«

People who remember the inception of DVD on Mar 1997 will remember the
laggards. The studios who sat back, and watched everyone else do the
market ground work for them, to establish if the format was a good
idea. Meanwhile, when Disney finally did begin releasing, they
charged the highest price of any studio for it's offerings. This
worked out well for them, as clamoring children wanted the Disney
features. But they showed no leadership, and neither have Nikon or
Canon or (far behind) Pentax. They let Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and
Samsung build the market and teach people about the new kind of
cameras.

On Sep 6, 1:16*pm, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net> wrote:

> From their point of view I think that makes perfect sense. Nikon and Canon
> completely dominate the DSLR market, don't they? If there's a "new kind of
> camera" that is supposed to challenge the DSLR (and it remains to be seen
> whether it can effectively do that), why would Nikon or Canon be in any
> hurry to essentially compete against their own market-leading products?

This is how Digital Equipment Corporation came
to not be a player in the micro-computer market,
and eventually went bust. They were thoroughly
dominant in the minicomputer world, and didn't
pay much attention to those little toy computers
based on microprocessor chips. Until it was too
late.

You should compete with yourself because
*somebody* is going to. If you don't play,
and the new market turns out to be important,
you'll be trying to get into it in a few years
from far behind the pack.

> Personally I would love to see more makers getting into Micro Four Thirds,
> and make that a sort of universal standard in the way that the old M42 screw
> mount once was. As long as it's only Panasonic and Olympus making m4/3
> stuff, its future appears to be very limited.

And Zeiss and Cosina (lenses). Another body
manufacturer would be nice, I agree.

On Sep 7, 10:38*am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> RichA wrote:
> > People who remember the inception of DVD on Mar 1997 will remember the
> > laggards. The studios who sat back, and watched everyone else do the
> > market ground work for them, to establish if the format was a good
> > idea. *Meanwhile, when Disney finally did begin releasing, they
> > charged the highest price of any studio for it's offerings. This
> > worked out well for them, as clamoring children wanted the Disney
> > features.
>
> Laggard, or excellent timing? Sounds like it worked
> out pretty well for Disney.
>
> * BugBear

It did. I just dislike their lack of leadership and building
investment. Still, considering how Disney is run, I'm not surprised.

On Sep 7, 3:34*pm, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net> wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > On Sep 6, 1:16 pm, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net> wrote:
>
> >> From their point of view I think that makes perfect sense. Nikon and
> >> Canon completely dominate the DSLR market, don't they? If there's a
> >> "new kind of camera" that is supposed to challenge the DSLR (and it
> >> remains to be seen whether it can effectively do that), why would
> >> Nikon or Canon be in any hurry to essentially compete against their
> >> own market-leading products?
>
> > This is how Digital Equipment Corporation came
> > to not be a player in the micro-computer market,
> > and eventually went bust. *They were thoroughly
> > dominant in the minicomputer world, and didn't
> > pay much attention to those little toy computers
> > based on microprocessor chips. *Until it was too
> > late.
>
> > You should compete with yourself because
> > *somebody* is going to. *If you don't play,
> > and the new market turns out to be important,
> > you'll be trying to get into it in a few years
> > from far behind the pack.
>
> Well, as far as mirrorless ILCs are concerned I suspect Nikon is probably
> doing just the right thing now, and presumably Canon is as well even if we
> haven't heard anything about what they're doing.

I'd still like to see them take a hit as punishment. Like Nikon did
in the 1980's when they lagged (purposely) on AF. They deserved the
pain.

On Sep 7, 2:34*pm, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net> wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> > Another body
> > manufacturer would be nice, I agree.
>
> Yes, at least one more. What I think would really make a sort of tipping
> point would be if there were enough bodies being produced to attract the
> interest of the high-volume lens makers Tamron, Tokina and Sigma.

Sigma does make Four Thirds, but not Micro that I can find.
I suspect Panasonic and Olympus are pretty happy not
to have that, right now!

RichA <> wrote:
>People who remember the inception of DVD on Mar 1997 will remember the
>laggards. The studios who sat back, and watched everyone else do the
>market ground work for them, to establish if the format was a good
>idea. Meanwhile, when Disney finally did begin releasing, they
>charged the highest price of any studio for it's offerings. This
>worked out well for them, as clamoring children wanted the Disney
>features. But they showed no leadership, and neither have Nikon or
>Canon or (far behind) Pentax.

They're certainly the leader in selling DVDs that force you to sit
through ads for their other movies before being allowed to watch
the movie you paid for.

--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
| The new GOP ideal

"Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> Personally I would love to see more makers getting into Micro Four Thirds,
> and make that a sort of universal standard in the way that the old M42
> screw mount once was. As long as it's only Panasonic and Olympus making
> m4/3 stuff, its future appears to be very limited.

And since Olympus have dropped their consumer 4/3 DSLR cameras it's even
more limited IMO.

