Jump to content

Olympus sells Imaging Business


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

In both cases, with the Pocket 6K issues you recently spoke of, and the GH5, it sounds like you were employing people who didn't really appreciate the weaknesses of the camera before using them on a Professional shoot. 

FOR THE LAST TIME>

I NEVER EVER HAVE USED OR EMPLOYED ANYONE TO USE THE GH5 -

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 320
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think your argument is based around the idea that lenses are an investment, but they're not, they're a consumable. I understand why you might think that, because it's a myth that seems to be on

Your arguments all appear to be circular, or simply saying that things that are MFT or are old are somehow inferior by default.  I guess the Alexa is screwed then, it's really old, the image is soft a

Logged on and what do I see Yes another topic waylaid by Super8 causing arguments If you keep it up, I will have to do what's best for the forum as an informative tool for filmmakers. And yo

Posted Images

19 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

In both cases, with the Pocket 6K issues you recently spoke of, and the GH5, it sounds like you were employing people who didn't really appreciate the weaknesses of the camera before using them on a Professional shoot. 

 

The guys I used are professional and I'll put their work up against anyone's.

Yes they had IR pollution issues with ND filter.   If you haven't seen it first hand then you don't have a clue. 

All you have to do is search BMP6K IR issues and see how many videos you see.  People aren't posting about it but you see a lot of footage with it.

Then look at BMP6K footage and see how much IR pollution you see when you know what to look for.

My comments about the GH5 were a little take on issues I see with crop sensor and work that around. Does it affect MFT future or has it?  I don't know.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Super8 said:

The guys I used are professional and I'll put their work up against anyone's.

Yes they had IR pollution issues with ND filter.   If you haven't seen it first hand then you don't have a clue. 

All you have to do is search BMP6K IR issues and see how many videos you see.  People aren't posting about it but you see a lot of footage with it.

Then look at BMP6K footage and see how much IR pollution you see when you know what to look for.

My comments about the GH5 were a little take on issues I see with crop sensor and work that around. Does it affect MFT future or has it?  I don't know.

 

 

I got my IR filter before my Pocket 4K had arrived.  I got it because I had read about it and seen examples of it online.  And clearly other Professionals are aware of it as well.  I'm sorry, the fact your guys weren't aware of it counts against them. 

MFT has been around for a very long time.  And if a GH6 were to arrive, it could well continue awhile longer.  However, that is in the hands of Panasonic not the people who use MFTs.  Same goes for S35.  Same goes for the various lens mounts like EF.  If companies stop supporting them because they've decided to do something new, users will have to choose whether to hold on to old tech or embrace the new.

1 minute ago, Super8 said:

Why do you keep going on about things I never said.................i.e. like using the GH5

Sorry, your earlier posts on the GH5 sounded like you had used it and had issues with the footage.  

Maybe we should stop talking about the GH5.  ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Super8 said:

You're a sound guy.  Not sure you have a dog in this hunt do you?

I have! - look at this one touching beast with wide open Voigt eye :) (Especially regarding sensor size issue, problem with lenses with etc... Sometimes Voigtlander 17.5 wide open indeed approve itself as miracle for indie movie making. Such subtle nuances in color rendition even at f0.95 that allows just natural light and still freely play with shadows... Shane Carruth was not at all naive choosing Voigts.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rawshooter said:

Maybe then you should stop posting on this forum, telling bullshit about stuff you now even admit you don't know.

And you're in no position of shouting.

If it takes 2-3 post without caps and someone repeats that I said something I didn't I'll use caps.

I clearly posted about the MFT, the GH5, it's cropped sensor and what I saw across You Tube.  I clearly posted that I've color graded GH5 footage but never shot it.   It really is clear what I've posted about. 

Color or color issues are obvious for most cameras the GH5 has some. I pointed this out.  The GH5 has a bad codec and is over sharped, I pointed this out. The GH5 does have great specs. YOu can connect the dots or not. 

I know and have done enough research on the GH5, color graded it's footage to know it's not worth the headache and doesn't match the specs people boost about. 

The EOS is clearly about helping people, with out hype or fanboyism, select the best camera that works for them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2020 at 5:33 PM, Super8 said:

How?

I gave you RED's business model and Black Magic's.  Two ends of the camera world that make good product.   Not sure why comparison is bullshit.  

It's because you completely 100% missed @noone's point, and tried to argue against him instead (even when you didn't even have an argument against him....  and you were kinda making his point instead).

Smaller scales of economy = higher costs. 

It's a very simple rule. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

It's because you completely 100% missed @noone's point, and tried to argue against him instead (even when you didn't even have an argument against him....  and you were kinda making his point instead).

Smaller scales of economy = higher costs. 

It's a very simple rule. 

 

Cost per unit will not go up in the near future.    We will get more specs and more camera for that $4,500 and that $2,000 price point.  The camera industry has given us numbers for the last 20 years to look at. 

The market had a big drop in camera sales 7 years ago.  Smaller scales of economy = higher costs isn't something that hits the camera industry like you think it does.  Remember we are talking about the camera industry.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever I read a long thread regarding the merits or shortcomings of the MFT format I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a  DP quite a few years ago about Super 35 vs Academy ratio framing.

For historical context every VFX heavy movie that was shot on film was typically shot Super 35 with spherical lenses even if its final projected format would be widescreen 2.39.  Of the twenty or so films I've worked on that originated from scanned film, only one was shot with Anamorphic lenses even though the vast majority were slated for widescreen delivery.

Anyway, the big concern back then was minimizing film grain and had less to do with the depth of field and blurry backgrounds, so you'd typically want to use as much of the negative as possible to reduce the film grain before scanning it.  However, in talking with a DP one day, he told me that when a feature wasn't slated for a lot of VFX, they would often just frame the project in Academy Ratio with room on the negative for where the sound strip would go. In this way you would go Negative -> Interpositive -> Internegative -> Print without mixing in an optical pass to reduce the super 35 image into the Academy framing for the projector.

The reason for this according to the DP was that the optical pass would introduce additional grain, so shooting S35 was kind of a wash in that you were trading the larger film area of S35 for framing directly for the Academy area on a projector and skipping the optical reduction that introduced more grain than just the steps in making a print.

Of course now with cheap film scanning, Digital Intermediates, and of course digital cameras, everyone just shoots using the S35 area.  My understanding from the conversation is that if you were shooting something like "Star Wars" that would have a bunch of opticals anyway, you'd shoot S35 even before the days of digital film scanning, but if you were shooting some standard film it was common for the DP to just frame inside the Academy ratio area of the film strip and skip the optical reduction.

Is there anyone with more experience than myself with shooting old films that can confirm this?  It really has me curious.  The reason being is that the Academy Ratio on a projector is defined at 21mm across.  While a multi aspect MFT sensor on something like the GH5s is 19.25mm across if you shoot DCI.  When you consider projector slop  or the overscan on an old TV for the action safe area, the difference in the exposed film or sensor area seen by an audience seems negligible-- and thus the perceived DOF or lack there of between the two formats.

Anyway, just wanted to share this, since I have never seen it discussed anywhere.  And maybe its just me, but I'm really curious as to whether the vast bulk of films shot from the 1930s and into the 90s were actually using the Academy Ratio area of the negative for framing.

Also, hope I'm not derailing the conversation regarding Olympus too much, but as we're discussing the MFT format of Olympus cameras as a possible reason for it's lack of sales, this seemed apropos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_ratio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2020 at 5:33 PM, Super8 said:

Camera prices didn't go up after the financial crash in 2008-09 and they won't increase if we lose a few more camera companies.

2008 was a totally different world for cameras back then, it looked like, and they thought they were still in a growth phase. 

And if Olympus exits the game, so that the consequence is that demand for MFT sensors goes way down, then yes, the per cost of MFT sensors (relative to APS-C sensors for instance or FF, if perhaps not their absolute cost. Remember, it is all about competitive advantage! That matters far more than absolute cost) will go up

Lower production volume = higher cost per unit. 

This is a universal rule of thumb across manufacturing in almost all industries. 

  

On 6/28/2020 at 9:11 AM, Super8 said:

I think that was because the GH5 was mentioned.

When a sale of one half of the major players in MFT is discussed, then it is very natural to also touch upon discussing the most successful MFT camera there is. (who knows, maybe if Olympus had made their own "Olympus GH5" then they wouldn't be in the state right now?? I doubt it, but it would have helped)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2020 at 10:06 AM, SteveV4D said:

But camera manufacturers...  Take Panasonic, they have just introduced what some have said is a vlogging camera.  The G100.  If that camera could take videos, and then upload it to the Internet without a computer, it could be classed as a true vlogging camera.  An innovation.  As it is, its a crippled 4K camera, with some new minor gimmicks that could appeal to vloggers and a miss mash of former camera features, wrapped up in a new body for a cheap price.

The Panasonic can upload your videos without a PC:
"The LUMIX G100 integrates both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi 2.4GHz (IEEE802.11b/g/n) connectivity for instant sharing. A dedicated upload button makes it quick and easy to transfer videos and photos to your smartphone ready for sharing on your favorite social networks"
https://news.panasonic.co.uk/panasonic-announces-new-lumix-g100-camera-for-vlogging-and-creative-video/
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Towd said:

Whenever I read a long thread regarding the merits or shortcomings of the MFT format I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a  DP quite a few years ago about Super 35 vs Academy ratio framing.

For historical context every VFX heavy movie that was shot on film was typically shot Super 35 with spherical lenses even if its final projected format would be widescreen 2.39.  Of the twenty or so films I've worked on that originated from scanned film, only one was shot with Anamorphic lenses even though the vast majority were slated for widescreen delivery.

Anyway, the big concern back then was minimizing film grain and had less to do with the depth of field and blurry backgrounds, so you'd typically want to use as much of the negative as possible to reduce the film grain before scanning it.  However, in talking with a DP one day, he told me that when a feature wasn't slated for a lot of VFX, they would often just frame the project in Academy Ratio with room on the negative for where the sound strip would go. In this way you would go Negative -> Interpositive -> Internegative -> Print without mixing in an optical pass to reduce the super 35 image into the Academy framing for the projector.

The reason for this according to the DP was that the optical pass would introduce additional grain, so shooting S35 was kind of a wash in that you were trading the larger film area of S35 for framing directly for the Academy area on a projector and skipping the optical reduction that introduced more grain than just the steps in making a print.

Of course now with cheap film scanning, Digital Intermediates, and of course digital cameras, everyone just shoots using the S35 area.  My understanding from the conversation is that if you were shooting something like "Star Wars" that would have a bunch of opticals anyway, you'd shoot S35 even before the days of digital film scanning, but if you were shooting some standard film it was common for the DP to just frame inside the Academy ratio area of the film strip and skip the optical reduction.

Is there anyone with more experience than myself with shooting old films that can confirm this?  It really has me curious.  The reason being is that the Academy Ratio on a projector is defined at 21mm across.  While a multi aspect MFT sensor on something like the GH5s is 19.25mm across if you shoot DCI.  When you consider projector slop  or the overscan on an old TV for the action safe area, the difference in the exposed film or sensor area seen by an audience seems negligible-- and thus the perceived DOF or lack there of between the two formats.

Anyway, just wanted to share this, since I have never seen it discussed anywhere.  And maybe its just me, but I'm really curious as to whether the vast bulk of films shot from the 1930s and into the 90s were actually using the Academy Ratio area of the negative for framing.

Also, hope I'm not derailing the conversation regarding Olympus too much, but as we're discussing the MFT format of Olympus cameras as a possible reason for it's lack of sales, this seemed apropos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_ratio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35

Continue on please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2020 at 2:35 AM, Super8 said:

I'll try and find some samples to answer your questions above.

Here's a comparison with his first example.

You get the same view and perspective.  the right side starts to not match up, not the guy but the bookshelf and table, basket.

170504_002-hh e.jpg

This is getting ridiculous, any very minor difference is of course due to practical realities of manufacturing / testing / measurement. And has nothing to do with the inherent properties of the sensor itself. You're displaying once again your basic lack of knowledge of optical physics, and while I studied that throughout my science degree, you don't need any thing but basic high school level of physics to understand this. 

It's very simple. Go back and read it again:
https://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/MatchLensBlur.html

And if that doesn't help, go back to High School:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/geometric-optics
Then move on to this:
https://optics.byu.edu/textbook
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521642221

 

On 6/30/2020 at 10:43 AM, newfoundmass said:

It's not fan boy talk at all. Go on the Frugal Filmmaker Facebook group and ask how many have shot features on the GH5. Heck, the user escapes me right now, but I recall someone here posting a trailer for their feature shot on a GH5 and it was beautiful. It was even mostly shot at night! 

In a world where DV camcorders and iPhones have been used to shoot features with wide releases, it's asinine to act as though a GH5 couldn't be used to great effect. It's the art and artists, not the camera that matters. 


I'm deep into early pre-production of a feature film right now, and while an ARRI ALEXA will be the main A Cam (and probably B Cam? Or an URSA Mini Pro) the Panasonic GH5 is also top of our list right now to consider as an additional camera (which due to the nature of this horror film a quite large portion of the final footage would end up coming from the GH5). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

2008 was a totally different world for cameras back then, it looked like, and they thought they were still in a growth phase. 

And if Olympus exits the game, so that the consequence is that demand for MFT sensors goes way down, then yes, the per cost of MFT sensors (relative to APS-C sensors for instance or FF, if perhaps not their absolute cost. Remember, it is all about competitive advantage! That matters far more than absolute cost) will go up

Lower production volume = higher cost per unit. 

This is a universal rule of thumb across manufacturing in almost all industries. 

  

When a sale of one half of the major players in MFT is discussed, then it is very natural to also touch upon discussing the most successful MFT camera there is. (who knows, maybe if Olympus had made their own "Olympus GH5" then they wouldn't be in the state right now?? I doubt it, but it would have helped)

Cost per unit changes with each new camera.  The word NEW means a lot in the camera world. 

Cost per unit is not always passed onto consumers like I said before.   Olympus financial numbers show they weren't selling that many cameras.  No ripple effect will cross over to any other company. 

Even if it was FF the result of a poorly selling company calling it quits on helps the others.   When Seag and Dreamcast got out of computer hardware did Sony increase the price of it's console?

The camera market has survived the last 20 years and will keep on going just fine.   It's not my fault you don't understand set MSRP that Sony and Canon and others set each year with each product release. 

Do we have any indication that the A7SIII will be $4,500 and that that's the entry price where the A7III used to be?   If the A7SIII is priced as a flagship price it's because that's what it is. 

The next BMP7K will not be $3,500 and the next Fuji camera will not be $1,000 more than the previous model. 

 

5 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

This is getting ridiculous, any very minor difference is of course due to practical realities of manufacturing / testing / measurement. And has nothing to do with the inherent properties of the sensor itself. You're displaying once again your basic lack of knowledge of optical physics, and while I studied that throughout my science degree, you don't need any thing but basic high school level of physics to understand this.

What with the "right side doesn't match up that well" don't you get?   It is what it is.

What does it have to do with audio man?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2020 at 11:11 AM, fuzzynormal said:

I shot one of my documentaries mostly with that lens.  Unfortunately I thought I was filming with a field of view FF-equivalent of 45mm.  Boy, was I wrong!

Seriously though, it's a purty lens.  Don't like the AF or focus-by-wire aspect of it as I'm partial to old manual glass, but it certainly rendered really nice images.

Olympus is dead, long live Olympus!

Still would be a better experience manual focusing with the Olympus than the YI Xiaoyi 42.5mm F1.8! (which I had been considering beforehand as an even cheaper choice to get for a compact portrait lens)

I see this mostly getting used for discrete BTS snapshots on films while I'm working, which it would be perfect for. Gives me more reach than any other MFT AF lens I own with that F Stop. (handy in the sometimes very dim / night conditions we work in, plus I'm using an old G6 body that could do with the help)

Might use it for an occasional rare talking head YouTube video on my channel, as I've tried using my Sigma 60mm f2.8 as a longer option over the Panasonic 25mm f1.7, but 60mm is just "too much". (my lav cable can barely reach to the Panasonic G6 when I've got it that far set back with the 60mm on it!!)
 

 

On 6/30/2020 at 11:49 AM, fuzzynormal said:

Had the GX7 as well.  Sadly lost it.  Great video camera.  Wanted to buy another one used.

I miss my Panasonic GX1 that I lost while out partying years ago 😞 Tempted to buy another, but I think these days I could find a better bang for buck camera elsewhere. Like you said, those treasure trove of Olympus bodies in the years to come!

  

14 hours ago, Márcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

One of the best lens in value terms ever.

Especially at the price I got mine! (NZ$160, or a hundred bucks USD)
 

14 hours ago, Márcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

When I browse my photos and stop in a picture that gets my attention, 95% of the time the picture was taken with the Panasonic 20mm 1.7, Oly 45mm 1.8 or the Oly 75mm 1.8. There are some magic in these lenses.

I shall add the Olympus 75mm 1.8 to my dream wishlist!

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Super8 said:

What does it have to do with audio man?

What does his knowledge of audio have to do with this discussion? Does that make his opinion on cameras mean less or something? You realize his professional experience goes beyond sound, right?

Most of us have experience in all forms of filmmaking. It's kind of a necessity when you do your own thing or work with a small crew. He's here for the same reason as you and me. 

Stop being condescending to people. It's unnecessary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Super8 said:

My DP's get the shot I want because I prepare them and I'm the director or I've been my own DP.   My comment wasn't about my DP's or myself. 

Sensor size issue with M43 is. an issue that has to be dealt with.  You might take a look at all the GH5 speed booster debates and why they use them.

Focal Reducers exist because want to use non-native glass with MFT cameras, which is part of the beauty of the MFT system! Its wonderful adaptability. 

You bring up not a negative about the MFT system, but a positive.
 

12 hours ago, Super8 said:

You're a sound guy.  Not sure you have a dog in this hunt do you?

 


That's like saying to you:
"You don't own any Olympus gear, or even any MFT cameras, why are you in this thread?"

I do own Olympus gear, and half a dozen MFT camera bodies! The Panasonic GH1 was the body which I started out my filmmaking career on which I did film school with. 

Of course why wouldn't I be interested in a thread about the future of MFT??

 

11 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

He's on a camera forum. 


I like to think of it as a filmmakers forum. (although, perhaps you're closed to the truth!)
 

12 hours ago, Super8 said:

What is super shallow DoF? 


If you need even more shallow DoF than the extreme used in Upstream Color, then yes, you're obsessed with super shallow DoF! And no wonder you hate upon MFT, just go buy yourself a Fujifilm GFX 100 instead. 
 

 

12 hours ago, Super8 said:

Super35 has been standard for a while. 

Indeed, and S16/16mm had been a standard for indie / doco / tv / premium news / music videos / etc for years. Clearly showing that "sensor size" is capable too. 

The MFT Mount embraces a range of sizes from S16 (BMPCC / BMMCC / E2G), to a little bigger (BMCC MFT), to 4/3", to very nearly S35/APS-C (P4K/GH2/E2/etc) to APS-C/S35 sized (JVC LS300). 
 

12 hours ago, Super8 said:

You can't pull focus on the P4K without rigging it up or having a focus puller.

So? For film sets that's true for *ALL CAMERAS*. (unless you're a small minority who want to surrender to the machine and let Canon's DPAF do its guesswork, or something similar. And no, DPAF is not the same as having a professional 1st AC pulling focus)

This is why you've got a 1st AC on all but the most micro of micro budget film sets. 
 

 

12 hours ago, Super8 said:

no IBIS so more rigging. 

Last time I checked, 100% of A Cams of the Oscar winners didn't have IBIS. 
What's your point?

That the P4K isn't right for you specifically? Of course, that's something only you can know and determine. 
But for countless other people the P4K is a fantastic camera!
 

12 hours ago, Super8 said:

After that it's not a run n gun camera. 

As I said in my comment which you replied to, that depends entirely on what is meant by "run and gun". 
 

11 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

In both cases, with the Pocket 6K issues you recently spoke of, and the GH5, it sounds like you were employing people who didn't really appreciate the weaknesses of the camera before using them on a Professional shoot.  However, many are aware.  I was on Facebook today where stills from an upcoming web drama series was shared by the cameraman asked to use the Pocket 6K for the very first time; he had the good sense, after researching the camera first, to use IR Filters for the shoot.  This was something your guys failed to do, leaving you with blacks looking a tad red.  Its not hard then to see why you would also have potential issues when using the GH5, if you're not familiar with MFT.

 


This. x1000

Don't blame the entire camera ecosystem for the failings of a particular couple of cameramen/users. 

 

  

11 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

You say the GH5 has lost is sparkle since its release in 2017, but it was only the latest in a long line of cameras.  You should really instead look back to the day the GH2 was released to see what this line of MFT cameras have given to video users. 

Bingo. (or even the GH1! Which was also ground breaking for its time, the first stills camera doing 1080 24p!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...