Help out a noobie?

[SLC Flyfishing]

They make some awesome electronics equipment too.

I also don't see them going anywhere with their camera line. They had some awesome stuff in the 60's and 70's with the OM line of 35 mm cameras, they never owned a huge portion of the market, but they were there making impeccable cameras. Many people I know who are now shooting Nikon and Canon professionally, transitioned into digital from Olympus 35 mm gear. They made the switch because the 4/3rds system was new and nobody really knew if the IQ would be there, it is and the cameras and lenses are still awesome, If I were to buy a 2nd system it would definitely be Oly.

 

[tony-in-japan]

They make some awesome electronics equipment too.

I also don't see them going anywhere with their camera line. They had some awesome stuff in the 60's and 70's with the OM line of 35 mm cameras, they never owned a huge portion of the market, but they were there making impeccable cameras. Many people I know who are now shooting Nikon and Canon professionally, transitioned into digital from Olympus 35 mm gear. They made the switch because the 4/3rds system was new and nobody really knew if the IQ would be there, it is and the cameras and lenses are still awesome, If I were to buy a 2nd system it would definitely be Oly.

I see that you are a Pentax user. What made you choose Pentax over the monopolies of Canon and Nikon? It seems Pentax is very similar to Olympus in that they have made some great cameras and lenses but have only a small percentage of the market. Is it to do with marketing and consumer perception? It is definitely not due to sub-standard products as I have researched and discovered that there are many areas in which Olympus are leading and innovating. I suppose these days having a good product is not good enough -- you have to be aggressive in all areas to succeed.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I was brought up on Nikon, my father had a late 60's F series camera, it was fantastic and fully manual; you only needed a watch battery to run the light meter.

Nikon has definitely moved away from everything that made the old F camera so special, some of it was just the times, some of it was to keep up with the competition. I didn't feel connected with the camera when I evaluated the Nikon D80 or D200. They were nice cameras for sure, but something was missing. The K10D just had that something, I can't put my finger on exactly what it is but it's there. It's probably got a lot to do with the user interface, and the overall feel of the camera. I'm also a fan of the contrasty lenses that Pentax offers.

Also, I prefer prime lenses greatly to zooms, Pentax isn't matched in the 30-100 mm prime range (which is where I shoot 99% of my photos). I'll take a Pentax 77 mm f/1.8 limited over anything from any other brand and that's for certain.

I went into my DSLR purchasing experience absolutely certain that I'd buy the Nikon D200, but in the end, the K10D was the bast camera for me.

 

[compuwar]

With regards to investment, entering the DSLR field is more focused with building up a lens collection, and with Zuiko lenses having such high regard amongst professional, they are likely to retain their value over time.

If the lenses were more regarded, Olympus would have more than ~3-4% of the global market and more than 1% of the professional market. It's either that they're not really that highly regarded, or they're simply not that attractive despite the regard. Carl Zeiss lenses tend to be well-regarded, but then you get into the "is it a European one, or the Sony contracted one?" and "is it that much better than a Nikon lens?" So far, the ZF series don't seem to be taking the Nikon world by storm, and head to head comparisons jus don't justify the difference even amongst most aficionados.

The truth is that all good lenses hold their value well over time. The other truth is that Canon has the bulk of the professional market, and Nikon has an increasing and also large share everyone else appears to be regarded as a non-starter by most professionals- if you're going to measure by professional standards, then lots more things matter, and they can be different than things that amateurs worry about- for instance if you have to do architectural photography you can buy or rent a tilt/shift lens for either Canon or Nikon- but Olympus doesn't make such a lens. Only the most recent Olympus bodies are comparable in terms of dynamic range to the entry level consumer Canon and Nikon offerings. All other things being equal, a smaller sensor loses out in terms of noise, sensitivity, shallow depth of field and diffraction- and it's pure physics- nothing a manufacturer can do to offset that choice once it's made except go to a larger sensor or compare to past generations of sensors.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I suppose these days having a good product is not good enough -- you have to be aggressive in all areas to succeed.

We're having this exact conversation in another Pentax-centric forum that I'm in. We've lost a very talented Professional fashion photographer (one who's located in Paris and regularly shoots 12 pages of images for publication in the fashion magazines and who dumped a Canon sponsorship for Pentax) because he was vocal on some of the larger message boards and he claims that Canon executives threatened to pull advertising on those sites and magazines if he wasn't dealt with. Seems they don't like anyone of influence promoting anything but their products. He was banned from DPreview, and Popular photography called Pentax and told them to silence him or they would stop reviewing lenses and cameras until he was. I think that's despicable and apparently so did he because when Pentax asked him to refrain from participating at popphoto he quit. He thinks Pentax should give them the finger and let him to continue to promote the brand online, and that's exactly what he was doing. While he was there we had a ton of new users selecting Pentax, and tons of people buying small Pentax kits to supplement their Nikon or Canon collections; they wanted access to the lenses he was using for his published work. He says he'll still shoot Pentax and that he won't accept another sponsorship from anyone so that he can do as he wishes.

My point with all this is that there is a certain "myth" if you will that goes along with Nikon and Canon. I see it with Canon more so than Nikon, but everyone sees all those R2D2 appendages poking out from the sidelines at sporting events and thinks "if they use it, it must be the best". Hell, even Nikon and Sony make white tele zooms, probably so that people can feel like a "pro" when they buy them. What the Pentax sponsored guy I was talking about was doing was creating a "myth" in the fashion photography industry and putting the Pentax name on it. I think that when Olympus and Pentax finally understand that they've got to capitalize on the "myth" that high profile users can create for their brand, they'll remain with a small market share.

You're right, it's not because they have substandard products. In my experience it's the opposite, I've no doubt that my camera was as good as or even better than any others in it's class at the time (D80, D200, 30D, K10D), but there's no "myth" associated with the Pentax brand so we have situations like the recent one where someone asks for DSLR suggestions as long as they are Nikon or Canon. It's because there's a perception among uneducated shooters that those brands will make you a better photographer.

SLC

 

[termina3]

It's because there's a perception among uneducated shooters that those brands will make you a better photographer.

I'm going to assu(&)me that was partially directed at me. I never said major brands made you a better photog; I said that there's a higher possibility that the smaller players will eventually fall out.

There is something to be said for a huge majority of pros using a certain brand. The logical conclusion is that pro-line offers something that the other brands don't.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily carry over into the consumer (or even prosumer) lines.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I'm going to assu(&)me that was partially directed at me. I never said major brands made you a better photog; I said that there's a higher possibility that the smaller players will eventually fall out.

There is something to be said for a huge majority of pros using a certain brand. The logical conclusion is that pro-line offers something that the other brands don't.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily carry over into the consumer (or even prosumer) lines.

Well no, I didn't even think of you at all when I wrote that, but I was referring to people in general. If they didn't think that one brand would make them better because the pros use that brand, there wouldn't be much of an incentive to market that way.

And no, there isn't anything about Nikon or Canon that will make you a better shooter. Sure Canon has some things to offer that Nikon and the others can't, it's a camera with an obscenely high frame rate. But Canon can't give you a well sealed camera body with awesome image quality for about $1,000 and some great normal to short telephoto prime lenses to go with it either. You see, it's all about what you want and not about what's best. Those types of arguments are pointless and never go anywhere.

My challenge still stands for everyone. Go to an photography gallery where there isn't any information about the photographs listed, look around and tell me which camera or which brand for that matter, took the photos. I'd be willing to put some money on the line that says you can't make more than a guess.

But seriously termina3, you didn't even cross my mind when I wrote that. But I still don't think that Olympus or Pentax are going anywhere, they've been in the same segment of the market (enthusiast oriented) for decades and done just fine there. Arguably doing better now than they have for years in Pentax's case.

SLC

 

[termina3]

You see, it's all about what you want and not about what's best. Those types of arguments are pointless and never go anywhere.

Agreed. I won't pursue that, hopefully no one else will.

Go to an photography gallery where there isn't any information about the photographs listed, look around and tell me which camera or which brand for that matter, took the photos.

Well, obviously, the good photos would be taken by Nikons, the OK ones by Canons, and the not-so-good by anyone else. I mean, the photographer really has very little to do with the shot, right? (/sarcasm)

But seriously termina3, you didn't even cross my mind when I wrote that. But I still don't think that Olympus or Pentax are going anywhere, they've been in the same segment of the market (enthusiast oriented) for decades and done just fine there. Arguably doing better now than they have for years in Pentax's case.

Good to hear

Agreed, they probably won't go anywhere as long as they're profitable. I still wouldn't want to "risk" it (call it an irrational fear, if you like).

 

[Phrasikleia]

I never said major brands made you a better photog; I said that there's a higher possibility that the smaller players will eventually fall out.

The same was said about Apple back in the day. Even as recently as two years ago I had a very tech-oriented friend predict the imminent demise of Apple based on Apple's low market share.

 

[compuwar]

The same was said about Apple back in the day. Even as recently as two years ago I had a very tech-oriented friend predict the imminent demise of Apple based on Apple's low market share.

Were it not for Microsoft's pre-ipod cash infusion, that might well have happened. The attempt to rationalize support of a company by tying it with support for a completely different company in a completely different segment is about the worst form of projection though.

SGI was, at the height of the bubble a very innovative computer company- not so much anymore. Got anything that takes a Contax/Yashica lens?

The fact is that even in an expanding market, Konica/Minolta had to be purchased by Sony (who won't touch a K/M lens for repair for all the money in the world.) If energy prices continue to rise and we have a large multi-country recession, it's going to affect the smaller players a lot more. If number three on the list had to be purchased in a growing market, then concern for the longevity of the others isn't too far misplaced.

How far down the small player ladder makes sense?

2006 dSLR numbers looked like this:

Canon 46.7%
Nikon 33.0%
Sony 6.2%
Olympus 5.9%
Pentax 5.4%

2007 dSLR numbers so far:

Canon 42.7%
Nikon 40.0%
Sony 6%
Olympus 6%

Now, that's with the entire market growing ~42%, 5% of 7.4M units is still a good number- but what happens once the market is saturated? Let's say that 200,000 units is a good year, the market can pretty-much dry up and Nikon and Canon will still have good years. If we drop to a 2M unit year, things aren't going to be great at the low end.

I'd say most of Canon's share loss to Nikon was an attempt to keep the ASP high, and if Canon starts to drop in low-priced models, both of them can make it really tough for the lower cost higher feature players.

 

[Phrasikleia]

The attempt to rationalize support of a company by tying it with support for a completely different company in a completely different segment is about the worst form of projection though.

Oh, I could probably think of worse forms of projection, but my point is neither to rationalize nor to project. My interest in the comparison lies not so much in using Apple as a predictor of success for companies like Pentax or Olympus, but in the mindset that draws customers to "alternative" companies. You have to admit it's an interesting parallel, given that this is a Mac forum.

I think that same friend I mentioned would probably stand by his prediction today, asserting as he did two years ago that an investment in Apple hardware and software is unwise, given the company's puny market share. But for many customers, a company's prospects for longevity is a minor factor in deciding to "join up" with them.

When it comes to enthusiasts, doomsday talk about minor players falls on deaf ears.

 

[tony-in-japan]

When it comes to enthusiasts, doomsday talk about minor players falls on deaf ears.

I like to think it comes in cycles. Major players with a monopoly eventually become corporate, greedy, bloated and eventually fall. Smaller players but with a good philosophy and stable business foundations (if they don’t go out of business!) will grow to become more successful (and become major players), especially if they have a gem of a hit on their hands (e.g. Apple with their iPods).

Smaller companies generally tend to value their customers more while bigger players can easily become arrogant and care less about customer satisfaction. So to always back a company just because it has the biggest market share I think is either foolish or an act of fear (or even a lack of individuality to explore alternatives). Every company has their strengths and weaknesses; people have individual needs and preferences. Maybe a smaller player has a philosophy similar to your own and fills your needs better than those with a monopoly. You never know unless you go out and explore for yourself to get your own individual experience.

 

[compuwar]

I think that same friend I mentioned would probably stand by his prediction today, asserting as he did two years ago that an investment in Apple hardware and software is unwise, given the company's puny market share. But for many customers, a company's prospects for longevity is a minor factor in deciding to "join up" with them.

When it comes to enthusiasts, doomsday talk about minor players falls on deaf ears.

But your friend hasn't really *looked* at Apple's market share if they're talking longevity, since Apple has almost 18% of the portable computing market share- behind Dell and HP, but ahead of Sony, Gateway, Lenovo and others- would your friend say the same thing about those companies dropping their portables? Apple also owns 72% of the portable music player market share, and gets higher margins than most of the other manufacturers.

Pre-Ipod, Apple was in serious trouble, but if you look at the year-to-year numbers, their growth was pretty good, their margins were great and they're sitting on a pile of cash. There are lots of Amiga and Next owners who lost their upgrade paths despite innovative products- Apple could have gone that way, and probably wasn't the best choice back then (if it was even a good choice.) However, if you look at Apple now, they're not a marginal player.

Olympus's financial story has been similarly good- pulling out of the red just a few years ago, however personally I think the smaller 4/3rds sensor is a strategic mistake that they're not going to be able to back out of any time soon. A lot may depend on if they can firmware fix the E-3's banding issues the way Nikon did with the D200, but they're currently nowhere near the premium price points that Canon and Nikon are getting for the 40D and D300- which are selling like hotcakes. Lens price hikes are a long-term profitability strategy if I'm reading the annual report correctly- not good news for their customers.

So long as the market's big, everything's good for everyone- and increased competition certainly helps us all. If the market contracts though, things may get "interesting."