quote:

Originally posted by kidcop:
From DP Review:

"2. Imaging Business after the Transaction
NewCo will succeed and maintain the research and development functions and manufacturing functions globally as reformed under the contemplated structuring reforms to continue to offer high-quality, highly reliable products; and also continue to provide supports to the imaging solution products that have been distributed by Olympus."

Canon and Nikon said last year that if they did not have other branches of business to keep them afloat, it would be all over. I'm not even sure if Sony (Camera) was be able to stand alone. Canon has radiation and advanced imaging sensors it sells, and I think Nikon has a semiconductor business in addition to high end research microscopes, and consumer glass products (scopes, binoculars, and lithography).

From what I have read on multiple outlets over the last year, the cell phone is killing the interchangeable lens camera market, and there continues to be a push to get out more bodies - it is a race to the bottom, and last one there wins.

I was thinking of getting an upgrade to my E-PL1 at Christmas, and an adapter so I could use my old Yashica/Contax mount lenses on it. Guess I'll move that up a few months.

I was thinking of an iPhone 11 Pro for our big trip, mostly for 4K video, but got the E-M5 Mk III instead. It has a very nice 12-200 zoom, and that gives me options you can’t get on an iPhone.
I have great video of my glider ride over Mt. Cook in the South Island, out of Omarama. 2.5 hour sailplane ride at 15,000 feet. Amazing.

Bummer... like 4x5’s post, an OM-2n was my first camera. I thought I was high on life when I scored an OM-4T. Always wanted the OM-3T though, that and an HK P7M13

Sadly there are still things that an SLR can do much better than any camera phone. Every try shooting birds at long range with a phone, you'll need a magnifying glass to find that bird and it's species will be just a guess.

Another problem with phone cameras is the angle of view is typically equivalent to 24-28mm on a 35mm camera. As it a rather wide view. Yes you can crop but even with 20mp if you crop too much you will loose image quality. Unfortunately most users of phone cameras aren't aware of how poor the base field of view is for a head and shoulders portrait. So we are now bombarded of pics of people with giant noses and tiny beady eyes and mouths so small they look like pimples.

Having used Nikon long enough to have a model S and S2 in my collection I have a rather extensive array of lenses and most have been converted to the AIS metering coupling protocol. So I can use most of these lenses on either my D300 or D750. I currently considering picking up another D750 to have a spare. Note, I am aware of the D780 and it's lacking any provision for an auxiliary grip module with an extra battery.

I'm also saddened by the news concerning Olympus. There was a time when they made some point and shoot cameras that rivaled the image quality of Nikon or Leica. I also thought the OM-1 was quite nifty when it came out but at that time I was deep into the Nikon F2.

quote:

Originally posted by 4x5:
I bought an Olympus Om2n back in 1982 or 1983. It served me well as the high school yearbook photographer, and got me excused from countless classes

OM2 was the best little camera I ever had - until I moved up to a Canon T90 with a 1.2 lens

quote:

Originally posted by 280nosler:
<snip>
From what I have read on multiple outlets over the last year, the cell phone is killing the interchangeable lens camera market
<snip>

Yeah. I said that in my OP: “smart phone cameras are getting too good. And it’s so easy to upload an iPhone photo to my ImageShack photo hosting site.”

Had an Olympus D-490 2.1MP back in the day and thought it was the shizzle. Used it for a good number of years before upgrading to a Sony RX100 several years ago and am a little behind on the Sony releases but up to the RX100 III with Zeiss lens now. I don't have or need a cell phone, so have a very good use for a point and shoot camera. Don't know what all is going on with Olympus but the Sony RX was just top rated and maybe part was Olympus just couldn't keep up in that segment. Dunno

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:

quote:

Originally posted by 280nosler:
<snip>
From what I have read on multiple outlets over the last year, the cell phone is killing the interchangeable lens camera market
<snip>

Yeah. I said that in my OP: “smart phone cameras are getting too good. And it’s so easy to upload an iPhone photo to my ImageShack photo hosting site.”

There is a quaint yet subtle delineation in this - laziness and quality. When many people are shown picture shot by both on screens that are 8"x12", a vast majority select the picture from the SLR over the cell phone, especially landscape or low light pictures.

People are willing to take crappy pictures because they have no intentions of printing them, or looking at them on a screen bigger than a cell phone. The QUALITY of cell phones have not caught up, the disinclination to learn how to use a SLR has exceeded the ease and improvements of auto shooting on cell phone cameras.

I an not saying you cannot get some very good pictures from a cell phone, but by and large you are comparing a two very different technologies, and a decent photographer with very mediocre equipment can take vastly superior pictures than a professional with an iPhone 11.

I have two digital Olympus, one has been used extensively, one hardly ever. The C5050 that I still use is 5MP, still great for posting on line.
Sad to see the line go.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
I was thinking of an iPhone 11 Pro for our big trip, mostly for 4K video, but got the E-M5 Mk III instead. It has a very nice 12-200 zoom, and that gives me options you can’t get on an iPhone.
I have great video of my glider ride over Mt. Cook in the South Island, out of Omarama. 2.5 hour sailplane ride at 15,000 feet. Amazing.

My 11 Pro was a disappointment on my last micro-vacation. I was trying to shoot animals and flowers at a preserve and it was invariably off or required excessive fiddling when good shots presented themselves. I haven't tried much video yet to see how it does then. I guess for landscapes or posed photos it may work, but I won't be giving up any of my "real" cameras.

I started with a simple all-manual Minolta film SLR when I was in high school, that was 45 years ago. I progressed to an Olympus OM-1, then to a Nikkormat EL (it was a tossup for a while between that and an OM-2n), then to a Nikon F3, then to an F4s, then sold that to go to a digital D-70, which I replaced a few years later with a D-200. I still have the D-200, but the last time I used it was in 2014 when my brother and I took a trip to Fairbanks. Since then I've been using my smartphone.

Along the way I picked up a fairly gently used F2AS body and had the light seals in it replaced. That's a fun old camera to play with and I still have 2 or 3 lenses that will work on it. I regret selling the F4s, that was a great camera. Considerably outdated by today's standards, but still a great camera. I'm halfway tempted to grab a used one from EBay or KEH.

Lately, as I get closer to retirement, I'm feeling a growing desire to get back into photography (as opposed to snapshooting, which is all I really do with the smartphone). I'm thinking seriously about picking a new or just slightly used D-750 and maybe a couple of nicer lenses than the ones I have, which were a compromise between speed, quality and cost.

The "iPhone" killed the DSLR.

I bought my first Nikon, a F body, back in perhaps 1983 give or take a few years - my first adventure in film cameras

I hope they survive

It is appropriate that Olympus consumer imaging fail, in my view. They made an irreversible decision to only use the M43 image sensor size, as it is in their view, optimum. It was a decision that did not consider all the facts. Yes, the images through their lenses onto that sensor were quite good. Yes, the cameras and lenses are of superior build quality. Yes, the cameras and lenses are smaller and lighter. Yes, the cameras and lenses are weatherproof.

Even so, consumers rejected the Olympus value proposition. Over and over again companies fail because they believe that the consumer shares their view of what is best, or ideal, or optimum. The consumers in this market do not agree.

It is not unlike Glock vs. classic metal Sig pistols. Many find the classic metal Sig pistols to be superior in several metrics. Many prefer the classic metal Sig. This did not keep Sig whole, financially. In time, with the P250 and the re-engineering of that to be the P320, Sig made the correct decision to adopt a platform that the consumer prefers, rather than continue to berate them that the classic was better. Now, they have military contracts. Now, they have competitors choosing their pistols. And, they even have their "old" customers who prefer the classic metal pistols.

Olympus should have done the same with their cameras.

quote:

Originally posted by Scooter123:
<snip>
Another problem with phone cameras is the angle of view is typically equivalent to 24-28mm on a 35mm camera. As it a rather wide view. Yes you can crop but even with 20mp if you crop too much you will loose image quality. Unfortunately most users of phone cameras aren't aware of how poor the base field of view is for a head and shoulders portrait. So we are now bombarded of pics of people with giant noses and tiny beady eyes and mouths so small they look like pimples.
<snip>

The iPhone 11 has 3 cameras with lenses of different focal lengths. The longest of them greatly diminishes the bad effects that you describe for head-and-shoulder photos.

BTW – I believe that when one of the wider angle cameras is selected, Apple also activates the longer lens cameras to provide greater definition in the central part of the photo, which is often the most interesting region. Since the lenses aren’t coaxial, there’s a slight perspective difference, but software can fix that. Photos made by the iPhone cameras are very good.