From: RichA on
On May 23, 5:32 am, DanP <dan.pe...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 7:52 am, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 2:58 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:38:24 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >On May 22, 4:37 am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Interesting.  
>
> > > >> On Page 3, under the heading "Preparations for New Medium-Term Plan"
> > > >> there is included "Establishment of business foundation for SLRs".  So
> > > >> the DSLR range appears safe.
>
> > > >> Then, on Page 17, under "Imaging Business", the priority is
> > > >> "Establishing solid foundation for the DSLR camera business and
> > > >> achieving high growth".  Sounds good for the DSLR range.
>
> > > >> But then, on the same page, under the heading "Digital SLR Cameras" it
> > > >> mentions only Micro Four Thirds.  There is no mention of Four Thirds.
> > > >> So when Olympus are talking about DSLRs, they mean Micro Four Thirds.
>
> > > >Yes, exactly. I wish them luck, they've apparently done well with
> > > >micro 43/rds but a target of 20% of the market in five years is not
> > > >realistic for them.
>
> > > It's a target rather than a specific objective, something to be aimed
> > > at rather than something that absolutely must be achieved.  It shows
> > > they mean business, though.
>
> > > I think Olympus has a much better chance of reaching 20% in five years
> > > than, say, Sony, who had that same target for the Alpha range of DSLRs
> > > and missed it by miles.  Miles.
>
> > The Alpha's biggest problem is that they are the same kind of thing as
> > Canon and Nikon produce, with some price differences.  But perhaps
> > these new Sony's will have an impact?
>
> So, will you buy one?
>
> DanP

Unfortunately, I can't, I have to stick to the Panasonic or Olympus
stuff as I must have an EVF, I don't want to be confined to using only
an LCD, especially with manual lenses.
From: Peter on
"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6shv5957v58allbegblkllecdmqset4jp(a)4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:52:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On May 22, 2:58 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think Olympus has a much better chance of reaching 20% in five years
>>> than, say, Sony, who had that same target for the Alpha range of DSLRs
>>> and missed it by miles. Miles.
>>
>>The Alpha's biggest problem is that they are the same kind of thing as
>>Canon and Nikon produce, with some price differences. But perhaps
>>these new Sony's will have an impact?
>
>
> They probably will. The NEX series looks more promising than the
> recycled (failed) Minolta range that still forms the basis of Alpha.
>
> But I do foresee a major problem with people trading up from point and
> shoot digicams to the NEX series.
>
> People have gotten used to the near-infinite depth of field that small
> sensors gave them. Most of those people will struggle with the much
> more limited depth of field that NEX will offer. And those people
> will make up the majority of the market for NEX.
>
> People buying NEX to supplement their DSLRs will have no such problem,
> but they will make up only a small part of the market for NEX.
>
> This problem already exists with people trading up from point and
> shoot digicams to Micro Four Thirds. That problem will become worse
> with NEX because, for the same lens angle of view and lens aperture,
> the depth of field will be even tighter.
>
> So people will blame the camera, or the lens, for a failure to produce
> sharp images, when their own lack of focusing technique will be the
> true cause. I wonder how the manufacturers will fend off criticism
> from buyers who were promised better image quality from the larger
> sensor but got a dramatically increased incidence of out of focus
> images?
>
>


Just curious. You never answered my prior question about your affiliating
with Olympus.
Was there a reason?

--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010052309371325485-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-23 02:32:26 -0700, DanP <dan.petre(a)gmail.com> said:
>
>> On May 23, 7:52 am, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 22, 2:58 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:38:24 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On May 22, 4:37 am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Interesting.
>>>
>>>>>> On Page 3, under the heading "Preparations for New Medium-Term Plan"
>>>>>> there is included "Establishment of business foundation for SLRs".
>> So
>>>>>> the DSLR range appears safe.
>>>
>>>>>> Then, on Page 17, under "Imaging Business", the priority is
>>>>>> "Establishing solid foundation for the DSLR camera business and
>>>>>> achieving high growth". Sounds good for the DSLR range.
>>>
>>>>>> But then, on the same page, under the heading "Digital SLR Cameras"
>> it
>>>>>> mentions only Micro Four Thirds. There is no mention of Four Thir
>> ds.
>>>>>> So when Olympus are talking about DSLRs, they mean Micro Four Thirds
>> .
>>>
>>>>> Yes, exactly. I wish them luck, they've apparently done well with
>>>>> micro 43/rds but a target of 20% of the market in five years is not
>>>>> realistic for them.
>>>
>>>> It's a target rather than a specific objective, something to be aimed
>>>> at rather than something that absolutely must be achieved. It shows
>>>> they mean business, though.
>>>
>>>> I think Olympus has a much better chance of reaching 20% in five years
>>>> than, say, Sony, who had that same target for the Alpha range of DSLRs
>>>> and missed it by miles. Miles.
>>>
>>> The Alpha's biggest problem is that they are the same kind of thing as
>>> Canon and Nikon produce, with some price differences. But perhaps
>>> these new Sony's will have an impact?
>>
>> So, will you buy one?
>>
>>
>> DanP
>
> Rich isn't going to buy anything.
>


He probably buys food for his table.

--
Peter

From: RichA on
On May 23, 12:37 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
wrote:
> On 2010-05-23 02:32:26 -0700, DanP <dan.pe...(a)gmail.com> said:
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 7:52 am, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 22, 2:58 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:38:24 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> On May 22, 4:37 am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Interesting.  
>
> >>>>> On Page 3, under the heading "Preparations for New Medium-Term Plan"
> >>>>> there is included "Establishment of business foundation for SLRs".
> >  So
> >>>>> the DSLR range appears safe.
>
> >>>>> Then, on Page 17, under "Imaging Business", the priority is
> >>>>> "Establishing solid foundation for the DSLR camera business and
> >>>>> achieving high growth".  Sounds good for the DSLR range.
>
> >>>>> But then, on the same page, under the heading "Digital SLR Cameras"
> > it
> >>>>> mentions only Micro Four Thirds.  There is no mention of Four Thir
> > ds.
> >>>>> So when Olympus are talking about DSLRs, they mean Micro Four Thirds
> > .
>
> >>>> Yes, exactly. I wish them luck, they've apparently done well with
> >>>> micro 43/rds but a target of 20% of the market in five years is not
> >>>> realistic for them.
>
> >>> It's a target rather than a specific objective, something to be aimed
> >>> at rather than something that absolutely must be achieved.  It shows
> >>> they mean business, though.
>
> >>> I think Olympus has a much better chance of reaching 20% in five years
> >>> than, say, Sony, who had that same target for the Alpha range of DSLRs
> >>> and missed it by miles.  Miles.
>
> >> The Alpha's biggest problem is that they are the same kind of thing as
> >> Canon and Nikon produce, with some price differences.  But perhaps
> >> these new Sony's will have an impact?
>
> > So, will you buy one?
>
> > DanP
>
> Rich isn't going to buy anything.
>

I have a G1 and D300 and haven't felt compelled to change as nothing
that has come up is superior, from what I can see. I was thinking the
Sony's would be, but no EVF and punk lenses...
From: Bruce on
On Sun, 23 May 2010 21:06:02 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>I have a G1 and D300 and haven't felt compelled to change as nothing
>that has come up is superior, from what I can see. I was thinking the
>Sony's would be, but no EVF and punk lenses...


I wonder why Sony abandoned the in-camera anti-shake of the Alpha
system, instead using an in-lens anti-shake system for NEX?