Olympus launches micro 4/3 camera
Alfred Molon
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
David J Taylor
> http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/pen.htm?olycmp=912222#intro
Warning - this Web site has "music" on many pages!
David
David J Taylor
.. meaning that I, for one, will simply switch away from that site.
David
Pete D
"David J Taylor"
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:tnHZl.43100$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Quite seriously WTF were they thinking?
Me
There's a preview etc on DPReview now.
IMO the camera is a good concept, there is an optional optical VF.
I hope it sells, otherwise the major makers might not produce a similar
concept camera.
Bob Williams
Beats the hell out of me! Have they never heard of a "Focus Group"?
A single focal length lens? Where's the need?
Looks like it's made to compete with the Sigma DP-1 and/or DP-2, neither
of which seemed to fill a niche that was crying out to be filled.
Bob Wiliams
Eric Stevens
It might also have a message but I didn't have the patience to find
out. :-(
Eric Stevens
J. Clarke
It seems to have escaped you that the Olympus PEN is an interchangeable-lens
camera based on the Micro 4/3 system, which means that it can use any 4/3
system lens, any lens that is adaptable to the 4/3 system (which among
others includes just about the whole Nikon range), and in addition can use
lenses such as those for the Leica M system that require a flange distance
too short for any SLR.
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
> Alfred Molon wrote:
> > http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/pen.htm?olycmp=912222#intro
>
> Warning - this Web site has "music" on many pages!
You can skip the intro.
ray
> http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/pen.htm?olycmp=912222#intro
Cool. And it only takes about five minutes to load on a broadband
connection!!
John Navas
<79pr92F1...@mid.individual.net>:
Loaded in less than 30 seconds for me over 3G cellular.
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
John Navas
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<MPG.24a211799...@news.supernews.com>:
>In article <cfHZl.43098$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
>Taylor says...
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> > http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/pen.htm?olycmp=912222#intro
>>
>> Warning - this Web site has "music" on many pages!
>
>You can skip the intro.
Or simply mute the sound on your computer. No biggie.
John Navas
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<MPG.24a1b258...@news.supernews.com>:
>http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/pen.htm?olycmp=912222#intro
Cool, but about 50% overpriced, especially in today's market.
My own preference is probably the Panasonic GH1.
David J Taylor
> In article <cfHZl.43098$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/pen.htm?olycmp=912222#intro
>>
>> Warning - this Web site has "music" on many pages!
>
> You can skip the intro.
Yes, that's what I noticed as well, but you /still/ get the music. So I
switched away from the site. Style over content, no thanks.
David
Pete D
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:h188h...@news3.newsguy.com...
I am so glad they have done this, now I can use all my 4/3rds and M lenses
on a tiny camera, doesn't everyone need that?
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<FZRZl.43347$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
Actually content + style, and easily turned off, so switching is silly.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Do not be excessively annoying and do not become excessively annoyed."
[FidoNet's basic social guideline]
Reality Czech
Now you know why people won't bother gazing at photos with no worthwhile
content, no matter what camera they come from. Even if the very best
22-megapixels available by modern technology, the purest most exacting
colors, the highest resolution, the least noise. But if there's no
worthwhile content? What a total waste of everyone's effort, provider and
consumer included. Yet if a blurry and noisy B&W 640x480 image taken with a
toddler's Fisher-Price "Baby's First Digital-Camera" happened to have
valuable CONTENT it could surround the globe in a matter of moments, or
might fetch the highest bid ever from news agencies, or be proudly
upsampled to poster-size and displayed on some famous gallery wall for all
to see.
Any of you ever catch the resolution of the very first images of a
Bose-Einstein Condensate? Wasn't much, but it made a huge impact on the
world of science, technology, and digital imaging. And it brought us all
closer to understanding the how and why of our universe. Something that I
doubt any of you will ever do in your lifetimes. (I could easily win that
as a bet.)
Any of you catching on to what's really important in photography yet?
No?
I figured as much.
Alfred Molon
> Alfred Molon wrote:
> > You can skip the intro.
>
> Yes, that's what I noticed as well, but you /still/ get the music. So I
> switched away from the site. Style over content, no thanks.
My Lenovo Thinkpad has a button to switch off the sound.
But actually I just wanted to post the news. I don't understand why you
are so concerned about the music.
Alfred Molon
01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D says...
>
> I am so glad they have done this, now I can use all my 4/3rds and M lenses
> on a tiny camera, doesn't everyone need that?
I think the point with this camera is that you get a very compact camera
with interchangeable lenses and a large sensor (large if compared to
standard compact camera sensors). So you would want to use new micro 4/3
lenses.
ray
> On 16 Jun 2009 15:15:47 GMT, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote in
> <79pr92F1...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:45:36 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/pen.htm?olycmp=912222#intro
>>
>>Cool. And it only takes about five minutes to load on a broadband
>>connection!!
