If I am critical of 4/3 it is mostly that the particular incarnations of
it don't meet my needs. I also happen to believe it was a bad business
decision on Oly's part but that will never be known unless Olympus
manages to succeed in business and succeed in selling more 4/3 cameras.
If Olympus fails as a business there is no knowing that it was due to
4/3. Minolta didn't have any 4/3 analogue and they and their excellent
7D went down the drain. Actually, I think establishing 4/3 as a
*standard* was exactly the right idea for Oly's survival because they
were very late to the game. But I still think the sensor size was an error.
I bought a 5D because I thought that's what I needed for my business.
It also didn't hurt that it would accept OM lenses. I would love to
have live view and an articulating screen. But, for my business use,
it's much less important than other things especially considering that
the Minolta A1 continues to meet most of my "for fun" macro needs. And
that camera has "real" live view.
Chuck Norcutt
Joel Wilcox wrote:
>
> I am going to try to make this paragraph as platform neutral as
> possible. One thing we don't really explore, which is at the bottom
> of the Oly-C animus, is the viability of the 4/3 standard. Some
> people have tried it and like it to various degrees, others have
> decided it's not for them. That's not the only thing that has figured
> into the decision to part company with Oly or not, but it's a
> fundamental issue.
>
> For my part, I have felt hurt by criticism of 4/3 and all the issues
> that are unique to Oly as they've moved ahead with this new standard
> mainly because 4/3 is no longer a theoretical thing for me, it is an
> experience. Similarly, I think C owners have felt offended by
> statements about the excellence of the SSWF or live view because they
> may not have experienced the need for it, and yet Oly owners are
> telling them how much they need it. If you're like me, you don't
> enjoy anyone telling you your shooter is bad when you have the
> experience and familiarity with the camera and they simply don't.
> This goes both ways. I'm sure each side feels that it mostly only
> goes one way, and I confess to having felt that way myself sometimes.
>
> In the end, I don't believe anyone wants to lose anything that we have
> to offer each other. So let's get back to being who we are when we
> are really aware of how we like to be treated ourselves.
>
> Joel W.
>
> On 3/10/07, Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I think you must confusing this with another list. It strikes me that
>> discussions of other camera makes on this list has been more than
>> civilized.
>>
>>
>>
>> Winsor
>> Long Beach, California, USA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 10, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Steve Dropkin wrote:
>>
>>> Interestingly, if you remove the computer references above, the text
>>> well describes the Olympus vs Canyon vs Nicone discussions here
>>> ("Well, my [fill-in-Canyon-model-here] will photograph the sound
>>> waves from bats without a flash." "That new Nicone has some nice
>>> features. Too bad is the size of a toaster and it feels like it'll
>>> fold like a bad poker hand.")
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|