Moose piped up:
> the E-1 hit the nail on the head for the prtrait/event/wedding
> pros... ...On the other hand, it's clearly not a good tool
> for pro sports photographers. No good for pro product
> photography. Probably pretty good for journalism, with its
> rugged, weather sealed qualities...
This is actually pretty similar to the niche Mamiya carved out
with the 645. It wasn't the greatest at product photography,
lousy at sports photography and definitely not a news camera.
You also didn't see too many mommys and daddys shooting junior's
first steps with the M645 either. But for portraiture and
wedding work there wasn't any one camera more popular.
Everybody "wanted" a Hassy, but not everybody was willing to pay
the price nor put up with the wierd controls and ergonomics.
As many of you know, my ultimate drool camera is the Contax
645AF. In my mind this is the ultimate camera in its class. I
absolutely love the controls, the ergonomics, the lenses, the
viewfinder and the image characteristics. Except for the modern
PASM style lunacy, the E-1 is so close to the Contax in handling
it's almost scairy.
Just say "no" to PASM. :(
> with high iso noise getting in the way of some money shots
> that another camera might make work.
With film, we only wished we had high-ISO results as good as the
E-1's 1600. Red hearing? Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't mind
having cleaner high-ISO performance, but it's not a
deal-breaker/maker either way.
> From Oly's perspective, a strong acceptance in one or two
> important pro sectors may be enough for the moment. Pros don't
> want a new model unless it does something new that has
> commercial value to them. It is just an unnecessary expense.
Most excellent point. Consider that large photography companies
are buying the E-1s to replace 645 equipment as well as
long-roll equipment, they are in it for the long-haul. If the
camera meets their image quality requirements, it's a matter of
reliability and long-term cost analysis. One-lungers tend to
put emotion and gotta-have-it-itis ahead of honest cost
modelling.
> So unless Oly have some enhanced value for their
> primary niche(s) or can add functionality that will appeal to
> another segment, where is the need to update the E-1 in any
> hurry?
To sell lenses? Historically, the profit has rarely been in the
camera bodies but the lenses. Olympus is an optics company
first and foremost. Cameras are a means to sell optics.
> On the other hand, the consumer market for DSLRs is reportedly
> booming. Get a winner in that class, which specs say the E-500
> could be, and you get the revenue stream and profit to keep
> the line going and pay for more product development of both
> consumer and pro lines.
In a way, they did this in the nineties with the IS series of
cameras. They missed the ocean with autofocus SLRs but really
scored well with the IS series as well as the consumer cameras.
Meanwhile SOMEBODY was still buying OM-4Ti bodies and F2 lenses.
> Some features of pro cameras aren't significant to some pros
> and most amateurs, and some are outright negative.
This goes both ways. Professional cameras have always seemed a
bit dumb as compared to flashier consumer cameras. But there
are far fewer controls or options to fight when you are working
under pressure. Frame, Focus, Shutter speed, Aperture. How
much more simple can you get? However, even the most diehard
pros among us will reluctantly admit, when chemically altered
with enough mood-altering substances, that they occasionally use
"Program Mode".
> I would never haul around the big pro C and N models.
AG
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|