TAKO. INTERNET SEIT 1996.
Olympus-OM

Re: [OM] Another POV on Olympus

Subject: Re: [OM] Another POV on Olympus
From: Tomoko Yamamoto <tomokoy@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:01:33 -0800
At 10:50 AM 1/28/98 EST, Carl Turner wrote:
>Hi all,  
>
>Below I've forwarded a portion of a post made by Bob Shell on the Pocketcam-L
>list about his perspective on Olympus.  ><snip>
>>In a message dated 98-01-27 22:30:27 EST, Bob Shell writes:
>>
>>>
>>>  Olympus, now that's a funny company.  One of my oldest and best friends
>>>  works there, and even he can't figure out what they're up to.  They
>>>  prototyped a very nice autofocus pro camera but never put it into
>>>  production, and seem happy to just churn out more IS and point-n-shoot
>>>  stuff.  Their "new" SLR is a Cosina with their name branded on the front.
>>>  Same body as the cheap Nikon that all the NYC mail order guys sell, but
>>>  Nikon USA disowns.

That is interesting.  Although I don't agree with him regarding the OM2000,
I have to say that his assessment that Olympus is a funny company and is
dificult to figure out is consistent with what the summary of the Nikkei
article on the Web says about Olympus. 

Although I have translated the summary half-way, I did not complete it
because I felt that I should complete the OM Preference Vote tally, which
is about 50 0one now.

Is anyone else besides the native speakers of Japanese aware that the first
two models of Olympus digital cameras are not purely Olympus products?  The
latest two are solely by Olympus and they were produced in two years since
its inception.   

To my mind, the OM2000 may be a precursor of something to come.  At the
time Olympus America does not have any OM-3/4Ti brochures in print, seeing
the OM2000 brochure in print, although modest in comparison to the past
OM-n brochures, is something.  I felt good to see that the dealers have
responded by putting the camera on their shelves.  What we want to see is
the next logical step by Olympus.  To that end, I urge any of you who is
reading this to send in their answers to my question on the future OM
cameras if they have not done so already.

Here I repeat my questions.


1. Which one of the new OM bodies (OM reissues with possibly a few new
features, a. one under $500, b. one ca. $700, and c. an OM-5 under $1500)
would you
buy in the next 2-5 years? Just one or two or all three? (You have to ask
your own pocketbook and your buying habit.)
2.Would you like to have an autofocusing OM-x? (Be very honest.  You don't
need
to be realistic here.)
3. Would you be willing to have a somewhat larger OM body so that several
new features may be accommodated?
4. What is the single most important feature of the OM body that you would
like to see retained? Please narrow your preferences down to the single
feature.  I will not count those votes with two items here.

All the questions are important, and I believe the answers will give me a
guideline as to how to put together a petition to Olympus Japan. 

If possible, omit the text of questions and leave just the question numbers
and then enter your answers. That way, I don't need to do a lot of editing
and save space in my mailbox.  

Please send you answers directly to me as soon as possible.

Here is my e-mail address: mailto:tomokoy@xxxxxxxxx

Thanks.

 


Tomoko Yamamoto
Photographer, Composer, Soprano
mailto:tomokoy@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.charm.net/~tomokoy/
-All the photos (except panorama) with OM's-
http://ep.com/ep/csp.html?csp=1130
-Olympus Equipment Classifieds-

##################################################################
# This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List
# To receive the Olympus Digest send mail to: listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
#   with subscribe olympus-digest in the message body.
#
# To unsubscribe from the current list send a message to
# listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with unsubscribe olympus in the message body.
#
# For questions email: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
##################################################################


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>