From: Grimly Curmudgeon on
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
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
"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
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
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.