Olympus quits camera business after 84 years
bbc.com
bbc.com
As a matter of principle, I've been buying exclusively Nikon for almost my entire time in the hobby. I always saw Canon as a large conglomerate who tacked on photography as another arm of their company, where to me Nikon feels more focused on optics as a primary business line. Honestly, I should almost start buying more Pentax gear.
I worry we're slowly approaching a monoculture in photography, but it's hard to convince folks outside of the hobby to care.
There's a good reason for it -- they appear to make the very best sensors (edit: in terms of dynamic range and noise) in the commercial-camera market. Canon makes their own sensors, which are good in absolute but not relative terms, which appears to hold them back in performance. I don't know if it is patent-related or process-related.
While I use Canon imaging systems, I don't see the choice to use other brands as better or worse. Each manufacturer's line has strengths and weaknesses; you pick the best tool for the job. Essentially every camera and optical system on the market, in absolute terms, is a wonderful instrument for imaging.
This reality is intensely freeing -- it means you can focus more on the image and less on the instrumentation. "f/8 and be there" is still wonderful advice.
First of all, there's two companies: Semiconductor and Imaging. Sony opens some of their technologies to other customers by transferring Imaging unit's patents to Semi and allows them for re-licensing. So, not everyone is using the same sensor even if they are coming out from the same fab.
Second, there's customer tailored sensor business. Sony can provide a customer a baseline to start and, customer can customize this sensor according to their needs and got it produced for themselves.
Lastly, there's strict division between customers in semiconductor side. So Sony Imaging can't access to specs and design of other customers' sensors.
How it works in real life?
- Sony A7 series use Sony's sensors with all their secrets at their disposal but, not with Nikon's and Fuji's secret sauces.
- Nikon orders customized, "Designed by Nikon" sensors to Sony Semi. Sony Imaging cannot access them (unless they buy and disassemble a Nikon Z).
- Same for Fuji. They have less rolling shutter in XT-4 for example, and it's again built by Sony, for Fuji. No, Sony Imaging can't play with them.
- Canon R5's sensor is "Designed by Canon". I'm not sure they are producing it. Sony or Tower Jazz maybe producing it. I don't know.
At the end of the day, the fab is almost one but, designs are many and diversified and, nobody can see each other's design. Like TSMC and Global Foundries.
It's not very very different in the bigger picture if you ask me.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Hope their fab lives on.
The fact is that there is a completely different technology on the market which produces very different – and arguably far superior – image quality and colour reproduction compared to 99% of digital cameras on the market. The Sigma system can be clunky and the sensor tech has its drawbacks (eg almost unusable above 200 iso), however given the right conditions the images they produce can be stunning.
I mainly use an Olympus em5 mkII so I’m saddened by the OP news, although I will wait to see how it plays out before switching to Ricoh and/or Pentax. Guess I have a thing for the underdogs.
https://petapixel.com/2020/06/05/towerjazz-hints-that-nikon-...
Nikon has also used Toshiba in the past but probably 80% of Nikon's DSLR sensors were made by Sony.
Aptina's sensors were pretty spectacular from an AF perspective in that they had phase-shift AF on-sensor in 2011. The AF was as close as you could get to DSLRs on a mirrorless camera for quite some time. It's just too bad that Nikon came up with a weird set of 1st generation Nikon 1 cameras that made no sense to anybody.
IIRC, Aptina ended up cross-licensing their patents to Sony.
Sony sinks tons of money in their tech because other companies use them as a factory, so that makes total business sense (and along with samsung and a few others, they do have cutting edge imaging tech). Canon is different in that its much more vertically integrated so it rarely makes sense to drop millions of dollars on sensor fab upgrades unless they're going to make the money back. They have dozens of filed patents on all the technology that the competition is using, so I don't think they're lacking on the IP front.
I don't think photography is where the concern lies these days. All medium/flagship cameras from major brands today are more than good enough for photography, commercial, sports, landscape, advertising, editorial, or whatever...
It's more about the video...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2017/01/23/samsung-f...
It's a little early to state this. Once the R5 and R6 come out we'll have a better idea of their capabilities as those are slated to have their new tech (8K video etc etc).
(Dual-pixel AF doesn't just give way better AF, it also avoids artifacts from dedicated phase detect pixels that other cameras have.)
If I were making video, I suspect I'd be singing the same tune. DPAF is excellent.
Weird. How do arrive at that conclusion? Typically pros pick Nikon or Canon FF DSLRs. It's very common at least among photojournalists & wedding photographers.
Now mirrorless is the hot stuff. Sony/Fuji/Olympus started earlier, and after a few year, Nikon & Canon decided to join to camp.
If you are into high end studio/gallery work, you'll use medium format equipments like Hasselblad/Phase One/Fuji/Pentax.
An don't forget Leica. At least still historically relevant because their of of the pioneers of 35mm photography. Fine film cameras, but not really sure about their digital ones.
I still pick Nikon as my primary system, simply because the lens compatibility: old lens from the 60's/70's work fine on their FF bodies (those pre-AI lenses need to be modified first, though, unless you shoot with a DF). Can't say the same thing with Canon, which historically have different lens mounts (FL, FD, EOS).
It's worth noting that Sony's cameras are the descendants of Minolta, and the same applies. Any A-Mount (born 1985) lens should work, with functioning autofocus.
While a lot of people mocked the Nikon 1 series (because of their strange form factors and handling), they were the only mirrorless cameras that had autofocus nearing DSLRs for several years. They were actually pretty good cameras.
But... It was all so expensive. So expensive that for a while the perception was that Nikon was pricing it to protect their precious F-Mount lineup.
And, maybe they were, which wouldn't have been the WORST idea, because it did keep too many people from buying into the system (which, quite frankly, may not have fared well long term anyway, once the right technology was in place for larger sensors to focus as fast as the 1 series could.)
I do also know that some of the system's cost is because the small sensor size necessitated -very- good glass to get good image quality. (Smaller sensor but same MP = higher demands on glass)
The tech was pretty good right down to the end of the line. The J5 is a pretty fantastic camera. Basically a Sony RX100 (it is a Sony sensor unlike the Aptinas in its predecessors) with interchangeable lenses.
I still prefer the handling of my J5 over my Micro 4/3 cameras. The J5 is what the V1 should have been on day 1.
The lens ecosystem was small (I have most of the "affordable" ones), but they happened to be in the focal lengths that matched up to my favorites on my APS-C DSLR at the time. The one thing I loved about the N1 was how small they were. I could carry multiple bodies and lenses in a small bag that would be filled up by one dslr and two lenses.
Yeah, it was a bit pricier than it should have been, and their marketing sucked. Instead of trying to sell it as a great camera for people who wanted something small and capable they tried to sell it as the perfect second backup camera for DSLR owners. Which is stupid because the perfect second/backup camera for DSLR owners is another DSLR with the same lens mount.
Seriously.. their service is so fantastic & easy to work with it puts you at ease shooting with their expensive stuff.
I think this has more to do with it than anything to do with sensors or almost anything else when it comes to really serious photography and especially anyone who's running a business.
No one is happy to see another option disappear though. I agree with the sentiment that the biggest risk is too many cameras having Sony sensors inside though. Too much of that and at some point they're all Sony, even though the design of the exterior of the camera & the ergonomics can still be major differentiators.
I had lost all warranty papers, but my local photography shop insisted that I contacted Canon. Had to leave the camera on the official service office, and a month later I had to go and pick it up. The camera was good as new, they even cleaned it up and fixed a few mechanical issues in the lens. No papers needed, it was a Canon camera, the issue was a manufacturing defect, they were practically honor bound to fix it.
That day I decided I'd keep buying Canon for a while. Two cameras later, after buying a G12 and a G16 I decided to go for an Olympus OM-D EM-10. The camera is great and I love, but it sure stings to see them leave the market.
According to articles from that timeframe, issues were found in Sony CCDs manufactured between 2003 to 2005 surfaced from autumn 2005 to spring 2006, that moisture intrude through either surfaces of plastic packages or through a glue/cement used to fuse optical glass to ceramic packages, and thereon an iodine component in a glue used inside the package reacts to that moisture and corrode bonding wires connecting CCD die to IC pads.
Ultimately it lead to a free replacement program for 87 models total spanning across 9 brands until it ended in 2010/2011.
Not to downplay your experience but sounds like everyone was hit and responded in similar ways.
[0] https://www.fixya.com/support/t114938-canon_digital_camera_r...
A big ticket item like a camera is at extremely low risk of counterfeits, and every participant from the manufacturer to the place of sale will track the serial numbers of cameras shipped, so the "chain" can be reasonably reconstructed by only the camera itself.
For SD cards it's the other way around - no one tracks the serial numbers along the chain of purchase and there is a massive issue with counterfeit product. Requiring a proof of purchase at least helps to filter incoming claims...
Canon: https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/02/09/a-look-at-c...
Nikon: https://nikonrumors.com/2018/02/10/this-is-what-heaven-looks...
Canon also is known for top notch lenses, which is the real core component of a camera system. You may spend $2k-3k for a camera, but as a professional you'd spend much more money on multiple lenses you need that are all $2k+ each, and you'd be using the same lenses each time you replace the camera body.
Canon cornered the professional market this way.
Especially for Cameras and Lenses that's solely on user's mind.
Your photos speak for themselves. You absolutely don't need Canon or L glass.
BTW, maybe you are not up to date with the current developments, but Canon gets a lot of hate and is looked down because of their mirrorless systems.
The new king is Sony
This is similar to the difference why Fedora is free, but RHEL costs over $300 a year for basically the same software just with added support. Professional/enterprise services are very different from what consumers need.
The new Canon RF lenses are pretty amazing (albeit expensive) though, and the new Canon mirrorless bodies such as the R5 are shaping up to be highly competitive products.
Sony's ecosystem also has many amazing third-party lenses. A personal favourite of mine is the Voigtlander Apo Lanthar 65mm f/2.
[1] https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/03/sony-fe-135mm-f1-8-... [2] https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/08/some-new-wide-angle...
Tell that to Ken Rockwell!
for pros, the ruggedness, battery life, support, autofocus of dslrs are still important.
This, sadly, is unlikely to change because high quality lenses are very hard to make. Development takes years and the market is relatively small. And as glass, even for a serious hobbyist, ends up being much more expensive than the camera body, the reason to pick a third party body is just not there.
The 10% I disagree with is the stigma part. I have never noticed it. Unless you are shooting pro sports from a dedicated area filled with fellow photographers you are unlikely to see people who would know or care what you are shooting with. "A really big camera, much bigger than my cell phone; must be really good" is probably all they think. The reason almost everyone in the Canon world uses L glass is because it is so frigging good. My 2c.
I picked up a 50 mm f/4 Macro Takumar for under $100 on eBay. I already had a couple nice Takumars and SMC-M primes that I can keep using. It’s awesome.
Granted, I’m shooting furniture under continuous light. It’s not a super demanding application. If I were a pro photographer, I’d probably be shooting the same kit as everyone else for the same reasons.
To note, you don't have to isolate yourself to manual focus - there are to manual to autofocus adapter for the Sony E mount. Indeed, there's the original Techart LM-EA7, as well the much cheaper knockoff that is the Fotodiox Pronto. As far as I know, this is one of the few instances of an American knockoff of an innovative, expensive Chinese product :). The knockoff is so egregious that it actually can use firmware updates from the original.
If you do decide to go with the knockoff, it's only about 170$ to make your manual lenses autofocus, though it's slightly slower than native and doesn't work in video. It can't completely autofocus lenses longer than 135mm, so if you're shooting telephoto you will need to focus very roughly and then it will correct it.
I thought mirrorless cameras were already outselling DSLRs.
Agreed, but mirrorless is not a full replacement for DSLR, at least not yet. For static scenes in good light my phone camera is already all I need. For static scenes (or slow motion) in lower light mirrorless seems now just as good as DSLR (so they eat some of DSLR market). But for fast motion or long ranges DSLRs still excel. I tried mirrorless but did not like it -- if I am carrying something that does not fit in my pocket I might as well take a bigger DSLR (and enjoy better autofocus and optical viewfinder that does not kill my night vision). But that's just me.
So no, I don't think DSLRs have better autofocus than mirrorless cameras. Mirrorless cameras can also do things like eye AF, video tracking AF, and so on.
In volume, yes. In profit, it's still close, but mirrorless has been closing the gap for a long time.
And Sony used to be king of the hill with mirrorless, but Canon and Nikon have quickly caught up and the playing field is a bit more level (even as Sony holds the crown for most of the technical features).
The thing is, ecosystems matter a lot past the hobbyist stage and there are still a zillion more Canon and Nikon lenses floating around that people love and use.
That said, I now use both Sony (APS-C mirrorless) and Nikon (full frame DSLR), and like both for different things. But I wish I could have my Nikon lenses on my Sony (with no compromise), and wish Nikon made some of the great smaller-sensor size lenses that you can get for APS-C or micro 4/3rds.
I don't follow that stuff, but does Metabones make a Nikon F -> Sony E speed booster?
> Nikon made some of the great smaller-sensor size lenses that you can get for APS-C or micro 4/3rds.
They did make smaller lenses, but for the Nikon 1 system, which was an underrated system. I became a 4/3rds shooter when Nikon cancelled the Nikon 1 line, but I still use my J5 (which is what the first gen Nikon 1s should have been like). IIRC, adapted Nikon F mount lenses on Nikon 1 focus fairly quickly because of the on-sensor PDAF, but you're limited to center AF only.
Really? I had no idea (as an outsider.) I thought Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm, etc were all pretty much equal in terms of serious quality. I thought their DLSs all looked pretty much the same. Is that not the case?
Obviously, I exaggerate for effect - but a pro body should first and foremost be utterly reliable no matter what it is subjected to...
(Oh, and it should be compatible with the lenses you already have - as they can easily be a few thousand dollars a piece. Now, that's some serious lock-in!)
Those two questions drive as much of my camera choice as do technical concerns.
I wonder how often that will happen with other brands like Alpha.
Honestly, I wouldn't buy Nikon or Pentax or whatever just because no aftermarket firmware.
However, take a look at articles like this[0] to see just how prevalent Canon gear is at professional events. Apparently, they even have relations with a lot of press outfits to have them exclusively shoot with their equipment.
[0]: https://www.shutterbug.com/content/battle-canon-vs-nikon-sup...
The brand wars are mostly an amateur thing.. once you decide on a brand if you're really serious and especially if you're running a business you don't jump brands over little differences in sensor performance because it's too much financial churn and you lose your muscle memory switching to a camera with a different control layout.
But it really sucks if your gear goes down and it's hard to get it serviced.
Canon's service is fast, excellent, and much more affordable than replacement.
And when you're talking about camera systems, the camera itself (which is where Sony currently has the lead in mirrorless) is not the biggest factor in choosing a brand.
Canon and Nikon both have tons of specialist lenses that are still not available (or only have one flavor specializing in one space, at one very high price point) on newer mirrorless platforms.
And if you've invested $50k-100k in lenses (e.g. for a photography department) are you going to turn on a dime and dump that gear for new fancy Sony equipment that costs more than your old glass? Likely not.
And many PJs still need some of the qualities that you can really only get in top-end Canon or Nikon DSLRs (as someone else said, ability to drive nails with the camera, and huge grip).
As a concrete example, imagine if you were tasked with taking footage or stills of one of the protests at night. Would you rather bring a rock-hard large-gripped body that could even be used for protection? Or a smaller body with a screen that would break from a minor scuffle and cheaper plastic, less waterproof construction?
As a point of humor, the Nikon paper was the working man's paper for city dwellers. The Canon paper was for suburban commuter suits.
Fujifilm, Nikon, and Panasonic are using Sony sensors, however.
And you're right, most high-end photos take amazing photos. There's some variance in their color science, but most can take near-identical photos. I think the main differentiator among the camera is haptics.
I didn't see any downsides to using the Fuji ecosystem. I loved it. Every time I found something that might be disadvantageous in my line of work, they fixed it (eg. Capture One support). In fact, if I were to have upgraded, I would've gotten their medium format camera.
Ok, this is a little vague, because are you referring to digital or analog?
When I was a kid, everyone was shooting full frame, because, well 35mm was the de-facto standard for film. Although my first camera was a 110 format camera, which is a hair smaller than a 4/3 sensor today.
Meanwhile, my teenage daughter is over here taking - IMO - close-to-professional quality photographs using an Olympus E-PL2 and the kit lens, available all day long for $100. It’s all in the mind of the artist.
Amateur photographers can be almost as bad as watch snobs, and with little more purpose.
You could just as well be talking about preferences in operating systems, barbecue sauce, coffee, diets or web frameworks.
On the other hand, for "prosumers" who have high standards for image quality but don't want to shell out for a top-of-the-line full-frame setup and don't need extreme AF or low-light performance, I think it's great because you don't end up buying bodies that are compromised in stupid arbitrary ways just to fit neatly into their appointed place in the product lineup. My X-Pro2 cost like $1700 new and it has all the best tech Fuji had to put in a camera at the time. I actually think it's great for people like me that they decided to go all-in on APS-C, and I hope they stick around. My X-Pro2 is probably my favorite camera I've owned in my life and I've had quite a few.
My second favorite would probably be my Olympus XA. :(
It seems FujiFilm will be competing in the ASP-C market for a long while.
That's how all the Mirrorless manufacturers managed to survive early on IMO.
In the case of Sony, basically throwing you everything the hardware COULD do.
In the case of Panasonic, I think of the GX7 and how it didn't skimp on buttons (Something Sony is still guilty of.)
Is this a real thing? Do people actually care about that?
Weird. The few other camera people I know, and a couple are pros, are all Nikon. They are the reason I went Nikon so many years ago and still use Nikon today.
Edit: manual only if that isn’t obvious
Just for reference, what is now Canon started purely as a company making camera bodies, using lenses from what is now Nikon (who didn't make cameras themselves until much later).
They're a big conglomerate now, but they're a camera company at their core.
I would love to support Nikon as well, but affording one good camera system is hard enough. And quite frankly, everyone is suffering. Spreading our bets for the sake of competition can also lead to no single company being sustainable.
Really? I know this was sort of true a while back but Nikon has definitely caught up. In fact Nikon's D850 smoked the competition at the time and definitely has gained respect even in the Canon community.
I believe it's the video market that you might be referring to? Canon dominates this because of their AF system and Sony is now obviously established as well. Nikon and other's have usually been pretty lagging in terms of Video functionality.
I use almost exclusively lenses from 20-60 years ago and conveniently avoid all the Nikon vs. Canon vs. Sony, L vs. non-L ridicule and so on. It's kind of nice because when it comes to my equipment people don't know what to ask and then just start talking about actual photography as an art.
> to me Nikon feels more focused on optics
This must be one of the few times in history that saying a company focused on optics is used in a positive way
That said I think Canon and Nikon had some kind of IP agreements and shared some technologies, or I may be wrong.
The two decade long tobashi scheme by Olympus Imaging Executives to hide billions in losses.
"While early activities generated profits in 1987, by 1991 Olympus recorded 2.1 billion losses. Rumors circulated that by the late 1990s, losses had grown larger.
Rather than come clean and admit the losses, management continued to ‘double down’ with riskier investments.
Olympus created a tobashi scheme to shift losses off the Olympus balance sheet. Companies located in the Cayman Islands were purchased via exorbitant Management and Acquisition Fees.
When the first Western President, Michael Woodford, questioned these practices, he was fired after two weeks on the job. Woodford became perhaps the first CEO ever to blow the whistle on his own firm.
The subsequent scandal brought arrests of the executive team, an 80% decline in share price, the threat of de-listing on the Tokyo Exchange, and an international look at Japanese Corporate Governance. "
Also, while still producing a deficit, the camera division managed to improve the balances quite a bit over the last year. A completely new production facility was opened not long ago in Vietnam, and new camera models and lenses were launched, others still in the pipeline and the plans are to bring them to the market.
I am a very happy Olympus user and definitely hope, that their lineup has a long future. I see mFT as a great alternative to the ubiquos "full frame" cameras, which are, if you look at the complete sets, more expensive and especially bigger and heavier. And despite of the "small sensor", Olympus cameras produce excellent results, to no small amount due to the excellent optics.
The main problem is that the market itself has been shrinking, and there's just not enough room to have so much competition (Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Fuji, Canon, and Nikon).
M43 was successful, but it succeeded in an area that is shrinking faster: Smaller form factor/lower optical powerful photography equipment; exactly the kind being eaten alive by smartphones.
While Panasonic and others will continue the M43 standard for a while longer, the writing may be on the wall. Some competition have moved into niches (e.g. medium format, videography, etc), which may have better longer term stability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_system
I have an olympus micro 43 camera. I really like it. Though when the top button broke, They wouldn't send my local camera fix it shop the part, and it ended up costing more money to fix than it should have. I like it for traveling as its good but light and while not a subtle as a phone camera, its not a serious looking as a "real" camera.
Never used an Olympus, never understood the point of one. If I cared about photography in a serious way I'd have already bought an A7 of some flavor.
That all sounds big until you realize an a7 body is like minimum $1000.
That 25mm Panasonic lens is a boss, though. I have two, along with the shorty 20mm Panasonic (which is not as good; it doesn't do AF-C, wtf?) and the 42.5mm Panasonic (which is the most delightful lens I own if I have enough room to use it).
I also have two of the Panasonic 14-140mm video lenses, and while I don't love shooting at like f3.5 they are invaluable when I'm working on-site.
I see a connection there :). The Olympus cameras are extremely capable, yet small in size. An E-M10 or E-M5 have a tiny body and there are extremely compact lenses to match them. Yet, despite the smaller sensor (compared to 35mm) you don't sacrifice much of image quality (or none at all for many tasks) due to the excellent lenses.
(Apparently IBIS used to be a differentiator, but as I have learned in this thread, the G9/GH5 have it and retain their lens OIS too.)
That advantage evaporated after Sony released A7 in 2013, which was almost equal in size yet contained a vastly larger and more capable sensor. Olympus hung on while A7 line was still expensive, but now that one can get an older used model for as much as a new micro-four-thirds one, Olympus bit the dust. Many saw this coming for a long while.
Panasonic's GM series is all but abandoned, and the E-M10 is hardly small compared to a Fuji X-E3 or Canon M50.
To me, that always felt like M43's Achilles heel; it promises to be small and light, yet most kits actually end up just as big as APS-C.
I still love my GM1, though.
This is obviously all nonsense if you're enthusiastic (or professional) enough, but I struggle to bring my camera along as it is.
9-18, 15 f1.7, 45 f1.8 such a tiny tiny kit
The two biggest actual advantages of FF, to my mind, are lower sensitivity to small inhomogeneities in lens glass (but this is not super important) and larger maximum FET capacitor size.
The good astro shots you've seen are probably compositions of multiple photos. That is arguably the only way to get good low-noise shots with any consumer sensor technology, just due to the extremely high dynamic range of the sky and the physical realities of shot noise.
This is a meaningless statement - there are too many free variables you’re ignoring.
How large the pixels are is not all that relevant for how much light can be gathered - the actual physical constraint is (the angle subtended by the sensor & lens * physical aperture diameter)^2.
I've owned three Olympus cameras. The first was a mju-1 compact camera in the early 90s (known as the Stylus in the US - the original one before they added a zoom). This was a remarkably good camera, with a great lens at a nice practical 35mm focal length (like the old Trip line, which I never got to use) in a really stylish body. I sold it a few years later when I really needed the money... The other two have been M43 digitals - an E-PL3 (now in use by my kids), and an E-M5 mark II, which has been my main camera for a few years and which I am very fond of.
It is interesting to me that while phone cameras have improved by leaps and bounds in that period, progress in the M43 space seems much slower.
Why? Most cameras made after 2014 are more than adequate for most non-pro hobbyists. A recent vintage Olympus or Panasonic M43 camera is still pretty competent, and assuming you mean 4/3 by "full four thirds" and not "micro four-thirds", you can always get a mount adapter to use it with an M43 camera. IIRC, the E-M series might work best with the old 4/3 lenses from a focusing perspective though.
For example, Cosina has a lineup of high quality manual-focus M43 lenses such as the recently released Voigtlander Nokton 60mm f/0.95: http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/voigtlander/mft-mount/mft-60m...
One market that hasn't been explored by camera manufacturers is software upgrades. I would pay a fair bit of money to get some of the latest computational photography features on my 5 year old camera.
How much of that is an actual difference in the camera tech and how much of it is subjective perception?
I suspect for things like the two photos you linked to, even the best professional photographers would struggle to tell the type of camera was used to take them. By the time they've gone through a few apps and services and they're being viewed in Google Photos they could have come from a phone, or an M43 camera, or even a high-end medium format dSLR.
I do wildlife photography when I'm not building web stuff (https://www.instagram.com/onion4k/) - that's pretty much impossible with a phone camera simply because you need to a really long focal length for any animals that won't come close to you, but I still see people out in the countryside giving it a try. I often wonder if they're happy with the pictures they take. I suspect they are. For most people photography is about recording the moment more than producing a print quality picture.
The out of focus area is a dead giveaway for anyone who's even remotely into photography. Phones are very good at taking snapshots but they're extremely limited by the sensor size and the fact that the lens has a fixed aperture, no amount of computational photography will solve these physical constraints. You can't escape physics and optics laws
True, and kudos to the photography industry for that. My fully mechanical, analog, 1992 Zenit camera has the same hot shoe flash system and tripod mount as current cameras coming out. With a cheap simple adapter I can also use its original lens on any digital camera.
The Canon EF mount was introduced in 1987 and new cameras are only now ditching it for a new standard to take advantage of new technology, and not for the sake of breaking backwards compatibility and forcing customers to buy the latest and greatest.
It's like having a beat up old 4x4 pickup. It gets the job done, and if you bang it up a bit in the process...oh well.
Pixel 3: https://i.imgur.com/Tl9Qjhj.jpg
Phones are good snapshoters but for everything else a dedicated camera will be superior in every way besides size.
For video recording I found this sony one could only manage an hour on a full charge.
Five year old cameras are likely past the cliff of "too slow "for a lot of feature improvement, though. I have a GH3, a G7, and a GH4, and they all have the same sensor but even the UI on the GH3 runs slower and chunkier. Trying to wedge more stuff into it seems like a bad time.
Granted the bluetooth is very slow and image editing on a smartphone is fairly rudimentary but personally I prefer not to edit images too much.
"Good enough" would be that you take a picture on your camera, and it's available as a thumbnail in your phone's gallery without any further action. Sharing it would trigger a full transfer.
"Great" would be being able to edit and upload without taking your phone out of your pocket at all.
It blows my mind that we still live in a world where product makers don't get the cloud. People no longer want to think of data as living within physical devices, managing copies and transfers. They want to skip to the "job to be done".
It’s completely true, but you would travel back in time and tell that to the CEO, the result would be the same. There are so many structural issues to solve to prevent that. Hell Olympus took decades to give up and join the SD card wagon.
"Uhh, ok," was pretty much my reaction. Hope you get a lot of money from it at a pawn shop. Maybe that 32MB SmartMedia card might be worth something.
Back in the days of early compact digitals, the Olympus lines were such a great value. The technology overall wasn't that great to begin with so no one was head and shoulders above everyone else. Olympus solidly beat everyone on price, though.
I'm on my third TG and absolutely love it. We vacation on the beach and some of my better family photos were taken in the water with the camera. It is a tank that performs.
Six years ago took my son to the beach for the first time and had a blast with him and the other kids. Lots of great photos. Stupidly, I didn't wrap the camera around my wrist, but put it in my pocket. The Atlantic is unforgiving and it knocked me down and with it my camera escaped. Looking for it was hopeless and I went back to the hotel dejected.
Next day we're on the beach and someone walks up to me and hands me the camera. I jumped up and hugged them so hard. Turns out it washed up four hotels down and they reviewed the photos and found our room number and hotel. They were on the way to drop it off when they saw us on the beach. lol
Now I keep a wrist wrap and a floatie on it. Lesson learned.
I think there are only two lens options, but apparently they are very good, and should be pretty cheap now, since they were a niche offshoot of an already niche (and discontinued) product line.
Their APS-C cameras are fantastic. Their full frame camera is the best value for the money - almost half the price of the competition with comparable quality. Pentax has unique features for the enthusiasts.
But ... the ecosystem is dying. Sigma stopped making Pentax lenses. At this point I don't think anyone makes lenses for Pentax other than Pentax, and Pentax lenses are expensive compared to Nikon and Canon. So while the Pentax full frame body is an excellent value, once you start adding lenses to the picture, Nikon and Canon still win in the total cost arena. Pentax FF has very few choices of modern lenses. You could buy their film era lenses, but supposedly modern ones are a lot better in quality.
I'm a Pentax user. Used to by an Olympus guy. Kind of sucks to have to go through this all over again.
They only just came out with the GR III (the II was almost no change and didn't do well).
Their design choices are baffling. You could set up the GR to have tactile physical controls for all the things you may want to change on the fly, but the GR III has a touchscreen instead. It also has a 30% lower battery life (which wasn't exceptional to begin with).
Though I suppose the USB-C port is an improvement.
Pentax glass is really nice, I wasn't bothered about sigma. The more annoying thing is flash support always sucks for Pentax.
Pentax glass is great. It's also expensive! I want medium quality options.
Most pros or prosumers go for the higher-end APSC or Full Frame lineups. In my experience, they don't take the m4/3 stuff seriously.
For regular folks, m4/3 is too expensive. For the same price, they can use their phones (or buy an APSC camera). The quality is negligible thanks to all the software enhancements the phones do.
Panasonic is at least focused on video. That helped their market a bit. But who knows how they'll do in a few years? They've entered the saturated full frame market. Pentax is probably in trouble too. They don't even have mirrorless offerings.
No matter how good phones are there is still a clear advantage M43 has over them.
I think just about all of the older guard are in trouble. Things sounded pretty ominous for Nikon last year and I'm sure COVID-19 isn't helping camera sales. https://petapixel.com/2019/11/12/nikon-says-its-cameras-need...
Phones keep getting better.
Olympus neglected video for far too long and Panasonic's autofocus has been inadequate for many years.
Both companies have produced incredible cameras but both had and have substantial weaknesses they never properly fixed.
This is a huge misconception. From my perspective, any camera (including M43) made after 2014 is more than good enough for most "regular folks" looking to level up from a smartphone. Yes, the top end stuff can be expensive, but regular folks shouldn't be buying that stuff until they're ready to get to the next level.
I bought most of my m43 gear as open box or used. The same with my lenses. You can get something like an E-PL6 body for a couple of hundred bucks, and it takes great photos.
pro tip: buying camera gear from Japanese sellers off eBay is a good way to get stuff, because they're super trustworthy and the gear is in the exact condition they say it is.
The feel of the thing definitely got me to buying the E-M5.
But on the other hand the underlying problem is quite true: Since the advent of the smartphone I see myself rely more and more on my smartphone (even tho I still don't really like that "look", but as long you don't plan to have a professional photo shooting it's "good enough").
On the other hand: the camera business seem to have stopped any evolution. I didn't see one thing in the last 10 years that made me go "what a gamechanger! I need that!"...
That's not true at all. Recent innovation in diffractive optics & phase fresnel lens (gap-less) designs is a gamechanger that has recently allowed compact lens designs to compete with larger, heavier lenses. For wild-life photographers looking to travel and fit their gear in the overhead bin, its a gamechanger. Sony's Eye AF is a gamechanger for portrait photographers looking for increased productivity. Mirrorless cameras with live EVFs are gamechangers for photographers who no longer need to take a test-shot to check for exposure (mainly blown highlights which can be avoided with live zebras). Sony A9's triple stacked sensor design and its super fast read-out is a gamechanger for shooting sports w/ a silent shutter (e.g. golf).
There are plenty of game changing technologies. Ofcource, it all depends on what it means to YOUR photography.
The fact that cameras are so good that no one has managed to improve them is a good thing. I can buy a high quality camera now and still get great performance out of it in ten years, and when I want to switch gear if I've been careful I can sell it at very similar prices to what I paid for it. Since the only reason I was updating my phones was camera quality this also makes it a good long term decision as each two years I pay 500$ less on my phone as I buy an older model that suits me just fine.
Edit - replaced 'DSLR' with digital
I thought all of their 4/3 cameras were DSLRs and all of their micro 4/3 cameras were mirrorless?
And I got this cool lens-cap for it https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00I1CP2MU/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b... that has an automatic opening when you turn the camera on, great for traveling.
Before that I had the E-P2 https://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Interchangeable-Digital-Elect...
I'm still using the telephoto lens that I got from the E-P2, it wasn't very expensive, I think it's this one https://www.amazon.com/Olympus-40-150mm-F4-0-5-6-Panasonic-C...
I still have a Camedia C3030 Zoom for some reason with all the doo-dads (extra flash extension, XM memory cards) it had an awesome F2.8 lens and could take very nice pictures @ 3MP. I replaced it with an C5050 Zoom that had an F1.8 lens but gave that one away when I replaced it with a Canon SD550 (which for some reason I also still have :-)).
I joked on Twitter that the "big feature reveal" for Canon's 2020 DSLR would be that you could make phone calls with it. So much of the camera market was consumed by phone cameras.
While it has done wonders for bringing the price of sensors down, the really important bit of the camera, and the part where Olympus had an edge, are the lenses.
I hope whomever buys the camera unit can continue the tradition with some better choices.
I guess my point is that if they add a phone, it won't make phone calls without a lot of stress, so you probably won't use it.
Edit: I realize that adding a phone is a joke.
It's the march of progress, but their mirrorless cameras were solid. I have a couple Fuji X-series bodies myself, and I wouldn't be surprised if they announce something similar any time soon. Amazing body, amazing glass, amazing software, amazing photos... but at the end of the day, the incremental increase in quality and/or flexibility doesn't make up for the form factor. And now that camera software is so damn good, and we're utilizing multiple lenses with multiple optical ranges to make a composite photograph...
snapshots are all that 99% of people ever needed, but I really thought the mirrorless cameras would eventually supplant dslr.
As in do Walmart and Best Buy still sell digital cameras to normal people? Yeah.
I anticipated Project Ara meshing the two worlds by adding high quality modular photo capture options to an Android phone. Pixel and iPhone have such excellent photography that it's almost moot.
But still if there was a cell phone meant for photography I would be sorely tempted. The RED phone was a bust but perhaps someone else will somehow package a lens and a phone in a way that means you can always have both.
I hope there are no more "deaths in the family" in the photographic industry anytime soon, as the market is already down to only a few large players left. Personally, I love my Nikon equipment and hope they continue to make gear for decades but even Nikon and Canon seem like they'd be at risk, now.
I have a sophomoric understanding of the shift from SLR --> DSLR --> Sony led Mirrorless cameras.
Where do we go from here?
How do things like Hasselblad's X1D II entry level medium format shape up the market? Do more companies go down market? Do the Sonys of the world go upmarket?
On one side, medium format cameras are shrinking in both size and price. The Canon 5D Mark IV is thicker, taller and heavier than Fuji's GFX 50R[1]. Medium format cameras aren't quite as small as full frame mirrorless cameras, but they are no longer impractically large either. If image quality is paramount, size and cost will no longer rule out medium format.
On the other side, APS-C cameras are now firmly in the 'good enough' area of the image quality curve - even for many professional applications - and they are continuing to improve. If you have other practical considerations and can do with lesser (but still excellent) image quality, APS-C will be your choice.
But the downside is they're not cheaper in the prosumer space. The spatial resolution demands put on the lens by a 20MP M43 sensor is actually pretty similar to a 42MP Sony A7Rii. This means the manufacturing tolerances are the same as full frame, which is a large component of lens cost.
This means that for the average consumer not interested in long range wildlife photography where the price of glass does come into play (e.g. 600mm), there isn't any price advantage.
As an example, have a look at the 12-100mm F4 for Olympus (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1281427-REG/olympus_v...) vs the new Tamron 28-200 F2.8-5.6 for Sony FE (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1568708-REG/tamron_a0...)
The Tamron actually outperforms the Olympus lens in terms of spatial resolution/sharpness on a 24MP sensor (because the photosites are larger), has a 2 stops faster wide end, and is $500 cheaper.
Even more interesting is that there is only a 14g difference in weight between these two lenses. Granted the Olympus will have better weather sealing.
The average prosumer is going to do the math and see that for a lower total system cost (body + lens) they're getting more in terms of sensor and lens performance for a negligible increase in weight.
This wasn't true in the early days of Sony's FE system, but as of 2020 with modern, sharp, short flange lens designs from 3rd parties - the price/performance ratio has become better than I ever predicted it would be
That said, I don't like that Olympus lens. I don't have it and have no interest. Like you said, it's a bit silly and defeats the purpose of the format. But give me the 45 prime and I've got a camera with great reach that can nearly fit in my pocket.
