2007/9/5, Bill Pearce <bs.pearce@xxxxxxx>:
>
> I continue to try to point out that the commercial viability of the E
> cameras is doubtful, as Olympus is apparently unable to keep pace with the
> two or three large players. The same holds true for Pentax and Samsung, and
> probably others I 've forgotten.
Reality is much more interesting, niches are real markets and there
are real costs of leadership. And as far as niche players go, Olympus
is in an unique situation as the leader of the 4/3 system, with three
other players complementing each other, and perhaps more to come (at
least in lenses).
Besides, it is the only option to us who care about open standards.
> I would suggest that, although I do have an emotional attachment to Olympus,
> going with the big players is hardly being folded into the masses. It's not
> as if they make even just average products, or the many members of this list
> that have left the Olympus fold when they went digital wouldn't have.
They make great products indeed — but heavy and expensive, hardly
substitutes for the OM.
> For me, the Olympus digitals have two things that make them a bad choice for
> me, and many, many others: There is questionable long term viability of the
> system, and they are most always a generation behind the competition.
I don't agree here. I see it as the more viable of all systems,
because it is made for digital and, specially, because it is not tied
to a single vendor. Let Cannikon die, no one would continue the
system; if Olympus dies, I still have at least other three vendors.
And I see Olympus one generation above the competition as it comes to
portability.
--
+55 (11) 5685 2219 xmpp:leandrod@xxxxxxxxxx
+55 (11) 9406 7191 Yahoo!: ymsgr:sendIM?lgcdutra
+55 (11) 5686 9607 ICQ/AIM: aim:GoIM?screenname=61287803
MSN: msnim:chat?contact=leandro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|