Surprised by all the 4/3 and OM-D love

[froyd]

I think the OM-D is a pretty special camera, giving us, as it does, a traditional controls layout, a small form factor, and good image quality.

However, I am quite surprised by the amount of love this camera and other 4/3s are getting on this forum. I assumed there would be many more people in my boat: people who are addicted to the clarity of an uncluttered optical viewfinder and who cannot come to grips to composing images on a camcorder eyepiece.

I look at the Leica M forum and see dozens of posts berating the lovely M6 because its viewfinder is way too cluttered compared to the paragon that are the M2, M3 and M4. I mean, people on RFF are pretty picky about their viefinders, no?

My only experience with an EVF is the X100, demoed for 10 minutes in a store. It certainly was not the ultimate usability test, but I felt nauseated by the grainy image and the blur caused by panning in the relatively dim store setting.

Dunno. Are any of the NEX 7, Fuji X, OM-D users on RFF former viewfinder snobs who have finally seen teh electronic light?

Maybe there's hope for me too. I want to like one of these little marvels so badly and take my first step in digital photography.

 

[back alley]

there are not many diehard rangefinder users here.
everyone seems to have at least a dslr in the closet or a hefty point & shoot...

4/3 seems to be having a renaissance here lately after a bit of a lull.

 

[coelacanth]

To me, OM-D and other MFT cameras are not trying to be RF, and that's a good thing. When I wanna shoot RF, I want to shoot RF. Leica digital M and R-D1 are the only ones that are really rangefinder digital camera. Every time I tried RF-ish cameras (X100, X-Pro1 in my case), I was disappointed because they were NOT RF, but acting like one. OM-D is doing what MFT is good at, very very good. I'm using it for my work quite regularly while I shoot film RF as hobby. Honestly I am not bothered by EVF. It does the job for my line of work.

On the other hand, I am very surprised that I m actually liking the Leica X2 more than I thought I would. Again, this camera is NOT trying to be a rangefinder camera when it's not.

 

[Keith]

I love the uncluttered viefinder of an M2 or an OM-1 for that matter but the viewfinder doesn't take the photograph ... the photographer does. Provided I can place that rectangle around what's in front of me and record it on a sensor or piece of film I'm happy.

The OMD is a nice camera and MFT does seem to be on the up, not just here, but generally! And although the EVF is far from perfect it really doesn't get in the way of taking a photo!

 

[hteasley]

The NEX-7 EVF surprised me with how excellent it is; it also spoiled me to other EVFs that are supposed to be good, but, compared to the Sony, really aren't appealing to me.

Still, I shoot M about 98% of the time, and the NEX when I want to do video, which is not often. Optical viewfinders still not beat, no blackout still not beat, >100% viewfinder coverage still not beat.

 

[shadowfox]

I'll be the pedantic Olympus fan here.
It's m4/3rd. Not 4/3 or 4/3s.

The number of RFFers who likes 4/3rd cameras can probably be counted with one hand.
Even I grew tired of them. I'll not invest in any 4/3rd gears until they produce one with a full-frame sensor. I know, when pigs fly...

The current RFF darling OM-D belongs to the m4/3rd family. Olympus got it right, and did again what made them a unique and interesting company even in the past; that is:

Carve your own paths, listen to some of the customers, and don't follow any competitors.

I'm not surprise at all.

 

[noimmunity]

I was disappointed because they were NOT RF, but acting like one.

This sort of comment, which comes up in any number of different contexts dealing with hybrids of every sort, only reveals the bias of the user.

My X-Pro1 doesn't act like anything. It is a unique hybrid viewfinder camera. To put it succinctly: "It may not be the best at what it does, but it is the only one that does what it does."

I wonder if OM-D users can enjoy their unarguably awesome cameras for their own merits, or do they always have to feel motivated by compulsive comparison and grudging resentment?

 

[Johnmcd]

One thing I didn't realise about the OMD EVF is the fact that in low light (at least with the fast legacy lens opened up) it is much brighter than one would see optically which actually helps with focus. Another bonus for me.

 

[coelacanth]

This sort of comment, which comes up in any number of different contexts dealing with hybrids of every sort, only reveals the bias of the user.

My X-Pro1 doesn't act like anything. It is a unique hybrid viewfinder camera. To put it succinctly: "It may not be the best at what it does, but it is the only one that does what it does."

I wonder if OM-D users can enjoy their unarguably awesome cameras for their own merits, or do they always have to feel motivated by compulsive comparison and grudging resentment?

Probably I phrased it wrong. What I really meant was exactly what you said: Me as user expecting RF-like experience from X100/X-Pro1. It is not camera's problem, but my own.

 

[froyd]

Probably I phrased it wrong. What I really meant was exactly what you said: Me as user expecting RF-like experience from X100/X-Pro1. It is not camera's problem, but my own.

I guess my query was too lengthy and not clear enough. My surprise is not related to people expecting one camera being something other than it is.

I think people who fall in love with their EVF cameras are not deluded in thinking they are using digital equivalent of RFs and appreciate their cameras for what they are and what they offer.

What surprises me is the number of photographers who prefer EVS or see them as acceptable compromises.

Keith I love the uncluttered viefinder of an M2 or an OM-1 for that matter but the viewfinder doesn't take the photograph ... the photographer does. Provided I can place that rectangle around what's in front of me and record it on a sensor or piece of film I'm happy.

The OMD is a nice camera and MFT does seem to be on the up, not just here, but generally! And although the EVF is far from perfect it really doesn't get in the way of taking a photo!

Keith you comment is simple but quite enlightening to me. Of course, I am aware of the fundamental truth of what you are saying. I put p with the crappy VF of the Contax G because I otherwise love that camera system. Still, I think EVFs, are a bigger turn off and a bigger departure from what attracts me to most of my other gear, i.e. the large 100% VF of the Nikon, the simple M4 peeper, the wide expanse of the TLR groundglass. They are such a pleasure to use, and in particular that of the RFs. I totally buy into the old "connected to your subject" bit.

I seldom take important pictures, never for pay, just snaps for my personal pleasure and to record family events. So for me the pleasure of taking pictures supersedes may other practical considerations (cost of film, for one!). And for me a direct, clean, large, bright view of my subject is one of the great pleasures of bringing a camera to my eye and framing the world with it.

 

[Paul T.]

This sort of comment, which comes up in any number of different contexts dealing with hybrids of every sort, only reveals the bias of the user.

My X-Pro1 doesn't act like anything. It is a unique hybrid viewfinder camera...

I too am an X-100 fan, I plan to get mine within the next week.

But I think we should all be a bit less sensitive. If a camera we like doesn't work for someone else, that's not a reflection on our judgement.

I appreciate it is a permanent quirk of rff. We like a camera so we assume it is the best for everyone. But humans, even more than cameras, are gloriously diverse.

 

[shadowfox]

This sort of comment, which comes up in any number of different contexts dealing with hybrids of every sort, only reveals the bias of the user.

My X-Pro1 doesn't act like anything. It is a unique hybrid viewfinder camera. To put it succinctly: "It may not be the best at what it does, but it is the only one that does what it does."

I wonder if OM-D users can enjoy their unarguably awesome cameras for their own merits, or do they always have to feel motivated by compulsive comparison and grudging resentment?

Your comment shows bias towards *some* kind of expectation towards your X-Pro1 too, doesn't it?

So does mine and others'.
We all do have our biases and expectations.

And at the end of the day, who cares.
Now let us get down to the bottom of the matter, you *mean* to say that your Fuji is more awesome than the OM-D, yes? 😀😀

 

[raid]

I still favor RF film based cameras over all other systems. I now also like to take photos of my two children with a M4/3 EP-2 so that I can post the images quickly online, and also to economize in film developing and film cost. I use film cameras when I am really in the mood to take photos.

As for the EP-2, I prefer using RF lenses on the M4/3 camera. Since a week, I am using the Canon 50/1.4 on the EP-2. It is a great match. It is great that we have so many options and choices available to us these days.

 

[behyer]

OK, I'll admit it from the start, I have never owned a Leica camera (but I have lenses). I like rangefinderforum because it's about pure photography, not technology. It's about seeing, it's about good glass, and not getting caught up in hype over features. My first "real" camera was an OM-1, and now, 34 years later, I've found a camera that offers a small, responsive design and great glass (with a Leica adapter). It's the NEX-7.

Being a former Olympus devotee, I was excited when the OM-D was announced, however upon further analysis the NEX-7 is better for me. Maybe the OM-D is better for other folks.

But there's one aspect to all 4/3 cameras that I really dislike: THE 4:3 ASPECT RATIO. Am I the only one who thinks this way?

 

[raid]

I don't mind different ratios and formats. I have been using the 135mm and the 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 in the past. It is image that I am after.

 

[willie_901]

Since the iPod, consumers value convenience over other factors. Early iPods sacrificed sound quality for convenience and look what happened. I watch TV shows and movies on my iPad when a 46 inch flat screen TV with a sound system is just a staircase away.

The size of the m4/3 systems is the more important than the finders. People make choices and the popularity of the m4/3 systems just shows most are pleased with the compromise.

 

[steveyork]

Ha, ha, ha. OM-D love? Wait until the next toy is marketed. It's the cliched flavor of the month. Wasn't there all this X100 love a year ago? These forums are filled with 'gear heads,' which isn't to say they can't take pictures.

I think part of that is because creative people tend to get bored easily. They need/want their new toys to spice it up.

Everyone is different, but for me the viewfinder is important. And it it's grainy, I won't like. Kind of reminds me of the distinction between the R6 and Leicaflex SL. Grainy versus ultra smooth and 3D. That's why I never bonded with the R6 or R6.2, even though its' eye relief is pretty good.

 

[Trius]

They can't take pictures? Really???

 

[Paul T.]

These forums are filled with 'gear heads,' which isn't to say they can't take pictures.

A fair comment, I'd say, is there anyone here who can hold his hand up and say Not Guilty of that particular crime?

(As well as the crime of taking offence where none is given...)

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I doubt I'll ever feel at home with an EVF. HOWEVER, the HUGE plus for using them is this (in my opinion, of course): when using an EVF, you see exactly what the final image is going to look like. You don't get that with an optical viewfinder. When using an OVF, you don't see what the shadows and highlights are going to look like in the processed film, or on the computer screen.

I'm not sure yet how much of a big deal this is going to be for me, in the long run. For at the moment, I find the ability to switch back and forth between the OVF and EVF of the X-Pro1 (or X100) to be an outstanding teaching tool.