Oh My Goodness (digital OM)

OM was not the only camera with the SS dial placed concentric with the lens mount. The early Nikkormat's had the same arrangement, and they were using a Copal Square shutter.
 
Range Loser said:
Forgive me if someone else has already said something similar, I only just started reading this thread.

The absolute joy of the film OM's was the amazing viewfinder, huge, bright and lovely to look through.

Even the best EVF I've seen (Sony A77) is pathetic by comparison, so it can have all the retro charm you can muster, but it's never going to have the original appeal of the OM's as a camera to enjoy looking through.
Click to expand...

No, it is not going to be an OM-1 with a digital sensor, and we have to accept that and take it for what it is.

What it is is a well built, compact, capable camera with nice design and a set of very good lenses. An alternative to the bigger cameras people have dragged around.

That sounds familiar somehow... 😉
 
gavinlg said:
I would guess it's more a response to the x100. Olympus SHOULD have been the first to make this traditional/hybrid style of camera, and they SHOULD have brought it out soon after the e-p1, but they were slow to progress and didn't read the market correctly, and so were beaten by fujifilm.

Better late than never though, and I haven't gotten tired of looking at the om-d yet!
Click to expand...

Because of the sensor format, the new OM is in a category of it's own. It has no competition. The camera looks different than any other m4/3 offering and it is dust and water resistant. The physics of Bayer imaging dictates it can not outperform contemporary cameras with larger sensor areas. This is not a criticism. The difference in Performance is irrelevant to every happy m4/3 photographer and there are a lot of them.

I'm happy Olympus gave their customers a product they will enjoy.
 
cameras like Olympus OM-D and Fuji X-Pro are really sign that digital technology matured. This is what happens when sensors/electronics become commodity - you can not differentiate from competition with sensors characteristics and digital guts and then different factors like ergonomics come into play. Which I am glad for.
OM-D is not Om-4 and doesn't pretend to be (well, maybe a little) but it looks like a gem, and if it feels and performs like it looks - I can jump MTF ship.
 
I think the OM-D is a great development, but it's basically a prettier Lumix G3 (apart from weather sealing). Not that that's a bad thing.
 
Range Loser said:
By the way, did anyone make any punning references to Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark?
If not, let me be the first to bring down the tone.
Click to expand...

I've been trying not to, but if we are going to bring down the tone, I suspect the "Enola Gay" model might not go down too well...

*cough* Getting back on topic...

Looks pretty nice. No, it's not a true OM but if I was going to replace my old E-P1 I know what I'd replace it with.
 
Huh??

Huh??

funkpilz said:
After seeing the engadget video, I kinda want one. It looks really compact and light, but you could use Zuiko lenses on it, plus the way the display swivels forward and not outward (what would be the point in that?), and then the handling and everything… I'm intrigued.
It doesn't bring anything new to the market, I just look at it as a camera that, instead of trying to innovate, goes back to the roots in its designs and focusses on the few things that make a great camera.
Click to expand...

5 axis IBIS? Who else has that?
 
EVFs are the wave of the future. It is a given. They will get better and better. Someone is probably working on a full frame EVF as we write this thread. Bottom line, the OMD and G3 use the same 16 megapixel Sony chip. The differences are how the engineers program the firmware and each will produce noticeably different jpegs. It should be interesting to see how they perform against each other. In RAW mode, differences will be minimal if at all.
 
kbg32 said:
In RAW mode, differences will be minimal if at all.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of room for noise reduction at the sensor level before the RAW. The digitization system can deal with some of it directly. So you can still see a big difference between the RAW files on camera using the same sensor.

I'd love to see the comparison.
 
kbg32 said:
EVFs are the wave of the future. It is a given. They will get better and better. Someone is probably working on a full frame EVF as we write this thread. Bottom line, the OMD and G3 use the same 16 megapixel Sony chip. The differences are how the engineers program the firmware and each will produce noticeably different jpegs. It should be interesting to see how they perform against each other. In RAW mode, differences will be minimal if at all.
Click to expand...

A french manufacturer produced a 5.4 million dot evf with a highest contrast of 100.000:1 that is 1280x1024 resolution in a 0.61" diagonal.
 
Why would you want noise reduction done in-camera on a RAW file? It kind of defeats the purpose of shooting RAW. I would rather it be done post processing where it belongs.
 
I have to reluctantly agree that EVF's are the future, but I don't see to many articles devoted to this topic. I like watching TV, but even the most expensive screens aren't anything like just plain old looking out of the window..
 
shadowfox said:
No kidding.
I can only think of another system with a kit 24mm-at-the-wide-end lens: Contax N1. And it didn't have a $1300 price tag.

On another note, check out the top of the camera:

OMD_top_b.jpg


Doesn't that just scream: Use me...!
Click to expand...

looks sexy...
 
Y'all knew this, right?

Y'all knew this, right?

In 1972, when Olympus brought out the original small SLR, they pissed off Leica. The new camera was branded the Olympus M1.

Well, Leica immediately jumped in Olympus' shorts and very few M1's left the Olympus factory without being changed to OM-1. Very rare... the Oly M1 fetches high prices when they turn up.

Pretty interesting for two countries that collaborated together during the great "Brown Shoe War" (shoes and boots in WWII were brown, not black)*. I guess when you both lose in the biggest war the world has experienced, it kind of fractures the concept of working together nicely? Huzzah!!!

*Excerpted from: "Little Known Facts of WWII- The Big One". Subtitled "War, What Is It Good For?"**. That subtitle was originally considered for the actual title for Tolsoy's "War and Peace".

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and_Peace

**Elaine on Seinfeld:

http://thebumblesblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/on-books-war-what-is-it-good-for.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom