Jump to content
Interceptor121

My assessment of Olympus exit

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
Quote

Removing a loss making divisions will greatly benefit the shareholders and investors.

[Rant mode ON] Yup, that's all that matters nowadays sadly :S [Rant mode OFF]

 

Albeit if that 43rumors article is true, then I do not hold much hope for Olympus, since that investment fund was nicely summarized there:

They are a vulture fund of privately owned equity partners designed to get around Japanese pension, retention, and servicing laws.

 

That is some nice analysis....curious what happens as well, but not holding my hopes high.

 

That said, all the ranting done with, what do you think about Sharp joining MFT ? This seems to be an interesting thing, since not only they are (according to the rumors that is) releasing what looks like a pretty good, solid entry in form of an 8K capable MFT camera, but most importantly, using their own sensor. And this is where MFT needs a bit of innovation, since both Panasonic and Olympus bought more or less the same sensors from a single company, Sony.

Edited by makar0n
.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you buy the Sharp camera. I remember it at  CES in 2019 but haven't yet seen one and the typical camera places don't know about it. My take is that the Olympus purchase will go like the Sony Vaio, where there is now a Vaio brand just not from Sony

Bill

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you buy the Sharp camera. I remember it at  CES in 2019 but haven't yet seen one and the typical camera places don't know about it. My take is that the Olympus purchase will go like the Sony Vaio, where there is now a Vaio brand just not from Sony
Bill
 

It says it on the memorandum the brands being transferred are OMD Zuiko etc. Olympus will stay with the mother company and after a transition period no longer exist for cameras
It will be complicated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If there wasn't some value in it, they wouldn't have bought it. So the question really is what will they do to extract that value? Asset stripping is about the value of the assets adding up to more than the value of continuing the business. Did they acquire any land/property with the purchase of the camera business? Production equipment that could be repurposed?

I like to think that the value of the m4/3 camera line and lenses is what the purchase was based on and these will be continued and developed. That is my photographers heart. My head worries that it could be about land values, new housing and shopping centres.

Edited by JohnLiddiard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there wasn't some value in it, they wouldn't have bought it. So the question really is what will they do to extract that value? Asset stripping is about the value of the assets adding up to more than the value of continuing the business. Did they acquire any land/property with the purchase of the camera business? Production equipment that could be repurposed?
I like to think that the value of the m4/3 camera line and lenses is what the purchase was based on and these will be continued and developed. That is my photographers heart. My head worries that it could be about land values, new housing and shopping centres.

Olympus has already completed the restructuring of their manufacturing closing plants in Japan and China and moved them to Vietnam
In the recent worldwide camera market share published in Japan Olympus has plummeted to 2.8% while Panasonic is at 4.7% with Fuji. Panasonic has already diversified on full frame mirrorless and has obviously a better understanding of market dynamics.
I reckon they will rationalise the range and change distribution model in all markets where their share is really slim once their transition agreement finish.
I have never understood why Olympus wanted to compete in the Pro segment with full frame instead of finding other segments like Panasonic has done with video. Also their pro line lenses are so heavy that at that point you might as well get a full frame. The new 100-400 lens weights as much as a canon 100-400 full frame


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2020 at 4:17 PM, bvanant said:

Can you buy the Sharp camera. I remember it at  CES in 2019 but haven't yet seen one and the typical camera places don't know about it. My take is that the Olympus purchase will go like the Sony Vaio, where there is now a Vaio brand just not from Sony

Bill

 

Well true, its rumours so far....but I assume Sharp didn't join the MFT because they were bored :D ....Guess with the current climate we might have to wait a bit...supposedly GH6 was also delayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2020 at 3:22 AM, Interceptor121 said:


 "The new 100-400 lens weights as much as a canon 100-400 full frame"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You sem to be forgetting that the Olympus lens has a full frame equivalence of 200-800mm.  

Find me a full frame 200-800 that weighs less than the Olympus 100-400 and your point will be taken.  Until then, you've only established that you mistakenly think m43 lenses have the same full frame equivalence as full frame camera lenses. 

Edited by Apocolibri
Wanted to tone down the rebuttal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You sem to be forgetting that the Olympus lens has a full frame equivalence of 200-800mm.  

Find me a full frame 200-800 that weighs less than the Olympus 100-400 and your point will be taken.  Until then, you've only established that you mistakenly think m43 lenses have the same full frame equivalence as full frame camera lenses. 

A lens has no equivalence is just a lens

The new olympus 100-400 is in fact a modified sigma 100-400 full frame hence is heavy

The canon 800mm for r mount weights less

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You display an alarming lack of understanding of sensor size when discussing focal lengths!  With a sensor 1/4 the size of a full frame sensor there is a 2X magnification factor with m43 lenses.  A 400mm fl on m43 is 800mm on full frame.  No spinning of words will alter this.  Look through a 100-400 at 400mm and you're seeing exactly what you'll see with an 800mm lens on full frame bodies.  

What does an 800 Canon R mount lens have to do with a 100-400 (200-800mm equivalent) Olympus lens with a 6.3 maximun aperture at 800mm equivalence and a full range of fstops?  The Canon lens is not a zoom, has a fixed f11 aperture and weighs more. not less than the Olympus lens, at 1260 grams vs 1120 for the Olympus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You display an alarming lack of understanding of sensor size when discussing focal lengths!  With a sensor 1/4 the size of a full frame sensor there is a 2X magnification factor with m43 lenses.  A 400mm fl on m43 is 800mm on full frame.  No spinning of words will alter this.  Look through a 100-400 at 400mm and you're seeing exactly what you'll see with an 800mm lens on full frame bodies.  
What does an 800 Canon R mount lens have to do with a 100-400 (200-800mm equivalent) Olympus lens with a 6.3 maximun aperture at 800mm equivalence and a full range of fstops?  The Canon lens is not a zoom, has a fixed f11 aperture and weighs more. not less than the Olympus lens, at 1260 grams vs 1120 for the Olympus.

Crop doesn’t matter when you build a lens. A lens is a lens and most full frames have at least double megapixels
At the end those slow tele lenses means you cannot take a picture
And thanks I know about crop factors


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep moving the goal posts:  first you compare a heavier 800mm fixed focal length lens with a fixed f11 f stop, claiming it's lighter, and now you're claiming that having more megapixels on a full frame sensor validates your incorrect claim that crop doesn't matter when you build a lens.  Were it not for the fact that you've posted more on m43 cameras than most anyone else on this forum I'd think you were a troll.  Here's a direct quote from the Olympus website (your argument is now with them since you claim to know more about m43 than Olympus):

M.Zuiko ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS at a Glance

A compact lens with so much telephoto reach shouldn’t be possible. Yet here it exists, and you’ll love the freedom that comes with it. Packing a 35mm-equivalent focal range of 200mm to 800mm in a lightweight weathersealed design, it’s an ideal lens for wildlife, motorsports, and telephoto macro shooting.

100-400.jpg

Edited by Apocolibri
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Apocolibri said:

You keep changing the goal posts:  first you compare a heavier 800mm fixed focal length lens with a fixed f11 f stop, claiming it's lighter, and now you're claiming that having more megapixels on a full frame sensor validates your incorrect claim that crop doesn't matter when you build a lens.  Were it not for the fact that you've posted more on m43 cameras than most anyone else on this forum I'd think you were a troll.  Here's a direct quote from the Olympus website (your argument is now with them since you claim to know more about m43 than Olympus):

M.Zuiko ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS at a Glance

A compact lens with so much telephoto reach shouldn’t be possible. Yet here it exists, and you’ll love the freedom that comes with it. Packing a 35mm-equivalent focal range of 200mm to 800mm in a lightweight weathersealed design, it’s an ideal lens for wildlife, motorsports, and telephoto macro shooting.

100-400.jpg

That lens is a remake of the Sigma 100-400 5-6.3 full frame. A cheap zoom tele that is slow. is not going to work for birds in flights on a 2x crop sensor it is not compact weights 1.25 kg which is more than the Panasonic 100-400mm that is also faster another testament of Olympus lack of ideas 

Olympus had to pay sigma for the design as they did for the 75mm/1.8

There are plenty of Canon lenses RF and EF that outperform that cheap design. And you have minimum double megapixels

I shoot MFT including birds so I have direct knowledge and experience on the matter you can check the images. I may appreciate the format as much as I want but for fast tele or wide lenses there is no game. There are fast 1.4 lenses on full frame and fast tele lenses too. MFT is an amateur format Olympus decision to go head to head with Canon and Nikon has been suicidal and products like EM1X are stockpiled and now going on discount at 30% or more.

Olympus got the strategy wrong and the consequence is they are going out of business, a small group of obsessed radical fans is not sufficient to keep a company afloat

 

Edited by Interceptor121

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2020 at 7:00 PM, Apocolibri said:

You keep moving the goal posts:  first you compare a heavier 800mm fixed focal length lens with a fixed f11 f stop, claiming it's lighter, and now you're claiming that having more megapixels on a full frame sensor validates your incorrect claim that crop doesn't matter when you build a lens.  Were it not for the fact that you've posted more on m43 cameras than most anyone else on this forum I'd think you were a troll.  Here's a direct quote from the Olympus website (your argument is now with them since you claim to know more about m43 than Olympus):

M.Zuiko ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS at a Glance

A compact lens with so much telephoto reach shouldn’t be possible. Yet here it exists, and you’ll love the freedom that comes with it. Packing a 35mm-equivalent focal range of 200mm to 800mm in a lightweight weathersealed design, it’s an ideal lens for wildlife, motorsports, and telephoto macro shooting.

100-400.jpg

Hi Apocolibri,  If I may suggest, sometimes the point doesn't always get across well in printed format on a forum.  Massimo makes some valid points as do you.  To be strictly correct the Olympus 100-400mm lens has the field of view of a 200-800 on a m43 sensor and it is strictly equivalent to a 200-800 f10-12.6 lens on a full frame at least as far as depth of field goes, but has the advantage of being physically a f5-6.3 lens for light gathering capability.  The implication of this is subject isolation using depth of field is more difficult on m43 lenses due to the greater DOF with smaller sensors at a given subject framing.  It means the image looks like it was taken with an 800mm f12.6 lens, which would weigh about the same if one was made as the weight is set largely by the big chunk of glass up front.

For a tele lens a 100-400 of a given maximum aperture and construction/optical quality  will weigh about the same whether you design it for full frame or m43 as the diameter of the front element is set by focal length and f ratio not the image circle.  Where m43 gets a real advantage is wide lenses as they can use smaller front elements and internal elements as they project a smaller image circle and also being mirrorless are not constrained by need to use retro-focus design to accommodate a mirror box. For example the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 has a 62mm filter while the near equivalent 24-70 f2.8 from Canon uses an 82mm filter.  Optically they only need a 29mm diameter front element.  This makes the m43 wide lenses significantly more compact.

Olympus like any other company is sometimes a bit liberal with their specification claims - the 0.57x max image magnification for instance includes a crop factor which kind of defeats the purpose of getting more magnification.

The point of all this is that simplistically the crop factor gives you 2x reach but after that it is not really fully equivalent to full frame as it's no different to cropping a full frame sensor - the magnification is lower with the same subject framing so depth of field goes up and less light is gathered due to smaller sensor area sensor area so image quality suffers somewhat.  Most people are happy to just get the reach and it's good enough for many people.  Having used both full frame and m43 super teles - the images are certainly different, getting a nice smooth background is harder in m43 and you have to be a lot more careful with your framing and background selection to stop the background going ugly on you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that for Super-Tele more often than not FF shooters stop down for DoF (at least those using f4 primes). At that point all the low light and DoF advantages of FF are lost, if you compare to something like the Olympus 300f4 or Pana-Leica 200 f2.8. What's left is the extra resolution which is the only real benefit I can see with FF together with Dynamic Range (but you don't always need that). 

Most people are not willing or able to afford a 600mm f4 prime at 10000€ so they really get to choose between something like the Sony 200-600 f5.6-6.3 or Olympus 300 f4. So FF only gains one stop after all the equivalence stuff + extra resolution. It's everyone's own decision on whether the extra money (on average a FF system is still much more expansive) and weight (I calculated my own current mu43 lenses and equivalent FF lenses and it was around half) is worth 1 stop of DoF at a distance where DoF is usually shallow enough.

Even if you are able and willing to pay for a 600mm f4 that becomes a significant problem if you are travelling for your wildlife photography. 

I can imagine going on a diving trip (e.g. sardine run) to South Africa and than doing a land based wildlife excursion as well. All I would have to pack is my tiny Panasonic 100-300 (or more likely if I had the money to do such a trip the PL200 f2.8). This would not be possible with FF.

In my opinion the gains are marginal and people (reviewers especially) are blowing them up big time, because they need to for their own economic good. After all, reviewers get paid by adds from the same people that manufacture the gear they review. A full system change (including UW) to FF would cost me upwards of 10000€. If I wanted to actually gain all the benefits of FF in terms of image quality it would probably be closer to 20000€. 

I don't really see that many people having that kind of money in the current situation (or even before that). When I tell my friends what my UW gear cost (most bought used) people already shake their head...

Last I heard selling UW images doesn't provide that much money either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember that for Super-Tele more often than not FF shooters stop down for DoF (at least those using f4 primes). At that point all the low light and DoF advantages of FF are lost, if you compare to something like the Olympus 300f4 or Pana-Leica 200 f2.8. What's left is the extra resolution which is the only real benefit I can see with FF together with Dynamic Range (but you don't always need that). 
Most people are not willing or able to afford a 600mm f4 prime at 10000€ so they really get to choose between something like the Sony 200-600 f5.6-6.3 or Olympus 300 f4. So FF only gains one stop after all the equivalence stuff + extra resolution. It's everyone's own decision on whether the extra money (on average a FF system is still much more expansive) and weight (I calculated my own current mu43 lenses and equivalent FF lenses and it was around half) is worth 1 stop of DoF at a distance where DoF is usually shallow enough.
Even if you are able and willing to pay for a 600mm f4 that becomes a significant problem if you are travelling for your wildlife photography. 
I can imagine going on a diving trip (e.g. sardine run) to South Africa and than doing a land based wildlife excursion as well. All I would have to pack is my tiny Panasonic 100-300 (or more likely if I had the money to do such a trip the PL200 f2.8). This would not be possible with FF.
In my opinion the gains are marginal and people (reviewers especially) are blowing them up big time, because they need to for their own economic good. After all, reviewers get paid by adds from the same people that manufacture the gear they review. A full system change (including UW) to FF would cost me upwards of 10000€. If I wanted to actually gain all the benefits of FF in terms of image quality it would probably be closer to 20000€. 
I don't really see that many people having that kind of money in the current situation (or even before that). When I tell my friends what my UW gear cost (most bought used) people already shake their head...
Last I heard selling UW images doesn't provide that much money either. 

The point is that olympus idea to go after professional wildlife shooters with 1 dedicated body and 1 prime lens is another suicide and the reason why the company is going belly up
The segment is small and already busy with canon, nikon and now Sony putting a lot of effort to get there is just plain silly as there are diminishing returns
Instead providing a lens that is light and doesn’t cost an absolute fortune is appealing to the MFT amateur
That’s what Panasonic who doesn’t make lenses but is a consumer oriented company has done
They had the 100-400 on the market in 2016 and the 50-200 in 2018
All olympus had was a 40-150 a 300mm prime and a bunch of teleconverters only in 2020 they came up with the sigma 100-400 which weights more than 1.2 kg
Meanwhile canon and nikon have had lenses on this market for years and with current sensor resolution there is no benefit in equivalence once you crop the only benefit is weight and this is appealing to a casual shooter not to a professional one that will do what it takes to have the image
Olympus with they heavy pro lenses and camera like the EM1X have betrayed the whole MFT concept because they were desperate to compete on quality instead of making trade offs with portability and ended up with another failure after sinking the 43 format
Olympus original OMD idea was based on having twice the number of photos developed from the same film when film was expensive to develop
Then this translated into digital with 2x crop but little size benefit so 43 dies and here comes MFT with the promise of substantial weight reduction
I look at the olympus 40-150mm it weights 765 grams and is disproportionate to their camera bodies then I look at the panasonic 50-200mm 665 grams to get the same reach from the 40-150 i need to add a teleconverter here comes 900 grams for a lens that is now f/4 but at 985 grams I have the panasonic 100-400 4-6.3 with double the reach and just a but more weight
I ended up with MFT because I didn’t want to house my Nikon and I started with Panasonic GX7 that was truly compact when I started chasing IQ I ended up with a 140mm and 180mm glass domes and a canon 8-15mm fisheye I also have a GH5 housing that is not far from an APSC housing
I can say that the portability has gone down the drain but I do not yet need a 230mm dome or a wacp but this is not really common for MFT and I am one of a dozen that has gone that far with this format thats not going to make anybody rich a bit like olympus and the wildlife shooter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where this idea came from on the internet, that it's the professionals who are constantly chasing the latest and greatest. It's amateurs with too much money on their hands. Professional wildlife photographers have probably been locked into their respective systems (nikon/canon dslr) for years because you don't just replace your long tele glass easily.

When you look at some of the (very few) wildlife youtubers (Morten Hilmer comes to mind) they don't carry zoom lenses. They use primes because zoom lenses at that range have only ever been consumer grade. It's the same thing in mu43 too with the 300mm prime and the 100-400 zoom which is nowhere near the same quality. If the 150-400 f4.5 TC ever comes out that will be an actual Pro Telezoom for mu43 and something that really no other system offers. The usual setup for a wildlife photographer seems to be one 600mm/800mm prime (because most of the time you'll be zoomed in all the way to the long end anyway) and then something like a 100-400mm zoom (for when stuff actually comes closer). 

Cropping from twice the resolution also gets you nowhere near mu43 reach. You would need four times the resolution for that. 

Personally I find that the kind of shots that become accessible only because we can carry smaller gear anywhere is much more important than some marginal image quality gains that only become apparent when pixel peeping. You can easily print 40x60cm from the 20mp mu43 sensor. Tell me, when is the last time you printed larger?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hyp said:

I don't know where this idea came from on the internet, that it's the professionals who are constantly chasing the latest and greatest. It's amateurs with too much money on their hands. Professional wildlife photographers have probably been locked into their respective systems (nikon/canon dslr) for years because you don't just replace your long tele glass easily.

When you look at some of the (very few) wildlife youtubers (Morten Hilmer comes to mind) they don't carry zoom lenses. They use primes because zoom lenses at that range have only ever been consumer grade. It's the same thing in mu43 too with the 300mm prime and the 100-400 zoom which is nowhere near the same quality. If the 150-400 f4.5 TC ever comes out that will be an actual Pro Telezoom for mu43 and something that really no other system offers. The usual setup for a wildlife photographer seems to be one 600mm/800mm prime (because most of the time you'll be zoomed in all the way to the long end anyway) and then something like a 100-400mm zoom (for when stuff actually comes closer). 

Cropping from twice the resolution also gets you nowhere near mu43 reach. You would need four times the resolution for that. 

Personally I find that the kind of shots that become accessible only because we can carry smaller gear anywhere is much more important than some marginal image quality gains that only become apparent when pixel peeping. You can easily print 40x60cm from the 20mp mu43 sensor. Tell me, when is the last time you printed larger?

