Digital OM?

[ywenz]

Why do all digital SLRs have a select program button where I would like a shutter speed button? Why do I have to press a button and turn a wheel at the same time to change aperture?

That would suggest a poor design on the camera you bought. It IS the exception rather the rule.

Canon's toy DSLR the Rebel XT requires you to press a button and turn the wheel at the same time to change aperture. Their pro-sumer model 30D, and the pro models all have dedicated aperture control wheel, which is placed very ergonomically on the body. This fact was well researched by me when I bought my DSLR. I knew to avoid the low end model simply for this reason alone.

The lack of a dedicated aperture control wheel on your DSLR is not something you should have been surprised about on day 1.

 

[gavinlg]

If olympus made a digital OM with the same strengths as the original - that is - high portability, solid reliability, ergonomic prowess (put a shutter speed dial on it for god sakes - I HATE turning a little black knob to get a shutterspeed reading on a little LCD... Just put it where that damn MODE button sits - I've never used a mode besides M and AV on my 30d ever.), and small high performance primes, I would buy it within a second of it coming out.

In fact I wouldn't even care if they used the little sensor in it - as long as all the primes etc are equal to things like a 21 f2/ 28 f2/ 35 f2/ 50 1.2 It all evens out. Make it 8mp or even 10mp to keep the noise low, and offer a proper mirror lockup.

 

[mac_wt]

The lack of a dedicated aperture control wheel on your DSLR is not something you should have been surprised about on day 1.

It didn't surprise me. It's just an unwanted 'feature' I have to live with, because I bought a camera at a price point I could afford. Using mostly manual lenses with it overcomes most of the problem. I just don't understand why they implemented this feature in the first place. And it seems that this feature is shared by most entry level DSLR's.

Don't get me wrong. I now that in general you get what you pay for. If I would like more advanced features, I should be prepared to spend more money.

It's just that I would like a manual camera, without all the bells and whistles found in the prosumer/pro models. I could live with manual focus, manual white balance, simple TTL metering, without fancy modes, without a large LCD in the back, with a reasonable sensor crop, without infra red remote control, without special (dedicated) flash metering, etc. I can't believe there wouldn't be a market for such a camera.

Wim

 

[BillBingham2]

I agree, it’s the simplicity of use, level and types of control. If Olympus or Nikon would come out with a DSLR that had the same controls as you find in a basic analog (film) body, used the old glass I think we would all jump for it. Even if they did a 1.5 or so crop factor it would still be a hit.

I doubt they will as they would not sell new (electronically controlled focus and aperture) glass for it and this would limit their profits.

B2 (;->

 

[ywenz]

It's just that I would like a manual camera, without all the bells and whistles found in the prosumer/pro models. I could live with manual focus, manual white balance, simple TTL metering, without fancy modes, without a large LCD in the back, with a reasonable sensor crop, without infra red remote control, without special (dedicated) flash metering, etc. I can't believe there wouldn't be a market for such a camera.

Wim

I don't think there's a viable market for the camera you've described. Simply look back in history before the digital age. Modern, plastic automated film SLRs took over the market that was once dominated by solid, manual SLRs. I suspect the same holds for the DSLR market, which is why no company will waste money to develop such a camera.

 

[mac_wt]

I don't think there's a viable market for the camera you've described. Simply look back in history before the digital age. Modern, plastic automated film SLRs took over the market that was once dominated by solid, manual SLRs. I suspect the same holds for the DSLR market, which is why no company will waste money to develop such a camera.

I'm not sure that is true. Even today some companies are building/selling basic SLRs (Phenix, Cosina (?),...). But more important: once the masses started buying plastic fantastic auto everything SLRs, the secondhand market was flooded with manual cameras. Every starving student could pick up a Minolta SRT or something like it for very little money. For DSLRs, such a secondhand market doesn't exist, since a basic SLR was never built.

I don't think that you could reach the masses with such a basic camera, but I think there is a rather large niche market for it. I don't think Canon or Sony would be interested in this market, but maybe some of the smaller players could be. I'm sure we'll find out someday. Maybe digital technology still isn't widespread and common enough for this niche market to be viable.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I don't think that you could reach the masses with such a basic camera, but I think there is a rather large niche market for it. I don't think Canon or Sony would be interested in this market, but maybe some of the smaller players could be. I'm sure we'll find out someday. Maybe digital technology still isn't widespread and common enough for this niche market to be viable.

