On 30/08/06, AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Khen,
>
> I am also a fan of the AZ330. I was working photo retail at the
> time and that camera had absolutely no equal. I would have
> bought one but the IS-1 came out and I went that direction
> instead (with absolutely no regrets). I still have my IS-3 which
> has such an incredible AF system.
You might be stunned if I were to tell you that the IS-3 (IS-3000) and the
OM-707AF actually shared the same basis for the AF system.
Incidentally, the internal name for the IS-series was T2L, which is not just
cute but immensely insightful and smart and I wish that the whole series was
named that way, as in Olympus T2L, T2L II, T2L III etc. The T2L basically
refers to, "....from TTL to L" ("to" as in "2" and T2L sounds like TTL as
well....kinda real smart thinking here).
Can you talk about the design of the OM-2S for us? It remains
> my most favorite camera of all times. Just like the OM-2N before
> it, it is a camera that is responsive and doesn't get in the way
> of the photographic process. Yet the camea was built around all
> new internals. Why did the camera not get a longer sales life
> and why was it allowed to die without further upgrade?
We totally missed out on timing issues with the AF revolution. Although we
were aware of Minolta's 11th hour skunks works developing a TTL-AF system,
the OM-2S Program was already pretty committed down the line.
The OM-2S Program is a very definitive and seminal model that didn't get the
opportunity to prove itself. We had one problem with it - reliability.
Somehow we botched up on the electronics because of a batch component
glitch, which we worked out to be from one of our prime suppliers (can't
name the company...sorry...but its a huge Japanese supplier...hint). We had
a fairly substantial batch of OM-2S Program bodies that had serious
viewfinder info system problems that dampened its otherwise perfect match to
legendary status. In my mind, it is a superbly well thought of design that
is oh-so typical Olympus.
The key to the OM-2S Program's uniqueness is its Program-Shift feature,
which at the time no one has seen before. Set the camera to P mode and you
can customise its response range by tweaking the aperture range. That in
itself is phenomenal and we were all very proud of it as it paved the way
eventually for greater things to come.
Talking about "getting in the way of the photographic process," I have been
extremely adamant about where current DSLR designs are heading and in true
Olympus thinking, it is wrong. I have made a strong and emphatic point back
to Olympus on this issue with a design proposal that I have forwarded where
I talk about the current design weakness which every camera maker seems to
ignore. I call it the Imaging Workflow, to define the things and tasks we do
to get the image captured. The current DSLR model (Olympus and non-Olympus)
has gone the wrong way in my mind because the imaging workflow is fraught
with non-necessities. If you compare the E-1 with the OM-4 in workflow terms
and then decide to pick both cameras and shoot the same subject, you betcha
life that you'll do it quicker with the OM-4. That IS the point I have made
to Shinju-ku and that is where we can be extremely bold and strong. There're
a lot more we can talk about this design flaw if you like and that is one of
the several issues that we discuss at club-level at Focus Five.
Was the OM-2S just a quick response to the Canon? Was it the
> product of an internal design dispute where some were for the
> OM-4, but others were still wanting to push the OM-2 one more
> generation?
No, the OM-2S Program was not a specific response to Canon. Olympus and
Canon do not see eye to eye and we can't be bothered with Nikon either. This
is not a sign of arrogance but we've given up trying to get them to
rationalise and change for the good of the user. The OM-2S Program was going
to start up a line of semi-pro film SLRs under the OM family but it didn't
work out that way because we simply ran out of our own timeline. Our
timeline did not match up with the industry timeline because of the
inception of the AF-SLR.
The market differentiation factor distinguishes the OM-2S Program with the
OM-3 and OM-4. All three are unique and different. There were never any
fears that the OM-2S Program was ever going to cannibalise sales from the
OM-4 because the differences were sufficiently marked. The OM-2S Program's
motordrive performance was pegged down to 3.5fps while the OM-4 would go all
the way to 5fps. The OM-2S Program had a Program-AE mode; the OM-4 didn't.
These two alone were enough. Olympus was a stalwart AGAINST the
incorporation of "nonsensical" (Maitani's word) features in an SLR intended
for pure professional expressionism and conveyance. That is why the OM-3 and
OM-4 are so pure in their intents and purposes.
To this date, I dare make the IRREVOCABLE CLAIM that the OM-3 AND OM-4 are
the BEST, PUREST and FINEST INTERPRETATION of professional single-lens
reflex cameras irregardless of format.
Know one thing about Olympus' designs, AG - Maitani benchmarked the Leica
III and that was the very first starting point. The PEN moulded his thinking
and he would have stayed steadfastly on that. The problem was the Americans
who rejected the half-frame idea. It just didn't work out since the slide
photo labs were not willing to modify. Hence people were getting two images
in one slide, which of course wasn't what Olympus had in mind. With the PEN,
Olympus wanted the American market to succeed. It didn't. The PEN was a
phenomenal cultural event for Japan and there is still a strong following
albeit subterraneously. And we still rever it at Olympus so many decades
later because of its design fluency and purity.
Maitani developed the Pen-F/FT/FV because that was where his heart could so
easily be found and that was where his best ideas were. He had the singular
mind in pushing this through and that was why he developed an entire system
for it. The 35mm full-frame OM System and specifically the Zuiko range were
all gestated from the PEN-series. The best clue is to look at the Zuiko
135/3.5 and you'll see the semblances.
All through those years up to the OM-4Ti, Maitani designed cameras that were
- and these ARE IMPORTANT - extremely fast in handling, tactile-responsive,
smooth, silent (take note of the Olympus Motordrive 2) and minimalistic. The
Motordrive 2's functionality was based on the Lancashire Shaft patent but
since the patent had already expired by then, our inhouse Copyright and
Patents Office gave us the green light to push the design through. Hence
there are twin motors inside the Motordrive 2; one rotating in the direct
opposite direction as the other. It was phenomenally smooth and quiet -
certainly one of several key points why the OM-4Ti was selected by NASA for
its ill-fated Space Shuttle mission.
Please remember if anyone asks you what makes Olympus different (I'm not
talking about digital compacts), your answer should be two words - "SPEED"
and "HANDLING." These are Maitani hallmarks. No others ever came close. Not
even Leica even if they supplied the initial benchmark from which we became
who we are today. The word "SPEED" is not to be mistaken for things like
shutter speeds etc. We use the word SPEED to define how cameras are handled.
Here is where the Imaging Workflow concept must be preserved and why I said
what I said about it earlier.
Hope all these help. Thanks.
K.
AG
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
--
Khen Lim
XIOS Network Solutions
IBM Business Partner
+60 +16 528 6010 / 016 528 6010
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|