I print regularly. From 5184 pixels I print to 16" as I try to exceed 300 dpi but if you are happy with 200 dpi you can go to 26"

But this is not actually the issue as MFT has plenty of resolution APSC is also similar. 

Am amateur will get a zoom lens mostly not a prime. A fast prime for MFT like the Panasonic 200mm 2.8 that is probably the best lens for wildlife retails at £2,299 that is the same price you buy a full frame zoom lens. The issue is that to get a 2.8 lens you need a large piece of glass so your lens is no longer portable and you are back at no benefit compared to full frame

Panasonic 200/2.8=71mm Canon 400/4=100mm not much in there

For what concerns professional wildlife photographer I agree with you those people are locked in somewhere and also have limited money (in US the average compensation is $50,000 per year) but amateurs don't buy tele primes as they do not understand that

All of this only highlights Olympus did not have a lot of marketing intelligence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this difference is not significant to you, I don't know what is:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#629.689,682.442,ha,t

The prime will also allow faster shutter speeds than f.e. a 100-400mm zoom. That people don't know how to use primes may be a problem, but if skill is a problem people should really just stop throwing money at it and maybe just book a workshop. Much better ROI. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this difference is not significant to you, I don't know what is:
https://camerasize.com/compact/#629.689,682.442,ha,t
The prime will also allow faster shutter speeds than f.e. a 100-400mm zoom. That people don't know how to use primes may be a problem, but if skill is a problem people should really just stop throwing money at it and maybe just book a workshop. Much better ROI. 

You need to compare with the 300 f/4 which is the same weight
On APSC that would be 450mm and no DR issue on full frame you can crop


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you want to compare with FF or APS-C. I know another poster already accused you of moving the goal posts and I am right now experiencing the same thing. No point in pursuing the argument.

All I can say is that the differences in IQ are minute when you also take size and weight into account. People should think more for themselves instead of blindly trusting reviewers who are largely interested in selling stuff (because new gear is their content). 

In the end, there is no free lunch. If you want significantly better IQ your equipment will be significantly larger and more expensive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you want to compare with FF or APS-C. I know another poster already accused you of moving the goal posts and I am right now experiencing the same thing. No point in pursuing the argument.

All I can say is that the differences in IQ are minute when you also take size and weight into account. People should think more for themselves instead of blindly trusting reviewers who are largely interested in selling stuff (because new gear is their content). 

In the end, there is no free lunch. If you want significantly better IQ your equipment will be significantly larger and more expensive. 

In both cases the similitude applies you don't compare a prime at the same aperture you need to apply equivalence the other way around hence at least f/4 when you look at 300mm vs the 200mm of a MFT the relative crop is 1.33 so a 32 Megapixel full frame will have the same weight and have more DR etc etc etc.

The same 300 f.4 on APSC will be 450mm so no need to crop and still lighter with more magnification.

Ultimately the promise of MFT as per the own Olympus mission statement was a radical reduction of size, weight and thickness but this no longer works once you have a 1.2 Kg lens really or 750 grams for a mid range zoom the reduction of weight and size is minimal to none and the IQ is not better so people don't need to stick around the format anymore. Now they may leave to a mobile phone regardless but that's another story

A common misconception is that larger sensor capture more light but actually larger physical aperture capture more light and therefore larger sensor capture also more light as they have larger lenses. Size does matter when you are chasing light so you can promise weight reduction only if you get less of it! 

Fortunately for us underwater photography and video is a small aperture game and within this game equivalence does matter and therefore APSC=Full Frame=MFT due to equivalence we don't shoot tele lens or fast lenses. At the end what matters more are ergonomics, AF etc etc not sensor size despite lots of people here think differently. But this does not hold true for the general public so we need to hope there will still be MFT cameras for underwater use as it is a great format and if you don't go on my path it can be compact too

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...