Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] RANT: Sample images taken with EP-1

Subject: Re: [OM] RANT: Sample images taken with EP-1
From: "Carlos J. Santisteban" <zuiko21@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:39:37 +0200
Hi Ken and all,

From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> outstanding lenses, articulating LCD.  You owe me 10 laughable items.
>>
>
>1. Lens Mount Change - Killing backward compatiblity for no reason at all.

I think in order to reduce the flange-to-sensor distance, from 46mm to 40 --
which is already large relative to the much smaller sensor.

OTOH, not that unusual: Can*n and Min*lta did the same.

>2. Dinky Viewfinders - Forcing live-view!

Seems a general trend... if you ever
looked thru a C*ntax RTS finder, you'll laugh at any moden (D)SLR.

>3. Sub-standard auto-focus.

Can't
comment on that. My only AF experience is with Can*n, the EOS-300D --
at least at the time of its introduction, was acknowledged by Nik*n
users as being much faster than theirs.

>4. Elimination of the spot-meter button.

Bad move, definitely.

>5. Me too PASM dial.

Not that bad... and our beloved OM's _do_ have a sort of PASM: the
auto-off-manual lever on the OM2 or similarly on the OM4 (no P or S), and
the "PAM" configuration of the OM2S(P)...

I really dislike other brand's configuration in which the A mode is at the
extreme position of the speed dial...

>6. Elimination of dedicated controls for, of all things, aperture.

Again, a general trend.  Nik*n and P*ntax still share the classic
aperture ring, but moslty for compatibility with older film bodies --
with most modern cameras is MUST be set at the auto/smallest aperture
setting, making any adjusts thru the camera's controls :-(

>7. Noisy, soft sensors (as compared to every contemporary camera to
>each model).

Yes, but I felt that even the early, noisy E1's noise had a more film-like
character, much less intrusive than the colourful-electronic-VHS-like noise
on, say, my 300D.

I see a similar pattern on the Lumix G1, even on the ranted E-P1 pic.

>8. The tiny 4/3 format. I like the ratio, but why did they have to be the
>smallest around?

And the 2x factor when adapted. Sad, but if it helps to solve that
digital-specific issues (read telecentrity)...

>9. Svelteness or the lack of. Only recently has Olympus come close to
>delivering on lenses and bodies that reflect the possibilities of the 4/3
>format.

Bulk
on the lenses could be explained by telecentrity, plus the 40mm
register -- it makes retrofocus a real need for most lenses! It's like
a 35mm film camera with around 85mm flange-to-film distance... ouch!

>10. No OTF/OTS auto-exposure or flash control. HELLO???

AFAIK, there's NO way in digital to do OTF (or sensor) metering, sorry. I'm
afraid TTL flash metering in DSLRs is really measuring (mirror down) a
pre-flash from the camera, then deciding the amount of flash dump needed.

>And it is actually far more groundbreaking than I think any of us
>understand.

I agree. Despite its flaws, I think this is opening a new, _logical_ trend.

I like rangefinders very much -- like Maitani did. But I admit they're not
the best for everything. Plus, they're almost _useless_ in some fields --
astrophotography and macro, for instance. Then there are the (film) SLRs:
the mirror-prism set do add a lot of drawbacks, like:

-bulk and weight
-noise and vibration
-need for retrofocus design in wide-angles (or even some standards!)
-finder goes black at THE moment
-finder is darker, especially with slow lenses

Despite all these issues, they were the most versatile option, because at
least they were suitable for ALL tasks -- maybe better, maybe worse than
rangefinders, but had no "forbidden" tasks. Remember the early OM
advertising? They were said to be SLR's which behaved relatively close to
rangefinders ;-) In a way, the SLR system was the only way to "preview" what
was going to hit the _film_...

...but with DIGITAL, everything changes. DSLRs still have the same
strong and weak points (safe for the general changes from digital
photography), but suddenly the limitations of
(digital) rangefinders have disappeared! You can see what will hit the
sensor -- thru the very SAME sensor!

Still, there's an optimum tool for every task, and a DSLR may be better
sometimes, but at least a digital "rangefinder" (or, specifically, a
mirror-less system camera like the E-P1) can do _everything_, even those
disciplines usually banned to RFs.

This concept was long awaited by me, and now it has born... there's still a
lot of road to go, but I think this is the right direction. The E-P1 has
obvious flaws, but it's just a starting point. Just you wait...

Cheers,
-- Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

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