Digital OM-1

[rroberto]

I thought I read a post here a little while ago making reference to a digital OM-1 next year. Although I am

not an 'equipment freak' I immediately got a case of GAS (gear acquisition syndrome). Is this a reality? I

have found that I am not a very good digital photographer (my photos here prove that), but when I use my

OM-1, I take more time, and therefore produce better photos, instead of relying on all the automatic

features. For my sake, it hope it is true.

Another question: If they can make a digital camera for several hundred Euros, why does it cost thousands

of Euros for just a digital back for some cameras?

[michael_white4]

Actually I was thinking of this awhile back. Wouldn't it

be great to have a digital OM-1 , that looks and feels

(yes, I like the weight) exactly like the old classic,

but stores the pictures in digital format. And even

better accepts all of the original OM Zuiko lenses.

[dg1]

Regarding digital backs, if I understand it correctly a very large proportion of the cost of digital cameras is in the sensor. There's still a fairly high degree of error in the manufacturing process. The larger the sensor, and the digital backs have really large sensors, the more the possibility that there'll be bad spots on it, thus the yield is much lower and the cost much higher. As manufacturing techniques improve the cost should go down, and that's been the case over the last few years.

 

I have an Olympus E-410, and I consider it to be awfully close to a digital OM . There's some thought that Olympus also considers it that way, in fact when you pop up the flash, there's a little pyramid hidden under there that is supposedly homage to the OM. The E-410 is small and light, and I use a few OMZ lenses on mine with an adapter. Because the Oly's are 4/3rds cameras however, you don't get the same field of view as 35mm, so it's not exactly like an OM, but it shares much of the same character IMO.

 

You should check out an E-410 if you haven't already. You might be pleasantly surprised.

[dg1]

You can already use the Zuiko OM lenses on the Olympus DSLRs. But given their commitment to 4/3rds sensors, you're not likely to see something like a 35mm FF sensor camera from them.

 

What Olympus could do pretty easily is to take the E-410, and redesign it with a really solid metal body, and borrow or modify the shutter dial control layout that LeicaPan uses on the Digilux 3/L1, which is about as traditional styled as a DSLR gets. They could also remove the built in flash and have the pointy top.

 

But if they'd continued to make OM film cameras to the present day, do you think they'd be the same as the OM1? Not likely, as new materials would be used and so on. And it would probably be much like the E-410 appears now.

[patrick j dempsey]

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Lw2y

 

hehehehe.

[rroberto]

Thanks to all the responses. Patrick, I had seen the drawings you linked to, and that was

not the mention I was referring to.

Yes, I know about the E-410, but already owning an E-3 and an E-500, an E-410 to me

would not make much sense,

Dean G, I think your response is the closest to what I thought I had read. "What Olympus

could do pretty easily is to take the E-410, and redesign it with a really solid metal body,

and borrow or modify the shutter dial control layout that LeicaPan uses on the Digilux

3/L1, which is about as traditional styled as a DSLR gets. They could also remove the built

in flash and have the pointy top." Yes, yes, yes. Basically a manual exposure, manual

focusing, digital camera without all the "computer" features. It could even be a 4/3rds

system camera.

I just like using my OM-1 a lot more than the digital ones, but would like to have the

digital editing capability, because I don't like working in the dark.

[john_robison3]

I think what we are all looking for is a simple interface with basic exposure controls. Its just WRONG to push little buttons to select SS or lens opening. And do we really need all the modes? Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority, Manual, what else do you need. Sigh, perhaps the market for a photographer's camera is too small making each unit very expensive. I believe Roberto that the huge development cost for a digital OM back is a project killer. Unless Olympus had the prospect of selling a million of them to OM owners they just can't take a chance to sink all that money into the R&D without a reasonable guarantee of brisk, steady sales.

[dg1]

Honestly, the Panasonic L1 is already there IMO.

 

I have an L1 as well as the E-410, and despite the E-410 being a wonderfully small size, the L1 with an OMz mounted via a 4/3rds adapter is roughly the size of a Contax G2 and maybe slightly smaller than an Epson RD-1. Very very solid build and the lack of a prism on top adds to the compactness. It has much the feel of an M8 while offering SLR advantages, and some extras like precise manual focus available with the 10x magnification live view feature. Even with the LeicaPan D 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5 lens, which is what gave the L1 the rep of being a "large" camera, it handles great and just like a film camera. Shutter dial on top, aperture ring.. I can set my ISO and white balance and turn the LCD off, and take photos exactly as one would with a film camera. Some find the VF dim, and it is certainly not on par with that on an OM-1, but Katzeye offers a split focusing screen as an upgrade for manual focusing. I'm considering it, but I don't find the stock vf a problem.

 

With the manual focus primes, I just set it and forget it, and from there everything is manual..set the shutter speed dial, select the aperture on the lens, focus. It doesn't get any better, and the image quality from the L1 is very nice.

[GerrySiegel]

My speculation about the next Olympus DSLR will be a body sized and priced somewhere between the E 510 and the E-3. It will have image stabilization and live view (already committed company policy). And certainly will have a flash compatible with the R line. But you know, the thing I am waiting to see is a couple more prime lenses. The 100mm macro. And an Olympus version of the fast Lumix 25mm,only more affordable. A lot more actually.

 

Roberto,wondering how do you like your E-3? Too complex? Too heavy? Too feature laden? How is picture quality? Do you use the articulated finder a lot? And is the pop up flash much use? User feedback is nice.

[GerrySiegel]

As I understand the intent of the Lumix L-1, Panasonic,for its first DSLR, was thinking to attract just the kind of camera buyers who like a traditional camera interface and a solid mechanical heft. One that feels 'homey.' Knob for shutter on top. Aperture ring around the lens. I don't know the sales numbers,but I am sure that just didn't pan out,period. Was a good idea nonetheless.

 

I rather have gotten used to auto focus, auto exposure ( center weighted) and I can always over-ride when I need to. I hear where you are coming from though,Roberto. I think from your portfolio,you are getting results. Maybe you will grow into the automation business... Regards.gs

[dg1]

Having said what I said about the great manual operation available with the L1, I must add that knowing that I can do this, I find myself most often preferring the Olympus E system lenses and the autofocus. It's like the camera has that, OK, now I just want to take some pictures.

 

As far as that goes, on the E1, (which I'm on honeymoon with right now), I can set a manual lens aperture and then operate the top dial just like the shutter speed dial on the L1 with the added advantage that the top mounted LCD shows me the metering if I don't care to look through the finder to change it, or look at the back LCD. There's no difference in operation really, it's just as good at manual as my L1, and has a better viewfinder for manual focus.

 

Which is neither here nor there as far as a digital OM goes, and that's really more of an emotional thing IMO. L1 gets closest to the mechanical vibe, and that makes it a pleasure for sure.

 

I still think the E-410 gets closest to really being a digital interpretation of an OM.

[rroberto]

Gerry, Overall, I like the E-3 very much. I bought it so that (1) I could have a second body

(2) for ruggedness, (3) for the vertical shutter button on the optional grip (I do a lot of

vertical shots) and (4) the increased speed of autofocus.It has met or exceeded my

expectations in those areas. In my job, I do a lot of performance (dance and music) photos

and mostly shoot totally automatic. For pleasure I do sceneic shots (such as the ones

posted here on photo.net). I use my E-500 totally manual (thus my questions about a

digital OM-1). Too complex? Yes, absolutely. I use the E-500 as a manual camera

because it is too difficult to use the manual settings on the E-3 (could just be my own

unfamiliarity). Too heavy? I thought at first it might be, especially with the battery grip.

But having used Nikon film cameras (F and F2) at the newspapers in the 70s & 80s, I was

happy to have the more familiar heft and feel of the E-3. Too feature laden? I don't use

any but Raw/Jpeg choices and white balance. Picture quality? Superb! Especially with the

50 f2. Pop up flash? worthless. I also very rarely use the screen, and usually use the

viewfinder.

[rroberto]

Dean G,

Wow! I may start looking at the Panasonic. It sounds like what I had in mind.

John Robison: Bravo! Exactly!

[tim_huggins]

"The larger the sensor, and the digital backs have really large sensors, the more the possibility that there'll be bad spots on it, thus the yield is much lower and the cost much higher. As manufacturing techniques improve the cost should go down, and that's been the case over the last few years."

 

Well, that's half right. The cost of chips rises exponentially with size, because all silcon crystals have flaws which limit the size and number of "good" chips that can be made from them.

 

And no, manufacturing techniques have nothing to do with reducing the numbers of flaws in the crystal. Electronics get cheaper because the physical size of the chips are made smaller as more components can be squeezed onto them. When the physical size of the chip is locked in (as in an imaging sensor), the cost will not be going down. That's why Olympus developed the 4/3 system to begin with.