Case study - digital OM/FM - would you buy?

[Chris101]

But why would Olympus ever make a manual focus camera? ...

Because it is now acknowledged that the last Olympus manual focus cameras were so well designed that, even 30 years after their introduction, they are still in highly regarded.

I'd be afraid though that the cameras designed by Olympus the corporation, would not hold a candle to the devices that were designed by the genius who created the OM series, 谷村吉久 (Yoshihisa Maitani)

I am a great believer that designs that are the labor of love of a single individual, as are the OM cameras, are far greater to the inventions done by a group. I cite the original Volkswagen over it's successor the "New Beetle", the Apple II over the IBM PC, the incandescent bulb over the CFL, and the theory of Relativity over M-Theory.

Ok, quantum theory is the exception that proves this rule!

 

[Spyro]

Jky probably... and heavier because of the battery, AF motor, circuitry and sensor. Which is why there hasnt been a non-plastic DSLR to date, it would be too heavy.

 

[Peter Klein]

Seriously, the offset-microlens technology of the M8/9 applied to good base sensor would probably work fine with the classic OM lenses. The offset might be less, since those lenses are farther from the image plane than RF lenses. Imagine, say, a D700 sensor with offset microlenses and some of the best old Zuikos. That would be a heck of a DSLR. For reasons already cited, it would have to be manual focus to keep the form factor and the large, bright viewfinder. Since "the public" demands autofocus, it would probably never be built. But we can dream, can't we? I'd love to put my post 1,00,000 serial 50/1.4 on it. And my 100/2.8.

I'm really an RF guy, not an SLR guy. But I have to say, my old OM-2 is one SLR that I truly liked.

 

[Roscoe]

If you're just dreaming, how about a digital back for my OM-4... FF, no AF, no LCD, "guts' that occupy the space the film would spool into, thin enough to fit in the space of the pressure plate...😎

 

[gavinlg]

Okay, so say the VF was a tiny bit smaller to accomodate AF stuff or overlay stuff. It's very very possible.

An then you have the option of a high quality EVF instead - which could be easily made in OM size.

Pls stop shooting down the ideas and just vote wether you'd buy the camera or not. Examples of negativity proven wrong through engineering and development were the Nikon full frame sensor (nikon said it wasn't possible for ages) and also the leica M9 full frame sensor (leica said it wasn't possible while the m8 was around). When there is a will, theres a way.

 

[gavinlg]

One of the reasons the M9 is so expensive is the engineering that went into making the sensor that could accommodate older lenses. The fact is, digital sensors require the light to hit them at a much narrower angle than does film. The older Zuikos are superb for film sensors, but as anyone who has adapted them to the digital Olympus cameras knows, they vignette like crazy - especially the superb, fast, wide angle Zooks.

'Designed for digital' lenses would be a must for the new camera. Therefore they would be autofocus to sell enough to make it worth while, thus the VF would not be so bright,

Zuiko OM lenses vignette no less than the Canon fast primes on canon full frame bodies. Same with nikon G primes on nikon full frame bodies. They're all comparable.

And in the specs it says that is IS an autofocus camera, with all new lenses being metal screwdrive AF lenses to keep the weight down. It could have a swappable mirror/focussing screen with split prism ones for people who want to MF.

 

[gavinlg]

Also, can we please stop lamenting about digital cameras missing an LCD. A digital camera without an LCD is the dumbest thing I've ever heard - the whole advantage to a digital camera is that you can check the histogram on a shot and know EXACTLY how you exposed it, and this is really important for digital imaging.

 

[Keith]

I have my OM-1 and D700 on the table in front of me now ... along with my Mitre 10 home handyman's tool kit.

I'll keep you all posted as I make progress! 😀

 

[gavinlg]

He he! sign me up for one too!

 

[Spyro]

Zuiko OM lenses vignette no less than the Canon fast primes on canon full frame bodies. Same with nikon G primes on nikon full frame bodies. They're all comparable.

I agree. I use a bunch of them on my 5D and they're fine. They all vignette a bit wide open, but they do that on film too.

 

[Ade-oh]

I already have two digital OM-4tis and two digital OM-1s. I insert a silver-gelatine sensor roll into them, take the pictures, get the sensor roll processed and then feed it into my Nikon Coolscan V. If I'm in a real rush, there are places round here which can get my sensor roll processed in an hour but generally I'm content to wait a couple of days and get a few done at the same time.

If I was working to time deadlines, no doubt I would be prepared to sacrifice some of the 'usability' of the OM's but I'm not so why worry?

 

[Athos6]

A digital FM, FE, FM3a, F1/2/3 would be cool. Here's what I would want.

A full frame sensor.
ISO set by a regular ISO dial (Ala FM/FE)
No Chimp screen, no top deck readout, no AF, no AF assist
All mechanical shutter (with a simple AE exposure)
Center Weighted Metering with +1/0/-1 exposure comp on the ISO or Shutter speed dial
Self timer lever (with exposure lock when pushed the other direction)
A real mechanical Mirror lock up
Ai metering pin can be flipped out of the way
Battery, dual SD or CF cards and USB port under the bottom plate.
MF with a split prism screen.
2 Models, a Black and white only model and an Color model with no AA filter
Raw only 16 megapixels

Basically an FM or FE with a sensor and nothing else

 

[gavinlg]

A digital FM, FE, FM3a, F1/2/3 would be cool. Here's what I would want.

A full frame sensor.
ISO set by a regular ISO dial (Ala FM/FE)
No Chimp screen, no top deck readout, no AF, no AF assist
All mechanical shutter (with a simple AE exposure)
Center Weighted Metering with +1/0/-1 exposure comp on the ISO or Shutter speed dial
Self timer lever (with exposure lock when pushed the other direction)
A real mechanical Mirror lock up
Ai metering pin can be flipped out of the way
Battery, dual SD or CF cards and USB port under the bottom plate.
MF with a split prism screen.
2 Models, a Black and white only model and an Color model with no AA filter
Raw only 16 megapixels

Basically an FM or FE with a sensor and nothing else

Why on earth would you not want an lcd on a digital camera? What could you possibly gain by not having one?

 

[Pickett Wilson]

The OM1/2 had big, lovely viewfinders because they had high magnification. The downside of high magnification is reduced eye relief. Nice if you've got good eye sight, bad if you wear glasses. DSLR's have reduced magnification finders to allow more eye relief with an adjustable diopter, a nod to an aging population I suppose. Since I wear glasses, I'll live with a smaller finder image.

While I love the old OM's as film cameras, I have no hankering for one as a digital camera. They don't fit my big hands well without the grip, and with the grip added I might as well shoot a 5D.

 

[Harry S.]

A digital FM, FE, FM3a, F1/2/3 would be cool. Here's what I would want.

A full frame sensor.
ISO set by a regular ISO dial (Ala FM/FE)
No Chimp screen, no top deck readout, no AF, no AF assist
All mechanical shutter (with a simple AE exposure)
Center Weighted Metering with +1/0/-1 exposure comp on the ISO or Shutter speed dial
Self timer lever (with exposure lock when pushed the other direction)
A real mechanical Mirror lock up
Ai metering pin can be flipped out of the way
Battery, dual SD or CF cards and USB port under the bottom plate.
MF with a split prism screen.
2 Models, a Black and white only model and an Color model with no AA filter
Raw only 16 megapixels

Basically an FM or FE with a sensor and nothing else

Separate B&W and Colour models? And people complain with film cameras they cant swap between the two for the duration of 36 shots.....

 

[sevo]

Why on earth would you not want an lcd on a digital camera? What could you possibly gain by not having one?

Longevity? Displays are the primary failure point on SLRs from the mid eighties on - a camera generation that has almost zero used value and is much more headed for extinction than its predecessors.

Arguably sensors are no better, but these are unavoidable on a digital camera and their short lifespan would have to be worked around (e.g. by making the sensor field replaceable and setting up a safe store of spares under authority of an independent trustee) if you want to create a "eternal" DSLR, while you can avoid displays.

 

[jsrockit]

I hope someone makes a DSLR with a dedicated shutter speed dial and stripped down menus. I doubt it'll happen though.

 

[gavinlg]

Longevity? Displays are the primary failure point on SLRs from the mid eighties on - a camera generation that has almost zero used value and is much more headed for extinction than its predecessors.

Arguably sensors are no better, but these are unavoidable on a digital camera and their short lifespan would have to be worked around (e.g. by making the sensor field replaceable and setting up a safe store of spares under authority of an independent trustee) if you want to create a "eternal" DSLR, while you can avoid displays.

I have a minolta digital camera thats more than 10 years old and it's lcd is fine. In fact I have a minolta film slr from the 80s and it's LCD is fine anyway. The digital camera is electronic - you can't get around that. Luckily electronics are actually quite reliable these days.

No camera manufacturer is ever going to make a serious camera without an LCD screen. There would be like 10 people in total out of the human population, all on this forum, who think it's a good idea not to have an LCD screen on a digital camera.

 

[Keith]

Luckily electronics are actually quite reliable these days.

"cough!"

😀

 

[philosomatographer]

Also DSLRs (and all autofocus slrs) have half-silvered mirrors, and these mirrors only reflect part of the light into the prism. It would be very difficult to light up such a gigantic VF with a half-slivered mirror.

To add AF capability to an SLR you need an AF sensor, and that sensor needs to be behind the mirror, which means the mirror needs to be half-slivered, which means you can kiss that beautiful bright viewfinder bye-bye. Nope.

I am afraid you didn't get that quite right - the OM-3(Ti) and OM-4(T) have half-silvered mirrors - the light metering system sits in the same place where the AF sensors of an autofocus SLR sits, i.e. in the base of the camera.

Despite this, though it is a bit smaller than the OM-1/2 funder, the viewfinder of an OM-3/4 with a 2-series screen is absolutely unparalelled in the camera world for brightness - it's a good stop or two brighter than an OM-1 finder, and better in all respects than a Leica M3 finder (both of which I use almost daily). The only SLR finder that even comes close is a Leica R9 finder, but it's a very distant second. I used to think it doesn't get better than an OM-1 finder, until I tried a 3Ti. No comparison.

There is no technical reason why an AF SLR cannot have as bright and compact viewfinder prism as an OM-3/4 - which leads us to conclude that there has probably never been a design team as skilled as Maitani's team in developing an SLR, and fanatically sticking to the original principles of a camera system, period.