Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Those Olympus accessories

You know something is a luxury/high-end item, when a lens hood costs $100, and a lens cap $50!
OK, a plastic lens cap is apparently included, but the lens is not exactly cheap (approaching one grand), one would think they might include the nice metal cap?



Update:
Mark said:

In the 1970s I used and loved an Olympus 35RC. The standard hood was effective but costly; it didn't come with the camera. My sister, who happened to be living in Tokyo, bought me a couple of replacements at a SUBSTANTIALLY reduced cost (compared to US/Canada pricing). Lens caps of the simple spring-loaded after-market variety did the job better than the original which relied on a felt-trimmed friction fit.


Later, flexible rubber aftermarket screw-on lens hoods did better duty than the available but costly hoods from Asahi for my Pentax Super Program and various lenses. The caps were never very effective.

Oh! On my first camera (well, first serious camera), Konica TC, I had a wonderful hood of rubber, which folded back over the lens when you packed in the camera. My problem with hoods is that they increase bulk so much, and makes the camera much more visible when shooting candidly.

... Ah, I see one can still get the rubber hoods (not the S/M kind), I'll look at that.


10 comments:

Bert said...

That's one thing I really dislike about Olympus. Hoods and decent lens caps should always be included with lenses, their policy on this matter is almost insulting.

Especially considering that the selling price of the accessories has little to do with the actual cost of the object, but is rather related to additional packaging, shipping & handling, and other sales-related overhead...

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Yes. One must believe that this is an "enthusiast tax", like Apple's $100 premium for doubling the memory in an iPad.

CalgaryMark said...

In the 1970s I used and loved an Olympus 35RC. The standard hood was effective but costly; it didn't come with the camera. My sister, who happened to be living in Tokyo, bought me a couple of replacements at a SUBSTANTIALLY reduced cost (compared to US/Canada pricing). Lens caps of the simple spring-loaded after-market variety did the job better than the original which relied on a felt-trimmed friction fit.

Later, flexible rubber aftermarket screw-on lens hoods did better duty than the available but costly hoods from Asahi for my Pentax Super Program and various lenses. The caps were never very effective.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Oh! On my first camera (well, first serious camera), Konica TC, I had a wonderful hood of rubber, which folded back over the lens when you packed in the camera. My problem with hoods is that they increase bulk so much, and makes the camera much more visible when shooting candidly.

... Ah, I see one can still get the rubber hoods (not the S/M kind), I'll look at that.

Tag Hauer said...

not the S/M kind

You've probably also got plenty of those! Plus the shag carpeting, weirdo lighting, the robes, and lotions... ;-)

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Not to mention the right kind of rope, to avoid embarrassing rope burns. It takes a lot of research to do it right!

Dave Nielsen said...

I never knew you were such a weirdo. ;-)

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

I have unimaginable depths. And many best left unimagined! :-)

Dave Nielsen said...

'Nuff. Said. ;-)

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Cough. Back to topic: I just ordered a spare battery for the OM-D (battery life is one of its few weak sides). It cost £59, about 90 dollars! Damn ridic.