Frank Ernens wrote:
>
> Jan Steinman wrote:
>
> > >About point (2): N*k*n also have the exposure (compensation)
> > >number line running backwards with + at the left and - at the
> > >right, and it is therefore "standard" in the industry.
> You didn't also quote my next paragraph, which went on to chastise
> Olympus for blindly following the "standard".
There are only two ways in which an exposure compensation can work, so
far it´s useless to declare one way standard and the other way not.
There are other problems with the OM-4 exp. comp. dial than the way it
has to be turned.
> > I prefer innovation over [market] maturity.
>
> I couldn't care less about innovation; I just want to take
> pictures. (If I did care, wouldn't I be using an AF system?)
We should distingish (real) inovation from marketing hype or an simple
modification of the user interface. IMHO there is not that much inovation
in photographic industry, just for the simple fact that we are using an
already mature technology. I like it this way, because this means security
for my investions and a high quality standard.
Beside of AF most "real" inovations have been found in the field of films.
Todays print films are that tolarant, you might not need an exposure meter
anymore, suny 16 rule would be suficent. Slide film has such an fine grain
and high sharpness, years ago you would have needed medium format to get
the same results.
The best is, you´re participating in this progress with your oldest
equipment, no problem with an meterless thread mount Leica, you´re now able
to fully explore the quality your Zuikos have since the 70´s.
> Right now I can't take certain pictures because
> I don't want to throw good money after bad on the necessary
> lens.
Why "bad money", don´t the OM´s serve you well or will they be obsolete in
the future? I don´t think this will happen. Or did you bought OM cameras
in the knowledge that they are missing crucial options (for you), just in
the expectation, that Olympus will fix this in the future?
> Regardless of one's feelings towards Nikon and their
> equipment, it is a fact that there is a healthy market in
> Nikon lenses.
The market for (used) Nikon lenses is only healthy, because many photogs
switched to AF, so you can buy now "pro" lenses for a bargain.
The same is true to lesser degree for OM lenses, so I´m happy to lower the
Zuiko burden of the manual focus challenged.
> I suspect anyone paying the AUD $1220 for
> a new Zuiko 100mm f2.8 might take a bath if they ever had
> to exit the OM system.
Why should they?
> Whereas a 90mm Tamron *macro* lens
> in Nikon AF mount costs less new ($910 in Adaptall, probably
> the same in AF),
Have you ever seen an new Tamron lens? They might have decent optical
quality but there make and finish is inferior to Zuikos. The writing on the
lens is just printed and will fade away with use (no aperture value, neither
in the finder nor on the aperture ring.
The generous use of plastic in this lens let me doubt, that this lens will
last as long as an Zuiko, I also doubt, that the handling under extrem
enviroment conditions (cold, heat) will as good as with Zuikos.
Expect an big loss if you try to sell any third party lens, contrary to that,
used Zuikos might further raise in price. Today you´re able to sell
used Zuikos at the price your paid new for them some years ago.
Quality costs money.
> can probably be found used anyway, and is
Zuikos are also available used.
> readily saleable - not that Nikon are likely to abandon
> their mount.
Has or will Olympus abandon their mount? Do you have sources inside of
Olympus or Nikon to make such statements. Your coment is just speculation.
> We don't have the same market in OM mount stuff largely
> because there is no mass-market AF.
Canon has the bigest AF market share, does this help FD user?
If I had MF Nikon cameras I wouldn´t like AF lenses on my bodys, there
handling (focusing) is inferior.
If Olympus would be the leader in the AF market, what benefit would I have?
None, Olympus AF lenses are incompatible with old OM bodys, they most likely
would try to abandon the MF line, like Nikon does and Canon has done, to avoid
the costs of maintaining two lens series.
The problem of Olympus is, there cameras and lenses last to long (they didn´t
compensate it with high prices, as Leica does). Nikon, Canon and Pentax have
solved this sucesfuly by introducing plasic AF.
> OTOH you can get
> some outstanding bargains if you are prepared to wait
> and pounce.
Yeah, so why the bemoan and grievances?
Regards
Richard
< 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 >
|