Olympus dalliance with DSLRs over?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Grimly Curmudgeon on 22 May 2010 07:21 We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> saying something like: >Could be, if you read this report. > >http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/ir/brief/pdf/n100512aE_n2.pdf Page 17 disagrees with you.
From: Bruce on 22 May 2010 07:53 On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:21:49 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REMOVE(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote: >We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the >drugs began to take hold. I remember RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> saying >something like: > >>Could be, if you read this report. >> >>http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/ir/brief/pdf/n100512aE_n2.pdf > >Page 17 disagrees with you. No it doesn't! It looks good for DSLRs until you realise, from Page 17, that Olympus considers Micro Four Thirds to be a digital SLR. There is no mention of Four Thirds anywhere in the document. Thanks to Page 17, all DSLR references are to *Micro* Four Thirds. My friendly photo dealer (UK) tells me that Micro Four Thirds now outsells Four Thirds *four times over*.
From: Peter on 22 May 2010 09:11 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5tefv5lnl5gcpnlk2idc4gsn8h797j8b5o(a)4ax.com... > > I had a strong relationship with Olympus Europe from the late 1970s > until the early 2000s. I had the strong impression that the medical > area always seemed to dominate imaging, if not dwarf it. > We may have some mutual acquaintances. I used to play a lot of golf and go drinking with some of the guys here and met quite a few of the boys from Europe. What division were they in? -- Peter
From: SMS on 22 May 2010 10:39 On 22/05/10 1:37 AM, Bruce wrote: > On Fri, 21 May 2010 23:17:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA<rander3127(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> Could be, if you read this report. >> http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/ir/brief/pdf/n100512aE_n2.pdf > > > Interesting. > > On Page 3, under the heading "Preparations for New Medium-Term Plan" > there is included "Establishment of business foundation for SLRs". Which means there isn't a business foundation for them now. > Then, on Page 17, under "Imaging Business", the priority is > "Establishing solid foundation for the DSLR camera business and > achieving high growth". Except they never mention D-SLRs under the title, only Micro 4:3. Bottom line is that Olympus's foray into D-SLRs was a disaster, with low single digit market share. With the 4:3 sensor they also painted themselves into a corner with no growth path to larger, lower-noise, sensors as production costs come down. Maybe Micro 4:3 will be succssful, but they need to cut their losses on 4:3. Micro 4:3 cameras are not D-SLRs.
From: RichA on 22 May 2010 11:38
On May 22, 4:37 am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 21 May 2010 23:17:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > >Could be, if you read this report. > >http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/ir/brief/pdf/n100512aE_n2.pdf > > Interesting. > > On Page 3, under the heading "Preparations for New Medium-Term Plan" > there is included "Establishment of business foundation for SLRs". So > the DSLR range appears safe. > > Then, on Page 17, under "Imaging Business", the priority is > "Establishing solid foundation for the DSLR camera business and > achieving high growth". Sounds good for the DSLR range. > > But then, on the same page, under the heading "Digital SLR Cameras" it > mentions only Micro Four Thirds. There is no mention of Four Thirds. > So when Olympus are talking about DSLRs, they mean Micro Four Thirds. Yes, exactly. I wish them luck, they've apparently done well with micro 43/rds but a target of 20% of the market in five years is not realistic for them. |