Because an active fantasy life is healthy...

<img src="http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b15/patrickjdempsey/Cameras/OMD.jpg">

<br><br>

I was going to write something about it, but I think its pretty

self-explanatory. Now pass this along to Olympus and make sure they send me

back my royalties. Hey... SOMEONE would buy it! ;) Also now that I look at

this I realize I should get a reinbursement from that damned art school... those

ellipses are terrible!

If it could use classic Zuiko lenses with auto metering and focus confirmation I'd sure buy one!

Oh please, yes...just as long as it doesn't have one of those damn 4/3 sensors in it. (APS-C is about as small as I think a respectable digital SLR can go.)

 

Some day, someone is actually going to produce a "digital film" conversion for all those great 35mm bodies out there, and then there will be much rejoicing.

hehe, nice one there. Put me down for 3...

 

I love what leica did to the M8 and seeing a digital version of an OM-4ti or OM-3ti would be just perfect!

I would like to place an order for 2 please!

No mirror lock-up? No flash shoe? I hate these top mounted LCD. This model will fail....

Konrad... how do you know theres no mirror lockup??? you cant see that side. ;) I hate the top LCD too, but its just for image count... I promise. And flashshoe? maybe that could go on that flat side of it... I just love me a naked prism!!!!

If the OM system had been more popular in 1985 when AF SLR cameras went into mass production and if Olympus had made a popular AF SLR then there might now be an Olympus DSLR which could work with OM mount lenses. At this point you don't get any kind of good compatibilty between Nikon's AI and AIS lenses with anything less expensive than a D200 or an old D100. Even with these cameras the standard focusing screens are not very useful for manual focusing. I'm waiting for a DSLR which meters properly with my old Konica AR lenses.

"Oh please, yes

...just as long as it doesn't have one of those damn 4/3 sensors in it. (APS-C is about as small as I think a respectable digital SLR can go.)"

 

Funny,I thought that 4/3 was not MUCH smaller than APS-C if we crop to 4:3 aspect ratio. I mean why not let the OMD have a full 24 by 36 compatible sensor while we dream retro? Check this article out when you have time:

 

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/sensor-size.html

The OM system just isn't that well used any longer. We should all stop whining for a digital OM. Even some of my own well-taken care of Zuikos are showing problems of age, so I'm sure the number of nice examples _still in regular use_ wouldn't justify anyone to build a body that could use the Zuikos with all the compatibility features intact.

 

Just buy the E-410 and put a new OM-D name sticker on it and enjoy!

Wow, people sure took this little thing seriously enough to start a minor film vs digital flame war....

My favorite is: ". At this point you don't get any kind of good compatibilty between Nikon's AI and AIS lenses with anything less expensive than a D200 or an old D100."

Well, if you can't use a handhled meter, or use the LCD on the back of a D70/80 to figure out your exposure (DUH).

The reason I switched from Olympus to Nikon after the OM series was discontinued is precisely because Nikon never changed their lens mount. So yes, I can and indeed do use my wonderful AI and AIS lenses on the D70 quite often. I sure agree that the dim, corridor viewfinder on the D70 makes manual focus a challenge... but in bright light it's usable. So no, I won't buy a current Olympus DSLR because who knows that the lens mount will be in 5 years?

Speaking of film to digital back conversions, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. I would think if someone (err, some company) were willing to invest the money they could replace the back off of a an OM with one only slightly thicker that could easily contain an APS or full frame sensor and the required processing power. The battery pack could take the place of the motor drive add on then. I would deffinitely get one of those.

 

*sigh* if only olympus would consider straying from the 4/3rds long enough to even make a pro body with an APS sized sensor (trying to be resonable here). Maybe even do that and harken to the OM for styling. Man I would sell my car in a heart beat to get one of those if the control layouts were decent (oh yeah, and that focus confirmation and auto metering were availible for my old manual lenses).

I just thought it would be pretty and I think Olympus could still really learn a thing or two from looking more closely at Maitanis designs. I was inspired by the Leica Digilux 3... retro styled dSLR with manual controls and manual focus lens. Im not a digital user at all and I cant stand AF in any form... any advantage AF might have seems to me to be outweighed by all its disadvantages.

 

Anyway, fantasies dont have much to do with market pressures or feasibilities... its just fun to dream about a dSLR with a body roughly the size of a Pen rangefinder camera. Im sure as sensors and batteries get better the 4/3s thing will end up paying off as bodies get scaled down. The sensor size is similar to the film dimension of the Pen F cameras, so I bet eventually we could be seeing cameras of similar size. And if one of the 4/3s makers got serious and made a line of manual focus prime lenses for the format, they could make some very nice compact lenses. Sure those things dont appeal to everyone, but sometimes taking a risk can pay off. Both Canon and Nikon have boxed themselves in the risk-free categories of camera development... its exactly the kind of thinking that left companies like Olympus open to make serious moves in the 1970s to change the camera market. I think they are still gambling on that... the decision of Leica/Panasonic to use a largely Olympus based body design for their new manual focus cameras proves that maybe its a gamble thats paying off.

 

I think Olympus still wants to be viewed as an innovator making plans for a future market and not just what will sell in the immediacy. If more makers join in on 4/3s it will only make things better and better for customers by giving more lens options and body options. Sure, Canon and Nikon have decided to stick with old mounts, but they seem to have also gotten stuck in a design trend dating back to 90s AF film cameras in those mounts... and that seems to mean big, bulky and round with and lots of plastic and lots of buttons... they remind me of cars of the 90s... you know how they all looked basically like the Ford Taurus? Yuck.

Sorry, it'll never replace my OM-1......

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/pannyL1_21mm.jpg"><br>

Panasonic L1 + Pentax DA21mm Limited<br>

</center><br>

I had a different fantasy. This one works, however, and I can use all of Olympus current

lenses with it too. ;-)

<br><br>

Godfrey

No hot shoe? Maybe you buy it separately like on the OM-1 and OM-2 :)

Personally, my real fantasy is that I'll wake up one day and digital wont exsist.... just super high quality film for cheap.

Gerry's point on the 4/3's sensor size is correct. It is essentially the same size as the "APS" sensor. E500 sensor is 13mm wide. This is only about 12 percent smaller than Canon's XTi sensor at 14.8mm wide . The difference is in the aspect ratio. Both are significantly smaller than a true "half frame" width of 18mm (from the Pen Ft manual).

 

Don't worry Patrick, "super high quality film for cheap" will be around a long time. Velvia, Provia and Ektachrome will be around for many years. You can still get 64 speed Kodachrome! New technologies always enjoy a brief "gee whiz" factor before people realize its shortcomings, and then put it in a practical perspective next to the technology it was supposed to replace. (Remember the internet bubble?)

It never ceases to amaze me that people that state they will not even consider a digital camera still post here and put them down. Same goes for the anti- 4/3rds guys. HELLO! Wake up! It's the 21st Century and digital has come a long way even in the past year or so. Jeez! Why not cry about the other long lost photo sizes and processes? Your ancestors probably moaned that 35mm would never be able to replace a 4X5 or 8X10 plate camera. Yes, I LOVE my OMs and Zuiko lenses, but don't tell me that something is no good and then admit you never tried/considered the very thing you're putting down! My E-410 is an amzing camera, and the 10MP it gives in a 4/3 sensor is a solid performer. Read any review of the darn thing before you knock it.

And don't worry about what is going to come along in 5 years. That E-10 from 2000/2001 is still taking great photos, just not as fast as today's bodies.

"Off my soapbox now..." and the smileys... :) :) :)

<center>

<img src="http://www.gdgphoto.com/grp-walking/content/bin/images/large/

P1020565.jpg" border=0><br>

Underpass Overhead<br>

<i>©2007 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br>

Panasonic L1 + Pentax DA21 Limited<br>

ISO 320 @ approx f/7.1 @ 1/40 sec, Manual<br>

</center></i><br>

The number of people I run into who descry the destruction of photography with digital

cameras, swear they will never move from their film .. But let's not waste our energy on

that lot...

<br><br>

So I took the little L1 fantasy kit I put together up-thread out for a walk on Saturday. I did

some

testing of the aperture setting I fixed in place with putty and found it was right about f/

7.1. Close enough. Focusing is amusing ... you can either say 'What the heck?' and assume

that there will be enough DoF to cover minor inaccuracies, treat it like a Holga and

approximate, or you can get fussy, turn on Live View and MF Assist, take your time and try

to nail it down precisely. I did a little of both.

<br><br>

It's fun, it's compact, it's light. When you get the focus and the exposure right, it produces

beautiful results. It's a bit inconsistent due to the issues of focusing a 21mm lens at f/7.

But what the heck ... I thought six of the exposures I made came out well:

<br><br>

<center>

<a href="http://www.gdgphoto.com/grp-walking/content/index.html" target=new>

www.gdgphoto.com/grp-walking</a><br>

</center>

<br>

Makes me wish yet again for a true 4/3 System 20mm f/2.8 or similar lens, something

nice, compact, light, full featured and modest price from Olympus or Panasonic/Leica like

the Olympus

ZD 35 Macro.

<br><br>

best, Godfrey - <a href="http://www.gdgphoto.com">www.gdgphoto.com</a><br>

If I was anti digital why would I post a drawing I did of a dream digital camera? Digital is fine, it has major drawbacks which film doesnt. Film has major drawbacks too that digital seems to take care of. What I AM anti is the cameras. Lets face it George, the cameras suck. The controls are confusing and not self explanatory. I spend more time trying to get AF to focus on what I WANT it to than I would just focusing the lens myself. Then the damn flash pops up when I dont want it to... its a mess. The viewfinders are hard to see through and the "erogmic" styling is often more annoying than comfortable. That doesnt just go for a handful, thats MOST of the cameras. Easy to understand and easy to use manual controls puts the photographer in the drivers seat, and allows a beginner to have a better idea of what is actually happening. I have used digital cameras, but I do so sparingly mostly because there is only so much AF and dim viewfinders and infinite aperture numbers I can look at before I start to get a major headache. It drives me crazy not feeling in control of the camera. Im one of those people who hates riding passenger seat because I would rather be at the wheel. Im not an automatic buttons person. Im not living in the digital future... Im kinda hanging out in the analog past getting a kick out of doing things the fun way. :) I think the film companies and camera manufacturers are doing a great disservice by allowing the market to kill film. But I think they are doing a worse disservice by offering up poorly designed digital cameras to replace 100 years worth of film development and perfection so quickly.

Patrick,

 

Buy a Panasonic L1. While I have no problems controlling any of the digital cameras I've

used, and particularly not the DSLRs, the L1 control organization is as similar to a film

camera as you can get. Shutter dial on top, aperture ring on the lens, focusing ring and

zoom ring on the lens. Turn off the LCD, take pictures. Yeah, when you put an Olympus

ZD lens on it you have to use the control wheel on the body to set the aperture, but it's not

a big deal. Or stick an adapter fing on it and mount your favorite old Olympus or Nikon or

Pentax or Leica R or whatever lens...

 

BTW: There's no such thing as "the analog past". There's film and chemistry, or digital

capture. To me, digital capture is the fun way. I always hated processing film and paper:

that's not photography, that's tedium.

 

Godfrey

Patrick, while I did not mean to single you out, I was referring more to one or two other posters, but here's why you may be considered by some to be "anti-digital"...

 

patrick dempsey, Jul 22, 2007; 01:49 a.m.

 

Personally, my real fantasy is that I'll wake up one day and digital wont exsist.... just super high quality film for cheap.

Yeah... still sounds great..... ahhhhh..... :)