Trevor.

"Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
>Trevor wrote:
>> "Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
>> news: ...
>>> Personally I would love to see more makers getting into Micro Four
>>> Thirds, and make that a sort of universal standard in the way that
>>> the old M42 screw mount once was. As long as it's only Panasonic and
>>> Olympus making m4/3 stuff, its future appears to be very limited.
>>
>> And since Olympus have dropped their consumer 4/3 DSLR cameras it's
>> even more limited IMO.
>
>Interesting -- I didn't know they had dropped the 4/3 DSLRs, but then I
>don't really follow Olympus that closely.


As Trevor said, Olympus has dropped the *consumer* DSLRs.

The E-30 (prosumer) and E-5 (professional) DSLRs are still available.

"Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
>Bruce wrote:
>> "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
>>> Trevor wrote:
>>>> "Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
>>>> news: ...
>>>>> Personally I would love to see more makers getting into Micro Four
>>>>> Thirds, and make that a sort of universal standard in the way that
>>>>> the old M42 screw mount once was. As long as it's only Panasonic
>>>>> and Olympus making m4/3 stuff, its future appears to be very
>>>>> limited.
>>>>
>>>> And since Olympus have dropped their consumer 4/3 DSLR cameras it's
>>>> even more limited IMO.
>>>
>>> Interesting -- I didn't know they had dropped the 4/3 DSLRs, but
>>> then I don't really follow Olympus that closely.
>>
>>
>> As Trevor said, Olympus has dropped the *consumer* DSLRs.
>>
>> The E-30 (prosumer) and E-5 (professional) DSLRs are still available.
>
>Ah. Thanks for the clarification.


You're welcome, Neil.

As a former E-1 user, I still take an interest in Four Thirds DSLRs.
We even manage to sell one occasionally, but demand has dropped almost
to zero.

Four Thirds was quite a brave attempt to offer something new, a system
that was specifically designed for digital from the outset. Most of
the lenses were outstanding performers with very high resolution,
almost all being near-telecentric with an absence of colour fringing.

But the small sensor size meant that Olympus got left behind in the
megapixel race. The E-1 had 5 MP which was competitive when it
appeared, but was soon eclipsed by Canon's 1D Mark II with 8 MP. Canon
now offers 21.8 MP, with more to come very soon. Olympus is still
stuck at 12 MP.

It didn't help that the original Four Thirds sensor manufacturer
(Kodak) completely lost interest at the time an 8 MP sensor was being
developed. That sensor was very noisy but it was released anyway.
That all but destroyed Four Thirds. All subsequent sensors came from
Panasonic.

Sadly, the relationship between Olympus and Panasonic is now
approaching the same dysfunctional state as that between Olympus and
Kodak a few years ago. Panasonic won't offer Olympus anything more
than 12 MP sensors but sells 16 and 18 MP sensors in its own LUMIX
Micro Four Thirds camera bodies. Olympus has designed its own 12 MP
sensor but it is manufactured by Panasonic. Olympus' dependence on
Panasonic cannot be healthy.

"Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
>
>I agree it's an unhealthy situation if Panasonic is not being the sort of
>cooperative partner that it should for the good of the Micro Four Thirds
>standard.


It is important to realise that Panasonic and Olympus are competitors,
and that Panasonic's original foray into Four Thirds (not Micro) was a
commercial disaster. Micro Four Thirds was Panasonic's idea and
Olympus was a long way behind in developing MFT cameras and lenses.

Panasonic's sensors saved Olympus' Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds
ranges from oblivion. There is no obligation on Panasonic to offer
Olympus its latest, high resolution sensors, but Olympus has
definitely been held back by the 12 MP upper limit that Panasonic
appears to have imposed.

As you say, it's an unhealthy situation, but I wouldn't want to be
seen to blame one party or the other for that.


>That seems certain to discourage any other manufacturers from
>joining m4/3. It looks short-sighted to me, but then I'm not in that
>business of course.


That's a good point. It appears Nikon has chosen a sensor slightly
smaller than Panasonic and Olympus when it would surely have been just
as easy to choose to follow the Micro Four Thirds standard. Maybe it
would have been difficult to arrange for compatibility with AF Nikkors
on an MFT body, maybe the 3:2 aspect ratio was considered too
important to drop, maybe there were licensing issues - while Four
Thirds is an open standard, I think some of the IP related to Micro
Four Thirds is proprietary, being owned by Panasonic.

Given the unhappy experience paying steep royalties to Canon for the
first few years of AF-S "Silent Wave" lens production, I cannot
imagine Nikon being keen to pay royalties to Panasonic for Micro Four
Thirds.

It will be interesting to see what Canon does. Early rumours
suggested a sensor size close to Micro Four Thirds but with a 3:2
aspect ratio. That sounds remarkably similar to Nikon's.