Olympus low pricing; Never again?

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by RichA, Jul 30, 2005.

  1. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05080201oly_profitfall.asp

    It's a shame they backed themselves into this corner. I'm sure out of
    all their product lines, 4/3rds costs the most and delivers the smallest
    amount of profit.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 5, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    SMS Guest

    It would probably produce the largest amount of profit if they could get
    the volumes up, but there is virtually no hope of this. Let's face it,
    they may as well call 4:3 the new Olympus mount, since no one else has
    shown any interest it.
     
    SMS, Aug 5, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Skip M Guest

    You earned it by your repeated, probably deliberate, misinterpretation of
    what I said.
     
    Skip M, Aug 5, 2005
  4. RichA

    Skip M Guest

    Certainly, because it is true in both statements. Not the least bit silly.
    It does? Then you'd better tell B&H. They list it as not available.
    Gee, I've done the same thing, and, while noisier, the 20D didn't have much
    more of an impact than the Oly. At shutter speeds conducive to hand
    holding, the difference would be minor, if observable at all.
    But they are neither Oly E-300s nor Canon 20Ds, which both have mirrors, so
    it doesn't make any difference to a discusson of either, or both, of those
    camera. And the Leica shooters tend to use single focal length lenses, and
    not telezooms, so lower shutter speeds are the normal, also due to the lower
    weight of the entire camera package.
     
    Skip M, Aug 5, 2005
  5. RichA

    Skip M Guest

    I just meant that arguing over what was on the screen was not useful,
    because of variables that we have no way of knowing whether are in existence
    or not. Like the one comment that the color was flat, but on my screen, it
    was too saturated, compared to examples of that type of flower that I had
    seen that very day.
    Agreed, on both points. And, in the future, I'll be more careful about idle
    musings, I guess.
     
    Skip M, Aug 5, 2005
  6. RichA

    Skip M Guest

    It's funny how you read every one of my posts, even ones that don't have
    anything to do with this Oly thing, and comment on them about color
    management, then can't seem to find the posts that say that my monitor
    matches more than one output device, in fact, several, including the
    printers at Calumet.
    It is not an insane way to do it, it is easy and convenient, if it works.
    Which it does. If it didn't, then there's always Spyder...
     
    Skip M, Aug 5, 2005
  7. RichA

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    All digital cameras have noise at all ISOs, to one degree or another.

    I don't really like to think of it as an ISO thing, at all. Noise is
    only proportional to ISO when the exposure is automatic and varies
    inversely with the ISO. Sensor noise comes totally from absolute
    exposure and the resulting signal-to-noise ratio; noise also comes from
    posterization (shadows or underexposures, even at ISO 100 or ISO 50),
    and some noise (less than usually assumed, IMO) from readout of the
    sensor.

    An ISO 100 image will be much noisier than an ISO 1600 image with the
    same absolute exposure.
    --
     
    JPS, Aug 5, 2005
  8. RichA

    Skip M Guest

    Nope, but it matches way too many other people's output for it to be
    innacurate. So, either yours is, or you posted, intentionally, a somewhat
    oversaturated image. Part of the clue is in the leaves in the background,
    Gerbera leaves are darker than that. It looks like you've cranked up the
    saturation on the yellow channel. Just to keep from having someon else
    comment on flat reds.
    That's a Gerbera, isn't it? (Rhetorical question) Gerberas only come in a
    certain range of colors, most of them bright. But not that bright. (Hint:
    26 years in the nursery business. And the nursery I work for sells a lot of
    Gerberas.)
     
    Skip M, Aug 5, 2005
  9. RichA

    Skip M Guest

    You'd better read what I wrote, instead of deriding someone else for not
    doing so. I said it matched Calumet's output right out of the box. When I
    went in there to talk to them about getting calibration software, Spyder, I
    believe, they asked me why, since I was getting good results from them.
    They told me to save my money, especially since it also matched output from
    the two people who do Giclee work for us, plus 2 or three other labs,
    locally.
    I never said I changed anything, because I didn't change anything.
     
    Skip M, Aug 5, 2005
  10. RichA

    Skip M Guest

    Now, I'm blushing. I didn't even know it didn't have any color adjustments!
    <blush> Never needed them, never missed them, I guess...
     
    Skip M, Aug 5, 2005
  11. RichA

    Skip M Guest

    I don't, we shoot sRGB, since that is what Canon recommends. It matches up
    to the printers, I tried aRGB, but had too many problems. If it ain't
    broke, don't fix it.
    Since you and I use the same printer, I'm surprised that you don't, too...
     
    Skip M, Aug 5, 2005
  12. RichA

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    The point is wrong. The Sensor/CFA sandwich has a capture gamut. It
    happens to be much wider than can be displayed on a monitor.
    Show an example of RAW vs ORC vs ACR for the same exposure.
    They don't have zero color saturation; the natural white balance of the
    20D (as is also true, most likely, for most RGB Bayer DSLRs) is such
    that magenta light renders white correctly in the RAW data, and white in
    the real world is rendered a cyanish green. The red flower therefore
    has a green cast, neutralizing it. The saturation, however, is always
    lower in RAW data (especially in the Sigma RAW files).

    The point is, even though it is hard to render to the real-world color
    that caused the RAW capture, the RAW data did not clip, so the camera
    did not fail to capture detial; the camera did not clip; the render to
    sRGB did.
    Of course not; that might mean that your Oly conversion software
    couldn't render it accurately, either.
    Yes, and they won't look like they did in real life; not a flower like
    that one.
    --
     
    JPS, Aug 5, 2005
  13. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    Actually, I have to take that back. They had it buried under the color
    temperatures as "custom." It allows you to adjust the RGB balance
    there.

    So in closing: I was wrong.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 6, 2005
  14. RichA

    RichA Guest

    How does sRGB match up to printers, I thought they all were CMYK?
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Aug 6, 2005
  15. RichA

    Skip M Guest

    I thought so, too, but when I shot some stuff as aRGB, things got all
    screwed up, so I went back to what worked. (shrug) I don't understand a lot
    of this, I just go with what works. If it doesn't work, then I go find out
    how to make it work. But our time is so constricted, it's tough to get time
    to experiment, and you don't want to change what works, on the chance it
    might improve things that wee tiny bit more, but it also might bollix the
    whole thing irreparably.
     
    Skip M, Aug 6, 2005
  16. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    Most of the printers I work with these days do their own sRGB to CMYK
    conversions in order to better control the color.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 6, 2005
  17. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Brian Baird wrote:


    But why would anyone be softproofing a web image using their printer profile
    to judge color?
     
    Stacey, Aug 6, 2005
  18. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    That doesn't mean anything.. how do you know those people aren't adjusting
    the colors etc?

    Default colors from the camera so no, I didn't "crank up" anything trying to
    get some sort of coment out of anyone.

    No idea, just a flower in the side yard my neighbor planted.
    So the lighting would have no effect on the color or how bright it would be?
    And I'm sure all flowers in nature will have the same exact color.
     
    Stacey, Aug 6, 2005
  19. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    When is it "the only way"?
    Yes he did, that's EXACTLY what he's done
    Why because he's a "canon defender"?
    You're not keeping up, I already explained my monitor is hardware
    calibrated.
     
    Stacey, Aug 6, 2005
  20. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    So you think a monitor comes calibrated correctly to neutral from the
    factory by default? The only conclusion I can come to is you are either
    EXTREAMLY lucky or you can't see colors well.
     
    Stacey, Aug 6, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.