why isn't olympus as highly regarded as it should be?

I'm slowly finding that i'm becoming, without intending to, an olympus
collector. They seem to have made some wonderful cameras over the
years. When I research the best compacts the Olympus XA and Olympus
Stylus (mju) were insane hits. When i think of rangefinders I totally
love my Olympus RC and the RD/SP seem highly regarded too. When
researching SLRs (though i have no intentions of buying one, but if i
bought then) the OM range (OM-1 to OM-4ti) seems very cool. The Zuiko
lenses are quite nice too.

It seems this brand has made more classic cameras with timeless
designs than most others. Yet it doesn't seem to be as highly regarded
as its cameras are. why?

 

I dunno why either - go back maybe 20 years and Olympus and Pentax were the
two big names amongst pros and serious amateurs. As you say, the Zuiko
lenses were very highly regarded. Likewise Pentax glass was always
excellent - I don't think lenses come much better than the Pentax 50mm F1.4.
The last few years though have seen Canon and Nikon virtually duopolise the
serious camera market, and I'm not sure why. Certainly the fact that Olympus
no longer offer a consumer SLR with interchangeable lenses would have
something to do with their demise in this field. Doesn't explain why the
companies have yielded to Canon and Nikon though. I hope the tables might
turn a little back toward Olympus with their new E1 dSLR - it's features
tend to set itself apart from the rest of the dSLR market. I also think the
Olympus compact digitals are amongst the best compacts in the market.

 

Justin, how old are you? I ask because you seem to have an interesting view
of the past.

I started working in photography in 1975 as a clerk at a large camera store.
I began shooting professionally in 1977. I can assure you that Nikon and
Canon were already established as the "Professional" lines way back then
(along with Leica). In fact, Nikon virtually ignored the consumer market at
that time.

For a line of equipment to be considered "professional grade" it has to
offer bodies that can withstand the punishment pros give them, including
shooting hundred of rolls a week without breaking down. Nikon excelled at
this, as did Leica. Canon always lagged behind in this respect. I started
out a Canon user, but quickly switched to Nikon for this reason.

Olympus certainly offered excellent cameras and good glass, but they never
offered a camera with full professional features, such as a true motor drive
(not just a motor winder), or interchangeable focusing screens. Their
selection of lenses, though of high quality, was limited. And their bodies
just could not withstand the punishment a working pro gave them.

Pentax offered good glass, and for a time excellent bodies, but the quality
of their cameras deteriorated very quickly in the 80's. And they also never
offered a full professional line of lenses or accessories.

Today, the situation is even more polarized. Pros aren't looking for the
latest gimmicks. They're looking for reliability and versatility, along
with high image quality.

While the current F5 certainly can't compare to the F or F2 in reliability,
it is still the best on the market (IMHO). And Leica and Canon have not
kept up in terms of the versatility of their entire line. That's why Nikon
dominates the professional 35mm market, and will continue to dominate the
digital market with help from Kodak and Fuji.

Walt Hanks

 

It is true that in that time, Nikon did not make any consumer F mount
lenses, but they did make consumer bodies (Nikkormat, FM, FE, and before
that the Nikkorex series). Of course, with the introduction of the EM,
Nikon also introduced consumer glass (E series).

I think that good glass on a cheap body is much better than the other
way around.

 

focussing screens and up to 5 fps motordrive connection.
greetings , Gijs

 

Olympus failed to keep up with the market and ended up selling P&S
cameras - which are quite highly regarded but not by serious photographers.
THe E1 comes under the too little too late heading. Olympus is trying to
break into the market with a smaller sensor than any of the other SLR
manufacturers are using and terribly high prices for what you get (a 300 mm
lens for 8 grand is not going to cut it, even if it has the effect of a 600
mm lens because the sensor is so small) Unless Olympus cuts prices
drastically I would say they are as good as off the board.

 

Actually the F5 is a lot more reliable than the F2 -- if it wasn't Nikon
would be out of business. As to Nikon being more reliable than Canon, I
still see Ae-1 Canons in use. The only 2 Nikkormats I've even seen are on
friends shelves - unrepairable.

 

I still have a Nikon F that works fine.

 

Hmm. Wouldn't the FT-b be the contemporary to the Nikkormat?

As I recall, Nikon grabbed the pro SLR market in the '60s. In the
'70s, Pentax, Canon, and Olympus decided to take them on with the
Pentax LX, Canon F-1, and Olympus OM-1. Canon eventually made it in
the market; the others didn't. I think it was basically a matter of
market timing and luck that this happened.

 

Funny, I actually think the E-system is cheap when compared to similar
quality offerings from Canon or Nikon. Basically you get the E-1 plus 3
lenses, for the price of a D1x body.

Lourens

 

Sorry - That's what I meant. Slip of the brain pan.

 

Perhaps you would, but you'd get a body and three lenses out of the four
they make - the last one costs an arm and a leg. It's a bit silly to compare
the E1 with the D1x or the Canon top of the line models either. Essentially,
if you were to buy a 10D you would have a better camera, and a larger sensor
than the Olympus. It's a loser.

 

It's worse than that. People who (a) care about image quality and (b) buy a
lot of E-1 glass are going to be _really_ unhappy when Canon figures out how
to mfr full-frame sensors at even slightly more reasonably prices.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

There could be a couple of reasons for that.
First, Oly never did pursue the pro market with the tenacity of Nikon and
Canon, and Pentax in the medium format range. That allowed those
manufacturers to trumpet images taken by well known photographers, get the
cameras in front of the public at venues like political conventions and
sporting events, and generally overwhelm the likes of Olympus and Minolta.
Second, in the case of Oly, they've been absent from the interchangeable
lens SLR market for many years, now. They led the market in fixed lens
SLRs, or what are commonly called "ZLRs" (Zoom Lens Reflex) cameras, and
their digital versions, the E-10 and E-20 are generally regarded as being
among the best of the type, especially the optics.

 

While some of what you said was arguable, I must take exception to the above
paragraph.
Canon certainly has kept up with Nikon in terms of the versatility of the
entire line, in fact, they are thought by some to have a better lineup of
lenses than Nikon, and their bodies give nothing away to Nikon.
If you are talking lenses, Canon has IS in every available fixed focal
length super tele, the 300mm f2.8L, 400mm f2.8L, 500mm f4L and 600mm f4L,
plus the 70-200 f2.8L and 100-400 f4.5-5.6L, plus the 28-135. Nikon offers
their VR in the 24-120, 70-200 f2.8 and 80-400 f4.5-5.6. If you consider
image stabilization to be a gimmick, rest assured that many pros don't,
attested by the number of Canon 70-200 lenses on the sidelines of the
recently completed NBA finals, and the number of their 400, 500 and 600mm
lenses on the sidelines at any NFL game.If you are talking bodies, the Canon
EOS3 and 1 series are as good as anything Nikon has to offer, or has had.
Yeah, Eye Control is a little gimmicky, and that's probably why Canon left
it off of the 1v.
Canon currently dominates the overall digital market, and particularly the
pro market, too. Nikon currently does not offer a camera with the
capabilities of the Canon 1D mkII, nor the 1Ds. The Kodak 14n has some
sensor issues, and the Fuji is built off of the N80 body, not of pro
robustness, by any means. The Nikon D70 is probably a better camera than
the Canon Rebel D, but those are not pro cameras, nor are the D100 and the
Canon 10D.
Leica never had the broad lens line, or camera line that any of the Japanese
manufacturers have, or had, and really had no intention of competing with
them.

 

That allowed those

It's weird... it's like the words "Nikon" and "Canon" impress much more than
the word "Olympus", but then ask them to name great cameras and many will
mention an "Olympus" of some sort, from compact to rangefinders to ZLR to SLRs
even.

Maybe it's a case of marketing indeed. Though it does sound true that Olympus
might've been more focused on consumers than pros.

 

Oly 50mm f2= $500, Canon 50mm f1.4= $300, 50mm f1.8= $75.
Oly 50-200mm f2.8-3.5=$1000, Canon 70-200 f2.8L=$1100, 70-200 f2.8L IS=
$1600.
Oly 14-54 f2.8-3.4=$500, Canon 16-35 f2.8L= $1325m17-40 f4L=$650,
And the capper:
Oly 300mm f2.8= $7000, Canon 300mm f2.8L= $4000
A Canon 10D runs a couple hundred less than the Oly E-1, it isn't fair to
compare the Canon 1D mkII to it, with nearly twice the resolution.
This doesn't even address the idea that there are a plethora of Canon lenses
offered for less than the paragons, (except for the above mentioned 50mm
f1.8) listed here, while the Oly system doesn't offer less expensive lenses.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Oly 50mm f2= $500, Canon 50mm f1.4= $300, 50mm f1.8= $75.
Oly 50-200mm f2.8-3.5=$1000, Canon 70-200 f2.8L=$1100, 70-200 f2.8L IS=
$1600.
Oly 14-54 f2.8-3.4=$500, Canon 16-35 f2.8L= $1325m17-40 f4L=$650,
And the capper:
Oly 300mm f2.8= $7000, Canon 300mm f2.8L= $4000
A Canon 10D runs a couple hundred less than the Oly E-1, it isn't fair to
compare the Canon 1D mkII to it, with nearly twice the resolution.
This doesn't even address the idea that there are a plethora of Canon lenses
offered for less than the paragons, (except for the above mentioned 50mm
f1.8) listed here, while the Oly system doesn't offer less expensive lenses.
Of course, Oly offers the 11-22 f2.8-3.5, at $800, a lens that only Sigma
and Nikon come close to, but at a lower price.

 

As an aside, the OM's were considered good cameras but not capable of
taking a pounding, and so pros would occasionally go Olympus for the
light weight with the expectation they'd be retiring bodies early.
Nikon was the dominant player among true pros because of Nikon
Professional Services in major media towns. This was a service center
that you could only patronize if you were a certified working
professional-you had to prove you earned the bulk of your income from
photography. A number of slebs lobbied hard for a Pro card and were
thwarted: legend has it a couple of female pros married to major
slebs, but acknowledged photographers, had a hell of a time getting
their card. It was a big status symbol.

The quality of their optics was a big factor, as well.

 

That last sentence is not correct - the Pentax line of top end glass
certainly covered everything throughout the '70s and '80s. Since they'd
been the first 35mm SLR to be big in the pro market - before Nikon was -
this should be no surprise. Nikon had a few more esoterica - but fisheyes
specially computed for measuring cloud-cover, for example, are hardly
relevant in this context.

The accessory range for the LX was (is) as extensive as anyone could wish.
At the time that Pentax was the SLR of choice in the professional market
bodies weren't 'systems' the way they became later: the time when this
happened was after Nikon had taken the lead in the professional market, but
the LX was a more comprehensive 'system body' in its time than anything
Nikon had then.

It isn't technology that decides which line would be the choice amongst
professional shooters, it's which manufacturers choose to pursue that market
and put marketing/support effort (first) and R&D (distant second) into it.
Why is Canon dominating Nikon in the sports and press markets even though it
doesn't in most other areas of professional 35mm SLR work? - because those
are the areas Canon has _chosen_ as its targets (and its marketing and R&D
budgets exceed Nikon's, so they can take the market they choose as first
choice). Why has Canon chosen those markets? - because those are the ones
where Joe Public most often sees what s/he thinks of as "pro.s" at work, and
so it is the segment Canon chooses to use as the shop window with which to
sell the consumer gear from which they make the real money. And it has
proved to be a very successful strategy.

Quality of glass comes last in this market - it just isn't important enough
relative to other factors. Otherwise Leica, Contax, and Pentax would
dominate it, and Minolta would be a bigger force there than it now is too.

Incidentally, I've sometimes wondered how far Olympus inspired the Pentax
MX. The MX is OM sized, and light, but more robust. This plus its clear
placement as a 'cut-down' professional body (and its lack of battery
dependence) makes it a clear choice as a 'second' or back-up body for many
LX users (you can even interchange the focusing screens if you really want
to). Was this a Pentax attempt to lure those Nikon users who also used OM
as their lightweight system by saying 'come to us and you can have both
small-and-light and bigger-and-more-versatile bodies within a single line of
lenses'? Interesting to speculate.


Peter

 

My recollection is that Pentax introduced the MX, ME and ME-Super to go
head-to-head with the Olympus OM line. Olympus announced the end of the
line for OM cameras about 2 years ago. Lenses and accessories might still
be available, but who is going to invest in a system that is no longer being
supported?

I'm not sure what happened to Pentax. When their relationship with
Honeywell Photographic ended, around 1975, they just stopped "clicking" in
the U.S. market. I remember many screw-mount users expressing resentment
over having been abandoned--even though Pentax did provide an adaptor to
allow the lenses to be mounted on K-Mount bodies.

I have a brochure from Pentax, listing their lenses when they introduced the
K-Mount cameras. They had a bigger line-up of prime lenses than they did in
the M42 days, but they weren't able to market them as well as Honeywell did.

By the time the MX and ME came out, Pentax seemed to be playing follow the
leader--by essentially copying Olympus' compact design. They lost their
footing in terms of advertising. And they continued putting out uninspiring
new camera bodies. Quite a change from their Spotmatic and ES days, when
Asahi was the innovator.

They didn't help themselves any when they came out with those cheap
"Takumar" lenses in K-mount. The champion of multicoating, and they
released a line of cheaply-made, uncoated lenses branded with the venerable
Takumar name.

Olympus seemed to have a clearer focus with their product line. I first
remember them making the Olympus Pen, which was a half frame camera. Small,
lightweight and easy to take along. They advertised every month in National
Geographic, and seemed to be marketing this straight at the world traveler
that wanted to take a camera along that would not weigh him down.

The OM-1 carried on in that tradition of compactness.

Their Stylus P&S series continued the tradition. Simple, small, light,
clamshell design--the perfect camera to slip in a pocket. No wonder it sold
many millions. I still have my original Infinity Stylus, with the 35mm
f/3.5 lens, and it continues to operate flawlessly.

Nikon copied the design, with their Lite Touch series, but I read recently
that Nikon is rumored to be planning to get out of the P&S business at the
end of this year. It would appear that Olympus is the brand with the
staying power, when it comes to small, rugged cameras. At least when one
bought an Olympus, one knew what one was getting.