I think my dad's concern is just how long can a system last. This all
started with his attempt to find a bellows. We went though 3 in our search
and all had age problems. He doesn't want to switch just for the sake of
switching, but to ensure that he doesn't wake up one day to find oil all
over his aperture blades and camera not working. I may be over-simplifying
matters, but he is asking a fundamental question: can we trust the OM
system and lenses to be there 10 years from now? I think so, but it is a
concern given the age it is now.
-Bill Clark
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Stanke [mailto:bstanke@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 4:55 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Trouble in OM paradise
Winsor,
I suspect that you are right about AF. It's sad that 20+ years of the
camera industry's R&D have not yielded better results. I would be
interested in George's experience with his Contax N1, since it should be
the "state of the art" in AF.
IMHO AF is one of the few areas where the OM system doesn't "spec out on
paper" well, compared with a "Wonderbrick". A higher flash synch would
be nice, as would reading the DX encoding (maybe). It is a real tribute
to the genius of the original OM design that it hasn't been topped after
all these years.
The point I was trying to make was that if I was going to the trouble of
selling my stuff/buying new stuff/learning to use the new stuff that I
would want to point to some tangible improvement over what I already
had. Trading an OM-2n for a FM3a looked more like moving sideways. A
better analogy would be the move to a 645 system, where you could
justify the effort by saying "well, it was for the bigger negative".
Bill Stanke
Winsor Crosby wrote:
>
> >Bill,
> >
> >I think people should do "that which makes them happy".
> >
> >The FM3a specs out remarkably similar to an OM-2n. The OM is better in
> >some areas (low light metering) and the FM3a is better in others (flash
> >synch speed, mechanical shutter on all speeds).
> >
> >Are N*kon lenses better? Maybe (probably). If image quality is a
> >serious concern, then dad should be using a monopod or tripod. Or,
> >upgrading to a MF outfit.
> >
> >If I were going to the trouble of moving to a different system, I would
> >want more of an improvement, such as auto-focus.
> >
> >My two cents.
> >
> >Bill Stanke
>
> Many of us do not see auto-focus as a improvement. As a friend of
> mine says of his higher priced AF Pentax, "Good enough for machine
> prints, but not for slides." :-)
> --
> Winsor Crosby
> Long Beach, California
>
> < 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 >
< 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 >
|