on 8/6/02 10:59 AM, Winsor Crosby at wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-08-04.shtml
>
> I actually find this linking of Olympus and Kodak rather disquieting.
> The Kodak name has been synonymous with cheap, execrable quality,
> disposable photo toys for 50 years. The name on any camera of any
> quality at all has meant the kiss of death in the market. Poor Oly.
> I hope it is around in 5 years.
> --
> Winsor Crosby
> Long Beach, California
>
> ?
Kodak has always sold cameras to promote the use of film, and not all of
them have been cheap or mediocre. Kodak Retina cameras were very well made,
with good optics and quality construction, and not cheap then or now... they
made a lot of crappy Brownies and Instamatics, but the Kodak name also went
on some very good cameras. I'd expect that an Olympus-made camera with a
Kodak name would be more likely than an 'Instamatic' with an Olympus name on
it, OM-2000 notwithstanding.
I think Olympus has to see this as a strategic opportunity to get back into
the 'pro' leagues with something as revolutionary as the OM series was when
it came out, or maybe the Pen F is a better comparison... nothing at all
like it in 1963! A digital Pen F using a smaller but high-pixel-count
sensor, smaller cheaper faster lenses, state-of-the-art electronics and
autofocus, etc. would be a strong alternative to the digital wunderbricks.
C*non and N*kon have to sell a big heavy body to keep compatability with the
older lenses... the legacy lenses are a weight (literally) around the neck
of the digital body users. Interchangeable lenses means the 'Olydak' camera
can be smaller than the E-10/E-20 and have a wider range of optics. I just
hope it is affordable...
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< 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 >
|