Digital OM?

I think the only people complaining about 4/3s VFs are:

1. Old OM-farts like us
2. Users of the competition's dSLRs with larger sensors.

Younger folks who have no experience with dSLRs (not to mention medium format SLRs) won't know the difference, and will likely use the LCD more often anyway if they have the 410 or 510 with Live View.

Gavin: Is the 510 the same form factor as the 410? If so, I'll have to get my hands on it. One of the things I disliked about the 500 was the grip. I don't have particularly small hands, but the grip felt uncomfortable. It felt too big, but maybe it was just the shape. Of course, after gripping OMs and SPs for so long ...

BTW, the viewfinder on my Rollei SL66 was not as good as the OM. Big, yes, but not as bright, especially with the waist-level finder. I can't comment on Hasselblad and others.
 
mac_wt said:
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?
Click to expand...
Amount of light in the VF is certainly linked to maximum aperture of the lens, but you must remember that the maximum aperture of a lens is actually relative to the intended sensor or film size for that lens. So, if you put a lens intended for larger sensor/film to a camera with smaller sensor, you are essentially wasting a lot of light, since the sensor only covers a fraction of the original frame. The absolute amount of light reflected by the mirror and pentaprism/mirrors to the VF will always be less with a smaller sensor, since the VF is supposed to display nearly the same image as the sensor will record. Therefore the VF of a small sensor camera must be small so that it can be bright enough.

If you wanted to make a "digital OM", you would also need a full frame or at least a low crop factor sensor. Since a digital camera always needs a fairly complex embedded computer system to work at all, you can not really save from the electronics. So the end result would be somewhere in the same price range as the Canon 5D. Since Olympus does not have a significant market share in the semipro and pro market, it would be a huge risk for the company. They would also have to buy the sensors from Kodak, since Canon is not selling their FF and 1.3x crop factor CMOS sensors.
 
Dr. Strangelove said:
you must remember that the maximum aperture of a lens is actually relative to the intended sensor or film size for that lens.
Click to expand...
Er, no. The aperture of a lens is the quotient of the diameter of the entry pupil and the focal length. The size of the circle of coverage of the lens doesn't figure here. An 80/2.8 for medium format will allow more light to pass than an 80/2.8 for 35mm, but because this gets distributed across more area, the apparent brightness is the same.

It only gets brighter in the finder if you have (a) a larger mirror and (b) a finder optic that projects this on a brightscreen of the same given size. In that case, of course, your basic argument is completely correct.

Philipp
 
Trius said:
Or from Panasonic ... or from Foveon... or from Sony. But Kodak is a good bet.
Click to expand...
Panasonic does not make larger than 4/3 sensors and as far as I know they do not even plan to make them. Sony is rumored to have a FF or low crop factor sensor in the works, but no reliable information yet. Do not know about Foveon, but at least there are no commercial products with a FF or larger than APS-C size sensor. In any case, Kodak is the only sensor manufacturer besides Canon that could provide a larger than APS-C sensor off-the-shelf.
 
Re: D-OM

I was thinking just the other day when using my wife's Pentax K2 w/ SMC 55/1.8 that I would love it if Pentax made a very basic, well-made DSLR. I'm not holding my breath, but it seems that if any of the big camera companies were to do it (based on what they're producing now) it would be Pentax.

The the K100 and K10 seem like great cameras but I'd love it if they made a much simpler verson with genuine manual controls. K-mount would be a plus, but I'd settle for Pentax's current mount so I could use those nice pancake primes they've been producing lately.
 
ywenz said:
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.
Click to expand...

I solve this problem by getting the sharp wide-angle zuikos. The amazing 24mm/2.8 or the more amazing (and expensive) 24mm/2.0 becomes an 8-element and 10-element 48mm prime lenses respectively. Darn close to 50mm I would say.
 
shadowfox said:
I solve this problem by getting the sharp wide-angle zuikos. The amazing 24mm/2.8 or the more amazing (and expensive) 24mm/2.0 becomes an 8-element and 10-element 48mm prime lenses respectively. Darn close to 50mm I would say.
Click to expand...
And with a lot of lens surfaces and not very fast for a modern normal lens. In contrast, you can make a perfectly good and very inexpensive f/2.8 normal lens with 4 element Tessar type construction (well, bokeh is not good with Tessars) and a very good but still relatively inexpensive f/2.0 6 element Planar or Sonnar type normal lens. So for best results you should redesign the normal lenses for smaller sensors and this becomes more and more true with greater crop factors.
 
Trius said:
I think the only people complaining about 4/3s VFs are:

1. Old OM-farts like us
2. Users of the competition's dSLRs with larger sensors.

Younger folks who have no experience with dSLRs (not to mention medium format SLRs) won't know the difference, and will likely use the LCD more often anyway if they have the 410 or 510 with Live View.

Gavin: Is the 510 the same form factor as the 410? If so, I'll have to get my hands on it. One of the things I disliked about the 500 was the grip. I don't have particularly small hands, but the grip felt uncomfortable. It felt too big, but maybe it was just the shape. Of course, after gripping OMs and SPs for so long ...

BTW, the viewfinder on my Rollei SL66 was not as good as the OM. Big, yes, but not as bright, especially with the waist-level finder. I can't comment on Hasselblad and others.
Click to expand...

Trius - The e-510 is a different form factor to the e-410. I personally think the e-410 is a great step forward (backward?) in camera ergonomics. I hate that little "step grip" where your right hand sits on the 400d, d80, d40 etc. My OM2n has a flat body which makes it more compact, and still feels great in hand.



I also agree that the OM series have one of the best viewfinders ever. It's just so big and beautiful to look through.
 
shadowfox said:
I solve this problem by getting the sharp wide-angle zuikos. The amazing 24mm/2.8 or the more amazing (and expensive) 24mm/2.0 becomes an 8-element and 10-element 48mm prime lenses respectively. Darn close to 50mm I would say.
Click to expand...

What if I wanted to shoot with a fast wide angle lens? No can do on the 2x crop systems..

Do those 24s you mentioned offer the same quality of rendering as the 50s?
 
I got a chance to try out an E-1 today - MUCH better than the E410. The viewfinder is magnified a lot more, so it's pretty decent. The height is about the same as on a 1.3x crop camera, but it's not as wide because it's a different aspect ratio.

The thing that really impressed me, though, was how quiet the thing was. I would say it's on par with a Leica M, possibly quieter. Maybe the mirror is so small it doesn't have enough momentum to make a lot of noise...
 
ywenz said:
What if I wanted to shoot with a fast wide angle lens? No can do on the 2x crop systems..

Do those 24s you mentioned offer the same quality of rendering as the 50s?
Click to expand...
Since only the center of the image circles of the lenses is used, the quality of rendering will probably be quite good. However, wide angles have a lot of lens surfaces, which means that they more prone to ghosting and flaring than normal lenses. The same is true for zooms as well, of course. In the case of Olympus this is perhaps even slightly bigger problem than it is for some other lens manufacturers, since Olympus coating technology is only average compared to for example Zeiss or Pentax.

That said, in most real life photographic situations ghosting and flaring are not significant problems with any modern multicoated lenses. If they were, zoom lenses would not be as popular as they are.
 
MadMan2k said:
I got a chance to try out an E-1 today - MUCH better than the E410. The viewfinder is magnified a lot more, so it's pretty decent. The height is about the same as on a 1.3x crop camera, but it's not as wide because it's a different aspect ratio.

The thing that really impressed me, though, was how quiet the thing was. I would say it's on par with a Leica M, possibly quieter. Maybe the mirror is so small it doesn't have enough momentum to make a lot of noise...
Click to expand...

The E1 is a fantastic camera and yes, it is as quiet as a film M. Its not a small camera, but its not overly big either and built to pro standards - weatherproof, dust proof etc. Ergonomics are superb and you can manual focus (at least I can). Printing to A3+ is fine and you can buy one for peanuts. You may have guessed that I like it (I have two as well as an E400) :)
 
ywenz said:
What if I wanted to shoot with a fast wide angle lens? No can do on the 2x crop systems..

Do those 24s you mentioned offer the same quality of rendering as the 50s?
Click to expand...

Then it's time to get a fast 4/3rd wide angle Digital Zuiko :)

The 24mm/2.8 that I have is both more sharp and renders more contrast than any of the 50mm zuikos I have, except maybe the 50/3.5 macro.

Also on paper, it's 10-element on the 24/2.0 vs 6-element on the 50/1.8. You do the math :)
 
Gid said:
The E1 is a fantastic camera and yes, it is as quiet as a film M. Its not a small camera, but its not overly big either and built to pro standards - weatherproof, dust proof etc. Ergonomics are superb and you can manual focus (at least I can). Printing to A3+ is fine and you can buy one for peanuts. You may have guessed that I like it (I have two as well as an E400) :)
Click to expand...

Gid, you make me want to get the E-1, I'm just hoping like heck that its successor lives up to its high standard.
 
shadowfox said:
Gid, you make me want to get the E-1, I'm just hoping like heck that its successor lives up to its high standard.
Click to expand...

I'm also hope the same for its successor. However, I'll still be keeping the E1s - its a classic and if you can put up with its relatively minor idiosyncrasies still a valid tool today - just don't pick one up or you'll be hooked :)

PS: Having just seen your camera collection, you just have to get an E1
 
Gid said:
PS: Having just seen your camera collection, you just have to get an E1
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the collection, although I am in the process to whittle it down.

As for the E1, for now I'd have to be content with my E-300.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom