# Why no olmpuses?



## Vautrin (Aug 16, 2008)

Hi,

So I just bought a new Olympus EVOLT 510 and have been reading the forums voraciously for the last few weeks.

I _never_ see anyone talking about Olyumpuses, recommending them, and don't even see any for sale in the used gear forum.

Why is that?  Are they a bad camera?  

????

-Dan


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 16, 2008)

Most of the people on here prefer Canon or Nikon, but there are a few good sony, olympus DSLRs... I personally dont know of these but many people love them.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 16, 2008)

Hmm, I just noticed something. Most current DSLRs from olympus are 10MP, do they all use the same sensor? One has 10.1 (big difference...)


----------



## Vautrin (Aug 16, 2008)

prodigy2k7 said:


> Most of the people on here prefer Canon or Nikon, but there are a few good sony, olympus DSLRs... I personally dont know of these but many people love them.





But why do they prefer canon and / or nikon?  Is it a brand thing?  I shoot a canon ergo I am cool?  Or is there some feature they have that an olympus lacks...


----------



## usayit (Aug 16, 2008)

Brand thing... yes to some extent.

Canon and Nikon had a large market share even before DSLRs were widely available.   Both companies advanced the technology and gained a lot of loyal customers.  Once you are loyal and invested into a system, it takes a lot of convincing to make a switch.

Thread probably belongs in the equipment forum.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 16, 2008)

Not to mention, canon and nikon most of the time produce quality products, would you want a ferrari or a ford.... 

But there are still very excellent 3rd party lenses...but you tend to get better quality products from name brands...or the most popular brands... Its not by sheer luck that Canon and Nikon are the 2 most used brands of camera gear in the world. Watch any sports on TV, look at the side lines, 99.999% of them are shooting canon or Nikon... in fact I dont think ive ever seen a non canon/nikon slr on the field, thats just me tho


----------



## usayit (Aug 16, 2008)

In regards to Olympus specifically, I think there are a lot of photographers that are not too keen on the 4/3rds format sensor.  There is also much less third party support for 4/3rds.


----------



## Mike_E (Aug 16, 2008)

Regardless, enjoy your camera!

By the time you outgrow it you will likely know just what you want next!


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Aug 16, 2008)

Well, after 30+ years of shooting pro Nikon bodies and lenses, I went through a severe mid-life crisis  and sold all of my Nikon gear and moved to the 4/3 system.

Actually, I retired from the photo biz and decided to downsize my gear and go off in a new direction.  I currently own only three cameras and two lenses- a Lumix L1 with the Leica 14-50 zoom, an Olympus E-1, an Olympus 40-150 zoom.  And I just purchased a P&S- the Ricoh GRDII.  That's it- that is the extent of my gear.  I sold every bit of pro gear I owned and bought this stuff.

So far, no regrets and no complaints.  The L1, especially with the Leica zoom, is a great camera.  The E-1 is solidly built and a worthy shooter.  Also, the upper end Olympus glass is optically equal or better than Nikon or Canon glass.  So if I should decide to head in that direction, I have no problems there, either.

Enjoy your new camera.  

Plus, the new micro 4/3 sytem is right around the corner.  We may be looking at some type of affordable digital rangefinder here pretty soon.


----------



## Vautrin (Aug 16, 2008)

prodigy2k7 said:


> Not to mention, canon and nikon most of the time produce quality products, would you want a ferrari or a ford....



Well that's the confusing thing.  When I was buying it my olympus seemed to have everything the Nikon 40d the salesman was showing me had, plus a lot more, plus 10 MP vs 6 MP, for the exact same price

It seemed like the Olympus was the ferrari with hand stitched leather interior and the Nikon was the ford with basic everything...


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 16, 2008)

Lol, well remember its not all about the bodies, I bet the nikon/canon lenses are better than the olympus ones...and whatever fits those bodies...
Infact most people prefer better glass over bodies...

Most people spend < $1000 on a camera body, then spend about $2000-$4000 on a few top of the line lenses.. (2-4 lenses)


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Aug 16, 2008)

prodigy2k7 said:


> Lol, well remember its not all about the bodies, I bet the nikon/canon lenses are better than the olympus ones...and whatever fits those bodies...
> Infact most people prefer better glass over bodies...
> 
> Most people spend < $1000 on a camera body, then spend about $2000-$4000 on a few top of the line lenses.. (2-4 lenses)


 

I don't know, you might be surprised at some of the better zooms Olympus makes. They are really top notch, with a price tag to match.  I doubt if I will be buying any of them in the near future. 

Where Olympus falls a bit short in lenses, are primes. Not nearly the selection the Big Two have.

 And as I mentioned above, the L1 is a 4/3 camera and the 14-50 Leica zoom is one of the finest zooms I have ever used, and at one time, I owned some of Nikon's better zooms.

It really is an oddball system, and if I had not gotten out of the biz, I probably would not have changed from Nikon to Olympus. I just decided it was time for a change.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 16, 2008)

I dont mean they dont ahve good lenses, Sigma has a 200-500 with a huge aperture of 2.8 I believe...thats just amazing...its the size of a bazooka and really fat... Unpractical to me....

Canon will probably never make something that big... (I think canon used to have a 1200mm F/5.6L pretty big...

FUnny when you type that into google...
*[SIZE=+1](1200 mm F) / (5.6 L) = 214.285714 m-4 kg-1 s4 A2[/SIZE]*


What kind of math is that? haha

Anyways, they have a bigger choice of lenses, and of good quality...


----------



## Overread (Aug 16, 2008)

well those two lenses are more for company show than retail profit - sigma making a zoom 200-500mm f2.8 is a bold statment, especially consider canon does not even make a 500mm f2.8prime with f2.8, not does it make a zoom that long. Its impratical for most people, but its a good advertising statement as well as an indecation of what sigma can make (and changes are with its asking price they will still make a profit on sales over time)


----------



## Don Kondra (Aug 16, 2008)

Vautrin said:


> Well that's the confusing thing. When I was buying it my olympus seemed to have everything the Nikon 40d the salesman was showing me had, plus a lot more, plus 10 MP vs 6 MP, for the exact same price
> 
> It seemed like the Olympus was the ferrari with hand stitched leather interior and the Nikon was the ford with basic everything...


 
LOL... so true.  Sounds like you got a salesman who knew what he was talking about  

Recommend you check out -

http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/

Cheers, Don


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 16, 2008)

Not to mention the 2x crop factor, I thought 1.6x was bad (XTi), I wonder what the 2x is like... 4/3" on a DSLR is pretty small...


----------



## Iron Flatline (Aug 16, 2008)

Olympus makes fabulous cameras, but they did get themselves a little bit snookered with the 4/3rds system. Technically it's a smart idea - develop a sensor and lens-mount from the ground up to take advantage of the new digital technology. Then that ridiculous MP race started a couple of years ago (which fortunately seems to have run its course.) Anyway, a smaller sensor like the 4/3rds sensors can't accomodate as many sensor pixels without generating noise, so people looked at them and said...


> Hmm, I just noticed something. Most current DSLRs from olympus are 10MP, do they all use the same sensor? One has 10.1 (big difference...)


...which of course has nothing to do with image quality, but everything with marketing. Gotta give people some kind of metric to talk about while BBQing.

They make very good cameras, enjoy yours. Btw, I share Rick's excitement about the new Micro-4/3rds potential.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 16, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> Olympus makes fabulous cameras, but they did get themselves a little bit snookered with the 4/3rds system. Technically it's a smart idea - develop a sensor and lens-mount from the ground up to take advantage of the new digital technology. Then that ridiculous MP race started a couple of years ago (which fortunately seems to have run its course.) Anyway, a smaller sensor like the 4/3rds sensors can't accomodate as many sensor pixels without generating noise, so people looked at them and said...
> ...which of course has nothing to do with image quality, but everything with marketing. Gotta give people some kind of metric to talk about while BBQing.
> 
> They make very good cameras, enjoy yours. Btw, I share Rick's excitement about the new Micro-4/3rds potential.



Well I just meant it was odd that they use the same number of pixels (roughly). In Canon rebels, 6 8 10 12 right?


----------



## Don Kondra (Aug 16, 2008)

prodigy2k7 said:


> Well I just meant it was odd that they use the same number of pixels (roughly). In Canon rebels, 6 8 10 12 right?


 
You must mean mega pixels?

It is clear you don't know much about the Olympus system.

That's fine, I don't have a burning desire to be able to quote spec's or understand the workings of a system I don't use either, except to make an informed decision of which system to use. 



> I bet the nikon/canon lenses are better than the olympus ones


 
You would lose that bet. Do your homework before you perpetuate rumours, innuendo and falsehoods. 

Don


----------



## Steph (Aug 17, 2008)

Vautrin said:


> Hi,
> 
> So I just bought a new Olympus EVOLT 510 and have been reading the forums voraciously for the last few weeks.
> 
> ...



Don't worry too much about your gear and go out to take some pictures. Don't let anybody tell you that you would better off with  Nikon/Canon. Nikon and Canon had the largest market shares for years. For many people, that's enough for them to believe that Nikon/Canon are the best. Moreover, people (including on this Forum) tend to perpetuate this belief when they have no idea about the quality of other produts. Actually I think other companies offer much better value for money and Olympus is one of them. To conclude, the e510 is by no means a bad camera. It has its limitations but so do cameras from Nikon and Canon. Enjoy!!


----------



## Iron Flatline (Aug 17, 2008)

I agree. And as the record shows, I always recommend the Pentax system for people wondering about which first dSLR to get.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 17, 2008)

Vautrin said:


> Hi,
> 
> So I just bought a new Olympus EVOLT 510 and have been reading the forums voraciously for the last few weeks.
> 
> ...



Olympus makes great products. For the money they are both better build *quality* and have more features than either Conon or Nikon.  This is true at all levels that Olympus competes at.

So why are so many people here using Canon and Nikon cameras of the same range that Olympus competes on?

*My Opinion:*

65% 
They're cattle. No really, it's been proven (since the 1920's) that people follow hype and advertising and word of mouth over actual quality, spec, and feature set. You were smarter than the average is all. You probably did your homework first. :thumbup:  It's both funny and sad to watch it here on the site too. A noob will come in see 10 signature tags naming the d40, ask which is best for a noob on a tight budget, and 3 or 4 fanboys who also haven't done their homework will answer up get the d4o. And sure enough a week later they're back with the d40. It doesn't matter that it's the worst dSLR camera on the market. Nikon makes AWESOME cameras but the d40 ain't one of them! Doesn't matter tho... they just follow the pack. Like I said; funny and sad.


25%
They already had lenses and equipment from earlier Nikon or Canon products. This is a big one. They may also be purchasing it as a backup system - etc. etc.


8%
They purchased the body based on a lens or two that they wanted. If there was just that perfect lens they thought was better and had a supreme price|performance ratio it wouldn't be unreasonable to purchase a body for that lens or lenses.


2%
They're brand name whores and they think having a "Nikon" or "Canon" makes a statement about who they are. I don't get this one myself but I've seen people admit to it. This is actually kind of linked to the 65% group though. 



Never assume that the most popular thing is also the best thing. There are just too many cases where the opposite is true.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 17, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> I agree. And as the record shows, I always recommend the Pentax system for people wondering about which first dSLR to get.



+1
:thumbup:


----------



## pez (Aug 17, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> I agree. And as the record shows, I always recommend the Pentax system for people wondering about which first dSLR to get.


 
+1 I resemble that remark...


----------



## MACollum (Aug 17, 2008)

usayit said:


> In regards to Olympus specifically, I think there are a lot of photographers that are not too keen on the 4/3rds format sensor. There is also much less third party support for 4/3rds.


 
My first digital camera was an Olympus. It had the 4:3 ratio, which was a HUGE pain. Every picture had to be cropped before it was printed. With the 3:2 ratio that I have now with my Canon, I only need to crop if I'm printing at 5x7 or 8x10.


----------



## frXnz kafka (Aug 17, 2008)

Vautrin said:


> Well that's the confusing thing.  When I was buying it my olympus seemed to have everything the Nikon 40d the salesman was showing me had, plus a lot more, plus 10 MP vs 6 MP, for the exact same price
> 
> It seemed like the Olympus was the ferrari with hand stitched leather interior and the Nikon was the ford with basic everything...


*D40. 40D is a Canon camera.

Also, 10 MP on a 4/3 sensor is going to produce a lot more noise than 6 MP on an APS-C sensor. More megapixels does not mean better image, it simply means larger image.


----------



## reg (Aug 17, 2008)

prodigy2k7 said:


> Not to mention, canon and nikon most of the time produce quality products, would you want a ferrari or a ford....



That's a really *terrible *analogy since Olympus consistently makes great cameras and glass. The only thing I can hold against my E-510 to date is the viewfinder size. Even high ISO isn't as big of an issue as most would think, Noiseware Pro does a great job.



frXnz kafka said:


> Also, 10 MP on a 4/3 sensor is going to produce a lot more noise than 6 MP on an APS-C sensor. More megapixels does not mean better image, it simply means larger image.



http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD40/Samples/ISO/d40_iso1600_crop.jpg

vs.

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse510/samples/ISO/default/e510_ISO1600_def_crop.jpg

You tell me how big of a deal the noise is. Side by side, a difference, sure. But again, I use Noiseware Pro on all my high ISO images anyway, most people do unless they're using a D3/1Ds/etc. Once you hit a certain point, you gotta quit using the 100% crops and side by side comparisons and just GO TAKE PICTURES.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 17, 2008)

I agree on all points reg!  

The 420 and 520 seem to have a little wider VF than the 410 and 510 maybe... But it's still a little narrow. That just takes a few days to adjust to though and it's got one of the best live-view systems out so that might be a little excusable. The E-3 VF is nice though. I think that if the 520 and 420 had two thumb dials and a nice bright and wide pentaprism they would be almost faultless. Well, they need metal body frames but other than that...


----------



## F1addict (Aug 17, 2008)

prodigy2k7 said:


> Not to mention, canon and nikon most of the time produce quality products, would you want a ferrari or a ford....


Yeah, don't ever use a ferrari to ford comparison again.
The only time you can really use that comparison is when your trying to compare a tiny neglected $100,000 house to a brand new $900,000 mansion. 
It really doesn't work for any other product out their since Ferrari is so far ahead of everybody in terms of quality/performance. A Mercedes to Acura comparison might be better. Both are quality luxury cars. Both are high end and no matter which one you go with your going to get a good car. Sure the Mercedes has more features but do those features justify the added cost, not really. You end up paying extra for a name that really doesn't matter which goes back to whatt Bifurcator was saying about brand whores and cattle


back on topic, I would have considered an Olympus but from what I read and saw, the Canons, Nikons, and Sonys I was looking at had more features. And I'm going to get the Sony because it has a few things that make it stand out above the rest, and I couldn't justify the added cost for the Canons or Nikons. I'd rather spend the $100 I'm saving by buying the Sony and spend it on getting a nicer lens. Because as some people have said in here and from what they've told me when I asked what camera I should get, they said that the lenses are the most important. For under $1000 you don't get much more or less if you go with one body over another


----------



## photo28 (Aug 17, 2008)

Sorry to just jump in but is the E-410 a good camera? I like Olympus, but im my view an Olympus camera would be hard for me to buy because they have very few lenses for around $150, many of the lenses being 300+$.


----------



## reg (Aug 17, 2008)

One thing I absolutely MUST talk about also, is the DOF advantages on 4/3. Now some may differ with me on this (i.e. the Noctilux freaks ) but I have yet to have a situation where I was NOT thankful for a 2 stop deeper equiv. DOF. I use a lot of older M42 lenses with the depth scale on them, and it makes manual focus for sports a lot easier, but still eliminates the background well. My Vivitar 135mm 2.8 w/ preset aperture switch that I got for $48 shipped comes to mind as a favorite.

Just food for thought.



photo28 said:


> Sorry to just jump in but is the E-410 a good camera? I like Olympus, but im my view an Olympus camera would be hard for me to buy because they have very few lenses for around $150, many of the lenses being 300+$.



Absolutely, the lenses can be a bit pricey (well, in comparison to other consumer lenses), I only have the 2 kit lenses myself. The 14-42 and 40-150mm. The rest of my lenses are old m42 manual focus, manual aperture lenses you can get off ebay for a song, but certainly this solution is not feisable for _most_.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 17, 2008)

F1addict said:


> Yeah, don't ever use a ferrari to ford comparison again.
> The only time you can really use that comparison is when your trying to compare a tiny neglected $100,000 house to a brand new $900,000 mansion.
> It really doesn't work for any other product out their since Ferrari is so far ahead of everybody in terms of quality/performance. A Mercedes to Acura comparison might be better. Both are quality luxury cars. Both are high end and no matter which one you go with your going to get a good car. Sure the Mercedes has more features but do those features justify the added cost, not really. You end up paying extra for a name that really doesn't matter which goes back to whatt Bifurcator was saying about brand whores and cattle



Its not a true comparison, mostly im saying you get what you pay for.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 17, 2008)

photo28 said:


> Sorry to just jump in but is the E-410 a good camera?



It was pretty good when it was new I thought. How much is the 410 these days? $150~$200?  It must be something close to that I see 420 bodies going for $350~$375 occasionally.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Aug 17, 2008)

If I started over, I would want a system that is small, it's one of the reasons I always like Pentax - weather-seals, LiveView, sensor clean, and the smallest system out there.

I wish Canon had a smaller FF dSLR, and a few small prime lenses. Probably soon...


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 17, 2008)

All DSLRs should be weathered sealed, its really not that expensive is it?....


----------



## Vautrin (Aug 17, 2008)

prodigy2k7 said:


> All DSLRs should be weathered sealed, its really not that expensive is it?....



Does weather sealing mean I can take it out in the rain?  Or just that it'll withstand high humidity?


----------



## reg (Aug 17, 2008)

Vautrin said:


> Does weather sealing mean I can take it out in the rain?  Or just that it'll withstand high humidity?



I believe the consensus on weather sealing is that it's good for somewhere between a drizzle and a hurricane.


----------



## Vautrin (Aug 17, 2008)

I don't know if I'd trust weather sealing after spending $1,000!  I don't know if my camera has it don't plan on testing it


----------



## Joves (Aug 17, 2008)

Well I think the reason Nikon/Canon have the market share is they were the first to offer Dslrs. Eveyone else was late to the party and, most of us got our when the technology was new. I still have my Pentax MX with a 50mm. When Dslrs came out I waited for Pentax to come out with one but, ended up going with Nikon because, I got tired of waiting.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Aug 17, 2008)

I shot a Nikon D1x and a D2H in pouring rain, snow, hurricane force winds, and never had a problem, and they are not weather sealed. As a working PJ, I always, always carried a towel and wore a vest with big enough pockets to stash the cameras in. When they got wet, I simply dried them off and kept shooting. I never had any problems.

When I moved to the 4/3 system, weather sealing was not a big selling point for me at all. I still carry a white, cotton towel today. It is a great, simple tool that has many, many uses, besides covering your camera in the rain or wiping down your wet camera.

Weather sealing is nice, but it is not a make or break deal for me.

As far as the 4/3 ratio, it grew on me. I actually seem to crop my photos less. Also, I am not real big on the megapixel count. My Lumix L1 is 7.5 which is more than enough for the type of stuff I shoot. My Olympus E-1, which I bought as a second body, is only 5.


----------



## usayit (Aug 17, 2008)

Just remember that the lens also needs to be weathersealed.  Even in Canon's L lens lineup, not all of them are weather sealed.


----------



## Hawaii Five-O (Aug 17, 2008)

prodigy2k7 said:


> would you want a ferrari or a ford....


haha I'll take a ford, they beat out ferrari hands down.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Aug 18, 2008)

alot of people don't like small viewfinders or a 4:3 ratio.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 18, 2008)

seriously, my father has a 35mm camera, I wish my viewfinder was as big as his (I got 1.6x crop)


----------



## Overread (Aug 18, 2008)

a few days in a sealed bag with some silica gel can recover wetted electronics - - of course its not alwasy going to work, best not to get it wet in the first place


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Aug 18, 2008)

Sw1tchFX said:


> alot of people don't like small viewfinders or a 4:3 ratio.


 
This was the one thing that worried me the most about making the switch to the 4/3 system.  But in the end, it was not a deal breaker, either.

I shot a Contax G system for a number of years and the viewfinders on them are small and squinty.  I found the viewfinders on my L1 and E-1 a lot like those.  Once again, I think it has to do with what type of photography you do.  And for what I shoot, the small viewfinder was not a problem.  Plus, after a while, you get used to it.


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 18, 2008)

"prodigy" eh?


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 18, 2008)

by no means does my name mean the definition.... lol...its actually a band I used to listen to when I was younger...


----------



## photo28 (Aug 18, 2008)

Like I said- I think that some people don't buy Olympus because of its lenses. They are top quality no doubt and probabaly some of the best lenses out there are Olympus, but they are definately more expensive than other companys which you could get a good lens for $150. Olympus you would have to pay at least $300+. The Evolt E-410  camera body sells for around $330, some places are ridicolous and go with $600 for it, I found a good deal for $329.99.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 18, 2008)

prodigy2k7 said:


> All DSLRs should be weathered sealed, its really not that expensive is it?....



Some bodies have 50 or 60 seals. I guess that steps up the cost of production quite a few percentage points. That said, it's still probably ridiculously inexpensive. Not including the image sensor, memory, or glass I guess no modern camera costs more than $5 or $10 to manufacture (materials, labor and energy). I guess it could be twice that but I highly doubt it.

The way they look at it though is if they can save $0.50 per unit then they've saved $500,000.00 for every million units produced. And that's probably close to the combined salaries of everyone needed to operate the factory for a whole year.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 18, 2008)

But Bi, maybe more people would buy them if they were sealed. It is a good plus! It would be awesome if theya re water resistant to 10 feet of water!! haha... So I quick drop in the bath tub wouldnt hurt! I bet cameras do cost more then $10 tho, They still have other electronics and mechanics inside... Such as the processor, and all the other computer chips in there...


----------



## photo28 (Aug 18, 2008)

well, they dont cost what they sell them for!


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 18, 2008)

Yeah, one of my jobs here in Japan was teaching business English and etiquette to branch chiefs, company officers, EO's, etc.  at various factories. Toyota, Suzuki, Honda, Fuji Kikai, and a few others. You would be really surprised at how low production costs actually are. For example - wanna know how much it costs to make the top luxury class automobile at Toyota (materials, labor, and power) in 1980?

You won't believe me.

~$150.00 (yeah, you read it right. about one hundred and fifty dollars.) According to a plant financial officer. Just materials was "about $50.00". He also said that just considering materials, labor, and power consumption (which is really pretty much everything) that there was very little difference between their top luxury models and their el-cheep-o's economy class models. 

Other conversations at different factories with various executives (when they would talk about it) were pretty much the same. The actual assembly line process and parts are so cheap (low cost) it's scary.

Being in and around these factories really was very educational. For example Toyota mines their own iron ore and walks it every step from the reddish sand into the all the finished bin parts ready for assembly. Same with all the fabrics, foam, and plastics used too. Etc. etc. It's very interesting!


----------



## photo28 (Aug 18, 2008)

WOW!!! $150 I know they sell them so much more then what it costs to make them but I would have never guessed $150. How much did the car sell for? 
what a rip-off


----------



## usayit (Aug 18, 2008)

Clothing is even worse.  A pants that cost just a few cents to manufacturer.


----------



## Vautrin (Aug 18, 2008)

usayit said:


> Clothing is even worse.  A pants that cost just a few cents to manufacturer.




But then you hang it in that trendy storefront in NYC where it costs $500 / sqft / month and you start to see where the real costs come in.


----------



## photo28 (Aug 18, 2008)

that is ridiculous how these companies get away with it! I wish everyone on Earth would just stop buying cameras (or anything) for a few weeks and let the price go down to its actual price and buy... if only that could happen.


----------



## reg (Aug 18, 2008)

photo28 said:


> that is ridiculous how these companies get away with it! I wish everyone on Earth would just stop buying cameras (or anything) for a few weeks and let the price go down to its actual price and buy... if only that could happen.



I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 18, 2008)

photo28 said:


> WOW!!! $150 I know they sell them so much more then what it costs to make them but I would have never guessed $150. How much did the car sell for?
> what a rip-off



Well, that's not counting paying for all the line robots, the engineering, the designers, the shipping (which they also do themselves), the sales, and etc. etc. 

That's just the materials, factory labor, and energy consumption that go into one physical unit after everything is tooled and set up for that model. 

While I do think it's a rip off in allot of ways I also think most of the factory manufactured goods in our culture are too, computers, cameras, automobiles, etc. 

But it's also how our economy floats. The fractional reserve system that so much of the world has bought into (no pun intended) has made it seem so much more outrageous. It's also allot to do with trade agreements. There are regulations against what the top dogs call "dumping" and manufacturers have their hands tied in allot of ways.  They can't just say: "OK, we're going to be totally honest and fair and sell you any model you want for $2,000 even." 

I just brought up this aspect of the manufacturing process as an example of the probable cost of adding seals to all models.


Also if everyone stopped buying stuff what would that do to the economies of the world. I assume you all know how the fractional reserve system works with inflation and deflation etc.... (Of course if you really do then you really DO know what a rip-off it all really is tee-hee-hee...   But that's the system we're in till we decide to change it.)


----------



## Crazydad (Aug 18, 2008)

There are other costs to keep in mind. Like the amount set a side per unit (of whatever it is) for marketing, R&D for new products, servicing existing units, legal defence fund for lawsuits (which in today's society every company get sued). 

Also the cost in complying with government regulations has to be factored in. I was in the car business in the 90's and when the average car cost $20K USD, over $5K of the cost (not retail) was spent to comply with government regulations (here in the US). Specifically what is called OBDII diagnostics system which required a complete re-design of the electronics for every car sold in the US.

And it always amuses me when people complain about companies making money. They say the company is charging too much, but basic economics dictates that an object's worth is what someone is willing to pay for it. If Nikon/Canon can charge $800 for their newest camera and people buy it, then it is not over priced for the market. Regardless of what it cost them to make it. If no one buys it, then the market dictated that it was over-priced and they can either lower the price or stop making it.


Their (and every company out there) job is to make the best return possible for their owners/shareholders. We, the consuming public, are the ones that dictate the prices. If you think something is over-priced, don't buy it, buy a competitor's item. That is the beautiful thing about a free market economy, there is always competition and we have the ability to tell the manufacturers how much we'll pay. If you think that new camera/lens/car/etc. is over-priced but you buy it anyway, was it really over-priced?


----------



## photo28 (Aug 18, 2008)

reg said:


> I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this.


  :lmao::lmao::lmao: Yes, I know, sometimes my ideas can get a little wild and very stupid.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Aug 18, 2008)

Material and manufacturing costs are rarely the bulk of the cost, except maybe in high-end Swiss watches. The real cost is in R&D, marketing, and (recently) distribution.


----------



## Vautrin (Aug 18, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Also if everyone stopped buying stuff what would that do to the economies of the world. I assume you all know how the fractional reserve system works with inflation and deflation etc....




If people stopped buying as much of some thing because it was manufactured better, they'd buy more of other things, or save / invest their money -- which would get loaned to someone who would then buy something useful.  The reason that we don't see higher quality goods is not that the economy needs constant churn to keep chugging along, but that the masses would rather something cheap that has to be replaced then something expensive that can be kept forever...


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 18, 2008)

Vautrin said:


> If people stopped buying as much of some thing because it was manufactured better, they'd buy more of other things, or save / invest their money -- which would get loaned to someone who would then buy something useful.  The reason that we don't see higher quality goods is not that the economy needs constant churn to keep chugging along, but that the masses would rather something cheap that has to be replaced then something expensive that can be kept forever...



Yeah, I think that's probably true. I wasn't speculating as to why or why not seals weren't in all models tho... Just commenting on what the costs might be in an attempt to answer prodigy2k7's inquiry about that.

If asked though I guess I would opt for having seals in all models - I mean as a consumer.


----------



## Hawaii Five-O (Aug 18, 2008)

photo28 said:


> I wish everyone on Earth would just stop buying cameras (or anything) for a few weeks



 Thats hard to do while learning about photography here on TPF.

You are all  evil,evil people for putting ideas into my head to buy more camera and photo equipment! haha just joking.


----------



## Vautrin (Aug 18, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> If asked though I guess I would opt for having seals in all models - I mean as a consumer.



If every single consumer demanded such, it would be included.

Honestly I thought all cameras were too delicate to go into the rain until today.

Most people probably do to -- which is why unless you're looking at a pro camera you probably never see advertisements of weather sealing


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 18, 2008)

Sounds like reasonable logic to me.  I agree.



 So let's start an awareness campaign: Metal Bodies, and Whether Seals for all. 
Oh, and let's standardize ALL lens mounts while we're at it. :lmao:


----------



## skeletonman (Aug 18, 2008)

I am using E510 for more than a year now, this is my first DSRL. So far this camera serves me well, been with it to so many countries with it. 

Yes it does not have that many lens like Nikon or Canon, but again...do we really need that MANY lenses??? For me, I have a 300-600 mm zoom lens, a 50 mm macro, a 12-60mm and a 45-150mm(If I remember the numbers are correct lol). All these lenses served me well. Ok I am not a pro maybe I might be wrong in the number of lenses needed.

I am not a technical experts in the format of 4/3 format, but it offered me small size DSLR and I have no problem printing it if you print it in JUMBO 4R. I have done wedding shots and printed it.

But what I have to say is that Olympus produced fine cameras. Why nikon or canon? I think its because when people think of Cameras they will think of these 2 brands just like when you talked about fast food...people will think of Mac. Not that I am saying their other 2 are bad. I believe each system has their strength and weakness.

Its up to the person behind the cameras to produce great photos and not by having what kind of equipements u have. 

I have gotten the Olympus Mju 1030sw and brought it for my trip to snorkling in the sea. Hey it did not fail me! I took great pictures underwater and video too. some people think that hey are you crazy to go into the water with a digital camera? lol..


----------



## usayit (Aug 18, 2008)

Vautrin said:


> But then you hang it in that trendy storefront in NYC where it costs $500 / sqft / month and you start to see where the real costs come in.



No.. you misunderstand.  I'm talking about clothing at Kohls, targets... your regular clothing stores.  I don't spend money on clothing....  Those trendy storefronts play a relatively small part in the market.  Its the clothing that millions purchase that really make a difference.


----------



## pez (Aug 19, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> If I started over, I would want a system that is small, it's one of the reasons I always like Pentax - weather-seals, LiveView, sensor clean, and the smallest system out there.
> 
> I wish Canon had a smaller FF dSLR, and a few small prime lenses. Probably soon...


 
I love to walk around with my K10D and the compact DA21mm lens, pre-focused for max DOF on manual. It's like a super point & shoot.


----------



## Vautrin (Aug 19, 2008)

usayit said:


> No.. you misunderstand.  I'm talking about clothing at Kohls, targets... your regular clothing stores.  I don't spend money on clothing....  Those trendy storefronts play a relatively small part in the market.  Its the clothing that millions purchase that really make a difference.



Space at Kohl's still costs money.  Believe it or not most malls even out in the middle of nowhere might still be charging $100 / sq ft (I forget the exact numbers from the real estate finance course I took a while back).  But you have the entire cost of getting there too -- space on a container from china, space in a warehouse in the US, space on a UPS truck to ship it there.  Then on top of that add the cost of humans (e.g. to pull boxes), taxes, and anything else you have to pay (let's not forget spoilage -- maybe 25% of those cheaply made jeans don't fit right and need to be sent to an outlet store or recycled).

The fact that Kohl's costs are less and they're not going for the brand factor so much is reflected in the fact that I can get a pair of jeans there for under $20.  It's a huge markup over the cost of just making the pants but it's not that big a markup over the total cost from manufacturing to selling


----------



## usayit (Aug 19, 2008)

Vautrin said:


> Space at Kohl's still costs money.  Believe it or not most malls even out in the middle of nowhere might still be charging $100 / sq ft (I forget the exact numbers from the real estate finance course I took a while back).  But you have the entire cost of getting there too -- space on a container from china, space in a warehouse in the US, space on a UPS truck to ship it there.  Then on top of that add the cost of humans (e.g. to pull boxes), taxes, and anything else you have to pay (let's not forget spoilage -- maybe 25% of those cheaply made jeans don't fit right and need to be sent to an outlet store or recycled).
> 
> The fact that Kohl's costs are less and they're not going for the brand factor so much is reflected in the fact that I can get a pair of jeans there for under $20.  It's a huge markup over the cost of just making the pants but it's not that big a markup over the total cost from manufacturing to selling



Nah.. you still don't understand... We used to clear out pants for $7.50 (regular priced at $30 this was a while ago).  We were still making a profit.  The cost of operation is usually relatively small compared to the R&D of most products.  The cost of products have VERY LITTLE to do with manufacturing costs.  They are priced for max profits without turning away the target customer base.  It is only when the profit margin is small enough that it is deemed not worth the effort that a product is discontinued or never makes it to general sales.  This is the reason why the general public have not seen a reduction of the cost of goods or products that have been previously made in the USA and now made abroad (people just didn't realize just how much was being off shored).  

Now yes... you do figure in the cost of moving products (fuel).  This was only a recent concern with the rising cost of fuel.  As Iron mentioned.. "(recently) distribution".


----------



## Vautrin (Aug 19, 2008)

Well if I have something I can sell at $20, why would I sell it at $5?


----------



## usayit (Aug 19, 2008)

Vautrin said:


> Well if I have something I can sell at $20, why would I sell it at $5?



In the case of $7.50 pants, it was because clothing stores are seasonal.  

But yeh... you can in no way determine the cost of making such a product (R&D, marketing, distribution, cost of operation etc.) just by looking at the stick price of a product.  No way to tell.  All I know is that there are many products we buy that a manufactured in factories that pay their employees less than a $1 per day.  They maintain these low wages in various ways (fair and unfair).... which places local labor in the USA at a distinct and shocking disadvantage.

I once had a talk with a guy who worked at a company making razor blades.  At that time, It was by far cheaper to ship steel overseas, have them made into blades, and ship them back.  Years and years prior, the entire operation and materials were U.S.  A few years later, we had the same conversation.  They were no longer using U.S. steel.  It was even cheaper to buy materials and manufacture all the razor blades over seas.  

Get this... the company is based in the middle of what used to be a steel capital of the U.S.  It was still cheaper to buy materials from over seas than from the steel plant next door.


----------



## Battou (Aug 19, 2008)

Olympus as a company has been around as long or longer than Canon and Nikon. Olympus has been building cameras since 1936, wile Canon released their first in 1934, and Nikon since some time in the late '40s I think it was. So their camera lineage is just as strong as Canon or Nikon. Canon and Nikon gained a lot of loyal customers as usayit said, but olympus just did not garner the same level of dedication from the buying public.  Wether this is due to lacking in advertising or lacking in innovation in comparison to Canon and Nikon, I don't know. I do know that that loyalty does carry over as generations passed and perpetuated the reputations to new buyers (loyal Canon shooters recomend Canon and Nikon users recomend Nikon). Olympus just kind of faded, that does not mean that Olympus cameras are substandard. Olypmus film cameras are just as good as the competitors cameras of the era, and I have to assume similar applies to their digitals. Wile they may not have the same power as Canon and Nikon in the field of "word of mouth" The fact they are still manufacturing cameras and accessories sais something to spite that.


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 19, 2008)

photo28 said:


> Like I said- I think that some people don't buy Olympus because of its lenses. They are top quality no doubt and probabaly some of the best lenses out there are Olympus, but they are definately more expensive than other companys which you could get a good lens for $150. Olympus you would have to pay at least $300+. The Evolt E-410 camera body sells for around $330, some places are ridicolous and go with $600 for it, I found a good deal for $329.99.


 



I thought you were going to talk about real lenses. Those $150 lenses for the other manufactures are normally crap.

Now something like the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS sells for about $1600-$1700 new. Olympus's 35-100 f/2.0 sells for about $2100-$2200. It's essentially the same focal range and has a slightly wider aperture, mainly because of the sensor, but even Canon's lens with IS built in is still cheaper. If you compare it to the non IS version at about $1000, then that's a big price difference. And I believe their 7-14 is over $1000. It's one of the only wide angles for the system.

Their first party glass is expensive.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 19, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> I thought you were going to talk about real lenses. Those $150 lenses for the other manufactures are normally crap.
> 
> Their first party glass is expensive.



I agree with the 1st sentence. But when I look in my 1400+ page catalog with reviews, bench-tests, and prices for every SLR lens still in production in 2008 the 33 Olympus lenses available aren't mush more than the equivalently rated lenses from among the 133 Canon lenses, the 117 Nikon lenses, the 76 Pentax lenses, or the 77 Sony lenses. There's just not allot of overlap and trash lenses like there is for Nikon/Canon.


I would use the "you get what you pay for" statement but that's actually untrue and rarely if ever honestly applies. It's usually what people who don't do their homework say.


----------



## Steph (Aug 19, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> Now something like the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS sells for about $1600-$1700 new. Olympus's 35-100 f/2.0 sells for about $2100-$2200. It's essentially the same focal range and has a slightly wider aperture


 
Slightly wider aperture?? That's a *full stop* difference between the Olympus and the Canon (the same way it is a full stop between the 70-200 f2.8 anf f4.0 from Canon). I would be curious to see how much a 70-200 *f2.0* from Canon or Nikon would cost.


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 19, 2008)

Steph said:


> Slightly wider aperture?? That's a *full stop* difference between the Olympus and the Canon (the same way it is a full stop between the 70-200 f2.8 anf f4.0 from Canon). I would be curious to see how much a 70-200 *f2.0* from Canon or Nikon would cost.


 
Probably significantly more. But then again, they're designed for a bigger sensor and it would take a lot more glass.

The DoF on The 35-100 @ 35mm (effectively 70mm) with an aperture of f/2.8 is 2.11'

The DoF on the 70-200 on a 5D a 70mm with an aperture of f/2.8 is 1.03'

Even with the Olympus shooting at f/2, it's DOF is still 1.48'. It needs the wider aperture to get anything close to the larger sensor cameras because of it's 4/3 sensor. Canon doesn't need to make their telephoto lenses any faster.

The rebels or xxD's shooting with the 70-200 @ f/2.8 has an even shallower DoF at .65'


----------



## reg (Aug 19, 2008)

This thread is now officially about pants. Go!


----------

