Moose
I appreciate the detail that you got into to explain what you feel is right
and good about Canon. But I have to come to the defence of Olympus only
because through the years, it has been anything but what you believe Canon
has been, behind closed doors and out there yonder.
As much as many might see Olympus as a mere small-time maverick, it is
probably true to say that, that's how Canon persists in believing that's
pretty much all we were and still are. Canon has very little tolerance of
the things we're trying to do and the changes we're hoping to ring in. When
we showcased the OM-1, Canon was easily the most sluggish to respond. When
we launched TTL Flash Metering, they were amongst the last to implement it.
When we displayed Multispot Metering, they virtually chose to ignore us. And
so it was with countless other things that we've done that so many of our
customers loved and even if the public didn't at that time, they would in
the years to come. Here are some of the kinds of things we dared to break
frontiers to get them to the customer:
The AZ-series
<> Yes, Canon decided to try to counter us with the Epoca, which was
horrible to say the least.
The IS-series
<> Canon didn't even bother trying. But had the IS-series been successful.
Initially probably not and most in the industry ignored us. Today, you can
see strong presence of this design even in non-Olympus products from Sony
and Nikon as well as Konica-Minolta. Our IS-inspired design has come a full
circle, matured along the way and is now considered pretty much
"contemporary."
The Auto-S flash mode
Nobody did much at first but eventually others in the industry followed and
if my memory serves me correctly, it wasn't Canon that followed first.
OM Motordrive 2
Nobody followed our dual-motor contra-rotating design and yet those who have
used it as far as what we could hear from Japan and Europe including
Australia, they all loved it. Why? It was butter-smooth AND quiet. Did
anyone else bother to follow through? I don't think so.
OM T32 flash
What an ingenious design. Metz followed but no one else. It was super
compact in size and yet packed GN32. You really couldn't go wrong here.
Canon was nowhere insight.
OM Bouncegrip 2
Get the Bouncegrip 2 and you have super versatility with the T20 and/or T32,
changing from on-camera to hammerhead configuration in a matter of seconds,
boosting native GN to something closer to 42. And what a beautiful design
the Bouncegrip 2 was. I don't recall Canon having anything like this.
I guess I can go on and on. This is not a question of what we have and what
they don't have. It is not about what we came out with first and whether
others followed and how quickly. The question is whether Canon is quick to
respond to market reactions to what we at Olympus do. The answer is not
necessary a "yes".
Canon has very little respect - perhaps only grudgingly so - for what we do
at Olympus. They have demonstrated as much and even Nikon are nicer guys to
talk to even if they are also our immediate rivals. There is something smug
about Canon that irks me to no end. And for someone who makes copiers,
typewriters, fax machines, they're sure big enough to swallow any of us
including Nikon if either were for sale. No question about it.
My time spend at Olympus had revealed Canon to be ignorant when they largely
choose to be. After all when you're the king of the hill, you kinda think
you can afford to be. Why should they respond to the E-1's SSWF? They didn't
for almost four years so why now? The answer is not Olympus because they had
ignored us and they would continue to ignore us. The answer lies in their
customers whom they have not been sensitive to. Customers have shouted and
screamed enough to them over the years and this is their way to get them off
their backs.
One question begs to be asked, "Would Canon come up with this dust removal
system on their own and without customer pressure?" I don't think so. It's
always customer pressure that does it. If you think that Olympus aren't nice
and can't be bothered to help customers, I think that if you knew Canon
deeper and beneath the skin, you won't like their arrogance also.
And I think that with so much lesser resources to work with, we've done far
more in outright terms of technological innovations than Canon. If we at
Olympus have half as much the kind of resources that Canon boasts of, I am
deeply convinced that we would have done far more than they have.
I remain unswayed by the strong belief that when it comes to innovation, we
are streets ahead especially when such innovations improve photography,
solves common photographic issues or opens up new photographic
possibilities.
We may not be there to match the EOS1D Mark "whatever," but we're not
interested. Our OM-3 and OM-4 were more than enough a collective statement
that we play our own game, and we do it right. And as long as Canon ignores
Olympus, they only do so at their own peril.
Wow. Didn't realise I could come out with so much drivel. Anyway, I didn't
mean to get so vitriolic or emotional. Just that I needed to come defending
Olympus. Sorry Moose....nothing personal.
K.
On 05/09/06, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Winsor Crosby wrote:
> > Interesting video from Canon on the preview showing the dust buster
> > system. Interesting they use the shaking filter from Olympus and the
> > software removal from Nikon in their package. The only thing original
> > seems to be that the shaking filter is actually the low pass filter
> > which, they say keeps the package thin and did not require an
> > increase in the size of the camera.
> Also might mean a much cheaper repair if the AA/dust filter is damaged,
> as is is separate from the sensor package.
>
> A while ago, in some OT musings/drivel, I talked about working with
> people one likes vs. those one doesn't particularly like, but respects.
> I both liked and respected Oly for over 30 years of use of the OM system
> and the XA. I still have a non-rational attachment and have been known
> to pull over an OM body and play with it like Golum with the Ring.
>
> But I sure have to respect Canon. Unlike some other, more insular
> makers, as mentioned here recently, they have no problem seeing a
> problem with their product, diving in to correct it and admitting it was
> a problem by coming out with new product that fixes it. If they lead the
> field, as with their sensors, great, if they are behind, they aren't too
> proud to look around, study the matter and combine the best solutions in
> a creative way, whether invented by someone else or not.
>
> I say in a creative way because they implement things with effective use
> in mind. Their dust vibrator shuts off at once when you press the
> shutter - no 1.5 second delay before you can take a shot. And they run
> it when the camera turns off too, so it is less significant when it
> turns on again. And Oly couldn't be bothered to just do a firmware
> update to the E-1 to do something similar.
>
> What that says to me is C cares more about performance for the user than
> about their pride. And O cares more about some kind of internal idea of
> perfection than the actual, practical usability of their products. As a
> buyer and user of these things, it's pretty hard to fault C and pretty
> hard to understand O.
> > Swipe at Olympus?
> >
> Do they care enough to bother? All the video says is that it meant they
> didn't have to increase the body size from the 350D.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
--
Khen Lim
XIOS Network Solutions
IBM Business Partner
+60 +16 528 6010 / 016 528 6010
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|