wjmeyer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
molson wrote:
Reviving the OM name at this stage is just a marketing ploy to try to wring a few more dollars from the Olympus brand legacy, unfortunately. I don't think Olympus has the will or the financial resources to introduce another "pro" camera system.
From what I've read about the "scandal" it was not the camera division that was a part of that and they still have the resources to continue their work. Yes, Olympus as a company took a big hit, but I don't think it means their impending downfall, especially if they can get another investor which it looks very likely like that will happen. I would love to see Samsung help out because it could improve LCD and sensor quality down the road.
molson wrote:
It's really a shame that Olympus has always had some of the best lens designers in the industry, but handicapped them with lousy marketing and incompetent (and, apparently, crooked) management. It wasn't until the success of cameras like the Canon 5D and 5D Mark II, along with the availability of adapters to mount other lenses, that people started to realize just how good many of the old OM lenses really were.
Using a little 20:20 hindsight, what I would have like to see from Olympus would have been a 4:3 aspect ratio sensor with 24mm x 32mm dimensions, along with an updated OM lens mount. Put something like that in a body the size of an OM-1 with its great viewfinder, and I would buy two of them!...Show more →
molson, I used to think similarly to you; however, I think I now understand better the four thirds strategy. Very soon after digital became mainstream Canon and Nikon dominated the DSLR market, I am not sure what chance Olympus would have had at that point so they had a choice, compete with Canon/Nikon or create something different. They decided to create something different with four thirds and their joint effort with Kodak created the possibility for an "open source" format, that other companies could capitalize on and share lenses and so forth. Their goal originally was "small" DSLR's but not many bought into that idea, while Olympus was working on "small" they were not so much focussing on sensor design while Canon and Nikon were, and as Nikon soon found out, people wanted better quality high ISO IQ out of their camera. If I am not mistaken the high ISO IQ of the Canon 30D beat out anything from Olympus at the time and the 30D was a fairly small body, then the Rebels started capitalizing on the higher ISO IQ as well which was more in direct competition with the likes of the four thirds. Can Olympus make quality lenses - you betcha, I don't think there is any arguing that point, but their poor quality sensors was their downfall. I'm sure sales continued to struggle so what does Olympus do now, instead of focussing on the sensor, they came out with micro four thirds (MFT or m4/3) and then Panasonic entered the foray, I think they all realized that the lenses were "too big" for four thirds and the new MFT mount solved that problem and allowed for much smaller lenses to be optimized for the size of the sensor.
Both Olympus and Panasonic have a phenomenal lineup of lenses for MFT but their sensors have continued to struggle and to me, I think that is the final piece of the puzzle for this system. If Olympus (or Panasonic) can make a breakthrough in sensor design for MFT then I think it can be a game changer in the mirrorless/CSC (compact system camera) market. Heck, think of what would happen if Olympus could get a 16MP sensor in an E-6 body that had clean high ISO up to 6400, that could revive the whole four thirds format as well because their lenses are truly first rate (come on, who wouldn't like a 70-200 f/2 lens in 35mm format!).
So, what's my point. Well, I read a lot of posts that talk about Olympus blowing it with an "OM" style digital body that was in an MFT mount. It seems many would like to see a FF sensor in the OM, but seriously think about that; what FF style lenses has Olympus made of late? Nothing, they have been committed to the four thirds sensor and I honestly don't see that changing, they would have to then spent the additional R&D on a whole new line of lenses. And if you think Olympus is going to make a FF body just so you can attach some old legacy MF lenses on it, I think you're dreaming. One of the biggest sources of revenue for a camera division is selling lenses, and if they make a body and don't sell any lenses, well it just doesn't make financial sense to do so. Will some camera company eventually make an affordable FF mirrorless, I'm certain of it, but I doubt it will be Olympus. Personally, I'd like to see Pentax do this, but we'll have to wait and see.
If the OM-D is released as MFT some will love it (like me) and others will hate it, but isn't that always the case with ANYTHING. Just read any forum on the internet and you will find heated arguments about "this" vs. "that" and what a manufacturer should have done. We are a culture that is never content with what we have, but always wanting more. In many ways it is because of the marketing from these companies, but ultimately we are responsible.
|
Seriously, I prefer the Olympus bodies for their IBIS, but Panasonic Gs for their built-in EVF and 16MP sensor. It seems I am getting exactly what I want.
