Retro-Grouch
Veteran
And the DSLR market is essentially dead except for Pentax.m43 body isn't thick enough for a mirror
And the DSLR market is essentially dead except for Pentax.m43 body isn't thick enough for a mirror
What's old is new, right? Let's give it a year or two.And the DSLR market is essentially dead except for Pentax.
Feverish nightmare.I thought there was already an OM-3 and OM-4. That was just a dream, no?
B2 (;->
I thought there was already an OM-3 and OM-4. That was just a dream, no?
B2 (;->
Feverish nightmare.
I have an OM-3ti, 40/2 and 50/2 macro here somewhere. It’s a beautiful, if idiosyncratic, machine. Those 2 series focus screens are amazing. But the shutterspeed ring used to periodically disconnect from the intermediate gear and leave me stuck wherever it had been set.
I got mine new-old-stock when I worked in the lab of a camera store for $125 with staff discount. No-one wanted it. On film that is not super fine grained, at about f4 it is lovely. I shot a lot of APX100 at the time. The main thing was that there were not many lenses of that focal length for interchangeable lens cameras then. I didn’t want the expense of a CL, so the Olympus it was. At the time I had not heard that Sally Mann liked it and the focal length - I’m pretty sure it was before Mike Johnston had written about it.Ever since it came out that Sally Mann used the 40/2 the price has gone mad, well over AU$1000 on fleabay, from memory it was nothing special.
Some years ago, I was talking to a flickr guy named Snausages2000 who wanted a Leica, but he bought an OM4 Ti with some lenses, and suddenly his lust for Leica disappeared. Mind you, he did get a M6 TTL and Summilux 50 later on, hahaha.I have an OM-3ti, 40/2 and 50/2 macro here somewhere. It’s a beautiful, if idiosyncratic, machine. Those 2 series focus screens are amazing. But the shutterspeed ring used to periodically disconnect from the intermediate gear and leave me stuck wherever it had been set.
Ok.Fugget it, John. We disagree.
I already use something else... from 24mp to 50mp. I have no issue with 20mp. I think the camera is over-priced. However, I concede that the sensor and the used prices of the Pen-F probably came into play for the price.If your photography needs more than 20 Mpixel resolution, why disparage a camera with a small sensor and that resolution? Why even look at it? Just go buy something else.
G
That 50mm f2.0 macro is a spectacular lens.I have an OM-3ti, 40/2 and 50/2 macro here somewhere. It’s a beautiful, if idiosyncratic, machine. Those 2 series focus screens are amazing. But the shutterspeed ring used to periodically disconnect from the intermediate gear and leave me stuck wherever it had been set.
Micro Four Thirds doesn't have enough space between the sensor and rear element for a mirror box of any size. Four Thirds would, if it wasn't defunct. As a Pentax user, though, I'm uninterested in SLR viewfinders for small formats unless they can work the kind of magic that the K-3 Mark III does with its APS-C viewfinder. I don't like small and dim finders.I wonder why they went with an EVF. The reflex style viewfinder seems like it could work just fine as a MFT DSLR.
Or even a dual OVF/EVF to compete with Fuji.
I always regret selling what I had in the 90's but still have the broken OM1n from then, probably for sentimental reasons as I love that camera and it has taken some lovely family memories but as I picked up a cheap OM1n and OM2n late last year, I'm now on the hunt for some more lenses, the lovely 28/3.5 is next on the list.Olympus has always made great lenses!
Indeed. As a normal lens I found it better than the 50mm Summicron v5 in essentially every way I could think to try it. But not the 50/1.4 ASPH, which it beats only in some kinds of flare resistance.That 50mm f2.0 macro is a spectacular lens.
Did OM make a slower 50mm macro lens?
Very possibly as there was also a Nikon conversion mount as well IIRC for some Zuiko's.I think that I have an OM 50mm 3.5 macro in Canon FD mount.
Micro Four Thirds was designed specifically to remove the need for a mirror box and pentaprism viewfinder. By eliminating the mirror box, they could create a much smaller, more shallow body. Early interviews with the Olympus CEO (?) talked about a small interchangeable lens camera that you could put in a jacket pocket and carry to dinner. This was at a time when DSLR's ruled, and I carried a 30D in my shoulder bag everywhere. Micro Four Thirds system cameras were the first mirrorless cameras on the market, if you don't count the Leica M8.I wonder why they went with an EVF. The reflex style viewfinder seems like it could work just fine as a MFT DSLR.
Or even a dual OVF/EVF to compete with Fuji.