I really am always interested in seeing this game of "one ups," you know like when 2 kids sit and say, my Dad is bigger than your dad. Then the other child says, "Oh yea well, my dad's bigger than Shaq," and on and on they go. Next thing you know, one dad is taller than Mt. Everest. Over the last 5 years we have seen much of this with SLR cameras, which once were a simple instruments to capture our world have grown into complex computers with the ability to create the world they capture.
Really Olympus and now Panasonic have to be given a huge amount of Kudos for many technologies that we have seen really change the landscape. From the dust reduction technology, to live view, and even now to the art filters. At each step neigh sayers (at times myself included) simply dismiss the new feature as a gimmick. However really the most interesting part of the whole thing is how much you see these new technologies mold down to other camera manufactures. (Though some times it isn't implemented as well.)
Take for example liveview on the E-30 verses other camera companies, with the Imager AF system it is quite usable. However for any camera to have to drop the mirror to focus and you end up with viewfinder blacked out, it is unacceptable in my book.
Or look at sensor cleaning system after 5 years I still have not cleaned my sensor yet, and although I usually have my cameras cleaned by Olympus repair center each year to year and a half the SSWF really works.
Even the newly announced HD videos from Panasonic GH1, and I assume what ever Olympus µ4/3 cameras come out, it should work as a fully functional HD video camera, with full manual controls. Which most Camcorders do not do well, and really the Video from all SLRs that I have played with to day is a total joke, nothing more than a Gimmick.
So now I was looking at the newly announced D5000 from Nikon, and again it looks like a game of "one ups". Nikon says ok you guys can do 5 cool art filters, well, we will throw 10+ filters in, the ability to straighten the photos, and half a dozen or so other features. In all I find it quite interesting.
Soon we will see an article from some none news source like the NY Times, or a computer magazine, declare the D5000 as the best thing since sliced bread. Then they will be accepted as gold, and next thing you know art filters will be on every camera in the market. On the one hand it really shows the innovative thinking on the 4/3 players, and how they are attempting to communicated with the customer (even when it isn't me). On the other hand I find it interesting to see how either the 4/3 system is either marketed poorly, or being ignored by the market, and/or writers. Really I am not sure which it is.
Finally I have to say I am really interested in seeing the next µ4/3 product, but I am still left waiting to see, when will the E-3 successor come to the market? And of course like always I want to see better ISO, greater dynamic range, and GPS on my camera, So I guess that I have my own gimmicks too that I want to see on a camera. Perhaps it is now that a simple SLR won't sell, but I think that can't be true. I think increasingly technologies will be piled in on cameras, and that is just a reality of the game, to have the camera which takes the best photos. It seems that the greatest note, is finally Olympus seems to be saying we have enough pixels let's work on image quality at least this month.
The example I was given was the modern car. Have you any idea how good a car could be these days, if the money spent on electric windows, stereos, trip computers, electric seats etc was spend on the engine, drive train, wheels and brakes? Over time, less and less of what we pay for a camera will affect our ability to take flawless images, and more and more will be for "convenience" and attempts to correct for a poor optics and an imperfect initial image.
Regards,
Alan
by Ravenwing on Sat, 04/18/2009 - 23:28
Good story, Tony. And good questions raised as well, some that many of us wonder about. Personally, I don't think its so much a problem of Olympus marketing being faulty (though that may play some part), as it is that Nikon and Canon marketing has been so pervasive and so successful. Hard to imagine that any company, Olympus or otherwise, could break into the top tier that those two companies represent, without a phenomenally large marketing budget far beyond the reality of responsible company management, particularly given the state of the global economy. I'm sure Canon and Nikon's marketing budgets are orders of magnitude beyond anything Oly could come up with.
by tomsi42 on Sat, 04/18/2009 - 23:54
You raise some interesting points here, Ravenwing. But I think the economic slump might be in Olympus's favor here. What I have seen from Canon and Nikon is that they (especially Canon) manufacture in high numbers with a lot of variety in quality.At least the low end leaves a lot to be desired.Olympus seems to me to be better built and of better quality at the same price point.
I started looking into Olympus, becaue I can't find a compact camera that delivers the quality I want; so I bought a E-420 and the 25mm f/2.8. What I found out is that this fits my uses better than my midrange Canon gear. Th reason for that, is that 4/3rd system is designed as a whole; unlike Canon & NIkon where the crop camera's often are a half-baked solution.
Tom
by ncartwright on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 11:26
Some good points put across well. This is much in line with my thinking, being old enough to have used film cameras for years I can remember when we had a good choice of "different" cameras from a number of manufacturers and you chose the camera that suited you and not necessarily the one that was the best according to the words of some powerful marketing departments from a couple of companies. I think this is one of the major problems faced by any company producing a camera that is not Nikon or Canon. It all started with Canon's marketing of their Pro-SLR's and was then followed by Nikon in what seems like a nether ending game between the two companies. This appears to have influenced reviewers and a lot of photographers, that if a camera does not live up to specific requirements as dictated by the big two it is no good. What has been forgotten is that this started by Canon marketing SLR cameras aimed at professional press and sports photographers that had a specific set of requirements. This has grown into an odd situation where it seems that the vast majority of the photographic community believe that we should all be taking photographs in a specific manner as dictated by the big twos marketing departments, as they both play a game of one up manship with each other. Not all professional and certainly amateur photographers need cameras that meet these requirements, so I have always considered the term Pro-SLR to be no more than a tag created by marketing departments. As an Engineer I am always interested in the technology behind a camera, but as a photographer I am only interested in how a camera helps me to take photographs in the way I wish to take them. For me the great strength in Olympus is that whilst other have tried to competed with the big two and their narrow set of criteria, Olympus has dared to be different and given us true alternatives which for some of us better suite our style of photography. Lets hope that the wider photographic community and especially reviewers wake up to the true lack of choice we are faced with, but until then I am happy with my E3 & 510 and really have no interest in what the big two tell me I should want!
Neil
by BC13 on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 02:17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Baxter
Have you any idea how good a car could be these days, if the money spent on electric windows, stereos, trip computers, electric seats etc was spend on the engine, drive train, wheels and brakes?
Better than a race car? Because that's exactly what they do: get rid of the amenities to improve performance.
Also, what makes a good car? Is driving performance the only factor? When you're loading up the family for a road trip, are you really prepared to toss out the radio, electric windows and seat cushions in order to shave a few tenths off your lap time?
Maybe what the world needs are small, specialist camera companies that build performance cameras designed around specific needs. Or even tuner companies like Saleen or Alpina that modify off-the-shelf products. I guess for some reason it's easier to do this with cars ...
by Alan Baxter on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 03:19
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncartwright
As an Engineer I am always interested in the technology behind a camera, but as a photographer I am only interested in how a camera helps me to take photographs in the way I wish to take them. ... and really have no interest in what the big two tell me I should want!
Neil
They don't advertise very much here (Australia), but still dominate the market, with Olympus SLRs third. Olympus P&S do quite well (although Canon probably stronger).
Regards,
Alan
by Robert Watcher on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 13:43
* Consumers demand everything they see from everything they purchase (or get free). I know people who get irritated and can't understand why a piece of equipment or software they have invested in, won't do everything that all the other same type/different brands of equipment/software does. Consumers have to have the perceived "best" and abandon all product loyalties instantly when there is even a mention of something bigger, badder, and better. And of course the "Brand" name is everything if you want to be accepted or popular.
* Companies pursue conformity and one-upsmanship by providing everything everyone else has and then more. Have a look at every Walmart and Grocery Store, now providing everything the other one has. Massive chain Drugstores selling food and clothing. My goodness, even Canadian Tire (a chain based on automotive supplies) is going into selling groceries.
There are no longer Niche Markets and products (or at least they are fast disappearing). No one is satisfied with having a small share of a market and a modest income. And maybe our current market does not allow that anyway. Even companies who were niche in the past, have conformed to be what everyone else is. Take the Peugeot, Saub, BMW - - - all cars that back in the 70's and 80's were to me the ugliest cars on the road. Of course there were many who loved their uniqueness, and there was never a problem identifying them as they passed by. Now they along with almost all other car, are clones of each other - marketers using prestige and perceived value and a few expensive performance technologies to get their buyers.
One thing that I have always liked about Olympus (since my first purchase in 1984), is their forward thinking and attemps to push the boundaries. But as the saying goes, it is the pioneers with the arrows in their backs. Olympus obviously is big enough and has found a balance between selling accepted commercial product and features - and pioneering new technologies.
One thing to note for those who haven't followed Olympus that long, is that even as far back as the 1980's, there was a mixed bag of reviews for Olympus equipment. In actuality it all sounded then exactly the same as it does today from reviewers. Unique features, not up to the standards of the big boys, too expensive, not enough lenses, can't invest in a complete system, not fast enough, not heavy enough, not a brand name, and the list went on and on. Same stuff we hear today, except compunded by the fact that all of the player companies are obsoleting their camera models ever few months.
I really don't think that it has much to do with marketing. Major money would be wasted trying to unplant the establishment of Nikon and Canon in the SLR camera field. In some ways, it is Olympus owners who are the most discruntled, putting demands on conformity by Olympus by not being satisfied, and are their own worst enemies. As for technology, I want what techology offers at any given time, and won't go back to horse and buggy. But I have always felt that technology is a double edged sword. We love it, and it loves us (because we support it with our hard earned money) - - - but it can really stab us in the butt. And in reality it is us consumers who pay hardest.
by Ravenwing on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 14:31
I think you have a good point there, Rob, regarding Oly owners as being at least a part of the problem. How many times have we heard olympus owners bemoaning the point that Olympus doesn't "keep up" with, or match all the characteristics of the competition (ie canikon). Personally, the last thing I want to see is for Olympus to become just like Canon and Nikon. If they were to do that, what would be the point of having a company called Olympus? No one camera can do it all. The danger of pushing a company into trying to exactly match the competition, is to risk losing what made it unique and special in the first place. If one needs or desires a camera that does what a Canon or Nikon or Olympus (or whatever) does, then buy that camera. Don't buy an Olympus and then bemoan the fact that it isn't a Nikon or a Canon.
by Bamamike on Sat, 05/09/2009 - 20:48
All good points, however, the real reason I switched partly from Canon to Olympus was the way you show up in the crowd. I was on a boat trip with the E-3 and the 70-300mm lens and could make great shots even in AL situations and the stage in 65 ft distance. A compatible set-up with my 5D could have been stopped at the entrance bag control for having a bazooka in my luggage. And the weight difference counts on a day long trip, too.
The only reason I keep my Canon is wide-angle, real 12mm on FF is sweet and not too expensive.
The marketing of Canon is not so much for the professional customers, I remember the "come and play" commercial, the most pro-calling commercials are the ones from Nikon and the funniest come from Sony (remember the picture with and w/o the workers of the empire state building and the slogan "timing is everything"?
by InOmaha on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 13:18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamamike
All good points, however, the real reason I switched partly from Canon to Olympus was the way you show up in the crowd. I was on a boat trip with the E-3 and the 70-300mm lens and could make great shots even in AL situations and the stage in 65 ft distance. A compatible set-up with my 5D could have been stopped at the entrance bag control for having a bazooka in my luggage. And the weight difference counts on a day long trip, too.
The only reason I keep my Canon is wide-angle, real 12mm on FF is sweet and not too expensive.
The marketing of Canon is not so much for the professional customers, I remember the "come and play" commercial, the most pro-calling commercials are the ones from Nikon and the funniest come from Sony (remember the picture with and w/o the workers of the empire state building and the slogan "timing is everything"?
This is an excellent point for people who don't have press passes. I took my camera to a game and the stadium had a ban on lenses over a certain length. I was taking pictures throughout the day of the city, friends, etc. and it never dawned on me that I may have had to drop the camera off before the game. Walking the extra 2 miles to do that and missing some of the game would have been a bummer.
My bag was small enough that I passed right through security. I could get into the stadium with my e510, 12-60, 14-42, and 40-150 packed into my little Tamrac bag. I could add a ec14 easily and a 70-300 may squeeze in to the bag if it was mounted on the camera instead of the 12-60, but I don't know since I don't own one. A 50-200 would probably get you noticed.
