On 5/10/2016 12:44 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
Moose-Mount wrote:
Canon ditched an awkward, not ready for AF, mount long before digital.
Doesn't seem to have hurt them. And Pentax's retention of the P/K mount
hasn't propelled them to great success, only survival by acquisition.
The change actually did hurt Canon for a while. But it was long
evident that the previous mount was a brain-dead development and kept
Canon out of a lot of pro kits as a result. I just got rid of a couple
of Canon AE1 kits that I had acquired through $5 mystery box sales.
The lens mount really is a thing of horror. Glad to be rid of them.
When Canon changed the mount, effectively abandoning the old system
overnight, it was Canon's "betting the farm". . . .
Canon did something with the EOS that was brilliant. <clip useful analysis>
While there was a slow evolution
to the user-interface, it's mostly a fine-tuning approach and, again,
it is modular.
The other piece of genius, whether intentional or not, was the short register distance, the EF mount making their bodies
the universal recipients for other mount lenses.
It took a LONG time for the other camera manufacturers to catch on.
Olympus has probably perfected this better than anybody, by also
incorporating body changes as one aspect of the modular design. They
are able to put the exact same camera into three different body styles
and get away with it. I think the first camera of this new modular
design was the E-30. The internals and basic sub-chassis were used in
no less than three cameras.
They managed to make two almost identical sets of insides into an endless procession of Pen bodies. And since have
played a similar game with the OMD series.
Nobody was more disappointed than me when it came to Olympus
abandoning the OM lens mount and then the E-system lens mount. I still
feel that it was a massive mistake (both times).
Don't forget the elephant - They had a wonderful thing in the original OMs and the amazing accessories. Then, they had
a couple of key equipment failures and a management failure in NA.
First was the original OM-10. They sold over a million bodies that failed in huge numbers. Then they failed miserably at
AF. This was back when we bought cameras at shops. and it's hard to imagine the antipathy that the OM-10, their AF
models and their treatment of retailers created. I've talked to old camera shop folks who still are bitter about Oly.
One fellow told me about his frustration. Buyers would come in and insist on an OM based on test reports. He would
dutifully sell one to them when his recommendations were rejected, then wait to see them again soon . . . (Yes, counter
recommendations were affected by spiffs, but not the one to avoid OM.
The OM mount was dead because it didn't have a working AF version.
While you can say
that in the end it has worked out OK, what it did do is cause a 10
year period of time where Olympus' very survival was in question. Had
it not been for the extreme work and lobbying by certain individuals
within Olympus to learn the lessons of the OM System and stop
floundering around trying to out-Canon Canon, they would have failed.
Honestly, they could have gone back to the OM mount instead of m43 and
been just as successful.
I do wonder about this. Was differentiation what saved them? Would a new AF system that worked have made them
competitive enough with the others that had already made the AF transition successfully to rebound in market share? It
may be useful to remember that AF continued to be a weak point, with the E-1 and original 50-200, a key reason I didn't
get one, and the E-P1, until they redesigned the kit lens to focus quickly with CDAF.
It's worked out pretty well for Sony with the A7 series.
But into such a different market, with ILC already well established for themselves and others. I occasionally wonder how
successful the A7 series really is. If sales, and estimated profits, were really large, would not one of the big dogs
have made a FF ILC? Business folks tend to do product planning based on actual market size and profitability, not
enthusiast noise. :-)
I
Nikon has held on to their venerable lens mount because . . .
The OM system lens mount is really quite good. There are two flaws
that needed to be addressed, though. The lens lock mechanism needed to
be beefed up a little more and the aperture stop-down mechanism needed
to be redesigned. With time, both would have been addressed.
But the AF failure meant there wasn't time, with the mass MF market collapsed.
The lens lock did get better with some lenses, and electronic actuators in
newer lenses would addressed the second.
Woulda, but no time . . .
The OM system lens mount is actually good enough that Olympus did
actually keep a variation of it in the E-system and the m43 system.
Both are direct descendants of the design, but Olympus failed to keep
backward/forward compatibility.
Remember too, the problems with OM lenses on 4/3, telecentricity and AE failures. When they settled on the 4/3 mount,
which is indeed very close to the OM mount, many OM lenses didn't give what they considered acceptable optical results
and the 4/3 exposure system was unreliable/inconsistent with most OM lenses at many apertures. Remember the lengthy,
detailed list of acceptable lenses and apertures they published when reluctantly pushed into making adapters?
So, they both really didn't want to sell bodies mostly for lenses already sold and they didn't want poor imaging
results. Retrospect is a fine thing, in a way, but I can see why they did what they did at the time.
I'm not going to bash Olympus, though. That was last decade. I feel
that the direction they are on right now is great and they've been
rewarded with impressive sales and glowing reviews. They are the
happening company right now.
They really are the innovators these days. Who else would come up with in-camera focus stacking, in a Tough model, too,
sensor shift HR Mode*, the Air-01, and so on. Some work in the market, some not, but they soldier on with trying many
things. So the Pen-F is only slightly new inside, and of no interest to me, it's still something different being put out
there. I see the Air-01 isn't selling, and is down to $300, from $500, but what an interesting idea. I could see trying
one for under $200. Could be a great candid tool.
*Yes, tried already in MF, but without the color advantages and it went nowhere.
It's good to see Olympus turn the ship around
Indeed, I'm happy to be "back home", but only because they are again making
what I want.
Oly Moose (Again)
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
|