jky
Well-known
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).
Years ago, I highly considered buying this camera... desperately wanted to like it. The deal breaker was that miniscule viewfinder.
Spyro
Well-known
The m9 couldnt ever do that, even if the whole world wanted an m9 now and was knocking on Leica's door with their credit cards in hand. It's a small company of 1,000 staff with a very fussy production line, it would take them forever to build up production. (that is if they even dared do it, after writing about $50m losses from their camera sales in the last 10 years and covering it from their own pockets to keep the company afloat. Dont know who these people are, but this must've hurt)
Last edited:
TXForester
Well-known
This sounds great, but how would we convince Olympus enough people want it? Oly would have to market it as separate line from their E-x, E-xx and E-xxx cameras. Otherwise fans of digital Olympus cameras would complain.
Check out **review.com as an example. Plenty of posts saying a bigger viewfinder (and they complain about the small ones) and a larger sensor (even APS) would make the body bigger. They say Olympus is all about small and light cameras. Add one ounce of weight of an existing model as part of an upgrade and watch the complaints. "It'll break our backs carrying it all day."
I think your idea is the best so far for a OM like dSLR. There are a few things I might drop or change. For instance, to keep the body small, skip the LCD on the back. If you need one to check the histogram, then put a tiny b&w lcd in the top of the body. It doesn't have to be big and in color. It's just a simple graph.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned--but Oly has indeed been making prototypes of a modular DSLR based on the design of the OM4Ti. They apparently debated debuting it last fall but couldn't get it together, or perhaps decided not to go in that direction.
The idea is that the m4/3 "pro" camera could use any m4/3 or 4/3 lens by allowing a mirror-box/adapter to be attached to a native m4/3 mount.
Of course this wouldn't be full frame and it wouldn't be mostly mechanical. But it would look more "classic."
The idea is that the m4/3 "pro" camera could use any m4/3 or 4/3 lens by allowing a mirror-box/adapter to be attached to a native m4/3 mount.
Of course this wouldn't be full frame and it wouldn't be mostly mechanical. But it would look more "classic."
gavinlg
Veteran
This sounds great, but how would we convince Olympus enough people want it? Oly would have to market it as separate line from their E-x, E-xx and E-xxx cameras. Otherwise fans of digital Olympus cameras would complain.
Check out **review.com as an example. Plenty of posts saying a bigger viewfinder (and they complain about the small ones) and a larger sensor (even APS) would make the body bigger. They say Olympus is all about small and light cameras. Add one ounce of weight of an existing model as part of an upgrade and watch the complaints. "It'll break our backs carrying it all day."
I think your idea is the best so far for a OM like dSLR. There are a few things I might drop or change. For instance, to keep the body small, skip the LCD on the back. If you need one to check the histogram, then put a tiny b&w lcd in the top of the body. It doesn't have to be big and in color. It's just a simple graph.
Well that's the thing. All signs point to the 4/3s line being mostly replaced by m4/3s. They're developing a pro model m4/3 camera currently, as stated in many interviews. Currently, the e-5 and perhaps the e-30 are the only olympus 4/3s, and there has been no lens development there for a number of years.
Realistically, I highly doubt any camera manufacturer would make a DSLR without a screen. They're going to have a minimum 2.5 inch screen, and thats the way it should be IMO.
How do we convince Olympus to make it? With threads like this of course. (olympus have stated themselves that they read forums for customer feedback).
djonesii
Well-known
make it a FM and I'm in at 2.5K
make it a FM and I'm in at 2.5K
Lets say someone can sort out a 12mpix sensor with micro lenses,
Slap it in an FM-10 body and charge me 2.5K, I'm ready to buy one.
oh wait Mr. K makes the FM-10 no?
Too bad it won't happen.
Just my 2c
Dave
make it a FM and I'm in at 2.5K
Lets say someone can sort out a 12mpix sensor with micro lenses,
Slap it in an FM-10 body and charge me 2.5K, I'm ready to buy one.
oh wait Mr. K makes the FM-10 no?
Too bad it won't happen.
Just my 2c
Dave
Ade-oh
Well-known
And the Olympus design department will be jumping up and down in their seats at the news that 28 members of RFF are prepared to suggest they might actually buy this camera we're asking them to develop!
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Lose the LCD screen
Lose the LCD screen
I'd LOVE to see more digital cameras in this configuration. And I'd REALLY LOVE to see one offered with no LCD screen. Camera would take RAW files only, and you could see what your images look like when you get home and process them. JUST LIKE FILM!!
Lose the LCD screen
I'd LOVE to see more digital cameras in this configuration. And I'd REALLY LOVE to see one offered with no LCD screen. Camera would take RAW files only, and you could see what your images look like when you get home and process them. JUST LIKE FILM!!
TXForester
Well-known
And I'd REALLY LOVE to see one offered with no LCD screen. Camera would take RAW files only, and you could see what your images look like when you get home and process them. JUST LIKE FILM!!
We know that won't happen. I only suggested that an LCD screen is not needed. Most on this forum use or have used film. We know good work can be done without double checking on the LCD.
We could always compromise. (1) Full frame would be great, but something along the lines of APS could allow a screen without going with a big body. Looking at some entry level Nikons in stores, I'm seeing bodies about the size of my E-510 that use APS. (2) Or, go with a small screen. Even smaller than the one suggested above would be fine with me. You still get the histogram and can see a large enough image to know if you need to make adjustments in framing etc. Even the screen on my Canon G6 works for that and it's tiny. The most important thing in the LCD is make one I can see in sunlight.
Also this isn't just an idea on RFF. I seen it on Olympus forums. I'd bet it's discussed in Nikon (for the FM) forums too.
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
I always suspected I was something special. I didn't know I was that special. One of ten, cool.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I get the idea of no LCD screen for that purist approach because in situations where the shot is really important you'll bracket every time.
Personally I'd rather check a reviewed image or a histogram and delete the mistakes and make the necessary correction on the spot rather than worry about them later. There seems to be an acceptance of digital on one hand but then a denial by not wanting the screen.
Why not take the Leica stealth approach and just tape it over ... that way your irrationallity won't effect us normal folk?
Personally I'd rather check a reviewed image or a histogram and delete the mistakes and make the necessary correction on the spot rather than worry about them later. There seems to be an acceptance of digital on one hand but then a denial by not wanting the screen.
Why not take the Leica stealth approach and just tape it over ... that way your irrationallity won't effect us normal folk?
Last edited:
Mister E
Well-known
Are you serious? Bigger than the 100% finders in the Nikon F line that have NO meter or any clutter in the eye-level finder?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Yes he is serious ... the fact that the Nikon F finder is 100% means nothing ... that's just it's coverage.
In the OM you are seeing a larger more highly magnified image which is where the attraction is with the OM finder for me. It's like going from a normal theatre to one of those I-Max thingys!
Mister E
Well-known
Having owned an extensive amount of OM gear I never found the finder to be better than my Nikons.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
That chart that was posted represents tha actual size of the image from the viewer's perception.
I looked through an F finder a while ago then picked up my OM and noticed the difference immediately. The F finder is very good though I'll admit ... I could live with it!
My D700 seems like a bit of a tunnel in comparison.
gavinlg
Veteran
Yeah even my 5d seems a bit small after using my 1n for a while...
I'm surprised at the amount of people saying "they'd never make it" when the fuji x100 is basically the same thing, in point and shoot form, and it seems to be selling extraordinarily well.
Athos6
Tao Master
I never thought I would argue against the LCD, but my D7000's default was no preview. I thought it was weird at first but with two 8-gig cards I never run out of room, so I stopped previewing. After a while I found that I liked having the LCD off. How about a compromise position, a LCD that can fold out and rotate around, so you can have it facing out or in.
We few, who would love to see this type of camera, are the vanguard of the photographic community. The hype we created around the X100 made that camera a success. I think "what is cool" about photography trickles down to the regular consumers from here, how do you think I got into rangefinders? People hyped up the Bessa R, I was a diehard Canon A1 shooter....
We few, who would love to see this type of camera, are the vanguard of the photographic community. The hype we created around the X100 made that camera a success. I think "what is cool" about photography trickles down to the regular consumers from here, how do you think I got into rangefinders? People hyped up the Bessa R, I was a diehard Canon A1 shooter....
gavinlg
Veteran
Why not just turn lcd instant preview off? You can always do that - alternatively if you have no lcd you can never check your exposures. When I shoot portraits for publications I'm always checking to see if I got the right moment with smiles and no blinking etc - if I didn't have an LCD I'd just have to shoot a million shots and hope that it turns out ok, which would be terrible.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Yeah ... that finder on the X100 is basically what it's all about IMO. Yes the image quality is there and the camera works intuatively enough but when you hold it up to your eye!