Re: Olympus in-body Image Stabilization misrepresentation

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:38:11 -0800 (PST), Orange
<orange.papers@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 18, 12:15 pm, JG <johnREMOVEglov...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Its time to move on, face it, deal with it, those lenses were designed
for a DIFFERENT system.


Wrong. The whole rap about how the Olympus system was designed from
the ground up to be digital is just advertising hype.

Right. I would say that the fact Olympus researched and developed the
4/3 standard, that they re-optimized the optics to take advantage of
this new standard, that the lenses are designed to throw light across
the whole sensor straight on,that the whole system could be lighter
and smaller pretty much tells me this was from the ground up. The
clues are there if you look hard enough.

The Olympus system was designed to be CHEAP. Olympus noticed that
making full-frame sensors was very expensive, so they decided to go
small.

Really ..full frame? So why not the APS-C route? So your claim the
system was designed to be cheap falls down here. Olympus developed the
SWF system, live view and implemented IS, all of this on a new
standard.These things are not exactly cheap in terms of R&D
costs.There is more to a cameras production costs than just the
sensor.Olympus E cameras are greater than the sum of their parts. But
of course you want yesteryears technology on today's new standards.

That also allowed them to use smaller lenses to project an image on
those smaller sensors.
That means lower manufacturing costs.

Note that Olympus didn't bother to pass the savings on to us. The pro
Oly Zuiko lenses are every bit as expensive as full-frame Canon or
Nikon gear.

Really? A new E410, 2 lenses, a bag and memory card right now in
Currys for £350, or do you fancy the E3 with a FREE grip and pro
camera bag? Maybe the cash back deal on the 510 is a hard one to
swallow? Are those the savings Olympus have not shared with its
customers. Pro lenses..??? do you expect to pick these up for a song?

When you got your legacy lenses you paid the going rate for them. You
got them for an OM system,they are different and that's something you
will have to live with. Blaming Olympus for not including backwards
compatibility when they built a new system is pathetic. If you are so
sure they have turned you over then sue them.....but you might need to
sell your lenses to fund the action.

Email replies remove REMOVE
Powered by Agent 4.2 Mail/News
http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nikon D3 hints at a way "out" for Olympus
    ... Olympus are not in a any position to invest in another format. ... suggested about larger sensor sizes. ... of using any of the Olympus Four Thirds lenses with a larger sensor. ... because unlike the APS and FF cameras, ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Where Olympus and Panasonic have fumbled the ball (lenses)
    ... Olympus made such lens system for their DSLRs. ... Regular lenses, Pro and Top Pro. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Where Olympus and Panasonic have fumbled the ball (lenses)
    ... Olympus made such lens system for their DSLRs. ... Regular lenses, Pro and Top Pro. ... Canon has tiers. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Olympus OM enthusiasts digital prayers have been answered ...
    ... cameras that they want to buy, ... I gladly parted with with all my Olympus bodies. ... I still own an almost identical looking Fuji Pro camera. ... The only camera Olympus ever made that was remotely usable as a professional tool was the OM but 35mm film always had serious limitation for anyone (make that professionals) who needed to make poster size prints. ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: Nikon D7000 vs. Canon Eos 60D
    ... naturally I would like to stick with Olympus ... because I already own the lenses and their 4/3 system is not compatible ... The only problem is that Olympus is apparently going out of the DSLR ... cameras, hinging their star to the EVF-IL types. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)