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

[pip22]

I bought the Oly E-300 just after the E-500 was launched --- why? Because it was a bargain -- reduced to £399 to make way for the new model. I handled it first and it felt just right (I've been a pentax film SLR user for 20 years so I know how a well-made SLR should feel). The E-300 was criticised for not looking like an SLR (no prism hump on top), but it takes great pictures and it's flat top doesn't worry me at all. It's also wider than most, but I have big hands and the extra width means controls are not too small or too close together. I've handled the E-500 since, and I have to say that for me it's too small and doesn't feel as 'grippy' or as well made as my E-300. So for me I made the right choice and saved a fair bit of cash as well which puts me well on the road to affording the 40-150 Zuiko lens sometime soon. They say that, unlike film SLRs, digital ones are more expendable and more likely to be 'dumped' after only 2-3 years because of the pace of technology. Well I certainly can't afford to dump mine and get another new one in a couple of years. I had my last pentax film SLR for 18 years and I intend to keep my Oly E-300 for at least half that time unless (god forbid) it goes wrong out of warranty and needs mega-expensive repairs. If that happens I'd sooner spend the money on a new one. Time will tell of course.
Why did I not get a pentax dslr if I already some pentax-fit lenses? That one's easy. Where I live the Pentax *ist range were as rare as hen's teeth! I looked everywhere and gave up on them.
Internet? -- no way. I wanted to hold it and get a feel for it before parting with my money.

 

[pjbw]

Why SLR?
Is there any possibility that Olympus might produce an equivalent to the Sony DSC-R1 all-in-one with its large sensor and high quality lens?
From the reviews the R1 seems a bit lacking in ergonomics though its performance is highly praised. I could no longer be bothered fiddling about with film SLR some time ago and so I bought an Olympus C-5060 to replace my Pentax 928 (I must have a wide-angle lens). I am now beginning to realise the potentialities of digital photography and the concept of Sony's R1 is very attractive. I realise that Olympus has made a big commitment to DSLR but please, think about it!

 

[walrichard]

As a very happy user of the new Olympus E1 - both commercially and for my own shots - I am delighted that both Olympus and the Chinese have brought out adapters that allow use of the OM system Zuiko lenses. The auto focus and light metering is lost, but if like me you are shooting in a studio with flash, or outside with a good light meter, this is a small price to pay against buying the full set of digital lenses.
Zuiko lenses have always been as good as any and if you shoot raw files, they can be converted to tiff or jpg with adjustment to the number of pixels interpolation that still produces amazing results to blow ups from the 5 megapixels shots.
I admit that I would have preferred Olympus E1 to have a higher pixel count but I have shot magazine covers that have been cropped from the 4:3 raw format and, after interpoation, have still looked as sharp as a knife. Portraits show every hair and detail perfectly.
Lord Lichfield, the recently deceased royal and celebrity portrait photographer, used this camera and produced A) sized blowups as prints. Ifit was good enough for such a distinguished photographer, it is good enough for me.
The only downside is the slight graininess that can result from higher ISO shots, but mostly I stick to 100 or 200 ISO (max 400) and use appropriate flash or light. I would not advise using the interpoated ISO r&s to 1088 or 3200 that the camera allows. Against this is the complete lack of abberation or fall off that the camers produces with its digital lenses. (I have yet to examine the results using the OM2 lenses on an adapter).

 

[mikedk]

The Olympus OM1 etc. stable were cameras that in my earlier years as a hobbyist I could not afford, only aspire to. It's only relatively recently that I acquired a mint OM2n, with several lenses, T20 and T32 flashes along with other bits and pieces. My main camera at present is a Canon 10D but there are times when I want to take a small/compact SLR on a trip/shoot and be guaranteed excellent results. The OM2n always comes up with the goods. I also find it beneficial at times to have to think more about the technicalities of the shot, rather than the just the composition; yes I can do this with the 10D but when the escalator is there, who takes the stairs. I have not given up on film and never will. As a medium it still has an attraction for me, as in processing and post processing etc.

 

[omtech1]

> Good point. I service a lot of OM-2N and find them to be ultra-reliable. That model has all the factory improvements that ever went into the original 2. Same can be said for the transition of OM-1 to 1N. John www.zuiko.com

 

[weedram]

The design and simplicity of the OMs are one reason I have not gone to a DSLR; those characteristics have not been duplicated in any DSLR, as far as I am concerned. The E-1 is more film-like than other digitals, and can be set up to be straightforward to shoot. But it certainly doesn't feel and handle like an OM, at least to me. Perhaps I need to use one for a few days.

This is one reason I am also very interested in the Epson R-D1 and wait anxiously to see what the Leica M8 will be like, not to mention the availability of lots of M-mount glass. AFAIK the Epson is the most analogue-like in its design, and I expect the M8 to continue the Leica values of good design and immediacy. (I fully expect a Zeiss Ikon digital rangefinder, but not in the near term; they seem committed to a 24x36 sensor, and I think it will be awhile before they integrate that at a price with which they feel comfortable.)

Then there are prime lenses. I do NOT want zooms all that much, thank you very anyway. I don't even need autofocus. (OK, if I have to have it, please give me the option true mechanical manual focus that feels the same as on my OM lenses.) Whatever the image quality of modern zooms, I do not want the extra weight and bulk. PLEASE put R&D into spectacular primes; I KNOW what focal length to use to compose, and in nearly all situations can use my 2-legged zoom to achieve the appropriate subject-camera distance.

Hence, unless Maitani comes out of retirement to design an OM-4D or OM-5dt (or better yet an OM-Rd (M mount rangefinder with OM-M adapter available), I'll be either waiting on digital or saving for a digital RF from another manufacturer.

 

[gjames52]

OM2N ultra-reliable.

Yes, Indeed! I shoot Hasselblad, Contax G and N, Zeiss Icons’, Yashica T4, and occasionally Nikon F100. I like all of them for different reasons, especially Zeiss glass.

It is an absolute pleasure to use my beautiful 26 year old OM2N, it is small, quite, easy to focus, has excellent battery life, it's easy too use, at time surpasses expatiations while obtaining challenging shots, flash with ease, and as you know obtains the photograph. It even works when it is turned off! I also, believe that some of the lenses are as good as any lens ever produced.

I have often wondered which system I would keep if I were only allowed one?


Regards:

Gilbert

 

[walrichard]

> [I agree. I have a second hand OM2 bought in around 1978, a range of =20=

> lenses, all bought used but in great condition, from 11mm to 150mm. I =20=

> have submitted photos to the most exacting libraries (such as =20 > iPhoto.com) and had many digitally shot (on my Olympus E1) rejected =20=

> with abberations such as artifacting or lack of clear focal point. But = =20 > those taken on the OM2 and scanned have been accepted without =20 > question. The split prism focus is something I really miss on the =20 > digital camera. I keep asking myself if I should sell and shoot =20 > everything digitally but am hanging on for the time being to my OM2. > ]

 

[redwood]

> Hi Richard, I to submit to picture libraries first with scanned velvia using carl zeiss and contax and more recently using the E1. My picture library alamy.com accepts E1 and personally i think for scanned image compared to pure digital the pure digital is my winner. Perhaps there is a bit of pixel size snobbery going. Clearly your work is good enough in tranny why not pure digital. Regards

David

 

[walrichard]

> [Thanks for the advice David. I shall look at alamy.com. As I said, > iPhoto.com has rejected a number of shots from me, though to me they > look fine when viewed at full pixel size. I also submit without > problems to Fotolibra. I have shot for magazines digitally and > struggle to get full cover shots from RAW if any cropping is needed. I > do wish the E1 had been produced with more megapixels and - as said > before - with a split prism focus viewfinder. I have not looked at the > E500 but get the impression that it is less rugged but has 8Mp. Some > libraries see this as the minimum size for submission. Many other pros > use Nikon 12.5Mp or higher. Having said all that, I am most impressed > with the Zuiko lenses and the quality of the E1 colour and lack of > abberations. I plan to continue to use it professionally. ]