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

[philosomatographer]

I have been dreaming about a good digital solution (i.e. a compact digital back with some ingenious, non-permanent way of integrating with the camera, in order to activate the sensor when pressing the shutter) for the OM for some time. An entire Sony APS-C mirrorless compact camera is smaller (thinner) than what we would want to limit the maximum size of such a digital back to, so there is no reason why good full-frame sensor and LCD should not fit into such a back easily, and it could use up all the space of the film chamber as well.

If only I could hack hardware as well as software, I would have built this long ago! It truly cannot be complicated considering the cameras that we have today, and the OMs are already ready for this with their removable backs - the back would only need to be 1cm thick or so, more than acceptable.

I have many sketches of such a digital OM back, if only somebody could build it! I have always thought it would be the ideal project for an electronics faculty of a university somewhere.

 

[DougK]

I would not buy this camera because it has way too many features. What I want in a digital SLR is basically a full-frame digital sensor Pentax K1000.

• Manual focus
• Big, uncluttered viewfinder with match-needle or over/under/OK LED metering indicators
• Self timer
• Mirror lockup
• RAW format only
• LCD panel for image review only (no live view)
• PASM modes only (or just set it up like the controls on a Pentax 645)
• ISO control
• Exposure compensation control (plus or minus two stops in half-stop increments
• Matrix metering is fine, but I'd be good with center-weighted as well.
• Maybe a white balance control, although if you're shooting RAW, you don't really need that feature in-camera

I don't want autofocus, movie modes, or any fancy image processing modes, just the controls necessary to capture an image. It seems to me that this would be the perfect student camera and I can't understand why some manufacturer hasn't already done this.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

"It seems to me that this would be the perfect student camera and I can't understand why some manufacturer hasn't already done this."

Because it's easy to dumb down a modern DSLR (set every thing to manual), but impossible to smart up the camera you are describing.

 

[DougK]

"It seems to me that this would be the perfect student camera and I can't understand why some manufacturer hasn't already done this."

Because it's easy to dumb down a modern DSLR (set every thing to manual), but impossible to smart up the camera you are describing.

Why does the camera need to be smart? The K1000 isn't a smart camera by any means, yet it's an incredibly capable camera when you know how to use it. I get that you can put modern DSLRs in manual mode, but to me it always seems like you're fighting the camera to get it to do what you want. I like analog dials and switches where you can see the settings at a glance and they don't move until you move them (they can be electronic behind the scenes, just analog in how you interact with them).

 

[rodt16s]

Count me in... I'll be dusting off the 250/2 and 100/2....

 

[sevo]

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.

Made up by yourselves, or what is the source of this statistics?

IF a camera manufacturer should ever venture into building a late seventies style mechanical all metal camera with digital sensor, but without automatic exposure, he will be catering for something way off the mainstream market. Only the market research done on the prototypes might tell whether "no LCD" or even dynamo driven operation should be part of such a odd camera. But I'm prepared to bet that anything built to the "no sane person would object to progress" mantra would not use a mechanical shutter as proposed in this thread, and would, much like Olympus' current MFT offerings, be "retro" only in the decoration applied to the outer hull.

In any case I have little hope anything beyond the latter will happen - prices on modern all plastics cameras are way too competitive even if they have to be tossed every three years, and marketing to special interest groups is more likely to follow Leica's example and tack "retro", "designer", "girlie" or "camo wannabe war photographer" shells to the same camera core rather than to diversify the camera internals...

 

[shadowfox]

I don't know Gavin.

I *like* the current E-series DSLR (I'm talking about E-3 and E-5) in all aspects.

The only thing they are lacking is a doggone F u l l F r a m e S e n s o r !!!!
:bang::bang::bang:

 

[Paul Luscher]

Yes, IF that could ever happen. really like the E-3, but its a big chunk of machinery to be hauling around. Miss the lightness and compactness of the OMs.

 

[Athos6]

Well...

Well...

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

Battery life and apperance mainly, plus I never missed one on my F3 😀. I will admit, as a Historian I like old things and would want it to look and function like and old camera, but as a pragmatic sloth I want the ease of the digital files.

Harry S. - yeah, the b&w model would come without the bayer filter. I guess we could put a b&w button under the bottom plate of the color model. Or maybe the we could have the camera save a color file to one SD card and a b&w file to the other!

I should have added match needle meter readout in the 100% finder.

 

[_larky]

I'd sell both nuts to have a digital OM4Ti that takes the old glass and is full frame.

 

[DougK]

Made up by yourselves, or what is the source of this statistics?

IF a camera manufacturer should ever venture into building a late seventies style mechanical all metal camera with digital sensor, but without automatic exposure, he will be catering for something way off the mainstream market. Only the market research done on the prototypes might tell whether "no LCD" or even dynamo driven operation should be part of such a odd camera. But I'm prepared to bet that anything built to the "no sane person would object to progress" mantra would not use a mechanical shutter as proposed in this thread, and would, much like Olympus' current MFT offerings, be "retro" only in the decoration applied to the outer hull.

For myself, I don't care if the proposed camera uses a mechanical shutter, metal body, or retro styling; electronics and plastics are fine with me, as is autoexposure and an LCD so I can check the histogram and delete shots that aren't worth saving for later editing. If the camera happens to use an all-metal body, so much the better. I just want a camera that operates pretty much the same way the OM or the K1000 or any old manual focus SLR did, using actual aperture rings, shutter speed and ISO dials, and a smooth manual focus on prime lenses. Why complicate the camera firmware with a bunch of modes and functions that you can apply to a RAW file using Photoshop?

 

[Athos6]

I think there is a "user experience" that a mostly mechanical camera creates. I think that many of the photographers that start on dslrs and m4/3 cameras could get into it. The manual controls and omition of an LCD would connect people not only to the photography, but with the environment as well by removing all of the distractions. While it is different then what we are talking about, The X100 is evidence that money could be made here.

 

[Spyro]

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.

Thanks, I didnt know this. I have and OM1 & 2n but never actually handled a 3 or 4. This is quite impressive that they managed to have a bright finder despite the half-silvered mirror, let alone a brighter one than a Leica! Do you know how they achieved this? I know Nikon has gone a long way with micro-prisms etc to make bright finders in their dslrs, but still not as bright as their old manual SLRs.

Guys sorry to be so anal about finders and I know most people are probably fine with their DSLR VFs, but I only use MF lenses and even the most imperceptible improvement in finder brightness/size means a lot less squinting for me. Also a more pleasant shooting experience over all.

fdigital I'm not knocking your idea at all, in fact I think it would be quite popular, possibly even popular enough to make it commercially viable for the right company (not Oly). Just not my dream DSLR, thats all 🙂

PS the only thing that ever bothered me about LCDs is that they have to push all dials and buttons to the right of the camera to make room for it. But this is exactly where I like to put my thumb...

 

[Keith]

Originally Posted by philosomatographer
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.

I wish I hadn't read this because I thought about one of these OM's a while ago but talked myself out of it. 😛

 

[gavinlg]

Made up by yourselves, or what is the source of this statistics?

IF a camera manufacturer should ever venture into building a late seventies style mechanical all metal camera with digital sensor, but without automatic exposure, he will be catering for something way off the mainstream market.

Ahh - but wouldn't you have said that about the x100 design before it was conceived? It's a point and shoot camera with an optical viewfinder like a leica, but with autofocus, and completely traditional control set - even the aperture ring around the lens and the shutter speed dial.
I've been seeing people say that such a camera would be a niche camera for ages, but so far it's been out for a few months and you can barely get one because the shops sell out of them so quickly. Demand for the x100 has literally outstripped supply tenfold.

