Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 EZ....

[Oly5050]

I wouldn't be so optimistic. Olympus is like selling their discontinued bodies in the US at rock bottom prices that make mid to high end compacts like the LX5 and others look cheap. One has to seriously wonder what is their marketing thinking.

The RETAILERS are selling. Not olympus. Olympus has ALREADY sold the cameras to the retailers long time ago. Olympus is now gearing to sell the OM-D. In fact, maybe they already have sold the OM-D with the 12-50 to the retailers. In any case, why invest so emotionally into olympus. Just buy whatever you like, whichever brand it is.

 

[cannedpineapples]

That's the way to go. Remember when laptops first came out? "Professionals" said, we want more processing power. Desktops are fine. We will never use a laptop. Look what's happen now, and is continuing to happen with smaller ultrabooks/tablets/smartphones.

Always start with usability. The performance will follow.

The point is that these lenses all have to be small.

Look at how big the Four-Thirds lenses have been. While the 90-250mm would be smaller than a 180-500mm lens, did it really seem a representation of a smaller system? Does the E-5 seem smaller than dSLRs in its price range?

Panasonic and Olympus have been consistently pushing out smaller lenses, regardless of the image quality or the maximum aperture. It seems that they're willing to sell the system as small despite what professionals might think about other matters.

The aperture of the 12-50mm is no worse than the 18-180mm Four-Thirds lens and that has been surprisingly good for an average lens. You can't expect too much out of Olympus. They've been on the downslide for quite a while.

 

[NazgulKing]

The RETAILERS are selling. Not olympus. Olympus has ALREADY sold the cameras to the retailers long time ago. Olympus is now gearing to sell the OM-D. In fact, maybe they already have sold the OM-D with the 12-50 to the retailers. In any case, why invest so emotionally into olympus. Just buy whatever you like, whichever brand it is.

Actually, that model might not hold true. I suspect Olympus sets the prices. You can't just chop the price without some manner of agreement with the company. Nikon for example, just told all the US retailers to sell at MSRP.

 

[Oly5050]

Actually, that model might not hold true. I suspect Olympus sets the prices. You can't just chop the price without some manner of agreement with the company. Nikon for example, just told all the US retailers to sell at MSRP.

Actually, it is obvious that this is not the case with Olympus. Unlike Apple, which indeed enforces their MSRP, this is not the case for Olympus, and you should know that. If MSRP is enforced, the price for any item should be the same nation-wide or even internationally, to within currency exchange tolerances. It is obvious that for Olympus, MSRP is not enforced. My sympathies to your wallet if you actually buy at MSRP.

 

[NazgulKing]

Actually, it is obvious that this is not the case with Olympus. Unlike Apple, which indeed enforces their MSRP, this is not the case for Olympus, and you should know that. If MSRP is enforced, the price for any item should be the same nation-wide or even internationally, to within currency exchange tolerances. It is obvious that for Olympus, MSRP is not enforced. My sympathies to your wallet if you actually buy at MSRP.

This is splitting hairs, but the subsidiary that sets prices is Olympus America for America. Japanese prices are always higher than American, European prices.

 

[Oly5050]

This is splitting hairs, but the subsidiary that sets prices is Olympus America for America. Japanese prices are always higher than American, European prices.

If you think that Olympus is going to fail, bail out now and do not buy the OM-D and the 12-50 then. Just go ahead and do what you believe in. No one is trying to stop you.

Olympus America does set the MSRP. But is it being enforced? Just go and look at prices for Olympus stuff at the usual internet websites in the USA. If the prices are all the same, then it proves that MSRP is enforced. If not, then it is not. As for Singapore, I can tell you it is not. If you think it is, my sympathies again to you for believing the salesman.

 

[Oly5050]

Anyway, although I dun think I like the specifications of the 12-50, I must say that the size seems to complement the E-M5 body really well. May just get it as my walk about lens. In addition, the price for lens and body is not bad at all and represents great value to me. In any case, I think the 12-50 should have a good second hand market for those who are not keen to upgrade to the E-M5 body.

 

[cannedpineapples]

The GM for Oly Singapore himself said, he sells to retailers at a fixed price.. These retailers then decide their own margin... No enforcement of MSRP.

 

[bousozoku]

I wouldn't be so optimistic. Olympus is like selling their discontinued bodies in the US at rock bottom prices that make mid to high end compacts like the LX5 and others look cheap. One has to seriously wonder what is their marketing thinking.

EDIT: EP1 for 330USD. Anyone wants?

If they're selling them at rock-bottom prices, how would the compacts look cheap?

I've seen a few Panasonic deals, as well as Olympus deals and none were good enough to get me to buy.

However, it's always difficult to understand Olympus' marketing in the U.S.A., though it was much simpler when they introduced the OM-1 and OM-10.

 

[arsene]

Anyone know whether this lens will work with Lumix GF 1?

 

[NazgulKing]

If they're selling them at rock-bottom prices, how would the compacts look cheap?

I've seen a few Panasonic deals, as well as Olympus deals and none were good enough to get me to buy.

However, it's always difficult to understand Olympus' marketing in the U.S.A., though it was much simpler when they introduced the OM-1 and OM-10.

I think I meant to convey the impression that they are selling their MFT cameras at such low prices that they are definitely undercutting their margins severely.

 

[Atarandas]

I think I meant to convey the impression that they are selling their MFT cameras at such low prices that they are definitely undercutting their margins severely.

If they have old stocks, make sense to clear those old cameras anyway. All costs have been sunk on those old models , can recover how much , will be gains to Olympus.

 

[wonglp]

I think I meant to convey the impression that they are selling their MFT cameras at such low prices that they are definitely undercutting their margins severely.

I suppose it's great for consumers who's not into newest & latest.

 

[NazgulKing]

I suppose it's great for consumers who's not into newest & latest.

Considering the relative lack of progression among the Olympus cameras since the EPL1 until the EM-5 excepting the AF, it would have been a steal yes.

If they have old stocks, make sense to clear those old cameras anyway. All costs have been sunk on those old models , can recover how much , will be gains to Olympus.

The flip side is that they just gained almost no profit from these stocks and considering the imaging division has been bleeding money for years, what does that imply? What they hope is that people will buy lenses to go with them (which likely, most people won't).

 

[Agrivar]

Anyone know whether this lens will work with Lumix GF 1?

It should. but your GF1 wont show the FL on the LCD. You wont be able to control zoom speed etc. Basic function? Yes.
Note that this doesnt have OIS. That may be a problem for indoor, or lower light conditions when you cant raise your SS or ISO.

 

[Taenajedi]

Considering the relative lack of progression among the Olympus cameras since the EPL1 until the EM-5 excepting the AF, it would have been a steal yes.

new IS, weather sealing, vf to name a few.... a lack of progression? they have been progressing all the while in small steps. I agree that some design and execution of the ideas are questionable from my point of view. But there is definitely relative progression from every model/ batch since the P1.

The flip side is that they just gained almost no profit from these stocks and considering the imaging division has been bleeding money for years, what does that imply? What they hope is that people will buy lenses to go with them (which likely, most people won't).

and keeping the prices in its original profitable levels would do what for them? No one would be buying it, since there are more newer models coming out.. Its a loss in any case so why pick the option which actually makes them lose more? Every other company does this, clearance sales right? its not like they have the marketing and mindshare of canon and nikon.

 

[NazgulKing]

new IS, weather sealing, vf to name a few.... a lack of progression? they have been progressing all the while in small steps. I agree that some design and execution of the ideas are questionable from my point of view. But there is definitely relative progression from every model/ batch since the P1.

Your reading comprehension must have been bad. Since the EPL1 and until the EM-5, the only substantial change has been the AF. The EM-5 finally introduced a new sensor which should have been introduced as far back as the EP3. But for some stupid reason or another, they decided to shovel another round of bodies with a sensor that is 3years old excepting the new circuitry for faster readout. Even the signal processing is near identical to the EPL1. Want to bet an EP4 is in the works and will be out in the 2nd or 3rd quarter? They must be trying to emulate Sony.

and keeping the prices in its original profitable levels would do what for them? No one would be buying it, since there are more newer models coming out.. Its a loss in any case so why pick the option which actually makes them lose more? Every other company does this, clearance sales right? its not like they have the marketing and mindshare of canon and nikon.

I think that is the point. Their marketing is horrible and they overproduced way too many cameras and were forced to junk them, possibly at a loss. Now quit the defensiveness and just admit Olympus screwed up.

 

[bousozoku]

I think I meant to convey the impression that they are selling their MFT cameras at such low prices that they are definitely undercutting their margins severely.

Okay. I only see that they're not making a lot of deals and that they're trying to sell first generation equipment as though it is current.

I saw one deal on a television shopping channel but that was the E-PL1. The price was reasonable, if you didn't know that it had been replaced two times already. I saw a Panasonic deal in a store and it seemed quite good but then, the GF3 lacks the kinds of controls many people like. At the price, I believe many typical users would enjoy the image quality over the regular point-and-shoot that they would buy.

I can only guess that these sensors must cost a fortune in small volumes that Olympus apparently buy.

 

[Taenajedi]

Your reading comprehension must have been bad. Since the EPL1 and until the EM-5, the only substantial change has been the AF. The EM-5 finally introduced a new sensor which should have been introduced as far back as the EP3. But for some stupid reason or another, they decided to shovel another round of bodies with a sensor that is 3years old excepting the new circuitry for faster readout. Even the signal processing is near identical to the EPL1. Want to bet an EP4 is in the works and will be out in the 2nd or 3rd quarter? They must be trying to emulate Sony.


I think that is the point. Their marketing is horrible and they overproduced way too many cameras and were forced to junk them, possibly at a loss. Now quit the defensiveness and just admit Olympus screwed up.

I always criticize their decisions especially on implementation and design and I'm not defending them, just saying a point of view alternate from yours which IMO in their case makes more sense.

they probably overstocked their previous sensors that they have no choice but to clear them out by coming up with new bodies and with "new" features while all the time working within the old sensor's limitations. It might be frustrating to those people who understand how old their technology is (like a lot of us in this forum) but there are a lot more people who only look at what is new and currently released. From that strategy they can at least clear their old sensors faster. With the market growth they are facing being active and releasing new (only very slightly) improved bodies makes them look better to the average consumer.

its easy to criticize how a company screwed up, but it might just be much harder to manage and get out of that screw up.

Also, expect the 16MP sensor to last as long as the 12 MP did. Its just how they do it, I don't personally get it but at least if you do use their bodies, an upgrade every 3 years should not be too bad.

 

[Oly5050]

I think that is the point. Their marketing is horrible and they overproduced way too many cameras and were forced to junk them, possibly at a loss. Now quit the defensiveness and just admit Olympus screwed up.

I think we can all agree that Olympus can do better marketing. But in reality, you have to understand it is difficult to market something that is a little bit more intellectual. Its easy to market for eg a big sensor equals better image quality. Or more megapixels mean better image quality. You have a fact that seems to make sense to the conclusion. But as we all know, IQ is dependent on so many things. How do you market a smaller sensor is a better sensor because it is telecentric? How do you tell people about edge sharpness? How do you market these to a public that there is less vignetting? How do you market to people that more DOF is better than less? (people who shoot macro and low light portraits/group portraits will know what I mean). It is difficult because it is more intellectual...more academic. Only those who are in the know, will know.


As to whether that they way overproduced, and thus is an Olympus screw up - that is just your postulation. Anyone's opinion here is as good anybodys. So does that mean that other manufacturers/retailers do not drop prices for non-current items? For goodness sake, this is a standard sales strategy. Every manufacturer/retailer I know, drops prices to move non-current items. In the USA, this is common practice for cars, clothes, electronic items. The fact that you see this happening for Olympus cameras - DOES NOT MEAN A THING. Just because you see a 40-50% discount on the item, does not mean that they are losing money by selling to you. Do you know what the markup is in the first place?

One good example is furniture. You buy furniture in Singapore - it costs $2000. You go internet, you can get the same exact piece for $1200 plus shipping. 12 months later, the item goes for $1200 at the Singapore showroom. Is the retailer losing money by selling it to you at $1200? Do you think that retailer paid $1200 for that item in the first place?

This is definately OT now since it is not referenced to the 12-50. So if we all want to debate and discuss this further, then we should start a new thread.