Olympus retro Micro Four Thirds concept

[chris319]

Over at engadget is showing an Oly retro Micro Four Thirds rangefinder concept.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-drops-jaws-with-retro-micro-four-thirds-concept/#comments

What would it take for Leica to jump to this direction...perhaps a new Micro Four Thirds M version??? That would be sweet! 😀

 

[sheepdog]

With primes and optical viewfinders, this would be fantastic 🙂

 

[Ken Ford]

This could be the RF-like digital that lures me in...

 

[Avotius]

I am quite interested in this Olympus thing myself. I really like the direction they are taking with this concept and if they find themselves with a couple proper high speed lenses and maybe some ultra compact zooms (can you make a zooming pancake? 🙂 ) then I will seriously consider this as an alternative travel camera to my GRD which as much as I love the thing, I find wanting for a little bit of reach like a 50mm lens without sacrificing speed.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I am quite interested in this Olympus thing myself. I really like the direction they are taking with this concept and if they find themselves with a couple proper high speed lenses and maybe some ultra compact zooms (can you make a zooming pancake? 🙂 ) then I will seriously consider this as an alternative travel camera to my GRD which as much as I love the thing, I find wanting for a little bit of reach like a 50mm lens without sacrificing speed.

How do you feel about the Panasonic offering? Too big/dslr like for your tastes?

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Without a mirror box to worry about, you could imagine a vehicle for M-primes that allowed EVF focusing directly through the lens . . . turn your M into an SLR! This avenue of product development has a lot of promise for RF users, if some manufacturer could be imposed upon to make the right body.

Ben Marks

 

[JeffGreene]

Without a mirror box to worry about, you could imagine a vehicle for M-primes that allowed EVF focusing directly through the lens . . . turn your M into an SLR! This avenue of product development has a lot of promise for RF users, if some manufacturer could be imposed upon to make the right body.

Ben Marks

Here, here, Ben, I agree! That's the direction that I think may hold the most promise for us rangefinder folk! I have used an M8, but at this point am still very happy with my RD1. The micro 4/3 is very intriguing. Let's wait and see!🙄

 

[Avotius]

How do you feel about the Panasonic offering? Too big/dslr like for your tastes?

Yeah a little too slr for me. I am looking for something that is more Ricoh GRD then Canon 1000D. I think the idea of a 40mm 1.7 on a small body like that is enough for me to hop on board if they can get the image quality sorted, especially high ISO. As much as I respect panasonic for coming in with a nice first effort I think they went a little too conservative with the slr like design. Here's to hoping a lot more fast primesand fast zooms make it to the drawing boards not to mention the all important m mount adapter.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Yeah a little too slr for me. I am looking for something that is more Ricoh GRD then Canon 1000D. I think the idea of a 40mm 1.7 on a small body like that is enough for me to hop on board if they can get the image quality sorted, especially high ISO. As much as I respect panasonic for coming in with a nice first effort I think they went a little too conservative with the slr like design. Here's to hoping a lot more fast primesand fast zooms make it to the drawing boards not to mention the all important m mount adapter.

I'm more enthused about what Oly might offer than the G1, but I'd take the G1 if I could be sure of other interesting lenses. The 20mm f1.7 is a great place to start, but I'm concerned that they won't offer anything else I want.
As compelling as a compact digital camera of high IQ is, I hesitate to lay out money for a one trick pony.

 

[johnastovall]

Until all these micro 4/3 cameras have either an optical viewfinder (and not a external one stuck in the hotshoe) or a high quality evf. I don't see their appeal. An LCD screen is not the way to compose shots.

 

[Kevin]

An LCD screen is not the way to compose shots.

But an upside-down reversed ground glass is at the roots of photography!

I am still excited about the possibility of finally being able to use all of my old Canon FD lenses (especially my 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 primes) on a digital body.

In other online forums, FD owners are getting really excited about this possibility and speculating who will be the first to make the adapter.

 

[johnastovall]

Use your FD's on an M8, M-mount or LTM with the Canon B adapter.

 

[amateriat]

Give it a VF/RF of some usable sort, and, as they say, "I'd hit that."


- Barrett

 

[Trius]

(can you make a zooming pancake? 🙂 )

Only if Maitani comes out of retirement.

 

[BillBingham2]

Bright Line and Sport Finders are.....

Bright Line and Sport Finders are.....

