Olympus dalliance with DSLRs over?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Bruce on 24 May 2010 06:05 On Sun, 23 May 2010 21:24:49 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2010-05-23 21:06:02 -0700, RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> said: >> >> I have a G1 and D300 and haven't felt compelled to change as nothing >> that has come up is superior, from what I can see. I was thinking the >> Sony's would be, but no EVF and punk lenses... > >OK. > >...but if you have a D300 & G1, why on Earth do you go through all the >agonizing over all the hype on new stuff you are never going to >consider? > >I have a D300s which replaced a stolen D300, which I was quite >satisfied with. I have a G11 which serves well as my compact spare. If >I am going to upgrade at this stage it would be to pick up a D700, or >its successor. As a result I don't understand why you continue sharing >your doom & gloom view on everything from questionable new releases, to > your negative opinion on dpreview stuff. Perhaps it is because he is Canadian, and Canadians seem to consider their role in the world is to spread doom and gloom, regardless of the topic being discussed?
From: David J Taylor on 24 May 2010 08:36 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5kjkv51udne8hg9ggllarporrnnb6p2hm7(a)4ax.com... [] > I wonder why Sony abandoned the in-camera anti-shake of the Alpha > system, instead using an in-lens anti-shake system for NEX? For a DSLR camera I consider in-lens better because it helps stabilise the image in the viewfinder, and keeps the image on the focus and exposure sensors stable as well. But in mirror-less cameras, those arguments don't apply, so it does seem an odd choice. Perhaps they get more profit that way? Cheers, David
From: Bruce on 24 May 2010 10:04 On Mon, 24 May 2010 13:36:35 +0100, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:5kjkv51udne8hg9ggllarporrnnb6p2hm7(a)4ax.com... >[] >> I wonder why Sony abandoned the in-camera anti-shake of the Alpha >> system, instead using an in-lens anti-shake system for NEX? > >For a DSLR camera I consider in-lens better because it helps stabilise the >image in the viewfinder, and keeps the image on the focus and exposure >sensors stable as well. I agree. It works well. >But in mirror-less cameras, those arguments don't >apply, so it does seem an odd choice. Perhaps they get more profit that >way? It makes the lenses more expensive, so Sony is perhaps likely to sell fewer of them. Of course lens-based systems outperforms sensor-based systems by some margin, so it is perhaps an admission that Minolta's system in the Alpha DSLRs isn't very good. But we knew that. It is becoming clear why the Alpha range has been starved of investment - NEX has had a lot of money poured into it. If NEX succeeds I think Sony will just stop making the heavily loss-making Alpha DSLR range.
From: Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner on 24 May 2010 10:31 In rec.photo.digital Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Well, m4/3 is closer to a DSLR than anything else (it's at least "DSL"), and the only other option specifically mentioned in imaging is "Compact Digital cameras", which is clearly not how Olympus is positioning m4/3. "All A are B" is not the same thing as "All B are A", as most of us learned in high school math, remember? Just because "All m4/3 are DSLRs" doesn't mean "All DSLRs are m4/3." We know with good certainty that the "E-5" will be announced around Photokina this year, so the idea that they're about to drop the entire 4/3 line is, in a word, silly, and divining this from reading the tea leaves of four bullet points is doubly so. More general thoughts...this "strategic plan" is the worst kind of boardroom babble. They actually say "maximizing synergies"! "We will be admired in international society..." Oh, I see, as opposed to all those other businesses whose goal is to be despised. This is hardly unusual for business presentations, but I hope, for Olympus' sake, that this is just the handout, and there's a meatier planning document around somewhere. -- Oh to have a lodge in some vast wilderness. Where rumors of oppression and deceit, of unsuccessful and successful wars may never reach me anymore. -- William Cowper, 1731 - 1800
From: Bruce on 24 May 2010 13:18
On Mon, 24 May 2010 14:31:55 +0000 (UTC), Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner <jdw(a)panix.com> wrote: >In rec.photo.digital Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Well, m4/3 is closer to a DSLR than anything else (it's at least >"DSL"), and the only other option specifically mentioned in imaging is >"Compact Digital cameras", which is clearly not how Olympus is >positioning m4/3. "All A are B" is not the same thing as "All B are A", >as most of us learned in high school math, remember? Just because "All >m4/3 are DSLRs" doesn't mean "All DSLRs are m4/3." We know with good >certainty that the "E-5" will be announced around Photokina this year, so >the idea that they're about to drop the entire 4/3 line is, in a word, >silly, and divining this from reading the tea leaves of four bullet >points is doubly so. It isn't about four bullet points. The complete absence of any mention of the E-System from the entire 23-slide presentation is what tells the story. So there's going to be an "E-5"? Let's hope it has something to recommend it over the pathetic E-3. Olympus Europe still has hundreds of brand new, unsold E-1 bodies and there are thousands of unsold E-3 bodies. The E-1 was a fine camera, but a few months after its introduction it was eclipsed by the 8 MP Canon 1D Mark 2. Since then, Olympus has been way behind the curve. Any "E-5" will only serve to confirm that Olympus is still way behind the rest of the DSLR field. Meanwhile, Micro Four Thirds is a spectacular success. It makes sense for Olympus to concentrate on Micro Four Thirds. Meanwhile, Olympus will support (but not invest in) the E-System for the sake of existing users. It is time for a shakeout of DSLR manufacturers. Too many are losing money chasing market share. Something has to give. Kodak, FujiFilm, Panasonic and Samsung have already given up. Sony is right on the brink, having made huge losses in a failed attempt to gain market share for the failed former Minolta system. Only the sales of Sony sensors to other manufacturers and the manufacture of Nikon sensors under contract make money. Pentax is struggling, and now without the Samsung deal, has an uncertain future supply of sensors. Olympus has lost huge amounts of money on the Four Thirds E-System, but is now making significant profits out of Micro Four Thirds. There is possibly room for one DSLR manufacturer to compete with Nikon and Canon. There certainly isn't room for three. Of Pentax, Sony and Olympus, probably two will have to go. Olympus has already made it clear that Micro Four Thirds is their priority. Sony has made a strong statement with the NEX system which, if it succeeds, will demolish sales of entry-level Alpha cameras. No-one has the faintest idea what Pentax will do, least of all Pentax, but it is the only one of the three that is fully committed to DSLRs. Under these circumstances, the only DSLR purchases that make any sense are those from Canon and Nikon. None of the other brands can be guaranteed to be in production in three years' time. |