Simon Worby wrote:
>But not everyone wants AF. We are a tiny proportion of camera users, but by
>definition we (at the very least) don't *need* AF, neither do we *demand* AF,
>and many of us may indeed be far happier *without* AF.
>
Going without AF requires a large sensor, see below.
>The OM system may be getting slightly long in the tooth, but so, arguably, is
>the Porsche 911.
>
The 911 is much more analogous to something like Leica. Porsche sells
both actual performance that exceeds lesser priced competition and a
very powerful cachet/image - and they are very expensive. You can buy a
very capable competitor for far less money. There is no way Oly can
enter such a rarefied position in cameradom. (Yes, I owned a 911 for
several years.)
>I just don't believe that a digital OM body would be expensive in terms of R&D
>or production.
>
At the risk of repeating myself... The only way to reproduce the OM look
and feel is with a decent viewfinder, at least as large, bright and
clear as the OM-4. As I explicated recently, this is not possible with a
less than at least a near full 35mm size sensor. Such a viewfinder is
also necessary for usable MF for normal eyes with normal to wide angle
lenses. It is also necessary to mesh with the existing base of OM mount
lenses.
Look at the post that started this thread; Oly needs sales and profits
to remain viable. Oly would have to be insane, with a death wish, to
invest in R&D for a full frame sensor, OM mount, MF DSLR. Can*n has the
advantages of in house manufacture of chips and camera, of much of R&D
expense for the top of the line camera being reusable in high volume
lower priced models, of reasonable sales volume as the top of a well
established pro and amateur system, etc. And their full frame sensor
camera costs over $6000. And Can*n gets to sell lenses and other
accessories, which have higher margins than bodies. Oly doesn't even
have OM stuff to sell. They would have to start up an MF lens line from
scratch and then would have to compete with all their old lenses and
accessories.
> And whilst I agree that it's not a camera your average man-in-the-street
> would buy, I also don't think that necessarily makes it wrong.
>
Not morally wrong. Not nostalgically wrong, Not artistically wrong. Just
economically suicidal for a mass market company like Oly. Their business
model just doesn't fit low volume, high markup products.
A few years from now, when the technology has settled into commodity
pricing (I just saw a stack of progressive scan DVD players for $39),
production of a close to full frame replacement back for OMs by a small
specialty company is a possibility. Don't hold your breath.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|