Theory on Olympus' Anti IS mindset

[Carraig]

I've been thinking about why Olympus isn't jumping on the bandwagon, and i think I've figured it out. Any review will tell you that the C-2100 was an amazing camera. Extremely good optics, and an excellent IS system. I've seen it heralded as the best 2MP Digicam many times. So might it be that Olympus is afraid that if they make another IS system, it might fall short of their prior success, and their reputation on the C-2100 will be tainted?

Just my thoughts...

What do you think?

HS,
Carraig

 

[erikkfi]

I've never even heard of the C2100.

More likely they don't want to license the technology from Canon, and can't afford to invest the R&D into reverse engineering or coming up with another way to emulate that system.

Minolta just happened to find the other way of doing it.. stabilize the sensor instead of the lens. Now it's probably too late for everyone else.

--

“You will kiss the Gunner’s Daughter! Take him below, Mr. Hendrie, for the makings.”

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

Oly licensed the lens from Canon. Canon probably didn't renew. There is no fear here. Oly is doing what they think they need to do to make money sellings DC's. We are a small part of the overall market here that want this so bad at a reasonable price. If others show they will make a profit, Oly will follow. Oly is not the market leader, they are a market follower, and nothing we do will change that.

I've been thinking about why Olympus isn't jumping on the
bandwagon, and i think I've figured it out. Any review will tell
you that the C-2100 was an amazing camera. Extremely good optics,
and an excellent IS system. I've seen it heralded as the best 2MP
Digicam many times. So might it be that Olympus is afraid that if
they make another IS system, it might fall short of their prior
success, and their reputation on the C-2100 will be tainted?

Just my thoughts...

What do you think?

HS,
Carraig

--
Stinson
C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739

 

[M.A. Caro]

I've never even heard of the C2100.

A search on Google may present you with more than you wiash to read.

Here is a comparison between it ( a 3+ year old 2 megapixel camera ) and the DSLR Canon Drebel>
http://www.pbase.com/wendyo/uzidrebel

Be prepared for the onslaught of the cult members as they descend upon you }; ))))))

Cheers,
Mickey
-- A PICTURE IS WORTH A 1000 WORDS,
but it uses up 1000 times the memory.--
--And it's harder to spellcheck!--

 

[Michael Meissner]

I've been thinking about why Olympus isn't jumping on the
bandwagon, and i think I've figured it out. Any review will tell
you that the C-2100 was an amazing camera. Extremely good optics,
and an excellent IS system. I've seen it heralded as the best 2MP
Digicam many times. So might it be that Olympus is afraid that if
they make another IS system, it might fall short of their prior
success, and their reputation on the C-2100 will be tainted?

Bear in mind, that from Olympus' point of view, the C-2100UZ was a huge FAILURE. Remember it was originally supposed to be a $1,300 camera, and it only had lukewarm sales. Then Olympus had a really bad quarter (or a couple of quarters), and at that time they decided to dump the existing inventory of C-2100UZ's through the CompUSA/Walmart chains. The price started around $700, most of us picked ours up at $500, and I think the last of the buyers got it for $300 or $400. Olympus also firesaled the E-100RS at the same time, mostly through the Fryes stores.

Now, part of the problem is Olympus never really tried to explain to people why the IS would be useful. Obviously if you main sales are through the big box stores (CompUSA, Best Buy, Circuit City, Sears, Walmart, etc.) you need to give people a reason to go for the camera, particularly when it is more expensive, and has less megapixels than the competitor. Another problem that Olympus has, and still has today, is too many of its own cameras each competing for the same limited shelf space.

 

[Darrell Spreen]

As others said, Olympus bought the rights to use the
Canon IS lens on the c2100. They integrated the Canon
design into their Olympus camera body. Canon offered
that lens to the industry for just a short period of time -- only
until they introduced their Pro90. Olympus made a large
run of c2100's and continued to sell their stock until it was
gone. It was announced that the c2100 was discontinued
when the Canon version came out, but the stock lasted
about 8 more months. The E100RS was not considered
to be a direct competitor for the Canon Pro90 because of
it's lower resolution, so it continued in production for about
another 6 months.

The cost of licensing someone else's IS technology would
make a new IS camera from Olympus more expensive than
the competitors unless they had several unique features that
made their model seem more attractive for the extra cost. From
what I know, there are only a few approaches to stabilized
images and Sony, Panasonic, Minolta, and Canon seem to
have the affordable ideas patented. I'm aware of 2 more
schemes that have been used, but they would not be remotely
affordable for a commercial product.

Keep in mind that if a camera has a fast lens and has good
performance at high ISO's, you can use higher shutter speeds
and get almost the same results as the IS cameras at slower
shutter speeds and lower ISO's. You also get the benefit of
stopping faster action with such a camera too.

D

 

[johno135056]

Keep in mind that if a camera has a fast lens and has good
performance at high ISO's, you can use higher shutter speeds
and get almost the same results as the IS cameras at slower
shutter speeds and lower ISO's. You also get the benefit of
stopping faster action with such a camera too.

It's just a matter of time before it is feasible to do the stabilisation digitally. Taking two 1/20s exposures back-to-back instead of 1/10s offers information that can be used to try to reconstruct a blur-free single image. Make it 4 in a sequence and add some smart algorithms plus a fast processor and it will probably beat mechanical stabilisation.. eventually. just wait a few years....

 

[RichardR]

Mickey,

I'd never heard of the C-2100UZ until Summer before last when I joined this forum looking for some information about the C-3000Z I was buying. I'd been camera shopping for months, looking at all brands, and never came across any mention of the UZI. Apparently, by that time, Olympus had given up on the camera as a financial loser and was not spending any marketing money on it.

I, like, Erik, first heard about the camera here. Of course, I soon had to have one and it's the best buy I ever made!

****

--
http://www.pbase.com/richardr
E-10&C-2100UZ&C-3000Z&D-40&D-380&Fuji2600Z
PBase Supporter

 

[M.A. Caro]

and I, like you became intrigued and possesed by the "NEED Demon"!!!

The weather her has been dreadful and I refuse to let my babies be subjected to the elements and have just tinkered indoors with them. Can't wait to get outdoors and put them to better use. They perform indoors better than any of the others that I have, although the Nikon 990 is awfully close except no IS or 10X.

When I do get out of this cocoon Y'all will the first to see the ( hopefully impressive ) results others have exhibited here.

Cheers,
Mickey
-- A PICTURE IS WORTH A 1000 WORDS,
but it uses up 1000 times the memory.--
--And it's harder to spellcheck!--

 

[richx]

Keep in mind that if a camera has a fast lens and has good
performance at high ISO's, you can use higher shutter speeds
and get almost the same results as the IS cameras at slower
shutter speeds and lower ISO's. You also get the benefit of
stopping faster action with such a camera too.

It's just a matter of time before it is feasible to do the
stabilisation digitally. Taking two 1/20s exposures back-to-back
instead of 1/10s offers information that can be used to try to
reconstruct a blur-free single image. Make it 4 in a sequence and
add some smart algorithms plus a fast processor and it will
probably beat mechanical stabilisation.. eventually. just wait a
few years....

I would agree that a fast lens and a clean CCD output at very high ISO equivalent is more useful any day than image stabilization. If Olympus couldn't develop a cheap IS system, they might as well as consider using their 4/3 sensors matched with a F1.4 lens? Hahaha that's going to cost though ...

 

[Inigo Montoya]

It's just a matter of time before it is feasible to do the
stabilisation digitally. Taking two 1/20s exposures back-to-back
instead of 1/10s offers information that can be used to try to
reconstruct a blur-free single image. Make it 4 in a sequence and
add some smart algorithms plus a fast processor and it will
probably beat mechanical stabilisation.. eventually. just wait a
few years....

Hmmm... I'm not so sure about that. I doubt that two separate 1/20s exposures will yield the same exposure as one 1/10s one no matter how much smart processing you do. Although that method does have some merit for creating images with very long effective exposure times:

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/cgi-bin/image.pl?showFileName=ST_IMG_2200_IMG_2211_Potomac_Trails.jpg&gallery=8

 

[Inigo Montoya]

Here is a comparison between it ( a 3+ year old 2 megapixel camera
) and the DSLR Canon Drebel>
http://www.pbase.com/wendyo/uzidrebel

Be prepared for the onslaught of the cult members as they descend
upon you }; ))))))

To quote the author: "All shots unedited, resized for web only."

For web-sized use/viewing, the drebel loses a lot of its advantages. If you don't print (or crop) much, then the extra MP beyond the Uzi's 2.1 don't mean all that much as you'd just be throwing them away as you down-size. Similarly, the great high-ISO / low noise performance of the drebel is lost since even a noisy ISO 400 shot from the Uzi won't look too bad when downsized to 640x480. Take those same images and crop heavily, or print them at 8x10 or higher and the difference should start to show quite readily.

 

[TrapperJohn]

Personally, I don't think IS is that much of an improvement. I look back on the photos I've taken in the last 20 or so years of playing with photography, and camera shake just wasn't an issue. Perhaps with a long telephoto, but then again, with all that extra weight sticking out the front with a serious telephoto, you need a tripod anyway just to get it pointed.

Maybe if you do a lot of sports/action shots, but for everything else, it just doesn't enhance the operation that much. I can think of a lot of other areas where the R&D expenditure would yield more tangible benefits. And, so it would appear, does Olympus.

 

[Adam-T]

/ low noise performance of the drebel is lost since even a noisy
ISO 400 shot from the Uzi won't look too bad when downsized to
640x480

Actually "Noisy" UZI ISO400 shots look incredibly clean next to the Rubbish which spews out of the 5Mp Digicams at that ISO and the 8Mp ones Snowstorm at ISO100 ! .. Amazing how perception changes, I regard the UZI at ISO400 as very usable thesedays

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 

[Dimitrios]

Maybe if you do a lot of sports/action shots, but for everything
else, it just doesn't enhance the operation that much. I can think
of a lot of other areas where the R&D expenditure would yield more
tangible benefits. And, so it would appear, does Olympus.

I don't think so. Depending on the shooting style, there are quite a few other cases where there is a camera shake risk AND action photography is not involved. Examples:
-in a museum/church etc where tripods and flashes are forbidden
-shooting under poor sunlight because you don't have a second chance
-Using slow sync flash
etc

Dslrs are much steadier due to size and weight. Smaller digicams can benefit from their short focal lengths (so they are inherently "brighter") but their holding is not as steady as with of any bulky dslr.
--
Dimitrios

 

[Inigo Montoya]

Yes, compared to "most" 5MP digicams, but the comparison was to a drebel/300D, which from what I've seen is very clean in comparison.

/ low noise performance of the drebel is lost since even a noisy
ISO 400 shot from the Uzi won't look too bad when downsized to
640x480

Actually "Noisy" UZI ISO400 shots look incredibly clean next to the
Rubbish which spews out of the 5Mp Digicams at that ISO and the 8Mp
ones Snowstorm at ISO100 ! .. Amazing how perception changes, I
regard the UZI at ISO400 as very usable thesedays

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist