Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/06/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi B.D., In my opinion you are very right: "it's about selling quantity, not quality" Saludos desde Barcelona Luis -----Mensaje original----- De: lug-bounces+luisripoll=telefonica.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+luisripoll=telefonica.net@leica-users.org] En nombre de B. D. Colen Enviado el: domingo, 25 de junio de 2006 3:33 Para: Leica Users Group Asunto: Re: [Leica] Re:Panasonic releases the Lumix DMC-L1 Actually, Don and Mehrdad, this has little to do with film or digital, and everything to do with the reality of modern business practices and economics. In almost every field, where there used to be many 'little guys," there are now a handful of giants. Consider how many auto manufacturers there were forty years ago, and how many there are now. Did the independents all disappear or get subsumed by the giants because of battery worries, LCD suppliers, software engineers, or cost/quantity problems? I think not - they disappeared because business today is all about the stock price, not the product; it's about selling quantity, not quality. So the little guy who turns out a specialty item will be forever teetering on the brink of extinction. And by the way, the reason there is still an Olympus today has nothing to do with cameras - it has to do with the fact that Olympus is one of the world's leaders in the medical scope business, and in the manufacture of certain other medical devices - something in excess of 70 percent of the colonoscopy scopes sold in the U.S. are manufactured by Olympus, and 90 percent of the blood analyzers used by hospital and independent blood banks are made by Olympus. The photo business is but the tip of the dog's tail.;-) On 6/23/06 9:06 PM, "Don Dory" <don.dory@gmail.com> wrote: > Mehrdad, > I think that the difference is that in years past, film was the great > leveler. If the lens line was OK then load up some film and away you go. > If you did not have a good lens line then you used the Zeiss/Pentax thread > and no worries. > > Today, the camera does everything and you might be dependant on the RAW > converter if the brand turns out to be too obscure. So, better safe than > sorry and on the way to Nikon/Canon who not only have complete lens lines > but are in no immediate danger of going out of busines like Minolta, Konica, > Olympus in the film business(before B.D. chimes in there were a lot of POed > folks that Olympus got out of the SLR business some time before the E-1 > became reality). Another difference this time around is the technology is > tough; last time around you could buy a copal shutter, hire some young girls > to assemble your body and Bob's your uncle. Now, you have battery worries, > LCD suppliers, software engineers, chip supplies and in what quantity and > what price. > > Another factor is we are all much more informed than in years past. Forty > years ago if your local trusted dealer told you to go with the Practica, > Miranda, Exacta, Minolta, Pentacon, or whatever you might go with the dealer > as you didn't know any better. > > Don > don.dory@gmail.com > > > On 6/23/06, mehrdad <msadat@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> don how is this different when it was only film? >> >> we had a lot more companies, they all thrived and prospered as we did >> with choice >> >> On 6/23/06, Don Dory <don.dory@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Gene, >>> That is the story throughout most of the world. Conjecture on my part >> is >>> that Nikon and Canon especially have reached critical mass for DSLR's. >>> Meaning that a true amateur might end up with a Pentax, Olympus, of >> Minolta; >>> but anyone who has done research and wants to fit in(notice the logical >>> argument) would buy anything but Canon or Nikon. Exception to this rule >>> would be the large number of Pentax lovers who will buy the brand >> because of >>> lens compatibility, price, size, and feature set. >>> >>> So, unless the Alpha and the Olympus new models truly walk on water and >> take >>> pictures of Aliens and Angeline J's new baby then they will suffer the >> fate >>> of the Olympus and Minolta SLR's which is abandonment and >> discontinuation. >>> Even the Japanese companies will no longer continue a line that loses >> money >>> in perpetuity. >>> >>> On the other hand Canon especially and Nikon as well can not build their >>> models fast enough. >>> >>> Don >>> don.dory@gmail.com >>> >>> >>> On 6/23/06, Grduprey@aol.com <Grduprey@aol.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> In a message dated 6/21/2006 5:03:14 PM Central Daylight Time, >>>> bdcolen@comcast.net writes: >>>> Boy, is that the truth. The B mode is nice to have for macro work, or >>>> perhaps for formal portraiture. But the A, real-time live view is what >>>> makes the E330 special. So all the Panisonic really has is a truly >> crappy >>>> viewfinder, analogue controls, and a 'Leica' lens? No wonder Olympus >> was >>>> willing to license the technology to them. ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> The really sad thing is our local Oly dealer can't give them >> away. But >>>> the >>>> D200's and 30D's are flying off the shelves. >>>> >>>> Gene >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------- >> regards, mehrdad >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information