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

[Shadowfox]

Hmm everyone seems to start from here, so here I am.
I don't know if this forum has been inactive for some time or has been abandoned, but boy, I enjoy reading just this thread alone.

My love affair with the Olympus cameras started when I plunked down my hard-earned money on the E-300. After 3 Kodak Digital P&S, I thought I was ready for the "real deal", an SLR. However I still use it as I would a P&S camera. Until one day I stumble upon Andrzej Wrotniak's website which piqued my interest in using the "ancient" OM Zuiko lenses on my brand new E-300.

After a painful parting with $100, I got the 4/3rd to OM adapter, I even asked the camera store assistant to put it on my E-300, and guess what, it hasn't left the camera since

But the rosy-tinted glass that I've been wearing was soon replaced with the realization that using the manual focus OM lenses means I now have to "work" to get a decent picture. I was forced to recognize that I am deeply entrenched in the beginner's level when it comes to "real" photography.

Strangely, even though my ego was severely bruised when I saw my pictures, I was challenged at the same time to "get on it" with understanding the basics of taking pictures.

20 Olympus cameras later, I am still fascinated whenever I get my hands on a new old Olympus that I haven't seen before, my amazement at the build quality, control placements, big and bright view/range-finders, incredible lenses, and the final quality of the pictures still hasn't faded one bit.

Accordingly, the quality of pictures that I took also improved as I gain understanding and familiarity with the cameras and the concepts. My current favorite is the 35 EC and XA2 which challenged me to learn zone focusing technique.

Other than that, I find no other camera comes even close to the level of satisfaction of using my trusty OM-2n.

This is why I chose Olympus over others.

 

[weedram]

Shadow: What a wonderful post, very well stated! Some would call Oly-love a sickness, I feel it's a blessing.

Do you have an LC?

 

[mattinasi]

> My personal favorite from the vintage shelf is the SPn, or if my pockets are particularly small that day, the Pen EED

The older Olys are incredible, and I love using them to this day. The Digitals are cool too...

Cheers! - marc

 

[songura]

This is the year 2007, I still use my OM cameras. In past two years, for several times I was considering to buy an Oly digital SLR. But I dropped the idea every time when I was thinking the quality to the picture. Yes, film is much better than CCD.

 

[gjames52]

2007>

I used my OM2n yesterday. It worked and sounded as good as it did 27 years ago!

Regards:

Gilbert

 

[predatek]

I love Olympus gear and I have OM1n, OM2n and OM4Ti. But, with respect, this is starting to sound like a thread in denial of progress. Sorry, I just can't agree that "film is much better than CCD". Better for what? My photography has improved out of sight since the freedom of digital made it more affordable to experiment with quick feedback. I could never forsake the digital darkroom to go back to film. My E-1 makes beautiful images and the ZD lenses are superb. I've sold a lot of 20x30" prints from my E-1 and people remark how clear and sharp they are (I res&le up using an interpolator plug-in). Certainly better than poster prints I have previously produced from my 35mm gear. I'm bracing myself for howls of derision for this post

 

[Almo]

I started with film in 2001, and used it exclusively until '03, and I have to agree. There are things that I believe one can only learn by using film, but in this day and age, to say it film better is either a sad attempt to cling to the past in the face of the unknown, or just plain blind ignorance. It's funny, but the people that seem to fight the hardest against digital are the people that have never really tried it.

I still believe that the best way to learn the art of photography, and to gain the skill of creating a good image is to begin by using a manual camera and slide film. But folks, it is 2007, eventually there comes a time when you need to step up and act like a citizen of this modern age. Digital cameras, the digital darkroom, digital work-flows, these are no longer odd futuristic concepts, this is the state of modern photography, and if you want to be a modern, competitive photographer, then you need to get with it. However, if you are happy in your acetate and silver halide world, well that is ok too, but don't disparage my world just because you are afraid to try living in it yourself.

 

[weedram]

Rob: I can't disagree with anything you say, and my own remarks were not to disparage digital in general, or Olympus digital in particular. I still shoot film almost exclusively, but the reasons have very little, if anything to do with the quality of digital ... see below. As a matter of curiosity, what interpolater do you use for up-rezzing?

John: "eventually there comes a time when you need to step up and act like a citizen of this modern age." Huh? Is this a matter of civic responsibility? Or religion? I don't think anyone disparaged "your world", someone just said "film is better", which is, of course a subjective opinion. In some ways I too think "film is better", but the real question is how (as Rob infers) someone defines better. If you find that a threat to your world, then hmmmm.

FWIW, my preference for film, and specifically for "vintage" Olympus gear is as follows:

1. Build. I really, really, really like and prefer the build quality and ergonomics of many of the Oly cameras. I won't go on about that, but as one point, the viewfinders of the OM and the 35SP are top notch. As a visual craft and art, I don't like using a tool that isn't at least as good in that department.

2. Lens selection. Fast primes, especially in the 4/3s world, are nearly non-existant unless I use an adapter with OM series primes, or other makes. Then we have the issues of metering and focus that come with that. I will argue the merits of ZD zooms, their quality, etc. The fact is, I just don't want to use zooms for the vast majority of my work. Horses for courses.

3. User Interface. I just don't like the UI of digital cameras. Based on what I've seen and read, the Epson R-D1 comes closest to what I would want, but probably the OM-4, but in a rangefinder format, would hit the nail right on the head for me. Leica has tried but has run into problems that, while perhaps solvable or "OK" with workarounds, it is currently a $5K investment for the body alone. For me, I'd want a digital RF (the 35SP chassis with OM-4 type exposure would be perfect) first, then a DSLR as a complement. Make the controls for 80% of what I use simple and analog, thank you.

4. Quality of Film. Note I did not say "film is better". Most shots I see from digital have a different look than film. In some cases I think digital is "better", in some cases I prefer film; it has a different look. Note that strong proponents of the Epson R-D1 and the Leica M8 like them because of the "film-like" results that are possible.

I realize I am in the minority (and a tiny one at that) of the market in many, many ways. But, it is who I am, and as long as I can enjoy photography with what I have, I think everyone should be cool with that, I know I am.

I am considering, at some point, an 8080 as a walkaround p&s type of digicam. I just have to look into the specs a bit more.prefer

 

[zuikoholic]

I have a finger in both pies: I now shoot digital 100% of the time, but when doing so I'm using OM lenses 95% of the time. However, I don't think I would have learnt my photographic skills as well as I have done had I not started out with film and an OM-1n.

I agree that the OM-2n is superb - it's my favourite camera when shooting film, but digital is so cheap in a day-to-day sense that I just don't shoot film anymore (digital being cheap after the initial cost is what I mean here). I refuse to sell my old cameras though - if I ever set up a darkroom, I'll shoot film again (but this is one of those things I may never get around to doing...)

 

[bdcolen]

Collecting and shooting with 'antique' equipment can be challenging, fun, and rewarding. But those who shoot with old film equipment should at least recognize that that is what they are doing, as much as people who didn't want to accept the arrival of film were doing it. The capture of light images using lenses has, once again, evolved, this time from film to electronic capture, just as it evolved from copper through various metals, paper, glass, to film. The reality is that digital is in many ways now "better" than film. But if you want to shoot with film, enjoy - film has and will continue to capture great work.

By the way, though, the "build" quality on the E-1 far exceeds the build quality on the film Olys.