Can't wait for the E-3 fun to begin

Barry Fitzgerald · Aug 20, 2007

DougJGreen said:
Yup, As soon as the sensors get SMALLER. The reason that
electronics get cheap is that they keep getting smaller.

So flatscreen tv's just got smaller yes? or dvd recorders?

DougJGreen said:
Exactly, all that needs to happen is that people need to stop
clinging to large, archaic formats, and get the smaller stuff to take
advantage of those economics you cited.

What economics. I am not saying 4/3 is not good enough, it is. I say its not economical enough. If Oly save cash using a smaller sensor, why does the uk buyer not see this?

I dont mind the idea of a smaller, lighter 4/3 camera, but I aint paying more than APS to get it! Pretty simple really! Why pay more for less?

DougJGreen said:
DougJGreen said:

Not a case of if..but "when"

Click to expand...

Agreed - it's not a case of IF full frame sensors eventually go away,
but When.

I think you are living in fantasy land. FF is not going away, its going to get bigger, and 1.25 crop will be here soon enough. Then prices fall. Gonna happen, head in sand or not.

Oly can still carry on, but they will have to start charging less.

I dont need FF, you might not..wont stop it happening.
--

Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)

Bill Force · Aug 20, 2007

"Bull feathers", you never agree to anything sensible.

Barry's nature is a "stink stirrer". If he were to encounter a nice quit cesspool sitting idle and not bothering anybody, he would get a stick and stir it up just to make it stink"!

OH, by the way, please bring Clint back, he made a lot more sense.
--

' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out of what you do have'.

DougJGreen · Aug 20, 2007

Barry Fitzgerald said:
Member said:

Yup, As soon as the sensors get SMALLER. The reason that
electronics get cheap is that they keep getting smaller.

Click to expand...

So flatscreen tv's just got smaller yes? or dvd recorders?

Yep, the electronics certainly did - and the technologies changed as well.

Member said:
Member said:

Exactly, all that needs to happen is that people need to stop
clinging to large, archaic formats, and get the smaller stuff to take
advantage of those economics you cited.

Click to expand...

What economics. I am not saying 4/3 is not good enough, it is. I say
its not economical enough. If Oly save cash using a smaller sensor,
why does the uk buyer not see this?

Probably because the UK is an island, isolated from the civilized world, and still worshiping government institutions that pre-date the printing press. Everywhere else on earth, 4/3 cameras are cheaper than the feature equivalent APS-C cameras. You seem awfully hung up on pricing in the UK. It's time for you to recognize that this is an aberration, probably caused by some distributor with an exclusive monopoly.

I can, right now, go out and buy an E-330 with 2 lenses for $550, or an E-410 for $700. If I can put up with an older model, I can get an E-500 with 2 lenses for $400.

Member said:
I dont mind the idea of a smaller, lighter 4/3 camera, but I aint
paying more than APS to get it! Pretty simple really! Why pay more
for less?

I agree, you'd have to be daft - especially when 4/3 cameras cost less than APS-C cameras everywhere else on the planet.

Member said:
Member said:

Member said:

Not a case of if..but "when"

Click to expand...

Agreed - it's not a case of IF full frame sensors eventually go away,
but When.

Click to expand...

I think you are living in fantasy land. FF is not going away, its
going to get bigger, and 1.25 crop will be here soon enough. Then
prices fall. Gonna happen, head in sand or not.

Only problem is, you cannot manufacture a full frame sensor for less than $500 right now, and that number is going UP, not down, because of the aforementioned economics.

Member said:
Oly can still carry on, but they will have to start charging less.

News flash - they already do - everywhere else except your ancient little island.

Member said:
I dont need FF, you might not..wont stop it happening.

I agree, neither my needs, nor yours will stop it - But the manufacturing technology WILL.

Barry Fitzgerald · Aug 20, 2007

I think you have some anti british issues going on here. You would do well to not throw comments about that involve where a person is from. Also, if you know any bit of history at all, you will notice that your little insults have little meaning. Yes I am a british citizen, but I am not of Anglo Saxon blood, you on the other hand, probably are!

http://www.searchforancestors.com/surnames/origin/f/fitzgerald.php

So stop insulting yourself! Unless you feel Green is spanish?

http://www.ancestry.com/learn/facts/Fact.aspx?cj=1&sid=originsnamesb&fid=10&ln=green&o_xid=0000703401&o_lid=0000703401

Want to get back on topic now?

--

Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)

paultakeda · Aug 20, 2007

Jono Slack said:
Especially when that larger sensor means:

1. larger file sizes (more storage)

Not really. This is more resolution-based, and as Doug has proselytized: smaller, smaller, smaller. This means cramming more MP into the sensor (whether we want it or not), and that means larger file sizes. Of course, RAW files are now no longer "RAW", as they are now compressed since the E-410.

Jono Slack said:
2. larger lenses (more weight in the bag)

True. The best thing about 4/3 is that it has delivered on the promise about reducing size and weight in the lenses. The new 40-150, giving someone a 300mm@35mm reach, is impressive.

Jono Slack said:
3. more expense (more expensive bodies and lenses)

Bodies... well, if you include the sensor, yes. Lenses, if we're still using glass, then yeah, a lot of glass.

paultakeda · Aug 20, 2007

Barry Fitzgerald said:
Oh I think it will!

Why? Look at processors, once expensive..now even the budget ones
cost little, and breeze through most apps with ease.

Look at anything electronics wise..time goes on, prices tumble..big
time. History teaches us a lot on prices.

This supports Doug's position more than yours. The reason they got cheaper is because the manufacturing process got cheaper and uses less material. New microprocessors can stamp finer circuits... things got smaller, faster and with more efficient manufacturing, cheaper. If the manufacturing process goes smaller and smaller, a large area imager like 35mm becomes an exotic in the plant, making it pricier.

Barry Fitzgerald · Aug 20, 2007

paultakeda said:
This supports Doug's position more than yours. The reason they got
cheaper is because the manufacturing process got cheaper and uses
less material. New microprocessors can stamp finer circuits...
things got smaller, faster and with more efficient manufacturing,
cheaper. If the manufacturing process goes smaller and smaller, a
large area imager like 35mm becomes an exotic in the plant, making it
pricier.

Over say the last 5 years, what has happened to the cost of digital cameras?

More specific, over the last couple of years, in particular DSLR cameras?

How is it pentax can sell a 6mp APS sensor SLR for in the uk under £299?

We know ff costs more to produce, but considering that £299 gets you an SLR, whcih even a few years ago, you would have got a compact sensor camera for that.

I think its a never ending cycle..to a point.
--

Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)

DougJGreen · Aug 20, 2007

Barry Fitzgerald said:
I think you have some anti british issues going on here. You would do
well to not throw comments about that involve where a person is from.
Also, if you know any bit of history at all, you will notice that
your little insults have little meaning. Yes I am a british citizen,
but I am not of Anglo Saxon blood, you on the other hand, probably
are!

Nope - Eastern European ancestry. The name Green was a shortened, Anglicanized version courtesy of a bureaucrat on Ellis Island in the early 1900s.

Member said:
Want to get back on topic now?

My replies HAVE been on topic. I merely pointed out that your issues with Olympus pricing were anomalous outliers and irrelevant, as they were not based on what Olympus actually charged for their products, but were, rather, an artifact of broken distribution channel into the UK.

DougJGreen · Aug 20, 2007

Barry Fitzgerald said:
paultakeda said:

This supports Doug's position more than yours. The reason they got
cheaper is because the manufacturing process got cheaper and uses
less material. New microprocessors can stamp finer circuits...
things got smaller, faster and with more efficient manufacturing,
cheaper. If the manufacturing process goes smaller and smaller, a
large area imager like 35mm becomes an exotic in the plant, making it
pricier.

Click to expand...

Over say the last 5 years, what has happened to the cost of digital
cameras?

Funny, but the cost of Full Frame digital sensors, and Full Frame DSLRs have not declined AT ALL since Canon introduced the 5D 3 years ago.

Member said:
More specific, over the last couple of years, in particular DSLR
cameras?

All except Full Frame DSLRs, that's true. Even Medium Format Backs have come down in price. But not Full 35mm frame cameras. Not one single price cut since the 5D was introduced 3 full years ago.

Member said:
How is it pentax can sell a 6mp APS sensor SLR for in the uk under £299?

Through cost reduction of a competitive process, and aggressive competitive pressure. Oh, and BTW, Olympus sells a couple of 8 MP 4/3 DSLRs for even less, (The E-330 and E-500) everywhere else in the world besides where you live.

Member said:
We know ff costs more to produce, but considering that £299 gets you
an SLR, whcih even a few years ago, you would have got a compact
sensor camera for that.

I think its a never ending cycle..to a point.

And in terms of Full 35mm Frame sensors, we have reached that point.

Michael Meissner · Aug 20, 2007

jeffb89061 said:
http://www.jeffbobeck.com/images/trolling800.jpg

Very nice.

