On 06/09/06, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Nils Frohberg wrote:
> > (Disclaimer: I didn't look into C*non's new body, I don't care much.)
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 10:43:19PM -0700, Moose wrote:
> > [C*non's SSWF]
> >
> >> But I sure have to respect Canon.
> >>
> >
> > To me, this move only shows, again, that C*non's not willing/courageous
> > enough to be innovative. Until today, C*nonites were always repeating
> > the same sermon: "Olympus' SSWF? Hah! No need for that! It doesn't
> > help keeping dust out, ...etc..." Now watch them praise their new
> > achievement: SSWF.
> >
> > It's the same in every industry, the big guns pick all the good things
> > that the little companies come up with, and the customers cheer. Yay.
>
> I don't wish to get in a pissing match, but I do really disagree with
> you on two important levels and suspect that you are unaware of some
> complex systems theories about the the sources of success and failure in
> economic systems.
>
> If you wish to understand and relate to the world through an emotional
> model that puts value only on stories that support a particular
> perspective/belief, certainly, you are right. Read no further. Really!
>
> First:
>
> I don't tend to see large corporations, regardless of size, as wearing
> black or white hats. They are all gray to me. If a stingray kills you,
> there is nothing personal in it, it's just the nature of the beast.
>
> My understanding of the 'personality' of Olympus, or at least the part
> that makes consumer photo equipment is that it is a company with great
> creative talents that often is dysfunctional in turning those creative
> ideas into products that will sell well in the market place. It also
> appears to be shy and easily frightened. Sort of a nerd (And I speak as
> a possibly ex nerd, with a soft spot in my heart for them.)
>
My reading of the Canon consumer photography 'beast' is that it is
> market driven and will do whatever it can to meet the demands of those
> who buy the kind of products it makes. It appears tht it expends some
> effort in listening to its customers. And they seem to be opportunistic,
> willing to find solutions wherever they can, rather than worrying about
> whether they invented it or not.
>
> As a person who buys and uses those kind of products, I find Oly's
> approach frustrating, because I still have an emotional attachment to
> Oly. And I find Canon's approach very attractive. Why not like the one
> who gives you what you want?
>
> Second:
> I believe your statement about Canon and creativity is wrong and the
> unstated assumption about Oly creativity is also wrong.
Hate to do this, Moose but I'll agree to disagree with you on this point. I
wish you could be in some of our labs to see what we have. Toyota is HUGE
but still, a small company like Lotus has done far more for automotive
technological and design. I might be taken things out of context by that
comparison and I hope I don't start a divergent thread on automotive
debates. Just thought to make a point that Canon isn't what many purport
them to be but if I need a fax machine, I might just consider them.
Maybe it has something to do with the Aussie underdog instinct that I have.
- According to Panasonic, they designed the first commercial optical
> image stabilization system.. It moved the whole imaging system, lens and
> sensor, so was only suitable for small video systems. It was too big and
> heavy, so it was dropped (unstated: failed in the market) in favor of
> electronic IS
>
> " Then, in 2000, Matsushita Electric President Kunio Nakamura accurately
> predicted a major market trend when he set his engineers to work
> non-stop on digital still camera development." Another truth about the
> behavior of corporations, they embellish and spin the truth. By 2000,
> when Kunio had his vision, the first zoom with OIS, a Canon, was five
> years old. Looks to me like his vision was of photographic sales figures.
A trend does not automatically start when the product is launched. It starts
when there are first sure signs of strong growth. Although Canon might have
had it for five years, it was Matsushita that determined that there was a
trend and that trend might have therefore taken five years to get going.
Olympus started the first commercially viable and visible SSWF but did it
start a trend? It didn't because no one really bothered to listen. So now
Canon has theirs coming - so that might start the trend although they were
not the pioneers.
So was Canon's development of a practical internal IS based on moving
> only small parts of the optical system "pick[ing] all the good things
> that the little companies come up with"? Or was it genuine innovation? I
> don't know, but I do know that Canon was first to market with a really
> useful technology that allowed photographers to take images they
> couldn't before.
Sounds like the perennial debate between European design and Japanese
design. many don't consider the word "design" as applicable to the Japanese
but instead the word "styling" or "embellishment." The Europeans come up
with the research and gave the idea but the Japanese learned how to
commercialise and popularise it. the Japanese could see numbers better in
the economic market than the Europeans. But that doesn't mean European
design is dead. Canon is good at picking others' work and then call it their
own. They've had experience doing this and they will continue to. Talking to
Canon engineers to me was like talking to walls. They think they know
everything.
And I know Panasonic didn't call foul.
Being as polite as they tend to be, Japanese culture is by and large not
into confrontationism. That is not to say they never do but more often than
not, they don't.
When they saw
> which way the wind was blowing in the segment they wanted to do well in,
> they dug in and developed their own OIS using similar principles to
> Canon. Nikon too saw the handwriting on the wall and jumped on
> development of their own system, VR.
The issue of Image Stabilisation will take another epic on this List to
discuss because there is always that question at the root of it all - do we
really truly genuinely need one? Two camps here and one additional in the
middle.
- Not long ago, everybody in the imaging industry KNEW that CCD was the
> technology that would dominate still camera imaging above the
> cameraphone level. Canon quietly investigated further on their own - and
> turned the DSLR industry on its head with CMOS sensors that others are
> still scrambling to catch up with. Did they steal that from somebody?
> No.
No? You think so?
Was it innovative, creative? I think so, but you make up your own mind.
>
> - Khen just remarked on the T32 flash. Well, I love the T32. The TTL
> flash system on my long beloved OM-2n is the cat's meow. Dappled direct
> sun through trees into the shade of a kid's birthday party? Just leave
> camera and flash on auto, focus and shoot, all balanced, great shot.
> I've had lots of good shots over the years with that combo. Guess who
> developed and patented the TTL flash design? Hint, not Oly, they
> licensed it from someone else. Does that somehow make Oly bad? Not in my
> book. They combined their own innovations in the OM system with someone
> else's creativeity in another area to create a wonderful camera flash
> combo for me to buy, use and enjoy. What's not to like?
OK. The original TTL design was from Minolta but they did not complete the
work, Moose. They did not know how to take it further and that's plain
truth. We had lectures after lectures on this issue by Maitani. It was not
patented. There was no copyright because Minolta could not patent what they
knew very little about and how to take it further. Anything else that might
be documented about this on the net does not always reflect the truth of
what really went on behind the scenes. Don't really feel very comfortable
elaborating any further but by and large, the PRAGMATIC INTERPRETATION of
the technology that gave rise to the world's first TTL Flash Metering system
belongs to Olympus. In fact it was so impactual that MITI in Japan (aka
"Japan, Inc") forced Olympus' hand in licensing the technology out to
"others". Very much like during the Sixties when Toyota conspired behind the
the scenes to get Mitsubishi (...I think) Bank to try to buy up pesky little
Honda.
Third,
> If you have any interest in understanding the behaviors you refer to,
> you might do a little reading. The first part of "Complexity", by M.
> Mitchell Waldrop, might change your understanding of how and why some
> companies become big and others don't. Hint, the answer has nothing to
> do with good or bad, or even intentions and practices.
...and that's the whole trouble. :)
Moose
>
> ==============================================
> 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
==============================================
|