Ken Norton wrote:
> Lenses get worn out and funguyed, motor drives get weak, flash
> equipment burns out and no matter how often you CLA those OM's they do
> eventually succomb to a slow painful death. Unless Olympus came out with a
> decent AF body and lens line, I see no advantage to staying put.
When did you think the first AF Leica M will apear?
I think never. Should Denton therefore sell his M Leica and buy an
Contax G model instead?
Would this improve his pictures? Hardly (allready perfect ;-) ), not to
forget the small number of available (slow) lenses for the G models.
You might have an aplication where AF is mandatory, so choose your
camera somewhere else.
I don´t see an need for an Olympus AF body, and for those who like to
have an all automatic, winder driven, AF, economic camera body think, if
you don´t own the wrong camera system, maybe an Canon Elan will do it
too.
I shoot 99lides and I don´t want to miss the easy handling of the
OM-4 light meter. I haven´t found an camera which allows precise
metering in such an easy maner. I checked several cameras, some of them
claimed to have multi spot metering, the best of them only reached the
standard of the OM-2S/P.
> I'd like
> to pick up both the F5 and an F3 as they can use the same lenses (although
> with some restrictions), and the F3, minus motor drives and other
> paraphenalia is quite small.
The F3 will face the same destiny, it´s no longer produced and it
weights 50% more than an OM.
But I´m not shure if longlifety is realy the question, you can still
take photos with 50 year old Rolleis and Leicas. I´ve recently seen one
press photographer, who used an old F2, a camera at least 20 years old,
and of course no parts available from Nikon.
Consider, that you can buy an OM-4/3Ti new out of the box.
> One doesn't NEED all the features of the F5 (or whatever successor), but
> without a decent AF system, Olympus is a dinasour that cannot meet the needs
> of 300f the photography I'll be doing in the future.
If somebody is always after the lastes gadget, he might be wrong with
OMs. The new features of the EOS-3 teach me, that AF is still a imature
technology, so expect to pay a lot of bucks for a camera, which will
look realy old (older than an F2) in five years. Of course if they
earned you the money this will be ok, at least as long as an more
longlasting camera wouldn´t have done the job.
AF is fine too, when the eyes geting weak (no insult intended Ken), but
for this aplication an F5 is overdone.
> Sorry, I don't mean to be a downer today, but the fact is, as a user who
> uses the equipment professionally, I must have the right tools for the job.
Right, some pros need AF, some not (for example Salgado).
Regards
Richard
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|