Leandro DUTRA wrote:
> 2007/9/4, Bill Pearce <bs.pearce@xxxxxxx>:
>> We all approach this from the point of professional or extremely
>> enthusiastic hobbiests. We need to look at this as if we were marketing
>> professionals. The hard facts are that people are slaves to counting
>> megapixels. When a 10MP camera sits on the shelf at Best Buy flanked with
>> 12MP cameras, it will sit and they will walk out. When people read on DP
>> Reviewthat the 4/3 sensor has smaller, and therefore visably noiser pixels,
>> same story. Things just aren't looking good for Oly. For a minute or so, it
>> looked like they were about to overcome the disadvantages of the smallest
>> sensor, but they just can't catch up.
>>
>> Fortunately, I don't need to jump to a DSLR today. I think that we will see
>> some more good stuff to follow the recent Canon and Nikon announcements.
>> Let's all think about what the 6D will be. The FF Sony. (the incentive to go
>> FF isn't there for those of you that use predominantly longer lenses. For
>> those that use mostly wides, the super short lenses for the APS sensor
>> cameras are too prone to distortion.) Perhaps by next summer........
>
> Let's see if I understood it right… you advocate going with the
> masses? If everyone did that, OM would never have sold.
Bill can speak for himself, but you _almost_ touch on the central
question here: What does Olympus need to do to survive, prosper, and
reach their stated goal?
Olympus has stated they want to be the clear #3 in the market behind
C and N. They might be able to do that with cheap P&Ss, but the low
profit margins on what is becoming a commodity work against them.
Besides, if that's all they wanted to do, it would be easier for Oly
to simply buy some other P&S maker's market share and become #3 on
paper.
So it seems like they want to do it on the strength of their own
products. Whether you like it or not; whether you think Olympus is
loaded with engineering genius or not; the fact remains that
marketing is key to this effort.
Bill is right in saying that a camera that loses the pixel race will
sit on the shelf. Pixel count is one of the few objective measures
of picture quality for the masses, and missing the target everyone
else has already set by 15-20% does not bode well for Olympus. If
nothing else, it means spending a lot of advertising money proving
that the 15-20% is meaningless to PQ. That's a tough sell,
especially if there are other considerations *cough* noise *cough*
to deal with.
R&D also is key to this effort, to overcome the noise limitations of
the smaller sensor. It already has been discussed here several times
about how Olympus certainly does not have the financial muscle of C
or N or even Sorny. How much can they pump into marketing _and_ R&D
and still make enough profit so they can sell cameras tomorrow?
Finally, does Olympus know in which markets it wants to live? Cheap
P&Ss? OK, for as long as they can do it. But it's not a living for
them (or for C or N) as long as there are companies out there which
can fabricate decent cameras for less money. Midrange/prosumer, OK.
High end/pro? Doesn't look like it. You can't go four years plus
between flagship models without pole-vaulting technically past the
existing competition with each introduction, and it doesn't look
like Oly will do it this time. And after waiting four years, how
many people will want to wait _another_ year or so (in normal time,
never mind "Oly time") for The Next Big Thing? Besides, Oly has a
poor reputation for supporting professional photographers with field
replacement, etc. -- a reputation will take some time and some real
effort (money spent) to overcome. It doesn't look like they can run
with the big dogs -- certainly not right now.
So, with all that, can Olympus become #3 just selling prosumer ZLRs
and dSLRs? I don't think I'd put the mortgage money on that happening.
Steve
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|