In a recent interview in Japan OMDS chief Setsuya Kataoka has been quoted as follows:
To be honest, shortly after we started m4/3, I briefly considered expanding into full-frame or APS-C as a future option.
However, then another manager told him:
Before thinking about what happens with other formats, have you truly pushed m4/3 to its absolute limits? Only after you’ve thoroughly explored and exhausted every possibility might that make sense.
That was absolute spot on advice.
The problem for Olympus (now OMDS) was in the execution. And the first camera I’ll point out—again, this isn’t the first time I’ve mentioned this—is the Olympus Tough. Why we don’t have an OM Tough-7 at this point that uses an m4/3 image sensor is beyond me. That one change, alone—though I’d advocate for a few more—would make it not only unique, but desirable small compact camera.
The second camera I’ll point to is the OM-D E-M1X, which violated the premise behind m4/3 sensors (produces smaller, lighter, but capable cameras). I’d guess that because this required body and other changes that it delayed other models that would have resonated better.
When you consider a “product line,” the first question you have to ask is where does the line begin and end, and why? The second is what would constitute a full lineup with differentiation?
That last point is also a problem OMDS has: I’m a bit unclear about the differentiation at this point. The OM-1 and OM-5 are somewhat differentiated (as would be an OM-10 if they got round to it). Not so sure about the OM-3.
With camera volume being what it is (declining in all but compacts at the moment), it’s more important than ever to have a well-thought out product line, and I’d add that now you should also be asking “what’s the minimum number of models that maximize volume?”
While I’ve singled out OMDS here—it was their quote that triggered the article, after all—there isn’t a single camera maker that seems to have a rationalized product line strategy, though Nikon full frame (FX) is a reasonably good example of clear thinking.
One thing the camera companies seem to get hung up on is the zero sum game thing: a potential new buyer is only going to buy one, so do we have “the one”? And the established prosumer only has one question: did you make my model better or give me a reason to move up a model?
What that type of thinking does to engineering is this:
- Iterate all models. The “plod along” option.
- Poke at new ideas and see what sticks. The “spaghetti-at-wall” option.