carstenw wrote:
Well, one was half in that it cut the frame in half on the long side. The other is half in that it cuts the frame in half along both sides
Yes, and the lens image circle is 50% of one for full frame. ;-)
you2 wrote:
If the camera proves to be a GX1 with built in evf and other olympus goodies (ibs, solid jpeg engine, ...) the name might be - as you said - nonsense - but the actual product might be quite nice. So rather than focus on the name (even if you find it offensive) I would focus on the product itself.
+1
Yeah, I will evaluate the camera on what it is and it's functionality. The only thing thing that really interests me as far as the "retro" nostalgia aspect is that most of the earlier film cameras these newer digital ones are based on offerred direct, simplified controls instead of cumbersome menu diving just to accomplish basic functions. In use, I find the tactile "old school" controls much quicker, easier and nicer to use.
mawz wrote:
The F was the camera that made SLR's a Pro option and was the definitive Pro SLR until the class of 1980 (F3, New F1, LX). Plenty of Pro's skipped the F2, much like they would the F4 and F6. Frankly the F2 was little more than a mild update to the F, adding 1/2000 sec shutter speed, a battery in the body and later some new prism options. With the exception of the EE Aperture Control unit there really weren't any options that the F2 had and the F didn't, the F2 was just a refined F.
Yeah, I said "To Me" it wasn't. I know the history. And I owned the F when it first came out. I have one still in the cabinet today. That professionals used it IMO didn't really make it a pro-system. The F2 shaped up toward being pro and the F3 system actually achieved it in full. Again, to me...
I really wonder where this myth comes from, aside from Oly's always excessive marketting claims. This ergonomic innovation was standard on fixed lens rangefinders (all Canonets were like this and they predate the Pen F by several years) and also used much more successfully by Nikon in the 1960's on the Nikkormat line.
You answered your own question... That's the difference between RF and SLR. Remember, when SLRs hit and boomed (in the late 60's and early 70's) everyone ditched their rangefinders and people's opinions of RF cameras were very very low at the time. They were ALL considered unprofessional hobby-level and set only slightly above the Kodak Instamatic (also a rangefinder camera) - at least everyone I associated with and all the stores I frequented said and thought so. And of course the unwanted junk-bins in those times bore that out as well.
So anything that happened on SLRs first was happening there as an "SLR First" even if it had long been present on RFs prior. That was the mind-set at the time. These days it's more correct to say "first SLR system with ____________" which is how I thought I said it.
Anyway the main point was that Olympus was not broadly innovative as much as they were delivering "size innovation" - and I guess price|performance innovation as well. They had some firsts but others also did. They bumped hips with some of the professional systems but they never really rose above them. It can only really be said that they were a good inexpensive alternative to the available pro systems at the time. I got into them as soon as I heard about Off The Film metering and I maintained an Oly system for the multi-spot metering, metering-during-exposure AE, and their relatively low prices.
Bifurcator wrote:
I got into them as soon as I heard about Off The Film metering and I maintained an Oly system for the multi-spot metering, metering-during-exposure AE, and their relatively low prices.
These are a few of the reasons I loved the Canon T90. The Pre-flash spot metering was pretty amazing, something I used all the time. It also "borrowed" the multi spot averaging feature from Olympus. For whatever reason, Canon dropped a lot of these features in later models. I think it was the Contax RTSIII which later offered in camera flash spot metering with any flash system, though I could not afford it at the time.
Yeah, Contax 35mm SLRs always looked so cool to me and I always wanted one - but like you I could never justify spending what they were asking for them. I ended up half-ignoring most of their releases and related feature sets just because of that.
I never checked out the T90 just cuz I didn't like the looks of it. I guess I'm still the same way today. I look at the models based on appearance and then check out what they can do - what they got. The difference is that now there's the internet and people will teach and compare the ones I initially pass over.
This new Olympus looks very good to me BTW! Sensical styling and features to match!
Ugh, the more pics that are leaked for this camera, the more frustrated I get that no manufacturer can/will make an OM-sized, 135 sensor camera. Heck, I'd even be ok with an EVF.
douglasf13 wrote:
Ugh, the more pics that are leaked for this camera, the more frustrated I get that no manufacturer can/will make an OM-sized, 135 sensor camera. Heck, I'd even be ok with an EVF.
If they can do it with an APS-c sensor, there is no reason they can't do it with a FF, 135 sensor.
Lotusm50 wrote:
If they can do it with an APS-c sensor, there is no reason they can't do it with a FF, 135 sensor.
There certainly is no technical limitation to doing so. The problem is probably the market limitation, FF sensors cost a lot more than APS-C sensors and the market is much smaller. Things move slowly in the FF market even if you are a giant player (witness Nikon/Canon/Sony product lifetimes in the FF world). Hopefully this means given enough time there will be a FF mirrorless option (besides Leica I mean) but I suspect it will take awhile for the market niche that is the intersection of "professional" FF users and mirrorless users to grow large enough for someone to bother. Unfortunately it also appears that the two biggest FF players, Nikon and Canon, view mirrorless as only something that risks "stealing" their DSLR sales and they've come out with their half-baked solutions instead of embracing the market. Probably Sony is the best bet, and no FF anything from them until about this time next year...
kwalsh wrote:
Nikon and Canon, view mirrorless as only something that risks "stealing" their DSLR sales and they've come out with their half-baked solutions instead of embracing the market. Probably Sony is the best bet, and no FF anything from them until about this time next year...
Would have been nice if Olympus did it with the OM-D. They could have done it and it would have been great. An alternative to Canikon that many would have welcomed, it would have made an impact on the market in the same way the original OM did.
Lotusm50 wrote:
If they can do it with an APS-c sensor, there is no reason they can't do it with a FF, 135 sensor.
kwalsh wrote:
There certainly is no technical limitation to doing so. The problem is probably the market limitation, FF sensors cost a lot more than APS-C sensors and the market is much smaller.
I'd be happier with APS-H than APS-C, and it will keep costs low, but only the 1D, 1DII, 1DIIn, 1DIII, & M8 have had APS-H, so the odds are slim.
Lotusm50 wrote:
An alternative to Canikon that many would have welcomed, it would have made an impact on the market in the same way the original OM did.
After it got acquired by Ricoh, Pentax is reportedly determined to provide a full range of cameras, including a new full frame DSLR and the upcoming K-01 APS-C mirrorless camera.
A Ricoh representative recently said that they “will plug a gap in the market” in 2012. The full frame Pentax camera is rumored to be announced later in 2012 (either in May or for Photokina in September).
Lotusm50 wrote:
If they can do it with an APS-c sensor, there is no reason they can't do it with a FF, 135 sensor.
There are exactly two models of 'full-frame' digital that have registration distances as short as the various mirrorless cameras: the Leica M9 and M9P. $7k and $8k.
In order to make them work with interchangeable lenses, Leica had to introduce a complicated system of microlenses that redirect light at the corners for even illumination, microlenses that change angle with different lenses. A big chunk of the M9's price is the Leica markup, yes, but another big chunk is the engineering that goes into making full-frame and short registration work.
Using rangefinder glass on even 1.5x sensors can introduce color shift and vignetting (NEX-7, for instance).
The smarter companies are introducing quality bodies on smaller platforms (APS-C and u4/3 - and the Nikon One series) and reducing lens size to match. If the OM-D matches the latest Panasonic performance, combined with a 12/2, 20/1.7 or 25/1.4, 45/1.8, it's a system that would outshoot 99% of photographers.
'Full-frame' only matters if you're tied into legacy glass for 24x36 - these companies want to sell lenses (as that's the money maker), they have no need to cater to things that will make them no money.
miloz wrote:
'Full-frame' only matters if you're tied into legacy glass for 24x36 - these companies want to sell lenses (as that's the money maker), they have no need to cater to things that will make them no money.
miloz wrote:
There are exactly two models of 'full-frame' digital that have registration distances as short as the various mirrorless cameras: the Leica M9 and M9P. $7k and $8k.
In order to make them work with interchangeable lenses, Leica had to introduce a complicated system of microlenses that redirect light at the corners for even illumination, microlenses that change angle with different lenses. A big chunk of the M9's price is the Leica markup, yes, but another big chunk is the engineering that goes into making full-frame and short registration work.
Using rangefinder glass on even 1.5x sensors can introduce color shift and vignetting (NEX-7, for instance).
The smarter companies are introducing quality bodies on smaller platforms (APS-C and u4/3 - and the Nikon One series) and reducing lens size to match. If the OM-D matches the latest Panasonic performance, combined with a 12/2, 20/1.7 or 25/1.4, 45/1.8, it's a system that would outshoot 99% of photographers.
'Full-frame' only matters if you're tied into legacy glass for 24x36 - these companies want to sell lenses (as that's the money maker), they have no need to cater to things that will make them no money....Show more →
Joakim has already posted quite a bit about how there really isn't anything special in the M9's sensor developed for rangefinder lenses. Remove the AA filter and use software correction and you're set.
All that I know is, if this camera had a 135 sensor, I'd buy it tomorrow. With a m4/3 sensor, I'm not even considering it.
