This review (which I strongly recommend reading)
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PKNA02/1033204252.html
only confirms what I've been thinking/feeling/saying about digital cameras.
I can understand the logic of splitting the digital SLR market between
pro-sumer cameras with smaller-than-full-frame sensors and a "limited"
resolution of 6MP or so, and "professional" cameras with full-frame sensors
and 12MP or higher resolution. But Olympus is going to have to come up with
something "amazingly amazing" to compete with this Kodak camera --
specifically, something very compact, very easy to use, very versatile.
Three important points... One: Although Kodak's camera is "manufactured"
(ie, assembled) in the US, it is still substantially less expensive than
Canon's comparable camera. Kodak is not a lens manufacturer who can cover a
loss on the body with the sale of a lens. Ergo, Kodak must (???) be making
money on the body. This bodes well for future price reductions.
Two: Although the Kodak camera is smaller than their preceding offerings, it
is still relatively bulky. This shows that it's the electronics -- not the
sensor -- that has the biggest influence on the camera's size. If Olympus is
going to compete, they're going to have to pull off the same trick they did
with the OM-1. Olympus has the intelligence to do it -- but I don't think
current technology will permit it.
Three: Nikon doesn't mind competitive cameras with the Nikon mount, because
it expands the market for their lenses. If you're trying to get people to
buy lenses to fit your body, you're strongly motivated to reduce the cost of
your bodies. If the difference in price between a full-frame body and a 4/3
body is only $200 or $300, which would you buy?
< 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 >
|