers who might be daunted by technical jargon like focal lengths and f-stops. But rebadging them with descriptive adjectives seems like excessive dumbing down. It would take a bold CEO to go in that direction. How about replacing the focal length with the angle of view across the diagonal?
4. Merchandizing:
I agree that a nice display would be great and would help sell product. Maybe Olympus could design and provide a stand-alone display housing. And maybe it could be provided to certain select stores even if on a temporary basis.
5. Workflow:
The author’s comments sound reasonable. Why should a photographer have to search out and buy a third party software product? Olympus should make the workflow process as painless as possible. Ease of use was one of the reasons Apple survived and flourished in the face of overwhelming competition.
Excellent ideas. I, for one, have no idea what all those numbers and letters attached to the PEN cameras mean. The worlds greatest market company, Apple, is a prime example of how Olympus could simplify and humanise. I’ve used Olympus exclusively for 30 years, and I think it lost a lot of clarity when it entered the digital age. It can’t go wrong with Thoreau’s injunction to ” simplify, simplify, simplify”. That’s exactly the lesson that the West once learned from Japan. Now Japanese designers seem to be taking their cues from the Pachinko parlour rather than Zen.
Oh yes, please masturbate on Apple’s marketing genius and how clever they are at not using numbers on their products…
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S
iPhone 5
Now that’s a numbering scheme making sense…
iPad
iPad 2
New iPad, but then they had a New New iPad so it became iPad 3
iPad 4 ? Nope, it’s “iPad with Retina Display” (even though the New iPad/iPad 3 already had one)
Yes, they truly are marketing geniuses…
I don’t agree with most of the marketing ideas in this writeup. I think Olympus and Zuiko are strong names within the camera industry and for photographers, which is all that counts once you enter a camera store to buy something. And, of course, the lenses have to be identified by their focal length and f-stop, we’re not in Pentax Q toy land here….
What is true is that Olympus’ camera names are a mess. OM-D E-M5, come on, that’s just too many unnecessary letters. It could be OMD, but in contrast to PEN, OMD is not a word, it’s just letters. So while “Pen” is a nice NAME for a line of cameras, I don’t really see that “OM-D” does the same. Any why do the cameras need soooo many letters and dashes to identify them? PEN E-PL5…. well, just PEN L5 would do the same, wouldn’t it?
My last thought is that mirrorless sales would be MUCH better, not if they change marketing, but if they would start to upgrade firmwares for existing customers (E-M5 … still no small AF points even though it was introduced with the E-PL5 and E-PM5 looong time ago … WHY, OLYMPUS??). Or if they would not stick to expensive Pen cameras without built-in viewfinder while ALL direct competition offers a built-in at lower overall cost. And lastly, if they would FINALLY start to speed up the introduction of other new lenses to form a really COMPREHENSIVE system…. and if their lens lineup would look a bit more thought-out, instead of one lens silver, the other yellowish silver, the third black, one plastic, the next plastic but weather-sealed, the third metal without weather sealing, one with distance marks on the focus ring, the next without, etc. etc.
Thomas
Yawn.
Obviously, a lot of thinking went into this, but a lot of the points you make contradict the stated objective. This naming scheme is no less confusing than the current line up.
I agree that both Panasonic and Olympus need to simplify the camera choices, it’s confusing. They really just need an entry level, pro-sumer and Pro line, that’s it! I would consider the E-P5 and E-M5 to be pro-sumer.
In my opinion ALL m43 cameras should have a view finder. View finders are associated with “higher end.” Nobody wants to pay a ton of money on an “interchangeable lens point and shoot”
Also, why not call the lenses what they are, wide, standard, telephoto, macro, zoom etc. It has been that way forever, why change it now.
Third, and most important. The advertising needs to be geared toward an SLR in a tiny package mindset. The proverbial wolf in sheeps clothing. I have never seen a single advertisement that capitalizes on that MAJOR difference. If they got the word out to people that these cameras can do what a bulkier SLR can do, I think people would line up to buy them.
However, they have really only recently gotten to that level. I was an early adopter, and I really missed my Canon 40D. These cameras sucked in comparison. But, I stuck with it, and when I bought the E-M5, I was completely satisfied. For the first time I don’t feel the urge to upgrade. It’s a great camera, but the vast majority of people don’t know it even exists.
Great article. Some of the specific suggestions may not be totally right on, but Olympus branding/marketing/sales is a mess. People at Olympus should be spending a lot of time thinking about these issues and how to improve.
all your ideas are missing the point: if the system isn’t a system that justifies switching from full frame or aps-c dslr, then only a few peeps with opt in. spinning marketing terminology tries to fake what simply isn’t there: depth and directly competitive physical elements that makes m43 worth switching.
one could say the same things about analyzing nikon and canon, but of course it’s mute. it’s mute because their systems are complete and robust AND therefore, others with figure it all out. all the marketing is mute without substance.
give it up!
It’s silent because their systems are complete and robust? WTF are you talking about?
Very insightful article which pretty much reflects my own experience. I consider myself a bit of a tech geek but these Olympus names look like codes. They only have insider meanings apparent only to Olympus itself. Ordinary people don’t even know what F-number is and why sensor size matters. They should market their cameras for what they are – sleek, sophisticated devices in contrast with “dinosaur” DSLRs, capable of generally the same quality. Also, it doesn’t help to sell anything “micro” and “mirrorless”, you know what I mean… it sounds like their products are inadequate and lacking. For instance, Panasonic’s “Lumix G” doesn’t say much either but at least it unifies their product lineup. If we only had Panasonic G’s and Olympus G’s, it would be much simpler and immediately apparent that these products are compatible. As an end user, I don’t care about cryptic lens mount names. I want my little camera producing DSLR-like pictures. All this is probably a result of Japanese stubborn, inside-the-box mentality.