A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 30th 04, 08:18 AM
Mike Henley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?
  #2  
Old June 30th 04, 12:05 PM
Justin Thyme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why isn't olympus as highly regarded as it should be?


"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...
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.


  #3  
Old June 30th 04, 02:06 PM
Photodad2
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why isn't olympus as highly regarded as it should be?

in article , Justin Thyme at
wrote on 6/30/04 7:05 AM:

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.


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


  #4  
Old June 30th 04, 02:28 PM
Philip Homburg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why isn't olympus as highly regarded as it should be?

In article ,
Photodad2 wrote:
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.


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.



--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
  #6  
Old June 30th 04, 06:22 PM
Tony Spadaro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why isn't olympus as highly regarded as it should be?

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.

--
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 my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Justin Thyme" wrote in message
...

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...
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.




  #7  
Old June 30th 04, 06:25 PM
Tony Spadaro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why isn't olympus as highly regarded as it should be?

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.

--
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 my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Photodad2" wrote in message
...
in article , Justin Thyme at
wrote on 6/30/04 7:05 AM:

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.


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




  #8  
Old June 30th 04, 07:51 PM
Matt Clara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why isn't olympus as highly regarded as it should be?


"Tony Spadaro" wrote in message
. com...
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.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com


  #9  
Old June 30th 04, 09:42 PM
Stephen H. Westin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why isn't olympus as highly regarded as it should be?

"Matt Clara" writes:

"Tony Spadaro" wrote in message
. com...
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.


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.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
  #10  
Old June 30th 04, 10:04 PM
Tony Spadaro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why isn't olympus as highly regarded as it should be?

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

--
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 my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Stephen H. Westin" wrote in message
...
"Matt Clara" writes:

"Tony Spadaro" wrote in message
. com...
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.


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.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stabilization Effectiveness Canon S1 IS vs Olympus 2100UZ? nesredep egrob Digital Photography 5 July 12th 04 04:02 AM
Little review of the Olympus RC Mike Henley 35mm Photo Equipment 5 July 2nd 04 04:42 AM
Olympus C-740 and Win98 version 1 James M Digital Photography 2 June 29th 04 12:57 PM
rust in classic camera + olympus RC batteries Mike Henley 35mm Photo Equipment 0 June 24th 04 03:36 PM
Olympus RC vs Rollei 35 Mike Henley 35mm Photo Equipment 11 June 18th 04 10:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.