squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
http://www.43rumors.com/thom-hogan-what-is-the-future-for-olympus/
I think this is right on the money. By any reasonable calculus, Oly has released four nearly identical camera bodies in a year and a half, with no forward movement whatsoever. They really need to introduce something good for this standard. Something as good as the GH2 that looks and feels different from it.
I think this is right on the money. By any reasonable calculus, Oly has released four nearly identical camera bodies in a year and a half, with no forward movement whatsoever. They really need to introduce something good for this standard. Something as good as the GH2 that looks and feels different from it.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
Couldn't the same thing be said of Panasonic?
With the exception of the GH1/GH2 they've been pumping out lots of minor upgrades. So many that I can't even keep the "G" models straight. And they've released the GF2 which is, for many, a step back. Certainly the naming makes no sense.
I can't imagine Olympus is doing well with 4/3rds. But the EP-L2 seems a great camera that builds on an already very good camera and is the only camera in the segment at such a good price point (I think...I can't keep track). And the rumour is that a "pro" model with new lenses is on the way this year.
With the exception of the GH1/GH2 they've been pumping out lots of minor upgrades. So many that I can't even keep the "G" models straight. And they've released the GF2 which is, for many, a step back. Certainly the naming makes no sense.
I can't imagine Olympus is doing well with 4/3rds. But the EP-L2 seems a great camera that builds on an already very good camera and is the only camera in the segment at such a good price point (I think...I can't keep track). And the rumour is that a "pro" model with new lenses is on the way this year.
scottwallick
ambition ≥ skill
No, the same couldn't be said of Panasonic, since Panasonic is doing well in (one could generously say dominating) the compact/P&S market, and the G series is quite healthy.
Hogan is correct noting that Olympus is strangling their E series. The E series is dead. And probably Olympus too.
Hogan is correct noting that Olympus is strangling their E series. The E series is dead. And probably Olympus too.
gavinlg
Veteran
I agree with everything he says. Olympus has some amazing ideas and wonderful products but always seems to stuff things up with utter lack of direction.
I bought into the 4/3 cameras when they had a full lineup - I had an E-3. Lovely camera albeit the small sensor. Lenses were amazing. I bought it on the provisor that I would be able to use the 14-35mm f2 and have a prime-like system with zooms. Also, they were supposed to bring out some fast prime lenses besides that leica/pana one off. Unfortunately what ended up happening was the 14-35mm f2 was released, and it was as amazing as it should have been optically, but it was useless when it came to autofocus. On the release day of the lens in Brisbane they wouldn't let me take photos with it because it was a dud (admitted to me by the rep). They had a few little firmware revisions to try and fix it but it never AF'd properly where the other 4/3 lenses would. It's since been abandoned. I feel sorry for the people who spent 2k+ on that lens.
Then they bring out the Pens. Wonderful concept, and one of the first to do such a thing. Problems? The 17mm pancake is worse than the kit zoom at 17mm. Why? The disadvantage to the smaller 4/3 sensor is that it's not great with high ISO compared to the good aps-c sensors, so you'd think they'd bring out some fast lenses utilizing the small 4:3 sensor to keep dimensions down, but no, they now have a lineup of like 20+ lenses and NO fast primes. Not even one. They do however have two 14-42mm kit zooms, 2 slow telephoto zooms, a super zoom etc. Panasonic have pretty much kept the system going for advanced users with their 20mm f1.7.
There's this massive untapped market of DSLR users who want something small and capable to replace their DSLR for travel and fun photography, and olympus just wanted to appeal to the young fashion conscious woman market (thanks thom!). The disadvantages of 4/3 could be completely negated by making some fast lenses (eg - less DOF control and worse high ISO) and then you'd have the trickle down effect where good photographers would use the high end stuff and normal amateurs would buy into it too because "the pros use it". It's just taken SO long to even get to the point where they preview a prime lens (happened last week) and there were absolutely NO details about it released - not even it's focal length or anything. The competitors are coming up quickly, and they're making known that they're going to have some good lenses. Olympus had better get their asses moving.
Frustrated rant over.
I bought into the 4/3 cameras when they had a full lineup - I had an E-3. Lovely camera albeit the small sensor. Lenses were amazing. I bought it on the provisor that I would be able to use the 14-35mm f2 and have a prime-like system with zooms. Also, they were supposed to bring out some fast prime lenses besides that leica/pana one off. Unfortunately what ended up happening was the 14-35mm f2 was released, and it was as amazing as it should have been optically, but it was useless when it came to autofocus. On the release day of the lens in Brisbane they wouldn't let me take photos with it because it was a dud (admitted to me by the rep). They had a few little firmware revisions to try and fix it but it never AF'd properly where the other 4/3 lenses would. It's since been abandoned. I feel sorry for the people who spent 2k+ on that lens.
Then they bring out the Pens. Wonderful concept, and one of the first to do such a thing. Problems? The 17mm pancake is worse than the kit zoom at 17mm. Why? The disadvantage to the smaller 4/3 sensor is that it's not great with high ISO compared to the good aps-c sensors, so you'd think they'd bring out some fast lenses utilizing the small 4:3 sensor to keep dimensions down, but no, they now have a lineup of like 20+ lenses and NO fast primes. Not even one. They do however have two 14-42mm kit zooms, 2 slow telephoto zooms, a super zoom etc. Panasonic have pretty much kept the system going for advanced users with their 20mm f1.7.
There's this massive untapped market of DSLR users who want something small and capable to replace their DSLR for travel and fun photography, and olympus just wanted to appeal to the young fashion conscious woman market (thanks thom!). The disadvantages of 4/3 could be completely negated by making some fast lenses (eg - less DOF control and worse high ISO) and then you'd have the trickle down effect where good photographers would use the high end stuff and normal amateurs would buy into it too because "the pros use it". It's just taken SO long to even get to the point where they preview a prime lens (happened last week) and there were absolutely NO details about it released - not even it's focal length or anything. The competitors are coming up quickly, and they're making known that they're going to have some good lenses. Olympus had better get their asses moving.
Frustrated rant over.
Last edited:
antiquark
Derek Ross
Interesting to hear about Olympus's problems. Wonder if that's somehow related to their relationships to the dealers? I know of one store that doesn't stock Olympus for the following reason:
https://www.thecamerastore.com/olympus
If dealers are punting Oly products, that would also be a big problem.
https://www.thecamerastore.com/olympus
If dealers are punting Oly products, that would also be a big problem.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I am an Olympus fan. There I have said it.
There are a lot of things to love about Olympus (I include both in film and digital realms). And many of you around here will nod with me (or roll your eyes).
But I totally and wholeheartedly agree with what is being said. Olympus has lost it, and unless they do something that makes sense, they will be out of camera business.
I have written many of my own rants in various places about my extreme frustration at Olympus' unwillingness to produce a real full-frame DSLR. Their lenses can compete and in some cases kicks both Nikon and Canon's offering. But the lack of a full-frame body is a completely total waste of their engineering and design capability. Can you imagine a fullframe body with the features of E-5? None of the other manufacturers' can even touch it... if it existed.
I also agree that the new Pen lineup is a great launch, idea, and sentiment, but as Gavin said above, where are the matching lenses? It's like a car manufacturer who specializes in small/compact cars, but the only tires they can use are huge, buldozer-like. So the combination is good for laughs, but not much for anything else, let alone staying ahead of the competitors. It pains me every time I picked up my E-P2, that I have to use Panasonic's lens.
Rants like Thom's and Gavin's above proves to me that Olympus stands for quality and endearing to many people. I hope they wake up and do something about this soon.
There are a lot of things to love about Olympus (I include both in film and digital realms). And many of you around here will nod with me (or roll your eyes).
But I totally and wholeheartedly agree with what is being said. Olympus has lost it, and unless they do something that makes sense, they will be out of camera business.
I have written many of my own rants in various places about my extreme frustration at Olympus' unwillingness to produce a real full-frame DSLR. Their lenses can compete and in some cases kicks both Nikon and Canon's offering. But the lack of a full-frame body is a completely total waste of their engineering and design capability. Can you imagine a fullframe body with the features of E-5? None of the other manufacturers' can even touch it... if it existed.
