peripheralfocus
Veteran Member
One of the primary points of emphasis when the 4/3rds format was jointly announced by Olympus and Kodak was the overall system's potential for compactness.
The simple, incontrovertible fact is that most of the old Nikon/Canon stuff works just fine in the digital era. Roughly 95% of the world's professional photographers prove it everyday. I don't doubt that there are some theoretical advantages to the Olympus optical geometry, but if the "inferior" old systems are making better 30 x 40 prints -- and they are -- what difference does it make?
I'm not trying to sound harsh about Olympus -- I own an E-1, like it a lot, like the E-system, don't intend to change anytime soon, and would like to see Olympus continue to do well -- I like their innovative camera design mindset (and am bored to tears by the Canon/Nikon way of doing things). But I am impatient with empty marketing claims, no matter who makes them.
And the E-1, until recently, was the only camera designed for hard use and serious work that was reasonable in size (in large part because it doesn't have a built-in vertical grip, thank God). The EOS 20D was a partial exception to that, and now the D200 and the Pentax K10D are also partial exceptions. But I hope the E-3, or whatever it is, continues in the reasonably-sized tradition of the E-1.
The whole "digital from the ground up" concept has no real meaning and never has. There is nothing stopping Canon and Nikon et. al. from designing for digital. They have been aggressively doing so since long before Olympus got into the interchangeable lens DSLR business. The fact that most of their designed-for-analog gear also works with digital cameras is a bonus not a drawback, even if there can be some specific drawbacks with some gear sometimes. They could come up with their own empty slogan: "Digital and Analog: The Best of Both".
The simple, incontrovertible fact is that most of the old Nikon/Canon stuff works just fine in the digital era. Roughly 95% of the world's professional photographers prove it everyday. I don't doubt that there are some theoretical advantages to the Olympus optical geometry, but if the "inferior" old systems are making better 30 x 40 prints -- and they are -- what difference does it make?
I'm not trying to sound harsh about Olympus -- I own an E-1, like it a lot, like the E-system, don't intend to change anytime soon, and would like to see Olympus continue to do well -- I like their innovative camera design mindset (and am bored to tears by the Canon/Nikon way of doing things). But I am impatient with empty marketing claims, no matter who makes them.
Well, a) more Olympus cameras should be smaller than their counterparts (Olympus has failed to fully capitalize on this advantage) and b) despite not fully exploiting their size advantage, an Olympus system generally is, in fact, a fair bit smaller than a Nikon or Canon one, if you consider the lenses you'll need to cover equivalent angles-of-view.
And the E-1, until recently, was the only camera designed for hard use and serious work that was reasonable in size (in large part because it doesn't have a built-in vertical grip, thank God). The EOS 20D was a partial exception to that, and now the D200 and the Pentax K10D are also partial exceptions. But I hope the E-3, or whatever it is, continues in the reasonably-sized tradition of the E-1.