>
> Loaded in less than 30 seconds for me over 3G cellular.
I'm seldom patient enough to wait 30 seconds for a page to load. I must
KNOW that it has some information I REALLY want. Otherwise, I generally
give about 10 seconds and I'm gone. Don't know why folks would
intentionally limit their audience like that.
daveFaktor
> http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/pen.htm?olycmp=912222#intro
Olympus clutching at straws (again). The original half frame pen was
crap. The digital version of it has specifications almost guaranteeing
it will be too. When will this mob learn?
More future rubbish from a microscope maker. That about sums it up.
John Navas
<79qsi9F1...@mid.individual.net>:
I guess they assume people with normal patience will wait 30 seconds.
;)
David J Taylor
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:00:53 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote
> in <FZRZl.43347$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <cfHZl.43098$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David
>>> J Taylor says...
>>>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>>> http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/pen.htm?olycmp=912222#intro
>>>>
>>>> Warning - this Web site has "music" on many pages!
>>>
>>> You can skip the intro.
>>
>> Yes, that's what I noticed as well, but you /still/ get the music.
>> So I switched away from the site. Style over content, no thanks.
>
> Actually content + style, and easily turned off, so switching is
> silly.
You may think it silly. There is /no/ option to turn off the sound. It
lost Olympus my view.
David
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<Z50_l.43484$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> Actually content + style, and easily turned off, so switching is
>> silly.
>
>You may think it silly. There is /no/ option to turn off the sound. It
>lost Olympus my view.
Your computer has no hardware or software volume or mute control?
Really? What OS are you running?! ;)
David J Taylor
> In article <FZRZl.43347$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> You can skip the intro.
>>
>> Yes, that's what I noticed as well, but you /still/ get the music.
>> So I switched away from the site. Style over content, no thanks.
>
> My Lenovo Thinkpad has a button to switch off the sound.
>
> But actually I just wanted to post the news. I don't understand why
> you are so concerned about the music.
Alfred,
I object strongly to anything which affects my acoustic environment. I
have my PC set up for sounds from certain events and programs, and
therefore I don't want to have to turn my sound on and off just to suit
the whims of some marketing types. You will note that most Media Player
programs offer a mute button, and many Web sites which have a sound have a
similar mute button in consideration for their users. Even this site as a
skip intro, as you note.
As this site does not offer similar consideration, I choose not to view
it. A pity, as I might actually be interested in the information it
contains. I looked at DP Review instead.
My concern about the unstoppable music is for others who might also care
about their acoustic environment.
David
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<Jb0_l.43487$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>Alfred Molon wrote:
>> My Lenovo Thinkpad has a button to switch off the sound.
>>
>> But actually I just wanted to post the news. I don't understand why
>> you are so concerned about the music.
>I object strongly to anything which affects my acoustic environment. ...
And that is, of course, the real issue. ;)
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<Jb0_l.43487$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>As this site does not offer similar consideration, I choose not to view
>it. A pity, as I might actually be interested in the information it
>contains.
The only one that suffers is you.
"Cutting off your nose to spite your face?"
David J Taylor
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:32:25 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote
> in <Z50_l.43484$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>
>>> Actually content + style, and easily turned off, so switching is
>>> silly.
>>
>> You may think it silly. There is /no/ option to turn off the sound.
>> It lost Olympus my view.
>
> Your computer has no hardware or software volume or mute control?
> Really? What OS are you running?! ;)
Please see my other post. There is no option on those Web pages to remove
the sound. It is inconsiderate for potential visitors.
David
David J Taylor
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:38:33 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote
> in <Jb0_l.43487$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>
>> As this site does not offer similar consideration, I choose not to
>> view it. A pity, as I might actually be interested in the
>> information it contains.
>
> The only one that suffers is you.
> "Cutting off your nose to spite your face?"
I have walked out of restaurants in the past which were too noisy.
David
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<qk0_l.43493$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
So have I. Different matter entirely. No other way to kill the noise.
Unlike a computer.
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<oj0_l.43492$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
In other words, you could easily mute the sound, but you choose not to.
Whether it is inconsiderate or not is a matter of opinion. What you
choose to do only serves to hurt yourself.
David J Taylor
[]
> In other words, you could easily mute the sound, but you choose not
> to. Whether it is inconsiderate or not is a matter of opinion. What
> you choose to do only serves to hurt yourself.
No, I cannot mute the sound from that site alone, without affecting the
sound I may wish to have from other sites or from other functions on my
computer. Those pages are an example of poor Web-site design, and one I
will not view.
David
J. Clarke
In any case, I can't see where not looking at a Web site advertising a
product that one has no interest in purchasing to begin with is "cutting off
your nose to spite your face".
The job of the advertiser is, first, to get people to look at their ads. If
people are tuning out this particular ad because of the sound, then the
advertiser has failed.
However there is a mute button on the lower right, where there is an icon of
vertical bars.
Doug Jewell
music that I want to hear. When some inconsiderate twat puts
music on a website that can't be turned off it is a pain in
the backside. You either put up with the racket, or you
pause the music you want to listen to and mute the whole
sound system. Sorry, but I want my computer to make the
noises I want it to make, not the whim of some web designer.
Plus it is just more crap that gets downloaded, counting
towards monthly download quotas, and slowing down the
overall browsing experience.
--
Don't blame me - I didn't vote for Kevin Rudd or Anna Bligh!
David J Taylor
[]
> However there is a mute button on the lower right, where there is an
> icon of vertical bars.
Thanks, I missed that (as perhaps did others). Of course, putting
something at the right-hand-side may make it invisible without scrolling
the display - another example of bad Web page design.
David
Bob Larter
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:38:33 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
> <Jb0_l.43487$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>>> My Lenovo Thinkpad has a button to switch off the sound.
>>>
>>> But actually I just wanted to post the news. I don't understand why
>>> you are so concerned about the music.
>
>> I object strongly to anything which affects my acoustic environment. ...
>
> And that is, of course, the real issue. ;)
You say that like it's a bad thing. I also greatly object to websites
that play music or make noises at me. My usual response is to close the
tab with the offending page.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
J. Clarke
No problem. It's also light gray and I'm surprised that _I_ noticed it.
I quit eating M&Ms after an obnoxious pop-up ad with sound effects annoyed
me one too many times. I snail-mailed the CEO of Mars Candy and explained
why, too. That ad disappeared about a week and a half later never to be
seen again.
I think that web designers are going to have to learn the lesson that
gratuitous sound effects on Web sites are like brown suits--no matter how
well designed, they're going to alienate a certain percentage of viewers.
John McWilliams
> John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:38:33 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
>> <Jb0_l.43487$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>>
>>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>
>>>> My Lenovo Thinkpad has a button to switch off the sound.
>>>>
>>>> But actually I just wanted to post the news. I don't understand why
>>>> you are so concerned about the music.
>>
>>> I object strongly to anything which affects my acoustic environment.
>>> ...
>>
>> And that is, of course, the real issue. ;)
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing. I also greatly object to websites
> that play music or make noises at me. My usual response is to close the
> tab with the offending page.
Me three. It's not difficult to code the page with a) a control to stop
the sound, or control its volume, and b), have its default position to
Off when the page is first opened.
--
john mcwilliams
ASAAR
>> Please see my other post. There is no option on those Web pages
>> to remove the sound. It is inconsiderate for potential visitors.
>
> In other words, you could easily mute the sound, but you choose
> not to. Whether it is inconsiderate or not is a matter of opinion.
> What you choose to do only serves to hurt yourself.
No. What David chose to do because of poor website design, and
what many others have done (including myself) and what even more
will do, only serves to hurt Olympus's poor marketing campaign and
ultimately their product sales. But Navas you are and Navas you'll
always be, so once having an opinion, you'll dig in your heels and
refuse to be budged, no matter how poorly formed your opinions.
cretins cretins everywhere
>so once having an opinion, you'll dig in your heels and
>refuse to be budged, no matter how poorly formed your opinions.
ASSAR? Did you finally get that mirror that everyone's been telling you to
look into all of your life? Wow! I'm impressed!
ASAAR
>> so once having an opinion, you'll dig in your heels and
>> refuse to be budged, no matter how poorly formed your opinions.
>
> ASSAR? Did you finally get that mirror that everyone's been telling
> you to look into all of your life? Wow! I'm impressed!
Equally impressive is your near immediate response. You have no
life. Or it may be said that whatever life you do have consists of
being only a pathetic, cowardly, nym shifting sock puppet troll. I
doubt that your parents would be proud. In fact, their opinion of
you may be partly responsible for the downward spiral of your life.
ray
I expect that if you could actually check on the 'normal patience' level,
you'd find it to be under 15.
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<D%0_l.43518$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>[]
>> In other words, you could easily mute the sound, but you choose not
>> to. Whether it is inconsiderate or not is a matter of opinion. What
>> you choose to do only serves to hurt yourself.
>
>No, I cannot mute the sound from that site alone, without affecting the
>sound I may wish to have from other sites or from other functions on my
>computer.
Damn! Now there's a problem! LOL
>Those pages are an example of poor Web-site design,
In your opinion.
>and one I
>will not view.
Suit yourself, but that only serves to hurt yourself.
Alfred Molon
says...
> Me three. It's not difficult to code the page with a) a control to stop
> the sound, or control its volume, and b), have its default position to
> Off when the page is first opened.
But would you buy this camera? If not, you are not in the target group
and the camera website might appeal to the right people.
whisky-dave
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:pr4h35dgllct49auo...@4ax.com...
I prefer listening to whatever I happen to have playing on my computer at
the time
whether it's via iTunes or even myspace while reading a viewing such things.
I really don't see the need for audio while looking at such things as
cameras,
unless there's an audio test file, or perhaps a picture with an audio
comment
but that is rare.
John Navas
wrote in <4a38f3b3$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:38:33 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
>> <Jb0_l.43487$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>>
>>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>
>>>> My Lenovo Thinkpad has a button to switch off the sound.
>>>>
>>>> But actually I just wanted to post the news. I don't understand why
>>>> you are so concerned about the music.
>>
>>> I object strongly to anything which affects my acoustic environment. ...
>>
>> And that is, of course, the real issue. ;)
>
>You say that like it's a bad thing. I also greatly object to websites
>that play music or make noises at me. My usual response is to close the
>tab with the offending page.
I'm not fond of music either. My usual response is to press my mute
button. No biggie. No need to overreact and get all excited. Much
bigger alligators in the swamp, around here at least.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Do not be excessively annoying and do not become excessively annoyed."
[FidoNet's basic social guideline]
John Navas
wrote in <h1a7q...@news2.newsguy.com>:
>David J Taylor wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:38:33 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>>> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote
>>> in <Jb0_l.43487$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>>>
>>>> As this site does not offer similar consideration, I choose not to
>>>> view it. A pity, as I might actually be interested in the
>>>> information it contains.
>>>
>>> The only one that suffers is you.
>>> "Cutting off your nose to spite your face?"
>>
>> I have walked out of restaurants in the past which were too noisy.
>
>In any case, I can't see where not looking at a Web site advertising a
>product that one has no interest in purchasing to begin with is "cutting off
>your nose to spite your face".
What he said, quoted above, was, "I might actually be interested in the
information it contains".
>The job of the advertiser is, first, to get people to look at their ads. If
>people are tuning out this particular ad because of the sound, then the
>advertiser has failed.
[shrug]
>However there is a mute button on the lower right, where there is an icon of
>vertical bars.
And it's dead easy to mute sound on most computers. This is making a
mountain out of a very tiny molehill.
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<bZ1_l.43549$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
Nothing like an old fashioned, mindless, off-topic Usenet flamefest.
Is it any wonder Usenet is dying? [sigh]
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." -Gene Spafford
John Navas
wrote in <h1aul...@news2.newsguy.com>:
>David J Taylor wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>> []
>>> However there is a mute button on the lower right, where there is an
>>> icon of vertical bars.
>>
>> Thanks, I missed that (as perhaps did others). Of course, putting
>> something at the right-hand-side may make it invisible without
>> scrolling the display - another example of bad Web page design.
>
>No problem. It's also light gray and I'm surprised that _I_ noticed it.
>
>I quit eating M&Ms after an obnoxious pop-up ad with sound effects annoyed
>me one too many times. I snail-mailed the CEO of Mars Candy and explained
>why, too. That ad disappeared about a week and a half later never to be
>seen again.
I'm sure we have you to thank for that. :)
>I think that web designers are going to have to learn the lesson that
>gratuitous sound effects on Web sites are like brown suits--no matter how
>well designed, they're going to alienate a certain percentage of viewers.
I seriously doubt they are "going to have to learn" anything.
John McWilliams
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:33:55 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
> <D%0_l.43518$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>> []
>>> In other words, you could easily mute the sound, but you choose not
>>> to. Whether it is inconsiderate or not is a matter of opinion. What
>>> you choose to do only serves to hurt yourself.
>> No, I cannot mute the sound from that site alone, without affecting the
>> sound I may wish to have from other sites or from other functions on my
>> computer.
>
> Damn! Now there's a problem! LOL
>
>> Those pages are an example of poor Web-site design,
>
> In your opinion.
And many others.
>
>> and one I
>> will not view.
>
> Suit yourself, but that only serves to hurt yourself.
If an obnoxious feature on a web site that's the only place to access
key info, that'd be true. But such is rarely the case.
I believe standing up for good and thoughtful web design by leaving
immediately and commenting to the author is an upstanding act.
--
john mcwilliams
John Navas
<79sgi4F1...@mid.individual.net>:
A sad commentary on those people. Regardless, this isn't a general
website like Google, and the marketing people may simply not be
interested in those who will click away after only 15 seconds, focusing
instead on those who want the full experience. It's called "focusing on
the target market" and "qualifying the prospect".
John Navas
wrote in <h1b3ef$9m8$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> In your opinion.
>
>And many others.
You're counting? Or guessing?
>> Suit yourself, but that only serves to hurt yourself.
>
>If an obnoxious feature on a web site that's the only place to access
>key info, that'd be true. But such is rarely the case.
>
>I believe standing up for good and thoughtful web design by leaving
>immediately and commenting to the author is an upstanding act.
Also pointless and self-destrictive.
J. Clarke
> In article <h1av1i$7h4$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams
> says...
>
>> Me three. It's not difficult to code the page with a) a control to
>> stop the sound, or control its volume, and b), have its default
>> position to Off when the page is first opened.
>
> But would you buy this camera? If not, you are not in the target group
> and the camera website might appeal to the right people.
So you're saying that there is some kind of psychological correlation
between tolerating gratuitious noise from a web site and buying a micro 4/3
camera?
David J Taylor
> In article <h1av1i$7h4$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams
> says...
>
>> Me three. It's not difficult to code the page with a) a control to
>> stop the sound, or control its volume, and b), have its default
>> position to Off when the page is first opened.
>
> But would you buy this camera? If not, you are not in the target group
> and the camera website might appeal to the right people.
I was in the market for something better than a P&S (sorry, John) at one
stage, and would have considered Olympus just as much as I did consider
the Sony DSC-R1 at the time. I'll now read DP Review rather than being
fed what appears to be Olympus marketing drivel.
David
David J Taylor
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:39:35 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> Thanks, I missed that (as perhaps did others). Of course, putting
>> something at the right-hand-side may make it invisible without
>> scrolling the display - another example of bad Web page design.
>
> Nothing like an old fashioned, mindless, off-topic Usenet flamefest.
> Is it any wonder Usenet is dying? [sigh]
No flame, and certainly on-topic. Only mindless in your opinion.
If Usenet is dying (and that's at least as much off-topic, John), it's all
the binaries and their rather dubious content you most likely have to
blame.
David
ASAAR
>> But would you buy this camera? If not, you are not in the target group
>> and the camera website might appeal to the right people.
>
> So you're saying that there is some kind of psychological correlation
> between tolerating gratuitious noise from a web site and buying a micro 4/3
> camera?
Not really, Alfred appears to think that many of the photographers
already interested in that camera might find the information
appealing enough that they will avoid fleeing the website even
though they might find the sound to be annoying. But it is poor
marketing because to be successful, Olympus needs to reach more than
those already strongly in their camp. They need to reach and
convert those only mildly interested, and they miss these when they
try to treat them as a captive audience, which as evidenced in this
ng, they clearly aren't. So Alfred, super Olympus fan that he is :
> Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
is perfectly willing to tolerate the audio abuse. Many of us
aren't, and I'm speaking as an owner of two Olympus cameras, one
film, the other digital, one of the ones shown in the above sig.
Troll Killer
Correction: ASSAR owns two downloaded Olympus manuals, among all the other
tomes of manuals he downloads to get his only information about cameras and
photography. It's as close as he ever gets to any real cameras in his
online pretend-photographer virtual-reality-game life.
John Navas
wrote in <h1b5m...@news1.newsguy.com>:
Quite possibly (pejoratives notwithstanding).
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<4b9_l.43733$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
Usenet is unquestionably dying, and we only have ourselves to blame, for
allowing Usenet to be turned into a cesspool of illicit file sharing
(drawing the ire of Eliot Spitzer last year) and gutter noise (driving
away the majority of Internet users).
Pete Stavrakoglou
It was a different type of illicit cesspool that Elliot Spitzer was dwelling
in.
ray
It's also called "limiting your prospective client list".
John Navas
<nto...@optonline.net> wrote in
<h1bbju$g3b$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:7hbi35d0a2fe8u3us...@4ax.com...
>> Usenet is unquestionably dying, and we only have ourselves to blame, for
>> allowing Usenet to be turned into a cesspool of illicit file sharing
>> (drawing the ire of Eliot Spitzer last year) and gutter noise (driving
>> away the majority of Internet users).
>
>It was a different type of illicit cesspool that Elliot Spitzer was dwelling
>in.
Thanks for catching that -- actually Andrew Cuomo:
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9988278-38.html>
<http://news.cnet.com/the-iconoclast/?keyword=usenet>
John Navas
<79sr1sF1...@mid.individual.net>:
You have more marketing expertise than they do? ;)
daveFaktor
David is right John...
Force feeding sound that can't be turned off interferes with a user who
is already listening to their own music. Very unthoughtful of them to do it.
I learnt in 1998 that such poor design did more damage to your visitor
count than having no sound at all. It seems you don't care about the
personal comfort of web site visitors. That's OK. Maybe you don't have
top ranking web sites you rely on for your living.
That is no reason to get abusive at people pointing out the stupidity of
not including a button with about 1 minute's worth of script under it
and in the process, gain some extra visitors from your target audience.
You seem to have a habit of doing this sort of thing. You can cure
boredom by masturbating, you know? You don't have to be a nasty bastard.
Pete Stavrakoglou
I'm not a Cuomo fan, going back to the days when Mariotaxed us at every turn
in NY, but I admire Andrew's tenacity in how he does his job.
J. Clarke
When I'm shopping for a camera I want to know about the camera, not listen
to music that someone else has selected.
John McWilliams
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:51:00 -0700, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net>
> wrote in <h1b3ef$9m8$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>
>> I believe standing up for good and thoughtful web design by leaving
>> immediately and commenting to the author is an upstanding act.
>
> Also pointless and self-destrictive.
This really could use some 'splainin'. In other words, it isn't
pointless, as there's a chance that Mon. Molon will change his dastardly
web design.
How could my not going to his web site be destructive to yours truly?
(or self-destrictive, for that matter.)
--
John McWilliams
John Navas
wrote in <h1bucl$j2t$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:51:00 -0700, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net>
>> wrote in <h1b3ef$9m8$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>>>
>>> I believe standing up for good and thoughtful web design by leaving
>>> immediately and commenting to the author is an upstanding act.
>>
>> Also pointless and self-destrictive.
>
>This really could use some 'splainin'. In other words, it isn't
>pointless, as there's a chance that Mon. Molon will change his dastardly
>web design.
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 %
>How could my not going to his web site be destructive to yours truly?
>(or self-destrictive, for that matter.)
Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
John McWilliams
--
john mcwilliams
John Navas
wrote in <h1bukm$j2t$2...@news.eternal-september.org>:
So you're saying that a straw man fallacy is a good'un?
John McWilliams
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:30:45 -0700, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net>
> wrote in <h1bucl$j2t$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:51:00 -0700, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote in <h1b3ef$9m8$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>>> I believe standing up for good and thoughtful web design by leaving
>>>> immediately and commenting to the author is an upstanding act.
>>> Also pointless and self-destrictive.
>> This really could use some 'splainin'. In other words, it isn't
>> pointless, as there's a chance that Mon. Molon will change his dastardly
>> web design.
>
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 %
C;mon, Alfie, show us the money! :-)
>
>> How could my not going to his web site be destructive to yours truly?
>> (or self-destrictive, for that matter.)
>
> Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I'm well aware of clichés that describe self destructive behavior, but -
whoa!- my nose is fully in tact, and I am not spiting anyone. Just not
going to a place that is unpleasant for me.
--
john mcwilliams
John McWilliams
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:35:03 -0700, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net>
> wrote in <h1bukm$j2t$2...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>>>> But would you buy this camera? If not, you are not in the target group
>>>> and the camera website might appeal to the right people.
>>> So you're saying that there is some kind of psychological correlation
>>> between tolerating gratuitious noise from a web site and buying a micro 4/3
>>> camera?
>> Gersnorfle! Good'un, JC.
>
> So you're saying that a straw man fallacy is a good'un?
No. I am saying I enjoyed his turn of phrase. Did not opine as to
fallacies nor straw men, and my mentioning them in response to your
reply neither confirms nor denies that I agree his statement contains
either.
Clear? :-)
--
john mcwilliams
SamSez
news:MPG.24a1b258...@news.supernews.com:
> http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/pen.htm?olycmp=912222#intro
Thanks to all the responders who don't know how to control their audio for
turning this useful heads-up into yet another example of how usenet has
been ruined by idiots.
John Navas
wrote in <h1c09h$o1m$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
Usenet at it's best. ;)
John Navas
<Xns9C2DCD1C824F1s...@198.186.190.132>:
Amen!
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman
ray
Amen. Content is, or should be, king. Glitz means very little when one is
seeking information.
John Navas
<79tf6sF1...@mid.individual.net>:
Marketing data says otherwise -- packaging is extremely important.
John McWilliams
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:03:13 -0700, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net>
> wrote in <h1c09h$o1m$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:35:03 -0700, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote in <h1bukm$j2t$2...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>>>>> But would you buy this camera? If not, you are not in the target group
>>>>>> and the camera website might appeal to the right people.
>>>>> So you're saying that there is some kind of psychological correlation
>>>>> between tolerating gratuitious noise from a web site and buying a micro 4/3
>>>>> camera?
>>>> Gersnorfle! Good'un, JC.
>>> So you're saying that a straw man fallacy is a good'un?
>> No. I am saying I enjoyed his turn of phrase. Did not opine as to
>> fallacies nor straw men, and my mentioning them in response to your
>> reply neither confirms nor denies that I agree his statement contains
>> either.
>>
>> Clear? :-)
>
> Usenet at it's best. ;)
Usenet at *its* best!
--
john mcwilliams
This space intentionally left blank, except for these words.
ray
> On 18 Jun 2009 00:14:21 GMT, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote in
> <79tf6sF1...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:58:33 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>> When I'm shopping for a camera I want to know about the camera, not
>>> listen to music that someone else has selected.
>>
>>Amen. Content is, or should be, king. Glitz means very little when one
>>is seeking information.
>
> Marketing data says otherwise -- packaging is extremely important.
Please READ what I said. I did not say packaging was not important. What
I said was - WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING FOR INFORMATION, CONTENT IS KING.
John Navas
wrote in <h1c1vt$s7b$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
Touch�! ;)
John Navas
<79to7aF1...@mid.individual.net>:
Please READ what I said. I did not say packaging was all important. What
I said was - PACKAGING IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
ASAAR
wrote:
>>> A sad commentary on those people. Regardless, this isn't a general
>>> website like Google, and the marketing people may simply not be
>>> interested in those who will click away after only 15 seconds, focusing
>>> instead on those who want the full experience. It's called "focusing on
>>> the target market" and "qualifying the prospect".
>>
>> It's also called "limiting your prospective client list".
>
> You have more marketing expertise than they do? ;)
Possibly, but definitely more than you have. Knowledgeable
managers have started to criticize Olympus's management for not
realizing how popular the camera was going to be, so it's going to
be in very short supply for a very long time, as cameras go, which
will be all to their competitor's benefit.
ASAAR
>> Please READ what I said. I did not say packaging was not important. What
>> I said was - WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING FOR INFORMATION, CONTENT IS KING.
>
> Please READ what I said. I did not say packaging was all important. What
> I said was - PACKAGING IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
Yep, it is. And you can shout all you want, but Olympus blew it.
Since you haven't gotten it thus far, you (the child that never
admits error) never will.
Kiwibator
part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
> >http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/pen.htm?olycmp=912222#intro
>
> Warning - this Web site has "music" on many pages!
>
> David
try this one
http://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2009a/nr090616ep1e.cfm
David J Taylor
Thanks, most interesting. Will it be Olympus or Panasonic who master the
micro Four Thirds camera? For me, the lack of an EVF is a major drawback,
though. A simple optical finder like this doesn't cut it.
David
Alfred Molon
> So Alfred, super Olympus fan that he is
>
... is using a Sony DSLR :-P
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Alfred Molon
> So you're saying that there is some kind of psychological correlation
> between tolerating gratuitious noise from a web site and buying a micro 4/3
> camera?
Don't know. But I can tell you that I wasn't put off by the music on the
site and find the camera interesting. Perhaps a correlation?
By the way, I bought an Olympus E420 for my wife, because with her
compact she has problems capturing our kids. Despite the E420 being the
smallest and lightest DSLR currently on the market, my wife refuses to
use it and prefers to use her compact camera. Perhaps my wife might be
interested in the E-P1.
whisky-dave
> On 17 Jun 2009 15:31:16 GMT, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote in
> <79sgi4F1...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:46:28 -0700, John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 Jun 2009 00:43:53 GMT, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote in
>>> <79qsi9F1...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:42:01 -0700, John Navas wrote:
>
>>>>> Loaded in less than 30 seconds for me over 3G cellular.
>>>>
>>>>I'm seldom patient enough to wait 30 seconds for a page to load. I must
>>>>KNOW that it has some information I REALLY want. Otherwise, I generally
>>>>give about 10 seconds and I'm gone. Don't know why folks would
>>>>intentionally limit their audience like that.
>>>
>>> I guess they assume people with normal patience will wait 30 seconds. ;)
>>
>>I expect that if you could actually check on the 'normal patience' level,
>>you'd find it to be under 15.
>
> website like Google, and the marketing people may simply not be
> interested in those who will click away after only 15 seconds, focusing
> instead on those who want the full experience. It's called "focusing on
> the target market" and "qualifying the prospect".
That's admin speak for I'm clueless on how to attract possible customers to
the
site but pay me anyway for a job I can't do, and I'll come up with some
fancy
words that can descibe a steaming pile of dog turd as art that's worthy of
the turner prize. :)
John Navas
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<MPG.24a476243...@news.supernews.com>:
>In article <h1b5m...@news1.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke says...
>
>> So you're saying that there is some kind of psychological correlation
>> between tolerating gratuitious noise from a web site and buying a micro 4/3
>> camera?
>
>Don't know. But I can tell you that I wasn't put off by the music on the
>site and find the camera interesting. Perhaps a correlation?
>
>By the way, I bought an Olympus E420 for my wife, because with her
>compact she has problems capturing our kids. Despite the E420 being the
>smallest and lightest DSLR currently on the market, my wife refuses to
>use it and prefers to use her compact camera. Perhaps my wife might be
>interested in the E-P1.
Depending on her needs, consider also the new Panasonic DMC-ZS3:
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/c72sfu>
John Navas
<whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in <h1dcnv$n1n$1@qmul>:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:d94i35lcns2mqc2nt...@4ax.com...
>> A sad commentary on those people. Regardless, this isn't a general
>> website like Google, and the marketing people may simply not be
>> interested in those who will click away after only 15 seconds, focusing
>> instead on those who want the full experience. It's called "focusing on
>> the target market" and "qualifying the prospect".
>
>That's admin speak for I'm clueless on how to attract possible customers to
>the
>site but pay me anyway for a job I can't do, and I'll come up with some
>fancy
>words that can descibe a steaming pile of dog turd as art that's worthy of
>the turner prize. :)
I suspect the web designer (not admin) was following the instructions of
the marketing department.
ray
Except that it gets in the way WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING FOR INFORMATION.
John Navas
<79v3srF1...@mid.individual.net>:
>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:26:00 -0700, John Navas wrote:
>
>> On 18 Jun 2009 02:48:11 GMT, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote in
>> <79to7aF1...@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:17:29 -0700, John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18 Jun 2009 00:14:21 GMT, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote in
>>>> <79tf6sF1...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>Please READ what I said. I did not say packaging was not important. What
>>>I said was - WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING FOR INFORMATION, CONTENT IS KING.
>>
>> Please READ what I said. I did not say packaging was all important. What
>> I said was - PACKAGING IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
>
>Except that it gets in the way WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING FOR INFORMATION.
It's a matter of personal taste.
This is making a mountain out of a molehill.
I'm done. Have the last word.
ray
That is one great web page. I just spent 5 minutes poking around the
damned thing and I still cannot find any specs on the camera. Just that
it's "SLR quality but it's not an SLR". No information on resolution, ISO
settings, what interchangeable lenses might be available - in short, no
useful information that I can find anywhere on the page. But it does have
annoying musak that is worse than most elevator musak. And the text on
the page fades in and out. Whoopdy doo!
John Navas
<79v4t6F1...@mid.individual.net>:
>That is one great web page. I just spent 5 minutes poking around the
>damned thing and I still cannot find any specs on the camera. Just that
>it's "SLR quality but it's not an SLR". No information on resolution, ISO
>settings, what interchangeable lenses might be available - in short, no
>useful information that I can find anywhere on the page. But it does have
>annoying musak that is worse than most elevator musak. And the text on
>the page fades in and out. Whoopdy doo!
[sigh]
The Olympus America web page for the E-P1 is
<http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital_slr.asp?section=pen>
Learn More takes you to
<http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1461>
Happy now?
[sheesh]
ray
Actually, that's pretty much precisely my point (... run by idiots). The
referenced page does not even give any basic information about the
camera. There is a bunch of irritating elevator muzak and some
meaningless text that fades in and out. Nowhere on the page is there any
link to any meaningful information about what the camera DOES. It's total
glitz with no meaningful content.
whisky-dave
Probably, but whoever is in charge of advertising should know what they are
doing.
perhaps the web designer was a friend of the family or something.
I'm assuming it's admin who decided it'd be a good idea to add the sounds,
as the marketing department should know better, but the web Ds could have
told them it's not usually a good idea to include such a thing.
But who's ever in charge it looks bad for Olympus and that's a shame
and people may well judge the product by the way it's advertised.
Advertising and image are very important in getting a message across
get that wrong and your product might not sell as well as it should.
Then again getting advertising 'right' might mean selling more of your
product
than it deserves. i.e telling people that owning a limp-puss will improve
your sex life :-)
John Navas
<whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in <h1dohn$qrq$1@qmul>:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:4njk35tdd6cdtv4sj...@4ax.com...
>> I suspect the web designer (not admin) was following the instructions of
>> the marketing department.
>
>Probably, but whoever is in charge of advertising should know what they are
>doing.
>perhaps the web designer was a friend of the family or something.
Not likely in a company the size of Olympus.
>I'm assuming it's admin who decided it'd be a good idea to add the sounds,
I think that unlikely.
>as the marketing department should know better, but the web Ds could have
>told them it's not usually a good idea to include such a thing.
>But who's ever in charge it looks bad for Olympus ...
It's really a non-issue except for the few making a mountain out of a
molehill.
--
John Navas
<79v5rgF1...@mid.individual.net>:
The Olympus America web page for the E-P1 is
<http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital_slr.asp?section=pen>
Learn More takes you to
<http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1461>
Happy now?
[sheesh]
--
ray
A much more informative link. I wonder why that wasn't posted originally.