Olympus SLR boss says 12 MP is enough

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by rpd, Mar 11, 2009.

  1. Even Olympus took several years to directly contradict themselves. Only
    their fanbois could manage that in two sequential sentences!
    Kennedy McEwen, Mar 21, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. rpd

    Bruce Guest

    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.
    Bruce, Mar 21, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. rpd

    Bruce Guest

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

    In almost all cases, Olympus have been comprehensively wrong.
    Bruce, Mar 21, 2009
  4. rpd

    Guest Guest

    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
    Guest, Mar 21, 2009
  5. rpd

    Bruce Guest

    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.
    Bruce, Mar 21, 2009
  6. rpd

    Bruce Guest

    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.
    Bruce, Mar 21, 2009
  7. rpd

    Rob Guest

    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, Mar 21, 2009
  8. rpd

    Bruce Guest

    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.
    Bruce, Mar 21, 2009
  9. rpd

    Bruce Guest

    The prediction was called "Olympus E1".
    Bruce, Mar 21, 2009
  10. 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
    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.
    Michael Benveniste, Mar 21, 2009
  11. rpd

    Guest Guest

    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.
    Guest, Mar 21, 2009
  12. rpd

    Guest Guest

    because they want the image quality advantages that full frame offers,
    particularly at higher isos, or they want less expensive wide angle
    Guest, Mar 21, 2009
  13. 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.
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 22, 2009
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 22, 2009
  15. rpd

    Bruce Guest

    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.
    Bruce, Mar 22, 2009
  16. rpd

    Bruce Guest

    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, Mar 22, 2009
  17. rpd

    Mark Thomas Guest

    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.


    I say there is, and they should.
    Mark Thomas, Mar 22, 2009
  18. rpd

    dj_nme Guest

    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.
    dj_nme, Mar 22, 2009
  19. rpd

    SMS Guest

    It's inherent to the design.
    SMS, Mar 23, 2009
  20. rpd

    SMS Guest

    First you say people want smaller cameras with larger sensors, then you
    say that smaller sensors allow smaller cameras. You're very confused.
    SMS, Mar 23, 2009
    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.