On 10/01/07, AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Khen wrote:
> > I'm not 100pc sure it would be, AG. This of course has nothing to
> > do with whether or not you or I or Olympus regarding it as
> > the "digital equivalent" of the XA. The one thing that the C8080
> > isn't is overtly compact.
>
> Actual physical size is only one characteristic that I consider to be
> XA'ish. There are hundreds of various P&S digital cameras which are
> smaller than the XA and even have clamshell designs.
True. Can't argue with that. But since we're on the subject, I'd like to
point out that the Minox 35GL and 35ML were truly outstanding cameras with
intriguing "drawbridge" lens design. And these two could really pound out
super sharp images.
What makes the
> C8080 XA'ish in my mind is that it is a camera with an OUTSTANDING
> lens, full-featured (or close-enough to it) and capable of true
> professional quality pictures in a compact, yet easy to use design.
> The XA felt good to use and had a very nice viewfinder.
OK. Again you have no arguments from me here.
Another aspect, of which I'm really referring to, is the XA's ability
> to transcend time and never really being bettered. The C8080, like
> the KM A2, is truely at the pinnicle of design. Nothing in this
> genre has come out before or since that has achieved such a
> well-rounded technical excellence.
Canon might not agree with you, hahahaha....
> That lens alone actually costs more than the whole
> > camera and that is one of several reasons why it also had to be
> > halted. The camera was simply too costly to build. Olympus put its
> > heart and soul into developing, engineering and getting that
> > damn "prosumer king" out and I think it nearly cost them their
> > existence. The C8080 is THAT good mainly because the powerhouse
> > designers were the ones who worked on developing it.
>
> I agree that it shows. The camera really is a classic. However, is
> Olympus in the process of repeating a potential disaster by pooring
> it's heart and soul with the powerhouse designers into the E>1 and
> end up screwing things up through ineffective marketing (Olympus USA)
> or a major FUBAR with some technical mistake (Leica M8). They did us
> well with the E-1, but they could have served everybody well if they
> would have done a few incremental improvements along the way, like an
> 8MP E-X body.
You know, AG, working with Olympus hasn't always been blissful. I've had
people thinking that it's all moonshine heaven when it isn't. Very people
actually appreciate that like any company, we have our in-house arguments and
sometimes we get drawn into the fire even when we don't really want to. When
it comes to marketing, I think you can appreciate that they're not exactly
very friendly with us in Research because we're just not thinking alike.
We're the cats and they're the dogs....hahaha....that's what I'd like to
think, anyway! In any case, I think there's a lot to be read into the way
Olympus USA plans their marketing. We have no jurisdiction (for want of a
better word) to really do anything here unless it has something to do with
communicating with their technical personnel. I do admit to be initially
flummoxed by Olympus USA's decision not to market the E-400, for example,
but in the end, it was also Olympus Japan's inability to read the signs
ahead.
As I've often tried to explain in the past, it is often quite difficult to
understand how Olympus in general think. I can really go into this issue in
far greater detail but memories of the past on this forum when I was burned
on the stake (and I'm not even named Joan, for crying out loud) dampens my
enthusiasm to go deeper on this subject. It seems to draw unnecessary ire
from too many people.
As with regards to Leica's admittedly embarrassing issue with the M8, I have
reason to believe that the company had attempted to remove the anti-aliasing
filter from the sensor because it was affecting image definition to a level
they were unhappy with. But I may be wrong on this count. And yes, it must
have been quite a humiliating experience for them. The very interesting
thing though about the M8 is Leica's decision to (a) opt for CCD and not
CMOS and (b) their move to source it from Kodak.
I agree that the an E-x body featuring 8Mpix is sorely missed. But you know
what....it's not too late. I know it appears ridiculous to bring out a
semipro DSLR with 8Mpix now since the E-400 already has 10Mpix. Furthermore
product positioning would be a nightmare considering also that the E-330 is
within proximity. And then there is the 2007 proposed DSLR lineup, which is
all but locked down now. While it is my opinion that an 8Mpix semipro DSLR
might make a little bit of sense, I doubt the marketing people at Olympus
would agree.
K.
AG
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ==============================================
> 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
==============================================
|