The demise of OLYMPUS camera business
-
A
- Thread starter BrianShaw
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 3 Wooden 8x10 Film Holders
- Started by Rick A
-
For Sale CP Goerz Berlin Dagor 7.7/36cm
- Started by Rick A
-
For Sale Manfrotto 502AH Pro Video Head
- Started by Barlow
-
Sold Light Impressions Archival Slide Storage Boxes
- Started by Jon Shiu
Forum statistics
Exactly... selling their camera business. Did anyone learn the definition of “demise”?
More here: https://www.olympus-global.com/ir/data/announcement/2020/contents/ir00013.pdf
JIP does not indicate what they will do in the future with Olympus Imaging. But considering the relative low popularity of the M4/3 format I doubt they will keep it going unless a clear profit can be made.
The title of the OP says "The demise of OLYMPUS camera business"
Somewhat accurate as OLYMPUS will no longer make Camera's and Lenses for them.
The issue, as exhibited by Olympus' withdrawing from the consumer camera market, is the economic viability of a business segment in view of the corporate overhead that has to be paid by all the participating business segments. Perhaps the camera business will be better able to pay its way when not under a much larger corporate umbrella such as Olympus parent corporation. It is a somewhat common thing for larger corporate parents to sell off its smaller contributing companies as they are more 'worthwhile' sold off than operating and losing money.
That already is the edited title.
Olympus SLR's were never really important to me, I have to admit. They show much less frequently than other makes, and I wanted to restrict myself to very few mount-systems. So I even got no sample at all.
Its different for me though with compact cameras.
Its different for me though with compact cameras.
I was smitten by the OM-1... back in the 1980’s. The small size was attractive to me. But I bought a Nikon F-3 and slapped a motor drive on it so I guess small and light really weren’t all that attractive. The F-3 has served me well ever since so I never looked back on that decision.
The Air Force, LA Times and AP all field tested the OM-1, although small, light, very good lens, the bodies did not take abuse that a Nikon could. Not that pros didn't shoot with the OM system, just did not fair well when really put to the test. I know that Olympus micro 3/4th has good color, but seems that the big move is to full frame, even Sigma has gotten on board with full frame.
My first digital was an Olympus E520. Having had No prior digital experience when I bought it in 2009, even *I* could see the deficiencies of the 4/3 sensor. The noise and banding was obnoxious. I’m actually surprised that they’ve lasted this long.
Your 2009 4/3 sensor has no real bearing on their performance today. Despite the crap about "full frame" and equivalence and that other drivel from the fakes on Dpreview, the µ4/3 format allows for amazing photography. I have met serious birders in places like Colombia who switched to µ4/3 because the long lenses were smaller and lighter. Kirk Tuck used Olympus or Panasonic for awhile and demonstrated amazing photography from Iceland, commercial jobs, and theater.
Despite all that can be said for m4/3: Ease of designing lenses, more DoF, lighter sensor for stabilization or smaller overall package etc.
It still does not change the fundamentals in specmanship:
Less overall resolution possible, no matter how you twist and turn it.
More noise.
And less of that much vaunted bokeh, for a given lens.
That in the end is what sells the camera to the naive consumer who considers themselves borderline geniuses for being able to look down a spec sheet and read DxO mark.
Olympus has been way, way waayyyy to poor at pushing and utilizing, the obvious benefits of the system.
For example:
- You could have made some insanely big aperture lenses for comparatively little money, and still have useable non comical DoF. AFAIK no one really did that.
- The ability to go to the extremes of the lens focal length spectrum without too aggressive correction or expensive optics.
- And again not tooting sensor stabilization from the rooftops and as the main selling point.
True other cameras had it.
But only Olympus and other M4/3s could make it work well in most situations, because of the small light sensor.
Plus, they never really made it work to it’s full potential.
It still does not change the fundamentals in specmanship:
Less overall resolution possible, no matter how you twist and turn it.
More noise.
And less of that much vaunted bokeh, for a given lens.
That in the end is what sells the camera to the naive consumer who considers themselves borderline geniuses for being able to look down a spec sheet and read DxO mark.
Olympus has been way, way waayyyy to poor at pushing and utilizing, the obvious benefits of the system.
For example:
- You could have made some insanely big aperture lenses for comparatively little money, and still have useable non comical DoF. AFAIK no one really did that.
- The ability to go to the extremes of the lens focal length spectrum without too aggressive correction or expensive optics.
- And again not tooting sensor stabilization from the rooftops and as the main selling point.
True other cameras had it.
But only Olympus and other M4/3s could make it work well in most situations, because of the small light sensor.
Plus, they never really made it work to it’s full potential.
Last edited:
I thought I heard this on the car radio the other day but missed part of the message. Thanks for the confirmation I was about to change systems and move over to Olympus because of the weight of my Nikon equipment so I think I will have to resume my body building course.
For what it is worth I have always thought Olympus started to go down hill when they discontinued the OM system. The OM4Ti was as good as they got.
For what it is worth I have always thought Olympus started to go down hill when they discontinued the OM system. The OM4Ti was as good as they got.
IMHO, they started going downhill when they couldn't provide a reasonably good auto focus slr system. The OM system was fine, but a bit of a fossil in the AF era.
Have been using Olympus most of my life, from my first OM-1 in 1974 (still working) to OM-D and Pen later. Still have several bodies and lenses, which I use sometimes.
A few months age I decided, that at 67 it was time to get me a camera for the last 20 years of my active life, so I got a Nikon F6 and to make it complete a D800E and some lenses. The F6 is imho the best slr that was ever made, but if Olympus was still making analog, I would have stayed there.
Regards,
Frank
A few months age I decided, that at 67 it was time to get me a camera for the last 20 years of my active life, so I got a Nikon F6 and to make it complete a D800E and some lenses. The F6 is imho the best slr that was ever made, but if Olympus was still making analog, I would have stayed there.
Regards,
Frank
Totally agree. They brought out the power focus system when everyone else had autofocus, I could never understand that move.
I had shot professionally with OM4ti for 10 years from mid 1980s to mid 1990s. The camera never let me down but when I was in the market for a new camera I switched to Canon EOS 1 (at the time IMO the best AF camera).
Olympus seemed to go downhill rapidly after that. Which is a pity as they had a great legacy of great cameras, there are plenty of models but my favourite is the Trip 35.
Really sad news. I use micro4/3rds as my digital format of choice because in many ways it mimicks what I ask from a film camera, but with all the added benefits of digital. In fact, my system for it is actually smaller than any of my 35mm manual focus bodies and lenses, and really the quality I get is excellent. That people seem to want to impose full frame systems on everyone is so short-sighted. If I wanted Sony, I would have gone for Sony! Excuse me for my rant, but the fact that people are not able to appreciate the amazing quality we get today from cameras, thinking their choice must apply to everyone is silly. The loss of Olympus is a loss for all photographers.
Part of my Nikon set up is centred around a Nikon 6 and as good as it is, walking with the camera and lenses can be quite tiring. I can get away with the 28/105 for most of my work but there are times when the 20/35 F2.8 comes into it's own. I also use a Tamron 90mm macro and that is very heavy considering it is a prime lens.
The Olympus lenses were small and light and extremely sharp, especially the 35/70 F3.6. I also liked the 21mm F3.5 as well. My last OM body was an OM4Ti which had outstanding battery life and lightweight as well.
Last edited:
I mostly do landscape or macro where a need for automation or AF is secondary, so fossil it may be but that works.
If this JIP have consciously decided to buy the Olympus camera division, that must mean that they want it. They are hardly going to buy a business and then shut it down. They have bought the business to make money - they are an investment company, making money is what they do.
May they have a porfolio that reads,
OLY mirror-less full-frames to compact m43 and bring lot of sanity to the prices.
Maybe, but it was enough bearing to turn off one customer, and turned off customers are what leads to demise.
The usual yada-yada we hear in that situation. If you won't buy Olympus now, because of this then good look in your life's other decisions. They sell the camera business. Have you got any idea how many business parts are being sold back and forth? Customers hardly notice that it happend.
That being said, it's never ideal when private equity is involved. But Ilford did manage somehow. Perhaps this particular fund was setup for a few rich film aficionados, who'd be upset if their HP5 disappeared...
When Ilford sent their factory staff home into safety we had people here fear about their supply of film. Or even if they'll ever restart production...
I don't think Olympus wasn't successful. But as the smaller player in a shrinking market they could feel the heat. Also in the announcement they mentioned that the imaging section contributes 5% of revenue. Despite the losses their motivation might be to not want to have to bother with such a minor part of their business. The decision for the MFT sensor is still right. Why would I want a full frame camera? Ok, the consumer is stupid and believes all the hype. But there is a market for the system. I see it first hand now how large full frame lenses are. The manual Minolta glass is ok. But modern lenses for my Minolta AF are just huge. My Sony 70-300mm is double the size of my Olympus zoom. And that one has twice the effective focal length.
But markets have a habit of dropping the better offering.
That being said, it's never ideal when private equity is involved. But Ilford did manage somehow. Perhaps this particular fund was setup for a few rich film aficionados, who'd be upset if their HP5 disappeared...
When Ilford sent their factory staff home into safety we had people here fear about their supply of film. Or even if they'll ever restart production...
I don't think Olympus wasn't successful. But as the smaller player in a shrinking market they could feel the heat. Also in the announcement they mentioned that the imaging section contributes 5% of revenue. Despite the losses their motivation might be to not want to have to bother with such a minor part of their business. The decision for the MFT sensor is still right. Why would I want a full frame camera? Ok, the consumer is stupid and believes all the hype. But there is a market for the system. I see it first hand now how large full frame lenses are. The manual Minolta glass is ok. But modern lenses for my Minolta AF are just huge. My Sony 70-300mm is double the size of my Olympus zoom. And that one has twice the effective focal length.
But markets have a habit of dropping the better offering.
4x5 FP4 Plus stock may nearly be gone here in the UK. A number of suppliers are sold out, and a few that remain have even raised the price by close to 10%. I've picked up a few boxes to ride me out for the next couple months, though unless production starts again, I fear I'll have to switch to something else.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |