Olympus cuts 30% of workforce

[bobatkins]

<em>Olympus Corporation, the world's third-largest digital camera

maker, will cut 4000 jobs, or 30 per cent of its global workforce, as

part of major restructuring forced by fierce price competition, a

report says.

 

</em>

 

<p>See: <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/Breaking/Olympus-to-cut-

4000-jobs/2005/05/11/1115585001630.html?oneclick=true"> article</a>

[brian_southward]

<P>This is sobering news but I think the truth is, the digital bubble has grown too fast. Consumers are over the honeymoon period with new technology and are less willing to replace and upgrade than the manufacturers had hoped (not just hoped, they bet the farm on it).</P><P>Digital opened the door to some new players in the camera market, like Sony, Panasonic and Casio, so things are tougher for the old guard like Olympus.</P>

[vick_ko]

In my mind, the camera makers tried to move into a market/business that is more akin to computer peripherals. One of the previous values of cameras was fine precision, and a value of being "valuable" (remember - don't touch your daddy's camera, it is expensive"?) You wouldn't imagine associating value to daddy's printer.

 

So, in the computer peripheral field, margins are razor thin, the requirement of precision is not valued, product life cycles are measured in months, and the competition is fierce. Leica may die of it. Kodak struggles. Nikon and Canon seem to have it under control. Olympus looks like they just took a mortar hit.

 

Vick

[robert_roaldi1]

It's interesting to watch the evolution of markets and the seeming trend toward semi-monopoly domination. I wish I understood these things better. I have seen many times on these pages when a newcomer to the hobby asks advice about equipment, that one of the predictable responses is that Nikon/Canon will give them more future expandibility should their hobby turn more serious. I always find this comical because 99.99% of the cameras that are bought (both pre and post digital) end up collecting dust in dresser drawer bottoms. But perfectly good equipment from Oly, Pentax, Minolta and others gets ignored because Canon offers a tilt/shift 24mm lens that 6 people bought last year. As if Oly/Pentax/Minolta/etc won't be good enough for them. It's odd because the choice is not made based on functionality or price, because all of these systems offer largely equivalent equipment at similar prices. But for some reason, the fact that Canon makes a top of line 1v ends up affecting the buying decision of someone buying a Rebel with kit lens who will likely never buy another lens. To my mind this is such odd behaviour.

 

This phenomenon happens not only in photography, but in all other markets as well. How else can you explain Hummers? Photography just happens to be what we talk about here. And so a bunch of companies making good product at good prices disappear and there is no clear cut reason why, other than some need we humans seem to have to validate our decisions based partly on what our neighbours will think of us. What! a Pentax? you're not a serious photographer! And Oly cuts 30% from their staff.

 

Human behaviour is a huge mystery to me.

[scott_eaton]

<I>Human behaviour is a huge mystery to me.</i><P>Like Pentax, Olympus, Minolta owners claiming their cameras and lenses are superior to Canon and Nikon's based on 'alternative psychology'. Basically, since they are using a prooduct counter to mainstream, it's better.<P>I keep hearing how these alternative brands provide superior results to Canon and Nikon dSLR's, but I never see those mystical images, and every time their top of the line digital camera goes up against Canon's lowest end Rebel 300 on dpreview, they generally spanked. Why then, should we buy them again?

[sl attanapola]

I dunno about that.I have seen results from Olympus,Minolta and Pentax digital SLRs and Compacts and they are pretty good.

 

The problem is that in the important digital SLR market they arrived TOO late and that even includes Minolta which released a couple of digital SLRs a few years ago.

 

Nikon and Canon took this part of the market by the horns and are reaping the rewards now.

 

However , anyone who says that any of them produce inferior equipment is talking through their ass and has clearly NEVER used any of it to quantify such claims.

 

Whether they are superior is another question.

 

Canon and Nikon also have a much stronger brand name just like Sony in Hifi.This does not nessarily mean that they9Sony) produce the best or even most desirable equipment though even if they sell more stuff.

[sl attanapola]

I dunno about that.I have seen results from Olympus,Minolta and Pentax digital SLRs and Compacts and they are pretty good.

 

The problem is that in the important digital SLR market they arrived TOO late and that even includes Minolta which released a couple of digital SLRs a few years ago.

 

Nikon and Canon took this part of the market by the horns and are reaping the rewards now.

 

However , anyone who says that any of them produce inferior equipment is talking through their ass and has clearly NEVER used any of it to quantify such claims.

 

Whether they are superior is another question.

 

Canon and Nikon also have a much stronger brand name just like Sony in Hifi.This does not nessarily mean that they(Sony) produce the best or even most desirable equipment though even if they sell more stuff.

[sl attanapola]

Moreover Kodak which is the number one seller of digital cameras in the US reported losses.There is lower and lower profit margins from digital cameras.Many camera companies probably make more money from non-digital camera sales anyway.

[bill_tuthill]

According to <A HREF="http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2005/05/09/afx2008925.html">this Forbes article</A>

Olympus announced two new high-end DSLRs. We can assume one will

replace the E-1. Speculation is that the other will not be 4/3!

If so, 4/3 looks like the biggest dumb idea since APS.

Digicam sales were up 20% year-to-year, but average sales price

dropped 17-18%, resulting in a 23.9 billion Yen loss for the

visual products division.

[Greg M]

The 4/3 idea never was good from the start. Olympus has always marched to it's own beat, for better or worse. Their AF film SLR's failed miserably, hence they had no stock of AF lenses for their users to have access to with their new DSLR system like Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Minolta did. There are very few alternatives to their own, expensive lineup of lenses for their 4/3 series, and that is almost guaranteed to never change if they now appear to be hedging their bet against their own system with an alternative format body. What lenses would a different format take, assuming the 4/3 lenses wouldn't create a big enough image circle? If I owned an E-l today I would be wondering about what the future holds for the system. As it is, I never thought much of it anyway. If the system died tomorrow nothing would change in my world. I'm not even sure what would change if Olympus dropped completely out of the market.

[joe_toole1]

Who says that Olympus is gonna be marketing a non 4/3rds body? Sounds pretty far fetched to me. Show me proof -not b.s. rumors...

 

The 4/3rds system is a great system for what I do. -Obviously I'm one of the 'losers' who invested in it. The lenses are digital specific -you rarely see any front/back focusing problems that plague the Canon system; and they are extremely sharp. FWIW I own the 14-54, 50-200, and 50 macro.

 

I started off with a Canon 10D, and it just about drove me crazy trying to use non-digitally designed lenses on that body. Even with my 'L' glass, the images were coming out soft with an alarming regularity.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, Canon and Nikon produce FANTASTIC DSLR systems, and I won't claim that Olympus lenses and bodies are better, but I will say that anyone who thinks that the 4/3rds system is a dead end doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. As long as there are CF card readers and USB ports I'll be just fine. It's not like the 'film' for my camera is going to suddenly dissappear from the market.

 

My system isn't dead, it's COMPLETE. Some people need to spend a little more time working on the concept of 'enough.'

[bobatkins]

<em>Some people need to spend a little more time working on the concept of 'enough.' </em>

 

<p>

In the US, enough is never enough. Better, faster, newer sells product, not "enough". "enough" gets you into bankrupcy.

<p>

None of this is about cameras. It's all about commerce.

[joe_toole1]

I didn't mean selling product, Bob, I meant that us photographers need to know when to be content and happy with what we have.

[sl attanapola]

In other words in the US people are NEVER happy with the cameras they buy.Hence the people who bash Pentax,Minolta and Olympus digital SLRSs are hypocrites!

[KenPapai]

<i>I started off with a Canon 10D, and it just about drove me crazy trying to use non-digitally designed lenses on that body. Even with my 'L' glass, the images were coming out soft with an alarming regularity.</i><P>

Try a little harder then. First of all <b>buying "digital" lenses for a 10D is a complete waste of time and money</b>. Any of the better EF USM lenses, and of course the L lenses will give you superior results on a 10D. Getting soft images with L lenses? Either your technique with the camera and/or your digital darkroom skills are seriously lacking or you have a mysterious bad set combo of lenses and 10D body. I now shoot nothing but L glass and have "soft" images only when I screw up (about 10% of the time).

[sl attanapola]

What is your problem?

He like's Olympus glass! Big deal!

 

Some of you people act like it is an attack on your own person. Get a life and stop worrying about what his preferences are!

 

If you get superb results with Canon glass - good for you!

 

You do not need to go all personal just becuase it is not his cup of tea.

 

People can prefer what cameras they like - the US and UK are democracies.

[joe_toole1]

I can assure you Ken, it's not my technique. Many years of shooting slow speed slide film taught me a thing or two.

 

One would figure that after spending upwards of $3500. one would be able to get consistently sharp images. Sadly, that was not the case.

 

Look at the Canon forums, and you'll see others complaining of what I speak.

 

Let me reiterate: I am NOT bashing Canon here, they're obviously #1 for a reason, but my point is that Olympus designed an entire system, that appears to me to be seemlessly compatible.

 

It has been my experience that mixing new digital bodies with older non-digitally designed lenses is not all that it's hyped to be.

[craig_gillette]

Unfortunately one of the easiest ways to get "costs" under control is to slash the workforce. The hard part is picking the right people to slash. Quite often those seagulls driving the slashes fly away, to find another statue to foul. (FWIW, having been "the future of the company" one year and laid off the next, my thoughts are slash heaviest from the top.)

 

30% is a tremendous slash. Blame America (or the American consumer) first? That kind of shallow thinking won't keep Olympus afloat. There is a European market, there is an Asian market, there is a South American market. The camera is becoming a consumer item, not a specialized hobby or professional item. And they need, like the others, to come up with a reason why a camera/phone/pda/mp3 player, won't be the next consumer choice. Or to make at least part of that hydra. They need to be taking pictures out in the rain in their ads - while you see all the others scrambling for shelter!

 

Olympus needs to differentiate itself from the pack or gain enough name recognition that they can compete in the consumer market. And that market really doesn't care that the OM-1 was a great little camera. It isn't the technofile that is going to save them.

[sl attanapola]

They seem to be joining forces with Panasonic to make a digital SLR.

Perhap's there will be Zuiko "lenses' on the mid to low range Panasonic phones and Leica "lenses" on the more expensive ones.Hmm!

[ilkka]

Maybe they should have used some of those 'extra' people to build a new E-2 already a year ago. I think 4/3 is a good idea, something in between digicams and APS sized DSLRs. Good enough for newspaper use and many other purposes. The problem is that newspapermen have been using their Canons and Nikons for 3-4 decades since they moved up from M Leicas. All other manufacturers have an existing base of SLR users with selection of lenses that can be used in the new, expensive body. Yes, expensive, even the humble D70 or 300D costs as much as a pro level film SLR. To be forced to spend another 2-3 grand to get a couple of good lenses is quite an investment. E-1 was not a bad body, but it was a new system and many waited to see what will happen. E-300 is another good product, but the whole system falls so far short of what Nikon or Canon has that few serious photographers are willing to take the risk. Olympus really should have got that E-2 out a year ago, and introduce an E-3 by now even if it will only be delivered next year. Digital is changing so fast that people need to have confidence that there will be a future. It is a big investment and the risk of getting into a dead end is too high. Canon and Nikon have proved it, Minolta is promising it. Pentax has been too slow and should have done more especially to keep their MF shooters.

[ike k]

Bla bla bla bla bla, you guys too much talk! just shoot on whatever you have and can

afford. I guess famous photograhers Ansel Adam, HCB, etc never spent too much talking

on gears,instead just went out and shoot!.

[ilkka]

Ansle Adams had a lot to say. He even wrote a several hundred page book just on Cameras.

[Dave Luttmann]

Joe,

 

Maybe you should have learned a basic thing or two on unsharp masking. Canon is known for slightly soft out of camera images due to their AA filter. Basic USM 101 corrects this on the 10D and leaves you with a sharper, more detailed image than that from the E1.

 

As far a 4/3 goes.....it was such a GREAT idea that nobody else is going ahead with it as yet. Like anyone couldn't see that coming. What a joke. In North America, the standard print size is 4x6. Goota love having to crop EVERY shot from an E1 to print. And considering the ALL the other pro DSLR cameras use the old 35mm aspect ratio, Olympus was fighting a loosing battle going up against Nikon, Canon, Fuji, and Kodak.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Re <I>Digital opened the door to some new players in the camera market, like Sony, Panasonic and Casio, so things are tougher for the old guard like Olympus.</i><BR><BR>Casio is abit an "older player". They had digital cameras before there were flash cards. One used a serial cable as the only way to download the files. Casio had an electronic still camera in 1987; before photoshop even existed; this was an analog electronic still camera. (then folks didnt use the weaselword "analog" for film). <BR><BR>The Casio QV-10 came out a little over a decade ago; a full digital camera. THIS WAS THE FIRST DIGITAL FOR THE AVERAGE JOE.; it is 1/4 Megapixel; 2 megs of memory. When it came out Win 3.11 was MICROSOFTS TOP OS; what I used on my 90Mhz Pentium photoshop box with 16megs if ram; that cost 3000 bucks. Chicago; later called win95 when released; came out after the casio camera I used was bought. At that time 9.6 or 14.4 modems were normal; with a new 28.8 costing me 285 dollars...<BR><BR>Sony had electronic still cameras over 2 decades ago; in the early Reagan era. <BR><BR>Olympus was the latecomer to teh electronic camera market; they came 2 decades after Sony; about 1 year after Casio. Olympus digital came our in 1996; the Camedia C-400. The Apple camera came out in 1994!; 11 years ago for a digital camera. Kodak had a 1.4 Megapixel sensor in 1987

[sl attanapola]

Who prints 6" x 4" from a dSLR? At least 8" x 6".Most print sizes such as 7"x5" and 10" x 8" have a 5:4 anyway so neither 3:2 or 4:3 ratio will work anyway ideally at least in the UK.

 

Also ALL CURRENT digital p ans s compact cameras have 4:3 RATIO DIGITAL SENSORS.

 

People who use such cameras MAKE UP THE MAJORITY OF THE MARKET and are more likely to print at 6" x 4" due to cost anyway.

 

Anyway Olympus is big in the Medical Imaging market.