Barry Fitzgerald · Aug 20, 2007

DougJGreen said:
Funny, but the cost of Full Frame digital sensors, and Full Frame
DSLRs have not declined AT ALL since Canon introduced the 5D 3 years
ago.

2 years ago..really?

List price was £2500 odd.....

http://www.pricerunner.co.uk/pl/29-453625/Digital-Cameras/Canon-EOS-5D-Black-Compare-Prices

DougJGreen said:
All except Full Frame DSLRs, that's true. Even Medium Format Backs
have come down in price. But not Full 35mm frame cameras. Not one
single price cut since the 5D was introduced 3 full years ago.

2 years ago. Its come down in price a fair bit. Now about £1500.

DougJGreen said:
DougJGreen said:

How is it pentax can sell a 6mp APS sensor SLR for in the uk under £299?

Click to expand...

Through cost reduction of a competitive process, and aggressive
competitive pressure. Oh, and BTW, Olympus sells a couple of 8 MP
4/3 DSLRs for even less, (The E-330 and E-500) everywhere else in the
world besides where you live.

You think oly will dump production? I do..stock clearance time.

DougJGreen said:
And in terms of Full 35mm Frame sensors, we have reached that point.

Just the start I am afraid..still its good though, because it helps drive prices "down"
--

Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)

Oly Scenes · Aug 20, 2007

John Ellis said:
There is nothing even close to challenge Oly here so far. And of
course, with FF, you lose the free telephoto effect of smaller
sensors anyway and then you are right back to those monster, slower
lenses again.

Agreed! (with one exception - in regards to focal lengths, FF, and crop factors)

Now that Canon has 20+ megapixels in a FF sensor, couldn't they achieve similar results by merely cropping away the "outer" 10 MP? That would give them the "2x crop factor" that Olympus already has. So in essence, a 1DsMkIII body with a 300mm f/2.8 lens is roughly the equivalent of an E-400 (or 410)?

Wow! I think I'll stick with Ohleempoos!
--
Oly Scenes

DougJGreen · Aug 20, 2007

Barry Fitzgerald said:
DougJGreen said:

Funny, but the cost of Full Frame digital sensors, and Full Frame
DSLRs have not declined AT ALL since Canon introduced the 5D 3 years
ago.

Click to expand...

2 years ago..really?

List price was £2500 odd.....

Again, you are using anomalous UK pricing that has no basis in the rest of the world. When the 5D was introduced in the U.S., it was priced at $2999, and you could get it for $2500. Now, in the U.S., that's STILL the price - same as it was when it was brand new.

So, in fact, it has not come down at all, in the market that determines these things.

Member said:
2 years ago. Its come down in price a fair bit. Now about £1500.

Only because you in the UK were being gouged initially. In the U.S., it has not come down at all.

Member said:
Member said:

Member said:

How is it pentax can sell a 6mp APS sensor SLR for in the uk under £299?

Click to expand...

Through cost reduction of a competitive process, and aggressive
competitive pressure. Oh, and BTW, Olympus sells a couple of 8 MP
4/3 DSLRs for even less, (The E-330 and E-500) everywhere else in the
world besides where you live.

Click to expand...

You think oly will dump production? I do..stock clearance time.

No, I think that the E-330 and E-500 are already priced as low as they will go before being discontinued.

erichK · Aug 20, 2007

John Ellis said:
Until the rest of the manufacturers downsize their long lenses to
APS, I can't see ever going back to them. Carrying around a N
400/2.8 on a D200 with a tripod and ballhead to match is twice the
mass of an Oly outfit. And you know what? I don't see anybody
downsizing, either, except maybe Pentax giviing a feeble start with a
few, but the longest on their roadmap to date is a 300/4. And of
course, N/C promise nothing, so I am very happy with my E510, my
300/2.8 and 90-250/2.8 Oly glass for tele (ie, bird) work. Can't
wait for the E3.

The mobility of these outfits let me get vastly more birds deep in
the forest that I ever could, very easily hiking two miles or more
into the nearby Shenandoah National forest with ease. I also can
quickly lift my Oly rig, tripod and all, up into the air and take a
picture, now that I have IS. I dumped my HumVee and its machine gun
mount along with my massive Nikon rig, saving a fortune. Couldn't
drive in in the forest, anyway, so it was worthless.

