Olympus dalliance with DSLRs over?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: RichA on 23 May 2010 11:49 On May 23, 5:32 am, DanP <dan.pe...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Unfortunately, I can't, I have to stick to the Panasonic or Olympus stuff as I must have an EVF, I don't want to be confined to using only an LCD, especially with manual lenses.
From: Peter on 23 May 2010 14:32 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a6shv5957v58allbegblkllecdmqset4jp(a)4ax.com... > 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? > > Just curious. You never answered my prior question about your affiliating with Olympus. Was there a reason? -- Peter
From: Peter on 23 May 2010 14:36 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010052309371325485-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-05-23 02:32:26 -0700, DanP <dan.petre(a)gmail.com> said: > >> 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 Thir >> ds. >>>>>> 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 > > Rich isn't going to buy anything. > He probably buys food for his table. -- Peter
From: RichA on 24 May 2010 00:06 On May 23, 12:37 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-23 02:32:26 -0700, DanP <dan.pe...(a)gmail.com> said: > > > > > 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 Thir > > ds. > >>>>> 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 > > Rich isn't going to buy anything. > 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...
From: Bruce on 24 May 2010 06:03
On Sun, 23 May 2010 21:06:02 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >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... I wonder why Sony abandoned the in-camera anti-shake of the Alpha system, instead using an in-lens anti-shake system for NEX? |