Re: Mourning Minolta
- From: uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 4 Feb 2006 13:11:37 -0800
Andy Hewitt wrote:
Tony <tspadaro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Being "one of the first" and then giving up is the same as never being in
the race. The OM system essentially remained one of the top SLR systems of
1978 until it died quietly and mostly forgotten in its sleep.
It was one of the top systems well into the 80's as well. I got my OM40
in 1987, and still have it. I doubt that very little could better the
50mm F1.4 Zuiko lens I have in combination with the OM40.
Of course they did eventually decide to drop the SLR range, and make
some of the best compact cameras ever made, which is where they came
into the market.
It may well be that they even foresaw the demise of the SLR market many
years before it happened and concentrated on more reliable parts of the
market.
You can't deny that the Minolta Dimage, and Olympus Mju and Trip ranges
have not been excellent products.
Despite the technological advances Olympus made (they were the only
company besides Leitz to engineer a damped mirror movement, for which
reason the Leicaflexes needed no mirror lock-up), its entry into the
SLR fray was ultimately doomed. The cameras simply came to the party
too late, about 10 years after even Leica's belated entry. The fact is
that Nikon owned the pro SLR marketplace, and Olympus simply did not
have a pro camera. Pros did not need smaller SLR's (quite the
contrary!) and OM-1's were no match for Nikons or Leicaflexes in
durability. The Olympus lens line contained some lenses that were so
small that men (the primary buyers of SLR's) had trouble handing them.
I know I dropped an Olympus lens at least once while demonstrating it!
The reduced size of the lenses was accomplished by sacrificing strength
and durability: you could make an Olymus lens bind easily by squeezing
the focussing ring, something that was more difficult to do with a
Nikkor and all but impossible to do with a Leica reflex lens.
I prefer the size of Leicaflex SL or SL2 camera to the bulky Nikon F or
the diminutive OM-1.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7587496873&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1
Once the other companies began offering smaller bodies, there was
simply no reason to buy into Olympus. The Canon AE-1, Minolta XD line,
the Pentax MX, the Nikon FE and FM, all were smaller than the cameras
of few years before. If you already owned a fistful of Nikkors or
Rokkors or Takumars, there was simply no need to switch (although I
knew of one wealthy customer who indulged himself deeply in the Olympus
system). In addition, the Olympus lens line was restrictive, especially
in the long lenses, and they were more expensive than any line except
Nikon and Leitz. Also, Nikon had already introduced an auto-exposure
camera (the Nikkormat EL) that was reasonably small. The OM-1,
introduced in 1972, was manual, and the OM-2 was not to see the light
of day for a while yet (1975).
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikkormat/elseries/el/features1.htm
If someone wanted to start into a system in 1972-1975, the Nikkormat EL
made a lot more sense, and I told customers exactly that, even though
the EL was more expensive!
Another factor, though minor, was that the shutter control on the
Olympus was positioned around the lens mount, rather than at the top of
the body. Although minor, this placement did seem awkward to anyone
contemplating switching from a Nikon or Pentax.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/om1/index.htm
--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
<http://andyhewitt.webhop.net/>
(updated Jan 2006)
.
- Prev by Date: Re: A1 Gallery now up
- Next by Date: Re: Mourning Minolta
- Previous by thread: Re: Mourning Minolta
- Next by thread: Re: Mourning Minolta
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
