micro 4/3 Panasonic - Olympus War ?

[Mephiloco]

Canon and Nikon will NEVER make a micro 4/3 camera. Their days of using a lens mount/system not developed by themselves was abandoned yeaaars ago.


And about Olympus abandoning their customers 'yet again,' don't their DSLR's use the 4/3 mount? IIRC There is no problem at all putting a 4/3 lens on a micro 4/3 camera. You just need a simple adapter.

I also think it's silly to think anyone wants to make a digital rangefinder besides those already in the rangefinder game. The only people who would buy it would be those currently involved in rangefinders. I don't think rangefinders are very attractive to the market that is currently buying entry level dSLRs or even point and shoot cameras.

 

[ruben]

Steve, i quoted some of your text, just to say how much your considerations are right.
Last month I was with a friend, visiting an old church, and there was a beautiful ray of light from the window. I shot with my old RF at 160 iso, using "bulb", and my goal was to have the ray of light and the dark outside. My friend, with his D300, pulled up the iso to 6400, and made a beautiful shot of the church with all the benches and, the walls, and so on... But it was not what my eyes could capture, nor the real atmosphere in the church. The future is here! ;-)

Hi spiderfrank,

Sorry for molesting your idilic harmony with Steve on this thread, but I must confess I feel foolish. Up to your post I thought the debate between me and Steve was about what features a digital camera should have.

Upon your post I understand now I was absolutely mistaken and the real debate from Steve's angle was about the evil digital cameras VS analogue true cameras.

But if so, and taking into acount your specific example, should I remind you the thousand times anthem that it is never the camera but the photographer ?

Because you are relating the mistakes of the guy wtth the digital, and the wisdom of the guy with the RF camera (you) to the camera each one was holding, not to each one skills as photographers.

I think that attaching a gadgetery deviation to every folk using a digital, and pointing the source of the deviation to the type of camera - it sounds a little like Vudu, and a lot like a sort of antagonism towards science and technology.

Finally, what would you say about folks using both mediums ? schizophrenia ?

Kindly excuss me.
Ruben.

 

[Mephiloco]

With regard to high iso and the whole altered perception thing. Since when is photography all about representing things as accurately to reality as possible? When you do long exposures you end up with a picture that isn't how the eye sees it, but that's fine. Even doing a long exposure in low light and getting blur etc, the eye doesn't see like that, but that's fair game. You have no problem cropping images, and obscuring what the human eye would've seen. All these 'distort' the actual event by emphasizing one thing or obscuring another. Now that you might be able to shoot at a higher iso and capture more light you call foul? All the choices you make while taking a photograph distort the actual event. Yeah, we don't see a completely dark church as being bright, we also don't see everything sharp and in focus when it's bright, and we also don't have a DOF of only an inch or two when it's really dark.

I'd love to be able to shoot at, say, 25600 with good image quality. A lot of times when I shoot in low light I shoot at f1.5 because I HAVE to, not because I want a shallow depth of field, I have no say in it. I'd love to be able to shoot at f8 WHENEVER I wanted to and not have to comprimise my image quality by pushing my film much farther than it should be pushed.

 

[rover]

The E-P1 actually is supposed to be sold body only. It may not be in stock yet at the retailers, but there is a body only option planned to be sold by Oly.

 

[rover]

B&H lists the body only as expected in September.

 

[gnarayan]

Olympus for having stabbed their own old OM followship

Ruben,

Perhaps you should speak for yourself.

The system lasted 30 years and you can still use the lenses on OMs (they still work!) or with adapter on 4/3rds cameras, M4/3rds or Canon bodies (and I know a couple of people who post here who use their 5Ds with OMs exclusively). I do not feel particularly stabbed in the back.

Cheers,
-Gautham

 

[ruben]

Ruben,

Perhaps you should speak for yourself.

The system lasted 30 years and you can still use the lenses on OMs (they still work!) or with adapter on 4/3rds cameras, M4/3rds or Canon bodies (and I know a couple of people who post here who use their 5Ds with OMs exclusively). I do not feel particularly stabbed in the back.

Cheers,
-Gautham

By 1987, Canon launched its first AF system camera, which you could buy it a kit lens and then use the plethora of previous MF lenses and accesories you purchased for their MF Canon Slrs. Nikon, Pentax, Minolta followed suit.

Olympus kept its OM buyers without AF to mount their plethora of lenses and only by 2003 they launched their first AF digital system, about which I didn't found any info if the OM lenses were possible to mount by then.

So from 1987 up to 2003, at least, we are talking about 16 years Olympus Co. left their 1970-1990 OM followiship without any slr system upgrade.

The word "stab" is too strong I agree, and adds a malicious subjective intention, which it will be rather ridiculous to stick to.

Due to their size, they were just financially impotent and not bold enough to take risks (this latter assertion according to Maitani himself).

The following excertps are "Based on an interview with Yoshihisa Maitani by Kouichi Akagi, Asahi Camera magazine, March 2002".


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Akagi: It is also said that the OM System declined because it failed to catch up with auto focus in a good manner.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Maitami: Sure. This was one of the reason, we considered about auto focus from the beginning as I have already mentioned, but we did not have any feasible technology. Therefore, to incorporate auto focus afterwards we had to clear the major issue of changing the system.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Another issue was the patent. We hesitated, and this hesitation arrested the growth of the system. But this is the outsider’s point of view. For the company, paying for patent fee[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]is a major issue. I am still not sure which company is happier, a company that pays billions of yen for license, or a company like Olympus who pays almost nothing.\[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A: Did the company decide that it was not worth to pay such a huge amount?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]M: We did not know how much we had to pay at that moment. Maybe this was the same as Minolta, who had to dispute with Honeywell later. Minolta did not know how much the patent fee was. That was why they concentrated their energies on the development of auto focus system. But interestingly, Olympus is a company who always wants to avoid problems with other companies. Not only because we did not want to pay, we did not want to dispute with Honeywell. Nobody in our company was against discovering our own methods. We would like to use Honeywell's method if they permitted, but the basic stream was that we did not want to fight with them[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A: I have heard that the OM101 introduced later was provided with a space for an auto focus module under the mirror box.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]M: Yes, there was room for it.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A: Then, there was a possibility of becoming an auto focus camera.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]M: Potentially, but just at that time the patent issue arose.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A: If the issue was solved, we could have seen more cameras with an auto focus sensor?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]M: I think the single-digit OM series could be developed with auto focus system.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A: Mmm ... I think the users were looking forward to them considerably.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]M: Yes, I understand that. So I am very sorry for that...[/FONT]
[/FONT]
=========
[/FONT]
Now, Olympus finds itself against the wall again, this time even harder than at 1987. Not only the situation they face is more complex, but they also lack their genius. Had Olympus cut it short by the eighties, with Maitani at the lead, they may have been at a completeley different situation today.

You don't do this kind of things to your followship. you don't do this kind of things to the talent around which you do exists. And if you do, then you can cry me a river,"'cause I have cried a river for you."

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[rxmd]

Hi Ruben,

By 1987, Canon launched its first AF system camera, which you could buy it a kit lens and then use the plethora of previous MF lenses and accesories you purchased for their MF Canon Slrs. Nikon, Pentax, Minolta followed suit.

Just a minor correction: in fact it was Minolta who brought the first AF system camera in 1985 if we don't count one-off products like the Nikon F3AF. Afterwards it took Canon more than a year to present the first autofocus EOS in 1987, so it was actually Canon who followed suit. Also you could not use the bulk of lenses you purchased for your MF Canon, because FD lenses are incompatible with the EOS lens mount as everybody knows by now. Canon sold an adapter that is only compatible with a precious few high-end FD lenses just to keep their most loyal high-end customers from running to Nikon. For third-party lenses, it took quite some time until adapters became available. With Minolta the situation was the same - the old Minolta MD lenses, which had a loyal userbase, were completely incompatible with the new bodies. Both companies took a lot of flak for that decision.

Olympus kept its OM buyers without AF to mount their plethora of lenses and only by 2003 they launched their first AF digital system, about which I didn't found any info if the OM lenses were possible to mount by then.

The OM-4/3 adapter was announced right with the first cameras IIRC. Olympus tried to position this as a major selling point.

Philipp

 

[M4streetshooter]

H and B Digital in NY, usually has the body in stock....

 

[gnarayan]

By 1987, Canon launched its first AF system camera, which you could buy it a kit lens and then use the plethora of previous MF lenses and accesories you purchased for their MF Canon Slrs. Nikon, Pentax, Minolta followed suit.

Olympus kept its OM buyers without AF to mount their plethora of lenses and only by 2003 they launched their first AF digital system, about which I didn't found any info if the OM lenses were possible to mount by then.

rxmd already pointed out the slight mistakes in your version of history here.
Let me simply add 1986 for the OM 707, a year after Minolta, and it did take OM manual lenses. That it was crap AF is a different story but the options existed even if you were ignorant about them until 2003.

So from 1987 up to 2003, at least, we are talking about 16 years Olympus Co. left their 1970-1990 OM followiship without any slr system upgrade.

But the real quibble I have with your argument is this - the OM lenses function just as well today as they did when they were made and in exactly the same way. You can choose to use them today on existing Olympus bodies, or Canons, which is more that can be said for the FD mount.

Sure they didn't get you AF. Neither did Leica. So?

If you feel like making your pronouncements about Olympus' future with M4/3 and the past with the OM system I'd suggest making it clear that this is purely your opinion, and not arguing that your views represent history or the opinions of all Olympus owners.

Cheers,
-Gautham

 

[ruben]

Hi gnarayan,

Perhaps you have not read Maitani's interview, nor my excerpts from it here, with enough attention Or perhpas you even disagree with him. Would you like to read again and slowly the quotations I brought here from Y. Maitani, and correct your above post accordingly ?

Cheers,
Ruben