Last week, I challenged our thinking by hawking a huge phlemblob
on our beloved OMs. Since I started it, I suppose I should
conclude this monstrocity--especially since it is going
off-topic.
The average automobile buyer purchases a new vehicle (or at
least new to them) every 3-4 years. Just as the payments run
out we are ready to further our indebtiness on another hole in
the pavement in which we toss lots of money. We trade in
perfectly good automobiles with 30,000-50,000 miles on them just
so we can have the latest in cup-holders and map-lights. Is the
vehicle worn-out? Hardly. You think you've gotten the best
years out of that Toyota? Get real, even the Yugos survived
that long--usually.
We like newness. We like features. We like shiny paint and the
smell of new upholstery. Automobiles cater to our senses--not
our sensabilities.
The average farmer (agribusinessman) purchases a new tractor
every 15-20 years. They build a system based on the particular
manufacturer. Equipment, although interchangeable between
brands, does tend to work better when matched. Rarely will you
ever see a farmer change brands of tractor. Once a John Deere
owner, always a John Deere owner.
The same can be said of photographers. There are three
categories of photographers: Employees using company supplied
equipment, Feature Hunters always going for the latest/greatest,
and the System Photographers.
Companies will replace equipment based on a depreciation
schedule more than on technological advances. Just by the fact
that the equipment is destined to be replaced triggers a normal
advancing with the times. Staff news and sports photographers
rarely have to worry about being technologically obsolete.
Besides, they have the primary job of taking "snap-shots".
Historically, news photographers have used "preset" cameras that
eliminated human-error to always make sure that they "get the
shot". They used to carry two cameras--one with glued settings
and a second with all the adjustments. Always get one shot on
arrival with the preset camera and then worry about perfecting
the shot. Modern day cameras, with all of the auto trimmings
provide both capabilities in one camera. Employee Photographers
rarely are equipment people. They are hired to do a job, not be
a techno-geek. I use a computer every day at work, but I am not
a computer programmer, nor do I care that my CD-ROM drive is
only 16x.
The feature hunters have always been and always will be.
Fortunately for us, they barely tap the potential of the
equipment and we "bargain hunters" manage to score quite a bit
of wonderful equipment at far less than new prices. The feature
hunters are the "buyers" of new equipment. They are what keep
the camera companies in business. However, they are also the
ones trading in Toyota Camrys with 20,000 miles. The camera
companies design and build products to satisfy the feature
hunters. That is why Canon has been so incredibly
successful--it definitely wasn't because of superior
technology--still metering off the focusing screen! Once
Olympus stopped catering to the feature hunters--the OM-4 was
their last product capable of satisfying the "cup-holders and
map-light" crowd--it was all over. We had 15 years of product
decline once Olympus decided to not pursue professional
auto-focus. They have, however, jumped into the fray in a
mammoth way with digital. In the digital world, Olympus
rules--but without a professional DSLR system they will be
toast.
System Photographers are an interesting crowd. These people are
very much like farmers. Typically self-employed, not very rich,
driving used vehicles with 150,000 miles on them, and purchasing
only two new tractors in his lifetime--both of which are the
same brand. If a photographer is in the business for 35 years
he will go through maybe two camera systems in his career. He
builds a system with interchangeable equipment, learns the
capabilites and maximizes the equipment. Once he changes
systems the equipment is pretty well used up.
Hassleblad, Nikon, Mamiya and Bronica are examples of companies
which have advanced through the years yet have maintained a
system approach to equipment development. They know that the
average system owner will purchase ONE new componant a year,
whether it's a lens, body, motordrive or filmback. They know
that once a photographer selects their system, they have that
customer for at least 15 years. These customers typically buy
that one componant NEW as their survival as a professional
depends upon the reliability of the equipment.
In 1986 (I found slides confirming this) I bought my first OM
body and lens. Since that time, I've invested substantial
amounts of money (unfortunately for the manufacturer none of it
was on new equipment) building and using my system. It is now
deep into 2002--16 years later and I'm still using my very first
camera in that system. In fact, 16 years later, that camera and
the first lens (100/2.8) remain my most important parts of the
system.
Can I keep building on my system? Yes, I can do so rather
nicely, but I'll never be able to purchase anything new.
Important to me? Not as important as it would be if it wasn't
for the Internet and resources such as this list. Yet, at what
point is the system no longer viable?
I'm looking at converting over to a medium-format system. I
know that the system I select will most likely be the last
system I ever get. So I must select very carefully. I'm in no
hurry. I'm thankful of that, as nothing on the market gets me
very excited right now. The Contax is very nice, but it doesn't
have the longevity as a systems camera as the Mamiya. Mamiya
has a track-record with 6x7 and 645 that dates back 30 years.
Hassleblad even longer!
Is the Olympus obsolete? Yes and no. For a photographer
settling on a system of which he has no investment in yet, I'd
say DON'T buy Olympus. Remember, this person must select
something that he is comfortable with using and building on for
the next 15 years. For those who already have built up a
system, there is little reason to change--unless the features
and capabilities aren't up to what you need. My reason to
change? Film format--my photographic needs have outgrown 35mm.
I'm not at all concerned with the "reliability" of today's
PROFESSIONAL grade equipment. I haven't seen too many Canon
EOS-1 bodies being tossed into the garbage. Professional grade
equipment, baring accidents and abuse, will survive just fine.
Besides, that's why we purchase SYSTEM cameras. We replace and
upgrade componants, not the entire system.
Technology! Good or bad? It's a good thing, but we must be
careful that we are not bent on features. Three cup-holders for
the driver and fading map-lights don't make for a better car.
Solid engineering and manufacturing do.
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
< 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 >
|