[Laurentiu Cristofor]

The lenses are good, but not that good.

That can be said about the lenses of any brand that is not exclusively targetting the high end market. And for those lenses targetting the high end market you can still argue that they are not that good for the asking price.

BTW, one other important reason why I think Olympus was more successful than Pentax is because they built a good lens lineup for FT faster than Pentax has done for APS-C. Even now, after almost 5 years of non-development for FT, their lens lineup is better than that of Pentax when it comes to fast long lenses. They offer the 300/2.8 that is equivalent to a 400/3.5 on APS-C. They also offer a 90-250/2.8 that is equivalent to a 120-330/3.5 APS-C zoom. And these lenses were available at a time when Pentax didn't even had the 60-250/4 and the 300/4 in their lineup. For anyone looking to invest in a system with long lenses, Pentax was out of the question from the start - they weren't offering anything there.

The Olympus marketing was effective too. They advertised the FT system as an excellent platform for wildlife photography, by leveraging the strength of the format's crop factor. And Olympus understood lens equivalence and they built faster lenses than usual, which could be even more attractive to those that do not understand lens equivalence Olympus also targeted pro photographers with their high end equipment. Pentax targeted enthusiasts but their value proposition was less clear - they had weather sealing on one hand and small DA Limited lenses on the other, but the Limiteds were not weather sealed! Pentax was offering a system where you had to be happy working in 21-100mm focal range.

[Kunzite]

Well, the successful Olympus had to give up on their "born for digital" 4/3 (not the first times they gave up on SLRs) and now they're in deep trouble despite their large MILC market share, and the unsuccessful Pentax was able to survive through a hostile takeover and being sold, with their legacy K-mount.
I wouldn't call Olympus more successful, only more ambitious (and that was true for day one; they were going for the pro market, apparently). But you can't be ambitious forever, if you're losing money.

[tjk911]

BTW, one other important reason why I think Olympus was more successful than Pentax is because they built a good lens lineup for FT faster than Pentax has done for APS-C. Even now, after almost 5 years of non-development for FT, their lens lineup is better than that of Pentax when it comes to fast long lenses. They offer the 300/2.8 that is equivalent to a 400/3.5 on APS-C. They also offer a 90-250/2.8 that is equivalent to a 120-330/3.5 APS-C zoom. And these lenses were available at a time when Pentax didn't even had the 60-250/4 and the 300/4 in their lineup. For anyone looking to invest in a system with long lenses, Pentax was out of the question from the start - they weren't offering anything there.

^I can definitely see your train of thought there.

Now, can someone help me out with a timeline here, or rather just some Pentax history that I'm not entirely familiar here. When did Pentax start killing off their FA* lenses? I'm asking specifically about the FA*s because to me, the FA* and DA* compete more closely, even though rather loosely, with the Olympus SHG lenses.

Primarily I'm wondering about the timeline overlap (or nonexistent overlap) of FA* lenses with DA* lenses.

I'm speculating that with the notorious early SDM failures, and if there was a gap between the FA* and DA* replacements, Pentax would have turned off a lot of people.

[audiobomber]

BTW, one other important reason why I think Olympus was more successful than Pentax is because they built a good lens lineup for FT faster than Pentax has done for APS-C. Even now, after almost 5 years of non-development for FT, their lens lineup is better than that of Pentax when it comes to fast long lenses. They offer the 300/2.8 that is equivalent to a 400/3.5 on APS-C. They also offer a 90-250/2.8 that is equivalent to a 120-330/3.5 APS-C zoom. And these lenses were available at a time when Pentax didn't even had the 60-250/4 and the 300/4 in their lineup. For anyone looking to invest in a system with long lenses, Pentax was out of the question from the start - they weren't offering anything there.

How on earth do you conclude that Oly is more successful than Pentax? They've been chased out of the DSLR business and are bleeding millions of dollars in red ink annually on the remaining lines. Pentax camera division was profitable when they were sold according to Hoya.

Olympus has some great lenses that Pentax doesn't have. Pentax has some great lenses that Olympus doesn't have. BFD.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Now, can someone help me out with a timeline here, or rather just some Pentax history that I'm not entirely familiar here. When did Pentax start killing off their FA* lenses?

You can get some of this information from Bojidar Dimitrov's site - they list the production years for each lens model. FA* production seems to have stopped around 2004. In 2007, when I got my K10D, I did not see any FA* lenses for sale in the US, but I heard that the DA* 600 could still be special ordered from Japan - even that special ordering got cut a couple of years later.

How on earth do you conclude that Oly is more successful than Pentax?

Because at the time they shifted focus to MFT in 2008, their SLR market share was above that of Pentax. See here and here. Olympus was selling more of their SLRs than Pentax and they were doing that without the support of any legacy users.

[audiobomber]

Because at the time they shifted focus to MFT in 2008, their SLR market share was above that of Pentax.

How many DSLR's are they selling now? All we know for sure is that they lost $160M last year. Olympus is not a success story.

[Kunzite]

Because at the time they shifted focus to MFT in 2008, their SLR market share was above that of Pentax. See here and here. Olympus was selling more of their SLRs than Pentax and they were doing that without the support of any legacy users.

Hmm... your links shows a 1.6% market share for Pentax, but that's actually the K200D. It's interesting to compare Pentax at their weakest moment with Olympus desperately trying to save 4/3 by having fire sales, and even then showing partial data.
By the way, the 4/3 system was launched back in 2003, so they had 5 years (and an aggressive marketing) to build an user base.

I can devise a strategy which would allow Pentax to sell more cameras than Nikon for one year (well, increasing production capacity would be a challenge); but they will surely "die" as a side effect That's not success. 4/3 dying is not success, either.

[snake]

No doubt, had Olympus and Panasonic both had proper management of the imaging divisions, the 4/3 development would be further along than it is at this point. For years, since they introduced u4/3, due to the performance shortcomings of the sensors, they marketed them to people wanting to step up a bit from a compact, but didn't necessarily want a big profile. Then panasonic deviated, by luck and chance, into the video realm, when people saw what kind of hacks were possible.

Only recently has Olympus attempted their own market shift, with the OM-D. However, the OM-D, while nice, is still using a sensor that can't come close to competing with the sensors its up against. Notably, cams using the same sensor as the Pentax K-5, which is known to be one of the best APS-c sensors made to date. This sensor was developed at least four years ago, to boot. Even entry level cams are now sporting higher-performing sensors. And the OM-D is not cheap. It has some nice WR features to it, but in the end, the imaging is what matters and it's merely adequate when compared to the NEX 5 and 6. u4/3 also has ok lenses. Not the greatest like Oly fans always try to pretend, but the good ones aren't cheap.

In my opinion, Oly should figure out how to put that 4/3 sensor in a compact body. However, their lack for foresight is blocking them from being visionary due to perceived threats of their own, dying products. The OM-D was hardly the company saver Olympus hoped for.

[Kunzite]

I think they made a strategic mistake by going with the smaller sensor (which meant a size disadvantage and not being able to use the best sensors on the market, while their cameras weren't really smaller nor cheaper). Maybe they (wrongly) assumed that APS-C sensor prices would stay high, and they would have a price advantage? Or that people wouldn't care about image quality differences?

[snake]

I think they made a strategic mistake by going with the smaller sensor (which meant a size disadvantage and not being able to use the best sensors on the market, while their cameras weren't really smaller nor cheaper). Maybe they (wrongly) assumed that APS-C sensor prices would stay high, and they would have a price advantage? Or that people wouldn't care about image quality differences?

I think the pricing of APS-c was part of the problem, along with availability during the era in which they developed 4/3. Basically, they screwed up due to short-sightedness, based a system around it that was abandoned after the third gen, then gave a new lease on life by putting that sensor in another form format to fool people into thinking they weren't abandoning it and the overpriced Zuiko lenses people bought (some deceived into buying by Olympus claiming they were still supporting SLR owners) were nearly useless or crippled, at best, on u4/3.

If Olympus and Panasonic had faster development, things wouldn't be so bad for them right now. The E-5 should have been, all those years ago, where we are right now with the sensor technology for 4/3.

I have no real issue with the sensor size so much, but there is no size advantage, there's absolutely no performance advantage (in fact, performance disadvantages), and the only one of the bunch that's got any legs is the Panasonic GH3 for videomakers. The sensor development should go to a company would be be responsible enough to keep engineering going on it, rather than such long and harsh stops between generations.

And also, I'm not a fan of the 200% overstating ISO levels that much.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

How many DSLR's are they selling now?

How is that relevant to the OP question?

They don't really sell DSLRs now - they only supported their DSLR customers with the E-5 and they have stubbornly refused to acknowledge that they got out of this market. They still seem to entertain the idea that they'll offer DSLRs in the future.

Their business is now focused on MFT and there they sell more cameras than Pentax does, so again, by the same measure of success - sales, they can be called more successful.

Olympus is not a success story.

Neither is Pentax. But among the two, it seems easier to argue that Olympus is more successful.

BTW, in my previous post, I linked to the same article twice by mistake. I cannot find the other article I meant to link to earlier, but here I found a new one with information covering 2006-2008 - short version is that Pentax trailed Olympus all those years in the DSLR market. Pentax was just late bringing products to the market, the same way they are late with FF cameras now, and the problem is that by they time they get their products out, the market has already changed.

Anyway, I answered tjk's question. If others want to deny that Olympus was actually more successful, carry on.

[northcoastgreg]

However, the OM-D, while nice, is still using a sensor that can't come close to competing with the sensors its up against. Notably, cams using the same sensor as the Pentax K-5, which is known to be one of the best APS-c sensors made to date

While the K-5 sensor is better than the sensor in the OM-D EM-5, it would be an exaggeration to say that the latter sensor can't come close to competing with the former. In practical terms, there's not that much difference. The K-5 sensor can capture more dynamic range, has a bit better low-light performance, and can produce raw files that can handle more aggressive edits in programs like Lightroom. But for a lot of types of images/photography, you would have trouble distinguishing the files produces by the EM-5 from files produced by the K-5.

In my opinion, Oly should figure out how to put that 4/3 sensor in a compact body

Olympus has already done that: that's what m4/3 is all about.

The OM-D was hardly the company saver Olympus hoped for.

The OM-D is Olympus's most successful camera in years. Among the mirrorless compact ILCs, it's easily the best system camera. One product can't save a company in as much trouble as Olympus. But whatever chance Olympus has to dig itself out of its current hole consists in developing the promise of the OM-D.

[audiobomber]

Anyway, I answered tjk's question. If others want to deny that Olympus was actually more successful, carry on.

I'm not arguing that they weren't more successful in the past, but they appear to be less successful now. Selling units does not equal success, profit equals success. Losing so many millions in a year does not point to a profitable operation, or guarantee longevity.

[snake]

While the K-5 sensor is better than the sensor in the OM-D EM-5, it would be an exaggeration to say that the latter sensor can't come close to competing with the former. In practical terms, there's not that much difference. The K-5 sensor can capture more dynamic range, has a bit better low-light performance, and can produce raw files that can handle more aggressive edits in programs like Lightroom. But for a lot of types of images/photography, you would have trouble distinguishing the files produces by the EM-5 from files produced by the K-5.



Olympus has already done that: that's what m4/3 is all about.



The OM-D is Olympus's most successful camera in years. Among the mirrorless compact ILCs, it's easily the best system camera. One product can't save a company in as much trouble as Olympus. But whatever chance Olympus has to dig itself out of its current hole consists in developing the promise of the OM-D.

Olympus has not done that. I am referring to a compact body to compete with the likes ofthe RX100, for instance.

[Kunzite]

How is that relevant to the OP question?

It is relevant to the claim that Olympus was more successful with the 4/3 than Pentax, with the K-mount. Which claim only works if we ignore the simple fact that one of them is dead, and the other isn't
By the way, I would rather consider success as "profit" (a company's purpose is to make a profit, not to sell), and so far Olympus Imaging Systems is in free fall (should they get rid of the compacts?).

Of course, Pentax isn't exactly a success story, either. They couldn't fight against the hostile takeover, and after that they were struggling with an owner who mostly cared about margins. However, that's in the past now; there's only one direction for them: up.