There is nothing even close to challenge Oly here so far. And of
course, with FF, you lose the free telephoto effect of smaller
sensors anyway and then you are right back to those monster, slower
lenses again. This is the most important thing to me. Wide anglers
may not feel this way, and that's a valid aspect to consider.
John Ellis

You take great pictures, but perhaps it's time you updated your profile a bit, Dr. John!

cheers!
--
erichK
saskatoon, canada

erichK · Aug 20, 2007

smokeyjoe said:
Then again, I paid $85. CDN for a simple little Olympus cable release
(yes, I was robbed) but you don't hear me b*tching about it, or
trolling the Canon/Nikon/Pentax, etc. forums to say that my cable
release is far superior to theirs. Heh-heh.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/58453489@N00/

I feel the same way about paying the same for the same...and for me, the most convincing part of the leaked PP presentation was the gloating comments about how the new camera would help dealers to sell more (overpriced) accessories!

OTOH, as a career counselor, I do know how that good engineers are expensive! Guess they've gotta make their $ somewhere.

So maybe we'll get a $1200 E-pro that needs a $150 cable release and $110 screens and $60 eyecups, etcetera ;-) !

--
erichK
saskatoon, canada

habbakkuk · Aug 20, 2007

Reichmann.

Pretty funny. The Olympus forum alone gets what? .... a thousand times more trafic than his site? I quit reading Reichmann when he floated off into the rarified air of $30K backs on $20k cameras.

paultakeda · Aug 20, 2007

Barry Fitzgerald said:
Over say the last 5 years, what has happened to the cost of digital
cameras?

To some degree, the cost has shifted, but not by much. What has changed is what you get for your money. The $200 compact camera sporting 1.3MP is now 6MP with more features jammed into an even smaller body. The introduction of consumer-level DSLRs introduced a new price point, but professional bodies have remained more or less constant in price. Again, the difference is more bang for buck -- better sensors, more features, new designs, etc. But note, these better sensors are not trending towards becoming bigger. No, they either stay the same or get even smaller. Just because the price of a 2/3" sensor is now cheaper than it was five years ago does not mean that the compact cameras now sport 2/3" sensors. No, they're still on 1/2.5" or 1/2". The trend is towards maintaining or going smaller.

35mm sensors will remain expensive because demand will never require it to become cheaper, because no cameras aspire to increase sensor size.

Rriley · Aug 20, 2007

the sensor costs and production outlays have been settled to an optimum
there are few if any more efficiencies that changing wafer handling can make

there are also no 'over the horizon' technologies that can affect sensor cost outcomes

so companies have worked at offering cameras to price points, albeit low/medium/high scales. To hold a price point cameras are either heavily featured (eg 510) or defeatured (eg D40)

in the end it is the featurelist which can market well, is there proof ?
the latest offerings by Canon have largish sensors without being FF
they sell on their impressive performance features

as the pixel pitch is comparable to APS C pixel pitch, the main advantage of large sensors, that of high iso noise performance, is negated. They wont be much better than APS C.

Conclude that features outsell noise performance at high iso (which is just a few percent of average shooting anyway) Therefore features do more to characterise a brands position than purely noise performance. This actually could be the final nail in the notion of FF sensor consumer cameras.
--
Riley

real men get zippo haircuts

smokeyjoe · Aug 20, 2007

This is great guys. You're both proving how foolishly stubborn you can be.

I started this thread as an example of how ridiculous things can get, and you're both helping to prove my point.

In a perfect world, I, as author of this thread would have supreme power to ban you both, and send you back to your rooms without any supper.

Unfortunately, as the world is far from perfect, I'll just have to take some consolation in the fact that I can marvel at your lunacy.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/58453489@N00/

Melbourne Park · Aug 20, 2007

Barry Fitzgerald said:
What economics. I am not saying 4/3 is not good enough, it is. I say
its not economical enough.

Barry, the cameras are cheaper, and better too. Compare the ratio of lens to body, from a few years ago, and you'll understand.

Why don't Oly sell their 4/3 cameras cheaper in the UK than Canon do their comparable cameras? Because they don't have to Barry. Would you sell something cheap if you could sell it at a higher price?

Olympus have a differentiated strategy Barry - they are appealing to various sectors or niches of the market where they have a competitive advantage. In those markets, Olympus can sell for handy profits, so too the dealers, and the customers get a camera with some advantages that suits their needs.

Thank goodness Olympus is 4/3: if they were APS, a whole lot of happy users would have a lot less choice, having to buy from the other 4/3 providers instead of having the much wider choice available thanks to Olympus also providing the 4/3 standard.

Can't wait for the E-3 fun to begin

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Active member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts