Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What, no Olympus is dead posts?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 11, 2005 5:45:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm shocked the trolls haven't started "olympus is going bankrupt" threads
like most the olympus forums are being flooded with by non-olympus
users....

Of course this "news" means 4/3's is dead and people should all flock to
canon! Or wait is it their P&S line that lost them money? The anouncment
did say 2 new dSLR's are going to be introduced this year, doesn't sound
like something a company would do if -that- product line was what was
bringing their profits down.
--

Stacey

More about : olympus dead posts

Anonymous
May 11, 2005 8:40:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Stacey writes ...
>
>I'm shocked the trolls haven't started "olympus is going bankrupt"
>threads like most the olympus forums

On May 9th someone started a thread in this NG titled "Olympus Loss of
over 11 Billion Yen This Past Year", linking to a Reuters report of
their financials. Hard to see it as a troll though. The key quote was
probably this ... "Japan's Olympus Corp. on Monday posted a net loss
for the latest business year as sluggish sales of digital cameras
forced a costly disposal of excess inventory".

>Of course this "news" means 4/3's is dead and people should all flock
>to canon!

Many people feel the 4/3's concept locked into a sensor size that's too
small, and that Oly and the others will have trouble competing with the
1.5x and 1.6x sized sensors offering about twice the sensor area.
"Sluggish sales" doesn't mean it's dead but it should give pause to
anyone thinking of sinking a lot of money into a system that's
apparently selling poorly. Both Nikon and Canon are selling so many
dSLR's that they are highly profitable so it's not a good sign for Oly,
which has bailed on product lines in the past when things got rough.

>The anouncment did say 2 new dSLR's are going to be
>introduced this year,

"Introducing" them is one thing ... selling them in large enough volume
to actually make money is the real trick.

Bill
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 9:03:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>The anouncment did say 2 new dSLR's are going to be introduced
>this year, doesn't sound like something a company would do
>if -that- product line was what was bringing their profits down.

I'm reading this on Google and on the right column Google picked up
another story on Oly from Forbes which basically says the imaging
business which makes their digital cameras actually lost 24 billion yen
last year, so the rest of the company was profitable by 11-12 billion
yen. It also says Oly is laying off several thousand workers (over 25%
of their workforce) in response.

The link is
http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2005/05/11/ap...

Here's a quote with the meat of the article ...
(quote from Forbes)
Japanese electronics maker Olympus Corp. said Wednesday it is closing
two parts plants in Japan and reducing its work force in China to cut
costs in its money-losing digital camera business.

Olympus' digital camera business has been hit by fierce competition
from Canon Inc., Nikon Corp. and other rivals, which has sent prices of
digital cameras plunging.

The restructuring plan calls for the closure of its Ohmachi and Sakaki
plants and a reduction of worldwide head count by 4,000 employees to
10,000 by the end of September, mostly through attrition in its Chinese
operations, the Tokyo-based company said.

Olympus hopes its imaging division, which accounted for 36 percent of
its sales last fiscal year, will become profitable in the second half
of this fiscal year through March 2006.

The imaging business, the only division in the red last fiscal year,
posted an operating loss of 24 billion yen ($227 million), a big factor
behind Olympus' overall loss of 12 billion yen ($114 million).
(end quote)
Related resources
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 9:10:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3edkg4F2igq7U1@individual.net...
> I'm shocked the trolls haven't started "olympus is going bankrupt"
> threads
> like most the olympus forums are being flooded with by non-olympus
> users....
>
> Of course this "news" means 4/3's is dead and people should all flock to
> canon! Or wait is it their P&S line that lost them money? The anouncment
> did say 2 new dSLR's are going to be introduced this year, doesn't sound
> like something a company would do if -that- product line was what was
> bringing their profits down.
> --
>
> Stacey

Feeling oversensitive again, are you, Stacey? Funny that you'd be the one
to bring the subject up. You're always accusing others, primarily Canon
shooters, of slamming Oly, but you always seem to be the one to start out
with an unneeded defense of the camera you use...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 5:13:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> Many people feel the 4/3's concept locked into a sensor size that's
>> too small

>Alfred Molon writes
>
>Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?

Will the existing lenses cover a larger sensor without vignetting? If
not, they are locked in (unless of course you want to make it even
smaller).
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 8:48:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3edkg4F2igq7U1@individual.net...
> I'm shocked the trolls haven't started "olympus is going bankrupt"
> threads
> like most the olympus forums are being flooded with by non-olympus
> users....
>
> Of course this "news" means 4/3's is dead and people should all flock to
> canon! Or wait is it their P&S line that lost them money? The anouncment
> did say 2 new dSLR's are going to be introduced this year, doesn't sound
> like something a company would do if -that- product line was what was
> bringing their profits down.
> --
>
> Stacey

Nice troll, Stacey.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 9:25:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>
> Many people feel the 4/3's concept locked into a sensor size that's too
> small, and that Oly and the others will have trouble competing with the
> 1.5x and 1.6x sized sensors offering about twice the sensor area.
> "Sluggish sales" doesn't mean it's dead but it should give pause to
> anyone thinking of sinking a lot of money into a system that's
> apparently selling poorly. Both Nikon and Canon are selling so many
> dSLR's that they are highly profitable so it's not a good sign for Oly,
> which has bailed on product lines in the past when things got rough.

Twice the sensor area?

Sony CCD (Nikon D100, D70, Pentax *istD, Konica Minolta D7, etc.) 24x16mm =
58% more area than Four Thirds (18x13.5mm)

Canon CMOS (D30/60, 10D, 20D, 300DRebel, 350D/Rebel XT) 22.7x15.1mm = 41%
more area

Sigma Foveon X3 (SD9, SD10) 20.7x13.8mm = 18% more area

If you look at the a comparative illustration of the smaller DSLR sensor
areas here:

http://www.pbase.com/crea7or/image/39907611/original

...you will see that the actual differences are marginalised by the fact that
they represent quite small borders around the main frame.

What's much more compelling to me is that Four Thirds has 318% additional
area (or just over four times the area) compared to the largest sensor
(2/3rd in.) used in the best point and shoot digicams (Canon Pro 1, Konica
Minolta A200, Sony F-828, Olympus C8080WZ, Nikon CP8800, Panasonic Lumix
LC-1, Leica Digilux 2, etc.) and most other good quality point and shoots
use a 1/1.8 in. sensor, over which Four Thirds has an even greater
additional coverage of 537%!

Technically, the Four Thirds sensor should deliver a very large improvement
in image quality over 2/3rd and 1/1.8 inch point and shoots, from which a
lot of buyers will be wanting to upgrade from. The difference between all
the smaller DSLR formats is tiny by comparison.

There is no doubt that Canon has done a tremendous job in taming CMOS to
deliver arguably the best image quality out of the smaller sensor DSLRs (I'm
referring to the 20D). The Sony sensor is very very good too.

The two Four Thirds cameras to date, the Olympus E-1 and E-300 (Evolt), can
produce excellent images but neither are particularly good at higher ISOs
compared to the competition. Fingers automatically point at the sensor size,
but I think that's a red herring. Olympus (and Panasonic, who will bring out
their own Four Thirds cameras next year) need to work harder on the signal
delivery and amplification from the Kodak CCDs currently used or introduce
an alternative CCD that is closer in performance to the competition -
Panasonic makes CCDs, so who knows?

Sure, Four Thirds needs to up its technical game to get the high ISO
performance, but the sensor size is not the issue. I think a much more
challenging issue is the marketing and model design and specification. The
E-1 is a superb body, but it was obviously compromised - being a pro-spec
body, ergonomically great and built like a tank but not having the speed and
resolution of other pro cameras. My guess is that the performance issue was
dictated by the need to keep the cost down. The E-300 is also a
cost-compromise and the unusual design is a bit like a VW - either you like
it or you hate it. But again, neither are representative of what can be
achieved with the Four Thirds platform.

Another point (congrats for getting this far!!!) is that while the Four
Thirds sensor size difference to its competitors is arguably minor in terms
of image quality difference (potentially at any rate), it does have a useful
impact on the manufacturing price - the cost per chip increases
exponentially as the chip area increases because you can fit many more on a
silicon wafer and a smaller percentage of chips will be lost to wafer
faults. As the sensor is one of the most expensive components in a DSLR,
this could be an ace card for Four Thirds. It's one reason why the
E-300/Evolt is so cheap desote being an 8MP camera. OK, so the Canon
350D/Rebel XT is 8MP and cheap too, but that has a CMOS chip and these are
cheaper to make than CCDs. There is no technical reason why a CMOS Four
Thirds chip can't be made.

I don't think Olympus can make Four Thirds a success by itself, but with
Panasonic on board, it has a fighting chance. Success breeds success and
there are some important Four Thirds fence-sitters like Fujifilm and Kodak -
if Olympus and Panasonic can start being successful, they could tempt
Fujifilm and Kodak to start making Four Thirds cameras, maybe even joined by
Sigma (which is already selling Four Thirds compatible lenses), then things
could look very rosey.

Seminar over!

Ian

>
>>The anouncment did say 2 new dSLR's are going to be
>>introduced this year,
>
> "Introducing" them is one thing ... selling them in large enough volume
> to actually make money is the real trick.
>
> Bill
>
May 11, 2005 11:05:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ian Burley wrote:

[snipped much good sense]
> OK, so the Canon
> 350D/Rebel XT is 8MP and cheap too, but that has a CMOS chip and these are
> cheaper to make than CCDs. There is no technical reason why a CMOS Four
> Thirds chip can't be made.

In the UK at least, the E-300 is quite a bit cheaper than the 350D
already. The lens range is looking a lot more useful (although still
lacking a fast normal) and reasonably priced (except for a couple
of aberrations like the 150/2) these days, and with more to come
I'd expect the system to sell fairly well.

A point I'd like to make here is that for many prospective dSLR buyers,
the performance available from any of the entry-level products will be
"good enough" and their purchasing decisions may be more influenced by
individual matters of taste such as ergonomics and even appearence -
rather than whether the pictures will look slightly better at larger
than A4 sizes, or whether the high-ISO performance is only a little
better than with fast films.

Of course those of us with existing lens collections will be biased
appropriately.

- Len
May 12, 2005 1:56:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I think the article is actually giving Olympus some credit they haven't
earned. It says: "Olympus' digital camera business has been hit by fierce
competition from Canon Inc., Nikon Corp. and other rivals". In reality
Olympus simply was not competitive at all.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1115813009.172528.43420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >The anouncment did say 2 new dSLR's are going to be introduced
> >this year, doesn't sound like something a company would do
> >if -that- product line was what was bringing their profits down.
>
> I'm reading this on Google and on the right column Google picked up
> another story on Oly from Forbes which basically says the imaging
> business which makes their digital cameras actually lost 24 billion yen
> last year, so the rest of the company was profitable by 11-12 billion
> yen. It also says Oly is laying off several thousand workers (over 25%
> of their workforce) in response.
>
> The link is
> http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2005/05/11/ap...
>
> Here's a quote with the meat of the article ...
> (quote from Forbes)
> Japanese electronics maker Olympus Corp. said Wednesday it is closing
> two parts plants in Japan and reducing its work force in China to cut
> costs in its money-losing digital camera business.
>
> Olympus' digital camera business has been hit by fierce competition
> from Canon Inc., Nikon Corp. and other rivals, which has sent prices of
> digital cameras plunging.
>
> The restructuring plan calls for the closure of its Ohmachi and Sakaki
> plants and a reduction of worldwide head count by 4,000 employees to
> 10,000 by the end of September, mostly through attrition in its Chinese
> operations, the Tokyo-based company said.
>
> Olympus hopes its imaging division, which accounted for 36 percent of
> its sales last fiscal year, will become profitable in the second half
> of this fiscal year through March 2006.
>
> The imaging business, the only division in the red last fiscal year,
> posted an operating loss of 24 billion yen ($227 million), a big factor
> behind Olympus' overall loss of 12 billion yen ($114 million).
> (end quote)
>
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 2:00:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1115811622.360992.294350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bill
Hilton says...

> Many people feel the 4/3's concept locked into a sensor size that's too
> small,

Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
May 12, 2005 2:00:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

They would have to change the mirror, the lens to sensor plane and the
lenses to go to a larger sensor - that would be a completely new system ---
and probably similar to the more successful digital cameras based on 35mm
equipment.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cec829cfa69681f98ab27@news.supernews.com...
> In article <1115811622.360992.294350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bill
> Hilton says...
>
> > Many people feel the 4/3's concept locked into a sensor size that's too
> > small,
>
> Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 2:00:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cec829cfa69681f98ab27@news.supernews.com...
> In article <1115811622.360992.294350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bill
> Hilton says...
>
>> Many people feel the 4/3's concept locked into a sensor size that's too
>> small,
>
> Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?

They are locked...jsut as the DX lenses of Nikon are locked, and/or the S
lenses of Canon are locked.
Unless you build a new body system, they cannot project an image larger than
what they project now.
This is why (IMHO) it is questionable as to the wisdom of buying into either
DX or S lenses.
When/if full frame becomes commonplace, they will be extremely crippled.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 2:15:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Leonard" <user@example.net> wrote in message
news:4Isge.1527$RJ6.59@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Ian Burley wrote:
>
> [snipped much good sense]
> > OK, so the Canon
>> 350D/Rebel XT is 8MP and cheap too, but that has a CMOS chip and these
>> are cheaper to make than CCDs. There is no technical reason why a CMOS
>> Four Thirds chip can't be made.
>
> In the UK at least, the E-300 is quite a bit cheaper than the 350D
> already. The lens range is looking a lot more useful (although still
> lacking a fast normal) and reasonably priced (except for a couple
> of aberrations like the 150/2) these days, and with more to come
> I'd expect the system to sell fairly well.
>
> A point I'd like to make here is that for many prospective dSLR buyers,
> the performance available from any of the entry-level products will be
> "good enough" and their purchasing decisions may be more influenced by
> individual matters of taste such as ergonomics and even appearence -
> rather than whether the pictures will look slightly better at larger
> than A4 sizes, or whether the high-ISO performance is only a little
> better than with fast films.
>
> Of course those of us with existing lens collections will be biased
> appropriately.
>
> - Len

Aside from the higher ISO noise issue, I was put off by the price of the
lenses. At least when the E-1 and lenses were introduced, the lens prices
were hard to believe.
John
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 6:09:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:


> Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?

4/3 IS a sensor size.

Gary Eickmeier
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 6:09:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

>
>
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>
>> Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?
>
>
> 4/3 IS a sensor size.


I thought 4/3 is a ratio: the same as all P&S cameras. Other DSLRS are
3:2 (wider/narrower).


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
May 12, 2005 6:38:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:


>
> Nice troll, Stacey.

Thanx ;-)

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 7:34:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>
>> Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?
>
>
> 4/3 IS a sensor size.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

Well, no. It is an aspect ratio, which has nothing to do with 'size'.
Mine is bigger than my dad's, but not as big as my older brother's. Who
has 6 inches?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 11:21:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1115842406.208503.238960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Bill
Hilton says...

> >Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?
>
> Will the existing lenses cover a larger sensor without vignetting? If
> not, they are locked in (unless of course you want to make it even
> smaller).

The 4/3 lens mount is even larger than the standard 35mm lens mount.
Shouldn't be a problem using a larger sensor.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 11:22:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <davge.22641$vi2.746719@twister.southeast.rr.com>, Tony
says...
> They would have to change the mirror, the lens to sensor plane and the
> lenses to go to a larger sensor - that would be a completely new system ---
> and probably similar to the more successful digital cameras based on 35mm
> equipment.

But the lens mount already has a diameter larger than the standard 35mm
one. As for the mirror, no problem placing a larger one.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
May 12, 2005 11:22:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Wrong. It is not the diameter but the distance between the mounting flange
and the sensor that is important. Change that and current lenses will not
focus. You cannot change from a smaller sensor to a larger one without also
changing that distance AND making a bigger mirror. You would essentially be
making another incompatible system.
Look at the two lines of Canon EOS cameras. The EF-S mount lenses can
only be used on the bodies built for them - and this was in going DOWN from
a 35mm frame. Going UP from the 4/3rds frame would mean that ALL current
lenses would be useless with the second generation bodies -- in other words
commercial suicide.
Olympus has designed the bodies and lenses, and set up the "standards"
for the 4/3rds system. At this point has to either stick with it or simply
forget the system market.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ced0698d3d79e0498ab2b@news.supernews.com...
> In article <davge.22641$vi2.746719@twister.southeast.rr.com>, Tony
> says...
> > They would have to change the mirror, the lens to sensor plane and the
> > lenses to go to a larger sensor - that would be a completely new
system ---
> > and probably similar to the more successful digital cameras based on
35mm
> > equipment.
>
> But the lens mount already has a diameter larger than the standard 35mm
> one. As for the mirror, no problem placing a larger one.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:26:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The Four Thirds standard dictates a fixed image circle diameter, but the
aspect ratio of the sensor is not fixed. However, I see no compelling reason
for it to change from 4:3.

Rather like APS, I suppose, you could have a Four Thirds camera with an
over-size sensor that could feature a user-selected aspect ratio.

Ian


"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1115842406.208503.238960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>> Many people feel the 4/3's concept locked into a sensor size that's
>>> too small
>
>>Alfred Molon writes
>>
>>Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?
>
> Will the existing lenses cover a larger sensor without vignetting? If
> not, they are locked in (unless of course you want to make it even
> smaller).
>
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:26:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It's not the lens mount size, but the projected image circle from the
lenses, and this is certainly is fixed by the Four Thirds specification.

The Four Thirds lens mount is large in order to provide room for the rear of
the lens to project near perpendicular rays onto the sensor, even at the
corners of the frame. This minimises loss in brightness and image detail
capture.

Ian

"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ced0641bbc5057498ab2a@news.supernews.com...
> In article <1115842406.208503.238960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Bill
> Hilton says...
>
>> >Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?
>>
>> Will the existing lenses cover a larger sensor without vignetting? If
>> not, they are locked in (unless of course you want to make it even
>> smaller).
>
> The 4/3 lens mount is even larger than the standard 35mm lens mount.
> Shouldn't be a problem using a larger sensor.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:26:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Full frame (24x36mm) digital SLRs will never be commonplace because of
cost - the cost of a chip rises exponentially with size. While no doubt
costs will reduce, as the cost of larger chips go down x%, smaller ones will
be exponentially cheaper too, so massive chips like full frame sensors will
*always* be much much more expensive than smaller ones. And as smaller
sensors are already excellent quality, there is no incentive for
manufacturers to pursue a mass market full frame sensor. Pentax, Olympus,
Nikon and Konica Minolta have all recognised this and begun standardisation
on smaller format sensors. Only Canon seems to want to develop a full frame
DSLR system (Kodak is only building bodies) and that's not for the mass
market, but to provide an alternative to medium format cameras. Even Canon
has now tangibly indicated that small format DSLRs are the way forward for
mass market DSLRs with the introduction of the EF-S lens platform.

Ian

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:FUwge.10693$Fa1.10026@fed1read02...
>
> "Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1cec829cfa69681f98ab27@news.supernews.com...
>> In article <1115811622.360992.294350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bill
>> Hilton says...
>>
>>> Many people feel the 4/3's concept locked into a sensor size that's too
>>> small,
>>
>> Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?
>
> They are locked...jsut as the DX lenses of Nikon are locked, and/or the S
> lenses of Canon are locked.
> Unless you build a new body system, they cannot project an image larger
> than what they project now.
> This is why (IMHO) it is questionable as to the wisdom of buying into
> either DX or S lenses.
> When/if full frame becomes commonplace, they will be extremely crippled.
>
>
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:26:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Olympus still managed to sell 8.9 million cameras in the last financial year
and here in the UK they were the market leader in the all important month of
December.

Don't forget that Nikon was in a corner 18 months ago. Nikon's point and
shoot cameras haven't been great sellers, but as the D70 sold a million in
one year, the company has been revived. But they still have to woo back the
pros from Canon.

I think it's quite positive that Olympus is taking radical steps to manage
its business and as better margins will come from higher-spec DSLRs in the
future, that should mean more investment for Olympus DSLRs.

Ian

"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Ecvge.22642$vi2.745854@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> I think the article is actually giving Olympus some credit they haven't
> earned. It says: "Olympus' digital camera business has been hit by fierce
> competition from Canon Inc., Nikon Corp. and other rivals". In reality
> Olympus simply was not competitive at all.
> --
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
> home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
> The Improved Links Pages are at
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
> A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
>
> "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1115813009.172528.43420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >The anouncment did say 2 new dSLR's are going to be introduced
>> >this year, doesn't sound like something a company would do
>> >if -that- product line was what was bringing their profits down.
>>
>> I'm reading this on Google and on the right column Google picked up
>> another story on Oly from Forbes which basically says the imaging
>> business which makes their digital cameras actually lost 24 billion yen
>> last year, so the rest of the company was profitable by 11-12 billion
>> yen. It also says Oly is laying off several thousand workers (over 25%
>> of their workforce) in response.
>>
>> The link is
>> http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2005/05/11/ap...
>>
>> Here's a quote with the meat of the article ...
>> (quote from Forbes)
>> Japanese electronics maker Olympus Corp. said Wednesday it is closing
>> two parts plants in Japan and reducing its work force in China to cut
>> costs in its money-losing digital camera business.
>>
>> Olympus' digital camera business has been hit by fierce competition
>> from Canon Inc., Nikon Corp. and other rivals, which has sent prices of
>> digital cameras plunging.
>>
>> The restructuring plan calls for the closure of its Ohmachi and Sakaki
>> plants and a reduction of worldwide head count by 4,000 employees to
>> 10,000 by the end of September, mostly through attrition in its Chinese
>> operations, the Tokyo-based company said.
>>
>> Olympus hopes its imaging division, which accounted for 36 percent of
>> its sales last fiscal year, will become profitable in the second half
>> of this fiscal year through March 2006.
>>
>> The imaging business, the only division in the red last fiscal year,
>> posted an operating loss of 24 billion yen ($227 million), a big factor
>> behind Olympus' overall loss of 12 billion yen ($114 million).
>> (end quote)
>>
>
>
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:26:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ian Burley" <infoplsremove@dp-now.com> wrote in message
news:ajFge.1672$RJ6.1213@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Full frame (24x36mm) digital SLRs will never be commonplace because of
> cost - the cost of a chip rises exponentially with size. While no doubt
> costs will reduce, as the cost of larger chips go down x%, smaller ones
> will be exponentially cheaper too, so massive chips like full frame
> sensors will *always* be much much more expensive than smaller ones. And
> as smaller sensors are already excellent quality, there is no incentive
> for manufacturers to pursue a mass market full frame sensor. Pentax,
> Olympus, Nikon and Konica Minolta have all recognised this and begun
> standardisation on smaller format sensors. Only Canon seems to want to
> develop a full frame DSLR system (Kodak is only building bodies) and
> that's not for the mass market, but to provide an alternative to medium
> format cameras. Even Canon has now tangibly indicated that small format
> DSLRs are the way forward for mass market DSLRs with the introduction of
> the EF-S lens platform.
>
> Ian

Oops!
You broke the never say never rule...
:) 

>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:FUwge.10693$Fa1.10026@fed1read02...
>>
>> "Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1cec829cfa69681f98ab27@news.supernews.com...
>>> In article <1115811622.360992.294350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bill
>>> Hilton says...
>>>
>>>> Many people feel the 4/3's concept locked into a sensor size that's too
>>>> small,
>>>
>>> Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?
>>
>> They are locked...jsut as the DX lenses of Nikon are locked, and/or the S
>> lenses of Canon are locked.
>> Unless you build a new body system, they cannot project an image larger
>> than what they project now.
>> This is why (IMHO) it is questionable as to the wisdom of buying into
>> either DX or S lenses.
>> When/if full frame becomes commonplace, they will be extremely crippled.
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:45:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>I don't think many people here, trolls or not, are using Olympus cameras.
Why not? We're not all semi-proffesional photographers. For many of us its
just a hobby and some of us lack either the money or motivation to upgrade
to the latest gismo every year.

When I bought my Olympus C2100 it knocked the spots off anything else on the
market at the time. I am still using it and don't plan to replace it unless
and until forced to by its demise. In fact there are very few cameras I
would change it for anyway - even if I was offered a free upgrade.

Keith
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:48:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to invite anti-Oly
chatter? Do you want trolls? Who cares? If someone wants to use 4/3, let
them; it's a nice system.

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3edkg4F2igq7U1@individual.net...
> I'm shocked the trolls haven't started "olympus is going bankrupt"
> threads
> like most the olympus forums are being flooded with by non-olympus
> users....
>
> Of course this "news" means 4/3's is dead and people should all flock to
> canon! Or wait is it their P&S line that lost them money? The anouncment
> did say 2 new dSLR's are going to be introduced this year, doesn't sound
> like something a company would do if -that- product line was what was
> bringing their profits down.
> --
>
> Stacey
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 2:19:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ian Burley wrote:
> The Four Thirds standard dictates a fixed image circle diameter, but the
> aspect ratio of the sensor is not fixed. However, I see no compelling reason
> for it to change from 4:3.
>
> Rather like APS, I suppose, you could have a Four Thirds camera with an
> over-size sensor that could feature a user-selected aspect ratio.
>
> Ian
>
>
> "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1115842406.208503.238960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>>Many people feel the 4/3's concept locked into a sensor size that's
>>>>too small
>>
>>>Alfred Molon writes
>>>
>>>Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?
>>
>>Will the existing lenses cover a larger sensor without vignetting? If
>>not, they are locked in (unless of course you want to make it even
>>smaller).
>>
>
>
>
Kodak offers exactly that. The 'native' aspect ratio of my camera is
4/3, but it has a 3:2 mode as well, which just drops the extra pixels,
basically cropping the picture within the camera.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 2:22:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ian Burley <infoplsremove@dp-now.com> wrote:
> Full frame (24x36mm) digital SLRs will never be commonplace because of
> cost - the cost of a chip rises exponentially with size. While no doubt
> costs will reduce, as the cost of larger chips go down x%, smaller ones
> will be exponentially cheaper too...

Do you guarantee that if you are wrong, you will eat crow or equivalent?
Larger sensors will generally have less noise, so as costs go down,
photographers will have incentive to pay a premium for full-frame
even at the same resolution as partial-frame sensors.

> ... Only Canon seems to want to develop a full frame
> DSLR system (Kodak is only building bodies) and that's not for the mass
> market, but to provide an alternative to medium format cameras.

Wrong. Kodak designs chips for their full-frame DCS 14n DSLR products.
Ones with either Nikon or Canon mount now sell for under $3500. They
are slow and quality isn't as good as the EOS-1Ds but price is < half.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 3:24:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <FUwge.10693$Fa1.10026@fed1read02>,
Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>This is why (IMHO) it is questionable as to the wisdom of buying into either
>DX or S lenses.
>When/if full frame becomes commonplace, they will be extremely crippled.

I doubt that full frame becomes commonplace. First of all due to
manufacturing costs of large chips and secondly due to the relatively low
volume in that market.

For most consumers, smaller cameras are better. So you get most volume in
with those sensor sizes that provide a good trade-off between size,
quality and price.

It is possible that many areas where medium format was needed because 35mm
film was not good enough, medium format will be replaced with full-frame
35mm digital.

However, in that case you can still sell your DX or S lenses to consumers
with smaller sensors.


--
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
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 4:04:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> writes:
> Bill Hilton says...

>> Many people feel the 4/3's concept locked into a sensor size that's
>> too small,

> Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?

A lot of places, including the web pages put up by the Four Thirds
consortium: http://www.four-thirds.org/en/about.html ,
where they say very clarly that the Four Thirds System is based
on the "4/3-Inch Image Sensor Size" (this way of measuring sensor
size is based on a metric to give the diameter of a Videcon tube
in the 1950ies, so the actual diagonal is not 4/3" (33.9 mm), but
22.5 mm. That's the size Four Thirds is locked into.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 4:04:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
> Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>Bill Hilton says...
>
>
>>>Many people feel the 4/3's concept locked into a sensor size that's
>>>too small,
>
>
>>Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?
>
>
> A lot of places, including the web pages put up by the Four Thirds
> consortium: http://www.four-thirds.org/en/about.html ,
> where they say very clarly that the Four Thirds System is based
> on the "4/3-Inch Image Sensor Size" (this way of measuring sensor
> size is based on a metric to give the diameter of a Videcon tube
> in the 1950ies, so the actual diagonal is not 4/3" (33.9 mm), but
> 22.5 mm. That's the size Four Thirds is locked into.

Highly confusing notation. Is it intended to confuse, or just mislead?
If the sensor is a 4:3 ratio, then the diagonal would be 5 units. If it
is a 1.33inch by 1 inch sensor, that is quite a LARGE sensor, and they
really should be specifying that as it is certainly an advertising
point. Worse, if your numbers are correct, the size isn't even
specified correctly in the first place, and by quite a difference (50%)!
I smell false and misleading advertising, at least.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 6:00:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> > Alfred Molon wrote:
> >
> >> Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?

Here: http://www.four-thirds.org/en/pdf/FourThirdsSystem.pdf

> > 4/3 IS a sensor size.
>
> I thought 4/3 is a ratio: the same as all P&S cameras. Other DSLRS are
> 3:2 (wider/narrower).

4/3 is the name Olympus et al. are using for that sensor size. It appears to
be a pun: a one and one third (4/3") inch TV camera tube would cover twice
the size (four times the area) of a 2/3" TV camera tube, giving the 4/3
sensor four times the area of the 2/3" sensors used in the high-end dcams.
So 4/3 is both the size and the aspect ratio.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 6:00:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>>Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>
>>>Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?
>
>
> Here: http://www.four-thirds.org/en/pdf/FourThirdsSystem.pdf
>
>
>>>4/3 IS a sensor size.
>>
>>I thought 4/3 is a ratio: the same as all P&S cameras. Other DSLRS are
>>3:2 (wider/narrower).
>
>
> 4/3 is the name Olympus et al. are using for that sensor size. It appears to
> be a pun: a one and one third (4/3") inch TV camera tube would cover twice
> the size (four times the area) of a 2/3" TV camera tube, giving the 4/3
> sensor four times the area of the 2/3" sensors used in the high-end dcams.
> So 4/3 is both the size and the aspect ratio.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
4:3 is a RATIO, it has nothing to do with a 'size', only specification
that the length and width of the sensor are at a certain ratio. Size
needs to specify a measuring unit for at least one side of the sensor,
and an aspect ratio, or two sides of the sensor.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 6:00:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David is absolutely right, Ron. Four Thirds relates to the videcon tube size
that a 4/3rd inch imager fits. It's a coincidence that the aspect ratio
Olympus chose is 4:3 and the specification doesn't tie Four Thirds platform
cameras to that aspect ratio.

Ian

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ZzEge.4726$rt1.3346@fe04.lga...
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>>
>>>>Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?
>>
>>
>> Here: http://www.four-thirds.org/en/pdf/FourThirdsSystem.pdf
>>
>>
>>>>4/3 IS a sensor size.
>>>
>>>I thought 4/3 is a ratio: the same as all P&S cameras. Other DSLRS are
>>>3:2 (wider/narrower).
>>
>>
>> 4/3 is the name Olympus et al. are using for that sensor size. It appears
>> to
>> be a pun: a one and one third (4/3") inch TV camera tube would cover
>> twice
>> the size (four times the area) of a 2/3" TV camera tube, giving the 4/3
>> sensor four times the area of the 2/3" sensors used in the high-end
>> dcams.
>> So 4/3 is both the size and the aspect ratio.
>>
>> David J. Littleboy
>> Tokyo, Japan
>>
>>
> 4:3 is a RATIO, it has nothing to do with a 'size', only specification
> that the length and width of the sensor are at a certain ratio. Size
> needs to specify a measuring unit for at least one side of the sensor, and
> an aspect ratio, or two sides of the sensor.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 6:00:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ian Burley wrote:
> David is absolutely right, Ron. Four Thirds relates to the videcon tube size
> that a 4/3rd inch imager fits. It's a coincidence that the aspect ratio
> Olympus chose is 4:3 and the specification doesn't tie Four Thirds platform
> cameras to that aspect ratio.
>
> Ian
>

>
>
>
What you are saying is that if you name a rose 'skunk', it will smell
bad. Just doesn't work that way. You are taking a special case and
trying to pass it off as a general answer. One shouldn't confuse a
specific case with a general specification. It's confusing, at the very
least.
4:3 could as easily apply to a 4inch by 3 inch sensor, where there such
a thing.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 7:43:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 12 May 2005 10:22:21 -0700, Bill Tuthill wrote:

>> ... Only Canon seems to want to develop a full frame
>> DSLR system (Kodak is only building bodies) and that's not for the mass
>> market, but to provide an alternative to medium format cameras.
>
> Wrong. Kodak designs chips for their full-frame DCS 14n DSLR products.
> Ones with either Nikon or Canon mount now sell for under $3500. They
> are slow and quality isn't as good as the EOS-1Ds but price is < half.

And Kodak continues the tradition, having designed the full frame
X14 chip that replaced the DSC 14n's C14 chip, and it's the one now
used in the Pro DCS SLR cameras. As far as I know, Kodak doesn't
build the bodies. I'm not positive, but I think that Nikon makes
the body for the Pro DCS SLR/n, but it's neither Kodak nor Canon
that makes the body for the Pro DCS SLR/c. That contract went to
Sigma.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 9:42:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> > Alfred Molon wrote:
> >
> >> Where does it say that 4/3 is locked to a specific sensor size ?
> >
> > 4/3 IS a sensor size.
> >
> > Gary Eickmeier
>
> Well, no. It is an aspect ratio,

No, it's the sensor size. It follows the same sensor size nomenclature used
for the consumer dcams. 4/3 is twice 2/3, and the 4/3 sensor is twice the
dimensions and four times the area of the sensors used in the 2/3" dcams.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 9:47:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > 4/3 is the name Olympus et al. are using for that sensor size. It
appears to
> > be a pun: a one and one third (4/3") inch TV camera tube would cover
twice
> > the size (four times the area) of a 2/3" TV camera tube, giving the 4/3
> > sensor four times the area of the 2/3" sensors used in the high-end
dcams.
> > So 4/3 is both the size and the aspect ratio.
> >
> > David J. Littleboy
> > Tokyo, Japan
> >
> >
> 4:3 is a RATIO, it has nothing to do with a 'size', only specification
> that the length and width of the sensor are at a certain ratio. Size
> needs to specify a measuring unit for at least one side of the sensor,
> and an aspect ratio, or two sides of the sensor.

Since you can't be bothered to read the reference I gave, here's the
relevant line:

"The Four Thirds System is so called because it uses a 4/3-type image sensor
such as a CCD or CMOS."

The "4/3-type" notation is the same as the consumer dcam notation.

Again, this is what _Olympus themeselves_ say...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 9:47:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>>4/3 is the name Olympus et al. are using for that sensor size. It
>
> appears to
>
>>>be a pun: a one and one third (4/3") inch TV camera tube would cover
>
> twice
>
>>>the size (four times the area) of a 2/3" TV camera tube, giving the 4/3
>>>sensor four times the area of the 2/3" sensors used in the high-end
>
> dcams.
>
>>>So 4/3 is both the size and the aspect ratio.
>>>
>>>David J. Littleboy
>>>Tokyo, Japan
>>>
>>>
>>
>>4:3 is a RATIO, it has nothing to do with a 'size', only specification
>>that the length and width of the sensor are at a certain ratio. Size
>>needs to specify a measuring unit for at least one side of the sensor,
>>and an aspect ratio, or two sides of the sensor.
>
>
> Since you can't be bothered to read the reference I gave, here's the
> relevant line:
>
> "The Four Thirds System is so called because it uses a 4/3-type image sensor
> such as a CCD or CMOS."
>
> The "4/3-type" notation is the same as the consumer dcam notation.
>
> Again, this is what _Olympus themeselves_ say...
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>
Then maybe I understand why their sales are going bad. If they don't
know an aspect ratio from a size specification, then how can they hope
to build a good product?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 9:47:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:18:24 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Then maybe I understand why their sales are going bad. If they don't
> know an aspect ratio from a size specification, then how can they hope
> to build a good product?

They do know the aspect ratio. You seem to have missed David's
saying that 4/3 appears to be a *pun*. It means more than one just
one thing. "4/3" is not only a ration and a size, it's also a floor
wax and a dessert topping.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 10:10:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ian Burley" <infoplsremove@dp-now.com> wrote in message
news:Herge.2292$hn5.422@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

> Sure, Four Thirds needs to up its technical game to get the high ISO
> performance, but the sensor size is not the issue.

You're correct. It's not sensor size, it's the pixel dimensions. It's the
size of the pixel that determines the noise characteristics, and this is
semiconductor physics.

So all someone has to do is to figure out how to put larger pixels onto a
smaller sensor, without decreasing resolution.

If you want low noise with 4/3, and you want more than about 3 megapixels,
then you're going to be very disappointed. Nikon is running into the same
noise issues with their D2x, which has pixels that are about as small as
what Olympus has on the E300.

4:3 has its good points, but image quality at higher ISO speeds is never
going to be one of them. It may turn out that there is enough of a market
for low-end SLRs that 4:3 will succeed, but so far it hasn't done well
because the early adopters of digital SLRs are interested in image quality.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 10:21:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Leonard" <user@example.net> wrote in message
news:4Isge.1527$RJ6.59@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

> A point I'd like to make here is that for many prospective dSLR buyers,
> the performance available from any of the entry-level products will be
> "good enough" and their purchasing decisions may be more influenced by
> individual matters of taste such as ergonomics and even appearence -
> rather than whether the pictures will look slightly better at larger
> than A4 sizes, or whether the high-ISO performance is only a little
> better than with fast films.

Perhaps. Maybe I'm jaded by living in Silicon Valley, and being an engineer.
Everyone I know that has purchased a digital SLR has done so after extensive
research into all of the available products, and their pros and cons. No one
has bought anything other than a Nikon D70 or Canon 20D (or an older Canon
DSLR). The only other model that ever came close to being purchased was the
Konica-Minolta 7D, because of the anti-shake. This was before Konica-Minolta
crashed the price on the 7D, at one time it was more than the Canon 20D.
Even one colleague with collection of Pentax lenses simply sold them on eBay
for virtually nothing, and bought a 20D, because the *istD just didn't cut
it.

SLRs, film or digital, are not usually an impulse buy. Even though a 4:3
model might be "good enough," unless it is very low priced, people will
choose more capable products. There once were some smaller APS SLR's, and
they were "good enough" but they flopped.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 10:25:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:n%Cge.22671$vi2.794843@twister.southeast.rr.com...

> Olympus has designed the bodies and lenses, and set up the "standards"
> for the 4/3rds system. At this point has to either stick with it or simply
> forget the system market.

They've got to get some more players into 4:3 for it to succeed. But in
reality, it's probably too late for that.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:02:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You only have to see what *all* the DSLR camera "system" manufacturers are
doing. Small sensor DSLRs are the new 35mm. Larger sensor DSLRs are the new
medium format - a much smaller, but high unit value, market.

A $3500 dollar camera (without a lens too!) is still beyond the budget of
99% of the poulation. Even if you halve that, it's still too expensive and
the the corresponding cost of smaller sensors will have more than halved as
well, so the price differential actually increases as sensor production cost
drops.

What we will have, with smaller sensor DSLRs, is a $500 camera with a lens
in the not too distant future - maybe 5 years. By then, full frame DSLRs may
have dropped by less than half in price - for argument's sake I'll give you
the benefit of the doubt and say that the Canon EOS-1Ds of the day has
reduced to $2,000 (and we'll throw a lens in while we are at it). Maybe you,
personally, might be able to justify one, but consider that the cheaper
cameras will be better than they are now, so why pay $2,000 when $500 will
suffice?

I read stuff about Olympus having missed the boat 2 years ago and back then
I pointed out that the market was a tiny fraction of what it will be and
that's still the case. More DSLRs will be sold in 2007 alone than have ever
been sold to date.

Anyway, I don't think any argument will convince you and that's fine. Let's
meet up again and re-evaluate some time in the future! :) 

Ian

"Bill Tuthill" <can@spam.co> wrote in message news:428390cc@news.meer.net...
> Ian Burley <infoplsremove@dp-now.com> wrote:
>> Full frame (24x36mm) digital SLRs will never be commonplace because of
>> cost - the cost of a chip rises exponentially with size. While no doubt
>> costs will reduce, as the cost of larger chips go down x%, smaller ones
>> will be exponentially cheaper too...
>
> Do you guarantee that if you are wrong, you will eat crow or equivalent?
> Larger sensors will generally have less noise, so as costs go down,
> photographers will have incentive to pay a premium for full-frame
> even at the same resolution as partial-frame sensors.
>
>> ... Only Canon seems to want to develop a full frame
>> DSLR system (Kodak is only building bodies) and that's not for the mass
>> market, but to provide an alternative to medium format cameras.
>
> Wrong. Kodak designs chips for their full-frame DCS 14n DSLR products.
> Ones with either Nikon or Canon mount now sell for under $3500. They
> are slow and quality isn't as good as the EOS-1Ds but price is < half.
>
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:02:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You should really read what you have just posted and think hard about it...

Ian

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:EyKge.3637$i03.1927@fe06.lga...
> Ian Burley wrote:
>> David is absolutely right, Ron. Four Thirds relates to the videcon tube
>> size that a 4/3rd inch imager fits. It's a coincidence that the aspect
>> ratio Olympus chose is 4:3 and the specification doesn't tie Four Thirds
>> platform cameras to that aspect ratio.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
> What you are saying is that if you name a rose 'skunk', it will smell bad.
> Just doesn't work that way. You are taking a special case and trying to
> pass it off as a general answer. One shouldn't confuse a specific case
> with a general specification. It's confusing, at the very least.
> 4:3 could as easily apply to a 4inch by 3 inch sensor, where there such a
> thing.
>
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:02:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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
cameras.

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
(http://www.bythom.com/d2xreview.htm)

"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

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:s_Mge.1592$LO1.947@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Ian Burley" <infoplsremove@dp-now.com> wrote in message
> news:Herge.2292$hn5.422@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>
>> Sure, Four Thirds needs to up its technical game to get the high ISO
>> performance, but the sensor size is not the issue.
>
> You're correct. It's not sensor size, it's the pixel dimensions. It's the
> size of the pixel that determines the noise characteristics, and this is
> semiconductor physics.
>
> So all someone has to do is to figure out how to put larger pixels onto a
> smaller sensor, without decreasing resolution.
>
> If you want low noise with 4/3, and you want more than about 3 megapixels,
> then you're going to be very disappointed. Nikon is running into the same
> noise issues with their D2x, which has pixels that are about as small as
> what Olympus has on the E300.
>
> 4:3 has its good points, but image quality at higher ISO speeds is never
> going to be one of them. It may turn out that there is enough of a market
> for low-end SLRs that 4:3 will succeed, but so far it hasn't done well
> because the early adopters of digital SLRs are interested in image
> quality.
>
>
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:02:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Justify "But in reality, it's probably too late for that."

How long after IBM did Dell enter the PC market?

I'm the first to admit that Olympus has a tremendous challenge on its hands
to make Four Thirds a success. There is absolutely no guarantee. But if they
make the most of the potential of the platform, they can be successful. It's
not the platform that is the issue, it's whether or not Olympus and whoever
can achieve its potential.

Ian


"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:CcNge.1376$bm5.307@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:n%Cge.22671$vi2.794843@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
>> Olympus has designed the bodies and lenses, and set up the "standards"
>> for the 4/3rds system. At this point has to either stick with it or
>> simply
>> forget the system market.
>
> They've got to get some more players into 4:3 for it to succeed. But in
> reality, it's probably too late for that.
>
>
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:02:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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


"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:S8Nge.1373$bm5.485@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Leonard" <user@example.net> wrote in message
> news:4Isge.1527$RJ6.59@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
>> A point I'd like to make here is that for many prospective dSLR buyers,
>> the performance available from any of the entry-level products will be
>> "good enough" and their purchasing decisions may be more influenced by
>> individual matters of taste such as ergonomics and even appearence -
>> rather than whether the pictures will look slightly better at larger
>> than A4 sizes, or whether the high-ISO performance is only a little
>> better than with fast films.
>
> Perhaps. Maybe I'm jaded by living in Silicon Valley, and being an
> engineer.
> Everyone I know that has purchased a digital SLR has done so after
> extensive
> research into all of the available products, and their pros and cons. No
> one
> has bought anything other than a Nikon D70 or Canon 20D (or an older Canon
> DSLR). The only other model that ever came close to being purchased was
> the
> Konica-Minolta 7D, because of the anti-shake. This was before
> Konica-Minolta
> crashed the price on the 7D, at one time it was more than the Canon 20D.
> Even one colleague with collection of Pentax lenses simply sold them on
> eBay
> for virtually nothing, and bought a 20D, because the *istD just didn't cut
> it.
>
> SLRs, film or digital, are not usually an impulse buy. Even though a 4:3
> model might be "good enough," unless it is very low priced, people will
> choose more capable products. There once were some smaller APS SLR's, and
> they were "good enough" but they flopped.
>
>
May 13, 2005 12:54:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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?
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Ian Burley" <infoplsremove@dp-now.com> wrote in message
news:qDOge.2116$RJ6.933@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Justify "But in reality, it's probably too late for that."
>
> How long after IBM did Dell enter the PC market?
>
> I'm the first to admit that Olympus has a tremendous challenge on its
hands
> to make Four Thirds a success. There is absolutely no guarantee. But if
they
> make the most of the potential of the platform, they can be successful.
It's
> not the platform that is the issue, it's whether or not Olympus and
whoever
> can achieve its potential.
>
> Ian
>
>
> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
> news:CcNge.1376$bm5.307@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:n%Cge.22671$vi2.794843@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> >
> >> Olympus has designed the bodies and lenses, and set up the
"standards"
> >> for the 4/3rds system. At this point has to either stick with it or
> >> simply
> >> forget the system market.
> >
> > They've got to get some more players into 4:3 for it to succeed. But in
> > reality, it's probably too late for that.
> >
> >
>
>
!