Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: OM] How important is compactness?

Subject: [OM] Re: OM] How important is compactness?
From: Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 22:38:57 -0400
At 3:15 AM +0200 10/2/06, Listar wrote:
>From: "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] How important is compactness?
>Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 04:16:37 -0700
>
>
>With regard to the claim that the 4/3 system will permit smaller 
>cameras and lenses...
>
>In 1974 I started working for Bendix Field Engineering. I had a 
>Nikon system, which I liked very much, but I realized it was too 
>much to carry with me when travelling overseas. So I put together an 
>OM-1 system with a motor drive and a bunch of lenses. The whole 
>thing fit in a tiny case that would barely have held a Nikon F and a 
>lens or two. I was -- and remain -- wildly impressed at Olympus's 
>skill in making high-quality but tiny equipment.
>
>Small size and light weight do not automatically make a camera easy 
>to handle. But the OM-1 had a fairly good control layout, and my 
>hands wrapped around it comfortably. Its lower weight also made it 
>easiler to handle with long lenses.
>
>I don't need to tell anyone in this group that the E-500 -- not to 
>mention most of its lenses! -- is substantially bulkier than an 
>OM-1. But... It feels comfortable, and the control layout largely 
>makes sense. You could never make a camera of this sort as small as 
>an OM-1, simply because the LCD and plethora of controls require 
>additional area to hold them, and the appropriate spacing for 
>someone with an average hand.
>
>On the other hand, I have no idea why the lenses are so large. Most 
>seem about 50% larger in diameter than they "need" to be. I can only 
>assume Olympus wanted the body's mount to be large enough to 
>accomodate an OM lens.

I suspect that the issue is that because the CCD needs 
almost-parallel light, the lenses must be near telecentric, which 
requires a minimum diameter.  This in turn forces a length, and thus 
a volume.


Joe Gwinn



>Compactness is less important than it was 30+ years ago, because of 
>the proliferation of zoom lenses. Two or three lenses can cover what 
>used to require half a dozen.
>
>What's the point of claiming smaller body and lens size when such 
>things are no longer that important?

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [OM] Re: OM] How important is compactness?, Joe Gwinn <=
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz