> It's a big investment, to design a relatively sophisticated device, tool up,
> test, redo some things and produce for a
> small market. Misjudge the actual market (AG and a few other nuts and bolts,
> maybe Mike), and lose your a**.
They've done so for even smaller or marginalized markets. It's like
when Olympus decided to devote everything E-Pen to the Japanese 16-20
year old female market. "Hello Kitty" only goes so far. Granted, they
also lost their a** doing it.
> The people who made one with such limitations of adaptable lenses already
> screwed up their potential market.
Do you have any examples of unsuccess with adapters? Best that I can
tell, there were at least four or five OM-EOS adapters sold. One would
think that if even 1/4 of the people who bought OM-EOS adapters were
to by OM-m43 or OM-Fuji or OM-Sony adapters (with reduction optics)
that there would be sufficient market. I can't imagine that the
break-even point is all that high, given how many variants there are
out there of every other flavor of lens and adapter.
> Think of all the pain, not to mention electrolyte replenishment, you could
> have saved by just buying a 5D all those
> years ago.
And I already admitted to that mistake.
> But then, I'm confused. I thought film was your real thing, and that's
> already FF! ;-)
For a lot of stuff, yes. But there is no substitute for digital when
you need digital.
On a positive note, I'm really impressed with the Note 3's camera.
There is always the issue of stunted dynamic range, but otherwise, it
does an amazing job.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|