Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Bloviation [was Contrast focusing speed]

Subject: [OM] Bloviation [was Contrast focusing speed]
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:00:11 -0800
On 2/3/2010 1:20 PM, Ken Norton wrote some bloat:
>
> My theory is that Canon discovered that they can sell gobs (millions) of 
> cameras without certain features. People will buy the stuff no matter what. 
> Eye-controlled focusing was cat's meow and I really really liked it whenever 
> I could get it dialed in.

The Moose bloated in reply:

Did you buy one? Features that sell cameras stay in the designs. 
Features that cost money and don't sell cameras disappear.

> Another advance was the pellicle mirror.

Specialized. As it turns out, you can't sell many cameras that drop a 
stop of the lens brightness all the time in return for lack of mirror 
slap that's only a problem in a small minority of shots. If people had 
bought them by the container load, they would still be making them.

> Or what about DEP mode?

As above.

> Even mirror lock-up!

C'mon! It's there, just inconvenient. :-)   It is a mystery of Canon 
design. Still, I simply have it activated in the Custom setting, so it's 
just a dial twist away.

> All features and enhancements removed from the digital era because it won't 
> add a single sale and only takes away from the bottom line.

I agree, but would put it another way. Survival, let alone success, in a 
competitive market requires that most activities make a profit. All the 
things you mention above actually were innovative and cost money to 
conceive, design and produce. None of these were things that Oly, 
Pentax, Nikon, Minolta, et. al. tried. So I give Canon credit for 
continuing to try to add new ideas into camera production. So why aren't 
you beating up the other makers who didn't even try?

The economic realities of the market meant that the innovations that 
didn't drive sales fell by the wayside. But Canon was the one that gave 
us a choice to buy these things. I'll bet you didn't.

> When you are already selling 100% of your manufacturing ability of cameras it 
> makes no sense to add features that cost money to put in.

Again, it was the others that didn't even try. Canon DID add those 
features, then dropped what didn't sell. Actually, I think they are a 
bit stubborn in some ways, keeping features of questionable sales 
driving value. Is any other maker of high end compact cameras doing 
anything at all to deal with the issue of DOF with small sensors? Canon 
continues to add a small, but significant cost to the G series cameras 
to include an internal ND filter.

Do they respond to user desires, at least as expressed in sales? Well, 
they tried dropping the articulated screen from the early G series, only 
to bring it back on the G11. If you think that was just a random event, 
and not the result of sales and marketing research, you really should 
stay away from the non-engineering side of business. If results justify 
it, the G12 will have it, if not ...

> Shoot, back in the '70s Canon discovered that it could stay with the 
> worst-possible metering system (sensors in the prism housing directly above 
> the eyepiece) and just add exposure modes--oh and stick it all in a 
> chrome-plated plastic body.

I don't know much about that. I skipped the whole era of AF film 
cameras, going from OM to 300D, a cheap, chrome-plated, plastic body. 
And yet, as a practical matter, the exposure system in that body and the 
later 5D has turned out to be quite reliable for me. So the 300D body 
was cheap to make, so what? I never had a single problem with it and it 
took lots of quite good images. I guess I really am stupid, but if it 
works, I don't complain.

> Today, with digital, they slap a new sensor in the same body (at no 
> additional manufacturing cost as chipsets are fixed price no matter the 
> number of pixels stuffed on it--you pay for surface area), move a couple of 
> buttons around, change the shape a little, improve the software a tiny bit

That is just Bull. Research, design and tooling costs are a significant 
part of the unit costs of any product with a rapid obsolescence factor. 
Sure, actual production cost after the first wafer is only a factor of 
area, but getting that first wafer designed and tooled costs a lot. Do 
you think Canon has led in sensor performance for virtually the whole 
digital era through sheer luck? I'm pretty sure they have spend very 
large sums on R&D.