EDIT: Oops, on the above post I meant to say that the $2000 glass can't match my Olympus. No idea why I can't edit that post anymore...
The picture quality of that camera was better than even Canon or Sony, and it cost less.
Sad, but I haven't heard anything about Olympus for a long time. They developed their own standard for mirrorless cameras, but then kind of vanished, at least in my world :/
I have an equivalent lens for my Nikon J5 (so I'm in no rush to pick up the 9-18 - or I should say -was- in no rush prior to the Oly announcement), and it's the lens I use the most during the day when traveling. When I travel, I usually bring my J5 with the wide zoom and my GM5 with a pancakey lens (switching cameras is easier than lenses, imo) plus a lightweight long zoom.
However, when I was ready to upgrade my OMD-EM5 purchased in 2009 (11 years ago!) - I started the move away from my M43 system. And heres why:
Cost - The Nikon Z6 with an FTZ adapter can be had for $1550 brand new. Compare that to a new OMD-EM5 MkII for $1200 - the EM5 just can't compete.
Size - the Z6 + Nikon 24-70 F4 S is really not that much bigger than the EM5 MkIII. Add the Nikon 24-70 F4 S lens, and the size difference is negligible. But the AF capabilities and image quality are far superior.
Compatiblity - The Z Mount is absolutely amazing. With third party adapters you can use just about any lens (Nikon F, Nikon S, Sony FE, Canon EOS) with full autofocus capability. The Z Mount is the most universal mount anyone has ever come out with.
Video - I am not a video user, but the Z system has an excellent reputation for video. Olympus never really concentrated on video - they seeded that market to Panasonic.
All of this with an amazing echo system and with the first gen Z mount it is quite amazing already. And the Z mount going forward I feel is going to allow Nikon some amazing things - largest diameter with the shortest flange distance allows for unique designs and edge to sharpness that is absolutely amazing.
I know this is turning into a Nikon Z love fest, but the point is - with the new entries from Nikon & Canon, combined with average consumer going to the cell phone instead of a traditional camera - Olympus simply had to invest way to much in R&D to justify the possible profits. The shrinking camera market just put a stake through the heart.
It is sad. Olympus was the most innovative camera company. They were the first to have sensor cleaning, the best in body stablization, amazing lens and real-time exposure. All with the most robust bodies in the business.
It is sad to see such a great company with a respected name go to an investment group. They will probably use the brand and make sub standard products going forward or milk the brand for a quick buck.
Here's to hoping that some other company comes in restores it to its former glory.
Your points read very strange:
Cost: you are omitting the cost of the lenses. See how much FF 600/f4 will cost you compared to Olympus 300/f4 Pro.
Size: ditto. The camera body is half of the story. You need to compare the whole system with lenses.
Compatibility: there is a gazzilion lenses made for m43 by Olympus, Panasonic, Sigma, etc.
Video: The latest releases E-M5m3, E-M1m3, E-M1x are no threat to Panasonic but are perfectly capable video cameras. Even E-M1m2 was reborn with the new firmware.
Some other advantages:
Weather proofking—second to none.
IBIS—second to none.
Quality optics: Olympus pro lenses can be used wide open without significant loss of the quality. This is not the case for most of the high end FF lenses.
Computational photography: Live Time and Live Composite are amazing. High-Res handheld mode is amazing. Live ND is a nice option. Starry AF works perfectly.
Sadly all you describe could be pulled up 5 years from now when it's Canon that is leaving the came a market, or Nikon....
Nikon has the best mount/technology base going forward. Canon has the most money. Canon/Nikon will survive. I see Sony, Pentax, Panasonic leaving the camera market.
It's tough because the irony that you don't make a ton of money in the imaging industry selling cameras. Like Pentax now is the part Hoya didn't want (however happy or not they were with what they got in retrospect). It looks like Olympus also just wants to focus on science and medical optics.
That's why I sort of worry about Nikon. They do semiconductor/flat panel stuff, but they are way less diversified than Canon/Sony. Either their camera business has to be successful or they have to expand the other segment/s.
I don't think it has to do with how deficiency in products or technologies, but if the high-end camera market changes, Nikon is probably the most sensitive of the big players.
Panasonic is still making cameras. All of the M43 cameras since around 2014 produce images that are good enough for most people.
The lens ecosystem is pretty complete.
The size advantage is still there, and if you get a recent model, there's no reason to think that there's anything that will stop any of the cameras from working long term outside of battery availability or camera failure. And in that regard, Olympus (more so than Panasonic) has been using the same batteries for most of their cameras since the beginning of the PEN line.
That said, the market for point and shoots and other low end to medium end cameras got really eviscerated and Olympus couldn't find a way to compete at the higher end.
I am glad Olympus decided to sell M43 cameras, as those are you actually take with you.
The Sigma E-MD I that actually has all of the features you're talking about was almost as big as an A7. The lenses were smaller, but if you don't mind horrible apertures that you have to get on M4/3 you can also have very small and light lenses. Even moreso if you go APS-C.
The lens system also has huge pricing issues. The f2.0 zoom on M4/3 is equivalent to the kit lens on a Sony A7ii. That's a ten times price reduction! My A7 with a pancake lens is small enough that I can actually slip it into my pocket (!)
Compromising image quality for portability at such an extreme extent is not a good idea when smartphone are so plentiful. If sensor size and optics doesn't really matter, then why not take pictures on your phone? They have amazing IBIS, innovative computational photography, and so on.