Why doesn't Olympus release an OM-1d?

A purely manual digital camera? But, not a cheap
plastic thing aimed at people who wouldn't buy it,
a high quality DSLR that avoids many the features
now found on current DSLRs? A centre-weighted metering
mode, a manual shutter and mirror, pentaprism,
and the only thing drawing power would be the sensor
and circuitry needed such as the buffer, etc?
All the crap (buttons) spattered all over current
DSLRs are a pain, it makes them less than friendly
to use. If they decided to verge away from 4/3,
they could do a full sized sensor and simply revive
previously existing OM lenses. Instead of myriad
and questionably useful "functions" the camera could
be geared to render the very best images possible for
those capable of using it manually.
I'm sure the crowd who suddenly after years of using
SLRs decided they needed "histograms" in the display
wouldn't like it, but it might have appeal to some.
I'd limit the exposure modes to "P" and full manual,
no "S" and no "A" modes and NONE of the things found
on P&S's like "nightime" mode, etc.
You could leave adjustable WB since no one wants to
use filters anymore.

RichA wrote:

A purely manual digital camera?

I'd love one but they'd never sell as too many people were weaned on AF full
auto metering 35mm cameras. Just look at how hard a time most of these
people have trying to use a medium format camera and you can see why it
wouldn't sell.

*If*they*decided*to*verge*away*from*4/3,
they could do a full sized sensor and simply revive
previously existing OM lenses.

And make a body they have no "new" lenses to sell with it? Yea that would
make sense for them.
--

Stacey

"RichA" wrote in message
...
A purely manual digital camera? But, not a cheap
plastic thing aimed at people who wouldn't buy it,
a high quality DSLR that avoids many the features
now found on current DSLRs? A centre-weighted metering
mode, a manual shutter and mirror, pentaprism,
and the only thing drawing power would be the sensor
and circuitry needed such as the buffer, etc?
All the crap (buttons) spattered all over current
DSLRs are a pain, it makes them less than friendly
to use. If they decided to verge away from 4/3,
they could do a full sized sensor and simply revive
previously existing OM lenses. Instead of myriad
and questionably useful "functions" the camera could
be geared to render the very best images possible for
those capable of using it manually.
I'm sure the crowd who suddenly after years of using
SLRs decided they needed "histograms" in the display
wouldn't like it, but it might have appeal to some.
I'd limit the exposure modes to "P" and full manual,
no "S" and no "A" modes and NONE of the things found
on P&S's like "nightime" mode, etc.
You could leave adjustable WB since no one wants to
use filters anymore.


And Nikon the FM-D and FE-D, and if Canon made the AE-1D and I could make
use of my FD lenses.
We could do anyway with all these modern AF gimmicks etc and take real
photographs :O)

Deedee Tee abuse@localhost wrote:

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:22:24 -0400, RichA wrote:

A purely manual digital camera? But, not a cheap
plastic thing aimed at people who wouldn't buy it,
a high quality DSLR that avoids many the features
now found on current DSLRs? A centre-weighted metering
mode, a manual shutter and mirror, pentaprism,
and the only thing drawing power would be the sensor
and circuitry needed such as the buffer, etc?
[..]

I believe that, once you put a digital sensor and the minimal required
electronics and mechanical and optical hardware in a camera, virtually
all additional functions can be implemented in firmware without adding
any other hardware except for a few buttons. Cost-wise, there would be
no savings in making a manual DSLR, possibly the contrary.
Consumer-wise, I doubt many would choose a camera that deliberately
left out many automatic functions and did not cost much less.


Indeed.

The way to sell DSLRs by the truckload appears to be by removing most
manual functions, thereby taking away all creative decisions - apart
from composition - from the user.

I really don't get your point here..

Aside from the commercial suicide of it all, why?

I.e With my Nikon D70 I can choose to switch it to manual, average metering
and even manual focus.


All the other buttons become superfluous....what is the problem?


It's like buying a car with airconditioning and you don't like
airconditioning. Don't use it?

It's not as if all these other buttons are causing a drain on the battery...



Please don't tell me you are one of those people that say it isn't 'real
photography' unless you are setting everything completely yourself? Imagine
a sports photographer panning a racing car through dappled light and having
to 'guestimate' the exposure? A perfect use of A/S mode if ever there were
one?


