BillBingham2
Registered User
I'm digging up a little research for a project and would love some feed back from folk here. Professional, Non-Professional, Semi-Professional, lurkers, anyone. I have my own ideas on why but before I come out with a survey I would like to see yours.
Why do you want to see a Digital OM-1 or FM3a? Is it because of the control? because you have too much invested in glass? because you just can't figure out the menus of DSLRs? because you still think in ASA/f-Stop/Shutter Speed?
Even if you're not into using an Evil SLR these days but you would like a digital OM-1/FM3a, please share your opinion.
Thanks.
B2 (;->
Why do you want to see a Digital OM-1 or FM3a? Is it because of the control? because you have too much invested in glass? because you just can't figure out the menus of DSLRs? because you still think in ASA/f-Stop/Shutter Speed?
Even if you're not into using an Evil SLR these days but you would like a digital OM-1/FM3a, please share your opinion.
Thanks.
B2 (;->
kshapero
South Florida Man
Because using cameras like the ones you mentioned a visceral and more intimate. Think Epson R-d1 in a SLR.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Whoever wanting a film camera converted to digital has a clear reason: avoiding film.
Reasons for that, can be two: film is too expensive for them (money, effort or time spent getting it and processing it), or, film can't be used by them to make it look as fine as they can make look a digital file.
That's my honest perception of it, so please, I don't want anyone to feel attacked... If there are other reasons, I'd be glad to understand them...
Cheers,
Juan
Reasons for that, can be two: film is too expensive for them (money, effort or time spent getting it and processing it), or, film can't be used by them to make it look as fine as they can make look a digital file.
That's my honest perception of it, so please, I don't want anyone to feel attacked... If there are other reasons, I'd be glad to understand them...
Cheers,
Juan
NathanJD
Well-known
Because it wouldn't be like a case of constant oneupmanship where every single function and feature is second guessed. because they feel good to shoot with, and because they aren't part of a quest for perfection, they are a quest for enjoying them for what they are...
For me anyway.
and the big PS is that they would have to be full frame.
For me anyway.
and the big PS is that they would have to be full frame.
Gid
Well-known
Size, OVF, external (manual) controls and relative simplicity. Wouldn't care if it was manual or autofocus, but I'd like the option of AE.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Why not any of the digital cameras already made? All pros and hobbyists use them...
There are thousands of digital point-and-shoots, DSLR's and even digital RF's... Why precisely an OM-1 and an FM3a without film? The question is what would those cameras give you once you don't have to handle film inside them, or in other words, what are those cameras not allowing you to do because of having film inside...
Cheers,
Juan
There are thousands of digital point-and-shoots, DSLR's and even digital RF's... Why precisely an OM-1 and an FM3a without film? The question is what would those cameras give you once you don't have to handle film inside them, or in other words, what are those cameras not allowing you to do because of having film inside...
Cheers,
Juan
FrankS
Registered User
Using older metal, mechanical gear with manual controls is, for me, more satisfying than using an autofocus, autoexposure, polycarbonate wonder-cam.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
The quality of a camera is in the lenses. Not until you get to the top of the line digitals which are expensive and heavy does the lens quality improve. Ergonomics and weight is an important factor. If the camera is too heavy or too large or too small or the screen too difficult to see it becomes a useless piece of electronics. (Why carry about a motor drive when you are taking only one photograph?) The quality of the final product is the ability of the photographer to comprehend the image at the moment of viewing. Most of the high end cameras have too many controls to entangle the operator. On the other hand Leica may have it right with the M9.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Yes... Mechanical controls are a lot more satisfying! And this comes from someone who's also used digital point-and-shoots, digital SLR's, and digital backs on my Hasselblad and my Arca Swiss. Nothing's as funny and priceless as mechanical cameras and film... The real game! I like playing the game... As soon as a machine plays it for me I get bored.
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
Spyro
Well-known
Juan, yes there are countless digital point and shoots but none of them is full frame and most of them dont have interchangeable lenses or a viewfinder, let alone the glorious OM VF. And yes there are a few full frame DSLRs but they are all big, heavy and nerdy with a whole bunch of features that stand in the way of the manual shooter rather than help him. Basically I believe a camera can either be optimised for manual focus or autofocus, not both. If you like manual focus and have a DSLR you have to educate yourself to work around the various little problems the camera is going to pose for you and in the end the experience will be "almost like an OM", never the real thing. The devil is in the details...
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Well, you can do exactly the same wonderful shots with an RD1 or an M9 if you want small size and want to keep away from film. Who cares if one gives a few more pixels than the other? Yet I can't understand... The cameras you say you want do exist.
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Oh dear!...here we go again! - the monthly (sometimes weekly!) digital V film camera nonsense - under a slightly different heading? 
TEZillman
Well-known
I used an OM2n for over 20 years and have used a number of similar either all manual or AE manual focus Nikon cameras. The move to a D200 meant losing absolute certainty of how the camera was set. When you use a manual focus auto or manual exposure camera, the only settings are aperture, shutter speed, film speed and focus. I can be absolutely certain of four settings for each shot. Even though one can turn off automation on current auto everything cameras, you cannot be certain of all of the settings with each shot. I was shooting with the D200 yesterday and accidently knocked the auto focus selector to manual focus. Needless to say, I ended up with several slightly out of focus shots before I realized what was wrong. Yes, I realize that I wouldn't have had autofocus with an OM2, but then I didn't need to be using it yesterday.
The second thing is size. A OM or FM/FE/FA/FM3a Nikon is a small camera body in comparison to the DSLRs made today. Granted, there are small digital cameras, but the OM of F whatever was capable of the same quality of photo that the "professional" camera of the day was. A D5000 doesn't have the same sensor or processing that a D3 or D700 has.
The other thing I miss about these cameras is not worrying about batteries. Change them once a year and you're set.
There are some really great things about digital cameras. I've been using them since 1998 or 1999, but they aren't perfect. There are a number of situations where I'm happier and more comfortable using an older SLR. If there was a way to economically exchange a sensor for film and leave everything else the same, I'd be interested in such a camera. I say economically because the Leica M9 comes close to this, I just can't justify spending 7 grand on a camera body even if I already have a collection of M lenses.
The second thing is size. A OM or FM/FE/FA/FM3a Nikon is a small camera body in comparison to the DSLRs made today. Granted, there are small digital cameras, but the OM of F whatever was capable of the same quality of photo that the "professional" camera of the day was. A D5000 doesn't have the same sensor or processing that a D3 or D700 has.
The other thing I miss about these cameras is not worrying about batteries. Change them once a year and you're set.
There are some really great things about digital cameras. I've been using them since 1998 or 1999, but they aren't perfect. There are a number of situations where I'm happier and more comfortable using an older SLR. If there was a way to economically exchange a sensor for film and leave everything else the same, I'd be interested in such a camera. I say economically because the Leica M9 comes close to this, I just can't justify spending 7 grand on a camera body even if I already have a collection of M lenses.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Oh dear!...here we go again! - the monthly (sometimes weekly!) digital V film camera nonsense - under a slightly different heading?
Hi Dave,
This one's a bit different... About why a digital version of a precise film camera model is better than any other digital camera in the market...
We're worse now...
Cheers,
Juan
Fujitsu
Well-known
Nah, I dont care. I love film.
italy74
Well-known
Bill,
as we enjoy these cameras for their simplicity and effectiveness with film, we'd like to see the same for digital. In the end in my D700 I almost never touch my menu and whatever I need (iso, quality, exposure, w/b etc) is already on top and easily selectable. Yet, D700 and other cameras are as robust as "heavy" and some of us would like to see the same salient features in a more compact body (but as reliable as actual DSLRs). I think it's the same thing with Zeiss Ikon / M9. Digital issues aside, I think M9 (and Epson as well) has the merit to reduce things to a minimum. Actually, I find the only thing that FM3a might have more is the spot metering but I read a long interview in which they said it wasn't possible with that project to fit such measuring option. Besides, less things are on camera, less things may fail or need updates and the whole project becomes somehow cheaper. The idea should be "few things and good" vs the actual motto "full optional camera, never used"
To be honest, I think you could / should post the same question as a poll and see which are the features that people would really like to see. Imho.
as we enjoy these cameras for their simplicity and effectiveness with film, we'd like to see the same for digital. In the end in my D700 I almost never touch my menu and whatever I need (iso, quality, exposure, w/b etc) is already on top and easily selectable. Yet, D700 and other cameras are as robust as "heavy" and some of us would like to see the same salient features in a more compact body (but as reliable as actual DSLRs). I think it's the same thing with Zeiss Ikon / M9. Digital issues aside, I think M9 (and Epson as well) has the merit to reduce things to a minimum. Actually, I find the only thing that FM3a might have more is the spot metering but I read a long interview in which they said it wasn't possible with that project to fit such measuring option. Besides, less things are on camera, less things may fail or need updates and the whole project becomes somehow cheaper. The idea should be "few things and good" vs the actual motto "full optional camera, never used"
To be honest, I think you could / should post the same question as a poll and see which are the features that people would really like to see. Imho.
not_in_good_order
Well-known
A few points:
I know what all the menus on my D700 are for, I just don't have much use for most them with my style of photography.
You make it sound like thinking in "ASA/f-Stop/Shutter Speed" is a bad thing.
I would like a digital FM3a because every time I take my D700 out, I think about the fact that I have little to no need for all the whiz bang features it provides--especially since all those features result in a big, bulky camera.
dnk512
Well-known
When the smoke clears and all the bells and whistles become a distraction, an OM1/FMx is all that you need.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
?
I thought Olympus and Nikon already had digital Olympus-mount and Nikon-mount (respectively) cameras. I don't know why I want to see them. I didn't know, in fact.
::scratches head::
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
Um...
I don't.
Why would I want a digi version of a second- or third-rank SLR?
First-rank, yes. Even the best of the second rank. But for the cameras you're talking about, it's price ONLY, and there are many kinds of second-best. A Digi-Nikkormat maybe, but for me, a digi-OM-1 or digi-FM3a are far enough down the ladder that I'm not interested. (Dons plate armour and Nomex suit against attacks from Olympus lovers). At that quality level, film wipes the floor with digi.
Cheers,
R.