>How can Minolta afford to develop a range of lenses like this for
>their 35mm SLR cameras?
um, a good credit rating??? <g>
>Remember that the OM line-up includes a lot
>of lenses that were designed and introduced more than 20 years ago
>(this doesn't mean they aren't excellent lenses). The only real Zuiko
>lenses that Oly have released since the late 1980's (I don't count
>the ones released with the OM 2000) are the 35-80 F2.8, and the
>180/2, 250/2, 350/2.8 (admittedly they are all pretty neat lenses!).
>
The vast majority of pro photographers migrated to autofocus cameras in the
early 90's. Olympus didn't catch the wave and have apparently barely kept the
OM line going, maybe out of respect for Mataini if nothing else.
> Maybe Minolta are trying to crack
>the "pro" market? I don't know.
>
Minolta has a very large patent portfolio. I'm surprised that it took them
this long to really get serious about 35mm pro cameras myself. Remember the
"super FP" technology is a minolta invention, licensed by Olympus.
>If Minolta can bring out an 80-200/2.8, a 400/4.5, a 600/4 and a
>17-35 why can't Olympus? Surely there must be more OM-mount bodies
>still in action around the world than there are Minolta AF-mount
>lenses?
The world is dominated by autofocus cameras. Very few pros still use manual
focus, as far as I know. Minolta would have to establish a large pro-oriented
service network like Nikon to really sway the pros away from the other
brands. I think that to a large extent it is this service network that is the
main reason the pros choose Nikon anyway, not because the cameras are better.
The best product is almost never the most popular.
It's a tribute to the toughness of OM cameras that so many are still out
there. It sure as hell isn't because of a good service network.
--
Be Seeing You.
Dirk Wright
Absence makes the heart go wander.
< 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 >
|