Why MicroFourThird (Olympus, Panasonic etc.) at all?

[zeissisgneiss]

Our common vocabulary is so outdated when we speak of this. In today's Digiworld, Nikons and Canons really represent the new medium format. You know, the pros's choice. Amateurs and feature enthusiasts favor EVFs, ZLRs and other digicams. Today those are the real "compact" cameras, serving the casual role most 35mm cameras served. And camera phones? Those are the subminiatures. When will the Minox name be licensed and printed on some cell phone camera, to give it retro cachet? And up at the other end of the scale are the large-format cameras like the Mamiya ZD, and Hassleblads and even 4x5s mounted with Leaf digital backs.

I've handled the pro jumbo DSLRs. Had a D1H for just enough time to be impressed with its pictoral capabilities. But the design concept, combining a small sensor and an undersized finder image with a huge, heavy body, seemed a failure to me -- for the same reasons I find the design of OMs such an enjoyable success. Among current d-SLRs, the only camera I enjoy looking through and handling is the Pentax *stD/S, because it seems to capture the OM virtues of maximum visibility with minimum mass. I wish I could say the same about the E-1 or E-300.

Big cameras have their place, of course. Attached to two-foot-long telephotos on the sidelines, that's one ex&le. Together, the weight balances on monopod like a dumbell. The NFL's sports shooters might be the most conspicuous working photographers today, and they set the public's expectations about how "the best" cameras should look.

As much as I hate to say it, bigger seems to be better in today's marketplace. So many of us are waddling around in XL-sized clothes, driving monster trucks and SUVs, living in homes twice the size our parents needed. Big cameras are in scale with all that.

 

[songura]

I have just bought a digital camera - Panasonic FX7, which has a Leica lens. The camera itself is very small, fashionable, and the results are not bad. But, the strange thing is that after I bought the camera I didn't have the joy of getting a precious camera, or a camera I was looking after for a long time. Perhaps what I was doing is just to prove that the digi-camera cannot replace my OM equipment, even cannot replace my point & shoot. FX7 is slow, complicated to adjust the settings and it eats battery. The biggist shortcoming is the LCD viewfinder. I have to take off my glasses to see it clearly.

 

[ed_b]

Here's a question for those of you, who are more knowledgable about the OM's.
I just had a curtian-shutter 'failure' on my OM4, I guess (according to the repair place), this is an inherent problem with the way the shutter and curtain release are designed. And it becomes a 'problem' in cold weather conditions. (I was shooting in 33-35 degree temps.
What my question is - Does this problem carry over into the OM4T. I ask because I am looking at buying a 'low mileage' model and wonder if anyone else has had this problem with the T's.
Thanks,
Ed Brown -

 

[songura]

Brown,
I have two OM 4Ti cameras. I haven't had this shutter problem. In cold weather, I always keep the camera under the overcoat. Or if it's too cold, the batterry runs out quickly, I would use OM 1 instead.

 

[ditto1958]

I haven't heard anything about OM-4's or, for that matter, any OM cameras being prone to shutter failure. For cloth focal plane shutters they seem surprisingly durable and long-lasting. They are notorious for the sticky second curtain (I've had that problem). I don't know if the OM-4ti shutter mechanism is any different from the OM-4. The other thing I do see is many people do recommend using a mechanical camera such as an OM-1 in cold weather.

 

[ditto1958]

I don't know if this is the best place for this question, but I don't know where else to put it.

Anyway, I guess my question is one of aesthetics. Some of my old OM cameras need new light seals. I found a website tutorial involving 60's and 70's rangefinders. The author suggests using black cotton yarn for the film door channels instead of foam. He noted that there is historical precedence for this as many older German rangefinders apparently used string instead of foam.

I tried it on a couple of rangefinders, and it works well. It certainly is much, much easier than trying to stick little, skinny strips of foam in a skinny channel. My question is, would this bother you if you got an OM body that had these seals installed? You have to look closely, but it does look different than the foam.

 

[bdcolen]

There is no question that if you are going to resell the equipment, someone is going to take one look at your homemade seals and ask "what the hell is this THIS?!" followed by "Give me my money back." I can't imagine that if you are really committed to using 30-year-old cult cameras you're not willing to have the work done properly. It's surprisingly inexpensive. [Delete this line and type your message here]

 

[trevora]

An interesting thread but I havent had time to read all the postings yet. I have been using OM equipment since the OM-1 was first released and now have 2 OM-2's, an OM-4 and an OM-4Ti. All are regularly used and I see no reason to change.
As more people change to digital there is a continuous flow of second-hand OM bodies and accessories on the market and I am happy to keep adding to my collection of lenses, etc.
Although I also have a Minolta Dynax 7 and an early Ricoh RDC digital I still prefer to use the OM for serious work.
As long as us real enthusiasts continue to use film I can't really see there being any problem obtaining film or getting it processed in the forseeable future.

 

[ditto1958]

This is a great time to be an OM user, Trevor. As you point out, the market is flooded with wonderful OM stuff available for a fraction of what it would have cost just a few yeara ago. Although the st&ede to digital cannot be denied, film will have its place for a long time to come. Enjoy your OM's!

 

[schwep]

Why pick Olympus SLRs? Becase they are cameras that are designed to be used. I'm not talking about hammering in nails or hitting people over the head. You do that with hammers and nightsticks, respectively. I got my first OM, an OM-2, in 1977 when working as a salesperson in a photo shop. I later added an OM-1n, which I always took with me when I went backpacking in some remote place (like Lapland). Stuffed in a Lowe Zoom bag with a compact (28 or, later, 24 mm) wide-angle attached and a small tele underneath (100 or 135, 49 mm filter size). No flash, no extras, the front pocket of the bag served to carry one or two extra rolls of film and a bar of chocolate. I shot mostly B&W (mostly Ilford FP4, HP5 and later XP1), developed in my own darkroom, and came back with some impressive pictures. When I did colour I had to resort to a pro lab to have them developed and enlarged. Which takes some of the fun out of it. Home development of colour is just too much hassle (tanks with thermostats etc.). When I moved house and was without a darkroom, I almost stopped taking photos, except some snaps of our new house under construction - first on film, later digital using a point-and-shoot camera. MY set of OMs (meanwhile grown to include two OM2-sp's in addition to the OM1n and the OM2, plus a nice selection of lenses and flash units, etc.) started gathering dust. We used the OM1 to take some photos of our hot-air ballooning adventures (admittedly, another hobby that takes a lot of time and money), but where we now live there is no good colour lab nearby and, as said, we have no darkroom for b&w. Getting films back with stains and scratches is not funny. And of course, I tried scanning them using a modest filmscanner, which was not too bad.
The E-1 dSLR was far too expensive. I dreamed. The E-300 somehow did not look anywhere like my old OMs. Then came the E-500. Not perfect (when are they going to put an OM-like viewfinder with good screen in a dSLR? hello, Olympus; it should not be too difficult...), but way, way better than any point-and-shoot digital, and it feels like a real SLR. It feels like an Olympus. It fits. And when I shoot in RAW, I can develop my shots on my computer. A darkroom without the chemical fumes.
It's probably not the very best dSLR out there, but the (kit-zoom) glass is good, and it quickly grows on me, like my OMs did. I'll get an adapter and see what my old primes do on it.
In short: I've had, and still have, other cameras, and they do work, but Olympuses have something that adds some additional joy in using them. Like a good hammer.