"RichA" wrote in message
...
A purely manual digital camera?

RichA wrote:

A purely manual digital camera? But, not a cheap
plastic thing aimed at people who wouldn't buy it,
a high quality DSLR that avoids many the features
now found on current DSLRs? A centre-weighted metering
mode, a manual shutter and mirror, pentaprism,
and the only thing drawing power would be the sensor
and circuitry needed such as the buffer, etc?
All the crap (buttons) spattered all over current
DSLRs are a pain, it makes them less than friendly
to use. If they decided to verge away from 4/3,
they could do a full sized sensor and simply revive
previously existing OM lenses. Instead of myriad
and questionably useful "functions" the camera could
be geared to render the very best images possible for
those capable of using it manually.

The paradigm has been set since the early to mid 90's in film cameras to
have a lot of functionality, regardless of their utility to most
photographers.

My Maxxum 7D is very close to my Maxxum 9 in controls (and almost
identical to the Maxxum 7). The only "added" controls are those that
control the "film".

The Maxxum 9 and 7 (and 7D) are photographer oriented with all
photographic controls on dedicted buttons/dial/switches, etc. This
appears daunting at first, but as you realize that it saves a lot of
time by not having to menu dive, then it becomes very workable. I had
shot hundreds of photos with the Maxxum 7D before I even opened the
manual... simply put it was just a minor variation on the Maxxum 9.

I operate my cameras in "M" mode most of the time. (I used to be more
"A" or "S" oriented).

It would be great if Oly did do a OM-1d as you suggest, but with the
industry trend set, Oly's 4/3 strategy and Oly's weak profits, it is not
likely to occur.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

You are effectively proposing a digital OM-1d, but I think something
like an OM-3d with spotmetering (one of Olympus' feature strengths)
would be better.
Problem is that the buying public so much went for the OM-4
automation and electronic shutter that the manual, mechanical shuttered
OM-3 fell into an also-ran status in terms of sales volume. I myself
fell into that, and so I still own an OM-1n as well as an OM-4 for my
35mm film system.
I entirely support the concept you propose, so that my lens
investment (with some somewhat exotic and with some fairly fast glass)
would be more actively used once again. What I have for my 20D is not
nearly fast enough maximum apertures to equal my OM system, and I have
an OM perspective control lens I would dearly love to use with a
digital camera.

First problem is that Olympus withdrew from the 'pro' market, and
the OM system was very much aimed toward that market...you cannot say
otherwise with its formidable array of lenses including PC and
macrophoto. Another (more significant) problem is with that the
Olympus 4/3 digital Olympus touts the benefits of their wide angle
lenses designed for the properties of the electronic sensor, which
makes wide angle film lenses 'less suitable. So your proposal poses a
problem for Olympus, in that they still would need to design a new
series of wide angle lenses for your 'OM-1d' so as to not invalidate
the claims for why their 4/3 camera and lenses 'are better'.

--Wilt

Tony Polson wrote:
Deedee Tee abuse@localhost wrote:

Consumer-wise, I doubt many would choose a camera that deliberately
left out many automatic functions and did not cost much less.

Indeed.

The way to sell DSLRs by the truckload appears to be by removing most
manual functions, thereby taking away all creative decisions - apart
from composition - from the user.

Who do - or does- that?

Every dSLR I have looked at has a pretty complete slate of both manual
and auto. controls.

--
john mcwilliams

Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in
the country.
-- Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, D.C.

RichA wrote:

Instead of myriad and questionably useful "functions"
the camera could be geared to render the very best images
possible for those capable of using it manually.

But where's the tradeoff? What do I get in return for
giving up the various features? If I were going to use
a camera like that, it would be a Leica rangefinder or
something, where I'd actually get something in return.

I'd limit the exposure modes to "P" and full manual,
no "S" and no "A" modes

The only exposure modes I ever use are A and M, so you
just lost me right there. No interest in a "P" mode,
but want "A".

--
Jeremy |

In article ,
says...
I operate my cameras in "M" mode most of the time. (I used to be more
"A" or "S" oriented).

I gotten to be the same way. I'll still use Av if I'm in varying
lighting conditions, but otherwise I'm setting things manually.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird