Olympus Film System was dead several years before Contax and Leica.......

[chanchai_a.]

Hi all

 

Yes, you think why?

 

(1.) Olympus lenses are not as good as Zeiss or Leitz?

(2.) Olympus system is too young to build its onw legacy?

(3.) Olympus system is too cheap to be considered a "classy"?

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks,

Chan<div></div>

[chris_allen3]

None of the above. They didn't keep up with the other companies when it came to AF SLRs and chose to compete in the P&S market instead. The Olympus system was/is pretty complete and compares well with other manual SLR systems. Frankly, if I was going to stick with manual SLRs, I'd stick with the OM-1 that I have now. It's compact, has all of the features I want in a manual SLR, and is durable. Mine is 30years old and still working fine. I doubt my N80 will be around in 30 years.

 

Chris

[bill_pearce1]

Chris is dead on, with an addendum.

 

Modern cameras must be AF to be a commercial success. This is even the case in MF. Olympus just didn't even try to make an AF system that could equal the OM.

 

For those of us in the USA, the system was dealt a mortal blow by Olympus of America. The OM10 had a problem (the "oily magnet" situation) that required repair of most all sold. Since this problem generally showed up shortly after the warantee period ended, OM USA chose to not honor claims, despite the fact it was a factory defect. Too many dealers dropped the line, not wanting to deal with VERY mad customers quite so much.

 

Bill Pearce

[richard_oleson]

Another aspect of it, given that Leica and Contax didn't really pursue autofocus either, is that the Olympus manufacturing system was set up for higher volume production than the Leica and Contax lines. They could have continued to produce OM3 and OM4 bodies and lenses at Leica-like prices, but with a high output production line standing idle most of the time, it didn't make sense to keep those resources tied up that way. They had missed the gate badly on the AF revolution and decided to try to jump ahead and get back on the train at the next stop, with an autofocus digital SLR.

 

From what I've seen of the E1, I'm not convinced that they hit the mark with it. It appears to be a good camera, but it doesn't share the OM design philosophy in any way that's obvious to me, and it doesn't appear to be taking the world by storm like the OM system did.

 

:)=

[simon evans.]

Well my OMs are alive and kicking, thankyou. There are loads of cameras still in use that are from 'dead' systems - Anything with an M42 thread, Leica screw RFs, TLRs, Graflex and MPPs to name but a few. Who cares? When the lens won't focus or the shutter won't work <i>that's</i> when it's dead. Until then keep using them.

[ruben_bittermann]

In a future retrospective view, perhaps the interesting thing about the OM system will not be when it was ended by the Olympus company, but how long it survived in spite of not becomming AF. How long it survived in production and how long it survived at demmand by the used consumer market.

Comparizon of the life lenght of the OM system sould not be measured but against Nikon, Cannon, etc, MANUAL FOCUS SLR systems.

 

As for what is "classy", this is a very subjective question, related to anyone's point of view. The Popular Photography magazine held the OM4T for many years as one of the "Top Ten" cameras during the 90's, terming it a "cult camera", and heavily castigating the Leicas for their high selling price.

 

For you, high selling price may be held as a sign of nobility and all that soap following the Brittish royal family.

 

For me, the genious of Mr Maitani, the designer of the many Pen half frame cameras, the Pen half frame SLR system, and finnaly the OM system, his originality and boldness in defying the existing trends, this is whay I would call "classy".

 

I own several OM bodies, many lenses and accessories and I cannot sell them, as for whatever I may gain with a few new pieces,I will loose the advantages of owning a full fledge S Y S T E M, enabling the satisfaction of the most variety of photographic needs and desires

[chanchai_a.]

Well, so how do think about OM2000? One would sell me for about 160USD for 95% cosmetic condition and 2 kit lenses and one 3rd party flash. My existing system? EOS and FD (not a big bag at all and I'm very new and feel that I prefer to use manual focus FD than AF EOS)

 

by the way, thank you very much for your opinion.

 

Chan<div></div>

[andrew robertson]

I think what REALLY happened was that Olympus decided to concentrate on the much

higher volume and higher profit P&S market. You can take a soap bar sized piece of

plastic with a slow, mediocre f/8-f/13 zoom lens, which costs $3.50 to manufacture, and

sell it for $129.99 if it looks cute. If it has a zoom lens and looks cute, that's all you need

to succeed in the P&S market.

 

Contrast with the SLR market - they are far more complicated, the profit margins are far

thinner, they take much more expertise to design and manufacture, and they cost a hell of

a lot more. People couldn't care less if the thing looks cute. They want sturdy

construction, fast lenses, and options.

 

Olympus made a decision to focus on the P&S market. The officers, board members, and

major shareholders are probably rolling in dough because of it. It did seriously tarnish

their previously glowing corporate image, though.

 

I believe that Olympus would be much more well regarded if they had continued making a

limited number of OM bodies. I'm sure they could have afforded to. I don't think any of

the three reasons you listed are even close to the mark.

[tekkie]

I switched to Minolta cameras many years ago due to higher contrast in the lenses and

robust bodies. I have to say though that the the Olympus was a truly magnificent design

victory. Aperture and focus in one area was great. I still wish I had that and I lament

Olympus passing to the mass markets. If there is a company that could get back into a pro

scene this is it.

 

I'm a Minolta 9 owner, Leica owner, Minox lover but I still liked the OM2 and OM4 I had

before. Still thinking about buying my son an OM1.

 

Generally:

I did like my Olympus for portraits.

Hated lack of flash accuracy.

Loved feel and weight ........at that time especially.

 

 

Dan

[frank_oddsocks]

The battery-eating OM-4's that were not recalled or repaired free of charge on presentation can't have helped.

 

Lots of people avoid Japanese products. I think my Olympus cameras, a TV and a pocket calculator are the only Japanese consumer goods I own. From a design point of view, all three annoy me. There was no German calculator, tbe TV was a stopgap and in my judgement the Zuiko lenses were better matched to my needs than the German ones.

[lex_jenkins]

I think Olympus just made the mistake of ignoring Mr. Maitani, who set the standard for the OM system. When Olympus tried to make the transition to digital they didn't have an equivalent young engineer who could think independently and creatively *and* who got the go-ahead from management.

 

Olympus simply forgot what made them successful.

[andrew robertson]

That's a good point, Lex. I would even go as far as stating that Maitani WAS Olympus. He

put them on the map. He designed their most successful products, still sought after

today, long after being discontinued. They are still riding his reputation.

[john_shaeffer1]

Olympus just went another route in AF with the IS series of ZLRs. No way they were going to beat Nikon and Canon anyway, so they carved another niche and made cameras that allowed amateurs to take great photos for a fraction of the price of pro cameras. What's so bad about that?

[andrew robertson]

My mom had the top of the line AF ZLR. It was serviceable, but by no means a great

camera.

 

What's bad about that? They decapitated themselves. The head only accounts for 5-10%

of your total body weight, but you're just meat without it. The same could be said of a

camera company that kills its pro lineup.

[grahams]

Chan

 

An OM2000 may be badged as an Olympus OM camera, but it is not! If you can't afford to buy an OM1 or an OM2 then at least go for an OM20 (OMG) The OM2000 was a marketing "stop-gap" and as far as I know, was not even made by Olympus, but others here may have more accurate info.

[simon evans.]

Graham, the OM2000 was IMHO tantamount to a slur on the OM line. It was made by Cosina, and most OM accessories didn't fit. The two zooms they offered were pretty dull too. Best avoided, an OM1n would be a far better buy - especially in the long term.