Hell will freeze over first.
It's likely Olympus came up with Four Thirds because it wanted to position
itself as different from everyone else, and to take advantage of its image
as a maker -- the maker -- of compact SLRs.
As far as I know, only Panasonic has adopted Four Thirds -- and Matsuhista
is not a camera company. No photographic company in its right mind is going
to make a body that takes other company's lenses. You make money by selling
lenses, not bodies. The only advantage of multiple companies making lenses
with the same mount is that it allows them to "fill in the gaps". Neither
Canon nor Nikon is worried about gaps in their lens lines.
Has anyone noticed that, although Four Thirds are less expensive to
manufacture, they cost about as much as other company's full-size lenese? I
spent $200 for the 30mm macro, a lens with a half-dozen tiny elements.
Micro Four Thirds offers the potential of a genuinely tiny DSLR, one as
compact and elegant as an OM. But I'm not holding my breath -- I'm doing
exercises to build up my arm muscles for my Canon system.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|