>
> Live view, supersonic whizbangs, economic aspect ratio for print,
> outstanding lenses, articulating LCD. You owe me 10 laughable items.
>
1. Lens Mount Change - Killing backward compatiblity for no reason at all.
2. Dinky Viewfinders - Forcing live-view!
3. Sub-standard auto-focus.
4. Elimination of the spot-meter button.
5. Me too PASM dial.
6. Elimination of dedicated controls for, of all things, aperture.
7. Noisy, soft sensors (as compared to every contemporary camera to each
model).
8. The tiny 4/3 format. I like the ratio, but why did they have to be the
smallest around?
9. Svelteness or the lack of. Only recently has Olympus come close to
delivering on lenses and bodies that reflect the possibilities of the 4/3
format.
10. No OTF/OTS auto-exposure or flash control. HELLO???
Frankly, I'm being charitable. I've bought into the E-system, but maybe the
fact that my investment stopped with the E-1 and one single lens (14-54)
says something.
Olympus lost their way with the 4/3 system. The fact that they ceased the OM
system with the introduction of the OM-3Ti says that they lost their way
prior to 1993. By the time 4/3 came along, there was no continuity and the
culture of what made the OM system so unique was lost. The E-1 was no
different than the Nikon and Canon offerings. Olympus attempted to be Canon,
not Olympus. You will never succeed trying to beat Canon at its own game.
Your only real marketing benefit is price/performance as compared to the
competition and frankly the performance side of that equation has been
limited, except when comparing lenses.
Why I believe the E-P1 (and others to follow) is so extremely critical to
Olympus AND is so significantly important of a product is that the E-P1
represents the thinking and culture of Olympus--that of carving out niche
markets and products where non existed before--yet ones everybody recognizes
as "I gotta have that."
In my op-ed piece (which is mostly written, just needs to be de-attituded a
bit), I point out a very unique aspect to the E-P1 which will actually
transend the featureset and obvious capabilities. This product-line is
extremely important and is potentially THE one camera most likely to be
found in nearly every camera bag.
The Pen angle is a gimmick that makes for copy in a trade magazine. I
> just find it a snooze.
>
In one aspect I agree with you, but in another aspect, I believe that this
"gimmick" is actually THE most important thing for Olympus, the company and
the employees. It's a culture thing. Olympus MUST be Olympus and if
Olympus has to reach back 50 years to learn this lesson, then so be it.
Just maybe, today's Olympus will go back and discover what it was about past
systems that truely worked.
I hope your piece will get beyond the superficiality of the e-p/Pen
> comparisons currently. If the Great Unwashed (I'll include myself in
> this group) have to be educated about the teleological perfection of
> the original Pen in order to appreciate what Olympus is doing in m4/3,
> I don't think that's going to make it with even the most hardened OM
> partisan (not this one, anyway). This is nothing against Pen in
> itself, it's against the essential irrelevance of the comparison.
>
What I am going to hit on really has nothing to do with the original Pen,
which I personally thought many of the bodies sucked and was fundimentally
flawed due to the half-frame format. It will sell you on the new E-P1 not
for what the Pen was, but what the camera represents to us (the
photograhers) today.
And it is actually far more groundbreaking than I think any of us
understand.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|