When the M-1 was introduced almost 40 years ago, Bob Schwalberg (I think)
suggested it was small because the Japanese have small hands. (I wonder if
he could get away saying such a thing today.) But when he and Maitani
pressed palms, it was obvious their hands were the same size.
Schwalberg quite missed the obvious. The Japanese adore the Leica, but the
Leicaflex failed to match the compactness and elegance of the M-series
rangefinders. The M-1 was intended to be the SLR equivalent of a rangefinder
Leica.
In an era where professional 35mm SLRs had swollen to Brobdingnagian
proportions, the M-1 actually looked like a camera for a miniature-film
format. (It is, overall, smaller and lighter than the average $100
auto-exposure rangefinder camera popular at the time.) I have to laugh when
Olympus claims that the Four-Thirds system permits smaller cameras and
lenses. Smaller than what? Four-Thirds bodies are huge for cameras with a
"sub-miniature" format (13x17.3mm). The lenses are even more oversized (and
overpriced).
The difference is particularly egregious when you set an OM camera next to a
full-frame DSLR, such as the Canon 5D2. Good grief! The 5D2 is a lot of good
things, but "elegant" it is not.
Whether you take pictures with your OM camera is one thing. But keeping them
in good cosmetic and working order is worthwhile, because people need to be
reminded that "latest is (not always) greatest". I hope someday someone will
produce a full-frame DSLR "comparable" in size to an OM body. But I'm not
holding my breath.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|