Olympus SLR boss says 12 MP is enough

Even Olympus took several years to directly contradict themselves. Only
their fanbois could manage that in two sequential sentences!

 

Nonsense. The difference in size between the E620 and the smallest
APS-C DSLRs is insignificant.

In theory. In practice, these are problems that largely don't affect
APS-C DSLRs and lenses.

Yes, I have used one. It's better than most EVFs but that isn't saying
much. It is extremely poor compared to a good reflex viewfinder.

Without any doubt, the worst optical (reflex) viewfinders of any DSLRs
were in the Olympus E300 and E330. None of the consumer-grade Four
Thirds DSLRs have had acceptable viewfinders. Only the E1 and E3
were/are at all satisfactory, although I haven't tried the new E30 yet.

I know you're an Olympus fanboi, but your assertions fly in the face of
the facts. The amount of light coming through a Four Thirds lens may be
sufficient to illuminate the small sensor, but it is not enough to
provide a bright reflex viewfinder image at a good magnification.

Perhaps the introduction of the Micro Four Thirds format shows that
Panasonic has finally recognised that fact? Will we ever see another
Panasonic Four Thirds DSLR? I very much doubt it.

 

Olympus made an awful lot of predictions about the Four Thirds format.

In almost all cases, Olympus have been comprehensively wrong.

 

the nikon is 3.5mm narrower and 3mm taller. that's basically the same
size. the canon is 0.5mm narrower and 7mm taller, also insignificant.

the only advantage to the olympus is that is a little thinner but that
makes no difference once a lens is attached.

weight and volume of the body alone is irrelevant. attach a lens and
compare.

 

Olympus predicted that Four Thirds would take 25% of the DSLR market.

Wrong. Combined, Olympus and Panasonic have struggled to reach 5%.


Olympus predicted that 5 MP would be enough to attract pro shooters.

Wrong. Canon's pro camera jumped from 4 to 8 MP within weeks of the
introduction of the Olympus E1 and stole the market.


Olympus predicted that Four Thirds would enable the production of
smaller and lighter lenses with superior optical performance to those
for APS-C.

Wrong. The specialist Canon AF-S and Nikon DX lenses were just as
small, just as light, and performed so well they stole the market.


Olympus predicted that Four Thirds would become the format of choice for
pros because of the small, light and optically superb lenses.

Wrong. The only pros who used Four Thirds for more than a few months
were those who were sponsored by Olympus.


Olympus predicted that many other camera manufacturers would jump on the
Four Thirds bandwagon.

Wrong. Only Panasonic joined. Panasonic have all but abandoned Four
Thirds and have decided that the only way to realise the benefits of the
small sensor is to make non-SLR cameras without a reflex mirror.


Olympus predicted that many other lens manufacturers would jump on the
Four Thirds bandwagon.

Wrong. Only Panasonic and Sigma joined. Some Panasonic lenses had the
Leica name but they were neither designed nor manufactured by Leica.
None of the Sigma lenses was designed for Four Thirds - they are merely
adapted versions of Sigma's APS-C (DC) lenses using a Four Thirds mount.


Need I continue? The eventual destination of Four Thirds in 2009 is so
far away from what Olympus predicted that you can be sure they would
never have started on this path if they had known how desperately badly
they would miss their predictions.

Their mistake was in entering the DSLR market at all, when they had not
developed a new 35mm SLR for over a decade.

 

Don't be ridiculous. Insignificant is *exactly* what it is.

The owner of my local camera store believes one of the reasons Olympus
DSLRs are difficult to sell is that they are too small for most people.
He says that people who handle the Olympus DSLRs in-store find the
controls too fiddly to operate.

He says that, in contrast, the Nikon D40X and the entry-level Canon
almost fly off the shelves because they handle so well. And as your
figures above comprehensively prove, they are plenty small enough.

 

As someone relatively new to using different lenses, I have to say the
initial surprise at the weight of my new 40D (compared to my old 300D)
was soon gone once I bolted a 18-200mm zoom on the end. If anything, the
additional weight helps balance IMHO.

Rob

 

On the contrary, it is not significant because 7mm in height and 9mm in
depth are neither here nor there.

Your volume calculations are of course designed to mislead because the
EOS 450D has a grip whereas the E420 does not.

 

The prediction was called "Olympus E1".

 

Even before the digital explosion, APS was caught in a market squeeze
between traditional 35mm cameras and one-use (aka disposable) cameras.
Some of it's innovations, such as index prints, t-grain film, and
autoloading (well, almost) made the jump to 35mm. Others, such as
magnetic imprinting, became obsolete with improvements in processing
technology. With the expanded latitude of the newer C-41 films,
mid-roll swap never lived up to expectations. Finally, for the
consumer market storing negatives "in the can" was a good idea, but
not enough to change the format.

I still keep a Pronea S as my "car camera" in lieu of a point and
shoot.

About once a year, I shoot a roll with my Pentax 110 SLR just for fun.
I do have to send it out by mail for processing, though.

 

not only can i read, but i can do simple subtraction too, and the 11mm
is *depth* not width.

width: 126mm versus 129.5mm, with nikon 3.5 mm narrower.
height: 94mm versus 91mm, with nikon being 3mm taller.
depth: 64mm versus 53mm, with nikon being 11mm thicker but that can
dramatically change depending on what lens is attached.

a 3mm difference in width & height is insignificant and probably would
not be noticed at *all*. even the 11mm difference in thickness is not
that big of a deal and as i said before, that can change, depending on
which lens is attached.

 

because they want the image quality advantages that full frame offers,
particularly at higher isos, or they want less expensive wide angle
lenses.

 

That might be the case with a specific lens, but generally speaking
there's no reason why the lenses can't be designed to provide as much
light for reflex viewfinders as you like.

 

There are lies, damn lies, and "accurate" data.

Data can be used to inform, or mislead. You are using it to mislead.

Face it, you cannot adequately describe the size of a complex curved
shape such as a DSLR body by mere length, depth and height. I repeat,
the Canon "data" includes measuring a substantial hand grip that the
Olympus E4 20 simply doesn't have, so it is completely misleading.

But you knew that. Indeed, your intention throughout this discussion
has been to mislead people with unrepresentative data.

In the end, what matters is not your personal obsession with Olympus, or
my personal obsession with honesty and objectivity, and with your
apparent lack of either. The only thing that matters is the choice that
buyers make. And it is clear that only a vanishingly small number of
buyers choose Olympus over the only very slightly larger competition.

So when weighed against the significantly better image quality that
APS-C DSLRs can produce, we can conclude that the very slightly smaller
physical size of Olympus DSLRs is not a significant selling point.

 

For the overwhelming majority of people the image quality obtainable by
a P&S sensor is more than sufficient. The number of people who have more
stringent image quality requirement is very small, and the huge majority
of those people choose DSLRs with APS-C and larger sensors.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, only a vanishingly small number of them
choose Four Thirds.

 

Bruce, you are offering these precise, unambiguous, undebatable opinions
with great gusto - what is your background? How is it that you speak
for the majority? How is it that you have extensively used all these
cameras and know so much about their limitations? I don't suppose you
are a camera store salesperson, by chance?

Frankly, this 'debate' just sounds like a couple of folk who like
hearing themselves talk. I'm sure Olympus couldn't give a toss what you
or Alfred think - they have a niche they are happy with, and enough
happy clients to keep them in business.

As it happens, the sort of camera size, specs, and performance that the
latest Oly's offer is about exactly matched to *my* needs. I only
presume to speak for myself. Perhaps I am truly unique, or maybe just
stupid, in having those wants (just like compact buyers are similarly
stupid), but I'll make this observation. Olympus have continued
offering and developing/improving models, and the 4/3 format has
survived a lot longer than the naysayers said it would.

And the *very first* u4/3 camera has been receiving reviews that are
somewhat at odds with your opinion.. but I'm *sure* you know better.


The gap between compacts and APS-C-ish formats is VERY wide indeed.

You say there isn't room or justification for 4/3, and you seem to imply
that manufacturers with a small market share shouldn't be there.

Fine.

I say there is, and they should.

 

You just can't face it when your argument is shredded by pointing out
the facts don't support your assertions.
If you want to see the ultimate shredding of the silly
Olympus/FourThirds "telecentricity" requirement and it's effect on lens
bulk, just look at the Leica M8.
The M8 has "two strikes" against it (shorter register distance and
larger sensor) but can still produce excellent images with much smaller
lenses than any of the FourThirds offerings to date and fairly a small
camera body to boot.

Face it Alfred, it's you who just can't "face the the music".
Especially when it isn't playing your tune.

 

It's inherent to the design.

 

First you say people want smaller cameras with larger sensors, then you
say that smaller sensors allow smaller cameras. You're very confused.