[tjk911]

How did Olympus get away with moving to the 4/3 and m4/3 market? I remember faintly that Olympus shooters were clamoring for FF as well, but they transitioned to m4/3 and 4/3 fine.

While Pentax's transition to APS-C kind of... floundered.

Now, it's highly unlikely that I'd move to the m4/3 world, but I can easily see myself getting a 4/3 version of the OM-D + those sexy Zuiko lenses. 35-100 f2 anyone?

I'm not saying Pentax's APS-C offerings are not good, heck I love my Pentax gear, I'm just wondering how did Olympus manage to convince its fanbase/userbase to be "OK" with 4/3 and m4/3 while Pentax couldn't really.

[JinDesu]

I'm wildly guessing that Olympus lost most of it's fanbase already to CaNikon and thus had less to lose by going to M4/3s.

[Ratmagiclady]

It's really more that Olympus' gamble on the 4/3rds sensor turned out to be completely wrong when it came to DSLR systems, (And a dead end when it came to optical finders and promises of smaller DSLRs and hopes of sensor tech improving in the appropriate direction,) so they had to change mounts again to make 'micro' 4/3rds mirrorless cameras. At the time that four-thirds started, everyone was kind of guessing which way the tech might go. It just didn't pan out for four-thirds.

Essentially, they had no choice and no competition, so they've done better to play to their strengths and make a whole other genre of cameras that could at least play to the strengths of small sensors and available EVF tech, and avoid the fact that 2X crop just doesn't make a nice optical viewfinder in real life, whatever you do, but 1.5X can be worked with. Non-micro 4/3rds gave up a lot of area for no real gains in compactness via volume or cost or anywhere else, once the tech started maturing.

APS-C pretty much works, though, and is easy to scale back *up* to full-frame sensors in a DSLR, now that those sensors are becoming more affordable to sell, cause the design never really changed far *from* a full frame SLR. Pentax's strengths were always more in making *cameras* and less so 'computers.' So this progression makes sense over *here.*

[tjk911]

Ahh, that makes sense - both the failed gamble, userbase leaving and the APS-C to FF scaling. I was just browsing at some of their older Zuiko lenses and hell, they're sexy. Really, really sexy. It also makes me wonder why Pentax cut off all their high-end glass, like the 80-200 and whatnot.

Well, the obvious answer is cost, but still... Damn.

That said, Olympus seems to be doing fine with its transition though.

[Ratmagiclady]

Ahh, that makes sense - both the failed gamble, userbase leaving and the APS-C to FF scaling. I was just browsing at some of their older Zuiko lenses and hell, they're sexy. Really, really sexy. It also makes me wonder why Pentax cut off all their high-end glass, like the 80-200 and whatnot.

Well, the obvious answer is cost, but still... Damn.

That said, Olympus seems to be doing fine with its transition though.

Well, Pentax's corporate history recently is a bit of a different matter. Very *like* Olympus, they suffered a fair bit from the camera market going from fine optical and mechanical engineering and crafstmanship of like an old KX, LX, or OM-1 to the latest fastest computerized thing... even the race for practical autofocus caused cameras to take a turn from 'Your grandchildren will use this' to 'Buy again in a couple years,' ...as an old Canon FD user, I simply *stopped buying new stuff* once near everything went to autofocus and plastickey. My K20D is the first autofocus SLR I've ever owned.

Of course, nowadays it's much cheaper to make an Iphone with more processing power than early Space Shuttles probably carried than to make something like an LX or an old F-1.

I always did love those old Olympus cameras, though. I considered a switch to them back in the 80's when Canon looked to be deserting the serious photog market. But I get set in my ways. I'm still carrying an F-1N and SSC glass along with my Pentax digital. (Though I don't have to: I have Pentax film bodies, but hey, one familar thing I can have to hand all the time is worth a few extra pounds at this point in my life. )


But, yeah, btw, I saw a lot of the tech race that leads to the way different brands have gone kind of personally: I was trying to work my way into a DSLR system just about at that key point of brand development. Part of why I'm with Pentax is just cause I liked how they were thinking regarding a K10d. Through a certain amount of drama and suspense, judging by recent models, it seems to have been the right choice.

Anyway, I think Olympus has found its own way, ...lookin pretty good for that. Pentax'll be doing some other things. Also good for everyone. More choices very good for photo people, and also keeps the Canon and Nikon companies honest.

[boriscleto]

Of course, nowadays it's much cheaper to make an Iphone with more processing power than early Space Shuttles probably carried than to make something like an LX or an old F-1.

Your K20D has way more computing power than the early Space Shuttle computers...it was designed in 1972 after all...

Space shuttle technology

The earliest General Purpose Computer, the AP-101B, has 104,000 32-bit words of iron-core memory (small iron rings threaded on a loom and magnetized to determine ones and zeros). It uses 650 watts of power, weighs 51.8 kilograms (114 pounds), performs 400,000 benchmark tests per second, and has an MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) of 5200 hours.

Each shuttle has more than 300 electronic "black boxes" with over 300 miles of wiring and 120,400 wire segments with 6,491 connectors. The total weight of the black boxes, wiring, and connectors is 7,780 kilograms (17,116 pounds)--heavier than a fully loaded Apollo Command Module spacecraft.

Since the computers are essential, NASA decided to use five identical computers in operation for critical periods like launch and landing. Four of the units operate together, and if one has a different result, it's presumed wrong and is "outvoted." The fifth computer is programmed separately from the other four and acts as a backup to prevent possible generic software errors from causing problems. In addition, an offline spare--a sixth GPC--is carried, which can be swapped with a malfunctioning GPC in orbit if necessary.

It was upgraded in 1991.

The AP-101S GPC has 256,000 32-bit words (roughly equivalent to 1MB of RAM) of CMOS (Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor) memory. It uses 550 watts, weighs 29 kilograms (64 pounds), and performs 1.2 million benchmarks per second. It has an MTBF of 10,000 hours, and fits into one box instead of two. In other words, the new GPCs have 2-1/2 times as much memory, use less power, weigh less, operate up to three times faster, take up half the volume, and are twice as reliable as their 18-year-old cousins, the AP-101B.

[Rondec]

I really don't know how well Olympus is doing from a camera standpoint. My feeling is that for most of the last ten years, their medical imaging departments were propping up their camera departments with regard to finances, but since they were fairly duplicitous in their financial statements it wasn't clear.

Olympus did lose a lot of their users who were interested in SLR style cameras. They kept afloat by dumping cameras at really low prices and because they have some amazing lenses. But honestly, I know a lot more people who have a micro four thirds camera as a "walk around camera" to own a long with their APS-C/full frame camera gear, than who just own an olympus or panasonic camera as their primary camera.

[Mistral75]

Olympus's camera business is performing rather poorly. It is expected to loose about 16 billion yen (USD170m) this fiscal year (April 2012 - March 2013) including a 3.7 billion yen impairment loss, double the 8 billion yen estimate made in November last year.

They have also cut their full-year sales target for cameras to 110 billion yen from the 129 billion yen estimate made in November.

Group net income is supposed to reach 6 billion yen thanks to the good performance of the medical equipment division (endoscopes) more than offsetting the loss of the imaging division.

Olympus Drops After Net Forecast Cut on Camera Loss: Tokyo Mover - Bloomberg

[snake]

Olympus isn't exactly doing well.

[boriscleto]

Olympus went from being a small slice of a big pie with few competitors to a small slice of a small pie with more competitors.

[northcoastgreg]

How did Olympus get away with moving to the 4/3 and m4/3 market? I remember faintly that Olympus shooters were clamoring for FF as well, but they transitioned to m4/3 and 4/3 fine. While Pentax's transition to APS-C kind of... floundered.

Pentax seems to have managed better the transition to digital better than Olympus. Olympus' camera division has not turned a profit since 2006. Companies have to guess what their customers want in the future (or else create demand through marketing), and Olympus, like many companies before it, have guessed wrong. They guessed that 4/3 DSLRs would constitute a compelling format. They guessed wrong. Then they thought they could make money selling low to mid-level m4/3rd cameras. Wrong again.

Despite all their problems, I still think the m4/3 has more potential as a system than any of the other compact mirrorless ILC formats. But it is only in the prosumer space that it has a chance to be successful. Most people who buy heavily discounted, viewfinderless ILCs are not going to invest in the system. You're not going to make any money from such customers. You've got to provide a system that serious photographers are willing to invest in. The Olympus EM-5 points the way to a system that could potentially become profitable in the future, but of course there are no guarantees.

[audiobomber]

I don't think Olympus "got away" with anything. When I was buying my first DSLR, I narrowed it down to the Pentax K100D Super and Olympus E510. I'm so glad I chose Pentax. I wonder if we'll ever see another Olympus DSLR? Oly DLSR lenses do not have functional auto-focus on MILC bodies. Maybe they'll figure out how to do that some day, but it must be worrisome for people with expensive Olympus glass.

It also makes me wonder why Pentax cut off all their high-end glass, like the 80-200 and whatnot.

When Pentax transitioned to APS-C digital, they did it all the way. The standard lenses for 35mm/FF are 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8. Pentax made equivalent focal lengths for 1.5X crop bodies, the 16-50 (24-75) and 50-135 (75-200) f/2.8. It is too bad that they stopped making the old FF lenses, but I guess they can only manage a certain number of lines.

[snake]

I don't think Olympus "got away" with anything. When I was buying my first DSLR, I narrowed it down to the Pentax K100D Super and Olympus E510. I'm so glad I chose Pentax. I wonder if we'll ever see another Olympus DSLR? Oly DLSR lenses do not have functional auto-focus on MILC bodies. Maybe they'll figure out how to do that some day, but it must be worrisome for people with expensive Olympus glass.



When Pentax transitioned to APS-C digital, they did it all the way. The standard lenses for 35mm/FF are 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8. Pentax made equivalent focal lengths for 1.5X crop bodies, the 16-50 (24-75) and 50-135 (75-200) f/2.8. It is too bad that they stopped making the old FF lenses, but I guess they can only manage a certain number of lines.

I got the E510. It was nice, highly limited. More like an alternate for a point and shoot. Even the higher end ones weren't that great. Some ways ok, but the theory was that they'd be smaller than the competition. So has anyone seen an E5 next to the K5?

OOOF.

[zdwagner]

Just to bump what others have already pointed out, Olympus (at least their imaging division, though the country as a whole has been through the ringer lately with financial scandals and what not) is doing pretty poorly. To say they've had a successful transition to 4/3 and then to m4/3 is a little disingenuous. They've finally made a camera that is selling reasonably well (for them) in the OM-D, yet they are still hemorrhaging money like a stuck pig (excuse the reference). I own the OM-D, and can attest to its abilities, but it still falls short in areas that disallow many semi-pros from jumping in. However, I will say that between Panasonic and Olympus, their lens line is getting really decent at this point.
Because of this there's a chance that if they can weather the storm for a bit longer that it could begin to be profitable for both companies, but it's still a gamble with other companies now in the fray with competing designs/philosophies. It's a great time to be a photographer because of all the options, but maybe not such a great time to be a manufacturer for the same reason. It's obvious Canon was confused in its first mirrorless offering, which is funny considering how huge they are. But Canon and Nikon have the resources to dump into improving their systems, Olympus and Panasonic... not so much. But if they can float on the strength of their lens line and keep making advancements in sensor tech (thanks Sony!), then there's a chance they'll survive.

[zdwagner]

Meant "though the *company* as a whole..." in my previous post. Tried to edit my post but it doesn't seem to be taking.