AG Schnozz wrote:
>Just say "no" to PASM. :(
>
>
Om-2 and 4 series had AM. I sometimes wished they had S. I use P very
eldom, but don't see what's wrong with having it available. Sounds like
a personal problem?
>>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.
>
And what does that have to do with..... So there were shots that coudn't
be made with film. Now they can be made with an E-1, but not well enough
to be saleable for someone's target market. If those are shots I want to
make, and there is a camera that can make them and I can sell them, what
does that have to do with what film could or couldn't do? In fact, if I
can make shots that weren't available before, don't I have something new
to sell? Pretty rare! You are the hard nosed, cost motivated pro, but
analysis that is correct for your work may not be for someone else's work.
>Red hearing?
>
Sunburned ear? :-)
>Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't mind having cleaner high-ISO performance, but
>it's not a deal-breaker/maker either way.
>
>
For your work. It may be just that for someone else. You said the same
thing about resolution. True for you. As was pointed out in some detail,
not true for product photography.
> <snip>
>
>>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.
>
>
Only if it broadens their pro market. Adding function attractive enough
to tempt those already using E-1s to upgrade could just siphon off $
they might have otherwise spent on lenses.
>>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.
>
>
Pretty slowly, though. They were selling new old stock for years.
>>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".
>
Oh NOooo. Say it isn't so. Pros using what works to get the job done,
regardless of ideology? Never happen. :-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|