AFAIK, the only AF 35mm SLR with interchangeable lenses that Olympus produced was the OM-77, and that was a hunkajunk, poorly built and poorly spec'd. I don't disagree with what you say, but my main point was that companies who don't follow the major movements of the market lose visibility in that market very quickly. Olympus made OM SLR's until just very recently, but how many people bought them when they were looking for SLR's? Even though Olympus made fine MF cameras, people still bought FM2's or MZ-M's, just because Nikon and Pentax had greater visibility because of their AF SLR's. If Pentax stays out of the DSLR market or only introduces one camera, how many people are going to buy Pentax SLR's, even the film ones? I'd hate to see any more blows to Pentax's SLR line... it's sparse enough as it is.
chris On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > It isn't that Olympus didn't "get it", they did. The came out with a couple > of AF SLRs, realized how tight the competition was and how high the cost was > developing these things and opted out of the market. They decided to expand > their P&S line (very successfully) and just keep making the same non AF SLRs > they always did for as long as they could make money doing it. What Olympus > did with AF (pass on it) is what Minolta and Pentax have done with DSLRs. > > BR > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ...... the move to > > digital, like the move to auto-focus, *is* a permanent transition, and > > companies (like Olympus with the move to AF) who don't recognize these > > permanent transitions are in danger of dying out. > >
