[Flubber]

I also think brand awareness has a lot to do with it. A name like "Sony" means a lot more to a generation growing up with Sony VAIO computers, Sony phones, Sony gaming consoles, Sony TV's, Sony stereo systems and so on, than a name like "Olympus" does. Had my mother not owned an Olympus camera, I am not so sure Olympus would even have been on my radar as a first-time digital camera buyer.

[Rondec]

I also think brand awareness has a lot to do with it. A name like "Sony" means a lot more to a generation growing up with Sony VAIO computers, Sony phones, Sony gaming consoles, Sony TV's, Sony stereo systems and so on, than a name like "Olympus" does. Had my mother not owned an Olympus camera, I am not so sure Olympus would even have been on my radar as a first-time digital camera buyer.

My dad actually shot with Olympus film cameras back in the day, but I haven't seen many in use for ages.

[Flubber]

The old Olympus film cameras are beautiful. Classic designs. Though I have no personal experience with their digital cameras, from what I've seen their high-end cameras are a lot better than their reputation would lead you to believe. For some reason, it seems like certain parts of the community have simply decided to hate on everything Olympus does. Pentax seems to be getting the same treatment in many places. I was watching a video with that obnoxious Jared Polin clown the other day, and he proceeded to say something along the lines of: "Just count your lucky stars it's not a Pentax". He regularly hates on Olympus as well.

You Tube

You Tube

I can't stand this guy. What a clown. Hard to believe that anyone actually watches this garbage regularly.

[D1N0]

Did Fro go to Weird all Yankovic's barber?

[Rondec]

The old Olympus film cameras are beautiful. Classic designs. Though I have no personal experience with their digital cameras, from what I've seen their high-end cameras are a lot better than their reputation would lead you to believe. For some reason, it seems like certain parts of the community have simply decided to hate on everything Olympus does. Pentax seems to be getting the same treatment in many places. I was watching a video with that obnoxious Jared Polin clown the other day, and he proceeded to say something along the lines of: "Just count your lucky stars it's not a Pentax". He regularly hates on Olympus as well.

CANON?s MIND BLOWING RUMORS!!! SONY CONFIRMS NEW CAMERA?! - YouTube

I can't stand this guy. What a clown. Hard to believe that anyone actually watches this garbage regularly.

I have drunk the "full frame" kool aid, but I agree completely that Olympus cameras are well made and their glass is for the most part, excellent. It just wasn't enough to turn a profit.

It is what makes me wonder what JIP can do to turn the ship around, if that is really what they are interested in doing. Probably end up slashing jobs and outsourcing everything they can.

[Serkevan]

I think the younger generation sees people using DSLRs in the same way as people using (D)SLR sized cameras would see people using large bellows cameras.

I don't know, most of my friends see a dedicated camera as a big, mean, expensive professional machine. The prices of new cameras *are* high for the average salary in Spain, so DSLRs are a hard sell. In Germany you see them much more often, but younger people tend to use either bridge cameras, small mirrorless APS-C or film (I saw a girl carrying a 645 during a hike once, instant jealousy ).

In fact, "But how much does it cost to sustain the hobby?" is a question that comes up fairly often. I of course always say that unless you go crazy on specific equipment, it doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg, and it is not hard to take "pretty pictures" when the phone cannot. I have recently "sucked in" a colleague into photography by saying how you can spend fairly little in a slightly older, used model. I suggested to him to get one of the entry level tele zooms and a fast entry level prime - those are the ones the phone cannot replicate and are relatively affordable.

A couple of other friends are also interested in getting either a camera or at least phones with better cameras (for portability reasons) - they only want better cameras to document life and travels so a good multi-camera phone is "good enough" for them.

[Lord Lucan]

The old Olympus film cameras are beautiful. Classic designs. Though I have no personal experience with their digital cameras, from what I've seen their high-end cameras are a lot better than their reputation would lead you to believe. For some reason, it seems like certain parts of the community have simply decided to hate on everything Olympus does.

When I bought my first SLR, my father was using a Minolta SRT, his friend a Yashica, and my boss an Olympus OM-1. The Olympus looked built like a scientific instrument, a plus point for me as an engineer.

So I looked at those, and did some wider research before buying. I could only have afforded the OM-10 but it seemd weird - needed a crummy adaptor to get manual mode (my father said auto is fine, but a manual mode is a must) and the aperture ring seemed at the wrong end of the lens (for an engineer). The Minoltas of the time looked plasticky and I did not like the name "Yashica" - too Japanesy!

So it came down to Pentax, Nikon or Canon, and I got the ME Super. Looking back it was the right choice - I still have and sometime use the M50mm F1.7 lens on my K-1.

I cannot say I have noticed particular Olympus hate on the internet, but a general view that they made the wrong choice going with 4/3. There is certainly Pentax hate although it is never clear why, just nudge-nudge-wink-wink stuff. Things like in a discussion of thefts, someone said to stop anyone stealing your camera, put a prominent "Pentax" stap on it. ????

OTOH many people think Sony is the of Holy of Holies, beyond criticism, again for no clear reason except maybe they are good for video (which seems to be most YouTube bloggers only interest - well it would be for what they do). I am put off by "Jack of all trades" companies, and the fact Sony make all sorts of consumer stuff including toys is a big downside for me.

---

Last edited by Lord Lucan; 09-12-2020 at 05:26 AM. Reason: Tpyo

[texandrews]

I cannot say I have noticed particular Olympus hate on the internet, but a general view that they made the wrong choice going with 4/3.

Most of the hate was around 10-15 years ago.

There is certainly Pentax hate although it is never clear why, just nudge-nudge-wink-wink stuff. Things like in a discussion of thefts, someone said to stop anyone stealing your camera, put a prominent "Pentax" stap on it. ????

A lot of ignorance on the webinet. Just sayin'

OTOH many people think Sony is the of Holy of Holies, beyond criticism, again for no clear reason except maybe they are good for video (which seems to be most YouTube bloggers only interest - well it would be for what they do). I am put off by "Jack of all trades" companies, and the fact Sony make all sorts of consumer stuff including toys is a big downside for me.

Sony also had TONS of hatred directed at it after they took over Konica-Minolta. And as they released their mirrorless lines, more still because of the lack of lenses---- a point very conveniently forgotten now amongst Nikon/Canon fans today with those new lines. Hmmph. Sony has done a stellar job, IMO, since they took over K-M.

[edri]

I don't think switching to MFT was their problem. The problem is that they did not deliver what they promised. Lightweight, decent priced cameras, good photo quality. These were promises that justified the transition to MFT. What do we see today? Flagships are monster, bulky, heavy cameras. Even if the sensor is 4 times smaller, these cameras are heavier and more voluminous than a DSLR FF and at a much higher price. Not to mention the lenses. High quality lenses are in the same weight and volume range as FF DSLR lenses. For a ML system with a small sensor, it was expected that this strategy would put them in the pit. There were also financial problems caused by the corruption of some Olympus corporates.

[Rondec]

I don't think switching to MFT was their problem. The problem is that they did not deliver what they promised. Lightweight, decent priced cameras, good photo quality. These were promises that justified the transition to MFT. What do we see today? Flagships are monster, bulky, heavy cameras. Even if the sensor is 4 times smaller, these cameras are heavier and more voluminous than a DSLR FF and at a much higher price. Not to mention the lenses. High quality lenses are in the same weight and volume range as FF DSLR lenses. For a ML system with a small sensor, it was expected that this strategy would put them in the pit. There were also financial problems caused by the corruption of some Olympus corporates.

I think people just thought that putting all of their eggs in the micro four thirds basket was the mistake. I still think there is a market for mFT cameras, but if Olympus had chosen to figure out how to also have, say, a full frame camera as well, or even APS-C it would have been more interesting.

Even Fuji, which constantly disparaged full frame as "too close to APS-C" in size, eventually released a medium format camera.

Prices of entry level full frame cameras keep coming down and MILC full frames aren't that big and that is a big squeeze on micro four thirds and probably limits the number of people willing to pay top dollar for their cameras.

[Serkevan]

Prices of entry level full frame cameras keep coming down and MILC full frames aren't that big and that is a big squeeze on micro four thirds and probably limits the number of people willing to pay top dollar for their cameras.

Oly's non-PEN cameras are the size of Sony FF/APS-C offerings. They are comfortable to handle because, well, there's a minimum body size and Oly knows how to make sensible layouts (unlike Sony), but that doesn't help marketing materials

The new E-M1 goes here for 200€ less than an A7iii (1500 vs 1700) body only. That doesn't help - although of course lenses are cheaper for mFT.

