Are you going OM-D?

Are you going OM-D?

  • O yeah, here's my pre-order confirmation!

    Votes: 36 10.4%

  • You bet! just have to de-GAS a few gears to fund it

    Votes: 23 6.7%

  • Positively, but only when it hits street price level

    Votes: 65 18.8%

  • I don't know, I like it, but won't my APS-C buddies shun me?

    Votes: 50 14.5%

  • Heck no! I won't be caught dead with a dinky m4/3rd camera

    Votes: 110 31.9%

  • OMD? Are they coming out with a new album?

    Votes: 61 17.7%
  • Total voters
    345
  • Poll closed .
You know, you can change the aspect ratio. I did that for a while on my E-P2, setting it in 16:9. I'm back to 4:3 but now maybe I should set it to 3:2

And I have to admit, when I crop a photo, I rarely crop it with a different aspect ratio from the original (as shoot).
 
Spyro said:
I did, because I didnt like it.
Is there some reason we have to come up with a like-dislike rule that applies to everybody?
Some people prefer 3:2.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And there are valid reasons to prefer 3:2. I just get the feeling that some associate 4:3 to "cheap consumer digicam with small sensor," without realising that it's really the same as 6x4.5.

Live and let live.
 
nighstar said:
....sadly, i find a lot of cameras these days have better high ISO performance than an E-P2. i won't even use my E-P2 above ISO400 unless i'm doing black & white, but that's just me.... i've been spoiled by my new GRD4's awesome low light/high ISO performance.

that said, i am amazed by the E-M5's ISO performance. :)
Click to expand...

I also shoot Tri-X in 35mm, so I'm fine with grain :)

6198244032_6980613f96_z.jpg

E-P2 at iso 3200
 
You talking about the OM-D / EM5

You talking about the OM-D / EM5

Trius said:
My hands are practically molded to an OM or 35SP, so it looks too small!
Click to expand...

The New OLY OM-D is 1 Cm shy of the width of the OM film bodies, and almost the same dimension on height and thickness. Weight wise, again almost the same. It does look smaller in the pictures, but read the actual specifications. The 35SP falls between the two.

Looks to me like it's going to be nearly a perfect alternative for all my OM's.
 
kuzano said:
The New OLY OM-D is 1 Cm shy of the width of the OM film bodies, and almost the same dimension on height and thickness. Weight wise, again almost the same. It does look smaller in the pictures, but read the actual specifications. The 35SP falls between the two.

Looks to me like it's going to be nearly a perfect alternative for all my OM's.
Click to expand...
They are close to the same size. That's one reason I'm going the opposite direction from you. I can't have my E-M5 for a while, so in the meantime I've assembled a small collection of OM bodies and lenses, a couple of which are still in the mail to me. :)

My best OM, and the last one I'll buy for a while, is a pro serviced black OM-2S that the mailman brought today. It's unpacked and I've shot it dry (all is well in 2S land) ,but I haven't had time to remove its damn split rings yet before they chew the hell out of the strap lugs and everything near them. :mad:
 
kuzano said:
The New OLY OM-D is 1 Cm shy of the width of the OM film bodies, and almost the same dimension on height and thickness. Weight wise, again almost the same. It does look smaller in the pictures, but read the actual specifications. The 35SP falls between the two.

Looks to me like it's going to be nearly a perfect alternative for all my OM's.
Click to expand...
I read the specs and that made me think yeah, this is going to be fine. Then there are the pics, so yes, the pictures are deceiving. I'll have to lay my hands on one ASAP. GeneW has one on order, so maybe I'll beg him to let me camp out while he' unboxes the delivery, etc., etc. :D
 
I'm too lazy to troll back through this thread ... and short on time! :p

I'm starting to get a little interested in this camera ... particularly after the description of it being very close to my beloved OM-1 size wise.

Prices?????? :)
 
Keith said:
I'm too lazy to troll back through this thread ... and short on time! :p

I'm starting to get a little interested in this camera ... particularly after the description of it being very close to my beloved OM-1 size wise.

Prices?????? :)
Click to expand...

$999/$1299 with the kit lens, if memory serves.
 
I hope I'm not splitting hairs here and I'm also very interested in the OMD. The specs I read (DPreview) showed the OMD at 122mm length or 4.8". My three OM bodies measure 136mm or 5.38" in length. While that doesn't seem to be a lot of difference, I also have a Lumix G1, which measures 124mm in length. I am trying not to compare apples and oranges, but there is a significant difference in size between my OM's and the G1. The G1 being a tiny bit larger than the OMD and it's (G1) about as compact as can be, to still have reasonable access to the controls. My concern is the OMD being too small. I hope my concerns turn out to be unfounded.
 
Trius said:
I read the specs and that made me think yeah, this is going to be fine. Then there are the pics, so yes, the pictures are deceiving. I'll have to lay my hands on one ASAP. GeneW has one on order, so maybe I'll beg him to let me camp out while he' unboxes the delivery, etc., etc. :D
Click to expand...

Not before April the Olympus reps told us Sunday. (for Canuckistan)
 
shadowfox said:
There is a lot of things to like with the new OM-D.

Is it good enough for you?
Is it enough to sway you from your previous bias towards the smaller sensor? (smaller, not tiny)
Is it just another pretty body without substance?
Is it the answer to your dream?

Vote and chime up.
Click to expand...

1. Don't care
2. No?
3. Again, another don't care
4. Can I put in a roll of film? if the answer is No..... then it is a No
 
rizraz said:
1. Don't care
2. No?
3. Again, another don't care
4. Can I put in a roll of film? if the answer is No..... then it is a No
Click to expand...



Like we needed to know this?

Yet another case of a dedicated film shooter jumping into a thread discussing a digital camera just to trash the digital medium for the hell of it!

It's tiresome! :rolleyes:
 
I am not interested in buying this particular camera (I know... who cares... ), but I hope it is a great success because it might fuel the trend of cameras (such as this and Fuji) that are designed to be nice to use rather than win the marketing facts and figures game. The technology is mature. It is time the cameras caught up.
 
Keith said:
Like we needed to know this?

Yet another case of a dedicated film shooter jumping into a thread discussing a digital camera just to trash the digital medium for the hell of it!

It's tiresome! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

BTW, nice to see you back Keith :)

Cheers - John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom