Olympus to sell off camera division

[ricohflex]

David Thorpe is a devotee of MFT and he is entitled to his opinion to sing its praises.
We do not know if he is directly or indirectly rewarded by Olympus or Panasonic.

About his claim of only needing 2,000 across. Probably wrong if you want to print at 300 PPI.
But then again, how many of us hobbyists print big photos nowadays? Very few. Most of us do not even print small photos. We just keep the files in the hard drive or other memory media. We may go bankrupt if we printed very large photos often.
People who print photos taken with small sensors expect/insist that you to see the photo from a far away viewing distance.

Do not confuse Needs with Wants. If Needs alone decided market success of a product, then most people will be driving 800cc cars. But there are many higher engine capacity fancy limousines and sports cars - and those are the more successful ones. That is, the Wants decide in a buying decision. Buying is an emotive process. Thus, David Thorpe arguing that MFT meets your Needs, is pointless.

Just because I don't print big photos does not not mean I do not want a big sensor. Of course I do. Provided it is affordable.
It is sheer foolishness to go against the tide of technology improvement/price drop.

David Thorpe may or may not have mentioned 3 things.
Big sensors have better dynamic range, better tonality and better low-light performance. Compared to MFT.
This is important in still photos.
And even more important in videos.

Now Panasonic has made full frame sensor cameras in addition to MFT bodies. Probably before or by 2023, Panasonic will abandon MFT.
Olympus is the sole company exclusively making MFT mirrorless ILC bodies.
Now ask a common sense question.
If MFT was so great, then why don't the other manufacturers Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Leica, Hasselblad, Sigma and Alpa join in the MFT alliance after 2008?
They did not. Because they took a long hard look at the future of MFT and it is not rosy.

Making full frame mirrored DSLR cameras was good for Nikon. Now that they have gone into mirrorless ILC Z mount cameras, even better.
Making full frame mirrorless cameras was a success for Sony.

MFT faces a big threat from APS-C. Not just from full frame. Some APS-C cameras are actually smaller than some MFT cameras.
Consumers will ask, if I want small, why bother with MFT, when some APS-C bodies are smaller?

For NEW users just beginning to build a system, they have to be very careful about stepping into MFT in the year on or after 2020.
Once they are heavily invested in a system, they are more or less stuck. Unless one is very rich and money is no object.

If you want a system with potential for future growth in digital photography, never knowingly pick a small sensor in the year 2020 or after.
It is like a dwarf or stunted child who grows to a short height and cannot grow anymore. FOREVER.

Now some other manufacturers have a One Mount concept.
Sony has E mount. Universal across their full frame and APS-C bodies.
Leica has L mount. Universal across their full frame and APS-C bodies.
Canon has RF mount. If Canon makes an APS-C body with RF mount, then it is universal across their full frame R and APS-C body.
Nikon has Z mount. Universal across their full frame Z6 & Z7 and Z-50 APS-C body.

This has a huge impact on MFT. It effectively kills the market for MFT.
Because it gives owners of those full frame cameras alternatives if they want a smaller APS-C camera body. No need to buy another set of lenses.
Great savings. No need to CARRY another set of lenses when bringing out both bodies.

 

[sadwitch]

David Thorpe is a devotee of MFT and he is entitled to his opinion to sing its praises.
We do not know if he is directly or indirectly rewarded by Olympus or Panasonic.

About his claim of only needing 2,000 across. Probably wrong if you want to print at 300 PPI.
But then again, how many of us hobbyists print big photos nowadays? Very few. Most of us do not even print small photos. We just keep the files in the hard drive or other memory media. We may go bankrupt if we printed very large photos often.
People who print photos taken with small sensors expect/insist that you to see the photo from a far away viewing distance.

Do not confuse Needs with Wants. If Needs alone decided market success of a product, then most people will be driving 800cc cars. But there are many higher engine capacity fancy limousines and sports cars - and those are the more successful ones. That is, the Wants decide in a buying decision. Buying is an emotive process. Thus, David Thorpe arguing that MFT meets your Needs, is pointless.

Just because I don't print big photos does not not mean I do not want a big sensor. Of course I do. Provided it is affordable.
It is sheer foolishness to go against the tide of technology improvement/price drop.

David Thorpe may or may not have mentioned 3 things.
Big sensors have better dynamic range, better tonality and better low-light performance. Compared to MFT.
This is important in still photos.
And even more important in videos.

Now Panasonic has made full frame sensor cameras in addition to MFT bodies. Probably before or by 2023, Panasonic will abandon MFT.
Olympus is the sole company exclusively making MFT mirrorless ILC bodies.
Now ask a common sense question.
If MFT was so great, then why don't the other manufacturers Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Leica, Hasselblad, Sigma and Alpa join in the MFT alliance after 2008?
They did not. Because they took a long hard look at the future of MFT and it is not rosy.

Making full frame mirrored DSLR cameras was good for Nikon. Now that they have gone into mirrorless ILC Z mount cameras, even better.
Making full frame mirrorless cameras was a success for Sony.

MFT faces a big threat from APS-C. Not just from full frame. Some APS-C cameras are actually smaller than some MFT cameras.
Consumers will ask, if I want small, why bother with MFT, when some APS-C bodies are smaller?

For NEW users just beginning to build a system, they have to be very careful about stepping into MFT in the year on or after 2020.
Once they are heavily invested in a system, they are more or less stuck. Unless one is very rich and money is no object.

If you want a system with potential for future growth in digital photography, never knowingly pick a small sensor in the year 2020 or after.
It is like a dwarf or stunted child who grows to a short height and cannot grow anymore. FOREVER.

Now some other manufacturers have a One Mount concept.
Sony has E mount. Universal across their full frame and APS-C bodies.
Leica has L mount. Universal across their full frame and APS-C bodies.
Canon has RF mount. If Canon makes an APS-C body with RF mount, then it is universal across their full frame R and APS-C body.
Nikon has Z mount. Universal across their full frame Z6 & Z7 and Z-50 APS-C body.

This has a huge impact on MFT. It effectively kills the market for MFT.
Because it gives owners of those full frame cameras alternatives if they want a smaller APS-C camera body. No need to buy another set of lenses.
Great savings. No need to CARRY another set of lenses when bringing out both bodies.

Sounds like you WANT to see Olympus to fail?

But Olympus needs the imaging department to support the company... Hopefully.

Why not buy enough of their shares to make some noise at the board meeting, that should possibly accelerate MFT demise? Tsk

Whatever Mr Thorpe is doing, guess he's doing it right as he's making a living out there while we're hammering the keyboard here?

Never contested on dynamic range nor hi-iso noise response.

BUT low light performance is how well the system handles in dim situations and I've shot numerous concerts without problems. Just use their F1.2 lenses to keep ISO lower for cleaner results. For zooms Panasonic has the 10-25mm F1.7 too. Best thing is you still have enough depth to keep things in focus.

Also when it comes to lenses, if people have not realise, MFT can virtually use MOST types of lenses via adapters made in the last 70years.

For body size, if you're pitching the smallest full frame or apsc bodies against the largest MFT bodies of course MFT will seem big.

But you ever held a panasonic GM1 or GM5 in your hands?

Small sensor is never the problem as Google's and Apple's night shot and also LIGHT L16 camera has demonstrated that. All it takes is a bit of imagination and alot of computational imaging. If Olympus can harness that, coupled with their hand held super resolution, pre-focus and 60fps for stacking, it will be quite compelling.

 

[Pitachu]

David Thorpe may or may not have mentioned 3 things.
Big sensors have better dynamic range, better tonality and better low-light performance. Compared to MFT.
This is important in still photos.
And even more important in videos.

> If Big sensors with better dynamic range is really important to most users, Medium Format Digital SLR would have dominated the market and Mobile phones would not have replaced most consumers camera.

Now Panasonic has made full frame sensor cameras in addition to MFT bodies. Probably before or by 2023, Panasonic will abandon MFT.
> Panasonic has just announced the GX10, probably the GX series is still selling well. Panasonic would probably released a GH6 as well as the GH series appeals to videographers. I dont think Panasonic will get out the Micro 4/3 so soon. Anyway, I dont see Panasonic Full Frames series making any headway in the market.

Olympus is the sole company exclusively making MFT mirrorless ILC bodies.
Now ask a common sense question.
If MFT was so great, then why don't the other manufacturers Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Leica, Hasselblad, Sigma and Alpa join in the MFT alliance after 2008?
They did not. Because they took a long hard look at the future of MFT and it is not rosy.
>Sony, Canon & Nikon did not enter into the MFT market not because it is no good. If you already have a large user base in Full Frame & APS, why would you want to bang your head into another brand's stronghold.

MFT faces a big threat from APS-C. Not just from full frame. Some APS-C cameras are actually smaller than some MFT cameras. Consumers will ask, if I want small, why bother with MFT, when some APS-C bodies are smaller?
> I did consider Sony's 6000 series before moving into MFT. Unfortunately, Sony's range of APS lenses suck and do not have sealed lenses (I trek a lot and do not like to keep my camera whenever it drizzles or too dusty).


For NEW users just beginning to build a system, they have to be very careful about stepping into MFT in the year on or after 2020. Once they are heavily invested in a system, they are more or less stuck. Unless one is very rich and money is no object.
>Agreed, but nowaways, except for Sony, I am not even sure whether Canon, Nikon and Fujifilm will even survive. I have also heard that Nikon and Canon are in financial troubles too and looking for buyers.
For me, I buy what I like best and use and enjoy those moments first, instead of buying what I think will be the future.

Now some other manufacturers have a One Mount concept.
Sony has E mount. Universal across their full frame and APS-C bodies.
Leica has L mount. Universal across their full frame and APS-C bodies.
Canon has RF mount. If Canon makes an APS-C body with RF mount, then it is universal across their full frame R and APS-C body.
Nikon has Z mount. Universal across their full frame Z6 & Z7 and Z-50 APS-C body.

This has a huge impact on MFT. It effectively kills the market for MFT.
Because it gives owners of those full frame cameras alternatives if they want a smaller APS-C camera body. No need to buy another set of lenses.Great savings. No need to CARRY another set of lenses when bringing out both bodies.
> Its Not exactly a One Mount system. My company have Canon 5D Full Frame and Canon 80D so I did test out how useful is this One Mount Concept. Full Frame bodies cannot take APS Lenses and APS user would usually not buy Full Frame lenses, so they are too bulky and expensive. In the end, I only use EF lenses on my 5D and only EFS lenses on my 80D.

 

[sadwitch]

4. Full Frame and APS is to show customer I am using equivalent gears as other pros. Once a customer complained that my camera is too small unlike the photographer he engaged last year. From then on, I used my Canon SLRs to shoot whenever I am paid.
5. I also agree Micro 4/3 and probably a few others will not survive for very long, but I really like what another user Sadwitch says: Worry less and play more. If Micro 4/3 is gone, I will just switch to another system. Meanwhile I will just play with what I like best
6. Looking at what Olympus and even Panasonic going to release this year for Micro 4/3 is quite exciting and good enough for me to play with for the time being
7. I am not rich. In fact, besides Olympus, and I cannot afford another any other brand (Sony, Canon etc) 600mm F4 lenses which cost more than $10,000! And the 600mm equivalent in Olympus cost less than $3000.

Maybe that's where the EM1X can come in. To show it's size....hehe (big in size 'cute' at heart)

Do feel sad for the client as they seem to worry more about the equipment than the results.

Looking forward to their new lenses too.

 

[ricohflex]

It would be great if Olympus decided to join the L mount alliance that currently has Leica, Panasonic and Sigma as members. That would be faithful to Yoshisha Maitani's admiration for Leica that inspired him to design OM1. Then Olympus can quickly shift from MFT and move on to full frame (or APS-C) bodies featuring the L mount. That would be parallel to Panasonic's (the only other MFT partner) move to L mount full frame camera bodies on 25 Sep 2018 - only about 1 year 4 months ago. Surely Olympus can do the same.

There is no shame in giving up MFT in the year 2020. MFT was a good concept once upon a time in 2008.
Just like IBM PC XT with Intel 8088 processor, 128 KB of RAM, a 360 KB double-sided 5¼ inch floppy disk drive and a 10 MB Seagate ST-412 hard drive was a good idea, once upon a time in a past era in March 1983.
But technology improves and prices of components drop over time.

Olympus should not cling on to a past concept (MFT)for mirrorless ILC in a fast changing digital photography environment.

 

[Castor Troy]

If you're referring to the 1.2 Pro lenses, take this into consideration..
Building the following:
EM1 Mk 2 + 17/1.2 + 25/1.2 + 45/1.2
Or Nikon Z6 + 35/1.8 + 50/1.8 + 85/1.8.
The Olympus setup does not have an advantage on size, price or image quality.
You could do the same with:
Sony A7ii (not even iii) + 35/1.8 + 55/1.8 + 85/1.8.

Oh wait I almost forgot... the EM1 Mk 3 is coming out!
With the same 20MP sensor....

I shoot Nikon FX, Pentax and m43.
Honestly even Pentax gets it right with the K1 and Kp.
And the Kp beats ANY Olympus m43 camera for image quality...
Nikon is also having a snafu with the D780...

 

[Pitachu]

If you're referring to the 1.2 Pro lenses, take this into consideration..
Building the following:
EM1 Mk 2 + 17/1.2 + 25/1.2 + 45/1.2
Or Nikon Z6 + 35/1.8 + 50/1.8 + 85/1.8.
The Olympus setup does not have an advantage on size, price or image quality.
You could do the same with:
Sony A7ii (not even iii) + 35/1.8 + 55/1.8 + 85/1.8.

Oh wait I almost forgot... the EM1 Mk 3 is coming out!
With the same 20MP sensor....

I shoot Nikon FX, Pentax and m43.
Honestly even Pentax gets it right with the K1 and Kp.
And the Kp beats ANY Olympus m43 camera for image quality...
Nikon is also having a snafu with the D780...

Although I do not doubt any camera with a larger sensor can beat
a M43 camera on image quality, I am just curious how did you or anyone
arrive at the conclusion that APS & Full Frame have better image quality.

1) Is it based on technical specs like sensor size, dynamic range or some websites?
2) Or did anyone actually print out large format photos (20" x 30" and above to compare?
3) Or did anyone at least blow it up to max. size in photoshop to peep at the pixels?

I have done all of the above, and found that in most situations, the difference in image
quality and dynamic range is not obvious.

Also, although the weight of the Olympus EM1 is the same or slightly heavier
than APS cameras, you need to look at the weight of the lenses you bring
along too. I have looked at Sony and Fujifilm lenses and the good ones
with weather sealing is definitely heavier.

I am not rich, but I dont think price should be a deciding factor. I rather get
a system with all the features and lenses I need for my various areas of
shooting than to save a couple of hundred dollars.

Just my 2 cents worth......

 

[sadwitch]

It would be great if Olympus decided to join the L mount alliance that currently has Leica, Panasonic and Sigma as members. That would be faithful to Yoshisha Maitani's admiration for Leica that inspired him to design OM1. Then Olympus can quickly shift from MFT and move on to full frame (or APS-C) bodies featuring the L mount. That would be parallel to Panasonic's (the only other MFT partner) move to L mount full frame camera bodies on 25 Sep 2018 - only about 1 year 4 months ago. Surely Olympus can do the same.

There is no shame in giving up MFT in the year 2020. MFT was a good concept once upon a time in 2008.
Just like IBM PC XT with Intel 8088 processor, 128 KB of RAM, a 360 KB double-sided 5¼ inch floppy disk drive and a 10 MB Seagate ST-412 hard drive was a good idea, once upon a time in a past era in March 1983.
But technology improves and prices of components drop over time.

Olympus should not cling on to a past concept (MFT)for mirrorless ILC in a fast changing digital photography environment.

Seems like no one got the memo Panasonic is still developing m43?

If that's the case I blame Panasonic for not communicating to the public well or long enough.

Last I remember, it was Panasonic and Olympus that spearheaded mirrorless cameras format, first to ditch the mirror and OVF and it's a painful but right decision at that time giving up 4/3rds, maybe Nikon and Canon should give up on their mirrored offerings soon than to lead unsuspecting consumer on.

Mirrorless is a FULLY realised system and not just a concept. On the m43 front, Panasonic for videos, Olympus for stills. Only in the last few years Nikon and Canon is playing catch-up to Sony in the mirrorless business.

YES it would be great if Olympus can afford to compete in the mirrorless full frame. But if it means burning candles at both ends I rather they not. In the end it's same same so why be same same?

 

[sadwitch]

If you're referring to the 1.2 Pro lenses, take this into consideration..
Building the following:
EM1 Mk 2 + 17/1.2 + 25/1.2 + 45/1.2
Or Nikon Z6 + 35/1.8 + 50/1.8 + 85/1.8.
The Olympus setup does not have an advantage on size, price or image quality.
You could do the same with:
Sony A7ii (not even iii) + 35/1.8 + 55/1.8 + 85/1.8.

Oh wait I almost forgot... the EM1 Mk 3 is coming out!
With the same 20MP sensor....

I shoot Nikon FX, Pentax and m43.
Honestly even Pentax gets it right with the K1 and Kp.
And the Kp beats ANY Olympus m43 camera for image quality...
Nikon is also having a snafu with the D780...

Image quality is the amount of emotion you can express using whatever medium that allows you to create it.

Does your image stop people in their tracks to look and relook? or it's just another 100 mega pixel snap?

As for the em1 comparison, luckily you can use em5, em10, pen f or even pen lite, the GX, the GM, the GF series if weight and size is an issue.

And I always say to all, if Nikon z6 works by all means, if Sony works by all means.... (Just hope people will not complain the camera is too small hehe) Use whatever system that inspires you to make something great.

Luckily I have not met or read any m43 users that goes out holding a gun (metaphorically) at others saying it's m43 or nothing. Can't say the same for others format users. Tsk

It's been fun but my holidays over. So chiao, take care everyone and happy photographing.

 

[Castor Troy]

"Image quality is the amount of emotion you can express using whatever medium that allows you to create it"

That's an artsy fartsy answer.
I've given an objective assessment.
You can't refute it.
So you choose to beat around the Bush.

 

[Castor Troy]

Although I do not doubt any camera with a larger sensor can beat
a M43 camera on image quality, I am just curious how did you or anyone
arrive at the conclusion that APS & Full Frame have better image quality.

1) Is it based on technical specs like sensor size, dynamic range or some websites?
2) Or did anyone actually print out large format photos (20" x 30" and above to compare?
3) Or did anyone at least blow it up to max. size in photoshop to peep at the pixels?

I have done all of the above, and found that in most situations, the difference in image
quality and dynamic range is not obvious.

Also, although the weight of the Olympus EM1 is the same or slightly heavier
than APS cameras, you need to look at the weight of the lenses you bring
along too. I have looked at Sony and Fujifilm lenses and the good ones
with weather sealing is definitely heavier.

I am not rich, but I dont think price should be a deciding factor. I rather get
a system with all the features and lenses I need for my various areas of
shooting than to save a couple of hundred dollars.

Just my 2 cents worth......

Simple viewing on my two 4K monitors.
I rarely print my m43 images large.
They don't make cut in terms of dynamic range, noise...

 

[Pitachu]

Don't get me wrong. I am not here to defend Olympus or M43 that has comparable Dynamic Range, noise etc.....
I just hope to share with all those who have been bashing M43 that when they say that M43 "don't make the cut
etc" that they probably misunderstood M43. It is perfectly okay if your pursue is for the best Dynamic Range etc.
By all means get a Hasselbrad X1D, Pentax 645Z or Leica, all of these have the highest DXO marks......

But most users did not venture into medium format and took a step back and accept the small compromise,
by going into Full Frame as they find Medium Format is either too costly or cumbersome.

Some took 2 steps back and decided to choose APS format, as they prefer a even more compact format.

Every step backwards is a compromise on image quality (law of physics).

After using APS formats, as I explore in bigger lenses (600mm F4 for birding) etc and also using various lenses
for different purpose, I find that APS lenses are still too large for my liking. And hence I decided on M43 and
I love it that I can now carry 3 to 4 lenses with flash in a small bag and walk for the whole day.

I am not saying it is wrong to do pixel peeping and compare image quality on 4K monitors if it gives you lots of joy.
For me, most of pictures are shared on social media and ipad to view together with my buddies during coffee time.
Ocassionally, I will print a few photobooks for my friends, and frankly, by viewing pictures without zooming in
to pixel peep, M43 photos are of very decent quality.

I am sure a lot of M43 users are like me and share their images in a similar way and do not see a need for
higher quality but heavier and more costly system

 

[Pitachu]

"Image quality is the amount of emotion you can express using whatever medium that allows you to create it"

That's an artsy fartsy answer.
I've given an objective assessment.
You can't refute it.
So you choose to beat around the Bush.

It's an artsy fartsy answer but he really has a point there.
I am learning how not to focus on the technical aspects of photography
(eg. where the dynamic range or colour gamut can be improved)
and focus on composition and capturing the exact moment at
the emotional peak of a photo.

After all, these are the aspects which usually catch the eye of others
when I am sharing my photos "-)

 

[Pitachu]

Here is a good article and video on the importance of dynamic range

How Much Does Dynamic Range Matter?

Dynamic range is sort of like the new megapixels in 2019: it is the camera spec that a lot of photographers use as a benchmark to compare different bodies. But how much does it really matter when it comes down to it? This great video examines the concept and if it is something you should obsess...

fstoppers.com

 

[ricohflex]

I saw the articles where an adviser (Uematsu) to Panasonic; and the Panasonic marketing manager (UK), mentioning MFT will continue along with full frame.
Please do not confuse this statement with all the board of directors of Panasonic saying so.

In this way, Panasonic is wisely leaving a big buffer zone, to change decisions swiftly (if required).
Country governments do the same. They let low ranking officials make a statement to the press.
So that if need be, that statement can be over-ridden by successive levels of higher ranking officials closer to the power centre of government.

An adviser merely advises. There can be 10 other "advisers" saying the opposite opinion.
A marketing manager is an employee. What do you expect him to say?
If Panasonic top management in future decide to drop MFT, the same employee will immediately sing a different song.

Resources are limited and to help achieve success of Panasonic's venture into the L mount full frame, the resources have to be diverted from MFT.

 

[ricohflex]

I said this: "Canon has RF mount. If Canon makes an APS-C body with RF mount, then it is universal across their full frame R and APS-C body."
So how did that change into a discussion on Canon 5D (EF mount) and Canon 80D (EFS mount)?
We are talking about the new RF mount.

No, I don't want to see Olympus fail. Olympus Camera Imaging Division has already failed. For many years bleeding a sea of red ink.
Making MFT cameras is a hobby to Olympus which earns revenue from medical endoscopy equipment.
I want to see Olympus Camera Imaging Division change from MFT to full frame, so that it can have a chance to survive.
If Olympus Camera Imaging Division was a stand alone company, it would have gone bankrupt, wound up and terminated business.

 

[Pitachu]

No, I don't want to see Olympus fail. Olympus Camera Imaging Division has already failed. For many years bleeding a sea of red ink.
Making MFT cameras is a hobby to Olympus which earns revenue from medical endoscopy equipment.
I want to see Olympus Camera Imaging Division change from MFT to full frame, so that it can have a chance to survive.
If Olympus Camera Imaging Division was a stand alone company, it would have gone bankrupt, wound up and terminated business.

If Olympus moves to full frame, its M43 lenses cannot be used on their Full Frame camera, just like APS lenses cannot be used on full frame cameras (laws of physics). Hence, there is no reason for its users to follow and upgrade to Full Frame. For me, if I ever need Full Frame format again, I will choose an established frame with a extensive range of quality lenses (eg. Sony) but definitely not Panasonic or Olympus when they are very new.

 

[swifty]

If Olympus moves to full frame, its M43 lenses cannot be used on their Full Frame camera, just like APS lenses cannot be used on full frame cameras (laws of physics). Hence, there is no reason for its users to follow and upgrade to Full Frame. For me, if I ever need Full Frame format again, I will choose an established frame with a extensive range of quality lenses (eg. Sony) but definitely not Panasonic or Olympus when they are very new.

Actually even the L-mount which isn’t the most flexible FF mount allows for a converter physically especially since both mounts are all electronic. In fact I would really like Panasonic to release one so it’s disappointing they’ve said on some levels they won’t be developing one.
Problem of course is the image circle won’t cover the full sensor frame so needs to be used in cropped mode, which is fine with me. It’d be like the ultimate multi aspect ratio camera for m43 lenses.

But I actually agree FF’s a very crowded space and Olympus shouldn’t go in that direction. With Canikony controlling some 85+% of the market (meaning the rest are fighting for less than 15%) and FF representing something like 1/10 of ILC, what volumes can Olympus realistically expect to sell. Remember the market is still falling.
If Olympus can’t bring their m43 line into the black, they’re going to go further into the red by entering FF.

Olympus really needs to consolidate their m43 line before making anymore major investments. L-mount isn’t an open platform so even if they can join, it will cost them.
Developing a new mount and lens lineup on their own will be highly risky and costly unless they fully embrace an open platform and encourage all third party support. Even then it’s no guarantee of success.
Just can’t see how Olympus can really make a successful play at FF until they at least generate some profits in m43 already.

 

[ricohflex]

If we include all types of digital cameras (regardless of format) then the market share (in Japan) in 2013 was
Canon 23.9%
Nikon 20.7%
Sony 17.5%
Olympus 11.2%
Fuji 9.5%
Others 17.2%

The same arguments that were made to say why Olympus should not make full frame Digital ILC in 2020; would have applied in 2013 to Sony.
When Sony was deciding whether to venture into full frame with a mirrorless ILC.
In Oct 2013 Sony introduced the full frame mirrorless ILC A7.
In 2013 Canon + Nikon jointly owned most of the full frame DSLR market.
(Sony did make DSLR-A900 a mirrored full frame DSLR in Oct 2008)
Before Oct 2013, how many % of the mirrorless full frame digital ILC camera market did Sony have?
Zero. Ø
Before Oct 2013, how many % of the mirrored full frame DSLR camera market did Sony have? Very small. Negligible.
Sony dared to take this plunge. Sony had the financial muscle and the guts. Plus the Vision.
Sony manufactures the digital sensors for many others in the industry; and in this it had (and still has) the upper hand.

Sony stunning success in a few years with full frame mirrorless ILC has spurred Leica, then Canon & Nikon to make their own.
Probably heralding the end of mirrored full frame DSLR, some time in future.

If Olympus joins one of the established "One Mount" systems, it does not have to reinvent the wheel.
If Olympus created its own full frame mirrorless ILC mount, it will be confined to a small customer base.
If Olympus Camera Imaging Division does not have the financial muscle, guts and vision; then it may stay with MFT.
And gradually fade away due to attrition of user base and constant drop in new customers.
In 2019, Olympus had only 2.8% (world wide) market share.
If Olympus stays with MFT, it WILL get worse in 2020 and beyond.

Full frame mirrorless ILC camera market share in Japan.
In 2018 : Canon 37.8% share, Sony 31.6% and Nikon 29.1%.
In 2019 : Sony 38% share, Canon 36% and Nikon at 24%.

 

[swifty]

Sony entered the FF mirrorless market when there were no players (unless you count Leica M).
Olympus will be entering when all but Pentax and Fuji will have FF mirrorless options.
And most efforts of all the companies involved in FF mirrorless are in this arena. Canon, the biggest giant of them all have publicly stated they’re focusing all their lens development efforts in R.
This is nothing like the playing field Sony faced. Sony made no inroads into FF DSLR and took a punt in FF mirrorless. It could have gone any ways.
But since it was successfully, it spurred everyone on to the ultra competitive field we have today.
Olympus will be last to market. What exactly do you think they are going to do to shake things up.
Why do you think they will be able to join another one-mount system without a hefty price?
If Olympus burns through cash trying to start a FF system (which whether they like it or not will have the effect of seeming like they’re abandoning m43 to some) will put an even more significant dent in their financials as well as accelerate their attrition of m43 user base spurring even more pressure from investors to pull the kill-switch.

Of their remaining loyal m43 user base, isn’t it quite possible the remaining ones are the ones who understands the benefits of the m43 system, and there are benefits to the smaller sensor system. They need to make it work with these customers first b4 doing anything else. They simply don’t have the cash AND they need to look after the small volume of loyal customers they have left.

If they pull through and become profitable again one day, they’d be much better trying to reinvent small medium format than enter the crowded FF.