Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: e500

Subject: [OM] Re: e500
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:56:48 -0700
AG Schnozz wrote:

>I wrote:
>  
>
>>>Just say "no" to PASM.   :(
>>>      
>>>
>
>Moose responded:
>  
>
>>Sounds like a personal problem?
>>    
>>
>
>As I've stated before, I personally prefer traditional controls
>(aperture rings, shutter speed ring/dial) that has an "Auto"
>position for that particular control.  There have been a few
>very good implementations of that through the years as well as a
>few dorky ones.
>
>Where PASM (and limited variants) do have advantages is being
>able to set an exposure manually and being able to flip a switch
>to pop into auto or program modes.  The OM-2S is probably the
>premier example of this. Going back and forth quickly between
>modes does have an advantage with PASM.
>
>However, to me, a major drawback of PASM is the non-dedicated
>controls for aperture and shutterspeed. These wheels and dials
>are compromise multipurpose controls (kinda like computer mice)
>that require visual confirmation of selected/desired setting.  I
>truely miss having an aperture ring on the ZD lenses.
>  
>
Ah, now all is clear! You have no problem with the PASM switch itself, 
your complaint is with all the other ergonmics that come with it on all 
the digicams. If you had said 'Just say "no" to  multi controls, you'd 
not have heard a peep out of me. I just couldn't see whay a simple mode 
switch engendered such dislike..

><Snip long and not inaccurate rant>
>
>Not all technological advancements are improvements.
>  
>
The thing to remember is that we are in the middle of a very new 
technology. Things are bound to go every which way during such a 
transition. I takes time for things to find the most generally useful 
configurations and settle down. Look at the first years of the 
automobile, a cast array of designs, controls, etc. that slowly 
standardized.

Manufacturers could make DSLRs that were fully competitive with film in 
most ways using much smaller sensors than 24x36 and they couldn't make 
24x36 sensor cameras at any reasonable price, size and weight. So what 
are they to do? Wait while the competition eats up the market? You hate 
the viewfinders, but you bought and use one anyway.

I think it's entirely possible that there will be several fill frame 
sensor DSLRS in the not distant future at price points like todays high 
am/low pro small sensor ones. I think it's also likely that the cheaper, 
small sensor ones will have high res EVFs, eliminating the size, weight, 
cost and mechanical drawbacks of today's prism/mirror/shutter systems.

Moose


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz