richard,
i appreciate that you took the time to read and reply to my posting which i
thought would go to tomoko but i think, judging from your reply that i
should take you to task about all your unsolicited polite "additions." but
before i do that, i should add that all the suggestions that i wrote about
were all aimed to, as i repeted thorughout the post, was to enhance the OM
system to make it more attractive to other photographers looking for a
primary or secondary system by improving what i think was an excellent
system when it was first introduced but now requires some polishing to
appeal to wider variety of people in the hope of increasing revenues for
olympus. this in turn will ensure that our beloved OM system will not go
the way of the dinosaurs. all camera systems require a little tweaking from
time to time to keep the systems up to date thus enhancing the value of the
system and stirring people to consider new purchases. this is the only way
that they can continue to make cameras and continue further R&D. A little
investment goes a long way or put another way, money begets money. the
problem that i see with the OM is that since it's introduction, compared to
other camera companies, they have not infused as much improvements into
their cameras and lenses that will make people stop and take notice. sure
people like us to take the time to look for old reviews and join newsgroups
will know what are the good products out there. we know the OM system is one
of them. but i don't think the ordinary joe or jane could care less about
these reviews and newsgroups. they are not as sophisticated as most of
those in this newsgroup. they will buy what a friend will advise them to,
what they see professionals, who to their mind know what they are doing,
use and ulitmately what the salesperson will push them to buy. OM has to
catch the eye of the consuming public enough so that it's coffers may again
finance further development of the system. that aside, i shall now take you
to task.
Richard Schätzl wrote:
> fdayrit@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Olympus is in a difficult situation with the OM system since I would
> > think that coming out with a new SLR at this time is not only risky
> > but extremely expensive.
>
> Sounds resonable
>
> > To revive the OM system means not only
> > designing new cameras but also upgrading and designing new lenses and
> > accessories.
>
> First it would need some advertisement, to let people know, that the OM
> system is alive and feater an greater aray of equipment than Contax,
> Leica or some mayor AF manufactors.
>
wait a minute here, before they advertise, they should come up with
something new to advertise. something to catch their eye, something new and
fresh. do you mean you will spend good money to advertise yesterdays old
bread. that is what is called stale news. nobody cares about that. what
does stale bread become? crumbs to become coating for weiner schnitzel. i
think that is popular in germany.
> > I think, olympus would know what to do at this time
> > because they are the ones who know what the results of the
> > introduction of the OM2000.
>
> I think the introducing of the OM-3Ti and 35-80mm/2.8 Zuiko was more
> costly than to buy a Cosina with OM mount.
>
correct!!! there is no comparison between the OM2000 and the OM3Ti and the
35-80 which is a superb lens. if you look closely at what oly is trying
here, it is not much different from what honda in america did with the honda
passport. they are trying to test the waters and capture a certain segment
of the market without much effort. they basically put a few touches on a
cosina and placed their badge on it. it would be interesting if they made
any market research with this. did they sell cameras because of reviews or
was it just brand recognition. only they can tell you that.
> > In terms of cameras, i think that the OM3/4 are ripe for upgrades. For
> > me these are minimal but would greatly enhance it's appeal. ...
>
> Your sugestions will mean a complete new design of the cameras, not
> "minimal changes".
>
i don't see what is so major about the suggestions that i gave. i don't know
what your profession is but you seem to know something that most of us
don't. if you do know something, we would appreciate it if you would share
it with us. if not stand aside and keep your forked tongue on hold. with
regards to the aperture in the viewfinder, i am reminded of what nikon was
able to achieve their AI lenses when they went from the F to the F2
photomic. they made a few additions of a bracket and a few numbers on the
lens and viola, apertures in the viewfinder!!! i agree with windsor, i am
not an engineer but i am sure that some brilliant engineers in olympus can
find a workable solution ot this. i wouldn't even be surprised if Mr.
Maitani had already thought of this. so nay sayers should just stand aside.
> > first of
> > all, they should try to add an aperture info window in the viewfinder.
>
> How should they do that?
>
see above!!!
> > For the OM4, a program mode with possibilities of
> > improved flash performance with spot metering with flash.
> > Possibly
> > matrix metering just to attract more people to the system.
>
> You mean an switch-off-your-brain mode?
>
this is not meant for people who like to mull over their exposures forever.
i am one of them. i am willing to concede this so that olympus can make more
sales to those people who like features like this in a camera. it is not to
insult your intelligence.
> > An even more
> > improved spot metering system with a smaller area spot.
>
> Smaller? This would make aiming much more difficult or did you think,
> that 20f the image size is to large?
>
and why not have a smaller spot? why do you think the pentax digital spot
meter is so popular eventhough it is an old design? it has an extremely
small measuring area that simply makes for more accurate exposures. the
smaller spot metering area will be good especially when using wide angle
lenses where the 2 overage may still be too large. i will quote from the
12/97 issue of Photo techniques where they voted the OM4Ti as one of the
best cameras in the world and this was in regards to the metering system-
"the execution of the idea could probobly be improved using today's
technology instead of 1984's, with a narrower-angle spot and greater
accuracy." i am just echoing their sentiment. besides, aside from the Ti
designation, FP flash, better seals and reduced battery drain, it has been
14 years since any changes. too long?
> > In terms of a new camera, if they were to implement the above
> > suggestions, the only thing that they would have to make is a flagship
> > camera that is in the vein of the Contax RTS or Nikon F5. take your
> > pick. this will be more a system enhancer than a real seller.
>
> So you want to force Olympus to produce a faty(fatty?)
> expensiv(expensive?) camera just to
> impress the people (the N*k*n owning coleague?), but you are not willing
> to buy one?
>
even if i read between the lines, i don't see where i implied that i would
not buy one. i don't know what you read. if i could buy a nikon F5 type
camera in an olympus markee, why wouldn't i? i think the F5 is a fine
camera and has it's specific uses. i may find myself in situations where the
OM4 is not the ideal platform. having the lenses that i have now makes the
decisions much easier. basically, olympus should give its loyal users a
reason to stay and not an excuse to bail out. they have to show that they
are willing to continue what they began over a quarter century ago.
> > As for lenses, most of the work that they have to do is mostly in the
> > telephoto and zoom arena. A few APO lenses would greatly enhance the
> > systems appeal. probobly upgrade the 180mm, 300 4.5 and 400 mm to APO
> > with bigger opening for the 300 and the 400.
>
> Do you own already the 180mm/2.0, 250mm/2.0 and 350mm/2.8? To expensiv
> or not good enough? Quality seems not to be the problem, this lenses are
> considered as some of the best avaible.
> How much, do you think, will new moderate fast tele lenses cost? Look at
> the pricelists of the big AF three. Each of them has biger lens sales
> than Olympus, but this lenses are still expensiv, so most consumer buy
> crapy xx-300mm zooms.
>
no to the first and definitely too expensive but definitely some of the best
around. now that i know that olympus could produce these lenses back then (
i forget when the 180/2.0, 250/2.8 and 350/2.8 lenses were first
introduced), i can only wonder what they can produce now with the improved
technology in new material, aspherical lenses and grinding techniques. if
you will notice, it is only olympus who consistnetly puts glass and not
composite ( glass and plastic bound together) aspherical lenses in all
theirs lenses. the entry level IS system are supplied with aspherical glass.
add to that their experience with ED glass. why can't they provide the same
quality in their pro camera line? this is exactly the reason why i don't buy
those crappy off brand lenses. i am hoping that olympus will provide a
better alternative. sad to say, they haven't.
also, somehow your logic escapes me here. first you say that olympus makes
great lenses but they are too expensive. then you add that the big three in
AF also produce moderately fast tele lenses which are still expensive. and
now you suggest that i buy these crappy off brand lenses. but isn't the
point of this discussion to improve the sales of olympus? first they don't
have a moderately fast tele lens. what they they have are ultra fast tele
lenses. these are not what the average consumer needs. an example is
something like a 300/4.0 with improved optics. they simply have to design
and produce new lenses that we will be willing to buy from olympus and not
settle for the off brand. i think that tacrine is now in order.
> To APO: Buy an Sigma APO SD XL HX ZEN Series13 CD TRI CAM 20-400mm all
> plastic lens and be lucky.
>
> > But not to price them out
> > of this Galaxy.
>
> Are you willing to subsidize Olympus?
>
i'm not even going to honor this with a reply.
> > Upgrade the 24 and 35 mm shift lenses to have tilt
> > capability would be great.
>
> Both lense are not expensiv enough?
>
oly has to continue to be a leader in something. canon has three tilt shift
lens designs. price is not the issue here. it is the cost of not making it.
it may not be a lot, but i wonder how many buyers are lured because there
were tilt/shift lenses available? i don't know, it would be interesting to
know. the cost here is the opportunity lost to service another possible
customer had oly considered making such a lens. if i were looking around
for a system, i will look for a system that has some product development.
ugrading is only part of the evolution of the system.
> > update and further enhance the optical
> > performance of their 49mm front thread series. i have heard that
> > olypmus is erratic in terms of the lens performance. they should
> > dispell this notion and only produce toprate lenses that nobody can
> > question.
>
> Where did you hear that and which lenses are, acording to you, not top
> of the notch lenses?
>
the issue is not whether the lenses are not top notch or not but it is the
perception of the buying public. the source of this information is, again,
photo techniques and a number of second hand salesmen here in new york.
people whose business it is to sell cameras. guess how much power they hold
on the buying public? altho this may in no way be scientific, the seed has
been sown.
> > As for new lenses, a rectilinear lens in the 14mm range. a really fast
> > 35mm(F 1.4) and 85 or 100mm lens ( F 1.4 --1.8).
>
> Do you urgent wait for one, or do you wait for them to show up in the
> used cameras window? I´m shure I couldn´t afford on 85mm/1.4. The
> 100mm/2.0 is not bright enough? You want an 105mm/1.8? Buy an Nikkor, to
> say, hey my lens is 1/3 stop faster and fully 50nger. :-)) Size
> matters, for some...
>
i will concede that these are icings on the cake. not needed but nice to
have. but remember it is the icing that most people look at!! it make
people take notice!! how do you like your black forrest cake? plain
chocolate or with the icing, cherries and chocolate shavings?
> > A few zoom lenseswould also be nice.
> > One in the 28-35mm to 125-150mm range with a F4
> > opening. and a few F2.8 zooms in the 80-200 range (a 2.8 65-200 would
> > be great). and two wide to normal range zooms would be appreciated.
>
> Do you have already the 35-80mm/2.8 zoom? To expensiv? How much do you
> think this lenses will cost? (I´m starting to repeat myself)
>
no and no. i think that they can produce a lens similar to the AF nikkor
80-200/2.8 which is a great lens. this again is a choice that they have to
make. produce a lens for the oly or expect oly owners to buy off brand which
most of us would rather not do and loose that business. it simply give new
buyers a choice to consider.
> > There are a lot of other things that sold be added, but a careful
> > implementation is what is essential here. they don't have to do
> > everything at the same time, just perfectly timed.
>
> Thanks, and I thought your modest list needs some additions.
>
> Richard
so richard or, as their nicknames are here in america are, dick, this is my
rebuttle. if things still appear nebulous, then i can't help you with that.
francis
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|