That's a large focal range to carry into an event in a bag smaller than your wife's purse.
The Game of "one ups"
Regards,
Alan
I started looking into Olympus, becaue I can't find a compact camera that delivers the quality I want; so I bought a E-420 and the 25mm f/2.8. What I found out is that this fits my uses better than my midrange Canon gear. Th reason for that, is that 4/3rd system is designed as a whole; unlike Canon & NIkon where the crop camera's often are a half-baked solution.
Tom
Neil
Also, what makes a good car? Is driving performance the only factor? When you're loading up the family for a road trip, are you really prepared to toss out the radio, electric windows and seat cushions in order to shave a few tenths off your lap time?
Maybe what the world needs are small, specialist camera companies that build performance cameras designed around specific needs. Or even tuner companies like Saleen or Alpina that modify off-the-shelf products. I guess for some reason it's easier to do this with cars ...
Neil
Regards,
Alan
* Companies pursue conformity and one-upsmanship by providing everything everyone else has and then more. Have a look at every Walmart and Grocery Store, now providing everything the other one has. Massive chain Drugstores selling food and clothing. My goodness, even Canadian Tire (a chain based on automotive supplies) is going into selling groceries.
There are no longer Niche Markets and products (or at least they are fast disappearing). No one is satisfied with having a small share of a market and a modest income. And maybe our current market does not allow that anyway. Even companies who were niche in the past, have conformed to be what everyone else is. Take the Peugeot, Saub, BMW - - - all cars that back in the 70's and 80's were to me the ugliest cars on the road. Of course there were many who loved their uniqueness, and there was never a problem identifying them as they passed by. Now they along with almost all other car, are clones of each other - marketers using prestige and perceived value and a few expensive performance technologies to get their buyers.
One thing that I have always liked about Olympus (since my first purchase in 1984), is their forward thinking and attemps to push the boundaries. But as the saying goes, it is the pioneers with the arrows in their backs. Olympus obviously is big enough and has found a balance between selling accepted commercial product and features - and pioneering new technologies.
One thing to note for those who haven't followed Olympus that long, is that even as far back as the 1980's, there was a mixed bag of reviews for Olympus equipment. In actuality it all sounded then exactly the same as it does today from reviewers. Unique features, not up to the standards of the big boys, too expensive, not enough lenses, can't invest in a complete system, not fast enough, not heavy enough, not a brand name, and the list went on and on. Same stuff we hear today, except compunded by the fact that all of the player companies are obsoleting their camera models ever few months.
I really don't think that it has much to do with marketing. Major money would be wasted trying to unplant the establishment of Nikon and Canon in the SLR camera field. In some ways, it is Olympus owners who are the most discruntled, putting demands on conformity by Olympus by not being satisfied, and are their own worst enemies. As for technology, I want what techology offers at any given time, and won't go back to horse and buggy. But I have always felt that technology is a double edged sword. We love it, and it loves us (because we support it with our hard earned money) - - - but it can really stab us in the butt. And in reality it is us consumers who pay hardest.
The only reason I keep my Canon is wide-angle, real 12mm on FF is sweet and not too expensive.
The marketing of Canon is not so much for the professional customers, I remember the "come and play" commercial, the most pro-calling commercials are the ones from Nikon and the funniest come from Sony (remember the picture with and w/o the workers of the empire state building and the slogan "timing is everything"?
The only reason I keep my Canon is wide-angle, real 12mm on FF is sweet and not too expensive.
The marketing of Canon is not so much for the professional customers, I remember the "come and play" commercial, the most pro-calling commercials are the ones from Nikon and the funniest come from Sony (remember the picture with and w/o the workers of the empire state building and the slogan "timing is everything"?
My bag was small enough that I passed right through security. I could get into the stadium with my e510, 12-60, 14-42, and 40-150 packed into my little Tamrac bag. I could add a ec14 easily and a 70-300 may squeeze in to the bag if it was mounted on the camera instead of the 12-60, but I don't know since I don't own one. A 50-200 would probably get you noticed.
That's a large focal range to carry into an event in a bag smaller than your wife's purse.