[Mistral75]

This discussion makes my point - it's fine if e.g. Olympus didn't announce anything, they'd surely have something nice later - but Pentax? They're DoomedTM

I would hate to draw too far a parallel between Ricoh Imaging and Olympus's Imaging Business, which consists in ILCs and lenses (79%), compact cameras (11.5%) and voice recorders (9.5%). Indeed:

1. both are tiny (even though Olympus's Imaging Business is more than three times bigger than Ricoh's 'Smart Vision') and
2. both have slowed down considerably the pace of their announcements
3. but Olympus's Imaging Business is bleeding money and has been for a long time.

In Q1 of FY2019 (April - June 2018) Olympus's Imaging Business ceased operations at a Chinese manufacturing subsidiary as part of their restructuring plan. They had to record ¥ 5,380 million in costs associated with the restructuring of their manufacturing locations. Of course this production base reorganisation and the associated supply delays had a negative impact on sales and on the pace of future launches.



I would therefore very much like Ricoh Imaging not to be in as dire and challenging a situation as Olympus's Imaging Business.

Sources: Fiscal Year Ended Mar. 31, 2019 : Financial Results | OLYMPUS and more specifically:

• Financial Results (Tanshin) for the Three Months of the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2019
• Financial Data for the 1st Quarter of FY2019
• Presentation materials

---

Last edited by Mistral75; 09-18-2018 at 07:16 AM. Reason: Sources added

[ffking]

Olympus's Imaging Business is bleeding money and has been for a long time

not so much in the last few months or so, but a noticeable difference over the years (judging by output) is advertising spend - ne wonders, given the figures, whether it pays for itself and more or merely exacerbates the problem - or, on the other hand, how much trouble Olympus might be in without it.

[CarlJF]

I see Pentax as a "safe" choice for conventional FF DSLR, but I'm looking for a safer APSC choice, and 4/3's Olympus would also be a possibility with a 400mm f4 lens.

But the problem is that there's no 400mm f4 in m43 mount... Now, if you want to discuss that you could do things with gear that doesn't exist, it's your choice but it's rather pointless. As is changing your actual gear for imaginary ones...

[Mistral75]

not so much in the last few months or so (...)

A loss of ¥1.2bn ($10.7m) in FY2018 and an expected loss, excluding one-offs, of ¥1.6bn ($14.2m) in FY2018, i.e. 2% and 2.7% of revenue respectively, is that your definition of 'not so much'?

[RonHendriks1966]

I would therefore very much like Ricoh Imaging not to be in as dire and challenging a situation as Olympus's Imaging Business.

Basicly this is not any different then the situation with Ricoh-Imaging when Ricoh had to swallow the impairment of 9,6 billion yen, not so long ago.

[Mistral75]

Indeed, one can see it that way.

[Chris Mak]

But the problem is that there's no 400mm f4 in m43 mount... Now, if you want to discuss that you could do things with gear that doesn't exist, it's your choice but it's rather pointless. As is changing your actual gear for imaginary ones...

I mentioned an Olympus m4/3 400mm f4 though, because it is a lens that Olympus is alledgedly developing.

But you are right, for wildlife and birding on a crop format with the really long lenses that are affordable and portable, choices are limited, as they always were anyhow. I went from Sigma 500 to DA560 mainly for financial reasons.

It's not all hopeless though, the Olympus 400mm f4 may or may not come, but the Sony high end APSC and 200-600mm are sure to come, and before long. The nikon 500mm f5.6 is already a reality.

The options are there.

Chris

---------- Post added 09-18-18 at 03:05 PM ----------

I would hate to draw too far a parallel between Ricoh Imaging and Olympus's Imaging Business, which consists in ILCs and lenses (79%), compact cameras (11.5%) and voice recorders (9.5%). Indeed:

1. both are tiny (even though Olympus's Imaging Business is more than three times bigger than Ricoh's 'Smart Vision') and
2. both have slowed down considerably the pace of their announcements
3. but Olympus's Imaging Business is bleeding money and has been for a long time.

In Q1 of FY2019 (April - June 2018) Olympus's Imaging Business ceased operations at a Chinese manufacturing subsidiary as part of their restructuring plan. They had to record ¥ 5,380 million in costs associated with the restructuring of their manufacturing locations. Of course this production base reorganisation and the associated supply delays had a negative impact on sales and on the pace of future launches.



I would therefore very much like Ricoh Imaging not to be in as dire and challenging a situation as Olympus's Imaging Business.

Sources: Fiscal Year Ended Mar. 31, 2019 : Financial Results | OLYMPUS and more specifically:

• Financial Results (Tanshin) for the Three Months of the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2019
• Financial Data for the 1st Quarter of FY2019
• Presentation materials

Ouch, I was not aware things are that bad at Olympus, although a year of restructuring may add to the dim picture. I hope they do better next year.
I was an Olympus 4/3 user for years, so I've seen Olympus going through some very bad times, also due to fraud.
I guess the rise of (Sony) mirrorless FF hurts them a lot.
Are any of the camera making companies (or divisions) making any profit at all, other than Sony?

As things stand though, the Olympus m4/3 is a system that is much more rounded, up to date and mature than any of Pentax's systems individually, certainly when the rumored EM1 mkII successor is a good step up from the already very good EM1 mkII.

Pentax is working on three platforms, and has a lot harder task than Olympus from a technical standpoint, and really, the lack of resources is showing.


Chris

---

Last edited by Chris Mak; 09-18-2018 at 08:07 AM.

[ffking]

A loss of ¥1.2bn ($10.7m) in FY2018 and an expected loss, excluding one-offs, of ¥1.6bn ($14.2m) in FY2018, i.e. 2% and 2.7% of revenue respectively, is that your definition of 'not so much'?

My intention was to refer to the rate of advertising, not losses - sorry, I should have been clearer

[reh321]

As things stand though, the Olympus m4/3 is a system that is much more rounded, up to date and mature than any of Pentax's systems individually, certainly when the rumored EM1 mkII successor is a good step up from the already very good EM1 mkII.

Pentax is working on three platforms, and has a lot harder task than Olympus from a technical standpoint, and really, the lack of resources is showing.

That is a judgment call. If you want to make that jump, please do so - but don't expect us to be impressed.

[Chris Mak]

That is a judgment call.

Far from it.
I was with Olympus with some very expensive Zuiko SHG lenses, when they pulled the plug on 4/3, and the resale value on these lenses dropped practically overnight.
It was not a very positive time on the forum.
I feel no grudge against Olympus, far from it, they built a new and modern, future proof system from the ground up. Now they only need the income to keep it going.
Somehow, I feel their path was inevitable, they could have dragged on and kept 4/3 on life support, but it would have not gotten them anywhere. I hope Pentax doesn't keep multiple systems on life support, but simply chooses what they can realistically do.

Don't forget, if nobody buys Pentax stuff any longer because it is not up to date, there will be little money to keep things going.

[reh321]

Don't forget, if nobody buys Pentax stuff any longer because it is not up to date, there will be little money to keep things going.

Up-to-date? When I take my K-30 out and press the shutter, I get the image I expected .... that is sufficiently up-to-date for me. Some time in the future, I will purchase a KP and a 55-300 PLM lens, and I expect them to do the same. I don't know what you want - I am sorry Pentax isn't delivering it for you - but they are delivering what I want.

[Mistral75]

(...)

I guess the rise of (Sony) mirrorless FF hurts them a lot.

(...)

It's rather the dent made by Canon in entry-level mirrorless cameras and by Fujifilm in high-end crop mirrorless cameras. 24x36 cameras are something else and most of Sony's growth in this field has come from Canon, Nikon and Pentax owners adding a 24x36 mirrorless camera to their gear.

(...)

Are any of the camera making companies (or divisions) making any profit at all, other than Sony?

(...)

• Canon: Imaging Systems is profitable. Profitability (= operating result ÷ net sales) = 13.2%. Imaging System = still and video cameras and lenses (61%) + inkjet printers (30%) + others (9%).
  
• Fujifilm: Imaging Solutions is profitable. Profitability = 14.6%. Imaging Solutions = photo imaging (Instax cameras and films, on-demand photo printing, films and photographic papers; 66.7%) + electronic imaging (compact cameras, ILCs and lenses; 23.2%) + optical devices (industrial lenses and broadcast camera lenses; 10.1%). Profitability mostly stems from the success of the Instax ecosystem, a true cash cow.
  
• Hasselblad: they almost went belly up after the failure of the Treviso design centre (Lunar, Stellar, HV and Lusso cameras). Current profitability after DJI's cash injection is unknown.
  
• Leica is highly profitable. Profitability is said to be higher than 20%.
  
• Nikon: Imaging Products Business is profitable. Profitability = 8.4% (10% when excluding restructuring costs).
  
• Olympus: Imaging Business is not profitable, see above.
  
• Panasonic: there is no reporting on the performance of the camera+lens business.
  
• Phase One: profitability unknown, probably positive since the private equity fund Silverfleet Capital took a 60% stake in Phase One in 2014.
  
• Ricoh Imaging: profitability unknown. When Ricoh took over the Pentax photography business in 2011, Ricoh's camera business had been bleeding for years and the acquired business was not profitable (profitability ≈ -10%). The business has been severely restructured, downscaled and moved upmarket since then.
  
• Sony: Imaging Products & Solutions is profitable. Profitability = 11.4%. Imaging Products & Solutions = still and video cameras and lenses (64%) + others (display products such as projectors and medical equipment; 36%).

[fsge]

My personal reasons for looking to switch, away from Pentax, also have to do with the new mirrorless technologies, and new designs in super telelenses, like the new Nikon PF 500mm f5.6. An Olympus 400mm f4 would also be an attractive choice from a portability and IQ point of view (knowing Olympus lenses). But certainly also a big part in the choice, is that I do not think it is realistic to expect Pentax, with their resources given them by Ricoh, can possibly properly develop and maintain three camera formats. To me, it is obvious that FF is their new goal. Others are ever free to disagree, but expecting Pentax to develop and maintain three camera formats in todays market, and with Ricoh's obviously restricted funding, would be well, a bit foolish i.m.o., on my part, that is.
I see Pentax as a "safe" choice for conventional FF DSLR, but I'm looking for a safer APSC choice, and 4/3's Olympus would also be a possibility with a 400mm f4 lens.

Chris

150-450 is a very capable lens, would you decide to stay with pentax.
As a sidenote, Pentax so far and in a clever way managed to share a significant part of parts accross these 3 formats.
I would be more worried as a Pentax MF user than as a Pentax crop user (which I am by the way)

[Kunzite]

[*]Ricoh Imaging: profitability unknown. When Ricoh took over the Pentax photography business in 2011, Ricoh's camera business had been bleeding for years and the acquired business was not profitable (profitability ≈ -10%). The business has been severely restructured, downscaled and moved upmarket since then.

I remember Pentax Imaging Systems Business being at least occasionally profitable, before and under Hoya.

[RonHendriks1966]

• Ricoh Imaging: profitability unknown. When Ricoh took over the Pentax photography business in 2011, Ricoh's camera business had been bleeding for years and the acquired business was not profitable (profitability ≈ -10%). The business has been severely restructured, downscaled and moved upmarket since then.

I think the restructuring will continue in the coming years. All these different camera types call for investments and one can only spend their r&d $ one time.

Ricoh-Imaging over these 7 years is a money loosing business for Ricoh due to the impairment they had to take. So being satisfied with the total results is not something achieve yet.