The Future IS Mirror-less: so says Olympus
- Thread starter artspraken
- Start date
- Status
bokeh is the visual esthetic quality of out of focus areas... and as for out of focus areas, it is there even for the human eye... try putting your hand near the eye, focus on your hand and try to look at, but not focus on, things in the distance... how is the quality of the bokeh
i know abt that. since im also short sighted, my eyes dof also smaller than normal ppl when not wearing contact lens or spec. :bsmilie:
what i mean was, the eyes cannot produce bokeh like 50mm 1.2 lens, or etcs.
p.s. i like my eyes trully. otherwise, that would be blasphemy. :sweat:
No chance. The real leaders in consumer digicam are Canon-Nikon.
Just big talk by marketing hype artists working for Oly.
Anyway Oly does not depend on small cams for a living. It is just a side-show.
Oly core business is in medical imaging and scoping.
Just big talk by marketing hype artists working for Oly.
Anyway Oly does not depend on small cams for a living. It is just a side-show.
Oly core business is in medical imaging and scoping.
well, it's not impossible..
on the bright side, if it is true, that also means that there will be no shutter sound.
umm.. which part of that link had olympus saying tt DSLRs are going to die? they didn't... you did.
only the digital part is moving at fast pace. everything else--the lens, the focusing speed, the shutter speed...still pretty much the same as film camera years ago.
this remind me of Bill Gates:
lol... nice rebuttal by gm. ;p
thks for sourcing the link.. but once again tt opinion doesn't represent that of olympus right? it was just speculation by some tech blogger... hence it's still misleading to say "Olympus says DSLRs are going to die".
Last edited:
The cutest thing is while manufacturers are making mirrorless dSLR, they are adding more gadget like electronic VF make it bigger.:bsmilie:
Yup, there will be a shutter noise. It'll be like the one on your cell phone. You'll probably be able to change it like a ring tone.
no, these mirror-less cameras still have a mechanical focal plane shutter. there will be shutter noise.
Not sure why, maybe its just me, I only recently picked up phototaking as a hobby, and since day 1, i have been just naturally looking through the viewfinder, and not the screen.
I find using the screen.. feels a bit... odd. :dunno:
I find using the screen.. feels a bit... odd. :dunno:
I have been told that Nikon and/or Canon pay Olympus $22 billion in licensing fees every year for using technology patented by Olympus. To give u an idea of this number, the annual sales for Nikon cameras is $4 billion. That is what I have been told. I was not able to verify it through the internet. But please prove me wrong or prove me right. Either way, I want the truth.
1)no company in their right mind will pay $22 billion licensing fee every year. even Microsoft/Intel will go bankrupt in no time.
2)Olympus will be the biggest company if they can get $22 billion every year without doing anything.
3)the total asset of Nikon is less than $22 billion.
it really is a no brainer. I would really like to know your source and why you even bother to take it seriously...
Just as how Olympus was saying 4/3 format was the future? And now they are left behind in the dust by Nikon, Canon, Sony all moving on to a full-frame sensor? :bsmilie:
1. I did not say ONE company paid that much. This is the total licensing fees presumably received by Olympus per year from various camera companies.
2. Not selling or marketing cameras as much as the biggies, does not mean that they are not doing anything. Have u heard of back-end things such as research and development??
3. Again, I did not say that Nikon ALONE paid $22 billion.
BTW, the numbers are not that unbelieveable. I managed to find some figures online about Nikon profits, and they are in the range of billions of dollars. So before u reply with rhetoric, please get some facts to prove or disprove it.
Also, it makes economic sense for Nikon and other manufacturers. Even if, let's say they pay $10 billion per year for licensing fees. But if in paying this $10 billion, they can make profit of $4 billion per year? Why not? It is a 40% return on THAT investment. On the other hand, R&D is risky. U can throw in 1 billion, and not get a single dollar back if the research fails. But u throw in 1 billion in marketing, u can be sure ur product WILL sell. Audi is a good example this year, of how good marketing can actually increase market share, and they din even spend anywhere close to that amount.
FYI, operating income for Olympus in the order of US$11 billion. Annual sales from camera is in the range of US$3 billion.
Perhaps it is not such a no-brainer if u actually did think about it.
Last edited:
4/3 is a digital format full frame camera sensor.
This is a format which, when Olympus decided to go into digital, thought about how to design and produce a camera system from the ground up, based on this new digital sensor. And they decided, to choose this specific format for various optical and physical reasons. They had the choice to make a LARGER digital sensor, but for some reason, they din, and chose this particular size. U go and ask those PhDs in there why?
And yes, in terms of that big 135 full frame in the Canon 1D, Nikon D700/3, and Sony's, Olympus may look to be behind in the dust. But when the dust clears, u will not see Olympus there at all. I dun think they are even in this race at all.
In fact, they have also declared, a few months ago, that 10-12 MP is enough and they are not going to be in the megapixel race. So if u consider camera companies that make large digital sensors and high megapixel sensors better, so be it. Perhaps, ur photography requires it and I am totally OK with that.Very true.
I like Oly's ads with Miyazawa Aoi though. Mmm...
Anyways, Olympus has its own market. I don't feel that it has anything to do with the DSLR lot at all.
- Status
