Fabulous Start - this sounds like a great camera

Tony Ku · Jun 24, 2003

BS.

Angle of incidence means less CA? Ever see those little small sensor cameras with horrible CAs? Smaller sensor doesn't mean less CA. It's all about the lens and since the lens is scaled down, it's still the same issues.

Let's see... do i want to trust Canon's sensor department or Kodak's? Canon has been doing this for YEARS with their semiconductor division. Kodak? Take a look at their Kodak 14n and you'll get the message.

The E-1 lens prices are a joke, much more expensive than other lenses from other manufacturers and aren't better than either Niklon or Canon glass

Jono Slack said:
I've spent half the day with negative (and often ill-informed)
messages about this camera.

But it seems to me that they have actually addressed the real
issues with digital slrs, rather than what seems to be what people
around here were expecting i.e. a small, cheap, dslr.

Having read a number of 'previews' and also gone through the specs
in some details it seems to me that it has some great
characteristics which should provide great image quality and
handling, and which have gone rather un-noticed.

1. the sensor - photosite size
if this is what it's cracked up to be, the extra fill factor should
make the effective size of the photosites larger than the D100 or
10D; this should give us low noise. The angle of incidence of light
should mean minimal CA and edge to edge sharpness.

2. the sensor - dynamic range
This is what seems to me to be the most desirable feature of all -
it's what I want, and if what they say about the sensor is true,
then this is a big leap forward, and worth it's purchase price on
it's own.

3. the body
weatherproof body and lenses, smaller than the competition, full
metal body

4. speed
measured speed seems to be 3.3 fps with a 12 shot buffer, and
reasonably good write times.

5. firewire
Having got used to this on my D1X I think it's really important
(haven't even seen it mentioned here though).

None of these features is earth-shattering on it's own, and maybe
that's the reason for the disappointment so prevalent around here.
But if it lives up to the promise, and the images really have low
noise and a big dynamic range - I want one.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

iamphil · Jun 24, 2003

Tony Ku said:
Let's see... do i want to trust Canon's sensor department or
Kodak's? Canon has been doing this for YEARS with their
semiconductor division. Kodak? Take a look at their Kodak 14n and
you'll get the message.

Kodak didn't make the sensor in the 14n.

Tony Ku said:
The E-1 lens prices are a joke, much more expensive than other
lenses from other manufacturers and aren't better than either
Niklon or Canon glass

MSRP looks to be similar when comparing comparable lenses.

Kevin Blair · Jun 24, 2003

Tony,

For what it's worth, Kodak has been making sensors for a lot longer that Canon has.

You're not the first person that assumes the 14n sensor is made by Kodak. It isn't. I'd be worried if the sensor in the E-1 was a CMOS because outside of Canon, there isn't a lot of manufacturing expertise. However, it's not. Kodak has plenty of expertise in building CCD sensors, both full-frame and interline versions.

Kevin

Tony Ku said:
Angle of incidence means less CA? Ever see those little small
sensor cameras with horrible CAs? Smaller sensor doesn't mean less
CA. It's all about the lens and since the lens is scaled down,
it's still the same issues.

Let's see... do i want to trust Canon's sensor department or
Kodak's? Canon has been doing this for YEARS with their
semiconductor division. Kodak? Take a look at their Kodak 14n and
you'll get the message.

The E-1 lens prices are a joke, much more expensive than other
lenses from other manufacturers and aren't better than either
Niklon or Canon glass

Jono Slack said:

I've spent half the day with negative (and often ill-informed)
messages about this camera.

But it seems to me that they have actually addressed the real
issues with digital slrs, rather than what seems to be what people
around here were expecting i.e. a small, cheap, dslr.

Having read a number of 'previews' and also gone through the specs
in some details it seems to me that it has some great
characteristics which should provide great image quality and
handling, and which have gone rather un-noticed.

1. the sensor - photosite size
if this is what it's cracked up to be, the extra fill factor should
make the effective size of the photosites larger than the D100 or
10D; this should give us low noise. The angle of incidence of light
should mean minimal CA and edge to edge sharpness.

2. the sensor - dynamic range
This is what seems to me to be the most desirable feature of all -
it's what I want, and if what they say about the sensor is true,
then this is a big leap forward, and worth it's purchase price on
it's own.

3. the body
weatherproof body and lenses, smaller than the competition, full
metal body

4. speed
measured speed seems to be 3.3 fps with a 12 shot buffer, and
reasonably good write times.

5. firewire
Having got used to this on my D1X I think it's really important
(haven't even seen it mentioned here though).

None of these features is earth-shattering on it's own, and maybe
that's the reason for the disappointment so prevalent around here.
But if it lives up to the promise, and the images really have low
noise and a big dynamic range - I want one.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

digital_ray_of_light · Jun 24, 2003

If those guys join 4/3rds, they may actually get help/specs from Olympus, so they don't have to reverse engineer everything. This is probably the most likely way they would get into 4/3rds - at least initially...

.... or Fujinon Digital Specific Lens!

Jason Busch said:
digital_ray_of_light,

Yeah, but I'm not fond of Tamron or Tokina lenses. Of all the three
you mentioned, I think Sigma has a better foot into
lesser-expensive quality lenses. But, that could all change. I'm
certainly willing to see what the other guys have to offer. What
really sounds weird, is saying, "Fuji Lens".

--
http://www.digitaldingus.com
http://pub103.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity

digital_ray_of_light · Jun 24, 2003

the sensor in the DCS-14n was a CMOS, from belgian company FillFactory, and there were a couple of other int'l companies involved.

Kodak has been making rather successful CCDs for a long long time...

Tony Ku said:
Angle of incidence means less CA? Ever see those little small
sensor cameras with horrible CAs? Smaller sensor doesn't mean less
CA. It's all about the lens and since the lens is scaled down,
it's still the same issues.

Let's see... do i want to trust Canon's sensor department or
Kodak's? Canon has been doing this for YEARS with their
semiconductor division. Kodak? Take a look at their Kodak 14n and
you'll get the message.

The E-1 lens prices are a joke, much more expensive than other
lenses from other manufacturers and aren't better than either
Niklon or Canon glass

Jono Slack said:

I've spent half the day with negative (and often ill-informed)
messages about this camera.

But it seems to me that they have actually addressed the real
issues with digital slrs, rather than what seems to be what people
around here were expecting i.e. a small, cheap, dslr.

Having read a number of 'previews' and also gone through the specs
in some details it seems to me that it has some great
characteristics which should provide great image quality and
handling, and which have gone rather un-noticed.

1. the sensor - photosite size
if this is what it's cracked up to be, the extra fill factor should
make the effective size of the photosites larger than the D100 or
10D; this should give us low noise. The angle of incidence of light
should mean minimal CA and edge to edge sharpness.

2. the sensor - dynamic range
This is what seems to me to be the most desirable feature of all -
it's what I want, and if what they say about the sensor is true,
then this is a big leap forward, and worth it's purchase price on
it's own.

3. the body
weatherproof body and lenses, smaller than the competition, full
metal body

4. speed
measured speed seems to be 3.3 fps with a 12 shot buffer, and
reasonably good write times.

5. firewire
Having got used to this on my D1X I think it's really important
(haven't even seen it mentioned here though).

None of these features is earth-shattering on it's own, and maybe
that's the reason for the disappointment so prevalent around here.
But if it lives up to the promise, and the images really have low
noise and a big dynamic range - I want one.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

jeff-c · Jun 24, 2003

Jono Slack said:
But it seems to me that they have actually addressed the real
issues with digital slrs, rather than what seems to be what people
around here were expecting i.e. a small, cheap, dslr.
...
1. the sensor - photosite size

1D, 1Ds, D1X all have similar photosite size, even 10D and D100 are similar so what is the issue?

Jono Slack said:
2. the sensor - dynamic range

Remain to be proven

Jono Slack said:
3. the body

So does 1D, 1Ds, 10D, D1X, D1H

Jono Slack said:
4. speed

Nothing revolutionary. In the same range of current DSLR's. 1D is much better and far less than the rumored D2H specs.

Jono Slack said:
5. firewire

Do does 1D, 1Ds, D1X, D1H, S2 Pro, SD-9

At best you can say E-1 is matching some of the current DSLR's, some of which are pro models.

In marketing this is called a failed attempt for new product. You will need at least two times better performance and half the cost than current products in order to win. Just on par with current products won't get you anywhere further than dealer's stocking warehouse (if you can find someone to stock them).

Llarian · Jun 24, 2003

Sooo, uh, let me get this straight.

In order to achieve any market penetration, I would need a 22MP full-frame sensor that can do 18 fps for 3 seconds that's capable of flushing its buffer in 8 seconds. Oh, and it would need to cost $800, with lenses no more than $1500 for a 600mm F2.0.

...

Hey, I'd buy it. I guess you're right, that must be what's required.

(I'm hoping that was obvious hyperbole on both our parts, but since you sounded pretty serious about that, I figured I'd point out how ridiculous that is. Is the E-1 capable of achieving any market penetration? Maybe, maybe not, dunno yet. But your "requirements" are ridiculous.)

-Dylan

Member said:
In marketing this is called a failed attempt for new product. You
will need at least two times better performance and half the cost
than current products in order to win. Just on par with current
products won't get you anywhere further than dealer's stocking
warehouse (if you can find someone to stock them).

Jon Ragnarsson · Jun 24, 2003

So what would be a marketing success? 16fps? 100 photo buffer? In what way could the body be better? (You are comparing it to the top guns of Canon/Nikon, after all)

And what would you have put in the camera instead of IEEE1394? 100Mbp TCP/IP stack? So the first Olympus system DSLR matches some top of the line offers from other manufactures for up to quarter of the price. Pretty good if you ask me.

I think we are going to see slower progress in the DSLR arena, we will se more evolution and less revolution.
J.

Jeff-C said:
Member said:

But it seems to me that they have actually addressed the real
issues with digital slrs, rather than what seems to be what people
around here were expecting i.e. a small, cheap, dslr.
...
1. the sensor - photosite size

Click to expand...

1D, 1Ds, D1X all have similar photosite size, even 10D and D100 are
similar so what is the issue?

Member said:

2. the sensor - dynamic range

Click to expand...

Remain to be proven

Member said:

3. the body

Click to expand...

So does 1D, 1Ds, 10D, D1X, D1H

Member said:

4. speed

Click to expand...

Nothing revolutionary. In the same range of current DSLR's. 1D is
much better and far less than the rumored D2H specs.

Member said:

5. firewire

Click to expand...

Do does 1D, 1Ds, D1X, D1H, S2 Pro, SD-9

At best you can say E-1 is matching some of the current DSLR's,
some of which are pro models.

In marketing this is called a failed attempt for new product. You
will need at least two times better performance and half the cost
than current products in order to win. Just on par with current
products won't get you anywhere further than dealer's stocking
warehouse (if you can find someone to stock them).

--
http://jonr.beecee.org/

percy57157 · Jun 24, 2003

Jono Slack said:
1. the sensor - photosite size
if this is what it's cracked up to be, the extra fill factor should
make the effective size of the photosites larger than the D100 or
10D; this should give us low noise. The angle of incidence of light
should mean minimal CA and edge to edge sharpness.

Please tell the truth.

E-1 - 6.8 x 6.8 µm

10D- 7.4 x 7.4 µm

D100-7.8µm x 7.8µm

E-1 has smaller photosites than 10D and D100.

Percy

Llarian · Jun 24, 2003

Have you read any of the descriptions of the Kodak sensor?

You are talking about the distance between the photosite centers.

Whether they are smaller, larger, or the same size is NOT KNOWN.

The technology used on the Kodak CCD is (in theory) supposed to allow for more of the chip space to be used by the photoreceptors themselves, which would allow a larger photosite for a given distance between centers.

To reiterate, we do not know the answer to this.

Please stop spreading misinformation as gospel.

-Dylan

percy said:
Jono Slack said:

1. the sensor - photosite size
if this is what it's cracked up to be, the extra fill factor should
make the effective size of the photosites larger than the D100 or
10D; this should give us low noise. The angle of incidence of light
should mean minimal CA and edge to edge sharpness.

Click to expand...

Please tell the truth.

E-1 - 6.8 x 6.8 µm

10D- 7.4 x 7.4 µm

D100-7.8µm x 7.8µm

E-1 has smaller photosites than 10D and D100.

Percy

percy57157 · Jun 24, 2003

Can you claim E-1 has larger senson than 10D and D100?

Percy

Llarian said:
You are talking about the distance between the photosite centers.

Whether they are smaller, larger, or the same size is NOT KNOWN.

The technology used on the Kodak CCD is (in theory) supposed to
allow for more of the chip space to be used by the photoreceptors
themselves, which would allow a larger photosite for a given
distance between centers.

To reiterate, we do not know the answer to this.

Please stop spreading misinformation as gospel.

-Dylan

percy said:

Jono Slack said:

1. the sensor - photosite size
if this is what it's cracked up to be, the extra fill factor should
make the effective size of the photosites larger than the D100 or
10D; this should give us low noise. The angle of incidence of light
should mean minimal CA and edge to edge sharpness.

Click to expand...

Please tell the truth.

E-1 - 6.8 x 6.8 µm

10D- 7.4 x 7.4 µm

D100-7.8µm x 7.8µm

E-1 has smaller photosites than 10D and D100.

Percy

Click to expand...

jeff-c · Jun 24, 2003

Yes if you do come out a product like below you will have a hugh chance being success. Otherwise it's just a me-too product that will have minimum chance of getting a meaningful market share.

Go pick up a Marketing for Dummies if you don't understand marketing.

Llarian said:
In order to achieve any market penetration, I would need a 22MP
full-frame sensor that can do 18 fps for 3 seconds that's capable
of flushing its buffer in 8 seconds. Oh, and it would need to
cost $800, with lenses no more than $1500 for a 600mm F2.0.

...

Hey, I'd buy it. I guess you're right, that must be what's required.

(I'm hoping that was obvious hyperbole on both our parts, but since
you sounded pretty serious about that, I figured I'd point out how
ridiculous that is. Is the E-1 capable of achieving any market
penetration? Maybe, maybe not, dunno yet. But your "requirements"
are ridiculous.)

-Dylan

Llarian said:

In marketing this is called a failed attempt for new product. You
will need at least two times better performance and half the cost
than current products in order to win. Just on par with current
products won't get you anywhere further than dealer's stocking
warehouse (if you can find someone to stock them).

Click to expand...

Llarian · Jun 24, 2003

No, the E-1 does not have a larger sensor than a 10D or a D100.

The entire sensor surface area is not taken up with photosites.

Please read my post again.

-Dylan

percy said:
Percy

Llarian said:

Have you read any of the descriptions of the Kodak sensor?

You are talking about the distance between the photosite centers.

Whether they are smaller, larger, or the same size is NOT KNOWN.

The technology used on the Kodak CCD is (in theory) supposed to
allow for more of the chip space to be used by the photoreceptors
themselves, which would allow a larger photosite for a given
distance between centers.

To reiterate, we do not know the answer to this.

Please stop spreading misinformation as gospel.

-Dylan

Click to expand...

Jon Ragnarsson · Jun 24, 2003

They must be in serious trouble!
J.

Jeff-C said:
Go pick up a Marketing for Dummies if you don't understand marketing.

Llarian said:

In order to achieve any market penetration, I would need a 22MP
full-frame sensor that can do 18 fps for 3 seconds that's capable
of flushing its buffer in 8 seconds. Oh, and it would need to
cost $800, with lenses no more than $1500 for a 600mm F2.0.

...

Hey, I'd buy it. I guess you're right, that must be what's required.

(I'm hoping that was obvious hyperbole on both our parts, but since
you sounded pretty serious about that, I figured I'd point out how
ridiculous that is. Is the E-1 capable of achieving any market
penetration? Maybe, maybe not, dunno yet. But your "requirements"
are ridiculous.)

-Dylan

Member said:

In marketing this is called a failed attempt for new product. You
will need at least two times better performance and half the cost
than current products in order to win. Just on par with current
products won't get you anywhere further than dealer's stocking
warehouse (if you can find someone to stock them).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://jonr.beecee.org/

percy57157 · Jun 24, 2003

Can you claim E-1 has larger 'senson' per Pixel (photosite) than 10D and D100?

Percy

Llarian said:
The entire sensor surface area is not taken up with photosites.

Please read my post again.

-Dylan

percy said:

Percy

Llarian said:

Have you read any of the descriptions of the Kodak sensor?

You are talking about the distance between the photosite centers.

Whether they are smaller, larger, or the same size is NOT KNOWN.

The technology used on the Kodak CCD is (in theory) supposed to
allow for more of the chip space to be used by the photoreceptors
themselves, which would allow a larger photosite for a given
distance between centers.

To reiterate, we do not know the answer to this.

Please stop spreading misinformation as gospel.

-Dylan

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Llarian · Jun 24, 2003

Nope. There are no specifications to support that at this point.

However, I can't claim that it doesn't, nor can you.
That information has not been released.

So at this point, my answer is that I simply do not know. If Kodak's press release is correct, then the "photoreceptor" size is larger than that on a standard CCD with similar spacing between photoreceptor centers.

What I'm trying to get across is that the individual photoreceptors on the Kodak chip could be equivalent or larger than the ones on the 10D. They might not be either.

Again, this isn't a known quantity. What I was asking is that people stop saying that the Kodak photoreceptors are X size in comparison to Y size on this CCD. That is not a known quantity. The distance between photoreceptor centers is less important than the size of the photoreceptor itself, which is variable on more things than just the size of the chip.

-Dylan

percy said:
Percy

Llarian said:

The entire sensor surface area is not taken up with photosites.

Please read my post again.

-Dylan

percy said:

Percy

Llarian said:

Have you read any of the descriptions of the Kodak sensor?

You are talking about the distance between the photosite centers.

Whether they are smaller, larger, or the same size is NOT KNOWN.

The technology used on the Kodak CCD is (in theory) supposed to
allow for more of the chip space to be used by the photoreceptors
themselves, which would allow a larger photosite for a given
distance between centers.

To reiterate, we do not know the answer to this.

Please stop spreading misinformation as gospel.

-Dylan

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

percy57157 · Jun 24, 2003

Okay. E-1 has smaller pixel size than 10D and D100, however we cannot say E-1 has smaller "photoreceptor" size than 10D and D100. We cannot say E-1 has larger "photoreceptor" size than 10D and D100 either. We simply do not know at this time.

I agree.

Percy

Llarian said:
However, I can't claim that it doesn't, nor can you.
That information has not been released.

So at this point, my answer is that I simply do not know. If
Kodak's press release is correct, then the "photoreceptor" size is
larger than that on a standard CCD with similar spacing between
photoreceptor centers.

What I'm trying to get across is that the individual photoreceptors
on the Kodak chip could be equivalent or larger than the ones on
the 10D. They might not be either.

Again, this isn't a known quantity. What I was asking is that
people stop saying that the Kodak photoreceptors are X size in
comparison to Y size on this CCD. That is not a known quantity.
The distance between photoreceptor centers is less important than
the size of the photoreceptor itself, which is variable on more
things than just the size of the chip.

-Dylan

percy said:

Percy

Llarian said:

The entire sensor surface area is not taken up with photosites.

Please read my post again.

-Dylan

percy said:

Percy

Llarian said:

Have you read any of the descriptions of the Kodak sensor?

You are talking about the distance between the photosite centers.

Whether they are smaller, larger, or the same size is NOT KNOWN.

The technology used on the Kodak CCD is (in theory) supposed to
allow for more of the chip space to be used by the photoreceptors
themselves, which would allow a larger photosite for a given
distance between centers.

To reiterate, we do not know the answer to this.

Please stop spreading misinformation as gospel.

-Dylan

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jono Slack · Jun 24, 2003

I've just given up smoking!

Kolja Tatic said:
Jono Slack said:

Kolja Tatic said:

"And... I think that E-1 is not a pro gear... I don't understand...
Seems to me it's camera for advanced amateur, but rich amateur...
What feature is for pro's?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Kolja Tatic said:

great dynamic range
low noise
fast shot to shot times
weatherproofing
will that do?

Click to expand...

From your pictures, I can only say: why better? (quality etc...)

No reason - but I wouldn't mind carrying around half the weight! and I would like more dynamic range.

Kolja Tatic said:
I just feel bad for industry today... I think that dynamic range is
important for amateurs and pro's, ISO 200, 400 today is unusable,

the fill rate on the sensor does suggest that this might have good noise characteristics at high ISO

Kolja Tatic said:
gear is expensive, I saw people with 1Ds for point and shot in
ZOO...

and people drive around in 'racing' cars

- it may be overkill, but it isn't 'wrong'

Kolja Tatic said:
My fast words in bad english are for them, not for
artist-technomaniacs...

LOL - well, if the cap fits - I can plead guilty to this one

Kolja Tatic said:
Sorry again (now you saw another message
for you...), and... I just think that E-1 is not "Pro" gear... But,
I like it very much, regarding my old Nikon F2s and little plastic
toy Olympus C-4000Z...

I think that 'pro' is a pretty silly tag, and surely it is exactly the 'snobbism' you were referring to. Who cares what the designation is, as long as it does the job?

Kolja Tatic said:
Price is not important when I KNOW that E-1 is not long time
player, like all products today, and my old F2 still work very
well... from 1971... I don't like to change tool every year... I
waste your time...

I agree that the E1 is not a long term player, but I hope that 4/3 IS a long term player - it seems to me to have pretty much everything right, and promises smaller and cheaper cameras in the future.

Kolja Tatic said:
Kolja Tatic said:

Kolja Tatic said:

I hope that around the world are enough rich technomaniacs and
snobs for pulling...

Click to expand...

you certainly know how to make friends and influence people.

Click to expand...

Yes... I can't find enough real artists (I am sure you know what I
mean...) around... Sorry, I'll be quiet... Hard day...

Well - you've been very graceful (a little tussle is always a good way to make new friends)

kind regards
jono

Kolja Tatic said:
Kolja Tatic said:

Kolja Tatic said:

(in Canon forum - Why G5 is the question, but for about $700...)"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Kolja

P.S. Sorry, this is from another thread, and I can't change my own
words...

Click to expand...

but you don't have to repeat them - especially if you don't agree
with them!

Click to expand...

I agree.

Best wishes from faraway...
Kolja

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Llarian · Jun 24, 2003

Heh... For all intents and purposes, a pixel is the same as a photoreceptor.

There is space between the receptors that is not used for collecting light. Its used for moving the data off of the sensor after a shot is taken. The method used on the Kodak chip allows for more of the chips's surface to be used for collecting light (according to kodak), which means the the pixel/photoreceptor could be larger.

I'm not explaining this well enough clearly, but I'm not finding any better way, so here's a link to the flash explaination of what I was trying to say.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/feat_quality_ccd.asp

How much difference it will make is yet unknown, but its probably safe to say that it will lead to a larger pixel/photoreceptor than a CCD with equivalent spacing, as I said earlier.

And I'm done for now. =)

-Dylan

percy said:
I agree.

Percy

Llarian said:

However, I can't claim that it doesn't, nor can you.
That information has not been released.

So at this point, my answer is that I simply do not know. If
Kodak's press release is correct, then the "photoreceptor" size is
larger than that on a standard CCD with similar spacing between
photoreceptor centers.

What I'm trying to get across is that the individual photoreceptors
on the Kodak chip could be equivalent or larger than the ones on
the 10D. They might not be either.

Again, this isn't a known quantity. What I was asking is that
people stop saying that the Kodak photoreceptors are X size in
comparison to Y size on this CCD. That is not a known quantity.
The distance between photoreceptor centers is less important than
the size of the photoreceptor itself, which is variable on more
things than just the size of the chip.

-Dylan

percy said:

Percy

Llarian said:

The entire sensor surface area is not taken up with photosites.

Please read my post again.

-Dylan

percy said:

Percy

Llarian said:

Have you read any of the descriptions of the Kodak sensor?

You are talking about the distance between the photosite centers.

Whether they are smaller, larger, or the same size is NOT KNOWN.

The technology used on the Kodak CCD is (in theory) supposed to
allow for more of the chip space to be used by the photoreceptors
themselves, which would allow a larger photosite for a given
distance between centers.

To reiterate, we do not know the answer to this.

Please stop spreading misinformation as gospel.

-Dylan

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

jeff-c · Jun 24, 2003

Glad you bring up this example. If you are an unknown auto-maker and you just enter a well establish market, you can't get any meaningful market share by introducing a me-too model.

The S. Korean auto-makers are good example of this marketing strategy. Altough Kia and Hyundai have upscale models in their local market but when they entered the US market they choosed the low-end $8000 market that has long been abandoned by the US and Japanese manufactures. Not only they introduced a low cost product but also at bigger size one would get from Toyota at similar price. Now Hyundai has gotten the market share and with its name being recognized it starts moving upward.

For a new player entering the becoming crowded DSLR market, it should do the same thing: either bringing out a revolutionary product like the X3 based sensor, or a lower price or better price performance product. A 4/3 system is not revolutionary enough unless it either produces super quality of images which we haven't seen, and doubting we will see judging from Olympus' own published thumbnail images, or better price performance. A splash proof feature here a super-sonic CCD cleaning there don't count for performance, in this game pixel count and image quality (dynamic range, color, noise) does.

Jón Ragnarsson said:
They must be in serious trouble!
J.

Fabulous Start - this sounds like a great camera

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

jeff-c

Guest

Well-known member

Jon Ragnarsson

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

jeff-c

Guest

Well-known member

Jon Ragnarsson

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

jeff-c

Guest

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts