Thom Hogan on Olympus

[Nescio]

Make the grips and buttons sized for American hands

Why do so, if the future is named China?

 

[gavinlg]

( On another point--I see fdigital calling the 14-35mm F2 zoom a "dud,""useless when it came to autofocus,"and had been abandoned.

Well, that's all certainly news to me. I see it's still listed on Olympus' website, so I can only assume they are still making and selling it. And as for my 14-35--it's one of my favorite lenses, and I consider it worth every penny of the $2200 I paid for it. Call it my utility lens--it's one I slap on my camera when I'm goin out shooting for just about any situation.

And I don't what fdigital means when he says it's "useless with autofocus." I don't seem to have any problems with mine, and I use it a lot in situations of low light and high ISO's. Shot last night with it at a blues show, and it locked on focus pretty quickly--the images look tack-sharp...)

Try a nikon 24-70mm with a d700, or even a canon 24-70mm f2.8L with a 5d. In low light, they absolutely spank the Oly 14-35mm f2 in accuracy and speed.

When I said abandoned, I don't mean they no longer sell it, I meant that they attempted to fix it quite a few times and then stopped, and a lot of people were never be able to get it focussing properly, especially on the e-3. It may be better with the e-5 - I don't know. What I do know is that for 3 years there was a flagship camera that didn't focus well with their main pro zoom, and it left me with a really bad taste in my mouth with Olympus.

 

[igi]

Oh, I think everyone, including Thom, forgot that the higher-end PEN is due this year... maybe we should hold off our verdict on Olympus' seemingly drunken direction and see how this PEN turns out.

The E-PL2 isn't so bad as an upgrade but it may not be an upgrade but more likely to draw more buyers to M4/3... increase in max shutter speed, better screen and faster sync speed... IMO the upgrades are more into making it a better camera than making it a better digital camera

 

[Paddy C]

Oh, I think everyone, including Thom, forgot that the higher-end PEN is due this year... maybe we should hold off our verdict on Olympus' seemingly drunken direction and see how this PEN turns out.

I remembered but very little is known about it at the moment. Also, I think that Hogan's argument is that the high-end Pen should have been out last year. Then you have three distinct models (low, mid, high) and two distinct lens lines (regular, high-end).

 

[pggunn]

My main camera is an OM1-md. I also shoot a 35RC for fun. I love them both, but especially the OM-1. I have a handful of Zuiko primes that give me what I want right now, and more. I also love the way the OM-1 handles, and the big, bright viewfinder. It's my favorite SLR by far, and beats several rangefinders I've used over the years.

I had an Olympus DSLR system for a little over a year, but got rid of it, mainly because of the lack of good, fast, and affordable lenses for the system. I absolutely refuse to pay what they're asking for their top of the line lenses - they aren't that freaking good, and the primes aren't that freaking fast, especially for the price they're demanding! I bought Sigma lenses for the system and though they performed well, ultimately, I couldn't get what I was looking for at a price I could live with, and ditched digital Olympus. I've gone back to 100% film for a while.

As far as talk about the Fuji X100 goes, for me the most significant innovation is not the hybrid display, or the sensor, or anything else regarding technology - it's the sensible idea of going back to basics and giving the photographer readily assessable manual controls for the basics - aperture, shutter speed, etc. What the F took so long! I hope the other manufacturers pay attention! Kudos to Fuji! I may be getting an X100 soon.

I also hope Olympus gets its act together. I'll be going back to digital in the next year or so - I pretty much have to in order to survive - and though I hope to stay with Olympus, I have serious doubts at this time and am leaning towards Pentax, or Nikon, for a system camera.

YMMV. This is just me, my way of working, and the resources I have at my disposal.

 

[gavinlg]

The OM system is probably my favorite all time system actually... The first time I ever held one I fell in love with the bodies and the first time I ever got a roll back from the OM lenses I fell in love with them too.

It's not that I didn't find a way to like the 4/3 system, I did very much see the potential of what it could have been, and that's why I bought into it. What made me get out of it was when I realized that olympus weren't playing the systems strengths and making up for it's (rather prominent) weaknesses like they should have.

 

[PKR]

Kudos. All the companies could really, if they truly understood their customers.

Put an Android/iPhone user interface in place of the crappy stuff we accept. Put WiFi and Bluetooth in the camera. Write DNG files. Make the grips and buttons sized for American hands, or better yet, make the camera left or right-handed. Remove the focal plane shutter and make it silent. Put a AA-powered wireless fill flash on a dock so we can hold it in our hand or reduce the size of the camera (like the old XA). Give us a professional, weather sealed EVF camera and a handful of fast prime lenses.

Our cameras are like 1979 Walkmans. Someone needs to make an iPod.

I have a good friend who works for one of the two big camera companies. The factory people constantly ask what pros want in the next model. It generally comes down to fewer features and better ergonomics, batteries and image quality. He says after all is said and done, the factory people do what they want, ignoring the requests from pro users.

Another friend uses a printer with a big Web (press not internet) Press in Japan. He will call out a color change and the press ops will agree - and they ignore the request and do what THEY think is best.

Got me!

 

[lars]

Fuji with X100 has shown everyone that people are sick and tired of how digital cameras look more than actually how they perform.

I don't know about that. The PEN and GF m43 bodies have the classic rangefinder look. What they lack is the ergonomics, not the look. Having an actual aperture ring and shutter speed selector dial, plus an actual viewfinder, makes the X100 significantly different from the PEN/GF, even though they look similar. Add to that the fact that the X100 uses a larger sensor which suggests that it might have the dynamic range and high ISO performance of current DSLRs. Those are the differences which have gotten people excited about the X100, and they're all related to performance.

All Olympus needs to do is look back at its history of making pretty cameras and incorporate that in their DSLR and compact designs.

There's already been plenty of gushing about the look of the PEN. But what I see a lot of people asking for nowadays is a built-in finder and better high ISO performance.

The digital market is no longer about affordable digital cameras, or high ISO, or even image quality, those have been pretty much covered,

To some extent, I agree with you. No one's expecting an m43 camera to match a 135 format DSLR. But many m43 enthusiasts would like to see performance equivalent to a mid- or high-end DSLR. m43 bodies still have a gap to fill as far as dynamic range is concerned. And to a lesser extent, high ISO performance.

The camera makers have taken notice of X100 and the response to it from advanced amateurs (the big spenders) and it will go against common sense if they do not follow up with their own cameras. Olympus has a history of being adventurous with their designs, so i won't be surprised if they come up with something exciting in the next year or so, but even then their XZ-1 is quite a digi p&s, but unfortunately it will be forgotten in the rush for mirrorless compacts.

I really hope they don't place their emphasis on styling. The cameras already look stylish enough. They need to boost the feature set (built-in EVF, faster AF, etc). If Olympus built a camera equal in everyway to my GH2 but with in-body stabilization, I'd buy it immediately.

But hey, that's just my opinion.


larsbc

 

[kuzano]

I agree with this....

I agree with this....

I'm not tuned into digital gear. But Olympus, in the past, has given, as far as I'm concerned, the public more good cameras across all user levels (within 35mm) than any other company. It is too bad if they fail now.

And I have long believed that the market for Olympus does not frequent this forum, or other forums like this. And that's probably a good choice for them to make and follow.

I like Olympus from Film days (When they didn't operate much differently than they do now), and what digital I shoot is Olympus. It suits me fine.

As said in the post I quoted, "Olympus has given the public more good across all user levels than any other company".

This forum, while visited by generally good people, is simply a spit in the bucket for market share, as are all similar forums. We do not represent the camera market at large.

 

[berlincontemporary]

http://www.43rumors.com/thom-hogan-what-is-the-future-for-olympus/

I think this is right on the money. By any reasonable calculus, Oly has released four nearly identical camera bodies in a year and a half, with no forward movement whatsoever. They really need to introduce something good for this standard. Something as good as the GH2 that looks and feels different from it.

Thom is correct.

Olympus PEN in 1960s:

38/1.8
40/1.4
42/1.2
60/1.5
70/2
...

Olympus PEN in 2011:

17/2.8
a bunch of slow zooms

 

[Paul Luscher]

fdigital: re your comments about Nikon and Canon "spanking" the Olympus:

I have neither the money nor the inclination to hop around from system to system. And for me, the 14-35mm is fast enough. If you say so, the Nikons or Canons may "spank" the 14-35 in focus speed, but I can't help wondering if in real life , we're not splitting hairs here. As someone once said about Rolls Royces, "power is sufficient." So for me, re Olympus, focus speed.... is sufficient. I mean, I ain't shooting still lifes here, as you might note from my post......

Re the ISO: you might be right. I dunno. All I know is that I like the way my images look at 1600 ISO (beats the TMax 3200 I used way back when), and frankly, I can count the number of times I have had to use any ISO higher than 1600 on one hand...using only one of my fingers. (Thank God for that fast Olympus glass.)

Oh, I suppose such high ISO speeds as Canons/Nikons have are cool, but how many of really have to use them? Kinda like how often do we really drive a car at its top end? Makes for nice bragging rights, but most of the time we really don't have to go there....

And again, I had no focus issues with either the lens or the body. Seems funny to me: bought the ZI and everybody seemed to be bitching about what a piece of crap it was, how this, that, and the other was wrong with it.....and I had no problems. Bought the M8, same amount of noise about what a rotten design it was......and I had no problems with mine. And here we are with the Olympus 14-35, and it's the same game, different day....

 

[chris00nj]

I wouldn't be too dour on Olympus. They are in the right direction, they just need to make some overal minor adjustments. It's not like they are making crappy point & shoot cameras, while that crowd is going towards just using camera phones.

I think the market is moving towards mirror-less large sensor cameras. Olympus was first in the market, but they seem to be losing out to Sony. Twice people at work have come to me asking my recommendation on a better quality camera that was small. I suggested they look both the Sony and Olympus, though I recommended the Olympus because I found the ergonomics of the Sony uncomfortable and didn't like the lack of lenses. Both times people got the Sony.

Because of Sony's market presence in other markets, they have good brand recognition. There are enough people under 30 who haven't heard of Olympus.

 

[gavinlg]

fdigital: re your comments about Nikon and Canon "spanking" the Olympus:

I have neither the money nor the inclination to hop around from system to system. And for me, the 14-35mm is fast enough. If you say so, the Nikons or Canons may "spank" the 14-35 in focus speed, but I can't help wondering if in real life , we're not splitting hairs here. As someone once said about Rolls Royces, "power is sufficient." So for me, re Olympus, focus speed.... is sufficient. I mean, I ain't shooting still lifes here, as you might note from my post......

Re the ISO: you might be right. I dunno. All I know is that I like the way my images look at 1600 ISO (beats the TMax 3200 I used way back when), and frankly, I can count the number of times I have had to use any ISO higher than 1600 on one hand...using only one of my fingers. (Thank God for that fast Olympus glass.)

Oh, I suppose such high ISO speeds as Canons/Nikons have are cool, but how many of really have to use them? Kinda like how often do we really drive a car at its top end? Makes for nice bragging rights, but most of the time we really don't have to go there....

And again, I had no focus issues with either the lens or the body. Seems funny to me: bought the ZI and everybody seemed to be bitching about what a piece of crap it was, how this, that, and the other was wrong with it.....and I had no problems. Bought the M8, same amount of noise about what a rotten design it was......and I had no problems with mine. And here we are with the Olympus 14-35, and it's the same game, different day....

I still look at the 14-35mm f2 with a bit of envy - and the 35-100mm f2 as well - the f2 zoom is just such a great concept. Everything you said is true, for you. I though, have probably thousands of shots in my lightroom library made at ISO 1600/3200, at f1.4 and f1.2 from my 5d. So it definitely depends on the photographer and what they shoot.

 

[chris00nj]

He says after all is said and done, the factory people do what they want, ignoring the requests from pro users.

It's not they are being ignored, it's that the company has to be concered about whether enough of the market wants something, or if the market is willing to tolerance an increase in price to get that feature. Pros may want feature X, but feature X may cost an extra $1,000 and then the pros won't buy it. "Well, I like feature X, but not at an extra grand."

 

[PKR]

It's not they are being ignored, it's that the company has to be concered about whether enough of the market wants something, or if the market is willing to tolerance an increase in price to get that feature. Pros may want feature X, but feature X may cost an extra $1,000 and then the pros won't buy it. "Well, I like feature X, but not at an extra grand."

Well, in the case (I can't be specific, friends are involved) i cited, the other big camera company did a similar survey, and made some of the changes (similar to those requested) and the company - I first cited, lost a big group of their Pro. users to their competitor. And, in that all of the advertising for both companies was based on "the camera the pros use", it caused a drop in consumer and high-end amateur camera sales. If you look back about 10 or 15 years - to date, you will see that this has happened twice, with both companies suffering from the same problem.

 

[wblynch]

...I think the market is moving towards mirror-less large sensor cameras. Olympus was first in the market, but they seem to be losing out to Sony...

Hmm, funny, I thought it was Panasonic to be first with a mirrorless M4/3 ?

Shows what little I know