I also agree that the new Pen lineup is a great launch, idea, and sentiment, but as Gavin said above, where are the matching lenses? It's like a car manufacturer who specializes in small/compact cars, but the only tires they can use are huge, buldozer-like. So the combination is good for laughs, but not much for anything else, let alone staying ahead of the competitors. It pains me every time I picked up my E-P2, that I have to use Panasonic's lens.
Rants like Thom's and Gavin's above proves to me that Olympus stands for quality and endearing to many people. I hope they wake up and do something about this soon.
It's too bad... I truly think the Olympus E-P2 is a very nice camera.
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
I've owned a Canon 5D, a Panasonic G1, a Panasonic DMC L1K, a Leica Digilux 3 and an Olympus E-P2. I prefer the Olympus to any of them by a wide margin. What I fault it for is the lack of robust lenses. The difference in JPGA color is astounding and is totally about the software (just compare the Leica Digilux 3 to it's Panasonic counterpart and you will see what better software can do with the same chip). I have no doubt that the 5D Mark II and others might surpass the E-P2, but not in ease of operation and compactness. I regularly print up to 16x20 with great results. I use RAW most of the time, but see little difference between RAW and JPG files so I don't feel I am giving anything up when I shoot JPG. I love using Leica M mount lenses with an adapter, and have found the Panasonic 20mm f 1.7 lens to be a stunning performer and a much more robust construction and benefits from in body stabilization on the E-P2. I tried the Panasonic normal zoom, but it depends too much on Panasonic in camera software and is a poor performer on the E_P2. On the other hand, the Panasonic / Leica 14-50mm f2.8-3.5 4/3 zoom with a Panasonic adapter is large, but very well corrected in the lens for exceptional results. I hope they continue to offer improvements on what to me is my favorite digital camera.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I'm not tuned into digital gear. But Olympus, in the past, has given, as far as I'm concerned, the public more good cameras across all user levels (within 35mm) than any other company. It is too bad if they fail now.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
Sorry, I meant that I cannot entirely see what Panasonic is doing that is sooo much better than Olympus in this segment. I realize that Panasonic is doing very well, but I can't see that they have had some amazing/vastly different product line that can explain this success. But that might just be the result of my personal preferences.
4/3rds has been called a dead-end since it came about. Micro 4/3rds has salvaged the format but I see no reason for Olympus to release 4/3rds SLRs. They will gain no new customers with these cameras.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Me too--I have it and like it a lot. I like m4/3 in general, as well.
Fred, I don't think he's doomsaying. Apple WAS floundering. Their products were no longer particularly innovative and their build quality wasn't so hot. But they turned it around and now make the best computers, phones, and media players in the world, I think by a wide margin.
Oly certainly has the history and imagination to make a go of it--indeed, I think they could turn it around this year, when the introduce the next body and the rumored fast primes. But the new body has got to be great. It has look and feel awesome, and IQ has to be superb. I am hoping, hoping that the new camera will be the modular 4/3-m4/3 body they were evidently prototyping, the one supposedly inspired by the OM-4t.
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
I'm a big Oly fan. Loved their film rangefinders and shot with an LC for a while, the precursor to the SP with the same great lens, just a simple match-meter system. Fantastic.
I loved the pens, and still have a Pen D2 (that's currently in parts in a tray awaiting a good cleaning).
The OM cameras were great.
I now use an E-5 and it's a truly wonderful camera in most respects. It says a lot that I wouldn't trade it for any other DSLR on the market...except maybe the Nikon D700. I also have an E-p1 and the Panny 20 and it's a sweet little combination. Heck, their old C-3040 was a great camera, too. To a certain extent their cameras aren't the problem, but their marketing, support and auxiliary products are.
They seem to have fallen behind in m43 lenses...no fast primes and no fast zooms for that matter, either. The E-5, in my mind, could have been a game changer for the E-system--had they announced it along with some fast prime lenses. Instead they shrunk the line to the point where most people think it's dead. Too bad, it's really hitting its stride.
At this point I'm waiting and watching and hoping. I'm still shooting Olympus. I'm very curious about the rumored m43 pro-level camera. They've got the sharpness down, now if they can just get the noise a bit better under control, I think that system would be a real winner. But can they do it? Can they sell it?
I'm also watching the X100 release carefully. If that camera performs like a Hexar AF with the kind of noise output that we see in the D7000/K5, and has a reasonably fast AF speed, then that might change the game for me.
I think it could go either way for Oly. But one thing seems pretty clear: they're at a critical point.
I loved the pens, and still have a Pen D2 (that's currently in parts in a tray awaiting a good cleaning).
The OM cameras were great.
I now use an E-5 and it's a truly wonderful camera in most respects. It says a lot that I wouldn't trade it for any other DSLR on the market...except maybe the Nikon D700. I also have an E-p1 and the Panny 20 and it's a sweet little combination. Heck, their old C-3040 was a great camera, too. To a certain extent their cameras aren't the problem, but their marketing, support and auxiliary products are.
They seem to have fallen behind in m43 lenses...no fast primes and no fast zooms for that matter, either. The E-5, in my mind, could have been a game changer for the E-system--had they announced it along with some fast prime lenses. Instead they shrunk the line to the point where most people think it's dead. Too bad, it's really hitting its stride.
At this point I'm waiting and watching and hoping. I'm still shooting Olympus. I'm very curious about the rumored m43 pro-level camera. They've got the sharpness down, now if they can just get the noise a bit better under control, I think that system would be a real winner. But can they do it? Can they sell it?
I'm also watching the X100 release carefully. If that camera performs like a Hexar AF with the kind of noise output that we see in the D7000/K5, and has a reasonably fast AF speed, then that might change the game for me.
I think it could go either way for Oly. But one thing seems pretty clear: they're at a critical point.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
Olympus could (given their know-how) easily produce an M9/X100 competitor. I don't mean in the strict sense but because of interchangeable lenses and price (the IQ obviously can't match those two, but it would be good enough I think for those in the market), it would offer a realistic alternative. One really nice body and three killer primes at launch and you would have everyone on this forum in a state of great excitement.
GSNfan
Well-known
Fuji with X100 has shown everyone that people are sick and tired of how digital cameras look more than actually how they perform. All Olympus needs to do is look back at its history of making pretty cameras and incorporate that in their DSLR and compact designs.
The digital market is no longer about affordable digital cameras, or high ISO, or even image quality, those have been pretty much covered, its all about looks and handling from now on... All current digital cameras give great base ISO results, an overwhelming majority give acceptable ISO 3200 results, not to mention the output from all of these cameras look pretty much the same. So, the only way to make a consumer happy would be to make the cameras look really cool and fun to shoot, not to forget with a touch of nostalgia.
The camera makers have taken notice of X100 and the response to it from advanced amateurs (the big spenders) and it will go against common sense if they do not follow up with their own cameras. Olympus has a history of being adventurous with their designs, so i won't be surprised if they come up with something exciting in the next year or so, but even then their XZ-1 is quite a digi p&s, but unfortunately it will be forgotten in the rush for mirrorless compacts.
The digital market is no longer about affordable digital cameras, or high ISO, or even image quality, those have been pretty much covered, its all about looks and handling from now on... All current digital cameras give great base ISO results, an overwhelming majority give acceptable ISO 3200 results, not to mention the output from all of these cameras look pretty much the same. So, the only way to make a consumer happy would be to make the cameras look really cool and fun to shoot, not to forget with a touch of nostalgia.
The camera makers have taken notice of X100 and the response to it from advanced amateurs (the big spenders) and it will go against common sense if they do not follow up with their own cameras. Olympus has a history of being adventurous with their designs, so i won't be surprised if they come up with something exciting in the next year or so, but even then their XZ-1 is quite a digi p&s, but unfortunately it will be forgotten in the rush for mirrorless compacts.
I think it is a bit early to proclaim this...
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Once I discovered the OM cameras (unfortunately, near the end of the Film Age), I was impressed at the thought and imagination that went into their design (Yes, I worship at the Church of Maitani). Very quickly, the OMs became my favorite film SLR.
It was for this reason, among others, that when it came time to take the plunge and go digital, I put my money (and a fair chunk of it, too), on the E-3 and the 4/3 system. Therefore, I am not too thrilled with the idea that the 4/3 SLR system may become a dead-end. Have been very happy with the E-3. Problem with the E-5, for me, is that it is not such a big technical jump from the E-3 for me to invest in it ...yet.
The Olympus SLR system is such a good one, in my opinion, that I would hate to see it die (And from my own self-interested point of view, I don't want to be stuck with a lot of expensive paperweights...)
( On another point--I see fdigital calling the 14-35mm F2 zoom a "dud,""useless when it came to autofocus,"and had been abandoned.
Well, that's all certainly news to me. I see it's still listed on Olympus' website, so I can only assume they are still making and selling it. And as for my 14-35--it's one of my favorite lenses, and I consider it worth every penny of the $2200 I paid for it. Call it my utility lens--it's one I slap on my camera when I'm goin out shooting for just about any situation.
And I don't what fdigital means when he says it's "useless with autofocus." I don't seem to have any problems with mine, and I use it a lot in situations of low light and high ISO's. Shot last night with it at a blues show, and it locked on focus pretty quickly--the images look tack-sharp...)
It was for this reason, among others, that when it came time to take the plunge and go digital, I put my money (and a fair chunk of it, too), on the E-3 and the 4/3 system. Therefore, I am not too thrilled with the idea that the 4/3 SLR system may become a dead-end. Have been very happy with the E-3. Problem with the E-5, for me, is that it is not such a big technical jump from the E-3 for me to invest in it ...yet.
The Olympus SLR system is such a good one, in my opinion, that I would hate to see it die (And from my own self-interested point of view, I don't want to be stuck with a lot of expensive paperweights...)
( On another point--I see fdigital calling the 14-35mm F2 zoom a "dud,""useless when it came to autofocus,"and had been abandoned.
Well, that's all certainly news to me. I see it's still listed on Olympus' website, so I can only assume they are still making and selling it. And as for my 14-35--it's one of my favorite lenses, and I consider it worth every penny of the $2200 I paid for it. Call it my utility lens--it's one I slap on my camera when I'm goin out shooting for just about any situation.
And I don't what fdigital means when he says it's "useless with autofocus." I don't seem to have any problems with mine, and I use it a lot in situations of low light and high ISO's. Shot last night with it at a blues show, and it locked on focus pretty quickly--the images look tack-sharp...)
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
On the 14-35: The E-5 has focus fine-adjust. If it's a consistent issue, then it is correctable, and the E5 system allows correction per lens. Front and back focus issues happen enough across the board of lens manufacturers and mounts that it seems to be a reality of digital photography. The fine-focus adjust is pretty much a necessary feature in my book, unless one wants to keep sending lenses back and forth looking for a good match.
igi
Well-known
Good article and I completely agree with it.
Although I do think that Olympus is right in going after the amateur market. Olympus invested in 4/3's, they should live with it. The advent of full-frame sensors declared 4/3's amateur. But so far, even on the amateur market, I can't see them walking straight.
Although I do think that Olympus is right in going after the amateur market. Olympus invested in 4/3's, they should live with it. The advent of full-frame sensors declared 4/3's amateur. But so far, even on the amateur market, I can't see them walking straight.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Kudos. All the companies could really, if they truly understood their customers.
Put an Android/iPhone user interface in place of the crappy stuff we accept. Put WiFi and Bluetooth in the camera. Write DNG files. Make the grips and buttons sized for American hands, or better yet, make the camera left or right-handed. Remove the focal plane shutter and make it silent. Put a AA-powered wireless fill flash on a dock so we can hold it in our hand or reduce the size of the camera (like the old XA). Give us a professional, weather sealed EVF camera and a handful of fast prime lenses.
Our cameras are like 1979 Walkmans. Someone needs to make an iPod.
Last edited:
Mackinaw
Think Different
Olympus has always been a funny camera company. They seem to be content to stay in the background producing me-too cameras then, without any warning, produce a ground-breaking camera that sets the industry on it's ear. Look at the original Pen F half-frame of 1963 and, more recently, the OM-1 of 1972. Unfortunately they also have a history of abandoning a concept once introduced (letting the brilliant OM system whither on the vine). I like their micro 4/3rds cameras, but don't know if they have a future.
Jim B.
Jim B.