[texandrews]

I think people just thought that putting all of their eggs in the micro four thirds basket was the mistake. I still think there is a market for mFT cameras, but if Olympus had chosen to figure out how to also have, say, a full frame camera as well, or even APS-C it would have been more interesting.

I agree about FF, but not apsc. But I think the entire Oly debacle(in the end, that's what it has become) is an object lesson in peculiarly Japanese business practices. Oly is the other company that could be said to be "photographer" centric the way Pentax is, but for them it led to that fateful decision that the sensor size was correct and the comment from the head of the photo division that 12mp was all that most photographers needed. I think he was certainly correct in the latter statement, but he forgot about phone developments. He's been proved mostly correct in both assessments---that a smaller sensor and a more modest mp is what most people could live with. But he failed to understand the heart of the camera market, the enthusiasts.

Even Fuji, which constantly disparaged full frame as "too close to APS-C" in size, eventually released a medium format camera.

In Fuji's case I think we're seeing 2(+) things here. They had great compact cameras---but they could see the handwriting on the wall there. APSC was an easy choice for a re-entry into serious cameras. And they had medium format DNA, which Nikon, Sony, Oly, and Canon do not---only Pentax does. So, that was also an easy choice. I think skipping FF was smart, but the "too close to apsc" business is just so much marketing manure.

Prices of entry level full frame cameras keep coming down and MILC full frames aren't that big and that is a big squeeze on micro four thirds and probably limits the number of people willing to pay top dollar for their cameras.

Absolutely. It was Canon's 5D series and Sony's A900/A850 that really were the killing blows. Before that FF, ostensibly better, was still out of reach price wise---too big a jump for most enthusiasts. Sony's A850 going for less than $2Kusd was the major disruptor. When FF became "affordable" to enthusiasts it was all over for 4/3-m43.

[Pål Jensen]

Olympus didn't fail selling cameras. They failed making money.
Canon sold a lot of 5D because they had several tens of millions FF lenses in the customers hands already. Olympus had no such luck.

[MetalUndivided]

someone said to stop anyone stealing your camera, put a prominent "Pentax" stap on it. ????

Haha, that might have been me. I remember leaving a joking comment like that on one of Sony Northrup's videos.

---------- Post added 09-14-20 at 04:53 PM ----------

Even if the sensor is 4 times smaller, these cameras are heavier and more voluminous than a DSLR FF and at a much higher price

More expensive and bulky than what DSLR FF exactly? I, for one, can't think of any that would be more compact than, say, an E-M1. Besides, there's a lower threshold in terms of how compact a camera can be without causing discomfort.

High quality lenses are in the same weight and volume range as FF DSLR lenses

Again, I can't see that being true. There certainly are lenses that are fairly close in size and weight to their FF counterparts, but on average m4/3 lenses are both smaller and lighter.

[Lord Lucan]

The agreement to sell Olympus imaging to JIP was signed on 30 Sept

From Olympus Sign Transfer Of Imaging Business To JIP - UK Update | ePHOTOzine :

Statement from Olympus: 01 Oct 2020:
Following on from the initial announcement in June, Olympus signed a Definitive Agreement on Sept 30th with Japan Industrial Partners, Inc. (JIP) regarding the transfer of the Olympus Imaging business meaning that the process can go on to the next stage.

Under the agreement, Olympus will transfer 95% of the shares of a new imaging company to JIP on January 1, 2021. The new company name, OM Digital Solutions Corporation, will honour the inspiring legacy of Yoshihisa Maitani and Olympus Maitani cameras. The New Imaging Company will continue with our existing brands, such as OM-D, PEN and ZUIKO, and will utilize the Olympus brand for a certain period.

It is not clear why there is what seems to be a quote (the indented text) within the quote in that article, but in that inner quote are the crucial words "will utilize the Olympus brand for a certain period".

That means there will be no more Olympus cameras after a time. There might be "OM" cameras, or "Zuiko" cameras, but not "Olympus" cameras.

It makes sense, and I've been saying it for a while. The parent Olympus will still be making medical equipment, and they will not want the "Olympus" brand name being used by OM Digital Solutions out of their control and possibly degrading the name as a brand. For example it could be put on toys or trash cameras, as has happened with the Yashica brand. I believe that OM Digital Solutions will be allowed to use the Olympus name on the equipment already being produced, and possibly on new designs ready for production right now, but not on future equipment (if any) designed under the new company.