dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
- Local time
- 3:02 PM
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,045
Thing is, it's modeled after the OM-4 right? That model was never as purdy as the Om-1 or OM-2, which were bootyfull in their simplicity.
Couldn't agree more about the E1. If only they had just upgraded the sensor to the 10MP version in the E400(Kodak). That camera is still my all time favourite and i've had mine since they were released in the UK (2003/04). Also have an E5 now, but still prefer the E1.
As to the OMD, if its just a rehash of the existing M4/3 offerings I'm not sure if it will persuade me, but I do like OMs so who knows.
Will, this is why I love you. 😀You mean like OM-88/OM-101/OM-707/OM-77 ??
😛
You mean like OM-88/OM-101/OM-707/OM-77 ??
😛
Couldn't agree more about the E1. If only they had just upgraded the sensor to the 10MP version in the E400(Kodak).
I actually went to the evil auction site and searched ... then I remembered the tiny, tunnel-vision viewfinder. Brought me to my senses.
The E1 VF is actually very nice and not at all tunnel like. The E400 is more so, but still usable. I can get very nice A3 prints from the E1 and up to A2, depending on subject matter (portraits work very well at this size). As well as the overall balance of the E1 body, the metering, white balance, focusing and colours are all spot on. The only downside comes if you want to shoot above ISO 800. Oh, and the shutter is so quiet. You can pick up a low mileage E1 for a lot less than £200 and an E400 for about the same. I am a fan 🙂
PS OM lenses work very well on them too
You mean like OM-88/OM-101/OM-707/OM-77 ??
😛
You might think you're clever but those models were all Full Frame and natively accepted all the wonderful OM Zuiko lenses.
It is impossible to distinguish a photo taken on one of the lesser OM's versus any other. It's all in the lens.
The fact remains the "OM" in OM-D is a cheap marketing gimmick, nothing more.
Just like thinking the Cimarron was a real Cadillac.
Can't speak to the newer models of the New Beetle, but the 2000 Beetle TDI is an excellent car; 38-plus MPG in the city, it can run on domestically made biodiesel, fewer harmful emissions than a Toyota Prius, a lot of torque for great acceleration and it handles better out of the box than any stock front-drive car I've ever driven, and I've driven some very good ones. And, oh yeah, when you live on Hell's doorstep (otherwise known as the Sonoran Desert) as I do, the superb air conditioning is a godsend.I am a real OM fan. But... this looks way too literal to me. I was hoping this might be a good camera with decent built-in VF and great ergonomics, on which I could use the Pana 20/1.7, but I've a feeling that here we're paying extra for it to be wrapped up in retro, skin-deep cosmetics.
Like the horrible Golf-based 'Beetle'...
Quite pretty in a sort of boxy/transformers/om4 sort of way. I like it.
Don't really like that big zoom though. Too slow for the heft of it imo (f3.5-6.3)
Oh please. Those OMs were failures in the marketplace, no matter the acceptance of non-AF OM system lenses, quality of the images. They came too late to the AF game, and eventually the OM system died.
Whether the OM-D is a "marketing gimmick" will depend on the market's decision, will it not? Since it hasn't been released yet, I hardly think it's clever to make a judgment.
The lens is probably not that big - the body looks pretty compact, I guess it's a fair bit smaller than a SLR would have been.