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

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:53:14 +0900, 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.

Except for all the extra buttons, switches and wheels needed.

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

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 22:46:15 +1000, "Steve Franklin"
wrote:

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?

You just said it.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:12:33 -0000, Jeremy Nixon
wrote:

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".

It was a sop to speed, offering the "P" mode. Personally,
I never leave M, there are just too many situations where
manual control is needed.
-Rich

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 02:25:25 -0400, Stacey wrote:

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.

None of us know what direction Olympus is going in. I'm not even sure
what sensor size the current digital lenses are capable of supporting,
beyond the 4/3. But I remember the thick little Olympus catalog that
used to come with their cameras, listing all those lenses from wide
fisheye up to 1000mm and showing all the neat pictures you could take
with them. Olympus, when they went on their new path gave up their
ability to trade on their old, highly trusted past reputation and
gear. It was brave, but from a marketing standpoint, probably not the
best thing they could have done.
-Rich

"wilt" wrote:
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.


Don't hold your breath.

The chance of Olympus doing this is precisely zero.

Personally,
I never leave M, there are just too many situations where
manual control is needed.
-Rich



Like where exactly? I really do not get this old boys manual thing. With AE
lock on A tell what you can't do that you can do in manual?

For certain types of photography...you get that chance to do all that. But A
mode gives you just as much control. I.e For the majority of photographs,
the shutter speed is only important to the extent that you need to have it
high enough to avoid blur. The aperture has far more impact on the
photographs...

I still don't get what your problem is?

Most Dslrs give you full manual control. You don't need to worry about the
other 'technology' because you don't use it. However it will be helpful in
selling the gear on to other (non luddite) photographers when you are
finished bitching about bayer filters and lens resolution tests

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"wilt" wrote:
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.

So buy a E300 or E1 and get the Olympus MA-1 adapter, seems easy enough. The
downside is the FOV with the 4:3 system is the lens will be doubled.

As pointed out my many, just use one of today's automagic cameras in M
mode, and you have it. On the other hand, a key point missed by almost
everyone is this...

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

I know 'fat chance' is the probability, since it means that OM users
won't buy scads of lenses and Olympus benefits primarily from the sale
of digital bodies. But for OM owners like me, the idea of a Olympus
digital that takes all the OM lenses is a very desirable thing
nevertheless. Heck, I'd even be a lot happier with an adapter to mount
my OM stuff on my 20D, even if my perspective control lens would not be
wide enough in field of view on the 20D.

--Wilt

Stacey writes:

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.

I converted to AF when a weekend of rental showed me that it was of
significant value in the photography I did. I got pictures I never
would have gotten manually.

People doing sports photography and such benefit even more than I do
from *good* AF. First-rate AF is *much better* than you can do
manually for many situations.

For other situations I've got a monorail 4x5. Sometimes that's the
best choice.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ Much of which is still down

"dylan" writes:

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)

My old Nikon lenses work fine on my Fuji S2, and would work even
better on a D2x (they'd meter). If AF is the wrong thing, I turn it
off. If auto exposure is the wrong thing (i.e. most of the time), I
turn it off.

Why does having choices scare some people so much?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ Much of which is still down