Olympus dalliance with DSLRs over?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Bruce on 22 May 2010 14:58 On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:38:24 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 22, 4:37�am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. It's a target rather than a specific objective, something to be aimed at rather than something that absolutely must be achieved. It shows they mean business, though. I think Olympus has a much better chance of reaching 20% in five years than, say, Sony, who had that same target for the Alpha range of DSLRs and missed it by miles. Miles.
From: RichA on 23 May 2010 02:52 On May 22, 2:58 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:38:24 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >On May 22, 4:37 am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > It's a target rather than a specific objective, something to be aimed > at rather than something that absolutely must be achieved. It shows > they mean business, though. > > I think Olympus has a much better chance of reaching 20% in five years > than, say, Sony, who had that same target for the Alpha range of DSLRs > and missed it by miles. Miles. The Alpha's biggest problem is that they are the same kind of thing as Canon and Nikon produce, with some price differences. But perhaps these new Sony's will have an impact?
From: Bruce on 23 May 2010 05:20 On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:52:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 22, 2:58�pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I think Olympus has a much better chance of reaching 20% in five years >> than, say, Sony, who had that same target for the Alpha range of DSLRs >> and missed it by miles. �Miles. > >The Alpha's biggest problem is that they are the same kind of thing as >Canon and Nikon produce, with some price differences. But perhaps >these new Sony's will have an impact? They probably will. The NEX series looks more promising than the recycled (failed) Minolta range that still forms the basis of Alpha. But I do foresee a major problem with people trading up from point and shoot digicams to the NEX series. People have gotten used to the near-infinite depth of field that small sensors gave them. Most of those people will struggle with the much more limited depth of field that NEX will offer. And those people will make up the majority of the market for NEX. People buying NEX to supplement their DSLRs will have no such problem, but they will make up only a small part of the market for NEX. This problem already exists with people trading up from point and shoot digicams to Micro Four Thirds. That problem will become worse with NEX because, for the same lens angle of view and lens aperture, the depth of field will be even tighter. So people will blame the camera, or the lens, for a failure to produce sharp images, when their own lack of focusing technique will be the true cause. I wonder how the manufacturers will fend off criticism from buyers who were promised better image quality from the larger sensor but got a dramatically increased incidence of out of focus images?
From: DanP on 23 May 2010 05:32 On May 23, 7:52 am, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 22, 2:58 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:38:24 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >On May 22, 4:37 am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> 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. > > > It's a target rather than a specific objective, something to be aimed > > at rather than something that absolutely must be achieved. It shows > > they mean business, though. > > > I think Olympus has a much better chance of reaching 20% in five years > > than, say, Sony, who had that same target for the Alpha range of DSLRs > > and missed it by miles. Miles. > > The Alpha's biggest problem is that they are the same kind of thing as > Canon and Nikon produce, with some price differences. But perhaps > these new Sony's will have an impact? So, will you buy one? DanP
From: Robert Spanjaard on 23 May 2010 05:49
On Sun, 23 May 2010 10:20:57 +0100, Bruce wrote: > On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:52:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On May 22, 2:58 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I think Olympus has a much better chance of reaching 20% in five years >>> than, say, Sony, who had that same target for the Alpha range of DSLRs >>> and missed it by miles. Miles. >> >>The Alpha's biggest problem is that they are the same kind of thing as >>Canon and Nikon produce, with some price differences. But perhaps these >>new Sony's will have an impact? > > > They probably will. The NEX series looks more promising than the > recycled (failed) Minolta range that still forms the basis of Alpha. > > But I do foresee a major problem with people trading up from point and > shoot digicams to the NEX series. > > People have gotten used to the near-infinite depth of field that small > sensors gave them. Most of those people will struggle with the much > more limited depth of field that NEX will offer. And those people will > make up the majority of the market for NEX. > > People buying NEX to supplement their DSLRs will have no such problem, > but they will make up only a small part of the market for NEX. > > This problem already exists with people trading up from point and shoot > digicams to Micro Four Thirds. That problem will become worse with NEX > because, for the same lens angle of view and lens aperture, the depth of > field will be even tighter. > > So people will blame the camera, or the lens, for a failure to produce > sharp images, when their own lack of focusing technique will be the true > cause. I wonder how the manufacturers will fend off criticism from > buyers who were promised better image quality from the larger sensor but > got a dramatically increased incidence of out of focus images? With help from the EXIF data. That data will show the selected AF point, and if that point is marked as 'in focus'. If that point is actually in focus, then there's nothing wrong with the camera or the lens. If a point is marked as being in focus, but it's actually blurry, then you can blame the camera or the lens in most cases. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com |