OK here goes nothing >
On 06/09/06, Jeff Keller <jrk_om@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> I'm very supportive of Olympus (they get my $) but I find I often disagree
> with you Khen.
Fair enough.
Olympus should learn from other designers!!! They don't have all of the best
> solutions.
>
We might not have. No one actually has. No other camera makers have
impressed me in any case. Name one camera and I'll list out more problems
than anything thought possible. My job used to be testing cameras in the
field and I've gone through a whole horde of them. The only thing i cannot
qualify for is to have been there to test out the digitals because I left in
1992 but if past traditions are anything to go by, even the "vaunted and
haloed names" have issues. Canon is no exception. I tore them apart and
there is nothing special about them except that they have a highly admirable
marketing machine, which everyone would love to have.
Why doesn't Olympus make their lens tripod adapters so they can be directly
> clamped into an Arca Swiss quick release.
We're not perfect but we're learning.
Their 50-200 digital Zuiko doesn't
> even have a flat edge on it that can be used by the quick release plate to
> prevent rotation. It sure seems to be style over function!!!
Each to their own opinion. I respect yours, no doubt about it. And I will
report this back to Shinju-ku. In fact I'll forward this mail out.
They should
> look at a ReallyRightStuff catalog and realize other people often have
> better ideas.
Not always true. Sometimes, yes. But not always. We're not arrogant. As I'd
said, we're still getting there. You MUST know something - ECONOMICS. We're
not a large company. I've often said this so emphatically and so repeatedly.
Have you seen our annual report? Have you seen a company like Canon's? We're
chicken feed. We make do with funding that is only a smidgen of what Canon
allocated for their T90 during my days, for example. I can just imagine how
much budget was allocated to the design of the 5D let alone the 1D.....I
can't tell you how much olympus had to spend on developing the E-1 but I can
tell you its nothing like what Canon can spend even on a couple of exotic
lenses. And when you consider what little we have to work with, I reckon
it's quite phenomenal.
The Olympus tripod adapter foot is purity of design? Perhaps
> they've started hiring clothing designers!
No comment.
The T32 is nice, but Olympus didn't carry on with that basic design when
> they went to the FL-series flashes.
Alright. Here's where I totally agree with you. I have no idea why. When I
saw the designs, I lost my appetite. They are atrociously designed and the
control logic is bad.
The removable hot shoe shows plenty of
> weakness in the long run. There are many OMs with corroded pentaprism
> housings.
i'm not aware of that and we have classified professionals we check with on
a very regular basis. Chris Bonington for example uses our OM-1s and OM-3s
very extensively and he was pretty hostile with them.
An uncracked hot shoe 4 often sells for more than a T32. Having a
> flash stand taller makes it easier to have big lenses on the front of the
> camera.
Wouldn't it have been a nice touch if the FL-50 flash reflector
> tilted down like the T32?
Agreed.
Stroboframe provides a cheap very effective flash bracket. The bounce grip
> is probably history that won't be repeated.
They have new prototype designs of this now.
Have you looked at some of the
> Quantum flash equipment.
Yes, I'm aware.
How about a battery pack that fits on the bottom of
> the camera, provides good tripod attachment, powers both the flash and the
> camera.
This is definitely available in development at the moment. I can't tell you
more but i understand we're waiting for allocation and type approval.
Why doesn't Quantum provide much support for Olympus cameras? Is it
> really in the photographer's best interest to deviate so widely that 3rd
> party vendors ignore you?
That's not a really fair question. That's like asking why Tamron doesn't
make any 4/3rds lenses for Olympus. Every company looks at their balance
sheets and decide whether it is or isn't feasible to support a certain brand
standard. We understand perfectly that Quantum like all companies must
produce profitable products that sell. If Olympus' market volume is not
quite there yet, they certainly won't and we understand.
C*non seems to add "feature" on top of "feature" ultimately getting in the
> way of basics. A swiss army knife may not be the best approach to
> everything, but I do carry a swiss army knife daily.
not sure what your point here is, Jeff. Sorry.
Olympus also hesitated when setting the size of the E-1.
That's a well-known story at Olympus although not publicised. You're right.
And I'm one of those who were critical and I have made my points clear and
driven them home. My recent paper to them has been damning in this regard.
But if it makes you happy, there is a working version of an E-x DSLR in the
works that reflects a "return-to-basics" approach that is phenomenally
divergent from the crowd. You could actually say that it's very OM-nesque in
many ways.
They seemed to have
> feared that it wouldn't be considered professional if it were too small.
i've covered this point before where I said that Olympus is trying to find
its feet again. They've been pummeled by a lack of confidence. They lost a
lot of ground during the AF days because of the fright of Honeywell's
successful lawsuit against Minolta. It took the wind out of their sails and
basically didn't really recover. The OM-707AF to many was testimony of lost
progress and so was the OM-101PF. Fear is a good way you used here because
many things happened during the Nineties that caused Olympus to partly lose
their way. And the most significant of these was Maitani's retirement, which
shook the grounds we all walked on, so to speak. Engineers were in low
morale and I remembered those terribly dark days because I was there.
Maitani held the soul of the company and I think you know what I mean. The
company basically had to start "reinventing" themselves again. Fear. Yes.
If
> the OM had approached the marketplace with that attitude, there would
> probably be a lot of people on this list that never would have bought OMs.
>
> -jeff
>
>
--
Khen Lim
XIOS Network Solutions
IBM Business Partner
+60 +16 528 6010 / 016 528 6010
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|