Until all these micro 4/3 cameras have either an optical viewfinder (and not a external one stuck in the hotshoe) or a high quality evf. I don't see their appeal. An LCD screen is not the way to compose shots.

Being a long time T user I'd be very happy to have bright line finders for wide and normal and use the LCD for macro and teles. If you look at say an M6, the frame lines on the 135 are close but not quite.

While a perfect world might have a Leica/ZI quality optical finder, let's think about taking the next step. If we use the electronics that are available today for an electronic rangefinder we can forget about some of the head aches we have with optical ones going out of alignment.

Perhaps it's time for a change in the way we look at things? Using the LCD opens up a DRF to longer teles that I've use an SLR to provide me. I do not use them a lot but when I need them I need them. I carry an SLR for that very reason. Give me a M4/3rds body with some great primes starting at 12 going up to say 200. After that if I could adapt existing glass that would be fine.

B2 (;->

 

[Ray Nalley]

It seems the definition of "rangefinder" is being pushed past the breaking point. What folks seem to be saying they want is a tiny, autofocus, interchangable lens SLR with no mirror. Which would be cool. But what B2 is describing as being acceptable isn't a rangefinder. It's a sophisticated P&S.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Being a long time T user I'd be very happy to have bright line finders for wide and normal and use the LCD for macro and teles. If you look at say an M6, the frame lines on the 135 are close but not quite.

While a perfect world might have a Leica/ZI quality optical finder, let's think about taking the next step. If we use the electronics that are available today for an electronic rangefinder we can forget about some of the head aches we have with optical ones going out of alignment.

Perhaps it's time for a change in the way we look at things? Using the LCD opens up a DRF to longer teles that I've use an SLR to provide me. I do not use them a lot but when I need them I need them. I carry an SLR for that very reason. Give me a M4/3rds body with some great primes starting at 12 going up to say 200. After that if I could adapt existing glass that would be fine.

B2 (;->

You're right on I think Bill.
Primes from 8mm to 40mm would be all I need for such a system. Hot shoe finder for street shooting/snaps and LCD for macro/tele.

I mention the Hexar AF obsessively for a reason.
AF with a good optical finder. You have to pretty much trust the camera for focus and learn how to maximize your odds of sucess. Works great.
M4/3rds could be a digital, interchangeable lens Hexar AF. As long as the right lenses come along.

My only complaint is I can't buy that camera and those lenses right now.

 

[BillBingham2]

We want it all!!!!

We want it all!!!!

It seems the definition of "rangefinder" is being pushed past the breaking point. What folks seem to be saying they want is a tiny, autofocus, interchangable lens SLR with no mirror. Which would be cool. But what B2 is describing as being acceptable isn't a rangefinder. It's a sophisticated P&S.

I'm not looking for AF, but I will not say no to it. I'd prefer MF with focus confirmation. I want the control I have with my S3. While I can get close to the control with my P&S of choice a GR-D, but the menus and buttons I have to fiddle with make it a ROYAL PAIN IN THE A55. I'd be fine with a button that would activate the focus and lock it in without having to keep it depressed.

BTW, an SLR with no mirror is called a view camera!

B2 (;->

 

[dazedgonebye]

It seems the definition of "rangefinder" is being pushed past the breaking point. What folks seem to be saying they want is a tiny, autofocus, interchangable lens SLR with no mirror. Which would be cool. But what B2 is describing as being acceptable isn't a rangefinder. It's a sophisticated P&S.

I'm wondering where that point and shoot line is drawn.
Is a DSLR in full program mode a point and shoot? If not, why not? Does the virtue(?) of a mirror box and prism finder automatically elevate it above point and shoot?
Is it the lack of an available, practical method of manual focus that makes a camera point and shoot? Why, if so many people use AF on their DSLRs?

Just wondering.

 

[Joshua]

I'm wondering where that point and shoot line is drawn.
Is a DSLR in full program mode a point and shoot? If not, why not? Does the virtue(?) of a mirror box and prism finder automatically elevate it above point and shoot?
Is it the lack of an available, practical method of manual focus that makes a camera point and shoot? Why, if so many people use AF on their DSLRs?

Just wondering.

I could be uneducated, but I thought the definitions were pretty simple:

SLR - Single lens reflex, e.g., viewfinder through the lens itself ... mirror flips up on shot.
RF - Uses a rangefinder for focusing.
P&S - Doesn't use a RF for focusing and you don't look through the lens when focusing.