Just as a counterpoint to the line of thought that questions whether OM
fans should be buying new to support the company, rather than used:
At the start of this year I got my first SLR. It was a brand spanking new
OM-2000 with brand spanking new 35-70 lens. The trouble is that the lens is
such an absolute piece of shit that I've only ever taken 1/2 roll of
pictures with it before putting it on a shelf in total disbelief and
disgust. The camera lasted 20 rolls before having to be sent out for
warranty work. While it was away being fixed, I was lent an OM1n by the
chagrined shop owner who sold me the OM2000. I liked the older OM so much
that I bought it, and have been quite happily adding to the kit by finding
used bargains wherever I can. One of the primary reasons that I bought into
the OM system in the first place was the availability of relatively
inexpensive used lenses. When I was originally comparing Nikon's low-end
Cosina built FE-10 offering to Olympus's similar low-end Cosina built
OM-2000 offering one thing that really struck me was that a used Nikor 50mm
Macro was around $350-$400US, whereas the Zuiko 50/3.5 Macro that I
eventually bought was around $200US. I had been looking hard at the vastly
better built Nikon FM-2 in the $400-$500US range, but the availability of
inexpensive used Zuiko lenses convinced me to try the low-end OM. It's no
secret that Olympus's lineup of new SLR camera bodies is completely absent
of anything in the mid-price level (say $400-$600US list) where most folks
might be tempted to buy. So in reality it might be said that it was
precisely the used market that drove me to get a camera that cost less than
I was prepared to spend. And it was the cheapness and shoddiness of that
OM-2000 that drove me solidly into the used OM market. If Olympus has no
significant share of a presumably dwindling SLR market, then it's their own
damned fault for not offering anything in between the $160US OM-2000 and
the ridiculously overpriced OM-3Ti and OM-4Ti. I completely fail to see any
rationale why those last two cameras are priced the way they are. If it's
because they're titanium, then Olympus should offer versions that are
merely brass or aluminum for those of us that can't/won't pay the extra
exorbitant tarriff of the trendy (and admittedly nice to hold) ti.
Also, a tangential rant along a similar vein is that when I went to buy a
small tape recorder/dictaphone I looked at Olympus 1st. But they only offer
the microcassette versions and I thought at the time that it was important
to get one that takes standard cassettes so I bought Sony. The reality is
that Olympus is so big and into so many things that the market to capture
people like me is so miniscule as to be irrelevant to them. I wish it
wasn't so, but it is.
Hopefully when I'm ready for an IS-3, they'll still be available new. And
hopefully when I'm ready for a digi-cam, Olympus's selection will be
competitive. But I'm not betting on either of those two occurances. For now
I'm content with the dwindling selection of used OM gear.
One more thing, in our fondness for various Olympus products, let's not
forget that it's only another company, not a religion. Companies and
company's products change over time and there's no reason to stick with one
when it's abandoned the reasons you came to like it in the first place.
Mike Swaim
< 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 >
|