Vintage Micro 4/3 Cameras

[zuiko85]

Ha! My 35mm SLRs from the 60s and 70s are still going strong, and they don't even need batteries!

My oldest working camera is a Kodak folder that used 130 film (fuzzy memory but that is what I recall).
Probably made late 20’s to early 30’s.

Edit: Sorry about the thread drag. We were discussing not so new micro 4:3.

 

[Godfrey]

Ha! My 35mm SLRs from the 60s and 70s are still going strong, and they don't even need batteries!

My Berning Robot II from 1940 is still going strong, doesn't need batteries, too. It did need a CLA service about a dozen years ago. Same for my Nikon F plain prism from 1961. Those are the two oldest cameras I've got now. I sold or gave away all the cameras older than those some years back as I wasn't using them any more.

What's the point?

My oldest working camera is a Kodak folder that used 130 film (fuzzy memory but that is what I recall).
Probably made late 20’s to early 30’s.

Edit: Sorry about the thread drag. We were discussing not so new micro 4:3.

Both the Panasonic G1 and Olympus E-PL1 made a good number of very satisfying photos for me, although the Panasonic L1 and Olympus E-1 made more by comparison. There was definitely something uniquely appealing about shooting with those two DSLRs, I can see it in the photos I marked as "posted". I'm sure it's the lenses, because many of the top pics with the G1 and E-PL1 are made with the same lenses I used on the two DSLRs.

I'm happy with the Olympus E-M1 and Panasonic GX9 that I have today, and still use the same lenses, although I don't use either of them as much as I did the older models in both FT and mFT bodies from 2008-2012.

G

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

My Berning Robot II from 1940 is still going strong, doesn't need batteries, too. It did need a CLA service about a dozen years ago. Same for my Nikon F plain prism from 1961. Those are the two oldest cameras I've got now. I sold or gave away all the cameras older than those some years back as I wasn't using them any more.

What's the point?
G

First, apologies for the thread drift. My only point (which I didn't articulate at all, in favor of simply making a smart-a$$ comment) was that I think comparing smartphone longevity to cameras is kind of an apples to oranges comparison. Digital cameras were already a mature technology 10–12 years ago, as were 35mm film cameras 40–50 years ago, whereas smartphone were—and still are—evolving rapidly. I did manage to get five years use out of my iPhone 4S from this time period (maybe even six; can't remember) and never had a lick of trouble with it. I traded up because by that time most apps were clearly intended to work on larger screen phones and it was becoming painful to use for that reason.

I would also wager that smartphones suffers far more abuse than the vast majority of dedicated camera. Smartphones are used constantly. Most people never leave the home without a smartphone in their dirty little pockets whereas for most people (besides us lunatics here on RFF) cameras are an occasional use item. I doubt very much that typical consumer point and shoot cameras and entry-level ILCs would take the daily abuse suffered by smartphones for very long.

 

[Godfrey]

First, apologies for the thread drift. My only point (which I didn't articulate at all, in favor of simply making a smart-a$$ comment) was that I think comparing smartphone longevity to cameras is kind of an apples to oranges comparison. Digital cameras were already a mature technology 10–12 years ago, as were 35mm film cameras 40–50 years ago, whereas smartphone were—and still are—evolving rapidly. I did manage to get five years use out of my iPhone 4S from this time period (maybe even six; can't remember) and never had a lick of trouble with it. I traded up because by that time most apps were clearly intended to work on larger screen phones and it was becoming painful to use for that reason.

I would also wager that smartphones suffers far more abuse than the vast majority of dedicated camera. Smartphones are used constantly. Most people never leave the home without a smartphone in their dirty little pockets whereas for most people (besides us lunatics here on RFF) cameras are an occasional use item. I doubt very much that typical consumer point and shoot cameras and entry-level ILCs would take the daily abuse suffered by smartphones for very long.

I agree with you. I've not had any trouble with any of my iPhones (4, 6, 8 Plus, now 11 Pro over the past decade), although I did damage the camera on one (a drop) and the 8 Plus was simply larger than I wanted to carry (so I downsized to the 11 Pro early, with a nice improvement in the camera quality).

My iPhone gets constant use, all the time, for all kinds of things: music player, photograph and video capture, telephone, health metrics collector, timer, payment instrument, bank management, etc etc. I don't think any of the point and shoot cameras I've owned would survive that level of handling (and dropping, and bashing about in my pocket or bag) anywhere near as well. Truly amazing little devices...!

G

 

[Archiver]

Both the Panasonic G1 and Olympus E-PL1 made a good number of very satisfying photos for me, although the Panasonic L1 and Olympus E-1 made more by comparison. There was definitely something uniquely appealing about shooting with those two DSLRs, I can see it in the photos I marked as "posted". I'm sure it's the lenses, because many of the top pics with the G1 and E-PL1 are made with the same lenses I used on the two DSLRs.

I'm happy with the Olympus E-M1 and Panasonic GX9 that I have today, and still use the same lenses, although I don't use either of them as much as I did the older models in both FT and mFT bodies from 2008-2012.

G

Around 2007-2008, I had a Canon 30D and wanted a smaller DSLR. The Olympus FT models seemed enticing, especially with the 12-60mm f2.8-4. The range of 24-120 seemed amazing at that time, when my main lens for the 30D was the 17-55mm f2.8 EF-S. But when I tried the E-420 as a gateway to the E-3, I couldn't quite gel with it. I couldn't imagine making that kind of investment at that time.

In 2009, I got a Canon 5D Mark II, and in 2012 I finally got a micro four thirds camera, the E-M5. I feel that the Canon suited me better at that time than the E-3, and the E-M5 was the perfect gateway into m43.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

First, apologies for the thread drift. My only point (which I didn't articulate at all, in favor of simply making a smart-a$$ comment) was that I think comparing smartphone longevity to cameras is kind of an apples to oranges comparison. Digital cameras were already a mature technology 10–12 years ago, as were 35mm film cameras 40–50 years ago, whereas smartphone were—and still are—evolving rapidly. I did manage to get five years use out of my iPhone 4S from this time period (maybe even six; can't remember) and never had a lick of trouble with it. I traded up because by that time most apps were clearly intended to work on larger screen phones and it was becoming painful to use for that reason.

I would also wager that smartphones suffers far more abuse than the vast majority of dedicated camera. Smartphones are used constantly. Most people never leave the home without a smartphone in their dirty little pockets whereas for most people (besides us lunatics here on RFF) cameras are an occasional use item. I doubt very much that typical consumer point and shoot cameras and entry-level ILCs would take the daily abuse suffered by smartphones for very long.

My 4 something was no use in winter. Once it was below 0 C it was shut down with message "too hot". I still remember how I have to place it on the top of my head and under the tuck to warm it up while I was skiing.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

My 4 something was no use in winter. Once it was below 0 C it was shut down with message "too hot". I still remember how I have to place it on the top of my head and under the tuck to warm it up while I was skiing.

Interesting! I live in Florida so performance in sub-zero conditions is not something I have any experience with. My iPhone 3G did work fine during the winter when I lived in England, though it never got more than about -5 ℃ when I was there.

 

[Godfrey]

From the Apple support pages for the iPhone:

Keeping iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch within acceptable operating temperatures
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201678

Use iOS devices where the ambient temperature is between 0º and 35º C (32º to 95º F). Low- or high-temperature conditions might cause the device to change its behavior to regulate its temperature. Using an iOS device in very cold conditions outside of its operating range might temporarily shorten battery life and could cause the device to turn off. Battery life will return to normal when you bring the device back to higher ambient temperatures. Using an iOS device in very hot conditions can permanently shorten battery life.

From the Olympus support pages for the Olympus E-M5:
https://asia.olympus-imaging.com/product/dslr/em5/spec.html

Operating environment
Operating temperature 0 to 40 degrees Celsius (at operation), -20 to 60 degrees Celsius (at storage)

Sum up: Electronic devices have limits on the temperature range they are designed to be operated in due to battery and other electronic component limits. Same for mechanical devices ... Leica Ms, Nikon F/FM, etc all require changes in lubricants and such for extreme temperatures to maintain accurate shutter operation and such.

G