Kuzano

Remember that Olympus largely dismissed the Autofocus SLR film market and did quite well. They did Autofocus in film in a fixed lens zoom called the IS series. However, while virtually every SLR film MFR switched to SLR AF and often with new mounts.

Olympus trudged on with the OM manual focus bodies and survived well.

It's true they never sought the P&S market, but pioneered 4:3 DSLR and m4:3 Mirrorless when digital arrived. They will continue with Pen and OM-D and do well I am sure. Dropping P&S will only be a slight drop for Olympus.

I've been a strong fan of Olympus, starting with the Olympus ACE interchangeable lens rangefinder in the sixties, fixed lens very popular rangefinders, and the OM intro'd in 1972. Have always had some king of Olympus kit around. Yet I have never purchased an Olympus P&S.

I consider Olympus to be one of the most innovative, and creative camera companies in the history of SLR's and digital, including their incredible light camera's and wonderful Zuiko lenses.

Olympus' PENs like the E-PM2 with a prime pancake lens are, for the most part, hugely superior in size to P&S and Bridge camera's from all the other mfrs.

They don't need P&S to cover everything from Cell Phone camera's forward.

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

I still have 5 OM bodies mothballed, with a pile of lenses. No, I'm not planning to sell them. Got Photodiox 'chipped' adapters for a couple of the lenses to use with my Canon DSLRs.

sal gorge

I have a Nikon D80 with several lens and it is a great camera, however heavy and cumbersome. Bought a Panasonic DMC lx 100 the camera has Leica lens and has panoramic and many settings, photos are great it is a wonderful alternative to a large camera but I think for serious photographers both serve a function;.
SalGorge

mickley Loc: Schenectady NY

The new point-and-shoot is called a cellphone camera. Sure, the results are ugly in most cases, but I've seen P&S models almost as bad.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

One word ... Minolta

rbfanman

Does anyone but camera manufacturers care whether P&S is dead, or not? The typical snapshooter who used to use P&S cameras now get the same, or better, images out of their Smartphones. Still, some people can't afford those smartphones yet. Paying DSLR prices for P&S images-by getting an Apple 6S, or whatever, and using it, instead of an $89.00 P&S camera, to take photos-appeals to some people, but not to others. These days, digital camera users are falling onto one of three camps, mainly...the DSLR crowd, the Mirrorless crowd, and the Smartphone crowd. The old farts who might cling to shirt pocket/purse sized P&S cameras of yore are dying off, or converting. Such is life. Change is the only constant.

rbfanman

Image stabilization is common on interchangeable lens systems, but most of it is in the lens rather than the camera body, though there are exceptions.

spaghetti boy Loc: EVERETT , WASHINGTON

How true one of this days you will BE A OLD FART!

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

It's not a choice between cellphone (as camera) and non-cellphone camera for some people. That expensive smartphone is doing a lot of other things that don't involve photography-- and for some people the phone camera is good enough relative to a little p&s.

But what do I know? I'm not the target audience. I run around with a dumb flip-phone and a Canon 6D and some lenses in a backpack most places I go. . .

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

:thumbup: They're also big in the medical and scientific world, not only for cameras that are used for medical procedures but also their lenses are in microscopes. I believe I may have even seen Olympus personal telescopes too. I had no doubt about my one Olympus purchase being excellent quality and I was correct to assume that. I'm impressed and if I didn't like the Panasonic GH4 a lot, I'd likely buy an Olympus with viewfinder, maybe next year. I keep racking up around 1600 to 2000 shutter actions per week, so I'm likely way past 100,000 now and it doesn't seem to phase my PEN in the slightest so I'll eventually just retire the poor thing and put it out to pasture as my own personal camera and make the new one do all the hard work instead.

Burt Hollen Loc: King of Prussia, Pa

I do enjoy carrying a point and shoot when I don't want to carry a lot of weight, but another annoying problem is that most point an shoots don't have an optical view finder and I like the ability to hold the P & S close to my face for stability. I won't even consider one without an optical viewfinder.

hgdexter Loc: Independence, MO

I purchased a Niko many years ago for $600. Now a damn phone can take the same pictures, with limitations. I purchased a Nikon point and shoot to carry with me for $75. However, that little camera has many options a cell phone.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

That is what made the XZ series so nice (only a two camera series). Even though the electronic viewfinder was somewhat expensive, once it was mounted, shooting in bright sunlight was a breeze. No looking at the camera back for an impossible to see sunlight washed out image (not being able to see the image drove my wife nuts - heck, that would even drive me nuts!). A 100% view viewfinder, almost no perceptible image lag, and no chance of my wife burning her eye from sunlight coming off a mirror. Capable of producing very good images in the right hands. Covered a 25mm to 100mm range (in 35mm terms) at f1.8 to 2.5. Now there will be no more XZ point and shoots other than what now exists. I consider it our lost as photographers.

I was doing a shoot with my E-M5 with flash and depleted the camera battery. I found out my spare had discharged over time (yes, I forgot to check it status before the shoot). I replaced my E-M5 with the XZ-1 and just kept on shooting with the same flash setup. Yes, I lost the use of a viewfinder and lost a few pixels, but I successfully completed the shoot. That all that ever counts. How many point and shoots can do that and still fit in a shirt pocket?