Simon Worby wrote:
>OM1(N) -> OM3(Ti)
>OM2(N/SP) -> OM4(Ti)
>
>OM1 was cheaper than the OM2. Presumably at the time electronics were
>expensive.
>
Even if not, marketing would suggest a higher price for a newer camera
with new and very special functions. Remember the OM-2 was a first in
the camera world with its TTL OTF exposure for both natural light and
flash. They probably also had at least an idea when they priced the OM-2
that a cheaper, consumer grade camera, the OM-10 was going to be produced.
>OM3 was dearer than the OM4. Presumably by that time, electronics were cheaper.
>
I suppose. The OM-3 was a really an odd beast, at least from a product
placement and marketing viewpoint. Much more expensive than the OM-1n,
which was still being produced until after the OM-3 had been
discontinued, it lacked a key function for much serious pro and advanced
amateur use, mirror lock-up. The OM-1n had mirror lock-up and the OM-2s
and OM-4 both had spot metering and the superior vibration reduction of
both mirror and aperture prefire. Back then, mechanical cameras were the
norm, and not considered such a special thing as they are now among many
of us. When I bought my first OM-2n, the OM-1 was kept for backup, but
hardly used. The OM-3 just didn't offer much value for price to most
buyers and was quickly discontinued. The OM-3Ti didn't show up for
another 9 years after the OM-3 was discontinued and 8 years after the OM-1n.
>Current-day prices follow exactly that trend, in spite of the fact that the
>mechanical OM1 would cost much more to make nowadays than the OM2.
>
In most cases, it's not manufacturing cost, even when new, that
determines price, but rather perceived value and competition. If it
costs mo to make that it can be sold for, it either isn't made (smart
company) or the maker loses money on it.
>I assume part of the reason for the price difference is that the OM2 is rarer
>
I don't know what productions numbers were, but there were LOTS of
OM-2(n) bodies sold and are still a lot of them out there. And like the
OM-1, they are still quite repairable. I believe the price difference is
still based on perceived function and value.
> (as is the OM3)
>
MUCH, MUCH rarer than the OM-2(n).
> -- again probably due to the fact that it cost so much more than the
> alternative
>
and offered so little more function.
>But in spite of their lack of rarity, logic has it that OM1's are currently
>extremely good value for money. A mechanical camera for £50 -- surely that is
>crazy?
>
It's a free market with lots of items available and lots of buyers and
sellers, so the price is completely 'sane'. Of course it would cost a
great deal more to create such a thing today, but nobody would do so, so
the point is moot. Although those who hold purely mechanical optical and
other devices in high regard may be among those with the finest tastes
in the world, but there aren't enough of us to put any strain on the
supply of old cameras.
>Out of interest, does anyone on this list NOT have an OM1? If not, why not?
>
Like Bill, I would be happy to solve that problem for anyone in need! :-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|