Remember the conventional wisdom not so many years ago that CMOS wasn't 
suitable for larger sensors? How did that change? Oh yeah, some 
engineers at Canon did lots of actual design and testing. Now all of us 
benefit from better IQ performance from all manufacturers. Canon R&D not 
only benefited themselves, but the whole industry and the users of its 
products.

> (or just change text colors) and call it a new model and people will 
> immediately eBay their old one and buy the new one. But the fault does not 
> sit with Canon. The fault sits with the consumer--those of us that bought the 
> cameras for the wiz-bang feature sets.
>    

I dunno. From an engineering point of view, all digicams should be 
silver or white at least on the back, to reduce heat load on the sensor 
and the consequent increase in noise. Just above, you dissed chrome 
finishes on plastic bodies. Do you prefer black bodies, for 
non-engineering reasons? I know I do, and I think the Canon white pro 
lenses look silly, too. I'll bet the vast majority of us here feel in 
their bones that black is the proper color for a serious camera.

If someone feels better about the pics they take with a pink P&S than 
they would with a black one, who am I to judge them? You don't like the 
wiz-bang features and enjoy railing against them. I ignore them; I don't 
recall ever using any of the "picture modes" on the various P&Ss I've 
used. BUT, if they help sell enough cameras that I can have real dials 
for ISO and EV compensation, full manual and various sorts of semi and 
full automatic focus and exposure control and a great sensor system, 
more power to them.

> Software is inexpensive to manufacture, superior engineering isn't.

Weren't you the one nattering just a few days ago about video style IS? 
You didn't say one thing about what might be the best engineering 
solution in terms of image results, just got excited about something new.

> All it took was for the inclusion of some multi-function buttons, dials and 
> LCD displays and it became a simple matter of sticking fancy new electronic 
> doodads on the same old tired mechanical system with obsolete metering cells.
>    

Full credit to Panny and Oly for leading the way toward high end 
non-reflex cameras. I suspect the driving force was Panny, as they 
didn't have an existing small DSLR line to take sales from - still ...

It's the wave of the future and I'll be there when other features become 
competitive for my desires. For the moment, though, The G11 is so close 
to µ4/3 in overall IQ and capabilities and the 5D so far beyond them 
that there is no appeal for me. The "same old tired mechanical system 
with obsolete metering cells." does the job. Isn't that the point?

> Back in the heyday of SLRs ('80s),<snip generalities and rhetorical questions>
>
> Olympus had the biggest, most glorious IMAX style viewfinder ever!  Not 
> anymore. The excuse of "it's comparible to the competition in equivalent 
> price brackets" is a load of fertilizer.
>    

I guess I'll never get this one. But I'll say it again. 4/3 has only 1/4 
the light to work with, as the viewscreen is 1/4 the area of what the 
OMs had to work with. There is simply no way to make the view as large 
and as bright. Oly tried with the huge prism and fancy eyepiece optics 
of the E-3, but it can't be done.

Do I wish Canon hadn't compromised prism size on the 5D compared to the 
1Ds series? I'm not sure. Personally, I can see focus pretty well on the 
5D and on a 5dII, I would have Live View. Would I want to pay more for a 
larger, heavier camera?

> Call me a retrogrouch (or worse) because I'm doing the "good old days" 
> routine on you, but for crying out loud, today's digital cameras are ONLY 
> advancements in the imaging systems, but the cameras themselves are rarely
> improvements on what we had years ago.

As I said, I never participated in the AF film era, just skipped it in 
OM bliss. From my experience, the AF/digi world does offer some real 
advantages. I like using a camera with good AF, AE, IS and a long zoom 
range.  A lot of subjects are simply ephemeral and a camera left by 
default on full auto with 10x zoom allows me to capture some of them I 
would otherwise miss. I also think instant feedback with histogram and 
flashing clipped areas is a tremendous boon for exposure control. I 
REALLY like articulated, live view LCDs with live histogram.

> In most cases, the cameras themselves have gone far backwards and it's 
> exactly because WE the consumer will buy whatever they produce and quality 
> engineering no longer is a consideration.
>    

This seems to me a bit like the metal vs. plastic argument about lens 
design. There are probably still a lot of people who equate metal 
construction with "good engineering". Yet, yet, well engineered plastic 
designs are generally more robust than metal, as properly specified 
plastic can absorb without damage events that will bend metal. When you 
factor in weight and cost, I think a well engineered plastic lens is 
superior for me.

I just picked up a Kiron 28-210/4-5.6 lens, a masterpiece of the MF era, 
in one hand and a Tamron 28-300/3.5-6.3 in the other hand. The Kiron 
feels roughly twice as big and three times the weight - and isn't IS.

Same thing for camera bodies. The goals and constraints are different, 
but I think there is much the same range of engineering quality today as 
back in the "heyday". To be honest, the OM design had from the beginning 
a serious engineering design flaw in the aperture stop-down mechanism 
design paradigm. The Nikon design is simply superior in terms of 
minimizing vibration, big camera or small.

> The Digital Pen is an advancement?  Just tell me exactly how this is an 
> advancement? All they did was take existing technology from the DSLR world 
> and matched it up with a few things from the P&S world. Nothing new, just 
> repackaging.

Looked at that way, the original Leica was just repackaging. Find an 
individual element in it that was a new idea. Taking already existing 
elements and combining them in a way that changes how they work together 
and are used can be a profoundly creative act.

I'm not claiming that µ4/3 is as creative as the original Leica, but it 
is a significant change. Everybody who has been paying attention has 
known for ages that EVF/LCDs will eventually replace reflex mirrors in 
all but specialized cameras sooner or later. Panny and Oly took the 
plunge, tried alternatives configurations and started the practical 
future of the (D)SLRs replacement.

Just because it doesn't meet your needs and desires - nor mine - doesn't 
mean it isn't significant.

> And Olympus couldn't even be bothered to figure out how to stick an external 
> connection for flash sync on the thing if you have the viewfinder 
> attached!!!!  A PC-sync would have added $0.50 to the cost of manufacturing, 
> but they thought that it wouldn't have added any sales so why bother 
> including it.
>    

Although they don't admit it directly (and doesn't obvious to me from 
the pricing) Oly has targeted an audience who would largely not even 
know what that is with their early µ4/3 offerings, and now especially 
the latest one. I suppose they think there is a bigger market for folks 
stepping up from P&Ss than stepping down/sideways from DSLRs. You want 
the pro model they may bring out some day. Thre are probably over 
analytic marketers at Oly who have been scared to death of hurting E-xxx 
series sales. Remember, the E-4xx to 6xx series may have saved Oly's 
bacon at a crucial time.

> I don't mean for this to come across as zenophobic or anything like that, but 
> this is the typical Japanese thinking that kept EVERY VCR ever made in 
> perpetual "Blinking 12:00" mode because they didn't stick a battery in them 
> to hold the clock and all the programming when the unit is unplugged or the 
> power fails. It didn't matter--we idiot customers kept buying VCRs no matter 
> what. We just had to learn to live with the "12:00" and no way to reliably 
> record programs.
>    

Again, inaccurate hyperbole in the service of emotional appeal. The Old 
Sony VCR in my bedroom retains the time for fairly lengthy power 
outages. It retains programming, as well, although more likely EPROM 
than battery. More significantly, all three VCRs I was using until the 
multi-tuner DVR arrived set themselves to the correct time automatically 
from signals sent between frames on PBS stations.

None of them ever sat flashing 12:00 as long as attached to an antenna.

Disclaimer: I have no particular "thing" for or against Canon. My 
current most used cameras are Canons, but only as careful analysis has 
led me to believe that they have been the best fit for me. The closest 
thing I have left of anything like a preference for a camera maker or 
brand loyalty is to Oly. Unfortunately, they haven't made the best 
camera for me in a long time. All other things being mostly equal, I 
have an economic incentive now to stay with Canon for DSLRs in the form 
of my EF mount lenses.

Moose
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz