Whoa my one little hope that a new Olympus digicam
having a significantly smaller registration number
(thus making it possible to make an OM adapter) has
really turned bitter. Jeez I would'nt have said
anything if I knew this was going to happen.
Mark Lloyd
--- Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >: >1. Money: more $$ from new produts instead of
> selling
> >: >long-out-of-production OM Zuikos
> >: >2. Autofocus: OM lenses = no autofocus = Olympus
> looks archaic against
> >: >Nikon and Canon
> >: [snip]
> >:
> >: You hit the primary reason with #1, and #2 covers
> the majority of the
> >: technical issues used to justify it. Although
> Olympus touts optimal ray
> >: paths as the reason, and that also poses
> technical issues, I believe it's
> >: secondary to the auto-focus problem. Neither of
> the technical issues are
> >: as important to Olympus as the belief they can
> generate more operating
> >: income (read: profit) by *not* making their
> digitals compatible with OM
> >: system lenses. If they believed otherwise, you
> can bet they would have
> >: designed at least some of the high end digitals
> for backward
> >: compatibility. Olympus is a "_for_profit_"
> corporation, and operating
> >: income is the key driver in their
> decision-making.
> >
> >
> >Otoh they've been keeping the OM System alive for
> the last decade not
> >because they've been making so much profit from it,
> but more out of loyalty
> >towards existing users, and probably also to keep
> the name Olympus Optical
> >co. in the ranks of builders of serious camera
> systems. They could apply
> >this loyalty, the same that made them market the
> OM-3Ti and the 35-80/2.8
> >six years ago, to release at least one digital OM
> body, or a Camedia/Zuiko
> >adapter.
> >
> >Will Olympus make serious profit from a digital
> 'OM'? I think they will.
> >There must be tens of thousands of Zuiko owners who
> are watching the digital
> >revolution. How many of them will rush to the shop
> when Olympus releases a
> >digital body for them they can afford? I know I
> would. And if this body
> >would also work with a range of dedicated AF lenses
> I would also buy one or
> >more of these (if only to cover the wide angle
> range, or to use the full
> >range of features including AF). We form a big
> group of potential buyers;
> >let's hope Olympus realizes this.
> >
> >Lens compatibility and quality are better sales
> arguments than brand
> >loyalty, that's for sure. So if Olympus only
> releases a new system without
> >any OM compatibility, it better has someting the
> competition doesn't have.
> >
> >hnz
> >
>
>
> How many of this "big group of potential buyers"
> have rushed to buy
> an OM3T(up to $1600 in the latest B&H catalog) or
> 35-80/2.8? Maybe 2
> or 3 percent of OM users? I don't know but I would
> say that Olympus
> would look at OM users and used camera auction
> bottom feeders as a
> dead market. The most you might get would be a
> cheap digital cam
> with multiple nameplates and mounts from some maker
> like Cosina. And
> apparently Cosina's effort in that nondigital area
> has not been too
> successful. It is the economic interest of Olympus
> to lure you into
> spending for a new camera system not just an
> addition to a system you
> already have. Just hope Olympus continues to think
> that having the OM
> system gives them some kind of status as a serious
> player.
> --
> Winsor Crosby
> Long Beach, California
>
> < 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 >
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
< 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 >
|