Ken Norton wrote:
> Has the paradyne of the
> SLR with interchangeable lenses run its course?
> We have lamented at great length about Olympus'
> abandonment of the professional 35mm SLR market.
Here's my "take" on these (camera industry) events:
Beginning largely in the '60's, for a variety of reasons, the equipment
interests of the professional photographer and the amateur photographer
began to merge. People who had no idea what a "single-lens-reflex" was
began to buy cameras who's capabilities they little understood and truly
had no real need of - it was simply the latest "fad" in a booming
economy (ibid, 8-track tapes, CB's, Quad-sound systems, etc.).
Because the mass-market _wanted_ (and would/could pay for) a
"professional-type" camera, they were produced in great quantity. This
explosion of interest (and the revenue it generated) justified the
massive investment in R&D by camera makers - and those who used these
"tools" to make their living benefitted by the economy of scale that
kept costs relatively low.
Fast-forward several decades - the interest of the mass-market in
"pro-type" cameras has waned. Few "happy snappers" today are willing to
lug an extra suit-case-sized camera bag on vacation just to carry two
bodies (in case one "died"), three fixed-focal-length lenses (one a
macro, of course), two zooms, a winder, three flashes, and so on. They
just want some shots of the kids by the pool! Hence, the advent of the
"pocket" camera (see, "XA" in your program).
Several years ago, I read an interesting statistic in a camera trade
journal - it noted that, _world_wide_ sales of _ALL_ SLR's of EVERY type
from EVERY camera maker that year were >>>less than 1 million units<<<.
(This was in the midst of the "booming" AF-SLR market.) In that same
year, Olympus sold over 1 million Stylus cameras ALONE! And it's gotten
"worse" since.
Clearly, the amateur/mass-market has separated from the professional
market. With fewer units being sold, prices climb and choices are
reduced - it's a fact of marketing life. And realize that Olympus is a
relatively "small" camera company as things go, with limited factory and
warehouse space - they simply can't justify developing, manufacturing,
and supporting a product that doesn't sell, and sell profitably
(including the old "traditional" hand-built professional-quality SLR's
we all love).
I will be the first to suggest, however, that Olympus management's
decision to obviate their support of the 35mm market in anticipation of
the digital "revolution" was premature and hasty - by at least 5 years
or so. To what extent this choice was forced upon "them" (Olympus) by
the above-noted limitations, however, we can only guess. To a marginal
extent, they have recovered somewhat - note the proliferation of compact
Olympus cameras in recent years.
And I can also fault Olympus management for subjugating the
photo/imaging aspect of the company to the Medical Instrument Division
(see, "The Dark Side" in your program ;^). They seem to have forgotten
"the horse they rode in on" - that many buyers of Olympus medical
products were first drawn to the name "Olympus" by the superior quality
and reputation of Olympus CAMERAS!
Let's all hope that Olympus puts the horse back in front of the cart,
and (to mix metaphors) that they discover a Mustang instead of an Edsel
in their digital corral.
But that's just my opinion....
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|