What if - universal mount

I prefer to think of it as "waiting", not wasted. As in waiting for a FF sensor.

You said it! I was considering that system before I got my 10D and gone Canon (had some lenses from non-digital times though) but for the price they charge I could get my 10D and 2 L lenses at no risk. Whoever is setting the price on Olympus should think again IMHO.

In a latest addition of eDigitalPhoto magazine, there is an article called "Fashionable SLR", where Photographer Joe Farace describes his experience photographing New York fashion show with an Olympus E-1
See it if you are interested, but the conclusion was that it's comparable with the similar models ( I guess it means 10D and such).
To me personally this conclusion is not enough to switch, having invested considerably in L glass and having such a great camera as 10D, but for those who is just starting... BUt than again, the body itsef is $1800 or so, and then lenses... All in all I think they made a bo-bo in their pricing politics.

Untill there s a more develpoed system,. the E-1 and 4/3rds will flounder.

As you say, there is no compelling reason to invest,. 4 or 5 lenses all overpriced.. and little else...

An SLR is not about the Body,. the Camera is about as capable as the competitiors,. D-100, 10D even Sigma SD9/10...

All three of which offer far more of a system to buy into.

E-1 and 4/3rds is a great concept,. it is ahead of it's time. If Olympus wants it to succeed, they need to do a little more homework.

Nikon has a long history of charging extra for their name alone. When 8mm video camcorders first came out, there were three identical models from Olympus, Nikon, and I can't remember the third brand. We're talking identical here, except for the name and model number. Nikon charged $150 more than the other two, and they know they can get away with that. Why would they (or any other leading maufacturer) ever willingly go down a generic path

On the other side, the partners in the APS format were Canon, Nikon, Minolta, and Kodak. They did that in the hopes of becoming the leaders in a new format which, at the time, was needed for photography. Turns out the winner was digital

Olympus wants to become the leader in this new digital format. They were moderately successful taking 35mm smaller, physically, in the '70s and '80s, and they want to take on Nikon and Canon in the same way now. It may catch on, but they want the biggest slice of that pie. They can charge more for it now, but if it catches on the competition will drive their prices down.

Have Fun
Rick 8)

universal mounts

It's all about Brand Equity. The name has perceived value to the consumer.

Just look back at the number of passionate debates in this, and other fourms, about the better 'system', Canon, Nikon, etc. as in "buy the Canon accessory because it is part of the Canon system and therefore is superior."

There are many who will passionately argue with measurbator vision that a brand name "A" lens/flash/body is better than brand "B" regardless of price even though those differences may not be quantifiable in practical use.

You can bet money that large manufacturers will contine to want brand distinction just as the automotive industry has done for years.

Why do people buy Harley Davidson motorcycles? Blind brand loyalty.

(Hopping on my BMW and driving away before the Hardley Ableson crowd starts flaming away!)

CoolToolGuy wrote:
Nikon has a long history of charging extra for their name alone. When 8mm video camcorders first came out, there were three identical models from Olympus, Nikon, and I can't remember the third brand. We're talking identical here, except for the name and model number. Nikon charged $150 more than the other two, and they know they can get away with that. Why would they (or any other leading maufacturer) ever willingly go down a generic path

On the other side, the partners in the APS format were Canon, Nikon, Minolta, and Kodak. They did that in the hopes of becoming the leaders in a new format which, at the time, was needed for photography. Turns out the winner was digital

Olympus wants to become the leader in this new digital format. They were moderately successful taking 35mm smaller, physically, in the '70s and '80s, and they want to take on Nikon and Canon in the same way now. It may catch on, but they want the biggest slice of that pie. They can charge more for it now, but if it catches on the competition will drive their prices down.

Have Fun
Rick 8)

I don't know that APS was really needed - it never really caught on, or at least never threatened 35 mm. I know that I never had an interest in what looked at the next wave of "instamatic" cameras. In hindsight, APS was way beyond the Instamatic, but why trade 35 for something less?

BTW, I had (well, still have) a halfway decent Olympus point-and-shoot 35 from the mid-1980's. At the time, it was one of the better P&S cameras around, though its features would be woefully lacking now (2X zoom, etc.). I thought it was really compact - that is, until I went with my S-230 and then S-400.

Anyway, in a world of Canon Powershot Pro-1's and Sony 828's on one side and 10D's, Rebels, and D-70's on the other, I don't know if there is a void big enough for Olympus to fill here.

Myself, I'd prefer FF and I suspect that in 5 years or so, it will be an affordable replacement for the 10D. In the meantime, I'll shoot happily along, knowing that I have a multitude of cameras available for which I can use my lenses.

Bruce Watson wrote:
It's all about Brand Equity. The name has perceived value to the consumer.

Just look back at the number of passionate debates in this, and other fourms, about the better 'system', Canon, Nikon, etc. as in "buy the Canon accessory because it is part of the Canon system and therefore is superior."

There are many who will passionately argue with measurbator vision that a brand name "A" lens/flash/body is better than brand "B" regardless of price even though those differences may not be quantifiable in practical use.

You can bet money that large manufacturers will contine to want brand distinction just as the automotive industry has done for years.

Why do people buy Harley Davidson motorcycles? Blind brand loyalty.

(Hopping on my BMW and driving away before the Hardley Ableson crowd starts flaming away!)

Best keep that Bimmer north of the border.

J/K, of course. There's nothing inherently wrong with brand loyalty. I've always had a Ford in my garage. I've had other brands besides, but Ford hasn't done me wrong. Why divorce a brand if its not treated you wrong?

Anyway, I'm not really in favor of a universal lens mount system - it would stifle innovation in the long run. A competitive marketplace is the best way to provide innovation. As long as the various parties strive to outdo each other, there will be innovation.

What better way to encourage innovation and competition then to make lenses a commodity?

Why would any manufacturer of any product create any innovations if they had to share them with their competition? If Canon "L" glass is better than, say, Olympus's best effort (and this is just a supposition here), why would Canon want to give that quality to someone else's camera body? Where would the incentive be for anybody to make the best product if it benefits their competitor?

We all know that the money is in lenses. If your offering doesn't hold up in a "free market", then you'll lose. You'll have separate and complementary markets in lenses and bodies. Its not quite about "sharing" them with the competition. Its all about putting out the best product to serve the new, and significantly expanded market.

I don't know that the money is in lenses. I've not had one wear out yet.

Anyway, that said, I suppose I've been a little argumentative here, but its really up to Canon, Nikon, et. al. to decide if they want a common mount. If it were in their best interest to do so, then they would do it. Its their companies and they can do what they want.

IOW, the market is free right now.

ROFLMAO

IF the mount is Universal,. IT would NOT be an EOS mount anymore,. and therefore.....

...are you ready?

Well,. the thrread no longer belongs in the EOS forum now does it?

ROFL

APS was not about folks like us that spend hours upon hours a week debating this stuff - it was about folks that needed an hour of instruction at the Ritz store to understand how to load and use their 35mm camera. Now, please folks, that was a glaring oversimplification, and if you are a fan of APS that was just offended, please give me a little latitude. The facts are that 35mm, which was never developed (pun not intended) for the general public, was a little too overwhelming for them and some improvements were needed. Instamatic in its various forms didn't do it, and something had to be done. IMHO the industry waited too long, and the rest is history.


As for Olympus, well I am and probably always will be a Canon bigot (brand loyalist if you choose), but they hit the 35mm market at a pretty good time, when SLRs were just hitting their stride for the general public, and they got a pretty good share of the market pushing 'smaller is better' camera gear. I think they hit the DSLR market at an even better time, within a year of the first consumer DSLRs. There will always be a market for the folks that want more than the Pro-1, F828, etc. can deliver, but are not interested in taking out a second mortgage for lenses. I wish them luck, but I'm likely to stick with what I've got.

And Tom, not to rag on you too much, but the money certainly is in the lenses - in the SLR market, its always about the lenses. A good poll would be to add up the money spent in each of three categories - bodies, lenses, and everything else, and see where we all stand percentage wise. Working photo professionals should be a separate category, because their hardware are the tools of their profession, but I would not be surprised in the least to see lenses at the top.

But ultimately, its all about the dollar (pound, ruble, yen, whatever), and how each brand can get the most profit for themselves.


Have Fun
Rick 8)

I understand where you're going - I'm probably not the typical consumer. I didn't even know what APS really was until 3 years ago - I simply dismissed it. I just never saw the value of re-inventing what a 35 mm P&S could do. Even loading film was easy - just pull the stringer to the red line and close the back - the camera did the rest.

Considering what Olympus wants for lenses, compared to what's available for EF mount, I'd say that you're much better off financially with an SLR. You can equip a DigiReb with a 50 mm, the kit lens, and a tele zoom for less than $500 (not including the body).

Perhaps for those of us that are enthusiasts or professionals, lenses account for a good chunk of money (myself included as an enthusiast). But look at what most 35 mm owners have spent on lenses. Now I may be way off base here, but I'd guess that the average user has a kit lens and another zoom. Maybe even a cheap prime. But buying "L" glass for a normal consumer is the rarity, not the norm.

Put a $1000+ digital body into the equation and the lenses suddenly become even less proportionately. Then wait 2 years and watch the consumers get a new body because it has twice the megapixels as the old one. That's a cash cow there IMHO.

Well, yes, profit is why they're in business. I certainly don't strive to work without a paycheck - my guess is that neither do the folks at Canon, Nikon, or elsewhere. After all, if making cameras and lenses stops being profitable, they'll stop doing it.