> What I see the term meaning is a camera that is specifically
> designed to be used by large numbers of professional
> photographers, that can survive hard use for many years, and have
> features that appeal to said pros.
YES! I absolutely agree. It is ok, though, for the equipment design
to be biased towards certain kinds of work. For instance, you
wouldn't use a "Long-Roll Camera" for news, sports and wildlife
photography. Not all cameras need to be capable of all requirements.
That's why the majority of pros had 35mm, medium-format and 4x5
equipment.
> I'm not sure that there are more than two or three cameras that
> currently meet that definition. I do know that the OM1 really,
> seriously didn't. In the day that it was first produced, things
> like removable prisms and titanium foil shutters were considered
> essential. The ability to be used as a hammer or
> withstand being used as a step stool was highly regarded, from
> demonstrations by Nikon reps evidenced. Note that cameras are now a
> commodity, so the definition willl change.
I think I would disagree about the OM-1. Removable prisms and
titanium foil shutters were the "gotta have it" items then like 19 AF
points and CMOS sensors are today. But in the grand scheme of
things, it really didn't matter as most didn't actually make use of
the capabilities that it provided. Also, just because you "could"
use a camera as a hammer or as a step stool doesn't really mean that
you will. I'm not sure I'd abuse a hassleblad that way and nobody
acused that of not being a professional camera.
> A professional services department with quick repair and loaner
> lenses on site at important events is important as well.
Absolutely. But that takes resources that really only a couple
companies have been able to have. Today, though, we have Fed-Ex and
other ways of getting fast turn-arounds that didn't exist 30 years
ago.
> I think that one reason that Canon took over from Nikon is the
> demise of NPS at the same time that Canon was popularizing
> autofocus.
That and the fact that the F4 was a real dog. Absolutely the worst
"F" series camera made.
> So, no, the OM's don't qualify just because one organization made a
> deal with Olympus, and another encourged their use to a degree.
What about the tens of thousands of "one-lung" professional
photographers that had a studio camera (medium format) and a field
camera. These pretty much settled in on two choices: Minolta and
Olympus. Why? Because of the cost/benefit ratio. The lenses were
outstanding and the total system cost was lower than Nikon or Canon.
These were never meant as the primary camera in their world, but as a
second camera system. Sports and Reportage is a big world, for sure,
but it is still just a segment of the professional camera world.
> just more in the ongoing amazement at the cluelessness of
> the OM marketing.
And it continues... I've railed against Olympus America for years.
AG
____________________________________________________________________________________Building
a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to
get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|