On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Andy Beals wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 08:43:36 +0000, T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > If Olympus manufactured equipment, compatible with what they made in the
> > past,
>
> And thus limited by old technology/thought...
Well, I am not arguing that one should be limited by old
technology. Legacy may be bad, and - if so - should be shaked off
whenever possible. However a form of backwards compatibility - also where
possible - would be neat. And in the example that triggered my "rant", I
believe that it should be entirely possible to make the "newer" digital
cameras compatible with the "older" flash-system of the T32/20.
Part of my day to day work includes designing routing protocols for IP
networks (such as the Internet). One of my greatest concirns is to design
something general and extensible enough to accomodate for future
changes. And to include future changes in a way such that the old design
is not invalidated. Granted, it is a challenge. But in my world, anything
else is impossible. I just wish that Olympus would *think* along these
lines.
>
> > then I am sure that many more from the list would be excited and
> > jump in to buy.
>
> The listmembers may not be representative of Oly's market.
>
No, but it is a known fact that many many people (also
non-listmembers) own an OM10/20/40 (those were heavilly promoted to the
consumer market in my part of the world) and some accessories (a zoom,
maybe a tele or wide-angle lens, almost everyone has a flash). If there
was a way to reclaim part of the investment in that gear by being able to
use it when making the transition to "the digital world" (and to many in
the consumer market, this transition is very desireable), I believe that
to be a very sound business-strategy.
> > The lesson, I thought, from system-cameras was, that they
> > allowed you to grow.
>
> It allows for repeat sales and enforces Brand Loyalty. To jump from one
> system to another requires a major investment if you're going to replace all
> your gear.
>
Exactly. Now, even if you stay within the Olympus-brand, and make the
transition from film->digital, you have to do a major investment. That
cannot be smart?
> > However rendering the old system "obsolete" and requireing that I purchase
> > all new (which even upgrading from Camedia 3030z to E10 does - the
> > tele- wide- and macro-converters are different, possibly other things
> > too)
>
> But we're talking about moving from an admittedly high-end P&S up to a
> pro-grade camera here.
>
Sure. In the same way as moving from an OM10 (a high-end consumer
camera) to an OM4Ti (a pro-grade camera) - right?
My point is: it should be possible to make a design clever enough to avoid
these problems. It was with the OM-series, no?
> > does two things:
> >
> > 1. makes me reluctant to upgrade to digital (I could buy -
> > actually I just did buy - a decent film-scanner...and still
> > have money left)
>
> [This sounds snotty but that's not what I mean:] Congrats to you. I hope you
> find negative scanning to be an easy process. I, myself, have noticed that
> scanning prints is an art form in itself, and not one that is easily
> mastered,
> especially when the scanner is hooked up to your wife's computer and she
> keeps
> wanting to kick you off...
Well, we both have laptops, and the film-scanner comes with an
SCSI-interface. Having an scsi-pcmcia-adaptor too, we effectively have
plug-and-play access to the thing. So that is not an issue.
>
> For me, negatives get scratched, labs smeg up your film and say "Oops.",
> prints come out looking really weird.
In truth, I have had none such problems. Ok, I am *extremely* careful when
it comes to handelling negatives. I am careful to remove dust and hair
from the negarive before scanning. And I would say that 950f my scans
thus far have required no electronic manipulation afterwards (maybe except
for auto-adjusting the color levels - which is an automated batch-process
in e.g. gimp). The remaining...well, there might be scratches or something
from the lab, which have to be retouched. Fortunately, my other half is a
genious when it comes to electronic image manipulation ;)
> And you have to visit them or wait for
> the postal service to move things around. I'm an American and I want my
> results Now!
<joke>
Well, that much for americans - no patience whatsoever... ;)
</joke>
Ok, I hear you, and I agree to some extend. It *is* nice to have instant
access to the pictures. That's why we have a 3030z and another Olympus
digital thing (the name/model escapes me at the moment) laying
around. However neither of those give the same quality and the same
flexibility as using the OM's. And when using a slide-film (Kodachrome 25,
f.eks.), the difference in (potential) resolution is also visible.
So yes, digital cirtainly has its rights - I don't remember saying
otherwise?
>
> > 2. makes it a more viable option for me to consider other brands,
> > N*kon and C*non both make decent digital equipment.
> >
> > Both of these things possibly attracts customers away from Olympus.
>
> $5k for N*k*n and $3k for C*n*n just for the body and then you need to start
> making the lens investments...
>
And how is that different from having to jump out and buy an E10? Ok, it
comes with a build-in lens, but then you are stuck with the few converters
available. With N*k*n and C*a*n, at least, you should be able to use your
existing lenses (assuming you have any). That makes an investment in N*k*n
and C*n*n a much better investment (in term of future perspectives) than
OM?
> > > Bluntly stated, the bottom-line objective of every for-profit business is
> > > to get as much of your money as possible from your pocket into its pocket.
>
> Two schools of thought:
> * Sell once.
> * Repeat sales.
>
Yes? And?
> > Well, in that case Olympus are doing a very very bad job. In fact, the
> > incompatibilities between the old OM-gear and the new digital line PLUS
> > the incompatibilities between the different digital cameras makes it that
> > more likely that the next camera we buy will be a C*non digital.
>
> What makes you think that they won't end up pulling the same stunt on their
> digital customers they did to all their loyal FD-lens/system customers
> [myself
> included] that they did when they went to EOS?
Ohh, sure - nothing prevents that. There are no absolutes and no
guarantees. But at this point in time, looking back, the most
"system"-camera has to be the N*k*n, right? IIRC, the lenses that went on
the original F-camera would still work on the the D1, right? Whereas the
lenses that went on the original M1-camera would...well..not do too well
in the digital world?
(well, this is not true. I have succesfully used some OM-lenses inverted
on the 3030z for macro-mode photos, actually....but that *is* an extreme,
I think...)
--thomas
< 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 >
|