Perhaps, if Cosina ever makes a digital SLR... During the film age there always was a niche market for relatively basic mechanical cameras. It was pretty much filled by the Nikon FM series and Cosina-made K bayonet cameras, which were mostly marketed under the Vivitar brand after Cosina stopped selling cameras under its own brand. The Nikon FM-10, which was made by Cosina, is still being sold and possible even made.

 

[ywenz]

Perhaps, if Cosina ever makes a digital SLR... During the film age there always was a niche market for relatively basic mechanical cameras. It was pretty much filled by the Nikon FM series and Cosina-made K bayonet cameras, which were mostly marketed under the Vivitar brand after Cosina stopped selling cameras under its own brand. The Nikon FM-10, which was made by Cosina, is still being sold and possible even made.

Much cheaper to put some parts together to make a mechanical device. Much more expensive to design and produce the niche digital camera that you speak of.. Hence, it'll be waaay into the future when such a product is made.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

If olympus made a digital OM with the same strengths as the original

A few years ago, a coworker bought an Olympus evolt E-500; not too shabby. He got the adapter to use his old MF lenses on it; worked like a charm.

It is a 4:3 (aka "Four-Thirds") format camera, although it
s an Olympus mount, and it looks like a "regular" dSLR; so your 35mm - to "Four-Thirds" conversion factor is 2 (yep, not 1.5, not 1.6) So if you can live with that, then you may want to explore that route.

I wonder if you can adapt Canon FD lenses to some F-T cameras without the hack.

 

[mac_wt]

A few years ago, a coworker bought an Olympus evolt E-500; not too shabby.

From the review on dpreview:
"Looking through the viewfinder is unfortunately like looking down a tunnel, the actual focusing screen is very small. I found it difficult to check the focus distance (when focusing manually for instance) and also to even make out smaller detail, it's the smallest viewfinder I've seen on any recent digital SLR and is a bit of a disappointment."

To make a photo, I want to be able to set shutterspeed, set aperture, focus and compose. It seems that only changing the shutterspeed can be easily accomplished with an E-500 (unless you use older lenses with aperture control on the lens, then you would also have easy control over that).

 

[Trius]

I too have a co-worker who purchased an E-500. He brought it into work and my initial impression was singularly underwhelming. It does not feel like an OM and the viewfinder certainly isn't very OM-like. Pentax has a much better vf.

Unless the E-510 is more OM-ish, I will not be interested in an Olympus dSLR, as much as I really would love to use my Zuiko primes on a 4/3s body.

 

[gavinlg]

I looked through the viewfinder of an e-410 yesterday. I was considering getting one as a walkaround camera, especially with all those new deliicious lenses they have now - all the f2 zooms etc. Camera was light, well built, felt pretty nice in the hands, but when I looked through that viewfinder I put it back down and never spoke of it again. I thought my 30d had a small viewfinder - I don't think I'll ever complain about it again. The e-410 screen is about half the size - maybe less.

 

[MadMan2k]

Yeah, the 410 looks promising but the VF is terrible. Not quite as bad as a point and shoot, but you can barely tell if it was in focus, let alone MF accurately. It's a shame.. from the front, it's one of the best looking DSLR's I've seen. The build seems OK, but it probably wouldn't after it was beat up for a couple years.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Yeah, the 410 looks promising but the VF is terrible. Not quite as bad as a point and shoot, but you can barely tell if it was in focus, let alone MF accurately. It's a shame.. from the front, it's one of the best looking DSLR's I've seen. The build seems OK, but it probably wouldn't after it was beat up for a couple years.

As long as Olympus continues to use the 4/3 sensor, there is not much they can do to improve the optical viewfinder. There is simply not enough light coming in. If they made the VF larger, it would be very dim. My cynical side says that the 4/3 system was actually developed in anticipation of EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) cameras and the current 4/3 SLRs are just interim models, while Olympus waits EVF technology to mature.

 

[Trius]

I've wondered about diopters to magnify the image. Could this help?

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I've wondered about diopters to magnify the image. Could this help?

They would make the image larger, but also dimmer. Large and dim viewfinder image is not objectively better than bright and small viewfinder. Some people may prefer larger and dimmer image, but evidently most people prefer small and bright, since that is what all the DSLR manufacturers provide as the standard for smaller than full frame cameras. Of course with a 4/3 sensor camera the difference to full frame is much more evident than with a 1.3x crop factor sensor camera and the APS-C (1.5x & 1.6x) sensor cameras are somewhere in between.

On the other hand, most 35 mm SLRs have a relatively poor viewfinders compared to medium format SLRs. The viewfinder image of MF SLRs is so big and bright that you can often focus manually without using any focus aids (microprism and split screen). The reason is again that absolute amount of light being reflected from the mirror is much higher in MF SLRs. The "high resolution sensor" of the human eye, i.e. the fovea, can not change its sensitivity and size and therefore in general more light means a better optical viewfinder in a camera.

 

[mac_wt]

As long as Olympus continues to use the 4/3 sensor, there is not much they can do to improve the optical viewfinder. There is simply not enough light coming in. If they made the VF larger, it would be very dim.

Isn't the amount of light in the VF linked to the maximum aperture of the lens? So with an f 5,6 zoom lens, the viewfinder could be dim, but with an f 1,2 prime it can actually be bright? And isn't the size of the viewfinder small because the manufacturer wants to concentrate the light that is allowed in by a slower lens into it on a smaller area, to get it brighter?
How much light is lost by using mirrors in stead of a prism?

Could it be that implementing advanced programs, metering and autofocusing into a modern SLR is actually cheaper than including a quality prism and a fast lens into the package? At what price point would they have to sell a 'digital OM', incorporating all the qualities of the classic SLR's, without cost cutting on the basic functions, in order to make a profit? Would it be in the 1000 Euro/USD range or would it have to be significantly more expensive?

 

[gavinlg]

I have an olympus ME1 eyepeice magnifier suited to the e-series on my 30d to make the vf a little bigger. It does work, but not much. It makes it go from very small to just small. It doesn't make it dimmer. By comparison the e-410 vf is microscopic.

It's just one of those things... I like olympus. My two main film cameras are an XA and an OM2n with zuiko glass. I really like olympus. The e-410 is the best looking DSLR on the market IMO with its flat old school looking body. No grip like every other dslr. It's also small like an OM. Its just that damn 4/3rds sensor. I want to like it. I want to see all the positives like extra focal length and small body size. The 4/3rds sensor was made to be able to make small bodies. Thing is - the nikon d40 is roughly the same size in the body, and the viewfinder is twice as big. The tiny 2x crop sensor in all the olys is prone to high noise, and it's past the threshold or "sweet spot" of megapixels for sensor size. Theres no primes, and the wonderful zuiko wides aren't anything more than a standard lens with weird distortion on the e-series.

If they made those cameras with a FF sensor, i'd sell all my digital stuff and buy it. Why oh why did they go with that stupid format.

 

[shadowfox]

I have an olympus ME1 eyepeice magnifier suited to the e-series on my 30d to make the vf a little bigger. It does work, but not much. It makes it go from very small to just small. It doesn't make it dimmer. By comparison the e-410 vf is microscopic.

It's just one of those things... I like olympus. My two main film cameras are an XA and an OM2n with zuiko glass. I really like olympus. The e-410 is the best looking DSLR on the market IMO with its flat old school looking body. No grip like every other dslr. It's also small like an OM. Its just that damn 4/3rds sensor. I want to like it. I want to see all the positives like extra focal length and small body size. The 4/3rds sensor was made to be able to make small bodies. Thing is - the nikon d40 is roughly the same size in the body, and the viewfinder is twice as big. The tiny 2x crop sensor in all the olys is prone to high noise, and it's past the threshold or "sweet spot" of megapixels for sensor size. Theres no primes, and the wonderful zuiko wides aren't anything more than a standard lens with weird distortion on the e-series.

If they made those cameras with a FF sensor, i'd sell all my digital stuff and buy it. Why oh why did they go with that stupid format.

Gavin, oh my!
It ain't *that* bad 🙂

I've seen the 410 VF also, but don't go comparing it with the best VF ever (the OM ... a moment of silence, please)....

NOTE: I'm now convinced that the OM's have the BEST VF period. I recently looked at a Nikon F4, it may sink faster in the lake than OM-1 😀 but the VF is *still* better on the OM.

Plus, what hasn't been mentioned in Oly's favor is that the 410 has a LIVE-VIEW lcd system that allows you to focus when the VF can't cut it. Any other DSLR has it? Well, yea, the 510 and probably the upcoming E-1 successor.

 

[ywenz]

The problem with the large crop factor of the 4:3 system is that one can not really enjoy the lenses they want to use. An old skool fast 50mm lens becomes a fast 100mm.. okay, that is good if you happen to like for all your nomal FOV lenses to become telephotos. Not me though. I suspect not many other people either. Another issue is You can't really use wide angle lens with shallow DOF with the 4:3 system. The Leica 25mm f/1.4 lens will become a 50mm and will have much much more DOF at effective FOV compared to my full frame..