What, no Olympus is dead posts?

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by Stacey, May 11, 2005.

  1. Stacey

    Ian Burley Guest

    Why is image quality at higher ISO speeds never going to be a Four Thirds
    good point?

    Look what Canon achieved with its development of CMOS sensor technology. 5
    years ago the thinking was that CMOS would never be good enough for quality

    The pixel pitch of an 8MP Four Thirds sensor is virtually the same as the
    sensor in a Nikon D2X. Does that mean the D2X doesn't have good high ISO
    performance? Here's what Thom Hogan said in his review

    "Superb Image Quality. 12mp is a lot of data, and puts us into the realm of
    "that might be all we need." Acuity is good, color is excellent, and noise
    performance is excellent at low ISO values and very acceptable at higher ISO
    values. With the right settings and discipline, this camera performs at the
    state-of-the-art. "

    I'll say it again, the Four Thirds platform is not the issue, it's the
    ability of its protagonists to realise the platform's potential.

    Ian Burley, May 12, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Stacey

    Ian Burley Guest

    I have tested the Pentax *istD and it's capable of taking good images but,
    in my opinion, the camera itself is a poor design and not pleasant to use.

    If you think about it, the DSLR market is still in its early days. The
    choice of models is still pretty small.

    I happen not to like the D70 that much, but look - it's a million seller.
    The Canon EOS-20D is much more my kind of camera, though the 20D isn't by
    any means perfect. Both are leaders because they have a safe spec, lots of
    film SLR installed base and some great marketing behind them.

    But there is no reason why others can't take a big share of the market with
    the right product and marketing. Canon nearly went bust at the end of the
    1980s. The Canon AE-1 saved the company. Nikon wasn't looking too good 18
    months ago, but the D70 has saved its bacon also.

    Thank goodness, although it's no guarantee of success, great products are -
    in general - appreciated by the market and have the opportunity of doing
    well. All I'm saying is that you can't rule out anyone from bouncing in with
    a great product - Four Thirds or otherwise.

    Ian Burley, May 12, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Stacey

    Tony Guest

    Personally I think the platform is the non-starter here. Olympus does have a
    reputation for abandoning their system without admitting it but that is less
    important to people buying thier first system camera than to those of us who
    have watched Olympus remain firmly fixed in the 80s for the last 20 years.
    First time system buyers simply do not see any advantage to the 4/3rds
    system and go with tteh big four - Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax, all of
    whom have systems built on compatibility with a variety of lenses that are
    available NOW, and even a used lens market.
    Why would anyone buy an Olympus with an 8000 dollar 300 mm lens when you
    can buy a Canon D20 with an IS 300 mm lens for considerably less?
    Tony, May 12, 2005
  4. Stacey

    Tony Guest

    But all that is completely pointless.
    The Olympus has a Very Small Sensor - smaller than any of the SLRs built
    on the 35mm platform including the smallest sensor from Canon (with a 1.6
    multiplication factor). Thins is not a competitive factor unles the camera
    and lenses are CHEAPER than the DRebel - when they are actually more
    expensive because of the very high price of lenses alone.
    Tony, May 12, 2005
  5. Stacey

    Tony Guest

    Olympus is selling P&S cameras at a very good clip. The 4/3rds SLR is dead
    in the water.
    Tony, May 12, 2005
  6. A Pentium 133 is about 10x10mm, which is about 9 times smaller than 24x36.
    Philip Homburg, May 12, 2005
  7. Stacey

    Stacey Guest

    And that chip is much larger than the newest ones. They've had several die
    shrinks since then!
    Stacey, May 13, 2005
  8. Stacey

    Stacey Guest

    Yep it's 13.5mm high rather than canon's 15mm. I guess that 1.5mm difference
    makes it "very small"? ;~/
    Stacey, May 13, 2005
  9. Stacey

    Paul Furman Guest

    What sort of kit lens does the oly come with? My old film camera had a
    Tamron 28-70 & I never even thought about getting another lens. I was
    happy & took nice pictures. I didn't want a lousy little pocket P&S back
    then but I was very satisfied with one lens on a 'real' camera.

    The oly's are nice cameras, better than P&S pocket models.
    Paul Furman, May 13, 2005
  10. Stacey

    Skip M Guest

    That's a nonsequiteur...
    Skip M, May 13, 2005
  11. Stacey

    Skip M Guest

    Market share doesn't pay the rent, sales dollars (yen) do...
    GM sacrificed profitability on the altar of market share for years, and look
    where it got them...
    Skip M, May 13, 2005
  12. Stacey

    Skip M Guest

    Then it won't be "4/3" then, will it? And larger than whose standard 35mm
    lens mount? Olympus', Canon's EF or FD? Nikon's?
    Skip M, May 13, 2005
  13. Stacey

    Stacey Guest

    Right now they have a 2 lens kit for just under $1000 with a 14-45 and a
    40-150 which has the FOV on a 35mm camera of 28-90 and 80-300. Doesn't
    sound expencive to me..
    Stacey, May 13, 2005
  14. Stacey

    Stacey Guest

    Not really. People talk about electronics get cheaper over time and the
    reason is the chips keep getting smaller. With a full frame sensor this
    "cheaper over time" doesn't apply and since they just keep upping the MP
    rather than making them cheaper. There doesn't seem to be any interest at
    canon in releasing a cheap full frame sensor camera. My thinking is canon
    could be losing money, even at the prices they charge for these things just
    to have the "king of the hill" status to sell rebels and 20D's. You don't
    think there are people who buy a canon because they see "pro's" using them
    at sports events etc? The pro market isn't where they make their money.
    Stacey, May 13, 2005
  15. Stacey

    Paul Furman Guest

    Wow, including the body that's a good buy. High end P&S cameras cost
    that much. If they can hang in through this transition period that
    sounds like a nice middle ground camera. I assume it's a bit smaller
    than the Canon/Nikons.
    Paul Furman, May 13, 2005
  16. Stacey

    Stacey Guest

    Yep and the kit lens is reported by several tests to be one of the best kit
    Go look for yourself. I tried a canon 10D for a couple of weeks and bought
    the E300 afterwards. It just suits my style of photography better. The
    canon was nice, I just like the olympus color better.
    Stacey, May 13, 2005
  17. :) :)

    I don't think that had a shrink for the Pentium 200 and that was the last one
    of that design.
    Philip Homburg, May 13, 2005
  18. Stacey

    Ian Burley Guest

    Let's not get distracted by details - Kodak only markets a DSLR bodies -
    they aren't in the camera 'system' business. Who makes them is almost
    irrelevent. Kodak has demonstrated that it can deliver a solution with
    either a Canon or Nikon mount, so why not Four Thirds DSLR? Indeed, why not
    an APS sensor DSLR?

    Ian Burley, May 13, 2005
  19. Stacey

    Ian Burley Guest

    The Intel Northwood Pentium 4 core is now 146mm square, compared to the
    243mm square of a 4:3 aspect ratio Four Thirds sensor, for example. This is
    thanks to a switch to a 0.15micron die from 0.18 microns. The Northwood core
    is more powerful than its predecessor which lived on a 217mm square core. So
    Intel has managed to increase power in performance terms, reduce power
    consumption and reduce manufacturing cost. This is why PCs are getting
    cheaper and cheaper and more powerful at the same time and why the reduction
    in cost of a full frame DSLR sensor will be much less dramatic.

    And as smaller sensor chips will go into more cameras, the reality of
    economies of scale will increase their cost advantage over bigger sensors.

    I can see nothing that points to a miraculous come back for a full frame
    DSLR bar a revolutionary development akin to digital over film in the first

    I've been a keen SLR photographer since the 70s and I used to hanker after a
    medium format SLR. I know what the luxury of larger formats allows and I
    certainly would love to justify a Canon EOS-1Ds - in that respect I'm with
    all those who dream of full frame being the standard in DSLRs, but the
    reality simply doesn't point to full frame being a mass market choice.


    :) :)

    I don't think that had a shrink for the Pentium 200 and that was the last
    of that design.

    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency[/QUOTE]
    Ian Burley, May 13, 2005
  20. Stacey

    Ian Burley Guest

    I have run a DXO Analyzer analysis of the 14-45 (f/3.5-5.6 28-90) compared
    to the more expensive 14-54 (f/2.8-3.5). The cheaper lens is a close match
    for sharpness at matching f-stops, but has more barrell distortion. The
    14-54 is very sharp even wide open at f/2.8.

    As economy kit lenses go, the 14-45 is solidly built, has a metal lens mount
    and doesn't feel like a featherweight as other kit lenses do.

    The more expensive lens has a quieter af motor, but the cheaper one's motor
    is not at all intrusive.

    I've not yet tried the 40-150.

    Ian Burley, May 13, 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.