In other words, I don't think an om4 style digital SLR would be a niche market item at all - I think it would sell out all over the world, much like the x100. I had an olympus e-410 a few years ago, and it's size and ergonomics were very good for such a small DSLR (its about the same size as an OM). I especially liked it's flat gripless body.

Now, put a full frame sensor in that, and an OM mount on the front and we're halfway there. Make the VF hump much bigger to incorporate a huge VF, make the body out of magnesium, add the OM control set including 2 dials, chuck out the pop-up flash and we're 90% of the way there! The other 10% would be to start development on a new line of om digital lenses that look/feel the same as the originals, but with screw drive AF (because you can make screw drive AF very compact).

 

[gavinlg]

I don't know Gavin.

I *like* the current E-series DSLR (I'm talking about E-3 and E-5) in all aspects.

The only thing they are lacking is a doggone F u l l F r a m e S e n s o r !!!!
:bang::bang::bang:

I loved my e-3 in terms of ergonomics, but yeah - the 4/3 sensor just meant that the size and weight of the thing weren't worth it. Compounding that, there were basically no fast primes available, only big slow zooms which really made it's sensors weaknesses even more apparent.

 

[gavinlg]

If anyone needs more help visualizing such a camera, go here:

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/special/matching.html

Select the e-420 from 'four thirds slr's', and then select from the 'classic lenses'
They were made for each other!

 

[shyoon]

Ahh - but wouldn't you have said that about the x100 design before it was conceived? It's a point and shoot camera with an optical viewfinder like a leica, but with autofocus, and completely traditional control set - even the aperture ring around the lens and the shutter speed dial.
I've been seeing people say that such a camera would be a niche camera for ages, but so far it's been out for a few months and you can barely get one because the shops sell out of them so quickly. Demand for the x100 has literally outstripped supply tenfold.

In other words, I don't think an om4 style digital SLR would be a niche market item at all - I think it would sell out all over the world, much like the x100.

But the X100 is a niche product. It's one thing saying demand outstrips supply but it's doesn't mean that it's a mainstream success. Is the Leica M9 a mainstream product because demand exceeded supply for the first year it was available? It's hardly commanding a large percentage of the full-frame market - nor would the X100 be a big player in the mirrorless camera market.

I think the idea of a digital-OM is great, but I'm not going to go as far to say it would be a big seller. It'd sell at M9 levels - hardly worth the massive expenditure needed to develop a brand new full-frame system.

 

[Keith]

But the X100 is a niche product. It's one thing saying demand outstrips supply but it's doesn't mean that it's a mainstream success. Is the Leica M9 a mainstream product because demand exceeded supply for the first year it was available? It's hardly commanding a large percentage of the full-frame market - nor would the X100 be a big player in the mirrorless camera market.

I think the idea of a digital-OM is great, but I'm not going to go as far to say it would be a big seller. It'd sell at M9 levels - hardly worth the massive expenditure needed to develop a brand new full-frame system.

Sadly you're right ... the people who really get into their photography and understand camera basics would be all over it ... but the 'soccer mums' out number them substantially.

(no disrespect intended to women with children who play soccer) 😀

 

[gavinlg]

Sadly you're right ... the people who really get into their photography and understand camera basics would be all over it ... but the 'soccer mums' out number them substantially.

(no disrespect intended to women with children who play soccer) 😀

But the soccer moms aren't the ones buying the 3000K dslr's - thats the hobbyists and enthusiasts! A digital OM would be a halo SLR and the 'vortex' effect would ripple down from gushing 'prosumers' all the way to beginners.

Also, soccer moms don't upgrade their equipment because a model they like more comes out - they buy some superzoom p&s thing and keep it for 4 years until they feel technology has jumped far enough to upgrade, or until it breaks.

On the other hand, if olympus released an OM digital, I would buy it right now even though I have a perfectly good 5d right now. Ask yourself how many people have multiple systems - not really a soccer mom thing.