Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [OM] Irony of discontinuing of the OM series

Subject: RE: [OM] Irony of discontinuing of the OM series
From: Tris Schuler <tristanjohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:14:25 -0800

It does seem to me that Oly did miss out on the sales potential of periodic detail improvements and restyling every couple of years that gets reviews in the magazines and gives the impression of continuing development.

As far as I'm concerned that's something Oly did right. Why market something as "new" when it's not? Just because this is what Joe Public expects and "wants" based on his bad habits over the years with "consumable" products like most automobiles and television sets? If "photographers" don't want excellent emulsion equipment then by all means Olympus is correct to abandon that field and jump into a more viable, digital market. I only hope that the company's executives aspire to sit atop that market with regards to the absolute quality of this equipment.

Meanwhile, the public will get, is getting, exactly what it wants and deserves when it comes to camera equipment designed for use with emulsion: shit. Those who know better will buy up (are buying up) any remaining new stock and used gear out of the Olympus OM line, and more power to these people.

I have the basic equipment I need now. Three 4T's is all I can possibly use. I could hope to one day own a fast telephoto or two, but in reality the use I'd get of this sort of lens candy would be minimal. If I were still working that'd be another story, but then if I were still working odds are my publisher would insist that I use digital in the field for the purpose of fast transmission. Indeed, except for National Geographic photographers (and probably a few other major slicks out there) who employs pros with emulsion gear anymore? From everything I've heard and seen in the field I doubt many (if any) of the major dailies do. Does Sports Illustrated still accept film-emulsion work from its staff? If so, where were these photographers the last time I viewed a major sports event on TV? All I've seen lately were people out there holding what appeared to be magic boxes--whatever this equipment was it certainly didn't look very much like old Nikon gear, and of course nothing at all for OM stuff. (I had a sick feeling about that when UPI went under, call it a very bad spectre for all things Olympus at the time.)

Now that I think on it, I'd volunteer that my sole serious interest in more Oly gear would be to one day break down and buy a new 3Ti. I'd guess I wouldn't "need" it any more than I "need" a set of chessmen I own which I paid about $1200 for (and if you think that's nuts, hold onto your hats because that was for a new set and I still have my eye on an antique Morphy set from the middle of the nineteenth century which costs three times as much <g>), but then as they say, man does not live by bread alone.

Anyway, back to current Nikon gear: I can see why someone would want to own an F3. That's _real_ pro gear and was built to take it. Understand me. I don't see, in any manner, shape or form, the wisdom of wanting to own such equipment for actual use in the field when one could just as easily buy new or used Olympus equipment like the 3 or 4, except of course for the ability to rent special-use lenses easily, but I would understand a man's craving (is this like photographic nostalgia?) for reasons having nothing to do with the gear's true utilitarian value. But buy into a system which has at its core an FM3a?

You know, sometimes I just can't understand where part of this list lives. <g>

Tris


< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz