Raist3d wrote:
Pardon my ignorance,[] ... As much as I try, I see no evidence in what mr Watanabe said to back your theory up. He remains vague, at best.
That is true, you don't know which backgrounds we have. But that's not really necessary. We know that the Olympus engineers by the feats the have done like in-body IS, the fantastic JPEG engine of the E-3/Pen, and several numerous things, have at least in terms of being smart. So the point is, if it's easy to do why would they not do it? That's the point.
As for what Watanabe said, I think it's pretty clear, sorry we don't see the same thing.
That doesn't change one bit if Olympus believed it was "good enough" and within expected results before going to production and getting a lukewarm welcome. I'm thinking it's unlikely they really stated this from day one, in the press release fanfare, that their AF needed a work up.
They admitted it's an area they needed to work on, and it's there, you can read it, you can look at it. As for Olympus believing this or that, besides the fact they themselves admitted they are aware of more work to be done in this area, isn't it obvious that if you are trying to put out a camera system in a market where another company (Panasonic) got the AF fast and has been praised for that as a key selling benefit, would you think they would really be that dumb, to ignore that?
Again, i am going with what seems to me far more plausible explanations.
[]
Please, be kind not to comment simple rhetoric just for the sake of it.
I am sorry but I am not believing that's what I did. We were talking about a claim for simplicity of implementation and I found it switched to a personal preference. Fine, for you, it's not an issue apparently.
I was only trying to explain how what seemed to be a major issue at first turned out to be almost trivial later in my case. A point of view that could have been shared by the design team (e.g. less a priority)?
But here we go again with what is more plausible. If that is the case why bother improving auto focus at all? Why would a company put out a camera with less AF speed than someone who already did it 8 months (a year?) earlier and got very good comments on that end? And again, it's not important to you but it sure seems important to many others.
What seems then a more plausible explanation, than the one that you don't care much for it, therefore it's likely the design team shared those?
[]
I hate to ask this but what if Olympus decided to allocate resources on E-P2 development, deciding to add the faster AF (software or hardware, or both) as a new bullet on the feature list to help boost its launch?
That can certainly happen. I mean, it's part of what I have said all along Olympus said- working on future models.
Surely, the E-P2 might have been developed in parallel as a branch and might be a largely upgraded camera with newer components -too early to tell- but on the other hand, leaks show us a camera with very minor cosmetic changes, just adding a new connector being released just 4 months later.
That can also certainly happen. Not sure how this changes what we are saying though. I mean, if a new model has faster AF that's certainly quite the plausible possibility. It's the kind of thing that one can expect of a new model to address critiques of the first. And also it may not improve much which means there's more work to be done. Either in this case is quite plausible.
But the whole point I brought up was on simplicity of the algorithm, and gave reasons why I don't buy it's that simple.
I know you haven't said we'd see that upgrade in the EP2
Or maybe Olympus' team of engineering are complete incompetent fools and the JPEG engine was actually the product of Kodak sub contracting or such. Now, that's certainly a possibility, just like I believe it's possible the Halley commet will crash on Earth on the next orbit... everything's possible ;-)
Come on.
Come on is right! That's why I mentioned that analogy. That's how I feel some of these comments of "much faster AF is easy to do so the original Pen will probably get an upgrade for that" are.
[]
You're reading way too much into these, IMHO.
No, I don't think I am. Sorry but as someone who works in a software industry and has been privvy to manufacturing and roadmaps of some big companies like Motorla and IBM, that seems quite plausible.
Now of course, you don't have to believe me I have that knowledge, my only objection is to whether I am "reading too much into it" or not.
[]
Again, drop the very slightly demeaning tone. Even if my sentence seems ambiguous. I was not referring to my need to upgrade... I just think one should remain critical with improvement introduced as a new product feature.
My point when I said that, is that whether someone need to upgrade or not is not relevant to the discussion.
Interestingly, I don't think I [] ... but I'm yet to convince about how nothing could be done to make cdaf faster right now because of hardware limitations.
My point is not that there's absolutely nothing that can be done. You brought Duartix's claims to the discussion, so I felt the necessity to explain why i don't buy them and gave reasons. Moreover, I am saying that it's more plausible at this point that the answer lies in some hardware limits more than firmware and that it isn't "very likely" they can really improve it in the order of magnitude we are seeing Panasonic do.
--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
