Why MicroFourThird (Olympus, Panasonic etc.) at all?

[bdcolen]

Anyone who regularly used a typewriter, and then was introduced to "word processing," would have predicted that the typewriter was headed for the tar pit of history - and soon. But that aside...Digital is to film as film was to glass plates: it's here; it's now; it's dominant; get used to it. That said, there will be film around - and there will be processing available, though not as accessible as it is now, for years to come. Film, I believe, will be relegated to 'art' media status - but it will be around. Now, does it make sense, at this point in the history of photography and photographic equipment, to invest in an already relatively long-discontinued system? That's a question that only you can answer for yourself. Clearly, the point will come when it will no longer be possible to get the parts you need to keep your film camera going. But who knows when that day will come.

 

[ed_b]

Ah, the typewriter...I still have my old Royal 'pounder'.
But in all seriousness, I think there are many of 'us', whom will continue to use the medium of film. Especially those of us, whom recall when tv was in black and white, and color was this new fang-dangled thing. And Look and Life magazine was the photo-journalism ideal and National Geographic could only be had by subscription. And mankind had yet to walk on the Moon.

But for those of you, whom are born after 1980, film is a passing medium...And no doubt will become something of a past-tense medium, as will the equipment (as did my old Royal). I believe they call it progress.

I've got no doubt, that I'll get to enjoy and use film, for as long as I am around. And I plan to do just that. And I will continue to look for and purchase Olympus 35mm items. Not because I am a collector, but for me it is one of nicest and easiest and sharpest systems around, to use. I never had the money for the Lecia nor Hassleblad. But when I purchased my first OM 1N, after shooting a Petri for nearly 6 yrs, I was sold...Kinda like you guys (and gals), whom are purchasing your first 'real' digital cameras right now. Digital is the next wave for this medium, as was my Olympus over my grandad's old Brownie Box camera.
It's 'food-for-thought' regarding the film camera vs. the digital debate, if you want to call it that. If I was re-starting all over again or begining anew, I'ld be out looking for a mega-pixel body with the capability for interchangable lens...It would be the only way to go.

For me...I think I'll continue to work on gathering up all those 'old-timer' Olympus items, I just couldn't quite afford back in the 80's and 90's and continue with developing my 35mm film skills. I think film will be around for atleast another 15-20 yrs, easily. I look at it this way, I've got the remainder of my life to learn how to take a 'decent' picture. Besides, there'll come a day (and I might still be around), that those 1000's of dollar 'pro' digital bodies, will be there were the film camera bodies is now, at rock-bottom prices, and maybe then it'll be time to take advantage of then 'new' replacement technology. Food for thought, huh?

 

[bdcolen]

Indeed there will be people, old and young, who will hang on to film for various reasons. And while more of the film folks are likely to be 50+, age isn't a sure predictor. My son, who is 29 and a senior photographer for Skateboarder Magazine, doesn't even want to think about digital; he's clinging to film like paint on a board. I, on the other hand, am 58, grew up on tri-x, Life, and Look, have owned and used various systems over the years - including the OM and the Lieca M; and I am now shooting almost exclusively digital. Yes, I convert about 95% of what I shoot to black and white. And no, I can't quite bring myself to sell the last two M6s and handful of lenses - or the OM equipment, for that matter. And yes, I still see something 'special' in the scanned film images. But to be perfectly honest, I don't know if that something 'special' I see is real, or if it's my memorex ;-). I suspect the latter.

The reality is that film is now an artifiact of photo history. That doesn't mean that there's a damn thing wrong with using it. Nor with using the equipment created for it. But anyone committing to it should realize that it is going to get more expensive and harder to find, as is processing.

But if you can keep going with those OMs, more power to you. They were great cameras, and they still are. In 1993 I went to Somalia with an OM4 and an IS-1 and a bunch of Zuiko lenses - and they performed beautifully in dusty heat up to 132f!

Unfortunately Newsday, for whom I was reporting and shooting there, managed to lose all the negs - but I had a few of the contact sheets, and scanned these from the contacts... http://www.leica-gallery.net/bdcolen/folder-4857.html

B. D.

 

[ditto1958]

Here's a thought: Is film to digital as the typewriter is to the word processor? Or even as a vinyl phonograph album is to a CD? Or would a better analogy be that film is to digital as painting is to photography? I suspect it may be the latter. The word processor replaced the typewriter because for most purposes is is vastly superior to a typewriter. Although some audiophiles may argue about it, a digital recording on a CD is superior in many ways to an anolog recording on a vinyl record.

When photography first became practical it was feared that it would replace painting, drawing and other forms of artwork. In many instances it has-- such as for illustrating newspapers and magazines, portraits, etc. Photography can never completely replace painting and drawing. Television changed the role of radio but did not replace it. Perhaps film photography will always have a place of some sort.

I have nothing against digital photography. I use it on an almost daily basis. I don't like the cameras that are manufactured nowadays, though.

 

[ed_b]

B.D., I would like to compliment you on your images from lecia-gallery, very nice.
So, the OM's perform well in the heat. I once froze mine up solid, while climbing up in the Cascades. It still preformed flawlessly, once I got it thawed out...But. I wouldn't recommend doing it on a regular basis. Perhaps another reason I have enjoyed my OM's for so long.
Ed -

 

[bdcolen]

Thanks for the kind words, Ed. Both cameras - the OM and the IS worked well in the heat. But the sad reality is that while the OM was in some ways the best designed camera of its, or perhaps any era - if we're talking SLRs - it was definitely not the best built. When the OM1 first came out UPI gave them to their photographers, but the damn things kept falling apart and that was the end of that; they just couldn't take the beating. If they're used gently, they can go on for ever, but they are not built the way the Nikon F and Canon F1s were. Eugene Richards, perhaps the best American documentary photographer working today, uses an OM3 with the 21f2 lens. He uses the OM because of the lens - and doesn't have any other lenses for it - and I've heard him complain that "the damn things keep falling apart" on him.

 

[ditto1958]

I guess they are built to be tough and longlasting to a certain degree, but not to withstand the daily beating and abuse that some professional photographers subject them to. I picked up a used Nikon FM in a shop the other day and was surprised at how big and heavy it was compared to OM's. You get the impression you could drop it out a second story window and it would still work. It just didn't interest me, though. I have to admit that if I had to go out every day and shoot sports, say football games, on a regular basis, I suppose I would go out and find a couple of heavy cameras that I wouldn't feel bad about knocking around a bit.

 

[bdcolen]

Boy, if you feel that way about an FM, pick up a Canon F1 or F1n - you can hammer nails with the damn thing. I think that what happened with the Oms is that sturdiness was sacrificed in a compromise between size and cost. I'm sure Oly could have built the Oms to take a real beating. But give the size of the cameras, I'd guess that doing so would have made them as expensive as Leica Ms - which are, after all, about the size of OMs, but built to outlast their owners. Interestingly, the E-1 is built like a tank, without being nearly as bulked up as the high-end Nikons and Canons.

 

[iberger]

> While the OMs may seem light and fragile, they've been nearly as trouble-free as my old Leica Ms were, and I don't treat them delicately. Of course that may have something to do with my trading up along the route from OM-1 to > -2 to -2n to -4. But my -2n is how old now? and still works fine.

When the OM-1 came out, I was trying to decide whether to trade up my Canon A-1 for a Canon F-1 or Nikon F-2; once I held the Olympus I knew that if I bought either of the others, I'd have the best camera in the world sitting in my closet while I went out every day with my Leica III (1936)--the Oly, I would USE!

I agree that the E-1 (and even the E-Volt) are surprisingly heavy but lighter and smaller than the competition. I suspect the difference is because they were designed from the get-go for smaller lenses.

 

[ditto1958]

I was in a camera store the other day where they had Canon and Nikon digital SLR's on display with lenses attached. They were about as big as Speed Graphics! If I had one of those, I would never use it.