Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] olympus Digest, Vol 22, Issue 30

Subject: Re: [OM] olympus Digest, Vol 22, Issue 30
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:56:52 -0400
I'll add a point of my own.  Film cameras were able to produce better 
results as films improved.  Digital cameras get better as the sensor 
improves.  But that requires buying a new camera, not a new roll of 
film.  I think there was some significant effort to producing new and 
better films when digital started to become a significant competitor to 
film.  But film is so far down in the market these days that there is 
likely no benefit to additional film research and development.  The 
companies will continue to produce their existing products as long as 
there is some minimum level of sales.  But I think that new films are a 
thing of the past and many old ones will slowly disappear.

Chuck Norcutt


Jim Nichols wrote:
> Nice treatise, Moose.  I have to agree with you on most points.
> 
> Jim Nichols
> Tullahoma, TN USA
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 1:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [OM] olympus Digest, Vol 22, Issue 30
> 
> 
>>  On 8/28/2010 6:57 AM, Nicholas Herndon wrote:
>>>> You're kidding, right? They make what they think will sell and make them 
>>>> a
>>>> profit. The ones who survive are fairly good at that.
>>> I had a really long reply typed up, but I sounded like a bitter 70 year 
>>> old man so I deleted it.
>> Sounds like a useful choice. Bitter isn't any fun. I'm not that far from 
>> 70, but very far from bitter. :-)
>>
>>> You're right, camera companies are just looking to make a profit, and 
>>> making digital cameras that fail or are replaced every 2 or 3 years is an 
>>> easy path to profit.
>> I don't see how rapid technological advances leading people to replace 
>> cameras with newer, more capable ones is some
>> sort of intentional act on the part of the camera companies. It's not like 
>> they could have made their current, or the
>> even more capable models of the future 10 years ago, and just chose not 
>> to.
>>
>> Just from a personal perspective, I am sort of poor at getting rid of 
>> things promptly. And with digital cameras, that
>> means they have no value by the time I'm willing to get rid of them. Yeah, 
>> I've passed a couple on to family - still ...
>>
>> So, I still have my first digicam, a couple of later ones and my first 
>> DSLR. All of them still work fine; just tried out
>> my first, a Canon S110. Out of curiosity, I checked availability of a 
>> replacement for it's proprietary battery, and it
>> is still available from Canon and at least two third party vendors. 
>> Wouldn't discontinuing the battery be a classic
>> planned obsolescence move? The relatively ancient Oly D-460 Zoom that a 
>> friend gave me, rather than throw away, still
>> works fine, too.
>>
>> The Canon is slow enough to be a little annoying, but only a bit in good 
>> light, and takes perfectly usable images. The
>> Oly is so slow to respond as to be unusable for me, other than as an 
>> experiment, and the image quality is ,uh, kinda
>> soft and noisy, "vintage", I guess one might call it. I assume the 1.3mp 
>> Oly is older than the 1.9mp Canon.
>>
>> But I digress. The point is that I've only had one failure of a digicam, 
>> which was promptly repaired free under
>> warranty. I just don't see any planned obsolescence, just the usual 
>> symptoms of a young technology in a rapid growth phase.
>>
>>> I remain convinced that Nikon could release an excellent dedicated 
>>> 135/120 scanner for about $1000 and still turn a profit, yet choose not 
>>> to.
>> The former, sure, probably. The latter, I really doubt it. I've gone on 
>> and on here before about the economics of mass
>> production. The up front costs are so high that large sales are needed to 
>> make low prices profitable. Leica is an
>> example of another business model, low sales volume at high prices. As I 
>> said before, Nikon could easily have continued
>> making and selling their latest models, if there were a profit in doing 
>> so. With design and tooling costs already paid
>> for, their marginal unit costs must have been quite low, compared to 
>> starting up with a new design, yet they dropped
>> them anyway. that says to me there was no profit in them.
>>
>>> Why?  Because it would be counterproductive. They might risk losing some 
>>> of their consumer base to
>>> the used film market. But like you said Moose, those few users wouldn't 
>>> be enough to make selling $1000 scanners more profitable than selling 
>>> those same users 3 DSLRs each in 6 years.  That's reality, and that's the 
>>> business model that the big boys have chosen to follow.
>> Yeah, you do sound just a bit like a bitter 70 year old. ;-)   Is this 
>> based on personal experience, or just general old
>> fart ranting about change and perceived greed? Not that I say there isn't 
>> greed in business, I've sure seen enough of
>> it, but the evidence is that the camera business is competitive enough 
>> that individual companies don't have the luxury
>> of exercising it very much or very often.
>>
>> Ask Minolta, twice acquired, then dropped, or Pentax, alive only through 
>> acquisition. I believe Oly's been on the edge
>> more than once in the digital era.
>>
>> My own experience is two DSLRs over six years. The 300D was a cheap 
>> experiment to see if a DSLR would work for me. It
>> still works fine, but only gets used for quick shots where I need on 
>> camera flash and traveling about with me as a
>> back-up. The 5D was a carefully considered purchase over four years ago. 
>> It's still a highly functional and capable
>> camera, still working like new almost 11,000 shots later. The only reason 
>> I'm considering another DSLR (add-on, not
>> replacement) is new features/functions, like live view, HD video and 
>> articulated screen, not any functional failure in
>> the 5D.
>>
>> Some people simply enjoy rolling over their gear, and not just in 
>> photography. Some make buying decisions based on
>> emotion and/or inadequate effort to match camera capabilities to their 
>> needs. Some people's needs change. Surely you
>> know, especially as a member of this list, that those factors were at work 
>> long before digital.
>>
>>  If people choose to buy cameras more often than otherwise necessary 
>> through inappropriate choices, gear fetishes,
>> etc., I hardly see  as the fault of the camera makers (or car makers, 
>> etc.) Sure, they encourage us through advertising,
>> but we are responsible for our own purchasing decisions.
>>
>> I really think you mis-estimate the relative sizes of the film and digital 
>> markets.  In photography, as in all mass
>> markets, you only can be a "big boy" if you follow the mass 
>> market/production business model. You can be big and high
>> volume - or small and low volume. Film is now "spit in the ocean" size, 
>> and simply not practical for the big boys.
>>
>> It may not even be practical for the little guys. Leica has suspended 
>> production of film cameras, due to too large an
>> inventory build-up, in favor of using limited resources to produce the 
>> better selling digital models. They don't say how
>> big the inventory problem is, but that film production will be started up 
>> again when needed. It's possible it never will
>> be needed, with NOS (new old stock) filling demand until demand is too low 
>> to justify restarting production. All OM-3Ti
>> and 4Ti sale for years were NOS.
>>
>> Many wise people over the millennia  have said that a key to a long, happy 
>> life is to become at least comfortable,
>> preferably happy, with what is, not being unhappy because what one would 
>> like to be, is not.
>>
>> 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/
>>
>>
> 
> 
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
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