IK13
Established
I would love to see a full frame digital SLR (or not) with the size and weight of the OM-1.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
As much as I love my OM-1 I'm not convinced of it's viability for a digital equivalent. The shutter mechanism would be completely unsuitable and would have to be replaced by a copal style which would totally change the characteristics of the camera. A full frame digital camera the size and weight of the OM-1 makes sense though!
The way micro four thirds seems to have taken off indicates to me that it's only a matter of time before we see a small full frame digital with an EVF that matches the best mirror prism finders around making the traditional DSLR a potential dinosaur.
The way micro four thirds seems to have taken off indicates to me that it's only a matter of time before we see a small full frame digital with an EVF that matches the best mirror prism finders around making the traditional DSLR a potential dinosaur.
Spyro
Well-known
Theres a few things I dont understand with those m4:3 cameras (and probably other future EVF cameras), you might be able to explain it to me.
1. How come they are so loud, even though there is no mirror and the shutter is really small as it only has to cover a sensor which is 1/4 of the area of a full frame sensor?
2. Why do these cameras need a shutter in the first place? How come they cant just switch the sensor on and off to take a photo like p&s's do (thats what I think they do anyway as they are virtually silent)?
3. How come they cant have a focus distance scale on the lens or even on the LCD like the LX3 or s90 or X1 have?
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Absolutely no use asking me about micro four thirds cameras ... I've never held or seen one.
I've always perceived them as an interim solution until the manufacturers can can come up with what I described in my previous post ... full frame with a decent EVF and half the size and weight of my D700. I certainly wouldn't partake in what they're offering at the moment ... it's just filling a gap until the real cameras come along IMO!
Spyro
Well-known
Ah ok
I thought you might know because you mentioned the necessary change of shutter in the (hypothetical) digi OM. I dont know much about m4:3 either but I was an ep-1 tester for Olympus Australia and I was a little disappointed because I was hoping for a totally silent camera.
I thought you might know because you mentioned the necessary change of shutter in the (hypothetical) digi OM. I dont know much about m4:3 either but I was an ep-1 tester for Olympus Australia and I was a little disappointed because I was hoping for a totally silent camera.
gavinlg
Veteran
I want a digital OM. Why? Tiny metal body, basic but fantastic controls (very leica-ish), brilliant and tiny MANUAL FOCUS OM lenses, no AF but HUUUUGE viewfinder with split screen focusing aid.
I like the OM lenses more than any other slr lenses personally. And that huge viewfinder in the OM cameras is just amazing to look through.
I like the OM lenses more than any other slr lenses personally. And that huge viewfinder in the OM cameras is just amazing to look through.
t.s.k.
Hooked on philm
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I'd like my R4M with my 28 3.5 both half size for half frame, with the quality I get from my Hasselblad...
Does anybody here really think an OM-1 full frame digital can exist?
Cheers,
Juan
Does anybody here really think an OM-1 full frame digital can exist?
Cheers,
Juan
Last edited:
Spyro
Well-known
there's 2 aspects to this:
Τechnicaly yes it is definitely possible, this type of sensor/lens combination is very easy to achieve. I use OM lenses on my 5D regularly and they work well. Worst case scenario they might have to increase the flange to sensor distance a bit to deal with the angle of light falling on the sensor. Also the lack of AF (and why not the lack of LCD) would reduce battery requirements and electronics to less than half, making it all very possible to squeeze in an OM body.
Marketing wise no its impossible. You'd really struggle to convince a profit oriented company like CaSoNimpus that in 2010 there is a market for a manual focus digital camera, even a full frame one. And they are probably right, people these days want all the fluff features they can get out of a camera. Before you ask: yes Leica did it succesfully but I dont consider Leica a profit oriented company. They've been breaking even for too long and historically have passed up on too many commercial opportunities to convince me that profit is not their top priority.
Bottom line: its not gonna happen.
IMHO
Last edited:
AgentX
Well-known
Per my thread on a "digital FM", I'd just like a digital camera that gave the top image quality in a well-built body that's smaller than the pro/semi-pro cameras, and let me use either legacy lenses in whatever more manual mode of operation was possible with them.
I have no particular attachment to film as an image recording medium, though, since I don't own a wet darkroom.
I have no particular attachment to film as an image recording medium, though, since I don't own a wet darkroom.
Yes, the controls. I can figure out the menus of a DSLR but find them convoluted and annoying. The way Leica does it on the M8 / M9 and the X1 is perfect for me. If there was a DSLR that mimmicked the feel of older SLRs, I'd buy one for sure.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
The ones I referred to are SMALLER than the SLR's he named... The RD1 and the M8 & M9: They're different from big DSLR's and have a traditional feeling of control mixed with small and classic RF size...
The other thing, a classic small SLR with a full frame sensor inside and the rest untouched, is what I said won't exist. If you want to focus seeing through the lens, it won't be smaller than DSLR's.
Cheers,
Juan
I don't think you can predict that. Strange cameras come out every year with designs that you thought you'd never see.... like your beloved RF with a 21mm VF.
I think the point is that some of us feel that a retro styled digital SLR would be welcomed. RFs are great, but not for everything.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I don't think you can predict that. Strange cameras come out every year with designs that you thought you'd never see.... like your beloved RF with a 21mm VF.
jsrockit,
Wait for it.
I have used SLR's for 25 years, and RF's for less than 1 year. I have more SLR's than RF's. I love them both. About my beloved R4M, making a viewfinder a little bit wider is one thing, and that's why it happened, but placing a totally different technology in the heart of an old camera without changing anything else, is just not possible. A funny dream and a game of words, nothing else.
I don't need or want a digital sensor inside anything that doesn't have it, but you might get lucky one day. Keep waiting with patience... I think around this subject there's another theme hiding: "Full frame good, less than that, bad..." Any good photographer can shoot lots of covers and make big prints in all fields of amateur or professional photography with a D40 or an RD1... In fact the world did it before full frame... We don't need cameras that don't exist, we need to photograph. I repeat what I said: small, great control digital cameras are available already.
Cheers,
Juan
Okay- sit down everyone, dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century...
The viewfinder on the Olympus E-P2 is amazing. It is as bright and clear as most of my traditional all-mechanical SLR's. I can see this technology, high-end electronic viewfinders, taking the place of a mirror and reflex system to yield a smaller camera.
I have used SLR's for 40 years, have about 100 of them. This Olympus electronic viewfinder is really good.
And to add: the user interface of the E-P2 is "overdone", too many bells and whistles. A firmware load to make it into an OM-4 with full program mode would be nice. Just software, Just typing. How hard could that be?
The viewfinder on the Olympus E-P2 is amazing. It is as bright and clear as most of my traditional all-mechanical SLR's. I can see this technology, high-end electronic viewfinders, taking the place of a mirror and reflex system to yield a smaller camera.
I have used SLR's for 40 years, have about 100 of them. This Olympus electronic viewfinder is really good.
And to add: the user interface of the E-P2 is "overdone", too many bells and whistles. A firmware load to make it into an OM-4 with full program mode would be nice. Just software, Just typing. How hard could that be?
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Roger Vadim
Well-known
Make that a F3 with interchangable finders and I'll buy it!
That was done 20 years ago. Maybe time to revisit it...
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/index.htm
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/index.htm
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
From my previous post elsewhere:
"I had the opportunity of playing, freely, with the GH1, GF1/EVF and EP1/optical, side by side and one after another in a Tokyo camera super-mart last fall.
The EP1/optical is still best, albeit no manual focusing possible [rejected].
The GF1/EVF is not good enough [resolution too low, as if I am seeing a coarse ground glass].
The GH1 [G1] I would totally accept...us aging yuppies with maturing eye sights [but have money to buy toys]."
At that time, the Olympus EP-2 EVF was not yet available.
Knowing that it was based on an Epson 12u 800 x 600 x RGB chip [identical in specifications to the G1] and now with Brain's comment, I would say that EVF is fast coming of age.
The next generation EVF will no doubt have smaller pixel, higher pixel count and available by the next PMA if not Photokina, what is to stop an EVF to become the next standard?
BTW, the nex Sony NEX body [excluding the battery/CD handle] is slim and small enough to fit inside most normal size cameras...from Leica-M to FM3A. The lens recess is only 18mm...plenty of depth left within the Leica-M's 28mm recess. No doubt someone will soon make a 10mm thick "shim" Leica-M adapter.
NEX MSRP of ~$600 makes it a perfect and affordable donor to be grafted into a Leica body...shutter, circuitry and all. Hooking up the fly-by-wire shutter and other electronic stuff is not so tough.
Now imagine an APS-C conversion for your [???] camera.
Blasphemy.